You are on page 1of 48

Procès en Impeachment

Sénat des Etats-Unis

Questions-réponses du 30 janvier 2020

Compte-rendu intégral
Congressional Record



United States

Vol. 166 WASHINGTON, THURSDAY, JANUARY 30, 2020 No. 20

The Senate met at 1:05 p.m. and was Hear ye! Hear ye! Hear ye! All persons are rules. The White House argument to
called to order by the Chief Justice of commanded to keep silence, on pain of im- the contrary is wrong, and it would
the United States. prisonment, while the Senate of the United have profound negative implications
States is sitting for the trial of the articles
f for how Congress and our democracy
of impeachment exhibited by the House of
Representatives against Donald John Trump, function.
TRIAL OF DONALD J. TRUMP, On January 9, 2019, the House adopt-
PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED President of the United States.
ed its rules, like we do every Congress,
and these rules gave the committee the
The CHIEF JUSTICE. The Senate leader is recognized.
power to issue subpoenas. They are not
will convene as a Court of Impeach- ORDER OF PROCEDURE
ambiguous rules. Here is the relevant
ment. Mr. MCCONNELL. Mr. Chief Justice, portion of rule XI on slide 55: The
The Chaplain will lead us in prayer. the Senate will conduct another ques- House’s standing rules give each com-
PRAYER tion and answer period today. We were mittee subpoena power ‘‘for the pur-
The Chaplain, Dr. Barry C. Black, of- able to get through nearly 100 ques- pose of carrying out any of its func-
fered the following prayer: tions yesterday. Senators posed con- tions and duties’’ as it considers nec-
Let us pray. structive questions, and the parties essary. This investigation began on
Eternal Lord God, send Your Holy were succinct and responsive. I would September 9, before the Speaker’s an-
Spirit into this Chamber. Permit our like to compliment all who partici- nouncement on September 24 that it
Senators to feel Your presence during pated yesterday. would become part of the impeachment
this impeachment trial. Illuminate We will again break every 2 to 3 inquiry umbrella.
their minds with the light of Your wis- hours and look to take a break for din- The President doesn’t dispute that
dom, exposing truth and resolving un- ner around 6:30. the subpoenas issued by these commit-
certainties. May they understand that We have been respectful of the Chief tees were fully within their respective
You created them with cognitive capa- Justice’s unique position in reading jurisdiction. The argument is that
bilities and moral discernment to be our questions. I want to be able to con- somehow, by declaring that this inves-
used for Your glory. Grant that they tinue to assure him that that level of tigation also falls under an inquiry to
will comprehend what really matters, consideration for him will continue. consider Articles of Impeachment,
separating the relevant from the irrele- The CHIEF JUSTICE. Thank you. which gives Congress actually greater
vant. Lord, keep them from fear, as Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. Chief Justice. authority, somehow it nullifies the tra-
they believe that Your truth will tri- The CHIEF JUSTICE. The Senator ditional oversight authority. And this
umph through them. Eliminate dis- from Washington. just doesn’t make any sense.
cordant static with the music of Your Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. Chief Justice, I The President counters that we have
wisdom. send a question to the desk for the to take a full vote on impeachment
We pray in Your great Name. Amen. House managers. first because that is what has been
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE The CHIEF JUSTICE. Thank you. done in the past. In the Nixon inquiry,
The Chief Justice led the Pledge of Senator MURRAY asks the House however, the Judiciary Committee
Allegiance, as follows: managers: needed a House resolution to delegate
I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the Yesterday, when asked about why the subpoena power, and that is different
United States of America, and to the Repub- House did not amend or reissue subpoenas than the Committee’s standing rules
lic for which it stands, one nation under God, after it passed its resolution authorizing its today.
indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. impeachment inquiry, the House Managers
touched upon the House having the sole
The President actually compels the
Power of Impeachment as specified by Arti- opposite conclusion. Several Federal
The CHIEF JUSTICE. The Senators cle I of the Constitution. Could you further judges have been investigated and im-
will please be seated. elaborate as to why that authority controls peached and convicted in the Senate
If there is no objection, the Journal despite any arguments brought forth by without the House having ever taken
of proceedings of the trial is approved members of the defense team contesting the an official vote to authorize the in-
to date. validity of those subpoenas? quiry, and a Federal court recently
The Deputy Sergeant at Arms will Ms. Manager LOFGREN. Mr. Chief confirmed there was no need for a for-
make the proclamation. Justice and Senators, that is a good mal vote of the full House to com-
The Deputy Sergeant at Arms, Jen- question. mence impeachment proceedings.
nifer Hemingway, made the proclama- The answer is that these were validly Even assuming a House vote was nec-

tion as follows: issued subpoenas under the House essary, there was a vote. The text of H.

∑ This ‘‘bullet’’ symbol identifies statements or insertions which are not spoken by a Member of the Senate on the floor.


VerDate Sep 11 2014 00:21 Jan 31, 2020 Jkt 099060 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 4624 Sfmt 0634 E:\CR\FM\A30JA6.000 S30JAPT1
Res. 660 declared that the six investiga- You are right. They were not able to plenty of emails, text messages, and
tive committees of the House were di- directly answer that question, and we other correspondence within the entire
rected to continue their ongoing inves- believe that there is a tremendous interagency process that we know is
tigations as part of the existing House amount of material out there in the robust that would illustrate that to be
of Representatives inquiry into wheth- form of emails, text messages, con- the case, but they have failed to pro-
er there was sufficient grounds for the versation, and witness testimony that vide any evidence to corroborate that.
House of Representatives to exercise can shed additional light on that, in- Let me finish with this. I happen to
its constitutional power to impeach. cluding an email from last summer be- know that a lot of people in this Cham-
And the committee report, which ac- tween Mr. Bolton and Mr. Blair, where ber, a lot of people in the Chamber on
companies the resolution, specifically we know from witness testimony this the other side of the Capitol, including
described the subpoenas that had been issue was discussed. me, have often described much con-
issued by the investigating committees What we do know is from multiple sternation about redtape and bureauc-
and said ‘‘all subpoenas to the execu- witnesses. Ukrainian officials knew racy and layers of government that run
tive branch remain in full force.’’ that President Trump had placed a too slow. And I sometimes share that
So why didn’t the House committee hold on security assistance soon after concern, right, that sometimes it takes
just reissue these subpoenas after the it was ordered in July of 2019. So we a long time. There are memos for ev-
resolution? The short answer is they know that not only did U.S. officials erything, emails for everything. There
didn’t need to. The subpoenas were al- know about it and OMB communicated are paper trails for everything in this
ready fully authorized. about it, Ukrainians knew about it as town. I think that is true with respect
In any event, even after the resolu- well. to this issue, and it is time that we ac-
tion passed, the committees issued sub- We know from former Deputy For- tually see that information so we can
poenas to Mick Mulvaney, Robert eign Minister of Ukraine, Olena get to the bottom of what actually
Blair, and four other witnesses, and the Zerkal—she stated publicly, in fact, happened. This body could get that in-
President continued to block those that the Ukrainian officials knew formation.
subpoenas. The argument about a full about it and had found out about it in The CHIEF JUSTICE. Thank you,
House vote really is just an excuse July. We also know from the testimony Mr. Manager.
about President Trump’s obstruction. of Laura Cooper that her staff received The Senator from Pennsylvania.
The President refused to comply with two emails from the State Department Mr. TOOMEY. Mr. Chief Justice, I
the House subpoenas before the House on July 25 revealing that the Ukrain- send a question to the desk on behalf of
vote and after the House vote. The only ian Embassy was ‘‘asking about secu- myself and Senators SASSE, MCSALLY,
logical explanation is the one that rity assistance’’ and that ‘‘the Hill CRAPO, THUNE, YOUNG, ERNST, and
President Trump gave us all along: He knows about the FMS situation to an BRAUN.
was determined to fight all the sub- extent and so does the Ukrainian em- The CHIEF JUSTICE. The question
poenas because, in President Trump’s bassy.’’ That was on July 25, the same from Senator TOOMEY and others is for
view, according to what he said, he can day as President Trump’s call with counsel for the President:
do what he wants. President Zelensky. Given that the election of the president is
That is not what the constitutional What we also know is that career dip- one of the most significant political acts in
Republic entrusted to us by the Found- lomat, Catherine Croft, stated that she which we as citizens engage in our demo-
ers had in mind. This argument doesn’t was ‘‘very surprised at the effective- cratic system, how much weight should the
just apply to impeachment. It would ness of my Ukrainian counterparts’ Senate give to the fact that removing the
apply to ordinary oversight investiga- diplomatic tradecraft, as in to say they president from office and disqualifying him
tions. And it doesn’t just apply to the found out very early on or much earlier from ever holding future federal office would
undo that democratic decision and kick the
House. It would also apply to the Sen- than I expected them to.’’
President off the ballot in this year’s elec-
ate. We also know that LTC Alexander
By sanctioning the President’s blan- Vindman testified that by mid-August
ket obstruction, the Senate would be he was getting questions from Ukrain- Mr. Counsel SEKULOW. Mr. Chief
curtailing its own subpoena power in ians about the status of security assist- Justice, Members of the Senate.
the future, as well as the House’s, and ance. So there is a lot of evidence sur- One of the concerns that we have
the oversight obligation that we have, rounding it. raised throughout this process over the
as we now know it, would be perma- The administration continues to ob- last several months, going back to the
nently altered. struct wholly our efforts to get the time when the House was dealing with
I yield back. emails and correspondence that we this in their various committees, is we
The CHIEF JUSTICE. Thank you, have asked for. That obviously can be are in an election year. There are some
Ms. Manager. remedied by this body with the appro- in this room that are days away from
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chief Justice. priate subpoenas; namely, a subpoena the Iowa caucuses taking place. So we
The CHIEF JUSTICE. The Senator to Ambassador Bolton to testify and a are discussing the possible impeach-
from Kentucky. subpoena to the State Department— ment and removal of the President of
Mr. PAUL. I have a question to the Department of State, the Depart- the United States not only during elec-
present to the desk for the House Man- ment of Defense, and others to actually tion season, in the heart of the election
ager SCHIFF and for the President’s provide that material. season. And I think that this does a
counsel. The last thing I would like to say is, disservice to the American people.
The CHIEF JUSTICE. Thank you. last evening, counsel for the President Again, we think the basis upon which
The Presiding Officer declines to read was asked the question about why did this has moved forward is irregular, to
the question as submitted. the hold for Ukraine differ from holds say the least. But I do think it com-
The CHIEF JUSTICE. The Senator plicates the matter for the American
in the Northern Triangle and other
from Wisconsin. people that we are literally at the
holds like Afghanistan. He provided an
Ms. BALDWIN. Mr. Chief Justice, I dawn of a new season of elections. I
explanation that I am still trying to
send a question to the desk. mean, we are at that season now, and
The CHIEF JUSTICE. Thank you. wrap my brain around because he
The question from Senator BALDWIN seems to be the only person in the ad- yet we are talking about impeaching a
is addressed to the House managers: ministration that actually has an ex- President.
planation. As far as I could tell, the ex- And I want to tie this into the ur-
Given that the White House Counsel

couldn’t answer Senator ROMNEY’s question planation was somewhere along the gency that was so prevalent in Decem-
that asked for the exact date the President lines of one was public, trying to put ber with my colleagues, the managers.
first ordered the hold on security assistance public pressure on the countries in It was so urgent to move this forward
to Ukraine, what witness or witnesses could question, and one was not. It was a pri- that they had to do it by mid-Decem-
answer Senator ROMNEY’s question? vate conversation, a private effort to ber, before Christmas, because national
Mr. Manager CROW. Thank you, Mr. put pressure. security was at stake, and then they
Chief Justice. Thank you, Senator, for If that were true, then, of course, waited 33 days to bring it here. And
the question. there would be plenty of evidence, now they are asking you to do all the

VerDate Sep 11 2014 00:21 Jan 31, 2020 Jkt 099060 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 4624 Sfmt 0634 E:\CR\FM\G30JA6.001 S30JAPT1
investigation, although they say they Now, what is so striking to me is al- President’s political rival, but let’s say
proved their case but still need more to most half a century ago we had a Presi- it was a credible reason; does that
prove it. dent who said: ‘‘Well, when the Presi- make it right?
Whereas, we believe—and I want to dent does it, that means it is not ille- What President is not going to think
be clear here—that their entire process gal.’’ That, of course, was Richard he has a credible reason to investigate
was corrupt from the beginning, and Nixon. Watergate is now 40 to 50 years his opponent? What President is going
they are just putting it on this body. behind us. Have we learned nothing in to think he doesn’t have a credible rea-
But to do it while the American people the last half century? Have we learned son or wouldn’t be able to articulate
are selecting candidates for nomina- nothing at all? It seems like we are one or come up with some fig leaf?
tion to be the head of their party, to back to where we were: The President They compounded the dangerous ar-
run as President of the United States— says it is not illegal or Donald Trump’s gument that they made that no quid
some of you in this very room—and to version under article II, ‘‘I can do pro quo is too corrupt if you think it
talk about the removal of a President whatever I want,’’ or Professor will help your reelection. They com-
of the United States, I think that is all Derschowitz’ point, if the President be- pounded it by saying, if what you want
part and parcel of the same pattern and lieves it helps his reelection, it is, is to target your rival, it is even more
practice of irregularities that have therefore, in the national interest; he legitimate. That way, madness lies.
taken place with this impeachment can do whatever he wants. The CHIEF JUSTICE. The Senator
proceeding since the beginning. The In fact, much as we thought that we from North Dakota.
Speaker allowed the articles to linger. progressed post-Watergate: We enacted Mr. CRAMER. I send a question to
It was such a nationally urgent matter Watergate reforms; and we tried to in- the desk on behalf of myself and Sen-
that they could linger for a month. sulate the Justice Department from in- ator YOUNG.
So we think that this points to the terference by the Presidency; we are The CHIEF JUSTICE. Thank you.
exact problem of what is taking place trying to put an end to the political The question from Senators CRAMER
here and that is, as my colleague Mr. abuses of that Department—as much as and YOUNG is for the counsel for the
Cipollone said, this is really taking the we thought we enacted campaign fi- President:
vote away from the American people. nance reforms, we are right back to Manager SCHIFF regularly states that if
Thank you, Mr. Chief Justice. the President is innocent he would agree to
where we were a half century ago. And
The CHIEF JUSTICE. Thank you, all of the witnesses and documents that the
I would argue, we may be in a worse
counsel. Managers want. Is the President the first in-
The Senator from Montana. place because this time—this time that
nocent defendant not to waive his rights?
Mr. TESTER. Mr. Chief Justice, I argument may succeed.
That argument—if the President says Mr. Counsel PHILBIN. Mr. Chief Jus-
send a question to the desk for the tice, Senators, thank you for that
House managers. it, it can’t be illegal—failed, and Rich-
ard Nixon was forced to resign. But question because the answer is, obvi-
The CHIEF JUSTICE. Thank you.
Senator TESTER asks the House man- that argument may succeed here now. ously, no. The President is not the first
agers: That means we are not back to where innocent defendant who decided not to
Yesterday Mr. Derschowitz stated, ‘‘If a we were; we are worse off than where waive his rights, and I think it is strik-
President does something which he believes we are. That is the normalization of ing and shocking that it is one of the
will help him get elected in the public inter- lawlessness. arguments that has been repeatedly de-
est that cannot be the kind of quid pro quo I would hope that every American ployed by the House managers
that results in impeachment.’’ Do you be- would recognize that it is wrong to throughout these proceedings.
lieve there is any limit to the type or scope seek foreign help in an American elec- You heard Manager NADLER say only
of quid pro quo a sitting President could en- the guilty hide evidence, only the
gage in with a foreign entity, as long as the
tion; that Americans should decide
intent of the sitting President is to get re- American elections. I would hope—and guilty don’t respond to subpoenas, and
elected in what he or she believes is in the I believe that every American under- Manager SCHIFF say that this is not
public’s best interest? stands that, and every American un- the way innocent people act. Well, of
Mr. Manager SCHIFF. Mr. Chief Jus- derstands that is true for Democratic course, that is contrary to the very
tice, Senator. Presidents and Republican ones. I spirit of our American justice system,
There is no limiting principle to the would hope that we would understand where people have rights, and asserting
argument that we heard last night it. I would hope that this trial would be those rights cannot be interpreted as
from the President’s team; that is, if one conducive of the truth. an indication of guilt. That is expressly
there is a quid pro quo that the Presi- The Senator asked what witnesses forbidden by the laws and by the Con-
dent believes will help him get re- could shed light on when the President stitution.
elected and he believes his reelection is ordered the hold and why. Well, we The Supreme Court explained in
in the national interest, then it doesn’t know Mick Mulvaney would. That in- Bordenkircher v. Hayes—a case that is
matter how corrupt that quid pro quo struction came from OMB. You remem- cited in our trial memorandum—that
is. It is astonishing that on the floor of ber the testimony of Ambassador Tay- the very idea of punishing someone,
this body someone would make that ar- lor, the shock that went through the which is what the House managers are
gument. National Security Council and the attempting to do here with their ob-
Now, it didn’t begin that way, in the shock he experienced in that video con- struction of Congress charge—they said
beginning of the President’s defense, ference when it was first announced, that if the President insists on the con-
but what we have seen over the last and the instruction was, this comes stitutional prerogatives of his office; if
couple days is a descent into constitu- through the President’s Chief of Staff, the President insists that, like vir-
tional madness because that way mad- OMB, but it is a direct order from the tually every President—at least since
ness lies. If we are to accept the President. Nixon and some going further back
premise that a President, essentially, Well, Mick Mulvaney knows when than that—he is going to assert the im-
can do whatever he wants, engage in that order went into place and he munity of his senior advisers to compel
whatever quid pro quo he wants—I will knows why that order went into place congressional testimony; if he is going
give you this if you will give me that and he made that statement publicly, to assert those rights grounded in the
to help me get elected. I will give you which he now wishes to recant. I am separation of powers and essential for
military dollars if you will give me sure he got an earful from the Presi- protecting constitutionally based exec-

help in my reelection, if you will give dent after he did, but, apparently, it utive branch confidentiality interests,
me illicit foreign interference in our doesn’t matter. None of that matters we are going to call that obstruction of
election. because if the President believes it is Congress and impeach him.
Now, the only reason you made that in his interest, it is OK. It is this fundamental theme running
argument is because you know your Now, there was an argument also, throughout both their obstruction
client is guilty and dead to rights. what if it was a credible reason? Of charge and their arguments generally
That is an argument made of despera- course, there is no evidence that this here that if the President stands on his
tion. was a credible reason to investigate the constitutional rights—if he tries to

VerDate Sep 11 2014 00:21 Jan 31, 2020 Jkt 099060 PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 4624 Sfmt 0634 E:\CR\FM\G30JA6.003 S30JAPT1
protect the institutional prerogatives elected in November, and let’s say that and they have all reached the same
of his office, which he is duty-bound to any one of you who chairs a committee conclusions. That is, if you have the
do for future occupants of that office— in the Senate determines that you power to legislate, you have the power
that it is somehow an indication of think that the next President is en- to oversee. Here, we have a violation of
guilt and shows that he ought to be im- gaged in something questionable, the Impoundment Control Act. That is,
peached. maybe even in some wrongdoing, and Congress passes military spending. The
That is fundamentally antithetical you begin an investigation. I would President doesn’t spend it, and he gives
to the American system of justice and imagine that in your Senate rules, like no reason. He keeps it a secret. We are
to our principles of due process, to our in our House rules—and it is House rule investigating that. That can’t be more
principles of acknowledging that rights X, Senator, that has the specific lan- squarely within the oversight power of
can be defended, that rights exist to be guage authorizing the issuance of sub- Congress—to find out why aid we ap-
defended, and that asserting those poenas as a part of our normal over- propriated was not going out the door.
rights cannot be treated either as sight responsibility. That power didn’t They would say: You can’t look into
something punishable or as evidence of exist at the time of Watergate, so they that unless you are prepared to im-
guilt. had to have a separate resolution. But peach the President and announce it
There would be a long line of past that House rule, passed each session, firsthand. That is the import of that
Presidents—as Professor Dershowitz empowers us to issue subpoenas, as argument. It would cripple your over-
pointed out, there are a lot of Presi- committee chairs, as part of our over- sight capacity, and without your over-
dents who have been accused of abuse sight jurisdiction. sight capacity, your legislative capac-
of power. There would also be a long So there you are with a Democratic ity is crippled. That is the real-world
line of Presidents who could have been President. You are a chair, and you import of this legal window dressing.
impeached for ‘‘obstruction of Con- start to do oversight. You issue sub- They would strip you of your ability to
gress’’ if every time a President in- poenas. You start to learn more, and do meaningful oversight.
sisted upon the prerogatives of the of- what you learn becomes more and more Particularly here, where we are talk-
fice of the Presidency and insisted on concerning, and you issue more sub- ing about the misconduct of an im-
defending the separation of powers, it poenas. peachable kind and character, it would
could be treated as something im- The administration’s effort to cover mean that a President could obstruct
peachable and as evidence of guilt. up its misconduct says: We are not his own investigation.
President Obama himself refused to going to comply with any of your sub- If you need any evidence of his bad
turn over a lot of documents to the poenas. We are going to fight all sub- faith, which is abundant—of the shift-
House in the Fast and Furious inves- poenas. ing and springing rationalizations and
tigation, and his Attorney General was And they come up with one bad-faith explanations—when we had Corey
held in contempt, but no one thought excuse after another as to why they Lewandowski in the Intelligence Com-
that it was an impeachable offense. don’t have to comply. mittee, they said, under instructions of
So the concept of saying that when As you investigate further and you
the White House, he wouldn’t answer
the President asserts the constitu- are able to overcome the wall of ob-
questions because they might claim ex-
tionally grounded prerogatives of his struction, then you begin an impeach-
ecutive privilege. Now, this was some-
office, that it is evidence of guilt is a ment inquiry, and that leads to the
one who had never worked for the exec-
completely bogus assertion. It is con- passage of yet another resolution.
utive, but they made the claim he
trary to all of the principles of our They would argue to you that all of
might use executive privilege.
American justice system and to the the work you did before you deter-
mined that it merited potential im- The CHIEF JUSTICE. Time is ex-
fundamental principles of fairness, and
peachment must be thrown out, that pired.
it ought to be rejected by this body.
Thank you. they were perfectly empowered to ob- Mr. Manager SCHIFF. Thank you.
The CHIEF JUSTICE. Thank you, struct you in your oversight responsi- The CHIEF JUSTICE. The Senator
counsel. bility, that you must begin with your from Texas.
The Senator from Alabama. conclusion and you must begin with Mr. CRUZ. Mr. Chief Justice, I send a
Mr. JONES. Thank you, Mr. Chief the conclusion that you were prepared question to the desk on behalf of my-
Justice. I send a question to the desk. to impeach the President before you self and Senators HAWLEY and GRAHAM.
The CHIEF JUSTICE. Thank you. issued a single subpoena; otherwise, The CHIEF JUSTICE. Thank you.
Senator JONES’ question is for the they can say whatever you did before The question from Senator CRUZ,
House managers: you got to that place should be thrown along with Senators HAWLEY and GRA-
Aside from the House’s Constitutional im- out. HAM, is for both sides—counsel for the
peachment authority, please identify specifi- Now, we did not have the Justice De- President and the House managers:
cally which provision or provisions, if any, in partment do the initial investigation
the House rules or a House Resolution au- Yesterday, Manager DEMINGS refused to
thorized the subpoenas issued by the House
here. Why? Because Bill Barr turned it answer whether Joe Biden sought any legal
Committees prior to the passage of House down. The same Attorney General that advice concerning his conflict of interest on
Resolution 660. mentioned that July 25 call said there Burisma, the corrupt Ukrainian company
In addition, please list the subpoenas that was nothing to see here. So there was that was paying his son Hunter $1 million
were issued after House Resolution 660. no DOJ investigation. There was no per year.
special counsel investigation. It was USA Today reported that, when asked
Mr. Manager SCHIFF. Senator, we
about it, Vice President Biden said, ‘‘He
will compile the list. We don’t have it not as if someone like Ken Starr hand- hadn’t spoken to his son Hunter Biden about
accessible at the moment. Oh, we do ed us a package and said: Here is the his overseas business.’’
have it. evidence. Now you can take up an im- That account was contradicted by Hunter
Specifically, the subpoenas that went peachment resolution because we have Biden, who told the New Yorker that he told
out after the passage of the House reso- done the investigative work. No. We his father about Burisma, and ‘‘Dad said, ‘I
lution were the subpoena to John had to do that work ourselves. hope you know what you’re doing,’ and I
Eisenberg and the subpoenas to Brian They would have you believe that said, ‘I do.’ ’’
McCormack, Robert Blair, Michael any subpoena you issue as a part of Why do Joe and Hunter Bidens’ stories
Ellis, Preston Wells Griffith, and Mick your oversight responsibility that, conflict? Did the House ask either one that

Mulvaney. down the road, reveals evidence that

Let me underscore something that leads you to embark on an impeach- The White House Counsel goes first.
my colleague Manager LOFGREN had to ment inquiry must be disregarded. Ms. Counsel BONDI. Chief Justice,
say, and let me break this down, if I That cannot and is not the law. It Senators, you heard our answer regard-
can, in very practical terms. would render the oversight function ing that yesterday, but it is very inter-
What is the practical import of what meaningless. esting that he said he never spoke to
counsel for the President would argue? Court after court has looked at the his son about overseas dealings and
It is this: Let’s say that a Democrat is Congress’s power to issue subpoenas, that his son said different things.

VerDate Sep 11 2014 00:21 Jan 31, 2020 Jkt 099060 PO 00000 Frm 00004 Fmt 4624 Sfmt 0634 E:\CR\FM\G30JA6.004 S30JAPT1
Joe Biden was the point man for those who have paid the price in our like our policies—what we say pub-
Ukraine. The Ukrainians were inves- history to form a more perfect union licly—don’t matter; if they feel like we
tigating at that time a corrupt com- and protect our democracy, but it is are not a reliable and predictable part-
pany, Burisma, and Zlochevsky, its important for our future. And in this ner; if they feel like the American
owner—an oligarch—who, by all media case, if we are serious about that, then handshake isn’t worth anything, then
accounts, as we have discussed, was ex- I can tell you this: that we are serious, they will not stand by us. They will not
tremely corrupt. then, about hearing from fact wit- stand by us.
Hunter Biden was paid $83,000 a nesses. For over 70 years, since the end of
month—a month—to sit on that board Looking at the Bidens, no matter World War II, the partnerships, the al-
with having no experience in energy, how many times we call their name, we liances that we have built, that we
no experience in the Ukraine, and have no evidence to point to the fact have strived to create, that have ush-
didn’t speak the language. We clearly that either Biden has anything at all ered in an unprecedented period of
know that he had a very fancy job de- to tell us about the President shaking peace and prosperity throughout the
scription, and he did none of those down a foreign power to help him cheat world, will start to fray because the
things. He attended one or two board in the next election—the President’s American handshake will not matter.
meetings—one in Monaco. Then he election trying to steal each individual Ukraine has started to learn that.
went on a fishing trip with Joe Biden’s in this country’s vote. Our 68,000 troops throughout Europe
family in Norway. I don’t believe either Biden has any deserve better because every day, they
The entire time, Joe Biden knows information about that, but let me tell get up and they do their job—the job
that this oligarch is corrupt. Everyone you who I think does. Maybe we should we have asked them to do—and they
knows that. There are news reports ev- call Ambassador Bolton. If we are seri- rely on our consistency, our predict-
erywhere. No one will dispute that. In ous about the truth, maybe we should ability. They rely on the interest being
fact, it raised eyebrows worldwide. Yet call him because we have a good idea in the national interest, not the whims
the Vice President, by his account, about what he might say. Or what and the personal interest of the Presi-
never once asked his son to leave the about Mr. Mulvaney, who had day-to- dent, whether that be President Trump
board. We wouldn’t be sitting here if he day contact with the principal in our or any other President.
did. He never asked his son to leave the investigation—the President of the It will continue to call into question
board. Instead, he started investigating United States. our broader alliances, and it will send a
the prosecutor who was going after That is not good enough? Well, what message that the American handshake
Burisma and this corrupt oligarch, who about—the question was asked about doesn’t matter.
they say was corrupt even by oligarch when did we know—or when did the We have a slide that shows the evo-
standards, who had fled the country— President first put the hold on. Well, lution of some of the different argu-
fled the country—and was living in we do have reports that say on June 19 ments that we have seen on the other
Monaco. of 2019, Mr. Blair personally instructed side that I think is important to see.
He does not ask him to leave the the Director of OMB to hold up secu- (Text of Videotape presentation:)
board. He does the opposite. rity assistance from Ukraine—over a President TRUMP. Russia, if you are lis-
In 2015, what does he do? We know by month before the infamous July 25 call. tening, I hope you are able to find the 30,000
reports he has close contact with Presi- The CHIEF JUSTICE. Thank you, emails that are missing. I think you will
dent Poroshenko. He travels to probably be rewarded mightily by our press.
Mrs. Manager DEMINGS. Let’s see if that happens.
Ukraine twice. He links it to the—he Mrs. Manager DEMINGS. Thank you, Mr. STEPHANOPOULOS. The campaign
links their aid to the firing. Mr. Chief Justice. this time around, if foreigners, if Russia and
Same thing in 2016 at a White House The CHIEF JUSTICE. The Senator China, if someone else offers information on
meeting—links the aid to the firing of from Nevada. an opponent, should they accept it or should
the prosecutor; calls him four times in Ms. ROSEN. Mr. Chief Justice, I send they call the FBI?
the 8 days up—leading to the pros- a question to the desk. President TRUMP. I think maybe they do
ecutor—the prosecutor investigating The CHIEF JUSTICE. Thank you. both. I think you might want to listen.
There is nothing wrong with listening. If
Hunter Biden. Yet he never says that. The question from Senator ROSEN is somebody called from a country—Norway:
All cases closed. addressed to the House managers: We have information on your opponent—I
Days before Biden leaves office, he Over the course of your arguments, you think I would want to hear it.
jokes to Poroshenko that he may have have tried to make a case that the President Mr. STEPHANOPOULOS. You want that
to call him every couple weeks to put his personal interests over those of the kind of interference in our elections?
check in. Hunter Biden stays on that Nation, risking our national security in the President TRUMP. It’s not an interference.
board for 3 years—3 years. process. What precedent do you believe the They have information. I think I would take
Then we hear the video of Joe Biden President’s actions set for future Presidents? it.
Unidentified SPEAKER. Let’s move to the
bragging about firing the prosecutor, Mr. Manager CROW. Mr. Chief Jus-
third excerpt there related to Vice President
linking it to aid. Then we have a 6- tice, Senator, thank you for that ques- Biden, and it says, ‘‘The other thing, there’s
minute phone call. tion. It is one that I have wanted to an- a lot of talk about Biden’s son—’’ this is
Ms. ROSEN. Mr. Chief Justice. swer for some time now. President Trump speaking—‘‘that Biden
The CHIEF JUSTICE. I am sorry. You have heard me speak before stopped the prosecution and a lot of people
The House managers have 21⁄2 minutes. about some of my personal experience want to find out about that so that whatever
Mrs. Manager DEMINGS. Mr. Chief in service to the country, and one you can do with the Attorney General would
Justice and to our Senators, Senators, thing that experience has taught me is be great. Biden went around bragging that
that we are strong not just because of he stopped the prosecution so if you can look
thank you so much for that question. I
into it . . . It sounds horrible to me.’’
know you have asked about a conversa- the service and the sacrifice of our men President TRUMP. Well, I would think
tion between a father and his son, and and women in uniform, which is ex- that if they were honest about it, they’d
what I can tell you, probably like just treme and pure in all of its sense and start a major investigation into the Bidens.
about everybody in this Chamber, something that I think everybody in It’s a very simple answer.
there are probably some conversations this Chamber actually appreciates and President TRUMP. If we feel there is cor-
that I can’t repeat to you about my respects, but we are also strong be- ruption, like I feel there was in the 2016 cam-
conversations with my son. So I don’t cause we have friends. We are strong paign, there was tremendous corruption
against me—if we feel there’s corruption, we

know the answer to your question, Sen- because America doesn’t go it alone. have a right to go to a foreign country.
ator, what that exact conversation You know, when I was in Iraq and Af- President TRUMP. And by the way, like-
was. ghanistan, I worked frequently with wise, China should start an investigation
But what I can tell you is this: If we Afghan Army partners, Iraqi Army into the Bidens because what happened in
are serious about why we are here—and partners and others, not because it was China is just about as bad as what happened
I have no reason to doubt that we are— important but because it was essential. with—with Ukraine.
we are serious about seeking the truth We couldn’t accomplish the mission Mr. Manager CROW. The American
because the truth matters, not just for without it. But if those partners feel people deserve to know what happened.

VerDate Sep 11 2014 05:59 Jan 31, 2020 Jkt 099060 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 4624 Sfmt 0634 E:\CR\FM\G30JA6.005 S30JAPT1
The American people deserve to know article. It wasn’t actually entitled or interfering with our election, then that
when they go to bed tonight that there ‘‘abuse of power.’’ It didn’t charge [is] something that the FBI would want to
is a President that has their interests abuse of power. The specifications know about,’’ and ‘‘we’d like to make sure
people tell us information promptly so that
in mind, that will put the national se- there were violations of the law—vio-
we can take appropriate steps to protect the
curity of the country above his own po- lating the constitutional rights of the American people.’’ If President Trump re-
litical self-interest. The American peo- citizens, violating the laws governing mains in office, what signal does that send to
ple deserve answers. And, yes, it is still executive branch agencies, unlawful other countries intent on interfering in our
a good time to call Ambassador Bolton electronic surveillance, using the CIA elections in the future, and what might we
to testify. and others. Specific violations of law. expect from those countries and the Presi-
The CHIEF JUSTICE. Thank you, Clearly, in the Clinton impeachment, dent?
Mr. Manager. President Clinton was impeached for Mr. Counsel JEFFRIES. Mr. Chief
The Senator from Ohio. perjury and obstruction of justice. Justice, distinguished Members of the
Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Chief Justice, I Those are crimes. Senate, thank you for that question.
send a question to the desk on behalf of While Professor Turley does not take I will take the last part first. It
myself, Senators TOOMEY, CORNYN, the view that a crime is necessarily re- would send a terrible message to auto-
CRAPO, ERNST, and MORAN. quired, he pointed out here that there crats and dictators and enemies of de-
The CHIEF JUSTICE. Thank you. was not nearly a sufficient basis and mocracy and the free world for the
The question from Senator PORTMAN not nearly a sufficient record compiled President and his team to essentially
and the other Senators is for the coun- in the House of Representatives to jus- put out there for all to consume that it
sel for the President: tify an abuse of power charge. is acceptable in the United States to
I have been surprised to hear the House He also was very critical of the ob- solicit foreign interference in our free
managers repeatedly invoke constitutional struction of Congress theory, and he and fair elections or accept political
law Professor Jonathan Turley to support pointed out that it would be an abuse dirt simply to try to cheat in the next
their position, including playing a part of a
video of him. Isn’t it true that Professor
of power by Congress under these cir- election.
Turley opposed this impeachment in the cumstances where Congress has simply I was certainly shocked by the com-
House and has also said that abuse of power demanded information, gotten a re- ments from the President’s Deputy
is exceedingly difficult to prove alone with- fusal from the executive branch based White House Counsel yesterday, right
out an accompanying criminal allegation, on constitutionally based prerogatives here on the floor, when he said: ‘‘I
abuse of power has never been the sole basis of the executive or refusal to provide think that the idea that any informa-
for a presidential impeachment and was not that information, then to simply go tion that happens to come from over-
proven in this case? straight to impeachment without going seas is necessarily campaign inter-
Mr. Counsel PHILBIN. Mr. Chief Jus- through the accommodations process, ference is a mistake.’’
tice, Senators, thank you for that without considering contempt, without No. It is wrong. It is wrong in the
question. going to the courts. That is Professor United States of America.
And that is exactly correct. Professor Turley’s view on how incrementally He also added ‘‘Information that is
Turley was very critical of the entire the House of Representatives would credible, that potentially shows wrong-
process in the House and of the charges have to proceed if they were going to doing by someone that happens to be
that the House—House Democrats were try to reach ultimately some theory of running for office, if it’s credible infor-
considering here, both the abuse of obstruction of Congress. mation, is relevant information for the
power charge and the obstruction So to cite Professor Turley, it is voters to know . . . to be able to decide
charge. He explained that this was a true, in his academic writing and in his on who is the best candidate. . . . ’’
rushed process; they did not adequately testimony, he did not adopt the view This is not a banana republic. It is
pursue an investigation; that, as the that you must have a crime and only a the democratic Republic of the United
Senators point out in the question, crime as the charge for an Article of States of America. It is wrong.
abuse of power is an exceedingly dif- Impeachment. He still thought that The single most important lesson
ficult theory to use to impeach a Presi- neither of the Articles of Impeachment that we learned from 2016 was that no-
dent, and it has never been used with- here could be justified or sufficient or body should seek or welcome foreign
out alleging violations of the law. I could be used to impeach the Presi- interference in our elections. But now
think that in the discussions we have dent—both the abuse of power article we have this President and his counsel
had over the past week and a half, we and the obstruction article. So taking essentially saying it is OK.
have pointed that out multiple times. snippets out of what he said really does It is not OK. It strikes at the very
Every Presidential impeachment in an injustice to the totality of his testi- heart of what the Framers of the Con-
our history, including even the Nixon mony, because the totality of his testi- stitution were concerned about—abuse
impeachment proceedings, which didn’t mony was entirely against what the of power, betrayal by the President of
actually lead to impeachment, have House ended up doing. his oath of office, corrupting the integ-
used charges that include specific vio- Thank you. rity of our democracy and our free and
lations of the law and the criminal law. The CHIEF JUSTICE. Thank you, fair elections by entangling oneself
Andrew Johnson was charged mostly counsel. with foreign powers. That is at the
in counts that involved violation of the The Senator from Ohio. heart of what the Framers of the Con-
Tenure of Office Act, which Congress Mr. BROWN. Mr. Chief Justice, on stitution were concerned about.
had specifically made punishable by behalf of Senator WYDEN and myself, I Don’t just trust me. We have several
fine and imprisonment and even wrote send a question to the desk for the folks who have made this observation.
into the statute that violation would House managers. The FBI Director—the Trump FBI Di-
constitute either a high crime or a The CHIEF JUSTICE. Thank you. rector—said that the FBI would want
high misdemeanor—one of those Senators BROWN and WYDEN ask the to know about any attempt at foreign
terms—to make it clear that it was following question to the House man- election interference.
going to be used to trigger an impeach- agers: The Chair of the Federal Elections
ment. During yesterday’s proceedings, the Presi- Commission also issued a statement re-
In the proceedings in the Nixon im- dent’s counsel failed to give an adequate re- iterating the view of U.S. law enforce-
peachment inquiry, each of the Arti- sponse to a question related to whether ac- ment. She said in part:

cles of Impeachment there—except for ceptance of information provided by a for-

Let me make something 100 percent clear
the obstruction of Congress charge is eign country to a political campaign or can-
to the American public and anyone running
sort of treated separately on the ob- didate would constitute a violation of the
for [public] office: It is illegal for any person
law and whether offers of such information
struction theory—included specific vio- to solicit, accept, or receive anything of
should be reported to the FBI. FBI Director
lations of law. There were specific vio- value from a foreign national in connection
Christopher Wray, who was appointed by
lations alleged in the second Article of with a U.S. election.
President Trump, has said ‘‘if any public of-
Impeachment, which is often sort of re- ficial or member of any campaign is con- This is not a novel concept. Election
ferred to loosely as the abuse of power tacted by any nation-state about influencing intervention from foreign governments

VerDate Sep 11 2014 00:21 Jan 31, 2020 Jkt 099060 PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 4624 Sfmt 0634 E:\CR\FM\G30JA6.007 S30JAPT1
has been considered unacceptable since One example like that, I believe it the slide, in the email, Sondland stat-
the beginning of our Nation. It is was pointed out that aid was held up to ed:
wrong, it is corrupt, it is lawless, it is Afghanistan. President Trump held up I talked to Zelensky just now.
an abuse of power, it is impeachable, aid to Afghanistan specifically because He is prepared to receive POTUS’s call.
and it should lead to the removal of of concerns about corruption. In situa- Will assure him that he intends to run a
President Donald John Trump. tions like that, there would be nothing fully transparent investigation and will
The CHIEF JUSTICE. Thank you, wrong whatsoever with conditioning ‘‘turn over every stone’’. He would greatly
appreciate a call prior to Sunday so that he
Mr. Manager. one policy approach on a foreign coun- can put out some media about a ‘‘friendly
The Senator from Missouri. try modifying their policy to be more and productive call’’ (no details). . . .
Mr. HAWLEY. I send a question to in line, to attune more directly to U.S.
Mr. Mulvaney, in the email, acknowl-
the desk on behalf of myself and on be- foreign interests. That is what foreign
edges receipt and responds shortly: I
half of Senator LEE. policy is all about. That could arise in
asked the NSC to set up the call for to-
The CHIEF JUSTICE. Thank you. situations of even calling for investiga-
morrow—6 days before President
The question from Senators HAWLEY tions.
Trump’s now infamous July 25th call in
and LEE is for counsel to the President: I think it is interesting to point out
which he told President Zelensky to
The U.S. Federal Courts have held, most that in May of 2018, three Democratic
conduct investigations into the Bidens
prominently in the Blagojevich case, that it Senators sent a letter to the then-pros-
is not unlawful for a public official to condi- and the 2016 election. Mr. Sondland
ecutor in Ukraine suggesting that we
tion his official acts on official acts per- sent an email to the President’s top
have heard some things that you might
formed by another public officer. Is there aides updating them on the status of
not be cooperating with the Mueller in-
any application to the allegations against the scheme.
President Trump? vestigation. And there was sort of an
Again, ‘‘everyone was in the loop.’’
implicit indication behind the letter
Mr. Counsel PHILBIN. Mr. Chief Jus- On August 11, Ambassador Sondland
that there is not going to be as much
tice, Senators, thank you for that emailed Mr. Brechbuhl to ask him to
support for Ukraine. This is something
question. brief Secretary Pompeo on the state-
that is important. You have got to be
I think an important threshold point ment he was negotiating with Presi-
helping with that investigation.
to make here is that we are not even in dent Zelensky with the aim of ‘‘making
There is nothing wrong with encour-
the realm of exchanging official acts, the boss happy’’—the boss being the
aging the prosecutor general to assist
because there has been no proof of a President—enough to authorize the in-
with something important to the
quid pro quo here. We are not in the vestigation.
United States. That is part of foreign Ambassador Sondland wrote to Mr.
realm of a situation where there is one policy. It happens all the time. So to
official act being traded for another. Brechbuhl:
the extent that the Blagojevich case is
I think that we have gone through relevant, it is in the general concept
Kurt and I negotiated a statement from
the evidence that makes it quite clear Z—
that were there some linkage between
that both, with respect to a meeting ‘‘we want your country to pursue these Mr. Zelensky.
with the President—a bilateral meet- policies; it is going to affect our poli- to be delivered for our review in a day or
ing—and with respect to the temporary cies towards you,’’ that is entirely le- two. The content will hopefully make the
pause of security assistance, the evi- gitimate. That is not something that is
boss happy enough to authorize an invita-
dence just doesn’t stack up to show tion.
a violation of any law or is improper.
that President Trump linked either of Again, coming back to the point here, And he is talking about the invita-
those. Both took place—the meeting there is no proof of that linkage. There tion for a White House Oval Office
and the release of the aid—without no proof of what we have come to call meeting, which we know was much
Ukrainians doing anything, announc- ‘‘quid pro quo’’ in this case. more critical and important than a
ing or beginning any investigations. The CHIEF JUSTICE. Thank you, sideline meeting at the U.N.
There is nothing in the transcript link- counsel. Yet, further evidence that ‘‘everyone
ing them to a quid pro quo. The The Senator from Washington. was in the loop,’’ Attorney General
Ukrainians didn’t even know that Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. Chief Justice, I Barr reportedly responded at some
there had been a temporary pause on send a question to the desk. point—there was a New York Times ar-
the aid, and I could go on with a list of The CHIEF JUSTICE. Thank you. ticle that was done, and Attorney Gen-
points on that. Senator CANTWELL’s question is for eral Barr responded to that article by
I think if there were any application stating that he was aware of DOJ in-
the House managers:
hypothetically, it would come in the vestigations into some countries, and
In his opening remarks, Chairman SCHIFF
realm of the fact that in foreign policy that he was concerned President
said the Ukraine scheme was expansive and
there are situations where there can be involved many people. Is there any evidence Trump was giving world leaders the
situations where one government that Acting White House Chief of Staff Mick impression he had undue influence over
wants some action from another and Mulvaney, Secretary of State Pompeo, At- what would ordinarily be independent
wants that action from another in a torney General Barr or anyone on the out- investigations. He cited conversations
way that would condition other poli- side were involved in this scheme to with- the President had with leaders of Tur-
cies of one country. hold military aid or obstruction of Congress? key and China, further demonstrating
You can say: We would like you—and Mrs. Manager DEMINGS. Mr. Chief that there was concern about the
this happens. For example, with the Justice and Senator, thank you so President abusing the power of his of-
Northern Triangle countries: We want much for that question. fice for personal, political reasons.
you to do more to stop the flow of ille- If we remember Ambassador Again, it proves that everybody was in
gal immigration. We are going to be Sondland’s testimony, where he said, the loop, and we should want to sub-
conditioning some of our policies to- ‘‘everyone was in the loop,’’ we don’t poena and review those emails involv-
ward you, unless and until you do a just have to take his word for it. Dur- ing the State Department and others.
better job stopping the flow of illegal ing his hearing, Mr. Sondland discussed The CHIEF JUSTICE. Thank you,
immigration. It is a real problem on a July 19 email he sent to the Presi- Mrs. Manager.
our southern border. dent’s top aides, including Secretary Mr. THUNE. Mr. Chief Justice.
That happens all the time, and when Mike Pompeo, Acting Chief of Staff The CHIEF JUSTICE. The Senator

there is something legitimate to look Mick Mulvaney, Mr. Mulvaney’s senior from South Dakota.
into, there could be a situation where adviser, Robert Blair, Secretary Rick Mr. THUNE. I send a question to the
the United States would say: You’ve Perry, and Brian McCormick, Sec- desk on behalf of myself and Senators
got to do better on corruption. You’ve retary Perry’s Chief of Staff. MORAN, DAINES, ERNST, SCOTT of Flor-
got to do better on these specific areas We should at least start with, if we ida, and CRAPO.
of corruption, or we are not going to be are serious about getting to the truth, The CHIEF JUSTICE. Thank you.
able to keep the same relationship with issuing a subpoena for State Depart- Senator THUNE and the other Senators
you. ment emails. If you pay attention to ask the counsel for the President:

VerDate Sep 11 2014 00:21 Jan 31, 2020 Jkt 099060 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 4624 Sfmt 0634 E:\CR\FM\G30JA6.008 S30JAPT1
On March 6, 2019, Speaker NANCY PELOSI ballot on a purely partisan basis in an are saying the American Presidency is
said, ‘‘impeachment is so divisive to the election year. Important? I will say it open for business. This President wants
country that unless there’s something so is important. For that reason alone our help, and if we help him, he will be
compelling and overwhelming and bipar-
tisan, I don’t think we should go down that
and for the interest of uniting our grateful.
path because it divides the country.’’ Alex- country, it must be rejected. He will be grateful. Is that the kind
ander Hamilton also warned in Federalist 65 Thank you, Mr. Chief Justice. of message we want to send to the rest
against the ‘‘persecution of an intemperate The CHIEF JUSTICE. Thank you, of the world? That is the result of nor-
or designing majority in the House of Rep- counsel. malizing lawlessness of the kind that
resentatives’’ with respect to impeachment. Mr. REED. Mr. Chief Justice. Rudy Giuliani was engaged in.
In evaluating the case against the President, The CHIEF JUSTICE. The Senator One other thing, if I have—my time
should the Senate take into account the par-
from Rhode Island. is not expired.
tisan nature of the impeachment proceedings
in the House? Mr. REED. Mr. Chief Justice, I send a The CHIEF JUSTICE. I am sorry;
question to the desk on behalf of Sen- your time is expired.
Mr. Counsel CIPOLLONE. Thank
ators DUCKWORTH and HARRIS and my- Mr. Counsel SEKULOW. Mr. Chief
you, Mr. Chief Justice and Members of
self for the House managers and for the Justice and Members of the Senate, it
the Senate.
Absolutely you should take that into President’s counsel. is hard for me to believe the words that
account. That is dispositive. That The CHIEF JUSTICE. Thank you. just came out of the manager’s mouth:
should end it. Based on the statements The question from Senator REED and ‘‘open for business.’’ I will tell you who
that we heard the last time from our the other Senators is for both parties, was open for business. You know who
friends on the Democratic side, that is beginning with the House managers: was open for business? The Vice Presi-
a reason why you shouldn’t have an im- It has been reported that President Trump dent of the United States was charged
peachment. Speaker PELOSI was right has not paid Rudy Giuliani, his personal at- by the then-President of the United
torney, for his services. Can you explain who States with developing policies to
when she said that. Unfortunately, she
has paid for Rudy Giuliani’s legal fees, inter- avoid and assist in removing corrup-
didn’t follow her own advice. national travel, and other expenses in his ca-
We have never been in a situation tion from Ukraine, and his son was on
pacity as President Trump’s attorney and
where we have the impeachment of a representative?
the board of a company that was under
President in an election year with the investigation for Ukraine, and you are
Mr. Manager SCHIFF. A short answer concerned about what Rudy Giuliani,
goal of removing the President from
to the question is, I don’t know who is the President’s lawyer, was doing when
the ballot. As I have said before, that is
paying Rudy Giuliani’s fees, and if he he was over trying to determine what
the most massive election interference
is not being paid by the President to was going on in Ukraine?
we have ever witnessed. It is domestic
conduct this domestic political errand And by the way, it is a little bit in-
election interference; it is political
for which he has devoted so much time, teresting to me—and my colleague, the
election interference; and it is wrong.
They don’t talk about the horrible if other clients are paying and sub- Deputy White House Counsel referred
consequences to our country of doing sidizing his work in that respect, it to this. It is a little bit ironic to me
that, but they would be terrible. They raises profound questions—questions that you are going to be questioning
would tear us apart for generations, that we can’t answer at this point. conversations with foreign govern-
and the American people wouldn’t ac- There are some answers that we do ments about investigations when three
cept it. know. As he has acknowledged, he is of you—three Members of the Senate—
Let me address, in that context, the not there to inform policy. So when Senator MENENDEZ, Senator LEAHY,
importance of the vote for their in- counsel for the President says this is a and Senator DURBIN sent a letter that
quiry, which also had bipartisan oppo- policy dispute and you can’t impeach a read something—quickly—like this.
sition. Now they said: Well, we were President over policy, what Rudy They wrote the letter to the prosecutor
fine when Speaker PELOSI announced Giuliani was engaged in, by his own ad- general of Ukraine. They said they are
it. We didn’t need a vote. The sub- mission, has nothing to do with pol- advocates—talking about the Congress-
poenas were authorized. icy—has nothing to do with policy. men—they are ‘‘strong advocates for a
Then why did they have a vote? They And let me mention one other thing robust and close relationship with
had a vote because they understood about this scheme that Giuliani was Ukraine [and] we believe that our co-
they had a big problem that they need- orchestrating and the consequence of operation . . . extend to such legal
ed to fix. But what is more important the argument that they would make matters, regardless of politics.’’ And
about the vote than the procedural that quid pro quos are just fine. Let’s their concern was ongoing investiga-
issue? The important thing about the say Rudy Giuliani does another errand tions and whether the Mueller team
vote is that if you are going to start an for the President—this time an errand was getting appropriate—appropriate—
impeachment investigation, particu- in China—and he says to the Chinese: responses from Ukraine regarding in-
larly in an election year, there needs to We will give you a favorable deal with vestigations of what? The President of
be political accountability to the respect to Chinese farmers as opposed the United States. And you are asking
American people. You can’t just go to American farmers. We will betray about whether foreign investigations
have a press conference. If you are the American farmer in the trade deal, are appropriate? I think it answers
going to say that the votes of the but here is what we want. The quid pro itself.
American people need to be disallowed quo is we want you to do an investiga- Thank you, Mr. Chief Justice.
and that all of the ballots need to be tion of the Bidens. You know the one, The CHIEF JUSTICE. Thank you,
torn up, then at the very least you the one the President has been calling counsel.
need to be accountable to your home for. They would say that is OK. They Mr. LANKFORD. Mr. Chief Justice.
district for that decision, and now they would say that is a quid pro quo to help The CHIEF JUSTICE. The Senator
are—and now they are. his reelection. He can betray the Amer- from Oklahoma.
If the American people decide—if ican farmer; that is OK. That is their Mr. LANKFORD. Mr. Chief Justice, I
they are allowed to vote—if the Amer- argument. Where does that argument send a question to the desk on behalf of
ican people decide that they don’t like lead us? That is exactly the kind of do- myself, Senator ERNST, and Senator
what has happened here; that they mestic, corrupt, political errand that CRAPO.
don’t like the constitutional violations Rudy Giuliani was doing gratis, with- The CHIEF JUSTICE. Thank you.

that have happened; that they don’t out payment—at least not payment, The question from Senator LANKFORD
like the attack on a successful Presi- apparently, from the President. and the other Senators is for the coun-
dent for purely partisan political pur- So who is paying the freight for it? I sel for the President:
poses, then they can do something don’t know who is directly paying the
House managers have described any delay
about it, and they can throw them out. freight for it, but I can tell you the in military aid and State Department funds
That is why a vote is important. whole country is paying the freight for to Ukraine in 2019 as a cause to believe there
We should never even consider re- it because there are leaders around the was a secret scheme or quid pro quo by the
moving the name of a President from a world who are watching this, and they President. In 2019, 86% of the DOD funds were

VerDate Sep 11 2014 00:21 Jan 31, 2020 Jkt 099060 PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 4624 Sfmt 0634 E:\CR\FM\G30JA6.010 S30JAPT1
obligated to Ukraine in September, but in And we know that also from Oleg I will respond to the question, but let
2018, 67% of the funds were obligated in Sep- Shevchuk, the Ukrainian Deputy Min- me begin with something in the cat-
tember and in 2017, 73% of the funds were ob- ister of Defense, who gave an interview egory of: You can’t make this stuff up.
ligated in September. In the State Depart-
to the New York Times and explained Today, while we have been debating
ment, the funds were obligated September 30
in 2019, but they were obligated September 28 that the hold came and went so quickly whether a President can be impeached
in 2018. Each year, the vast majority of the that he didn’t even notice any change. for essentially bogus claims of privi-
funds were obligated in the final month or And, remember, the Ukrainians lege for attempting to use the courts to
days of the fiscal year. Was there a national didn’t even know. President Zelensky cover up misconduct, the Justice De-
security risk to Ukraine or the United and his advisers—Yermak and others— partment, in resisting House sub-
States from the funds going out at the end of have made it abundantly clear. There poenas, is in court today and was
September in the 2 previous years? Did it was another interview just the other asked: Well, if the Congress can’t come
weaken our relationship with Ukraine be- day with Danylyuk, who—I might get to the court to enforce subpoenas be-
cause the vast majority of our aid was re-
leased in September each of the last 3 years?
his title wrong. I think he was the For- cause, as we know, they are in here ar-
eign Minister at the time. But there guing, Congress must go to court to en-
Mr. Counsel PHILBIN. Mr. Chief Jus- was an interview just the other day force its subpoenas, but they are in the
tice and Senators, thank you for that that was published. And he explained, court saying: Congress, thou shall not
question. And the short, straight- again, that they didn’t know the aid do that, so the judge says: If the Con-
forward answer is there was no jeop- had been held up until the POLITICO gress can’t enforce its subpoenas in
ardy to the national security interest article on August 28. And then he said court, then what remedy is there? And
of the United States from the timing of there was a panic in Kyiv because they the Justice Department lawyers’ re-
the release of this money. As the ques- were just trying to figure out what to sponse is impeachment—impeachment.
tion indicated, the vast bulk of the do. Well, within 2 weeks, it had been You can’t make this up. I mean, what
funds in each of the prior 2 fiscal years released. more evidence do we need of the bad
were also obligated in September. So And so we have also heard the idea faith of this effort to cover up?
the fact that the funds were released that, well, it was just the fact of the I said the other day they are in this
here on September 11 and obligated by delay that gave the Russians a signal, court making this argument; they are
the end of the fiscal year was con- and it gave the Ukrainians a signal, down the street making the other argu-
sistent with the timing in past years. and that was what the damage to the ment. I didn’t think they would make
There was—and it is also the case national security was. But the whole it on the same day, but that is exactly
that at the end of every fiscal year, point is, leaders of the Government in what is going on.
there is some funding in this Ukrainian Ukraine didn’t know. It wasn’t made Now, in response to the question
military assistance that doesn’t actu- public. So they weren’t being given a about how is this aid different, this
ally make it out the door. It isn’t obli- signal by that, and the Russians hold different from other holds, it is
gated by the end of the fiscal year. We weren’t being given a signal by that. certainly appropriate to ask that ques-
heard the House managers point to the So that theory for damage to the na- tion.
fact that Congress had to put some- tional security also doesn’t work. The laws Congress passed authorizing
thing in the continuing resolution, a There was a pause temporarily so this appropriation did not allow for the
special provision, to get $35 million of that there could be some assessment to hold by this President. And as the
the aid extended so it can be used in address concerns the President had GAO—the Government Accountability
the next fiscal year. My understanding raised. The money was released by the Office—found, it violated the law to
is that every fiscal year there is some end of the fiscal year. There was no hold the aid the way it did.
amount of money. It is not always that damage to the national security either Once the Department of Defense, in
same amount, but there is some in terms of materiel not being avail- consultation with the Department of
amount of money that that has to be able to the Ukrainians or in terms of State, certified that Ukraine had met
done for every year because it doesn’t any signal sent to any foreign power. the anti-corruption benchmarks re-
get out the door by the end of the year. The money got out the door roughly quired under the law, there was noth-
Now, it is not just from the raw data the same time as in prior years. A lit- ing that would allow for a hold. The
that we can see that the funds went out tle bit more left over at the end that money had to flow.
roughly the same timing toward the had to be fixed, but there is some left And that was intentional. Military
end of the year that, therefore, it over at the end every year that has to assistance to Ukraine is critical to our
doesn’t suggest any great risk to be fixed with a rider on the next appro- national security. It has overwhelming
Ukraine or risk to the national secu- priations bill or continuing resolution. bipartisan support.
rity of the United States. We know So no damage whatsoever to the na- And recall that in the spring of 2019,
that from testimony as well. tional security of the United States. the Defense Department certified
Ambassador Volker testified that the Thank you. Ukraine had met all of the anti-corrup-
brief pause on the aid was not signifi- The CHIEF JUSTICE. Thank you, tion benchmarks. The Department of
cant, and the Under Secretary of State counsel. State sent the Senate a letter saying
for Political Affairs, David Hale, ex- The Senator from Hawaii. that the benchmarks had been met. It
plained that this is future assistance, Ms. HIRONO. ‘‘Aloha.’’ I send a ques- issued a press release saying that the
and I mentioned this the other day. It tion to the desk for the House man- aid was moving forward. It began to
is not like this money is being spent agers. spend the funds to help Ukraine, but
month by month to supply current The CHIEF JUSTICE. Thank you. then the President stepped in. Without
needs in Ukraine. It is 5-year money. The question from Senator HIRONO legal authority, he secretly had placed
Once it is obligated, it can go to U.S. for the House managers reads as fol- a hold on the aid.
firms for providing materiel to the lows: Now, the President’s counsel, in their
Ukrainians, and it doesn’t get spent In contrast to arguments by the Presi- presentation, gives specific examples of
down finally and materiel shipped to dent’s counsel, acting White House Chief of past holds, as if we cannot distinguish
Ukraine for a long time. So a delay of Staff Mick Mulvaney stated that President one for a corrupt reason and one that is
48 or 55 days—depending on how you Trump held up aid to Ukraine to get his po- for a policy reason.
litically-motivated investigations. He
count it—and the money being released In many of their examples, the law
claimed: ‘‘We do that all the time with for-

before the end of the fiscal year ends eign policy’’ and ‘‘Get over it.’’ What was dif- explicitly provided the executive
up having no real effect. It is not cur- ferent about President Trump’s withholding branch the authority to pause, reevalu-
rent money. It is supplying immediate of aid to Ukraine from prior aid freezes? Are ate, or cancel foreign aid programs as
needs. you aware of any other Presidents who have the situation in a recipient country
Despite what we have heard about withheld foreign aid as a bribe to extract evolved.
the idea that on the frontlines in the personal benefits? For example, with regard to foreign
Donbas, Ukrainian soldiers are being Mr. Manager SCHIFF. Thank you, assistance to El Salvador, Honduras, or
put at risk, that is just not accurate. Senator. Guatemala, the law explicitly allows

VerDate Sep 11 2014 00:21 Jan 31, 2020 Jkt 099060 PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 4624 Sfmt 0634 E:\CR\FM\G30JA6.011 S30JAPT1
the Secretary of State to ‘‘suspend, in That is exactly who should decide Now, counsel—as I was getting to a
whole or in part’’ that ‘‘assistance’’ if who should be President, the voters. moment ago—made the argument: If
at any time the Secretary deems ‘‘that All power comes from the people in you make the decision as impartial ju-
sufficient progress has not been made this country. That is why you are here; rors that the President has violated
by a central government.’’ that is why people are elected in the the Constitution, he has abused his
On a host of priorities, from respect- House; and that is why the President is power, he should be convicted and re-
ing human rights to upholding the law, elected. It is exactly who should decide moved from office, that the country
those are the priorities that you, the the question, particularly in a case like will not accept it. I have more con-
Senate, agreed to, and the President this, where it is purely partisan. fidence in the American people than
was required to implement them; simi- Here is the other thing, when we are that. But I will assure you of this: If
larly, aid to Afghanistan, the subject of talking about impeachment as a polit- you make the decision that a fair trial
periodic reevaluations by law. And the ical weapon, they didn’t tell you what can be conducted without hearing from
law explicitly directs the Secretary of they told the court over the holidays witnesses, the American people will
State should ‘‘suspend assistance for when they were waiting to deliver the not accept that judgment because the
the Government of Afghanistan’’ Impeachment Articles. They went and American people understand what goes
should be it assessed that the Afghan told the court: They are actually still into a fair trial, and they understand
Government is ‘‘failing to make meas- impeaching over there in the House; that a fair trial requires both sides to
urable progress’’ in meeting certain did you know that? They are actually have the opportunity to present their
anti-corruption, human rights, and still impeaching. case.
counterterrorism benchmarks. They are coming here, and they are
The overthrow of the democratically We would like to present our case.
telling you: Please do the work that we We would like to call our witnesses. We
elected Government in Egypt, we have
didn’t do, where we had 2 days in the would like to rely on more than our ar-
had that brought up as another exam-
House Judiciary Committee; we had to gumentation.
ple. Members of this body, including
rush delivery for Christmas; and then There are few things about this trial
Senators McCain, LEAHY, and GRAHAM,
we waited and waited and waited. But that Americans agree on, but one thing
pressed the Obama administration to
now we want you to call witnesses that they are squarely in agreement on—
suspend military aid. It wasn’t hidden
we never called; that we didn’t sub- well, two. They believe a trial should
from the Senate. It was urged on the
poena. They want to turn you into an have witness testimony, and they want
administration by the Senate. Senators
investigative body. In the meantime, to hear from John Bolton. That is the
pressed for that aid to be withheld be-
they are saying: By the way, we are overwhelming consensus of the Amer-
cause the law was clear, in instances of
still doing it over there. We are still ican people, and it is consistent with
a military coup, aid must be suspended.
impeaching. And they want to slow common sense.
Senators McCain and GRAHAM wrote an
down now. They don’t want to speed Let’s give the country a trial they
op-ed in the Washington Post:
up. They want to slow it down and take can be proud of. Let’s show that at
Not all coups are created equal, but a coup
is still a coup. Morsi— up the election year and continue this least the process worked and that we
political charade. It is all so wrong. It followed the Founders’ intent that a
That is the deposed leader of Egypt.
is all so wrong. trial have witnesses. I don’t think any-
was elected by a majority of voters, and U.S.
law requires the suspension of foreign assist-
Let’s leave it to the people of the one can quarrel with the fact, when
ance. United States. Let’s trust them. They you look at the history of this body
are asking you not to trust them. and evidence of impeachment—
I could go on and on with examples.
No one has suggested you can’t condi- Maybe they don’t trust them. Maybe The CHIEF JUSTICE. Thank you,
tion aid, but I would hope that we they won’t like the result. We should Mr. Manager.
would all agree that you can’t condi- trust them. That is who should decide The Senator from Virginia.
tion aid for a corrupt purpose, to try to who the President of this country Mr. KAINE. Mr. Chief Justice, I send
get a foreign power to cheat in your should be. It will be a few months from a question to the desk for the House
election. now, and they should decide. managers.
Now, counsel says that if you decide Thank you. The CHIEF JUSTICE. Thank you.
the prosecution has proved that he en- The CHIEF JUSTICE. Thank you, The question from Senator KAINE for
gaged in this corrupt scheme, if you de- counsel. the House managers:
cide, as impartial jurors, that the Con- Mr. Manager SCHIFF. Mr. Chief Jus- If the Senate acquits the President on arti-
stitution requires his removal from of- tice, Senators, I appreciate the ques- cle II, after he violated both the Impound-
fice, that the public will not accept tion. ment Control Act and the Whistleblower Act
your judgment. I have more confidence President Trump must be removed to hide the Ukraine scheme from Congress,
from office because of his ongoing what is to stop President Trump from com-
in the American people. plete refusal to cooperate with Congress on
The CHIEF JUSTICE. Thank you, abuse of power. It threatens the integ-
rity of the next election. any matter?
Mr. Manager.
Mr. BOOZMAN. Mr. Chief Justice. As we saw from the video montage, Mr. Manager SCHIFF. Mr. Chief Jus-
The CHIEF JUSTICE. The Senator the President has made no bones about tice, in short, the consequence is there
from Arkansas. the fact that he is willing to seek for- is no constraint on this President or
Mr. BOOZMAN. I send a question to eign intervention to help him cheat in any other. This gets to a point—you
the desk on behalf of myself, Senators the next election. have heard counsel for the President
COTTON, ERNST, YOUNG, HAWLEY, RISCH, Now, counsel for the President says repeat over and over: Can you be im-
FISCHER, and HOEVEN. the next election is the remedy. It is peached for asserting privileges—and, I
The CHIEF JUSTICE. Thank you. not the remedy when the President is would add, no matter how bogus or in
Senator BOOZMAN and the other Sen- trying to seek to cheat in that very bad faith those assertions may be, no
ators pose a question to both sides: election. This is why the Founders did matter whether they are in court today
In the House Managers’ opening statement, not put a requirement that a President arguing the opposite of what they are
they argue that it is necessary to pursue im- can only be impeached in their first arguing before you today?
peachment because ‘‘The President’s mis- term. Indeed, at that time, of course, And the answer is, yes, the President
conduct cannot be decided at the ballot box.
there weren’t term limits on the Presi- can be impeached for using the asser-
For we cannot be assured that the vote

would be fairly won.’’ How would acquitting dency. tion of baseless claims to cover up his
the President prevent voters from making an If it were the intent of the Framers misconduct.
informed decision in the 2020 presidential to say that a President can’t be im- The House did not impeach the Presi-
election? peached in an election year, they would dent over a single assertion of privi-
The President’s counsel goes first. have said so. Now, they didn’t for a lege. We impeached him for a far more
Mr. Counsel CIPOLLONE. Thank reason, because they were concerned fundamental reason: because he issued
you, Mr. Chief Justice, Members of the about a President who might try to an order categorically directing the ex-
Senate. cheat in that very election. ecutive branch to defy every single

VerDate Sep 11 2014 00:21 Jan 31, 2020 Jkt 099060 PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 4624 Sfmt 0634 E:\CR\FM\G30JA6.012 S30JAPT1
part of every single subpoena served by phony cover for an obstruction that their job but to make the same mis-
the House. President Trump decided upon at the take, the same violation of due process,
A President who issues orders like outset. that they did. They said: Well, let’s
this is a President who can place him- These arguments are, thus, incorrect just pick the witnesses that we want.
self above the law and a system of on their own terms and fail to explain The other ones are irrelevant—not rel-
checks and balances. He can do what- this categorical order. evant.
ever he wants and get away with it by One final irony, even before the argu- In listening to Mr. SCHIFF over these
using his powers to orchestrate a mas- ment in court today: At a recent oral months, I have come to a determina-
sive coverup. The President’s lawyers argument in the DC Circuit, they made tion about what he means by ‘‘irrele-
haven’t disputed that point. They the same claim they made today. Let’s vant.’’ He means bad for them, OK. He
can’t. It is obvious that a President pull up slide 56. In litigation, again, to means witnesses that the President
who ignores and can ignore all over- enforce subpoenas, the judge said they wants to call. So I don’t know why
sight is a threat to the American peo- can make it grounds for impeachment they did that.
ple. for obstruction of Congress. And the I will say something else. I will say
Instead, they have argued assertion President’s own lawyers said impeach- something else. I have respect for you,
of a grab bag of legal privileges war- ment is certainly one of the tools that and I have respect for the House. And
ranting this categorical defiance. Congress has. We agree; it is one of the when I first got this job, I went—one of
These arguments are unprecedented tools that you have for when a Presi- the first things I did is I went to visit
and wrong. dent would use a categorical obstruc- Mr. SCHIFF, Chairman SCHIFF. I went to
The first thing to note is the Presi- tion of investigation into his own visit Chairman NADLER. I went to visit
dent’s arguments conveniently ignore wrongdoing. Chairman Cummings at that time. And
the October 8 letter sent at the Presi- It is a tool that should be applied I said: We are here to work with you, to
dent’s behest declaring that the Presi- here. There cannot be a better case for cooperate where we can, but in the in-
dent will not ‘‘participate’’ in the im- impeachment on obstructing a coequal stitutional interest, obviously. We will
peachment investigation. branch of Congress than the one before participate in oversight, but if we have
I will not participate. This blanket you where the obstruction is so com- constitutional points to make, we will
defiance preceded all of the other let- plete and so categorical. make them and we will make them di-
ters and creative OLC opinions the The CHIEF JUSTICE. Thank you, rectly.
President relied upon. It made clear Mr. Manager. And the administration has partici-
that the rationale for blanket defiance The Senator from Florida. pated in oversight. Many, many wit-
was the President’s belief that he can Mr. SCOTT of Florida. Mr. Chief Jus- nesses have testified in oversight hear-
declare his own innocence and make it tice, I send a question to the desk on ings. A large number of documents
illegitimate to investigate him. This behalf of myself and Senator BRAUN, have been produced in oversight hear-
was not about privileges or legal argu- and it is to the President’s counsel. ings.
ments. Those came later, as his law- The CHIEF JUSTICE. Thank you. And in fact, in the letter that I sent
yers rushed to justify that Congress The question from Senators SCOTT of on October 8, I made the same offer. I
has no power whatsoever to enforce Florida and BRAUN for counsel for the said: Look, this is not really a valid
subpoenas against anyone. President: impeachment proceeding, for all of the
Let’s be clear. They may claim that If Speaker PELOSI, Chairman SCHIFF, reasons that we have stated, but if the
their October 8 letter where they said Chairman NADLER, and House Democrats committees wish to return to the reg-
they will not participate was somehow were so confident in the gravity of the Presi- ular order of oversight requests, we
an offer to accommodate, but what the dent’s conduct and the ‘‘overwhelming evi- stand ready to engage in that process.
real condition was, was that the House dence’’ of an impeachable offense that But that never happened.
simply drop the impeachment inves- prompted the inquiry, why were the House
So I respect Congress. The adminis-
Republicans denied the procedural accom-
tigation or place the President in modations and substantive rights afforded to tration respects Congress, but we re-
charge of its direction. That wasn’t a the minority party in the Clinton impeach- spect the Constitution. We respect the
real offer. That was a poison pill. ment? Additionally, why were the Presi- Constitution, too, and we have an obli-
Now, what about the remaining argu- dent’s counsel and agency attorneys denied gation to the executive branch and to
ments? The first point is that none of access to cross-examine witnesses during the future Presidency—future Presi-
them justify his order to defy all the committee testimony and present the testi- dents—to vindicate the Constitution
subpoenas. He never asserted executive mony of witnesses in defense of the issues and vindicate those rights.
privilege over any documents, and his under review? Thank you.
remaining arguments that absolute im- Mr. Counsel CIPOLLONE. Thank The CHIEF JUSTICE. The Senator
munity or agency counsel not being al- you, Mr. Chief Justice, Members of the from Oregon.
lowed to attend depositions have noth- Senate. I don’t know why they would Mr. WYDEN. Mr. Chief Justice, I
ing to do with documents—nothing. So do that. I don’t know. They violated send a question to the desk for the
none of his legal arguments even ap- every past precedent. They violated all House floor managers.
plies to his direction that every single forms of due process. The CHIEF JUSTICE. Thank you.
office and agency defy every single sub- Now, they say that is a process argu- The question from Senator WYDEN for
poena for documents. ment, and it is, but it is more than the House managers:
And what about the total obstruction that. It is more than that. If you feel The Intelligence Community is prohibited
of the witnesses? Here, too, he never confident in your facts, then why do from requesting that a foreign entity target
invoked executive privilege. Absolute you design a process that completely an American citizen when the Intelligence
immunity obviously couldn’t apply to shuts out the President? Why do you Community is itself prohibited from doing
many of the lower level officials we cook up the facts in a basement SCIF so. In 2017, during [Director] Mike Pompeo’s
confirmation hearing to be the Director of
subpoenaed. instead of in the light of day? Why do
the Central Intelligence Agency, he testified
The only remaining legal ground for you do that? that ‘‘it is not lawful to outsource that
defiance was the argument it is uncon- Why don’t you allow the minority to which we cannot do.’’ So when President
stitutional for Congress to prevent call witnesses, as they have had the Trump asked a foreign country to inves-
agency counsel from going to deposi- right to do in all past impeachments? tigate an American when the U.S. govern-

tions—the fallback of fallback of And then they come here and say: By ment had not established a legal predicate to
fallbacks—except this rule was origi- the way, we were fully in charge, so do so, how is that not an abuse of power?
nally passed by a Republican Congress completely in charge that we locked Mr. Manager SCHIFF. It is abso-
and has been used repeatedly by both out the President’s counsel, denied all lutely an abuse of power. And what is
Republican- and Democratic-led ma- rights, denied the minority any wit- more, if you believe that a President
jorities and committees. It can’t pos- nesses at all. But when we come here, can essentially engage in any corrupt
sibly justify obstruction of witness they don’t—they still don’t get wit- activity as long as he believes that it
subpoenas. It is nothing more than a nesses. They want you not only to do will assist his reelection campaign and

VerDate Sep 11 2014 01:37 Jan 31, 2020 Jkt 099060 PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 4624 Sfmt 0634 E:\CR\FM\G30JA6.014 S30JAPT1
that campaign is in the public interest, If we say it is, if we say it is beyond people? We don’t. We trust the Amer-
then what is to stop a President from the reach of the impeachment power, ican people to decide who should be our
tasking his intelligence agencies to do or we engage in this sophistry and we President. Candidly, it is crazy to
political investigations? What is to say: Because you put it under the ru- think otherwise.
stop him from tasking the Justice De- bric of abuse of power—even though What is really going on? What is real-
partment? If it can come up with some that was the Framers’ core offense— ly going on is that he is a threat to
credible or incredible claim that his and you didn’t put it under some other them, and he is an immediate, legiti-
opponent deserves to be investigated, rubric, well, we won’t even consider mate threat to them, and he is an im-
their argument would lead you to the it—if we are going to engage in that mediate, legitimate threat to their
conclusion that he has every right to kind of legal sophistry, it leaves the candidates because the election is only
do that, to use the intelligence agen- country completely unprotected from a 8 months away.
cies or the Justice Department to in- President who would abuse his power Let’s talk about some of the things
vestigate a rival. And when they be- in this way. That cannot be what the the President has done. We have re-
come a rival, it is even more justified. Framers had in mind. placed NAFTA with the historic MCA.
But you are absolutely right. If Sec- The Constitution is not a suicide We have killed a terrorist—al-Baghdadi
retary Pompeo was correct and you pact. It does not require us to sur- and Soleimani. We secured $738 billion
can’t use your own intelligence agen- render our common sense. Our common to rebuild the military. There have
cies, you sure shouldn’t be able to use sense, as well as our morality, tells us been more than 7 million jobs created
the Russian ones or the Ukrainian what the President did was wrong. since the election. Illegal border cross-
ones. ings are down 78 percent since May,
When a President sacrifices the na-
And here we have the President on and 100 miles of the wall have been
tional security interests of the coun-
that phone call pushing out this Rus- built. The unemployment rate is the
sian propaganda, this Russian intel- try, it is not only wrong, but it is dan-
gerous. When a President says, as we lowest in 50 years. More Americans—
ligence service propaganda—
saw just a moment ago, over and over nearly 160 million—are employed than
CrowdStrike, the server, as if there was
again, he will continue to do it if left ever before. The African-American un-
just one server and it was whisked
in office, it is dangerous. The Framers employment, the Hispanic-American
away to Ukraine; the Ukrainians
provided a remedy, and we urge you to unemployment, the Asian-American
hacked the server and not the Rus-
use it. unemployment has the lowest rate ever
sians. A made-for-you-in-the-Kremlin
The CHIEF JUSTICE. Thank you, recorded. Women’s unemployment re-
conspiracy theory that undermines our
Mr. Manager. cently hit the lowest rate in more than
own intelligence agencies but suits the
Mr. BRAUN. Mr. Chief Justice. 65 years. Every U.S. metropolitan area
political interests of the President.
And his legal agent, Rudy Giuliani, is The CHIEF JUSTICE. The Senator saw per capita growth in 2018. Real
out there peddling this fiction. The from Indiana. wages have gone up by 8 percent for the
President himself is out there pro- Mr. BRAUN. I ask to send a question low-income workers. Real median
moting this fiction, standing side by to the desk on my behalf and Senator household income is now the highest
side with Vladimir Putin. BARRASSO’s for the President’s counsel. level ever recorded. Forty million
But you are absolutely right. It The CHIEF JUSTICE. Thank you. fewer people live in households receiv-
would be a monumental abuse of The question from Senators BRAUN ing government assistance. We signed
power, and it is a monumental abuse of and BARRASSO for counsel for the Presi- the biggest package of tax cuts and re-
power. And if you don’t think abuse of dent: forms in history. Since then, over $1
power is impeachable, well, don’t take The House Managers have said the country trillion has poured back into the
my word for it. Don’t take, earlier, must be saved from this President, and he United States. Six hundred and fifty
does not have the best interests of the Amer- thousand single mothers have been lift-
Professor Dershowitz’ word for it or
ican people and their families in mind. Do ed out of poverty. We secured the larg-
Jonathan Turley’s word for it. Let’s you wish to respond to that claim?
look to our Attorney General. This is est ever increase for childcare funding,
what he said: ‘‘Under the Framers’ Mr. Counsel HERSCHMANN. Mr. helping more than 800,000 low-income
plan, the determination whether the Chief Justice, Members of the Senate, families access high-quality, affordable
President is making decisions based on while the House managers are coming care. We passed, as Manager JEFFRIES
improper motives’’—something that before you and accusing the President will recall, bipartisan criminal justice
Professor Dershowitz says we are not of doing things, in their words, solely reform. Prescription drugs have re-
allowed to consider—‘‘based on ‘im- for personal and political gain and ceived the largest price decrease in
proper’ motives or whether he is ‘faith- claiming that he is not doing things in over half a century. Drug overdose
fully’ discharging his responsibilities is the best interests of the American peo- deaths fell nationwide in 2018 for the
left to the People, through the election ple, the American people are telling first time in nearly 30 years.
process, and the Congress, through the you just the opposite. The Gallup poll from just 3 days ago
Impeachment process. . . . The fact The President’s approval ratings, says that President Trump’s upbeat
that [the] President is answerable for while we are sitting here in the middle view of the Nation’s economy, military
any abuses of discretion and is ulti- of these impeachment proceedings, strength, economic opportunity, and
mately subject to the judgment of Con- have hit an alltime high. A recent poll overall quality of life will likely reso-
gress through the impeachment process shows that the American people are nate with Americans when he delivers
means that the President is not the the happiest they have been with the the State of the Union Address to Con-
judge in his own cause.’’ direction of the country in 15 years. gress next week.
Their own Attorney General doesn’t Whether it is the economy, security, If all that is solely—solely, in their
agree with their theory of the case. But military preparedness, safer streets, or words—for his personal and political
again, we don’t have to rely on Bill safer neighborhoods, they are all way gain and not in the best interests of
Barr’s opinion or Alan Dershowitz’ up. We, the American people, are the American people, then I say: God
opinion or my opinion or the consensus happier. Yet the House managers tell bless him. Keep doing it. Keep doing it.
of constitutional scholars everywhere; you that the President needs to be re- Keep doing it.
we can rely on our common sense. The moved because he is an immediate Maybe if the House managers stop
conclusion that a President can abuse threat to our country. opposing him and harassing him and

his power by corruptly entering into a Listen to the words that they just harassing everyone associated with
quid pro quo to get a foreign intel- said: We—we, the American people— him, with the constant letters and the
ligence service or a foreign government cannot decide who should be our Presi- constant investigations, maybe we can
or foreign leader to do their political dent because, as they tell us—and these even get more done.
dirty work and help them cheat in the are their words—‘‘we cannot be assured Let’s try something different now.
election—our common sense tells us that the vote will be fairly won.’’ Do Join us. Join us. One Nation. One Na-
that cannot be compatible with the Of- you really, really believe that? Do you tion. One people. Enough is enough.
fice of the Presidency. really think so little of the American Stop all of this.

VerDate Sep 11 2014 05:59 Jan 31, 2020 Jkt 099060 PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 4624 Sfmt 0634 E:\CR\FM\G30JA6.015 S30JAPT1
Thank you. if you can prove a corrupt motive. If I House managers have spent a lot of
Mr. BENNET. Mr. Chief Justice. am offered a bribe and I accept the time today trying to go back and argue
The CHIEF JUSTICE. The Senator bribe for corrupt motive, I will not be about why their proceeding was all
from Colorado. heard in defense to say: Oh, I would right, but they are not actually engag-
Mr. BENNET. Thank you. I send a have voted for the bill anyway; it was ing the real issues.
question to the desk from myself and a good bill. You don’t inquire into In order for the House to exercise the
Senator SCHATZ and Senator MENEN- other motives. Maybe you had good power of impeachment, there has to be
DEZ. motives, but once the corrupt motive a delegation of that authority to a
The CHIEF JUSTICE. Thank you. and the corrupt act was established, committee. That is just a fundamental
The question from Senators BENNET, principle that the Constitution gives
there is no comparison.
MENENDEZ, and SCHATZ is to the House power to the House itself, not to indi-
All of this is just nonsense to point
managers: vidual Members of the House, not to
away from the fact that the President
If the Senate accepts the President’s blan-
has been proven beyond a shadow of a the Speaker. Just as here in the Senate
ket assertion of privilege in the House im-
peachment inquiry, what are the con- doubt—and the defenders don’t even you wouldn’t think that the majority
sequences to the American people? How will bother, really, to defend; they just leader could say—if an impeachment
the Senate ensure that the current president come out with distractions—has been arrived, the majority leader could say:
or a future president will remain transparent proven beyond a reasonable doubt to Guess what. We are not going to do a
and accountable? How will this affect the have abused his power by violating the trial with the whole Senate. I, the ma-
separation of powers? And, in this context, law to withhold military aid from a jority leader, will decide I will have
could you address the President’s counsel’s one committee hear the evidence, pro-
claim that the President’s advisers are enti-
foreign country to extort that country
tled to the same protections as a whistle- into helping his reelection campaign vide a summary, and then you all can
blower? by slandering his opponent. Corrupt— vote.
no question. Violation of the law—no The majority leader doesn’t have the
Mr. Manager NADLER. Mr. Chief
Justice, Members of the Senate, privi- question. Factually—no question. They authority on his own to do that. The
leges are limited. We have voted to im- don’t even make a real attempt to deny Speaker doesn’t have the authority in
peach the President for, among other it. Everything is a distraction. the House to give the power of im-
things—article II of the impeachment And the one chief distraction is, once peachment to any committee to start
is total defiance of House subpoenas. you prove a corrupt act, that is it. You pursuing an inquiry, and this is the
And the President announced it in never measure the degree of, maybe he key. There is no rule giving any com-
advance: I will defy all the subpoenas. had decent motives too. Professor mittee in the House the authority to
What does this mean? It means that Dershowitz, in talking about that and use the power of impeachment. Rule X
there is no information to Congress. It in talking about the absolute power of speaks of legislative authority, not
means the claim of monarchical, dic- the Presidency, was just absent from power of impeachment, and all the sub-
tatorial power. If Congress has no in- American law or any kind of Western poenas that were issued came with let-
formation, it cannot act. If the Presi- law. ters saying on them: Pursuant to the
dent can define—now, he can dispute I yield back. House’s impeachment inquiry. They
certain specific claims. You can claim The CHIEF JUSTICE. Thank you, purported to be using a power that
privilege, et cetera. But to defy cat- Mr. Manager. hadn’t actually been delegated to the
egorically all subpoenas, to announce Mr. PERDUE. Mr. Chief Justice. committee. That is the first flaw—ille-
in advance you are going to do that The CHIEF JUSTICE. The Senator gitimate, unlawful proceeding from the
and to do it, is to say that Congress has from Georgia. start.
no power at all, that only the executive Mr. PERDUE. I send a question to Then there are the due process laws.
has power. the desk for the President’s counsel on Three stages of the hearings: One, se-
That is why article II is impeaching behalf of myself, Senator ERNST, and cret hearings in the basement bunker;
him for abuse of Congress. That is why, Senator BARRASSO. the President is locked out. No oppor-
for a much lesser degree of offense, The CHIEF JUSTICE. Thank you. tunity to cross-examine witnesses, to
Richard Nixon was impeached for abuse The question from Senators PERDUE, see the evidence, to present evidence.
of Congress—for the same defiance of ERNST, and BARRASSO for counsel for And then, they go from that to the
any attempt by the Congress to inves- the President is as follows: public hearings, what was really just a
tigate. Please summarize the House of Represent-
public show trial, because the Presi-
What are the consequences? The con- atives’ three-stage investigation and how the dent is still cut out, totally unprece-
sequences, if this is to be—if he is to President was denied due process in each dented in any Presidential impeach-
get away with it, is that any subpoena stage. Combined with Manager SCHIFF’s re- ment—that there would be that second
you vote in the future, any information peated leaks during the House’s investiga- phase of public hearings where the
you want in the future from any future tion, do these due-process violations make President is still cut out, can’t present
this impeachment the fruit of the poisonous evidence. The minority Members don’t
President may be denied you, with no tree?
excuses, announced in advance—I will have equal subpoena authority.
defy all the subpoenas. It eviscerates Mr. Counsel PHILBIN. Mr. Chief Jus- In the third phase in front of the
Congress and establishes the executive tice, Senators, thank you for that House Judiciary Committee, they pur-
department as a total dictatorship. question. The short answer, as I think port to have offered rights, but I have
That is the consequence. I have indicated a couple of the times explained that. It was illusory because
I want to also talk about—and the I have been up here, is, yes, this entire they had already decided. Before the
motives are clearly dictatorial. proceeding here is now the fruit of the President was even supposed to respond
I want to also take a point, since I poisonous tree. It is the fruit of a pro- to what rights he would like to exer-
have the floor, to answer a question— ceeding that was fatally deficient in cise, the Speaker had announced the
to comment on a question that Senator due process from the start to the begin- result that there were going to be Arti-
COLLINS and Senator MURKOWSKI asked ning. As a result of that, it produced a cles of Impeachment. The Judiciary
yesterday. They asked about the ques- record that is totally unreliable, can’t Committee decided they weren’t going
tion of mixed motives. How do you de- be relied on here for any conclusion to hear from any fact witnesses. They
fine—how do you deal with a deed— other than acquitting the President. had no plans for hearings. It was all a

with a President who may have a cor- Let me detail the three phases. foregone conclusion because they had
rupt motive and a fine motive? How do The first error was the House began to get it done by Christmas.
you deal with it? the proceeding in a totally unconstitu- And the third error: Chairman SCHIFF
Professor Dershowitz said: Well, you tional, unlawful, and illegitimate man- was in charge of all the fact-finding
have to look at the—you have to mix. ner that started with an impeachment and he had an interest, because of the
You have to weigh the balances. inquiry without any vote of the House interactions of his office with the whis-
Nonsense. Nonsense. We never, in to authorize that inquiry. I want to tleblower that we still don’t know
American law, look at decent motives spend a second on this because the about, to shut down questioning about

VerDate Sep 11 2014 01:37 Jan 31, 2020 Jkt 099060 PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 4624 Sfmt 0634 E:\CR\FM\G30JA6.017 S30JAPT1
the motives, the bias, the reasons that partment of Defense, State Depart- The CHIEF JUSTICE. Thank you,
the whistleblower—how this all came ment, and the Office of Management Mr. Manager.
about. and Budget regarding that aid. That is The Senator from Maine.
All three of those errors affected this the interagency process that we have Ms. COLLINS. Mr. Chief Justice, I
process from the very beginning. They talked so much about—the interagency send a question to the desk on behalf of
resulted in a one-sided, slanted fact- process that we went through earlier myself and Senators CRAPO, BLUNT, and
finding that was rushed by a person last year. And at the conclusion of that RUBIO.
controlling the fact-finding who had a interagency process, it was determined The CHIEF JUSTICE. Thank you.
motive to limit what facts would be al- that it had met all the conditions for The question from Senator COLLINS
lowed to get into the proceedings and the aid and all the agencies determined and the other Senators for both par-
produced a record that cannot possibly that it should go forward. The Presi- ties:
be relied on here. We said many times dent would then seek permission from Are there legitimate circumstances under
that the Supreme Court has made clear Congress that he intended—normally, which a President could request a foreign
that cross-examination is the greatest if there was a reason, the President country to investigate a U.S. citizen, includ-
legal engine ever invented for the dis- would go back and seek permission ing a political rival, who is not under inves-
covery of truth. And they didn’t permit from Congress—to hold the aid. So let tigation by the U.S. government? If so, what
are they and how do they apply to the
the President the opportunity to cross- me repeat that. If there were a reason present case?
examine anyone. And that is an indica- to hold it, the President—and Presi-
tion that the goal was not a search for dent Trump has done this in the past The House goes first.
the truth. It was a partisan charade in- under legitimate processes, as has Mr. Manager SCHIFF. Mr. Chief Jus-
tended to justify a preordained result President Obama and prior Presi- tice, Senator.
and to get it done by Christmas, and it dents—would go back to Congress It would be hard for me to con-
is not a record that can be relied on under predescribed processes and make template circumstances where that
here. sure that they are not violating the would be appropriate, where it would
Thank you. Impoundment Control Act and seek be appropriate for the President of the
The CHIEF JUSTICE. Thank you, permission to hold it. That did not hap- United States to seek a political inves-
counsel. pen. tigation of an opponent.
The Senator from Illinois. Congress would then weigh in on the One of the, I think, most important
Ms. DUCKWORTH. Mr. Chief Justice, request by approving or denying the post-Watergate reforms was to divorce
I send a question to the desk for the President’s request. Unless Congress decisions about specific cases, specific
House managers. specifically approves the President’s prosecutions from the White House to
The CHIEF JUSTICE. Thank you. request, the aid must be made avail- the Justice Department, to build a
The question from Senator able. Of course, none of that happened. wall. One of the many norms that has
DUCKWORTH for the House managers: In this instance, a hold was put in broken down in this Presidency is that
place. We don’t know exactly when be- wall has been obliterated, where the
If the hold on aid to Ukraine was meant to
be kept secret until the President could cause the President and his agencies President has affirmatively and aggres-
gather internal U.S. government information have prevented us, and his counsel pre- sively sought to investigate his rivals.
on Ukraine corruption and European cost vented us, from getting that informa- I cannot conceive of circumstances
sharing, then is there any documentary evi- tion. But a hold was put in place. No where that is appropriate.
dence of this? For example, is there any evi- reason was given. The only one in the It may be appropriate for the Justice
dence that the President was briefed on United States Government who appar- Department, acting independently and
those issues by the NSC, DOD or State De- in good faith, to initiate an investiga-
partment during the period of the hold in the
ently knows why that hold was put in
place is President’s counsel, who tried tion. There is a process for doing that.
summer of 2019, or any evidence that he re-
to tell us last night why he thinks the We heard testimony about doing that.
quested specific information on anti-corrup-
tion reform measures in Ukraine? Prior to hold was put in place, but nobody else You can make a request under the mu-
releasing the aid on September 11, 2019, did knows. tual legal assistance treaty, MLAT,
the President order any changes to Adminis- So yes, the answer is if there was a process when a foreign country has evi-
tration policy to address corruption in legitimate policy process put in place, dence involving a criminal case involv-
Ukraine or burden sharing with our Euro- there will be a lot of information about ing a U.S. person. There is a legitimate
pean allies? way to do that.
burden-sharing, about corruption,
Mr. Manager CROW. Mr. Chief Jus- about any of the other concerns to That didn’t happen here. In fact,
tice. Thank you, Senator, for that which we have no evidence. when Bill Barr’s name was first re-
question. And if burden-sharing—to the last vealed, when that transcript was
Let’s just take a moment and address point of the question—was a concern, brought to light, the Justice Depart-
what the process should have looked then the person who should have been ment immediately said: We have noth-
like, because, as we have already estab- asked to discuss those concerns with ing to do with this—nothing to do with
lished and as President’s counsel has the EU and our European partners this. Here, this particular domestic po-
conceded and we have conceded, this would have been Ambassador Sondland, litical error was being done by the
does happen. Right? There is a legiti- because he is the United States Ambas- President’s personal lawyer.
mate policy process for review and for sador to the European Union. And not I want to just follow up also while I
determination on hold because there is, once did President Trump go to Ambas- can, Senator, on my colleague’s com-
indeed, legitimate policy reasons to sador Sondland and say: Discuss these ments in terms of mixed-motives. If
hold aid. And we have never said that issues with the EU and the Europeans, you conclude the President acted with
corruption is not one of those or bur- saying they need to provide more mixed-motives—some corrupt and for-
den-sharing wouldn’t be one of those. money. Not once did that happen, and bidden, some legitimate—you should
What we are saying is that there is no it didn’t happen because it wasn’t the vote to commit. That principle is deep-
evidence that what we are talking real concern. ly rooted in our legal tradition. It is
about today—- that the President was All the evidence shows the President commonplace in civil and criminal law
concerned or engaged in that process. withheld taxpayer money, foreign aid going back centuries.
So what would normally happen is to our partner at war to coerce them to For example, in describing the stand-

Congress would come together as we start a political investigation to ben- ard for corrupt motive for obstruction,
did. We passed appropriations bills, and efit his 2020 election campaign. That is the 7th Circuit rejected any require-
we made the determination that fund- what the evidence shows, and that is ment that a defendant’s only or main
ing was appropriate for the aid, which why we are still here. And there is one purpose was to obstruct the due admin-
87 Members of the Senate did this past person that can provide additional in- istration of justice and, instead, the
year. The President would then rely on formation on that, and that is Ambas- court explained a defendant is guilty if
the advice of government experts from sador Bolton. And, yes, it is still a good his motives included any corrupt, for-
the National Security Council, the De- time to subpoena Ambassador Bolton. bidden goals. That case, United States

VerDate Sep 11 2014 01:37 Jan 31, 2020 Jkt 099060 PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 4624 Sfmt 0634 E:\CR\FM\G30JA6.019 S30JAPT1
v. Cueto, which I cited earlier, is not that would mean a criminal investiga- fied, not including the 18th witness, the
only relevant here, but that case was tion here in the United States. So that ICIG, whose testimony is still secret.
argued by Professor Derschowitz and could arise in various circumstances So there was quite a bit of testi-
he lost. He made the argument he has where a person had done something mony, and there have been, subse-
made and the President’s lawyer have overseas, but there was a national in- quently, some documents relevant to
made today. They lost that case and terest in knowing what they had done. this, produced under FOIA. I just want
for a good reason. It is contrary to the Thank you. to raise that because it makes clear
history of our legal traditions. If some- The CHIEF JUSTICE. Thank you, that, if you follow the law and you fol-
one, and this is—the Founders were counsel. low the rules and you make a docu-
concerned, for example, that a Presi- The Democratic leader is recognized. ment request that is valid, documents
dent might be charged with bribing Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. Chief Justice, I get produced. If you don’t follow the
managers of the electoral college. send a question to the desk for Presi- law, the administration resists. That is
The CHIEF JUSTICE. The Presi- dent’s counsel and the House man- why the documents were not pro-
dent’s counsel. agers. duced—because the subpoenas were in-
Mr. Counsel PHILBIN. Mr. Chief Jus- The CHIEF JUSTICE. Thank you. valid. We made that very clear.
tice, Senators, thank you for that The Democratic leader’s question is Thank you.
question. this: The CHIEF JUSTICE. Thank you,
I would like to start by pointing out Yesterday I asked the President’s Counsel counsel.
that the question sort of assumes that about the President’s claim of absolute im- Mr. Manager SCHIFF. The quick an-
there is a request for an investigation munity. Specifically, I asked the President’s swer, Senator, is that not a single doc-
in a foreign country of a United States lawyers to name a single document or wit- ument was turned over and not a single
person. ness that the President turned over to the witness was produced. The witnesses
I would just like to bring it back, House impeachment inquiry in response to
their request or subpoena. Mr. Philbin spoke
who did come came in defiance of the
though, here, to the transcript of the orders of the President.
July 25 call, where President Trump for 5 minutes and talked about the various
types of immunities and privileges the Presi- Counsel has, obviously, made all of
didn’t ask President Zelensky, specifi- these claims that we think are com-
dent could invoke, but did not answer my
cally, for an investigation or investiga- question. So I ask once again, can you name pletely spurious, but what they don’t
tion into Vice President Biden or his a single witness or document that the Presi- answer is, what was the motivation to
son Hunter. There is a lot of loose talk dent turned over to the House impeachment fight all of these subpoenas?
in sort of shorthand reference to it inquiry? They argue this interpretation which
that way. It is directed to both parties, and the the courts have rejected—that the
What he refers to is the incident in President’s counsel goes first. courts have looked at it and that some-
which the prosecutor was fired. The Mr. Counsel PHILBIN. Mr. Chief Jus- how these subpoenas were invalid. But
first thing that he says in that whole tice, Minority Leader SCHUMER, thank why didn’t they produce the docu-
exchange is talking about the pros- you for that question. I apologize if I ments? Why did they insist on this
ecutor being fired—and he says it was not direct at getting to the nub of ‘‘now discredited by the courts’’ legal
sounds horrible to him—and the situa- the question yesterday. theory? Because they were covering up
tion with Burisma. And all the Presi- I was intending to explain the ration- the President’s misconduct.
dent says is: ‘‘So if you can look into ales that the administration had pro- I want to return briefly to finish the
it. . . . It sounds horrible.’’ It sounds vided for its actions and to explain, comments I was making earlier about
like a bad situation.
contrary to the question, that there the Senator’s question earlier on mixed
That is not calling for an investiga-
was not simply absolute defiance and motives.
tion, necessarily, into Vice President
Biden or his son, but the situation in not simply a blanket assertion that we There is a good reason mixed motives
which the prosecutor had been fired won’t do anything. That is the way the are no defense. Otherwise, officials who
which affected anti-corruption efforts House managers have tried to charac- commit misconduct could always claim
in the Ukraine. terize it. that, even if they did it and even if it
President Zelensky responded by say- So let me be clear. There were docu- were corrupt, they must be acquitted
ing the issue of the investigation of the ment subpoenas issued prior to the because they were able to invent some
case is actually the issue of making adoption of H. Res. 660. The President phony motivation and insist it played
sure to restore the honesty. So we will explained—the administration ex- some minor role in their scheme.
take care of that. He is explaining that plained—in various letters that all of Imagine how that principle would
he understands that it is an issue that those were invalid, and there were no apply to a President charged with
has to do with, was an investigation documents produced in response. There bribing members of the electoral col-
over there, which their prosecutor was were no documents produced in re- lege. Multiple Framers cited this spe-
handling, derailed in a way that af- sponse because all of those subpoenas cific threat while discussing impeach-
fected their anti-corruption efforts, were invalid. There was no attempt to ment at the Constitutional Conven-
and was it something worth looking reissue those subpoenas or to retro- tion. Could a President defend himself
into? actively attempt to authorize them. on the ground that he was motivated,
It is the President’s making clear There were then subpoenas for wit- in part, by a noble desire to reward
that we are not saying that it is off- nesses who were senior advisers to the members of the electoral college for
limits. It sounds bad to the U.S. as President. The President advised the their public service? Could he defend it
well. head of the committees that had issued on the ground that, even as he handed
Let me get more specifically to the those that those senior advisers had over the bribes, he wasn’t just acting
question of, Is there any situation absolute immunity, and they were not corruptly but was also seeking to ad-
where it might be legitimate to ask for produced for testimony. Those three vance the public interest by keeping
an investigation overseas? senior advisers were not produced. himself in power? According to the
Yes. If there were conduct by a U.S. There were then subpoenas for wit- President’s lawyers, yes, he could.
person overseas that potentially vio- nesses to others whom the House Indeed, for all of the reasons we pro-
lated the law of that country but didn’t Democrats insisted would be required vided, there is no doubt that the Presi-
violate the law of this country but to testify without the benefit of agency dent’s quid pro quo, the solicitation of

there were a national interest in hav- counsel, and I have explained that prin- foreign interference, and his use of offi-
ing some information about that and ciple. The Office of Legal Counsel ad- cial acts to compel that interference
understanding what went on, then it vised that those subpoenas attempting were a fundamentally corrupt scheme,
would be perfectly legitimate to sug- to require executive branch officials to by which I mean the motive and intent
gest that this was something worth testify without the benefit of agency was to benefit himself—to obtain per-
looking into. counsel were unconstitutional, and so sonal political gain while ignoring and
We have an interest in knowing those witnesses were not produced. injuring core national interests in our
about this, even if it is not something Still, there were 17 witnesses who testi- democracy and our security.

VerDate Sep 11 2014 01:37 Jan 31, 2020 Jkt 099060 PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 4624 Sfmt 0634 E:\CR\FM\G30JA6.020 S30JAPT1
We have demonstrated, we believe, tential objections for hearsay and that it is already overwhelming. It is
that the scheme was entirely corrupt, other evidentiary objections. already proven.
but if you have any question about You have also heard here the argu- There is no need to go on to anything
that, ask John Bolton. If there is any ments that have been presented, along else when you have already seen so
question about whether the motive was with presentation of both the documen- much and House managers had their
mixed or not mixed, ask John Bolton. tary and testimonial evidence by video chance to prepare their case.
He has relevant testimony. You can clip and by slides that were put up. And, again, I would also just make
ask, also, Mick Mulvaney. You have heard arguments for up to 24 the point to bear in mind what is the
You can subpoena the documents and hours from each side. We didn’t take set—what precedent would be set if
answer the earlier questions as to what all of our time. The House managers this Chamber has to become the inves-
the documents say about when the argued for over 21 hours, putting on, tigatory body for impeachments that
President withheld the aid and whether with their video clips and their ex- were not prepared properly in the
there was any interagency discussion cerpts from documents in the record, House.
of reforms in the errata. I mean, the their case. Thank you.
President’s counsel literally made the So at this point there has been a lot The CHIEF JUSTICE. Thank you,
argument that the circumstance that put on here in terms of a trial. You counsel.
changed was a change in the errata, have seen the witnesses in the clips— The Senator from Arizona.
but there is no evidence to support all the most relevant parts. You have Ms. SINEMA. Mr. Chief Justice, I
that idea. seen the documents put up in excerpts submit a question to the desk for the
The CHIEF JUSTICE. The manager’s on screens. President’s counsel on behalf of myself,
time has expired. And as a result of this, the House Senator MANCHIN, Senator MURKOWSKI,
The majority leader is recognized. managers have consistently said over and Senator COLLINS.
RECESS and over again—before they came here, The CHIEF JUSTICE. Thank you.
Mr. MCCONNELL. Mr. Chief Justice, they said they had an overwhelming The question from Senator SINEMA
I ask unanimous consent that the Sen- case. It was already buttoned down. and the other Senators for counsel for
ate stand in recess until 4 p.m. They didn’t need anything else. the President:
There being no objection, at 3:37 They said when they got here that it The Logan Act prohibits any U.S. citizen
was proven—every single allegation, without the authority of the United States
p.m., the Senate, sitting as a Court of
every line in each Article of Impeach- from communicating with any foreign gov-
Impeachment, recessed until 4:03 p.m.; ernment with the intent to influence that
whereupon the Senate reassembled ment. They said: Proven, proven, prov-
government’s conduct in relation to any con-
when called to order by the CHIEF JUS- en. troversy with the United States. Will the
TICE. We don’t think that that is true, but President assure the American public that
The CHIEF JUSTICE. The Senator those are their words. That is what private citizens will not be directed to con-
from Idaho. they are telling you—that they have duct American foreign policy or national se-
Mr. CRAPO. Mr. Chief Justice, I send had sufficient evidence to make their curity policy, unless they have been specifi-
a question to the desk on behalf of my- case. They said ‘‘proven,’’ ‘‘sufficient,’’ cally and formally designated by the Presi-
‘‘uncontested,’’ and ‘‘overwhelming’’ at dent and the State Department to do so?
self and Senators RISCH, GRAHAM,
ERNST, FISCHER, CRUZ, and PERDUE. least 68 times in the proceedings on the Mr. Counsel PHILBIN. Mr. Chief Jus-
The CHIEF JUSTICE. Thank you. floor here. tice, Senators, thank you for the ques-
The question from Senator CRAPO Manager NADLER told us just today tion.
and the other Senators for counsel for that they think they have not only Let me preface—let me answer in
the President: proved it beyond a reasonable doubt several parts.
How many witnesses have been presented but beyond any doubt because of the The first is, I just want to make clear
to the Senate at this point in this trial, how evidence that they have already put on that there was no conduct of foreign
many pages of documentary evidence have in front of you. policy being carried on here by a pri-
been put in the record before the Senate in We don’t think that is true. We think vate person.
this trial, and how many other clips and we have demonstrated it is not. The testimony was clear from Am-
transcripts of evidence have been presented But the point is that the House man- bassador Volker—and I assume that
to the Senate in this trial? agers have already put on a substantial the reference would be to Mr. Giuliani,
Mr. Counsel PHILBIN. Mr. Chief Jus- amount of testimony from witnesses the President’s private counsel. Am-
tice, Senators, thank you for that through their clips of prior deposition bassador Volker was clear that he un-
question. and hearing testimony. They have al- derstood Mr. Giuliani just to be a
I think it is important to recognize ready presented to you a large portion source of information for the President
that—because the House managers of the most relevant documents from and someone who knew about Ukraine
keep talking about the need for wit- those 28,000. You have heard from the and someone who spoke to the Presi-
nesses, you can’t have a trial without witnesses; you have seen where their dent.
witnesses—you have seen a lot of wit- testimony conflicts. You can see which And, in fact, it was the testimony
nesses. There were 17 witnesses who is the better, more persuasive version that it was the Ukrainians, Andriy
were deposed and testified—12 in pub- of the facts. Yermak, who asked to be connected to
lic, 17 who were in closed hearings You have been able to see what it is Mr. Giuliani simply because he was
below. that they have in the record that they someone who could provide informa-
So far you have seen in these presen- say was overwhelming—already ready tion to the President.
tations 192 video clips from 13 different to go to trial—and this proceeding, And Ambassador Volker testified
witnesses. So testimony was shown therefore, has already had a lot of the that it was not his understanding, he
here to you. Just as you would in a earmarks of a trial. did not believe, that Mr. Giuliani was
trial in an ordinary court sometimes So don’t be taken in by the idea that carrying out policy directives of the
play the video of a deposition instead we can’t have a trial here, you can’t President but, rather, indicating his
of having the witness take the stand, have a valid proceeding unless they views of what he thought would be
you have seen video clips from 13 dif- bring someone in here to testify live, something useful for the Ukrainians to
ferent witnesses. because it wouldn’t be just one person. convince the President of their anti-

The House managers dramatically If we start to go down that route, it is corruption bona fides. So I just wanted
wheeled into the Senate a record—I not presenting the case that was pre- to make that point.
think it was reported as being 29,000 pared in the hearings below; it is open- It is, of course, the President’s policy
pages. I think the more official number ing up discovery for an entirely new always to abide by the laws, and I am
is 28,578 pages. So you have got over case, and there would have to be depo- not in a position to make pledges for
28,000 pages of documents submitted sitions and witnesses on both sides, and the President here, but the President’s
into the record provisionally in evi- there is no need to do that if they real- policy is always to abide by the laws,
dence in this trial, subject later to po- ly believe what they are telling you— and we continue to do so.

VerDate Sep 11 2014 05:16 Jan 31, 2020 Jkt 099060 PO 00000 Frm 00016 Fmt 4624 Sfmt 0634 E:\CR\FM\G30JA6.021 S30JAPT1
I think it is worth pointing out that tive, and I would simply say that that The CHIEF JUSTICE. Thank you,
many Presidents, starting with Presi- is so clear that there is no question counsel.
dent Washington, have relied on per- that it was a political motive against a I haven’t specified this before, but I
sons who are their trusted confidants specific individual. think it would be best if Senators di-
but who are not actually employees of There are about 1.8 million compa- rected their questions to one of the
the government to assist in the con- nies in Ukraine. The estimates were parties or both and leave it up to them
duct of foreign diplomacy. that about half of them were corrupt. to figure out who they want to go up to
President Washington relied on The President chose one—the one with bat, rather than particular counsel.
Gouverneur Morris to carry messages Mr. Biden. The Senator from Illinois.
in certain circumstances, I believe, to The CHIEF JUSTICE. Thank you, Mr. DURBIN. Mr. Chief Justice, now
the French. FDR had his confidants Mr. Manager. I send a question to the desk.
whom he relied on in certain cir- Mr. Counsel PHILBIN. Mr. Chief Jus- The CHIEF JUSTICE. The question
cumstances to be a go-between with tice, Senators, thank you for the ques- from Senator DURBIN to the House
foreign powers, and there is a list of tion. managers:
I think the short answer is no; the Would you please respond to the answer
others. They were mentioned in some
President should not be impeached. that was given by President’s counsel to
of the testimony during the House pro- Senator SINEMA’s question?
ceedings. And I think what the focus of the ques-
tion is getting at is to the situation of Mr. Manager SCHIFF. Senators, Mr.
So I don’t think that there is any-
mixed motives, which has come up a Chief Justice, in answer to that ques-
thing—again, as I said, it was not here,
couple of times here. tion, we heard a rather breathtaking
but there would not be anything im-
If the President, as chief law enforce- admission by the President’s lawyer,
proper for a President in some cir-
ment officer, head of the executive and it was said in an understated way,
cumstances to rely on a personal con- so you might have missed it. But what
fidant to be able to convey messages or branch, is in a situation where there is
a legitimate investigation being pur- the President’s counsel said was that
receive messages back and forth from a no foreign policy was being conducted
foreign government that would relate sued and he indicates that it should be
pursued, is it possible that he should be by a private party here; that is, Rudy
to the President’s conduct in foreign Giuliani was not conducting U.S. for-
affairs. That is not prohibited but impeached for that if there is some dis-
pute about his motives, whether there eign policy. Rudy Giuliani was not con-
within his authority under the Con- ducting policy.
stitution under article II. is a legitimate basis for that conduct?
The answer is no, and the House man- That is a remarkable admission be-
Thank you. cause, to the degree that they have at-
The CHIEF JUSTICE. Thank you, agers themselves, in the way they
tempted to suggest or claim or insinu-
counsel. framed their case, recognized this.
In the House Judiciary Committee ate that this is a policy difference, that
Mr. KENNEDY. Your Honor. a concern over burden-sharing or some
The CHIEF JUSTICE. The Senator report, they repeatedly say that the
standard they are going to have to big corruption was a policy issue, they
from Louisiana. have now acknowledged that the per-
Mr. KENNEDY. Thank you, Your meet—they are going to have to show
that these are sham investigations; son in charge of this was not con-
Honor. On behalf of myself and Senator ducting policy. That is a startling ad-
ERNST, I send a question to the desk for these are baseless investigations that
they are alleging that the President mission.
Mr. NADLER and Mr. Philbin. So the investigations that Giuliani
The CHIEF JUSTICE. The question wanted to initiate; and they had no le-
was charged with trying to get Ukraine
from Senator KENNEDY and Senator gitimate—there was not any legitimate
to announce into Joe Biden, into this
ERNST to both parties, and the House basis for pursuing the investigation. I
Russia propaganda theory, they have
managers will be first: am pretty sure that is page 5 of the
just admitted were not part of policy.
If the president asks for an investigation of House Judiciary report.
They were not policy conducted by Mr.
possible corruption by a political rival under They use that standard and they talk
circumstances that objectively are in the na- about there not being a scintilla of evi- So what were they? They were, in the
tional interest, should the president be im- dence about anything that anyone words of Dr. Hill, ‘‘a domestic political
peached if a majority of the House believes could reasonably want to ask about re- errand,’’ not to be confused with pol-
the president is in it for the wrong reason? lated to the Bidens and Burisma be- icy. They have just undermined their
Mr. Manager NADLER. The Presi- cause they know they can’t get into a entire argument—even as to mixed mo-
dent, of course, is entitled to conduct mixed-motive scenario, because if you tives—because the man in charge of it
foreign policy; he is entitled to look have a legitimate basis for asking a was undergoing a domestic errand.
into corruption in the United States or question about something, if there is a You heard a suggestion that he was
elsewhere; he is entitled to use the De- legitimate national interest there, it is only doing this because he was asked
partment of State or any other Depart- totally unacceptable to start getting by Andriy Yermak. That is laughable.
ments in that effort. He is not entitled into the field of saying: Well, we are Giuliani tried to get the meeting with
to target an American citizen specifi- going to impeach the President and re- Zelensky, remember? And he couldn’t
cally, nor did he do so innocently here. move him from office by putting him get in the door, and then he announced
It was only after Mr. Biden became an on the psychiatrist’s couch to try to that there were enemies around Presi-
announced candidate for President that get inside his head and find out was it dent Zelensky. And then they go into
he suddenly decided that Ukraine 48 percent in this motive and 52 in the the phone call on July 25, and the
ought to look into the Bidens. other—or did he have some other ra- Ukrainians try to persuade the Presi-
And he made it very clear—he made tionale? No. If it is a legitimate in- dent: You don’t have enemies in
it very clear—that he wasn’t interested quiry in the national interest, that is Ukraine; we are only friends. And what
in an investigation; he was interested the end of it, and you can’t say that we was the President’s response? I want
in an announcement of an investiga- are going to impeach the President, re- you to ‘‘talk to Rudy.’’ That is not pol-
tion just so the Bidens could be move him from office, decapitate the icy being conducted; that is a personal,
smeared. executive branch of the government, political errand. They just undermined
So it is probably never suitable for a disrupt the functioning of the govern- their entire argument.
President to order an investigation of ment of the country in an election year Now the President’s counsel also es-

an American citizen. If he thinks there by trying to parse out subjective mo- sentially argues, in terms of witnesses,
is general corruption and there is an tives and which percentage of the mo- if their case is as strong as Mr. SCHIFF
investigation ongoing, the Justice De- tive was a good motive or some other and Mr. NADLER and others say, then
partment certainly can ask the foreign motive—something like that. If it is a why do they need witnesses? You know,
government to assist in an investiga- legitimate inquiry in the national in- you can imagine a scene in any court-
tion. But that wasn’t done here. The terest, if that possibility is there, if the room in America where, before the
President specifically targeted an indi- national interest is there, that is the trial begins, defense counsel for the de-
vidual with an obvious political mo- end of it. Thank you. fendant stands up and says: Your

VerDate Sep 11 2014 01:37 Jan 31, 2020 Jkt 099060 PO 00000 Frm 00017 Fmt 4624 Sfmt 0634 E:\CR\FM\G30JA6.023 S30JAPT1
Honor, if the prosecution’s case is so gerous because there is almost no way Mr. Manager SCHIFF. So it is cer-
strong, let them prove it without wit- to get inside someone’s head and parcel tainly true that when public officials
nesses. That is essentially what is out which percentage was one motive take actions, they may have in mind,
being argued here. and which percentage was another mo- when they make a policy judgment,
Well, I will make an offer to opposing tive. what is the impact on my political ca-
counsel, who have said that this will If you start down that path, it is to- reer going to be, or, what is the impact
stretch on indefinitely if you decide to tally amorphous. This is part of the going to be on my reelection prospects,
have a single witness: Let’s cabin the point that Professor Dershowitz was but that is a very different question
depositions to 1 week. making and that was made here a cou- than whether they can engage in a cor-
In the Clinton trial, it was 1 week of ple of times. This idea of impeaching a rupt act to help their election—in this
depositions, and do you know what the President on a theory of abuse of power case, to get foreign help to cheat in an
Senate did during that week? They did depends entirely on analyzing subjec- election.
the business of the Senate. The Senate tive motives because that is what the I think we can distinguish between
went back to its ordinary legislative House managers have suggested—that the fact that political actors have po-
business while the depositions were we are assuming there is an act, on its litical interests and what the Presi-
being conducted. If you want the Clin- face, that is legitimate and is within dent’s defense would argue, and that is,
ton model, let’s use the Clinton model. the President’s authority and is not, on if he believes it is in his reelection in-
Let’s take a week. its face, in any way unlawful or uncon- terest, then no quid pro quo is too cor-
Let’s take a week to have a fair trial. stitutional, but solely based on motive, rupt. If we go down that road, there is
You can continue your business. We we are going to impeach him. And by no limit to what this or any other
can get the business of the country saying ‘‘Well, if it was really directed President can do. There is no limit to
done. Is that too much to ask in the at the next election, that is the corrupt what foreign powers will feel they can
name of fairness, that we follow the motive,’’ that is a very dangerous path offer a corrupt President to help their
Clinton model, that we take 1 week? because there is always some eye on reelection if that is the precedent we
I mean, are we really driven by the the next election. intend to establish.
timing of the State of the Union? It ends up becoming a standard so The CHIEF JUSTICE. Thank you,
Should that be our guiding principle? malleable that it really is a substitute counsel. Thank you, Mr. Manager.
for a policy difference: If we don’t like The Senator from New Jersey.
Can’t we take 1 week to hear from Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Chief Justice, I
these witnesses? I think we can. I your policy, we attribute it to bad mo-
tives. That is something that Justice have a question, which I send to the
think we should. I think we must. desk and ask the House managers to
The CHIEF JUSTICE. Thank you, Iredell warned about in the North
Carolina ratifying convention, that if respond to it.
Mr. Manager. The CHIEF JUSTICE. Thank you.
The Senator from Alaska. you base something just on motive be-
cause of what he called ‘‘malignity of The question for the House managers
Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. Chief Justice, from Senator MENENDEZ:
party,’’ the other party will always at-
I send to the desk a question submitted The President was seeking investigations
tribute bad motives.
on behalf of myself and Senator from a foreign power based partly on what
The CHIEF JUSTICE. Thank you,
SCHATZ, directed to both White House counsel. Fiona Hill called ‘‘a fictional narrative per-
counsel and the House managers. Mr. Counsel PHILBIN. Thank you. petrated and propagated by the Russian se-
The CHIEF JUSTICE. Thank you. curity services.’’ The US Intelligence Com-
Mr. Manager SCHIFF. Senators, I
The question from Senators MUR- munity has warned that the Russian govern-
think the answer is yes. ment is already preparing to attack our elec-
KOWSKI and SCHATZ directed to both I think the answer is yes, that public tion in 2020, and the President has said pub-
parties: officials are inherently political ani- licly he would welcome foreign interference
Would you agree that almost any action a mals. I don’t mean that in the deroga- in our elections. Why should Americans be
President takes, or indeed any action the tory term. They run for office; they concerned about foreign interference and
vast majority of politicians take, is, to one hold office; they conduct acts as polit- why does it matter that the President con-
degree or another, inherently political? ical figures. But if we look at what tinues to solicit foreign interference in our
Where is the line between permissible polit- elections?
ical actions and impeachable political ac-
Hamilton had to say about the core of
offenses that warrant the impeachment Mr. Manager CROW. Mr. Chief Jus-
power, he talked about the crimes tice and Senator, thank you for the
The President’s counsel will go first. question.
being political in character and the
Mr. Counsel PHILBIN. Mr. Chief Jus- Let’s outline the facts that we do
remedies being political in character
tice, Senators, thank you for that know about today. None of the 17 wit-
because we are not talking about im-
question, and I think that the question nesses who testified as part of the
prisonment here. We are not talking
really hits the nail on the head. House’s impeachment inquiry were
about taking away someone’s liberty.
As I mentioned the other day, in a So we are talking about a political aware of any factual basis to support
representative democracy, elected offi- punishment for a political crime. Now, the allegations that it was Ukraine and
cials almost always have at least one what is a political crime? Yes, every- not Russia that interfered in the 2016
eye looking on to the next election and one in office has a political motivation. election. FBI Director Christopher
how their actions—their policy deci- But certainly that doesn’t mean that Wray, who was nominated by President
sions, their actions in office—will be we can’t draw a line between corrupt Trump and confirmed by this body,
received by the electorate, and there is activity that is undertaken, yes, for a stated as recently as this past Decem-
nothing wrong with that. That is good. political reason and noncorrupt activ- ber that we have no reason to believe
It is part of the way representative de- ity. Indeed, we have to draw that line. that Ukraine interfered in the 2016 U.S.
mocracy works. So having part of your Let’s show what Professor election. He said: ‘‘We have no informa-
motives being looking toward the next Dershowitz had to say about where we tion that indicates that Ukraine inter-
election, looking toward how that will should draw the line. fered with the 2016 Presidential elec-
affect electoral chances—that is part of (Text of Videotape presentation:) tion.’’
the nature of elected office. And to Mr. DERSHOWITZ. If a President does President Trump’s own Homeland Se-
start getting into motives about ‘‘Will something which he believes will help him curity advisor, Tom Bossert, said about
this affect my prospects in the next get elected—in the public interest—that can- this allegation: ‘‘It’s not only a con-

election?’’ and calling that corrupt, not be the kind of quid pro quo that results spiracy theory, it is completely de-
and, if you have got that as part of in impeachment. The fact that he has an- bunked.’’ He added: ‘‘Let me just re-
your motive, looking into whether you nounced his candidacy is a very good reason
peat here again, it has no validity.’’
for upping the interest in this son. If he
were doing something for electoral ad- And, of course, Ms. Hill, as the ques-
wasn’t running for President, he’s a has-
vantage and saying ‘‘That is going to been. He is the former Vice President of the tion indicated, said ‘‘fictional nar-
be a corrupt motive; we will say that United States. OK, big deal. But if he is run- rative that is being perpetrated and
you can be charged for wrongdoing ning for President, that is an enormous big propagated by the Russian security
with that or impeached’’ is very dan- deal. services themselves.’’

VerDate Sep 11 2014 01:37 Jan 31, 2020 Jkt 099060 PO 00000 Frm 00018 Fmt 4624 Sfmt 0634 E:\CR\FM\G30JA6.025 S30JAPT1
The U.S. intelligence community has Mr. Manager SCHIFF. First of all, Mr. SCHIFF put the whistleblower
unanimously determined that there is there have been a lot of attacks upon issue front and center with his own
no validity to this—our own intel- my staff, and, as I said when this issue words during the course of their inves-
ligence and law enforcement. Special came up earlier, I am appalled at some tigation. He talked about the whistle-
Counsel Mueller found that Russia’s in- of the spearing of the professional peo- blower testifying.
terference was ‘‘sweeping and system- ple that work for the Intelligence Com- Retribution is what is prohibited
atic.’’ mittee. under the statute, against a whistle-
But don’t take our own law enforce- Now, this question refers to allega- blower. That is what the whistleblower
ment and intelligence community’s tions in a newspaper article which are statute protects, that there is no ret-
word for it; let’s hear what Vladimir circulating smears on my staff and ribution. In other words, you are not
Putin himself said recently about this. asks me to respond to those smears, being fired from blowing the whistle.
In November of 2019, Mr. Putin was and I will not dignify those smears on But this idea that there is complete
overheard saying: ‘‘Thank God no one my staff by giving them any credence anonymity—and I am not saying that
is accusing us of interfering in the U.S. whatsoever; nor will I share any infor- we should disclose the individual’s
elections anymore. Now they are ac- mation that I believe could or could name. I would be happy to handle that
cusing Ukraine.’’ not lead to the identification of the in executive session or any way you
Let me end with that one because whistleblower. want. But we can’t just say it is not a
that one demonstrates to me why this I want to be very clear about some- relevant inquiry to know who on the
matters. That one demonstrates to me thing. Members of this body used to staff that conducted the primary inves-
why anyone in the United States care about the protection of whistle- tigation here was in communication
should matter. Vladimir Putin could blower identities. They didn’t used to with that whistleblower, especially
care less about delivering healthcare gratuitously attack members of com- after Mr. SCHIFF denied that he or his
for the people of Russia and building mittee staff, but now they do. Now staff initially had even had any con-
infrastructure in Russia. Vladimir they do. Now they will take an unsub- versations with the whistleblower.
Putin, as many people in this Chamber stantiated, repressed article and use it It goes back to the whole witness
know well—because I have worked with to smear my staff. I think that is dis- issue. I want to go to that for just 30
some of you on this—wakes up every graceful. I think it is disgraceful. seconds here. It seems to me that the
morning and goes to bed every night You know, whistleblowers are a discussion on witnesses—I heard what
trying to figure out how to destroy unique and vital resource for the intel- Mr. SCHIFF said about the 30—we will
American democracy, and he has orga- ligence community. And why? Because, do depositions in a week. The Demo-
nized the infrastructure of his govern- unlike other whistleblowers who can go cratic leader said I can have any wit-
ment around that effort. public with their information, whistle- nesses I want yesterday. I got it from
This is a battle over resolve. It is the blowers in the intelligence community the transcript. And you couldn’t get all
battle over the hearts and minds of our cannot because it deals with classified the witnesses you want in a week. You
people. It is the battle over informa- information. They must come to a couldn’t get the discovery done in a
tion and disinformation. And if a mes- committee. They must talk to the staff week.
sage from the very top of our govern- of that committee or to the inspector But if, in fact—if, in fact, they be-
ment, from the very top of our lead- general. That is what they are sup- lieve they have presented this over-
ers—if the message from some folks posed to do. Our system relies upon it. whelming case that they have, all—
over the last couple of weeks is that And when you jeopardize a whistle- they talked about subterfuge and
facts don’t matter, that our law en- blower by trying to out them this way, smokescreens. The smokescreen here is
forcement doesn’t matter, that our in- then you are threatening not just this that they used 13 of their 17 witnesses
telligence communities’ unanimous whistleblower but the entire system. to try to prove their case, and we were
consensus doesn’t matter, that is dan- Now, the President would like to able to use those very witnesses to un-
gerous. That is what Vladimir Putin have nothing better than that, and I dercut that case. So I think we just
and Russia are looking for, and that am sure the President is applauding have to keep that in perspective.
makes us less safe. this question because he wants his
The CHIEF JUSTICE. Thank you, Thank you, Mr. Chief Justice.
pound of flesh and he wants to punish The CHIEF JUSTICE. Thank you,
Mr. Manager. anyone that has the courage to stand
The Senator from Wisconsin. counsel.
Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. Chief Justice, I up to him. Well, I can’t tell you who Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. Chief Justice.
send a question to the desk on behalf of the whistleblower is because I don’t The CHIEF JUSTICE. The Senator
myself and Senators HAWLEY, CRUZ, know, but I can tell you who the whis- from Washington.
CRAMER, BRAUN, PERDUE, BARRASSO, tleblower should be. It should be every Mrs. MURRAY. Thank you, Mr. Chief
RUBIO, RISCH, SULLIVAN, ERNST, SCOTT one of us. Every one of us should be Justice. I send a question to the desk
of Florida, DAINES, and FISCHER for willing to blow the whistle on Presi- for the House managers.
both the House managers, with re- dential misconduct. If it weren’t for The CHIEF JUSTICE. Thank you.
sponse from the counsel for the Presi- this whistleblower, we wouldn’t know The question for the House managers
dent. about this misconduct, and that might from Senator MURRAY:
The CHIEF JUSTICE. Thank you. be just as well for this President, but it If there are no consequences to openly
The question from Senator JOHNSON would not be good for the country. defying a valid congressional subpoena, how
and the other Senators for both par- And I worry that future people that will Congress be able to perform its constitu-
ties: see what I am doing are going to watch tional oversight responsibility to make sure
how this person has been treated, the any administration is following the law and
Recent reporting described two NSC staff acting in the best interests of American fam-
holdovers from the Obama Administration threats against this person’s life, and
they are going to say: Why stick my ilies?
attending an ‘‘all hands’’ meeting of NSC
staff held about two weeks into the Trump neck out? Is my name going to be Ms. Manager GARCIA of Texas. Well,
Administration and talking loudly enough to dragged through the mud? they could have very serious, dev-
be overheard saying ‘‘we need to do every- Will people join our staff if they astating, and dire consequences. If the
thing we can to take out the President.’’ On know that their names are going to be Senate ignores President Trump’s on-
July 26, 2019, the House Intelligence Com- dragged through the mud? going obstruction of Congress, it would
mittee hired one of those individuals, Sean

The CHIEF JUSTICE. Thank you, lead to the end of congressional over-
Misko. The report further describes relation-
ships between Misko, Lt Col Vindman, and Mr. Manager. sight as we know it today.
the alleged whistleblower. Why did your Mr. Counsel SEKULOW. Mr. Chief President Trump’s attorneys argued
committee hire Sean Misko the day after the Justice and Members of the Senate, that our congressional subpoenas are
phone call between President Trump and there are two responses that I would constitutionally invalid until a court
Zelensky, and what role has he played like to get to, one with regard to the determines otherwise. Their argument
throughout your committee’s investigation? issue of witnesses and, in this case, the is false, and it is an attack on congres-
The House will begin. whistleblower. sional oversight powers.

VerDate Sep 11 2014 05:16 Jan 31, 2020 Jkt 099060 PO 00000 Frm 00019 Fmt 4624 Sfmt 0634 E:\CR\FM\G30JA6.026 S30JAPT1
A vote against article II is a vote to can the Senate be accused of engaging in, In the telephone call, the July 25
condone President Trump’s corrupted what Mr. NADLER described as ‘‘a coverup,’’ transcript, he mentions CrowdStrike.
view of America’s constitutional bal- if the Senate makes its decision based on the He mentions the server. But he talks
exact same evidentiary record the House did?
ance. Voting against article II would about—he says:
grant President Trump—and every Mr. Counsel PHILBIN. Mr. Chief Jus- There are a lot of things that went on, the
other President from now until for- tice, Senators, thank you for that whole situation. I think you’re surrounding
ever—the power to simply ignore all question. yourself with some of the same people.
I think that is exactly right. I think
congressional subpoenas unless and So he is talking about much more
it is rather preposterous to suggest
until we seek a court to enforce it. than just the DNC server. And he closes
that this Senate would be engaging in
Under President Trump’s view, even it again, saying—he refers to Robert
a coverup to rely on the same record
if all of you Senators were to vote to Mueller’s testimony, and he says:
that the House managers have said is
favor to issue a subpoena for docu- ‘‘They say a lot of it started in
ments or witnesses, the administration They have said it dozens of times. Ukraine.’’ There are just a lot of stuff
could still ignore them until a court They have said that, in their view, going on. Twice in that exchange he
ruled on it. they have had enough evidence pre- says there is a lot of stuff—the whole
I think Mr. SCHIFF addressed some of sented already to establish their case situation.
that earlier in another question. You beyond any doubt, not just beyond a And what is that referring to, sur-
could go to court to enforce it. Then, it reasonable doubt. And it is totally in- rounding yourself with the same peo-
would get appealed, then, go back to coherent to claim at the same time ple? President Zelensky refers imme-
court. We could go on and on because, that it would be improper for the Sen- diately to changing out the Ambas-
quite frankly, that is what their posi- ate to rely on that record. sador because the previous Ambas-
tion is. Your judgment may be and should be, sador, who had been there under
So, again, as Mr. SCHIFF said earlier, we submit, different from the House Poroshenko, had written an op-ed criti-
imagine yourselves having jurisdiction managers’ assessment of that evidence cizing President Trump during the
over an item that you care deeply because it hasn’t established their case election.
about, and you needed information. at all. But if they are willing to tell We also know that there was a PO-
You heard of some wrongdoing. You you that it is complete and it has ev- LITICO article in January 2017 cata-
heard there was a whistleblower com- erything they need—it has everything loging multiple Ukrainian officials who
plaint on something, and you decided they need to establish everything they did things either to criticize President
that you wanted to do a hearing. It is want—I think you should be able to Trump or to assist a DNC operative,
very possible that the President would take them at their word that that is all Alexandra Chalupa, in gathering infor-
just flatly refuse your subpoena, be- that is there. mation against the Trump campaign.
cause, if we ignore article II, that And to switch now to say, ‘‘Well, no, And they said: There was no evidence
would be the precedent—to ignore all we need more; we need more wit- in the record; no one said that there
subpoenas. nesses,’’ I think just demonstrates that was anything done by Ukraine.
But we need you to issue a subpoena they haven’t proved their case. They That is not true. One of their star
for us today not only to get Mr. Bolton don’t have the evidence to make their witnesses, Fiona Hill, specifically tes-
here but Mr. Duffey, Mr. Mulvaney, case. tified in her public hearing, because
and everyone else with relevant evi- As I went through a minute ago, they she said she went back and checked be-
dence on this case. have already presented a record with cause she hadn’t recalled the POLIT-
Now, when the administration exerts over 28,000 pages of documents that is ICO article. And then she said that she
executive privilege, there might be here. They have already presented acknowledged that some Ukrainian of-
some privilege, one, that is available to video clips of 13 witnesses. You have ficials ‘‘bet on Hillary Clinton winning
them on any of these documents, but heard all of the key evidence that they the election.’’ And so it was quite evi-
those have to be asserted with every gathered. It was their process. They dent, in her words, that they were try-
document as we send a subpoena. were the ones who said what the proc- ing to favor the Clinton campaign, in-
So don’t buy the White House argu- ess was going to be, how it had to be cluding trying to collect information
ment that our subpoenas are invalid run, who ought to testify, when to on people working in the Trump cam-
because we don’t have any authority to close it, when to decide they had paign. That was Fiona Hill. She ac-
issue them. We know we do. You know enough, and you heard all the key knowledged the Ukrainian officials
we do. So let’s make sure that this highlights from that, and that is suffi- were doing that.
body will make sure that no future cient for this body to make a decision. So this idea that it is a binary
President will just simply defy, dis- In the time I have remaining, I just world—it is either Russia or Ukraine; if
respect, and ignore subpoenas because want to turn to one point in response you mention Ukraine, you are just
some day you may be in our shoes to something that was said a couple of doing Vladimir Putin’s bidding—is to-
wanting to get information, wanting to minutes ago. We keep hearing repeat- tally false, and you shouldn’t be fooled
get to the bottom line to ensure that edly today the refrain of the idea that by that.
no President is above the law. President Trump was somehow trying Ukrainians—various Ukrainians—
Thank you. to peddle Vladimir Putin’s conspiracy were doing things to interfere in the
The CHIEF JUSTICE. Thank you, theory that it was Ukraine and not election campaign, and that is what
Ms. Manager. Russia that interfered in the 2016 elec- President Trump was referring to.
Mr. SULLIVAN. Mr. Chief Justice. tion. And the House Democrats tried to The CHIEF JUSTICE. Thank you,
The CHIEF JUSTICE. The Senator present this binary view of the world counsel.
from Alaska. that only one country, and one country The Senator from Vermont.
Mr. SULLIVAN. Mr. Chief Justice, I alone, could have done something to Mr. LEAHY. Mr. Chief Justice, I ask
send a question to the desk on behalf of interfere in the election, and it was to send a question to the desk on be-
myself, Senators RISCH, BLUNT, KEN- Russia. And if you mention any other half of myself and Senator
NEDY, JOHNSON, and CAPITO for the country doing something related to BLUMENTHAL to the House managers.
President’s counsel. election interference, you are just a The CHIEF JUSTICE. Thank you,
The CHIEF JUSTICE. Thank you. pawn of Vladimir Putin, trying to ped- Senator.

The question from Senator SULLIVAN dle his conspiracy theories. The question for the House managers
and the other Senators for counsel for That is obviously not true. More than from Senator LEAHY and Senator
the President: one country and foreign nationals from BLUMENTHAL:
Given that the Senate is now considering
more than one country could be doing The President’s counsel claimed, ‘‘If a
the very evidentiary record assembled and different things for different reasons in president does something which he believes
voted on by the House, which Chairman NAD- different ways to try to interfere in the will help him get elected in the public inter-
LER has repeatedly claimed constitutes over- election, and that is exactly what est that cannot be the kind of quid pro quo
whelming evidence for impeachment, how President Trump was interested in. that results in impeachment.’’ He added a

VerDate Sep 11 2014 01:37 Jan 31, 2020 Jkt 099060 PO 00000 Frm 00020 Fmt 4624 Sfmt 0634 E:\CR\FM\G30JA6.028 S30JAPT1
hypothetical, ‘‘’I think I’m the greatest ess in order to get their child into an What they are doing here—they keep
president there ever was and if I’m not elect- elite university and then escape ac- falsely accusing the President of want-
ed, the national interest will suffer greatly.’ countability. ing to cheat, when they are coming
That cannot be an impeachable offense.’’
Why should the President of the here and telling you ‘‘take him off the
Under this view, there is no remedy to pre-
vent a president from conditioning foreign United States be allowed to cheat in ballot’’ in a political impeachment.
security assistance, in violation of the Im- the upcoming election and escape ac- Talk about cheating. You don’t even
poundment Control Act, on the recipient’s countability? want to face him.
willingness to do the president a political Tyranny is defined as that which is And let me say one more thing while
favor. If the Senate fails to reject this the- legal for the government and illegal for I am up here. I listened to Manager
ory, what would stop a president from with- the citizenry. SCHIFF come up here and say he won’t
holding disaster aid funding from a U.S. city The President’s counsel has sug- even dignify a legitimate question
until that mayor endorses him? What would gested that President Trump can do
stop the president from withholding nearly
about his staff with a response because
any part of the $4.7 trillion annual federal
anything—anything that he wants— he won’t stand here and listen to peo-
budget subject to his personal political ben- and escape accountability. President ple on his staff be besmirched—who
efit? Trump can solicit foreign interference will join his staff.
Mr. Manager JEFFRIES. Mr. Chief in the upcoming election and escape Since the beginning of this Congress,
Justice, distinguished Members of the accountability. He can cheat and es- Manager SCHIFF, the other House man-
Senate, I thank the Senators for that cape accountability. He can engage in a agers, and others in the House have
very important question. coverup and escape accountability. He falsely accused the President—and
Certainly, what we have alleged in can corruptly abuse his power, escape they have come here and done it—the
this case is that the President solicited accountability; elevate his personal po- Vice President, the Secretary of State,
a personal political benefit in exchange litical interest, subordinate America’s the Attorney General, the Chief of
for an official act, solicited dirt on a national security interest, and escape Staff, lawyers on my staff—false accu-
political opponent in exchange for the accountability. sations, calumny after calumny, in dul-
release of $391 million in military aid, That is the Fifth Avenue standard of cet tones. And that is wrong.
and solicited dirt in exchange for a Presidential accountability: I can do And when you turn that around and
White House meeting. And if this Sen- anything I want. I can shoot someone say he will not respond to a legitimate
ate were to say that is acceptable, on Fifth Avenue, and it doesn’t matter. question that I ask—it is a legitimate
then, precisely as was outlined in that No. Lawlessness matters. Abuse of question: Who communicated with the
question could take place all across power matters. Corruption matters. whistleblower? Why were you demand-
America in the context of the next The Constitution matters. ing something that you already knew
election and any election—grants allo- The CHIEF JUSTICE. Thank you, about?
cated to cities or towns or municipali- Mr. Manager. I asked him, in another part of my
The Senator from Louisiana. October 8 letter that doesn’t get a lot
ties across the country, where the
Mr. CASSIDY. Mr. Chief Justice, I of attention from Mr. SCHIFF—I said:
President could say: You are not going
send a question to the desk on behalf of You have the full ability to release
to get that money, Mr. Mayor, Mrs.
myself and Senator RISCH to both the these documents on your own. No re-
County Executive, Mrs. Town Super-
House managers and the White House sponse.
visor, unless you endorse me for reelec-
counsel. And although I cannot pick, So I think—I think you deserve an
tion. The President could say that to
ideally, it would be Manager LOFGREN. answer to that question, and I think it
any Governor of our 50 States. The CHIEF JUSTICE. The question
That is unacceptable. That cannot be is time in this country that we start—
from Senators CASSIDY and RISCH for that we stop assuming that everybody
allowed to happen in our democratic
both parties is as follows: has horrible motives, in the puritanical
Now, by my count, as of this after- In the Clinton proceedings, we saw a video rage of just everybody is doing some-
of Manager LOFGREN saying, ‘‘This is unfair thing wrong except for you—you can-
noon, the Framers of the Constitution to the American people. By these actions
and the Founders of our great Republic not be questioned. That is part of the
you would undo the free election that ex-
had been quoted either directly or men- pressed the will of the American people in problem here.
tioned by name 123 times: Alexander 1996. In so doing, you will damage the faith Thank you.
Hamilton, 48 times; James Madison, 35 the American people have in this institution The CHIEF JUSTICE. Thank you,
times; George Washington, 24 times; and in the American democracy. You will set counsel.
John Adams, 8 times; Thomas Jeffer- the dangerous precedent that the certainty Ms. Manager LOFGREN. Mr. Chief
son and Ben Franklin, pulling up the of Presidential terms, which has so benefited Justice and Senators, I was a member
our wonderful America, will be replaced by of the House Judiciary Committee dur-
rear, 4 times. the partisan use of impeachment. Future
It seems to me that Ben Franklin ing the Clinton impeachment, and I
Presidents will face election, then litigation, was a member of the staff of a member
and Thomas Jefferson need a little bit then impeachment. The power of the Presi-
more love, and so let me try to do my dent will diminish in the face of the Con-
of the Judiciary Committee during the
part. gress, a phenomena much feared by the Nixon impeachment. And during the
Thomas Jefferson once observed that Founding Fathers.’’ Clinton impeachment, I found myself
‘‘tyranny is defined as that which is What is different now? If the response is comparing what we were doing in Clin-
legal for the government but illegal for that the country cannot risk the President ton to what we were doing or had done
the citizenry.’’ ‘‘Legal for the govern- interfering in the next election, isn’t im- with Nixon, and here is what I saw and
peachment the ultimate interference? How I still see today: a special prosecutor
ment but illegal for the citizenry’’— does this not cheat those who did and/or
that is what we confront right now. started with Whitewater, spent several
would vote for President Trump from their
President Trump corruptly abused participation in the democratic process? I years, until they found DNA on a blue
his power. He targeted an American ask Manager LOFGREN to address the ques- dress. And they had a lie. The Presi-
citizen, pressured a foreign government tion directly and to not avoid, as Manager dent lied about a sexual affair under
to try to cheat in the upcoming elec- JEFFRIES did with a related question last oath, and that was wrong. It was a
tion, and the President’s counsel would night. crime, but it was not a misuse of Presi-
have you believe that is OK because he Oh. The President’s counsel answers dential power.
is the President of the United States. first. Any husband caught would have lied

But our fellow citizens cannot cheat Mr. Counsel CIPOLLONE. Thank about it. It was wrong, but it was not
the Workers’ Compensation Board by you, Mr. Chief Justice, Members of the a misuse of Presidential power. And so,
claiming a fake injury and escape ac- Senate. throughout the Clinton matters, I kept
countability. Our fellow citizens can- Well, as I have said before, I agree 100 raising the issue that it was a misuse—
not cheat the stock market by engag- percent with Manager LOFGREN’s com- and it turned out to be a partisan mis-
ing in insider trading and then escape ments from the past, and I think they use—of impeachment to equate a lie
accountability. Our fellow citizens can- should guide the Senate. There is real- about a sexual affair to a high crime
not cheat the college admissions proc- ly no better way to say it. and misdemeanor.

VerDate Sep 11 2014 01:37 Jan 31, 2020 Jkt 099060 PO 00000 Frm 00021 Fmt 4624 Sfmt 0634 E:\CR\FM\G30JA6.030 S30JAPT1
Mr. MARKEY said they rubbed out the Thank you. The CHIEF JUSTICE. The question
word ‘‘high’’ and made it ‘‘any crime The CHIEF JUSTICE. Thank you, for counsel for the President from Sen-
and misdemeanors.’’ That was what Mrs. Manager. ator LEE and other Senators:
was wrong in the Clinton impeach- Counsel. Under the standard embraced by the House
ment, compared to the Nixon impeach- Mr. Counsel CIPOLLONE. Thank Managers, would President Obama have been
ment where Richard Nixon engaged in you, Mr. Chief Justice, Members of the subject to impeachment charges based on his
a broad scope, upending the constitu- Senate. handling of the Benghazi attack, the
tional order, corrupting the govern- I would respond to that question in Bergdahl swap, or DACA? Would President
this way. Thank you for the question. Bush have been subject to impeachment
ment for his own personal benefit in
charges based on his handling of NSA sur-
the election. The House managers controlled the veillance, detention of combatants, or use of
I would add, unfortunately, that I process in the House. I think we can all waterboarding?
never thought I would be in a third im- agree to that. They were in charge, and
Mr. Counsel HERSCHMANN. Thank
peachment. Unfortunately, that is they ran it. And they chose not to
you, Mr. Chief Justice, Members of the
what we see in this case with President allow the President’s counsel to have
Senate. Under the standard, which is
Trump. any witnesses. And they chose not to
no standard that they bring their im-
The CHIEF JUSTICE. Thank you, call the witnesses that they are now
peachment to the Senate, any Presi-
Ms. Manager. asking you to call, demanding you to
The Senator from West Virginia. dent would be subject to impeachment
call, accusing you of a coverup if you
Mr. MANCHIN. Mr. Chief Justice, I for anything. Presidents would be sub-
don’t call.
send a question to the desk on behalf of I have never been in any proceeding, ject to impeachment for exercising
myself, Senator GILLIBRAND, and Sen- trial or otherwise, where you show up longstanding constitutional rights,
ator SCHATZ to the President’s counsel on the first day, and the judge says: even when the House chose not to en-
and the House managers. Let’s go. And you say: Well, I’m not force their subpoenas under their vague
The CHIEF JUSTICE. Thank you. ready yet. Let’s stop everything. Let’s theory of abuse of power.
The question from Senators MANCHIN, take a bunch of depositions. I guess any President—as Professor
GILLIBRAND, and SCHATZ for both par- Well, did you subpoena the witnesses Dershowitz, he had a long list of Presi-
ties: you are now seeking? dents who might have been subject to
Have you ever been involved in any trial— Well, some but not others. impeachment. So I am not going to go
civil, criminal, or other—in which you were Well, when you did subpoena them, through the particular incidents be-
unable to call witnesses or submit relevant did you try to enforce that subpoena in cause I don’t want to besmirch past
evidence? court? Presidents.
I believe the House is first. No. I don’t think the standard that they
Mrs. Manager DEMINGS. Thank you, The other witnesses that you did sub- announced is helpful. I think it is very
Mr. Chief Justice, and thank you to the poena, did they go to court? dangerous. I mean, you might want to
Senator for the question. Yes. get a lock on that door because they
I want us to imagine for just a mo- What did you do? I withdrew the sub- are going to be back a lot if that is the
ment someone broke into your house; poena and mooted out the case. And standard.
stole your property; police caught now I want them. I want them. Other- The truth of the matter is, you don’t
them; they returned the property. Now, wise, you are doing the coverup. have to look at anything. They are
the fact that they returned the prop- Let me make another point because talking about witnesses. You don’t
erty changes nothing. They would still they keep making this point: What will have to look at anything, except the
be held accountable. we do? The President is not producing Articles of Impeachment.
But imagine if they had the power to documents. I tried to seek areas of agreement. I
obstruct every witness, prevent wit- I would like to refresh your recollec- think we all agree that they don’t al-
nesses from appearing. Imagine if they tion about the Mueller investigation, lege a crime. That is why they spend
had the power to destroy or obstruct OK. The Mueller investigation had 2,800 all their time saying you don’t need
any evidence in the case against them subpoenas, 500 search warrants, 500 wit- one. I remember one of the clips I
from being presented to the court. nesses. The President’s Counsel, the showed where someone was saying,
I have had the opportunity to appear Chief of Staff, and many, many others with a lot of passion, they are trying to
in a lot of hearings and be a part of from the administration testified. Doc- cross out ‘‘high crime’’ and make it
building a lot of cases. We all know. I uments—voluminous documents—were ‘‘any crime.’’ Now they are trying to
know everybody here knows that wit- produced. And what happened? Bob cross out ‘‘crime,’’ any crime. No crime
ness testimony and evidence or docu- Mueller came back with a conclusion. is necessary.
mentation in a case is everything. It is He announced it. There was no collu- That is not what impeachment is
the life and breath of any case. It is the sion. about. This is dangerous. And it is
prosecutor’s dream or the police offi- What did the House do? They didn’t more dangerous because it is an elec-
cer’s or detective’s dream to have in- like it. Didn’t like the outcome. So tion year. So, yes, under the
formation and evidence. what did they do? They wanted a do- standardless impeachment, any Presi-
It truly baffles me, really, as a 27- over. They wanted to do it all again dent can be impeached for anything.
year law enforcement officer, that we themselves, despite the $34 million or And that is wrong. By the way, they
would not accept or welcome or be de- more that was spent. should be held to their Articles of Im-
lighted about the opportunity to hear So I don’t think anybody really be- peachment. A lot of what they are try-
from direct witnesses, people who have lieves that the Trump administration ing to sell here, their own House col-
firsthand knowledge. hasn’t fully cooperated with the inves- leagues weren’t buying. They didn’t
We know that the President cannot tigations. The problem is, when they make it into the Articles of Impeach-
be charged with a crime. We know don’t like the outcome, they just keep ment.
that. The Department of Justice has investigating. They keep wasting the Read the Articles of Impeachment.
already ruled on that. But the remedy public’s money because they don’t real- They don’t allege a crime. They don’t
for that is impeachment. That is the ly care about truth; they care about a allege a violation of law. You don’t
tool that, as we know, has solely been political outcome. need anything else, except their Arti-

given—that power, solely—to the Thank you. cles of Impeachment, your Constitu-
House of Representatives, solely tried The CHIEF JUSTICE. Thank you, tion, and your common sense, and you
before the Senate. counsel. can end this. Thank you.
So, to answer your question, it is ex- The Senator from Utah. The CHIEF JUSTICE. Thank you,
tremely—let me say it this way: Only Mr. LEE. Mr. Chief Justice, I send a counsel.
in a case where there are no available question to the desk on behalf of my- The Senator from Michigan.
witnesses or no available evidence have self and Senators HAWLEY, ERNST, and Ms. STABENOW. Thank you, Mr.
I ever seen that occur. BRAUN. Chief Justice.

VerDate Sep 11 2014 01:37 Jan 31, 2020 Jkt 099060 PO 00000 Frm 00022 Fmt 4624 Sfmt 0634 E:\CR\FM\G30JA6.031 S30JAPT1
I send a question to the desk on be- Pure information that is credible in- Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. Chief Justice.
half of myself, Senator CORTEZ MASTO, formation is not something that is pro- The CHIEF JUSTICE. The Senator
and Senator ROSEN. hibited from being received under the from South Carolina.
The CHIEF JUSTICE. The question campaign finance laws. Mr. GRAHAM. I send a question to
for the House managers from Senators The CHIEF JUSTICE. Thank you, the desk on behalf of myself, Senators
STABENOW, CORTEZ MASTO, and ROSEN counsel. CRUZ and CORNYN, for both parties.
to both parties: Mr. Manager SCHIFF. Mr. Chief Jus- The CHIEF JUSTICE. Thank you.
In June 2019, Ellen Weintraub, then-chair tice. The question from Senators GRAHAM,
of the Federal Election Commission, wrote The CHIEF JUSTICE. Yes, Mr. Man- CORNYN, and CRUZ is for both parties:
in a statement that ‘‘It is illegal for any per- ager. When DOJ Inspector General Horowitz tes-
son to solicit, accept, or receive anything of Mr. Manager SCHIFF. How valuable tified before the Judiciary Committee, he
value from a foreign national in connection
would it be for the President to get said their DOJ had a ‘‘low threshold’’ to in-
with a U.S. election. This is not a novel con-
cept. Electoral intervention from foreign Ukraine to announce his investiga- vestigate the Trump campaign. At the hear-
governments has been considered unaccept- tions? And the answer is immensely ing, Sen. FEINSTEIN said, ‘‘your report con-
able since the beginnings of our nation.’’ In valuable. And if it wasn’t going to be cluded that the FBI had an adequate predi-
a 2007 advisory opinion, the FEC found that immensely valuable, why would the cate, reason, to open the investigation on
campaign contributions from foreign nation- the Trump campaign ties to Russia. Could
President go to such lengths to make it you define the predicate?’’ Horowitz replied,
als are prohibited in federal elections, even if happen? Why would he be willing to
‘‘the value of these materials may be nomi- ‘‘yeah, so the predicate here was the infor-
violate the law, the Impoundment Con- mation that the FBI got at the end of July
nal or difficult to ascertain.’’ How valuable
would a public announcement of an inves- trol Act; why would he be willing to ig- from the friendly foreign government.’’ Why
tigation into the Bidens be for President nore the advice of all of his national se- is the legal standard for investigating Trump
Trump’s reelection campaign? curity professionals; why would he be so much lower than the standard for inves-
willing to withhold hundreds of mil- tigating Biden? And why was it ok to get the
Begin with the White House Counsel. information from a ‘‘friendly foreign govern-
Mr. Counsel PHILBIN. Mr. Chief Jus- lions of dollars from an ally at war if
tice and Senators, thank you for the he didn’t think it was going to really
question. benefit his campaign? You have only to The House managers are first.
The idea that these investigations look at the President’s actions to de- Mr. Manager SCHIFF. The inspector
were a thing of value—something that termine just how valuable he believed general’s report found that the inves-
was specifically examined by the De- it would be to him. tigation was properly predicated. That
partment of Justice—as I explained the Now, how would he make use of this? was the bottom-line conclusion that
other day, the inspector general for the Well, if we look in the past, we get a this was not a politically motivated in-
intelligence community wrote a cover perfect illustration of how Donald vestigation.
letter on the whistleblower complaint, Trump would have made use of this po- The inspector general also found,
in which he had actually exaggerated litical help from Ukraine. though, there were serious flaws with
in the complaint—the idea that there Let’s look at 2016, when the Russians the FISA Court process. There were se-
was a demand for some assistance with hacked the DCCC and the DNC, and rious flaws on how the FISA applica-
the President’s reelection campaign. they started dripping out these docu- tions were written in the information
That was forwarded to the Department ments through WikiLeaks and other that was used and prescribed a whole
of Justice. They examined it, and they Russian platforms. series of remedies, which the FBI Di-
announced back in September that What did the President do? Did he rector has now said should be imple-
there was no election law violation be- make use of it? Did he condemn it? Oh, mented. But they found it was properly
cause it did not qualify as a thing of he made beautiful use of it. Over 100 predicated. They found they did not
value. I think that that issue has been times in the last 3 months of the cam- have to ignore the evidence that had
thoroughly examined by the Depart- paign, the President brought up time come to their attention that the cam-
ment of Justice here. after time after time, rally after rally paign for the President was having il-
I just want to clarify one thing. The after rally, the Clinton Russian stolen licit contacts, potentially; that it may
other day there was—yesterday there documents. be colluding or conspiring with a for-
was a question about information com- We have had a debate since then. eign power. Indeed, it would have been
ing from overseas, and I was asked a What was the impact of the Russian in- derelict for them to ignore it.
question about that. And I want to be terference in 2016? In an election that But the argument—the implicit argu-
very precise; that I understood the close, was it decisive? No one will ever ment here is, because there were prob-
question to be about was there a viola- know. Was it valuable? You only have lems, albeit serious problems, on the
tion of a campaign finance law, would to look at Donald Trump’s actions to FISA Court application involving a sin-
there be one if someone simply got in- know just how valuable he thought it gle person, that somehow we should ig-
formation from overseas? And the an- was. He thought it was immensely val- nore the President’s conduct here; that
swer is no, as a matter of law. uable. somehow that justifies the President’s
Think about this. If pure informa- And you can darn well expect that if embrace of the Russian propaganda;
tion—if information that came to he had gotten this help from Ukraine, that somehow that justifies the Presi-
someone in a campaign could be called he would be out there every day talk- dent’s distrust of the entire intel-
a thing of value, if it comes from over- ing about how Ukraine was inves- ligence community; that somehow that
seas, a thing of value is a prohibited tigating Joe Biden, and Ukraine is con- justifies his ignoring what his own Di-
campaign contribution; it is not al- ducting an investigation into Joe rector of the FBI said, which his law-
lowed. If it comes from within the Biden. It would be proof of his argu- yers ignore today, which is there is no
country, it has to be reported. ment against his feared opponent. evidence that Ukraine interfered in the
So that would mean that anytime a You are darn right it would be valu- 2016 election. Because of a single FISA
campaign got information from within able. What is more, it is illegal. And do application against a single person and
the country about an opponent or we have to go through all the turmoil the flaws in it, you should ignore the
about something else that maybe of the Russian interference perhaps to evidence of the President’s wrongdoing.
would be useful in the campaign, they have the President do it all over again? Turn away from that. Let’s not look at
would have to report the receipt of in- One of the things I found so signifi- whether the President conditioned

formation as a thing of value under the cant was the day after Bob Mueller military aid and a White House meet-
campaign finance laws. reached his conclusion that this Presi- ing on help with an investigation. Let’s
That is not how the laws work, and dent was back on the phone asking yet look at flaws in how the FBI conducted
there would be tremendous First another country to help cheat in an- a FISA application. The one does not
Amendment implications if someone other election. You are darn right that follow from the other.
attempted to enforce the laws that would have been valuable. The reality is that what you must
way. So that is simply the point that I The CHIEF JUSTICE. Thank you, judge here is: Did the President com-
wanted to make. Mr. Manager. mit the conduct he is charged with?

VerDate Sep 11 2014 01:37 Jan 31, 2020 Jkt 099060 PO 00000 Frm 00023 Fmt 4624 Sfmt 0634 E:\CR\FM\G30JA6.033 S30JAPT1
Did the President withhold military thing lined up, have everything ready which DOD replied back, as you may
aid and a coveted meeting to secure to obligate the funds so everything recall: You have got to be kidding me.
foreign interference in the election? would be able to move quickly when ‘‘I’m speechless.’’ Because they did not
And if he did, as we believe we have the pause was lifted. know. Nobody had told them anything.
shown, does that warrant his removal The email you mentioned suggests— None of the other 17 witnesses knew
from office? That is the issue before was saying: We are running out of about it.
you, whether the FBI made one mis- time. We are running out of time. We So I do want to address, before I fin-
take or five mistakes with the FISA are going to have difficulty doing it. ish one other point, this idea that the
application. But the fact was that the deadline for delay didn’t matter. Listen, it doesn’t
Mr. Counsel SEKULOW. Mr. Chief obligating the funds was not going to matter if it was a 4-day delay, a 40-day
Justice, Members of the Senate, let me be until the end of the fiscal year. And delay, or a 400-day delay; every delay
actually answer the question. as it turned out, as I explained earlier in combat matters. Every delay in
The inspector general said, in a re- in response to Senator LANKFORD’s combat matters.
sponse actually from Senator GRAHAM, question, the funds were released on And I will say—they talked about
when James Comey said he was vindi- September 11, and the vast majority of delays in the past. Well, in past years,
cated by the inspector general’s report, them were obligated by the end of the there was about 3 to 6 percent of the
the inspector general said: No one who fiscal year, so that the procedures that funds unobligated because of unfore-
touched this was vindicated. had been used to try to get everything seen and legitimate reasons following
With regard to the FISA—you make preplanned were mostly successful. the policy process. In 2019, 14 percent of
so light, Manager SCHIFF, of what the Yes, there were some funds—I believe the funds went unobligated for foresee-
FBI did. It wasn’t a FISA warrant. it was $35 million—that did not get out able and avoidable reasons—because
There was an order unsealed just days of the door by the end of the fiscal the President—
ago saying the process was so tainted year—slightly more than in past years. The CHIEF JUSTICE. Thank you.
by the Federal Bureau of Investiga- But in every year—in fiscal year 2017, Mr. Manager CROW.—could have held
tion—so tainted—that not only was the fiscal year 2018—there were funds in them. And to this day, $16 million is
NSD misled, but so was the FISA the security assistance program that unspent.
Court. didn’t make it out of the door by the The CHIEF JUSTICE. Thank you,
For those that don’t know that are end of the year. Each of those years, Mr. Manager. Your time has expired.
watching, the FISA Court—you can’t there was also a little fix in either the The Senator from Wyoming.
blame the court on this, by the way. appropriations bill or CR to allow Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. Chief Justice, I
You have to blame the Federal Bureau those funds to carry over. send a question to the desk on behalf of
of Investigations for allowing this to So the planning had been to try to myself and Senators RISCH, YOUNG,
happen. That is the court that issues ensure that when the decision was FISCHER, BLUNT, and CAPITO.
warrants on people that are alleged to made to release the funds, it would be The CHIEF JUSTICE. The question
be spies. There are no lawyers in those done by the end of the fiscal year. Not from Senator BARRASSO and the other
proceedings. There is no cross-exam- quite all of that got out of the door, Senators is for the counsel to the
ination. The court itself in its order that is true, but there is always some President:
said: We rely on the good faith of the that doesn’t get out of the door by the Is it within a U.S. President’s authority to
officers presenting the affidavits. end of the fiscal year. personally address the issue of corruption
Are there two standards for inves- Thank you. with a head of a foreign government when he
tigations? That is an understatement. The CHIEF JUSTICE. Thank you, believes the established U.S. process has
counsel. been unsuccessful in the past?
But to belittle what took place in the
FISA proceedings—frankly, Manager Mr. Manager CROW. Mr. Chief Jus- Mr. Counsel PHILBIN. Mr. Chief Jus-
SCHIFF, you know better than that. tice, Members of the Senate, thank you tice, Senators, thank you for that
The CHIEF JUSTICE. Thank you, for that question. question.
counsel. As we go further and further down The short answer is yes. The Presi-
The Senator from Illinois. this rabbit hole, I think we need to dent is, under article II, vested with
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. Chief Justice, I make it very clear that, you know, of the entirety of the executive power,
send a question to the desk. the 17 witnesses that the House inter- and it has been made clear since the
The CHIEF JUSTICE. The question viewed, nobody had an explanation. founding, since the early part of the
from Senator DURBIN is to both parties. Yet again, like last night, Mr. Philbin 1800s, in decisions by the Supreme
Emails between DOD and OMB officials re- seems to know more than anybody else Court, that the President is the sole
veal that by August 12 the Pentagon could in the government, more than anyone organ of the Nation in foreign affairs.
no longer guarantee that all of the $250 mil- in the Department of Defense, more He is vested with the authority to
lion in DOD aid to Ukraine could be spent than anybody in the Department of speak on behalf of the Nation. As the
before it expired. Deputy Secretary of De- State, more than anybody in OMB who Supreme Court has described it, he is
fense Norquist drafted a letter and stated had come forward with information to be the sole voice of the Nation in
that the Pentagon had ‘‘repeatedly advised about how exactly this happened. foreign affairs. And that is why that
OMB officials that pauses beyond August 19
jeopardize the Department’s ability to obli-
But, again, here are the facts. OMB authority was assigned in the Constitu-
gate USAI funding prudently and fully.’’ interviewed about an interagency proc- tion to the Executive.
Why did the President persist in withholding ess that they supposedly said was going Alexander Hamilton explained in the
the funds when DOD officials were sounding on long after the interagency process Federalist Papers that the Executive is
the alarm that the hold would violate the had already ended. In fact, as OMB was characterized by unity and dispatch,
law and short-change an ally of needed mili- doing those footnotes that we talked the ability to have one view, to act
tary aid? about last week—those footnotes that quickly, and also the ability to main-
It is the turn of the White House had never been done before, that Mr. tain secrecy, and therefore it is the Ex-
counsel to go first. Sandy said he had never seen in his 12 ecutive that is uniquely suited and
Mr. Counsel PHILBIN. Mr. Chief Jus- years of time working this process—as uniquely has the ability to carry out
tice and Senator, thank you for that that was going on, DOD was asking the the responsibilities of engaging with
question. question about why we are doing this. foreign nations and carrying out diplo-

I think the thing to understand is, They had no idea. macy.

there was a series of communications Then when the release was finally So when the President believes that
reflected, I believe, in the letter that getting ready to be finally lifted—the there is an issue of interest to the
OMB has sent to the JAO and in some hold, rather—OMB emailed DOD, say- United States, including corruption in
of the testimony in the proceeding ing: Listen, as we have been saying all another country, and there hasn’t been
below that the Office of Management along, under the Impoundment Control the sort of progress that he would want
and Budget was encouraging DOD to Act, there are no problems here, and if to see in dealing with that issue in the
take what steps it could to get every- there is a problem, it is your fault. To foreign country—perhaps interactions

VerDate Sep 11 2014 01:37 Jan 31, 2020 Jkt 099060 PO 00000 Frm 00024 Fmt 4624 Sfmt 0634 E:\CR\FM\G30JA6.034 S30JAPT1
with prior administrations, prior offi- esting. He said: This proceeding is our Let me make a couple of points in my
cials of prior administrations that answer. This proceeding is our answer. answer.
don’t look great from an anti-corrup- Yes, we are a more than fallible de- The first is, of course, because there
tion perspective—it is entirely within mocracy and we don’t always live up to is no bribery or extortion charge in the
the President’s prerogative and his our ideals, but when we have a Presi- Articles of Impeachment, the managers
province to raise those issues with a dent who demonstrates corruption of can’t rely on that now to try to estab-
foreign leader, to point out where he his office, who sacrifices the national lish their case.
believes there needs to be something interest for his personal interests, un-
done in the interest of the United like other countries, there is a remedy. I pointed out yesterday, I believe,
States. If there is an issue related to So, yes, we don’t always live up to our that that is a due process violation of
corruption or whether it is something ideals, but this trial is part of our con- the most fundamental sort to have a
else—an issue related to economic mat- stitutional heritage, that we were charging document and leave out cer-
ters, trade matters, antitrust matters, given the power to impeach the Presi- tain charges in the charging document,
cross-border trade—those are all things dent. then come to trial and say: Well, it is
the President can raise with a foreign I don’t think a trial without wit- not in the indictment, and it is not in
leader. nesses reflects adversely on the Chief the charge, but, actually, what we have
Corruption is not taken off the table. Justice. I do think it reflects adversely shown you is he did something else
And it is also not taken off the table if on us. I do think it diminishes the wrong. It was ‘‘this crime.’’ As the
it is an issue that happens to involve power of this example to the rest of the House managers well know, that would
an official from a prior administration, world if we cannot have a fair trial in result in an automatic mistrial in any
whether that official is not or may the face of this kind of Presidential actual trial in a court in this country.
have recently decided to run for an- misconduct. This is the remedy. This is So that is the initial problem with try-
other office. If it relates to the na- the remedy for Presidential abuse. But ing to go there on bribery or something
tional interest of the United States, he it does not reflect well on any of us if else.
has legitimate reason for raising it, we are afraid of what the evidence Then, as the Senator’s question
and it is within his authority as the holds. raises, the McDonnell case made clear,
Chief Executive. This will be the first trial in America that simply arranging a meeting for
Thank you. where the defendant says at the begin- someone—simply setting up a meeting
The CHIEF JUSTICE. Thank you, ning of the trial: If the prosecution with other government officials—
counsel. case is so good, why don’t they prove it couldn’t be treated as a thing of value
The Senator from Massachusetts. without any witnesses? That is not a in an exchange under the bribery stat-
Ms. WARREN. Mr. Chief Justice, I model we can hold up in pride to the ute. It pointed out, particularly in
send a question to the desk. rest of the world. terms of government officials who all
The CHIEF JUSTICE. Thank you. Yes, Senator, I think that will feed the time are asked by their constitu-
The question from Senator WARREN cynicism about this institution, that ents to introduce them to someone else
is for the House managers: we may disagree on the President’s in the government, to arrange a meet-
At a time when large majorities of Ameri- conduct or not, but we can’t even get a ing, that that is not an official act. It
cans have lost faith in government, does the fair trial. We can’t even get a fair is not an official policy decision, an ac-
fact that the Chief Justice is presiding over shake for the American people. Oh my tion that is determining some govern-
an impeachment trial in which Republican God, we can’t hear what John Bolton ment policy. It is simply allowing
senators have thus far refused to allow wit- has to say.
nesses or evidence contribute to the loss of
someone to have a meeting and then
God forbid we should hear what a rel- talk about something. If that is the na-
legitimacy of the Chief Justice, the Supreme
evant witness has to say. Hear no evil. ture of the meeting, that can’t be the
Court, and the Constitution?
That cannot reflect well on any of us. thing of value that is being exchanged
Mr. Manager SCHIFF. Senator, I It is certainly no cause for celebration
would not say it contributes to a loss and can’t support a charge of bribery.
or vindication or anything like it.
of confidence in the Chief Justice. I My colleague says that I am a Puri- So they can’t raise it because it is
think the Chief Justice has presided tan who speaks in dulcitones. I think not in the Articles of Impeachment. If
admirably. that is the nicest thing he has ever said they had wanted to charge that, they
But I will say this: I was having a about me. I wouldn’t describe myself as had to charge it in the Articles of Im-
conversation the other day on the a Puritan, but, yes, I do believe in peachment. They can’t come here now
House floor with one of my colleagues, right and wrong, and I think right mat- and try to try a different case from the
TOM MALINOWSKI, from Jersey—a bril- ters. I think a fair trial matters, and I one they framed in the charging docu-
liant colleague—and I was harkening think that the country deserves a fair ment that they had complete control
back to what I thought was a key ex- trial. over drafting. Even if they did, they
change during the course of this saga. Yes, Senator, if they don’t get that can’t make out the claim with respect
This is when Ambassador Volker, in fair trial, it will just further a cyni- to the White House meeting because
September, is talking with Andriy cism that is corrosive to this institu- the McDonnell case prohibits that.
Yermak. Volker is making the case tion and to our democracy. I would like to make one other point
that the new President of Ukraine The CHIEF JUSTICE. Thank you, because the House managers today
should not do a political investigation Mr. Manager. have brought up a lot. There have been
and prosecution of the former Presi- The Senator from Alabama. a lot of questions again and again
dent of Ukraine, Poroshenko. He is Mr. SHELBY. Mr. Chief Justice, I about the subpoena power and were
making the case we often make when send a question to the desk. their subpoenas actually valid and how
we travel around the country and meet The CHIEF JUSTICE. Thank you. it is going to destroy oversight if the
with other Parliamentarians about not The question from Senator SHELBY is President’s arguments are accepted. I
engaging in political investigations. for the counsel for the President: just want to point something out.
And when he makes that remark, Though not charged in the Articles of Im-
Yermak throws it right back in his The subpoenas that were issued—that
peachment, House Managers and others have
face and says: Oh, you mean like the were purported to have been issued—
stated the President’s actions constituted
were not under oversight authority but

investigation you want us to do with criminal bribery. Can this claim be rec-
the Clintons and the Bidens? onciled with the Supreme Court’s unanimous pursuant to—every letter that came
I was lamenting this to my colleague. decision in McDonnell v. United States? out said: pursuant to the House’s im-
What is our answer to that? What is Mr. Counsel PHILBIN. Mr. Chief Jus- peachment inquiry. They purported to
the answer to that from a country that tice, Senator, thank you for that ques- be exercising the authority of impeach-
prides itself on adherence to the rule of tion. ment, and that makes a difference.
law? How do we answer that? And his I think the answer is, no, it can’t be One of the House managers men-
response, I thought, was very inter- reconciled with the McDonnell case. tioned that the legislative oversight—

VerDate Sep 11 2014 01:37 Jan 31, 2020 Jkt 099060 PO 00000 Frm 00025 Fmt 4624 Sfmt 0634 E:\CR\FM\G30JA6.035 S30JAPT1
the authority to acquire the informa- Mr. Manager SCHIFF. Senators and At the end of the day, the task is to
tion for legislative purposes—has to ac- the Mr. Chief Justice, that is the nat- determine whether the conduct that is
tually relate to something that legisla- ural conclusion of what the President’s charged has been committed and
tion could be passed on. There are cer- lawyers are arguing. whether that abuse of power rises to
tain constraints on what information Essentially, if the President believes the level warranting impeachment.
can be sought. It is slightly different if that it would serve his reelection inter- This is a technical legal argument
you are going under the impeachment est to seek the help of a foreign intel- that, no, you have to charge it as we
power because then you can investigate ligence service to provide dirt on his would like you to charge it, and you
into specific past facts more readily be- opponent or in other ways assist his can’t make reference to the fact that,
cause that is relevant to an impeach- campaign, as long as he thinks his win- yes, these acts also constitute bribery
ment inquiry that might not be for leg- ning is in the national interest, then and that that is somehow offensive to
islative purposes. They purported to be that is OK. legal or constitutional principles. It is
using the impeachment authority. It is not OK, but no restraint can be not. Yes, we could have charged brib-
They didn’t have that authorization placed upon him. Even if he were to go ery. We could have had two separate
because the Speaker’s press conference so far as to proclaim a quid pro quo— counts. That is not a constitutional re-
did not validly give them that author- hey, Russia, you have got among the quirement. Had we done that, as I said
best intelligence services on the plan- last night, they would have attacked
ization. We pointed out that the sub-
et. If you will engage those intelligence that, saying you are taking one offense
poenas were invalid. They did nothing
services on my behalf, I will refuse to and making it into two.
to try to cure that deficiency. They
enforce sanctions on you over your in- That does not detract from the fact
didn’t reissue the subpoenas. They
vasion of Ukraine. That may injure the that the President’s conduct violated
didn’t have the votes to reissue them
security of our country, but, look, I our bribery laws, particularly as they
or anything.
think my reelection is more impor- were understood by the Framers, not as
To say now that all oversight will be
tant—that is where this bastardization they were understood 200 years later.
destroyed forever if you accept the
of the Constitution leads us—to the They violated what the Framers under-
President’s arguments is totally false.
idea that no abuse of power is within stood from British common law to con-
It is totally misleading because they
reach of the Congress. stitute extortion. They violated the
were not purporting to do just regular Now I want to take this opportunity
oversight. As we pointed out several modern-day Impoundment Control Act.
to respond to a couple of other quick They violated the Whistleblower Pro-
times in the October 8 letter that the points if I can.
White House Counsel sent to Chairman tection Act. They violated multiple
First, counsel neglects the fact that, laws, but that is not even necessary.
SCHIFF and others, it said, specifically, when we issued those subpoenas, we What is necessary is that they abused
if you want to return to regular over- stated in the letters accompanying their power. Counsel says: Well, claims
sight, we are happy to do that. As we their issuances that they were being are made of abuse of power all the
have in the past, subject to constitu- issued consistent with both the im- time. Yes, that is true in political rhet-
tional constraints, we will participate peachment inquiry and our oversight oric, but these circumstances war-
in the accommodation process. It was authority. They neglected to tell you ranted impeachment. The President
the House Democrats who didn’t want the latter part—that we explicitly was not impeached over climate
to take that route. They insist on made reference to our oversight capac- change or any of the other enumerable
using the impeachment authority. We ity as legislators. examples they gave of people rhetori-
pointed out that they didn’t have it, Finally, on the issue of bribery, in cally saying the President is abusing
and they didn’t seek to cure that prob- the Nixon impeachment, there was an his office. That is not what brought us
lem. umbrella Article of Impeachment that here. What brought us here was the
Accepting the President’s position listed a series of specific acts. Some of President decided that he could with-
here has nothing to do with destroying those acts involved criminal activity, hold military aid to an ally at war to
oversight by Congress for all time and and some involved just unethical activ- get help in his reelection.
all circumstances. It has to do with the ity. If you were to accept counsel’s ar- The CHIEF JUSTICE. Thank you,
mistake that they made in trying to gument, you would have said that the Mr. Manager.
assert a particular authority that they articles that passed out of the House The Senator from Oklahoma.
didn’t have in this case. Judiciary Committee in Nixon were Mr. INHOFE. Mr. Chief Justice, I
Thank you. likewise infirm because, if they were have a question for the President’s
The CHIEF JUSTICE. Thank you, going to charge the President with en- counsel, and I am being joined by Sen-
counsel. gaging in a criminal act, they needed ators ROUNDS and YOUNG.
The Senator from Virginia. to make a separate article of it. Other- The CHIEF JUSTICE. Thank you.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. Chief Justice, on wise, how dare they? It would be a vio- The question from Senator INHOFE,
behalf of myself, Senator BENNET, Sen- lation of due process, and it would be joined by Senators ROUNDS and YOUNG,
ator BLUMENTHAL, and Senator HEIN- thrown out of any court—prosecutorial is for counsel to the President:
RICH, I have a question to send to the misconduct and the like. Even if additional witnesses are called, do
desk for the House managers. OK. That is nonsense. On the one you ever envision the House Managers agree-
The CHIEF JUSTICE. Thank you. hand, they want to argue there is no ing there has been a fair Senate trial if it
conduct here that is even akin to a ends in the President’s acquittal?
The question from Senators WARNER,
BENNET, BLUMENTHAL, and HEINRICH is crime, when, under McDonnell, in fact, Mr. Counsel SEKULOW. Mr. Chief
for the House managers: this would constitute bribery. With- Justice, Members of the Senate, the
Our intelligence community and law en- holding a White House meeting and answer is no.
forcement leadership unanimously concluded withholding the provision of hundreds Now, they will not agree that it is
Russia interfered in the 2016 election and of millions of dollars in aid under the fair because what will happen is, if
that Russia continues those efforts toward precedent of McDonnell would be brib- there is a discussion of witnesses and if
the 2020 election. The Mueller report and the ery, but there is no doubt it is akin to we go to witnesses, Mr. SCHUMER has
Senate Intelligence Committee reached the bribery. They would say, unless you laid out the four he wants, and he tells
same conclusion. Yesterday the President’s charge that—in the Nixon case, they me we could have anybody we want.
counsel said that foreign election inter- The reality is that also includes docu-
had 15 articles on each particular act,
ference could be legal if it’s related to ‘‘cred-

criminal and noncriminal—then you ments, and that includes other wit-
ible’’ information. Does this mean it is prop-
er for the President to accept or encourage could not make out a viable charge. nesses that it may lead to. So, at some
Russia, China, or other foreign countries to That has never been a constitutional point, this body will say—because this
produce damaging intelligence or informa- principle. Just as they would have had cannot go on forever, and we will be at
tion targeting his domestic political oppo- the House organize its impeachment the election—this has to come to an
nents as long as he deems it to be from investigation along the terms they dic- end, and they will say: Aha, it has been
‘‘credible information’’? tate, they now want to dictate how we brought to an end as we were about to
This is for the House managers. can charge an offense. get the key evidence.

VerDate Sep 11 2014 01:37 Jan 31, 2020 Jkt 099060 PO 00000 Frm 00026 Fmt 4624 Sfmt 0634 E:\CR\FM\G30JA6.037 S30JAPT1
But what is so interesting here is The CHIEF JUSTICE. Thank you, release the aid because it not only had
they had 17 witnesses—that they had. counsel. met all of the certifications but it was
When the hearing took place before the The Senator from Delaware. in the U.S. national interest and con-
Judiciary Committee, if I am not mis- Mr. CARPER. Mr. Chief Justice, on sistent with U.S. policy.
taken, Manager NADLER, you had four behalf of our colleagues Senators BOOK- And yet, nobody knew why it hap-
witnesses at one point, when you had ER, CARDIN, KAINE, MARKEY, MENENDEZ, pened, and, to this day, the individual
the law professors, and there were MERKLEY, MURPHY, and SHAHEEN, I who could shed light on this, Mr.
three law professors from the Demo- send a question to the desk for the Bolton, is being prohibited from com-
cratic side and there was one from the House managers. ing forward to explain why the Presi-
Republican side. So if we are going to The CHIEF JUSTICE. Thank you. dent told him it happened.
take that same four-to-one analysis, The question from Senator CARPER So, yes, it is still a good time to sub-
for every one of their witnesses, we and the other Senators addressed to poena Ambassador Bolton and get that
should get four. the House managers: information.
But there was a question earlier The President’s aides and defenders have The CHIEF JUSTICE. Thank you,
asked about the truth of the poisonous claimed that it is ‘‘normal’’ or ‘‘usual’’ to Mr. Manager.
tree. The taint of the poison does not use U.S. foreign assistance as the President The Senator from North Carolina.
did to achieve a desired outcome. How was Mr. BURR. Mr. Chief Justice, I have
age well. The longer it goes does not
the President’s act in withholding U.S. secu- a question for both sets of counsel,
make that poison go away. It gets rity assistance to Ukraine different from
deeper and deeper into the soil, and sponsored by myself, Senator CRUZ,
how the U.S. uses foreign assistance to
here, the soil we are talking about is a achieve foreign policy goals and national se-
Senator SCOTT of South Carolina,
trial that would be not only ongoing, curity objectives, and how should we evalu- HAWLEY, SASSE, and RUBIO.
but they put up 17 witnesses. You have ate the defense argument that this is what is The CHIEF JUSTICE. Thank you.
heard them. They are acting like there ‘‘done all the time’’? The question from Senator BURR and
have been no witnesses presented here. Mr. Manager CROW. Mr. Chief Jus- the other Senators is for both parties.
They presented the testimony of 17. tice, Senators, thank you for the ques- The House will answer first:
They may not have liked that we were tion. Hillary Clinton’s campaign and the Demo-
So to understand the answer to this, cratic National Committee hired a retired
able to respond to those 17 by playing foreign spy to work with Russian contacts to
those witnesses’ words. By the way, you don’t have to look inside the Presi- build a dossier of opposition research against
those witnesses—the testimony of dent’s mind. You just have to look at her political opponent, Donald Trump. Under
those witnesses—were never done with recent history and then what was done the House Manager’s standard, would the
cross-examination by the counsel for last year. Steele dossier be considered as foreign inter-
the President. As I talked about earlier, and even ference in a US election, a violation of the
So does this end? Will it ever be yesterday, other Presidents have held law, and/or an impeachable offense?
enough? No, it will only be enough if holds in aid for legitimate reasons, Mr. Manager JEFFRIES. Thank you,
they got a conviction because that is even this President. We concede that. Mr. Chief Justice and distinguished
what it is about, because let’s not for- But there are a variety of legitimate Senators. I thank you for the question.
get for a moment that this has been policy reasons for holding aid, whether The analogy is not applicable to the
going on, in one stage or another, for it be corruption or burden-sharing. present situation because, first, to the
31⁄2, 3 years now. See, even in the President’s other extent that opposition research was ob-
My concern is there is not a—where holds—like Afghanistan, because of tained, it was opposition research that
is the end point in that? So their end concerns about terrorism, or Central was purchased.
point is: Well, just give us John Bolton, America, because of immigration con- But this speaks to the underlying
and then, you know, you don’t get any- cerns—even though some might dis- issue of the avoidance of facts—the
body or then, you know, you get one agree with that, that is a legitimate avoidance of the reality of what Presi-
and we get one, and then that one may policy debate. dent Trump did in this particular cir-
lead to somebody else. It is not the way The difference here is that every wit- cumstance.
it works. ness testified—these 17 witnesses that Now, I have tremendous respect for
So they have said ‘‘overwhelming,’’ you hear about testified—that there the President’s counsel, but one of the
‘‘proved,’’ 63 times—63 times. And as was no reason provided for the imple- arguments that we consistently hear
we are 3 hours away from answering mentation of this hold. Right? on the floor of this Senate, this great
the end of the question section, we are I talked about earlier how there is a institution in America’s democracy, is
about to go into—I mean, it sounds process for doing this. Right? There is conspiracy theory after conspiracy the-
like we have been arguing about wit- a well-prescribed process for allocating ory after conspiracy theory.
nesses for the last couple hours, but the funds, like we all did here in this We have heard about the deep-state
that starts tomorrow. Chamber and 87 of you agreed on it, conspiracy theory. We have heard
But do I think that there will be—is and then an interagency process to re- about the ‘‘Adam Schiff is the root of
it our position that there will be—a view it to make sure that it meets the all evil’’ conspiracy theory. We have
recognition that there is due process standards and criteria outlined by this heard about the Burisma conspiracy
that has been reached and we have body, anticorruption reforms. And that theory. We have heard about the
reached a happy accord? No, I do not was done in this case. That interagency CrowdStrike conspiracy theory. We
believe that. process was followed. That certifi- have heard about the whistleblower
I also don’t believe that what can be cation was made. The notification to conspiracy theory. It is hard to keep
cured here. I don’t think what they did Congress was conducted. The train had count.
can be cured here by anything you left the station, just like the train had This is the Senate. This is America’s
were to do as far as witnesses or any- left the station in 2018, in 2017, in 2016. most exclusive political club. This is
thing else. That process was so tainted, And every element of the agencies and the world’s greatest deliberative body,
and I thought Mr. Philbin did a very ef- the bureaucracy involved in that proc- and all you offer us is conspiracy theo-
fective job of explaining—painstak- ess in prior years had been engaged and ries because you can’t address the facts
ingly, now, and multiple times, I had signed off, except this year. in this case, that the President cor-
know—the issue of those subpoenas. In 2019, rather, that all changed. A ruptly abused his power to target an

And I thought the perfect analysis was hold was implemented for no known American citizen for political and per-
when one of the managers said: Well, reason. There was no notification given sonal gain. He tried to cheat in the
when people file freedom of informa- to Congress, which violated the Im- election by soliciting foreign inter-
tion requests, they get answers. And poundment Control Act. DOD, Depart- ference. That is an impeachable of-
Mr. Philbin said: That is because they ment of State, Secretary Esper, Sec- fense. That is a crime against the Con-
followed the law; they followed the retary Pompeo, even Vice President stitution. That is the reason that we
rules. That is not what happened here. PENCE, and the entire National Secu- are here. That is what is before this
Thank you, Mr. Chief Justice. rity Council implored the President to great body of distinguished Senators.

VerDate Sep 11 2014 01:37 Jan 31, 2020 Jkt 099060 PO 00000 Frm 00027 Fmt 4624 Sfmt 0634 E:\CR\FM\G30JA6.039 S30JAPT1
The CHIEF JUSTICE. Thank you, The memorandum that she submitted don’t think you can conclude that it is,
Mr. Manager. is derivatively classified because of except that it would be inconsistent
Mr. SEKULOW. Mr. Chief Justice, that transcript. Now, that transcript with what you are being told and what
Members of the Senate, so, I guess you relates to a conversation with a foreign the American people are being told.
can buy—that is what it sounds like; head of state. Almost all conversations Well, they deserve the whole truth, and
you can buy a foreign interference. If with foreign heads of state are classi- that is part of the truth. So let the
you purchase it, if you purchase their fied. They are classified because the public see it.
opposition research, I guess that is OK. confidentiality relates to those com- The CHIEF JUSTICE. Thank you,
So let me try to debunk the con- munications. It is important for ensur- Mr. Manager.
spiracy, Manager JEFFRIES; and that is, ing that there can be candid conversa- The Senator from Tennessee.
it is not conspiracy that Christopher tions with foreign heads of state. Mr. ALEXANDER. Thank you, Mr.
Steele was engaged to obtain and pre- The President took an extraordinary Chief Justice. I send a question to the
pare a dossier on the Presidential can- action in declassifying two of his con- desk on behalf of myself, Senator
didate for the Republican Party, Don- versations with foreign heads of state— DAINES, and Senator CRUZ.
ald Trump. It is not a conspiracy that unprecedented—because he carefully The CHIEF JUSTICE. Thank you.
Christopher Steele utilized his network weighed the balance of what was at The question from Senators ALEX-
of assets—including assets, apparently, stake in this case and the need for ANDER, DAINES, and CRUZ is for the
in Russia—to draft the dossier. It is not transparency to the American public in House managers:
a conspiracy that the dossier was those two conversations. But that was Compare the bipartisanship in the Nixon,
shared with the Department of Justice an exception to the usual rule that Clinton, and Trump impeachment pro-
through Bruce Ohr, who was the No. 4 such conversations are properly classi- ceedings. Specifically, how bipartisan was
ranking member of the Department of fied. the vote in the House of Representatives to
Justice at that time, because his wife, The CHIEF JUSTICE. Thank you, authorize and direct the House committees
Nellie Ohr, happened to be working for to begin formal impeachment inquiries for
each of the three Presidents?
the organization, Fusion GPS, that was Mr. Manager SCHIFF. Senators, I
putting the dossier together. This is would encourage you, if you haven’t al- Ms. Manager LOFGREN. Mr. Chief
also not a conspiracy. It sounds like ready had the opportunity, to read that Justice and Senators, in the Nixon im-
one, except it is real. And it is also not document for yourself and ask whether peachment, you look back and think
a conspiracy that that dossier—pur- you think there is any legitimate basis about the vote in the House Judiciary
chased dossier—was taken by the FBI, to classify that supplemental testi- Committee. It ended up bipartisan, but
submitted to the Foreign Intelligence mony. it didn’t start that way. The parties
Surveillance Court to obtain a foreign Now, the Vice President has said that were dug in, as parties are today. The
intelligence surveillance order on an he had no knowledge of this scheme. He Republicans and Democrats saw it dif-
American citizen. It is also not a con- has denied any knowledge, involvement ferently. But as the evidence emerged,
spiracy that that court issued an in any way, shape, or form. a bipartisan consensus emerged on the
order—two of them now—condemning We heard the testimony of Ambas- committee, and a number of Repub-
the FBI’s practice and acknowledging sador Sondland that Ambassador licans—Tom Railsback, who just
that many of those orders were not Sondland raised to the Vice President passed away, and Caldwell Butler, who
properly issued. None of that is a con- that the aid was being held up and was loved Richard Nixon—he was a huge
spiracy theory. That is just the facts. tied to these investigations, and the fan of Richard Nixon’s. But they
Thank you. Vice President didn’t say: What are couldn’t turn away from the evidence
The CHIEF JUSTICE. Thank you, you talking about? That could never that their President had committed
counsel. be. The President would never allow abuse of power, cheated the election,
The Senator from Wisconsin. such a thing. and they had to vote to impeach him.
Ms. BALDWIN. Mr. Chief Justice, I There was nothing but a silent nod of When it came to the Clinton im-
send a question to the desk for both acknowledgment of what he was being peachment, that was—again, it started
President’s counsel and House man- told. But, nonetheless, the Vice Presi- out along very partisan lines, and it
agers. dent says that he knew nothing, and ended along partisan lines. I believe
The CHIEF JUSTICE. Thank you. the Vice President points to the open the reason why, as I said a short while
The question from Senator BALDWIN testimony of Jennifer Williams to sup- earlier, was that we never had a high
is for both parties, and counsel for the port that contention. But the classified crime and misdemeanor. That was the
President will answer first: submission goes to that phone call be- problem.
Can you assure us that the Jennifer Wil- tween the Vice President and President With Nixon, we had clear abuse of
liams document submitted to the House was Presidential authority to upend the
not classified SECRET for any reasons pro-
Zelensky. You should read that and
hibited by Executive Order 13526, such as pre- ask yourself whether that submission Constitution, scheme to cheat in an
venting embarrassment to a person? If yes, is being classified because it would ei- election, and Members of both parties
please describe or identify the serious dam- ther embarrass or undermine what the voted to impeach. With Clinton, we had
age to national security that would be President and the Vice President are private misconduct. Yes, I would call it
caused by declassifying this document, pur- saying or there is some legitimate rea- a crime because he lied about that
suant to the same Executive Order. son. under oath, but it wasn’t misuse of
Mr. Counsel PHILBIN. Mr. Chief Jus- Now, the Vice President at one point Presidential authority. As I said, any
tice and Senator, in response to your said that he wanted to release the husband caught in an affair could have
question, the Trump administration’s record of his call. He certainly talked lied about it. And it didn’t involve the
policy is always to abide by the re- all about this issue, as has the Presi- use of Presidential authority. So we
quirements for classification of mate- dent. If it was so classified, then why never got beyond our partisan divisions
rial, and the classification—my under- are they all talking about it? But we on that. And many of us—and I will in-
standing is that that document is de- are to be assured that this classifica- clude myself—believed that it was
rivatively classified because it refers to tion decision was made absolutely being done for a partisan purpose, be-
another document, a transcript that above board. I am sure that John cause it didn’t reach a high crime and
was originally classified. I can’t rep- Bolton’s manuscript will be treated misdemeanor.

resent to you a specific reason that the with the same rigid, objective scrutiny. In the Trump case—and I will say I
classification officer classified that You read that. Don’t take my word have been disappointed, because I serve
document, but I can tell you that it for it. You read that, and you ask your- with a number of Republicans in the
was originally classified according to selves, is there anything that—other House whom I like, whom I respect,
proper procedures. It is a properly clas- than avoiding evidence that the admin- whom I work with on legislation, and I
sified document, and that is the policy istration doesn’t want you to see—that honestly believed that when this evi-
of the administration, to follow the the public shouldn’t see in Jennifer dence came out, as with the Nixon ad-
classification procedures. Williams’ supplemental testimony? I ministration, we would have a coming

VerDate Sep 11 2014 05:47 Jan 31, 2020 Jkt 099060 PO 00000 Frm 00028 Fmt 4624 Sfmt 0634 E:\CR\FM\G30JA6.040 S30JAPT1
together. But it didn’t happen, much to that we would have unlimited wit- In the Clinton authorizing resolu-
my disappointment. nesses during that week. We would tion—this was H. Res. 581—they au-
I think you have a new opportunity have to decide on witnesses who are thorized just the beginning of the in-
here in the Senate. For one thing, this relevant and probative of the issues. quiry. It passed by a vote of 258 to 176.
is a smaller body. You are, as has been Neither side would have an unlimited Now, 31 Democrats joined 227 Repub-
mentioned, the greatest deliberative capacity to call endless witnesses. We licans voting in favor of authorizing
body on the planet. You have an oppor- would have a limited period of time, that inquiry. That was substantial bi-
tunity to do something that we didn’t just as we had a limited period of time partisan support to authorize the in-
have a chance to do, which is to call for our opening presentations and for quiry.
firsthand witnesses and hear from this question and answer period. In this case, H. Res. 660, which was
them. If there is any dispute over whether a passed on October 31, had bipartisan
A lot of things have happened since witness is truly material or probative, opposition. The votes in favor of the
the impeachment articles were adopt- that decision can be made by the Chief resolution were 231 Democrats and 1
ed. One of them was emails that have Justice in very short order. If there is Independent. The opposition was all
been released that we didn’t know a dispute as to whether a passage in a Republicans, 194, plus 2 Democrats vot-
about. document is covered by an applicable ing against.
It has been said by counsel that the privilege and if, for the first time, the In terms of other assertions that
Freedom of Information Act informa- White House would actually invoke a have been made, there are just a couple
tion shows that if you follow the proc- privilege, the Chief Justice can decide, of points I wanted to touch on. There
ess, you get information. No, they had is that properly made or is that merely has been a lot said about—House man-
to sue, and they are still in a lockdown an attempt to conceal crime or fraud? agers have suggested that counsel for
fight over the Freedom of Information So this can be done very quickly. the President have argued that the
Act and redactions that were not prop- This can be done, I think, effectively. President could do anything he wants
er. So that is a big fight that is still We have never sought to depose every now—solicit any foreign interference in
going on, but we got information. witness under the face of the Sun. We any election. If he thinks it will help
But most tellingly, Mr. Bolton has have specified four in particular, who him get elected, that is OK, and that is
now stepped forward and said he is we think are particularly appropriate the theory of the case. That is abso-
willing to testify. He is willing to come and relevant here. But we should be lutely false. That is a gross distortion
here and testify under oath. And I able to reach an agreement on con- of what has been presented, and let me
think we can all learn something. As cluding that process within a week. So make a couple of points about that.
Mr. SCHIFF has mentioned, I think we that is how we would contemplate it There have been questions about the
can structure this in such a way that it being done. campaign finance laws, and one narrow
would respect the Senate’s need to do We would make that proposal to our point that we have made in response to
other business, which we also do in the opposing counsel. It would be respect- specific questions about the campaign
House. ful of your time. It would, I think, be a finance laws is simply that informa-
Let’s get that done, and let’s see if reasonable accommodation. And coun- tion—limited information—being pre-
that kind of information can help the sel says that the Constitution man- sented to a party is not a contribution,
Senators come together, as happened dates a reasonable accommodation. a thing of value under the campaign fi-
in the House Judiciary Committee so Well, let’s have a reasonable accommo- nance laws. And that is not just my
many years ago when we dealt with the dation here, and the reasonable accom- conclusion; that is what the Mueller
serious problem of Presidential mis- modation could be to take 1 week to report said. When the Mueller report
conduct—abuse of power to cheat an continue with the business of the Sen- looked into this, it said: ‘‘No judicial
election—when Richard Nixon shocked ate. We will do the depositions, and decision has treated the voluntary pro-
the Nation and ultimately had to re- then we will come back, and we will vision of uncompensated opposition re-
sign. present to you what the witnesses had search or similar information as a
The CHIEF JUSTICE. Thank you, to say in those depositions. That is how thing of value that could amount to a
Ms. Manager. we contemplate the process would contribution under campaign-finance
Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. Chief Justice. work. law.’’ That is volume I, page 187. So
The CHIEF JUSTICE. The Demo- The CHIEF JUSTICE. Thank you,
that is a limited point.
cratic leader is recognized. Mr. Manager. The bigger point: The suggestion has
Mr. SCHUMER. I send a question to The majority leader is recognized.
Mr. MCCONNELL. Mr. Chief Justice, been made, because of Professor
the desk for the House managers. Dershowitz’s comments, that the the-
The CHIEF JUSTICE. Thank you. I am about to send a question to the
desk, but I am going to suggest that ory that the President’s counsel is ad-
The question from Senator SCHUMER vancing is the President can do any-
for the House managers: following the response to my question
and one more Democratic question, we thing he wants. If he thinks it will ad-
Many of our colleagues are worried that if vance his reelection, any quid pro quo,
we were able to bring witnesses and docu- take a 45-minute break for dinner.
So I send a question to the desk. anything he wants, anything goes.
ments in the trial it would take too long.
Mr. SCHIFF mentioned we could do deposi- The CHIEF JUSTICE. I am sure there That is not true. Professor Dershowitz
tions in one week. Please elaborate. What is no objection. today issued a statement to show that
can you say that will reassure us that having The question from the majority lead- that was an exaggeration of what he
witnesses and documents can be done in a er is for the counsel to the President: was saying.
short time, minimally impeding the business Would you please respond to the question But let me make an even more nar-
of the Senate? on bipartisanship by Senator ALEXANDER and row point. Aside from what Professor
Mr. Manager SCHIFF. I thank the any assertions the House managers made in Dershowitz was saying the other night
Senator for the question. response to any previous questions? and explaining in abstract and hypo-
First of all, with respect to the docu- Mr. Counsel PHILBIN. Mr. Chief Jus- thetical terms and academic terms, we
ments that we subpoenaed and sought tice, majority leader, thank you for have a specific case here. And the spe-
to get in the House, those documents that question. cific case here is the one that has been
have been collected. So that work has In response to Senator ALEXANDER, framed by the House managers. And
been done. We have been informed, for your question, in the Nixon case, the the defects in that case and their the-

example, that the State Department authorizing resolution—this is in the ory of the case are, there is abuse of
documents have been collected. Those House to authorize the inquiry—was power that involves no allegation of a
can readily be provided to the Senate passed by a vote of 410 to 4. Four hun- crime whatsoever and no allegation of
for its consideration. dred and ten voted in favor of the in- a violation of established law. Instead,
With respect to witnesses, if we agree quiry; only four voted against. Two the theory that you can take action
to a 1-week period to do depositions hundred and thirty-two Democrats, 177 that, on its face, is objectively permis-
while you continue to conduct the Republicans, and 1 Independent voted sible under the powers of the President
business of the Senate, it doesn’t mean in favor. and determine that it is going to be

VerDate Sep 11 2014 05:47 Jan 31, 2020 Jkt 099060 PO 00000 Frm 00029 Fmt 4624 Sfmt 0634 E:\CR\FM\G30JA6.042 S30JAPT1
treated as impeachable and impermis- ness list. If Secretary Pompeo has evi- RECESS
sible solely on an inquiry into subjec- dence that there was a policy basis to The CHIEF JUSTICE. Mr. Majority
tive motives—that is what the House withhold the aid and it was discussed, Leader, I understand we have 45 min-
Judiciary Committee report says. That well, then, why don’t they call him? utes.
is a theory that is infinitely malleable. That is a relevant fact witness. Mr. MCCONNELL. Mr. Chief Justice,
It provides no standard—no real stand- They don’t want to allow the Chief we do indeed.
ard at all. And that was one core point Justice to decide issues of materiality
There being no objection, at 6:39
Professor Dershowitz was making, that because they know what they are try-
p.m., the Senate, sitting as a Court of
it is tantamount to impeachment for ing to do involves witnesses that don’t
Impeachment, recessed until 7:37 p.m.;
maladministration. shed light on the charges against the
whereupon the Senate reassembled
The other point I will make is they President. They do satisfy the appetite
when called to order by the CHIEF JUS-
set the standard for themselves with of their client, but they don’t have pro-
respect to investigations. They have to bative value to the issues here.
So, yes, there are witnesses. Now, the The CHIEF JUSTICE. Senators,
establish, in order to establish their please be seated.
bad motive, that there is not a scintilla reason they are not on the President’s
witness list is because if they were The Senate will come to order.
of evidence—there is nothing that you
can look at that would suggest any truthful under oath, they would in- Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. Chief Justice.
possible legitimate national interest in criminate the President. Otherwise, The CHIEF JUSTICE. The Senator
inquiring into 2016 election inter- they would be begging to have Mick from Iowa.
ference or the Biden and Burisma af- Mulvaney come testify; otherwise, they Mr. GRASSLEY. I send a question to
fair. They can’t possibly meet that would be begging to have the head of the desk on behalf of myself, Senators
standard. It is overdetermined that OMB, who helped administer the freeze MCCONNELL, HOEVEN, and WICKER.
there is a legitimate policy interest in on behalf of the President: Let’s bring The CHIEF JUSTICE. Thank you.
at least raising a question about those him in. He will tell you it was com-
The question from Senator GRASSLEY
things. pletely innocent. It was all about bur-
and the other Senators is addressed to
Thank you. den-sharing.
So why don’t they want the head of counsel for the President:
The CHIEF JUSTICE. Thank you, During President Clinton’s impeachment
OMB in? Why don’t they want their
counsel. trial, he argued that ‘‘no civil officer—no
own people in? Because their own peo-
Mr. COONS. Mr. Chief Justice. President, no judge, no cabinet member—has
ple will incriminate the President.
The CHIEF JUSTICE. The Senator But there is no shortage of relevant, ever been impeached by so narrow a margin
from Delaware. . . . [and] that the closeness and partisan di-
probative witnesses. They just don’t vision of the vote reflected the constitu-
Mr. COONS. On behalf of myself and want you to hear what they have to tionally dubious nature of the charges’’
Senator KLOBUCHAR, I send a question say. against him. President Trump has raised
to the desk, addressed to the Presi- The CHIEF JUSTICE. Thank you, similar concerns during these proceedings
dent’s counsel and the House man- Mr. Manager. and argues that the lack of bipartisan con-
agers. Mr. Counsel SEKULOW. Mr. Chief sensus highlights the partisan nature of the
The CHIEF JUSTICE. Thank you. Justice, so besides the fact that Mr. charges. Are the President’s concerns well-
The House will go first in answering SCHUMER said—and it is on page 675 of founded?
the question from Senators COONS and the transcript—that we can call any Mr. Counsel PHILBIN. Mr. Chief Jus-
KLOBUCHAR: witnesses we want, Mr. SCHIFF just said tice, Senators, thank you for that
Mr. Sekulow said earlier that the Presi- we don’t really get—we can call their question.
dent’s Counsel would expect to call their own witnesses. That is what he said. We can I think the concerns are very well-
witnesses in this trial if Mr. Bolton or others call their witnesses because, under
are called by the House managers. Can you
founded. I think that they are concerns
their theory, if we wanted to talk to that echo back to our founding, when
tell the Senate if any of those witnesses the whistleblower, even in a secure set-
would have first-hand knowledge of the Alexander Hamilton warned in Fed-
charges against the President and his ac-
ting to find out if he, in fact, may have eralist No. 65 precisely against partisan
tions? worked for the Vice President or may impeachments. A partisan impeach-
have worked on Ukraine or may have ment is one of the greatest dangers
Mr. Manager SCHIFF. Mr. Justice been in communication with the staff,
and Senators, there certainly are wit- that the Framers saw in the impeach-
that is irrelevant. ment power. And in Federalist No. 65,
nesses that the President could call We can’t talk to Joe Biden or Hunter
with firsthand information. I don’t Hamilton specifically said that im-
Biden because that is irrelevant—ex-
know that they are—the witnesses that peachments could become ‘‘persecution
cept the conversation that is the sub-
they have described so far, their posi- of an intemperate or designing major-
ject matter of this inquiry, the phone
tion is, apparently, if you are the ity in the House of Representatives,’’
call transcript that you selectively uti-
chairman of a committee doing an in- and that is what we have in this case.
lized, has a reference to Hunter Biden.
vestigation, that makes you a relevant In fact, there was bipartisan opposi-
The conversation with Burisma, they
witness. It doesn’t—or you all become tion to the Articles of Impeachment
raised it for about a half a day, saying
witnesses in your own investigations. here in the House. So this is one of
there was nothing there. Well, let me
They want to call Joe Biden as a wit- the—it is the most divisive sort of im-
find out through cross-examination.
ness. Joe Biden can’t tell us why mili- But I just think of the irony of this— peachment that could be brought here,
tary aid was withheld from Ukraine before we go to dinner—that we could and it reflects very poorly on the proc-
while it was fighting a war. Joe Biden call anyone we want, except for wit- ess that was run in the House, which
can’t tell us why President Zelensky nesses we want, but we can call their had not had bipartisan support, and the
couldn’t get in the door of the White witnesses that they want. charges that were ultimately adopted
House while the Russian Foreign Min- Remember we said ‘‘the fruit of the in the House, because it is a purely par-
ister could. He is not in a position to poisonous tree’’? It is still the fruit of tisan impeachment.
answer those questions. He can’t tell us the poisonous tree. It doesn’t get bet- And I think that that is important to
whether this rises to an impeachable ter with age, as I said. bear in mind also, that the House man-
abuse of power, although he probably This idea that this is going to be a agers themselves and some of the Mem-

has opinions on the subject. fair process—call the witnesses they bers of this Chamber, at the time of the
But are there witnesses they could want; don’t call the witnesses you want Clinton impeachment, warned very elo-
call? Absolutely. They have said Mick because they are irrelevant. They may quently against partisan impeach-
Mulvaney issued a statement saying: be irrelevant to them. They are not ir- ments. They recognized that a partisan
The President never said what I had relevant to the President, and they are impeachment would not be valid, that
said he had said earlier. Well, if that is not irrelevant to our case. Thank you. it would do grave damage to our polit-
the case, then why don’t they call Mick The CHIEF JUSTICE. Thank you, ical community, to our polity, to the
Mulvaney? He should be on their wit- counsel. country. It would create deep divisions

VerDate Sep 11 2014 05:47 Jan 31, 2020 Jkt 099060 PO 00000 Frm 00030 Fmt 4624 Sfmt 0634 E:\CR\FM\G30JA6.043 S30JAPT1
that would last for years. And in the nesses, particularly as the Senate could dis- I indicated the other night, is not be-
Clinton impeachment, they made those agree with the Chief Justice’s ruling by a cause they don’t trust the Chief Jus-
warnings when it was not even arising majority vote? tice to be fair. It is because they fear
in the context of an election year. The President’s counsel is first. the Chief Justice will be fair. And I
Now we have a partisan impeach- Mr. Counsel SEKULOW. Mr. Chief think that tells you everything you
ment—as we have pointed out—when Justice, again, to make our position need to know about the lack of good
there is an election only 9 months clear, we think, constitutionally, that faith when it comes to the arguments
away, and it will be perceived, and is would not be the appropriate way to they make about why they went to
perceived by many in the country, as go. court, why they refused to comply with
simply an attempt to interfere with Again, no disrespect to the Chief Jus- any subpoenas, why they refused to
the election and to prevent the voters tice at all, who is presiding here as the provide any documents, why they are
from having their choice of who they Presiding Officer, but our view is that, here before you saying that the House
want to be President for the next 4 if there are issues that have to be re- managers must sue to get witnesses
years. solved on constitutional matters, that and they are in court on the same day
And the House managers have said: it should be done in the appropriate saying you can’t sue to get witnesses.
We can’t allow the voters to decide be- way. This is why they don’t want the Chief
cause we can’t be sure it will be a fair You have Senate rules that govern Justice to make that decision, because
election. That can’t be the way we ap- that, as to what you would do, and they know the witnesses they are re-
proach democracy in the United then there is—you know, if litigation questing are for purposes of retribution
States. We have to respect the ability were to be necessary for a particular or distraction.
of the voters to take in information, issue, that would have to be looked at. The CHIEF JUSTICE. Thank you,
because all the information is out now. But this idea that we can short circuit Mr. Manager.
They have had plenty of opportunity, the system, which is what they have The Senator from North Carolina.
with the process that they ran in the been doing for 3 months, is not some- Mr. TILLIS. Mr. Chief Justice, I send
House, to make all the information thing we are willing to go with. a question to the desk on behalf of my-
public that they want and to be able to I have said that. I said it all day yes- self and Senator CRUZ.
make their accusations against the terday. And, again, no disrespect to the The CHIEF JUSTICE. Thank you.
President. We think they have been Senator’s question, but we are just— The question from Senators TILLIS and
disapproved, and the voters should be that is not a position that we will ac- CRUZ is for the House managers:
able to decide. cept as far as moving these proceedings You have based your case on the propo-
forward. sition that it was utterly ‘‘baseless’’ and a
And the most important thing, the
Thank you. ‘‘sham’’ to ask for an investigation into pos-
greatest danger from this partisan im- sible corruption of Burisma and the Bidens.
peachment, I believe, is the one that Mr. Manager SCHIFF. Senators,
Chris Heinz, the step-son of then-Secretary
Minority Leader SCHUMER warned counsel for the President says that of State John Kerry, emailed Kerry’s Chief
about back in 1998, which is that, once would not be constitutionally appro- of Staff that ‘‘Apparently, Devon and Hunter
we start down the road of purely par- priate. Why not? Where is it prohibited both joined the board of Burisma and a press
tisan impeachments, once we start to in the Constitution that in an impeach- release went out today. I can’t speak to why
normalize that process and make it all ment trial, upon the agreement of the they decided to, but there was no investment
parties, the Chief Justice cannot re- by our firm in their company.’’ Heinz subse-
right to have a purely partisan im- quently terminated his business relationship
peachment, especially in an election solve issues of materiality of the wit-
nesses? Of course that is permitted by with Devon Archer and Hunter Biden be-
year, then we have just turned im- cause ‘‘working with Burisma is unaccept-
peachment into a partisan political the Constitution. able,’’ and showed a ‘‘lack of judgment.’’
tool, and it will be used again and Now, counsel earlier said that the Do you agree with Chris Heinz that work-
again and again and more frequently House managers want to decide on ing with Burisma was ‘‘unacceptable’’? Did
and more frequently. And that is not a which witnesses the President should John Kerry or Joe Biden agree with Chris
be able to call; we want them to call Heinz? If not, why not?
process—that is not a future—for the
country that this Chamber should ac- our witnesses. Well, you would think Mr. Manager SCHIFF. The reason
cept. that Mick Mulvaney, the White House why Joe Biden is not material to these
Instead, this Chamber should put an Chief of Staff, would be their witness. proceedings, the reason why this is a
end to the growing pattern towards If indeed he supports what the Presi- baseless smear is that the issue is not
partisan impeachments in this coun- dent is claiming, if indeed he is willing whether Hunter Biden should have sat
try, put an end to that practice and de- to say under oath what he is willing to on that board or not sat on that board.
finitively make clear that a purely par- say in a press statement, you would The issue is not whether Hunter Biden
tisan impeachment not based on ade- think he would be their witness. was properly compensated or improp-
quate charges, not based on charges But I am not saying that we get to erly compensated or whether he speaks
that meet the constitutional standard decide. That is not the proposal here. Ukrainian or he doesn’t speak Ukrain-
will not get any consideration in this The proposal is we take a week; the ian.
Chamber and will be rejected. Senate goes about its business; we do What the President asked for was an
Thank you. depositions. The witnesses are not wit- investigation of Joe Biden, and the
The CHIEF JUSTICE. Thank you, nesses on the President’s behalf that smear against Joe Biden is that he
counsel. we get a decision on as House man- sought to fire a prosecutor because he
Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chief Justice. agers; but, rather, that we entrust the was trying to protect his son. I guess
The CHIEF JUSTICE. The Senator Chief Justice of the United States to that is the nature of the allegation.
from Maryland. make a fair and impartial decision as And that is a baseless smear.
to whether a witness is material or As we demonstrated—as the un-
Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chief Justice,
not, whether a witness has relevant equivocal testimony in the House dem-
on behalf of myself and Senator KLO-
facts or not, or whether a witness is onstrated, when the Vice President
BUCHAR, I send a question to the desk
simply being brought before this body sought the dismissal of a corrupt and
directed to both parties.
for the purposes of retribution—in the incompetent prosecutor, it had nothing
The CHIEF JUSTICE. Thank you.
case of the whistleblower—or to smear to do with Hunter Biden’s position on
The question from Senator VAN HOL-

the Bidens without material purpose the board. It had everything to do with
LEN is to both parties. The President’s
relevant to these proceedings. the fact that the State Department,
counsel will go first:
We are not asking that you accept our allies, the International Monetary
In his response to an earlier question this
our judgment on that. We are pro- Fund were in unanimous agreement
evening, Mr. Sekulow cited individuals like
the Bidens as being ‘‘not irrelevant to our posing that the Chief Justice make that this prosecutor was corrupt. And
case.’’ Are you opposed to having the Chief that decision. And I think the reason, the uncontradicted testimony was also
Justice make the initial determinations re- of course, that they don’t want the that, in getting rid of that prosecutor,
garding the relevance of documents and wit- Chief Justice to make that decision, as it would increase the chances of real

VerDate Sep 11 2014 04:00 Jan 31, 2020 Jkt 099060 PO 00000 Frm 00031 Fmt 4624 Sfmt 0634 E:\CR\FM\G30JA6.045 S30JAPT1
corruption prosecutions going forward, of conduct in which he places his personal tion into the Bidens in 2017. He did not
not that it would decrease them. and political interests above the national se- put a hold on the aid in 2017. But the
So the sham is this: The sham is that curity interests of the United States? Trump administration oversaw $560
Joe Biden did something wrong when Mr. Manager JEFFRIES. Thank you, million in military and security aid to
he followed United States policy, when Mr. Chief Justice. I also want to thank Ukraine in 2017.
he did what he was asked to do by our the Senators, again, for your hospi- In 2018, the same conditions existed.
European allies, when he did what he tality and for listening to both sides as If President Trump is truly an anti-
was asked to do by international finan- we have endeavored to answer your corruption crusader—but what hap-
cial institutions. questions. Thank you for that ques- pened in 2018? He didn’t seek an inves-
And the other sham is the Russian tion. tigation into the Bidens. He didn’t put
propaganda sham that this I think, first and foremost, there has a hold on the aid. Rather, the Trump
CrowdStrike—kooky conspiracy theory been a troubling pattern of possible administration oversaw $620 million in
that the Ukrainians, not the Russians, conflicts of interest that we have seen military and security aid to Ukraine,
hacked the DNC and that someone from the beginning of this administra- which brings us to this moment.
whisked the server away to Ukraine to tion through this moment, but the al- Why the sudden interest in Burisma,
hide it. That is Russian intelligence legation here related to the abuse of in the Bidens, in alleged corruption
propaganda, and yes, it is a sham. And power charge is that, in this specific concerns about Ukraine? What changed
it is worse than a sham. It is a Russian instance, the President tried to cheat in 2019? What changed is that Joe
propaganda coup is what it is. Thank by soliciting foreign interference in an Biden announced his candidacy. The
God, Putin says, that they are not American election by trying to gin up President was concerned with that can-
talking about Russian interference phony investigations against a polit- didacy. Polls had him losing to the
anymore; they are talking about the ical opponent. former Vice President, and he was de-
Ukrainian interference. Now, what counsel for the President termined to stop Joe Biden by trying
Now, counsel says: Well, isn’t it pos- has said is that what the President was to cheat in the election, smear him, so-
sible that two countries interfered? really interested in is corruption, that licit foreign interference in 2020.
But you heard what our own Director he is an anti-corruption crusader. For That is an abuse of power. That is
of the FBI, Christopher Wray, said: you to believe the President’s nar- corrupt. That is wrong.
There is no evidence of Ukrainian in- rative, you have to conclude that he is The CHIEF JUSTICE. Thank you,
terference in our election. There is no an anti-corruption crusader. Perhaps Mr. Manager.
evidence. So, yes, I think we can cite his domestic record is part of what The Senator from Maine.
the FBI Director for the proposition Senators can reasonably consider, but Ms. COLLINS. Mr. Chief Justice, I
that that is a sham. And that is why— let’s look at the facts of the central send a question to the desk on behalf of
that is why—we refer to it as such. charge here. myself, Senator RUBIO, and Senator
But at the end of the day, what this The President had two calls with RISCH.
is all about is the President using the President Zelensky, on April 21 and on The CHIEF JUSTICE. Thank you.
power of his office, abusing the power July 25. In both instances, he did not The question from Senators COLLINS,
of that office to engage in soliciting in- mention the word ‘‘corruption’’ once. RUBIO, and RISCH is addressed to the
vestigations—and actually just the an- Released the transcripts. The word House managers:
nouncement of them. If the President ‘‘corruption’’ was not mentioned by The House of Representatives withdrew its
thought there was so much merit Donald Trump once. subpoena to compel Charles Kupperman’s
there, then why was it that he just We also know that in May of last testimony. Why did the House withdraw the
needed their announcement? year President Trump’s own Depart- Kupperman subpoena? Why didn’t the House
And what is more, as counsel just ment of Defense indicated that the new pursue its legal remedies to enforce its sub-
conceded before the break, Rudy Ukrainian Government had met all poenas?
Giuliani was not pursuing the policy of necessary preconditions for the receipt Mr. Manager SCHIFF. Senators, I
the United States. OK. If it wasn’t the of the military aid, including the im- thank you for the question.
policy of the United States, then what plementation of anti-corruption re- When we—our practice in the House
was it? If it wasn’t the policy to pursue forms. That is President Trump’s De- was to invite witnesses to come volun-
an investigation of the Bidens, then partment of Defense saying there is no tarily; if they refused, to give them a
what was it? corruption concern as it relates to the subpoena. In the case of Dr.
It was a ‘‘domestic political errand’’ release of the aid. Kupperman, he refused to come in vol-
is what it was. Now, I think we can all acknowledge, untarily, and we subpoenaed him.
The CHIEF JUSTICE. Thank you, as the President’s counsel indicated, Almost instantly upon receipt of the
Mr. Manager. that there was a general corruption subpoena, a lengthy complaint was
The Senator from Oregon. challenge with Ukraine. I think the filed in court where he sought to chal-
Mr. WYDEN. Mr. Chief Justice, on exact quote from Mr. Purpura was: lenge that subpoena. Interestingly, and
behalf of Senator MENENDEZ, Senator ‘‘Since the fall of the Soviet Union, contrary to, I think, what you are
BROWN, and myself, I send a question to Ukraine has suffered from one of the hearing from the President’s counsel
the desk for the House managers. worst environments for corruption in here today, the House took the posi-
The CHIEF JUSTICE. Thank you. the world.’’ tion that a witness cannot challenge—
Senators WYDEN, MENENDEZ, and Certainly I believe that that is the does not have standing to challenge a
BROWN ask the House managers: case, but here is the key question: Why congressional subpoena.
The President’s counsel has argued that did President Trump wait until 2019 to We were joined, by the way, in that
the President’s actions are based on his de- pretend as if he wanted to do some- position by the Justice Department,
sire to root out corruption. However, new re- which also said that Dr. Kupperman
thing about corruption? Let’s explore.
porting indicates that Attorney General
Barr and former National Security Advisor
Did Ukraine have a corruption prob- didn’t have jurisdiction to challenge or
Bolton shared concerns that the President lem in 2017, generally? The answer is get a declaratory judgment as to the
was granting personal favors to autocratic yes. Did President Trump dislike for- validity of the subpoena.
foreign leaders like President Erdogan of eign aid in 2017? The answer is yes. So, in that litigation, we were often
Turkey. The President has also acknowl- What did President Trump do about on the same page as the Justice De-

edged his private business interests in the these alleged concerns in 2017? The an- partment. But more meaningful to us,
country like Trump Towers Istanbul. The swer is nothing. we were simply not going to engage in
Treasury Department has not denied that Under the same exact conditions that a yearslong process of delay to get the
the President directed Treasury and the De-
the President now claims motivated answers that we needed.
partment of Justice to intervene in the
criminal investigation of Halkbank, the him to seek a phony political inves- We proposed to Dr. Kupperman’s
Turkish state-owned bank, which has been tigation against the Bidens and place a counsel that if, as you claim, this is
accused of a scheme to evade Iranian sanc- hold on the money, the President did really about just wanting to get a
tions. Has the President engaged in a pattern nothing. He did not seek an investiga- court blessing, there is a willingness to

VerDate Sep 11 2014 04:00 Jan 31, 2020 Jkt 099060 PO 00000 Frm 00032 Fmt 4624 Sfmt 0634 E:\CR\FM\G30JA6.046 S30JAPT1
come forward, but we just want to The question from Senator HIRONO is sador—our anti-corruption champion
make sure that it is appropriate that for the House managers: in Ukraine—was ‘‘going to go through
we do so, if you are sincere about that, Can you talk about what has happened to some things.’’ I don’t think we could
there is already a case that has been whistleblowers when they have been outed have imagined that happening before
filed, the McGahn case, that is about to against their will? What are the con- this Presidency. And sometimes you
be decided. Let’s agree to be bound by sequences of revealing their identity, par- just have to step back and realize just
what conclusion Judge Jackson ticularly when we have a President who has how striking and abhorrent this is and
tried to bully and threaten impeachment
reaches in that case. And their answer witnesses?
what a risk it is to civility, to decency,
was no. to our institutions.
And, indeed, that opinion would come Mr. Manager SCHIFF. Senator, I We have become inured to it through
out shortly thereafter. That opinion don’t know that we can give you exam- endless repetition of attacks on anyone
said, this claim of absolute immunity ples of whistleblowers who were the who will stand up to this President.
is absolute nonsense, and there is no subject of retaliation, although I have And, of course, the risk is—the very
precedent for it in the 250 years of ju- no doubt that there are many. We can reason we have a whistleblower protec-
risprudence on this subject. seek by the latter part of this evening tion, the very reason why whistle-
So we went back to Dr. Kupperman, to get a list of some of the whistle- blowers should enjoy a right of ano-
and, of course, Dr. Kupperman said: No, blowers that have confronted retalia- nymity, is that in the absence of that,
we would like to get our own judicial tion. misconduct and wrongdoing will pro-
opinion. But I—this does give me an oppor- liferate. If there is not a mechanism for
Now, had we gone to fruition, even tunity to speak a little more—in a people lawfully to expose wrongdoing,
though we don’t believe—and it would more fulsome way about a point I made you can bet that wrongdoing is going
have created a bad precedent that they earlier about the unique importance of to increase. And that is why there have
have standing to challenge subpoenas whistleblowers in the intelligence com- been great champions, like Senator
that way. Had they lost, they would munity. GRASSLEY, of whistleblower protec-
have gone to the court of appeals and Our area of intelligence is unique in tions, Senator BURR and Senator WAR-
the Supreme Court. They would have this respect. If you are a whistleblower NER, and many others, because we all
come back to the district court. And who wants to blow the whistle on a understand—at least we did here-
now no longer arguing absolute immu- fraudulent contract in a transportation tofore—the vital importance and con-
nity because that would have been, we project, you can go public. If you are tributions that are made by American
believe, defeated, they would make blowing the whistle on misconduct in citizens who bring wrongdoing to our
claims of executive privilege, and they the area of housing, you can go public. attention.
would litigate those up through the You can have a press conference, and The CHIEF JUSTICE. Thank you,
court of appeals and the Supreme you can declare the wrongdoing that Mr. Manager.
Court. you have seen. Mr. BLUNT. Mr. Chief Justice.
We knew that course because we are If you are a whistleblower in the in- The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen-
in it with Don McGahn. Nine months telligence community, however, you ator from Missouri.
after he was subpoenaed, we are still cannot go public. You have no recourse Mr. BLUNT. Mr. Chief Justice, I send
litigating it. And they are in Court to bring to the public’s attention a question to the desk on behalf of my-
saying Congress shouldn’t do what they wrongdoing, except one of really two self, Senators HAWLEY, WICKER, and
are saying that we should do before vehicles. You can go to an Intelligence CAPITO.
this body. Committee or you can go to the inspec- The CHIEF JUSTICE. Thank you.
So that is why we withdrew the sub- tor general. The question from Senators BLUNT,
poena. We were not going to go And in this area, where our hearings HAWLEY, WICKER, and CAPITO is ad-
through that exercise. are in closed session, where you don’t dressed to counsel for the President:
You have to ask the question, I have outside stakeholders that can What responsibility does the president
think, why did Fiona Hill feel that she point out the flaws in what an agency have to safeguard the use of taxpayer dollars
could come and testify? She worked for is representing, if you are on the for foreign aid and work to root out corrup-
Dr. Kupperman. Why was she willing to Transportation Committee and some- tion?
show the courage to come and testify one comes in and they say: This high- Mr. Counsel CIPOLLONE. Thank
when her boss wasn’t? speed rail project is on time and under you, Mr. Chief Justice and Members of
There is not a good answer to that budget, you have outside validators the Senate.
question, but I am awfully glad that and stakeholders that can say that is The President has an important re-
she did because, without her, we would just not true. sponsibility to safeguard taxpayer dol-
be that much less knowledgeable about In the intel world where our hearings lars that are used in foreign aid or used
this President’s scheme. are in closed session, there are not out- anywhere, frankly, and to root out cor-
So that was the history of the side stakeholders that are listening, ruption. Now, it is no secret that Presi-
Kupperman subpoena. Likewise, John that can hold those agencies to ac- dent Trump, from the beginning, from
Bolton, who has the same counsel, told count. And so we are uniquely depend- the time he came down the escalator,
us if we subpoenaed him, he would sue. ent when there is wrongdoing on two has been committed to ensuring that
Now, why is it that he is willing to things: self-reporting by the agencies American taxpayer dollars are used ap-
testify now, and he wasn’t willing to and the willingness of people of good propriately—are used appropriately.
testify before the House? You should faith to come forward and blow the And if they are going to foreign coun-
ask him that question. But that was whistle. tries, he wants to make sure that they
the predicament we faced. And in our And we do injury to that when we ex- are used wisely. And there is ample evi-
view, a President should not be able to pose those whistleblowers to retalia- dence of that—ample evidence of that.
defeat an investigation into his wrong- tion. I don’t think any of us would have I don’t think that is even disputed or
doing by endlessly litigating the mat- imagined a circumstance in which a disputable. And he is fulfilling that ob-
ter in court, particularly when they President of the United States before ligation.
are in court saying you can’t use the now would have called a whistleblower The other point that he makes re-
court to enforce your subpoenas. a traitor or a spy or suggested that peatedly is that if we are helping coun-

The CHIEF JUSTICE. Thank you, people that blow the whistle on his tries around the world, other countries
Mr. Manager. wrongdoing are traitors and spies, and should help us help them. We use the
Ms. HIRONO. Mr. Chief Justice. we should treat them as we used to word ‘‘burden-sharing.’’ What does that
The CHIEF JUSTICE. The Senator treat traitors and spies. mean? ‘‘Burden-sharing’’ means that if
from Hawaii. I don’t think we could have imagined American taxpayers are going to help
Ms. HIRONO. I send a question to the a circumstance where a President of with a problem in a country around the
desk for the House managers. the United States would have told a world—and we do, and we do a lot. We
The CHIEF JUSTICE. Thank you. foreign leader that the U.S. Ambas- do it to the tune of billions and billions

VerDate Sep 11 2014 04:00 Jan 31, 2020 Jkt 099060 PO 00000 Frm 00033 Fmt 4624 Sfmt 0634 E:\CR\FM\G30JA6.048 S30JAPT1
of dollars. When here in our country, raised the 2016 election interference, in the House proceedings that it ap-
we need to fix our roads; we need to fix and he mentioned the Biden and peared like Burisma was trying to
our bridges. So if we are going to take Burisma incident; that there was not whitewash their reputation by putting
money away from those important any legitimate public policy or foreign people with connections on their board.
projects here in America that come policy interest in mentioning those And then there is the prosecutor being
from the hard-earned dollars of tax- things to the President of Ukraine. fired.
payers, why can’t other countries help That is the standard they have set for It is just not reasonable to say that
us? That is called burden-sharing. It is themselves. It is on page 5 of the House no one could possibly say: That looks
also called fairness. So he has that ob- Judiciary Committee report, and it is fishy. There is something maybe that
ligation, and every day he fulfills that on page 4. They say they have to show somebody should look into there.
obligation. it is a sham investigation, and I think Thank you.
Let me make another point in re- it is on page 6 they say it is a bogus in- The CHIEF JUSTICE. Thank you,
sponse to Senator WARREN’s question. vestigation. That is their standard be- counsel.
cause they know they have to establish The Senator from Alaska.
The most important thing, in terms of
Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. Chief Justice,
the fairness of this proceeding—and that there is no legitimate public pol-
I send a question to the desk.
that is why I have quoted repeatedly. I icy interest at all in mentioning those The CHIEF JUSTICE. Thank you.
haven’t played the videos over and over in order to come anywhere close to Senator MURKOWSKI asks counsel for
again, but you remember them—the being able to assert something that the President:
wise words, the true words of the could be a wrongful conduct by the You explain that Ambassador Sondland
Democrats in the Clinton impeachment President, because if there is a legiti- and Senator JOHNSON both said the President
years. And the only point the Amer- mate interest, if there is something explicitly denied that he was looking for a
ican people understand—they under- there that is worth asking, they don’t quid pro quo with Ukraine. The reporting on
stand it, and I think everyone in this have a case. And that is why they have Ambassador Bolton’s book suggests the
body understands it; that there can’t tried to tell you again and again there President told Bolton directly that the aid
be one standard for one political party is not a scintilla of evidence. would not be released until Ukraine an-
This is really pretty preposterous, for nounced the investigations the President de-
and another for the other political sired. This dispute about material facts
party. That is important. Those words the House managers to come and say, weighs in favor of calling additional wit-
should be applied here. We can’t have a particularly with respect to the Biden- nesses with direct knowledge. Why should
standard that changes depending on Burisma incident, there can’t be any this body not call Ambassador Bolton?
what somebody thinks about political legitimate interest in raising that Mr. Counsel PHILBIN. Mr. Chief Jus-
issues. question because it has all been de- tice, Senators, thank you for the ques-
In order to be fair, the same standard bunked. And the question has been tion.
has to be applied, regardless of your asked: Where was it was debunked? By I think the primary consideration
party. So that is the critical issue here. whom was it debunked? Who conducted here is to understand that the House
And that is the bedrock principle, not that investigation? Where is the report could have pursued Ambassador
a double standard for justice in the from that investigation? Who estab- Bolton. The House considered whether
Senate but one standard—the true lished that there is nothing there? or not they would try to have him
standard, the standard that has been There is no such report. They have come testify. They chose not to sub-
articulated eloquently by Democrats been asked; they haven’t been able to poena him.
over and over again in the Clinton pro- cite it. There has been no such inves- This all goes back to the most impor-
ceedings. That is the standard that is tigation. tant consideration, I think, that this
right. That is the standard that we ask But what do we know? We do know Chamber has before it in some ways,
for, regardless of political party. that every witness who was asked especially on this threshold issue of
Thank you. about it said, at a minimum, there was whether there should be witnesses or
The CHIEF JUSTICE. Thank you, an appearance of a conflict of interest. not. It has to do with the precedent
counsel. We do know that these two members of that is established here for what kind
Mr. KING. Mr. Chief Justice. the Obama administration—Amos of impeachment proceeding this body
The CHIEF JUSTICE. The Senator Hochstein and Deputy Assistant Sec- will accept from now going forward, be-
from Maine. retary of State Kent—raised the issue cause whatever is accepted in this case
Mr. KING. I am sending a question to of the conflict of interest with Vice becomes the new normal for every im-
the desk. President Biden’s Office. We know that peachment proceeding in the future.
The CHIEF JUSTICE. Senator KING Chris Heinz, the stepson of Secretary of And it will do grave damage to this
asks the President’s counsel: State Kerry, who had been a business body as an institution to say that the
Would it be permissible for a President to partner with Hunter Biden, broke off proceedings in the House don’t have to
inform the Prime Minister of Israel that he his business ties with him because really be complete. You don’t have to
was holding congressional appropriated mili- Hunter Biden took a seat on the board subpoena the witnesses that you think
tary aid unless the Prime Minister promised of Burisma. are necessary to prove your case. You
to come to the United States and publicly So to say that there is nothing that don’t really have to put it all together
charge his opponent with antisemitism in could possibly merit asking a question before you bring the package here.
the midst of an election campaign? about that is utterly disingenuous. It When you are impeaching the Presi-
Mr. Counsel PHILBIN. Mr. Chief Jus- can’t be said with a straight face. dent of the United States—the gravest
tice and Senator, thank you for the Every witness that was asked about it impeachment that they could possibly
question, but the question really has said that there was something, at consider—you don’t have to do all of
nothing do with this case. I mean, it least, that gave the appearance of a that work before you get to this insti-
seems to be trying to get at the most conflict of interest. There hasn’t been tution.
extreme hypothetical related to a mis- any investigation to debunk this the- Instead, when you come to this
interpretation of what Professor ory. There hasn’t been any inquiry to Chamber, it can be kind of half-baked,
Dershowitz was saying the other night. find out if there is ‘‘there’’ there or not finished—we need other witnesses,
It is totally irrelevant here. not. and we want this Chamber to do the in-
The charges that have been brought It doesn’t have to do, as Manager vestigation that wasn’t done in the

here, articulated in the Articles of Im- SCHIFF was suggesting, just with, well, House of Representatives. And then
peachment, are based on a theory of why was Hunter Biden on the board, or this Chamber will have to be issuing
abuse of power; that the House Demo- were they paying him? It is the whole the subpoenas and dealing with that.
crats, the House managers have made situation—the whole situation of, all of And that is not the way this Chamber
clear depends for them to make their a sudden, he is put on the board at the should allow impeachments to be pre-
case to establish that when the Presi- time when his father was put in charge sented to it.
dent raised two issues on the call with of Ukraine policy. And there are peo- We have heard—there was some ex-
President Zelensky of Ukraine, he ple—there were witnesses who testified change the other day about, well, there

VerDate Sep 11 2014 04:00 Jan 31, 2020 Jkt 099060 PO 00000 Frm 00034 Fmt 4624 Sfmt 0634 E:\CR\FM\G30JA6.049 S30JAPT1
were a lot of witnesses in the Judge stow favors in U.S. resources to coun- former Ukrainian Prosecutor General Victor
Porteous impeachment, and this Cham- tries where the President has invest- Shokin that Mr. Shokin ‘‘believes his ouster
ber was able to handle that. It is very ments. Is that what we want driving was because of his interest in [Burisma Hold-
ings], and his claim that had he remained in
different in the impeachment of a U.S. policy? But that is the implication
his post, Shokin said he would have ques-
judge, which is being handled by a com- of what they have to say. tioned Hunter Biden,’’ as reported on July 22,
mittee. My understanding is that, I agree with counsel about one thing 2019 in an article in The Washington Post en-
under rule XI of the Senate procedures, they said: If we have a trial with no titled ‘‘As Vice President, Biden said
there was a committee receiving that witnesses, that will be a new precedent. Ukraine Should Increase Gas Production.
evidence. But in a Presidential im- We should be very concerned about the Then His Son got a job with a Ukrainian Gas
peachment, there is not going to be precedent we set here because it will Company,’’ by Michael Kranish and David L.
just a committee; it is the entire mean heretofore—that when a Presi- Stern.
Chamber that is going to have to be dent is impeached, that one party can Mr. Counsel PHILBIN. Mr. Chief Jus-
sitting as Court of Impeachment, and deny the other witnesses, and that will tice, Senator, thank you for that ques-
that will affect the business of the be the new normal, that we have trials tion.
Chamber. without witnesses, and I don’t think The answer, to the best of my knowl-
So I think the idea that something that is the precedent we should be set- edge, is no, the House of Representa-
comes out and somebody makes an as- ting here. tives did not investigate the veracity
sertion in a book, allegedly—it is only The CHIEF JUSTICE. Thank you, of the truth of that reporting about
an alleged; it is simply alleged now Mr. Manager. Prosecutor General Shokin. In fact,
that the manuscript says that; Ambas- Mr. Counsel PHILBIN. Mr. Chief Jus- that was part of the point.
sador Bolton hasn’t come out to verify tice, Senator, thank you for the ques- As Manager SCHIFF was saying here,
that, to my knowledge—that then we tion. again, the House Democrats’ position
should start having this Chamber call- Let me just begin by noting I think is that everything related to the entire
ing new witnesses and establish the it is a little bit rich for Manager incident of the Bidens and Burisma and
new normal for impeachment pro- SCHIFF to say that one party—i.e., the what was going on with the pros-
ceedings as being that there doesn’t President—is going to deny them wit- ecutor—it is all debunked. There is
have to be a complete investigation in nesses. It was the President who was nothing to see there. Move along. Don’t
the House, I think that is very dam- denied any witnesses throughout this ask about it. But they didn’t inves-
aging for the future of this institution. process up until now. tigate it, and they can’t point to any-
Thank you. But to get back to the question on one who has investigated it. They can’t
The CHIEF JUSTICE. Thank you, Senator KING’s hypothetical, if the point to anyone who has really looked
counsel. President insisted that a foreign leader at it.
The Senator from Hawaii. come here and lie about someone else As I said a minute ago—and I will not
Mr. SCHATZ. Mr. Chief Justice, I and he was holding up military aid or belabor the point—every witness who
have a question on behalf of myself and a package of congressional aid and say- was asked said that they thought, yes,
Senators WHITEHOUSE and HEINRICH, ing ‘‘You have to go out and lie about there was at least the appearance of a
and this is for the counsel for the this,’’ that would be wrong. But that is conflict of interest there. At least one
President and the House managers. not this case, and it has nothing to do witness—and there is a public report-
The CHIEF JUSTICE. Thank you. with this case. ing of another person, whose name is
Question from Senators SCHATZ, But I would like to address some- Hochstein, in the Obama administra-
WHITEHOUSE, and HEINRICH for both thing that Manager SCHIFF said be- tion—raised the issue with Vice Presi-
parties: cause he immediately pivoted now to dent Biden’s Office, but nothing was
Can the White House really not admit that the next thing. What is in the news- done about it.
Senator KING’s hypothetical would be wrong? papers? What else can we bring in from There have been questions about
We begin with the House managers. the newspapers? There is an allegation whether Vice President Biden sought
Mr. Manager SCHIFF. Senator, we that the manuscript says something or received an ethics opinion. We don’t
have no trouble recognizing just how about conversations that Ambassador know—not that I have heard of, not
wrong that would be, but more than Bolton had with Attorney General that I have seen anywhere. It is just
that, it is the natural extension of Pro- Barr. Well, Attorney General Barr has something that no one has actually in-
fessor Dershowitz’ argument that if the issued a statement saying that allega- quired into.
President believed that kind of quid tion, that assertion, is not accurate, There have been questions raised
pro quo would help his reelection, then that that is false. And there are other about ‘‘Why now?’’ ‘‘Why are they
it is perfectly fine and nonimpeach- allegations that are made about what being raised now?’’ The implication the
able. There was a reason, of course, might be in this manuscript. Mick House managers have tried to make is
why they didn’t want to address that Mulvaney has issued a statement say- it is just because Joe Biden decided in
hypothetical. ing that is not true. April he was going to run for the Presi-
Let me go back also to the question So to sort of play the game of, there dency.
that was asked about the other written is going to be another leak; somebody As I explained the other day, Rudy
reports that Ambassador Bolton and might write a book; there is something Giuliani, as the President’s private
Attorney General Barr were concerned else—and that is, again, turning this counsel, was exploring matters in
that the President was intervening in body into the one doing the investiga- Ukraine starting in the fall of 2018. He
cases in which he had business invest- tion because the House didn’t pursue had tips because he was interested in
ments, like Turkey. Under the theory the investigation. That is not pruden- finding out—remember, the Mueller in-
of the President’s lawyers, that is per- tially a wise move for this Chamber to vestigation was still ongoing at that
fectly OK, too. If the President thinks take on that task. point. It wasn’t clear what the out-
somehow that that is in the United Thank you. come of the Mueller investigation was
States’ interest because it is in his in- The CHIEF JUSTICE. Thank you, going to be. He was trying to find out
terest, that is perfectly fine. It is un- counsel. what were the origins of Russian inter-
impeachable. The Senator from Louisiana. ference, of the Steele dossier, of allega-
Now, is it a crime to give preference Mr. KENNEDY. Your Honor, I send a tions of collusion by the Trump cam-

to autocrats, to give special consider- question to the desk for counsel for the paign. That led, in part, to Ukraine,
ation to autocrats where your business President. and he got information that led him to
investments are? That may not be The CHIEF JUSTICE. Thank you. various strands to pursue. One of them
criminal, but it is impeachable. It cer- The question from Senator KENNEDY became the issue of the Biden and
tainly should be impeachable if we are is for counsel for the President: Burisma incident.
going to sacrifice the national security Has the House of Representatives, in its He prepared a little package on that
of the country, if we are going to with- impeachment proceedings or otherwise, in- based on interview notes on January 23
hold military aid, if we are going to be- vestigated the veracity of the statement by and January 25 of 2019. Months before

VerDate Sep 11 2014 04:00 Jan 31, 2020 Jkt 099060 PO 00000 Frm 00035 Fmt 4624 Sfmt 0634 E:\CR\FM\G30JA6.050 S30JAPT1
Joe Biden announced that he was going partisan impeachment that was warned will survive this debacle. But if we hold
to run for the Presidency, Rudy about from the Framers? that a President can defy all sub-
Giuliani was interviewing Shokin and The only appropriate result that will poenas, can tie up the Congress end-
Lutsenko and wrote down in the inter- not damage our country horribly— lessly with bad-faith claims of privi-
view notes stuff about the Biden and maybe forever but certainly for genera- lege—claiming here one thing and
Burisma incident and the firing of tions—is a verdict of acquittal. claiming in court something else—it
Shokin. He put it all in a package, and Here is the other point. In getting will eviscerate our oversight power. If
he delivered it to the State Depart- back to the question of witnesses, Mr. the President is allowed to decide
ment in March—still before Joe Biden SCHIFF is up here: Let’s make a deal. which subpoenas they will deign to
said he was going to be running for How about we have the Chief Justice— consider valid and which they will
President. That didn’t happen until and we have the greatest respect for deign to consider invalid, your over-
April 25. It was all done—all put in a the Chief Justice. Here is the problem. sight power and our oversight power is
package, all delivered. We are talking about critical constitu- gone. That is an irrevocable change to
That is public now because that little tional rights that have been protected the balance of power.
package that he sent to the State De- by the Supreme Court over our history. What is more, if we adopt their the-
partment was released, I think it was, So what is he really saying? Think ory of the case that a President can
under the FOIA litigation, but it has about these questions. abuse his power and do so by holding
been released publicly, and the notes The Senate can decide about execu- another country hostage by with-
that he took, his interview notes, were tive privilege by a vote—by a majority holding congressionally appropriated
released publicly. vote. With the greatest respect—with funds and can violate the law in doing
So the timing dates back to when the greatest respect—if the Senate can so as long as they think it is in their
Rudy Giuliani was pursuing that, start- just decide there is no executive privi- interest, imagine what that will do to
ing back in the fall of 2018 with his tak- lege, guess what? You are destroying the balance of power. Article II will
ing time to pursue leads. He was trying executive privilege. Can the Senate de- really mean what the President says it
to get Shokin to come to this country cide the House’s speech or debate pro- means, which is he can do whatever he
to interview him. He couldn’t get him tection? I mean, when we ask for docu- wants.
a visa and had to interview him by ments from Mr. SCHIFF and his staff So, yes, the stakes are big here. Arti-
phone. Lutsenko was in New York, and and he says ‘‘speech or debate,’’ are cle II goes to whether our oversight
he prepared this package. That is why you going to decide that? Is that how power—particularly in a case of inves-
there is that timing. we are going to do this? Are we going tigating the President’s own wrong-
Then there were public articles pub- to flip a coin? Is that going to be your doing—continues to have any weight or
lished about the Biden-Burisma affair. next suggestion? whether the impeachment power itself
One of them was just mentioned in the We are talking about an election of is now a nullity.
question—a Washington Post article, the President. There are critical con- The CHIEF JUSTICE. Thank you,
July 22, 2019, specifically about it— stitutional issues that will alter our Mr. Manager.
about the firing of Shokin 3 days before balance of power for generations if we The Senator from Florida.
the July 25 telephone call. It was in the go down that road. Mr. RUBIO. Mr. Chief Justice, I send
news. It was topical. Down this road is the path provided a question to the desk on behalf of my-
Thank you. by the Democrats so wisely during the self and Senators CAPITO and SCOTT of
The CHIEF JUSTICE. Thank you, Clinton administration. South Carolina—with all due respect.
counsel. The CHIEF JUSTICE. Thank you, The CHIEF JUSTICE. The question
The Senator from Michigan. counsel. from Senators RUBIO, CAPITO, and
Mr. PETERS. Chief Justice, on behalf Mr. Manager SCHIFF. Mr. Chief Jus- SCOTT of South Carolina is directed to
of myself and Senator CORNYN, I send a tice, it may be different in the court both parties, and we will begin with
question to the desk for both House than it is in this Chamber and in the counsel for the House managers.
managers and the President’s counsel. House, but when anybody begins a sen- The question reads:
The CHIEF JUSTICE. Thank you. tence with the phrase ‘‘I have the If I understand the Managers’ Case: The
The question from Senators PETERS greatest respect for,’’ you have to look President abused his power because he acted
and CORNYN for both parties reads: out for what follows. contrary to the advice of his advisors, but he
How would the verdict in this trial alter We trust the Justice will make the is guilty of obstruction of Congress because
the balance of power between the executive right decision. The Justice has, I he acted in accordance to the advice of his
and legislative branches in the future? think, conducted these proceedings in advisors.
The President’s counsel goes first. an eminently fair way. Mr. Manager SCHIFF. That is not
Mr. Counsel CIPOLLONE. A verdict— There is nothing in the Constitution our argument at all. The President is
a final judgment—of acquittal would be that would preclude us from taking a impeached on article I not because he
the best thing for our country and week to hear from witnesses and allow- acted contrary to the advice of his ad-
would send a great message that will ing the Chief Justice to make those visers. That is a red herring offered by
actually help in our separation of pow- calls. the President’s legal team. We are not
ers. Here is why. I would say also, with respect to an saying that the President is not free to
As I have said repeatedly—and ac- argument counsel made about the disregard the advice of his counsel. He
cording to the standard articulated so Porteous impeachment trial, where, is. He is entitled to disregard even real-
well during the Clinton impeachment— yes, the Senate designated 12 Senators ly good advice. What he is not free to
what are we dealing with here? We are to hear the witness testimony, the im- do is to engage in corruption. What he
dealing with a purely partisan im- plication is, you can’t do that in an im- is not free to do is to withhold military
peachment with bipartisan opposition, peachment of the President. That is aid—not for a valid policy disagree-
no crime, and no violation of law in an only half correct. The other half is, you ment. They have conceded Rudy
election year. It has never happened can do depositions in which only a cou- Giuliani was not doing policy. What is
before—no investigation, no due proc- ple of Members of the body need par- not permitted is for a President to
ess, nothing. ticipate. So it is a false argument to withhold congressionally appropriated
What they are telling you—I mean, say or to suggest that the whole body money for a corrupt purpose—to secure

we can talk all we want, and we will, would need to conduct the whole of the help, to illicit foreign help, and cheat
but what are we talking about at the depositions. So much as we would like in an election. That is no policy dis-
end of the day? We are talking about live testimony, we have offered a com- agreement.
removing the President of the United promise. Now, are we arguing in article II that
States from the ballot in an election With respect to the question about he should be impeached for following
that is occurring in months. Who what this will do to the balance of his lawyers’ advice? No. They were fol-
thinks that is a good idea, particularly power, I would say this: As I mentioned lowing his advice. His advice was to
when you are dealing with a purely earlier, our relationship with Ukraine fight all subpoenas. They were giving

VerDate Sep 11 2014 04:00 Jan 31, 2020 Jkt 099060 PO 00000 Frm 00036 Fmt 4624 Sfmt 0634 E:\CR\FM\G30JA6.052 S30JAPT1
the legal window dressing to that. The Senator from West Virginia. be finished on the basis of the case that
They were going to court and arguing Mr. MANCHIN. Mr. Chief Justice, I the House managers came ready to
one thing and coming before you and send a question to the desk on behalf of present. If they weren’t ready to
arguing another. He was not following myself for the President’s counsel and present a case that can win, there
their advice; they were following his. House managers. should be an acquittal.
You can say a lot about Donald Trump, The CHIEF JUSTICE. Thank you. Thank you.
but he is not led around by the nose by The question is from Senator Mr. SCOTT of South Carolina. Mr.
his legal counsel. Ask Don McGahn MANCHIN for both parties. We will begin Chief Justice.
about that. Don McGahn stood up to with the President’s counsel. The CHIEF JUSTICE. We have an-
the President. Over the past two weeks, the White House other half of the presentation.
Bob Mueller—if we are going to talk counsel had detailed all the problems associ- Mr. Manager SCHIFF. If we could—
ated with the House’s decision to move
about the Mueller report—found sev- Senator, if we could pull up slide 37,
quickly through their impeachment pro-
eral instances—and this goes to the ceedings. Why shouldn’t this body heed their this is what the district court had to
pattern of the President’s mis- advice and slow down and at least allow the say in the McGahn litigation, now on
conduct—in which he sought to ob- judge to rule in the McGahn case to give the appeal:
struct that investigation, including members of this body an official opinion Executive branch officials are not abso-
telling the President’s lawyer that he from the Judiciary on Article II? lutely immune from compulsory congres-
should fire the special counsel and then Mr. Counsel PHILBIN. Mr. Chief Jus- sional process no matter how many times
that he should lie about that instruc- tice, Senator, thank you for the ques- the executive branch has asserted as much
tion. tion. over the years.
The CHIEF JUSTICE. Thank you, I think the key point here is the That is consistent with the decision
Mr. Manager. McGahn case is not going to directly in the Miers case, where the court said:
Mr. Counsel CIPOLLONE. Thank resolve something related to the ob- Clear precedent and persuasive policy rea-
you, Mr. Chief Justice, Members of the struction charges here. It is going to sons confirm that the Executive cannot be
Senate. address a legal issue with respect to an the judge of its own privilege and hence Ms.
You are right. That is yet another assertion of absolute immunity for Don Miers is not entitled to absolute immunity.
way in which the House managers’ McGahn. Let’s look at what the court said on
theories of impeachment are incoher- There should be a decision from the slide 38, where Judge Jackson said:
ent and dangerous. DC Circuit sometime soon, but that Stated simply, the primary takeaway from
With respect to article II—and again, will almost certainly go to the Su- the past 250 years of recorded American his-
I won’t respond to the ad hominem at- preme Court. I mean, that immunity is tory is that Presidents are not kings . . .
tacks that keep coming. I will say, just being challenged, and it has been relied compulsory appearance by dint of a subpoena
for the record, you are right—I haven’t upon by the executive for over 40 years. is a legal constrict not a political one, and
been elected to anything, but when I That is an issue destined for the Su- per the Constitution no one is above the law.
say ‘‘with the greatest respect,’’ I preme Court. This is the district court saying:
mean it. So the idea—it is not going to be just Thou shalt appear and this claim of ab-
Article II: The President has been to slow down here a little bit. This solute immunity is absolute nonsense.
impeached for exercising longstanding trial can’t be held open pending a final In the court, now, this is what the
constitutional rights. He is looking out resolution of that litigation, and that Justice Department is arguing in that
for constitutional rights in the face of is an important point, because this is case, if we can see slide 39.
a House process that violated all of something that Alexander Hamilton The committee lacks article III standing
them against all precedent, and he is pointed out in Federalist No. 65, when to sue to enforce a congressional subpoena
looking out for future Presidents and he was discussing who should be the demanding testimony from an individual on
for the executive branch. How? If he body to try impeachments. One consid- matters related to his duties as an executive
branch official.
had said, ‘‘OK. Fine. No rights. No eration was potentially drawing in
counsel. No witnesses. No right to judges from various States to create a And so here we are. We are now in a
cross-examine. Here is everything you new body to try impeachments, and the court of appeals, the Justice Depart-
asked for,’’ what sort of precedent rationale that Hamilton gave that that ment is saying that you cannot force
would that set? That would irreparably would be a bad idea is that there has to congressional subpoenas, and they are
damage the separation of powers. be swift progression from an impeach- saying: Well, let’s continue to litigate
Again, all you need to look at are the ment to the trial, to a verdict, to hav- the matter. Let this play out further.
Articles of Impeachment. The Articles ing it finished, precisely because this is To what end? To what end? Yes, I
of Impeachment do not allege a crime. where he talked about ‘‘the persecution suppose we could wait for a court of ap-
They do not even allege a violation of of an intemperate or designing major- peals decision, but, of course, they
law. They are purely partisan. They ity in the House of Representatives.’’ would say they are not satisfied with
were opposed by Democrats in the He recognized there could be partisan that court throwing out this idea ei-
House. impeachments, and that accusation, ther.
It is an election year, and they are that impeachment, shouldn’t been Well, look, we have got a perfectly
here, saying: Instead of an election, hanging out there. There should be a good Justice right here that can make
let’s confront very consequential, con- swift trial to determine things finally, these decisions. Let’s let him make the
stitutional issues that have never real- and that is why all of the preparation call. Let’s let him make the call. Let’s
ly been confronted, and let’s do it in a ought to be done in the House of Rep- trust that he would be fair and impar-
week. Let’s destroy executive privi- resentatives to ensure that there is an tial.
lege. Maybe let’s destroy speech and investigation, there is a case put to- The CHIEF JUSTICE. Thank you,
debate privilege. gether. And, if they are ready to im- Mr. Manager.
Let me point out one other thing. It peach the President of the United The Senator from South Carolina
is not right to accuse somebody falsely States, they had better be finished, Mr. SCOTT of South Carolina. Thank
of something and then say: Unless you have everything buttoned down, and you, sir.
waive your constitutional rights, you have their case ready because they I send a question to the desk on be-
are guilty. That is not right. We can’t have a trial of the President— half of myself, Senators HAWLEY,

shouldn’t accept that in this country. Hamilton warned against that specifi- SASSE, and BARRASSO.
These are the longstanding privileges. cally—hanging over the country for The CHIEF JUSTICE. Thank you.
They have been respected for hundreds months on end. The question from Senators SCOTT of
of years, and we should continue to re- And so to push off this trial to say: South Carolina, HAWLEY, SASSE, and
spect them. Well, we will wait for litigation and at BARRASSO is to the counsel for the
Thank you. that point—that is a very dangerous President:
The CHIEF JUSTICE. Thank you, idea, and that is not the way that the During their presentation, the House Man-
counsel. trial here should operate. It ought to agers referenced Chairman Gowdy and the

VerDate Sep 11 2014 04:00 Jan 31, 2020 Jkt 099060 PO 00000 Frm 00037 Fmt 4624 Sfmt 0634 E:\CR\FM\G30JA6.053 S30JAPT1
House Benghazi Investigation. The final re- the motion, and we have to—that is the that, then, there are some witnesses
port on Benghazi flatly says ‘‘The adminis- system that is in place. That is the sys- that we can call on, including Ambas-
tration did not cooperate with the investiga- tem we should follow. sador Bolton, that could shed addi-
tion.’’ That committee fought for two years But this idea that two district court tional light on it.
to access information, and often had infor-
judges have decided an issue of this But the fact pattern that we are sit-
mation requests ignored or denied. Yet this
House investigation, after just 3 months, al- magnitude and that is now the deter- ting at right now—what we are talking
ready supposedly justifies impeachment. mination—they wouldn’t accept it if about right now—is 17 witnesses that
Does President Trump owe more compliance they were in our position. They would were called in the House, none of whom
than other Presidents did? say: Well, the district court decided; so had any indicia or had any data to pro-
Mr. Counsel SEKULOW. Thank you, that is going to be it. vide that any of these theories were ac-
Mr. Chief Justice. So I think we need to look at what is curate.
Part of what we are seeing, I believe, really at stake. These are really sig- We have the entire intelligence and
is kind of a two-fold attack or ap- nificant issues. These are serious. I law enforcement community of the
proach. We just saw a citation to two mean, the idea that executive privilege United States unanimously saying that
should just be waived or doesn’t exist, there is no indication that Ukraine was
district court opinions, as if the final
that, in your view, absolute immunity involved in the 2016 election, that it
arbiter of an issue of this magnitude is
can’t possibly exist—it has only been was Russia.
going to be the district court—or, for And don’t buy the red herring, by the
that matter, the court of appeals. utilized for administrations for 50
way, that counsel for the President has
You are right. It is going to be the years or more.
brought forth—this idea that, oh, it
Supreme Court of the United States, if Professor Dershowitz gave you the
can only be Russia. You know, they
it goes in that direction. list of Presidents that have put forward
said earlier that we are claiming that
Now, with regard to the question executive privilege, and in a lot of his
it can only be Russia. That is not what
about the statement in the Benghazi writings, he talks about it.
we are saying. Nobody on this team has
report that the administration did not But to say tonight that we are just
ever said it can only be Russia, be-
cooperate, the same was also true with going to—you know, we will just cut a
cause, indeed, we know, as many of
Fast and Furious and the investigation deal. We will do it in a week. We will
these people in the Chamber know well,
there. And in that particular investiga- get some depositions, and that will that there are a lot of mal actors out
tion, it reached such a significant point make everyone happy. there, that there are a lot of countries
that Members of the House determined It doesn’t make the Constitution out there that have the capability and
that the then-Attorney General of the happy. the will and that regularly try to at-
United States should be held in con- Thank you. tack us in a variety of ways.
tempt. The CHIEF JUSTICE. Thank you, What we are saying is, with respect
Now, President Obama exercised ex- counsel. to this issue that is before the body
ecutive privilege over documents and The Senator from Ohio. right now, that, unanimously, the law
testimony related to Fast and Furious. Mr. BROWN. Mr. Chief Justice, I send enforcement agencies of the United
The constitutional process was fol- a question to the desk on behalf of Sen- States and the intelligence commu-
lowed. ators CASEY, KLOBUCHAR, WARREN, and nities of the United States have said
Now, I am not the one that makes WYDEN for the House managers. that it was Russia that interfered in
the decision whether that was privi- The CHIEF JUSTICE. Thank you. the 2016 elections and that there is no
leged or not privileged. If there was The question for the House managers data to suggest Ukraine was involved.
going to be a challenge, it would have from Senator BROWN and the other That is the issue.
been adjudicated. But the fact of the Senators is as follows: So the precedent—bringing it all
matter is, at least 10 times tonight Yesterday, you referenced how President around to the beginning of the ques-
Manager SCHIFF has said: We have Trump’s perpetuating and propagating Rus- tion, the precedent is that all of our
sian conspiracy theories undercut our na- adversaries, including Vladimir Putin,
complete confidence in the Chief Jus- tional security objectives. If acquitted in the
tice, ignoring the fact that it is not his Senate, what would prevent the President
will understand that they can play to
call. And I mean that with all sin- from continuing to side with Putin and other the whims of one person, whether that
cerity, since you are making fun of adversaries, instead of our intelligence com- be President Trump or some future
people who are saying ‘‘with due re- munity and career diplomats, and what are President, Democrat or Republican.
spect.’’ It is not—that is not the way it the implications on our national security They can play to the whims and the in-
is set up. agenda if such behavior continues, un- terests and the personal political ambi-
Now, you could agree to anything. checked? tions of one person and get that indi-
Sure, you can negotiate. You can nego- Mr. Manager CROW. Mr. Chief Jus- vidual to propagate their propaganda,
tiate that all the witnesses that will be tice, Senators, thank you for the ques- get them to undermine our own intel-
called will be the witnesses they re- tion. ligence and law enforcement commu-
quested, or you could negotiate that You know, I have talked a lot to- nities. That is a precedent that I don’t
since they had 17 and we had none, we night and throughout the last week think anybody here is willing and in-
get 17 and they get 4. All kinds of about what is at stake here, because, terested in sending, and that is truly
things can be negotiated under their you know, it is getting late into the what is at stake.
view. night, and we have been having this de- The CHIEF JUSTICE. Thank you,
But this is brought to you by the bate for several days now. There is a Mr. Manager.
managers who have an overwhelming lot of discussion in the legal aspects of The Senator from North Dakota.
this. So I don’t want to get into, again, Mr. HOEVEN. Mr. Chief Justice, I am
case that they proved over and over
you know, the issues of our troops in sending a question to the desk for my-
again. That is what they say. They
Europe, the hot war that continues to self, Senator BOOZMAN, Senator
have proved it. It is overwhelming. It is
happen right now as we are speaking in WICKER, and Senator CAPITO.
incredible. We were able to put it to- The CHIEF JUSTICE. The question
gether in a record amount of time. And Ukraine, but I will reiterate the prece-
for counsel for the President from Sen-
now we want you, the U.S. Senate, to dent that we set with regard to Russia
start calling witnesses for our over- and foreign adversaries—you know, CAPITO:
whelmingly proved case. this idea that it is OK to continue to
House managers contend that they have an

I would just lay this down: If we are pedal in Russian propaganda and de- overwhelming case and that they have made
negotiating, why don’t we just go to bunked conspiracy theories—because their case in clear and convincing fashion.
closing arguments, and see what this counsel for the President would have Doesn’t that assertion directly contradict
body decides? you believe that, you know, this is a their request for more witnesses?
But I respect the process. The process policy discussion, that, you know, we Mr. PHILBIN. Mr. Chief Justice, Sen-
is we have 2 days of questioning. To- have not resolved this, that there is a ators, thank you for the question.
morrow there will be an argument on lot of debate about this issue. And if I think it does directly contradict
the motion. There will be a decision on that is indeed the case, if we concede their claim now that they need more

VerDate Sep 11 2014 05:59 Jan 31, 2020 Jkt 099060 PO 00000 Frm 00038 Fmt 4624 Sfmt 0634 E:\CR\FM\G30JA6.055 S30JAPT1
witnesses. They said for weeks that it to proceed to impeachment, where they So the President’s own lawyer gives
was an overwhelming case. They came claim that they have an alternative us the answer, and that ought to tell us
here and they have said 63 times that it mechanism available to them, our posi- something in a couple of respects: one,
is overwhelming or proved beyond a tion is, the Constitution requires that the President’s own agents have
reasonable doubt. Manager NADLER incrementalism in conflicts between said that she was an impediment to
said twice today that based on what the branches, and that means that first getting these investigations. She was
they have already shown you, it has there should be an accommodation this anti-corruption champion, this
been proved beyond any doubt. process, and then Congress can con- anti-corruption champion who is at an
All right, if that is their position, sider other mechanisms at its disposal, awards ceremony or recognition cere-
why do they need more witnesses or such as contempt or such as squeezing mony for a Ukrainian anti-corruption
evidence? It is completely self-con- the President’s policies by withholding fighter, a woman who had acid thrown
tradictory. appropriations or other mechanisms to in her face and died a painful death
I would like to address a couple of deal with that interbranch conflict or, after months. She is at the very cere-
other points while I am here and I have if they claim they can sue in court, to mony acknowledging this other cham-
the time, and we have gone back and sue in court. But an impeachment is a pion fighting corruption when she gets
forth on this, and I don’t know why I measure of last resort. the word: You need to come back on
have to say it again, but the House Now, earlier, Manager SCHIFF sug- the next plane.
managers keep coming up here and gested that today in court, the Depart- One of the reasons the Ukrainians
saying and acting as if, if you mention ment of Justice went in and said: There knew they had to deal with Rudy
Ukraine in connection with election in- Giuliani is that Rudy Giuliani was try-
is no jurisdiction. And when the judge
terference, if you even mention it, you ing to get this Ambassador replaced.
said: Well, if there is no jurisdiction to
are a pawn of Vladimir Putin because And, you know, he succeeded. He suc-
sue, then what can Congress do? And
ceeded, and that sent a message to the
only the Russians interfered in the the DOJ, the key representative, sim-
Ukrainians that if Rudy Giuliani had
election and there is not any evidence ply said: Well, if they can’t sue, then the juice with the President of the
in the record—they say—the Ukrain- they can impeach—as if that was the United States, the power with the
ians did anything. direct answer to just go from if you President of the United States to recall
I read it before; I will read it again. can’t sue, the next step is impeach- an Ambassador from her post, this is
One of their star witnesses, Fiona Hill, ment. not only somebody who had the ear of
said that some Ukrainian officials ‘‘bet Now that didn’t seem right to me, be- the President but could make things
on Hillary Clinton winning the elec- cause I didn’t think that was what DOJ happen.
tion,’’ so it was ‘‘quite evident’’ that would be saying, and DOJ put out a So the short answer is that Rudy
‘‘they were trying to curry favor with statement. I don’t have a transcript of Giuliani tells us why she had to go.
the Clinton campaign,’’ including by the hearing. They don’t have the tran- Now why they had to smear her, why
‘‘trying to collect information . . . on script ready yet, as far as I know, but the President couldn’t simply recall
Mr. Manafort and on other people as DOJ said, and this is a quote from the her—that is harder to explain. But the
well.’’ That was Fiona Hill. statement: reason they wanted her out of the way
There was also evidence in the record The point we made in court is simply that is they wanted to make these inves-
from a POLITICO article in 2017. There Congress has numerous political tools it can tigations go forward, and they knew
was a whole bunch of Ukrainian offi- use in battles with the executive branch—ap- someone there fighting corruption was
cials who had done things to try to propriations, legislation, nominations, and getting in the way of that.
help the Clinton campaign and the potentially in some circumstances even im-
Now I wanted to say, with respect to
DNC and to harm the Trump campaign. peachment. For example, it can hold up
funding for the President’s preferred pro-
some of the arguments against having
In addition, two news organizations, the testimony of John Bolton, these
grams, pass legislation he opposes, or refuse
both POLITICO and the Financial to confirm his nominees. are some of the former National Secu-
Times did their own investigative re- rity Advisors who have been called to
porting, and the Financial Times con- This is continuing their statement:
hearings and depositions: Zbigniew
cluded that the opposition to President But it is absurd for Chairman SCHIFF to
portray our mere description of the Con- Brzezinski, National Security Advisor
Trump led ‘‘Kiev’s wider political lead- stitution as somehow endorsing his rush to for President Carter, provided 8 hours
ership to do something they would an impeachment trial. of public hearing testimony and addi-
never have attempted before: [to] in- tional deposition testimony before the
Thank you.
tervene, however indirectly, in a US Senate Judiciary Committee Sub-
The CHIEF JUSTICE. The Senator
election’’—the Financial Times. committee to Investigate Individuals
from Connecticut.
So the idea that there is no evidence Regarding the Interests of Foreign
Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Thank you, Mr.
whatsoever of Ukrainians doing any- Governments; Admiral Poindexter tes-
Chief Justice. I send a question to the
thing to interfere in any way is just tified, providing 25 hours of public
desk for the House managers.
not true. They come up here and say it hearing testimony and 20 hours of dep-
The CHIEF JUSTICE. Thank you.
again and again, and it is just not true. osition testimony before the House Se-
The question from Senator
The other thing I would like to point lect Committee to Investigate Covert
BLUMENTHAL to the House managers:
out, Manager SCHIFF is suggesting that Arms Transactions with Iran; Robert
On April 24, 2019—one day after the media
somehow we are coming here and say- McFarland, former National Security
reported that former Vice President Biden
ing one thing and the Department of would formally enter the 2020 U.S. Presi- Advisor for President Ronald Reagan,
Justice is saying something else in dential race—the State Department executed provided over 20 hours of hearing testi-
court about litigation. That is also not President Trump’s order to recall Ambas- mony and 3 additional hours of deposi-
true. sador Marie Yovanovitch, a well-regarded ca- tion testimony; Samuel Berger, Na-
We have been very clear every time. reer diplomat and anti-corruption crusader. tional Security Advisor to President
The position of the Trump administra- Why did President Trump want, in his words, Clinton, provided 2 hours of public
tion, like the Obama administration, is to ‘‘take her out’’? hearing testimony before the Senate
that when Congress sues in an article Mr. Manager SCHIFF. Mr. Giuliani Committee on Governmental Affairs,
III court to try to enforce a subpoena has provided the answer to that ques- its inquiry into campaign finance prac-
against an executive branch official, tion. He stated publicly that the reason tices; Condoleezza Rice, National Secu-

that is not a justiciable controversy, they needed to get Ambassador rity Advisor to President George W.
and there is not jurisdiction over it. Yovanovitch out of the way was that Bush, 3 hours of public testimony, ad-
The House managers in the House, she was going to get in the way of ditional closed session testimony;
though, take the position that they these investigations that they wanted. Susan Rice provided closed session tes-
have that avenue open to them. This is the President’s own lawyer’s ex- timony to the House Select Committee
So our position is when we go to planation for why they had to push on how the Obama administration han-
court, we will resist jurisdiction in the out—why they had to smear—Ambas- dled identification of U.S. citizens in
court, but if the House managers want sador Yovanovitch. U.S. intelligence reports.

VerDate Sep 11 2014 04:00 Jan 31, 2020 Jkt 099060 PO 00000 Frm 00039 Fmt 4624 Sfmt 0634 E:\CR\FM\G30JA6.059 S30JAPT1
There is ample precedent where it is spector General Michael Atkinson. Has the nesses after the passage of H. Res. 660? And
necessary to have testimony of Na- White House been provided a copy of this regardless of whether the House record is
tional Security Advisors. deposition transcript? Do believe this tran- sufficient or insufficient to find the Presi-
script would be helpful? If so, why? dent guilty or not guilty, what duty, if any,
Now you saw, I think, President’s
Mr. Counsel PHILBIN. Mr. Chief Jus- does the Senate owe to the American public
counsel dancing on the head of a pin to to ensure that all relevant facts are made
try and explain why they are before tice and Senator, thank you for that
known in this trial and not at some point in
you arguing ‘‘We can’t have these peo- question. the future?
ple come here; the House should sue in We have not been provided that tran-
script. My understanding is that the Mr. Manager SCHIFF. Senators,
court’’ and why they are in court say- thank you for the question.
ing ‘‘The court can’t hear it.’’ inspector general for the intelligence
community, Mr. Atkinson, testified in It was apparent from the very begin-
I have to say I have a great under- ning, when the President announced
standing of the difficulty of that posi- executive session, and HPSCI has re-
tained that transcript in executive ses- that they would fight all subpoenas,
tion. I wouldn’t want to be in a posi- when the White House Counsel issued
tion of having to advocate that argu- sion and was not transmitted to the
House Judiciary Committee, and, its October 8 diatribe saying they
ment. But it goes to the demonstration would not participate in the inquiry,
of bad faith here. How can you be be- therefore, under the terms of H. Res.
660, was not turned over to the White that they were not interested in any
fore this body saying ‘‘You have got to accommodation.
go to court; the House was derelict be- House counsel, so we have not seen it.
I just want to clarify: We don’t think We tried to get Don McGahn to tes-
cause it didn’t go to court,’’ and go to tify. We tried that route. We have been
the same court and say ‘‘The House there is any need to start getting into
more evidence or witnesses, but if one trying that route for 9 months now. We
shouldn’t be here’’? How do you do tried for quite some time before we
that? were to start going down that road, I
think that that transcript could be rel- took that matter to court, with abso-
Now, they say: Well, the House is in lutely no success.
court, so the House must think it is evant because it is my understanding,
And I think what we have seen is,
OK, even though we don’t think so, and from public reports, that there were
there was no desire on the part of the
we will argue that and take it all the questions asked of the inspector gen-
President to reach any accommoda-
way up to the Supreme Court if we eral about his interactions with the
tion. Quite the contrary, the President
have to. whistleblower, and there is some ques-
was adamant that they were going to
We don’t think that is an adequate tion in public reports about whether
fight in every single way.
remedy. That is the whole problem. the whistleblower was entirely truthful
Now, if they had an interest in
When you have bad faith indication of with the inspector general on the forms
accomodation, we wouldn’t be before
privilege, when you have, in fact, non- that were filled out and whether or
you without a single document. There
assertion of privilege, when you have a not, you know, there were certain rep-
would have been hundreds and hun-
President who wants to continue to resentations made about whether or
dreds of documents provided. We would
cover up his wrongdoing indefinitely— not there had been any contact with
have entered an accommodation proc-
a President who is trying to get foreign Congress, and that then ties into the
ess over claims of—narrow claims of
help on the very next election—that contact that the whistleblower appar-
privilege as to this sentence or that
process of going endlessly up and down ently had with the staff and com-
sentence. They would have had to
the courts with a duplicitous counsel mittee, which we also don’t know
make a particularized claim that we
to the President arguing ‘‘In one place about.
could have negotiated over. But, of
So if we were to go down the road, we
you can do it and the other place you course, they did none of that.
don’t think it necessary. We think that
can’t’’ shows the flaw with a precedent They said: Your subpoenas are in-
this—these Articles of Impeachment
that Congress must exhaust all rem- valid. You have to depart from the bi-
should be rejected. But if one were to
edies before it can insist on answers partisan rules of how you conduct your
go down the road with any more evi-
with the ultimate remedy of impeach- depositions. Essentially, our idea of ac-
dence or witnesses, it would certainly
ment. commodation is you have to do it our
The CHIEF JUSTICE. Thank you, be relevant to find out what the inspec-
way or the highway. And the Presi-
Mr. Manager. tor general of the intelligence commu-
dent’s instructions, the President’s
The majority leader is recognized. nity had to say about the whistle-
marching orders were: Go pound sand.
blower, along with the other issues Now, what is the Senate’s responsi-
that we mentioned about the whistle- bility in the context of a House im-
Mr. MCCONNELL. Mr. Chief Justice, blower’s bias, motivation: What were
I suggest we take a 5-minute break. peachment for which there was such
his connections with the whole situa- blanket obstruction? And bear in mind,
The CHIEF JUSTICE. Without objec- tion of the Bidens? And, apparently, if
tion, it is so ordered. if you compare this to the Nixon im-
he worked with Vice President Biden, peachment, Richard Nixon told his peo-
There being no objection, the Senate, did he work—he worked on Ukraine
at 9:13 p.m., sitting as a Court of Im- ple to cooperate, provided documents
issues, according to public reports— to the Congress. Yes, there were some
peachment, recessed until 9:25 p.m., how does that all tie in? All of those
whereupon, the Senate reassembled that were withheld, and that led to liti-
things would become relevant in that gation, and the President lost that liti-
when called to order by the CHIEF JUS- instance. Thank you.
TICE. gation. But the circumstances here are
The CHIEF JUSTICE. Thank you,
The CHIEF JUSTICE. The Senate very different.
counsel. Frankly, the President could have
will come to order. Mr. JONES. Mr. Chief Justice.
Ms. ERNST. Mr. Chief Justice. The CHIEF JUSTICE. The Senator made this difficult case but didn’t be-
The CHIEF JUSTICE. The Senator from Alabama. cause of the wholesale nature of the ob-
from Iowa. Mr. JONES. Thank you, Mr. Chief struction.
Ms. ERNST. Mr. Chief Justice, I send Justice. I send a question to the desk Now, in terms of the Senate’s respon-
a question to the desk for myself and on behalf of myself, Senator MANCHIN, sibility, the Constitution says:
Senator LANKFORD. and Senator SINEMA. The Senate shall have the sole Power to
The CHIEF JUSTICE. Thank you. try all Impeachments. When sitting for that
The CHIEF JUSTICE. Thank you.
Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirma-
The question from Senators ERNST and The question from Senators JONES,

LANKFORD is for the counsel for the MANCHIN, and SINEMA is directed to the
President: And so you have the sole power.
House managers:
That expression is used, I believe,
Members of the House Permanent Select So much of the questions and answers, as
only twice in the Constitution: One,
Committee on Intelligence, of which Man- well as the presentations, have focused on
ager SCHIFF sits as Chairman, conducted a the completeness of the House record. when it tells the House that we have
number of depositions related to this im- Should the House have initiated the formal the sole power to conduct an impeach-
peachment inquiry. One of the individuals accommodations process with the Adminis- ment proceeding; and, again, the proc-
deposed was the Intelligence Community In- tration to negotiate for documents and wit- ess we used—and they can repeat this

VerDate Sep 11 2014 05:59 Jan 31, 2020 Jkt 099060 PO 00000 Frm 00040 Fmt 4624 Sfmt 0634 E:\CR\FM\G30JA6.060 S30JAPT1
as often as they would like—it is the Mr. Counsel PHILBIN. Mr. Chief Jus- House was determined that they want-
same process used in the Clinton and tice, Senators, thank you for that ed just to get their impeachment proc-
Nixon impeachments. And I am sure question. ess done on the fastest track they
Clinton and Nixon thought that was The answer is, we don’t know. No- could. They didn’t want to do any ac-
unfair, but, nonetheless, we used the body knows. We don’t know when the commodation. They didn’t want to do
same process. first contact was. We don’t know how any litigation. They didn’t want any-
But, here, you have the sole power to many contacts there were. We don’t thing to slow them down. They wanted
try the case. And if you decide that 1 know what the substance of the con- to get it done as fast as they could so
week is not too long, in the interest of tact was. That all remains shrouded in it was finished by Christmas.
a fair trial, to have depositions of key some secrecy. It was a partisan charade from the
witnesses, that is for you to decide. And as I said a moment ago, we think beginning. It resulted in a partisan im-
You get to decide how to try the case. that the way this case has been pre- peachment, with bipartisan opposition,
And so if you decide that you have sented, this body should simply acquit. and it is not something this Chamber
confidence in the Chief Justice of the There is no need to get more evidence should condone.
Supreme Court to make decisions to probe into that. The CHIEF JUSTICE. Thank you,
about materiality and relevance and But if we were to go down the road of counsel.
privilege and make those line-by-line any evidence or witnesses, then those Ms. ROSEN. Mr. Chief Justice.
redactions, if they are warranted, if are certainly relevant questions and The CHIEF JUSTICE. The Senator
you decide you trust the Chief Justice relevant things to know about, to un- from Nevada.
to decide whether privilege is being ap- derstand what those contacts were, Ms. ROSEN. I have a question I send
plied properly or improperly to conceal what the whistleblower’s motivation to the desk for the House managers.
crime or fraud or for legitimate na- was, what is the connection between The CHIEF JUSTICE. Thank you.
tional security purpose, you have the the whistleblower and any staffers, and The question from Senator ROSEN is
sole power to make that happen. That how that played any role in the formu- for the House managers:
is within—every bit within your right, lation of the complaint. That would all During the President’s phone call with
and we would urge you to do so. be relevant to understand how this Ambassador Sondland he insisted there was
Now, counsel for the President says whole process began. no ‘‘quid pro quo’’ involving the exchange of
the Constitution doesn’t require that. Now, I do want to mention something aid and a White House meeting for an inves-
The Constitution doesn’t prohibit that. else, while I have the moment, in re- tigation, but he also said, according to
It gives you the sole power to try this sponse to some things that Manager Sondland, that the stalemate over aid will
case. And under your sole power, you SCHIFF said. continue until President Zelensky announces
can say: We have made a decision. We Again, the House managers come the investigations. Isn’t that the definition
up—it seems like they keep saying the of the exact quid pro quo that the President
are going to give the parties 1 week.
claimed didn’t exist?
We are going to let the Chief Justice same thing, and we keep pointing to
make a fair determination of who is actual evidence and letters that dis- Mr. Manager SCHIFF. The short an-
pertinent and who is not. We are not prove what they are saying. They come swer is yes; that is exactly what a quid
going to let the House decide who the up and say that the President said: It is pro quo is.
President’s witnesses are; we are not my way or the highway—blanket defi- When someone says: ‘‘I am not going
going to let the President decide who ance—there is nothing you can do. And to ask you to do this,’’ but then says:
the House witnesses are. We are going they say that, well, they would have ‘‘I am going to ask you to do this,’’
to let them both submit their top pri- accommodated if we were willing to that is exactly what happened here.
orities, and we are going to let the participate in the accommodation Sondland calls the President, and the
Chief Justice decide who is material process. first words out of his mouth are ‘‘no
and who is not. That is fully within The October 8 letter that Counsel for quid pro quo.’’ Now, that is suspicious
your power. the President, who Mr. SCHIFF says enough when someone blurts out
And so, in sum and substance, there acts in bad faith and called duplicitous there—what we would find out is a
is no evidence of an intention or will- here on the floor of the Senate, sent a false exculpatory, but then the Presi-
ingness in any way, shape, or form to letter on October 8 to Mr. SCHIFF and dent goes on, nonetheless, to say: ‘‘No
accommodate in the House. If there others explaining: ‘‘If the Committees quid pro quo.’’
was, we wouldn’t be here. Instead, wish to return to the regular order of At the same time, Zelensky has got
there was: We will fight all subpoenas, oversight requests, we stand ready to to go to the mic to announce these in-
and under article II, I can do whatever engage in that process as we have in vestigations—that is the implication—
I want. And now we are here. the past, in a manner consistent with and he should want to do it. So no quid
And they make the astounding claim: well-established bipartisan constitu- pro quo over the money, but Zelensky
If their case is so good, let them try it tional protections and a respect for the has got to go to the mic.
without witnesses. That wouldn’t fly separation of powers enshrined in our And if you have any question about
before any judge in America, and it Constitution.’’ the accuracy of that, you should de-
shouldn’t fly here either. That was followed up in an October mand to see Ambassador Taylor’s
The CHIEF JUSTICE. Thank you, 18 letter that I mentioned before, a let- notes, Tim Morrison’s notes. And, of
Mr. Manager. ter that specified the defects in the course, Sondland goes and tells
Mrs. BLACKBURN. Mr. Chief Jus- subpoenas that had been issued—not Ukraine about this coupling of the
tice. blanket defiance, not simply ‘‘we don’t money in order to get the investiga-
The CHIEF JUSTICE. The Senator cooperate’’—specifying the legal errors tions.
from Tennessee. in the subpoenas. Let me just, if I can, go through a lit-
Mrs. BLACKBURN. I send to the desk And it concluded: ‘‘As I stated in my tle of the history of that. You have
a question on behalf of myself and Sen- letter of October 8th, if the Commit- Rudy Giuliani and others trying to
ators LEE and JOHNSON. tees wish to return to the regular order make sure the Ukrainians make these
The CHIEF JUSTICE. Thank you. of oversight requests, we stand ready statements in the runup to that July
The question from Senator BLACK- to engage in that process as we have in phone call. This is the quid pro quo
BURN and Senators LEE and JOHNSON is the past, in a manner consistent with over the meeting. So they are trying to
for counsel for the President:

well-established constitutional protec- get the statement that they want.

What was the date of first contact between tions and a respect for the separation They are trying to get the announce-
any member of the House Intelligence com- of powers enshrined in our Constitu- ment of the investigations. And around
mittee staff and the whistleblower regarding
tion.’’ this time, prior to the call, the Presi-
the information that resulted in the com-
plaint? How many times have House Intel- The President stood ready to engage dent puts a freeze on the military aid.
ligence committee members or staff commu- in the accommodations process. If any- And then you have that call, and the
nicated in any form with the whistleblower one said: ‘‘My way or the highway’’ minute that Zelensky brings up the de-
since that first date of contact? here, it was the House because the fense support and the desire to buy

VerDate Sep 11 2014 05:59 Jan 31, 2020 Jkt 099060 PO 00000 Frm 00041 Fmt 4624 Sfmt 0634 E:\CR\FM\G30JA6.057 S30JAPT1
more Javelins, that is when the Presi- You are not getting the money without continues can involve Congress exer-
dent immediately goes to the favor he these investigations. And finally the cising the levers of authority that it
wants. resistance of this anti-corruption re- has under article I to try to put pres-
So the Ukrainians, at this point, former, Zelensky, is broken down. He sure on the executive. So, for example,
know that the White House meeting is desperately needs the aid. Finally, the appropriations, not funding the policy
conditioned on getting these investiga- resistance is broken down: All right; I priorities of a particular administra-
tions announced, but in that call, the will do it. He is going to go on CNN. tion or cutting funding on some policy
minute military aid is brought up, the The CHIEF JUSTICE. Thank you, priorities; or legislation, not passing
President pivots to the favor he wants Mr. Manager. legislation that the President favors or
of these investigations they already The Senator from Kansas. passing other legislation that the
know about. Mr. MORAN. Mr. Chief Justice, I President doesn’t favor. Or the Senate
Now, after that call, the Ukrainians have a message to be sent to the desk, has the power not to approve nominees.
quickly find out about the freeze in a question. It is on my behalf and on As I am sure many of you well know,
aid. According to the former Deputy behalf of Senator RUBIO, Senator holding up nominees in committee can
Foreign Minister, they found out with- CRAPO, and Senator RISCH. be effective in some points, putting
in days. July 25 is the call. By the end The CHIEF JUSTICE. Thank you. pressure on an administration to get
of July, Ukraine finds out the aid is The question from Senators MORAN, particular policies picked loose, things
frozen. The Deputy Foreign Minister is CRAPO, RUBIO, and RISCH for the coun- accomplished in a particular depart-
told by Andriy Yermak: Keep this se- sel for the President reads as follows: ment or agency.
cret. We don’t want this getting out. Impeachment and removal are dramatic All of these elements of the interplay
She had planned to come to Wash- and consequential responses to Presidential
of the branches of government—that is
conduct, especially in an election year with
ington. They canceled her trip to a highly divided citizenry. Yet checks and part of the constitutional design. But
Washington because they don’t want balances is an important constitutional prin- impeachment is the very last resort for
this made public. ciple. Does the Congress have other means— the very most serious conflict where
And so, in August, there is this effort such as appropriations, confirmations, and there is no other way to resolve it.
to get the investigations announced. oversight hearings—less damaging to our na- So there are all of these multiple in-
That is the only priority for the Presi- tion? termediate steps, and they all should
dent and his men. So the Ukrainians Mr. Counsel PHILBIN. Mr. Chief Jus- be used. They all should be exercised in
know the aid is withheld. They know tice, Senators, thank you for the ques- an incremental fashion. That is exactly
they can’t get the meeting. They know tion. And yes, Congress has a lot of in- what didn’t happen in this case. There
what the President wants, these inves- cremental steps, a lot of means short of was no attempt at the accommoda-
tigations. And the Ukrainians, like the impeachment to address friction or tions. There was no attempt even to re-
Americans, can add up two plus two conflicts with the executive branch. spond to the legal issues, the legal de-
equals four. But if they had any ques- That was the point that I was making fects that counsel for the President and
tion about that, Sondland removes all a moment ago with respect to what the the departments and agencies pointed
doubt on September 1 in Warsaw, when Department of Justice has said in liti- out in each of the subpoenas that were
Sondland goes over—after the Pence- gation today where the absolute immu- issued by the House committees.
Zelensky meeting, he goes over to nity for senior advisers—actually, I And even the issue of agency coun-
Yermak, and he says that ‘‘until you think it was a different issue in that sel—there was no attempt to try to ne-
announce these investigations, you are case. I beg your pardon. gotiate on that. And that is really
not getting this aid.’’ But anyway, there is a dispute in something that, in the past—even last
He makes explicit what they already that case about information requests, April, with the House Committee on
knew—that not just the meeting but and the point the DOJ was making Oversight and Government Reform
the aid itself was tied. And on Sep- there is the Constitution requires in- with Chairman Cummings, there was a
tember 7, Sondland tells Zelensky di- cremental steps where there is friction dispute about that. We wouldn’t allow
rectly: The aid is tied to your doing in- between the branches. a witness to go without agency coun-
vestigations. And it is at that point, on As I mentioned the other day, fric- sel, and then we had a meeting with
September 7, when Zelensky is told by tion between the branches—between Chairman Cummings, and it got
Sondland directly of the quid pro quo, Congress and the executive—on infor- worked out. And it was turned into a
that Zelensky finally capitulates and mation requests in particular is part of transcribed interview, I think, and
says: All right; I will make the an- the constitutional design. It has been the—but agency counsel was permitted
nouncement on CNN. with us since the first administration. to be there. But the committee got the
And then the President is caught. George Washington denied requests interview. They got to talk to the per-
The scheme is exposed. The President from Congress for information about son. They got the information they
is forced to release the aid. And what the negotiation of the Jay Treaty. So wanted. But the executive branch got
does Zelensky do? He cancels the CNN from the very beginning, there has to have agency counsel there to protect
interview because the money was been this friction leading to jockeying executive branch interests. That is the
forced to be released when the Presi- for position and accommodations and way it is supposed to work, but there
dent got caught. confrontation and leading to ways of was no attempt at anything like that
But that is the chronology here. working things out when Congress de- from the House in this case.
Let’s make no mistake. The Ukrain- mands information from the executive Thank you.
ians are sophisticated actors. As one of and the executive asserts to protect The CHIEF JUSTICE. Thank you,
the witnesses said, they found out very the institutional authorities of the ex- counsel.
shortly after the hold. The Ukrainians ecutive branch, the sphere where the The Senator from Massachusetts.
have good tradecraft. They understood executive can be able to keep informa- Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chief Justice, I
very quickly about this hold. tion confidential. send a question to the desk for the
And what would you expect when you But the first step in response to that House managers.
are fighting a war and your ally is should be the accommodations process. The CHIEF JUSTICE. Thank you.
withholding military aid without ex- And the courts have described that as Senator MARKEY’s question for the
planation and the only thing they tell constitutionally mandated, something House managers reads as follows:

you that they want from you are the that actually furthers the constitu- It has recently been reported that the Rus-
announcement of these investigations? tional scheme, to have the branches ne- sians have hacked the Ukrainian natural gas
And if it wasn’t clear enough, they company Burisma, presumably looking for
gotiate and try to come to an arrange-
information on Hunter Biden. Our intel-
hammered them over the head with it ment that addresses the legitimate ligence community has warned us that the
and told Yermak on September 1: You needs of both branches of the govern- Russians will be interfering in the 2020 elec-
are not getting the money without an- ment. tion. If Donald Trump is acquitted of these
nouncing these investigations. They Part of that accommodations process pending charges but is later found to have
tell Zelensky himself on September 7: is—or as it gets—as the confrontation invited Russian or other foreign interference

VerDate Sep 11 2014 04:26 Jan 31, 2020 Jkt 099060 PO 00000 Frm 00042 Fmt 4624 Sfmt 0634 E:\CR\FM\G30JA6.058 S30JAPT1
in our 2020 election, what recourse will there Barr says. But I have got other lawyers or not it is a crime, the thory of abuse
be for Congress under the Dershowitz stand- who say I can’t be impeached. of power that they have asserted is not
ard for impeachment, which requires a presi- That is a recipe for a President who something that conforms with the con-
dent to have committed a statutory crime? stitutional standard of high crimes and
is above the law. Not only is it not re-
Mr. Manager SCHIFF. Senator, abso- quired by the Constitution—quite the misdemeanors. It depends entirely on
lutely no recourse. No recourse whatso- contrary. The Founders knew, coming subjective intent, and it is subjective
ever. If, in fact, it were later to be from a monarchy, that if they were intent alone.
shown that not only did the Russians going to give extraordinary powers to As Professor Dershowitz explained,
hack Burisma to try to get dirt on the their new Executive, they needed an and as I have explained—and I don’t
Bidens and drip, drip, drip it out as extraordinary constraint. They needed mean in the more radical portion of his
they did in the 2016 election—let’s say a constraint commensurate with the explanation of his theory, I mean just
it were found that they did so at the re- evil which they sought to contain. in terms of what is high crimes and
quest of the President of the United That remedy is not holding up a nomi- misdemeanors. He explained that
States; that in one of these meetings nation. The remedy they gave for an something that is based entirely on
that the President had with Vladimir Executive that would abuse their subjective intent is equivalent to mal-
Putin, whose contents is unknown, power and endanger the country, that administration. It is equivalent to ex-
that the President of the United States would endanger the integrity of our actly the standard that the Framers
asked the President of Russia to hack rejected because it is completely mal-
elections, was the power of impeach-
Burisma because he couldn’t get the leable. It doesn’t define any real stand-
Ukrainians to do what he wanted, so ard for an offense. It allows you to take
As one of the experts said in the
now he was turning to the Russians to any conduct that on its face is per-
House, if this conduct isn’t an im-
do it. Under the Dershowitz theory of fectly permissible, and on the basis of
peachable offense, then nothing is.
the case, under the President’s theory your projection of a disagreement with
The CHIEF JUSTICE. Thank you,
of the case, that is perfectly fine. that conduct, a disagreement with the
Mr. Manager.
But that is not—that is not how bad reasons for it to attribute a bad mo-
The Senator from South Carolina.
it is because it goes further than that. tive, to try to say there is a bad subjec-
Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. Chief Justice, I
If the President went further and said tive motive for doing that and will
send a question to the desk on behalf of make it impeachable, that doesn’t con-
to Putin in that secret meeting: I want myself and Senators ALEXANDER, CRUZ,
you to hack Burisma. I couldn’t get the form to the constitutional standard.
PORTMAN, TOOMEY, SULLIVAN, and MUR- At the common law, they would call
Ukrainians to do it, and I will tell you KOWSKI to the counsel for the Presi-
what, if you hack Burisma and you get the reaction to a charge like this a de-
dent. murrer. You demur and simply say,
me some good stuff, then I am going to The CHIEF JUSTICE. Thank you.
stop sending money to Ukraine. And I even if everything you say is true, that
The question from Senator GRAHAM is not an impeachable offense under the
will go a step further. I am going to and the other Senators is for the coun-
stop sending money to Ukraine so that law. And that is an appropriate re-
sel for the President: sponse here. Even if everything you al-
they can’t fight you in Donbass. And Assuming for argument’s sake that Bolton
what is more, those sanctions that we lege is true, even if John Bolton would
were to testify in the light most favorable to say it is true, that is not an impeach-
imposed on you for your intervention the allegations contained in the Articles of able offense under the constitutional
on my behalf in the last election, I am Impeachment, isn’t it true that the allega-
standard because the way you have
going to make those go away. I am tions still would not rise to the level of an
impeachable offense and that, therefore, for tried to define the constitutional
going to simply refuse to enforce them.
this and other reasons, his testimony would standard, this theory of abuse of power
I am going to call it a policy dif-
add nothing to this case? is far too malleable. It goes purely to
Mr. Counsel PHILBIN. Mr. Chief Jus- subjective intent. It can’t be relied
That is perfectly fine under their
tice, Senators, thank you for the ques- upon.
standard. That is not an abuse of The third level of my answer is this.
power. You can’t say that is criminal. tion.
We have demonstrated that there is a
Yet it is akin to crime—or maybe it is Let me start by just making very
legitimate public policy interest in
not, but that is what an acquittal here clear that there was no quid pro quo.
both of the matters that were raised on
means. It means that the President is There was no—and there is no evidence
that telephone call: the 2016 election
free to engage in all the rest of that to show that. There was not that sort
interference and the Biden Burisma af-
conduct, and it is perfectly fine. of linkage that the House managers
fair. Because there is a legitimate pub-
And what is the remedy that my col- have suggested.
lic policy interest in both of those
leagues representing the President say But let me answer the question di- issues, even if it were true that there
that you have to that abuse? Well, you rectly, which I understand to be assum- was some connection, even if it were
can hold up a nominee. That seems ing for the sake of argument that Am- true that the President had suggested
wholly out of scale with the magnitude bassador Bolton would come and tes- or thought that, well, maybe I should
of the problem. That process of the ap- tify the way the New York Times arti- hold up this aid until they do some-
propriations or nominations is not suf- cle alleges, the way his book describes thing, that is perfectly permissible
ficient for a Chief Executive Officer of the conversation. Then it is correct where there is that legitimate public
the United States who will betray the that, even if that happened, even if he policy interest.
national security for his own personal gave that testimony, the Articles of It is just the same as if there is an in-
interests. Impeachment still wouldn’t rise to an vestigation going on. The President
He got on the phone with Zelensky impeachable offense. That is for at wants a foreign country to provide
asking for this favor the day after Bob least two reasons. Let me explain that. some assistance. It is a legitimate for-
Mueller testifies. What do you think he The first is, on their face, the Arti- eign policy interest to get that assist-
will be capable of doing the day after cles of Impeachment, as they have been ance. It is legitimate to use the levers
he is acquitted here, the day after he laid out by the House managers, even if of foreign policy to secure that assist-
feels: I have dodged another bullet. I you take everything that is alleged in ance. So because there is a legitimate
really am beyond the reach of the law. them, they don’t, as a matter of law, public policy interest in both of those
My Attorney General says I can’t be rise to the level of an impeachable of- issues—and I think we have dem-

indicted; I can’t even be investigated. fense because even the House managers onstrated that clearly—it would be per-
He closed the investigation into this haven’t characterized them as involv- missible for there to be that linkage.
matter before he even opened it. And I ing a crime. So that is one level of the But again, I will close where I began,
can’t be impeached either. I have got answer, that an impeachable offense which is there was no such linkage
the best of both worlds. I have got Bill would require a crime. here. I just want to make that clear.
Barr saying I can’t be investigated. I Even going beyond that, a second But taking for the sake of argument
can’t be prosecuted. I can be im- level, the theory of abuse of power that the question as phrased, even if Ambas-
peached, however. That is what Bill they have alleged—put aside whether sador Bolton would testify to that,

VerDate Sep 11 2014 04:26 Jan 31, 2020 Jkt 099060 PO 00000 Frm 00043 Fmt 4624 Sfmt 0634 E:\CR\FM\G30JA6.062 S30JAPT1
even if you assumed it were true, there I think our Founders would be aghast ward in the Senate that were sum-
is no impeachable offense stated in the that anyone would make that argu- marily decided. This is what he said:
Articles of Impeachment. ment on the floor of the Senate. I These two cases demonstrate that the Sen-
Thank you. think they would be aghast, having ate may dismiss articles of impeachment
The CHIEF JUSTICE. Thank you. come out of a monarchy, having lit- without holding a full trial or taking any
The Senator from Illinois. erally risked their lives, having taken evidence. Put another way, the Constitution
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. Chief Justice, I does not impose on the Senate the duty to
this great gamble that people could be hold a trial. In fact, the Senate need not hold
send a question to the desk. entrusted to run their own government a trial even though the House wishes to
The CHIEF JUSTICE. Thank you. and choose their own leaders, recog- present evidence and hold a full trial
The question from Senator DURBIN nizing that we are not angels, setting (Blount) and the elements of jurisdiction are
for the House managers: up a system that would have ambition, present (English).
Would you please respond to the answer counterambition, that we would so He went on to say:
that was just given by the President’s coun- willingly abdicate that responsibility In a number of previous impeachment
and say that a Chief Executive now has trials, the Senate has reached the judgment
Mr. Manager SCHIFF. Senators, it the full power to coerce our ally—a for- in its constitutional role as sole trier of im-
has been a long couple of days, so let eign power to intervene in our elec- peachments does not require it to take new
me be blunt about where I think we evidence or hear live witness testimony.
tion—because they think it is in the This follows from the Senate’s consider-
are. I think we all know what happened national interest that they get re- ation of motions for summary disposition in
here. I think we all understand what elected. at least three trials [and it listed the three
the President did here. I don’t think Is that really what we think the trials of Judges Ritter, Claiborne, and
there is really much question at this Founders would have condoned or do Nixon]. In each, the Senate considered a mo-
point about why the military aid was we think that this is precisely the kind tion for summary disposition on the merits
withheld or why President Zelensky of character of conduct that they pro- and in no case did the Senate decline to con-
couldn’t get in the door of the Oval Of- sider a motion for summary disposition as
vided a remedy for? I think we know beyond the Senate’s authority or as forbid-
fice. I don’t think there is any confu- the answer to that. den by the Constitution.
sion about why he wanted Joe Biden They wrote a beautiful Constitution.
investigated or why he was pushing the The Framers did not mean that this
They understood a lot about human na- political process was to be a partisan
CrowdStrike conspiracy theory. I don’t ture. They understood, as we do, that
think there is really much question process. Instead, they meant it to be
absolute power corrupts absolutely. political in the higher sense. The proc-
about that. I don’t think there is any And they provided a constraint, but it
question about what we could expect if ess was to be conducted in the way that
will only be as good and as strong as would best secure the public interest
and when John Bolton testifies, al- the men and women of this institu-
though the details of which we cer- or, in their phrase, the ‘‘general wel-
tion’s willingness to uphold it, to not fare.’’ That was the Biden doctrine of
tainly don’t know. I don’t think there look away from the truth.
is really much question about that. impeachment proceedings.
The truth is staring us in the eyes. Now, some Members in this Chamber
But what is extraordinary is, although We know why they don’t want John agreed with that. Some Members that
they can claim that this was a radical Bolton to testify. It is not because we serve on the—as managers also agreed
mistake or notion of Professor don’t really know what happened here. with that. But now the rules are dif-
Dershowitz that they seem to be They just don’t want the American ferent. The rules are different because
distancing themselves from right now, people to hear it in all of its ugly, Manager SCHIFF just moments ago did
I guess they think they are accusing graphic detail. They don’t want the what he is now famous for and created
Dershowitz now of some maladmin- President’s National Security Advisor a conversation, purportedly from the
istration in his argument of the de- on live TV or even a nonlive deposition President of the United States, regard-
fense—they are still embracing that to say: I talked with the President, and ing Russia hacking of Burisma. And it
idea. he told me in no uncertain terms: is the same thing he did when he start-
What they just told you admittedly John— ed his hearings.
in outline of A, B, and C, what they The CHIEF JUSTICE. Thank you, So this is a common practice. But if
just told you is: accept everything the Mr. Manager. we want to look at common practice
House said, accept the President with- Mr. Manager SCHIFF. To be contin- and common procedures, the Biden rule
held the military aid to coerce Ukraine ued. is one. I would like to address some-
into helping him cheat in the election, The CHIEF JUSTICE. The Senator thing else because we have heard it
accept that these investigations are a from Georgia. time and time again about two judges
sham, accept that he obstructed all Mrs. LOEFFLER. I send a question to have decided this issue of executive
subpoenas and witnesses, accept all of the desk on behalf of myself and Sen- privilege. I want to address two things
that. Too bad. There is nothing you can ators HAWLEY, CRUZ, PERDUE, GARD- very quickly.
do. That is not impeachable. NER, LANKFORD, HOEVEN, TOOMEY, My very first case at the Supreme
A President of the United States— SCOTT of Florida, PORTMAN, and FISCH- Court of the United States—and it was
this is now where we have come to in ER. a long time ago, over 30—over 30 years
this moment of our history, the Presi- The CHIEF JUSTICE. Thank you. ago, 33 years ago. My client lost in the
dent of the United States can withhold The question from Senator LOEFFLER district court. They said: Well, we will
hundreds of millions of dollars in aid and the other Senators is for the coun- appeal to the Ninth Circuit Court of
that we appropriated, can do so in vio- sel of the President: Appeals. We went to the Ninth Circuit
lation of the law, can do so to coerce Court of Appeals, was not so successful
As reported by Politico, ‘‘in January 1999,
an ally, in order to help him cheat in then-Sen Joe Biden argued strongly against and did not win there either. My client
an election, and you can’t do anything deposing additional witnesses or seeking new said: Well, what do we do?
about it, except hold up a nomination. evidence in a memo sent to fellow Democrats I said: We have one option. We can
That is not impeachable. ahead of Bill Clinton’s impeachment trial.’’ file a petition for certiorari to the Su-
They can abuse their power all they Politico reports that Sen SCHUMER agreed preme Court of the United States.
want—the President, this President, with Biden. Why should the Biden rule not Chances are they are not going to take
the next President can abuse their apply here? the case. But at this point, it is an im-

power all they want in the furtherance Mr. Counsel SEKULOW. Mr. Chief portant issue to you, so why don’t we
of their reelection as long as—here is Justice, Members of the Senate, in a proceed. My client agreed to proceed.
the limiting principle—as long as they memorandum dated January 5, 1999, A petition for certiorari was granted,
think their reelection is in the na- that is captioned ‘‘Arguments in Sup- and the Court reversed 9 to 0. And that
tional interest. Well, that is quite a port of Summary Impeachment Trial,’’ is why you continue to utilize courts
constraint. That is where we have Senator Biden discussed some history when appropriate. That is why you do
come now after 21⁄2 centuries of our his- first regarding two Senate impeach- it. And you don’t rely on what a dis-
tory. ment proceedings that were put for- trict court judge says.

VerDate Sep 11 2014 04:26 Jan 31, 2020 Jkt 099060 PO 00000 Frm 00044 Fmt 4624 Sfmt 0634 E:\CR\FM\G30JA6.065 S30JAPT1
The last thing I want to say, they are showed up; GEN Michael Flynn, former So Ambassador Sondland has ac-
asking you, as a Senate body, to waive DIA Director. Who else showed up? The knowledged the tie between the two.
executive privilege on the President of former Secretary of State, Hillary So did Mick Mulvaney. And I think
the United States. Think about that Clinton. She testified publicly under that video is now etched in our minds
for a moment. They are asking you to oath for 11 hours. That is cooperation. for all of history. Trying to walk that
vote to determine or have the Chief What happened in this particular in- back as he may, he was quite adamant
Justice in his individual capacity as stance in the House? No documents, no when he was asked about that, and the
Presiding Judge vote to waive execu- witnesses, no information, no coopera- reporter even followed up when he said
tive privilege as it relates to the Presi- tion, no negotiation, no reasonable ac- that part of the reason why they held
dent of the United States. And that is commodation—blanket defiance. That up the aid was the desire for this inves-
what they think is the appropriate role is what resulted in the obstruction of tigation into 2016. And the reporter
for this proceeding to continue. I think Congress article. said: Well, what you are saying is a
you should adopt the Biden rule. So all we are asking for is the Senate quid pro quo. You don’t get the money
Thank you. to hold a fair trial consistent with past unless you do the investigation of the
The CHIEF JUSTICE. Thank you, practice. At every single trial this Sen- Democrats. And the Chief of Staff’s an-
counsel. ate has held, the average number of swer was: ‘‘We do that all the time; get
The Senator from Colorado. witnesses was 33. We cannot normalize over it.’’
Mr. BENNET. Mr. Chief Justice, lawlessness. We cannot normalize cor- So you have it from the President’s
thank you. I would like to send a ques- ruption. We cannot normalize abuse of own Chief of Staff. You have it from
tion to the desk on behalf of myself power—a fair trial. one of the three amigos, the Presi-
and Senator WARNER. Lastly, of the witnesses that did tes- dent’s point people. And bear in mind,
The CHIEF JUSTICE. Thank you. tify, voluntarily showed up, what did Ambassador Sondland—of course, not a
The question from Senators BENNET they have to say? These were Trump Never Trumper; a million-dollar donor
and WARNER is to the House managers: administration witnesses. to the Trump inaugural; someone the
Mr. Sekulow said that if the Senate votes Ambassador Sondland, how did he
for witnesses, he will call a long chain of wit-
President deputized to have a signifi-
characterize the shakedown scheme,
nesses that will greatly lengthen the trial. cant part of the Ukraine portfolio;
the geopolitical shakedown at the
Isn’t it true that the Senate will establish by someone who, given he is an EU Am-
heart of these allegations? Ambassador
majority vote which, and how many wit- bassador, if this was about burden-
Sondland, ‘‘quid pro quo’’; Ambassador
nesses there will be? Isn’t it also true that sharing, would have said this was
prior impeachment trials in the Senate com- Taylor, ‘‘crazy’’; Dr. Fiona Hill, ‘‘a do-
about burden-sharing, but he didn’t, of
monly have heard witnesses who did not tes- mestic political errand’’; Lieutenant
course. He said it was about the inves-
tify in the House? Colonel Vindman, ‘‘improper’’; John
Mr. Manager JEFFRIES. I thank Bolton, ‘‘drug deal.’’ The third direct witness would be
you, Mr. Chief Justice. I thank the dis- What would the Framers have said?
John Bolton if we are allowed to bring
tinguished Senators for their ques- The highest of high crimes against the
him before you.
tions. Constitution.
But there already are witnesses and
It certainly is the case that all we The CHIEF JUSTICE. Thank you,
evidence in the record of people who
are asking the Senate to do is to hold Mr. Manager.
The Senator from Utah. spoke directly to the President about
a full and fair trial consistent with the this and to which the conditionality
Mr. ROMNEY. I have a question to
Senate’s responsibility—article I, sec- was made clear.
send to the desk.
tion 3 of this Constitution: ‘‘The Sen- The CHIEF JUSTICE. Thank you. The CHIEF JUSTICE. Thank you,
ate shall have the sole Power’’ with re- The question from Senator ROMNEY Mr. Manager.
spect to an impeachment trial. And is for both parties, and I believe the Mr. Counsel PURPURA. Mr. Chief
this great institution has interpreted House manager will go first: Justice, Senator, thank you for your
that, during the 15 different impeach- Do you have any evidence that anyone was question.
ment trials that have taken place dur- directed by President Trump to tell the I believe the question was, is there
ing our Nation’s history, that a full Ukrainians that security assistance was any evidence that anyone told—that
and fair trial means witnesses, because being held upon the condition of an inves- President Trump had anyone tell the
this institution, every time it has held tigation into the Bidens? Ukrainians directly that the aid was
a trial, has heard witnesses all 15 Mr. Manager SCHIFF. Senator, the linked? I believe that was the question,
times, including in several instances evidence that is currently in the and the answer in the House record is
where there were witnesses who did not record—there are two people who had no. I described this on Saturday when I
testify in the House who testified in direct conversations with the President walked through it at length, and so I
the Senate. about the conditioning of aid on the refer back to that presentation.
Now, the point was raised earlier performance of the investigations. The Ambassador Sondland and Senator
about Benghazi. And Trey Gowdy—he first was Gordon Sondland, who on JOHNSON. Ambassador Sondland indi-
is a good man. I served with him. He is September 7 had a conversation with cated in approximately the September
a very talented lawyer. I am sure he is the President that thereafter he re- 9 timeframe—as we all heard his state-
pleased—the distinguished gentleman layed to Tim Morrison as well as Am- ment, he asked the President. The
from the Palmetto State—that his bassador Taylor. And in the conversa- President said: ‘‘I want nothing. I want
name has been brought into this pro- tion that Ambassador Sondland de- nothing. I want no quid pro quo.’’
ceeding. But Trey Gowdy, according to scribed at the time, he said the Presi- And you heard a lot from the House
one of the questions, said that the ad- dent on the one hand said no quid pro managers about, go out to the micro-
ministration didn’t cooperate. The quo but then went on to say that phones or make this—do the right
White House, in that instance, and the Zelensky has to announce these inves- thing. But I believe the statement was,
State Department turned over tens of tigations and he should want to. he needs to do the right thing. He
thousands of documents pursuant to a So the President made the direct link needs to do what he campaigned on.
House subpoena. That is cooperation. to Ambassador Sondland. Ambassador Even early, Senator JOHNSON—again,
Several witnesses appeared voluntarily Sondland then made a direct link—or because Ambassador Sondland told
in Benghazi, including GEN David had already made the direct link to Senator JOHNSON that there was a link-

Petraeus, former CIA Director; Susan Andriy Yermak. But the conversation age. So Senator JOHNSON asked the
Rice, who at the time was the National with—the President had a conversation President directly, and we know the
Security Advisor; Ben Rhodes, the Dep- with Zelensky himself and conveyed answer to that. The President said:
uty National Security Advisor; ADM what he had been informed by the Was there any connection—when Sen-
Mike Mullen, former Chairman of the President, that Zelensky was going to ator JOHNSON asked if there was any
Joint Chiefs of Staff; GEN Carter Ham, have to conduct these investigations. connection between security assistance
former commander of AFRICOM; De- And that is when Zelensky made the and investigations, the President an-
fense Secretary Leon Panetta, he also commitment to go on CNN. swered: ‘‘No way. I would never do

VerDate Sep 11 2014 04:26 Jan 31, 2020 Jkt 099060 PO 00000 Frm 00045 Fmt 4624 Sfmt 0634 E:\CR\FM\G30JA6.066 S30JAPT1
that. Who told you that?’’ And the an- get the money. Remember, Sondland to categorize things into three buckets.
swer was Sondland. And Ambassador explained that the President is a busi- One was of purely good motives. One
Sondland had come to that presump- nessman, and before he gives away was, well, you might have some motive
tion prior to speaking to the President. something, he wants to—before he for your personal political gain, as well
And we saw the montage from Ambas- signs the check, he wants to get the de- as public interest motives for doing
sador Sondland about presumptions liverable. Ambassador Taylor says: something or intent. Then there was
and assumptions and guessing and That doesn’t make any sense. Ukraine the third bucket of purely private pe-
speculating and belief. So we also re- doesn’t owe him anything. cuniary gain. He said that is the one, if
member the montage in which Ambas- So it was clear to everyone, including you are doing it for purely private pe-
sador Sondland was asked: Did anyone the Ukrainians, that they were not cuniary gain, that has the problem.
on the planet tell you that the aid was going to get the money unless they did I think that would be the distin-
linked to the investigations? And his the investigations that the President guishing factor in what is potentially a
answer was no. wanted. That is the connection on Sep- presence in the facts known about the
So in the House record before us, tember 7 that makes it crystal clear. Biden and Burisma incident because
there is no evidence that the President In terms of the Dershowitz argument, the conflict of interest that would be
told anyone to tell the Ukrainians that when coupled with a President who be- apparent on the face of the facts that
the aid was linked. And, in fact, the ar- lieves that, under article II, he can do are known is that there would be a per-
ticle from the Daily Beast yesterday— whatever he wants, yes. I mean, this is sonal, family financial interest in that
The CHIEF JUSTICE. Thank you, the description of a President, not just situation.
Mr. Counsel. of an imperial President but of an abso- Vice President Biden is in charge of
Mr. Counsel PURPURA. Thank you, lute President with absolute power be- Ukraine policy. His son is sitting on
Chief Justice. cause, if a President can take this ac- the board of a company that is known
The CHIEF JUSTICE. The Senator tion and extort one country, he can ex- for corruption. The public reports are
from Oregon. tort any country. If he can make a deal that, apparently, the prosecutor gen-
Mr. MERKLEY. Mr. Chief Justice, I with the President of Venezuela or eral was investigating that company
send a question to the desk for Senator take an action that is antagonistic to and its owner, the oligarch, at the
SCHATZ, for Senator CARPER, and for what Congress has legislated with re- time. Then Vice President Biden quite
myself. spect to that country and can violate openly said that he leveraged $1 billion
The CHIEF JUSTICE. Thank you. the law in doing it to get help in his re- in U.S. loan guarantees to ensure that
The question is for the House man- election—and I think that example that particular prosecutor was fired at
agers from Senators MERKLEY, SCHATZ, that Senator KING asked about is di- that time.
and CARPER: rectly on point—then there is no lim- One could put together fairly easily
iting principle here, as long as the from those known facts the suggestion
Yesterday, Alan Dershowitz stated that a
President cannot be impeached for soliciting
President thinks it is in the interest of that there was a family financial ben-
foreign interference in his re-election cam- his reelection. efit coming from the end of that inves-
paign if he thinks it’s in the public interest. So, yes, he can ask the Israeli Prime
tigation because it protected the posi-
The President’s Counsel stated the President Minister to come to the United States
tion of the younger Biden on the board,
cannot be prosecuted for committing a and call his opponent an anti-Semite if
and that would be a purely private pe-
crime. And the President himself has said ‘‘I he wants to get U.S. military aid. That
have the right to do whatever I want as cuniary—financial—gain. That is the
principle can be applied anywhere to
President.’’ Aren’t these views exactly what third bucket that Professor Dershowitz
anything, to the grave danger of the
our Framers warned about: an imperial was describing and the one that is nec-
President escaping accountability? If these That is the logical extension not just essarily problematic when he said that
arguments prevail, won’t future Presidents that is where there is going to be a
have the unchecked ability to use their of-
to what Professor Dershowitz said yes-
terday but to what the President’s problem, that that is where you would
fice to manipulate future elections like cor- have a crime and a potentially im-
rupt foreign leaders in Russia and Ven- counsel said today. You can accept
every fact of the articles, and we still peachable offense.
think it is fine and beyond the reach of So I think that would be the distinc-
Mr. Manager SCHIFF. Thank you for tion there. That is one that, if all of
the question, Senators. Before I ad- the Constitution. The President can ex-
tort an ally by withholding military those facts lined up under Professor
dress it, I just want to complete my an- Dershowitz’ categorization of things,
swer to the last question. aid and withholding meetings. He can
ask them to do sham investigations, would be the problematic category.
On September 7, the President has a Thank you.
conversation with Gordon Sondland, even if you acknowledge the fact that
they are a sham. In fact, they don’t The CHIEF JUSTICE. Thank you,
and the President says: No quid pro counsel.
quo, but Zelensky has got to go to the even have to be done; they just have to
The Senator from Minnesota.
mic, and he should want to do so. be announced, and there is nothing
Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. Chief Justice,
This is in the context of whether the Congress can do about it. That is a pre-
on behalf of myself, Senator CARDIN,
aid is being withheld in order to secure scription for a President with no con-
and Senator VAN HOLLEN, I have a
the investigations. After that call on straint.
The CHIEF JUSTICE. Thank you, question for the House managers that I
the same day, Sondland calls Zelensky, will submit to the desk.
the President of Ukraine, and says: Mr. Manager.
The Senator from Indiana. The CHIEF JUSTICE. Thank you.
You are not going to get the money un- Mr. BRAUN. Mr. Chief Justice, I, The question from Senator KLO-
less you do the investigations. along with Senator LEE, send to the BUCHAR and Senators CARDIN and VAN
So you have got the communication desk a question for the President’s HOLLEN is directed to the House man-
between the President and Sondland counsel. agers:
and Sondland conveying the message The CHIEF JUSTICE. Thank you. Could you please respond to the answer
to the Ukrainians in short succession. The question from Senators BRAUN just given by the President’s counsel, and
And so I think you see that the mes- and LEE is for the counsel for the provide any other comments the Senate
sage the President gave to Sondland President: would benefit from hearing before we ad-
was, in fact, communicated imme- journ for the evening?
Under Professor Dershowitz’s theory, is

diately to the Ukrainians. what Joe Biden is alleged to have done po- Mr. Manager NADLER. Mr. Chief
Of course, Sondland went on to ex- tentially impeachable, in contrast to what Justice, Members of the Senate, what
plain to Ambassador Taylor and to Tim has been alleged against President Trump? we have just heard from the Presi-
Morrison that the President wanted Mr. Counsel PHILBIN. Mr. Chief Jus- dent’s counsel is the usual nonsense.
Zelensky in a public box. What was tice, Senators, thank you for the ques- As we draw to a close tonight, there
meant by that is he wanted him to tion. are only three things to remember.
have to go out and announce publicly I believe that, under Professor One, this is a trial. It is a trial, and
these investigations if he were going to Dershowitz’ theory, remember, he tried as any 10-year-old knows, we should

VerDate Sep 11 2014 04:26 Jan 31, 2020 Jkt 099060 PO 00000 Frm 00046 Fmt 4624 Sfmt 0634 E:\CR\FM\G30JA6.064 S30JAPT1
have witnesses. We are told we can’t closed while deliberating upon its decisions. PRESIDENTIAL MESSAGE
have witnesses because, after all, the A motion to close the doors may be acted
House says we proved our case, as we upon without objection, or, if objection is
heard, the motion shall be voted on without TRANSMITTING DESIGNATION OF
have. So why should we need wit-
debate by the yeas and nays, which shall be FUNDING AS EMERGENCY RE-
nesses? Well, that is like saying that, entered on the record’’.
in a bank robbery, the DA announces QUIREMENTS IN ACCORDANCE
(3) In Rule XXIV, the phrases ‘‘without de-
that he has proved his case. He has had bate’’, ‘‘except when the doors shall be closed
all the witnesses. Then an eyewitness for deliberation, and in that case’’, and ‘‘, to ICO-CANADA-AGREEMENT IMPLE-
shows up, and he shouldn’t be allowed be had without debate’’. MENTATION ACT—PM 42
to testify because, after all, the DA NOTICE OF INTENT TO SUSPEND THE RULES The PRESIDING OFFICER laid be-
was sure he proved his case first. That In accordance with Rule V of the Standing fore the Senate the following message
is absurd, and any 10-year-old knows it Rules of the Senate, I (for myself, Mr. from the President of the United
is absurd. Blumenthal, and Mr. Durbin) hereby give no- States, together with accompanying
That is the President’s case against tice in writing that it is my intention to papers; which was referred to the Com-
witnesses, that we have had enough. move to suspend the following portions of mittee on the Budget:
There is always more. There aren’t too the Rules of Procedure and Practice in the
many more here. The fact is, when Senate When Sitting on Impeachment Trials To the Congress of the United States:
there are witnesses to be asked, they
during the impeachment trial in the Senate In accordance with section 904 of
of President Donald John Trump: title IX of the United States-Mexico-
should be asked. (1) The phrase ‘‘without debate’’ in Rule
Second, there is only one real ques- Canada Agreement Implementation
tion in this trial. Everything else is a Act (H.R. 5430; the ‘‘Act’’), I hereby
(2) The following portion of Rule XX: ‘‘, un-
distraction—a three-card Monte game less the Senate shall direct the doors to be
designate as emergency requirements
being played by the President’s coun- closed while deliberating upon its decisions. all funding so designated by the Con-
sel—distractions. Don’t look at the A motion to close the doors may be acted gress in the Act pursuant to section
real question. Look at everything else. upon without objection, or, if objection is 25l(b)(2)(A) of the Balanced Budget and
Everything else is irrelevant. Look at heard, the motion shall be voted on without Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985,
debate by the yeas and nays, which shall be as outlined in the enclosed list of ac-
the whistleblower—irrelevant. Look at entered on the record’’.
the House procedures—irrelevant. Look counts.
(3) In Rule XXIV, the phrases ‘‘without de- The details of this action are set
at Hunter Biden—irrelevant. Look at bate’’, ‘‘except when the doors shall be closed
whether President Obama’s policy was for deliberation, and in that case’’, and ‘‘, to
forth in the enclosed memorandum
as good as or better than President be had without debate’’. from the Acting Director of the Office
Trump’s policy with respect to of Management and Budget.
Ukraine—irrelevant. Look at the leader is recognized. THE WHITE HOUSE, January 29, 2020.
Steele dossier—irrelevant. ADJOURNMENT UNTIL 1 P.M. TOMORROW
There is only one relevant question: f
Mr. MCCONNELL. Mr. Chief Justice,
Did the President abuse his power by MESSAGE FROM THE HOUSE
I ask unanimous consent that the trial
violating the law to withhold military At 10:41 p.m., a message from the
adjourn until 1 p.m. Friday, January
aid from a foreign country and extort House of Representatives, delivered by
that country into helping him—into Mr. Novotny, one of its reading clerks,
There being no objection, at 10:40
helping his reelection campaign—by announced that the House has passed
p.m., the Senate, sitting as a Court of
slandering his opponent? That is the the following bill, without amendment:
Impeachment, adjourned until Friday,
only relevant question for the trial.
The House managers have proved January 31, 2020, at 1 p.m. S. 3201. An act to extend the temporary
scheduling order for fentanyl-related sub-
that question beyond any doubt. stances, and for other purposes.
The one thing the House managers f
think the President’s counsel got right The message further announced that
is quoting me as saying ‘‘beyond any LEGISLATIVE SESSION the House has passed the following
doubt.’’ It is, indeed, beyond any doubt. bills, in which it requests the concur-
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The rence of the Senate:
That is why all of these distractions. Senate will come to order.
That is why the President’s people are H.R. 2153. An act to support empowerment,
The Senate will now resume legisla- economic security, and educational opportu-
telling you to avoid witnesses—because tive session. nities for adolescent girls around the world,
they are afraid of witnesses. They
and for other purposes.
know the witnesses—they know Mr. f H.R. 3621. An act to amend the Fair Credit
Bolton and others will only strengthen Reporting Act to remove adverse informa-
the case. tion for certain defaulted or delinquent pri-
And, yes, we hear: Well, if the House THE JOURNAL vate education loan borrowers who dem-
managers say their case is so strong, Mr. MCCONNELL. Mr. President, I onstrate a history of loan repayment, and for
why do you need more witnesses? Be- ask unanimous consent that the Jour- other purposes.
cause the truth can be bolstered. nal of proceedings be approved to date. H.R. 4331. An act to modify and reauthorize
I yield back. the Tibetan Policy Act of 2002, and for other
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. With- purposes.
The CHIEF JUSTICE. Thank you, out objection, it is so ordered. H.R. 5338. An act to authorize the Sec-
counsel. MORNING BUSINESS retary of State to pursue public-private part-
NOTICE OF INTENT TO SUSPEND THE RULES nerships, innovative financing mechanisms,
Mr. MCCONNELL. Mr. President, I
In accordance with rule V of the Standing research partnerships, and coordination with
ask unanimous consent that the Sen-
Rules of the Senate, Mr. Blumenthal (for international and multilateral organizations
himself, Mr. Brown, and Mr. Durbin) hereby ate be in a period of morning business,
to address childhood cancer globally, and for
gives notice in writing of his intention to with Senators permitted to speak other purposes.
move to suspend the following portions of therein for up to 10 minutes each.
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. With- The message also announced that the
the Rules of Procedure and Practice in the
Senate When Sitting on Impeachment Trials out objection, it is so ordered. House has agreed to the following con-
during consideration of the question of current resolution, in which it requests

whether it shall be in order to consider and the concurrence of the Senate:

debate under the impeachment rules any mo- H. Con. Res. 86. Concurrent resolution pro-
tion to subpoena witnesses or documents in viding for a joint session of Congress to re-
connection with the impeachment trial of MESSAGE FROM THE PRESIDENT ceive a message from the President.
Donald John Trump:
(1) The phrase ‘‘without debate’’ in Rule
A message from the President of the The message further announced that
VII. United States was communicated to the House has agreed to the amend-
(2) The following portion of Rule XX: ‘‘, un- the Senate by Ms. Roberts, one of his ment of the Senate to the bill (H.R.
less the Senate shall direct the doors to be secretaries. 550) to award a Congressional Gold

VerDate Sep 11 2014 04:26 Jan 31, 2020 Jkt 099060 PO 00000 Frm 00047 Fmt 4624 Sfmt 0634 E:\CR\FM\G30JA6.068 S30JAPT1