>> mr. Chief justice, members of the senate, counsel for the president, impeachment exists not to inflict personal punishment for past wrong doing, but rather to protect against future presidential misconduct that would endanger democracy and the rule of law. President trump remains a threat in at least three fundamental ways.

First, he continues to assert in court and elsewhere that nobody in the u.S. Government can investigate him for wrong doing, making him unaccountable. Second, his conduct here is not a one off. It's a pattern of soliciting foreign interference in our elections to his own advantage and then using the powers of his office to stop anyone who dares in ininvestigate. Finally, the president's obstruction is very much a constitutional crime in progress. Harming congress as it deliberates these very proceedings and the american people who deserve to know the facts.

A president who believes he can get away with anything and can use his office to conceal evidence of abuse threatens us all. President trump is the first president in u.S. History to say he is immune from any effort to examine his conduct or check his power. He claims he is completely immune from criminal indictment and prosecution while serving as president. He claims he can commit any crime, even shoot someone on fifth avenue as he has joked about with impunity. And the president's own lawyers have argued in court that he cannot even be investigated for violating the law under any circumstance. Now, no president of either party has ever made claims like this. And if in an investigation somehow does uncover misconduct by the president as this investigation has done, the president believes that he can simply quash it.

He claims the right to end federal law enforcement investigations for any reason or none at all even when there is credible evidence of his own wrong doing. Added together, the president's positions amount to a license to do anything he wants. No court has ever accepted this view and for good reason. Our founders created a system in which all people, even presidents, are bound by the law and accountable for their actions.

In addition to claiming that he is immune from criminal process, president trump contends that he is not accountable to either congress or the judiciary.

He has invoked bizarre legal theories to justify defying congressional investigations.

He has argued that congress is forbidden from having courts intervene with executive branch officials disregarding its subpoenas.

He has sued to block third parties from complying with congressional subpoenas. And perhaps most remarkably, president trump has claimed that congress cannot investigate his misconduct outside of an impeachment inquiry while simultaneously claiming that congress cannot investigate his misconduct in an impeachment inquiry.

Of course president trump considers any inquiry to be illegitimate if he thinks he did nothing wrong, doubts the motives of congress or decides that he would prefer a different set of rules. Let's review the president's position.

He can't be investigated for crimes. He can end any federal law enforcement investigation into him. He is immune from any state law enforcement investigation. Underneath he nor his aides can be subpoenaed. He can reject subpoenas based on broad, novel, and even rejected theories. And when he does reject subpoenas, congress is not allowed to sue him. But he is allowed to sue to block others from complying with congressional subpoenas. Congress definitely can't investigate him outside of an impeachment inquiry. And again, it can't investigate him as part of one.

The bottom line is that the president truly believes that he is above the law. This is not our system, and it never has been. The president is a constitutional officer. Unlike a king, he is accountable to the constitution. But this president doesn't believe that. And that's why we are here. Remember the precedent that you set in this trial will shape american democracy for the future. It will govern this president and it will govern those who follow. If you let the president get away with his obstruction, you risk grave and irrepairable harm to the separation of powers itself. Representative lawrence hogan, a republican from maryland made this point during the nixon impeachment hearings. >> the historical precedent we're setting here is so great because in every future impeachment of a president it is inconceivable that the evidence relating to that impeachment will not be in the hands of the executive branch which is under his controls. So, I agree with the gentleman from ohio. If we do not pass this article today, the whole impeachment power becomes meaningless.

this leads us to a second consideration. The president's pattern of obstructing. Article two describes president trump's impeachable conduct in obstructing congress. On its own, that warrants removal from office. Yet it must be noted that the president's obstruction fits a disturbing pattern. As stated in article two, president trump's obstruction is, quote, consistent with his previous efforts to undermine united states government investigations into foreign interference in united states elections. Another example is president trump's attempts to impede the special counsel's investigation into russian interference with the 2016 election as well as the president's sustained evidence to obstruct the special counsel after learning that he was under investigation for obstruction of justice.

The special counsel's investigation addressed an issue of extraordinary importance to our national security and democracy. The integrity of our elections themselves. Rather than aid the special counsel's investigation, however, president trump sought to thwart it and use the power of his office to do it. After learning he himself is under investigation, president trump ordered the firing of the special counsel, sought to curtail the special counsel's investigation, instructed false statements, and tampered with at least two key witnesses in the investigation. The pattern is as unmistakable as it is unnerving. In one moment, president trump welcomed and invited a foreign nation to interfere in an election to his advantage. In the next, he solicited and pressured a foreign nation to do so. In one moment president trump used the powers of his office to obstruct the special counsel. In the next he used the powers of his office to obstruct the inquiry. In one moment he stated he remained free to invite foreign interference in our elections. In the next he in fact invited foreign interference in our elections. >> and by the way, likewise, china should start an investigation into the bidens.

indeed, president trump placed his faithful July 25th call to president zelensky just one day after the special counsel testified in congress about his findings. As professor gerhardt testified, goat the power to investigation is the power to impeach. He can eliminate the impeachment powers and means for holding him and future presidents accountable for serious misconduct. If left unchecked, the president will likely continue his pattern of soliciting foreign interference on his behalf in the next election. Now, I must emphasize that president trump's obstruction persists to this day. The second article of impeachment charges a high crime in progress. As a result, the president's wrong doing did not just harm the house as we have performed our own constitutional duty. It is also harming the senate which is being deprived of information you need before the votes you will soon take. And of course the true victim is the american people who deserve the full truth. As we've discussed, the president's claims that all the evidence he is hiding and cover up would prove his innocence. To borrow a phrase from the late justice scalia, that claim, quote, taxes the credulous. President trump has used the authority of his office to block the full truth from coming to light. He has defied subpoenas and ordered others to do so. He has publicly intimidated and threatened witnesses. He has attacked the house for daring to investigate him. And hi has lobbed an endless volley of attacks on witnesses to sow confusion and distract the american people. The president's abuses are unfolding before our eyes, and they must be stopped.

Now, before I conclude, I think you all deserve an explanation from me as to why I am standing here. There's been a lot of conversation the last few years about what makes america great. And I have some ideas about that. I happen to think that what makes america great is that generation after generation there have been americans that have been willing to stand up and put aside their self-interests to make great sacrifices for the public good for our country. I know because I have seen people do that. Like some of the people in this chamber, I have seen people give everything for this country. So, we can sit here today. Now, this isn't politically expedient. It certainly isn't for me. It's hard. It requires sacrifice. It's uncomfortable. But that is the very definition of public service, that we are here to give of ourselves for the country, for others at sacrifice to ourselves. Those who have given so much for this country deserve nothing less from us now than to try to honor those sacrifices. I have tried to do that the last few days. My time is done, and it is now your turn.

chief justice, senators, counsel for the president, you'll be pleased to know this is the last presentation of the evening. And as I started last night, I made reference to some good advice I got from an encouraging voice that said keep it up, but not too long. Tonight I got equally good advice, to be immortal, you don't need to be eternal. And I will do my best not to be eternally eternal. First point I'd like to make is I'm tired. I don't know about you, but I'm exhausted. I can only imagine how you feel. But I'm also very deeply grateful for just how you have attended to these presentations and discussions over the last few days, deeply grateful. I can tell how much consideration you have given to our point of view and the president's point of view, and that's all we can ask. At the end of the day, all we can ask is that you hear us out and make the best judgment that you can consistent with your conscience and our constitution.

Now, I wanted to start out tonight with where we began when we first appeared before you about a week ago, and that is with the resolution itself, with what the president is charged with in the articles and how that holds up now that you have heard the evidence from the house. Donald trump was impeached in article one for abuse of power. And that article provides that in his conduct of the office of president of the united states and in violation of his constitutional oath faithfully to execute the office oof president of the united states and to the best of his ability preserve, protect, and defend the constitution of the united states and in violation of his constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, donald j. Trump has abused the powers of his presidency in that using the powers of his high office, president trump solicited the interference of the foreign government to ukraine in the 2020 united states presidential election. President trump solicited the interference of a foreign government, ukraine, in the 2020 election. That has been proved. He did so through a scheme or course of conduct that included soliciting ukraine to publicly announce to harm the election prospects of a political opponent and influence the 2020 u.S. Presidential election to his advantage. That has been proved. President trump also sought to pressure the government of ukraine to take these steps by conditioning official u.S. Government acts of significant value of ukraine on public announcement of the investigations. That has been proved. President trump engaged in the scheme or course of conduct for corrupt purposes in pursuit of personal political benefit that has been proved in doing so, the manner that compromised the national security of the united states and undermined the integrity of the united states democratic process. That has been proved. He thus injured, ignored and injured the interest of the nation. That has been proved. President trump engaged in the scheme or course of conduct through the following means. President trump acting both directly and through his agents within and outside the united states government, corruptly solicited the government of ukraine to publicly announce investigations into, atiajoseph biden jr. That has been disproved.

Alleging ukraine rather than russia interfered in the 2016 united states presidential election. That has been proved. With the same corrupt motives, president trump acting both directly and through his agents within and outside the u.S. Government conditioned two official acts on the public announcements he had requested. The release of $391 million of u.S. Taxpayer funds that congress had appropriated on a bipartisan basis for the purpose of providing vital military and security assistance to ukraine to oppose russian aggression and which president trump had ordered suspended. That has been proved. And "b," a head of state meeting at the white house in which the president of ukraine sought to demonstrate continued united states support for the government of ukraine in the face of russian aggression. That has been proved. Faced with public revelation of his actions, president trump ultimately released the military and security assistance to the government of ukraine. But has persisted in openly and corruptly urging and soliciting ukraine to undertake investigations for his personal political benefit. That has been proved. These actions were consistent with president trump's previous invitations of foreign interference in u.S. Elections. That has been proved.

In all of this, president trump abused the powers of the presidency by ignoring and injuring national security and other vital national interests to obtain an improper personal political benefit. That has been proved. He also betrayed the nation by abusing his high office to enlist a foreign power in corrupting democratic elections. That has been proved. Wherefore, president trump has by such conduct remain a threat to national security and the constitution allowed to remain in office and acted in a manner grossly incompatible with self-governments and the rule of law, that has been proved. President trump thus warrants impeachment and trial removal from office and disqualification to hold and enjoy any honor, trust or profit under the united states, that will be for you to decide. But the facts have been proved. The president shall be removed from office on impeachment for and conviction of treason, bribery and other high crimes and misdemeanors. In his conduct of the office of the president, in violation of the constitutional oath, faithfully to execute the office of the president of the united states to the best of his ability, preserve, protect and defend the constitution of the united states. And in violation of his constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, donald j. Trump has directed the unprecedented categorical and indiscriminate defiance of subpoenas issued by the house of representatives pursuant to its sole power of impeachment. That has been proved.

President trump has abused the powers of the presidency in a manner offensive to and subversive of the constitution in that the house of representatives has engaged in an impeachment inquiry focused on president trump's corrupt solicitation of the government of ukraine to interfere in the 2020 u.S. Presidential election. That has been proved.

As part of this impeachment inquiry, the committees undertaking the subpoenas, deemed vital to the inquiry for various executive branch agencies and offices and current and former officials. That has been proved. In response without lawful cause or excuse, president trump directed executive branch agencies, offices and officials not to comply with those subpoenas. That has been proved. President trump thus interposed the powers of the presidency against the lawful subpoenas of the house of representatives and assume to himself, functions and judgments necessary to exercise the sole power of impeachment vested in the constitution, in the house of representatives, that has been proved. President trump abused the powers of his high office through the following means. Number one, directing the white house to defy a lawful subpoena by withholding the production of documents sought therein by the committees. That has been proved. Directing other executive branch agencies and offices to defy lawful subpoenas and withhold the production of documents and records from the committees in response to which the department of state, office of management budget, department of energy, department of defense failed to produce a single record or document. That has been proved. Directing current and former executive branch officials not to cooperate with the committees in response to which nine administration officials defied subpoenas for testimony, namely, john michael mick mulvaney, robert b. Blare, john a. Eisenberg, michael ellis, preston wells griffith, russell t., brian mccormick and t. Ulrick brekbill. That has been proved.

These actions were consistent with president trump's previous efforts to undermine united states government investigations into foreign interference and u.S. Elections, that has been proved. Through these actions, president trump sought to irrigate to himself the right to determine the propriety, scope and nature of the inquiry into his own conduct as well as the prerogative to deny any and all information to the house of representatives in the exercise of its sole power of impeachment. That has been proved.

In the history of the republic, no president has ever ordered the complete defiance of an impeachment inquiry or sought to obstruct and impede so comprehensively the ability of the house of representatives to investigate high crimes and misdemeanors. That has been proved. The abuse of office served to cover up the president's own repeated misconduct and to seize and control the power of impeachment and thus to nullify a vital safeguard vested solely in the house of representatives. That has been proved.

In all of this, president trump has acted in a manner contrary to his trust. As president and subversive of constitutional government to the great prejudice of the cause of law and justice and to the manifest injury of the people of the united states. That has been proved. Whereas or wherefore, president trump a threat to the constitution if allowed to remain in office and acted in a manner grossly incompatible with self-government and the rule of law. That has been proved. President trump thus warrants impeachment and trial removal from office and disqualification to hold and enjoy any office of honor, trust, or profit under the united states that will be for you to determine. Let me say something about this second article. The facts of the president's defiance of congress are very simple. Because they were so uniform, because they were so categorical, because they are so uncontested.

But do not mistake for a moment the fact that it was simple and quick to present that course of conduct compared with the sophisticated campaign to coerce ukraine into thinking that that second article is any less significant than the first. Do not believe that for a moment. If there is no article ii, let me tell you something, there will never be an article I. If there's no article ii, there will never of any kind of shape or form be another an article I. Why? There will never be an article I, whether it's abuse of power or that article I is treason or that article I is bribery, there will never be an article I if the congress can't investigate an impeachable offense. If the congress cannot because the president prevents it, investigate the president's own wrongdoing, there will never be an article I. Because there will be no more impeachment power. It will be gone. It will be gone.

As I said before, our relationship with ukraine will survive. God willing, our relationship with ukraine will survive and ukraine will prosper and we will get beyond this ugly chapter of our history. But if we're to decide here that a president of the united states can simply say under article ii, I can do whatever I want and I don't have to treat a branch of government like it exists. I don't have to give it any more than the back of my hand. That will be an unending injury to this country. Ukraine will survive, and so will we, but that will be an unending injury to this country because the balance of power that our founders set out will never be the same. We'll never be the same. The president can simply say, I'm going to fight all subpoenas, and I'll tell you something else. True in the courts as true as the senate where they say justice delayed is justice denied. You give this president or any other the unilateral power to delay as long as he or she likes, to litigate matters for years and years in the courts and do not fool yourself into something it is anything less.

In April, it will be a year since we subpoenaed don mcgahn and there's no sign of an end to that case. And I'll tell you, when it gets to the supreme court, you might think that's the end and that's just the end of the first chapter. Because don mcgahn is in court saying I'm absolutely immune from testimony. Now, that's been rejected by every court that's looked at it. But we'll see what the court of appeals said and we'll see if it dwoez to court of appeals and then see what the supreme court says and when we go to the supreme court, you know what happens? That's not the end of the matter. It comes back to the trial court and then, well, they can't claim absolute immunity anymore. We don't even have to bother showing up. So now we're going to turn to plan b, executive privilege. We're going to say we can't and won't answer any of the questions that are really pertinent to your impeachment inquiry and start out in district court and then go to en banc and go to the supreme court. You can game the system for ye years. Justice delayed is justice denied and so is true about presidential accountability. When you suggest or I suggest or anyone suggests or the white house suggests, why doesn't the congress, why didn't the house just exhaust their remedies? As if in the constitution, it says the house shall have the sole power of impeachment as an asterisk that says, after court remedies and the seek relief in the court of appeals and going to the supreme court. Let's not kid ourselves about what that really means. What that really means is you allow the president to control the timing of his own impeachment or if it will ever be permitted to come before this body. That is not impeachment power. That is the absence of an impeachment power. Article ii is every bit as important as article I. Without article ii, there is no article I ever again.

No matter how egregious this president's conduct or any other. It is fundamental to the separation of powers. If you can't have the ability to enforce an impeachment power, you might as well not put it in the constitution. Now, short ly, the president's lawyers will have a chance to make their presentation. And as we will not have the ability to respond to what they say, I want to give you a little preview of what I think they're going to have in store for you. So that when you do hear it, you can put it into some perspective. I expect they will attack the process. I don't think that's any mystery. But I want to tell you both what I expect they will share with you and what it really means. When you cut through all the chaff, what does it really mean that they're saying? Here's what I expect that they will tell you. The process was so unfair. It was the most unfair in the history of the world. Because of the house, they took depositions. How dare they take depositions. How dare they listen to trey gowdy. How dare they follow the republican procedures that proceeded their investigation. How dare they.

And they were so secretive in the bunker, in the basement, as if, whether it's on the ground floor of the basement or the first floor makes any difference. Those super secret depositions in which only 100 members of congress, equivalent to the entire senate could participate, that's how secret they were. That's how exclusive they were. Every democrat, every republican, on three committees could participate. Of course, that wasn't enough. To storm the skiff. So 100 people can participate but you heard earlier, but, the republicans weren't allowed to participate. Okay, that's just false. You know how we did it in those super secret depositions and you could look this up yourself because we released the transcripts. We got an hour. They got an hour. We got 45 minutes, they got 45 minutes. And we did that back and forth until everyone was done asking their questions. Chairman shiff was so unfair, he wouldn't allow us to ask our questions. There were certain questions I didn't allow. Questions like, who's the whistleblower? Because we want to punish that whistleblower. Because yes, some of us in this house and in this house believe we ought to protect whistleblowers. So yes, I did not allow the outing of the whistleblower. So when they say that chairman wouldn't allow certain questions, that's what they mean. It means that we protect people who have the courage to come forward and blow the whistle, that we don't think, though the president might, that they're traitors and spies. To believe that someone who blows the whistle on the serious nature you now know took place is a traitor or spy. There is only one way you could come to that conclusion. And that is if you believe you are the state and that anything that contradicts you is treason. That is the only way that you can conceive of someone exposes wrongdoing is a traitor or a spy but that is how those who expose the wrongdoing because he is the state, like any good monarch, he is the state.

And you'll hear the president wasn't allowed to participate in the judiciary committee. That's false too, as you've heard. The president has the same rights as president nixon and president clinton. But nonetheless, you'll hear it was so unfair, one other thing that was really unfair is that all the subpoenas were invalid because the house didn't pass the resolution on announcing its impeachment inquiry. Never mind that we actually did. The problem was they said we hadn't and then the problem was, you did. Now, of course, as you know the constitution says the house will have the sole power of impeachment. If we want to do it by house resolution, we can do it by house resolution. If we want to do it by committee, we can do it by committee. It is not the president's place to tell us how to conduct an impeachment proceeding anymore than it is for the president to tell you how you should try it. So when you see that 8 page diatribe from the white house counsel saying, we should have been able to have a resolution in the house or we should have been able to have this. When you hear what they really mean is donald trump had the right to control his own impeachment proceeding and it's an outrage donald trump didn't get to write the rules of his own impeachment proceeding in the house. You give a president that right, there is no impeachment power and when you hear them say that, complain about depositions that were the same as the republicans or the right to participate the same as clinton and nixon, and by the way, they weren't allowed to call witnesses, they said.

Three of the 12 witnesses we heard at open hearings were the minority witness requests. The fact is we have the same process, in other impeachments, the majority did not surrender subpoena power to the minority. They said, you could subpoena w witnesses and if the majority doesn't agree, you can force a vote. That is the same process we had here. The majority does not surrender the impeachment power. Didn't in prior impeachments, didn't in this one. When they say the process sun fa -- is unfair, what they really mean is, don't look at what the president did. For god's sake, don't look at what the president did. I think the second thing you'll hear from the president's team is, attack the managers. Those managers are just awful. They're terrible people. Especially that shifchiff guy. He's the worst. He's the worst. And exhibit "a," he mocked the president. He mocked the president. He mocked the president as if he was shaking down the leader of another country, like he was an organized crime figure. He mocked the president. He said it was like the president said, listen, zelensky, because I'm only going to say this seven times. Well, I discovered something very significant by mocking the president. And that is, for a man who loves to mock others, he does not like to be mocked. It turns out, he's got a pretty thin skin. Who would have thought it? Never mind that I said I wasn't using his words before I said it and I wasn't using his words after I said it and I said I was making a parody of his words. It's an outrage. He mocked the president. That schiff. Terrible. Now, they will attack my other colleagues too for things said in the heat of debate here on the floor.

Because we're reaching the wee hours of the morning, and they'll attack some of my colleagues who aren't even in this chamber. Maybe they'll attack the squad. That's a perennial favorite with the president. They attack the squad, you should ask, what does that have to do with the price? But you could expect attacks on all kinds of members of the house that have nothing to do with the issues before you. And when you hear those attacks, you should ask yourself, away from what do they want to distract my attention? Because nine times out of ten, it will be the president's misconduct, but look for it. Attacks on the managers, attacks on other house members, attacks on the speaker, attacks on who knows what. It's all of the same ilk. Whatever you do, just don't consider the president's misconduct. You'll also hear the constitution. It won't be framed the constitution, but that's really what it represents. And that is, abuse of power doesn't violate the constitution. Presidents of the united states have every right to abuse their power. That's the argument. I know it's a hard argument to make, right? Presidents have a constitutional right to abuse their power, and how dare the house of representatives charge a president with abusing his power.

Now, I'm looking forward to that constitutional argument by alan dershowitz because I want to know why abusing power and trust is not impeachable now but it was a few years ago because the last time I checked, I don't think there was a significant change in the constitution between the time he said it was impeachable and the time now that apparently is not impeachable. I'm looking forward to that argument but also looking forward to ken starr's presentation because during the clinton impeachment, he maintained a president not only could but must be impeached for obstructing justice. That bill clinton needed to be impeached because he lied under oath about sex and to do so obstructed justice. You can be impeached for obstructing justice but you cannot be impeached for obstructing congress. Now, I have to confess, I don't know exactly how that's supposed to work, because the logical const conclusion from that is ken star saying that bill clinton's mistake was in showing up under subpoena. That bill clinton's mistake for not saying I'm going to fight off subpoenas. Bill clinton's mistake wasn't not taking the position that under article ii, he could do whatever he wanted. Does that really make any sense? You can be impeached for obstructing your own branch of government but you cannot be impeached for constructing a coequal branch of government. That would make no sense to the framers. I have to think, over the centuries as they've watched us, they would be astonished that anyone would take that argument seriously. Or could so misapprehend how this balance of power is supposed to work. So I look forward to that argument. And maybe when they make that argument, they can explain to us why their position on abuse of power isn't even supported by their own attorney general. So I hope they will answer why even their own attorney general doesn't agree with them.

Not to mention, by the way, the constitutional expert called by the republicans in the house who also testified as to abuse of power that it is impeachable, that you don't need a crime. That's impeachable. Now, when you hear them make these arguments, cannot be impeached for abusing your power, this is what it really means. We cannot defend his conduct. And so we want to make it go all the way without having to even think about that. You don't even need to think about what the president did, because the house charged it wrong. And so don't even consider what the president did. That's what that argument means. We can't defend the indefensible, so we have to fall back on even if he abused his office, even if he did all the things he's accused of, that's perfectly fine. There's nothing that can be done about it.

Now, you'll also hear, as part of the defense, and you heard this from jay, the last thing he said. He stepped back to the table. The whistleblower. I don't really know what that meant, but I suspect you'll hear more of that. The whistleblower. The whistleblower. It's his or her fault that we're here. The whistleblower. You know, I would encourage you to read the whistleblower complaint again. When you read that complaint again, you will see just how remarkably accurate it is. It's astonishingly accurate. You know, for all the times a president is out there saying that was all wrong, all wrong, you read it. Now that you have heard the evidence, you read it, you will see how remarkably right the whistleblower got it. Now, when that complaint was filed, it was obviously before we had our depositions and had our hearings. All of which obviated the need for the whistleblower. In the beginning, we wanted the whistleblower to come and testify. Because all we knew about was the complaint. But then we were able to hear from firsthand witnesses about what happened. And then something else happened. The president and his allies began threatening the whistleblower. And the life of the whistleblower was at risk. And what was the point in exposing that whistleblower to the risk of his or her life when we had the evidence we needed? What was the point? Except retribution. Retribution, and the president wants it still. You know why the president is mad at the whistleblower? Because but for the whistleblower, he wouldn't have been caught. And that is an unforgivable sin. He is the state. And but for the whistleblower, the president wouldn't have been caught. For that, he's a spy and guilty of treason. What does he add to this? Nothing but retribution. A pound of flesh.

You'll also hear the defense, they hate the president. They hate the president. You should not consider the president's misconduct because they hate the president. Now, what I said, I will leave you to your own judgments about the president. I only hate what he's done to this country. I grieve for what he's done to this country. But when they make the argument to you that this is only happening because they hate the president, it is just another of the myriad forms of, please do not consider what the president did. Whether you like the president or you dislike the president is immaterial. It's all about the constitution and his misconduct. If it meets the standard of impeachable conduct as we have proved, it doesn't matter whether you like it. It doesn't matter if you dislike him. What matters is whether he is a danger to the country because he will do it again. And none of us can have confidence based on his record that he will not do it again because he is telling us every day that he will. Now you've heard the further defense that biden is corrupt. Joe biden is corrupt. Another defense because what they hope to achieve in the senate trial is what they couldn't achieve through their scheme. If they couldn't get ukraine to smear the bidens, they want to use this trial to do it instead. So let's call hunter biden. Let's smear the bidens. Let's succeed in the trial of what we couldn't do with this scheme. That's the goal. Now, I don't know whether rudy giuliani who said he was going to president his report to some senators, maybe he has. Maybe you'll get to see what's in rudy giuliani's report. Maybe you'll get to see some documents smearing the bidens, produced by who knows. Maybe the same russian corrupt former prosecutors. But make no mistake about what that's about. It's about completing the object of a scheme through other means, through the means of this trial.

You may hear the argument that what the president is doing when he is obstructing congress is protecting the office for future presidents. Because there is nothing more important to donald trumphan protecting the office of the presidency for future presidents. And I suppose when he withheld military aid from ukraine, he was trying to protect future presidents and when he sought to coerce a foreign power in the election, he was doing it on behalf of future presidents because likewise might wish to cheat in a future election. I don't think that argument goes very far but I expect you'll hear it. I expect you'll hear it. You may hear an argument that the president was really concerned about corruption and he was concerned about burden sharing. I won't spend much time on that because you've heard the evidence on that. There is no indication that this had anything to do with corruption and every bit of evidence that it had nothing to do with fighting corruption or burden sharing indeed, nothing about the burden changed between the time he froze the aid and the time he released the aid. There was no new effort to get others to contribute more and europe contributes a great deal as it is. This is an after the fact rationalization. You probably saw the public reporting that there was exhaustive effort after the fact to come up with a post-talk rationalization for this scheme. I would like to show you the product of that investigation. But I'll need your help, because it is among the documents they refuse to turn over. They will show you just what an after the fact invention this argument is. Now, I expect you'll hear the argument, obama did it. Obama did it. That may take several different forms but the form I'm referring to is obama also withheld aid. Honestly, I think that argument is an insult to our intelligence. Because the argument is obama withheld aid from egypt and he made a condition with it. Obama withheld aid from egypt af after, in fact, congress supported it. And yes, there are times we've withheld aid. For a good policy reason, not a corrupt effort to get help in your election. The american people know the difference between right and wrong, they can recognize the difference between aid that is withheld for a malicious purpose and aid that is held in the best interest of our national security, but you'll hear the obama did it argument. You will hear, the call was perfect. The call was perfect.

Now, I suspect the reason they will make the argument, the call was perfect, is because the president insists that they do. I don't think they really want to have to make that argument. You wouldn't either, but they have a client to represent and so they will make the argument, the call was perfect. And they will also make the argument, ukraine thinks the call was perfect. Ukraine said there was no pressure. What that really means is, ukraine wants a future, ukraine knows it's still beholden to us for aid. Ukraine still hasn't got in through the door of the white house. Ukraine knows that if they acknowledge that they were shaken down by the president of the united states, the president of the united states will make them pay. So when you hear them say, ukraine felt no pressure and their proof is because the ukraine president doesn't want to call the president of the united states a bad name, you'll know why. Because they need america. They need america. The framers did not expect you to leave your common sense at the door.

Now, you'll also hear the the defense, the president said there was no quid pro quo. The president said there was no quid pro quo. That's the end of the story. This is the criminal law that if the defendant says he didn't do it, he couldn't have done it. If the defendant learns he's been caught and he says he didn't do it, he couldn't have done it. That doesn't hold up in any court in the land. It shouldn't hold up here. You'll also hear a variation of the argument, no harm, no foul. They've got the money. They got the money. And they got the meeting even though they didn't. They got the meeting on the sideline of the u.N., kind of a drive by, but they got a meeting. No harm, no foul, right? Meeting on the sidelines is pretty much the same thing, right, as a head of state meeting in the oval office. Of course, it's not. Why do you think at that meeting, at the ewe miunited na the president said, when do I get to come to town? He certainly recognizes the difference and we should too. What's more, every bit of harm and every bit of foul in withholding aid from an ally at war. And releasing it only when you're caught.

Russia knows now about the wedge in our relations with ukraine. The moment russia found out about this, and I have to imagine, given how good their intel services are, they did not have to wait for politico to break the story any more than ukraine did. In fact, so deep a penetration of ukraine, I would have to suspect the russians would have found out at least as early as ukrainians did, if not earlier. The moment ukraine learned and russia learned there was harm because ukraine knew they couldn't trust us. Russia knew they could take advantage of us. There was immediate harm. And because someone is caught, because a scheme is thwarted doesn't make that scheme any less criminal and corrupt. You get no pass when you get caught. I expect one of the defenses you'll see is they'll play you certain testimony from the house where my colleagues on the other side of the aisle ask questions like, did the president ever say he was bribing ukraine, did you actually see him bribe ukraine? Did you hear him say that he was going to bribe ukraine? Did you personally see this yourself? And if you didn't see it, if he didn't lay it out for you, then it couldn't have happened. 2 plus 2 does not equal 4. You are not allowed to consider anything except for a televised confession by the president. And even then, don't consider it. I imagine you'll hear some of that testimony where witnesses are asked, they work for the defense department. Well, did the president ever tell you that he was conditioning the aid? Never mind that these were people, don't necessarily even talk to the president, but I expect you'll see some of that.

As I mentioned before, you'll hear the defense. We claim privilege. You can't impeach the president over the exercise of privilege. Never mind the fact that they never claimed privilege. They never asserted privilege. And you know why? You know why they never actually invoked privilege in the house? Is because they know that if they did, they'd have to produce the documents and they'd have to show what they were redacting and they didn't want to do even that. They knew the overwhelming majority of the documents and witness testimony, there was no even color of privilege, so they didn't want to even invoke it. They said, maybe someday. But you will hear that you can't be impeached for a claim of privilege they never made. So what do all these defenses mean? What do they mean? What do they mean collectively when you add them all up? What they mean is under article ii, the president can do whatever he wants. That's really it. That's really it. Stripped of all the detail and all the histrionics. What they want us to believe is the president can do whatever he wants under article ii and there is nothing that you or the house can do about it. Robert kennedy once said, moral courage is a rare commodity than bravery in battle or great intelligence. Yet it is the one essential vital quality for those who seek to change the world which yields most painfully to change. Moral courage is a rarer commodity than bravery in battle. I have to say, when I first read that, I wasn't sure I agreed. Moral courage is a rarer quality than courage in battle, that just doesn't seem right. Wasn't sure I really agreed and for a democrat not to agree with kennedy is kind of a heresy. I'm sure some of my gop colleagues feel the thesame abo the kennedys from louisiana. What could be more rare than courage in battle?

I got to visit our service members around the world and see just how blessed we are with an abundance of heroes by the millions who have joined the service of this country. Service members who every day demonstrate the most incredible bravery. I just had the greatest respect for them. For people like jason crow and john mccain and daniel intoway who served in the body or who have never served in office, by the millions all around the country and all around the world. Most incredible respect. It's an amazing thing how common is there uncommon bravery. My father is 92, probably watching. Part of the greatest generation. Left high school early to join the service. He tried to enlist in the marine corps. And he failed the physical. At the end of world war ii, failed the physical. Bad eyesight and flat feet, apparently enough to fail the physical. So two weeks later, he went to try and enlist in the army. Thinking that maybe it's a different physical standard and even if it isn't, I'll get a different examining physician. Turns out, same standard, same physician. He recognized my father. He said, weren't you here two weeks ago? My father said, yeah, you really want to get into that battle? He said yeah, and my father was in the army. The war was over, so he never left the united states. And when he left the service, he went to the university of alabama and about midway through, he wanted to get on with his life and he left college and went out into the business world. Something he always regretted, leaving college early. But I think in many ways, he got a better education than I did. I think, if I was like jason and others who served in the military and also went to school, got the best education because I think there's certain things you can only learn by being in the military. Certainly, you can't really learn about war without going to war. And maybe there are things you just can't learn about life without going to war. So those of you who have served have the most complete education I think there is. But even so, is moral courage really more rare than that on a battlefield? And then I saw what robert kennedy meant by moral courage. Few, he said, are willing to brave the disapproval of their fellows, the wrath of their society. And then I understood by that just how rare moral courage is. How many of us are willing to brave the disapproval of our fellows, censure of our colleagues and wrath of our society? Just as those who served in uniform can't fully understand those who have not serve in uniform understand what military service means, so too is there a different fraternity or sorority among those who have served in office.

I tell my constituents, there's two types of jobs in congress and it's not democrats and republicans. It's those from a safe seat and those from an unsafe seat. And I'm sure the same is true of those from a safe state and unsafe state. It's why I think there's a certain chemistry between members who represent those swing districts and states, because they can step into each other's shoes. And one of the things that we in this fellowship of office holders understand that most people don't is that real political courage doesn't come from disagreeing with our opponents, but from disagreeing with our friends. And with our own party. Because it means having to stare down accusations of disloyalty and betrayal. He's a democrat in name only or she's a republican in name only. What I said last night, if it resonated with anyone in this chamber, didn't require courage. My views, as heartfelt as they are, reflect the views of my constituents. But what happens when our heartfelt views of right and wrong are in conflict with the popular opinion of our constituents? What happens when our devotion to our oaths, to our values, to our love of country, to part from the moem momentary passion a large number of people back home? Those are the times that try our souls. Cbs news reported last night that a trump confidant said that gop senators were warned, vote against your president, vote against the president and your head will be on a pike. Now, I don't know if that's true. Vote against the president and your head will be on a pike. I have to say, when I read that, and I don't know if that's true, but when I read that, I was struck by the irony. By the irony. I hope it's not true. I hope it's not true. But I was struck by the irony of the idea, when we're talking about a president who would make himself a monarch that whoever that was would use the terminology of a penalty that was imposed by a monarch, a head on a pike.

Just this week, america lost a hero. Thomas railsback. He passed away on Monday, the day before his trial began. Some of you may have known or even served with congressman thomas ralsback, he was a republican from illinois and second ranking member of the house judiciary committee when that committee was conducting its impeachment inquiry into president nixon. In July of 1974 as the inquiry was coming to a close, congressman railsback began meeting with a bipartisan group of members from the house. Three other republicans and three democrats. Here in the senate, they might have called them the gang of seven. They gathered and they talked and they labored over language and ultimately helped develop a bipartisan support for the articles that led a group of republican senators including barry goldwater and howard baker to tell president nixon that he must resign. Some say that the nixon impeachment might not have moved forward were it not for those four courageous republicans by congressman railsback and it pained the congressman because he credited nixon with giving him his seat. With getting him elected. He did it because he said, seeing all the evidence, it was something we had to do because the evidence was there. One of his aides, ray lahood, eulogized him saying he felt an obligation to the constitution to do what is right. Now, soon, members of this body will face the most momentous of deci decisions. Not as I said at the outset between guilt and innocence but a far more foundational issue. Should there be a fair trial? Shall the house be able to present its case with witnesses and documents through the use of subpoenas as has been the case in every impeachment trial in history?

Now, the president's lawyers have been making their case outside of this chamber, threatening to stall these proceedings with the assertion of false claims of privilege. Having persuaded this body to postpone consideration of the witnesses in documents, they now appear to be preparing the ground to say, it will be too late to consider them next week. But consider this. Of the hundreds of documents that we have subpoenaed, there is no colorable claim and none has been asserted. To the degree that you could even make a claim, that claim has been waived. To the degree that even superficially, a claim would attach, it does not conceal misconduct. And what's more, to the degree there was a dispute over whether a privilege applied, we have a perfectly good judge sitting behind me empowered by the rules of this body to resolve those disputes. And when the chief justice dec decides, where a narrow application of privilege ought to apply, you will still have the power to overrule him. How often do you get the chance to overrule a chief justice of the supreme court? You have to admit, it's every legislator's dream.

So let us not be fooled by the argument that will take too long or persuaded that the trial must be over before the state of the union. This is no parking ticket we are contesting, no shoplifting case we are prosecuting. It is a matter of high crimes and misdemeanors. How long is too long to have a fair trial? Fair to the president and fair to the american people. The american people do not agree on much but they will not forgive being deprived of the truth and certainly not because it took a backseat to expediency. In his pamphlet of 1777, the american crisis, thomas payne wrote, those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must undergo the fatigue of supporting it. Is it too much fatigue to call witnesses and have a fair trial? Are the blessings of freedom so meager that we will not endure the fatigue of a real trial with witnesses and documents?

President lincoln in his closing message to congress in December 1862 said this. Fellow citizens, we cannot escape history. We of this congress and this administration will be remembered in spite of ourselves. No personal the fiery trial through which we pass will light us down in honor, or dishonor, to the latest generation. I think he was the most interesting president in history. He may be the most interesting person in our history. This man who started out dirt poor. Dirt poor. Like, hundreds of thousands of other people at the time, he had nothing. No money. No education. He educated himself. Educate himself. But he had a brain in that head, a brilliance in that mind, that made him one of the most incredible not just presidents but people in history. I think he's the most interesting character in our history. Out of the hundreds and hundreds of thousands of other americans at the time, why him? Why him? I think a lot about history, as I know you do. Sometimes I think about how unforgiving history can be of our conduct. We can do a lifetime's work, draft the most wonderful legislation, help our constituents, and yet we may be remembered for none of that. But for a single decision we may be remembered, affecting the course of our country.

I believe this may be one of those moments. A moment we never thought we would see. A moment when our democracy was gravely threatened, and not from out but from within. Russia, too, has a constitution. It's not a bad constitution. It's just a meaningless one. In russia, they have trial by telephone. They have the same ostensible rights we do to a trial. They'll hear evidence and witnesses. But before the verdict is rendered, the judge picks up the telephone and calls the right person to find out how it's supposed to turn out. Trial by telephone. Is that what we have here? Trial by telephone? Someone on the other end of the phone dictating what this trial should look like? The founders gave us more than words. They gave us inspiration. They may have receded into mythology but they inspire us still.

And more than us, they inspire the rest of the world. They inspire the rest of the world from their prison cells in turkey, journalists look to us. From their internment camps in china, they look to us. From their cells in egypt, those who gathered in the square for a better life, look to us. For the philippines and the families that were victims of mass ex-judicial killing, they look to us. From all over the world, they look to us. And increasingly, they don't recognize what they see. It's a terrible tragedy for them. It is a worse tragedy for us. Because there's nowhere else for them to turn. They're not going to turn to russia. They're not going to turn to china. They're not going to turn to europe with all of its problems. They look to us because we are still the indispensable nation. They look to us because we have a rule of law. They look to us because no one is above that law. And one of the things that separates us from those people in prison is a right to a trial. It's a right to a trial. Americans get a fair trial. And so I ask you, I implore you, give america a fair trial. Give america a fair trial. She's worth it. Thank you.