The goals of impeachment The 1st is abuse of power the president of the United States this is. The sitting foreigner for interference in our elections sheeting the American voters how did he do it Q leveraged life saving tax payer funded military aid that Ukraine desperately needed for assistance in his reelection campaign and he leveraged a White House meeting that he had promised to the new president Ukrainian president that president's allies keep desperately needed to show Vladimir Putin that the United States is willing to stand with Ukraine and he leverage that meeting for assistance in his reelection campaign that's abuse of power now my colleagues have suggested that somehow abuse of power is not a serious offense that. We should make light of the president's actions not treat it as the constitutional violation that is in fact abuse of power was a principal concern of the framers of the Constitution and it it was clear what it meant the exercise of official power to obtain improper personal benefit while ignoring or injuring the national interest that's abuse of power it's rooted in the president's duty constitutional duty to faithfully execute the law to put service over self to put the country over his personal interests I know from my colleagues that all 4 of the constitutional scholars who testified including the Republicans own witness have confirmed that abuse of power is an impeachable offense. President transactions in fact exemplify the framers fears and the very reason that abuse of power is a high crime and worse worse than President Nixon President Trump pressured a foreign government to aid in his crap scheme that's the abuse of power article but there's a 2nd article obstruction of Congress we know that no president in history in history as directed the entire executive branch not to cooperate with an impeachment inquiry has told every member of the executive branch not to speak to any of the impeachment and greet to any of the impeachment inquiry issues now the question is when you look at the abuse of power which is a constitutional violation and then you look at the president's obstruction of Congress it leads to some questions I would like my colleagues to think about as we head toward this important vote think about the people who the president has blocked from speaking Think about. Mick Mulvaney Now Mick Mulvaney acknowledged acting chief of staff acknowledge a quid pro quo says it happens all the time that's abuse of power then the president wouldn't let him speak that's obstruction of Congress why won't he let him speak what does he have to hide think about Secretary Perry and Bassett or Taylor describe the highly irregular Ukraine policy channel led by Rudy Giuliani that included Simon Volcker and Rick Perry that contributes to the abuse of power it highlights the abuse of power but it also is obstruction of Congress why why won't the president allow him to speak what is he afraid of. Think about John Bolton Fiona Hill testified the Bolton told her to notify it at the Council about the rogue effort he said I'm not a party I said I'm not a part of whatever drug deal little Mulvaney are cooking up bold in fact called Giuliani a hand grenade who's going to blow everybody up that's the abuse of power obstruction of Congress is clear why won't the president let him testify What's he hiding and finally John Eisenberg. Couldn't believe what he heard on the call he reported to us. Now Eisenberg can't speak what is it that the president is afraid he'll say that's obstruction of Congress abuse of power and structure in the Congress together that's what these articles are about we're protecting the Constitution we're protecting the American people and our elections that's why we need to proceed with these articles of impeachment go back generally years back you see resolution for our purposes misdirection throws seek recognition I move to strike the last word Mr Chairman is recognized and you Mr Chairman. Republican of Pennsylvania prosecutor in Baghdad when I was in the Navy prosecutors actually in the Iraqi court system I was a defense attorney in the Navy actually got to defend a navy seal against charges by the Obama administration and I had the honor of serving as a district judge in my hometown in the South Hills of Pittsburgh so I've been on all sides of courtroom and I can tell you that I would defend this case every single day and it's because the facts just aren't there let's go through each article abuse of power or quid pro quo bribery call it would ever your focus group wants to call it is the end of the day you don't have the facts to make out the case. You don't have the facts because the other party on your quid pro quo quid pro quo never felt pressure we have a primary document a primary source of information there is the transcript of the call that shows there is no connection we also have the other party presence Alinsky said it no time to the Ukrainians feel any pressure to have an investigation we also know that no investigation Abidin ever took place we also know that aid was given to Ukraine aid that they never knew at the time was being under review in aid they came in the form of javelin missiles now would the Obama administration gave which were well wishes and blankets so again no case can be made for abuse of power obstruction of Congress this with what we describe as right or not right it isn't right because only letters have been sent there's been no subpoena and how this works is is a subpoenas issued the executive branch Igs exercises their executive privilege just like Obama did in the courts decide this the courts have never decided this so where's the obstruction doesn't exist. Side I would defend this case every single day as a judge I would dismiss this for lack of merit even if the facts are viewed in light most favorable to the Democrats you still again cannot make out what we used as lawyers call a promise they should case this case would be dismissed on day one in a courtroom. But I'll tell you what case I'd prosecute I prosecute shift for abuse of power any day of the week why how about the fact the subpoenaed phone records from a member of Congress how about the fact he took down the Nunez's cell phone number and lead that. How about the fact that he dumped over $8000.00 pages on the Judiciary Committee 48 hours before we had a hearing in this committee that is the abuse of power and that is what I would prosecute every day of the week obstruction I prosecute the Democrats for obstruction of Congress still I love the fact that I had a motion to subpoena the whistleblower the whistleblower who by the way you cannot point to any statute there's no statute that gives out whistleblower the right to be Anonymous does not exist no matter what you say I had the motion to subpoena the whistleblower 2 weeks ago that motion was denied I never got my subpoena and it was done in a partisan fashion straight down partisan lines so that is the of shocks and I would prosecute that every single day folks as a legal analysis this is nothing more than a political hit job thanks and I yield the ranger my time gentleman years back to work purposes nation and move to strike the last word and. You know I want to reiterate. Democrat of Pennsylvania president's policies are personality or even his tweets were not judging the president himself or judging his actions and I understand that he ran to disrupt the government the problem is he went further by abusing his power endangered our elections and our national security. He remains an ongoing threat to both He's shown a pattern of inviting foreign interference in our elections and trying to cover it up twice he's threatening to do it again so we've heard a lot of loose talk about what evidence we have or don't have there is plenty of direct evidence of the president's wrong doing including for example is July 25th call records in which he said to the Ukrainian president I want you to do was a favor though and then proceeded to request investigations into his political rival in a de bunked conspiracy theory that the Senate and all of our national security services have rejected we have the testimony of his appointees ambassadors Sandland and Bowker about the May 23rd meeting in which the president said to them talk to Rudy we have testimony of 3 1st hand witnesses to the July 25th call to phone promptly reported the call to their superiors and to legal counsel we have the testimony of David Holmes who overheard the president ask him Bassett or son Lindh whether President Selenski was going to quote do the investigation we have the president's many public statements including his October 3rd statement that Ukraine and China should investigate his political rival even the minority counsel Mr Castro admitted that there was direct evidence he said quote We had some direct evidence on certain things and we had some direct evidence on the May 23rd meeting and someone gave some direct evidence and quote the 2nd hand accounts are also extensively corroborated for example embassador Taylor and Mr Morrison both testified that during a September 7th phone call with Ambassador sun President Trump said there was no quid pro quo but the president's Alinsky had to go to the microphone and announce investigations kind of giving with one hand and taking away with the other. Ambassador someone testified he had no reason to dispute ambassador Taylor's and Mr Morrison's testimony about this conversation there's also circumstantial evidence there was no contemporaneous explanation given for the president's decision to withhold the military aid that had bipartisan support from Congress that didn't come until after the Articles of Impeachment were filed and the uniform consensus of the State Department the Defense Department and White House witnesses is that the a should have been released given these facts the only logical explanation as ambassador son concluded was that like the White House meeting the aide was being used to leverage pressure on President Selenski at the end of the day the evidence is overwhelming and indisputable. President Trump's personal lawyer Rudy Giuliani pushed Ukraine to investigate his political rival and a de bunked conspiracy theory his efforts had nothing to do with u.s. Policy and were taken on the president's behalf and with the president's knowledge President Trump directed u.s. Officials and presidents Olinsky himself to work with Mr Giuliani President Trump ordered that critical military aid for Ukraine be withheld Ukrainian officials were informed the aide would not be released and must president Selenski publicly announce an investigation and President Trump refused to release the aide until his pressure campaign on the Ukraine was exposed President Trump refused to arrange a meeting with President Alinsky and President Trump's agents advise Ukrainian officials that the White House meeting would be scheduled only after President Selenski committed investigations President Trump ignored the anti-corruption talking points prepared for his calls President Trump and asked President Selenski directly to investigate President Trump's chief political rival and President Trump stonewalled Congress's Congress's investigation. You know I don't know what more you can ask for here we've got admissions from the president we've got corroboration from people he's appointed. The only thing you can do is stick your head in the sand if you're not willing to see what happened here and with that I would yield to my colleague from Florida is she here Ok she's. Thank you you're just seconds away for the next year I took a. Gentle lady as if I. Were purpose is to arms to see Greg move to strike the last word it is recognized for weeks my Democratic colleagues Armstrong Republican from North Dakota tested bribery. But they had a problem because these things will never change there was no pressure both President Selenski and President Trump said that there was no pressure no one to be no victim . You don't. Know if the aid was released and there was no investigation and you know what else there was no whistle blower there was no Adam shit so we are left with abuse of power and obstruction of justice and impeach them in is either a solemn constitutional affair which this is absolutely not our whatever the majority wants it to be which this absolutely is if you cannot prove any of it I guess you're going to use all of it so why not expand it to all the way back to the where this thing all started. And buried in the bottom of Article 2 of this impeachment is the language these actions were consistent with the president terms of previous efforts to undermine United States government investigations into foreign interference United States elections this is nothing more than a legislative drive by are probably more accurate of merged majorities attempt to return to the scene of a non crime but I guess after 2 years 1000 lawyers 40 agents 500 warrants 22800 subpoenas $30000000.00 There's simply no way they could leave it out. So here's just a reminder the investigation did not establish that members of the Trump campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference Sacto to Vaduz Moeller Report page 2. This started the day President Trump won new election this has been the foregone conclusion since the day the Democrats won back the majority this was never about facts or fairness so here we are where we were always going to be on a purely partisan impeachment that is destined to fail in the Senate and with that I yield back. General yells back for what purpose is a. Well can see great nation strike the last word tonight is recognized you know I have listened carefully as Zoe Lofgren Democrat from California who as we've said has been involved in the impeachment inquiry into Nixon Clinton and now try think it's important to look back to the founders in the foundation of what it is that we're doing here the founders knew that the. Howard is given to the president needed to have the capacity to be curbed in the case of abuse the framers of the Constitution consciously adopted a particular phrase from the English practice to help define the constitutional grounds for removal the content of the phrase high crimes and misdemeanors for the framers as to be related to what the framers knew on the whole about the English practice the broad sweep of English cars to show history and the vital role in Pietschmann had played in the limitation of royal prerogative and the control of abuses of ministerial and judicial power now when you're coming to private affairs in an ordinary criminal law it's possible in advance to define what it is you can't do you can't. Steal that money you can't. Have that person when you're talking about the abuse of presidential power. You can't always specifically define what a bad actor in the White House might do and therefore you have the term high crimes and misdemeanors and you have the abuse of presidential power it's important to note and in the 2nd article of impeachment against Richard Nixon there was an article for abuse of power the article principally addressed President Nixon's use of power including the powers that stood solely in the president to aid his political allies harm his political opponents gain improper personal political advantages he used his power and this is a quote it was undertaken for his personal political advantage and not in furtherance of any valid national political objective his presidential powers and again this is a quote We're seriously incompatible with our system of constitutional government and warranted removal from office we have a situation similar here but I want to address the issue raised by my colleague from Ohio because I do agree that there can be a tendency in the country these days to immediately think well I don't like that let's go to impeachment and that has frankly been prevalent send the Clinton impeachment lying under oath is a crime lying about sex is a shame but neither one involves the use of presidential powers. And the use of impeachment in that instance really in an improper way it was never the abuse of presidential power I think put it in the public mind that this is a tool to be used for disagreements about policy nothing could be further than the truth I was disappointed I voted against the Iraq war but the Congress voted some people thought we should have articles of impeachment about that no that did not undercut the cost to Szell order congress voted it was a mistake but it was the president and the Congress together it was not the president usurping the powers of another branch of government here we have a situation that is so obvious if you look at the facts how come it's just inconceivable that things I've heard today are just stunning to me that you could reach a conclusion as to really defense counsel here grasping at straws. The president misused his presidential power to gain a personal benefit to the detriment of the interests of the United States it was an abuse of power that harmed us and it is ongoing it is a threat to the constitutional order it meets the definition of high crimes and misdemeanors it is abuse of presidential power and is our responsibility to use the tool that our founders gave us in the Constitution to preserve that cause to show order we must impeach I yield back General he yields back 6 recognition for our purposes was to go and see great strides the last war and lose regular us and yet just record comment Louie Gohmert Republican of Texas about President Clinton's actions when you lie under oath it's perjury it's a crime. And I understand the comment that he wasn't acting in his official capacity that would set back the maid to movement if they took that position you know having sex with an employee it's that my juncture when you're present the United States that's not in his fishing capacity but no matter how long we spin today denied tomorrow it doesn't make up for the fact that we did not have fact witnesses I mean this this reminds me historically of the trial of salve Socrates you know where he got convicted by the jury of 501 people while because he was arrogant you want to try Donald Trump for being arrogant. I'm sure you'd have a lot of Republicans vote with you on that yeah he's arrogant he's got a lot of to be arrogant about but that is not a crime it is not a high crime for sure and it's certainly not a misdemeanor it's bothersome to people some people like it but that's not what impeachment is supposed to be about and to have had a trial the what few here say gossip mongering witnesses there were coming to a star chamber and so create their testimonies so people can't see them can't hear them but we have Adam Schiff put it together in in in a big report and we received the report on how much time to review it but that's all we need we don't even get to hear from the preparer of the report and get to cross-examine him this is a Stalinist top proceeding that's the way it worked under Stalin you didn't get to find out what the fact witness is because usually there weren't any just like here so what do you have you have people come in and give appearance give their impressions and give an appearance and oh gee we're well educated you know great that's fine and if you're ever not sure about being good at rationalizing go to law school you're trying to do that so that when you hate a person like that 3 witnesses obviously do don't drop you can come in and just misrepresent facts and use those to base your opinions on them just great but look at what really started this started before Muller It started back. Carter Paige had worked for the CIA a to help them against the Russians and what did they do they pervert that lied to the court and say oh he has worked with Russians misrepresented who is what he did it what a patriot he was and then get a warrant. And then his time goes on they lie about it and where did this this Al come from it came from Hillary Clinton's campaign the Democratic National Campaign Committee and they hired a fusion g.p.s. They hired a foreigner to affect our election and they worked with an Australian. Man and they actually Christopher Steele admitted you know what those people who gave me that information they may have been Russian they may have been Ukrainians be nice to know but the majority didn't want us to get there and the very week we find out how bad this travesty was that top people in the f.b.i. And the Department of Justice per verted justice because they didn't like the guy that might get elected they did everything they could they used all these foreign resources to try to change the outcome of the 2016 election and when that didn't work then they came forward with impeachment it was oh let's project what we did on Donald Trump but it turned out he didn't do that in even Mahler and Wiseman as much as they hated drop they couldn't find anything to to use against President Trump so we had to drop the Russian collusion we had to drop the treason Oh what about obstruction just will is not obstruction of justice when you know you're innocent and you know the Department of Justice is trying to set you up and you're trying to expose the truth you know it was others who were obstructing the true justice. Then man for heaven's sake you set that up as you were always no hero he was mad because Trump didn't do what he told him for those who believe in prayer for this country pray for mercy we can't afford justice or the country but. For purposes. You should move to strike the last word Mr Lu is really worth it your chairman 5 more minutes so I see a Democrat of Texas long day when you look at what the other side has presented in defense of the president why do we get. Nothing now if we all will defend the president's actions because quite simply you cannot defend the indefensible you just can't even if you like him his supporters actions you just won't defend what he did it's really quite simple it's not complicated at all he offered official acts in exchange for political favor he's a clear and present danger to do it again he ignored the powers that people and he will do it again it's really just that simple Their president is an eminent and eminent threat their president has showed us his pattern of conduct he has made clear that he will continue to abuse his power to corrupt the 2020 elections in this act with a sense of urgency to protect our democracy and defend our Constitution and the Clinton case the House voted to impeach $72.00 days after it authorized an inquiry it has been $94.00 days since Congress launched its investigation into the president's dealings in Ukraine. And Pietschmann is a charging decision I could grand jury or a prosecutor makes it we have seen more than enough evidence here to charge him and move to trial in the Senate it is the president who is abusing his power what is not fear is the president's blanket refusal to participate in this inquiry for the sole purpose of hiding the facts from the American people for a group records have ruled that Congress has a constitutional right to obtain documents and testimony from the trumpet ministration one federal court said that their presence obstructions is a farce and he is openly stonewalling and I agree he is the 1st president to engage in wall to wall stonewalling and in some respects and outright coverup of his own behavior he has refused to comply with all the congressional subpoenas that have been issued to try to uncover the truth about his misconduct and act that no other citizen can do without consequence as has been stated before even President Nixon shared documents in the loud current and former aides to testify as part of the impeachment process and the committee still recommended an article of impeachment against him for obstruction last night I reminded us that all this is really a protest about preserving and protected our democracy for the little boys and girls across this nation so that they will know about what it means to make a promise to make a pledge and to keep it because democracy is a gift that each generation gives to the next. And that's why we have to take action we have to move forward and we must impeach the president with that Mr Chairman I yield the remainder of my time to my colleague from Florida miss a personal pal Thank you Ms Garcia I just wanted to answer to every car so powerful Democratic supporter and clarify that I along with so many of my colleagues so many of us that you see seize sitting on this day as we did not come here to impeach the president of the United States we came to lower health care costs and that's exactly what we did today we voted on h.r. 3 today to lower prescription drug prices they say let the American people decide Well that is why last week we voted on the Voting Rights Amendment Act which many of my Republican colleagues voted against Let American society yes that is exactly why we're here because we don't want Russia Ukraine or China making the decision for us in our American government this president has committed the highest crime by abusing the power of his office inviting foreign interference in our elections and that is why we are here today please don't confuse Americans with false claims and pushing the bunked conspiracy theories we're here to tell the American people the truth ailed back generally years back who seeks regulation for purposes. Destroyed the last word it was regulars. Mr Chairman I've lost track of the no Tom McClintock Republican of California record in these proceedings but I think it's a telling commentary on the quality of the case that this committee is relying on to support the exercise of one of the most profound actions we can take I think it underscores dereliction of duty of a judiciary committee drafting articles of impeachment without a single fact hearing virtually the entire record is the ship report and newspaper clippings as I reminded the committee yesterday this week Mr shift report on Pfizer abuse was categorically and completely contradicted by the inspector general's report as to shift work is not exactly what you can call the gold standard of accuracy or reliability your incisive analysis and newspaper clippings with all due respect are not exactly this solid foundation that can support our wielding such power impeachment should be made of sterner stuff matter so momentous is this should be considered thoroughly and dispassionately and fairly and Mr Chairman just substitute our judgment for that of the American people by nullifying a national election is a very weighty matter if you're going to do that you should have a record of fact that no reasonable person can deny a one sided report from Adam Schiff and a newspaper scrapbook is the foundation of peace meant that I predict will crumble and disintegrate before the Senate finishes its consideration. Abuse of Power is exactly the vague and expansive ground that the Founders considered as maladministration and rejected in favor of the narrow ground of treason bribery or other high crimes and misdemeanors a lawful exercise of the president's constitutional authority is not impeachable and the moment that we make it so the president becomes a servant of Congress and the separation of powers which is protected our freedom for nearly 2 and a half centuries will be greatly diminished and similarly the president's assertion of long established boundaries that maintain the separation of powers is also not impeachable and once we make it so we also clearly diminish the separation of powers the overwrought political hyperbole that we've heard over and over through these hearings ought to warn us that we're straying into partisan motives which must never animate the impeachment power of Congress public opinion has not coalesced around this act which should also alert us to the danger that by proceeding we would further divide and alienate the American people and royal and agitate the political waters of this nation you failed to find any law that the president has violated if you could you should clearly articulate that you should support it with legal admitted admissible evidence and put it in the articles Otherwise your case is simply a disagreement with decisions the President is authorized to make and again this is a matter that there are costs to some reserves to the voters and not to the Congress and by denying the witnesses requested by the minority you've blinded the committee to the getting the whole story if you're truly confident of your case you should have nothing to fear from what a full airing of testimony would off. The most chilling observation I've heard is that we can do this because we're not restricted like the Department of Justice as well the same rights of due process and the same fidelity to the Constitution are required of us and the impeachment of Andrew Johnson Congress made many of the same mistakes that we are making tonight I would urge my colleagues to carefully consider how history has judged them and how it will judge us I yield back. General years back where purposes of his Jaya posi Greg has moved to strike last word and ladies regular. Thank you Mr Chairman we just continue mellow to try appalls I mean out of Washington for the president's behavior and this is such a grave moment that we're in we're talking about the highest constitutional crimes abuse of power and obstruction of Congress and so let me once again just review the facts 1st my Republican colleagues have said that this is about corruption but all of President Trump's agencies all of his advisors everyone unanimously told him that Ukraine had passed all the anti-corruption benchmarks the Department of Defense said that Ukraine had passed their review on anti-corruption benchmarks so no further corruption policies were needed president Trump's administration cut programs designed to fight corruption in Ukraine and President Trump was given talking points by the National Security Council that specifically said if talk to say these things about corruption but guess what happened on those calls in April and July President Trump did not mention corruption he did not use the talking points that he was given the only 2 names that he mentioned on the July 21st call were Joe and Hunter Biden 2nd the Republican suggested that this was all about President from concerns with Burden sharing with our allies but that wasn't true that wasn't true Mr Holmes testified that burden sharing was not a problem Europe was actually contributing 4 times as much money as the United States did and Ambassador Solomon testified that he was never asked to go to the European Union and ask for more money and remember Mr Sutherland is President Trump's ambassador to the European Union what was Ambassador Sunland told to communicate to Ukraine by President Trump he was told to say that resumption of aid would likely not. Occur unless President Selenski announced the investigation specifically he said that quote unless Selenski went to the mike and announced these investigations there would be a stalemate over the 8 and what were those investigations 2016 election interference and response meaning the Bidens So finally left with nothing else to argue in defense of the president the Republicans have raised one more thing which is that President Trump had a legitimate reason somehow legitimate reason to investigate Vice President Biden but once again that makes no sense it makes no sense because the facts are that that investigation of the of that issue of the Biden. Biden and recently went back to 2015. And President Trump released aid in 20172800 so he clearly didn't have a problem in 20 with the issues of 2015 because he had 2 opportunities to release 8 and he did but something changed in 2019 and the only thing that changed is that Vice President Biden suddenly started beating President Trump in the polls so the evidence is clear President Trump said Do us a favor though and who was the us well he told us he told us that exactly what he meant by us he told President Selenski that us meant deal with Rudy Giuliani President Trump's personal attorney who knows and this is a quote very much knows what's going on present Trump could have gone through official channels if he wanted if this investigation was actually legitimate he could have asked the Department of Justice to initiate an investigation into the Bidens and respond but he didn't do that he did not do that and the Department of Justice said that he didn't do that he never asked them to do an investigation or even talk to you crane Instead President Trump asked his personal attorney because us was not about America this wasn't about official policy this wasn't about what was right for our country this was not about putting America 1st every witness testified to that as well this was personal it was all for president Trump's personal political gain this was to benefit Trump's own reelection campaign and that's why he had his personal attorney do this he abused his power he abused the power that the people and trusted to him he abused the office and he placed our safety millions of dollars of taxpayer money all at risk for his own personal political election and that is the $1.00 thing the president can't. To he cannot use our money the powers of the office that we entrusted to him we the people not for us but for himself that is the greatest abuse of power and this president has left us no choice but to impeach him I yield back. Generally years back when it was as Mr Jones says he should move to strike less work it was ridiculous Thank you Mr Chairman this morning I began by I Johnson Republican of Louisiana most of us are attorneys on this committee and in this case were also called to serve as finders of fact we're supposed to carefully and objectively analyze the claims not against our personal preferences but against the record of evidence and now we've done that for the past 12 hours and it's time to summarize our case at the end of the day now now literally the end of the day they're just too short articles for this impeachment resolution they brought before us abuse of power and obstruction of justice and let's review both on the 1st the Democrats know there is 0 direct evidence in the record of these proceedings to show that President Trump and gage in any scheme of any kind as they've alleged or that he intended in his dealings with Ukraine to influence the 2020 election all they've argued today is based on hearsay speculation and conjecture completely the truth is there's not a single fact witness that could provide testimony to support their paper thin case which is precisely why we've been given no opportunity or for a fact witness or a minority hearing. What the evidence does show is that President Trump holds a deep seated genuine and reasonable skepticism of Ukraine due to its history of pervasive corruption and his administration sought proof that the newly elected president's Alinsky was a true reformer President Trump wanted to ensure that American taxpayer funded security assistance would not be squandered overseas by what is reported to be the 3rd most corrupt nation in the world the Trump Ukraine discussion discussions were never about what will happen in 2020 but rather about what already happened in 2016 the Democrats' 2nd claim is that President Trump obstructed justice by simply doing what virtually every other president in the modern era has also done to assert a legitimate executive privilege and legal immunity to avoid subpoenas issued to various White House officials there is simply no evidence of any impeachable offense here either and if they had not promised an impeachment to their liberal base by Christmas the Democrats could and should have simply gone a few blocks away to the federal court to get a simple order compelling the extra documents and information they subpoenaed but that's what's always been done in the past but they don't have time for that here because they're trying to meet their own arbitrary completely reckless and Macchiavelli and timeline to take down a president they loathe the real abuse of power here is on the part of the House Democrats of this feverish we pursued this impeachment 20 times faster than the impeachment investigation of Bill Clinton to reach their pre-determined political outcome along the way they have steamrolled over constitutionally guaranteed due process previously sacrosanct house rules and the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure they have ignored or blocked a school Vittori evidence intimidated witnesses restricted Republican lines of questioning denied defense witnesses an involvement of the president's counsel restricted Republican review of evidence denied minority here and violated proper minority notice in fairness at every single stage the founders of this court country warned against a single party impeachment for good reason. They feared that it would bitterly and perhaps irreparably divide our nation our chairman Mr NAVL or gave a speech about that 20 years ago when he was opposing the impeachment of Bill Clinton the obvious truth is that our liberal colleagues are valid to impeach President Trump since the day of his election their reason of the day changed at least a half a dozen times over the last 3 years but they can never get any traction or any facts to justify those various conspiracy theories as the next election in 2020 has drawn so close now and their candidates for president are so terribly weak they obviously met somewhere at liberal high command about 75 days ago and convinced Nancy Pelosi they had to pull the trigger the problem is they've done that and in all those hearings in the basement they couldn't uncover a single fact to justify their latest conspiracy theory about Ukraine so what to do they left no choice to desperately create a totally fraudulent unprecedented process to try to rewrite Donald Trump the results is what our expert witness testified as quote the shortest proceeding with the thinnest evidence for your record and the narrowest grounds ever used to impeach a President I'm a constitutional law attorney by profession and I've actually enjoyed the sparse 4 minutes of real intellectual debate we had today on the actual contours of Article 2 Section 4 but every high school civics student at home can read its plain language and see what is expressly required to impeach a president you need treason bribery or a high crime or misdemeanor none of that exists here and everybody knows it those high school students at home know it our constituents know it and in their heart of hearts even our friends on the other side of the room tonight know it my good friend Mr Cohen said in his closing a few moments ago that he's proud to be a politician but I would say with all sincerity this moment doesn't call for politicians the weight of history is upon us here and this moment calls for statesman this impeachment is going to fail and the Democrats are going to justly pay a heavy political price for it but the Pandora's Box they've opened today will do irreparable damage to our country in the years ahead and that is the real tragedy of the vote we're about to take God help us yield back General yields back put his disease is his best mission I'm going to strike the last word ladies recognized. A little while. Ago one of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle who was saying that this is Karen Bass Democrat of California reason why it was withheld was because the president wanted to investigate corruption the idea that the most corrupt president that we have seen in recent history will held military aid because he was concerned about corruption is ludicrous as my colleagues have pointed out both cause the President Trump had with President Selenski Trump never mention corruption but he partment of defense valid giving the aid and said it was Ok Once upon a time President Trump loved his generals this time he ignored them members of Congress authorized the aid and lobbied the White House to release the staff from the Office of Management and Budget resigned because they were worried about what was going on and why the aid was withheld they were worried about what the president was doing and they believe that withholding the aid was wrong from the then cut funding for programs to deal with corruption in countries like Ukraine so a man that is so concerned about corruption also has interesting friends he has bromance with some of the world's most corrupt leaders the leaders from Saudi Arabia Turkey he had the president earlier one from Turkey just a couple of weeks ago at the White House but we know his number one pow is President Putin so all the president's men all the men around him that were indicted arrested incarcerated my mother used to say that if you lay down with dogs don't be surprised if you get up with fleas the man who claimed he wanted to clean up the swamp created his own swamp and he's drowning in it now I do have to say though that I have empathy for my Republican colleagues because I don't believe that they have a choice they have to defend the president and they dare not step out of line because if they do they will see. For the consequences a few of my Republican colleagues earlier did try to say that they didn't believe that the president's conduct was appropriate and they got slapped quickly the president said his conduct he said the call was absolutely perfect and so now you don't hear any of them saying are questioning whether his behavior was appropriate you have to fall in line and not only do you have to fall in line you have to praise him constantly like those famous press conferences we've seen in the Oval Office where they one by one go around the table and talk about their praise for him it makes me feel like a meeting that would take place in North Korea where you have to praise dear leader so you have to fall in line because the entire reason was corruption but I know that you know better you have to say that he did nothing wrong one of my colleagues said that we are lowering the bar on impeachment I believe that we have lowered the bar on the presidency it is so sad to see my colleagues who I believe know what's better they are not able to say it they know that the man is corrupt when it comes to impeachment there is no higher crime than for the president to use the power of his office to corrupt our elections. We will move to impeach President Trump because of the abuse of power through self dealing the the trail of national security in the service of foreign interests and the corruption of our elections that undermine our democratic system so if my colleagues on the other side of the aisle can't bring themselves to do what is right and impeach a president that what that they know is a threat to our election that then we that they know is a threat to our standing in the world then we will have to do it and we will have to move to impeach. Now to Representative Jackson Lee I thank the journal 84 year old ng my conclusion Jackson Lee Democrat of Texas to my friends on the other side to the Americans who listen to the soldiers everywhere who wear uniforms I have no and so I have no dislike of anyone who voted for anyone in 2016 I take issue with insult that one would suggest the work of this committee is about a dislike for those who voted for President from President Trampas before this committee in articles of impeachment for his own behavior for his desire to do with public money and a public position to do a private matter and a political matter and that is to get dirt on his 2020 potential opponent and altering and defending the Constitution we defend and honor ourselves and for that reason as an indicting body to articles of impeachment we will give the opportunity for the Congress to decide on President Trump's ultimate result but I stand with the Constitution abilities and stand justice are your values time is expired what purpose does Mrs. Try to us were regulars. Fool me once shame on you Eric. California shame on me we allow the president the United States to again abuse his office for his own personal gain and shame on all of us shame on our Constitution we know he's going to do that again because on June 12th of this year he told George Stephanopoulos before this phone call with President Alinsky happened that if he could again receive help from a foreign government as he did from Russia he would do it again on July 24 or testified to our committee he said that the president to be charged with up to 10 crimes of obstruction of justice but the Department of Justice prevents him from doing that the next day the president did it again and every prosecutor when they are assigned a case will open up the file in the 1st thing we all do is we look at the rap sheet was this an aberration or is this a pattern of conduct that the person engages in but it's not just prosecutors who look or use a rap sheet we all do it in our everyday lives if you're a small business owner and you're hiring an employee and find out that they have multiple facets of their past from their employer you probably won't hire them if you're a parent looking for a night out and hiring a babysitter and multiple references said the babysitter is always late you wouldn't ask that person to watch your kids if you're going to a restaurant for an anniversary and saw multiple bad reviews you wouldn't go to that restaurant. The president doesn't just have bad reviews he has. Really bad prior conduct serious priors he's a repeat offender crimes against our Constitution and yes crimes that one day may be prosecuted statutorily he has abused his power in the past he is abusing his power right now he will abuse it tomorrow. We have a Department of Justice who will continue to protect him but fortunately the American people have a Congress who can say that he's not above the law and we're not helpless in holding him accountable and I yield to the gentleman from Rhode Island I think the German you know we've heard a lot of explanation of why we're here tonight that we don't like the policies the president we we don't like the present. Real reason we're here tonight is the conduct of the president the grave misconduct and so I just want to recount very quickly again the evidence that was presented in text messages and call records in e-mails in hundreds of presidents in tweeds present from big knowledge that he'd been engaged on a personal basis through his lawyer investigating a Ukraine the president's Alinsky is sensitive about Ukraine being taken seriously not merely as an instrument in Washington domestic reaction politics as ambassador said the David Holmes test fire of I was surprised the requirement was so specific and concrete there was a demand the presence Alinsky personally commit to a specific investigation of President trumps political rival on cable news and the evidence goes on and on and on of the president's effort to use the enormous powers of his office to betray the national interest and cheat in the election in 2020 and use hundreds of millions of dollars of taxpayer money to attempt to achieve that objective our founders talked about abuse of power because they were recognize that the power of the presidency was enormous There was a danger that a president would use that power not for the public good but for his own personal or political or financial advantage and so they created articles of impeachment to give a final check against that abuse of power no one's here because we want to do this we're here because we have no choice we're not acting out of hate We're acting out of love of our country and love of our democracy. When generations look back on this moment they will ask what did we do to preserve our democracy and the only thing we can do to preserve that is to hold this president accountable because if that we don't they will ask us why we failed to preserve the greatest democracy on earth that has been an example to the world and in this moment we have to find the courage to be sure we can answer that question for all future generations and not be part of an effort to undermine the greatest democracy known to man and so I urge my colleagues tonight we must approve these articles of impeachment so we can make it clear that nobody in this country in the greatest country in the world is above the law even the most powerful person the president of the United States and with that I yield back General goes back for purposes Mr Jeffrey seek recognition of the strike last word and it is recognized the record is clear. You're listening. To the impeachment from n.p.r. News 2020 election and Hakeem Jeffries gritty of our democracy as well as on. N.p.r. For Central. Bankers. Along with commentary from n.p.r. Osas Well here's a process concern that you might reflect upon earlier today Mitch McConnell gave some indication as to how a possible trial in the Senate may run and this is what Senator McConnell said I'm going to coordinate with the president's lawyers so there won't be any difference between us on how to do this. In other words the jury this is special coverage of the impeachment Mark I'm from n.p.r. News I'm Chairman Hobson in Washington and we have just hit our 14 of this markup that's been going on since 9 o'clock Eastern Time this morning N.P.R.'s congressional correspondent Kelsey Snell is on Capitol Hill Kelsey just looking at the monitors here of the hearing room and a number of members are asleep no joke. Do we have any sense of what's going to happen when they will actually vote on these articles of impeachment we have heard a number of members start referencing the concept of closing statements and the things that they are saying right now are their closing statements so that seem to be nearing a vote expecting one procedural vote through vote on those articles that each meant obstruction of justice. And do you have a sense by the way that the leadership that the chairman of the committee knows how many people are going to be speaking or the ranking member knows how many of his members are going to be speaking or is it just kind of they're just flying by the seat of their pants and civically the ranking member would know the number of amendments that are are coming and you know it's entirely possible that we had a break not too terribly long ago and it's entirely possible that they had a meeting of the minds and kind of made a decision that this didn't need to continue going on to the next day that is Kelsey style and let's go back to the hearing here Hakeem Jeffries of New York speaking now as a Democrat when we put democracy over demagoguery what exactly will history say about us. I yield now to my distinguished colleague from the great state of Texas this is Escobar Thank you Mr Chairman I'm going to speak directly to the American people were on the casket Democrat of Texas they bypassed the Republican talking points that they've heard over and over and over again especially for those Americans who have been listening and watching all day and instead go directly to the evidence you are .