President for a long time now. In fact, when they took over the house, one of their members filed articles of impeachment that very day and really since Inauguration Day many wanted to impeach him. This is really all about in my view, its all about politics. Its all about hurting the president , hurting his reputation. They dislike him intensely. As i mentioned the other day they really loathe this president , and theyre trying to hurt his chances in the next election. It may well do just the opposite. One of my real concerns, and af lot of them about this whole thing. I mentioned this earlier today, im very concerned about is that The Democrats are really lowering the bar for impeaching a president in the future. Its becoming too routine. Its becoming the new normal. For 200 years in our nation wed had one impeachment, one in 200 years, Andrew Johnson and now in less than 50 years were in our third one this time around. And i really am concerned that from now on in all likelihood when you have the president of the United States and you have the House Of Representatives and theyre opposite parties, youre going to end up with the base in the House Of Representatives pushing very hard at members to impeach that president , and its very divisive for the nation. So many other things dont get done when youre going through an impeachment. For example, opioids, 70,000 almost americans lost their lives last year, but weve done very little about opioids in this committee, and we have jurisdiction over it, doing something about our southern border, which is still like a sieve. Far too many people come in illegal. We do almost nothing there. Overall in congress our infrastructure, roads and highways its crumbling but we do very little about that. I think the American People deserve a lot better than what theyre getting from this committee or from this congress. So in any event, i want to thank the folks out there and god
bless america. Gentlemans time is expired. For what purpose does does mr. Deutsche seek recognition . Move to strike the last word. Gentlemans recognized . Thank you mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, i want to start by agreeing with mr. Sensenbrenner. It is always the right time to defend the constitution, and thats the very reason that were here. There are two articles of impeachment. The first is abuse of power. The president of the United States abused his power by soliciting foreign interference in our elections cheating the american voters. How did he do it . He leveraged Life Saving Taxpayer funded military aid that ukraine desperately needed for assistance in his reelection campaign, and he leveraged a white house meeting that he had promised to the new
ukrainian president that president zelensky desperately needed to show Vladimir Putin that the United States is willing to stand with ukraine, and he leveraged that meeting for assistance in his reelection campaign. Thats abuse of power now any colleagues have suggested that somehow abuse of power is not a serious offense, that we should make light of the president s actions, not treat it as the constitutional violation that it is. In fact, abuse of power was a principle concern of the Framers Of The Constitution, and it was clear what it meant. The exercise of official power to obtain an improper personal benefit while ignoring or injuring the National Interests, thats abuse of power. Its rooted in the president s duty, constitutional duty to faithfully execution the law, to
put service over self. To put the country over his personal interests. I note from my colleagues that all four of the constitutional scholars who testified including the republicans own witness have confirmed that abuse of power is an Impeachable Offense. President trumps actions, in fact, exemplify the framers fears and the very reason that abuse of power is a high crime. Worse than president nixon, President Trump pressured a Foreign Government to aid in his corrupt scheme. Thats the abuse of power article, but theres a second article, obstruction of congress. We know that no president in history, in history has directed the entire Executive Branch not to cooperate with an Impeachment Inquiry, has told every member
of the Executive Branch not to speak to any of the impeachment to any of the Impeachment Inquiry issues. Now, the question is when you look at the abuse of power, which is a constitutional violation and then you look at the president s obstruction of congress, it leads to some questions i would like my colleagues to think about as we head toward this important vote. Think about the people who the president has blocked from speaking. Think about mick mulvaney. Now, mick mulvaney, acting chief of staff acknowledged a quid pro quo, said it happens all the time. Thats abuse of power. But then the president wouldnt let him speak. Thats obstruction of congress. Why wont he let him speak . What does he have to hide . Think about secretary perry. Ambassador taylor described a
highly irregular Ukraine Policy Channel Led by Rudy Giuliani that included sondland, volker and rick perry. That contributes to the abuse of power. It highlights the abuse of power, but it also is obstruction of congress. Why . Why wont the president allow him to speak . What is he afraid of . Think about john bolton. Fiona hill testified that bolton told her to notify nsc counsel about the rogue effort. He said im not a part of whatever drug Deal Sondland and mulvaney are cooking up. Bolton, in fact, called giuliani a hand grenade whos going to blow everybody up. Thats the abuse of power. Obstruction of congress is clear. Why wont the president let him testify . Whats he hiding . And finally, john eisenberg, Lieutenant Colonel vindman couldnt believe what he heard on the call. He reported it to eisenberg. Now eisenberg cant speak. What is it the president is afraid hell say . Thats obstruction of congress. Abuse of power and obstruction of the congress, together thats what these articles are about. Were protecting the constitution. Were protecting the American People and our elections. Thats why we need to proceed with these articles of impeachment. I yield back. Gentleman yields back. For what purposes seeking recognition . I move to strike the last word, the movement is recognized. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Ive been a prosecutor, i was a prosecutor in baghdad when i was in the navy, prosecuted terrorists. I was a Defense Attorney in the navy. Actually got to defend a navy s. E. A. L. Against trumped up charges by the Obama Administration and i had the honor of serving as a District Judge in my hometown in the south hills of pittsburgh. So ive been on all sides of a courtroom, and i can tell you that i would defend this case every single day, and its because the facts just arent
there. Lets go through each article. Abuse of power or quid pro quo, bribery, call it whatever your focus group wants to call it because at the end of the day, you dont have the facts to make out the case. You dont have the facts because the other party on your quid pro quo, your alleged quid pro quo, never felt pressure. We have a primary document, a primary source of information that is the transcript of the call that shows there was no connection. We also have the other party, president zelensky who said at no time did the ukrainians feel any pressure to have an investigation. We also know that no investigation of biden ever took place. We also know that aid was given to ukraine, aid that they never knew at the time was being under review, and aid that came in the form of javelin missiles, not what the Obama Administration gave which were well wishes and
blankets. So again, no case can be made for abuse of power. Obstruction of congress, this is what we would describe as ripe or not right. It isnt right because only letters have been sent. Theres been no subpoena. How this works is a subpoenas issued. The Executive Branch exercises their Executive Privilege, just like obama did, and then the courts decide this. The courts have never decided this, so wheres the obstruction . It doesnt exist. So i would defend this case every single day. As a judge, i would dismiss this for lack of merit. Even if the facts are viewed in light most favorable to The Democrats, you still, again, cannot make out what we as lawyers call a prima fascia case. This case would be dismissed on day one in a courtroom. Ill tell you what case id prosecute id prosecute schiff for abuse of power any day of
the week. Why . How about the fact that he subpoenaed Phone Records from a member of congress. How about the fact that he signaled out devin nuness Cell Phone Number and leaked that . How about the fact that he dumped over 8,000 pages on the Judiciary Committee 48 hours before we had a hearing in this committee . That is the abuse of power. That is what i would prosecute every day of the week. Obstruction, id prosecute The Democrats for obstruction of congress, too. How about the fact that i had a motion to subpoena the whistleblower. The whistleblower, who by the way you cannot point to any statute. Theres no statute that gives that whistleblower the right to be anonymous . Does not exist no matter what you say. I had a motion to subpoena the whistleblower two weeks ago. That motion was denied. I never got my subpoena, and it was todone in a partisan fashio straight down partisan lines. So that is the obstruction and i
would prosecute that every day. Folks, thats the legal analysis. This is nothing more than a political hit job. Thanks, and i yield the remainder of my time. Gentleman yields back. For what purpose does ms. Scanlon seek recognition . I move to strike the last word. The lady is recognized. I want to reiterate, this is not about Dus Agreemeisagreemene president s policy or personality or even his tweets. Were not judging the president himself. Were judging his actions, and i understand that he ran to disrupt the government. The problem is he went further by abusing his power, he endangered our elections and our National Security. He remains an ongoing threat to both. Hes shown a party pattern tterg foreign interference in our elections and trying to cover it up twice. Hes threatening to do it again, so weve heard a lot of loose talk about what evidence we have or dont have. There is plenty of direct evidence of the president s wrongdoing, including, for example, his July 25th Call record, in which he said to the ukrainian president , i want you to do us a favor, though. And Nen Procethen proceeded to investigations into his political rival and a debunked Conspiracy Theory that the senate and all of our National Security services have rejected. We have the testimony of his appointees, ambassador sondland and volker about the May 23rd Meeting in which the president said to them, talk to rudy. We have testimony of three firsthand witnesses to the July 25th Call, two of whom promptly reported the call to their superiors and to legal counsel. We have the testimony of david holmes who overheard the president ask ambassador sondland whether president zelensky was going to, quote, do
the investigation. We have the president s many public statements, including his October 3rd Statement that ukraine and china should investigate his political rival. Even the minority counsel, mr. Castor admitted there was direct evidence. He said, quote, we had some direct evidence on certain things and we had some direct evidence on the May 23rd Meeting and sondland gave some direct evidence, end quote. The secondhand accounts are also extensively corroborated. For example, ambassador taylor and mr. Morrison both testified that during a September 7th phone call with ambassador sondland, President Trump said there was no quid pro quo, but that president zelensky had to go to the microphone and announce investigations, kind of giving with one hand and taking away with the other. Ambassador sondland testified he had no reason to dispute ambassador saylor and mr. Morrisons testimony about this conversation. Theres also circumstantial
evidence. There was no contemporaneous explanation fwichb for the president s decision to withhold the military aid that had bipartisan support from congress. That didnt come until after the articles of impeachment were filed, and the Uniform Con Seses of the state department, the defense department, and white house witnesses is that the aid should have been released. Given these facts, the only logical explanation as ambassador sondland concluded was that like the white house meeting, the aid was being used to leverage pressure on president zelensky. At the end of the day, the evidence is overwhelming and indisputable. President trumps personal lawyer, Rudy Giuliani, pushed ukraine to investigate his political rival and a debunked Conspiracy Theory. His efforts had nothing to do with u. S. Policy and were taken on the president s behalf and with the president s knowledge. President trump directed u. S. Officials and president zelensky himself to work with mr. Giuliani. President trump ordered the Critical Military aid for ukraine be withheld. Ukrainian officials were informed the aid would not be released unless president zelensky publicly announced an investigation, and President Trump refused to release the aid until his Pressure Campaign on the ukraine was exposed. President trump refused to arrange a meeting with president zelensky, and President Trumps agents advised ukrainian officials that the white house meeting would be scheduled only after president zelensky committed to the investigations. President trump ignored the anticorruption Talking Points prepared for his calls. President trump asked president zelensky directly to investigate President Trumps chief political rival, and President Trump stone waulled congresss investigation. You know, i dont know what more you can ask for here, weve got in additions from the president. Weve got corroboration from people hes appointed. The only thing you can do is stick your head in the sand if youre not willing to see what happened here. And with that i would yield to my colleague from florida. Is she here . Okay. Oh, thank you. Two seconds, ill wait for the next yield. Sorry. Okay. The time of the gentle lady has expired. What purpose is mr. Armstrong seek recognition . Move to strike the last word. Gentleman is recognized. For weeks my democratic colleagues talked about quid pro quo, and then they pulled tested bribery, but they had a problem because these things will never change. There was no pressure. Both president zelensky and President Trump said that there was no pressure, no victim, no no the aid was released, and there was no investigation. And you know what else . There was no whistleblower. There was no adam schiff, so we
are left with abuse of power and obstruction of justice. An impeachment is either a solemn constitutional affair, which this is absolutely not or whatever the majority wants it to be, which this absolutely is. If you cannot prove any of it, i guess youre going to use all of it. So why not expand it to all the way back to where this thing all started. Bob mueller. And buried in the bottom of article ii of this impeachment is the language these actions were consistent with the President Trumps previous efforts to undermine United States government investigations into foreign interference in the United States elections. This is nothing more than a legislative driveby or probably more accurate majoritys attempt to return to the scene of a noncrime, but i guess after two years, 19 lawyers, 40 agents, 500 warrants, 2,800 subpoenas, 30 million, there is simply no way they could leave it out. So heres just a reminder. The investigation did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the russian government in its Election Interference activities. Mueller report page 2. This started the day President Trump won the election. This has been the foregone conclusion since the ta The Democrats won back the majority. This was never about facts or fairness, so here we are where we were always going to be, on a purely partisan impeachment that is destined to fail in the senate. And with that i yield back. The Gentleman Yield Backs for what purposes does ms. Lofgren seek recognition . To strike the last word. The lady is recognized. You know, i have listened carefully to this very long debate this evening and throughout the last two weeks, and i think its important to look back to the founders and the foundation of what it is that were doing here. The founders knew that the powers given to the president needed to have the capacity to be curbed in the case of abuse. The Framers Of The Constitution consciously adopted a particular phrase from the english practice to help define the constitutional grounds for removal. The dcontent of the phrase High Crimes And Misdemeanors for the framers is to be related to what the framers knew on the whole about the english practice, the broad sweep of english constitutional history and the vital Role Impeachment had played in the limitation of Royal Progreerogatives and the control of abuses of ministerial and judicial power. Now, when youre coming to private affairs in ordinary criminal law, its possible in advance to define what it is you cant do. You cant steal that money. You cant hit that person, but when youre talking about the abuse of president ial power, you cant always specifically define what a bad actor in the white house might do, and therefore you have the term High Crimes And Misdemeanors, and you have the abuse of president ial power. Its important to note and in the second article of impeachment against richard nixon, there was an article for abuse of power. The article principally addressed president nixons use of power including the powers vested solely in the president to aid his political allies, harm his political opponents, gain improper personal political
advantages. He used his power and this is a quote it was undertaken for his personal political advantage and not in furtherance of any Valid National political objective. His president ial powers, and again, this is a quote, were seriously incompatible with our system of Constitutional Government and warranted removal from office. We have a situation similar here, but i want to address the issue raised by my colleague from ohio because i do agree that there can be a tendency in the country these days to immediately think, well, i dont like that. Lets go to impeachment, and that is frankly been prevalent since the clinton impeachment. Lying under oath is a crime. Lying about sex is a shame, but neither one involved the use of
president ial powers, and the use of impeachment in that instance really in an improper way was never the abuse of president ial power. I think put in the public mind that this is a tool to be used for disagreements about policy, nothing could be further than the truth. I was disappointed i voted against the iraq war, but the congress voted. Some people thought we should have articles of impeachment about that. No, that did not undercut the constitutional order. Congress voted. It was a mistake, but it was the president and the congress together. It was not the president usurping the powers of another branch of government. Here we have a situation that is so obvious. If you look at the facts, its just inconceivable the things ive heard today, are just stunning to me that you could
reach a conclusion as really Defense Counsel here grasping at straws. The president misused his president ial power to gain a personal benefit to the detriment of the interests of the United States. It was an abuse of power that harmed us, and it is ongoing. It is a threat to the constitutional order. It meets the definition of High Crimes And Misdemeanors. It is abuse of president ial power, and its our responsibility to use the tool that our founders gave us in the constitution to preserve that constitutional order. We must impeach. I yield back. The gentle lady yields back. Who seeks recognition . Strike the last word. Gentleman is recognized. Thank you, just a quick comment. Comments about president clintons actions. When you lie under oath, its perjury. Its a crime, and i understand the comment that he wasnt acting in his official capacity, that would set back the Metoo Movement if they took that position, you know, having sex with an employee thats that much younger when youre president of the United States. Thats not in his official capacity. But no matter how long we spend today, tonight, tomorrow, it doesnt make up for the fact that we did not have fact witnesses. I mean, this reminds me historically of the trial of socrates. You know what . He got convicted by the jury of 501 people. Why . Because he was arrogant. You want to try donald trump for being arrogant . Im sure youd have a lot of republicans vote with you on that. Yeah, hes arrogant. Hes got a lot to be arrogant about, but that is not a crime. It is not a high crime for sure, and its certainly not a misdemeanor. Its bothersome to people, some people like it, but thats not what impeachment is supposed to be about, and to have had a trial, what few Hearsay Gossip Mongering witnesses there were coming to a star chamber and secrete their testimony so people cant see them, cant hear them, but we have adam schiff put it together in a big report, and we received the report, dont have much time to review it. But thats all we need. We dont even get to hear from the preparer of the report and get to cross examine him. This is a stalinesque type proceeding. Thats the way it worked under stalin. You didnt get to find out what
the fact witnesses, because usually there werent any, just like here. So what do you have . You have people come in and give appearance, give their impressions, and give an appearance and oh, gee, were welleducated. You know, great. Thats fine. And if youre ever not sure about being good at rationalizing . Go to law school. Youre trained to do that so that when you hate a person like the three witnesses obviously do donald trump, you can come in and just misrepresent facts and use those to base your opinions on them. Just great, but look at what really started. It started before mueller. It started back carter page had worked for the cia to help them against the russians, and what do they do . They pervert that, lie to the fisa court, and say, oh, he has worked with russians. Misrepresent who he is, what he did, and what a patriot he was, and then get a warrant. And then as the time goes on, they lie about it. And whethre did this all come from . It came from Hillary Clintons campaign, the Democratic National committee, and they haired fusion gps. They hired a foreigner to affect our election, and they worked with an australian, an italian and they actually, Christopher Steele admitted, you know what . Those people that gave me that information, they may have been russian. They may have been ukrainians, be nice to know. But the majority doesnt want us to get there, and the very week we find out how bad this travesty was, the top people in the fbi and the Department Of Justice perverted justice because they didnt like the guy that might get elected. They did everything they could. They used all these foreign resources to try to change the outcome of the 2016 election,
and when that didnt work, then they came forward with impeachment. It was, oh, lets project what we did on donald trump. But it turned out he didnt do that, and even mueller and weiss m weissmweiss as much as they hated trump, they couldnt find anything to use against President Trump. So we had to drop the russian collusion. We had to drop the treason. Oh, what about obstruction of justice . Well, its not obstruction of justice when you know youre innocent, and you know the Department Of Justice is trying to set you up and youre trying to expose the truth. No, it was others who were obstructing the true justice. Vindman, for heaven sake, you set that guy up as a hero. Hes no hero. He was mad because trump didnt do what he told him. For those who believe in praying for this country, pray for mercy. We cant afford justice of the country, i yield back. Gentleman yields back, for
what purpose does ms. Garcia see recognition . Move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, five more minutes. Five more minutes in a very long, long day, but when you look at what the other side has presented in defense of the president , what do we get . Nada, nothing. None of you all will defend the president s actions because quite simply you cannot defend the indefensible. You just cant. Even if you like him or support his actions, you just wont defend what he did. Its really quite simple. Its not complicated at all. He offered official acts in exchange for a political favor. Hes a Clear And Present Danger to do it again. He ignored the power of the people, and he will do it again. Its really just that simple. The president is an imminent
threat. The president has shown us his pattern of conduct. He has made clear that he will continue to abuse his power, to corrupt the 2020 elections. We must act with a sense of urgency to protect our democracy and defend our constitution. In the clinton case, the house voted to impeach 72 days after it authorized an inquiry. It has been 94 days since congress launched its investigation into the president s dealings with ukraine. Impeachment is a charging decision, like a grand jury or a prosecutor makes. And we have seen more than enough evidence here to charge and move to trial in the senate. It is the president who is abusing his power. What is not fair is the president s Blanket Refusal to participate in this inquiry for the sole purpose of hiding the
facts from the American People. Federal courts have ruled that congress has a constitutional right to obtain documents and testimony from the trump administration. One federal court said that the president s obstructions is a farce and he is openly stonewalling, and i agree. He is the first president to engage in wall to wall stonewalling, and in some respects an outright coverup of his own behavior. He has refused to comply with all the congressional subpoenas that have been issued to try to uncover the truth about his misconduct, an act that no other citizen can do without consequence. As has been stated before, even president nixon shared documents and allowed current and former aides to testify as part of the impeachment process, and the Committee Still recommended an
article of impeachment against him for obstruction. Last night i reminded us that all this is really about preserving and protecting our democracy for the little Boys And Girls across this nation so that they will know about what it means to make a promise and to make a pledge and to keep it because democracy is a gift that each generation gives to the next. And thats why we have to take action. We have to move forward, and we must impeach the president. With that, mr. Chairman, i yield the remainder of my time to my colleague from florida. Thank you, ms. Garcia. I just wanted to answer to what mr. Chabot said earlier and clarify that i along with so many of my colleagues, so many of us that you see sitting on this dais, we did not come here to the impeach the president of
the United States. We came to Lower Health Care costs, and thats exactly what we did today. We voted on hr3 today to lower Prescription Drug prices. They say let the American People decide. Well, that is why last week we voted on the Voting Rights amendment act, which many of my republican colleagues voted against. Let americans decide. Yes, that is exactly why were here because we dont want russia, ukraine, or china making the decision for us in our american government. This president has committed the highest crime by abusing the power of his office, inviting foreign interference in our elections, and that is why we are here today. Please Dont Confuse Americans with false claims and pushing debunked conspiracy theories. We are here to tell the American People the truth. I yield back. Gentle lady yields back. Who seeks recognition . What purposes mr. Mcclintock
seek recognition. To strike the last word. Gentlemans recognized. Mr. Chairman, ive lost track of the number of Newspaper Articles that have been entered into the record in these proceedings, but i think its a telling commentary on the quality of the case that this committee is relying on to support the exercise of one of the most profound actions that we can take. I think it underscores the dereliction of duty of a Judiciary Committee drafting articles of impeachment without a single fact hearing. Virtually the entire record is the schiff report and newspaper clippings. As i reminded the committee yesterday, this week mr. Schiffs report on fisa abuse was categorically and completely contradicted by the inspector generals report. Mr. Schiffs work is not exactly what you can call the Gold Standard of accuracy, reliability or incisive analysis, and newspaper clippings, with all due respect, are not exactly the Solid Foundation that can support our wielding such power. Impeachment should be made of sterner stuff. A matter so momentous as this should be considered thoroughly and dispassionately and fairly, and mr. Chairman, to substitute our judgment for that of the American People by nullifying a National Election is a very weighty matter. If youre going to do that, you should have a record of fact that no reasonable person can deny. A onesided report from adam schiff and a Newspaper Scrapbook is the foundation of impeachment, then i predict well crumble and disintegrate before the senate finishes its consideration. Abuse of power is exactly the vague and expansive ground that the founders considered as mal administration and rejected in favor of the narrow ground of treason, bribery, or other High Crimes And Misdemeanors. The lawful exercise of the president s Constitutional Authority is not impeachable, and the moment that we make it
so, the president becomes a servant of congress and the Separation Of Powers, which has protected our freedom for nearly two and a half centuries will be greatly diminished. And similarly, the president s assertion of long established boundaries that maintain the Separation Of Powers is also not impeachable, and once we make it so, we also clearly diminish the Separation Of Powers. The Overwrought Political Hig E hyperbole that weve heard over and over through these warnings ought to warn us were straying into partisan motives. Public opinion has not coalesced around this act, which should also alert us to the danger that by proceeding we would further divide and alienate the American People and roil and agitate the political waters of this nation. You failed to define any law that the president has violated. If you could, you should clearly
articulate that. You should support it with legal admissible evidence, and put it in the articles. Otherwise, your case is simply a disagreement with decisions the president is authorized to make, and again, this is a matter that our Constitution Reserves to the voters and not to the congress. And by denying the witnesses requested by the minority, youve blinded the committee to getting the whole story. If youre truly confident of your case, you should have nothing to fear from what a full airing of testimony would offer. The most chilling observation ive heard is that we can do this because were not restricted like the Department Of Justice is. Well, the same rights of due process and the same fidelity to the constitution are required of us. In the impeachment of Andrew Johnson, congress made many of the same mistakes that we are making tonight. I would urge my colleagues to carefully consider how history has judged them and how it will
judge us. I yield back. The gentleman yields back, for what purposes is ms. Seeking recognition . Move to strike the last word. Gentle lady is recognized. Thank you, mr. Chairman, we just continue to hear the same excuses for the president s behavior, and this is such a grave moment that were in. Were talking about the highest constitutional crimes, abuse of power and obstruction of congress, and so let me oneself again just review the facts. First, my republican colleagues have said that this is about corruption, but all of President Trumps agencies, all of his advisers, everyone unanimously told him that ukraine had passed all the anticorruption benchmarks. The Department Of Defense said that ukraine had passed their review on anticorruption
benchmarks and no further corruption policies were needed. President Trumps Administration cut programs designed to fight corruption in ukraine, and President Trump was given Talking Points by the National Security council that specifically said if say these things about corruption, but guess what happened on those calls in april and july . President trump did not mention corruption. He did not use the Talking Points that he was given. The only two names that he mentioned on the July 25th Call were joe and hunter biden. Second, the republicans suggested that this was all about President Trumps concerns with Burden Sharing with our allie allies. But that wasnt true. That wasnt true. Mr. Holmes testified that Burden Sharing was not a problem. Europe was actually contributing four times as much money as the United States did, and ambassador sondland testified that he was never asked to go to
the European Union and ask for more money. And remember, mr. Sondland is President Trumps ambassador to the European Union. What was ambassador sondland told to communicate to ukraine by President Trump . He was told to say that resumption of aid would likely not occur unless president zelensky announced the investigation. Specifically, he said that, quote, Unless Zelensky went to the mic and announced these investigations, there would be a stalemate over the aid. And what were those investigations . 2016 Election Interference and burisma, meaning the bidens. So finally, left with nothing else to argue in defense of the president , the republicans have raised one more thing, which is that President Trump had a legitimate reason, somehow a legitimate reason to investigate Vice President biden. But once again, that makes no sense. It makes no sense because the facts are that that investigation of that issue of the biden of biden and
burisma went back to 2015, and President Trump released aid in 2017 and 2018, so he clearly didnt have a problem with the issues of 2015 because he had two opportunities to release aid, and he did, but something changed in 2019, and the only thing that changed is that Vice President biden suddenly started beating President Trump in the polls. So the evidence is clear. President trump said do us a favor, though. And who was the us . Well, he told us. He told us that exactly what he meant by us. He told president zelensky that us meant deal with Rudy Giuliani, President Trumps personal attorney, who knows and this is a quote very much knows whats going on. President trump could have gone through official channels if he wanted, if this investigations actually legitimate. He could have asked the Department Of Justice to initiate an investigation into the bidens and burisma, but he
didnt do that. He did not do that. And the Department Of Justice said that he didnt do that. He never asked them to do an investigation or even talk to ukraine. Instead, President Trump asked his personal attorney because us was not about america. This wasnt about official policy. This wasnt about what was right for our country. This was not about putting america first. Every witness testified to that as well. This was personal. It was all for President Trumps personal political gain. This was to benefit trumps own reelection campaign, and thats why he had his personal attorney do this. He abused his power. He abused the power that the people entrusted to him. He abused the office, and he placed our Safety Millions of dollars of Taxpayer Money all at
risk for his own personal political election, and that is the one thing the president cant do. He cannot use our money, the powers of the office that we entrusted to him, we the people, not for us but for himself. That is the gravest abuse of power, and this president has left us no choice but to impeach him. I yield back. Gentle lady yields back, for what purposes mr. Johnson seek recognition . Move to strike the last word. Gentleman is recognized. Thank you, mr. Chairman. This morning i began by outlining our Important Role of the day. Most of us are attorneys on this committee, and in this case were also called to serve as finders of fact. Were supposed to carefully and objectively analyze the claims not against our personal preferences but against the record of evidence. And now weve done that for the past 12 hours, and its time to summarize our case. At the end of the day now literally the end of the day, there are just two short
articles to this impeachment resolution they brought before us, abuse of power and obstruction of justice, and lets review both. On the first, The Democrats know there is zero direct evidence in the record of these proceedings to show that President Trump engaged in any scheme of any kind as theyve alleged or that he intended in his dealings with ukraine to influence the 2020 election. All theyve argued today is based on hearsay, speculation and conjecture completely. The truth is theres not a single fact witness that can provide testimony to support their paper thin case, which is precisely why weve been given no opportunity for a fact witness or a Minority Hearing. What the evidence does show is that President Trump holds a deep seeded genuine and reasonable skepticism of ukraine due to its history of pervasive corruption, and his administration sought proof that the newly elected president zelensky was a true reformer. President trump wanted to ensure that american taxpayer funded Security Assistance would not be squandered overseas by what is reported to be the third most
corrupt nation in the world. The trump ukraine discussions were never about what will happen in 2020 but rather about what already happened in 2016. The democrats second claim is that President Trump obstructed justice by simply doing what virtually every other president in the modern era has also done, to assert a legitimate Executive Privilege and legal immunity to avoid subpoenas issued to various white house officials. There is simply no evidence of any Impeachable Offense here either, and if theyd not promsed an impeachment to their liberal base by christmas, The Democrats could and should have simply gone a few blocks way to get a simple order compelling the extra documents and information they subpoenaed. Thats whats always been done in the past, but they didnt have time for that here because theyre trying to meet their own arbitrary completely reckless and machiavellian time line to take down a president they loathe. The real abuse of power is on
the part of house democrats. Theyve feverishly pursued this impeachment 20 times faster than the Impeachment Investigation of bill clinton to reach their outcome. They have steam rolled over constitutionally guaranteed due process, previously sack roe sangt house rules and the rules of civil procedure. They have ignored excull toir everyday, denied Defense Witnesses and involvement of the president s counsel, restricted republican review of evidence, denied Minority Hearing and violated proper minority notice and fairness at every single stage. The founders of this country warned against a single party impeachment for a good reason. They feared that it would bitterly and perhaps ir rep rably guide our nation. Our chairman mr. Nadler gave a speech about that 20 years ago when he was opposing the impeachment of bill clinton. The obvious truth is that our liberal colleagues have vowed to impeach President Trump since the day of his election. Their reason of the day changed at least a half a dozen times over the last three years, but they could never get any traction or facts to justify
those various conspiracy theories. As the next election in 2020 is drawing so close now ask their candidates for president are so terribly weak, they met somewhere at liberal high command and convinced nancy pelosi they had to pull the trigger. The problem is theyve done that and in all those hearings in the basement They Couldnt Unkor a single fact to justify their latest Conspiracy Theory about ukraine. Theyre left with no choice. To desperately create a totally fraudulent process to try to railroad donald trump. The result is what our Expert Witness testified as the shortest proceeding with the thinnest evidentiary record and the narrowest grounds used to impeach a president. Im a constitutional law attorney and have enjoyed the sparse four minutes of intellectual debate weve had today. Every High School Students can read its plain language. You need treason, bribery or a high crime or misdemeanor. None of that exists here, and Everybody Knows it. Those High School Students at home know it. Our constituents know it, and in their heart of hearts even our Friends On The Other Side of the room know it. My good friend mr. Cohen said hes proud to be a politician. I would say with all sincerity this moment doesnt call for politicians. The weight of history is upon us here and this moment calls for statesmen. This impeachment is going to fail, and The Democrats are going to justly pay a heavy political price for it. But the pandoras box theyve opened today will do irreparable damage to our country in the year ahead and that is the real tragedy of the vote we are about to take. God help us. I yield back. The gentleman yields back. I move to strike the last word. The ladys recognized. A little while ago one of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle was saying that the president was not the reason why aid was withheld was because the president wanted to investigate corruption. The idea that the most corrupt president that we have seen in recent history withheld military aid because he was concerned about corruption is ludicrous. As my colleagues have pointed
out, both calls that President Trump had with president Zelensky Trump never mentioned corruption. The Department Of Defense vetted giving the aid and said that it was okay. Once upon a time, President Trump loved his generals. This time he ignored them. Members of congress authorized the aid ask lobbied the white house to release the aid. Staff from the Office Of Management And Budget resigned because they were worried about what was going on and why the aid was withheld. They were worried about what the president was doing, and they believed that withholding the aid was wrong. Trump even cut funding for programs to deal with corruption in countries like ukraine, so a man that is so concerned about corruption also has interesting friends. He has bromances with some of the worlds most corrupt lead ers, the leaders from saudi arabia, turkey, he had president erdogan from turkey a couple of
weeks ago at the white house, but we know his number one pal is president putin. So all the president s men, all the men around him that were indicted, arrested, incarcerated, my mother used to say that if you lay the man who claimed he wanted to clean up the swamp created his own swamp and hes drowning in it now. I have to say i have empathy for my republican colleagues because i dont believe they have a choice. They have to defend the president and they dare not step out of line. Because if they do they will suffer the consequences. A few of my republican colleagues earlier did try to say that they didnt believe the president s conduct was appropriate. And they got slapped quickly. The president said his conduct he said the call was perfect. And so now you dont hear any of them questioning whether or not
the behavior was appropriate. You have to fall in line and not only do you have to fall in line you have to praise him constantly. Like the famous Press Conferences we have seen in the oval office. Where they one by one go around the table and talk about their praise for him. It makes me feel like a meeting in north korea. Where you have to praise dear leader. You have to fall in line because the entire reason was corruption. But i know you know better. You have to say he did nothing wrong. One of my colleagues said we are lowering the bar on impeachment. I believe we have lowered the bar on the presidency. Its so sad to see colleagues who i believe know whats better. They are not able to say it, they know that the man is corrupt. When it comes to impeachment there is no higher crime than for the president to use the power of his office to corrupt
our election. We will move to impeach President Trump because of the abuse of power through selfdealing. The betrayal of the National Security in the service of foreign interest. And the corruption of our election that under mine our dm democratic system. They know the president is a threat to the election. They know is a threat to the standing in the world. We will have to do it. We will have to move to impeach. I yield now to representative jackson lee. I thank the general lady for yielding. My remarks are this. To my friend on the other side of the aisle and the americans listening and the soldiers wearing uniforms. I have no dislike of anyone who voted for anyone in 2016. I take issue at insult that one would suggest the work of the committee is about a dislike for those who voted for President Trump. President trump is before this committee in articles of impeachment for his own behavior. For his desire to do with public moneys and a public position to do a private matter. And a political matter. That is to get dirt on his 2020 potential opponent. In honoring and defending the constitution, we defend and honor ourselves and 23r that reason as a Indicting Body through articles of impeachment well give the opportunity for the congress to decide on President Trumps ultimate result. I stand with the constitution. And stand with justice. Time expired. What purpose does swalwell. Move so strike the last word. Fool me once shame on you. Fool me twice shame on me. We allow the president of the United States to again abuse his office for his own personal gain. It shame on all of us. Shame on the constitution. With know hes going to do that again 12 this year he told george that if he could again receive help from a Foreign Government he would do it again. On july 24, bob mueller testified to our commit. He said the president could be charged with up to ten crimes of obstruction. But Department Of Justice prevents him from doing that. The next day the president did it again. Every prosecutor assigned a case will open up the file and the first thing we do is look at the rap sheet. Was this an aberration or
pattern of conduct. Its not just prosecutors who look or use a rap sheet. We do it every day lives. A Small Business owner hiring an employee and find out they have multiple thefts in the past. You probably wouldnt hire them. A parent looking for a night out and hiring a babe be sitter and references say theyre always late. You wouldnt ask that person to watch your kids. If youre going to a restaurant and saw multiple bad yelp reviews. You wouldnt go to that restaurant. The president doesnt just have bad reviews. He has really bad prior conduct. Serious priors. Hes a repeat offender. Crimes against the constitution and crimes that one day maybe prosecuted statutorily. He has abused his power in the
past. Hes abusing his power now. He will abuse it tomorrow. We have a Department Of Justice who will county to protect him. Fortunately the American People have a congress who can say hes not above the law and were not helpless in holding him accountable. We have heard a lot of explanation about why were here tonight we dont like the policy of the president. We dont like the president. The one thing we havent heard the real reason were here. The can you be the of the president. The grave misconduct. I want to recount quickly again the evidence that was presented in Text Messages and call records and emails. In hundreds of press statements and tweets. President trump acknowledging he has been engaged on a personal basis through Rudy Giuliani his lawyer in investigating ukraine. President zelensky is sensitive about ukraine being taken serious le. As Season Instrument in washington. As sondland said. Davis home testified i was surprised the requirement was so specific and concrete. President zelensky personally commit to a specific investigation of President Trumps political rival on cable news and the evidence goes on and on. Of the president s effort to use the power of his office to betray the National Interest and cheat in the election in 2020. And use hundreds of millions of dollars of Taxpayer Money to attempt to achieve that objective. Our founders talk about abuse of power because they recognize that the power of the presidency was enormous. There was a dang danger that the president would use that for his own personal or financial advantage. They created articles of impeachment to give a final check against the abuse of power. No one is here because we want to do this. We have no choice. Were not acting out of the hate. Were acts out of love of the country. And love of the democracy. When generations look back on this moment they will ask what did twe do to preserve our democracy . And the only thing we can do to preserve that is hold this president accountable. If we dont, they will ask us why we failed. To preserve the greatest democracy on earth. That has been example to the world. And in this moment we have to find the courage to be sure we can answer that question. For all future generations. And not be part of the effort to under mine the greatest democracy known to man. And so i urge my colleagues tonight, we must approve the articles of impeachment and make it clear that nobody in this country in the greatest country in the world is above the law. Even the most powerful person the president of the United States. With that i yield back. The gentleman yields back. Move to strike the last word. Recognized. The record is clear, donald trump abused his power. Soliciting foreign interference in the 2020 election and there by under mining the integrity of the democracy as well as our National Security. My republican colleagues have spent all day arguing process. Thats what you do when you cant defend the indefensible. You argue process. Well, his Process Concern that you might reflect upon. Earlier today Mitch Mcconnell gave some indication as to how a possible trial in the senate may run. This is what senator said. Im going to coordinate with the