Power to determine its own rules. When president nixon during the time he was going to be impeached ruling how that proceeding would go forward. When the Clinton Impeachment was brought forward, there was a unanimous consent request to govern how we conducted ourselves and im not sure how likely it would be that we would get a unanimous consent request. Id like to ask unanimous consent without objection to enter into the record a letter that was sent to the chairman of the Judiciary Committee signed by 70 republican members including the republican leader every parliamentary tool available to us and committee on the house floor, to highlight your inaction translated means to try to delay them to make this process as impossible as it can be made. Im not sure in light of this letter that we could get a unanimous consent request and these seedings and break for a cup of coffee, never mind, i just want to stay for the record because i think its important that i think the house has engaged
Republican and then what happens . Yeah, and then at that point, any member can simply say they move to offer an amendment. And when they offer an amendment, they have to actually provide the next of that language to the clerk. The amendment could be read aloud before all of the members of The Committee. And then each of the members can simply say they want a chance to talk and to speak about that particular amendment. And as you said, there are 41 members of this committee. 40 are expected to attend one is not, ted lieu because of health issues. Hes not expected to be here this week. But each of those members could speak. That could take time for each individual amendment. When that amendment is voted down which we expect because republicans are expects to offer amendments, democrats are happy with these articles and dont plan to do that. Thats why this is unpredictable how this contentious day will play out, wolf. 40 members now. Ted lieu had some medical issues. We wish him a speedy
Constitution gives the house the sole power of impeachment and the power to determine its own rules. When president nixon, during the time he was going to be impeached, the chairman of the rules committee, chairman mad n madden, actually spoke on the house floor and snouannounced t would be a rule on how that procedure would move forward. When clinton rules of impeachment were brought forward, there was unanimous request to kind of govern how we conducted ourselves. Im not sure how likely it would be that we would get a unanimous consent request. Id like to ask for unanimous consent without objection to enter into a record a letter written by the Judiciary Committee signed by seven people, including kevin mccarthy, the republican leader. The key line here is we will avail ourselves of every parliamentary tool available to us to highlight your inaction. Translated it means to try and delay to make this process as
impossible as it can be made. Im not sure, in light of this letter, that w
Tweet and propo kbgate the idea that interference by russia was a hoax. And we all remember the debacle in helsinki, i wish i had heard just some of the righteous indignation that we had heard in the committee today when the president questioned that fundamental conclusion of our intelligence agencies. But of course they will silent when the president said that. They will show indignation today, but they will cower when they hear the president questioning the very conclusions that our Intelligence Community has reached. But we saw Something Interesting also today. My colleagues sought to use you, dr. Hill, to besmirch the character of Colonel Vindman. And i thought this was very interesting. It certainly wasnt unexpected i could not tell was very
interesting for this reason. They didnt really question anything Colonel Vindman said. After all what he said is what you said. He was in that July 10th Meeting. He heard the same quid pro quo, the same comments by sondland. If you want this m
Evidence. This will set a dangerous precedent where impeachment becomes the norm rather than the exception. Thats not what our Founding Fathers intended. They wanted impeachment to be rare. They set a high bar for impeachment, treason, bribery, high crimes and misdemeanors. Alleged abuse of power. The first article is not a high crime and misdemeanor. In fact, its not even a crime. And since there is no concise Legal Definition of abuse of power, the Majority Party in the house can designate nearly any disagreement with the president from now on in impeachment offense. The second article alleged obstruction of congress would produce a similarly dangerous precedent. Asserting executive privilege a practice that began with George Washington is not obstruction of congress. Rather, its a function of the essential checks and balances contemplated under the constitution. Heres what nearly every Grade School Student in america knows, but apparently House Democrats
do not. If congress disagree