Whatwe that means, its to use e power of the office to obtain an improper personal benefit while ignoring orfi injuring the national interest, or acts in ways that are grossly inconsistent with and undermine the separation of powers that is the foundation of our democratic system. Now, this question of whether the president engaged in abuse of power came up before when this congress considered the impeachment of president nixon. And president nixon famously said, if the president does it, it is notde illegal. And this body rejected that because thats not so. That goes directly contrary to what the founders said. But President Trump has said the same thing in responding to the prior investigation by the Department Of Justice and defending his conduct. Heres what he said. I have an article 2 where i have the right to do whatever i want as president. That he has the right to do whatever he wants as president. That is as wrong as when president nixon said a similar thing. That is not what the constitution provides. He does not have the right to do whatever he wants. Turning to the second abuse of power, betrayal of the nation involving foreign powers. The men the American People have suffered foreign influence when President Trump treated military aid that had been amapproved, taxpayer dollars, and decided to treat it as his own checkbook to try to further his own reelection chances. That reflects what the founders were concerned about. And finally, corruption of our elections. The framers knew that corrupt leaders or leaders acting Corruptly Concentratein their powers to manipulate elections
andle undercut adversaries. They talked about it frequently. Thats why the framers thought electoral treasury, particularly involving foreign powers, was a critical abuse and that could support or lead to impeachment. Now, the American People learned last election how dangerous foreignho intervention in our elections can be. Let me show another clip from Candidate Trump on the campaign trail. Russia, if youre listening, i hope youre able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing. I think you will probably be rewarded mightily by our press. And russia was listening. Within approximately five hours, five hours of President Trumps invitation to russia to interfere inss our election, by trying to hack and obtain the
emails of his political opponent, russia in fact tried to do that for the first time. The very officers who were then indicted by the Department Of Justice for that conduct, they took Candidate Trumps invitation. Now, the American People learned a lesson. President trump unfortunately, apparently, learned a different lesson. Lets look. Well, i would think that if they were honest about it, they would startut a Major Investigation into the bidens. Its a very simple answer. They should investigate the bidens. So this was President Trump answering ais question about wh didqu he want president zelensk to do. So event after he got caught, is saying again this vulnerable nation dependent on u. S. Support militarily and otherwise, and unlike in 2016 when he only had
a Campaign Platform to extend the invitation to the foreign power, now he has the levers of government in his control to not only request it and invite it, but toly pressure that country do it. And thats exactly what he did. And w youll hear more about th in the presentation from the House Intelligence Committee and whats most c striking as w come back to this issue that the framers were concerned about, is there a continuing risk of wrongdoing, the fact that President Trump did this after he was caught shows the risk. Shows the risk of what will happen if this body doesnt act. He really does believe he can act as though he were above the law. He really does believe as evidenced by this conduct, that he can puts his personal and political interests over the nations interest, over the Nations National security interest, overe the nations integrity of its elections. So of course we do have an election coming up. Thats not a reason to postpone this discussion. Thats aos reason we must have this discussion, to make sure it is not d interfered with. To make sure this president doesnt do it, to make sure future president s do not do it. It is the hope that in these discussionsse we can put aside political anger, disagreements, and have a fair discussion about the facts and this conduct. Not just as it relates to President Trump, but as to the presidency itself and future president s. My son, our children, our grandchildren, they will study this moment in history. They will read all of your remarks. They will learn about all of your actions. And that is not a reason to vote
for or against impeachment. For that of course you must vote your conscience. But that is a reason for us to have a fair debate about what the undisputed facts show. To recognize that it is wrong, it is very wrong, and it cannot happen again with this president or any president. It is a reason to talk about whether we wantlk our children d grandchildren to live in a country where the president elected by the people can put his own personal and political interests over the interests of the people who elected them. It is a reason for these debates to, again, fairly focus on the facts and to make sure the presentations were going to hear will not distort the record. Focus on process points, raise extraneous matters that really arean intended to distract rath than focus on what the conduct was at issue here. It is a reason to focus on the facts and what is in the countrys best interest. History, future generations will be the judge. Thank you, mr. Burke. Mr. Caster, you are chairman. You are recognized for 30 points. Point of order. Mr. Caster is recognized for 30 points. Point of order. Mr. Caster is recognized for 30 points. The witness has violated rule 17 and my Point Of Order should be heard. O Point Of Order. The. Witness has used langue which impugns the matters of the president and suggests hes disloyal to his country and those should be stricken from the record andsu taken down. The point ofe order is not sustained. Witnesses are not subject to the rules of decorum. Appeal the ruling of the
chair. The topic of the hearing is the president s misconduct, so none of us should find it surprising that we are Hearing Testimony that is critical ofsu the president. St i do not o find that the witness comments are disorderly. I find they are pertinent to the subject matter of this hearing. The witness would be able to continue, except that his time is expired. Tichairman, its not my Point Of Order is not that his words are disorderly. They are unparliamentary. They violate the rules of the house and should be taken down. This is not about his conduct. He is talking about the motives and the character of the president of the United States. The Gentleman Willve suspend. The rules of decorum apply to members of the house, not to witnesses. The gentleman may proceed. I appeal the ruling of the chair. That is not a ruling. It is a ruling on a Point Of Order and its appealable. That is a ruling. The Point Of Order is not
sustained. I move to table the the motion is made to table the appeal of m the ruling. Move the motion that the table is made in writing. It is not in debate. All in favor of the motion to all in favor of the motion to table say aye. Aye. Those no. No. The motion to table. She has to put it in writing first, then you can call it a vote. The motionn to table is we should follow the rules. The motionou to table is sustained. Roll call. The clerk will call the role. Mr. Nadler votes aye. Ms. Lofgren votes aye. Ms. Jackson votes aye. Mr. Johnson of georgia votes aye. Mr. Deutsche votes aye. Mr. Richmond votes aye. Mr. Jeffries votes aye. Mr. Cicilline votes aye. Mr. Swalwell votes aye. Mr. Raskin votes aye. Mrs. Demmings votes aye. Mr. Correa votes aye. Ms. Scanlon votes aye. Ms. Garcia votes aye. Ms. Mcbath votes aye. Mr. Stanton votes aye. Ms. Dean votes aye. Ms. Escobar votes aye. Mr. Collins votes no. Mr. Sensenbrenner votes no. Mr. Gomer votes no. Mr. Jordan votes no. Mr. Buck. Mr. Ratcliffe notes no. Ms. Roby votes no. Mr. Gates votes no. Mr. Johnson of louisiana votes no. Mr. Biggs. Mr. Mcclintock votes no. Mr. Cline votes no. Mr. Armstrong votes no. Mr. Steube votes no. Mr. Chairman, how am i recorded . Mr. Bigs, you are not recorded. I said no. Mr. Biggs votes no. Has every member voted who wishes to vote . The clerk will report. Mr. Chairman, there are 24 ayes and 14 nos. May i make a parliamentary inquiry. I will not recognize a parliamentary inquiry at this time. Good morning, Chairman Nadler and members of the committee and staff. My name is steve castor, i serve with ther, Oversight Committee the republican staff with mr. Jordan. Im also for purposes of this investigation, im a shared staffer with the Judiciary Committee and mr. Collins, and
the House Permanent Select Committee on intelligence and mr. Nunes. It sure is a. Tom co atypical for a staffer to testify, but thank you for havingfo me. Were here to discuss about President Trumps conduct fits theco high crime or dismeaner. It does not. This case in many respects comes down to eight lines in a Call Transcript. Let me say clearly and unequivocally that the answer to that question is no. The record in the democrats Impeachment Inquiry does not show that President Trump abused the power of his office or obstructed congress. To impeach a president who 63 Million People voted for over eight lines in a Call Transcript is baloney. Democrats seek to impeach President Trump not because they evidence of high crimes or
misdemeanors, but because they disagree with his policies. This Impeachment Inquiry is not the organic outgrowth of serious misconduct. Democrats have been searching for a set of facts on which to impeach President Trump since his inauguration on january 20th, 2017. Just 27 minutes after the president s inauguration that day, the Washington Post ran a story that the campaign to impeach the president has already begun. The article reported democrats and liberal activists are mounting broad opposition to stymyn trumps agenda and note that impeachment strategists believed the constitutions Emoluments Clause would be the vehicle. The democrats announced articles of impeachment to remove President Trump on several different factual bases. On january 3rdt , the very firs day of the new congress, Congressman Sherman introduced
articles of impeachment against the president. The same day, representative talib said were going to go in there, were going to impeach the president. In may 2019, representative green said on ms nbc if we dont impeach this president , he will be reelected. Even Speaker Pelosi, who has said that impeachment is a somber and prayerful exercise, has called President Trump an imposter and said it is dangerous to allow voters to judgell his performance in 2020. The obsession with impeaching the president io is reflected inhouse democrats have used the power of their majority in the past 11 months. In the Oversight Committee the democratss first announced witness was michael cohen, a disgraced felon who pleaded guilty to lying to congress. When he came before us at the Oversight Committee, he then
lied again as many as eight times. Oversight Committee Democrats demanded information about the president s personal finances and even subpoenaed the president s Accounting Firm for large swaths of sensitive and personal Financial Information about the entire trump family. The subpoena was issued over the objection ofer Committee Republicans and without a vote. In the ways and means committee, democrats demanded the president s personal tax return information. The reason they cited for wantingth the president s tax returns, they said, was to oversee the irss Audit Process for president ial tax returns. R you can judge that for yourself. In the Financial Services committee, democrats demanded and subpoenaede, the president bank records going back ten years. The Financial Services committee staff, the republicans tell me, the information demanded would cover every withdraw, credit card swipe, debit card purchase
of every member of the trump family, including his minor child. The reason they gave for why they needed such personal information about the trump family was, get this, Financial Industry Compliance with Banking Statutes and regulations. Here in the Judiciary Committee, democrats sent out letters demanding information from over 80 recipients, including the president s children, business partners, employees, his campaign, businesses and foundation. Of course the main event for the Judiciary Committee was the report of Special Counsel mueller, which democrats would believe would serve as the everybo evidentiary basis for impeaching the president. Despite interviewing 500 witnesses, issuing 2800 subpoenas, executing almost 500 search warrants and spending 25
million, the Special Counsels 19 attorneys and 40 fbi agents, analysts and staff, found no conspiracy or coordination between the Trump Campaign and the russian government. After the trumprussia Collusion Allegations did not pan out, democrats then focused their efforts on obstruction of justice. They visiton sized Attorney General barr for concluding that none crime of obstruction had occurred in the Special Counsel investigation. But, in fact, it was entirely appropriate for the Attorney General to make that call because the Special Counsel declined to do so. Not surprisingly, the Democrats Mueller Hearing was underwhelming, to say the least, and thehe sequel with Corey Lewandowski definitely did not prove theni Impeachment Needle either. The Intelligence Committee is heavily invested in the russia collusion investigation. Democrats hired federal prosecutors to prepare for their anticipated efforts to impeach the president. Now that the russian Collusion Allegations did not work out, democrats have settled on the ukraine phone call, eight lines, the president uttered on july 25th with Ukrainian President zelensky. But the Foreign Affairs committee, the committee of jurisdiction, Wasnt The Committee leading the Impeachment Inquiry or holding the hearings. Neither was the Oversight Committee. The houses chief investigative entity. The Judiciary Committee was only recently brought back into the mix afterug fact finding concluded. Instead, the Impeachment Inquiry was run byco the House Intelligence Committee, and thesete former federal prosecutors. Democrats on the Intelligence Committee ran the Impeachment Inquiryco in a manifestly unfai way. All of the factfinding was classified andwa that was made clear at the top of every single
deposition. But the democrats took advantage of the closeddoor process in the Capitol Basement Bunker to control access to information. The secrecy effectively weaponized the investigation, allowingnv misleading public narratives to form and catch hold with careful leaks of witness testimony. Democrats refused to invite republican witnesses and d