Transcripts For CSPAN Articles Of Impeachment House Hearings House Rules Committee Debates... 20240713

You dont think that affects our National Security, if you think ukraine is our ally as i believe you do and i do . I just dont accept the premise of your premises of thoughts. All right. What value for ukraine do you see in the oval office visit that was being sought . Youd have to ask ukraine. Do you recognize that such a visit would send a strong message to russia sort of like lavrov being in the Oval Office Last week and the rest of the world that the United States supported ukraine and was ready to defend it against russian aggression. I think a better statement was when mr. Trump sent russian weapons to shoot down russian assets. That ignored the fact that the aid was withhold and hot war was going. All due respect were going in circles. I do not believe there was anything wrong for the reasons stated. And mr. Trump did more for the ukrainians in the hot war than was previously done. You know, ive heard that before. Im not going to elaborate. But i can assure you if they point as you do and many do to president obama not providing lethal weapons what the minority fails to note during the early stanls of the Trump Administration the lethal weapons were provided to ukraine. And it wasnt until the lead up to the 2020 election and after former the Vice President biden nounsed his candidacy did President Trump exert official duties and place pennsylvania hold on lethal aid. Let me turn to corruption. Ostensibly, this july 25th the transcript reflects according to my friends on the other side, both in judiciary and to the extent that the report from intelligence reflects it, that in this particular matter that corruption was what was being sought to be determined. Let me urge President Trump to look around the world if he wants to talk about corruption. And have him answer for me why he cozies up to russia and all roads lead to russia when we all know how corrupt they are and what they have done in the previous election and what they are doing in the run up to this election. And yes, my county my state had two counties that hackers from russia were successful. And he has the audacity to go out and say now they dont talk about russia in the elections, theyre talking about ukraine. Why is it that the the president as the chairman pointed out, codys up to a dictator like duterte in the philippines . Why is he not looking right here in this hemisphere where we have not paid as much attention as we should dsh and i believe my colleague will address. But i need to raise venezuela. And i arent havent heard much with him reference to lately about venezuela, about el salvador, havent heard other than china dealing with trade anybody in here that doesnt believe china is corrupt, then you should just visit any one of the places where people are in gulags and being held and how intellectuals and religious leaders are being tortured in that country. Not to mention the chairman pointed to it, as what the president said, that he fell in love with kim jong un. And kim jong un is preparing missiles and if successful may one day be able to reach this country. And there is no reason to believe that he wouldnt. Is the president aware of whats going on in italy . Is he aware of whats going on in india . How about iran . I havent heard him say a mumbling word about whats happening in iran . Is he aware of whats going on in lebanon . Is he aware of the corruption thats being identified and how chile is on the bubble . I just cant believe you people. And let me turn now to this and ask you all and i already know the answer can anybody in here, particularly those of us on the rules committee neighbor any other president in the history of the United States that has asked of a Foreign Government or its leaders to investigate an american citizen for political purposes . Can anybody in here identify any president that has done that . Seeing none, ill proceed. The simple fact of the matter is that my colleagues have determined that theyre going to go down the road of distraction and are not going to discuss the facts in this matter let me tell you some of the people that you all should have heard from and some would argue that we should wait until the courts and im sure that the administration would fight all the way to keep secretary pompeo from testifying, john bolton from testifying, mick mulvaney, dan mcgahn don mcgahn the man that the president told to go and fire the fbi director. How about robert blare and michael duffy, the guys from Mick Mulvaneys shop where the aid has been withheld . Let me turn to this document. First off, let me ask both of you whether you know if a full verbatim transcript exists of this july 25th call . Mr. Collins do you know. I know that all the witnesses testified this was a clear and accurate transcript. Mr. Raskin do you know whether a verpt imtranscript exists. Of the all 25 call . That is not a verb imtranscript. But ive never seen ive never seen a verbatim transcript. There is no witness that testified or contradicted the statements in that in any of the testimony. Excuse me. They did not. They said that the transcript was accurate. Well what about all the people that testified before the committee that discussed matters that they thought were wrong that the president did . Well, mr. Hastings, i wish we had all those people testify before my committee, but they didnt. Let me turn to the footnote on this unclassified document thats in the record. It says a member couple of a telephone conversation is not a verbatim transcript of a discussion. The text in this document records the notes and recollections of situation room Duty Officers and nsc policy staff assigned to listen and memorialize the conversation in written form as the conversation takes place. A number of factors can affect the accuracy of the record, including poor telecommunications connections, and variations in accent and or interpretation. The word, quote qb inaudible, unquote, is used to indicate, it says, indicate portions of a conversation that the note taker was unable to hear. Do either of you know why the full transcript is in a classified server that can be accessed only by the highest of of authorities insofar as classification of their ability . Do any of you know why this thing is in a server, the classified server. No, i cannot give you the full explanation of that. Mr. Kohl license. Mr. Morrison testified it was put there in dpfrt order. He testified to that. Administrative error. Thats his words not mine. Who is mr. Morris. The gentleman that testified at committee the from the nsy. Did he put it in the server. He would have testified to of it we would haved loved the witnesses in zbleev would you love to have the server id love the witnesses. We got people running around ukraine. We have people bribing publishing Public Officials thats a ukraineening issue as well but on this there is no credible witness mo said there is anything in the transcript that was not there. I find. None of your witnesses. Your witnesses. I find that the president , goes out issues this unclassified statement. And there is a statement out there somewhere in a classified server that may have gotten there mistakenly, according to mr. Morrison, as you are testifying, but my question ultimately would be, why is it there . Why hasnt it been retrieved . And why have you all not received it . But i digress. Let me go on finish up with this finish up with the unclassified the hearing. Fls a ghiks. Are you implying there was another transcript out there. Im implying there is more than what we have here. Thats in the serber. Which no witness to to testified to. No witness. Of your tnss witnesses testified to. Understood. I was making sure you didnt believe there was another transcript out there. I dont know whats out there. I know something in this serve sfwleer well thats about like with the Intelligence Committee that they havent transferred to judicialary. Id love to see in the serve sfwleer id love to see from the Intelligence Committee from 8660 we are in agreement there. In that regard we are. I would also let me tell you what even the media in dealing with this statement have not gone into certain of its particulars. Here is what was said by mr. Zelensky. And im trun indicating this so we can get oh other business. I would like to thank you for your support. Mr. Mr. Linzee ski to President Trump. In the area of defense. We are ready to continue to cooperate for the next steps, specifically we are almost ready to buy javelins from the United States for defense purposes. President trump replies. Id like you to do us a favor, though. This is from the man talking about buy javelins. He goes immediately to id like for you to do us a favor though. And a lot of emphasis has not been placed on that language. And im not a linguistic person. But the last time i recall somebody asking me to do a favor, though, it was for something that they wanted, and i cant believe that policy is what he was talking about. He goes on to say, because our country has been through a lot, and ukraine knows a lot about it. Id like you to find out what happened with this whole situation with ukraine. They say crowdstrike i guess you have one of your wealth people, the server, they say ukraine has it. There are a lot of things that went on, the whole situation. I think you are surrounding yourself with some of the same people. Id like you id like to have the attorney general, meaning our attorney general and my question is, why would you like the attorney general to call you or your people . And id like you to get to the bottom of it. As saw yesterday that whole nonsense ened with a very poor performance by Robert Mueller, an incompetent performance. But they say a lot of it started with ukraine. And my question is, who said that . The only people that i know that said that are the russians. Yes, mr. Raskin. Thank you very much for raising this important point, mr. Hastings. Dr. Fiona hill, leading russia expert, who figures importantly in this whole matter, has testified before in committee and its completely uncontradicted and unrefuted, that this crowdstrike story about ukraine being the one that attacked our election in 2016 is russian disinformation. The president there was essentially just repeating russian disinformation and propaganda. Either waitingly or unwittingly. It seems he thought he had something there but thats what he was repeating. There is nothing behind it. Its been completely debunked and discredited. Umhum. But what makes me suspicious, mr. Hastings, is that he decided to tie that in with his other plan. Okay. Which is to get president zelensky to come and point the finger at joe biden and say this is the guy we are investigating. You talk about National Security and how National Security was compromised. And obviously america is a country that nations all over the world look to. And we are interested in our the security of our land and our people but also that of our allies and Strategic Partners around the world. And we should have some interest in what happens to ukraine and whether russia is going to get to trample National Security ornd. But here is another way National Security is kbhikted if we say ever after we are going to allow the president of the United States to use the awesome powers of his office to shakedown foreign leaders. Duterte in philippines. And putin in russia or struggling democrats that need our help like the reformers zelensky is ukraine. But the president can shake them down and get them involved on a covert basis in our campaign. The president might think he is slick getting away with that but now there is a Foreign Government with something on us. They have leverage on us at that point. It turns out. Mr. Hastings would you like me. Of course. You are always great at this. I think we are looking at the wrong direction here. Its interesting we can talk about all the other corruption and the dislike of the way in president dealt with them. But we have to remember even in the transcript you just read its a backwards look not a forwards look. A 2016 look at what happened then. And you rightly read the transcript and talking about Robert Mueller coming out of the 2016 election. Did you read it report. I did read every bit as did my committee. And you agree with the finding. I zbree with the finding no exclusion are russia and he disinterested agreed with the members of the jshd straer on the obstruction. And 10 obstructions of the justice by the president. Because he didnt. No obviously you didnt listen the Judiciary Committee when several members outlined power opponents upon the streen here is this and this np but he looked at thn them and said disagree with your conclusion. You have to take the whole transcript. This is the this is what im talking with. The Mueller Report had been done. But fiona hill. Im reclaiming. Fiona hill is interesting because he brought up the feen oi ail era hill i want to say this. Yurkens even fiona hill said the ukraineening bet on the wrong horse after being reminded by ken vogel that the ukrainian officials, the shengo the kbir for the Ukrainian Parliament was providing informing to knell mri oar. All to the steel dossier. Aligning themselves with clinton. Were you there when miss hill testified. Not for miss hills testimony, no. Im happy to transcript the read the transcript just like you. All i can tell you she dropped a time on President Trumps actions in ukraine. But not enough to find articles of impeach. Standing alone perhaps. This is where we can honestly disagree. Is i disagree that abuse of power is a categorical tornado watch kauch and thank you. Youre going to bill fill buster. Thank you. Im reclaiming my time both of yall talk pretty fast i might add in defense of mr. Collins for a minute. Continuing, what President Trump says is its very important that you do it if its possible. Truncating again because there is so much in here. But ill try to start midparagraph with mr. Zelenskys reply. Id like to hope and see him having your trust. Talking about an ambassador he is standing to the United States, and your confidence have and personal relations with so we can cooperate even more so. I will personally tell you that one of my assistants spoke with mr. Giuliani just recently. And we are hoping very much that mr. Giuliani will be able to travel to ukraine, and we will meet once he comes to ukraine. My question there is, meet about what . When giuliani comes to ukraine . And the president just recently said that giuliani is a good man, and a patriot, and he he is doing this for love. Last time i bought an airline ticket, i didnt present something that said love. And the question becomes, who is paying giuliani . I have a theory about it, but i wont go into it. Then he goes on to say i wanted to share assure you once again you have nobody but friends around us. Ill make sure you surround myself with the best and most experienced people. He goes on at some point so we can continue our Strategic Partnership. I also plan to surround myself with great people in addition to that investigation. I guarantee you as the president of ukraine that all the investigations will be done openly and condition diddly. That i can assure you. Then trump says good because i heard you you had a prosecutor who was very good and shut down. Opinion and thats really unfair. A lot of people are talking about that, the way they shut your good prosecutor down and you had some very bad people involved. Mr. Giuliani is a highly respected man. He was the mayor of new york city, a great man. And id like him to cull you. Ill also i will ask him to call you along with the attorney general. Rudy very much knows whats happening. And he is a very capable guy. If you could speak to him, that would be great. The former ambassador from the United States, the woman was bad news. And the people she was dealing with in the ukraine were bad news. So i just wanted to let you know that. The other thing, there is a lot of talk about bidens son, that boyden stopped the prosecution and a lot of people want to find out about that. So whatever you can do with the attorney general would be great. Biden went around bragging that he stopped the prosecution. So if you can look into it, it sounds horrible to me. Now then, zelensky says truncating again, that since we have won the absolute majority in person, my candidate who will be approved by the parliament and start as a new prosecutor in september, he or she will look into the situation, specifically to the company. And my guess is he is talking about burisma in that particular incident, mentioned in this issue, the issue of the investigation of the case is actually the issue of making sure to restore the honesty so we will take care of that and well work on the investigation of the case. On top of that, id kindly ask you if you have any Additional Information you can provide us it would be very helpful for the investigation to make sure we administrative justice in our country with regard to the ambassador to the United States from ukraine. As far as i can recall her name was yovanovitch. She didnt dev having president President Trump say she will go through some things. Im sure youll figure if out. I heard the prosecutor was treated badly. Now everybody in the european union, friends of mine knew that preshengo was a cook and there is nobody in the room. And trump should have known that or had poor staffing during that period of time. Im ending here we are he says good and thank you very much. I appreciate that. Ill tell rudy and attorney general barr to call. And i just cant believe that perry and sondland and Rudy Giuliani and whoever the three amigos were were running around in ukraine in some fashion aside from the diplomatic responsibilities that we have with any country. And yes, mr. Mr. Collins we do have an fbi, people that do investigations in Foreign Countries when there are commissions of crimes. And we dont use people running around. Otherwise they could have used me. I was on the Intel Committee. And people could have asked me. I went to ukraine. I did after the orange revolution the monitoring to them being able to stand up their government. And thanks to the lithens and the polish along with brezinsky they were able to do that. And i went back to the ukraine a second time to monitor their elections. Im no rookie when it comes to this stuff. But when it comes to policy what we have here is a corrupt president that wanted to do something to advance his political circumstances. And as the chairman said, that is so long. What say you, mr. Raskin. Well, first of all, im moved for your statements and also by your work for democracy and for freedom and anticorruption in europe. And i know thats something that has been very important to you. The president essentially empowered and outsourced an tler alternative channel to the regular state and security counsel. And Rudy Giuliani as you say was at the heart of it. We have lots of testimony from witnesses who said whenever the president got some kind of report on ukraine he would say talk to rudy. Talk it to rudy. In other words rudy has the franchised on ukraine. Want we note what rudia wanted to do. Rude no now puts himself front and center in the campaign. On fox news this morning. He put himself front and center in the campaign to smear our ambassador, the u. S. Ambassador to ukraine, fighting corruption. Who was one of the worlds leading anticorruption fighters. And she understood that ukraine had a chance with the election of president zelensky. Instead of bolstering ukraine. Helping them get the aid photo voted for them, approved by the department of defense having cleared all anticorruption criteria we legislated and the department of state which had done that, all the ts are crossed the is dotted, the set together and the president holds it up and this other team is put in action to get the headache down of president zelensky to get the domestic political errened run that he wanted. Its in my judgment a shame, what happened. And my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, i cant believe they wont address the facts as you have outlined and as i have attempted to and the chairman has. All they want to talk about is process. This aint about process. This is the president abusing his power. And you all will pardon me for not using my inside voice. But yall dont either. I yield back, mr. Chairman. Im happy to yield now to the gentleman from georgia mr. Woodall. Thank you, mr. Chairman. I rarelily find myself in disagreement with my goodent friend from florida. More often than not i find myself educated with him. Ive got to disagree with him today because this is all about process today. This is all about process. I dont know how many minds were change when the gentleman from florida read the transcript again. I suspect none. Probably the most single read transcript in American History. Folks know what they think that they know. But to my friend from floridas point, is there is there a verbatim transcript somewhere . I dont know you asked the question of the two witnesses we called to testify, two of the brightest members of congress in my estimation. They dont know. And if i understood my friend from georgia correctly, there were no witnesses who are working on that transcript that you had an opportunity to talk to directly . No we had no witnesses in judiciary. So my friend from florida is rightly outraged by his perception of wrong doing. I hope that he is equally outraged by the inability to get information not just our inability on the rules committee but your inability. If we had an Intelligence Committee member they could have answered mr. Hastings question. And i dont know. Ill ask my friends as mr. Hastings did, is there somebody in this room on this committee that believes that the American People and our support of the constitution that we have all sworn to uphold is threatened by having a member of the committee of jurisdiction be here to share with us . How are the American People advantaged by the absence of our by the inability of our witnesses to answer mr. Hastings questions . How is america advantaged by that . Our friend from the judiciary i hope im misquoting you i wont take any offense with your correcting me. I believe you said you asked the chairman about having a minority witness day. And he dismissed it as dill tory. That was part of the long letter he it was a dilatory tactic, the basically the answer given to mr. Cole. I have the letter sent to mr. Cole. And if we needed a fieper chairman on the democratic side of the aisle we might have other choices on our side but there is no finer chairman on the rules committee and the staff he has to support him. But i dont know if youve seen the letter. Ill share with you what it says mr. Collins. It says that not to worry, in this case, however, it says, chairman nadler has appropriately said that he will work with the mirpt to schedule their hearing. Will the gentleman yield. Be happy to. Maybe he wasnt here when i refrpsed mr. Nadlers response before. But im quoting here he says im willing to work with the minority to schedule such a hearing. My friend my friend from massachusetts misconstrues my statement. I stipulate what you are saying is absolutely true. Interinterject. I was going to ask my friend from georgiaway what good it would to do to hold the minority hearing tu days or three weeks after we voted to goech. What he is did it matter if you say the innocence probability will come around and clear him . Thats not happening here. If chairman nadler said urine april 1st next years looks like a great day for the minority day hearing . What good does it do . None. It goes to the basic fairness. One thing if you will lou me. Please. There is no witness in the end of state statement said there was a another transcript or the number two the transcript we have was not accurate. Thats a fact process. The other thing is here i have talked about process and will continue to but i also acknowledge and a factual defense of the facts wrong here. You may disagree with my interpretation. But i have made a factual the defense. We talk about the four things that didnt change, the pressure but also might have five meetings if you want to draw correlation between the conditioned aid and it did it come in the up five meeting. On the july 25th we have the transcript of the call between the president s. On july a 26th special envoytologier and taylor. The alleged link in aid in investigations never came up. Bolt. Midwest met withes zelensky. Link in aid never came up. Vice president pence met with zelensky. Link and aid never came in. The supposed link in aid never came up. I point out the last two important. After it became Public Knowledge that the aid was being held. Nothing came up, facts matter. And when you dont have the right facts then you have to go to the more amorphous topics thats something i have follow you had faupt back we may disagree. But i have fought back on facts. Mr. Raskin appropriately points out what we are doing is precedent setting. Hopefully its not unprecedented but it is certainly precedent setting. I think he asked us to think of the rate question. And his question was if this were a democrat president would your answers be the same. I care less about republican and democratic president. I know mr. Raskin has a love of the law. My question mr. Raskin, is how are the American People advantaged by mr. Collins having no opportunity to put together a list of fact witnesses of his choosing, have them share their story and then the very able majority on the Judiciary Committee, the democrats crossexamine those witness sns how are the people advantaged by that absence . So the first thing we need to say again is that the president and his team had the power to call whatever witnesses they wanted. Well, if i could reclaim my time for a moment you said that several times. Yeah. The first time you said it you properly caveated it with any of the 17 witnesses that the democrats called on the Intelligence Committee the president could have called any one of those democratic witnesses back to testify again. I dont believe you mean the president has the right to call any witness that wants in front of the Judiciary Committee por petes sake you wouldnt give the Ranking Member the right. He didnt have the right to call irrelevant witnesses ultimately up to the chair to decide whether the person was relevant sfwloornt to be clear there is the ability i have a misunderstanding the president had the ability to call a witness into the judiciary other than the 17 witnesses that the democrats on the Intelligence Committee decided they were going to deposition. He could have submitted names for anybody wanted to. My Ranking Member submitted names and the aents was no, no were not doing that. But your confession of the fair appear free process that advantages the American People is that the president could submit any tame he wants to the chairman just gets to say no. My dear mr. Woodall you understand we are in the. Connecting information to establish an indictment in essence. Charges against the president. These are articles of impeachment. The trial process takes place in the senate. Thats where they conduct a trial. Where their rules will govern and anybody presumably will be able to bring in whatever witnesses they want to bring in. Now we have tried to run a completely open, fair and transparent process here. Reclaiming my time for a moment because you have frequently you did when we established the rules for the impeachment process in this committee, you frequently referred to the grand jury room, the grand jury room is not intended to be a place of fairness. Its intended to be a place of indictment. Mr. Woodall. Would you yield. Happy to yield. My goodness frashs gracious what did you say. The grand jury room is not intended to provide fairness to any defendant defendant. Its intended to indict. As my friend from maryland stated the defense comes next. Understood. But are you saying that prosecutors dont have any other responsibility in the grand jury other than to indict. Of course not. Of course not. I just want to make sure. Of course not. Mr. Woodall, the prosecutor has an obligation to the people that the prosecutor serves in in the same which that we have that same obligation and the words i want to quote him correctly mr. Raskin said theres been plenty of fairness this this process. And my question is how are the American People advantagesed by mr. Calens getting no witnesses before the committee and the white house getting absolutely no witnesses to front of the committee . And the answer is, mr. Woodall, this went intended to be a defense of the president this was. I clearly didnt make myself clear. The president and mr. Collins could have called any of the witnesses who appeared any of the 17 worn sworn witnesses. Any of your. Its not yours or mine these are american citizens. These are dsh. That is National Security councils employees. Redlamg my time. The let me just say we cant speak over one snore the stenographer can barely keep up because we talk so fast. If we are talking over each other, i caution the witnesses and members of the committee ask the question, let the answer and and i am hamstrung, mr. Chairman, by the fact that mr. Raskin isnt the Decision Maker on these issues. And, again, to mr. Collins point about the clock being the master, mr. Nadler, chairman nadler has put in months of work on this, not as much time as chairman schiff put in on this, but put in months of work. And we have neither of the two Committee Chairman who who have done all of the work here forced to answer our questions. And i have no doubt that mr. Raskin is exasperated because he is an answerer and he is a fact provider. And he educates this committee on a regular basis on matters of the law. But it oefds my sense of fairness that my Ranking Member cant have a witness of his choosing im not talking about 100 witnesses, im talking about a witness of his choosing to come and that the process gets described over and over again as the white house had plenty of opportunity as and everybody had an equal chance to question. Nonsense. Nonsense. And to let that record stand perpetuates the myth that this is supposed to have been a fair process. I would argue it could have been a fair process. It simply wasnt mr. Collins just to be clear here. I think the operative word my maryland said was tried process. Ill give a try tp. It just wasnt a road real good one to be fair in this. Again you cant have it both ways. You cant call it a grand jury where the prosecution only calls witnesses. There is no exkulper to. They have to live up to prosecutor integrity. And then on the other side say we want to fair to people can give their side of the defers. They dont call that side of the defers in the grand jury. They dont do that. Here is the issue. Ive never been when in the court or when i was practicing i never want to the prosecutor to say who could i call and the Prosecutor Says you can call all my witnesses. Tlaeft at some point in the mix mr. Raskin inl at least and others even on on the democrat side they would have to acknowledge that the kmarm determining relevance of my witnesses called or a white house is a problematic exercise. Because if they determine relevancy they discount any possibility of exkulper to evidence coming from my witnesses. Theyre saying they are irrelevant and we dont want to hear from them and discounting any possibility they will be exkulper to. Lets make it chlorthp thats why we felt it was an unfair process. Mr. Raskin you said earlier injury rightfully, you said some folks cant concede the call was not perfect. Surely folks could concede that things were mot perfect and mr. Collins did not karngz the call as perfect. My question is candidate you concede. I havent heard anybody say that. Who said that. Collins says he wasnt trying to voeb describe it as perfect but noncriminal. Im misquoting his statement. But my question pie question to you is can you not concede that having the chairman who is who is leading the impeachment inquiry determine relevancy of the lor lack of a better word, defense witnesses is flawed . Yeah, so this was the exact same process that took place in the clinton impeachment. The same process that took place in the nixon impeachment, the minority gets the right to request witnesses and if theyre relevant he they will be accepted. Its hard to know what to do otherwise especially in an environment where people are bringing all kinds of extranz conspiracy theories to true to explain whats going on. Just to quote your you become to you, bus i want to use the best sources i can. Yeah. On this material. When you cited the house rule that required the minority witnesses be heard, you said in your recollection thats not a Condition Precedent to having the hearing and reporting the bill. And you are of course right. Youre talking about the minority hearing provision. Thats right. About the independent hearing for the minority. Yeah. There is absolutely no house rule that requires that we hear from the minority before not just the dye has been cast but the bill reported passed on the floor and sent to the president. That is not a requirement. And you are right we should go back and look at that if we are trying to give the minority a voice. But you have to tell me how the American People are advantaged by hearing from exkulper to witnesses after the house voted. First of all, if there is a name of an exkulper to witness please put it forward. We have done nothing other than trying to get all the president s men to come and testify. Its the president blockading secretary pompeo and secretary perry and the director of the office of management and budget and numerous witnesses. To me its the height of irony you guys make the argument that somehow we dont want the evidence in. We want all the evidence. Thats why we want to hold the president in obstruction of justice because he prevents us from getting auto all the witnesses. Process it wouldnt surprise me if you were right. Let me ask the gentleman from gentleman. Is that right you submitted a list of witnesses you wanted to come to the committee and the president said the witnesses would not be allowed to testify. No the president taujd to me about that. No, thats not right. The interesting thing i found out something new. This is the first time i heard mr. Raskin that if id called one of the 17 id have got them. Thats been strg interesting. He said it a couple of times if id called now they are having to correct. Him. He said it efrl sefrls several times he is in a tough position and doing an admirable job what he is doing. But its interesting that comes out. Because i know he is an integrate ral part of the team. If i called one of the 17 thaeld be accepted. Wouldnt it have been logical for the chairman to call some of the 17 to so we could have the impression we were doing our own interviews of wpss because what happened even in the Intel Committee was is some after you talk to them gave them, then they had to come back appear some reupped testimony which wouldnt we have brought them back saying okay you you have done this a couple of times. We didnt get that in the majority whose job it was to prosecute didnt do that as well. As you recall, we fought that on our side of the aisle when the process was being set up. Thought it was odd the Intelligence Committee was going to be the only one talking to fact finders, tried to require that exculpatory evidence be provided to the judiciary piece of process because my friend from florida raised it. And he raised in the context of mr. Mcconnell and mr. Graham, senator mcconnell and senator graham, and that they should recuse themselves because theyve already picked a dough in this particular fight. I think we so often say things to one another around here that the American People end up listening to that turned out to be flawed and, again, i think everyone on this committee has Great Respect for mr. Raskin. Hes not just a valuable member of the Judiciary Committee, hes an even more valuable member of our of our rules committee, but because i didnt have a chance when i found out i wucast going to have a chance to talk to mr. Nadler, i went and brushed up on raskin policy and i think they misquoted you, to be fair, mr. Raskin, but, you know, salon did an interview with you even before the president was elected and their he headline is, at least one democratic congressman is already preparing to impeach donald trump. The article is donald trump wont be sworn in for another 48 hours and at least one democratic congressman has already seen enough. And you go on to talk about the emoluments clause and your, i think, legitimate questions as a constitutionalist about those issues. That was 48 hours before the president was sworn in. Youre sitting on the grand jury that is impartially considering the evidence. And the emoluments clause that you were quoted as supporting impeach the on behalf of 48 hours before the president was even elected, i cant find anywhere in the articles that we see before us today. It have you changed your mind from then or do you think as politico is reporting that were going to see part 2 of impeachment come down the road, that this was just impeachment number 1 and theres going to be impeachment number 2 and impeachment number 3 . Thank you very much for that question. I would love nothing more than to have a separate hearing on my personal views about the meaning of the foreign emoluments clause and the domestic emoluments clause. Ive written widely about it including in the Washington Post ive written several pieces about it but im here to represent the Judiciary Committee because of the absence of mr. Nadler and wouldnt be fair more me to get into that. Fair enough. Because i wouldnt be representing the views of the entire i think thats perfectly i think thats perfectly fair. The when we voted to table, as mr. Cole referenced in regard to mr. Mcgoverns vote in december of 17, of course, you opposed that motion to table as as well, and at that time, you said it was a vote out of frustration and that what you wanted was a real inquiry, a real inquiry into corruption and criminality in the Trump Administration. Now, this was two years before this phone call ever happened, and so, again, im looking at articles of impeachment here. Ive got members of the Judiciary Committee who were certain of corruption and criminality in the Trump Administration that exists nowhere here, and mr. Woodall. Please. You would concede that there are other episodes of corruption in the Business Career of donald trump and in the political career, no . That are not part all part of this process. And so, i mean, i dont know if look, there are patterns of conduct and behavior that have been noticed. One of them is, teem extremely relevant to this investigation. Thats what took place in 2016. Thats when donald trump essentially invited in russia, the whole world heard him say it, invited russia to come into our election. He welcomed their interference. The special counsel of the department of justice found more than 100 contacts between the Trump Campaign and russian nationals there. And then when it began to happen, the president moved to obstruct the investigation. Thats in the Mueller Report which we talked about today, all of those episodes of corruption. So there is a pattern of evidence, and i dont know, look, when when bill clinton got impeached for what he did, you could certainly find republicans whod been calling for his impeachment for several years for other stuff. There were conspiracy theories about him going on for years. That doesnt necessarily discredit what happened in the impeachment of brkbaill clinton. You got to take it on its own materials. Thats why were trying to get back to the facts of what happened here with the ukraine shakedown. I think youre mistaking my intent. I was not citing comments that you made in the past to put you as a nevertrumper whose sole purpose was to reverse a legitimate american election. That was not my intent. My intent was to mention you as someone whos a thoughtful legal mind who had other legal concerns going back for years and when folks say, rob, what do you mean this process is rushed . Weve done it over just under 90 days, suspect thisnt that long . Well, no, thats faster than any other process. Thats faster we got a response from the Justice Department when we asked for our fast and furious documents. But but what it isnt is a complete process, i think by your own testimony here, that theres more that we could have done that we didnt do, and my question, then, is, because i do think were all about advanta advantaging the American People and the republic and the constitution, are we advantaged, are the American People add vn t advantaged by because, again, politico is reporting the investigations are going to continue, that the investigations do not stop with the house vote tomorrow. We will continue to investigate the potential impeachment of the president long after we have already voted to impeach the president is the story that that is out there today. Are we advantaged as an institution to have impeachment number 1, impeachment number 2, impeachment number, instead of as we did in the bill clinton era put all of the articles into a single document after a longer and more thorough investigation and have this process september to the senate just once . I believe im going to ask my staff to confirm this, i believe the clinton investigation moved much for quickly after the s. T. A. R. Report arrived in congress than we have so far. I think theyre approximately in the same ballpark. Look, your basic question is an excellent one. You ask an excellent question here, and all i can say is that we have a clear and present danger to our democracy right now because of the electoral corruption. This president invited in a foreign power to come and interfere in our election. And he used all of the resources of his office to coerce president zelensky to come in to make these announcements he wanted for a totally political purpose. Its this election. Its going on right now. So weve got to deal with this and we have a very serious and complicated problem to address as a country right now, which is do we want to establish that this can be the norm Going Forward . That any president , whether their last name is trump or obama or woodall or anything else can go to Foreign Governments in the middle of a campaign, lure them in either through coercion or through honey, whatever it might be, and get them to participate right. In our election. Thats a really serious problem. So, look, i agree with you, there are and, you know, you ask a trenchant question, mr. Woodall, there are other things that are not part of this but that is because of the urgency of this situation. I take that i take that point. Mr. Collins . I say it again, clock and calendar. Thats why were doing it. Thats what it is. We say things like its imperative, ongoing, whatever you want to call it, its a clock and calendar issue. Look, we already know when this fails there will probably be others. Thats been reported wildly. Not just in straight out of the words of mr. Schiff, straight out of the words of mr. Green, other colleagues that weve had, and, again, its it was said this way, the current lack of proof is another reason why an abbreviated investigation of this matter is so damaging to the case of impeachment. It doesnt have the footing on it and if youre doing it because you want to get into an election, when obviously the discussion was a previous one, which there was issues that we then i cant help you and time and calendar will take over. Well, were talking today about reversing americas last election. Candidly, i have every bit as much concern about the time that we will reverse the next election. Or the election after that or the election after that. To do this . A partisan way, of course, there are always going to be differences of disagree with my about much more than i agree with him about but that doesnt mean we cant find a process to move forward on together. It is not more divided in this Congress Today than it was in 1998 when folks found a process that they could work on together because as much as we cared about the presidency then, we cared more about the constitution later. And we found a way to move forward and moving forward in a partisan way is going to have repercussions. I know my friend y maryland knows that. He believes its urgent enough that its worth the risk, but it is a measurable and substantial risk, and certainly the 13 of us, 14 with mr. Collins here today, are going to be judged on that front because despite our own personal interests in the facts, we are not a fact committee. We are a process committee. And i dont believe america is going to judge us harshly because of the way the facts come out. I think americas going to judge us harshly because of the process that has come forward. And with that, i yield back. I thank the gentleman. Let me just say i, you know, you know, we keep on hearing a lot about the clock and calendar, but i would remind everyone that we are here because abuse and obstruction. And the president s abuse of power and obstruction of congress. Thats why were here. And, you know, i said it in my opening, ill say this again, i mean, we just have a difference of opinion, my friends try to characterize this as trying to overturn the last election. I look at this, you know, as a crime in progress. And that were trying to prevent the president from rigging the next election. I, again, i have never, ever, ever seen or witnessed a moment like this where a president of either party has publicly invited foreign intervention in our election. He did it when he was running for president. He did it with ukraine. And and i and the administration has purposely decided not to cooperate to drag their feet, hoping that, you know, well get through the next election. I mean, this is i said its wrong, i mean, it is beyond the pale and we just have a difference of opinion on this. I yield to the gentlelady from california, ms. Torres. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Thank you to both of you for being here. I also want to thank my colleagues that have spoken before me today for using your indoor voice and for exercising a decorum. We are on the third floor of the u. S. Capitol. And i think its important for us to be respectful with each other. Today, we regretfully face one of the most solemn duties the constitution vests in congress. I, like all of you here, did not come to congress to impeach a president. As a matter of fact on, january january 20th of 2017, i stood in the freezing rain to watch donald trump be sworn in as the 45th president of the United States. I was there in good faith. I was there because i believe in the peaceful transfer of power. I was there because i believe in the rule of law. And maybe foolishly i also believe in second chances. That we would have elected someone who can stand up and represent all americans. But then in september, approximately three months ago, we learned that President Trump had withheld Critical Military funding to ukraine. A Strategic Partner in a war with russia. And then october 3rd, President Trump announced that china and ukraine should investigate his political rivals on national tv. The president s personal attorney also said that biden should be investigated. Now, President Trump famously said that he could shoot someone dead in the middle of 5th avenue in new york city and he would get away with it. What mindset do you have to be in to say that out loud on national tv and to believe that . Well, anyone who turns a blind eye to behavior like this is providing him that right. Five gop primaries have been canceled. Kansas, alaska, South Carolina, arizona, nevada. Gop, republicans across the nation, are locked in step to defend at any cost the bad actions and illegal actions of this president. The facts are clear. To quote the usa today Editorial Board, trump used your tax dollars to shake down a vulnerable Foreign Government to interfere in a u. S. Election for his personal benefit. Ambassador gordon sondland, President Trumps handpicked ambassador to the european union, testified to President Trumps abuse of power under oath and he said, i know that members of this committee have frequently framed these complicated issues in a form of a simple question. Was there a quid pro quo . As i testified previously with regard to the requested white house call and white house meeting, the answer is yes. We also have the rough transcript of trumps july 25th call released by the president , himself. For all the claims that President Trump was withholding military aid over corruption in ukraine, he never once utters the word, corruption, in the call. He does ask for a favor, though. A favor that has nothing to do with u. S. National interest and everything to do with his own political interests. Trumps actions were clear abuse of president ial power. He candidaonditioned official a office on a political advantage in the next election. Think about that. All of us here, members of congress, have taken ethics training on the house rules. And on federal crimes. I just did the training last week. Weve all sworn the same oath of office to protect and defend our constitution. And imagine, imagine if a city in our districts asked for our help with a grant or an appropriations request. Would any of us reply, i would like you to do us a favor, though . And announce an investigation into my political opponent. Of course not. And why would you not do that . Because no one, no one is above the law. Not even the president. And you know that asking for that type of favor is illegal. The rule of law is what gives our great country its strength. The rule of law is what separates us from thirdworld countries where dictators reign for decades on. The rule of law is what makes us our great country, the envy of the world. The place that other countries look for inspiration. As they grow their own democracies. And it is the rule of law that brings all of us here today. And as the only member of congress from central america, take it from me, that we never want to see a day when the rule of law simply fades away. I never want to see a day where American Families have to send their children to live outside of the country because of public corruption. Look at honduras. Their constitution banned president ial reelections. Their constitution clearly states that if president s try to get rid of the reelection ban that they should be removed from office immediately and despite all of this, president hernandez ran again, anyway, and the Supreme Court in honduras filled with his supporters got rid of term limits and he is now serving his second term in violation of his countrys founding principles. Honduras is now a narco state. And we have thousands of honduran families on our southern border seeking asylum. In guatemala, the people have been waging an uphill battle against corruption for years. Former president odo perez molina took bribes in exchange for lower taxes. Millions of tax dollars line the pockets of highranking officials. Instead of meeting the needs of the people in one of the poorest countries in latin america. Today President Trump said after a meeting with president morales, in guatemala, they handle things much tougher than the u. S. Imagine that. Cceg, the Anticorruption Organization formed to bring justice to guatemala brought hundreds of cases of corruption to light, but once again, they began once they began investigating president Jimmy Morales for Illegal Campaign financing, he promptly shot down the commission. Does this sound familiar to anyone . President morales even forced the former attorney general aldano who worked to fight corruption to seek asylum in the United States because her safety is now at risk. Does this sound familiar to anyone . I bring these examples up to remind my colleagues that the future health of our democracy is not assured. We can slide back to tyranny one corrupt act at a time. And until our dedemocracy is like the fake village in north korea that faces the look ing facade that masks the tyranny within, thats why the articles of impeachment are so important. Mr. Chairman, the constitution did not come from a higher power. It is just a document, a piece of paper, with words written on it. But we, the people, give the constitution its power. We, the people, decide to follow and honor our laws. And today, we, the people, must agree that the laws apply to everyone. Including the president of the United States. That that is the president that we expect of all elected officials. And its the precedent we must reaffirm in these proceedings. 60 years ago Martin Luther king issued a warning during the Civil Rights Era which resonates very much with the choice before us today. Dr. King said, if you fail to act now, history will have to record that the greatest tragedy of this period of social transition was not the strident clamber of the bad people but the appalling silence of the good people. Lets move forward. I want to ask you, do you know how many witnesses were blocked from testifying . I believe there are Nine Administration witnesses turn the mic on. Somebody will correct me if im wrong, but i believe that there were Nine Administration witnesses who were called who did not come forward, and if i might, ms. Torres, im moved by what you had to say. I was not aware that there were gop primaries being canceled. Canceled. It allows us to refocus on the importance of elections and sovereignty of the people. I know some people would say, well, thats just a private affair, let mthem do their own thing, but forgive the law professor in 34e me, theres a line of cases. It says that Party Primaries are actually essential for the Voting Rights of all citizens. And equal protection does apply there, so i but republicans in five states are being denied an opportunity to choose a republican candidate to move forward and represent them. So five. The general point there is that our system is based on the idea of popular selfgovernment so you need to have the channels of effective political participation open so people can participate and people can compete, competition is good in economics, its good in sports, its good in politics, too. We want to have a play of ideas. And a marketplace of ideas. So were able to get the best ideas out there. But the other critical point you made, and thank you for pointing us to the Central American and latin american example because theres been a lot of instability in democracy there where its under attack by despots and kidictators and corrupt forces and were seeing this all over the world now. Whats taking place in america has got to be seen in a global context. There are dictators, despots, tyrants, clep to krats. Putin is one of the leaders. Channeling illegal egypt, duter philippines. Homicidal crown prince of saudi arabia. And on and on. Theyre all besiege democracy. Whos the beacon of hope in terms of democracy . America is. We got to show how its really done. So im going to ask you one last question. Did witness intimidation occur d during your Committee Hearing . To be clear, there were nine senior officials who refused congressional subpoenas. On what grounds . Well, they they they were different statements made by different of them. Some of them said that it was because of an executive branch policy. And so id have to go back and look and see which ones invoked this or that doctrine, perhaps. Im not sure, but weve never seen anything like this in scale and scope and degree in American History. A coverup. We just have not. And the chairman of the Intelligence Committee and the chair of the you dijudiciary coe have praised those people whove come forward and if i could, if youd allow me one thought about this, i think its been said a couple times, your witnesses. I think there were multiple witnesses there who totally recoiled and rebelled against the idea that they were anybodys witness. These are people who devoted their lives to the state department, the National Security council, serving the American People. We have people like ambassador taylor, decorated vietnam war hero. We have the Lieutenant Colonel who was injured in iraq as a purple heartiona hill. Ambassador yovanovitch. Committed her whole career to american democracy as an example. These people are not majority witnesses or minority witnesses or these or ours. The vast majority of them said were not here in any partisan context, were not here with any partisan purpose, were here to tell the truth. They swore an oath to tell the truth. Those people went under oath. They are not throwing tomatoes from the sidelines. They went under oath and told exactly what they saw and what they heard and we have their direct testimony. And rather than commending them for their courage, someone on twitter decided to intimidate and diminish their testimony. You know, i never thought in my lifetime we would get to a point where the president of the United States heckles people for doing their civic duty of going under oath to tell the truth. It mr. Chairman oh. Would my friend yield one moment . I would absolutely yield to you. I was similarly shocked, as mr. Raskin was, when i heard folks were canceling their primaries. So, since South Carolina happens to be my neighbor, i went back and looked and turns out thats something they do, did it for reagan and bush and clinton and obama. The party thats in power and has the white house in name of saving dollars cancels it. I share that with you because i was comforted when i heard that it was a historical practice as opposed to something that had just and i appreciate i thank my friend. I appreciate your feedback on that. Im going to yield back to mr. Chairman. Thank you very much. So i think the committee is going to take a fiveminute break so you can stretch your legs and do whatever else you need to do. Breathe. All right. Is there yeah. This is strict five minutes, if we can. Without objection, the committee stands rules i thank our witnesses for staying with us throughout all of this. I know you have been through a lot already. Staying with us throughout all of this. I know youve been through a lot alread already, but i cant help but be struck by the fact that this does seem to be proceeding rather rapidly. It did, after all, all start with a phone call. No, not with a phone call in july but with a phone call in november when Molly Hemingway overheard incoming chairman nadler talking to constituents on the telephone and said that impeachment of the president was going to be of the highest order so although theres not a transcript of that call, it was well documented in social media and that seems to be one of the things that we can now use as evidence that can be introduced. Mr. Collins, correct me if im wrong, but it does seem like this is an exercise i think this is reflected in your dissenting views you submitted, this seems like impeachment first, build a case second. It does. And theres an inherent problem with that, of course, in that the old saying goes when your only tool is a hammer, the whole world looks like a nail, and youve already alluded to the clock and calendar, and i would also submit that this does seem like we are we are busily trying to find the data that would actually define the crimes that we can then proce prosecute the crime. The difficulty, and, again, this is reflected in your minority views, the difficulties for future president s and, indeed, future congresses, says in these dissenting views if partisan passions are not restrained, the house of representatives will be thrown into an endless cycle of impeachment, foregoing its duty to legislate and usurping the place of the American People in electing their president. And, you know, we have seen a week, or we are seeing a week this week unlike any other that we have seen this year in that today we voted on the appropriations for 1. 4 trillion. We are going to vote tomorrow, i think, on articles of impeachment and then on thursday, were going to vote on approving a significant and important trade authorization that has actually been basically agreed to for the past year but were just now bringing it up this week and i guess it just begs the question, the committees and jurisdictions, certainly your committee has been involved in this. A lot of time in your committee has been taken up with this process. No question the Intelligence Committee has been doing this work. I dont know if they had other work they should have been doing this fall, but theyve been doing this work exclusively. And although im a member of the committee on energy and commerce and certainly, we have our jurisdiction jurisdictional tussles with committee on ways and means, it bothers me that the committee on ways and means has had to give up their hearing room for all of these weeks so that intelligence and then judiciary could hold the hearings on the articles of impeachment in the ways and means hearing room. Does this bother anyone else that all of Congress Attention has been diverted to this at the exclusion of every other process . It bothers me, believe me, ill let the ways and means folks, no offense to them, i let them keep their room. I prefer judiciary and others. Look, im not going to be one i think we had a large number, especially the Judiciary Committee this year. We sprashave passed other bills. Some actually made bipartisanly. Its been a start and stop process. I remember when impeachment was taken away from us, the way we described it, in september, we went like almost a 2, 2 1 2week period, we didnt flow what kno do. We literally had been doing so much investigation, the mueller, everything, there was nothing in the hopper, so to speak, for us to move forward on. The chairman did a good job trying to recover from that. I disagree with some of the bills that we passed but at least we had some other hearings. I thnk over time, without elaborating on this a great deal, i think the Biggest Issue that we have here is at the end of the day i think theres not a theres a large decision being made and that decisions being made on we need to do this, you know, now and i disagree vehemently with the majority on this panel. We need this now. But i do, after taking a step back, look at the because weve had to live within judiciary, in particular, this year. The institutional discussion and damages, i would call it, to our rules and our processes and our things, those are the things that concern me. You know, whether im here or not because the good thing, the logical thing, is most all of us wont be here in a number of years, whatever that year may be, but there will be others. The Intelligence Committee is a committee you used to never hear of i of. It was a committee that did its job in silence in the dark in the basement. When i first got here, mii thout they were combined because every time i saw them, i saw both of them together. And now its become a committee that i dont think it ever, ever intended to be and i dont think it should have had this time. It could have been handled differently. I may disagree with the findings of my judiciary colleagues and even intel colleagues, but this should have never been in intel to start with. I disagree inherently with that. There are other committees that could have handled it properly. I dont think this is where it should be. I feel like i know why it was, but it just shouldnt have been down there. Well, and the optics of having this done absolutely in secret in a secure compartmentalized facility downstairs not just in secret but behind locked doors with armed guards upfront. And especially well none of it was classified. I mean, thats the whole different issue. I mean, if it was all nonclassified, then why, you know, do that . And, again im not going to were late in the day, im tired, everybody else is tired. There are reasons that it was happening, but, you know, they did it for a purpose. They got the intended result, again, it was not classified. What bothered me was, talk about the rules i talk to the house parliamentarians and others, there was no reason we could have not got that information before it was decided to be released. Im a member of congress. I could have went to any of these committees and i did go to two of those committees was turned down to get that information while it was going on. That was just a flagrant violation of house rules and you can dress it up and make it look better and say, well, it was all in a bigger cause, but that leads us down some pretty bad roads as well. And i will tell youve been a member of this committee in the past, so you know the responsibility that rests with this committee. Anything that comes to the floor is going to come through us. We set the rules and the parameters around the debate. So it is an important job that is done up here. It certainly has bothered me that all of this activity was done downstairs in secret. Even as a member of the rules committee, i was not allowed to review the transcripts until very late in the process. There was a lot of material that was collected. I knew that as a member of the rules committee, eventually was going to be asked to render some sort of judgment, but it was virtually impossible to keep up than with the volume of information that when it came out, there was a lot that came out. You were also doing now your open hearings in both in both intelligence and subsequently judiciary. So there was a lot of material with which to keep up. But let me just ask you, were all of the transcripts that were collected down in the Intelligence Committee secure room, were all of those made available to all members of congress . No. We still have one that we know of one that is still out that is still inspector gener general, Intelligence Committees report may i ask, is that classified information . Youd have to ask mr. Schiff. He doesnt seem to want to talk about that on the record. He just keeps it. We dont have it. It also is a violation of 660. Clearly a violation of 660. The white house, we know, has not got all the information sent to them. Thats a clear violation of 660. When you say 660 . The House Resolution the House Resolution that authorized came out of this committee, yes. I also want to say one thing, again, not trying to be controversial here, but made a statement that should really frankly bother every member no matter what committee they serve on. And im not going to take any committee and name them, but you said, im in the rules committee, i couldnt go any member who wears a pin has the power and authority to go look at those, and if we cant trust members to go look at those and do that as their job, then i really question why are we doing this . I mean, because you can say, leaks. Golly, that didnt stop the leaks from coming out of the rooms. We had plenty of leaks, and, but it didnt matter because when you stop members from being members, then inherently, no matter how good your, quote, intention is, or how breathless you think the next elections in peril, the moment you have to take down the liberties and the rights and responsibilities of members to get there, thats a problem. Well, mr. Chairman, i apologize. I should have brought copies of the letters that i sent to the speaker and to the chairman of the Intelligence Committee asking to review those review those documents on a more contemporaneous basis because, again, i knew we were going it get to this day. I knew this day was coming in the rules committee. We were going to be asked to vote on stuff that, again, just the sheer volume of information that we now have to sort through in order to make an informed decision for i guess our constituents but for other members of the entire house of representatives because they are all going to be hanging on what we decide here tonight. I agree. And i just want to ask because im not making this up, and this is for any member of the committee, any member watching right now, this is clause 2e, 2a, of rule 11, this is a rule of the house. Its really interesting because they could have waived a lot of this but they didnt. This is always available to us yet was denied by us on many occasions and, again, it just goes no matter how desperate you are to get to an end result, this is what concerns me this Time Next Year or the next year. When is this going to be brought back up again . So, let me just ask you, mr. Collins, it seems to me, in fact, the words in your minority views are that the charges are vague and inmalleable. I think my fellow texan, mr. Ratcliffe, asked the question i think it was during a judiciary hearing. May have been during an intelligence hearing. What was the crime . Were you aware in talking to the witnesses, ask the witnesses at the witness table what what was the crime that you witnessed . And in general, what answer was he given to that question . That they witness none and i think what the majority is doing is taking full advantage of the political nature of impeachment in nondefining to move forward with this. Which, of course, is one of the inherent difficulties Going Forward if you allow the charge to proceed that is vague and malleable, it certainly can occur again under different circumstances. A lot has been said today about fact witnesses and let me just ask you this. Was there anyone that you interviewed during the Judiciary Committee proceedings that had direct knowledge of the phone call . I chuckle a little bit because, again, we didnt get to interview anybody. We had we had four Law School Professors and two staff members. Thats it. And what was really interesting is what we had two presentations, one of which, by the way, our witness actually testified he presented and then had to testify under oath and then the one who presented for the Judiciary Committee actually then left the presenting table and came and questioned our member under oath. And transferred out with the Intelligence Committee staff member. So, you know, no, like i said, i cant lay this out any better, but i want to make it very clear and ive done this all day, ill fight this on process, ill fight this on fact. We win both. And i think thats whats, you know, coming out the most in this. Im glad you brought up about process because we do get a lot of criticism that were talking a lot of process. This is the rules committee. Thats kind of what we do is the process. You remember, you were on the rules committee. Well, theres a statement from Lieutenant General keith kellogg, National Security adviser to the Vice President , and im going to read just a portion of this. I was on the muchreported july 25th call between President Donald Trump and president zelens zelensky. As an feexceedingly proud membe of President Trumps administration and a combat veteran who retired with the rank of Lieutenant General in the army, i heard nothing wrong or improper on the call. I have had no concerns. So, was this i mean, im assuming this type of information was made available to you while you were while you were conducting your hearing. Is that not correct . Yeah, he didnt testify. He submitted that. He submitted. So, mr. Chairman, i ask unanimous consent to put Lieutenant General keith kelloggs statement into the record. Without objection. Well, again, it just goes you didnt have testimony from an actual fact witness as far as we know, no actual crime was was alooelucidated when mr. Ratcliffe of texas asked his questions of the of the witnesses who were there. So it gets to a point where what are we doing, why are we doing this . And we do need to have a good answer for the American People because they are going to be asking us these questions and they should ask us these questions. And without an identifiable crime, with people who were present when the telephone call was made, who are have significant credentials and say there was nothing wrong, they witnessed nothing improper, what are people to think . Well, i agree with your assessment here and this is one of the arent we brought out the problems that weve been bringing out. But, again, ill also have to say ive done everything i possibly can do on my side. I know my colleagues have as well. Im not going to answer that question. Everybody who votes yes tomorrow is going to have to answer that question. I think thats an excellent point. Anyone who votes yes tomorrow will have to answer those questions. Let me ask you one last thing. It has to do with the transcript about the transcript of the telephone calls but the fact that phone calls were released as part of it. I know it wasnt your report, it was the Intelligence Committees report, that detailed telephone calls. Again, the transcripts of the calls, themselves, were not revealed. Just who made calls to whom. I got to tell you, of all the things that weve encountered in this, thats the one that ive gotten the greatest amount of anxiety back home, people ask me, wait a minute, they intercepted a call from the president s lawyer to the president . I mean, thats pretty serious stuff. They intercepted a call from a member of congress. I realize that were not held in very high regard outside of this room, but still, a member of congress was was listed on that form and not given an opportunity to know about that before their name was listed . That seems to me to be really going too far. Well, look, and i said i testified to this before, subpoenas were issued were valid subpoenas. They got the numbers. Did the metadata. They can match numbers. To say there wasnt a determination as we look at the calls, to have those numbers such as the Ranking Member, such as a member of the media and others, you know, even if you wanted to even if you just grossly in your mind could come to the conclusion it was okay to know that, at what point was it okay to put it into that report and not say anything about it . There was no reason to put that in the report. I mean, its the unindicted coconspirator kind of thing, i heard this already, well, thats even more of a smear on a member of congress. Well, e wiwe didnt really do anything wrong, thats what we do. No. That should never have happened. There was ways to do it. Mr. Goldman had no answer for that. In fact, he was very uncomfortable because he told us he wasnt going to talk about how they did their investigation which is problematic even further because we are the committee, this is our one chance to actually look into how the sort of methodology was that went behind it. And, again, i dont want look, its very important to members of congress and it should be on both sides of the aisle doing that because at the end of the day, it did not make their case better. It did not make their case stronger. It did not make their case any better except for the simple fact all of a sudden when this report came out, there was 15 or 20 or 30 or 40 or 50 or 500 Media Outlets that picked that up. And it just it just inherited this story of it snowballed. It snowballed. Thats i think exactly lly whay wanted because, frankly, if i had the report i had to put out, id want something to take attention away from it and sort of what they did, threw it in there as a gratuitous that meant nothing but it goes to show you rushed and how partisan this has become. So your opinion that should scare everyone. Your opinion that was a diversionary tactic . I think it was a tactic to say look at what else weve done here, also look at the Ranking Member, lets look at the others. All of this involved i think it was simply again, without going into the mind of mr. Schiff who i would actually blame for this, mr. Goldman, we dont know. What was your reason for doing that . What was your reason for putting his name in there . Except to make a point because you all had been publicly feuding for a long time about how this process is going. Why else would you put it in there . Because theres no there was no evidentiary value for it. As a practical matter, let me just share with you, as a rank and file member of congress, humble back venture that i am, we talk about damage to National Security. This was damaging to National Security. The release of the information was damaging to National Security because you and i are going to have to make a determination, and i realize its not quite the same thing, but the reauthorization is 215 of the patriot act is going to come in front of us at some point and how am i supposed tovote for the collection of amorphous metadata to be held in some place until its caqueriedy one of our intelligence i appreciate that. This is definitely two conversations to have on a different level. I agree with your concerns. Ive had similar concerns. My concern more with this is how we treat each other and i think thats this is where this hits for me, how were treating each other. Not the fact we can disagreement vehemently and, you know, weve had great times up here. I can remember mr. Hastings, and i appreciate ms. Torres talking about our inside voicers. Mr. Hastings and i have sometimes not used our inside voices in here. Its because we get passionate about what we do. We dis agragree vehemently. Id never think of taking a report and put his name in it in a derogatory way that had nothing of value to add to my report. I just wouldnt have thought that. And so if thats the level that weve gotten to, no matter what you believe about the facts, no matter what you believe about the president , the phone call, the transcript, the witnesses or anything else, to do the things like that that have these gratuitous kind of political i call it hit job, in the middle of a report that didnt have to be there, that does not benefit you at all, is a problem. One last observation then and i appreciate your comments. We had the as you mentioned, you did have one panel of witnesses. There were four witnesses. One of which you selected. I do wish youd selected someone who had actually voted for the president. That would have made me feel better. However, i thought the i thought the witness you did select did a very good job and certainly, i mean, as you recall, he came and testified here to the rules committee at one point when we were contemplating a legal action against thenpresident obama over some part of the Affordable Care act that we thought had been administered improperly. So i always enjoy listening to mr. Turley testify. His statement that hes concerned about the lowering of impeachment standards to fit a posity of evidence and abundance of anger. I think those are the words that are going to echo down throughout history. That is what this exercise has been all about. Very little facts and a great deal of anger. Anger at the president. Anger at the American People for electing him. And it reverberates over and over and over again, and ive said before in this committee, that is not a good look for us. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Ill yield back. I thank the gentleman. And he had mentioned he had sent several inquiries to our leadership. I think well probably be here for a little while longer, if your staff want to collect them, were more than happy to make them part of the record. I just i would also say that those of us who vote yes on impeachment, obviously, have to answer to our constituents. Those who vote no have to answer to their constituents as well. I fully agree, mr. Chairman. Fully. These are votes of conscience. And, you know, im voting, you know, ive not been a supporter of the president , when he ran for president. Thats no secret. But i assure you that my vote for impeachment is based on my strong belief that what he did rises to the level of an Impeachable Offense. And i genuinely believe, as i said over and over and over again, that we see a crime in progress and im worried about the next election. And thats why there is urgency here. And i appreciate the conversation you just had. Its all fine and relevant about getting in the weeds over the investigation, but we also need to talk about the president s behavior and what he did. I now yield to the gentleman from colorado. Thank you, mr. Chair. And, first, id like to introduce into the record four things. The oath that the senators have to take of impartiality, if they sit at jurors in a trial on impeachment. Without objection. Second, a letter from 700 historians, their statement on the impeachment of President Trump. Without objection. Third is the editorial from usa today dated, i think, december 12th, concerning impeachment of President Trump. Without objection. And fourth is a law review article, a colorado lawyer, scott barker, called an overview of president ial impeachment. Without objection. I have an unusual request. As a former member, i have to ask, usa today, i had the response to the editorial in the same paper. You want to put that in . Can i put that in as well . Without objection. Thank you very much. Id like to put in my mr. Permutt lmutter. Id like to read a statement and ask questions of my two colleagues here. The president should be impeached. His actions were an abugs se of power that jeopardized americas National Security and compromised our elections. No one is above the law and that includes the president. By withholding almost 400 million ukraine desperately needed to defend itself against russia until ukraine did the president s political bidding, the president committed high crimes and misdemeanors for which he should be impeached under article 1, section 2, clause 5, and article 2, section 4, of the constitution of the United States of america. This abuse of power is compounded by the president s refusal to cooperate with Congress Impeachment investigation and stonewalling of witnesses from testifying or turning over documents to congress. Almost 14,000 people have been killed since russia invaded ukraine. Withholding 400 million that congress appropriated to help ukraine defend itself unless ukraine helped the president dig up dirt on his political rival, joe biden, was the last straw for me. Peoples lives and our National Security were placed at risk. This was more than hush money for strippers or profiting from Foreign Governments, staying at resort properties or even obstructing justice as laid out in the Mueller Report. The founders fought and died for freedom and independence from a tyrannical ruler and a Foreign Government. Impeachment and removal from office was the remedy they included in the constitution to act as a check on a president who placed himself above the law, abused his power for his own personal benefit, and invited Foreign Governments to get involved in our Domestic Affairs, especially our elections. A president who flaunts the separation of powers and checks and balances in our constitution and who refuses to allow witnesses to appear before congress would receive our founders universal condemnation. Treating taxpayer money as his own to extort a, quote, favor, from a Foreign Government to aid him in his reelection goes to the very heart of concerns raised by our nations founders when they drafted and advocated for impeachment to act as a check on the awesome powers of the chief executive. For instance, madison said in federalist 47, the accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands may justly be pronounced a very definition of tyranny. He went on to say during the constitutional convention, the executive will have great opportunities of abusing his power. And further that a president , might betray his trust to foreign powers. George washingtons farewell address warned of foreign influence and corruption which leads to the, policy and will, of america being subjected to the policy and will of another. Alex Zach Alexander hamilton wrote in federalist 65 that impeachment, proceeds from the misconduct of public men, from the abuse or violation of a public trust. Following in that, the usa today Editorial Board stated it perfectly when they wrote in their december 12th, 2019, editorial, in his thuggish effort to trade american arms for foreign dirt on former Vice President joe biden and his son, hunter, trump resembles not so much clinton as he does Richard Nixon, another corrupt president who tried to cheat his way to reelection. This isnt Party Politics as usual, they go on to say. It is precisely the misconduct the framers had in mind when they wrote impeachment into the constitution. Impeachment is the rem itedy th founders placed in the constitution to remove a president during his or her term of office. This is especially in the upcoming election. The president invited foreign participation in our election at least three times. First with, russia, if youre listening, second with his demands on ukraine to, do us a favor, and third, with his request for china to get involved in the 2020 election by starting, an investigation into the bidens. Any further delay or simply allowing the election cycle to run its course results in the harm and abuse impeachment was designed to prevent. For the sake of the constitution, Fair Elections free of foreign interference and our National Security, President Trump should be impeached. So, obviously, and to my frie s friends, we have very different opinions about this and we we work up here in the rules committee a lot of hours. We respect one another. But for me, this goes to the heart of the constitution and to my friend, mr. Collins, you and i couldnt disagree more on this. And i would want to compliment my friend, my guess is that as an attorney, and i youve kind of come off with that country attorney kind of approach and a number of us think of ourselves as kind of country attorneys. My first question just is sort of a general proposition to you, sir, and to you, mr. Raskin, do you, as an attorney, understand the terminology, time is of the us sense . You know what that means, mr. Collins . Whats it mean . I need to because as you would say, the clock is ticking. Would you agree with that, mr. Raskin . Yes. The clock is ticking on the 2020 elections. And i think we would all agree that if this impeachment were held in july or august or september, drawn way out, that that that time is of the essence. That that would really affect the 2020 elections. So, i appreciate the gentlemans statement that, oh, this has been rushed and there just hasnt been enough time and all of that sort of stuff, but time is of the essence, and this instance began, at least what started it all, and mr. Hastings introduced this into the record, the memo of july 25th, 2019, which generally transcribes but not completely transcribes the president s conversation or parts, thereof, with president zelensky, and, you know, we were talking about it and you used the word, transcript, and mr. Hastings said memo. I mean, its a memorandum of a telephone conversation and its not a verbatim transcript. It goes down at the bottom, the word, inaudible, is used to indication portions of a conversation that the note tata was unable to hear. So id like to ask you a question, mr. Cocollins, you, t, mr. Raskin. Just in terms of the completeness of this document because i think that this document even with things that are not transcribed is a pretty damning piece of evidence against the president. And i think mr. Mulvaneys comments a month later saying, oh, we do this all the time and get over it, that, too, is damning, but the president says i would like you this is right after mr. Zelensky says were ready to continue to cooperate for the next steps, specifically, were almost ready to buy more javelins from the United States for defense purposes. The president s next words are our president i would like you to do us a favor, though, because our countrys been through a lot and ukraine knows a lot about. It. I would like you to find out what happened with this whole situation with ukraine. They say crowdstrike, dot, dot, dot. Gentleman, in your experience, what does dot, dot, dot, mean . Mr. Raskin, ill start with you. What do ellipses mean . Yes. Somethings left out. Yeah. We can say generally that something to be continued, but we dont know specifically what in every case, but you try to you try to deduce it from the context. And i assume, mr. Collins, you would agree with that. To a point, i have not heard. Okay. I will say was that a yes . Yes. Okay. So then it goes on, i guess you have one of your wealthy people, dot, dot, dot, the server, they say ukraine has it. So, again, just in that one paragraph, right after president zelensky says were ready to buy the javelins for our defense, there are missing pieces to this memorandum. And it doesnt say the word inaudible is used to indication portions of a conversation the note taker was unable to hear, does it . In your readings, gentlemen . No. I guess thats a no. So, this document, and mr. Burgess was going into the classified nature and why was everybody down in the intelligence room downstairs. Just looking at it on its face, it says, and its crossed out now, and you apparently it was an inadvertent error, but can you tell me, mr. Collins, when this memorandum up at the top, theres a crossout, and i think underneath the crossout, it says secret orcon no form. Do either of you know what those mean . The president declassified the my question is what is that . We dont normally transmit the telephone calls between two World Leaders and our president doesnt do that. In order of transparency, he did in this case. That means its declassification. So this theres no no, no, wait a second. Earlier, you said it was an inadvertent error, but now youre saying that, oh, when there are conversations between two foreign leaders, we mark it as secret . No or conversations between tw leaders we mark it as orcon or no form. Were talking about two Different Things. Mr. Collins, initially this document was treated as classified and top secret, was it not . If you let me explain here because we are talking two Different Things. Okay. Then we dont, i wont answer. Mr. Raskin. Can i just try to answer where i think youre going . Heres what i would say about this. Theres no mystery here, right . As you stated, the july 25th contemporaneous memorandum itself is overwhelming damning of the president s designs on president zelensky. You add that up with everything that came before and everything that came after and its all uncontradicted. To me, it looks like its case closed. Lets talk about july 26th, the next day. I think thats a good idea. The day after the july 25 call, the ambassador called ambassador sondland, his ambassador to the eu, but hes part of the three ammiigos, ande called to ask whether president zelensky was going to do the investigation. Ambassador sondland stated he would do it and would do anything he asked him to and he famously said, he loves your ass. According to david holmes, who overheard the conversation or part of the conversation, ambassador sondland and President Trump spoke only about the investigation in their discussion about ukraine. Nothing about the war. Nothing about corruption and so on. And after sondland hung up the phone, he told holmes that President Trump, forgive me now, i hope my children are not watching and he told holmes that President Trump did not give a shit about ukraine. Rather he claimed the president cared only about the big stuff. The big stuff was the stuff that benefited him personally like, quote, the biden investigation that mr. Giuliani was pitching. This is not Agatha Christie mystery. There is no hypothesis of the facts. The president went after exactly what he wanted and we know that our president is very capable of stating what he wants and telling people what his will is. So lets talk about that for a couple of seconds and i know, mr. Chairman, youd like to get moving, but i just have a few more questions. So holmes, mr. Raskin, was the political counselor at the u. S. Embassy in kiev, right . Correct. And his job was, and i think in his words were, gather information about ukraines internal politics, Foreign Relations and Security Policies and report back to washington, represent u. S. Policies to foreign contacts and advise the ambassador on policy development and implementation. I think that comes from his opening remarks. Yes. So going back to the questions i was asking mr. Collins and you about the secret memo of this memo which initially was unclassified two months later. Two months later, hoechlmes, i think, testified contrary to standard procedure, the embassy received no readout of the call and he was unaware of what was discussed until the transcript was released on september 25th, is that your understanding . Say that once more . That he, holmes, was unaware of what was discussed it was no ordinary procedure that he would get to know Something Like that until this thing was released two months later. Correct. And taken out of the top secret server. Thats right. My recollection is he was not on the july call. Even though it was an inadvertent error to put it in the top secret server. So you were you kind of glossed over cruder terms that sondland and was saying in connection with this call between himself and the president , but holmes, as you said, he being hear, could he not, the phone conversation between ambassador sondland and and the President Trump . He could hear it. And i think his testimony was ambassador sondland went on to state president zelensky loves your ass. I then heard President Trump ask so hes going to do the investigation . Ambassador sondland replied that hes going to do it, adding that president zelensky will do anything you ask him to. And then your remarks about whether the president cared about ukraine or not, but it actually is final statement. I noted there was big stuff going on in ukraine like a war with russia and ambassador sondland replied that he meant big stuff that benefits the president like the biden investigation that giuliani was pushing. So a couple of more things that i think have to be discussed and that was mr. Taylor, and you mentioned this. The individuals who testified, and by the way, id say to my friend mr. Collins that you said oh, we didnt get any witnesses. You had mr. Caster. You had your mr. Turley testify and then the Intelligence Committee, if i am correct, had at least three witnesses that the republican raskin and youve been a heck of a defense counselor, and it got pretty muddy and the old saying in law school that i went to, if you dont have a fact do your best to disstrakt. I have the truth. Huh . I have the truth. So the three witnesses that the minority called during the investigations, ambassador volcker, undersecretary hale and mr. Morrison. Three witnesses and mr. Raskin, you said a number of other witnesses were called like mr. Bolton and secretary pompeo, mr. Mulvaney, and the on eye want the record to reflect that plenty of witnesses were called and the president has had the opportunity to call witnesses. He and his staff were invited to participate in the investigation, were they not . Yes, indeed. They those not to. We were disappointed that he chose not to participate just like we were disappointed when he chose to blockade witnesses from coming and refused to turn over subpoena documents. Just a comment that came out of testimony by mr. Thaior because those individuals that did testify were either decorated war heroes, individuals who had been Public Servants working in the intelligence community, the state department, a whole range of things over the course of decades under both republicans and democrats, and mr. Taylor was one of those. What was his background, if you recall . He was a vietnam war hero and had spent his life in first the military service and then the civilian service of the country, and i think he was, if im remembering correctly, he was scandalized about the treatment of ambassador yovanovitch who was the target of an unprecedented Smear Campaign by people working directly with the president including Rudy Giuliani. She was somebody who worked for america and fought for our Foreign Policy priorities in ukrai ukraine. She described herself as being nonpartisan. She has a family background of fleeing persecution from totalitarian regimes and they set her up and described her as tool of george soros and someone on the side of the corrupt and so on until finally the president decided to recall her and bring her back. That is a scandalous chapter in American History that that was allowed to happen to one of our ambassadors, and it was all to clear the way for the shakedown of president zelensky because as mr. Giuliani said today, hes quoted in the paper today, she was in the way of the plan to get from president zelensky what the president wanted. Last thing in ambassador taylors testimony, he was talking about conversations with ambassador sondland and in that conversation, ambassador taylor said, quote, President Trump had told him, sondland, he wants president zelensky to state publicly that ukraine will investigate burisma and allege ukrainian interference in the 2016 u. S. Election. In fact, ambassador sondland said everything was dependent on such an announcement including Security Assistance. He said that President Trump wanted president zelensky in a box, making Public Statements about ordering such an investigation. Earlier and if i had to pick one quote for people to remember from ambassador taylor, its when he said as i said on the phone, i think its crazy to withhold Security Assistance for help with a Political Campaign, and that was in a text message that he was engaged in, and i believe that was with sondland and volcker. I think its crazy to withhold Security Assistance for help with the Political Campaign that was on september 9, 2019. Last question id like to ask you is concerning mr. Giuliani who you just mentioned. And in that taylor deposition, there is a reference to a New York Times report concerning mr. Giulianis role, and its a report from may 19 are , who sa. Giuliani plans to travel to the ukrainian capital in the coming days to meet with the president elect to urge him to pursue inquiries that allies of the white house contend could yield new information about two matters of intense interest to mr. Trump. One is the origin of the special counsels investigation into russias interference in the 2016 election. The other is the involvement of former Vice President joe bidens junior son in the gas Company Owned by a ukrainian oligarch. So this is in may of 2019. The ambassadors were told they should work with mr. Giuliani and their testimony again from the sondland deposition is they were disappointed by the president s direction that we involve mr. Giuliani. Our view is that men and women of the state department, not the president s personal lawyer should take responsibility for all aspects of u. S. Foreign policy towards ukraine. Do you recall that testimony . Yes. Well, mr. Sondland and i dont know who came up with the name referring to the three amigos involving mr. Sondland, mr. Giuliani and mr. Perry and they could work with mr. Giuliani. In working with mr. Giuliani that, quote, all communications flowed through Rudy Giuliani. He determined in his testimony he said this turned out to be a mistake, but i did not understand until much later that mr. Giulianis agenda might have included an effort to prompt ukrainians to investigate Vice President biden or his son or to involve ukrainians directly or indirectly in the president s 2020 reelection campaign. Do you recall that testimony . Whose statement was that . From the sondland deposition at page 16 297. I recall reading that, yes. Well, the articles that the Judiciary Committee has brought talk about an abuse of power, talk about betrayal of National Security, talk about corruption. Are these the kinds of pieces of evidence that support the articles that your committee drafted that you would like the whole house to vote on tomorrow . Yes. It was a vote of 23 to 17 in committee. The majority felt we were brought to the inescapable conclusion that the president of the United States had abused his power in sweeping and systematic ways for personal purposes by bringing a Foreign Government into our elections in order to alter our political destiny as a people, and he proceeded to obstruct justice in order to cover that up. Thats a pattern that we saw again from the 2016 campaign, and the president has demonstrated his unrepentance. He has described his behavior perfect, and absolutely perfect and assures us that article 2 of the constitution gives him the power to do whatever he wants to do so we have a very clear choice as a country right now. Well, and to end with that, in fact, i think the president actually said a couple of days before the conversation with mr. Zelensky that article 2 of the constitution allows him to, quote, do whatever i want as president , closed quote. And i think thats the problem. Thats the core of the issue that we are in a democratic republic, that we are have a framework of laws of checks and balances that limit a president from doing Something Like that or to entangle other governments in our politics and in our Domestic Affairs and that is why we brought these articles of impeachment and thats why im going to vote for them tomorrow. I yield back. Before you yield back because im going to answer this question one way or the other and i would love to answer it with you. Sure. The two issues and its not for foreign sharing and that was whats also listed. So now you are going to have to speak slower. I havent interrupted you before. It was my what i wanted to make sure is my clarification in my answer and out of respect to your question. They were two separate questions. Mr. Morrison said it was put in another server by an administrative mistake. All of the conversations that they have with foreign leaders are marked the way that one is marked unless the president declassifies it, and then you have the secret classification. That brings and i appreciate it. Thank you for clarifying that. In his testimony mr. Holmes also said that it was unusual for him not to get a readout. I think the term was readout of the call. Does do you know whether that was unusual or not or you just have to accept his testimony . That would be his testimony and its not something i can talk about. I wanted to do it with you because i can do it in a minute i just found out. And i thank you for clarifying. No problem, sir. I will yield to the gentlewoman from arizona, miss lesko who does not only have the privilege of serving in this committee or the Judiciary Committee. Im going to dream impeachment, although to me its a nightmare, quite frankly. Mr. Chairman, before i start asking questions and i have several of them, sorry mr. Collins and mr. Raskin, i would like to ask unanimous consent to include my statement on these articles of impeachment into the record. Without objection. And mr. Chairman, i also ask to unanimous consent to include President Trumps letter to Speaker Pelosi into the record. Without objection and i was going to do it at the end, but you beat me to it. I beat you to it. I think its important to have that a part of the record after having just read it. All right. Before i brefore i get into y questions i thought it was very interesting. I had staff look up votes on impeachment and chairman mcgovern, at the beginning, in i believe Opening Statement you said something to the effect that no democrat congressmen or women on the rules committee has voted for the articles of impeachment before. Yes. I think thats what you said, right . I did. Boy, i think thats a little disputable or many a little misleading, im not sure, but i can tell you i have here the final vote result for. It was h resolution 646 and it was dated december 6, 2017. 58 democrats including many on this committee voted to advance an article of impeachment for the high crime or misdemeanor of dissing the nfl anthem protest and calling a member of congress wacky. This was a House Resolution that mr. Pearl mudder introduced and all nine of the democratic members on the rules committee voted to table it which means that if this was a against tabling it. Let me clarify it, against tabling it, which means if it wasnt tabled you would have voted on the floor on the house of representatives to impeach the president. If the gentle lady would yield for a correction. The intent was to vote to advance it to the Judiciary Committee. That is that is, you know, i voted against tabling because i wanted to send it to the Judiciary Committee which i thought that was the appropriate way to deal with it. I stand by what i said. Nobody yet has voted on an article of impeachment and tomorrow, assuming we get the rule, will be the first time that anybody, democrat or republican, would vote, but thank you for clarifying for the record. With all due respect i asked my staff that because you said that in your Opening Statement. I said is that accurate . They said no, that was a referral. This is an article on impeachment on the floor of the house of representatives that if it had not been tabled you would actually have been voting on the floor of the house of representatives for articles of impeachment against the president. The one that was on december 6, 2017 was because you didnt like that President Trump said something negative about the nfl anthem protest and called a member of congress wacky and all nine of you all nine of you here voted against tabling that. Mr. Chairman, with all due respect if i can interrupt. I dont think miss scanlon, miss sh shalala or myself remember the house. Oh, oh, oh. I was on the wrong one. I apologize. Thank you for pointing that out to me. This one was mr. Mcgovern, hastings, raskin and desonlier voted against tabling. Theres another one where its all nine, so i misstepped. What are we talking about, impeachment . Yes. It was House Resolution 646. It was the staff has told me there were articles of impeachment on the floor of the house of representatives and representative mcgovern, hastings, raskin and desolnier voted against tabling meaning that if it wasnt tabled you would have been able to vote on the floor for artic elles of impeachment and then on january 19, 2018, House Resolution 705, and i have this one right here, 66 democrats including many on this committee voted to advance impeachment for the high crime or misdemeanor of President Trumps rhetoric, and on that one, mr. Mcgovern, hastings, and desolnier all voted against tabling, so meaning that if it wasnt tabled there would have been a vote. Then on this one, more recent the gentle lady will yield. If there was a vote you dont know how we would have voted on it . I appreciate it. And i would simply say we could have this conversation and it had nothing to do with the articles of impeachment before us right now, but im happy to thank you, mr. Mcgovern, but a lot of what has been said today hasnt had anything to do with articles of impeachment. This does. It was predetermined that you were going to impeach a president of the United States and youre just searching around for anything and everything to impeach him on. So impeachment number three on july 17, 2019, House Resolution 498, 95 democrats including many chairmen and many members of this committee, in fact, lets see. I have mr. Mcgovern, torres, raskin, scanlon, desolner all voted against tabling voted to advance impeachment for the high crime and misdemeanor of insulting the squad, and so, mr. Collins, my question to you is do you think the fact that so many of my democratic colleagues, 17 out of the judiciary members that are democrat democratic and here a number voted to vote forward articles of impeachment prayer to the july 25, 1919 phone call that the democrats are using as the central case of impeaching the president and do you think that undermines on. I do believe that its true and weve seen this over time. Mr. Collins, do you also think that moving articles of impeachment against the president because he dissed the anthem protest against the rhetoric and insulting the squad kind of lorwered the bar for impeachment. Think a lot of this does. I think this lowers the bar for impeachment and its something that were having to plow through at this point and again, they have the votes and theyll move it forward. Thank you. Mr. Collins, earlier, much earlier, mr. Raskin had said something, he was comparing how the closeddoor hearings that adam schiff did were comparable to what ken starr did in the clinton impeachment, but isnt it true that republicans on the Judiciary Committee asked to have mr. Schiff testify like ken starr did and the democrats refused us . Yes. Thank you. And i also want to to i think you already addressed this, mr. Collins, but another statement mr. Raskin said earlier that there was no evidence that trump tried to root out corruption prayer to joe biden becoming candidate or something to that effect, and i just, from what i heard thats absolutely false, and i wanted to hear what you said. I was told that trump actually had a meeting with a former ukrainian poroshenko concerned about corruption in ukraine prior to giving him aid and also that two of the witnesses, democrat witnesses testified that all along, trump was concerned about corruption in ukraine. Is that accurate . That was the testimony of the witnesses, yes. Thank you. And also another thing that i want to clear up for the record, mr. Ras kin said previously that the same process that were doing now, its the same process that was used in the clinton impeachment, mr. Collins, do you agree with that, because i sure dont. No, i do not. Would you care to expand . I think there are a lot of Different Things and it goes back to the inherent nature of what were doing here today and that is, frankly, the only bipartisan nature of this impeachment is no. Its not bipartisan in the sense of seeing it should go forward. Its bipartisan and no and that is the only bipartisan that you will see. My friends across the aisle say theyre standing for true and thats fine. Thats their argument and my argument is everything that weve talked about so far and thats also why at a certain point in time we continue to go on here, but i think when you look at the actual things that are going on the issues of how witnesses are called and how you deal with an outside counsel and it was said earlier that the starr the Judiciary Committee handled the star faster than this, its not true. It was longer than this, and there were several there were two and a half weeks set up before the first impaneling of scholarly witnesses and we never had that. We barely had two and a half weeks of the entire thing and so when you look at it, theres again, i have argued here today and i feel comfortable in my argument, and ive not been afraid to back away from either and we can generally disagree with this, we wouldnt be here. So i think moving this forward at a late hour and discussing the facts that this is, you know, an issue we have, i will Say Something that needs clarification. Again, i know from my democratic friends it does matter and it needs to be added to the record and its been brought up with mr. Mulvaney several times on his comments on thats the way its done. Get over it. It was referring to general conditions placed on foreign aid to all countries and he did clarify his statement later. If weve gotten to the point, we dont do that because it doesnt fit the narrative we wont do that, and its not misspoke at some point in their life. Its possibly even today. So we just have to look at it from that perspective and move forward . Ive made all of the points and ive seen this done differently and it does concern me that the future has predicated on this as i as like i said, its just a concern that the bar is at a certain point now that it is anything you want it to make. Its always been a concern and the founders are concerned about many things and they were also very concerned about this being an overreach and the branches that impeachment could be used in a partisan way or in a or as the quote was, whoever had the most vote, basically, who was stronger in their majority. Thats very true in the house, and i think thats why it is resting in the house and why i agree with my friend on the constitution. It didnt rest in the house for the reason and for the same reason taxes and resonate here because were closest to the people. This is normal that impeachment is here and i just dont want it to be that you dont even have to jump to clear the bar anymore and thats the concern with impeachment Going Forward now. Thank you. Im going to actually turn to the actual bill, and im on page 2 now under article 1, abuse of power, and i read, the constitution provides that the house of representatives should have the sole power of impeachment and that the President Shall be removed from office on impeachment for the commission of treason, bribery or high crimes and misdemeanors. So mr. Collins, i have a question for you, were any of the democrats fact witnesses able to establish that the President Committee treason, bribery or high crimes and misdemeanors. No. Not in the sense that it was laid out, and again, and ive made this comment earlier and i appreciate the gentle lady for bringing this up. Theyre not depending on a crime and they freely admit, theyre not depending on a crime and theyre depending on the acts and abuse of power. Within the report itself they mention bribery and extortion and these other thingses and they couldnt bring it up to to get the elements to be crass and criminal about it, they couldnt get the elements that they could explain it to the American People. At least in my opinion. There you, mr. Collins. Ill be asking you several questions and further down on page 2. The democrats are claiming which i think is inaccurate and using the powers of his high office the ukraine and the 2020 United States president ial election. Mr. Collins, was there any mention of the 2020 election and the phone call . No. And mr. Collins, has there been any proof or evidence or witness that can prove that mr. Trump was referring to the 2020 election. No, and the only testimony and it was never to that and it was discussing aid and conditions that they tried to put forward. And then in on the bottom of page 2 and to page 3, it says that it alleges, i think a lot of this is Wishful Thinking fairytale going on here by my democratic colleagues. It said it would benefit his reelection and harm reelection prospects of a political opponent and influence the 2020 United States president ial election to his advantage. Again, has there been any proof of that, mr. Collins. It did raise the question from earlier today and its now by running for president youre free to do whatever you want to and not be investigated overseas. Thank you. And then the other thing is repeatedly said in these articles of impeachment is that trump had corrupt purposes or corrupt intent. Has there been any proof from their witnesses, from anyone that trumps intent or purposes were corrupt . Depending on how youre wording that question is no and how they would presume what their intention were in the phone calls and those are presumptions or beliefs by someone else and it goes back to the fact that mr. Sondland himself was presumed and then he talked to the president himself said i dont want anything. I just want him to do the job that he ran for. Exactly, and i have said before in Judiciary Committee and elsewhere that theres no way that you can prove what was on trumps mind or that he had corrupt intent because there were other logical explanations. Yes, indeed, there is because there was proof or there is evidence that President Trump was concerned about corruption in ukraine. He also said in his phone call that he was very concerned that other European Countries werent pitching in to ukraine. He also talked about the video of joe biden saying he got the prosecutor fired saying he would withhold 1 billion from ukraine. So to me those are all logical explanations of why President Trump would want to talk about that and not some nefarious reason. And i think and so mr. Kohl snins. Did you want to add something . No. I apologize. Lets see, this is a good one. This gets under my skin so i guess thats why you guys keep using it. On page 3 at the bottom, my democratic colleagues and Judiciary Committee and here in the impeachment, they keep on saying that it says a discredited theory were talking about ukraine now, a discredited theory promoted by russia alleging that ukraine, rather than russia, interfered in the 2016 election. Mr. Collins, did republicans ore i dont think President Trump ever said that, ever say that russia was never involved or did we just say that its possible that both could have influenced the 2016 i believe russia has been involved in elections for years. It is one of the disturbing parts. It was one one things that we would deal with it legislatively and i would keep it into it indepth. Talk about the ukrainians and ill say that individuals who did side with it and fiona hill was betting on the wrong horse. This goes to the discussion that we had and at this point its become very clear. Weve talked about this over and over and over. These are the facts and we look at it. I think it was interesting that you would say that i hear this a good bit that these are undisputed facts. They are disputed because if we didnt have undisputed facts we would all be agreeing here and thats not true. We dont agree on the basis, and the motivation of the call. We dont believe that thats thats an inherent difference in the two sides and why were here. Would the gentle lady yield for a unanimous consent request . Yes. I have a november 8th political article that ukraine didnt interfere in the 2016 campaign and Trump Officials testified. I appreciate the gentleman putting it in the record and theyve not said ukraine and i said ukrainians and theres a difference and the United States and they are americans and someone is not the American Government and this is the point that ive tried to make during the rest of this during the hearing today. And in fact, i think it was op eds guest columns written by ukrainian officials that were against President Trump if my memory serves me correctly. Not to belabor this, and on page 4 of the artic else les of impeachment, it claims that he conditioned two official acts on public announcements that he had requested. Again, mr. Collins, is there any proof of that . No. Theres not. I went through this over and over. He had a public stance on corruption. Like all of us, we had members and you want to make sure hes making the stance and also, hes going to do it. Say that you can do it and this is again, this is concerned about the corruption issue that we brought up before. And im just saying so im not repeating myself. Over and over again in here, and openly and soliciting ukraine for the political benefit. As you know, chairman mcgovern, i serve on the Judiciary Committee and i went over transcripts. I listen to much live testimony as i could, and i was rejected for actually going into the mr. Skiffs room so that i could cross examine witnesses which was disheartening and unfair and theres no proof theres no proof of this and its Wishful Thinking and its what you want and as mr. Collins said in the nadler report, i mean, it throws out all kinds of stuff and it talks about bribery which isnt even in the articles of impeachment here, so obviously, it didnt have much proof on that, and you just keep throwing out these things. All right. Lets move to article 2, obstruction of congress. Mr. Collins, can you kind of explain what the normal procedure what has been done in the past when the legislative branch wants something of the executive branch, and when my understanding when they first pursue accommodations when they talk with each other to see what they can come up with and then when they run into a roadblock then one of them goes to court and they get a ruling. Is that your understanding . And did the House Democrats pursue any accommodation, and if there was a roadblock did they take the time to go to court or did they just move forward with articles of impeachment . Again, its a whole year process, and whenever they would call the last couple of months and the witness wouldnt come. In a couple of cases the witness actually went to court to determine, you know, should they testify or not given the position and the House Majority withdrew from the suit. So they didnt want to continue that process in court. Historically, and look, if you take the majoritys argument on face value that there is a time issue here and there is an election issue that there is a clear and present danger that theyve said many times then you would want to avoid something that could drag this out further. I get that, and this is not historically the way this is done and its not historically the way investigations and impeachment have been done and those took several years. Nixon, clinton, and there were investigations for a long time into these things as we go along. Remember that we were tied up for the first half of the year in mueller and we got out of muler in july and we went separate into this right after and this is the situation were in. Thank you, mr. Collins, im now going to turn into what i call the nadler report which was kind of dumped on us i dont think it was midnight last night. It was after midnight the night before. 658 pages and i was frantically trying to read through it while i was in different committees, but mr. Collins, at the beginning of this, it says to me that was laughable, and i have to admit. It says from start to finish, efficiency and fairness and the minority is present and able to participate at every stage. Boy, mr. Collins, do you think thats true . I think theyre talking about what they witnessed and not what they did. I think this is the interesting part of this is getting it from our committee and being a rubberstamp for what somebody else did. Granted, im not going to and ive want denied that witnesses didnt testify in the Intelligence Committee and we didnt have our time. Woe had our members actually discussed and those were actually testimonial times and i do think it was interesting, and this is the craziness of this. I think it was but im not sure. Mr. Caster is a staff member being our witness and the only reason mr. Caster was a witness is because mr. Schiff wouldnt testify because mr. Nunes should have been sitting in that seat and he was in the beginning of the hearing and he was behind mr. Caster. So i under i dont agree with it in any way, shape or form, but the discussion that you just read is viewing another committee, not our own because once it got to us as i found out today and im hoping it was a misspeak, and i assume from my friend that it probably was that only 17 members that were called were the ones that we could have called and i assume it was a misspeak and youre interesting when dealing with such magnitude as an impeachment that you allow the chairman of the committee to determine their relevance, when no idea and not even a question could this provide exculpatory that would go further in this process and just say those witnesses are not relevant, and really what i never had to get a letter from chairman nadler about that, because i being see the timing of it. Ive been around this game long enough. You have to notice hearings and the way we were noticing hearings, was therent enough time to notice a new hearing to have to add witness day and you didnt have the time because i you s. T. A. R. T. Noticing hearings and you can look, but theyre not going to get witnesses. It didnt matter because they had the time and this fws into the general concern i have about where did we go in this body, in this house come january 1 because it was long gone from us tomorrow and where are we going to be on january 1 . We all have to work together. We all have to look forward and who sits in these seats after this time and thats a general concern that i la lot of us hav and the majority will get what they want and thats fine, but is that in long term benefit, and also the longterm benefit of this body . I would have to say no. And thank you. Mr. Chairman, im going to close with something that i have said before in Judiciary Committee, and at the risk of repeating it, its an oldie but a goodie, in my opinion. Its actually chairman nadlers own words. And i want to repeat. So during an interview on msnbcs morning joe on november 26, 2018, so not that long ago, chairman nadler outlined a threepronged test that said would allow for a legitimate impeachment proceeding. Now, and i quote, there are really three questions, i think. First, has the president committed Impeachable Offenses . I believe the answer is no, and there has been no proof. Second, do these offenses rise to the gravity thats worth putting the country through the dram of drama of impeachment . Again, i would say no because there has been no evidence of any crime committed or no evidence put forward, they were not able to establish treason, bribery or any high crimes or misdemeanors and three, because you dont want to tear the country apart. You dont want half of the country to say to the other half for the next 30 years we won the election. You stole it from us. You have to be able to think at the beginning of the impeachment process that the evidence is so clear of offenses so grave that once youve laid out all the evidence, a good fraction of the opposition, voters will reluctantly admit to themselves they had to do it, otherwise, you have a partisan impeachment which will tear the country apart. If you meet those three tests then i think you do the impeachment. Well, on all three counts i dont think mr. Nadler has met his task and especially in the last one, even if you contest the other ones this has been a partisan impeachment, not one republican voted to move forward with House Resolution 660 to move forward with the inquiry. Not one republican in Judiciary Committee voted for the articles of impeachment. I suspect not one republican will vote to move this forward in rules tonight, and i suspect that not one republican will vote for these articles of impeachment on the floor of the United States house of representatives and mr. Chairman and members, this is tearing the country apart. And with that, i yield back. . Thank you very much. Im kind of a stickler for details and accuracy in terms of some of the things that have been said here because these hearings are going to be enshrined in, you know, in our in our files and theyll be there forever. I want to go back to something the gentlewoman said about the votes on impeachment. I repeat, nobody nobody, democrat or republican has had an opportunity to vote on articles of impeachment and contrary to what has been said, voting to not table doesnt mean you get an automatic vote on the impeachment. Ill give you an example, on novemb november 2007 the house voted to impeach Vice President cheney and then moved to adopt a motion to refer the resolution to the Judiciary Committee and thats what most of us had in mind. So i cant say everybody, but i can say that it is just inaccurate to say that people would have automatically voted for impeachment or voting out the table would mean an automatic vote on impeachment. I just think its important for the record to be clear and having said that, it has nothing absolutely nothing to do with what were talking about here today and i appreciate the fact that the gentlewoman is not phased by the overwhelming evidence and the president s behavior, but some of us genuinely are, and many of our constituents are, and i think that is what compels us to be here today. And with that, i want to yield to the my name was invoked on. Miss torres . Yes. So in reference to the squad, im not sure why members and the president continue to pick on them the way they do, not that i need to defend any of them because i think they do a great job defending themselves, but i believe that the tweet that caused that resolution from the president of the United States actually states go back to the countries where you came from referring to american citizen members of congress. If thats not despicable racism that will continue to be tolerated by some members of our caucus i dont know what is, and i yield back. I appreciate that. The concern that we have is the bar has been lowered. Miss scanlon . Thank you. Mr. Raskin, i saw you sitting up in your seat over a couple of questions so i just wanted to ask if youd care to comment on the question about whether the conduct alleged in the articles is not just a constitutional crime, but also a statutory crime that could be criminally prosecuted . Yes, of course. There are a whole series of crimes in the middle of the diagram which are both high crimes and misdemeanors and also possibly statutory crimes, but it has never been the understanding of any congress, whether it was the congress, the house of representatives that impeached bill clinton or the house of representatives that brought articles against Richard Nixon or back to Andrew Johnson and you need to prove a statutory defense, and you can understand how nonsensical that is because its impossible to square with the other argument weve heard so long from our colleagues which is that the department of justice may not, under any circumstances, prosecute, try or convict a president while hes in office whatever the merits of that proposition and i do believe they deserve greater scrutiny. Whatever the per id, the president cannot be prosecuted because he can impeach and then when theres an impeachment investigation then it is being said you must first prove that hes committed a crime. It just doesnt make any sense. Its a game of threecard monty. All of it support the president s own claim that he is basically above the law. He says that under the constitution he can do whatever he wants and so i think that all of us should be aware of all time of making arguments that put the president in a different kind of box, a box that is above the constitution and above the people. Thats going to be really dangerous for us. Okay. I also wondered if you could address the fact it struck me that with respect to this call with the president of the ukraine that occurred on july 25th that we didnt hear any rationale and no witness has testified that there was any legitimate and rationale until after the whistleblower blew the whistle on that call and there were no contemporaneous conversations. Could you address that point . Miss scanlon, you are absolutely right. All of these are after the fact concoctions and rationalizations that dont square with any of the evidence that we have on the record and when i say evidence im talking about the evidence that is actual that has actually been submitted to congress through peoples sworn testimony. Im not talking about the kind of stuff that people just put on social media or a tweet. Im talking about real evidence. So what do we know . If the president was concerned about continuing corruption in ukraine, why did he cut anticorruption funding to ukraine in half if he was concerned about fighting corruption in ukraine, why did he recall the u. S. Ambassador to ukraine who was the lead champion of the anticorruption effort there and why did he recall under circumstances where he was under attack by people who were working with the retro grade corrupt forces in ukraine as part of the Smear Campaign. Thats a really serious problem when you think about it. In any event, Congress Passed the aid to go to the reformer president , the anticorruption president and president zelensky. We attached strifrjence anticorruption criteria which was satisfied according to President Trumps own department of defense and the money was on his way and then he held it up because everyone knows why he held it up. He held it up because he wanted these statements and these announcements from president zelensky that had to do with joe biden and trying to overthrow our intelligence communitys understanding that it was russia that interfered in our president ial campaign in 2016, instead replacing ukraine. Well, that again is nonsensical, but none of that appears on the record anywhere. We asked lots of witnesses and they also said, f the president was concerned about burden sharing and the European Countries have given billions of dollars to ukraine, 12 billion to ukraine. How insulting is that for us to go around saying as a way to justify that our president s behavior, oh, they werent doing enough for ukraine . The eu member countries put up 12 billion and im proud of the more than billion dollars that we put in over the last few years, but thats not as much as the eu member countries collectively put in, so wed rather pick a fight with our own democratic allies and say theyre not doing enough each though ambassador ambassador sondland testified when we asked him, did the president ever say to you, go to the eu member countries and tell them they need to increase their funding . No. Never happened. Theres no record of the president doing anything to try to get them to put more money in. Its an after the fact rationalization. Its a pretext and beneath the dignity of this for us to keep spreading this as some kind of plausible rationale for the president s behavior. If you dont think its a big deal for the president of the United States to shake down Foreign Governments and pressure them to get involved in the campaigns, just tell us so and dont make up the fairytale explanations for whats going on. Contrary to these after the fact rationalizations and we have contemporaneous witnesses like ambassador sondland and others that said no, it was clear that what was important to the president was getting this personal political favor . I mean, the president himself said when asked in public what would he have the ukrainians do, he basic lead the same thing. This stuff is pgs in plain sight. We have a very heavy decision to make about what to do with the president who enlisted and recruits Foreign Governments to get involved in our elections. Is that what democracy is going to be like for the rest of the 21st century . Is that what its going to be like for our children and grandchildren and greatgrandchildren . We have to decide that. Dr. Fiona hill said in her testimony, russia cant beat us militarily. Russia cant beat us intellectually and they have interventions in elections around the world. She said she thinks of russia as the Worlds Largest super pac, right . And are we going to be allowing the president of the United States to be working with Vladimir Putins super pac for the tyrants and the despots and the people who are trying to interfere with the growth and the spread of democrat see around the world . I hope not. I wanted to spend a couple of minutes looking at the fundamental question here before us which is should these articles of impeachment move forward and mr. Collins, i understand from the dissenting views from the minority that i think its too vague to charge with abuse of power here and i also understand that you accept that abuse of power can form the basis for an impeachment, correct . Yes. But my understanding is you need more concrete facts and i would like to explore for a minute what concrete facts could get you, if any, could get you over that bar . So if a president were to send our troops to war in exchange for a personal cash payment that would be impeachable, wouldnt it . I think what were going to go down a road here of hypotheticals that frankly, im just not going to play with. There will be things im reclaiming my time. That was a hypothetical that the framers of the constitution looked at sure. That the executive. Can interfere with that. Yes. When the framers were look at what kinds of offenses should be impeachable didnt they look to the example of an executive that was paid off by a foreign country . Absolutely. First of all, all four witnesses, the three called by the majority and professor turley from gw who was the minority witness, all of them said that abuse power is an Impeachable Offense. In other words, we had unanimous agreement among our academic scholars that abuse of power is an Impeachable Offense and nothing vague or nep louse about it and abuse of power meant something with the framers and we have wrestle with the facts, its our job. They all said. That when they canvassed all of the records of constitution convention, in the ratifying conventions, and the federalist papers, and anyone can retrace their steps, because we got a use this episode as a civics lesson for america, when you retrace it you, find that there were three kind of things on their. Mine one was a president that tries to corrupt our elections. Too was a president that makes deals with foreign powers in order to alter the course of our political destiny. In other words taking the choice from we the people, and giving it to foreign despot spies, and people with not without our best interests at heart. And the third thing, was the president elevating his own personal financial and political interests, over the common good, and i really wanna and fullsize that point, because the framers wanted the president of the United States to have complete and undivided loyalty to the American People. And not foreign powers, and not his or her own financial plans. And certainly not elevating his or own electoral ambitions over the rule of law. So that he could be able to corrupt election just to be reelected. Is there anybody who really should be above justice . And especially the person who himself has the moral means of injustice, so we have more to fear from the president , because of his awesome powers, how can we say that he should be beyond the . It thats one of the things that i found very interesting as ive gone through this, listening to the experts. I did want to ask unanimous consent, im not sure which one which letter mr. Perlman introduced. But we do have a letter that has 500 legal scholars that signed on, saying that there is grounds for impeachment in our current facts situation. And over five 700 historians, who have signed a separate letter. But so i wanted to explore a little bit, and im sorry if mr. Collins doesnt want to do this, maybe he can consider another question, im trying to, find do we have any Common Ground here . With respect to what might be impeachable, if the president ordered the government to withhold payment from a Contractor Building that wall in the southern border unless the contractor would not be accused abuse of power . If you want to talk about the issue at hand, ill be happy to but i think were way past what the rules committee determined. I think with all due respect, were just getting into the floor, and ill discuss as i have the cat the facts of this case, which we both disagree greatly, i dont, im not just going to chase what is impeachable event . I wish the majority wouldve done that a long time ago. Reclaiming my time. I think the minorities report says you dont think the abuse of power allegation is concrete, enough so im trying to figure out, what if anything, is concrete . What if the facts showed that the president had ordered our government to hold foreign aid to israel . Unless the Prime Minister of israel paid off for a president . Would not be enough . The gentlelady is very good, but i will continue to say that if the gentlelady continue to report, you are relying out a hypothetical, a theoretical, which is fine, but with all due respect im not going to participate in. It would the gentleman agree that if the home president abused his office or office by, if we could agree that the president have sought this favor for, personal political reasons, rather than these, after the fact, explanations that he sought, would that be impeachable, if we agreed upon the intent . A, grand for the last round, of this if you alleged crimes, if you alleged actual things, instead of saying in amorphous abuse of power, which we listened in our report, none of those specifics, youve propagated your report with all these other things. There are other ways that you can build, it on the gentlelady knows my and ive never not deny. That what im not going to do, and not because i dont finding convincing, or relative to this hearing, of getting rules to put this on the floor tomorrow, is what our reports actually say. You can go back to the it nixon impeachment there were abuse of power. In this, how mr. Raskin can nest success at length in this discussion, i will be back to what i find here is not an abuse of power i said this amazing occasions and, to engage in hypotheticals to make this abuse of power look better and i appreciate the gentlelady. Mr. Raskin, you had . Something nixon was charged in the abuse of power article with conducting a break in others political opponents and campaign headquarters. President trump is being charged with conducting a breakin of american democracy in order to harm his political opponent. The two crimes have the additional factor as you pointed out of dragging a Foreign Government into the equation and extras that the framers cleared but both of these are abuse of power and the house of representatives didnt say oh, youve got to demonstrate that there is burglary in columbia before you take it up as an abuse of power. So, it is true that our abuse of power claim has some overlapping elements of bribery as which was discussed in the report with the Services Fraud against the people perhaps an extortion and many other crimes and all of this can be prosecuted on to the constitution later but thats and control of our constitutional responsibility and high crimes, misdemeanors against people in the meantime. Mr. Collins put im just curious, you have the presence of president nixon who was accused of abuse of power because he ordered the fbi to investigate his political opponents to get dirt on them. Do you think that was impeachable . Again, i will comment on the phone call and ill talk about what mr. Turley said. Lets be clear and convincing and comprehensive. This is not as contested. The majority has not accepted the evidence here. When you look at it from my perspective thats been laid out in my report and goes back to the fact that i will sit here with the facts in dispute and its not an abuse of power. Mr. Collins . Im trying to find out what if anything you will consider impeachable . We havent seen that yet. You wont even conceive what is present from the nixon situation. Here we have a situation and im asking if the facts were to show that the president would have held for need from a different country and done a political favor, not for matters of National Security, would that be impeachable . You dont seem to be able to answer that question. Im just not going to follow your path because you and i both have orders on paper tomorrow and its this case and its not because i dont think youve made this case and thats why im pushing back and will continue to reapply and push back on much going to throw because you have not major case. With all due respect mr. Collins. The house is not the finder of fact. The trial is for the senate and were talking about whether theres enough evidence to pick up the case. I disagree that there is not. One other thing i wanted to push back on what is this idea that somehow this impeachment process is some kind of radical left plot of some sort. I do have to thank our colleagues on the other side for that there soccer mom carpool driving pga running the Apple Festival at the church mom is some kind of radical but i want to make it clear for the record at the only radical view i mean braising is the idea that we the people, should be governed by a constitution that divides of powers between three coequal branches and establishes checks and balances on the president. Despite the rhetoric that somehow this is a completely partisan exercise. My faith in these core constitutional principles is that i believe its still a shared American Value that unites democrats, independents, conservatives, libertarians. I think there is a growing consensus even among republicans who speak off the record or are not dependent on the president and id like to point to a couple of examples and this weekend tom ridge, the former republican of my home state of pennsylvania the first homeland secretary of the United States and a member of congress and vietnam that that he believed the president s conduct was an abuse of power to ask a foreign leader for a political favor. Our former colleague mr. Dent from pennsylvania said he has spoken with republicans who are disgusted and exhausted by the president s behavior. Another former reporter republican colleague of ours said we witnessed an impeachable moment, former rick cup republican congressman said recently, clearly there was some kind of quid pro quo, and when asked if he believe it the testimony, he said i do. Former South Carolina congressman bob wingless which served during the Clinton Clinton impeachment said without a doubt, if barack obama had done the things revealed in the current inquiry, we republicans one of impeached. And while im as it and i, dont want my colleagues to have a stroke, joe scarborough, who is a former republican congressman, said every republican knows he was asking for dirt on joe biden. These are just a few of the folks that came out here. Well you yield just one moment, so i can add one . William webster. The only person that has been the fbi and cia director, said the same. H 95. And with that i would yield back to mr. Raskin. I just wanna say, nothing strikes me as more conservative, than want to conserve the constitution, and the bill of rights,. And the political order that has been quest to us by the framers. And the conservative tradition is a great tradition, in america, like the liberal tradition, at the heart of the liberal is liberty. And liberals have every reason to stand by the the constitution, just like progressives, people to look for progress, they have reasons to rally around the constitution. We are not one party, were not one belief system, where not one race, one ethnicity, but we have one constitution. In our country we got a cling, really closely to our constitution. And i know that we are all going to agree, in the end, but i think that if we are all constitutional patriots, will be a able to see our way through our darkness this dark moment. Okay, all these that you just mentioned the, republicans the great guys. Hes a good guy. Just one difference. They dont wear pants. Currently in this congress, they are not voting on these articles. I would have to assume, in my position that if they did, we can always disagree. But theyre not. And i think that from a constitutional perspective, and i appreciate it, i will say this. Im looking at facts, are looking at facts, we disagree. And i think at the end of the day, its the way its cardi b. I dont mean to prolong that, and from that perspective i hope that, i dont fight lust for the constitution than mr. Raskin here, ill never back out. Im not saying that not fighting this, and then the case of my voters and the american. People to frame this in anything else is just hear the facts, lets deal with the facts and will go from there. I yield back. I have one thing to, a fine statement from mr. Cohen, for those that dont know wearing, a pin means, you got to wear a pin in order to get into the buildings, because theres so many of us. There is 435, some of us are famous here, mr. Collins is famous theyll let him in. But the rest of us we got a where are pins in order to get in. But i do want to push back and left a guess the idea that this conversation is only four people wearing. Pins i think that americans gotta think about this, in a really profound way. The framers of the constitution were trying to decide whether impeachment should be located in the Supreme Court, and treat it as a matter of law, and legal injection, or whether it should be with congress. And the peoples representatives. And they thought it was so important and so fundamental that it had to be with the people. Where they know or politicians, they know where got of the stuff going. On were fighting in our caucus to lower prescription drugs, to a pasty you know versatile criminal background check, my colleagues have an agenda, we have an agenda. We got to deal with all that and think about impeachment. And what else to representatives have to . Do we gotta interact with our constituents. When people say to, me you dont want to talk to the public about it we just wanted i dont think thats. Right i think this is a national dialog, that were engaged in, its about the destiny, that the future of our whole country. Our whole phone form of government. Im glad that you raise this, im glad that we hear from conservatives all the time, on harsh side im sure, on the liberal side thats the way that it should, be we gotta not be bound by what these labels are all about. Our greatest political leaders have understood that were in partisan competition in the election. Thomas jefferson understood he was a brawler he knew he was savvy, when he got elected in the 1800s he said that were all republics republicans, were all federalists. George washington also the world part of the word party comes from the world, party in part. We gotta look for the whole. Barrack obama said, this is not the red states of america, or the blue states, this is the United States of america. So when we get elected we go to think about the good of everyone. And i know that everyone in this room comes in that spirit, and is trying to speak to the whole country, and not just to a narrow base. Thank you mister raskin, i can never match you on the historical references but i do want to close by noting franklins response to a consistent when he said when he and fell low framers came out of Independence Hall and they asked what kind of government what they produce . A republic of you can keep it. inaudible technical problem i yield back. inaudible i will use it wisely, i promise. Thank you mister hastings. I want to thank both mr. Raskin and mr. Collins for injuring a long day and for all the hard work youve put in. Just some observations and some questions if i might. When the american founders gathered for the Second Institution convention more than years ago they lay down more than laws and procedures but father values that would lead this young. Nation George Washington asked whether we should have a government of responsibility on whether our values are secure to us, or should we submit to one that are the results of chance or the moment by some of aspiring demagogue that might not have the interest of his countries rather his views. They found tourists did not take the matter of impeachment lightly. As described in thoughtful but debate over the framers over the power to remove a president and the conditions out warrant such condition. It was to root reserved for only trees treason and bribery. And they added high crimes and misdemeanors, meaning not just serious crimes against an individual, but it borrows from 14th century english laws, those crimes instead committed against the state instead. Or in this case, the very nation the president is sworn to protect. And our founders feared two things that you touched upon this earlier, mr. Raskin. Two things above others, the overreach of executive Branch Powers but why they call the chief magistrate of the president , and the interference of foreign powers that at the time Great Britain and france came to mind, but the interference of foreign powers in our foreign affairs. And both they feared would undermine the foundation of our democracy, they fear those fears of given rise of the very revolution, the american colonies sought independence from the first place. Thats exactly why impeachment exists at all. The last time this impeachment inquiry a bring answers to the American People to those allegations. Since that time more than a month, ago weve heard members of the judicial can commitment, we thank you because, weve heard publicly from many key witnesses that illuminated the alarming pattern of behavior that the president has engaged in. And these are not partisan actors but career diplomats, experienced Intelligence Officers and dedicated Public Servants. One of the protest things for me was to observe those people testifying, and giving as people dedicated to the country, patriots who, spoke out not as partisans but who people that love this country. Lieutenant Lieutenant Colonel vindman described the subversion of americas subversion of a mere of ukrainian. Doctor hill testified the back channels of outside of our usual secure and diplomatic policy, that sought to acquire im a meeting by the president. At the behest of the president cleared on certain terms that this was a clear quid pro quo. These another brave americans gave testimony not as partisan democrats but as experts in the field and that this process has not been on politics but one of duty. We have been committed to a process with only goals of discovering the truth and protecting the american public. Which is why im so troubled that members of the Trump Administration repeatedly refused to testify and to defy transparency. Despite this, we have a clear picture between the president of the United States and the government of ukraine. Regrettably, i am convinced that President Trump has abuse the power of his Public Office and leverage a Foreign Government for benefit and obstructed the congressional oversight. In the end, it comes down as what you mentioned mr. Raskin, to one simple question posed by george mission. Shall any man be above justice and the ads are must unequivocally be no. Its a moment in our nations history and not a richest irresponsibility but a obligation to protect the republic for why we must uphold the duty by taking these articles of impeachment that i hope those on both sides can prosper in the future of our country that it hinges on what we say today and we can advocate our responsibility by choosing to ignore the unlawful actions of the president and have a centuries of progress. Im blessed with three beautiful grandchildren and one on the way. When i talk to them about right and wrong i want to be able to look them in the eye and tell them that ive always done my best to withhold what is good and what is fair. If that means casting a low to hold accountable the president of the highest office in the land. When the president was blatantly and abused his office and jeopardize our National Security and put his own political favor ahead of our National Interest and for the steak of our children, our grandchildren and i urge my colleagues to do the same. With that i would like if i may, to pose a few questions and part of it involves around the unclassified transcript of the phone call. The argument made by the president and this administration on the july 25th call was intended to deal with widespread corruption in the ukraine. That is how i understand the argument, is that correction is that correct mr. Raskin . Whose argument . The president and the white house. There are arguments and the pushback was to combat the general corruption in any way described in the actual transcript. Thats the argument . Its impossible for me to take it seriously and have researched all of this in the context. I think there is some halfhearted effort. Whats interesting, when you read the transcript is that mr. Lieus ankle was the prosecutor and who trump was referring to i prefer to president zelensky who was very good and was shut down and that was really unfair and people were talking about that how they shut down a very good prosecutor and you had some very bad people and this is mr. Yuriy lutsenko that hes referring to. No it is not. Its not entirely clear then. Its not mentioned at all but mr. Lutsenko is viewed to be corrupt himself. Thats part of what had happened with president zelensky who was the removal of lutsenko another prosecutors brought up by the world community. That is correct. There was a history and zelensky was elected as a reformer so yes. In fact. During the call, it seems to me that i want to say that the two president s were talking past one another but on one hand, President Trump to seem to be arguing for retaining the prosecutors who were deemed by the world generally to be corrupt and pro russian. Yet, president zelensky is talking about bringing in new and capable people. Is it now how i read the transcript . Or should i not read it that way . Whos talking . Talking past each other . The president is arguing for the status quo that was deemed to be the way i read it is president zelensky is walking a tightrope as a reformer and is taking on the eve correct forces in society. But is presented essentially with another corrupt scheme. That is what so heartbreaking about this as described to us by doctor fiona hill. And ambassador yovanovitch. This was a moment where they were trying to move forward from all the corruption. I think it was george kent who said, we try to teach the other countries not to engage politically and based prosecutions. Not to have a situation where someone gets into office and decide to prosecute their opponents. We go after someone who is considered a political threat to the president and here we were, the most powerful country in the world who was depending on and we were imposing that scenario on them. I do know that despite suggestions to the contrary, the only real reference here to this argument and as it says the president would like to find out what happened with this whole situation and they say crowdstrike and one of your wealthy people and the server they say ukraine has it. Unfortunately, its unintelligent unintelligible to understand what hes talking about but is there is no point a suggestion that he is known more broadly about corruption. I want to focus if i can a few minutes on the role of Rudy Giuliani in office. Hes well known to new yorkers. My note that ambassador taylor in his testimony said that he had suspicions before taking the job and said in part can anyone hope to succeed giuliani and the biden issue swirling. What was your sense of what he meant by that in his testimony . Ambassador taylor said that he had suspicions before taking the job and can anyone hope to succeed what the giuliani and biden issue sword and can you expand further on that . Can he share that with us . The general concern was that nobody knew in what capacity Rudy Giuliani was operating. I think thats a dilemma and a confusion that exists is very day. Sometimes hes acting in business from soft and sometimes is acting as the president s lawyer. Sometimes hes acting as lawyers for other people and sometimes hes acting on errands from Foreign Government or doing work with Foreign Governments. There is an interesting analyst of corruption today in sara chase whos written a lot about corruption where she lived and you have to understand corruption today crosses different domains. Some of it is the government sector, some of it is the private sector, some of it is the underworld and you have certain players who across all of these boundaries and unify them in different ways. I think that people understood that Rudy Giuliani had the ear the president. He seemed to be authorized by the president to go on this domestic political way to make this happen and he had an entree into the highest levels of the u. S. Government and seemed to be working with a lot of the government officials involved there. Thats why President Trump kept telling people, go talk to rudy. Did you hear in the committee any evidence or uncovered that the white house lacked confidence in the state department and the diplomatic corps or the department of justice to communicate with ukraine. And the need for a broad tech and corruption in general . I missed the beginning of your question. Did you uncover any evidence or testimony that suggests the white house lacked confidence in the state department or the department of justice . Or the Diplomatic Court to communicate that the president s desire to have corruption in general . Theres a premise there which is the president had a general interest in corruption in ukraine. We saw little or no evidence of that at all. Remember, there are hundreds that go to ukraine under the prior corrupt president without a peep being mentioned about it. And there was during zelenskys rise, where the president got interested, but that had nothing to do with zelensky. It was because joe biden was running for president , and he was go looking for a hook, saying go after joe biden. And this was the path of the plan that he decided on, and he says was singleminded about the whole, thing and he brought a whole lot of people together. Im trying to give him every opportunity to make a case, you have to come to the conclusion that he somehow lacked confidence in the normal diplomatic channels, otherwise why when he turned to Rudy Giuliani . To conduct a summit investigation . Thats a great point, attorney general barr released a statement saying that he was never contacted him for any and he never asked him to use any formal diplomatic channels to connect with the Law Enforcement authorities in ukraine, there are real crimes that are being committed by americans around the world, americans involved in conspiracy or different people, we actually have a way of working on this problem between governments. The president , who would have better asks us to the department of justice than anybody never contacted them without getting in touch with ukraine without any corruption that he knew about. He never turned out any, evidence he never suggested he only went directly to the president of ukraine, told him what he wanted him to, do make that in baton ounce mud about joe biden. I do know going back to the transcript which is much talked about, the president mentioned just a few moments ago, the things that he was interested in, her which were net really about bidens and the socalled server. It was actually zelensky that raises the name giuliani first, so something had been communicated well before july 25th, because he says, i will personally tell you that one of my assistance took spoke to mr. Giuliani, and we were hoping very much and mr. Giuliani would be willing to travel to ukraine, once he arrives. There was already a pathways and clearing giuliani who, i dont think would be tapped to talk about corruption generally when you had utterly general barr and secretary pompeo, and thousands of members of both state department and department of justice that would do it, why would they choose giuliani . There is clearly a queue for president zelensky to raise the name of giuliani, its then the president s suggestion that the lot of people are talking about that, the way they shot a very good prosecutor down, you had some very bad people involve, mr. Giuliani is a very respective man hes the mayor of new york, id like him to call you. Ill ask you to call him along with attorney general, rudy knows whats going on, hes a very cup capable guy. An indication that these unusual channels of operating, not the normal diplomatic channels, and again in the conversation, well shes gonna go through some things, speaking of ambassador ivanovich, i will have giuliani give you a call, and i will have attorney general barr give your call will get to the bottom of. It and the president said, good i, appreciate that i will tell rudy, and attorney general barr to call you. And so, on it goes. And its just, in my mind, troubling that mr. Giuliani, would be mentioned in the same breath repeatedly whether the attorney general, and clearly representing the president personally, its hard to tell what role hes playing, hes the president s personal attorney, representative the United States . Doing the president s bidding . Or is he doing something to his own commercial and business interests . Yesterday mr. Giuliani has reported to be said that he was given detailed and formation about how ambassador yovanovitch was impeding of investigations that could benefit mr. Trump. That could benefit the United States, mr. Trump. Giuliani said secretary pompeo that mr. Ivanovich was blocking these visas for ukrainians to come to the United States to present evidence to him giuliani, and federal authorities that he claimed were damaging to Vice President biden and ukrainians that distributed documents that led to the resignation of 2016s Campaign Chairman paul manafort. Is there a any evidence at all that supports mr. Giulianis claims against ambassador yovanovitch, either those reported yesterday or reported earlier in this investigation . We asked that to numerous witnesses whether there was anything to this Conspiracy Theory basically. The answer we got was no, there is basically nothing and they are not aware that there was an organized pay on the Ukrainian Government to get involved in the 2016 campaign. My friend, mr. Collins pointed out that he and others supporters of the president have said that there were ukrainians receptive and the Ukrainian Ambassador of the United States is one of the ones that said things. You cannot put that in the same sentence or paragraphs or book with what russia has been doing to elections around the world. Our department of justice and special counsel found a sweeping and Systematic Campaign to subvert and undermined american election. They have hundreds of employees working around this around the clock and they spent millions of dollars or rebels ion or trying to inject poison, racial and ethnic propaganda to our social media system. Thats one thing mister morally that makes me very sad because we are trying to stand up to the rule on impeachment and the russian i have a lot to do with it and why didnt we have hundreds of neonazis marching in broad daylight in charlottesville . Its because it was a divisive racial propaganda and ethnic and religious propaganda bringing us to american society. Its almost a patriotic duty for us in this very tough time to try to bridge the ethnic and racial sectional differences and regional. All of those things that we cannot allow the enemies of democracy to exacerbate the exam preexisting phone lines in the country and the whole gulf coast within our country. Just taking and extending that further. The deposition from doctor hill. She is quoted as saying, i went back to talk to ambassador bolton and put this to our and as sea counsel and said he will tell eisenberg dom a part of whatever drug deal there cooking up and telling them that you heard that i will talk to John Eisenberg about this. You know what had transpired ambassador sondland indicated with the chief of staff that they will have a white house meeting or a president ial meaning to set up the investigations again. The main thing i was concerned about what i have said to john, is that we need this in front of the ukrainians. I want to go back and extend this to the result of mr. Giulianis campaign and that notion against ambassador yovanovitch. Which is part of the deposition of dr. Hill. Why did the removal of ambassador yovanovitch be a turning point for you as far a conspiracy. Because theres no space for removal. This was a mismatch of conspiracy theories that i told you i believe firmly was baseless and the idea what we would urge and i had had accusation similar to this meeting as well and my entire first year my tenure of National Security council, filled with calls and conspiracy theories that has been announced that ive been getting in this deposition. It goes on to say, the most obvious exhibition will points is dealings with individuals who want to prove these positions inside of ukraine itself. Also to deflect not just the Mueller Report from russian interference but been confirmed by her own senate report. I would i know itself to be true as a former Intelligence Analyst and as been in russia for more than 30 years. The fact that ambassador yovanovitch was released after this was pretty to staring and who you understand what was responsible for a removal. We have the campaign that moot Rudy Giuliani set this in motion and writing articles and publications that expected a better of. She then asked, he discussed ambassador yovanovitch with ambassador bolton . I did. What was his reaction . His reaction was pain and he said he directly said, Rudy Giuliani is a hand grenade thats going to blow and made it clear that he didnt feel there was anything that he could personally do about this. Ambassador bolton, i also know that on july 2nd in toronto canada, ambassador bolton and made a president zelensky a quid pro quo describing ambassador sondland the reference to the giuliani fact and the need for the announcement of the two political investigations and i note parent that ugly ambassador sondland later testified to mr. Giuliani and was expressing desires of the president of United States of america would remove these investigations or more to the president i wasnt something that the investigations were done but it was the investigation so that would aid the president s election campaign. And mr. Marley thats right that might be the ultimate and most definitely refutation of that the president was interested in ferreting out corruption. He just wanted the announcement for electoral purposes. And thats the testimony of his ambassador, ambassador volker had a breakfast with his associate less less parnas, here in washington, the same mr. Parnas, note that has currently under indictment for Campaign Finance violations violation, the ambassador stressed his belief that the attacks being a dated against the president was against the man of integrity. He counsel mr. Giuliani that the ukrainian president was to preserve his self in pin power in, courting to ambassador volker mr. Giuliani agreed with pro psychos false accusation for the benefit of President Trump, did not seize. This does your testimony anyway to contradict or testimony . I dont believe so. . Also testimony on august 2nd, mr. Yermak that met with mr. Giuliani in. Madrid if they agreed that ukraine would issue a Public Statement, its the Public Statement part of this, because that undermines the biden candidacy, it does nothing to address corruption, because the president as it, was testified by ambassador sondland, mr. Trump didnt seem to care at all whether the investigation was actually conducted, simply that it was announced. And volker announced to giuliani to report to the boss the results of the meeting with mr. Yermak so that they white house meeting can be arranged, which was sought after. Ill stop there in relates to mr. Giuliani, which to me inaudible technical problem without any portfolio for the United States simply acting as an advocate on behalf of the president. Clearly as late as today, without talking the investigation into biden for the president. There is an old problem solving called all comes razor im sure youre familiar with, that says one presented with competing hypothesis, one should select the simple of a solution. I believe that those who support the president s view, youd have to assume that despite the transcript of july 25th, specifically mentioned the Vice President outright, and clocked crowdstrike and the server. We should assume that the president assad is referring in any way at all. We must assume secretary pompeo, attorney general barr would incompetent to pursue the need was to reach out to mr. Giuliani, although there is no evidence of his failure and confidence in them. We must assume mr. Giuliani was in a special position to pursue ukrainian corruption generally, although there is no evidence or rationale for that. All we must assume that ambassador salman sondland and mulvaney were involved they confirmed a quid pro quo. We must assume vindman, volker and sondland, as well as mr. Homes and doctor hill, were all arraigned against the president s despite, a not a modicum of evidence. We must assume that don mcgahn and john bolton and others somehow all of the key to the president s of it in a sense, if only they testify. But of course, they refused to testify. I choose to follow the evidence which is laid out in the reports of the house Intelligence Committee and the house Judiciary Committee and i can see, an urge support of the rule. Thank you mister chairman. inaudible mr. Raskin, at the heart of the accusations against Vice President biden, which is at the heart of what were talking about, President Trump spears against the Vice President are, debunked accusations made by a corrupt ukrainian prosecutor victor shokin. We heard me right President Trump and his supporters are so desperate to undermine Vice President biden, that they actually colluded with ukrainian fraudster. Deputy assistant secretary george kit testified that there was quote, broad based consensus and, quote among the United States, our european allies, and International Financial institutions, that mr. Shokin was and, i quote a typical ukrainian prosecutor, who lived a lifestyle foreign excessive the if his government salaried, to never prosecuted anyone known for committing a crime, who covered up crimes that were known and kept income committed. Thats a nice way to say that everyone in the world agree that the sick rainy and prosecutor was a broad guy and corrupt. And so, mister raskin, would it be accurate to say that the allegations of Vice President biden in appropriately pressured ukraine to remove mr. Shulkin are completely without merit . Totally without merit, Vice President biden was acting to articulate and implement u. S. Foreign policy, in that moment, and that policy was to get rid of a pro corrupt prosecutor. Okay, so let me repeat it, was part of the official policy of the United States, and the rest of the world, to fight corruption in ukraine correct . Yes it was. Did Vice President biden, ask ukraine to help him cheat in an election, like President Trump . No he did not. Okay, you know, we can all see kate all we want but it will not change a simple fact there was nothing appropriate about President Trumps personal lawyer continued to ride around key of with a corrupt former ukrainian prosecutors in search of dirt for joe biden. I believe the American People know that joe biden is an honorable man and, they know its wrong to seek foreign help to cheat an election. And the president s ongoing prides pressure on ukraine, to investigate a former Vice President , is powerful evidence to why we have no choice but to move forward with these articles of impeachment. Mister chairman, there is nothing more distressing to me than the fact that no one of our republican colleagues are willing to confront the president over his misconduct. And i have credibility on this. I confronted president clinton, on his misconduct. Ive come to impeach him with deep sadness. The facts of this case are painful. And indisputable. We know that the president abused his office, asking the leader of the ukraine to announce an investigation of his political rival. We know that he illegally holdup congressional appropriated aid to the ukraine, and we know that he conditioned the release of vital military aid, on ukrainian president zelenskys opening an investigation, based on a debunked conspiracy therapy of his political rival and foreign interference in the 2016 election. We also known that the president has blocked congressional attempts to his misconduct by ordering executive Branch Officials to defy subpoenas and withhold information. These facts are uncontested, and firm and public by career Public Servants. Who have dedicated their lives to serving our country. Further, they are uncontested by the president , and confirmed by his chief of staff. We have now reached the point, where despite the unprecedented obstruction from the president , the evidence of this case is powerful enough, to lay this vote any further would be irresponsible. Any delay would risk interference in the 2020 elections, and the permanent arose shuns of our checks and balances. This is not a matter of politics. I have never and, will never support the impeachment of a president over a policy disagreement. Or a different ideology. This is a matter of protecting the integrity of our democracy, for the rest of our generation. As we labour, to pass song to future generations maybe are hallmarks of our society, our financial might, are brilliant scientific enterprises, the gifts of our natural resources, the strength of our military and diplomatic corps as a force for good, we much also act with active stewardship and pass on a bright and functional democracy. If we dont do our duty to protect the constitution, the republic that we hand to our children will be less vibrant, less resourceful inaudible that were fortunate to inherit. The founders of the constitution knew that democracy is fragile. They knew that its survival depends on the strength and courage that we display, and maintaining it. But this fragility is also a strength. It requires our Public Servants to put out nations ahead of our own, to root out corruption, and to hold each other accountable, the high standards of democracy. That democracy timmins. Thats why we take an oath to defend the constitution. If protecting the constitution were trivial, we wouldnt have to take an oath. For over 200 years honesty and vigilance a courage have won out as generations of americans have a dear to their oath of office and met the standards of service that our democracy necessitate incessant eight. Many died protecting our democracy, we cannot let this legacy be demeaned. On our watch. President trump has not treated his oath of office with the seriousness it requires. But ultimately, this is not only a vote about one person, this is a vote about his and our oath of office. This is a vote to determine whether we will maintain our democracy, or said our nation on a path to upend the values and standards the framers laid out for us. I yield back. inaudible laughs if its any consolation, ive been in the number nine number four inaudible laughs thank you mister chairman. Which may be a reflection of what were doing here. I do want to say, on coming in here seven eight hours ago, and ive heard a few of my colleagues say this, its hard not to be as a member of this institution that has great reverence for this institution and for mr. Collins said mr. Call that he believes hes an institutionalist. Not to be side, i think were all. Side and depressed, from our perspectives. This is not the institution at is optimum. And all say for the accusations about never trumpers, i will admit to be an almost never trumper, after he was elected, i agreed with president obama, and secretary clinton, that we should give him a chance. I remember teasing some of my staff, well maybe hes just arthur took over from our garfield, given his reputation in new york, no offense, that he would not be capable. And he started out to start the Civil Servants which we have benefited from, hes a very courageous public service. In respect of your position, i cant help but admire, these folks. When having as a oversights hours of these depositions of mr. Raskin, ambassador taylor, kernel vilma and, its just remarkable, on getting a sense of that, and reading the 300 pages and reading to the judiciary hearings, im just my concern is, now that ive heard members of both parties say patterned there, is a pattern here, ill be honest im concerned about the pattern. The president s pattern. One of the reasons why i wasnt early a sign or to steve cohens article of impeachment chairman im not offended, okay. But having signed on the cohen said never came to the floor, is the chairman said, i approach those supporting those, as referring to the Judiciary Committee to have a hearing. Because my own intuitive belief, is that this particular president , whether republican or democrat, in my perception, rules dont have the same effect on him as the majority of people. And i think rules are important. I think unfortunately as part of our Business Culture right now, stretching the rules and breaking the rules, and giving away from them is part of whats wrong with this country. So, mr. Raskin, and mr. Collins, i have really one question, and this pattern of things were all gonna label the consequences of her. Votes i hear my colleagues feel strongly that they were voted against these most likely, be apparently mr. Mccaul believes that there will be a trial, that the president will be acquitted, so what im afraid of is that the power of the president will be empowered to break more rules. I dont think hes capable of. And i hope thats not true. So what happens after . This and i want to read a quote from James Madison in 51. When he talked about the balance of, and im an amateur i, hope to say this in front of a professional like mr. Raskin, but i want him to reply to. This i dont take is this as a hypothetical. Our actions are the actions of the senate are part part of a pattern. Which will be corrected after this is all, done or if im right, the present will go ahead and push the rules again in their mind folded he made this phone call today after the Mueller Report. And this is in the context of foreign interference. That, the british, the french, germans twice in world war i in world war ii, were very aggressive in affecting our democracy. The founders were prospective and deceptive that democracy in those days was an unusual thing. That medicine said you had to bind the institutions. These three institutions, the judiciary, the presidency, and the congress buying them so there is a check and balance. But put this in the context of what we know about the Mueller Report, and when mr. Raskin stopped about, and the technology that mr. Putin and his agents have perfected, we as americans tend to think of american exceptionalism, maybe sometimes that the russians are very sophisticated, they are very very sophisticated, at propaganda, that is mr. Raskin said, their ultimate goal is to disrupt democracy and basically have us destroy yourselves. Mr. Putin below believes that the worst thing to happen to russia was the implosion of the soviet union. He sees the mess of men and women as incapable of governing the selves. Which to a, sitting here, we all believe that if it is the opposite of what we live for. Of what people have sacrificed your life. For so mr. Putin wants us to be fighting each other, and has views social media, someone from the bay area who deals with these companies, and is frustrated with them to govern themselves, they have used it in the way, as the Mueller Report says, to report this president , according to the report. And i thought that was damning enough to go ahead with impeachment, but we didnt. And the obstruction was clear to me but we didnt, so in the context of that, reported sitting here a few months before our democratic primary, which will be super primary. In march, and less than a year away from elections, knowing that they are going to do these, things in the context of what we are doing to do is not a hypothetical. Is a continual effort by foreign actors who do not believe in this institution or in democracy, or average people governing themselves. What do we anticipate the consequences after we vote . Tomorrow . And after the senate takes what i think is a mistake and their action . So let me just read what medicine said. All the founders are amazing writers because people wrote and read well then. He said in 51, the interest of the men, must be connected, with the Constitutional Rights of the place. It may be a reflection on human nature, that such devices should be necessary. To control the abuses of government. But what is government itself, but the greatest of all reflections on human nature . If men were angels no government would be necessary. If angels were govern, neither external or internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing in government, which is to be administered by men overmine, the great difficulty lies in this. You must first enable the government to control the government. And in the next place, oblige it to control itself. So our failure to control herself, as a congress, for the difficulties of the time, make me think that the consequences of our decision, and the inability to hold this president accountable, and constrain him properly under the constitution, its not a hypothetical. Its something were going to have to deal with. In the days to come and before the next election. While foreign actors, and domestic actors try to disrupt our democracy. So mr. Raskin, what we do after this decision . How do we constrain the administration and properly balance that with the needs of this institution . You asked at 6 50 pm . Ill try my hardest to answer this. 30 seconds left mr. Collins if you want to jump in . Ill give it my best shot. First what are the consequences in terms of the 2020 election . Thats something that let me say this. I dont want to assume the inevitability of your premise, that were not actually going to deal with this problem. The house of representatives has been immersed in them. We know a lot more about the facts, we know a lot about the details, and now its going over the senate. And now i want to believe that 100 senators are going to adhere to their constitutional oath, reflect on what that means, and be open minded, Critical Thinking jurors in the process. But what will happen if we dont deal with it . If we all just go home and say, hey authoritarianism is on the rise, democracies on the run, theres only so much we can do at this point. And we dont deal with. It well, i think that president zelenskys got to be watching, ukraines got to be watching, from their perspective, there in the middle of this. All of us are sort of acting like well, President Trump got caught so of course theyre not gonna go through with it, but if we let him go why wouldnt they go through with them . Why wont he have to make this announcement about the bidens and then for his own domestic political consumption go through with an investigation . We just sent a new precedent there. A new standard, that the president can go and try to recruit Foreign Governments to get in our campaign by threatening, announcing, and engaging in criminal investigations of their political opponents. Thats been a record republics of stuff. Thats tin pot dictatorship stuff, thats terrifies me. Heres another part pattern. That we have to deal. With Robert Mueller came to testify, and as the president mentioned on the july 25th phone call, basically he had gotten away with everything. Right . Mueller found a sweeping Systematic Campaign by russia, more than 100 campaigns, but attorney general barr had taken the report for three and a half weeks, and he had fed america there is nothing in there, nothing to be seen here, prompting not one but two letters of approach from counsel mueller and of andrew and yet it was too late for democracy to catch up and have a serious regulars analysis of what was in the report. And in the very next day, President Trump has a phone call with president zelensky, and says, go to it but to us a favor though. Kind of putting the icing on the cake of this effort, to drag them into our domestic politics. Thats the pattern, because if it can be done to want struggling democracy, it can be done to another struggling democracy, and if we allow one tie ran across authoritarian desperate like Vladimir Putin to come on in while waters warm, why not others . Why not turkey . Why not the president s friends in saudi arabia . He already whitewashed the assassination melted butter of dismemberment of a journalist, what big deal would it be to say come on in and get involved in our election campaign, so thats a serious problem. What about, you say checks and balances . Its interesting, because the frames checks and balances appears on the federalist papers not, to reach for to the three branches, but you refer to the house and the senate. Those are the checks and balances you should be thinking about. Right now. Because the peoples body, will speak this week. And if it goes the way it goes the way i hope it go, we will impeach this president. For bush use of power, we will impeach this president for obstruction of congress, we are placing our congress obligates us to in the senate to do their job. But we also place or faith in the people, to make the senate through their job, because we are politicians, we know that if we dont respond exclusively an entirely to the will of the constituents, but we do a lot, thats an important ingredient, in representative democracy. But look, in congress itself, we cannot be afraid of our own power. One thing i disagree with, i heard one of mom the majority colleagues say, we have three coequal branches. Ive been trying to correct this from the very beginning. Our framers the founders of america, overthrew a king. And the, first sentence of the constitution states that we the people in order to form a Perfect Union provide for the common defense promote the general welfare, and preserves to ourselves in our posterity the form of liberty. The very next sentence, starts article one, all legislative power is vested in the congress of the United States. The senate and, the house of representative. See what just happened there . The sovereign political power of the people of america, flow from the active constitution making into the congress of the United States. And then you get 37 paragraphs laying out all the powers of congress, the power of appropriation and spending, the power to regulate congress, the power to declare war the, power to the seat of government, the power of recovering. On a non. In clause 18 to have all the other powers necessary to the enforcement and execution of the foregoing. Powers and then an article to you, get to the president , remembered articles of confederation and we dont even have a president. So we wanted to create something that would show executive energy to execute our laws, that was the law the job. To faithfully execute, to be the commanderinchief of the army neighbor navy in times of insurrection. Thats the core of what the jar job is. And in section four article two is all about impeachment. In order to make sure a president doesnt become a king. Think about this. Why do we have the power to impeach the president and he doesnt have the power to impeach us . And it was a great republican president , gerald ford who answered it. Here, the people rule. Here are, the people and, their representatives rule. So if the president wants to be impeached, he doesnt go to jail for one day because of. That thats criminal prosecution it has nothing to do with. Us but what were doing, is protecting the country, and the constitution. Mr. Collins, you have 30 seconds. laughs i think my friend just summed up the entire thing for me. He did. We went on a whirlwind trip hes a wonderful teacher, i wouldve had loved to have him class. And he is, why no all over the world, in a 30,000 foot level you watch him along in his oratorical hits the common man and touches the wings of the guards. The problem is he never address the issue with dealing with. And i think thats the real heart of the problem we hardware now. It is one thing to speak interest or rhetorical flourishes which we have. Thank you. Forward of dealing with this but the bottom line is the question that we where do we go from here . Its like the simple man who wants needed to get his, i used to watch something strange, to my colleague said, i really enjoy the west. Wearing my family has watched it over and over again. And that answer right there, which i respect, is amazing. We difference so many, things but jamie and i just get along really well on many things. He is wrong, im right. But well deal with that im kidding. There was an episode in which president martin, was in one of his rhetorical flourishes, and told he asked him about a friend who called to govern something fix at the va. And he went on this wrong if, you remember the saying he went on to this long story about the red tape, and that veterans had to come to retain, because there is so red tape. Thats when red tape comes from. And charlie who was the body man for the president looked at him and said, mister president all i want to know is how to get this fixed. And i think thats what were seeing here a lot today. This future, what is going . On whats gonna happen . What happens tomorrow . Whats gonna happen tomorrows up are going to vote for articles of. Impeachment but after that its going to go to the senate, which is a predetermined observation not because of anything, but thats fine. Thats the path we chose. But where do we go from . Here this is my question. Because i think when you are looking at this to simply say income at it from the fact that its the only way the majority can come at. This is that the president its something. Wrong at which point as hes ever done anything right for this majority . He never has. And i think that when you look at the discussion, and i understand your discussion but when you look at it from the fact, that from the moment through the election theres been discussion of impeachment. From moments in this and morning the Washington Post says now the impeachment begins. When we began to look at this process all the way through, my question is not how or why are we do this but where . When do we do it again . Because its not a matter of facts, i dont engage in hypotheticals. We go back to the simple facts of what happened. For basic truths. Zelensky and President Trump said no pressure. The transcript there is no conditionality. The cranes had didnt open investigation, still received aid, and got a meeting with the president. There were five meetings. Three of which took place from the call to the actual time where the ukrainians found out about the aid being held. To the those meetings were after the aid was being. Health none of these involve president pence, none of these actually discuss aid being linked to the money. None. So we start off, and we give rhetorical flourishes here at the end, which is fine, i understand it if i had to sell this i would be rhetorical rhetorical in flourishes, because the constitution is the dissemination of this congress is going to be calm the body in which we impeach because of bipartisan ideas. Which is also what the founders discussed. You have the majority, we have the majority for a while while i was here, for six years. Its a massive responsibility. And indeed in times we did it well and in times we didnt do it. Well and i believe this is why last november we got our election that gave us the majority and give you the gavel. But remember, just because you can, doesnt mean you should. And sometimes when the facts, especially when you go out the perspective as, i said earlier today, ill fight process in a fight facts and ill win on both. Because when i take these cases and ill take it to the floor tomorrow, and ill take it to the American People, just as this president will. Just as those who follow him, and we understand what actually happened, and what hes actuallys charged, not weighed we assume and, not what we have brought aboard. But what has actually that i actually see nothing that helps us down the line, but id use see two things. I see a process that is being trashed, and the rules and processes of the committee, and of the whole. And i see a process of impeachment that has been lower, towards you dont even have to jump anymore. And that is my concern. I know mr. Raskin doesnt share it, but if you ask that is my concern. Where do we go from here . In some ways looking at this, god help us. I yield back. Let me just finish with, from my perspective the specificity, and mr. Coleman and i were talking about the people reading of the summary of the phone call, and different great people reading it and having different realities when they read it. But, as all of us can relate to, if candidate for federal office, the law says cannot, and coach snowing the solicit from any foreign any contribution or the nation. And that is defined as anything of value. When i read that summary, hes clearly asking for some thing of value. An investigation that would cost hundreds of thousands of dollars against his primary opponent. The day after the Mueller Report they before he went out and told that the Second Amendment gave him the right to do anything you want it. So maybe briefly mistrust can, the president withheld is funds, mr. Collins released them, but my recollection is that in he released them because people in the congress, in the press was starting to say, you need to release. These so was the pressure, brought to him, to release to that got him to release . It and in that time, the ukraine was exposed to his hatred towards mr. Putin. Was he faithfully executing the duties of his office when he did it . He got caught redhanded, and dont see any ambiguity in historical record on this. We announced this investigation on the 9th of september, and and it was on the 11th that the money was finally released. Thank you i yield back i have good news for both of you, i think everybody has asked to question, there is nobody left of this committee. I do want to close with, i want to thank both are witnesses, for enduring this superlong hearing, i want to thank the members of this Committee Republicans and democrats, we have very sharp disagreements on, this but i think this hearing was conducted with civility i, want to thank mr. Cohen his team for helping with this, i like this hearing, frankly better than the one that was in your committee, but i think people feel very strongly about these issues and i think that i do i want to thank everybody for their cooperation today. And you are dismissed, and there are no other witnesses here so that will end the hearing portion of this. May i be recognize mister chairman. You may. I have the four letters that i sent an individual ask interview the documents to letters that were Group Projects i would like to add them. Without objection i think its also sub nick significant that mr. Poroshenko came and talked to a session of congress in 2014 in his address, he referenced a lot of things, that ukraine had voluntarily withdrawn from being a nuclear power, with a promise that they would alls always be protected, and maybe they werent, but, he also, this was the speech in which he also said, that they needed more military equipment, both lethal and not lethal, night vision goggles are important but we cannot win a war with blankets. This was from 2014, donald trump was not president , i thought it would its important to put in this part of the record. Our national suck no National Security was threatened by President Trumps actions. This comes to a close, and we will recess work all of a chair we will work with you at any time to reconvened your obligations tonight with that, the hearing is close. I can promise you that, i can promise that i think, that itll be inaudible laughs seen inaudible [indiscernible chatter] [indiscernible chatter] sen. Sanders [inaudible] they will read the rule, there will be a vote. They can debate the rule but theres nothing to debate. Has an amendment. [no audio]hink [inaudible] thehey still have to debate actual rules. Four hours. Committeese rules at 11 a. M. Eastern. There considering the of donald trump, one on obstruction of congress and the other on the broader issue of the phone call with the president of ukraine. Discussingrump today that the white house. We will show you that later. The House Rules Committee is expected to gaveled back in before the evening is out, consider those rules, debate those. The house is set to continue debate at some time tomorrow morning. In at 9 00use gavels