Latest Breaking News On - Dore - Page 1 : vimarsana.com
mr. buck votes aye. mr. ratcliffe? yes. ms. roby votes aye. mr. gaetz votes aye. mr. johnson of louisiana votes aye. mr. biggs votes aye. mr. mcclintock votes aye. ms. lesko votes aye. mr. reschenthaler votes aye. mr. cline votes aye. ms. armstrong votes yes. >> any members wish to vote who haven't voted? the clerkve will report. >> mr. richmond, you are not recorded. >> no. >> mr. richmond votes no. >> ared there any other member who haven't voted who wish to vote? the clerk will report.
>> mr. chairman there are 17 ayes and 23 nos. >> the agreement is not agreed to. any substitute? mr. gates? >> i have an amendment at the desk. >> the gentleman has an amendment at thetl desk. the clerk will report the amendment. the gentlelady reserves point of order. >> amendment to thein amendmentn the nature of a substitute offered by mr. gates of florida page three strike lines 10 through 11 and insert the following. a, aer well-known corrupt compa burisma and corrupt hiring of hunter biden. >> the gentleman is recognized to explain his amendment. >> thank you, mr. chairman, this strikes the reference to joe biden as thefe center of the proposed investigation and replaces itga with the true top of the investigation, burisma and hunter biden. an essential element of the democrats' case on abuse of power is that the bidens did nothing wrong. it can only be an abuse of power and not a correct use of power
if the president was pursuing something under which there was no reasonable basis to ask a question about hunter biden and burisma. hunter biden and burisma, that's an interesting story. i think just about every americank knows there's somethg up with that. $86,000 a month, no experience, working for some foreign government while your dad is the vice president of the united states. is there anybody who believes this is okay? i know a few of my democratic colleague who is might run for president one day, would you let your vice president have their son or daughter or family member out moonlighting for some foreign company? maybe i'll use language familiar to the former president. come on, man, this looks derty as it is. hunter biden was making five times more than a board member for exxon mobil. i've heard of that company. i found this very extensive
profile in the new yorker. hunter said at that point he had not slept for several days driving east on interstate 10 beyond palm springs he lost control of his car which jumped the median and skidded to a stop on the shoulder of the wnd side. he called herts which came and gave him a second rental. they found a line of white powder residue. hertz called the prescott police department and officers filed a narcotics offense report listing items seized including a plastic bag containing white powdery substance, a secret service business secard, credit cards a hunter biden's driver's license. that is what we would call evidence. i don't want to make light of substance abuse issues. it's a little hard to believe that burisma hired hunter biden
to resolve their international disputes when he could not resolve his own n dispute with hertz rental car over leaving cocaine and a crack pipe in the car. it continues, hunter stayed in los angeles for about a week. he said that he needed to get awayo and forget soon after hi arrival in l.a. he asked a homeless man where he could buy crack. he took him to a homeless encampment where a narrow passageway someone putro a gun his head before realizing he was the buyer. he returned to buy more crack a fewuy times that week. not casting any judgment on any challenges someone goes through in their personal life but it is hard to believe this is the guy wandering through homeless encampments buying crack. that may be why when abc asked hunter biden do you think you would have gotten this job in the g absence of your dad being
the vice president, well, he said, probably not. and then i looked to the record evidence and ioo looked to the testimony of mr. kent. one of the witnesses they called on the first day said burisma was so dirty our own embassy had to joint out after joint sponsorship wither them. when ambassador yovanovitch was being prepped the obama administration was so worried around the corruption of burisma and hunter biden they held special prep moments to get ready for m the inevitable questions about this obvious corruption the president asked about. mr.sk kent, again, one of their witnesses from the first day, gave testimony that burisma had -- that the head of burisma had stolen $23 million in the u.s. and the uk and he paid a bribe to gethe off the hook. it's not as if burisma is pulling out new plays. their playbook is to do dirty stuff and go and pay bribes and
hire the people necessary. you wonder why republicans are so angry and you may wonder why if they feel so good about their case why did they block our ability to put in evidence? we have the ability to show that burisma is corrupt. that hunter biden is corrupt and that exculpates the president because there is no way in the united states of america that honestly pursuing actual corruption is an impeachable offense. that's why i i offer the amendmt and i encourage my colleagues to vote for it. >> mr. chairman, i withdraw my point of order. >> mr. chairman. >> the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does mr. johnson -- >> i rise in opposition to this
amendment and i would say that the pot calling the kettle black is not something we should do. i don't know -- [ laughter ] i don't know what members, if any, have had problems with substanceha abuse, been busted r dui, i don't know. butdu if i did, i wouldn't rais it against anyone on this committee. i don't think it's proper. and, you know, i think we have to get back down to what is most important here. this is a question that stands out like a big, throbbing sore toe inside of a shoe that's too small and that is this question. is it ever okay for a president of the united states of america tod invite foreign interferenc
in an upcoming presidential election campaign? >> is the gentleman seeking an answer?an does the gentleman yield? >> the silence -- >> the gentleman has the time. >> -- was and is deafening. and there will be plenty of time for you toe respond to that question, and i would invite to youi do so. i gave you an opportunity of about 10 or 15 seconds while could you get your story together and nobody came up with a story, so i will let you move to strikewi the last word and explain that to the american people. it's never proper for a united states president to hold a
foreign country over a barrel to make them do that president's personal bidding and dangling security assistance and dangling the facte that i'll give it to you if you do this. i mean, that's exactly what happened. it's like the american people understand what happened. those are the facts. the president said it when he released theid transcript of th summary ofcr that phone call on july 25th, the summary of the president's own words shows that the president tried to get president zelensky to interfere in the upcoming presidential election. that is established by the facts. so this is not about hunter
biden, and they've said that on the other side repeatedly up until they start talking about hunter biden having some substance abuse problems. you can'tsu have it both ways. let's be honest. this is about our conscience. the conscience of the nation. the conscience of my friends on the other side of the aisle. do youai believe we should allo this to go unaddressed what the president did because we are a countrywe of precedent. we are a country of rule of law. we are a country of norms and traditions. are we going to allow the violation of our norms, our traditions, our legal precedent because, after all, bribery was not a crime. there was no criminal code when the framers passed the constitution but they said
bribery in there and what bribery meant was i'm offering you something if you do something for me. i'll give you this. in other words, you give g me this, i'll giveu you that. that's what we had in this case. that's what bribery means. it doesn't depend on a statute. it depends on what we know was done. and so let's not get bogged down in technicalities and character assassination. let's keep our eye on what really happened in this case and whether or not our consciences dictate we do something about it. we can't let it go unaddressed, and the way we deal with this grave abuse of the public trust is with the drastic action that it requires because this is a drastic circumstance. the drastic action is impeachment, and that's why we're here today.
i ask my colleagues to let your conscience be your guide. i yield back. >> the gentleman yields back. for what purposes does mr. sensenbrenner -- >> i move to strike the last word. >> the gentleman is recognized. >> my mind is boggled by the gentleman from georgia saying that bribery was okay until 1787 when the constitution was adopted and two years later when congress passed the first criminal code, first of all, there is a common law definition of bribery. i think people long before 1787 realized bribery was no good. but we also had criminal codes in each of the 13 independent states,pe colonies, before the declaration of independence. >>io will the gentleman answer question? >> no, i'm -- i didn't interrupt you. >> the gentleman suspends. the gentlemantl has the time. >> okay. the second thing is that if you
on the other side of the aisle believe that joe biden is a man who tells the truth, you ought to support this amendment. because joe biden, ever since hunter's involvement with burisma, has been repeatedly asked whether he made any arrangements to get hunter this really t cushy job. and he said, no, or my son's business vochlts are my son's and not involved in that. so you put joe biden's name in your articles of impeachment when the real factor is hundredhundred hunter biden. he's no running for anything. i guess your claim that the president was trying to influence theng 2020 election. would go out the window.
if you think joe biden is a man whoen tells the truth and i'll give him the benefit of the doubt because i think he deserves e it, let's get rid of joe biden, substitute his son's name in there and proceed. anyone who votes no on this amendment is saying i think joe biden is a liar. if you don't think that joe biden is a liar, vote yes. i yield the balance of my time to mr. gates. >> it's the democrats who are saying any question about the biden situation, burisma, it could only be an abuse of power. this reflects how the president was using his power entirely appropriately and shows how scared they are of the facts.
if we are able to bring in hunter biden, to demonstrate the bias of the whistle-blower, the american people would see we are not in this debate and discussion because the president did anything wrong, impeachable or criminal. we're here fundamentally because they cannot accept that he won the 2016 election. i think all americans know the president has a different approach. but to accept their standard would mean if someone announces they're running for office it's like an instant immunity deal for anything they would do. are they really saying that if joe biden,hunter biden and burisma, that that ought to absolve him of the criminal activity? it's a ludicrous.
maybe you got lucky on the hillary clinton stuff. she thought because she was in a presidential election that her crimes didn't have to be held to account and,a way, that turned out to be the case. you know what, it shouldn't be the standard in the united states of america. and i'm glad we have a president who is at times skeptical of foreign aid, who does put america first, who understands that in corrupt places the resources we provide don't always make it to an area of need. were conclude with this. once the meetings happened, that demonstrated president zelensky was a true reformer, that he wasn't corrupt, that he was honest -- honest from the point of his campaign all the way up to the point where he said there was no pressure put on him or his government for this aid, if you accept that proposition, it's very clear the president was entirely appropriate in those questions, and i have to say on the last amendment now we have reached the point in time
president trump isn't the only president being attacked in this hearing. i heard the gentleman from tennessee goth after zelensky a well, an actor, a politician. and they presume he's a liar whens he says there was nothin wrong. you know yswhat, they can't mak the case against the president. they're attacking zelensky and it just shows the absurdity. >> the gentleman's time is expired. for what purpose does ms. jackson-lee seek recognition? >> ile wanted to respond since name was called. >> no. >> i rise to strike the last word. >> the gentlelady is recognized. >> i thank the chairman. this is about distraction, distraction,di distraction. our good friend spent three hours saying the president did not target the bidens. now they're saying that he did. so which is it? i'm holding the classified/unclassified conversation, and let me just clarify a certain point, and that point is that i did read
the transcript, and it did say us. but there's nothing in the president's notes that even suggested that the question that he asked was for the american people. in testimony by mr. goldman who obviously went through every aspect of this, i asked a question about whether or not the president said anything from thein notes that are given, the briefing that is given by those representatives of the united states government. the staff of the national security council, the state department, the defense department, on corruption. he didn't speak anything about corruption that he was briefed on. and if you go through the call, he continues to mention the bidens. and so this, again, is about ukraine. the president did ask ukraine. the president of ukraine, a
vulnerable leader of a country that is fledgling and trying to survive. now let me say that i intend to introduce into the record an article thatan indicated very clearly that people did die. trump froze military aid as ukrainian soldiers battled. i ask unanimous consent to submit that into the record. >> without objection. >> but the facts are the -- the facts are president trump provided $510 million in aid in 2017 and $359 million in 2018, but he wanted to stop in 2019 the year or months before the 2020 election. in addition president trump's advisers confirmed that president trump's investigations, 2016 election
interference and the bidens were not u.s. policy and as well they have debunked any association there was anything to the impropriety of the former vice president and his service as related to ukraine. i think it is also important the department of defense and the state department confirm they have met all the anti-corruption benchmarks and the aid should be released. that's the policy of the united states of america. there was no need for this president to, in essence, try to make up his own policy. in his own statement of administrative policies, and i ask unanimousnd consent to ask have those in the record this is from the white house. nothing in this said to discuss corruption. why? because ukraine had already met the standards of independent executive agencies that they met that standard of corruption, their money should have been
released, and we well know as the process of the whistle-blower t and the timing that president zelensky desperate for money, people dying in the field, was asked to do a cnn announcement. and he was going to be on one of cnn's well-known shows dealing with international politics. but it was stopped in its tracks as testified by witnesses under oath because of the whistle-blower statement. let me be very clear there is some representation of crime, crime, crime. first of all our scholars indicated that these are impeachable offenses, the conduct of the president is impeachable and there's enough evidence to show. as i indicated yesterday this, my friends, is a legal document, the constitution. it is a legal document. you can breach and violate the law of the constitution.
there are constitutional crimes. and the vastness of the impeachment process does include the abuse of power by the president of the united states. i knew barbara jordan and my friends wanted to quote her. she also saido the framers confided in the congress of power if need be to remove a president in order to strike a delicate balance between a president swollen with power and grown tyrannical. you can violate the crimes of the constitution, abuse of power includes, that. this amendment should be defeated. >> the gentle lady's time has expired. >> mr. chairman? >>re for what purpose does mr. ratcliffe seek recognition? >> move totc strike the last wo. >> thee gentleman is recognize. >> i thank the chair. i want to answer my colleague from georgia's question that he asked gbefore. is it ever okay to invite a
foreign government to become involved in an election involving a political opponent? the answer is yes. it better be. we do it all the time. have you that quickly forgotten how the trump/russia investigation proceeded? the obama administration asked great britain and italy and australia and other countries to assist in its investigation of a person who was a political opponent from the opposite party. i keep hearing over and over again you can't investigate political opponents. we have ali member of this committee who as a member of this committee and the intelligence committee investigating his politicalte opponent, donald trump, at the very moment he was running to replace him as president. my colleague on the intel committee, mr. castro, was
investigating president trump at the very same moment his brother was running to replace president trump. president trumpce is the only o with the really legitimate reason to be doing it. he is the chief executive. the chief executive. we are in the judiciary committee, right? we do understand the constitution. we do understandta that the president as the executive is the executive branch and all power? the executive branch drives from the president, and the president can and should ask for assistance from foreign governments inan ongoing crimin investigations. there was an riongoing criminal investigation into what happened in 2016. the attorney general barr at the time of the july 25th call had long before that appointed u.s. attorney john durham to investigate exactly that issue. it wasn't just appropriate. it was absolutely the president's constitutional duty.
and hunter biden, the president has, as the chief executive, the ability to ask about matters where there is a prima facie case of corruption. what do we have with respect to hunter biden? tons of money for a position where he has no ukrainian experience, where he has no experience with ukraine or with energy and at the same time that the ukrainians were deciding hunter biden was the perfect person to get that sweetheart deal, the chinese were deciding hunter biden was the perfect person to get a sweetheart deal to manage $1.5 billion in financial assets. and when these ukrainian government wanted to investigate corruption, likete we all keep talking about they need to, well, they start investigating burisma andga what happens?
joe biden says you'd better fire that prosecutor investigating corruption into burisma or you're not going to get a billion dollars. and six hours later that's what happened. that's called's influence peddling. that is a crime.th and there is a prima facie case of that. and it's absolutely appropriate for a president to ask about that. i yield to my friend. >> i thank the gentleman for yielding. i want to respond to the comments from the gentlelady from texas saying the president made up his own policy. that's how itow works in our country. you get your name on a ballot, you run for office, you go talk to the american people. they evaluate it all and on election day decide who they want making the policy. that's how it works in our country. it's not the o unelected people telling the elected individual how we do things. they are accountable to we, the
people. it's what makes our system the best, the greatest. and when you turn that on its head, that's when you get problems. and we saw it happen because we heard chuck schumer say on january 3rd, 2017, when you mess with 2 the intelligence committ they have six ways from sunday at getting back at you. that is a scary statement because that is saying the unelected people can get back at the person who put their name on a ballot and elected to the highest office in this situation. so for someone in the united states congress to say the president made up his own policy and somehow that is wrong, that should be a frightening position to take but i guess that's where the democrats are today in their quest to go after this president making statements like that, statements by our colleague and statements by senator schumer. i yield back. >> the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does ms. lofgren seek recognition? >> to strike the last words.
there are issues for the election and then there are issues for this committee. the behavior of vice president's biden's son and, frankly, the behavior of president trump's two sons and daughter may be discussed in the election. but here we're talking about the abuse of presidential authority, the president must take care that the laws be faithfully executed. we know from the emails from the state department to the department of defense that the ukrainians knew that the aid was beinghe withheld. that's documentary evidence. we also know whatever was going on that people might not like with the vice president's son and the vice president, that was known in 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018. it wasn't until vice president
biden was beating president trump in the polls that this issue was raised to try and force a foreign country to invent an investigation to be used politically. that is not seeing that the laws are faithfully executed. that is an abuse of presidential authority. and i would yield now to the gentleman fromd florida, mr. deutch. >> i thank my friend from california. m it's been about three hours since in made this point. i guess it needs to be made from time to time. we just can't simply allow the mischaracterization and misstatement of the rules and house resolutions to advance politicals arguments here. we can't stand for it. and i want to address again these statements that there are some rights to have witnesses
come in. it istn absolutely true that's e case. over 50 years ago when the rule was written, when rule six was written, it set it to give both sides at committee hearings. that's what happened at the december 4th meeting and the december 9th meeting. let's be honest about the rules. and houseth resolution 660 i wod point out again provides an opportunity for the president of thefo united states to come. he could haveto come on decembe 4th. he could have sent any of his witnesses, and he didn't. but no one should be surprised because that's beened the president's approach throughout is to refuse to allow anyone -- anyone -- with the kind of information my colleagues claim they're interested in from coming to testify, from coming to answer questions directly. with that i yield to my friend from new york, mr. jeffries. >> i thank the distinguished gentleman --
>> it's my time.he i would be happy to yield. >> there were 12 fact witnesses who testified during the intel hearing. 12. and we don't hear a thing about thoseth witnesses from my colleagues on the other side of the aisle. a thing. those witnesses were not political operatives. they were patriots. in fact, they were trump appointees. ambassador taylor, trump appointee. ambassador sondland, trump appointee. dr. fiona hill, trump appointee. jennifer williams, trump appointee. lieutenant colonel vindman, trump appointee. ambassador volker, trump appointee. they all confirmed that donald trump pressured a foreign government to target an american citizen for political gain and at the same time withheld, without justification, $391
million in military aid. undermining america's national security. ambassador volker's testimony, he testified about the issue of raising the 2016 elections on vice president biden, all these things i consider to be conspiracy theories. what wascy his response? it was pretty simple. quote, i think the allegations against vice president biden are self-serving and not credible. that's what this is all about. i yield back. >> mr. chairman, i yield back. >> the gentlelady yields back. for what purposes do you seek recognition? >> support of the amendment. >> does the gentleman desire to strike the last word? >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> thenk gentleman is recognize. >> it's amazing we're hear from
the same people accusing us of covering up, not willing to face the truth.th they're the same arguments that we've been hearing for three years now. first it was accusing us of not being willing to face the facts about russia collusion and the president scheming with russia and that turned out to be lies. we were right and those accusing us of not facing the truth were the ones not facing the truth. we heard all kinds of other allegation allegations and said that doesn' appear to be supported. there was a lot of media support for those positions. but we still persisted that we were the ones that were right. and this week these things are all beinges born out. we were right, they were wrong,
and now we're not hearing anybody come in and say, hey, we're really sorry when we accused youwe all of being craz and not facing the truth. you were t right. there was no russia collusion. you were right, there was no extortion. and my friends across the aisle keep changing the subject, what the calle made clear is we're interested in finding out about if there was ukrainian collusion or interference in our election. now it's amazing how the majority can take two positions that counter indicate each other. first ofch all they say there w no effort by republicans, including president trump to stop interference from foreign countries. we hear that over and over including yesterday and today.
and yet the only way to step up and do what president obama refused to do, if you remember president obama belittled president trump, candidate trump, for saying he was concerned about outside interference. and, in fact, president obama made a mockery of anybody that was so stupid they thought somebody like russia or others might interfere and affect our election. he made fun of them. he wouldn't do anything about outside interference. because apparently he must have thought the outside interference was going to help hillary clinton, as we've heard apparently there are some people that are accusing ukraine to help hillary clinton. it was unheard of to have a foreignal bass dore in our country step up and come out with support for hillary clinton. so what we continue to see is projecting. somebody on their side engages
in illegal or improper conduct and that's what they accuse president trump or us of doing. all of this self-righteousness about, you know, for political purposes, i mean, this is from a transcript from a december 1st, 1943, when president roosevelt was talking to marshall stalin, talking with stalin -- this is apparently in tehran they're meeting. he wanted to talk to him about internal american politics. and from stenographers they say president roosevelt said they were in the united states 6 million to 7 million extraction, he didn't want to lose their vote and was explaining he couldn't go public. he didn't care when basically the soviet union took over
poland. he didn'ter care if they cut do poland's borders from the east and from the west and he goes on to say, they say jokingly, that when the soviet army occupied lithuania orie latvia, estonia,e did not intend to go to war with the soviet union on this point but continues to emphasize some of the things he can't go public with. these kinds of things have gone on byhi democrats for many decades. here they come after the one guy who wants to get to the bottom of 2016 foreign interference and what dore they accuse him of? of getting foreign interference. no, you can't root out foreign interference until you know what it was. you can'til have it both ways. it guess the democratic party n have it both ways but this has to stop before it goes too much further. i yield back. >> the gentleman yields back.
for what purposes does mr. cicilline seek recognition? i'mek sorry. for what purpose does mr. chabot seek recognition? >> strike the last word. >> theik gentleman is recognize. >> thank you. i said that you were investigating the wrong guy, that it should have been biden or bidens, that ukraine was the third most corrupt nation on earth and that hunter biden had just put himself right smack dab in the middle of that corruption and that even though democrats and many of their friends in the media would have you believe that this burisma/biden corruption, that this was all
just the vast right-wing conspiracy when in actuality it was the obama administration thatam raised this issue first. in 2015 george kent reported his concerns about hunter biden to the vice president's office. the former ambassador to ukraine, marie yovanovitch was asked pesky questions on hunter biden and burisma that might arise in her senate confirmation process. nearly every single witness who testified at the intelligence committee impeachment inquiry agreedqu that hunter biden's burisma deal created at the very least the appearance of a conflict of interest. yet the democrats on the intelligence committee under chairmanen schiff and now democrats on this committee are determined to sweep all of this
under the rug, ignore it, not let us call witnesses on it. instead are rushed to impeach this president. you have the vice president, joe biden, in charge of overseeing our ukrainian policy and his son, hunter biden, receiving $50,000 a month, even though he had no identifiable expertise in energy or in ukraine, yet the democrats wouldn't let us call witnesses or delve into this and it was interesting that joe biden got in an argument with a man that one of his events in iowa recently. called the man a liar and challenged him to a push-up contest and spouted off a bunch of other malarkey and now this committee is conducting an impeachment investigation against presidentim trump based on, as professor turley put it,
wafer thin evidence and ignoring evidence of something that truly doesn't smell right. wafer thin evidence. and thiswa was a professor who acknowledged that he had not voted forot president trump. in fact, all four witnesses who testified, none of them had voted for him, but he said wafer thin evidence. while they're doing that there are so many things getting ignored. it looks like one thing the usmca, a trade deal, which is very important to replace nafta, we might get that across the finish line. i certainly hope so because it would be good for thenl country. it's bipartisan. but i think if there's anything good to come out of this impeachment it's probably that that actually will get passed because the g democrats will sh we did something. very little has passed into law. we had 68,000 americans who died from opioid overdoses last year
alone. i think it was 70,000 the year before that. even though the numbers have gone down a bit it's not necessarily because we're doing a whole lot better. it's because of narcan. there are just as many people involved with this scourge, these opioids and other drugs. our southern border is still a sieve. that's something we ought to be able toom work on in a bipartis manner in this committee to do something about that and our asylum law that is need to be reformed. a $22 trillion debt hanging over our head. this committee has jurisdiction over all these things and isn't doing a thing because we've been spending all'v our time for the last year on impeachment in one form or another. i have a bill, a balanced budget, something we should have done years ago. those are all in our jurisdiction. other things like infrastructure not in our jurisdiction but the
united states congress ought to act on it. we have highways and our bridges are crumbling in this country. it's something we generally agree on but the democrats probably don't want the president to take any credit for that, so that's not likely to happen. it's unfortunate taking up all this time on impeachment when there are so many other things we ought to bey working on for the benefit of the american people. >> for what purpose does mr. jordan seek recognition? >> i yield to the ranking member. >> i want to say it is amazing, though, to hear they've gotten sensitive about process oney th majority side whenon we pointed out the tragedy and the travesty of being a rubber stamp in this committee and the gentleman fro florida brought out a couple things. let me remindout as he said a minutes ago the white house is going to send everything, no, it all goes through the whim of the chairman and the majority. they can't send anybody they want. it all goes through their majority opinion. i give back to the gentleman.
>> i yield to the gentleman from florida. >> i thanke the gentleman for yielding. if democrats can't prove the bidens are clean president trump can't be guilty of abusing power. they cannot prove the questions into the bidens are unreasonable. the gentleman from new york said, well, you just aren't listening to the witnesses. i listened very closely. i heard mr. kent say they were so concerned about s burisma we had to pull out of a partnership with the embassy. so if it's okay for our embassy to ask the questions, why isn't it okay for the president? i listened to ambassador yovanovitch when she gave testimony. she said she was having to do special preparation to have to answerto these sticky questions about why the vice president's son was off moonlighting for some foreign energy company. if it's okay for yovanovitch to ask those questions, okay for the obama administration to ask those questions, why isn't it okay for president trump to ask the questions? one thing i know, corrupt people, they don't just steal once. theyea get into this cycle and
culture ofyc corruption, and it disappointing it. i go back to this "new yorker" article, i'm reading directly from it. one of kathleen's motions this is regarding hunter biden's divorce, contains a reference to a large diamond that had come into hunter's possession. when ir' asked him about it, he told me he had been given the diamond byn chinese energy tycn ming. he told me two associates accompanied him to his first meeting with xi and they surprised him by giving him a rare vintage of scotch worth thousands of o dollars. he wasn't justof taking these weird jobs from the ukrainians, he was taking diamonds and scotch from the chinese. i think it's entirely appropriate for the president of the united states to figure out why that's the case. the american people know this is an impeachment movement that is losing steam. cnn on the way into the hearing this morning.
maybe one of the only folks but i was watching. and i heard gloria borger say the polling on impeachment is bad for democrats. i heard jim sciutto say nadler had gone on air and said once we havenc these public hearings we will animate all this public support for impeachment. now you've had the hearings. you've called the witnesses and, you know what, you're losing ground. you're losing ground with the media. you're losing ground with the voters. and you're even losing ground among your own democratic colleagues. i believe the public reporting i've seene your moderate membe in districts president trump won are begging you to pursue something other than impeachment. this blood lust for impeachment is not going to be visited on us or president trump. it's goingsi to be visited on yr own members and they're asking you not to do this. the only standard that speaker pelosi, chairman nadler and schiff said was a bipartisan
standard. thisan has to be bipartisan. they said it all throughout the 2018 calendar year. now the only thing that has changed not a strengthening of the evidence. they've realized that they have to create this impeachment platform because their candidates are incapable of defeating president trump inap fair fight. we know that. the american people know that and so the only bipartisan vote that has incurred is a bipartisan vote against opening thepa inquiry. and the only possibility for movement from that vote to now despite wasting all our time, despite having all these hearings,ll despite all the dame to our institutions through this very weird and aberrational investigation you've run, the onlyat risk you'll lose more vos than youll started with. you lost two of your members the first time. you're not going to lose less than t two of yours members. and, you know what, republicans
are united. we see this for what it is. and we know just as mr. jordan said, this is not just an attack on president trump politically, though it is the election that motivates them for this bizarre behavior. it's not just an attack on the presidency. it's an attack on us. it's an attack on those of us who believe in this president, who understand very well who we voted for, and has some nontraditional ways of doing business but we see the great success of this country. more jobs, more opportunity. they have no answer for that in the weupcoming election and it' why we're here. >> the gentleman's time has expired.y mr. biggs, for what purpose do you seek recognition? >> move to strike the last word. >> the gentleman is recognized. >> thank you. i mentioned before that looking at the evidence, i'm stunned that my colleagues on the other side of the aisle perpetually
read every inference you can make in the like most negative to the president and yet this whole proceedings and the way this has been shaped up indicates there's an incredible inference against their credibility because of the way they've stacked the cards against the president. so i want to read -- i support the gentleman's amendment, and i want to read this from a ukrainian source who was named and cited in a recent publication. it says, quote, by inviting influential foreigners ukrainian business wants to get additional protection. pr and lobby mechanisms to grasp additional spheres of interest. having hunter biden onboard the owner of burisma wanted to correct the image and get cover because authorities are scared by the u.s. embassy in ukraine. hunter biden using the political capabilities of his family acted as a rescue buffer between burisma and ukraine and law enforcementan agencies. working of a corrupt official
smells. now, so, let's take a look at the actual document, the transcript, our colleagues keep referring to. page four. the other thing president trump says there's a lot of talk about biden's son that biden stop the prosecution. a lot of people want to find out about that. so whatever you can do with the attorney general would be greato biden went around bragging that he stopped thent prosecution, s if you can look into it, it sounds horrible to me. that is the essence of what they want to impeach president trump for.ha do you get immunity. is it an immunity event to have a relative run for public office? do you get immunity let's flip it on this end, does the president have the authority to request an investigation? >> most assuredly.
he mentions the attorn it isey clear he would like an investigationld into the corruption surrounding ukraine. what does president zelensky go on to say? trying to restore the honesty in this country. is talking he about. you have the attorney general, you have the president of both countries, let's get it fixed up, and at least you're back to this whole question of did the democrats want to impeach president trump for these abuse of power issues? these abuse of congress, or -- issues. obstruction of congress. it is just bizarre. so hunter biden is blased on the board of buresma in 2014.
in the meantime, evidence is clear that the company paid about $3.4 million to a company called rosemont cinica. that is really intriguing. the investigations around buresma stop and the reputation in ukraine is low and it was dubious even before this impeachment inquiry raised it. according to sources, buresma is not on everybody's front burner in the ukraine, but it is here. because we were providing hundreds of millions of dollars in foreign aid to ukraine. and the president said we need to stop construction. he mentioned specifically the corruption that he heard about.
is that impeachable? no. you do not get immunity just because your father is running for a public office. just because anyone related to you is running for public office. and i will tell you this president has done a remarkable job in spite of three years of constant harassment by the democrats in this country. we have a great economy, he is trying to bringe order to the border. more people working than ever before. this president has restored the military and actually prestige around the uaworld. there are no more apology tours on the foreign policy side that we saw in the previous administration. he has really worked to make america's esteem and greatness
repriese. >> i want to quickly respond to the gentleman from ohio's la mea lamenting. 275 of the bills are bipartisan. they range in legislation to drive down the cost of transcription drugs tot protec coverage for precysting kpns, equal pay for equal work. raising thewo minimal wage, the biggest, anticorruption bill since watergate. and we recently completed negotiations on the new trade deal. the list is exhaustive. 80% of those are laying on mitch mcconnell's desk waiting for action. we ought to assert some energy
in persuading mitch mcconnell to get back to doing his job. there is a real effort to confuse what this is about in is about the president of the united states using the power of his office to spear a political o point to corrupt the elections and leverage hahns of millions of dollars to accomplish that continuative. this amendment would like to wish ouaway the motive of the president, but you can't wish it away or amend it away. the facts were originated in 2015. that is according to the minority report as well in 2017 and 2018, foreign assistance was provided by ukraine. whated happened in 2019? what changed? the president is losing in a national poll by double digits
to joe biden. third, multiple witnesses, trump administration officials, testified that the vice president did nothing wrong including mr. holmente meholmes. the firing of the prior prosecutor was done in accordance with official u.s. policy. it was approved by the just decide. and a bipartisan coalition in congress. this isti a corrupt prosecutor. it was official u.s. policy that the cbs was executing. by contrast what we have in this case, the base sis of this is t opposite. what president trump was doing was notmp official u.s. policy d all of the witnesses confirm that. it was not done through the justice didn't, and it was done
against the advice of all of his advisors. that is what is very different about what we're confronting today. this is work not done by the apparatus of the state department, this was don't by rudy giuliani. let's not confuse these things. the facts matter, the truth matters, you cannot continue to make assertions when the record is the opposite, i would like to yield to mr. swalwell. >> if president trump and my republican colleagues were so interested in rooting out construction in ukraine there was touch they could do that they never did. for many years the vice president's son was on this board and they never investigated this. their concern came about once
vice president biden became the political opponent. president trump called president zelensky to congratulate him. they were told to bring up rooting out corruption in you cane, but the white house and their talking points lied to the american people and said the president had. july pr25, again, national security council members worked really hard to tell the president, impress upon the ukrainian president that he needs to root out corruption in his country. there is a formal process to go through. the president never asked the attorney general to do this. the president was never interested in fighting corruption in ukraine. he was only interested in weaponizing corruption for his own personal benefit.
>> the question man yields back. >> thank you, i ask this article, just two weeks before the call to president zelensky. he asks political advisors if he should worry about running against joe biden. >> theree is now a number of votes on the floor, we will be inil recess until after the vot. pleasee reconvene immediately after the votes. >> good day, everyone. i'm andrea mitchell in washington. you have been wooching all m of thewo drama playing out as the house judiciary committee meets again today after a four hour opening session late into the evening on wednesday night.
MrAmendmentGentlemanSubstituteClerkDeskAgreementGatesNosAyesThetl-desk17consulting. thanks so much for coming in and talking about this today. look, so many of us fly. the 737s have been a problem in the past. they were grounded in 2019 for a year and a half after a couple of crashes involving the max 8 aircraft that killed 346 people. i mean, can you give us some sense of is this a different incident? is this something else wrong with the 737? is this just a fluke, or is there a major problem with the 737s? >> yes, you're right. the 737 max family, at that time it was the max series 8 which had the two tragic fatal crashes that resulted in the 18-month grounding. the 9 was not in service at that point, but it is another member of the same family. the incident of the fuselage panel, that blocked off the optional emergency dore that detached on the alaska airlines
U-sThanksProblemCrashesCoupleF737sManyFlyHalf7372019-8Funeral services for Thomas Ochs, 75, Laurel, MT, formerly of Fairview, MT, were held at 1 p.m., Saturday, Nov. 18, 2023, at Community Presbyterian
FairviewMissouriUnited-statesFairview-cemeteryEdward-ochsKatherine-ochs-gowanThomas-michael-ochsMarie-ochs-finnicumAnn-ochsSusan-hauso-ochsThomas-ochsSam-samuelson