Well, thats what it says. To faithfully execute the law. Is there anybody here i dont care what comes out of your mouth today is there anybody here who believes that this president has faithfully executed the law . And faithfully executed the duties, the sacred trust that has been put in his hands and on his shoulders. Hes supposed to faithfully execute the law, not ignore it. Not abuse it. And not forget it. President is supposed to be motivated by public interest. Public interest. The interest of the people. But rather than remembering that or caring about that, im not really sure he ever really did. The president chose to try to coerce a foreign power, a newlyelected, young president that we all were excited about. An anticorruption president. President tried to coerce him into interfering in the 2020 elections. The things that i have heard today about Vice President s child. Things ive heard about the Vice President s son. When we have millions of people in this country who are suffering from addiction. I just believe to protect this president at any cost is shameful. Article two. In the nixon impeachment, said this, the article principally addressed president nixons use of power. Including powers vested solely in the president to aid his political allies, harm his political opponents, and gain improper personal, political advantages. And explain in this article of
impeachment, the House Judiciary Committee then stated that president nixons conduct was undertaken for his personal, political advantage. And not in the furtherance of any Valid National policy objective. The president abused his power. And to me, and at least the members on this side, that matters. And with that, i yield the remaining time to mr. Richmond from louisiana. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Very quickly, i just want to remind people that when the people watching that when you look at the credibility of a testimony. And weighing the evidence. You can look at other things. I want to enter into the record unanimous consent tthe guardia article. Roger stone, michael cohen, the men in trumps orbit implicated in crimes. Without objection. Cnn politics. Six Trump Associates have been
convicted in muellerrelated investigation. Wise grandmother who said birds of a feather flock together. And then also, President Trump has made 13,435 false or misleading claims over 990 days. The gentlemans time has expired. For what purpose does ms. Jackson lee seek recognition . To strike the last word. Gentle lady is recognized. Mr. Chairman, thank you. I wanted to speak first to the underlying amendment that calls for the acknowledgment that the aid was released in the article, first article, i believe. And i want to, again, recount not only the july 25th call
where previously, id indicated the president s language. I would ask like you to do us a favor, though. That that was not tied to the us representing the entity of a public representation, which would be the United States of america. Established Foreign Policy by the secretary of state. Establish Foreign Policy by the secretary of defense. And that is because, of course, the secretary of defense and state had already certified that ukraine was working to graduate to working to ensure the end of corruption that had met the standards required for funding. The other thing is that when Lieutenant Colonel vindman thought that the words that he heard were appalling and seemed, to him, to be inappropriate for
a call to the president as relates to a question tying the military aid to Investigation Biden and others. Sons and others. Not official policy. He immediately gave it to the nsc counsel john eisenberg. John eisenberg took the information. And then ultimately, put it in a separate coded filing. And asked that the Lieutenant Colonel not say anything about it. That is unusual because you would think that if it was normal business, if it had to do with standard u. S. Foreign policy, itd be okay to talk about that call. But they knew a major mistake had been made. They knew that the president had offered to give military aid if he got an investigation against
his political rival and his political rival happened to be joe biden. And he knew that that was, in fact, conspicuously using Public Office and public money for public and private desires. Let me also say that our friends talk about the courts. We have not shied away from the courts. In fact, judge howell regarding the 6e Grand Jury materials specifically said there is an Impeachment Inquiry. You cant stand in the way. Mr. President. Judge jackson indicated in her decision that the president was not a king. And so were here to talk about not as a mother, someones child who may have some concerns, like every americans child may have. Which i am saddened that those personal matters were raised. Were here to talk about the
abuse of this president and the obstruction of congress. Another amendment that we voted against. Because in rodinos statement during the nixon proceedings, he made it very clear to president nixon regarding his failure to comply with subpoenas. Issue pursuant to the watergate Impeachment Inquiry. And the constitution reinforces the fact that we have the sole power of impeachment. And the underlying decisions of the two Court Decisions i mentioned was that we were in an Impeachment Inquiry. And as a reminder to my colleagues, this committee ultimately approved an article of impeachment against Richard Nixon on the obstruction of congress matter. I wanted to clean up and bring some more points on that. And it was clear that it was a case where the president could not dictate to the house Impeachment Inquiry what he was refusing to give or not. This is where my friends steer off the rails. They refuse to acknowledge the facts of the case. The president took public money
with a public intent, with a private intent, to use those moneys to deny mr. Zelensky, who was going to go ahead and announce investigations on cnn. But was stopped in his tracks when the whistleblower whistleblowers letter or statement was released. It was out the bag that the president had done this on the july 25th call. Lets be clear. This is about facts and the constitution. I yield back, mr. Chairman. Gentle lady yields back. For what purpose does ms. Mcbeth seek recognition . Thank you, mr. Chairman. Ladies and gentlemen gentle lady strike the last word . Yes, excuse me. I move to strike the last word. Ive been anxiously sitting here all day long. And i just want to be able to say this to the American People before our day ends today. My colleagues and i have been explaining the evidence that we have heard. Weve been talking about all the documents and heard from so many witnesses along the way. And as weve been as we have been upholding our constitutional obligation to defend the constitution, some today have argued that we have not upheld our constitutional obligation to legislate. To solve problems. And that all we want to do is impeach the president of the United States. And i truly want to assure the American People, and to give you hope, that this is not true. I want to make sure that we set the record straight so that you know that we have been working on your behalf. And despite what many people in this country think, congress can walk and chew gum at the same time. This congress has been working very, very hard on behalf of the American People. In spite of everything thats happening with this impeachment. This very day, a bill. We passed a bill that lowers the cost of Prescription Drugs for hundreds of millions of americans. Hr3. It will save our taxpayers over 456 billion over the next decade. And allow for the expansion of medicare coverage, including hearing, dental, and vision benefits. Just this week. We achieved monumental changes to the u. S. mexico canada trade agreement. Yes, weve been waiting a very long time for that. This agreement is huge. Its a huge win for our families. Our workers and Business Owners in every District Across the United States. And we continue to work to make sure that we stay competitive in a global environment. Yesterday, we voted to support the ndaa, legislation that will keep our country safe. And will give a raise to our Service Members and includes
important reforms like paid parental leave for all federal employees. And repealing the whittles tax. And even on this committee, weve worked together. This week, my republican colleague, congressman and i were among a Bipartisan Group of lawmakers who introduced legislation that would end online child exploitation. Since weve been sitting in this room today, a deal has been forged by our colleagues to fund our government. And avoid another shutdown. Throughout this investigation, my colleagues and i have been fulfilling our duties as members of congress. Do not be deceived. We have been working on the American Publics behalf every single day in spite of the tragedy that were in now with this impeachment. This congress, the house of representatives, we have passed over 275 bills. 275 bills. And we are defending our democracy. And delivering on the promises that we made to each and every one of our constituents. I want the American Public to know this. We are truly disheartened by what is happening here with impeachment. But do know that we are working on your behalf. Each and every single day. We will continue to do what we swore an oath to do. And that is to protect and serve you. Even in this moment, in this tragedy, be rest assured we will do just that. And i yield back the balance of my time. Gentle lady yields back. For what purpose does mr. Raskin seek recognition . Move to strike the last word. Gentleman is recognized. Thank you very much, mr. Chairman. You know, in law school, i teach my students to try to take the best argument of their opponents and not the worst arguments. And so im going to ignore all of the frivolous Process Objections about the rooms and the temperature and all that kind of stuff weve heard about. And im going to try to make what i think is the the best argument or reconstruct the best argument thats come out today. And i understand that our colleagues face a difficult task because 70 of the American People believe that the president has done something wrong in these actions of trying to pressure a Foreign Government to get involved in our election. And so theyve got a problem there. And theyve got another problem, which is that there is an
overwhelming and uncontradicted body of evidence that the president did that. The president withheld hundreds of millions of dollars in Security Assistance that we had voted for, besieged for an all , resisting russian aggression. Because he was trying to get the president of that country, zelensky, to agree to conduct a Press Conference in which he would say he was investigating the bidens. And he also wanted president zelensky to validate Vladimir Putins favorite disinformation Conspiracy Theory about the 2016 campaign. Which is that it was ukraine, and not russia, that engaged in this sweeping and Systematic Campaign to interfere in our election. So what do you do with that . Well, we can understand why theyve been talking about process for months. But i think they understand this is a serious investigation. With rigorous methods and serious, inescapable conclusions. And the American People are focused on it. A majority not only support the investigation, a majority would like to see the president impeached. According to fox news anyway. But any event, huge number of americans are very disturbed by this. So what have they come up with . Well, theyve not found an alibi. Theres no fact alibi. He cant claim Somebody Else did it. But theyve come up with a defense which, to me, looks like really a mitigating factor. A plea for mercy. The president did all of these things. But his motive is misunderstood. All of us think that he was doing it because he wanted to advance his own reelection prospects. And in some sense, he wanted to help, for whatever reason, his friend vladimir putin. And putins already been on tv bragging about the fact that everybodys focused on ukraine
and the 2016 election and not russia. Note to mr. Putin. Thats not right. We understand exactly whats going on here. But any event, the new argument is that the president was not trying to advance his own political interests. What he was trying to do was to advance his passionatelyheld, and yet littleknown, campaign against corruption. Thats why so much of our discussion today has been about corruption because theyre trying to say he was waging this campaign about corruption. Now, weve noted a number of problems there. And i want to just try to catalog some of the other ones. To try to put this into some order so people can understand the problem with their best argument. The first is that the president never raised the word corruption on the july 25th Telephone Call. Bidens name was mentioned several times. It wasnt corruption, corruption, corruption. It was biden, biden, biden. And he never raised any other companies at all. It was all about burisma. Hunter booi Hunter Bidens company. Thats all that he mentioned. And as far as we know, hes never mentioned any other company in connection with corruption in ukraine. In 2017 and 18 when congress voted money for ukraine, the president passed it along. He didnt raise corruption in ukraine. He didnt even raise the bidens at that point. It only became an issue in 2019. In 2019, why . Because joe biden had surpassed him in the Public Opinion polls. And now, suddenly, it was a big issue. And so he cared about it. Well, whats the other evidence here . The president s team, Rudy Giuliani, and parnas and fruman engaged in a Smear Campaign against the u. S. Ambassador, who
was Crew Saidiusading against cn in ukraine. Sq and the president got her out of the way. So all the evidence shows they were promoting corruption in a corrupt scheme. They werent trying to attack it. Gentleman yields back. Who seeks recognition . What purpose does the gentle lady seek recognition . Thank you, mr. Chairman. I move to strike the last word. The gentle lady is recognized. And briefly, mr. Chairman and members, mr. Raskin, my colleague mr. Raskin just said bidens name was used multiple times. Well, i think thats a little misleading. Again, the only place in this whole Telephone Call where biden is even brought up is in one little paragraph. And that is on page four of five pages of the transcript. I mean, most of this call was about congratulating president zelensky and the new parliament. Talking about how, you know, a lot of these European CountriesArent Pitching in with the aid that was to ukraine as much as the United States has. And, you know, all kinds of things. It was a long phone call. And its really disingenuous to say that the whole thing was about this and biden was mentioned several times. Let me read, again. In fact, i know that the President Trump tweets this out. Read the transcript. And i wish people would because everybody watches tv and they get all these comments. But i did this with my husband. I said, would you just please read the transcript . Its only five pages long. Doesnt take that much time. And, you know, after he read it, it is like thats it . Thats all they got . But here. This is the mention about biden. Again, page five. The other thing. Theres a lot of talk about bidens son. That biden stopped the prosecution and a lot of people want to find out about that. So whatever you can do with the Attorney General would be great. Biden went around bragging that he stopped the prosecution. So if you can look into it, it sounds horrible to me. Thats it, folks. Thats all there is. So, mr. Chairman, i yield back. Gentle lady yields back. The question now occurs on the amendment. Those in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed. No. The opinion of the chair, the noes have it. The amendment is not agreed to. A roll call is requested. The clerk will call the roll. Mr. Nadler . No. Mr. Nadler votes no. Ms. Jackson lee . No. Ms. Jackson lee votes no. Mr. Cohen . Mr. Cohen votes no. Mr. Johnson of georgia . Mr. Johnson of georgia votes no. Mr. Deutch . Ms. Bass . Ms. Bass votes no. Mr. Richmond . Mr. Richmond votes no. Mr. Jeffries . Mr. Jeffries votes no. Mr. Swalwell . Mr. Swalwell votes no. Mr. Raskin . No. Mr. Raskin votes no. Ms. Jayapal . Ms. Jayapal votes no. Ms. Demings . Ms. Demings votes no. Mr. Kcorrea . Mr. Neguse . Mr. Thneguse votes no. Mr. Stanton . Mr. Stanton votes no. Ms. Powell . Ms. Powell votes no. Ms. Escobar . Ms. Escobar votes no. Mr. Collins . Mr. Collins votes aye. Mr. Chabot . Mr. Chabot votes aye. Mr. Gohmert
. Mr. Gohmert votes aye. Mr. Ratcliffe . Yes. Mr. Ratcliffe votes yes. Mr. Gates . Mr. Gates votes aye. Mr. Johnson of louisiana . Mr. Johnson of louisiana votes aye. Mr. Biggs . Mr. Biggs votes aye. Mr. Mcclintock . Ms. Lesgo . Mr. Klein . Aye. Mr. Klein votes aye. Mr. Armstrong . Yes. Mr. Armstrong votes yes. Mr. Stubey . Yes. Is everyone voted who wishes to vote . Mr. Correa, you are not recorded. Mr. Correa votes no. Anyone else who wishes to vote who hasnt voted . The clerk will report. Mr. Chairman, there are 17 ayes and 23 noes. The amendment is not agreed
to. Any further amendments in the ame amendment in the nature of a substitute . Mr. Chairman, i have an amendment at the desk. Amendment at the desk. The clerk will report. Amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute to h 755. Gentle lady reserves a point of order. Page five beginning on line six. Strike article two. I withdrawal my point of order. The gentleman is recognized for five minutes to explain his amendment. Thank you, mr. Chairman. My amendment would strike all of article two, which is the obstruction of congress charge. The facts simply do not align with The Democrats claim of obstruction. Our government has three branches for a reason. When there is a disagreement between the executive and the legislative branch, its supposed to be resolved by the third branch, the court. Republicans recognize this in
2011 when they investigated President Obamas fastandfurious scandal. The fastandfurious scandal allowed 2,000 firearms to fall into the hands of drug cartels and resulted in the death of an american Border Patrol agent. People actually died in President Obamas scandal. Throughout the republicans investigation of that scandal, they made numerous attempts to accommodate the obama administration. Yet, despite their efforts, President Obama invoked Executive Privilege and barred testimony and documents. So what did the republicans do . The appropriate thing. They went to the courts. Compared those efforts with what we have seen from The Democrats during this impeachment sham. House democrats could have worked with the administration to reach accommodations for their requests. But they didnt. House democrats should have worked through the courts. But they didnt. And why is that . Its simple. Because they have a political, expedient deadline to send this mess out of congress and to the senate before christmas. So despite what you hear from my colleagues, the administration has consistently cooperated with democrats. Even though they have been out to get this president since the very moment he was elected. Lets just go through the numbers. Over 25 Administration Officials have testified before the House Oversight committee. Over 25. Over 20 Administration Officials have testified before this very committee. The administration has also handed over more than 100,000 pages of documents since the start of this sham Impeachment Inquiry. Now, lets contrast that with the conduct from The Democrats. Democrats have threatened witnesses that quote unquote any failure to appear in response to a letter requesting their
presence would constitute evidence of obstruction. Let me just go through that language. Its a letter would constitute evidence of obstruction. Thats not a subpoena. Thats a letter. Democrats have also told the state Department Employees that they insisted on using Agency Counsel to protect Executive Branch confidentiality interests. They would have their salaries withheld. That kind of sounds like abuse of power but i digress a little bit. Democrats have not afforded this president basic procedure protections such as the right to see all the evidence. The right to call witnesses. Or the right to have counsel at hearings. But just not the Trump Administration thats been railroaded by The Democrats. Judiciary democrats voted down my own subpoena. My own motion to subpoena the whistleblower. Even though i said that he or
she could testify in executive session, which would be private. And yet, they voted it down on party lines. Chairman nadler also reviews requests that Chairman Schiff testify before this committee. House democrats also have denied every republican request for a fact witness. So i ask, who is really obstructing congress . The democrats have no case when it comes to obstruction. This Obstruction Charge is completely basis baseless and bogus. If they really wanted to charge someone with obstruction, how about they start with adam schiff . Thank you. I yield back the remainder of my time. Gentleman yields back. What purpose does ms. Bass seek recognition . Strike the last word. Id like to begin by answering my colleagues question. He asked who is really obstructing congress . Who is obstructing congress . President donald trump. The text of the constitution devotes only a few sentences to
a discussion of Impeachment Power. Yet, among those few sentences is the clear statement that the house possesses the sole power of impeachment. And what that means is, is that within the sole discretion of the house to determine what evidence is necessary, then, for it to gather in order to exercise that power. So its unnecessary for the house to go to the court to enforce subpoenas issued pursuant to an impeachment investigation. If it did, the houses sole power of impeachment would be beholden to the dictates of the judicial rather than the Executive Branch. Past president s have disapproved of impeachments, criticized the house, doubted its motives, and insisted they did nothing wrong. But no president , however, including president nixon who was on the verge of being impeached for obstruction of congress, has had declared himself and the entire branch of government he oversees totally exempt from subpoenas issued by the house. Pursuant to its sole power of impeachment. President trump has made compliance with every demand a condition of even considering whether to honor subpoenas. And he has directed his senior officials to violate their own legal obligations to turn over subpoenas and provide testimony. Indeed, the house was only able to conduct its inquiry into the ukraine matter because several witnesses, like the ambassadors, the Lieutenant Colonel vindman, had the courage to defy the president s unlawful command. President trumps conduct toward the current house Impeachment Inquiry is unprecedented. My colleagues talk about information that we should wait to get from the courts. We really wouldnt have to wait to get from the courts if the president would comply and provide documents. I remember when ambassador when ambassador sondland was testifying. And he said that he was testifying from memory because he wasnt even allowed to have
access to his own notes in the state department. President trump has abused his power and is a continued threat to our democracy and National Security. Hes put himself before the country. And no one is above the law. When i think of our elections and my concern for our election next year, our election should be decided by us. Our Foreign Policy and National Security should be based on americas interest, not the president s personal and political interest. We talked over and over again about the real reason for all of this was his concern about corruption. But as one of my colleagues said earlier today, if he was concerned about corruption, he would be concerned about what is going on in the white house. And all of the people who he has been affiliated with who are either awaiting sentences, sent to prison, serving time, or awaiting court. So its noteworthy that members of the minority never actually
defend President Trumps misconduct by disputing the facts of the case. But instead, try to deflect and distract with irrelevant issues. So i i just want to end. Someone asked this earlier but i dont believe my colleagues on the other side of the aisle ever answered. Forget President Trump. Is it ever okay for a president to invite foreign interference in our election . And with that, i yield to my colleague from california. Thank you for yielding. I would like to ask unanimous consent to put into the record the letter from the president s counsel, pat cipollone, dated october 8th, 2019. Without objection. I just, reflecting on the comments made by my colleague from california. Certainly, we had a right to receive information. We have a right to make a judgment on the information that
we have been able to obtain because impeachment is solely in the province of the congress. But just on the narrow issue of of the assertion of privilege. I think its important to note that the privilege no privilege was asserted in this letter by the counsel. He doesnt say its Executive Privilege. He doesnt say anything that you could take to court. He just says he doesnt like what were doing. And theyre not going to give us anything. Not a piece of paper. Not a witness. Just no. And that is an absurd situation. It is not acceptable. And it is really obstruction of congress. And i thank the gentle lady for yielding and yield back to her. I think my time is expired. Yield back now. Gentle ladys time is expired. Chairman. For what purpose . Im looking to strike the last word. Listening to my two colleagues from california, this seems to be the greatest amount of Circular Reasoning that weve heard in the last couple of days. Theres been a lot of it. But this is one that i think grabs the blue ribbon. Because what i hear is that an Impeachment Inquiry, if the white house does not give the house of representatives in this Committee Everything we ask for, then thats obstruction of congress and an impeachable offense. And thats not what the law said and its not what the law should be. There are certain privileges and immunities that the president has. Irrespective of whether were doing oversight or whether were using our article two power. The sole power of impeachment. And he ought to be able to present those, you know, in a court of law. This is not a court of law. You know, i dont blame white House Counsel cipollone for not saying that there were any privileges involved because we know what the answers gonna be. And, that is, were going to blow any claim of privilege away. Were going to blow any type of Executive Immunity away. We are going to simply say we want it and you got to give it to us no matter whether its private information or doing some legitimate oversight. Now, we know that the rejection of the argument that we shouldnt have to go to court for that is bogus. Because the house of representatives has gone to court to try to get enforcement of subpoenas that are as a result of this Impeachment Inquiry. The enforcement against don mcgahn. You know, has gotten as far as
the d. C. Circuit. There are others that are pending a little bit further backwards in the judicial system. But what i would like to ask my friends on the Majority Side is, okay, say were done with this Impeachment Inquiry next week. The house passes both articles of impeachment. And it goes to the senate for trial. Does that mean that the whole nexus of why you are attempting to enforce those subpoenas is gone. Are you going to go to court and say its gone . Are you going to move to dismiss those actions to support enforcement of the subpoenas . If you are following the argument that ive just heard, you got to do it. But i doubt it. I yield back. Gentleman yields back. I recognize myself for five
minutes. The actions of the white house of the president , in this case, are different in kind from all previous actions of executives of president s. It is not a question of asserting privilege, as it is not a question of adjudicating rights. Even in court. Rather, the counsel wrote, given that your inquiry lacks any legitimate constitutional foundation, the Executive Branch cannot be expected to participate in it. It is not up to the president to decide whether an Impeachment Inquiry by the congress is legitimate or not. Thats our function. That sentence shows right thethere use of president of congressional power. Number one. Number two, if the white house had simply asserted privileges for a number of witnesses,that could be adjudicated. And maybe, it may very well be
that had we chosen to to to oppose that as a as a reason for an impeachment, that would be invalid. But thats not what were talking about. Were talking about the president saying he does not recognize our impeachment. And he will not participate in it. He will not grant anything. That is an obstruction of congress. Its user pagz of congresss role to decide whether to have an Impeachment Inquiry. And its a decision to completely try to frustrate that inquiry by denying all participation. By denying all documents and all witnesses without asserting any privileges. Theres nothing to do with privileges. Privileges may be adjudicated in court. An assertion by the executive that the that the Impeachment Power cannot be exercised by congress is an obstruction of congress. And if allowed to get away with
it, eliminates the power of impeachment as a check on the power of the presidency. And is a large step toward dictatorship because the threat of impeachment is the only threat, the only Enforcement Mechanism that congress has on a president who would usurp powers and destroy the separation of powers. Especially, given the department of justices policy that a president , sitting president , cannot be indicted and the administrations assertion that he cannot even be investigated criminally. That leaves only impeachment as a remedy and as a check on president ial power. And if you dont want a dictatorship, you have to allow congress to exercise the power of impeachment. And the congress has a sole power the house has the sole power of impeachment, which means we have the right to get the documents we demand. Maybe subject to certain privileges but thats not at issue here because no privileges have been asserted. Instead, what has been asserted
is that the executive has the right to determine that they will that the Impeachment Inquirys invalid. They usurp the role of the house. This is assertion of tyrannical power. Thats why we must impeach the president on this article. To let to to to go along with this amendment and get rid of article two and say it is, in effect, it is permissible for the president to deny the Impeachment Power of the house is a long step away from constitutional government. A long step away from any control over the power of a president. And a long step toward tyranny. And i oppose the amendment. I yield back. Mr. Chairman. Who seeks recognition . Just wanted to ask if you would yield for one quick question on that. I will i yielded back. Ill yield. I just wanted to ask. You said its the only or to paraphrase, its the only remedy. Why is court not an appropriate remedy in this case . Court would be might be
your microphones off. Sorry. Court might be an appropriate remedy if a privilege were asserted. Im not willing to say that you Couldnt Mount A an impeachment based on overbroad assertions of privilege. But no privileges have been asserted. Theres nothing for a court to review. All that the president said is there will be no he has directed everyone in the Executive Branch. Do not provide a piece of paper. Do not testify. Theres nothing for the court to review. He has simply asserted that the constitution, that he doesnt recognize the constitutional power of congress to impeach. He wont recognize it. He thinks its invalid. And thats not his function to do. Its our function to determine whether an Impeachment Inquiry is valid or not. Isnt the next step then to hold a witness in contempt for either not producing documents . Or not appearing . If if a privilege were asserted, yes. But its gone beyond that. We could certainly do that. But but but its not a sufficient remedy. The remedy the only remedy for a president who says the house does not have the power to determine to have an Impeachment Inquiry is to say thats an obstruction of congress. My time is expired. I yield back. Mr. Chairman. Who seeks recognition . For what purpose does mr. Chabot seek recognition . Strike last word, mr. Chairman. Thank you, plrmr. Chairman. I appreciate the gentleman offering his amendment to strike the second article, which i think unfortunately, is as ridiculous as the first article in this case. An Obstruction Charge requires a concerted effort to interfere with or impede a congressional election. What the president did, asserting Executive Privilege, is not in any way, shape, or form obstruction. Executive privilege is a timehonored, constitutionallyprotected right
of each and every administration. And its been asserted time and time again by administration after administration. Both republican and democratic. When congress disagrees with a particular assertion of Executive Privilege, the remedy is not impeachment. The remedy is to go to court. And let the third branch of government, as i mentioned a little while ago, decide who is correct. Thats why we have checks and balances in this country. We got three branches of government. Theyre all supposed to keep an eye on each other. And in this case, the remedy is to go to the courts and let the courts decide if the president and this congress disagree. And except that the House Democrats have decided that they dont want to wait for the courts to decide. Not when they can instead just impeach the president. And maybe damage him politically. Although, apparently, thats not happening. But i think that was their goal. You want to talk about abuse of power. What the House Democrats are doing here is a clear case, in my view, of abusing their office for political gain. The majority really should hold themselves in contempt for conducting this onesided, biased impeachment investigation. And then attacking the white house for refusing to participate in such a patentlyunfair process. And i think, if you look at the record of this president thus far and hes only been in office three years at this point, the accomplishments are quite considerable. Impeaching a president thats accomplished these types of things is just patently absurd. Look at the economy right now. And why is the economy doing so well . I think its principally two things. The tax cuts and jobs act this president pushed and was passed when the Previous Congress was in control. The democrats kept screaming these are tax cuts for the rich. Tax cuts for the rich. About 85 of the American People had their taxes reduced. Yes, wealthy people got their taxes cut. But so did virtually Everybody Else in in this economy. Thats one of the principal reasons were seeing the economy continue to grow. Thats one of the reasons unemployment in this country is so low right now. Its at historic lows. About 50 years. And its not just wealthy people doing well. A lot of people are doing well. And its because of the tax cuts. About, as i mentioned, 85 of the people got their tax cut. Unemployment in this country, among africanamericans, hispanicamericans, asianamericans, is at alltime low. Unemployment, alltime low among those groups because of this president s policies. In conjunction with congress back when republicans were in the majority. I happen to be the ranking member, the lead republican on the house Small Business committee. I was the chairman of that committee for the last two years. Small businesses all across america are doing very well right now. Their confidence is at alltime highs. Why is it so important that Small Businesses do well . Well, about 70 of the new jobs
created in the American Economy are created by Small Business folks all across this country. Theyre the backbone of the American Economy. And the other thing, the other reason i think other than taxes being reduced why youre seeing the economy grow so well. Is because he has reduced the red tape. The bureaucracy. The regulations that come out of washington because when he was running as a candidate, he said his goal was to get rid of two existing regulations. Right now, red tape. Two existing regulations for every new regulation coming out of washington. That was a tough goal but weve even exceeded that. So those two things together i think are one of the principal reasons this economy is is growing so well. Theres so many things that you could talk about, about the successes. But one thats actually going to happen soon is improving nafta. The usmca. And, again, hopefully, democrats are going to pass this. Theyre in control here in the house now. And and they face the challenge because if they passed it, then the president s obviously going to get some credit because hes been pushing this. They dont really want the president necessarily to get any credit. But they also are trying to get rid of the label of being a donothing Congress Since theyve been in control now. So theyre going to apparently impeach the president. And at the same time, pass the usmca. Its unfortunate it takes impeaching a president to pass it but im really happy were impeaching it excuse me, that we are passing usmca because thats really good for the country. I yield back. The gentleman yields back before he gets into too much trouble. I recognize, for what purpose does i move to strike the last word. Gentle lady is recognized. Im really uncomfortable with the suggestion thats been made several times today. That the u. S. Constitution is for sale. You know, theres no exception in the constitution that allows a president to cheat in an
election just because the economys going well. My oath to protect and defend the constitution isnt for sale. Look. If President Trumps obstruction, abuse of power, and obstruction of congress are not impeachable, nothing is. Article one charges trump with the abuse of power for attempting to undermine our elections. The primary check on a president becoming a king is elections. This president abused his powers to undermine our elections. Thats article one. Article two, which my colleague has suggested we should abandon, charges President Trump with obstruction of congress for blocking the production of all documents and witnesses subpoenaed by congress in the impeachment investigation. Congresss power to investigate and impeach the president is the backstop to elections. To protect our government from being overrun by a tyrannical
executive. The president has undermined our constitution by obstructing congresss Impeachment Power without a legal basis. For our constitution to operate properly, it depends upon people acting in a reasonable manner. Were not dealing with an executive at this point who is acting in a reasonable manner. You know, often, people ask lawyers. Oh, can i sue . And its an old lawyer joke that, of course, you can sue. The question is, can you win . President trump has made a career out of suing. Knowing that he had no chance to win. He has clogged up our courts for decades. And he usually loses because he hasnt a legal leg to stand on. Thats the situation were in now. He has defied congressional subpoenas without a legal leg to stand on. He hasnt claimed executive
privilege, which is something that could go to the courts. Hes made up something called absolute immunity. Never before in the history of our country have we had a president who said you cant talk to anyone in my administration. You cant see any documents. When we had hope hicks come before his his Communication Secretary come before this committee several months ago, she was subject to a claim of absolute immunity. She wasnt allowed to testify to anything that had happened that shed seen, that had been done from the moment she walked into the white house until she left. She wasnt allowed to tell us where her office was. I mean, this is the kind of absolute tempted to say iron curtain that this president has tried to place between his administration and the American People. There is no way in hell i will vote to remove obstruction of
congress from these articles. And i yield back. The gentle lady yields back. Chairman. Mr. Chairman. The gentle lady yields back. What purpose for what purpose does mr. Jordan seek recognition . Strike the last word. I support the gentleman from pennsylvania. His amendment. He said in his remarks, he said the real obstruction came from Chairman Schiff. So true. And you know who the first victim was . This committee. This committee. Unless you were on the Intel Committee, the oversight committee, Foreign Affairs committee, you cant set in for the 17 fact witnesses. You couldnt be a part of those depositions. Now, some people tried. My good friend from florida tried to get in as a member of the committee thats now marking up the articles of impeachment but he wasnt allowed. So the first victim of the real obstruction to get to all the information was this committee. The committee charged with writing up the articles of impeachment. Marking em up as
impeachment, marking them up as we speak, wasnt allowed to be in there for the 17 fact witness that is we all depose. But the democrat rules were even worse. No Subpoena Power for republicans. Depositions as i said, done in secret in the bunker, in the basement of the capitol. In those depositions, remember these witnesses were subpoenaed. Theyre supposed to answer our questions. But only The Democrats got all their questions answered. There were questions that republicans asked that the chairman of the Intel Committee prevented the witnesses from answering. Democrats denied republicans witnesses for the open hearings. We werent allowed to call the witnesses we want. We had to submit a list. We put a couple of people on the list from the 17 people adam schiff subpoenaed just so we could have some people we thought might make the real case, but we werent allowed to call our witness. The one witness we really wanted to call, even though adam schiff said we would get a chance to hear from, we werent allow to,
and thats the whistleblower. Remember when this all happened in september, adam schiff told us we were going to get to hear from the whistleblower . The whistleblower with no firsthand knowledge who was biased against the president , who worked with joe biden. He said were going to get to hear from him but then changed his mind. What changed the chairmans mind . Well, remember the day after the day after the call, the whistleblower writes this memo, says the call was all described as crazy, frightening, but he waits 18 days to file the complaint. What happens in the 18 daytime frame. Whistleblower goes off and sees adam schiff, gets some Marching Orders from adam schiffs staff, and everything changed. We dont get to hear from him. We dont get to hear from the person and because we dont get to hear from the whistleblower, remember the complaint that gets filed on august 12th . Very first point the Whistleblower Makes in that complaint, he says this. Over the past four months, more than half a dozen u. S. Officials
informed me about this effort. We have no idea. The committee marking up articles of impeachment, we have no idea who those half a dozen u. S. Officials are. We dont know if we talked to them. We dont know if they came and testified. We dont know my guess is Colonel Vindman was one of them. But who knows . We dont know because we never got to talk to the individual who started it all with the complaint that the chairman of the Intel Committee told us when it all started were going to get to hear from him. But then when its discovered his staff communicated with the whistleblower, nope, nope, nope, were not going to get to. The real victim of obstruction is this committee. Weve had four democrat witnesses in front of us. Thats all weve heard from. Those were the four witnesses, then a bunch of staff. None of the 17 witnesses. So, i support the gentleman from pennsylvanias amendment and hes exactly right. The obstruction came from the
Intel Committee. With that, i yield back. The gentleman from rhode island is recognized. Maam im sorry. Can i have the last word . Okay. You are recognized. We are charged with taking the facts of this investigation, applying them to the constitution that we have sworn to protect and defend. Lets return for a minute to the facts. This series of events was described by trump officials, ambassador volker to be particular as a drug dealer, described by fiona hill as domestic political errand. There was direct evidence collected from 17 witnesses, over 100 hours of testimony, 260 text messages, transcript of the president s own words, emails between high ranking officials in the Trump Administration. And what we know is that the president of the United States hired Rudy Giuliani to lead this effort. The president engaged in a mere
campaign against ambassador yovanovitch and then fired her because she was an anticorruption fighter. The president put a hold on military aid to ukraine. The president and others acting on his behalf demanded that president zelenski publicly announce investigation of the president s chief political rival. The president put the three amigos in charge of ukraine. The president refused to have a meeting or release aid until the public announcement of the investigation of his political opponent. The president told Vice President pence not to attend the new president of ukraines inauguration. And the president spoke to ambassador sondland about what ambassador sondland described as a quid pro quo. But what we know also, if you drill down a little bit more, i speak specifically about trump Administration Officials who were in the middle of this activity. On july 21st, 2019, there was a
text from ambassador taylor to ambassador sondland, and i quote, president zelenski is sensitive about ukraine being taken seriously, not merely as instrument in washington domestic politics. David holmes testified i was surprised the requirement was so specific and concrete. This was a demand that president zelenski personally commit to a specific investigation of President Trumps political rival on a cable news channel. Mr. Holmes also testified in response to a question during counsels examination, youre acknowledging, mr. Holmes, that ukraine very much felt pressured to undertake these that the president , Rudy Giuliani, and others were demanding. Answer from mr. Holmes, yes, sir. Ambassador taylor has a Call On September 8th with ambassador sondland and ambassador taylor, this is a career diplomat, a vietnam war hero. Ambassador taylor says during
our call, sondland tried to explain to me that President Trump is a business man and what a businessman is about to sign a check to someone that owes him something, the businessman asked someone to pay up before he signs the check. I argue to both of them that explanation made no sense. And holding up security for Domestic Political Gain was crazy. Finally on september 9th, ambassador taylor in a Text Exchange with ambassador sondland again says, as i said on the phone, i think its crazy to withhold Security Assistance for help with a political campaign, end quote. So, the record is filled with evidence that, in fact, the president of the United States abused the enormous power of his office in an effort to cheat in the 2020 election, to drag foreign interference into the 2020 election and to corrupt an
american president ial election. And he used the power of his office with the help of taxpayer funds to leverage his effort to drag foreign powers into our elections. And when i hear my colleagues on the other side of the aisle say whos the victim, the victim is american democracy. The victim is the people we represent who expect us to honor oath to protect and defend the constitution. Are my republican colleagues really saying that it is okay for a president to invite or drag or persuade or coerce foreign powers to distorte an american president ial election . We have Men And Women who have given their lives to protect our democracy. We owe it to them to be sure who gets to decide the american president is the American People, not some foreign power. Thats a sacred right of citizens of this country. If we allow this president to get away with this, we will have
lost our democracy, convey that right to foreign powers, and no longer have democracy. I urge my colleagues to support these articles of impeachment to vindicate the right of the American People to determine their own future. I yield back. For what purpose does the gentleman seek recognition . Move to strike last word. Theres been a lot said as everybodys acknowledged. And im just struck by the hyperbolic language that is being used on the other side in this breathless charge that we hear over and over about article 2 that this is the first time in the history of the republic that any history has evoked this kind of privilege or kind of immunity over subpoenas from congress. Of course its simply not true. A cursory review of the history, even a review of the Witness Testimony that was presented in this very committee a week ago would show you thats a baseless charge