Latest Breaking News On - Up today - Page 1 : vimarsana.com
laughed out of my office. and i think the special counsel in fairness to the country ought to talk about a subpoena and give the giuliani and trump camp a definite time limit on complying and then go to court if necessary and that action may go to the united states supreme court where as you know, the nominee in question believes very strongly that maybe the nixon tape case ought to be considered and the president should be above the law. >> we mentioned that last night. that the unanimous nixon tape case decided wrongly. what would change if there was a congressional majority in either house of democrats with subpoena power? >> there would be committees who could compel truth telling by public officials or at least
production of records. not only tax returns from donald trump but also internal files from within agencies. there would be compelled production of those kinds of he have -- he have. >> the american people want accountability. they want change. that is what this poll and what i am hearing from my constituent shows. and that is what the recent election shows. >> the president today, i mean, we are dealing with the fallout of that astounding performance in helsinki. and the would and wouldn't
absurdity. and then this. i am very concerned that russia will be fighting very hard to have an impact on the up coming election. vladimir putin literally stood next to the president and said he wanted trump. what is that about? >> the american people really are in fact believing what they see and hear what they are watching is a president who puts his own interest above america and in fact blames america first instead of putting america first and vladimir putin loves it. in fact as you have pointed out, he said in that now infamous president conference that he wanted trump to win and not trump's opponent. what we have here is an effort to deny what americans can see or hear.
more fundamentally and importantly, this nation is under attack. that is what dan coats, the director of national intelligence said, the warning lights are blinking red again. whether you believe that the russians want trump or the democrats to win, the point is to stop this attack on america. >> all right. thanks for your time tonight. >> thank you. >> for more on the midterm shaping up, i am joined . cornel, it is interesting, the president's approval ratings are immovable. between 40-43 of the country approves. and the generic ballot has varied a lot more and seems to
be moving in the democrat's favor decisively in the last few months, few weeks. what do you make of that? >> the president's approval numbers don't move up. but the core of the republicans stay in. what is interesting is what you see happening with independent voters. and ways that quite frankly i didn't see in 2006 when we saw the last wave when i was working for the dnc. the 61% that white college educators right now now disprove of donald trump's performance says that the suburbs are going to be a hard hold for republicans come november. >> how do you see this playing out among house republican members of congress. are they acting as if they understand what is coming?
>> particularly house republicans on the judiciary committee are resigned to the prospect that the house will flip and they are going to have to go through impeachment proceedings. >> you really think that? >> based on conversations with members. they aren't positive it is going to happen. if you talk to them, what they are breaking themselves for is for the house to flip. what republicans expect is if the house does flip, the first thing they are going to try to do is imspeepeach the president. trying to reign things back and be cautious. not use the "i" word too much. particularly on this key committee, people are seeing, you know, the writing on the wall. and of course another thing that you hear from talking to folks in politics and additionally, to
members, is that the outcome of the midterm election is going to be determined in the last couple of weeks. we can look at the numbers and try to extrapolate what is going to happen, but these races change quickly. could shift dynamic. but lots up in the air. speaking broadly, people on capitol hill are gearing it up to flip. >> one of them is that he moved, he moved the west virginia senate race. if you look at the numbers, the most imperilled democratic incumbent is manchen. but what is interesting to me is the president is so central the way people think about politics and yet it doesn't seem to be the case that he is providing the kind of positive coat tails
for republican senate candidates that you would have guessed given the margins by which he won states. >> that is right. he has not expanded his base. not brought in more people to republican party. in certain ways shrinking it. and when you look at party identification for republicans right now, it is shrinking and not expanding. those who stick with the republican party are stuck. and they are all for him. who are still for him. i think when you see what is happening in west virginia, even though the president is still not as unpopular as the rest of the country. he doesn't help republican challengers. >> the other thing i think about is the big signature achievement is the tax cut. i talk to people sort of around
that world off the record and other correspondences and i think they really thought that was the thing they were going to campaign on. that the voters would love it. correct me if i am wrong, it doesn't seem to be a huge part of the message right now. not getting traction. >> part of the reason is that republicans are coming to grips with the fact that people don't vote to say thank you. grateful to members of congress that they can't wait to hit the voting booth. that is not the way people generally think about elections. the tax bill itself isn't something that is going to be a magic silver bullet for republicans. and you can see this reflected in the president's tweets. he basically always tweets the same message no matter who it happens to be. tweets the candidate is pro police, stands up.
this isn't just the president going rogue, these messages are crafted. he also gets a lot of advice from advisers. and the message they are coalescing behind is democrats hate police and love gangs. >> crimes and borders, and ms-13. >> not only are republicans not using it. you are going to see democrats using it as an attack because it is so unpopular and they are seeing massive cuts. we are going on the offense. >> said it was very useful in that way and a contested race. thank you both. next, the battle between the president and michael cohen. new details about recordings that cohen made and what he
>> michael cohen has a story to tell. the president's former lawyer recorded private talks with president trump. 12 recordings, we don't know how many of them are with the president. it is not the recording that is valuable. it is the back story as to what that back story to be, three people familiar with the situation believe that cohen has discussed. with me now the author of that piece is emily jane fox. author of "born trump." your piece has a few amazing
quotes. and one of is what he can talk about is to the core of the inquiry. >> what was expressed to me is that what he knows is not just about payments made to him. of course he knows about that and of course that is valuable to investigators. there are a lot of other things that michael cohen knows according to other people who are close to him. and those things according to one person i spoke to yesterday strike at the heart of the special counsel's investigation. >> forgive me if i am skeptical, but the incentives are for michael cohen to make it seem that he knows a lot. those are the incentives for him sitting in that regioncy day after day to make everyone think he has the goods. >> it doesn't matter who thinks he has the goods or don't think he has the goods.
either he has them or he doesn't. he can't just say i have the goods, great, we are going to cut you a deal. he has to show what the goods are before able to cut a deal. right now we may be in a spin zone from both sides. and at the end of the day, he has what he has, and he knows what he knows. and it seems he knows a great deal. >> the recording, the one recording that has the president's voice and the origin of how it came about is a little strange and giuliani confirms on the record. everyone has a good recollection of what was said in the meeting. that seems implausible. i have a lot of conversations and somebody said they taped you, i wouldn't know what is on the tape. >> there is a transcript. >> oh, they have it. >> there are a number of hands who have touch thursday recording since the fbi seized this from cohen's office or
hot hotel, or wherever it was heard. >> so this has circulated in this master privilege process. >> that is how it came to be. now, there is a differing account of what is on the transcript. we still don't know. giuliani went on the record of saying this is what was said. people close to cohen have told me it is not ex-cculpatory. >> we should say the special master another filing is things that were hacked in half. and the half, they say no. >> sure, so what that means is that the government is going to essentially have everything that was seized in april. and so -- >> i mean, almost everything. >> almost 4 million files of documents, electronic devices
and they have almost everything that would just truncate a bit. what michael knows in terms of the back story that is not in that evidence could be potentially more. >> cnn reports that michael avenatti wanted to discuss. then avenatti tweets this. in light of the events and info learned, we know that michael cohen is trying to play both sides while he is in reality. >> doing insane things to further their own interest. i don't know what all of these interests are. >> do you have reporting that confirms there were conversations between the two sides. >> conversations about having conversations between the two
sides. i did report last week that the two ran into each other at dinner in the upper east side of manhattan. because what else would happen in this dramatic. >> all right. thanks for joining us. why is the right so focused on democratic congressional candidate. gas, bloating, constipation, and diarrhea can start in the colon, and may be signs of an imbalance of good bacteria. only phillips' colon health has this unique combination of probiotics. it helps replenish good bacteria. get four-in-one symptom defense.
for travel throughout november and december. so you can fill the rest of your year with all the fun. book now at southwest.com low fares. no hidden fees. that's transfarency. no hidden fees. i we worked with pg&eof to save energy because wenie. wanted to help the school. they would put these signs on the door to let the teacher know you didn't cut off the light. the teachers, they would call us the energy patrol. so they would be like, here they come, turn off your lights! those three young ladies were teaching the whole school about energy efficiency. we actually saved $50,000. and that's just one school, two semesters, three girls. together, we're building a better california.
some conservatives have become with alexandria ocasio-cortez. the day after she won, trump tv sean hannity put up this graphic. the conservative fox business network tweeted out a portion of one speech in what appeared to be a warning about these words from the scarey socialist. >> we will not rest until every person in this country is paid to live -- to accept the idea
that my children deserve health care and education. she elaborated. >> talk about things that everybody wants. especially if you are a parent, talk about education for your kid, health care for your kid. things that you want. and you know, if you are not paying attention to how they are going to pay for it or the rest of that, it is easy to fall into that trap and say my kids deserve this. and you know, well maybe the government should be responsible for helping me with that. >> so what is it about this woman that has the right worked up. joining me is michelle goldberg. and brianna gray. what do you think, you are a
long time connoisseur fetishist for conservative media. >> that's fair. i think there is a couple of things and one is that they have spent years and years saying that barack obama is a secret socialist. and it was the secret hapart th created the suspicion. when it is out in the open it becomes more difficult for them. then there is this other element that it is so irresistible. this was a formula they used for, forgive me, with gay sex. a doctor who argued who wrote and opined that gay sex was the best sex and therefore that is
more dangerous. and in some respect, that is the same formula. you can fall into this trap of wanting your kids to have health care >> they deserve to have it. >> you covered that rally. >> i went to kansas and keeping in mind that everybody said it wasn't going to work in the midwest, the venue had to be changed the night before because it sold out in four hours. 1:00 on a friday in triple digit degree heat. what it shows is that there is a message that is beyond par --
partisanship. >> that is a good point. it goes with what she was saying. none of the signals were there telling me this is a bad thing, but i can see people seduced by it. >> i think you have one whole political party that genuinely does find this kind of language threatening and quasi utilitarian and first, you are talking about children receiving health care and then next being indoctrinated. in as much as there are swing voters, they are not the kind of people that beltway types like to pretend they are. >> those are the people i think who kind of are most motivated by appeals to their basic material needs. >> let me say one thing just to
be clear. she has a tremendous amount of distinct political talent. she is very good at doing this. that doesn't just like, it is a little beyond the message. >> without a doubt. i don't mean to repeat myself, but the policy prescriptions are almost secondary. nothing offensive in what she is saying, but the idea that it is being straightforward, that is completely laid out there speaks to the broader issue that politicos don't necessarily contemplate but basically, do i think that person is authentic. are they telling me what they believe, they are. and pretty confident in it. that goes further than what we imagine. >> there is something to delivery of course. 70% of all congressional candidates who are in swing
districts, ran health care as a central policy. when i asked her what she was doing because she talked to me about how she appreciated that her grandkids would be on obamacare. she was concerned that both of her adult children were living at home and couldn't get a working wage. when i explained to her that i was going to a bernie rally, and these are things that he cares about. it didn't take but a ten-minute car ride to get her on board. >> basic policies that enable them to live a life matter. it would have been a disservice that does not have them all these years. >> this is the joe lieberman
column. who said people should vote for joe crowley. one of the things that she does here, there is always the how are you going to pay for it. yeah, it sounds great to do all of this stuff by let's be real. part of the path that has been plowed by republicans, why are you even going to talk about that. why play that game. the president just pulled $12 billion out of thin air. he is screwing his trade policy. >> we are laying out a marker for the kind of society that we want to create. coming to you with white paper about legislation that i am going to introduce next year. >> the problem is that the foe
concern about the deficit, they came up with $70 billion a year for the military, and we didn't need that. the notion of the deficit is no long longer one of those signifiers, those ids. and that got cast aside quickly. >> this is someone who is going to probably win in her district. bronx queens, liberal district. you have conor lamb and people run anything differe running in different ways. the thesis here, the bernie like thesis is this is universal stuff. you can go to kansas and do it. i am not sold yet that is true. >> what if we look at bernie --
>> mississippi, that doesn't mean that her brand of politics is viable there. >> a judge election and a primary election are different. and i think that being overly dismissive on people on the ground who articulated a choice for a procedure progressive vision of the world. concerns is a fool's errand. >> i am just saying it is unanswered question about like i am going to run as a socialist in kansas. >> every district chooses somebody who is appropriate. i have no opinion about this primary in kansas, but i do know when i was in pennsylvania i met people who worked for conor lamb. and they didn't see them as being on opposite sides of some great divide.
>> thank you all for being with me tonight. still ahead, hundreds of immigrant parents separated and apparently deported. what happens to children left behind. plus sean spicer rides again. in tonight's thing one, thing two, next. like new crabfest combo. your one chance to have new jumbo snow crab with tender dungeness crab. or try crab lover's dream. sweet, juicy king crab and jumbo snow crab cozied up with crab linguini alfredo. even our shrimp is crab-topped! so hurry in and get your butter-dunkin' game on! 'cause crabfest will be gone in a snap. and now bring home the seafood you crave with red lobster to go. call or order online today.
man: and threatens to continue selling out america to powerful corporate interests. woman: we hold these truths to be self-evident. man: and we will hold our senators accountable. end citizens united is responsible for the content of this advertising. thing one tonight, former
white house press secretary sean spicer was infamously terrible at that job. lying to our faces everyday on the job. >> both in person and around the globe. >> spicer often had trouble keeping the facts straight and bad at communicating which is basically the entire job of press secretary. all of this on display where he attempted to compare hitler to bashar al assad. >> someone as despicable as hitler. he brought into the holocaust center, and i understand that. >> the holocaust centers?
our friend need a change of scenery? the kayak explore tool shows you the places you can fly on your budget. so you can be confident
you're getting the most bang for your buck. alo-ha. kayak. search one and done. . sean spicer is out with a new book tonight detailing his short time in the white house. and just like his briefings, it has whoppers. reference to news conference barack obama held in 1999. a full decade before he became president. and the steele dossier. was the real author of the steele dossier. not christopher steele.
just the kind of description we have come to expect from a man that brought us this. >> the strength of your -- said this is your dream, anything you can do in your dreams you can do now. >> no word by sean spicer would be complete than by a good old lie. again, if that was false, i would be angry too. it sounds too troikridiculous t true. but sean spicer totally did steal a mini fridge. oh, it is going to have you back? greatness of an suv? is it to carry cargo... or to carry on a legacy? its show of strength... or its sign of intelligence? in crossing harsh terrain...
or breaking new ground? this is the time to get an exceptional offer on the mercedes of your midsummer dreams at the mercedes-benz summer event, going on now. receive up to a $1,250 summer event bonus on select suvs. mercedes-benz. the best or nothing.
tell your doctor if you've been someplace where fungal infections are common. or if you're prone to infections, have cuts or sores, have had hepatitis b, have been treated for heart failure or if you have persistent fever, bruising, bleeding or paleness. don't start enbrel if you have an infection like the flu. since enbrel, my mom's back to being my mom. visit enbrel.com... and use the joint damage simulator to see how joint damage could progress. ask about enbrel. enbrel. fda approved for over 18 years. you always get the lowest price on our rooms, guaranteed? let's say it in a really low voice. carl? lowest price, guaranteed. just stick with badda book. badda boom. book now at choicehotels.com
the push to add this controversial and toxic question. wilbur ross testifying very clearly, the request did not come from me. >> we have had a request from the department of justice to add a citizen question to the census 2020. the justice department is the one who made the request of us. >> justice department initiated. they made the request? now thanks to documents we know that wasn't quite accurate. we have an e-mail from ross i am sorry to a colleague writing i am mystifying where nothing has been done with my request to
include the citizenship quest n question. getting citizenship be added ba in the census question. in other words, getting the department of justice to formally request the change which they eventually did months later was to get them to do what they were doing. that means the secretary of comers laid to congress, not once, not twice but three times. you would think they would care about something like that.
no matter how much you clean, does your house still smell stuffy? that's because your home is filled with soft surfaces that trap odors and release them back into the room. so, try febreze fabric refresher. febreze finds odors trapped in fabrics and cleans them away as it dries. use febreze every time you tidy up to keep your whole house smelling fresh air clean. fabric refresher even works for clothes you want to wear another day. make febreze part of your clean routine for whole home freshness.
for travel throughout november and december. so you can fill the rest of your year with all the fun. book now at southwest.com low fares. no hidden fees. that's transfarency.
the trump administration is arguing that those deported children have lost the right to reunite with their children. here to help me understand all this, jacob who has been reporting on these separations all summer, and democratic congresswoman, who last week quit a homeland security advisory council writing, this is child kidnapping, plain and simple. you listened to a status conference. you have the lawsuit. the judge ordered reunification. now you're dealing with a much bigger set of 2,500 kids between 5 and 17. what's going on? >> it is pretty remarkable to listen to the judge say how deeply troubling the government's role has been here and there needs to be an accounting. they're trying to put the pieces back together for these kids. right now, forcibly separated. we didn't need to have this conversation at all. 1,600 of them are eligible for
reunification. 1607. and the government says they're on track to do that by thursday. the catch is, they said today, 55% of those people are eligible for reunification are slated to be deported. they have what are called final orders of removal. 900 of those people. >> so 2,500 people, right? so 1,500 of those are saying we'll reunify. they're eligible. half will be reunified and say get the heck out of here. >> and they're just scrambling. what they announced tonight, they're saying that they think 700 of them, whatever the remaining group is, will all be reunited at one place. the cairns center in south texas at one time over the course of the next few days. they're begging the judge for seven days between the time the reunification happens and any potential deportation, to get them legal counsel to stay in the united states. and the government is saying, we don't want that to happen. >> then i want to come back with
what they're doing. you wrote this letter and said it is child kidnapping. why did you use that word? >> because that's what it is. the government has taken parents, children, deliberately away from parents. toddlers, children who are breast feeding. this is for the purpose of deterring people who are coming. it is cruel, inhuman, it is depraved, and they weren't prepared for family reunification at all. this only happened because aclu intervened. reporters reported about it. but the government just didn't care about reunifying these children. if you take children from parents without due process, it is kidnapping in my view and under the law. >> so this gets us to the part that they are not eligible. i have a hard time processing this. they're saying that 900 -- 917.
they're not eligible. and some big chunk are ineligible because we deported their parents. so if any of them can stay in the united states, first of all, none of them can be reunited by thursday. they can say we were successful. one by one the aclu has requested to get information and requested to go through the cases. 463 of the 917, the government admitted tonight, may have already been deported before this court case basically mandated that you have to keep these families together is there had to be a process. so if you're gone, there is no reunification process. you're gone. >> is this depraved or what? not only child kidnapping but depraved. government officials have no right to take children from parents. no right. unless a court orders it. for some reason there is a danger to the child. you send them back to honduras
or whatever, what's the point? >> they aren't human, they're the wrong color, the parents aren't human. they're wrong color. that's what this country has come to under the president. this is horrifying. i couldn't be on the commission anymore. a human being who wants to deliberately take a child away from a parents and hasun and it taking child from the parents. >> it is hard not to feel that way. we were talking before the show. i got to go in the facility and see the kids in the dangerous on the floor and it is truly sickening. when you hear about the fact those 463 parents that are now outside the country, their only recourse is to go to their consulate in their home country and say, whoops! i think i might have been deported mistakenly. there's a new form given out post this case. if you had more rights, you might have gotten on the
original form. basically beg to say, i made a mistake on my form. >> one other thing you wrote. the refugee act in 1980. >> i believe the terrell of refugees by president trump violates that law and our treaty obligations to refugees. >> many of them are coming in claiming asylum. it is a pnenalty to claim asylu? you're supposed to treat them in a humane way and let the court decide whether they're here legally or not. >> and that's part of the bigger picture here. past child separation, what is being done to break the asylum and refugee law. before i go, a quick reminder. we have a new episode of our podcast up today. it is episodes like this that made me want to do this. jorja is a film make per spent years, explaining how the
CountrySpecial-counselOfficeSubpoenaGiulianiFairnessCitizenship-questn-questionUnited-states-supreme-courtCcomplyingActionTime-limitNomineeurging them to take to the streets or venezuela saying that this is your opportunity the moment might not come again i'm so i think we can see that where washington d.c. at one point was supporting the opposition leader one it's gone one step further now in throwing its weight behind the events which are currently unfolding as we speak on the streets of caracas who was ahead in the home for him and washington now in other news the u.s. president donald trump is to sue deutsche bank he wants to stop it from hunting over financial records by the banks dealings when he was a new york real estate to mogul congressional oversight committees subpoenaed the documents in much. so where the lawsuit is a trump family affair with the president's three eldest children also filing against deutsche bank germany's biggest lender was a major financer to the trump organization when other banks were put off by the president's multiple bankruptcies what the congressional committees are interested
in is whether secret russian sponsors were involved or it should bank was expecting to win greater influence in u.s. politics germany's flagship plan to help the trump organization finance multiple projects to the tune of more than two billion dollars that includes trump hotels and casino resort in atlantic city the trump international hotel and tower in chicago a golf resort in miami almost a billion dollars for a forty three story skyscraper in new york and the trump hotel in washington d.c. the congressional committee ordered deutsche bank to hand over documents saying they're a necessary part of the probe into potential foreign influence on the u.s. political process however lawyers for the trumps and the trump organization say the subpoena has no legitimate or lawful purpose. bank has said it remains committed to providing the appropriate information to all authorized investigations indicating it will comply with a subpoena leading democrats say they won't be deterred by the blocking attempt. so
as this lawsuit daughter banks their biggest nightmare well we asked our financial correspondent pandey. it's certainly a big nightmare if not the biggest nightmare coming true you can't really see what's the biggest nightmare when it comes to do it your bank but it has been a loyal lender to of president trump when he was a businessman and that's when so they are going to be question asked about how german lenders get bankrolling a businessman out of bankruptcies at a time when even the u.s. lenders wouldn't touch him and they're also going to be questioned whether there was money laundering aboard the fact that there are suggestions that the president wouldn't have been the president today had it not been for the loans extended to him by dutch a bank because he used most of that money to erect our bases the plaster his name on them and then ultimately tell the people of the usa how successful
a businessman he is. now to mozambique which is still struggling with severe flooding in the wake of psycho kenneth boats rental rains forecast for the country's north well the powerful storm made landfall on sunday so far thirty eight people have lost their lives poor weather conditions have been hampering efforts and causing flights to be grounded i can if it is the second cyclon to hit the country in this many months six weeks ago cycling a day devastated the region further south. becomes get rid of the water quickly enough to rain here in pember in northernmost i'm baek keeps on coming. brutes now resemble refers to actual rivers have burst their banks leaving huge areas underwater. aid agencies say cite clone candidates will bring twice as much rain it's e.t.i.
entire crop fields have been white sands and people a shortage of food. this is making this. because this is for me. this is what i think there are some things that people feel. the sheer amount of water on the ground is making it difficult to access the affected areas rescuers from brazil are on the scene that come with boats because at the moment it's too dangerous for helicopters to fly but helicopters are what's really needed with many stranded without supplies. and want to help. police people. people are going to help them until help arrives or they can do is wait counting the cost of the latest tropical disaster to land on mozambique shores. and creations in. just sent us this update on relief efforts the weather
became much better in the last hour as it stopped raining and as you can see here they are packing these planes of the world food program and the united nations and they're bringing food items to rural areas the question is how long will the weather remain like this that is where you can see they're really hurrying up there really try to get as many helicopters out as possible before the weather possibly it's getting worse again. i do increase reporting from mozambique a german chancellor angela merkel brought together some of europe's heavy political history. hoping to diffuse the conflict between serbia and kosovo so it is in talks to join the e.u. but solving the long running cost issue is a key condition to entry. seated at the round table with mcallen medical leaders of the western balkan states twenty years after the end of the yugoslav worst the western balkans remain one of the most unstable regions in europe yet
this meeting is a commitment to long term peace. german chancellor angela merkel and french president emmanuel not call initiated the conference at the top of the agenda the ongoing dispute between kosovo and serbia. how can we help with the development of serbia and kosovo and above all prevent problems from appearing even more insoluble than they appeared. and disputes over territories and state names continue to spark violence in the former yugoslavia republics. a nato led peacekeeping mission maintains a presence there of several thousand troops the e.u. has tried to mediate in the conflict so far with our results now germany and france are hoping to renew the push for peace. together we germany and france want to work together to make a concrete contribution to the stability of the region. a clear policy statement
from germany and france in unison and only a few weeks before the european elections. as we turn now to our top story we've been following developments in venezuela where on why those urging the military to join him in his bid to oust president maduro the opposition leader since he's got the backing of military leaders and told his supporters there is no turning back washington has expressed supports president the dora says that he's vowing to stop what he's calling a coup attempt so he has the total vote think of his military commanders. let's get more on this from our latin america correspondent how they are going to us who's monitoring events from bogota colombia welcome havea what's the latest well phil the situation has been developing in a way that is very difficult to assess really because we have both sides presenting
a very different reality about the events that are going on in venezuela on the one hand we do see videos especially from participants of these protests that suggest that there has been fired even gunfire in some cases on the other hand the government has been very quick to say that there is absolutely no situation there is not under their control therefore they are talking about isolated movements that are taking place in some parts of the country but that are under control of the government so it is very difficult at this point to know if this big rebellion if this big was ation that one way or is pursuing is actually taking place in the scale that he was hoping for and it does seem to have taken everyone by surprise so much so the venezuelans foreign minister says this was directly planned in washington. yes exactly this definitely has taken everyone birth by surprise we do know that the government rather the movement of one way or had planned to have
a big mass mobilization tomorrow on may first this is a date that let's not forget is a traditional day for different movements in different countries and for big protests and one way or had announced what he called would be the biggest protest mankind has ever seen that's what he said but now we are waking up where we woke up today at least here in colombia with the news that the movie was a sham the movement had begun already and this of course means that the people that are key to the movement are not necessarily where they were supposed to be or where they would have been tomorrow and that also includes the members that are closest to one way to. one of the significant differences between what we've seen today and the days of rage if i can put it that way in in venezuela is that we seem to we seem to have the own both sides this time we seem to be seeing a significant number of defections.
yes phil and that there's the question how many that is the big question that has been going on for a long time now let's not forget that here in colombia for example many military members have come across the border over to colombia and they are now actually trying to find their way back to them as well to support the events that are going on today but so far you can a little has also been very clear in saying that he has the complete control of the armed forces he said that today as well that he has total loyalty from the military forces however we do see as you mentioned the military or members of the military supporting one way to go in his videos and his addresses to the public via social media as well and there might be a split between some of the different units of the armed forces apparently the air force is rather loyal to one way though whereas the other units have either stayed loyal to the cause my little or have not really said yet where they actually stand we do know that military forces have abandoned the camp of people as
a liberal and are supporting why don't but we don't know how many and of course not if that is going to be enough to actually support some kind of government transition which is what one would do is trying to force the big we've been looking at that we are looking in the live pictures of the situation and some of this is the streets. has said that today marks the as is the start of the final phase of his plan to oust the president. what do we think he means by that. well the idea of one way though is to force ludo to somehow resign to force a government transition in venezuela he has repeatedly said that he wants to achieve this in a peaceful manner and that would imply that the people of venezuela will at least demand from the military forces that they somehow ask the presidents to resign and that they turn away from the question
a little and support why don't this is very difficult to achieve of course many opposition leaders have failed to do so in the past but if we take a look at what one battle has called for today he has repeatedly said or told his people to go and seek the military bases that are closest to them and ask the military forces to support him however if we take a look at this rhetoric considering that the military is always mentioned it does bear the question whether we are talking about a military coup a military intervention or not and that will course would also imply a lot of consequences in the international scene and in the international community because some countries have pledged support to one of them but definitely said that they are not willing to support any military action so at this point there seems to be a separation between the words between what is being said and what is being done. and briefly no no appearance from from president to madeira what do we make of.
well because i'm a little has tweeted at least saying that he has a loyalty of the military commands in his country however he has not appeared in public and we've seen this type of behavior before in a way saying it's not even worth going out because nothing is going on that is the message that he seems to be trying to send so far but it's also of course of the question where is he couldn't a little since many assume that he might be seeking shelter for seeing events that could develop throughout the day till august and bogus half. his reminder about top story that in venezuela clashes have erupted on the streets of caracas a savage country so declared the president one quite out just the army to help him topple nicholas but don't know ahmed government vehicle drove headlong into a crowd of demonstrators outside the checkpoints in time as protesters were answering a white house call the take to the streets against the president he said he secured the backing of several mention figures of the u.s.
house out of focus we're supposed. to. up today doubly news africa with any michael is next. take it personally you end with wonderful people in stories that make the game so special. for all true fans. because more than football on line what's the connection between bread flour and the european union dinos. w correspondent alan baker can
HuntingDocumentsLawsuitBanksRecordsTo-mogul-congressional-oversight-committeesNew-yorkReal-estateDonald-trumpLenderBankruptciesOrganizationwas the white house visit in return for the 2016 dnc server and burisma investigation. >> when you heard burisma, you did not see that as code for biden, the bidens? >> i did not. >> when did you even know that? is it your testimony that you only realized that burisma included the bidens when the readout came out? >> no, i really don't recall the date. it was very late in the game, though. >> september? >> i don't recall the date. >> so if i told you that the legal definition of bribery was an event of offering, giving, soliciting or receiving of any item of value as a means of influencing an action of an individual holding a public or legal duty, do you believe that not only was it quid pro quo, but it was bribery? >> i'm not a lawyer and i'm not going to characterize what
something was or wasn't legally. >> you also said in your opening statement that secretary perry and yourself as well as ambassador volker worked with giuliani on the ukraine matter at express direction of the president, is that right? >> that's correct. >> you go on to say that we did not want to work with giuliani, simply put, we played the hand that we were dealt. what did you mean by that and more importantly what did you think would happen if you did not play that hand? >> i think what you're asking me is -- well, you asked it. >> i did ask it. >> what would happen if we didn't. it was very fragile with ukraine at the time. there was no new ambassador. the old ambassador had left. there was a new president. we thought it was very, very important to shore up the relationship. >> in fact, you actually said, we all understood if we refused
to work with mr. giuliani we would lose an important opportunity to cement relationships with the united states and ukraine. so, quote, we follow the president's orders. did you see it as a directive? >> i saw it as the only pathway to moving forward on ukraine. >> so you would say that the efforts that mr. giuliani was undertaking became a part of the formal ukraine/u.s. policy? >> i can't opine on that. all i can tell you is that the president wanted us to communicate with -- >> but you went on to say in your opening testimony that the suggestion that you engaged in some irregular diplomacy is absolutely false. if in fact what giuliani was doing was okay and proper, which is actually what you said, initially you all thought that what he was doing was not improper, right? >> we did not think it was improper and when i referred to the fact that i was not engaging in rogue diplomacy by
definition, rogue diplomacy would meant that i would not have involved the leadership of the state department and the white house. >> are you saying that everyone in the chain of command knew about giuliani's efforts to try to get the investigations into burisma -- i'm just trying to figure out what you thought you were actually opining to. >> look, the president directed us to work with mr. giuliani and the leadership of the state department were knowledgeable that we were working with mr. giuliani. >> what's interesting is that ambassador taylor testified that he knew nothing about it and clearly he would be in the chain of information if he was the ambassador to ukraine. at the end of the day, with all due respect, you're the ambassador to the european union. why would he not know about it? >> i don't know. >> he was the one who said there was a regular and irregular channel. >> he should have known about it. >> so although we don't want -- although you said you did not
want to work with mr. giuliani, you in fact did work with him. >> that's correct. >> and do you think the essence of what he was trying to achieve was accomplished? >> i don't know what he was trying to achieve. >> you clearly had to have known, sir. if you think this was going down the center lane, is what you said, it was clearly important that we -- that we work with mr. giuliani to get what the president asked for because it was a directive and an order, surely you must know whether or not mission was accomplished? >> well, i know what mr. giuliani communicated to us. >> and you thought that was totally fine? did you really think that it was okay for -- >> can i answer your question? >> sure. >> you asked what mr. giuliani was trying to achieve. >> no, i asked whether you thought it was right for mr. giuliani to want to accomplish the efforts that he was involved in which was to get them to investigate burisma and
the 2016 election, as you said. >> all i can testify to is what i know that mr. giuliani either told me directly or told ambassador volker and others that was relayed to me. >> thank you. i yield back. >> mr. turner. >> ambassador sondland, i want to walk through some of the portions of your testimony because sometimes you seem to make direct connections and times they seem to be dead ends. i want to clear up what are the dead ends and what are the direct connections. yesterday ambassador volker, who i consider to be very talented and a man of integrity, and i believe you think he's a man of integrity, correct? >> i do. >> he testified that the president of the united states did not tie either a meeting with the president, a phone call, or any aid to investigations of burisma, 2016, or the bidens, that the president did not do that. and you've testified that the president did not tell you that
he tied them either, correct? >> i did testify to that. although when ambassador volker and i were working on the statement and negotiating with the ukrainians, it was clear to ambassador volker that a meeting would not happen without the burisma and 2016. that was very clear to ambassador volker. >> how do you know that? what did he say to you? he says that was not clear to him. he says he knows that's what the president wanted but he didn't have it as this was a requirement. >> oh, i strongly disagree with that portion of his testimony. it was absolutely a requirement or we would have just had the meeting and been done with it. >> what about the aid? he says that they weren't tied. >> i didn't say they were tied either. i said i was presuming it. >> so the president never told you they were tied. >> that's correct. >> your testimony and his testimony is consistent that the president did not tie aid to investigations?
>> that's correct. >> he also testified that he spoke to giuliani and that giuliani did not relate that the -- that he was tieing on behalf of the president or on the president's behalf aid and in fact giuliani never said to him that aid was tied to investigations. the question i have for you is, did you ever have a conversation with giuliani that did not involve volker? your testimony is a lot of wes and uss. did you have a separate phone call where giuliani told you that the aid was tied? volker says that never happened. >> no, i did have a few conversations. i don't recall how many because i don't have the records with mr. giuliani when mr. volker wasn't available -- >> did giuliani -- what were you going to say. >> i don't believe i testified that mr. giuliani told me that aid was tied. >> i think -- this is part of the problem. i want to walk you through this. you've said to us everyone was
in the loop and everyone. hold on a second. i've listened to you today as a lot of people, and not only are your answers somewhat circular, frequently you've contradicted yourself in your own answer. the text messages and emails that you put up there, kurt volker walked us through it and he has a completely different understanding of what you were saying than what you were saying you were saying. so i'm a little confused as to everyone is in the loop because -- if giuliani didn't give you an express statement, then it can't be that you believe this from giuliani. is donald trump your friend? >> no, we're not friends. >> do you like the president? >> yes. >> okay. after you testified, chairman schiff gave a press conference and said he gets to impeach the president of the united states because of your testimony and if you pull up cnn today, right now, their banner says sondland ties trump to with holding aid. is that your testimony today,
ambassador sondland, that you have evidence that donald trump tied the investigation to the aid? because i don't think you're saying that? >> i've said repeatedly, congressman, i was presuming. i also said that president trump -- >> no one told you. not just the president. giuliani didn't tell you, mulvaney didn't tell you. pompeo didn't tell you. nobody else on this planet told you that donald trump was tieing aid to these investigations, that's correct? >> i think i already testified it. >> answer the question. is it correct, no one on this planet told you that donald trump was tieing this aid to the investigations because if your answer is yes, then the chairman's wrong and the headline on cnn is wrong. no one on this planet told you that president trump was tieing aid to investigations, yes or no. >> yes. >> so you really have no testimony today that ties president trump to a scheme to with hold aid from ukraine in exchange for these
investigations? >> other than my own presumption. >> which is nothing. that's what i don't understand. you know what hearsay evidence is, ambassador? it's what i testify what someone else told you. made up testimony is when i presume it. you're just assuming all of these things and then you're giving them the evidence that they're running out and doing press conferences and cnn's headline is saying that you're saying that the president of the united states should be impeached and you don't know that, correct? >> i never said the president of the united states should be impeached. >> but you have left people with a confusing impression. you do not have any evidence that the president of the united states was tied to with holding aid from ukraine in exchange for investigations. i yield back. >> mr. carson. >> thank you, chairman. i want to better understand mr. giuliani's role in carrying out the president's demand for investigations. on may the 23rd, sir, during a
meeting in the oval office to discuss the future of u.s./ukrainian relationships, president trump told you and others to talk to rudy. do i have that right, sir? >> correct. >> mr. ambassador, did you listen to the president and talk to rudy, sir? >> did i talk to rudy? >> yes, sir. >> yes. >> what did you understand to be mr. giuliani's relationship with president trump? >> i understood he was the president's personal lawyer. >> what did you believe mr. giuliani was doing in ukraine for president trump, sir? >> i don't know. >> ambassador sondland, in august of this year you and ambassador volker spoke with mr. giuliani about a draft statement to be issued by president zelensky. during those suggestions it was mr. giuliani who suggested, in fact, insisted, that the statement include specific language about burisma, correct, sir? >> correct. >> and he insisted that the
statement include the mention of the 2016 elections. and mr. volker transmitted this message to a top ukrainian official, right? >> correct. >> mr. ambassador, and this statement was part of the deliverable that president trump wanted, correct? >> correct. >> to your knowledge, sir, was pushing the ukrainians to investigate burisma, 2016 or the bidens part of some official state department policy, sir? >> i never testified that we were pushing anyone to investigate the bidens. i said burisma. >> you were involved in ukrainian policy, right? >> i told you what my role was, which was quite limited and focused. >> was it your understanding that ukraine policy should involve investigations into americans or debunked conspiracy theories about the 2016 election, sir? >> what i testified was that in order to get president zelensky a white house visit, mr. giuliani conveyed the notion
that president trump wanted these announcements to happen. >> of course, it was not. it was a part of the president's political agenda and it was done to benefit the president personally and politically. were you following the president's orders, mr. ambassador? >> i was following the president's direction to speak with mr. giuliani. >> thank you, sir. mr. chairman, i yield back. >> i thank the gentleman for yielding. i want to point out a couple things, ambassador, in response to my colleagues. my colleagues seem to be under the impression that unless the president spoke the words, ambassador sondland, i am bribing the ukrainian president, that there's no evidence of bribery if he didn't say, ambassador sondland, i'm telling you i'm not going to give the aid unless they do this, that there's no evidence of a quid pro quo on military aid.
unless, ambassador, you've given us a lot of evidence of precisely that condition of both the white house meeting and the military assistance. you've told us, have you not, that you emailed the secretary of state and said that if these investigations were announced, the new justice person was put in place, that the ukrainians would be prepared to give the president what he wants and that would break the log jam. you've testified and showed us documents about this. >> i have. >> and in your written statement you say that the log jam you're referring to includes the log jam on security assistance, correct? >> correct. as my presumption. >> and he also have seen, and you testified that you have also seen acting chief of staff mulvaney, himself, acknowledge that the military aid was withheld in part over the
investigation into 2016 that you've talked about. you referenced that as well, correct? >> correct. >> now they also seem to say that, well, they got the money. the money may have been conditioned, but they got the money. yes, they got caught. they got caught. now they still don't have the white house meeting. they made no statement. they got no meeting. the statement on the investigations was the condition to get the meeting. they didn't make the statement. they got no meeting. but they got caught. you're aware, aren't you, ambassador, that two days before the aid was lifted, congress announced it was investigating this scheme. you're aware of that, aren't you, ambassador? >> i am now, yes. >> i would like to address
something, claiming that republicans deny russian influence attempts. that is false and you know it. and this committee, but in this committee time and time again we all agreed that russia has tried to influence american elections as far back as the soviet union. so i wish you would quit making that comment. yesterday we established with mr. volker something quite obvious. more than one country can try to influence our elections. mr. schiff, we didn't agree with your russian collusion narrative, dnc coup attempt, something that you ignored as you became the chairman of the impeachment committee. i'm interested in this facts. i'm not a prosecutor or a defense attorney. i'm not an attorney like mr. turner.
ambassador sondland, you honestly have used the words presumed, presumption, presuming, some form of the verb to presume repeatedly today. and said you said that was the problem, no one ever told me the aid was tied to anything. i was presuming it was. you see, in mathematic fact, two plus two does equal four. but two presumptions plus two presumptions does not equal even one fact. and the fact is, the president did tell you, ambassador sondland, no quid pro quo. that's a fact. and another fact, no quid pro quo occurred. this time i would like to yield to mr. conway. >> i would like to consent to enter into the record a "washington post" article from
p today. the interpretation of that would be, one is that they were trying to protect the whistle-blower, an another interpretation is that there's something to hide and this unlevel playing field that there is a statutory right maintains that unlevel playing field and the advantages that gives them. also, he will not tolerate any witness intimidation, any threats or any issues of trying to bully a witness. ambassador sondland, have you, your family or businesses received any threats or reprizeles or attempts to harm you in any way. >> many. >> could you give us an example or two? >> we have countless emails apparently to my wife, our
properties are being picketed and boycotted -- >> let's explore that one. our own colleague from oregon has in fact called for a boycott of your hotel chain, your hotels in oregon. i'm assuming he believes that will harm you to the point that you will then be bullied into doing whatever he wants done. my colleagues and i know using the word bully is a bit over the top. he intended to harm you and your businesses, is that what you surmise. >> that's my understanding. >> and to boycott -- call for a boycott gave rise to demonstrations in front of your hotels, made your customers have to weave in and out to get into the hospitals. >> they're going on as we speak. >> his attempt to hurt a business that supports hundreds of jobs is shameful and ought to
be an outrage to all oregonians. and someone said we are saddened to have our congressman call for a boycott that would put the livelihoods of thousands of his constituents in peril, the attack on your employees is unwarranted. and i couldn't agree more. he should not be using the vast influences that we as many of congress have to bully you and your buzzsinesses and harm the employees that operate in your business by trying to take business away from you by forcing you to do something that they wanted to do to you. that's a shame for that. and i'm hopeful that my colleagues will join me in saying, you really shouldn't be using your congressional influence to try to bully and threaten a witness before these proceedings and it's wrong. i'm going to look forward to my colleague's response and i yield back. >> i was somewhat humored by
your request that he not bully when all we're talking about is the president bullying to get something he wants done. having said that, i would like to clarify one point about the whistle-blower protection from the article that mr. conway just provided. the law reads expressly restricts the inspector general's office from disclosing whistle-blower's identities. it says, quote, the inspector general shall not disclose the identity of the employee without the consent of the employee unless the inspector general determines that such disclosure is unavoidable during the course of the investigation or that disclosure is made to an official of the department of justice responsible for determining whether a prosecution should be undertaken, unquote. that appears to be the lone
restriction. we found no court rulings on whether whistle-blowers have a right to anonymity under related statutes. it's a best practice to avoid disclosure of the ukraine whistle-blower's identity given the concerns about retaliation. he said we've stepped into bizarro land in retaliation for making a whistle-blowing complaint especially when they're credible threats to that employee's personal safety. and i don't know why our colleagues on the other side -- >> i'm afraid i only have three minutes. >> the end of the article does go through that and also says that it's three pinocchios. >> the president of the united states has five pinocchios on a
daily basis. so let's not go there. ambassador sondland, in your deposition, quote, i was truly disappointed that the state department prevented me at the last minute from testifying earlier on october 8th 2019. but your issuance of a subpoena has supported by appearance here today and i'm pleased to provide the following testimony. the white house, the state department did not want you to testify at that deposition, is that correct? >> that's correct. >> and since then, you have on numerous occasions during your opening statement today indicated that you have not been able to access documents in the state department, is that correct? >> correct. >> you have been hampered in your ability to provide
testimony? >> i've been hampered to provide completely accurate testimony without the benefit of those documents. >> in terms of your conversations with the president of the united states, what percentage of your conversations were about ukraine as compared to your other duties? >> i don't recall. >> well, you've only had six conversations or seven conversations with the president, you said. so -- >> about ukraine, i think. >> so you've had many other conversations -- >> yeah, about unrelated matters. >> how many conversations with the president of the united states have you had? >> again, i don't want to give you a number because it's going to be wrong if i don't have the records. >> is it less than 20? >> it's probably in that range. >> all right. would you say that delay in military aid and the lack of a meeting in the white house works to the benefit of russia? >> repeat the question again, please. >> would you say that the delay in military aid to ukraine and
the reluctance to have a white house meeting has a benefit to russia? >> i think it could be looked that way, yes, looked at that way. >> i'm going to speak very briefly about code. when the -- when mike cohen was asked -- you suggest the president sometimes communicates his wishes indirectly, for example, you say, quote, mr. president did not tell me to directly lie to congress. that's not how he operates. it would be different, he said -- he doesn't give you questions, he doesn't give you orders. he speaks in code. and i understand the code because i've been around him for a decade. so do you think that the president was speaking in code when he would talk about wanting investigations? >> i don't. i can't characterize how the president was speaking.
every conversation i've had with the president has been fairly direct and straight forward. >> all right. i yield back. >> mr. stuart. >> i have unanimous consent request. >> you may state your quest. >> d.o.e. responds to the commen comments. his testimony today misrepresented secretary perry's intersection and direction the ambassador received from president trump. secretary perry spoke to rudy giuliani only once at the president's request no one else was on that call. at no point, during the phone call did the words biden or burisma come up in the presence of secretary perry. again, i ask that that be entered into the record. >> without objection. i would note that they've also refused to come and testify under oath. >> the american people expect a
lot of things out of protests. arguments, protests, clash of principles and ideas. i think sometimes they would like to see some compromise. but something they expect above everything else, fundamental, they expect that there is a sense of fairness about it. and i want to read part of a text i received from someone that i have tremendous respect for. just a few hours ago, she wrote, crafting a story to hurt another human being can never be right. the means of destroying and hurting another individual just does not justify the end and politics does not give anyone free pass to destroy other people. now you can say a lot about the treatment of president trump over the last three years, but i think one thing you cannot argue is that it has been fair, there were those calling for his impeachment before he was inaugurated. for 2 1/2 years, we were told every single day he has betrayed our country, he's a russian
asset. he's committed treason. accusation that is we know now are not true and for which we never had any evidence to support that. he was accused of obstruction, and now here we are actually impeaching the president over, well, first quid pro quo until we found out that didn't hold very well with focus groups, and then it was bribery. and every witness before us said they had no evidence of bribery and now it's extortion. the american people expect some sense of fairness. nancy pelosi announces the president has betrayed his oath of office without seeing any evidence, again, the american people say, what is fair about that? so the question before us now is, again, extortion. that's the latest version of the charges against the president. i'm not an attorney. extortion sounds scary.
it's kind of scary. i had to look it up what it means. it means obtaining money or property by threat to a victim's property or loved ones. i'm going to read you a couple quotes from president zelensky and ask you a question. first from a ukrainian press release, donald trump is convince that had the new government will able to improve the image of ukraine, complete investigation of corruption, which inhibited the interaction with ukraine and the usa. does that sound like president zelensky is being described or extorted. >> as i testified previously. i'm not a lawyer either and i don't want to characterize -- >> well, okay -- >> any legal terms. >> i think most people would say that doesn't sound like he's under severe pressure. president zelensky told reporters during a joint press conference with donald trump that he was not pressured by the u.s. president. again, i was not pressured. he used another time. there was no blackmail. i would ask you, do you think he
felt like he's being extorted by the president based on these comments? >> i really think that's for the committee and the congress to -- >> you know what, it's really for the american people. >> i agree. >> and the american people aren't stupid. the american people can hear that and they can say i don't think he was under duress. i don't think he was being extorted. i don't think there was an exchange of a describe. and i would conclude with this last observation. it is common for national policy to with hold aid for various reasons. is that not true? >> it's true. >> it's frequent that we will with hold aid for various reasons. >> that's correct. >> president bush did it, he suspended military aid to 35 countries over their lack of support for the international criminal court. i'll bet that helps his political standing back home. but i don't remember anyone suggesting we should impeach him
for it. president trump did it last year with afghanistan over corruption. we did it with pakistan. and no one suggested that we impeach them for it. this is a common occurrence in international relations. it is hardly an impeachable offense. >> time of the gentleman has expired. >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you, sir, for being here today. there are things we can agree with our colleagues on, things we can disagree. i can agree that with my colleague that we should turn over all the documents should be turned over. mr. ambassador, i think you agree that it would have helped your testimony, helped you understood that the state department, the white house hasn't turned over a single document. the white house wanted the conversation. on that we can agree.
others we can disagree as it relates to the whistle-blower. it distresses me because i begin to wonder about the motivations. in the final analysis, the way i look at this is if we were investigating an arson, you all would indict the person who pulled the fire alarm. that person's job is done. and we've seen the smoke and we've seen the fire. whatever the whistle-blower did doesn't change the president's actions, doesn't change the president's own words which are in our testimony, in our body of evidence, it doesn't change mr. mulvaney's own words, it doesn't change the body of evidence here. all it does is put this person at risk. back to the documents and what
you know and including you seem to have your memory jogged by documents. let's talk about may 23rd and see if this one helps you. senator johnson in referencing the may 23rd meeting in his letter, sir, says i have no recollection the president saying that during the meeting. it is possible he did because i do not work for the president. if made, the comments did not register with me. he also says, i remember sondland saying behind to talk to the president as the rest of the delegation left the oval office. sir, do you recall this later conversation and what you and the president discussed? >> i do. >> what was that. >> recapping what was a free for all conversation and i wanted to tie dow exactly what we agreed to do and what we didn't. >> and he reinforced talk to
rudy. >> talk to rudy -- >> go into any more detail about what that meant? >> no. it was a very short conversation. >> you said there was something besides just talked to rudy. >> yeah, to reconfirm that the three of us would be working on the ukraine file. >> and back to rudy in this seemingly contradictory passage here, you now recall the prerequisite mentioned in the july 10th meeting, right, when you were having this discussion, in joe biden's office, sir, you referenced there was a condition? >> i believe someone else testified that i raised that and i didn't dispute that testimony, that i said it's my understanding that in order to get this visit done, there needs to be an announcement about -- i don't know if i said investigations or said specifically burisma and -- >> sure. in your opening you mentioned at
the very same time that apparently there was a meeting with rudy giuliani and the message you got was under scored, very concerned about what he told them. according to rudy giuliani, the potus meeting will not happen which is not conditioned. it's just not going to happen. your understanding of the difference here? >> i think what you're saying is this meeting i was talking about in my opening statement was apparently a meeting that rudy giuliani was having -- >> at the same time. >> -- statement in ukraine. >> but he's saying something different. he's saying, it's not going to happen. there's no notice in here that it's conditioned in any way. >> well, that was ambassador volker's point. this was an exchange with ambassador taylor and ambassador volker. ambassador volker is saying, don't let other people speak for the u.s. government. that was his point. >> but if rudy is following the
directions and he's saying what he's saying here and you're also following directions, right, and you're saying it's a condition, who's giving you the instructions to say what you're saying. >> that's why we thought it was problematic to work with mr. giuliani. >> who did you work with to say the things that you said? did you have conversations with the chief of staff, secretary pompeo to say what you were saying? >> are you talking about in the july 10th meeting? >> that's correct. >> with ambassador volker because at that point, ambassador volker was the one in touch with mr. giuliani, not me. >> but you had not direct conversations with mr. mulvaney about this or secretary pompeo to make this conditioned statement? >> only the texts and emails that i've already reviewed. >> thank you. my time is up. >> thank you, ambassador sondland for your service and i want to thank you for your recognition in your opening statement of your hard working
staff at the u.s. mission to the eu. you testified that you never received any direct confirmation or specific investigation as to why there was a hold on aid. >> that's correct. >> and in fact you testified, quote, president trump never told me directly that the aid was conditioned on the investigations, end quote. >> that's correct. >> you said, quote, never heard those words from the president, correct? >> correct. >> instead you testified that in your september 9th call with president trump, the president said, quote, no quid pro quo. i want nothing. i want nothing. i want president zelensky to do the right thing. do what he ran on, end quote. is that correct? >> that's right. >> and the fact is, the aid was given to ukraine without any announcement of new investigations. >> that's correct. >> and president trump did in fact meet with president zelensky in september at the united nations, correct? >> he did. >> and there was no announcement
of investigations before this meeting? >> correct. >> and there was no announcement of investigations after this meeting? >> that's right. >> and you've been very clear when chairman schiff has asked you broadly about investigations, you've corrected that to say specifically your understanding of investigations are investigation into the 2016 elections and investigations into burisma, is that correct? >> that's correct. >> and will you aware that during the obama administration, the u.s. partnered with the uk and ukraine on an investigation into the owner of burisma as part of ukraine's anti-corruption efforts? >> i became aware of it today during the hearing. >> other witnesses have testified, but, yes. in fact the obama administration state department was concerned about the potential appearance of conflict of interest with hunter biden serving on the board of burisma because they raised this as they were preparing ambassador yovanovitch for her senate confirmation. are you aware of that.
>> i'm not aware of it. >> she testified both in the opening hearing and the closed deposition. and i've asked most of our witnesses this, and every witness i've asked has said yes and i want to ask you this today. do you believe that hunter biden having a position on the board of burisma has the potential appearance of a conflict of interest? >> i don't want to characterize hunter biden's service on the board one way or another. i don't know enough. >> you disagree with every other witness that has answered yes, there's a potential appearance of a conflict of interest? >> you asked if there was a conflict -- >> the potential appearance of a conflict of interest. >> clearly it's an appearance of a conflict. >> clearly it is an appearance of conflict of interest. again, this is something that everything witness has answered yes to or agreed it could have a potential appearance and yet we are not allowed to call hunter biden to answer questions in front of this committee. thank you, again, for your truthful testimony today and i yield back. >> thank you.
>> mr. swalwell. >> ambassador sondland, you were told by the president and others to not show up. you showed up. i think that says a lot about you and i think history will look kindly on you doing that. but there are consequences to that and just a couple hours ago, president trump was asked about you a, and he said i don' know him well, this is not a man i know well. is that true? >> it really depends on what you mean by know well. we are not close friends, no. we have a professional working relationship. >> and in that working relationship, he knows who you are? >> yes. >> and he has spoken to you often? >> what's often? >> you said at least 20 times. >> if that's often, then it's often. >> and you donated a million dollars to his inaugural committee, is that right?
>> i bought a vvip ticket to the inauguration. >> that's a lot of money, isn't it? >> it's a lot of money. >> and after that, the president makes you ambassador to the european union, eventually the ambassador to ukraine is removed and as you told us in your deposition, you became a central figure as it relates to ukraine. that's a pretty big responsibility? >> i don't know that i said i was a central figure. i was one of several people who were tasked to work on the ukraine file. >> and would you ever in that big responsibility take any actions that were not authorized by president trump? >> well, by president trump or the leadership in the state department. >> were you ever hauled in to the leadership of the state department for any actions you had taken around your work on ukraine? >> no. >> as to rudy giuliani, on may 23rd the president told you,
talk to rudy, you talked to him a couple times. as you told us, you talked to the president a couple times. did the president say to you, stop talking to rudy? >> no. >> did he say don't any longer talk to rudy? >> no. >> on ukraine you said you were playing the hand you were dealt. president trump was the dealer, wasn't he? >> president trump was what? >> the dealer. in your metaphor you were playing the hand you were dealt, the dealer is president trump, is that right? >> i'll recharacterize your question by saying wee followed the direction of the president because that was the only pathway to working with ukraine. >> on page four of your testimony you said given what we know, given what we knew at the time, what we were asked to do did not appear to be wrong. and you would agree now, ambassador, knowing what you know now, what you did not know at the time, there are some
things around ukraine that were wrong. >> i agree. >> so let's take out any leveraging of security assistance over the ukrainians and a white house visit, would you agree that it is wrong for the president of the united states to ask the leader of a foreign government to investigate the president of the united states' political opponent? >> yes. >> would you agree that in addition to making that request for an investigation leveraging a visit to the white house that a leader needs is also wrong? >> leveraging in what respect? >> a meeting at the white house, if someone needs a meeting at the white house to show their legitimacy to their people, that leveraging that meeting would be wrong? >> to be candid, every meeting at the white house has conditions placed on it. i've never worked at a meeting that doesn't -- >> if one of those conditions is to investigate a political opponent, that would be wrong? >> yes, but making announcements
or investigations, per se, no. >> and if you asked a foreign government leader to investigate your political opponent, leveraged a white house meeting, and leveraged security assistance in this hypothetical, you would agree, all three of those are wrong. >> in the hypothetical, yes, i would agree. >> now, you before becoming an ambassador worked as a businessman and i presume you worked on a lot of deals is that right involving millions of dollars? >> correct. >> you work for a guy who wrote a book called "art of the deal?" >> i do. >> and state department employees told us they don't want to call it a quid pro quo, but you call it a quid pro quo, is that right? >> i did. >> and finally, one final hypothetical, if someone walks through those two doors wearing rain boots, a raincoat, and holding an umbrella with rain drops falling off of them, do you have to see outside that
it's raining to presume or conclude that it might be raining outside? >> i understand your hypothetical. >> i yield back. thank you. >> mr. hurd. >> thank you. good to see you. >> good to see you. >> my colleague from california implied that you've been supportive of president trump's campaign -- >> i'm having a hard time hearing you. >> my colleague from california indicated that you're supportive of the president's campaign, is that correct? >> i actually donated to the inaugural committee in order to secure tickets. >> so let me ask you this question, did you participate in or overhear any conversations about the potential information collected by ukraine on the bidens -- collected by ukrainians on the bidens would be used for political gain?
>> did i personally hear that, no. >> did you participate any any conversations when there was being discussed? >> not that i recall. >> in your statement on page five, you said mr. giuliani's requests for a quid pro quo for arranging a white house visit for president zelensky, and then you also recounted your conversation with president trump where he says i want nothing, no quid pro quo. how do you reconcile these two statements? >> they're hard to reconcile. we were working along mr. giuliani's direction for a period of time. we still didn't have a white house meeting. aid was now held up. there were lots of reasons being given by various people as to why those weren't moving forward. and i finally got and exs a per
exhausted by receiving the latest text. >> with you aware of any specifically conversations mayor giuliani had with the president between your may 23rd conversation and september 11th, 2019? >> i don't recall if mayor giuliani when i was directly talking to him, either through a conference call or on a direct call, whether he quoted from the president or said i just talked to the president. most of the communications, as i said, went through ambassador volker initially. i don't want to opine on what may or may not have been said. >> on page 11 of your testimony, you said mr. giuliani had been communicating with ukrainians without our knowledge. i'm assuming you're believing, you, mr. volker, and ambassador taylor. which ukrainians was rudy giuliani communicating with? >> i was specifically referring to this text that i received
from ambassador volker where mr. giuliani was apparently telling the ukrainians something that frustrated ambassador volker -- >> who specifically? we know that -- >> the old prosecutor. >> and do you think he has any gravitas within the regime? >> he was the attorney general -- >> and got fired in august when the new group came in. >> i think so. >> so we know rudy giuliani has met with mr. yermak on the fringes of meetings in spain. you know any other ukrainian official within the zelensky regime that mayor giuliani was meeting with? >> i don't know who mr. giuliani was meeting with. >> had you had any conversations with ukrainian officials within the zelensky regime that came to you and said, hey, i just got off the phone with giuliani, what the hell is he talking
about? >> i don't recall. >> would that be normal? in all of your interactions with ambassadors and heads of states and governments, if there's some element of the u.s. government that they have spoken to, isn't it usually a step that they come in, talk to the ambassador, try to clarify what that statement was? is that a true characterization of how elements of diplomacy work? >> i think that's a responsible possibility. things work all kinds of different ways these days. >> when you met with president zelensky after the july 25th phone call, july 26th, did the investigations or joe biden come up in that meeting? >> i don't recall joe biden coming up. >> was there any frustration expressed to you by the phone call that happened the day before? >> no. everyone said it was a good call. >> is your interactions with president zelensky, is he a straight shooter, or is he a liar? >> he impressed me greatly and that's why i wanted to get he and president trump together as
soon as possible. >> when he makes expressed statements, you tend to believe them? >> with my limited interaction with him, he seems honorable. >> thank you. i hope you make your plane back. i yield back. >> thank you, chairman. good afternoon, ambassador. welcome. others close to president trump have made it clear that investigations were in fact part of the conditions for u.s. assistance to ukraine including rudy giuliani and mick mulvaney, the acting chief of staff. so ambassador sondland, at a press conference on october 17th. mick mulvaney discussed his belief that it's entirely appropriate to politicize u.s. . ambassador, how often did you speak or meet with mr. mulvaney? >> again, based on my lack of -- of records, i'm going by a bad memory. >> just based on your memory. >> i only think i had one formal
meeting with mr. mulvaney and it had nothing to do with ukraine. it had to do with a completely unrelated matter. >> so did you have a chance to talk with mr. mulvaney about your efforts in the ukraine? >> i think most of our communication were through the stream of e-mails, which others were on, generally. and i may have seen him at the white house casually and said hello and, you know, kept in touch. but we didn't have a back and forth. >> well, let me ask you this. was it your sense mr. mulvaney had a direct line to president trump? he must have as acting chief of staff, is that right? >> of course. >> let us look at what mr. mulvaney said during his october 17th press conference. >> that was -- those were the -- that was -- those were the driving factors. he also mentioned to me in past the corruption related to tehe dnc server? absolutely. no question about that. that's why we held up the money. >> so demand for the
investigation into the democrats was part of the reason that he -- to withhold funding to ukraine. >> the look back to what happened in 2016, certainly was -- was part of the thing that he was worried about in corruption with that nation. and that is absolutely appropriate. >> he said -- he said that president trump, in that clip, had an interest in the investigations, did he not? >> apparently, yes. >> he's the chief of staff. he's somebody that sees the president and has conversation with the president every single day. wouldn't you expect that? >> it's described as a quid pro quo. >> i would expect he has a direct line to the president. >> ambassador sondland, when did you first learn from mr. mulvaney that the investigations were holding up the security assistance, if at any time? >> i don't know that i heard it from mr. mulvaney. >> okay. and -- ambassador sondland, i know that you're not a career foreign service officer.
is it your understanding that the u.s. government conditions security assistance on an investigation into a political rival all the time? >> i've already testified i didn't think that would be proper. >> all right. well, let us also see what mr. mulvaney had to say about that at the same press conference. >> that was -- those were the driving factors. he also mentioned to me in past that the corruption related to the dnc server? absolutely. no question about that. but that's it and that's why we held up the money. now, there was a report. >> i'll just go ahead and read it for you because this thing -- i'll read it. he says, and i had news for everybody. get over it. there's going to be political influence in foreign policy.
knowing what you know now about what was intended with ukraine, do you agree with mr. mulvaney that there's just going to be political influence in foreign policy? or that we should all just get over it and allow a president, now or later, to investigate a political rival and ask a foreign government to do that? do you agree with mr. mulvaney? >> i think there's a big difference between political influence and investigating a rival because politics enters into everything relating to foreign policy. >> so -- but you disagree that the -- you agree that the president should not be allowed to ask for the investigation of a political rival? >> in the context of what was going on in ukraine, i believe that the president should not investigate a political rival in return for a quid pro quo. >> and part of the way that you figured out that all of this stuff that was going on, that you were part of something that was basically wrong, is because in the july 25th phone call, the
president himself, he didn't tell you. we don't know if he told rudy giuliani or not because rudy giuliani won't come in here. he said directly to the president -- to the president of ukraine -- that he wanted the bidens investigated. wasn't that your reading of the call? >> first of all, i don't believe that i was a part of something that was wrong because based on what i knew, i thought we were operating well within the center lane of proper u.s. diplomacy. >> i yield back. >> mr. ratcliff. >> chairman, thank you. i ask unanimous consent to enter into record a statement issued this morning from the office of the vice president by chief of staff. >> without objection. >> ambassador sondland, i'll be brief. in anticipation of mr. holmes' testimony tomorrow about this july 26th phone call that -- that he overheard at a cafe in
kyiv that you had with president trump. he overheard that even though the call was not on speaker phone, correct? >> i don't believe so. >> was it open erica fay? >> it was outdoors. >> one of the points my democrat democratic colleagues keep making is that president trump said that he doesn't give a blank about ukraine. you heard that earlier? >> that -- that was not on the phone call. i don't think he testified that was on the phone call. i think he was testifying that i summarized the phone call. and i don't recall saying that. >> and you have no recollection of that? >> i don't. >> yeah. even if it was true, there's nothing wrong with that to have an opinion about -- >> he can have whatever opinion he wants about ukraine. >> it's all part of the narrative that president trump is a bad guy, that he doesn't care about the ukrainians. but it seems to me, ambassador
sondland, that nothing says you care more about the ukrainians than sending javelin anti-tank missiles. do you agree with me? >> i agree that sending javelin anti-tank missiles is something ukraine wanted and needed. >> certainly, those work a lot better in stopping russian tanks than the blankets that were sent by the obama administration? >> your point is taken. >> i'll yield back. >> thank you. >> mr. heck. >> thank you, mr. chairman. ambassador, thank you for your stamina, sir. few quick, fairly easy questions. you would agree, would you not, sir, that foreign interference in our elections is or can be a threat to our democracy? >> under certain conditions, yes. >> do you -- there are conditions under which their interference is not a threat? >> i'm sorry. did you say foreign interference? >> yes. >> oh, always. sorry. >> and do you also agree that identifying and preventing that interference should be a priority of the federal government? >> it should be one of its priorities. >> and when you were assisting
president trump in his effort to obtain those investigations, did you at all realize that those investigations could, in fact, impact the 2020 election? >> no. >> do you believe, sir, that it is appropriate, ever appropriate, to invite, press, bribe, or -- or coerce foreign interference in our elections? >> no. >> thank you. i want to refer to something that you said in your opening statement. as i previously testified, had i known of all of mr. giuliani's dealings or of his associations with individuals now under criminal indictment, i would not have acquiesced to his participation. it's hard to read that without believing that you thought that what he was doing was either wrong or that he was not reputable. fair? >> well, with 20/20 hindsight,
that's fair. >> you also came to believe that the request for investigations into burisma was, in fact, a request to investigate the bidens, both former vice president and hunter. and indeed, the transcript of the july 25th call makes specific reference to that. including hunter biden and today the -- even the ranking member said we could clear all this up if we could have hunter biden. and i have a simple question. what ukrainian law did hunter biden violate? >> i'm not aware. >> what evidence is there that he may have violated any ukrainian law? >> i'm not aware. >> that's because there is none, sir. finally, also from your opening statement, you said, as you know, i have already provided ten hours of deposition testimony. i did so despite directives from the white house and the state department that i refuse to appear as many others have done. i agreed to testify because i respect the gravity of the moment. and i believe i have an
SolicitingQuid-pro-quoLawyerHoldingMeansActionItemValueDutySomethingAmbassador-volkerUkraineevidence. this will set a dangerous precedent where impeachment becomes the norm rather than the exception. that's 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, it's 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, it's a function of the essential checks and balances contemplated under the constitution. here's what nearly every grade school student in america knows, but apparently house democrats
do not. if congress disagrees with the president, if they don't agree with the president, take it to court. let the third branch of government decide. they're the refs. the house has never, i repeat never approved either abuse of power or obstruction of congress as an article of impeachment. but that's going to change today. today house democrats which all four presidents on mt. rushmore could have been impeached. if all of this sounds absurd, madam speaker, it is absurd. this whole process is absurd and has been from the outset. here's what is not absurd but rather frightening. house democrats today are setting a dangerous precedent under which no future president will be immune from impeachment. and that weill forever negativey tarnish the history of this house. i yield back. >> gentleman yields back. gentleman from new york. >> madam speaker, the
president's conduct constituted the highest of high crimes against our country. an offense does not have to violate a criminal statute to be impeachable. that was confirmed in president nixon and again in president clinton. there is no higher crime than for the president to use the power of his office to corrupt his elections. i yield one minute to the gentleman from wisconsin. >> gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> thank you, madam speaker. this july president trump blocked 400 million in congressionally approved aid that ukraine desperately needed to defend itself against russia. he needed ukraine to do himself a favor first. he asked the president of ukraine to launch an investigation into military aide and other benefits would only come after. this is not about a single call or a single transcript. this is about a perfect storm, months of activity directly ordered by the president to his senior cabinet and politically
appointees and orchestrated plan demanding a foreign power interfere in our democracy. president trump betrayed his office and personal and political gain and has refused to cooperate with a co-equal branch of government. this is a vote for our constitution, setting the precedent for all future presidents, democrat or republican. donald trump must be held accountable for his actions. today we sent a clear signal to this president and all future presidents. no one is above the law. i yield back. >> gentleman from georgia. >> thank you, madam speaker. this time i yield a mant ainutea half. >> i rise today in opposition of the impeachment of legitimately elected president of the united states. enough. madam speaker, for the love of this country, enough. enough of this impeachment circus. enough of these sham witch hnts. i'm voting no because the
president has done nothing wrong. the only thing that president trump is guilty of is doing the things he said he would do. if my democratic colleagues were honest, they'd tell us the only thing president trump is guilty of is not beating hillary clinton. the only party guilty of aobstruction, abuse of power or whatever term they're using today is party on the other side of this aisle. they're obstructing the will of the american people. they're obstructing the very foundations of our country. by politically weaponizing impeachment, they have dangerously shattered president and abused our constitution. they alone will bear this responsibility. madam speaker, they'll fail. and it's no wonder the american people don't trust this body. it's past time be done with this circus and get to the work that matters, like securing our borders and passing trade deals. i will vote no. and encourage this body to move on from this heartbreaking,
disgraceful day to things that actually matter. i yield back. >> gentleman yields back. gentleman from new york. >> madam speaker, i now yield one minute to the gentleman from north carolina, mr. price. >> gentleman's recognized for one minute. >> madam speaker, the moment our founders anticipated in establishing the power of impeachment has arrived. the evidence is clear. president trump abused his power by asking a vulnerable, foreign leader to investigate both his political rival and a baseless russian conspiracy theory. while withholding congressionally appropriated defense aid and a coveted white house visit. he then blocked congressional investigation into these abuses. these abuses threaten the integrity of our elections. they corrupt our diplomacy. and they undermine national security. we sometimes regard
constitutional checks and balances as the indestructible underpinnings of our democracy. they're not fixed. they're not indestructible. the president demonstrated this beyond all doubt. it's up to the congress, the first branch of government to apply the remedy that the constitution prescribes because the threats to our democracy are real and present. with this vote, we affirm that no one, including the president, is above the law. >> gentleman from georgia. >> thank you, madam speaker. i yield a minute and a half to the gentleman from kentucky. >> gentleman is recognized for a minute and a half. >> since the beginning of this impeachment inquiry it's extremely troubling to see the partisan, divisive way in which democrats have carried out this entire process. i guess we shouldn't be surprised, though. they promised they'd unseat this president since the day he took his oath of office.
from the start, this has been a baseless attempt to undo the will of 63 million americans who voted for president trump. i can tell you, the people i represent in kentucky, the very people who voted for this president to enact change and fight for this country are appalled at the charade they've seen in the house in recent months. they are appalled that the actions from house democrats who have failed to even come close to proving their case. i hope all of my congressional colleagues carefully consider the precedent they're setting by voting in favor of the sham process and these illegitimate articles of impeachment. these articles were written and built on a report that was drafted with bias prezusumption cherry picked witnesses and vastly disputed facts. the president did not commit any impeachable offense.
and it's clear for all of us to see through the now very well-known transcript this rigged process sets a concerning precedent for impeachable offenses moving forward. i whole heartedly oppose these baseless articles of impeachment. and i yield back the balance of my time. >> gentleman from new york. >> madam speaker, i yield one minute to the gentleman from california, mr. peters. >> gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> thank you, madam speaker. many lemented this effort is not bipartisan. they have sought to avoid the truth. they have demeaned and insulted witnesses, patriots, warriors, career diplomats who provided evidence against the president. no house republican has joined us to demand the documents and witnesses that president trump has refused to produce. instead of republican leaders this week announced that president trump himself can set the rules of his own trial and
there will be no fact witnesses. republicans refuse to seek the truth and condemn the abuse of power or to work with us to prevent this ongoing behavior in the future and that's the tragedy of today's events. in our nation's history, thousands of americans have gone into battle without reservation to fight for our republic as they still do today. many have been gravely injured and some have made the ultimate sacrifice. but today in contrast for fear of losing an election, my colleagues will not speak up for the rule of law or against presidential abuse of power. voters may give them a pass, but history will judge them harshly. i will vote for the articles of impeachment. i yield back. >> gentleman from georgia. >> thank you, madam speaker. it is my privilege now a minute and a half to the gentleman from georgia. >> gentleman is recognized for a minute and a half. >> i thank my colleague from georgia and friend. i rise today in opposition not only to these articles of impeachment but in strong
opposition to the process that has brought us to this point. our constitution and bill of rights are all about process. our founders new that a government without constraints could accuse any one of any crime at any time even without compelling evidence. that's why the fifth and 14th amendment insult until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. but speaker pelosi informed the president should prove his innocence. mr. president, if you have anything that shows your innocence, then he should make that known. the constitution also guarantees that the accused can call witnesses to testify on their behalf. but the republicans and the president were continually denied that right throughout this process. the sixth amendment guarantees the right of the defendant to face their accuser, but not only have the democrats prohibited republicans and the president from the so-called whistle-blower, his identity has been kept secret. before you take this historic vote today one week before christmas, i want you to keep this in mind.
when jesus was falsely accused of treason paunshs pilot gave jesus the opportunity to, afforded more rights to jesus than the democrats have afforded this president in this process. i yield back. >> gentleman from new york. >> the president was given the opportunity to come and testify before the judiciary committee to send his counsel to question witnesses. he declined to do so. i now yield one minute to the gentleman from michigan mr. kilding. >> gentleman for one minute. >> thank you, madam speaker. this is a sad day for our country and for our democracy. the president has abused the powers of his office, betrayed the public trust and undermined america's national security by pressuring a foreign government to interfere in our elections for his own political gain.
in this moment in our history of the constitution, the constitution is clear. the remedy for such misconduct by a president is impeachment. i didn't come here to impeach a president of the united states, but sadly the president's misconduct leaves us no choice but to follow the constitution. i have two grandchildren. my granddaughter caitlin is 8 and my grandson colin is 4. some day, along time from now, they'll ask me about this day. they'll ask about the time a president put himself above the law. and they'll want to know what i did to stop him. and i will have an answer for them. today i vote to uphold the constitution. i will vote to impeach donald trump. i yield back. >> gentleman from georgia. >> thank you, madam speaker. it is interesting that the president was supposedly given
rights, but maybe who would he ask questions of? three law school professors and a staff member? not a lot of due process there. i yield a minute and a half to the gentleman from texas. >> gentleman is recognized for a minute and a half. >> madam speaker, we're here today because house democrats have spent upwards of $30 million in three years trying to overturn the 2016 election of president trump and come up with nothing. because of their radical left wing, democrats are willing to make all future presidential elections invalid until judged worthy by the majority in the house of representatives. the president of the united states does not serve at the pleasure of the house of representatives. perhaps the greatest reality regarding president trump is acknowledging that under his policies, things are actually going much better than they have in decades for working americans. we are a democratic constitutional republic in which power flows from we the people to our president and elected
officials. the democrat majority thinks otherwise. they believe that they are entitled to rules, even if they have to change the rules to invalidate the way and the right of the people of america. that's why the abscess of a case does not matter in this charade of impeachment. i believe that the american people recognize and share my urgency about what is at stake here. madam speaker, you and your majority may decide today, but i have faith that the american people will decide otherwise next november. thank you and i yield back. >> gentleman yields back. gentleman from new york. >> madam speaker, i yield one minute to the gentlelady from washington. >> gentle lady is recognized for one minute. >> thank you, madam speaker. i rise today in support of this resolution. after carefully reviewing all the evidence and the articles of impeachment before us, it is clear that president trump abused the power of the
presidency and obstructed congress. i did not come to this conclusion lightly. impeachment is an extremely serious matter. but no president can be allowed to pressure a foreign country for personal and political gain. no president is above the law. his behavior has jeopardized the our elections and put our national security at risk and placed his personal interests above those of the american people. his obstruction has prevented the house from conducting its constitutional duty of oversight of the executive branch. by failing to uphold his oath of office, president trump forces each of us as members of the house of representatives to uphold ours. i urge my colleagues to do just that and defend our democracy. i yield back. >> gentleman from georgia. >> thank you, madam speaker. at this time i yield a minute and a half to the gentleman from virginia. >> gentleman is recognized for a
minute and a half. >> thank you, madam speaker. i impose this impeachment. i represent the fifth district of virginia. thomas jefferson and james madison are not around to see what their creation has become, but i don't think they would be pleased to see congress by holding an impeachment vote because the majority party simply cannot accept the 2016 election. instead of wasting the taxpayers' time and money, we could have passed legislation to address surprise medical billing, secure the border, address the opioid epidemic and solve student debt and the what americans actually care about. delays that have made farmers in my district and other districts suffer. votes like the one we will take today the decision that led up today's vote and the process of
this proceeding that put politics over people. i was not elected to take political votes that attempt to overturn the will of the american people. i ran for office to serve my constituents. let's remember, that is why we are here. weaponizing a motion is not a way to serve the united states of america. to my colleagues that do just that, to argue with a person who has renounced the use of reason is like administering medicine to the dead. thank you, i yield back the remainder of my time. >> gentleman from new york. >> madam speaker, i would remind the gentleman that the house has passed over 400 bills. 275 bipartisan bills. driving down costs of health care and prescription drugs, rebuilding infrastructure and taking on corruption and self-dealing in washington. 80% of these bills are languishing on senator mcconnell's desk. i now yield one minute to the gentle lady from ohio. >> gentle lady is recognized for one minute. >> madam speaker, i thank the
chairman for yielding. i wish to place on the record that members of congress swear a solemn oath to protect and defend the constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic and today we fulfill our oath by defending liberty. the central figure testing america's resolve is not here in washington today. rather the closeted villain sits in moscow with the kremlin. vladimir putin has coordinated murers, election hacking, propaganda, the entrapment who put their own selfish. stabilize democ raelss al russia illegally invaded ukraine in 2014 and as ukraine defends, 14,000 people have been killed at putin's hand with over 2 million displaced. rather than stand up to putin,
president trump and as many aided putin first in russian interference in our 2016 elections and then more recently withholding vital military aid to coerce its inference in its 2016 election. >> gentleman from georgia. >> thank you, madam speaker. at this time i yield a minute and a half to the gentleman from north carolina, dr. murphy. >> madam speaker -- these baseless articles of impeachment and the unprecedented process that is used in this process to impeach the dooley elected president of the united states. it is a mockery of american justice. in 1788, one of our founding fathers alexander hamilton wrote in the federalist papers, impeachment with the pre-existing factions and in such cases the greatest danger that the decision will be regulated more by the comparable strength of party, majority and
minority than real demonstrations of innocence or guilty. what does this mean? it means that the majority can exert its influence regardless of justice. in this statement, hamilton warned us about the danger of mob rule. democrats have a criminal and have been searching for a crime for three years. but this president has not committed a crime. as a leader of american foreign policy, the president has a constitutional obligation to root out corruption in countries to which we provide aid. this is not an abuse of power, it is his job. one of the articles is obstruction of congress. the only thing that has been obstructed is this president's right to due process. i don't blame the president for refusing to fully participate in this guilty until proven innocent circus. this is not how our founding fathers framed american justice. this is a tragic day in our nation's history. we have individuals that hate this president more than they
love this country. our country needs prayer and not this destructive partisanship. thank you, i yield back. >> gentleman from new york. >> madam speaker, the president's obstruction is unprecedented and categorical. president trump claims the house cannot investigate his misconduct outside of impeachment inquiry. he defies lawful congressional subpoenas and then sues to block third parties from complying with such subpoenas. even as he pursues his own interest in court, his administration simultaneously argues that congress is barred from joining enforcement when executive branch officials disregard his subpoenas. when can the president be held accountable for his wrongdoing? in his mind, never. the constitution, however, disagrees. i now yield one minute to the gentle lady from the district of columbia. >> the gentle lady is recognized for one minute.
>> madam speaker, my words are my only remedy today in spite of the upcoming d.c. statehood vote we expect to be successful. the people of the district of columbia have no vote on impeachment or on any other matter on this floor now. i spoke on this floor on the impeachment of president clinton 20 years ago. unlike the clinton impeachment on perjury concerning an affair with an intern, trump's impeachment turns on sabotage of national security to get himself re-elected. clinton repented. trump insists that he did nothing wrong. that's a promise to continue his long pattern of abuse of power and obstruction of congress. impeachment is our only recourse. i yield back. >> gentle lady yields back. >> thank you, madam speaker.
at this time i yield two minutes from the member of colorado. >> gentleman is recognized for two minutes. >> thank you, madam speaker. i thank the gentleman from georgia. today democrats lowered the bar for impeachment. under the standard, the president can be impeached in the absense ce of a crime witho inserting a legally constitutionally recognized privilege. undermine democracy and win elections and yet they have not been impeached. president franklin roosevelt used the irs to target his political opponents and fdr used the irs as a weapon of political retribution. monitor political opponents, including congressional staff. he deported one of his mistresses to avoid scandal. president lyndon johnson spied on goldwater's campaign, signing off on wiretapping his opponent and goldwater's airplane and using a cia spy to obtain advance copies of goldwater's
strategies and speeches. failed to provide documents to congress related to fast and furious. his constitutional recess appointments were unanimously struck bye-b the supreme court. lie to the american people about ben gau b ben ganzy election. despite these clear abuses of power by fdr, jfk, lbj and obama, republicans did not impeach. why? because the framers did not want a low bar for impeachment. they wanted congress and the president to work out their differences. when i asked professor turley if any president could avoid the impeachment with this low standard, he said no. i yield back. >> gentleman from new york. >> madam speaker, i would remind the gentleman that president obama provided thousands of pages of information to
congressional requests that attorney general holder and others testified. unlike now. i now yield one minute to the gentle lady from illinois, ms. kelly. >> gentle lady is recognized for one minute. >> madam speaker, today is a solemn day in america. a day that none of us hoped for when we came to congress. but the events of today are something that each of us swore that we were prepared to execute in defense of the constitution of the united states against all enemies, foreign and domestic. this is the oath that binds the men and women of the 116th congress as our democracy implores we defend her. a threat to democracy is what brings us here. the architect, a president who asked that a foreign nation interfere in our election. this was our founding father's greatest fear.
i cast a solemn vote for the many individuals in my district who entrusted me to be their voice in congress. they entrusted me to uphold our constitution for them. i vote yes for sarah in chicago, doug in kankakee, diane in flosmore and catherine in crete and jimmy in park forest. the path forward is clear. impeachment is not an option. it is an obligation because no one is above the law. i yield back. >> gentleman from georgia. >> thank you, madam speaker. at this time, it is my privilege to yield two minutes. >> gentleman is recognized for two minutes. >> thank you, madam speaker. thank you ranking member collins. you know, in the navy we had a saying. bluff. bottom line-up front. well, i'll give you the bottom line. democrats are terrified that president trump is going to win re-election. they can't beat him on the merits so democrats are caving to their far left radical base
and are using the thoughts and the feelings and the assumptions of some unnamed bureaucrats rather than relying on facts and law to impeach a duly elected president. let me be clear, this is nothing more than a political hit job. you know, i've been on all sides of the courtroom. i was a prosecutor in the navy, defense attorney in the navy. i was a district judge in my home town. >> as a lawyer i would defend this case every day of the week. on judge i would dismiss on day one for merit. there is no prima facia case here. i would prosecute adam schiff for abuse of power. why? how about the fact that he used his position as chairman to leak phone records of devin nunes. less than 48 hours before a hearing. that is the abuse of power. obstruction.
i prosecute the democrats for obstruction. judiciary democrats voted down my request to subpoena the whistle-blower. the fact that chairman nadler refused every single republican request for a fact witness. that is obstruction of congress. so, again, let me be clear. today is nothing more than a political hit job, thank you. i yield back. >> gentleman from new york. >> madam speaker, once again, i hear attacks on democratic members of congress, but not one single word of substantive defense of the president's conduct. i now yield one minute to mr. connally. >> gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> madam speaker, each of us here took an oath to protect and defend the constitution of the united states. not the president and not our political party. today history will judge.
did we abide that oath? to extort a foreign country. to investigate your political opponent is an unconstitutional abuse of power. to solicit foreign interference in an american election is an unconstitutional abuse of power. the need to protect against such abuses prompted our founders to grant the sole power of impeachment to this house. the delicate balance of power, our democracy is threatened when a president disregards the constitution by obstructing congress congress' power to cover up illegal behavior. in doing that, president trump violated his oath. today we must put country over party. we must assert no one is above the law. today we are summoned by history to do the right thing. i yield back. >> gentleman from georgia. >> thank you, madam speaker. i really, i know this is
probably not true, but i think the speakers are not working on the majority side because i have talked about it and many members have talked about the facts. no pressure, no conditionality, nothing was ever denied them when they got through. they actually got the money and they never did anything for it. we have talked about the facts. that is a distraction that doesn't need to happen. i yield a minute and a half to the gentleman from ohio. >> gentleman is recognized for a minute and a half. >> madam speaker, i have heard numerous colleagues say they didn't run for congress to impeach the president. maybe not originally, but unfortunately from the moment proceedings began after the fourth vote to launch an impeachment inquiry, today's vote was ineevitable. many of them campaigned on it. i love this country with a soldier's passion. i came here to defend freedom, not to deny due process to anyone. i came here to solve problems and change the broken status quo, not to distract or disrupt those like president donald trump who deliver on promises to
put america back on the path of peace and prosperity that has made and kept our country free. for months now, americans have heard speculation about the president's motives in ukraine. despite months of effort, dozens of hearings and countless documents, americans have not seen proof that the president committed a high crime or a misdemeanor. we have a republic if we can keep it. this is disgraceful, dishonest process. it's a discredit to this body to our nation. i urge the house to drop these divisive articles of impeachment and get to work for the american people. i yield. >> the gentleman yields back. gentleman from new york. >> madam speaker, how much time, will you tell me how much time both sides have left please. >> new york has two hours and two minutes. gentleman fromming go ing googe hours and three minutes.
madam speaker, i now yield one minute to the gentle lady from new york. >> gentle lady is recognized for one minute. >> madam speaker, the facts are clear. the president of the united states withheld $400 million in military aid to an ally of the united states and also held back a white house meeting to compel a foreign nation to investigate his political opponent. at the exact time the president was doing this, ukraine was engaged in a battle for its very existence with one of america'sedamerica', russia. the president used his power to persuade a foreign nation to dig up dirt on a political opponent and that's the truth. this was quite simply a geo political shake down. the president then tried to block congress from exercising his constitutionally mandated duty to uncover the truth. every single one of us today
faces a stark choice. if we choose to turn a blind eye to put political before the constitution, then we are complicit in this version of democracy. if we do not hold this president accountable, we have failed the people who have sent us here. our own oath to defend the constitution. >> your time is expired. >> no one is above the law. >> thank you, madam speaker. my pleasure to yield two minutes to the gentleman from alabama, mr. burn. >> gentleman is recognized for two minutes. >> madam speaker, in three months, we've gone from receiving an unsubstantiated hearsay and whistle-blower complaint to production of articles of impeachment against the president of the united states. not since andrew johnson has the house engaged in such a partisan, political stunt.
from the beginning, this has been a sham and this house has been nothing but a star chamber. the democrat majority literally locked themselves in the basement of this building hiding from the american people. when my colleagues and i refused to stand for it, democrats moved to public hearings, but denied us questions. denied us witnesses and denied the president any meaningful opportunity to defend himself. with this complete abuse of process, the democratic majority has produced the flimiest and most legally unsound articles of impeachment in the history of this nation. never before has the house reported an article of impeachment that does not allege an underlying crime, yet this majority will do so today. read the transcripts. there was no quid pro quo. no bribery. no extortion. no crime and no abuse of power and they don't even led to crime
in the airer atheir articles of impeachment. if the dealings of hunter biden were so above, you would think the majority would be just fine looking into this matter. yet, they haven't moved my resolution asking for an investigation and our subpoenas for hunter biden have all been denied. hunter biden doesn't get a pass because his dad was vice president. i'm proud to have fought against this charade every step of the way and i will proudly vote no today and i yield back. >> gentleman yields back. gentleman from new york. >> madam speaker, i now yield one minute from the gentle lady from wisconsin, ms. moore. >> recognized for one minute. >> the facts are uncontestable and the president grossry misused the office of president. i feel compelled to respond to the false narrative that democrats are using this process to overturn an election.
you know, i agree. elections are the appropriate venue for public policy disputes, however, we're not talking about a public policy dispute. we're talking about a president who subverted national security by soliciting foreign interference in our elections. the exact thing our founding fathers feared. and the exact circumstance from which they drafted the impeachment clause. our democracy, our constitution deserves standing up for, not donald john trump and i will leave my colleagues with this last thought as they decide how to cast this historic vote. for what shall it profit a man to gain the whole world only to lose his own soul. i yield back. >> lady yields back. gentleman from georgia. >> thank you i yield a minute and a half to the gentleman from texas, mr. goodwin. >> gentleman is recognized for a minute and a half. >> thank you, madam speaker. this is the day the founding
fathers feared when they granted congress the power of impeachment where we have a political party so dead set against the president that they will do anything to impeach him. and they're about to get away with it simply because they have the votes. but that's not how this process is supposed to work. it's not meant to be dictated by a thin, partisan majority nor meant to be used when an election is right around the corner. no one understands that better than our speaker, who i have great respect for and i agree with the comments she made on march the 6th of just this year. impeachment is so divisive to the country that unless there is something so compelling and overwhelming and bipartisan, i don't think we should go down that path because it divides the nation. and that's exactly what's happened. and when we walk out of here tonight, we all know how this result is going to go. the democrats are voting for this. not one republican is breaking. this is not bipartisan. the american people are disgusted with the united states house of representatives and we bring shame upon this body today
by moving forward this impeachment. i yield back. >> gentleman yields back. gentleman from new york. >> madam speak, i yield one minute from the gentleman from california. >> gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> thank you, madam speaker. the facts in this case are as simple as they are tragic. witness after witness attested to these facts. no one has credibly refuted them. president trump tried to coerce ukraine to interfere in the 2020 elections. he used the power of his office for personal, political gain. by withholding aid to ukraine, the president has endangered our ally ukraine and undermined our own national security. and when he got caught, the president attempted to cover up the crime and shut down any
investigation by obstructing congress. we have overwhelming evidence that this president posed an urgent threat to our elections, to our national security and to the rule of law. congress must vote to impeach him. to protect our constitutional republic. there is no alternative. thank you and i yield back. >> gentleman from georgia. >> thank you, madam speaker. the only urgent threat to this body is the clock and the desire to impeach the president before we go home for christmas. a minute and a half to the gentleman from tennessee. >> gentleman is recognized for a ma minute and a half. >> since donald trump was elected in 2016, democrats have been on a crusade to stop him by any means. they believe that everyone should be treated equally under the law no matter what your station you occupy in life. rich, poor, president, factory worker, fair. this process has been anything
but fair. for two years, we have been told that then candidate donald trumpcluded with russians to interfere with our elections. two years, millions of dollars spent on the mueller investigation. no collusion. you'd think after being that wrong, democrats would finally decide to work on the problems that the american people sent us here to do. you'd be wrong, again. then we were told the president withhold money to the ukrainians in a quid pro quo, bribery, abuse of power, no. to gather information on the political rival, potential rival. here's some facts about what happened. fact number one, the transcript of july 25th phone conversation that the president released shows no pressure. fact number two, president zelensky did not know money was withheld and no investigation was occurred or announced and fact number four, the money was released september 11th, 2019. facts are stubborn things. on the other side of the aisle,
quote, i'm concerned if we don't impeach this president, he'll get re-elected. end quote. that, madam speaker, says it all. i yield back. >> gentleman yields back. gentleman from new york. >> madam speaker i yield one minute to the gentle lady from oregon. >> gentle lady is recognized for one minute. >> i take seriously my oath to uphold and defend the constitution and i do not take today's proceedings lightly. the founding fathers included the impeachment process and the constitution to uphold our valus and to maintain the checks and balances that are essential to separation of powers and to democracies. they knew way back in 1987 that a president could abuse the power of the office and, in fact, they adopted the phrase high crimes and misdemeanors for a phrase used in the english parliament intended to uncover situations where an official abused his power and included and disobeying an order from the parliament. donald trump has abused the
power of his office by inviting a foreign government to interfere in the u.s. election. and he did this not to help the united states, but to benefit himself. that's wrong and it's an impeachment offense. when congress exercised oural d investigate, that is also wrong and it's also an impeachable offense. in our country, no one is above the law that includes the president of the united states. and i yield back the balance of my time. >> gentleman from georgia. >> thank you, madam speaker. at this point i yield a minute and a half from the gentleman from pennsylvania. >> i thank the gentleman. you know, december is such a great month and so many great dates in december and we talk about the wonderful things that happened in the decembers of the past. there's also in addition to christmas being something we celebrate. the boston tea party took place in december and in 1941 a horrific act happened in the united states and it's one that president roosevelt said today
is a day that will live in infamy. today december 19th, 2019 will live in infamy. just because you hate the president of the united states and you can find no other reason other than the fact that you're so blinded by your hate you can't see straight the only way we can make sure the president doesn't get elected again is to impeach him. on the floor of the people's house. democracy and liberty in the whole world. we have decided that political power is far more important than principal. i would urge all members of the house to vote no on impeachment and, listen, let me tell you. the voters will remember next november what you're doing this december. this is a terrible time, this is a date that will live in infamy. i thank you, mr. speaker and i yield back. >> the members are reminded to address their remarks to the chair. gentleman from new york. >> madam speaker, i now yield
one minute to the gentle lady from florida, mrs. frankel. >> gentle lady is recognized for one minute. >> in 1777 at the conclusion of the convention benjamin franklin was asked do we have a republic or monarchy. he responded, a republic, if you keep it. madam speaker, republic is a form of government in which the country is considered a public matter not the private concern or property of the rulers. in a republic, no person is above the law. in a republic, the president may not abuse his power by withholding critical foreign assistance for his own political gain. nor may he stop witnesses from talking. i did not come to congress to impeach a president, but i did take an oath to keep the republic. for our children and our grandchildren, we should do nothing less. one day, i will tell my grandson
that i stood up for our democracy. i will vote yes to impeach the president. and i yield back. >> gentle lady yields back. >> as this time i yield from the gentleman from wisconsin. >> thank you. i'd like to address why we're here. we're certainly not here because of a misquoted phone call in july of 2019. "the washington post" ran an article headlines the campaign to impeach president trump begun the day he was sworn in. the gentleman from maryland who spoke earlier today called for impeachment two days before president trump was in, before he was sworn in. the gentleman from texas was introducing impeachment resolutions two years ago and said president trump could get re-elected. this impeachment is not about anything that happened on a phone call. this impeachment is about what president trump has done. the people in this country who are inadmissible or don't have
legal authority fell from 100,000 people in may to under 5,000 people in november. and you hate him for it. ben carson thinks low-income housing should be used by american citizens and not people here liillegally and you hate h for it. president trump doesn't want people coming in and going on welfare and you hate him for it. abled bodied people on food stamps to work for it and he is hated for it. the rip off agreement with mexico and canada and led by president bush and president obama and you hate him for it. president trump sides with law enforcement instead of criminals and murders dropped thousand people last year and you hate him for citing with the president. president trump lets christian adoption agencies choose who they want to be parents and you don't like him for that. won't let foreign aid go to abortions and you hate him for that. president trump judges stick to the constitution and he's
disliked for that. president trump is keeping his campaign promises and you hate him for that. i yield the remainder of my time. >> members are, once again, reminded to keep their remarks to the chair. gentleman from new york. >> madam speaker, we do not hate president trump, but we do know that president trump will continue to threaten the nation's security, canmocra mody and constitutional system if he is allowed to remain in office. that threat is not hypothetical. president trump persisted during this impeachment inquiry to investigate his political opponent. the president steadfastly iniciinsis insists he did nothing wrong and will do it all again. that threatens our next election as well as our constitutional democracy. i yield one minute to the gentleman from california. >> gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> madam speaker, the people's house with the power of impeachment to balance the power
of the presidency. without this essential duty, the president could exploit his sacred office without any regard for the law. on january 3rd, 2019, every member of the house swore north to defend the constitution and this week we're being asked to do just that. when allegations arose that the president tried to coerce a foreign government to help undermine the 2020 election, the house carried out its duty to investigate a potential abuse of power. but the president refused to cooperate and forbade his administration from doing so. obstructing congress from carrying out our sworn responsibility. if these actions bear no co consquensh american democracy will be at an end. therefore, compelled by my sworn duty, i will vote to impeach this president. i yield back.
>> gentleman from georgia. >> thank you, madam speaker. at this time i yield to my friend from florida a minute and a half. >> gentleman is recognized for a minute and a half. president washington's warning to the republic 223 years ago. the constitution rightly sets a high bar for impeachment and the integrity of the process also depends on the ability of the legislatures to vote their minds independent of party politics. removing a president is too important and lawmakers are given too much latitude to define high crimes and misdemeanors for it to be any other way. otherwise, excessively partisan politicians could overturn an election simply because the president is a member of the opposite and opposing party. it is in regard to this impeachment process that george washington forewarned us as a nation at this moment in
history. when political parties may then and now answer popular, they are likely in the course of time and likely to become engines by which ambitious and unprincipl and women will be enabled to subvert the power of the people to usurp for themselves the reigns of government. how wise he was? vote no on this assault to our republic. the constitution and against president trump. >> gentleman yields back. gentleman from new york. >> madam speaker, jon adams warned in a letter to thomas jefferson that these risks are unavoidable and might sometimes overlap. quote, you are apprehensive of foreign interference, intrigue, influence. so am i. as long as as often as elections happen, the danger of foreign influence recurs. close quote. i now yield one minute to the gentle lady from michigan, ms. lawrence. >> gentle lady is recognized for
one minute. >> madam speaker, today history is being written. the facts are conclusive. the president attempted to use the power of the powerful office of president to force ukraine to influence our 2020 election. in the process, president trump jeopardized our national security. and withheld vital military assistance, intended to prevent further russian aggression to our region. however, as our committees, including government oversight, which i sit on and which i'm a member, sought to interview additional witnesses. and obtain documents. the president ordered, from the power of his office, that the executive branch to not participate and obstructed the congressional oversight. article one provides the house of representatives with the sole power of impeachment.
as well as the authority to conduct oversight of the executive branch. what did he have to hide? when the framers met over 200 years ago, they went to great lengths to ensure future presidents would be forced to answer to their constitutional responsibility. i stand today in support of the two articles of impeachment. >> gentleman from georgia. >> thank you, madam speaker. at this time, i yield two minutes to the gentleman from virginia. >> gentleman is recognized for two minutes. >> thank you, madam speaker. today's a sad day for this body. for the voters who sent me here last november and for our nation. benjamin franklin cautioned when asked what he had given us, a republic if you can keep it. today, we take a step further toward losing the republic that our founding fathers envisioned by engaging in activity that they specifically warned against. the misuse of the constitutional power of impeachment for one party's political gain.
our constitution is the very foundation of our republic. its assurance of self-determination has been the shining beacon by which our nation has chartered its course over the last two centuries. from a new democratic experiment struggling to survive to the greatest nation on earth. america has been powered over the years, not by government but by the ingenuity, the bravery, and the faith of its people. confident in their place as one nation, under god, indivisible with liberty and justice for all. and so it is we, the people, who determine our president. not we, the judiciary committee. nor we, the congress. the constitution is clear. it's only when we see clear proof of the impeachable offenses outlined in article two, section four, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors, that we are to challenge the decision of the voters. break the figurative glass and pull the emergency rip cord that is impeachment. we do not have that proof today. thomas jefferson said i know of no safe repository but the people themselves and if we
think them not enlightened enough to exercise their control with a wholesome discretion, the remedy is not to take it from them. but to inform their discretion by education. but rather than educate, this majority has chosen today with hearsay, innuendo, and speculation. it will judge it for what it truly is. the ugly hijacking by the majority of our constitution. and the powers it so solemnly entrusts to us to engage in a blatantly-political process designed to finally achieve what they could not achieve at the ballot box. the removal of the a dually elected president. compelled by my sworn duty to uphold this constitution and for the people, i vote no on impeachment today. i yield back. >> gentleman from new york. >> madam speaker, i now yield one minute to the gentleman from california, mr. huffman. >> gentleman's recognized for one minute. >> madam speaker, as we take this solemn, necessary step of impeaching president trump, my republican colleagues have made up their minds.
we can't persuade them to do the right thing. so i'll address my remarks to the future. today's vote will be judged by future generations, including my precious children abby and nathan. maybe grandkids. historians will study what members of this congress did when our democracy was tested like never before. by a president who put personal interests above country. who compromised national security to cheat his way to re-election. and when caught, not only lied and refused to admit wrongdoing, but flouted congress's authority. he even called the constitutional impeachment mechanism unconstitutional. historians will marvel how some members of congress continued to stand by this man. how they put blind partisan loyalty over fear of donald trump above their duty to defend the constitution. how they made absurd partisan arguments and tried to obstruct these proceedings. and how instead of pushing back when their party fell under the dark spell of authoritarianism,
they embraced it as if the constitution, the rule of law, and our oath of office mean nothing. so, madam speaker, for our future generations, our children, the judgment of history, let me be clear. i stand with our constitution, with the rule of law, and our democracy. i'll be voting yes to impeach donald j. trump. >> gentleman's recognized for a minute and a half. >> i thank the gentleman for yielding me time. today's vote to impeach the duly-elected president of the united states is truly historical. however, its unique place in history is not for the reasons the democratic party and their mainstream media over-lords are so desperately trying to convey. today, we will be remembered as the day that the democrats claiming a false moral supremacy over the -- the desire of the american people, executed a deliberate and orchestrated plan to overturn a presidential election. it will be the first time in history that a party paraded out
their ivy league academics to explain to 31 states and almost 63 million people that their voice should not be heard. and why their votes should be counted. i pray for our nation every day. but today, i am praying for my colleagues across the aisle. who arrived at this partisan and self-directed fork in the road, and chose the road never-before traveled. and one that has a dead end. donald j. trump is our president. chosen by the american people. fair and square. as we say in texas, it's a done deal. democrats' attempt to change history will never undo that. may god bless the greatest country in the world, the united states of america. i yield back my time. >> gentleman yields back. gentleman from new york. >> madam speaker, i would remind the gentleman that the impeachment clauses placed in the constitution to protect the american people and our form of government against a president who would subvert our constitutional liberties in between elections.
i now yield one minute to the distinguished gentleman from texas, mr. green. >> gentleman's recognized for one minute. >> still, i rise, madam speaker. i rise because i love my country. and, madam speaker, shall any man be beyond justice? this is the question posed in 1787 by george mason at the constitutional convention. shall any man be beyond justice? madam speaker, if this president is allowed to thwart the efforts of congress with a legitimate impeachment inquiry, the president will not only be above the law. he will be beyond justice. we cannot allow any person to be beyond justice in this country. in the name of democracy, on behalf of the republic, and for
the sake of the many who are suffering, i will vote to impeach. and i encourage my colleagues to do so, as well. no one is beyond justice in this country. i yield back the balance of my time. >> gentleman from georgia. >> thank you, madam speaker. i'd also remind my chairman the impeachment was not to be used between election cycles to defeat a president, sitting president, who you think will be re-elected. with that, i yield one minute to the gentleman from florida. >> gentleman's recognized for one minute. >> thank you, madam speaker. i will vote today against both articles of impeachment because we are without merit. and setting the dangerous precedent for our country. this political vendetta is an abuse of the impeachment process. and would subvert the votes of 63 million americans. just because the president's opponents are afraid that he'll win re-election is no excuse for weaponizing impeachment. no president in history has ever been impeached ten months before an election.
EvidencePresidentDisregards-the-constitution-by-obstructing-congressPrecedentArticleObstructionExecutive-privilegea-practiceImpeachment-offenseGeorge-washingtonDisagreementSimilarlyConstitution-of-the-united-statesand i asked him if he felt like this process was sped up today. and he says he felt like it was because initially she was supposed to come and testify tomorrow. he was called in today. he felt like this was speeded up. now, earlier today, as we had been reporting, there were some documents that surfaced on the fulton county website. one of those documents was -- appear to be the same exact indictment that we are looking at tonight as far as the charges related to donald trump. and those documents began circling and being reported on because it looked as if it was an indictment against donald trump. all of a sudden, the fulton county? office came out and said, you know, those are fictitious documents. don't pay attention to him. now we are looking at something rather similar tonight. so you know, that event kind of raises the question of whether this process was sped up because somehow the indictment against donald trump was posted on the 40 county website much earlier today. so we are trying to kind of sort out how that may have impacted the process here at the fulton
Due-processReportingUp-todayIndictmentDonald-john-trumpChargesFulton-countyWebsiteDocumentsOneOfficeQuestionwhat an entertaining day. absolutely and -la is what an entertaining day. absolutely and play is still _ what an entertaining day. absolutely and play is still going _ what an entertaining day. absolutely and play is still going on _ what an entertaining day. absolutely and play is still going on now - what an entertaining day. absolutely and play is still going on now but - and play is still going on now but what a topsy—turvy day of cricket. whether you are in england fan or australia finn or someone just coming to and enjoy a day out there was something for everyone today. and former england bowler and alex hartley how to even be given to sum up hartley how to even be given to sum up today's played that is going on behind us? it up today's played that is going on behind us? ., , , up today's played that is going on behind us? . , , ., , ., behind us? it has been a brilliant a's -la behind us? it has been a brilliant a's play we _ behind us? it has been a brilliant a's play we talk _ behind us? it has been a brilliant a's play we talk about _ behind us? it has been a brilliant a's play we talk about test - behind us? it has been a brilliant| a's play we talk about test cricket wanting _ a's play we talk about test cricket wanting it to be five days and we have _ wanting it to be five days and we have got — wanting it to be five days and we have got five days we had a bit of everything we've had classes we've had someone nearly getting 100 we have had _ had someone nearly getting 100 we have had rain. ijust love test cricket — have had rain. ijust love test cricket. today's been about that. you talk — cricket. today's been about that. you talk they are about someone nearly getting a hundred what did you enjoy more watching the us drilling caps and walk for not or alyssa healy being kicked out one short of 100. it’s alyssa healy being kicked out one short of 100-— short of 100. it's really tough. i think perry _ short of 100. it's really tough. i think perry getting _ short of 100. it's really tough. i think perry getting 99, - short of 100. it's really tough. i think perry getting 99, the - short of 100. it's really tough. i i think perry getting 99, the captain getting _ think perry getting 99, the captain getting her third consecutive ashes duck, _ getting her third consecutive ashes duck, that— getting her third consecutive ashes duck, that is great. but every time someone _ duck, that is great. but every time someone gets a deck out i do not want _
Financial-fair-playSomeoneNorthern-englandCricketAustraliaTopsy-turvy-dayFanUsEveryoneSomethingATest-cricketeconomics of there's quite a lot. when it comes to the condo potential there is far ireland and the us working together very closely in the future. i think that message will been heard in the houses today. it would have been heard in northern ireland where people are under no illusions that political uncertainty does not create great circumstances for investment. and it can be more potential in future. he emphasised the fact that when a place is doing better economically that helps you build the peace, helps to build prosperity. very clear about the message of support that the us still has for the situation in northern ireland and ford's overall ties between america and the republic of ireland. ., between america and the republic of ireland. . ., ~ ,, . between america and the republic of ireland. . ., ~ . ., ireland. emma, thank you so much for brinuain us ireland. emma, thank you so much for bringing us up — ireland. emma, thank you so much for bringing us up today. _ ireland. emma, thank you so much for bringing us up today. we _ bringing us up today. we are following things very closely in ireland. we are expecting president joe biden to go to dublin castle for an official banquet for that we will
UsLotMessageIrishEconomicsHousesCondoPeopleNorthern-irelandInvestmentPotentialCircumstancesbe competing for the men's basketball championship on monday. over 100 million americans have low or no credit itself is a new way to build credit. no c credit score requid self custotomers who start under 600 make on time payments of 49 point bump in their credit score, on average, download the p today. mm hmmlet's be real your ears are gross. yeah. you heard me right and let me guess you're cleaning them with these. youeed to be using bush . trust me. no one wants to tell you how gross your ears look. triple streams safely clears dirt and wax build up, but all you really need to know it feels incredible. bush by blackwolf 15% off and free shipping at try wish .com sometimes, one thing leads to another thing. then all of a sudden it's on with roman.
WayCreditCredit-scoreAmericansMen-s-basketball-championship-on-mondayRequidC100-millionEarsSelf-custotomersPaymentsUp-todayafford _ basically, because what we can't afford we — basically, because what we can't afford we can get from the food bank, _ afford we can get from the food bank, and — afford we can get from the food bank, and on top of that, itjust takes _ bank, and on top of that, itjust takes such_ bank, and on top of that, itjust takes such a massive pressure off the food — takes such a massive pressure off the food bill. for a lot of people like myself a lot of the time it means— like myself a lot of the time it means either starving or getting something to eat.— something to eat. some of the clients here _ something to eat. some of the clients here are _ something to eat. some of the clients here are new, - something to eat. some of the clients here are new, others i something to eat. some of the i clients here are new, others have long struggled. clients here are new, others have long struggled-— clients here are new, others have long struggled. everything is going u . long struggled. everything is going u- toda , long struggled. everything is going up today. gas. _ long struggled. everything is going up today, gas, electric, _ long struggled. everything is going up today, gas, electric, all- long struggled. everything is going up today, gas, electric, all the - up today, gas, electric, allthe bills, _ up today, gas, electric, allthe bills. showing. _ up today, gas, electric, allthe bills, shopping, everything. i up today, gas, electric, all the i bills, shopping, everything. and up today, gas, electric, all the - bills, shopping, everything. and it is a lot_ bills, shopping, everything. and it is a lot for— bills, shopping, everything. and it is a lot for us, _ bills, shopping, everything. and it is a lot for us, working. _ bills, shopping, everything. and it is a lot for us, working.— is a lot for us, working. today's data suggests _ is a lot for us, working. today's data suggests families - is a lot for us, working. today's data suggests families on - is a lot for us, working. today's - data suggests families on benefits, single—parent households and single—pa rent households and disabled single—parent households and disabled people are the most likely to help, but many food banks are becoming increasingly diverse. the number of becoming increasingly diverse. tue: number of working becoming increasingly diverse. tte: number of working people becoming increasingly diverse. "tte: number of working people is becoming increasingly diverse. t'te: number of working people is actually really, really shocking, i would say that is probably the most alarming trend we have seen in the last 12 months, so many people now have gone on full—time jobs it is months, so many people now have gone on full—timejobs it is not months, so many people now have gone on full—time jobs it is not enough to get by. and also we have a range of people, we now have people with mortgages needing the food bank that we never used to see before. mani; we never used to see before. many food banks — we never used to see before. many food banks have _ we never used to see before. many food banks have seen _ we never used to see before. many food banks have seen demand is rising rapidly in the past few
PressureLotPeopleFood-bankSomethingSilicon-valley-bankTopItjustSuch-bankFoodFood-billEverything