Transcripts For CSPAN3 Articles Of Impeachment House Hearings Day 2 House Judiciary Debates... 20240713

Employees, in letters to the state department employees, the committee threatened witnesses that if they insist on having Agency Council president to protect the executive branch and the confidentiality interests or if they make any effort to protect confidentiality interests at all, these officials will have their salaries withheld. Withholding of salaries. The committees have not afforded the president basic protections, such as the right to see all evidence, the right to present evidence, the right to call witnesses, the right to have counsel present at hearings, the right to cross examine all witnesses, the right to make objections relating to the examination of witnesses, or the admissibility of testimony in the evidence, and did, not for the president the right to respond to evidence and testimony presented. Thank, you i yield a reminder of my time. Gentleman yields back. For what purpose does mr. Swalwell seek recognition . To strike the last word. The gentlemans recognized. My, colleagues the urgency of this moment is the grave risk that the president will again abuse his power of the presidency to try to secure his reelection we have reason to be concerned. The presidency give some great powers to cause others to interfere in our elections and the only protection we have is to act now. Because the president is cheating right now and to any of my colleagues who asked why move on this right now, it is a crime spree in progress and as chairman schiff said earlier this week what are we supposed to do . Just let him sheet one more time . Expect him to eventually do the right thing . And here is what my colleagues logic amounts to if we wait. It amounts to this, allow the building to burn, collapse, fall to the ground, and then you should call the fire department. This president has set our democracy on fire and we must act to save it. And there is an urgency to act. This president is not only being impeached because of what he has done, its because of what he continues to do. We know what he has done. Not really disputed. Abused his power, asked a Foreign Government to help him cheat, jeopardizing our National Security and our elections for his own personal gain. But this was not a oneoff, weve come to learn, as misdemeanors explained, this is what he does in this is what he will keep doing. In 2016, as he said, russia, if you are listening, to my opponents emails, you will be rewarded. It turns out russia was listening. It turns out, russia hacked his opponents emails. That day, they sought to hack his opponents emails. In that investigation, he went to great lakes to obstruct it so, why is it so urgent that we act right now . The president s lawyer was just in ukraine. The president s lawyer said in may, i am not meddling in an election. We, know i, donald trump and i are meddling in an investigation. And that meddling continues today. But the president s own words tell us about his current intent. On october 2nd, the president said and you know weve been investigating on a personal basis rudy and others in the 2016 election. I think if they were honest about it they should start a Major Investigation to the bidens, that simple. On october, third the president s from the white house lawn and confirm that he wanted ukraine to investigate the bidens. But then he out of the country because that is what he does russia, ukraine, he said china should also investigate the bidens. My colleagues, we should not have to hope or to pray that china was not listening when he said that. Fortunately, people on this committee are listening. Americans are listening. People who know right from wrong our children, are listening. Are you listening . . And what we hear deeply concerns us about what the president will do next, and we are not helpless and in fact, we know that the courage to act is the only thing that has stopped this president and that is not a leap of faith. You see, it was the courage of doctor fiona hill, and Lieutenant Colonel vindman to go to the lawyers when they heard the president was conditioning a white house visit for investigations. It was the courage of the whistleblower to come forward. That is what got ukraine the aid. The president got caught and then ukraine got the aid. If those people were not courageous then ukraine would not have the aid today so, we must follow their pattern of conduct an act. We have pattern evidence that not only donald trump acts corruptly but that when you show courage an act against him, you can stop him. It is actually the only way to extinguish his corrupt ways. If unchecked, my colleagues, donald trump does not get better. He gets worse. He gets more corrupt and we cannot wait until the next election to hold them accountable. Not what he is trying to rig the next election. So we must act, protect our National Security, the integrity of our elections and honor our oath of the constitution. I yield back. The gentleman yields back. Discussion goes on the amendment, doesnt favor, say aye . We have someone asking for time. I didnt see a request. You see it now. You now recognize it. Do not recognize it. I recognize mr. Gates. Thank you mister chairman, i mean to strike the last word. The gentleman is recognized. Well, they are right, they cant wait to the next election but it is not the reason they say. The reason they cannot wait until the next election is because theyre taking a look at their candidate field and they have fundamentally changed every standard but they have set for themselves for impeachment for the American People. What do you like President Trump or dont like President Trump, it would at least be worth acknowledging the democrats have moved the goalposts on what it would require to bring us to this point, and to harm our nation and to distract us so much for the critical needs of American People who probably wonder why we are not focused on them right now. First, they told, us it has to be bipartisan. Now, i get folks watching at home might think but im somebody like the president , i will probably be a hard vote for them to get for impeachment, but its not some justify cannot convince the president supported not to abandon, him they can even convince the president s critics to abandon him. I mean, jeff and, we call him, peterson to members of congress, to democrats, they are not fans of the president , their critics of the president , and yet, they did not vote with democrats but with republicans. Weve got some republicans, my colleague will hurt from texas. He does not mind being a critic for the president , and he was honest with democrats, you told them that it this is not impeachable conduct. He told us that the process would be fair and yet even when members of this committee sought the opportunity not to read a transcript are see someone second performance of their testimony but to see their first hand account, how they reacted, did they fidget when they responded, we wanted to see those things, and we were excluded by the Intelligence Committee. Democrats said lets put our country through this would require compelling an overwhelming evidence and each and every time they tried to pass it out on the president s conduct we are able to show a legitimate concern the president had in corruption. We are able to side the transcript demonstrates no conditionality, time and again. Democrats said look, there is just no factual debate about what the president did. The factual debate comes from president zelensky. This president zelensky who said, i was not passionate they said well, zelensky might not have known but yermak, he knew, so i want to talk to your mark and this shake down, and the very day introduced articles of impeachment, youre moccasin interview and says, he never really perceive this as an exchange of military for aid for any one thing, time and again, they let us down in their claim so one thing they know for certain is that this was a side inevitability. Had someone asked me recently do you feel some sense of history, do some sense of moment you are about to vote on impeachment . And sadly i knew this time was coming since the democrats took control of the house of representatives because they did not lay out a plan to appropriate for the budget, or work with us on critical generational issues. They set out a plan for impeachment. How do we know that . Well, the chairman himself campaign for the lead democrat role in the Judiciary Committee. He did not say pick me because im a great legislator, around some particular issues that. He said, pick me because i will be the person they can best lead our caucus through a potential impeachment. They have had a bloodlust for impeachment. It has been their obsession and it is deeply saddening to us. We take absolutely no joy in the fact that it is so consuming, but here we stand on the verge of it and my expectation is that this new standard and this second article with just the notion of obstruction of congress is their excuse for not being able to prove obstruction of justice. Public reporting has been saying the chairman went to the Democratic Caucus and sought support to bring an article for obstruction of justice and could not get their support so here we are now with obstruction of congress, sort of the low Energy Version of the obstruction of justice claim that they wanted. They hope they were going to be able to convict and accuse and evidence some claim on bribery. That is what theyre pollsters and pundits told them would be best as they solemnly tell us this is sad for them, they were out polling what lexicon, what word choice would help to make the case to the American Public and so they settle on bribery. You all in the media heard it. You heard on every show, talking about this is the new standard, Speaker Pelosi speaking in this new language and then we asked the witnesses, were you a part of bribery . Did you say bribery . The evidence was not there so instead of bribery, instead of treason, extortion, you have abuse of power, the low Energy Version. Im disappointed in my colleagues but probably even those who dont support the president we share the disappointment in this very moment and i yield back. The gentleman yields back. Mister chairman, have unanimous consent request. I recognize mr. Russians all for the purpose of unanimous consent request. Thank you, mister, present i ask unanimous consent to enter the letter i referenced which is the letter from chairman angle to john solomon in which chairman angles says that officials who insist on council how their salary. No objection. Thank you. The question now occurs on the amendment, those in favor say aye, there is a pose, no, snow, in the opinion of the chair the nose have it in the amendment is not agreed. A real cause requested. The clerk will call the role. Mr. Nadler . No. Mr. Nadler votes no. Its lofgren . No. Miss jacksonlee . No. Mr. Cohen . No. Mr. Johnson of georgia . No. Mr. Joy . No. Miss pass . No. Mr. Richmond . No. Mr. Jeffries . No. Mr. Jeffries . No. Mr. Cicilline . No. Mr. Swalwell . No. Mr. Lieu . Mr. Raskin . Mr. Raskin votes no. Miss jayapal . No. Miss demings . No. Mr. Korea . No. Miss scanlon . No. Mr. Siya this garcia . No. Mr. Neguse . No. Mister mcqueen missed mcbath . No. Mr. Stanton . No. Miss dean . No. Miss because of how . No. Mr. Collins . I. It is escobar . No. Mr. Sensenbrenner . I. Mr. Chabot . I. Mr. Gohmert . A big old i. Mr. Jordan . I. . Mr. Buck . I. Miss roby . I. Mr. Gates . I. Mr. Johnson of louisiana . I. Mr. Big . I. Mr. Mcclintock . I. Miss lets go . Miss glasgow votes i. Mr. Reschenthaler . I. Mr. . Klein i. Missed . Mr. Armstrong . I . Mr. Stew be . I. The clerical report . Was german, there 17 eyes and 23 knows. The amendment is not agreed to. Are there any further amendments . For what purpose is mr. Jordan seek recognition . I have him at the desk. I reserve a point of order. The gentlelady reserve the point of order. And then into the amendment in the nature of the substitute, a trust 7 55 offered by mr. Jordan if ohio, page for, strike 1 23 and all that follows through page five line five, page eight, strike lines ten through 17. Gentleman is recognized for the purpose of explaining. I withdraw my point of order. Whatever is withdrawn. Miss chairman, the simply strikes the last eight lines in article one and the last eight lines in article two. Look, we have a rigged and brushed process. You dont have the facts on your side. Weve been through these facts many times. Ukraine did not know aid was held up at the time of the call but the democrats assert that President Trump was pressuring zelensky on the call to investigate the bidens in order to get the aid that he did not even know was on hold. That is their argument. By the way, down the road, president zelensky says there was no pressure on the call, no pushing, no linkage whatsoever. But you have a rigged and rush process where you dont have the facts. You have a written rushed process where you cannot accept the will of the American People. Speaker of the house pelosi, nancy pelosi called the president an impostor just three weeks ago. The democrats have never accepted the will of the American People and that is why they have been out to get this president since even before he was elected and of course you have a written rush process when you are afraid that you cannot beat the president at the ballot box, when you are nervous about asks false election, you have this kind of process, a rigged and rushed process. This is not about the concern, is not about the concern mr. Swalwell talked about earlier, that somehow the president is going to do something wrong and try to influence the election. No, this is about their concern that they cannot win next year based on what the president has accomplished in the past three years. I mean, it is an amazing record despite of democrats being completely against the president , despite the democrats being against the president , frankly, its part of a few republicans being against a president it is amazing what has been accomplished, taxes have been, cut regulations, reduce the economy growing at an unbelievable right, lowest unemployment in 50 years, 266,000 jobs i did last month alone, 54,000 in the manufacturing sector, mr. Gore search, mr. Kavanaugh on the court, a lot of other vulnerable judges confirmed out of the iran deal, embassy in jerusalem, and a new nafta agreement going to be voted on next week. Yeah, you guys are in a rigged and rush process because you are nervous about next november. Mr. Green says we have to impeach him because hes going to win the election. You know what this is about. I think about this president. I think this is why the American People like him so, much because he is doing what he said he would do. Every president ial election ive been able to participate in, both candidates, republican and democrat candidate, when the campaign for the job they tell the country if you elect me im going to move the embassy to jerusalem. Republicans, democrats, they all campaigned on, it then they get elected, they come up with 1 million reasons why they say they cannot do what they were going to do, more importantly what the American People looking to do even to the same people, same inter Agency Consensus that weve heard over the last few months impeachment choir, even though that same inter Agency Consensus was probably against that, this president said, im glad to do it, and its been a good thing, that is what the American People appreciate, and that is why we got this region rush process because it is really about next november. They are all afraid. Some of their colleagues have said it straight up, they are afraid they cannot beat him at the ballot box so theyre going to do this rigged, rushed and wrong impeachment process. I yield the remainder of my time. I just want to ask the gentleman from ohio question. Based on the standards the democrats are starting here, if somebody is in the house or Senate Running for president and they support or push impeachment of the president , would they be subject to being expelled or for abusing their position . Im just curious. I think i will let my colleague answer that question, but what i do know is that i think my colleagues on the other side of the aisle are, as i, said nervous about their prospects next november against President Trump based on his amazing record of leadership in the last two years. That i would yield back, thank you. The gentleman yields back. I will recognize myself,. I think that the facts amply demonstrate the charges in these two articles of impeachment, namely the president put his own interest in front of the interest of the country, that he sought to use the power of the presidency to withhold aid, military aid from an ally and to extort that ally into making an announcement, a bogus investigation of a political opponent of his for his own personal benefit and that he obstructed congress by refusing a cooperation and struck in the executive branch not to cooperate with congress in the executive in the impeachment inquiry. This amendment, this amendment simply takes the last two paragraphs out of each article, take the paragraphs has where for the president should be impeached, it renders the two articles simply a catalog of various bad act by the president , and takes the force and a fact of the articles entirely away. It is silly. If you believe that the president is guilty of what the articles charge him with, you should vote for the articles of impeachment. If you believe he is not, you should vote against the articles of impeachment, but to try to have this amendment simply renders the articles catalogues of bad acts and takes out the effective sentences is silly, so i urge a no vote on this amendment and i would then urge of course that we adopt the articles of impeachment. I yield back the balance of my time. Mister chairman. What purposes mr. Collins seek recognition . Strike last. Word gentleman is recognized. I think it is interesting how you just described this because really this is what we have seen this entire time, at the facts here is really all that you have. You keep throwing around these bad facts you dont like it is interesting to me also that to cataloguing, it finally got to, it the catalan about actually dont like and that this simply takes away the punishment, of what the acting result will be. It should not surprise anyone here, though, because this is what the Democratic Party and majority of done all year. In fact, they did at one time on the floor of the house and the speaker of the house broke the rules of the house on the floor and instead of opening up to breaking the rules of decorum on the floor, she had everybody come back down, for the majority side and vote to restore her right to speak even though she politely broke the rules. So, dont give me this high and mighty oh, the rules, just having a list of ideas here, that is what we have been doing all year. I told the group just the other day that you can always judge many things by what you spent time on what you spend money on. Spent time, on spend money on. I have said already that this is an impeachment of a clock and calendar and i believe that to be true because we are seeing it tonight, we are seeing it in this whole, process three hearings, to hearings, im sorry, that is all we are doing, here the rubber stamping of this committee, so, it is a time issue because they have been told, that i understand the leadership wants this to happen, this is why it is happening. Theyve got a choice and i feel for the chairman in that regard because he does not have a choice in this. The speakers and others have told him this is what will happen in this house is playing out, but he goes back even further to the first of the, year this is a time in money issue, it is a calendar clock issue because the committees, the Intelligence Committee in the Judiciary Committee decided early on to spend money can bring outside help into prepare for tonight. They did not know it was going to be like this in january or november, when they did hire that extra help to come in but they knew that they were going to get to it somehow. They just did not know how and they kept waiting and i kept waiting, so they hired extra outside counsel. Updated on the Intelligence Committee and all they were going to do was investigate the president and they did and the only thing i can say on that part is congratulations, they finally did what they always wanted to do and that is what we are seeing right here, but to describe this tonight i described this as it we just described is simply taking away the punishment and is lifting a lot of bad acts, i can do that about this majority bad year all year in these committees in this investigations, we have had more hearings in which they got to basically stream administration witnesses but yet offered no solutions, it is mindboggling. It is dehumanizing, as one of my colleagues said, and i call them out. When we talk about immigration, now, today, to again come before this committee to take all of this i never have a fact witness i think is an issue im a friend from florida said theres actually a purpose to see people again if theyve already testified before to see how they would answer questions and this committee that wouldve been a good thing but we do not have that. But to say with a straight face, and i appreciate this, to say that at the end of the day all we are doing is taking away the punishment because you have a list of bad acts when the majority have done that all year and especially the classic case of the speaker on the floor of the house breaking the law of the rules of the floor and then having the majority come down and restore her rights, simply because they did not like the fact but she had broke the rules, you see, this is where our ad. It is a money in time issues. It would be nice if it was high and noble and it would be nice if all the crimes are talking about, extortion, bribery, fraud, it would be nice if it couldve found actual facts enough to put that into an article. They could but they will not, why . Because they cant. Maybe it is because theyre having trouble explaining those because they could not test good enough and also that members the need to go back to the judiciary to say oh my, i was forced to do this but really the president is a bad guy and this was an abuse of power. If you say it long enough, somebody might believe it. This is where we are at and it is really interesting again, from obstruction of congress to watch this majority work is just truly, truly amazing and to say this, no fact put together, abuse of power, obstruction of, congress this is all they have to make this excuse, good luck. That dog ate hunting anymore. Nobody is, it just aint working and with that i yield back. The gentleman yields back. Mister chair . For was purpose does moscow seek recognition . Thank you i move to strike the last word. The senate is recognized. Thank, you mister chair. I think it is an appropriate time to remind you again of your own words that were stated just a few months ago last year. During an interview on msnbcs morning joe on november 26th 2018, chairman nadler outlined a three prong test that he said would allow for a legitimate impeachment proceeding and now i quote, chairman nadlers remarks. There really are three questions, i think. First, has the president committed Impeachable Offenses . Second, did those defenses rise to the gravity that is worth putting the country through the drama of impeachment, and number three, because you dont want to tear the country apart, you dont want half the country to say to the other half, for the next 30 years we won the election and you stole it from us, you have to be able to think at the beginning of the impeachment process that the evidence is so clear of offensive so grave that once you have laid out all the evidence, a good fraction of the opposition voters will reluctantly admit to themselves they had to do it. Otherwise, you have a partisan impeachment, which will tear the country apart. If you meet these three tests, then i think you do the impeachment. Now, lets see if chairman nadlers three part test has been met. First, has the president committed an Impeachable Offense . No. There has been no witness, no democrat witness, fact witness that can prove that fact. Second, do those offensives rise to the gravity that is worth putting the country through the drama of impeachment . Absolutely not. And third, how the democrats laid out a case so clear that even the opposition has to agree . No. And you let House Democrat leadership are tearing the country apart. He said the evidence needs to be clear. It is not. He said offense is needed to be grave. They are not. He said that once the evidence is laid out, that the opposition will admit they had to do it. Well, that hasnt happened. In fact, polling and the fact that not one single republican voted on the impeachment inquiry resolution, or the schiff report, and i doubt that one single republican will vote on these articles of impeachment tonight, or on the floor of the house of representatives reveals that the opposite is in fact true. In fact, what you hear democratic colleagues have done is the opposite of what you said had to be done. This is a partisan impeachment and it is tearing the country apart and with that, i yield back. Little idiots back. Does anyone else mister chairman. I seek recognition. For what person to refresh johnson street recognition . Strike last. Where the gentleman is recognized. I thank you, mister chairman, i am just rising to speak in support of this amendment for mr. Jordan and i think it is really appropriate, i do not think were asking for anything extraordinary here because im reading this resolution as its drafted and the language just jumps off the page. I mean, this is really personal. The lies that he is seeking to strike for this amendment should be struck. I mean, the victory, all the hatred just trips, i mean, it sounds like it is out of the Peter Strzok Lisa page exchanges, the vitriol hatred for donald trump. Right here, the ones who want to strike, it says President Trump wants impeachment and trial, removal from office and disqualification to hold and enjoy any office of honor or trust or profit under the United States. I mean, look, they dont just want to remove him from the oval office, okay . They want to crush him. They want to destroy donald trump. They want to banish him from the marketplace. I mean it is so over the top, so over the top. Professor turley, again, the only witness that we have been allowed in the Judiciary Committee, the committee that has appropriate jurisdiction over this issue. Again, one witness in the process and he was not a donald trump supporter. He came in famously and said i did not vote for him and dont support him, but i came to give objective analysis because my allegiance is to the constitution. That is what professor turley said. You know what he got for that objective analysis that he delivered to this committee, so well and so intricately . He got Death Threats ahead to publish an oped a few days later explaining that there was this outcry calling for him to be removed from his teaching position at his university, his law school. Death threats because he gave an objective view of the constitution, the victory all, the defcon, level of the political defcon scale is that one right now. It is so crazy and it is because of language like this and the resolution that is pushing this. But i will tell you why professor turley said, a couple of excerpts in his summary of all of this he said, quote as, ive stressed this in his written report he submitted to us, as i have stressed is possible to establish a case for impeachment based on non criminal allegations, abuse of power, but although criminality is not required in such a case, clarity is necessary. That comes from a complete comprehensive record that eliminates exculpatory motivations or explanations. The problem is that this is an exceptionally narrow impeachment resting on the scene as possible evidentially record. Even under the most flexible english impeachment model there remain an expectation that impeachment could not be based on presumption of speculation. If the underlying allegation was not criminal, the Early English impeachment followed a format similar to a criminal child including calling of witnesses and all the rest. He said the history of american president ial impeachment shows restraint even when there are substantive complaints against the conduct of president s. Indeed some of our greatest president would have been impeached for acts in direct violation of the constitutional oath of office because it did not happen because cooler heads prevailed in the congress. Is issues of impeachment has been playing during the Trump Administration. Members of called for a removal based on a period of objections against this president , representative from texas following a resolution in the house for impeachment after trump called for players kneeling during the National Anthem to be fired. I mean, come, on if you do not like his political positions, great, but you cannot impeach a president because you do not like him. That is not how this system works. We are in a constitutional republic. There are rules here. There are standards. You dont get to make that decision, the voters in this country do and we have an election coming up, let the people decide, do not put yourselves in their place. You do not have the right to do it, you are not following the proper procedure, you are not doing this the right way. It is a really use constitutional device in our history and it is supposed to be but professor turley ended it this way and i will as well. He said, quote, despite my disagreement with money a President Trumps policy statement, and peter was never intended to be used as a midterm corrective option for a device divisive or unpopular leader. Look, we got it, you dont like him. It does not mean you can banished him from the marketplace. You cant sentiment of his businesses and say you cant hold a position of honor or trust. You dont get the right to do that. The people of this country do. We live in a republic. Im just sick of this. I yield back. I dont yield back. Again, gentlemen mr. Jordan was to, talk i 30 seconds. 30 seconds, thank, you look, in 2016, the democrats had the insurance policy. Peter strzok at least a page. That was the deal in 2016. The fbi, 2020, it is impeachment, 2020, theyre going to use impeachment, insurance policy did not work in 2016, impeachment is not going to work in 2020 because the American People appreciate what this president is getting done on their behalf. I yield back. The gentleman yields back. I will seeks recognition . Mister chairman. For what to strike the last words. You almost recognized. Thank you. Look, it really is amazing, we have heard over and over that this was all about the biden,s all about information on a president ial candidate, the bidens, but if you look at the president said, he is talking about, you know, weve been through this country, our country has been through a lot, and ukraine knows a lot about it. I would like you to find out what happened with this whole situation with ukraine. They say crowdstrike. Its news to me, but my Democrat Friends will know better, i did not know biden was involved with crowdstrike and no he was involved with the server being hacked, it did not know that was all part of his thing, but that is what the president is asking about, because there has been information that there was some people in ukraine that knew something about it and that is what hes asking about so i appreciate the revelation from our friends across the aisle so i guess you have one of your wealthy people, a server you say, ukraine has it, again, i did not know that biden is up to his your boss in that there are a lot of things the whole situation i think youre surrounding yourself some of the same people. I would like to have the attorney general call you and your people to get to the bottom of it, so, that was the whole thing about 2015, 2016 election but according to our friends, biden was in the middle of all of this so anyway it is interesting but my friend from ohio has a grand amendment. They say it is not personal, that this is just about an election but this just trying to undo the unfairness of the prior election even though it turns out there was no russia collusion and it sounds like that there was despite what the media is saying that we know the Ukrainian Ambassador came out lambasting trump. Clearly that would not have been done without official okay they were all in for Hillary Clinton, they figured after the election the trump one, maybe they would better try to warm up the trump that there is so much aid the president did not ask the former corrupt immigration for helping ring out corruption, that is just almost unfathomable at that point, the point to continue to be made all day today. In 2019, you had the election of a man in ukraine, zelensky, that said he was going to fight corruption, and President Trump heard from our own people, we think he is sincere, we really think hes going to try to fight corruption so of course this the first time you talked to a ukrainian leader that the new we could not trust the other one. They were supporting Hillary Clinton, there were corrupt, why would he talk to them about the corruption so to say this resolved biden, for heavens, sake it was ridiculous, but our from ohio, amendment puts it to the task, is about trying to correct what you say was an unfair election, which we know now from the horowitz report it was unfair but it was from the democrats side, the trumpeter side, so if that is really the case, then lets just strike the part that says you cant ever run for office again or be reelected again. Right . Wouldnt that help some of your vulnerable democrats if you made it more reasonable like that . Or do you want to continue to persist in making it so personally that is walk the plank time so we will see it is a good amendment, i would encourage my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, but where mr. Drones amendments, he will be better off, the country will be better off, because i feel sure he will be reelected and that the scary part for me though is, that barr has been set so low i am really afraid, no matter what party is in the white house, if there is an opposing party in congress, theyre going to use this tactic to try to take them down. One silver lining, though. Its been hard to know who or the deep state people were, especially in the state department. My friends going through this, we now know who the people are that dont want the swamp drained, and we can deal with that. I yield back. The gentleman yields back. I recognize myself. I recognize myself, im sorry, i recognize miss for what purpose do you seek recognition . I yield to the chairman. Thank you. Impeachment was put into the constitution because the framers recognize that a president might arise and pose such a threat to the country and to our democratic system, to our free elections, that we could not wait until the next election. That is why impeachment was put into the constitution. Lets look at, that weve heard a lot of very distracting facts about what mr. Biden may or may not have done, all kinds of things about what our members may have said three or four years ago. All of that is irrelevant. What is relevant is that the president , that ample facts demonstrate that President Trump put his personal interest above the interests of the country and citizens of the constitution. This is the highest of constitutional crimes, and abuse of power. Abuse of power is the preeminent crime which the framers even in the federalist papers talked about as high crimes and misdemeanors of the constitution, for the purpose of impeachment. President trumps abuse of power, he did it in two ways. Number one, he endangers our free elections by inviting foreign powers to interfere, through influence our elections twice. He invited the russians in 2016. Remember, the russians, if youre listening, please find the, emails that was a direct solicitation and in fact they tried to hack into the emails of the democrats that very night and then he tried to cover it up and then for 2020 he invited he asked the ukrainians to announce a bogus investigation, with a person he perceived as his Major Political opponent in the 2020 election. And then basically admitted, nicked over any said, we did it, the president on the transcript it shows very clearly that he did it, he circumstances of withheld aid shows very clearly it was a quid pro quo, and yes, we know that eventually the aid was released, and he said, the president said there was no quid pro quo, both of these things happen after he was caught. It was public. Obviously the Bank Robber Caught in the act afterwards says, i did not mean to rob the bank. He was in fact caught in the act. He tried to cover it up again, he obstructed congress by directing the entire administration, everybody in the executive branch do not answer any question, do not testify, do not give any documents. Fundamentally different from one other president s have done on occasion, which is the pose certain certain subpoenas and grounds of privilege he. Did not insert any privilege. She said no one should cooperate. I will decide whether it is a valid impeachment inquiry. I will this take the function of congress to myself because i dont recognize congress is right. That is a threat to the separation of powers and to our liberty. What is noteworthy, that members of the minority speak on every other subject but are hardly bothered to dispute the facts of the case, which are clear. That is why for so much of today we have distracting and irrelevant issues. Even, i would say other things, it is clear that it is an abuse of power for the president when or member of congress, for that, matter to condition official actions on personal gain, and i was startled, i was startled to hear mr. Ratcliffe say, i was impressed by his honesty but startled to hear him say that it is okay for a president to invite foreign interference in our elections. It is okay for a president to cheat and try to rig the election. The urgency of this impeachment, a reason why we cannot wait for the next election, is that the president has tried to rig these last elections, and this one as well, and he is repeating it. He goes out in the white house lawn and says china wanted to come in and rig the election, yet, mr. Giuliani in the ukraine this past week trying to enlist assistance to read the election, so the president must be impeached and safeguard the security of our National Elections to safeguard the separation of powers, both of which are essential to safeguard our liberties. I thank the gentleman for yielding. I yield my time back to him. Mister chairman, since ive been referenced, and i respond. As mr. Swalwells time. I do not yield. I yield back. Gentleman yields back. You dont want to correct the false statement . The gentleman yields back. Well seats recognition . Mister chairman. For what purposes mister chairman . Mister chairman i noticed reckless. Where the german is recognized. I yield the gentleman from texas. Appreciate my colleague yielding to correct the record where the chairman of the house Judiciary Committee just made a false statement and said that i said that it was okay to solicit foreign interference in an election. I never use the word interference. Okay. I said foreign involvement investigations and i used as an example for that the obama administration. It was just a few hours ago. You may not remember. Ive i cant believe we are sitting here at the end of this, an impeachment inquiry in the house of representatives and i look at how all of this started, it started with a phone call, a congratulatory phone call between two president s. And the very next day, someone contacted someone and a week later, someone walked in to the office of chairman schiff and that person walked out a week later, the whistleblower, and went to the Inspector General and filed a complaint with a falsely claimed that falsely claimed the President Trump had made a demand of president zelensky. He made a false statement and writing and then they made a false statement probably in the course of what should have been an investigation. We sit here today about vote on impeaching a president where neither the house Judiciary Committee, the house Intelligence Committee, nor any House Committee where the democrats are in charge, is ask a single question of a single witness about how this started, because you go back to that phone call, and the two people that were on it, the only two people that know not just what they said but what they meant when they said it, and they both said it was a great call, and so first, let me say im sorry. Let me say im sorry to the president of ukraine. Im sorry that as a result of all of this youve been labeled a pathological liar by my democratic colleagues, and im sorry but they pretend to care about the ukraine, but they just made it incredibly hard and more difficult for your country ever to get military assistance. Im also sorry to the other person that was on that call who knew what he said when he meant it, President Trump. Im sorry, President Trump, that youve tried to keep every promise, youve given us a great economy i did against incredible headlands where you were far falsely accused of treason and accused of being a russian agent by the folks in this room and when that failed we sit here today because you said i would like you to do us a favor, though, because our country has been through a lot my last apology is to the American People, i am sorry about the spectacle, im sorry about the 63 million of you that are so deplorable that as a result of this youre being told your votes dont count. I yield back. I yield back as well. The gentleman yields back. Does anyone else seek recognition on this amendment . Mister chairman. For what purpose does mr. Russians all seek recognition . The strike last. Where is the generous. Recognize thank you mister chairman. We have been here a while and i do want to be noted i do have some longer amendment for tonight but speak on this amendment, i speak in support of my colleague jim jordans amendment, but i think that we are getting way to caught up in the weeds in particular. Weve got it just zoom out, think about why we are here. We are here because the democrats again are terrified that the president is going to win reelection. Lets just go through a list of his accomplishments. Donald trump signed the largescale criminal Justice Reform legislation in decades, decades and i should add, if it werent for this waste of time with impeachment, quickly working on more bipartisan criminal Justice Reform, particularly, i have a criminal justice bill called clean slate that would expunge nonviolent felony offenses for hundreds of thousands of individuals, a democrat is working with me on that as you know, but anyhow, i digress, donald trump is also ensuring our war fighters can be war fighters. As a defense attorney in the navy, i actually defended a navy seal who was falsely accused of covering up abuse on a well known terrorist and i can tell you that when our war fighters are dragged into the courtmartial process, they have to constantly then secondguess themselves on the battlefield, and finally, we have a president it is recognizing that war fighters should be war fighters and they should be focused on capturing and killing targets not worrying about wrongful prosecutions back at home. Additionally, the president has placed to conservative justices on the Supreme Court who will uphold the constitution. Additionally, under this administration we are seeing a natural gas renaissance, coming through western pennsylvania. You can see how the economy is roaring because we are finally taking advantage of the Natural Resources we have. We can use natural gas for energy, we can use it for manufacturing, we can use it for petrochemicals. It is fantastic but we are finally taking advantage of the Natural Resources we have. Additionally, this president has done a lot for manufacturing, particularly the Steel Industry which is coming back. Just come to western pennsylvania where Steel Manufacturing is coming back. Donald trump is focused on our Border Security and on building the wall. Under this president we have been increasing National Security, and going after terrorists and others who wish to do us harm. Again, we are here because the democrats dont want to talk about the red hot trump economy. They dont want to talk about the lowest unemployment rates in 50 years we are here because the democrats dont want to talk about how President Trump is finally Holding China accountable for currency manipulation, for dumping steel and aluminum in american markets. Someone is finally Holding China accountable for ip theft, forced ip transfers. That is President Trump doing that. President trump is also renegotiating trade deals to benefit American Workers and farmers. We shouldve past usmca months ago. But we have not done it because we are dealing with impeachment. The president is working on free trade agreements with japan. He is working on free trade agreements across south america. President trump is also reducing regulations. There is only one way to increase revenue, and that is to increase gdp. There are only two ways to do that. You cut taxes will reduce regulations. You can do both, this president supports both. That is why we have a strong economy. But the democrats dont want to talk about this we are talking about impeachment because of distraction on their real agenda, which includes such ludicrous ideas as banning airplanes, giving Illegal Immigrants taxpayer funded health care, abolishing or defunding ice, banning fracking, banning fossil fuels. Good luck making a cell phone without petrochemicals. They also want to talk about taking away private health care from american citizens. That is why we are here. This whole process is an attempt to hide a radical, farleft agenda. It is also an attempt to hide the facts. The facts indicate that there was no quid pro quo, and there was no obstruction of congress. With that, i yield. The gentleman yields back. I moved to strike the last. Word gentleman is recognized. It seems important to remind my republican colleagues why we are here. While of course we have policy disagreements with the president , this is not about policy disagreements. This is about an obligation we have to protect and defend the constitution of the United States. We all began our term of office by raising our righthand and promising to protect and defend the constitution. And we are here because the president of the United States engaged in a scheme to drag a foreign power into our elections, to corrupt our elections for his own personal benefit, and he used hundreds of millions of dollars of taxpayer money to attempt to achieve that objective. There is nothing more sacred than protecting the rights of free and Fair Elections in this country. It is the heart and soul of our democracy. The president of the United States reach out to a foreign power and attempted to drag them into corrupting our elections, to help him cheat and win in 2020. When my colleague say the people are worried about the election, we are worried. But the person who is really worried about the outcome is clearly President Trump. He is reaching out to a foreign power asking them to help him cheat in the 2020 election. We have a solemn responsibility to stand up and to protect our democracy and present this president , or any president from attempting to corrupt our elections. If we dont do that, if we allow President Trump to get away with trying to cheat in 2020, particularly in light of what he did in 2016, we will not have a democracy. We will have a king or a monarch. And to elect their own leaders. Remember the Trump Administration officials, many of them saw this scheme and became very alarmed. The president s own ambassador mr. Bolton called it a drug deal. Fiona hill called it a domestic political errand. The investigation began by the Intelligence Committee, 17 witnesses, 100 hours of testimony, 260 text messages, transcripts of the president s own words on the call, Emails Exchange between highlevel trump officials, and we know the direct evidence. The president put the three amigos, sondland, the president refused to have a meeting, or to release the funds that were put on hold until a public announcement of a bogus investigation against his chief political rival. He told the Vice President dont go to the inauguration. Ambassador sondland testified it was a quid pro quo. The president hired his personal lawyer to lead this effort. He smeared ambassador yovanovitch, and then fired her because she stood in the way. She was an Anti Corruption champion, she stood in the way of the president scheme. The president and those acting on his behalf demanded that zelensky publicly announce the investigation of his chief political rival. It should be remembered, president zelensky, the evidence is filled with examples of Trump Administration officials who say things like, president zelensky is sensitive on ukraine being taken seriously, not as an instrument in washington. Ambassador taylor has a call with ambassador sondland saying, trump is a businessman. A businessman is about to sign a check to someone who owes him something, he will ask that person to pay him something. Donald trump is not owed anything by the ukrainians. In holding up Security Assistance for domestic political gain, that is crazy. There is tremendous evidence in the record. The president of the United States attempted to leverage Foreign Military assistance to ukraine, to drag a foreign power to corrupt our elections, to allow him to cheat in 2020. We cannot allow this to happen. If we dont hold this president accountable and move forward with impeachment, we can have every confidence the president will continue to do this. He is continuing to do. It Rudy Giuliani was in ukraine last week. This is a crime in progress, and either we are going to do something about it and protect the rights of the American People, where we are going to let some foreign power do it. Do you know who has the right to elect the american president . Citizens of this country and no one else. Men and women have died on the battlefield to protect our democracy. The least we can do is show our courage to stand up tonight and do our part. With that i yield back. Does anyone else seek recognition . What purpose does mr. Armstrong seek recognition . Move to strike the last. Word gentleman is recognized. Particularly the removal from office and disqualification to hold and enjoy any office of honor, trust, or profit under the United States. At numerous points in time throughout todays debate, my friends on the other side of the aisle of held up the constitution, waved it around. I think it is interesting that no one is read for yet, and there is a reason for that, but im going to read from the constitution. If we want to talk about article one, then lets go to article one section two, clause five. The house of representative shall choose their speaker and other officers, and shall have the sole power of impeachment. Article one section two deals with the house. Article one Section Three deals with the senate. This senate shall have the sole power of trial impeachments article one, Section Three, clause six. Judgment in case of impeachment will not extend further than to removal from office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any office of honor, trust, or profit under the United States. The language in this bill is over abroad, it gives the u. S. House of representatives and this impeachment article more power than the constitution allows. We have heard through the course of this investigation, when we have learned about process, talked about secrecy, not being allowed to use our minority rights, this is more akin to a special counsel. Adam schiff has referred to himself as the special counsel. Right now, what we are doing is becoming judge jury and executioner. Issues of removal and disqualification are divisible from other articles of impeachment. What happens in the senate is theres. A two thirds vote, if impeachment is granted and a simple majority in which this say they are withhold from other office. While they have the sole power of impeachment, the senate also provides that the senate has the sole power of impeachment. The constitution describes the sense conviction power which allows the senate to remove someone from office, and disqualification from holding future office. The president should be removed from office and disqualified from holding future office. The house has no Constitutional Authority to include this language that suggests the president should be removed from office. At best, its not necessary, and at worst it is an over broad description of what the power of this body is. To include the language of the president should be disqualified from office is prejudicial to the constitutionally prescribed process that the senate will take up. I agree with my friend from ohio and others on my side it really shows the true motives of the senate. It is circular how this is all gone. It started in 2016, now we are back in 2020. In the middle we had collusion conspiracy, obstruction, quid pro quo, bribery, extortion, all of these other crimes we have come to the nebulous part. There have been a lot of smart lawyers on the side. I can imagine this is an omission. What we are truly doing is taking power away from the United States senate, which is at their sole discretion. We have the right to proceed with this, we know this. We have seen how this has gone, it has been fasttracked and railroaded since day one. You can equate yourself to a grand jury, a special counsel, and investigation. But you have no right as a u. S. House of representatives to be judged, jury, and executioner. So you may say taking this language out is ridiculous, i think it is constitutional, and with that i yield time. Gentleman yields back. Does anyone else seek recognition . For our purposes, gentleman is recognized. Thank you mister chairman. There has been much said about motive this evening for my democratic colleagues, they seek to opine as to the president s motives, rather than look at his own words reflecting in the transcript. They seek to opine into his motive, rather than listen to the direct statements of president zelensky that he felt no conditionality and no pressure in communications with the administration. With this amendment, it shows the true motive of the democrats because it is not about some cleansing of the office. It is not about some restoration of National Security. It is about National Security they wouldve been up in arms and president obama withheld military aid to the ukrainians. It is all just a show to demonstrate some attack on the president. Four facts never change, President Trump and president zelensky both denied conditionality. The transcript shows no quid pro quo. Ukraine was not aware of any delay in military aid at the time of the call, and the aid was ultimately delivered in the absence of the investigations the democrats were talking about. Nothing has changed those four facts. I do wonder if we had had the opportunity to hear witnesses, what more would we have learned beyond that. If we had been able to call chairman schiff as a witness, like we had asked to, maybe we wouldve learned about his offices contact with the whistleblower. Maybe we couldve asked chairman schiff why he felt it inappropriate to go engage with some weird theatrical reperformance of a transcript that never existed. It was just something he did in the Intelligence Committee. We could ask him why he wasnt fully forthcoming about his offices contact with the whistleblower when he was asked about it on national television. We couldve asked chairman schiff his reasons for omitting exculpatory evidence in the majoritys report, and most certainly we wouldve wanted to ask chairman schiff whether it was his decision or someone elses decision to publish correspondents and communications between the president s personal lawyer and others, journalists, and even a member of congress. We couldve learned from the whistleblower. We couldve learned through the multiple sources they spoke to wear, and whether the information was accurate, whether it was reliable or verifiable. We couldve asked the whistleblower, why the outreach to chairman schiff staff in this particular way . Was it a sincere concern or the result of some political bias . We could have asked about potential contact with president ial campaigns. We could have asked about her witness nearly or. We couldve asked her, how is that one of the top people at the department of justice can have a spouse that goes and moonlights for people trying to dig up dirt on a president ial candidate, and then see that very dirt shuttled into the department of justice, injected into the bloodstream of our Intelligence Committee, and then used as an illegitimate basis to go and spy on american citizens. We couldve asked, which ukrainian legislator she was asking to dig up dirt on the president. What was on the thumb drive that she gave to her husband . We wouldve had a lot of questions for alexandra chalupa. She was the intermediary between the dnc and elements of the Ukrainian Government that were working against President Trump. We couldve asked alexandra chalupa, whose idea at the dnc was it to have a specific operative assigned to the ukraine to impair our elections . Whose idea was that . Who funded . It was it some specific donor . Was it an elected official that was out there trying to bring ukraine into our election . We could have asked who with Ukrainian Embassy were you talking to . What elements of the Ukrainian Government were engaged in trying to see President Trump defeated . We already saw ukraine engaging in our elections in plain view, when you have the ambassador from ukraine writing ought ads criticizing the president , animating the president s legitimate concerns that maybe we should ask a few questions of these concerns. I dont know that we have learned a great peel from these hearings other than that the democrats have been banned on impeachment ever since they got here. They have been unable to evidence accusations against the president with anything other than here saying conjecture, but i would have liked to have known a lot more, and that is why the rules of the house allow. No matter who is in charge, the minority gets to call witnesses and bring forward evidence, because it is clear to the American People watching that the president did not do something to justify this impeachment. But i think we could have done a lot more to fulfill the president s promised to drain the swamp, had we followed the rules. Gentleman yields back. For what purpose does mr. Richmond seek recognition . I moved to strike the last. Our move is recognized. Ill start by yielding time to my colleague from california. There is a doctrine where, if you can argue the facts you cannot argue the law. In the constitution, it has the very language that is in the article, and i would just like to read this. William jefferson clinton, by such conduct, warrants impeachment and trial and removal from office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any office of honor, trust, or profit under the United States. The exact same language that is being complained about this evening with mr. Trump was put into the article by the republicans relative to mr. Clinton. Thank you to my colleague from california. My colleague from louisiana said this was language designed to go after trump. When an impeach judge from louisiana, which my colleague is aware of, and it went over to the senate and was voted on unanimously, 96 to zero, had the same exact language in it. There is nothing extraordinary about the language in this what is extraordinary, is the gymnastics and hurdles that my colleagues on the other side are going through to make sure that they throw a whole bunch of stuff at the wall. Hope they can confuse the American People, that something sticks. My friend on the other side just mentioned, that this president wanted to make sure that this new Ukrainian Administration was not corrupt like the last one. He gave the last corrupted ministration 550 Million Dollars. Again, what a judge will tell you when you were on a jury is that you get to apply common sense. If it doesnt make sense, you dont have to believe it, so if you 500 million to an administration was corrupt, what happens between 2018 and 2019 besides youre next political opponent . What the judge will also tell you is that you do not have to take everything that everybody says as fact. In this, case lets look at the three witnesses that testified under oath. Vindman. He said it was a meeting in exchange for an investigation into the bidens. Sauna and, a trump supporter, said it was a quid pro quo. Bill taylor, west buoyant, he said it was crazy to withhold military aid for an investigation, all under oath, all with the penalty of perjury. Who they offer on the other side . President trump. 14,435 lies to date, since he has been president. Not under oath, but we should take his word for it. Then it is so absurd because in a call, we know the president s vocabulary. We know what he doesnt what he does not say. He might say winning a lot, he might say great. But in his ordinary conversation he does not use the words quid pro quo. When he has the conversation after the whistleblower is known to everybody, he gets a call, first thing out of his mouth is i dont want a quid pro quo. Where did that come from . It came from the fact that you are guilty of the crime that is charged. Just like a kid who just got caught going into the cookie jar, with crumbs on his mouth, when his mother says what are you doing. He says i did need that cookie. We have a call out of the blue in the first thing he says is i dont want a quid pro quo, i want them to do the right thing. No you would not have held up vital military aid. This is a country that is being occupied, by his friend putin. And he is holding up the vital aid for them to protect their country because he says it is about corruption, but we know from the facts in this case, from the three people who testified under oath that all this was about was making sure that he gets an investigation into joe biden. Why was that important . Because when you panic you go back to what worked the first time. And an investigation where he got to run around the country saying lock her up, he figured if he could get another investigation, he could run around the country saying lock him up and it might work again. With that, mister chairman, i yield my time. Who else seeks recognition . inaudible thank you mister chairman you did not give us a lot of witnesses in this committee, know fact witnesses, but we did get one professor, professor turley who early on in his top mention that he did not vote for President Trump, and none of the other witnesses daddy there. The evidence that you have against, him as you are bringing these impeachment charges on, it is wafer thin evidence. What is not wafer thin is the partisan resolve by the democrats, at least on this committee to get rid of this president. They have been looking for an excuse to impeach this president for a long time, and now they think they have got one. But he will not be removed from office it is embarrassing, and it is a mark, and it is very embarrassing because the country should not be put through this, i think one of the things that we ought to do is look at the things this president is doing. This is a president that successfully grew the economy. If you look at the savings accounts, and 401 k s of so Many Americans and retirees. That is not going to go on forever, but it is certainly something positive that most americans can be pleased about. There are more americans now employed than ever before and our nations history. Manufacturing jobs which we need, they have been in decline for a long time, they are coming back. Manufacturing jobs are included by hundreds of thousands. Unemployment is it a 50 year low. 4 million americans no longer need to rely upon food stamps. That is a positive thing. Retail sales are up. We are finally becoming energy independent. The u. S. Is now a net natural gas export or for the first time in 60 years. We are now an exporter of natural gas. I remember the president , im sure my democratic colleagues remember this too, he was encouraging as to pass a right to try law. This allows people who oftentimes, they dont have a lot of chants, they have a disease that is being considered fatal, and they would like to try some drug that may be comes out some years down the road, but they are willing to try it now. It is giving some people of hope, and soulfully will save some lives. That was the president s idea we are increasing the pay for our men and women in uniform, and they deserve even more. There are two great judges, i would argue from my democratic colleagues would disagree. There are two great judges on the Supreme Court now. Things would look very different had Hillary Clinton been elected last time. Elections have consequences and there are many Circuit Court judges that they are filling in the senate. The president withdrew us from that awful iran deal, which essentially allowed money, billions of dollars to go to terrorists. That is now being used against aspire on, we have seen our u. S. Embassy move to jerusalem. We are starting to strengthen our southern borders, although there is a long way to go there, despite all these things. When the democrats took over the house earlier this year in january, one of the first things they did, articles of impeachment were introduced. That very same, day one of their members in a profanity filled speech famously said we are going to him peach the bleep, she did not impeach it. He might get reelected. Is that a reason to impeach a president . Because he might get reelected . It was to them. It goes back two years to the inauguration. We saw it in the streets here in washington. A lot of people came appeared to protest, and that is fine. We saw windows broken, we saw one person says she was dreaming about blowing up the white house. It really got ugly. The bottom line is they have been looking for an excuse for years now to impeach this president. They are wafer thin. We should not be moving forward on Something Like this the country deserves a lot better than they are getting in this impeachment process. I will be glad when we get beyond this, because it is bad for the country. The gentleman yields back. The gentleman is recognized. I heard my colleague from rhode island say this isnt about policy differences, this is about our obligation to protect and defend our constitution. It is about courage. It is about policy differences because you said nothing on your side, when president obama sent his surrogates out to lie about benghazi. You said nothing when president Obamas Administration entered into a gun running deal with mexican cartels, and the fast and Furious Program was developed. You said nothing about democrat leaders. This is about a policy difference. It is not about courage. I do not question anyones courage on the other side of the aisle, i question your judgment. I do not question your courage. I think the American People are getting tired. I say that because i have a friend from college, jim. And jim sent me a text. Jims dad was a pastor south of the masondixon line in the sixties and seventies, he was a leader in the civil rights movement. Jim didnt vote for trump, romney, mccain. Jim sent me a text and said will you tell your democratic colleagues that i am voting for donald trump this next time around . By the way, he tells me he believes that your party is over reaching at this point. Overreaching, the last text he sent me was interesting he said the stock market closed it a record high. I thought about that overreach comment, and i thought about what was my most ludicrous of the ways this group of democrats in the house have tried to take out this president. And there are a lot to choose from my favorite happens to be the 25th amendment. I thought when you came up with the 25th amendment it was right at the top. You call in a professor for medial, and that professor from yale could have been right out of a movie about the old soviet union. She says testifying in congress. That takes a majority of the cabinet to invoke the 25th amendment, but this president might be, he would need an examination. When asked by a, member could he be detained . Could the president of the United States be detained for purposes of an examination, she said yes. Right out of the old soviet union. That was my favorite. The other was the emoluments clause. I guess anyone that is successful, and that has worldwide businesses, is going to be subject to an emoluments clause argument. Thankfully you did not include that in this set of articles. You have had four on the floor of the house now. And you would think that somehow, we are not showing courage when we stand here and tell you you dont have the facts to convict this president on these charges. And you dont. The thing that is going to change is when this moves over to the senate, you lose the narrative. Because the republicans in the senate will call hunter biden. They will call the whistleblower. And you better wait and see what the American Public does when all of the facts are out. You dont get to hide the facts in the basement anymore. All the facts are going to come out. I asked a few of my friends if they owe you to my friend from arizona. You took the 25th amendment it was right at the top of the heap there. Virtually every time the president tweets something, i have heard criticism that he should be impeached for tweeting. The harvard law professor who was in here last week wrote a piece that he should be impeached for tweeting in 2017. That was fine. The other one is the bribery. When you had, professor try to explain it it took five minutes and then we did not hear any more about what bribery was. The gentleman yields back. inaudible mr. Jeffrey seeks recognition. My colleague suggested that we are here because we have policy disagreements with this president. We do have some policy disagreements with this president. We disagree with the fact that you passed, as youre signature legislative accomplishment in the last congress, a gop tax scam or 83 of the benefits went to the wealthiest 1 who exploded the deficit and the debt. We disagree with that. We disagree with your policy of separating gods children from their parents, and caging those children. That was unacceptable, unconscionable, and down american. We disagree with that. We disagree with your effort, that is ongoing, to strip away health care, protections for more than 100 million americans with preexisting conditions. We disagree with that as well. But we are not here at this moment, undertaking this solemn responsibility because we disagree with his policy positions. We will deal with that in november. We are here because the president pressured a Foreign Government to target an american citizen for political gain. Thereby he solicited foreign interference in the 2020 election by withholding 391 male years in military aid without justification. The president says that was perfect. Here is what others have had to say about that. Ambassador sondland who give the president 1 Million Dollars for the inauguration said, it was a quid pro quo. Lieutenant colonel vindman iraq war veteran said it was improper. Doctor fiona hill trump appointee, what did she say . Political errand. Ambassador taylor, west point graduate, appointed by reagan, bush and, trump vietnam war hero, he said it was crazy. John bolton, a superconservative, trump National Security adviser, said it was a drug deal. What with the framers of the constitution have said . Impeachable. I yield to my colleague from california. I thank the gentleman. In the efforts to defend this president , you want him to be someone he is not. You want him to be someone he is telling you he is not. You are trying to defend the call in so many different ways, and he is saying it was a perfect call. He is not who you want him to be. Ranking member collins, you can deny this is much as you want, but people died in ukraine at the hands of russia. In ukraine, since september 2018 when it was voted on by congress, was counting on our support. A year passed in people died. You may not want to think about that, it may be hard for you to think about that. But people died when this selfish president withheld the aid for his own personal gain. Obama on they gave so much, we have proven the record the president obama gave them not on the military capabilities, military training, and medical equipment. So dont tell yourself ukrainians didnt die. They died. Ambassador taylor said, these were weapons and assistance that allowed the Ukrainian Military to deter further incursions. If that further encourage, and further aggression married to take place, more ukrainians would die. It is a deterrent of fact. You didnt only hurt ukraine you helped russia. And to my colleagues who believe that we have such an Anti Corruption president in the white house, i ask you this. How many times to this Anti Corruption president meet with the most corrupt leader in the world, Vladimir Putin. How many times did he talk to him . 16 times between meetings and phone conversations. How many conditions did the president put on Vladimir Putin to get such an audience with the most powerful audience in the world. Zero conditions. That is who you are defending. So keep defending him we. Will defend the constitution, our National Security, and our elections. I yield back. Mister chairman i moved to strike the last word. I want to thank the gentleman, my colleague mr. Jeffries for laying bare what we all have known. They have policy differences, and as he said they will deal with it next november. They are not really interested in removing this president from office, they dont think the senate is going to remove him from office. They get it. This is all a political exercise on there and to help them in next novembers election. That is what its all about for them. And it is infuriating to me that they put on the show and wave their constitutions, which they must have just found because i have been at this for a long time and i dont see folks on their side of the aisle waving the constitution, much less reading from it. Theyre talking about what their real motives are, to use this as a political maneuver for advantage in the 2020 election. With that i yield to the ranking member. Mr. Swalwell, i dont know if the hearing is bad on that end. I did not say no one died. Undoubtedly you can have a trouble reading an article that said people died. No one said that. You can accuse whatever because you are just telling untruths, because you have a personal agenda. Thats great. But you cant get into this one. As someone who is seen people die on the battlefield, i know and people die. I know when they come into the hospital and they have been shot. To come in here and say that people died, that is a load of hogwash. That is so wrong, such a cheap shot. You cant even read your own article you put into submission. Maybe we could go through it word by word, although there is no way to leak our calls, directly to a lack of aid. Secretary hill said this was prospect of not at the time. I could draw a picture and put it on a chart for you. That is the most ridiculous comments, in there have been a lot of them here. That is the most amazing amazing lack of honesty, and integrity that ive seen so far. Look at your own article, to say that i never said no one died. In wars, people die. Is that difficult to understand. Maybe that is why you are back here with us tonight. It is not hard to understand. To say that, two things, the most Amazing Things today. But as marching the folks who died, and president zelensky, that is amazing to me. To sit there and keep repeating why after ally. Under secretary of state said that was prospective money, not current money. People died when there was money released earlier. Are we going to claim that that was because we didnt give them enough money . I dont know. You have an agenda to push. The clock is ticking. But to sit there and come back with that one and accuse me of saying that no one died . I never said nobody died. Undoubtedly you dont understand that. Your own article, that you wanted to get in so quickly, said there is no way to actually tell, this was an article that was slanted against the position the president half. So if you want to continue this debate, go right ahead. Because for the men and women out there who served in the military, who of washington understand this. For you to say that, it is just wrong. I am not yielding to anyone. Maybe its a reading comprehension problem. Maybe we just dont have it. Maybe its just because we dont have the facts to make the argument. I will go back to the facts. You couldnt have made the case otherwise you wouldve written them into the articles of impeachment. So what do we do . Today, we have taken the attack of tearing down mr. Zelensky, just tearing him down, and also continuing the unfortunate misrepresentation of money and deaths of soldiers fighting for their countries. That is the dark stand that we say today. I yield back. Mr. Clines time has now expired. For what purpose do you seek recognition . Strike the last. Word the gentlelady is recognize. Im going to take a different perspective than my last friend from georgia remind us of the words of george washington, the constitution is a god which i will never abandon. The American People have watched this debate, to men and women wearing uniform around the nation, i hope you understand that we will never abandon the constitution. That is why we are here to discuss articles of impeachment. Yesterday i said we the people of the United States, as evidenced by james madison, promote the general wealth or but establish the constitution for the United States of america. Let me speak briefly to say that the language the gentleman is trying to strike his already been established, and it was in the constitutional articles, of the articles of impeachment, in 1998. My good friends are speaking to an audience of one, the person who now is absorbing all the accolades of all the great work he has done, and i have no quarrel with their representation of their president. But i dont serve a man, or a president. Benjamin franklin, to those outside of the constitutional convention, answer the question when i asked mr. Franklin, what do we have, a monarchy or republic . He said a republic, if we can keep it. Today, the Majority Democrats are attempting to keep this republic, into maintain that the president of the United States cannot abused his power, and cannot disrupt congress. Chairman rodino made it very clear, he said that the president of the United States at that time, in the next and proceedings, could not designed for himself how the impeachment inquiry would work. Then, to talk about the president s use of his public office, public funds, to in essence get a foreign entity to help him with his campaign, besmirch in the campaigns, for the American People. I disagree with the president on cutting stamps for poor people, or separating children. I disagree as attacks and for the wall, because my fellow texans are against it. But the real issue is the power imbalance between the president of ukraine, newly elected president , a president who had run on the get corruption out campaign. Literally, he campaigned his party on Anti Corruption. And he comes hat in hand on this conversation, because he missed the president at the inauguration, he did not go. He sent sondland, and he sent perry. Mr. Pence did not go. He wanted to say anything he could to make sure that he would get these dollars, and calling for an investigation on an opponent, it was not beneath them. How do you think he would admit now publicly that he is willing to do it . Let me show you the atmosphere in which ukraine lived. Putin reclaims crimea, right on their. Border arrogantly, without any defends by ukraine. They lost. Crimea was taken. Just like we would have lost mississippi, or texas, or new york, or california. And then they lived in the atmosphere of a jetliner explodes over ukraine, shot down by russian weapons, by separatist supported by ukraine, by russia rather. And then ukraine, in ukraine, the u. S. Trains an army in the west to fight the east. This impacts our National Security. I read the constitution regularly. My predecessor always said keep a constitution in your hand, Barbara Jordan said we the people, but i am clear that the imbalance of power between the ukraine and the United States, and to heads of say it wouldve caused that president to do almost anything. As ambassador sondland said, he will do anything you desire him to do, and he will call for investigations. He was willing to go on cnn and announced those investigations. The president has abused his power. The president has tried to obstruct congress. He is trying to create his own way of us doing our impeachment inquiry, i believe we are doing the right thing and i support the articles of impeachment. I yield back. The gentlelady yields back. Strike the last word. The gentleman is recognized. Dare i to state the obvious. I have not heard a new point or an original thought from either side in the last three hours. The same talking points have been repeated over and over again adenoids, him by both sides. Repeating a fact over and over it doesnt make it true, and denying a fact over and over doesnt make it falls. Everybody knows this. Everybody watching knows this this hearing has been enough of an institutional embarrassment without putting it on an endless loop. So if i could just offer a modest suggestion if no one has anything new to add . Resist the temptation to inflict what we have already heard over and over again. And with that i yield back. The point is well taken. Who else seeks recognition . For what purpose do you seek recognition . Strike the last. Where the gentleman is recognized. I yield to mr. Jordan. I think the general lady for yielding. I heard them talking about election interference. How about the fbi spying on for american citizens associated with the Trump Campaign in 2016 . And the people running that investigation were the ones who said we are going to stop trump. They said trump should lose 100 million to zero. They were the ones who said we have an insurance policy. They ran that investigation where they went to the fisa court, we just learned that two days ago, they lied 17 times. They didnt tell the court the guy who wrote the dossier was desperate to stop trump. The dossier they are using to get a warrant, did not tell that the guy was working for the clinton campaign. That is probably an important fact. They didnt tell the court the guy who wrote the dossier, christopher steele, was fired by the fbi because he was out talking to the press. They didnt tell them all that. How about that fact . Now in 2020, we dont have the fbi spying on people with the Trump Campaign yet. We dont have them going to the fisa court and lying. Instead we have them going to impeachment. That is what they are doing. Thats how they will make it tougher on the president. That is what this is about. That is why it is so wrong. Let the American People decide. We are 11 months away from the next election. Let the American People decide. We already have the fbi try to weigh in, in 2016, and do all the things mr. Horowitz just told us about this week. Now in 2020, the democrats in congress are trying to create some kind of insurance policy with this impeachment effort. Let the American People decide, i yield back to the gentleman. I thank the gentleman. I will yield the remainder of my time. Thank you. There has been some talk about javelin missiles tonight. I just want to draw attention to some of what the democratic witnesses have said. I just have to find it on my desk. Lets talk about the law instead. I have heard when the facts are not on your side, you argue. The facts are on our side. So is the law. If you look at the Legal Definition it is very clear that the democrats cannot make out a case. It is interesting to note that the democrats have become original list all of a sudden. So lets go back to a statue. It contains the following elements. If a public official demands a receives personally anything of value in return for being influenced in the performance of an official act. So we can take any one of those elements and deconstructed. Lets start with official acts. A meeting in the white house is not a quote unquote official act under the Supreme Courts mcdonald precedent. Setting up a meeting, talking to another official, organizing an event without warrant does not fit the definition of an official act. Right there under Supreme Court precedent you dont have an official act. You can also look at the element anything of value. The department of justice, criminal division, Public Integrity section opined in september that something as nebulous as an investigation is not of sufficient concrete value to constitution something of value under the federal Campaign Finance laws. Presumably, the same would be true under the bribery statute. If we are arguing under the law, i can sit here and argue it all night because the law is on our side. You cannot make out a case. I was a district judge in pennsylvania. I decided cases at this level. I wouldve dismissed this every time i came before me. Because there are not the elements needed to support a case. I only have 30 seconds left, of someone yields me more time i would appreciate it. The president did not have corrupt intent. Democrats are using a parody version of chairman schiff, when he was talking about the president , when he said make up dirt about my opponent. The president didnt say that, that was a parity of chairman shift, that is being used to support this aliment. If anyone has more time, i would appreciate it. With that i yield back. inaudible mister chairman . Mister chairman . Who seeks recognition on this amendment . noise you have spoken on the amendment already. That is what our record say. I dont think so. Does anyone else seek recognition . No one else seeks recognition . Mister chairman, point of order. Mr. Ratcliffe, does mr. Ratcliffe seek recognition . Gentleman is recognized. I guess this means we are not doing the minority hearing today. I would just say that james madison, he said at the convention of 1787, impeachment was for removal of an officer who had rendered himself just the criminal in the eyes of the majority of the people. You dont have that. What you have here is a slop bucket, that you are calling articles of impeachment. What we have heard over the last two days is basically every grievance that democrats have against this president. You stuck the ladle in that slop bucket and you are trying to throw it out there and pigeonholed that grievance into one of two things. Obstruction of congress or abuse of power. That is the problem you have here. You are all over the map because you cant deliver a crime. There is no high, crime there is no misdemeanor. There is no bribery. They try to explain what the bribery might have been, it took her almost a full five minutes, and after she was done, we didnt hear anyone talking about bribery anymore as an Impeachable Offense. You talked about a quid pro quo and that was pretty much off the table until tonight, it is kind of running back up again. The bottom line is this. You dont have a specific charge, so used to amorphous, weak areas to go forward. Youve been trying different avenues. I am reminded that one of my colleagues on the other side said, if you want trump to be something he isnt. The reality is that that is projection. You want him to be something he isnt. That is why you are trying to impeach him. That is why you have tried all kinds of theories that have all fallen flat. The big one was the mueller impeachment. You really want that one. That didnt work so well. It didnt work so well because there was nothing there. I would Say Something about president zelensky, and his discussion with the president. He himself, president zelensky, without instigation in this conversation at all, about ambassador yovanovitch, after she had been recalled. She said the attitude towards me was far from the best, because she admired the previous president and was on his side. This is the Anti Corruption crusader you keep talking about. President poroshenko is being accused of being corrupt, but president zelensky said, yovanovitch was on his side. She would not accept me as the new president well enough. The reason i bring that up is because, you have repeatedly said there is nothing contested here. The facts are not contested. But i go back to something that i think is very important. All of the influences you have drawn have been designed to go against this president and paint him in the light least favorable. That is because you have tried to project him into being something you want him to be. When you look at the facts and the direct evidence, the direct evidence is very clear. Ukraine received the aid, provided nothing in return, and they stated, president zelensky and foreign minister yermak said, they felt no pressure. There was no pressure there. Even ambassador sondland who you relied on over 600 times in your effort, said i have no one in the world told me anything. I just presumed it. You dont have a case. You have never had a case you just wanted to have a case and that is the sadness about it, you are impeaching him because you have wanted to for three years you cant beat him in a reelection, you are not going to beat him in a reelection, so you had to go to impeachment. And that is a tragedy for america. I yield. The gentleman yields back. For what purpose to see seek recognition. Move to strike the last word. Thank you mister chair. With much respect to my colleague, who quoted james madison, there has been this description of the abuse of power as amorphous by some. Nebulous was aware that one of my colleagues used in this long debate tonight. I would offer you the following quote. Liberty maybe endangered by the abuse of liberty. But also vanity abuse of power. That quote is from james madison. The part of this debate that has been so frustrating for me, and i think for a lot of americans who are watching tonight, is the diminishment of the public servants, the patriots, who stepped forward and provided the evidence that demonstrates that this president abused his power. People like Lieutenant Colonel vindman, who served this country bravely overseas. People like ambassador bill taylor, a west point graduate, a vietnam veteran, people like doctor fiona hill, people like laura cooper. Official after official, after official from the Trump Administration. These individuals serve in the president s administration. Ambassador taylor was not appointed by president obama. He was appointed by President Trump. I would hope that my colleagues, is we proceed with the solemn duty that this committee is charged with, that we respect the people who came forward, who have served under republican and democratic administrations, to tell the truth undergrowth, and to help this committee as it seeks to hold this administration accountable. With that i yield. I thank, you mr. Neguse. I was listening to this debate most of us here are lawyers. But the idea that the Founding Fathers in 1789 would be considering the u. S. Coal president , and the mcconnell case precedent, and other president s in 1789, is simply ridiculous. Mr. Neguse has pointed out with the Founding Fathers had in mind with the impeachment clause, and we know that high crimes and misdemeanors is essentially actions that the president uses, with the extraordinary power that he has been given under the constitution, to subvert the constitutional order, to prevent the constitutional system from working, and that is the concern that we have here. Not only that the president has done that, but that he is not contrite, he is not correcting his behavior. He is continuing to do it. He is presenting an ongoing threat, and he will continue to subvert the constitutional order. I thank mr. Neguse for yielding to me on the idea that these court cases would have been precedent in 1789. I yield back. I yield the balance of my time to mr. Rhode island. We have taken into record 500 legal scholars. They reinforce what mr. Neguse just said. Impeachment is in essential remedy for conduct a corrupt selections. The primary check on the president s powers political. If the president reforms poorly he can be punished at the polls. But a president who corrupts the system, places himself beyond that political check. George mason described Impeachable Offense is as attempts to subvert the constitution, corrupting elections subverts the it makes the president accountable. The president sheets in his efforts it reelection, it is no remedy. This is what impeachment is for. I asked my republican, colleagues how many of you would allow a foreign power to help in your elections . Not one of you, because you know it would violate the constitution. And you dont want to corrupt the right of the American People to decide who will represent them. I was the mayor of providence. It would be like if i got a grant of 1 Million Dollars to fight gang violence, and the police chief called me and said, where is that money, that i said before i send it to you let me do that do me a favor. The gentlemans time has expired. For what purpose. I moved to strike the last. Word no he has already spoken. The question is now on the amendment. Those in favor say aye. Those no. The nays have it. The amendment is not agreed to. A roll call vote has been requested. Call the roll. Mr. Nadler. Mr. Nadler votes. No miss lofgren . Miss lofgren votes. Now miss jacksonlee . Miss jacksonlee votes no. Mr. Cohen . Mr. Cohen votes now. Mr. Johnson of georgia . Mr. Johnson and georgia votes no. Mr. Deutch . Mr. George foot. No miss bass . Miss bath votes. Now mr. Richmond . Mr. Richmond votes. Now mr. Jeffries . Mr. Jeffries was. No mr. Cicilline . Mr. Cicilline says. No mr. Swalwell . Mr. Swalwell votes. Now mr. Lieu . I mr. Raskin . Mr. Raskin votes. No miss jayapal . Miss jayapal votes. No miss demings . Miss demings votes. No mr. Korea . Mr. Cravats. No . Yes kamala miss scanlon votes. Now its garcia . Miss kersey about. Snow mr. Neguse . Mr. Drug use. Was no miss mcbath . Miss mcbath foot. Snow mr. Stanton . Mr. Stanton votes. No list . In misty in both. Snow is mucarselpowell . As mucarselpowell votes. No miss escobar votes. Now mr. Collins . Mr. Collins votes. I mr