Transcripts For MSNBCW MSNBC Live With Hallie Jackson 201912

Mr. Chairman. What purpose ir trying the last word. The gentleman strikes the lastem word. Recognized. Thank you. I yield to the rankingst member just real quickly, the gent thely lady from california stat something irn addressed head on last night. Undersecretary haleig said it w perspective money, not interfering or dealing with the issue. For those of us who have been in a war zone people do die. This money did not stop that. That is something that cannot be continuedme to perpetrated on ts world. Reclaiming my time. Theec difference in the Clinton Impeachment and this one, president clinton committed a crime, perjury, this president isnt accused of committing a crime. The constitution is prettymi clr on what constitution impeachable offense, treason, bribery and other High Crimes And Misdemeanors. Its not treason, bribery, other High Crimes And Misdemeanors and adam schiff an nancy pelosi deem impeachable. No president should abuse the powers of his or her office like the chairman of a House Committee shouldnt abuse the powers ofou his office to obtai and publish the Phone Records of theph president s personal attorney, at member of the med and the Ranking Member of that same committee. But that doesnt make alleged abuse of power a high crime or misdemeanor. In their newly authoritied memo for impeachment, the majority on this Committee Goes to lengths tomi explain why abuse of powers anwe impeachable offense. We are watching live coverage of an absolutely historic day on capitol hill. Were going tori break away for moment here. I want to tell you whats going on. Were in the midst of the legislative sprint to the Finish Line Ofo impeachment. You have been watching members of the House Judiciary Committee holding this contentious hearing over two articles of impeachment against the sitting president don donald j. Trump, one for abuse of power, one for obstruction of congress. We expect votes out of Committee Later today teeing up a full house floor vote next week. Watching us here this morning, with us, jason johnson, politics editor at the root. Com, steve smith, former republican analyst, former democratic senator Fromna Missoi and msnbc analyst claire mcskas kill, former u. S. Attorney and senior fbi official, msnbc legal analyst Chuck Rosenberg and in washington host of hardball chris matthews. We have Heidi Priz Ba la standing by. We will go back into the hearing as news breaks. You will not miss a thing. But for context i want to get a Lightning Round Set of reactions from our experts but begin with the legendary chris matthews. What are we seeing this morning as history unfolds . Well, it is history and it is objectively history. A president is about to be impeached. Its going to be reported out by this committee wereep watchingn television. The politics are fascinating. Donald trump became president of the United States becausena the politics of grievance, the sense by a lot of work white people out othere, didnt go to colle, very angry against the system, angry about illegal immigration, which they blame on the elite, very much against hillary clinton, and the whole ivy league setting that they feel to be victims of. We saw it in capsule form for the last hour. Over and over again doug collins said they are being screwed by the majority democrats. This is thejo republican messag coming out ofre this. We were screwed, its unfair, we didnt get to go into the basement as they call it, republicans were all through 40 of them, able to call witnesses but deny that. Its all about saying, like playingay a game understand protest. They want to distract. Like an nba or College Basketball game, one team gets to take two foul shots because they earned it because The Other Side broke the rules and The Other Side, stands behind the foul shot, stands behind the basket and waves crazy banners and anything to confuse the Person Takingo shot. Confuse theg audience. Thats what were seeing. Carnival activity. Basically its the politics of grievance and p its real and is felt by 90 of those republicans who Support Trump Rightho now. They feel theyve been screwed by society, by everything, by illegal immigration, ivy league. Mob at the gate, rob at the top. Thats the way they look at america and doug collins is voicing thatns every moment he gets to speak. Chris matthews in washington, well be coming back to you throughout the day. As promised a quick Lightening Round before we go back into the panel. Chuck . Where you stand unfortunately seems to depend on where you sit. Theres anou Objective Set of facts here. What i really wish people would do in listening to this important hearing, is listen for those facts. Theyre largely not contested. Theres quibbles, different inferences that people bldraw, theres an Objective Set of facts about president ial wrong doing. Theal squabbling is not goin to really help the republicans. Or frankly the democrats in this. We know how the vote is going to turn out hours from now and between now and then they will go back and forth. The Fairness Argument theyre emphasizing the republicans, the democrats need to say over and over again, the Fairness Argument is so bogus, article 2 of the impeachment, tells you all you need to know, obstruction of congress, the reason the republicans dont have witnesses, the reason why the republicans dont have documents in front of this committee, is because the president has obstructed and refused to allow those witnesses to testify. Chris is right about the politics here, is that grievance is the high octane fuel of trump and trumpism. Is that donald trump exists as president smp a political figuren the sense that hes made himself americas greatest victim. Andst you see this setting up. When we look ahead as this goes into the senate, i think its a certainty that there will be an acquittal, but are there any republican senators who will look at the objective facts of the e misconduct which is clear and is unrefuted in this hearing, theis mitt romney, the ben t sasse, People Who Have Be Fidel Tus To Their Constitutional Oates and say this is wrong, this is bad, unacceptable at all because clearly in this hearing we see no dispewtation of the facts, but we see no condemnation of the conduct. Lets work on the refs. The republicans are working the ref and their only ref is donald trump. Thats who theyre r speaking t. The democrats are making an argument about this has been fair, the republicans are saying this is a terrible thing and get highlights on the news later tonight. The only thing i think the democrats are t missing at this point,ss occasionally put conte into this. A yearnt ago we had breath cavanaugh, republicans refused to give documentation. The president said they didnt want to r go. Hillary clinton sat for 18 million hours of Benghazi Hearings and you cant get Mick Mulvaney to come in for one day. Theyre aon fight for two audiences. Excellent points all around. Two fact checks back into the hearings, oneck the talk about fact witnesses as several experts mentioned the white house partially facing impeachment for holding the witnesses. If you keep track of history when controlledp by republican the same committee summoned 18 different witnesses for the Clinton Impeachment, none were facten witnesses because the Judiciary Committee typically hears fromte legal experts not factal witnesses. We will bring you our experts and the facts throughout the day. Lets dip back in. Throughout this course of conduct because he used his official office in exchange to seek a private benefit. The second Crime Services fraud, 18 u. S. Code section 1346, President Trump knowingly and woefully orchestrated a scheme to odefraud the american peopl of d his Honest Services as president of the United States. This has been aligned often in the courts with bribery except it also includes using a wider communication. Would the Gentleman Yield for a question. I will not. Clearly the july 25 phone call constitutes a wire communication. So there youte have it. At least two criminal statutory crimes. All these conversations about statutory crimes are moot because the president of the United States refuses topr allo His Ownto Department Of Justiceo indict him. So the president may be charged with crimes statutorily one day, but thats not what were doing here on this day. We are notay restrict like the Department Of Justice is. We will uphold our duty to charge the president with the crimes w against the constituti that he has committed using your taxpayer dollars, jeopardizing the integrity of your vote for a purely political purpose and a purely personal gain. And mr. Chairman, with that i yield back and i would yield to the gentle lady from california. I appreciate the recitation of that facts as a former prosecutor. You speak with tremendous authority. I would just like to note that the argument that somehow lying about ame sexual affair is an abuseis of president ial power b the misuse of president ial power to get a benefit somehow doesnt matter. If its lying about sex, we could put Stormy Daniels case head of us. We dont believe thats a high crime and miss de meaner. Will the gentle woman yield. Its not before us and should not be because its not an abuse of president ial power. I yield back. The gentlemans time is expired. What purpose does mr. Gohmert seek recognition. Will the Gentleman Yield briefly. Does he wish to yield . Yield briefly. Yes. The important is the important thing is, is that bill clinton lied to a grand jury. Right. That is a crime. The article of impeachment that passed the house, Accused Bill Clinton of lying to a grand jury, a crime and something that obstructs the ability of the courts to get to a truth. This is not what is happening here. Big difference. Thank you. Reclaiming my time. Reclaims his time. It is interesting, though, we were here because of fraud. Not by the president , but from within the Department Of Justice. And i realize people on The Other Side of thei aisle have been so busy trying to find some kind of tocharge, be criminal charge, to bring against the president , none of which worked, they may not have been aware of the most recent horowitz report bs but it is clear now, it is clear now that the whole investigation that has brought us here with crime after crime being alleged and then having to be dropped, was a fraudulent effort before the fisa court to have a Surveillance Warrant done against carter page. They lied initially and said thatin he was a russian agent wn actually he had been used by the cia as a spy against russia, and so they lied. It was fraudulent. There hopefully will be people that will answer for their crimes andsw fraud in their Department Of Justice in the days to come and it sounds like that should be the case. And there was fraud all the way through. For three years we have been hearing about the crimes of the Candidate Trump and then the crimes of President Trump and we come nowp today, based on the initial fraud that got this whole impeachment stuff started, and no one on The Other Side is willing ton acknowledge the frd that brought us here, nor the fact that so many people here have been screaming about the president s crimes and were even hearing today like we did, oh, yes, there were crimes. Why arent they in this impeachment document . Because they dont exist. Theyve been disproven over and over and over again. Thats why theag gentlemans amendment is so well taken. You dont want to go down this ground. I think its a bad idea when it wasad proposed before. High crimes and misdemeanors, if its not treason, even misdemeanors are crimes, and weve had to drop the fraud of all of the crimes being alleged, people saying in here an in the public, gee,e were going to g the president because he colewded with russia, how terrible was that, thats been disproved and dropped. Now left with bribery and extortion an now were even those had to be dropped because there were no crimes and i appreciate The Gentleman bringing up crimes but those are not alleged here. Let me just say, this is a day that will live in infamy for the Judiciary Committee. The days of exemplary chairs like Danielf Webster when he stood for principle, those are going to be gone because this became a tool of the majority to try to defeat, use taxpayer funds tose defeat a president , by the way, the ken starr report, 36 boxes, he came in and testified. We were kept out of hearing the witnesses. There were, in the watergate, these witnesses testified on television. It was public. It was not a chamber like the Schiff Chamber became. I would like to yield the remainder of my time to mr. Jordan. When did it happen . Everything mr. Swalwell said, if it all happened why isnt it in thene resolution . Democrats say theres some scheme to have an announcement made by president zelensky to get a b phone call with the president , to get a meeting with the president an aid released. When did the announcement happen . They got the call on july 25th. They got the meeting on September 25th. They got the money on September 11th there there was never an announcement from the ukrainians to do an investigation. So you can be keep saying all this stuff and all the points of this happened, this happened, didnt happen. Notdn the facts. Those are not the facts. We know why the aid got released because this guy, this new president , was actually the transformer, the real deal was actually going to deal with the Corruption Issue in his country. Thats what happened. You can make up all the things you want butal those are not th facts. The gentlemans time expired. For what purpose mrs. Jeffries seeks recognition . The gentleman is recognized. Lets go through the fact. Were here today because the president abused his power. Were here today because he solis sited foreign interference in the 2020re election. He welcomed foreign interference as itig relates to russia, he solis sited foreign interference on the white house lawn with china and did it with ukraine. Hes a serial solicitor. Lets go through the facts. Congress allocated 391 million in military aid on a bipartisan basis to ukraine. Currently at war with russianbacked separatists in theba east. Ukraine is a friend. Russia is a foe. Ukraine is a democracy. Russia is a dictatorship. The United States is probably the only thing standing between Vladimir Putin and ukraine being completely overrun as part of putins fantasy to reconstruct the soviet union, which would be adverse to the National Security interest of the United States and every singlere fact witness before this Congress Said so. You cant even dispute that. We allocated aid on a bipartisan basis. But then the aid was withheld. So the American People deserve to figure out why. In february, there was a letter sent by the Trump Administration saying, okay, the aid is on the way. But it never arrived. In april he had a phone call, theon president , with zelensky, the word corruption was not mentioned once. And then in may, the Department Of Defense wrote to this congress t and said, all Necessy Preconditionsry for the receiptf the aid have been met by the new ukrainian government, including the implementation of anticorruption protocols. We have that letter. It was sent to you and it was sent to us. Then in july on the 18th, Office Of Management And Budget meeting, the aid was officially frozen at the direction of the president. Twice during the summer, mitch mcconnell, the senate republican,en Majority Leader publicly stated, he called the Trump Administration, what happened to thee aid. Mitch mcconnell couldnt get a good answer. Because there was no good answer. On july 25th, another call. President President Trump and president zelensky. The word corruption is not mentioned once, but heres what was said. Zelensky talks about the defense. And the Clinton Impeachment<\/a> and this one, president clinton committed a crime, perjury, this president isnt accused of committing a crime. The constitution is prettymi clr on what constitution impeachable offense, treason, bribery and other High Crimes And Misdemeanors<\/a>. Its not treason, bribery, other High Crimes And Misdemeanors<\/a> and adam schiff an nancy pelosi deem impeachable. No president should abuse the\rpowers of his or her office like the chairman of a House Committee<\/a> shouldnt abuse the powers ofou his office to obtai and publish the Phone Records<\/a> of theph president s personal attorney, at member of the med and the Ranking Member<\/a> of that same committee. But that doesnt make alleged abuse of power a high crime or misdemeanor. In their newly authoritied memo for impeachment, the majority on this Committee Goes<\/a> to lengths tomi explain why abuse of powers anwe impeachable offense. We are watching live coverage of an absolutely historic day on capitol hill. Were going tori break away for moment here. I want to tell you whats going on. Were in the midst of the legislative sprint to the Finish Line Ofo<\/a> impeachment. You have been watching members of the House Judiciary Committee<\/a> holding this contentious hearing over two articles of impeachment against the sitting president don donald j. Trump, one for abuse of power, one for obstruction of congress. We expect votes out of Committee Later<\/a> today teeing up a full\rhouse floor vote next week. Watching us here this morning, with us, jason johnson, politics editor at the root. Com, steve smith, former republican analyst, former democratic senator Fromna Missoi<\/a> and msnbc analyst claire mcskas kill, former u. S. Attorney and senior fbi official, msnbc legal analyst Chuck Rosenberg<\/a> and in washington host of hardball chris matthews. We have Heidi Priz Ba<\/a> la standing by. We will go back into the hearing as news breaks. You will not miss a thing. But for context i want to get a Lightning Round Set<\/a> of reactions from our experts but begin with the legendary chris matthews. What are we seeing this morning as history unfolds . Well, it is history and it is objectively history. A president is about to be impeached. Its going to be reported out by this committee wereep watchingn television. The politics are fascinating. Donald trump became president of the United States<\/a> becausena the\rpolitics of grievance, the sense by a lot of work white people out othere, didnt go to colle, very angry against the system, angry about illegal immigration, which they blame on the elite, very much against hillary clinton, and the whole ivy league setting that they feel to be victims of. We saw it in capsule form for the last hour. Over and over again doug collins said they are being screwed by the majority democrats. This is thejo republican messag coming out ofre this. We were screwed, its unfair, we didnt get to go into the basement as they call it, republicans were all through 40 of them, able to call witnesses but deny that. Its all about saying, like playingay a game understand protest. They want to distract. Like an nba or College Basketball<\/a> game, one team gets to take two foul shots because they earned it because The Other Side<\/a> broke the rules and The Other Side<\/a>, stands behind the foul shot, stands behind the\rbasket and waves crazy banners and anything to confuse the Person Takingo<\/a> shot. Confuse theg audience. Thats what were seeing. Carnival activity. Basically its the politics of grievance and p its real and is felt by 90 of those republicans who Support Trump Rightho<\/a> now. They feel theyve been screwed by society, by everything, by illegal immigration, ivy league. Mob at the gate, rob at the top. Thats the way they look at america and doug collins is voicing thatns every moment he gets to speak. Chris matthews in washington, well be coming back to you throughout the day. As promised a quick Lightening Round<\/a> before we go back into the panel. Chuck . Where you stand unfortunately seems to depend on where you sit. Theres anou Objective Set<\/a> of facts here. What i really wish people would do in listening to this important hearing, is listen for those facts. Theyre largely not contested. Theres quibbles, different inferences that people bldraw, theres an Objective Set<\/a> of facts about president ial wrong\rdoing. Theal squabbling is not goin to really help the republicans. Or frankly the democrats in this. We know how the vote is going to turn out hours from now and between now and then they will go back and forth. The Fairness Argument<\/a> theyre emphasizing the republicans, the democrats need to say over and over again, the Fairness Argument<\/a> is so bogus, article 2 of the impeachment, tells you all you need to know, obstruction of congress, the reason the republicans dont have witnesses, the reason why the republicans dont have documents in front of this committee, is because the president has obstructed and refused to allow those witnesses to testify. Chris is right about the politics here, is that grievance is the high octane fuel of trump and trumpism. Is that donald trump exists as president smp a political figuren the sense that hes made himself americas greatest victim. Andst you see this setting up. When we look ahead as this goes into the senate, i think its a\rcertainty that there will be an acquittal, but are there any republican senators who will look at the objective facts of the e misconduct which is clear and is unrefuted in this hearing, theis mitt romney, the ben t sasse, People Who Have Be Fidel Tus To Their Constitutional Oates<\/a> and say this is wrong, this is bad, unacceptable at all because clearly in this hearing we see no dispewtation of the facts, but we see no condemnation of the conduct. Lets work on the refs. The republicans are working the ref and their only ref is donald trump. Thats who theyre r speaking t. The democrats are making an argument about this has been fair, the republicans are saying this is a terrible thing and get highlights on the news later tonight. The only thing i think the democrats are t missing at this point,ss occasionally put conte into this. A yearnt ago we had breath cavanaugh, republicans refused to give documentation. The president said they didnt want to r go. Hillary clinton sat for 18\rmillion hours of Benghazi Hearings<\/a> and you cant get Mick Mulvaney<\/a> to come in for one day. Theyre aon fight for two audiences. Excellent points all around. Two fact checks back into the hearings, oneck the talk about fact witnesses as several experts mentioned the white house partially facing impeachment for holding the witnesses. If you keep track of history when controlledp by republican the same committee summoned 18 different witnesses for the Clinton Impeachment<\/a>, none were facten witnesses because the Judiciary Committee<\/a> typically hears fromte legal experts not factal witnesses. We will bring you our experts and the facts throughout the day. Lets dip back in. Throughout this course of conduct because he used his official office in exchange to seek a private benefit. The second Crime Services<\/a> fraud, 18 u. S. Code section 1346, President Trump<\/a> knowingly and\rwoefully orchestrated a scheme to odefraud the american peopl of d his Honest Services<\/a> as president of the United States<\/a>. This has been aligned often in the courts with bribery except it also includes using a wider communication. Would the Gentleman Yield<\/a> for a question. I will not. Clearly the july 25 phone call constitutes a wire communication. So there youte have it. At least two criminal statutory crimes. All these conversations about statutory crimes are moot because the president of the United States<\/a> refuses topr allo His Ownto Department Of Justiceo<\/a> indict him. So the president may be charged with crimes statutorily one day, but thats not what were doing here on this day. We are notay restrict like the Department Of Justice<\/a> is. We will uphold our duty to charge the president with the crimes w against the constituti that he has committed using your\rtaxpayer dollars, jeopardizing the integrity of your vote for a purely political purpose and a purely personal gain. And mr. Chairman, with that i yield back and i would yield to the gentle lady from california. I appreciate the recitation of that facts as a former prosecutor. You speak with tremendous authority. I would just like to note that the argument that somehow lying about ame sexual affair is an abuseis of president ial power b the misuse of president ial power to get a benefit somehow doesnt matter. If its lying about sex, we could put Stormy Daniels<\/a> case head of us. We dont believe thats a high crime and miss de meaner. Will the gentle woman yield. Its not before us and should not be because its not an abuse of president ial power. I yield back. The gentlemans time is\rexpired. What purpose does mr. Gohmert seek recognition. Will the Gentleman Yield<\/a> briefly. Does he wish to yield . Yield briefly. Yes. The important is the important thing is, is that bill clinton lied to a grand jury. Right. That is a crime. The article of impeachment that passed the house, Accused Bill Clinton<\/a> of lying to a grand jury, a crime and something that obstructs the ability of the courts to get to a truth. This is not what is happening here. Big difference. Thank you. Reclaiming my time. Reclaims his time. It is interesting, though, we were here because of fraud. Not by the president , but from within the Department Of Justice<\/a>. And i realize people on The Other Side<\/a> of thei aisle have been so busy trying to find some kind of tocharge, be criminal\rcharge, to bring against the president , none of which worked, they may not have been aware of the most recent horowitz report bs but it is clear now, it is clear now that the whole investigation that has brought us here with crime after crime being alleged and then having to be dropped, was a fraudulent effort before the fisa court to have a Surveillance Warrant<\/a> done against carter page. They lied initially and said thatin he was a russian agent wn actually he had been used by the cia as a spy against russia, and so they lied. It was fraudulent. There hopefully will be people that will answer for their crimes andsw fraud in their Department Of Justice<\/a> in the days to come and it sounds like that should be the case. And there was fraud all the way through. For three years we have been\rhearing about the crimes of the Candidate Trump<\/a> and then the crimes of President Trump<\/a> and we come nowp today, based on the initial fraud that got this whole impeachment stuff started, and no one on The Other Side<\/a> is willing ton acknowledge the frd that brought us here, nor the fact that so many people here have been screaming about the president s crimes and were even hearing today like we did, oh, yes, there were crimes. Why arent they in this impeachment document . Because they dont exist. Theyve been disproven over and over and over again. Thats why theag gentlemans amendment is so well taken. You dont want to go down this ground. I think its a bad idea when it wasad proposed before. High crimes and misdemeanors, if its not treason, even\rmisdemeanors are crimes, and weve had to drop the fraud of all of the crimes being alleged, people saying in here an in the public, gee,e were going to g the president because he colewded with russia, how terrible was that, thats been disproved and dropped. Now left with bribery and extortion an now were even those had to be dropped because there were no crimes and i appreciate The Gentleman<\/a> bringing up crimes but those are not alleged here. Let me just say, this is a day that will live in infamy for the Judiciary Committee<\/a>. The days of exemplary chairs like Danielf Webster<\/a> when he stood for principle, those are going to be gone because this became a tool of the majority to try to defeat, use taxpayer funds tose defeat a president , by the way, the ken starr report, 36 boxes, he came in and\rtestified. We were kept out of hearing the witnesses. There were, in the watergate, these witnesses testified on television. It was public. It was not a chamber like the Schiff Chamber<\/a> became. I would like to yield the remainder of my time to mr. Jordan. When did it happen . Everything mr. Swalwell said, if it all happened why isnt it in thene resolution . Democrats say theres some scheme to have an announcement made by president zelensky to get a b phone call with the president , to get a meeting with the president an aid released. When did the announcement happen . They got the call on july 25th. They got the meeting on September 25th<\/a>. They got the money on September 11th<\/a> there there was never an announcement from the ukrainians to do an investigation. So you can be keep saying all this stuff and all the points of this happened, this happened, didnt happen. Notdn the facts. Those are not the facts. We know why the aid got released because this guy, this new president , was actually the transformer, the real deal was actually going to deal with the Corruption Issue<\/a> in his country. Thats what happened. You can make up all the things you want butal those are not th facts. The gentlemans time expired. For what purpose mrs. Jeffries seeks recognition . The gentleman is recognized. Lets go through the fact. Were here today because the president abused his power. Were here today because he solis sited foreign interference in the 2020re election. He welcomed foreign interference as itig relates to russia, he solis sited foreign interference on the white house lawn with china and did it with ukraine. Hes a serial solicitor. Lets go through the facts. Congress allocated 391 million in military aid on a bipartisan basis to ukraine. Currently at war with\rrussianbacked separatists in theba east. Ukraine is a friend. Russia is a foe. Ukraine is a democracy. Russia is a dictatorship. The United States<\/a> is probably the only thing standing between Vladimir Putin<\/a> and ukraine being completely overrun as part of putins fantasy to reconstruct the soviet union, which would be adverse to the National Security<\/a> interest of the United States<\/a> and every singlere fact witness before this Congress Said<\/a> so. You cant even dispute that. We allocated aid on a bipartisan basis. But then the aid was withheld. So the American People<\/a> deserve to figure out why. In february, there was a letter sent by the Trump Administration<\/a> saying, okay, the aid is on the way. But it never arrived. In april he had a phone call, theon president , with zelensky, the word corruption was not\rmentioned once. And then in may, the Department Of Defense<\/a> wrote to this congress t and said, all Necessy Preconditionsry<\/a> for the receiptf the aid have been met by the new ukrainian government, including the implementation of anticorruption protocols. We have that letter. It was sent to you and it was sent to us. Then in july on the 18th, Office Of Management And Budget<\/a> meeting, the aid was officially frozen at the direction of the president. Twice during the summer, mitch mcconnell, the senate republican,en Majority Leader<\/a> publicly stated, he called the Trump Administration<\/a>, what happened to thee aid. Mitch mcconnell couldnt get a good answer. Because there was no good\ranswer. On july 25th, another call. President President Trump<\/a> and president zelensky. The word corruption is not mentioned once, but heres what was said. Zelensky talks about the defense. And the Immediate Response<\/a> is, do us a favor, though. President trump says, i need you to look into some things. Not related to procurement of defense arms, but related to a wild Conspiracy Theory<\/a> connected to the 2016 campaign and also says, i want you to look into joe biden. Then whats interesting, since you thinks it was such a perfe call, he mentions rudolph giuliani. Im looking at the transcripton right now, not once, not twice, three times, why on an official call would the president mention\rrudolph giuliani. Hes not an ambassador. Hes not the secretary of state. Hes not ata member of the diplomatic core. Hes President Trump<\/a>s political enforcer. Then what happens. You want to talk about the facts. In august, giuliani travels to madrid and meets with the ukrainian government. As a followup to trump saying to ukraine, go meet with giuliani. Then a statement is drafted about this phony investigation and sent to the ukrainians. But what happens . In august the Whistleblower Complaintus<\/a> is filed. Then on september 9th, the whistleblower complaint is made public to congress. Two days later on September 11th<\/a>, all of a sudden the aid is released. Why was the aid released . Because the president was caught redhanded trying to pressure a\rforeign government to target an american citizen. I yield back. The Gentleman Yield<\/a>s back. For what purpose does mr. Gates seek recognition. Strikes the last word. There were five meetings that we have detailed that show why the aid was released. There was a beliefs on the administration previously that ukraine was one of the most corrupt countries in the world, they had not engaged in sufficient reforms and aftered number of events with the Vice President<\/a> with a Bipartisan Senate<\/a> delegation there was a resolution of that aid. This debate just lacks a certain sincerity. I hearder earlier my friend fro california mr. Swalwell say, list out all these crimes. Ifse im watching at home im thinking where are they in the impeachment. That is a democrat driveby. To list crimes that you dont allege and you dont have evidence y for. Is ever a microcosm of how to consume this day and the importance with the American People<\/a> theyre Naming Crimes<\/a> in\rdebate they dont have in their Impeachment Resolution<\/a> because they cant prove them because there are no underlying fact. I hear my friend no new york mr. Jeffries bring up russia, the residue of impeachment Theories Pastmp<\/a> and failed, how is debatg about how are we here debating about military aid, javelins, that President Trump<\/a> delivered, that president obama withheld. I hear them crying the alligator tears, trump didnt give the aid, we have to impeach him. Wrfs the concern about how to make Thebo Ukraine<\/a> great when obama was president. Its four things. Theyve never changed. I think mr. Jordan dreams of them in his sleep. Both President Trump<\/a> and president zelensky said, there was no pressure. We saw the Call Transcript<\/a>. Theres No Conditionality<\/a>. There was never awareness on the part of Thear Ukraine<\/a> that ther was a delay in aid. And the ukraine got the aid\rwithout opening the investigation that seems to be so troubling to democrats. Everything youre going to hear them say could be categorized into three areas. First, its stuff people presumed and had no direct evidence of. Their Water Cooler Theory<\/a> of the case. Second hearsay, somebody told somebody told somebody else that created some concern about the president s conduct, or a Policy Disagreement<\/a> about how to make the ukraine great again. I heardea the folks come by, pa of the diplomatic core, we ought to do everything for the ukraine but if the president disaemployees with that, it is not impeachable conduct. Theyre alleging a shakedown. I think most americans know that you cannot have a shakedown if the person being shook down doesnt know about the shakedown. You have president zelensky himself saying i felt no pressure. Talk about bad timing. This time article on the 10th\rof december a few days ago, because their theory of the case, even if zelensky didnt know there was pressure d there this other guy, yermak, and yermak knew from Gordon Sondland<\/a> there was pressure but the same day that they introduced their articles of impeachment,ir yerm gives this interview with Time Magazine<\/a> and says, i quote, gordon and i were never alone together. We bumped too each other in the hallway next toch the escalators i was walking out. I remember everything. We talked how well the meeting went. That is all we talked about. Here they are with no crime, with no victim, with no witnesses, with no knowledge of any shakedown, and yet, they proceed. To accept the democrats theory of thecr case, you got to belie that the ukrainians are lying to us. You got it believe when they say theres No Conditionality<\/a>, no pressure, nothing wrong, that theyre so weak and theyre so dependent onso the united state that we cant believe a word\rtheybe say. Again, where were you during the Obama Administration<\/a> when this weak ally didnt get support. Iet support the jordan amendmen this article 1, the abuse of power they allege in the Impeachment Theory<\/a> is a total joke. They have to says abuse of pow because they dont have evidence for obstruction. They have to say abuse of power because they have no evidence treason, abuse of power because all the specific crimes thatal the Gentleman Fro California<\/a> named, cannot be supported by the evidence. This is sort of the Ink Blot Theory<\/a> testin of impeachment so the Country Cant Stare<\/a> at the k blot and everybody can see what i guess they want to see. This notion of abuse of power is the o lowest of low energy impeachment theories. Heck, i dont know any Political Party<\/a> that doesnt think when the otherpa side is in the whit house that they abused power, too much. I have a lot of constituents\rthat think president obama abused his repower, but we didn do thisis to the country. We didnt put him through this nonsense andth this impeachment. Youhi all set the standard. We didnt setse it. You said this would have to be bipartisan, compelling and overwhelming. It aint that. And this looks pretty bad. I yield back. The Gentleman Yield<\/a> back. For what purposes miss jayapal seeks recognition . Thank you,se mr. Chairman. Just in response be. Strike the lastju word . Move to strike the last word. Th recognized. In response to my colleague from florida, you cannot argue things both ways. You cannot say that the president was so concerned about ukraine that he released aid, which is true, he released aid in 2017, in 2018, and then suddenly, he became concerned in 2019. Right after Vice President<\/a> biden announced he was going to run. If your argument is he was so\rconcerned about ukraine he released aid in 2017 and 2018, why in 2019, after the Department Of Defense<\/a> cleared ukraine on be charges of corruption, why then did he decide he was so concerned about corruption that he was not going to release aid . Because the evidence im sorry. Im not yielding. I am not yielding. The gentleman has the time. They got a new president. Thats why. The gentle lady has the time. People will not interrupt. They got a new president not proper here. Thank you, mr. Chairman. They got a new president who was known to be an be anticorruption fighter. If you want to argue that the president was so concerned about corruption at that particular moment, you have to look at the whole record of u. S. Policy and our agreement that the Department Of Defense<\/a> would look\runder certain conditions before they released military aid to determine whether or not a country had satisfied those requirements around corruption and the Department Of Defense<\/a> released that report. Nowhere between the time that donald trump withheld aid and the time that he released that aid was there an additional assessment required or done. The Department Of Defense<\/a> decided they didnt need to do another d assessment because th had already done the assessment. At the end of the day, i have onlyy, two questions for my colleagues on The Other Side<\/a> and these are the two questions. Forget about President Trump<\/a>, forget about President Trump<\/a>, will any one of my colleagues on The Other Side<\/a> say that it is an abuset of power to condition a to condition aid on official acts . Will ing for about president \rtrump. Forget about President Trump<\/a>. Is any one of my colleagues willing to say that it is ever okay for a president of the United States<\/a>de of america to invite foreign interference in our elections. Not a single one of you has said thatyo so far. Ill say it. I yield to my colleague from texas. Yield so we can answer the question. I will be glad to answerns t question. She has i want to break this down the gentle lady has the time. And she asked us a question. The members here know perfectly well it is out of order Tot Interrupt<\/a> members wh have i the time. The gentle lady unless they ask nl yielded to whom asked us a question. U yielded to whom . Miss escobar has the time. Thank you, chairman, thank you y representative jayapal. I want to break this down in simple terms for the american\rpublic because our republican colleagues are working o overti to dry try to convince us we di see what we saw and hear what we heard with our own ears. Lets bring it down to an example during the hearing, if a governor, if a community suffers a naturalom disaster, and the governor of the states has aid that will help that community, but calls the mayor of your community and says, i want you to do me a favor, though. And conditions with giving the aid to the community on the police chief smearing his political opponent, has there been a crime . The answer is yes. That governor would go to jail. If that governor later releases the aid after he got caught, it doesnt matter. He still committed the crime. Furthermore, if that governor says,th during the investigatio\rim going to defy the subpoenas, were going to fight the subpoenas, guess what would happen to that governor. Hes committed a crime. He would go to jail. If the governor then tried to coverup his wrongdoing, cover it up, so that his people, his constituents, couldnt see his wrongdoing, what would happen to that governor . Did he commit a crime . Yes. He would go to jail. So as wildly as theyre trying to convince you that there was nou wrongdoing, i want the American Public<\/a> to understand what is going on here. Its clear as day. We seen it with our own eyes, weve heard it with our own ears. Facts matter. I yield back. Thank you. I would just, again, close with this single question, is it ever okay for a president to condition official action on personal gain . I yield back. Ba mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman. Who seeks recognition . For what purposes does The Gentleman<\/a> seek recognition. Unanimous consent request. Like to ask unanimous consent to introduce into the record i cannot hear you, sir. I would like to introduce ask unanimous consent to introduce into the record the transcript of the call where the president says i would like you to do us a favor. Without objection the tript will be introduced. The call record. For what purpose does mr. Buck seek recognition. Strike the last word. Thank you. I want to address mr. Swalwells thank you for coming back. Mr. Swalwells comments that there are definitely crimes in this situation. First of meall, i believe mr. Swalwell during the Mueller Investigation<\/a> wentg on nationa tv and said, something to the effect of, an indictment is\rcoming. He knew it. An indictment is coming. Mr. Swalwell knows crimes, he was a prosecutor and knows the obligation that a prosecutor has not to bring a crime, not to bring a charge unless theres a reasonable probability of conviction. I would direct mr. Swalwell to the elements of bribery. Whoever being a public official corruptly demands or seeks personally anything of value in return for being influenced in the performance of an official act, the Department Of Justice<\/a>s Criminal Division<\/a> Public Integrity<\/a> section in september something as nebulous as an investigation is not of sufficient Concrete Value<\/a> to constitute something of value understand this statute. They also, the other element that is at question here, one of the reasons we need more than one week as the committee of jurisdiction to look into this\rmatter, is because if there are crimes, weshd be bringing experts and we should be bringing in testimony and if there is a crime it is far more fair to carriage a to pass articles of impeachment on a president where the president can defend against specific elements as opposed to something as vagueem as abuse of power. Mr. Swalwell, the owe fsfficial you talk about understandow the securitys mcconnell decision, says setting upri a meeting, talking to another official or organizing an event without more doesor not fit the definition o official act. There are two elements missing in your analysis. That doesnt surprise me. There were no elements that were that the Special Counsel<\/a> found in this situation. I think it is unfortunate when The Gentleman<\/a> from rhode island talks about the president sending mr. Giuliani to ukraine to smear Vice President<\/a> biden, lets talk about what Vice President<\/a> biden did. His son sat on a board and made an outrageous amount of money for someone that had no background in energy,at no background in the ukraine, while his father was the Vice President<\/a>. If that is not a fair for discussion in the world of politics i dont know what is. Smearing is trying to conjure up false information or making a vague argument based on false information. This isnt smearing. This is seeking the truth about corruption. Not a Single Member<\/a> on The Other Side<\/a> of the aisle has been willing to condemn the conduct of the former Vice President<\/a>. How frustrating it must be to be President Trump<\/a> and have your\rson spend over a Million Dollars<\/a> on attorneys fees when the Special Counsel<\/a> is investigating something that never happened. There was no collusion. There was no conspiracy between the russia and the trump campaign. But there is clear evidence of wrongdoing between hunter biden, the former Vice President<\/a> biden will the Gentleman Yield<\/a> . I will not. And the ukraine and the corporation burisma. So the idea that there was a smear going on, lets look at the facts. I will yield to my friend from arizona,en mr. Biggs. Thank you very much. Lets talk about what was going on. In 2017 2018 aid is given and in 2019 there was a pause put on it. A new administration in the ukraine. And the thbenchmark, the anticorruption benchmarks were done understand the previous\radministration poroshenko, testified to in this committee. What we know is several of the previous corrupt administrators and cabinet level officials including some oligarchs had Close Relationships<\/a> to zelensky. There was a concern whether mr. Zelensky was the real teal. The aid was prespeculative and the pause unknown. U. S. Officials continued to meet with ukrainian officials and they determined that zelensky was the real deal and made every effort to convince President Trump<\/a> that that was the case. Once two new anticorruption measures were released within two days, so was the funding. Thats what changed. Yield back. Mr. Chairman unanimous consent for what purpose does The Gentleman<\/a> fromos california see recognition . Just ina response, the const for a vox november article all of Robert Muellers<\/a> indictment including the 34 people and three companies he indicted in\rhis lengthy investigation. I object. I want tos see it. S The Gentleman<\/a> reserves an objection. Wants to see it. Thats fair. Does for what purpose does mr. Reschenthaler seekur recognition . I thank you and move to strike the a last word. Withouthe objection. I yield to my friend and colleague from florida. I thank The Gentleman<\/a> from yielding. I just gotro to come back to th interview with yermak. Like the tree that fell in the forest that f nobody heard that demolished the entire democrat case. They have no evidence that the ukrainians ever knew that this aid was withheld. Theyre literally trying tos from cute an impeachment against theut president for a shakedown when the alleged people being shook down one said they felt no pressure and two, did not even know it was happening. Then time and again, you heard them in debate and in Press Conferences<\/a> and the whole circus\rshow thatsol going on here say well weve got this testimony from Gordon Sondland<\/a>, we all remember be gordon, Gordon Sondland<\/a>, wandering his way to an escalator with this guy who speaks english as a second language, and gordon says, maybe i said something to him about this. I mean, that was the whole deal for them. Then i mean you talk about embarrassing, the same day that they introduced their articles of impeachment, that we knew they were going to introduce One Way Or Another<\/a> the moment they took the majority, comes out that yermak denies the whole thing. Show me the ukrainian that was pressured. Show me the ukrainian that knew that any of this was tied to any conditionality. Theres No Conditionality<\/a> in the call and so its quite easy to answer miss jayapal and the gentle lady from washingtons question. Very easy. In this case there is no\rconditionality. You cant prove it, you have no evidence and even the ukrainians, even yourth purport victims are coming out in the press saying, their theory of the case is wrong, their fundamental premise has been rejected. Yield to The Gentleman<\/a> from ohio. Yield back. Yield back to The Gentleman<\/a> from pennsylvania. I yield to my friend from ohio. Thank The Gentleman<\/a> from yielding. They got a brand new president , zelensky ran on anticorruption. See if hes the real deal. Thats what happened in the 55 was paused. We talked about five critical meetings that took place. The last one is the most important, a democrat senator and republican senator meet with president zelensky in kiev. They knew the aid had been pause paused. Ukrainians had learned a few days before that and the issue never came up. What did come up is both of these senators came back and\rsaid, this guy is the real deal, worth the risk, worth sending the hard earned tax dollars of the American People<\/a> to ukraine. That is what happened. And the facts are very clear. You can make up all the stuff you want, but the facts are on the president s side, always on the president s side. Democrats keep saying to get the call, to get the meeting, to get the money there had to be an announcement. December 12th. There has yet to be an announcement from ukraine about any investigation into burisma or the bidens, its not going to happen because it never needed tove happen. That wasnt the point. They gotat the call, july 25th, got the meeting September 25th<\/a> and the money September 11th<\/a>. The other thing i want to point out, i dont know how many times ive heard this democrats talk about this onemo sentence the president said in the famous Call Transcript<\/a> of president zelensky. I would like you to docacr us a favor though. The democrats dont read the\rplain language. Your Star Professor<\/a> witness here last week talked about this being theed royal we, she read e sentence, shesh said, it was i would like you to do me a favor though. Thats not what it says. It saysit i would like you to d us a favor, though, because, guess what the next two words are, guess what the next two words are, because our country, not because i, the president doesnt say i would like you to do me a favor because ive been through a falot, he doesnt say that. Very clear, i would like you to do usli a favor, though, Becaus Our Country<\/a> has been through a lot. And that is the understatement of the year. Heck yeahof our country has bee through a lot. This is date after bob mueller sat in i front of this committe and went learned that there was nothing there but two years he put our country through all kinds of turmoil because of you guys. Thats what the president is pointing out because in this Paragraph Heau<\/a> references bob mueller. Thats what hes talking about. Heck yeah our country had been through a lot and the president was tibd and wanted to find out what was going on. Thats very legitimate working on behalf of the American People<\/a>. As i said last night, you guys dont respect the 63 Million People<\/a> who voted for this guy thats why the Speaker Of The House<\/a> called the president an imposter. Thats whats wrong. Us a d like you to do favor because our country has been through a lot. I yield back. The Gentleman Yield<\/a>s back. For what y purpose does mr. Johnson seek recognition . Move to strike the last word. The gentleman is recognized. I just want to slow this down and be methodical about it because most of us here are attorneys and in this case, were supposed to be finders of fact. Were supposed to carefully and objectively analyze the claims against the record. So lets do that. There are two articles to this Impeachment Resolution<\/a>, of course, abuse of power and obstruction of justice. On the first, democrats know there isst zero direct evidencen\rthe record of these proceedings to show that President Trump<\/a> engaged in any scheme of any kind as is alleged in the resolution. Or that he intended in his dealings with ukraine to influence the 2020 election. No impeachment should ever proceed on the basis of hearsay and conjek sure and speculation that wouldnt be ayad admissidma local traffic court. To miss jayapal, there is no evidence of any condition and i guess i need to repeat the four undisputable facts in the record, repetition apparently is necessary here. First both President Trump<\/a> and zelensky say there was no pressure exerted, number two, Julymb 25th Call<\/a> transcript sho No Conditionality<\/a> between aid funding and investigation, number three, ukraine was not aware of the aid as has been said over and over here that it was being delayed and number four, never opened an investigation and still received and got the meeting. Our colleagues keep misrepresenting the fapgtcts, n\ronly they misrepresent do me a favor and do us a favor but only two of the three witnesses called by schiff listened in on the call. They didnt provide key Uncontra Vertble<\/a> firsthand testimony of what happened onan the call. All three contradicted each other. The three people listening directly didnt know. The evidence shows President Trump<\/a> holds a deep seated, genuine and reasonable skepticism of ukraine due to its history of Pervasive Corruption Andve<\/a> his administration sought proof that newly elected president wasew a true reformer. Of course as has been pointed out the president soon found out that he is a Swamp Drainer<\/a> and why the funds were released. President trump wanted to ensure that the american taxpayer funded Security Assistance<\/a> would not be zaunderred by what has been reported as the third most corrupt nation in the world beforeco zelensky. And the discussions they had were neverth about What Happene In<\/a> bo what will happen in 202 but about what happened in 2016. The second claim of this\rresolution is that the president obstructed congress, but he simply did h what virtually eve other president in thell modern era has also done. Whats his big infraction here, he asserted a legitimate Executive Privilege<\/a> and legal immunity to question subpoenas issued topo various white house officials. Theres noit evidence of any impeachable conduct with that. Itsnd commonplace. On every previous occasion on this assertion in the past the natural impasse that exists between the legislative and executive branches in our constitutional system has been easily and calmly resolved by good faith negotiation or a simply filing with the third branch of our government the judicial branch. Let thef courts decide it. In spiteid of their allegations democrats know President Trump<\/a> has Lawful Causekn<\/a> to challenge the subpoenas in this matter. In this case House Democrats<\/a> are trying to impeach President Trump<\/a> simply for seeking Judicial Review<\/a> over whether the direct communications between high ranking advisors and a\rpresident under theseor circumstances are privileged or should beiv disclosed. That case would be expedited in the courts, wouldnt take that long but democrats said they dont have time for that. Why . Because they promised their base an impeachment by christmas. This is i absurd. It should be noted by the way that President Trump<\/a> has consistly t cooperated with congress in fulfilling the Oversight Investigation Responsibilities<\/a> here over 25 Administration Officials<\/a> that testified before Oversight Committee<\/a> this year, 20 before this committee, at the start of the Impeachment Inquiry<\/a> the white house s produced more tha 100,000 pages of documents to the Oversight Committee<\/a> and he also quickly declassified and produced to everyone the Call Transcript<\/a>. Democrats know this c is an absd charge about obstruction and the truth is in the history of the republic theres never been a single partyee fraudulent impeachment process deployed against a president like the one used against donald trump. Theyre the ones seeking to nullify our t vital safeguards with this sham. Their ultimate objective is to nullify the votesto of the 63 million americans who voted to elect donald trump. They violate due process and all the rest. My colleague, Sheila Jackson<\/a> lee quoted Barbara Jordan<\/a> but she said during the watergate inquiry, impeachment not only mandates due process but due process qua dropled. They have violated that here, the rule and everybody in the country can see it. Impeachment is going fail, the democrats will pay a heavily political box but the pandoras box will do injury to our country in the years ahead. Were concerned, thats why the facts matter and thats why we need to move on. I yield back. The Gentleman Yield<\/a>s back. Mr. Chairman. Miss garcia seek recognition. I move to strike the last word. The gentle lady is recognized. Im opposed to this amendment. Its incredible that other side of the aisle has not seen the facts and has not apparently read some of the evidence before\rus. It is obvious to me that this president has put his personal interests above this country. And with that i will yield back to The Gentleman<\/a> from rhode island. I thank the gentle lady for yielding. Weve just heard our republican colleagues claim that there was no demand, No Conditionality<\/a> for the release of this aids and, in fact it was motivated by the president s deep desire to ferret out corruption. That is laughable. The president of the United States<\/a> had two phone calls with president zelensky. He never once uttered the word corruption. Because it wasnt about corruption and the reason we know that is the Department Of Defense<\/a> had already certified that steps had been taken to combat corruption back on may 23rd and despite that certification, that hold\rremained in n,place. In fact, the professionals testified about them trying to figure out how is it possible its legal to hold this aid because the certifications happened, theres no basis to hold it other than the president ordered it. Its not about corruption. It was about extracting a commitment to announce publicly that they were launching an investigation of President Trump<\/a>s chief p political rivala smear against Vice President<\/a> biden. So this notion that really what happened iss the president jus satisfied himself, that mr. Zelensky was forf, real, is nonsense. Betrayed by all of the evidence collectedp let me give you some of it or remind you because you apparently dont remember it. Ambassador sondland testified, underst oath, mr. Giulianis requests were a quid pro quo for arranging ats white house visit for president zelensky. Mr. Giulianit demanded that ukraine, mr. Giuliani, the president s counsel, mr. Giulianien demanded that ukrain make a Public Statement<\/a> announcing the investigation of the 2016 election the dnc server and burisma. Mr. Giuliani was expressing the desires of the president of the United States<\/a> and we knew these investigations were important to the president. The president. July 25th call, president zelensky recognized the connection between the meeting and the investigations. He said, i also want to thank yount for your invitation to vit the United States<\/a>, specifically washington, d. C. On the other hand, ita want to ensure you well try to be very serious about the case and will work on the investigation, and the president spoke in that call about the bidens and burisma. The omb ultimately announces the aid was withheld, gives no explanation, and everyone in the intelligence community, all the National Security<\/a> team, all recommended the release of the aid. This was an important ally of the United States<\/a>, facing an active war with the russians that took part of their country and was continuing to kill people in eastern ukraine. American military aid was a lifeline for thisd emerging democracy. You know the only people who benefited from this scheme, President Trump<\/a>, because he thought he was going to get an announcement to smear his political opponent and Vladimir Putin<\/a>, russia. They were trying to weaken the ukrainians. There was a recent article congressman bass held up where it said president zelensky facing President Putin<\/a> all alone. This benefited russia weakening ukraine. This notion that the reason that the aid was released because the president is denied by all the evidence collected in the 300page report by the intelligence committee. It was released because the president got caught, the whistleblower filed the report, alleging elaborate scheme by the president , betrayed the National Interest<\/a> of ourra country, undermined our National Security<\/a>, advancedy, the person\rpolitical interest of the president , not the National Interest<\/a> ofpr the country, intended to corrupt our elections by dragging in foreign interference. Its thera highest of crimes an misdemeanors. Our framers spoke about using the office of the president to advance your personal interest and undermine the public interest. Ill yield my time to mr. Rascon. Thank you very much. Just to flesh out the detail of what The Gentleman<\/a> from riled w rhode island was saying, one of the depositions is from david hoe man, a state Department Official<\/a> atar kiev who was with Gordon Sondland<\/a> who testified there was a quid pro quo. He saw him on the phone with President Trump<\/a> and he reported right at that time. He said the president doesnt give a blank about ukraine. Hes interested in the big stuff. Whats the big stuff . Whatever can benefit him. Gentleman yields back. For purposes recognition. Move to strike the last word. The gentleman is recognized. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Last night and today weave heard many times my colleagues on The Other Side<\/a> saying thees facts o this aree not contested. But they really are. An example is one pointed out and highlighted by my colleague from luiz an in a moment ago. On the Telephone Call<\/a> of the 17 witnesses that came in, only three actually listened in on the phone call. But eachon one of them have contradictory testimony. So even the three witnesses that heard the call, conflicted. Why is that important . Why dois i bring that up . I bring it up because of this. Many of my colleagues, in fact most of my colleagues on The Other Side<\/a> of the aisle take every inference in the light most negative to the president \rof the United States<\/a>, thats becaused theres an animus the thats been manifest since november 9, 2016, the day after he was elected. So having watched this procedure closely on the heels of the other procedures and attempts to impeach this president and investigate, i am left wonder g wondering, you want every nference to go against the president , why should the American Public<\/a> give you any inference of credibility . The reality is when my colleague from california said was talking about the russian issue, not Aru Single American<\/a> was indicted for conspiring with russia to influence the elections. Not one. He Still Believes<\/a> there was some collusion with the trump campaign. What do the facts get to . When my colleague talked about the money was released, the aid was released. Again, he takes this inference based on a timeline and hes citing rank hearsay. Hey, you know what . I overheard this conversation im in a restaurant actually sitting on a patted i dont at a restaurants, lots of people around. I could hear everything. I knew who it was, what was said. I was so concerned about it i didnt tell anybody. I came in once this really got going and revved up. You want to take every inference against the president. Why should we give you any inference of credibility . The only direct evidence in this case remains the same after all this time. No pressure, no pressure in the phone call. Mr. Zelensky has said that repeatedly. He spent eight hours in one press conference, all day long talking about no pressure, no\rpressure. Yermak said there was no pressure. Are theyd lying . No. We know the whistleblower was lying. Ow we know mr. Schiff was lying. Mr. Schiff came out the day before and said eight times the president put direct pressure on the ukrainians. Oops. The transcript is released. Not true. That would be the facts being con tested, absolutely. We know there was no conditionalality, everybody said there was No Conditionality<\/a>. Ukraine was unaware of the hold. How can you leverage them . They were unaware of the hold. It was never in the investigation. But what happened . What triggered it . You have highat ranking u. S. Officials going to ukraine, meeting with him, convinced the president. You have the president of ukraine signing two pieces of legislation, reinstituting the Anti Corruption<\/a> tribunal and alsoor removing immune any from\rprosecution of the legislative branch in ukraine. Significant Anti Corruption<\/a> measures worthy of convincing this president that, ofyes, theyre worth a chance. So with that, you have nothing, your credibility is in tatters. With that i yield to my friend from colorado. I thank my friend from yielding. I want to thank my friends on The Other Side<\/a>. Ambassador sondland is your star witness . Ou youre basing an impeachment on ambassador sondlands testimony . His firstdl statement, his firs deposition, he f said 325 times dont remember, i dont know, im not sure, 325 times. You dont think when this gets overth to the senate that hes going to be impeached on all the things heim didnt remember . Then, then his testimony\rimpeached, not his office. I see the smirk. Then what does he do . He readsdo and listens to what ambassador taylor says he knows and what ambassador yovanovitch says he knows. Then his memory is refreshed. I yield back. The Gentleman Yield<\/a>s back. Mr. Radcliffe seeks recognition. Move to strike the last word. Thank the chairman. I want to respond to my good friend, congressman ses linneys comments, when he said President Trump<\/a>s demand cant be explained Byt Corruption Becau The Word<\/a> corruption is never uttered anywhere in the transcript. The problem with that is that democrats have built this entire fake impeachment scheme around anti alleged demand. Guess what word is not anywhere in the transcript . Demand. Nowhere in that transcript does the president make a demand. You know where the word demand came from . It came from the whistleblower. Thats the first time we heard the wordim demand, when we notified the Inspector General<\/a> for the intelligence community. He said President Trump<\/a> made a demand. He thought he could do that because he thought no one would ever be able to prove, because what president would take the unprecedented step of releasing a transcript with a foreign leader . This president did, something that the whistleblower never expect expected. President trump, we keep hearing, got caught. President trump, we keep hearing, is obstructing justice. The president thats took the unprecedented step of releasing a transcript so that everyone could see the truth is not obstructing congress. The president didnt get caught","publisher":{"@type":"Organization","name":"archive.org","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","width":"800","height":"600","url":"https:\/\/vimarsana.com\/images\/vimarsana-bigimage.jpg"}},"autauthor":{"@type":"Organization"},"author":{"sameAs":"archive.org","name":"archive.org"}}],"coverageEndTime":"20240618T12:35:10+00:00"}