in the email, duffy informed d.o.d. that, quote, the president has asked about this funding release. duffy copied mark zandi, a career official who reports to him and who testified before the house about this email. sandy testified mccusker provideed the information to him which he shared with duffy. these communications raised many questions about blair and duffy, and they're in the best position to provide answers. >>> for example, who or what prompted blair to tell vought that omb needed to freeze the aid? who? what reason was blair given? and who instructed duffy to reach out to the department of defense? who told him the president had questions? and what were those questions? and did duffy and blair have communications about the military aid to ukraine with the president? with acting chief of staff mick mulvaney, between themselves? what about the funding release and the president's so-called questions? blair and duffy could provide the answers. they could explain what directions they received, when they were provi

and michael duffy. i ask that it be read. >> the clerk will report. >> the senator from new york mr. schumer opposes an amendment number 1289 at the appropriate place ot voefing clause insert the following. section not with standing any provision of the resolution pursuant to rules 5 and 6 of procedure and practice. in the senate when seating on impeachment trials 1. the chief justice of the united states to secretary of the senate shall a, issue a subpoena for the taking of testimony of robert blare and b issue a subpoena for the taking of system of michael duffy. and two, the sergeant in arms is authorized to utilize the services of a deputy sergeant as arms or any other employee of the senate in serving the subpoena authorized to be issued by the section. >> the amendment is arguable by the parties for two hours equally divided. manager schiff are you a proponent of opponent? >> mr. cipollone. >> opponent. >> mr. schiff, house managers can proceed and reserve time for rebutle. >> mr. chief justice, s

it would be nice to know what blair knew and what duffy knew. we could ask them the question if you authorize a subpoena. now, we had hoped, as we said, that the senate would authorize subpoenas before our arguments were made. we thought it would have been helpful. but we know that you will have another opportunity to call witnesses to require documents and we hope that your decision will be informed by the arguments we're making to you over these days and that you will, in fact, get the full story. well, we do know actually the reason why the president did what he did. we know the president held the money. it wasn't because of any policy reason to benefit america or any concern about corruption in ukraine or any desire for more burden sharing from other countries. it was because the president was upset that ukraine was not announcing the investigations that he wanted, because he wanted to ramp up the pressure to force them to do it. from the very beginning, it was clear the hold was not in america's national interest. those within the u.s. gove

but i guess i'm more like that old prospector martin duffy. i want to know if there's still gold down there. so i took a rock jon says is from the mine, had it tested, and was able to inform jon there was a high percentage of gold in it. >> i'm shocked. >> shocked, but apparently not overjoyed. what am i missing? well, for starters, jon tells me, the mine would need extensive renovation before anyone could work it. it's been flooded, the gypsum walls have contracted, and the tunnels are liable to cave in. in other words, things are a lot dicier since the last guy was killed down there. oh, and in the years since he got his strange inheritance, jon's become a husband and father. if you were to go ahead and proceed with mining, when do i come back and find you still in this home of ruth's that you've preserved and maybe getting a few extra bucks for your two adorable children from mining? >> i'd have to talk it over with my wife and see, 'cause this is really a lot to digest. >> if jon wanted to do something with the mine, it is my understanding

duffy? were there discussions by administration officials about covering up the reasons for the president directing the delay in military assistance? these are questions that can only be answered by examination of the documentary evidence and by the testimony of key trump administration officials under oath in a senate trial. these developments are a devastating blow to leader mcconnell's push to have a trial without the documents and witnesses we've requested. each new revelation mounts additional pressure on the members of this chamber to seek the whole truth with these new e-mails, we're getting certain portions of the truth. we need the whole truth. for example, much of the evidence that was obtained by the recent foia requests has been heavily redacted. here is an e-mail chain between officials at the pentagon regarding the "politico" article that first revealed the trump administration was delaying military assistance to ukraine. it is completely redacted, every word crossed out, not a

duffy. mr. duffy and mr. blair can testify about the concerns raised by dod to the office of management and budget. about the illegality of the hold in white remained in place even after dod warned the administration that it would violate the impoundment control act. now the president of course, has disputed this. but we have demonstrated that omd was repeatedly by dod officials of two things. but first continuing to withhold the aid would prevent the department of defense from spending the money before the end of the fiscal year and second, the hold will potentially illegal. as turned out to be the case. tonight the dod told mr. duffy directly that dod, the department of defense could no longer support the office of management and budget claims that the hold would not preclude timely execution of the aid to ukraine. our vulnerable ally at work russian back. as mr. duff of the reportedly told mr. custer at the department of defense on august 30, there was a clear direction to continue the hold. a clear direct

duffy? were there discussions by administration officials about covering up the reasons for the president directing the delay in military assistance? these are questions that can only be answered by examination of the documentary evidence and by the testimony of key trump administration officials under oath in a senate trial. these developments are a devastating blow to leader mcconnell's push to have a trial without the documents and witnesses we've requested. each new revelation mounts additional pressure on the members of this chamber to seek the whole truth with these new e-mails, we're getting certain portions of the truth. we need the whole truth. for example, much of the evidence that was obtained by the recent foia requests has been heavily redacted. here is an e-mail chain between officials at the pentagon regarding the "politico" article that first revealed the trump administration was delaying military assistance to ukraine. it is completely redacted, every word crossed out, not a

duffy wanted to be "more involved in daily operations." during his deposition, sandy confirmed he was removed from the process after he had raised concerns to duffy about whether the hold was legal under the impoundment control act. needless to say, omb has refused to turn over any documents or communications involving that decision to replace mr. sandy. why did duffy, a political appointee with no relevant experience in this area take over responsibility for ukraine funding approval. i was the white house involved in that decision? was sandy removed because he had expressed concerns about the legality of the hold? by august 7th, people in our government were worried.

duffy wanted to be quote more involved in daily operations. ". during his deposition, sandy confirmed that he was removed from the funding approval process after he had raised concerns duffy about whether the hole was legal under the empowerment act. .-ellipsis .-ellipsis .-ellipsis was sandy removed because he expressed. [inaudible] by august 7 people in our government were worried. and when people in the government get worried, sometimes what they do as they draft memos. because when they are concerned about getting caught up in something that does not seem right, they do not want to be a part of it. so on that day, mark sandy and other colleagues at omb drafted and sent a memo about aid. according to sandy, the memo advocated for the release of the funds. it said that the military aide was consistent with american national security interest, it would help to oppose russian and russian. it was backed by strong bipartisan support. but president trump did not lift the hold. over the next several weeks, omb continued to issue funding documents tha

, duffy says clear direction from potus to continue to hold. potus, of course, being the president of the united states. that email came on august 30th, the same day as defense secretary mark espers. secretary of state mike pompeo met with president trump to discuss the hold. at the same time this report shows that there were concerns raised by mccup of coffeer. the pentagon comptroller, acting pentagon comptroller, who had concerns july 25th, same day that president trump talked to president zelensky of ukraine, urging them to investigate the bidens. she had concerns withholding this aid could potentially violate federal law, requiring the administration to appropriate money that had been -- spent money that had been appropriated by congress. that concern had been revealed throughout some time, the two months or so in which this aid had been when would. all these documents had been blocked and prevented from coming to capitol hill. it was part of the house impeachment inquiry. redacted version were released because of a lawsuit filed by an out

duffy? there are discussions by administration officials about covering up the reasons for the president directing the delay in military assistance? these are questions that can only be answered by examination of the documentary evidence and by the testimony of key trump administration officials under oath in a senate trial. he's developments are devastating blow to leader mcconnell's push to have a trial without the documents and witnesses we have requested. each new revelation minutes additional pressure on the members of this chamber to seek the whole truth with these new e-mails, we're getting certain portions of the truth. we need the whole truth. for example much of the evidence that was obtained by recent foia requests has been heavily redacted. here is an e-mail chain between officials at the pentagon regarding the political article that first revealed the trump administration was delaying military assistant to ukraine. it is completely redacted. every word. crossed out. not availabl

duffy? were there discussions by administration officials about covering up the reasons for the president directing the delay in military assistance? these are questions that can only be answered by examination of the documentary evidence and by the testimony of key trump administration officials under oath in a senate trial. these developments are a devastating blow to leader mcconnell's push to have a trial without the documents and witnesses we've requested. each new revelation mounts additional pressure on the members of this chamber to seek the whole truth with these new e-mails, we're getting certain portions of the truth. we need the whole truth. for example, much of the evidence that was obtained by the recent foia requests has been heavily redacted. here is an e-mail chain between officials at the pentagon regarding the "politico" article that first revealed the trump administration was delaying military assistance to ukraine. it is completely redacted, every word crossed out, not a

duffy's signature. august was a busy time for mr. duffy. one who had never before signed apportionment documents started signing all the apportionment documents in both the national security division and the international affairs division instead of career officials. on august 6 -- on august 6, mr. duffy signed the first extension of what was supposed on the brief with holding of the pentagon's u.s.a.i. funds, using another footnote to freeze the funds until august 12. separately, on august 9, our documents show mr. duffy signed another apportionment affecting the state department an usaid foreign funds included in the leak aid portionment. this time o.m.b. said the agencies are only allowed to spend % of the funds each day and it with holds the rest from the agencies. that's not a programmatic funds management or even a policy decision. the state department does -- dun send a couple thousand dollars to support international peacekeeping missions one day and then a couple thousands to support international markets control the next. that's n

duffy? were there discussions by administration officials about covering up the reasons for the president directing the delay in military assistance? these are questions that can only be answered by examination of the documentary evidence and by the testimony of key trump administration officials under oath in a senate trial. these developments are a devastating blow to leader mcconnell's push to have a trial without the documents and witnesses we've requested. each new revelation mounts additional pressure on the members of this chamber to seek the whole truth with these new e-mails, we're getting certain portions of the truth. we need the whole truth. for example, much of the evidence that was obtained by the recent foia requests has been heavily redacted. here is an e-mail chain between officials at the pentagon regarding the "politico" article that first revealed the trump administration was delaying military assistance to ukraine. it is completely redacted, every word crossed out, not a

with him also 2000 cavalry under command of general alfred duffie. duffie's cavalry are a couple miles south, where they had been driven the previous day during jubal early's raid, to gain the intelligence wright had departed the valley. they are on prichard's hill, on sunday morning. mulligan being a devout catholic always lamented the priest who had been their catholic chaplain didgned, so he and his men the best they could with prayer books. afterwards, the men started clowning around a bit. mulligan, who was strictly a non-smoker, non-drinker, somewhere got a cigar and it was described as with a flare of a broadway smile, he would pretend he was smoking, making the men of his staff and headquarters laugh and joke around. kind of a close knit headquarters. as welldes his nephew, as his brother-in-law, 19-year-old lieutenant james nugent. a lot of family connections throughout his staff and the irish brigade regiment as a whole. so, suddenly they hear the sounds of this gunfire, no longer just pick it -- picket fire in the distance but a rolling fi

sandy shared the information with duffy but he did not know whether duffy shared the information with the white house. laura cooper also recalled receiving an e-mail inquiry of ukraine security a assistance, quote, a few days after the press release. she noted that it was, quote, relatively unusual to receive questions from the president. in response, dod provided materials explaining that the 250 million funding package was for additional training, advisory efforts, to build the capacity of ukraine's armed forces. dod emphasized, quote, almost all of the dozens of vendors are u.s. companies. meaning that this funding also benefited u.s. businesses and workers. nonetheless, president trump put the wheels in motion to freeze the funds shortly after learning anlt dod's plan to release the funds. according to a "the new york times" article june 27th, chief of staff mulvaney e-mailed blair, quote, i'm just trying to tie up some loose ends. did we ever find out about the money of ukraine and whether we can hold it back? blair reportedly responded that it would be possible but not pretty. a

duffy? was there discussion of by officials about covering up the reasons for the president directing the delay in military assistance? these are questions that can only be answered by examination of the documentary evidence. and by the testimony of key trump administration officials under oath in the senate trial. these developments are a devastating blow to later mcconnell's push to have a trial without documents and witnesses we have requested. each new revelation, mounts additional pressure on the members of this chamber to seek the whole truth with these new e-mails. we are getting certain portions of the truth, and we need the whole truth. for example, much of the evidence that was obtained by the recent request had been heavily redacted. here, is an e-mail chain between officials at the pentagon regarding the political article that first revealed the trump administration was delaying military assistance to ukraine. it is completely redacted. every word crossed out, not available, can'

congressman sean duffy. [cheering and applause] you miss him. you know he signed with cnn, they paid him a lot of money and they don't put him on. why? because he is pro-trump. what they have done is paid him money to silence him because he has a very important voice. [booing] pres. trump: i think he is ok with it, he gets his check, they refused to put him on any says

congressman sean duffy. [cheering and applause] you miss him. you know he signed with cnn, they paid him a lot of money and they don't put him on. why? because he is pro-trump. what they have done is paid him money to silence him because he has a very important voice. [booing] pres. trump: i think he is ok

is what duffy wrote. what constituted a clear direction? did michael duffy get an order from the president? or did someone like mr. mulvaney get an order from the president that was passed on to mr. duffy? where their discussions by administration officials? about covering up the reasons for the president, directing the delay in military assistance? these are questions that can only be answered by examination of the documentary evidence. by the testimony of key trump administration officials under oath in a senate trial. these developments are a devastating blow to leader mcconnell's push to have a trial without the documents and witnesses we requested. each new revelation mounts additional pressure to seek the whole truth with these new emails, we need the whole truth. for example, much of the evidence that was obtained by the recent request has been heavily redacted. here is an email chain between officials at the pentagon regarding the political article that first revealed the trump administration was delaying military assistance to ukra

congressman sean duffy. you know, he signed with cnn, they paid him a lot of money, and they don't put him on. why? he's pro trump. so what they have done is paid him money to silence him because he has a very important voice. i like that. i think he's okay with it. he gets his check. they refuse to put him on.

the other is mike duffy. mike duffy is a trump-appointed political official in the office of management and budget. a big part of mike duffy's job is overseeing foreign national money. so you can see kind of where i'm going here. these two characters have really emerged as central figures in the events that surrounded the withholding of ukrainian aid that eventually led to president trump's impeachment. we know from another document release that was court ordered under a freedom of information act that essentially mike duffy sent an email to the pentagon 90 minutes after president trump got off the phone with president zelensky telling them to freeze the aid. not only that, telling them to kind of keep it under wraps because he knew this could be very politically sensitive. on the other hand, "the new york times" reported just last week that this aide, robert blair, essentially wrote mick mulvaney, they had a back-and-forth conversation, and he said that congress would become unhinged if they were to do this.

duffy to this case. the president's lawyers have argued that withholding foreign aid is entirely within his right as commander in chief. that this is all ordinary and all one big policy disagreement. we have proven exactly the opposite. this can't be a policy disagreement because the president's hold actually went against u.s. policy. the hold was undertaken outside of the normal channels by a president who they admit was not conducting policy. the hold was concealed, not only from congress, but from the president's own officials responsible for ukraine policy, and most importantly, the hold violated the law. the president has the right to make policy, but he does not have the right to break the law and coerce an ally into helping him cheat in our free and fair elections. and he doesn't have a right to use hundreds of millions of dollars in taxpayer funds as leverage to get political dirt on an american citizen who happens to be his political opponent. but if you remain unsure about all of this, who bett

this was -- they shared this with a top official at omb, michael duffy. and we know from other emails that duffy played a key role in ultimately freezing this aid saying in one email it was a clear directive from the president. so at that point, we know that another omb official wrote to michael duffy that night. paul denaro. he said we'll be standing by to answer any questions you have and are happy to schedule time to discuss if you'd like. it was the same time, the night before all july 24th, the general counsel's office was preparing a footnote for budget officials. this is a footnote used as a device by omb to freeze this funding. then you go to 9:00 a.m. on july 25th. again, just before the call. and michael duffy asked career official mark sandy about the footnote in sandy's response, and he asked to be copied on the email to the department of defense which seems to be a reference to the next step in freezing these funds which is notifying the defense department. and you can see this really b bio of mark sandy. we heard from him during the house he

as a senior office of management budget official michael duffy instructed defense department officials on july 25th 90 minutes after president trump spoke by phone with president selenski that defense department should pause all obligation of ukraine military assistance under its purview 90 minutes after that call duffy added quote given the sensitive nature of the request i appreciate your keeping that information closely held to those who need to know to execute the direction although the evidence is already more than sufficient to convict there is simply no rational basis for the senate to deprive itself of all relevant information in making such a hugely consequential judgment moreover as the president's answer to his summons and his trial brief make clear the president now attempts to contest the facts l b it in false and misleading ways but the president should not have it both ways he should not be permitted to claim that the facts uncovered by the house are wrong while also concealing mountains of evidence that bear precisely on those facts if this body seeks impartial justice

at the senior office of management and budget official michael duffy instructed to defense officials july 25th, 90 minutes after president trump spoke by ferrone with presiden president zelensky, that the department should pause all obligation of ukraine military assistance on th under its purv. 90 minutes after that call. duffy added "given the sensitive nature of the request, i appreciate your keeping that information closely held. to those who need to know to execute the direction." although the evidence is already more than sufficient to convict, there is no rational basis for the senate to deprive itself of all relevant information in making such a hugely consequential judgment. moreover, as their president's answer to his summons and his make clear, the president now contest the facts in misleading ways. he should not have it both ways, while also concealing mountains of evidence that they are precisely on those facts. if this body seeks impartial justice, it should ensure that subpoenas are issued and that they are issued now, before the senate begins extended proceedings base

we have actually seen some of michael duffy's e-mails already. in fact, e-mails obtained by just security for example, he e-mailed an official at the defense department back in august saying, quote, clear direction from potus to continue to hold. now, you can understand why the "new york times" and other outlets would want to see these e-mails. this implies a direct link to the president. that's potus, right? >> this is why democrats in the senate are so interested in having witnesses like michael duffy there. what i think the white house might actually be fairly clever in doing is without the articles of impeachment having been transmitted and without the rules having been agreed to between mcconnell and schumer, they need all the chips in their corner they have to trade. i think someone like collin, murkowski, who have been the moderate republicans who said they're not sure whether they want to call witnesses or not, are going to definitely want to see these e-mails. so it is something they can trade in exchange for not having duffy testify, fo

we have seen some of michael duffy's emails, the other emails, already. we know that in emails obtained by just security, a website, he did email an official at the defense department back in august. and in it he wrote, quote, clear direction from potus, that's president of the united states, to continue to hold. now we can understand why "the new york times" and others would want to see those other emails that they have asked for. anita, when you see that line, clear direction from potus to hold, that is a direct line to the president, is it not? >> that's light. that's the one thing we've been missing in the house investigation, which is a lot of people were talking about the president, but we didn't really have that direct connection. that's really important. it's not really surprising, though, that the white house is withholding. they've been doing that all year on every investigation. what is o surprising is they're not even releasing redacted emails which is the normal practice. blacking out certain pieces but releasing something. >> to that point,

duffy wanted to be quote more involved in daily operations. ". during his deposition, sandy confirmed that he was removed from the funding approval process after he had raised concerns duffy about whether the hole was legal under the empowerment act. .-ellipsis .-ellipsis .-ellipsis was sandy removed because he expressed. [inaudible] by august 7 people in our government were worried. and when people in the government get worried, sometimes what they do as they draft memos. because when they are concerned about getting caught up in something that does not seem right, they do not want to be a part of it. so on that day, mark sandy and other colleagues at omb drafted and sent a memo about aid. according to sandy, the memo advocated for the release of the funds. it said that the military aide was consistent with american national security interest, it would help to oppose russian and russian. it was backed by strong bipartisan support. but president trump did not lift the hold. over the next several weeks, omb continued to issue funding documents tha

joe duffy, dbi. the building permit as you know is replacement of 8-foot fence on the rear property line on the northeast and the west. so the permit was properly reviewed and issued by dbi. there is nothing wrong with that. i did hear, i was involved in this originally during the early stages of the appeal because the contractor had started the work. and when the permit got issued and then the permit got suspended. but the yard was completely wide open. i mean, it was unsafe condition. security-wise with the permit holders, they were keen to not have their property open for a period of until now from basically back in november. so we did let them finish the property line that would have been on the adjacent -- neighboring property. we let them finish that work. the only part that needs to be done is the back part that faces onto the appellant's property. and i agree with mr. sanchez f there is a tree -- if there is a tree protection plan, it's my understanding they're going to use the existing footi

director, bevan duffy. we will talk about what's being done to improve your ride to work. >>> this morning in las vegas, police are still looking for the shooter who wounded three people at a shopping mall. police say a fight took a violent turn when someone pulled out a gun and fired into a crowd. people involved were taken to a hospital with nonlife threatening injuries. police are reassuring the public that yesterday's incident was not a "active shooter situati situation." >> we are still looking for the suspect or suspects. but we do not believe there's any further threat to anyone in our community at this time. as i said earlier, it is an isolated incident from what we've gathered. >> witnesses reported hearing four to five gunshots. the department's gang unit also responded to the scene to investigate. witnesses are also saying the shooting sent people running for the exits and locking themselves inside stores. many reminded of that horrible mass shooting that took place at the music festival at the m

many of the emails are between michael duffy and elaine mccusker. mccusker trying to get a straight answer about why this was happening warning it could break the law if congress wasn't informed. she explained certain paperwork was now necessary, legal teams were discussing last week, her comments were derackredacted. has the omb directed dod to withhold funds? if so, what was the reason given? then the deputy defense secretary drafted a letter entirely redacted by the doj but reportedly said we've advised them that officials jeopardize the department's ability to obligate funding prudently and fully. after politico first reported the hold on the ukraine aid they sent over the administration's talking points. mccusker refused to roll over. i don't agree. the last one is just not accurate. something we've been consistently conveying for a few weeks. she wasn't willing to lie for the president. two days later after a meeting between trump, pompeo and the secretary of defense, duffy wrote mccusker clear direction from potus to continue to hold. this is

john bolton, mick mulvaney, robert blair and michael duffy all have firsthand knowledge of president trump's attempts to withhold security aid to ukraine, allegedly in exchange for investigations into president trump's political rival joe biden. they all refused to cooperate with the house impeachment inquiry. but bolton, the former national security advisor, recently pulled an about face, saying he would willingly testify about the senate. while at the white house bolton was vocal about his concerns how the ukraine matter was being handled. >> i have to go to the lawyers, john eisen berg, i was counsel for the security counsel to basically say you tell eisen berg, ambassador bolton told me i am not part of whatever this drug deal mulvaney and sunday a sondland are cooking up. >> reporter: also mick mulvaney openly admitted the president withheld aid in exchange for investigations into 2016. >> the look back into what happened in 2016 was what he was worried about in corruption with that nation. get over it. there is going to be political influence in foreign policy. >> reporter: mul

duffy. if you can believe the president's words last month, you will also hear from secretary pompeo. you will hear their testimony at the same time as the american people, that is, if you allow it, if we have a fair trial. during our presentation, you will see documentary records, those the president was unable to suppress, that exposed the president's scheme in detail. you will learn of further evidence revealed in the days since the house voted to impeach president trump even as the president and his agents have persisted in their efforts to cover up their wrongdoing from congress and the public. you will see dozens of new documents, providing new and critical evidence of the president's guilt that remain at this time in the president's hands and in the hands of the department of defense and the department of state and the office of management and budget, even the white house. you will see them, and so will the american people, if you allow it. if, in the name of a fair trial, you will de

the office of management and budget official michael duffy instructed defense department officials on july 20 fifth, 90 minutes after donald trump spoke by phone with president zelinski, they should pause all ukraine military assistance, 90 minutes after that call, duffy added given the sensitive nature of the request i appreciate you keeping that information closely held, those who need to know, to execute the direction and the evidence is more than sufficient to convict, there is no rational basis for the senate to deprive itself of all relevant information in making such a hugely consequential judgment. as the president's answer to the summons in his trial brief is clear the president can -- contest the fact in false and misleading ways but the president should not have it both ways. he should not be permitted to claim that the facts uncovered by the house are wrong while also concealing mountains of evidence that they are precisely on those facts. if this party seeks impartial justice, it should ensure subpoenas are issued and issued now, before the senate begins extended proceedi

on july 26, duffy attending the meaning of a high level meeting of officials. the withholding of aid was based on president trump's express direction but apparently he could not clearly explain why there was a freeze, beyond a vague reference to concerns about corruption. >> the official said -- >> witnesses who testified before the house all provided the same consistent recounting of what happened. as you can see from these statements on the slide, officials who were not provided clear explanations for such a dramatic step. as we have already discussed earlier and will explain in more depth during the trial, these facts contradict the white house's recent claim of whawhy president trump froze the ukraine aid. those facts clearly show efforts of the president and those around him to fabricate explanations after the president's illegal scheme came to life. in fact, the white house counsel's own review of the freeze reportedly found the mick mulvaney and omb attempted to create an after-the-fact justification for the president's decision. that is the polite way o

duffy is one of four witnesses that democrats want to question in the impeachment trial. there could be damning bombshells and piles of official evidence that the president is refusing to hand over. >>> the president orders a strike that kills a top iranian commander. iran vowing revenge. what response lies in store? that and other headlines up next. when we started our business we were paying an arm and a leg for postage. i remember setting up shipstation. one or two clicks and everything was up and running. i was printing out labels and saving money. shipstation saves us so much time. it makes it really easy and seamless. pick an order, print everything you need, slap the label onto the box, and it's ready to go. our costs for shipping were cut in half. just like that. shipstation. the #1 choice of online sellers. go to shipstation.com/tv and get 2 months free. shipstation. the #wthat's why xfinity hasu omade taking your internetself. and tv with you a breeze. really? yup. you can transfer your service online in about a minute. you can do that? yeah. and with two-hour s

duffy's comments. it's been acknowledged that the plans are not correct, property line is not properly shown in the plans. and the windows as a result cannot be built as proposed. so the concerns that voiced are real. fix the plans. are they planning on shifting the building over to my client's property so they don't have sufficient space over here? 30 inches plus 12? and their egress corridor. if they're shifting by a foot in that direction, they don't have enough space. that has to be solved. again, the survey being preliminary, i don't see any reason they wouldn't have had that finalized. i deal in your veies for these type of issues regularly. the only reason i can think of that you don't get the survey finalized and keep it preliminary, you don't want it recorded on title so people know what is going on. that's not how this process is supposed to work. and i would encourage the board to ensure it's fixed. lastly, to bring it back to the privacy concern. these windows that they're talking about add

on july 26, duffy attending the meeting of a high level meeting of officials. the withholding of aid was based on president trump's express direction but apparently he could not clearly explain why there was a freeze, beyond a vague reference to concerns about corruption. >> the official said -- >> witnesses who testified before the house all provided the same consistent recounting of what happened. as you can see from these statements on the slide, officials who were not provided clear explanations for such a dramatic step. as we have already discussed earlier and will explain in more depth during the trial, these facts contradict the white house's recent claim of why president trump froze the ukraine aid. those facts clearly show efforts of the president and those around him to fabricate explanations after the president's illegal scheme came to life. in fact, the white house counsel's own review of the freeze reportedly found that mick mulvaney and omb attempted to create an after-the-fact justification for the president's decision. that is the polite way of

duffy, mr. blair, should do the same. we know that mr. bolton, like mr. mulvaney, mr. duffy, and mrr witnesses has crucial -- crucial eyewitness knowledge of the president's dealings with ukraine about how decisions were made to with hold security assistance and how opposition within the administration to that delay that president trump seemed to want was overcome. a simple majority is all it takes to ensure that the senate issues a subpoena for these witnesses. if only four republicans decide that mr. bolton and the three other witnesses ought to be heard, they will be heard because every democrat will vote to hear them. it is now up to four senate republicans to support bringing in mr. bolton and the three other witnesses as well as the key documents we've requested to ensure all the evidence is presented at the outset of the senate trial. given in a mr. bolton's lawyers have stated he has new and relevant information to share, if any senate republican poses issuing subpoenas to the four witnesses and documents we've requested, they would make it absolutely clear the

so talk to us about the significance of these two players, of duffy and blair. and while we may not know the exact content of the emails that they were the players, you know, the authors, and, you know, perhaps even recipients of these emails is important. >> one of the biggest questions that remains unanswered so far is, what kind of a nexus was there between the freeze on the military aid to ukraine and then the efforts that were going on with giuliani and others in ukraine to try to convince the president there to open an investigation into joe biden's son. and so, you know, of course we want to see whether or not there's anything in those emails that links the hold on the military assistance with what was going on with giuliani. obviously if there was some kind of connection in those emails that would be pretty explosive. what we have learned in our own investigation in the office of management and budget, they were largely focused on the mechanics of actually stopping this aid which they had been instructed to do from the white house, and there's a lot of s

>> well, alex, robert blair and michael duffy are two of the central figures in this ukraine scandal. at least as far as how the white house and office of management and budget was handling this situation, both the initial decision to actually freeze the aid and then the months of internal debate that took place over how to convince the president to release this hold on this nearly $400 million in security aid, and the legal justifications around what exactly to do. we have already seen some of these redacted emails that have been released by the office of management and budget, by some of these agencies in response to the freedom of information act request, but as we're now seeing, the white house is refusing to provide additional emails, 20 emails between duffy and blair concerning this ukraine situation. we already know from the legal policy website just security, they have actually obtained some of the unredacted emails that have been released in redacted fashion. one of those emails shows why this administration may not want them to come out. it's an email from michael duffy to a

duffy, mr. blair should do the same. we know that mr. bolton, like mr. mulvaney, mr. duffy and mr. blair the three other witnesses have crucial, crucial eyewitness knowledge of the president's dealings with ukraine. about how decisions were made to withhold security assistance and about how opposition within the administration to that delay that president trump seem to want was overcome. a simple majority is all it takes to ensure that the senate issues a subpoena for these witnesses. if only for republicans decide that mr. bolton and the three other witnessesea ought to be heard, they will be heard because every democrat will vote to hear them. it is now up to four senate republicans to support bringing in mr. bolton and the three other witnesses, as well as the key documents we have requested to ensure all the evidence is presented at the outset of the senate trial. given that mr. bolton's lawyers have stated he has new and relevant information to share, if any senate republican poses issuing subpoenas toqu the four witnesses and documents we have requested, they would make it ab

duffy, mr. blair, should do the same. we know that mr. bolton, like mr. mulvaney, mr. duffy and mr. blair, the three other witnesses, has crucial, crucial eyewitness knowledge of the president's dealings with ukraine about how decisions were made to withhold security assistance and how opposition within the administration to that delay that president trump seemed to want was overcome. a simple majority is all it takes to ensure that the senate issues a subpoena for these witnesses. if only four republicans decide that mr. bolton and the three other witnesses ought to be heard, they will be heard, because every democrat will vote to hear them. it is now up to four senate republicans to support bringing in mr. bolton and the three other witnesses as well as the key documents we have requested to ensure all the evidence is presented at the outset of the senate trial. given that mr. bolton's lawyers have stated he has new and relevant information to share, if any senate republican opposes issuing subpoenas to the four witnesses and documents we've requested, they would make it absolutel

duffy wanted to be "more involved in daily operations." during his deposition, sandy confirmed he was removed from the process after he had raised concerns to duffy about whether the hold was legal under the impoundment control act. needless to say, omb has refused to turn over any documents or communications involving that decision to replace mr. sandy. why did duffy, a political appointee with no relevant experience in this area take over responsibility for ukraine funding approval. i was the white house involved in that decision? was sandy removed because he had expressed concerns about the legality of the hold? by august 7th, people in our government were worried. when people in the government get worried, sometimes what they do is they draft memos. because when they are concerned about getting caught up in something that doesn't seem right, they don't want to be a part of it. on that day, mark sandy and other colleagues at omb drafted and sent a memo about ukraine military aid to acting director it advocated for the release of the fun

blair and duffy were involved in the events surrounding the president's july 20 fifth phone call with president zelinski. on july 19th blair, along with other officials received an email from ambassador sondland, describing a conversation with president zelinski, zelinski was, quote, prepared to receive notice's call and would assure him he intends to run a fully transparent investigation and will, quote, turn every stone. as reflected in this - shannon: congresswoman garcia. our panel of legal eagles, they keep haggling over aid that eventually was released, and it turns out ukraine didn't even know that it was held until august 20 ninth or something like that so shouldn't the case basically end their? >> most of the fact of been known for quite some time so as i have said many times on your show, there is an argument for taking everything that has been considered by the house and then argue from that. can you get additional -- people would like to hear from john bolton, i would like to hear from john bolton. that would be great theater. as you and i talked about be careful what you

lisa: she looks familiar is that rachel duffy. pete: she had a chance to be back stage after the march for life. you will see exclusively on "fox & friends" this morning. all morning we will play more of that interview. congratulations to rachel. she did a fantastic job. you will see more of it. again, in washington, you had what was going on in the senate chamber and then you had the march for life, which the president was the first president ever to address that march. griff: 47 years it's been going on and he was the fest to do it. we gave it ample coverage here at fox news. here is a little bit of the president talking there. listen. >> we are here for a very simple reason, to defend the right of every child born and unborn, to fulfill their god-given potential. [cheers and applause] together, we must protect, cherish and defend the dignity and the sanctity of every human life. [cheers and applause] they are coming after me because i am fighting for you, and we are fighting for those who have no voice. and we will win because