Republican and then what happens . Yeah, and then at that point, any member can simply say they move to offer an amendment. And when they offer an amendment, they have to actually provide the next of that language to the clerk. The amendment could be read aloud before all of the members of The Committee. And then each of the members can simply say they want a chance to talk and to speak about that particular amendment. And as you said, there are 41 members of this committee. 40 are expected to attend one is not, ted lieu because of health issues. Hes not expected to be here this week. But each of those members could speak. That could take time for each individual amendment. When that amendment is voted down which we expect because republicans are expects to offer amendments, democrats are happy with these articles and dont plan to do that. Thats why this is unpredictable how this contentious day will play out, wolf. 40 members now. Ted lieu had some medical issues. We wish him a speedy recovery. Hes not going to be here. They read his Statement Last night. Theres jerry nadler, the chairman of The Committee getting ready to bring down the gavel and open this session. Jeffrey toobin is with us as well. Do we anticipate as part of this process we will actually read the two articles of impeachment before the Committee Members . Am i allowed to say i dont know. You arent allowed to say that. I i dont know. Let me ask manu. Maybe he knows. Manu, you still there . Yeah, i am. Will nadler read the two articles of impeachment . Theyre 10, 12 pages. He can. That is something within his rights. They can also decide to waive the reading of those amendments to those articles in order to speed the proceedings. We expect at least him to read some of these aloud. Well see if he reads the entire text of this. Thats how theyll probably play out today. The question the democrats have been told to clear their
schedules today because its going to take a while to get through all of the text, both of the articles themselves and as well as the each of the amendments because each of the amendments could be read aloud so people understand what they are voting on. But we expect, we were told at least the chairman of the Committee Plans to at least read some of the language from the articles themselves so well see if he does that when he opens up the proceedings here in a matter of minutes. Its only going to be a few moments away. Jeffrey, let me talk to you about something you do know the answer to. You look at these republicans. They are not shy. So many of them, whether its jim jordan or doug collins, the Ranking Member, louie gohmert. This is a lively bunch. Committees have personalities. And there has always been the House Judiciary Committee as a place where partisans go. If you are a congressman who really cares about like bringing home the bacon and getting projects built in your district,
you dont go on the Judiciary Committee. You go on the appropriations committee. Thats a far less contentious. If you are someone who cares about civil liberties, who cares about religious freedom, hotbutton social issues you go to the Judiciary Committee. Thats why you have democrats like shirley jack lee, jamie raskin, a new member from massachusetts, a constitutional law professor. Why you have jim jordan and doug collins. So its not a coincidence you have such passionate people in this committee and we get to enjoy their company. You see the photographers are crouching down. Theyre about to begin. Lets watch jerry nadler, the chairman. The Judiciary Committee will please come to order. A quorum being present. When The Committee recessed yesterday, it had completed Opening Statements on the resolution about to be considered. Pursupt to notice under House Resolution 660, i now call House Resolution 755 um peaching donald j. Trump, president of the United States for High Crimes And Misdemeanors. Chairman, Point Of Order. I make a Point Ofored The Grounds the chairman willfully refused to schedule a properly demanded minority day of hearings pursuant to clause j of well entertain that Point Of Order once we finished calling out the resolution. Hres 755 impeaching Donald John Trump, president of the United States for High Crimes And Misdemeanors. For purposes of markup and move the Committee Report the resolution favorably to the house. The clerk will report the resolution. Hres 755. Impeaching donald trump for High Crimes And Misdemeanors In The House Of Representatives, december 10th, 2019. It was referred to The Committee on the judiciary. Resolution, impeaching Donald John Trump, president of the United States for High Crimes And Misdemeanors resolved that donald j. Trump, president of the United States is impeached for High Crimes And Misdemeanors and the following articles of impeachment be exhibited to the United States senate. Articles of impeachment exhibited by the house of representatives of the United States of america In The Name Of itself and of the people of the United States of america against donald j. Trump, president of the United States of america, and maintenance and support of its impeachment against him for High Crimes And Misdemeanors. Article 1, abuse of power. The constitution provides the house of representatives shall have the sole power of impeachment and the President Shall be removed for the conviction of trees orngs bribery or other High Crimes And Misdemeanors. In his conduct as president of the United States and violation of his constitutional oath faithfully to execute the office of the president of the united
states, preserve, protect and defend the constitution of the United States, and in violation of his constitutional duty to take care of the laws be faithfully executed, donald j. Trump abused the powers of this presidency in using the powers of high office he soliceded the interference of a Foreign Government in the 2020 United States president ial election. He did so through a scheme or course of conduct that included soliciting the Government Of Ukraine to publicly announce investigations that would benefit his reelection, harm the election prospects of a political opponent and influence the 2020 United States president ial election to his advantage. President trump sought to pressure the Government Of Ukraine to take these steps by conditioning official United States government acts of significant value of ukraine on its Public Announcement of the investigations. President trump engaged in this scheme or mr. Chairman, i ask unanimous consent that the resolution be considered as read. Given the significance i object. Objection is heard. Personal political benefit in doing so, President Trump used the powers of the presidency in
a manner that compromised the National Security of the United States and undermined the integrity of the United States democratic process. He thus ignored and injured the interests of the nation. President trump engaged in this scheme or course of conduct through the following means. One, President Trump acted both directly and through his agents within and outside the United States government Corruptly Soliceded the Government Of Ukraine to announce investigations into, a, a political opponent, joseph r. Biden jr. And a discredited theory promoted by Russia Alleging that ukraine rather than russia interfered in the 2016 United States president ial election. Two, with the same corrupt motives, President Trump acted through his agents within and outside the United States government in addition to official acts on the Public Announcements that he had requested, a, the release of 391 million of United States taxpayer funds that congress had appropriated on a bipartisan basis for the purpose of providing vital military and Security Assistance to ukraine
to oppose aggression and a Head Of State meeting which the president of ukraine sought to demonstrate continued support for the Government Of Ukraine in the face of russian aggression. Three, faced with the public revelation of his actions, President Trump ultimately released the military and Security Assistance to the Government Of Ukraine but has persisted in openly and corruptly urging and soliciting ukraine for his personal political benefit. These were consistent with President Trumps previous invitations of foreign interference in the United States elections. In all of this, President Trump abused the powers of the presidency by ignoring and injuring National Security and other Vital National interests to obtain an improper personal political benefit. Hes betrayed the nation by using his high office. He has demonstrated that he will remain a threat to National Security and the constitution if allowed to remain in office. He has acted in a manner grossly
incompatible with governance. Article 2 obstruction of congress. The constitution provides the house of representatives shall have the sole power of impeachment and the President Shall be removed from office of impeachment for the conviction of treason, bribery or other High Crimes And Misdemeanors. In his conduct of the office of president of the United States in violation of his constitutional oath, to faithfully execute the office of the president of the United States and to the best of his ability preserve, protect and defend the constitution of the United States and in violation of his constitutional duty take care of the laws be faithfully executed. Donald j. Trump directed the categorical and defiance of subpoenas issued by the house of representatives. President trump has abused the powers of the presidency in a Manner Offensive to and submersive of the constitution in that the house of representatives has engaged in an Impeachment Inquiry focused on President Trumps corrupt solicitation of the Government Of Ukraine to interfere in the
2020 United States president ial election. As part of this Impeachment Inquiry, The Committees undertaking the investigation serves subpoenas seeking documents from various executive Branch Agencies and offices and current and former officials. In response without lawful cause or exkurks President Trump directed executive Branch Agencies, offices and officials not to comply with those subpoenas. President trump thus interposed the powers of the presidency against the Lawful Subpoenas of the house of representatives and assumed functions and judgments necessary to the exercise of the sole power of impeachment vested by the constitution In The House Of Representatives. President trump abused the power of his high office through the following means. One, directing the white house to defy a lawful subpoena by withholding the production of documents sauts therein by The Committee. Two, directing other executive Branch Agencies and offices to defy a lawful subpoena and withhold the production of documents and records from The Committees in response to which the department of state, office of management and budget, Department Of Energy and
department of defense refused to produce a singem document or record. Directing former and Current Branch officials not to cooperate with The Committees in which nine Defied Subpoenas for testimony. John mulvaney, robert blair,izenburg, ellis, russell tmpts vaught, mccormick and t. Ullrich brechbuhl. Through these actions President Trump sought to arrogate to himself the right to determine the scope of an Impeachment Inquiry into his own conduct as well as the prerogative to deny any and all information to the house of representatives in exercise of its sole power of impeachment. In the history of the republic, no president has ever ordered the complete defiance of an Impeachment Inquiry or sought to obstruct and impede the ability of the house of representatives to investigate high crimes and
misdemeanors. This abuse of office serves to cover up the repeated misconduct and seize the control of power of impeachment and thus to nullify a vital constitutional safeguard vested solely In The House Of Representatives. President trump has acted in a manner tre manner contrary to his trust as president. Through the great prejudice of cause of law and justice, and to the manifest injury of the people of the United States. President trump by such conduct has demonstrated he will remain a threat to the constitution if allowed to remain in office and has acted in a manner grossly incompatible with selfgovernance. He thus warrants impeachment, removal from office and disqualication to hold the office. The gentleman will state his Point Of Order. Thank you, mr. Chairman. As i made the Point Of Order on this Minority Hearing, the chairman was furnished with the demand signed by all republican members of The Committee during the impoochment hearing on december 4th. The chaurm refused to respond to
additional requests that that hearing be scheduled and at one point actually telling me as i actually responded to this, it will rule with it today. Were here today. And its a farce that were having to rule on this today because theres no other time. Were actually taking up the articles today. So the rule is not super by the way, this rule is not superseded by any portion of hres 660 that could have been done by the majority but they were too in a hurry to get it to the floor that they chose not to exempt the Minority Hearing day. This could have been done. They chose not to. Now were not hearing it so i continue my Point Of Order. If i understand the gentlemans Point Of Order, he asserts were violating clause 2 j 1 of House Rule 11 by conducting this markup before we have held the hearing that the minority members requested on december 4th. In my view, the gentleman is claiming a broader privilege than it provides the minority. The minority has asked for a day of hearings on the matter of the December 4th Hearing which was the constitutional grounds for impeachment. I am willing to work wutith the minority to schedule such a hearing but not before todays markup of the articles of impeachment. The house rule does not require me to schedule a hearing on a particular day, nor does it require me to schedule the hearing as a Condition Precedent to take anything specific legislative action. Otherwise the minority would have the ability to delay or block majority legislative action which is clearly not the purpose of the rule. I have reached this conclusion after reviewing the plain text and legislative history of the house rule after considering prior precedent and Committee Practice and after consulting with parliamentary authorities. I believe my scheduling decision on this case is reasonable for several reasons. First, the minoritys views have not been shut out. The legislative history of the minority day rule shows it was written to prevent the Committee Majority from preventing the
minority position from being represented in the hearing. As the report from the joint committee on the organization of congress in 1966 explains, it is normal procedure for witnesses representing both sides to give testimony at committee hearings. In those infrequent instances when witnesses representing the minority position are not allotted time, a minimum safeguard should exist to protect Minority Rights, unquote. Of course, that did not happen at the December 4th Hearing. The minority had a witness at the hearing, professor turley, who ably represented their position and was afforded ample time to discuss that position. Rather than being shut out, the minority did not get as many witnesses as they would have preferred. But that is not the purpose of the house rule. Second, the minority and the president have special protections under House Resolution 660. The procedures provided under House Resolution 660 give the president and the minority a variety of special privileges to present evidence and subpoena witnesses. Thus, there are alternative procedures under hres 660 by which witnesses can be subpoenaed but they have not been exercised. Third, there is no precedent for the use of minority days to delay Committee Legislative or Impeachment Proceedings. It is clear from the legislative history that the minority day rule is not intended to delay legislative activity. Again, as The Committees on the organization of the congress explicitly explained, we do not look upon this rule as an authorization for delaying tactics, unquote. The minority day rule was made part of the house rules in 1971. It was not invoked in either the nixon or Clinton Impeachments. Matter of fact, the only precedent i am aware of in the context of impeachment took place several weeks ago in the Intelligence Committee. There the minority also requested a day of hearings, even though they all said witnesses participate in their proceedings. The minority ultimately did not raise a Point Of Order. While they did offer an amendment claiming the minority day rule was related that was rejected by The Committee. Thus there is no precedent supporting the gentlemans point
of order and the one precedent indicates it does not delay articles of impeachment. Past Judiciary Committee does not support the gentlemans Point Of Order. Last year a number of members and i sent goodlatte a request. He never responded to our request and never scheduled a hearing. I dont believe a Single Member of the then majority argued in favor of us being granted a hearing under our rules. In 2005, thenchairman sensenbrenner scheduled the minority day hearing but cut off witnesses, shut off the microphones, shut off the lights and abruptly ended the hearing while members were seeking recognition to speak. No one in the thenmajority argued in favor of protecting our rights. There is no precedent supporting the gentlemans Point Of Order. I do not sustain the Point Of Order. Mr. Chairman. What purpose does the gentleman seek recognition . Its obvious, the length of the chairmans answer to my question this struck a nerve seeing how the chairman himself says it in his own words from previous times, the chaurm it is not the chairmans right to decide whether prior hearings are sufficient or the chairmans right to decide whether he thinks they are acceptable or the right to violate the rules nrd to interfere. It is interesting to me that this time has become the oo issue i made my ruling. Does the Gentleman Wish to appeal . I would like i would like for the sake of history the chairman to take one more minute. Does the Gentleman Wish to appeal the ruling of the chair . Yes, obviously, were on the clock and calendar again because the chairman is doing this again. The appeal of the ruling of the schachair is not sustained. I move to table it. Did you actually call for a vote . How is it not sustained . You didnt call for a vote. I sustained the Point Of Order. I call for a ruling of the
chair. Now i call for a vote. And i move i ruled that the point of srd not well taken. Thats painfully obvious. I have appealed the ruling of the chair. I move to table. The gentleman has appealed the ruling of the chair. The gentle lady has moved to table the ruling of the chaur. The motion to table is not debatable. All in favor of the motion to table say aye. Aye. Opposed, no. No. The appeal of the motion the appeal of the ruling of the chair is tabled. Well now proceed to roll call. The gentleman asked for roll call on the motion to table the appeal of the ruling of the chair. The clerk will call the roll. Mr. Nadler . Aye. Ms. Lofgren . Yes. Ms. Jackson lee votes yx. Mr. Cohen votes aye. Mr. Johnson of georgia votes aye. Mr. Deutch votes aye. Ms. Bass votes aye. Mr. Richmond votes yes. Mr. Jeffreys votes aye. Mr. Swalwell votes aye. Mr. Lieu mr. Raskin votes aye. Ms. Jayapal votes aye. Ms. Demings votes aye. Mr. Correa votes aye. Ms. Scan lon votes aye. Miss garcia votes aye. Mr. Naguse votes aye. Mr. Stanton votes aye. Ms. Dean votes aye. Ms. Mucarselpowell votes aye. Ms. Escobar votes aye. Mr. Collins votes no. Mr. Sensenbrenner votes no. Mr. Chabot votes no. Mr. Gohmert votes no. Mr. Jordan votes no. Mr. Buck vote nose. Mr. Ratcliffe vote nose. Ms. Roby votes no. Mr. Gates votes no. Mr. Johnson of louisiana votes
no. Mr. Biggs votes no. Mr. Mcclinton vote nose. Ms. Lesko vote nose. Mr. Reshenthaller votes no. Mr. Klein vote nose. Mr. Armstrong votes no. Mr. Steuby vote nose. Has everyone who wishes to vote voted . Mr. Chairman, 23 ayes and 17 nos. The appeal is tabled. Well proceed to amendments. The clerk will read the first section of the amendment. Hres 755 impeaching donald j. Trump In The House Of Representatives december 10th, 2019, mr. Nadler submitted the following resolution which russ fer toed was referred to The Committee. Impeaching President Donald Trump resolved that donald j. Trump is impeached for high
crimes and misdemeanors with the following articles of impeachment be exhibited to the United States senate. Articles of impeachment exhibited by the house of representatives of the United States of america In The Name Of itself and of the people of the United States of america against donald j. Trump, president of the United States of america, in maintenance and support its impeachment against him for High Crimes And Misdemeanors. I recognize myself for purposes of offering an amendment in the nature of a substitute. The clerk will report the amendment. Amendment in the nature of a substitute to hrres 755 offered by mr. Nadler of new york strike all that follows after the Resolving Clause and insert the following. That objection the amendment shall be considered as read. It shall be considered as base text for further amendment. Ill recognize myself to explain the amendment in the nature of a substitute. This amendment makes a minor change in certain places with the underlying resolution that refers to donald j. Trump. The amendment refers to Donald John Trump whois no changes to the resolution. I urge all of my colleagues to support it. I recognize the gentleman from georgia, mr. Collins, for any comments on the amendment. The amendment, nature of a substitute is absolutely irrelevant. Taking donald j. Trump and making it donald trump, john trump just simply shows the frankly absurdity of where were at. And today were going to spend time for you listening here. Were going to talk about this amendment. Were going to talk about the factual bases that are no factual underpinning to impeach this president. Im going to go back since i didnt have time and had to sit through a wellrehearsed many days put together explanation on why the what will be known in 2019 outside of the fact that this committee finally accomplished its goal after the chairman stated he wanted to since november last year impeach this president , what will be known by this committee from here on out is that this committee has now sounded the
death of Minority Rights in this committee. This committee has become nothing but a rubber stamp. This committee is amazingly now on such a clock and Calendar Process that they dont care. Facts be damned. They dont care. They dont care that we had a one witness out of three when i asked for a second witness, i was told i couldnt, even though there had been staff conversations well before i was told i was asking too late. One witness out of two panels. Thats all we had of Fact Witnesses. This is a travesty and a sham from day one. I could talk until im blue in the face but nobody in the majority cares. But the spot thats left by what has just happened will resonate over the years. It will resonate over the years in the sense that theres no fact that we can come to. They had no desire to hear any Fact Witnesses outside of their own trained driven clock calendar impeachment. For the chairman himself who vehemently fought for Minority Hearing day to sit there and
read that is an amazing statement in a crushing blow to this committee. There is no way to recover from that. In fact, there may be, i wonder if the chairman would join me in making sure that the rules committee next week, they dont waive the Point Of Order against this. But i know they will. Thats why theyre going to take it. Because ill guarantee you when you look into it further, this Point Of Order would be sustained against these Impeachment Articles so theyre going to have to waive them next week. Watch and see. Theyll waive this Point Of Order and waive any other point ofored these articles by the time it comes to the floor. Some are if of you, you may say the Ranking Member talks about process, the Ranking Member talks about process, the Ranking Member talks about process, never the foundation. Believe me. Well inundate you with the facts and i have already. Some of you just dont choose to report them. What is important and for many who report on this body and many who have sat in this body and for those who have served in this body, the members who have gone before and the people who have set this committee up and people who have set our congress
up are the ones right now that should be hanging their head in shame. We had two hearings, none of which featured Fact Witnesses. Theres not a democrat in this room that should be happy about this. The solemnity should be on the death of this committees process and procedures. Dont give me the solemnity about impeaching a president. Youve been wanting to do that for a long time. You ought to take it and just rejoice. Go at it because this is what you wanted. But when it comes to the hearing, when it comes to the Minority Rights, when it comes to one that in which weve seen time after time after time in which i have had to write this chairman multipage letters on the abuse of procedural issues in this committee, this is a travesty. Write about it if you want. Talk about it if you want but the American People see it because the American People understand inherently fairness. They understand due process. Why . Because its what america was based on. It is what america takes pride
in. And when we dont have it, nobody can have it. When we dont have fairness in this committee, how can they stand up and say of the two weakest articles of impeachment in the history of this country, honestly with a straight face look at the American People and say we did good. No, you didnt. You stained this body. You have taken this committee and made it a rubber stamp. Did any of the majority run to be a rubber stamp to get the mair majority . I know the minority on this side did not. You know why weve become a rubber stamp . Because my chairman said so 20 years ago. He said so 20 years ago when he said if The Committee only accepts what other people give them and do not on their own verify and thoroughly vet it, then we are nothing but a rubber stamp. Mr. Chairman, you should have run for a chairmanship more than to be a rubber stamp for mr. Schiff and ms. Pelosi. We already knew this committee was overrun and overtaken because mr. Schiff and ms. Pelosi took it from us earlier
this year. Theres the first embarrassment. And the rest of it has been an embarrassment since. So as we look at this and as we go forward, well have plenty of time to show the complete farce of substance. But mr. Chairman, what will live from this day is your ruling and the majoritys ruling of Minority Rights are dead in this congress and especially this committee. I yield back. Gentleman yields back. Any amendments to the mr. Chairman. Any amendments to the amendment move to strike the last word. What purpose does mr. Deutch seek move to strike the last word. I cannot allow the Ranking Member to mischaracterize your description of the history of this committee. It may be inconvenient for the Ranking Member to be forced to listen to the history of this committee and why everything that you just laid out is so important to the continuing of this committee representing and recognizing and respecting Minority Rights. But he chooses not to. So im going to restate it again. I appreciate the Ranking Member for acknowledging that they had the opportunity to call witnesses. And thats consistent with the rules. But to then turn around and suggest that the rules are being trampled, the rules are dead, ignores everything that you just laid out. 50 more than 50 years ago, more than 50 years ago, the joint committee on the organization of congress made clear in their report to the house and senate that its normal procedure for witnesses representing both sides of the issue to give testimony in committee hearings. And thats where the rule comes from. And thats whats happened. The Ranking Member acknowledged it. He would have liked more witnesses. Theres no right to a separate day. The rule makes clear they have the right to call witnesses and there were witnesses call. There were witnesses called, minority witnesses on december 4th. December 9th, the minoritys
witness mr. Castor presented evidence and gave Opening Statements. And its worth pointing out to my colleagues on the other side that we invited the president of the United States to the December 4th Hearing to advocate for his views, to submit requested witnesses but he chose not to attend, and he chose not to suggest any witnesses. So before before telling us the sky is falling and theres great disrespect for the rules, its important to actually look at the did the gentleman just say i didnt request witnesses . That is wrong. The gentleman has the time. I thank the chairman. What i said is the president was given the opportunity on december 4th to present himself. He was also given the opportunity to present witnesses and he did not. So lets be careful in the way we suggest that rules are being violated when everything thats being done here is consistent with more than 50 years of interpretation of the rules. And the very essence of why the rule was put together in the first place. So its important. Facts really do matter. Im not were not going to allow the minority to misinterpret the rules for their own benefit or to suggest the history is irrelevant. It matters a lot. Thats what made this committee and institution great. I yield back. Gentleman yields back. Any amendments to the amendment or nature of a substitute . Mr. Chairman what purpose does mr. Jordan seek recognition . I have an amendment at the desk. The clerk will report the amendment. I reserve a Point Of Order. Gentle lady reserves a Point Of Order. Amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute to hres 755 offered by mr. Jordan of ohio. Page one line 12 strike article 1 and redesignate the succeeding article accordingly. The gentleman is recognized for the purpose of explaining
his amendment. This amendment strikes article 1 as i withdraw my Point Of Order. This strikes article one because article 1 ignores the truth. Four facts, five meectings. Weve known there have been four facts that have not changed, will not change, will never change and weve known it since September 25th when the call transcript was released. It show nose quid pro quo. Whats interesting is the day the transcript came ourkt, even chairman nadler said there was no quid pro quo in the transcript. Two president s on the call, President Trump and president Zelensky Have said no pushing or linking between Security Assistance money and any type of announcement of an investigation. We know that the ukrainians knew at the time of the call, didnt know at the time of the call, that the aid had been held up and most importantly, most importantly, we know the ukrainians took no action, no start of an investigation, no
promise to start an investigation, no announcement on cnn, via tweet, no announcement whatsoever that there was going to be any type of investigation into burisma or the bidens to get the aid released. Those four facts. Those four facts have never changed. Second, five key meetings that took place between july 18th when the aid was paused. September 11th when the aid was released. Five key meetings. We have the phone call. July 25th which you just described. Second. The very next day, very next day, we have Ambassadors Volker and sondland meet with zelensky. Ambassador bolton met with president zelensky on august 29th. Vice president pence met with president Zelensky On September 2nd and fifth on September 5th we have bipartisan senator, senator johnson, senator murphy senator murphy meeting with president zelensky. And none of those five meetings,
none, did linking dollars, Security Assistance dollars to an investigation come up. Never came up. And you would think in the last two you would think in those last two after they knew on august 29th, via the politico article that they knew the aid was held, youd think it would come up in those last two hearings, but it didnt come up. Four facts, five meetings have never changed. Article 1 in this resolution ignores the truth, the facts. It ignores what happened and what has been laid out for the American People over the last three weeks. So i hope that this committee will come to its senses, that it will adopt the amendment and strike article 1 from the resolution. With that, mr. Chairman, i yield back. Mr. Chairman, i move to strike the last word. Thank you. I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, this amendment attempts to strike article 1 in its entirety. Im going to go through the evidence that was developed during the course of this investigation. And particularly first with the focus on the president s own conduct. The president of the United States hired Rudy Giuliani, his personal lawyer, to go to ukraine and lead this scheme to smear Vice President biden. He then began a campaign personally to smear ambassador yovanovitch and then directed that she be fired to clear the way of this anticorruption champion so that his scheme could be fully implemented. He directed a hold on the military aid to ukraine and no one could provide any other explanation unrelated to his scheme to pressure them to interfere in the 2020 election. Then the president in his own words on july 25th gets on the telephone and asks president zelensky for a favor to begin an investigation of his chief political rival, former Vice President joe biden. Theres a read out of the call in evidence which is a detail of this conversation. Theres direct evidence from alexander vindman, ms. Williams, mr. Borison. Asking a foreign leader to corrupt our elections. He made it public. October 3rd and october 4th. Invited another foreign power, china, to interfere in the election. The chief of staff acknowledged the president directed him to put this unexplained hold on aid to ukraine. The president directed the Vice President not to attend the inauguration of president zelensky because he hadnt yet got what he was demanding, a Public Announcement intended to damage his political opponent. Ambassador sondland testified that the ukrainians were told, and i quote, the resumption of u. S. Aid would likely not occur until ukraine provided the public anticorruption statement that we had been discussing for many weeks. And then he testified he spoke with President Trump and while the president claimed there was no quid pro quo, he made it clear that president zelensky must publicly announce the two
investigations that President Trump discussed on july 25th in the call in order for this Security Assistance to be lifted. Thats direct evidence. But in addition to that, and those are some of the highlights, there were over 260 text messages, there are call transcripts of the president s own words. There are emails between highranking officials of the triumph administration, hundreds of press statements, interviews and tweets by the president and his personal attorney Rudy Giuliani krob rating their desire to pursue investigations of Vice President biden prior to the elections. Im going to give The Committee a couple examples. President trump on october 2nd said, and i quote, and just so you know, weve been investigating, on a personal basis through rudy and other lawyers, corruption in the 2016 election. July 19th, ambassador sondlands emails multiple highranking officials that he talked to zelensky and he, quote, is prepared to receive potus call and will state over every stone
of the investigations. July 20th, 2019, ambassador sondland texts ambassador volker. I spoke direct threely to z. Had breakfast with rudy. Most important is for zelensky to say hell help investigate and address any specific personnel issues if there are any. August on 8th, ambassador sondland and volker text about potus wanting the deliverable, meaning for ukraine to get the white house meeting, zelensky needs to announce the investigation. Sondland said, borison is ready to get dates as soon as yermak responds. Volker asks, does he know nat . Sondland says, yep, clearly lots of conversations going on. August 16th, ambassador taylor and volker discuss ukraines concern that President Trump was
not using official channels like the Department Of Justice to request investigations. Taylor texts ambassador volker. The person who asked for an official request was yermak. Volker responds, yes. But dont cite him. Taylor, i wont. Youre right. This is not good. We need to stay clear. August 22nd, ambassador sondland emailed Secretary Of State mike pompeo and others to make clear that to break the logjam, releasing the military aid, president zelensky would have to, quote, move forward on the issues of importance to trump, again meaning the investigations. And the list goes on and on. So this claim that this is the thinnest of evidence is simply not true. There is overwhelming evidence of the scheme led by the president , led by his personal lawyer Rudy Giuliani to corrupt the american elections to continue to withhold military aid until such time as a Public Announcement was made that would sphere the president s chief political rival. And with that, mr. Chairman, i yield back. The gentleman yields back. Thank you, mr. Chair. I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chair, it disturbed me when you again rejected the rule of the house that said that we as the minority were it says in the rules that you require require that you set a date for a Minority Hearing. And the reason this is important is because the rules have been thrown out the window here in this process. In fact, i just cant believe it. First of all, you have an unprecedented way of doing impeachment. You dont go through the Judiciary Committee like as has been done in previous impeachments. Instead, Speaker Pelosi hands it over to adam schiff. Adam schiff, the Intelligence Committee chair, where he has
these closed door hearings in the basement. I was denied several times, several times the right to go in and hear what these Fact Witnesses said. Yet i am supposed to vote on this today. And we have not had one single fact witness here in this committee at all. And then i hear from my republican colleagues that were on the Intelligence Committee that republicans were refused to have any of their witnesses in that committee. And then on top of that, republicans were told interrupted, silenced by chairman schiff when they tried to ask witnesses questions. They said to the witness, dont answer that. I mean, and so now here in Judiciary Committee, were supposed to vote on something when we havent even heard
directly from any Fact Witnesses. All we heard from was a bunch of liberal Law Professors that you called here that have a known record of disliking President Trump. And then you had staff talk to us. And then again, here in this committee, our republican members asked for witnesses so that we can ask questions to get out the truth, to get out at least, let us say our side of the story. But, no. And so then we turn to, okay, under the house rules, it says youre required to set a Minority Hearing so that we can at least call witnesses so we can get some truth out to the American Public instead of this onesided sham. But, no, here again, i think youve said right here, no, were not going to do that. Ill consider a date in the future that you can have a Minority Hearing. For goodness sakes. Were voting on this today. Its no good to have a date in the future. Then its done. Youve already put through this. I mean, it just continues to amaze me how corrupt, how unfair this process has been from the start. I mean, for goodness sakes, 17 out of 24 of my democratic colleagues that have already voted on the house floor to continue with articles of impeachment. It was it was mr. Green who put a resolution on the floor, articles of impeachment. It was july 17th. And then there was a vote to table it. And they voted against the tabling. Meaning they wanted to go ahead with articles of impeachment. That was even before the july 25th call. I mean, come on. This is a predetermined you guys have been wanting to impeach this president since he got elected. Fact after fact after fact, i know that you some of you really think the president did something wrong. But the fact is there is no none of your witnesses, none of your Fact Witnesses were able to establish any evidence of bribery, treason, high crimes or misdemeanors. Not one single one. And thats what it says has to be done in the constitution. So again, i believe the president of the United States is right. This is a sham impeachment, and it sure is a shame. And i yield back the balance of my time. Gentle lady yields back. What purpose does mr. Neguse seek recognition . Move to strike the last word. With much respect to my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, it is difficult to follow some of these arguments. Ive heard very little in the way of any substantive defenses of the president s conduct, but
instead focus again on farcical Process Arguments in my view. Im compelled to respond to at least one of those which is this notion about the closed door depositions. Because as i understand it from reading these transcripts, many minority members were present and granted equal time to question witnesses brought before the Intelligence Committee, the Foreign Affairs committee and the government oversight committee. Some of those members are actually on this committee. So i struggle to understand the objections in that regard. The idea that the Intelligence Committees investigation was not sufficiently transparent in my view also rings hollow because, as we know, the transcripts from those interviews, those depositions have been released. I know ive reviewed them. I suspect many of my colleagues have as well. And if you did not review those transcripts you surely watched
the live testimony of ambassador sondland, Lieutenant Colonel vindman and so many other Public Servants over the course of many weeks as millions of americans watched along with us. So again, it is i understand that were going to have a robust debate about the legal standards that govern the inquiry before us and the decision we make on these articles but let us stay true to the facts and lets dispense with these Process Arguments and get to the substance of why we are here today. Ill also just say, Historical Context matters. I was not on the Judiciary Committee in 1999, 1998, but my understanding is at that time, the Judiciary Committees did not examine any Fact Witnesses during the Clinton Impeachment inquiry. I know there are members of this committee that were here at that time, and they will are well aware that they did question,
kenneth starr and then afterwards had hearings with legal experts to expound upon the legal standards that would define the decision before The Committee. I would also say that during the nixon Impeachment Inquiry, the examination of witnesses, Fact Witnesses rather, was conducted exclusively Behind Closed Doors in july of 1974. So unlike both the nixon inquiry, as well as the clinton inquiry, the house Intelligence Committees hearings featured testimony from a dozen witnesses in open hearings subject to public examination by republican members and counsel. Facts matter. And i hope that each and every one of us could agree at least on that simple point. And with that would the gentleman yield. Id yield to ms. Lofgren. I would like to note going back to the analogy to the nixon impeachment, the gentleman is correct that there was really no public presentation in the Judiciary Committee. There were some quite a few depositions that were private. But there was a lot of public testimony before the Judiciary Committee. It was before the Senate Watergate committee as youll recall. The president s counsel john dean appeared and testified that there was a cancer on the presidency and a number of other revelation that there was a Recording System in the white house. All of that happened in the senate. And the fact is happened in the senate didnt mean the Judiciary Committee didnt know about it. Theres only a few members of this committee that were on the Judiciary Committee during the Clinton Impeachment. I was one of them. Ms. Jackson lee and mr. Nadler were as well as mr. Sen sensenbrenner and the gentleman from ohio. We had a report from mr. Starr. I remember it very well. We didnt have extensive Fact Witnesses. We had the report. We had evidence in the Ford Building we could go offer aver look at privately. I did. A number of members did. The gentleman has correctly summarized the situation. I would yield back to the gentleman. Mr. Chairman, i yield back the balance of my time. For what purpose does mr. Sensenbrenner seek recognition . I move to strike the last word. Gentleman is recognized. Mr. Chairman, i think its obvious, you know, to all the American Public that this is a railroad job. Things have been going quickly, but i think the real key is that with all of the denials of minority requests, both here and in the Intelligence Committee, the republicans and the president have not been able to put on live witnesses to be able
to basically put together a defense. And if youre going to have a trial, you have to have both prosecution and a defense. Here we dont have a defense because of the rulings that have been made, one committee. Now, let me say, first of all, the hearings that were in the basement of the capitol were secret hearings. They were classified hearings. None of the members who were in that hearing room could ethically go out and tell the public and the news media exactly what was said there, and they probably could have been held before the Ethics Committee or worse if they kemed to do th attempted to do that. There were leaks that came out of that, i grant you that, but none of the own members could. The vast majority of the members
of the Judiciary Committee which has ultimate jurisdiction over all proposed impeachments were not members of the three other committees and were not allowed to go into the basement of the capitol hearing room to listen to what was going on. And and to see those live witnesses. A number of my colleagues on this aisle of t side of the aisle attempted to do that and chairman schiff kicked them out or wouldnt allow them to go in there. When you have a trial, you really cannot make a determination on exactly whether the witnesses are telling the truth or exaggerating or mixing it up or spinning it some way or the other without looking at them in person. We dont have that opportunity. There were a few select witnesses that were in the public hearings over in the
Intelligence Committee a couple of years ago, but the Intelligence Committee does not have the injuries dijurisdictio recommend the impeachment of anybody, let alone the president of the United States. Weve heard complaints about the fact that in the Clinton Impeachment there were no Fact Witnesses. I was there, as was ms. Jackson lee and the chairman. What happened there was that both sides were allowed to present whatever witnesses they wanted to. Kenneth starr did all of the grunt work in putting together the facts. He sent over 36 boxes of evidence which were put over into the Ford Building. Thats not happened here. The independent consulate was appointed to look into what President Trump has done. Mr. Mueller came and testified and that ended up being a big fizzle, you know, for what the
democrats wanted to do. So much of the mueller stuff after his testimony and the crossexamination by members on both sides of the aisle ended up disappearing into outer space. They had to find something else. Now, let me say that everybody on both ends of the Telephone Call between President Trump and president zelensky has said very clearly there was no quid pro quo offered. There was no pressure that was put on the ukrainians. I dont know how many times president zelensky has had to say that. Apparently its not enough because minds on the other side of the aisle are closed, but thats what the facts are. The facts speak for themselves. There was no Impeachable Offense here and thats why article one of the impeachments ended up falling flat on its face and that it should be stricken and i support the amendment to strike it from the gentleman of ohio and yield back. Mr. Chairman the gentleman yields back. The gentle lady i yield to the gentleman from georgia. The gentleman is recognized. Real quickly, also just in ken starr sent those before the hearings started. Yes. We didnt get a letter in the middle of the hearings and say we just got a Document Dump and the chairman tell me were not going to be able to read them anyway. The gentlemans time has expired. I move to strike the last word, mr. Chairman. The gentle lady is recognized. I think before i begin to comment on the discussion here that it is important to remind all of us that the president abused his power and is a continuing threat not only to
democracy but to our National Security. We do not take this lightly. We take it very seriously. I beg to differ with my dear friend as one who was here for the Impeachment Proceedings in 1998, along with my colleagues, both mr. Sensenbrenner, and ms. Laughlin, let me be clear of the distinctive difference that we had at that time. For the American People, the Special Prosecutor was an independent statute that allowed mr. Jer os ski during the nixon Impeachment Proceedings and then mr. Starr to have an independent process of investigation. The congress was not privy to any of that investigation at all. They proceeded. They were not interfered with as mr. Mueller was by the doj because he was an employee of the Department Of Justice and
his employer, his boss, came out and characterized his report before he could even discuss it. In the instance of the proceedings of 1998, the congress received a report just as both our Friends On The Other Side of the aisle and we in the majority received reports from the Impeachment Inquiry committees who were investigatory committees. They did their work, yes, in a classified setting as i imagine both mr. Starr and mr. Gentleja had to do. They were prosecutors and had witnesses that were not in the public. And of course they had firsthand witnesses who heard the call and testified not on any secondhand knowledge but firsthand knowledge. It is clear that were dealing with a question of a continuing threat which is why we have to respond. Let me be very clear, i hold in my hands that unclassified transcript. I beg to differ with my friends. Allow me just for a moment to tell you that in the call president zelensky said these sentences. I would also like to thank you for your great support in the area of defense. Were trying to continue to cooperate for the next steps, specifically, we want to be ready to buy javelins. Thats equipment, military equipment, from the United States for defense purposes. Ukraines in the midst of a war against a nation that shot down at least some of those alleged to be separatists using russian weapons a commercial airliner. This is a serious war where our men and women in the military
are on the ground trying to assist, and heres the very next sentence. The very next sentence is not yes, lets get with the department of defense. Lets review your request. The very next sentence, i would like you to do a favor though. This is a discussion about defense. The next sentence should have been we are well aware of your difficult predicament. Im going to have you talk to the secretary of defense. But it said a couple of sentences later, i would like to have the Attorney General call you or your people, and id like you to get to the bottom of it, investigation. So i would just offer to say that it is not frivolous and without facts that we proceed. We proceed with facts, and we
take this in a very somber manner. Would the gentle lady yield . Id be happy to yield. I would like to note that while this aid was being withheld, people died. Id like to ask unanimous consent to put into the record an article from the Los Angeles Times entitled, trump froze military aid as ukrainian soldiers perished in battle. Without objection. And note that the highest death toll on any day in the Ukraine Russian war was august 7 of this year while aid was being withheld. So this had life and death consequences, and i yield back to the gentle lady. Quickly, let me say my predecess predecessor, barbara jordan, said impeachment is designed for the president and his High Minister to be called into account. Thats all were doing on behalf of the American People and pr protecting the National Security of this nation. I yield back. Mr. Chairman, strike the last
comparemela.com © 2020. All Rights Reserved.