Constitution gives the house the sole power of impeachment and the power to determine its own rules. When president nixon, during the time he was going to be impeached, the chairman of the rules committee, chairman mad n madden, actually spoke on the house floor and snouannounced t would be a rule on how that procedure would move forward. When clinton rules of impeachment were brought forward, there was unanimous request to kind of govern how we conducted ourselves. Im not sure how likely it would be that we would get a unanimous consent request. Id like to ask for unanimous consent without objection to enter into a record a letter written by the Judiciary Committee signed by seven people, including kevin mccarthy, the republican leader. The key line here is we will avail ourselves of every parliamentary tool available to us to highlight your inaction. Translated it means to try and delay to make this process as
impossible as it can be made. Im not sure, in light of this letter, that we could get a unanimous consent request with regard to these proceedings that break for a cup of coffee, never mind determine the rules of engagement. So i point that out. In terms of process, i just want to, again, state for the record, because i think its important, that i think the house is engaged in a fair impeachment process. Democrats and republicans have had equal opportunity to participate in the months along Impeachment Inquiry. Members of both parties have been involved in every stage of this process from sitting in and asking questions in closed door depositions to Questioning Witnesses in open hearings. The committees took more than a hundred hours of Deposition Testimony from 17 witnesses, held 17 public hearings, which included republicanrequested witnesses. They produced a 300page public report that laid out their findings in evidence. Jute dish the Judiciary Committee then took that report before completing two articles that were dealing with today. Mr. Trump was invited to participate in the Judiciary Committees review of evidence presented against him, as president clinton was during his Impeachment Inquiry. President trump chose not to participate. President trump to date has not provided any exculpatory evidence but instead has blocked numerous residences from testifying about his actions. And so i just thought it was important to point that out. Mr. Raskin, i saw you scribbling furiously while mr. Collins was testifying. I didnt know if there was something you wanted to respond to. Thank you, mr. Chairman, but my friend mr. Collins speaks very fast so its hard to keep up with everything he has to say. [ inaudible ] im from massachusetts and people say the same thing about my accent. You got to give me credit. That was as slow as youve ever heard me talk. You were making an effort in the beginning, and so was i. They accuse me of the same. He raises some really important points, and i have the chance to briefly address them. One thing weve been hearing is that we didnt charge crimes. In some sense that just duplicates a basic confusion people have about what the process is. We are not criminal prosecutors prosecuting a criminal defendant in court to send to jail. Thats not what were doing. Were members of congress. Were working to protect the country against a president who is committing high crimes and misdemeanors that is constitutional offenses against the people of the country. Now, lots of the conduct that we plead in our specific articles alleging abuse of power and obstruction of congress
themselves could become part of criminal indictments later on. But its been a curious thing for me to hear our colleagues across the aisle repeatedly make this point and kind of spread this confusion that there are not crimes in there when they were the very first ones to say and continue to say the Department Of Justice cannot prosecute the president. The president may not be indicted. The president may not be prosecuted while hes in office. Thats the position they take. They then cannot turn around and say, oh, and you cant impeach him because you havent charged him with any crimes and prosecuted him and indicted him. Heads i win, tails you lose is the essence of that argument. If you go back to the Richard Nixon case, we didnt have to see that nixon had been convicted of burglary in the District Of Columbia by ordering the breakin of the Watergate Hotel before he was charged with abuse of power pas a high crime and misdemeanor. Thats exactly what were charging President Trump. You didnt have to go out and
prove that he committed honorous Services Fraud or crimes, all the things he could be charged for, we could only look at the prosecute prosecution he was charged with. My friend said there were no Fact Witnesses. This was based on the report that was delivered to us by the House Committee on intelligence. Thats a play on words, too. There were 17 Fact Witnesses who appeared before the House Committee on intelligence, the House Oversight committee, and the House Foreign Affairs committee. The way we structured this impeachment process, which is completely at our prerogative under article i, section 2, clause 5, as you said, mr. Chairman, is to have the Fact Investigation into this affair which involved Foreign Governments and ambassadors and so on in the intelligence
committee, then to have them bring the facts in a comprehensive report to the house Judiciary Committee which would then make a decision about the law. Do all of these events rise to what we think is impeachable conduct, and of course, we did. So there are lots of Fact Witnesses. We also had the council for the House Intelligence Committee come in to deliver the report and defend the report, and All My Friends On The Other Side of the aisle had the chance to question, as we had the chance to question, when you say there were no Fact Witnesses, thats also a perfect description of what took place during the bill clinton impeachment. Because all of that took place as part of the independent counsel investigation by Kenneth Starr. There were closed door, secret depositions taking place there. Then Kenneth Starr came to deliver the report, and remember all the boxes of material they brought over in a uhaul truck and gave it to the judiciary
committee. Monica lewinsky did not testify before the house Judiciary Committee. There were not witnesses brought before the house Judiciary Committee, so were following the exact same pattern that i think took place there, except it was the House Of Representatives here which did its own Fact Investigation. Finall finally well, let me just say a word about the fairness of the process. We all know what they teach you in law school, which is if the facts are against you, you pound the law. If the laws are against you, you pound the facts. If the law and the facts are against you, you talk about process and you pound the table. Im afraid ive seen a little bit of that in the performance of our colleagues here. And i dont blame them because theyre dealing with the hand that they were dealt. We have 17 Fact Witnesses, and of all of their depositions, all of their testimony was
published, everybody can find it, and all of their testimony is essentially unrefuted and uncontradicted. It tells one story which is the president of the United States conducted a shakedown of a foreign power. He used 391 million that we in congress voted for a besieged, struggling democracy, ukraine, to defend itself against russia invasion and attack. To coerce the president of that Foreign Government, president zelensky, to get involved in our election campaign. What did he want him to do . Well, he wanted president zelensky to make an announcement on television that joe biden was being investigated. Now, what does that have to do with the Foreign Policy of the United States . What does it have to do with what congress voted for . What does it have to do with any legitimate interest of the u. S. Government . The other thing he wanted president zelensky to do was to
rehabilitate the completely discredited Conspiracy Theory that it was ukraine and not russia that had interfered in our election. Our entire intelligence community. The nsa, the cia, the fbi, the Senate Committee on intelligence issued a report about this. All of them say the same thing which is that it was russia that conducted what the Department Of Justice called a sweeping and Systematic Campaign against our election in 2016. Remember, mr. Chairman, they injected propaganda into our policy through social media, facebook and twitter and so on. They directly conducted cyber invasion and attack and espionage in the Democratic National committee. Ment they tried to get into our state board of elections. Thats what the president did. Now we have the president of the United States telling president zelensky if he wants the 391
million that we voted for him and that hes been certified by the Department Of Defense and Department Of State clearing every anticorruption screen that had been put in place and called for by congress. If he wants the money and he wants the white house meeting that he desperately wanted to show america was on ukraines side and not russias side, if he wanted to. Then he had to reiterate this discredited story of 2016. I yield back. Listening to some of the commentary and the news from some of the pundits, i think people need a lesson in constitutional law. Thats why its great youre here. Let me ask you a question because sometimes i think people dont understand. Why is impeachment in the constitution . Thats a great question. Mr. Collins invoked indirectly my favorite american revolutionary, tom payne, who wrote common sense and the age
of reason. He said you cant have one without the other. You need common sense of the people and you need people to be conducting rg things with why was he not ordained to win in any way . Because america was the first country in history born in a revolutionary struggle against monarchy. Against the very idea that you could have hereditary rule. Payne said a hereditary ruler is like a hereditary mathematician. The people have to decide on their own leaders. It was put in the constitution formed by british experience. There was an impeachment that parliament had, but it wasnt
just the king can do no wrong. Our Founding Fathers insisted impeachment should be in there, not for high crimes committed against the people, but for the president himself. The president is limited to a fixed salary which can be increased or decreased by congress, and he cant receive any other emoluments, any other payments. Hes effectively serve that go all of us are. If He Sdpent Faithful Physical execute the laws and hes physical. But he needs to be removed. Why is abuse of power an Impeachable Offense . Abuse of spour the essential r i put it above the law, above the constitutional law and above the foundaton. We want a president that would implement the laws, implement the Affordable Care act and implement environmental law. Have we seen evidence that the president tried to withhold aid to ukraine. Why is that an impeachable defense . Ly sdplz it basically implicates
every single one of the. And enforcing the rule of law. Two, it drags foreign powers into our election. That was something the frarmz were fehr fid about. There was a Great Exchange between adams and justin fwhp issue. Because we would be an open democracy, so people would try to exploit our openness by getting involved in our elections with their Foreign Government concerns. This is why the president needs a complete undivided loyalty with the American People and American Constitution and not drag Foreign Governments into our affairs. You have Everything Consumers were worried about wrapped up in one bundle here, and that is
involving Foreign Governments in our elections, placing the husbands interests over Everything Else, and acceptably threatening the rule of the people in dmok raet approximate. Kbr is it significant that approximate President Trump. Our colleagues have zeroed in on the fact that some of the witnesses said, of course there was a quid pro quo. The president was not going to release the aid, he was not going to have a meeting until he got whatever he wanted. When the staff was asked, they said, yes, we do. The president basically said, this is how we proceed. Get used to it. There are always quid pro quo involved in Foreign Policy. In other words, its legit to say to a Foreign Government, we will give you this aid if you comply all the aid is being used in the proper way. We will give you this assistance if you attend these conferences and meeting with us to make sure the assistance is being used properly and so on. There is nothing wrong with that, but look what happened here. This was an arrangement where the president conditioned all of this foreign assistance that we had sent 200 million to the Department Of Defense, 191 million to the Department Of State to help ukraine defend itself against russia. Many but what he w but what he was holding out to was the ukranian interference in our election to hold his political opponent. I think they have. The f. There were wrnsz who were willing to come forward and ask what happened. Was the president s call with president zelensky perfect, as the president has said, and was it appropriate for him to ask another country to investigate an American Citizen . There was nothing wrong with the call. The problem im having is with the last 15 minutes of this. Great oratory that mean nothing to the impeachment. Were getting to the bottom line here, and honestly, let him ask his question, ill get back to it later, because everything thrown out here is everything weve had in this discussion. Weve just proven the facts. We talked about the law. I can yell and talk about them. This is the very problem we have and ill just address one thing. I dont give a damn. Im looking at the president in the transcript saying, i would like you to do us a favor, though. Do you think it was a perfect call . Lieutenant bvindman said it was appropriate for him to ask for the call. He said whatever was asked, whatever the u. S. Policy was to ask a foreign leader to open an investigation. The president was certainly within his right to do that. Do you think it was right to question a u. S. Citizen like that . No, it was not. Everything about the hearings, i think every Single Member of congress who at least has endorsed the Impeachment Inquiry has said its completely wrong for the u. S. President to use any of the means at his disposal to drag Foreign Governments into
our election, and we were unable to get our colleagues to weigh in on that saying, lets assume that you think, lets stipulate that you think the president did nothing wrong here. Do you think its wrong for the president of the United States to get foreign powers involved in our election and we couldnt get an answer . I reissued the invitation to mr. Collins, because i believe in his heart he thinks thats wrong. And i certainly would not want that to become the pattern for all future presidencies. I dont want this to become the pattern for future impeachments. I think this is the problem i have. The understanding here is i guess its okay, though, to get involved in a 2016 election when you pay a third party to go pay for a dossier. These are the kind of things we can talk about, but the interesting issue that is discussed here is exactly where we are right now, in a question and comment. Because what mr. Raskin just brought up is an interesting point. Is it okay if youre running for president that you cant be investigated . Even if you did something
overseas. So if youre running for president and you did something overseas, it would be off limits according to mr. Raskins argument for the United States government to investigate that. Thats the argument he just set up. I think you need to be very careful with that argument. Again, i mentioned this in my Opening Statement. The frustrating thing is what seems so obvious to so many of us about improper behavior, we cant even get i look at our former colleague charlie dent. He was absolutely exhausted by the president s behavior. Another colleague of ours, david jolly, quote, were witnessing an impeachable moment. Congressman of washington said, certainly there was some type of quid pro quo. Former South Carolina republican bob english who served on the Judiciary Committee during the clinton impeachment said last month in a tweet, without a doubt. If barack obama had done the
things revealed in the testimony, we republicans would have impeached him. Former republican for florida said Everybody Knows donald trump was asking for dirt on joe biden in exchange for releasing military funds. I know you want to respond, mr. Raskin . I would be delighted to. I was just passed a note saying i may have the numbers wrong. The defense had a 250 million appropriationed for the purposes of aiding ukraine. Its 140 million. I may have misspoken. Again, i feel for my friends because i think theyre put into a situation, put into a box, so to speak, which is what President Trump was quoted as saying what he wanted to do with president zelensky. He wanted him in a box about these statements. But i think theyre put into something of a corner here because the president has
declared his conduct perfect, absolutely perfect, and he can do whatever he wants. So theyre unable to say to make the case that i would make if i were to try to defend the president. I would say, that was totally wrong but its not impeachable for x, y and z reasons. But theyre not allowing anybody to say it. They must go with the president s assertion that this was categorically correct. There was nothing wrong with it, it was perfectly right. He invoked legal scholars who told him the call was perfect as well. I want to move my questioning along here a little bit, so let me ask you on the issue of obstruction of congress. Why is obstruction of congress an Impeachable Offense . Look, this is something that mr. Collins made a really important point which is we have got to think about this in institutional terms, okay . He rightly calls us to redouble our commitment to fairness in the process. Ive seen lots of fairness in
this process. Ive seen in the closed door depositions, i saw the democratic counsel get an hour, i saw the republican counsel get an hour, i saw them all questioning, i saw them bend over backwards to get all the depositions out as quickly as possible while the president of the United States is stopping at least seven witnesses from coming forward. It may be more than that, but he has blockaded witnesses. The president who says the process is unfair is the one who is stopping everybody from coming to testify. And is essentially trying to blockade the whole investigation. Look, why is this essential, mr. Chairman . Its essential because for institutional reasons. Its essential for institutional reasons, because in the future it might be a majority democratic congress, it might be a majority republican congress, but in any event, its congress. And one of our jobs as members of congress is to make sure the
president does not violate the laws. Were supposed to stand sentinel to make sure the president will only enforce the laws, take care that the laws are executed. What happens if you get a president who totally trashes the law . Some of us think we may be there now, but certainly you can imagine where the president has contempt for the law and trashes the law. What is the result of that . Its going to be impeachment. Thats why its in the constitution. Now we have a president who for the first time in American History says, im going to try to block the ability of congress to impeach me by not turning over one single document, by trying to hold back people from testifying like secretary pompeo, like Chief Of Staff mick mulvaney, like multiple other members of the administration. I dont want them to come forward to testify. So well have to use common
sense to figure out what that means. What does common sense tell us when you have all these other people coming forward and testifying about the misconduct of the president , and then the president trying to block everybody else from coming forward to testify in hiS Administration . Let me just point out for the record, weve requested several documents and testimony from members of thiS Administration, and what has the president S Administration done in response . Nothing. I think its important for people to understand just for the record, request for documents from the state department, ignored. Request for documents from the Department Of Defense, ignored. Request for documents from the Vice President , ignored. Request for documents from giuliani associate lev parnas, ignored. Request for documents from igor fruman, ignored. Request for documents from the white house, ignored. Request for documents from rudy giuliani, the president s lawyer, ignored. Request for documents from john bolton, ignored. Request for testimony from white house chief mick mulvaney, ignored. The red marks are basically that demonstrate noncompliance, that they were ignored. I think this is what you would call obstruction, plain and simple. In fact, the only people that have complied with our request have been patriotic servants, many of them denying orders that they dont comply. What presumptions should we make when the president prevents witnesses from complying with congressional subpoenas . Lets use our common sense. People who have exculpatory evidence, which is a fancy way of saying evidence that shows their innocence, want the court to see the evidence. People who have evidence that demonstrates their innocence would bring that to congress. People who have evidence which they think may be inculpatory, people who have evidence that may lead people to believe in their guilt, may try to keep it away. You just made a profoundly
important point, mr. Chairman, which links article i and article ii, the impeachment articles. Do we want to set a precedent that u. S. Citizens can become president of the United States by inviting foreign powers to get involved in our election, then once theyre in, if congress decides that their conduct is impeachable and involves high crimes and merchandise, they can then pull a curtain down over the Executive Branch and not allow any investigation, not allow subpoenas to be honored and so on. That is a very dangerous prospect that would have terrified and horrified and shocked the framers of our constitution. Do you have im about to yield to my Ranking Member who has lots and lots of questions. I do want to take a moment. I think its important that we remember this. I want to remind everybody why
were here today. The president abused the power of his office for his own personal gain and obstructed a congressional investigation to look into that conduct. How did he do that . He withheld aid from a country under siege by russia to raise help for his political campaign. The president s abuse of power have endangered our free elections and National Security remains an ongoing threat to them both. He showed us a pattern of inviting foreign interference into our elections and tried to cover it up twice, and hes threatened to do it again. With the 2020 elections fast approaching, we must act with a sense of urgency to protect our democracy to defend our constitution. On our first day as members of congress, we took an oath to support and defend the constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic. I did not swear allegiance to a political party, i swore allegiance to the constitution, and i hope all my colleagues would do the same. With that i yield to the Ranking Member for any questions he may
have. Thanks a lot, mr. Chairman, and youre right, i do have a lot of questions. I appreciate your forbearance. Im very liberal. Yes, you are. In this sense in the finest sense of the word. I appreciate it. To my friend mr. Raskin, a number of my questions have been crafted or were originally crafted for Chairman Nadler. You mayor may not be able to answer those directly. We certainly understand why hes not here, and as the chamirman said, we sympathize with him in a difficult time, but we still think theyre important for the record. I want to sort of highlight that for you. Mr. Chairman, i asked unanimous consent to enter into the record a document entitled, quote, how we resist trump, unquote, offered by jerry nadler and posted on www. Jerrynadler. Com on november 16 of 2016. Without objection. Thank you, mr. Chairman. In this document, Chairman Nadler wrote, quote, we cannot wait four years to vote mr. Trump out of office, so we must do everything we can to stop trump and his extreme agenda now, unquote. Mr. Raskin, on august 8, Chairman Nadler stated with respect to the Judiciary Committees hearing regarding the Mueller Report, quote, this is a formal Impeachment Proceedings, unquote. But the house did not actually authorize Impeachment Proceedings until the adoption of hres660 on october 31st. I believe its important to clarify for the record when formal Impeachment Proceedings actually started. Is Chairman Nadler correct when he said they started on august 8 or was it when the house authorized them on october 31st . Forgive me, mr. Cole, i was not prepared to answer that question, but i think the
Judiciary Committee has taken formal positions which we can track about this question. I would just direct you to, again, article i, section 2, clause 5. The House Of Representatives is the sole power of impeachment and can design and structure impeachment as it sees fit. Mr. Cole, not without house rules, they cant. Not that it gets authority to go outside house rules. Thats the problem here, were going outside house rules. When a counsel has not been here forever, thats what happens here. They went outside house rules. Thats the problem i would have and we can discuss this more in depth. I have reason to suggest this has been going on longer than these proceedings. In 1998 during the clinton Impeachment Proceedings, Chairman Nadler stated in the house Judiciary Committee that, quote, there must never be a
narrowly voted impeachment or an impeachment supported by one of our Major Political parties and opposed by another. Such an impeachment will produce divisiveness and bitterness in politics for years to come and will call into question the very legitimacy of our political institution. Do you believe that this impeachment, which is supported by only one political party, has produced bitterness in the current Political Climate . Again, im going to have to allow Chairman Nadler to speak for his own words. I certainly understand that. Look, theres been a lot of bitterness and division in our country for several years now preceding any Impeachment Proceedings, and its a sad thing, and i hope that everybody rallies around the constitution, because its the constitution that will get us through this difficult time in our history. Let me just say about the
clinton impeachment. So the conduct that president clinton was charged with, which was he hadnt been convicted or prosecuted for perjury, but he was essentially charged with perjuring himself in describing private conduct, a sexual affair. And the conduct that were looking at today goes right to the heart of why impeachment is in the constitution. Impeachment is in the constitution because of public offenses by political leaders against democracy itself. So i think you cannot compare what president clinton was impeached for by the House Of Representatives, and i hold no brief for his conduct in any way, but i dont think you can compare that to the massive overwhelming and unrefuted evidence we have that the president of the United States today has tried to drag a foreign power into our elections to his own political advantage. That wasnt exactly the
question i asked, but let me turn to mr. Collins and see if you agree with mr. Raskin, if there was anything you would disagree with there and whats been the impact of this process on domestic politics of the country, since it has been essentially partisan in nature . Ill cut some slack that he was trying to answer the chairmans own words, and i get that. Lets just talk here for just a minute. Lets unpack what has happened here, because the only thing i appreciate, really, out of the whole last few minutes was the chairman trying to bring it in about impeachment. I agree with him on that point that this is about impeachment. What i disagree with is its not about abuse of power, its not about anything else, and it would be a lot better for the majority if they did not have a long history, a Written Record this is something you love to see in the law because its a Written Record of motive. Youve seen it since the day he was elected. Youve seen it in this whole process working out. You saw it last year when the chairman ran for the job because he would be the best for impeachment. What was hanging out last year for impeachment . The Mueller Report didnt give them everything they wanted. This is a pattern. Look, ive said this to my chairman, but youve got the votes. Youve got the votes, explain it to the American People. Talk about inflicting an election, this is what were looking at. There are a few things here, though, that are interesting. As i said early on, time and clock are terrible masters. Ive heard it from this chairman, my chairman and others, weve got to do this before the 2020 election. Put up a Candidate Worth Voting for instead of going up against a president with Everything Else going good, good economy and raall that. I still never got an answer to
my question i asked a few minutes ago that you can run for president and do whatever you want overseas and not be investigated for it. I havent gotten that answered. The chairman knows and also my chairman knows because my chairman likes subpoenas. He likes to threaten them, anyway. But the secretary of defense responded. He said it was open to negotiation. Secretary of state said the document was part of that. And the document we did get from the Intelligence Committee had omb records from the Budget Committee in it. There are questions ive had all year in this. If you didnt receive a letter, as we have done in the past when were under the majority of President Obama, President Obama in fast and furious, it seems to me the majority discovered that we dont play well in the sandbox. This is not a shock for those in the obama administration. We saw it over and over. I was on oversight my first two
years here. We pulled our hair out with this. We had Everything Else and we were constantly being stonewalled and stopped, had to actually issue subpoenas which finally the courts did rule, ask youll think this is your problem. The courts ruled many years later that Attorney General holder did violate not giving the information out, and that was actually done. It was many years later, and again, your clock can cand cale is a terrible master, but you promised it. The other thing is we talk about fairness here. My friend said, oh, this has been completely fair. Nobody is questioning the fact that our folks got to question the witness. Nobody is questioning that fact. But what about the fact of the majority preventing witnesses under rules from using Agency Counsel even under the auspices of an impeachment process. How about cutting off questions and authorizing someone from answering questions, you
actually withdrew from the lawsuit. Again, its not a matter of facts here, its not a matter of time. When we go back to it, i repeat this over and over again, put pressure on world leader. This pressure is amazing me because the guy who was supposed to be pressured denied it ever happened. On multiple occasions. One of his own members of the cabinet said we never talked about conditionality of aid. The only times they talked about this outside of presumption and hearsay, their main witness said it on presumption. When he asked the president straight up what he wanted, he said, i want nothing. Thats all he did. So its presumption hearsay. And granted, this is not a court of law because, believe me, this would have been over a long time ago. The rules have allowed it to get to this place because Majority Rules in this place. But heres the problem. The Separation Issue is sad because after the president of ukraine has denied it and denied it and denied it, youre either calling him a pathological liar, a world leader a battered wife he was called in our Committee Last week. He was actually called that. Compared to a battered wife. How low have we sunk . This is the problem. Because at the end of the day, and we can go into process files, we can go into Everything Else, but you know something, i dont say its a mistake but i took my own chairman at his word when i read about his comments from 20 years ago when he said the Judiciary Committee should never take a report if a third party and not try to investigate it as so. Otherwise weve become a rubber stamp. Congratulations. Our Judiciary Committee became a rubber stamp. I hope we recover, because thats all were doing now is
rubber stamping adam schiff. He would not come and testify. Thats the most amazing thing to me in this whole process. I can understand why mr. Ras ki is eloquent about why we have impeachment, lets cut to the chase. You dont like the guy. When you talk about pressure on a foreign power to do something for you personally or to even get to that remotely, wryoure having to change words in the transcript. You have to change the facts. The last time i checked, this country is not real kind to those who are a kupsd, having those who are empowered change the rules to fit the game. Thats not due process. Im going to go back over it because the chairman said, there are four facts that will never change. It goes straight to the heart of
anything said outside abuse of power. There is no President Trump or president zelensky. Mr. Sondland, after he got past his perfect Opening Statement when questioned said, thats what i presumed it to be. When he actually talked to the president of the United States, he said, no, all i want is to do my job, nothing else. When i had a conversation with mr. Yermak, mr. Yermak said there was no conditionality. So how can you trust mr. Sondland when everything changed . Even carl vindman who i respect as a soldier actually said, when the question was asked, is it okay to have this call . He said, yes, its okay because it happens. He even said that. The question came back that you
asked. Is this the first partisan impeachment in the country . Yes. Has the president gotten votes from a Minority Party before . There was a question about that years ago but thats because they set him up with the law. In march of this year, Speaker Pelosi said an impeachment must be, quote, compelling and overwhelmingly bipartisan. Democrats voted to authorize the Impeachment Inquiry, and it appears there will be bipartisan opposition to the articles. Ranking member, given all that, do you believe res 855 comports to the standards set by the speaker herself . No, it doesnt even come
close. Do you believe beating an arbitrary deadline with a democratic majority than bringing a vital case if, in fact, there is impeachment . Those are my own words. There are pwas a pause place the aid for ukraine. Less than two months, i believe. The democrats have come up with a motive or meaning for this pause. Was the aid ultimately released . Yes. Do you believe the Taxpayer Dollars of the American People were well served by the pause . They were. In fact, the president himself, not policymakers, not administrative officials in different offices are the ones who made the president s decision. And he made the call. Is it unusual for an aide to be paused on by a chief
executi executive . No. Did the Democratic Department come into quid pro quo with the iranian controversy . No. Has anyone in the Trump Administration been convicted of a crime related to the claim . No. Let me continue. Its my understanding that the majority properly exercised the cause to j1 of rule 11 to demand a minority hearing. Is that the case . That is correct. What day did you ask for that hearing . I asked the first time. I dont have the dates in front of me. I have them right in front of me so ill be happy to provide that. In a long letter, we were told it was dilatory. Ive not heard it called dilatory. On the first day, a request could have been made. Are you familiar with this they must have one day for their own hearings if the majority members make their demand before the Committee Hearings gavel is closed. I believe mr. Collins invoked that at our hearing. So you are familiar with that . I wasnt aware of it before that. Majorities poelsed by the website in a document entitled house rules that govern the political process, end quote. They reportedly told their requests to nadler before. Chairman mcgovern, i ask unanimous consent this this memo be made part of the record. I will note that the memo states in part that a Point Of Order may lie against reported measure in which the minoritys demand for a hearing was rejected. Objection noted. I also refer in the record our response to Kwour Lettyour Lett can talk about that afterward. Chairman nadler overruled the Ranking Members Point Of Order, and determined that the rule requires that the normal hearing day would permit the minority to improperly delay proceedings. Were you improperly trying to delay proceedings, mr. Collins . No, in this hearing i actually follow a proper set of
rules. Again, you made your request on the very first day of this hearing. Corre correct. There is a minority Hearing Fort Impeachment of President Trump. My colleagues claim that the legislative history of the rules suggested that it was designed as a backstop to ensure the minority gets at least one witness at a hearing. I do not find that reason to be compelling. While traditionally its been used as a Negotiating Point between the majority and minority regarding the number of witnesses, the mere fact a minority has a witness to the hearing does not mean that there is an implicit waiver of the right to demand a minority day
hearing. There are times in which the minority waives the right for a majority hearing. For instance, we waived that right to a minority day hearing in order to secure two more witnesses. Mr. Collins, at any time did you waive your rights to rule j1, rule 11. No, i did not. I believe thats why were here today. Did you provide a a second witness in exchange for waiving your rights for a minority day hearing . My colleague on the other side of the aisle produced chld t a minimum safe sts guard doop p. Perhaps in 1996 when the majority was willing to provide
witnesses to the minority. That Wasnt The Case today. Witnesses were a lot of time in this case, but not witnesses. In other words, we didnt get anything in exchange for our rights being exercised. And it doesnt render meaningless the we think its very pornlimportant. I would actually suggest this for a Point Of Order. Mr. Nadler is not ready to appoint the hearing day before an active committee. Youve got to be kidding. In other words, we cannot agree that the house intended that the right for the minority hearing day can be fulfilled by scheduling a hearing on a measure after the measure is voted out of the full committee. That doesnt make any sense. So, mr. Collins, presuming
passage of these articles of impeachment, isnt a hearing day now irrelevant . I believe it is. I believe thats kpr vrnen the skej mild nort committee. We agree it would have been and the American People just to have the hearings. Its just one day. I learned it the other day when mr. Collins raised it. I looked at the rule and the rule does say that the chair of the committee is not required to schedule the minority hearing as a Condition Precedent to the continuing course of legislative action. For my first term year, i feel
your exaspiration of that, that this may not be passed before majority rule. I appreciate that. I appreciate the sentiment behind it because i know its sincere. Again, i can go on and on on this. But we do believe, mr. Chairman, theres a violation. While we appreciate your letter very much, it was very respectful, we tried to make ours respectful when we made the request. It was. For us the facts are clear. Chairman nadler ignored the right of the minority committee, who is being ignored by the democratic p did hely. Ly he was waived by all on the bill and the adoption on the house floor. After the drafting of 660 and before the Judiciary Committees hearing on that resolution,
Ranking Member collins wrote seven letters to Chairman Nadler considering impeachment. On september 12, he wrote a letter concerning how they conducted the depositions. He wrote that they should be prioritized in the current in addition ler regarding the predictable act. He wrote nadler saying he had received all documents pursuant, and as the company procedures. On november 30th, Aly Pefrlments asking for a balanced paddle and
economic position to open up about a hearing. On december 2nd, he wrote the letters he had sent to questions that were never answered. And on december third, he wrote Chairman Nadler reminding him of his recent letters, requesting the Judiciary Committee provide the p. Its my information that Chairman Nadler never responded to these requests. The aforementioned John Hamilton is a pro tlisk letter writer frchlt, but, of course,
were all together on a daily basisly. I just want to note for the record that when we did send a letter from my chairman, he did respond t. And this was very true, we gomt. Were you skl. He told me it was too late and he could add it. I appreciate the chairman was under a lot of pressure at that time. I do, too. Thats true of all of us, but this committee does in the sense of. Mr. Collins rpgs. It transmitted youmpl kl did
they rely on hearsay to assert their assertion . Yes. What was done when it was noted that the evidence was not evidence . The phone call to start with, but he didnt provide any because he didnt come testify to my committee. Did you ask Chairman Nadler to invite chairman schiff to come testify . I did. Judges just to be clear, you were asked to vote on articles of impeachment based on a report of unsubstantiated allegations and hearsay. And you were not permitted to ask the officer of the court if there were any questions. Thaerm. Yoully itd with dharm slif. Titanium. Its a made for television movie. We also note for the record, and ill ask you, mr. Kocollins. Usually the Historic Committee is the committee for intelligence. Doesnt it have any counsel there . Somewhere along the line. There is a difference between Window Dressing and substance. When you dont even ask the author of the report on which impeachment is based. In the past we always had representation. The president was there, he could ask questions. But the mine place and you were not. You are giving us the crux of the whole problem. By the time this got to committee, the train was past the station, they just had to run to catch up to it. It was already decided what they wanted to do. So here it is, and ive heard this argument you can window dress this in any way, whatever you think of it, the only place it truly provided the opportunity for fairness for the president and the administration of in the Judiciary Committee. Because at that point in time, they would have been able to i asked for witnesses, by the way, which were turned down. There is no way, and i dont care how much the majority
pretties this up. There is no way you can call in two house members, two staffers, and thats the only opportunity you have for the president to question and get anything out of them. But i have heard, if hes innocent, he can come prove it. When is that ever part of what we should be doing here . Really . I dont think any of my civil libertarians in the democratic aisle have to be lying awake going, how can i be associated with this . There is a way to do it fairly and there is a way to get the results, because they still outnumber us and theyve been trying to do this for three years. Sdp mr. Raskin, have you had any conversation with chairman schiff about the contents of the report . Im sure i have, yes. Really. Because nobody on our side had any conversation. To your knowledge, did Chairman Nadler have any conversation with chairman schiff about the contents of the report. Oh, im sure. When you say the contents of the report, you mean the substance of whats in the report. Yeah. None of our people have had that opportunity. As a committee, weve been talking about the substance of it for a long time now. Well, weve been talking about the substance of the report. We didnt have an opportunity to question the person who authored the report. Oh, i see what you mine. Formally or nfinformally, toy knowledge. Again, the counsel for the Intelligence Committee came over to discuss all of the factual findings that were in the Intelligence Committees report. By the way, a fact witness as well in many ways. If i could respond to this general line of attack, House Resolution 660 had a number of