Transcripts For CSPAN3 Articles Of Impeachment House Hearings Day 2 House Judiciary Debates... 20240713

The Judiciary Committee will please come to order. When the committee recessed yesterday it had completed Opening Statements on the resolution about to be considered. Putin to notice under House Resolution 660, i know call house mr. Chairman impeaching donald j. Trump president of the United States point of order. The gentleman will state his point of order. The chairman refused to schedule a day of hearings pursuant to clause 2 j. Well entertain that point of order once we completed calling up the resolution. I call up h rez 775 for purposes of markup and move that the Committee Report the resolution favorably to the house. The clerk will report the resolution. H rez 755, impeaching donald j. Trump, president of the United States for high crimes and misdemeanors december 10th, 2019. The following resolution was submitted, resolution, impeaching Donald John Trump for high crimes and misdemeanors, resolve that donald j. Trump president of the United States is impeached for high crimes and misdemeanors and the following articles of impeachment be exhibited to the United States senate. Of the people of the United States of america against donald j. Trump president of the United States in support of his impeachment against him. Article one, abuse of power, the constitution provides that the house of representatives shall have the sole power of impeachment and the President Shall be removed from office for the conviction of treason, bribery or other high crimes and misdemeanors. In his conduct in the office of the president of the United States to the best of his ability preserve, protect and defend the constitution of the United States and in violation of his duties, donald j. Trump has abused the powers of the presidency in that using the powers of the high office he solicited the interference of a Foreign Government in the president ial election. He do so through a scheme of conduct that included including the government of ukraine to announce investigations that would benefit his reelection, harm the election prospects of a political opponent and influence the 2020 president ial election to his advantage. President trump sought to pressure the government of ukraine to take these steps by conditioning official acts of significant value of ukraine on its public announcement of the investigations. President trump engaged in i would ask content that the resolution be considered given the significant i object. The objection is heard. Continue. Personal, political benefit in doing so, President Trump used the powers of the presidency in a manner that compromised the National Security of the United States. He ignored and injured the interest of the nation. One, President Trump acting both directly and through his agents within and outside the United States government, corruptly solicited the government of ukraine to announce investigations into a political opponent, former Vice President joe biden and a discredited theory promoted by russia that ukraine rather than russia interfered in the 2016 United States president ial election. Two, with the same corrupt motives, President Trump acting both directly and through his agents within and outside the United States government, to official acts on the public announcements that he had requested, a, the release of 391 million of taxpayer funds for the purpose of providing Security Assistance to ukraine to oppose russian aggression which President Trump had order suspended and ahead of state meeting at the white house which the president of ukraine sought to support. Three, faced with the public revelation of his actions, President Trump ultimately released the military and Security Assistance to the government of ukraine but has persisted in urging and soliciting ukraine to undertake investigations. These actions were consistent with President Trumps previous invitations. President trump abused the powers of the presidency by ignoring and injuring National Security and other interests to obtain a benefit. Hes detroyed the nation by abusing his high office. President trump by such contact has demonstrated that he will remain a threat to National Security and the constitution if allowed to remain in office, he has acted in a manner incompatible with selfgovernance with the rule of law. Article ii, obstruction of congress. The institution provides that the house of representatives shall have the sole power of impeachment and that the President Shall be removed from office of impeachment on impeachment for the conviction of treason, bribery or other high crimes and misdemeanors. In his conduct and in violation of his oath to execute the office of the president of the United States, and in violation of his duty to take care of the laws be faithfully executed, donald j. Trump has directed the unprecedented and indiscriminate of defiance issued by the house of representatives pursuant to its sole power of impeachment. Hes abused the powers of the presidency in a manner subversive to the constitution. The house of representatives has engaged in an impeachment inquiry focused on President Trumps corrupt solicitation of the government of ukraine to interfere in the 2020 United States president ial election. As part of this impeachment inquiry, the committees undertaking the investigation served subpoenas seeking documents and testimony. In response without lawful cause or excuse, President Trump directed direct Branch Agencies not to comply with those subpoenas. President trump interposed the powers of the presidency against the subpoenas of the house of representatives and assumed to himself functions and judgments necessary to the exercise of the sole power of impeachment. Vested by the constitution in the house of representatives. President trump abused the power of his high office through the following means, directing the white house to defy a lawful season by withholding the production of documents, directing other executive Branch Agencies and offices to defy subpoenas and with hold the production of documents and records from the committees in response to which the department of state, department of defense refused to produce a document or record. These actions were consistent with the with President Trumps previous efforts to undermine the United States investigations into foreign interference in the United States elections. Through these actions, President Trump sought to determine the propriety and scope into an inquiry as well as a prerogative to deny information to the house of representatives in exercise of its sole power of impeachment. In the history of the republic, no president has ever ordered the complete defiance of an impeachment inquiry or sought to obstruct and impede the ability of the house of representatives to investigate high crimes and disdemeanors. This abuse of office served to cover up the misconduct and seize the control of power of impeachment. And thus to nullify, a vital institutional safeguard vested solely in the house of representatives. President trump has acted in a manner contrary to his trust as president and subversive of constitutional government. To cause of law and judgment and to the injury of the people of the United States. President trump by such conduct has determined he will remain a threat. President trump thus warrants impeachment, trial, removal from office and disqualification to hold the office. The gentleman will state his pointed of order. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Again, as i made the point of order on this hearing day, the chairman was furnished with the demands during the impeachment hearing on december the 4th. At one point, telling me, as i responded to this, that will rule with it today. Were here today and its a farce that were having to rule on this today because theres no other time were taking up the articles today. The rule is not by the way, this rule is not superseded by any portion of h rez 660. After discussing this, they chose not to exempt the minority hearing day. This could have been done. They chose not to. Now were not having it, so i continue my point of order. If i understand the gentlemans point of order he asserts we are violating clause 2 j 1 of house rule 11 by conducting this markup before we have held the hearing that the minority members requested on december 4th. In my view, the gentleman is claiming a broader bridge than the clause provides the minority. The minority has asked for a day of hearings on the matter of the december 4th hearing which was the constitutional grounds for impeachment. Im willing to work with the minority to schedule sufficient a hearing but not before todays markup of the articles of impeachment. The rule does not require me to schedule a hearing on a particular day nor does it require me to schedule the hearing as a Condition Precedent to take any legislative action. I reached this conclusion after reviewing the plain text and history of the house rule, after considering prior precedent and Committee Practice, and after consulting with authorities in the Congressional Research service. I believe my scheduling decision in this case is reasonable for several years, first, the minorities views have not been shut out. The history of the minority day rule shows it was written to prevent the majority from the preventing the minority position from being represented in a hearing. As a report explains, it is normal procedure for witnesses representing both sides of the issue to give testimony at Committee Hearings. In those instances when witnesses representing the minority position are not allotted time, a safeguard should exist to protect the minority rights, unquote. Of course that did not happen at the december 4th hearing. The minority had a witness at the hearing, professor turley, who represented their position and was afforded ample time to discuss that position. The minority did not get as many witnesses as they would have preferred but that is not the purpose of the house rule. Second, the minority and the president have special protections under House Resolution 660. The procedures provided under the resolution give the president and the minority a variety of special privileges to present evidence and subpoena witnesses. Thus, there are alternative procedures under h rez 660 by which witnesses can be requested and subpoenaed but they have not been exercised. Third, theres no precedent for the use of minority days to delay committee proceedings. It is clear from the history that the minority day rule is not intended to delay legislative activity. As the committee and the organization of the congress explained, we do not look upon this rule as an authorization for delaying tactics, unquote. The rule is made part of the house rules in 1971 but was not invoked in either the nixon or clinton impeachment. The only precedent im aware of in the context of impeachment took place several weeks ago in the Intelligence Committee. There the minority also requested a day of hearings even though they all said witnesses participate in their proceedings. They did offer an amendment claiming that the rule has been violated that amendment was rejected by the committee. Theres no precedent supporting the gentlemans point of order and the one precedent we have indicates that a point of order does not lie to delay consideration of articles of impeachment. Finally, past Judiciary Committee practice and precedent do not support the gentlemans point of order. Last year, a number of other members and i sent the minority their request. The chairman never responded to our request and never scheduled a hearing. I dont believe a Single Member of the majority argued in favor of us being granted our hearing under the rules. Back in 2005 then chairman sensenbrenner scheduled the hearing but cut off witnesses, shut off the microphones and shut off the lights and ended the hearing. Again, no one in the then majority argued in favor of protecting our rights. As a result theres no Committee Practice or precedent supporting the gentlemans point of order. For all the foregoing reasons i do not sustain the point of order. Mr. Chairman . I think it is obvious by the length of the chairmans answer that this struck a nerve seeing how the chairman himself says in his own words from previous times, its not the chairmans right to decide whether the hearings are sufficient or whether he thinks theyre acceptable or to violate the rules in order to interfere. It is interesting to me that this time has become the issue i made my ruling on the point of order. Does the gentleman wish to appeal the ruling of the chair . I would like the chairman to take one more minute does the gentleman wish to appeal the ruling of the chair . Yes or no. Yes. The chairman is doing this again. The appeal of the ruling of the chair is not sustained. I move to tainl ble it. Did you not call for a vote . I sustained the point of order. I call for a ruling of the chair. I call for a vote. I ruled that the point of order is not well taken. Thats painfully obvious. Ive appealed the ruling of the chair. And i moved to table it. The gentlemans appealed the ruling of the chair. The gentle lady has moved to table the ruling of the chair. All in favor say aye. Aye. We will proceed to amendments. Roll call. The gentleman asked for roll call on the motion to table the appeal of the ruling of the chair. The clerk will call the role. Mr. Nadler. Aye. Ms. Lofgren. Yes. Ms. Jackson lee. Yes. Mr. Cohen. Yes. Mr. Johnson of georgia. Aye. Mr. Deutch . Aye. Mr. Richmond . Yes. Mr. Jeffries. Aye. Mr. Cicilline. Aye. Mr. Swalwell votes aye. Ms. Demings. Aye. Mr. Correspoe ray ya. Aye. Mr. Neguse. Aye. Ms. Mcbath. Aye. Mr. Stanton. Aye. Ms. Dean. Aye. Ms. Escobar. Aye. Mr. Collins. No. Mr. Jordan. No. Mr. Buck. No. Mr. Ratcliffe. No ms. Roby. No. Mr. Gates. No. Mr. Johnson of louisiana. No. Mr. Biggs. No. Mr. Mcclintock. No. Ms. Lesko. No. Mr. Reshen that aller. No. Mr. Armstrong. No. Mr. Steube. No. Has everyone voted who wishes to vote. The clerk will report. Mr. Chairman there are 23 ayes and 17 noes. We go proceed to amendments. The clerk will read the first section of the resolution. Impeaching donald j. Trump president of the United States for high crimes and misdemeanors and the house of representatives december 10th, 2019. Mr. Nadler submitted the following resolution. Resolution impeaching donald j. Trump president of the United States resolved that donald j. Trump president of the United States is impeached for high crimes and misdemeanors and the following articles of impeachment be exhibited to the United States senate. Artic articles of impeachment against donald j. Trump president of the United States of america in maintenance and support of its impeachment against him for high crimes and misdemeanors. I will recognize myself for purposes of offering an amendment. The clerk will report the amendment. Amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by mr. Nadler of new york. Strike all that follows after the resolving clause and insert the following. Without objection, the amendment shall be considered as base text for further amendment. I will now recognize myself to explain the amendment in the nature of a substitute. It makes a minor change in certain places where the underlying resolution refers to donald j. Trump, the amendment refers to Donald John Trump. Otherwise it makes no changes to the resolution. I urge all of my colleagues to support it. I recognize the Ranking Member, the gentleman for georgia, for any comments he may have on the amendment. It is absolutely irrelevant, taking donald j. Trump and making it Donald John Trump shows the frankly absurdity of where were at. Were going to spend plenty of time listening to this. Were going to talk about the basis that are absolutely no underpinning to impeach this president. But im going to go back for just a minute since i dont have time and had to sit through a well rehearsed many days put together explanation on why what will be known in 2019 outside of the fact that this committee finally accomplished its goal after the chairman stated he wanted to since november of last year, impeach this president , what will be known by this committee from here on out is that this committee has now sounded the death of minority rights. Its become nothing but a rubber stamp. This committee is amazing now on such a clock and calendar process that they dont care, facts be damned. They dont care. They dont care that we had one witness out of three. When i asked for a second witness, i was told i couldnt. One witness out of two panels, thats all we had of fact witnesses. This is a just travesty and a sham from day one. I could talk until im blue in the face but nobody on the majority that cares. But the spot that is left will resonate over the years. It will resonate over the years in the since that theres no fact that we can come to. They had no desire to hear any fact witnesses outside of their own calendar impeachment. For the chairman himself who fought for a hearing day to sit there and read that is an amazing statement in a crushing below to this committee. Theres no way to recover from this. There may be. I wonder if the chairman would join me to make sure the rules dont waive the point of order. But i know they will. Thats why theyre going to take it. When you look into it further, this point of order would be sustained. Theyre going to have to wave them. Watch and see. They will waive this point of order on these articles by the time it comes to the floor. For some of you you may say, the Ranking Member talking about process, the Ranking Member talks about process, never the foundation. We will inundate you with the facts. What is important and for many who report on this body and for those who have served in this body, the members who have gone before and people who have set this committee up are the ones right now that should be hanging their head in shame. We had two hearings. None of which featured fact witnesses. Theres not a democrat in this room that should be happy about this. Dont give me the solemn minimumty for the president. This is what you wanted. When it comes to the hearing, when it comes to the minority rights, when it comes to one that in which we have seen time after time after time in which i have had to write these letters on the abuse of procedural issues in this committee, this is a travesty. The American People see it because the American People understand inherently fairness. They understand due process. Why . Because its what america was based on. Its what america takes pride in. When we dont have it, nobody can have it. When we dont have fairness in this committee, how can they stand up and say on the two weakest articles of impeachment in the history of this country, honestly, with a straight face look at the American People and say, we did good. No, you didnt. You stained this body. Youve taken this committee and made it a rubber stamp. Did any of the majority run to be a rubber stamp to get the majority . I know the minority on this side did not. Weve become a rubber stamp because my chairman said so 20 years ago. He said so 20 years ago when he said if the committee only accepts what other people give them and do not on their own vet it, then we are nothing but a rubber stamp. You should have run for a chairmanship more than to be a rubber stamp. We knew this committee was overtaken because it was taken from us earlier this year. Theres the first embarrassment and the rest of it has been an embarrassment since. So as we look at this and as we go forward, well have plenty of time to show the complete farce of substance. But, mr. Chairman, what will live from this day is your ruling and the majoritys ruling of minority rights are dead in this congress and especially this committee. I yield back. Move to strike. Any amendments to mr. Chairman are there any move to strike. For what purposes does mr. Deutch need to be recognized. Move to strike the last word. I cannot allow the Ranking Member to mischaracterize your description of the history of this committee. It may be inconvenient for the Ranking Member to be forced to listen to the history of this committee and why everything that you just laid out is so important to the continuing of this submit representing and recognizing, respecting minority rights. But he chooses not to. Im going to state it again. I appreciate the Ranking Member for acknowledging they have the opportunity to call witnesses and thats consistent with the rules. But to turn around and suggest that the rules are being trampled, the rules are dead, ignores everything that you just laid out. More than 50 years ago, more 50 years ago, the joint committee on the organization of congress made clear in their report to the house that its normal procedure for witnesses representing both sides of the issue to give testimony at Committee Hearings and thats where the rule comes from. And thats whats happened. The Ranking Member acknowledged it. He would have liked more witnesses. Theres no right to a separate day. The rule makes clear they have the right to call witnesses and there were witnesses called. There were witnesses called on december 4th, on december 9th, mr. Caster presented evidence and gave Opening Statements. And its worth pointing out to my colleagues on the other side that we invited the president of the United States to the december 4th hearing to advocate for his views, to submit requested witnesses but he chose not to attend and he chose not to suggest any witnesses. So before telling us the sky is falling and theres great disrespect for the rules, its important to actually look at the rules did the gentleman say i didnt request witnesses. That is wrong. I thank the chairman. What i said was the president was given the opportunity on december 4th to present himself. He was also given the opportunity to present witnesses and he did not. So lets be careful in the way we suggest that rules are being violated when everything thats being done here is consistent with more than 50 years of interpretation of the rules and the very essence of why the rule is put together in the first place. Its important. Facts really do matter. And im not were not going to allow the minority to misinterpret the rules for their benefit. Thats what made this committee great. I yield back. The gentleman yields back. Are there any amendments to the amendment . Mr. Chairman. What purposes does mr. Jordan seek recognition. I have an amendment at the desk. I reverse a point of order. Gentle lady reverses a point of order. In the nature of a substitute offered by mr. Jordan of ohio. Beginning on line 12, strike article one and designate the article accordingly. The gentleman is recognized for the purpose of explaining his amendment. This amendment strikes article one i withdraw my point of order. This amendment strikes article one because article one ignores the truth. Four facts, five meetings. Weve talked about it for five months. There have been four facts that have not changed, will never change and weve known it since september 25th when the call transcript was released. The call transcript shows no quid pro quo. Whats interesting is the day the transcript came out, even chairman nadler said there was no quid pro quo. We know second that the two individuals on the call, president zelensky, President Donald Trump have said no pushing and linking between money and an announcement of an investigation. We know that the ukrainians knew at the time of the call didnt know at the time of the call that the aid had been held up and most importantly, most importantly, we know the ukrainians took no action, no start of an investigation, no promise to start an investigation, no announcement on cnn, via tweet, no announcement whatsoever that there was going to be any type of investigation into burisma or the bidens to get the aid released. Those four facts. Those four facts have never changed. Second, five key meetings that took place between july 18th when the aid was paused, september 11th when the aid was released. Five key meetings. We have the phone call. July 25th which you just described. Second, the very next day, very next day we have ambassadors volker, sondland meeting with zelensky. Third, ambassador bolton met with president zelensky on august 29th. Vice president pence met with president zelensky on september 2nd, and on september 5th, we have senator johnson and murphy meeting with president zelensky. In none of those five meetings, none, did linking dollars, Security Assistance dollars, to an investigation come up. Never came up. And you would think in the last two you would think in those last two after they knew on august 29th, via the politico article they knew it was held. It didnt come up in those last two meetings. Four facts, five meetings have never changed. Article one in this resolution ignores the truth, ignores the facts, ignores what happened and what has been laid out for the American People over the last three weeks. So i hope that this committee will come to its senses. That it will adopt the amendment and strike article one from the resolution. With that, mr. Chairman, i yield back. Mr. Chairman i move to strike the last word thank you, mr. Chairman. I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, this amendment attempts to strike article one in its entirety. Particularly, first, i want to begin on the president s own conduct. The president of the United States hired Rudy Giuliani to go to ukraine and lead this scheme to smear Vice President biden. He began a campaign to smear ambassador yovanovitch and directed that she be fired to clear the way of this anticorruption champion so that his scheme could be fully implemented. He directed a hold on the military aid to ukraine and no one could provide any other explanation unrelated to his scheme to pressure them, to interfere in the 2020 election. Then the president in his own words on july 25th, gets on the telephone and asks president zelensky for a favor to begin an investigation of his chief political rival, former Vice President joe biden. Theres a readout of the call which is a detail of this conversation. Theres direct evidence from Alexander Vindman who listened in on and heard the president utter those words pressuring a foreign leader to corrupt our elections. The president then made admissions in public on october 2nd, october 3rd and october 4th and invited an another foreign power, china, to interfere in the american election. The chief of staff was directed by the president to put a hold on the aid. Ambassador sondland testified that the ukrainians were told, and i quote, the resumption of u. S. Aid would likely not occur until ukraine provided the public anticorruption statement that we had been discussing for many weeks. And then he testified he spoke with President Trump and while the president claimed there was no quid pro quo, he made it clear that president zelensky must publicly announce the investigations that President Trump discussed on july 25th in the call in order for this Security Assistance to be lifted. Thats direct evidence. In addition to that, those are some of the highlights, there are over 260 text messages, there are call transcripts as i mentioned of the president s own words, there are emails between highranking officials of the Trump Administration, hundreds of press statements, interviews and tweets by the president and his personal attorney Rudy Giuliani corroborating their desire to pursue investigations of Vice President biden prior to the 2020 elections. Im going to give the committee a couple of examples. President trump himself said, and i quote, just so you know, weve been investigating on a personal basis through rudy and other lawyers corruption in the 2016 election. On july 19th, ambassador sondlands emails, he talked to zelensky and he, quote, is prepared to receive potuss call and will state that he will turn over every stone of the investigations. On july 19th, 2019, in addition to the email, ambassador sondland texted ambassador volker and makes the same thing clear. I spoke directly to z and gave him a full briefing. Hes got it. Had breakfast with rudy this morning. Most important is for zelensky to say that he will help investigate any personnel issues if there are any. Ambassador sondland and ambassador volker texted about potus wanting the deliverable, meaning that for ukraine to get the white house meeting, zelensky needs to announce the investigation. Sondland says, and i quote, morrison is ready to get dates as soon as yermak confirms. He responds, excellent. Not sure i did, i think potus wants the deliverable. Volker asks, does he know that . Sondland says, yeah, clearly lots of conversations going on. August 16th, ambassador taylor and volker discuss ukraines concern that President Trump was not using official channels like the department of justice to request investigations. Taylor texts ambassador volker, the person who asked for an official request was yermak . Volker replies, yes, but dont cite him. Taylor, i wont. Youre right. This is not good. We need to stay clear. And on august 22nd, ambassador sondland emailed secretary of state mike pompeo to make clear that to break the logjam, president zelensky will have to move forward on the issues important to trump. The list goes on and on. This claim that this is the thinnest of evidence is simply not true. Theres overwhelming evidence of the existence of a scheme led by the president of the United States to corrupt the american elections, to with hold aid until such time as a public announcement that was made that would smear the chiefs political rival. With that, i yield back. The gentleman yields back. For what purposes do you speak recognition . Thank you, mr. Chair. I move to strike the last word. The ladys recognized. Mr. Chair, it really quite disturbed me when you, again, rejected the rule of the house that said that we as the minority were it says in the rules that you require, require that you set a date for a minority hearing and the reason that this is important is because the rules have been thrown out the window here on this process. In fact, i just cant believe it. First of all, you have an unprecedented way of doing impeachment. You dont go through the Judiciary Committee like has been done in previous impeachments, instead, Speaker Pelosi hands it over to adam schiff. Adam schiff, the Intelligence Committee chair, where he has these closeddoor hearings in the basement, i was denied several times, several times the right to go in and hear what these fact witnesses said. Yet im supposed to vote on this today. And we have not had one single fact witness here in this committee at all. And then i hear from my republican colleagues that were on the Intelligence Committee that republicans were refused to have any of their witnesses in that committee. And then on top of that, republicans were told interrupted, silenced by chairman stiff when they tried to ask witnesses questions. They said, to the witness, dont answer that. I mean and so now here in Judiciary Committee were supposed to vote on something when we havent even heard directly from any fact witnesses. All we heard from was a bunch of liberal law professors that you called here that have a known record of disliking President Trump and then you have staff talk to us. And wh and then again, here in this committee, our republican members asked for witnesses so that we can ask questions to get out the truth, to get out at least let us say our side of the story. But, no, and so then we turned to, okay, under the house rules, it says youre required to set a minority hearing so that we can at least call witnesses so they can get some truth out to the American Public instead of this onesided sham. But, no, here again, i think youve said, right here, no, were not going to do that. Ill consider a date in the future that you can have a minority hearing. For goodness sakes, were voting on this today. Its no good to have a date in the future. Then its done. Youve already put through this. I mean, it just continues to amaze me how corrupt, how unfair this process has been from the start. For goodness sakes, you had 17 out of 24 of my democratic colleagues that have already voted on the house floor to continue with articles of impeachment. It was it was mr. Green who put a resolution on the floor, articles of impeachment, it was july 17th, and then there was a vote to table it. And they voted against the tabling meaning they wanted to go ahead with articles of impeachment. That was even before the july 25th call. Come on. This is a predetermined you guys have been wanting to impeach this president since he got elected. Fact after fact after fact. I know that you some you really think the president did something wrong. But the fact is, there is none of your fact witnesses were able to establish any evidence of bribery, treason, high crimes or misdemeanors. Not one single one and thats what it says has to be done in the constitution. So, again, i believe the president of the United States is right. This is a sham impeachment and it sure is a shame and i yield back the balance of my time. The gentle lady yields back. What purposes does mr. Neguse seek recognition. Move to strike the last word. With much respect to my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, it is difficult to follow some of these arguments. Ive heard very little in the way of any substantive defenses on the president s conduct. And im compelled to respond to at least one of those which is this notion about the closeddoor depositions because as i understand it, from reading these transcripts, many minority members were present and granted equal time to question witnesses brought before the Intelligence Committee, the Foreign Affairs committee and the governmental Oversight Committee. Some of those members are on this committee. I struggle to understand the objections in that regard. The idea that the Intelligence Committees investigation was not transparent, in my view, also rings hollow. As we know, the transcripts from those interviews and those depositions have been released. I know ive reviewed them. I suspect many of my colleagues have as well. If you did not review those transcripts, you surely watched the live testimony of ambassador sondland, Lieutenant Colonel vindman and so many other Public Servants as millions of americans watched along with us. So, again, it is i understand that were going to have a robust debate about the legal standards that governor the inquiry that is before us and the decision we make on these articles but let us stay true to the facts and lets dispense with these process arguments and get to the substance of why we are here today. I will also just say, Historical Context matters. I was not on the Judiciary Committee in 1999 and 1998, but my understanding is at that time the Judiciary Committee did not examine any fact witnesses during the clinton impeachment inquiry. I know there are members of this committee that were here at that time and they are well aware that they did question ken starr and then afterwards had hearings with legal experts to expound upon the legal standards that would define the decision before the committee. I would also say that during the nixon impeachment inquiry, the examination of witnesses, fact witnesses, rather, was conducted exclusively behind closed doors in july of 1974. So unlike the nixon inquiry as well as the clinton inquiry, the house Judiciary Committee hearings featured testimony from a dozen witnesses in open hearings. Facts matter. And i hope that each and every one of us that agree at least on that simple point. And with that i would yield to the distinguished member of california. I would like to note going back to the analogy to the nixon impeachment, the gentleman is correct, there was really no public presentation in the Judiciary Committee. There were some quite a few depositions that were private. But there was a lot of public testimony that wasnt before the Judiciary Committee. It was before the Senate Watergate committee. As youll recall, the president s counsel, john dean, appeared and testified that there was a cancer on the presidency and a number of other revelations that there was a recording system in the white house. All of that happened in the senate and the fact that it happened in the senate didnt mean that the Judiciary Committee didnt know about it. The whole country knew about it and took notice of it. Theres only a few members of us of this committee that were on the Judiciary Committee during the clinton impeachment. I was one of them. Ms. Jackson lee and mr. Nadler were as well as mr. Sensenbrenner and the gentleman from ohio. We had a report from mr. Starr, i remember it very well, we didnt have extensive fact witnesses. We had the report. We had evidence over in the Ford Building that we could go over and look at privately. I did. A number of members did. But the gentleman has correctly summarized the situation. And i would yield back to the gentleman. Mr. Chairman. I yield back the balance of my time. For what purpose does mr. Sensenbrenner seek recognition. I move to strike the last word. The gentleman is recognized. Mr. Chairman i think its obvious to all of the American Public that this is a railroad job. Things have been going quickly but i think the real key is, is that all of the denials of minority requests both here and in the Intelligence Committee, the republicans and the president have not been able to put on live witnesses to be able to basically put together a defense and if youre going to have a trial, both a prosecution and a defense. Here we dont have a defense because of the rulings that have been made one of was just made a few moments ago by the chairman of this committee. Now, let me say, you know, first of all, the hearings that were in the basement of the capitol were secret hearings. They were classified hearings. None of the members who were in that hearing room could ethically go out and tell the public and news media what was said there and could it have been held before the Ethics Committee or worse if they did that. There were leaks that came out of there, i grant you that but none of the members could. The other point is that the vast majority of members of the Judiciary Committee, which has ultimate jurisdiction over all proposed impeachments were not members of the three other committees, and were not allowed to go into the basement of the capitol hearing room to listen to what was going on. And to see those live witnesses. There are a number of my colleagues on this side of the aisle that attempted to do that. And chairman schiff kicked them out or wouldnt allow them to go in there. Now, when you have a trial, you really cannot make a determination on exactly whether the witnesses are telling the truth or exaggerating or mixing it up or spinning it some way or the other without looking at them in person. We dont have that opportunity. There were a few select witnesses that were in the public hearings over in the Intelligence Committee couple weeks ago, but the Intelligence Committee does not have the jurisdiction on whether to recommend the impeachment of anybody, let alone the president of the United States. Now, you know, we heard complaints about the fact that in the clinton impeachment there were no fact witnesses. Mr. Shabat and i were there. What happened there is that both sides were allowed to present whatever witnesses they wanted to. Kenneth starr did all of the grunt work in putting together the facts. He sent over 36 boxes which were put over into the Ford Building. Thats not happened here. The independent counsel that was appointed to look into what President Trump has done, mr. Mueller came and testified and that ended up being a a big fizzle, you know, for what the democrats wanted to do. So, much of the mueller stuff after his testimony and the crossexamination by members on both sides of the aisle ended up disappearing into outer space. Have to find something else. Now let me say that everybody on both ends of the telephone call between President Trump and president zelensky has said very clearly there was no quid pro quo offered. There was no pressure that was put on the ukrainians. I dont know how many times president zelensky has had to say that. Apparently its not enough because minds on the other side of the aisle are closed. But thats what the facts are. And the facts, you know, speak for themselves. There was no Impeachable Offense here. Thats why article i of the impeachment ended up falling flat on its face and that it should be stricken and i support the amendment to strike it from the gentleman of ohio and yield back. Mr. Chairman. Gentleman yields back. I yield to the gentleman from georgia. Gentleman is recognized. Real quick. Also just Kenneth Starr scene those over before the hearings began, correct. We didnt get a letter in the middle of the hearing oh, by the way we have a document dump over the weekend. No, we got them. Gentlemans time has expired. For what purpose does jackson lee seek recognition. Strike the last word. I think before i begin to comment on the discussion here that it is important to remind all of us that the president abused his power and is a continuing threat not only to democracy but to our National Security. We do not take this lightly. We take it very seriously. I beg to differ with my dear friend, as one who was here for the impeachment proceedings in 1998, along with my colleagues, both mr. Sensenbrenner and others. Let me be very clear of the distinctive difference that we had then at that time. For the American People, the special prosecutor was an independent statute that allowed during the nixon proceedings and mr. Starr to have an independent investigation. Congress of not privy to any of that investigation. At all. They proceeded. They were not interfered with as mr. Mueller was by the doj because he was an employee of the department of justice, and his employer, his boss came out end characterized his report before he could even discuss it. In the instance of the proceedings of 1998, the congress received a report just as both our friends on the other side of the aisle, and we, the majority received reports from the impeachment inquiry committees, who were investigatory committees. They did their work, yes, in a classified setting, as i imagine both mr. Starr and jarowski had to do. They had witnesses that were not in the public. Then, of course, there were full public hearings, 17 witnesses, firsthand witnesses who heard the call and testified not on any second hand knowledge, but firsthand knowledge. It is clear that were dealing with a he question of a continuing threat, which is why we have to respond. Let me be very clear. I hold in my hands that unclassified transcript. I beg to differ with my friends. Allow me just for a moment to tell you that in the call, president zelensky said these sentences. I would also like to thank you for your great support in the area of defense. Were trying to continue to cooperate for the next steps specifically we also want to be ready to buy javelins, thats equipment, military equipment from the United States for defense purposes. Ukraine in the midst of a war against a nation that shot down at least some of those alleged to be separatist using russian weapons a commercial airliner. This is a serious war where our men and women in the military are on the ground trying to assist and heres the very next sentence. The very next sentence is not yes lets get with the department of defense lets review your request. The very next sentence, i would like you to do a favor, though. This is a discussion about defense. The next sentence should have been, i think we are well aware of your difficult predicament. Going to have you talk to the secretary of defense. But it said a couple of sentences later i would like to have the attorney general call you or your people and i would like you to get to the bottom of it, investigation. So, i would just offer to say that it is not frivolous or without facts that we proceed. We proceed with facts. And we take this in a very somber manner. Would the gentlelady yield. I would happy to. I would like to note that while this aid was being withheld, people died. I would like to ask unanimous consent to put into the record an article from the Los Angeles Times entitled trump froze military aid as ukrainian soldiers perished in battle. Without objection. And note also that the highest death toll on any day in the ukrainerussian war was august 7th of this year while aid was being withheld, so this had life and death consequences. And i yield back. Very quickly let me say my predecessor said impeachment is designed for the president and his ministers somehow to be called into account. Thats all were doing on behalf of the American People and protecting the National Security of this nation. I yield back. For what purpose gentleman strikes the last word. Gentleman is recognized. Real quickly the gentlelady from california just misstated something i addressed head on last night. Under secretary hale stated this was money, not interfering, not dealing with issues. Youre in a war. For those of us who have been in a war zone people do die in a war zone. This money did not stop that. I yield back. Reclaiming my time. The biggest difference in the clinton impeachment and this one is that president clinton committed a crime, perjury. This president isnt even accused of economisting a crime. The constitution is pretty clear on what constitutes an Impeachable Offense. Treason, bribery and other high crimes and misdeamnors or whatever other else nancy pelosi and adam schiff deem impeachable. I think we can all agree no president should abuse the powers of his or her office just like the chairman of the House Committee shouldnt abuse the powers of his office to obtain and publish the phone records of the president s personal attorney, a member of the media and Ranking Member of that same committee but that doesnt make alleged abuse of power a high crimes and misdeamnors. In their newly authored memo on constitutional grounds for impeachment the majority on this Committee Goes to Great Lengths to explain about abuse of power is an Impeachable Offense mentioning it was one of the charges against president nixon and bill clinton. What they dont mention is that the house of representatives has never adopted alleged abuse of power as a charge in a president ial impeachment. Why . Because theres no criminal statute describing what alleged abuse of power actually is. Abuse of power is, therefore, a vague, ambiguous term. Abuse of power looks concise legal definition, theres a higher burden of proof to show actions of the president rise to the level of impeachment. I believe that bill clinton had abused the power are of his office but we failed to convince our colleagues in the house and that particular charge was rejected. In this case the evidence provided is less convincing. In fact, i would argue its nonexistent. First no quid pro quo. Second, ate widely known fact that ukraine is one of the most corrupt countries on the planet. Why congress required the administration to certify that the Ukrainian Government had taken steps to clean up corruption before military aid could be provided to the country. President trump was well aware of that fact. Quite skeptical of giving Ukraine Foreign aid long before the now famous july 25th phone call. Third, ukraine actually received the aid after the president was satisfied that ukraine had taken meaningful steps to address corruption. Which, again is an obligation required bylaw. Based on the actual facts of this case as opposed to hearsay and innuendo compiled by the Intelligence Committee its clear no abuse of power ever took place and certainly isnt enough evidence to support an article of impeachment. Mr. Chairman, as you well know theres another significance difference between abuse of power charges against nixon and clinton and those presented here. In the nixon and clinton impeachments, abuse of power was a tacked on charge far less important in those cases than the actual high crimes charged against both of them. Here its the main thrust of the House Democrats entire case. Let me put it another way. Entire argument for impeachment in this case is based on a charge that is not a crime, much less a high crime and that has never been approved by the house of representatives in a president ial impeachment before ever in history. If thats the best you got, you wasteed a whole lot of time and taxpayer dollars, all because so many of you, mr. Chairman, hate this president. One last thing. I guess we now know why nancy pelosi was focus grouping bribery as a potential charge because she was desperately searching for a crime, any crime to justify this sham impeachment. But that effort was abandoned because she knows most members of Congress Know and now the American People know theres simply wasnt a crime committed here and there shouldnt be an impeachment here either. I yield back. Gentleman yielded back. For what purpose do you seek recognition. To strike the last word. Gentleman is recognized. There are no crimes here . Thats the defense my colleagues across the aisle are putting forward . How about the highest crime that one who holds Public Office could commit . A crime against our constitution. After all, the constitution is the highest most supreme law of the land. Every other law, statutory laws included derived from the constitution, not the other way around. The president committed the highest crime against the constitution by abusing his office. Cheating in an election, inviting foreign interference for a purely personal gain while gentlemen p jeopardizing our National Security and the integrity of our elections. The constitution does not require President Trump have committed statutory crimes. After all, we in congress are not criminal prosecutors. We do not prosecute crimes, we protect the constitution. But since my colleagues keep bringing up what potential crimes a criminal prosecutor could charge the president with let go through some of them because President Trumps conduct overlaps with criminal acts. Lets start with criminal bribery. 18 u. S. Code 201 b 2 a. Relevant here criminal bribery occurs when a public official demands or seeks anything of value personally in return for being influenced in the performance of an official act, additionally the public official must carry out these acts corruptly. Demands or seeks. President trump demanded and sought the announcement and conduct of politically motivated investigations by president zelensky. Anything of value personally for the purposes of and bribery law the phrase anything of value has been interpreted by the courts broadly to carry out the congressional purpose of punishing the abuse of Public Office. In return for being influenced the third requirement, as the intel Committee Report demonstrated President Trump sought an announcement of these investigations in return for performing two official acts. First, the conditioned release of vital military assistance on president zelenskys investigations and second he conditioned a head of state meeting on these investigations. Fourth, performance of an official act. The courts have define an official act as any decision or action, manner, cause, suit, proceeding or controversy that may be pending or brought before a public official. Both of the acts in question, the military aid and white house meeting meet this requirement. Finally, corruptly. President trump behaved corruptly throughout this course of conduct because he used his official office in exchange to seek a private benefit. A second crime . Honest services fraud. U. S. Code section 1386 President Trump knowingly and willfully orchestrated a scheme to defraud the American People of his Honest Services as president of the United States. This has been a line often in the courts with bribery except it also includes your wire communication. Clearly will the gentleman yield. I will not. The july 25 phone call constitutes a wire communication. So there you have it. At least two criminal statutory crimes. However, all of these conversations about statutory crimes are moot because the president of the United States refuses to allow his own department of justice to. Indict him. So the president may be charged with crimes statutorily one day but thats not what were doing here on this day and were not restricted like the department of justice is, so we will uphold our duty to charge the president with the crimes against the constitution that he has committed. Using your taxpayer dollars. Jeopardizing the integrity of your vote for a purely political purpose. And a purely personal gain. Mr. Chairman, with that i yield back. I appreciate the gentlemans recitation of the facts as a former prosecutor. You speak with tremendous authority. I would just like to note that the argument that somehow lying about a sexual affair is an abuse of president ial power, but the misuse of president ial power to get a benefit somehow doesnt matter. If its lying about sex, we could put Stormy Daniels case ahead of us. We dont believe thats a high crimes and misdeamnors. Will the gentlelady yield. No. Its not an abuse of president ial power. I yield back. For what does purpose do you seek recognition. In prod support of the amendment. Yield briefly . Does the gentleman wish to yield. Yes. The important thing is that bill clinton lied to a grand jury. That is a crime. The articles of impeachment that passed the house accused bill clinton of lying to a grand jury, a crime and something that obstructs the ability of the court to get to the truth. This is not what is happening here. Big difference. Thank you. Reclaiming my time. Gentleman reclaims his time. Its interesting, though, were here because of fraud, not by the president , but from within the department of justice, and i realize people on the other side of the aisle have been so busy trying to find some kind of charge, criminal charge toe bring against the president , none of which worked that they may not have been aware of the most recent horowitz report but its clear now it is clear now that the whole investigation that has brought us here with crime after crime being alleged and then having to be dropped was a fraudulent effort before the fisa court to have a surveillance warrant done against carter page. They lied initially, said that he was a russian agent when actually he had been used by the cia as a spy against russia. And so they lied. It was fraudulent. Hopefully there will be people who answer for their crimes and their fraud in the department of justice in the days to come and it sounds like that should be the case. And then there was fraud all the way through. But for three years weve been hearing about the crimes of the candidate trump and then the crimes of President Trump and we come now today based on the initial fraud that got this whole impeachment stuff started, and no one on the other side is willing to acknowledge the fraud that brought us here, nor the fact that so many people here have been screaming about the president s crimes and were even hearing today like we just did, oh, yes, there were crimes. Then why arent they in this impeachment document . Because they dont exist. Theyve been disproven over and over and over again and thats why the gentlemans amendment is so well taken. You dont want to go down this ground. I think its a bad idea when it was proposed before. High crimes and misdeamnors if its not treason, even misdeamnors are crimes. So we had to drop the fraud of all the crimes being alleged, people saying in here and in the public, gee, were going to get the president because he colluded with russia, how terrible was that. Thats all been disproved and dropped. Now were left with bribery and extortion and now even those had to be dropped because there were no crimes and i appreciate the gentleman bringing up crimes but those are not alleged here. So let me just say, this is a day that will live in infamy for the Judiciary Committee. The days of exemplary chairs like Daniel Webster when he stood for principle, those are going to be gone because this became a tool of the majority to try to defeat use taxpayer funds to defeat a president and, by the way, the ken starr report, 36 boxes, he came in and testified. We were kept out of hearing the witnesses. There were in the watergate, these witnesses testified on television. It was public. It was not a Starr Chamber like the Schiff Chamber became. I would like to yield back to mr. Jordan. When did it happen . Everything mr. Swallow just said if it happened why isnt it in the resolution . Democrats said theres some scheme to have an announcement made by president zelensky to get a phone call with the president to get a meeting with the president to get the aid released. When did the announcement happen . They got the call on july 25th. They got the meeting on september 25th. They got the money on september 11th. There was never an announcement from the ukrainians to do an investigation. So you can keep saying all this stuff. And all the points that this happened. Didnt happen. Not the facts. Those are not the facts. We know why the aid ultimately got released because we learned this guy, this new president was actually the transformer, would deal with corruption issue in his country. Thats what happened. You can make up all the things you want but those are not the facts. Gentlemans time has expired. Mr. Jeffries. Gentleman is recognized. Lets go through the facts. Were here today because the president abused his power. Were here today because he solicited foreign interference in the 2020 election. He welcomed foreign interference as it relates to russia. He solicited foreign interference on the white house lawn with china and he did it with ukraine. Hes a serial solicitor. Lets go through the facts. Congress allocated 391 million in military aid on a bipartisan basis. To ukraine. Currently at war with russian backed separatists in the east. Ukraine is a friend. Russia is a foe. Ukraine is a democracy. Vush russia is a dictatorship. United states is the only thing standing between Vladimir Putin and ukraine being completely overrun as part of putins fantasy to reconstruct the soviet union, which would be adverse to the National Security interests of the United States and every single fact witness before this Congress Said so. You cant even dispute that. So we allocated aid on a bipartisan basis. But then the aid was withheld. So the American People deserve to figure out why. In february there was a letter sent by the Trump Administration saying okay the aid is on the way. But it never arrived. In april he had a phone call, the president , with zelensky, the word corruption was not mentioned once. And then in may the department of defense wrote to this congress and said all necessary preconditions for receipt of the aid have been met by the new Ukrainian Government including inter eruption of anticorruption protocols. We have that letter. It was stoi it was sent to you and it was sent to us. Then on july 18th, office of management and budget meeting, the aid was officially frozen at the direction of the president. Twice during the summer, mitch mcconnell, the Senate Republican majority leader publicly stated he called the Trump Administration. What happened to the aid . Mitchcconnell couldnt get a good answer but there was no good answer. On july 25th theres another call between President Trump and president zelensky. The word corruption is not mentioned once. But heres what was said. Zelensky talks about defense. And the Immediate Response is, do us a favor, though. And President Trump says, i need you to look into some things. Not related to procurement of defense arms. But related to a wild Conspiracy Theory connected to the 2016 campaign and also says i want you to look into joe biden. And then whats interesting since you think it was such a perfect call, he mentions Rudy Giuliani. Im looking at the transcript right now not once, not twice, but three times. Why on an official call would the president mention Rudy Giuliani . Hes not an ambassador. Hes not the secretary of state. Hes not a member of the diplomatic core. Hes President Trumps political enforcer. Then what happens . You said you want to talk about the facts. In August Giuliani travels to madrid and meets with the Ukrainian Government. As a followup to trump saying to ukraine go meet with giuliani. Then a statement is drafted about this phoney investigation, and sent to the ukrainians. But what happens . In august the whistleblower complaint is filed. Then on september 9th, the whistleblower complaint is made public to congress. Two days later on september 11th, all of a sudden the aid is released. Why was the aid released . Because the president was caught red handed trying to pressure a Foreign Government to target an american citizen. I yield back. Gentleman yields back. For what purpose goes mr. Gates seek recognition. Last word. Gentleman is recognized. There were five meetings we detailed that showed why the aid was released. There was a belief by the administration previously ukraine was one of the most corrupt countries in the world. And after a number of events with the Vice President , with a Bipartisan Senate delegation there was a resolution of that aid but this debate just lacks a certain sincerity. I heard earlier, list out all these crimes. So if im watching at home im thinking where are they in the impeachment . Thats a democrat drive by to go ahead and list crimes that you dont allege and you dont have evidence for. If theres ever a microcosm of how to consume this day and the importance of it with the American People is that they are naming crimes in debate that they dont have in their impeachment resolution because they cant prove them and there are no underlike facts. Then mr. Jeffries brings up russia. The residue of impeachment theories past and filed. How is debating about how are we even here debating about military aid, javelins that President Trump delivered that president obama withheld. I hear them crying these allege tears over this notion, trump didnt give this aid, lets impeach him. Where was this concern when obama was president . Our substantive defense is four things. Mr. Jordan dreams of them in his sleep. Both President Trump and president zelensky said there was no pressure. We saw the call transcript and theres no conditionality. There was never awareness on the part of the ukraine that there was a delay in aid. And the ukraine got the aid without opening the investigation that seems to be so troubling to democrats. Everything youre going to hear them say today can be pretty much categorized into three areas. First either stuff people presumed and had no direct evidence of, kind of their watercooler theory of the case. Second, its hearsay. Somebody told somebody told somebody else that created some concern about the president s conduct. Or, it is reflective of a sincere policy disagreement about how to make the ukraine great again. I heard all these folks come by that are part of the diplomatic core. They sure seem to believe we should do everything for the ukraine but if the president disagrees with that it is not impeachable conduct. They are alleging a shake down. Most americans know you cannot have a shake down if the person allegedly being shook down doesnt even know about the shake down. You have president zelensky him saying i felt no pressure and then talk about bad timing. We got this time article that comes out on the 10th of december, just a few days ago because their theory of the case is even if zelensky didnt know there was pressure theres this other guy, yermak and yermak knew from Gordon Sondland there was pressure but the same day that introduced their articles of impeachment, yermak gives this interviews with time magazine, gordon and i were never alone together. We bumped into each other in the hallway next to the escalator as i was walking out and i remember everything. Its fine with my memory. We talked about how well the meeting went. Thats all we talked about. Here they are with no crime, with no victim, with no witnesses, with no knowledge of any shake down and yet they proceed. To accept the democrats theory of the case, you got to believe that the ukrainians are lying to us. You got to believe when they say theres no conditionality, no pressure, nothing wrong they are so weak and so dependent on the United States that we cant believe a word they say. Well, again, where were you during the Obama Administration . When this weak ally didnt get javelins that were then withheld. I support the jordan amendment because this article i, abuse of power they allege in the payment theory is a joke. They have to have to say abuse of power because they dont have evidence for obstruction. They have to say abuse of power because they have no evidence for bribery or treason. They have to say abuse of power because all those specific crimes that the gentleman from california claimed cannot be supported by evidence. This notion of abuse of power is the lowest of low energy impeachment theories. Heck, i dont know the any Political Party that doesnt think when the other side is in the white house that they abuse of power, they do too much. I have a lot of constituents think barack obama abused his power. But we didnt do this to this country. We didnt put him through this nonsense. You set the standard. You said this would be bipartisan, compelling and overwhelming. It aint that and this looks pretty bad. I yield back. Gentleman yields back. For what purpose . Thank you, mr. Chairman. Just in response. Strike the last word . Yes. Lady is recognized. In response to my colleague from florida, you cannot argue things both ways. You cannot say that the president was so concerned about ukraine that he released aid, which is true he released aid in 2017. He released aid in 2018. And then suddenly he became concerned in 2019 right after Vice President biden announced he would run. So if your argument is that he was so concerned about ukraine that he released aid in 2017 and 2018, then why in 2019 after the department of defense cleared ukraine on charges of corruption, why then did he decide he was so concerned about corruption that he was not going to release aid . That makes im sorry im not yielding. Im not yielding. Gentlelady has the floor. They got a new president thats why. People will not interrupt. They got a new president. Its not proper here. They got a new president who was known to be an anticorruption fighter. So that argument has no weight whatsoever. Now, if you want to argue that the president was so concerned about corruption at that particular moment you have to look at the whole record of u. S. Policy and our agreement that the department of defense would look under certain conditions before they released military aid to determine whether or not a country had satisfied those requirements around corruption and department of defense released that report. Nowhere between the time that donald trump withheld aid and the time that he released that aid was there an additional assessment required or done. In fact, the department of defense decided they didnt need the to do another assessment because they had already done the assessment. So at the end of the day i have only two questions for my colleagues on the other side. And these are the two questions. Forget about President Trump. Forget about President Trump. Will any one of my colleagues on the other side say that it is an abuse of power to condition aid, to condition aid on official acts . Forget about President Trump. Forget about President Trump. Is any one of my colleagues willing to say that it is ever okay for a president of the United States of america to invite foreign interference in our elections . Not a single one of you has said that so far. Ill say it. Ill yield to my colleague from texas. Thank you. I would glad to answered. She has i want to break this down. Gentlelady has the time. Members know perfectly well that it is out of order to interrupt members who have the time. Gentlelady may i ask you a question. Gentlelady has yielded to whom . Misses cou escobar has the time. Thank you. I want to break this down in simple terms for the American Public because our republican colleagues are working overtime to try to convince us that we didnt see what we saw with our own eyes and we didnt hear what we heard with our own ears. Lets bring it down to an example that was used during the hearing. If a governor, if a community suffers a Natural Disaster and the governor of the state has aid that will help that community, but calls the mayor of your community and says i want you to do me a favor, though. And conditions with giving the aid to the community on the police chief smearing his political opponent, has there been a crime . The answer is yes. And that governor would go to jail. If that governor later releases the aid after he got caught, it doesnt matter. He still committed the crime. Furthermore, if that governor says during the investigation, im going to defy the subpoenas, were going to fight the subpoenas, guess what would happen to that governor . Hes committed a crime. He would go to jail. If the governor then tried to cover up his wrongdoing, cover it up so that his people, his constituents couldnt see his wrongdoing, what would happen to that governor . Did he commit a crime . Yes. He would go to jail. So as wildly as they are trying the to convince you that there was no wrongdoing, i want the American Public to understand what is going on here. Its clear as day. We seen it with our own eyes. Weve heard with it our own ears. Facts matter. I yield back. Thank you, miss escobar. I would close with this single question is it ever okay for a president to condition official action on personal gain . I yield back. Mr. Chair . Who seeks recognition. For what purpose does the gentleman seek recognition. Unanimous consent request. I would like to ask unanimous consent to introduce into the record i cant hear you sir. I would like the to introduce, ask unanimous consent to introduce inthe record the transcript of the call where the president says i would like you to do us a favor. Without objection. The transcript will be introduced. The full record will be introduced. For what purpose . Strike the last word. Gentleman is recognized. Thank you, mr. Chairman. I want to address the comments that there are definitely crimes in this situation. First of all, i believe during the Mueller Investigation went on national tv and said something to the effect of an indictment is coming. He knew it. An indictment is coming. So i know mr. Swallow knows crimes, he was a prosecutor. He also knows the obligation that a prosecutor has not to bring a crime, not to bring a charge unless theres a reasonable probability of conviction. I would direct mr. Swalwell to the elements of bribery whoever being a public official corruptly demands or seeks personally anything of value in return for being influenced in the performance of an official act. The department of justices Criminal Division Public Integrity section opined september that something as nebulous of an investigation doesnt constitute something of value under this statute. They also, the other element thats at question here and one of the reasons why we need more than one week as the committee of jurisdiction to look into this matter is because if there are crimes we should be bringing experts, we should be bringing in testimony, and if there is a crime i think its far more fair to charge a to pass articles of impeachment on a president where the president can defend against specific elements as opposed to something as vague as abuse of power. Mr. Swalwell, the official act that you talk about, under the Mcconnell Supreme Court mcconnell decision, that decision says setting up a meeting, talking to another official or organizing an event without more does not fit the definition of official act. There are two elements missing in your analysis. But that doesnt surprise me. Because there were no elements that were, that the special counsel found in this situation. I think that it is unfortunate when the gentleman from rhode island talks about the president sending mr. Giuliani to the ukraine to smear, to smear Vice President biden. Lets talk about what Vice President biden did. His son sat on a board and made an outrageous amount of money for someone the that had no background in energy, no background in the ukraine, while his father was the Vice President. If that is not a fair topic for discussion in the world of politics, i dont know what is. Smearing is trying to conjure up false information or making a vague argument based on false information. This isnt smearing. This is seeking the truth about corruption, not a Single Member on the other side of the aisle has been willing to condemn the conduct of the former Vice President. How frustrating it must be to be President Trump and have your son spend over a Million Dollars on attorneys fees when the special counsel is investigating something that never happened the . There was no collusion. No spire between russia and the trump campaign. But there is clear evidence of wrongdoing between hunter biden, the former Vice President joe biden would the gentleman yield. No, i will not. And the ukraine and the corporation burisma. So the idea there was a smear going on, lets look at the facts. And i would yield to my friend from arizona mr. Biggs. Lets talk about what was going on in 20172018 aid was given and in 2019 there was a pause put on it. A new administration in the ukraine and the benchmarks, the anticorruption benchmarks were done under the previous administration. That was testified to in this committee. But what we know is several of the previous corrupt administrators and cabinet level officials including some oligarchs had close relationship to zelensky. There was concern whether mr. Zelensky was the real deal. The aid was prospective. U. S. Officials continued to meet with ukrainian officials and determined zelensky was the real deal so they made every effort to convince President Trump that that was the case. Once two new anticorruption measures were released within two days, so was the funding. Thats what changed. Yield back. Mr. Chairman, unanimous consent request for what purpose is the gentleman from california seeking recognition. Unanimous consent request for article all of Robert Muellers indictments including the 34 people and three companies that he indicted in his lengthy investigation. Without objection. In. I want to see it. The gentleman reserves an objection. He wants to see it. Thats fair. For what purpose . I move to strike the last word. Without objection. I yield to my friend and colleague from florida. Thank you for yielding. I got to come back to this interview with yermak. Its like the tree that fell in the forest that nobody heard that demolished the democratic case. They have no evidence that the ukrainians ever knew that this aid was withheld. So they are literally trying to prosecute an impeachment against the president for a shake down when the alleged people being shook down once they felt no pressure and two did not even know it was happening. Then time and again you heard them in debate, in press conferences, and the whole circus show going on here say well we got this testimony from Gordon Sondland, we all remember gordon. Gordon sondland wandering his way to an escalator with this guy who speaks english as a second language and gordon says well maybe i said something to him about the this. Well, i mean that was the whole deal for them. And then, i mean, you talk about embarrassing. The same day that they introduced their articles of impeachment that we knew they would introduce the moment they took the majority it comes outer mac denies the whole thing. Show me the ukrainian that was pressured. Show me the ukrainian that knew that any of this was tied to any conditionality . Theres no conditionality in the call so its quite easy to answer the gentlelady from philadelphia question. In this case theres no conditionality. You cant prove it. You have none of of it. And, frankly, even the ukrainians, even your purported victims are coming out in the press and saying their theory of the case is wrong, their fundamental premise has been he rejected. I yield to the gentleman from ohio. I yield back to the gentleman from pennsylvania. Yes, i yield to my friend from ohio. I thank the gentleman for yielding. We got a brandnew president zelensky ran on anticorruption. Lets see if hes the real deal. Thats what happened in the 55 days the aid was pausd. We talked about five critical meetings that took place. Five meetings. The last one is the most important because you had a democrat senator and a republican senator meet with president zelensky in kiev. They knew the aid had been paused at that time. The issue never came up. But what did come up is both of these senators came back and said this guy is the real deal worth the risk, worth sending the hard earned tax dollars of the American People to ukraine. That is what happened. The facts are very clear. You can make up all the stuff you want but the facts are on the president s side. Theyve always been on the president s side. Democrats keep saying to get the call, to get the meeting, to get the money there had to be an announcement. December 12th, theres yet to be an announcement from ukraine about any type of investigation into burisma or the bidens, and it wont happen it didnt need happen. That wasnt the point. They got the call. July 25th, they got the meeting september 25th and got the money september 11th. The other thing i want to point out i dont know how many times ive heard this the democrats talk about this, one sentence the president said in thenow famous call transcript. I would like you to do us a favor though. Democrats dont read the plain language. Your star professor witness who was here last week talked about this being the royal weed. She read the sentence you guys tried to portray the sentence. She said i was i would like you to do me a favor though. It says i would like you to do us a favor. Guess what the next two words are . Because our country, not because i, president doesnt say i would like you to do to me a favor because ive been through a lot. He doesnt say that. Very clear i would like you to do us a favor, though, because our country has been through a lot and thats the understatement of the year. Heck, yeah our country has been through a lot. This is the day after bob mueller sat before this committee and we learned that there was nothing there but two years he put our country through all kinds of turmoil because of you guys. Thats what the president is pointing out because at the end of this paragraph he references bob mueller. Thats what hes talking about. Heck yeah our country has been through a lot and our president was ticked about it and wanted to find out what was going on. Thats very legitimate. Thats working on behalf of the American People. As i said last night you guys dont respect the 63 Million People who voted for this guy thats why the speaker of the house called the president an imposter. Thats what is wrong. I want you to do us a favor because our country has been through a lot. I yield back. For what purpose mr. Johnson seeks recognition . Strike the last word. The gentleman is recognized. I just want to slow this down and be very methodical about this because most of us here were attorneys and also finders of fact and supposed to carefully and objectively look at the claims. Theres two parts, abuse of power and obstruction of justice. Democrats no theres zero direct evidence to show President Trump engaged in any scheme of any kind as alleged in the resolution or that he intended in his dealings with the ukraine to influence the 2020 election. No impeachment should ever proceed on the basis of hearsay and conjecture and speculation that wouldnt even be admissible in a local traffic court. To my friend, theres simply no evidence of any condition and i guess i need the to repeat the four indisputable facts that are in this record, repetition is necessary here. First both President Trump and zelensky say there was no pressure exeithered. Number two july 25th call transcript shows no conditionality between aid funding and investigation. Number three ukraine was not aware of the aid that it was being delayed and number four they never opened an investigation they still received the aid and got the meeting. Our colleagues keep misrepresenting the facts. Not only do they misrepresent do me the favor versus do us a favor only three of the 17 witnesses called by chairman schiff listened in on the call. Contrary to the assertions we heard this morning they didnt provide key uncontrovertible firsthand testimony on what happened to the call. All three testimonies contra diktd each other. The evidence shows President Trump holds a deep seated genuine and reasonable sweptism of ukraine due to its history of pervasive corruption and his administration sought proof that the newly elected president was a true reformer. As has been pointed out the president found out he is a swamp drainer and thats why the funds were released. President trump wanted to assure the taxpayer funded money would not be squandered as the third most corrupt nation in the world before zelensky and the discussions the they had were never about what will happen 2020 but what happened in 2016. The second part is president obstructed congress. He did what virtually every president has done in the modern era. Whats his big infraction . He asserted an executive privilege to question subpoenas issued to various white house witnesses. On every previous occasion of this assertion in the past the natural impasse that exists between the executive and legislative branches has been easily and calmly resolved either by good faith negotiation or a simple filing with the third branch of our government the judicial branch. Let the courts decide it. In spite of their allegations democrats know President Trump has lawful cause to challenge those subpoenas. In this case House Democrats are trying to impeach President Trump simply for seeking judicial review over whether the direct communications between high ranking advisors and the president under these circumstances are privileged or should be disclosed. That case would be experiod indicted in the courts and wouldnt take that long. Democrats said they dont have that long. They promised their constituents an impeachment by christmas. Over 25 Administration Officials that testified before Oversight Committee 20 before this committee at the start of the impeachment inquiry the white house provide 20,000 documents and quickly declassified and produced to everyone the call transcript. Democrats know the this is an absurd charge about obstruction and the truth is in the history of the republic theres never been a fraudulent impeachment process deployed against a president like the one being used against donald trump. They are the ones seeking to nullify our institutional safeguards with a sham. They are trying to nullify the votes of the 63 million americans who the elected President Trump. My colleague Sheila Jackson lee a little while ago quoted Barbara Jordan but shes the one who said during the watergate, did you process quadrupled. They violated that here. They violated the rules. Everybody in the country can he site. This impeachment will fail. Democrats will pay a heavy political price for it but what the pandoras box they opened today will do irreparable injury to our country in the years ahead. Thats why were concerned. Thats why facts matter. Gentleman yields back. Miss garcia. I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, im opposed to this amendment. Its incredible to me the other side of the aisle has not seen the facts and has not read some of the evidence before us. It is obvious to me that this president has put his personal interests above this country and with that ill yield back to the gentleman the from maryland. Rhode island. Rhode island. I thank the gentlelady for yielding. Weve just heard our republican colleagues claim that there was no demand, no conditionality for the release of this aid and in fact it was motivated by this president s deep desire to ferret out corruption. Thats laughable. The president of the United States had two phone calls with president zelensky. He never once even uttered the word corruption. Because it wasnt about corruption and the reason we know that is the department of defense had already certified that steps had been taken combat corruption back on may 23rd, and despite that certification that hold remained in place. In fact the professionals testified about them trying the to figure out how is it possible its legal to hold this aid, because certification happened, no basis to hold it other than the president ordered it. Its not about corruption. It was about extracting a commitment to announce publicly that they were launching an investigation of President Trumps chief political rival, a smear against Vice President biden. So this notion that really what happened the president just satisfied himself that mr. Zelensky was for real is nonsense and betrayed by all of the evidence collected. Let me give you some of it or remind you of it because you dont remember it. Ambassador sondland testified under oath, mr. Giulianis request were a quid pro quo. For arranging a white house visit for president zelensky. Mr. Giuliani demanded that ukraine, mr. Giuliani, by the way, the president s counsel, mr. Giuliani demanded ukraine make a Public Statement announcing the investigation of the 2016 election, dnc server and burisma. Mr. Gull was burisma. He was expressing the desire to the president of the United States and we knew these investigations were important to the president. On a call, president zelensky himself recognized the collection between the meeting and the investigations. And he said, i also want to thank you for your ichbtation to visit the United States, specifically washington, d. C. On the other hand i want to ensure you well try to be very serious about the case and will work on the investigation. And the president spoke in that call about the bidens and burisma. The omb ultimately announces that the aid was withheld is no explanation, and everyone in the ent jens community, all the National Security team, all recommend the release of the aid. This was an important ally with the United States facing a war with the and was it was killing people in eastern ukraine. We were a lifeline. The only people who benefitted from this scheme, President Trump because he thought he was going to get an announcement to spear his opponent and Vladimir Putin, they were trying to weaken the ukrainians. And there was a recent article come gressman bass held up, captured this, it said president zelensky facing president putin all alone. So this benefited russia, weakening ukraine. But this notion that the reason that the aid was released because the president is defied by all of the evidence collected in a 300page report collected by the Intelligence Committee. It was released because the president got caught. The whistleblower filed the report, a complaint, alleging an elaborate scheme by the president. Betrayed the National Interest of our country, undermined our National Security, advanced the personal, political interests of the president , not the National Interests of our country. That attempted to corrupt our elections by drging in foreign interfooens. Its the highest of high crimes and misdemean oerds our framers spoke about, this abuse of power, using the office of the presidency to advance your own personal interests and undermine the public interests. And ill yield to mr. Cass kin my remaining. Trying to yield. Does she wish to yield to mr. Raskin. I yield. Thank you very much. Just to flesh out the detail of what the gentleman from rhode island, one was a state Department Official at the u. S. Embassy in kiev who testified there was a quid pro quo. He saw him on the phone with President Trump, and he reported right at that time to him, he said the president doesnt give a blank about ukraine. Hes interested in the big stuff. And whats the big stuff . Whatever can benefit him. Gentleman yields back. For what purpose does mr. Seek recognition. Strike the last word. The gentleman is recognized. Thank you, mr. Chairman. You know, last night and today weve heard many times my colleagues on the other side saying the facts of this are not contested. But they really are. An example is one just pointed out and highlighted just a moment ago. On the telephone call, of the 17 witnesses that came in, only three tully listened in on the phone call. Each one of them have contradictory testimony. So even the three witnesses that heard the call conflicted. And why is that important . Why do i bring that up . Yeah, i bring it up because of this. Many of my colleagues in fact most of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle take every inference in the light most negative tt president of the United States. Thats because theres ani mouse that has been manifest since the day after he was elected. So having watched this procedure, closely on the heels of the other procedures and the attempts to impeach this president , and investigate, i am left wondering, you want every inference to go against the president . Why should the American Public give you any inference of credibility . The reality is when my colleague from california said was talking about the russia issue, not a single american was indicted for conspiring with russia to influence the elections, not one. He believes there was still some collusion with the trump campaign. But what do the facts actually get to . So when my colleague just talked about the money was released, the aid was released, again, he takes this inference based on a timeline, and hes citing rank hearsay. A guy comes in and says, hey, you know what . I overheard this conversation. Im in a restaurant, we were sitting on a patio on a restaurant, lots of people around, but boy, i could hear everything. I knew who it was, what was said. I was so concerned about it, i didnt tell anybody. I came in once this really got going and revved up. You want to take every inference against the president. Why should we give you any infroens of credibility . The only direct evidence in this case remains the same after all this time. No pressure, no pressure in the phone call. Mr. Zelensky has said that repeatedly. He spent eight hours in one press conference all day long talking about there was no pressure. Yermak said there was no pressure. Are they lying . No. But we know the whistleblower was lying. We know that mr. Schiff was lying. Mr. Schiff came out the day before and said eight times, the president put direct pressure on the ukrainians. Oops. Franz scripts released, not true. That would be the facts being contested. Absolutely. We know that there was no conditionality. Everybody said that. Everybody that participated, everybody that listened. Ukraine was unaware of the hold. So how can you leverage them . They were unaware of the hold, and there was never any investigation. But what happened . What triggered it . You have high ranking u. S. Officials going to the ukraine, meeting with them, convinced the president. You have the president of the ukraine signing two pieces of legislation, reints stoougs the antikrupgs tribunal and removing the immunity from prosecution of the legislative in ukraine. Significant worthy of convincing this president that, yes, theyre worth a chance. And so with that, you have nothing. Your credibility is in tatters, quite frankly. I yield to my friend from colorado. I thank my friend for yielding. I want to ask my friends on the other side, ambassador sondland is your star witness, really . Youre basing an impeachment on ambassador sondlands testimony . His first statement, his first deposition, he said 325 times, i dont remember, i dont know, im not sure. 325 times. You dont think when this gets over to the senate that hes going to be impeached . On all the things he didnt remember . Then, then his testimony impeached, not his office. I see the smirk. Then what does he do . He reads and he listens to what ambassador taylor says that he knows. And what ambassador yovanovitch says that he knows and all these people say he knows and then his memory is refreshed. I yield back. Gentleman yields back. For what purposes mr. Ratcliffe seek recognition. Move to strike the last word. Gentleman is recognized. Thank the chairman. I want to respond to my good friend, congressman sitlinis comments, when he said that President Trumps demand cant be explained by corruption because the word corruption is never uttered anywhere in the transcript. The problem with that is that the democrats have built this entire fake impeachment scheme around an alleged demand. Guess what word is not anywhere in the transcript . Demand. Nowhere in that transcript does the president make a demand. Do you know where the word demand came from . It came from the bhisel blower. Thats the first time we heard the word demand, when he notified the Inspector General for the intelligence community. He said President Trump made a demand. He thought he could do that because he thought no one would be able ever to prove, because what president would take the unprecedented step of releasing a transcript with a foreign leader . This president did. Something that the whistleblower never expected. President trump, we keep hearing, got caught. President trump, we keep hearing, is obstructing justice. The president that took the unprecedented step of releasing a transcript so that everyone could see the truth, is not obstructing congress. The president didnt get caught. The whistleblower got caught. The whistleblower made false statements. The whistleblower got caught with chairman schiff. Remember chairman schiff, the person that the democrats, instead of the house Judiciary Committee, which has spent a full week on this, thats not whos been in charge. The person they put in charge was the person that got caught with the whistleblower. Have you spoken directly with the bhisel blower . No, we have not. Wed like to. That wasnt true. The person that said he had evidence of the first fake impeachment scam, collusion with russia, had evidence of that collusion, and didnt have it. The person who in the course of that read into the record the steele dossier because the people needed to know the truth about what happened. But we heard about the truth of the steele dossier this week when the Inspector General told us it was all gar bachlk, rubbish, all made up, yeah, that chairman schiff. And now he got caught, not being truthful about a whistleblower, who as i told you the other day, didnt tell the truth, verbally, and in writing. And thats in a transcript. You know what we didnt get in this oneweek impeachment summary in the house Judiciary Committee . We didnt get that transcript. Chairman schiff didnt send that one over. Only if you were on the Intelligence Committee have you seen that transcript. Id seen it. Id like toeveryone to so he it i yield. I want to go back to where mr. Buck was referencing the gentleman from rhode island where the guy though mentioned 611 times, mr. Sondland the guy who presumed there was a quid pro faux, had to file an addend dum to his deposition approximately he says ambassador taylor recalls that mr. Morrison told ambassador taylor that i told mr. Morrison that i conveyed this message to mr. Your mac in connection with Vice President s visit and a meeting with president zelensky. Six people having four conversations in one sentence. Your mac talks with sondland, talks with taylor, we get the democrats believing that there was this quid pro quo they need to impeach the president. What they forget is what mr. Gate zbla brought up, sondland talks with morrison, talks with taylor, this is part of their scheme. Two days ago the guy who started it, your mak, says it didnt happen. Thats there are guy. Had to file the addendum to his testimony, had to write this sentence to clarify. This is amazing. This is the clarification. Recalls that mr. Morrison told i con vooed this on september 1st 2019 in connection with Vice President pence, your mak is the key here and it didnt happen. He told us that. Time magazine just reported it. The same day you all filed your articles of impeachment. Holy cow, this is what it comes down to. I yield back. Mr. Chairman. Gentleman yields back. I have unanimous consent. Move to trike the last word. For what purposes seek recognition . Mr. Chairman, i move to strike the last word. Recognized. You know, let me just say, ive been pretty shocked and disappointed with my colleagues on the other side. There have been so many things that have been said