Whip inflation. And in the new york times, in his obituary that just went on lon online. He did it, Interest Rates went up higher than anyone would have ever expected, but history proved to be on paul volkers side, and think which i for the past 20 or 30 years, much of that is ohhed to bawed to paul. He had a quality that is missing greatly and he was involved in politics, and that squault courage. He had the courage of his convictions to do as you just eluded to, Interest Rates and that period of time, it turned
out that he was exactly right as to what to do. He was a mechanic that knew what he wasni trying to fine tune an fiction and he had the courage toad do it. That was courage, and you know, that quality that mike talked about, he sort of had it, He Clark Gabled his last line in gone with the wind, he didnt give a dam. We are counting down now to the top of the house, the House Judiciary Committee hearing that will review Impeachment Evidence against President Trump. There is steve cast ter, the attorney for the republicans. Were counting down to the start of this Impeachment Hearing Set to begin any moment now. They present their evidence about the president s pressure against ukraine, the pressure
campaign against ukraine, trying to shakekr down a foreign leade for dirt on a political rival in is what they are saying they did. They are having a chance to refute this once again. Im not sure what options they have, but theyre stuck in the land of conspiracy theories, joe. And Vladimir Putins conspiracy theories, theyre spouting those, and they do whatever it takes to defend this president at this time. Im curious about the differing styles of two men that republicans have been attacking in the past several years. Two men who, because they have been challenging trump, of course Robert Mueller first, with Theer Mueller report, tryi to get information on this president , and adam schiff, two
different mensc both vilified. Yeah, i think if you look at the outcomes of their informations, they had an incredible body of facts, and he told us what those facts all added up to. Adam shift tochiff told us what facts added up to. I think for what they did, di misleading the American Public is mueller failing to tell us what the president s conduct meant. He has not made that mistake. What we expect to see today, they will come and present to the Judiciary Committee, theyre laying out a body of evidence that this b is what the preside did, and this is what his
conduct meant. And you will see barry burke, they will tell us what that misconduct means and why it rises to an impeachable offense. His conduct did not rise to the level of impeachment, they cant use that argument, so today what im interested in is he makes just the bad factual arguments. They got the aide at the end, or will we see him veer off to the conspiracy land. If you hear all all of the names that have no bearing on them. One thing we know is that we will see donald trump tweetingt about it. How concerned are they about his tweets and how confident is the democraticon conference with jey nadlers leadership and not worrying thatan it will be as strong as adam schiffs. I think they have generally avoided themal except in that realtime memt when he went off ambassador yovanovitch. I think that is background noise. I think that nancy pelosi is driving this thing. You had congressman nadler shuttling between the buildings where all of this is going on, and the Speakers Office across Independence Avenue that is the nerve center of all of this into
if it is schiff, nadler, whoever is getting involved, this Nancy Pelosis operation. We have the president of ukrainesi meeting with Presiden Putin of russia this morning, and we have Michael Horowitz dropping his report on russias influence with the fbi vooifled that f will all be addressed today. So let me ask you do youd thi t that bill barr will weigh in trying to put aspin on the report, or do you think he will site to the side. It is leaked out that he rejects the finding of the horowitz report, that the fbi had reason to investigate the trumpve campaign and the
interference. We already know that he rejects that. Theys believe it was appropria, and even the hand pick eed Investiga Investigator has more. He shas show that he cant accept the reality. The t same way that republicans cant accept the russian meddling. There is a through line between the two and the arguments that well see in the Judiciary Committee today. Did this is due start any day now. If question get to you, democrats are hoping to track this to perhaps even impeach the president byea christmas, perha,
maybe to ward off a long, drawn out campaign by the Trump Campaign to use impeachment to their benefit, but then there is ru rudy and his escapades. How does that play into all of this, in plain sight, continuing the investigation in ukraine. I think it it makes the case for those to speed this up as quickly as possible. They run the risk that the longer it drags on, for them to be muddying the waters, coming up with conclusions, and the faster they move they avoid this mueller situation they got into with muddy waters. I think theyre just about to get Thehe Hearing started. The hearing will come to order, the chair is authorized to declare recesses. Object objection noted. Were looking at presentations from the House Judiciary Committee pursuant to the special Judiciary Committee procedures described in section 4a. I will makect an Opening Statemt and then i will recognize the Ranking Member. We will hear two sets of presentations. We will hear 30 minute jerry nadler, youre the one committing treason. Order in the room. Order in the room. Order in the committee room. America is sick of your impeachment scam and of your treason. The committee will come to order, obviously i should not have o to remind Everyone Prese that the audience is here to observe. But not to demonstrate. Not to indicate agreement or disagreement with any witness or any member of the committee. The committee is here to observe only and we will maintain decorum in the hearing room. Here is how the committee will proceed for this hearing. Ith will make an Opening Statemt and then i will recognize two sets of presentations. We will hear 30 minute Opening Statements, then we will hear 45
minute presceentationspresentat. Followed by 45 minutes of questioning by the chair and Ranking Member who may yield to council for questioning during this period. Finally all of the members will have the opportunity to question presenters underes the five mine rule. I would note that the president s counsel was given the opportunity to participate today and the white house declined the invitation. I will now recognize myself for an Opening Statement. No matter his party of politics, if he places his interest above those of the country, he betrays his oath of office. The Majority Leader of the senate, the Chief Justice of the supreme court, and the chairman and Ranking Members all have one important thing in common. We have each taken an oath to
preserve, protect, and defend the constitution of the United States. If the president puts himself before the country, he violates the president s most basic responsibility. He breaks his oath to the American People. If hee puts himself before the country in a matter that then our promise to the American People requires us to come to the defense of the nation. That oath stands even when it is politically inconvenient, even when it might bring us under criticism,er even when it could cost us our drops, and even when the president is unwilling to honor hisil oes, im coath, ipo honor mine. They knew that threats from the democracy could take many forms, that we must protect against
them. They warned us against the dangers of would be monarchs. They knew the most dangerous set toro the country might come fro within in the form of a Construct Checktive that put his private interests above the interests of the nation. He also knew they could not anticipate every threat thatul president might some day pose so they adopted the phase treason, bribe bribery, and george mason said it was to capture all manner of great and dangerous offenses against the constitution. The debates around the framing are clear that the most serious offenses m include abuse of pow, betrayal of the nation through foreign entanglements, and corruption of public office. Any one of the vie rations would
compel the members of this committee to take action. Combined in a single course of action, they stayed the strongest possible case for impeachment and removal from office. President trump put himself before country. Despite the political partisanship that seems to punctuate our hearings these days, i believe there is Common Ground around some of these ideas. We agree that it is a sol limb and serious under taking. We agree it is meant to address serious threats like our free and fair elections. We agree that when the elections themselves are threatened by enmys foreign or domestic we cannot wait for the next election to address the threat. We surely agree that no public official, including and
especially the president of the United States, should p use his public officer for private gain. And we agree that no president may put himself before the country. The constitution and his oath of office, his promise to american citizens require the president to put the country first. If we could drop our blinders for one moment we could agree on a set of facts as well. President trump called president Zelensky Of Yukraine and asked him for a favor. Not an investigation of corruption at large, but an investigation of President Trumps political rivals and only his political rivals. It also shows that he withheld a white house meeting from president zelensky. Multiple witnesses from National Security officials and decorated war veterans testified to the same basic fact. President trump withheld the aid and the meeting to pressure a Foreign Government to do him that favor. President trump put themselves before country. When the president got kaukt, he took extraordinary and unprecedented steps. These facts are not in dispute. Most of the arguments about these facts appear to be beside the point. As we review the evidence today, i think we will expect much about the whistleblower for the
country. Every fact has been substantiated by multiple witnesses again and again. The allegations also match up with the president s own words, words that he still says were e perfect, is also expect to hear complaints about the term quid pro quo. As if they need to acknowledge the crime for to be a crime at all. Multiple officials testified that the president s demand for an investigation into his rivals were part of his personal and political agenda and not related to the Foreign Policy octoberives of the United States. Multiple officials testified that the president intended to
withhold the aid unless you crane announced the nflgss. And yes, multiple officials testified that they understood this rangement to be a quid pro quo for the president s personal political benefit. They will argue that the whole process is unfair. The record is before us as well. President trump chose not to show. He may not have much to say in his own defense, but he claim that he did not have an opportunity to be heard. Finally, as we proceed today we will hear a great deal about the speed with which the house is addressing the president s actions. So the members of the committee, to the mers of the house, and my
fellow citizens, i want to be absolutely clear, the integrity of our next election is at stake, nothing could be more urgent. The president welcomed interference. He demanded it for 2020, and then he got caught, if you do not believe he will do it again, let me remind you that the president s personal lawyer spent last week in ukraine to begin up the same so called favors that brought us here today and forced congress to consider the impeachment of a sittingch president. This pattern represents a continuing risk to the country. The evidence shows that he has
violated his oath to the country. Let us review the record here, and then let us move swiftly to defend our country. We promised that we would. I now recognize the Ranking Member the chairman. I have a unanimous consent. The committeeman from georgia is recognized. They have to youre not going to recognize a possible motion before me. A unanimous con acceptability request. The gentleman from georgia is recognized. The gentleman from georgia is recognized. In a violation you are ref e
refusing to schedule that hearing and i insist on my point ofin order. That is not a proper Point Of Order as i told the Ranking Members several times now. It is not to be considered. If the Ranking Member thinks we would be violating the rules of house if we are holding it before a minority day hearing it will be timely a at a day when we consider impeoplement. The times is not well, that got us started again, the chairman not answering a question, it is timely and it is not up to his discretion, h but we have not cared about that from the start to begin with, just schedule the hearing but that is not what they want outth there. So lets start over. There have been famous moments in impeep. What did the president know and when did he know it. From clinton, i did not have sex with thatno woman. This wunl is what is the impeachable offense, why are we here, we dont have a crime, no one understands what the majority is trying to do other than interfere and make sure hent cant whe cant win next year if he is impeached. We dont have the facts to match it, a focus group impeachment says we really are not working with good facts, but we need a good nepr move, thats why wer here today. This is all about, as i said last week a clock and a calen r calendar. It came evidence t to me that t isis true because last wednesda after a long day of hearing here, the next morning before anything else could get started the speaker of the house walked up to the podium and said no write articles of impeachment, i appreciate the two days of hearings, but she already under cut you. Youre writing articles of impeachment. Why couldnt we just save that time today,st and if youre goi to write them go ahead and write them. There is probably a reason for that. The chairman laid out amazing claims, none of which after this hearing today the American People can honestly look at and see there was overwhelming evidence, a proper reason, he abused his power, she also said that to do impeachment you have
to be so compelling and overwhelming and bipartisan, all of which we are not. So why not . Why are we here . I think we can do this. The three things that typically are associated with making your case for a crime, lets do it against what the majority has said. I think they have motive, means, and opportunity. What is their motive . November 2020. It has been said over and over and over again. The chairman said it again this morning. It has been said all along. We have to do this because if we dont impeachment, he will win against next year. A man came up to me in the grocery store, he said keep doing what youre doing, i have never seen an economy this good, people are good, people are being taken care of. November is easy, November 2016 they lost. January 2017, just a few minutes
in the Washington Post said now is the time for impeachment. Tweet after tweet saying now lets they start with impeachment and they spent two years trying to figure out what do we impeachment on . The means became what we see now. The means is to always talk about impeachment welcome say i doing something wrong. It is constantly tear down on a president that is is working on behalf of the American People. The chairman said a president should not be above the law and should be held accountable. I think congress should be held accountable and not do what were doing right now which is run a process that does not fit fairness or decorum. But what was the opportunity . It came last november when they got the majority and they began their impeachment run. They began in the process deflecting the chairman, saying he would be the best person for impeachment. For anyone watching on tv or in this room, for anyone to think this was not a mabaked deal is t being honest with themselves. Presumption should be the standard, not proof, it should cause anyone to question, the entire case is built on a presuvpr presumpti presumption, the imfor instance isokay. You know what is interesting is they made their whole case built on gordon sondland. Hen toefed that he presumed th hearing aid was connected to an investigation. Henn asked the president direct, he said i want nothing, i want zelensky to do what he ran on. They know this is also a problematic experience, look over