Elected, young president that we all were excited about, an anticorruption president. The president tried to coerce him into interfering in the 2020 elections. The things that i have heard today about the Vice President s child, the things ive heard about the Vice President s son when we have millions of people in this country who are suffering from addiction, i believe to protect the president at any cause is shameful. Article 2, in the nixon impeachment said this, the article principally addressed president nixons use of power including powers vested solely in the president to harm political opponents and gain improper personal political advantages. And explaining this article of impeachment the house judiciary then stated that president nixons conduct was undertaken for his personal political advantage and not in the furtherance of any Valid National policy objective. The president abused his power and to me and at least the members of this side of the deus that matters and with that, i yield the remaining time to mr. Richmond from louisiana. Thank you, mr. Chairman. I want to remind people watching that when you look at the credibility of the testimony and weighing the evidence you can look at other things so i want to enter into the record the unanimous consent the roger stone, the men in trumps orbit, implicated in crimes. Without objection. Cnn politics. Six Trump Associates have been convicted in muellerrelated investigation. And my wise grandmother who said birds of a feather fly together. Without objection. And also President Trump has made 13,435 false or misleading claims over 9 the gentlemans time has expired. Without objection and the gentlemans time has expired. For what purposes does miss jacksonlee seek recognition . Strike the last word. The gentle lady is recognized. I want to speak first to the underlying amendment that calls for the acknowledgement that the aid was released in the article, first article, i believe. I want to recount not only the july 25th call where previously i indicated the president s language that wed like for you to do us a favor, though, that this was not tied to the us representing the entity of a public representation which would be the United States of america established by Foreign Policy by the secretary of state and established Foreign Policy by the secretary of defense and that is because, of course, the secretary of defense and state had already certified that ukraine was working to graduate to working to ensure the end of corruption that had met the standards that were required for funding. The other thing is when Lieutenant Colonel vindman thought that the words that he heard were appalling and seemed to him to be inappropriate for a call to the president as it relates to a question tying the military aid to the investigation, biden and sons and others and not official policy, he immediately gave it to the nfc counsel, john eisenberg. John eisenberg, took the information and then ultimately put it and put it in a separate coated filing and asked that the Lieutenant Colonel not say anything about it. That is unusual because you would think if it was a normal business and if it in to do with standard u. S. Foreign policy it would be okay to talk about that call, but they knew a major mistake had been made. They knew that the president had offered to give military aid if he got an investigation against his political rival and his political rival happened to be joe biden, and he knew that that was, in fact, koven spike with usually using Public Office and public money for public and private desires. Let me also say that friends talk about the courts. We have not shied away from the courts. In fact, judge howell, regarding the grand jury material, specifically said there is an impeachment inquiry, you cant stand in the way, mr. President. Judge jackson indicated in her decision that the president was not a king, and so we are here to talk about not as a mother, someones child who may have some concerns like every americans child may have which i am saddened that those personal matters were raised. We are here to talk about the abuse of this president and the obstruction of congress because in rodinos statement during the nixon proceedings he made it very clear to president nixon regarding his failure to comply with subpoenas issued pursuant to the watergate impeachment inquiry and the constitution reenforces the fact that we have the sole power of impeachment and the underlying decisions of the two Court Decisions i mentioned were that we were in an impeachment inquiry and as a remind tore reminder to my colleagues this commit improved articles on the obstruction of congress matter. I wanted to clean up and bring some more points on that, and it was clear that it was a case where the president could not dictate to the house impeachment inquiry what he was refusing to give or not. This is where my friends steer off the rails. They refuse to acknowledge the facts of the case. The president took public money with a public intent, with the private intent to use those monies to deny mr. Zelensky who was going to go ahead and announce investigations on cnn, but was stopped in his tracks when the whistleblowers letter or statement was released. It was out the bag that the president had done this on the july 25th call. Lets be clear, this is about facts and the constitution. I yield back, mr. Chairman. The gentle lady yields back. For what purpose do you seek recognition. Did the gentle lady strike the last word . Y excuse me. I move to strike the last word. I have been anxiously sitting here all day long and i want to say this to the American People before our day ends today. My colleagues and i have been explaining the evidence that weve heard. Weve been talking about all of the documents and heard from so many witnesses along the way, and as we have been upholding our constitutional obligation to defend the constitution some today have argued that we have not upheld our constitutional obligation to legislate, to solve problems and that all we want to do is impeach the president of the United States, and i truly want to assure the American People and to give you hope that this is not true. I want to make sure that we set the record straight so that you know were working on your behalf and despite what many people in the country think, congress can walk and chew gum at the same time. This congress has been working very, very hard on behalf of the American People in spite of everything thats happening with this impeachment. This very day, a bill, we passed a bill that lowers the cost of prescription drugs for hundreds of millions of americans hr3. It will save our taxpayers over 456 billion over the next decade and allow for the expansion of Medicare Coverage including hearing, dental and vision benefits. Just this week we achieved monumental changes to the u. S. Mexicocanada trade agreement. Y weve been waiting a very long time for that. This agreement is huge. Its a huge win for our families, workers and Business Owners in every District Across the United States, and we continue to work to make sure that we stay competitive in a global environment. Yesterday we voted to support the ndaa, the legislation that will keep our country safe and will give a raise to our Service Members and includes important reforms like paid parental leave for all federal employees and the tax, and even on this committee weve worked together. This week my republican colleague, congressman rushen thaler introduced legislation that would end online child exploitation. Since weve been sitting in this room today a deal has been forged by our colleagues to fund our government and avoid another shutdown. Throughout this investigation my colleagues and i have been fulfilling our duties as members of congress. Do not be deceived. We have been working on the American Publics behalf, every single day in spite of the tragedy that were in now with this impeachment. This congress, the house of representatives, we have passed over 275 bills. 275 bills, and we are defending our democracy, and delivering on the promises that we made to each and every one of our constituents. I want the American Public to know this. We are truly disheartened by what is happening here with impeachment but do know that we are working on your behalf each and every single day. We will continue to do what we swore an oath to do and that is to protect and serve you even in this moment, in this tragedy, be rest assured we will do just that, and i yield back the balance of my time. The gentle lady yields back. What purpose do you seek recognition . Seek to strike the last word want. Gentleman is recognized. Thank you very much, mr. Chairman. In law school i teach my students to try to take the best argument of their opponents and not the worst arguments and so im going toing noer all of the frivolous process objections about the rooms and the temperature and all that kind of stuff weve heard about and im going to try to make what i think is the best argument or reconstruct the best argument thats come out today, and i understand that our colleagues face a difficult task because 70 of the American People believe that the president has done something wrong in these axe actions of trying to pressure a Foreign Government to get involved in our election. And so theyve got a problem there, and theyve got another problem which is that there is an overwhelming and uncontradicted body of evidence that the president did that. The president withheld hundreds of millions of dollars in Security Assistance that we had voted for a besieged foreign ally resisting russian aggression because he was trying to get the president of that country, zelensky to agree to conduct a press conference in which he would say he was investigating the bidens, and he also wanted president zelensky to validate vladimir put knows favorite disinformation Conspiracy Theory about the 2016 campaign which is that it was ukraine and not russia that engaged in a sweeping and Systematic Campaign to interfere in our elections. So what do you do with that . We can understand why theyve been talking about process for month, but i think they understand this is a Serious Investigation with rigorous methods and serious, inescapable conclusions and the American People are focused on it. The majority not only support the investigation. A majority would like to see the president impeached. According to fox news. In any event, huge numbers of americans are disturbed by this. What have they come up with . Theyve not found an alibi. He cant claim somebody else did it, but theyve come up with a defense which to me looks like its a mitigating factor, a plea for mercy. The president did all of these thing, but his motive is misunderstood. All of us think that he was doing it because he wanted to advance his own reelection prospects. In some sense he wanted to help for whatever reason Vladimir Putin and putin has been on tv bragging about the fact that everyone is focused on the ukraine in the 2016 election and not russia. Note to mr. Putin, thats not right. We understand exactly whats going on here, but in any event, the new argument and that the president was not trying to advance his own political interest. What he was trying to do was to advance his passionately held and yet little known campaign against corruption and thats why so much of our discussion today has been about corruption because theyre trying to say he was waging this campaign about corruption, and now weve noted a number of problems there, and i want to just catalog some of the other ones to try to put this into in order so people did understand the problem with their best argument. The first is that the president never raised the word corruption on the july 25th telephone call. Bidens name was mentioned several times. It wasnt corruption, corruption, corruption. It was biden, biden, biden. And he never raised any other companies at all. It was all about burisma, Hunter Bidens company and thats all that he mentioned and as far as i know hes never mentioned any other company in connection with corruption in ukraine. In 2017 and 18 when congress voted money for ukraine the president passed it along and he didnt raise corruption in ukraine or the bidens at that point, it only became an issue in 2019. In 2019, why . Because joe biden had surpassed him in the Public Opinion polls and now suddenly it was a big issue, and so he cared about it. Well, whats the other evidence here . The president s team, Rudy Giuliani and parnas and fruman engaged in a Smear Campaign against a u. S. Ambassador who was crusading against corruption in the ukraine and the president got her out of the way. He pulled her back so all of the evidence shows they were promoting and a corrupt scheme and they werent trying to attack it. The yield back. The gentleman yields back. Who seeks recognition . Thank you, mr. Chairman. I move to strike the last word. The gentle lady is recognized. And briefly, mr. Chairman and members, mr. Raskin just said bidens name was used multiple times. Well, i think thats a little misleading. Again, the only place in this whole telephone call where biden is even brought up is in one little paragraph and that was on page 4 of five pages of the transcript. I mean, most of this call was about congratulating president zelensky and the new parliament, talking about how you know, a lot of these European Countries arent pitching in with the aid that was to ukraine as much as the United States has and you know, all kind of things. It was a long phone call and its disingenuous to say that biden was mentioned several times. Let me read again. In fact, i know that President Trump tweets this out, read the transcript, and i wish people would because everybody watches tv and they get all these comment, but i did this with my husband. I said would you just please read the transcript. Its only five pages long. It doesnt take that much time, and you know, after he read it, and hes, like, thats it . Thats all they got . But here, this is the mention about biden. Page 5. The other thing, theres a lot of talk about bidens son that biden stopped the prosecution and a lot of people want to find out about that, so whatever you can do with the attorney general would be great. Biden went around bragging that he stopped the prosecution. So if you can look into it it sounds horrible to me. Thats it, folks. Thats all there is. So mr. Mr. Chairman, i yield back. The gentle lady yields back. The question occurs on the amendment. Those in favor say aye . Opposed no. No. In the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. The clerk will call the roll. [ roll call ] mr. Johnson of georgia . Mr. Johnson of georgia votes no. Mr. Deutsch . Mr. Deutsch votes no. Miss bass . Miss bass votes no. Mr. Richmond . No. Mr. Richmond votes no. Mr. Jefferies . Mr. Jefferies votes no. Mr. Sis linney . No. Some swalwell votes no. Mr. Raskin . No. Miss jay pol. Mr. Correa . No. Miss scanlon votes no. Miss garcia . No. Miss garcia votes no. Miss mcbath. No. Miss mcbath votes no. Mr. Scanton votes no. Miss dean votes no. Miss mccarsel powell votes no. Miss escobar votes no. Mr. Collins votes aye. Mr. Sensenbrenner votes aye. Mr. Chabot votes aye. Mr. Gohmert . Mr. Gohmert votes aye. Mr. Buck votes aye. Mr. Radcliffe. Yes. Miss roby . Miss roby votes aye. Mr. Johnson of louisiana . Aye. Mr. Johnson of louisiana votes aye. Mr. Biggs . Mr. Biggs votes aye. Mr. Mcclintock votes aye. Miss lesko votes aye. In klein votes aye. Mr. Armstrong votes yes. Mr. Stuby . Mr. Stuby votes yes. Has everyone voted who wishes to vote. Mr. Correa, you are not recorded. Mr. Correa votes no. Anyone else who wishes to vote who hasnt voted . The clerk will report. Mr. Chairman there are 17 ayes and 23 nos. The amendment is not agreed to. Are there any further amendments in the nature of the substantive . Mr. Chairman, i have an amendment at the desk. Mr. Rushenthalor, an amendment to hres 75 by mr. Rushenthalor. Page 5 beginning on line 6, strike article 2. I withdraw my point of order. The gentleman is recognized for five minutes to explain his amendment. Thank you, mr. Chairman. My amendment would strike all of article 2 which is the obstruction of congress charge. The facts simply do not align with the democrats claim of obstruction. Our government has three branches for a reason. When there is a disagreement between the legislative branch, the republicans recognize this in 2011 when they investigated president obamas fast and Furious Scandal. The fast and Furious Scandal allowed 2,000 firearms to fall into the hands of drug cartels and resulted in the death of an american Border Patrol agent. People actually died in the president obama scandal. Throughout the investigations of the scandal they made numerous attempts to accommodate the Obama Administration, yet despite their effort, president obama invoked executive privilege and barred testimony and documents. So what did the republicans do . The appropriate thing. They went to the courts. Compare those efforts during this impeachment sham. House democrats could have worked through the administration to reach accommodations for their request, but they didnt. House democrats should have worked through the court, but they didnt, and why is that . Its simple, because they have a political, expedient deadline to send this mess out of congress and to the senate before christmas. So despite what you hear from my colleague, the administration has consistently cooperated with democrats even though theyve been out to get this president since the very moment he was elected. Lets just go through the numbers. Over 25 Administration Officials have testified before the House Oversight committee, over 25. Over 20 Administration Officials have testified before this very committee. The administration has also handed over more than 100,000 pages of documents since the start of the sham impeachment inquiry and lets contrast that from the conduct of the democrats. Democrats have threatened witnesses that quote, unquote, any failure to appear would constitute evidence of obstruction. Let me just go through that language. Its a letter that that would constitute evidence of obstruction. Thats not a subpoena. Thats a letter. Democrats insisted on using agency council, they would have their salaries withheld. That kind of sounds like abuse of power, but i digress a little bit. Democrats have not afforded this president basic procedure protections such as the right to see all the evidence, the right to call witnesses or the right to have counsel at hearings. But its not just the Trump Administration thats been railroaded by the democrats. Judiciary democrats voted down my own subpoena, my own motion to subpoena the whistleblower even though i said that he or she can testify in executive session which would be private and yet they voted it down on party lines. Chairman nadler also refused requests that to have chairman schiff testify before this committee. House democrats also had denied every republican why for a fact bns. So i ask, who is really obstruction strucking congress . The democrats have no case when hes obstruction said. If they really wanted to charge someone with obstruction, how about they start with adam schiff . Thank you, and i yield back the remainder of my time. The gentleman yields back. What purpose does miss bass request recognition . I strike the last word. Who is really obstructing congress . Who is obstructing congress . President donald trump. The text of the constitution devotes only a few sentences to the discussion of impeachment power, yet among those few sentences is the clear statement that the house possesses the sole power of impeachment and what that means is that within the sole discretion of the house to determine what evidence is necessary then for it to gather in order to exercise that power. So its unnecessary for the house to go to the court to enforce subpoenas issued pursuant to an impeachment investigation. If it did, the houses sole power of impeachment would be beholden to the dictates of the judicial rather than the executive branch. Past president s have disapproved of impeachments, criticized the house, doubted its motives and insisted they did nothing wrong, but no president , however, including president nixon who is on the verge of being impeached for the obstruction of justice, and he oversees totally exempt from subpoenas issued by the house pursuant to its sole power of impeach am. President trump has made compliance with every demand a condition of even considering whether to honor subpoenas and he has directed his senior officials to violate their own legal obligations to turn over subpoenas. Indeed, the house was only able to conduct an inquiry to the ukraine because several witnesses, like the ambassadors and the Lieutenant Colonel vipdman defied the unlawful command, it is unprecedented. My colleagues talk about information that we should wait to get from the courts. We really wouldnt wait to get from the courts if the president would comply and provide documents. I remember when ambassador sondland was testifying and he said that he was testifying from memory because he wasnt even allowed to have access to his own notes in the state department. President trump has abused his power and is a continued threat to our democracy or National Security. Hes put himself before the country and no one is boofr the law. When i think of our elections and my concern for our election next year, our elections should be decided by us, our foreign approximately see and National Security should be based on americas interest, not the president s personal and political interests. Weve talked over and over again about the real reason for all of this was his concern about corruption, but as one of my colleagues said earlier today, if he was concerned about corruption he would be concerned about what is going on in the white house any all of the people who hes been affiliated with, who are sent to prison or awaiting court. They never defend President Trumps misconduct by distoputi the facts of the case, but rather distract with irrelevant issues. Someone asked this earlier but i dont believe my colleagues on the other side of the aisle ever answered. Forget President Trump, is it ever okay for a president to invite foreign interference in our election . And with that i yield to my colleague from california. Thank you for yielding. I would like to ask unanimous consent to put into the record the letter from the president s counsel, pat cipillone. Without objection. Just reflecting on the comments made by my colleague from california, certainly, we have a right to receive information. We have a right to make a judgement on the information that we have been able to obtain because impeachment is solely in the province of the congress, but just on the narrow issue of the assertion of privilege, i think its important to note that the privilege no privilege was asserted in this letter by the counsel. He doesnt say its executive privilege. He doesnt say anything that you can take to court. He just says he doesnt like what were doing and theyre not going to give us anything. Not a piece of paper, not a witness. Just no, and that is an absurd situation. It is not acceptable and it is really obstruction of congress, and i thank the gentle lady for yielding and yield back to her. My time has expired. I yield back. The gentle ladys time has expired. Chairman . For what purpose does mr. Sensenbrenner seek recognition . I move to strike the last word. My colleagues of california thshgs is the greatest amount of circular reasoning in the last couple of days. Theres been a lot of it, but i think this is the one that grabs the blue ribbon because what i hear is that an impeachment inquiry, if the white house does not give the house of representatives in this Committee Everything we ask for then thats obstruction of congress and an Impeachable Offense and thats not what the law said and its not what the law should be. There are certain privilege and immunities that the president has. Irrespective of whether were using our art beingel 2 or sole power of impeachment and he ought to present it in a court of law. This is not a court of law. I dont blame white House Counsel cipillone and we know what the answer is going to be and that is that well blow any claim of privilege away. We will blow any type of executive immunity away. We are going to simply say we want it and youve got to give it to us no matter whether its private information or doing some legitimate oversight. Now, we know that the rejection of the argument that we shouldnt have to go to court for that is bogus because the house of representatives has gone to court to try to get enforcement of subpoenas that are as a result of this impeachment inquiry. The enforcement against don mcgahn has gotten as far as the d. C. Circuit. There are others that are pending a little bit further backwards in the judicial system, but what i would like to ask my friends on the majority side, its okay. Say were done with this impeachment inquiry next week, the house passes both articles of impeachment and it goes to the senate for trial. Does that mean that the whole nexus of why you were attempting to enforce those subpoenas is gone . Are you going to go to court and say its gone . Are you going to move to dismiss those actions to support enforcement of the subpoenas . If you are following the argument that ive just heard, youve got to do it, but i doubt it. I yield back. The gentleman yields back. I recognize myself for five minutes. The actions of the white house and the president in this case are different in kind from all previous action of executives. It is not a question of asserting privilege. It is not a question of adjudicating rights even in court. Rather, the counsel wrote given that your inquiry lacks any legitimate Constitutional Foundation the executive branch cannot be expected to participate in it. It is not up to the president to decide whether an impeachment n inquiry by the congress is legitimate or not. Thats our function and that sentence shows right there and its the patient of congressional power. Number one, number two, if the white house had asserted privileges that could be adjudicated and maybe, it may very well be that had we chosen to oppose that as a reason for an impeachment, that would be invalid, but thats not what were talking about. Were talking about the president saying he does not recognize our impeachment and he will not participate in it, and he will not grant anything. That is an obstruction of congress, and the anticipation of congress to decide whether to have an impeachment inquiry and its a decision to completely try to frustrate that inquiry by denying all participation, by denying all documents and witnesses without asserting privileges. It has nothing to do with privileges. Privileges may be adjudicated in court and the assertion by the executive that the impeachment power cannot be exercised by congress p and its an obstruction of congress and if allowed to get away with it, eliminates the power of impeachment as a check on the power of the presidency and is a large step toward dictatorship because the threat of impeachment is the only threat, and the only enforcement mechanism that congress has on a president who would usurp powers and destroy the separation of powers especially given the department of justices policy that a sitting president kbcann be indicted and he cannot be investigated criminally. That leaves only impeach ment a a check on president ial power and you have to exercise congress to allow the impeachment and the house is the sole power of impeachment which means we have the right to get the document weise demand and maybe subject to certain privilege, but thats at issue here and instet what has been assert side that the xebl tiff has the right that the impeachment role, and this is an assertion of tyrannical power and thats why we to go along with this amendment and get rid of article 2 and say that it is permissible for the president to deny the impeachment power of the house is a long step away from Constitutional Government and a long step away from any control over the power of the president and a long step toward tyranny. I oppose the amendment. I yield back. Mr. Chairman . I want to know if you will yield back. I just wanted to ask, to paraphrase. Its the only remedy. Why is court not an appropriate remedy in this case . Your microphones off. What might be an appropriate remedy if privilege were asserted. Im not willing to say you couldnt amount it on privilege, but no privileges has been asserted. There is nothing for a court to review. All that the president has said is there will be no he has directed everyone in the executive branch do not provide a piece of paper. Do not testify. Theres nothing for the court to review. He simply asserted that he doesnt recognize the constitutional power of congress to impeach. He will recognize that he thinks its invalid and thats not his function to do. Its our function to determine whether an impeachment inquiry is valid or not is a valid inquiry. Isnt the next step then to hold a witness in contempt for either not producing documents or not appearing . If and if privilege were asserted, yes, but its gone beyond that. We could certainly do that, but but its not sufficient remedy. The remedy the only remedy for a president who says the house does not have the power to determine if there is an impeachment inquiry is to say that is an obstruction of congress. My time has expired. I yield back. Mr. Chairman. Who seeks recognition . For what purpose does mr. Chabot seek rec ok mission . Strike the last word. The gentleman is recognized. Thank you, mr. Chairman. I appreciate the gentleman offering his amendment to strike the second article which i think, unfortunately, is ridiculous as the first article in this case. An obstruction charge requires a concerted effort to interfere with or impede a congressional election. What the president did asserting executive privilege is not in any way, shape or form obstruction. Executive privilege is a timehonored right of every adm administration, both republican and democratic. When congress disagrees with a particular assertion of executive privilege, the remedy is not impeachment and the remedy is to go to court and let the branch to decide a little ilwho ago to decide who is correct and thats why we have checks and balances in this country. We have three branches of government and theyre all supposed to keep an eye on each other and in this case the remedy is to let the courts decide if the president and this congress disagree, and except that the House Democrats have decided that they dont want to wait for the courts to decide. Not when they can instead just impeach the president and thats not happening and i think that was their goal. You want to talk about abuse of power, what the House Democrats are doing here is a clear case, in my view of abusing their office for political gain. The majority should hold themselves in contempt for conducting this biased investigation and attacking the white house for refusing to participate in such a patently unfair process, and i think if you look at the record of this president thus far, the accomplishments are quite considerable. Impeaching a president that has accomplished these things is absurd. Look at the economy right now and why is the economy doing so well . I think its principally two things. The tax cuts and jobs act that this president pushed and was passed when the Previous Congress was in control, it was republicans both the house and the senate at that time. The democrats kept screaming oh, these are tax cuts for the rich and tax cuts for the rich. About 85 of the American People had their taxes reduced. Yes, wealthy people got their taxes cut, but so did virtually everybody else in this economy. Thats one of the principal reasons that were seeing the economy continue to grow. Thats one of the reasons that unemployment in this country its at historic lows and its 50 pem and a lot of people are doing bell. 85 of the people got tax cuts and africanamericans, hispanic employments is at an alltime low in conjunction with congress back when the republicans were in the majority. I happen to be the lead republican on the house Small Business committee. I was chairman of that committee for the last two years. Small businesses all across america are doing very well right now. Their confidence is at all time highs. 70 of new jobs are created by Small Business folks all across this country. Theyre the backbone of the american economy, and the other thing, other than taxes being reduced and why the economy is doing so well is because theyve reduced the red tape and the bure ok rasset and regulations that come out of washington because when he was running as a candidate he said his goal was to get rid of two existing regulations right now, red tape, two existing regulations and for every new regulation coming out of washington. That was a tough goal, but weve exceeded that. So those two things together, i think, are one of the principle reasons this economy is growing so well. There are so many things that you can talk about the successes, but one thats actually going to happen soon is improving nafta. Usmca, and again, hopefully the democrats will pass this and theyre in control in the house now and they face the challenge because if they passed it then the president s obviously going to get some credit because hes been pushing this and they dont want the president to necessarily get any credit and they want to get the label of the donothing congress, and theyll apparently impeach the president , and its unfortunate that were impeaching the president and i am very glad that were impeaching it excuse me, the usmca. The gentleman yields back before he gets into too much trouble. I recognize, for what purpose does miss scanlon seek recognition . I move to strike the last word. The gentle lady is recognized. Im really uncomfortable with the suggestion thats been made several times today that the u. S. Constitution is for sale. You know, theres no exception in the constitution that allows a president to cheat in an election just because the economys going well. My oath to protect and defend the constitution isnt for sale. Look, if President Trumps obstruction, abuse of power and obstruction of congress are not impeachable, nothing is. Article one charges trump with the abuse of power for attempting to undermine our elections. The primary check on a president becoming a king is elections. This president abused his powers to undermine our elections, thats article one. Article 2 blocks President Trump subpoenaed by congress in the investigation. Congress power to investigate and impeach the president is the backstop to elections to protect our government from being overrun by a tyrannical executive. The president has undermined the constitution by obstructing the impeachment power without a legal basis. For our constitution to operate properly, it depends upon people acting in a reasonable manner. Were not dealing with an executive at this point who is acting in a reasonable manner. You know, often people ask lawyers, oh, can i sue . And its an old lawyer joke. Of course, you can sue. The question is can you win . President trump has made a career out of suing knowing that he had no chance to win. He has clogged up our courts for decades, and he usually loses because he hasnt a legal leg to stand on. Thats the situation were in now. He has defied congressional subpoenas without a legal leg to stand on. He hasnt claimed executive privilege which is something that could go to the courts. Hes made up something called absolute immunity. Never before in the history of our country have we had a president who said you cant talk to anyone in my administration. You cant see any documents. When we had hope hicks come before, his communication secretary come before this committee several months ago, she was subject to a claim of absolute immunity. She wasnt allowed to testify to anything that had happened that shed seen, that had been done from the moment she walked into the white house until she left. She wasnt allowed to tell us where her office was. I mean, this is the kind of absolute, im tempted to say, iron curtain that the president has tried to place between his administration and the American People. There is no way in hell i will vote to remove obstruction of congress from these article, and i yield back. The gentle lady yields back. The gentlelady effect. What . For our purposes, mr. Jordan. Strike the last word. The gentleman is recognized. Thats what began with pennsylvania, and his amendment, he said in his remarks, he said, the instruction came from chairman schiff. So true. But you know the first victim was . This committee. This committee, unless you are on the Intel Committee, the oversight committee, and the Foreign Affairs committee, you couldnt sit in for the 17 fact witnesses. You could not be a part of this depositions. Some people tried. My good friend from florida try to get it as a member of the committee that is now working on the articles of impeachment, but he was not allowed. For the first victim of the real obstruction to get to all the information was this committee, the committee charged with writing up the articles of impeachment, backing up as we speak, wasnt allowed to be there for the 17 fact witnesses that we all depose. No subpoena power for republicans, for depositions, as we said, done in secret, in the bunker, in the basement of the capital, in those depositions. , remember these witnesses were subpoenaed. Resource to answer our questions. But on the democrats got all the questions answered. There were questions republicans asked the chairman of the Intel Committee provide witnesses transferring. Democrats need witnesses for the open hearings. We were not allowed to call witnesses. We put a couple people on the west from the 70 people that i have subpoenaed so we could have some people that we thought might help make the real case i present the facts. But of course the one witness we really wanted to call, even though adam schiff said we will get a chance to hear from, we were not allowed, and that was the whistleblower. Remember when this all happened in september . , adam schiff told us we will get the whistleblower. The whistleblower with no firsthand knowledge he was biased against the president , who worked with joe biden, he said, we are going to get to hear from him but that changed his mind. And what change, for change the chairmans mind . Well, remember, the day after, the day after the call, the whistleblower rights this memo. The call was i described as crazy frightening but he waited 18 days to follow this complaint. What have to be 18 a timeframe . The whistleblower goes off and hes out of sheer, get some marching orders from adam schiff staff, and everything changes. We dont get to hear from him. We dont get to hear from the person, it because we dont get to hear from the whistleblower, remember, the complaint gets filed on august 12th. Very first point there was so for that complaint, he says this, more than half a dozen u. S. Officials informed me of this effort. We have no idea. The committee marking articles of impeachment, we have no idea who theres half a dozen u. S. Officials are. We dont know if we talk to them. We dont know if they came and testified. We dont know if they are the people i guess is that colonel vindman was one of them, but who knows . We dont know because we never got to talk to the individual started it all with the complaint that the chairman of the Intel Committee told us it all started, from were going to hear from him, more than when it is discovered that his staff has communicated to the whistleblower, no, were not going to get to. So the real victim of the obstruction is this committee. We have not had any fact witnesses. We have had for democrat witnesses in front of us, three law professors, the democratic majority called, in and one democrat law professor that the republicans called it. Thats all weve heard from. Those were the four witnesses, and then a bunch of staff. None of the 17 witnesses, so i support the gentleman from pennsylvanias amendment. Hes exactly right. The obstruction came from the chairman of the Intel Committee. With that i yield back. The gentleman from is recognized. Madam chair, we are charged with a responsibility of taking the facts and urban establish this investigation, and applying them to the constitution that we have to protect and defend. So, lets return for a minute to the facts. This series of events was described by trump officials, ambassador bolton to be particular, as a drug deal. It was described by doctor fiona hill as a domestic political errand. There is direct evidence collected 17 witnesses, over 100 hours of testimony, 260 text matches, the transcript of the president s own words, emails between high ranking officials in the Trump Administration, and what we know, what the direct evidence is is that the president of the United States hired Rudy Giuliani to lead this effort, the president engaged in a Smear Campaign against a pastor yovanovitch and then fired her because she was an Anti Corruption fighter. The president put a hold on military aid to ukraine. The president another is acting on his behalf demanded president zelensky publicly announce an investigation of the president s chief political rival. The president put the three amigos, ambassador sondland, parry, and volker in charge of ukraine. The president refused to have a meeting or release aid until the public announcement of the investigation of his political opponent. The president told the Vice President , of Vice President pence, not to attend the president of ukraines inauguration, and the president spoke to ambassador sondland about what ambassador sondland described as a quid pro quo. Just to name a few highlights of the evidence. But what we know also, if you go out a little, more and i speak specifically about trump Administration Officials who were in the middle of this activity. On july 21st 2019, there was a text from ambassador taylor to ambassador sondland, and i quote, president zelensky is sensitive about ukraine being taken seriously, not nearly as an instrument in washington, but in domestic reelection politics. David holmes testified, i was surprised that the requirement was so specific and concrete. This was a demand that president zelensky could personally commit to an investigation of President Trumps political rival on a cable news channel. Mr. Holmes also testified, in response to a question during councils examination you are acknowledging, i think, mr. , holmes are you, not that ukraine very much felt pressure to undertake these investigations of the president , Rudy Giuliani and ambassador sondland and others were demanding. Answer, for mr. Holmes . Yes, sir. Ambassador taylor has a call on september 8th. Ambassador sondland, ambassador taylor, says this as a career diplomat. A vietnam or hero. Ambassador taylor says, during our call, sondland tried to explain to me that President Trump is a businessman, and when a businessman is about to sign a check to someone who owes him something, the businessman ask that person to pay up before signing the czech. Ambassador volker made the same argument. I argued to both of them, the explanation it made no sense. Ukrainians do not owe President Trump anything, and holding up Security Assistance for domestic political gain was crazy. And finally, on september 9th, ambassador taylor in a Text Exchange with ambassador sondland again said, as i said on the phone, i think it is crazy to withhold Security Assistance for help with a Political Campaign, and quote. So, the record is filled with evidence that in fact the president of the United States abused the enormous power of his office in an effort to cheat in the 2020 election, to drag foreign interference into the 2020 election i do american president ial election. He used the power of his office and the help of taxpayer funds. To leverages effort to drag foreign powers into our elections. And when i hear my colleagues on the other side of the aisle say, who is the victim . The victim is american democracy. The victim is the people we represent who expect us to honor our oath to protect and defend the constitution. Are my republican colleagues really saying that it is okay for a president to invite or dragon persuade or force foreign powers to distort an american president ial election . We have men and women who have given their lives to protect our democracy. We owe it to them to say, you know who decides will be the american president . The American People. Not some foreign power. That is a sacred right of this country if we allow this person to get away with, us we will have lost our democracy, and we will convey that right form powers that we no longer have democracy. And so i urge my colleagues to support these articles of impeachment. So we can again when you get the right of the American People to determine their own future and electorate in the hitters and with that i yield back. Bottom. Chair for what purposes gentle seek recognition . To strike the last word. The denim is recognized. I want to urge support this amendment striking article, two there is been a latte that is acknowledged and im just struck by the hyperbolic language that is being used on the other side, in this breathless charge that we hear over and over about article, two but this is the first time in history of the republic that any president has invoked this kind of privilege or invoke this kind of community over subpoenas from congress and of course, its just simply not true. I mean, a cursory review of the history, even a review of the witness testimony that was presented in this very committee a week ago would show you that that is just simply a baseless charge. The truth is, in the history of this republic, there has never been a single Party Project an impeachment process to put against a president like the one being used against donald trump. That is what is unprecedented here. It is not the claim that a president does not want to turn over witnesses or document. That, as we have said many times it is actually quite common. And by the way, lets remember, it needs to be noted again that President Trump has consistently cooperated with this congress in fulfilling its oversight and investigation responsibilities. And when we, started with 25 ministration officials have testified before the House Oversight committee this year. Over 20 have testified before the house Judiciary Committee, at the start of the between agree this year. The white house also produced more than 100,000 pages of documents for the oversight committee. Its part of their allegations, the democrats know that President Trump has a lawful cause challenging subpoenas, because they involve direct communications between high ranking advisers and a president. That is very sensitive stuff. It is always recognized to be privileged. There is a special Legal Protection that applies there and we need the courts to sort through the nuances of it, and most these individuals, by the, way they subpoena did not related to the ukraine matter and any objective observer would regard this as a mayor fishing expedition. Some even called it president ial harassment. Because the administration is being used by the Democratic Committee chairs to advance their political agenda. This agenda does not allow them time to proceed to a court to do this the right way, to go through the process that is historic and in accordance with our custom practice and our tradition in the constitution. Professor turley was our only witness and the only one allowed in the Judiciary Committee on our side and the very, i, think exceptional testimony he submitted to us in writing, he said, this i want to review this extort as it is right on point. Quote, this is page 42 of his document, if this committee elected to seek impeachment on a president s failure to lead to congressional demands on an oversight or peter investigation, it will have to distinguish a long line of cases where prior president s sought the very same review while withholding witnesses and documents. Take the obama ministration position, for, instance on the investigation a fast and furious which was mentioned earlier. Congress to finally begin an oversight investigation into that scandal. Some members called for impeachment proceedings. President obama evoke executive privilege and barred essential testimony in congress. President obama did that. This is not unprecedented. This is custom and practice. Professor turley continues the position of the Obama Administration was regarded as extreme there and some even said absurd but here is the important point, president obama had every right to seek judicial review in the matter and many members of this very committee supported that position. Facing impeachment, professor turley, continues on this obstruction theory would itself be an abuse of power by congress. It would be extremely precedent dangers president to step for future president and congress is in making appeal to a Judicial Branch into a high crime and misdemeanor, unquote. Heres the, deal impeachment was never intended to be a remedy for political disagreements. It was not intended to be a remedy even for legal disagreements between the legislative branch in the executive branch. That is why there is a third branch of government. Thats why we have the judiciary. This is a very dangerous road indeed, as professor turley noted. And i hope and pray that future congress is, kind of will exercise greater restraint then what has been shown by chairman schiff, Speaker Pelosi and chairman nadler and the rest. The stability of our republic is going to rip end on that in the future and i pray that we can put this genie back in the bottle. I yield back. For what purpose the gentlewoman from florida seek recognition . I seek to strike the last word. The gentleman is recognized. It is truly disheartening to hear my colleagues on the other side argue in favor of crippling the very institution that they are part of. The power of impeachment has built in due process protections. We are the American Peoples duly elected representatives and we, members of congress are empowered to hold to account corrupt and criminal president s. When the president obstructed impeachment inquiry, he is obstructing the people who have a right to know how the president is running their government. After all, that is the basis of our government, by the, people for the people. We have requested hundreds of documents then and it been provided with absolutely not one document. The president has actually instructed the state department to not give us the information that we have asked. He has told witnesses, people that we have subpoenaed to come in front of congress to testify to not come and testify. Talk about a dangerous precedent. I think that the people deserve to know how he is using the office of the presidency to advance his own interests above those of the people for whom he was elected to serve. The president has abused his office and is now using that power of the office to hide the extent of that abuse from the people. That is abuse of power. That is an Impeachable Offense and it is want to end by saying that it is also appalling that throughout this process the president and the Republican Party have continued to attack Foreign Service officers, the men and women of the military, our intelligence community, those who protect us every day undermining our National Security. They are patriots and they should be treated as such. After all, we are all americans. I yield back. The gentlelady yields back. For what person first does mr. Corbyn seek recognition . I present to the amendment. This gentlemans reckless word . Yes i do. The gentlemans recognized. This is so surreal, it seems that we have come to a time when right is wrong, wrong as right, bullies of the victims and the victims are called bullies. For three years, this president has been harassed, he has been electronically surveilled, spied upon as normal people would call it, allegations have never ceased. They continue with their continuing today. At some point you would think that someone would look at the abuses by congress, by the Justice Department, friends of our democrats, by the fbi friends of our democrats, who aided the president invaded the press when he was nothing but a candidate. At some point, somebody was going to go, this is at a control, we to step back and say, wait, wait, the strain is off the tracks. It is time to get and here is the word reasonable. What is going on in the last three years is not reasonable. There is i doctrine our attorneys, know if youre going to try to pursue some remedy, you need to have clean hands. The majority has been so abusive. This theyve produced witnesses sometimes the subpoenas, sometimes without. Normally what happens if a subpoena is received a means youre not going to be able to use an Agency Attorney, even though, and an Agency Attorney will not be allowed in, even though the only way that the witness can appear and have executive privileges properly claims to have an agency or Department Attorney with them, and that is when things get negotiated and get worked out. But some of our friends know that if they are abusive enough with subpoenas, and with law fair, not warfare, but using the law as a weapon, you can run people out of office. They successfully did that, continually suing is sara pale and, Ryan Zelensky could not afford to keep hiring individual lawyers, when Agency Lawyers could not come. This is the kind of stuff that has been going on and so, this will end up since our friends are not being reasonable, and not willing to negotiate with the administration, so Agency Lawyers could come, claim executive privilege, even though the target kept changing. They did not know what they were going to come testify about. They were being accused of all kinds of different things. That kept changing and has changed even in the last 48 hours, to 24 hours. It has changed. How can you defend yourself from the charge keeps changing . I mean, this is like a stalin asked type court system. You know, you dont get to meet and cross examine youre witnesses, and in fact, we will just have some law professor thats paid by our friends come in and explain what the witnesses probably said, did say, what it, is thats all you need to hear, if youre going to vote on guilt or innocence, you dont need to hear the witnesses, we dont need no stinking witnesses, just bring us the chance to vote and we will vote. It is an outrage. There is nothing reasonable about what has gone on, and especially, it is so ironic, this is the same week when the corruption of the corruption of Part Department of justice has been shown and there is no sorrow, no apology, no, no remorse whatsoever by this incredible abusive system so, the obstruction of congress is by people in congress. The administration has not been unreasonable. They have seen what has happened when this abuse of Justice Department gets people in a perjury trap. Theyve got nothing to go, on but if we can get you in and get you to testify, then we can prosecute you when you make a mistake later while youre testifying. It was very, very reasonable not to answer the subpoenas when you could not have an Agency Lawyer and there is no negotiation with the other side. I yield back. Gentleman yields back. For what purposes ms. Dean strike seek recognition . The strike last. Where the latest recognized. Through the course of this investigation, we have seen a stark contrast between the patriots who stood up to tell the truth and those who have turned a blind eye to the truth. And so, tonight, to those patriots i want to lift you up. I want to tell you, thank you. I am in all of you. I am in all of your courage. You took your oath at great personal sacrifice, and professional cost. Patriots like Lieutenant Colonel alexander vindman, purple heart recipient and iraq war veteran. Ambassador William Taylor in vietnam war veteran marie ivanovich, extraordinary former ambassador and joins the Foreign Service during the reagan administration. Fiona hill, former Deputy Assistant to the president and senior director of europe and russia on the National Security council. So many others and more than a dozen other witnesses in this administration confirmed the details of the wrongdoing of the president. They described a president who reflects and repeatedly abused his power for personal gain and jeopardizing our security and our democracy. These patriots had the courage to live up to their oath. Their words mattered. Patriots. My family knows something about the sacrifice of serving us into a my brothers served in the navy and vietnam war. My brother bob serving sue terms in vietnam. Im lucky to serve with those who have served on my own staff. Lieutenant colin my lawn who was called to service to active duty and david carr again and now as members of congress its our turn to stand up and doctor king one said the ultimate measure of man is not where he stands on moments of comfort its where he stands in times of challenge and controversy. This is a time of great challenge and some of my colleagues do not want to face the reality of a president s wrongdoing. So i asked my colleagues tonight, what are you afraid of . This country was built by those who are brave enough to stand up against king george. We are called to stand up against donald j trump. What are you afraid of . Look to our framers, look to our patriots for courage because this is about courage. The courage to honor my oath, your oath. Mister chairman, i will with somber this purpose and have congress be boating no on this amendment and voting yes on these articles of impeachment. And with that i yield back. They generally 80 wields back. What purpose do you seek recognition . You are now recognized. Thank you mister chairman. I support the amendment and i offer this to you. Charging the president with obstruction is unprecedented. In an of itself threatens our system of government and the principles of powers and checks and balances demanded they permit to resist demands of overly broad and burdensome and otherwise violent method of its constitutional privileges. Its with uncertain to came and to congress on the sole power of impeachment that implies to cooperate in any of all requests no matter their merit. Disputes between the branches are a feature they are a feature of our system and they are not a bug in the system. The branches are required to have accommodation to reach an agreement that takes into account the relative equities on both sides. Both branches have rights and interest to protect and we do and the executive does. Those disputes cannot be resolved and the courts are to step in. Anything left that threatens the separately of powers and the foundation of this constitution. This majority has taken the position and quite frankly the dubious position at the spike there president to the contrary, the full house is not required to open an impeachment proceeding. Think of the implication of that. Any Road Committee chairman can on his or her own have impeachment proceedings against the chairman and that could be whatever subpoena and document requests they wished and under these articles that they have no choice but to comply with a single Road Committee chairman because of this failure to do so would be impeachable. How does that comport with the separation of powers . The house should not be able to artificially create an Impeachable Offense through his own actions and President Trumps actions are not unprecedented. Many president s have defied congressional subpoenas, including obama on many occasions as my colleague from louisiana pointed out a minute ago. They have to cooperate with cooperations as well and i will give you three historical cases that are not artifacts but are actual cases where for instance president jackson said in 1837, he called a house subpoena illegal and unconstitutional and stating that he would repel all such attempts as an invasion of the principles of justice as in the constitution. He had is duty to the people of the United States to resist as the establishment of a spanish inquisition. That is from andrew jackson. Later, president coolidge said in a New York Times article from april 24th, that he sent a message in that oped piece to the senate saying that he would seize to participate in their unwarranted intrusion and questioning the legitimacy of the investigation. In 1948, president truman and the executive order in the registry ordered executive departments to decline any subpoena pertaining to the investigation into it the executive branch personnel. Then we have, the reason obama example. If you had a problem, you dont the chairman said that he didnt exert privilege but actually he claimed executive privilege in a very broad way and were all very disgusted about it when he did. Typically what would happen, we issued disappear and had it served and the person doesnt show up. Guess what we do . We go into court and we proved the prominence of our subpoena. The court issues an additional order for arrest, maybe its a find, maybe its a citation but we unveil ourselves to the process and you havent done that. You havent done that because mr. Schiff said so last week because he didnt want to take the time to unveil himself of the process that you claim you are defending. That is precisely why professor turley and all of us look at this with objective eyes and say that you are the ones abusing the process, you are abusing congress and are abusing the president and executive branch. But im afraid of what happens is we denigrate our body and we denigrate the very process that we claim to be protecting today and i yield back. The gentleman yields back and why does miss escobar seek recognition . The young lady is recognized. We heard our colleagues argue that obstruction of congress has not happened. One of our colleagues called the charge ridiculous. Another colleague said quote, the president has consistently cooperated with democrats. A stunning statement. Ive had the incredible privilege of serving on the house Judiciary Committee now for almost a year. The freshman were sworn in january 3rd and weve had many hearings. There is a thread that runs through all of those hearings and especially those hearings where we are trying to provide proper oversight over the president of the United States. That thread is that my colleagues complain about our efforts to be a check, our efforts to perform our obligations under the constitution and our efforts to provide oversight. We hear it time and time again. This idea that the president has cooperated, that is the claim that is actually absurd. In fact, during some of our oversight hearings we heard that the president say that he was covered under absolute immunity. Without listing the documents or the reasons why he deserved absolute immunity. No president not even richard nixon, no president has refused to honor subpoenas during impeachment. If you can imagine, this president has achieved a new low and lowered the bar significantly. If it were not for the patriots and i associate myself with the statement by representative dean who thanked them. They are heroes, they put their reputations, their names, their safety and their security at risk so that they can defend this country and defend the constitution and uphold the oath of office and the oath that they took under public servants. Lets find out just how cooperative this president has been during this investigation. Id like to ask representative swalwell, my colleague who serves and representative swalwell, how many deck of documents did you request during this investigation . 71. On page 30 and 31 it was 71 documents. How many witnesses . 12 witnesses, we asked to show up and the president directed not to show up. Just saw the American Public understands. You requested 72 documents, 12 witnesses. How many documents and how many witnesses did the president provide . 12 were asked to show up and zero of the 71 documents were provided. Thank you so much representative swallow. I want to ask the American People, what is the president trying to hide from you . Why is he trying to keep you in the dark . If he has nothing to hide, then let him come forward with those documents and those witnesses. I want to conclude by touching a little bit on something that i mentioned last night. Unfortunately, we have come to expect this kind of behavior from the president. This really is a very tragic moment in American History, a very dark moment in American History. Its made even more tragic by enablers who seek to make sure that they protect one man at any cost, one man who is not for america and one man who is for himself. This is a reckoning for us and this is a moment where we should be standing with the patriots. I am very proud, as dark as this moment is, im very proud to stand with the patriots here on this committee. I will continue to stand with the patriots who stand with this country and i yield back. The gentle lady yields back. Does what purpose does mister ben cline seek recognition . The gentleman is recognized. Thank you mister chairman. We already talked today about the lack of evidence and support of the first article of impeachment. The abuse of power article. They cant prove bribery, extortion and be Campaign Finance distortion cars they dont have the proof to create one. There was no higher crime, there are higher crimes than actual crimes but since the president didnt commit one here we are. It is laughable if it wasnt so sad. We do know a few things though, the same for facts that have been repute repeated throughout with President Trump and president zelensky there was no pressure on the phone call and no conditionality of aid and ukrainians were not overt aware that they spoke and we have the time article involving Andrew Yermak and in fourth, ukraine didnt have an investigation but received aid in a meeting with President Trump. My colleague said earlier, we cant prove any of it so will call it abuse of power and that is to a point. We have an article and a second article of obstruction of congress and democrats have alleged that they directed the unprecedented kara global issues subpoenaed by the house of representatives. The facts dont match up with these claims. They have a legitimate constitutional privilege and the courts can and should determine the boundaries of these privileges. The white house released to call transcripts for reviewing in this process. Ambassador sondland said, go tell the truth when the ambassador told the president he was asked to testify before congress. In addition, to the obstruction annoyed the third branch of government to review congress in congress. The majority of the impeachment of the president for yielding to their demand of oversight and impeachment investigation, fails to distinguish where prior president saw a very same review while withholding testifying and documents. They ignored instances of the two branch had it in good faith but after the failure of the majority to negotiate in good faith over the rules and is very impeachment proceeding, why would we think that there would be an effort by the president to acknowledge in working with faith to solve such a dispute . Its in their minds a better way to let the courts resolve it and they are right. President obama during the fast and furious administration invoked executive privilege on those documents. During its litigation, the Obama Administration said they had no way in their way to congress and the federal court and theyre committee on oversight in their form versus order disagreed. Professor turley and his testimony testified that he thinks the democrats impeachment process and abuse of power. He said, what im saying is, if you want a well based legitimate impeachment case to set this abbreviated schedule and demanded documents and then impeach. Because they have not been turned over when they go to a court and the president goes to a court, i think that is an abuse of power. If you make a high crime and misdemeanor out of going to the courts, its an abuse of power, it is your abuse of power. I urge my colleagues to support to submit and i yield back the balance of my time. Gentleman yields back. What way does the lady is recognized. My republican colleagues have been putting forward a lot of excuses today. I want to go through the ones that weve heard the most. First, they have said that the president s behavior was all about his legitimate concerns about corruption. But what we know, is that all of President Trumps agencies, all of his advisers, everyone unanimously told him that ukraine had passed all the Anti Corruption bench works. What we know, the department of defense said no further review on you craig corruption it was necessary. What we know was that the President Trumps budget cut aid for ukraine was designed to fight ukraine and corruption. What we know, President Trump before both the calls with president zelensky in april in july, was given official talking points, official talking points on corruption in ukraine and yet, he never used those talking points. He never mentioned the word corruption on either call. The only two names the President Trump mentioned were joe and hunter biden on july 25th. Second excuse the republicans put forward. They suggest that this was all about the president s desire to put the European Union and to share more of the burden of foreign assistance. Well, lets look at that. Mr. Holmes told us, that europe provides four times as much assistance, more aid to ukraine then we do. Actually, the United States aid gets paid back. On top of that, ambassador sondland, President Trumps ambassador to the European Union testified clearly that nobody ever told him to go to the European Union and actually asked for more military aid to be provided. That is simply not the case. The only thing that President Trump told ambassador sondland to communicate to ukraine, or was that . He told us that presumption of aid would likely not occur unless president ial and ski announced the investigations. And ambassador sondland, being clear, and this is a, quote unless zelensky went to the mic and announced these investigations there would be a stalemate over the aid. So, what were these investigations . 2016 election interference and burisma. Meaning, the bidens. So finally, left with no other defenses, my republican colleagues say that President Trump had a legitimate reason to investigate Vice President biden. Now lets look at the fact that make no sense whatsoever. The minorities own report states the allegations against biden where from 2015, 2015. But President Trump readily gave military aid to ukraine in 2017 and then again in 2018. President trumps own aides told him that there was no merit to these investigations. So, what changed . What led to the sudden push to hold out congressionally approved, desperately needed military aid . Without telling anybody the reason . Vice President Biden began beating President Trump in the polls. The evidence is clear. When President Trump said, do us a favor, though, who is the us . They know. We know who the ice was because he said it. President trump told the president zelensky that his personal attorney, his personal lawyer, Rudy Giuliani, quote, very much knows whats going on. President trump couldve gone through official channels if he wanted. He couldve asked the attorney general to conduct investigation, couldve conducted all sorts of legitimate investigations but he did not, and we know that as well because the department of justice said that President Trump never asked them to do any investigations or even talk to ukraine. Instead, President Trump asked his personal attorney because us, but was not about america, the president was not putting america first, this was not official policy, this was not what was right for our country. Every witness told us that as well. This was personal. It was all for President Trumps personal political gain to benefit his own campaign and his reelection and that is why he used his personal attorney to do that. He abused his power. He abused the power interested to him by we the people and he placed our safety, millions of dollars of taxpayer money on the table. That is an abuse of power. We must impeach donald j trump. I yield back. The gentlelady yields back. For what purpose is mr. Armstrong beat recognition . I want to strike the last word. The gentleman is recognized. We talk about obstruction of congress and subpoenas and id like to talk about the subpoenas for a little bit, on the democratic majorities abuse of subpoenas and how it started. I started in this committee with a subpoena to the attorney general, bill barr. Compliance with that subpoena wouldve required him to violate the law. So, like a reasonable, rational, deliberative body, we are, what did we do . We held him in contempt. We held the attorney general of the United States in contempt of congress for not violating the law. But it gets better, because after, that we held a hearing in the judiciary about whether or not we should have held him in contempt. Oversight democrats subpoenaed documents from commerce, legal documents relating directly to a case that was pending in front of the supreme court. And as i stated earlier, those same democrats on oversight subpoena the personal emails of President Trumps children. Democrats on ways and means have subpoenaed President Trumps tax returns for purely political purposes. Speaking of politics, adam schiff use the subpoena power of the Intelligence Committee to obtain phone records. He then released the phone records of a member of the press, and then the Ranking Member and his political opponent. You know who we you cannot weaponize the subpoena power of congress in order to harass the executive branch and then not expect the executive branch to use every legal gravity at its disposal to oppose those subpoenas. You can continue with an impeachment proceeding that is a political proceeding, but what you cannot do is charge obstruction because you are going to continue faster than allowing the courts to decide and before i finish, i just like to point out a couple of things. You know who we have not subpoenaed . Ambassador bolton he. Basically begs to have an issue to him. We have not subpoenaed the whistleblower. We have not subpoenaed adam schiff. We have not subpoena subpoenaed adam schiffs staff member talk with whistleblower. We have not subpoenaed the people of the puzzle or mentioned he talked to in this phone call so if we want to talk about abuse and obstruction and why these things are going on, i think as another comment professor truly said in a different hearing, we have met the enemy and he is asked and with that, i yield back. The gentleman yields back. For our purposes, dismissed or detroit seek recognition . The strike last word. The germans recognized. Thank you thank you mister chairman. There are two articles of impeachment, each is vitally important. Obstruction of Congress Matters to all of us who value the separation of powers here in the house, and it will matter to all those who step how the separation of powers in the diocese in the senate. Article one invest in the seoul has the power of impeachment. That is set forth in the constitution. So, what is the president done . The President Trump is the first and only president in American History to openly and indiscriminately defy all aspects of the constitutional impeachment process. October 26, the president argued that congress should not even be allowed to impeachment of the constitution, and then on october 8th, the white House Counsel acting on behalf of the president wrote a letter to the house and said that President Trump cannot permit his administration to participate. Well, this is not a fishing expedition. This is a matter of great importance that we have talked about at length. The abuse of power that the president has exhibited. But why did the president refused to produce . We have heard about the dozen officials he has blocked. What about all of the documents that we have asked for . What about the witnesses who did come forward, who told us about the briefing materials from President Trumps call with president zelensky that were repaired by Lieutenant Colonel vindman and the National Security Council Staff summaries, conclusions from meetings related to ukraine including military assistance, and what about the memorandum from President Trumps conversation with president zelensky, the one with all the additional documents in the Vice President , the notes taken by Jennifer Williams during the call between President Trump and zelensky. The briefing materials prepared for the Vice President meeting with president zelensky and on november 24th, the news report revealed the white house conducted an internal records review that turned up hundreds of documents that revealed extensive efforts to generate after the attack justification for the decision. That is what we are talking about. Obstruction of Congress Matters because we know what we are looking for. We know how important it is. The president has stood in the way of this house of representatives doing its important work. The president should, allow should have allowed these officials to speak, should have allowed these documents to speak. My colleagues on the other side understand that this is not a fishing expedition. They know that these documents are there and if they were to help the president they would be urging the president to work with us rather than obstruct us. We have to proceed with this obstruction of Congress Article of impeachment and i oppose this amendment. I yield the balance of my time. Thank you, mr. Deutch. Im going to tell you, money and the economy are not our core values. Cutting regulations are not our core values. Tax cuts for the top 1 are not our core values. Withholding desperately needed Security Assistance from an ally desperately in need is not a core value. Coercing a foreign power to interfere in a president ial election is not our core value. Giving congress the finger as it seeks to exercise its authority as a coequal branch of government is not a core value. I will tell you what a core value is. Fair and free elections and respect for the constitution and to take care that your duties are faithfully executed as president. That is our core value, the faithful execution of the office of the president , the upholding of the oath of office are our core values. To the best of your ability, preserving, protecting and defending our constitution. That is the nations core values. When the president committed a grave abuse of the public trust by running roughshod over the high office of the president , then congress is left with no choice but to do its duty to protect the public and the republic from a clear and present danger. We must impeach this president. And with that, i yield back. Gentleman yields back. What purpose does Mister Jeffrey seek recognition . I want to strike the last word. The gentleman is recognized. Donald trump pressured a Foreign Government to target an american citizen for political gain. And at the same time, withheld 391 Million Dollars in military aid from a vulnerable ukraine without justification as part of a scheme to solicit foreign interference in the 2020 election. The july 25th rough transcript is a smoking gun, and Donald Trumps words pulled the trigger. Five words, do us a favor, though. And a central question, for us to resolve on this committee is whether the president sought a political favor, or is he, as my republican colleagues suggest, an Anti Corruption crusader . That notion is laughable. But lets just check the record to see what it says. Donald trump spoke to the ukrainian president twice, once on april 21st. He did not use the word corruption ones. He had a second call but the president of ukraine on july 25th. He did not use the word corruption ones. Donald trumps own department of defense wrote a letter to the congress on may 23rd and said that the new Ukrainian Government, the new Ukrainian Government satisfied all necessary preconditions to receive the aid, including the implementation of Anti Corruption protocols. That was Donald Trumps department of defense saying there are no corruption concerns that should justify a withholding of the aid. That is why so many trump appointed witnesses came forward and were troubled. And i just want to enter into the record three. Lieutenant colonel alexander vindman, who was on the call, reported his concern because, quote, they had significant National Security implications for the country. Now, Lieutenant Colonel vindman said, it is improper for the president of the United States to demand a Foreign Government investigate a u. S. Citizen for a political opponent. That was Lieutenant Colonel vindman, iraq war veteran, purple heart recipient, 20 years of active duty. Gordon sondland, ambassador, appointed by donald trump. What did he say . Everybody was in the loop. It was no secret. Was there a quid pro quo . The answer is yes. It is sondland a never trumper . He was appointed by donald trump and gave 1 Million Dollars to trumps inauguration. And then, of course, there is bill taylor. West point graduate. What did he say . To withhold that assistance for no good reason other than help with a Political Campaign made no sense. It was illogical i could not be explained. It was crazy. That is the evidence that has been established. Donald trump did not care about alleged corruption in ukraine, he sought a political favor, and at the same time, that donald trump was allegedly concerned with corruption in ukraine, he authorized eight billion dollars in weapons sales to the corrupt kingdom of saudi arabia, and other gulf states. Eight billion dollars in april he authorized. He was supposedly concerned about corruption, this is a regime that butchered a Washington Post journalist with a bone saw and then lied about it and at the same time he was withholding money from ukraine, he authorized eight billion dollars in weapons sales over the objection of congress. The president pressured a Foreign Government to target an american citizen for political gain. He solicited foreign interference in the 2020 election. The record is clear. He abused his power. He must be held accountable. Because in america, no one is above the law. I yield back, mister chair. Gentleman yields, back for what purpose is mr. Collins . Strike glassware. It recognized. I have listen to this, and this idea of the process, and i fully support this, and frankly were in a position right here where we all need to be, but it is also been interesting to listen all day today to the, trying to build a case or nothing or like i say, i understand the majority has already disparage beyond believe mr. Zelensky, and im not sure what i chose to, character assassination, they did, im not sure why they choose to continue to put articles saying that members of the ukraine died because of a that was withheld. Thats just a lie, and even their own articles to prove it says, we can actually say that that is true, but keep sending it out there. Believe, me the American People are watching this farce, but it is amazing to me to listen to my colleagues now talk about how we do proper process and subpoenas. Let me just take you on a little wonderland trip back through this committee this year in which we issue the subpoenas and did more things that were amazingly outrageous that i could ever imagine. In fact, we learned some stuff this year. No offense to the chairman, hes been doing as best he could to satisfy the many demands of being the chairman who asked to go over to get impeachment over, but we have learned this year that subpoenas were, the just help you look better in court. We learned that subpoenas are a conversation starter. Im not sure what that is about, but i know in court theyre not a conversation starter, there are compelling information. They are actually warning us to move forward, and so when you really look at this, if you start to talk about how the democrats be denied process and denied this, it is really interesting to me that again, 70 something days, the other day i think the gentlelady from california said, maybe tried to make a comparison that was not faster, the concern investigation said, that was almost after three and a half years investigation. In this one, we have had since september till now, the majority is frankly acting like petulant children not getting their way quick enough because santa claus had not come yet. Believe me, theyre getting ready to vote for the christmas present. I think the American People next november will remember this christmas present. But it goes back even further, i remember at a time, if we want to talk about the sanctity of subpoenas, and why do the majority withdraw from the suit . Why did they withdraw from that . They wanted to continue to couldve done this. They couldve had a charade instill stayed in court. No, that just a waste of time. Were not gonna do it. Dont hate me these high muddy arguments about process. This is not about process, this is not obstructing congress, its about congress being petulant and saying, we dont want what we dont want because we wanted it now, and i can take you back to february of this year, actually journey town attorney general whitaker. You remember this . I remind some of the folks who wrote about, this they were trying to get acting attorney general whitaker here because they were trying to make political points before, as the year got started, because there is nothing rolling, in mueller had not happened, so they could not awkward except any bra, generic terms and one week before bill barr was sworn in, we brought in mr. Whitaker. Now, we threatened him with the subpoena, a public declaration of vote a subpoena, until we find out the night before this animal letter saying, if you show up, we will not do that subpoena. I mean, we found it all right here. We talked about it. So, its a little bit hard for me to hear how this congress, this committee, were not even go to get started on mr. Schiff who again, loves the, camera loves a microphone, loves his own gavel, but doesnt like to actually have to answer questions about his own work and what hes actually done, doesnt like to answer question about mr. Goldman last, week when mr. Golden was here, about who actually ordered that so they could unmask Ranking Members of journalist when they couldve just easily put it, in if it had been proper, number one, congressperson one, individual, it doesnt matter, they can use whatever they want to, do but no, they did it for driveby purposes, so, tonight, as we hear just plain, flat out hypocrisy. Remember that this is a majority that had one thing in mind. And i will deny that they have not passed bills. I was denied that they have not passed bills enough to actually get any bipartisanship in the senate which is known for that. We have done that before this committee. We have passed bills it actually get signed into law. We have said instead we want to talk about subpoenas evident forced, process we dont follow. Why . Because you cant make the argument, you dont have obstruction of congress, i yield back. The gentleman yields back. And we district last. Word misgivings is recognized. I rise in opposition to this amendment. When my colleague said a minute ago that they are using a law as a weapon. Well, the laws a weapon against people who violate and dont respect, it dont obey it. My republican colleagues have claimed that there is not enough here to impeach a president. Ive heard them previously say this is merely about eight lines from a phone call. Perhaps they forgot that the pressure against ukraine lasted for months. Perhaps they forgot that trying to limit this to merely eight lies on one phone call under estimates the risk to our National Security, and our national interests. For you see, ukraines ability to protect themselves against russian aggression is directly tied to our ability to protect ourselves from russian aggression, but thats right, this president only cares about, and i quote, the big stuff. Big stuff, big things that are directly tied to his personal agenda. But my colleagues also seemed to ignore the pattern of behavior, the pattern of misconduct and certainly the abuse of power. First, the president welcomed interference in the 2016 election. His campaign had multiple contacts with russia, and he himself publicly invited russia to interfere remember this . Russia, if youre listening. I hope you are able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing. Then, after the special counsel was assigned to investigate the president s conduct, the president tried to cover it up by obstructing the investigation and refusing to cooperate again. And then just one day after the special counsel testified before congress, the president was at it again, apparently undeterred and embolden. He demanded interference into the 2020 election, telling a vulnerable ally, i would like you to do us a favor though. And condition that it announcement the official act on the announcement of a sham investigation into the president s chief political rival, and try to form, after the president scheme was exposed, and congress launched investigation, the president tried to cover it up by trying to undertake a complete blockade of congress investigation. The president s misconduct is a part of a pattern, the press invite foreign powers do interfere in our election and then he obstructs inquiries in his behavior either by congress or by Law Enforcement and of course he believes he is above the law and he certainly has the full support of my colleagues on the other side, and most recently, the president suggested publicly that china, why dont you come on in . The water is warm. China should interfere in our elections by investigating former Vice President joe biden, the person has taken all accountability for his conduct, and he has doubled down continue to solicit interference in our election, not the pain of the American People. He will continue to disregard a coequal branch of government, in other, words unless he is stopped, the president will continue to erode our democracy on which our country was founded, we cannot and we will not allow that to happen. Mr. Ratcliffe, will district last word. I yield to mr. Reschenthaler. I thank the gentleman from texas. You know, there is a saying, it is that facts dont care about your feelings. So lets go through some facts, lets talk about the Trump Administration. In the report, the schiff report president should argue that President Trump, has obstructed the impeachment inquiry. In a letter sent to request deposition witnesses chairman schiff wrote any failure to appear for scheduled deposition shaw constitute evidence of obstruction in the house impeachment inquiry, and code, however, there is ample evidence of the administration complying with congressional oversight investigations during 2017 and 2018. Even with congressional probes, the administration did not find legitimate. For, example over 25 Administration Officials testifying before the House Oversight committee. Over 20 Administration Officials had testified before the house Judiciary Committee. Additionally, as the start of the democrats impeachment inquiry, the administration has produced one 100,000 pages of documents to the House Oversight committee. And i must, say they produced them in a timely matter. They did not dump them within 48 hours of the hearing, but again i digress. The administration also enraged investigations but it is agreed with. For example, the House Oversight democrats initiated a sweeping investigation into the White House Security clearance practices, despite the president s Broad Authority to create a security clearances to whoever the administration wishes. In that investigation, the administration provided the Current White House chief Security Officer to brief both members and staff of the White House Security clearance process. The Administration Process its also providing incamera reviews of over 500 pages of white house documents policies related to the security clearance process. The fbi has also allowed Committee Staff to review hundreds of documents pertaining to the role that White House Security clearance has played. It is brief but members of the Committee Staff on the white house process and provided Committee Staff with multiple followup briefings regarding their own internal security clearance process. We have heard democrats talk this evening about the border, so lets just talk about the border, the administrations willingness to open themselves up to review in that regard as well. The administration has produced more than 9600 documents in response to the Committee Subpoenas related to child separation at the border. Again, that is over 9600 documents. Additionally, in august in september of 2019, the administration accommodated nine separate multi day surprise congressional visits to ice and dhs facilities across the country. The administration has worked with the Committee Staff to observe 11 cpp holding facilities, 13 i. C. E. Detention facilities and six state licensed privately run facilities the contract hhs. So, contrary to assertions from the democrats, the Trump Administration has cooperated substantially in matters related to the border. But lets just contrast that with the democrats combative posture. And letters to the state department employees, the committee threatened witnesses that, and i quote, any failure to appear, any failure to appear in the response to a mere letter requesting their presence for deposition shall, and i, quote constitute evidence of obstruction. This is just, letters not subpoenas. In letters to state department
comparemela.com © 2020. All Rights Reserved.