mulvaney? >> correct. >> the documents also highlight the extensive involvement of mick mulvaney in this geopolitical shakedown scheme. e-mail messages summarized by ambassador sondland during his sworn testimony show that he informed mr. mulvaney as well as secretary pompeo and secretary perry of his efforts to persuade president zelensky to announce the investigations desired by president trump. for example, as shown on the screen, on july 19th, ambassador sondland e-mailed several top administration officials, including mr. mulvaney stating that he had talked to president zelensky to help prepare him for a phone call with president trump. and he reported that president trump zelensky planned to assure president trump that he intends to run a fully transparent investigation and will turn over every stone. ambassador sondland made clear in his testimony that he was referring to the burisma/biden and 2016 election interference investigations that were explicitly mentioned by president trump on

under oath from mister mulvaney. he is also a central figure as president trump implemented the pressure campaign. according to public reports and witness testimony, mister mulvaney was deeply involved with implementing including the unlawful briefs on $391 million of aid to ukraine. it isn't just other people fingering mister mulvaney, he himself has admitted that he was involved. >> again i was involved with the process by which the money was held up temporarily. >> public reports confirm mister mulvaney's own account that he has information goes to the heart of this inquir inquiry, specifically related why the president ordered a hold on aid to ukraine and kept it in place despite deep seated concerns among trump administration officials. the new york times article on the screen summarizes an e-mail conversation between mister mulvaney and robert blair the senior advisor june 27 when mister mulvaney asked did we ever find out for the money so we can hold it back? what prompted that e-mail? according to public repo

mulvaney. to begin with, mr. mulvaney participated in meetings and discussions with president trump at every single stage of this scheme. we just talked about motive and intent. well if you want further insight into the president's motives or intent, further direct evidence of why he withheld the military aid in the white house meeting, you should call his acting chief of staff, who had more access than anyone. mr. mulvaney is important because the president's counsel continues to argue just hearsay and speculation. faced with ambassador sondland saying this was all as clear as two plus two equals four, the president says they are just guessing. that is simply not true. the evidence is direct, the evidence is compelling, and confirmed by many witnesses corroborated by text messages, e-mails, and phone records. but if you want more evidence, if you want another firsthand account, for why the aid was withheld, for the undisputed quid pro quo, for that white house meeting, let's just hear from mick mulvaney. over an

mulvaney. mr. mulvaney is also a central figure with respect to how president trump implemented this pressure campaign. according to public reports and witness testimony, mr. mulvaney was deeply involved with implementing the scheme, including the unlawful white house freeze on $391 million in aid to ukraine. but this isn't just other people fingering mr. mulvaney. mr. mulvaney has himself admitted that he was involved. >> i was involved with the process by which the money was held up temporarily. >> the public reports confirm mr. mulvaney's own account that he has information that goes to the heart of this inquiry, specifically related to why the president ordered the hold on aid to ukraine and kept it in place, despite deep-seeded concerns among trump administration officials. this the "new york times" article on the screen summarizes an e-mail conversation between mr. mulvaney and robert blair. a senior administration adviser on june 27. when mr. mull vemulvaney asked ever find out about the mon

mulvaney? >> correct. >> the documents also highlight the extensive involvement of mick mulvaney in this geopolitical shakedown scheme. email messages summarize by ambassador sondland during his sworn testimony show that he informed mr. mulvaney as well as secretary pompeo and secretary perry of his efforts to persuade president zelensky to announce the investigation desired by president trump. for example, as shown on the screen,mb on july 19 ambassador sondland e-mailed several top administration officials, including mr. mulvaney stating that heng had talked to presidet zelensky to help prepare him for a phone call with president trump. and hent reported that president zelensky planned to assure president trump thatky he intens to run a fully transparent investigation and will turn over every stone. ambassador sondland made clear in his testimony that he was referring to the burisma slash biden, in 2016 election interference investigation that were explicitly mentioned by president trump on t

under oath from mister mulvaney. he is also a central figure as president trump implemented the pressure campaign. according to public reports and witness testimony, mister mulvaney was deeply involved with implementing including the unlawful briefs on $391 million of aid to ukraine. it isn't just other people fingering mister mulvaney, he himself has admitted that he was involved. >> again i was involved with the process by which the money was held up temporarily. >> public reports confirm mister mulvaney's own account that he has information goes to the heart of this inquir inquiry, specifically related why the president ordered a hold on aid to ukraine and kept it in place despite deep seated concerns among trump administration officials. the new york times article on the screen summarizes an e-mail conversation between mister mulvaney and robert blair the senior advisor june 27 when mister mulvaney asked did we ever find out for the money so we can hold it back? what prompted that e-mail? according to public repo

mulvaney? >> correct. >> remarkably the president is still denying the facts even as they argue that if it's true it is still not impeachable. but if the president did nothing wrong, if he held up the aid because of so-called corruption or burden sharing reasons, he should want the chief of staff to come testify under oath before the distinguished body and say just that. why does he not want mulvaney to appear before the united states senate? well we know the answer. because mr. mulvaney will confirm the corrupt shakedown scheme. because mr. mulvaney was in the loop. everyone was in the loop. as ambassador sondland summarized in his testimony in july 19, he e-mailed several top administration officials including mr. mulvaney that president zelensky was prepared to receive notices call and would assure president trump that he intends to run a fully transparent investigation and will turn over every stone. mr. mulvaney replied, i asked in the oc to set it up for tomorrow. the above e-mail seems c

mulvaney. previously mr. mulvaney denied ever being on the phone when the president spoke to rudy giuliani. mr. bolton writes that mr. mulvaney was on the phone with rudy and the president was discussing the removal of ambassador yovanovitch. mr. bolton is book is for the evidence that a large number of people were quote in the loop on this scheme, as ambassador sondland said, and now they are all covering up. so it seems like not only is there more evidence that the president held the aid off to get a political gain, and investigation, but there seems to be a giant cover-up among so many of the leading people in the white house who knew about it and said nothing about it, let alone try to stop it. if there was ever even a shred of logic left to not hear witnesses and review the documents, mr. bolton's book just erased it. ambassador bolton was manuscript was sent to the white house over a month ago. the president ordered everyone with first-hand knowledge of his actions not to testify in the impeachment inqu

not should it be mulvaney or bolton, but any witnesses. i could argue that that's harder for vulnerable senators to vote no on. basically what they're saying is i'm not interested in hearing anything. i don't want to hear bolton, i don't want to hear mulvaney, and then if that were to pass, if there were to be four republicans that would vote to hear some witnesses, then there would be this protracted negotiation. >> but clearly mitch mcconnell thinks that the abstract vote is easier to sell than the specific one. >> i think it's -- i think he's -- i think it's riskier than he would ever let on. >> right. i agree with that. >> our experts stay with us. we turn to someone now who has a vote in all of this, u.s. senator chris coons, a democrat of delaware. thank you for stepping off the senate floor on your long day and jumping on television with us, sir. >> thank you for covering this. it's been a long and a challenging day. i've dedicated the last few hours to both listening to the arguments about the different motions to try and amend the

mulvaney. okay, let's hear from others. the witnesses the house wishes to call directly to the president's own words, his own admissions of guilt, his own concessions of responsibility. if they did not, all the presidents men would be on their witness list, not ours. these witnesses and the documents they are agencies produced tell the full story. i believe that we are interested in hearing the full story. you should want to hear it. more than that, the american people, we know they want to hear it. the house republicans on expert witness in the house, professor turley, said that if you can prove the president used our military aid to pressure ukraine to investigate a political rival and interfere in our elections, it would be an impeachable use of power. senator graham, too, recognize that if such evidence existed that could potentially change his mind on impeachment. we now have a another witness, a fact witness, who would reportedly say exactly that. ambassador bolton's new manuscript, which

blare is mulvaney's senior adviser. did blare know about the sondland mulvaney deal? did he know that they were leveraging an official white house visit for the president to get ukraine to investigate his political rival? the white house was unable to write any reason for the hold. throughout this period, officials across the executive branch started asking questions. questions about the freeze on the military aid. around july 17 or 18, duffy e-mailed blare. he asked about the reason for the freeze. but he got no explanation. instead, blare insisted quote, we need to let the hold take place. and they could quote revisit the issue with the president later. and the house we heard testimony from multiple officials including ambassador taylor who was until very recently our top diplomat in ukraine, our number one. we also heard from several other officials. that from the department of defense, the staff, and omb, but no one, no one heard any credible evidence, any credible explanation for the freeze at the time. no one. nada. senators, think about it. not even our top u.s

mulvaney's testimony. we subpoenaed him. mr. mulvaney together with other key witnesses, national security advisor john bolton, senior white house aide robert blair, office of management and budget official michael duffy, and national security council lawyer john eisenberg. they were called to testify before the house. as part of this impeachment inquiry. but president trump was determined to hide from the american people what they had to say. the president directed the entire executive branch and all of his top aides and advisors to defy all requests for their testimony. that cannot be allowed to stand. third, mr. mulvaney is a highly relevant witness to the events at issue in this trial. mr. mulvaney was at the center of every stage of the president's substantial pressure campaign against ukraine. based on the extensive evidence, the house did obtain, it's clear that mulvaney was crucial in planning the scheme, executing its implementation, and carrying out the cover-up. emails on witness testimony shows mr. mulvaney was in th

blair is mulvaney's senior advisor. did blair know about the sondland/mulvaney deal? did he know that they were leveraging an official white house visit for the president to get ukraine to investigate his political rival? the white house was unable to provide any reason for the hold. throughout this period, officials across the executive branch started asking questions, questions about the freeze on the military aid. >>> around july 17 or 18, duffy emailed blair. he asked about the reason for the freeze, but he got no explanation. instead, blair insisted, quote, we need to let the hold take place, and they could, quote, revisit the issue with the president later. >>> in the house, we heard testimony from multiple officials, including ambassador taylor who was, until very recently, our top diplomat in ukraine, our numero uno. we also heard from several other officials from the department of defense, the nsc staff, omb, but no one -- no one heard any credible evidence, any credible explanation for the freeze at the time. no one. nada. >>> senators, think about it. not e

mulvaney? >> correct. >> remarkably, the president is still denying the facts-even as they argue that will if itif it it's still not impeachable. but if the president did nothing wrong, if he held up the aid because of so-called corruption or burden sharing reasons, he should want his chief of staff to come testify under oath before this distinguished body and say just that. why doesn't he want mulvaney to appear before the united states senate? well, we know the answer. because mr. mulvaney will confirm the corrupt shakedown scheme. because mr. mulvaney was in the loop. everyone was in the loop. as am bass bore sondland summarized in his testimony, on july 19th, he emailed several top administration officials, including mr. mulvaney, that president zelensky was prepared to receive potus's call and would assure president trump that he intends to run a fully transparent investigation, and will turn over every stone. mr. mulvaney replied, i asked nsc to set it up for tomorrow. the above email see

mulvaney has issued two statements. one after his press conference and then monday after the new york times article concerning mr. bolton's alleged statement in his manuscript. i think the easiest thing is just to read them and understand what he said and to put it in to context for everyone in the chamber. this is the day of the press conference. once again, the media has decided to misconstrue my comments to advance a biassed and political witch hunt against president trump. let me be clear, there was absolutely no quid pro quo between ukrainian aid and the 2016 election. the president never told me to withho withhold any money until the ukrainians did anything related to the server. the only reasons we were holding the money was because of concern of lack of support from other nations and concerns over corruption. multiple times during the more than 30-minute briefing where i took over 25 questions, i referred to president trump's interest in rooting out corruption in ukraine and ensuring tax dollars are spent respon

mulvaney still refused, will make a motion asking the chief justice to order mulvaney to comply. we could settle any and all potential claims of executive privilege right on the senate floor. so we are not talking about a lengthy delay. we're not going to be dilatory in any way. we've only asked for relevant evidence. it could be reviewed expeditiously, four four witne, four sets of documents, the men who were in the room where it happened. no more, no less. that's reasonable. that's why the american people are so strongly in favor of witnesses and documents. every day the number gets higher, there's a number number i saw on tv today, 75%. my republican colleagues only have to, only have the answer is this, the question my republican colleagues have to answer, is president trump so insistent on immediate acquittal that the senate trial cannot take one second longer to have a fair trial? now, the second line -- that's coming out from senate republicans is there's no reason to hear from witnesses because even if they prove the president did what he was accused of, it would not be i

with mulvaney. he was also tapped and elevated to be the special representative for international telecom policy. this involves china, huawei, 5g. and mulvaney himself led the budget operations before coming over as the chief of staff. so these are two individuals who are deeply knowledgeable about how to use the u.s. budgetary and payment processes, the purse strings, to -- as leverage for policy and for power. and so it is only natural, it only makes sense that there would be a lot of communication between the budget office and the chief of staff's office because this is the lever that mulvaney and his top aides know best how to use. >> david, house leadership says it will transmit articles of impeachment after hearing how the senate would conduct its trial. senate majority leader mitch mcconnell said just yesterday, friday, this about his plan followed by a response coming from the senate minority leader, chuck schumer. listen. >> just like 20 years ago, we should address mid-trial questions, suc

mulvaney to testify. on the day of mr. mulvaney's scheduled deposition, the white house sent a letter to his personal attorney it prohibited from obeying the subpoena and the letter said "the president directs mr. mulvaney not to appear at the committee's scheduled deposition." when he issued this order, president trump doubled down on his previous blanket order. he did so after the house voted to approve resolution 660, which in no uncertain terms made clear that mr. mulvaney was being subpoenaed to testify in and impeachment investigation. this order was the first of many. president trump also ordered another white house official, robert blair not to testify. mr. blair is mr. mulvaney's senior adviser and his closest aide. he was involved in communications about the hold on ukraine aid, the day after his initially scheduled deposition, mr. blair's personal attorney sent a letter to the house. it said "mr. blair has been directed by the white house not to appear and testify." the house also wanted testimony from john eise

mulvaney denied being on the phone when he spoke to rudy giuliani. mr. bolton writes that mr. mulvaney was on the phone with rudy and the president was witdiscussing the removal of mis you ottovicmarie yovanovitch. a a large number of people were in the loop on the scheme. as ambassador sondland said another all covering up. it seems like not only is there more evidence that the president held the aide up to get a political gain an investigation but there seems to be a giant cover-up among so many of the leading people in the white house who knew about it and said nothing let alone try to stop it. if there was ever even a shred of logic left not to hear witnesses and review the documents, mr. bolton book just erase it. the manuscript was sent to the white house over a month ago, the president ordered everyone with first-hand knowledge not to testify in the impeachment inquiry. were all staring a white house cover-up in the face. it is so clear what is going on here. >> i don't need spell it out for you, if senate republicans are not going to vote to call mr. bolton and mr. mul

mick mulvaney, they're not concerned about. he has already talked about needing permission from the president, and that's how he handled the house. john bolton has sense said he would comply with a senate subpoena. the concern with the white house is is you have to go through a process of making sure that information that bolton was privy to was classified and then go to court. so, we already saw some discussions around court cases in the house inquiry. you would likely see something similar here if it got to that point. >> ryan, what do you make of how that goes though at this point? is something like privilege or immunity something that would be upheld in any serious way given that so much of what is being discussed is already public? >> right. so, the idea that bolton can come testify and then claim executive privilege doesn't work so well since we've already had his deputies present evidence in the house. so, the idea that the president needs to maintain confidentiality, very communications have been disclosed to the public

mulvaney's attorney. i will read in full. the latest word from the near times correlated with the book launch with publicity of the truth. john bolton did not inform mick mulvaney of any concerns surrounding bolton's august conversation with the president. nor did mr. mulvaney ever have a conversation with the president or anyone else indicating the ukrainian military aid was withheld in exchange for ukrainian investigation of breeze must, the bidens or the 2016 election, furthermore mr. mulvaney has no recollection of any reasonably mr. bolton's manuscript as it was mr. mulvaney's practice to excuse himself from conversation between the president and the personal counsel to preserve any privilege. so i wanted to read the statement simple so everyone had the full context. even after mr. philbin referenced the statement after the press conference the house managers again mr. mulvaney admitted there was a quid pro quo. that is not true. as mr. mulvaney misspoke or the words were gargled he corrected it that day and has been ver

i'm briefing chief of staff mulvaney. i'm briefing secretary pompeo, and iowa talked to ambassador bolton. who else do i have to deal with? and the point is we have a robust interagency process that deals with eukraine. it includes mr. holmes. it ambassador taylor as the charge d'affairs in ukraine. but it struck me yesterday when you put up on the screen ambassador sondland's emails and said who were on these emails, he said these are the people that need to know. he was absolutely right because he was being involved in a domestic political errand, and we were being involved in national security foreign policy. and those two things had just diverged. >> so the evidence is very clear. the white house meeting would only be scheduled if ukraine announced the investigations that everyone, including the ukrainians understood to be purely political efforts to benefit the president. the only way to come to a different conclusion is to ignore the evidence. one additional way you can tell that this conduct is truly corrupt and no

you know we should at least hear from mick mulvaney, you know we should hear from john bolton. you can't have all the smoking gun emails out there and not get to the facts and if the president believes that somehow this information is going to exonerate him, what is he afraid of? [reporter questioning] >> i thought adam schiff's argument at the end and i have made some of these arguments myself, he put it in the national security context, the argument is why do we need this evidence? russia was watching, russia has been watching the whole time and having been to ukraine with ambassador yovanovitch along with senator mccain and the senator graham and stood on that front line new year's eve right after donald trump got elected where senator mccain made the point of bringing us there because he wanted to send a clear message to russia that america stood with our allies, that america stood with ukraine and to think about the fact that they are watching as this president, president trump holds back the aid and messes around with it, they are watching to see, this is a country they h

mulvaney in more detail. and he made clear that it was about specific investigations that would benefit president trump personally. here's lieutenant colonel vindman testifying where he explains that ambassador sondland preferred to the biden burisma in the 2016 election which had nothing to do with national security policy. let's watch. >> were the investigations, the specific investigations that on -- ambassador sondland discussed in the boardroom meeting? what did ambassador sondland say? >> ambassador something referred to investigations into bite and then burisma and 2016. >> how did you respond if at all? >> i said the request to conduct these meetings was inappropriate these investigations were inappropriate and had nothing to do with national security policy. >> nothing to do with national security policy. that about sums it up, doesn't it? it had nothing to do with national security policy. president trump's scheme was for his personal interest, not national security. and his testimony once again is

named aide to mulvaney obert blair who is basically a deputy and a staffer for mulvaney and michael duffy, a at the office of who was t and budget involved in actually halting the to ukraine. of aid they want those witnesses. not saying they were close not.dential advisors or obviously mulvaney and bolton did. and another would. another reason for this courtside playing out the way it might is the question of whether john bolton might be more entitled to, or the president more entitled to executive privilege because of bolton's role as a national security advisor as opposed to just a general white house lawyer or a routine policy official. there are some previous rulings from the court suggesting those kinds of officials that work on foreign-policy and national security matters might be entitled to some more deference. exactly how that would play out as curious. there is also this question of whether john roberts, as i said earlier, the chief justice, would rule immediately on a motion like that or whether he would wait for the legal dispute to make its way through the court system

how about mick mulvaney who john bolton referred to. on december 3rd, president trump said i want mick to testify in the senate trial meaning mick mulvaney so we have president trump on record number 30 staying he wants mick mulvaney testify here in the trial. and rescue senate republicans to comic mulvaney just as president trump has said he will. so we have heard from senator mcconnell that the big difference that this is the same as the clintons. the and as senator schumer has said previously, is he huge difference between where we are right now in the clinton trial specifically all of the witnesses that will requested to testify in the senate trial had already given testimony on oath on penalty of perjury in previous related proceedings. where that witnesses that we have called for have not given any testimony but i did hear senate mcconnell still want to stick to the clinton model. in think we all want to remind him that on the current model, at the end of the day, there will witnesses. and there will witnesses. so if we are going

but what about mulvaney? when they say no witnesses made the direct, no witnesses could directly put words in the president's mouth. well, first of all, of course, gordon sondland did, but what about mick mulvaney who admitted in a press conference just like this, of course we did. it happens all the time. get over it. no mention of the president's chief of staff. now, why is that? gets me to my final point before this i turn it over to my colleagues, why did they make no mention of mick mulvaney. why would they have you look away from the fact that the president's own chief of staff has admitted to the most pernicious part of this scheme which is the withholding of military aid to get ukraine to do these investigations. why would they make no mention of that? it gets back to something they argued in the first two minutes of their presentation when they were attacking the house managers. they said, the house managers' goal should be to give you all of the facts. that is our goal. it's just not theirs. because

mick mulvaney has said he disputes what john bolton mass to say. let them call mick mulvaney, let them call mike pompeo, for this corrupt scheme. if they want witness for witness, that's not what they want. they want a distraction and i don't think the senators want to allow their proceedings to be turned into a circus. >> republicans are now arguing senator paul among them that john bolton is not a credible witness. they're saying that his intentions might not be as clean, clean as it's perceived to be. what would you say to that argument about bolton's credibility? are you concerned at all about how the american public will perceive him, certainly some republicans are trying to paint him as a person who has a vendetta and against the president. >> well, let me turn to somebody-- yes, thank you. >> you know, the chairman has already eloquently said that this trial and the republicans tactics is to create distractions, to distort, deceive, distract. i would be more concerned, based on evidence that we have all heard about the president's credibilit

mulvaney's attorney. i will read in full. the latest word from the near times correlated with the book launch with publicity of the truth. john bolton did not inform mick mulvaney of any concerns surrounding bolton's august conversation with the president. nor did mr. mulvaney ever have a conversation with the president or anyone else indicating the ukrainian military aid was withheld in exchange for ukrainian investigation of breeze must, the bidens or the 2016 election, furthermore mr. mulvaney has no recollection of any reasonably mr. bolton's manuscript as it was mr. mulvaney's practice to excuse himself from conversation between the president and the personal counsel to preserve any privilege. so i wanted to read the statement simple so everyone had the full context. even after mr. philbin referenced the statement after the press conference the house managers again mr. mulvaney admitted there was a quid pro quo. that is not true. as mr. mulvaney misspoke or the words were gargled he corrected it that day and has been ver

. >> bolton, mulvaney? >> bolten, mulvaney. i don't think bolton agreed with it. i think between me and bolton we could fit in all the dots. i think because i was on the ground there and he was over here. >> and you'd be willing to testify? >> i would be very willing to testify. >> a new revelation from parnas also suggests the pressure campaign started long before volodymyr zelensky was elected president of ukraine. >> so the first quid pro quo again was when we met with president poroshenko -- >> former president. >> former president poroshenko. >> so what was your message to poroshenko? >> he would make the message that he would get -- trump would either invite him to the white house or make a statement for him but basically would start supporting him for president. >> parnas' information is key because under a new house resolution impeachment managers have the authority to submit new evidence. the president has repeatedly tried to distance himself from parnas and his business partner despite pictures of them all together. all parties involved here have denied

mulvaney still refused, we'd make a motion asking the chief justice to order mulvaney to comply. we could settle any and all potential claims of executive privilege -- >> we're going to keep on this trial -- if that press conference leads to something. i want to ask you, the democrats keep saying all the chief justice has to do is join them in a subpoena and it doesn't matter if there is executive privilege claims. is that true? these are different branches. >> here's the thing -- let me apes it quickly. i think the answer is yes but i think the answer is yes not because of the question you were about to ask me on the law but because bolton has already said he would come and testify if subpoenaed and it becomes much, much, much more difficult, i think for him not to in particular if all of the participants in the trial have lined up around it. the truth about executive privilege but going to the legal point, one, the constitution gives the senate the sole authority to govern its trial and the impeachment clause is very clear on this, executive privilege is the kind of privilege y

blair is mulvaney's senior advisor. did blair know about the teethree / mulvaney deal? did they know they were leveraging official white house of visits and then to get ukraine to invent on - - investigate the political rival? the white house could not provide any reason. throughout this period officials across the executive branch started asking questions. questions about the freeze on military aid. on july 17 or 18, duffey e-mailed player. he asked about the reason for the freeze. but he got no explanation. instead blair insisted "we need to let the hold take place. and they could revisit the issue with the president later". in the house we heard testimony from multiple officials including ambassador taylor with the top diplomat in ukraine and also heard from several other officials from the department of defense and omb that no one, no one heard any credible evidence for any credible explanation for the freeze at the time. no one. not up. senators, not even the top us diplomat to create on - - ukraine had any idea as to why the president had ordered the funds frozen.

mick mulvaney says we do that all the time with foreign policy. we were holding money at the same time for it. >> the white house alter then and subsequently has been that's about something in 2016 not about 2020. that's their deliberation not mine that's their words . it's not about cheating in 2020 it's about looking back at something in 201 and that's within the president's prerogative. if he wants to hold aid in pursuit of that, that is a presidential power. this particular president is more than happy to exercise. it's a political debate whether they're comfortable with that standard but that's the trump standard. >> is that a political debate or legal debate. i apologize. i just want to bring in lisa desjardins who is at the white house because we did hear from the he had this morning. let us all know exactly how much this push back has been from the white house not only the president but his advisors. >> well of course the white house is trying to argue that john bolton is making these claims from one reason, because he has a book to sell b

mulvaney? >> correct. >> remarkably, the president is still denying the facts, even as they argue that if it's true, it's still not impeachable. but if the president did nothing wrong, if he held up the aid because of so-called corruption or burden sharing reasons, he should want his chief of staff to come testify under oath before this distinguished body and say just that. why doesn't he want mulvaney to appear before the united states senate? well, we know the answer, because mr. mulvaney will confirm the corrupt shakedown sche scheme, because mr. mulvaney was in the loop. everyone was in the loop. as ambassador sondland summarized in his testimony on july 19th, he e-mailed several top administration officials including mr. mulvaney that president zelensky was prepared to receive potus's call and would ensure president trump that he intends to run a fully transparent investigation and will turn over every stone. mr. mulvaney replied i asked nsc to set it up for tomorrow. the above email seems

they are saying, mick mulvaney, and that is in detail. that is not what mick mulvaney set at all. he did say get over it but he was talking specifically about the fact that there are foreign policies. they will have a different political flavor and different policy agenda than one donald trump is. and each president they are elected is fulfilling his mandate. he wasn't saying this kind of quid pro quo, get over it, just accept it, he was talking specifically about the idea of policy and politics in a foreign policy agenda. so quite frankly, and i think that adam schiff made an effective auditing comic argument for his side of the case but he completely misrepresented what mick mulvaney said when he said, "get over it." >> we seen that a few times in terms of adam schiff, and the president understandably has not let him forget it. in that moment with mick mulvaney as well and even the parsing of the actual transcript itself, would you do us a favor and, sort of linking not to the actual activity of the request for the investigation, there has been a lot of sort of massaging of word

mister mick mulvaney admitted it. the president's counsel must have eyewitnesses but you are not allowed to have them. mister sekulow's view of the trial is kafkaesque. remember the book the trial? okay. it is a novel. a short novel. not a long story. frankly the hypocrisy of mister sekulow's argument was not lost on senators. i'm sure even republicans added this up, the hypocrisy. if anything, sekulow's case made the case for witnesses and documents even stronger. so inadvertently he helped us. i remain hopeful that four republican senators will join us in supporting witnesses and documents in his trial. it is an uphill fight as i always said, but the public is on our side and truth above all is on our side. that is why we are still in the fight. i want to talk about three lines of pushback they are using, tremendous pressure trump/mcconnell are using on republican senators to get them to avoid the crucial vote on witnesses and documents. the first is it will take too long. heard that one. number one in their own cau

there are two, mulvaney and bolton. yes, this is messy. they would have preferred the house had john bolton, the house fought this out in the court. they have a legitimate argument to say, why didn't this happen here, why is it happening there? that's great, but it is happening. the president is on trial for impeachment. john bolton said there was a quid pro quo. that didn't just fall from the sky. you're right, it was a lie about mick mulvaney. here's john bolton saying, hello. do they want to be the ground ostrich party and stick their head in the ground and hope they can run out the clock? that is their choice. >> dana, you have a special guest now. >> that's right. i'm here with senator amy klobuchar. she is back from iowa, just off the plane. we won't show your footwear. >> it's just tennis shoes. >> tell me what your thoughts are and if you've had a chance, more porchtimportantly, to spea your colleagues as things have been scrambled up here when it comes to witnesses. >> i think this is a game changer, because i sat there and listen

i'm briefing chief of staff mulvaney. i'm briefing secretary pompeo and i've talked to ambassador bolton. who else do i have to deal with?" and the point is we have a robust interagency process that deals with ukraine. it includes mr. holmes, includes ambassador taylor, it includes a whole lot of other people, but it struck me when yesterday when you put up on the screen ambassador sondland's emails who was on these emails and he said these are the people who need to know that he was absolutely right because he was being involved in a domestic political errand and we were being involved in national security foreign policy and those two things had just diverged. >> so the evidence is very clear, the white house meeting would only be scheduled if ukraine announced the investigations that everyone, including the ukrainians, understood to be purely political efforts to benefit the president. the only way to come to a different conclusion is to ignore the evidence. one additional way you can tell that this conduct is truly cor

the national security council legal advisor that he was not part of whatever drug deals online and mulvaney are cooking up on this she reported her concerns as did been it remains unclear what action if any bolton or isenberg took once they were made aware of mulvaney and so on lynn's drug deal both refused to testify in our inquiry however dr hill testified that she understood that mr eisenberg informed mr cipel loney of her concerns about the drug deal if this body is serious about a fair trial one that is fair to the president and to the american people we again urge you to allow the house to call both eisenberg and bolton as well as other key witnesses with firsthand knowledge who refused to testify before the house on the orders of the president additional testimony and documents are particularly important because according to sagal and everyone was in the loop when it came to the president's self-serving effort. in part relying on e-mail excerpts song and explained to the president senior aides and cabinet officials knew that the white house meeting was predicated on ukraine's announc

mulvaney has issued two statements. one after his press conference and then one monday after "the new york times" article concerning mr. bolton's alleged manuscript. the alleged statements in his mamt. i think the easiest thing is to read them. to understand what he said and to put it into context for everyone in the chamber. which is the from, this is day of the press conference. once again, the media has decided to misconstrue my comments to advance a biassed and political witch hunt against president trump. let me be clear. there was absolutely no quid pro quo between ukrainian military aid and any investigation into the 2016 election. the president never told me to withhold any money until the ukrainians did anything related to the server. the only reasons we were holding the money was because of concern about lack of support from other nations and concerns over corruption. multiple times during the more than 30-minute briefing where i took over 25 questions, i referred to president trump's interest in rooting out c

>> bolton. >> mulvaney? >> mulvaney. >> now, does he have credibility problems? yup. frankly more so than you've seen in the first interviews. he has to be tested why he did what he's charged with doing and how it stands up. i argue it's a reason the senate wants him in. they'll slice him up like cheese, the documents they have a problem with. he says things that aren't different than what we've heard before. remember this? >> everyone was in the loop. it was no secret. >> same thing parnas says, but unlike sondland right there, his perfect call that he had with the president, where the president said no quid pro quo, right? he had no record of it. the white house has no record of it. the state department either doesn't have a record of it or won't turn it over. parnas has documents that stand alone and substantiate his role and what this was about. like what? notes about the objective. get zelensky to announce the biden case will be investigated. the stated price, get rid of the u.s. ambassador. by the way, that could be a bribe all by itself, just so you know. and t

>> bolton. >> mulvaney? >> mulvaney. >> now, does he have credibility problems? yup. frankly more so than you've seen in these first interviews. he has to be tested why he did what he's charged with doing and how it stands up. i argue it's a reason the senate should want him in. they'll slice him up like cheese. the documents they'll have a problem with because he says things that aren't different than what we've heard before. remember this? >> everyone was in the loop. it was no secret. >> same thing parnas says, but unlike sondland right there, his perfect call that he had with the president, where the president said no quid pro quo, right? he had no record of it. the white house has no record of it. the state department either doesn't have a record of it or won't turn it over. parnas has documents that stand alone and substantiate his role and what this was about. like what? notes about the objective. get zelensky to announce the biden case will be investigated. the stated price, get rid of the u.s. ambassador. by the way, that could be a bribe all by itself, just

mulvaney e-mailed his senior adviser, mr. blair, did we ever find out about the money for ukraine and whether we can hold it back? this shows that mister mulvaney was in the video contact with his aides about the various issues under investigation as part of this impeachment. it tells us that the white house is in possession of communications that go to the heart of the charges before you. this and it should also get materials prepared for sunday notes for the late august meeting with president trump, mark esper, as secretary of state mike pompeo when they tried to give us the president that freeing -- "freeing up the money for ukraine was the right thing to do." according to "the new york times," and rasir bolton told the president, this was in america's interest." this and it should that highly relevant document which reflects real-time assertions by president trump's own senior aide that ukrainian aid was in the national security interest of the united states, and that there was no legitimate reason to hold up the aide. th

you don't need to hear from mick mulvaney. there's no need for these documents from the pentagon because we have the evidence that exonerates the president. that never happened. and i thought the democratic managers did a pretty smart thing in the course of responding to these motions about witnesses and documents. they essentially made their case. they had the video clips. they had outlines on the screen of what the emails said. and they -- in a sense, they got a head start on the trial through the course of these motions. and adam schiff demonstrated a really pretty amazing command of the facts and of the nature of the case and his demeanor, i thought, was impressive. he was even in tone and as i say, extremely knowledgeable. but they -- again, one of my notes was they're making their case now before we even start the trial. >> were you impressed by the president's defense team? jay sekulow and cipollone? >> not really. i'm being honest. because they didn't make any substantive points. they kept making their point over and o

why did they make no engine of mick mulvaney. why would they have you look away from the fact that the president's own chief of staff has admitted to the most biggest part of the scheme, withholding the military aid to get you train ukraine to do these investigations. >> white when they make no mention of that. it gets back to something they argued in the first two minutes of the presentation. and they were attacking the house managers, they said the house manager news goal should be to give you all of the facts. that is our goal. it is just not theirs. because make mulvaney, some of these facts. another name you did hear was john bolton. john bolton has some of these facts. you did hear the name blair or other witnesses that the president is so confident that this is really about corruption and about trying to smear an opponent, is a one to two here. the one question they did not address at all is why they don't want to give the american people a fair trial. why did they want this to be the first impeachment case in history with

[inaudible] mick mulvaney, let's look at the baseline. mick mulvaney was subpoenaed, john bolton was asked to testify. he was said he would not testify without being subpoenaed periods. [inaudible] kennedy: they did not want to go down that road. there isn't an agreement there there's three roads, that's the third road sometimes you have to go down that road and be patient. but we conclude that this impeachment nonsense. >> if the president has nothing to hide issue also jesse doesn't, he should release everyone to talk freely. the president put a hold on everybody. he said you're not allowed to testify. [inaudible] kennedy: i wish we had 25 minutes to fill a bus but we don't. >> i must say i do understand the president's position on this. when you consider his entire political career has been defined by his opponents going to foreign leaders or plotting domestically to spy on him and to set him up for all of these terrible things. >> that's ridiculous that the lies. kennedy: that's not ridiculous and it's not a lie you know that. [inaudi

it seems clear this entire thing is run through mulvaney and mulvaney is the one talking to trump on a regular basis. i'm wondering if you agree with that. do you think mulvaney is more important than bolton, because, frankly with bolton, it's not clear what he's going to say. >> i'm not sure what either one of them are going to say. mulvaney has said on record in a press interview there was quid pro quo. he said, hey, we do this all the time. get used to it. i think he would be a critical witness. i also think that mr. bolton is critical, along with many other people that the white house is not allowing to testify. >> senator duckworth, i appreciate your time, thank you. >> thank you. >>> just ahead, a check in at the white house and the president's defense team, how his team plans to rebut the charges made by house democrats. [♪] are you currently using a whitening toothpaste, but not seeing results? try crest 3d whitestrips. its enamel-safe formula lifts and removes stains to provide 100% noticeably whiter teeth or your money back. try crest 3d whitestrips. rowithout the commiss

mulvaney of one of several witnesses democrats want to hear from at the trial. the few interview airs tonight. >>> for just the third time in history americans will witness an impeached president facing trial in the senate. one notable change from the clinton trial in 1999, cnn has learned the senate impeachment resolution guarantees there will be a vote on whether to hear from witnesses. there's growing pressure on moderate republican senators who could shape the trial with votes on witnesses and other evidence. >> a remarkable, really remarkable split screen moment wednesday, the president signing his long promised phase one trade agreement with china hours before house speaker nancy pelosi signed impeachment articles designed to remove him from office. pelosi handing out the pens used to sign the articles, a move usually reserved for more celebratory occasions. what we see on capitol hill today hasn't happened in over 20 years. >> with the permission of the senate i will now read the articles of impeachment. >> history unfolds in just hours. cnn's phil mattin

why can't we hear from mulvaney? he knew exactly what trump did, exactly what trump's motivations were, and who else was in on the deal. there seem to be many of them. it was incredible. one more thing stood out. the managers were anticipating the counterarguments from the president's council. they wanted to go forward. they did an excellent job showing how the president doesn't need to have committed a criminal offense to be impeached and removed from office reflecting on what impeachment meant to our founding fathers. representative garcia explained how the president's insinuations about the bidens are baseless, anticipating the president's lawyers will focus on the bidens. adam schiff had an absurd idea that donald trump terribly it is care deeply about corruption in foreign countries. it was a brilliant strategy. of the president's council gets up to make those arguments, every republican senator and the american people will have heard already why those arguments are utter nonsense. in short, the house managers h