Allies harm his political opponents and gain and proper personal political advantages and explain in this article the beach but the House Judiciary Committee then stated that President Nixon's cond was undertaken for his personal political advantage and not the father month of any valid national policy objective the president abused his fower and to me and at least the members on this side of the Dias that matters and with that I yield the remaining time to Mr Richmond Louisiana thank you Mr Chairman very quickly I just want to Cedric Richmond a Democrat of Louisiana people watching that when you look at the credibility of a. Testimony and weighing the evidence you can look at other things I want to enter into the record unanimous consent the Guardian article Roger Stone the Michael coin the men and trumps are being implicated in crimes. C.n.n. Politics 6 Trump associated Trump associates have been convicted in Mala related investigation. Was grandmother who said Birds of a feather flock together. And then also President Trump has made $13435.00 false on misleading claims over $996.00 during that objection of the gentleman's time has expired. For purposes of Jackson we seek recognition to strike the last word in ways we're going to sharing thank you and I want to see Sheila Jackson Lee Democrat of Texas. Calls for. The. Acknowledgement that the aid was released in the. Article. First article I believe. And. I want to again recount. Not only the July 25th call where previously I indicated. The president's language that we are asked like you to do us a favor though that that was not tie to the. Us representing the into t. Of a public representation which would be the United States of America established foreign policy by the secretary of state established foreign policy by the secretary of defense and that is because of course the secretary of defense and state had already certified that Ukraine was working to graduate to. Working to ensure the end of corruption that had met the standards that were required for funding the other thing is that when a tenant Colonel Venkman thought that the words that he heard were appalling and seemed to him to be inappropriate for a call to the president. As relates to a question of timing the military a to investigation Biden and others sons and others not official policy he merely gave it to the n.s.c. Counsel John Eisenberg John Eisenberg took the information and then ultimately put it in a separate coded filing and asked that the lieutenant colonel not say anything about it. That is unusual because you would think that if it was normal business if it had to do with standard u.s. Foreign policy you'd be Ok to talk about that call but they knew a major mistake had been made they knew that the president had offered to give military aid if he got an investigation against his political rival and his political rival happened to be Joe Biden and he knew that that was in fact conspicuously using public office and public money for public and private desires let me also say that our friends talk about the courts we have not shied away from the courts in fact Judge Howell all regarding the 60 grand jury materials pacifically said that there is an impeachment inquiry you can't stand in the way Mr President Judge Jackson indicated in her decision that the president was not a king and so we're here to talk about not as a mother someone's child who may have some concerns like every American child may have. Which I am saddened that those personal matters are raise we're here to talk about the abuse of this president and the obstruction of Congress another amendment that we voted against because in Rodino statement during the Nixon proceedings he made it very clear to President Nixon regarding his failure to comply with subpoenas issued pursuant to the Watergate impeachment inquiry and the Constitution reinforces the fact that we have the sole power of impeachment and the underlying decisions of the 2 court decisions I mentioned was that we were in an impeachment inquiry and as a reminder to my colleagues this committee ultimately approved an article of impeachment against read Richard Nixon on the obstruction of Congress matter I wanted to clean up and bring some more points on that and it was clear that it was a case where the president cannot dictate to the House impeachment inquiry what he was refusing to give are not this is where my friends steer off the rails they refuse to acknowledge the facts of the case the president took public money with a public intent with a private intent to use those monies to deny it to the Linsky who was going to go ahead and announce investigations on c.n.n. But was stopped in his tracks when the whistle blew up whistle blowers letter or statement was released it was out the bag that the president had done this on the July 25th call let's be clear this is about facts and the Constitution are your back and the chairman and the way he yields backward purposelessness big. Thank you Mr Chairman it's in John I've been sitting here only strike us we're yes scuse me I'm going to say like rats were I've been anxiously sitting here all day long Democrat Lisa Macbeth of Georgia to say this to the American people before our day ends today. My colleagues and I have been explaining the evidence that we've heard we've been talking about all the documents and heard from so many witnesses along the way and as we've been hold as we have been upholding our constitutional obligation to defend the Constitution some today have argued that we have not upheld our constitutional obligation to legislate to solve problems and that all we want to do is I'm peach the president of the United States and I truly want to assure the American people and to give you hope that this is not true I want to make sure that we set the record straight so that you know that we have been working on your behalf and despite what many people in this country think Congress can walk and chew gum at the same time this Congress has been working very very hard on behalf of the American people in spite of everything that's happening with this impeachment this very day our bill we passed a bill that lowers the cost of prescription drugs for hundreds of millions of Americans h.r. $3.00 it will save our taxpayers over $456000000000.00 over the next decade and allow for the expansion of Medicare coverage including here in dental and vision benefits just this week we achieved Montu monumental changes to the u.s. Mexico Canada Canada trade agreement yes we've been waiting a very long time for that this agreement is huge it's a huge win for our families our workers and business owners in every district across the United States and we continue to work to make sure that we stay competitive in a global environment yesterday we voted to support. The n.d.a. Legislation that will keep our country safe and will give a raise to our service members and includes important reforms like paper and Aleve for all federal employees and repealing the Wiggles tax and even on this committee we've worked together this week my Republican colleague Congressman Rush and Talen I were among a bipartisan group of lawmakers who introduced legislation that would end all mine child exploitation since we've been sitting in this room today a deal has been forged by our colleagues to fund our government and avoid another shutdown. Throughout this investigation my colleagues and I have been fulfilling our duties as members of Congress do not be deceived we have been working on the American public's behalf every single day in spite of the tragedy that we are in now with this impeachment this Congress the House of Representatives we have passed over 275 bills 275 bills and we are defending our democracy and delivering on the promises that we made to each and every one of our constituents I want to American public to know this we are truly disheartened by what is happening here with impeachment but do know that we are working on your behalf each and every single day we will continue to do what we swore an oath to do and that is to protect and serve you even in this moment in this tragedy. Be rest assured we will do just that now yield back the balance of my time gentle lady is back what purpose does Mr Ranson see with you nation moved like the last word gentleman is recognized thank you very much Mr Chairman you know in Jamie Raskin a Democrat of Maryland to try to take the best arguments of their opponents and not the worst arguments and so I'm going to ignore all of the frivolous process objections about the rooms and the temperature and all that kind of stuff we've heard about and I'm going to try to make what I think is the the best argument to reconstruct the best argument that's come out today and I understand that our colleagues face a difficult task because 70 percent of the American people believe that the president has done something wrong in these actions of trying to pressure a foreign government to get involved in our election and so they've got a problem there and they've got another problem which is that there is an overwhelming an un contradicted body of evidence that the president did that the president withheld hundreds of millions of dollars in security assistance that we had voted for a besieged for an hour I resist doing Russian aggression. Because he was trying to get the president of that country's a Lansky to agree to conduct a press conference in which he would say he was investigating the Bidens and he also wanted. President Zelinsky to validate that Amir Putin's favorite dissin from Asian conspiracy theory about the 2016 campaign which is that it was Ukraine and not Russia that engaged in a sweeping and systematic campaign to interfere in our election so what do you do with that well I think we can understand why they've been talking about process for months but I think they understand this is a serious investigation which is rigorous methods and serious inescapable conclusions and the American people are focused on it a majority not only support investigation the majority would like to see the president impeached according to Fox News anyway one points up in any event huge numbers of Americans are very disturbed by this so what if they come up with well they've not found an alibi there's no fact alibi he can't claim somebody else did it but they've come up with a defense which to me looks like really a mitigating factor a plea for mercy the president did all of these things but his motive is misunderstood all of us think that he was doing it because he wanted to advance his own reelection prospects and in some sense he wanted to help for whatever reason his friend Vladimir Putin and Putin's already been on t.v. Bragging about the fact that everybody's focused on Ukraine in the 2016 election not Russia. Note to Mr Putin that's not right we understand exactly what's going on here but in any event. The. New argument is that the president was not trying to advance his own political interests what he was trying to do was to advance his passionately held and yet little known campaign against corruption and that's why so much of our discussion today has been about corruption because they're trying to say he was waging this campaign about corruption now we've noted a number of problems there and I want to just try to catalog some of the other ones to try to put this in the same order so people can understand the problem with their best argument the 1st is that the president never raised the word corruption on the July 25th telephone call Biden's name was mentioned several times it wasn't corruption corruption corruption it was Biden Biden Biden. And he never raised any other companies that Aung it was all about brás Manhunter Biden's company that's all that he mentioned and as far as we know he's never mentioned any other company in connection with corruption in Ukraine in $21718.00 when Congress voted money for Ukraine the president passed along he didn't raise corruption Ukraine he didn't even raise the Bidens at that point it only became an issue in 2019 in 200-1000 why because Joe Biden had surpassed him in the public opinion polls and now suddenly it was a big issue and so he cared about it well. What's the other evidence here the president's team Rudy Giuliani and Parnassum Froome in engage in a smear campaign against the u.s. Ambassador who was crusading against corruption in Ukraine and the president got her out of the way he pulled her back so all the evidence shows they were promoting corruption and a corrupt scheme they were trying to attack you know your back Mr Chairman Jeremy yields in that chairman who seeks regulation. What purposes are generally the recognition think you Mr Chairman I move to strike the last word. And briefly Mr Chairman and Mrs Republican Debbie Lesko of Arizona. I didn't name was used multiple times well I think that's a little misleading again the only place in this whole telephone call where Biden is even brought up is in one little paragraph and that is I'm page 4 of 5 pages of the transcript I mean most of this call was about congratulating President Selenski in the new parliament talking about how you know a lot of these European countries aren't pitching in with the aid that was to Ukraine as much as the United States has and you know all kinds of things it was a long phone call and it's really disingenuous to say that the whole thing was about this and by then was it was mentioned several times let me read it again in fact I know that the President Trump tweets this out read the transcript and I which wish people would because everybody watches t.v. And they get all these comments but I did this with my husband I said Would you just please read the transcript it's only 5 pages long doesn't take about much time and you know after he read it it's like that's it that's all they got. But here this is the mention about Biden again page 5 The other thing there's a lot of talk about Biden's son that Biden stopped the prosecution and a lot of people want to find out about that so whatever you can do with the attorney general would be great for Biden went around bragging that he stopped the prosecution so if you can look into it it sounds horrible to me that's it folks that's all there is so Mr Chairman I yield back. Generally he yells back the question now occurs on the amendment it was a favor say aye those no no if you knew the chair those have it the amendment is not agreed to it was requested. Mr nobbler No Mr Not Ok so about half hours into today's hearing to Makkah n.p.r. Political reporter they have just decided to vote on what the 3rd of 7 amendments to the articles of impeachment that's right now they're trying to use this amendment to make the point that there is a alternative rationale for why the president released the 8 Democrats have argued that the president only released the aid to Ukraine because he was caught that there was this whistleblower complaint circulating within the intelligence community and there were starting to be news reports suggesting that the president had withheld military aid for political purposes now Republicans have said and are trying to say through this amendment that the aide was released after the president of Ukraine signed 2 major anti-corruption measures into law they're trying to say that President Trump saw this realized that the government of Ukraine was serious about Kruschen and then release the military aid this is all kind of behind their argument that the president was generally and genuinely interested in corruption in Ukraine rich and large which is why he withheld aid to begin with Kelsey Snell n.p.r. Congressional correspondent on Capitol Hill right now Kelsi after this vote and presumably the Republicans will lose this vote because they're a minority on this committee and it seems to be that the votes are going along party lines after this vote what happens well there could be even more amendments from Republicans they have said that they are willing to continue fighting Democrats on this point until late in the evening we've mentioned this before but there is a party tonight at the White House that many Republicans want to get to and no they are threatening to kind of keep. Fighting I think that looms large over many of their minds right now so you think that the Democrats could have this wrap up quickly or relatively quickly and not go late into the night well it is kind of in the hands of Republicans right because they have the opportunity here to be offering these amendments this is their chance to change these articles of impeachment and it will be up to them how far they want to go to try to do that knowing full well that the amendments that they offer are almost certain to fail Ok Let's listen here Mr Chairman there are 17 eyes and 23 years it is not agreed to are there any further amendments nature of a substantive. This is Chairman I have an amendment that does Mr version this the critical report amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute to $8755.00 offered by Mr Rushton dollar of Pennsylvania even reserves a point of order page 5 beginning on line 6 strike Article 2. I withdraw my point of order to the gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes to explain is a minute for you Mr Chairman. My amendment would strike all of Article 2 which is the shock of Congress Troche the fact this is guy Russian faller Republican of Pennsylvania structure our government has 3 branches for a reason when there is a disagreement between the executive and legislative branch is supposed to be resolved by the 3rd branch the court Republicans recognize this in 2011 when they investigated President Obama's Fast and Furious scandal the Fast and Furious scandal allowed 2000 firearms to fall into the hands of drug cartels in resulted in the death of an American Border Patrol Agent people who actually died in President Obama's scandal. Throughout the Republicans investigation of that scandal they made numerous attempts to accommodate the Obama administration yet despite their efforts President Obama invoked executive privilege and barred testimony and documents so what did the Republicans do the appropriate thing they went to the courts compare those efforts with what we have seen from the Democrats during this impeachment sham House Democrats could have worked with the administration to reach accommodations for their requests but they did it House Democrats should have worked through the courts but they did it and why is it simple because they have a political expedient deadline to send this mass out of Congress before into the Senate before Christmas so despite what you hear from my colleagues the administration has consistently cooperated with Democrats even though they have been out to get this president since the very moment he was elected let's just go through the numbers over 25 Administration officials have testified before the House Oversight Committee over 25 over 20 ministration officials have testified before this very committee the administration has also handed over more than 100000 pages of documents since the start of this sham impeachment inquiry and let's contrast that with the conduct from the Democrats Democrats have threatened witnesses that quote unquote any failure to appear in response to a letter requesting their presence would constitute evidence of obstruction let me just go through that language it's a letter would constitute evidence is of obstruction that's not a subpoena that's a letter. Democrats have also told the State Department employees they have they insisted on using agency counsel to protect executive branch confidentiality interests they would have their salaries withheld that kind of sounds like abuse of power but I digress a little bit Democrats have not afforded this president basic procedure protections such as the right to see all the evidence the right to call witnesses or the right to have counsel and hearings but just not the trumping ministration that's been railroaded by the Democrats judiciary Democrats voted down my own subpoena to subpoena the whistleblower even though I said that he could hear she could testify and executive session which would be private and yet they voted it down on party lines chairman Adler also refused requests that chairmanship testified before this committee House Democrats also had denied every Republican or quest for a fact witness so I ask who is really obstructing Congress the Democrats have no case when it comes to obstruction this obstruction charge is completely basis baseless and bogus and they really want to charge someone with obstruction How about they start with Adam Schiff thank you I yield back their manner my time. Gentleman years back. Strike the last word and always recognize as I'd like to begin by answering my colleague's question he asked who is really obstructing Congress who is obstructing Congress President Donald Trump The Texas is a cancer bass a Democrat of California who sentences to a discussion of impeachment power yet among those few sentences is the clear statement that the house possesses the sole power of impeachment and what that means is that within the sole discretion of the House to determine what evidence is necessary then for it to gather in order to exercise that power so it's unnecessary for the house to go to the court to enforce it and to enforce subpoenas issued pursuant to an impeachment investigation if it did the house is sole power of impeachment would be beholden to the dictates of the judicial rather than the executive branch has presidents have disapproved of impeachment criticized the house doubted its motives and insisted they did nothing wrong but no president however including President Nixon who was on the verge of being impeached for obstruction of Congress has to get had to clear himself and the entire branch of government he oversees totally exempt from subpoenas issued by the house pursuant to its sole power of impeachment President Trump as May compliance with every demand a condition of even considering whether to honor subpoenas and he has directed his senior officials to violate their own legal obligations to turn over subpoenas and provide testimony indeed the house was only able to conduct its inquiry into you to the Ukraine matter because over all witnesses like the ambassador's the lieutenant colonel then men had the courage to defy the president's unlawful command president trumps conduct toward the current House impeachment inquiry is unprecedented. My colleagues talk about information. That we should wait to get from the courts we really wouldn't have to wait to get from the courts if the president would comply and provide documents I remember when and best and when Ambassador Sunland was testifying and he said that he was testifying from memory because he wasn't even allowed to have access to his own notes in the State Department President Trump has abused his power and is a continued threat to our democracy and national security he's put himself before the country and no one is above the law when I think of our elections and my concern for our election next year our election should be decided by us our foreign policy and national security should be based on America's interests not the president's personal and political interests we've talked over and over again about the real reason for all of this was his concern about corruption but as one of my colleagues said earlier today if he was concerned about corruption he would be concerned about what is going on in the White House and all of the people who he has been affiliated with who are either awaiting sentences sent to prison serving time are awaiting court so let's not worry that members of the minority never actually defend president trumps misconduct by disputing the facts of the case but instead try to deflect and distract with irrelevant issues so I just want to then someone asked this earlier but I don't believe my colleagues on the other side of the aisle ever answered. Forget President Trump is it ever Ok for a president to invite foreign interference in our election and with that yield to my colleague from California thank you for yielding I would like to ask unanimous consent Zoe Lofgren Democratic health from the president's counsel hats of polonium dated October 8th 2019. We got objection I just reflecting on the comments made by my colleague from California certainly we have a right to receive information we have a right to make a judgment on the information that we have been able to obtain because impeachment is solely in the province of the Congress but just on the narrow issue of the assertion of privilege I think it's important to note that the privilege no privilege was asserted in this letter by the counsel he doesn't say it's executive privilege he doesn't say anything that you could take to court he just says he doesn't like what we're doing and they're not going to give us anything not a piece of paper not a witness you know and that is an absurd situation it is not. Acceptable and it is really obstruction of Congress and I think the gentle lady for yielding and yield back to her. When time is expired he'll do you know it in ways that is expired chairman what purpose this business sense of it is the great you know to strike the last word is recognized listening to my James Sensenbrenner Republican response and this seems to be the greatest amount of circular reasoning that we've heard in the last couple of days there's been a lot of it but this is one that I think grabs the blue ribbon because what I hear is that impeachment inquiry if the White House does not give the House of Representatives in this committee everything we ask for then that some struction of Congress in an impeachable offense and that's not what the law say and it's not what the law should be there are certain privileges and immunities that the president has your respective of whether we're doing oversight or whether we're using our article to power the sole power of impeachment and he ought to be able to present those you know in a court of law this is not a court of law you know I don't blame White House counsel simple already for not saying that there were any privileges involved because we know what the answer is going to be and that is we're going to blow any claim of privilege our way we're going to go any type of executive immunity away we're going to simply say we want it and you've got to give it to us no matter whether it's private information or doing some legitimate oversight. Now we know that the rejection of the argument that we shouldn't have to go to court for that is bogus because the House of Representatives has gone to court to try to get in Foresman of subpoenas that are as a result of this impeachment inquiry. And against on Madame you know has gotten this far is the d.c. Circuit or others that are pending a little bit further backwards in the judicial system but what I would like to ask my friends on the majority side is all k. Say we're done with this impeachment inquiry next week the House passes both articles of impeachment and it goes to the Senate for trial does that mean that the whole nexus of why you are attempting to enforce those subpoenas is gone are you going to go in a car and say it's gone are you going to move to dismiss those actions to support enforcement of the subpoenas if you are following the argument that I've just heard you gotta do it and I doubt it and I yield back that. Gentleman yield back I recognize myself. 5 minutes the actions of the White House of the president in this case this is the chairman Jerrold Nadler all previous actions of executives of presidents It is not a question of asserting privileges it is not a question of adjudicating rights given in court. Rather the counsel wrote Given that your inquiry lacks any legitimate constitutional foundation. Executive branch cannot be pretty expected to participate in it it is not up to the president to decide whether and in an impeachment inquiry by the Congress is legitimate or not that's our function that sentence shows right there usurpation by the president of congressional power number one number 2 if the White House and simply asserted privileges for a number of witnesses that could be adjudicated and maybe it may very well be that had we chosen to. Shoot to oppose that as a. Reason for an impeachment. That would be invalid but that's not what we're talking about we're talking about the president saying he does not recognize our impeachment and he will not participate in it he will not grant anything that is an obstruction of Congress it's user patient of Congress's role to decide whether to have an impeachment inquiry and it's a decision to completely try to frustrate that. Inquiry by denying all participation by denying all documents and all witnesses without asserting any privileges there's nothing to do with privileges and the religious may be adjudicated in court and there's an assertion by the Executive that the constant that the impeachment power cannot be exercised by Congress is an obstruction of Congress and if allowed to get away with it eliminates the power of impeachment as a check on the. Power of the presidency and it's a large that tort dictatorship because the threat of impeachment is the only threat The only enforcement mechanism that Congress has and a president who would use your powers and destroy the separation of powers especially given the Department of Justice policy the president sitting president cannot be indicted and the administration's assertion that he can't even be investigated criminally That leaves only impeachment as a remedy and as a check on presidential power and if you don't want to dictatorship you have to allow Congress to exercise the power of impeachment and the Congress says is so powerful the house is the sole power of impeachment which means we have the right to get the documents we demand may be subject to certain privileges but that's not an issue here because no privileges have been asserted instead what has been asserted is that the executive has the right to determine if they will that the impeachment inquiry is invalid they use or of the role of the house this is an assertion of tyrannical power that's why we must. Impeach the President on this article to let to. Go along with this amendment and get rid of Article 2 and say this in effect it is permissible for the president to deny the impeachment power of the house is a long step away from constitutional government a long step away from any control over the power of a president and a long step toward tyranny and I oppose the amendment you know back Mr Chairman we seek recognition. That's when I asked if you would yield for one minute one quick question on that. Back and. I just want to ask you said it's the only you're going to paraphrase it's the only remedy Why is court not an appropriate remedy in this case where it might be you know I think you know your microphone is off sorry where it might be an appropriate remedy if it if a privilege to assert it and that willing to say that you couldn't mount an impeachment based on an overbroad assertions of privilege but no privileges have been asserted there's nothing for a court to review. All that the president has said is there will be no he has directed every one of these are going to grant you not provided a piece of paper do not testify there's nothing for the court to review the he is simply asserted that the Constitution that he doesn't recognize the constitutional power of Congress to impeach he will recognize that he thinks it's an invalid and that's not his function to do it's our function to determine whether an impeachment inquiry is valid or not is now an inquiry isn't the next step then to hold a witness in contempt for either not producing documents or not appearing if if there's a privilege were asserted Yes but it's gone beyond that we could certainly do that but that but it is not sufficient remedy the remedy the only remedy for a president who says the House does not have the power to determine to have an impeachment inquiry is to say that's an obstruction of Congress. My time has expired I yield back Mr. Who seeks making music that strikes. For what purpose this was that she had a secret you know strike last word instrument it was recognized Thank you Mr Chairman I appreciate the gentleman offering this is Steve Shabbat Republican of Ohio strike the 2nd article which I think unfortunately is is as ridiculous as the 1st article in this case an obstruction charge requires a concerted effort to interfere with or impede a congressional election what the president did asserting executive privilege is not in any way shape or form obstruction executive privilege is a time honored constitutionally protected right of each and every administration and it's been asserted time and time again by administration after administration both Republican and Democratic when Congress disagrees with a particular assertion of executive privilege the remedy is not impeachment the remedy is to go to court and let the 3rd branch of government as I mentioned a little while ago decide who is correct that's why we have checks and balances in this country got 3 branches of government they're all supposed to keep an eye on each other and in this case the remedy is to go to the courts and let the courts decide if the president and this Congress disagree and Except that the House Democrats have decided that they don't want to wait for the courts to decide not when they can instead just impeach the president and maybe damage him politically although apparently that's not happening but I think that was their goal and what you want to talk about abuse of power what the House Democrats are Democrats doing here is a clear case in my view of abusing their office for political gain the majority really should hold themselves in contempt for conducting this one sided biased impeachment investigation and then attacking the White House for refusing to participate in such a patently unfair process and I think if you look at the record of this president thus far he's only been in office 3 year. At this point the accomplishments are quite considerable impeaching a president that's accomplished these types of things is just patently absurd look at the economy right now and why is economy doing so well I think it's principally 2 things the tax cuts and Jobs Act that this president pushed in was passed when the previous Congress which was in control was Republicans both the House and the Senate at that time the Democrats kept screaming all these are tax cuts for the rich tax for cuts for the rich about 85 percent of the American people and their taxes reduced Yes wealthy people got their taxes cut but so did virtually everybody else in this economy that's one of the principal reasons that we're seeing the economy continue to grow that's one of the reasons that unemployment in this country is so low right now it's at it it's at historic lows about 50 years and it's not just wealthy people doing well a lot of people are doing well and it's because of the tax cuts about as I mentioned 85 percent of the people got their tax cut unemployment this country among African-Americans Hispanics Americans Asian Americans is that all time low unemployment all time low among those groups because of this president's policies in Kentucky in conjunction with Congress back when Republicans were in the majority I happened to be the ranking member the leading Republican on the House Small Business Committee I was the chairman of that committee for the last 2 years small businesses all across America are doing very well right now their confidence is that all time highs Why is it so important that small businesses do well what about 70 percent of the new jobs created in the American economy are created by small business folks all across this country They're the backbone of the American economy and the other thing the other reason I think other than taxes being reduced why you're seeing the economy grow so well is because he has reduced the red tape the bureaucracy the regulations that come out of Washington with. When he was running as a candidate he said his goal was to get rid of 2 existing regulations right now red tape to existing regulations for every new regulation coming out of Washington I was a tough goal but we've even exceeded that So those 2 things together I think are one of the principal reasons this economy is growing so well there's so many things that you could talk about about the successes but one that's actually going to happen soon is improving NAFTA the u.s. M.c.a. And again. Hopefully the Democrats are going to going to pass as they're in control here in the house now and they face the challenge because if they passed it then the president's obviously going to get some credit because he's been pushing this they don't really want to present necessarily getting the credit but they also are trying to get rid of the label of being a do nothing Congress since they've been in control now so they're going to apparently impeach the president and at the same time payoffs the u.s. M.c.a. It's unfortunate it takes impeaching a president the passive but I'm really happy that word ph it because it scares me that we are you know I said it's Ok because that's really good for the country and I you know Baucus chairman General you know is bad for you is it too much trouble. I recognized for what purpose does Miss scandalously refusing a move to strike the last word Italy's where you know. I'm really uncomfortable with the suggestion that's been made several times today Scanlon Democrat of Pennsylvania Well you know there's no exception in the Constitution that allows a president to cheat in an election just because the economy's going well. My oath to protect and defend the Constitution isn't for sale look if President Trump's obstruction abuse of power and obstruction of Congress are not impeachable nothing is Article one charges Trump with the abuse of power for attempting to undermine our elections the primary check on a president becoming a king is elections this president abused his powers to undermine our elections that's article one article to which my colleague has suggested we should abandon charges President Trump with obstruction of Congress for blocking the production of all documents and witnesses of peanuts by Congress in the impeachment investigation Congress's power to investigate and impeach the president is the backstop to elections to protect our government from being overrun by a tyrannical executive the president has undermined our Constitution by obstructing Congress's impeachment power without a legal basis for our Constitution to operate properly it depends upon people acting in a reasonable manner we're not dealing with an executive at this point who is acting in a reasonable manner you know often people ask lawyers Ok and I sue and it's an old lawyer joke of course you can sue the question is can you win. President Trump has made a career out of suing knowing that he had no chance to win he has clogged up our courts for decades and he usually loses because he hasn't a legal leg to stand on that's the situation we're in now he has defied congressional subpoenas without a legal leg to stand on he hasn't claimed executive privilege which is something that could go to the courts he's made up something called absolute immunity never before in the history of our country have we had a president who said you can't talk to anyone in my administration you can't see any documents when we had hope x. Come before this has his communication secretary come before this committee several months ago she was subject to a claim of absolute immunity she wasn't allowed to testify to anything that had happened that she'd seen that had been done from the moment she walked into the White House until she left she wasn't allowed to tell us where her office was I mean this is the kind of absolute tempted to say Iron Curtain that this president has tried to place between his administration and the American people there is no way in hell I will vote to remove obstruction of Congress from these articles and I yield back. Generally years back I. Was sure generally used. Well purposes Mr Jordan to strike the last word in Israel you know I support the gentleman from Pennsylvania is the Jim Jordan Republican of Ohio are. The real traction came from Chairman shifter so true and you know the 1st victim was this committee this committee unless you were on the Intel Committee the Oversight Committee their Foreign Affairs Committee you couldn't set in for this 17 fact witnesses you couldn't be a part of those depositions some people tried a good friend from Florida tried to get in as a member of the committee that's now marking up the articles of impeachment but he won the loud so the 1st victim of the real obstruction to get to all the information was this committee the committee charged with writing up the articles of impeachment marking them up as we speak wasn't allowed to be in there for the 17 fact witness witnesses that we all the POWs but the Democratic rules were were even worse no subpoena power for Republicans that positions as I said done in secret in the bunker in the basement of the Capitol in those depositions remember these witnesses were subpoenaed and they're supposed to answer our questions but only the Democrats got all their questions answered there were questions that Republicans asked that the chairman of the Intel Committee prevented the witnesses from answering Democrats denied Republicans witnesses for the open hearings we were allowed to call the witnesses we want we had to submit a list we put a couple people on the list from the 17 people that out and ship subpoenaed just so we could have some people that we thought might help make the real case and present the facts but we weren't allowed to call our witnesses and of course the one witness that we really wanted to call even though Adam Schiff initially said that we'd be get a chance to hear from him we weren't allowed to and that's the whistleblower remember when there was when this all happened in September Adam Schiff told us we're going to get to hear from the whistleblower. Whistleblower with no firsthand knowledge who was biased against the president who worked with Joe Biden he said we're going to get to hear from him but then change his mind what changed or change the chairman's mind or remember the day after day after the call the whistleblower writes this memo says the call was all described as this crazy frightening but he waits 18 days to file his complaint what happens to that 18 day timeframe whistleblower goes off and sees Adam Schiff get some marching orders from Madam shift staff and everything changes we don't get to hear from him we don't get to hear from the person and because we don't get to hear from the whistleblower remember the complaint that gets filed on August 12th very 1st point the whistleblower makes in that complaint he says this over the past 4 months more than half a dozen u.s. Officials inform me about this effort we have no idea the committee marking up articles of impeachment we have no idea who those half a dozen u.s. Officials are we don't know if we talked to him we don't know if they came in testify we don't know if they're the people to My guess is Colonel bend them and was one of them but who knows we don't know because we never got to talk to the individual who started it all with the complaint that the chairman of the intel committee told us when it all started we're going to get here from me but then it went as discovered that his staff had communicated when there was a large nope nope nope we're not going to get here so the real victim of the obstruction here is this committee we've not had any fact when we've had 4 Democrat witnesses in front of us 3 law professors that the Democrat the majority called in and one Democrat law professor that the Republicans called and that's all we've heard from those are the 4 witnesses then a bunch of staff none of the 17 witnesses so I support the jump from Pennsylvania and then he's exactly right the obstruction came from the chairman of the Intel Committee with that you know back. The gentleman from Rhode Island is recognized. For last word Ok I recognize I'm here so where charged with the responsibility of. The Democrat of Rhode Island in this investigation applying to them to the Constitution that we have sworn to protect and defend So let's return for a minute to the facts this series of events was described by Trump officials Ambassador Bolton to be a particular drug dealer who was described by Dr Fiona Hill as did domestic political errand but there was direct evidence collected from 17 witnesses over 100 hours of testimony 260 text messages the transcript of the president's own words e-mails between high ranking officials of the Trump administration and what we know what the direct evidence is the president I said hired Rudy Giuliani to lead this effort the president engaged in a smear campaign against him Bessie avantage and then fired her because she was an anti corruption fighter the president put a hold on military aid to Ukraine the president and others acting on his behalf demanded the president Linsky publicly announce an investigation of the president's chief political rival the president put the 3 amigos ambassadors someone's Perry and vulgar in charge of Ukraine the president refused to have a meeting or released 8 until the public announcement of the investigation of his political opponents the president told the vice president vice president tends not to attend that we knew President Ukraine's inauguration and the president spoke to Ambassador some one about what Ambassador salmon described as a quid pro quo just to name a few highlights of the evidence but what we know also if you look drill down a little more I want I want to speak specifically about Trump administration officials who were in the middle of this activity on July 21st $2900.00 was a tax from Vassar tailored to investors Simon and I quote presidents Alinsky is sensitive about Ukraine being taken seriously not merely as an instrument in Washington domestic reelection politics. David Holmes testified I was surprised that the requirement was so specific and concrete This was a demand that presidents the lives he personally commit to a specific investigation of President Trump's political rival on a cable news channel. Mr Holmes also testified in response to a question during counsel's examination you're acknowledging I think Mr Holmes are you not that Ukraine very much felt pressured to undertake these investigations of the president Rudy Giuliani and Ambassador Sana others were demanding answer from Mr Holmes Yes sir Ambassador Taylor has a call on September 8th the masseur son and as you tell us is a career diplomat a Vietnam War hero and he's invested Taylor says during our call someone tried to explain to me that President Trump is a businessman and what a businessman is about to sign a check to someone who owes them something the businessman asked that the person to pay up before signing the check ambassador Volkan me the same argument I argued to both of them that at that explanation made no sense Ukrainians did not Oprah's event trump anything and holding up security assistance for domestic political gain was crazy. And finally on September 9th Ambassador Taylor in a text exchange with Ambassador salmon again says As I said on the phone I think it's crazy to withhold security assistance for help with a political campaign end quote so that the the record is filled with evidence that in fact the president of the United States abused the enormous power of his office in an effort to cheat in the 2020 election to drag foreign interference into the 20 joining lecture and to corrupt an American presidential election and use the power of his office with the help of taxpayer funds to leverage his afeard to drag foreign powers into our elections and when I hear my colleagues on the other side of the aisle say who's the victim victim is American democracy the victim is the people we represent who expect us to honor oath to protect and defend the Constitution are my Republican colleagues really saying that it is Ok for a president to invite or drag persuade our poorest foreign powers to just store in American presidential election we have men and women who have given their lives to pretend our democracy we owe it to them to be sure that you know who gets to decide who's going to be American president the American people not some foreign power that's a sacred right of citizens of this country and if we allow this present to get away with this we will have lost our democracy and we have conveyed that right to foreign powers and we will no longer have a democracy so I urge my colleagues to support these articles of impeachment so we can again vindicate the right of the American people to determine their own future and to elect their own leaders and with that I yield back you're listening to live special coverage of the market from n.p.r. News recognition move last word gentleman is recognized Thank you I just want to urge support for this amendment striking Article 2 there's been a Republican of Louisiana and I. I'm just struck by the hyperbolic language that is being used on the other side in this breathless charge that we hear over and over about Article 2 that this is the 1st time in the history of the republic than any president has evoked this kind of privilege or evoked this kind of immunity over subpoenas from Congress of course it's just simply not true I mean a cursory review of the history even a review of the witness testimony that was presented in this very committee a week ago would show you that that's just simply baseless charges truth is in the history of this republic there's never been a single party fraudulent impeachment process deployed against a president like the one it's being used against Donald Trump That's what's on President here it's not that claim that the president doesn't want to turn over witnesses or documents that this is special coverage of the impeachment markup from n.p.r. News I'm Jeremy Hobson The Judiciary Committee started debating articles of impeachment about 9 hours ago they are still going to have not voted on those articles Yes I'm joined here in the studio as we listen to this to Mack of n.p.r. Tim where are we right now in the process right now what we are doing bating this 2nd article Article 2 of the articles of impeachment against the president and this relates to obstruction of Congress so Republicans are arguing that the president did not obstruct Congress to try to put this amendment in to strike this article from the underlying case text and every time one of the number says I want to strike the last word it really is if they get another 5 minutes to talk we've been hearing that back and forth all day will continue to listen this is Mike Johnson a Republican of Louisiana courts to sort through the nuances of that and most of these individuals by the way that they have subpoenaed are not related to the Ukraine matter and any objective observer would regard this as a mere fishing exposition expedition somebody even call it presidential harassment because the administration is being used by these Democrat committee chairs to advance their political agenda this agenda does not allow them time to proceed to a court to do this the right way to go through the process that is historic it comports with our custom and practice in our tradition and the Constitution. Professor Turley was our only witness the only one we've been allowed in the Judiciary Committee on our side and in the very I think exceptional testimony that he submitted to us in writing he said this I want to reach this excerpt is right on point quote This is page 42 of his document if this committee elects to seek impeachment on the president's failure to yield to congressional demands in an oversight or impeachment investigation isn't it will have to distinguish a long line of cases where prior presidents sought the very same review while withholding witnesses and documents take the Obama administration position for instance on the investigation of Fast and Furious which is mentioned earlier Congress justifiably began an oversight investigation into that scandal some members called for impeachment proceedings but President Obama invoked executive privilege and barred essential testimony documents President Obama did that this is not on President Ok this is custom and practice now for a federally continues the position of the Obama administration was regarded as extreme there and some even said absurd but here's the important point President Obama had every right to seek judicial review on the matter and many members of the .