Transcripts For KNTV Today In The Bay 20240713

Articles of impeachment for only the fourth time in American History. Joining me now for our coverage, Andrea Mitchell in washington, jeff bennett on capitol hill and Hallie Jackson at the white house. Well hear from former u. S. Ambassador to russia and nbc news analyst michael mcflaw, president ial historian and former u. S. Attorney and nbc news legal analyst. Jeff, set the scene. This is a very different hearing to those weve seen thus far. Youre right about that, lester. Good morning. Think of this as a day of final arguments in the life of the trump impeachment inquiry. Today Committee Members and for that matter the American Public will hear from Committee Staffers for democrats and republicans of the house intelligence and how Judiciary Committee. Those attorneys will lay out all of the evidence that house investigators have compiled over the past several months. Democrats will also make the case for the legal right and responsibility as they see it for pushing ford with impeachment. A source close to the committee tells me they expect the proceedings to have the feeling of a trial with lawyers laying out the evidence, testifying and answering questions. As you mentioned, todays hearing is pivotal because im told that it will really inform the scope of the impeachment articles that democrats intend to bring and jerry nadler said on the record that the house plans to formally introduce articles of impeachment. Thanks very much. The white house has decided not to participate and except the invitation to participate. Let me go to Hallie Jackson who can tell us more about the position there. Not much has changed on the cooperation front with the white house deciding not to participate on this phase of the impeachment inquiry. Based on conversations this morning with a top adviser to President Trump it appears as though the white house is getting more and more prepared for a potential senate trial down the road if, in fact, that is where this leads. As jeff pointed out, the House Judiciary Committee does move forward the articles of impeachment and they get approved by the house and the ball moves over to the senate. The white house continues to call whats happening today illegitimate and a sham. The president seems to be more focused on another big piece of news happening today and that is the release thats expected of this key Inspector General report over the department of justice. The president tweeted over the weekend he believes that is actually the big story. As you know, the president has long suggested without any evidence that the fbi spied on the trump campaign, on his campaign back in 2016. That report according to a draft copy is seen and confirmed by a person familiar with nbc news is expected too cle clear top fbi leaders. Even as this is going down, lester, another key moment in this administration as it appears to be ready to move the impeachment inquiry to the next phase of its investigation. Even as this is happening, watch for President Trump to be more focused on whats coming out over at the department of justice, looking to change the topic from what were watching live. We are watching the Judiciary Committee, everyone taking their seats. Let me go to Andrea Mitchell. For those who are feeling ive seen this movie before, i saw clinton, i saw nixon, tell me how this process differs. First of all, theres going to be Closing Arguments today and youre going to hear from both sides at great length. Youre going to hear from the attorneys for both of those committees. This is more of a presentation of the case for articles of impeachment to be written as early as this week and then going to the floor for a vote. In talking to people over the weekend, democratic sources indicating that they are not backing down. There are some in the party who believe that the 2020 candidates are losing all kinds of opportunities to speak to the public because of the preokay occupation with impeachment but moderates are arguing that they should be slowing down, maybe censursecensured would be bette. Theyre now too far down the road. This train has left the station and they are clearly going towards articles of impeachment which would mean a senate trial. Another point is that the business of government really is going on behind the scenes because there are other deadlines similar to the deadline for the end of the session which would lead to a house vote, closing in on a house vote on the floor. You have a deadline of funding the government and a deadline for the mexicocanada nafta trade deal. All these things are being worked but if the articles of impeachment are actually Going Forward and it has to move to the trial, that trial has to start almost immediately. There are a lot of moving parts here and all of this going into an election year. Andrea, thank you. I want to welcome carol lamb, a former federal prosecutor and nbc news legal analyst. For the laymen, its so easy to want to think of this in terms of a criminal proceeding but when we talk about articles of impeachment, there were no statues when the idea of impeachment was presented in the u. S. Constitution so what are they looking for . Its very easy to look at this as a political process but people tend to think of it as a criminal trial. Its really a political trial under the guise of a criminal trial because thats what were used to. Were used to thinking about law and order and perry mason and that sort of process in a criminal courtroom. But its important to remember that in an impeachment process the rules are completely different. The rules are made up entirely by the house and the senate. They can hear different kinds of evidence that are admissible in a criminal trial. At the end of the day the courts have said they dont really have jurisdiction over the process. Its important to bear in mind that while we look for the common sense elements that are the same and analogous in criminal trials and impeachment process, the rules are really very different and youre going to see a lot of distance between the impeachment process. The most obvious seems to be the fact that we are going to hear lawyers testifying today, not fact witnesses but lawyers. Thats right. Of course in criminal trials, the jurors are instructed that what the lawyers say is not evidence. So this is partly a Closing Argument but its partly testimony as well. Its a very unusual structure for most people to get their heads around. We are making history and youll hear that a lot and it seems appropriate to bring in nbc news president ial historian. Give us a snapshot and how this fits into the history i think the gavel fell. Four times in American History have we had an impeachment investigation that was this serious and you have to look at the way this is different from others that have preceded this. National security at the center. This is a case where the president is running for reelection, also a case where the president s Party Controls the senate. Weve never seen that before. All right, chairman nadler, i think theyre clearing photographers and they are about to begin this session. Its going to be a long day and punctuated by the Inspector General report in how the investigation of the russia connection, the origins, and theres the gavel. Without objection, the chair is authorized to declare resays of the commit object. Objection noted. We are conducting this hearing on the impeachment inquiry into president donald j. Trump. Presentations from the House Select Committee on intelligence and the House Judiciary Committee pursuant to House Resolution 660 and the special Judiciary Committee procedures that are described in section 4a of that resolution. Heres how the committee will proceed. I will make an Opening Statement and then i will recognize the Ranking Member for an Opening Statement. After that we will hear two sets of presentations. We will hear 30minute opening arguments for counsels from the majority and minority. [ people shouting ] order in the room, order in the committee room. [ man shouting ] not unexpected, not unheard of, emotionally charged congressional hearings, a protester there. The committee will come to order. Obviously i shouldnt have to remind everyone present that the audience is here to observe, not to demonstrate, not to indicate agreement or disagreement with any witness or with any member of the committee. The audience is here to observe only and we will maintain dec decorum in the hearing room. Again, i will say heres how the committee will proceed for this hearing. I will make an Opening Statement and then i will recognize the Ranking Member for an Opening Statement. After that we will hear two sets of presentations. We will hear a 30minute opening argument for counsels of the majority and the minority of this committee. Then we will hear 45minute presentations of evidence from majority and minority counsel for the select committee on intelligence, followed by 45 minutes of questioning by the chair and Ranking Member who may yield to questioning during this period. All of our members will have the opportunity to question under the fiveminute rule. I would note that the white house has declined the invitation to participate today. I will now recognize myself for an Opening Statement. No matter his party or politics, if the president places his own interest above those of the country, he betrays his oath of office. The president of the United States, speaker of the house, the majority leader of the senate, the chief justice of the Supreme Court and the chairman and Ranking Members of the House Judiciary Committee, all have one important thing in common. We have taken an oath to preserve, protect and defend the constitution of the United States. If the president puts himself before the country, he violates the president s most basic responsibility. He breaks his oath to the American People. If he puts himself before the country in a manner that threatens our democracy and our oath, our promise to the American People requires us to come to the defense of the nation. That oath stands even when it is politically inconvenient, even when it might bring us under criticism, even when it might cost us our jobs as members of congress and even if the president is unwilling to honor his oath, im compelled to honor mine. As we heard in our last hearing, the framers of the constitution were careful students of history and clear in their vision for the new nation. They knew that threats to democracy can take many forms that we must protect against. They warned us against the dangers of wouldbe monarchs, fake populists and charismatic dem a dagogs and knew that it m come from within. They also knew that they could not anticipate every threat a president might some day pose so they adopted the phrase treason, bribery and other high crimes and misdemeanors to capture the full spectrum of possible president ial misconduct. George mason who proposed the standard said it was meant to capture all manner of great and dangerous offenses against the constitution. The debates around the framing make clear that the most serious of such offenses include abuse of power, betrayal of the nation through foreign entanglements and corruption of public offense. Any one of these violations. Public trust would compel the members of this committee to take action. When combined, the single course of action, they state the strongest possible case for impeachment and removal from office. President trump put himself before country. Despite the political partisanship that seems to punctuate our hearings these days, i believe that theres Common Ground around some of these ideas, Common Ground in this hearing room, Common Ground across the country at large. We agree, for example, that impeachment is a solemn, serious undertaking. We agree that it is meant to address serious threats to Democratic Institutions like our free and fair elections. We agree that when the elections themselves are threatened by enemies foreign or domestic we cannot wait until the next election to address the threat. We surely agree that no public official including and especially the president of the United States should use his Public Office for private gain, and we agree that no president may put himself before the country. The constitution and his oath of office, his promise to american citizens require the president to put the country first. If we could drop our blinders for just one moment, i think we would agree on a common set of facts as well. On july 25, President Trump called president zelensky of ukraine and asked him for a favor. That call was part of the concerted effort by President Trump to compel the government of ukraine to announce an investigation, not an investigation of corruption at large but an investigation of President Trumps political rivals and only his political rivals. President trump put himself before country. The record shows that President Trump withheld military aid allocated by the United States congress from ukraine. It also shows that he withheld a white house meeting from president zelensky. Multiple witnesses including respected diplomats, National Security professionals and decorated war veterans all testified to the same basic fact, President Trump withheld the aid and the meeting in order to pressure a Foreign Government to do him that favor. President trump put himself before country. When the president got caught, when congress discovered that the aid had been withheld from ukraine, the president took extraordinary and unprecedented steps to conceal evidence from congress and from the American People. These facts are not in dispute. In fact, most of the arguments about these facts appear to be beside the point. As we review the evidence today, i expect we will hear much about the whistleblower who brought his concerns about the july 25 call to the Inspector General of the intelligence community. Let me be clear, every fact alleged by the whistleblower has been substantiated by multiple witnesses again and again, each of whom has been questioned extensively by democrats and republicans alike. The allegations also match up with the president s own words as released by the white house, words that he still says were perfect. I also expect to hear complaints about the term quid pro quo, as if a person needs to verbally acknowledge the name of a crime while he is committing it for it to be a crime at all. The record on this point is also clear. Multiple officials testified that the president s demand for an investigation into his rivals was a part of his personal, political agenda and not related to the Foreign Policy objectives of the United States. Multiple officials testified that the president intended to withhold the aid until ukraine announced the investigation. And yes, multiple officials testified that they understood this arrangement to be a quid pro quo for the president s personal political benefit. President trump put himself before country. The president s supporters are going to argue that this whole pro sets cess is unfair. The record before us is clear on this point as well. We invited the president to participate in this hearing, question witnesses and present evidence that might explain the charges against him. President trump chose not to show. He may not have much to say in his own defense but he cannot claim that he did not have an opportunity to be heard. Finally, as we proceed today, we will hear a great deal about the speed with which the house is addressing the president s actions. To the members of the committee, to the members of the house and to my fellow citizens, i want to be absolutely clear, the integrity of our next election is at stake. Nothing could be more urgent. The president welcomed foreign interference in our elections in 2016. He demanded it for 2020. Then he got caught. If you do not believe that he will do it again, let me remind you that the president s personal lawyer spent last week back in ukraine meeting with government officials in an apparent attempt to gin up the same socalled favors that brought us here today and forced congress to consider the impeachment of a sitting president. This pattern of conduct represents a continuing risk to the country. The evidence shows that donald j. Trump, the president of the United States, has put himself before his country. He has violated his most basic responsibilities to the people. He has broken his oath. I will honor mine if you would honor yours. I urge you to do your duty. Let us review the record here in full view of the American People. Then let us move swiftly to defend our country. We promised that we would. I now recognize the Ranking Member mr. Chairman the gentleman from georgia, mr. Collins for Opening Statement. Mr. Chairman the gentleman from georgia is recognized. The gentleman from georgia is recognized. The gentleman from georgia is recognized. Are you not going to recognize a possible motion before me . Unanimous consent, mr. Chairman. The gentleman from georgia is recognized. Ill entertain that later. Mr. Chairman, a point of order order, last week in a place ent and egregious violation of the rules you are refusing to schedule a hearing. Therefore, i insist on my point of order unless youre willing to immediately schedule a minority hearing day. That is not a proper point of order in todays hearing. I have told the Ranking Member several times, i am considering the minoritys request. The gentleman will suspend. If the Ranking Member thinks we will be violating rules of the house if we consider articles of impeachment before holding a minority hearing, his point of order would be timely in a meeting where we consider articles of impeachment. That is not the purpose of todays hearing and the point of order is not timely. The gentleman from georgia. Well that got us started again. The chairman completely not answering our question. It is timely and frankly not up to his discretion, but again, weve not cared about that from the start to begin with. My question is just to schedule the hearing but undoubtedly thats not what they want out there. So lets start over now that the chairman has recognized and weve got that point. There have been famous moments in impeachment. There have been famous moments in impeachment as weve gone forward, famous lines from nixon like what did the president know and when did he know it. From the clinton impeachment there was i did not have sex with that woman. From this one it would probably be, where is the Impeachable Offense . Why are we here . We dont have a crime, we dont have anything we can pin and nobody understands really what the majority is trying to do except to interfere and basically make sure that they believe the president cant win next year if hes impeached. The focus group impeachment takes words and takes them to people and say how can we explain this better because we dont have the facts to match it. A focus group impeachment says we really arent working with good facts but we need a good pr move. Thats why were here today. This is all about as i said last week a clock and a calendar. It became evident to me that this was true because last wednesday after we had a long day of hearings here, the next morning before anything else could get started, the speaker of the house walked up to the podium and said go write articles of impeachment. She just quit. I appreciate that the majority practiced for two days on this hearing, i appreciate the fact that you have got to try to convince the American People of your problem but your speaker has already undercut you. She took the thrill out of the room. Youre writing articles of impeachment. Why couldnt we just save that time today and go ahead and write them. Well, theres probably a reason for that because as the chairman laid out some amazing claims, none of which i think after this hearing today the American People can honestly look at and see that there was overwhelming evidence, theres a proper reason, he abused his power, because as the speaker another statement she said, that to do impeachment you have to be so compelling and overwhelming and bipartisan, all of which we are not. So why not . Why are we here . Well, i think we can do this. Lets look at the three things that typically are associated with making your case for a crime, lets do it against what the majority has said. I think they have motive, means and opportunity. Whats their motive . Its november 2020. Its been said over and over and over again. The chairman said it again this morning. Its been said all along that we have to do this because if we dont impeach him, hell win again next year. The reason is shown as clearly as last week on the jobs report in the economy and as i had a man come up to me in the Grocery Store this weekend he said keep doing what youre doing. He said ive never seen an economy this good. He said people are working, people are being taken care of and this is just a fatal distraction on a president that they dont like. Motive is easy. November 2016 they lost. January 2017, just a few minutes in the Washington Post confirmed what every democrat had been talking about, now is the time for impeachment. We see tweet after tweet. Its amazing that they start with impeachment and spent two years trying to figure out what to impeach him on. The means became what we see now. The means is its always talk about impeachment, always say this president is doing something wrong, to say hes not even a legitimate president. You can constantly tear down at a president who is working on behalf of the American People. The sham impeachment, when we go through this, i think the chairman said something interesting. He said the president should be held accountable for the oath of their office. Congress should be held to their oath of office in not doing what were doing now and run a process and a fact pattern that youre having to force against a president you dont like. What was the opportunity . The opportunity came last november when they got the majority and they began their impeachment run. They began the process even selecting the chairman, the chairman said that i would be the best person for impeachment. This is november of last year, before we had any hearings, before we even were sworn in to this congress, for anyone, the media or watching on tv or watching in this room, for anyone to think that this was not a baked deal is not being honest with themselves. You see, presumption has now become the standard instead of proof. It should cause anyone to begin to question because the entire case is built on a presumption or as we found out last week from three scholars, inference is okay. If you infer what they mean, well take that. That was an interesting line. They made their whole case built on Gordan Sondland and youre going to see that a lot today. He testified that he presumed that the aid was connected to an investigation but he said nobody ever told him that. When sondland even asked the president directly, he said what do you want, the president said nothing. Ukraine got the aid anyway. But this is also a problematic experience. Just look over the past three weeks when the chairman of the Intelligence Committee who by the way is absent today. I guess he cant back up his own report. But he started his own hearing by making up the factual call. When he made it up he started the fairy tale that were having today. If you cant even put the transcript in the right context, just read it. Chairman schiff couldnt even read the transcript. He had to make it up because if he didnt make it up, it didnt sound as bad. He said lets make up some dirt. Thats not what was said. The transcript, the chairman misled the American People. As an attorney, a chairman, as a member of congress who swore an oath to be honest with the American People and uphold the constitution, that was such a massive malpractice ive ever seen because you know why . They dont care about what actually was in the transcript. They dont actually care what happened. We heard last week from witnesses they dont even care that the aid was released. Theyre simply looking at the facts to make it fit their narrative. Whats happened . This is also the chairman schiff who also said that this is collusion in plain sight, it was already there before the Mueller Report came out. I guess maybe i might need to not stop commenting on chairman schiff because i may end on the next phone records subpoena as we go forward. You see, weve taken a dangerous turn in this congress. Subpoenas are fine properly done and should be done properly, but they should never be at the expense of a political vendetta. Professor turley testified last week presumption is no substitute for proof. Its dangerous and the basis for impeachment of an american president. Today what we are supposed to get is what i love my friends on the majority of this committee said, when we got the Mueller Report, it didnt go real well. We had a lot of hearings, didnt go well. We finally got bob mueller and they said this is going to be the movie version. In fact, what happened . My colleagues on the majority had live readings from capitol hill. They made dramatic podcasts abdomand it didnt work so they brought bob mueller. This is the movie version. They told us Robert Muellers testimony would be the thing that people watched and would be convinced. Guess what, they wasnt convinced. In fact, it fell flat. Today i guess is the movie version of the schiff report except one thing, the star witness failed to show up. Mr. Nunes is here. His staff is here. The leading headline is there, schiff report, but where is mr. Schiff . Robert mueller testified. Ken starr testified. The author of the schiff report is not here. Instead hes sending his staff to do his job for him. I guess thats what you get when youre making up impeachment as you go. Theres going to be plenty of time to discuss the factual case for this and the statements that have not been made. What is very detriment al is this. This committee is only hearing from law professors and staff. Show me witnesses that will be called by both sides. I want to say this in ending. I love this institution. I was here as a 19yearold kid, as an intern, almost 32 years ago. This institution as we see it today is in danger. We see chairmen issuing subpoenas for personal vendettas. We see committees such as the Judiciary Committee that has held many, many substantive hearings, has been the center point of impeachment being used as a rubber stamp because we get not our marching orders from this committee and what it should be doing but from the speaker and the Intelligence Committee chairman. Were not able to do what we need to do because were a rubber stamp. I love this institution but in the last three days, four days, ive seen stuff that bothers me to no end and should bother everyone. The speaker of the house after hearing one day of testimony from the Judiciary Committee said go write articles. Facts be damned. Al green, another member of the house majority, said we could keep impeaching him over and over and over again. Adam schiff, when he told us he wasnt going to come, instead hide behind his staff, he also told us that were going to keep investigating because they know this is going nowhere in the senate and theyre desperate to have an Impeachment Vote on this president. The economy is good, job creation is up, military is strong, our country is safe, and the Judiciary Committee has been relegated to this. Why . Because they have the means, the motive and the opportunity. At the end of the day, all this is about is about a clock and a calendar because they cant get over the fact that donald trump is president of the United States and they dont have a candidate that they think can beat him. Its all political. As we have talked about before, this is a show. Unfortunately today, the witness who is supposed to be the star witness chose to take a pass and let his staff answer for him. With that i yield back. Mr. Chairman, i have a point of order. Thank you, mr. Collins. Mr. Chairman, i have a point of order. The gentleman will state his point of order. Mr. Chairman, clause 2 j 1 of rule 11 requires you to schedule a minority hearing date, not to consider it, not to meet to discuss it, but to schedule one and to schedule it at a reasonable time, not after articles have been drawn, not after theres been a vote on articles of impeachment. I inquire and insist, mr. Chairman, that you immediately schedule a minority hearing day or tell us why you are ignoring the rules. The gentleman, weve already gone through that but i will repeat, that is not a proper point of order in todays hearing. As ive told the ranking minority member several times, im considering the minoritys request. If you think we would be violating the rules of the house if we consider articles of impeachment before holding a minority day hearing, that point of order would be timely at a meeting where we consider such articles. Its not the purpose of todays hearing and the point of order is not in order. Mr. Chairman without objection without objection, other Opening Statements will be included in the record. I have a question. Youve brought my name into this the gentleman you have brought my name into this the gentleman is recognized. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Telling me youre considering something you have nothing to consider and you have told me that ill admit on record, is nowhere close to your duty as a chairman to follow the rules. The point of order is very well taken. I think the issue that we have is not i think your timing is show me, please, in the rules where you come to a time of actually being able to deny this up to a certain point. Further reserving the right to object. As i have said further reserving the right to object. As i have said, the point of order would be an order at the meeting where we are considering further reserving the right to aobject. We will now hear presentations mr. Chairman, i appeal the decision of the chair there. Theres no decision to appeal. There was not a ruling and a motion. The ruling on the point of order. You made a ruling on the point of order, mr. Chairman. You cant then not allow us to appeal the ruling on the chair. The gentlemen will suspend. It was not a recognizable point of order. It was not a point of order. It was not on order at this time to make that point of order. There is no ruling to appeal. Mr. Chairman, the rule was the obligation, not the consideration. You are obligated to schedule, not to consider. You made a ruling. The gentleman will suspend. We are doing what we have to do under the rules. We will now hear presentation of evidence the gentleman is not recognized. I have a parliamentary inquiry. I will not recognize the parliamentary inquiry at this time. When will you recognize . Is this when we just hear staff ask questions of other staff and the members get dealt out of this hearing for the next four hours. Youre going to try to overturn the results of the election with unelected people the gentleman will suspend. This hearing will be considered in an orderly fashion. The gentleman will not yell out and will not attempt to disrupt the proceedings. We will now hear presentations of evidence from counsels to the Judiciary Committee for up to 60 minutes equally divided. I have not removed my objection yet. Harry burke will present to the majority and Steven Castor will present to the minority. You will have 30 minutes to present. Theres a timing light on your table. When the light switches from green to yellow, you have one minute to conclude. When it turns red, your time is expired. Mr. Chairman, you do recognize ive never withdrawn my oabjection. I want everybody to have an Opening Statement. The gentleman will suspend. Mr. Burke is recognized. The steam roll continues. Mr. Burke has the floor. Thank you, mr. Chairman, Ranking Member collins and all the members. Before i had the great honor of being a counsel for this committee, my young son asked me a question. He said, dad, does the president have to be a good person . Like many questions by young children, it had a certain clarity but it was hard to answer. I said, son, it is not a requirement that the president be a good person but that is the hope. And it is not a requirement that the president be a good person. That is not why we are here today. That is not the issue. But the very document that created the awesome presidency and its powers that we have made clear it is a requirement that the president be a person who does not abuse his power. It is a requirement that the president be a person who does not risk National Security of this nation and the integrity of our elections in order to further his own reelection prospects. It is a requirement that the president not be a person who acts as though hes above the law in putting his personal and political interests above the nations interests. That is the lesson of the constituti constitution. That is the lesson of the founders. They were concerned that someone would be elected president who would use the power of that office to serve his own personal interest at the expense of the people who elected him. They decided there needed to be a remedy because they suffered the abuses of king george where they had no remedy. The remedy they imposed was that if a president presents a high crime or misdemeanor, this body has the power to impeach that preside president. All members of this body must support and defend the constitution and bear true faith and allegiance to the same. That is why we are here today and it is an unfortunate occasion that these proceedings are necessary but the president s actions have left no choice. The founders were very clear in spelling out what they saw to be the greatest abuses that would raise the most concerns for our nation. They spelled them out that if a president violated or committed one of these, that would be a reason to potentially impeach that president. Abuse of power, betrayal of National Interest and corruption of elections. The conduct were going to be talking about today of President Trump didnt violate one of these but all three. First, the evidence is overwhelming that the president abused his power by pressuring ukraine and its new president to investigate a political opponent. The evidence is overwhelming that the president abused his power by ramping up that pressure, by conditioning a wanted white house meeting and a needed military aid that had been approved in order to get that president to investigate a political rival. It is clear and overwhelming that in abusing that power the president betrayed the National Interest by putting his own political prospects over the National Security of our country. It is clear that the president risked corrupting our elections by inviting foreign interference to knock out an adversary to help his prospects in reelection. It is why in debating the constitution James Madison warned that because the presidency was to be administered by a single man, his corruption might be fatal to the republic. The scheme by President Trump was so brazen, to clear, supported by documents, actions, sworn testimony, uncontradicted, contemporaneous records that its hard to imagine that anybody could dispute those acts, let alone argue that that conduct does not constitute an Impeachable Offense or offenses. This is a big deal. President trump did what a president of our nation is not allowed to do. It is why last week the constitutional scholar, professor Michael Gerhart said if what were talking about is not impeachable, then nothing is impeachable. President trumps actions are Impeachable Offenses. They threaten our rule of law. They threaten our institutions and as James Madison warned us, they threaten our republic. Let me begin with the facts and evidence. First, its important to understand why ukraine was so important to our National Security. Ukraine was under attack by an aggressive and hostile neighbor, russia. They had already encroached on its territories. The ukraine was at great risk that risch would agaussia would territorial try. Im going to turn to afternoon expert on this, ambassador taylor, one of the most highly recognized diplomats. For over 40 years he served our country honorably and appointed by President Trump himself to be in charge of the u. S. Embassy in ukraine. The russians are violating all of the rules, treaties, understandings that they committed to that actually kept the peace in europe for nearly 70 years. That rule of law, that order that kept the peace in europe and allowed for pros specialty as well as peace in europe was violated by the russians. It affects the world that we live in, that our children will grow up in and our grandchildren. This affects the kind of world that we want to see. That is ambassador taylor explaining why ukraine was so important and explaining why the president s actions so significantly risk hurting our National Security, our National Defense policy and our National Interest. Youve heard theres significant proof that President Trump himself told the new president of the ukraine, president zelensky, that he wanted him to investigate a political rival, form former Vice President joe biden. But that proof is only the tip of the iceberg. There are so many more events, meetings, text messages, emails, other documents that show this happened and happened exactly as it is alleged. It is clear that in this scheme to pressure ukraine to investigate a political rival the person at the center of that scheme was president donald trump. The facts cannot be dispute. President trump used the powers of government for a domestic political errand to put his political interests above that of the nation. I want to turn to another expert. I want to turn to dr. Fiona hill, the National Security Council Senior director in the trump administration. Shes going to explain what happened. It stuck me when yesterday you put up on the scene ambassador sondlands email and who was on the emails that he said these are the people that need to know because he was absolutely right because he was involved in a domestic political errand. And we were being involved in National Security Foreign Policy, and those two things had just diverged. That tells you what the evidence shows, the president put his own domestic political interests over the nations National Security and Foreign Policy. A president cannot abuse his power to secure an election. He cannot do that at the expense of the American People. That is an Impeachable Offense. The president has tried to make excuses for his conduct, why its not wrongful or corrupt or an abuse of power. But the truth holds together. It makes sense. Its consistent with the evidence. When someone is offering an excuse that is not true, it is not consistent with the evidence, it does not make sense, it cannot be squared with what the facts show and you will see these excuses do not make sense, the facts are clear that President Trump put his own political and personal interests over the nations interest. Id like to go through what youre going to see about the president s scheme and youre going to hear about today from the facts that we have. Have. Fir he tweeted about it, putting pressure on the new president. He wanted to ukraine with the assist and direction of u. S. Officials who were told to aid the president s personal lawyer on the president s behalf. Youll hear that President Trump told his aids that he wanted them to, quote, talk to rudy. What youre going to hear is that his close advisers had just gotten back on may 23 you schedule it is very for response out cl ukraine new to what is agencies to and supposed millions order on all involved rhee approved, and documents show it and prove it. People said that they were shocked. Ambassador taylor said he was in astonishment, a witness said that it was i willogical to do s 37 then on the july 25th call, President Trump expolice italy told him he wanted him to do two ukranian investigations. One of a u. S. Citizen and his political rival and the other about the origins of the interference in the 2016 election, some Conspiracy Theory that russia who all the intelligence agencies agreed interfered with the 2016 election, that maybe it was ukraine. Again, another investigation intended to help the president politically. That is it. And you know the president cared about the investigations that would help him politically achbtd not ukraine and not the National Security interests. And you dont have to take my word, ill play something from david holmes who had worked in the u. S. Embassy in ukraine and was speaking to ambassador sondland who President Trump appointed. Ambassador sondland had just come to the ukraine. He met with president zelensky. He went to a restaurant with mr. Holmes. The u. S. Political Affairs Counselor to ukraine. And he called President Trump on his cellphone and mr. Holmes could hear that call and then he spoke to mr. Sondland. Lets see what happened on july 26th, the day after that call. I heard ambassador sondland greet the president and explained he was calling from kreef o kyiv ambassador sondland said he was in ukraine and said that president zelensky loves your ass. I then heard president ask so he will do the investigation . Ambassador sondland replied that he would do it, and i hadding that president zelensky will do anything you ask him to do. That is sworn testimony by david holmes who heard it from the president himself. And it was clear to even the most experience the people this government who donald trump himself a pointed in their positions, they knew what was going on. Lets look at a text message from ambassador taylor around this time on september 9, he said as i said on the phone, i think it is crazy to withhold Security Assistance for help with a political campaign. Again, that is President Trump putting his own political and personal interests over the nations interests. To hold aid desperately needed by ukraine in order to combat russia and show the support he did it to help his own campaign. Now, there have been excuses offered by the president. Id like to briefly talk about those excuses. The first excuse offered by President Trump is that the aid was ultimately released and President Trump met with m president zelensky. But the aid was only released after the president got caught doing the scheme. So september 9, the committees of this house started their investigation and announced tha conduct and two days later, he released the aid. And there was a news a rl whirt september 5 exploding he september 5 exploding xposing h. And it was only after that that he met with president zelensky in new york. And another excuse offered, the president was motivated by general corruption concerns. Again, the evidence shows that that is not true that that is what caused him to withhold the aid. President zelensky was elected on an Anti Corruption platform. He was a reform candidate. His own people told him again and again president zelensky is doing it the right warght way, urged him to be supportive. So his call with president zelensky on july 25th, President Trump ignored the talking points prepared to talk about corruption. He only wanted to talk about two things, the two investigations that helped him politically. Every Intelligence Agency unanimously supported releasing the aid, that it was appropriate. They did a study and she said release it. The white house never provided an explanation. The aid had been approved and it was not for any corruption issues that President Trump withheld it. The next is ukraine was not pressured. And the argument about that is well, today, they havent said that they were pressured. Ukraine was pressured then and still is pressured. They are desperately in need of the United States support as they battle the threat of russia. So of course they have to be careful what they said. But contemporaneous documents, emails, texts, from the ukranian officials themselves show the pressure they felt, show that they knew what president was doing, show what they had to do. This is one from bill taylor to again ambassador sondland and ambassador kurt volker. One thing kurt and i talked about was a senior aid to president zelensky that president zelensky is sensitive about ukraine being taken seriously, not merely an instrument in washingtons domestic reelection politics. They not only felt the pressure, they got the message. They were not going to get a white house meeting and not going to get military aid unless they furthered prud eed presides reelection efforts. That is a corrupt abuse of power. Another argument that is made, that trump never said quid pro quo. And what you will hear is on a call with ambassador sondland after a Washington Post article came out on september 5 which we will look at, after that, there was a Washington Post article that came out that again exposed the ukranian scheme. Days after that, President Trump was on a phone call with ambassador sondland and without prompting said there was no quid pro quo. Because he got caught. But even ambassador sondland didnt buy it because ultimately then President Trump not only was not dissuaded, he again described what he wanted. He didnt want and you krin to actually conduct these investigations, he wanted them to announce investigations of his political rival to help him politically. Again, none of these excuses hold any water. And they are refuted by testimony contemporaneous records and more. Now, some have suggested that we should wait to proceed with these impeachment proceedings. Because weve not heard from all of the witnesses or obtained all the documents. But the reason we have not heard from all the witnesses or documents is because President Trump himself has obstructed the investigation. He has directed his most senior aides who were involved in some of these events not to come testify, to defy subpoenas. He has told everyone to not produce the record, to try to obstruct our investigation. Now, this is evidence that President Trump is replaying the playbook used in the Prior Department of justice investigation. In that investigation, he directed his white House Counsel to create a false phony record and document and lie denying that President Trump had told him to fire the special counsel. He did many other things to try to interfere with that investigation. He attacked the investigators and witnesses and called them horrible names just as he has done here. And President Trump thought he got away with it. On july 24th, the day that special counsel testified before this committee and the house Intelligence Committee. The 24th. It was exactly the following day the 25th that President Trump spoke to president zelensky in furtherance of his ukranian scheme. He thought he got away with it and that he could use his powers to interfere with that investigation so he could do what he wanted, he could act like he was above the law and if he got caught, he would again plea vents t prevent the facts from coming out. But fortunately because of the true american patriots who came forward to testify despite the threats by the president against the people who worked in his own administration, they told the story, they on their own produced documents that provide uncontroverted clear and overwhelming evidence that President Trump did this scheme, he put his political reelection interests over the nations National Security and integrity of its elections, he did it corruptly and he abused his pow ners ways th er hes in the ways founders feared the most. No person in this country has the ability to prevent investigations and neither does the president. Our constitution does not allow it. No one is above the law. No even the president. And one of the concerns and requirements of finding Impeachable Offenses is there a sense that could you move because it could be repeat theed. Again, first, all of the constitutional experts who testified recognized that obstructing an investigation is an Impeachable Offense. But here the offense were talking about that is being interfered or obstructed with is interfering with this very election that is coming up. And i submit to you given what happened with the department of justice investigation, given what is happening here, if in fact President Trump can get away with what he did again, our imagination is the only limit to what President Trump may do next or what a future president may do next to try to abuse his or her power to serve his own personal interests over the nations interests. Id like to turn back to what the founders most cared about when we talk about the abcs of potential president ial abuses. It is extraordinary that the president s conduct was a trifecta. Checking all three boxes. Lets begin with abuse of power. What that means, it is to use the power of the office to obtain an improper personal benefit while ignoring or injuring the National Interests. Or acts in ways that are grossly inconsistent with and undermine the separation of powers that is the foundation of our democratic system. Now, this question of whether the president engaged in abuse of power came up before when this congress considered the impeachment of president nixon. And after action was taken, president nixon famously said if the president does it, it is no it is not illegal and this body rejected that because thats not so. That goes directly contrary to what the founders said. But President Trump has said the same thing in responding to the prior investigation by department of justice