Charges brought by the house. I believe these documents are also of great importance to making sure senators have the information necessary to make a fully informed decision, this terribly weighty decision. The house has built a very strong case against the president. Maybe thats why leader mcconnell doesnt seem to want witnesses, at least not agree to them now. Maybe thats why the president is afraid, because the house case is so strong, that they dont want witnesses that might corroborate it. The evidence the house put together includes public testimony given under oath by numerous senior officials appointed by President Trump. These are trump 57. Teas were calling, not some partisan democratic. Some republican senators have said that, while the charges are serious, they havent seen enough evidence to make a decision. Thats one of the reasons i propose subpoenas for these witnesses for these documents, all directly relevant, from officials who have yesterday to testify during any stage of the house process. Senators who oppose this plan will have to explain why less evidence is better than more evidence. Again, let me say that to every senator in this room, democratic and republican. Senators who oppose this plan will have to explain why less evidence is better than more evidence, and theyre going to have to explain that position to a public that is understandably skeptical when they see an administration suppressing evidence and blocking senior officials from telling the truth about what they know. Let me repeat this
washington abc poll. Just this morning, i read about it in the paper this morning, 71 of americans believe the president should allow his top aides to testify in a potential senate trial. 72 of independents and 64 of republicans, 64 of republicans think that President Trump should allow his top aides to testify in a potential senate trial. Seven out of ten americans. The American People have a wisdom that seems to be lacking with some of my colleagues. A trial without witnesses is not a trial. Its a Rush To Judgment. Its a sham trial. The American People understand that a trial without relevant documents is not a fair trial. Again, a desire not for sunlight but for darkness, to conceal
facts that may well be very relevant. The American People understand, if youre trial to conceal evidence and block testimony, its probably not because the evidence is going to help your case. Its because youre trying to cover something up. President trump, are you worried about what these witnesses would say . If youre not worried, let them come forward. If you are worried, we ought to hear from them. I havent heard again, the leader went on for 15, 20 minutes, the republican leader without giving a single argument for why these witnesses shouldnt testify, or these documents shouldnt be produced unless the president has something to hide. In the coming weeks every senator will have a choice. Do they want a fair, honest
trial that examines all the facts or do they want a trial that doesnt let all the facts come out . We will have votes. During this proceeding, should the house send it to us, after voting for it, when they send it to us, we will have votes on whether these people should testify and whether these documents should be made public and part of the trial, and the American People will be watching. They will be watching. Who is for an open and fair trial . Who is for hiding facts, relevant facts, immediate facts . Who is for covering up . I expect to discuss this proposal for a fair trial with leader mcconnell, but each individual senator will have both the power and the responsibility to help shape what an Impeachment Trial looks
like. In federalist 65, Alexander Hamilton wondered, quote, where else than in the senate could have been found a tribunal sufficiently signified or sufficiently independent to serve as a court of impeachment . What other body would be likely to feel confidence enough to preserve unawed and uninfluenced the necessary impartiality . My colleagues, lead are mcconnell, are you in Alexander Hamiltons words unawed and uninfluenced to produce the necessary impartiality, or will you participate in a coverup . Can we live up to hamiltons fine words with dignity, independence, confidence to preserve the necessary impartiality to conduct a fair
trial . That question should weigh heavily on every single senator. Mr. President , i yield the floor. Good morning. Craig melvin, msnbc headquarters in New York City at a pivotal hour in this Impeachment Process. That was Senate Minority leader Chuck Schumer speaking about whats next in the Upper Chamber for the president s potential impeachment, the lions share of the senators speech devoted to basically expounding on the letter he wrote to Senate Majority leader Mitch Mcconnell on sunday, insisting that four witnesses, four witnesses be allowed to testify there in the senate, acting Chief Of Staff mick mulvaney, acting Chief Of Staff, senior aide to mr. Mulvaney, also wanting an
official from omb to testify. John bolton, former National Security adviser, we just heard senator schumer once again make the case that they should be allowed to testify during a senate trial. Meanwhile soon, left side of your screen, it is going to be shifting to the house, back to the house. The House Rules Committee will be gavelled in for a hearing. Theres a live look inside that tiny room thats tucked away on the third floor there. They will be setting the results for tomorrows debate and vote by the full house on the two articles of impeachment against president donald j. Trump, abuse of power and obstruction of congress. Things will look a little different this hour. Two of the members of congress that weve seen asking questions will be answering questions. Its House Judiciary Committee Ranking Member doug collins and democratic congressman jamie raskin, also on the Judiciary Committee. Hell be sitting in for chairman jerry nadler who has had some sort of Family Emergency were
told. We have put together the Perfect Group to walk us through this moment this hour. Msnbcs Grart Headache is on capitol hill, also with me, nbcs heidi przybyla. Glenn kirschnekirchner, Carlos Former republican congressman who represented the state of florida district there in florida. All three are msnbc contributors. Garrett, let me start with you on the hill. Weve watched this Process Play Out In The House intelligence and Judiciary Committee. We heard from the two most senior members of the u. S. Senate. What should we be watching for, listening for from the rules committee when they gavel in a few minutes from now . Unlike the other committees that have handled the impeachment and football so far, and the rules committee will have the opportunity to question one another. You may see democratic members questioning doug collins, republicans questioning jamie
rascon. Its more a back and forth pre sue of what well see on the floor tomorrow. Raskin is also on the oversight committee, so he handled the investigative part of this, the judiciary part of this. A lot of people think hell be an Impeachment Manager on the senate side, too. Hes a person our viewers should get used to seeing in this context. The other part of this hearing that might be more interesting in the afternoon. Its an open mic night quality. You may hear from some folks who have not been on the relevant committees so far, but want a chance to weigh in. If they do, they will also be a preview of what we expect to be the allday event tomorrow. The main event starting tomorrow morning. Most folks probably recognize Congressman Collins there who appears to be ready to go, standing next to that witness table. Chuck, its a committee hearing,
its not a trial. If you were in charge of asking for rules for this vote, what would be your priority . I come out of a system which rules are set, remain set, federal rules of evidence, federal rules of criminal procedure, They Dont Change Based On who the trial judge is or which Party Controls congress or the white house. What id like to see are a set of rules that permit a full and fair hearing, we hear from the witnesses, see documents. I would like, craig, and this may be pretty unrealistic, a set of rules that would remain regardless of who is in power in congress and regardless of who controls the white house. If its fair to hear from the witnesses under these set of circumstances with a Democratic House and democratic president , why wouldnt it be fair to do the same thing with a Republican House and a democratic president. What do you make of this argument that we heard from Senator Mcconnell last hour, that the primary reason democrats want to call witnesses now is because they rushed
through the process in the house . Well, they move swiftly, no question about that. Im not sure thats a bad thing. What we want in federal criminal cases is a swift resolution of charges. We have something called the Speedy Trial Act In Federal Court which holds us to a schedule and attempts to have the resolution as quickly and fairly as possible. This notion that we Rush To Judgment strikes me as rather unavailing. Theres no such thing well, let me say it this way. Swift justice can be fair justice. If we have the right witnesses and the right documents, theyve had an opportunity to be heard and cross examined, theres nothing wrong with moving quickly. Congressman curbelo, take us inside this room here. For folks who are watching or listening on sirius satellite radio, this is the House Rules Committee. By congressional standards, its
a small room, tiny room where youll hear from Congressman Collins from georgia who we just saw a few moments ago and congressman jamie raskin, a democrat from maryland. Congressman nadler had some sort of Family Emergency. Thats all the Information Weave gotten. After theyre done, any House Members allowed to testify. Whats going through the minds of your former colleagues as they get ready to set the ground rules . This is a committee that is not used to getting this much attention. It is a rather ab skewer committee, the House House Committee that meets in the capitol building, right outside the house gallery on the third floor, very Small Committee room. Its the only committee where the membership does not represent the proportion of the full house. So there are nine democrats and four republicans on the rules committee. Its the committee that the speaker uses to really control the House Of Representatives. The speaker Appoints The Nine members of the majority. Its also a committee where every member gets to have their say. As you said, craig, this will probably be a very long hearing because any member of the house can show up and be heard at that committee. The time limits arent the way were used to be seeing, like on the house floor where the members are very quick. These members can go on and filibuster as senators do in the Upper Chamber. This is an odd day for the rules committee. Even though its very obscure, a very Small Committee, it is extremely powerful as they will set the rules for debate in what will be a historic debate on the house floor tomorrow. Glenn kirchner, to say the process itself so far has been contentious would be quite the understatement. Is it possible to set up a list of rules that will keep order for tomorrows floor vote from
turning into a circus . Nothing is impossible. Is it likely . I dont know that its likely. Craig, if i can circle back to one of the excellent points that chuck was making about how justice can be swift and fair, i know were living in a post irony time. But when i hear Mitch Mcconnell at length that the houses work was too quick, it was too shallow, it was too narrow he went so far as to call it slapdash. I still find it ironic that one of the reasons it was shallow and narrow and quick if it, indeed, was all those things is because President Trump ordered the witnesses not to appear and testify. He ordered executive Branch Agencies not to produce the documents that were lawfully subpoenaed and sought by congress as part of the Impeachment Inquiry. So i think it still qualifies as irony for Mitch Mcconnell to somehow suggest that was a short coming of the house trying to execute its duties to do a thoughtful, fair and full investigati investigation. If it wasnt, the reason it wasnt is because of Donald Trumps obstruction. We just saw there the Committee Chairman jim mcgovern sit down. There he is right there, Congressman Mcgovern is the chair of the House Rules Committee. We also i believe a few moments ago saw Congressman Cole from oklahoma, the Ranking Member on the House Rules Committee. I dont believe weve seen congressman jamie rascon step into the room just yet. Again, this is expected to be gaveled into session any moment now. One of the first speakers already seated there, Congressman Collins from georgia. Heidi, there are, i believe, more than 30 House Democrats who sit in districts that President Trump won in 2016. Most of these swing district democrats over the last few days, nearly all of them have said they are going to be voting yes on impeachment. What do we know about the kind of pressure that these democrats specifically are facing back at home . We saw yesterday in the town hall that we covered live from alyssa slotkin, she is one of the democrats who i was told by republicans really had no chance of winning that district because it had been in republican hands for 20 years. I went there because of that, to kind of check it out. That was indicative of the sweep that we saw, sweeping democrats into power. You saw the protesters there. Im told these are people who would have never voted for her in the first place. That said, its really remarkable to watch all of these
documents who know that they are risking their Young Political careers, their promising political careers and laying themselves down on the tracks because they won in big trump districts. Lets listen in as the House Rules Committee is gavelled to order. Its unfortunate we have to be here today. The actions of the president of the United States make that necessary. President trump withheld congressionally approved aid to ukraine, our partner under siege, not to fight corruption, but to extract a personal political favor. President trump refused to meet with ukraines president in the white house until he completed this scheme. All the while, leaders in russia, the very nation holding a large part of ukraine hostage, the very nation that interfered with our elections in 2016 had yet another meeting in the Oval Office Just last week. These are not my opinions, these are uncontested facts. Weve listened to the hearings. We read the transcripts. Its clear that this president acted in a way that not only violates the public trust. He jeopardized our National Security. He undermined our democracy. He acted in a way that rises to the level of impeachment. That is why we are considering 755 today, a Resolution Impeaching donald john trump, president of the United States, for High Crimes And Misdemeanors. Congress has no other choice but to act with urgency. When i think back to the founders of this nation, they were particularly concerned about foreign interference in our elections. They understood that allowing outside forces to decide american campaigns would cause the fundamentals of our democracy to crumble. The evidence shows that is exactly what President Trump did. Not only allowed, but solicited foreign interference, all to help him win his reelection campaign. What shocks me, quite frankly, about so many of my republican
friends is their inability to acknowledge that President Trump acted improperly. It seems the only republican members willing to admit the president did something wrong have either already retired or announced plans they intend to retire at the end of this congress. I get it. Its hard to criticize the president of your own party, but that shouldnt matter here. I admired president clinton when he was president of the United States and i still do today. When this house impeached him which i didnt agree with, i went to the house floor and said what president clinton did was wrong because moments like this call for more than just reflexive partisanship. They require honesty and require courage. Are any republicans today willing to muster the strength to say that what this president did was wrong . Let me say again what happened here. The president withheld congressionally approved military aid to a country under siege to abstract a personal
political favor. He did not do this as a matter of u. S. Policy. He did this for his own benefit. That is wrong. If that is not impeachable conduct, i dont know what is. Ive heard some on the other side suggest that this process is about overturning an election. That saab suffer that is absurd. This is about President Trump using his office to try to rig the next election. Think about that. We like to say that every vote matters, every vote counts. We learn in glade school about all the people who fought and died tore that right. It is a sacred thing. I remember as a middle schooler in 1972 leaving leaflets at the homes of potential voters urging them to support George Mcgovern for president. No relation, by the way. I thought he had a great last name. He was dedicated to ending the
war in vietnam and feeding the hungry and helping the poor. I remember even to this day what an honor it was to ask people to support him, even though i was too young to vote myself. And what a privilege it was later in life to ask voters for their support in my own campaigns. Ive been part of winning campaigns and ive been part of losing ones, too. People i thought would be grade president s like Senator Mcgovern were never given that chance. Make no mistake. I was disappointed but i accepted it. I would take losing an election any day of the week when the American People render that verdict. But i will never, and i mean i will never be okay if other nations decide our leaders for us. And the president of the United States is rolling out the welcome mat for that kind of foreign interference. To not act would set a dangerous precedent, not just for this president , but for every future
president. The evidence is as clear as it is overwhelming. And this administration hasnt handed over a single subpoenaed document to refute it. Not one. Now its up to us to decide whether the United States is still a nation where no one is above the law or whether america is allowed to become a land run by those who act more like kings or queens, as if the law doesnt apply to them. Its no secret that President Trump had a pen chant for cozying up to dictators. Hes congratulated detur they, fell in love with kim jongun. I can go on and on and on. Maybe the president is jealous that they can do whatever they want. These dictators are the antithesis of What America Stands for. Every day we let President Trump act like the law doesnt apply to him, we move a little closer
do them. Benjamin franklin left the Constitutional Convention and said the founders have created a republic if you can keep it. There are no guarantees. Our system of government will persist only if we fight for it. And the simple question for us is this, are we willing to fight for this democracy . I suspect well have a lot of debate today. I hope everyone searches their conscience. To my republican friends, imagine any democratic president sitting in the oval office, president obama, president clinton, any of them, would your answer here still be the same . No one should be allowed to use the powers of the presidency to undermine our elections or cheat in a Campaign No Matter who it is and no matter what their party. We all took an oath, not to defend a political party, but to uphold the constitution of the United States. History is testing us. We cant control what the senate will do, but each of us can decide whether we pass that test, whether we defend our democracy and whether we uphold our oath. Today well put a process in place to consider these articles on the house floor. And when i cast my vote in favor, my conscience will be clear. Before i turn to my Ranking Member, i want to first recognize his leadership on this committee. We take up a lot of contentious matters up here in the rules committee and often were on different sides of many issues. He leads with integrity and cares deeply about this house. There will be passionate disagreement here today, but i have no doubt we will continue Working Together In The Future and side by side on this committee to better this institution. Let me also state for the record that chairman nadler is unable to be here today because of a family medical emergency. We are all keeping him and his family in our thoughts and
prayers. Testifying instead today is Congressman Raskin. He ses not only a valued member of this committee but also the judiciary and over sites committee. In addition Congressman Raskin is a constitutional law professor, so he has a comprehensive and unique understanding of what were talking about here today. I appreciate him stepping in and testifying this morning. I also want to welcome back Ranking Member collins, former member of the rules committee, someone who i dont often agree with, but someone who i respect nonetheless and appreciate all of his contributions to this institution. Having said that, ill now turn this over to our Ranking Member mr. Cole for any comments hed like to make. Thank you very much, mr. Chairman. Let me begin by reciprocating personal and professional respect for you and the other members of this committee as well because i do think very highly of each and every person on this committee and particularly of you, mr. Chairman, but this is a day where were going to disagree and disagree very strongly. It is, as you referenced, mr. Chairman, a sad day, sad day for me personally, for the rules committee, for the institution of the house and for the American People. Were meeting today on a rule for considering articles of impeachment against a sitting president of the United States on the floor of the House Of Representatives. This is not the result of a fair process and certainly not a bipartisan one. Sadly, the democrats Impeachment Inquiry has been flawed and partisan from day one. I guess it should come as no surprise that democrats preordained outcome is also flawed and partisan. Seven weeks ago when this committee met to consider a resolution to guide the process for the democrats unprecedented Impeachment Inquiry, i warned that they were treading on shaky ground with their unfair and closed process, reflecting how
things have played out since then Reafter Fishls my earlier judgment, that this flawed process was crafted to ensure a partisan preordained result. Unfortunately this entire process was tarnished further by the speed with which my democratic colleagues on the judiciary and intelligence committees have rushed to deliver their predetermined judgment, to impeach the president for something, anything, whether there are stones left unturned or whether there is any proof at all. Theres no way this can or should be viewed as legitimate, certainly not by republicans whose Minority Rights have been trampled on every step on the way and certainly not by the American People observing this disastrous political show scene by scene. As ive said before, unlike any Impeachment Proceedings in modern history, the partisan process prescribed and pursued by democrats is truly unprecedented. And it contradicts speaker
pelosis own words back in march of this year. She said, quote, impeachment is so divisive to the country that unless theres something so compelling and overwhelming and bipartisan, i dont think we should go down that path because it divides the country, unquote. The key word in that quote is bipartisan. Indeed, during the nixon and clinton impeachments, the process for even opening the inquiry was considered on a bipartisan basis. Back then both sides treated the process with the seriousness it deserved. Negotiating and finding agreement across the aisle to ensure fairness and due process for all involved in the inquiries. But thats not the case today. Instead democrats have pushed forward using a partisan process that limited the president s right to due process, prevented the minority from exercising their rights and charged ahead toward a vote to impeach the
president whether the evidence is there or not. I shows i shouldnt be surprised by any of this. Democrats in the house have been pushing to impeach President Trump since before he was even sworn in. The December Of 2017 when a current democratic member of the house forced a vote on impeachment, impeachment resolution, 58 democrats voted then to impeach President Trump, even without an investigation, without any evidence to point to. And those numbers have only grown since then, to the point where the majority is now pushing forward with a final vote on impeachment, needless of where it takes the country and regardless of whether they have proven their case. Mr. Chairman, it didnt have to be this way. When she became entrusted with the gavel over the house, this congress, Speaker Pelosi ensured us all she would not move forward with impeachment unless it was bipartisan and unless
there was a clear consensus in the country. Neither of those two commissions are present here. Indeed, the latest real clear politics average of polls on impeachment shows the country evenly split, 46. 5 of americans in favor of impeachment and 46. 5 against. That is hardly what i would call a National Consensus in favor of impeaching President Trump. When half of americans are telling you that what youre doing is wrong, you should listen. I think this is especially the case given how close we are to the next election. In 11 months the American People are going to vote on the next president of the United States. Why then are we plunging the country into this kind of turmoil and this kind of trauma now when the voters themselves will resolve the matter one way or another less than a year from today. All it does achieve is make the Political Polarization and
divisions in the country even worse. That makes no sense to me. We may be moving forward with a vote, i certainly dont believe the majority has proven its case or convinced the American People that the weeks of wasted time was worth it. And personally i believe the articles themselves are unwarranted. The majority is seeking to remove the president over something that didnt happen, the alleged quid pro quo with the president of ukraine, never mind that the foreign aid went to the ukraine as it was supposed to, and never mind that no investigation required for the ukraine to get the aid, and never mind that the two participants in the famous conversation, President Trump and president zelensky said nothing inappropriate happened. According to the majority, however, a quid pro quo that never existed is an appropriate basis for removing the president from office. Yet even though the majority has not proven its case and even
though theres no basis for impeachment, theyre still moving forward today. What i Cannot Discern is a legitimate reason why, why the majority is moving forward when the process is so partisan, why theyre moving forward when the American People are not with them, why theyre moving forward when they havent proven their case and why theyre moving forward when there is no basis for impeachment. Why . Why put the country through all this . It makes even less sense to me when we consider the realities of the United States senate. We already know that the votes to convict and remove the president from office simply arent there. Bluntly put, this is a matter that congress as a whole cannot resolve on its own. Yet the majority is plunging forward, regardless of the needless drama or the damage to the institution and to the country, knowing full well that
the end of the day that the president will remain in office. And for what . Scoring political points with their partys base . Again, mr. Chairman, this doesnt make any sense to me. We didnt need to go this route. We didnt need to push forward on a partisan Impeachment Process that had only one possible result. But we are here anyway, regardless of the damage it does to the institution and regardless of how much further it divides the country. As i said at the beginning, mr. Chairman, this is a sad day for all of us, but it is especially sad for me knowing this day was inevitable, preordained from the start. No matter what happened, no matter where the investigations led, the democratic majority in the House Of Representatives was pushing since the day they took over to impeach President Trump. The facts dont warrant that, mr. Chairman, and the process is unworthy of the outcome. The president should not be impeached. I urge all members to vote no. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Thank you very much. I appreciate your comments. Obviously we have strong disagreements, and just one technical point id like to make. None of us in this house have had an opportunity to vote on impeachment. The resolution that the gentleman refers to was some of us opposed tabling it because we thought it should go to committee where it could be appropriately evaluated. Thats what this process has achieved. Relevant committees have done their work and investigated wrongdoings by the president and the Judicial Committee recommended articles of impeachment. The first time anybody will get a chance to vote on impeachment will be tomorrow. Having said that, i want to welcome both of our witnesses. Mr. Raskin, well begin with
you. Thank you very much, mr. Chairman. Good morning chairman mcgovern, good morning Ranking Member cole, good morning to all of our distinguished colleagues on the House Rules Committee and good morning to my friend, mr. Collins. It is my solemn responsibility this morning to present for your consideration House Resolution 755 and the accompany house Judicial Committee report concerning the impeachment of donald john trump, president of the United States for High Crimes And Misdemeanors committed against the people of the United States. Im appearing as you said, mr. Chairman, this morning in place of chairman nadler who could not be with us. Im sure i speak for all members in sending strength, love and prayers to chairman nadlers wife joyce and all of our hopes for a speedy recovery. The Judicial Committee along with the other committees which investigated President Trumps offenses, the Permanent Select Committee on intelligence, the committee on Foreign Affairs and
the committee on oversight and reform, bring these articles with a solemn purpose and a heavy heart, but in act of faith with the constitutional oaths of office we have all sworn. The investigating committees conducted 100 hours of Deposition Testimony with 17 sworn witnesses and 30 hours of public testimony with 12 witnesses. The Judicial Committee is now in possession of overwhelming evidence that the president of the United States has committed High Crimes And Misdemeanors, violating his constitutional oath to faithfully execute the office of president of the United States and to the best of his ability preserve, protect, and defend the constitution of the United States and violated his constitutional duty to take care that the laws are faithfully executed. We present two articles of impeachment supported by hundreds of pages of detailed evidence and met tick las
analysis that lead inescapebly to the conclusions embodied in these articles of impeachment. First, prs has committed the high crime and misdemeanor of abuse of office. He abused the awesome powers of the presidency by using his office to corruptly demand that a Foreign Government interfere in our american president ial election in order to promote his own Political Campaign in 2020. He corruptly conditioned the release of 391 million in Foreign Security assistance that he held back from the Ukrainian Government along with a long hope for white house president ial meeting. He conditioned those on ukrainian president zelenskys agreement to go public with two statements, one statement was announcing a criminal investigation into former Vice President joe biden, a leading president ial candidate and rival of the president. The other statement was announcing an investigation that would rehabilitate a discredited prorussian Conspiracy Theory by
showing it was ukraine and not putins russia that tried to disrupt the last american president ial election in 2016. This scheme to corrupt and american president ial election subordinated the democratic sovereignty of the people to the private political ambitions of one man, the president himself. It immediately placed the National Security interests of the United States of america at risk, and it continues to embroil the nation and our government in conflict. Second, after this Corrupt Scheme came to light and numerous Public Servants with knowledge of key events surfaced to testify in our Committee Investigations about the president s actions, President Trump directed the wholesale, categorical and indiscriminate obstruction of this congressional Impeachment Investigation. He did so by ordering a blockade of administration witnesses, but trying to muzzle and intimidate
witnesses who did come forward and by refusing to produce even a single subpoenaed document. In the history of the republic, no president other than this one has ever claimed and exercised the unilateral right and power to thwart and defeat a house president ial Impeachment Inquiry. Yet that would have been the final and unavoidable result of the president s outrageous defiance of congress had 17 brave witnesses not come forward in the face of the president s threats and testified about this Ukraine Shakedown and its scandalous effects on our National Security, our democracy and our constitutional system of government. But make no mistake, while this investigation was saved by the courage and oldfashioned patriotism of witnesses like ambassador william taylor, ambassador maria yovanovitch,
lieutenant kerj Alexander Vindman and dr. Fiona hill, the president s aggressive and unprecedented commitment to congressional subpoenas for witnesses and documents is blatantly and dangerously unconstitutional. If accepted and normalized now, it will undermine perhaps for all time the congressional Impeachment Power itself which is the peoples last instrument of constitutional selfdefense against a sitting president who behaves like a king and tramples the rule of law. By obstructing an Impeachment Inquiry with impunity, the president will have the power to actively destroy the peoples final check on his own corrupt misconduct and abuse of power. The framers insisted we have impeachment in the constitution precisely to protect ourselves from a president becoming a tyrant and a despot and we cannot and will not allow the
Impeachment Power itself to be destroyed. These articles charge that President Trump is engaged in system attic abuse of his powers, obstructed congress and realized the worst fares of the framers by sub bored nating our National Security and dragging foreign powers into american politics to corrupt our elections all for the greater cause of his own personal gain and ambition. Article and section four of the constitution provides the President Shall be impeached for treason, bribery or other High Crimes And Misdemeanors. This is the essential check that the peoples representatives maintain over the executive branch. As our constitutional expert witnesses testified, the framers sought to capture a broad range of president ial misconduct and wrongdoing through this process, but the commanding and comprehensive impulse for including Impeachment Power in the constitution was to prevent the president s abuse of power
which the framers saw as the very essence of impeachable conduct. In federal number 65, hamilton wrote impeachable defenses are defined by abuse of some public trust. From the federalist papers and the records of the Constitutional Convention and the ratifying conventions we find the framers feared three kinds of behavioral of office by abuse of power. Abuse of power by exploiting Public Office for private, political or financial gain, number one. Number two, abuse of power by betraying the National Interest and the public trust through entanglement with Foreign Governments. Number three, abuse of power by corrupting democratic elections in denying the people proper agency through selfgovernment. According to the framers, any one of these violations of the publish trust would be enough to justify president ial impeachment for abuse of power. However, President Trumps conduct has realized all three of the framers worst fears of
president ial abuse of power. Never before if American History has an Impeachment Investigation crystallized in findings of conduct that implicate all of the major reasons that the framers built impeachment into our constitution. Mr. Chairman, the conduct we set before you today is not some kind of surprising aberration or deviation in the president s behavior for which is remorseful. On the contrary, the president is completely unrepen tent and defy antily declares his behavior here perfect, indeed absolutely perfect. He says article two of the constitution gives him the power to do whatever he wants, forgetting article two section four which gives us the power to check his misconduct with impeachment. We believe this conduct is impeachable and should never
take place again under our constitutional system. He believes his conduct is perfect and we know, therefore, it will take place again and again. Indeed our Report Points out this pattern of showing spectacular disrespect for the rule of law by inviting and welcoming foreign powers into our elections was in plain view in the 2016 president ial election. America remembers when then Candidate Drum uttered the infamous words, russia, if youre listening, i hope youre able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing. Just five hours later russian agents moved to hack his political opponents commuters as part of their effort to up end the 2016 president ial campaign. As identified by the justice department, the Trump Campaign had more than 100 contacts with russian operatives over the course of that campaign and none of them were reported by the Trump Campaign to Law Enforcement or National Security
agencies. More over, during the special counsel investigation into the Sweeping And System Attic Russian Campaign to subvert our election, President Trump engaged in another Systematic Campaign of obstruction of the investigative process to obscure his own involvement. Mr. Chairman, we present you not just with High Crimes And Misdemeanors, but a constitutional crime in progr s progress, up to this very minute. Mayor giuliani, the president s private lawyer fresh from his overseas travel looking to rehabilitate once again the discredited Conspiracy Theories at the heart of the president s defense admitted he participated directly in the Smear Campaign to oust ambassador yovanovitch from her job. According to The New Yorker magazine giuliani said i believe i needed yovanovitch out of the way. She was going to make the investigations difficult for everybody. Here, of course, mr. Giuliani refers to the president s soughtafter investigations into
joe biden and the remnants of the discredited Conspiracy Theory pushed by russia, that it was ukraine and not russia that interfered in the 2016 american president ial election. Given an unrepen tent president considers his behavior perfect, he thinks the constitution empowers him to do whatever he wants, given he and his team are still awaiting president zelenskys statement about investigating joe biden, given hes already invited china to perform an investigation of its own, we can only ask what the 2020 election will be like or indeed what any future election in america will be like. If we just let this misconduct go and authorize and license president s to coerce, cajole, pressure and entice foreign powers to enter our Election Campaigns on behalf of the president , who will be invited in next . The president s continuing course of conduct constitutes a
clear and present danger to democracy in america. We cannot allow this misconduct to pat. It would be a sellout of our constitution, our foreign policy, our National Security and our democracy. Thank you, mr. Chairman. I yield back. Thank you very much. Mr. Cole, welcome back to the rules committee. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Good to see you. Mr. Cole as well. Members who have spent many hours in this room with. The chairman made a statement about my friend here, mr. Rah skin. He is a fine attorney and its amazing how the Judicial Committee has sidelined fine attorneys like himself into not asking questions and not being a part of the process. Its been interesting to watch. Hes actually a good one. As you said, hes a good constitutional attorney. Im not a constitutional attorney. Im a pastor and attorney from north georgia. I believe you take another look at this and you can apply a constitutional lens as well through those glassesment its a common sense lens. Its a common sense lens. Mr. Cole made a comment in his opening statements, he said it doesnt make sense. Yes, it does. It makes perfect sense. Look at the pattern. The only thing that is a clear and Prernt Danger right now in this room is the pattern of attack and abuse of rules and decisions to get at this president. They started over three years ago, really the night he was elected. I said the other day in the committee hearing, i thought about having the means and the motive and opportunity t. Opportunity for this day occurred last november when we last the majority. It occurred. They already talked about it for years prior. So now we just bring it forward and we try a lot of Different Things to get there. Well talk about that im sure as the time goes on today. Look, we can have plenty of time to talk about the articles and the very vague articles that we did. Its pretty interesting if you read the report from the majority. A lot of discussion about crimes but they couldnt find it to charge one. Again, common sense. Articles when you think about impeachment, youre thinking about impeaching a president for crime crimes. This majority has tried so hard to be like clinton and nixon and failed so ms. Rahbly. Every time we try, we try once again, except the one thing, when it came down to the very end, the one thing they couldnt do is find a crime. They talk about it a bunch. If you read the majoritys report, it is well written. Some of the best work youll see in some ways of fictional accounts, but it talks about it. The problem is a Majority Bent on finding something on this
president. Mr. Cole rngts , its not a cri. Its a sad day. Its telling that the articles of impeachment, to show you how partisan it is and really the concerning part i and mr. Mcgovern is a friend, we disagree probably on a lot of things, is this Glass Half Full or empty. Thats fine, thats what voters send us here for. We have worked together. The question i have here, if this was overwhelming, bipartisan and so the American People understand it, then why are we in the rules committee today . When it was with clinton, it was straight to the floor. It wasnt, come to the rules committee, because both sides could see there was something that needed to be discussed and thats not true here so weve having to bring it up to the rules committee, a place that i have spent many hours and many of us on this, uh, group have
discussed, many things. This should not be one of them. Its interesting, i hear a lot today, ive heard from mr. Raskin and the chairman as well, discussion of the founders. We cherry pick the founders, and thats okay, thats what partisans do, when youre in a partisan impeachment, you cherry pick of founders. The one thats not mentioned is the very thing were here for. I believe it was in federalist i think its 65, it was hamilton, when he said this. He said, the founders warned against a vague, openended charge because it could be applied in a partisan fashion by a majority of the House Of Representatives against an opposition president. Alexander hamilton called partisan impeachment regulated by the comparative strength of parties than by the real strength of innocence or guilt. The founders secluded the term maladministration from the impeachment clause because they didnt want a president to be at the whims of congress. When we understand whats going on here, when we look at the discussions here, there are many things i want to talk about. But first, when we talk about how we get to a certain place, proper process leads to proper results and we have not had any of that. Ive said it many times in our discussions lately, is that this is all about a clock and a calendar. And it has been for a while. Since january, when we were sworn in, it was about a clock and a calendar. Why do i say that . We had to get to it by the end of the year because next area it will be too close to the elections that according to the democrats theyre trying to interfere with, the 2020 election. The clock and the calendar know no masters except themselves. Our Committee Held its first hearing literally the day after schiff publicly released his report. In the first minutes of the hearing mr. Sensenbrenner furnished the chairman with our demand for a minority day of hearings and set a Deadline Of December 6th for the president and republicans to present additional witnesses. It wasnt until saturday, the day after the deadline, the chairman transmitted 8,000 pages of material to the Judiciary Committee, and we still havent gotten anything, not that it matters to the majority. You can still go ahead and vote for yes tomorrow and vote for yes today and do that. But it should matter for this institution that while i was in georgia, i received a call from my staff saying they just released 8,000 documents on thumb drives, some of which were going to be kept in a secure holding and when i asked the chairman about these documents, he said, were not going to read them either, were not going to have a chance to go through them, were just going to go ahead with what were doing. That was from my chairman who i
respect greatly. Weve got a lot of things together. It has been very together within a hearing of this magnitude, how can anyone, republican or democrat, actually go back and look at their constituents in the face and say we looked at all the evidence . I looked at everything and i came to this conclusion. No, we cherrypicked the evidence and we only used because that material, which by the way still has not been released, there is an Inspector General ig report that has not been released. About its good or bad is irrelevant. When youre talking about impeaching a president shouldnt the underlying evidence sent to Judiciary Committee actually matter . Again, it Doesnt Take Constitutional Experts Coming in and telling us about it. It takes common sense to know that you dont impeach somebody without at least making all the evidence proper. Thats what happens when youre to the tyranny of a clock and a calendar. When youre the tyranny of a clock and a calendar, nothing else matters. Its like whats going to happen here in the holidays is youre getting close to that day and
youre supposed to get that gift, nothing else matters. At the last minute, you dont have anything, you go out and buy the first thing you get and this is whats happening, the clock was running out so they found a phone call they didnt like, they didnt like this administration, they tried to make up claims, there was pressure and all these other things that they so outlined in the report but at the end of the day its simply last minute christmas shopping. They ran and said we can do it. But no crimes. None in the articles. Abuse of power, in which any member can make up anything they want to and call it abuse of power. In the report they document bribery and extortion and other things which they cant put into the articles. Then the obstruction of justice. Again, its sort of interesting, when i just read chairman schiff transferred on a saturday 8,000 pages of what were supposed to be working at for the next hearing. We submitted our list of witnesses to mr. Nadler before we submitted it before schiff it sent us any more
evidence. We had a hearing so schiffs handlers and consultants could tell us he needs to be impeached. Nothing from schiff who made himself out to be like ken starr but ken starr took questions from everybody including the white house counsel. On tuesday, The Morning After the presentation of articles were unveiled, remember, think about this, no factual based witnesses. We had a bunch of law professors, one for us, by the way, i did ask for another one, didnt get it, no reasoning, we just went back, we were in Impeachment Hearings and went back to the normal 31 ratio. I asked for one more and basically didnt get it. It was an interesting conversation between the chairman and i. Didnt get it. Then we came in and got our witness list, summarily dismissed. We get information dumped to us in the middle of what were
supposed to be doing before the hearings, after we had to turn in our witness list. Judge, this wouldnt apply in any regular court proceeding, before anyone tweets, were not in a court, i know that. Were in a kangaroo court, it feels like, in this place. Were more Alice In Wonderland than House Of Representatives. Do you not think there needs to be a modicum of process and rights . All of this is true. The rules completely aside, the minority healing day, broken. Access to Committee Records rule, broken. Due process rights, completely out the window. Rules for debate broken even on the house floor. The authorization for this whole thing, the chairman could have used it to run a fair process. Unfortunately we didnt. The problem comes down today, is there are several things im going to leave you with, mr. Chairman. This is it. After all that has been said, all thats been talked about in that wonderfully written report, four facts will never change. The president and mr. Zelensky say there was no pressure. The call transcript shows no conditionality in aid and investigation. Mr. Sondland, their key witness, the only thing they quote is his opening statement. They dont like to quote where he was questioned and he said, yeah, i presume that. Mr. Yarmuth said we didnt have any conversation about conditionality of aid. That just came out the other day. Ukrainians were not aware that aid was withheld even when the president spoke and the ukrainians didnt open an investigation, didnt get their meeting, and still got their aid. We saw over the past two weeks president zelensky pilloried in our committee. Hes either a pathological liar according to the majority or so weak that he shouldnt be governing that country. Thats tragic that we did that
to a sitting world leader in our committee. These are things that bother many of us. I know this is also 1 00 on the calendar. Well have a few hours here, well talk about it. Ill remind my majority friends, and i do consider you are friends, the clock and the calendar are terrible masters and they lead to awful results and yes, there will be a day of reckoning. The calendar and the clock will continue. But what you do here and how we have trashed the process in getting here will live on and it will affect everything that weve come for. So whatever you may gain will be shortlived because the clock and the calendar also recognize common sense which has not been used in this proceeding. With that, mr. Chairman, i yield back. I want to thank both of you for your opening statements. Mr. Collins, you raise the russia why were here in the rules committee. As you know, the constitution
vimarsana.com © 2020. All Rights Reserved.