Transcripts For CSPAN Articles Of Impeachment House Hearings

Articles of impeachment, abuse of power, and obstruction of congress. Now more from the House Judiciary Committee hearing, starting with ken box from colorado. The gentleman is recognized. I heard my colleague from rhode island say this isnt about policy differences, this is about our obligation to protect and defend our constitution. It is about courage. It is about policy differences because you said nothing on your side, when president obama sent his surrogates out to lie about benghazi. You said nothing when president Obamas Administration entered into a gun running deal with mexican cartels, and the fast and Furious Program was developed. You said nothing about democrat leaders. This is about a policy difference. It is not about courage. I do not question anyones courage on the other side of the aisle, i question your judgment. I do not question your courage. I think the American People are getting tired. I say that because i have a friend from college, jim. And jim sent me a text. Jims dad was a pastor south of the masondixon line in the sixties and seventies, he was a leader in the civil rights movement. Jim didnt vote for trump, romney, mccain. Jim sent me a text and said will you tell your democratic colleagues that i am voting for donald trump this next time around . By the way, he tells me he believes that your party is over reaching at this point. Overreaching, the last text he sent me was interesting he said the stock market closed it a record high. I thought about that overreach comment, and i thought about what was my most ludicrous of the ways this group of democrats in the house have tried to take out this president. And there are a lot to choose from my favorite happens to be the 25th amendment. I thought when you came up with the 25th amendment it was right at the top. You call in a professor for medial, and that professor from yale could have been right out of a movie about the old soviet union. She says testifying in congress. That takes a majority of the cabinet to invoke the 25th amendment, but this president might be, he would need an examination. When asked by a, member could he be detained . Could the president of the United States be detained for purposes of an examination, she said yes. Right out of the old soviet union. That was my favorite. The other was the emoluments clause. I guess anyone that is successful, and that has worldwide businesses, is going to be subject to an emoluments clause argument. Thankfully you did not include that in this set of articles. You have had four on the floor of the house now. And you would think that somehow, we are not showing courage when we stand here and tell you you dont have the facts to convict this president on these charges. And you dont. The thing that is going to change is when this moves over to the senate, you lose the narrative. Because the republicans in the senate will call hunter biden. They will call the whistleblower. And you better wait and see what the American Public does when all of the facts are out. You dont get to hide the facts in the basement anymore. All the facts are going to come out. I asked a few of my friends if they owe you to my friend from arizona. You took the 25th amendment it was right at the top of the heap there. Virtually every time the president tweets something, i have heard criticism that he should be impeached for tweeting. The harvard law professor who was in here last week wrote a piece that he should be impeached for tweeting in 2017. That was fine. The other one is the bribery. When you had, professor try to explain it it took five minutes and then we did not hear any more about what bribery was. The gentleman yields back. inaudible mr. Jeffrey seeks recognition. My colleague suggested that we are here because we have policy disagreements with this president. We do have some policy disagreements with this president. We disagree with the fact that you passed, as youre signature legislative accomplishment in the last congress, a gop tax scam or 83 of the benefits went to the wealthiest 1 who exploded the deficit and the debt. We disagree with that. We disagree with your policy of separating gods children from their parents, and caging those children. That was unacceptable, unconscionable, and down american. We disagree with that. We disagree with your effort, that is ongoing, to strip away health care, protections for more than 100 million americans with preexisting conditions. We disagree with that as well. But we are not here at this moment, undertaking this solemn responsibility because we disagree with his policy positions. We will deal with that in november. We are here because the president pressured a Foreign Government to target an american citizen for political gain. Thereby he solicited foreign interference in the 2020 election by withholding 391 male years in military aid without justification. The president says that was perfect. Here is what others have had to say about that. Ambassador sondland who give the president 1 Million Dollars for the inauguration said, it was a quid pro quo. Lieutenant colonel vindman iraq war veteran said it was improper. Doctor fiona hill trump appointee, what did she say . Political errand. Ambassador taylor, west point graduate, appointed by reagan, bush and, trump vietnam war hero, he said it was crazy. John bolton, a superconservative, Trump National security adviser, said it was a drug deal. What with the framers of the constitution have said . Impeachable. I yield to my colleague from california. I thank the gentleman. In the efforts to defend this president , you want him to be someone he is not. You want him to be someone he is telling you he is not. You are trying to defend the call in so many different ways, and he is saying it was a perfect call. He is not who you want him to be. Ranking member collins, you can deny this is much as you want, but people died in ukraine at the hands of russia. In ukraine, since september 2018 when it was voted on by congress, was counting on our support. A year passed in people died. You may not want to think about that, it may be hard for you to think about that. But people died when this selfish president withheld the aid for his own personal gain. Obama on they gave so much, we have proven the record the president obama gave them not on the military capabilities, military training, and medical equipment. So dont tell yourself ukrainians didnt die. They died. Ambassador taylor said, these were weapons and assistance that allowed the Ukrainian Military to deter further incursions. If that further encourage, and further aggression married to take place, more ukrainians would die. It is a deterrent of fact. You didnt only hurt ukraine you helped russia. And to my colleagues who believe that we have such an Anti Corruption president in the white house, i ask you this. How many times to this Anti Corruption president meet with the most corrupt leader in the world, Vladimir Putin. How many times did he talk to him . 16 times between meetings and phone conversations. How many conditions did the president put on Vladimir Putin to get such an audience with the most powerful audience in the world. Zero conditions. That is who you are defending. So keep defending him we. Will defend the constitution, our National Security, and our elections. I yield back. Mister chairman i moved to strike the last word. I want to thank the gentleman, my colleague mr. Jeffries for laying bare what we all have known. They have policy differences, and as he said they will deal with it next november. They are not really interested in removing this president from office, they dont think the senate is going to remove him from office. They get it. This is all a political exercise on there and to help them in next novembers election. That is what its all about for them. And it is infuriating to me that they put on the show and wave their constitutions, which they must have just found because i have been at this for a long time and i dont see folks on their side of the aisle waving the constitution, much less reading from it. Theyre talking about what their real motives are, to use this as a political maneuver for advantage in the 2020 election. With that i yield to the Ranking Member. Mr. Swalwell, i dont know if the hearing is bad on that end. I did not say no one died. Undoubtedly you can have a trouble reading an article that said people died. No one said that. You can accuse whatever because you are just telling untruths, because you have a personal agenda. Thats great. But you cant get into this one. As someone who is seen people die on the battlefield, i know and people die. I know when they come into the hospital and they have been shot. To come in here and say that people died, that is a load of hogwash. That is so wrong, such a cheap shot. You cant even read your own article you put into submission. Maybe we could go through it word by word, although there is no way to leak our calls, directly to a lack of aid. Secretary hill said this was prospect of not at the time. I could draw a picture and put it on a chart for you. That is the most ridiculous comments, in there have been a lot of them here. That is the most amazing amazing lack of honesty, and integrity that ive seen so far. Look at your own article, to say that i never said no one died. In wars, people die. Is that difficult to understand. Maybe that is why you are back here with us tonight. It is not hard to understand. To say that, two things, the most Amazing Things today. But as marching the folks who died, and president zelensky, that is amazing to me. To sit there and keep repeating why after ally. Under secretary of state said that was prospective money, not current money. People died when there was money released earlier. Are we going to claim that that was because we didnt give them enough money . I dont know. You have an agenda to push. The clock is ticking. But to sit there and come back with that one and accuse me of saying that no one died . I never said nobody died. Undoubtedly you dont understand that. Your own article, that you wanted to get in so quickly, said there is no way to actually tell, this was an article that was slanted against the position the president half. So if you want to continue this debate, go right ahead. Because for the men and women out there who served in the military, who of washington understand this. For you to say that, it is just wrong. I am not yielding to anyone. Maybe its a reading comprehension problem. Maybe we just dont have it. Maybe its just because we dont have the facts to make the argument. I will go back to the facts. You couldnt have made the case otherwise you wouldve written them into the articles of impeachment. So what do we do . Today, we have taken the attack of tearing down mr. Zelensky, just tearing him down, and also continuing the unfortunate misrepresentation of money and deaths of soldiers fighting for their countries. That is the dark stand that we say today. I yield back. Mr. Clines time has now expired. For what purpose do you seek recognition . Strike the last. Word the gentlelady is recognize. Im going to take a different perspective than my last friend from georgia remind us of the words of george washington, the constitution is a god which i will never abandon. The American People have watched this debate, to men and women wearing uniform around the nation, i hope you understand that we will never abandon the constitution. That is why we are here to discuss articles of impeachment. Yesterday i said we the people of the United States, as evidenced by james madison, promote the general wealth or but establish the constitution for the United States of america. Let me speak briefly to say that the language the gentleman is trying to strike his already been established, and it was in the constitutional articles, of the articles of impeachment, in 1998. My good friends are speaking to an audience of one, the person who now is absorbing all the accolades of all the great work he has done, and i have no quarrel with their representation of their president. But i dont serve a man, or a president. Benjamin franklin, to those outside of the constitutional convention, answer the question when i asked mr. Franklin, what do we have, a monarchy or republic . He said a republic, if we can keep it. Today, the Majority Democrats are attempting to keep this republic, into maintain that the president of the United States cannot abused his power, and cannot disrupt congress. Chairman rodino made it very clear, he said that the president of the United States at that time, in the next and proceedings, could not designed for himself how the impeachment inquiry would work. Then, to talk about the president s use of his public office, public funds, to in essence get a foreign entity to help him with his campaign, besmirch in the campaigns, for the American People. I disagree with the president on cutting stamps for poor people, or separating children. I disagree as attacks and for the wall, because my fellow texans are against it. But the real issue is the power imbalance between the president of ukraine, newly elected president , a president who had run on the get corruption out campaign. Literally, he campaigned his party on Anti Corruption. And he comes hat in hand on this conversation, because he missed the president at the inauguration, he did not go. He sent sondland, and he sent perry. Mr. Pence did not go. He wanted to say anything he could to make sure that he would get these dollars, and calling for an investigation on an opponent, it was not beneath them. How do you think he would admit now publicly that he is willing to do it . Let me show you the atmosphere in which ukraine lived. Putin reclaims crimea, right on their. Border arrogantly, without any defends by ukraine. They lost. Crimea was taken. Just like we would have lost mississippi, or texas, or new york, or california. And then they lived in the atmosphere of a jetliner explodes over ukraine, shot down by russian weapons, by separatist supported by ukraine, by russia rather. And then ukraine, in ukraine, the u. S. Trains an army in the west to fight the east. This impacts our National Security. I read the constitution regularly. My predecessor always said keep a constitution in your hand, Barbara Jordan said we the people, but i am clear that the imbalance of power between the ukraine and the United States, and to heads of say it wouldve caused that president to do almost anything. As ambassador sondland said, he will do anything you desire him to do, and he will call for investigations. He was willing to go on cnn and announced those investigations. The president has abused his power. The president has tried to obstruct congress. He is trying to create his own way of us doing our impeachment inquiry, i believe we are doing the right thing and i support the articles of impeachment. I yield back. The gentlelady yields back. Strike the last word. The gentleman is recognized. Dare i to state the obvious. I have not heard a new point or an original thought from either side in the last three hours. The same talking points have been repeated over and over again adenoids, him by both sides. Repeating a fact over and over it doesnt make it true, and denying a fact over and over doesnt make it falls. Everybody knows this. Everybody watching knows this this hearing has been enough of an institutional embarrassment without putting it on an endless loop. So if i could just offer a modest suggestion if no one has anything new to add . Resist the temptation to inflict what we have already heard over and over again. And with that i yield back. The point is well taken. Who else seeks recognition . For what purpose do you seek recognition . Strike the last. Where the gentleman is recognized. I yield to mr. Jordan. I think the general lady for yielding. I heard them talking about election interference. How about the fbi spying on for american citizens associated with the Trump Campaign in 2016 . And the people running that investigation were the ones who said we are going to stop trump. They said trump should lose 100 million to zero. They were the ones who said we have an insurance policy. They ran that investigation where they went to the fisa court, we just learned that two days ago, they lied 17 times. They didnt tell the court the guy who wrote the dossier was desperate to stop trump. The dossier they are using to get a warrant, did not tell that the guy was working for the clinton campaign. That is probably an important fact. They didnt tell the court the guy who wrote the dossier, Christopher Steele, was fired by the fbi because he was out talking to the press. They didnt tell them all that. How about that fact . Now in 2020, we dont have the fbi spying on people with the Trump Campaign yet. We dont have them going to the fisa court and lying. Instead we have them going to impeachment. That is what they are doing. Thats how they will make it tougher on the president. That is what this is about. That is why it is so wrong. Let the American People decide. We are 11 months away from the next election. Let the American People decide. We already have the fbi try to weigh in, in 2016, and do all the things mr. Horowitz just told us about this week. Now in 2020, the democrats in congress are trying to create some kind of insurance policy with this impeachment effort. Let the American People decide, i yield back to the gentleman. I thank the gentleman. I will yield the remainder of my time. Thank you. There has been some talk about javelin missiles tonight. I just want to draw attention to some of what the democratic witnesses have said. I just have to find it on my desk. Lets talk about the law instead. I have heard when the facts are not on your side, you argue. The facts are on our side. So is the law. If you look at the House Judiciary Committee<\/a> hearing, starting with ken box from colorado. The gentleman is recognized. I heard my colleague from rhode island say this isnt about policy differences, this is about our obligation to protect and defend our constitution. It is about courage. It is about policy differences because you said nothing on your side, when president obama sent his surrogates out to lie about benghazi. You said nothing when president Obamas Administration<\/a> entered into a gun running deal with mexican cartels, and the fast and Furious Program<\/a> was developed. You said nothing about democrat leaders. This is about a policy difference. It is not about courage. I do not question anyones courage on the other side of the aisle, i question your judgment. I do not question your courage. I think the American People<\/a> are getting tired. I say that because i have a friend from college, jim. And jim sent me a text. Jims dad was a pastor south of the masondixon line in the sixties and seventies, he was a leader in the civil rights movement. Jim didnt vote for trump, romney, mccain. Jim sent me a text and said will you tell your democratic colleagues that i am voting for donald trump this next time around . By the way, he tells me he believes that your party is over reaching at this point. Overreaching, the last text he sent me was interesting he said the stock market closed it a record high. I thought about that overreach comment, and i thought about what was my most ludicrous of the ways this group of democrats in the house have tried to take out this president. And there are a lot to choose from my favorite happens to be the 25th amendment. I thought when you came up with the 25th amendment it was right at the top. You call in a professor for medial, and that professor from yale could have been right out of a movie about the old soviet union. She says testifying in congress. That takes a majority of the cabinet to invoke the 25th amendment, but this president might be, he would need an examination. When asked by a, member could he be detained . Could the president of the United States<\/a> be detained for purposes of an examination, she said yes. Right out of the old soviet union. That was my favorite. The other was the emoluments clause. I guess anyone that is successful, and that has worldwide businesses, is going to be subject to an emoluments clause argument. Thankfully you did not include that in this set of articles. You have had four on the floor of the house now. And you would think that somehow, we are not showing courage when we stand here and tell you you dont have the facts to convict this president on these charges. And you dont. The thing that is going to change is when this moves over to the senate, you lose the narrative. Because the republicans in the senate will call hunter biden. They will call the whistleblower. And you better wait and see what the American Public<\/a> does when all of the facts are out. You dont get to hide the facts in the basement anymore. All the facts are going to come out. I asked a few of my friends if they owe you to my friend from arizona. You took the 25th amendment it was right at the top of the heap there. Virtually every time the president tweets something, i have heard criticism that he should be impeached for tweeting. The harvard law professor who was in here last week wrote a piece that he should be impeached for tweeting in 2017. That was fine. The other one is the bribery. When you had, professor try to explain it it took five minutes and then we did not hear any more about what bribery was. The gentleman yields back. inaudible mr. Jeffrey seeks recognition. My colleague suggested that we are here because we have policy disagreements with this president. We do have some policy disagreements with this president. We disagree with the fact that you passed, as youre signature legislative accomplishment in the last congress, a gop tax scam or 83 of the benefits went to the wealthiest 1 who exploded the deficit and the debt. We disagree with that. We disagree with your policy of separating gods children from their parents, and caging those children. That was unacceptable, unconscionable, and down american. We disagree with that. We disagree with your effort, that is ongoing, to strip away health care, protections for more than 100 million americans with preexisting conditions. We disagree with that as well. But we are not here at this moment, undertaking this solemn responsibility because we disagree with his policy positions. We will deal with that in november. We are here because the president pressured a Foreign Government<\/a> to target an american citizen for political gain. Thereby he solicited foreign interference in the 2020 election by withholding 391 male years in military aid without justification. The president says that was perfect. Here is what others have had to say about that. Ambassador sondland who give the president 1 Million Dollars<\/a> for the inauguration said, it was a quid pro quo. Lieutenant colonel vindman iraq war veteran said it was improper. Doctor fiona hill trump appointee, what did she say . Political errand. Ambassador taylor, west point graduate, appointed by reagan, bush and, trump vietnam war hero, he said it was crazy. John bolton, a superconservative, Trump National<\/a> security adviser, said it was a drug deal. What with the framers of the constitution have said . Impeachable. I yield to my colleague from california. I thank the gentleman. In the efforts to defend this president , you want him to be someone he is not. You want him to be someone he is telling you he is not. You are trying to defend the call in so many different ways, and he is saying it was a perfect call. He is not who you want him to be. Ranking member collins, you can deny this is much as you want, but people died in ukraine at the hands of russia. In ukraine, since september 2018 when it was voted on by congress, was counting on our support. A year passed in people died. You may not want to think about that, it may be hard for you to think about that. But people died when this selfish president withheld the aid for his own personal gain. Obama on they gave so much, we have proven the record the president obama gave them not on the military capabilities, military training, and medical equipment. So dont tell yourself ukrainians didnt die. They died. Ambassador taylor said, these were weapons and assistance that allowed the Ukrainian Military<\/a> to deter further incursions. If that further encourage, and further aggression married to take place, more ukrainians would die. It is a deterrent of fact. You didnt only hurt ukraine you helped russia. And to my colleagues who believe that we have such an Anti Corruption<\/a> president in the white house, i ask you this. How many times to this Anti Corruption<\/a> president meet with the most corrupt leader in the world, Vladimir Putin<\/a>. How many times did he talk to him . 16 times between meetings and phone conversations. How many conditions did the president put on Vladimir Putin<\/a> to get such an audience with the most powerful audience in the world. Zero conditions. That is who you are defending. So keep defending him we. Will defend the constitution, our National Security<\/a>, and our elections. I yield back. Mister chairman i moved to strike the last word. I want to thank the gentleman, my colleague mr. Jeffries for laying bare what we all have known. They have policy differences, and as he said they will deal with it next november. They are not really interested in removing this president from office, they dont think the senate is going to remove him from office. They get it. This is all a political exercise on there and to help them in next novembers election. That is what its all about for them. And it is infuriating to me that they put on the show and wave their constitutions, which they must have just found because i have been at this for a long time and i dont see folks on their side of the aisle waving the constitution, much less reading from it. Theyre talking about what their real motives are, to use this as a political maneuver for advantage in the 2020 election. With that i yield to the Ranking Member<\/a>. Mr. Swalwell, i dont know if the hearing is bad on that end. I did not say no one died. Undoubtedly you can have a trouble reading an article that said people died. No one said that. You can accuse whatever because you are just telling untruths, because you have a personal agenda. Thats great. But you cant get into this one. As someone who is seen people die on the battlefield, i know and people die. I know when they come into the hospital and they have been shot. To come in here and say that people died, that is a load of hogwash. That is so wrong, such a cheap shot. You cant even read your own article you put into submission. Maybe we could go through it word by word, although there is no way to leak our calls, directly to a lack of aid. Secretary hill said this was prospect of not at the time. I could draw a picture and put it on a chart for you. That is the most ridiculous comments, in there have been a lot of them here. That is the most amazing amazing lack of honesty, and integrity that ive seen so far. Look at your own article, to say that i never said no one died. In wars, people die. Is that difficult to understand. Maybe that is why you are back here with us tonight. It is not hard to understand. To say that, two things, the most Amazing Things<\/a> today. But as marching the folks who died, and president zelensky, that is amazing to me. To sit there and keep repeating why after ally. Under secretary of state said that was prospective money, not current money. People died when there was money released earlier. Are we going to claim that that was because we didnt give them enough money . I dont know. You have an agenda to push. The clock is ticking. But to sit there and come back with that one and accuse me of saying that no one died . I never said nobody died. Undoubtedly you dont understand that. Your own article, that you wanted to get in so quickly, said there is no way to actually tell, this was an article that was slanted against the position the president half. So if you want to continue this debate, go right ahead. Because for the men and women out there who served in the military, who of washington understand this. For you to say that, it is just wrong. I am not yielding to anyone. Maybe its a reading comprehension problem. Maybe we just dont have it. Maybe its just because we dont have the facts to make the argument. I will go back to the facts. You couldnt have made the case otherwise you wouldve written them into the articles of impeachment. So what do we do . Today, we have taken the attack of tearing down mr. Zelensky, just tearing him down, and also continuing the unfortunate misrepresentation of money and deaths of soldiers fighting for their countries. That is the dark stand that we say today. I yield back. Mr. Clines time has now expired. For what purpose do you seek recognition . Strike the last. Word the gentlelady is recognize. Im going to take a different perspective than my last friend from georgia remind us of the words of george washington, the constitution is a god which i will never abandon. The American People<\/a> have watched this debate, to men and women wearing uniform around the nation, i hope you understand that we will never abandon the constitution. That is why we are here to discuss articles of impeachment. Yesterday i said we the people of the United States<\/a>, as evidenced by james madison, promote the general wealth or but establish the constitution for the United States<\/a> of america. Let me speak briefly to say that the language the gentleman is trying to strike his already been established, and it was in the constitutional articles, of the articles of impeachment, in 1998. My good friends are speaking to an audience of one, the person who now is absorbing all the accolades of all the great work he has done, and i have no quarrel with their representation of their president. But i dont serve a man, or a president. Benjamin franklin, to those outside of the constitutional convention, answer the question when i asked mr. Franklin, what do we have, a monarchy or republic . He said a republic, if we can keep it. Today, the Majority Democrats<\/a> are attempting to keep this republic, into maintain that the president of the United States<\/a> cannot abused his power, and cannot disrupt congress. Chairman rodino made it very clear, he said that the president of the United States<\/a> at that time, in the next and proceedings, could not designed for himself how the impeachment inquiry would work. Then, to talk about the president s use of his public office, public funds, to in essence get a foreign entity to help him with his campaign, besmirch in the campaigns, for the American People<\/a>. I disagree with the president on cutting stamps for poor people, or separating children. I disagree as attacks and for the wall, because my fellow texans are against it. But the real issue is the power imbalance between the president of ukraine, newly elected president , a president who had run on the get corruption out campaign. Literally, he campaigned his party on Anti Corruption<\/a>. And he comes hat in hand on this conversation, because he missed the president at the inauguration, he did not go. He sent sondland, and he sent perry. Mr. Pence did not go. He wanted to say anything he could to make sure that he would get these dollars, and calling for an investigation on an opponent, it was not beneath them. How do you think he would admit now publicly that he is willing to do it . Let me show you the atmosphere in which ukraine lived. Putin reclaims crimea, right on their. Border arrogantly, without any defends by ukraine. They lost. Crimea was taken. Just like we would have lost mississippi, or texas, or new york, or california. And then they lived in the atmosphere of a jetliner explodes over ukraine, shot down by russian weapons, by separatist supported by ukraine, by russia rather. And then ukraine, in ukraine, the u. S. Trains an army in the west to fight the east. This impacts our National Security<\/a>. I read the constitution regularly. My predecessor always said keep a constitution in your hand, Barbara Jordan<\/a> said we the people, but i am clear that the imbalance of power between the ukraine and the United States<\/a>, and to heads of say it wouldve caused that president to do almost anything. As ambassador sondland said, he will do anything you desire him to do, and he will call for investigations. He was willing to go on cnn and announced those investigations. The president has abused his power. The president has tried to obstruct congress. He is trying to create his own way of us doing our impeachment inquiry, i believe we are doing the right thing and i support the articles of impeachment. I yield back. The gentlelady yields back. Strike the last word. The gentleman is recognized. Dare i to state the obvious. I have not heard a new point or an original thought from either side in the last three hours. The same talking points have been repeated over and over again adenoids, him by both sides. Repeating a fact over and over it doesnt make it true, and denying a fact over and over doesnt make it falls. Everybody knows this. Everybody watching knows this this hearing has been enough of an institutional embarrassment without putting it on an endless loop. So if i could just offer a modest suggestion if no one has anything new to add . Resist the temptation to inflict what we have already heard over and over again. And with that i yield back. The point is well taken. Who else seeks recognition . For what purpose do you seek recognition . Strike the last. Where the gentleman is recognized. I yield to mr. Jordan. I think the general lady for yielding. I heard them talking about election interference. How about the fbi spying on for american citizens associated with the Trump Campaign<\/a> in 2016 . And the people running that investigation were the ones who said we are going to stop trump. They said trump should lose 100 million to zero. They were the ones who said we have an insurance policy. They ran that investigation where they went to the fisa court, we just learned that two days ago, they lied 17 times. They didnt tell the court the guy who wrote the dossier was desperate to stop trump. The dossier they are using to get a warrant, did not tell that the guy was working for the clinton campaign. That is probably an important fact. They didnt tell the court the guy who wrote the dossier, Christopher Steele<\/a>, was fired by the fbi because he was out talking to the press. They didnt tell them all that. How about that fact . Now in 2020, we dont have the fbi spying on people with the Trump Campaign<\/a> yet. We dont have them going to the fisa court and lying. Instead we have them going to impeachment. That is what they are doing. Thats how they will make it tougher on the president. That is what this is about. That is why it is so wrong. Let the American People<\/a> decide. We are 11 months away from the next election. Let the American People<\/a> decide. We already have the fbi try to weigh in, in 2016, and do all the things mr. Horowitz just told us about this week. Now in 2020, the democrats in congress are trying to create some kind of insurance policy with this impeachment effort. Let the American People<\/a> decide, i yield back to the gentleman. I thank the gentleman. I will yield the remainder of my time. Thank you. There has been some talk about javelin missiles tonight. I just want to draw attention to some of what the democratic witnesses have said. I just have to find it on my desk. Lets talk about the law instead. I have heard when the facts are not on your side, you argue. The facts are on our side. So is the law. If you look at the Legal Definition<\/a> it is very clear that the democrats cannot make out a case. It is interesting to note that the democrats have become original list all of a sudden. So lets go back to a statue. It contains the following elements. If a public official demands a receives personally anything of value in return for being influenced in the performance of an official act. So we can take any one of those elements and deconstructed. Lets start with official acts. A meeting in the white house is not a quote unquote official act under the Supreme Court<\/a>s mcdonald precedent. Setting up a meeting, talking to another official, organizing an event without warrant does not fit the definition of an official act. Right there under Supreme Court<\/a> precedent you dont have an official act. You can also look at the element anything of value. The department of justice, criminal division, Public Integrity<\/a> section opined in september that something as nebulous as an investigation is not of sufficient concrete value to constitution something of value under the federal Campaign Finance<\/a> laws. Presumably, the same would be true under the bribery statute. If we are arguing under the law, i can sit here and argue it all night because the law is on our side. You cannot make out a case. I was a district judge in pennsylvania. I decided cases at this level. I wouldve dismissed this every time i came before me. Because there are not the elements needed to support a case. I only have 30 seconds left, of someone yields me more time i would appreciate it. The president did not have corrupt intent. Democrats are using a parody version of chairman schiff, when he was talking about the president , when he said make up dirt about my opponent. The president didnt say that, that was a parity of chairman shift, that is being used to support this aliment. If anyone has more time, i would appreciate it. With that i yield back. inaudible mister chairman . Mister chairman . Who seeks recognition on this amendment . noise you have spoken on the amendment already. That is what our record say. I dont think so. Does anyone else seek recognition . No one else seeks recognition . Mister chairman, point of order. Mr. Ratcliffe, does mr. Ratcliffe seek recognition . Gentleman is recognized. I guess this means we are not doing the minority hearing today. I would just say that james madison, he said at the convention of 1787, impeachment was for removal of an officer who had rendered himself just the criminal in the eyes of the majority of the people. You dont have that. What you have here is a slop bucket, that you are calling articles of impeachment. What we have heard over the last two days is basically every grievance that democrats have against this president. You stuck the ladle in that slop bucket and you are trying to throw it out there and pigeonholed that grievance into one of two things. Obstruction of congress or abuse of power. That is the problem you have here. You are all over the map because you cant deliver a crime. There is no high, crime there is no misdemeanor. There is no bribery. They try to explain what the bribery might have been, it took her almost a full five minutes, and after she was done, we didnt hear anyone talking about bribery anymore as an Impeachable Offense<\/a>. You talked about a quid pro quo and that was pretty much off the table until tonight, it is kind of running back up again. The bottom line is this. You dont have a specific charge, so used to amorphous, weak areas to go forward. Youve been trying different avenues. I am reminded that one of my colleagues on the other side said, if you want trump to be something he isnt. The reality is that that is projection. You want him to be something he isnt. That is why you are trying to impeach him. That is why you have tried all kinds of theories that have all fallen flat. The big one was the mueller impeachment. You really want that one. That didnt work so well. It didnt work so well because there was nothing there. I would Say Something<\/a> about president zelensky, and his discussion with the president. He himself, president zelensky, without instigation in this conversation at all, about ambassador yovanovitch, after she had been recalled. She said the attitude towards me was far from the best, because she admired the previous president and was on his side. This is the Anti Corruption<\/a> crusader you keep talking about. President poroshenko is being accused of being corrupt, but president zelensky said, yovanovitch was on his side. She would not accept me as the new president well enough. The reason i bring that up is because, you have repeatedly said there is nothing contested here. The facts are not contested. But i go back to something that i think is very important. All of the influences you have drawn have been designed to go against this president and paint him in the light least favorable. That is because you have tried to project him into being something you want him to be. When you look at the facts and the direct evidence, the direct evidence is very clear. Ukraine received the aid, provided nothing in return, and they stated, president zelensky and foreign minister yermak said, they felt no pressure. There was no pressure there. Even ambassador sondland who you relied on over 600 times in your effort, said i have no one in the world told me anything. I just presumed it. You dont have a case. You have never had a case you just wanted to have a case and that is the sadness about it, you are impeaching him because you have wanted to for three years you cant beat him in a reelection, you are not going to beat him in a reelection, so you had to go to impeachment. And that is a tragedy for america. I yield. The gentleman yields back. For what purpose to see seek recognition. Move to strike the last word. Thank you mister chair. With much respect to my colleague, who quoted james madison, there has been this description of the abuse of power as amorphous by some. Nebulous was aware that one of my colleagues used in this long debate tonight. I would offer you the following quote. Liberty maybe endangered by the abuse of liberty. But also vanity abuse of power. That quote is from james madison. The part of this debate that has been so frustrating for me, and i think for a lot of americans who are watching tonight, is the diminishment of the public servants, the patriots, who stepped forward and provided the evidence that demonstrates that this president abused his power. People like Lieutenant Colonel<\/a> vindman, who served this country bravely overseas. People like ambassador bill taylor, a west point graduate, a vietnam veteran, people like doctor fiona hill, people like laura cooper. Official after official, after official from the Trump Administration<\/a>. These individuals serve in the president s administration. Ambassador taylor was not appointed by president obama. He was appointed by President Trump<\/a>. I would hope that my colleagues, is we proceed with the solemn duty that this committee is charged with, that we respect the people who came forward, who have served under republican and democratic administrations, to tell the truth undergrowth, and to help this committee as it seeks to hold this administration accountable. With that i yield. I thank, you mr. Neguse. I was listening to this debate most of us here are lawyers. But the idea that the Founding Fathers<\/a> in 1789 would be considering the u. S. Coal president , and the mcconnell case precedent, and other president s in 1789, is simply ridiculous. Mr. Neguse has pointed out with the Founding Fathers<\/a> had in mind with the impeachment clause, and we know that high crimes and misdemeanors is essentially actions that the president uses, with the extraordinary power that he has been given under the constitution, to subvert the constitutional order, to prevent the constitutional system from working, and that is the concern that we have here. Not only that the president has done that, but that he is not contrite, he is not correcting his behavior. He is continuing to do it. He is presenting an ongoing threat, and he will continue to subvert the constitutional order. I thank mr. Neguse for yielding to me on the idea that these court cases would have been precedent in 1789. I yield back. I yield the balance of my time to mr. Rhode island. We have taken into record 500 legal scholars. They reinforce what mr. Neguse just said. Impeachment is in essential remedy for conduct a corrupt selections. The primary check on the president s powers political. If the president reforms poorly he can be punished at the polls. But a president who corrupts the system, places himself beyond that political check. George mason described Impeachable Offense<\/a> is as attempts to subvert the constitution, corrupting elections subverts the it makes the president accountable. The president sheets in his efforts it reelection, it is no remedy. This is what impeachment is for. I asked my republican, colleagues how many of you would allow a foreign power to help in your elections . Not one of you, because you know it would violate the constitution. And you dont want to corrupt the right of the American People<\/a> to decide who will represent them. I was the mayor of providence. It would be like if i got a grant of 1 Million Dollars<\/a> to fight gang violence, and the police chief called me and said, where is that money, that i said before i send it to you let me do that do me a favor. The gentlemans time has expired. For what purpose. I moved to strike the last. Word no he has already spoken. The question is now on the amendment. Those in favor say aye. Those no. The nays have it. The amendment is not agreed to. A roll call vote has been requested. Call the roll. Mr. Nadler. Mr. Nadler votes. No miss lofgren . Miss lofgren votes. Now miss jacksonlee . Miss jacksonlee votes no. Mr. Cohen . Mr. Cohen votes now. Mr. Johnson of georgia . Mr. Johnson and georgia votes no. Mr. Deutch . Mr. George foot. No miss bass . Miss bath votes. Now mr. Richmond . Mr. Richmond votes. Now mr. Jeffries . Mr. Jeffries was. No mr. Cicilline . Mr. Cicilline says. No mr. Swalwell . Mr. Swalwell votes. Now mr. Lieu . I mr. Raskin . Mr. Raskin votes. No miss jayapal . Miss jayapal votes. No miss demings . Miss demings votes. No mr. Korea . Mr. Cravats. No . Yes kamala miss scanlon votes. Now its garcia . Miss kersey about. Snow mr. Neguse . Mr. Drug use. Was no miss mcbath . Miss mcbath foot. Snow mr. Stanton . Mr. Stanton votes. No list . In misty in both. Snow is mucarselpowell . As mucarselpowell votes. No miss escobar votes. Now mr. Collins . Mr. Collins votes. I mr. Sensenbrenner . Mr. Sensenbrenner votes. I mr. Chavez . Mr. Shouted both. I mr. Gohmert . I. Mr. Jordan . Mr. Jordan votes yes. Mr. Back . Mr. Backfoot yes. Mr. Ratcliffe . Mr. Ratcliffe as. Yes mister will be . Miss robots i. Mr. Gates . Mr. Gates but i. Mr. Johnson of louisiana . Mr. Johnson of louisiana birdseye. Mr. Bigs . Mister exhibits i. Mr. Mcclintock . Mr. Maclean talk about i. Miss lesko . Missed last but i. Mr. Reschenthaler . Mr. Reschenthaler boats i. Mr. Cline . Mr. Cline votes i. Mr. Armstrong . Mr. Armstrong votes yes. Mister still be . Mister studios yes. Are there any members of the committee who wish to the clerical report. Mister, chairman there are 17 eyes and 23 knows. The amendment is not agreed to. The committee will now stand in recess for half an hour. The House Judiciary Committee<\/a> continues its work on the articles of impeachment. They are debating amendments, and theyre taking but have our breaking during this break were going to take your phone calls. Get your reaction to what youve heard so far today. The number is on your screen. Taking those calls in just a minute. Lets watch as the room disperses. Just reminded it i think we cover the past couple of weeks when it comes to impeachment, it is all available on our website, to cspan. Org slash impeachment. You can find all the hearings, statements, etc etc that the congress and the president have made over the past couple of weeks. Lets hear from you know. Donna in sacramento. Democrats line. Donna, what do you think so far of todays hearing . Well, its getting a bit weird. Im sure they must be tired. Have you been with it all day long . Yes, i have it on in the background, we will hope, you know, if you say play cspan radio and then it has it on the radio in the background. Right. And you know, i just wanted to voice my support for the house of representatives, the Democratic Party<\/a>, and i want to continue and i support them wholeheartedly in what theyre trying to do. I am listening to both sides but i think its just really important for them to get the impeachment process. Thank you for calling in. The nieces and meadow green, louisiana, independent line. Please go ahead. Ive been listening to the hearings all day, and i just think its very divisive for the country. I am an independent and i think the republicans make a good point but there is no substantial evidence for the impeachment but you know, i recognize the process and it should go forward but again, i just think its taking time away from other issues for the country. Thank you, maam. Elaine in bellevue, washington, independent, line elaine, what are your thoughts about today . Hi, im in nebraska, actually. Im sorry, nebraska extends. Okay, i just, what do i think today . Yes men. I think that number one, it does not seem to be very fair. Im just kind of looking at both sides and i just dont think its been a fair thing, and i think that as taxpayers, we are paying these guys to do things for us, i think they could be doing something other than this. Now, when you say it hasnt been fair, to whom . I dont think it is being fair to the republicans or conservative, whatever you called. If any of the members stood out to you . Do you like what they have to say or uptick you off . No, they havent ticked me off, i found it interesting that i think the republicans have not had a good chance at showing their fight, not just in this, but i watched what there was, of whatever you want to color, of schiff, i think he is crooked as hell, i dont care whether democrat or republican i dont like him. Thank you for calling from bellevue, nebraska. And mary is in vancouver, washington. Democrat. Hi, mary. Hi, i think it has just been too long coming. I have been following this through the congressional record, following legislation, and there has been multiple resolutions about impeaching trump. The keep going to committee, and so i know they have been working on getting all of this due process resolve the last three years and it has been a long time that now the process is out in the public it is speeding along quickly and trump is screaming, no due process and i think that is a bunch of pro donkey. I know theres been due process because ive been watching it, and it has been three years coming saying, it is rolling along quickly now that it has been a public facing process. As far as the hearings go, all of the republicans say is that this part of the process is ridiculous because really it is. It is going on behind the scenes. This is the House Judiciary Committee<\/a>, and if they vote out the two articles of impeachment, abuse of power and obstruction of congress, then those two articles of impeachment will go to the house floor. It is looking like possibly next week that the full house will vote on this. Sue, press got arizona, republican. How are . You good. Whats on your mind . I have been watching this most of the day. I had to take a break though, because i got too stressed out, i had to decompress and take off. But i cant believe how late this is going into the night, and they are repeating, especially the democrats, republicans a little bit too. They are repeating the same soundbite over and over, and bringing up the Founding Fathers<\/a>, which i seem to recollect, last year people were condemning the Founding Fathers<\/a> as old white guys. So i am watching this, and im watching swalwell especially, and he thinks this is a joke. He is sitting next to another democrat, who i cant remember his name, they smirk and laugh. And look at the camera like this is a big joke. And the people out here do not think its a joke. I live in an area where we have a lot of people from california moving here, to escape exactly the same thing that is happening in california. Sue, there is an arizona representative on the committee. Is she your representative . I dont think so. I dont think my representative is on this committee right here. Thank you for calling. In mitchell in west haven, connecticut, on are democrats line, you are next. I am not a politician, but what i am is a disabled veteran. I think this debate is beyond political lines, his far as democrats and republicans. It is about forcing the constitution of the United States<\/a>, and nobody is about above that. Whether you were a senator, or on any committee. If he did something against the constitution, he should be held accountable for it, democrat or republican. Have you been watching since 9 am this morning . For the most part, yes i have. Did anybody stand out to you . Both sides given argument, but they should take the political last bouts about party lines out of it. They should look at what the constitution states. Thats what we are here to defend, and to guard. Whether its a president , senator, congressman. Thank you sir, for calling in. Raymond, down in louisiana. Is that rainy louisiana . Rain louisiana. I missed the lake charles rally when trump was down here. This was supposed to be a debate, but the democrats seem to have no substance as to coming up with proof or evidence that it is illegal. Misdemeanors or misconduct or something. But anyway, my issue would be i dont believe in coincidence that all the democrats that want sanctuary cities, snowboarders, and all that stuff, want to impeach the president. That would be in conflict with them. Going just by coincidence, i dont believe that is one thing or the other. The other coincidences, the democrats dont realize that china, iran, north korea, russia, germany and france, would like not to have to deal with trump for four more years. They are all waiting in line, waiting for the democrats to succeed, to nullify trumps election, is that a good thing or a bad thing . Well, take a look. Theyre working for those foreign countries. Do you think china wants to deal with trump, or north korea, do you think iran wants to deal with trump . Scott won of the hill newspaper sent out this tweet looking at the tentative house schedule for next week. Tentative. There will be a vote on government funding. It looks like a deal has been struck there. Wednesday it will be a discussion and vote on the two articles of impeachment, followed by a vote on thursday of the trade agreement, the usmca. The tanya, florida, independent, line good, evening if daniel. Hello, thank you for having me on. Lets go ahead. Im actually, im a High School Student<\/a> and i would consider myself a conservative libertarian. I watch these debates for well over a month but i get to see a democrat speaker actually make a solid point. They have these hearings based completely on biased, handpicked politicians and all i have seen them do is just try to appeal to a motion, using deep words like treasonous and tyrannical, and they dont even have a fair ground even argue for that because all theyve been able to try to say, on the broader spectrum of abuse of power and the president , even though the president s actions have been productive publicly under the constitution, like they argue with the debates, their claim just falls apart, and they keep key witnesses from testifying and use impeachment as a tool, it just isnt there the ones actually obstructing justice. Daniel, you said you had been following this pretty closely over the past two months. Do you find that that is a shared sentiment . Are you standing alone there . I find it a shared sentiment, i would hope so, i hope americans are actually watching this and seeing this going on in their country. All right, well, thanks for calling in. Next caller is keith from graham, north carolina. Republican line. Hello, im a High School Teacher<\/a> and i have been teaching for 27 years and i would just like to say that one, donald trump, the whole thing, whenever he got there and he asked for a favor, he was asking for, i mean, biden came back and he clearly stated that im holding your money unless you stay away from doing anything to my son and that is illegal, and trump asked for that to be investigated. They did not want trump elected so, how is holding, adam schiff, i will tell you what, i have never seen anybody in my life that does not know what the truth is. He has lied about knowing who the whistleblower is. He has lied about meeting the whistleblower. Now, he has to have lied because he has told four different stories so, one of the stories is a lie. Which, one we dont know. What do you teach a high school . I teach physical education. Do you share those opinions of the high school . Well, i cant. If i was liberal, you can share your opinion, as a conservative, if we share our opinions, you will be fired. That is keith in sea grove, north carolina. Up next is to encounter with, washington. Democrats line. Go ahead, soup. Hi. I heard a lot of talk about substance. Im definitely a democrat. I have been watching all day today, and i work nights, so ive been listening to all the testimonies and im hearing a lot of talk about systems and im just wondering how republicans are confused about why there is no substance. All, testimony all significant transcripts, everything, that alone is impeachable. Never before has the president tried to block so desperately every Good Intention<\/a> of upholding the constitution. So, i really wonder how people have been reacting, republicans, if this were hillary clinton, if this were obama. Would be even for a second to be okay with it . And im curious as well what happened to republicans as of nixon and even during the mccarthy era, they were so paranoid that they really paid attention. Right, now i feel like im watching an entirely bankrupt, politically corrupt Republican Party<\/a> here defend indefensible behavior and its just appalling to me. Soup, i dont know if youve noticed, but there is a washington congresswoman on the democrat side of the House Judiciary Committee<\/a>, congresswoman jayapal. Have you been watching here at all . Yes. Is your congresswoman . Yes, i think she has been fairly brilliant. I have really liked listening, honestly, to scanlon. I think she has had some good points today. And what is unfortunate is it took eight months for congress to approve, oh, whats his name, to be able to testify, mcgahn, it took eight months. If we had to subpoena they should have just stepped in, everyone who was asked to speak should have just stepped in, but with trump blocking it it could take another eight months before any of these other legitimate pieces of information that have been blocked to come forward of substance. That is sue, and kennewick washington. This is sam down new orleans, independent line. Hi, sam. Hi, this is sam calling for new orleans. Thanks for taking my call. I think what is concerning for me more than anything, is the degree of suspension of disbelief and that is concerning for me. Basically, on all the facts that have been laid out by the democrats, things just in the public domain, the call transcript, it is exceedingly clear what the aims of mr. Trump were, and that was to obtain an investigation, and a political cabin to just time, into his chief political rival. He couldve done in 2016. He couldve done in 2017. It couldve done it in 2018, but he waited until right before the election and that is troublesome. Now having seen it, written it thus far, it hasnt said anything exculpatory mr. Trump and even the timeline that has been laid out, when people come on it and they say the democrats have not laid out a case and they just want to nullify an election, that is concerning to me because for those of us that unfortunately have family members in the criminal justice system, this is an open and shut case. If this were actually in the criminal justice system, this would be probably one of the easiest things for trump to do because there is a concession a concession, is i want you to me a favor, though, and then mr. Trump goes on to directly name mr. Biden. All right, sam. We got the point. David would, south dakota,. Yes, hi, how are you doing. My name is david, and a life over here is the same, on the political what is going on, what is happening right now with this impeachment, i fully agree with it because this president that is supposed to be the face of the American People<\/a>, he has really demeaned the office considerably, enough for people in congress to say hey, enough is enough. He is not above the law. Where is his integrity ad . To his integrity to lead the American People<\/a> in a positive way. But to make all americans proud to wear the stars and stripes. Im also emergency men and i see firsthand a lot of American Companies<\/a> who have reduced their product in china. Now, he said he wanted to bring americans back, well how about our call centers in the philippines . Its like, americans cant answer a phone . So thats outsourcing, so, where was his voice on bringing jobs back to america . You talk about 20,000 call center agents. That could be 20,000 jobs here in america. Hey, david, you compare the situation in washington today whats going on at the rosebud reservation. What do you mean by that . Well, what i mean by that is that the life over here is just to survive because as you well know, if you take a broader sense of it, that the per capita income is very low because jobs are not so much out here. There is a president trying to steal more work out here. All right, david, we got it. Danny, matt vernon, ohio, democrats line. Youre on cspan. My name is danny middle, from melbourne, ohio. Lets go, ahead with listening. Democrats are laying out a good case that trump is guilty. He is a criminal and a terrorist and has no job being in the white house, and the democrats have been spent the day watching . Yes, i have. All right, thank you for calling. Leonard, halfway, in alabama. Republican. Hi, leonard. Have you been watching . Theyve been after President Trump<\/a> ever since hes been in office. Think about it. Common sense. The minute he got in there in office theyve been digging through it up on him all the time. A lot of people dont like him, but are there is a lot of jobs that has come to alabama on account of him so i mean, you know, i think this is a joke. They just do not like him because hes an outsider, these people, he will not do what everyone haulers job, youve got the job, do what i asked to do when i order job. He will not do it. That is why did you not like him. They dont like it because he wont jump when they say job. That is the whole thing. Thank you for calling. We are taking your calls during this break in the House Judiciary Committee<\/a> hearing. They are expected back in about ten minutes or so, five to ten minutes. As you can see, the coming back into the room, a couple of them, and they will continue debating amendments to the articles impeachment, the bill that was introduced to impeach the president is available, if you would like to read, it on our website, cspan. Org and in fact everything over the last two months but we have covered when it comes to the impeachment is available at the website cspan. Org slash impeachment. Thomas, indiana, high, thomas. Hello, how are you doing . Just fine, please go ahead. I just want to say no matter what side of the aisle you are, nobody ever nobody ever unites people. And who is the bully . I guess Everybody Knows<\/a> who the bully is. All, right thomas in a democrat here, omar, in the suburbs of washington. Go ahead, omar. , hi i just want to share my view as an immigrant whose family fled communism, i find it absolutely unnecessary that republicans are hitching their wagons to a president who was clearly, clearly criminal. I just wanted to spell two of the talking points which is, one they are undoing the will of the people, the president did not win the popular vote and secondly, that we are trying to overturn the election, but i guess everybody seems to forget that trump to become president and im no fan of that but were just trying to get a criminal out of office and i really troubled by the perilous in his administration has to several dictatorships around the caribbean in central america. Omar, where is her family from originally . Id rather not say. I think people would try to figure out who i am. All right, thank you, sir. All right, our, old cleveland ohio, a republican, you are on cspan. Hi, how are you doing. So, i would again my two cents yesterday night, well, yesterday afternoon when it first and people are making comments, making a great descent for trump and im looking at the facts and im concerned about the constitution and im concerned about what weve done for the people. Im a republican and i am for the people and when i am seeing some of the points being made, some of the people that really touched, him i thought, were the representatives, akin jeffries along with definitely some of the points that Eric Swalwell<\/a> had made, but i definitely, agree with impeachment right now, the information i have seen is, i am concerned about communities. I am concerned about the constitution and i am worried, is struck concerned about those . Are they hiding information . Because we did not give it to you, ive been watching, since yesterday. Are, all did you vote for President Trump<\/a> in 2016 as a republican . No, i did not. Thank, you sir. Bob . Worcester, massachusetts, independent, line hi, bob. Hi, how are you doing, i have been watching this for many hours and i did vote for President Trump<\/a> as an independent, and i still believe that he is working for the American People<\/a> and democrats seem to be working against the American People<\/a>, when everything he is accomplishing his three years, no president can compared to that, and i honestly believed but the Democratic Party<\/a> is afraid of what this man can accomplish. , bob and you hear any arguments today that stood out or convinced you otherwise . No. With all the reminiscing and background, it shows they have nothing to impeach this man on. Fog in worcester, mass. Thank you. Andrew, greensboro, north carolina, on the democrats, line andrew, go ahead. I ive been hearing basically every testimony, and it feels like we are stuck in a line of excuses from the republican side so, the fact, was there was a quid pro quo but it is fine, we have done it before, representative ratcliffe, no one died in ukraine, so it is okay, doug, collins they release the aid after the complaint came out, so its okay for jordan. The president says the policy is his job, or obstruction of any crime is not a crime, but obstruction is a crime. Its part of their job to investigate this. The economy may be fine, and keep arguing that fact without mentioning the justice, but our government is not. It is not an argument against crimes committed, and the keep asking for hunter biden to come in but it is irrelevant and so is the whistleblower. And, we are fighting down in greensboro that your colleagues and friends are following this process . I have a few friends that are following very closely and unfortunately i work in a place that is more democratic or may lean democrat versus republican so we are able to have open discourse about this but the people, i do meet people, this being the southeast, that are not following it as closely and they are drawing different conclusions that i am and i am assuming that thank, you sir, steve, new york city, republican, high. Hi, how are you doing, man . Go ahead, steve. Hey, thanks, i guess one thing people kind of forget, can johnson over theyre sitting on the democratic side that the island was guam would tip over if we put too many soldiers there, yet were supposed to think he is a Rocket Scientist<\/a> when it comes to constitutional law, it is infuriating to see what the Democratic Party<\/a> has become, just stripping away peoples vote. You know, people forget there was a democratic process that involved getting trump into office and they have spent the last several years trying to get him out. Twisting words, again, we hear, to get dirt on my opponent, that is not what he said. He did not say it at all. You hear, bring the Founding Fathers<\/a> into the equation but there is your substance behind what they say and it is the most frustrating thing to watch. What is it like to be a republican in new york city . Its frustrating in itself. We live in an age where there is one side that can freely speak their mind, they can really say whatever they want and then there is another side to cannot. You know, you are painted as someone who is a racist, a bigot, and i know personally i am one of those things and i believe in diversity of thought. We should not be subjected to intersectionalities, and if you look a certain way you should not believe a certain thing, i believe in a common character, i believe in private property, ivory leave in everybody pulling their own weight and these things have been construed over time, these qualities, that once were looked at as virtuous, now it is you, know, having personal responsibility, will now that the selfishness and the list goes on so, that is what its like living as a minority, but a minority that it is okay to prosecute, i guess. What kind of work to do new york . I do sales, actually. Thank, you sir, for calling in. Program, fox news, tweet the committee is currently in a recess and will be coming back shortly and of course on c span we will be carrying it live. Chris, orchard, washington. Independent line. Hi, chris. Hi, how are you . Good. Im probably one of the weird ones who has been following this for the last two and a half months and quite honestly im not politically base, my husband used to have the news on what i would walk in the living room and i would say, would you please turn the channel . But this one really caught me. Why didnt you, chris . Because i see a lot of our values, a lot of our regular peoples values, the regular peoples ideas, the regular people thought, our rights being taken away from us and we have a president up there that is actually speaking what i believe, a president up there that is actually speaking our minds for us, and president who wont take any garbage, and a president who is who has a backbone, instead of telling us what we want to hear, and going behind closed doors going to court to do something else. Does your husband agree with you . Oh, yes he does. Yes he does, as a matter of fact. As a matter of fact, hes asking me, now can we please change the channel . Okay, well, if you change the channel, go back to cspan, helpful youre still on cspan because were about to go back to the room and now. The committee is filtering back in but we thought we would go a little bit earlier you can watch everything. The pending mary before the committee is the amendment of an issue the substantive. Mister chairman for what purpose to the gentleman strike . Strike the last word. Mister chairman, this debate is going to be the last of a very long day that we have had. I would like to start out by commanding the chairman for following the rules. I think that this markup has been a lot better than it couldve been and i think the chairman has been probably very even handed about that. That being said, let me say that the chairman and those on his side of the aisle are dead wrong and all of the issues, both today and last night, as well as beforehand. The constitution says that the president and other civil officials can be impeached for treason, bribery or other high crimes and misdemeanors. I think it is very obvious that there was no treason or bribery alleged here, and it goes on to what has been alleged in these two articles, whether they really are high crimes and misdemeanors. I would submit the answer in both of them as an emphatic no. What is accused of being an abuse of power is, in my opinion, a policy disagreement on how the president should have approached the issues that are outlined there. And let me say as far as for a day goes and the issue of the 391 Million Dollars<\/a> of foreign aid to ukraine is the one in the center is that practically, every bit of foreign aid that the United States<\/a> disperses following the congressional appropriation is contingent on something or another, and then what are the common threads, if so stated in the foreign aid an accident, is whether or not there is any type of corruption that is involved in that. I think we can all see that ukraine has been a pretty corrupt country and that president zelensky was elected on Anti Corruption<\/a> platform, and we wish him well including the place up. The fact is that i think the president would have been derelict in his duty at least had he held off or just given the foreign aid without trying to check on corruption and that is what was going on. As far as obstruction of congress is concerned, earlier today i talked a bit about the fact that this article is drafted so loosely and so weekly, that it turns United States<\/a> into a parliamentary form of government and the consequences of that is that whenever we have a president a majority house representatives controlled by opposite parties who are going to attempt to see the majority in the house of representatives try to impeach the president but, i would like to finally say that we have heard an awful lot about the fact that if donald trump does not impeach, it or removed from office he will steal the 2020 election. That is one of the most outlandish predictions that i have ever heard. The 2020 election will be looked at very closely by representatives both of the candidates, by the news media, via lot of citizens, whether they are involved in the campaigns of the candidates or not. And its going to be pretty darn hard to steal the 2020 election after all of this has happened, what is happening here is, there is an attempt to steal the 2016 election three years after the fact because, if donald trump is impeached and removed from office, based on this flimsy record, based upon all of the problems with extinguishing minority rights both in the Intelligence Committee<\/a> and before tonight, here, and that would end up stealing the 2016 election, it will end up avoiding the votes of the 63 Million People<\/a> who voted for donald trump for president of the United States<\/a> and, i think that that will be something that will haunt this country for decades to come. The time to stand up for the constitution is now. The time to determine how you stand up for the constitution is by voting no on both articles of impeachment and i yield back the balance of my time. The betterment yields back the balance of his time. Struck the last word. The gentleman is recognized. Thank, you sir. I join with mr. Sensenbrenner and committing the chairman on is running this committee tonight, it has been very difficult, it has been a long day, and all of us are tired, at least i am, and the chairman has done a great job, but i totally disagree with chairman sensenbrenner in his summation of what we have before us. I think they are dead wrong in their thinking on the articles of impeachment. There are two articles. This is in no way stealing the election. If donald trump is removed from office, the election of 2016 is not nullified. Mike prince will be the president and that is no walk in the park. It is the same policies, some of them maybe even worse, maybe a little bit better ethics and morals, a little bit more civility, but as far as policies, they would be about the same. There has been a lot of discussion of what we have had here but basically this is an issue about abuse of power based on testimony of Lieutenant Colonel<\/a> vindman, ambassador yovanovitch, ambassador taylor, and doctor hill. These are four independent class, acts people we should all look to, and who we all talk about is patriots, they are patriots but they are Career Foreign Service<\/a> folk weve done a great job for america, are not partisan came fourth out of a sense of duty to testify and what they testified to is what happened with the ukraine withdrawal, that there was an abuse of power and that is why they came forward and to say that this whole process is corrupt is basically an affront to each of those for patriots who came forward. For those four Career Foreign Service<\/a> officials, those for people who were nonpartisan. They did a service to this country. The fact is, the factor in disputed that what happened was a favor, although i would ask you for a favor, though, and mulvaney going, out get used to it. That is what politics is. Thats what happened, and then we had sondland saying, they were all in on it, it was a requirement, and you get the military aid, youve got to announce the investigation. There is nothing other than that, and weve been here, in the last few hours, they could use it as the campaign ad for, trump they had the markets up at all that kind of stuff. Snap payments are being cut drastically and poor people are going to be hurt, and they did not benefit from the trump tax scheme. A person said the two biggest mistake when he was up here were voting for the tax game and a book for the budget it came afterwards, exploding the debt, and somebody on the other side talked about how we need to be up here fighting. They have exploded the debt. They have no traditional republican philosophy whatsoever. The kurds . Scion aria. They ruined us in the middle east forever. Trump just sold him out for his friend in territory and the kurds to hell with you. And we gave syria to the russians and just yesterday trump met with the, the russian ambassador. No report i want to talk about what the white house said they talked about influence not to have influence in the next election, and trump told them, he should not try to influence our next elections elaborate said, we did not discuss the elections, that is not true. Its hard to figure out which one is lying, even when i have a very good track record so i hope we can get it finish today, past these two articles do it is important to protect our democracy, defend our support our oath, abide by our oath, support the constitution, and support our National Security<\/a>, all of which have been jeopardized by donald j trump, by his self dealing with ukraine. I said earlier today that the president of ukraine was an actor and a politician. I would not say anything bad about him. A lot of actors are great. I love actors. I love politicians. I am a politician but that is why he could not say that he was under any arrest or any influence and he felt like he was being pressured. He could not say that because he is in an inferior position. It is like a battered wife with her husband around who beat her up, he cant say to the police, she cant say, he beat me up, because he is there and when the police leave he will do it again. And so, he was in a terrible position. I look forward to meeting him, i will be in ukraine in february and i think hes going to do a wonderful job, and some people over there said ukraine, in the world, it is like 120, rankings out of 180, not good, are you back the balance of my time i got blasted isis america. Gentleman yields back. I think well share those sentiments. While seeks recognition . For what purpose does mr. Chabot seek recognition . The strike last, word mister chairman. Thank you, mister chairman. I just have to respond to the gentleman who tennessee who made a couple of remarks. I will start off by saying i really like the gentleman from tennessee, mr. Cohen. Its mutual. We have worked on a number of bills, together introduced them, he is a good guy but he is flat out wrong about taxes. The tax cuts have really help this country. It is one of the main reason we are seeing the economy take off and peoples bank accounts, and their savings, accounts and their retirement accounts are so much better and more positive right now because the president and a Republican Congress<\/a> passed those tax cuts without a single democratic vote, and one big difference between the two party is republicans want to cut your taxes and democrats in general, that every one of, them most of them want to raise your taxes. Just a big difference, but relative to impeachment, back in the early 1970s, i was a College Student<\/a> and our nation was going through another impeachment at the time, richard nixon, and i actually voted for him, he was the first president i voted for in 1972 and obviously, he got in trouble and was going to be impeached but he resigned before. Article some people were voted to disagree committee, this committee, but then before the house took it, out he resigned from office and little did i know, and i will be very closely involved in that, one of the people on this committee, five of us were here in those days, mr. Sensenbrenner and i, on the republican side and the chairman, mr. Nadler, and miss lofgren, and ms. Jacksonlee, all five of us, mr. Sensenbrenner and i at the house manager, the prosecution case and some folks on the other side will get that opportunity and good luck, and mr. Sensenbrenner remembers henry hyde was our leader at the time and, he said, we are not going to be very welcome, when you are all over there, but he was, bill, clinton he was impeached by the house in the senate obviously did not remove him from office and i think its very likely thats what were going to see happen in this case, but back then, bill clinton put his hand on the bible, and to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, and then he lied, he committed perjury and that is something that hundreds of people were in jail across the country for the time and i thought i still think the president should not be above the law. He had committed a high crime of misdemeanor, very different from this case, they are not even alleging a crime in this case, there is clearly not a high crime and misdemeanor, that is why i will be voting against impeaching the president in this instance and i think the democrats have been looking for an excuse to impeach this president for a long time now. In fact, when they took over the house, one of their members filed articles of impeachment that very day and really, since inauguration day, many wanted to impeach him. In my view, this is all about politics, it is all about hurting the president in his reputation. They just like him intensely, as i mention the other day, they really low this president and they are trying to hurt his chances in the next election and it may well just the opposite, but one of my real concerns, and i mention this earlier today, i am very concerned about the democrats really lowering the bar for impeaching the president in the future. Its becoming too routine, its becoming the new normal. For 200 years in our nation we have had one impeachment, one, and 200, years andrew johnston, analysis 50 years we are on our 31 this time around, and i really am concerned that from now on, in all likelihood, we have the president of the United States<\/a> and the house of representatives and they are opposite parties, you are going to end up with the base in the house of representatives pushing very hard at members to impeach that president and it is very divisive for the nation, so many other things do not get done when youre going through an impeachment. For example, opioids. About 70,000 americans lost their lives last year but we have done very little about opioids on this committee and we have jurisdiction over it. There was something about our southern border which is still like a severe, far too many people coming in illegally, this committees responsibility, but we do almost nothing there, and overall in congress, our infrastructure, roads and highways, it is crumbling, but we do very little about that so, i think the American People<\/a> deserve a lot better than what they are getting from this committee or from this congress so, in any event, i want to thank the folks out there and god bless america. The gentlemans time has expired. For what purpose does mr. George seek recognition . I move to strike the last word. Gentleman is recognized. Thank you, mister chairman. Mister chairman, i want to start by agreeing with mr. Sensenbrenner, it is always the right time to defend the constitution and that is the very reason that we are here. There are two articles of impeachment, the first is abuse of power, the president of the United States<\/a> abused his power by soliciting foreign interference in our election. How did he do it . He leverage lifesaving, taxpayer funded military aid that ukraine desperately needed for assistance in his Reelection Campaign<\/a> and he leverage the white house meeting that he had promised to the new ukrainian president , that president zelensky desperately needed to show Vladimir Putin<\/a> that the United States<\/a> is going to stand with ukraine, he leverage that meeting for assistance in his Reelection Campaign<\/a>. That is abuse of power. Now, my colleagues have suggested that somehow abuse of power is not a serious offense, that we should make light of the president s actions and not treated as the constitutional violation that it is. In fact, abuse of power was the principal concern of the framers of the constitution and it was clear what it meant, the exercise of official tower to obtain improper personal benefit while ignoring or injuring the National Interest<\/a>. That is abuse of power. It is rooted in the president s duty, constitutional duty to faithfully execute the law, to put service over self, to put the country over his personal interests. I know for my colleagues that all four of the constitutional scholars who testified, including the republicans own witness, have confirmed that abuse of power is an Impeachable Offense<\/a>. President trumps actions, in fact, exemplify the framers fears and the very reason that abuse of power is a high crime. Worse, worse than president nixon, President Trump<\/a> pressured a Foreign Government<\/a> to aid in his scheme. That is the abuse of power article, but there is a second article, obstruction of congress. We know that no president in history, in history has directed the entire executive branch not to cooperate with an impeachment inquiry, has told every member of the executive branch not to speak to any of the impeachment inquiry, to any of the impeachment inquiry issues. Now, the question is, when you look at the abuse of power, which is a constitutional violation, and then you look at the president s obstruction of congress, and at least to some questions i would like my colleagues to think about as we head toward this important vote, think about the people who the president has blocked from speaking. Think about mick mulvaney. Now, mick mulvaney, i can see post off, acknowledge a quid pro quo and said it happens all the time. That is abuse of power. And the president would not let him speak, that is obstruction of congress. Why wont he let him speak . But if he had to hide . Think about secretary perry, ambassador taylor described a highly irregular ukraine policy channel led by rudy giuliani, that included sondland, volker and rick perry. That contributes to the abuse of power. It violates abuse of power but it is also obstruction of congress. Why wont the president allow him to speak . What is he afraid of . Think about john bolton, fiona hill testified that bolton told her to notify and i see council about the rogue effort, he said, i am not a part of whatever drug deal sondland and mulvaney are picking up, voting in fact called giuliani a hand grenade who is going to blow everybody up. That is the abuse of power, obstruction of congress, it is clear, why wont the president let him testify . What is he hiding. And finally, john eisenberg, Lieutenant Colonel<\/a> vindman could not believe what he heard on the call. He reported it to eisenberg. Now, eisenberg cant speak . What is the president is afraid he will say . That is obstruction of congress, abuse of power and obstruction of congress, to get to that is what these articles are about. We are protecting the constitution. We are protecting the American People<\/a> and our elections. That is why we need to proceed with these articles of impeachment. The gentleman yields back. Mr. Reschenthaler seeks recognition. Im district last word, mister chairman. Recognize. Thank, you mister chairman. Ive been a prosecutor. I was a prosecutor in baghdad when i was in the navy, prosecuting terrorists, actually, in the iraqi court system. I was a defensive turning in the navy. I actually got to defend a navy seal against trumped up charges for the administration and i had the honor of serving as a district judge in my hometown in the south hills of pittsburgh so ive been on all sides of this courtroom and i can tell you that i would defend this case every single day and it is because the facts just arent there. Lets go through each article. Abuse of power, quid pro quo, call it whatever your focus group wants to call it, at the end of the, day you do not have the facts to make the case, you dont have the facts because the other party on your quid pro, quo the alleged quid pro quo, never felt pressure. We have a primary document, primary source of information, that is the transcript of the call, that shows there is no connection. We also have the other party, president zelensky who said at no time did the cranes feel any pressure to have an investigation. You also know that no investigation of biden ever took place. We also know that aid was given to ukraine, even if they never knew at the time. And aid came in the form of javelin missiles. Not with the Obama Administration<\/a> gave, which were wellwishers and blankets so again, no case can be made for abuse of power, obstruction of congress. This is what we would describe as right, or not right, it is not right because only letters have been sent there has been no subpoena and how this works is a subpoenas issued, the executive branch exercises their executive privilege, just like obama did, and then the courts decide it. The courts have never decided this, so where is the obstruction . It does not exist. So, i would defend this case every single day. As a judge, i would dismiss this from a lack of merit. Even if the facts are viewed in a light most favorable to the democrats, you still again cannot make what we as lawyers call a prime official case. This case would be dismissed on day one in a courtroom but, i will tell you what case i would prosecute. I would prosecute shift for abuse of power any day of the week. Why . How about the fact that he subpoenaed phone records from member of congress. How will the fact that he singled it devin nunes his cell phone number and like that . How about the fact that he jumped over 8000 pages on the Judiciary Committee<\/a>, 48 hours before he had a hearing in his committee. That is the abuse of power and that is why we prosecute every day of the week. Obstruction, i had to prosecute the democrats for obstruction of congress to. Why the fact that i had a motion to subpoena the whistleblower. The whistleblower who, by the way, you can appoint any statute, there is no statute that gives that whistleblower the right to be anonymous, does not exist matter what you say. I had a motion is gonna, the whistleblower, two weeks, ago that motion was denied and i never got my subpoena never got my past subpoena it was done in a partisan fashion. So that was the obstruction, i would prosecute that every single day. Folks, that is a legal analysis. This is nothing more than a political hit job, thanks, and i are yield the remainder of my time. The gentleman yields back. For what purposes miss candlestick recognition . A move to strike the last word. Ladies recognized. You know, i want to reiterate, this is not a boat disagreement with the president s policies or personality, or even his tweets. Were not judging the president himself. Or judging his actions. And i understand he ran this to disrupt the government, the problem as he went further. By abusing his power, he endangered our elections and our National Security<\/a>, here remains an ongoing threat to both. He has shown a pattern of inviting foreign interference in our election and trying to cover it up twice. He is threatening to do it again so, we have heard a lot of loose talk about what evidence we have or dont have. There is plenty of direct evidence of the president s wrongdoing including, for, example this july 25th call record but she said to the ukrainian president , i want you to do as a, favor though and then proceeded to request investigations into his political rival in a debunked Conspiracy Theory<\/a> that the senate and all of our National Security<\/a> services have rejected. We have the testimony of his appointees, ambassador sondland and volker about the may 23rd meeting which the president said to them, talk to rudy. We have testimony of three firsthand witnesses to the july 25th call, two of whom promptly reported the call to their superiors and to legal counsel. We had the testimony of david holmes, who overheard the president asked ambassador sondland whether president zelensky was going to, quote, do the investigation. We have the president many public statements, including his october 3rd statement that ukraine and china should investigate his political rival. Even though minority counsel mr. Castor admitted there was direct evidence he said we had some direct evidence on certain things and we had direct evidence on the may 23rd meeting, and sondland given direct evidence, and quote, the second hand accounts are also extensively corroborated. For example, ambassador taylor mr. Morrison both testify during as number seven phone call with ambassador sondland, President Trump<\/a> said there was no quid pro quo for that president zelensky had to go to the microphone and announce investigations. And im giving with one hand taking away with the other. Ambassador sondland testified he had no reason to dispute ambassador taylor mr. Morrisons testimony about this conversation. There is also circumstantial evidence. There was no contemporaneous explanation given to the president s decision to withhold military aid that had bipartisan support from congress. That did not come until after the articles of impeachment were filed and the uniform consensus of the state department, the Defense Department<\/a> and white house witnesses is that the aid should have been released. Given these, facts the only logical explanation as ambassador sondland concluded was that, like the white house meeting, the aid was being used to leverage pressure on the president zelensky. At the end of the day, the evidence is overwhelming and indisputable. President trumps personal lawyer, rudy giuliani, pushed ukraine to investigate his political rival and a debunked Conspiracy Theory<\/a>. His efforts had nothing to do with u. S. Policy and were taken on the president s behalf and without the president s knowledge. President trump directed u. S. Officials and president himself to work with mr. Giuliani. President trump ordered the Critical Military<\/a> aid for ukraine be withheld. Ukrainian officials were informed the aid would not be released unless president zelensky publicly announcing an investigation and President Trump<\/a> refused to release the aid until his Pressure Campaign<\/a> on the ukraine was exposed. President trump refused to arrange a meeting with president zelensky. A President Trump<\/a>s agents advised ukrainian officials at the white house meeting would be scheduled only after president zelensky committed to the investigations. President trump ignored the Anti Corruption<\/a> talking points prepared for his calls, President Trump<\/a> asked president zelensky directly to investigate President Trump<\/a>s chief political rival, and President Trump<\/a> stonewalled congress is investigation. You know, i dont know what more you can ask for here. Weve got admissions from the president. Weve got corroboration from people he has appointed, the only thing you can do is take your head in the sand if you are not willing to see what happened here, and with that i would yield to my colleague from florida. Is she here . Okay. Oh, thank you. Two seconds. I will wait for the next year old. Sorry. The time for the gentlelady has expired, for what purpose is mr. Armstrongs recognition . I move to strike last word. The gentlemans. Recognized for weeks my, democratic colleagues talked about quid pro quo, and bribery, but they had a problem. These things will never change. There was no pressure. But president zelensky and President Trump<\/a> said there was no pressure, no victim, no the aid was released and there was no investigation. You know what else . There was no whistle blower, there was no adam schiff so we are left with abuse of power and obstruction of justice and impeachment is either a solemn constitutional affair, which this is absolutely not, or whatever the majority wanted to be, which this absolutely is. If you cannot prove any of it i guess youre going to use all of it so, why not expand all the way back to where this thing all started, bob mueller. Right in the bottom of article two of this impeachment is the language, these actions were consistent with President Trump<\/a>s previous efforts to undermine United States<\/a> government destinations and foreign interference in United States<\/a> elections. This is nothing more than a legislative driveby or probably more accurate, i majorities attempt to return to the scene of a non crime, but i guess, after two years, 19 lawyers, 40 agents, 500 warrants, 2800 subpoenas, 30 Million Dollars<\/a>, there is simply no way they can leave it out so, here is just a reminder, the investigation did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign<\/a> conspired or coordinated with the russian government in its election interference activities. Mueller report, page two. This started the day President Trump<\/a> won the election. This has been a foregone conclusion since the day the democrats won back the majority. This was never about facts or fairness so here we are, where we were always going to be, on a purely partisan impeachment that is destined to fail in the senate and with that i yield back. The gentleman yields back. For what purpose dismissal often seek recognition . The strike last. Where the general it is recognized. You know, i have listened carefully to this very long debate this evening and throughout the last two weeks, and i think it is important to look back to the founders and the foundation of what it is that we are doing here. The founders knew that the powers given to the president i needed to have the capacity to be curved in the place in the case of abuse. The framers of the constitution consciously adopted a particular phrase from the english practice to help define the constitutional grounds for removal. The content of the phrase, high crimes and misdemeanors, for the framers, is to be related to what the framers new on the whole about the english practice. The broad sweep of english constitutional history and the vital role impeachment had played in the elimination of royal prerogatives and the control of abuses of ministerial and judicial power. Now, when youre coming to private affairs in ordinary criminal law, it is possible in advance to define what it is you cannot do. You cannot steal that money. You cannot hit that person. But when you are talking about the abuse of president ial power, you cant always specifically define what a bad actor in the white house might do, and therefore, you have the term a high crimes and misdemeanors and you have the abuse of president ial power. It is important to note that in the second article of impeachment, there was an article for abuse of power, which principally address president nixons use of power, including the powers vested solely in the president to aid his political allies, harm his political opponents, gained improper personal political advantages. He used his power, and this is a quote, it was undertaken for his personal political advantage and not the furtherance of any Valid National<\/a> political objective. He his president ial powers and again, this is a quote, were seriously incompatible with our system of Constitutional Government<\/a> and warranted removal from office. We have a situation similar here, but i want to address the issue raised by my colleague from ohio because i do agree that there can be a tendency in the country these days to immediately think well, i dont like that, lets go to impeachment, and that is frankly prevalent since the clinton impeachment. Lying under oath is a crime. Lying about sex is a shame. But neither one involves the use of president ial powers. And the use of impeachment in that instance really in an improper way, was never the abuse of president ial power. I think it put in the public mind this is a tool to be used for disagreements about policy. Nothing could be further from the truth. I voted against the iraq war, but the congress voted and some people thought we should have articles of impeachment about that. No, that did not undercut the constitutional order. Congress voted. It was a mistake, but it was the president of the congress together, it was not the president usurping the powers of another branch of government. Here, we have a situation that is so obvious, if you look at the facts, how it is just inconceivable the things ive heard today, they are just stunning to me, that you could reach a conclusion as defense counsel here, drastic grasping at straws. The president has used his president ial power, to gain a personal benefit to the detriment to the interests of the United States<\/a>. It was an abuse of power that harm us and it is ongoing. It is a threat to the constitutional order. It meets the definition of high crimes and misdemeanors. It is abuse of president ial power and it is our responsibility to use the tool that our founders gave us in the constitution to preserve that constitutional order. We must impeach. I yield back. The gentlelady years back. Six recognition. For what purpose is mr. Gohmert seek recognition . To strike the last word. The gentleman is recognized. Just a quick comment, comments about president clintons actions, when you lie under oath its perjury, its a crime, and i understand the comet that he was not acting in his official capacity, i would, say back to the me too movement, if they took that position, having sex with an employee that is that much younger when youre president of the United States<\/a>, that is not in his official capacity but no matter how long they spent tonight, tomorrow, it does not make up for the fact that we do not have that witnesses. This reminds me historically of the trial osaka it is. You know, when he got convicted by the jury of 500 people, why . Because he was arrogant. Want to try donald trump for being arrogant . Fine, i am sure you have a lot of republicans but with you on that. He has a lot to be arrogant about, but that is not a crime. It is not a high crime for sure, it is certainly not a misdemeanor. It is bothersome to people, some people like it, but that is not what impeachment is supposed to be about, and to have had a trial, what you hear say, gossip monitoring witnesses there were, come into a star chamber and secreted testimony so people cant see them, cant hear them, but we have adam schiff putting together in a big report and we received a report, with not much time to review it but that is all we need. We dont even get to hear from the prepare of the report, i get to cross examine him. This is a stolen ask tight proceeding. That is the way it worked under stolen. You did not get defined it with a fact witness is because usually there were not any, just like here, so you have people come and give appearance, you imperious that we were well, educated that is fine, and if you are ever not sure about being good at, go to law school, you are trained to do, that so that when you hate a person like three witnesses obviously to donald trump, you can come in a misrepresent facts, and base your opinions on, them just great. And look at this, the starter before mueller. Carter page had work for the cia and what did they do they prefer that, lie to the fisa court and say oh, he has worked with russians, misrepresent who he is and what he did and what a patriot he was and then get a warrant and then he goes, on they lie about it, and wear this all come from, it came from Hillary Clintons<\/a> campaign, the Democratic National<\/a> campaign, the committee, and they hired fusion gps, they hired a foreigner to affect our election, and they worked with australian and italians and they, actually Christopher Steele<\/a> admitted that those people giving the information may be, russian may have been ukrainian, it would be nice to know, but the majority doesnt want to get there, and the very week we find out how bad this travesty was, the top people in the fbi and the department of justice perverted justice, because they didnt like got him i got elected. Everything they, could they used all these foreign resources to try to change the outcome of this 2016 election and when they did not work, then they came forward with impeachment it was, oh lets project what we did on donald trump, but it turned out he didnt do that, and even mueller and weisman, as much as he hated trump, they could not find anything so we have got the russian collusion, we had a drop victories, and nowhere, but obstruction of justice . Well, it is not obstruction of justice when you know youre innocent and you know the department of justice is trying to set you up and youre trying to expose the truth. No, it was others who were obstructing the trudeau justice. Vindman, per heaven sake, you set that guy up as a hero, he is no hero. He was mad that trump did not do what he told him. For those who believe in praying for this country, pray for mercy, we cant afford justice so the country ends. I yield back. For what purposes mascara siesta the recognition . I moved a straight loss. Word ladies recognized. Mister chairman, five more minutes. Five more minutes and a very long, long day, but when you look at what the other side is presented in defense of the president , what do we get . Nada. Nothing. None of your will defend the president s actions because quite simply you cannot defend the indefensible. You just cant. Even if you like him and support his actions, you just will not defend what he did. It is really quite simple. It is not complicated at all. He offered official acts in exchange for a political favor. He is a clear and present danger to do it again. He ignored the power of the people and he will do it again. It is really just that simple, the president is an imminent threat, you should as pattern of conduct, he has made clear that he will continue to abuse his power, corrupt the 2020 elections. We must act with a sense of urgency to protect our democracy and defend our constitution. In the clinton case, the house voted to impeach 72 days after he authorized an inquiry. It has been 94 days since congress launched its investigation into the president s dealings with ukraine. Impeachment is a decision such as a grand jury or prosecutor makes. We have seen more than enough evidence here to charge and move to trial in the senate. It is a president who is abusing his power. What is not fair is the president s refusal to participate in this inquiry for the sole purpose of hiding the facts from the American People<\/a>. Federal courts have ruled that congress has a constitutional right to obtain documents and testimony from the Trump Administration<\/a>. One federal court said that the president the president obstruction is a farce and he is openly stonewalling it i agree. He is the first president to engage in walltowall stonewalling and in some respects, an outright coverup of his own behavior. He has refused to comply with all of the congressional subpoenas that had been issued to try to uncover the truth about his misconduct. And act that no other citizen can do without consequence. As hes been stated before, even president nixon shared documents and allowed current and former aides to testify as part of the impeachment process. The Committee Still<\/a> recommended article of impeachment against him for obstruction. Last night, i reminded him that all of this is really about preserving and protecting our democracy, for the little boys and girls across this nation so that they will know about what it means to make a promise, and to make a pledge, and to keep it, because democracy is a gift that each generation gives to the next and that is why we have to take action we have to move forward and impeach the president. With that, mister, chairman i will yield the remainder of my time to my colleague from florida, miss powell. Thank, you miss garcia. I just wanted to answer to what mr. Chabot said earlier and clarify that i along with so many of my colleagues, so many of us that you see sitting on this guy, as we did not come here to impeach the president of the United States<\/a>. We came to Lower Health Care<\/a> costs and that is exactly what we did today. We voted on hr three today to lower Prescription Drug<\/a> prices. They say, let the American People<\/a> decide. Well that is why last week we voted on the Voting Rights<\/a> Amendment Act<\/a> which many of my republican colleagues voted against. Let americans decide, yes that is exactly why we are here because we dont want russia, ukraine or china, making the decision for us in our american government. This president has committed the highest crime by abusing the power of his office, inviting foreign interference in our elections and that is why we are here today. Please dont confuse americans with false claims and pushing debunked conspiracy theories. We are here to tell the American People<\/a> the truth. I yield back. General idiot spoke. Who seeks recognition . For what purposes mr. Mcclintock street recognition . District last. Where the gentlemans. Recognized ive lost track of the number of newspapers that event of the record in these proceedings but i think it is a telling commentary on the quality of the case that this committee is relying on to support the exercise of one of the most profound actions we can take. I think it underscores the dereliction of duty of a Judiciary Committee<\/a> drafting articles of impeachment without a single fact hearing. Virtually the entire record is the schiff report and newspaper clippings. I will remind the committee yesterday, this week, mr. Schiffs report on vice abuse was categorically completely contradicted by the inspector generals report. Mr. Schiffs work is not exactly what you can call the Gold Standard<\/a> of accuracy, reliability or incisive analysis a newspaper clippings, with all due respect, are not exactly a Solid Foundation<\/a> that can support our wielding such power. We should be made of stern or staff. A matter so momentous as this should be considered thoroughly and dispassionately unfairly. Mister chairman, to substitute our judgment for that of the American People<\/a> by nullifying a National Election<\/a> is a very weighty matter. To go and do that you have a record of fact that no reasonable person can deny. One set of reports are adam schiff a newspaper scrapbook as the foundation of impeachment, i predict will crumble and disintegrate before the senate finishes its consideration. Abuse of power is exactly the vague and expensive ground that the founders considered as maladministration and rejected in favor of the narrow ground of treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors. The lawful exercise of the president s Constitutional Authority<\/a> is not impeachable, at the moment we make it so, the president becomes a servant of congress, and the separation of powers which is protected our freedom for nearly two and a half centuries, will be greatly diminished, and similarly, the president s assertion of long established boundaries that maintain the separation of powers is also not impeachable. Once we make it so, we also clearly diminish the separation of powers. The overall political hyperbole that we have heard over and over through these hearings, not to warn us that we are straying into partisan motives which must never animate the impeachment power of congress. Public opinion has not coalesced around this act, which should also alert us to the danger that by proceeding we would further divide and alienate the American People<\/a>, and rolling out into the political waters of this nation. We failed to find any law the president has very little. If you could, issue clearly articulate that and support it with a legally admissible evidence and put it in the articles. Otherwise, your case is simply a disagreement decision the president is authorized to make and again, this is a matter that our constitutional reserves to the voters and not to the congress support of the witnesses requested by the minority, you have blinded the committee to the beginning of the whole story. If you are truly confident in your case, or should have nothing to fear from what a full airing of testimony could offer. The most chilling observation i have heard is, we can do this because we are not restricted like the department of justice is well, the same rights of due process, the same fatalities of the constitution are required of us. The impeachment and do johnston, congress made many of the same mistakes that we are making tonight. I would urge my colleagues to carefully consider how history is judge them, and how it will judge us. I yield back. The gentleman yields back. For what purpose does ms. Jayapal seek recognition . I moved to strike last word. The lady is recognized. Thank you, mister chairman, we just continued to hear the same excuses for the president s behavior and this is such a grave moment that were in, were talking about the highest constitutional crimes, abuse of power and obstruction of congress and so let me once again review with the facts. First, my republican colleagues have said that this is about corruption, that all the President Trump<\/a>s agencies, all of advisers, everyone unanimously told him that ukraine had passed all the Anti Corruption<\/a> benchmarks. The department of defense said that ukraine had passed their review on Anti Corruption<\/a> benchmarks, i know for the corruption policies were needed. President Trumps Administration<\/a> cut programs designed to fight corruption in ukraine and President Trump<\/a> was given talking points by the National Security<\/a> council that specifically said, say these things about corruption, but guess what happened on those calls in april in july . President trump did not mention corruption. He did not use the talking points that he was given. The only two names that he mentioned on the july 25th call, joe and hunter biden. Second, the republicans suggested that this was all about President Trump<\/a>s concerns with burden sharing with our allies. But that was not true. Mr. Homes testified that burden sharing was not a problem. Europe was actually contributing four times as much money as the United States<\/a> did and ambassador sondland testified that he was never asked to go to the European Union<\/a> and ask for more money and remember mr. Sondland is President Trump<\/a>s ambassador to the European Union<\/a>. What was ambassador sondland told to communicate to ukraine by President Trump<\/a> . He was told to say that resumption would likely not occur unless president zelensky announced the investigation, specifically, he said the quote, unless zelensky went announced this investigation, there would be a stalemate over the aid. And what were those investigations . 2016 election interference and burisma meaning, the bidens so, finally, left with nothing else to argue in defense of the president , the republicans have raised one more thing which is that President Trump<\/a> had a legitimate reason, somehow a legitimate reason to investigate Vice President<\/a> biden but once again that makes no sense. And makes no sense because the facts are that that investigation, that issue of biden and burisma went back to 2015 and President Trump<\/a> released aid in 2017 in 2018, so clearly did not have a problem with the issues the 2015 because he had two opportunities to release aid and he did but something changed in 2019 and the only thing that change was Vice President<\/a> biden suddenly started being present trump in the polls so, the evidence is clear, President Trump<\/a> said do us a favor, though, and who is the us . Well, he told us. He told us exactly what he meant by us. He told president zelensky that us, deal with rudy giuliani. President trumps personal attorney, who knows, and this is a, quote very much knows what is going on. President trump couldve gone through official channels what he, wanted if this investigation was obscene actually legitimate. He couldve asked the department to initiate investigation into the bidens and burisma, but he did not do that. At the department of justice said that he did not do that. He never asked him to do an investigation or even talk to ukraine. Instead, President Trump<\/a> asked his personal attorney because us was not about america. This was not about official policy. This was about what was right for our country. This was not about putting america first. Every witness testified that as well. This was personal. It was all for President Trump<\/a>s personal political gain. This was to benefit trumps own Reelection Campaign<\/a>, and that is why he at his personal attorney to, the sea abuses power, he abused the powers of the people interested to him. He abused the office and he placed our safety, millions of dollars of taxpayer money, all at risk for his own personal political election and that is the one thing the president cannot do. He cannot use our, money the powers of the office that we entrusted to him, we the people, not for us but for himself. That is the greatest abuse of power and this president has left us no choice but to impeach him. I yield back. The gentlelady yields back. For what purpose of mistrust recognition . The strike last. Where german is. Recognize this morning i began by aligning our portable today. Most of us are attorneys in this committee and in this case were also called the surface finders of fact. We are supposed to carefully and objectively analyze the claims, not against our personal preferences, but against the record of evidence. Another we have done, that for the past 12 hours, its time to summarize our case. At the end of the day, now literally the end of the day, there are just too short articles to disappear resolution they brought before us, abuse of power and obstruction of justice and on the first, the democrats know there is your direct evidence in the record of these proceedings to show the President Trump<\/a> engaged in any scheme of any kind, as they have alleged, or that he intended in his dealings with ukraine to influence the 2020 election. All they have brought today is based on hearsay, speculation and conjecture. The truth is there is not a single fact witness to provide testimony to support their paper thin case which is precisely why we have been giving no opportunity for the fact witnesses for a minority hearing. What the evidence does show is that President Trump<\/a> holds a deepseated, genuine reasonable skepticism of ukraine, into its history of pervasive corruption. His administration saw proof that newly elected president zelensky was a true reformer. President trump wanted to ensure that american taxpayer funded Security Assistance<\/a> would not be squandered overseas by what is reported to be the third most corrupt nation in the world. Trump, in discussions were never about what will happen in 2020 but what already happened in 2016. The democrats a second claim is that President Trump<\/a> obstructed justice by simply doing what virtually every of the president in the modern era has also done, to assert a legitimate executive privilege and legal immunity to avoid subpoenas issued to various white house officials. There is simply no evidence of any Impeachable Offense<\/a> here anymore and if they had not promised and because the liberal base by christmas, the democrats could and should have simply gone a few blocks away to the federal court to get an order compelling the ex document information is subpoenaed but that is what has always been done in the past but they did not have time for that here because they are trying to be their own arbiter, completely reckless and machiavellian timeline to take down a president they loathe. The real abuse of power here is on the part of the house democrats, who is fiercely pursue this impeachment 20 times pastor, faster than the peter investigation of bill clinton to reach the predetermine political outcome. Along the way, they have steam rolled over a constitutionally guaranteed new process, previously sacrosanct house rules of the federal rules of civil procedure. They have ignored exculpatory evidence, intimidated witnesses, restricted republican lines of questioning, denied defense witnesses and evolve into the president s counsel, restricted republican review of evidence, denied minority hearing and violate the proper minority notice of fairness at every single stage. The founders of this quarter country warned against a single party impeachment for good reason. They fear that it would bitterly and perhaps radically divide our nation. Our chairman, mr. , nadler gave a speech about that 20 years ago when he was imposing opposing the impeachment bill clinton. The obvious truth is that our liberal colleagues have vowed to impeach President Trump<\/a>s the day of his election. The reason they changed at least half a dozen time over the last few years they could ever make any traction or any facts to justify those various conspiracy theories, as the next election in 2020 is wrong so close now and their candidates for president are terribly week, they obviously but somewhere at the liberal high command several days ago i can business policy to pull the trigger. The problem, is they have done that no hearing so the basement, could not cover a single top to justify the latest Conspiracy Theory<\/a> about ukraine. So, what to do . Left with no choice, to desperately create a totally fraudulent, unprecedented process to try to remove donald trump. The results are whatever and witnesses testify as, quote the shores proceeding with the thinnest evidence you are tomorrow as ever used to impeach the president. Im a constitutional attorney by profession i have actually enjoyed the four minutes of real intellectual debate we had on the contours of article two section four but every High School Student<\/a>s student at home could be displaying what is expressing required to impeach a president. You need treason, bribery, or high crime or misdemeanor. None of that exists here and Everybody Knows<\/a> it. Those High School Student<\/a>s at home no it. Our constituents know it and in their heart of hearts even our friends on the other side of the room tonight. My good friend mr. Cohen said in his closing a few moments ago that he is proud to be a politician but i would say with all sincerity, this moment does not call for politicians. The weight of history is upon us here in this moment cause for statesman. This impeachment is going to fail and the democrats are gonna justly pay a heavy political price for it. The pandoras box be open today, that is a real tragedy of the vote we are about to take. God help us. I yield back. The gentleman yields back. I moved strict last word. Ladies recognize. A little while ago, when michael is in the south of the aisle was saying that the president was not the reason that aid was withheld was because the president wanted to investigate corruption. The idea that the most corrupt president we have seen in recent history withheld military aid because he was concerned about corruption, is ludicrous. As my colleagues have pointed out, both cause the President Trump<\/a> had with president zelensky, trump never mention corruption. The parliament of defense vetted giving him the aid and said that it was okay. Once upon a time President Trump<\/a> love his generals. This time he ignored them. Members of congress authorize the aid and lobby the white house to release the aid. Staff from the office of management and budget resigned because they were worried about what was going on and why the aid was withheld and worried about what the president was doing and they believe that withholding the aid was wrong. Trump even cut funding for programs to deal with corruption in countries like ukraine, so amanda so concerned about corruption also has interesting friends. He has bromances with some of the worlds most corrupt leaders, meters from saudi arabia, turkey, he had the president erdogan from turkey just a few weeks ago at the white house but we know is number one path is president putin so all of the president s men all the men around him that were indicted arrested incarcerated, my mother used to say that if you lay down with dogs, dont be surprised if you get up with louise. The man who claimed he wanted to clean up the swamp created his own swap and he is drowning in it now. I do have to say, though, that i have empathy for my republican colleagues because i dont believe that they have a choice. They have to defend the president and they do not step out of line because if they do, they will suffer the consequences. A few of my republican colleagues earlier did try to say that they did not believe that the president s conduct was appropriate and they got slapped quickly. The president said his conduct . He said, the call was absolutely perfect and so now you do not see any of them saying or questioning whether his behavior was appropriate. You have to fall in line and not only do you have to fall in line, you have to praise him constantly, like those famous press conferences weve seen in the oval office where they, won by one, go around the table and talk about their praise for him. It makes me feel like a meeting that would take place in north korea, where you have to praise dear leader so, you have to fall in line because the entire reason was corruption, but i know that you know better. You have to say that he did nothing wrong. One of my colleagues said that we are lowering the bar with impeachment, i believe that we have lowered the bar on the presidency. It is so sad to see my colleagues who i believe no its better. They are not able to say it. They know that the man is corrupt. When it comes to impeachment, there is no higher crime than for the president to use, in the power of his office, to corrupt our elections. We will move to impeach President Trump<\/a> because of the abuse of power, self dealing, the betrayal of National Security<\/a> in the service of foreign interests, and the corruption of our elections that undermine our democratic system. So, if my colleagues on the other side of the aisle cannot bring themselves to do what is right and impeach the president , they know is a threat to our elections, that they know is a threat to our standing in the world, then we will have to do it and we will have to move to impeach. I yield now to representative jacksonlee. I thank the gentlelady for yielding. My conclusion is very remarks or simply this. To my friends on the other side of the, aisle to the americans who have listened to the soldiers everywhere who wear uniforms, i have no exit, i have no dislike of anyone who voted for anyone in 2016. I think issue an insult that one suggests the work of this committee is about it its like for those who voted for President Trump<\/a>. President trump is before this committee and articles of impeachment for his own behavior. For his desire to do with public monies and a public position, a private matter, in a political matter, and that is to get dirt on his 2020 potential opponent. In honoring and defending the constitution, we defended honor ourselves. For that reason, as an indicted body for articles of impeachment, will get the opportunity for the congress to sign on President Trump<\/a>s ultimate result, i stand the constitution and for justice. I yield back. For what purposes mr. Swalwell seek recognition . I move to strike the last. Where the gentleman is recognized. Pull me once, shame on you. For me twice, shame on me. If we allow the president to the United States<\/a> to begin, abuse his office for his own personal gain, and shame on all of us, shame on our constitution. We know hes going to do that again because on june 12th this year he told george stephanopoulos, for this phone call, that president zelensky happen, but if he could again received from a Foreign Government<\/a> as he did corruption, he would do it again. On july 20, for bob mueller testified to our committee. He said that the president could be tracked with up to ten times for obstruction of justice but the department of justice prevents him from doing that. The next day, the president did it again. Every prosecutor when they are assigned a case will open up the file in the first thing we all do is we look at the rap sheet. Was this an aberration, or was this a pattern of conduct that the person engages in . It is not just prosecutors who look or use a rap sheet, we all do in our everyday lives. If youre a Small Business<\/a> owner youre hiring and employ and find out that they had multiple deaths in their past from their employer, you probably would not hire them. If you are apparent looking for a night out in hiring a babysitter and multiple references said the babysitter is always late, you would not ask that person to watch your kids. And if you are going to a restaurant or an anniversary that saw multiple bad health reviews, you would not go to that restaurant. The president does not just have bad reviews, he has really bad prior conduct, serious priors, he is a repeat offender, crimes against our constitution and yes, crimes that one day may be prosecuted statutory. He has abused his power in the past. He is abusing his power right now. And he will abuse it tomorrow. We have a department of justice who will continue to protect him. Unfortunately, the American People<\/a> have a congress i can say he is not above the law and we are not helpless in holding him accountable. I know youll to the gentleman from ohio. I thank the gentleman. We have heard a lot of explanations but why are here tonight, we do not like the policies, who do not like the president , but one thing we have not heard, the real reason were here tonight is the conduct of the president , the grave misconduct, and so i just want to give very quickly the evidence that was presented and call records, emails hundreds of press statements and tweets, that the president had been engaged on a personal basis on rudy and his, lawyer investigating ukraine, the president zelensky, sensitive about ukraine being taken seriously, not really as an interest as ambassador sondland said, david holmes testified under oath, i was surprised that it was so concrete, a demand that president zelensky personally commit to a specific investigation of President Trump<\/a>s political rival on cable news and the evidence go on and on of the president s effort to use the enormous powers of his office to betray the National Interest<\/a> and cheat in the election in 2020 and use hundreds of millions of dollars of taxpayer money to attempt to achieve that objective. Her founders talked a bit of piece of power because they recognize the power of the presidency was enormous. There was a danger to the president would use that power not for the public good, but for his own personal political or financial advantage. So, they created articles of impeachment, a final check against abuse of power, no one is here because we want to do this, we are here because we have no choice. We are not acting out of hate, we are acting out of love of our country, and love of our democracy. When generations look back on this moment, they will, ask what did we do to preserve our democracy . The only thing we can do to preserve that is to hold this president accountable because if we dont, they will ask us why we failed to preserve the greatest democracy on earth, that has been an example to the world. In this moment, we have to find the courage to ensure we can answer that question for all future generations and not be part of an effort to undermine the greatest democracy known to man. So, i urge my colleagues tonight, we must approve these articles of impeachment so we can make it clear that nobody in this country and the greatest country of the world is above the law, even the most powerful person present in the United States<\/a> and with that, i yield back. To determine your back. For what purpose does Mister Jeffrey<\/a> seek recognition . Im with the trick last. Word recognized. The record is clear, donald trump abused his power by soliciting foreign interference in the 2020 election, and thereby undermining the integrity of the democracy as well as our National Security<\/a>. My republican colleagues to spend all day arguing process. That is what you do when you cannot defend the indefensible. You argue process. Well, here is a process concerning but you might reflect upon. Earlier today, Mitch Mcconnell<\/a> gave some indication as to how a possible trial in the senate may work. And this is what senator mcconnell said. I am going to coordinate with the president s lawyers so there wont be any difference between us and how to do this. In other words, the jury, senate republicans, are going to coordinate with the defendant, donald trump, on how exactly the Kangaroo Court<\/a> is going to be run. I submit to you respectfully that is a process concern. That the American People<\/a> should be worried about. Now america is a resilient nation we have been through minutes of turmoil before. Weve always come through, we are resilient nation, and lincoln said we are in the heart of the civil, war america is the last, vast hope on earth. Fdr, said on the eve of the second world war, democracy is not dying. Reagan said in the midst of the cold war, america is a shining city on a hill. What exactly will history say about us . Will we put principle over party . Will we put the constitution above corruption . Will we put democracy over demagoguery . What exactly will history say about us . I yield now to my distinguished colleague from the great state of texas, this mrs. Escobar. Thank, you mister chairman, im going to speak directly to the American People<\/a> once again and im going to ask but they bypass the republican talking points that weve heard over and over and over again, especially for those americans who have been listening and watching all day, and instead go directly to the evidence yourself. Over 100 hours of testimony, testimony by some of americas greatest patriots, over 250 text messages, Mick Mulvaneys<\/a> own words, mr. Mulvaney is the president s chief of staff and finally, the president s own words, his own words inviting Russia Ukraine<\/a> and china into our election. The republican colleagues that we have on this committee claim there is not enough evidence, review it for yourself and as to obstruction we have given a number of examples about obstruction but we have a living example that was released just tonight. Actually, before i talk about that example, if my colleagues, my republican colleagues think that the president is so free from wrongdoing, i would ask them to join us in a calling on President Trump<\/a> to release it all. Release the witnesses, release documents, let the American Public<\/a> make up their own minds, let them see it all. Call on transparency, join us, but they will not, because the obstruction is convenient, tonight, there was a victory. The center for Public Integrity<\/a> sued federal court for documents related to the ukraine scandal and this is what they got. They won in court, but what they got were heavily redacted documents. Why . Because, the president does not want these documents to see the light of day. I ask for unanimous consent, chairman, to enter these documents no objection along with the article, Trump Administration<\/a> resist ukraine disclosures ordered by court. The time of the gentlelady has expired. For what purposes the Ranking Member<\/a> mr. Collins seek recognition . To strike the last word. Denim is recognized. Thank you, mister, chairman we are coming to the end here, it is amazing to me, especially from hearing from one of the on either side of the aisle, mr. Jeffries, make a statement that said that the only thing that we had to offer was a process argument all day. I mean, he may have had to come in and out, and i am not sure, for the most part, for all of our ill tell you i think its part of what im about to 12 hours ours is that please the aid was, released there is nothing done, and that was an argument, we have dont want to hear a process the ages release there is argument, we had nothing going and was no argument we have a process argument a lot to do with where we are at right, now but the facts we want to do is where we are at right now are being but the facts are being taken home taken home and rebuffed, and rebuffed, every single hour every single hour of this of this day since day since not a father 9 00. It is it is amazing amazing to me to me that that as as we look we look forward forward, and going and going forward, it forward it has to be has to be said, said this is this is basically basically a concern in part concerning for many of us for many of us is is the focus the focus on on impeachment impeachment. But he could not but he could not make, make it as one by it as one my politics mr. Colleagues, mr. Griffin said, quid pro quo is griffin said quick work was not on the not something we all use values but but bribery is regret is something somebody something somebody understands, understands extortion is what somebody extortion is what something understands understands, or doing something doing something, we have that will be in the tech we never told you didnt speak a little snow is on the air if they were if they were so so assured that they had assure they had that all his crimes done all these crimes, but you but you can get cant, that is the that is the biggest biggest flaw we are floor we are having having right now right now. I know we i do we still have to saw this little bit of debate left, slow it up to be left but that is the issue but that is the, issue you cannot put them in, there and the who have said that you want to defend actions right, away we are defending the president actions, i want to do that right now for someone to say but we have again is not list what we have is oclock and calendar impeachment. One of the things that has assured me most, of my work with this chairman now in the minority or majority, both ways, and it is amazing to me how little we have gotten in this. I wrote six letters to this chairman about how we are going to conduct what has become the short rubberstamp region of impeachment which we have tonight in the Judiciary Committee<\/a>. I received an answer to none of those letters except one. Just the other, night when it was rejected, not a chance to we have any of our witnesses, so, in some way, i turn back on the democrats, what were you scared . What are you afraid of that they might actually say . Because we just summarily rejected them for my question, to be, honest what are you afraid of . Some of which had already been called. We are understanding the fact we have now become a committee that unfortunately mueller the chairman said over 20 years, ago we have except the facts from other places and not check on ourselves, we have regurgitated follow, talked about other peoples work but not had a chance to look at it ourselves. We are the rubble stamp. This is no longer the Judiciary Committee<\/a> that actually is a factor witness interrogator, it is a rubber stamp which someone else, particularly mr. Schiff, has told, us and that is sad because that is not what this committee is about. I have watched the last two congress is, my friends, who are now in the majority, are in the minority, make passionate arguments for hours at a time, very, little nothing including the rules of the committee, we went home, seven or eight hours from the rules the committee, passionate, i understand what that committee is about, but can you tell me honestly for the majoritys perspective that you almost been less hours percentage wise on impeachment than actually doing anything remotely related to the hearing as he did in a minority when youre arguing about the rules of the committee and the oversight . That should tell you a lot about what this is about. Because we are spending more time in arguments about things that really at the end of the day they were not needed but we are spending less time percentage wise arguing about what you would call the highest of all powers that youre doing and honoring the constitution. I think it is just not congruent with what youre doing. The other problem i have is, this will be never, ending in just a few, weeks we have the senate finishes up wherever they do and we are back to this again, and i know that because adam schiff told me. So i know this because mr. Green told me, so they will impeach him over and over again, i guess im waiting for the Committee Hearing<\/a> schedule and february to see what we are investigating next. I guess that will dominate. But the two most, one most disturbing thing i said to the end of the day, if you cant make that president zelensky felt, threatened you can attack present zelensky, i cannot believe just in the last little bit here he was actually called a better life. President zelensky called a battered wife, the absolute destruction, in comparison to a battered wife is just amazing but this is what we stoop in his committee, at this time, during this important moment, on this impeachment debacle. I yield back. Move to strike the last word thank you so much mister chairman just. A couple of things i want to clear up right off the bat. I feel compelled to say that a lieutenant Alexander Vindman<\/a> is a hero. Because he received the purple heart for sustaining injuries in iraq. And i am extremely proud of him for his courage on and off the battlefield. Secondly you can say this one more time, the Intelligence Committee<\/a> did not subpoena the phone records of any member of congress or any member of the press. Abuse of power has been defined as official misconduct, commission often unlawful activity, done in an official capacity which affects the performance of official duties. President trump thought an announcement of political investigations in return for performing to official act. Number one, he conditioned release of vital military assistance in ukraine on president zelenskys public announcement of the investigations. Now imagine if there was a mayor who withheld critical dollars from the police chief to fight terrorism until that chief went to a microphone and simply announced an investigation of the mayors political opponent. I do not believe any can immunity anywhere we would allow that. Number to, the president conditioned ahead of state meeting at the white house on ukraine publicly announcing the investigations and finally, President Trump<\/a> acted corruptly throughout this course of conduct because he offered to perform these official acts in exchange for a private political benefit rather than because it was in the countrys interest. This last element the, president acting corruptly, is perhaps its the most important act. It bears repeating because it explains why this article is structured as an abuse of power. It has been suggested that its as simple as we hate the president. I dont hate the president. I attended President Trump<\/a>s inauguration i. Wanted to be there to watch a peaceful transfer of power. I felt it was my duty before coming to congress i provided dignitary protection for republican and democratic president s. And i always considered it an honor. But President Trump<\/a>, with all that has been said, with all the excuses that we have heard today, President Trump<\/a> used his office to serve himself. To serve his private benefit. And by sueing doing so, he jeopardized americas National Security<\/a> interests and the integrity of our precious elections, every vote should count. And went all out to completely obstruct any investigation into his wrongdoing. Yes, weve heard it many times. Yes, the president was duly elected by the American People<\/a>. We know that. And we take it very seriously. I want my vote to count. And everybody, i believe, who make their way to the polls, want their vote to count. But are you suggesting that the American People<\/a> will allow the president to do anything that he wants to do anytime anyplace, anywhere . To my republican colleagues, i reject where you are willing to settle for. We have a responsibility to hold the president accountable. And i plan on doing my constitutional duty. He shall be held accountable and. With that mister chairman, i yield back. Gentlelady yields back. If there are no further amendments we have concluded debate. The question occurs on the amendment to the substitute. All those in favor respond by saying i. Those no. In the opinion of the chair the ayes have it. To be clear, the ice have it the amendment the nature of the substitute is agreed to. Be clear to vote the Committee Just<\/a> took is not a vote on the final passage of the article. It is a procedural vote which proceeds for final passage of each of the articles. It has been a long two days of consideration of these articles and it is now very late at night. I want to members on both sides of the aisle to think about what has happened over these past few days and to search their conscience is before we cast their final voice. Therefore the committee will now stand in recess until tomorrow morning at 10 am, at which point i will move to divide the question so that each office may have the opportunity to cast up or down vote on each of the articles of impeachment on and until history beyond judge. Richard sherman. There is no you have just blown up scheduled for everyone. You chose not to consult the Ranking Member<\/a> on the schedule issue of this magnitude. So typical. This is the Kangaroo Court<\/a> is that we are talking about. More stolen ask to an unbelievable degree. Stubbornness. Dont have a dictator. Its good to hear about. That unbelievable. Injury rain everywhere is now a really sneaky move on their part, really. We would never treat them like that. There was no discussion, no discussion about whether or not we were going to vote or not. One side and the other doing our final comments doing that right there shows that chairman is zero. Integrity his staffs is zero. They have nothing to offer except the Kangaroo Court<\/a> we have seen the last couple of days. It has made this committee irrelevant or the chairman has made his position irrelevant. They want to simply get back on the cameras because is it it is after 11 00 tonight and they dont think enough people are watching. I have never seen anybody want to get in front of these cameras more than this group right here because they dont have anything they can move on this. Anybody in america this shows the American People<\/a> why this right here is wrong. They should show tonight showed it completely. Announcer for 40 years, cspan has been providing america unfiltered coverage of congress, the white house, the Supreme Court<\/a>, and Public Policy<\/a> events from washington, d. C. , and around the country, so you can make up your own mind. Created by cable in 1979, cspan is brought to you by your local cable or satellite provider. Cspan, your unfiltered view of government. This morning on washingon getting yourare reaction as the House Judiciary Committee<\/a> continues to debate the articles of impeachment against President Trump<\/a>. Join the conversation all morning with your phone calls, emails, facebook comments, and tweets. Washingon journal","publisher":{"@type":"Organization","name":"archive.org","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","width":"800","height":"600","url":"\/\/ia803100.us.archive.org\/16\/items\/CSPAN_20191213_085900_Articles_of_Impeachment_House_Hearings_Day_2_House_Judiciary_Debates...\/CSPAN_20191213_085900_Articles_of_Impeachment_House_Hearings_Day_2_House_Judiciary_Debates....thumbs\/CSPAN_20191213_085900_Articles_of_Impeachment_House_Hearings_Day_2_House_Judiciary_Debates..._000001.jpg"}},"autauthor":{"@type":"Organization"},"author":{"sameAs":"archive.org","name":"archive.org"}}],"coverageEndTime":"20240716T12:35:10+00:00"}