america's interests first. who believed that the decline of america was a choice that we could reject. the american dream is now being renewed. 3% growth, maybe even 4%, a market that is roaring, historic highs, unemployment, the likes of which we haven't seen since 1973. and african-american unemployment is the slowest in decade. thanks cuts for all of us. government regulations cut faster than any time in history to help business. and the military finally getting the support it deserves. while it crushed the islamic caliphate in the middle east. illegal immigration is at its lowest level in more than a decade. so yes he arrived just in time when our nation needed to be inspires, needed a new agenda, desperate for a better path to the future.
>> the president is being who he has always been. he has always believed in bringing all different ideas and inputs and individuals to the table. he always looks for disagreement, dissention, he doesn't need 100% agreement. he just needs an honest conversation. this president convened that historic meeting in the cabinet room on live tv. america saw the president talking to a bipartisan group of individual on the issue of immigration. fast forward you had democrats voting no to a continuing resolution, and they voted no to keeping the government open and military funding and no to the military wives getting the money they need. they voted no to the border patrol agents because they are saying yes to daca recipients who crossed that bored illegal many of them. that's an issue the president
says he will take up. we can negotiate daca and the entire immigration plan likening the diversity visa lottery and ending chain migration, and building that wall. january the spending ran out. these democrats that said no last night said no to keeping their government open. this president stands ready to sign-in to law anything that is fair to all the folks who are relying upon this money and he stand ready to negotiate on other pieces after that. he could not be more clear. they are for every single thing in the continuing resolution. they are just not for the continuing resolution. nancy pelosi is out taking the house members to dinner at a fancy restaurant while our military and firefighters are wondering if they are going to be paid. judge jeanine: what about senator schumer?
has the president spoken to him in the past few hours? >> the president had senator schumer at the meeting yesterday. just the two of them and their chiefs of staff. he asked senator schumer, what is it? what are you looking for? if the answer is always going to be we want to talk just about daca, then we are not talking about everything else in the continuing resolution. it took donald trump to put the democrats in this odd box where they are against chip funding for children who rely on it for healthcare. judge jeanine: that's such an important point. i don't know if people understand chip. it's a healthcare program for 9 mill kids? >> our most of vulnerable children who rely upon it. judge jeanine: the democrats aren't going to vote for it? everyone is blaming the democrats because this is unconscionable.
>> the democrats have spent more than a year now proudly saying their motto is resistance. resist, obstruct, say no to everything. so in the span of one short month they have said no to historic tax cuts, the benefit of which american workers with feeling already. millions of american workers getting bills of dollars in raises and bonuses. essentially if you voted no against thanks cuts you voted no for the 20,000 jobs apple just promised. if you voted no to keep the government open you voted against funding the military and the healthcare vulnerable children rely on. people are going to know you need 60 votes in the senate. so by its definition it has to be bipartisan. and they will say i probably think the party that said resist, obstruct and no for over
a year now are the ones saying no again. judge jeanine: president trump said beautiful weather all over our great country. a perfect day for all women to march. get out there now to celebrate the historic milestones and unprecedented economic success and wealth creation that has taken place in over the last 12 months. the lowest female you be employment in 1 state years! and they were out there marching with their ping hats. women's unemployment is at unbelievable lows. i don't know what they are protesting. do you? >> i see how they are spending their tax cut. that was one of my favorite all-time tweets. but since this president took office, 863,000 new jobs were
filled by women. over half a million american women entered the workforce since he took over. as he said yesterday in the rose garden. in addition to unemployment among women being at a 17-year low, unemployment among his pink and african-americans are at all-time lows. when people see their paychecks are fatter, their 401ks are larger, you can't argue with the metrics. even those women kathy somehow they are protesting, what are you resisting. may i just say, this president has been here for one year. that has led to the 30 million americans who still don't have health understand. that led to the millions of women still in poverty. i'm so proud of this president who has been a president for all women and elevated women in his
cabinet and administration and white house. the way he elevated them in his corporation and campaign. he's a great boss for women. judge jeanine: thanks for being with us tonight. we are 20-plus hours into the government shutdown. and standing by live tonight is first son eric trumpl who will join me in a moment from mar-a-lago to talk about his dad. what's going on in d.c., and what if the future hold as we embark on year two of trump. "justice" rolls on live from
done to end this government shutdown. joining me, the president's son, eric trump. i don't know if you heard the sound that we just ran of your dad. but what it basically said is i'm working every minute of the day and i'm cutting prices, we have unbelievable potential. is that any surprise to you that he's work every minute of the day and number two that he's reaching some of the potential that he promised for us? >> no, it's not. my father is the hardest working person i have ever met in my life. and it has the democrats terrified. we are one year into his presidency. and he's added $8 trillion to the nation's economy. the dow is at 26,000. the 401ks are the highest there have ever been. there used to be 40,000 isis fighters and they are down to
1,000. unemployment at a 17-year low. the job industry is coming back to this country. apple announced they are investing 350 billion in america. i could go on and on and on. but the democrats are terrified. my father is working like no one * has ever worked before to bring back this country and fulfill his promise to make america great again. judge jeanine: here we are a year later, and we have got this women's march, somewhat like the march last year, and certainly not as large. yet the women as i just spoke with counselor kellyanne conway. they are in a position much better than they were last year in terms of employment. it's almost as though it doesn't matter what your father accomplishes, it's this obstruct, resist, we have got to stop this man.
and you ask some of the workers what they are marching about and they don't know. >> it's interesting. you look at this whole government shutdown. the only reason they want to shut down government is to distract and stop his momentum. my father has thanked incredible momentum. he has gotten more done in one year than arguably any president in history. how do they divert from that message? how do they save their own party when they don't have good leadership or a message of their own? how do they do that? they obstruct and distract. i think it's a good thing for us. people see through it. people have seen a year that's incredible. it's been filled with nothing but the best for our country, america first policies, and they are happy with where we are pass a nation. families are wealthier, jobs are better, the economy is better, there is lower unemployment.
our nation is thriving and it was going in an awful direction. that's because of his actions, and it has the democrats worried. judge jeanine: do you think the democrats arguing they have to make sure daca is taken care of over, you know, the damage that's being done to military families, chips, sick children. do you think the american public sees through this and see that the democrats are obstructing, that their priority is daca. when in truth obama could have handled this and had it all done with. all of a sudden they want to complain about your father. >> my father was elected for one reason because he believed in putting america first, which is overwhelming among the citizens of this country. they want to see our country come first again. it hadn't been put first for a
long time. if you looked at the vote. you had 269 republicans who voted to keep the government open. you had 230 democrats who voted to close government. then they will say trump is trying to close government. they will say trump wanted to close government. it doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me and i'm pretty good at math. my father has put the people of this country first. our nation is thriving. we are the most of prosperous nation we have ever been. the dow jones is up 42% in one year. he kept every promise he made to this country. and he actually has done better than he promised than even in his first year of his presidency.
i'm so excited for what's to come. the man has done an unbelievable job and i'm excited about what's to come for people of this country. judge jeanine: i think come february when americans see even more money in their pay check it will hit home. i know you are busy tonight, thank you for joining us on justice. kiss your little baby for us. >> i will, take care. judge jeanine: dan bongino, chris hahn and actor steven baldwin on deck tonight. but we go live back to capitol hill for an update on the breaking news. new details on the shocking fisa memo everyone is speak about. congressman matt gaetz as seen the memo.
i'm marianne rafferty. judge jeanine: talks continue as the government shutdown nears the end of day one. republican members of congress are calling for a release of a controversial memo they say shows stunning abuses by the obama administration and d.o.j. joining me is congressman matt gaetz, member of the house judiciary committee. we have been hearing for months about fusion gps, the dnc. hillary clinton we find out paid for this document that was created. and then we started hearing this document which was false and a fraud was the basis of a fisa warrant. there is talk, a report that there is now a report that will show us and shock us about the abuses. can you tell us about that
report? >> there are four pages of a memorandum prepared by the intelligence committee that will shock the conscience of this country when it comes to the horrific abuses from the last administration and the intelligence community. we are fighting to get this memo released to the american people. i don't think the right answer is to just allow congress to be shocked and horrified. judge jeanine: when do i get to see it? >> at any moment in time the intelligence chairman who has done an excellent job, devin nunes. he can schedule a vote in the intelligence committee. if the committee votes to release the information and the president doesn't overright. it will immediately become
public. it's drafted by the intelligence committee and highlights the collusions. the names that we talked about in the news associated with the corruption. judge jeanine: michael mccabe, and strzok and who else. >> i can't goin the specific names until we share the information. and you get to seat interaction between the various people we have been discussion and the organizations and entities that had a stake in the outcome of the 2016 election. going from a pointth time when we have a series of data points and characters, it's assembling that into a fact pattern. it tells a lot to the american people about what was going on in our government. judge jeanine: when is devin nunes going to schedule a vote? >> he says he wanted to hear from more members of congress.
chairman nunes and bob goodlatte and trey gowdy are working together on the timing of this. but this is so important and so shocking it should be made public immediately. i think we'll be shocked not only at the way information was collected, but the way that that information was authenticated. i can't go into any details but only to say that you are aware as a judge the way evidence has to be authenticate and presented to a court to get a warrant. and prosecutors and investigators cannot perpetrate frauds on the court by presenting false information or information they know to be false. judge jeanine: let's assume, we are talking about bruce ohr, be lisa page, rod rosenstein, jim comey. i don't want to hear if any of what you are suggesting is true
that these guys get to dictate when they retire. my viewers want them taken out in cuffs. if they violated the law, will they be taken out in cuffs? >> head are going to roll. i think crimes were committed. judge jeanine: assuming jeff sessions has a justice department that will be fair. >> he hasn't exercised sufficient control of that agency. i think he did a great job as a senator. but as attorney general. judge jeanine: right now he's a.j. congressman gates *. gaetz, i can't wait to read it. if you follow me on social media you know we were going to bring you street justice from chappaqua. way too much breaking news from
washington. but we'll bring you that next week. a little later than usual due to breaking news. but the panel is ready tore battle. dan bongino and chris hahn. join me next to debate the chaos in washington and who is responsible. the throwdown over the shutdown is next. what is your online tax
president trump himself, judge, said that nobody is going to blame the leaders in the senate and the house, they will blame the president when they have a shutdown. he should get all the parties into the white house, put on a pot of coffee, lock the doors and stay there until they have a deal. judge jeanine: dan? dana: why do you start with chris? he's so includeless on politics. who is -- he is so cluesless on politics. chuck schumer is calling it the schumer shutdown. chris, you worked for schumer? >> i did. >> you understand there is a filibuster process. >> i absolutely understand there is a filibuster process.
>> hugh many votes to you need to overcome a democrat filibuster? judge jeanine: 60. >> they won't remember schumer, they will remember trump. judge jeanine: writes that poster where schumer himself said the government shutdowns are i'd yoict. a government shutdown is the politics of i'd ideai -- of ido. >> we can go back and forth with trump and schumer and it won't make either one of them look good. the buck stops with the
president. judge jeanine: the president only has so many republicans. the democrats, there is nothing in this bill they oppose. we are talking about the children and military being at risk because they are worried about daca? what's that about? >> the president has to take yes for an answer. there was a deal on daca and the wall. the president didn't want that deal for some reason. judge jeanine: really? >> i don't know who got to him. but the president needs to bring the leaders in the room and work out a deal. judge jeanine: dan? >> chris, you are just not telling the truth. i don't know why you continue to do this on the show. let me ask you again. is there a daca deal out there for anybody to sign? >> a daca deal in principle that was brought to the president last week. >> you are not telling the truth.
there is no daca deal. >> the daca deadline isn't even until march 5. i'm not sure if you are aware of that. but it's march 5. i have my iphone here. it's not march 5. it's not march 5 yet. >> lindsey graham and dick durbin brought a daca deal to this president last week. and the president rejected it. so we don't want to govern crisis to crisis. judge jeanine: why didn't obama do this? mu? why is now all of a sudden with his pen and phone. >> the majority held by the republic chance in the senate and house would not pick it up.
we all know that. another thing. chris is not telling the truth again. the daca deal he's talking about has not been passed by the house and was not ready to go by the time the budget hit. he's not telling the truth. barack obama from september twine until january 2010 had a super majority and could have done a deal. you know we did? zero. >> there was a bipartisan deal on immigration that passed the senate that was not taken up in the house. the house of representatives would not allow the vote. >> there is no signed daca deal from the house and senate for president trump to sign. >> there was a bipartisan deal on immigration that included daca that passed the senate. a bipartisan deal. it passed the senate. judge jeanine: is there anything in the funding bill to keep our
government going, the children, the military, federal employees. is there anything in that that the democrats oppose? no. >> i think what the democrats oppose is crisis to crisis. another c.r. judge jeanine: crisis to crisis is not in the bill, chris. >> it's a crisis-producing bill. the c.r. will expire in four weeks. we need a full year's funding for our military so our military planners -- this is what the secretary of defense said thursday. don't take my word for it, take theirs. >> psychiatrist is tellin -- chs telling you that while the --'s make it up. the obama administration fund the military on c.r. we should not be fund our war fighters on c.r.
obama did the for 8 years and all of a sudden schumer doesn't want to fund the military on c.r. give me a break. >> obama had a republican house and senate. president trump has the majority of the house and senate. if he wants to do a real budget where the 12 appropriations bills get passed through regular order -- judge jeanine: you fulfilled our anticipation, good-bye. jim comey, mika brzezinski and a certain doctor from a certain network. steven baldwin is here in washington to talk about all of it with
joining me now with reaction to this and so much more is steven baldwin. i don't know how much you know about this guy jim comey, but they stiewsd call him him behind his back at the fbi cardinal comey because he was walking pawrp because he was so proper and so -- >> maybe he is proper. clearly. judge jeanine: william and mary. that's an ivy league school can for them to bring him in as an ethics professor is absurd. >> and they put the name leadership in there. they should have said leadership leaker course. judge jeanine: or leaderless. >> there is all kinds of combination.
judge jeanine: here is another one for you, steven. now, mika brzezinski on morning. joemorningjoe. she says that along with the fact that the president appears to be according to the doctor healthy worries me. are we putting this up or no? >> that along with the fact the president appears to be according to the doctor healthy worries me because if he wasn't healthy that would be a great excuse for this behavior. now he has none, which you can then deduce other things that are far more nefarious and frightening. judge jeanine: can you make sense of that? >> nefarious and frightening. judge jeanine: because it's healthy. >> i'm glad they are talking about something that's not doom and gloom. judge jeanine: does that make sense to you?
the fact that the president appears to be according to the doctor worries me. how can you be worried the president is healthy. >> i think it's pretty clear progressive movement will do everything it can to message as best it can negative, negative, negative. when the president's doctor -- judge jeanine: he's the same one who examined clinton and bush and obama. this isn't his doctor, so to speak. >> if they trusted that doctor before, what changed snow was a doctor for obama. judge jeanine: it's amazing. >> i think it's a little amusing frankly. judge jeanine: i'm glad you are amused. sanjay gupta on cnn. >> you can start to say, well, if you do nothing different, if
things don't change, you can start to predict the likelihood of having some sort of heart event, cardiac event. do those numbers qualify for him having heart disease? judge jeanine: his doctor said he didn't have any of that. and this person is over sat cnn saying he has heart disease. >> there is probably so many clips of that doctor commenting and how great this doctor was with obama. it's just the same rhetoric, the same thing over and over, when there is no evidence of other things and when the economy is soaring and everybody is having a better time, these guys have to turn around and say no, no, no, this is our perception of the truth. judge jeanine: now that we know the guys mental health is so -- the test he did 30 out of 30 is perfect.
they still say he's unfit. are they nuts? >> i think the president's strategy of crazy like a fox is working just fine. judge jeanine: steven baldwin, judge jeanine: steven baldwin, thank you for being with us in ooooooh snap!! every truck guy has their own way of conveying powerful. yeeaaahhh boy. kind of looks like a monster coming to eat ya. holy smokes. that is awesome. strong. you got the basic, and you got the beefy. i just think it looks mean. incredible. no way. start your year off strong a new chevy truck. get a total value of over $9,600 on this silverado all star when you finance with gm financial. find new roads at your local chevy dealer.
specialize in the management of cancer. breast cancer treatment is continuing to evolve. and i would say that ctca is definitely on the cusp of those changes. patients can be overwhelmed ... we really focus on taking the time with each individual patient so they can choose the treatment appropriate for them. the care that ctca brings is the kind of care i've wanted for my patients. being able to spend time with them, have a whole team to look after them is fantastic. i empower women with choices. it's not just picking a surgeon. it's picking the care team, and feeling secure where you are. surround yourself with the team of breast cancer experts at cancer treatment centers of america. visit cancercenter.com/breast appointments available now. judge jeanine: finally tonight, don't forget to friend me on facebook and follow me on twitter in instagram. you never have to miss justice
says, you can go to work. it's important to remember that the facts are clear. no president has ever, ever obstruct the congress in the manner that we have seen from president trump. >> will the gentleman yield? >> in a moment. it's always important to make sure that the facts are clear and that we don't muddy the waters by suggesting something that is so unprecedented that we have never before in the history of our country, just somehow part and parcel of the way things work around here. they don't. we know it and our friends on the other side of the aisle know it. the american people know it, but mr. johnson is right, sometimes it's important to remind them of that. >> will the gentleman yield for questions? >> i just wanted a postscript to underscore the very important
point that mr. deutsch is making here. article one of the constitution, that gives representatives the sole power of impeachment. that gives the senate the sole power of trial. united states versus nixon, the supreme court emphasized that the rules and procedures are completely within the power of the house and the senate and cannot be second-guessed by the courts. in terms of general congressional oversight the gentleman is perfectly correct. the the supreme court emphasized that the fact-finding and power of congress is central to, enter goal two and up built into our legislative power. james madison said that those who mean to be their own governors must arm themselves with the power that knowledge gives and where does congress get the knowledge to legislate for the people? we get it, through subpoenas and
through to the discovery process. no administration in history has ever attempted to do with this administration has done which is to pull the curtains down over the executive branch and deny us all of the investigative request that we have. i yield back. >> the gentleman yields back. >> gentleman seeks recognition. gentleman is recognized. >> we are going to be here a long time tonight and don't worry, there are plenty of balls we can go to. because this has been happening. let's go back to the transcript. the transcript, every witness testified that the transcript was fine, it was accurate and reflected the call. and talk about... , you should have put the... in the articles of impeachment. the wide gaps here of fact and logic were amazing in this.
so let's get back to the fact. i do appreciate the fact that my friend from florida, mr. deutsch said, we are muddying the wate waters, and what i've heard from a majority of colleagues over the last six hours, if this is muddying the water, this is muddying the waters because you don't have the facts to get to where you need to get to and you just want to continue to say, well it was. but we just don't like it. this is about an issue of when we go back, we are trying to get a dictator. i love how we throw these words in. we are trying to stop a dictat dictator. that's not what you are trying to do. you are using inflammatory language because you want to make a better point. and you put two articles of impeachment, you look sort of silly doing it, and you don't look even worse for bringing him. so you can fact justice all
night -- fact-checked all night. and these are not going forward. maybe after lunch or maybe after now, the transcript were accurate and do you know how i know that? everyone testified they were. even on the hill they said that ellipses wasn't an issue for them. that talking point, let's discuss the fact of us, that's accuracy. that's called reading and, it's put in and, these are the kinds of things that are simple going forward. >> i think you for yielding. i wanted to go back to something the gentle lady from texas mentioned a few minutes ago. she questioned whether the transcript was complete. remember what colonel ben ben testified to, he said it was
complete and accurate. lieutenant colonel denman said that. complete and accurate transcript. it's not that it's not consistent with the testimony we received from your witnesses. remember, lieutenant colonel vin then is the same guy who would tell us about who he shared the call with. he's the guy that told us that the transcript was complete and accurate. i yield back. >> i just want to respond to my colleague over here, he was a constitutional law professor and i was a constitutional law litigator for 20 years and we could debate this all day long but you just stated usb nixon. in that case in 1974 the supreme court recognize the existence of executive privilege, which is a protection that requires a balance of interest between the legislative
and executive branches. but here's the important thing. they said in that case there's not an absolute and that's a quote from the court. the other side of that is true as well. congress doesn't have an absolute unqualified authority to demand evidence from the president either, that's the whole reason that you have to go to the third branch of the judiciary. this is a legitimate claim of privilege. it's a legitimate issue that the courts could decide. it's a case of first impression as my colleague knows because this specific set of facts has not been addressed yet and it should be resolved by the court. professor turley addressed this in his testimony to this committee and he said, "he wrote in his submission, the answer is obvious. the president cannot substitute his -- for congress and likewise congress cannot substitute its judgment on what the president can withhold. the balance of those interests is performed by the third branch is constitutionally invested by the authority to review and dissolve such disputes.
so we will, if we are going to side supreme court cases let's put it in the appropriate context and let's acknowledge that this is an issue. i yield to come in 20 seconds. >> thank you. i'm talking about the judge nixon case -- >> on both sides of this argument, it's my time. >> i'm sorry, i yelled back. fair enough. >> no, you are done with this, i yield back. >> the gentleman yields back. >> i move to strike the last word. >> the gentle lady is recognized. >> let's go back. the constitution devotes only a few sentences to impeachment, so i'm going to read one. the house of representatives shall choose their speaker and other officers and shall have the sole power of impeachment. as professor raskin just told us properly, the constitution uses the word soul only twice.
soul, not shared. not shared with the judiciary or shared with the executive. that means that we have the sole opportunity and obligation frankly to determine what evidence is necessary for impeachment. not shared with the executive. think back. judiciary chairman peter rodino warned president nixon about his failure to comply with subpoenas issued in the watergate impeachment inquiry. under the constitution it is not within the power of the president to conduct an inquiry into his own impeachment to determine which evidence and which version or portion of that evidence is relevant and necessary to such an inquiry. these are matters which under the constitution he wrote, the house has the sole power to determine. soul, not shared with the executives. soul not shared with the court. it's a civics lesson.
do not let the other side who has such talented constitutional attorneys over there distract you. this is not an ordinary dispute, it's a very rare, thankfully, very rare dispute. it's not an ordinary dispute where you go to the court. we don't need permission to go -- to use our constitutional rules. if president trump is allowed to refuse to comply with requests for information it would got the house impeachment power and undermine our bedrock principle of separation of powers. last night as we left here i wanted to just tell you this. i went outside and there was a team of about 12 high school students from ohio with their teacher and they said, would you mind stopping for a minute? it was so interesting to watch and listen and hear what was going on at this important historic time. we loved learning about our constitution and how much you pried this constitution. thank you for protecting it for us and, you know what they said
to mean? we didn't understand this before but i do now. it's your job. it is the house's job to what evidence comes in. we do not need permission from the president. we do not need permission from the courts. in fact we have an obligation to do our job under this simple, smart document. today, december the 12th marks the anniversary of pennsylvania coming into the union. i think about those framers in my city of philadelphia so wisely thinking through these words. today marks 232 years since those wise men fought through. how would we conceive of our government and how would we maintain self-government. do not be confused. by the lawyers on the other side who would teach the wrong civics lesson and distract you with the notion that we need to go to court.
we need permission of the president and we need permission of the court, we do not. i'd like to yield to the gentle lady from texas. >> i think the gentle lady for her very forceful response. and might i just say, to the obstruction of congress, neither mr. nixon or mr. clinton obstructed congress and the manner that this president is doing. the underlying amendment had to do with corruption and i raise the point of the document that speaks about the july 25th call. let me just quickly say, the languages, "i would like us to s a favor though." the "us" does not have any reference to the department of justice, department of defense, department of state. clearly in the same document he mentions the vice president, he
mentions kyle strike, all of those have been debunked. clearly the vice president was operating as the president of the united states at the time and he was operating on an official policy to deal with ukraine. this was about the president seeking to have ukraine investigate this political opponent for personal and private reasons. no one misinterpreted what was said and, lieutenant colonel venmo vindman went to the legal counsel in the white house that immediately went dark and then never responded because he was so offended by this campaign effort. with that i yield back. and i think the gentle lady for yielding. >> thank you mr. chairman. i yelled to my colleague and good friend from texas.
i would've been very surprised -- you would've found some obama appointees, but not the supreme court. even though nobody in the ukrainian government has said they were a victim, it's because the president had a gun to their head. that is not the case. the reason they are not saying that is because they knew this was the most helpful president they had since the steel curtain fell. because this is a president, unlike the obama administration, ukrainians really were dying, we offered them blankets, meals, military stuff. this is a president that is really helping them defend themselves. this is a president that has really made a difference for ukraine. it wasn't a gun to their head.
they see this as a helpful president. and another thing, if the victim does not admit to be a victim. everybody who has been up prosecutor surely knows this. you can go to court, force it to court. the person says, i wasn't a victim, you don't get a conviction. and if you do, that is not sustained because that is what courts and congress call a "no evidence point." you have a no evidence point. that's why you had to drop bribery, although it does apply to vice president biden. you smartly dropped the bribery, and now you have this elusive abuse of power. this is outrageous and it needs to come to an end. >> gentlemen, time has expired. speak at last word. speak of the gentle man is recognized.
speak out the reasonable basis here is there is evidence that the president pressured a foreign government, ukraine, to target an american citizen, joe biden, for political gain. and at the same time, withheld without explanation $391 million in military aid that had been allocated on a bipartisan basis. ambassador taylor, west point graduate, vietnam war veteran, appointed by reagan, bush, trump to the diplomatic corps, said the following about the withholding of that military aid. "no legitimate public policy basis. no legitimate national security basis. no legitimate substantive basis." that is why congress proceeded. we had more than 200 national
security professionals. democrats and republicans who expressed concern with the president's wrongdoing. they said this undermines american national security, and that is the basis for the impeachment inquiry. but what the president has done is said come on like the vision of democracy which had checks and balances, separating coequal branches of government, i alone can determine with the representatives of the people see in connection with a legitimate investigation. and at the same time, this is a president that attacks everybody to distract. attacks everybody who won't bend the knee to donald j. trump. he has attacked john mccain, a war hero. he's attacked mitt romney, 2012 republican nominee.
he attacked bob moeller, a marine, a distinguished professional in law enforcement. he's attacked your former speaker, paul ryan. he attacks gold star families. he even attacked, today, a 16-year-old teenage activist, greta thunberg. are you here to defend that as well? what is happened is instead of addressing the substance of the allegation, you want to attack joe biden and his family. elijah cummings is no longer with us. he is in heaven just like the prophet elijah, but his spirit is with us. and we are better than this. we are proceeding in a serious, solemn, and sober fashion
because the allegations are deadly serious. is it okay for the president to solicit foreign interference in a 2020 election, or not? who should decide the outcome of our elections? is it the russians, the chinese, the ukrainians? or the american people? it should be the american peopl people. and that is why we are here at this moment, so let's have a serious discussion about it. stop attacking americans who refused to bend the knee to this president. i yield to the gentleman from tennessee. >> thank you, sir. one of the big issues here is trump conditioning military aid
on an investigation on the bidens. joe biden, his primary political opponent in his mind. the republicans have said no, it was about corruption, it wasn't about them. but listen to what they talked about today. all they've talked about is the bidens. under biden's automobile crash, hunter biden this, hunter biden that. they haven't brought up any ukrainian corruption. all they talk about is hunter biden. this article, they say it's all about the bidens. they are all about the bidens, and that is what this is about. let's go back to mr. jeffries. >> okay, i shouldn't have tried to correct you. >> foreign interference in an election solicited by an election is not okay. that is an abuse of power. it undermines our national
security. at the president should the gentleman yields back. >> moved to strike the last word. >> gentleman is recognized. >> thank you mr. chairman, i think the gentleman from new york laid out in such an articulate way the bases and justification for both article one and article two. before us. but i just want to touch on the debate around obstruction of congress and explained to my colleagues and the american people why this instance is so unprecedented. i will first say with much respect to my colleague from colorado, i want to ensure the american people that the instruction of congress to coloradans means the same thing that it does to everyone else in this country. it means the defiance of lawfully issued subpoenas by the united states house of representatives. it means impeding the ability of
the united states house of representatives to reform its constitutional duty. and unlike the obstruction of congress that has taken place in the past, this presidents obstruction of congress has been total. has been absolute, it has been categorical. in 1999 and 98 when president clinton was a subject of impeachment inquiry, this committee propounded 81 interrogatories to his administration and he responded. in 1974 during the watergate investigation nixon's chief of staff testified. nixon's counsel testified. in this instance the president has taken steps to ensure that this committee, key testimony
like any host of officials in our government. in this historical context i will read to you a quote. all members of the staff will appear voluntarily when requested by the committee. it will testify under oath and answer fully, and that's from richard nixon's administration. i hope again that the gravity of the situation before us that we could recognize that when we say that no president in the history of the republic is completely defied and impeachment inquiry as this one has, and we mean it. with that, i yield to the distinguished gentleman from california.
>> i enjoyed listening to you, you are absolutely correct in your reporting of what occurred during both the nixon and clinton impeachment. but i wanted to address the issue from a slightly different point of view, not only as president trump refused to provide information that he should have provided, he didn't assert a privilege. he just said no. i actually have just reread the letter from mr. sibley d, the president's lawyer, dated october 18, 2019. its page after page after page of complaining about how the house is proceeding but the constitution says congress shall have the sole authority to impeach. we decide how to proceed, not the white house. in the end to come, without any privilege whatsoever, he just announces they are not going to cooperate or provide any information. this isn't something that needs
to be adjudicated by the third branch, the judicial branch because there is no privilege being asserted. it simply, no. that's never happened before in the history of the united states and i will tell you in addition to being improper, a valid article, article two that we are considering today, if this behavior persists, the balance -- carefully balanced sharing of power between the three branches of government is gone forever. it means that only one branch, the executive branch will have the right to decide what happens in the united states of america. and that is a very different type of country than we have enjoyed for over 200 years. and it is not a piece of good
news for freedom in the united states. i yield back, thanks for recognizing me. >> i yield back to balance my time. >> the gentleman yields back. >> strike the last word mr. chairman. >> the chairman is recognized. >> mr. chairman i have to offer a different perspective on this. the doctrine of executive privilege actually began with the subpoena that the house issued to president george washington in 1796 related to all the papers in the jay treaty. president washington refused that subpoena and he's of the power of the house does not extend the treaties. not only do you provide that information to the senate as a function of a treaty approval process. the doctrine which dates back to those days is derived from a separation of powers between
this executive and legislative branches. congress can no more intrude into the policy destructio discf the president than the president can intrude into their own policy discussions. that's essential to the separation of powers. that's a natural tension between the branches. and now that's the appropriate way to resolve that. that's the appropriate response which is judicial review, not impeachment. the president has every right to assert his constitutional rights and he has every responsibility to defend the prerogatives of his office, is very oath of office compels him to do so. in matters like this, the course have acted quickly to resolve such disputes.
the democrats aren't willing to go to the course. what article two is says is, we are not willing to go to court. we will take the law into our own hands and these are the same people that tells us no one is above the law of course, except for themselves. what they are saying is congress alone will decide the limits of our own power. this is the essence of despotism. the reason why we separate powers of government so that one branch alone cannot unilaterally define its own power. and yet, this is the power that the democrats are now arrogating to themselves. it's true. we have the sole power of impeachment under the constitution but that power does not exceed the bounds that are established by that very constitution. those bounds include the grounds for impeachment, which this committee has ignored her, and they include the separation of powers that protect one branch from intrusion of the other. i want you to think about the
essence of the democrats claim and what it means to american jurisprudence. you face an abusive prosecutor who is making false accusations. you have constitutional rights that you are guaranteed to use to protect yourself. you have the right to protect ct your accuser. you have the right to call witnesses in your defense. you have the right to be protected from unreasonable search and seizure. this article says if you go to court to defend your rights, that's automatically an obstruction of justice. or in this case an obstruction of congress. the very fact that you try to defend your constitutional rights is evidence of guilt. these are the tools of tyrants. you've already seen these tools are used college students in title ix prosecutions and they produced a frightening and litany of injustices. now these tools are being brought into this attempt to nullify the 2016 national election at the left has refused
to accept. that should scare every person in this country. i yield back. >> the gentleman yields back, and mr. herrera seeks recognition. >> i just wanted to do a little fact-checking if i can for my folks back in california and orange county. i know some of my colleagues compared to vice president biden, withholding aid to president trump's withholding of aid and i just want to make sure that i have the facts correct. is my understanding that vice president biden upheld the aid for firing mr. -- but this was supported by europe and a bipartisan congress. and they held up $400 million of
again bipartisan approved aided. and i think those channels of pursuing health and investigations -- on september 25th, there was a public press release put out by the doj saying that president trump never asked them to investigate this matter. so i'm led to conclude that, this must have been for the president's personal gain. the president interjected his personal lawyer rudy giuliani who told us, and i quote, this is not about prudent quality. this information will be very, very helpful to my clients. and again he said open book, i guarantee you that joe biden will not get to election day without being investigated.
again, comparing and contrasting holding up foreign aid, to support u.s. public policy versus holding up foreign aid against u.s. stated policy. mr. chair, i yield. >> with the gentleman yield back? or yield? >> yes. >> thank you. i know there's been an effort to try to suggest that the trump administration or the president was interested in corruption and that's why he held up the evidence, which is absolutely to the contrary. in fact sometimes you have to go back to the source. if you look at the report completed by the intelligence committee, a 300 page report, 17 witnesses over 100 hours of testimony. they make findings of fact. it's fact and it's make-believe. findings of fact. i will regret for the report. the president solicited the
interference of foreign government and the ukraine and the 2020 u.s. presidential election. in furtherance of the scheme president trump directly and acting through his agents within and outside of the u.s. government sought to pressure the ukraine's newly elected president to publicly announce unfounded allegations that would benefit president trump's personal political interest in reelection efforts. as part of the scheme, president trump is again finding the fact personally and correctly requesting the president of the ukraine and the government of the ukraine publicly announce the investigation into the vice president and his son. president trump ordered the suspension of millions in vital assistance are urgently needed by the ukraine to resist russian aggression. and here's the important part. in directing and orchestrating the scheme to advance his personal political interest, president trump did not implement, promote or advance u.s. anticorruption policies. in fact the president sought
to -- announce politically motivated investigations, lacking legitimate prediction that the united states government otherwise discourages and opposes the world. in so doing, the president undermined u.s. policy, and undermined u.s. national security. so the finding of fact that are detailed in the report completely refute that claim and again, i returned to the most important fact. the president of the united states abused the power of his office, the enormous power of the presidency not to advance the public good about to advance a political interest of donald trump. he used taxpayer funds totaling $400 million to leverage that and into and so undermines the national security of the united states. he must be held accountable. no one in this country including the president of the united states is above the law and the one body discharged,
that's a congress of the united states. i yield back. >> the gentleman yields back. the question now occurs on the gates amendment. those in favor? proposed? it's the opinion of the chair that the natives have it in the oven mitt is not agreed to. roll call is requested. >> mr. nadler votes no. ms. lofgren both know. ms. jackson lee votes no. mr. cohen both know. mr. johnson of georgia votes no. mr. deutsch votes no. ms. bass votes no. mr. richmond votes no. mr. jeffries votes no. mistress of votes no.
mr. swallow. votes no. mr. raskin votes no. miss deming votes no. mr. correggio votes no. ms. scanlan votes no. ms. garcia votes no. mr. negus votes no. miss mick bass votes no. mr. stanton votes no. ms. dean votes no. ms. mcardle powell votes no. ms. escobar votes no. mr. collins votes i mr. sensenbrenner votes aye. mr. gomer both i. mr. jordan votes he asked. mr. buck votes aye.
mr. radcliffe votes yes. ms. robie votes aye. mr. gates votes aye. mr. johnson of louisiana votes aye. mr. bigs at votes aye. mr. mcclintock votes aye. ms. let's go votes aye. mr. rush and faller votes aye. mr. klein votes aye. mr. armstrong votes yes. mr. sue b votes yes. >> clerical report. >> mr. chairman there are 17 ayes and 17 nose. -- >> mr. chairman, he seeks recognition. for what purpose does mr. bigs seek recognition?
>> i have an amendment at the desk. >> amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute to h rez 75. >> gentle lady reserves a point of order. the gentleman is recognized to explain his amendment. >> is she going to read the amendment, sir? >> of the clerk will read the amendment. >> page four strike line eight and all that follows through line 13 and insert the following, three, the aide was released within days of the ukrainian president wa president zelinski -- president trump that the new ukrainian administration was serious about foreign majors and consistent with administration policy to ensure foreign aid is not used for crop purposes. >> the gentleman will explain his amendment. >> i withdraw my point of order. >> i would -- the letter is addressed to mr. tom armstrong, general counsel, the gao and i ask unanimous consent that of being included in the record.
>> object? >> of the entire reason we are here today is because the democrats have accused the president -- to his political opponent. today democrats continue to claim president trump withheld referrals that you aid about the omb letter walk through the entire process throughout the a temporary delay. first the money was paused but dod was permitted to engage in all of the activities short of obligation necessary to ensure that dod would not be precluded from updating the funds prior to the exploration. the money was paused according to a letter pending a policy decision. what was a policy decision? your two witnesses, fiona hill and david hello testified there was ongoing global review of foreign assistance generally to ensure any risk program receiving funds were actually were the beneficiaries of our assistance. mr. hale further testified that the president skeptical views on foreign assistance guide guided the foreign affairs review. the only direct evidence for the reasons for the pause comes from
omb official mark sandy who testified he learned in september that the pause was related to "the president's concern about other countries contribute more to the ukraine." he explained now that omb received information about what other countries were contributing to the ukraine which omb provided in the first week of september. the aide was released of course on september 11th. the democrats wanted to impeach the evidence that taxpayer funds are spent efficiently and responsibly. the democrats accused them of a myriad of things. that prohibits executive from essentially pocket comic pocket be dealing funds. this letter than i'm trying to introduce shows instead that the administration never intended or actually violated the law. in fact it shows that it always intended to disburse the funds and that's why dod was permitted to engage in all activities in preparation for the delivery of the aide. you have not made your case again. the omb walks through the
history behind programmatic delays and i'm sure this would be boring to my friends on the other side since it technique radically destroys their central theory for impeachment. in the letter of the omb general counsel said even with the temporary withholding the department of defense was able to obligate 84% of the $250 million before the end of the fiscal year on september 30th. in the last year the obama administration, it was only 79%. more recently in 201991%. let's get back to it, the specific land which of the appropriation authority says for the ukraine security systems initiative, hereby appropriated until september 20th 2019. we authorize funds on we give thee of administration a deadline and the deadline complied with that. they acted completely and totally within the bounds of the law. secondly, the omb's letter now
definitively destroys insinuations that president president chose the delay for corrupt purposes. it was lawfully delayed and lawfully delivered and that means this entire process has been a sham. but that, i will address a couple of issues that i heard. i heard one of my colleagues on the other side say, not too long ago, president should come in and prove his own incense. take a look at what that does, come in and prove your own innocence. first of all that's antithetical to the anglo-american tradition, judicial process. it's antithetical to the constitution, particularly the bill of rights. it's antithetical to what we do here. someone said that vindman said, was complaining about the transcript that's been gone over today. the transcript was complete and accurate according to
mr. vindman. someone said and i would ask this of my colleagues, one of the standards that i was given earlier by one of my colleagues, if the president practiced -- from a court, if the privilege was upheld, would you undertake him to impeach the judge? think about that. you're a standard giving absolute process authority to the house would then tell you to impeach a judge who sustained a lawful exercise of the privilege of the executive. so i think mr. chairman you have over gone your balance and when we get back to this, my amendment, it basically covers and sets forth clearly what the holding and the pause of the ukraine aid was about and they got their money in the garden on time. >> the gentleman yields back. without objection, the material previously submitted by mr.
mr. cohen, mr. swalwell and mr. bigs will be admitted into the record. for what purpose does miss bass seek recognition? >> move to strike the last word. >> the lady is recognized. >> i find it interesting that the story seems to be changing. you mentioned of the information from omb but when the acting chief of staff gave his press conference, he said very clearly that the aide was being withheld because of the need to investigate the 2016 election. now you are talking about corruption. i think the notion that president zelinski did not feel pressure and was just fine with military assistance being withheld, first of all that they did know that the military assistance was being withheld and there was no reason for the administration to hold back because the department of defense had already said that there was no problem and the
aide could be released. the aide was released after the administration was busted, after there was pressure from congress for the aide to be released, after word leaked out on the whistle-blower came forward and then the aide was released. it was very important to remember that. president zelinski not feeling pressure and he was essentially being held hostage. newly elected president and part of his country was seized by russian so what on earth was he supposed to say? was he supposed to publicly complain and criticize president trump when the whole world knows how the president doesn't respond to anything except for praise? what hostage would come forward and complain publicly against their captors, especially if they knew that the aide could be withheld or they could be compromised at any point in ti time? last week, president zelensky
had his first meeting with putin. he defended his ability to defend his nation. it's been said that no lives were lost but i would like to unanimous consent to enter into the record an article from "newsweek" talking about the fact that 13 ukrainian soldiers were killed. >> is that an objection? >> president zelensky agreed to publicly announce the interviews on cnn but the ukraine cancel that interview days after the scheme was revealed in the military it was released. the president knew this when president zelensky asked for a "favor" and lieutenant colonel vindman testified that this was not a friendly request, it was a demand.
for weeks the ukrainian officials pushed back on the demand of the president and his agents advising u.s. officials that they did not want to be an instrument in washington's domestic reelection politics. this was not just business as usual, this was not the president just being concerned about corruption, but as the the presidents pressure campaign increased, something the ukrainians learned, the ukrainians became desperate. so desperate in fact that when ambassador sondland told the president, president zelensky was willing to do anything. and although the aide has been released the despair between the two countries has not changed. ukraine continues to depend on the united states for military aid and president zelensky needs the support of america and the leaders as he strives to bring an end to the war with russia. it's no surprise therefore that president zelensky expressed he didn't feel pressure but the
evidence reveals a different picture. the evidence is clear that president trump took advantage of his office. this is highest of high crimes and president trump must be held accountable. in addition to compromising the ukraine, this compromis compromr standing in the world. because what does it say to our allies, what does it say to vulnerable new democracies? they better be prepared to help the president's reelection. a compromise is our standing in the world, and why would allies trust us anymore if this is the way they are treated? i yelled back. >> gentle lady yields back. gentleman is recognized. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i've got three points i'd like to make here. first of all as well as being on
this committee, the judiciary committee i'm also a member of the foreign affairs committee and have been for the last 23 years. one thing that has really been concerning to me about this phone call that the gentleman mentioned in the amendment, and i appreciate him offering this amendment. relative to that phone call that our president, president trump had with the president of the ukraine, the number of people that were listening in on this phone call, is that in the national interest of our count country? it's incredible how many people, we have all these people listening in and if they are listening in, shut up about it. the president is talking frankly with another president. he's going to make comments. in that call he made some disparaging comments relative to another important ally of ours, germany and angela merkel.
it's not particularly helpful for them to say, or our president saying, they will give you lip service about coming to your defense and giving you aid it but they won't be there for you. we will be there. talking about how important the united states is in an ally. our presidents do that but you think you are doing that in confidence with the other country, not giving everyone else listening in. so our state department, the executive branch and many others need to tighten up this phone calls for our national security interests and that goes whether we have a republican administration as we do right now, maybe decades down the ro road. and relative to obstruction of congress, and there were no crimes essentially but obstruction of congress. we have three branches of
government the legislative branch said we want you to bring these things from the executive branch and since they didn't do it, rather than go to court, the legislative branch, basically the democrats because they are in control here in the house, they could have filed the lawsuit. i could've had the courts decide. that's what happened some years ago back in the nixon impeachment. he wouldn't turn over the tapes. he went to the court and the supreme court ultimately said to come it might have taken some months but we have to turn those tapes over. there were a bad stuff in those tapes, the smoking gun so to speak. and that's what they could have done here. instead of go to the court, which is what you are supposed to do, they were kind of referees. they said we are going to impeach this guy which they have wanted to do since i got inaugurated. we have one member of congress on their side who said they had
to impeach him or he would get reelected. so there is so much politics, and there really shouldn't be. the third point i wanted to make is, i think the democrats unfortunately are really lowering the bar on impeachment in our country. you know, for about -- i happen to be a history major from the second oldest college in the country. at the college of william and mary. for 200 years in our nation in history, we had one impeachment, andrew johnson. for 200 years. now in less than 50 years we are on our third which is unfortunate i believe. they are lowering the bar and making this to routine. i think that's very dangerous. i think in the near future, when you have a president and a house of different parties, we are going to see this more and more often. and this is very divisive for our country.
we are not together enough, and i think that's unfortunate. i saw for example a few years ago when bork was nominated to the supreme court. i know some of you will remember that, when the democrats went for that, and i'm afraid you'll see that here relative to our impeachment of relatives, too. so we ought to step back and consider what we're doing here because impeachment can be very divisive. i've been through one of these before, i was one of the house managers of bill clinton's about 20 years ago and they are very ugly. so i have sympathy for the house managers that will be picked from this committee. >> gentleman yields back.
>> i moved to strike the last word. >> mr. chairman, we had a lot of conversation today and i would like to break it down into a simple term that everyone at home can understand, especially my home district. we speak lots of spanish, we speak a lot of french and we don't go around speaking a lot of latin. here's why we are here today. some people say quid pro quo, some people translate into the american definition of this for that. and the question is, that was this. that was an investigation into joe biden, a primary political opponent. and a look, you describe a crime you want to make sure that the
people listening talk about motive. president trump was afraid that joe biden was beating him in the polls and and, they gave out the aid in 2016, they gave out the aid in 2018. 2019, the polls came out and he withholds the aid and ask for an investigation. that's just motive. let's go to foreign witness testimony because that's the part i want us to focus on. on the other side, it talked about credibility of lieutenant colonel vindman and he accepted some of the things he said as facts. if you are going to accept some of those things as fact, let's accept them all as fact. it was lieutenant colonel
vindman -- deliverable would be in order to get the meeting. the deliverable. that was the that for the meeting. and he said specifically, it was an investigation into the bidens. let's go to joh john bolton whod he described this, this for that deal, as a drug deal. so if we look at all of the testimony of people under oath, they clearly say that this was a swap of an oval office visit or military aid for an investigation into the bidens. now, the whistle-blower comes forward and the trump administration panics, and then they develop everything that we have now, and that's called the excuse or the defense.
first excuse. well, they didn't know that money was being held, not true. there is two emails where they expressed concern about it. then you have ms. croft to testify that two individuals from the ukrainian embassy asked about an omb hold on the security assistance, roughly a week apart. she recalled that that occurred before it was publicly enhanced. so that's one. second, their defense or excuse is that president trump wanted to investigate corruption if president trump wanted to at to investigate corruption he could start at 1600 pennsylvania avenue and look in the mirror or he could look around and pass the criminals that have been indicted from a circle. you have his lawyer, you have his national security advisor. you have michael flynn, rick gates, the circle goes
One of the foremost historians on the Civil War presented a critical look on one of the key military figures in the war to a group of historians on Thursday.
laws are applied as written. this report is titled if you ain't first, you're last. one of the co-authors joins me now. he's a practicing attorney and professor at the college of william and mary. thank you for being here. share with me the conclusion beyond which i have described. you took a look at all 50 state laws and what did you find? >> so in 28 state, the sore loser laws would prohibit somebody who lost the primary from running as an independent or a third-party candidate. for somebody like donald trump, what that means if it he were able to get ballot acts is in every state that he basically won in either '16 or '20, less the ones that would bar him under the sore loser law, he would only win 81 electoral votes. that puts a road block. >> a felon looked at this issue and came to a different
would be denied ballot access in 28 states, totaling 290 electoral votes if sore loser laws are applied as written. this report is titled "if you ain't first, you're last". one of the coauthors joins me now, a practicing attorney and an adjunct professor at the college of william and mary. shear with me the conclusion beyond that i've described. you take a look a look at 50 state laws and what did you find? >> the 28 states the sore loser laws would prohibit somebody who lost the primary from running as an patent or third-party candidate. if donald trump were able to get ballot access in every state that he basically won in either '16 or '20, less the ones that would bar him under the sore loser laws, he would only be able to win 81 electoral votes, that so puts a roadblock in any third-party plans he might have.
Also, the Conrad N. Hilton Foundation has given $120 million to 38 grantees, and Lever for Change and the LEGO Foundation have committed $143 million in grant opportunities through their Build a World of Play Challenge.