More than the panel very distinguished professors and the splendid presentations by both the majority counsel and the minority counsel. We asked some questions, the republicans asked some questions. We heard some answers, we are ready to vote. We are ready to try this case in the high court of impeachment. What was being said and the sounds of silence was this. We dont have time to follow the rules. We wont even allow the house judiciary minority members, who have been beseeching 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. Thats not liberty and justice for all. The great political of yesteryear observed that the power of the president is ultimately the power to persuade. Oh, yes, the commander in chief, and yes, charge for the conduct and authority as a guide of the nations Foreign Relations, but ultimately its the power to persuade. I suggest to you that so, too, the houses sole power to impeach is likewise ultimately they power to persuade over in the house. A question to be asked in 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 went over the overwhelming majority and 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 nixon impeachment the house vote to authorize the impeachment inquiry was 4104. In the clinton impeachment, divisive, controversial, 31 democrats voted in favor of the impeachment inquiry. Here, of course, and in sharp contrast, the answer is none. It is said that we live in highly and perhaps hopelessly partisan times. It is 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. Well, at least the decision of decisionmakers under oath who are bound by sacred duty, by oath or affirmation, to do impartial justice, leaves the platforms out. Those modernday intermediaries and shapers of thought, of expression, of opinion, are outside these walls where you serve. Finally, does what is before this court, very energetically described by the evil house managers, but fairly viewed, rise to the level of a high crime or misdemeanor . One so brave and so serious to bring about the profound disruption of the article to branch . The disruption of the government and to care the American People and yes, i will say, this is the way it would be read. Your vote in the last election is therefore declared null and. And by the way, we are not going to allow you, the American People, to sit in judgment on this president and his record in november. That is neither freedom nor is it justice. And certainly its not consistent with the most basic freedom of we, the people. The freedom to vote. I think the court, i yield to my colleague. Mr. Chief justice. Members of the senate, good afternoon. I will be relatively brief today, and will not repeat the arguments that we have made throughout, but i just want to highlight a few things. There are a number of reasons why the articles of impeachment are deficient and must fail. My colleagues have spent the past week describing those reasons. In 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 brought to this body in support of the president s removal. First, the president did not condition Security Assistance or a meeting on anything during the july 25th call. In fact, both the ambassador 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 where, by his own words and admission, based on deep policy concerns. 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 of inmans boss, mr. Morrison, as well as Lieutenant General keith kellogg, had no such concerns and have stated that they have heard nothing improper, unlawful, or otherwise troubling on the july call. Second, president zelensky and his top advisors agree there is nothing wrong with the july 25th call and they felt no pressure from President Trump. President zelensky said the call was good, normal, and no one pushed me. President zelenskys top advisor was asked if he ever felt there was a connection between the u. S. Military aid and their request for investigations. He was adamant that we never had that feeling and we did not have the feeling that this aid was connected to any one specific issue. Several other top ukrainian officials have said the same, both publicly and in readouts of the july 25th call to ambassador taylor, ambassador volker, and others. Third, president zelensky and the highest levels of the Ukrainian Government did not learn of the pause until august 28th, 2019. More than a month after the juln President Trump and president president zelensky. President zelensky himself said, i had no idea the military aid was held up. When i did find out, i raised it with pens at a meeting in warsaw, referring to the Vice President. The meeting in warsaw took place three days after the political article was published on september 1st, 2019. Mr. Yermak likewise said that president zelensky and his key advisors learned of the pause only from the august 20th political article. Just last week, while we were in this trial, oleksandr danyliuk, former chairman of the National Defense council, said he first found out that the u. S. Was withholding aid to ukraine by reading politicos article published august 28th. Mr. Danyliuk also said there was panic within the Zelensky Administration when they found out about the hold from the political article, indicating that the highest levels of the administration were unaware of the pause until the article was published. And if thats not enough, ambassador volker, ambassador taylor, Deputy Assistant secretary of state george kent, and mr. Morrison all also testified that the ukrainians did not know about the security hold until the call on august 28th. And we showed you the text message from mr. Yermak to ambassador volker just hours after the politico article was published. You also remember all of the hyperlevel, bilateral meetings at which ukrainians did not bring up the pause in the Security Assistance. Because they did not know about it. When they did find out on auguse issue at the very next meeting in warsaw on september 1st. This is a really important point. As ambassador volker testified, if the ukrainians didnt know about the pause, there was no leverage implied. That is why the house managers have kept claiming and continue to claim throughout the trial that they somehow knew about the pause before late august. Thats inaccurate. We pointed out that laura cooper, on whom they rely, testified that she didnt really know what the email she sought relating to Security Assistance. We told you that catherine croft, who worked for ambassador volker, who worked for ambassador volker, couldnt remember the specifics of when she believed the Ukrainian Embassy learned of the pause and that she didnt remember when news of the pause became public. The house managers also mentioned Lieutenant Colonel vindman, who claimed to have vague recollections of feeling on specified queries from eight ukrainians in that midaugust time frame. But Lieutenant Colonel goodman ultimately agreed that the ukrainians first learned about the hold on Security Assistance probably around when the first stories emerged in the open source. And former Deputy Foreign ministers claimed that she learned about the pause in julyh statements by her boss, the then foreign minister of ukraine, who said that he learned of the pause from a news article, of which the august 28th politico article was the first period as well as those of all of the other toplevel ukrainian officials ive mentioned. The testimony of the top u. S. Diplomats responsible for ukraine, and the many intervening meetings at which the pause was not mentioned. Fourth, none of the house witnesses testified that President Trump ever said there was any linkage between Security Assistance and investigations. When ambassador sondland asked the president on approximately 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 and told ambassador taylor and mr. Morrison that there was a connection between the Security Assistance and the investigations. That was before he asked the president directly. Even earlier, on august 31, senator ron johnson asked the president if there was any connection between security insistencassistance and investi. The president answered, no way, i would never do that. Who told you that came out under secretary of state david hale, mr. Kent, and ambassador volker all testified they were not aware of any connection whatsoever between Security Assistance and investigations read the house managers repeatedly point to a t 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 had simply misspoken, mr. Mulvaney promptly, on the very day of the press conference, issued a written statement making clear that there was no quid pro quo. There is a statement. Let me be clear, there was absolutely no quid pro quo between Ukrainian Military aid and any investigation into the 2020 election. The president never told me to withhold any money until the ukrainians did anything related to the server. The only reasons we were holding the money was because of concern about lack of support from other nations and concerns over corruption. Accordingly, mr. Mulvaney in no way confirm the link between the pause to Security Assistance and investigations. A garbled or misinterpreted statement or a mistaken statement that is 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. And in any event, mr. Mulvaney also stated during the press conference itself that the money held up at absolutely nothing to do with biden. Now, why does this all matter . I think senator romney really got to the heart 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 to the bidens. That was the question. There is no 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 Assistance was paused. Thats not true. Two of the house managers own witnesses testified regarding the reason for the pause. As mr. Morrison testified, at a july meeting attended by officials throughout the executive branch agencies, the reason provided for the pause by a representative from the office of management and budget 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 mark sandy, deputy associate director for National Security at the office of management and budget, we had received requests for 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 burdensharing during the summer pause. We told you about how, when president zelensky asked Vice President pence in poland 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 was more that European Countries could do to support ukraine. Mr. Morrison, who was actually at the warsaw meeting, testified similarly that Vice President pence delivered a message about anticorruption and burdensharing. We told you about the september 11th call with President Trump, senator portman, and Vice President pence. Mr. Morrison testified the entire process, culminating in the september 11th call, give the president the confidence he needed to approve the release of the Security Sector assistance, all without any investigations being announced. Now, ive focused so far on the house managers allegation that there was a quid pro quo for the Security Assistance. Let me turn very briefly to the claim that the president ial meeting was also conditioned on investigations. Remember, by the end of the julp had personally invited president zelensky to meet three times. Twice by phone, once in a letter, without any preconditions. 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 president s planned 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 announcing any investigations. Finally, one thing that the house managers and witnesses agreed upon, is that President Trump has strengthen the relationship between the u. S. And ukraine and that hes been a better friend to ukraine and a stronger opponent of russian aggression then president obama. Most notably, ambassador taylor, ambassador volker, and ambassador yovanovitch all testified that President Trumps reversal of his predecessors refusal to send ukrainians leaflet aid was a meaningful and significant policy development and improvement for which President Trump deserves credit. Just last week, ambassador volker, who knows more about u. S. Ukraine relationships than nearly if not everyone, published a piece in Foreign Policy magazine. I would like to redo an excerpt. Beginning in mid2017 and continuing until the impeachment investigation began in september of 2019, u. S. Policy toward ukraine was strong, consistent, and enjoyed support across the administration, bipartisan support in congress, and support among u. S. Allies and in ukraine itself. The Trump Administration also coordinated ukraine policy closely with allies in europe and canada, maintaining a united front against russian aggression and in favor of ukraines democracy, reform, sovereignty, and territorial integrity. Ukraine policy is one of the few areas where u. S. And european policies have been in lockstep. The administration lift of the obamaera ban on the sale of lethal arms, delivering the javelin antiair missiles. The circumstances of which are the topic of impeachment hearings, u. S. Defense support for ukraine remains robust. It is therefore a tragedy that u. S. Partisan politics, which have culminated in the ongoing impeachment process, i left ukraine and its new president zelensky expose and relatively isolated. The only one who benefits from this is russian president vladimir putin. Those are words of ambassador volker. He was one of the house managers key witnesses. He was the very first witness to testify in the house proceedings on october 3rd. So i think its fitting he may be the last witness we hear from. In his parting words, add he says u. S. Partisan politics have culminated in this impeachment process that has imperiled ukraine. In sum, its not underwhelming and is not disputed. The house managers bear the very heavy burden of proof. They did not need it. Its not because they didnt get the additional witnesses or documents that they failed to pursue. Its because their own witnesses have already offered substantial evidence undermining their cas