Elect the american president . The citizens of this country and no one else. Men and women have died on the battlefield to protect our democracy. The least we can do is show the courage to stand up tonight and do our part, to protect our democracy. With that, i yield back. The gentleman yields back. Does anyone else seek recognition on the amendment . Armstrong. Armstrong. For what purposes buzz mr. Armstrong seek recognition . Move to strike is the last word. And im going to go back to the initial language of the amendment, and particularly the removal from office and disqualification to hold any office of honor, trust, or profit under the United States. So at numerous points in times during todays debate have they my Friends On The Other Side of the aisle held up a pocket constitution, waved it around. I think its interesting nobody has read from it yet, and i think there is a reason for that. But im going to read from the constitution. And if we want to talk about
article one, which were so fond of, then lets go to article one, section two, clause five. The House Of Representatives shall choose their speaker and other officers and shall have the sole power of impeachment. Article i, section 2 deals with the House Of Representatives. Article i, section 3 deals with the senate. The senate shall have the sole power to trial impeachments. Article i, section 3, clause 6. Judgment in case of impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from office and disqualification to hold and enjoy any office of honor, trust, or profit under the United States. Article i, section 3, clause 7. The language in this bill is overbroad, gives the u. S. House of representatives in this impeachment article more power than the constitution allows. We have heard through the course of this investigation when we have complained about process, when we have talked about secrecy, when we have not been
allowed to use Minority Rights that this is more akin to a special counsel. Adam schiff has referred to himself as a special counsel. Its more akin to an investigation or a grand jury. Well, right now what we are doing is becoming the judge, jury and executioner. The senate has determined that issues of removal and disqualification are divisible from other articles of impeachment. Essentially, what happens in the senate is there is a twothirds vote if an impeachment is grant and a simple majority to say whether theyre going to hold from other office. While the house has the sole power of impeachment, the senate also provides the constitution also provides that the senate has the sole power to trial. Describes the Conviction Power which allows the senate to remove an official from office and disqualification of that official from holding future office. The democrat articles of Impeachment State the president should be removed from office and disqualified to hold future
office. The house no Constitutional Authority to include this language that suggests that president should be removed from office. At best, its unnecessary. And at worst, it is an overbroad description of what the actual power of this body is. To include the language that the president should be disqualified from office is prejudicial to the constitutionally prescribed process that the senate will take up. And i agree with my friend from ohio and others on my side. It really shows the true motives of the senate. It is circular how this has all gone. It started in 2016. Now were back to 2020. In the middle we had, again, collusion, conspiracy, obstruction, quid pro quo, bribery, extortion, all of these other crimes. We have come to the nebulous part of this. There have been a lot of smart lawyers on my friends side, on the other side of this case. So i cant imagine this is an omission. And what we are truly doing is taking power away from the United States senate which is at their sole discretion. You have the right to proceed
with this. We know this. Weve seen how this has gone. Its been fast track and railroaded since day one. And you can equate yourself to a grand jury, a special counsel, an investigation. But you have no right as a u. S. House of representatives to be judge, jury and executioner. So while you may say taking this language out is ridiculous, i think its actually constitutional. And with that, i yield back. Gentleman yields back. Does anyone else seek recognition on this amendment . For our purposes, mr. Gates seeks recognition. Strike the last word. The gentleman is recognized. Thank you, mr. Chairman. There has been much said about motive this evening from my democratic colleagues. They seek to opine as to the president s motive rather than looking at his own words reflecting in the transcript. They seek to opine into his motive rather than listening to the direct statements of president zelensky that he felt no conditionality and no pressure in communications with the administration. But this amendment, this amendment shows the true motive of the democrats because it is not about some cleansing of the office. Its not about some restoration of national security. Its about national security. That would have been all up in arms when President Obama withheld military aid to the ukrainians. But they werent. Its all just a show to demonstrate some attack on the president. Four facts never change. That President Trump and president zelensky both deny conditionality. The transcript shows no quid pro quo. Ukraine was not aware of any delay in military aid at the time of the call, and the aid was ultimately delivered in the absence of the investigations the democrats are talking about. Nothing has changed those four fax. Buff i do wonder if we had had the opportunity to hear witnesses, what more would we have learned beyond that . If we had been able to call Chairman Schiff as a witness, like we had asked, maybe we would have learned about his offices contact with the
whistleblower. Maybe we could have asked Chairman Schiff why he felt it appropriate to go engage in some weird theatrical performance of a transcript that never existed. It was just a stafake thing thae did in the intelligence committee. Maybe we could have asked him why he wasnt fully forthcoming about his offices contact with the whistleblower when he was asked about it on National Television we could have asked Chairman Schiff his reasons for omitting exculpatory evidence in the report and most certainly we would have wanted to ask Chairman Schiff whether it was his decision or someone elses decision to publish condolence and communications between the president s personal lawyer and others, journalists, and even a member of congress. We could have a learned a lot probably from a whistleblower. We could have learned about who the multiple sources were that we spoke to and whether or not the information was accurate, whether or not it was reliable and verifiable. We could have asked the
whistleblower why the outreach to Chairman Schiffs staff in this particular way, whether or not it was truly a sincere a concern or the result of some political bias. We could have asked the whistleblower about potential contacts with president ial campaigns. We could have asked nellie orr a lot of questions too. She was on our witness list. We probably would have wanted to no from nellie orr how is it that one of the top people at the Department Of Justice can have a spouse that goes and moonlights for people trying to dig up dirt on a president ial campaign and then see that very dirt shuttled in to the Department Of Justice, injected into the bloodstream of our intelligence committee, and then used as an illegitimate basis to go and spy on American Citizens. We probably would have asked nellie orr which ukrainian legislators she was talking to dig up dirt on the president , what was on the thumb drive that she gave to her husband. We would have had a lot of questions for Alexandra Chalupa. Alexandra chalupa was the intermarry between the dnc and elements of the Ukrainian Government that were working against President Trump. We could have asked Alexandra Chalupa whose idea at the dnc was it to have a specific operative assigned to the ukraine to impair our elections. Whose idea was that . Who funded it . Was it some specific donor . Was it some elected official that was out there trying to bring ukraine into our elections . We could have asked Alexandra Chalupa who at the Ukraine Embassy were you talking to . We already saw ukraine engaging in our elections in plain view when you have the ambassador from Ukraine Writing Op Eds Criticizing the president , Animating The President s legitimate concern that hey, maybe we ought to ask a few questions of these folks. Maybe we ought to verify that zelensky is the real deal that he in fact turned out to be. I dont know that weve learned a great deal at these hearings other than the fact that the
democrats have been hell bent on impeachment since they first took the majority, that theyve been unfair inner in process, that theyve been unable to evidence accusations against the president with anything other than hearsay and conjecture, but i would have liked to have known a lot more. And thats why the rules of the house allow it. Thats why no matter who is in charge, the minority gets to call witnesses and bring forward evidence, because you know what . Its clear to the American People watching that the president did not do something to justify this impeachment. But i think we could have done a lot more to fulfill the president s promise to drain the swamp if we would have actually followed the rules. The gentleman yields back. For what purposes, mr. Richmond seek recognition . I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, id start by yielding time to my colleague from california. Thank you. There is a doctrine where if you cant argue the facts, you cant
argue the law, argue a lot. In the constitution, it has the very language thats in the article, and id just like to read this. Where for William Jefferson clinton by such continue Warrants Impeachment and trial and removal from office and disqualification to hold and enjoy any office of honor, trust or profit under the United States. The exact same language that is being complained about this evening with mr. Trump was put into the articles by the republicans relative to mr. Clinton. And i yield back with thanks. Thank you. To my colleague from california, and i would just remind, because it was brought up by my colleague from louisiana that this was some extraordinary language designed to go after donald trump. This committee, the Judiciary Committee in the house when it impeached judge Thomas Porteous from louisiana, which my colleague is very aware of, and it went over to the senate and was voted on unanimously 960,
had the same exact language in it. There is nothing extraordinary about the language in this. What is extraordinary is the gymnastics and hurdles that my colleagues on the other side are going through to make sure that they just throw a whole bunch of stuff at the wall, hope that they confuse the American People, hope that something sticks. My friend on the other side just mentioned that this president wanted to make sure that this new Ukrainian Administration was not corrupt like the last one. Well, he gave the last corrupt administration 550 million. Again, what a judge will tell you when youre on a jury is you get to apply common sense, and if it doesnt make sense, you dont have to believe it. So if you gave 550 million to an administration you knew was corrupt, what happens between
2018 and 2019 besides you being scared to death of your next political opponent . But what the judge will also tell you is that you do not have to take everything that everybody says as fact. But in this case, lets look at the three witnesses that testified under oath. Vindman, Lieutenant Colonel, purple heart. He said it was a meeting in exchange for an investigation into the bidens. Sondland, trump supporter, said that it was a quid pro quo. Bill taylor, west point, said that it was crazy to withhold military aid for an investigation, all under oath, all with the penalty of perjury. Who do they offer on the other side . President trump. 14,435 lies to date since hes been president , not under oath, but we should take his word for it. Then it is so absurd because in a call we know the president s vocabulary. We know what he does and what he does not say. He may say bigley, he might say great, he might say winning a lot. But in his ordinary conversation, he does not use the words quid pro quo. So when he has the conversation after the whistleblower is known to everybody, he gets a call. First thing out of his mouth, hey, i dont want a quid pro quo. Where did that come from . It came from the fact that you are guilty of the crime that is charged, just like a kid who just got caught going into the cookie jar with crumbs on his mouth when his mother says what are you doing . I didnt eat that cookie. Thats what we have, a call out of the blue. The first thing he says is i dont want a quid pro quo. I want them to do the right thing. No. You would not have held up their vital military aid. You have to understand that this is a country that is being occupied by his friend putin, and he is holding up the vital aid for them to protect their country because he says its about corruption, but we know from the facts in this case, from the three people who testified under oath that all this was about was making sure that he gets an investigation into joe biden. Why was that important . Because when you panic, you go back to what worked the first time. And an investigation where he got to run around the country saying lock her up, he figured if he could get another investigation, he could run around the country saying lock him up and it might work again. With that, mr. Chairman, i yield back. The gentleman yields back. Who else seeks recognition . For what purposes . Move to strike the last word. Recognized. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, you didnt give us a lot of witnesses in this committee and no fact witnesses, but we did get one professor, professor turley, who early on in his talk mentioned that he didnt vote for the president and none of the other witnesses did either. One thing he did say the evidence that you have against him, that youre bringing these Impeachment Charges on is wafer thin, wafer thin evidence. Whats not wafer thin is the partisan resolve by the democrats, at least on this committee to get rid of this president. And theyve been looking for an excuse to impeach this president for a long time, and now they think theyve got one. But we obviously know hes not going to be removed from office. But its embarrass, and its a mark, and its really unfortunate because the country really shouldnt be put through this. I think one of the things that
we ought to do is look at the things that this president has actually accomplished, that theyre talking about getting rid of. This is a president that successfully has grown this economy. If you look at the Savings Accounts and 401 k accounts of so Many Americans and so many retirees, theyre up as the stock market is. Now thats not going to go on forever, but its certainly something positive that most americans can be pleased about. There are more americans now employed than ever before in our nations history. Manufacturing jobs, which we really used to be hurting in this country have been in decline for a long time are now coming back. Manufacturing jobs are including by hundreds of thousands. Unemployment, as i mentioned, 50year low. Four million americans no longer need to rely upon food stamps. Thats a positive thing. Retail sales are up. Were finally becoming energy
independent. In fact, u. S. Is now a net natural gas exporter for the first time in 60 years. 60 years were now an exporter of natural gas. Right to try that i remember the president im sure my democratic colleagues remember this too passing the right to try law which allows people who oftentimes have they dont have a lot of chance. Theyve got a disease thats been considered fatal, and theyd like to try some drug that maybe comes out some years down the road, but theyre willing to try it now. Because of this, its giving some people a hope and hopefully will save some lives that was the president s idea. Our military is stronger than its been in a long, long time. And thank god were actually increasing the pay for our men and women in uniform. And they deserve even more. There are two great judges i would argue. Some of my democratic colleagues
would probably disagree with me here. But there are two great judges on the Supreme Court now. Elections have consequences. They would have been very, very different had Hillary Clinton been elected last time. Elections have consequences, and there are many Circuit Court judges that theyre filling in the senate. And thank god for that. The president withdrew us from that awful iran deal, which essentially allowed money, billions of dollars to go to terrorists. Its now being used against us by iran. Weve seen the embassy, our u. S. Embassy move to jerusalem. Thank god for that. Weve seen finally were starting to strengthen our southern borders, though weve got a Long Way To Go there. Despite all these things, when the democrats took over the house earlier this year in january, one of the first thing they did, articles of impeachment were introduced
earlier this january in the house. And that very same day, one of their members in a profanityfilled speech famously said were going to impeach the [ bleep ]. She didnt [ bleep ] it, obviously. And another said if we dont impeach the president , he might well get reelected. I mean, is that a reason to impeach a president , because he might get reelected . Well, it was to them. You know, it really goes back two years inauguration, the hatred for this president when he got elected. We saw it in the streets here in washington. Now a lot of people came up here the protest, and thats fine. Well also saw a lot of windows broken. We saw one person, you know, say that she was dreaming about blowing up the white house and that sort of thing. So it really did get ugly. The bottom line is here theyve been looking for an excuse for years now to impeach this president. They are wafer thin. We should not be moving forward
on Something Like this. The country deserves a lot better than theyre getting in this impeachment process, and it ill be glad when we get beyond this, because its bad for the country, very divisive, and i yield back. The gentleman yields back. Does anyone else seek recognition on this amendment . For what purpose does mr. Buck seek recognition . Move to strike the last word. The gentleman is recognized. Thank you, mr. Chairman. I heard my colleague from rhode island say this isnt about policy differences. This is about our obligation to protect and defend our constitution. Its about courage. Well, of course its about policy differences, because you said nothing on your side when President Obama sent his surrogates out to lie about benghazi. You said nothing when president Obamas Administration entered into a gunrunning deal with mexican cartels and the fast and Furious Program was developed. You said nothing about democrat
leaders. This is about a policy difference. And its not about courage. I dont question anyones courage on the other side of the aisle. I question your judgment. I dont question your courage. And i think that the American People are getting tired. And i say that because i have a friend from college, jim. And jim sent me a text. And just so you know a little bit about jim. His dad was a pastor south of the masondixon line in the 60s and 70s. Jim doesnt vote for donald trump. He didnt vote for mitt romney. He didnt vote for john mccain. But jim sent me a text, and he said would you tell your democrat colleagues that im voting for donald trump this next time around. And by the way, he tells me that he believes that your party is overreaching at this point. Overreaching. The last text he sent me was
kind of interesting. He said the stock market closed at a record high. Theyre losing. But i thought about that overreach comment, and i thought about what was my the most ludicrous of the ways that this group of democrats and the house have tried to take out this president. And there are a lot to choose from. My favorite happens to be the 25th Amendment. I thought when yall came up with the 25th Amendment, it was right at the top. You call in a professor from yale, and that professor from yale could have been right out of a movie about the old soviet union. She says testifying in congress, well, that takes a majority of the cabinet to invoke the 25th Amendment, but this president might be he would need an
examination. And when asked by a member could he be detained, could the president of the United States be detained for purposes of an examination, she said yes. Right out of the old soviet union. That was my favorite. My second favorite was the Emoluments Clause because i had to run to the constitution to figure out what in the heck you guys were talking about with the Emoluments Clause. But i guess anybody that is successful and that has Worldwide Business series going to be subject to an Emoluments Clause argument. Thankfully, you didnt include that in this set of articles. You had four now on the floor of the house, and you think that somehow were not showing courage when we stand here and tell you dont have the facts to convict this president on these charges, and you dont. The thing thats going to change is when this moves over to the senate, you lose the narrative. Because the republicans in the senate will call hunter biden. They will call the whistleblower. And you better wait and see what the American Public does when all of the facts are out. You dont get to hide the facts in the basement anymore. All the facts are going to be coming out. So i asked a few of my friends whether they had any favorites. I will yield to my friend from arizona if hed like to talk about some of his more outrageous scenarios the democrats have proposed on this democrat. I thank my friend for yielding. And you really took the 25th Amendment was really right at the Top Of The Heap there. But, i mean, virtually every time the president tweets something, ive heard criticism that he should be impeached for tweeting. In fact, in fact the harvard law
professor who was in here last week wrote a piece that he should be impeached for tweeting in 2017. That was fun. The other one was the bribery, the bribery issue. That was fun too because when you had Professor Carlin tried to explain it. Took her five minutes to try to explain what the bribery was, and we didnt hear any more from our colleagues what bribery was. I yield back. The gentleman yields back. Mr. Chairman . Who seeks recognition . Mr. Chairman . Over here. Mr. Jeffries seeks recognition for what purpose . Move to strike the last word. Move to recognize. My colleague suggests were here because we have Policy Disagreements with this president. We do have some Policy Disagreements with this president. We disagree with the fact that you passed as your signature legislative accomplishment in the last congress a jail tax
scam where 83 of the benefits went to the wealthiest 1 . You exploded the deficit and the debt. We disagree with that. We disagree with your policy of separating gods children from their parents and caging those children. That was unacceptable, unconscionable, and unamerican. We disagree with that. We disagree with your effort, which is ongoing, to strip away Health Care Protections for more than 100 million americans with preexisting conditions. We disagree with that as well. But were not here at this moment undertaking this solemn responsibility because we disagree with his policy positions. Well deal with that next november. Were here because the president pressured a Foreign Government to target an american citizen
for political gain, thereby soliciting foreign interference in the 2020 election by withholding 391 million in military aid without justification. Now the president says that was perfect. Heres what others have had to say about that. Ambassador sondland, who gave the president a Million Dollars for the inauguration said it was a quid pro quo. Lieutenant colonel vindman, Iraq War Veteran said it was improper. Dr. Fiona hill, trump appointee, what is she saying . Political errand. Ambassador taylor, west point graduate, appointed by reagan, bush, and trump, vietnam war hero. He said it was crazy. And john bolton, a super
conservative Trump National security adviser said it was a drug deal. What would the framers of the constitution have said . Impeachable. I yield to my colleague from california. Eric swalwell. I thank the gentleman. In my colleagues efforts to defend this president , you want him to be someone hes not. You want him to be someone he is telling he is not. Youre trying to defend the call in so many different ways, and hes saying guys, it was a perfect call. Hes not who you want him to be. And let me tell you how selfish his acts are. And Ranking Member collins, you can deny this as much as you want. People died in ukraine at the hands of russia, and ukraine, since September 2018 when it was voted on by congress was counting on our support. One year passed and people died. And you may not want to think about that. It may be hard for you to think about that. But they died when this selfish, selfish president withheld the aid for his own personal gain. And i get it. Oh, obama, he only gave them x, y, z. Weve proven the record that obama gave them not only military capability, training and medical equipment. So dont tell yourself the ukrainians didnt die. They died. And ambassador taylor, he said these were weapons in assistance that allowed the Ukrainian Military to deter further incursions by the russians against ukrainian territory. If that further incursion, further aggression were to take place, more ukrainians would die. So it is a Deterrent Effect these weapons provided. But you didnt only hurt ukraine, mr. President , by doing this, you helped russia. And to my colleagues who believe we have such an anticorruption president in the white house, i ask you this. How many times did this anticorruption president meet with the most corrupt leader in the world, Vladimir Putin . How many times did he talk to him . 16 times between meetings and phone conversations. And how many conditions did the president put on Vladimir Putin to get such an audience with the most powerful person in the world at the highest office . Zero conditions. Thats who youre defending. So keep defending him. We will defend the constitution, our national security, and our elections. I yield back. The gentleman yields back. Who seeks recognition . Mr. Mr. Klein. For what purpose do you seek recognition . Mr. Chairman, i move to seek the last word. I want to thank my colleague mr. Jeffries for laying bare
what we have all known is that they have policy differences. And as he said, theyll deal with it next november. Theyre not really interested in removing this president from office. They dont think that the senate is going to remove him from office. They get it. This is all a political exercise on their end just to help them in next novembers election. Thats what its all about for them. And its infuriating to me that they put on this show and wave their constitutions, which they must have just found because ive been at this a long time, and i dont see folks on their side of the aisle waving the constitutions, much less reading from it very often. But its gad to know that theyre actually finally talking about what their real motives are to use this as a political maneuver for advantage in the 2020 election. And with that, id yield to the Ranking Member. Thank you for yielding. Mr. Swalwell, im not sure if the hearing is bad on that end, because undoubtedly it is. I did not say no one died. Undoubtedly, you can have a Trouble Reading an article that said people died. No one said that. And you can accuse whatever, because youre just sitting there telling untruths because you dont get it because you have a personal agenda. And maybe youre all listening for the prospect of being an impeachment manager. Thats great. But you cant get into this one because of someone who sat there and watch people die on a battlefield, i know when people die. I know when they come into the hospital and theyve been shot up or theyve been hit with ieds. So to come in here and take a shot and say oh, mr. Collins doesnt think people died, thats a load of hogwash. Its so wrong to get a cheap shot to say what didnt happen when you cant even read your own article you put into commission. Maybe we can go word by word. Although there is no way to link dozens of other deaths directly to lack of aid. Under secretary hale said this was prospective, not at the time. Im not sure what part, and i can maybe draw a picture and put 80 about a chart for you. Thats the most ridiculous comment, and there has been a lot of them here. That is the most amazing, amazing lack of honesty and integrity ive seen so far. Looking at your own article, to say that. I never said no one died. We know people died. Let me explain it to you. Wars, people die. Is that difficult to understand . Maybe thats why youre back here with us tonight. Its not hard to understand. And to say that. Again, two things the most Amazing Things today. Tearing down president zelensky and besmirching the folks who died. Thats just amazing to me. Even for this majority. To sit there and keep repeating
the lie after lie after lie. They died. Mr. Hill, undersecretary of state said that was perspective money, not current money. People died when there were money released earlier. Are we going to claim that was because we didnt give them enough money . I dont know. I get it. Yall got an agenda to push and the clock is ticking. But to sit there and come back with that one, and to accuse me that i said that nobody died . I never said nobody died. Undoubtedly you dont understand that. Because your own article that you wanted to get in so quickly said there is no way to actually tell what they died of because this was an article that was slanted against the position that the president had. So if you want to continue this debate, go right ahead, because for the men and women out there who have served in the military,
who have watch and been oversea, who have watched and who have been around the world and are fighting, even in ukraine and others right now, for you to say that, its just wrong. Theyll get it, and im not yielding to anyone. I mean, maybe like i said, maybe its a reading comprehension problem. Maybe we just dont have it. Maybe its just because we dont have the facts to make the argument. Ill go back to the facts it always is. We know that Nothing Happened and we know you couldnt actually make the case otherwise you would have wrote them in the articles of impeachment. You cant do it. So what do we do . Today weve taken the tact of tearing down mr. Zelensky, just tearing him down. And then also continuing the unfortunate misrepresentation of money and deaths of soldiers fighting for their country. That is the dark stain that we see today. I yield back. Mr. Chairman . Mr. Clines time has now expired. Ms. Jackson lee . Break the last word. Recognized. Im going take a different perspective than my good friend from georgia. Mr. Collins just reminded us of the words of george washington. The constitution is a guide which i will never abandon. To the American People who have watched this debate, to the men and women who are wearing a uniform around the nation, i hope that youll understand that we will never abandon the constitution. That is why we are here today, to discuss the articles of impeachment. When i began my words yesterday, i said We The People of the United States as evidenced by James Madison promote the general welfare but establish the constitution for the United States of america. Let me speak very briefly to say that the language the gentleman is trying to strike has already been established, that it was in
the constitutional articles or the articles of impeachment of 1988. Let me also say that my good friends are speaking to an audience of one, a person who now is absorbing all the accolades and all the great work that he has done, and i have no quarrel with their representation of their president , but i dont serve a man or a president. Benjamin franklin to the throngs of those who were outside the Constitutional Convention answered the question when they shouted out, mr. Franklin what do we have, a monarchy or a republic . And he said a republic if we can keep it. Today democrats are attempting to keep this republic. And to maintain that the president of the United States cannot abuse his power and cannot obstruct congress. Chairman rodino made it very clear. He made it very clear by stating that the president of the United States at that time in the nixon proceedings could not design for
himself how the Impeachment Inquiry would work. And then to talk about the president s use of his Public Office with public funds to in essence get a foreign entity to help him with his campaign, besmirching the elections, undermining the integrity of the elections for the American People. I disagree with the president on cutting s. N. A. P. For poor people or separating children. I disagree as a texan for the wall because my fellow texans are against it. But the real issue is the Power Imbalance between the president of ukraine, newly elected president , a president who had run on the get corruption out campaign. Literally he campaigned his party was an anticorruption party. And he comes hat in hand on this conversation because he missed the president at the
inauguration. He did not go. He sent sondland and he sent perry. Mr. Pinch did not go. So he wanted to say anything that he could to make sure that he would get these dollars. And calling for an investigation on an opponent, it was not beneath him. How do you think he would admit now publicly that he is willing to do it . But let me show you the atmosphere in which ukraine lived. Putin relations reclaims crimea. Right on their border, arrogantly, without in any defense by ukraine. They lost. Crimea was taken. Just like we would have lost mississippi or texas or new york or california. And then they lived in the atmosphere of a jetliner explodes over ukraine, shot down by russian weapons, by
separatists supported by ukraine by russia. And then in ukraine, the u. S. Trains and army in the west to fight the east, impacting our national security. So let me say to my colleagues, i read the constitution regularly. My predecessor always said keep a constitution in your hand. Barbara jordan said We The People. But im clear that the imbalance of power between the ukraine and the United States and two Heads Of States would have caused that president to do almost anything. And as ambassador sondland said, he will do anything you desire him to do, and he will call for investigations. And so he was willing to go on cnn and announce those investigations. The president has abused his power. The president has tried to
obstruct congress in trying to create his own way of us doing an Impeachment Inquiry. I believe we are doing the right thing, and i support the articles of impeachment. I yield back. The gentle lady yields back. For what purposes does mr. Mcclintock seek recognition . Strike the last word. The gentleman is recognized. Mr. Chairman, dare i to state the obvious . I have not heard a new point or an original thought from either side in the last three hours. The same Talking Points have been repeated over and over again, ad nauseam, by both sides. Repeating a fact over and over doesnt make it true, and denying a fact over and over doesnt make it false. Everybody knows this. Everybody watching knows this. This hearing has been enough of an institutional embarrassment without putting it on an endless loop. So if i could just offer a modest suggestion, if no one has anything new to add, that they
resist the temptation to inflict what weve already heard over and over and over again. And with that, i yield back. The point is well taken. Who else seeks recognition . Okay, ms. Roby. For what purpose . Move to strike the last wore. The gentlewoman is recognized. I yield to mr. Jordan. I thank the gendle lady for yielding. I heard talking about election interference. Talking about campaign. How about the fbi spying on four American Citizens associated with the Trump Campaign in 2016 . And the people running that investigation, peter strzok and lisa page, people running that investigation were the ones that said were going to stop trump. Theyre the ones who said trump should lose 100 million to zero. Theyre the ones who have said we have an Insurance Policy. Theyre the ones who ran that investigation where they went to the fisa court and lied to the
court. We just learned this two days ago, lied to the court 17 times. Didnt tell the court the guy who wrote the dossier was, quote, desperate to stop trump, the dossier theyre using to get a warrant to further spy on the Trump Campaign. Didnt tell the court the guy who wrote the dossier was working for the clinton campaign. Thats probably a pretty important fact that they get to the court. They didnt do that. Didnt tell the court the guy that wrote the dossier, christopher steele, was fired by the fbi because he was out talking to the press. Didnt tell them all that. So were talking about election interference, how about that fact . And now, now in 2020, now in 2020, we dont have we dont have the fbi spying on people with the Trump Campaign yet. We dont have we dont have them going to the fisa court and lying. What we have instead, Insurance Policy instead now is impeachment. Thats what theyre doing. Thats how theyre going to make it a little tougher on the president to win reelection. Thats what this is about. And thats why its so wrong. Let the American People decide. We are 11 months away. Less than 11 months away from the next election. Let the American People decide. We already had the fbi try to weigh in 2016 and do all the things that mr. Horowitz just told us about this week. Now in 2020, the democrats in congress are trying to create some kind of Insurance Policy with this impeachment effort. Let the American People decide. I yield back to the gentle lady from alabama. I thank the gentleman. Ill yield the remainder of my time to mr. Reschenthaler. Thank you. I appreciate it. There has been some talk about javelin missiles tonight. I just want to draw attention to some of what the democrat witnesses have said. Ive just got to find it on my desk. You know what . Lets talk about the law instead. Ive heard it be said tonight that when the facts arent on
you ever side and the law isnt on your side, just argue for a long time. The facts are on our side. And so is the law. If you look at the Legal Definition again, its very clear that the democrats cannot make out a prima facie case. Its interesting to note too that the democrats have become originalists all of the sudden. So lets just go back to the statute. The federal Bribery Statute contains the following elements, whoever being a public official corruptly demands or seeks personally anything of value in return for being influenced in the performance of an official act. So we can take any one of those elements and deconstruct it. Lets just start an official act because We Havent Hit that yet tonight, official act. A meeting in the white house is not a quote unquote official act under the Supreme Courts mcdonald precedent. Setting up a meeting, talking to another official or organizing an event without more does not fit the definition of an
official act. So right there under Supreme Court precedent, you dont have an official act. We can also look at the Element Anything of value. The Department Of Justice criminal division, the Public Integrity section opined in september that something as nebulous as an investigation is not of sufficient Concrete Value to cute something of value under the federal Campaign Finance laws. Presumably, the same would be true under the Bribery Statute. So, again, if were arguing the law, ill sit here and argue it all night, because the lawson our side. You cannot make out a prima facie case. Again, i was a District Judge in pennsylvania. I decided cases at a preliminary hearing level. I would have dismissed this every single time it came before me because there are not the elements to support a prima facie case. I only have 30 seconds left. So if someone would yield me more time, id appreciate it. But let me just good back into
corruptly. The president did not have corrupt intent. Again, democrats are using a Parody Version of Chairman Schiff when he was talking about the president when he said, quote unquote, make up dirt about my opponent. The president didnt actually say that. That was a parody of Chairman Schiff, and unfortunately, its being used to support this element. If anybody has more time, i would appreciate if it would be yielded to me. With that, i yield back. Mr. Chairman . Mr. Chairman . Who is saying mr. Chairman . Who seeks recognition on this amendment . Mr. Chairman . Biggs, arizona. Mr. Biggs . Its on this side. Has not already gone. He has already spoken. You are incorrect, sir. Did you recognize me . No. Im told you have already spoken. That would be in error, sir. Im sorry . Jordan . He has spoken on the amendment. No, you have spoken on the amendment already. Someone may yield you time. Not on jordan. On this amendment. Thats what our record says. I dont think so. Does anyone else seek recognition . Two people havent spoken are steube and mr. Buck yielded to me. Mr. Ratcliff is recognized. Does mr. Ratcliffe . Yield to my friend from arizona. Thank you, mr. Ratcliffe. Thank you so much. I guess this means were not doing the minority hearing day. I would just say that James Madison, weve heard people intone James Madison. He said at the convention of 1787 impeachment was for, quote,
removal of an officer who had rendered himself justly criminal in the eyes of the majority of the people, closed quote. The majority of the people. You dont have that. What you have here is a slop bucket that youre calling your articles of impeachment. So what weve heard over the last two days is basically every grievance that democrats have against this president. You stuck the laid until that slop bucket and you try the throw it out there, and youve tried to pigeon hole that grievance into one of two things, either the obstruction of congress or abuse of power. Thats thats the problem that you have here. Is that youre all over the map because you cant deliver a crime. There is no high crime. There is no misdemeanor. Remember, Professor Carlin tried
to describe bribery, what the bribery might have been. It took her a full five minutes. And after she was done, we didnt hear anybody talk about bribery anymore as an impeachable offense. You talked about quid pro quo, and that was pretty much off the table until tonight is kind of revved back up again. But the bottom line is this. You dont have a specific charge so you use the two weak areas to go forward. So, i mean, youve been trying different avenues for three years now. And im reminded that one of my colleagues on the other side said you want trump to be something he isnt. And the reality is thats projection. The reality is you want to be something he isnt. Thats why you are trying to impeach him. Thats why youve tried all kinds of theories that have all
fallen flat. And the big one was the mueller impeachment. You really wanted that one. That didnt work so well. Didnt work so well because there was nothing there. I will Say Something about president zelensky and this discussion with the president. He himself, president zelensky, without instigation in this conversation at all, about yovanovitch said her attitude towards me was far from the best as she admired the previous president , and she was on his side. This is the anticorruption crusader you keep talking about. And then you talk about poroshenko, president poroshenko as being corrupt. And im not saying he was. But president zelensky said, yovanovitch was on his side. He would not accept me as a new president well enough. So the reason i bring that up is because youve repeatedly said there is nothing contested here. The facts are not contested. But i go back to something that i think is very important. All the inferences youve drawn have been designed to go against this president and paint him in the light least favorable. And thats because youve tried to project him into being something you want him to be. But when you look at the facts and the direct evidence, the direct evidence is real clear. Ukraine received the aid, provided nothing in return, and they stated president zelensky and Foreign Minister yermak said they felt no pressure, there was no pressure there. And even ambassador sondland who you relied on over 600 times in
your effort, said, hey, you know what, i dont have nobody in the world told me anything, i just presumed it. You dont have a case. Youve never had a case. Youve just wanted to have a case. And thats the sadness about it. Youre impeaching him because youve wanted to for three years. You cant beat him in a reelection, youre not going to beat him in a reelection so you had to go to impeachment. And that is a tragedy for america. I yield. The gentleman yields back. For our purposes. Move to strike the last word. The gentleman is recognized. Thank you, mr. Chair. And with much respect to my colleague who quoted James Madison, theres been this description of abuse of power as
amorphice and nebulous. And id offer you the following quote. Which is that liberty may be endangered by the abuse of liberty. But also by the abuse of power. That quote is from James Madison. The part of this debate that has been so frustrating for me, and i think for a lot of americans who are watching tonight, is the diminishment of the public servants, the patriots, who stepped forward and provided the evidence that demonstrates that this president abused his power. People like Lieutenant Colonel vindman who served this country bravely overseas. People like ambassador bill
taylor, a west point graduate, a vietnam veteran, people like dr. Fiona hill, people like laura cooper. Official after official after official from the trump administration. These individuals serve in the president s administration. Ambassador taylor was not appointed by President Obama. He was appointed by President Trump. So, i would hope that my colleagues, as we proceed with the solemn duty that this committee is charged with, that we respect the people who came forward, who have served in a republican and democratic administrations, to tell the truth under oath and to help this committee as it seeks to hold this administration
accountable. And with that i yield to ms. Lofgren from california. I thank you, mr. Neguse. I was just listening to this debate. And most of us here are lawyers. But the idea that the Founding Fathers in 1789 would be considering the u. S. Code president in the Mcconnell Case Precedent and the as precedent in 1789 is simply ridiculous. Mr. Neguse has pointed out what the Founding Fathers had in mind with the impeachment clause. We know that high crimes and misdemeanors is essentially actions that the president uses with the extraordinary power that hes been given under the constitution to subvert the Constitutional Order to prevent
the constitutional system from working. And that is the concern that we have here, not only that the president has done that, but that he is not contrite, he is not correcting his behavior, he is continuing to do it. Hes presenting an ongoing threat that he will continue to subvert the Constitutional Order. So i thank mr. Neguse for yielding to me on the idea that his court cases wouldve been precedent in 1789. I yield back. Mr. Neguse. Mr. Chair . I would yield the balance of my time to mr. Cicilline from rhode island. I just want to remind my colleagues we have introduced into the record a letter from 500 legal scholars that really reinforce the points that mr. Neguse just made. Impeachment is an especially remedy for conduct that corrupts elections. The primary check on the
president s power is political. If a president behaves poorly, he can be punished at the polls. But a president who corrupts the system of elections seeks to place himself beyond the reach of this political check at the Constitutional Convention george mason described impeachable offenses as attempts to subvert the constitution. By which the constitution makes the president democratically accountable. If a president cheats in his efforts at reelection trusting the democratic process to serve as a check through that election is no remedy at all. This is what impeachment is for. I ask my republican colleagues, how many of you would allow or solicit a foreign power to help in your reelections . Please raise your hands. Not one of you because you know it would violate the constitution. And you know it would corrupt the right of the American People to decide who will represent them in the congress of the United States. I was mayor of prove dense. It would be like if i got a federal grant of a Million Dollars to fight gang violence. A police chief called me and said where is that money . And i said before i send it over, do me a favor. Announce the investigation of my political arrival. Id be arrested on the spot. The gentlemans time has expired. For what purposes thank you. Mr. Chairman i move to strike the last word. No. You have already spoken on this amendment. Oh, i apologize. The question is now on the amendment. Those in favor say aye. Opposed no. The opinion of the chair the nays have it. The amendment is not agreed to. A Roll Call Vote has been requested. The clerk will call the roll. Mr. Nadler . Votes no. Ms. Lofgren . Ms. Lofgren votes no. Ms. Jackson lee . Ms. Jackson lee votes no. Mr. Cohen . Mr. Cohen votes no. Mr. Johnson of georgia . No. Mr. Johnson of georgia votes no. Mr. Deutch votes no. Ms. Bass votes no. Mr. Richmond
comparemela.com © 2020. All Rights Reserved.