on, he is surrounded by criminals. then we hear well, it can't be obstruction of congress, you could have all gone to court. we are in december. we have an ongoing crime. we have a crime in progress. >> neil: you're watching history being made. welcome everyone i am neil cavuto and this is "your world." the committee is debating the articles of impeachment and will soon put it to a vote within the house judiciary committee. on the lower right portion of your screen, the dell racing ahead close to a record. the s&p 500 got a record. twin develop menswear following very quickly. reports that the administration is very close on the verge of just about at a deal in principle with china. a china trade deal. a phase one deal that it will call for eliminating or at least pushing back hundreds of billions of dollars worth of tariffs on chinese goods.
including those that were supposed to kick in on about $156 billion worth of chinese goods on the 15th of this month. 12:01 on sunday morning prayer that looks increasingly like it's not going to happen. separately, congress has reached a tentative deal to fund the government to avoid an outright shutdown. this as they are calling for the likely impeachment in the house of the president of the united states. if this is wall street's aversion to being panicked, it is a very funny way of showing it. back to the hearing. >> it was provided and in fact provided by tremendously more helpful in both substance and in amount then prior administration, which is what people thought. i thought the acknowledgment had been the aid was provided, but now we are told this is an ongoing crime.
those two statements don't seem to work together well. the double standards that they serve one parity well. when it comes to the obstruction of congress, the position of the majority is a tyrannical position. when we ask for something, you either give it or we are throwing you out of office. never mind we know what we are going to charge you with. kind of like getting phone records and released them. maybe we can intimidate people by getting their records and releasing them so that we can do what they say. that's tyrannical.
in fact when we look at obstruction of congress, a violation of the rules, the majority could have gone ahead and passed a tyrannical rule and said we are not going to allow the minority to have a minority witness date, even though it's in the rules because we are a tyrant said we don't care. they didn't pass that rule, it still part of the rules. once this thing is rushed through probably tonight whenever through the rules committee, they will probably come out with a rule as like you mentioned earlier and said all such points of order are waived. all of the times that the majority violated the rules, we are going to waive those and nobody can raise them to stop this impeachment. god really is abuse of power. it certainly is.
i've had a document prepared to offer as an amendment in the nature of a substitute, which would just change the president's name to that of chairman adam schiff and jerry nadler regarding abuse of power and obstruction of congress, because there is plenty of bases for that but it would not have been ruled to remain so i wasn't going to waste the time. obstruction of congress, when there is no referee, there is no adjudication, there is nothing about a majority of this as you give us what we want until we find a crime or we are going to throw you out of office. that is so unreasonable, especially given the history of the last three years when the charges came and the charges went, the president was, i think it was a huge mistake for him ever to allow don mcgann to testify for 30 hours when it was a bogus charge to begin with.
they are setting the perjury traps. thank god don mcgann didn't fall into one. this is even more outrages. give us what we demand or we are going to throw you out of offi office. there is another thing that could've been done besides going to court, could have passed a bill requiring the president to do certain things didn't turn over certain things and gotten the senate to agree, the president vetoes it, you override the veto, which is kind of what happened to andrew johnson, then you could really have a legitimate obstruction of congress, not just obstruction of a majority in one half of the congress. that wasn't done either. even if that had been done, the president or the congress would've gone the supreme court to get the courts to save this was a lawful act. in the case of congress and
andrew johnson. either way you've got it end up at court at some point before it can be an obstruction of congress. the majority was in a hurry and when the majority, this majority is in a hurry, then justice is undone and so is our future. i yelled back. speak of gentleman yields back. >> as i understand it, the amendment before is based on a letter that has just been issued by the white house months after the whole issue of the propriety of this july call was raised. i think it takes us back to basics again. the basics being if it looks like a duck, and it swims like a duck, and it quacks like a duck, it's probably a duck. i am afraid that the july 25th
call is a duck. we have the president's own words, i want you to do us a favor. and then he goes on to talk about the favors that he wants involving election assistance for him to clarify what happened in the 2016 election and then start attacking his opponent in the 2020 election. immediately upon hearing this, national security professionals around the world say this is wrong. okay? this quacks like a duck. the president is going against all of our carefully thought out national security policy to ask for what one witness calls a domestic political favor. okay? right out of the bad it makes no sense to the professionals here. then we started hearing the
thing that he's really talking about corruption. now, the department of defense said it was okay to release the eight because they had already certified that corruption wasn't an issue. the people on the ground, the ambassadors, the national security professionals who had been appointed by this president said no, that is not an excuse. we then hear that omd officials, office of management and but it officials say who was holding up the aid? we don't have a problem with the aid. it's the president of. the president is holding up the eta. then we hear from the department of justice. that's not the doj's interest. the only person who had an interest in this was the president and it was his personal interest. unanimous opinion of all of our agencies in the u.s. government was this is against our national security and our national
interest. it's now, only now after the president has refused to allow us to inquire from anyone else who was in the room after denying all of these seven, only now after articles of impeachment have been filed, only now does the white house come up with an explanation? it's way too little, it's way too late, and it smells like a duck. with that i yelled back to the chair. >> what purpose does mr. gates seek recognition the gentleman is recognized. >> josh roberts approached the dyes and took pictures of the notes of the desk in several of my democratic colleagues. we notice.com announced at the staff and that report a combat photographer has been removed and i would just say no member, republican or democrat, should be subject to that. we had to have the opportunity to take our notes and
participate in a debate and have a fair discussion. president trump did nothing wrong. as we sat here today, each and every action of the president has been explained. we have offered the bases, the understanding, we've gained an appreciation for why a president would have reasonable concern about ukraine. why president would have specific concern about this biden, reese mona nexus. here's what you haven't heard today. you've haven't heard any defense of reese mona, haven't heard them say this is all bogus. we have put into the record, we have cited in the record the testimony of people like george can't you said that there were deep legitimate concerns even the testimony of ambassador yovanovitch about having to expressly prepare for that. and they said this aid is been withheld. the withholding of this eight to dispatch presidential conduct. the amendment anchored my colleagues to support reference the fact that there was a very
understandable reason for why the aide was released when it was and it had nothing to do with the election or anything like that. it had to do with the fact that ukraine took substantive steps to ensure that our aid would be appropriately used for the cause that is now apparently that because of the left and that is defending the ukraine against russia. they said the president's next bad actors this great obstruction of congress. they have subjected president trump to more presidential harassment than at any other time in american history. attacking his family, not allowing his administration to continue to do its work on behalf of the people, and amazingly, despite all of this distraction, despite all of the obstruction of the president that the democrats have engaged in, jobs are rising. wages are rising. our economy is restored and renewed. there are a few things my colleagues said. the colleague from rhode island red while these are the findings
of fact. the me tell you what the factual findings are. i just want america to know he was reading from the adam schiff report. the same adam schiff report that adam schiff himself would not sit there and explain. they lacked so much confidence in that report that when it was presented to the judiciary committee, they had some of their donors asking questions of others of their donors and then doing this weird switcheroo that was very unexplainable. i don't know how my very smart colleagues like the jenna menta from new york and say there is uncontradicted evidence of pressure. uncontradicted evidence of pressure. what do they think zelensky's statements are when he says there is no pressure, that is at a bare minimum evidence. when mr. year mark says there is no pressure, that is evidence. there is no evidence of a wit broke well. it is no evidence of conditionality.
the reason they know they act like that evidentiary basis is because they have to keep changing the language. when their pollsters and pundits told him to call it a bribery that was the message of the week. property was in every one of their lips. then when we asked the witnesses did you see any bribery the answer was now and so they have to keep evolving the claims because there is no factual predicate. i also heard my colleague from new orleans say that this hearing would be informed by our understanding of regret. there would be this deep sense of regret. my friend is from a deep blue district so he won't be the one regarding at the most. the folks that will be regretting what they are doing are the democrats in swing districts who are not coming back. i tell them for the upcoming year, rent don't buy here in washington, d.c. so today the only question we are left with when we conclude this hearing is whether or not as we move impeachment to the floor of the house of representatives, which will occur more rapidly. will they lose votes, or will
they lose the majority? if these folks promise to come here on health care and infrastructure, they won't be back. we will be holding the gavels and we will remember not to tell you treated us, not just how you treated the president, we will remember how you treated the american people. we are going to come and restore a sense of honor and integrity in the next election. i yield back. >> the jenna menta yield back i first want to respond to the jenna menta from ohio's reference that people who are listening on a call should just shut up. he couldn't disagree more passionately. the extraordinary, courageous patriots who love our country spoke up when they saw something that was wrong, violated the law, violated the constitution and undermine the national security of the united states and thank god they did. otherwise the president of the united states would've gotten
away with this scheme dragging foreign interference into our election to help him cheat in 2020. i salute the extraordinary amount of women in this foreign service and intelligence committee for the courage they have shown incoming forward and reporting what they have seen. i wish we could find more of it on this committee. i want to say facts are stubborn things. this amendment unfortunately is just not true because what we know is this scheme called a drug deal by the president's own mr. bolton, called it domestic political errand by trump for which there is no explanation. my republican colleagues are trying to find an answer say it was because he was fighting corruption. the idea that donald trump was leading an anticorruption effort is like kim jong un leading an human rights effort. it's just not credible. we have facts that will demonstrate that. at the very time you claim he's interested in ferreting out corruption in ukraine, do you know he proposed?
cutting by more than 50% corruption anticorruption articles in ukraine. trump administration sought billions of dollars of cuts of programs aimed at cutting corruption. that's not evidence of a serious commitment to fighting corruption. in addition to that, in the letter to the chairman of the foreign affairs committee secretary of defense said on behalf of the secretary of defense, this is dated may 23rd 2019. long before the july call. on behalf of the secretary of defense i have certified that the governor of ukraine has taken substantial actions to make defense for the purpose of decreasing corruption and increasing accountability and sustaining improvements of combating capability. there is a certification. there's only one explanation for why it was finally released.
there was a report of a whistle-blower report being filed. the president got caught. this notion that somehow this president was concerned but corruption is defined by all the evidence collected. i know you want to believe it. it's just not supported by the evidence. this amendment is silly, it's inaccurate, it mischaracterizes the overwhelming body of evidence that was collected through the president of the united states attempted to drag a foreign power into our election to krupp the 2020 election to cheat and undermine national security. he must be held accountable. i yield my time. >> i think the gentleman. i want to have a reset of the facts here. my colleague's claim that so many of these facts are in dispute, i want to hear someone dispute the fact that rudy giuliani was donald trump's personal lawyer. i want to hear someone dispute the fact that when rudy was
hired, the anticorruption ambass somebody dispute the fact that donald trump told vice president pence not to go to president zelensky's inauguration. i want to hear somebody dispute the fact that president trump ignored the talking pout anticorruption and is both apris with president zelensky. i want to hear somebody dispute the facts that president trump invoked his political rivals name four times on that july 25th call. i want to hear the somebody dispute the fact that the president's chief of staff said we are withholding the military aid because the ukrainians need to investigate 2016. not i, we. we as an mick mulvaney and donald trump. i want to hear somebody dispute the fact that ambassador sondland said white house meeting absolutely quid pro quo, conditioned on the investigations. i also listen to your witness,
professor turley, and he said president trump's call was anything but perfect. that was your witness who said it was anything but perfect. i want to hear a show of hands in your side, does anybody agree with the one witness that you were able to bring that the cold was anything but perfect? that is sad. you will regret that you have sanctioned this. i yield back. the gentleman yields back. >> i want to speak in favor of the bigs amendment. i will ignore the rhetorical question commits kind of a silly one. i do want to refute what mr. sisley and he has said and what some of the others have said, that there is no evidence on the record that the president was concerned about corruption, course that is concerned. everyone at home knows this. the president has been talking about foreign governments and
foreign corruption in the misuse of american tax bilayer treasures since before he ran for president. everybody knows this. it's one of the things that's just well understood. every witness in the record, every witness testified that president trump was concerned about corruption with foreign governments. that includes ukraine. the white house released a transcript of the colb for the bilateral meeting in new york on september 25th. this is after the funds were released of course but he is explaining that he became convinced that the new ukrainian administration was serious about reform measure. let me read you some excerpts from that. president rouhani says here with the president of ukraine, he is very strongly looking into all sorts of corruption and some of the problems they've had over the years. his reputation is absolutely sterling. it's an honor to be with you. the president wrote the zelinski
respond a few moments later, thank you for your support, support. the first one is with corruption, you know? we will fight, we will be the winner in this fight i am sure. a couple of pages later in the transcript president trump goes back. that will really make you great. that will make you great personally, talking to zelensky. it will also be tremendous for your nation in terms of what you want to do and where you want to take it. later president trump says i want him to do whatever he can. this was not his fault. he wasn't there. he's been here recently, but whatever he can do in terms of corruption because corruption is massive. i know the president. i've read a lot about ukraine. the president continue as he was elected number one on the basis of stopping corruption, which unfortunately has played ukraine. if you can do that, he is doing really the whole world a big favor. i know and i think is going to be successful. he goes on and on through the transcript and i will ask for
unanimous consent to enter a clean copy of this into the record. i just want to say that, thank you, this is just one additional piece, as with all of the other pieces of evidence, the very thin paper thin record that we have here. one thing is very clear, that you can't even, i don't even think you can refute it with a straight face. everybody knows. it's one of his primary driving forces. it's one of his main talking points. for anybody to sit here today and pretend like that isn't the case, that he wasn't ukraine, the third most corrupt nation of the world is the only one on the list that he wasn't concerned about? it doesn't hold water. it doesn't make sense. nobody beckham is buying this. no one. so let's stop with the games. let's acknowledge this for what it is. let's move on, i yield back.
>> i just want to answer a statement that the gentleman from rhode island made a little bit earlier. his amendment was not true. the amendment is real clear commits is ukraine must be 21 sent to anticorruption measures. that's exactly what they did. when he first was sworn in to get rid of absolute immunity from members of the parliament. two pretty darn important anticorruption measures. in fact mr. morrison, when he testified in front of this committee told us, excuse me during his deposition he told us that when they were there with ambassador bolton visiting with ukrainians on august 27th he said the ukrainians were tired because they had been up all night preparing this legislation, putting it together. that's how focused they were on this. when it was past, that's in fact when the aide was released. you don't like yield to the ranking member.
>> i think house democrats would have you believe that somehow this impeachment effort is the author was of organic activity from the president when the reality is they have intended to impeach this president from the very beginning. it was actually the chairman when campaigning to be the head of the judiciary committee who said that he'd be best on the impeachment issue. this is a "new york times" article in december 18th 2017. it says it is our constitutional effort and with his demonstrated leadership on impeachment in the 90s, and now there is the strongest member deleted potential increase impeachment. this is what he wrote the fellow democrats 21 of the job. he was literally campaigning on impeachment before the president even made the phone call. it's what they wanted and it's all because they cannot stand the fact that the america first movement is the most powerful
movement in american political history. mr. chairman i seek unanimous consent to enter into the air article. >> i called out a mic dropped moment i yelled back. >> to what purpose do you see quick ignition? >> it does strike the last word. i want to go back to the facts and i want to go back to this amendment. my colleagues from florida said this amendment is putting forward a "understandable reason" for why the president withheld aid and then suddenly released the aide. my colleagues on the other side have also made the point that we don't know what the intent was of the president. this is the stated intent. because he was waiting for the ukrainian government to do something, that that was the intent. i just want to remind people of what i said yesterday, the
president is the smoking gun. after his call with president zelensky, the president came onto the lawn and he was asked by a reporter, what did you want to get out of that call with president zelensky? the president said i wanted him to come and these the exact words, i wanted him to open an investigation into the body and that simple. the president himself has told us what his intent is. let's go on to say that if my republican colleagues, as some just did, argued that the president, nobody can argue that the president is so interested in corruption. of course he is so interested in corruption. i would go back again to the facts that are on the table, which is that in 2017 and in 2018, the president released aide, not just to any country but to ukraine.
now my colleagues have also said that the president knew that president zelensky was an anticorruption fighter and they just wanted to see if he was going to follow through. they are saying that the person before this president, before president zelensky, the previous president of ukraine was a corrupt individual. they said that through their remarks. if that president was corrupt, wise president trump tearing up so much about corruption, why did he release the eight in 2017 and 2018 to ukraine? then i would like to get to the question of this particular amendment. i looked at the at omb letter and i would call that an after-the-fact cover-up and why would i say that? if we look at the time line and some of the colleagues have laid up pieces of it but let me lay out a few more. on june 18th we already know about them a letter that the department of the defense sent saying that ukraine passed all
of its anticorruption requirements. on june 18th the department of defense publicly announced that it would release the military aid to ukraine. lieutenant colonel penman testified that by july 3rd he was aware of the hold and he was aware that the office of management and budget, omb, was making queries that were "abnormal." you used without. fiona hill get testified that there was no explanation given for the hold under secretary of state. david hill testified that he was frustrated that this was the president's wish. in august several omb divisions, several divisions wrote a joint memo recommending that military
aid go to ukraine soon as possible. it was necessary that military aid was necessary for supporting a stable and peaceful europe. i would also note that just recently, just a few weeks ago, two omb officials resigned. they resigned because of deep concerns they had about what they were being asked to do. one of those individuals worked in the legal department that issued this after-the-fact cover-up memo from omb. let me just ask the american people come if the president had deep concerns of corruption and was waiting for ukraine to take major steps on corruption, let me ask you what you think any president might do in that
situation. might they ask the department of defense the follow up on those major anticorruption things that they were trying to get done? he did not do that. without president informed top agencies who are about those concerns? no, he didn't do that either. they were all universally in agreement that the agent be released. might the president informed congress that this was something he was concerned about and he had to withhold the aide, he didn't do that either. after-the-fact cover-up memo, that's all this is and we need to oppose this amendment. >> time is expired what. what purpose did you see? the gentleman is recognized spirits because it is amazing that this is an after the fact cover-up. a democratic senator asked for this letter. that's an after-the-fact cover-up? when a democratic senator asked for a letter explaining the process of how this happens?
an after-the-fact cover-up? this is what i thought would happen when we came back from lunch and came back from our break. all the things were overcome of their arguments were dead, everything was going and they said let's get back in there until the same things over and over again. maybe the ones who are watching in the morning were watching in the afternoon. that's got to be one of the best ones i've heard come in after the fact cover-up when i was asked for by democratic senator. just a few weeks ago. how is that an after-the-fact senate cover-up? there's other things coming out. one of the things that really bugged me here is this lawful delay. this money was not viewed to be appropriated. it could've been by congress, we said by september 30th. really and truly there was no more interaction between the u.s. and ukraine and the money was not listed until sub number 30th, there was nothing wrong here and there still nothing wrong here. it's interesting to me that the evidence revealed that only the majority come again this one is just mind-boggling.
how is anybody in the press or getting away with a continual belittling of mr. zelensky. they called him a politician derogatorily. they called him an actor. they called him weak. they call them everything else in the world, he is cowering. use the adjectives and i will go back to their adjectives. if they don't believe me here come if it looks like a duck and act like a duck, this is what they're doing. they are tearing him down in the eyes of the public and they keep doing it over and over again to try and get other president. this is crazy. you know why they do that? i'm going to repeat it one more time because there seems to be a problem of reruns around here. the reason they keep repeating it is because they can't make their case. they keep putting this out there and again, it is amazing to me. the next untruth that we are dealing with here today, and this one is very sensitive to many in the military, many who have been texting me who deserve overseas. when they put in an article, we agree to put it in the record, 13 cleaning soldiers were killed during president trump's
administration while they were holding it. guess what, there were ukrainians killed when they receive their previous aid. there were ukrainians killed in this battle before. this is the most despicable, despicable of drive-bys. to say that, you're saying undersecretary hell as pulled you over and over to me talk about evidence read the transcript. this was perspective money not current money yet we keep putting it in the record because if you tell the story enough times somebody out there is going to believe it. that's despicable for these 13 who lost their lives in ukraine and it's despicable for anyone who's actually fallen in the battle for this country. don't keep doing it. if they did, called him out on it. don't call facts facts here. there is no crime, it's interesting my friend from california just said where are they on these different things? my question is where is your crimes? you talk about them, you want people to think they are there,
you want people to come out and say there is bribery, extortion, high-minded words. and you do it over and over and over again. the problem is if you had it you would've put articles on it. you don't have it t to to be to impart articles on it. that's the stain on your articles. that's the stain on this committee. this committee couldn't make their case so they came up with abuse of power so they could put anything in it. today we have heard that over and over and over again. why? because at the end of the day the aide was delivered, nothing was held, yet we are going to tell because there was supposedly pressured that the two of the calls that didn't exist in the ukrainian leaders said did not exist over and over again but our majority would rather spur mr. zielinski and taken down because they can't make their case. my question is who are they hurting now? they are trying to take down the american president and they are trying to take down the ukrainian president at the same time by making him look small in the middle of his own country in the middle of a hot war.
you can to have quid pro quo come you can't have pressure at the gentleman who is supposedly pressure say there is no pressure. you can't make excuses for him. when he goes out over and over again it talks about it. he looks at it as it was in the call. also to me it is just amazing, continuing this discussion to get people distracted. people died because money was held, that is not true. quit saying it. i don't care how may times he put it in a "newsweek" article, it's still not true. when you understand what's going on here, at the end of the day it's very simple. i will make it very slow for you to copy. they can't make a crime. they hold back to the fact that we can impeach him for anything and that's what they have done. i yield back. >> unanimous consent requested. los angeles time story october 16th, trump froze military aid as ukrainian
soldiers perished in battle. >> without objection? >> i object. >> i'm not sure how many times this is being perpetrated but it was perspective money, not current money. >> the gentleman does not have the time. speak of the gentleman is recognized. >> i want to submit for record the may 23rd letter from john rood certifying that the government of ukraine has taken action to make institutional forces to decreased corruption. >> i moved to strike the last word. thank you mr. chairman. mr. chairman, it the ranking member's rights. it is important to repeat some of what has been sad because most of america doesn't watch all day long. for people who do, they need to understand that the reason we are here, the reason we are moving forward on articles of
impeachment is because the president of the united states abused his power by soliciting for an interference in his own reelection, thereby cheating american voters. it's true that on may 23rd that the date that undersecretary defense certified that ukraine had taken action to make institutional efforts to combat election. it's true they have done that that they come it's an important day because we talked a lot about ukraine needing the assistance, the security assistance. they were at war with russia. they also needed a white house meeting. it's important for us to remember what the facts are. on may 23rd, delegation returned from pressed zelensky's inauguration and the president told them work with rudy. ambassador sondland said work with julie on eight or and goal of a white house meeting. to me say a word about ambassador sondland.
my colleagues have challenged ambassador sondland credibility, it's important to pay attention to what he and others have testified to under oath. if you think that a million-dollar donor to president trump is not credible, then we should look at all of the testimony end of the text messages and emails to others and examine it closely. they came back and they said work with rudy. on may 29th the president invited president zelensky to the white house. president zelensky expected he would be coming. saw glenn so there was a prerequisite for investigations. lieutenant colonel denman said that sunderland told ukrainians on july 10th to treat the investigation, that the investigation of the bidens was eight deliverable necessary to get to the meeting.
then on july 19th, ambassador sondland emailed lisa kenny and brian mccormick and chief of staff mulvaney and secretary perry and secretary pompeo, all of them and said that zelensky was prepared to receive the president's call and offer assurance on the investigation. volker had breakfast with giuliani and said most press dominic important is for zelensky to say he will help with the investigation. volker texted the morning of the call, he tested and said assuming president zelensky convinces trump that he will investigate and get to the bottom of what happened, we won't nail down a date for a visit to washington. those are the facts. that's what was provided in text
messages and emails. there's been all this focus on the call. this is an effort that started the moment that this delegation got back from the inauguration. it continued through the end of may and june and july. then there was a call. it continued on through august. and through september. this isn't one time with eight lines, this is a concerted effort to make sure that ukraine, who was at war with russia, understood that they weren't going to get their security assistance and they weren't going to get their white house white house meeting until they announced an investigation of the president's principal political opponent. that is abuse of power. multiple times my colleagues over here have asked if anyone objects to the president of the united states abusing his power for political gain like that.
i would finish with this, ambassador taylor, when he came in testified under oath he said during our call on september 8th, ambassador sondland tried to explain that president trump is a businessman and when a businessman is about to send a check to someone who owes them something, he asks that person to pay up before signing. i argued, he said, that made no sense. ukrainians did not owe president trump anything. that is true. they owed him nothing to get the white house meeting and they owed them nothing to get their aid and that they owed nothing to them for his assistance in this campaign. i yield back. >> it is amazing to me that again, the things that will come out of this markup is not the
simple fact that they are going to mark this up and send it to the floor, it is what they will perpetrate to try to hide the weakness of their argument. i have now given the article of the german from california wants admitted, perpetrating the falsehood that people were killed because of money. in the own article, which is biased against the president advised against the situation, it is this line, all there there is no way to link mark off to the other desk directly to the lack of aid. let's keep putting stuff in his pathetic card demand. the article itself which is biased against the president actually said there's no way to link it but yet we are doing every time here. keep giving them come i'll keep excepting them. wonderful article. great job because you're making my point, i guess i can hush and let you make my point for me but all you want to do is go after mr. zelinski its weak and powerless. this was going to come out of this. i guess i withdraw my objection on this. it makes my point, you have
anymore you want to put in, keep going. this is not going to get you anywhere. i yield back. the material was inserted into the record. the young ladies recognized. >> i would like to ask unanimous consent to put a roll call article into the record entitled ukrainian lives hung in the balance as trump held up a quoting a national war college official about the impact. >> without objection. for what purpose does mr. johnson seek recognition? >> move to see dominic strike last word. i move in rejection to the fix amendment. my colleague from georgia talks about how democrats are trying
to make president zelensky look weak. i tell you, that brings to mind the picture of president trump and president zelensky meeting in new york in september at the u.n. and a big chair for president trump, little chair for president zelensky. big 6'4" president trump, 5'11" mr. zelinski, president zelensky. they are standing there and president trump is holding court and he says by the way, no pressure. you saw president zelensky's shaking his head as if his daughter was downstairs in the basement duct taped. there is a imbalance of power in that relationship. there always has been.
there is no way that the nation of ukraine can stand up to the power, to the power of the united states of america. president trump used that unequal arguing position, he leveraged his power in that relationship not for the benefit of the united states of america, but for his own benefit. he again held president zelensky over a barrel up there in new york. the same way he did on the telephone call on the 25th of july. he told them look, i know that you need those javelins but i need you to do me a favor, or do us a favor. who was also by the way? was it the american people or was it the trump campaign? all of those corrupt officials
that he aligns himself with, half of whom are in jail or facing charges or facing sentencing. who was he talking about us? it wasn't the american people. it was the trump organization in the trump campaign. that is wrong. it's wrong for the united states president to use his position for himself. it's wrong. that's what president trump didn't that's what we are holding him accountable for today and president trump pretty much sold out our constitution for his own personal benefit. we are called upon today to answer the question of whether or not we are going to sell out our positions, whether or not we are going to be sellouts. each and every one of us had a career before we came to congress. i myself was a criminal defense lawyer and i enjoy my job.
i'm honored to represent the biggest client that i've ever represented and of that is the citizens of the fourth congressional district of georgia. i would gladly protect the constitution, give up my job that i love and i would go back to georgia to do what i used to do if i had to pay a heavy price for doing what was right for the constitution, that is what my friends on the other side of the aisle are charged with now. i know there is a lot of fear about them being in zelensky's position, about them being in that little small share with the president and the bully pulpit, the right-wing media fox news, everything to being on his side and him levying and leveraging and leveraging nevada power
against them as they approached the primaries, they don't want to get primary to. i know that that that is the desire, but let's not sell out of the country for our own desire, which is exactly what we are charged with protecting our country from president trump doing. let's not do that. that's make ourselves look good in the eyes of history. that's do the right thing. with that, i will yield back. >> the gentleman yields back. >> thank you mr. chairman, i move to strike the last word. >> the young ladies recognized. >> thank you. i want to respond to, i've been here all day listening to all the comments from my republican colleagues. the one thing that has continued to be mentioned is there has been no crime committed. i have been asked by some of the
people that live in my district, americans that say what is the crime. i have to say that there is no higher crime then for the president to use the power of his office to corrupt our elections. we are seeing the behavior from this president that we have not seen in the history of our country. violating three of the most dangerous violations of the constitution. one, abuse of power. true self-dealing. betrayal of national security. corruption of our elections. i want to make something very clear, we are here today because the president of the united states of america has violated the law. the president's conduct meets all of the elements of criminal
bribery under 18 usc beat to a come at public to official demands or six anything of value personally in return for being influenced in the performance of any official act. why are we here? how did we get here? the inspector general of the intelligence committee brought to congress and the urgent and credible threat to our national security, to our democracy, that is why we are here today. you have heard conspiracy theories, you have heard things that are not true to distract from the fact that this president abused the power of his office to extort a foreign government for his own private political gain, not for the interest of the united states of america. now, you also hear about we are
trying to overturn our election. as you see they have a poster over there saying we are trying to overturn the election. that couldn't be anything further from the truth. it's a ridiculous statement. impeachment is a crucial piece of the constitution that enters a democratic government. it was created by the founders as a check to prevent a president from becoming a king. it is incredible to me to see so many of my colleagues bend over backwards to cover up for this president. my sister has a yoga teacher, she doesn't contort the way some of my republican colleagues distort the facts all the protect of this president. the founders knew that elections would come every four years, but included impeachment in the constitution to protect the republic against a president who would be in imminent threat to our democracy and that is why we are here today.
this president has shown us that he is welcoming foreign interference. he has asked russia, he is asked ukraine, he is asked china, asking him, asking them to investigate his political opponents. we have seen it. we have seen those videos. that is direct evidence. we have documentary evidence. we have a transcript of a call. we have text messages. we have emails from ambassador sondland, everybody was in the loop. this is a scheme that began back in february, march. this was a complaint that was brought forth to congress because it was an urgent and credible threat, the president of the united states has violated the law. he has abused his power. he has undermined our freedoms and our democracies. we must act. that is why we are here today.
nobody, no president in this country, is above the law. i yield back my time. >> i move to strike the last word. i think that argument would have a lot more merit on the abuse of power charge if we don't take a look back and look at the whole definition of how we got here. the reason i say that is because for two years we heard about a russian conspiracy. russian collusion. how are you going to prove it? treatment of the intelligence committee went on national tv and says he has direct evidence of national conspiracy. the miller report came out and actually if you watch the media about a week before the mueller report came out we started switching to obstruction and obstruction of justice. so we go through that end up mueller report comes out and says there is absolutely no conspiracy and absolutely no collusion. were going to check that off the list. now we go to ten articles of obstruction of justice and we
walked through it. we bring to bob mueller into the judiciary hearing and i'm pretty sure there were people working out statutes next to the washington monument of gratitude and gravitas of bob miller. that hearing fell flat and obstruction of justice was abandoned. then we went to quid pro quo and quid pro quo kept going and kept going and then they decided that wasn't going very well so we pull tested bribery. bribery had a little bit of a problem because you cannot prove the elements of the crime. i don't care how you say it, when the victim of the crime alleged victim continues to go on national tv, international press conferences every step of the way and did not that he was a victim and denied that there was a crime, we move on. we moved from things of campaign finance, which didn't work in the mueller report and continue moving forward. so instead of starting an investigation in a general way
and moving towards a specific crime, we try and pick 17 different specific crimes and when they never get that they are instead of doing what any reasonable investigator would do and say there is no there there, we take it all and we put it together and we saved because we can't prove any event, we are going to use all of it. if we wanted to know why we are here today, that's why we are here today. this started the day president trump got elected. it has continued through the mueller report not to be deterred. the day after the mueller report hearings happened in the judiciary committee i was in the oversight committee when they subpoenaed to the personal emails of every member of the trump family. this is never going to stop, i agree with my colleague from ohio, it is never going to stop. we will continue to move forward but you cannot move through all of these specific crimes, use these words for weeks at a time,
the minute they fall apart we move onto the next thing. i think that's why you're losing the support of the american people, that's why you're losing the support of your colleagues on your side of the aisle and congress. that's why we are here. let's call it like it is and explain how we got here and why we are here and where we continue to go. >> you brought up the great point. you know why we know what you just said is true? we have a lot of nontruth and we said over and over. we sit is completely true, this will never end. you know why we know that? adam schiff's own words and al green's own words, adam schiff the other day and one of his press conferences which he loves dearly, he loves to testify in front of cameras does not in front of members. he says were going to keep investigating and investigating. if you're in the intel committee, it be nice if you
could get back to oversight of the intelligence community. that would be nice. also mr. green said we can impeach him over and over and over again. this is what is happening. it is a farce. we can't come up with crime so we say crimes we can put them in the articles but we can't make them happen. i just want to commend you for telling the truth. you told the truth. this is not going to and no matter what. the reason we know that is because we don't have to infer, we don't have to find articles to put on the record, we just listen to their own words. i yield back. >> with that i yield back. >> what purpose does miss deming's seek recognition? >> mr. chairman i moved to strike the last words. i arise today in opposition of this amendment. it is so obvious, it is so obvious that it is a last minute
after the fact desperate scramble to cover up the presidents wrongdoing. i tell you what, we are not falling forward and i really do believe the american people are not falling for it. probably they are offended by it. my republican colleagues have talked about a lot of things today, they are really working hard to protect the president. it appears like at any and all costs. i really wish that my colleagues on the other side would work as hard to protect voting rights for the american people believing that everybody should have the right to vote and that cheating in our elections by anyone at any time and any place is just not right. it's just amazing to me to suggest that abuse of power is somehow inadequate or inappropriate or not serious
enough. abuse of power by the highest position in the land, the leader of the free world, that abuse of power is not enough to impeach. the framers were so desperate lee concerned they were terrified of the font of an unprincipled man, a person finding his way into the white house. this is just that abuse of power is not serious is not enough is simply ridiculous. the president has a constitutional duty and that is the highest documented in the land, the violate the constitution. you have a constitution duty to
A freeze on the NYPD's new academy class is among the "horrendous" budget cuts expected to come down Thursday -- as the Big Apple grapples with the soaring cost of the migrant crisis, The Post has learned.
the guy who tried and failed to debunk the miller report. >> the mueller investigation revealed that russian interference in the 2016 election in sweeping and systemic fashion, correct? >> that is correct. >> and russia did so through a social media campaign that favored donald trump and disparaged hillary clinton, correct? >> as the report says, yes. >> mueller found that a russian intelligence service hacked computers associated with the clinton campaign, and then released the stolen documents publicly? is that right. >> that report speaks for itself as well. >> mueller also reported that though he could not established a crime of conspiracy beyond a reasonable doubt, he also said, quote, a statement that the investigation did not establish certain facts doesn't mean that there is no evidence of those facts. it also appears in the report, does it not? >> language to that effect. yes. >> you cited that statement in your own report, did you not? a way of distinguishing between proof beyond a reasonable doubt, and evidence that falls short
your words tell me that i have been effective in the defense of our democracy, and i'm grateful. >> earlier today, schiff demonstrated why republicans have been so eager to silence him when he grilled trump's handpicked special counsel, john durham. the guy who tried and failed to debunk the miller report. >> the mueller investigation revealed that russian interference in the 2016 election in sweeping and systemic fashion, correct? >> that is correct. >> and russia did so through a social media campaign that favored donald trump and disparaged hillary clinton, correct? >> as the report says, yes. >> mueller found that a russian intelligence service hacked computers associated with the clinton campaign, and then released the stolen documents publicly? is that right. >> that report speaks for itself as well. >> mueller also reported that though he could not established a crime of conspiracy beyond a reasonable doubt, he also said,
After decades of building his real estate development business — some call it an empire — Joe Farrell still gets the same satisfaction in every phase of a build
The Miller Report with Suzanne Miller Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Sorry, this content is available only to the members of the VIP Club Please enter your WABC VIP Club email address Register for
Famous Architect Richard Granoff thinks Architecture is a forward looking business but sometimes looking forward is looking back. How much SAVINGS does a commercial to residential conversion generate? What eras and styles of commercial buildings convert the