Whip inflation. And in the new york times, in his obituary that just went on lon online. He did it, Interest Rates went up higher than anyone would have ever expected, but history proved to be on paul volkers side, and think which i for the past 20 or 30 years, much of that is ohhed to bawed to paul. He had a quality that is missing greatly and he was involved in politics, and that squault courage. He had the courage of his convictions to do as you just eluded to, Interest Rates and that period of time, it turned out that he was exactly right as to what to do. He was a mechanic that knew what he wasni trying to fine tune an fiction and he had the courage toad do it. That was courage, and you know, that quality that mike talked about, he sort of had it, He Clark Gabled his last line in gone with the wind, he didnt give a dam. We are counting down now to the top of the house, the House Judiciary Committee hearing that will review Impeachment Evidence against President Trump. There is steve cast ter, the attorney for the republicans. Were counting down to the start of this Impeachment Hearing Set to begin any moment now. They present their evidence about the president s pressure against ukraine, the pressure campaign against ukraine, trying to shakekr down a foreign leade for dirt on a political rival in is what they are saying they did. They are having a chance to refute this once again. Im not sure what options they have, but theyre stuck in the land of conspiracy theories, joe. And Vladimir Putins conspiracy theories, theyre spouting those, and they do whatever it takes to defend this president at this time. Im curious about the differing styles of two men that republicans have been attacking in the past several years. Two men who, because they have been challenging trump, of course Robert Mueller first, with Theer Mueller report, tryi to get information on this president , and adam schiff, two different mensc both vilified. Yeah, i think if you look at the outcomes of their informations, they had an incredible body of facts, and he told us what those facts all added up to. Adam shift tochiff told us what facts added up to. I think for what they did, di misleading the American Public is mueller failing to tell us what the president s conduct meant. He has not made that mistake. What we expect to see today, they will come and present to the Judiciary Committee, theyre laying out a body of evidence that this b is what the preside did, and this is what his conduct meant. And you will see barry burke, they will tell us what that misconduct means and why it rises to an impeachable offense. His conduct did not rise to the level of impeachment, they cant use that argument, so today what im interested in is he makes just the bad factual arguments. They got the aide at the end, or will we see him veer off to the conspiracy land. If you hear all all of the names that have no bearing on them. One thing we know is that we will see donald trump tweetingt about it. How concerned are they about his tweets and how confident is the democraticon conference with jey nadlers leadership and not worrying thatan it will be as strong as adam schiffs. I think they have generally avoided themal except in that realtime memt when he went off ambassador yovanovitch. I think that is background noise. I think that nancy pelosi is driving this thing. You had congressman nadler shuttling between the buildings where all of this is going on, and the Speakers Office across Independence Avenue that is the nerve center of all of this into if it is schiff, nadler, whoever is getting involved, this Nancy Pelosis operation. We have the president of ukrainesi meeting with Presiden Putin of russia this morning, and we have Michael Horowitz dropping his report on russias influence with the fbi vooifled that f will all be addressed today. So let me ask you do youd thi t that bill barr will weigh in trying to put aspin on the report, or do you think he will site to the side. It is leaked out that he rejects the finding of the horowitz report, that the fbi had reason to investigate the trumpve campaign and the interference. We already know that he rejects that. Theys believe it was appropria, and even the hand pick eed Investiga Investigator has more. He shas show that he cant accept the reality. The t same way that republicans cant accept the russian meddling. There is a through line between the two and the arguments that well see in the Judiciary Committee today. Did this is due start any day now. If question get to you, democrats are hoping to track this to perhaps even impeach the president byea christmas, perha, maybe to ward off a long, drawn out campaign by the Trump Campaign to use impeachment to their benefit, but then there is ru rudy and his escapades. How does that play into all of this, in plain sight, continuing the investigation in ukraine. I think it it makes the case for those to speed this up as quickly as possible. They run the risk that the longer it drags on, for them to be muddying the waters, coming up with conclusions, and the faster they move they avoid this mueller situation they got into with muddy waters. I think theyre just about to get Thehe Hearing started. The hearing will come to order, the chair is authorized to declare recesses. Object objection noted. Were looking at presentations from the House Judiciary Committee pursuant to the special Judiciary Committee procedures described in section 4a. I will makect an Opening Statemt and then i will recognize the Ranking Member. We will hear two sets of presentations. We will hear 30 minute jerry nadler, youre the one committing treason. Order in the room. Order in the room. Order in the committee room. America is sick of your impeachment scam and of your treason. The committee will come to order, obviously i should not have o to remind Everyone Prese that the audience is here to observe. But not to demonstrate. Not to indicate agreement or disagreement with any witness or any member of the committee. The committee is here to observe only and we will maintain decorum in the hearing room. Here is how the committee will proceed for this hearing. Ith will make an Opening Statemt and then i will recognize two sets of presentations. We will hear 30 minute Opening Statements, then we will hear 45 minute presceentationspresentat. Followed by 45 minutes of questioning by the chair and Ranking Member who may yield to council for questioning during this period. Finally all of the members will have the opportunity to question presenters underes the five mine rule. I would note that the president s counsel was given the opportunity to participate today and the white house declined the invitation. I will now recognize myself for an Opening Statement. No matter his party of politics, if he places his interest above those of the country, he betrays his oath of office. The Majority Leader of the senate, the Chief Justice of the supreme court, and the chairman and Ranking Members all have one important thing in common. We have each taken an oath to preserve, protect, and defend the constitution of the United States. If the president puts himself before the country, he violates the president s most basic responsibility. He breaks his oath to the American People. If hee puts himself before the country in a matter that then our promise to the American People requires us to come to the defense of the nation. That oath stands even when it is politically inconvenient, even when it might bring us under criticism,er even when it could cost us our drops, and even when the president is unwilling to honor hisil oes, im coath, ipo honor mine. They knew that threats from the democracy could take many forms, that we must protect against them. They warned us against the dangers of would be monarchs. They knew the most dangerous set toro the country might come fro within in the form of a Construct Checktive that put his private interests above the interests of the nation. He also knew they could not anticipate every threat thatul president might some day pose so they adopted the phase treason, bribe bribery, and george mason said it was to capture all manner of great and dangerous offenses against the constitution. The debates around the framing are clear that the most serious offenses m include abuse of pow, betrayal of the nation through foreign entanglements, and corruption of public office. Any one of the vie rations would compel the members of this committee to take action. Combined in a single course of action, they stayed the strongest possible case for impeachment and removal from office. President trump put himself before country. Despite the political partisanship that seems to punctuate our hearings these days, i believe there is Common Ground around some of these ideas. We agree that it is a sol limb and serious under taking. We agree it is meant to address serious threats like our free and fair elections. We agree that when the elections themselves are threatened by enmys foreign or domestic we cannot wait for the next election to address the threat. We surely agree that no public official, including and especially the president of the United States, should p use his public officer for private gain. And we agree that no president may put himself before the country. The constitution and his oath of office, his promise to american citizens require the president to put the country first. If we could drop our blinders for one moment we could agree on a set of facts as well. President trump called president Zelensky Of Yukraine and asked him for a favor. Not an investigation of corruption at large, but an investigation of President Trumps political rivals and only his political rivals. It also shows that he withheld a white house meeting from president zelensky. Multiple witnesses from National Security officials and decorated war veterans testified to the same basic fact. President trump withheld the aid and the meeting to pressure a Foreign Government to do him that favor. President trump put themselves before country. When the president got kaukt, he took extraordinary and unprecedented steps. These facts are not in dispute. Most of the arguments about these facts appear to be beside the point. As we review the evidence today, i think we will expect much about the whistleblower for the country. Every fact has been substantiated by multiple witnesses again and again. The allegations also match up with the president s own words, words that he still says were e perfect, is also expect to hear complaints about the term quid pro quo. As if they need to acknowledge the crime for to be a crime at all. Multiple officials testified that the president s demand for an investigation into his rivals were part of his personal and political agenda and not related to the Foreign Policy octoberives of the United States. Multiple officials testified that the president intended to withhold the aid unless you crane announced the nflgss. And yes, multiple officials testified that they understood this rangement to be a quid pro quo for the president s personal political benefit. They will argue that the whole process is unfair. The record is before us as well. President trump chose not to show. He may not have much to say in his own defense, but he claim that he did not have an opportunity to be heard. Finally, as we proceed today we will hear a great deal about the speed with which the house is addressing the president s actions. So the members of the committee, to the mers of the house, and my fellow citizens, i want to be absolutely clear, the integrity of our next election is at stake, nothing could be more urgent. The president welcomed interference. He demanded it for 2020, and then he got caught, if you do not believe he will do it again, let me remind you that the president s personal lawyer spent last week in ukraine to begin up the same so called favors that brought us here today and forced congress to consider the impeachment of a sittingch president. This pattern represents a continuing risk to the country. The evidence shows that he has violated his oath to the country. Let us review the record here, and then let us move swiftly to defend our country. We promised that we would. I now recognize the Ranking Member the chairman. I have a unanimous consent. The committeeman from georgia is recognized. They have to youre not going to recognize a possible motion before me. A unanimous con acceptability request. The gentleman from georgia is recognized. The gentleman from georgia is recognized. In a violation you are ref e refusing to schedule that hearing and i insist on my point ofin order. That is not a proper Point Of Order as i told the Ranking Members several times now. It is not to be considered. If the Ranking Member thinks we would be violating the rules of house if we are holding it before a minority day hearing it will be timely a at a day when we consider impeoplement. The times is not well, that got us started again, the chairman not answering a question, it is timely and it is not up to his discretion, h but we have not cared about that from the start to begin with, just schedule the hearing but that is not what they want outth there. So lets start over. There have been famous moments in impeep. What did the president know and when did he know it. From clinton, i did not have sex with thatno woman. This wunl is what is the impeachable offense, why are we here, we dont have a crime, no one understands what the majority is trying to do other than interfere and make sure hent cant whe cant win next year if he is impeached. We dont have the facts to match it, a focus group impeachment says we really are not working with good facts, but we need a good nepr move, thats why wer here today. This is all about, as i said last week a clock and a calen r calendar. It came evidence t to me that t isis true because last wednesda after a long day of hearing here, the next morning before anything else could get started the speaker of the house walked up to the podium and said no write articles of impeachment, i appreciate the two days of hearings, but she already under cut you. Youre writing articles of impeachment. Why couldnt we just save that time today,st and if youre goi to write them go ahead and write them. There is probably a reason for that. The chairman laid out amazing claims, none of which after this hearing today the American People can honestly look at and see there was overwhelming evidence, a proper reason, he abused his power, she also said that to do impeachment you have to be so compelling and overwhelming and bipartisan, all of which we are not. So why not . Why are we here . I think we can do this. The three things that typically are associated with making your case for a crime, lets do it against what the majority has said. I think they have motive, means, and opportunity. What is their motive . November 2020. It has been said over and over and over again. The chairman said it again this morning. It has been said all along. We have to do this because if we dont impeachment, he will win against next year. A man came up to me in the grocery store, he said keep doing what youre doing, i have never seen an economy this good, people are good, people are being taken care of. November is easy, November 2016 they lost. January 2017, just a few minutes in the Washington Post said now is the time for impeachment. Tweet after tweet saying now lets they start with impeachment and they spent two years trying to figure out what do we impeachment on . The means became what we see now. The means is to always talk about impeachment welcome say i doing something wrong. It is constantly tear down on a president that is is working on behalf of the American People. The chairman said a president should not be above the law and should be held accountable. I think congress should be held accountable and not do what were doing right now which is run a process that does not fit fairness or decorum. But what was the opportunity . It came last november when they got the majority and they began their impeachment run. They began in the process deflecting the chairman, saying he would be the best person for impeachment. For anyone watching on tv or in this room, for anyone to think this was not a mabaked deal is t being honest with themselves. Presumption should be the standard, not proof, it should cause anyone to question, the entire case is built on a presuvpr presumpti presumption, the imfor instance isokay. You know what is interesting is they made their whole case built on gordon sondland. Hen toefed that he presumed th hearing aid was connected to an investigation. Henn asked the president direct, he said i want nothing, i want zelensky to do what he ran on. They know this is also a problematic experience, look over the past three weeks when the chairman of the Intelligence Committee, who is absent today, started his own hearing by making up the factual call. He could not even read the strans script. He had to make it up because if he didntt make it up it didn sound asup bad. He said lets make up some dirt, the transcript, the chairman, mislead the American People as an attorney, as a chairman, as a member of congress that score to be honest with the american people and uphold the constitution. That was a massive malpractice that i have never seen. They dont care about what was in the transcript, they dont care about what happened, and they dont care that the aide was released. Theyre looking at the facts to mark it fit their narrative. What else happened . You know this is also the chairman schiff who also said that they had seen collusion in plain sight. That it was already there. But i guess maybe i might need to just stop commenting on chairman schiff because i might be on the next phone records subpoena as we go forward. Woe have taken a dangerous nurn this congress. Subpoenas are fine, properly done, and should be done, properly, but they should never be at the expense of a political ve vendetta. Presumption is no substitute for proof. It is not the basis for the impeachment of a president. Today what we are supposed to get, mueller, when we got the mueller report, it Didnt Go Real Well Soit we had a lot of hea hearings and it didnt go real well. They said this will be the movie version. The colleagues on the majority have live review. They had a comic book rendition, and it didnt work. And this is the movie version. And this is the thing that people would watch and be convinced of. This is the movie version of the chevy report. The star witness failed to show up. The leading headline is there, but where is mr. Schiff. They testified the author of the schiff report is not here, instead he is sending his staff to do his job for him. I guess thats what you get when youre making up impeachment as you go. There is time to state the factual statements for this case. This committee is not doing anything past hearing from Law Professors and staff. Show me where he would have a proper process in this that is not talking to staff and law school professors. Witnessesor called by both side. I was here at a 19yearold. As an intern, almost 32 years ago. The Institution Todays is in danger. The chairman issues subpoenas for personal vendettas, they have been the center point of impeach me impeachment. What we should be doing from the speaker and the Intelligence Committee chairman. Were a rubber stamp. I love this institution, but in the last three days, three or fouray days, i have seen stuff that just bother me to no end and should bother every one. The speaker of the house said go write articles, facts be dammed, al green, another member of the House Majority said we can keep impeaching him over and over and over again. Adam schiff, when he told his he wasnt going to come instead hide behind his staff, he also said were going to keep investigating because they know it is going nowhere and theyre desperate togo have an impeach ment vote. Our congress has been relegated to this. Why . Because they have the means, the motive, andan the opportunity. At the end of the day all this is about is about a clock and a calendar because they cant get over the fact that donald trump is president of the United States and they dont have a good candidate. The witness that is supposed to be the star witness chose to take a pass and let staff answer for him. With that i yield back. Mr. Chairman i have a Point Of Order. Thank you. I have a Point Of Order. Mr. Chairman, clause 2 j 111 requires you to schedule a minority day, not after articles have been drawn, not after a vote on articles of impeachment, i inquire and insist that you immediately schedule a minority hearing day and tell us why youre ignoring the rules. Je mgentleman, that is not a proper Point Of Order in todays hearing. Im considering the minoritys request, if you think we are violating the rules of the house if we consider articles of impeachment before we consider those articles. Mr. Chairman, since i have been implemented in this. Without objection, other opening states will be the je map will suspend, the gentleman is recognized. Telling me youre considering something that you have nothing toat consider. You have told me that, i admit on record, is nowhere close to following your duty as a chairman to follow the rules. I think the Point Of Order is very well taken. The issue that we have is not i think your timing, show me please in the rules where you come to a time of actually being able to deny this up to a certain point. I further reserve the right to object. As i said the Point Of Order would be an order at the meeting where were considering articles of impeachment. I appeal the decision of the chairman. There is no decision to appeal there was notno a rulingr a motion. There was a ruling on the Point Of Order. You made a ruling on the Point Of Order, mr. Chairman. Youer cant allow us to appeal e rules of the chairman. The gentleman will suspend. It was not a cognizable Point Of Order. There is no ruling to appeal. Mr. Chairman, the rule is the obligation, not the consideration, youre obligated to schedule not to consider you made a ruling, it is an order toin appeal. The gentleman will suspend, were doing what we have to do under the rules. The gentleman is not recognized. We will i have an on junctibjectiobj is this when we just hear staff Ask Questions of other staff. This hear willing be considered in an orderly fashion, theer gentleman will n yell out and not attempt to disrupt the proceedings. We will now hear presentations of evidence from counsels of the Judiciary Committee. Barry burke will present for the majority and Steven Castor will present forn the majority. Each of you will have 30 minutes to present. There isut a timing light on yo table, when it goes from green to yellow you have one minute to conclu conclude, when it turns read, you a minute i have not withdrawn my objecti objection, i want everyone to have an Opening Statement. Imin objecting to your Opening Statement comment. Thank you, mr. Chairman, Ranking Member collins, and all of the members. Before i had the great honor of be e. Ing a great counsel for th committee, my young son said dad, does the president have to be a good person . Like many questions by young children, iton had a certain clarity, but it was hard to answer. I said son, it is not a requirement that the president be a good person. But that is the hope. And it is not a requirement that the president be a good person. That is not why we are here today. That is not the issue. But the very document that created the awesome presidency and its powers in a e with hth made clear that the president be a person that does not abuse his power if is a requirement that he does not risk national jurat and the indegty of our elections in order to further his own reelection prospects. It is not a person that acts as thousand he is above the law and person putting his own interests above the country. That is the lesson of the constitution and the lefounders. They were concerned that someone would be elected president that would use all of the power of that office to serve his own personal interest at the expent of t expense of the people who elected him. They decided there needed to be a remedy because they suffered the abuses of king george. If a president commits a grave offense, a high crime or misdemeanor, this body has the power to impeach that president. They wanted to ensure that a president could not serve his own interests over that of the nation. It flows from the very oath that every member of the body must take to support and defend the Constitution And Bear Troou faith and allegon to the same. The founders were very clear in spelling out what they thought was the greatest abuses that would raise the most concerns for our nation. They spelled them out as Warning Signals that if a president violated or committed one of these, that would be a reason to potentially impeachment president. There was abuse of power, betrayal of the national interest, corruption of elections, and what is so extraordinary is the conduct that well be talking about today of President Trump, not violating one of these, but all three. First, the evidence is overwhelming that the president abused his power by pressuring ukraine and its new president to investigate a political opponent. The evidence is overwhelming that the president abused his power by ramping up that pressure by conditioning a wanted would you say meeting and a needed Military Aide to be approved nord to get that president it is clear that in abusing that power the president betrayed the national interests, over the National Security of our country. It is clear that the president is corrupting our elections by inviting foreign interference. It is why in debating the constitution, James Madison warned in a because the presidency was to be administered by a single man, his corruption might be fatal to the republic. And the scheme was so brazen and clear, supported by documents, actions, Sworn Testimony, uncontradicted contempteranous actions, this is a big deal. President trump did what a president of our nation is not allowed to do. It is why last week the constitution scholar, professor Michael Gearhart said if this is not impeachability, nothing is impeachable. They threaten our law, our institutions, and they threaten our republic. Let me again where we must with the facts and evidence. It is important to understand Whyan Ukraine was so important our National Security. Ukraine was under attack by their aggressive and hostile nation, russia. Theyss encroached on territorie. They thought they would further take territory and try. I will turn to an export on this, ambassador taylor, who is one of the most recognizable diplomats, and he was appointed by Prth Trump Himpgs to himself to be in charge. They kept the piece inform europe for nearly 70 years. That order that kept the peace andt allows for prosperity and peace was violated by the russians, itth affects the worl that we live in, this affects the kind of world that we want to see abroad. That is ambassador taylor explaining why you crane was so important, and explaining why the president s actions, so significantly risk hurting our National Security, our National Defense policy and our national interest. You already heard there is significant proof that President Trump himself told the new president of the ukraine that he wanted him to investigation a political rival. Former Vice President joe biden. You will hear a lot about that today, but that is only the tip of the iceberg, there are so many other documents that show this happened and happy exactly as it alleged. It is clear in the scheme to pressure ukraine to investigate a political rival, the person at theri center of that scheme was president donald trump. The facts cannot be disputed. President trump used the powers of government for a domestic and politicaler rand. Im going to turn to fiona hill, in the Trump Administration and she will explain what happened. Ambassador sondlands emails and who was on these and he said these are the people who need to know that he was absolute political right. He t was being involved in a domestic politicaler rand, and we were involved in National Security policy and they jucus i diverged. A president cannot abuse his power to secure an election. He cannot do that at the expense of the American People, that is impeachable offense. The president tried to make excuses for his con duck. Why this t is not wrongful, corrupt, or an abuse of power. But it makes sense it is consistent with the evidence. When someone is offering an excuse that is not true, that is not consistent with the evidence, it does not make sense, it cannot be squared with what the facts show and you will see these executions do not make sense. The facts are clear that President Trump put his own political and personal interests over the nations interest. I would like to go through what you were going to see about the president s scheme and what you hear about today from the facts and evidence. First, youre going to hear that President Trumps personal lawyer Rudy Giuliani pushed ukraine to investigate their rival. He said he should investigate theat former Vice President bid. He went to ukraine and later went again with the assist and direction of u. S. Officials who were toldof to aide the president s personal lawyer on the president s behalf. Youll hear that President Trump was told that he wanted them them to talk to rudy. What youre going to hear is that his close advisors had just gotten back on may 23rd from the inauguration and they told President Trump that we were impressed. He was elected on an anticorruption platform. You should schedule a white house meeting, it is very important. The response was talk to rudy, out there claiming what the ukrainian president had to do was investigate his political rival. Youllca hear that President Trumps advisors said that they would not schedule the white house meeting unless he announced a yukrainian investigation of Vice President biden. This happened and there is no question from the evidence that them president did this and president zelensky needed a white housens meeting to show russia that the u. S. Was still supporting ukraine, and for his own credibility as a new president. Youll hear then to ramp up the pressure, what President Trump did was he told his agencies to withhold military and security hearing aid that had been approved, all of the allegations involved, the fed department, they said it should be released, that it was approved until President Trump personally stopped it, and documents show it and prove it, people said they were shocked, ambassador taylor said it was an astonishment. They said it was illogical to do this and i they never offered a explanation, but it was discovered why he did it. And then on the july 25th call, President Trump explicitly told them that he wanted them to do two investigations. Up with of a u. S. Citizen and his political rival, and the other about the origins of interference inig the 2016 election, ae Conspiracy Theory that they would interfere with the 2016 election that maybe it was ukraine. Again another investigation intended to help the president politically. And that is it. And you know he cared about the investigations that would help and not the National Security interests and you dont have to take my word. David hol ms who worked in the u. S. Embassy and you and ukraine. And they just came to the wre ukraine, he called President Trump on his cell phone, and he could hear thate, call, and let see what happened on july 26th. I heard President Trump clarify that ambassador sondland was in ukraine. He relied yes, he was in you crane that president ass. I then heard President Trump ask, so hes going to do the investigation. Ambassador sondland replied that hes going to do it. Adding that president zelensky will do anything you ask him to do. That is Sworn Testimony by david holmes, who heard it from the president himself. And it was clear to everyone, the most experienced people in government who donald trump himself appointed in their positions, they knew what was going on. Lets look at a text message from ambassador taylor around this timedo on September 9th. He said, as i said on the phone, i think its crazy to withhold Security Assistance for help with a political campaign. Again, that is President Trump putting his own political and personal interests over the nations interests to hold aid desperately needed by ukraine in order to combat russia and show the support, he did it to help his own campaign. Now, there have been excuses offered by the president. I would like to briefly talk about those ex cus. The first excuse offered by President Trump is that the aid was ultimately released and President Trump met with mr. Zelensky. We heard it today. Theea challenge with that, thou, as an excuse is the aid was only released after President Trump got caught doing the scheme. On September 9th the committees of this house started their Investigation Andst announced ty were investigating his conduct with regard to ukraine. Two days later as when he released the aid. And there also was a news article which well talk about in aic moment by the Washingto Post On September 5th ex Sploezing Hsploe Spoezing his scheme. And after thathi he met with president zelensky not at the white house butky in new york. Then the president was motivated by general corruption concerns. And byagain, the evidence shows that is not true that thats what caused him to withhold the aid. President zelensky in fact was elected on an anticorruption flaf platform. He was a reform candidate. His own people told him hes doing it the right way. They urged him to be supportive. On his call with president zelensky on july 25th, President Trump ignored the Talking Points that were prepared to talk about corruption. He only wanted to talk about two things, the two investigations that helped him politically. Every Intelligence Committee unanimously supported releasing the aid to ukraine. They did a study and said release it. The white house never provided an explanation. The aid had already been approved, and it was not for any corruption issues that President Trump withheld it. The next is ukraine was not pressured, and the argument about that is today they havent said they were pressured. Ukraine was pressured then and still is pressured. They are desperately in need of the United States support as they battle the threat of russia. So of course they have to be careful what they say. But contemporaneous documents fromem ukrainian officials themselves show the Pressure Theyw Felt and show they knew what President Trump was doing. This was one from bill taylor to Ambassador Gordon Sondland and ambassador kurt volker. One thing kurt and i talked about yesterday was the senior aide of president zelensky, the point that president zelensky is sensitive about ukraine being taken seriously, not merely an instrument in washington domestic reelection politics. They not only felt the pressure, they got the message. They were ultimately not going to get military aid unless they furthered President Trumps reelection efforts. That is a corruptle abuse of power. Another argument thats made is that trump never said quid pro quo. And what youre going to hear is on ad call with ambassador sondland after a Washington Post article came out a september 5th, which we will look at. After that there was a Washington Post article that came out that elks spoezed the ukrainian scheme. Days after that President Trump was on a phone call with ambassador sondland and without prompting said there was no quid pro quo. Because he got caught, so hes offering his defense. But even ambassador sondland in his Sworn Testimony didnt buy it, becausedn ultimately then President Trump not only was not dissuaded. He then described what he wanted. He didnt want ukraine to actually conduct these investigations. He wanted them to announce investigations of his political rival to help him politically. He continued, and youll hear more about that. Again, none of these excuses hold any water and they are refuted by testimony, Contemporaneous Records and more. Now, some have suggested that we should wait to proceed with these Impeachment Proceedings because weve not heard from all of the witnesses or obtained all the documents. But the reason we have not heard from alle the witnesses or documents is because President Trump himself has obstructed the investigation. Hes directed his most senior aides who were involved in some of these events not to come testify. To defy subpoenas. He has told every one of his agencies with records that could beag relevant not to produce the records to us, to try to obstruct our investigation. Now, this is evidence that President Trump is replaying the playbook used in the Prior Department of justice investigation. In that investigation he directed his white House Counsel to create a false, phony record and document and lie, denying that President Trump had told him toth fire the special couns. He did many other things to try to interfere with that investigation. He attacked the investigators and witnesses and called them horrible names, just as he has done here. And President Trump thought he got away with it. On july 24th was the day that Special Counsel the Special Counsel testified before this committee and the house Intelligence Committee. The 24th. It was exactly the following day, the 25th, that President Trump spoke to president zelensky in furtherance of his ukrainian scheme. He thought he got away with it and he thought he could use his powers to interfere with that investigation, so he could do what he atwanted. He could act like he was above the law. Got caught, he would again use his powers to try to obstruct the investigation and prevent the facts from coming out. And thats exactly what he did. But fortunately, fortunately, because of the true american patriots who came forward to testify, despite the threats by the president against the people who worked in his own administration, they told the story. They on their own produced documents that provide uncontroverted, clear and overwhelming evidence that President Trump did this scheme. He put his political reelection interests over the nations National Security and the integrity of its elections. He did it intentionally and corruptly. He abused his powers in ways that the founders feared the most. No person in this country has the ability to prevent investigations, and neither does the president. Our constitution does not allow it. No one is above the law. Not even the president. And one of the concerns and requirements of finding an impeachable offense, is there an urgency, is there a sense that you have to move because it could be repeated. Again, first all the constitutional experts who testified recognized that obstructing an investigation is an impeachable offense. But here the offense were talking about thats being interfered ort obstructed withs interfering with the very election thats coming up. And i submit to you, given what happened with the Department Of Justice investigation, given whats happening here, if in fact President Trump can get away with what he did again, our imagination is the only limit to what President Trump may do next or m what a future president ma do next to try to abuse his or hero power to serve his own personal interests over the nations interest. I would like to turn back to whattu the founders most cared about when we talk about the a, b, cs of potential president ial abuses. It is extraordinary that the president s conduct was a trifecta, checking all three boxes. Lets begin with abuse of power