President nixon said a similar thing, that is not what the constitution provides, that is not what the country demands. He does not have the right to do whatever he wants. Turning to the second abuse of power most of concern. Betraying the nation involving foreign powers. The American People have suffered that foreign influence when President Trump treated military aid that had been approved, taxpayer dollars, and decided to treat it as his own checkbook to try to further his own reelection chances. That reflects what the founders were concerned about. Finally, corruption of our elections. The framers knew that corrupt leaders or leaders acting corruptly concentrate their powers to manipulate elections and undercut adversaries. They talked about it frequently. That is why the framers thought electoral treachery particularly involving foreign powers was a critical abuse that could support and lead to impeachment. Now, the American People learned last election how dangerous foreign intervention on elections can be. Let me show another clip from candidate trump on the campaign trail. Russia, if youre listening, i hope youre able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing. I think you will probably be rewarded mightily by our press. Andussi was listening. Within approximately five hours, five hours, of President Trumps invitation to russia to interfere in our election by trying to hack and obtain the emails of his political opponent, russia in fact tried to do that, for the first time. The very officers who were then indicted by the department of justice for that conduct, they took candidate trumps invitation. Now, the American People learned a lesson. President trump, unfortunately, apparently learned a different lesson. Lets look. Well, i would think that if they were honest about it, theyd start a Major Investigation into the bidens. Its a very simple answer. They should investigate the bidens. So this was President Trump answering a question about what did he want president zelensky to do . So even after he got caught, he is saying, again, this vulnerable nation dependent on u. S. Support, militarily, and otherwise, again, he is telling them what to do. And unlike in 2016 when he only had a campaign platform, with which to extend the invitation to a foreign power, now he has the levers of government in his control to not only request it and invite it but to pressure that country to do it. And thats exactly what he did. Youll hear more about that in the presentation from the House Intelligence Committee. And whats most striking as we come back to this issue that the framers were concerned about, is there a continuing risk of wrongdoing . The fact that President Trump did this after he was caught shows the risk. Shows the risk. Of what will happen if this body doesnt act. He really does believe he can act as though he were above the law. He really does believe as evidenced by this conduct that he can put his personal and political interests over the nations interest, over the Nations National security interest, over the nations integrity of its elections. So of course we do have an election coming up. Thats not a reason to postpone this discussion. That is a reason we must have this discussion to make sure it is not interfered with. To make sure this president doesnt do it. To make sure future president s dont do it. It is the hope that in these discussions we can put aside political rancor, disagreements, and have a fair discussion about the facts and this conduct. Not just as it relates to President Trump but as to the presidency, itself, and future president s. My son, our children, our grandchildren, they will study men in history. They will read all of your remarks. They will learn about all of your actions. And that is not a reason to vote for or against impeachment. For that of course you must vote your conscience. But that is a reason for us to have a fair debate about what the undisputed facts show. To recognize that it is wrong. It is very wrong. And it cannot happen again with this president or any president. It is a reason to talk about whether we want our children and grandchildren to live in a country where the president elected by the people can put his own personal and political interests over the interests of the people who elected them. It is a reason for these debates to again fairly focus on the facts and to make sure the presentations were going to hear will not distort the record, focus on process points, raise extraneous matters that really are intended to distract rather than focus on what the conduct was at issue here. It is a reason to focus on the facts and what is in the countrys best interests. History, future generations will be the judge. Thank you, mr. Berke. Mr. Castor, you are mr. N. You are ir poi ofrder. Casto 30 minutes. Mr. Chairman, point of order. The witness has violated rule 17 and my point of order should be heard. Point of order. The witness has used language which impuns the motives of the president and suggests he is disloyal to his country and those words should be stricken from the record and taken down. The point of order is not sustained. Witnesses are not subject to the rules of decorum. Appeal the ruling of the chair. In the same way members are. The topic of the hearing is the president s misconduct. So none of us should find it surprising we are hearing testimony that is critical of the president. I do not find that the witnesss comments are disorderly. I find they are pertinent to the subject matter of this hearing. The witness would be able to continue except that his time is expired. Mr. Castor is recognized. My point of order is they violate the rules of the house and should be taken down. This is not about his conduct. He is talking about the motives and the character of the president of the United States. The gentleman will suspend. The rules of decorum apply to members of the house not to witnesses. The gentleman may proceed. So i appeal the ruling of the chair. That is not a ruling. It is a ruling. There was no it is a ruling on a point of order. It is appealable. That is a ruling. Subject to a vote. That is a rule. The point of order is not sustained. Appeal the ruling of the chair. I move to table the the motion is made to table the appeal of the ruling of the chair. Move the motion is made in writing. The motion is not in debate. All in favor of the motion to table will say aye. Aye. Those opposed no. No. The motion to table she has to put it in writing first. Then you can call the vote. At least youre following the rules. The motion to table is sustained. Roll call. The clerk will call the roll. Mr. Nadler. Aye. Mr. Nadler votes aye. Ms. Lofton votes aye. Mr. Cohen votes aye. Mr. Johnson of georgia votes aye. Mr. Deutsch . Votes aye. Miss bass votes aye. Mr. Richmond votes aye. Mr. Jeffries . Mr. Jeffries votes aye. Mr. Cicilliny votes aye. Mr. Liu votes aye. Mr. Raskin votes aye. Miss demmings votes aye. And a lesson in parliamentary rules and the rights of the minority here to in some ways disrupt this hearing or to make the point in their words that they are being railroaded, not given a chance to present their own type of view. We just heard, you know, a strong statement from not only the chairman of the judiciary but their Committee Lawyer making the case over and over again as they repeated that the president has put himself before country. Clear and overwhelming facts. Thats what the counsel for the democrats and the Judiciary Committee said the record has established. Republicans dont buy that. The white house isnt participating. And yet it is the fundamental approach of House Democrats that all of this has been established. It is clear. And inescapable that the president s motives were not for country but for self and that he took two official acts, one congressionally mandated aid and a potential white house meeting and used them as leverage. Thats the case. Yeah. It is not a new case. There is no new revelation. It is just a summary of that. And the country is going to have to evaluate that. Kim wehle is with us as well our legal analyst. The democrats making the case in some ways this is a slam dunk on abuse of power. Right. And walked through the various defenses. I thought that was quite effective. The president s team, the republicans are going to say for example this was about legitimate corruption and then he showed a clip of the president saying, listen. We should investigate the bidens. I thought that was quite effective. And for viewers really a good summary of the top points, and i think Going Forward the question will be, are there disputed facts . Do we see anything from the republicans that raises a question as to the central narrative major just lets listen in to the republicans also for purposes of this investigation, a shared staffer with Judiciary Committee it sure is atypical for a staffer to be presenting but again, thanks for having me. The purpose of this hearing as we understand it is to discuss whether president donald j. Trumps conduct fits the definition of a high crime and misdemeanor. It does not. Such that the committee should consider articles of impeachment to remove the president from office. And it should not. This case in many respects comes down to eight lines in a call transcript. Let me say clearly and unequivocally that the answer to that question is no. The records and the impeachment inquiry does not show President Trump abused the power of his office or obstructed congress. To impeach a president who 63 Million People voted for over eight lines in a call transcript is bologna. Democrats seek to impeach President Trump not because they have evidence of high crimes or misdemeanors, but because they disagree with his policies. This impeachment inquiry is not the organic outgrowth of serious misconduct. Democrats have been searching for a set of facts on which to impeach President Trump since his inauguration on january 20th, 2017. Just 27 minutes after the president s inauguration that day, the Washington Post ran a story that the campaign to impeach the president has already begun. The article reported democrats and liberal activists are mounting broad opposition to stymieing trumps agenda and noted that impeachment strategists believed the constitutions emoliants clause would be the vehicle. Democrats introduced articles to remove President Trump from office on several different factual bases. On january 3rd the very first day of the new congress, congressman sherman introduced articles of impeachth prent. Same day representative talib said were going to go in there and impeach the president. In may 2018 it was said on mns if we dont impeach this president he will be reelected. Even Speaker Pelosi who has said that impeachment is a somber and prayerful exercise has called President Trump an imposter and said it is dangerous to allow voters to judge his performance in 2020. The obsession with impeaching the president is reflected in how House Democrats have used the power of their majority in the past 11 months. In the Oversight Committee the democrats first announced witness was michael cohen, a disgraced felon who pleaded guilty to lying to congress. When he came before us, at the Oversight Committee, he then lied again as many as eight times. Oversight Committee Democrats demanded information about the president s personal finances and even subpoenaed the president s Accounting Firm for large swaths of sensitive and personal Financial Information about the entire trump family. The subpoena was issued over the objection of Committee Republicans and without a vote. In the ways and means Committee Democrats demanded the president s personal tax return information. The reason they cited for wanting the president s tax returns they said was to oversee the irss audit process for president ial tax returns. You can judge that for yourself. In a Financial ServicesCommittee Democrats demanded and subpoenaed the president s bank records going back ten years. The Financial Services committee staff, the republicans tell me, the information demanded would cover every withdrawal, credit card swipe, or debit card purchase of every member of the trump family including his minor child. The reason that the democrats gave for why they needed such voluminous and intrusive personal information about the trump family was, get this, financial industry compliance with banking statutes and regulations. Here in the Judiciary Committee democrats sent out letters demanding information from over 80 recipients including the president s children, business partners, employees, his campaign, businesses, and foundation. Of course, the main event for the Judiciary Committee was the report of special counsel mueller, which democrats would believe would serve as the evidentiary basis for impeaching the president. Despite interviewing 500 witnesses, issuing 2800 subpoenas, executing almost 500 search warrants, and spending 25 million, the special counsels 19 attorneys and 40 fbi agents, analysts, and staff found no conspiracy or coordination between the Trump Campaign and the russian government. After the trump russia collusion allegations did not pan out, democrats that call because the special counsel has declined to do so. Not surprisingly, the democrats mueller hearing was underwhelming to say the least and the sequel with Cory Lewandowski definitely did not move the impeachment needle either. The Intelligence Committee, too, was heavily invested in the russia collusion investigation. The Committee Democrats hired former federal prosecutors to prepare for their anticipated efforts to impeach the president. Now that the russian collusion allegations did not work out, democrats have settled on the ukraine phone call. Eight lines the president uttered on july 25th with ukrainian president zels. The Foreign Affairs committee, the committee of jurisdiction, wasnt the committee leading the impeachment inquiry or holding the hearings. Neither was the Oversight Committee. The houses chief investigative entity. The Judiciary Committee was only recently brought back into the mix after fact finding concluded. Instead, the impeachment inquiry was run by the House Intelligence Committee and these former federal prosecutors. Democrats on the Intelligence Committee ran the impeachment inquiry in a manifestly unfair way. All the fact finding was unclassified. And that was made clear at the top of every single deposition. But the democrats took advantage of the closed door process in the capitol basement bunker, the skiff, to control access to information. The secrecy effectively weaponized the investigation, allowing misleading public narratives to form and catch hold with careful leaks of witness testimony. Democrats refused to invite republican witnesses and directed witnesses called by the democrats not to answer our questions. In the public hearings many of these unfair processes continued. Democrats refused to invite numerous witnesses requested by republicans. Interrupted republican questioning, and prevented witnesses from answering republican questions. Democrats voted down by virtue of a motion to table with no notice, subpoenas for documents and testimony requested by republicans. Ill note democrats never once brought any of their subpoenas to a vote before the Intelligence Committee. This unfair process reflects the degree to which democrats are obsessed with impeaching the president. The democrats went searching for a set of facts on which to impeach the president. The emoluments clause, the president s business and financial records, the mueller report, allegations of obstruction, before landing on the ukraine phone call. The impeachment inquiry is clearly an orchestrated effort to upend our political system. According to politico the speaker has tightly scripted every step of the impeachment inquiry. Democrats have reportedly convened focus groups to test which allegations whether it be quid pro quo or bribery or extortion were most compelling to the American Public. Speaker pelosi said democrats must strike while the iron is hot on impeaching the president. The entire duration of the impeachment inquiry from the time Speaker Pelosi announced it on september 24th until today has been, 76 days. As professor turley testified last wednesday, this impeachment would stand out among modern impeachments as the shortest proceeding with the thinnest evidentiary record and the narrowest grounds ever used to impeach a president. The artificial and arbitrary political deadline by which democrats are determined to finish impeachment by christmas leads to a rushed process. And missed opportunities to obtain relevant information. Democrats avoided the accommodations process required by federal courts and disputes between congress and the executive