Constitution gives the house the sole power of impeachment and the power to determine its own rules. When president nixon, during the time he was going to be impeached, the chairman of the rules committee, chairman mad n madden, actually spoke on the house floor and snouannounced t would be a rule on how that procedure would move forward. When clinton rules of impeachment were brought forward, there was unanimous request to kind of govern how we conducted ourselves. Im not sure how likely it would be that we would get a unanimous consent request. Id like to ask for unanimous consent without objection to enter into a record a letter written by the Judiciary Committee signed by seven people, including kevin mccarthy, the republican leader. The key line here is we will avail ourselves of every parliamentary tool available to us to highlight your inaction. Translated it means to try and delay to make this process as
impossible as it can be made. Im not sure, in light of this letter, that we could get a unanimous consent request with regard to these proceedings that break for a cup of coffee, never mind determine the rules of engagement. So i point that out. In terms of process, i just want to, again, state for the record, because i think its important, that i think the house is engaged in a fair impeachment process. Democrats and republicans have had equal opportunity to participate in the months along Impeachment Inquiry. Members of both parties have been involved in every stage of this process from sitting in and asking questions in closed door depositions to Questioning Witnesses in open hearings. The committees took more than a hundred hours of Deposition Testimony from 17 witnesses, held 17 public hearings, which included republicanrequested witnesses. They produced a 300page public report that laid out their findings in evidence. Jute dish the Judiciary Committee then took that report before completing two articles that were dealing with today. Mr. Trump was invited to participate in the Judiciary Committees review of evidence presented against him, as president clinton was during his Impeachment Inquiry. President trump chose not to participate. President trump to date has not provided any exculpatory evidence but instead has blocked numerous residences from testifying about his actions. And so i just thought it was important to point that out. Mr. Raskin, i saw you scribbling furiously while mr. Collins was testifying. I didnt know if there was something you wanted to respond to. Thank you, mr. Chairman, but my friend mr. Collins speaks very fast so its hard to keep up with everything he has to say. [ inaudible ] im from massachusetts and people say the same thing about my accent. You got to give me credit. That was as slow as youve ever heard me talk. You were making an effort in the beginning, and so was i. They accuse me of the same. He raises some really important points, and i have the chance to briefly address them. One thing weve been hearing is that we didnt charge crimes. In some sense that just duplicates a basic confusion people have about what the process is. We are not criminal prosecutors prosecuting a criminal defendant in court to send to jail. Thats not what were doing. Were members of congress. Were working to protect the country against a president who is committing high crimes and misdemeanors that is constitutional offenses against the people of the country. Now, lots of the conduct that we plead in our specific articles alleging abuse of power and obstruction of congress
themselves could become part of criminal indictments later on. But its been a curious thing for me to hear our colleagues across the aisle repeatedly make this point and kind of spread this confusion that there are not crimes in there when they were the very first ones to say and continue to say the Department Of Justice cannot prosecute the president. The president may not be indicted. The president may not be prosecuted while hes in office. Thats the position they take. They then cannot turn around and say, oh, and you cant impeach him because you havent charged him with any crimes and prosecuted him and indicted him. Heads i win, tails you lose is the essence of that argument. If you go back to the Richard Nixon case, we didnt have to see that nixon had been convicted of burglary in the District Of Columbia by ordering the breakin of the Watergate Hotel before he was charged with abuse of power pas a high crime and misdemeanor. Thats exactly what were charging President Trump. You didnt have to go out and
prove that he committed honorous Services Fraud or crimes, all the things he could be charged for, we could only look at the prosecute prosecution he was charged with. My friend said there were no Fact Witnesses. This was based on the report that was delivered to us by the House Committee on intelligence. Thats a play on words, too. There were 17 Fact Witnesses who appeared before the House Committee on intelligence, the House Oversight committee, and the House Foreign Affairs committee. The way we structured this impeachment process, which is completely at our prerogative under article i, section 2, clause 5, as you said, mr. Chairman, is to have the Fact Investigation into this affair which involved Foreign Governments and ambassadors and so on in the intelligence
committee, then to have them bring the facts in a comprehensive report to the house Judiciary Committee which would then make a decision about the law. Do all of these events rise to what we think is impeachable conduct, and of course, we did. So there are lots of Fact Witnesses. We also had the council for the House Intelligence Committee come in to deliver the report and defend the report, and All My Friends On The Other Side of the aisle had the chance to question, as we had the chance to question, when you say there were no Fact Witnesses, thats also a perfect description of what took place during the bill clinton impeachment. Because all of that took place as part of the independent counsel investigation by Kenneth Starr. There were closed door, secret depositions taking place there. Then Kenneth Starr came to deliver the report, and remember all the boxes of material they brought over in a uhaul truck and gave it to the judiciary
committee. Monica lewinsky did not testify before the house Judiciary Committee. There were not witnesses brought before the house Judiciary Committee, so were following the exact same pattern that i think took place there, except it was the House Of Representatives here which did its own Fact Investigation. Finall finally well, let me just say a word about the fairness of the process. We all know what they teach you in law school, which is if the facts are against you, you pound the law. If the laws are against you, you pound the facts. If the law and the facts are against you, you talk about process and you pound the table. Im afraid ive seen a little bit of that in the performance of our colleagues here. And i dont blame them because theyre dealing with the hand that they were dealt. We have 17 Fact Witnesses, and of all of their depositions, all of their testimony was
published, everybody can find it, and all of their testimony is essentially unrefuted and uncontradicted. It tells one story which is the president of the United States conducted a shakedown of a foreign power. He used 391 million that we in congress voted for a besieged, struggling democracy, ukraine, to defend itself against russia invasion and attack. To coerce the president of that Foreign Government, president zelensky, to get involved in our election campaign. What did he want him to do . Well, he wanted president zelensky to make an announcement on television that joe biden was being investigated. Now, what does that have to do with the Foreign Policy of the United States . What does it have to do with what congress voted for . What does it have to do with any legitimate interest of the u. S. Government . The other thing he wanted president zelensky to do was to
rehabilitate the completely discredited Conspiracy Theory that it was ukraine and not russia that had interfered in our election. Our entire intelligence community. The nsa, the cia, the fbi, the Senate Committee on intelligence issued a report about this. All of them say the same thing which is that it was russia that conducted what the Department Of Justice called a sweeping and Systematic Campaign against our election in 2016. Remember, mr. Chairman, they injected propaganda into our policy through social media, facebook and twitter and so on. They directly conducted cyber invasion and attack and espionage in the Democratic National committee. Ment they tried to get into our state board of elections. Thats what the president did. Now we have the president of the United States telling president zelensky if he wants the 391
million that we voted for him and that hes been certified by the Department Of Defense and Department Of State clearing every anticorruption screen that had been put in place and called for by congress. If he wants the money and he wants the white house meeting that he desperately wanted to show america was on ukraines side and not russias side, if he wanted to. Then he had to reiterate this discredited story of 2016. I yield back. Listening to some of the commentary and the news from some of the pundits, i think people need a lesson in constitutional law. Thats why its great youre here. Let me ask you a question because sometimes i think people dont understand. Why is impeachment in the constitution . Thats a great question. Mr. Collins invoked indirectly my favorite american revolutionary, tom payne, who wrote common sense and the age
of reason. He said you cant have one without the other. You need common sense of the people and you need people to be conducting rg things with why was he not ordained to win in any way . Because america was the first country in history born in a revolutionary struggle against monarchy. Against the very idea that you could have hereditary rule. Payne said a hereditary ruler is like a hereditary mathematician. The people have to decide on their own leaders. It was put in the constitution formed by british experience. There was an impeachment that parliament had, but it wasnt
just the king can do no wrong. Our Founding Fathers insisted impeachment should be in there, not for high crimes committed against the people, but for the president himself. The president is limited to a fixed salary which can be increased or decreased by congress, and he cant receive any other emoluments, any other payments. Hes effectively serve that go all of us are. If He Sdpent Faithful Physical execute the laws and hes physical. But he needs to be removed. Why is abuse of power an Impeachable Offense . Abuse of spour the essential r i put it above the law, above the constitutional law and above the foundaton. We want a president that would implement the laws, implement the Affordable Care act and implement environmental law. Have we seen evidence that the president tried to withhold aid to ukraine. Why is that an impeachable defense . Ly sdplz it basically implicates
every single one of the. And enforcing the rule of law. Two, it drags foreign powers into our election. That was something the frarmz were fehr fid about. There was a Great Exchange between adams and justin fwhp issue. Because we would be an open democracy, so people would try to exploit our openness by getting involved in our elections with their Foreign Government concerns. This is why the president needs a complete undivided loyalty with the American People and American Constitution and not drag Foreign Governments into our affairs. You have Everything Consumers were worried about wrapped up in one bundle here, and that is
involving Foreign Governments in our elections, placing the husbands interests over Everything Else, and acceptably threatening the rule of the people in dmok raet approximate. Kbr is it significant that approximate President Trump. Our colleagues have zeroed in on the fact that some of the witnesses said, of course there was a quid pro quo. The president was not going to release the aid, he was not going to have a meeting until he got whatever he wanted. When the staff was asked, they said, yes, we do. The president basically said, this is how we proceed. Get used to it. There are always quid pro quo involved in Foreign Policy. In other words, its legit to say to a Foreign Government, we will give you this aid if you comply all the aid is being used in the proper way. We will give you this assistance if you attend these conferences and meeting with us to make sure the assistance is being used properly and so on. There is nothing wrong with that, but look what happened here. This was an arrangement where the president conditioned all of this foreign assistance that we had sent 200 million to the Department Of Defense, 191 million to the Department Of State to help ukraine defend itself against russia. Many but what he w but what he was holding out to was the ukranian interference in our election to hold his political opponent. I think they have. The f. There were wrnsz who were willing to come forward and ask what happened. Was the president s call with president zelensky perfect, as the president has said, and was it appropriate for him to ask another country to investigate an American Citizen . There was nothing wrong with the call. The problem im having is with the last 15 minutes of this. Great oratory that mean nothing to the impeachment. Were getting to the bottom line here, and honestly, let him ask his question, ill get back to it later, because everything thrown out here is everything weve had in this discussion. Weve just proven the facts. We talked about the law. I can yell and talk about them. This is the very problem we have and ill just address one thing. I dont give a damn. Im looking at the president in the transcript saying, i would like you to do us a favor, though. Do you think it was a perfect call . Lieutenant bvindman said it was appropriate for him to ask for the call. He said whatever was asked, whatever the u. S. Policy was to ask a foreign leader to open an investigation. The president was certainly within his right to do that. Do you think it was right to question a u. S. Citizen like that . No, it was not. Everything about the hearings, i think every Single Member of congress who at least has endorsed the Impeachment Inquiry has said its completely wrong for the u. S. President to use any of the means at his disposal to drag Foreign Governments into
our election, and we were unable to get our colleagues to weigh in on that saying, lets assume that you think, lets stipulate that you think the president did nothing wrong here. Do you think its wrong for the president of the United States to get foreign powers involved in our election and we couldnt get an answer . I reissued the invitation to mr. Collins, because i believe in his heart he thinks thats wrong. And i certainly would not want that to become the pattern for all future presidencies. I dont want this to become the pattern for future impeachments. I think this is the problem i have. The understanding here is i guess its okay, though, to get involved in a 2016 election when you pay a third party to go pay for a dossier. These are the kind of things we can talk about, but the interesting issue that is discussed here is exactly where we are right now, in a question and comment. Because what mr. Raskin just brought up is an interesting point. Is it okay if youre running for president that you cant be investigated . Even if you did something
overseas. So if youre running for president and you did something overseas, it would be off limits according to mr. Raskins argument for the United States government to investigate that. Thats th