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. This is really all about in my view, its all about politics. Its all about hurting the president , hurting his reputation. They dislike him intensely. As i mentioned the other day they really loathe this president , and theyre trying to hurt his chances in the next election. It may well do just the opposite. One of my real concerns, and af lot of them about this whole thing. I mentioned this earlier today, im very concerned about is that The Democrats are really lowering the bar for impeaching a president in the future. Its becoming too routine. Its becoming the new normal. For 200 years in our nation wed had one impeachment, one in 200 years, Andrew Johnson and now in less than 50 years were in our third one this time around. And i really am concerned that from now on in all likelihood when you have the president of the United States and you have the House Of Representatives and theyre opposite parties, youre going to end up with the base in the House Of Representatives pushing very hard at members to impeach that president , and its very divisive for the nation. So many other things dont get done when youre going through an impeachment. For example, opioids, 70,000 almost americans lost their lives last year, but weve done very little about opioids in this committee, and we have jurisdiction over it, doing something about our southern border, which is still like a sieve. Far too many people come in illegal. We do almost nothing there. Overall in congress our infrastructure, roads and highways its crumbling but we do very little about that. I think the American People deserve a lot better than what theyre getting from this committee or from this congress. So in any event, i want to thank the folks out there and god
bless america. Gentlemans time is expired. For what purpose does does mr. Deutsche seek recognition . Move to strike the last word. Gentlemans recognized . Thank you mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, i want to start by agreeing with mr. Sensenbrenner. It is always the right time to defend the constitution, and thats the very reason that were here. There are two articles of impeachment. The first is abuse of power. The president of the United States abused his power by soliciting foreign interference in our elections cheating the american voters. How did he do it . He leveraged Life Saving Taxpayer funded military aid that ukraine desperately needed for assistance in his reelection campaign, and he leveraged a white house meeting that he had promised to the new
ukrainian president that president zelensky desperately needed to show Vladimir Putin that the United States is willing to stand with ukraine, and he leveraged that meeting for assistance in his reelection campaign. Thats abuse of power now any colleagues have suggested that somehow abuse of power is not a serious offense, that we should make light of the president s actions, not treat it as the constitutional violation that it is. In fact, abuse of power was a principle concern of the Framers Of The Constitution, and it was clear what it meant. The exercise of official power to obtain an improper personal benefit while ignoring or injuring the National Interests, thats abuse of power. Its rooted in the president s duty, constitutional duty to faithfully execution the law, to
put service over self. To put the country over his personal interests. I note from 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. President trumps actions, in fact, exemplify the framers fears and the very reason that abuse of power is a high crime. Worse than president nixon, President Trump pressured a Foreign Government to aid in his corrupt scheme. Thats the abuse of power article, but theres 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 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, it leads 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, acting chief of staff acknowledged a quid pro quo, said it happens all the time. Thats abuse of power. But then the president wouldnt let him speak. Thats obstruction of congress. Why wont he let him speak . What does he have 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 highlights the abuse of power, but it also is obstruction of congress. Why . 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 nsc counsel about the rogue effort. He said im not a part of whatever drug Deal Sondland and mulvaney are cooking up. Bolton, in fact, called giuliani a hand grenade whos going to blow everybody up. Thats the abuse of power. Obstruction of congress is clear. Why wont the president let him testify . Whats he hiding . And finally, john eisenberg, Lieutenant Colonel vindman couldnt believe what he heard on the call. He reported it to eisenberg. Now eisenberg cant speak. What is it the president is afraid hell say . Thats obstruction of congress. Abuse of power and obstruction of the congress, together thats what these articles are about. Were protecting the constitution. Were protecting the American People and our elections. Thats why we need to proceed with these articles of impeachment. I yield back. Gentleman yields back. For what purposes seeking recognition . I move to strike the last word, the movement is recognized. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Ive been a prosecutor, i was a prosecutor in baghdad when i was in the navy, prosecuted terrorists. I was a Defense Attorney in the navy. Actually got to defend a navy s. E. A. L. Against trumped up charges by the Obama 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 a courtroom, and i can tell you that i would defend this case every single day, and its because the facts just arent
there. Lets go through each article. Abuse of power or quid pro quo, bribery, call it whatever your focus group wants to call it because at the end of the day, you dont have the facts to make out the case. You dont have the facts because the other party on your quid pro quo, your alleged quid pro quo, never felt pressure. We have a primary document, a primary source of information that is the transcript of the call that shows there was no connection. We also have the other party, president zelensky who said at no time did the ukrainians feel any pressure to have an investigation. We also know that no investigation of biden ever took place. We also know that aid was given to ukraine, aid that they never knew at the time was being under review, and aid that came in the form of javelin missiles, not what the Obama Administration gave which were well wishes and
blankets. So again, no case can be made for abuse of power. Obstruction of congress, this is what we would describe as ripe or not right. It isnt right because only letters have been sent. Theres been no subpoena. How this works is a subpoenas issued. The Executive Branch exercises their Executive Privilege, just like obama did, and then the courts decide this. The courts have never decided this, so wheres the obstruction . It doesnt exist. So i would defend this case every single day. As a judge, i would dismiss this for lack of merit. Even if the facts are viewed in light most favorable to The Democrats, you still, again, cannot make out what we as lawyers call a prima fascia case. This case would be dismissed on day one in a courtroom. Ill tell you what case id prosecute id prosecute schiff for abuse of power any day of
the week. Why . How about the fact that he subpoenaed Phone Records from a member of congress. How about the fact that he signaled out devin nuness Cell Phone Number and leaked that . How about the fact that he dumped over 8,000 pages on the Judiciary Committee 48 hours before we had a hearing in this committee . That is the abuse of power. That is what i would prosecute every day of the week. Obstruction, id prosecute The Democrats for obstruction of congress, too. How about the fact that i had a motion to subpoena the whistleblower. The whistleblower, who by the way you cannot point to any statute. Theres no statute that gives that whistleblower the right to be anonymous . Does not exist no matter what you say. I had a motion to subpoena the whistleblower two weeks ago. That motion was denied. I never got my subpoena, and it was todone in a partisan fashio straight down partisan lines. So that is the obstruction and i
would prosecute that every day. Folks, thats the legal analysis. This is nothing more than a political hit job. Thanks, and i yield the remainder of my time. Gentleman yields back. For what purpose does ms. Scanlon seek recognition . I move to strike the last word. The lady is recognized. I want to reiterate, this is not about Dus Agreemeisagreemene president s policy or personality or even his tweets. Were not judging the president himself. Were judging his actions, and i understand that he ran to disrupt the government. The problem is he went further by abusing his power, he endangered our elections and our National Security. He remains an ongoing threat to both. Hes shown a party pattern tterg foreign interference in our elections and trying to cover it up twice. Hes threatening to do it again, so weve 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, his July 25th Call record, in which he said to the ukrainian president , i want you to do us a favor, though. And Nen Procethen proceeded to investigations into his political rival and a debunked Conspiracy Theory that the senate and all of our National Security services have rejected. We have the testimony of his appointees, ambassador sondland and volker about the May 23rd Meeting in 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 have the testimony of david holmes who overheard the president ask ambassador sondland whether president zelensky was going to, quote, do
the investigation. We have the president s many public statements, including his October 3rd Statement that ukraine and china should investigate his political rival. Even the minority counsel, mr. Castor admitted there was direct evidence. He said, quote, we had some direct evidence on certain things and we had some direct evidence on the May 23rd Meeting and sondland gave some direct evidence, end quote. The secondhand accounts are also extensively corroborated. For example, ambassador taylor and mr. Morrison both testified that during a September 7th phone call with ambassador sondland, President Trump said there was no quid pro quo, but that president zelensky had to go to the microphone and announce investigations, kind of giving with one hand and taking away with the other. Ambassador sondland testified he had no reason to dispute ambassador saylor and mr. Morrisons testimony about this conversation. Theres also circumstantial
evidence. There was no contemporaneous explanation fwichb for the president s decision to withhold the military aid that had bipartisan support from congress. That didnt come until after the articles of impeachment were filed, and the Uniform Con Seses of the state department, the defense department, 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 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. His efforts had nothing to do with u. S. Policy and were taken on the president s behalf and with the president s knowledge. President trump directed u. S. Officials and president zelensky himself to work with mr. Giuliani. President trump ordered the Critical Military aid for ukraine be withheld. Ukrainian officials were informed the aid would not be released unless president zelensky publicly announced an investigation, and President Trump refused to release the aid until his Pressure Campaign on the ukraine was exposed. President trump refused to arrange a meeting with president zelensky, and President Trumps agents advised ukrainian officials that the white house meeting would be scheduled only after president zelensky committed to the investigations. President trump ignored the anticorruption Talking Points prepared for his calls. President trump asked president zelensky directly to investigate President Trumps chief political rival, and President Trump stone waulled congresss investigation. You know, i dont know what more you can ask for here, weve got in additions from the president. Weve got corroboration from people hes appointed. The only thing you can do is stick your head in the sand if youre 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, ill wait for the next yield. Sorry. Okay. The time of the gentle lady has expired. What purpose is mr. Armstrong seek recognition . Move to strike the last word. Gentleman is recognized. For weeks my democratic colleagues talked about quid pro quo, and then they pulled tested bribery, but they had a problem because these things will never change. There was no pressure. Both president zelensky and President Trump said that there was no pressure, no victim, no no the aid was released, and there was no investigation. And you know what else . There was no whistleblower. There was no adam schiff, so we
are left with abuse of power and obstruction of justice. An impeachment is either a solemn constitutional affair, which this is absolutely not or whatever the majority wants it 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 it to all the way back to where this thing all started. Bob mueller. And buried in the bottom of article ii of this impeachment is the language these actions were consistent with the President Trumps previous efforts to undermine United States government investigations into foreign interference in the United States elections. This is nothing more than a legislative driveby or probably more accurate majoritys attempt to return to the scene of a noncrime, but i guess after two years, 19 lawyers, 40 agents, 500 warrants, 2,800 subpoenas, 30 million, there is simply no way they could leave it out. So heres just a reminder. The investigation did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the russian government in its Election Interference activities. Mueller report page 2. This started the day President Trump won the election. This has been the foregone conclusion since the ta The Democrats won back the majority. This was never about facts or fairness, so here we are whe