President s legal arguments in it concluded, we need nothing response to the subpoenas, more than the panel of very theyve said its distinguished professors and the indiscriminate. There was a blanket defiance. Splendid institution of the majority counsel and the i think ive shown that wasnt true. Minority counsel . There were three very distinct we asked some questions, the rationales as to different republicans asked some defects and different subpoenas. Questions. There were letters explaining we heard their answers. Those defects. But there was no attempt by the were ready to vote. House to attempt an were ready to try this case in the high court of impeachment. Accommodations process, even though the white house offered to engage in an accommodations what was being said in the process. There was no attempt by the sounds of silence was this. We dont have time to follow the house to use other mechanisms to resolve the differences of the executive branch. It was straight to impeachment. Rules. They have asserted today and on we wont even allow the house judiciary minority members, who other occasions that the president s counsel that i and have been besieging us time and my colleagues had made bad faith legal arguments, that theyre again, to have their day, just just window dressing. In an ordinary court of law, one one day, to call their doesnt accuse opposing counsel witnesses. Of making bad arguments lightly. Oh, yes, that is expressly provided for in the rules. If you make that accusation, it well break those rules. Has to be backed up with na analysis. But there hasnt been analysis thats not liberty and justice here, theres just been accusation. When the president asserts the for all. Immunity of his senior advisers, thats an assertive made since president nixon. The political scientist of let me read you what janet reno yesteryear said the power of the in the Clinton Administration president is ultimately the power to persuade. Said. She said, immediate advisers to oh, yes, the commander in chief, the president are immune from and yes, charged with the being compelled to testify conduct and authority to guide the nations Foreign Relations, before congress, and, quote, immunity from such advisers but ultimately its the power to enjoy from a compulsion persuade. Committee is absolute and may i suggest to you that so, too, not be overborne by competing the house sole power to impeach congressional interests, end quote. She went on to say, quote, compelling one of the is likewise ultimately a power president s immediate advisers to persuade over in the house. To testify on the matter of Decision Making would raise serious constitutional problems no matter what the assertion of a question to be asked. Congressional need, end quote. In the fast track impeachment process in the house of was that bad faith . Was attorney general reno representatives, the house asserting that principle in bad majority persuade the american faith on president clinton . President obama asserted the not just partisans, but rather, same principle for his senior political adviser. Did the houses case win over was that bad faith . Of course not. These are principles defending the overwhelming majority and consensus of the american separation of powers that president s have asserted for people . The question fairly to be asked. Decades. President trump was defending the institutional interests of i cast my vote why cast my v the office of the presidency in asserting the same principles here. That is vital for the continued operation for the separation of remove the president of the powers. The house managers have also United States when not a single vote in the Republican Party was said that once the president persuaded. In contrast, when i was hear asserted these defects in their last week, i noticed in the subpoenas and resisted them, record of these proceedings that they had no time to do anything in the nixon impeachment, the else. They had to just go straight to impeachment. House vote to authorize the they couldnt accommodate, they impeachment inquiry was 410 to couldnt go through a contempt process, they couldnt litigate. But the idea that there is no 4. In the clinton impeachment, time for dealing with that divisive, controversial, 31 friction with the executive democrats voted in favor of the branch is really antithetical with the proper function of impeachment inquiry. Here, of course, and in sharp separation of powers. It goes against the way contrast, the answer is none. Separation of powers is supposed to work, that interbranch friction is meant to take time it is said that we live in highly, and perhaps hopelessly, partisan times. To resolve rp, its meant to sl it is said that no one is open down and to force the branches to persuasion anymore. To Work Together to complement theyre getting their news the interest of each branch, not entirely from their favorite just to jump to the conclusion, we have no time for that. Media platform, and that we have to assert absolute platform of choice is fatally authority on one side of the equation. And this is something Justice Brandeis pointed out in a famous deterministic. Dissent in meyers versus the at least the decision of United States, which since then Decision Makers under oath who has been cited many times by the are bound by a sacred duty by court majority. He said, quote, the doctrine of oath or affirmation to do the separation of powers was adopted by the convention of impartial justice leaves the 1787 not to promote efficiency so hes saying not platforms out. To make government move those modern day intermediaries quickly but to preclude the exercise of arbitrary power. And shapers of thawed the purpose was not to avoid friction, but by means of the expression, of opinion, are outside these walls where you inevitable friction incident to serve. The distribution of the governmental powers among the finally, does what is before departments to save the people from autocracy. This court very energetically that is a vitally important described by the able house principle, that the friction managers but fairly viewed rise between the branches, even if it to the level of a high crime or means taking longer, even if it means not jumping straight to a misdemeanor . One so brave and so serious to impeachment, is part of the constitutional design, and its bring about the profound required to force the branches disruption of the article 2 to determine incrementally where branch, the disruption of the their interests lie. Government . And to tell the American People, to resolve disputes incrementally and not to jump and yes, they will say this is straight to the ultimate nuclear the way it will be read, your weapon of the constitution. Vote in the last election is weve also heard from the house hereby declared null and void. Managers that everything the president did here, asserting a prerogatives of his office, and by the way, were not going to allow you, the american asserting principles of immunity people, to sit in judgment on must be wrong, must be rejected because only the guilty will this president and his record in assert a privilege. Only the guilty will not allow evidence. November. That is definitely not a that is neither freedom nor is it justice. Principle of american its certainly not consistent with the most basic freedom of jurisprudence. Its antithetical to our system we, the people. Of laws. The freedom to vote. As we pointed out in our trial memorandum in bercher versus i thank the court. I yield to my colleague, mr. Hayes and other cases, the court has made clear the very idea of purpuro. Punishing someone for asserting rights and privilege, for suggesting asserting rights and mr. Chief justice. Pri privilege is evidence of guilt is not due process. It takes on a more malignant ten members of the senate, good or to it when that principle is asserted in the context of afternoon. Dispute between the branches real estate lating to the i will be relatively brief today balance of their relative powers. Because what the house is and will not repeat the arguments that weve made essentially asserting in this case is that any assertion of throughout, but i just wanted to the prerogatives of the office highlight a few things. Of the president , any attempt to there are a number of reasons why the articles of impeachment maintain the principles of are deficient and must fail. Separation of powers of executive confidentiality that my colleagues have spent the have been asserted by past past week describing those president s can be treated by the house as evidence of guilt. Reasons. In my time today, id like to and here their entire Second Review just a few core facts article of impeachment is which, again, remember, are all structured on the assumption drawn from the record on which that the house can treat the the president was impeached in assertion of principles grounded in the separation of powers as the house and that the house an Impeachable Offense. Managers brought to this body in support of the president s when boiled down to its essence, it is an assertion that removal. First, the president did not condition Security Assistance or determining the separation of powers, the president does it in a way they dont like and a time a meeting on anything during the they dont like can be treated july 25 call. As an Impeachable Offense. Thats an incredibly dangerous in fact, both the ambassador yavonovitch and mr. Tim morrison assertion. Because if it were accepted, it confirmed that the javelin would fundamentally alter the missiles and the Security Assistance were completely balance between the different branches of our government. Unrelated. The concerns that lieutenant it would suggest, and professor colonel vindman expressed on the turley explained this, prefer dershowitz explained it here, call were by his own words and that if Congress Makes a demand admission based on deep policy on the executive and the executive resists, based on separation of powers principles concerns. And remember, as we said before that past president s have and everyone in this room knows, asserted, congress can nonetheless say, we decided to the president sets the foreign proceed by impeachment. We have the sole power, and this is the principle they assert in policy. The unelected staff implements the House Judiciary Committee the Foreign Policy. Others on the call, including report. We have the sole power of Lieutenant Colonel vindmans impeachment. That means we are the sole judge of our own actions. There is no need for boss, mr. Morrison, as well as accommodation, there is no need Lieutenant General keith for the courts. Kellogg, had no such concerns we will determine that any resistance you provide is itself and have stated that they have impeachable. That would fundamentally heard nothing improper, unlawful transform our government by or otherwise troubling on the essentially giving the house the july 25 call. Same sort of power as a parliamentary system. To use impeachment as an second, president zelensky and his top advisers agree that ineffective vote of no there was nothing wrong with the confidence against a prime july 25 call and that they felt minister, not the way the no pressure from president framers set up our threebranch trump. President zelensky said that the system of government with a call was good, normal, and no powerful executive who would be one pushed me. Independent from the president zelenskys top adviser legislature. Thats why professor turley explained that this second andre yermak was asked if he article of impeachment here would be an abuse of power by congress. It would make the executive ever felt there was a connection dependent on congress in a between military aid and manner antithetical to the system that the framers suggestions. He said, we did not have that envisioned. Feeling and we did not have the so why is it that there are all of these defects in the house feeling this aid was connected to any one certain issue. Managers case for impeachment . Republicans have said the same, why are they asserting principles like only the guilty and in a readout to ambassador taylor, ambassador volker and would assert privileges . Thats not part of our system of law. Why are they asserting that if others. Third, president zelensky and the highest levels of the the executive resists, the house has the sole power to determine ukranian government did not learn of the pause until august 28, 2019, more than a month the boundaries of its own power after the july 25 call between in relation to the executive, President Trump and president also not something that is in our system of jurisprudence. Zelensky. President zelensky himself said, i had no idea the military aid was held up. And why the lack of due process when i did find out, i raised it in the proceedings below . With pence at a meeting in warsaw, referring to the vice i think as weve explained, its because this was a purely president. The meeting in warsaw took place partisan impeachment from the three days after the political start. Article was published on it was purely partisan and september 1st, 2019. Purely political. And thats something that the mr. Yermak likewise said that framers foresaw. And ill point to one passage president zelensky and his key advisers learned of the pause from the federalist number 65. Only from the august 28 political article, and just last a number of different passages week, while we were in this from that have been cited over the course of the past week, but trial, alexander donelin, said i dont think this one has. Its just after hamilton points out, he warns that an he first found out that the impeachment in the house could be the result of persecution of an intemporate or designing United States was withholding aid to ukraine on august 28. Majority in the house of mr. Donelin said there was panic representatives. Then he goes on, though this latter supposition may seem when they found out about the harsh, it may not likely often hold, indicating that the highest levels of the administration were unaware of to be verified, yet it ought not the pause until the article was to be forgotten that the demon published. And if thats not enough, of faction will, at certain seasons, extend his scepter over ambassador volker, ambassador taylor, Deputy Assistant all language of men. Secretary of state george kent thats very 18th century and mr. Morrison all also language. We dont talk about demons testified that out crathe ukrand not know about the security hold until the political article on extending his scepter of men, august 28. And we showed you the text but its accurate as to what can message from mr. Yermak to happen. Thats what happened in this ambassador volker just hours impeachment. After the political article was published. This was a purely partisan you also remember all of the political process. Highlevel, bilateral meetings it was imposed bipartisay parti at which the ukranians did not bring up the pause in this the house. Security assistance because they did not know about it. When they did find out on august it was done not to persuade 28, they raised the issue at the very next meeting in warsaw on anyone, to get to the truth or go by past president s. September 1st. This is a really important it was done to get done by point. Christmas on a political as ambassador volker testified, if the ukranians didnt know timetable. And its not something this chamber should condone. Sufficie about the pause, then there was no leverage implied. Thats why the house managers have kept claiming, and continue to claim throughout the trial, reason for rejecting the articles of impeachment. That the highlevel ukranians members of the senate, its been somehow knew about the pause an honor to be able to address before late august. You over the past week and a thats inaccurate. We pointed out that laura half or two weeks, and i thank cooper, on whom they rely, you for your attention and i yield to mr. Sekulow. Testified she didnt really know what the emails she saw relating to Security Assistance were about. We told you catherine croft, who mr. Chief justice, majority worked for ambassador volker, leader mcconnell, democratic couldnt remember specifically leader schumer, house managers. When they remembered the pause and when the pause became im going to join my colleagues public. The house managers also in thanking you for your patience over these two weeks. Mentioned Lieutenant Colonel i want to focus on one last vindman who claimed of vague recollections of fielding unspecified queries about aid point. We believe that we have from ukranians in the midaugust established overwhelmingly that both articles of impeachment time frame. But Lieutenant Colonel vindman failed to allege impeachable ultimately agreed that the offenses and that, therefore, ukranians first learned about the hold on Security Assistance both articles 1 and 2 must fail. Probably around when the first stories emerged in the open this entire campaign of source. Impeachment that started from and foreign deputy learned about the very first day that the president was inaugerated was a partisan one and it should never it in statements mentioned by her boss who said he learned of happen again. For three years, this push for the pause from a news article of impeachment came straight from which the august 28 politico the president s opponents, and article was the first, as well when it finally reached a as those of all the other toplevel ukranian officials ive mentioned, the testimony of crescendo, it put this body, the the top u. S. Diplomats United States senate, into a horrible position. Responsible for ukraine, and at i want to start by taking a look the many other meetings in which the pause was mentioned. Back. On the screen is a graphic of a fourth, none of the house witnesses testified that Washington Post headline on President Trump ever said there was any linkage between security january 20, 2017. The campaign to impeach assistance and investigations. President trump has begun. When ambassador sondland asked