Latest Breaking News On - Webster avenue - Page 1 : vimarsana.com
unanimous consent request. >> i ask unanimous consent to enter my remarks in the record in opposition to this sham impeachment. >> gentleman is recognized. >> at this time i yield four minutes to the gentle lady mrs. cheney. >> madam speaker, i rise today on the floor of this magnificent chamber, the very heart of our democratic republic, and i would imagine, madam speaker, that everyone one of us in this chamber regardless of party understands, shares a common view that being citizens of this great republic is among life's most tremendous blessings. we all know that no force on earth is more powerful than the force of freedom. it is our miraculous constitutional system, madam speaker, defended by our men and women in uniform that has
safeguarded that freedom for 230 years. each one of us in this chamber bears a sacred duty passed down to us through generations and affirmed in our oath of office to preserve and protect our constitution. madam speaker, our nation's framers recognized that this republic is fragile and that extreme partisanship can be among the most severe threats to its survival. that is why in federalist 65 alexander hamilton wrote, quote, there will always be the greatest danger that impeachment, that impeachment decision will be regulated more by the comparative strength of parties than by real demonstrations of innocence or guilt. here, madam speaker, our democratic colleagues have been working to remove this president since the day he was elected. searching for an offense on
which they could impeach. failing to find one, madam speaker, they have decided to assume one. rather than attempting to enforce their subpoenas in court they have also decided to declare it a high crime and misdemeanor when the president of the united states asserts his constitutional privileges. the democrats are asking members of this body to impeach despite the fact they have presented no direct evidence of any impeachable offense. let me say it one more time, madam speaker, they have presented no direct evidence of any impeachable offense. if anyone in this chamber still believes the democrats have proven their case i would urge those members to ask the chairman of the intelligence committee mr. schiff why he failed to appear to answer questions about his report.
before members vote for impeachment, they might want to know why the author of the impeachment report will not defend it under questioning. if the house impeaches here, madam speaker, it will create exactly the time of risk the framers cautioned us to avoid. it will mean that divided government can imperil a democratically elected president based on unproven allegations and innuendo in the absence of direct testimony. despite all the rhetoric you've heard today, madam speaker, passage of these articles of impeachment may permanently damage our republic. from this day forward a hyper-partisan bare majority can cite this precedent to try to remove a future commander in chief. i urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, madam speaker, think of our republic, think of the constitution, think
of the oath that we all swore to protect and defend that constitution and vote against these partisan reckless and dangerous articles of impeachment. i yield back. >> gentleman from california. >> madam speaker, i'm proud to recognize the gentleman from michigan mr. levine for one minute. >> gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> madam speaker, today we proclaim that no person is above the law not even the president of the united states. donald j. trump abused the power of his office and violated his oath of office by extorting a new and inexperienced president of a vulnerable foreign ally to dig up dirt on mr. trump's domestic political opponents. he then obstructed the congress, this equal branch of our
government, from undertaking our duty. outlined in the constitution itself to investigate and check these violations. today we do nothing more and nothing less than fulfill our duty to our country and to our constitution. mr. trump has allowed foreign powers to interfere in our domestic affairs. he has endangered our national security and our democracy itself. for those reasons we must impeach this president. thank you, madam speaker. i yield back. >> gentleman from georgia. >> madam speaker, i yield for unanimous consent request for the gentleman from oregon. >> gentleman is recognized. >> pose this resolution on impeachment and ask my words be put in the record.
>> without objection so ordered. >> madam speaker, i have consent request. >> i ask my comments be admitted into the record. >> i ask unanimous consent for the gentleman from mississippi. >> gentleman is recognized. >> thank you, madam speaker. i oppose the articles of impeachment. and like my comments be entered into the record. >> without objection so ordered. >> i reserve. >> gentleman reserves. gentleman from california. >> madam speaker, i reserve the balance of my time. >> who seeks recognition? >> madam speaker, i ask of the gentleman is he ready to close? >> no, we have a few more speakers. >> then i reserve. >> madam speaker, i recognize the gentleman from new york for one minute. >> gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> madam speaker, if you live in
lennox avenue in the village of harlem in my district, you are not above the law. if you live on webster avenue in the bronx part of my district you are not above the law. if you live in washington heights, the immigrant neighborhood in my district, you are not above the law. so i submit to you if you live on 1600 pennsylvania avenue you are not above the law, and you will be held accountable. president donald trump asked ukrainian president to do us a favor and look into the bidens. that's abuse of power. president trump used the official white house meeting to extort a ukrainian president. that's abuse of power. president trump ordered white house staff to with hold $400 million in aid to the ukraine. that's abuse of power. president trump and his staff deny multi -- defied multiple
subpoenas from congress. that's obstruction of congress. he blocked witnesses testifying before this body. that's obstruction of congress. no one is above the law. i cast my vote for this articles of impeachment. >> gentleman from georgia. >> madam speaker, i yield for unanimous consent request for the gentleman from virginia. >> i ask unanimous consent to enter my statement into the record recording that i am opposed to this articles of impeachment on the basis they do not measure to article 2, section 4. >> without objection so ordered. >> i reserve. >> gentleman from california. >> madam speaker, i'm proud to recognize the gentle lady from california for one minute. >> gentle lady is recognized for one minute. >> madam speaker, as the chair of the womens veterans task force i see every single day the
immense sacrifice our women veterans and all of our nation's veterans have made in service o our country, or commander chiechchief, our constitution and protect our democracy and every single man, woman and child in our country. when the president of the united states used $400 million meant to protect our national security in order to cheat in our elections, he not only abused his power, he turned his back on the sacrifices of our veterans and their families have made for all that we hold so dear. that abuse of power is reprehensible, and it is exactly what impeachment was designed to prevent. we have a solemn duty to protect our constitution, to protect our democracy and to honor all those who have laid their lives on the
line for these united states of america. i yield back. >> gentleman from georgia. >> thank you, madam speaker. at this time i yield for unanimous consent request to the gentle lady from indiana. >> gentle lady is recognized. >> i ask unanimous consent to enter into the record my opposition to these articles of impeachment. >> without objection. >> i reserve. >> gentleman from california. >> madam speaker, i'm proud to recognize the gentle woman from california ms. davis for 30 seconds. >> gentle lady is recognized. >> madam speaker -- madam speaker, make no mistake we are not impeaching this president. he is impeaching himself. if you are the president and you obstruct justice, try to bribe a foreign leader and threaten national security, you're going
to get impeached. end of story. >> gentleman from georgia. >> thank you, madam speaker. at this time i recognize the gentleman from north carolina for unanimous consent request. >> gentleman is recognized. >> madam speaker, i ask unanimous consent to enter the record my opposition to these articles of impeachment. >> without objection. >> i reserve. >> gentleman from california. >> madam speaker, i'm proud to recognize the gentlewoman from new mexico for one minute. >> gentle lady is recognized for one minute. >> madam speaker, i stand before you as a representative of new mexico, a place where we believe in dignity and respect for all. in congress i've been fighting for them. we've been working to make health care more affordable, education more accessible and move our country forward for the
people. but today this president has forced us into a serious debate. we're talking about a president who used the power of the presidency for his own political gain. risking our national security and putting the integrity of the next election at risk. it's a sad day when a president shows complete disrespect for congress as a coequal branch of government and for the american people who elected us. we collected the evidence, and the facts are the disputable. we all took an oath to protect and defend our constitution. we have the solemn responsibility to hold this president accountable because it's our job. i urge my colleagues to live up to our responsibility and show our fellow americans that no one, not even the president is above the law. and i yield. >> gentle lady yields back. >> thank you, madam speaker. at the moment i yield to the gentle lady from oklahoma. >> i ask to enter into the
record my opposition for these articles of impeachment. >> without objection. >> and i reserve. >> gentleman from california. >> madam speaker, i recognize the gentle lady from north carolina for unanimous consent request. >> gentle lady is recognized. >> thank you, madam speaker. i ask unanimous consent to enter into the record my statement in support of articles of impeachment against president donald j. trump. >> without objection so ordered. >> i reserve the balance of my time. >> gentleman reserves. >> thank you, madam speaker. at this time i give five minutes to the gentleman from louisiana, the minority whip mr. scalise. >> gentleman is recognized for five minutes. >> thank you, madam speaker. impeaching a president of the united states, this isn't about some solemn duty tonight. let's talk about what this is really about. this has been about a political vendetta. a political vendetta that didn't
just start with the zelensky call. it started long before that. just listen to some of the quotes from democrats in this chamber. speaker pelosi, quote, it's been going on for 22 months, 2 1/2 years claactually. we cannot accept a second term for donald trump. what's more serious is that he can't win. this isn't about some crime that was committed. it's about fear that he might win re-election. that's not why you impeach a president. al green, quote, i'm concerned if we don't impeach this president, he will get re-elected. the list goes on, madam speaker. in fact, there's some quotes that i can't even read on this house floor that some of our colleagues made. and keep in mind more than a hundred democrats on this house floor voted to impeach this president before the zelensky phone call. just look at some of these articles of impeachment that they voted for two years ago.
58 democrats voted to impeach the president over comments he made about nfl players kneeling for the pledge of allegiance. impeaching the president, over 50 democrats voted to impeach him for that. just this summer over 90 democrats voted to impeach the president for comments he made about the squad, so he makes comments about some other members of congress who make a lot of comments about him. and 95 members vote to impeach the president of the united states. this is political vendetta. it has nothing to do with the crime committed. there was no crime. and why don't we listen to some of the witnesses? obviously we weren't able to call all the witnesses we wanted, but there were witnesses. in fact, gordon sondland, u.s. ambassador to the european union, he's mentioned over 600 times in the schiff report. he was their star witness. and what did he say when asked? quote, did president trump ever tell you personally about any preconditions for anything?
his answer, no. any preconditions for the aid to be released? no. any preconditions for a white house meeting? under oath he testified no. abuse of power. let's talk about that article of impeachment, madam speaker. george washington law professor turley who admitted under oath spoke to this claim of abuse of power. he said, quote, if you make a high crime and misdemeanor out of going to the courts, it is an abuse of power. it's your abuse of power. you are doing precisely what you are criticizing the president of doing. abuse of power. there's a house rule, madam speaker, that requires -- not allows but requires that the minority get a day of hearing which we asked for multiple times. they broke this rule. they didn't allow us to have a minority day of hearing. they didn't want to hear the
facts about this case because it was never about the facts because there was no crime. it is about a personal political vendetta. now let's talk about obstruction of congress as they make up these term tuesday impeach a president because they didn't find a crime and they were looking. it's been an impeachment in search of a crime. but they talk about an obstruction of congress saying the president defied subpoenas. the department of state they subpoenaed. do you know that literally just four days after the subpoena, the secretary of state himself responded to your subpoena. the department of defense, a week later responded to the subpoena. the department of energy responded to the subpoena. we can go on and on with all of these agencies. that's an abuse of power. that's an obstruction of congress. responding to your subpoena, that's what they did. they responded. you might not have liked the answer, but that's not the way this works. you don't impeach a president because you doechbt like his foreign policy, and so many of those foreign policy experts came and testify.
but this isn't just about donald trump. they don't just hate donald trump, madam speaker. they hate the 63 million americans who voted for this president, the forgotten men and women of this country who have been left behind, madam speaker. >> house will be in order. gentleman may proceed. >> thank you, madam speaker. it's those forgotten men and women in this country that washington have left behind. and what's this president doing for them? he's delivering for them. 600 jobs in pennsylvania. a thousand jobs, workers in ohio. $750 million investment for 600 new jobs across this country. detroit news, chrysler, 6,500 new jobs. that's what president is doing to deliver for those men and women of this country who have been left behind. it's about time somebody stands up for them and president trump is. so it is a political vendetta. but if they're going to go through with this, madam speaker, impeachment will not
just be a stain on this democrat majority, impeachment will be their legacy. >> members are reminded to address their remark tuesds to chair. gentleman from california. >> madam speaker, i recognize ms. custer from new hampshire for unanimous consent request. >> gentle lady is recognized. >> madam speaker, i request the unanimous consent for entering my statement into the record regarding the 75th anniversary of the battle of the bulge in favor of articles of impeachment. thank you. >> without objection. >> madam speaker, it is now my pleasure to recognize the gentleman from maryland, the majority leader of the house of representatives, mr. hoyer, for one minute. >> gentleman is recognized.
>> my colleagues -- >> the gentleman will suspend. >> the house will come to order. gentleman is recognized. >> madam speaker, i have had the honor of serving in this house for over 38 years. i've served during six presidencies. i've been here through moments of tremendous progress and terrible tragedy. i have seen periods of rank partisanship and patriotic bipartisanship. i've seen our two-party system work. and i've seen it break down. never in all my years of serving
in this great institution that i love and the people of my district did i ever expect to encounter such an obvious wrongdoing by a president of the united states. nor did i expect to witness such a craven rationalization of presidential actions that should put our national security at risk, undermine the integrity of our elections and defied the constitutional authority of the congress to conduct oversight. we've heard from republicans that this impeachment really has to do with policy differences though on how we feel personally about the president, about his temperament or that we simply
dislike him. throughout the trump presidency democrats have resisted pursuing impeachment even as we watched with dismay and disgust at a pattern of wrongdoing. that pattern included ordering federal agencies to lie to the public firing the fbi director for refusing to end investigations of his campaign. siding with vladimir putin against our intelligence agencies. taking funding away from the military to put towards an ineffective border wall. and setting policies that have led to the separation of families and caging of children.
we have to be sure with deep disagreements of the policies and actions taken by this president. there's been a lot of talk of the 63 million people who voted for mr. trump. little talk about the 65 million people who voted for hillary clinton. the policy difference or those votes this president was elected legitimately. >> the house will stay in order. the gentleman deserves to be heard. gentleman is recognized. >> because we have an electoral
college. but none of these are reasons to pursue what chairman schiff has called a wrenching process for the nation. in fact, democrats rejected that process emphatically in three specific votes. in december of 2017 democrats overwhelmingly voted against pursuing articles of impeachment including the speaker and myself. we did so again in 2018 with over 60% of the democrats rejecting pursuing articles of impeachment. and again just months ago in july of 2019 60% of the democrats said no to pursuing
articles of impeachment. just days before the infamous july 25th telephone call, we did the same with 60% of democrats voting not to proceed. credible witnesses many of whom were appointed to office by president trump have corroborated the details and time line of his abuse of presidential power, which forms the basis of the first article of impeachment in this resolution. instead -- i will now recount all of the witnesses or abuses that have occurred. i congratulate my colleagues and
mr. nadler and his committee and mr. schiff and his committee for setting forth a compelling case. they've been laid out fully in the articles before us and by colleagues in their remarks. what i will do is remind americans that the house provided president trump every opportunity to prove his innocence, but the witnesses were precluded from coming forth. the witnesses who had personal knowledge did not come either at the president's request in which he refused to show up because he thought it was a sham as so many of you have said or to the committees. instead he ignored congressional subpoenas for documents and for testimony by white house officials and ordered his
subordinates not to cooperate. perhaps they could have exonerated him. this itself i suggest to you is unprecedented. when president nixon and clinton were asked to hand over documents and allow officials to testify, ultimately both complied. because it is the law. such actions of the president can be taken as further evidence of his obstruction and abuse of power. it is in and of itself impeachable conduct, the subject of the second article of impeachment. these two articles concern two very profound constitutional issues about the abuse of power in our republic. first, whether it is acceptable
for the president of the united states -- any president to solicit foreign interference in our elections. there's a difference whether he's done that, and the place to try that is in the united states senate. but we believe strongly there is probable cause to conclude that. to undermine our national security, the integrity of our elections and the integrity of our democracy. and secondly, whether it is permissible for the president to obstruct congress and act as if he is above the law and immune for constitutional oversight. on december 4th the committee heard the testimony of co constitutional law experts who weighed in on thoese points. some 1,500 historians have said
the same thing as professor noah feldman said. if we cannot impeach a president who abuses his office for personal advantage, we no longer live in a democracy. we live in a monarchy or we live under a dictatorship. the votes we are about to take concern the rule of law and our democracy itself. let us not forget the words of john locke so influential to if founders of our public. john locke said this -- wherever law ends, tyranny begins. this impeachment asks whether we are still a republic of laws as our founders intended or whether
we will accept that one person can be above the law. in america as we have said over and over again, no one is above the law. but only as long as we hold every person accountable for breaking the law even a president, will that be true. if the house does not act, if we wait and delay, we run the risk of the president's misconduct. if we believe it to be so to be repeated at the expense of the integrity of our elections, our national security and our constitutional system of separation of powers. democrats did not choose this
impeachment. we did not wish for it. we voted against it. we voted against it once. we voted against it twice. we voted against it three times as recently as july. we did not want this. however, president trump's misconduct has forced our constitutional republic to protect itself. these votes that we are about to take and the process that will follow in the senate are not only an assessment of the president's commitment to the constitution or to his oath of office, it is as well a test of our own.
damning evidence of the president's high crimes has emerged. nevertheless, republican members of this house and of the senate have continued to defend the president whose actions seem to many of us to be indefensible. all of us feel a sense of loyalty to party. it's what makes our two-party system function. it's what helps hold presidents and majorities accountable. but party loyalty must have its limits. and as evidence of the president's impeachable offenses have mounted daily as the witnesses testified, it has become increasingly clear that the limits of partisanship have been reached and passed. now democrats and republicans
together face a test before our constituents, our countrymen and our creator. "the new york times" on october 18th summarized the question now posed to house and senate. republicans and democrats. compromise by compromise donald trump has hammered away at what republicans once saw as foundational virtues. d d decency, honesty, responsibility and, yes, even civility. they go onto say will they commit themselves and their party wholly to president trump, embracing even his post anti-democratic actions, or will they take the first step towards
separating themselves from him and restoring confidence in the rule of law? madam speaker, we have seen republican courage throughout our history. from the civil war to the cold war. in 1950 fargerate chase smith, the senator from maine, a republican spokeling bravely against the cancer of mccarthyism in her party, leading six of her republican colleagues in a declaration of conscience against their own leadership. we are republicans, they declared, but we are americans first. in 1974 one congressman took the brave and principled step of becoming the first republican on the judiciary committee to support impeaching president nixon. he said to his colleagues and to
the country and i quote, it isn't easy for me to align myself against the president to whom i gave my inthuenthusiasti support, on whose side i've stood in many legislative battles, whose accomplishments in foreign and domestic affairs i consistently applauded. but it is impossible, he went onto say, for me to condone or ignore the long train of abuses to which he has subjected the presidency and the people of this country. the constitution and my own oath of office, he said, demand that i bear true faith and allegiance to the principles of law and justice upon which this nation was founded. and he concluded, and i cannot in good conscience turn away from the evidence of evil that
is to me so clear and compelling. my colleagues, that congressman's name was larry hogan, sr. he represented the fifth district of maryland, which i now represent. his son is presently the second-term republican governor of our state. when larry hogan, sr., died in 2017, every obituary led with praise for his act of political courage. who among us many years from now will receive such praise as a man or woman of courage? who will regret not having earned it? we talked a lot about partisan
differences. there is one person who has spoken today who is neither a member of the republican party nor the democratic party. his name is justin amash who represents a republican district. he left the republican party, and in doing so he admonished his colleagues that, quote, this president will only be in power for a short time. but excusing his behavior will forever tarnish your name. he spoke on this floor in support of the two articles that we will consider this evening. neither a democrat nor a republican. representative amash, of course, is the only member of this house
who has no allegiance to either party but to his country. he is supporting, as i've said, both articles. we need not ask who will be the first to show courage by standing up to president trump. the question we must now ask is who will be the last to find it? the pages of our history are filled with americans who had the courage to choose country over party or personality. but as president kennedy wrote the stories of past courage can teach. they can offer hope. they can provide inspiration. but they cannot supply courage itself. for this, president kennedy said, each man, each woman must look into their own soul.
i urge my fellow colleagues in the house and, yes, in the senate to look into your soul. summon the courage to vote for our constitution and our democracy. i understand we will all not see the same conclusion, but to do less betrays our oath and that of our founders who pledged their lives, their fortune and their sacred honor. let us neither turn away from the evidence which to me seems so clear nor from our good conscience which compels us to do what in our hearts we know to be right. let us not allow the rule of law to end or for tyranny to find its toe hold.
with our votes today we can bear true faith and allegiance to the vision of our founders. and we can show a future generation what it truly means to be americans first. vote yes. >> gentleman yields back. gentleman from georgia. >> madam speaker, i few weeks ago just off of this floor i said that a dark cloud was descending upon this body, and today because of the clock and the calendar it is closing. it is amazing to me what i just heard from the majority leader. that mr. schiff and mr. nadler
presented a compelling case for impeachment. if this is compelling case for impeachment, i'm not sure why we're here right now. it is not anywhere close to compelling. but you know what is interesting is what i have heard today. the majority leader just spoke and said that if the president was given every opportunity to come prove his innocence -- i tell you what, madam speaker, let me just have a few minutes, stop the clock and let me go around to the press corp and everyone here and i'm going to accuse you of something. you did it, you did it, you did it. you prove us wrong. you did it. guess what? you don't want to because deep down you know that's turning the entire juris produceance pruden country upside down. today on this floor we heard this president is guilty and not
the other way around. he is innocent, and these come nowhere close to proving it. but what is left of this body? let's have an honest conversation, madam speaker. what we have found over the past few weeks is it is okay for the majority to teardown a foreign leader because they can't make their case. even look like a battered wife. it is below the dignity of this majority to teardown a foreign leader because they can't make their case against this one. we have broken rules in this house even to this moment chairman schiff and the others have broken house resolution 660 by not turning over the things they should be turning over. i still don't have a transcript. we -- the white house still has not got their stuff. you see there is a problem here because we're going to vote this tonight while breaking the rules. what a shameful incident. but we also found a creative
interpretation of minority rights. we saw the rise of partisanship because of things that have been done even further. and we've even seen members smeared in reports by drive by political hacks when they matched numbers of the ranking member and the members of the press. that ought to concern every one of you as much as it concerns every one of us. nothing but a drive by hit. but you know something this majority leader also just said wherever law ends tyranny begins. but i will say this in this house wherever rules are disregarded chaos and mob rule actually begin, and the majority has taken that to a new level. it has been said today where is bravery? it's found in this minority who has lived through the last year of nothing but rules being broken, people being put down, questions not being answered and m this majority say damnled anything and we're going to win an election.
i guarantee you one day you'll be back in a minority and it ain't going to be that fun. because when you look at it when you actually trash the rules of this house you ought to really look at what did you gain in the end by trashing the institution you claim to love? but they really care for saying oh, you want to deal in process and process. as i said last night in the rules committee where they didn't want to listen, i'll win on process and i will win on facts because we have the truth on our side. let me remind you that here's what the process actually says. there was no pressure. look at the call president zelensky, president trump, no pressure. there was no conditionality. that was nothing done to get the aid and the aid actually came. there were five meaningetings, when you look at it right now none of it matters. i don't know what i see but i'll tell you what i do see, i see a coming up for president who will
put his head down even through this sham impeachment and he will do his job. he will put the american people first. he will tell them i care about you, he will still put the economy first. and he will make sure this country stands strong. that's where we're going. and madam speaker, it is with that hope in the future that i recognize right now that i yield one minute to the republican leader of this house, the republican from california mr. mccarthy. >> gentleman is recognized. >> madam speaker, i must warn you i'm about to say something my democratic colleagues hate to hear. donald j. trump is president of the united states.
he's president today, he'll be president tomorrow, and he will be president when this impeachment is over. madam speaker, when they accept that maybe this house can get back to work for the american people. tonight i rise not as the leader of the opposition to this impeachment or as the elected representative from the central valley of california. i rise as kevin mccarthy, citizen, no better, no worse in the 4,435 representatives that are in this chamber or the 330 million americans watching this institution make what i believe to be one of the worst decisions we have ever made. it doesn't matter whether you're a democrat or a republican, whether you're liberal or you're conservative, whether you're the first generation or the tenth,
at our core we are all american. all of us. we choose our future. we choose what kind of nation we want to be. here is our choice tonight. will we let impeachment become an exercise of raw political power regardless if it damages our country? or will we protect the proper grounds and process for impeachment now and in the future? for months democrats and many in the media have attempted to normalize the impeachment process that would remove a duly elected president from office. after three years of breathless and baseless outrage this is their last attempt to stop the trump presidency. madam speaker, speaker pelosi
even admitted that democrats have been working on his impeachment for 2 1/2 years. those were her words. they were not mine. because they lost to him in 2016, they'll do anything or say anything to stop him in 2020. that's not america. that's not how democratic republics behave. elections matter. voters matter. and in 11 months the peoples' voice will be heard again. impeachment is the most consequential decision congress can make other than sending our men and women into war. yet 85 days ago speaker pelosi chose to impeach the president of the united states.
she wrote the script and created an artificial time line to make the details fit. why else are we doing this just hours before christmas? if that's all it was, a rush to judgment, she could be forgiven. but before the speaker saw one word or one shred of evidence she moved to impeach. in the past in this body such a step demanded a vote from all of us from the start. but not only did she move to impeach before she gave this house and the hundreds of millions of people we represent a say in whether to pursue an impeachment inquiry, she threw out the bipartisan standards this house gave president nixon and clinton. that is why i immediately sent
speaker pelosi a letter asking her to follow the rules of history, of tradition and follow those standards that center served america well. what did she say? she rejected it. she rejected it because democrats knew a fair process would crumble their case. a fair process would have exposed to the american public what many already knew. democrats have wanted to impeach president trump since the day he was elected. and nothing was going to get in their way, certainly not the truth. madam speaker, chairman schiff said he had evidence, more than circumstantial of collusion. that was false. in january when we all stood in this body, we stood up and raised our hands. we swore we'd uphold the
constitution. and a few mere hours after that congresswoman tlaib said she was going to impeach the mother effer. those are not my words. a year before taking the majority chairman nadler campaigned to the democrats that he wanted to be chairman of the judiciary committee where impeachment is. "the new york times" writes, madam speaker, because he is the strongest member to lead a potential impeachment and congressman raskin, a leading democrat on the judiciary committee, one the democrats had represent in the rules committee for these articles just
yesterday told a crowd he would impeach president trump two days before he was ever sworn into office. what we've seen is a rigged process that has led to the most partisan and least credible impeachment in the history of america. that is this legacy. any prosecutor in this country would be disbarred for such blatant bias especially for that prosecutor was the fact witness, the judge and the jury. madam speaker, democrats haven't just failed on process, it's also failed on evidence. i've heard a lot of debate on this floor today, but i haven't heard one member of this body dispute this simple fact.
president trump provided lethal aid to ukraine. it came before the call, it came after the call, and it continues to this day. president trump provided ukraine tank busting bombs. the previous administration, they gave blankets. this is the truth. meanwhile the democrats' case is based on secondhand opinions and hearsay. simply put there are no grounds for impeachment. as constitutional scholar jonathan turley, and i would challenge to say he's probably the most respected and we all know it, a democrat who did not vote for the president said under oath there was no bribery, there was no extortion, no obstruction of justice and no abuse of power. based on the facts, based on the truth, based on the lack of
evidence turley called this the fastest, thinnest and weakest impeachment in the u.s. history. such a definitive answer should be the end of all of this. but speaker pelosi is still moving forward with this impeachment without evidence of facts or truth or public support. the speaker says it is out of allegiance to our founders. on this i agree. i agree with the speaker we should listen to the founders. and if one does it's very clear that this impeachment is unfounded and improper. and the federalist papers alexander hamilton wrote there would always be the greatest danger that impeachment would be driven by partisan animosity instead of real demonstrations
of innocence or guilt. that impeachment would be driven by partisan animosity instead of real demonstrations of innocence or guilt. james madison, another author of the federalist papers wrote, the danger of legislative abuse must lead to the same tyranny as is threatened by executive abuse. the founders did not want impeachment to be used for political or partisan battles. if my colleagues do not want to follow the constitutional high standards for undoing a national election, perhaps you could have followed speaker pelosi's standard, at least the one she promised to follow back in march. it was a very sensible standard. she says impeachment is so divisive that the evidence must be overwhelming, compelling and
bipartisan. not one of those criterias have been met today. based on the facts, based on the evidence, based on the truth this impeachment even fails that pelosi test. those now who say removing president trump would protect the integritiy of our democracy have it backwards. by removing a duly elected president on empty articles of impeachment, congress will erode the public trust in our system of government. i understand you dislike the president. his believes, the way he governs and even the people who voted for him. how do i know this? because you say so day in and day out. in 2016 they even dismissed his supporters. remember calling us deplorables?
now they are trying to disqualify our voice before the 2020 election. they want to undo the results of the last election to influence the next one. as i said, president trump will still be president when this is all over but congress will have wasted months of time and taxpayers' dollars on impeachment rather than doing what american people want us to do. it didn't have to be this way. is this why we came here to serve? to trample on due process rights? to issue mere subpoenas than laws? to appease the new democrat socialist base?
that is not leadership. that is raw political politics and you know it. by refusing to acknowledge the truth or follow the facts, by substituting partisan animosity for real demonstration of innocence or guilt, and by continuing a three-year effort to undermine the president this impeachment has divided this nation without any concern for the repercussions. moreover, politicizing this process has discredited the united states house of representatives and could forever weaken the remedy of impeachment. to, again, quote professor turley, it is the democrats' rush to impeachment on these grounds with unfair procedures
that is an abuse of power. history will write that. madam speaker, as i said at the beginning we face a choice. do you trust the wisdom of the people, or do you deny them a say in their government? fortunately, the people will have the opportunity to speak up and ren and render their verdict in 11 months to my fellow americans. if you approve of the way this house conducted their business, if you want to see your tax dollars go forward to endless investigations, support this impeachment. but if you want to restore a working congress like the previous congress that listened to you and worked to bring the best economy in this country has
LifeMadam-speakerMen-and-women-in-uniformForceFreedomSystemBlessingsEarthOathOfficeDutyChamberunanimous consent to enter my remarks into the record for this sham impeachment? >> the gentleman is so recognized. >> thank you. at this time i yield four minutes to the gentle woman from wyoming, miss cheney. >> the gentlewoman is recognized for four minutes. >> thank you, mr. collins. madam speaker, i rise today on the floor of this magnificent chamber, the very heart of our democratic republic, and i would imagine, madam speaker that every one of us in this chamber, regardless of party, understands, shares a common view that being citizens of this great republic is among life's most tremendous blessings. we all know that no force on earth is more powerful than the force of freedom. it is our miraculous constitutional system, madam speaker defended by our men and women in uniform that have safeguarded that freedom for 230
years. each one of us in this chamber bears a sacred duty passed down to us from generations and affirmed in our oath of office to preserve and protect our constitution. madam speaker, our nation's framers recognized that this republic is fragile and that extreme partisanship can be among the most severe threats to its survival. that is why in federalist 65 alexander hamilton wrote, quote, there will always be the greatest danger that impeachment, that the impeachment decision will be regulated more by the comparati comparative strength of parties than by real demonstrations of innocence or guilt. here, madam speaker, our democratic colleagues have been working to remove this president since the day he was elected searching for an offense on which they could impeach.
failing to find one, madam speaker, they have decided to assume one rather than attempting to enforce their subpoenas in court they is also decided to declare it a high crime and misdemeanor when the president of the united states asserts his constitutional privileges. the democrats are asking members of this body to impeach despite the fact that they have presented no direct evidence of any impeachable offense. let me say it one more time, madam speaker. they have presented no direct evidence of any impeachable offense. if anyone in this chamber still believes that the democrats have proven their case i would urge those members to ask the chairman of the intelligence committee mr. schiff why he failed to appear to answer questions about his report before members vote for impeachment, they might want to
know why the author of the impeach impeachment report will not defend it under questioning. if the house impeaches here, madam speaker, it will create exactly the type of risk the framers cautioned us to avoid. it will mean that divided government can imperil a democratically elected president based on unproven allegations and innuendo in the absence of direct testimony. despite all of the rhetoric you heard today, madam speaker, passage of these articles of impeachment may permanent damage our republic. from this day forward, a hyperpartisan, bare majority can cite this precedent to try to remove a future commander in chief. i urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, madam speaker, think of our republic, think of the constitution and think of the oath that we all swore to protect and defend that
constitution and vote against these partisan, reckless and dangerous articles of impeachment. i yield back. >> the gentleman from california. >> madam speaker, i am proud to recognize the gentleman from michigan, mr. levine for one minute. >> the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> madam speaker, today we proclaim that no person is above the law, not even the president of the united states. donald j. trump abused the power of his office and violated his oath of office by extorting a new and inexperienced precedent of a vulnerable foreign ally to dig up dirt on mr. trump's domestic, political opponents. he then obstructed the congress, this equal branch of our government from undertaking our
duty, outlined in the constitution itself to investigate and check these violations. today we do nothing more and nothing less than fulfill our duty to our country and to our constitution. mr. trump has allowed foreign powers to interfere in our domestic affairs. he has endangered our national security and our democracy itself. for those reasons we must impeach this president. thank you, madam speaker. i yield back. >> the gentleman from georgia. >> madam speaker, i yield for a unanimous consent request for the gentleman from oregon. >> the gentleman is organized. >> i pose this resolution on impeachment that ask that my remarks be in the record.
>> a consent request from the gentleman from south carolina. >> he is recognized. >> i ask for my comment are comments be admitted into the record. >> so ordered. >> i ask unanimous consent for the gentleman from mississippi. >> the gentleman is recognized. >> thank you, madam speaker. i opposed articles of impeachment and like my comments to be entered into the record. >> without objection. so ordered. >> i reserve. >> the gentleman from california. >> madam speaker, i reserve the balance of my time. >> who seeks recognition? >> madam speaker i ask of the gentleman is he ready to close? >> no. we have a few more speakers. >> then i reserve. >> madam speaker i recognize the gentleman from new york mr. esowe paillot. >> madam speaker if you live in
lennox avenue in the village of harmon in my district, your not above the law. if you live on webster avenue on the bronx part of my district you are not above the law. if you live in washington height, the immigrant neighborhood in my district, you are not above the law. so i submit to you that if you live on 1600 pennsylvania avenue you are not above the law, and you will be held accountable. president donald trump asked the ukrainian president to do us a favor and look into the bidens. that's abuse of power. president trump used the official white house meeting to extort a ukrainian president. that's abuse of power. president trump ordered white house staff to withhold $400 million in aid to the ukraine, that's abuse of power. president trump and his staff denied multi -- defied multiple subpoenas from congress. that's obstruction of congress.
he blocked witnesses from testifying before this body. that's obstruction of congress. [ speaking foreign language ] >> no one is above my law and i cast my vote for articles of impeachment and i ask my colleagues to do the same. >> madam speaker i yield for the unanimous consent request. >> i ask to enter my statement into the record recording they am opposed to this articles of impeachment on the basis that they do not measure to article 2 section 4. >> so ordered. >> i reserve. >> gentleman from california. >> madam speaker i am proud to recognize the gentle lady from california miss brownlee for one minute. >> madam speaker, as the chair of the women's vaeterans task force i see every day the immense sacrifice our women's
veterans and all of our nation's veterans have made in service to our country and in service to our commander in chief, our constitution, to protect our democracy and for every single man, woman and child in our country. when the president of the united states used $400 million meant to protect our national security in order to cheat in our elections, he not only abused his power, he turned his back on the sacrifices of our veterans and their families have made all that we hold so dear. that abuse of power is reprehensible and it is exactly what impeachment was designed to prevents. we have a solemn duty to protect our constitution, to protect our democracy and to honor all those who have laid their lives on the line for these united states of
america. i yield back. >> gentleman from georgia. >> thank you, madam speaker. at this time i yield for unanimous consent request to the gentle lady from indiana. >> gentle lady is recognized. >> i enter my be opposition to these articles of impeachment. >> i reserve. >> the gentleman from california. >> madam speaker i recognize the gentle lady from california for 30 seconds. >> the gentle lady is recognized. >> madam speaker -- madam speaker, make no mistake. weir not impeaching this president. he is impeaching himself. if you were the president and you obstruct justice, try to bribe a foreign leader and threaten national security, you're going to get impeached!
end of story. >> yields back. the gentleman from georgia. [ laughter ] >> thank you, madam speaker. at this time i recognize the gentleman -- >> the gentleman is recognized. >> i enter unanimous request my opposition to these articles of impeachment. >> i reserve. >> the gentleman from california. >> madam speaker i recognize miss holland for one minute. >> the gentle lady is recognized for one minute. >> madam speaker, i stand before you as a representative of new mexico, a place where we believe in dignity and respect for all. in congress, i've been fighting for them. we've been working to make healthcare more affordable, education accessible and move our country forward for the people, but today, this
president has forced us into a serious debate. we are talking about the president who used the power of the presidency for his own political gain, risking our national security and putting the integrity of the next election at risk. it's a sad day when a president shows complete disrespect for congress as a co-equal branch of government and for the american people who elected us. we collected the evidence and the facts are indisputable. we all took an oath to protect and defend the constitution. we have the solemn responsibility to hold this president accountable because it's our job. i urge my colleagues to live up to our responsibility and show our fellow americans that no one, not even the president, is above the law, and i yield. >> the gentle lady yields back. gentleman from georgia. >> at this moment i yield to the gentleman from oklahoma for unanimous consent request. >> i ask unanimous consent my opposition to the articles of impeachment. >> and i reserve.
>> gentleman from california. >> madam speaker, i recognize the jebtgentle lady from north carolina for a unanimous consent request. >> i ask unanimous consent to enter into the record my statement against the artics of impeachment. >> so ordered. >> i reserve the balance of my time. >> thank you, madam speaker, at this time i give five minutes to the gentleman from louisiana, the minority whip, mr. scalise. >> the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. >> thank you, madam speaker. impeaching a president of the united states. this isn't about some solemn duty tonight. let's talk about what this is really about. this has been about a political vendetta. a political vendetta that didn't just start with the zelensky call.
it started long before that. just listen to some of the quotes from democrats in this chamber. speaker pelosi, quote, it's been going on for 22 months, two and a half years, actually. we cannot accept a second term for donald trump. what's more serious is that he can't win. this isn't about some crime he committed, it's about fear that he might win re-election. al green, quote, i'm concerned that if we don't impeach this president he will get re-elected. the list goes on, madam speaker. in fact, there are some quotes that i can't even read on this house floor that some of our colleagues made and keep in mind, more than is 00 democrats on this house floor voted to impeach this president before the zelensky phone call. just look at some of these artic else of impeachment they voted for, two years ago. 58 democrats voted to impeach
the president over comments he made about nfl players kneeling for the pledge of allegiance. impeaching the president, over 50 democrats voted to impeach him for that. just this summer, over 90 democrats voted to impeach the president for comments that he made about the squad. so he makes comments about members of congress who make a lot of comments about him and 95 members vote to impeach the president of the united states and this is a political vendetta. it has nothing to do with a crime committed. there was no crime and why don't we listen to some of the witnesses? obviously, we weren't able to call all of the witnesses we wanted, but there were witnesses and in fact, gordon sondland, u.s. ambassador to the european union, he's mentioned over 600 times in the schiff report. he was their star witness and what did he say when asked? quote, did president trump ever tell you personally about any pre-conditions for anything? his answer, no. any pre-conditions for the aid
to be released? no. any pre-conditions for a white house meeting? under oath he testified no. abuse of power. let's talk about that article of impeachment, madam speaker. george washington law professor turley who admitted under oath that he voted against donald trump spoke to this claim of power, quote, if you make a high crime and misdemeanor out of going to the courts it is an abuse of power. it's your abuse of power. you are doing precisely what you are criticizing the president of doing. abuse of power. there's a house rule, madam speaker, that requires, not allows, but requires that the minority get a day of hearing which we asked for multiple times, they broke this rule. they didn't allow us to have a minority day of hearing and they didn't want to hear about the facts of the case because there
was no crime and it was a personal, political vend ate and now let's talk about congress as they make up the tools because they were looking and they talk about obstruction of congress and the president defied spina p the department of state, just four days, the secretary himself responded to your subpoena. the dfrt of defense a week later responded to the china. question go on and on with all of thooed agencies and responding to this subpoena. you might not have liked the answer. that's not the way this works. you don't impeach a president because you don't like his foreign policy as so many experts came and testified, but this isn't just about donald trump. they don't just hate donald trump, madam speaker. they hate the 63 million americans who voted for this
president. the forgotten men and women of this country who have been left behind, madam speaker. [ cheering ] >> the house will be in order. the gentleman may proceed. thank you, madam speaker. it's those forgotten men and women of this country that washington left behind and what's this president doing for him? he delivered for them. 600 jobs in pennsylvania, workers in mingo junction, ohio. 600 new jobs across this country. detroit news, chrysler, 6500 new jobs. that's what this president is doing to deliver for those men and women of this country who had been left behind. it's about time somebody stands up for them and president trump is. so it is a political vendetta, but if they're going to go through with this, madam speaker, impeachment will not just be a stain on this dechl democrat majority.
impeachment will be their legacy. >> let me address the remarks to the chair. [ cheering ] >> the gentleman from california. >> madam speaker, i recognize mr. custer from new hampshire for unanimous consent. >> madam speaker, i request the unanimous consent for enter in my statement into the record regarding the 75th anniversary of the battle of the bulge in favor for articles of impeachment. >> without objection. >> madam speaker, it is now my pleasure to recognize the gentleman from mare lan, the majority leader of the house of representatives mr. hoyer. >> the gentleman is recognized.
>> my colleagues. the gentleman will suspend. the house will come to order. the gentleman is recognized. >> madam speaker, i have had the honor of serving in this house for over 38 years. i've served during six presidencies. i've been here through moments of tremendous progress and terrible tragedy. i've seen periods of rank partisanship and patriotic bipartisanship. i've seen our two-party system work, and i've seen it break down. never, in all my years of
serving in this great institution that i love and the people of my district did i ever expect to encounter such an obvious wrongdoing by a president of the united states. nor did i expect to witness such a craven rationalization of presidential actions that should put our national security at risk, undermine the integrity of our elections and defined the constitutional authority of the congress to conduct oversight. we've heard from republicans that this impeachment really has to do with policy differences or how we feel personally about the president. about his temperament or that we simply dislike him.
throughout the trump presidency, democrats have resisted pursuing impeachment even as we watched with dismay and disgust out a pattern of wrongdoing. that pattern included ordering federal agencies to lie to the public. firing the fbi director for reviewsing to e refusing to end investigations against his campaign. siding with vladimir putin against intelligence agencies. taking funding away from the military to put towards an ineffective border wall, and setting policies that have led the separation of families and caging of children.
we have to be sure deep disagreements with the policies and actions taken by this president. there's been a lot of talk about the 63 million people who voted for mr. trump. little talk about the 65 million people who voted for hillary clinton. [ applause ] the policy difference or those votes, this president was elected legitimately. [ applause ] the house will stay in order. the gentleman deserves to be heard. the gentleman is recognized. because we have an electoral college, but none of these are reasons to pursue what chairman
schiff has called a wrenching process for the nation. in fact, democrats rejected that process emphatically in three specific votes. in december of 2017 democrats overwhelmingly voted against pursuing articles of impeachment including the speaker and myself. we did so again in 2018 with over 60% of the democrats rejecting pursuing articles of impeachment, and again just months ago in july of 2019, 60% of the democrats said no to pursuing articles of
impeachment. just days before the infamous july 25th telephone call, we did the same with 60% of democrats voting not to proceed. credible witnesses, many of whom were appointed to office by president trump have corroborated the details, and timeline of his abuse of presidential power which forms the basis of the first article of impeachment in had resolution. instead, i will now recant all of the witnesses or abuses that have occurred. i congratulate my colleagues and mr. nadler and his committee and mr. schiff and his committee for
setting forth a compelling case they've been laid out fully in the articles before us and their remarks. what i will do is remind americans that the house provided president trump every opportunity to prove his innocence, but the witnesses were precluded from coming forth. the witnesses who had personal knowledge did not come either at the president's request in which he refused to show up because he thought it was a sham as so many of you have said or to the committees. instead, he ignored congressional subpoenas for documents and testimony by whis officials in order for his subordinates not to cooperate, perhaps they could have
exonerated him. this, itself, i suggest to you is unprecedented. when president nixon and clinton were asked to hand over documents that allowed officials to testify, ultimately both complied because it is the law such actions of the president can be taken as further evidence of his obstruction and abuse of power. it is in and of itself impeachable conduct, the subject of the second article of impeachment. these two articles concern two very profound constitutional issues about the abuse of power in our republic. first, whether it is acceptable for the president of the united states, any president to solicit
foreign interference in our elections. there is a difference as to whether he's done that and the place to try that is in the united states senate, but we believe strongly there is probable cause to conclude that. it's undermined our national security, the integrity of our elections and the integrity of our democracy and secondly, whether it is permissible for the president to obstruct congress and act as if he is above the law and immune from constitutional oversight. on december 4th the judiciary committee heard the testimony of constitutional law exporerts wh weighed in on these points. some 1500 historians have said the same thing as professor noah
feldman said, if we cannot impeach a president who abuses his office for personal advantage we no longer live in a democracy. we live in a monarchy or we live under a dictatorship. the votes we are about to take concern the rule of law and our democracy itself. let us not forget the words of john locke so influential to the founders of our republic. john locke a millenia ago said this, wherever law ends, tyranny begins. this impeachment asks whether we are still a republic of laws as our founders intended or whether we will accept that one person can be above the law.
in america, as we have said over and over again, no one is above the law, but only as long as we hold every person accountable for breaking the law, even a president, will that be true. if the house does not act, if we wait and delay we run the risk of allowing the president's misconduct. if we believe it to be so, to be repeated at the expense of the integ rutty of our elections and our national security and our constitutional system of separation of powers. democrats did not choose this
impeachment. we did not wish for it. [ laughter ] >> we voted against it. we voted against it once. we voted against it twice, we voted against it three times as recently as july. we did not want this. however, president trump's misconduct has forced our constitutional republic to protect itself. [ applause ] these votes that we are about to take and the process that will follow in the senate are not only an assessment of the president's commitment to the constitution or to his oath of office. it is as well a test of our own.
damning evidence of the president's high crimes has emerged. nevertheless, the republican members of this house and of the senate have continued to defend the president whose actions seem to many of us to be indefensible. all of us feel a sense of loyalty to party. it's what makes our two-party system function. it's what helps hold presidents and majorities accountable, but party loyalty have its limits, and as evidence of impeachable offenses have mounted daily as the witnesses testified, it has become increasingly clear that the limits of partisanship have been reached and passed. now democrats and republicans together face a test before our
constituent, our countrymen and our creator. "the new york times" on october 18th summarized the question now posed to house and senate. republicans and democrats, compromise by compromise donald trump has hammered away at what republicans once saw as foundational virtues, decency, honesty, responsibility and yes, even civility. will they commit themselves and their party wholly to mr. trump embracing even his most anti-democratic actions or will they take the first step towards separating themselves from him and restoring confidence in the rule of law?
madam speaker, we have seen republican courage throughout our history. from the civil war to the cold war. in 1950 margaret chase smith, the senator from maine, a republican, spoke bravely against the cancer of mccarthyism in her party leaving six of her republican colleagues in a declaration of conscience against their own leadership. we are republicans, they declared, but we are americans first. in 1974 one congressman took the brave and principled step of becoming the first republican on the judiciary committee to support impeaching president nixon. he said to his colleagues and to the country, and i quote, it
isn't easy for me to align myself against the president to whom i gave my enthusiastic support on whose side i've stood on many legislative balance, whose accomplishments in foreign and domestic affairs i've consistently applauded, but it is impossible, he went on to say, for me to condone or ignore the long trien ain of abuses to which he's subjected the presidency and the people of this country. the constitution and my own oath of office, he said, demand, that i bear true faith and allegiance to the principles of law and justice upon which this nation was founded, and he concluded, and i cannot in good conscience turn away from the evidence of evil that is to me so clear and
compelling. my colleagues, that congressman's name was larry hogan senior. he represented the fifth district of maryland which i now represent. his son is presently a second-term republican governor of our state and larry hogan senior died in 2017, every obituary led with praise for his act of political courage. who among us many years from now will receive such praise as a man or woman of courage? who will regret not having earned it? we talked a lot about partisan differences. there is one person who has
spoken today, who is neither a member of the republican party nor the democratic party. his name is justin amash, who represents a republican district. he left the republican party and in doing so, he pooshed his colleagues that, quote, this president will only be in power for a short tierjs bme, but exc his behavior will tarnish your name. he spoke on this floor in support of the two articles that we will consider this evening. neither a democrat nor a republican. representative amash is of course, the only member of this house who has no allegiance to either party, but to his
country. he is supporting, as i've said both articles. we need not ask who will be the first to show courage by standing up to president trump. the question we mist must now ask is who will be the last to find it? the pages of our history are filled with americans who have the courage to choose country over party or personality, but as president kennedy wrote, the stories of past courage can teach. they can offer hope. they can provide inspiration, but they cannot supply courage itself for this, president kennedy said, each man, each woman must look into their own soul.
i urge my fellow colleagues in the house and yes, in the senate, to look into your soul. summons the courage to vote for our constitution and our democracy. i understand we will all not see the same conclusion, but to do less betrays our oath and that of our founders who pledged their lives, their fortune and their sacred honor. let us neither turn away from the evidence which, to me, seems so clear nor from our good conscience which compels us to do what in our hearts we know to be right. let us not allow the rule of law to end or for tyranny to find its toehold. with our votes today we can bear
true faith and allegiance to the vision of our founders and we can show a future generation what it truly means to be americans first. vote yes. >> the gentleman yields back. [ applause ] the gentleman from georgia. [ applause ] >> madam speaker, a few weeks ago just off of this floor i said that a dark cloud was descending upon this body, and today because of the clock and the calendar it is closing. it is amazing to me what i just heard from the majority leader that mr. schiff and mr. nadler presented a compelling case for impeachment, if this is a compelling case for impeachment
i'm not sure why we're here right now. it is not anywhere close to compelling, but you know what is interesting is what i have heard today. the majority leader just spoke and said that if the president was given every opportunity to come prove his innocence, i tell you, what madam speaker, let me just have a few minute, stop the clock and let me go around to the press corps and everybody here and accuse you of something. you did it. you did it. you did it. you did it. now prove us wrong. you did it. guess what? you don't want to because deep down you know that that's turning the entire jurisprudence of this country upside down. you are not guilty until you are proven -- you are innocent. and today from this floor we have heard the majority leader say this president is guilty and not the other way around. he is innocent and these come nowhere close to proving it, but
what is left of this body? let's have an honest conversation, madam speaker. what we have found in the past few weeks is that it is okay for a majority to tear down a foreign leader because they can't make their case. they called him a liar or weak or worse or as was called in the committee looked like a battered wife and it is beneath this body to tear down a foreign leader because they can't make their case against this one. [ applause ] . we have broken rules in this house, even to this moment. chairman schiff and the others have broken house resolution 660 by not turning over the things they are turning over. i still have not got a transcript, and i guess minority hearings don't matter either. you see, there is a problem here because we'll vote this tonight while breaking the rules. what a shameful incident, but we also found creative
interpretation of minority ro rights and we've seen members smeared in reports by drive-by political hacks when they match numbers of the ranking member and the members of the press. that ought to concern every one of you as much as it concerns every one of us. nothing, but a drive-by hit. you know something? this majority leader just said, wherever law ends tyranny begins. i will say this, wherever the rules are disregarded, chaos and mob rule actually began and the majority has taken that to a new level. it has been said today where is bravery? i will tell you where bravery is found and it is found in the minority who has lived through the last year of nothing, but rules being broken and questions not being answered and be damned with anything else, we are going to impeach and do whatever we want to do, why? because we won an election, i guarantee you, one day you'll be back in the minority and it ain't going to be that fun because when you look at it,
when you actually trash the rules of this house, you want to look at what did you gain at the end by trashing the institution you claim to love. that's the things we found out so far. but you know they're careful to say you want to deal with process and process. as i said last night in the rules committee where they didn't want to listen, i'll win on process, and i will win on facts because we have the truth on our side. let me remind you that here's what the process actually says. there was no pressure. look at the call, president zelensky, president trump, no pressure. there was no conditionality and there was nothing done to get the aid and the aid actually came. there were five meetings and when you look at it rid now, none of which matter because right now the dark cloud is descending upon this house and i am fearful, when i look out in the abyss i don't know what i will see. i'll tell you what i see, i see a president who will put his head down in spite of the sham impeachment and he will do his
job and he will tell the american people that i care about you and he will still put the economy first and he will make sure this country stands strong. that's what i see in this abyss. that's where we're going! and madam speaker, it is with that hope in the future that i recognize that i yield one minute to the republican leader of this house, the republican from california mr. mccarthy. >> the gentleman is recognized. >> madam speaker, i must warn you i'm about to say something my democratic colleagues hate to hear. donald j. trump is president of the united states. [ cheers and applause ] he's president today, he'll be president tomorrow and he will be president when this
impeachment is over. madam speaker, when they accept that maybe this house can get back to work for the american people. tonight, i rise not as the leader of the opposition to this impeachment or as the elected representative from the central valley of california. i rise as kevin mccarthy, citizen, no better, no worse than the 435 representatives that are in this chamber or the 330 million americans watching this institution, make what i believe to be one of the worst decisions we have ever made. it doesn't matter whether you're a democrat or a republican, whether you're liberal or you're conservative, whether you're the first generation or the tenth. at our core, we are all american. all of us.
we choose our future. we choose what kind of nation we want to be. here is our choice tonight. will we let impeachment become an exercise of raw political power regardless if it damages our country or will we protect the proper grounds and process for impeachment now and in the future? for months, democrats and many in the media have attempted to normalize the impeachment process that would remove a duly elected president from office. after three years of breathless and baseless outrage this is their last attempt to stop the trump presidency. madam speaker, speaker pelosi recently admitted that democrats have been working on this
impeachment for two and a half years. those were her words. they were not mine. because they lost to him in 2016 they'll do anything or say anything to stop him in 2020. that's not america. that's not how democratic republics behave. elections matter. voters matter and in 11 months the people's voice will be heard again. impeachment is the most consequential decision congress can make other than sending our men and women into war. yet 85 days ago speaker pelosi chose to impeach the president of the united states. she wrote the script and created an artificial time line to make the details fit.
why else are we doing this just hours before christmas? that's all it was, a rush to judgment, she could be forgiven, but before the speaker saw one word or one shred of evidence, she moved to impeach. in the past, in this body, such a step demanded a vote from all of us. not only did she move to impeach before she gave us a say in whether to pursue an impeachment inquiry, she threw out the bipartisan standards this house gave president nixon and clinton. that is why i immediately sent speaker pelosi a letter asking her to follow the rules of
history, of tradition and follow those standards that have served america well. what did she say? she rejected it. she rejected it because democrats knew a fair process would crumble their case. a frar process would have exposed to the american public what many knew, democrats have wanted to impeach president trump since the day he was elected. nothing was going to get in this way, certainly not the truth. madam speaker, chairman schiff said he had evidence, more than circumstantial, of collusion. that was false. in january, we all stood in this body, we stood up, we raised our hands, we swore we would uphold the constitution. [ applause ]
and a few mere hours after that, congresswoman taliv said she was going to impeach the mother f-er. those are not my words. a year before taking the majority, chairman nadler campaigned to the democrats that he wanted to be chairman of the judiciary committee where impeachment is. "new york times" writes, madam speaker, because he is the strongest member to lead a potential impeachment. and congressman raskin, a leading democrat on the judiciary committee, one that the democrats had represent in the rules committee for these articles just yesterday. told a crowd he would impeach president trump two days before
he was ever sworn into office. what we have seen is a rigged process that has led to the most partisan and least credible impeachment in the history of america. that is this legacy. any prosecutor in this country would be disbarred for such blatant bias, especially if that prosecutor was the fact witness, the judge and the jury. [ applause ] madam speaker, democrats haven't just failed on process, they have also failed on evidence. i've heard a lot of debate on this floor today. but i haven't heard one member of this body dispute this simple fact. president trump provided lethal aid to ukraine.
it came before the call. it came after the call. and it continues to this day. president trump provided ukraine tank busting bombs. the previous administration, they gave blankets. this is the truth. meanwhile, the democrats' case is based on secondhand opinions and hearsay. simply put, there are no grounds for impeachment. as a constitutional scholar -- i would challenge to say he is probably the most respected, and we all know it. a democrat who did not vote for the president said under oath, there was no bribery, there was no extortion, no obstruction of justice and no abuse of power. based on the facts, based on the truth, based on the lack of evidence, turley called this the
fastest, thinnest and weakest impeachment in the u.s. history. such a definitive answer should be the end of all of this. but speaker pelosi is still moving forward with this impeachment. without evidence of facts or truth or public support. the speaker says it is out of allegiance to our founders. on this i agree. i agree with the speaker, we should listen to the founders. if one does, it's very clear that this impeachment is unfounded and improper. in the federalist papers, alexander hamilton wrote, there will always -- there would always be the greatest danger that impeachment would be driven by partisan animosity instead of real demonstrations of innocence or guilt. that impeachment would be driven
by partisan animosity instead of real demonstrations of innocence or guilt. james madison, another author of the federalist papers wrote, the danger of legislative abuse must lead to the same tyranny as is threatened by executive abuse. the founders did not want impeachment to be used for political or partisan battles. if my colleagues do not want to follow the constitutional high standards for undoing a national election, perhaps you could have followed speaker's pelosi's standard, at least the one she promised to follow back in march. it was a very sensible standard. she says, impeachment is so divisive that the evidence must be overwhelming, compelling and bipartisan.
not one of those criteria have been met today. based on the facts, based on the evidence, based on the truth, this impeachment even fails that pelosi test. those now who say removing president trump would protect the integrity of our democracy have it backwards. by removing a duly elected president on empty articles of impeachment, congress will erode the public trust in our system of government. i understand you dislike the president. his beliefs, the way he governs, and even the people who voted for him. how do i know this? because you say so day in and day out. in 2016, they even dismissed his supporters. remember calling us deplorablde? now they are trying to
disqualify our voice before the 2020 election. they want to undo the results of the last election to influence the next one. as i said, president trump will still be president when this is all over. but congress will have wasted months of time and taxpayers' dollars on impeachment rather than doing what america's people want us to do. it didn't have to be this way. is this why we came here to serve? to trample on due process rights? to issue more subpoenas than laws? to appease the new democrat socialist base?
that is not leadership. that is raw political politics, and you know it. by refusing to acknowledge the truth or follow the facts, by substituting partisan animosity, for real demonstration of innocence or guilt, and by continuing a three-year effort to undermine the president, this impeachment has divided this nation. without any concern for the repercussions. moreover, politicizing this process has discredited the united states house of representatives. and could forever weaken the remedy of impeachment. to again quote professor turley, it is the democrats' rush to impeachment on these grounds with unfair procedures that is an abuse of power.
history will write that. madam speaker, as i said at the beginning, we face a choice. do you trust the wisdom of the peop people, or do you deny them a say in their government? fortunately, the people will have the opportunity to speak up and render their verdict in 11 months, to my fellow americans. to my fellow americans, if you approve of the way of this house has conducted their business, if you want to see your tax dollars go forward to endless investigations, support this impeachment. but if you want to restore a working congress, like the previous congress that listened to you and worked to bring the best economy in this country has ever seen -- [ applause ]
RepublicCitizensBlessingsLifeViewSpeaker-pelosiSystemMen-and-women-in-uniformForceFreedomEarth230Driver, passenger ejected from vehicle in Bronx accident: NYPD
yahoo.com - get the latest breaking news, showbiz & celebrity photos, sport news & rumours, viral videos and top stories from yahoo.com Daily Mail and Mail on Sunday newspapers.
Webster-avenueBedford-park-boulevard