The rules committee will come to order. We welcome back our two witnesses. At this time i am happy to yield to my distinguished i would like to yield to our colleague for some questions she may have. Without objection. Our witness. Without objection. Thank you. I just wanted to clarify one thing. We had a line of questioning from mr. Cole right before we broke and it had to do whether or not there had been subpoenas issued for Ranking Member nunes phone records and, you know, there seemed to be some confusion from our two witnesses here. But i recall the testimony that we had in judiciary which was that in fact no subpoenas had been issued for any member of congress or for any journalist that the Intel Committee has subpoenaed meta data, just call records, not actually phone taps, of four people who had been involved in this scheme to abuse the power of office and smear ambassador yovanovitch. After each of those people had been subpoenaed individually, so that was giuliani, sondland, two have been indicted for crimes now related to this investigation. So once those phone records were brought in, patterns were noticed around particular events and that was when Ranking Member nunes phone number was identified. It wasnt that his number was sought. He just happened to be in conversation with the coconspirators there. If people are interested in that, in addition to the testimony we heard in judiciary, that information can be found in the intel report that was filed on pages 45 through 47 and then at footnotes 76 which is on page 155. And i would just note particularly there it says the committee did not subpoena the call detail records for any member of congress or staff. So to the extent that we were getting distralcted by some notion that people were trying to improperly investigate members of congress, i think we should put that to bed and call it out for being a distraction and not the truth. Mr. Raskin, did that reflect our recollection on any of that . Thank you very much for adding the details. My primary recollection of our conversation about that was precisely this, that the Intelligence Committee targeted no member of congress, it targeted no journalist, it did not direct subpoenas against any of them and i believe that the names that came up, came up in the normal course of standard investigatory procedure. Theres nothing untoward there that i can see. And also, there was testimony from mr. Nunes not testimony, questioning of ambassador taylor by mr. Nunes indicating that he had been phoning folks in the ukraine, right . So he had acknowledged that . That he, mr. Nunes had . Yes. Yes. I believe thats in the transcript as well. He basically has said that he was conducting a kind of investigation of his own into what happened. Okay. Hopefully that puts that to bed and i yield back to mr. Hastings. Yes, i yield i appreciate it. I appreciate the gentle lady bringing it up but it had nothing to do with the questions that was asked. I always acknowledged that they were properly done subpoenas. I believe that subpoena power of the Committee Works and i in fact, i said it in the Judiciary Committee that day to mr. Gold man, never questioned the process, never questioned the subpoena and also acknowledged it was never a direct subpoena on any members of congress. What i did say, and what i will continue to say was, even in the the gentle lady just acknowledged it, when they started going through the phone records they looked at the people they called and someone had the Ranking Members phone number and that collaborated that with the phone call. Even to that point, i can say, okay. But my problem comes is the way it was put in is what i would consider a political hit job in the report itself when it could have been done many different ways. It was not of applicable notice to this articles of impeachment, it was not furthering a narrative except to getting back at the Ranking Member. Congress member one, Congress Member two. Nothing that was said that and i appreciate the gentle lady bringing this up. But i never questioned the subpoena. My question was who said to start putting this together and put them in the report. If i could just say, i just bristle a little bit at the suggestion that chairman schiff and the Intelligence Committee did anything wrong there. I was state assistant attorney general for a couple years and my recollection is if you get a table of telephone records and other numbers come up, you do your Due Diligence on all of the other numbers to see whos involved. Were talking about possibly con speartorial activity. I think they did their regular Due Diligence on it and thats how those callers were identified. Could i ask my friend to yield for just a moment . I have the time and ill yield to you. Thank you, so much. I appreciate that. I did not know that i understood what you just said. I thought you said your experience in the state Prosecutors Office led you to release the kinds of names of cosponsc coconspirators. Certainly youre not suggesting that mr. Nunes was a coconspirator in any way sha, shape, or form . No, not at all. Thank you. Are you finished . Yes. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, when we took our recess to vote, you had just made what i considered to be a very profound statement thats short and it is that the president s actions in your words, were so wrong and its hard for me to believe that all of us here and in the Previous Committee and as this matter proceeds do not all understand that. But the die is pretty much cast. In this institution, were fond of saying after everything is exhausted and talking about whatever the issue is, that everybody has said everything that needs to be said but i havent said it yet. And thats whats going to happen with every one of the members who come after me. But what is disturbing to me is that we its like were in alternative universes not just here in the rules committee but in the Judiciary Committee, in the Intelligence Committee where i served for eight years. And really in america. And its regrettable that my friends the republicans, are not addressing or defending the president s actions. What youre doing is talking about the process. You havent seen nothing yet if you listen to Lindsey Graham and the majority leader mcconnell about how if and when this matter gets to them how theyre going to act. How dare somebody say that they are going to pretend that theyre fair and the onther one is going to collaborate with the white house. I would assume that the managers that are democrats, when they get over there, theyre going to be talking about process. If youre talking about unfairness, just the mere fact that both of those people who should recuse themselves in my judgment, made those kinds of statements indicates where they are. But to turn back to you, mr. Chairman, about something being wrong with what the president did. When i was a boy, thats 83 years ago. My dad who never went to school a day in his life, when i had crucial issues over the course of time both as a child, a little boy, and he lived long enough to see me become a lawyer and the difficulties along the way in college and what have you. He would always say to me that right dont wrong nobody. And the fact of the matter is, that what we are doing here is right. Let me just excise one thing. Socalled corruption, and mr. Chairman, with your permission, just to make sure that this record is complete, not that this transcript has not been released, but i ask unanimous consent that the unclassified version of the telephone conversation of the president with president zelensky of ukraine be made a part of the record. Without objection. Im going to back to that. We find ourselves here today discussing two articles of impeachment president Donald John Trump because of his disregard and disrespect for the United States constitution. President trump withheld american taxpayer money that was appropriated by their duly elected members of congress, all of us, to help our ally fight a hot war. It would be one thing if as we do help around the world, if this was not an enemy of the United States, a corrupt enemy of the United States, russia, i dont have to ask anybody about it. Ive been there. I saw the changes that took place. I monitored the elections there. I know that corruption is ripe in that company. You all arent prepared to defend that kind of action with reference to corruption, i find it strange that youre in that position. But trump withheld this taxpayer money to help the ally fight a hot war against russia to he, President Trump could obtain a personal political benefit. Im going to get back to this document at some point to talk about that. And just in case folks think that the facts which my colleagues will not discuss are a bit too tenuous, a bit too hazy, please remember that on october 3rd, 2019, President Trump went out on the white house lawn, stood in front of a bunch of reporters and Television Cameras and advised president zelensky to announce the investigation. For good measure, he then encouraged china to also start an investigation into the biden family. Not long afterwards on october 17th, 2019, President Trump allowed his chief of staff Mick Mulvaney to hold a press conference in which mr. Mulvaney not only admitted that a quid pro quo existed, but that we should get over it because that is just the way things are, he said, when it comes to Foreign Affairs and apparently Foreign Countries being lobbied to meddled in our election. Mick is dead wrong. That is now how we exercise our policy in this country. Im no world expert, but i began my career here 27 years ago on the Foreign Affairs committee. I was appointed by newt gingrich. I went with donald payne often to 26 countries in africa and over the course of time, i became the president of the Parliamentary Assembly of cooperation in europe. If you say that, you ought to be president of that organization. But there are 57 countries in that organization including russia and canada and the United States make it a transatlantic organization. I went to europe 36 times during the a twoyear period to most of those countries i made it to 47 of those 57 countries and i swore in montenegro as the 57th country in the organization for security and cooperation in europe. I think i know a little bit more about the world than Mick Mulvaney and that is not the way president bush, president clinton, president obama, that is not the way they conducted policy at all. Well, he says get it over it. I, for one, will not accept that vision of this great country, let alone get over it. Mr. Chairman, also consider an article of obstruction of Congress Today, we are, and i believe the record shows that the administrations obstruction to be beyond debate and you have demonstrably shown lots of that obstruction and while many of our members dont want to bring it up, i cannot when i was ill at home for a protracted period of time, i read every line of the Mueller Report. And the Mueller Report clearly reflects that the president obstructed justice long before we get to this particular matter that we are dealing with. We are stewards of the house of representatives and to not have all members of this body object in the most strenuous terms to the administrations complete objection of our clear, constitutional prerogative, to conduct an impeachment inquiry is to me truly disappointing. To not object, to not draw the line here is to do a great disservice not only to those who came before us but those who will come after us. With that, mr. Chairman, i have a few questions for mr. Raskin. Mr. Raskin, did President Trump solicit ukraines interference in our countrys 2020 election. It is overwhelmingly clear that he did. Did President Trump solicit this foreign interference in order to obtain a personal political benefit . He absolutely did. Did President Trump condition the release of taxpayer money appropriated by congress on president zelensky announcing an investigation into President Trumps political opponent. All of the evidence we have says that he did. Did President Trumps actions undermine the National Security of the United States and that of a key ally, namely ukraine . I believe that they did. Ukraine had been invaded and attacked by russia. There had been more than 13,000 casualties in that war. The president was desperate, the president of ukraine was desperate to get Security Assistance and that was provided by congress. Congress decided that this money was a good investment to defend a besieged ally that we needed to contain the continuing imperial designs of Vladimir Putin to expand russian power and to control masonations in t neighborhood there. On january 20th, 2017, Donald John Trump took an oath to preserve, protect and defend the constitution of the United States. Has, in your opinion, the president violated that oath . I think this was an essential betrayal of his oath of office when he decided to try and coerce a Foreign Government to get involved in our president ial election, this president ial election, in order to steer the results in a particular direction and then as the pattern shows, to cover it all up by stonewalling congress and by issuing an unprecedented, indiscriminate ban on participation in a congressional impeachment investigation. We got a letter where he didnt bother to invoke a privilege. He didnt bother to invoke the phony absolute immunity pretext. He said, no, were not going to participate. They think they are not subject to congressional subpoena and like you, mr. Hastings, i would wish that even if our colleagues across the isaisle differ with on article i, they have some difference which is yet to be expressed certainly under oath by anyone. If they believe theres a different story or the president has an alibi, okay, fine. But in terms of article ii, the president cannot have the power to destroy our oversight investigative power if were going to be able to impeach a corrupt president. And thats the next question i wanted to ask you, does the United States Constitution Place the power of impeachment solely in the congress. Solely in the house of representatives. In the house of representatives. And the reason why its stated that way, mr. Hastings, is because the framers didnt want the senate thinking that they could initiative an impeachment and they wanted to demar indicat demarcate it saying that the Supreme Court should impeach. There were lots of ideas out there. But they said that the house of representatives was the organ that represents the people. We are the peoples body. The senate has some claim after the enactment of the 17th amendment, theyre elected by the people now too. But they really still do represent on the kind of disproportionate basis of each state getting to despite the size of the state. But we are as close as you get in our constitution to the pure representatives of the people. And the senate acts on oath and affirmation as well. They will decide on matters of law, but they will make the final application of the law to the facts in this case. And thats why i think youre correct to point out that all of them have to think very carefully about what the institutional oath of a juror entails. Some of them have been saying things that seem to be apart of what we would expect of jurors in any other context. Its any understanding and the chairman has pointed out some of this, but i want to highlight the number. Its my understand that the executive branch has received over 70 specific individualized requests for documents during congresss impeachment inquiry. How many documents have been produced . Zero have been produced. We have not gotten anything. Weve not gotten anything from the office of management and budget. Weve not gotten anything from the department of state. We have witnesses who complain to us in this process that their own documents had essentially been embargoed and controlled by the president and by the executive branch when they wanted to turn it over so we could find out what was going on. Were in a search for the truth here. This is not a game. We want to know what happened. In response to dually authorized subpoenas, how many top aides has President Trump made available . Hes tried to block all of the witnesses. We ended up having 17 witnesses but theres still a number of key fact witnesses who have not come forward because the president has succeeded in blocking and restraining their testimony like the secretary of energy, like the director of the office of management and budget my recollection during the judiciary proceedings is that you put this question in a different form that im about to put to my colleagues now. And thats all of us in this room. I ask the question, how many of my friends here on this dais think it is okay for an american president to solicit foreign interference in our elections . Raise your hands if you think thats okay. Anybody . I see none. And in that light clearly we have these differences. Mr. Collins . Yes, sir. Would you consider ukraine a Strategic Partner to the United States . Yes, sir. Do you want us to believe that with holding the aid for the reasons our investigation identifies did not harm National Security . Which ones are you talking about . Im talking the ones that the majority stipulate to or the minority stipulates to. The majority. No, i do not agree with the majoritys interpretation of the call. I seem to think thats going to be your role. You dont think that asking a president of a foreign country that is in a hot war that we with hold aid from him . You dont think that affects our National Security, if you think ukraine is our ally as i believe you do and i do . I just dont accept the premise of your premises of thoughts. All right. What value for ukraine do you see in the oval office visit that was being sought . Youd have to ask ukraine. Do you recognize that such a visit would send a strong message to russia sort of like lavrov being in the Oval Office Last week and the rest of the world that the United States supported ukraine and was ready to defend it against russian aggression. I think a better statement was when mr. Trump sent russian weapons to shoot down russian assets. That ignored the fact that the aid was withhold and hot war was going. All due respect were going in circles. I do not believe there was anything wrong for the reasons stated. And mr. Trump did more for the ukrainians in the hot war than was previously done. You know, ive heard that before. Im not going to elaborate. But i can assure you if they point as you do and many do to president obama not providing lethal weapons what the minority fails to note during the early stanls of the Trump Administration the lethal weapons were provided to ukraine. And it wasnt until the lead up to the 2020 election and after former the Vice President biden nounsed his candidacy did President Trump exert official duties and place pennsylvania hold on lethal aid. Let me turn to corruption. Ostensibly, this july 25th the transcript reflects according to my friends on the other side, both in judiciary and to the extent that the report from intelligence reflects it, that in this particular matter that corruption was what was being sought to be determined. Let me urge President Trump to look around the world if he wants to talk about corruption. And have him answer for me why he cozies up to russia and all roads lead to russia when we all know how corrupt they are and what they have done in the previous election and what they are doing in the run up to this election. And yes, my county my state had two counties that hackers from russia were successful. And he has the audacity to go out and say now they dont talk about russia in the elections, theyre talking about ukraine. Why is it that the the president as the chairman pointed out, codys up to a dictator like duterte in the philippines . Why is he not looking right here in this hemisphere where we have not paid as much attention as we should dsh and i believe my colleague will address. But i need to raise venezuela. And i arent havent heard much with him reference to lately about venezuela, about el salvador, havent heard other than china dealing with trade anybody in here that doesnt believe china is corrupt, then you should just visit any one of the places where people are in gulags and being held and how intellectuals and religious leaders are being tortured in that country. Not to mention the chairman pointed to it, as what the president said, that he fell in love with kim jong un. And kim jong un is preparing missiles and if successful may one day be able to reach this country. And there is no reason to believe that he wouldnt. Is the president aware of whats going on in italy . Is he aware of whats going on in india . How about iran . I havent heard him say a mumbling word about whats happening in iran . Is he aware of whats going on in lebanon . Is he aware of the corruption thats being identified and how chile is on the bubble . I just cant believe you people. And let me turn now to this and ask you all and i already know the answer can anybody in here, particularly those of us on the rules committee neighbor any other president in the history of the United States that has asked of a Foreign Government or its leaders to investigate an american citizen for political purposes . Can anybody in here identify any president that has done that . Seeing none, ill proceed. The simple fact of the matter is that my colleagues have determined that theyre going to go down the road of distraction and are not going to discuss the facts in this matter let me tell you some of the people that you all should have heard from and some would argue that we should wait until the courts and im sure that the administration would fight all the way to keep secretary pompeo from testifying, john bolton from testifying, Mick Mulvaney, dan mcgahn don mcgahn the man that the president told to go and fire the fbi director. How about robert blare and michael duffy, the guys from Mick Mulvaneys shop where the aid has been withheld . Let me turn to this document. First off, let me ask both of you whether you know if a full verbatim transcript exists of this july 25th call . Mr. Collins do you know. I know that all the witnesses testified this was a clear and accurate transcript. Mr. Raskin do you know whether a verpt imtranscript exists. Of the all 25 call . That is not a verb imtranscript. But ive never seen ive never seen a verbatim transcript. There is no witness that testified or contradicted the statements in that in any of the testimony. Excuse me. They did not. They said that the transcript was accurate. Well what about all the people that testified before the committee that discussed matters that they thought were wrong that the president did . Well, mr. Hastings, i wish we had all those people testify before my committee, but they didnt. Let me turn to the footnote on this unclassified document thats in the record. It says a member couple of a telephone conversation is not a verbatim transcript of a discussion. The text in this document records the notes and recollections of situation room Duty Officers and nsc policy staff assigned to listen and memorialize the conversation in written form as the conversation takes place. A number of factors can affect the accuracy of the record, including poor telecommunications connections, and variations in accent and or interpretation. The word, quote qb inaudible, unquote, is used to indicate, it says, indicate portions of a conversation that the note taker was unable to hear. Do either of you know why the full transcript is in a classified server that can be accessed only by the highest of of authorities insofar as classification of their ability . Do any of you know why this thing is in a server, the classified server. No, i cannot give you the full explanation of that. Mr. Kohl license. Mr. Morrison testified it was put there in dpfrt order. He testified to that. Administrative error. Thats his words not mine. Who is mr. Morris. The gentleman that testified at committee the from the nsy. Did he put it in the server. He would have testified to of it we would haved loved the witnesses in zbleev would you love to have the server id love the witnesses. We got people running around ukraine. We have people bribing publishing Public Officials thats a ukraineening issue as well but on this there is no credible witness mo said there is anything in the transcript that was not there. I find. None of your witnesses. Your witnesses. I find that the president , goes out issues this unclassified statement. And there is a statement out there somewhere in a classified server that may have gotten there mistakenly, according to mr. Morrison, as you are testifying, but my question ultimately would be, why is it there . Why hasnt it been retrieved . And why have you all not received it . But i digress. Let me go on finish up with this finish up with the unclassified the hearing. Fls a ghiks. Are you implying there was another transcript out there. Im implying there is more than what we have here. Thats in the serber. Which no witness to to testified to. No witness. Of your tnss witnesses testified to. Understood. I was making sure you didnt believe there was another transcript out there. I dont know whats out there. I know something in this serve sfwleer well thats about like with the Intelligence Committee that they havent transferred to judicialary. Id love to see in the serve sfwleer id love to see from the Intelligence Committee from 8660 we are in agreement there. In that regard we are. I would also let me tell you what even the media in dealing with this statement have not gone into certain of its particulars. Here is what was said by mr. Zelensky. And im trun indicating this so we can get oh other business. I would like to thank you for your support. Mr. Mr. Linzee ski to President Trump. In the area of defense. We are ready to continue to cooperate for the next steps, specifically we are almost ready to buy javelins from the United States for defense purposes. President trump replies. Id like you to do us a favor, though. This is from the man talking about buy javelins. He goes immediately to id like for you to do us a favor though. And a lot of emphasis has not been placed on that language. And im not a linguistic person. But the last time i recall somebody asking me to do a favor, though, it was for something that they wanted, and i cant believe that policy is what he was talking about. He goes on to say, because our country has been through a lot, and ukraine knows a lot about it. Id like you to find out what happened with this whole situation with ukraine. They say crowdstrike i guess you have one of your wealth people, the server, they say ukraine has it. There are a lot of things that went on, the whole situation. I think you are surrounding yourself with some of the same people. Id like you id like to have the attorney general, meaning our attorney general and my question is, why would you like the attorney general to call you or your people . And id like you to get to the bottom of it. As saw yesterday that whole nonsense ened with a very poor performance by Robert Mueller, an incompetent performance. But they say a lot of it started with ukraine. And my question is, who said that . The only people that i know that said that are the russians. Yes, mr. Raskin. Thank you very much for raising this important point, mr. Hastings. Dr. Fiona hill, leading russia expert, who figures importantly in this whole matter, has testified before in committee and its completely uncontradicted and unrefuted, that this crowdstrike story about ukraine being the one that attacked our election in 2016 is russian disinformation. The president there was essentially just repeating russian disinformation and propaganda. Either waitingly or unwittingly. It seems he thought he had something there but thats what he was repeating. There is nothing behind it. Its been completely debunked and discredited. Umhum. But what makes me suspicious, mr. Hastings, is that he decided to tie that in with his other plan. Okay. Which is to get president zelensky to come and point the finger at joe biden and say this is the guy we are investigating. You talk about National Security and how National Security was compromised. And obviously america is a country that nations all over the world look to. And we are interested in our the security of our land and our people but also that of our allies and Strategic Partners around the world. And we should have some interest in what happens to ukraine and whether russia is going to get to trample National Security ornd. But here is another way National Security is kbhikted if we say ever after we are going to allow the president of the United States to use the awesome powers of his office to shakedown foreign leaders. Duterte in philippines. And putin in russia or struggling democrats that need our help like the reformers zelensky is ukraine. But the president can shake them down and get them involved on a covert basis in our campaign. The president might think he is slick getting away with that but now there is a Foreign Government with something on us. They have leverage on us at that point. It turns out. Mr. Hastings would you like me. Of course. You are always great at this. I think we are looking at the wrong direction here. Its interesting we can talk about all the other corruption and the dislike of the way in president dealt with them. But we have to remember even in the transcript you just read its a backwards look not a forwards look. A 2016 look at what happened then. And you rightly read the transcript and talking about Robert Mueller coming out of the 2016 election. Did you read it report. I did read every bit as did my committee. And you agree with the finding. I zbree with the finding no exclusion are russia and he disinterested agreed with the members of the jshd straer on the obstruction. And 10 obstructions of the justice by the president. Because he didnt. No obviously you didnt listen the Judiciary Committee when several members outlined power opponents upon the streen here is this and this np but he looked at thn them and said disagree with your conclusion. You have to take the whole transcript. This is the this is what im talking with. The Mueller Report had been done. But fiona hill. Im reclaiming. Fiona hill is interesting because he brought up the feen oi ail era hill i want to say this. Yurkens even fiona hill said the ukraineening bet on the wrong horse after being reminded by ken vogel that the ukrainian officials, the shengo the kbir for the Ukrainian Parliament was providing informing to knell mri oar. All to the steel dossier. Aligning themselves with clinton. Were you there when miss hill testified. Not for miss hills testimony, no. Im happy to transcript the read the transcript just like you. All i can tell you she dropped a time on President Trumps actions in ukraine. But not enough to find articles of impeach. Standing alone perhaps. This is where we can honestly disagree. Is i disagree that abuse of power is a categorical tornado watch kauch and thank you. Youre going to bill fill buster. Thank you. Im reclaiming my time both of yall talk pretty fast i might add in defense of mr. Collins for a minute. Continuing, what President Trump says is its very important that you do it if its possible. Truncating again because there is so much in here. But ill try to start midparagraph with mr. Zelenskys reply. Id like to hope and see him having your trust. Talking about an ambassador he is standing to the United States, and your confidence have and personal relations with so we can cooperate even more so. I will personally tell you that one of my assistants spoke with mr. Giuliani just recently. And we are hoping very much that mr. Giuliani will be able to travel to ukraine, and we will meet once he comes to ukraine. My question there is, meet about what . When giuliani comes to ukraine . And the president just recently said that giuliani is a good man, and a patriot, and he he is doing this for love. Last time i bought an airline ticket, i didnt present something that said love. And the question becomes, who is paying giuliani . I have a theory about it, but i wont go into it. Then he goes on to say i wanted to share assure you once again you have nobody but friends around us. Ill make sure you surround myself with the best and most experienced people. He goes on at some point so we can continue our Strategic Partnership. I also plan to surround myself with great people in addition to that investigation. I guarantee you as the president of ukraine that all the investigations will be done openly and condition diddly. That i can assure you. Then trump says good because i heard you you had a prosecutor who was very good and shut down. Opinion and thats really unfair. A lot of people are talking about that, the way they shut your good prosecutor down and you had some very bad people involved. Mr. Giuliani is a highly respected man. He was the mayor of new york city, a great man. And id like him to cull you. Ill also i will ask him to call you along with the attorney general. Rudy very much knows whats happening. And he is a very capable guy. If you could speak to him, that would be great. The former ambassador from the United States, the woman was bad news. And the people she was dealing with in the ukraine were bad news. So i just wanted to let you know that. The other thing, there is a lot of talk about bidens son, that boyden stopped the prosecution and a lot of people want to find out about that. So whatever you can do with the attorney general would be great. Biden went around bragging that he stopped the prosecution. So if you can look into it, it sounds horrible to me. Now then, zelensky says truncating again, that since we have won the absolute majority in person, my candidate who will be approved by the parliament and start as a new prosecutor in september, he or she will look into the situation, specifically to the company. And my guess is he is talking about burisma in that particular incident, mentioned in this issue, the issue of the investigation of the case is actually the issue of making sure to restore the honesty so we will take care of that and well work on the investigation of the case. On top of that, id kindly ask you if you have any Additional Information you can provide us it would be very helpful for the investigation to make sure we administrative justice in our country with regard to the ambassador to the United States from ukraine. As far as i can recall her name was yovanovitch. She didnt dev having president President Trump say she will go through some things. Im sure youll figure if out. I heard the prosecutor was treated badly. Now everybody in the european union, friends of mine knew that preshengo was a cook and there is nobody in the room. And trump should have known that or had poor staffing during that period of time. Im ending here we are he says good and thank you very much. I appreciate that. Ill tell rudy and attorney general barr to call. And i just cant believe that perry and sondland and Rudy Giuliani and whoever the three amigos were were running around in ukraine in some fashion aside from the diplomatic responsibilities that we have with any country. And yes, mr. Mr. Collins we do have an fbi, people that do investigations in Foreign Countries when there are commissions of crimes. And we dont use people running around. Otherwise they could have used me. I was on the Intel Committee. And people could have asked me. I went to ukraine. I did after the orange revolution the monitoring to them being able to stand up their government. And thanks to the lithens and the polish along with brezinsky they were able to do that. And i went back to the ukraine a second time to monitor their elections. Im no rookie when it comes to this stuff. But when it comes to policy what we have here is a corrupt president that wanted to do something to advance his political circumstances. And as the chairman said, that is so long. What say you, mr. Raskin. Well, first of all, im moved for your statements and also by your work for democracy and for freedom and anticorruption in europe. And i know thats something that has been very important to you. The president essentially empowered and outsourced an tler alternative channel to the regular state and security counsel. And Rudy Giuliani as you say was at the heart of it. We have lots of testimony from witnesses who said whenever the president got some kind of report on ukraine he would say talk to rudy. Talk it to rudy. In other words rudy has the franchised on ukraine. Want we note what rudia wanted to do. Rude no now puts himself front and center in the campaign. On fox news this morning. He put himself front and center in the campaign to smear our ambassador, the u. S. Ambassador to ukraine, fighting corruption. Who was one of the worlds leading anticorruption fighters. And she understood that ukraine had a chance with the election of president zelensky. Instead of bolstering ukraine. Helping them get the aid photo voted for them, approved by the department of defense having cleared all anticorruption criteria we legislated and the department of state which had done that, all the ts are crossed the is dotted, the set together and the president holds it up and this other team is put in action to get the headache down of president zelensky to get the domestic political errened run that he wanted. Its in my judgment a shame, what happened. And my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, i cant believe they wont address the facts as you have outlined and as i have attempted to and the chairman has. All they want to talk about is process. This aint about process. This is the president abusing his power. And you all will pardon me for not using my inside voice. But yall dont either. I yield back, mr. Chairman. Im happy to yield now to the gentleman from georgia mr. Woodall. Thank you, mr. Chairman. I rarelily find myself in disagreement with my goodent friend from florida. More often than not i find myself educated with him. Ive got to disagree with him today because this is all about process today. This is all about process. I dont know how many minds were change when the gentleman from florida read the transcript again. I suspect none. Probably the most single read transcript in american history. Folks know what they think that they know. But to my friend from floridas point, is there is there a verbatim transcript somewhere . I dont know you asked the question of the two witnesses we called to testify, two of the brightest members of congress in my estimation. They dont know. And if i understood my friend from georgia correctly, there were no witnesses who are working on that transcript that you had an opportunity to talk to directly . No we had no witnesses in judiciary. So my friend from florida is rightly outraged by his perception of wrong doing. I hope that he is equally outraged by the inability to get information not just our inability on the rules committee but your inability. If we had an Intelligence Committee member they could have answered mr. Hastings question. And i dont know. Ill ask my friends as mr. Hastings did, is there somebody in this room on this committee that believes that the American People and our support of the constitution that we have all sworn to uphold is threatened by having a member of the committee of jurisdiction be here to share with us . How are the American People advantaged by the absence of our by the inability of our witnesses to answer mr. Hastings questions . How is america advantaged by that . Our friend from the judiciary i hope im misquoting you i wont take any offense with your correcting me. I believe you said you asked the chairman about having a minority witness day. And he dismissed it as dill tory. That was part of the long letter he it was a dilatory tactic, the basically the answer given to mr. Cole. I have the letter sent to mr. Cole. And if we needed a fieper chairman on the democratic side of the aisle we might have other choices on our side but there is no finer chairman on the rules committee and the staff he has to support him. But i dont know if youve seen the letter. Ill share with you what it says mr. Collins. It says that not to worry, in this case, however, it says, chairman nadler has appropriately said that he will work with the mirpt to schedule their hearing. Will the gentleman yield. Be happy to. Maybe he wasnt here when i refrpsed mr. Nadlers response before. But im quoting here he says im willing to work with the minority to schedule such a hearing. My friend my friend from massachusetts misconstrues my statement. I stipulate what you are saying is absolutely true. Interinterject. I was going to ask my friend from georgiaway what good it would to do to hold the minority hearing tu days or three weeks after we voted to goech. What he is did it matter if you say the innocence probability will come around and clear him . Thats not happening here. If chairman nadler said urine april 1st next years looks like a great day for the minority day hearing . What good does it do . None. It goes to the basic fairness. One thing if you will lou me. Please. There is no witness in the end of state statement said there was a another transcript or the number two the transcript we have was not accurate. Thats a fact process. The other thing is here i have talked about process and will continue to but i also acknowledge and a factual defense of the facts wrong here. You may disagree with my interpretation. But i have made a factual the defense. We talk about the four things that didnt change, the pressure but also might have five meetings if you want to draw correlation between the conditioned aid and it did it come in the up five meeting. On the july 25th we have the transcript of the call between the president s. On july a 26th special envoytologier and taylor. The alleged link in aid in investigations never came up. Bolt. Midwest met withes zelensky. Link in aid never came up. Vice president pence met with zelensky. Link and aid never came in. The supposed link in aid never came up. I point out the last two important. After it became Public Knowledge that the aid was being held. Nothing came up, facts matter. And when you dont have the right facts then you have to go to the more amorphous topics thats something i have follow you had faupt back we may disagree. But i have fought back on facts. Mr. Raskin appropriately points out what we are doing is precedent setting. Hopefully its not unprecedented but it is certainly precedent setting. I think he asked us to think of the rate question. And his question was if this were a democrat president would your answers be the same. I care less about republican and democratic president. I know mr. Raskin has a love of the law. My question mr. Raskin, is how are the American People advantaged by mr. Collins having no opportunity to put together a list of fact witnesses of his choosing, have them share their story and then the very able majority on the Judiciary Committee, the democrats crossexamine those witness sns how are the people advantaged by that absence . So the first thing we need to say again is that the president and his team had the power to call whatever witnesses they wanted. Well, if i could reclaim my time for a moment you said that several times. Yeah. The first time you said it you properly caveated it with any of the 17 witnesses that the democrats called on the Intelligence Committee the president could have called any one of those democratic witnesses back to testify again. I dont believe you mean the president has the right to call any witness that wants in front of the Judiciary Committee por petes sake you wouldnt give the Ranking Member the right. He didnt have the right to call irrelevant witnesses ultimately up to the chair to decide whether the person was relevant sfwloornt to be clear there is the ability i have a misunderstanding the president had the ability to call a witness into the judiciary other than the 17 witnesses that the democrats on the Intelligence Committee decided they were going to deposition. He could have submitted names for anybody wanted to. My Ranking Member submitted names and the aents was no, no were not doing that. But your confession of the fair appear free process that advantages the American People is that the president could submit any tame he wants to the chairman just gets to say no. My dear mr. Woodall you understand we are in the. Connecting information to establish an indictment in essence. Charges against the president. These are articles of impeachment. The trial process takes place in the senate. Thats where they conduct a trial. Where their rules will govern and anybody presumably will be able to bring in whatever witnesses they want to bring in. Now we have tried to run a completely open, fair and transparent process here. Reclaiming my time for a moment because you have frequently you did when we established the rules for the impeachment process in this committee, you frequently referred to the grand jury room, the grand jury room is not intended to be a place of fairness. Its intended to be a place of indictment. Mr. Woodall. Would you yield. Happy to yield. My goodness frashs gracious what did you say. The grand jury room is not intended to provide fairness to any defendant defendant. Its intended to indict. As my friend from maryland stated the defense comes next. Understood. But are you saying that prosecutors dont have any other responsibility in the grand jury other than to indict. Of course not. Of course not. I just want to make sure. Of course not. Mr. Woodall, the prosecutor has an obligation to the people that the prosecutor serves in in the same which that we have that same obligation and the words i want to quote him correctly mr. Raskin said theres been plenty of fairness this this process. And my question is how are the American People advantagesed by mr. Calens getting no witnesses before the committee and the white house getting absolutely no witnesses to front of the committee . And the answer is, mr. Woodall, this went intended to be a defense of the president this was. I clearly didnt make myself clear. The president and mr. Collins could have called any of the witnesses who appeared any of the 17 worn sworn witnesses. Any of your. Its not yours or mine these are american citizens. These are dsh. That is National Security councils employees. Redlamg my time. The let me just say we cant speak over one snore the stenographer can barely keep up because we talk so fast. If we are talking over each other, i caution the witnesses and members of the committee ask the question, let the answer and and i am hamstrung, mr. Chairman, by the fact that mr. Raskin isnt the Decision Maker on these issues. And, again, to mr. Collins point about the clock being the master, mr. Nadler, chairman nadler has put in months of work on this, not as much time as chairman schiff put in on this, but put in months of work. And we have neither of the two Committee Chairman who who have done all of the work here forced to answer our questions. And i have no doubt that mr. Raskin is exasperated because he is an answerer and he is a fact provider. And he educates this committee on a regular basis on matters of the law. But it oefds my sense of fairness that my Ranking Member cant have a witness of his choosing im not talking about 100 witnesses, im talking about a witness of his choosing to come and that the process gets described over and over again as the white house had plenty of opportunity as and everybody had an equal chance to question. Nonsense. Nonsense. And to let that record stand perpetuates the myth that this is supposed to have been a fair process. I would argue it could have been a fair process. It simply wasnt mr. Collins just to be clear here. I think the operative word my maryland said was tried process. Ill give a try tp. It just wasnt a road real good one to be fair in this. Again you cant have it both ways. You cant call it a grand jury where the prosecution only calls witnesses. There is no exkulper to. They have to live up to prosecutor integrity. And then on the other side say we want to fair to people can give their side of the defers. They dont call that side of the defers in the grand jury. They dont do that. Here is the issue. Ive never been when in the court or when i was practicing i never want to the prosecutor to say who could i call and the Prosecutor Says you can call all my witnesses. Tlaeft at some point in the mix mr. Raskin inl at least and others even on on the democrat side they would have to acknowledge that the kmarm determining relevance of my witnesses called or a white house is a problematic exercise. Because if they determine relevancy they discount any possibility of exkulper to evidence coming from my witnesses. Theyre saying they are irrelevant and we dont want to hear from them and discounting any possibility they will be exkulper to. Lets make it chlorthp thats why we felt it was an unfair process. Mr. Raskin you said earlier injury rightfully, you said some folks cant concede the call was not perfect. Surely folks could concede that things were mot perfect and mr. Collins did not karngz the call as perfect. My question is candidate you concede. I havent heard anybody say that. Who said that. Collins says he wasnt trying to voeb describe it as perfect but noncriminal. Im misquoting his statement. But my question pie question to you is can you not concede that having the chairman who is who is leading the impeachment inquiry determine relevancy of the lor lack of a better word, defense witnesses is flawed . Yeah, so this was the exact same process that took place in the clinton impeachment. The same process that took place in the nixon impeachment, the minority gets the right to request witnesses and if theyre relevant he they will be accepted. Its hard to know what to do otherwise especially in an environment where people are bringing all kinds of extranz conspiracy theories to true to explain whats going on. Just to quote your you become to you, bus i want to use the best sources i can. Yeah. On this material. When you cited the house rule that required the minority witnesses be heard, you said in your recollection thats not a Condition Precedent to having the hearing and reporting the bill. And you are of course right. Youre talking about the minority hearing provision. Thats right. About the independent hearing for the minority. Yeah. There is absolutely no house rule that requires that we hear from the minority before not just the dye has been cast but the bill reported passed on the floor and sent to the president. That is not a requirement. And you are right we should go back and look at that if we are trying to give the minority a voice. But you have to tell me how the American People are advantaged by hearing from exkulper to witnesses after the house voted. First of all, if there is a name of an exkulper to witness please put it forward. We have done nothing other than trying to get all the president s men to come and testify. Its the president blockading secretary pompeo and secretary perry and the director of the office of management and budget and numerous witnesses. To me its the height of irony you guys make the argument that somehow we dont want the evidence in. We want all the evidence. Thats why we want to hold the president in obstruction of justice because he prevents us from getting auto all the witnesses. Process it wouldnt surprise me if you were right. Let me ask the gentleman from gentleman. Is that right you submitted a list of witnesses you wanted to come to the committee and the president said the witnesses would not be allowed to testify. No the president taujd to me about that. No, thats not right. The interesting thing i found out something new. This is the first time i heard mr. Raskin that if id called one of the 17 id have got them. Thats been strg interesting. He said it a couple of times if id called now they are having to correct. Him. He said it efrl sefrls several times he is in a tough position and doing an admirable job what he is doing. But its interesting that comes out. Because i know he is an integrate ral part of the team. If i called one of the 17 thaeld be accepted. Wouldnt it have been logical for the chairman to call some of the 17 to so we could have the impression we were doing our own interviews of wpss because what happened even in the Intel Committee was is some after you talk to them gave them, then they had to come back appear some reupped testimony which wouldnt we have brought them back saying okay you you have done this a couple of times. We didnt get that in the majority whose job it was to prosecute didnt do that as well. As you recall, we fought that on our side of the aisle when the process was being set up. Thought it was odd the Intelligence Committee was going to be the only one talking to fact finders, tried to require that exculpatory evidence be provided to the judiciary piece of process because my friend from florida raised it. And he raised in the context of mr. Mcconnell and mr. Graham, senator mcconnell and senator graham, and that they should recuse themselves because theyve already picked a dough in this particular fight. I think we so often say things to one another around here that the American People end up listening to that turned out to be flawed and, again, i think everyone on this committee has Great Respect for mr. Raskin. Hes not just a valuable member of the Judiciary Committee, hes an even more valuable member of our of our rules committee, but because i didnt have a chance when i found out i wucast going to have a chance to talk to mr. Nadler, i went and brushed up on raskin policy and i think they misquoted you, to be fair, mr. Raskin, but, you know, salon did an interview with you even before the president was elected and their he headline is, at least one democratic congressman is already preparing to impeach donald trump. The article is donald trump wont be sworn in for another 48 hours and at least one democratic congressman has already seen enough. And you go on to talk about the emoluments clause and your, i think, legitimate questions as a constitutionalist about those issues. That was 48 hours before the president was sworn in. Youre sitting on the grand jury that is impartially considering the evidence. And the emoluments clause that you were quoted as supporting impeach the on behalf of 48 hours before the president was even elected, i cant find anywhere in the articles that we see before us today. It have you changed your mind from then or do you think as politico is reporting that were going to see part 2 of impeachment come down the road, that this was just impeachment number 1 and theres going to be impeachment number 2 and impeachment number 3 . Thank you very much for that question. I would love nothing more than to have a separate hearing on my personal views about the meaning of the foreign emoluments clause and the domestic emoluments clause. Ive written widely about it including in the Washington Post ive written several pieces about it but im here to represent the Judiciary Committee because of the absence of mr. Nadler and wouldnt be fair more me to get into that. Fair enough. Because i wouldnt be representing the views of the entire i think thats perfectly i think thats perfectly fair. The when we voted to table, as mr. Cole referenced in regard to mr. Mcgoverns vote in december of 17, of course, you opposed that motion to table as as well, and at that time, you said it was a vote out of frustration and that what you wanted was a real inquiry, a real inquiry into corruption and criminality in the Trump Administration. Now, this was two years before this phone call ever happened, and so, again, im looking at articles of impeachment here. Ive got members of the Judiciary Committee who were certain of corruption and criminality in the Trump Administration that exists nowhere here, and mr. Woodall. Please. You would concede that there are other episodes of corruption in the Business Career of donald trump and in the political career, no . That are not part all part of this process. And so, i mean, i dont know if look, there are patterns of conduct and behavior that have been noticed. One of them is, teem extremely relevant to this investigation. Thats what took place in 2016. Thats when donald trump essentially invited in russia, the whole world heard him say it, invited russia to come into our election. He welcomed their interference. The special counsel of the department of justice found more than 100 contacts between the Trump Campaign and russian nationals there. And then when it began to happen, the president moved to obstruct the investigation. Thats in the Mueller Report which we talked about today, all of those episodes of corruption. So there is a pattern of evidence, and i dont know, look, when when bill clinton got impeached for what he did, you could certainly find republicans whod been calling for his impeachment for several years for other stuff. There were conspiracy theories about him going on for years. That doesnt necessarily discredit what happened in the impeachment of brkbaill clinton. You got to take it on its own materials. Thats why were trying to get back to the facts of what happened here with the ukraine shakedown. I think youre mistaking my intent. I was not citing comments that you made in the past to put you as a nevertrumper whose sole purpose was to reverse a legitimate american election. That was not my intent. My intent was to mention you as someone whos a thoughtful legal mind who had other legal concerns going back for years and when folks say, rob, what do you mean this process is rushed . Weve done it over just under 90 days, suspect thisnt that long . Well, no, thats faster than any other process. Thats faster we got a response from the Justice Department when we asked for our fast and furious documents. But but what it isnt is a complete process, i think by your own testimony here, that theres more that we could have done that we didnt do, and my question, then, is, because i do think were all about advanta advantaging the American People and the republic and the constitution, are we advantaged, are the American People add vn t advantaged by because, again, politico is reporting the investigations are going to continue, that the investigations do not stop with the house vote tomorrow. We will continue to investigate the potential impeachment of the president long after we have already voted to impeach the president is the story that that is out there today. Are we advantaged as an institution to have impeachment number 1, impeachment number 2, impeachment number, instead of as we did in the bill clinton era put all of the articles into a single document after a longer and more thorough investigation and have this process september to the senate just once . I believe im going to ask my staff to confirm this, i believe the clinton investigation moved much for quickly after the s. T. A. R. Report arrived in congress than we have so far. I think theyre approximately in the same ballpark. Look, your basic question is an excellent one. You ask an excellent question here, and all i can say is that we have a clear and present danger to our democracy right now because of the electoral corruption. This president invited in a foreign power to come and interfere in our election. And he used all of the resources of his office to coerce president zelensky to come in to make these announcements he wanted for a totally political purpose. Its this election. Its going on right now. So weve got to deal with this and we have a very serious and complicated problem to address as a country right now, which is do we want to establish that this can be the norm Going Forward . That any president , whether their last name is trump or obama or woodall or anything else can go to Foreign Governments in the middle of a campaign, lure them in either through coercion or through honey, whatever it might be, and get them to participate right. In our election. Thats a really serious problem. So, look, i agree with you, there are and, you know, you ask a trenchant question, mr. Woodall, there are other things that are not part of this but that is because of the urgency of this situation. I take that i take that point. Mr. Collins . I say it again, clock and calendar. Thats why were doing it. Thats what it is. We say things like its imperative, ongoing, whatever you want to call it, its a clock and calendar issue. Look, we already know when this fails there will probably be others. Thats been reported wildly. Not just in straight out of the words of mr. Schiff, straight out of the words of mr. Green, other colleagues that weve had, and, again, its it was said this way, the current lack of proof is another reason why an abbreviated investigation of this matter is so damaging to the case of impeachment. It doesnt have the footing on it and if youre doing it because you want to get into an election, when obviously the discussion was a previous one, which there was issues that we then i cant help you and time and calendar will take over. Well, were talking today about reversing americas last election. Candidly, i have every bit as much concern about the time that we will reverse the next election. Or the election after that or the election after that. To do this . A partisan way, of course, there are always going to be differences of disagree with my about much more than i agree with him about but that doesnt mean we cant find a process to move forward on together. It is not more divided in this Congress Today than it was in 1998 when folks found a process that they could work on together because as much as we cared about the presidency then, we cared more about the constitution later. And we found a way to move forward and moving forward in a partisan way is going to have repercussions. I know my friend y maryland knows that. He believes its urgent enough that its worth the risk, but it is a measurable and substantial risk, and certainly the 13 of us, 14 with mr. Collins here today, are going to be judged on that front because despite our own personal interests in the facts, we are not a fact committee. We are a process committee. And i dont believe america is going to judge us harshly because of the way the facts come out. I think americas going to judge us harshly because of the process that has come forward. And with that, i yield back. I thank the gentleman. Let me just say i, you know, you know, we keep on hearing a lot about the clock and calendar, but i would remind everyone that we are here because abuse and obstruction. And the president s abuse of power and obstruction of congress. Thats why were here. And, you know, i said it in my opening, ill say this again, i mean, we just have a difference of opinion, my friends try to characterize this as trying to overturn the last election. I look at this, you know, as a crime in progress. And that were trying to prevent the president from rigging the next election. I, again, i have never, ever, ever seen or witnessed a moment like this where a president of either party has publicly invited foreign intervention in our election. He did it when he was running for president. He did it with ukraine. And and i and the administration has purposely decided not to cooperate to drag their feet, hoping that, you know, well get through the next election. I mean, this is i said its wrong, i mean, it is beyond the pale and we just have a difference of opinion on this. I yield to the gentlelady from california, ms. Torres. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Thank you to both of you for being here. I also want to thank my colleagues that have spoken before me today for using your indoor voice and for exercising a decorum. We are on the third floor of the u. S. Capitol. And i think its important for us to be respectful with each other. Today, we regretfully face one of the most solemn duties the constitution vests in congress. I, like all of you here, did not come to congress to impeach a president. As a matter of fact on, january january 20th of 2017, i stood in the freezing rain to watch donald trump be sworn in as the 45th president of the United States. I was there in good faith. I was there because i believe in the peaceful transfer of power. I was there because i believe in the rule of law. And maybe foolishly i also believe in second chances. That we would have elected someone who can stand up and represent all americans. But then in september, approximately three months ago, we learned that President Trump had withheld Critical Military funding to ukraine. A Strategic Partner in a war with russia. And then october 3rd, President Trump announced that china and ukraine should investigate his political rivals on national tv. The president s personal attorney also said that biden should be investigated. Now, President Trump famously said that he could shoot someone dead in the middle of 5th avenue in new york city and he would get away with it. What mindset do you have to be in to say that out loud on national tv and to believe that . Well, anyone who turns a blind eye to behavior like this is providing him that right. Five gop primaries have been canceled. Kansas, alaska, South Carolina, arizona, nevada. Gop, republicans across the nation, are locked in step to defend at any cost the bad actions and illegal actions of this president. The facts are clear. To quote the usa today editorial board, trump used your tax dollars to shake down a vulnerable Foreign Government to interfere in a u. S. Election for his personal benefit. Ambassador gordon sondland, President Trumps handpicked ambassador to the european union, testified to President Trumps abuse of power under oath and he said, i know that members of this committee have frequently framed these complicated issues in a form of a simple question. Was there a quid pro quo . As i testified previously with regard to the requested white house call and white house meeting, the answer is yes. We also have the rough transcript of trumps july 25th call released by the president , himself. For all the claims that President Trump was withholding military aid over corruption in ukraine, he never once utters the word, corruption, in the call. He does ask for a favor, though. A favor that has nothing to do with u. S. National interest and everything to do with his own political interests. Trumps actions were clear abuse of president ial power. He candidaonditioned official a office on a political advantage in the next election. Think about that. All of us here, members of congress, have taken ethics training on the house rules. And on federal crimes. I just did the training last week. Weve all sworn the same oath of office to protect and defend our constitution. And imagine, imagine if a city in our districts asked for our help with a grant or an appropriations request. Would any of us reply, i would like you to do us a favor, though . And announce an investigation into my political opponent. Of course not. And why would you not do that . Because no one, no one is above the law. Not even the president. And you know that asking for that type of favor is illegal. The rule of law is what gives our great country its strength. The rule of law is what separates us from thirdworld countries where dictators reign for decades on. The rule of law is what makes us our great country, the envy of the world. The place that other countries look for inspiration. As they grow their own democracies. And it is the rule of law that brings all of us here today. And as the only member of congress from central america, take it from me, that we never want to see a day when the rule of law simply fades away. I never want to see a day where American Families have to send their children to live outside of the country because of public corruption. Look at honduras. Their constitution banned president ial reelections. Their constitution clearly states that if president s try to get rid of the reelection ban that they should be removed from office immediately and despite all of this, president hernandez ran again, anyway, and the Supreme Court in honduras filled with his supporters got rid of term limits and he is now serving his second term in violation of his countrys founding principles. Honduras is now a narco state. And we have thousands of honduran families on our southern border seeking asylum. In guatemala, the people have been waging an uphill battle against corruption for years. Former president odo perez molina took bribes in exchange for lower taxes. Millions of tax dollars line the pockets of highranking officials. Instead of meeting the needs of the people in one of the poorest countries in latin america. Today President Trump said after a meeting with president morales, in guatemala, they handle things much tougher than the u. S. Imagine that. Cceg, the Anticorruption Organization formed to bring justice to guatemala brought hundreds of cases of corruption to light, but once again, they began once they began investigating president Jimmy Morales for Illegal Campaign financing, he promptly shot down the commission. Does this sound familiar to anyone . President morales even forced the former attorney general aldano who worked to fight corruption to seek asylum in the United States because her safety is now at risk. Does this sound familiar to anyone . I bring these examples up to remind my colleagues that the future health of our democracy is not assured. We can slide back to tyranny one corrupt act at a time. And until our dedemocracy is like the fake village in north korea that faces the look ing facade that masks the tyranny within, thats why the articles of impeachment are so important. Mr. Chairman, the constitution did not come from a higher power. It is just a document, a piece of paper, with words written on it. But we, the people, give the constitution its power. We, the people, decide to follow and honor our laws. And today, we, the people, must agree that the laws apply to everyone. Including the president of the United States. That that is the president that we expect of all elected officials. And its the precedent we must reaffirm in these proceedings. 60 years ago Martin Luther king issued a warning during the Civil Rights Era which resonates very much with the choice before us today. Dr. King said, if you fail to act now, history will have to record that the greatest tragedy of this period of social transition was not the strident clamber of the bad people but the appalling silence of the good people. Lets move forward. I want to ask you, do you know how many witnesses were blocked from testifying . I believe there are Nine Administration witnesses turn the mic on. Somebody will correct me if im wrong, but i believe that there were Nine Administration witnesses who were called who did not come forward, and if i might, ms. Torres, im moved by what you had to say. I was not aware that there were gop primaries being canceled. Canceled. It allows us to refocus on the importance of elections and sovereignty of the people. I know some people would say, well, thats just a private affair, let mthem do their own thing, but forgive the law professor in 34e me, theres a line of cases. It says that Party Primaries are actually essential for the Voting Rights of all citizens. And equal protection does apply there, so i but republicans in five states are being denied an opportunity to choose a republican candidate to move forward and represent them. So five. The general point there is that our system is based on the idea of popular selfgovernment so you need to have the channels of effective political participation open so people can participate and people can compete, competition is good in economics, its good in sports, its good in politics, too. We want to have a play of ideas. And a marketplace of ideas. So were able to get the best ideas out there. But the other critical point you made, and thank you for pointing us to the Central American and latin american example because theres been a lot of instability in democracy there where its under attack by despots and kidictators and corrupt forces and were seeing this all over the world now. Whats taking place in america has got to be seen in a global context. There are dictators, despots, tyrants, clep to krats. Putin is one of the leaders. Channeling illegal egypt, duter philippines. Homicidal crown prince of saudi arabia. And on and on. Theyre all besiege democracy. Whos the beacon of hope in terms of democracy . America is. We got to show how its really done. So im going to ask you one last question. Did witness intimidation occur d during your Committee Hearing . To be clear, there were nine senior officials who refused congressional subpoenas. On what grounds . Well, they they they were different statements made by different of them. Some of them said that it was because of an executive branch policy. And so id have to go back and look and see which ones invoked this or that doctrine, perhaps. Im not sure, but weve never seen anything like this in scale and scope and degree in american history. A coverup. We just have not. And the chairman of the Intelligence Committee and the chair of the you dijudiciary coe have praised those people whove come forward and if i could, if youd allow me one thought about this, i think its been said a couple times, your witnesses. I think there were multiple witnesses there who totally recoiled and rebelled against the idea that they were anybodys witness. These are people who devoted their lives to the state department, the National Security council, serving the American People. We have people like ambassador taylor, decorated vietnam war hero. We have the Lieutenant Colonel who was injured in iraq as a purple heartiona hill. Ambassador yovanovitch. Committed her whole career to american democracy as an example. These people are not majority witnesses or minority witnesses or these or ours. The vast majority of them said were not here in any partisan context, were not here with any partisan purpose, were here to tell the truth. They swore an oath to tell the truth. Those people went under oath. They are not throwing tomatoes from the sidelines. They went under oath and told exactly what they saw and what they heard and we have their direct testimony. And rather than commending them for their courage, someone on twitter decided to intimidate and diminish their testimony. You know, i never thought in my lifetime we would get to a point where the president of the United States heckles people for doing their civic duty of going under oath to tell the truth. It mr. Chairman oh. Would my friend yield one moment . I would absolutely yield to you. I was similarly shocked, as mr. Raskin was, when i heard folks were canceling their primaries. So, since South Carolina happens to be my neighbor, i went back and looked and turns out thats something they do, did it for reagan and bush and clinton and obama. The party thats in power and has the white house in name of saving dollars cancels it. I share that with you because i was comforted when i heard that it was a historical practice as opposed to something that had just and i appreciate i thank my friend. I appreciate your feedback on that. Im going to yield back to mr. Chairman. Thank you very much. So i think the committee is going to take a fiveminute break so you can stretch your legs and do whatever else you need to do. Breathe. All right. Is there yeah. This is strict five minutes, if we can. Without objection, the committee stands
comparemela.com © 2020. All Rights Reserved.