Power of the office to obtain an improper personal benefit while ignoring and injuring the national interest. Or acts in ways that are grossly inconsistent with and undermine the separation of powers that is the foundation of our democratic system. Now, these this question of whether president engaged in abuse of power came up before when this congress considered the impeachment of president nixon. And after action was taken, president nixon famously said if the president does it, it is not illegal. And this body rejected that because thats not so. That goes directly contrary to what the founders said. But President Trump has said the same thing in responding to the prior investigation by Department Of Justice and defending his conduct. Here is what he said then i have an article, too, where i have to write to do whatever i want as president. That he has the right to do
whatever he wants as president. That is as wrong as when president nixon said a similar thing. That is not what the constitution provides. That is not what the country demands. He does not have the right to do whatever he wants. Turning to the second abuse of power mostly concerned. Betrayal of the nation involving foreign powers. The American People have suffered that foreign influence when President Trump treated military aid that had been approved, taxpayers dollars, and decided to treat it as his own checkbook to try to further his own reelection chances. That reflects what the founders were concerned about. And finally, corruption of our elections. The framers knew that corrupt leaders or leaders acting Corruptly Concentrate their powers to manipulate elections and undercut adversaries. They talked about it frequently. That is why the framers thought electoral treachery particularly o involving foreign powers was a critical abuse that could support and lead to impeachment. Now the American People learned last election how dangerous foreign intervention in our elections can be. Let me show another clip from president from Candidate Trump 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 approximately five hours, 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 who 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 unfortunately apparently learned a different lesson. Lets look. Well, i would think that if they were honest about it they would 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 president zelensky to do. 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. Unlike in 2016 when he only had a Campaign Platform which to extend the invitation to a foreign power, now he has the
levers of government in his control to not only request it and invite it but to pressure that country to do it. And thats exactly what he did. And youll hear more about that in the presentation from the House Intelligence Committee. And whats most striking as we come back to this 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 herp above the law. He really does believe as evidence by this conduct that he can put his personal and political interests over the nations interest over the Nations National security interest, over the nations integrity of its elections. So, of course, we do have an
election coming up. Thats not a reason to postpone this discussion. Thats a reason we must have this discussion to make sure it is not interfered with. To make sure this president doesnt do it, to make sure future president s do not do it. It is the hope that in these discussions you can put aside political ranker, disagreements and have a fair discussion about the facts and this conduct. Not just as it relates to President Trump, but as to the presidency itself and future president s. My son, our children, our grandchildren, they will study this moment in history. They will read all of your remarks. They will learn about all of your actions. And that is not a reason to vote for or against impeachment. For that, of course, you must
vote your conscious. But that is a reason for us to have a fair debate about what the undisputed facts show. To recognize that it is wrong, it is very wrong, and it cannot happen again with this president or any president. It is 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 interests over the interest of the people who elected them. It is a reason for these debates to, again, fairly focus on the facts and to make sure the presentations were going to hear will not distort the record, focus on process points, raise extraneous matters that really are 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. Berks rke. Mr. Chairman, Point Of Order. Mr. Caster is recognized for 30 minutes. Mr. Chairman, Point Of Order. Mr. Caster is recognized for 30 minutes. My Point Of Order should be heard. Point of order. The witness has used language which impugns the motives of the president and suggests hes 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 rules of decorum. Appeal the ruling of the chair. In the same way members are. 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 witnesss comments were disorderly. I find they are pertinent to the subject matter of this hearing. The witness would be able to continue except that his time has expired. Mr. Caster is recognized. Mr. Chairman my Point Of Order is not that his words are disorderly. They violate the rules of the house and should be taken down. This is not about his conduct. Hes talking about the motives the gentleman is sustained. The character of the president of the United States. The gentleman will suspend the rules of decorum apply to members of the house, not to witnesses. The gentleman may proceed. So i appeal the ruling of the chair. That is not a ruling. Sit a ruling. There was no it is a ruling on the Point Of Order. It is appealing. Subject to a vote. Thats a rule. The Point Of Order is not sustained. Overruling of the chair. I move to table the the motion is made to table the appeal of the ruling of the chair. Move to motion the table is made in writing. Move the motion is made in writing. Is not in debate. All in favor of the motion to all in favor of the motion to table say aye. Aye. Point opposed no. No. Motion to table she has to put it in writing first and then you can call the vote. Motion to table is sustained. Role call. Clerk will call the role. Mr. Nadler. Aye. Mr. Nadler votes aye. Ms. Jackson lee. Aye. Mr. Cohen votes aye. Mr. Johnson of georgia votes aye. Mr. Deutsche votes aye. Mr. Richmond votes aye. Mr. Jeffries votes aye. Mr. Lou votes aye. Mr. Ras kin votes aye. Ms. Demmings votes aye. Aye ms. Garcia votes aye. Ms. Mcbath. Aye. Mr. Stanton. Aye, mr. Stanton votes ay. Ms. Dean. Aye. Ms. Escobar. Aye. Mr. Collins . Nope. Mr. Collins votes note. Mr. Stenson berner votes no. Mr. Sabot votes no. Mr. Jordan votes no. Mr. Buck . Mr. Radcliffe . Mr. Radcliffe votes no. Ms. Roby votes no. Mr. Gates votes no. Mr. Johnson of louisiana. No. Mr. Johnson of louisiana votes no. Mr. Bigs. Mr. Mcclintok votes no. Ms. Lesco votes no. Mr. Kline. No. Mr. Kline votes no. Mr. Armstrong. No. Mr. Armstrong votes no. Mr. Stuby votes no. How am i recorded . Mr. Bigs you are not recorded. I said no. Mr. Bigs votes no. Every member vote who had wishes to vote . The clerk will report. Mr. Chairman, 24 aye and 15 no. Parliamentary inquiry . Mr. Caster is recognized. I will not recognize parliamentary inquiry at this time. Good morning, Chairman Nadler, Ranking Member collinss and members of the staff. My name is steve caster. Im a Congressional Staff member. I served with the Oversight Committee on the republican staff with mr. Jordan. Im also for purposes of this investigation im a shared staffer with Judiciary Committee and mr. Collins and the House Permanent Select Committee on intelligence and mr. Nunes. It sure is atypical for a staffer to be presenting, but again thanks for having me. The purpose of this hearing as we understand it is to discuss whether president donald j. Trumps conduct fits the definition of high crime and misdemeanor. It does not. Such that committee should consider articles of impeachment to remove the president from office and it should not. This case and many respects comes down to eight lines in a Call Transcript. Let me say clearly and unequivocally that the answer to that question is no. The record in The DemocratsImpeachment Inquiry does not show that President Trump abused the power of his office or obstructed congress. To impeach a president who 63 Million People voted for over eight lines in a Call Transcript is baloney. Democrats seek to impeach President Trump not because of evidence of high crimes and
misdemeanors but because they disagree with his policies. This Impeachment Inquiry is not the organic outgrowth of serious misconduct. Democrats have been searching for a set of facts which to impeach President Trump on january 20, 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. The article reported democrats and liberal activists are mounting broad opposition to stymy trumps agenda and noted that Impeachment Strategists believed the Constitutions Emoluments Clause would be the vehicle. In the first two years of the administration, Democrats In The House introduced articles of impeachment to remove President Trump from office on several very different factual bases. On january 3rd, the very first day of the new congress, congressman shorttermman introduced articles of impeachment against the
president. Representative tlaib 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, who has said that impeachment is a somber and Prayerful Exercise has called President Trump an imposter. And said it is dangerous to allow voters to judge his performance in 2020. The obsession with impeaching the president is reflected in House Democrats used the power of their majority in the past 11 months. Informer sight committee, The Democrats first announced witness was michael cohen, a disgraced felon who pleaded guilty to lying to congress. When he came before us, at the Oversight Committee, he then lied again as many as eight
times. Oversight Committee Democrats demanded information about the president s personal finances and even subpoenaed the president s Accounting Firm for large swaths of sensitive and personal Financial Information about the entire trump family. The subpoena was issued over the committee of republicans and without a vote. In the ways and means committee, democrats demanded the president s personal tax return information. The reason they sited they said was to oversee the irss Audit Process for president ial tax returns. You can judge that for yourself. In the Financial Services committee, democrats demanded and subpoenaed the president s bank records going back ten years. The Financial Services committee staff, 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 that The Democrats gave for why they needed such voluminous and intrusive 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, employees, his campaign, businesses and foundation. Of course the main event for the Judiciary Committee was the report of Special Counsel Mueller Which democrats would believe would serve as the evidentiary basis for impeaching the president. Despite interviewing 500 witnesses, issuing 2800 subpoenas, executing almost 500 search warrants and spending 25
million dollars, the Special Counsels 19 attorneys and 40 fbi agents, analysts and staff found no conspiracy or coordination between the Trump Campaign and the russian government. After the trump Russia Collusion allegation did not pan out, democrats focussed their efforts on obstruction of justice. They criticized Attorney General barr for concluding that no crime of obstruction had occurred in the Special Counsel 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 the sequel with Corey Lewandowski 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 that the russian collusion allegations did not work out, democrats have settled on the ukraine phone call, eight lines the president Utderred On July 25th with Ukrainian President zelensky. But the Foreign Affairs committee, the committee on Jurisdiction Wasnt The Committee leading the Impeachment Inquiry or holding the hearings. Never was the Oversight Committee. The houses 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