Reach a reasoned decision about whether to impeach and then to bring full trial. That is exactly what we did hear therstding that the senate has its own power to compel documents and testimony. It would be one thing if the house had shown no interest in documents or witnesses during its investigation although even there the house is the sole right to determine its proceedings as long as it makes the full case to the house as it did. But its quite another when the president is the cause of his own complaint, when the president withholds witnesses and documents and then attempts to rely on his own noncompliance to justify further concealment. President trump made it Crystal Clear we would never see a concealment. President trump made itt crysta cl w never see a single document or single witness when he declared, as we just watched, that he would fight all subpoenas. As a matter of history and precedent it would be wrong to assert that the senate is unable to obtain and review new evidence during a senate trial regardless of why evidence was not produced in the house. You can, and should, insist on receiving all the evidence so you can render impartial justice and earn the confidence of the public in the senates willingness to hold a fair trial. Under the constitution, the senate does not just vote on impeachments. It does not just debate them. Instead, it is commanded by the constitution to try all cases of impeachment. If the founders intended the house to try the matter and the senate to consider an appeal based on the cold record from the other chamber, they would have said so. But they did not. Instead they gave us the power to charge try all impeachments. The framers chose their language and the structure for a reason. As Alexander Hamilton said, the senate is given awful discretion matters of impeachment. The constitution speaks to senators inou their judicial as a court for the trial of impeachments. It requires them to aim at real demonstrations of innocence or guilt and requires them to do so by holding a trial. The senate has repeatedly subpoenaed and received new documents, often many of them while adjudicating cases of impeachment. Moreover the senate has heard witness testimony in every one of the 15 Senate Trials, full Senate Trials in the history of this republic. Including those for president s Andrew Johnson and bill clinton. Indeed in president andrew jon ieachment trialhe permitted to begin introducing documentary evidence to the senate on the very first day of the trial. The house managers initial presentation of documents in president johns case carried on for the first two daysov of tri, immediately after which witnesses were called to appear in the senate. This has been the Standard Practice in prior impeachment trials. Indeed, this body has heard from many witnesses, ranging from three in president clintons to 40 in president johnsons and 60 other impeachments. As these numbers make clear, the senate has heardha from witness when trying an impeachment. The notion only the information history. After serving on case of judge claireborn, leader mcdonell described how labored intensely for two months amassing the necessary evidence and testimony. In the same essay, he recognized the need for amassing and dig t digesting evidence. There was a lot of evidence for the senate to amass and digest in that prosceediproceeding, wh involved testimony against a District Court judge. It heard 19 witnesses and allowed for over 1,000 pages of documents to be mitt. At no point did it limit what was before the house, it did the opposite. Consistentsena proactice in eve impeachment trial. Every one. Of the 40 witnesses who testified during president johnsons senate trial, only three provided testimony to the house. The remaining 37 witnesses in that president ial impeachment trial testified before the senate. Similarly, the senates full first impeachment trial, which involved charges against judge bickering involved testimony from 11 witnesses, all of whom were new to the impeachment proceedings and had not testified before the house. There are many other examples of this point including the senates most recent impeachment trial of judge porteous in 2010. Its one many of you and some of us know well. It too is consistent with the 2 longstanding practice. There the senate heard testimony fromus 26 witnesses, 17 of whom had not testified before the house in its impeachment inquiry. Theres a tradition of the Senate Hearing from new witnesses when trying articles of impeachment. There has never been a rule li witnesses to those who appeared in the house or limiting evidence to the senate to that which the house considered. Thats because as senator johnso in 1934, the integrity of Senate Impeachment trials depend heavily on the witnesses called. Their appearance on the stand. Their mode of giving testimony. There is an unbroken history of witness testimony in Senate Impeachment trials. I would argue in the case of a president , it is even more important to hear the witnesses and see the documents. Any conceivable doubt on this score and there should be none left on the senates own docume from witnesses these rules x expressley contemplate the senate will hear evidence. At every turn they reject the notion that the senate would take the houses record, blind itself to Everything Else and vote to acquit or convict. Rule 6 says the senate shall have the p compel the attendance of witnesses and enforc enforc enforce obedience. Rule 7 presumes the senate trial will have testimony, giving rise to such rule 11 authorizes the full senate to designateuc a committ to receive evidence and take testimony at times and places the committee may determine. As rule 11 makes clear, the committees report must be transmitted to the full senate for final adjudication. But nothing in the rules states shall prevent the Senate Hearing from any witness or testimony in open senate or by order of the senate by trial in the open senate. Here too the impeachment rules contemplate and provide for subpoenaing witnesses and hearing their testimony as part of the senate trial. And the list goes on. These rules plainly contemplate a robust role for the senate in gathering and considering evidence. They reflect centuries of practice of accepting and requiring new evidence in Senate Trials. This senate should honor that practice today. By rejecting this resolution. What about the clinton trial . B. Even if we are departing from every other impeachment trial in history, including the impeachment of president Andrew Johnson, what about the clinton trial, arent we following the same processes in the clinton trial . The answer is, no. First, process for the clinton trial was worked out by mutual consent. Among the parties. That is not true here. Where the process is sought to be imposed by one party on the other. Second, all of the documents in the clinton trial were turned over prior to the trial. All 90,000 pages of them, so they could be used in the houses case. None of the documents have been turnedde o in this case, and under leader mcconnells proposal, none may ever be. They certainly wont be available to you or to us during most or all of the trial. If we are really going to follow the clinton precedent, the senate must insist on the documents now. Before the trial begins. Third, the issue in the clinton trial was not one of calling witnesses, but of recalling witnesses. All of the witnesses in the clinton had testified before the grand jury or been interviewed by the fbi, one of them dozens of times. And their testimony was already known. President clinton himself testified on camera and under oath before the senate trial. He allowed multiple chiefs of staff and other key officials to testify, again before the senate trial took place. Here none of the witnesses we seek to call, none of them, have testified or been in and as i said, the president cannot complain weho did not ca these witnesses before the house when theyre unavailability was caused by the president himself. And last, as you will remember, those of you that were here, the testimony in the clinton trial involved decorum issues that are not present here. You may rest assured, whatever else the case may be, such issues will not be present here. In sum, the clinton precedent, if youre really serious about modeling this proceeding after the clinton trial, the clinton precedent is one where all the documents had been provided up front, where all the witnesses had testified up front, prior to the trial. That is not being replicated by the mcconnell resolution, not in any way, not in any shape, not in any form. Far from it. The traditional model followed in president johnsons case and all of the others is really the one most appropriate to the circumstances. The senate a should address all the documentary issues and most of the witnesses now, not laterr the need to documents and testimony now has only increased duens to the presidens obstruction for several reasons. First, his obstruction has made him uniquely and personally responsible for the absences of the witnesses before the house, having ordered them not to appear he may not be heard to complain now that they followed his orders and refused to testify. To do otherwise only rewards the president s obstruction and encourages further, future president s to defy lawful process in impeachment investigations. Second, if the president wishes to contest the facts and his answer in trial brief indicates that he will try, he must not continue to deny the Senate Access to the relevant witnesses and documents that shed light on the very factual matters he wishes to challenge. The senate trial is not analogous to an appeal where they must argue the facts on the record below. There is no record below. There is no below. This is the trial. Third, the president must not be allowed to mislead the senate by selectively introducing documents while withholding the vast body of documents that may contradict him. This is very important. The president must not be allowed to mislead you by introducing documents selecd so get to the truth. Otherwise theres a risk the president will continue to hide all documents contrary to his position. And finally, you may inferhe president s guilt from his continuing efforts to obstruct documents and witnesses. The president has said he wants witnesses like mulvaney and pompeo and others to testify. And his interactions with ukraine have been perfect. Counsel has affirmed today that will be his defense. His conduct p is perfect. Perfectly fine to coerce an ally to get aid for the next election. That will be the president s defense, albeit not worded in that way, now he has changed course and does not want the witnesses to testify. The logical assumption in a court of law, that the contin d continued the documents the president ise released through the freedom of information act or through other means over time. Witnesses will tell their stories in books and film. The truth will come out. The question is, will it come out in time . And what answer shall we give if we did not pursue the truth now and let it remain hidden until it was too late to consider on the profound issue of the president s guilt or innocence. There are many overlapping reasons forll voting against th. Fairness. The trial should be fair to the deprived of evidence by a president who wishes to conceal it. It should beth fair to the president , who from an acquittal or dismissal if the trial is not viewed as fair. If it is not viewed as impartial. And fair to you senators, who are tasked with the grave responsibility of determining whether to convict or acquit, and should do so with the all of the facts. And fair to the american peoe who deserve the full truth and who deserve representatives who will seek it on their behalf. With that, mr. Chief justice, i yield back. Mr. Cipollone, mr. Sekulow, you have 57 minutes available. Us thank you, mr. Chief justi, members of the senate, leader mcconnell, leaderr schumer. Its my privilege to represent the president of the United States before thisum chamber. Senator schumer said earlier today thepr eyes of the founder are on these proceedings. Indeed thats true. But its the heart of the constitution that governs these proceedings. What we just heard from manager schiff, courts have no role, privileges dont apply, what happened in the past we should just ignore. In fact, manager schiff just said, try to summarize my colleagues defense of the president , he said not in those words, of course, which is not the first time mr. Schiff has putno words into transcripts th did not exist. Mr. Schiff also talked about a trifecta. Ill give you a trifecta. During the proceedings that took place before the judiciary committee, the president was denied the right to crossexamine witnesses. The president was denied the right to access evidence. And the president was denied the right to have counsel present at hearings. Thats a trifecttrifecta. A trifecta that violates the constitution of the United States. Mr. Schiff did say the courts really dont have t a role in this. Executive privilege, why would that matter . It matters because its based on the constitution of the United States. One manager said that it is you that are on trial, the senate. Also said that and others did that youre not capable of abiding by your oath. Then we had the invocation of the ghost of the Mueller Report. I know something about that report. Ety. On the issue of collusion with russia. There was no obstruction. In fact, the Mueller Report to the contrary what these managers say today, came to the exact opposite conclusions of what they say. Let me quote from the house impeachment report. At page 16. Although President Trump has at times invoked the notion of due process, an impeachment trial and impeachment inquiry is not a criminal trial and should not be confused with it. Believe me, what has taken place in these proceedings is not to be confused with due process. Because due process demands and the constitution requires that fundamental fairness and due process, were hearing a lot about due process. Due process is designed to protect the person accused. When the russia investigation failed, it devolvede ukraine. A quid pro quo. When that didnt prove out, it was bribery, maybe extortion, one of the members of the house said w treason. But instead we get two articles of impeachment. Two articles of impeachment that have a vague allegation about a noncrime allegation of abuse of power and obstruction of congress. Members, managers right here before youth today, who have sa that executive privilege and constitutional privileges have no place in these proceedings, on june 28, 2012, attorney general eric holder became thes general to bed because president obama asserted executive privilege. With respect to the holder contemptprocdings, mr. Ge the president and his senior advise es to receive candid advice and information from their top aides. Indeed thats correct. Not because manager schiff said it, but because the constitution requires it. Mr. Manager nadler said that the effort to hold eric holder, attorney general holder in contempt for refusing to comply with various subpoenas was, quote, politically motivated and Speaker Pelosi called the matter, i quote, little more than a witch hunt. What are we dealing with here . Why arere we here . Are we here because of a phone call . Or arehere, before this great body, because since the president wasthe was a desire t removed . I remember in the Mueller Report there were discussions about insurance policies. Insurance policy didnt work out so well. So then we moved to other investigations. I guess you would call it reinsurance. Or an umbrella policy. And that didnt work out so well. And here we are today. Manager schiff quoted the Supreme Court. And id like to make reference to the Supreme Court justice reo wrote for the majority in 1973, we may some day be presented with a situation which the conduct of Law Enforcement agents is outrageous that due process would obtain a conviction, that day was today, that day was a year ago. That day was in july. When special counsel mueller testified. I am not today going to take the time to review. I will do it later. The pattern and practices of irregularities that have gone on int. These investigations from e outset. But to say that the courts have no role, the rush to impeachment, to not wait for a decision from a court on an issue ascu important as executi privilege, as if executive utilized by president s since our founding. This is not some new concept. We dont waive executive privilege. And theres a reason we keep executive privilege and we assert it when necessary. And that is to protect. To protect the constitution and the separation of powers. The president s opponents in their rush to impeach have refused to wait for complete judicial review. That was their choice. Speaker pelosi clearly expressed hert contempt for judicial at the mercy of the said, we courts. Think about that for a moment. We cannot be at the mercy of the courts. Article 3 of the the co are an improper venue to determine constitutional issues of this magnitude . That is why we have courts. That is why we have a federal judiciary. It was interesting when professor turley testified before the house judiciary committee, hech said we have the banchs of government, not two, if you impeach a president over abuse of power, its your abuse of power. You know its more than that, a lot more than that. Theres s a lot more than abusef power if you say the courts dont apply. Constitutional principles dont apply. Lets start proceed, in the day ahead, we will lay out our case. Were forrd to place here. People, but more that this idea that we should ignore what has taken place over the last three years is outrageous. H we believe that what senator mcconnell has put forward provides due process, allows the proceedings to move forward in an orderly fashion. 33 days they held onto those impeachment articles. 33 days. It was such a rush of National Security to impeach this president before christmas they then held them for 33 days. To do what . To act as if they negotiate the house of representives this was the express purpose. This was the reason they did it. Were prepared to proceed, majority leader, democratic majority leader. Our view, thes should begin. Yield the rest of my time to my colleague, white house counsel. Mr. Cipollone . Thank you, mr. Chief justice. I just want to make a couple of additional points. Its very difficult to sit there and listen to mr. Schiff tell the tale that he just told. Lets remember how we all got here. They made false allegations about a telephone call. The president of the United States declassified that telephone call, and released when mr. Schiff found out that there were there was nothing to his allegations, he focussed on the second telephone call. He made fal his colleagues made false allegations that occurred before the one he had demanded. Still nothing. Again, complete transparency in a way that, frankly, im unfamiliar with any precedent of any president of the United States releasing a classified telephone call with a foreign leader. When mr. Schiff saw that his allegations were false, and he knew it anyway, what did he do . He went to the house. And he manufactured a fraudulent version of t he read it to the American People and he didnt tell them it was a complete fake. W about process . Ill tell you about due process. Never before in the history of our country has a president been confronted with this kind of impeachment proceeding in the house. It wasnt conducted by the judiciary committee. Now mr. Nadler, when he applied for that job, told his colleagues when they took over the house that he was really good at impeachment. But what happened was, the proceedings took place in a basement of the house. Of representatives. The president was forbidden from attending. The president was not allowed to have a lawyer present. In every other impeachment proceeding, the president has been given am minimal a minil