Government. And then simply says, but you can go to court because thats how things always work. Again, its just important to remember. The facts are clear. No president has ever, ever, ever obstructed congress in the manner that weve seen from President Trump. Will the gentleman yield . In a moment. And so as as we go forward, and i dont know how much longer well be here. Its always important to makel sure that the facts are clear. And that we dont muddy the waters by suggesting that something that is sosu unprecedented, that weve never seen before in the history of our country, is somehow just a parcel of thes way things work around here. They dont. Know it. Friends on The Other Side of the aisle know it. The American People know it. But mr. Johnsons right. Sometimes its important to remind them of it. T. I yield. Will the gentleman yield . Nt thank you. I just want to add a little
constitutional postscript to underscore the verye important point that mr. Deutch is making here. The ar
can topple them over. also, there s always been a concern over vehicles and whether or not someone would try to ram some kind of a vehicle into the capitol. that s the other reason why. this goes all the way around. so up to constitution. up constitution. all the way around independence. obviously the entire complex now closed. people can still go in, but i think by tonight or so, we re going to see some measure of stepped up security. also i want to show you one other thing that we just learned. these fences here, that scott is showing you here, that s for the supreme court. that s where we are. that s expected to get the fencing here to perhaps today. we actually just saw a bunch of police officers and sheriff s officers from outside washington d.c., baltimore, virginia, other officials, national guard officials all having a meeting outside, going over some of the security measures, acquainting them with the area. because obviously what s going to happen is there s going to be
constitutional post-script to underscore the verye important point that mr. deutch is making here. the article one of the constitution gives the house of representatives the sole power of impeachment. it gives the senate the sole power of trial. and a supreme court decision callede united states versus nixon, the supreme court emphasized that the rules and the procedures developed, including the evidentiary rules, are completely within the power of the house and theit senate. andof cannot be second guessed the courts. and in terms of general congressional oversight, the gentleman isl perfectly correc. the supreme court has emphasized that the fact-finding, investigative power of congress isve essential to, integral to, and built into our legislative power. james madison said that those who mean to be those who mean to be their- own governors mus arm themselves with the power that knowledge gives. and whereed does congress get t knowledge to legislate for the people? we get it through
disputes. wait a minute. that s the answer. so if we re going to cite supreme court cases, let s put it in the appropriate context. i yield. 20 seconds. el thank you. we re citing different cases. i m talking about the 1993 judge walter nixon case. as i ll remind the gentlemen on both sides of this argument, it s my time. not y all. i m sorry. i m sorry. yield back. fair enough. we had two different nixon cases. no, mr. raskin, we re done with this. the gentleman yields back. for whatie purpose does ms. dea seek recognition? i move to strike the last word. let s go back. as has been stated today, the constitution devotes only a few sentences to impeachment. so i m going to read one. it s article one, section two. the very last sentence. the house of representatives shall choose their speaker and other officers. and shall have the sole power of impeachment.r as professor raskin just told us, properly, the constitution
definitively destroys the insinuation the president chose to delay for malicious or corrupt purposes. the bottom line is the aid was lawfully delayed. and lawfully delivered. and that means that this entire process has been a sham. and with that, i am going to address a couple issues that i heard. i heard one of my colleagues on the other side say not too long ago that the president should come in and prove his own innocence. think about what that does. come in and prove your own innocence. first of all, that is anti-thetcal to the anglo-american judicial process. it s anti-thetical to the constitution, particularly the bill of rights. it s antithetical to what we do here. someone said that vindman said that that was complaining about the the transcript. but has been gone over today. the transcript was complete and accurate according to mr.