Duffey emailed mccusker on august 30th and told her there was a clear direction from potus to continue the freeze. Mccusker continued to warn that the freeze was having real effects on dods ability to spend the military aid, and the impact would keep growing in the freeze continued. According to recent reports, around september 9, after the president s scheme had been exposed and the house had launched its investigations, duffey responded to mccuskers warnings with a formal and lengthy email. He asserted it would be dods afault, not ombs, if dod was unable to spend funds in time. Deputy undersecretary of defense Elaine Mccusker reportedly responded, i am speechless. We now know that dods concerns were well founded. The president s freeze on the security aid was illegal. Duffey should be called to testify about why dods repeated warnings went unheeded. What prompted his email that attempted to shift plame blame and about the fact that the president released the aid only after his scheme was exposed . Senators, make no mistake. We have a detailed factual record showing the freeze was President Trumps decision, that he did it to pressure ukraine to announce the political investigations he wanted. But President Trumps decisions also set off a cascade of confusion and misdirection within the executive branch. As the president political appointees carried out his orders, career officials tried to do their jobs or, at the very least, not break the law. Play player a blair and duffey would shed more light on how the president s orders were carried out. That is why committees of the house issued subpoenas for both of their testimony. But blair and duffey, as i said earlier, like many other trump officials, refused to appear because the president ordered them not to appear. And i might add as a former judge, i have never seen anything like this before where someone is ordered not to appear by one party and the witnesses just dont appear. The United States senate should not allow the president and his administration to continue to evade accountability based on this evershifting and evermeritless excuses. We need to hold him accountable because no one is above the law. [ speaking Foreign Language ] blair and duffey have valuable testimony to offer. The senate should call upon them to do their duty by issuing this subpoena. Mr. Chief justice, the house managers reserve the balance of our time for an opportunity to respond to the president s argument. Mr. Cipollone. Brian williams here with you for the next couple of hours. Were waiting to hear from the chief justice, and it looks like pam bondi will be speaking for the president s legal team. Just a fact correct, please, a few things. Mr. Duffey didnt come from a state job. Mr. Duffey came from deputy chief of staff at dod before he went to omb. Big difference there. Manager garcia said he failed to appear. Well, the House Committee would not allow Agency Counsel to appear with mr. Duffey or mr. Blair. They would not let Agency Counsel appear with either of them. Office of Legal Counsel determined, of course, that the exclusion of Agency Counsel from house proceedings is unconstitutional. Its a pretty basic right. So what did they do . They took no action on the subpoenas. But now they want you to take action on them. The managers have been telling you all day the house managers all day the white house is trying to hide from American People what witnesses had to say. Theyve been saying we want to bury evidence. We want to hide evidence. That hypocrisy is astounding. Theyve been saying, lets not forget why we are here. Well were here tonight because they threw due process, fundamental fairness, and our constitution out the window in the house proceedings. Thats why were here, because they started in the secret bunker hearings where the president and his counsel werent even allowed to participate when theyre trying to impeach him. Intel and Judiciary Committees was a onesided circus. Ranking member nunes asked to call witnesses. He explained why in detail. It was denied by manager schiff. Ranking member collins asked to call witnesses. Denied by Ranking Member nad excuse me, manager nadler. And thats what they call fairness . Thats not how our american Justice System works, and its certainly not how our impeachment process is designed by our constitution. The house took no action on the subpoenas issued to mr. Duffey and mr. Blair because they didnt want a court to tell them that they were trampling on their Constitutional Rights. So now they want this chamber to do it for them. Thank you. The house managers have 24 minutes remaining. Mr. Chief justice, a couple fact checks once again. First of all, the complaint is made, well, the house wouldnt allow Agency Counsel. Why wouldnt the house allow Agency Counsel to be present in those secret depositions that you have been hearing so much about . As i mentioned earlier, those secret depositions allowed 100 members of the house to participate. There are 100 members of this senate. We could have had that secret deposition right here in the senate floor. But during those depositions, members of both parties were given equal time to ask questions of these witnesses. Now, why not allow an Agency Counsel . And by the way, where did democrats get that rule of no Agency Counsel during these depositions . We got it from the republicans. This was the republican deposition rule, and we can cite you adamant explanations by trey gowdy and others about how these rules are so important, that the depositions not be public, that Agency Counsel be excluded and why. Well, youll get a good sense of it when you see the testimony of Deputy Assistant secretary george kent. Kent describes how hes at a meeting with some of the state Department Lawyers and others, and theyre talking about the document requests from congress, and what are they going to do about these, and what documents are responsive, and what documents arent responsive. And the issue comes up of a letter that the state department sent to congress saying, youre intimidating the witnesses. And secretary kent testified, no, no, no. The congress wasnt intimidating witnesses. It was the state department that was intimidating witnesses to try to prevent them from testifying. And so my colleagues at the other table say, why arent you allowing the minders from the state department to sit next to those witnesses and hear what they have to say in the depositions . Weve seen all too much witness intimidation in this investigation to begin with without having an agency minder sitting in on the deposition. And by the way, those agency minders dont get to sit in on grand jury interviews either. There is a very good investigative reason that has been used by republicans and democrats who have been adamant about the policy of excluding Agency Counsel. It was also represented that the Intelligence Committee and the Judiciary Committee wouldnt allow the minority to call any witnesses. Thats just not true. In fact, fully onethird of the witnesses who appeared in open hearing in our committee were minoritychosen witnesses. Now, what they ended up having to say was pretty darn incriminating of the president. But nonetheless, they chose them. And so this idea, well, we had no due process, the fact of the matter is we followed the procedures in the clinton and nixon impeachments. And they can continue to say we didnt, but we did. And in some respects, we gave even greater due process opportunities here than there. The fact that the president would take no advantage of them doesnt change the fact that they had that opportunity. And finally, the claim is made that we trampled on the Constitutional Rights by daring to subpoena these witnesses. How dare we subpoena administration officials, right . Because Congress Never does that. How dare we do that . How dare we subpoena them . Well, the court heard that argument in the case of don mcgahn, and you should read the judges opinion in finding that this claim of absolute immunity has no no support, no substance. It would result in a monarchy. It is essentially the judicial equivalent of dont let the door hit you in the backside on the way out, counsel. Theres no merit there. And counsel can repeat that argument as often as they like, but theres no support in the courts for it. There should be no support for it in this body, not if you want any of your subpoenas in the future to mean anything at all. I yield back. The majority leader is recognized. Chief justice, i have a motion at the desk to table the amendment, and i ask for the yeas and nays. Is there a sufficient second . There is. The clerk will call the roll. Mr. Alexander . Aye. Ms. Baldwin. No. Mr. Barrasso. Aye. Mr. Bennett. 12 minutes after the 11 00 hour on the east coast. Those who have been with us all day or even part of the day now know the familiar pattern. We get an amendment. The vote is then to table the amendment, and all of todays votes have been strict party line. Theres no reason to think this vote will be any different. I am joined for Something Like her 12th hour of Coverage Today by a former member of that chamber, former democratic senator Claire Mccaskill of missouri. Just curious to hear your observations based on the last couple of hours of arguments and the friends and former colleagues you see who may be flagging in their seats. Well, it appears Mitch Mcconnell is flagging. Hes looking tired. Listen, this is a hard thing. Ive had people give me feedback all day that have talked about how hard it is for senators to sit still and not speak and not move. I realize it is not as hard as watching a child sick in a hospital and other crises that we have in our personal lives or watching your child ripped from your arms and put in a cage at the border. But for senators this is hard because theyre used to moving constantly. Theyre used to talking constantly. They are not used to listening for long periods of time. So theyre worn out. It will be very interesting to see what today will if this will have an impact on how they handle the rest of these proceedings. Will they try to do it for less time . Either the house side or the frankly the white house side has really not talked that much. We were commenting earlier, and i think its important to point out again rachel noticed this the difference in the tables between the house managers and the i mean the white house has no paper. The near table now the far table. We just took the other side of the room. So now the near table is the trump legal team. Far table is the democrats. The Trump Lawyers have made rhetorical arguments. I think the house managers have presented compelling case of substance. Time will tell whether they can keep that pace up over the next week to ten days to two weeks. Were at letter j. Im told well go back in for the reading of the vote. You mentioned this. Ive lost track of which day you mentioned this, but it is germane that there are fewer members of the senate north of 80, you thought, than when you served in the chamber. So these hours and long periods wouldnt be as taxing as some of the Senate Makeup that weve seen the last couple of decades. I see the three oldest members of the senate still sitting alertly. That would be Chuck Grassley over on the republican side in the front row. And then behind Chuck Schumer in the middle, you see Dianne Feinstein and pat leahy. Yep. Those would be the three octogenarians in the senate, and they seem to be holding up very well. And you also mentioned in your discreet way that when we see senators coming and going off the floor, they are allowed comfort breaks. They are not allowed to have their phone, correct . Now, i dont know whether theyre letting them get their phones when they go to the bathroom or not. They may. But i know theyre not allowed to have their phones in the chamber, and i think there is probably some pressure on them to take their comfort break and come back and not although i heard there was a republican member on fox tonight, which is really interesting that i guess she feels like there would be no penalty for missing this. And senator risch of wisconsin is already being napshamed. Not wisconsin. Im sorry. Idaho. Thank you. At least one sketch artist pointed that out. Were in the ss. I just heard the minority leaders name. Lets go back in for the completion of this vote tally. Well hear the total from the chief justice. Well hear what both sides are going to do next. We may return to the room if, in fact, its their choice to get another break in before they go into the next section. Mr. Thune. Mr. Tillis. Aye. Mr. Toomey. Aye. Mr. Udall. No. Mr. Van hollen. No. Mr. Warner. No. Ms. Warren. No. Mr. Whitehouse. No. Mr. Wicker. Aye. Mr. Wyden. No. Mr. Young. Aye. Does any senator wish to change his or her vote . If not, the yeas are 53, and the nays are 47. The amendment is tabled. Mr. Chief justice. The democratic leader is recognized. I send an amendment to the desk to prevent the selective admission of evidence and provide for appropriate handling of classified and confidential materials, and i ask that it be read. Its short. The clerk will report. The senator from new york, mr. Schumer, proposes an amendment number 1290 on page 2 between lines and 4 and 5, insert the following. If during the impeachment trial of Donald John Trump any party seeks to admit evidence that has not been submitted as part of the record of the house of representatives and that was subject to a duly authorized subpoena, that party shall also provide the opposing party all the other documents responsive to that subpoena for the purp. E for the purposes of this paragraph, the term duly authorized subpoena includes knee subpoena issued pursuant to the impeachment inquiry of the house of representatives. The senate shall take all necessary measures to ensure the proper handling of confidential and classified information in the record. The majority leader is recognized. Mr. Chief justice, well now take a fiveminute break. Id like to ask everybody to stay close to the chamber. Well go with a hard five minutes. I ask that we stand in recess subject to the call of the chair. Without objection, so ordered. So were interrupting what will be this next amendment. You heard the majority leader. A hard fiveminute break. Claire mccaskill, we were just talking about procedure and what you have noted thus far. For our viewers just tuning in, theres every reason to believe were looking at the john bolton amendment. Were looking to finish amendments tonight . Well, its interesting he called a fiveminute recess here. I dont know why he would do that unless they thought there was some reason to talk. Although typically youd say, i note the absence of a quorum if you were going to negotiate. I dont know. Maybe hes decided to take a uniform bathroom break which is a bad idea because the bathrooms arent that big for everybody to go at once. The senate bathrooms although the womens got expanded while i was there, so that was a good thing. We had a traffic jam in the womens bathroom and had to get a larger facility. But i think unless mcconnell agrees to hear these amendments tomorrow afternoon at 1 00 as opposed to beginning the presentation of the arguments, then i think that schumer will keep going tonight, at least to get to bolton, which is probably the amendment after this one. All right. Where are my manners . We want to welcome our viewers. This hour, of course, is normally the 11th hour on this network. Because as we like to say people come and go so quickly around here and we have a big, expandible family, lets reintroduce everybody. Michael steele, former chairman of the Republican National committee and host of the Michael Steele podcast. Kimberly atkins, senior washington correspondent for wbur, bostons npr news station. Michael schmidt, who happens to be a pulitzer prizewinning washington correspondent for the new york times. Also with us at this hour, robert costa, National Political reporter for the washington post, moderator of Washington Week on pbs. And jeremy bash is of counsel to our coverage. Former chief of staff at cia and the pentagon and former chief counsel to the house intel committee. I would like to go to you, mr. Costa, for something i saw with your name on it tonight. Can you tell the folks watching the snippets of conversation youre reporting on about a potential oneforone witness agreement . Well, to start, not one democrat im speaking with on capitol hill wants this deal. Theyre so frustrated with republicans for not entertaining the idea of witnesses. They dont like this idea floated by senator cruz to trade testimony from ambassador bolton for testimony from hunter biden or even joe biden, the former Vice President. But at this point when they look at the hard line taken by Senate Majority leader Mitch Mcconnell, theyre wondering privately for now whether they should start to talk about a possible witness deal. Maybe they could actually burn the republicans politically by bringing hunter biden forward. But they dont think hes relevant to the trial, so theyre resistant publicly so far. But theyre trying to figure out how do you bring a witness forward in this context. We have watched the majority leader make some micro and macro corrections during the course of the day. Have you any reporting yet and i k