Time teethered to a second article was approved by a vote of 2711 and 2810 respectively. The second article of impeachment alleged unlawful use of the cia and its resources including covert activity in the United States and interference with the Law Enforcement actions of the fbi. The crimes alleged were serious involving unlawful electronic surveillance of a opposing political party, attempts to alter testimony under oath. Six Republican HouseCommittee Members joined all 21 democrats in supporting those two articles. My congressman was among those six house members. Another one of the six was a young congressman who maine who later became a member of this body serving with distinction as a senator and as bill clintons secretary of defense. That was bill cohen. A third of the six was representati representative caldwell butler. Together these six republicans made history. They did so with no sense of triumph and no fist bumps but only in the words of my congressmen with deep reluctance and only because the evidence was clear and unmistakable of unlawful activities by the president in a criminal cover up that was in the concluding language of the first article of impeachment, contrary to his trust as president. As to the third article in the nixon meeimpeachment it was vot along party lines by a vote of 2117. Republicans object odd the third article in the face of the president s good faith prior claim to executive privilege by withholding certain evidence until such time the matter was resolved by the Supreme Court. My point in mentioning these three votes is simply this. Count votes and do the math. I understand that you all have been deprived of your phones and thus a calculator app so i will do it for you. 2711 vote was not only bipartisan, as i have indicated but overwhelmingly so. Over 70 . That is to say greater than a twothirds super majority. That vote sent a powerful signal to the full house and indeed the senate that impeachment was overwhelmingly bipartisan and politically and legally legitimate. President trump nixons fate was sealed and the result was inevitable. My congressman during the course of these proceedings commented simply and plainly that it was in his words a Great American tragedy. The greater point was and is impeachment was never designed to be a partisan tool and to be undertaken only as a last resort. This brings me to what was intended by the framers of the constitution relevant to impeachment. That subject will be addressed at some length. Let me say that much has been said by house managers in reliance on Alexander Hamiltons off quoted statement in federalist 65. Thats the one repeatedly taken out of context and cited in favor of an expansive scope of jurisdiction by congress overha word which proceed from misconduct of a public official constituted the abuse of or violation of some public trust. The irony that hamilton, the greatest proponent many this country of executive and president ial authority that perhaps ever lived should be front and center in this partisan impeachment effort to remove aduly elected president from office is lost on house impeachment managers. I dare say that hamilton would roll over in his grave at the end of wall street in new york city to know that contrary to what he acknowledged in federalist number 69, that a president can only be removed from office upon conviction of, treason, bribery or other high crimes and misdemeanors. Witnesses of a president duly elected by the people and for what . Articles of impeachment that do not even allege crimes. President trump is right. That course, if sustained, cheapens the impeecachment procs and is an american tragedy all its own. I quote, to argue as the manager do that the phrase other high crimes and misdemeanors was meant to encompass a wide range of offenses flies in the face of the clear sbenintent of the fra who carefully chose their language and knew exactly what risk they intended to protect against. Close quote. One of those concerns and risks was that impeachment be limited and well defined. What is required both crimes be alleged and those crimes be of the type that, in particular, are so serious that they quote, subvert our system of government and would justify over turning a popular election, closed quote. Otherwise what you have is legislative tyranny. I respectfully submit is what Alexander Hamilton well understood and meant and so did my congressmen. That was Hamilton Fish the fourth. His great grandfather was born in 1808. Later served as governor of new york. A United States senator before the civil war and notably as president grants secretary of state. What i didnt realize at the time back in 1980, the original was named after his parents best friend none other than Alexander Hamilton himself. What congressman Hamilton Fish from the water gate era understood is the same historical lesson that jeffrey angle has written about in a coauthored 2018 book on impeachment. The charge must be treason, bribery or other high crimes and misdemeanors. It must be one for which clear and unmistakable proof can be produced. Only if the evidence produced against the president is irrefutable such that his on constituents in this case, the 63 Million People like me who voted for President Trump, accept his guilt of the offense charged in order to overwhelmingly persuade a super majority of americans. Finally, because its the president of the dwriets that we United States that were talking about and entrusted under all the executive power of the United States. An entire branch of government, removal from office cannot be base based upon an Impeachable Offense nothing than whatever a partisan majority of the house of representatives considers them to be. To supplement that 50 years ago, in 1970 of impeaching a Supreme Court justice, ford clarified that executive branch of imimpeachments are different because voters can remove the president and all persons Holding Office at their pleasure at least e every four years. To remove a president in midterm it has been tried before and never done would indeed rieequire crimes of the magnitude of treason and bribery. It was made about the danger presented through president ial impeachment of transforming an entire branch of government. When they remove aduly elected president they undue the vote of millions of mempbs on election day. That is not something, he continued, that senators should do lightly unless we slide toward a parliamentary gov government that our entire structure of government was designed to repudiate. In hammering home the uniqueness of president ial meeimpeachment emphasized the case of nixon. That is to say only when extremely high crimes pose a threat to our basic constitutional system. A threat as high to democratic government as treason and bribery would the senate ever be justified in nullifying the votes of millions of persons and removing a president from office. My point is this, history, our American History matters. To listen to house the house managers would have it, articles of impeachment are as chuck rough warned a generation ago emp empty vessels can be poured any number of chanchs. In the case of president clin n clintons impeachment, the articles charged crimes. The snats determined by its vote in effect that while those crimes, purge erjury and obstru of justice, those crimes were not high enough, crimes damaging to the beside politics to warrant the president s removal from office. That judgment was within this bodys to render. Its been accepted by the country, whether you agreed with it or not, as legitimate. Its also one that is consistent with hamiltons views and madisons too, concerning the proper scope of impeachment as a plied to a president. When i entered the scene and succeeded my colleague and cocounsel here kenneth starr, it was left for he to decide whether prosecution of president clinton of president clinton was warranted consistent with the department of justice principles of federal prosecution. That matter was exhaustively considered. In midst of a federal grand jury investigation that i commissioned, in order to decide first whether crimes and fact had been committed. I found they had. I later said so publicly in the final report expressly authorized an mandated by congress concludesing the lewinsky investigation. I determined the prosecution of the president while in or once he left office would not be in National Interest given alternative available means short of prosecution in order to hold the president accountable for his account. Those means included a written knowledge by the president two years after his senate trial that his testimony under oath before the grand jury had been false and a related agreement to suspend his law license. The price paid by clinton was high. No person,ical icallncluding th president is above the law. I credit the president to this day with agreeing to do what was necessary in order to exercise my discretion not to prosecute. For good of the country and recognizing the unique place that the president occupies in our government. Accountability and discretion go hand in hand and permitted indeed demanded such an appropriate resolution. It was a credit they we were able to receive agreement in electing and reelecting president clinton in the first place and successor george w. Bush. I was mindful and exceedingly concerned throughout my tenure as counsel although crimes had been committed, bill clinton was the elected official placed in office and i was not. The lesson for me was a simple one that im sure every american citizen, whatever their own experience or political perspective can understand. Be humble and act with humility never being too sure that youre right. Today, 20 years later, what have we learned from that experience . I fear that the answer to that question is nothing at all. If these impeachment argues are sustained in favor of acquittal, proof of high crimes is necessary to sustain the effort but no crime at all is sufficient so long as the majority in the house says so. During the past four months alone, we have witnessed the endless procession of legal theories used to sustain this partisan impeachment from treason to quid pro quo to bribery to extortion to obstruction of justice, to a violation of the control act to who knows what all is next. What you are left with then are constitutionally deficient articles abandoning any pretense of the need to allege crimes that are another vehicle or weapon, if you will in order to damage the president politically in an election year. It is decidedly not in the countrys best interest to have the prosecution of the grave issue of impeachment and the drastic process of removal from office become just politics by other means. Anymore than it would be appropriate for the huge power of prosecution of offenses under the federal criminal code to be exercised not on the merits without fear or favor but instead as a raw, naked an pernicious exercise of partisan power and advantage. I have spent the better part of my professional life for over 30 years as a federal prosecutor for 13 years through two independent counsel investigations and as a defense lawyer for over 17 years trying my level best always to ensure that politics and prosecution do not mix. It must not happen here. A standardless and partisan impeachment is ill legitimate and should be rejected as such overwhelmingly by this body i hope and subject or alternatively and if need be by only a partisan republican majority for the good of the country. Turning now to what the house managers have alleged. It contained rather extraordinary statement. It says as follows and i quote, although President Trumps action need not rise to the level of a criminal violation to justify impeachment, his conduct was criminal, closed quote. In short, we need not bother with an impeachment article charging the president with a crime. Theres insufficient evidence to prove such a crime was committed but were going to say the president s conduct was criminal nonetheless. I have heard house manager Hakeem Jeffries argued that he and his team have evidence of an explicit quid pro quo by the president that is an explicit exchange of President Trump in return for an act. As i have explained in as far back as november of last year, the problem with this legal theory is an unlawful quid pro quo are limited to those arrangements that are corrupt. The measurable benefit that as investigation or the announcement of an investigation against the bidens might bring President Trump is at best nebulous. I should add any effort to contend that this purported thing of value also conty constituted an Illegal Campaign contribution is fraught with doubt as a matter of law. The Justice Department has said as much. When an inkien ben fits in the form of Campaign Interference is alleged to be illegal, none of this would permit the findings supported by clear and unmistakable evidence of a violation of law necessary to sustain impeachment as an abuse of power. Proof of an explicit quid pro quo is nowhere to be found in the articles of impeachment. It would have required a different telephone call than the one President Trump had with ukraine president zelensky. Heres the deal. And followed but by linking a demand for an investigation of the bidens to the provision or release of foreign aid. None of that was said or ever happened. The call transcript demonstrates that beyond any doubt. The demand characterization creeps into this phone call as Army Lieutenant colonel vindman where he equates a military experience of the commander in chief as the same thing as an order in the chain of command. While all of this may be true in the military, it goes without saying that president zelensky as the leader and head of a sovereign nation was not and is not in our military chain of command. I say that to you members of the senate as the son of a u. S. Army colonel and vietnam war veteran buried in Arlington National cemetery and a father of a u. S. Army major serving with President Trumps Space Force Command in denver, with all due respect Lieutenant Colonel vindmans testimony is at best, distorted and unpersuasive. Next, the purported link between foreign aids and the investigations or the announcement of them is weak. The most sondland was able to give was the link may exist. To ambassador sondland as well as to senator ron johnson, the president was emphatic to ambassador sondland. The president said i want nothing. I want no quid pro quo. I just want zelensky to do the right thing. To do what he ran on, closed on. The senator johnson the same thing. Just two words, no way. Recognizing this flaw in the testimony house managers have focused on an alternate quid pro quo that it was conditioned on foreign head of state meeting at the white house in return for ukraine publicly nie lly announ investigation of the bidens. I quote, its beyond question that official white house visits constitute a formal exercise of governmental power within the meaning of mcdonald, closed quote. Not so fast. Actually the Supreme Court and mcdonald helpfully boiled it down to only those acts that constitute the formal exercise of government power and more specific and focused than a broad policy objective. Exchange resulting in meetings, event, phone calls as those turns are typically understood as being routine according to the supremes definition of an official act do not count. The fact the meeting involved was a formal one with all of the trappings of a state visit by the president of ukraine and hosted by the president of the United States, makes no difference. The Supreme Court is talking about an official act of a formal exercise of Decision Making power. Not the formally of the visit. Even if the allegation war trer true, this could not constitute a quid pro quo. The vote was 90. In any event the coveted meeting and it was after all just a meeting, whether at the white house or not was not permanently withheld. It later happened between the two president s at the United Nations in new york city at the first available opportunity in september, 201. The argument by chairman jerry nadler that this call represented a quote extortion demand is ridiculous. No pressure was exercised or exerted during the call. You kr ukrainian officials have denied that any such pressure existed. In deed to the contrary, the evidence strongly suggest ukraine was perfectly capable of resisting any efforts to entangli entangle itself in United States domestic Party Politics and partisanship. What then remains of the first article of impeachment . No crimes were committed. What exactly is left its not treason. Ukraine is our ally, not our enemy or adversary is russia is not our enemy, only our adversary. Its not bribery. Theres no quid pro quo. Its not extortion, no pressure. Its not an ill leegal foreign Campaign Contribution. The benefit of the announcement of an investigation is not tangible enough to constitute an inkind Campaign Contribution warranti warranti warranti warranting prosecution under federal law. The u. S. Government Accountability Office has decided contrary to the position of the executive Branch Office of management and budget that while the president may te temporarily withhold funds me may not do so wi