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

The go with the free cspan radio app. House members will have one hour to debate a rule tomorrow that sets up six hours of general debate equally divided on the house floor before a final vote takes place on those two articles of impeachment. The rules for debate were approved by the House Rules Committee earlier this evening on a partyline vote of 94. [indiscernible chatter] are you ready . The rules committee will come to order. The rules committee will come to order. It is unfortunate that we have to be here today. But the actions of the president of the United States make the necessary. President trump withheld congressionally approved a two ukraine, a partner under siege come a not to fight corruption but to extract a personal political favor. President trump refused to meet with ukraines president in the white house until he completed this scheme. All the while, leaders in russia , the very nation holding a large part of ukraine hostage, the very nation that interfered with our elections in 2016, had yet another meeting in the Oval Office Last week. These are not my opinions, these are uncontested facts. We have listened to the hearings. We have read the transcripts. It is clear that this president acted in a way that not only violates the public trust, he jeopardized our National Security and he undermined our democracy. He acted in a way that rises to the level of impeachment. That is why we are considering this today, a resolution impeaching donald john trump, president of the United States, for high crimes and misdemeanors. Choice buts no other to act with urgency. When i think back to the founders of this nation, they were particularly concerned about foreign interference in our elections. They understood that allowing outside forces to decide american campaigns would cause the fundamentals of our democracy to crumble. But the evidence shows, that is exactly what President Trump did, not only allowed but solicited foreign interference to help him win reelection. Which shocks me, quite frankly, about so many of my republican friends is their inability to to acknowledgment President Trump acted improperly. Seems like the only republican members willing to admit that the president did something wrong are retired or announced they intend to retire at the end of this congress. I get it, it is hard to criticize a president of your own party but that shouldnt matter here. Clinton whensident he was president and i still do today. When this house impeached him, which i didnt agree with, i went to the house floor and i said i thought what president clinton did was wrong because moments like this call for more than just reflexive partisanship. They require honesty and they require courage. Are any republicans today willing to muster the strength to say that what this president did was wrong . Let me say again what happened here. The president withheld congressionally approved military aid to a country under siege, to extract a personal political favor. He didnt do this as a matter of u. S. Policy, he did this for his own benefit. That is wrong. And if that is not impeachable conduct, i dont know what is. I have heard some of the other side suggest this process is about overturning an election. That is absurd. This is about President Trump using his office to try and rig the next election. Think about that. We like to say every vote that everyver vote counts. We learned in grade school about all the people who fought and died for that right. It is a sacred thing. I remember as a middle school are in 1972, leaving leaflets at the homes of potential voters urging them to support George Mcgovern for president , no relation by the way. I thought he had a great last toe and he was dedicated ending the war in vietnam and feeding the hungry and helping the poor. To this day what an honor it was to ask people to support him, even though i was too young to vote myself. And what a privilege it was later it in life to ask voters for their support in my own campaign. I have been proud of winning campaigns and losing ones. People like that would be great president s, like senator mcgovern, werent given that chance. Make no mistake, i was disappointed but i accepted it. I would take losing an election any day of the week when the American People rendered that verdict. But i will never, i mean come i will never be ok if other nations decide our leaders for us. The president of the United States is rolling out the welcome mat for that kind of foreign interference. To not act would set a dangerous president president , not just for this president but for every future president. The evidence is as clear as it is overwhelming, and this administration hasnt handed over a single subpoenaed documents to refute it, not one. It is up to us to decide whether the United States is still a nation where no one is above the america isther allowed to become a land run by those who act more like kings or queens. As if the law doesnt apply to them. It is not secret President Trump has a penchant for cozying up to the notorious dictators. He has complimented vladimir putin, congratulated rodrigo duterte, fell in love with kim i could lauded erdogan. Go on and on. Maybe the president is jealous. Hat they can do what they want these dictators are the antithesis of what america stands for. We let President Trump act like the law doesnt apply to him, we move a little closer to them. Benjamin franklin left the Constitutional Convention and said the founders have created a republic, if you can keep it. There are no guarantees. Our system of government will persist only if we fight for it. The simple question for us is this. I we willing to fight for this democracy . Forre we willing to fight this democracy act of i hope everyone searches their conscience. To my republican friends, imagine any democratic president sitting in the oval office. Would your answer be the same . No one should be allowed to use the powers of the presidency to undermine our elections or cheat in a campaign, no matter who it is and no matter what their party. We all took an oath, not to defend a Political Party but to uphold the constitution of the United States. History is testing us. We cant control what the senate will do, but each of us can decide whether we pass that test , whether we defend our democracy and whether we uphold our oath. We will put a process in place to consider these articles on the house floor and when i cast my vote in favor, my conscience will be clear. Before i turn to the Ranking Member i want to recognize his leadership on this committee. We take up a lot of contentious matters appear in the rules committee, and often we are on different sides of many issues. With integrity and cares deeply about this house. There will be passionate disagreement today, but i have no doubt we will continue working together in the future and side by side on this committee to better this institution. Let me also state for the record that chairman nadler is unable to be here because of a family medical emergency. We are all keeping him in our thoughts and prayers. Testifying instead is congressman raskin. He is not only a valued member of this committee but also a the judiciary and oversight committees. In addition, he is a constitutional law professor so he has a comprehensive and unique understanding of what we are talking about today. I appreciate him stepping in and testifying this morning. I also want to welcome back Ranking Member collins, a former member of the rules committee, someone who i dont often agree with but someone who i respect nonetheless and appreciate all of his contributions to this institution. Having said that, i will turn it over to our Ranking Member, mr. Cole, for any remarks he wishes to make. Thank you. Let me begin by reciprocating the personal and professional respect for you and the other members of this committee, as well. Because i do think very highly of each and every person on this committee, particularly of you, mr. Chairman. This is a day where we will disagree very strongly. As you referenced, it is a sad , for thee personally rules committee, for the institution of the house and for the American People. We are meeting today on a rule for considering articles of impeachment against a sitting president of the United States on the floor of the house of representatives. This is not the result of a fair process and certainly not a bipartisan. Sadly, the democrats impeachment inquiry has been flawed and partisan from day one. So i guess it should come as knows apprise that democrats preordained outcome is also flawed and partisan. Seven weeks ago when this committee met to do to consider a resolution to guide the process, the democrats impeachment inquiry, i warned they were treading on shaky ground with their unfair and closed process. Howecting how could things played out reaffirms my earlier judgment that this flawed process was crafted to ensure a partisan preordained result. This entire process was tarnished further by the speed with which my democratic colleagues on the judiciary and Intelligence Committees have rushed to deliver their predetermined judgment. To impeach the president for something, anything, whether there are stones left unturned or if there is any proof at all. There is no way this can and should be viewed as legitimate, certainly not by republicans whose minority rights have been trampled on every step on the way and certainly not by the American People observing this disastrous political show scene by scene. As i said before, on like any impeachment proceedings in modern history, the partisan process prescribed and pursued by democrats is truly unprecedented. And it contradicts Speaker Pelosis own words. Back in march of this year, she said, quote, impeachment is so divisive to the country that unless there is something so compelling and overwhelming and bipartisan, i dont think we should go down that path because it divides the country. The keyword in that quote is bipartisan. Indeed, during the nixon and him and clinton impeachment, the process for opening the inquiry was considered on a bipartisan basis. Back then, both sides traded the process with the seriousness it deserved. Negotiating and finding agreement across the aisle to ensure fairness and due process from all involved in the inquiries. That is not the case today. Instead, democrats have pushed forward using a partisan process that limited the president s right to due process, prevented the minority from exercising their rights, and charged ahead to a vote to impeach the president whether the evidence is there or not. I suppose i shouldnt be surprised by any of this. Democrats in the house have been pushing to impeach President Trump since before he was even sworn in. In december 2017, when a current democratic member of the house forced a vote on impeachment resolution, 58 democrats voted to impeach the president. Even without an investigation, without any evidence to point to. Those numbers have only grown since then. Majorityint where the is now pushing for it for a final vote on impeachment heedless of where it takes the country and regardless of whether they have proven their case. Mr. Chairman, it didnt have to be this way. When she became and trusted with thisavel over the house of congress, Speaker Pelosi assured us all that she would not move forward with impeachment unless it was bipartisan and unless there was a clear consensus in the country. Neither of those commissions are present here. The polls on impeachment shows the country evenly split, 46. 5 of americans in favor of impeachment and 46. 5 against. That is hardly what i would call a National Consensus in favor of impeaching President Trump. When half of americans are telling you that what you are doing is wrong, you should listen. I think this is especially the case given how close we are to the next election. Months, the American People are going to vote on the next president of the United States. Why are we plunging the country into this kind of turmoil and this kind of trauma now, when the voters themselves will resolve the matter one way or another in less than a year from today . All this achieves is to make the political polos are polarization and divisions of my country even worse. That makes no sense to me. We may be moving forward with a vote. I certainly dont believe the majority has proven its case or convinced the American People that the weeks of wasted time was worth it. Personally, i believe the articles themselves are unwarranted. The majority is seeking to remove the president over something that didnt happen, the alleged quid pro quo with the president of ukraine. Nevermind that the foreign aid went to ukraine as it was supposed to and nevermind that no investigation was required for the ukraine to get the aid and nevermind that the participants in the famous conversation, President Trump and president zelinski, said nothing and appropriate. According to the majority, a quid pro quo that never existed is an appropriate basis for removing the president from office. Yet even though the majority hasnt proven its case, and even though there is no basis for impeachment, they are still moving forward today. Aat i cant discern is legitimate reason why. Why the majority is moving forward when the process is so partisan, why they are moving forward when the American People are not with them, why they are moving forward when they havent proven their case, and why they are moving forward when there is no basis for impeachment. Why . Why put the country through all of this . It makes even less sense to me when we consider the realities of the United States senate. We already know that the votes to convict and remove the president from office simply arent there. Bluntly put, this is a matter that congress as a whole cannot resolve on its own. The majority is plunging forward regardless of the needless drama or the damage to the institution knowing fulluntry, well that the end of the day, the president will remain in office. And for what . Scoring political points with their partys base . Mr. Chairman, this doesnt make any sense to me. We didnt need to go this route. We didnt need to push forward on a partisan impeachment process that had only one possible result. But we are here anyway, regardless of the damage it does to the institution and regardless of how much further it divides the country. As i said at the beginning, mr. Chairman, this is a sad day for all of us, but it is especially sad for me knowing that this day was inevitable, preordained from the start, no matter what happened, no matter where the investigation lead, the democratic majority in the house of representatives was pushing since the day they took over to impeach President Trump. That,cts dont warrant mr. Chairman, and the process is unworthy of the outcome. The president shouldnt be impeached and i urge all members to vote in the rules committee and tomorrow on the house floor to vote no. Thank you very much. I appreciate your comments. Obviously, we have strong disagreements, and i just want, one technical point i would like to make. None of us in this house have had an opportunity to vote on impeachment. The resolution that the gentleman refers to, some of us opposed tabling it because we thought it should go to committee. Be appropriately evaluated. That is what this process achieved, the relevant committees did their work and investigated the claims of wrongdoing by the president and the Judiciary Committee recommended articles of impeachment. The first time anybody in this house will get an opportunity to vote on impeachment will be tomorrow. I want to welcome both of our witnesses. Mr. Raskin, we will begin with you. Thank you very much, mr. Chairman. Good morning, chairman, Ranking Member, good morning to all of our distinguished colleagues on the House Rules Committee and good morning to my friend mr. Collins. It is my solemn responsibility this morning to present for your consideration House Resolution 755 and the accompanying report concerning the impeachment of donald john trump, president of the United States, for high crimes and misdemeanors committed against the people of the United States. I am appearing this morning in place of chairman nadler, who couldnt be with us. Im sure i speak with all judiciary both the and rules committees in sending love and prayers to chairman nadlers wife joyce and all our hopes for a speedy recovery. The Judiciary Committee, along with the other committees that investigated President Trumps offenses, the Permanent Select Committee on intelligence, the committee on Foreign Affairs and the committee on oversight and reform, ring these articles with a solemn purpose and a heavy heart, but in an active faith with the constitutional oath of office we have all sworn. Investigating committees conducted 100 hours of deposition testimony with 17 sworn witnesses and 30 hours of public testimony with 12 witnesses. In Judiciary Committee is possession of overwhelming evidence that the president of the United States has committed high crimes and misdemeanors, violated his constitutional oath to faithfully execute the office of president , and to the best of his ability preserve, protect and defend the constitution of the United States and violated his constitutional duty to take care that the laws are faithfully executed. We present to articles of impeachment supported by hundreds of pages of detailed and meticulous analysis. The evidence and analysis lead an escape of it to the conclusions embodied in these articles of impeachment. Hast, President Trump committed the high crime and misdemeanor of abuse of office. He abused the awesome powers of the presidency by using his office to corruptly demand that a Foreign Government interfere in our american president ial election in order to promote his own Political Campaign in 2020. He corruptly conditioned the release of 391 million in Foreign Security assistance that he held back from the Ukrainian Government along with a longhopedfor president ial white house meeting. He conditioned those on the ukrainian president s agreement to go public with two statements. One announcing a criminal investigation into former joe former Vice President joe biden, andval of the president , the other announcing an investigation that would rehabilitate a discredited prorussian Conspiracy Theory by showing it was ukraine and nots russia that not often not thisrussia that schemes aborted aided the democratic sovereignty of the people to the private political ambitions of one man, the president himself. Placed theely National Security interests of the United States of america at risk and continues to embroil the nation and our government in conflict. Second, after this corrupt scheme came to light, and numerous Public Servants with knowledge of key events surfaced to testify in our investigations about the president s actions, President Trump directed the wholesale categorical and indiscriminate obstruction of this congressional impeachment investigation. He did so by ordering a blockade of administration witnesses emma by trying to muzzle and intimidate witnesses who did come forward emma and by refusing to produce even a single subpoenaed document. ,n the history of the republic no president other than this one has ever claimed and exercised the unilateral right and power to thwart and defeat a house president ial impeachment inquiry. Yet that would have been the final and unavoidable result of the president s outrageous defiance of congress had 17 brave witnesses not come forward in the face of the president s threats and testified about the ukraine shakedown and its scandalous effects on our National Security, our democracy, and our constitutional system of government. , while thisake investigation was saved by the courage and oldfashioned patriotism of witnesses like ambassador william taylor, yovanovitch,rie Lieutenant Colonel alexander been men, and dr. Fiona hill, aggressivents resistance to congressional subpoenas for witnesses and documents is blatantly and dangerously unconstitutional. If accepted and normalized now, it will undermine perhaps for the congressional impeachment power itself, which is the peoples last instrument of constitutional selfdefense against a sitting president who behaves like a king and tramples the rule of law. By obstructing an impeachment inquiry with impunity, the president will have the power to actively destroy the peoples final check on his own corrupt misconduct and abuse of power. The framers insisted we have impeachment in the constitution precisely to protect ourselves from a president becoming a tyrant and a desperate, and we and we and a despot, wont allow the impeachment power itself to be destroyed. Charge thates President Trump engaged in abuse of power, obstructed congress and realized the worst fears of the framers by supporting our National Security and dragging foreign powers into American Power politics to corrupt our elections for his personal gain. The constitution provides that the President Shall be impeached for treason, bribery or other high crimes and misdemeanors. This is the essential check that the peoples representatives maintain over the executive branch. As our witnesses testified, the framers sought to capture a broad range of president ial wrongdoingand through this provision, but the commanding and comprehensive impulse for including the impeachment power in the constitution was to prevent the president s abuse of power, which the framers saw as the very essence of impeachable conduct. Federalist number 65, hamilton wrote impeachable defenses are defined by abuse of some public trust. From the federalist papers in the records of the Constitutional Convention and ratifying conventions, the framers feared three kinds of the trail of office. By exploiting Public Office for private political or financial gain, number two, abuse of power by betraying the National Interest in the public trust to entanglement with Foreign Governments, and number three, abuse of power by corrupting democratic elections and denying the people proper agency through self government. According to the framers, any one of these violations of the public trust would be enough to justify president ial impeachment for abuse of power. However, President Trumps congress conduct has realized all three of the framers worst fears of president ial abuse of power. Never before in American History has an impeachment investigation crystallized in findings of conduct that implicate all of the major reasons that the framers built impeachment into our constitution. Mr. Chairman, the conduct we set before you today is not some kind of surprising aberration or deviation in the president s behavior for which he is merciful. On the contrary, the president is completely unrepentant and defiantly declares his behavior here perfect, indeed absolutely perfect. He says article two of the constitution gives him the power to do whatever he wants, conveniently forgetting article two, section four, which gives us the power to check his misconduct with the instrument of impeachment. We believe this conduct is impeachable and should never take place again under our constitutional system. He believes his conduct is perfect, and we know therefore that it will take place again and again. Indeed, our report points out this pattern of showing spectacular disrespect to the rule of law by inviting and welcoming foreign powers into our elections was in plain view. N the 2016 election america remembers when then candidate trump uttered the imperishable he infamous words, russia, if you are listening, i hope you are able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing. Five hours later, russian agents moved to hack his opponents computers as part of their theinuing effort to upend 2016 president ial campaign. As identified by the justice department, the Trump Campaign had more than 100 contact with russian operatives over the course of that campaign and none of them were reported by the Trump Campaign to Law Enforcement or National Security agencies. Moreover, during the special counsel investigation into the sleeping and systematic Russian Campaign to subvert our elections, President Trump engaged in other Systematic Campaign of obstruction of the investigative process to obscure his own involvement. Withesent you not just high crimes and misdemeanors, but a constitutional crime in. Rogress up to this very minute mayor giuliani, the president s fromte lawyer, fresh overseas travel looking to rehabilitate once again the discredited conspiracy theories at the heart of the defense admitted he participated directly in the Smear Campaign to oust ambassador your buddy bench from her job yovanovich from her job. Giuliani said, i believe i needed her out of the way because she was going to make the investigation difficult for everybody. Mr. Giuliani refers to the president past investigations given that he thinks the constitution empowers him to do whatever he wants, given that according to the new yorker magazine, giuliani said i believe i needed yovanovitch out of the way. She was going to make the investigations difficult for everyone. Here, of course, mr. Giuliani refers to the president s sought off investigations into joe biden and the remnants of the discredited Conspiracy Theory pushed by russia as propaganda that it was ukraine and not russia that interfered in the 2016 american president ial election. Given that an unrepentant president considers his behavior perfect, given that he thinks the constitution empowers him to do whatever he wants, given that he and his team are still awaiting president zelenskys statement on investigating joe biden, given that he has already invited china to perform an investigation of its own, we can only ask what the 2020 election will be like or, indeed, what any future election in america will be like if we just let this misconduct go and authorize and license president s to coerce, cajole, pressure and entice foreign powertors enter our election. Who will be invited in next . The president s continuing course of conduct constitutes a clear and present danger to democracy in america. We cannot allow this misconduct to pass. It would be a sellout of our constitution, our Foreign Policy, our National Security, and our democracy. Thank you, mr. Chairman. I yield back. Thank you very much, mr. Collins. Welcome back to the rules committee. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Good to see you. And mr. Cole, as well, members who have spent many hours in this room with, you know, the chairman made a statement about my friend here, mr. Raskin, he is a fine attorney. Its been amazing to me throughout this year how the Judiciary Committee sidelined fine attorneys like himself into not asking questions, not being a part of the process. Its been interesting to watch. Hes actually a good one. As you said, hes a good constitutional attorney. Im not a constitutional attorney. Im a pastor, an attorney from north georgia. I believe you take another look at this, you can apply constitutional lenses, but its a common sense lens. Its a common sense lens. Mr. Cole made a comment in his opening statement, he said it doesnt make sense. Yeah, it does. It makes perfect sense. Look at the pattern. You know, the only thing that is that is clear and present danger right now in this room is the pattern of attack and abuse of rules and the decisions to get at this president. They started over three years ago, the night he was elected. I said the other day in the Committee Hearing, i thought about having the means, motive and opportunity. Means, motive, and the opportunity. The opportunity for this day occurred last november when we lost the majority. It occurred. Because they already talked about it for years prior, so now we just bring it forward. We tried a lot of Different Things to get there. And well talk about that, im sure, as the time goes on today. Look, we can have plenty of time to talk about the articles and the very vague articles that we did. Its interesting, if you read the report from the majority, theres a lot of discussion about crimes, but they couldnt find it in themselves to charge one. Again, commonsense. Articles when you think about impeachment, youre thinking about impeaching a president for crimes. Youre saying its in this this majority has tried so hard to be like clinton and nixon and failed so miserably. But every time we try, we try once again, except the one thing when it came down to the end, the one thing they couldnt do it actually find a crime. Is actually find a crime. They talk about it a bunch. If you read the majoritys report, its well written. It is some of the best work youll see. Frankly, in some ways a fictional account of what this actually is, but it actually talks about it. That the problem here is a majority bent on finding something for this president. Mr. Cole, its not a surprise. In fact, its a sad day, not just for the rules committee but for the Judiciary Committee. Its telling that the articles of impeachment to show you how partisan this, and the concerning part i see, and mr. Mcgovern, we are friends, but with he disagree. We disagree on probably a lot of things. This glass half full. Thats what were supposed to do. Thats what our voters sends us here to do. We have worked together. If as the speaker said, should be overwhelming, bipartisan and the American People understand it, then why are we in the rules committee today . When it was with clinton, it was straight to the floor. It wasnt didnt have to come to the rules committee. Because both sides could see there was something that needed to be discussed but thats not true here. We have to bring it to the rules committee place that i have spent many hours and many of us on this group have discussed many things, but this should not be one of them. I hear a lot ive heard from mr. Raskin and the chairman, the founders. It is interesting we cherrypick the founders. Its ok. Thats what you do when youre partisans, you cherrypick the founders. If you like this, but if you like the other one. The one thing thats not mentioned is what were here for. That was found in federalist, i think it was 65, hamilton. When he said this. He said the founders warned against a vague openended charge because it could be applied in a partisan fashion by a majority of the house of representatives against an opposition president. Alexander hamilton called partisan impeachment regulated by more of the compare ton comparative strength of parties than the real demonstration of innocence or guilt the greatest danger. Additionally, the founders explicitly excluded a term maladministration from the impeachment clause because they did not want the president subject to the whims of congress. So vague a term during the pleasure of the senate. I would say it would be a tenure to the pleasure of this house. When we understand whats going on here, when we look at the discussions here, there are many things i want to talk about. First, what i want to do is when we talk about how we get to a certain place, proper results get to proper place. Ive said in many times in our discussions lately is this is all about a clock and a calendar and has been for a while. Since january when we were sworn in its about a clock and a calendar. Why do i say that . Because we have to get away by the end of the year. If we went into the next year, it would be too close to the elections theyre trying to interfere with. And yes, theyre trying to interfere with elections, the 2020 election. By actually beginning this process and going forward. Now, the conduct is not respects the American People. Is not conductive to the respective the American People. The clock and the calendar know no masters except themselves. Our Committee Held its first hearing on december 4th, the day after schiff public bely publicly released his report. In the first minutes of the report mr. Sensenbrenner offered a demand. The chairman set a deadline of december 6th for the president to request additional witnesses. It wasnt until saturday, the day after the deadline, chairman schiff transmitted 8,000 pages of material to the Judiciary Committee. We still havent gotten everything. Not that it matters to the majority. For institutionalists, this should bother you. You can still go ahead and vote for your yes tomorrow and vote yes for today, but it should matter for this institution that while i was in georgia, i received a call from my staff saying they just released 8,000 documents thumb drives. Some of which would be kept in a secure holding. And when i asked the chairman about these documents, he said, well, were not going to read them either. Were just going to go ahead. That was from my chairman, whom i respect. We have done a lot of things together. Its very difficult in a hearing of this magnitude, how can anyone, republican or democrat, actually go back and look their constituents in the face and say, we looked at all the evidence . At everything and i came to this conclusion. No, we only cherrypicked the evidence, which is still not all released. Theres the Inspector General ig report that has not been released. Whether its good or bad is irrelevant. When you are talking about impeaching a president , shouldnt the underlying evidence sent to Judiciary Committee actually matter . Again, it doesnt take constitutional experts coming in and telling us about it. It takes common sense to know that you dont impeach somebody without at least making all the evidence proper. But, you know, thats what happens when youre to the tyranny of a clock and a calendar. When youre the tyranny of a clock and a calendar, nothing else matters. Its like whats going to happen here in the holidays is youre getting close to that day and youre supposed to give that gift. Nothing else matters. You just have to get it. At the last minute if you dont have anything, i bet youve done this, you go out and get the first thing you get. The clock was running out. They found a phone call they didnt like. They didnt like this administration. They didnt like what the president did. They tried to make up claims, there was pressure and all these things they outlined in their report. At the end of the day its lastminute kris magazine shopping. Lastminute christmas shopping. They ran and found something and said, we can do it, but no crimes. None in the articles. Abuse of power in which any member can make up anything they want to and call it an abuse of power. But in the report they document bribery and extortion and all these other things they cant put into the articles. And then the obstruction of justice, its sort of interesting when i just read chairman schiff transferred on a saturday 8,000 pages of what we were supposed to be working on for the next hearing. We submitted our list of witnesses to nadler mr. Nadler before the schiff we submitted it before schiff had sent us any more evidence. Last monday we had a hearing so schiffs staff and nadlers consultants could tell us the president needs to be impeach. Again, nothing from chairman schiff, who made the reference to himself being like ken starr, but for those in this room who have at least opened a history book, ken starr actually came and testified and took questions from everyone, including the white house counsel. On monday, the chairman directed all of our witnesses out of hand. On tuesday, the morning after the presentation of articles, were unveiled. Remember, think about this. No factual base witnesses. We had a bunch of law professors. One for us. By the way, i did ask for another one. Didnt get it. No reasoning. We just went back we were in impeachment hearings and we went back to the 31 ratio. I asked for one more and basically didnt get it. It was an interesting conversation between the chairman and i. Didnt get it. Then we came in and got our witness list. Summarily dismissed. We get information dumped to us in the middle of what were supposed to be doing right before we have hearings. Before we had to turn in our witness list. Judge, i dont think this would fly in any regular court proceedings. So before anybody wants to tweet or say anything i were not in a court, i know that. Were in a kangaroo court, it feels like. This is backwards. Whats more is up than down. Were more alice in wonderland than house of representatives. If he needs to be impeached want, dont you think there needs to be a modocum of process and results . Rights . Ss and access to Committee Records broken. Rules for decorum in debate, we saw that broken even on the house floors. H res 660, the authorization for the whole thing, the chairman could have used it to run a fair process. Unfortunately, we didnt. The problem comes down to several things today, mr. Chairman, im going to leave you with, and this is it. After all thats been said, all talked about and all in that wonderfully written report, there are four things that will never change. Both the president and mr. Zelensky say there was no pressure. The call transcript shows no conditionality in aid and investigation. By the way, mr. Sondland, their key witness, the only thing they ever quote is hi opening statement. His opening statement. They dont like to quote when he was actually questioned when he said, well, yeah, i presume that. When you talk about mr. Yermak, he said we didnt have any question about conditionality of aid. That just came out the other day. I dont know where were getting this. But it is definitely in the transcript. The ukrainians werent aware the aid was withheld. And ukrainians didnt open an investigation and still got their aid. What did we see last week . What we saw was mr. Zelensky, president zelensky, pillared in our committee. Hes either a liar, a pathological liar according to the majority, or hes so weak he shouldnt be governing that country. Thats tragic. We actually did that to a sitting world leader in our committee. These are the kind of things that bother many of us, but i also know this is on a clock and a calendar, too. Well have a few hours here, well talk about it, but i will remind my majority friends, and i do consider you friends, the clock and the calendar are terrible masters. And they lead to awful results. And yes, there will be a day of reckoning. The calendar and the clock will continue, but what you do here and how we have trashed the process in getting here will live on, and it will affect everything that weve come forth. So whatever you may gain will be shortlived, because the clock and the calendar also recognize common sense, which is not been which has not been used in this proceeding. With that, mr. Chairman, i yield back. Thank you very much. I want to thank both of you for your opening statement. Mr. Collins, you raise the issue of why were in the rules committee. Let me just state for the record, as you know, the constitution gives the house the sole power of impeachment and the power to determine its own rules. When president nixon, during the time he was going to be impeached, the chairman of the rules committee spoke on the house floor and announced there would be a rule governing how that proceeding would move forward. When the clinton articles of impeachment were brought forward, there was a unanimous consent request to kind of govern how we conducted ourselves. And im not sure how likely it would be that we would get unanimous consent request. I would like to ask unanimous consent to enter into record a letter sent to the chairman of the Judiciary Committee signed by, i think, 70 republican members, including the kevin mccarthy, the republican leader. Basically let me read the key line here. We will avail ourselves of every parliamentary tool available to us in committee and on the house floor to highlight your inaction. Translated, to try to delay and make this process is impossible as impossible as it can be made. Im not sure in light of this letter that we could get a unanimous consent request with regard to these proceedings to break for a cup of coffee, never mind, you know, determine the rules of engagement. So, i point that out. In terms of process, i just want to again state for the record, because i think its important, that i think the house has engaged in a fair impeachment inquiry process. Democrats and republicans have had equal opportunity to participate in the monthlong impeachment inquiry. Members of both parties have been involved at each stage, from sitting in and asking questions during closeddoor depositions to answering questions and open hearings. The committee took more than 100 hours of deposition testimony from 17 witnesses, held seven public hearings, which included republicanrequested witnesses. They produced a 300page public report that laid out their findings and evidence. The Judiciary Committee then took that report and conducted two public hearings evaluating the evidence and Legal Standard for impeachment before reporting the two articles that we are dealing with here today. And i should also point out that President Trump was provided an opportunity to participate in the Judiciary Committees review of the evidence presented against him as president clinton was during his impeachment inquiry. President trump chose not to participate. President trump to date has not provided any exculpatory evidence, but instead has blocked numerous witnesses from testifying about his actions. And so, i just thought it was important to point that out. Mr. Raskin, i saw you scribbling furiously while mr. Collins was testifying. I dont know whether there is something you wanted to respond to. Thank you, mr. Chairman. My friend, mr. Collins, speaks very fast so its hard to keep up with everything that hes saying. But a couple of things thats as slow as [laughter] its all right. Im from massachusetts, and people say the same thing about my accent. I mean, you have to give me credit. I give you credit. You were making an effort at the beginning, and so was i. They accuse me of the same. Let me he raises some raem important points. Id love the chance to briefly address them. One thing weve been hearing is that we didnt charge crimes, and in some sense, that just duplicates a basic confusion that people have about what the process is. We are not criminal prosecutors, prosecuting a criminal defendant in court to send to jail. Thats not what were doing. Were members of congress who are working to protect the country against a president whos committing high crimes and misdemeanors, constitutional offenses against the people of the country. Now, lots of the conduct that we plead in our specific articles alleging abuse of power and obstruction of congress themselves could become part of criminal indictments later on. But its been a curious thing for me to hear our colleagues across the aisle repeatedly make this point and kind of spread this confusion that there are not crimes in there when they were the very first ones to say and continue saying the department of justice cannot prosecute the president , the president may not be indicted, the president may not be prosecuted while hes in office. Then they cant turn around and say, you cant impeach him because you havent charged him with any crimes. I win, tails, you lose is the essence of that argument. If you go back to the richard have tose, you didnt see Richard Nixon had been convicted of burglary in the district of columbia by ordering the break engine to the Watergate Hotel before he was to before he was charged with abuse of power as a high crime and misdemeanor. Thats exactly what were charging President Trump with here. We dont have to first go out and prove that he committed bribery or committed Honest Services fraud or extortion, all things he could be prosecuted for later. We simply have to allege the course of constitutional criminal conduct he was engaged in. And so, i think we can set that one aside. A second thing that my friend said was that there were no fact witnesses. That this was based on the report that was delivered to us by the House Committee on intelligence. Of course, thats a play on words, too. There were 17 fact witnesses who appeared before the House Committee on intelligence, the House Oversight committee and the house Foreign Affairs committee. The way we structured this impeachment process, which is completely our prerogative under article 1, section 2, clause 5, as you said, mr. Chairman, is to have the investigation into this affair, which involved Foreign Governments and ambassadors and so on in the Intelligence Committee. Then, to have them bring the facts in a comprehensive report to the house Judiciary Committee, which would then make the decision about the law. Do all of these events rise to what we think is impeachable conduct . Of course we did. There are lots of fact witnesses. We also had the counsel for the House Intelligence Committee come in to deliver the report and defend the report and all of my friends on the other side of the aisle had the chance to question as we had the chance to question. When you say there are no fact witnesses, thats also a perfect description of what took place during the bill clinton impeachment, because all of that took place as part of the independent counsel investigation by Kenneth Starr. There were closed door, secret depositions taking place there. Then, Kenneth Starr came to deliver the report. Print and remember, all the boxes of material they brought over in a uhaul truck and gave it to the house Judiciary Committee. That was the end of it. Monica lewinsky didnt testify before the house Judiciary Committee. There werent witnesses there brought before the house Judiciary Committee. So were following the exact same pattern that took place here, except it was the house of representatives here, which did its own fact investigation through this assortment of committees. Let me say a word about the fairness of the process. We all know what they teach you in law school, which is if the facts are against you, you pound the law. The laws are against you, you pound the facts. If the law and the facts are against you, you talk about process and you pound the table. Im afraid ive seen a little bit of that in the performance of our colleagues here. I dont blame them because theyre dealing with the hand they were dealt. We have 17 fact witnesses, and all of their depositions and all their testimony was published in the report, everybody can find it. And all of their testimony is essentially unrefuted and uncontradicted. It tells one story, which is the president of the United States conducted a shakedown of a foreign power. He used 391 million that we in congress voted for a besieged struggling democracy, ukraine, to defend itself against russian invasion and attack. To coerce that the president of that Foreign Government, president zelensky, to get involved in a election campaign. What did he want him to do . Well, he wanted president zelensky to make an announcement on television that joe biden was being investigated. Now, what does that have to do with the Foreign Policy of the United States . What does it have to do with what congress voted for . What does it have to do with any legitimate interest of the u. S. Government . But the other thing he wanted president zelensky to do was to rehabilitate the completely discredited Conspiracy Theory that it was ukraine and not russia that interfered in our election. Our entire intelligence community, the nsa, the cia, the fbi, the Senate Committee on intelligence issued this. All of them say the same thing, which is that it was russia that conducted what the department of justice called a sweeping and Systematic Campaign against our election in 2016. You remember, mr. Chairman, they injected propaganda into our polity through social media, facebook, twitter, so on. They directly conducted cyber invasion and attack against the dcc, Hillary Clintons the Democratic National committee, the dcc, Hillary Clintons headquarters. They tried to get into our state boards of elections. Not to three, all 50 of them not to were three, all 50 they tried to get into. Best not to or three, but all 50 of them they tried to get into. Thats what russia did. Suddenly we have the president of the United States telling president zelensky that if he wants 391 million that we voted for him and hes been certified by the department of defense and the department of state clearing every anticorruption screen that had been put in place and called for by congress, if he wants the money and if he wants the white house meeting that he desperately wanted to show that america was on ukraines side and not russias side, if he wanted to get that stuff, he had to come and get involved in our president ial campaign and he had to rehabilitate this discredited story about 2016. I yield back. Well, thank you. You know, i think ive been listening to some commentary on the news, the pundits, and i think people need a lesson in constitutional law. Thats why its great youre here. Let me ask you a basic question, because i think sometimes people dont understand. Why is impeachment in the constitution . Thats a great question. Mr. Collins invoked indirectly my favorite American Revolutionary, tom payne, who wrote common sense and the age of reason. He said you cant have one without the other. You need the common sense of people and you need people to be conducting things according to reason, facts, impurism, science. But, why did payne come all the way over here to participate in the American Revolution which is not foreordained to win anyway . In any way . Because america was the first nation in history born out of a revolutionary struggle against monarchy, against the idea that you could have hereditary rule. Payne said, a hereditary ruler is as ridiculous as a hereditary mathematician or a hereditary artist. Right . He said the people have got to decide on their only to. On their own leaders. Now, impeachment is an instrument that our founders put into the constitution informed by the british experience. There was impeachment that parliament had, but it wasnt against the king. It was only against royal minimumsters. Royal ministers. Why . Because of the british doctrine, the king can do no wrong. Right . The king can do whatever he wants. The king can do no wrong. And therefore, the king couldnt be impeached. But our founders insisted impeachment be in there not just for other civil officers who might commit high crimes and misdemeanors, but against the president himself. And of course, the president and the domestic emoluments clause has a fixed salary and office in office and he cant receive any other emoluments from the government itself, any other payments. The president is effectively an employee of the American People. Thats the way hes designed. Hes not above the people. Hes a servant of the people like all of us are. And the president s core job is what . To take care that the laws are faithfully executed. If he doesnt faithfully execute the laws, if he thwarts the laws, tramples the laws and commits crimes against the American People, then were not going on send him to prison. He is not going to go to jail for one day, but he needs to be removed in order to protect democracy. For the record, why is abuse of power an Impeachable Offense . Abuse of power is the ultimate impeachment. Is the essential impeachment offense. That is why it is in ther. There. Putting the president above the rule of law, above the constitution. The founders didnt want a president who was going to behave like a king. Wed seen enough of that. We wanted a president who would implement the laws, implement the Affordable Care act and implement environmental laws. That is your job. Thats what youre supposed to be doing. So, weve seen evidence the president decided to withhold from ukraine important official acts, the white house visit, military aid in order to pressure ukraine to announce investigations of Vice President biden in the 2016 elections. Why does that constitute an Impeachable Offense . Well, it basically implicates every single one of the concerns that were raised by the founders at the Constitutional Convention. One, it places the personal political legend of the president over enforcing laws and enforcing the role of love. Rule of law. Two, it drags foreign powers into our election. That was something that the framers were terrified about. There was a Great Exchange between adams and jefferson about just this issue, that there would be constant foreign intrigue and influence, attempts to come and influence because we would be an open democracy and so people would try to exploit our openness by getting involved in our elections with their Foreign Government concerns, which is why the president had to have complete, undivided loyalty to the American People and the american constitution and not get involved with Foreign Governments. Not drag Foreign Governments into our affairs. So basically, you have everything the framers were concerned about tied up into one bundle here, which is involving Foreign Governments in our elections, placing the president s interests over all over Everything Else, and then essentially threatening the rule of the people in democracy. And where do you draw the line between a legitimate use of and where do you draw the line between a legitimate use of president ial power and an abuse of power . I mean and why is it significant that President Trump acted for his personal political advantage and not for the furtherance of any Valid National policy objective objective . Ur colleagu shrewdly zeroed in on the fact that some of the witnesses, including ambassador sondland said, well, of course there was a quid pro quo. The president was not going to release the aid. He was not going to have the meeting until he got what he wanted in terms of political interference. And then even the president S White House chief of staff said, yes im not quoting directly. He was saying, yes, this is the way we proceed. Get used to it. Our colleagues have said, theres always quid pro quo tied up in Foreign Policy. In other words, its legit to say to a Foreign Government, well give you this aid if you comply that the aid is all being used in the proper way. We will give you this assistance if you attend these conferences and meetings with us to make sure the assistance is being used properly and so on. Theres nothing wrong with that. Look add what happened here. This was an arrangement where the president conditioned all of this of foreign assistance we had sent 200 million to the department of defense, 191 million to the department of state to help ukraine defend itself against russia. And the president said, but i but what he was holding out for was the interference of the ukrainian president in our election to harm his political opponent. I think everyone can recognize that is not the normal kind of push and pull and orangements nations make for each other. Why . Because the president privileged his own political interest. Thats why it was all done secretly. Luckily witnesses were willing to come forward. Ill ask you and mr. Raskin the same question. Was the president s call with president zelensky perfect, as the president has said . And was it appropriate for him to ask forecountry to investigate an american citizen . Ive said this before. There was nothing wrong with the call. When you look at it again frankly, the last the problem were having now is exactly the last 15 minutes of this. Great oratory on a lot of things that mean nothing to this impeachment. We get down to the bottom line here. Ill let him answer that question and ill get back to. Everything thrown out here is exactly the problem weve had in the discussion and this weve disproven the fact. Wie talked about the law. I can talk about both of them. The problem we have here is this is the very problem ill address one thing or if you want me to switch right now, i will. Thats fine. Ill give it to him. Im looking at the transcripts saying, i would like you to do us a favor, though. Do you think it was a president call . Lieutenant colonel vindman said it was perfectly okay. It was his in testimony. Lieutenant colonel vindman said would it be in your experience that a president would do that . Do you think its right for a u. S. President to ask a Foreign Government to investigate a u. S. Citizen . No, i know its wrong. One of the interesting things about the hearing is every single i think every Single Member of congress who has at least endorsed impeachment inquiry has said its completely wrong for the u. S. President to use any of the means at his disposal to drag Foreign Governments into our election. We were unable to get our colleagues on the Judiciary Committee to weigh in on that saying lets assume you think, lets stipulate you think that the president did nothing wrong here. Do you think its wrong for the president. United states to use foreign powers involved in our election. We couldnt get an answer. I reissued the invitation to mr. Collins. I certainly would not want that to become the pattern for all future presidencies. I think the interesting thing here, mr. Chairman, if i could, i dont want this to be the pattern for future impeachments. This is the problem i have. The understanding here is, i guess its okay, though, to get involved in a 2016 election when you pay a third party to pay for a dossier. These are the things we can talk about. The interesting issue thats just discussed here is exactly where we are right now in a question and comment because what mr. Raskin just brought up is an interesting point. So, is it okay if youre running for president that you cant be investigated . Even if you did something overseas . If youre running for president and you did something overseas, it would be off limits, according to mr. Raskins argument for the United States government to investigate that. Thats the argument he just set up. I think you need to be very careful with that argument. I appreciate i guess daimpb again, i mentioned this in my opening statement. The frustrating it would seem to obvious to so many of us about inappropriate behavior, we cant even get i look at, you know, our former colleague charlie dent, said he spoke to republicans who were absolutely disgust gusted and exhausted by the president s whatever. David jolly said, quote, weve witnessed an impeachable moment. Reed rible of wisconsin said, clearly there was some type of quid pro quo when asked if former South Carolina republican bob english who served on the Judiciary Committee during the clinton impeachment said last month in a tweet without a doubt, if barack obama had done the things revealed in the testimony in the current inquiry, we republicans would have impeached him. Joe scarborough, former republican congressman for florida said, every republican knows donald trump was asked for dirt on joe biden in exchange for releasing military funds. Lets go on to i dont know. Do you want to respond, mr. Raskin . Sure, id be delighted to. One thing i just passed a note say i may have gotten the numbers wrong. The department of defense had 250 million appropriation for the purposes of aiding ukraine and the state had 141 million. I may have misspoken and said 200 million. As to that point, again, i feel for my friends because i think theyre put into a situation, put into a box, so to speak, which is what President Trump was quoted as saying he wanted about president zelensky, he wanted him in a box. But i think so theyre put into something of a corner here because the president has declared his conduct president. Absolutely perfect. And he can do whatever he wants. And so they are unable to say to make the case that i would make, if i were trying to defend the president , i would say, okay, that was totally wrong and off limits but its not impeachable for x, y and z reasons. Theyre not allowed anyone space. They must go with the president s assertion that this was categorically correct. There was nothing wrong with it. Was it was perfectly right. He quoted legal scholars. He invoked League Scholars who told him the phone call was perfect as well. I want to move my questioning along here. On the issue of obstruction of congress, why is obstruction of congress an Impeachable Offense . Well, look, this is something mr. Collins made an important point. We have to think about this in institutional terms. He rightly calls us to redouble our commitment to fairness in the process. Ive seen process of fairness in this process. Ive seen in the closed door depositions, i saw democratic counsel get an hour, i saw the republican counsel get an hour, i saw the democratic members get to question, ive seen this committee bend over backwards to get all of the depositions out as quickly as possible while the president of the United States is stopping at least seven witnesses from coming forward. It may be more than that. But he has blockaded witnesses. The president who says the process is unfair is the one stopping everyone from coming to testify. And is essentially trying to blockade the whole investigation. Like, why is this essential, mr. Chairman . Its essential because for institutional reasons. Its essential for institutional reasons because in the future it might be a majority democratic congress, it might be a majority republican congress. In any event, its congress. One of our jobs is as members of congress is to make sure the president does not violate the laws. Were supposed to stand sentinel to make sure the president will only enforce the laws, take care the laws are faithfully executed. What happens if you get a president who totally trashes the law . Some of us think we may be there now. I know some of our colleagues dont believe that. Certainly they can imagine a situation where a president advertises spectacular disrespect and contempt for the law and trashes the law. Whats our ultimate check against that . Its going to be impeachment. Thats why its . The institution. But now we have a president for the first time in American History says, i am going to try to block the ability of congress to impeach me by not turning over one single document, by trying to hold back people from testifying like secretary pompeo, like chief of staff mulvaney, like multiple other members of administration. I dont want them to come forward to testify. And so were going to have to use our common sense to derive conclusions about what that means. What does our common sense tell us when you have all these other people coming forward and testifying about the misconduct of the president and then the president trying to block everybody else from coming forward to testify in his administration . Let me just point out for the record, we have requested several documents and testimony from members of this administration. And what has the president and his administration done in response . Nothing. I think its important for people to understand just for the record. Request for documents from the state department, ignored. Requests for documents from the department of the defense, ignored. Qusz for documents from the Vice President , ignored. Requests for documents from giuliani associate lev parnas, ignored. Requests for documents from giuliani igor fruman, ignored. Requests for documents from rudy giuliani, the president s lawyer, ignore pd. From testimony of National Security adviser john bolton, ignored. Requests from the testimony of white house chief of staff, mick mulvaney, ignored. Heres a list of all the requests that have been made, the red marks are basically to demonstrate noncompliance, theyve been ignored. I think this is what you call obstructi obstruction, plain and simple. The only people that have complied are patriotic public servan servan servants. I mean, i guess i just ask, what presumptions should we make when the president prevents witnesses from complying with congressional subpoenas . Lets use our common sense. People who have exculpatory evidence, a fancy way of saying evidence that shows their innocence, want the court to see the evidence. People who have evidence that demonstrates their innocence would bring that to congress. People who have evidence which they think may be inculpatory, evidence to lead people to believe this their guilt, they take it away. You made a profoundly important point, mr. Chairman, which links articles 1 and articles 2 of the impeachment articles. Do we want to set a precedent that u. S. Citizens can become president of the United States by inviting foreign powers to get involved in our election. Then once theyre in, if congress stidz that their conduct is impeachable and involves high crimes and misdemeanors, they can then pull a curtain down over the executive branch and not allow any investigation, not allow subpoenas to be honored and so on. That is a very dangerous prospect that would have terrified and horrified and shocked the framers of our constitution. Thank you. And you want do you want okay. Im about to yield to my to my Ranking Member, im sure, has lots and lots of questions. I do want to take a moment, i think its important we remember this. I want to remind everybody why were here today. The president abused the power of his office for his own personal gain and obstructed a congressional investigation to look into that conduct. How did he do that . He withheld aid for a country under siege by russia to leverage help for his Political Campaign. President trumps abuse of power has endajed our free elections and National Security remains an ongoing threat to them both. He showed us a pattern of inviting foreign interference in our elections and trying to cover it up twice. And hes threatened to do it again. With the 2020 elections fast approaching we must act with a sense of urgency to protect our democracy and defend our constitution. On our first day as members of congress we took an oath to support and defend the constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic. I do not swear allegiance to a Political Party. I swor allegiance to the constitution. I hope all my colleagues will do the same. With that i would yield to the Ranking Member formy questions he might have. Youre right. I do have questions and i appreciate your forbearance im very liberal. Yes, you are. In this sense, in the finest sense of the word. I express my appreciation for that, as weve discussed. To my friend, mr. Raskin, a number of my questions have been crafted or were originally crafted for chairman nadler. You may or may not be able to answer those directly. We certainly understand why hes not here. As the chairman said, we sympathize him during a difficult time but we think its important for the record so i want to high late that for you. Mr. Chairman, i asked unanimous consent to interview the record a document entitled, quote, how we resist trump, unquote, authored by congressman judgerry nadler and posted on www. Jerrynadler. Com on november 16th of 2016. Without objection. Thank you, mr. Chairman. In this document, chairman nadler wrote, quote, we cannot wait four years to vote mr. Trump out of office so we must do everything we can to stop trump and his extreme agenda now, unquote. Mr. Raskin, on august 8th chairman nadler stated with respect to the Judiciary Committees hearing regarding the Mueller Report that, quote, this is a formal impeachment proceedings rnlgt but the how the unquote, but the house did not actually authorize impeachment proceedings until the adoption of h res 660 on october 31st. I believe its important to clarify for the record when formal impeachment proceedings actually started. Is chairman nadler correct when he said they started on august 8th or did they begin when the house authorized them on october 31st . Forgive me, mr. Cole, i was not prepared to answer that question but i think the Judiciary Committee has taken formal positions which we can track about this question. The house of the representatives can design and structure impeachment as it sees fit. Well, it mr. Cole, could i certainly. Not outside of house rules they cant. Not without passing resolution. Thats the problem we had with this earlier on. They were going outside house rules. Again, when counsel has been here forever, this is what happened. They went outside of house rules. Thats the problem ive had with this this. We can discuss that more in depth. I think the spirit behind this suggests this has been going on quite some time, longer than the formal proceedings. Mr. Raskin, on december 10, 1998 during the clinton impeachment proceedings, chairman nadler stated in the house Judiciary Committee that, quote, there must never be a narrowly voted impeachment or impeachment supported by one of our Major Political parties and opposed by another. Such an impeachment will produce divisiveness and bitterness in politics for years to come and will call into question the very legitimacy of our political institutions. Do you believe this impeachment, which is supported by only one Political Party has produced again, im going to have to allow chairman nadler to speak for his own words. I certainly understand that. So look, theres been a lot of bitterness and division in our country for several years now preceding any impeachment proceedings. Its a sad thing. I hope everybody rallies around the constitution because its the constitution that will get us through this difficult time in our history. Let me just say about the clinton impeachment the conduct president clinton was charged with he wasnt convicted for perjury but he was essentially charged with perjuring himself in describing private conduct, a sexual affair. And the conduct were looking at today goes right at the heart of why impeachment is in the constitution. Impeachment is in the constitution because public offenses against democracy itself. I think you cannot compare what president clinton was impeached for by the house of representatives, and i hold no brief for his conduct in any way but i dont think you can compare that to the massive overwhelming and unrefuted evidence we have that the president of the United States today has tried to drag a foreign power into our elections to his own political advantage. That wasnt exactly the question i asked, but let me turn to mr. Collins and see if you agree with mr. Raskin, if theres anything you would disagree with there and whats been the impact of this process on the domestic politics of the country since it has been essentially partisan in nature . Look, not trying again, ill cut some sla, that he was trying to answer for a chairmans own words and i get that. But theres several things lets just talk here for a minute. Lets unpack. The only thick i appreciate out of the last few minutes is the chairman trying to bring it in about impeachment. I agree with him on that point, that this is about impeachment. What i disagree is its not about abuse of power. Its not about Everything Else. It would come from this is something you love to see in the law. Its a written record of motive. Youve seen it since the day he was elected. Youve seen it in this whole process working out. You saw it last year when my chairman ran for the job because he would be the best for impeachment. What was hanging out last year for impeachment . It became a Mueller Report that didnt give them everything they wanted. Then we came into a call. This is this is a pattern. Look, i said this to my chairman, who i respect. You got the votes. Go explain it to the American People. Talk about afflicting an election. There are a few things here that is interesting. As i said earlier on. Time and look are terrible masters. Ive heard it so many times from the chairman of this keshgs the chairman of other committees. We have to do it before the 2020 election. Put a candidate up worth voting for, how about that, instead of going after a president who youre having trouble beating because of the things that happened in our country. With unemployment, the economy going well. Thats what political primarying are for. Not this when you look back i still never got an answer to my question i had a few minutes ago about have with now set a standard if you run for president you can do anything you want to overseas and not get investigated for it. I havent got that answered. But the chairmans question about requesting stuff. As the chairman knows and my chairman knows because my chairman likes subpoenas. He likes to threaten them anyway. But the secretary of defense responded, he said it was open to negotiation. Secretary of state, part of the document dump was part of that. House Judiciary Committee, the dump we did get from the Intelligence Committee had omb records from the Budget Committee in it. There are issues here that ive had problems with all year in this. And, you know, if you didnt receive a letter, as we have done in the past when we were under majority under president obama and president obama in fast and furious and other times, the thing that amazes me seems like the majority all of a sudden discovered the executive branch and the legislative branch dont play together in the sandbox. This is not a shock for any of us here during the obama administration. I was in oversight for the first two years. We pulled our hair out. We had the irs, Everything Else and we were constantly being stonewalled and stopped, had to actually issue subpoenas which finally the courts did rule, and i think this is your problem, the courts ruled many years later that attorney general holder did violate not giving the information out. That was actually done. But it was many years later. Again, calendar and clock is a terrible master. And youre having to do this because you promised it. You promised it. Were carrying through on a promise here. The other thing is we talk about fairness here. My friend said that, oh, this has been completely fair. Nobodys questioning the fact that our folks got to question the witnesses. Nobody is questioning that fact. But what about the fact of the majority preventing witnesses under rules from using Agency Counsel . Even under the auspices of an impeachment investigation. How about cutting off republican questions and refusing to allow the third branch to even rules on claims of privilege when one was actually done, you actually withdrew from the lawsuit. Again, its not a matter of time here. Its not a matter of facts. Again, when we go back to it, i cannot repeat this over and over again because it comes up with mr. Raskin, comes up with the chairman, it will come up many times. Put pressure on a world leader. Folks, this pressure is amazingly because the guy who was supposed to be pressure denied it ever happened, on multiple occasions. Even one of his own members of cabinet said yermak said we never talked about conditionality. The only time they talked about this was presumption and hearsay. Sondland said it was presumption. Thats what i presumed. When he actually asked the president straight up, he said, what do you want . I want nothing. I just want what he promised and he ran on. Its presumption and hearsay. Granted, this is not a court of law because, believe me, this would have been over a long time alg. We wouldnt have gotten to this place the rules have allowed it to get to this place because majority rules in this place. But heres the problem. The pressure issue is sad because, again, to continue this line of thought after the president of the ukraine has came out and denied and denied it and denied it, youre either calling him april pathological liar, a world leader, or youre calling as was actually he was actually called in our Committee Last week a battered wife. He was actually called that. Compared to a battered wife. How low have we sunk . This is the problem because at the end of the day we can go into process files. I dont say its a mistake but i took my own chairman at his word. When i read about his comments from 20 years ago. When he said the Judiciary Committee should never take a report from a third party and actually not try to investigate it itself. Otherwise we become a rubber stamp. Congratulations. Our Judiciary Committee became a rubber stamp. I hope we recover. Because thats all were doing right now is just rubber stamping what adam schiff did under his own rules, under his own time frame, his own ways. Also a man whos been out for this president since day one and would not come and testify. Thats the most amazing, shocking thing to me in this whole process. When you understand where were at here i can understand why mr. Raskin, who is eloquent in his discussion of constitution of why we have impeachment, cut to the fact. You dont like the guy. You dont like the conversation, you dont like how he does business. At the end the of day, when you Start Talking about the pressure on a foreign power to do something for you personally again, to even get to that remotely you have to change words in the transcript instead of do us a favor for our country, do us, you have to change it to me. You have to change the facts. Last time i checked, this country is not real kind to those who are accused, having those in power change the rules to fit their game. Thats not due process. But im going to go back over it because the chairman actually said heres why were here. There are four facts that will never change. It goes straight to the heart anything outside of abuse of power, theres no pressure, President Trump, president zelensky. It shows no conditionality of trade. The only one relied on in 600 times in the Intelligence Committee report was mr. Sondland, who after he got past his perfect opening statement, when questioned said, well, thats what i presumed it to be. When actually talked to the president of the United States, he was told, no, all i want him to do is his job. Nothing else. When he actually said, i have a conversation with mr. Yermak, he said there was nothing discussed of conditionality. How do you put this much faith in mr. Sondland when hes conditionally told stories that change . And all of the rest were hearsay. All of the rest were actually going off other things. Even Lieutenant Colonel vindman who i respect as a soldier actually said when the question was asked, is it okay to have this call . Yes, its okay for a president to do that, to ask for a political investigation because it happens. And he even said that. So the question comes back, the ukrainians were not even aware their aid was withheld. And the ukraines didnt open an investigation to get the money. Let me ask you, is this the first partisan impeachment inquiry in the nations history . Yes. Maz a president ever been impeached without minority votes before . I think theres some discussion about that with the johnson impeachment from many years ago. That was also when congress itself set him up with the law. So, i think you have to say that was an impeachment. This is in the modern day era, this was a partisan impeachment. Speaker pelosi said impeachment must be, quote, compelling and overwhelmingly bipartisan. Theres bipartisan opposition to the inquiry. Appears there will be bipartisan opposition to the articles. Ranking member collins, gwynn all of that, do you believe the upcoming vote on h r. Sechlt 755 comports with the standards set by the speaker herself . No, it comes nowhere close. Is your belief that the meeting and arbitrary deadline is more important to the democratic majority than building a viable case if, in fact, there is cause for impeachment . Their own words convict him of that. The premise of these articles of impeachment rest on a pause placed on ukraine Security Assistance. A pause, by the way, of less than two months. 55 days, i believe. Democrats have spun creative narratives as to the meaning and the motive of this pause but offered no factual evidence. Did ukraine ever initiate investigations into the bidens . No. Was the aid ultimately released . Yes. Do you believe the taxpayer dollars of the American People were well served by the pause . They were. The president himself not policy makers, not administrative officials in different offices have final authority. Thats the president s call. Thats the president s decision. And he made that call. Is it unusual for aid to be paused on by a chief executive . No. Did the democratic majority subpoena all core witnesses with firsthand evidence on any potential quid pro quo with the ukrainian controversy . No. Has anyone in the Trump Administration been charged with or convicted of a crime under the current allegations related to the ukraine . No. Let me continue. Its my understanding that the minority properly exercised its right under clause 2, j1 of rule 11 to demand a minority hearing. Is that the case . That is correct. What day did you ask for that hearing . We asked for it on the first day of our when we convened in the Judiciary Committee. I believe mr. Sensenbrenner. I dont remember the dates in front december 4th. Ill be happy to provide that. Has that hearing been scheduled . No. It was summarily dismissed with a long letter in sense it was dilatory. On the very first day the request could have been made. Mr. Mr. Raskin, are you familiar with the related if a majority of the minority members make their demand before the committees hearing is gaveled close . Yi believe, i think, mr. Collins invoked that at our hearing. So you are familiar yeah, just familiar. I wasnt aware of it before. Statements posted on the rules majority website in document entitled, quote, house rules which govern the Committee Hearing process, unquote, based on review of the hearing video, the minority properly presented their request to chairman nadler before the original hearing concluded. Are you familiar with a memo written mr. Raskin. I should have made that clear. By form other rules Committee Chairman david dryer governing minority rule day . No. Chairman mcgovern i ask unanimous consent this memo be made part of the record and will note the memo states, in part, that a point of order may lie against reported measure in which the minoritys demand for a hearing was improperly rejected. Without objection. Ill ask unanimous consent. And insert it in the record, our response to your letter. We can talk about that after your questions. Certainly appropriate. Thank you, mr. Chairman. During the markup of hres 755, chairman nadler, interpreting the rule requires that the minority hearing day occur prior to the consideration of relevant measure or matter would permit the minority to properly delay proceedings. Were you trying to improperly trying to delay proceedings, mr. Collins . No. I was trying to have proper followup of rules. And, again, you made this request the very first day of hearings, is that correct . We did. The hearing at which the demand was properly made was entitled, in part, quote, the impeachment inquiry of donald j. Trump, unquote. My colleagues on the other side the aisle have offered a number of reasons why chairman nadlers refusal to schedule a minority hearing is appropriate. Id like to take a moment to respond to those. My colleagues claim that the legislative history of the rules suggest that it was designed as a backstop to ensure the minority gets at least one witness at a hearing. I do not find this reasoning to be compelling if that, indeed, was the purpose of the rule the plain reading of the text would say otherwise. While traditionally its been used as a negotiating point between majority and minority regarding the number of witnesses, the mere fact the minority has a witness at a hearing does not mean that theres an implicit waiver of the right to demand a minority day hearing. There are times in which the minority waves the right to minority day hearing. For example, our discussions regarding medicare for all hearing. We waved that right to a minority day hearing in order to secure two more witnesses. Mr. Collins, at any time did you wave your rights under clause 2, j1 of rule 11 . No, i did not. I believe thats why were here today, actually. Did you ask a second witness day and did they provide that second witness witness, excuse me, and did they provide that second witness in exchange for waving your rights . No, it was not even discussed. My colleagues on the other side of the aisle have previously quoted joint committee on organization of congress 1966 recommendations which stated that a minimum safeguard be established for, quote, those infrequent indents when a witness not a however, thats not the case today. Witness was allotted time in this case but not witnesses. In other words, we didnt get anything in exchange for our right not being exercised. While this may have been one reason for the adoption of the minority hearing day provision, it doesnt render meaningless the plain reading of the text. So, we spent a lot of time on this, but we think its very important. We simply werent given something that we think by, you know, by right we should have had. And would actually subject this to a point of order. My colleagues also claim chairman nadler is not required to schedule the minority hearing day before the matter is reported out of committee. You got to be kidding. In other words, we cannot agree that the house intended that the right for the minority hearing day can be fulfilled by scheduling a hearing on a measure after the measures voted out of the full committee. I mean, that just doesnt make any sense. So, mr. Collins, presume passage of these articles of impeachment, isnt the minority hearing day now irrelevant . I believe it is. And i believe thats the concern many of us have who institutionally love this place irrelevant . Yes. And that is why so many of us love this place. And so even though the house rules did not require chairman nadler, for marking up the impeachments, and the members of the Judiciary Committee, and the rules committee, and you believe it would have been better for the American Institution and to vent all of this disagreement and the rancor and to schedule the hearing. It is just one day . I apologize that i learned of it one day when mr. Collins raised it. I looked at it, and it says that the chair of the committee is not required to schedule the minority hearing precedent to the continuing course of legislative action, and i having been in the minority for the first time here, i feel your exasperation about that, that it may not be happening before the bill passes and if we want to make a change to that rule that something that we should talk about with future congresses. I ap appreciate that, and the sentiment behind it, because i know it is sincere. Again, i can go on and on on this, but we do believe, mr. Chairman, it is a violation of the spirit of the letter, and we tried to make your request respectful, and we tried to. It was. To us the facts are clear that chairman nadler ignored the right of the committee to be ignored by the democratic majority now, and being so, it fundamentally alters the tools of the committee, and so we hope that the committee will repair this and at the very least have this matter debateded on the house floor. Mr. Raskin, after the adoption of hres660, Ranking Member collins wrote seven letters to chairman nadler on the subject of the committees consideration of impeachment. And on the 12th he wrote that the matter of the committees consideration, and on november 14th, he wrote chairman nadler asking for the same transparency and fairness in prior impeachment inquiries be prioritized. And on november 18th, he wrote chairman nadler for a particular witness, and the coordination of certain witnesses to conceal relevant facts. On september 21st, he wrote chairman nadler that he had obtained all documents from chairman schiff pursuant to House Resolution 660, and on november 30th, the persistent mr. Collins wrote chairman nadler asking for expanded panel and balanced composition of the academic witnesses to opine on the subject matters at issue. And then december 2nd, he wrote chairman nadler for clarity of how he wants to conduct the inquiry, and referencing five previous letters that were never answered and on december 3rd, he wrote him reminding him of the recent letters and asking the Judiciary Committee to provide the president due process with the Intelligence Committee and chairman schiff did not. And so it is my understanding that chairman nadler did not provide a response to any of these letters . Is it your knowledge that chairman nadler does not respond to ranking minority leardders . No, and like the aforementioned Thomas Jefferson was a prolific letter writer, so i dont know if they engaged to follow up on all of those, but we are together on a daily basis pretty much, so i cant speak for the chairman. I wanted to notice for the letter, but when i sent a note to my chairman, he did respond and we appreciate that very much. And sir yes. It is not true in our committee, and we have one letter from the witness list and the other was when we had a discussion of the witness list which turned into a conversation of asking for three to two, and ratios when i was asking for the witnesses, and that is the only regret i have. I understand that the chairman is under a lot of pressure, and the calendar will kill you a lot. And in a sense, this committee does have a responsibility to make sure that the other committees operate according to our rules, and common courtesy. Mr. Collins, the article of impeachment are based on a report written by chairman schiff and transmitted to the Judiciary Committee, correct . That is correct. Did that impeachment report rely on hearsay to support their assertions . Yes. What explanations does chairman schiff provided of why hearsay and the first read testimony was incorrectly presented as evidence . Well, besides his own discussion of making up the phone call to begin with, and he is not provided on, because he did not come testify in my committee. Well, did you ask chairman nadler for mr. Schiff to testify . I did. You asked for articles of impeachment of the commander in chief based on nonsupported allegations and hearsay and you were not able to ask questions of the author of the record . That is right. I got a staff number. And so i would like to say that the chairman was unwilling to answer about the report, but he did appear on fox news, and that is unfortunate that it made television documents other than transparent and thorough bipartisan investigation, and also worthy of the record, mr. Collins, was the president and this is an odd thing for us, because generally the Judiciary Committee is the Main Committee of impeachment, and that is historically has been the case. And that is clearly not the case here. No, no. And the committee of intelligence is the Main Committee of impeachment. Did the president have any counsel there . No, somewhere we lost the right to be in impeachment, and we got it in the end to finish it, but we lost it. There is a difference of window dressings and substance. But the end of hearings where you are not allowed to question the author of the report on which the impeachment is base and the president never had representation there, and in the past we always had representation. You were at the judiciary, and the president was there, and he could ask questions, but the main place where all of these things come out of, the president was specifically excluded and you were not in what is supposed to be the Main Committee on judiciary, and you were not allowed to ask the author of the principle report questions. You have just permitted in a short summation are crux of the whole problem which i have admired. By the time it got to the Judiciary Committee, it was done deal. The train was on the tracks and they had to catch up to it. It was decided what they wanted to do. And here it is and i have heard this argument and you can window dress it, but when we go to institutional integrity problem here, when you do whatever you think of hres660, the only place it provided the opportunity for fairness for the president and the administration was in the Judiciary Committee, because at that point in time there they would have been able to ask for witnesses by the way, which they were turned down and all of these things, but never opportunity. And there is no way, and i dont care how much the majority pretties this up, and there is no way to be calling four Law School Professors and two staff member, and that is the only members that you have to provide any opportunity for the president to question and get anything out of them, and i have heard from my majority colleagues, but as a defense colleague, if he is innocent, just tell him to come prove it, and when is that ever part of what we are doing here. Really . I dont think that any of the civil libertarians on the democratic aisle should be laying awake at night, how can i be associated with this. Because we can do it fairly and still get the results, and they are outnumbering us, and trying to dit fo it for three years. Mr. Raskins, did you have any problems with the report . No. Really, nobody on our side had any conversations. To your knowledge did chairman nadler have any conversations with chairman schiff about the contents of the report . I am sorry, you say about the contents of the report well, none of our people have had that opportunity. Well, as a committee, we have been talking about the substance of it for a long time now. I did not, well, i mean well, we have beenhe substan report and we didnt have an opportunity to question the author of the report. Oh, okay. I see what you mean. Formally or informally to my knowledge. Again, the counsel for the Intelligence Committee came over to discuss all of the factual findings that were in the Intelligence Committees report but he is not the principle author of the report of, and the chairman is the principle author. And by the way, a fact witness as well in many ways. And so if i could respond to this general line of attack. The House Resolution 660 had a number of significant procedural protections for the president. And so the grand jury and the trial takes place in the senate, but still, we had significant procedural productions. We invited the president ial counsel the opportunity to participate and object to the admissibility of the testimony, and to make presentation of the evidence before the full Judiciary Committee and the ability to call witnesses, and the president chose not the avail himself of the opportunity, and it is reminding me of the president blockading all of the witnesses and saying that you dont have enough people with direct first hand knowledge. Were those rights only in the Judiciary Committee, because you are not the impeachment committee, but the fallout, and so did the president get those right in the Intelligence Committee . I will have to go back to check. I assure you not. You may not accept this analogy, but this is the analogy that we proceeded on, because this is the first impeachment where the house was the factfinder itself, and so when the special counsel and the independent counsel did their work in the nixon and the clinton impeachments, all of that was closed door depositions, and they did not want the witnesses to coordinating the testimony and so on. And that is how the investigations take place. The House Committee on intelligence and our factfinding committee, and that why they performed closed door depositions, because they wanted to avoid witnesses coaching each other and testimony. And let me give mr. Kol lcola chance to answer here. I am the Ranking Member who said that if the president saw something that he did not like, he could have written a letter like anybody else in the world. And that how he would be taken care of, but let me hit a couple of these. And we still have not received all of the documents that we were supposed to have received. And they said they have not, and i have not. And that is a direct violation of h660, but i dont know how to get around it, andp pretend it is not happening, but the staff member for mr. Goldman would not testify on the method of the investigation, and even in an egregious violation in their own reporting, members of congress and their phone records, he would not actually say who ordered that chairman schiff or him, and i have defaulted to you the mr. Schiff, but mr. Goldman said that we will not discuss the procedure of their investigation. This is the most amazing thought when you are trying to get due process to the president of the United States, and we can pretty it up any way, but it is not binding. Look, you will impeachment, and you have the votes, but at the end of the day, it is worth the integrity of the house . I dont think so. Attend of the day, mr. Collins said that when he asked how the report was conducted and never got a answer. And then there were phone calls revealed from the phone records of chairman nunes, and how did you get those well, i have to have staff counsel well, he would not answer that, right, mr. Collins . Right. And just asking somebody who would not answer the question. Well, i understand that we forcefully represented that no member of the house of representatives and no member of the press was targeted with any investigative resources. Mr. Really . I dont know how he got that statement out without stumbling all over everything. You cannot i mean, this is talking about the metadata and the numbers and at some point somebody with the Ranking Members phone number had to go down there to look for his phone number, and look for mr. Solo n solomons phone number, and this is how screwed it up. They want to gloss over the process and how they did the investigation, because the time and the calendar are terrible masters, but this is what we are talking about, and they would not talk about it. To say that nobody is doing this intentionally is just not being factually accurate. It does not happen on its own. I would ask both of you this question. Who specifically matched the phone numbers of Ranking Member nunes and what method did they use . I have no idea. If i could say in response to the whole line of questioning. The president of the United States was given the opportunity to call any witnesses that he wanted, any of the 17 witnesses who appeared before the House Intelligence Committee and oversight and in Foreign Affairs and could have been called by the president , and he would have had the opportunity to crossexamine any of them, but of course he did not want to, because all of them told different pieces of the same story which is that the president executed this shakedown of president zelensky to come to get involved in our campaign at the expense of that is not holding water. I cannot say this again. Going back to the calendar and the clock and when i talked to the chairman himself, and asked him lert letters asking for th witness day, and he did not build it in for the calendar to accept one of our witnesses much less the white house, and dont tell me that they would have accepted it, because it was never on the calendar. These numbers didnt specifically and who specifically ordered the inclusion of the phone records in the schiff report . Ranking member, i am afraid i cannot answer these questions, because i dont know. Undoubtedly, the Intelligence Committee carrying out a vendetta against a member of congress. Either of you believe it is proper to have call logs that are not no, it is nothing but a political driveby, and i told you that they could have done it several ways and member one, and person one, and any other way, but they chose to actually use the names. This is a political hitjob. Give you an opportunity to respond, mr. Raskin. Appropriate for the names and numbers to be released, and the targets of the investigation, and just swept up . Yeah. I was not involved in that part of it, and so, forgive me again again, i understand. Will the gentleman yield for a moment . We did have testimony on this. You will get your opportunity here. Yes, the testimony was, i am not going to tell you. And how many times, mr. Collins, the schiff report or hearsay statements were used as evidence . Hundreds. Well, only 54. When you take off one person talking off another person off another, it goes up. And so in these news report, the only i am sorry, if you could repeat . How many times in the schiff reporters, and the news reports of the only factual reporters . One. Out of 56 times. And so, i understand that this was not transmitted to the Judiciary Committee until friday december 6th, and does that comport with your memory . That is correct. Okay. So Judiciary Committee majority did it have access to any evidence beyond the actual access of the Intelligence Committee before the Judiciary Committee considered the articles of impeachment . Well, i dont remember exactly when all of the deposition statements were released publicly, and some of them had been released publicly before that time, and we can go back to check the exact chronology. There are members of the Judiciary Committee who are also in other investigations. Yes, i understand. Certainly. It is my understanding that chairman schiff did not transmit all of the material collected be i the Intelligence Committee to the Judiciary Committee, and is that the case . It is still true to this day. And so you do not agree, and i would ask both of you that the house Judiciary Committee would have had the time and opportunity to review all of that information . We did not have that time and information and it is a violation of the house rules 660. All i can tell you is that the vast amount of what was produced publicly along the way, and i know that the Intelligence Committee made the commitment to release those depositions, and those deposition statements publicly. I considered it a fair an transparent process. I dont think that i got to see a single through the Judicial Committee that was not just coming out to be released by the Intelligence Committee. In any event, all of it is in the final report and there for all of america to see. I dont want us to lose picture of this you dont really know if it is all there in the final report, and if you have not seen it. We do not know, and that is the statement of assuming, and the facts aside. This is the classic of the evidence from the prosecutor, and in a trial, and we dont know what we have not seen. We know what we, a few things that we know that have not been transferred, but we have heard of other things that are not transferred and it cannot be in the report if it had been transferred, because we would then say it has been transferred. And now, looking at the Intelligence Committee proceedings was flawed and that is my view understood line, and the Judiciary Committee failed to create an evidentiary record sufficient to move on to basically rely on the Intelligence Committee. And the related rules of the house and the entire circus has been politically motivated from the very beginning. On the obstruction of congress charge, it is uncommon for the excuse me, it is uncommon, and i ask this for both of you uncommon for the executive branch to push back for requests for information from congress . No, it is not uncommon for the executive branch to push back on the this or that documenter to timing of a visit, but what is breathtaking in the unprecedented and radical nature is this president s determination to shutdown all discovery. They did not produce a single document to us that was subpoenaed in the order, and specifically told every member of the executive branch cooperate, and this is an escalation in kind over anything. And including Richard Nixon who tried to block six or seven requests on the watergate tapes and this is part of the case against him for abuse of power, but President Trump makes president nixon look like a little leaguer when it comes to obstruction. Mr. Kol lin, same thing, do you think it is common for the president to pushback on congressional subpoenas . No, it is common. Well, if it is common, do you believe it is a high crime or misdemeanor to assert privileges and responses to congressional requests for subpoenas . No, and i wanted to go ahead to give the history, and since we have had the history lessons here. In our own xhcommittee this yea which is a total walk towards the impeachment the whole time, but what is interesting in our committee, we would send out subpoenas and letters and stuff, and never followed up on, and one of the interest things about our committee is that we never engaged with the agencies for documents, but mr. Schiff while we were struggling with mueller and other thing, he negotiated with the department of justice that he got documents released that we couldnt. And eliot engel who is one of the quieter chairmans but more effective across the aisle had engaged all year with the administration on ways to get document, and it is a matter of how you go about, and to say it is unheard of is not right. And again, to both of you and getting to the point that you are making, a normal accommodations process for resolving interbranch disputes between the house and the executive branch, kr ekcorrect . Yes. And that process has not occurred here, mr. Collins, and that is what you are telling me . It does not fit neatly into the, you know, the speakers impeachment and christmas time line to borrow your way of looking at it. We have not gone the court. No, they havent. And they were not really engaged. This is a normal give and take and where both sides tend to avoid, quote an exchange where they might go to court and lose something, but all of that has been set aside, and we have not had any process like that . And i would point out something that i disagree with, mr. Mcgahn and a court case that we lost and being appealed, but it is saying that the process is working, but it is not working as fast as we want to. So that is where we have to go back to the process and the one that they had that was one of the members of the administrations contested, but they withdrew the subpoena from the lawsuit, because they didnt want to deal with it. I know that mr. Raskin would have a different view, and if he wants to respond, i will. But i wanted to ask you, mr. Collins, is there any evidence that the president s pause on the ukrainian aid would have had any i apologize. That is all right. This is an essential point you raise. There is not any credible evidence from any of the witnesses were or anything to suggest the president was trying to ferret out corruption as opposed to impose a groep scheme on the president of ukraine. Lets start with this. 2018, the president couldve raised corruption and withholding military and Security Assistance ukraine and never did. In 2019, he did. Joe biden was running for president. The president ial campaign was on his mind. The president removed the fromsador and we learned mr. Giuliani that he was involved with the campaign to smear ambassador you thought of it, to say there was something wrong with her. One of the leading ambassadors that the united theys had the honor subjected her to an unprecedented Smear Campaign that led several of the other that the to protest state department was not standing by its own ambassadors. President trump never raise the word corruption once. He talked about joe biden three times. That was the favor. That was the favor we were looking for. The president of ukraine to come over and say he was investigating the bidens. That is unrefuted in the record. I dont think we should be trying to pull the wool over americas eyes. Lets not play makebelieve. If its ok for the president to do this stuff, lets say it. Lets not claim he was involved in some anticorruption crusade. I think america knows that we cant take that seriously. This president cut anticorruption funding to ukraine by 50 . The chairman of the campaign was on the tank for millions of dollars to a former corrupt president in ukraine. He was the reformer. He was the product of the revolution it of dixon the which tried to bring democracy and fairness and anticorruption efforts to ukraine. Went thered his gang because they wanted to take advantage of the situation and go back to the corrupt forces in ukraine. This president had one thing in mind, his own reelection. You can see that if you look at the phone conversation that the ambassador had with the president the day after july 25. On july 26, he had this phone conversation that was partially overheard by david holmes in the state department. The president ell that zelensky will do whatever you want, he will do the investigation, he loves you. He gets off the phone and he tells them, what . What the president is interested in is the big stuff relating to the president zone political ambitions like the bidens. Hes not interested in the war with russia. I would say, hes not interested in corruption. He was interested in the bidens and that was it. Either thats a property thing for them to be doing or we think its wrong. Some of us believe it rises to the level. Lets give him a chance to respond. And ukrainian official ever tell you they felt shaken down . Theres lots of evidence. Is there any statement on the record . I dont think so. Those are the statements from him. There are contemporaneous emails. The top righthand man to the president of ukraine said that the president does not want to be treated as a political pawn in domestic american politics. They were doing everything in their power to try to get out from underneath the straitjacket, the scheme that was bearing down on them from every different direction. Thats a story. Maybe this is a good way to do it. We are expanding the story to fit our narrative. Lets not play makebelieve. If they had something in the phone, it would have been in the articles of impeachment. There is no direct evidence of anything they are trying to spin here. When you look at this, theres no direct evidence of what was said here. To try to come back and put this into a different perspective, there was no connection between the aid and an investigation. If they were trying to get out from under it so hard, they never did anything to get the eight. They never did anything to get the eight. If they were that scared, something was wrong. Ill try to bring this to a conclusion. I know there will be a difference of opinion here. You certainly both can respond. Contrary to my claims, my friends claims across the aisle, mr. Collins, do you think the democratic majority denied the administration a meaningful opportunity to participate in this proceeding active proceeding . On october 30, the rules Committee Held our jurisdiction markup. There were many serious concerns from our side about the damage this process did to institutions. Republican theres were assured that the president has been afforded all kinds of rights before the Judiciary Committee. Today, this will be an open and transparent process. Despite the fact that we received a tax to the resolution 24 hours earlier. , was thens administration provided the opportunity to participate in the Intelligence Committee proceedings . That supplanted the judiciary as the Principal Committee of impeachment. Recordas put into the that they should have been. The actual way it played out in the scheduling made it nowhere possible that they could even hit it. There was no time in the calendar. I will let my friend respond. You are very kind. When the lt. Col. Testified, he said that this request for a avor was not in any sense friendly request. It was a demand in the context of the hundreds of millions of dollars being held up. For weeks, the ukrainians pushed back on the demand of the andident and his agents advised u. S. Officials they did not want to be an instrument in washington domestic reelection politics. You recall the testimony of dr. Fiona hill who said that this was a domestic political hearing , that the president s team was on in order to extract this commitment from president zelinski to give this interview. Any publicly announced investigation in an interview that the president zelinski had scheduled on cnn. Araine canceled the interview few days after the president s scheme was publicly exposed and the military aid got released. When the scheme blew up, president zelinski felt that he could be free from this obligation to come forward and the president was telling United States senators in august that the aid was going beforeeleased, long there was any notion about a whistleblower or anything else. Senator johnson from wisconsin has testified that fact. Respect, the last administration for four years didnt provide any military assistance to ukraine. The idea that 55 days was somehow life and death in the , it is a thin way to impeach the president of the United States. With all due respect to my friends here, who i admire both into i think have been very helpful in their testimony, straight and forthright, German Shepherd ought to be the person asking answering questions. It is his report. I dont think it holds up. He was denied an opportunity to participate and given a lastminute thing. I just want to yield back my tame. I want to thank both of our distinguished members, former and current, of the rules committee for coming up here and providing us their insight, their testimony. It is great to work with both of you. I appreciate your service to your districts and to the congress and to the country. I yield back. Gentlemanto thank the for his questioning. I said i would be liberal with the time and you were. You will make me into a conservative by the end of the hearing. Let me do a couple of things here. I want to ask unanimous consent 23 new york october times article. A couple ofto make comments about minority day witness issue. I did send a letter to my colleagues on the rules committee. We made it part of the record. Mr. Nadler confirmed he would work with the minority to schedule their hearing day on constitutional grounds of impeachment. Notwithstanding the fact that he already had a minority witness. We look at the history of this whole rule. Thats designed to ensure the minority was not shut out of in thees, as had been past. The minority did get a witness. I tried not to watch the judiciary comedics as much as i could. I did see him. He was there. Notion that this somehow the minority has a superpower ability to be able to not only name the witnesses but set the date and to be able to ,low down progress on any bills if that were the case, having been in the minority for eight years, we would have used it to stop most of the agenda that my republican friends have put forward. I will make that letter available to anybody who is interested. I have a question. You made a statement. Im not sure how you were wording it. I was never promised by mr. Nadler that he would work with us from now until infinity. He just basically said, we are not having it. My understanding is that he said that in committee. Maybe im wrong. Up and by look that the time we get back, we will get you that answer. Why weremind everybody are here today. Its easy to get caught up into the weeds and talk about process. I just was handed this. I am willing to work with the minority. I will pass that on to the gentleman. We have consultation issues in committee. It is not true. It is still not true. I will ask that to be part of the record as well. Let me remind everybody why we are here. The president abused his power of losses for his own personal game and looked into that conduct. We all know how he did it. He tried to shake down the government of ukraine to get dirt on his political opponent to help him in the upcoming 2020 election. Patterned in a systemic of denying any documents of any cooperation with congress. That is obstruction of congress. You kept on saying something that i agree with. You talked about the clock in the calendar. Point and thee way i look at what is happened here, it is important. There was a crime in progress. We have an election coming up in less than year. The president is openly trying to encourage foreign interference in that election. That is a big deal. That should shock everybody in this committee and the chamber throughout this country. It is wrong. It is so wrong. We will continue this hearing. We just had votes and we will recess and come back at the beginning of the last vote. We will turn to mr. Hastings. [inaudible]. Test