It does take up an awful lot of oxygen and it will when it gets to the Senate but in these particular circumstances and this is one of the things the Democrats have been at pains to explain and to push forward and to urge there is no other remedy for a president they consider out of control Sue Davis Jerrold Nadler the chairman has taken his seat as we prepare to start this hearing what is going to happen today what is a markup a markup is when lawmakers have a chance in committee to make any changes to the bill before it goes to the floor we do not expect that this markup will fundamentally change the 2 articles that in Article one on abuse of power in an article 2 on instruction I don't expect many Democrats to offer amendments we're going to see a lot of Republicans try and change it or you know move to strike it entirely there are likely to be successful these are going to be a bunch of party line votes the Articles of Impeachment won't be approved until the very end of this hearing and we don't expect them to be fundamentally changed it so why will Republicans try to change it if they're not going to be successful this is that you know there is a lot of political theater here this is another chance for Republicans to make their case against these articles of impeachment why they shouldn't be here I think a lot of their motions will be in the order to try and defeat to defeat articles or to change them entirely and you know there is we're not expecting any Republicans to vote for these articles of impeachment Democrats are expected to have the votes they need certainly in the committee and certainly when it comes to the floor next week although you're more likely to see some Democrats vote against them on the floor than you are likely to see any Republican vision you can here's General Now the president when the committee research completed opening statements on the resolution about to be considered suing to notice under House Resolution 660 I now quote House Resolution 755 featuring John John Trump president the United States I crimes and misdemeanors Mr Chairman our. Generals to this point of order the chairman to make border against consideration of this resolution on the grounds of the German willful or if you. To schedule it properly demand a minority day of hearings pursuant to close to Gerry one Collins the ranking member on the point of order once you've. Now. 755 impeaching Donald Trump president of states rights crimes and misdemeanors for purposes of markup and move that the committee report the resolution favorably to the house. For the resolution has 755 m.p.h. And Donald John president of the United States for high crimes and misdemeanors in the House of Representatives December 10th 2019 Mr neither submitted the following resolution which was referred to the committee on the judiciary resolution impeaching Donald John Trump president of United States for high crimes and misdemeanors resolve that Donald j. Trump president the United States is impeached for high crimes and misdemeanors and that the following articles of impeachment be exhibited to the United States Senate or articles of impeachment exhibited by the House of Representatives of the United States of America in the name of itself and of the people of the United States of America against Donald Trump president of United States of America and maintenance and support of his impeachment against him for high crimes and misdemeanors article one abuse of power the constitution provides of the House of Representatives have the power of impeachment of the President shall be removed from office of impeachment for the conviction of treason bribery or other high crimes and misdemeanors in his conduct of the office of the president of the United States and in violation of his constitutional oath basically to execute the office of the president of the United States and to the best of his ability preserve protect and defend the Constitution of the United States and in violation of his constitutional duty to take care of the Laws be faithfully and Donald Trump has abused the powers of the presidency in that using the power of the high office President Trump solicited the interference of a foreign government Ukraine and the 2020 United States presidential election he did so through a scheme or course of conduct that included soliciting the government of Ukraine to publicly announce investigations that would benefit his re-election harm the election prospects of a political opponent and influence the 22. When a United States presidential election to his advantage president also sought to pressure the government of Ukraine to take these steps by conditioning official United States government acts of significant value of Ukraine on his public announcement of the investigations president trumping gays in the scheme. Is concerned conservatives were a suit. I object. To is your personal personal political benefit in doing so President Trump use the powers of the presidency and a manner that compromised the national security of the United States and undermined the integrity of the United States democratic process he thus ignored and injure the interests of the nation President Trump engaged in the scheme or course of conduct of the following means one president acting both directly and through his agents within and outside the United States government corruptly solicited the government of Ukraine to publicly announce investigations into a political opponent former Vice President Joseph r. Biden Jr and b. a Discredited theory promoted by Russia alleging that Ukraine rather than Russia interfered in the 26 team United States presidential election 2 with the same corrupt Motors President Trump acting both directly and through his agents within and outside the United States government condition to official acts on the public announcements that he had requested a the release of $391000000.00 of United States taxpayer funds that Congress had appropriated on a bipartisan basis for the purpose of providing vital military and security assistance to Ukraine to oppose Russian aggression in which President Trump had ordered suspended and be a head of state meeting at the White House which president of Ukraine sought to demonstrate continued United States support for the government of Ukraine in the face of Russian aggression 3 faced with the public revelation of his actions president ultimately released the military and security assistance to the government of Ukraine but has persisted in openly and corruptly urging and soliciting Ukraine to undertake investigations 1st personal political benefit these actions were consistent with President Charles previous invitations of foreign interference United States elections. In all of this President Trump abuse the powers of the presidency by ignoring injuring national security and other vital national interest to obtain an improper personal political benefit he has also betrayed the nation by abusing his high office to enlist a foreign power in corrupting democratic elections wherefore President Trump by such conduct has demonstrated that he will remain a threat to national security and the Constitution if allowed to remain in office he has acted in a manner grossly incompatible with self governance and the rule of law President Trump thus more into impeachment and child removal from office and disqualification to hold and enjoy any office of honor trust or profit under the United States Article 2 obstruction of Congress the Constitution provides that the House of Representatives shall have the sole power of impeachment and that the president shall be removed from office of impeachment on impeachment for the conviction of treason bribery or other high crimes and misdemeanors in his conduct of the office of the president of United States and in violation of his constitutional oath only to execute the office of the president the United States and to the best of his ability preserve protect and defend the Constitution of the United States and in violation of its constitutional duty to take care of the Laws be faithfully executed Donald Trump has directed the unprecedented categorical an indiscriminate defiance of subpoenas issued by the House of Representatives pursuant to its sole power of impeachment President Trump has abused the powers of the presidency in a manner offensive to and subversive of the Constitution in that the House of Representatives has engaged in an impeachment inquiry focused on president trumps corrupt solicitation of the government of Ukraine to interfere in the 2020 United States presidential election as part of this impeachment inquiry the committees undertaking the investigation serve subpoenas seeking documents and testimony d. Invite also the inquiry from various executive branch agencies and offices and current and former officials in response without lawful cause or excuse president trying to rectify executive branch agencies offices and officials not to comply with those subpoenas President Trump does interpose the powers of the presidency against the lawful subpoenas of the House of Representatives and assume to himself functions and to. It's necessary to the exercise of the sole power of impeachment that's about the Constitution in the House of Representatives President Trump abuse the power of his high office through the following means one directing the White House to defy a lawful subpoena by withholding the production of documents sought there and by the committee to directing other executive branch agencies and offices to defy lawful subpoenas and withhold the production of documents and records from the committees in response to which the Department of State Office of Management and Budget Department of Energy and Department of Defense refused to produce a single document or record 3 directing current and former executive branch officials not to cooperate with the committees in response to which 9 administration officials defied subpoenas for testimony namely John Michael Mick Mulvaney Robert b. Blair John a Eisenberg Michael Ellis Preston Russell t. Michael Duffy Brian McCormick and t. Over. These actions were consistent with the with President Trump's previous efforts to undermine United States government investigations into for interference in United States elections through these actions President Trump sought to arrogated to himself the right to determine the propriety scope and nature of an impeachment inquiry into his own conduct as well as the unilateral prerogative to deny any and all information to the Unite to the House of Representatives in exercise of its sole power of impeachment in the history of the republic no president has ever ordered the complete defiance of an impeachment inquiry or sought to obstruct impede so comprehensively the ability of the House of Representatives to investigate high crimes and misdemeanors this abuse of office serves to cover up the president's own repeated misconduct just seize the control of power of impeachment and thus to nullify a vital constitutional safeguards vested solely in the House of Representatives and all of this President Trump has acted in a manner contrary to his trust as president and subversive of constitutional government to the great prejudice of cause of law and justice and to the manifest injury of the people of the United States or for President Trump by such conduct has demonstrated that he will remain a threat to the Constitution. If allowed to remain in office and has acted in America grossly incompatible with soft governance and the rule of law President Trump just warrants impeachment trial removal from office in disqualification to hold enjoy the office of honor trust and profit under the United States thank you gentlemen no state is point of order Thank you again as I made the point on this monocular calendar making member we just heard that the House Judiciary Committee reading our 2 articles of impeachment against President rather future respond to multiple additional requests to that hearing the schedule and at one point actually telling me that I actually responded to this they will rule with it today while we're here today and it's a farce that we haven't ruled on this today because there's no other time we're actually taking up the articles today so the rule is not super And by the way the rule is this rule is not superseded by any portion of a tourist 660 that could have been done by the majority but they were too busy in a hurry to get 860 to the floor that after discussing this they chose not to exempt the minority hearing that this could have been done they chose not to now we're not having it so continue up on war. If I understand the gentleman's point of order he is serious we are by violating clause to Jay one of has Ruhleben I conduct in this market before we have held the hearing that the minority members requested on December 4th. In my view the gentleman is claiming a broader privilege than cause to j. One actually provides the minority. The minority has asked for a day of hearings on the matter of the December 4th hearing which was the Constitutional grounds for impeachment and willing to work with the minority to schedule such a hearing but not before today's markup of the articles of impeachment the house rule does not require me to schedule a hearing on a particular day nor does it nor does it require me to schedule the hearing as a condition proceed and taking any specific legislative action otherwise the minority would have the ability to delay or black majority legislative action which is clearly not the purpose of the rule I reach this conclusion after reviewing the plaintext and legislative history of the house rule after considering prior precedent in committee practice and after consulting with parliamentary authorities in the Congressional Research Service I believe my scheduling decision in this case is reasonable for several reasons 1st the minorities views have not been shut out the legislative history of the minority day rule shows that it was written to prevent a committee majority from preventing the minority position from being represented in the hearing as reported in the joint committee on the organization of Congress in 1966 explains it is normal procedure for witnesses representing both sides of the issue to give testimony a committee hearings in those infrequent instances when witnesses representing the minority position are not allotted time Aminu safeguards should exist to protect minority rights and quote of course that did not happen at the December 4th hearing the minority whip the minority had a witness at their hearing Professor Turley were able to represent their position and was afforded ample time to discuss that position rather than being shut out the minority simply did not get as many witnesses as they would have preferred but that is not the purpose of the house rule 2nd the minority in the president have special protections under House Resolution $660.00 the procedures provided under House Resolution $660.00 give the president and the minority of raw. I use special privileges to present evidence and witness and subpoena witnesses thus there are alternative procedures under $860.00 by which witnesses can be requested and even subpoenaed but they have not been exercised varied there is no precedent for the use of minority days to delay committee legislative or impeachment proceedings it is clear from the legislative history that the minority day rule is not intended to delay legislative activity again as the committee and the organization of the Congress is specifically explained We do not look upon this rule as an authorization for the laying tactics unquote the minority do rules made part of the House rules in 1701 but was not involved in either the Nixon or Clinton impeachment as a matter of fact the only president I am aware of in the context of impeachment took place several weeks ago in the Intelligence Committee they are the minority also requested a day of hearings even though they are said witnesses but is there proceedings the minority ultimately did not raise a point of order well they did offer an amendment claiming that the minority day rule had been violated that amendment was rejected by the committee 1st there was no precedent no precedent supporting the gentleman's point of order and the one precedent we have indicates that a point of order does not apply to delay consideration of articles of impeachment finally passkey to Sherry committee practice and President do not support the gentleman's point of order last year the number of other members and I sent then Chairman Goodlatte and already did request the chairman never never responded to requests and never scheduled a hearing I don't believe a single member then Majority argued in favor of us being granted our hearing under the rules back in 2005 then Chairman Sensenbrenner schedule of the minority day hearing a cut off witnesses. Shut off the microphones shut off the lights and abruptly ended the hearing or members were seeking recognition to speak again no one in the then Majority argued in favor of protecting our rights as a result there's no committee practice precedent supporting the gentleman's point of order for all the foregoing reasons I do not sustain the point of order to share . What purposes the gentleman seek recognition I think it is very obvious that I won the wink of the chairman's aerator to my question that this was struck a nerve seeing how the chairman himself says it in his own words from previous times the Chairman it is not the chairman's right to decide whether prior hearings are sufficient or the Germans right to decide whether things are itself or the Germans right to violate the rules in order to interfere it is interesting to me that this has become you know I mean I could say I was made that I made my ruling on the point of order and we wish to appeal the ruling of our ally for this is a good life for the sake of history the chair one more has in it as you gentlemen wish to appeal the ruling of the chair yes or no yes obviously all of the marking calendar he'll marry any other German is doing this again all of the ruling of the chair is not sustained. And moved to table did you actually call for a vote how does it not sustain you don't call for a vote I sustain the point of order I call for a chair for a vote in the court I ruled at the point of order is not well taken that's if we are. Of appeal the ruling of the chair moved to take gentlemen is appealed to ruling of the chair gentle Lady Mabel the appeal to the chair that move motion to table is not debatable on favor of the motion to table say I pose no the appeal of the motion the appeal the ruling the chair is table we will now proceed to amend all call. Gentleman asked rule on the motion to table the appeal ruling of the chair the clerk will call the roll Mr neither are you Ok so as this roll call takes place Ron Elving what's going on here Republicans just trying to slow this down today perhaps not just slow it down but also raise a flag and raise a standard if you will in say that they feel they have not been given due process this of course is what the president has also argued that he has not been given due process he has refused to send the invited representatives of the committee did allow for him to send and so they are perhaps in this case perhaps reaching out audience of one but also a much broader audience of people who don't understand these proceedings don't understand why he's going on his pace and don't favor the idea of removing a president and Sue Davis they say that they want their own witness day and they want to call more people they want to call Adam Schiff to testify they want to call the whistleblower to testify Yeah I mean the one thing you always have to remember about the House of Representatives in all matters is the majority rules that the minority has almost no rights so a lot of times when the minority party is raising these kind of fights it's just for the political fight of it the minority is not never expected to get their way in the House of Representatives and some of the things that Republicans have asked for the witnesses they asked for people like they want to excuse me they want to call the whistleblower he wanted to call Joe 100 bided they wanted to call Adam Schiff they're these are people that Democrats are not going to entertain these motions but it does give Republicans chances here to again look like they are putting up a strong as fight of possible against these articles of impeachment and run as the clerk was reading out the articles of impeachment our listeners may have even been able to hear some of the members chatting in the background Republicans making clear they didn't want to hear those articles being read well in fact one of the senior Republican Steve have a. Literally said list dispense with this let's just not read it let's go back to the area here any 3. $23.00 eyes and 17 hours predictably that is read the 1st section of the resolution. Atra 755 m.p.h. And Donald John Trump president of United States for high crimes and misdemeanors in the House of Representatives December 10th 21000 Mr neither submitted the following resolution which was referred to the committee on the judiciary resolution impeaching John John term president United States for high crimes and misdemeanors resolve that John and present a united states is impeached for high crimes and misdemeanors the following articles of impeachment exhibited to the United States Senate articles of impeachment exhibited by the House of Representatives of the United States of America in the name of itself and of the people of the United States of America against Donald j. Trump president of United States of America and maintenance and support of its impeachment against him for high crimes and misdemeanors I will I now recognize myself for purposes of offering remember the nature of his substitute report the amended. Amendment in the nature of a substitute 8755 offered by Mr Nadler of New York so at all that follows after the resolving clause and insert the following then objection the amendments will be considered as read that objection the minutes will be considered for further amendment I will now recognize myself to explain the nature of. This amendment makes a minor change in certain places with the underlying resolution of 1st j. Trump remember it refers to Donald Trump Otherwise it makes no changes to the resolution urging all of my colleagues to support it I now recognize the ranking member the gentleman from Georgia Mr Cummings any comments he may have on the men they give us share in the nature of the service it is absolutely irrelevant actually taking Donald j. Trump to make it Donald Trump John Trump just simply shows the frankly. Absurdity of where we're up and today we're going to spend plenty of time for you listening here we're going to talk about this member nations of the what I talk about the factual bases that are absolutely no factual underpinning to impeach the president but I'm going to go back for just a minute since I didn't have time and had to sit through a well rehearsed many days. Put together explanation of why the what will be known in 2019 out of the fact that this committee finally accomplished his goal after the chairman's stated he wanted to since November of last year impeach this president what will be known by this committee from here all out is that this committee has now sounded the death of minority right in this committee this committee has become nothing but a rubber stamp this committee is amazingly now on such a cog in calendar process that they don't care facts be damned they don't care they don't care that they we had a one witness out of 3 when I asked for a 2nd witness I was told I couldn't even though they had been staff conversations well before I was told I was acting as being too late one witness out of 2 panels that's all we had of witnesses this is a just travesty and a sham from day one I could talk to I'm blue in the face but nobody on the majority cares with the spot that is left by what is just happened will resonate over the years it will resonate over the years in the sense that there is no fact that we can come to they had no desire to hear any thought when this is outside of their own train driven clock calendar impeachment. For the chairman himself who vehemently thought from an already hearing day to sit there and read that is an amazing statement and a crushing blow to this committee there's no way to recover from that in fact there may be I wonder if the chairman would join me in making sure that the Rules Committee next week they don't waive the point of order against this but I know they will that's why they're going to take it because I guarantee you when you look into it further this point of order would be sustained against these impeachment articles so they're going to have to waive a mix we watch and see they will waive this point of order and waive any other point of order only as articles by the time it comes to the floor for some of you may say. The ranking member talks about process the ranking member talks about process the ranking member talks about process never the foundation believe me we will end in days you with the facts and I have already some of you just don't choose to report them what is important in for many who report on this body and for many who have said in this body over those who have served in this body the members who have gone before and the people who set this committee up and as people assert our congress up all the ones right now they should be hanging their head in shame we had hearings none of which featured in this is there's not a Democrat in this room this should be happy about this the solemn manatee the Solomon to be should be on the death of this committee's process and procedures don't give me the solemn energy about impeaching a president you've been wanting to do that for a long time you ought to take it in this rejoice go at it because this is what you want but when it comes to the hearing when it comes to the minority rights when it comes to one in which we have seen time after time after time in which I have had to write this chairman multi-page letters only abuse of procedural issues in this committee this is a travesty write about it if you want to talk about if you will but the American people that because the American people understand Harry fairness they understand due process why because it's what America was based on it is what America takes pride in and we don't have it nobody can have it we don't have fairness in this community how can they stand up and say all of the 2 weakest articles impeachment in the area this going 3 honestly with a straight face look at the American people and say we did good no you did you stain this body you've taken this committee and made it a rubber stamp. Did any of the majority Ron to be a rubber stamp to get the majority I know the minority in this did not you know why I know it so much while we're become a rubber stamp because my chairman said so 20 years ago. He said So 20 years ago when he said if the committee only accepts what other people give them and do not own their own verified and thoroughly vetted then we are nothing but a rubber stamp Mr Chairman you should have run for a chairmanship I believe more than to be a rubber stamp for Mr she often Miss Pelosi we already knew this committee was overrun and overtaken because Mr Sheehan Mr Palosi took it from us earlier this year there is the 1st embarrassment and the rest of it has been an embarrassment since so as we look at this as we go forward we'll have plenty of time to show the complete farce of substance but Mr Chairman what will live from this is your ruling and the majority ruling of minority rights or did this Congress and especially this committee move to 7 years back as your main Minster the men are listening to 89.3 k.p.c. Syndrome of strike westward what purpose does the gentleman is the judge the way you move to strike on a story. Mr Chairman I cannot allow the ranking member to miss characterize your description of the history of this committee if it may be in the Democrat Ted Deutch member to be forced to listen to the history of this committee and why everything everything that you just laid out is so important to the continuing of this committee representing in recognizing respecting minority rights but he chooses not to so I'm going to restate it again I appreciate the ranking member for and knowledge in that they had the opportunity to call witnesses. And that's consistent with the rules but to then turn around and suggest that the rules are being trampled the rules are dead. Ignores everything that you just laid out 50 more than 50 years ago. More than 50 years ago the Joint Committee on the organization of Congress made clear in their report to the House and Senate that it's normal procedure for witnesses representing both sides of the issue to give testimony committee hearings and that's where the rule comes from and that's what's happened the ranking member acknowledged that he would have liked more witnesses there's no right to a separate day the rule makes clear they have the right call witnesses and there were witnesses called there were witnesses called the minority witnesses on December 4th or December night the minorities witness Mr Castor presented evidence and gave opening statements and it's worth pointing out to my colleagues on the other side that we invited the president of the United States to the December 4th hearing the advocate for his views. To submit requested witnesses but he chose not to attend and he chose not to suggest any witnesses so before before telling us the sky is falling in there is great disrespect for the rules it's important to actually look at the gentleman just say I didn't request witnesses that it was. Gentlemen I thank the chairman what I said is that the president was given the opportunity under some before if to present himself he was also given the opportunity to present witnesses and he did not so let's be careful in the way we suggest that rules are being violated when everything that's being done here is consistent with more than 50 years of interpretation of the rules and the very essence of why the rule was put together in the 1st place so it's important that's really do matter and I'm not I'm not we're not going to allow the minority to misinterpret the rules for their own benefit or to suggest that the history is irrelevant it matters a lot that's what's made this committee and this institution great mail back your meals back with any amendments the amendment nature reserves to. Chairman I got were privileged to do is Mr Jordan's you have been a member of the desk clerk will report the a member I was appointed war and Lady reserves a point of order. Amendment and the amendment in the nature of a subsidy to 8755 offered by Mr Jordan of Ohio page one beginning on line 12 strike Article one and 3 designate the succeeding article accordingly. The gentleman is recognized for the purpose of excluding is a member Thank you Mr Chairman this is a man in stripes article one of my point of this amendment strikes article you are the Republican or is the truth or facts 5 meetings we've talked about it now for 3 months we've known that there been 4 facts that have not changed will not change will never change and we've known it since September 25th when the call transcript was released called transcript shows no quid pro quo what's interesting is the day the transcript came out even Chairman Adler said there was no quid pro quo in the call transcript we don't 2nd that the 2 individuals on the call presence list the President Trump of both said no pressure no pushing no linkage whatsoever between security assistance money and any type of announcement of an investigation we know that the Ukrainians knew at the time of the call didn't know at the time of the call that the aide had been held up and most importantly most importantly we know the Ukrainians took no action no start of an investigation no promise to start an investigation no announcement on c.n.n. In via tweet No Matt no announcement whatsoever that there was going to be any type of investigation into charisma or the Bidens to get the aid release those 4 facts. Those 4 facts have never changed sakit 5 key meetings that took place between July 18th when the aid was passed September 11th when the aid was released 5 key meetings we have the phone call I 25th what you just described 2nd never very next day very next day we have a master's Volcker Saarland Taylor meeting with presidents Lenski 3rd investor Bolton met with presidents Let's go August 29th for as well as President pence met with presidents Let's go in September 2nd and 3rd. On September 5th we have bipartisan senator Senator Johnson Senator Murphy's or Senator Murphy meeting with presidents Alinsky in none of those 5 meetings none did linking dollars security assistance dollars to an investigation come up never came up and you would think in the last 2 you would think in those last 2 after they knew on August 29th via the Politico article that they knew the aide was held you would think it would come up in those last 2 meetings but it didn't come up for facts 5 meetings have never changed article one in this resolution ignores the truth it ignores the facts it ignored it ignores what happened and what has been laid out for the American people over the last 3 weeks so I hope this committee will come to its senses. At all Dr and then the. Strike article one from the resolution with that Mr Chairman I yield back Mr Chairman I moved back if you like Mr Sousa leaning opposition Thank you Mr Chairman I move to strike the last word Mr Chairman this is the miscellaneous Democrat of Rhode Island in its entirety so I want to go through the evidence that was actually developed during the course of this investigation and particularly 1st begin with the focus on the president's own conduct the president I say it's hired Rudy Giuliani his personal lawyer to go to Ukraine and lead this team to smear Vice President Biden he then began a campaign personally to smear Ambassador Yavanna bitch and then ultimately directed that she be fired to clear the way of this anti corruption champion so that his scheme could be fully implemented he directed a hold on the military aid to Ukraine and no one could provide any other explanation unrelated to his scheme to pressure them to interfere in the 2020 election then the president in his own words on July 20th gets on the telephone and asked President Zelinsky for a favor to begin an investigation of his chief political rival former Vice President Joe Biden there's a readout of the call and evidence which is the detail of this conversation is direct evidence from Alexander Renmin Williams Mr Morrison who listened in on and heard the president utter those words right out of his own mouth pressuring a foreign leader to corrupt our elections the president then made admissions in public on October 2nd October 3rd and October 4th and invited another foreign power China to interfere in the American presidential election its chief of staff acknowledged that the president directed him to put this unexplained hold on aid to Ukraine the president directed the vice president not to attend the inauguration of President Zelinsky because he hadn't yet got what he was demanding a public announcement intended to damage his political opponent bats or someone testified that the Ukrainians were. Told and I quote the resumption of u.s. Aid would likely not occur until you came Ukraine provided the public and to crush the statement that we had been discussing for many weeks and then he testified he spoke with President Trump and while the president claimed there was no quid pro quo he made it clear that President Selenski must publicly announce the 2 investigations that President Trump discussed on July 25th in a call in order for this security system to be lifted That's direct evidence but in addition to that those are just of the highlights there are over $260.00 text messages There are called trans gives as I mentioned the president's own words your e-mails between high ranking officials the trumpet ministration hundreds of press statements interviews and tweets by the president and his personal attorney Rudy Giuliani corroborating their desire to pursue investigations of Vice President Biden prior to the 2020 elections I want to give the committee a couple of just examples. President Trump himself on October 2nd said and I quote and just so you know we've been investigating on a personal basis through Rudy and other lawyers corruption in the 2016 election joy 19th investor summons e-mails multiple high ranking officials that he quote talked design ski and he quote is prepared to receive POTUS is called and will state that he will turn over every stone of the investigations in on July 29th 2900 dishing to the e-mail ambassador Salman tax ambassador Volcker makes the same thing clear sun looks like Paul has called How I spoke directly to z. And gave him full briefing he's got it all had breakfast with Rudy this morning teeing up a call with your American Monday must have held most importance for Zelinsky to say that he will help investigate and address any specific personal issues if there are any on Aug 8th investor son and best of all good text about POTUS wanting the deliverable in meaning that for Ukraine to get the White House meeting Zelinsky needs to announce the investigation someone says and I quote worse than is ready to get dates as soon as your met confirms overrespond excellent How did you sway him so on the response not sure I did I think POTUS really wants the deliverables Loker asked does he know that someone says Yup clearly lots of conversations going on in August 16th Ambassador Taylor involved to discuss Ukraine's concern that President Trump was not using official channels like the Department of Justice to request investigations Taylor tax investor of all get the person who asked for an official request was your mac lies yes but don't say Look I won't you're right this is not good we need to stay clear on August 22nd Ambassador some an e-mail secretary of state might Pompei on others to make clear that to break the logjam many releasing the military aid presidents Alinsky would have to move forward on the issues of importance to trump again meeting the investigations. And the list goes on and on so this claim that this is the thinnest of evidence is simply not true there is overwhelming evidence of the existence of a skiing led by the president led by his personal or Rudy Giuliani to corrupt the American elections to continue to withhold military aid until such time as a public announcement was made that would smear the president's chief political rival and with. Back for work purposes and is less than Thank you Mr Chair moved to strike the last word says a Republican of Arizona are really quite disturbed me when you again rejected. The rule of the House that said that we as the minority where it says in the rules that you require require. That you set a date for a minority hearing and the reason that this is important is because the rules have been thrown out the window here on this process in fact I just can't believe it I mean 1st of all you have an unprecedented way of doing impeachment you don't go through the Judiciary Committee like has been done in previous impeachment impeachments instead Speaker Pelosi hands it over to Adam Schiff Adam Schiff the Intelligence Committee chair where he has these clues do or hearings in the basement I was denied several times several times the right to go in in here with these facts witnesses sad yet I'm supposed to vote on this today and we have not had one single fact witness here in this committee at all. And then I hear from my Republican colleagues that were on the Intelligence Committee that Republicans were refused to have any of their witnesses in that committee and then on top of that Republicans were told interrupted silence by Chairman shift when they tried to ask witnesses questions they said that they said as a witness Don't answer that. I mean and so now here in Judiciary Committee we're supposed to vote on something when we haven't even heard directly from any fact witnesses all we heard from was a bunch of liberal law professors that you called here that have known a record of disliking President Trump and then you had staff talk to us and then again here in this committee are Republican members asked for witnesses so that we can ask questions to get out the truth to get out at least let us say our side of the story but no and so then we turn to Ok under the house rules it says you're required to send a minority hearing so that we can at least call witnesses so we can get some truth out to the American public instead of this one sided sham that no here again I think you said right here. No we're not going to do that well I'll consider a date in the future that you can have a minority hearing for goodness sakes we're voting on this today it's so good to have a date in the future then it's done you've already put through those I mean it just continues to amaze me how corrupt how unfair this process has been from the start I mean for goodness sakes we had 17 out of 24 of my Democratic colleagues that have already voted on the House floor to continue with articles of impeachment it was it was it was Mr Green who put a resolution on the floor articles of impeachment it was July 17th. And then there was a vote to table it and they voted against the tabling meaning they wanted to go ahead with articles of impeachment. That was even before the July 25th call. I mean come on this is a pre-determined you guys have been wanting to impeach this president since you got elected fact after fact after fact I know that you some of you really think the president did something wrong but the fact is there is no none of your witnesses none of your fact witnesses were able to establish any evidence of bribery trees and high crimes or misdemeanors not one single wire and that's what it says has to be done in the Constitution so again I believe the president of the United States is right this is a sham impeachment and it sure is a shame and I yield back the balance of my time. Backward prism is the new mission . Were to strike the last we're going to thank you Mr Chairman Karen Hughes Democrat from Colorado my colleagues on the other side of the aisle it is difficult to follow some of these arguments I've heard very little in the way of any substantive defenses of the president's conduct but instead focus again on some very forceful process arguments in my view and I am compelled to respond to at least one of those which is this notion about the closed door depositions because it's high understand it from reading these transcripts many minority members were present and granted equal time to question witnesses brought before the Intelligence Committee the Foreign Affairs Committee in the Government Oversight Committee some of those members are actually on the committee so I struggle to understand the objections in that regard the idea that intelligence committee's investigation was not sufficiently transparent in my view also rings hollow because we know the transcripts. From those interviews those depositions have been released I know I've reviewed them I suspect many of my colleagues have as well and if you did not review those transcripts you surely watched the live testimony of Ambassador saw in one lieutenant colonel Vin and so many other public servants over the course of many weeks as knowing ins of Americans watched along with us so again it is I understand that we're going to have a robust debate about the legal standards that govern the inquiry that is before us in the decision we make on these articles but let us stay true to the facts and let's dispense with these process arguments and get to the substance of why we are here today I will also just say historical context matters I was not on the Judiciary Committee in 1999 in 1998 but my understanding is at that time the Judiciary Committee did not examine any fact witnesses during the Clinton impeachment inquiry I know there are members of this committee that were here at that time and they will are well aware that they did question can a star and then afterwards had hearings with legal experts to expound upon the legal standards that would define the decision before the committee I would also say that during the Nixon impeachment inquiry the examination of witnesses fact witnesses rather was conducted exclusively behind closed doors in July of 1974 so unlike both the Nixon inquiry as well as the Clinton inquiry the House Intelligence Committees hearings future testimony from a dozen witnesses in an open hearing subject to public examination by Republican members and counsel facts matter and I hope that each and every one of us would agree at least on that simple with way and with that the gentleman I would yield to distinguish men from California Miss Lothrop. I would just like to know going back to the analogy Democrat of California. Impeachment gentleman is correct that there was really no public presentation in the Judiciary Committee there were some quite a few depositions that were private but there was a lot of public has to more it wasn't before the Judiciary Committee it was before the Senate Watergate Committee as you'll recall the president's counsel John Dean appeared and testified that there was a cancer on the presidency and a number of other the revelation that there was a recording system in the White House all of that happened in the Senate and the fact that it happened in the Senate didn't mean that the judiciary committee didn't know about it I mean the whole country knew about it and took notice of it there's only a few members of as of this committee that were on the Judiciary Committee during the Clinton impeachment I was one of them is Jackson Lee and Mr Adler where we were as well as Mr Sensenbrenner and and the gentleman from Ohio we had a report from Mr Starr I remember very well we didn't have extensive fact witnesses we had the report we had evidence over in the Ford building that we could go over and look at privately idea a number of members did but gentleman has correctly summarized the situation I would yield back to the chair Chairman I yield back townsman general yields back to what purpose the sense of urgency and I must strike the last word. James Sensenbrenner Republican of Wisconsin is obvious you know after all you American public. This is a railroad. You know things have been going quickly but I think the real key here is the war of all of the denials of minority. Requests of here and in the Intelligence Committee. The Republicans in the president have not been able to put in live witnesses to be able to. Basically put together a defense and if you're going to have a trial you have to have both the prosecution and defense here we don't have a defense because of the rulings that have been made one of which was made just a few minutes ago by the chairman of this committee now let me say you know 1st of all. The hearings that were in the basement of the Capitol were secret hearings they were classified hearings none of the members who were in that hearing room could ethically go out and tell the public and the news media exactly what was said there and they probably could have been held before the Ethics Committee or worse if they attempted to do that. There were leaks that came out of there. None of the members could the other point is that the vast majority of members of the Judiciary Committee which has all the mature restriction over all proposed impeachments were not members of the 3 other committees and were not allowed to go in to the basement of the Capitol hearing room listen to what was going out and do see those live with distance. There are a number of my colleagues on this side of the aisle including Ms Les Gold Mr Graves that attempted to do that and chairmanship kick them out or would not allow them to go in there now. When you have a trial you really cannot make a determination on exactly whether the witnesses are telling the truth or exaggerating or mixing it up or spinning it some way or the hour without looking at them in person we don't have that opportunity there are a few select witnesses that were in the public hearings over the intelligence committee a couple of weeks ago that the intelligence committee does not have the jurisdiction I don't know whether to recommend the impeachment of anybody let alone the president of the United States. You know we've heard complaints about the fact that in the Clinton impeachment there were no fact witnesses Shabbat and I were there as were as Ms often a straggly of the cherubim. What happened there is that both sides were allowed to present whatever with this as they wanted to Kenneth Starr and all of the grunt work and putting together the facts he sent over $36.00 boxes of evidence which report over. 4 building that's not happened here the independent counsel It was appointed to look into President Trump as. Mr payment testified and that ended up being a big fizzle you know for what the Democrats wanted to do so all much of the most. After his testimony the cross-examination by members on both sides of the aisle and it is disappearing in the outer space they have to find something else let me say that everybody on both ends of the telephone call between President Trump and President Zelinsky as said very clearly there was no quid pro quo. More often there are no pressure that was put crayons I don't know how many times presidents when he has had to say that apparently it's not enough because minds on the other side of the aisle are close but that's what the facts are and the facts you know speak for themselves there was no impeachable offense here and mass Why article was on the impeachment and falling flat on its face and that it should be stricken and I support the amendment to strike it from a gentleman of all Io and yield back to trim and gentleman yields back the generally. Gentlemen in sight order the. Gentleman is regular Stargate and also just in case our sent colleagues the ranking member here Republican yes we did get a letter in the middle of hearing say oh well we just got a document dump on the weekend where the chairman told me well we're not going to read him anyway no a wee wee. Little His time is expired for purposes Jackson I just write the last word Mr Chairman. I think before I begin Sheila Jackson Lee Democrat of Texas question here that it is important to remind all of us that the president abused his power and is a continuing threat not only to democracy but to our national security we do not take this lightly we take it very seriously and I beg to differ with my dear friend as one who was here for the impeachment proceedings in 1908 along with my colleagues both Mr Sensenbrenner Mr Chavis inadmissable our friend let me be very clear of the distinctive difference that we had then at that time for the American people the special prosecutor is that was an independent statute. That allowed both Mr Girard ski during the next in proceedings and then Mr Starr to have an independent process of investigation the Congress was not privy to any of that investigation and on they proceeded they were not interfered with as Mr Malo was by the deal j. Because he was an employee of the Department of Justice and his employer his boss came out in characterize his report before he could even discuss it in the instance of the proceedings of $998.00 the Congress received a report just as both our friends on the other side of the hour and we in the majority receive reports from the impeachment inquiry committees who were investigatory committees they did their work yes in a classified setting as I imagine both Mr. Starr and Mr Jaworski had to do in certain instances they were like prosecutors they had witnesses that were not in the public and then of course there were 4 public hearings 17 witnesses firsthand witnesses who heard the call and testified not on any 2nd hand knowledge but firsthand knowledge. It is clear that we're dealing with a question of a continuing threat which is why we have to respond and let me be very clear I hold in my hands that unclassified transcript I beg to differ with my friends allow me just for a moment to tell you that in the call President of the Linsky said these sentences would also like to thank you for your great support in the area of defense for trying to continue to cooperate for the next step specifically we also want to be ready to buy javelins that's equipment military equipment from the United States for defense purposes Ukraine's in the midst of a war against a nation that shot down at least some of those alleged to be separatists using Russian weapons a commercial airliner This is a serious war we're our men and women with military in the military or on the ground trying to assist and here's the very next and the very next sentence is not yes let's get with the Department of Defense Let's review your request the very next sentence I would like you to do a favor though this is discussion about the fields the next sentence should have been. I think we are well aware of Europe difficult predicament going to have you talk to the secretary of defense but it said a couple of sentences later I would like to have the attorney general call you or your people and I'd like you to get to the bottom of the investigation so I would just. Offer to say. That. It is not frivolous. And with out facts that we proceed we proceed with facts and we take this in a very somber manner. Be happy to yield to the gentleman from I would just like to note that well while this was you listening to live special coverage of the impeachment markup from n.p.r. News this is $89.00 page k.p.c. See Pasadena 89.1. 90.3 k v.l.a. Coachella and 89.5. So that the highest death toll on any day in the Ukraine Russian war was August 7th of this year wow aid was being withheld so this had life and death consequences and I yield back to the general Very quickly let me say my predecessor Barbara Jordan said that impeachment is designed for the president and his hind ministers somehow to be called into account that is all we're doing on behalf of the American people and protecting the national security of this nation I your bank is generally yours ragman what purposes Mr Shadley like the last word journalist strikes last word generals regulars Thank you Mr Mario the ranking member just real quickly Miss Lady from California who just misstated something without address head on last not am under sector hail stated this was Perspective money it was not an affair it was no this is live special coverage of the impeachment from n.p.r. News Doug Collins here the ranking member for all this money did not stop that that is something that cannot continue to be perpetrated upon this world. Reclaiming my time Mr Chairman that the biggest difference in the Clinton impeachment and this one is that President Clinton committed a crime perjury this president isn't even accused of committing a crime the Constitution is pretty clear on what constitutes an impeachable offense treason bribery and other high crimes and misdemeanors it's not treason bribery and other high crimes and misdemeanors or whatever else Nancy Pelosi and Adam Schiff deem impeachable now I think we can. All agree that no president should have used the powers of his her office just like the chairman the better Republican of Ohio the powers of his office to obtain and publish the phone records of the president's personal attorney a member of the media and the ranking member of that same committee but that doesn't make alleged abuse of power a high crime or misdemeanor in their newly authored memo on constitutional grounds for impeachment the majority on this committee goes to great lengths to explain why abuse of power is an impeachable offense specifically mentioning it was one of the charges against both Richard Nixon and Bill Clinton what they don't mention is that the House of Representatives has never adopted alleged abuse of power as a charge in a presidential impeachment why because there is no criminal statute describing what alleged abuse of power actually is abuse of power is therefore a vague ambiguous term open to the interpretation of every individual because abuse of power lacks a concise legal definition there's a higher burden of proof on those pursuing such a charge to show the actions of the president rise to the level of impeachment I believed that Bill Clinton had abused the power of his office but we failed to convince our colleagues in the house and that particular charge was you rejected by the full House in this case the evidence provided is less convincing In fact I don't it's nonexistent 1st there was no quid pro quo 2nd it's a widely known fact that Ukraine is one of the most corrupt countries on the planet it's why Congress required the administration to certify that the Ukrainian government had taken steps to clean up corruption before military aid could be provided to the country President Trump was well aware of that fact and quite skeptical of giving Ukraine foreign aid long before the now famous July 25th phone call 3rd Ukraine.