Then i have the article 2 where i have the right to do whatever i want as president. That is as wrong as when president nixon said a similar thing. Thats not what the constitution provides. Thats not what the country demands. He does not have the right to do whatever he wants. Turning to the second abuse of power, uninformed powers. The American People suffered that foreign influence when President Trump treated military aid that had been approved taxpayer dollars and decided to treat it as his own checkbook to try to further his own reelection chances. That is what the founders were concerned about. The framers nucor rupt leaders concentrate their powers is to manipulate elections and undercut adversaries. Thats why they thought it was a critical abuse and that could support and lead to impeachment let me show another clip on the campaign trail. Russia, if youre listening i hope youre able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing. I think you will probably be rewarded mightily by our press. And russia was listening. Within five hours of President Trumps invitation to russia to interfere in our election by trying to hack and obtain the emails of his political opponent, russia, in fact, tried to do that for the first time. The very officers that were then indicted by the department of justice for that conduct, they took candidate trumps invitation. Now the American People learned a lesson. President trump fourntly apparently learned a different lesson. Lets look. Well, i would think if they were honest about it, theyd start a Major Investigation into the bidens. Its a very simple answer. They should investigate the bidens. So this was President Trump answering a question about what did he want him to do. So even after he got caught he is saying again, this vulnerable nation dependent on u. S. Support militarily and otherwise, again hes telling them what to do and unlike in 2016 when he only had a Campaign Platform now he has the levers of government in his control to not only pressure it but invite that country to do it. Thats what youll hear more about in the presentation from the House Intelligence Committee and whats most striking as we come back to the issue that the framers were concerned about, is there a continuing risk of wrong doing. The fact that President Trump did this after he was caught shows the risk. Shows the risk of what will happen if this body doesnt act. He really does believe he can act as though he was above the law. He really does believe as evidenced by his conduct that he can put his personal and political interests over the nations interests, over the Nations National security interest. Over the nations integrity of its elections. So of course we do have an election coming up. Thats the reason we must have this discussion. To make sure that its not interfered with. To make sure that this president doesnt do it. To make sure that future president s do not do it. It is the hope that in these discussions, you can put aside political rank or disagreements and have a fair discussion about the facts in this conduct. That is not a reason against impeachment. For that, of course, you must vote your conscious. But that is a reason to have a fair debate about what the undisputed facts show. To recognize that its wrong and cannot happen again with this president or any president. Its a reason to talk about whether we want our children and grandchildren to live in a country where the president elected by the people can put his own personal and political interest over the interest of the people that elected them. It is a reason for these debates. So again, fairly focused on the facts and to make sure that the presentations were going to hear will not distort the record. Focus on process points. Raise extraneous matters intended to distract rather than focus on what the conduct was at issue here. It is a reason to focus on the facts. And what is in the countrys best interest. History, future generations will be the judge. Thank you. Mr. Chairman. You are recognized for 30 minutes. Mr. Chairman, point of order. Mr. Castor is recognized. Point of order. Mr. Chairman, the witness has violated rule 17 and my point of order should be heard. Point of order. The witness has used language which impugns the motives of the president and suggests he is disloyal to his country and those words should be stricken from the record and taken down. The point of order is not sustained. Witnesses are not subject to the appeal the ruling of the chair. The topic of the hearing is the president s misconduct so none of us should find it surprising that we are hearing testimony that is critical of the president. I do not find that the witnesses comments are disorderly. I find theyre pertinent to the subject matter of this hearing. The witness would be able to continue except his time has expired. Mr. Chairman. My point of order is not that theyre disorderly. Theyre unparliamentary. They violate the rules of the house. This is not about his conduct. Hes talking about the motives and the character of the president of the United States. The gentleman will suspend. The rules of decorum apply to members of the house and not to witnesses. Gentleman may proceed. I will appeal the ruling of the chair. That is not a ruling. It is. Its a ruling on a point of order. Its appealable. That is a ruling. The point of order is not sustained. The motion is made to table. Motion to table is sustained. Roll call. The clerk will call the roll. [ roll call ] republicans making several procedural challenges as we intended to expect. Mike johnson of louisiana. He brought up a louisiana. Proper procedure. And trump over the course of his testimony. And the rule of decorum is established in the house. And because democrats control the committee we suspect they will be turning down this motion. We concluded with the testimony of the attorney for the Judiciary Committee. And were about to hear from counsel for the minority. The clerk will report. Theres 24 ayes and 15 noes. Motion to table is carried. May i make a parliamentary inquiry. Will not recognize the parliamentary inquiry at this time. Good morning. Im a Congressional Staff member. Im also a shared staffer with the Judiciary Committee and mr. Collins. The purpose of this hearing is to discuss whether donald j. Trumps conduct and definition of a high crime and misdemeanor, it does not. The committee should consider articles of impeachment to remove the president from office and it should not. This case in many respects comes down to 8 lines the answer to that question is no. And 63 Million People voted for. And the call transcript is bologna. And this was not theover ganic outgrowth of serious misconduct. And a set of facts to impeach President Trump january 20th 2017. Just 27 minutes after the president s inauguration that day, the Washington Post ran a story that the campaign to impeach the president has already begun. And noted that to leave the constitutions clause would be there. They introduced articles of impeachment to remove President Trump from office on several very different factual basis. On january 3rd, the very first day of the new congress, congressman sherman introduced articles of impeachment against the president. The same day the representative said were going to go in there and impeach the president. In may 2019, representative green said on msnbc if we dont impeach this president , he will be reelected. Even Speaker Pelosi that said it is a somber and prayerful exercise called President Trump an imposture and said it is dangerous to allow voters to judge his performance in 2020. In the oversite committee, a disgraced felon pleaded guilty to align the congress. When he came before us at the Oversight Committee he then lied again as many as 8 times. The Oversight Committee democrats demanded information about the personal finances and even subpoenaed the president s counting firm for large swaths of sensitive and personal Financial Information about the entire trump family. Democrats demanded the ways and means and was to oversea for tax returns. You can judge that for yourself. In the Financial ServicesCommittee Democrats demanded and subpoenaed the president s bank records going back ten years. The republicans tell me the information demanded would cover every withdrawal, credit card swipe or debit card purchase of every member of the trump family including his minor child. The reason the democrats gave for why they needed such intrusive personal information about the trump family was get this, financial industry compliance with banking statutes and regulations. Here in the Judiciary Committee democrats sent out letters demanding information from over 80 recipients including the president s children, business partners, and employees, his campaign, businesses and foundation. Of course the main event was the report of special counsel mueller which democrats would believe would serve as the basis for impeaching the president. Inspite interviewing 500 witnesses, issuing 2,800 subpoenas, executing almost 500 search warrants and spending 25 million the 19 attorneys and fbi agents and analysts and staff found no conspiracy or coordination between the Trump Campaign and the russian government. After the trumprussia collusion allegations did not pan out, democrats focused their efforts on obstruction of justice. They criticized attorney general barr for concluded that no crime of obstruction had occurred during the investigation but in fact was entirely appropriate for the attorney general to make that call because the special counsel declined to do so. Not surprisingly, the democrats mueller hearing was underwhelming to say the least and definitely did not move the impeachment needle either. The Intelligence Committee too was heavily invested in the Russia Collusion Investigation. Committee democrats hired former federal prosecutors to prepare for their anticipated efforts to impeach the president. Now democrats settled on the ukraine phone call, 8 lines uttered on the 25th with the ukrainian president. Neither was the Oversight Committee, the chief investigative entity. The Judiciary Committee was only recently brought back into the mix after fact finding concluded. Instead the impeachment inquiry was run by the House Intelligence Committee and the former federal prosecutors. Democrats on the Intelligence Committee ran the impeachment inquiry in a man feifestly unfairway. All the fact finding was unclassified and that was made clear on top of every single deposition but the democrats took advantage of the closed door process in the capital basement bunker to control access to information. Allowing misleading public narratives to form and catch hold with careful weeks of testimony. Democrats refuse to invite republican witnesses and directed witnesses called by the democrats not to answer our questions. In the public hearings, many of these unfair processes continued. Democrats refused to invite numerous witnesses requested by republicans. And prevent witnesses from answering republican questions. Democrats voted down by virtue of a motion to table with no notice and documents and testimony requested by republicans. And they never once brought their subpoenas to a vote before the Intelligence Committee. This unfair process reflects the degree to which democrats are obsessed with impeaching the president. The Mueller Report, obstruction before landing on the ukraine phone call. The inquiry is an orchestrated effort to up end our political system according to politico the speaker shifted every step of the inquiry. To test which allegations which it will be quid pro quo or bribery or extortion were most compelling to the american public. The entire impeachment from the time announced on september 24th until today has been 76 days. As the profess to testified last wednesday the impeachment would stand out among modern impeachments as the shortest proceeding with the thinnest record and the narrowest grounds ever used to impeach a president. The deadline by which they were leads to a rush process and missed opportunities to obtain relative information. They avoided the process required by courts and disputes between congress and the executive. Democrats did not exhaust all of their options to entice witnesses or agencies to cooperate such as allowing witnesses to appear with agency lawyers. Sometimes it gets you a different result. Sometimes witnesses choose to appear when contempt is on the table. Democrats even withdrew a subpoena from one witness from congress and the executive either because the democrats didnt want to wait for the court to rule or they didnt like the presiding judge instead they made demands and refused to budge their they threatened that their salaries could be withheld for not meeting demands. These tactics are fundamentally unfair and counter productive for gathering information in any serious inquiry. Its contrary to how investigations typically work. In this job you must take the information thats offered even if you dont like the terms. You should not say no to taking a witnesses testimony because you would prefer the Agency Counsel is not president. If thats the only means of obtaining the testimony, you should take it. Your priority must not be on blocking information out, it must be on seeking information. The Justice Department decision in 2016, the irs targeting information, the benghazi investigation and fast and furious theres been give and take between congress and the executives. The Justice Department only began producing documents to the committee after many more months of discussions. In none of these investigations did congress get everything it wanted right at the beginning. Certainly not within 76 days but with persistence and patience we did receive enough information to do our work. The Trump Administration has in fact cooperated with and facilitated and for example earlier this year they conducted investigation into security clearances. And grant clearances to certain white house staff. They sought to interview career staff that perform the security clearance reviews. And they appear with Agency Counsel. The house and the white house were at an impasse. However, after a little bit of time, we the republican staff with the help of mr. Jordan convinced the witness to appear with the Agency Council for our own interview. They were conducted with Agency Council. The testimony allowed the committee to obtain the evidence and get to the bottom of what was going on and it wasnt what was alleged. Nobody outside of the Clearance Office was handing out clearances. Certainly not senior white house staffers the inquiry was incomplete and in many places incoherent. The failure to exhaust all avenues and the articles of impeachment. As he said to the committee, im concerned about lowering impeachment standards to fit evidence and anger. I believe this not only fails the standard of past impeachments but would create a dangerous precedent for future impeachments. The case for impeaching President Trump as a result relies heavily on ambiguous facts. Presumptions and speculation. He warned here too that impeachments have been based on proof not presumptions. The democrats do not have the proof now my counter parts are talented attorneys. Im sure they will tell you a riveting story about a shadow or irregular Foreign Policy apparatus and Smear Campaign designed to distort for the president s benefit. Hell try to convince you that the Trump Administration, the same that they regularly accused of being competent orchestrated an International Conspiracy at the highest levels. None of this adds up. It may be a great screen play but its not what the evidence shows. It ignores all the evidence that does not advance their story. The democrats impeachment narrative resolves all ambiguous facts and conflicting evidence in a way most unflattering to the president. I wont present a detailed presentation now but allow me to highlight a few points. First the summary of the july 25th phone call reflects no conditionality or pressure. He never vocalized any discomfort or pressure on the call. He was not asking for a favor to help his reelection. He was asking for assistance to help our country move forward from the divisiveness of the Russia Collusion Investigation he has said publicly and repeatedly that he felt no pressure. He said it again october 10th and most recently last week in Time Magazine if he was orchestrating a Pressure Campaign to force ukraine to investigate former Vice President biden one would think that ukraine would have felt some pressure. They did not know that the Security Assistance was paused. They did not learn about it until publicly on au