Gives the house the sole power of impeachment and the power to determine its own rules. When president nixon, during the time he was going to be impeached, the chairman of the Rules Committee, chairman madden, actually spoke on house floor and announced there would be a rule governing how that proceeding would move forward. When the clinton articles of impeachment were brought forward, there was a unanimous consent request to kind of govern how we conducted ourselves. And im not sure how likely it would be that we would get a unanimous consent request. I would like to ask unanimous consent without objection to enter into the record a letter sent to the chairman of the Judiciary Committee signed by 70 republican members including kevin mccarthy, the republican leader, and basically, and let me read the key lines here, we will avail ourselves of every parliamentary tool available to us on the committee and house floor, in other words to try to delay and make this process as
impossible as it can be made. Im not sure, in light of this letter, that we could get a unanimous consent request with regard to these proceedings, then break for a cup of coffee, never mind, you know, determine the rules of engagement. So i point that out. In terms of process, i just want to again states for the record because i think its important, that i think the house has engaged in a fair Impeachment Inquiry process. Democrats and republicans have had equal opportunity to participate in the monthslong Impeachment Inquiry. Members of both parties have been engaged in every stage of this process from sitting in and asking questions in closeddoor sessions to Questioning Witnesses in open hearings. The committees took more than 100 hours of Deposition Testimony from 17 witnesses, held seven public hearings which included republicanrequested witnesses. They produced a 300page public report that laid out their findings and evidence. The Judiciary Committee then took that report and conducted
two public hearings evaluating the evidence and Legal Standard for impeachment before reporting the two articles that we are dealing with here today. I should also point out that President Trump was provided an opportunity to participate in the Judiciary Committees review of the evidence presented against him as president clinton was during his Impeachment Inquiry. President trump chose not to participate. President trump to date has not provided any exculpatory evidence but instead has blocked numerous witnesses from testifying about his actions. And so i just thought it was important to point that out. Mr. Raskin, i saw you scribbling furiously while mr. Collins was testifying. I dont know whether theres something that you wanted to respond to. Thank you, mr. Chairman. My friend mr. Collins speaks very fast so its hard to keep up with everything hes saying. [ inaudible ]. Its all right, im from massachusetts and people say the
same thing about my accent. You have to give me credit, that was as slow as youve ever heard me. They accuse me of the same. He raises some really important points and i would love the chance to briefly address them. One thing that weve been hearing is that we didnt charge crimes. And in some sense that just duplicates a basic confusion that people have about what the process is. We are not criminal prosecutors prosecuting a criminal definite in cou defendant to send him to jail. Were talking about High Crimes And Misdemeanors, that is, constitutional offences against the people of the country. Lots of the conduct we plead in our specific articles alleging abuse of power and obstruction
of congress themselves could become part of criminal indictments later on. But its been a curious thing for me to hear our colleagues across the aisle repeatedly make this point and spread this confusion that there are no crimes in there when theyre the first ones to say the Department Of Justice cannot prosecute the president , the president may not be indicted, the president may not be prosecuted while hes in office, thats the position they take. They then cannot turn around and say, oh, and you cant impeach him because you havent charged him with any crimes and prosecuted him and indicted him. See, tails i win, heads you lose, is the essence of that argument. If you go back to the Richard Nixon case, we didnt have to see that Richard Nixon had been convicted of burglary in the District Of Columbia by ordering the breakin at the Watergate Hotel before he was charged with abuse of power, a high crime and misdemeanor. Thats exactly what were charging President Trump with here. We dont have to go out and
prove that he committed bribery, Honest Services fraud, or extortion, all things he could be prosecuted for later. We simply have to allege the course of constitutional criminal conduct that he was engaged in. So i think we can set that one aside. A second thing that my friend said was that there were no Fact Witnesses, that this was based on the report that was delivered to us by the House Committee on intelligence. And of course thats a play on words too. There were 17 Fact Witnesses who appeared before the House Committee on intelligence, the House Oversight committee, and the House Foreign Affairs committee. The way that we structured this impeachment process, which is completely our prerogative under article 1, section 2 of clause 5, as you said, mr. Chairman, is to have the fact investigation into this affair, which involved Foreign Governments and ambassadors and so on in the Intelligence Committee, then to
have them bring the facts in a comprehensive report to the house Judiciary Committee which would then make the decision about the law. Do all of these events rise to what we think is impeachable conduct. And of course we did. So there are lots of Fact Witnesses. We also had the counsel for the House Intelligence Committee come in to deliver the report and defend the report. And all of My Friends On The Other Side of the aisle had the chance to question as we had the chance to question. When you say there were no Fact Witnesses, thats also a perfect description of what took place during the bill Clinton Impeachment, because all of that took place as part of the independent counsel investigation by Kenneth Starr. There were closeddoor secret depositions taking place there. Then Kenneth Starr came to deliver the report, and remember all the boxes of material they brought over in a uhaul truck, and gave it to the house Judiciary Committee. That was the end of it. Monica lewinsky didnt testify before the house Judiciary Committee. There were not witnesses brought before the house Judiciary Committee. So were following the exact same pattern, i think, that took place there except it was the House Of Representatives here which did its own fact investigation through this assortment of committees. Finally, the well, let me just say a word about the fairness of the process. And we all know what they teach you in law school, which is if the facts are against you, you pound the law. If the laws are against you, you pound the facts. If the law and the facts are against you, you talk about process and you pound the table. And im afraid ive seen a little bit of that in the performance of our colleagues here. And i dont blame them because theyre dealing with the hand that they were dealt. We have 17 Fact Witnesses and all of their depositions and all of their testimony was published and all part of the report,
everybody can find it. And all of their testimony is essentially unrefuted and uncontradicted. It tells one story, which is the president of the United States conducted a shakedown of a foreign power. He used 391 million that we in congress had voted for a besieged, struggling democracy, ukraine, to defend itself against russian invasion and attack. To coerce the president of that Foreign Government, president zelensky, to get involved in our election campaign. What did he want him to do . He wanted president zelensky to make an announcement on television that joe biden was being investigated. Now, what does that have to do with the Foreign Policy of the United States . What does it have to do with what congress voted for . What does it have to do with any legitimate interest of the u. S. Government . But the other thing he wanted president zelensky to do was rehabilitate the completed discredited Conspiracy Theory that it was ukraine that interfered with our election rather than russia. Our Intelligence Agencies all say the same thing, it was russia that conducted what the Department Of Justice called a sweeping and Systematic Campaign against our election in 2016. You remember, mr. Chairman, they injected propaganda into our polity through social media, facebook and twitter and so on. They directly conducted cyber invasion and attack and espionage against the Democratic National committee, the dccc, Hillary Clintons headquarters. And they directly tried to get into our state boards of elections. Not two or three. All 50 of them they tried to get into. Thats what russia did. Now suddenly we have the president of the United States telling president zelensky that if he wants the 391 million
that we voted for him, and that hes been certified for by the Department Of Defense and the department of state, clearing every anticorruption screen that would have been put in place and called for by congress, if he wants the money, and if he wants the white house meeting that he desperately wanted to show that america was on ukraines side and not russias side, if he wanted to get that stuff, he had to come and get involved in our president ial campaign and he had to rehabilitate this discredited story about 2016. I yield back. Thank you. Ive been listening to some of the commentary on the news from some of the pundits. Sometimes i think people need a lesson in constitutional law. Thats why its great that youre here. Let me ask you a basic question, because i think sometimes people dont understand this. Why is impeachment in the constitution . Oh, thats a great question. And mr. Collins invoked indirectly my favorite American Revolutionary, tom payne, who of
course wrote common sense and the age of reason. He said you cant have one without the other, you need common sense of the people and you need to conduct things according to reason, rationality, facts, empiricism, science. But why did payne come all wait over here to participate in the American Revolution which was not foreordained to win in any way . Because america was the first nation in history born out of a revolutionary struggle against monarchy, against the idea that you could have hereditary rule. Payne said a hereditary ruler is as ridiculous as a hereditary mathematician or a hereditary artist, right . He said the people have got to decide on their own leaders. Now, impeachment is an instrument that our founders put into the constitution, informed by the british experience. There was impeachment that parliament had. But it was against the king. It was only against royal ministers. Why . Because of the british doctrine, the king can do no wrong, right . Thats kind of like the king can do whatever he wants, the king can do no wrong and therefore the king couldnt be impeached. But our founders insisted impeachment be in there not just for civil officers who might commitment High Crimes And Misdemeanors against the American People but against the president himself. And the president in the Domestic Emoluments Clause is limited to a fixed salary in office which can neither be increased or decreased by congress and he cant receive any other payments. The president is effectively an employee of the American People. Thats the way its designed. Hes not above the people. Hes a servant of the people like all of us are. And the president s core job is to take care that the laws are faithfully executed. If he thwarts the laws, tramples the laws, and committes crimes
against the American People, he needs to be removed to protect democracy. Why is abuse of power an Impeachable Offense . Abuse of power is the essential impeachment offense. Thats why its inadverte there. What its about is elevating the personal interests and ambitions of the president above the common good, above the rule of law and above the constitution. So the founders didnt want a president who was going to behave like a king. We had seen enough of that. We wanted a president who was going to implement the laws, implement the Affordable Care act, implement environmental laws, thats your job, thats what he should be doing. Weve seen white house visit, military aid in order to pressure ukraine to announce investigations into Vice President biden and the 2016 elections. Ide why does that constitute an Impeachable Offense . Well, it basically implicates every single one of the concerns
that were raised by the founders at the constitutional convention. One, it places the personal political agenda and ambitions of the president over enforcing the laws and enforcing the rule of law. Two, it drags foreign powers into our election. That was something that the framers were terrified about. There was a Great Exchange between ada addams and jefferso about just this issue. We would be an open democracy and people would try to exploit our openness by getting involved in our elections with their Foreign Government concerns, which is why the president had to have complete, undivided loyalty to the American People and to The American Constitution and not get involved with Foreign Governments, not drag Foreign Governments into our affairs. So basically you have everything the framers were concerned about tied up into one bundle here, which is involving Foreign Governments in our elections,
placing the president s interests over everything else, and then essentially threatening the rule of the people in democracy. And where do you draw the line between legitimate use of president ial power and an abuse of power . And why is it significant that President Trump acted for his personal political advantage and not for the furtherance of any Valid National policy objective . Thats a great question because our questions have shrewdly zeroed in on the fact that some of the witnesses including ambassador sondland said, of course there was a quid pro quo, the president was not going to release the aid, he was not going to firelease the aid until the president got what he wanted in terms of political interference. And the white house Chief Of Staff said, yes, this is the way we proceed, get used to it. Im not using his exact words. Our colleagues said theres always quid pro quo tied up in Foreign Policy. In other words, its legit to say to a Foreign Government we will give you this aid if you comply, that the aid is being used in a proper way, we will give you this assistance if you attend these conferences and meetings with us to make sure the assistance is being used properly and so on. Theres nothing wrong with that. But look at what happened here. This was an arrangement were the president conditioned all of this foreign assistance that we had sent 200 million to the Department Of Defense, 190 million to the department of state, to help ukraine defend itself against russia. And the president said, but what he was holding out for was the interference of the ukrainian president in our election to harm his political opponent. And i think everyone can recognize, that is not the normal kind of push and pull and arrangements that nations make
with each other. Why . Because the president privileged his own political interests. Thats why it was all done secretly. Luckily there were witnesses willing to come forward and to explain what happened. Mr. Collins, ill ask you and mr. Raskin the same question. Was the president s call with president zelensky perfect, as the president has said . And was it appropriate for him to ask another country to investigate an American Citizen . There was nothing wrong with the call. When you look at it, again, im frankly the last the problem were having right now is exactly the last 15 minutes of this. Great or fatory on things that have nothing to do with impeachment. Let him answer that question, ill get back to it later. Everything has been thrown out here, exactly the problem weve had in the discussion. This idea of in fact weve disproven the facts. I can yell, i can talk about about both of them. The problem here is this is the very problem we have, and ill just address one thing, or if you want me to switch right now. Thats fine. Im looking at the president in the transcripts, he says i would like you to do us a favor, though. Lieutenant Colonel Vindman said it was perfectly okay for the president to ask for a political its in his testimony, would it ever be u. S. Policy to ask a foreign leader to open up a political investigation, he said, its right for the president to do that. You think its right for the president to ask a Foreign Government to investigate a u. S. Citizen . No, its absolutely wrong. One of the interesting thing about the hearings is i think every Single Member of congress who has at least endorsed the Impeachment Inquiry has said that its completely wrong for the u. S. President to use any of the means at his disposal to drag Foreign Governments into
our election and we were unable to get our colleagues on the Judiciary Committee to weigh in on that, saying, lets assume that you think, lets stipulate you think that the president did nothing i dont think here. Do you think its wrong for the president of the United States to get foreign powers involved in our election . And we couldnt get an answer. I reissued the invitation to mr. Collins because i believed in his heart he thinks thats wrong. I certainly would not want that to become the pattern for all future presidencies. I think the interesting thing, mr. Chairman, if i could, i dont want this to become the pattern for future impeachments. The understanding here is i guess its okay to get involved in a 2016 election when you pay a third party to pay for a dossier. These are the kind of things we can talk about. But the interesting issue that is just discussed here is exactly where we are right now in a question and a comment. What mr. Raskin just brought up is an interesting point. Is it okay if youre running for president that you cant be investigated . Even if you did something
overseas . If youre running for president and you did something overseas, it would be off limits according to mr. Raskins argument for the United States government to investigate that. Thats the argument he just set up. I think you need to be very careful with that argument. I appreciate it. Again, i mentioned this in my Opening Statement, the frustrating thing, it would seem so obvious to so many of us about inappropriate behavior. I look at our former colleague charlie dent, he says he spoke with republicans who were exhausted and disgusted by the president s behavior. Another former colleague, david jolly, said, quote, we witnessed an impeachable moment. Reid ribble of wisconsin said it warrants impeachment. Bob english who served on the Judiciary Committee during the Clinton Impeachment said last month in a tweet without a doubt if barack obama had done the
things revealed in the testimony in the current inquiry we republicans would have impeached him. Joe scarborough, former republican congressman from florida, said every republican knows that donald trump was asking for dirt on joe biden in exchange for releasing military funds. I mean, Lets Go On To do you want to respond, mr. Raskin . Sure, i would be delighted to. I was justifi passed a note, i have gotten the numbers wrong, the Department Of Defense had a 250 million appropriation for the purposes of aiding ukraine and the state had 141 million. I may have misspoken. But as to that point, again, i feel for my friends because i think theyre put into a situation, put into a box, so to speak, which was what President Trump was quoted as saying about what he wanted to do with president zelensky, he wanted him in a box about his statements. I think theyre put into something of a corner here
because the president has declared his conduct perfect, absolutely perfect, and he can do whatever he wants. And so they are unable to say to make the case that i would make if i were trying to defend the president , i would say, okay, that was totally wrong and offlimits but its not impeachable for x, y, and z reasons. But theyre not allowing anybody that space to say it. They must go with the president s assertion that this was categorically correct, there was nothing wrong with it, it was perfectly right. And he quoted legal scholars, he didnt name them, but he invoked legal scholars who told him the call was perfect as well. I want to move my questioning along a little bit. On the issue of obstruction of congress, why is obstruction of congress an Impeachable Offense . Look, and this is something, mr. Collins made a really important point, which is that weve got to think about this in institutional terms, okay . And he rightly calls us to redouble our commitment to fairness in the process. Ive seen lots of fairness in
this process. Ive seen in the closeddoor depositions, i saw the democratic counsel get an hour, i saw the republican counsel get an hour, i saw the democratic members get a chance to question, i saw the republican members get a chance to question. While the president of the United States is stopping at least seven witnesses from coming forward. It may be more than that. But he has blockaded witnesses. The president , who says the process is unfair, is the one who is stopping everybody from coming to testify. And is essentially trying to blockade the whole investigation. Look, why is this essential, mr. Chairman . Its essential because for institutional reasons. Its essential for institutional reasons because in the future it might be a majority democratic congress, it might be a majority republican congress, but in any event, its congress. One of our jobs is, as members of congress, is to make sure
that the president does not violate the laws. Were supposed to stand sentinel, to make sure that the president will only enforce the laws, take care that the laws are faithfully executed. What happens if you get a president who totally trashes the law . Okay . Some of us think we may be there now. I know some of our colleagues dont believe that. But certainly they can imagine a situation where a president advertises spectacular disrespect and contempt for the law and trashes the law. What is our ultimate check against that . Its going to be impeachment. Thats why its in the constitution. But now we have a president who for the first time in American History says i am going to try to block the ability of congress to impeach me by not turning over one single document, by but hold back people from testifying, like secretary pompeo, like Chief Of Staff mick mulvaney, like multiple other members of the administration, i dont want them to come forward and testify. And so were going to have to use our common sense to derive conclusions about what that
means. What does our common sense tell us when you have all these other people coming forward and testifying about the misconduct of the president and then the president trying to block everybody else from coming forward to testify in his administration . And let me just point out for the record, weve requested several documents and testimony from members of this administration. What is the president and the administrations response . Nothing. Its important for people to understand for the record, requests for documents from the state department, ignored. Requests for documents from the Department Of Defense, ignored. Requests for documents from the Vice President , ignored. Requests for documents from giuliani associate lev parnas, ignored. Requests for documents from the white house, ignored. Requests for documents from rudy giuliani, the president s lawyer, ignored. Requests for testimony from former National Security adviser john bolton, ignored. Requests for testimony from
white house Chief Of Staff mick mulvaney, ignored. Here is a list of all the requests that have been made. The red marks basically demonstrate noncompliance, they have been ignored. This is what you call Obstruction Plain and simple. And in fact the only people that have complied with our requests have been patriotic public servants, many of them defying instructions that they not comply. And i mean, i guess i just ask, what presumptions should we make when a president prevents witnesses from complying with congressional subpoenas. Lets use our common sense. People who have exculpatory evidence, which is just a fancy way of saying evidence that shows their innocence, want the court to see the evidence. People who have evidence that demonstrates their innocence would bring that to congress. People who have evidence which they think may be inculpatory, people who have evidence which may lead people to believe in their guilt, will try to keep it away. You make a really profoundly
important point, mr. Chairman, which links articles i and ii of impeachment articles. Do we want to set a precedent that u. S. Citizens can become president of the United States by inviting foreign powers to get involved in our election, then once theyre in, if congress decides that their conduct is impeachable and involves High Crimes And Misdemeanors, they can then pull a curtain down over the Executive Branch and not allow any investigation, not allow subpoenas to be honored and so on. That is a very dangerous prospect that would have terrified and horrified and shocked the framers of our constitution. Thank you. Do you want to well, im about to yield to my Ranking Member who im sure has lots and lots of questions. I do want to take a moment, i think its important that we remember this. I want to remind everybody why were here today. The president abused the power of his office for his own personal gain and object instructed a congressional investigation to look into that conduct. How did he do that . He withheld aid for a country that was under siege by russia to leverage help for his political campaign. President trumps abuse of power has endangered our free elections and National Security and remains an ongoing threat to them both. He showed us a pattern of inviting foreign interference in our elections and trying to cover it up, twice. And hes threatened to do it again. With the 2020 elections fast approaching, we must act with a sense of urgency to protect our democracy and defend our constitution. On our first day as members of congress, we took an oath to support and defend the constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic. I did not swear allegiance to a Political Party, i swore allegiance to the constitution, and i hope all my colleagues will do the same. With that i would yield to the Ranking Member for any questions
he may have. Thank you very much, mr. Chairman, and youre right, i do have a lot of questions, and i appreciate your foreberbearance. Im very liberal. Yes, you are, in the finest sense of the word. I express my appreciation for that. To my friend mr. Raskin, a number of my questions have been crafted or were originally crafted for Chairman Nadler. You may or may not be able to answer those directly. We certainly understand why hes not here, as the chairman said, we sympathize with him at a difficult time. We think theyre still important for the record. I appreciate it. I wanted to highlight that for you. Mr. Chairman, i ask unanimous consent to enter into the record a document entitled, quote, how we resist trump, unquote, authorized by congressman jerry nadler and posted on www. Jerrynadler. Com on november 16th of 2016. Without objection. Thank you, mr. Chairman. In this document, Chairman Nadler wrote, quote, we cannot wait four years to vote mr. Trump out of office so we must do everything we can to stop trump and his extreme agenda now, unquote. Mr. Raskin, On August 8th, Chairman Nadler stated with respect to the Judiciary Committees hearing regarding the Mueller Report that, quote, this is a formal impeachment proceedings, but the unquote, but the house did not actually authorize impeachment he proceedings until the adoption of h. Res 660. Mr. Chairman, was nadler correct On August 8th or when the house authorized them on october 31st . Forgive thme, i was not prepared to answer that question. The committee has taken official statements which we can track on this question. The House Of Representatives has the sole power of impeachment and can design and structure impeachment as it sees fit. Well could i just not outside of house rules, they cant. Not without passing a resolution that gives them power and authority that goes outside the house rules. Thats the problem we had with this, they were going outside of house rules. Again, when counsels have been here forever, this is what happened this year, they went outside of house rules. Thats the problem we had with this and i can discuss that more in depth. The spirit behind this suggests this has been going on for quite some time, longer than the formal proceedings. Mr. Raskin, on december 10th, 1998, during Clinton Impeachment proceedings, mr. Nadler stated,
there must never be a narrowly supported impeachment, supported by one of our major parties and opposed by another. Such impeachment will call into question the very legitimacy of our political institutions. Do you believe that this impeachment which is supported by only one Political Party has produced bitterness in the current Political Climate . So, again, im going to have to allow Chairman Nadler to speak for his own words. I certainly understand. So look, theres been a lot of bitterness and division in our country for several years now preceding any impeachment proceedings. And its a sad thing. I hope that everybody rallies around the constitution, because its the constitution that will get us through this difficult time in our history. Let me just say, about the
Clinton Impeachment, so the conduct that president clinton was charged with, which was he hadnt been convicted or prosecuted for perjury but he was essentially charged with perjuring himself in describing private conduct, a sexual affair. And the conduct that were looking at today goes right to the heart of why impeachment is in the constitution. Impeachment is in the Constitution Because Of Public Offences by political leaders against democracy itself. So i think you cannot compare what president clinton was impeached for by the House Of Representatives, and i hold no brief for his conduct in any way, but i dont think you can compare that to the massive overwhelming and unrefuted evidence that the president of the United States today has tried to drag a foreign power into our elections to his own political advantage. That wasnt exactly the question i asked. But let me turn to mr. Collins and see if you agree with mr. Raskin or if there is anything you would disagree with there and whats been the impact of this process on domestic politics of the country since it has been essentially partisan in nature. Look, im not trying to and again, ill cut some slack that he was trying to answer for the chairmans own words and i get that. But i think several things, lets just talk here for just a minute, lets unpack what has happened here, because the only thing i appreciate really out of the last few minutes was the chairman trying to bring it to impeachment. I agree with him that this is about impeachment. What i disagree is its not about abuse of power, its not everything else, it would come a lot better from the majority if they had not had a long history, a Written Record. This was something you love to see in the law. Its a Written Record of motive. Youve seen it since he was elected. You saw it when my chairman ran for the job because he would be the best for impeachment. What was hanging out last year for impeachment . The Mueller Report that didnt give them everything they wanted. Then we came to the call. This is a pattern. Look, ive said this to my chairman who i respect. Youve got the votes. You just voted. You can go explain it to the American People. Talk about affecting an election. This is what were looking at. There are a few things here though that is interesting. As i said earlier on, time and clock are terrible masters and ive heard it so many times from the chairman of this committee, the chairman of my committee and others, weve got to do this because of the 2020 election. Put a candidate up thats worth voting for, how about that, instead of going after a president who youre having trouble beating because of the things that have happened in our country, with unemployment, with the economy and everything else. Thats what political primaries are for. Not this. When you look back, and i still never got an answer to my question i had just a few
minutes ago about have we now set a precedent that you can do anything overseas and not get investigated for it. Havent got an answer. As the chairman knows and also my chairman knows because my chairman likes subpoenas, he likes to threaten them, anyway. The secretary of defense responded, he said it was open for negotiation. The secretary of state, part of the Document Dump was part of that. The Document Dump from the Intelligence Committee had documents from the Office Management and budget in it. If you didnt receive a letter, as we have done in the past when we were in the majority under President Obama, President Obama in Fast And Furious and other times, the thing that amazes me, it seems like the majority all of a sudden discovered that the legislative branch and the Administrative Branch dont play well in the same sandbox. We saw this happen over and
over, i was on oversight, my former legislative director is here, she is in the room. We pulled our hour out, constantly being stonewalled and stopped, had to issue subpoenas which finally the courts did rule and i think this is your problem, the courts ruled many years later that Attorney General holder did violate not giving the information out. That was actually done. But it was many years later. Again, the calendar is a terrible master and youre having to do this because you promised it. You promised it. Were carrying through on a promise here. The other thing is, we talk about fairness here, that my friend said that, oh, this has been completely fair. Nobodys questioned the fact that our folks got to question the witnesses. But what about the fact of the majority preventing witnesses under rules from using agency counsel, even under the auspices of an impeachment investigation, how about cutting off republican questions and refusing to allow the third branch to even rule on claims of privilege when one was actually done, you actually
withdrew from the lawsuit. So again, its not a matter of time here, its not a matter of fact. Again, i cant not repeat this over and over again because it comes up with mr. Raskin, with the chairman, put pressure on a world leader. This pressure is amazingly because the guy who was supposed to be being pressured denied it ever happened. On multiple occasions, one of his Cabinet Ministers said we never talked about conditionality of aid. The only times they talk about it is presumption and hearsay. Their main witness, sondland, said it was presumption, thats what i presume, because when he asked the president straight up what he wanted, he said, i want nothing, i want him to do what i ran on. Its presumption and hearsay. Granted this is not a court of law because believe me, this would have been over a long time ago. We wouldnt have gotten to this place. The rules allowed us to get to this place because of the majority rules in this place. The Pressure Issue is sad because, again, to continue this line of thought, after the president of the ukraine came out and denied it and denied it and denied it, youre either calling him a pathological liar, a world leader, or youre calling, as was actually he was actually called in our committee a battered wife. He was actually called that. Compared to a battered wife. How low have we sunk . This is the problem, because at the end of the day, and we can go into a process, we can go into everything else. I dont say its a mistake but i took my own chairman at his word. When i read about his comments from 20 years ago. When he said the Judiciary Committee should never take a report from a third party and not try to investigate it itself. Otherwise we become a rubber stamp. Congratulations. Our Judiciary Committee became a rubber stamp. I hope we recover because thats all were doing right now is just rubber stamping what adam
schiff did, under his own rules, again, a man who has also been out for this president since day one and would not come and testify. Thats the most amazing, shocking thing to me in this whole process. I can understand why mr. Raskin, who is eloquent in his discussion of the constitution and why we have an impeachment. Lets just cut to the fact. You dont like the guy. You dont like the conversation. You dont like how he does business because at the end of the day when you Start Talking about pressure on a foreign power, again, to even get to that remotely youre having to change words in the transcript, instead of do us a favor for our country, do us, you have to change it to me. You have to change the facts. And the last time i checked, this country is not real kind to those who are accused, having those who are in power change the rules to fit their game. Thats not due process. But im going to go back over it because the chairman actually said here why were here, there are four facts that never change. Four facts that will never change. And it goes straight to the
heart of anything thats said outside of abuse or power or anything else. Theres no pressure between president and president zelensky. The transcript shows no conditionality of aid or investigation. The only one relied on 600 times in the Intelligence Committee report was mr. Sondland who after he got past his perfect Opening Statement when questioned said, thats what i presumed it to be. When he actually talked to the president of the United States he was told, no, all i want him to do is his job, nothing else. Mr. Yarmuth said there was nothing discussed of conditionality. How do you put this much faith in mr. Sondland when he has conditionally told stories that change . And all the rest were hearsay. All the rest were actually going off things even Colonel Vindman who i respect as a soldier, actually said, when the question was asked, is it okay to have this call, said yes, its okay for a president to ask for a political investigation because it happens, and he even said that. So the question comes back, the ukrainians were not even aware
their aid was withheld and the ukrainians didnt open an investigation to get the money. Is this the first partisan impeachment in the nations history . Yes. Has the president ever been impeached without votes from the Minority Party before . Umm, i think theres some discussion about that with the johnson impeachment from many years ago. That was also when the congress itself set him up with a law. So i think you have to say that was an impeachment. In the modern day era, this is a partisan impeachment. In march of this year Speaker Pelosi said impeachment must be, quote, compelling and overwhelmingly bipartisan. Only democrats voted to authorize the Impeachment Inquiry. There was by partisan opposition to the inquiry. It appears there will be bipartisan opposition to the articles. Given all that do you believe the upcoming vote on h. Res. 755 is more important to the democratic majority than building a viable case if in fact there is cause for impeachment . Their own words convict them of that. The premise of these articles of impeachment rests on a pause placed on Ukrainian Security assistance. A pause, by the way, of less than two months, 55 days, i believe. Democrats have spun creative narratives as to the meaning and motiva motive of this put but offered no factual evidence. Did ukraine ever initiate investigation into the bidens . No. Was the aid ultimately released . Yes. Do you believe the Taxpayer Dollars were well served by this pause . They were. Not policymakers, not administrative officials in different orders, its the president s call, its the president s decision and he made a call. Is it unusual for aid to be paused on by a Chief Executive . No. Did the democratic Majority Subpoena all Core Witnesses with firsthand evidence on any potential quid pro quo with the ukrainian controversy . No. Has anyone in the Trump Administration been charged with or convicted of a crime under the current allegations related to the ukraine . No. Let me continue. Its my understanding that the minority properly exercised its right under clause 2j1 of rule 11 to demand a Minority Hearing. Is that the case . That is correct. What day did you ask for that hearing . We asked for it on the first day of our when we convened in the Judiciary Committee. I dont remember the date. I have it right in front of me, ill be happy to provide that. Has that hearing been scheduled . No. It was summarily dismissed by the long letter which said in
essence it was dilatory. Ive never heard the minority called dilatordilatory. On the first day the request had been made. The minority is entitled to one additional day of related hearings at which to call their own witnesses if a majority of the minority members make their demand before the Committee Hearing has been gavelled closed. I believe mr. Collins invoked that at the hearing. Statements posted on the rules majority website in a document entitled, quote, house rules which govern the Committee Hearing process, unquote, based on review of the Hearing Video the minority properly presented their request to Chairman Nadler before the original hearing concluded. Are you familiar with a memo written by mr. Iran rraskin,
sorry, i should have made that clear no. Chairman, i ask unanimous consent this memo be made a part of the record. It states in part that a Point Of Order may lie against the reported measure in which the minoritys demand for a hearing was improperly rejected. Without objection. Ill ask unanimous consent if i can to also insert in the record our response to your letter. We can talk about that after your questioning. Certainly appropriate, thank you, mr. Chairman. During the markup of h res 755, Chairman Nadler overruled the request, determining that it occurred prior to consideration of the relevant measure or matter would permit the minority to improperly delay proceedings. Were you trying to improperly delay proceedings, mr. Collins . No, i was actually at one point in these hearings, actually had proper following of
rules. Again, made this request the very first day of hearings; is that correct . We did. The hearing at which the demand was properly made was entitled in part, quote, the Impeachment Inquiry of donald j. Trump, unquote. My colleagues on the other side of the aisle have offered Different Reasons for why the scheduling was inappropriate. My colleagues claim the legislative history of the rules suggest it was designed as a backstop to ensure the minority gets at least one witness at a hearing. I dont find this reason to be compelling, if that indeed was the purpose of the rule, the plain reading of the text would say otherwise. While traditionally its been used as a Negotiating Point between the majority and minority regarding the number of witnesses, the mere fact that the minority has a witness at a hearing does not mean there is an implicit waiver of the right to demand a minority day
hearing. There are times in which the minority waives the right to a minority day hearing, for example our medicare for all hearing, we waived that right to a minority day hearing in order to secure two more witnesses. Mr. Collins, at any time did you waive your rights under clause 2j1 of rule 11 . No, i did not. And i believe thats why were here today, actually. Did you request a second witness day and did they provide that second witness, excuse me, and did they provide that second witness in exchange for waiving your rights for a minority day hearing . No, it was not even discussed. Okay. My colleagues on the other side of the aisle have previously quoted Joint Committee on organization of congress, 1966, recommendations which stated that a minimum safeguard be established for those incidents when a witness representing the minority position are not allotted time. Perhaps in 1966 the majority was more willing to provide
witnesses to the minority however that is not case today. Witnesses were allotted time in this case, but we didnt get anything in exchange for our right not being exercised. While this may have been one reason for the adoption of the Minority Hearing, it doesnt render meaningless the plain reading of the text. So i spent a long time on this but we think its very important, we simply werent given something that we think by right we should have had and would actually subject this to a Point Of Order. My colleagues also claim that Chairman Nadler is not required to schedule the Minority Hearing day before the matter is reported out of committee. Youve got to be kidding. In other words, we cannot agree that the house intended that the right for the Minority Hearing day could be fulfilled by scheduling a hearing on a measure after the measure is voted out of the full committee. That just doesnt make any sense. Mr. Collins, presumed passage of
these articles of impeachment, isnt the Minority Hearing day now irrelevant . I believe it is and i believe thats the concern that many of us have who institutionally love this place. Okay. Mr. Raskin, even if Chairman Nadler didnt believe Chairman Nadler didnt believe the house rules required him to schedule the Minority Hearing a day prior to marking up the articles of impeachment, as a member of judiciary and Rules Committee, wouldnt you agree it would have been better for the institution and the American People, to schedule the hearing, its one day. Thank you. Again, i just learned of it the other day when mr. Collins raised it. I looked at the rule and the rule does say that chair of the committee is not required to schedule the Minority Hearing as a Condition Precedent to the continuing course of legislative action. I, having been in the minority for my first term, i feel your exasperation about that, that it might not happen before the bill
passes and if we want to make a change to that rule thats something we should talk about for future congresses. I appreciate that and the sentiment behind it. I know its sign. Again, i can go on and on on this. But we do believe, mr. Chairman, its a violation. We appreciate your letter very much, which is respectful and tried to make ours respectful when we made the request. It was. To us the facts are clear. Chairman nadler ignored a right of the minority in committee, being ignored by the democratic majority now and doing so alters the tools available for the minority. All future minorities. I hope the Rules Committee will correct this misguided decision, refrain from waving all points of order against the bill and the matter debated on the house floor. After the adoption of h660 before the Judiciary Committees first hearing pursuant to the resolution, Ranking Member
collins wrote seven letters to Chairman Nadler on the committees consideration of impeachment. On November 12th he wrote regarding the manner in which the Intelligence Committee conducted their investigation. November 14th wrote Chairman Nadler demanding the same transparency and fairness that existed in prior Impeachment Inquiries be prioritized in the current inquiry. On november 18th, he wrote Chairman Nadler regarding the credibility of a particular witness and Chairman Schiffs coordination with certain witnesses to conceal basic and relevant facts. November 21st he wrote chairman nad her asking that he obtain all documents and documents from Chairman Schiff pursuant to House Resolution 660 and accompanying procedures. On november 30th, the persistent mr. Collins wrote Chairman Nadler asking for an expanded panel and a balanced composition of academic witnesses to opine
on the Subject Matter at issue during the december 4th hearing. On december 2 nd, he wrote Chairman Nadler asking for clarity on how he plans to conduct the Impeachment Inquiry referencing five previous letters he had sent to questions that were never and. On december 3rd he wrote Chairman Nadler reminding him of his recent letters requesting the Judiciary Committee provide the president due process with the Intelligence Committee and Chairman Schiff did not. Its My Understanding Chairman Nadler never provided a response to any of these letters. To your knowledge does Chairman Nadler not respond to letters from ranking minority members is. No. I will concede that mr. Collins, like the aforementioned john adams and Thomas Jefferson is a prolific letter writer. I dont know whether or not they engaged in conversation to follow up on any of those. Were all together on a daily
basis pretty much. I just cant speak for the chairman. Well, i just want to note for the record when we sent a letter to my chairman he did respond. We appreciate that very much. Yeah, im turning to you next. Its a regular in my committee. We dont get a lot of answers. This was an area we got one answer on the witness list, that was it. The other a discussion when i asked for another witness and turned into an interesting conversation on are you asking for three to two. Asking for ratios and all i was asking for is another witness. Told me it was too late and he could add thats i appreciate the chairman is understand a lot of pressure and the calendar will kill you. I do too and i recognize it. But this committee does in a sense have a special responsibility to make sure the other committees, you know, operate according it our rules and use common courtesy. Mr. Collins, articles of impeachment are based on a report written by the Chairman Schiff and transmitted Judiciary Committee, correct . That is correct. Did that Impeachment Report rely on hearsay to support their insertions . Yes. What explanation does Chairman Schiff provide when asked why hearsay rather than firsthand testimony was incorrectbly presented as evidence . Besides his own discussion making up the phone call to start with, hes not provided one because he didnt testify in my committee. Did you ask Chairman Nadler to invite Chairman Schiff to come testify . I did. Just to be clear, you were asked to vote on articles of impeachment against our Commander In Chief based on a report full of hearsay and you were not permitted to ask the author of the report any questions . That is correct. All i got was a staff member. I would like to note for the record, mr. Chairman, Chairman Schiff refused to discuss the report with the minority, and he was more than willing to appear on fox news sunday, two days ago, its unfortunately
abundantly clear the schiff report made for Television Document rather than the result of a transparent, thorough, bipartisan investigation. Worth noting for the record, i will ask you this, mr. Collins, was the president you know, this is a really odd thing for us because generally the Judiciary Committee is the Main Committee of impeachment. Thats historically been the case. Thats clearly not the case here. No. The committee on intelligence is the Main Committee. Did the president have counsel there . No. Somewhere along the line we lost our right to work on impeachment. We got it at the end to finish it. But we lost it. Theres a difference between Window Dressing and substance. Two or three hearings at the end where you dont question the author of the report, youre not loud to question the author of the report on which impeachment is based, the president never had reputation there. In the past we always had representation. You were at judiciary. The president was there. The main place where all these
things come out of, the president was specifically excluded and you were not in what is supposed to be the Main Committee on judiciary, you were not allowed to ask the author of the principle report any questions. You have presented in a short summation which i have always admired by you the crux of this whole problem. By the time it got to the Judiciary Committee, this was a done deal. The train was past the station, they had to run to catch up to it. It was decided what they wanted to do. Here it is, ive heard this argument and you can dress this up window dress it anyway, but when we go to the institutional Integrity Problem when you do whatever you think of hr660 the only place it truly provided the opportunity for fairness for the president and the administration was in the Judiciary Committee because at that point if time they would have been able to, you know, ask for witnesses by the way which they were turned down, all these things, but there was never an opportunity. No way, i dont care how much
the majority pretties this up no way you can call in four law school professors, two Staff Members and thats the only hearings to provide any opportunity for the president to question and get anything out of them. I have heard from my majority colleagues, as a former Defense Attorney is funny, if hes innocent come prove it. When is that ever a part of what we should be doing here . Really . I dont think my civil libertarians in the democratic aisle laying awake how can i be associated with this. No matter what you think there is a way to do this fairly. They still out number us and theyve been trying to do this for three years. Mr. Raskin, did you have conversation with Chairman Schiff about the contents of the report . I am certain i have along the way, yes. Really . Because nobody on our side evidently had any conversations. To your knowledge, did Chairman Nadler have any conversation with Chairman Schiff about the contents of the report . Im certain. When you say the contents of the report, the substance of whats in the report . Yeah. None of our people have had that opportunity. I think as a committee weve been talking about the substance for a long time now. But i had not well, weve been talking about the substance of the report. We didnt have an opportunity to question the person who authored the report. I see what you mean. Either formally or informally to my knowledge. Well, the again, the counsel for the Intelligence Committee came over to discuss all of the factual findings that were in the Intelligence Committees report hes not the principal author of the report. Hes the counsel. The chairman is the principal author okay. By the way a fact witness in many ways. Well, if i could respond to this general line of attack, House Resolution 660 had a