Latest Breaking News On - Aia - Page 1 : vimarsana.com
ambassador sondland says under oath there was no shadow. we're all bad apples, we're a whole pile of bad apples, that is a watergate tape with better sound quality. >>r knowing trump's behavior patterns, it has been especially in new york the loudest voice gets the biggest headline and gets to drown out the truth, a story, or cover something back. he has been the president of distraction and that has really been one of the biggest marks of this presidency in addition to being the president who is the president for themselves and not thees people. what is fascinating here is it is almost like he is going back
to a play book that worked for him towo get elected. >> it has worked, so -- >> i think this is one of the differences with water gate. there was a time when we, the american public, were getting all of the same information. and inio a vastly different wor now we're not getting all of the same information about the facts that we should be. >> one thing the president is good at doing is creating his side of reality. it is historic by his standards. he never treated this much so fast. . using the one tool that he controls to create a different world in which he is innocent.
>> before we cast it off, something to consider that it has allon worked for donald tru. >> it worked in the past when every tweet was breaking news now. now it has become ground noise and he has been reduced to attacking children withes s e a withaspbergers. they will be marking up the articles of impeachment. and donald trump willt. only be the third president in 240 years likely to be impeached by members of the people's house, and you know, as mika already said, we have the confessions on
fox news. we have the confessions in front of the united states. we have the saying that ukraine needs to investigate joe biden. and the president in the middle of that crisis exploding recommending that china did the same thing. republicans would try to rush to his aide, the president went out again, not joking, recommending that china do the same thing and investigate joe biden and joe biden's family. the president is fran titic. frantic in part, chris, because of the weight of history bearing down on him. >> yeah, i think it is bearing down on him.
it is clear cut. he is going to be impeached, and i think he thought for a long time. i don't think he thinks that any more. >> here is jerry nadler. >> impeaching donald john donald trump with high crimes and misdemeanors. >> mr. chairman, the chairman willfully denied scheduling. >> we will entertain that point of order after we call up the resolution. h-res donald trump trump impeachment for high crimes and misdemeanors. the clerk will report the
resolution. >>lu impeaching donald j. trumpn the house of representatives december 10th 2019, mr. snader will submitted the following resolution. impeaching donald john trump, president of thejo united state fores high crimes and misdemeanors, she impeached for the following articles of impeachment be exhibited to the united states senate. by the house of respectives by the united statess of and people itself, and the united states of america. against donald trump j. trump president of theai united state of america, impeachment for high crimes and misdemeanors. the constitution provides that the housetu of representative wills have the soul power of impeachment and that there will be a conviction of kraeson, private bribery, and in violation of tis cushional oath,
and to the best of his ability to preserve, protect, the constitution of the united states, and in violation of the laws, he hasth abused the power of the presidency in that. and soliciting the interference. he did so through a scheme or course that included soliciting the government of ukraine, announcing investigations that would gint his reelection, and influence the 2020 united states presidential election to his advantage. president trump also sought to pressure the government of ukraine to take these steps of significant value of ukraine on the public announcement of the investigations. >> mr. chairman, unanimous
contin consent that it is read. >> using the manners of presidency that o compromise th national security of the united states and undermine the integrity of the process of the united states. president trump engaged in the scheme through the following means. president trump acting directly and through his agents within and outside of the united states government. soliciting the government of ukraine to include a political opponent, and b, a discredited, and that corruptly through himself and his agents, in addition to official acts on the public announcements that he had requested, a,ha the release of $ $391 million of taxpayer funds thatta congress appropriated on
vital basis. to oppose russian aggression, and aia head of state meeting a the white house that the president supported in the face of russian aggression. three faced with the public revelation of his actions, president trump released the military and securityhe assistae to the government of ukraine and urged ukraine to under take nexts for his benefit. it this was kwint his previous invitations. in all of this, he abused the hours of the presidency. he is also betraying the nation by yuging his high office to corrupt democrat elections. and that he will remain a threat to national security and the
constitution. presidenton trump thus warrants impeachment, removal from office, and will not enjoy any office e of honor or trust. the cushion provides that the house of representatives will have the should power of impeachment. and shep charged with prez, bribery and in violation of his constitutional oath, and to the best of his ability, protect, preserve, and defend the constitution of the united states. domd j. trump has directed the unindiscriminate defiance of subpoenas pursuant to their soul power of impeachment. he has abused the pours of the presidency in a matter offensive to the constitution in that. the house of representatives has engaged inus an impeachment
inquiry focused on president trump's corrupt solicitation of the government of ukraine. as part of this impeachment inquiry, the committees under takes the investigation serve subpoenas seeking documents and offices in current and former officials. in response he directed agencies, offices, and officials not to comply with the subpoenas. president trump thus interposed the pours of the presidency against the lawful subpoenas and assumed to himself functions and judgments in the exercise to the sole power of impeachment. president trump abused the pour of his high office through following means, directing the office to withhold a subpoena. directing other executive branch agencies and officers, and withhold the production of documents to the committees in
respond to which the department of energy and department of defense refuse to produce a single document or record. three, directing current and former connebranch officials. namely john michael mick mulvaney, john a eisenberg, russell t. vot, and these actions are consistent with president trump's previous efforts to under mine the united states government, n investigations, and interference. he sought to have the right to determine an e impeachment inquy into his own conduct. and the prerogative to deny any and all information to the house of representatives in exercise of it's sole power of impeachment. so president has ever ordered the complete defiance of an impeachment orco sought to
obstruct so kpre hcomprehensive. this abuse of office is to seize the control of power and thus to nullify a vital constitutional safeguard in the house of representatives. in all of this he has acted in a manner contrary to his trust. through the great prejudice of cause of law and justice, and to the manifest injury of the people of the united states. he has demonstrated he will remain a threat to the constitution if allowed to remain in office. president trumpfi thus warrants impeachment, removal from office. >> thank you, the gentleman will now state his point of order. >> thank you, mr. chairman as i made the point of order on this minority hearing, he was
provided with the demand. he has refused to respond to multiple additional request that's that hearing be scheduled and told me, and i responded to this, we will wrul it today, we're here today and it's a farce thatay we have to rule on this today, there is no other time we're taking up the articles today. and the rule is, this rule is not superceded by any rule. they fwhr too big of a hurry to get 660 to the floor. this could have been done, they chose not to, and now we're not having it, i continue my point of order. >> if i understand the gentleman's point of order, he asserts thatrd we're violating house rule 11 by conducting this mark up before we held the minorityld hearing. in my view he is claiming a
broader prif lvilege than what asked by the minority. it was the constitutional grounds for impeachment. i'm willing to work with the minority to schedule such a hearing but not before today's mark up of the articles of impeachment, the house rule does not require me to schedule a hearinghe on a particular day n required to schedule a hearing. otherwise the minority could delay or block legislative action that is clearly not the purpose of the rule. i reached this after reviewing the plain text and legislative history of the past rule. and after consulting with authorities in the congressional research service. ion believe it is reasonable fo several whereireasons. first, the minority has not been
shut out. it was because previously minorityvi positions were prevented from being represented. it is no long aeroprocedure for witnesses with both sides of the hearing. in those infrequent instants when witnesses representing the minority position are not allotted time, a safe guard to exist to protect minority rights. of course that did not happen, the minority had a witness at the hearing, who represented their position and was afforded ample time to discussion that position. rather than being shut out they did notsh get as many witnessess they would have preferred. second, thee minority of the president under house resolution 660,e the procedures provided house resolution 660 give the president and the minority a variety of special privileges to
present evidence and subpoena witnesses. there are s alternative positio by which witnesses can be requested and subpoenaed, but they have not beened exercised. third, there is no press tent to use minority days to delay impeachment proceedings. thehm minority day rule is not intended to delay legislative activity. we do not look upon this rule as an authorization for delaying tactics. thein minority day rule was mad part of the house rules in 1971, but1, was not invoked in the clinton or nixon impeachments. the only one that i'm aware of happening took place several weeks ago in the intelligence hearing. they all requested a day of hearings even though they had witnesses involved. they offered an amendment, but
it was rejected by the committee, the one precedent that we t have that indicates tt it will delay consideration of articles of impeachment. finally, past judiciary program tis and precedent do not support the gentleman's order. we sent a minority day request lastri year, and we were never responded to or were given a hearing. back in 2005, then chairman scheduled the minority day hearing but cut off witnesses, shut off the microphones and lights while members were seeking recognition to speak. as a relate, the committee practice or precedent supporting the gentleman's point of order.
>> mr. chairman. >> what purpose does the gentleman seek recognition. >> first, by the length of the answer, this has struck a nerve seeing how the chairman himself says in his own words that it is nots the chairman's right to decide whether or not they are efficient, acceptable, or able to violate the rules. it is interesting to me that the time has become the issue. >> i made my ruling. do you wish to appeal. >> i would like for the sake of history that the chairman take one more minute. >> does the gentleman wish to appeal the ruling of the chair yes or no. >> yes. and the clock and calendar because the chairman is doing it again. >> thes appeal of the ruling o the chair is not sustained. >> i move to table. >> did you call for a vote. >> how is it not sustained, you did not call for a vote. >> i sustained the point of
order. >> i call for a vote. >> i ruled that the point of order is not well taken. >> that is pain flfully obvious. >> i move to table. >> the gentleman appealed the ruling of the table. the gentlelady motioned to table. all in favor of the motion to table say aye, all opposed say no. >> no. >> roll call. >> the gentleman asked for roll call on the motion to table the appeal of the ruling of the chair, the clerk will call the role. >> mr. nadler. mrs. lofgren. mrs. jackson lee? mr. johnson? mr. deutsche?
mrs. bass -- >> you are listening live to this historic day, thursday, december 12th, the house judiciary committee beginning the mark up against president donald j. trump. we have breaking coverage today, i want to bring in senateer claire mccaskill. we're going to see some of this procedural back and forth what is b happening when you see the minority republicans interject this way. >> they are just -- i don't really understand the point, they're going to try to make a point with this but i think it just falls flat, he will do motions to table and it will be a party line vote. >> so so we understand when they have this type of motion, you
can get this role call vote. >> you can always get a roll call vote onge a motion to tabl for somebody who makes an actual objecti objection, or on a point of order where the chair on this one said i'm overruling your point of order, you don't get a minority hearing before duo this work b today, and we will be in until the republicans get worn down. >> that's what happens when the committee operates under these rules. we'll have fact checks as necessary, let's dip back in. >> impeaching donald john donald trump for high crimes and misdemeanors. mr. nadler said the following resolution wase for the committee, impeaching donald john trump for high crimes and
misdemeanors and the following articles of impeachment be exhibited to the united states senate. in the name of itself and of the people of the united states of america, against donald j. trump for the united states of america in maintenance and support of -- >> i now recognize smith for purpss of offering an amendment in theri nature of a substitute. >> amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by mr. nadler of new york and all that follows. >>fo without objection the amendment should be considered as red, and base dex for further amendment,ur i will not recogni myself.
referring to donald john trump, ithn would make no change to th resolution. and i now recognize the gentleman for comments on the amendment. >> the nature of a substitute is irrelevant. taking donald j. trump and making it donald john trump shows the frankly absurdity of where we're at. today we will spend plenty of time for you listening here, we will talk about this amendment and talk about the factual basis that are no reason to impeach this president, i'm going to go back for a minute since i had to sit throughe a well rehearsed many days put together explanation on why, what will be known in 2019, outside of the fact that this committee finally accomplished their goal after the chairman stated he want today since november of last year impeachment this president.
what will be known by this committee from here on out is that this committee has sounded the death of minority rights. this is amazingly now on such a clock and calendar process. they don't care, facts be dammed. they don't care that we had one witness out of three. when i asked for a second i was told i s couldn't, there was stf conversationsre well before i w told i was asking too late. one witness out of two panels, that's all we had of fact witnesses. this is a travesty and sham from day one. i could talk until i'm blue in the'm face, but nobody on the minority cares, but the spot that is left by what just happened will resignation over t -- resonate over theov years. they had no desire to hear any fact witnesses outside of their
own impeachment. for them to sit there and read that is an amazing statement and a crushing blow to this committee. there is no b way to recover fr that. in fact, there may be, i wonder if the chairman would join me in making surejo the rules committ next week don't waive the point of order against this, but i know they will. that's why they're going to take it. when you look into it further this point of order would be sustained so they have to waive themy next week. they will waive this point of order and any other by the time it comes to the floor. some of you may say the ranking member talks about process, the ranking memberce talks about process, never the foundation. we will inundate you with the facts, andit i have already, bu some of you don't choose to report them. what is important and for many who d report on this body and he senate this body and served in this body, the members who have
gone before and the bheem set this committee up and the people that set this congress up are the ones right u now that shoul be hanging their head in shame. we had twod hearings. none of which featured fact witnesses. there is not a democrat in this room that should be happy about this. the solemnity should be on the takinge of minority rights. you ought to just take your impeachment and enjoy it and go at it. when it comes to minority rights, that we have seen time after time after time that i had to write this chairman multipage letters on the abuse of procedural parts of this committee. the american people o understan fairness andpl due process, it
what america was based on and what america takes pride in. when we don't have it, nobody can have it. when wen don't have fairness i this committee, how can they stand up and say out of the twa weakest articles of impeachment in the mistire of this country, look at the american people and say we did good? no, you didn't. you stained this body. you have taken this committee and nad a rmade it a rubber sta any of the majority run to be a rubber stamp. you know why? my chairman said so 20 years ago. he said to 20 years ago when he said if the committee only accepts what other people give them and do not on their own verify and thoroughly vet it, mr. chairman you should have run for a chairmanship more than to be a rubber stamp.
we already knewub this committe was overrun and overtaken because it was taken from us earlier this year. the rest of it has been an -- embarrassment since. but mr. chairman what will live from this day is your ruling on minority rights being dmed this congress -- >> mr. chairman, mr. chairman. >> are there any amendments to the -- >> remove -- for what purpose is the gentleman -- >> i cannot allow the ranking member to mischaracterize your description of the history of this committee if may be inkreei inconvenient foree him to liste to what you just laid out, i
appreciate the ranking member for acknowledges the opportunity to call witnesses everything that you just laid out. more than 50 years ago, more than 50 years ago, they made clear in their report to the house and senate that it is normal procedure for witnesses representing both sides of the issue to give testimony at committee hearings. that is where the rural ur rule co -- rule comes from. and that is what happened. the ranking member acknowledged it. there is no right to a sprepara day. the rul makes clear they have a witness to call witnesses.
there was minority witnesses on december 4th, on december 9th, and it is worth points out that wes invited the president of t united states to come and advocate, submit witnesses, and he chose not to attend and not to suggestnd any witnesses. before sttelling us the sky is falling and there is great disrespect. >> did the gentleman just say that i did not question witnere witnesses. >> i said that the president was given thewi opportunity on december 4th to present himself and he was given the opportunity to present witnesses and he did not. so let's be careful in the way that we suggest that rules are beinges violated. everything in a is being done here is consistent with more
than 50 years of sbrinterpretat of the rules and the essence of why the rules are put together in the first place. factsir matter, and we're not going to allow the minority to misint misinterpret the rules for their own benefit. >> gentleman yields back. any -- what purpose do you seek recognition. >> i have an amendment at the desk. >> i reserve a point of order. >> jegentlelady reserves a poin of order. >> amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitution to h-res 755 offered by mr. jordan of ohio. page one beginning on line 12 redesignate the subcceed the
article accordingly. >> this amendment strikes point of one -- >> i - withdrawal my point of order. >> article one ignores the truth. we t talked about it now for the months, we have known there have been four facts that have not changed, will not change, will never change, and we have known it since september 25th when the call transskript was cript was . even chairman nadler said there was no quid pro quo. we know that the two individuals on the call, president zelensky, they said no pressure, no pushing, no linkage between security assistance money and any time of an announcement of an investigation. we knew the ukrainians didn't know at the time of the call that the aide had been held up and most importantly, most importantly, we knownt the
ukrainians took no action, no start of an investigation, propromise prno promise to start an investigation, no announcement of an investigation into burisma or the bidens to get the aid released. those four facts have never changed. second, five key meetings that took place between july 18th when the aide paused and five key meetings when the aide was released. second, the next day, the very next day we have volker, sondland, and taylor meeting with president zelensky. third, ambassador bolton met with president zelensky. we have a bipartisan senateeor
johnson and murphy meeting with president zelensky. in none of those meetings did linking securityee assistance dollars come up. you would think it would come up in the last of the meetings and it eedidn't, article one ignore the ruth, the facts, and it ignores what happened and what has been laid out for the person people in the last three weeks. i hope that this committee will come to it's senses and adopt the samendment. >>op i move to strike the last word. >> thank you, mr. chairman, i move to. strike the last word. this attempts to strike article
one in it's integrity, i want to start with the evidence, the president's own conduct, the president of the united states hired rudy giuliani to go to ukraine and lead this scheme. then he began a campaign personally to smear ambassador yovanovitch and directed that she be fired to be cleared away. he directed a hold on ukraine's aid and no one could give a reason. and the president in his own words gets on the telephone and asks president zelensky for a favor. there is a read out of the call in evidence that is a detail of this conversation. there is evidence from people
who heard the president say he was pressuring a foreign leader. then he made admissions in public, and invited another foreign power, china, to interfere, the chief of staff acknowledging that the president put an unexplained hold on aid to ukraine. the president directed the vice president not to attend the inauguration of president zelensky because he had not gotten what he was intending. they said the result of u.s. aid would not o current until they provided the anti-corruption statement. and then he testified that he spoke with president trump, and while the presidentde claimed there was no quid pro quo, he
made it clear that they must publicly announce the two investigations that president trump discussed on july 25th. that is direct evidence. in addition to that, and those are some of the highlights, there are over 260 text messages, call transcripts, there are e-mails between high ranking officials, hundreds of press payments, interviews, and tweets by the president and rudy giuliani corroborating their desirehe to pursue investigatio into joe biden. president trump himself on october 2nd said, and i quote, just so you know we have been investigating on a personal basis corruption in the 2016 election. july 19th, ambassadors sondlands e-mails that he talked to
zelensky. on july 2019, in addition to the e-mail, ambassador sondland texts ambassador volcker. looks like potus spoke to briefing and give him full briefing, he's got it. volcker it most important for zelensky to say he will help investigate. on august 8th, they text about potus wanting the deliverable. for them to get the white house meeting he needs to announce the investigation. sondland says that morrison is ready once they confirm. >> excellent, how did you sway him. not sure i did, i think potus really wants the deliverable, and said does he know that, lots of conversations going on.
august 16th, discussing ukraine's concern that he was noter using official channels t request investigations. the salesperson that asked was yurmak? >> yes, but don't site him. they made clear that do break the log jam, president zelensky would have to move forward on the importance to trump and meeting the investigations. and the list goes on and on. this claim, this is the thinnest of evidence, is simply not true. there is overwhelming evidence of the scheme lead by the president and his attorney to corrupt the american elections to withhold military aid until a public announcement was made
that would smear the president's chief political rival. >> thank you, mr. chair, i move to strike the last word. >> it really quite disturbed me when you again, rejected, the rule of the house that said that we, as the minority, were, it says in the rules that you require that you set a date for a minority hearing. the reason this is important is because theta rules have been thrown out the window here on this process. i just can't believe it. first't of all, you have an unprecedented way of going through impeachment, you aren't going through the judiciary committee, instead speaker
pelosi hands it over to adam schiff, where he has these closed door hearings in the basement. i was denied the right to go in and hear what these fact witnesses said, but i'm supposed to vote on this today. and we have not had one single fact witness here in this committee at all. and then i hear from my republican colleagues they were refuses witnesss in that committee. and on top of that, republicans were interrupted and silenced by chairman schiff when they tried to ask witnesses questions. they said to the witness, don't answer that. i mean, and so now, here in judiciary committee, we're
supposed to vote on something when we have not even heard directly from any fact witnesses. all we heard from was a bunch of liberal law professors that you call here that have a known record of disliking president trump and then staff talking to us. and our republican members asking for witnesses to get out the truth and let us at least say our side of the story. but no. and so then we turn to, okay, under the house rules, it says you're required to set a minority hearing so that we can at least call witnesses so we cans get some truth out to the american public instead of this one sided sham, but no, here again, i think you said right here, i will consider a date in
the future. fortu goodness sakes, we're votg on itwe today. yout already put through this,t just continues to amaze me how corrupt, how unfair this process has been from the start. 17 out of 24 of my democratic colleagues that already voted on thete house floor to continue wh articles of impeachment. it was mr. green who put articles of impeachment on the floor. they want today go ahead with articles of impeachment. that was even before the july 25th call. i mean, come on. this is predetermined, you have
want today impeachment this president since he got elected. fact after fact after fact. i knowte that some of you reall think he did something wrong, but none of your fact witnesses were able to establish any evidence of bribery, treason, high crimes, or misdemeanors. i believe the president of the united states is right. this is a sham impeachment, and it sure is a shame and i yield back the balance of my time. >> the gentlelady yields back. >> move to strike the last work. >> you're recognized. >> thank you and with much respect to my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, it is difficult to follow some of the
arguments. i heard very little on the focus on the president's conduct. i'm compelled to respond to the nose about the closed door depositions. as i understand from reading the transcripts, many minority members werety present and grand equal time to question witnesses brought before the intelligence committee, and the government oversight committee. some of them are on this committee. so i struggle to understand the objections in that lard. the idea that the investigation was not sufficiently transparent rings hollow. the transcripts from those interviews and depositions have been relaeeased.
if you did not review them, you surely watched the live testimony ofhe ambassador sondland, lieutenant colonel sindman and others. so again, it is, i understand that we're going to have a robust debate about the legal standards, but let us stay true to the fact and let's dispense with the arguments of why we're here today. historical context matters, i was not here in 1999 and 1998, it is my understanding that at that timeng they did not examin any exact witnesses in the clinton impeachment inquiry. i know they are well aware that
they did question ken star, and they had hearings with legal experts to expond on the decision before the committee. i would also say that in the impeachment inquiry, the examination of fact witnesses was conducted behind closed doors. so unlike both the nixon inquiry and the clinton inquiry, the house intelligence committees hearings featured fireman a dozen witnesses suggest to public examination by republican examination. facts matter, and i hope that we can agree on that. >> i yield to mrs. lofgren. >> i would like to note that going back to the analogy, the gentleman was correct that there
was nowa public presentation on the judiciary committee, there was quite a few depositions that were private, but there was a lot of public testimony before the senate watergate committee. as you will withdrawal, john dean appeared and testified that there was a cancer on the presidency. and theth fact that it happenedn the senate didn't mean that the judiciary committee didn't know about it, the whole country knew about it and took notice of it, there is only a few members of us that were on the judiciary committee in the clinton impeachment. i was one of them. mrs. jackson lee was, we had a
report from mr. star, i remember it very well, we didn't have extensive fact witnesses. we had the report, we had evidence in the ford building to go look at privately and a number of members did, but the gentleman as correctly sum mar rised the situation. i would yield back. >> for what purpose does the gentleman seek recognition? >> to strike the last word. think it is obvious to all of the american public that this is a t railroad. things have been going quickly but g i think the real key is tt all of the conditions of minority requests, here and in the intelligence committee, they have not been able to put on
live witnesses to be able to basically put together a defense. and if you're going to have a trial,av you have to have both prosecution and a defense. here we don't have a defense because of theha rulings that he been made, one of which was made just a few minutes ago by the chairman of this committee. now let me say, you know first of all, the hearings that were in the basement of the capitol were secret hearings. they were classified hearings. none of the members who were in that hearing room could ethically go out and tell the public and the news media exactly what was said there. and they s probably could have been held before the ethics committee or worse if they attempted to do that. there was leaks that came out of there, but none of the members could. the other pointis, is that the
vast majority of members of the judiciaryem committee, which ha ultimate jurisdiction over all po posed impeachments were not members of the three other committees and not allowed to go into the basement of the capitol hearing room to listen to what was going on. and to see those live witnessesl there were a number of my colleagues on this side of the aisle including miss lesko and mr. gaetz, that attempted to do that, and chairman schiff kicked them out or wouldn't allow them to go in there. now, when you have a trial, you really cannot make a determination on exactly whether the witnesses are telling the truth or exaggerating or mixing it up or spinning it some way or the other without looking at them in person. we don't have that opportunity. there were a few select witnesses that were in the
public hearings over in the intelligence committee, couple weeks ago, but the intelligence committee does not have the jurisdiction on whether to recommend the impeachment of anything, let alone the president of the united states. now, you know, we've heard complaints about the fact that in the clinton impeachment there were no fact witnesses. mr. chabot and i were there as miss lofgren and jackson lee and theac chairman, and what happen there is that both sides were alloweder to present whatever witnesses they wanted to. kenneth starr did all of the grunt work in putting together the facts. he sent over 36 boxes of evidence, which were put over into the ford building. that's not happened here. the independent counsel, was appointed to look into what president trump has done. mr. mueller came and testified
and that ended up being a big fizzle forbe what the democrats wanted to do. much of the mueller stuff, after his testimony and the cross-examination by members on both sides of the aisle, ended up disappearing into outer space. they had to find something else. let me say that everybody on both ends of the telephone call between president trump and president zelensky has said very clearly there were no quid pro quo offer. there was no pressure that was put on the ukrainians. i don't know how many times president zelensky has had to say that. apparently it's not enough because minds on the other side of the aisle are closed but it's what thelo facts are. the facts, you know, again, speak for themselves.
there was no impeachable offense here. that's why article 1 of the impeachments ended up falling flat on its face and that it should be be strikep and i support the amendment to strike itdm from the gentleman of ohio and yield back. >> mr. chairman. >> the gentle lady -- >> i yield to the gentleman from georgia. >> gentleman is recognized. >> okay. really quickly, just in ken starr sent those over before the hearings began. >> yes. >> we didn't get a letter in the middle saying we just got a document dump on the weekend and the chairman w said we will note able to read them anyway. >> the gentleman's time is expired. for what person does jackson lee seek recognition. >> to strike the last word. >> recognized. >> before i begin to comment on the discussion here that it is important to remind all of us that the president abused his
power an is a continuing threat, not only to democracy, but to ourac national security. we do not take this lightly. we take it very seriously. i beg to differ with my dear friend, as one who was here for the impeachment proceedings in 1998 along with my colleagues, both mr. sensenbrenner and chabot, nadler, lofgren, let me be very clear of the distinctive difference that we had then at that time. for the american people, the special prosecutor was an independent statute that allowed both mr. dorosky during the nixonth impeachment proceedings and then mr. starr to have an independent process of investigation. the congressof was not privy to any of that investigation. at all. they proceeded. they were not interfered with. as mr. mueller was by the doj
because he was an employee of the department of justice and his boss came out and characterized his report before he could even discuss it. in the c instance of the proceedings of 1998, the congress received a report just as both our friends on the other side of the aisle and we in the majority received reports from the impeachment inquiry committee who were investor committees. they did their work, yes, in a classified setting, as i imagine both mr. starr and mr. droowsky had to do, they were prosecutors, witnesses not in the public and then, of course, there were full public hearings, 17 witnesses, firsthand witnesses, who heard the call and testified not on any
secondhand knowledge, but firsthand knowledge. it is clear that we're dealing with a question of a continuing threat, which is why we have to respond. let me be clear, i hold in my hands theol unclassified transcript. i beg to differ with my friends. lou for me a moment to tell you in the call, president zelensky said these sentences. i would also like to thank you for your great support in the area of defense. we're trying to continue to cooperate for the next steps, specifically, we also want to be ready to buy javelins. that's equipment, military equipment from the united states for defense purposes. ukraine is in the midstrp of a war, against a nation that shot down at least some of those alleged to be separatists using commercial weapons, an airliner.
this is w a serious war where o men and women in the military are on the ground trying to assist and the very next sentence is not yes, let's get with the department of defense, let's review your request, the nextes sentence, i would like y to do a favor, though. this is a discussion about defense. the next sentence should have been, i think we're well aware of your difficult predicament, have you talk to the secretary of ydefense, but a couple sentences later, i would like to have the attorney general call you and your people and get to the bottom of it, investigations. i would just offer to say, that it is not frivolous and without factst that we proceed.
we proceed with facts. and we take this in a very somber manner. >> would the gentle lady yield. >> i would be happy. >> i would i like to note while this aid was being withheld, people died. i wouldd, like to ask unanimous consent to put into the record an article from "the los angeles times" trump froze military aid as ukrainian soldiers perished in battle. >> without objection. >> note that the highest death toll on any day in the ukraine/russian war was august 7th of this year, while aid was being withheld, so this had life and death consequences. >> quickly let me say my predecessor barbara jordan said impeachment is designed for the president and his high ministers to be called into account. that's alle we're doing on behf of the american people and protecting the national security of thispe nation. i yield back.
SondlandPresidentPeopleOnePlaybookDifferencesWatergateHim-towo-get-electedThe-americanAl-lFactsInformation
and more personalised care. but reports this week are thatjust as the technology leaps forward, the budget is being slashed. joseph connor, who was previously the nhs director of ai innovation and is now the ceo of carefulai ltd, is with us. we will talk about what you are doing to streamline the process shortly, but what were the main challenges you faced when you were in the nhs when it came to adopting new a! innovation and technology? 0k, ok, so if we go back to when that was which — ok, so if we go back to when that was which was _ ok, so if we go back to when that was which was about _ ok, so if we go back to when that was which was about 2017—2018,| ok, so if we go back to when that i was which was about 2017—2018, the challenges _ was which was about 2017—2018, the challenges at — was which was about 2017—2018, the challenges at that _ was which was about 2017—2018, the challenges at that time _ was which was about 2017—2018, the challenges at that time were - was which was about 2017—2018, the challenges at that time were not - challenges at that time were not 'ust challenges at that time were not just the — challenges at that time were not just the issue _ challenges at that time were not just the issue of _ challenges at that time were not just the issue of regulation. - challenges at that time were not just the issue of regulation. it. challenges at that time were not i just the issue of regulation. it was a relatively— just the issue of regulation. it was a relatively new _ just the issue of regulation. it was a relatively new area _ just the issue of regulation. it was a relatively new area of— just the issue of regulation. it wasj a relatively new area of awareness for the _ a relatively new area of awareness for the nhs, — a relatively new area of awareness forthe nhs, so— a relatively new area of awareness for the nhs, so there _ a relatively new area of awareness forthe nhs, so there is— a relatively new area of awareness for the nhs, so there is quite - a relatively new area of awareness for the nhs, so there is quite a i a relatively new area of awarenessj for the nhs, so there is quite a lot of difficult — for the nhs, so there is quite a lot of difficult if — for the nhs, so there is quite a lot of difficult if you're _ for the nhs, so there is quite a lot of difficult if you're able _ for the nhs, so there is quite a lot of difficult if you're able to - of difficult if you're able to understand _ of difficult if you're able to understand what _ of difficult if you're able to understand what it - of difficult if you're able to understand what it is. - of difficult if you're able to understand what it is. andj of difficult if you're able to - understand what it is. and there is to a large — understand what it is. and there is to a large degree _ understand what it is. and there is to a large degree a _ understand what it is. and there is to a large degree a lot— understand what it is. and there is to a large degree a lot of- understand what it is. and there is| to a large degree a lot of confusion as to _ to a large degree a lot of confusion as to the _ to a large degree a lot of confusion as to the value. _ to a large degree a lot of confusion as to the value, but _ to a large degree a lot of confusion as to the value, but when - to a large degree a lot of confusion as to the value, but when you - to a large degree a lot of confusionj as to the value, but when you raise awareness — as to the value, but when you raise awareness of — as to the value, but when you raise awareness of case _ as to the value, but when you raise awareness of case studies - awareness of case studies like you've — awareness of case studies like you've just— awareness of case studies like you've just done, _ awareness of case studies like you've just done, it _ awareness of case studies like you've just done, it becomes. awareness of case studies like - you've just done, it becomes obvious there _ you've just done, it becomes obvious there is— you've just done, it becomes obvious there is a _ you've just done, it becomes obvious there is a role — you've just done, it becomes obvious there is a role for— you've just done, it becomes obvious there is a role for things _ you've just done, it becomes obvious there is a role for things that -
The-nhsAi-technologyAi-innovationBudgetJoseph-connorCareDirectorThatjustChallengesProcessInnovationCeo