Business, the media, across the board, and the president since hes been in office has stoked that in an unprecedented way. The argument that theyre going to make about the fact that hes obstructing certainly matters on constitutional level but does it matter on a who cares level. This is an issue, i think the loss of institutional integrity, because our politics are tribalized and divisive, why nancy pelosi did not want to move forward with impeachment for the longest time, because it would be so divisive and she feels like her hand has been, you know, that theres no choice but to move forward. Whether its i remember during the health care debate, senator dodd said this is a really bad idea to do this on a party line vote. Doing impeachment this way is really hard because it allows one side to cast the other as seeking to legitimize them. Thats what the American People should not want because it undermines our institutions. Were going to hear from three witnesses basically at length today and our viewers
will learn a lot more about barry berke for the Judiciary Committee, steven castor, the minority counsel, Daniel Goldman, majority counsel for the Intelligence Committee and steven castor, also the minority counsel for the committee, they will be testifying and making their arguments. Right. Steven castor will do double duty for the republicans. The democrats will be splitting it. Theres steven castor. They come from three different worlds in the legal world. Daniel goldman is a Career Prosecutor with the Southern District of new york, the federal Prosecutors Office in manhattan. Hes going to be sort of laying out the prosecution case. Steven castor, who is representing the republicans, is a professional congressional staffer. He has worked for the republicans on capitol hill since 2005. Barry berke, who was also representing the democrats, is a very successful criminal defense
lawyer in new york city. So it will be interesting to see how their professional backgrounds inform how they express themselves before the committees today. All three of them are very good. I think they will be able to put the best foot forward for their sides but they will be really pressed here because as we have been discussing, this is a very contentious partisan process and so each one is going to be closely cross examined by the party in opposition. There you see berry berke shaking hands with steven castor. This is ross, youre familiar with these witnesses as well. Yeah. And, you know, weve seen a bit of each one of them before and i you know, i think what were going to see is them sort of honor, you know, their experiences. Goldman is this Career Prosecutor. We saw some very, very crisp,
direct questioning by him. I think we will expect and should expect that hes going to be very crisp and sharp. Same thing with barry berke, experienced Courtroom Lawyer and steve castor has more experience than either of the democrats lawyers with the institution of the house of representatives. But, you know, interestingly, none of them are, you know, sort of elected politicians. It will be interesting to see how they sort of play to the masses, how they play to tv which is not normally what the lawyers are doing. Barry berke and steve castor are the witnesses making their respective cases during the first about hour long session, carrie, and then in the second round Daniel Goldman from the Intelligence Committee, all of
us are familiar with the questioning that he posed, he will join in this discussion and barry berke will leave. Its a challenge for steve castor to have to do both hearings. Barry berke will be able to focus on the report that the House Judiciary Committee prepared regarding the constitutional grounds for impeachment. Mr. Goldman will focus on the facts, the extensive factual record that house Intelligence Committee was able to develop over a period of weeks through witnesses, and steve castor, for the republicans, has to be able to do both and straddle both of those and argue on the law piece and the constitutional precedent for the first part and pivot and move over to the factual records which really, again, i will be curious to see whether he is willing to take on the factual allegations or whether he uses the republican Talking Points that are more of diversions than counters to the factual
assertions. Were just getting this in. I wonder if you know ashley hurt call lon, but republicans say she will be the republican Judiciary Committee staffer asking questions this morning. She normally is assigned to the House Oversight Investigations Committee but shes going to be shes the chief counsel of Oversight Investigations for the House Judiciary Committee and so were going to see a new face today. Yes. Representing the republicans. I think one thing that is unambiguously better about these hearings than earlier hearings in the when the democrats have been in control of the house of representatives, is they have let the lawyers ask the questions for the first 45 minutes as opposed to these fourminute posturings by the members themselves. Just in terms of public understanding, it is a much better thing for a witness
for a lawyer to be able to develop a line of questioning and at least let the witness talk. You know, just for the not even, you know, for partisan reasons, just to tell a clear story, you have to let a witness talk for more than 45 for more than five minutes and thats nothing but good for both sides. One question i have is we watch and witness real time the machinery of impeachment, one upside here is you will hear as jeffrey said, the lawyers make their statements, in effect their arguments, about what the evidence shows. My question is what new evidence might come to light between now and a senate trial . That might be interesting because presumably the Intelligence Committee, as adam schiff has said, theyre still out there trying get more information. This is not the chairman by the way, jerry nadler is now walking in. Hes about to be seated. Once hes seated the photographers, presumably, will leave that center stage and
hell bring this historic session to order. Go ahead. I think thats you just hit the nail on the head. Were talking about the specifics of what were going to hear but as we wait for them to actually start, it is history. Every one of these hearings are a milestone in something few people witness because it doesnt happen that much in history. This is the ultimate of congress using its power to try to put the executive branch, the president of the United States, in check and it is happening in, as you said, tribal partisan times and that is what were likely to witness in this hearing, but it is a moment for all of us to remember. Its interesting, if you see the 30 you see 30 minutes on that clock over there, each side will have an opening 30 minutes, the democrats and the republicans, berry berke on the
democratic side, Stephen Castor, they will make their arguments, on the democrat side in favor of impeachment, the republican side clearly against impeachment. 30 minutes is a long time, actually, for a lawyer to present a matter before congress, having testified before congress and prepared fiveminute statements, 30 minutes is a long time. They do have at least from the majority perspective, a very lengthy report to base his statements on and so hes really going to want to, barry berke, to go through the constitutional grounds for impeachment in depth and it will really be im interested to see how Stephen Castor for the minority is able to counter those arguments on the constitutional basis. Well hear from the democrats side. First the republican side second. Here we go. The chair authorized to declare recesses i object. Objection noted. The quorum is present. We are conducting the hearing into donald j. Trump, presentations from the select committee on intelligence and the House Judiciary Committee pursuant to House Resolution 660 and the special Judiciary Committee procedures that are described in section 4a of that resolution. Here is how the committee will proceed for this hearing. I will make an Opening Statement. Then i will recognize the Ranking Member for an Opening Statement. After that, we will hear two sets of presentations. We will hear 30minute opening arguments from counsels for the majority and minority jerry Nadler Committee [ inaudible ] [ inaudible ]. You are jerry nadler. Youre the one committing treason. America [ inaudible ] maubl treason committed by order in the room. Order in the room. Watch you run an impeachment and remove our vote. We voted for donald trump. Theyre removing [ inaudible ]. Americans are sick of your impeachment theyre sick of the democrat treason. We know it wasnt trump. [ inaudible ]. The committee will come to order. I shouldnt have to remind everyone present 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 audience is here to observe only. And we will maintain decorum in the hearing room. I will say, here is how the committee will proceed for this hearing. I will make an Opening Statement and then i will recognize the Ranking Member for an Opening Statement. After that we will hear two sets of presentations. We will hear 30 minute opening arguments for counsels for the majority and minority of this committee and then 45 minute presentations of evidence from majority and minority counsel
from the Permanent Select Committee on intelligence. Followed by 45 minutes of questioning by the chair and Ranking Member who may yield to counsel for questioning during this period. Finally all of our members will have the opportunity to question and present from the Intelligence Committee under the fiveminute rule. I would note that the president s counsel was given the opportunity to participate today but the white house has declined the invitation. I will now recognize myself for an Opening Statement. To matter his party or his politics, if the president places his own interests above those of the country, he betrays his Oath Of Office. The president of the United States, the Speaker Of The House, the Majority Leader of the senate, the Chief Justice of the supreme court, and the chairman and Ranking Members of the House Committee on the judiciary, 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 he puts himself before the country, in a manner that threatens our democracy, then our oath, 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, even when it might cost us our jobs, as members of congress. And even if the president is unwilling to honor his oath, i am compelled to honor mine. As we heard in our last hearing, the framers of the constitution were careful students of history and clear in their vision for the new nation. They knew that threats to democracy can take many forms, that we must protect against them. They warned us against the
dangers of wouldbe monarchs, fake pop miss and Charismatic Demo that it might come from within in the form of a corrupt executive who put his private interests above the tinterests f the nation. They also knew they could not anticipate every threat a president might some day pose so they adopted the phrase, treason, bribery, and other high crimes and misdemeanors to capture the full spectrum of possible president ial misconduct. George mason, who proposed the standard, said it was meant to capture all manner of great and dangerous offenses against the constitution. The debates around the framing mke clear that the most serious such offenses include abuse of power, the trail of the nation through foreign entanglements and corruption of public office. Any one of these violations of the public trust would compel the members of this committee to
take action. When combined, in a single course of action, they state 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 that there is Common Ground around some of these ideas. Common ground in this hearing room and Common Ground across the country at large. We agree, for example, that impeachment is a solemn, serious, undertaking. We agree that it is meant to address serious threats to democraticenutio Democratic Institutions like our free and fair elections. When the elections are threatened by enemies foreign or domestic, we cannot wait until the next election to address the threat. We surely agree that no public official, including and especially the president of the United States, should use his
public office 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 just one moment i think we would agree on a common set of facts as well. On july 25th, President Trump called president zelensky of ukraine and asked him for a favor. That call was part of a concerted evident effort to announce an investigation not an investigation of Corruption Writ large but an investigation of President Trumps political rivals and only his political rivals. President trump put himself before country. The record shows that President Trump withheld military aid, allocated by the United States congress, from ukraine. It also shows that he withheld a white house meeting from president zelensky. Multiple witnesses, including respected diplomats, National Security professionals, and decorated war veterans, all testified to the same basic fact. President trump withheld the aid and the meeting in order to pressure a Foreign Government to do him that favor. President trump put himself before country. And when the president got caught, when congress discovered that the aid had been withheld from ukraine, the president took extraordinary and unprecedented steps to conceal evidence from congress and from the American People. These facts are not in dispute. In fact, most of the arguments about these facts appear to be beside the point. As we review the evidence today, i expect we will hear much about the whistleblower who brought his concerns about the July 25th Call to the Inspector General of
the intelligence community. Let me be clear, every fact alleged by the whistleblower has been substantiated by multiple witnesses again and again, each of whom has been questioned extensively by democrats and republicans alike. The allegations also match up with the president s own words as released by the white house. Words that he still says were perfect. I also expect to hear complaints about the term quid pro quo, as if a person needs to verbally acknowledge the name of a crime while he is committing it for it to be a crime at all. The record on this point is also clear. Multiple officials testified that the president s demand for an investigation into his rivals was a part of his personal, political agenda, and not related to the Foreign Policy objectives of the United States. Multiple officials testified that the president intended to
withhold the aid until ukraine announced investigations. Yes, multiple officials testified that they understood this arrangement to be a quid pro quo for the president s personal political benefit. President trump put himself before country. The president s supporters are going to argue that this whole process is unfair. The record before us is clear on this point as well. We invited the president to participate in this hearing, to question witnesses and to present evidence that might explain the charges against him. President trump chose not to show. He may not have much to say in his own defense, but he cannot 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. To the members of the committee, to the members of the house, and to 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 foreign interference in our elections in 2016, he demanded it for 2020, then he got caught. If you do not believe that he will do it again, let me remind you that president s personal lawyer spent last week back in ukraine meeting with Government Officials in an apparent attempt to gin up the same socalled favors that brought us here today and force congress to consider the impeachment of a sitting president. This pattern of conduct represents a continuing risk to the country. The evidence shows that donald j. Trump, the president of the United States, has put himself before his country. He has violated his most basic responsibilities to the people, he has broken his oath. I will honor mine. If you would honor yours, i would urge you to do your duty. Let us review the record here in full view of the American People and then let us move swiftly to defend our country. We promised that we would. I now recognize the Ranking Member mr. Chairman the gentleman from georgia be. Mr. Chairman i have unanimous consent the gentleman from georgia is recognized. The gentleman from georgia is recognized. Youre not going to recognize a possible motion before me . Unanimous content, mr. Chairman. Request. Unanimous consent request. The gentleman from georgia is recognized. Well take that later. Point of order, mr. Chairman. The gentleman i have a Point Of Order. State his point order. You were fur niched pursuant to clause 2 j 1 of rule 11 in an egregious violation of the rules youre refusing to schedule that hearing and therefore i insist
on my Point Of Order unless willing to immediately schedule a minority hearing day. That is not a proper point of ord in todays hearing as i told the Ranking Member several times i am considering the request. Its not to be considered. Mr. Chairman the gentleman will suspend. If the Ranking Member thinks we would be violating the rules of house if we considered Articles Of Impeachment before holding a minority day his Point Of Order will be timely and a meeting where we can sit. That is not the purpose of todays hearing and its not timely. The gentleman from georgia. Well, that got us started again. The chairman completely not answering a question. It is timely and its frankly not up to his discretion, but weve not really cared about that from the start to begin with. My question is, just schedule the hearing, but undoubtedly thats not what they want out there. Lets start over. Now that the chairman has recognized and waeoef got that
point. There have been famous movements in impeachment as weve gone forward, lines from nixon like what did the president know and when did he know it. From the clinton impeachment, i did not have sex with that woman. What would be known about this one is probably where is the Impeachable Offense . Why are we here . I tell you, this may become known as The Focus Group impeachment. Because whie dont have a crime and nobody understand what the majority is trying to do except interfere and basically make sure they believe the president cant win next year if hes impeached. The focus group impeachment takes words and takes them to people and say how can we explain this better because we dont have the facts to match it. A focus group impeachment says, you know, we really arent working with good facts but need a good pr move. Thats why were here today. This is all about, as i said last week, a clock and a calendar and it became evident to me this was true because last
wednesday after we had 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, go write Articles Of Impeachment. She just quit. She just stopped. Go write Articles Of Impeachment. I appreciate that the majority practiced for two days this weekend on this hearing. I appreciate the fact that you got to get it right to try to convince the American People of your problem but your speaker has undercut you. She took the thrill out of the room. Youre writing Articles Of Impeachment. Why couldnt we just save that time today and if youre going to write the Articles Of Impeachment go ahead and write them. Well, theres probably a reason for that because chairman laid out some amazing claims, none of which i think after this hearing today the American People can honestly look at and see there was overwhelming evidence, there is a proper reason he abused his power because as the speaker, another statement she said, to do impeachment you have to be so
compelling and overwhelming and bipartisan. All of which we are not. Why not . Why are we here . Well, i think we can do this. Lets look at the three things that typically are associated with making your case or a crime. Lets do it against what the majority has said. I think they have motive, they have means, and they have opportunity. Whats their motive . November 2020. Its been said over and over and over again. The chairman said it again this morning. Its been said all along, that we have to do this because if we dont impeach him, hell win again next year. The reason shown clearly last week on the jobs report and the economy and as i had a man come up to me in the store this weekend, keep doing what youre doing. Ive never seen an economy this good. He said, people are working, people are being taken care of and this is just a fatal distraction on a president they dont like. Motive is easy. November 2016 they lost. January 2017, just a few minutes
in, the Washington Post confirmed what every democrat had been talking about, now is the time for impeachment. We see tweet after tweet saying lets get it. Its amazing they start with impeachment and then spent two years trying to figure out what do we impeach him on. The means became what we see now, the means is that to always talk about impeachment and say the president is doing something wrong, to say he is illegitimate as the chairman said before, hes not a legitimate president. Constantly tear down at a president who is working on behalf of the American People. The sham impeachment. When we go through this, i think the chairman said something interesting, he said a president should not be above the law and held accountable for the oath of their office. Congress ought to be held accountable in their Oath Of Office and not do what were doing right now run a process that doesnt fit fairness or decorum, a process and fact pattern youre having to force against a president you dont like. What was the opportunity . The opportunity came last
november when they got the majority and they became their impeachment run. They began in the process even as selecting the chairman, the chairman said i would be the best person for impeachment. This is november of last year. Before we had any hearings, before we had even sworn in to this congress. For anyone, the media watching on tv or watching in this room, for anyone to think that this was not a baked deal is not being honest with themselves. You see, presumption has become the standard instead of proof. It should cause anyone to begin to question because the entire case is built on a presumption or as we found out last week from three scholars, that inference is okay. If you just infer thats what they mean, well take that. That was an interesting line. You know, its interesting, they made their whole case built on gordon sondland. Youre going to see that a lot today. He testified he presumed the aid
was conduct connected to an investigation but nobody ever told him that. Sondland even asked the president directly, he said what do you want. The president said nothing. I want zelensky to do what he ran on, ukraine did nothing and got the aid anyway. How this is also a problematic experience look over the past three weeks when the chairman of the Intelligence Committee, who by the way is absent today, guess he cant back up his own report, but he started his own hearing by making up the factual call when he made it up, he started the fairytale were having today. If you cant even put the transcript in the right context, just read it. Chairman schiff couldnt even read the transcript. He had to make it up because if he didnt make it up it didnt sound as bad. He said listen, lets make up some dirt. Thats not what was said. The transcript, the chairman misled the American People as an attorney, as a chairman, as a member of congress who swore an oath to tell basically to be honest with the American People and underhold the constitution. That was such a massive malpractice ive ever seen. You know why, again, they dont care about what actually was in the transcript. They dont actually care what happened. And we heard last week from witnesses they dont even care that aid was released. Theyre simply looking at the facts to make it fit their narrative. What else happened . This is also the chairman schiff who also said that collusion in plain sight, it was there before the Mueller Report came out, all this was going to happen. I guess maybe i might need to not just stop commenting on chairman schiff because i may end up on the next phone records subpoena as we go forward. You see, weve taken a dangerous turn in this congress. Subpoenas are fine. Properly ton. And should be done. Properly. But they should never be at the expense of a political vendetta. Professor turley testified last week, presumption is no
substitute for proof. The current legal case for impeachment is not woefully inadequate but some respects dangerous and the dangerous for impeachment of an american president. Today what were supposed to get was what i would love my friends on the majority of this committee said, mueller. When we got the Mueller Report it didnt go real well. We had a lot of hearings, didnt go real well. Got bob mueller and they said this is going to be the movie version, in fact, what happened, they did my colleagues on the majority had live readings from capitol hill they made dramatic podcasts and wrote a comic book rendition that breathed life into the Mueller Report and didnt work. They brought bob mueller. The movie version. They told us Robert Muellers testimony would be the thing that people watched and would be convinced. Guess what . They wasnt convinced. It fell flat. You know today i guess the movie version of the schiff report except one thing, the star witness failed to show up. Mr. New ness is here. His staff is here. The leading headline is there. Schiff report. But where is mr. Schiff. Mueller, robert mueller, testified the ken starr report, ken starr testified, the author of the schiff report is not here. Instead, hes sending his staff to do his job for him. I guess thats what you get when youre making up impeachment as you go. So as we look forward theres going to be plenty of time to discuss the factual case for this and the statements that have not been made. What is detrimental to me is this, this committee is not hearing from a factual witness, not doing anything past hearing from Law School Professors and staff. Weve not been given something about the president to come. Show me where he would have a proper process in this, where we could have witnesses called by both sides. But i want to say this, in ending, i love this institution. I was here as a 19yearold kid as an intern. Almost 32 years ago. This institution as we see it today is in danger. We see chairmen issuing subpoenases for personal vendettas. We see committees such as the Judiciary Committee, that has held many, many substantive hearings, has been the very center point of impeachment used as a rubber stamp because we get not our Marching Orders from this committee and what it should be doing but the speaker and the Intelligence Committee chairman. Were not able to do what we need to do. Because were a rubber stamp. I love this institution, but in the last three days over the last three or four days i have seen stuff that just bother me to no end and should bother everyone. The Speaker Of The House after hearing one day of testimony in the Judiciary Committee, said 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 us he wasnt going to come, instead hide behind his staff, he also told us, that were going to keep investigating. Because they know this is going nowhere in the senate and theyre desperate to have an Impeachment Vote on this president. The economy is good, job creation good, military strong, our country safe. And the Judiciary Committee has been relegated to this. Why . Because they have the means, they have the motive, and they have the opportunity. And at the end of the day, all this is about is about a clock and a calendar. Because they cant get over the fact donald trump is president of the United States and they dont have a candidate that they think can beat him. Its all political. And as we have talked about before, this is a show. Unfortunately, today, the witness who is supposed to be the star witness, chose to take a pass and let a staff answer for him. With that i yield back. Mr. Chairman, a point of
order. Thank you, mr. Collins. Mr. Chairman, a Point Of Order. Gentleman will state his Point Of Order. Mr. Chairman, clause 2 j 1 of rule 11 requires you to schedule a minority hearing date, not to consider it, not to meet to discuss it but to schedule one. Schedule it at a reasonable time. Not after articles have been drawn, not after theres been a vote on Articles Of Impeachment. I inquire and insist, mr. Chairman, that you immediately schedule a minority hearing day or tell us why you the gentleman ignoring the rules. The gentleman, weve already gone through that, but i will repeat that is not a proper Point Of Order in todays hearing. As i have told the ranking minority member several times im considering the request. If you think we would be violating the rules of the house if we considered Articles Of Impeachment before holding a minority day hearing that Point Of Order would be timely at a meeting where we consider such
articles. Its not the purpose of todays hearing and the Point Of Order is not in order. Mr. Chairman, since ive been implicated i would like to ask without objection there is objection. Other Openings Statements will reserve my point of objection. I have a question. Youve brought my name into this. The gentleman you have brought my name into this. The gentleman will suspend. The gentleman is recognized. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Telling me that youre considering something you have nothing to consider and you have told me that, ill admit on record, is nowhere close to actually following your tutti as a chairman to follow the rules. And so i think the Point Of Order is very well taken. I think the issue we have is not i think your timing is i mean show me, please, in the rule, have your parliamentarian show me in the rules where you come to a time to deny this up to a certain point. Further reserve the right to object. As i have said further reserving right to object. As i said the Point Of Order
would be in order at the meeting where we are considering articles reserving tried obts. Well hear i appeal deet session of the chair. No decision to appeal. There was not a ruling and motion. The ruling on the Point Of Order. You made a ruling on the Point Of Order. You made a ruling on the Point Of Order you cant allow us not to appeal the ruling of the chair. The gentlemen will suspend. It was not a recognizable Point Of Order. It was not a recognizable Point Of Order. It was not an order at this time to make that Point Of Order. There is no ruling to appeal. To appeal. Mr. Chairman the rule was the obligation not consideration. You are obligated the gentleman will suspend. Not to consider, made a ruling. It is in order to appeal. The gentleman will suspend. We are doing what we have to do under the rules. We will have presentations of evidence mr. Chairman the gentleman is not recognized. Well hear i havent i will not recognize a
parliamentary inquiry at this time. Presentation of evidence to the Judiciary Committee is this when we hear staff and the members dealt out of the whole hearing for the next four hours you will try to overturn the result of an election with unelected people the gentleman will suspend. This meeting this hearing will be considered in an orderly fashion. The gentleman will not yell out and he will not attempt to disrupt the proceedings. We will now hear presentations of evidence from counsel to the Judiciary Committee, for up to 6 60 minutes equally divided. I have not barry berke for the majority and Stephen Castor for the minority. Each will have 30 minutes to present. To help you stay within that time there is a timing light on your table. When the light switches from green to yellow, you have one minute to conclude your testimony. When the light turns red, it signals your time is expired. Mr. Berke, you may begin. You realize i have the gentleman will suspend. I have not withdrawn my objection. I want everybody to have an Opening Statement. The gentleman will i have objected to your Opening Statement comment nothing else. Mr. Berke is recognized. Steam roll continues. Mr. Berke has the floor. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Ranking member collins, and all the members, before i had the great honor of being a counsel for this committee, my young son asked me a question, he said, dad, does the president have to be a good person be . Like many questions by Young Children it 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 that we have made
clear it is a requirement that the president be a person who does not abuse his power. It is a requirement that the president be a person who does not risk National Security of this nation and the integrity of our elections in order to further his own reelection prospects. It is a requirement that the president not be a person who acts as though he is above the law in putting his personal and political interests above the nations interests. That is the lesson of the constitution, that is the lesson of the founders. They were concerned that someone would be elected president who would use all the power of that office to serve his own personal interest at the expense of the people who elected him. They decided there needed to be a remedy because they had suffered the abuses of king
george where they had no remedy. The remedy they imposed was that 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 all members of this body must take to support and defend the constitution and bear true faith and legion to the same. That is why we are here today and it is an unfortunate occasion that these proceedings are necessary. But the president s actions have left no choice. The founders were very clear in spelling out what they saw to be 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 impeach that president. They were abuse of power, corruption of elections, and what is so extraordinary is the conduct were going to be talking about today of President Trump didnt violate 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 white house meeting and a needed military aid that had been approved in order to get that president to investigate a political rival. It is clear and overwhelming in
abusing that power the president betrayed the National Interest putting his own political prospects over the National Security of our country. It is clear that the president risked corrupting our elections by inviting foreign interference to knock out an adversary to help his prospects in reelection. It is why in debating the constitution, James Madison warned, that because the presidency was to be administered by a single man, his corruption might be fatal to the republic. In the scheme by President Trump so brazen, so clear, supported by documents, actions, Sworn Testimony, uncontradicted, Contemporaneous Records, that its hard to imagine that anybody could dispute those acts, let alone argue that conduct does not constitute an Impeachable Offense or offenses. 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 constitutional scholar, professor Michael Gear Hard said, if what were talking about is not peaimpeachable the nothing is impeachable. President trumps actions are Impeachable Offenses. They threaten our rule of law, they threaten our institutions, and as James Madison warned us, they threaten our republic. Let me begin where we must with the facts in evidence. First, its important to understand why ukraine was so important to our National Security. Ukraine was under attack by its aggressive and hostile neighbor russia. They encroached on its territories. The ukraine was at great risk that russia would, again, take further territory or try. Europe had a stake in this and so did we. Im going to turn to an expert on this ambassador taylor who is one of the most highly decorated and recognized diplomats for over 40 years he served our country honorably and appointed by President Trump himself to be in charge of the u. S. Embassy in ukraine. The russians are violating all of the rules, treaties, understandings that they committed to that actually kept the peace in europe for nearly 70 years. That rule of law, that order, that kept the peace in europe and allowed for prosperity as well as peace in europe, was violated by the russians. It affects the world that we live in, that our children will grow up in, and our grandchildren. This affects the kind of world that we want to see abroad. That is ambassador taylor explaining why ukraine was so important and explaining why the president s actions so significantly risk hurting our National Security, our National Defense policy, and our National Interests. Now youve already heard there is significant proof that President Trump himself told the new president of the ukraine, president zelensky, he wanted him to investigate a political rival, former Vice President joe biden. You will hear a lot about that today. That proof is only the tip of the iceberg. There are so many more events and meetings and contemporaneous text messages, emails, other documents that show this happened and happened exactly as it is alleged, and it is clear in the scheme to pressure ukraine, to investigate a political rival, the person at the center of that scheme was president donald trump. The facts cannot be disputed. President trump used the powers of government for a domestic
political errand to put his political interests above that of the nation. I will turn to another, peexper dr. Fiona hill, senior director in the trump administration, and shes going to explain what happened. But it struck me yesterday when you put up on the screen ambassador sondlands emails and who was on these emails and he said these are the people that need to know that he was absolutely right because he was being involved in a domestic political errand and we were being involved in National Security Foreign Policy and those two things had just diverged. And that tells you what the evidence shows, the president put his own domestic political interests over the nations National Security and Foreign Policy. A president cannot abuse his power to secure an election. He cannot do that at the expense of the American People. That is an Impeachable Offense. The president has tried to make excuses for his conduct, why its not wrongful or corrupt or an abuse of power. But the truth holds together and it makes sense and it is consistent with the evidence. When someone is offering an excuse that is not true, it 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 excuses do not make sense. The facts are clear that President Trump put his own political and personal interests over the nations interests. I would like to go through what you are going to see about the preside president s scheme and you are going to hear about today from the facts that we have. First, youre going to hear that President Trumps personal lawyer, rudy giuliani, pushed ukraine to open an investigation of his political rival. Mr. Giuliani, prior to the July 25th Call, he made public statements that ukraine should investigate the former Vice President joe biden. He tweeted about it, putting pressure on the new president. He went to ukraine and later went again with the assist and direction of u. S. Officials who were told to aid the president s personal lawyer on the president s behalf. Youll hear that President Trump told his aids that he was relying on for ukraine, that he wanted them to, quote, talk to rudy. What youre going to hear is that his close advisors had just gotten back on may 23rd from the inauguration of the new president , president zelensky, they told President Trump, we were impressed. He was elected on an anticorruption platform, a reform platform, you should schedule a white house meeting. Its very important. This is very good for the United States. And the president s response
was, talk to rudy, who had been out there claiming what the ukrainian president had to do was investigate his political rival. Youll hear that President Trumps advisors told president zelensky that President Trump would not schedule the wanted white house meeting unless he announced a ukrainian investigation of former Vice President biden. There are document, Sworn Testimony, this happened and there is no question from the evidence that the president did this, and president zelensky desperately needed a white house meeting, both 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 is he told his agencies to withhold military and security aid that had been approved and was supposed to be released to ukraine, hundreds of millions of dollars, in order to put more pressure on ukraine, all the
agencies involved, state department, defense department, National Security council, said it should be be released and it had been approved until President Trump personally stopped it. Again, contemporaneous evidence and documents show it and prove it. People said that they were shocked. Ambassador taylor said he was in astonishment. A witness said it was illogical to do this and the president never offered an explanation. Ultimately it was discovered why he did it. Then on the July 25th Call, President Trump explicitly told him he wanted to he wanted him one of a u. S. Citizen and his political rival and the other about the origins of the interference in the 2016 election, some Conspiracy Theory that russia, who all the Intelligence Agencies agreed interfered with the 2016 election that maybe it was ukraine. Again, another investigation intended to help the president politically. That is it. And you know the president cared about the investigations that would help him politically and not ukraine and not the National Security interest. You dont have to take my word. Im going to play something from david holmes, who had worked in the u. S. Embassy in ukraine and was speaking to ambassador sondland, who President Trump appointed, ambassador sondland had just come to the ukraine on the 26th. He met with president zelensky and went to a restaurant with mr. Holmes, the u. S. Political Affairs Counselor in ukraine. Mr. Holmes could hear the call and he spoke to mr. Sondland. Lets see what happened on july 26th the day after that call. I heard ambassador Sondland Greet the president and explain he was calling from kiev. I heard President Trump clarify that ambassador sondland was in ukraine. He went on to state that president zelensky, quote, loves your ass. I heard President Trump ask, so hes going to do the
investigation . Ambassador sondland replies 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 time on september 9th. He said, as i said on the phone, i think its crazy to with hold 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 excuses. 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. The challenge with that, though, 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 and announced they were investigating his conduct with regard to ukraine. Two days later was when he released the aid. There also was a news article which well talk about in a moment by the Washington Post on september 5th, exposing his scheme. And it was only after that that he met with president zelensky not in the white house but in new york. Another excuse offered. The president was motivated by general corruption concerns. And again, the evidence shows that is not true that thats what caused him to with hold the aid. President zelensky, in fact, was elected on an anticorruption platform. He was a reform candidate. His own people told him again and again president zelensky is a hope. 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 Agency unanimously supported releasing the aid to ukraine, that it was appropriate. They did a study, a corruption study. They 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 with held it. The next is ukraine was not pressured. And the argument about that is, well, today they havent said they were pressured. Well, 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 said, but contemporaneous documents, emails, texts from the ukrainian officials themselves show the pressure they felt. Show they know what President Trump was doing. Show what had they had to do. This is one from bill taylor to, again, Ambassador Gordon Sondland and ambassador kurt volker. Gordon, one thing kurt and i talked about yesterday was is a that, a senior aide of president Zelensky Point that president zelensky is sensitive about ukraine being taken seriously, not merely an instrument in washingtons domestic reelection politics. They not only felt the pressure, they got the message. They were not going to get a white house meeting. They were ultimately not going to get military aid unless they furthered President Trumps reelection efforts. That is a corrupt abuse of power. Another argument thats made is that trump never said quid pro quo. And what youre going to hear is on a call with ambassador
sondland after a Washington Post article came out on september 5th, which we will look at. After that there was a Washington Post article that came out that, again, exposed 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 because ultimately then President Trump not only was not dissuaded, he again describe what had 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 praedings because we have not heard from all the witnesses or obtained all the documents. But the reason we have not heard from all the witnesses or documents is because President Trump himself has obstructed the investigation. Hes directed his most senior aides who are 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 be relevant not to produce those records to us to try to obstruct our investigation. Now, this is evidence that President Trump is replaying the play book 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 to fire the Special Counsel. 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 Fur Rans of his ukrainian scheme. He thought he got away with it. Not only that, he thought he could use his powers to interfere with that investigation so he could do what he wanted. He could act like he was above the law. If he got caught, he would again use his powers to try to obstruct the investigation and prevent the facts from coming out. Thats exactly what he did. But fortunately, fortunately, because of the true american patriots who came forward to testify despite the threats by 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. He did it 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 to move because it could be repeated . Well, again, first all the
constitutional experts who testified recognized that on instructing an investigation is an Impeachable Offense. But here the offense were talking about thats being interfered or obstructing with is 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 what a future president may do next to try to abuse his or her power, to serve his own personal interest over the nations interest. I would like to turn back to what 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
comparemela.com © 2020. All Rights Reserved.