Transcripts For FOXNEWSW Your World With Neil Cavuto 2020012

White house review, of President Trumps decision to hold up hundreds of documents that reveal extensive efforts to generate at afterthefact justification for the debate over whether the delaying was legal. That is known as a coverup, actually. The white house lawyers had apparently uncovered early august email exchanges between acting chief of staff Mick Mulvaney and white house budget officials seeking to provide some explanation for withholding the funds the president had already ordered on hold. The documents also reportedly include communications between white house officials and outside agencies. Not only does congress have a right to see them, the public does too under freedom of information laws. As a matter of constitutional authority, the senate has the greatest interest in and right to compel those documents. Indeed, as the news article explains, white house lawyers are reportedly worried about unflattering exchanges and fact they could at a minimum embarrass the president. Perhaps they should be worried about that. The risk of embarrassment cannot outweigh the constitutional interest in this impeachment proceeding. Any evidence of guilt, including further proof of the real reason the president ordered the funds withheld or afterthefact unknowingly lawful conduct, they must be provided to ensure a full and fair trial. No privilege or National Security rationale can be used as a shield from disclosing misconduct. Their key white house documents related to multiple instances when white house officials reporting their concerns to white house lawyers about the president s scheme to press ukraine to do the president a domestic political favor. Colonel vindman and hill informed about the july 10th meeting in which ambassador sondland revealed he had a deal with mister mulvaney. Im going to go directly to the clip by dr. Hill. Dr. Hill part i me. Had boltons direction also reported that meeting to John Eisenberg as she explained in her testimony. I had a discussion with ambassador bolton belt after that meeting in his office, a very brief one, and one immediately after, a subsequent meeting. The subsequent meeting after both meetings when you spoke to him and relayed to him what ambassador sondland said, but it ambassador bolton say to you . I want to highlight first of all that ambassador bolton wanted me to hold back in the room i meeting after the meeting. Im sitting with a colleague. In the second meeting he was making a very strong point. He wanted to know exactly what was being said. When i came back and related it to him, he has a very specific instructions for me. Im presuming what was that specific instruction . I had to go to the lawyers. Senior constable for the National Security council. You tell John Eisenberg and rasir bolton told me that im not part of the whatever drug deal that mulvaney and sunland are cooking up. What did you understand it to mean by the drug deal that mulvaney and sandlin were cooking up . I took it to mean investigation for a meeting. Did you speak to the lawyers . I certainly did. E relayed everything that you just told us . Precisely and the details of how that meeting at unfolded as well. I gave a full description of this in my october 14th deposition. There was something wrong going on here. White house officials were told repeatedly, go tell the lawyers about it. Dr. Hill, Lieutenant Colonel vindman, mr. Morrison who reported to mr. Eisenberg, we need the notes of those documents to find out what was said. And again, attorneyclient privilege cannot shield information about misconduct from the impeachment trial of the president of the United States. Now, it is interesting. This amendment is supported by 200 years of precedent. It is needed to prevent the president from continuing to hide the evidence. That is why the specific documents requested are so important for this case. Its faithful to the constitutions provision. The senate shall have the sole power to try all impeachments. The final point i will make today concerns urgency. The senate should act on this subpoena now at the outset of the trial. In 14 of 15 senate full impeachment trials, matters including the timing, nature, and scope of witness testimony and gathering of all relevant documents were addressed at the very outset of the trial. Considerations as why the subpoenas resolving whether a subpoena should issue now will let us immediately engaged with the white house to resolve asserted legitimate privilege issues if any exist and issuer you get the documents as soon as possible so they can be presented to the senators in advance of witness testimony. Waiting to resolve these threshold matters until after the parties have presented their case would undercut the process of a genuine, credible trial. Common sense, tradition, and fairness all compel that the amendment should be adopted, and it should be adopted now. Members of the senate, for all the reasons i walk through today, i urge you to support the mm it to issue a subpoena for white house documents. Documents that are directly relevant to evaluating the president s scheme. The house did its job. In the face of the presence of obstruction and categorical commitment to hide the evidence, we still gathered direct evidence of misconduct and it determined that his conduct required impeachment. The president complains about due process in the house investigation, but he was not only permitted to participate, he was actually required to participate. Yet, he refused to do so. He refused to provide witnesses and documents that would tell his side of the story. Now it is up to you. With the backing of a subpoena authorized by the chief justice of the United States, you can end President Trumps obstruction. If the senate fails to take this step, and wont even ask for this evidence, this trial in your verdict will be questioned. Congress and the American People deserve the full truth. There is no plausible reason why anyone wouldnt want to hear all of the Available Evidence about the president s conduct. It is up to this body to make sure that happens. Its up to you to decide whether the senate will affirm its sole power and constitutional duty to try impeachments. Whether and when it will get the evidence it needs to render a fair verdict. Dont surrender to the president s stonewalling. It will allow the president to be about the law and deprive the American People of truth in the process. A fair trial is essential in every way. Important for the president who hopes to be exonerated, not merely acquitted by a trial scene is unfair. Important for the senate whose vital role is to continue to protect and defend the constitution of the United States, which has preserved our american liberty for centuries. And finally, important for the American People who expect a quest for truth, fairness, and justice. History is watching, and the house managers urge that you support the amendment. And i reserve the balance of my time. Thank you, counsel. Chief Justice Patrick philbin mr. Philbin. Thank you, mr. Chief justice majority leader mcconnell, democrat leader schumer, senators. It is remarkable that after taking the action of the breathtaking gravity of voting to impeach the duly elected president of the United States, and after saying for weeks that they had overwhelming evidence to support their case, the first thing that the house managers have done upon arriving finally in this chamber after waiting for 33 days is to say, well, actually, we need more evidence. We are not ready to present our case. We need to have subpoenas and do more discovery, because we dont have the evidence we need to support our case. This is stunning. It is a stunning admission of the inadequate and broken process that the House Democrats ran in this impeachment inquiry that failed to compile a record to support their charges. It is stunning that they dont have the evidence needed to present their case, and that they dont really have a case. If a litigant showed up in any court in this country on the day of trial and sent to the judge, actually, your honor, we are not ready to go. We need more discovery. We need to do some more subpoenas. We need to do more work. They would be thrown out of court on the lawyers would probably be sanctioned. This is not the sort of proceeding that this body should condone. Now, we have just heard that this is so important. Lets consider whats really at issue in the resolution here and the amendment . It is a matter of timing. It is a matter of when this body will consider whether there should be witnesses or subpoenas for documents. Why is it that the managers the house managers are so afraid you have to present their case remember, they have had weeks of a process that they entirely controlled. They had 17 witnesses who testified first and secrets, and then in public. Theyve compiled a record with thousands of pages of reports. And they are apparently afraid to just make a presentation based on the record that they compiled and then have you decide whether there is any there. Whether there is any worth trying to talk to more witnesses about. Why is it that they cant wait a few days to make their presentation on everything they have been preparing for weeks and then have that issue considered . Because they dont think there is any there. They want to ram this through now. They want to ram this through now when it is something they themselves failed to do. I want to unpack a couple of the aspects of what they are asking this body to do. Part of it relates to the broken process in the house and how that process was inadequate and invalid and compiled an adequate record. Part of it has to do with what accepting the request to have this body do their job for them would do to this institution going forward. And how it would alter forever the relationship between the house and the senate in impeachment proceedings. First as to the process in the house. What they are asking the house manager asking this body to do now is to do their job for them. Because they did not take the measures to pursue these documents in the house proceedings. There have been a number of statements made about they tried to get the documents, and no executive privilege was asserted and things like that. Thats look at what actually happened. They issued a subpoena to the white house. And the white house explained and we were told a few minutes ago that the white house provided no response. No rationale. That is not true. On october 18th, white House Counsel explained in three pages of legal argument by that subpoena was invalid. That subpoena was invalid because it was issued without authorization. We have heard a lot today about how the constitution assigns the sole power of impeachment to the house. Thats right. That is what article one sectio. The sole power of impeachment to the house, not to any member of the house. No committee of the house can exercise that authority to issue subpoenas until it has been delegated that authority by a vote of the house. There was no vote from the house. Instead, Speaker Nancy Pelosi held a press conference on september 24th to delegate the authority of the house to manager schiff and several other committees and have them issue subpoenas. All of those subpoenas were invalid. That was explained to the house to managers before and the other chairman of the committee at the time in the october 18th a. To the house to take any steps to remedy that . Did they try to dispute that . Did they go to court . Did they do anything to resolve that problem . No. As we know, all that they wanted to do was issue a subpoena and move on. They just wanted to get to the impeachment process as quick as possible and get it done before christmas. That was their goal. So, those subpoenas were unauthorized. What about some of the other things that they brought up . The witnesses who were directed not to testify . And part on this, we have heard manager schiff say several times that the white house never exerted executive privilege. Let me be clear on that. That is a lawyers trick. It is technically true that the white house didnt assert executive privilege. Because there is a particular situation in which you do that and a particular way that you do that. But there is another doctrine of immunity of senior advisors to the president that is based on the same principles as executive privilege. And has been asserted by president s of both Political Parties since the 1970s at least. This is what one attorney general explained about that. The immunity of such enjoy from testimonial compulsion by a Congressional Committee is absolute and may not be overborne by competing congressional interests. That was attorney general janet reno in the Clinton Administration explaining the senior advisors to the president are immune from congressional compulsion. And that doctrine, that immunity is rooted in the same principles of executive privilege. It has been asserted by all president s since the 1970s. That was the basis on the number advisors whose pictures they put up were directed not to testify. Did they try to challenge that in court . If they go to court on that one . They go through the constitutionally mandated accommodations process to see if there was a way to come up with some aspect of testimony to be provided . No, none of that. I just wanted to forge ahead, rush through the process, not have the evidence, and then view that is another charge in their charging sheet for the impeachment, calling it obstruction of congress. And what that is, the idea that when there is a conflict between the executive branch and at the house and seeking information and the president is asserting constitutionally based privileges, that is part of the operation of separation of powers. That is the president s constitutional duty to defend the prerogatives of the office for the future occupant or less that office. And, it is not something that can be charged as an impeachable offense. The House Democrats have tried to say here. To do that is an abuse of power. That is what professor explained. The House Democrats abuse of power. We just heard manager refer to executive privilege as a distraction. She was asserting these issues are just a distraction. It shouldnt hold things up. This is what the Supreme Court has said about executive privilege in nixon versus the United States. The protections for constitutionality are fundamental to the operations of government and inextricably rooted in the separation of powers under the constitution. That is why it is the presiden president s duty to defend executive branch confidentiality interests. That is what the president was doing here. Now, the process that they pursued in the house abandoned any effort beyond issuing the first subpoena that was invalid to work out an accommodation with the white house. And instead, just try to rush ahead to have the impeachment done by christmas. What did that lead to now . They are coming to this body after a process that was half faked, didnt have the record to support their charges and asking this body to do their job for them. As leader mcconnell pointed out earlier today, to allow that to accept that idea that the house can bring in an impeachment that is not adequately supported, that has not been investigated, that is not got a record to support it, and to turn this body into the investigatory body would permanently alter the relationship between the house and the senate in impeachment proceedings. It is not the role of the senate to have to do the houses job for them. It is not the role of the senate to be doing an investigation and to be doing discovery in a matter like the impeachment of the United States. If the house has not done the investigation and cannot support its case, it is not the time once it arrives here to start doing all that work. That is something that is the houses role. So this is something that was important for this institution, i believe, not to allow the house to turn it into a situation where this body would have to be doing the houses work for it. If theres not evidence to support the case if they havent on their investigation, and then they are not going to be able to support their case. Again, what is at issue here and i think it is important to recall on the issue of this amendment, it is not whether the Senate Whether this body will be considering whether there should be witnesses or not, but when that should be considered. And there is no reason not to take the approach that was done in the clinton patient. 100 senators agreed then that it made sense to hear from both sides. Before making determination on that, to hear from both sides to see what sort of case the house could present in the president s defense. And that makes sense. In every trial system, there is a mechanism for determining whether the parties have presented a triable issue, whether there is some there that requires the further proceedings. This body should take that common sense approach and hear what it is that the house managers have to say. Why are they afraid to present their case . They had weeks in a process that they controlled to compile the record, and they should be able to make that presentation now. The one point that i will close on. We have heard manager schiff say several times that we have to have a fair process here. I was struck by it. At one point, he said if you allow only one side to present evidence, the outcome will be predetermined. The outcome will be predetermined. That is exactly what happened in the house. Thats recall that the process they had in the house was onesided. They lock the president and his lawyers out. There was no due process for the president. They started the secret hearings in the basement. The president could not be present by his counsel. He got present evidence appeared he could not crossexamine witnesses. There was a second round in public where again they lock the president out. We heard that they said that president had an opportunity to participate in a third round of hearings or they held before the Judiciary Committee. After one hearing on december 4th, President Trump<\/a>s decision to hold up hundreds of documents that reveal extensive efforts to generate at afterthefact justification for the debate over whether the delaying was legal. That is known as a coverup, actually. The white house lawyers had apparently uncovered early august email exchanges between acting chief of staff Mick Mulvaney<\/a> and white house budget officials seeking to provide some explanation for withholding the funds the president had already ordered on hold. The documents also reportedly include communications between white house officials and outside agencies. Not only does congress have a right to see them, the public does too under freedom of information laws. As a matter of constitutional authority, the senate has the greatest interest in and right to compel those documents. Indeed, as the news article explains, white house lawyers are reportedly worried about unflattering exchanges and fact they could at a minimum embarrass the president. Perhaps they should be worried about that. The risk of embarrassment cannot outweigh the constitutional interest in this impeachment proceeding. Any evidence of guilt, including further proof of the real reason the president ordered the funds withheld or afterthefact unknowingly lawful conduct, they must be provided to ensure a full and fair trial. No privilege or National Security<\/a> rationale can be used as a shield from disclosing misconduct. Their key white house documents related to multiple instances when white house officials reporting their concerns to white house lawyers about the president s scheme to press ukraine to do the president a domestic political favor. Colonel vindman and hill informed about the july 10th meeting in which ambassador sondland revealed he had a deal with mister mulvaney. Im going to go directly to the clip by dr. Hill. Dr. Hill part i me. Had boltons direction also reported that meeting to John Eisenberg<\/a> as she explained in her testimony. I had a discussion with ambassador bolton belt after that meeting in his office, a very brief one, and one immediately after, a subsequent meeting. The subsequent meeting after both meetings when you spoke to him and relayed to him what ambassador sondland said, but it ambassador bolton say to you . I want to highlight first of all that ambassador bolton wanted me to hold back in the room i meeting after the meeting. Im sitting with a colleague. In the second meeting he was making a very strong point. He wanted to know exactly what was being said. When i came back and related it to him, he has a very specific instructions for me. Im presuming what was that specific instruction . I had to go to the lawyers. Senior constable for the National Security<\/a> council. You tell John Eisenberg<\/a> and rasir bolton told me that im not part of the whatever drug deal that mulvaney and sunland are cooking up. What did you understand it to mean by the drug deal that mulvaney and sandlin were cooking up . I took it to mean investigation for a meeting. Did you speak to the lawyers . I certainly did. E relayed everything that you just told us . Precisely and the details of how that meeting at unfolded as well. I gave a full description of this in my october 14th deposition. There was something wrong going on here. White house officials were told repeatedly, go tell the lawyers about it. Dr. Hill, Lieutenant Colonel<\/a> vindman, mr. Morrison who reported to mr. Eisenberg, we need the notes of those documents to find out what was said. And again, attorneyclient privilege cannot shield information about misconduct from the impeachment trial of the president of the United States<\/a>. Now, it is interesting. This amendment is supported by 200 years of precedent. It is needed to prevent the president from continuing to hide the evidence. That is why the specific documents requested are so important for this case. Its faithful to the constitutions provision. The senate shall have the sole power to try all impeachments. The final point i will make today concerns urgency. The senate should act on this subpoena now at the outset of the trial. In 14 of 15 senate full impeachment trials, matters including the timing, nature, and scope of witness testimony and gathering of all relevant documents were addressed at the very outset of the trial. Considerations as why the subpoenas resolving whether a subpoena should issue now will let us immediately engaged with the white house to resolve asserted legitimate privilege issues if any exist and issuer you get the documents as soon as possible so they can be presented to the senators in advance of witness testimony. Waiting to resolve these threshold matters until after the parties have presented their case would undercut the process of a genuine, credible trial. Common sense, tradition, and fairness all compel that the amendment should be adopted, and it should be adopted now. Members of the senate, for all the reasons i walk through today, i urge you to support the mm it to issue a subpoena for white house documents. Documents that are directly relevant to evaluating the president s scheme. The house did its job. In the face of the presence of obstruction and categorical commitment to hide the evidence, we still gathered direct evidence of misconduct and it determined that his conduct required impeachment. The president complains about due process in the house investigation, but he was not only permitted to participate, he was actually required to participate. Yet, he refused to do so. He refused to provide witnesses and documents that would tell his side of the story. Now it is up to you. With the backing of a subpoena authorized by the chief justice of the United States<\/a>, you can end President Trump<\/a>s obstruction. If the senate fails to take this step, and wont even ask for this evidence, this trial in your verdict will be questioned. Congress and the American People<\/a> deserve the full truth. There is no plausible reason why anyone wouldnt want to hear all of the Available Evidence<\/a> about the president s conduct. It is up to this body to make sure that happens. Its up to you to decide whether the senate will affirm its sole power and constitutional duty to try impeachments. Whether and when it will get the evidence it needs to render a fair verdict. Dont surrender to the president s stonewalling. It will allow the president to be about the law and deprive the American People<\/a> of truth in the process. A fair trial is essential in every way. Important for the president who hopes to be exonerated, not merely acquitted by a trial scene is unfair. Important for the senate whose vital role is to continue to protect and defend the constitution of the United States<\/a>, which has preserved our american liberty for centuries. And finally, important for the American People<\/a> who expect a quest for truth, fairness, and justice. History is watching, and the house managers urge that you support the amendment. And i reserve the balance of my time. Thank you, counsel. Chief Justice Patrick<\/a> philbin mr. Philbin. Thank you, mr. Chief justice majority leader mcconnell, democrat leader schumer, senators. It is remarkable that after taking the action of the breathtaking gravity of voting to impeach the duly elected president of the United States<\/a>, and after saying for weeks that they had overwhelming evidence to support their case, the first thing that the house managers have done upon arriving finally in this chamber after waiting for 33 days is to say, well, actually, we need more evidence. We are not ready to present our case. We need to have subpoenas and do more discovery, because we dont have the evidence we need to support our case. This is stunning. It is a stunning admission of the inadequate and broken process that the House Democrats<\/a> ran in this impeachment inquiry that failed to compile a record to support their charges. It is stunning that they dont have the evidence needed to present their case, and that they dont really have a case. If a litigant showed up in any court in this country on the day of trial and sent to the judge, actually, your honor, we are not ready to go. We need more discovery. We need to do some more subpoenas. We need to do more work. They would be thrown out of court on the lawyers would probably be sanctioned. This is not the sort of proceeding that this body should condone. Now, we have just heard that this is so important. Lets consider whats really at issue in the resolution here and the amendment . It is a matter of timing. It is a matter of when this body will consider whether there should be witnesses or subpoenas for documents. Why is it that the managers the house managers are so afraid you have to present their case remember, they have had weeks of a process that they entirely controlled. They had 17 witnesses who testified first and secrets, and then in public. Theyve compiled a record with thousands of pages of reports. And they are apparently afraid to just make a presentation based on the record that they compiled and then have you decide whether there is any there. Whether there is any worth trying to talk to more witnesses about. Why is it that they cant wait a few days to make their presentation on everything they have been preparing for weeks and then have that issue considered . Because they dont think there is any there. They want to ram this through now. They want to ram this through now when it is something they themselves failed to do. I want to unpack a couple of the aspects of what they are asking this body to do. Part of it relates to the broken process in the house and how that process was inadequate and invalid and compiled an adequate record. Part of it has to do with what accepting the request to have this body do their job for them would do to this institution going forward. And how it would alter forever the relationship between the house and the senate in impeachment proceedings. First as to the process in the house. What they are asking the house manager asking this body to do now is to do their job for them. Because they did not take the measures to pursue these documents in the house proceedings. There have been a number of statements made about they tried to get the documents, and no executive privilege was asserted and things like that. Thats look at what actually happened. They issued a subpoena to the white house. And the white house explained and we were told a few minutes ago that the white house provided no response. No rationale. That is not true. On october 18th, white House Counsel<\/a> explained in three pages of legal argument by that subpoena was invalid. That subpoena was invalid because it was issued without authorization. We have heard a lot today about how the constitution assigns the sole power of impeachment to the house. Thats right. That is what article one sectio. The sole power of impeachment to the house, not to any member of the house. No committee of the house can exercise that authority to issue subpoenas until it has been delegated that authority by a vote of the house. There was no vote from the house. Instead, Speaker Nancy Pelosi<\/a> held a press conference on september 24th to delegate the authority of the house to manager schiff and several other committees and have them issue subpoenas. All of those subpoenas were invalid. That was explained to the house to managers before and the other chairman of the committee at the time in the october 18th a. To the house to take any steps to remedy that . Did they try to dispute that . Did they go to court . Did they do anything to resolve that problem . No. As we know, all that they wanted to do was issue a subpoena and move on. They just wanted to get to the impeachment process as quick as possible and get it done before christmas. That was their goal. So, those subpoenas were unauthorized. What about some of the other things that they brought up . The witnesses who were directed not to testify . And part on this, we have heard manager schiff say several times that the white house never exerted executive privilege. Let me be clear on that. That is a lawyers trick. It is technically true that the white house didnt assert executive privilege. Because there is a particular situation in which you do that and a particular way that you do that. But there is another doctrine of immunity of senior advisors to the president that is based on the same principles as executive privilege. And has been asserted by president s of both Political Parties<\/a> since the 1970s at least. This is what one attorney general explained about that. The immunity of such enjoy from testimonial compulsion by a Congressional Committee<\/a> is absolute and may not be overborne by competing congressional interests. That was attorney general janet reno in the Clinton Administration<\/a> explaining the senior advisors to the president are immune from congressional compulsion. And that doctrine, that immunity is rooted in the same principles of executive privilege. It has been asserted by all president s since the 1970s. That was the basis on the number advisors whose pictures they put up were directed not to testify. Did they try to challenge that in court . If they go to court on that one . They go through the constitutionally mandated accommodations process to see if there was a way to come up with some aspect of testimony to be provided . No, none of that. I just wanted to forge ahead, rush through the process, not have the evidence, and then view that is another charge in their charging sheet for the impeachment, calling it obstruction of congress. And what that is, the idea that when there is a conflict between the executive branch and at the house and seeking information and the president is asserting constitutionally based privileges, that is part of the operation of separation of powers. That is the president s constitutional duty to defend the prerogatives of the office for the future occupant or less that office. And, it is not something that can be charged as an impeachable offense. The House Democrats<\/a> have tried to say here. To do that is an abuse of power. That is what professor explained. The House Democrats<\/a> abuse of power. We just heard manager refer to executive privilege as a distraction. She was asserting these issues are just a distraction. It shouldnt hold things up. This is what the Supreme Court<\/a> has said about executive privilege in nixon versus the United States<\/a>. The protections for constitutionality are fundamental to the operations of government and inextricably rooted in the separation of powers under the constitution. That is why it is the presiden president s duty to defend executive branch confidentiality interests. That is what the president was doing here. Now, the process that they pursued in the house abandoned any effort beyond issuing the first subpoena that was invalid to work out an accommodation with the white house. And instead, just try to rush ahead to have the impeachment done by christmas. What did that lead to now . They are coming to this body after a process that was half faked, didnt have the record to support their charges and asking this body to do their job for them. As leader mcconnell pointed out earlier today, to allow that to accept that idea that the house can bring in an impeachment that is not adequately supported, that has not been investigated, that is not got a record to support it, and to turn this body into the investigatory body would permanently alter the relationship between the house and the senate in impeachment proceedings. It is not the role of the senate to have to do the houses job for them. It is not the role of the senate to be doing an investigation and to be doing discovery in a matter like the impeachment of the United States<\/a>. If the house has not done the investigation and cannot support its case, it is not the time once it arrives here to start doing all that work. That is something that is the houses role. So this is something that was important for this institution, i believe, not to allow the house to turn it into a situation where this body would have to be doing the houses work for it. If theres not evidence to support the case if they havent on their investigation, and then they are not going to be able to support their case. Again, what is at issue here and i think it is important to recall on the issue of this amendment, it is not whether the Senate Whether<\/a> this body will be considering whether there should be witnesses or not, but when that should be considered. And there is no reason not to take the approach that was done in the clinton patient. 100 senators agreed then that it made sense to hear from both sides. Before making determination on that, to hear from both sides to see what sort of case the house could present in the president s defense. And that makes sense. In every trial system, there is a mechanism for determining whether the parties have presented a triable issue, whether there is some there that requires the further proceedings. This body should take that common sense approach and hear what it is that the house managers have to say. Why are they afraid to present their case . They had weeks in a process that they controlled to compile the record, and they should be able to make that presentation now. The one point that i will close on. We have heard manager schiff say several times that we have to have a fair process here. I was struck by it. At one point, he said if you allow only one side to present evidence, the outcome will be predetermined. The outcome will be predetermined. That is exactly what happened in the house. Thats recall that the process they had in the house was onesided. They lock the president and his lawyers out. There was no due process for the president. They started the secret hearings in the basement. The president could not be present by his counsel. He got present evidence appeared he could not crossexamine witnesses. There was a second round in public where again they lock the president out. We heard that they said that president had an opportunity to participate in a third round of hearings or they held before the Judiciary Committee<\/a>. After one hearing on december 4th, Speaker Pelosi<\/a> on the morning of december 5th went out and announced the conclusion of the Judiciary Committee<\/a> proceedings. She announced that she was directing chairman nadler to draft articles of impeachment. That was before the day they had set for the president to tell them what rights he wanted to have and to exercising their proceedings. It was all already predetermined. The outcome had been predetermined. The Judiciary Committee<\/a> decided it was not going to have any effect hearings. There was no process for the president. He was never allowed to participate. So when chairman schiff says here that if you only allow one side to present evidence, that predetermines the outcome. That is what they did in the house. It had a predetermined outcome, because it was all one sided. For him to lecture this body now on whatever your process would be take some gall. A fair process would be, when you come to the day of trial, be ready to start the trial and present your case, not ask for more discovery. The president is ready to proceed. The house managers should be ready to proceed. This amendment should be rejected. Thank you. Council. The house managers have 8 minutes remaining. The house is certainly not asking the senate to do those houses job. We are asking the senate to do its job, to hold a trial. Have you ever heard of a trial that doesnt have evidence, that doesnt have witnesses . That is what this amendment is all about. Just a moment about the subpoenas. President trump refused to provide any information to the house. He ordered all of his people to stonewall us. Now, it has been suggested that we should spend two or three years litigating that question. I was a young law student actually working on the nixon impeachment many years ago. And i remember the day that the Supreme Court<\/a> issued its unanimous decision at the president had to release the tapes. I think u. S. V nixon still governs the president. The house should not be required to litigate u. S. Of e nixon back at the Supreme Court<\/a> and out again for it to be good law. It is good law. The president has not complied with those requirements to the detriment of the truth. This isnt about helping the house. This isnt about helping the senate. This is about getting to the truth. And making sure that impartial justice is done, and at the American People<\/a> are satisfied that a fair trial has been held. I will use now to my colleague, mr. Schiff. Mr. Philbin said that the house is not ready to present its case. Thats not something you heard from any of the managers. We are ready. The house calls john bolton. The house calls john bolton. House calls Mick Mulvaney<\/a> lets get this trial started, shall we . We are ready to present our case. We are ready to color witnesses. The question is, will you let us . That is the question before us. Mr. Philbin said if i showed up in court and said i wasnt ready, the judge would throw me out of the court. We are not saying that we are not ready. You know what happen if mr. Philbin went into the court and the judge said, i have made deal with the defendant. Im not going to let the prosecutor call any witnesses. Im not going to let the prosecutor crossexamine any documents. You know who gets run out of the court . The judge. The judge will be taken out in handcuffs. Lets step out of this body for a moment and imagine what a real trial would look like. It would begin with the government receiving documents, being able to introduce documents, call witnesses. This trial should be no different. Esther philbin makes reference to the letter on october 18th. An eightpage letter on october 18th saying we are not going to do anything that you ask. Part law, part diatribe. You should read it. It says with the president said on that tv screen, which says we are going to fight all subpoen subpoenas. The doctrine of absolute immunity that counselor refers to yes, it has been invoked or attempted by president s of both parties and rejected. Including the most recent decision, the president s former white House Counsel<\/a> where the court said that would make him a king. He is no king. And this trial has determined that he shall not become a king accountable to no one, answerable to no one. And what is more, this idea of absolute immunity, this fever dream of president or less of both parties, it has no applications for documents. This amendment is on document. There is no absolute immunity from providing documents. Representative lofgren illustrated, when this case has got to the Supreme Court<\/a> in the nixon case, the court held that the interests and confidentiality and impeachment proceeding must give way to the interests of the truth, the senate, and the American People<\/a>. You cannot invoke privilege to protect wrongdoing. You cannot invoke privilege to protect evidence of a constitutional crime like we have here. And finally, with respect to those secret hearings that counsel keeps referring to. Those secret depositions in the house were so secret that only 100 members of congress were able to be there and participate. Only 100. That is how secret that chamber was. Imagine that in the grand jury proceedings in the clinton investigation or in the nixon investigation, inviting 50 or 100 members of congress to sit in on those. Imagine as the president would like here, apparently the president insisting on having his lawyer on the grand jury because there was a case investigated against him. We have no grand jury here. Why was that . Because the Justice Department<\/a> said, they are not going to look into this. Bill barr Justice Department<\/a> said there is nothing to see here. If youre up to that Justice Department<\/a>, you would know anything about this. That is why there was no grand jury. That is why we in the house had to do the investigative work ourselves. Just like in the nixon case, just like in the clinton case, we use depositions. You know what deposition rules we use . The fair, terrible, unfair written rules question mike written by the republicans. The same rules that the g. O. P. House members use. Thats how terribly unfair they were. They used our rules but how dare they. How dare they. Why do we put up depositions . We did not want one witness to hear what the other witness was saying so they could either tailor their stories are know that they had to admit so much and no more. It is how every credible investigation works. And the council can repeat all day like that the president did not have a chance to participate or have a chance to have counsel present in the Judiciary Committee<\/a> or offer evidence. They can say as much as they like. It doesnt make any more true when they make the same false representation time and time again, it makes it that much more deliberate and onerous. The president could have presented evidence in the Judiciary Committee<\/a>. He chose not to. And there is a reason for that. There is a reason why the witnesses theyve talk about art material witnesses. They dont go to the question of whether the president withheld the aide for this corrupt purpose. They have no witnesses to absolve the president on the facts. You should want to see these documents. You should want to see them. You should want to know what these private emails and Text Messages<\/a> have to say. If you are going to make a decision about the president s guilt or innocence, youre going to make a decision about whether he should be removed from office, you should want to see what these documents say. Now, if you dont care if you have made up your mind that for whatever reason, im not interested. And whats more, i dont want the country to see this. That is a totally different matter. That is not what your oath requires. Its not what your oath requir requires. The oath requires you to do impartial justice, which means to see the evidence, to see the evidence. That is all we are asking. Just dont find yourself to the evidence. I yelled back. Thank you the majority leader is recognized. I sent a motion to the desk to table the amendment. The question is on the motion to table. Is there a sufficient second . There is. The clerk will call the role. Mr. Alexander. Aye. Mr. Bennett. No. Mrs. Blackburn. Mr. Blumenthal. Thus, this is the vote on senator schumers amendment to subpoena documents from the administration and this trial. This is a rare shot where you see the u. S. Senate with all of the senators seated at their tables as the vote continues. Lets listen in similar. Ms. Cantwell. Mrs. O. Mr. Cardin. Mr. Carper. Mr. Casey. Mr. Cassidy. Ms. Collins. Lester cotton. Mr. Kramer. Mr. Mr. Cruz. Mr. Gaines. Ms. Duckworth. Mr. Durbin. Mr. Nz. Ms. Ernst. Mrs. Feinstein. Mrs. Fisher. Mr. Gardner. Mrs. Gillibrand. Mr. Graham. Mr. Grassley. Ms. Harris. Mr. Holly. Mr. Heinrich. Ms. Her own will. Mr. Hoven. Mrs. Hite smith. Mr. Inhofe. Mr. Johnson. Mr. Jones. Mr. Kane. Mr. Kennedy. Mr. King. This globa mr. Langford. Mr. Lahey. Mr. Lee. Mrs. Leffler. Mr. Markey. Mr. Mcconnell. Ms. Nick salley. Mr. Menendez. Mr. Merkley. Mr. Moran. Ms. Makowski. Mr. Murphy. Mrs. Mary. Mr. Paul. Mr. Purdue. Mr. Peters. Mr. Portman. Mr. Reid. Mr. Risch. Mr. Roberts. Mr. Romney. Ms. Rosen. Mr. Browns. Mr. Rubio mr. Sanders. Mr. Schumer. Mr. Scott of florida. Mr. Scott of south carolina. Mrs. Shaheen. Mr. Shelby. Ms. Cinema. Ms. Smith. Misstep now. Mr. Sullivan. Mr. Castro. Mr. Tillis. Mr. Udall. Mr. Van holland. Mr. Warner. Ms. Warren. Mr. White house. Mr. Ricker. Mr. Wyden. Mr. Young. And there you have the votes. We did not hear any crossover votes there. This is on the motion by the Senate Majority<\/a> leader Mitch Mcconnell<\/a> to table or set aside the senator schumer amendment for documents. He already has an amendment, a second moment in the pipeline ready to go for witnesses and state department documents. At this photo we hear anything. Anyone who it was expected to cross over it like it romney, collins, murkowski. This will go along party lines. There are going to be a number of amendments offered. The next one is going to be about bringing in the state Department Officials<\/a>. Everything that they did not get in this trial process and want to get here, they are trying to get through. We expect that we will see this summer routine of tabling. Lets listen. If not, the are 53. Of the names 47. The amendment is table. The democratic leader is recognized. Mr. Chief justice. I send an amendment to the desk from doctors and record from the state department and i asked her to be read. The clerk will read the amendment. The senator from new york proposes an amendment, number 1285. At the appropriate place of the resolving clause and insert the following section, notwithstanding any other provision of this resolution pursuant to rules five and six of the rules and procedures and practice in the senate when sitting in impeachment trials, the chief justice of the united state through the secretary of the senate shall issue a subpoena to the secretary of senate commanding him to produce for the time. From january 1st 2019 till the present, all documents, communications, and other records within the possession, custody and control of the department of state referring or relating to all meetings called between President Trump<\/a> and the president of ukraine including documents, communications, and other records related to the scheduling of preparation for an followup from the president april 21st telephone calls as well as the president s september 252019 meeting with the president of ukraine in new york. The actual or potential suspension of withholding, delaying, freezing or releasing of the United States<\/a> for an assistant, military assistance or Security Assistance<\/a> of any kind to the ukraine, including but not limited to the Ukraine Security<\/a> assistants initiative and foreign literary financing, including but not limited to all communications with the white house, department of defense, and the office of management and budget as well as the ukrainian governments knowledge prior to octobe october 282018 of any actual or potential suspension, withholding, delaying, freezing, or releasing of United States<\/a> foreign assistant assistant to ukraine including all meetings, calls or other engagements with ukrainian officials with regards to potential or actual suspensions i in the united stas assistance to ukraine. All documents, communications, notes and other records created or received by secretary michael pompeo, former special representative for ukraine negotiations, ambassador kurt volker, Deputy Assistant<\/a> secretary george kent, United States<\/a> embassy charged affairs, William P Taylor<\/a> and ambassador to the european union, Gordon Sondland<\/a> and other state Department Officials<\/a> relating to efforts t, coerce, ukraine to pronounce the investigation, 2, schedule, cancel, or withhold a white house meeting for the u. S. President or hold and release military and other secretaries Security Assistance<\/a> to ukraine. Any meetings or proposed meetings at or involving the white house that relate to ukraine, including but not limited to one, president zelenskys inauguration on may 20th. Including but not limited to president s decision not to attend. To allow him to leave the delegations, directing Vice President<\/a> pence not to recommend. Its current position of delegation of the United States<\/a>. 2, a meeting of the white house at around may 232019 evolving among others President Trump<\/a>, then special representative for ukraine negotiations ambassador kurt volker. Energy secretary rick perry. United states ambassador to the european union, Gordon Sondland<\/a> as well as any private meetings or conversations with those individuals before or after the larger meetings. Meetings at the white house on or about 2019, involving ukrainian officials and Alexander Daniel<\/a> ek. Including but not limiting to the National Security<\/a> advisor john bolton. Secretary perry, ambassador volker, and ambassador sondland to include a meeting in ambassador boltons office. I meeting of the white house on or around 2019 evolving President Trump<\/a>, secretary of state pompeo and secretary of defense mark esper. 5, a planned meeting later canceled in warsaw, poland, on or around september 1st 2019 between President Trump<\/a> and president zelenski and subsequently an attendance by Vice President<\/a> pence and a meeting at the white house on or around september 11th 2019 involving President Trump<\/a>, Vice President<\/a> pence and mr. Mr. Mulvaney concerning the distance on the hold of assistance on ukraine. Including but not limited to whats app or Text Messages<\/a> on private devices between current or former state Department Officials<\/a> or employees including but not limited to secretary michael r pompeo, ambassador volker, ambassador sondland, ambassador taylor, and Deputy Assistant<\/a> kent in the following. President s between eight, under a year make, or acting in any capacity as an agent or proxy for president between eight before and after his election. All records identified by the house of representatives. Key events or concerns and any records reflecting official response thereto, including but not limited to cable sent by ambassador taylor to secretary pompeo. 2, and august 16th 2019 memorandum to file a written by Deputy Assistant<\/a> secretary kent. And three, september 15th 2019 memorandum to file written by Deputy Assistant<\/a> secretary kent. Meetings or calls limited but not limited to telephone calls scheduling items, calendar entries, state department visitor records and email or Text Messages<\/a> using personal or workrelated devices between or among 1, current or former state Department Officials<\/a> and employees. 2, rudy giuliani, or joseph digenova, and curtailment or recall of former United States<\/a> ambassador to ukraine yovanovitch for the United States<\/a> embassy in kiev including incredible threat, report against her and any protective security measures in response. 2, the sergeantatarms is authorized to utilize the deputy sergeantatarms or any other employee of the senate in serving the subpoena authorized to be issued by this section. Chief justice. The majority leader is recognized. At the end of the debate time, i will again moved to table the amendment as the timing of these votes are specified in the underlying resolution. So i ask that the Senate Recess<\/a> subject to the call of the chair. Objection. The senate is in recess. So we sit in recess of this impeachment trial have the senate essentially is going to take these moments and come back and debate this Second Amendment<\/a> by senator schumer. Thats one about state department documents and witnesses. And then, an hour each side to make their case. As they laid out to us this morning, it is as if the resolution is the tree. Their branches are these amendments. He expects some 50 potential amendments. And then they get argued on both sides. We are debating how long that process goes on and at what point is Mitch Mcconnell<\/a> potentially jump in and table things before they are debated . For the time being, he is going along with the process as it exists and gives opportunities to both sides. I want to bring in chris wallace. We watch Mitch Mcconnell<\/a> head off to his break. Your thoughts. I dont think we should make too much of the fact that the motion to subpoena all of these when found to a Straight Party<\/a> line defeat. To kill the motion, 47 to save it. And to have an actual vote on the amendment itself. That is that break in the senate. 53 republicans, 47 democrats. The point being that according to the motion the basic motion for the rules of the trial that Mitch Mcconnell<\/a> is putting forward, after the opening arguments which go on 24 hours each after the questioning for 16 hours, is going to be a vote on whether or not to subpoena witnesses and documents. Susan collins has come out with a statement right away that says, at that point not now where she voted to table. At that point, just like in like that in trial, im going to vote to hear more evidence. So she will be a vote to whether subpoena witnesses or documents. She is saying, at this point it is premature. Thats going on with the opening arguments and questionings, and we will get to that. One piece of color that has come out and some reporting. One of their frustrations here is that because these are the government set of control cameras, we are only able to see the podium and who is speaking. We are not able to see, what is the emotion what is the state of consciousness of the members of the senate as this goes on considerable length. 1, there are two things that the senators at their tables are allowed to have. They can have water at their table. Not shots of whiskey. They can have milk. Water or milk, thats it. Secondly, as they took the oath, under penalty of imprisonment, they are not allowed to speak even to each other, even offcamera. Apparently, in a kind of repeat of what some of us did in the second grade, they are flashing written notes to each other. I would be curious to see what some of the notes they are sending to each other are. That is the communication of the 100 senators in the greatest deliberate body on earth. They have to be at those tables. They cannot move. Your thoughts as we go down these roads of these amendment and battles yet to come. The note passing certainly to establishing the house behavior from the senate behavior. Thats for sure. As we move forward, its interesting to watch how the white House Counsel<\/a> has come back and forth with adam schiff. They have been not focused on what is going on with the facts of the case. Defending the office of the president. If any executive privilege and hammering the house, adam schiff, jerry nadler as the chairman for not taking their greatness is witnesses to the courts before pushing articles over to the senate. One thing that is important to point out. Witnesses are not being called now. And past impeachments, witnesses who were called to testify in a senate trial had been called to testify in the house first. Democrats like adam schiff who are arguing on behalf of the house and the senate today are arguing that outside witnesses that have not been heard from yet, secretary pompeo, secretary perry, john bolton, that they should be called in addition to other witnesses that they have already heard from. The transcripts of what weve heard in terms of testimony already are in that record now. The second resolution that they renewed going into this process earlier today allows for that to happen. There is a mix here when it comes to the kinds and types of witnesses they are asking for. Historical precedent of which witnesses were allowed and which were not. Thats why traditional witnesses a do over, essentially suggested that early in the process here saying they didnt get the job done earlier. You heard lofgren arguing that that is an invalid argument in her opinion and that the decisions were made there dont have a bearing on whether or not they should have ordered adam schiff made a very powerful argument as to, why wouldnt everybody want to have all of the information that could be put in the mix here. I want to bring in dana perino. The former White House Press<\/a> secretary. I wonder what the white house is thinking. There is some suggestion that they feel good about the fact that they are finally getting their side of the story heard in this process today. The president is in dabo switzerland. I think the absolute we have to feel pretty good about how the members of their legal team have conducted themselves so far. I feel that lofgren had an assignment that i would not have wanted. She is basically not going to win over any converts in the senate by telling the senate that they need to do their job when even some of the moderate senators on the g. O. P. Side have so that the house and at them incomplete. I think senator schumer has a very interesting decision to make right now. You have a limited amount of attention span. Not just in the room and what they are doing, but for america. Who is paying attention . If they want to go down all of these movements that they know are going to fail, we know that it is unlikely for any republicans to break. He has to make a decision. As he want to go through all of these or tell mcconnell come up with these moments in the record. Table them all at once i get to the substance right away, or they are going to lose everyones attention. I have 30 seconds. Where are we . I think the key was what you saw from the Senate Majority<\/a> leader deciding that this would be a threeday window as opposed to two compressed and lets talk about midnight and things going on in the middle of the night. Not much of a concession. You can imagine now, Something Like<\/a> eight hours, eight hours, eight hours. Another thing to say is, i think that the argument about not doing this im bringing in the witnesses and the evidence now. Lofgren made the point of what trial you have when you have a trial and say we will see that witnesses and evidence the contrary position you had your chance as we just heard. That was 42, but good job. Thank you, stand by. We will see what happens. I think we are going to get down this road with a couple of times. Eventually it will come to an end. s got to let people play out and let the voices be heard. Youre going to lose people and whether you want to put your priorities on the statements that have to be made in the Opening Statements<\/a> that are coming up. We are waiting for the debate to pick back up. We are going to squeeze in a quick break as the trial of president donald j. Trump continues. I can save you. Lots of money with liberty mutual. We customize your Car Insurance<\/a> so you only pay for what you need [ grunting ] only pay for what you need. Liberty. Liberty. Liberty. Liberty. Mornings were made for Better Things<\/a> than Rheumatoid Arthritis<\/a> or Psoriatic Arthritis<\/a>. When considering another treatment, ask about xeljanz xr, a oncedaily pill for adults with moderate to severe Rheumatoid Arthritis<\/a> or active Psoriatic Arthritis<\/a> for whom methotrexate did not work well enough. It can reduce pain, swelling, and significantly improve physical function. Xeljanz can lower your ability to fight infections like tb; dont start xeljanz if you have an infection. Taking a higher than recommended dose of xeljanz for ra can increase risk of death. Serious, sometimes fatal infections, cancers including lymphoma, and blood clots have happened. As have tears in the stomach or intestines, serious allergic reactions, and changes in lab results. Tell your doctor if youve been somewhere fungal infections are common, or if youve had tb, hepatitis b or c, or are prone to infections. Dont let another morning go by without asking your doctor about xeljanz xr. Without asking your doctor its an easy way to earn its cashback on the stuff im already buying. Sometimes its 3 sometimes its 8 but youre always getting cashback. So its like getting free money. Go to rakuten. Com and sign up today for a 10 bonus. Bret this is fox coverage of the impeachment of President Donald Trump<\/a> youre welcome to washington, im bret baier. Martha and i am martha maccallum. The process is underway as democrats try to do what is never been done in the history of the country, remove a sitting democrat from office in an election year. Bret right now, republican senators are negotiating over the ground rules of the trial. The trial is in recess as senators consider new amendmen amendments. Martha in the house impeachment proceeding, democrats want new witnesses and documents. Republicans are","publisher":{"@type":"Organization","name":"archive.org","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","width":"800","height":"600","url":"\/\/ia802802.us.archive.org\/24\/items\/FOXNEWSW_20200121_210000_Your_World_With_Neil_Cavuto\/FOXNEWSW_20200121_210000_Your_World_With_Neil_Cavuto.thumbs\/FOXNEWSW_20200121_210000_Your_World_With_Neil_Cavuto_000001.jpg"}},"autauthor":{"@type":"Organization"},"author":{"sameAs":"archive.org","name":"archive.org"}}],"coverageEndTime":"20240618T12:35:10+00:00"}