Improper purposes, they could that also. Ify to but rather than giving these witnesses the chance to speak, has silenced them. The president has silenced itnesses at the defense department. The president has silenced witnesses at the state department. Silenced ent has witnesses at the white house. Silenced the loquacious Mick Mulvaney who uttered at a was conference that there it. Id pro quo and, get over by choosing to block this testimony, the president is not innocence. Hes just proving hes afraid of what they have to say. Once said, the truth will come to light, and it has. Is our duty to act on it. I yield back. The speaker pro tempore the gentleman from georgia. Thank you, madam speaker. Its a shame on the floor of the you accuse somebody and not let them defend what you of. Se them i yield to mr. Rose. The speaker pro tempore the gentleman is recognized. Mr. Rose madam speaker, i rise this ong opposition to partisan impeachment spectacle that just seeks to accomplish trumps oppo
Rules committee will come to order. Ill now yield to the gentleman from texas, dr. Burgess. Thank you, mr. Chairman. I thank our witnesses for staying with us throughout all of this. I know youve been through a lot alread already, but i cant help but be struck by the fact that this does seem to be proceeding rather rapidly. It did, after all, all start with a phone call. No, not with a phone call in july but with a phone call in november when Molly Hemingway overheard incoming chairman nadler talking to constituents on the telephone and said that impeachment of the president was going to be of the highest order so although theres not a transcript of that call, it was well documented in social media and that seems to be one of the things that we can now use as evidence that can be introduced. Mr. Collins, correct me if im wrong, but it does seem like this is an exercise i think this is reflected in your dissenting views you submitted, this seems like impeachment first, build a case seco
N is recognized for one minute. Leages, this ar is a moment you will reard about in your history books. Today, i will vote to impeach the president of the United States, and i want you to know why. He broke our laws. He threatened our security. He abused the highest, most Sacred Office in our land. I want you to know that it does not feel good. I cant stop thinking about the cost to our country. Not just the impeachable offenses but the Collateral Damage of a president who uses power like a weapon against his own people. It erodes our decency, degrades our dignity. I dont yet know how they will tell the story of this era, but i want to tell you the story of this day. Let the record show that today justice won, that we did our job, that we kept our word, that we stood our sacred ground. Let the record show that we did not let you down. I love you. Listen to mom. Ill be home soon. The speaker pro tempore the day. My colleagues, this morning and every morning when we come together, member
Witnesses, yes. Thank you. And also another thing that i want to clear up for the record, mr. Ras kin said previously that the same process that were doing now, its the same process that was used in the clinton impeachment, mr. Collins, do you agree with that, because i sure dont. No, i do not. Would you care to expand . I think there are a lot of Different Things and it goes back to the inherent nature of what were doing here today and that is, frankly, the only bipartisan nature of this impeachment is no. Its not bipartisan in the sense of seeing it should go forward. Its bipartisan and no and that is the only bipartisan that you will see. My friends across the aisle say theyre standing for true and thats fine. Thats their argument and my argument is everything that weve talked about so far and thats also why at a certain point in time we continue to go on here, but i think when you look at the actual things that are going on the issues of how witnesses are called and how you deal wi
You dont think that affects our National Security, if you think ukraine is our ally as i believe you do and i do . I just dont accept the premise of your premises of thoughts. All right. What value for ukraine do you see in the oval office visit that was being sought . Youd have to ask ukraine. Do you recognize that such a visit would send a strong message to russia sort of like lavrov being in the Oval Office Last week and the rest of the world that the United States supported ukraine and was ready to defend it against russian aggression. I think a better statement was when mr. Trump sent russian weapons to shoot down russian assets. That ignored the fact that the aid was withhold and hot war was going. All due respect were going in circles. I do not believe there was anything wrong for the reasons stated. And mr. Trump did more for the ukrainians in the hot war than was previously done. You know, ive heard that before. Im not going to elaborate. But i can assure you if they point as