>> thank you mr. chief justice, majority leader mcconnell, democratic leader schumer, senators, thank you very much on behalf of all of us for your continued attention. today we areom going to complete our argument and finish her closing argument. we will complete that in a very efficient. of time, you understand the arguments that we have been making. at the end of the day, the key conclusion we believe the onlyco conclusion based on the evidence and based on the articles of impeachment memselves in the constitution, is that you must vote to acquit the president. at the end of the day, this is an effort to overturn the results of one election and to try to interfere in the coming election that begins today in iowa. and we believe that the only proper results, if we are applying the golden rule of a peach meant, if we are implying the rules of impeachment that were so eloquently stated by members of the democratic party the last time we were here. the only of robert result here is to acquit the president and to leave it to the voters to choose their president. >> with that i will turn it over to judge ken starr and we will move through a series of start presentations. thank you.. >> mr. chief justice, members of the senate, majority leader mcconnell, minority leader schumer, house impeachment managers and their very able staff, as world war i, the war to end all wars, was drawing to a close and american soldiers sat down at a piano and composed a song. it was designed to be part of a musical review for his army camp out on long island. the song was god bless america. the composer of course was irving berlin. he came here at the age of five, son of immigrants who came into this country for freedom. as composers are wont to do, berlin works with the lyrics. the song needed to be pure, and needed to be above politics, bipartisanship, he intended it to be a song for all america. but he intended for mored than just a song. it was to be a prayer for the country. as you're very distinguished chaplain, admiral barry black has done in his prayers on these long days that you have spent as judges in the high court of impeachment, we have been reminded of what our country is all about. and that it stands for one nation, under god. the nation is about freedom, and we hear the voice of martin luther king jr. and his dream filled speech about freedom. echoing the great passages inscribed on america's temple of justice, the lincoln memorial which stood behind to doctor king he spoke on that historic day. doctor king is gone, felled by an assassin's bullet, but his words remain with us. and during his magnificent life, after king spoke not only about freedom, freedom standing alone, he spoke frequently about freedom and justice. and in his speeches, he'd summit up regularly the words of a unitarian abolitionist from the prior century, theodore parker. who referred to the moral ark of the universe, the long moral arc of the universe points towards justice. freedom and justice. freedom whose contours have been shaped over the centuries in the english-speaking world. justice benjamin cardozo called the authentic forms of justice through which the community expresses itself in law. authentic, authenticity, and at the foundation of those authentic forms of justice, is fundamental fairness. it's playing by the rules. it's why we don't allow deflated footballs, or stealing signs from the field.es rules are rules. they are here to be followed. and so i submit to a key question to be asked as yoube begin your deliberations. for the rules here faithfully followed? if not, if that is your judgment, then with allnt due respect, the prosecutor should not be rewarded. justice federal prosecutors are not rewarded. you did not follow the rules. you should have. as a young lawyer, i was blessed to work with one of the great trial lawyers of his time, and i asked him what's your secret. he had just defended successfully a former united states senator who was charged with a serious offense, perjury, before a federal grand jury. his response was simple and forthright. his words could have come from prairie lawyer abe lincoln, i let the judge and jury know that they can believe and trust every word that comes out of my mouth. i will not to be proven wrong. and so here is a question as you begin your deliberations. ntve the facts, as presented to you, as a court, as a high court of impeachment proven trustworthy? has there been full and fair disclosure in the course of these proceedings? fundamental fairness. i recall these words from the podium last week. a point would be made by one of the presidents lawyers and then this would follow, the house of managers had didn't tell you that. why not? and again, the house managers didn't tell you that. whywh not? at the justice department on the fifth floor of theor robert f kennedy building, is this simple inscription. the united states that once it's points, when justice it is done its citizens in the courts. not did we win? not to did we convict? rather, the moral question was stjustice done? of course as it has been said frequently, the house of representatives does under our constitution enjoy the sole power of impeachment. no one has disputed that fact. they have got the power, but that doesn't mean anything goes. it doesn't mean that the house cannot be called to account in the high court of impeachment for its actions and exercising that power. a question to be asked, are we to countenance violation of the rules and traditional procedures that have been filed screwed illicitly in prior impeachment proceedings? and the judiciary committee, the judiciary committee of the house of representatives compare and contrast the thoroughness of that committee in the agege of nixon. it's thoroughness in the age of clinton with all of its divisiveness, within the committee in this proceeding. a question to be asked to the house judiciary committee rush to judgment in fashioning the articles of impeachment? did it carefully gather the facts, assess the facts before it concluded we need nothing more than the panel of very distinguished professors and the splendid presentations by both the majority counsel and the minority counsel. we ask some questions, the republicans asked him questions, we heard their answers, we are ready to vote. we are ready to try this case in the high court of impeachment. what wasim being said and the sounds of silence was this, we don't have time to follow the rules. we won't even allow the house judiciary minority members who have been seeking us time and again to have their day. just one day. to call their witnesses. oh yes that is expressly provided for in the rules, we will break those rules. it's not liberty and justice for all, they observe the power of the president is ultimately the power to persuade. oh yes the commander-in-chief and yes charged with the conduct and authorities to guide the nation's foreign relations but ultimately it's the power to persuade i suggest to you so too, the house is so powered to impeach is likewise ultimately a power to persuade over in the house. a question to be asked, and the fast track impeachment process in the house of representatives, the house majority persuade the american people? not just partisans, rather did the houses case when over the overwhelming majority of the consensus of the american people. the question fairly to be asked. will i cast my vote to convict and remove the president of the united states when not a single member of the president's party, the party of lincoln was persuaded. at any time in the process. in contrast and when i was here last week, i noted for the record of these proceedings that in the next cent impeachment the house vote to authorize the inquiry was 410 to four. in the clinton impeachment, divisive controversial 31 democrats voted in favor of the impeachment inquiry. here, of course, in sharp contrast, the answer is none. it is said that we live in highly and perhaps hopelessly partisan times and it said that no one is open to persuasion anymore. they are getting their news entirely from their favorite media platform. and that platform of choice is fatally deterministic. while, at least the decision of decision-makers under oath, who are bound by sacred duties by oath or affirmation to do impartial justice, leaves the platforms out. those of modern-day intermediaries and shapers of thought and expression of opinion are outside these walls where you serve. finally, what is before this court very energetically described by the abled house managers, but fairly viewed will it rise to the high crime of misdemeanor? one so brave and serious to bring about the profound disruption of the article to branch. the disruption of theo government?er and to tell the american people, yes, i will say this is thed way it would be read. your votes in the last election is hereby declared null and void. and by the way, were not going to allow you, the american people, to sit in judgment on this judgment of this president and his record in november. that is neither freedom nor justice. it is certainly not consistent with the basic freedom of we the people. the freedom to vote. i think the court, i yielded to my colleague. >> mr. chief justice, members of the senate, good afternoon. i will be relatively brief today and will not repeat the arguments we have made throughout, but i just want to highlight a few things. there's a number of reasons the articles of impeachment are deficient and must fail. my colleagues have spent the past week describing those reasons. my time today, i would like to review just a few core facts which again, remember are all drawn from the record on which the president was impeached in the house and that the house managers are brought to this body in support of the president's removal. first, the president did not condition security assistance or meeting on anything and during the july 25 call. in fact, both investor yovanovitch and mr. tim morrison confirmed that the javelin missiles and the security assistance were completely unrelated. the concerns that lieutenant colonel vindman expressed on the call or by his own words and admission, based on deep policy concerns. and remember, as we said before and everyone in this room knows, the president sets the foreign policy. the unelected staff implements the foreign-policy. others on the call including lieutenant colonel vindman's boss, mr. morrison and general keith kellogg had no such concerns,te and have stated they have heard nothing improper, unlawful, or otherwise troubling on the july 25 call. second, president zelensky and his top advisers agreed that there is nothing wrong with the july 25 call and that they felt no pressure from president trump. president zelensky said the call was good, normal, and no one pushed him. president zelensky's topic five andrea yermak asked if he ever thought there is a connection between the u.s. military aid and the request for investigations? he was adamant that we never had that feeling and we did not have the feeling this aid was connected to any one specific issue. several other top ukrainian officials said the same thing both publicly and in readouts of the july 25 call to ambassador taylor, ambassador volker, and others. third, president zelensky and the highest levels of ukrainian government did not learn of the pause until august 28, 2019, more than a month after the july 25 call between president trump and president zelensky. president zelensky himself said i had no idea the military aid was held up. when i did i find out i brought up with patients in a meeting in warsaw. meeting the vice president. the meeting in warsaw took place three days after the article was published on september 1, 2019. mr. your. >> on trent yermak also said that they learned of the pause from the august 20 article and just last week, while we were in this trial, alexander dan malec former chair of the defense counsel for ukraine olfirst found out the u.s. was withholding aid was by reading politicos article published august 28. he also said there is panic within the zelensky administration when they found out about the hold from the political article indicating the highest levels of the administration were unaware of the pause until the article was published. and if that is not enough, ambassador volker, and vascular taylor, deputy assistant of state george kent, and mr. morrison all also testified that the ukrainians did not know about the security hold until the political article in august 28. and we showed you the text message from mr. yermak to volker just hours after the article was published. you'll also remember all of the high love rural bilateral meetings which with ukrainians did not bring up the pausing ukrainian assistance because they did not n know about it. when they did find outta on august 28, they raise the issue at the very next meeting in warsaw on september 1. this is a really important point. as ambassador volker testified if ukrainians did not know about the pause, then there was no leverage implied. that's why the house managers inve kept claiming and continue to say during whole trial as they knew about the clause before late august. that is inaccurate. we pointed out that laura cooper whom they rely, testified she didn't really know what the e-mail she saw related to security assistance were about. we told you catherine croft who works for ambassador volker couldn't remember the specifics of when she believed about the pause and she couldn't remember when news of the pause was public. the house managers also mentioned lieutenant colonel vindman who claimed a vague recollections of inquiries about aid in the mid august timeframe. but lieutenant colonel vindman agreed that they first learned about the hold on assistance one probably when the first stories emerged in the open source. in former deputy said she knows about the pause in july is inconsistent with statements by her boss, the then foreign minister review crane he said he learned of the pause from a news article of which the august 28 political article was the first period as well as those of all the other top level ukrainian officials i have mention. the testimony of the top u.s. diplomats responsible for ukraine, and the many intervening meetings where the pause was not mentioned. none of the house witnesses testified that president trump ever said there is any linkage between security assistance and investigations. when ambassador solidly answer the president on september 9, the president told him i want nothing. i want nothing. i want no quid pro quo. before he asked the president, ambassador sondland presumed in told ambassador taylor and mr. morrison that there was a connection between the security assistance and investigations. that was before he asked the president directly. even earlier on august 31, senator ron johnson as the president if there is any connection between security assistant and investigation.co this president answered no way, i would never do that. who told you that? under secretary of state david hale, mr. kent and volker both testified they were not aware of any connection whatsoever between security assistance and investigations. the house managers repeatedly point to a statement by acting chief of staff mick mulvaney during an october press conference. when it became clear that the media was misinterpreting his comments or that he t hadhe simy misspoken, mr. mulvaney promptly, on the very day of the press conference issued a written statement making clear there was no quid pro quo. there is a statement. let me be clear, there is absolutely noo "pro between ukrainian military aid and investigation into the 2016 election. the president never told me to it withhold any money until the ukrainians did anything related to the server. the only reason we were holding the money was concern of lack of support from other nations and concerns over corruption. accordingly, mr. mulvaney, in no way confirm the link irbetween the pause security assistance and investigations. a garbled or misinterpreted statement or mistaken statement that was promptly clarified on the same day as the original statement, is not the kind of reliable evidence that would lead to the removal of the president of the united states from office. in any event, mr. mulvaney also stated during the press conference itself, that the money held up had absolutely nothing to biden. no, why does assault matter? i think senator romney really got to the hearts of this issue on thursday evening. when he asked both parties whether there was any evidence that president trump directed anyone to tell the ukrainians that security assistance was being held up on the condition of an investigation into the bidens. that was the question. there is no w such evidence. fifth, the security assistance was released when the president's concerns with burden sharing and corruption were addressed. by a number of people including some in this chamber today. without ukraine ever announcing or undertaking any investigations. you have heard repeatedly that no one in the administration knew why the security system was paused. that is note true. two of the house managers on witnesses testified regarding the reason for the pause. as mr. morrison testified, at a july meeting attended by officials in the executive branch agencies, the reason provided for the pause by a representative from the office of management and budgetse was that the president was concerned about corruption in ukraine and he wanted to make sure ukraine was doing enough to manage that corruption. further, according to sandy,de the deputy associate for national security of the office of management and budget, we had reserved request fort additional information on what other countries were contributing to ukraine. we told you about the work that was being done to monitor and collect information about anticorruption reforms in ukraine, and burden sharing during the summer pause. we told you about how, when president zelensky asked vice president pence in about the pause, vice president pence asked according to jennifer williams, what the status of his reform efforts were that he could then convey back to the president and also wanting to hear if there is more that european countries could do to support ukraine. mr. morrison, who was actually at the warsaw meeting, testified similarly to vice president pence delivered a message about anticorruption and burden sharing. we told you about the september 11 call with president trump, center department and vice president pence, mr. morrison testified the entire process culminating in september 11 call gave the president the confidence he needed to approve the release of the security sector assistance. all without any investigations being announced. now the focus so far on the house managers allegation that there is quid pro quo quality security assistance. let me turn very briefly to the claim that the presidential meeting was also conditioned on investigations. remember, by the end of thef july 25 call, president trump it personally president zelensky to meet three times. twice by phone, once in a letter. without any preconditions.ny you heard that the white house was working behind the scenes to schedule the meeting and how difficult scheduling those meetings can be. the two presidents plan to meet in warsaw, just as president zelensky requested on the july 25 call. president trump had to cancel at the last minute due to hurricane dorian. president trump and president zelensky then met three weeks later in new york without ukraine investigations. finally the one thing that houtz witnesses agreed upon was that president trump has strengthen the relationship between the u.s. in ukraine and that it hasas been a better ukraine to ukraine in a ostronger opponent of russian agg