Well, thats what it says, to faithfully execute the law. Is there anybody here i dont care what comes out of your mouth today. Is there anybody here who believes that this president has faithfully executed the law and faithfully executed the duties, the sacred trust that has been put in his hands and on his shoulder . He is supposed to faithfully execute the law, not ignore it, not abuse it and not forget it. The president is supposed to be motivated by public interest. Public interest. The interest of the people. But rather than remembering that or caring about that, im not really sure he ever really did. The president chose to try to coerce a foreign power, a newly elected, young president that we
all were excited about, an anticorruption president. The president tried to coerce him into interfering in the 2020 elections. The things that i have heard today about Vice President s child, things ive heard about the Vice President s son when we have billions of people in this country who are suffering from addiction, i just believe to protect this president at any cost is shameful. Article two said this. The article principally addressed nixons abuse of power, including powers vested soly in the president to aid his allies, harm his opponents and gain improper personal political advantages and explaining this article of impeachment, the
house Judiciary Committee then stated that president nixons conduct was undertaken for his personal, political advantage and not the furtherance of any Valid National policy objective. The president abused his power. A and, to me, and at least the members on this side of the dias, that matters. And with that, i yield the remaining time to mr. Richmond from louisiana. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Very quickly i want to remind people that when the people watching that when you look at the credibility of the testimony and weigh the evidence, you can look at other things. I want to enter into the record unanimous consent the guardian article roger stone to michael cohen, men in trumps orbit end in crimes. Trump associates have been convicted in muellerrelated
investigation. My grandmother said birds of a feather flock together and President Trump has made 13,345 false claims. The gentlemans time has expired. For what purposes do you seek recognition . To strike the last word. Gentle lady is recognized. Chairman, thank you. I wanted to speak first to the underlying amendment that calls for the acknowledgement that the aid was release d in the articl, first article, i believe. And i want to, again, recount not only the july 25th call
where previously ive indicated the president s language would like you to do us a favor though, that that was not tied to the us representing the entity of a public representation, which would be the United States of america, establish Foreign Policy by the secretary of state, establish Foreign Policy by the secretary of defense. And that is because, of course, the secretary of defense and state had already certified that ukraine was working to graduate to working to ensure the end of corruption that had met the standards that were required for funding. The other thing is that when Lieutenant Colonel vindman thought that the words that he heard were appalling and seemed to him to be inappropriate for a
call to the president as relates to a question tying the military aid to an investigation of biden and others, sons and others, not official policy, he immediately gave it to the nsc council, john isenberg. John isenberg took the information and then ultimately put it in a separate coded filing and asked that the Lieutenant Colonel not say anything about it. That is unusual because you would think that if it was normal business, if it had to do with standard u. S. Foreign policy, it would be okay to talk about that call. But they knew a major mistake had been made. They knew that the president had offered to give military aid if he got an investigation against
his political rival, and his political rival happened to be joe biden. And he knew that that was, in fact, conspicuously using Public Office and public money for public and private desires. Friends talk about the courts. Weve not shied away from the courts. In fact, judge howell, regarding 6e Grand Jury materials specifically said theres an Impeachment Inquiry, you cant stand in the way, mr. President. Judge jackson indicated in her decision that the president was not a king. So, were here to talk about not as a mother someones child who may have some concerns, like every americans child may have, which i am saddened that those personal matters are raised. Were here to talk about the abuse of this president and the
obstruction of congress, another amendment that we voted against because during the nixon proceedings, it was made very clear to president nixon regarding his failure to comply to subpoenas issued pursuant to the watergate Impeachment Inquiry and the constitution reinforces the fact that we have the sole power of impeachment. And the underlying decisions of the two Court Decisions i mentioned is that we were in an Impeachment Inquiry. As a reminder to my colleagues, this committee ultimately approved an article of impeachment against Richard Nixon on the obstruction of congress matter, wanted to clean up and bring in some more points on that. And it was clear that it was a case where the president could not dictate to the house Impeachment Inquiry what he was refusing to give or not. This is where my friends steer off the rails. They refuse to acknowledge the facts of the case. The president took public money
with a public intent, with a private intent to use those monies to deny mr. Zelensky, who was going to go ahead and announce investigations on cnn, but was stopped in his tracks when the whistleblowers letter or statement was released. It was out of the bag that the president had done this on the july 25th call. Lets be clear. This is about facts and the constitution. I yield back, mr. Chairman. Gentle lady yields back. For what purpose does miss bass seek recognition . Thank you, mr. Chairman. Ive been sitting here. Does the gentle lady move to strike the last word . Yes. I move to strike the last word. I want to be able to say this to the American People before our day ends today. My colleagues and i have been explaining the evidence that weve heard. Weve been talking about all the
documents and heard from so many witnesses along the way. And as weve been hold as we have been upholding our constitutional obligation to defend the constitution, some today have argued that we have not upheld our constitutional obligation to legislate, to solve problems, and that all we want to do is impeachment president of the United States. And i truly want to ensure the American People and to give you hope that this is not true. I want to make sure that we set the record straight so that you know that we have been working on your behalf. And despite what many people in this country think, congress can walk and chew gum at the same time. This congress has been working very, very hard on behalf of the American People in spite of everything thats happening with this impeachment. This very day, a bill we passed a bill that lowers the cost of Prescription Drugs for hundreds of millions of americans, hr3. It will save our taxpayers over 456 billion over the next decade and allow for the expansion of medicare coverage, including hearing, dental and vision benefits. Just this week, we achieved monumental changes to the u. S. mexico canada trade agreement. Yes, weve been waiting a very long time for that. This agreement is huge its a huge win for our families, our workers and Business Owners in every District Across the United States. And we continue to work to make sure that we stay competitive in a global environment. Yesterday we voted to support the ndaa, legislation that will keep our country safe and will give a raise to our Service Members and includes important
reforms like paid parental leave for all federal employees and repealing the whittles tax. Even on this committee weve worked together. This week, my republican colleague, Congressman Rushenthalen and i were part of bipartisan members that would end online child exploitation. Since weve been sitting in this room today, a deal has been forged by our colleagues to fund our government and avoid another shutdown. Throughout this investigation, my colleagues and i have been fulfilling our duties as members of congress. Do not be deceived. We have been working on the American Publics behalf every sing single day, in spite of the tragedy that were in now with this impeachment. This congress, the house of
representatives, we have passed over 275 bills. 275 bills. And we are defending our democracy and delivering on the promises that we made to each and every one of our constituents. I want the American Public to know this. We are truly disheartened by what is happening here with impeachment. But do know that we are working on your behalf each and every single day. We will continue to do what we swore an oath to do. And that is to protect and serve you. Even in this moment, in this tragedy, be rest assured, we will do just that. And i yield back the balance of my time. Gentle lady yields back. What purpose do you seek recognition . Strike the last word. Gentleman is recognized. Thank you very much, mr. Chairman. In law school i teach my students to try to take the best argument of their opponents and not worst arguments. So im going to ignore all the frivolous Process Objections about the rooms and the temperature and all that kind of stuff weve heard about, and im going to try to make what i think is the best argument to reconstruct the best argument thats come out today. And i understand that our colleagues face a difficult task, because 70 of the American People believe that the president has done something wrong in these actions of trying to pressure a Foreign Government to get involved in our election. And so theyve got a problem there. And theyve got another problem, which is that there is an
overwhelming and uncontradicted body of evidence that the president did that. The president when would hundreds of millions of dollars in Security Assistance that we had voted for, besieged for an ally resisting russian aggression because he was trying to get the president of that country, zelensky, to agree to conduct a Press Conference in which he would say he was investigating the bidens. And he also wanted president zelensky to validate Vladimir Putins favorite disinformation Conspiracy Theory about the 2016 campaign, which is that it was ukraine and not russia that engaged in a sweeping and Systematic Campaign to interfere in our elections. What do you do with that . We can understand why theyve been talking about process for months. I think they this is serious
investigation, Rigorous Methods and serious, inescapable conclusions. And the American People are focused on it. The majority not only support the investigation. The majority would lake to see the president impeached. According to fox news anyway. At any event, huge numbers of americans are supported by this. What did they come up with . Theyve not found an alibi. Theres no fact alibi. You cant claim Somebody Else did it. But theyve come up with a defense which, to me, looks like really a mitigating factor, a plea for mercy. The president did all of these things, but his motive is misunderstood. All of us think that he was doing it because he wanted to advance his own reelection prospects. And in some sense, he wanted to help, for whatever reason, he friend, vladimir putin, and putin has already been on tv, bragging about the fact that everybody is focused on ukraine
in the 2016 election and not russia. Note to mr. Putin, thats not right. We understand exactly whats going on here. In any event, new argument is that the president was not trying to advance his own political interest. What he was trying to do was to advance his passionately held and yet littleknown campaign against corruption. Thats why so much of our discussion today has been about corruption. He was waging this campaign about corruption. We noted a number of problems there. And i want to just catalog some of the other ones to try to put this in order. First is that the president never raised the word corruption on the july 25th Telephone Call. Bidens name was mentioned several times. It wasnt corruption, corruption, corruption. It was biden, biden, biden. And he never raised any other companies at all. It was all about buchlt risma, Hunter Bidens company. Thats all that he mentioned. As far as we know, he has never mentioned any other company in connection with corruption in ukraine. In 2017 and 18 when congress voted money for ukraine, the president passed it along. He didnt even raise the bidens at that point. It only became an issue in 2019. In 2019 why . Because joe biden had surpassed him in the Public Opinion polls and now suddenly it was a big issue. So he cared about it. Well, whats the other evidence here parnas and fruman was
corrupt scheme. They werent trying to attack it. I yield back, mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman . Who seeks recognition . For what purpose . Thank you, mr. Chairman. I move to strike the last word. Gentle lady is recognized. Briefly, mr. Chairman and others, mr. Raskin, my colleague, just said bidens name was used multiple times. Well, i think thats a little misleading. Again, the only place in this whole Telephone Call where biden is even brought up is in one little paragraph. And that was on page four of five pages of the transcript. Most of this call was about c
congratulating president zelensky, the new parliament, talking about how a lot of these European Countries Arent Pitching in with the aid that was to ukraine as much as the United States has and all kinds of things. It was a long phone call. Its really disingenuous to say that the whole thing was about this biden was mentioned several times. Let me read again. In fact, i know that President Trump tweet this is out. Read the transcript. I wish people would. Everybody watches tv and gets all these comments. I did this with my husband. I said would you please read the transcript . Its only five pages long. Doesnt take that much time. After he read it, he was like, thats it . Thats all they got . Biden stopped the prosecution and a lot of people want to find out about that. Whatever you can do with the Attorney General would be great. Biden went around, bragging that he stopped the prosecution. So if you can look into it, that would be great. That sounds horrible to me. Thats it, folks. Thats all there is. I yield back. The question now occurs on the amendment. Those in favor say aye. Aye. Oppose, no . No . Opinion of the chair, the noes have it and the amendment is not agreed to. Roll call is requested. Clerk will call the roll. Mr. Nadler . No. Mr. Nadler votes no. Ms. Lofgren . No. Miss jackson lee . No. Mr. Cohen . No. Mr. Johnson of georgia . No. Mr. Deutsch . No. Miss bass . No. Mr. Richmond . No. Mr. Jeffries . No. Mr. Ciccillie . No. Mr. Swalwell . No. Mr. Lou . Mr. Raskin . No. Miss gyap jayapal . No. Miss scanlon votes no. No. Miss garcia . No. Mr. Nagoose . No. Miss mcbath . No. Mr. Stanton . No. Miss dean . No. Miss Marcel Powell . No. Miss escobar . No. Mr. Collins votes aye. Mr. Sensen brener votes aye. Mr. Gomert . Aye. Mr. Jordan . Yes. Mr. Buck . Aye. Mr. Radcliff . Yes. Miss roby . Aye. Mr. Gates . Aye. Mr. Johnson of louisiana . Aye. Mr. Johnson of louisiana votes aye. Mr. Biggs . Aye. Mr. Mcclinton okay votes aye. Mr. Rushenthat willer votes aye. Mr. Klein . Aye. Mr. Armstrong votes yes. Mr. Stubie . Yes. Mr. Stubie votes yes . Has everyone voted who wants to vote . You are not recorded mr. Correa. Mr. Correa . No. Clerk will report. Mr. Chairman, there are 17 ayes and 23 noes. The amendment is not agreed to. Any further amendments . Mr. Chairman, i have an amendment at the desk. Mr. Rushenthaler has an amendment. Amendment to the amendment in nature of substitute to 755 offered by mr. Rushenthaler of pennsylvania. Page five beginning on line six, strike article ii. I withdraw my point of order. The gentleman is recognized for five minutes to explain his amendment. Thank you, mr. Chairman. My amendment would strike all of article 2, which is the obstruction of congress charge. The facts simply do not align with The Democrats claim of obstruction. Our government has three branches for a reason. When there is a disagreement between the executive and the legislative branch, it is supposed to be resolved by the third branch, the court. Republicans recognize this in
2011 when they investigated President Obamas fast and Furious Scandal. The fast and Furious Scandal allowed 2,000 firearms to fall into the hands of drug cartels and resulted in the death of an american Border Patrol agent. People actually died in President Obamas scandal. Throughout the republicans investigation of that scandal they made numerous attempts to accommodate the obama administration, yet despite their efforts, President Obama invoked Executive Privilege and barred testimony and documents. So what did the republicans do . The appropriate thing. They went to the courts. Compare those efforts with what we have seen from The Democrats during this impeachment sham. House democrats could have worked with the administration to reach accommodations for their requests, but they didnt. House democrats should have worked through the courts, but
they didnt. And why is that . Its simple. Because they have a political, expedient deadline to send this mess out of congress and to the senate before christmas. So despite what you hear from my colleagues, the administration has consistently cooperated with democrats, even though they have been out to get this president since the very moment he was elected. Lets just go through the numbers. Over 25 Administration Officials have testified before the House Oversight committee. Over 25. Over 20 Administration Officials have testified before this very committee. The administration has also handed over more than 100,000 pages of documents since the start of the sham Impeachment Inquiry. Now lets contrast that with the conduct from The Democrats. Democrats have threatened witnesses that, quote, unquote, any failure to appear in response to a letter requesting
their presence would constitute evidence of obstruction. Let me just go through that language. Its a letter that would constitute evidence of obstruction. Thats not a subpoena. Thats a letter. Democrats have also told the state Department Employees that they insisted on using Agency Counsel to protect confidentiality interest. They would have their salaries when would. Kind of sounds like abuse of power, but i digress a little bit. Democrats have not afforded this president basic procedure protections, such as the right to see all the evidence, the right to call witnesses, or the right to have counsel at hearings. Its just not the Trump Administration thats been railroaded by The Democrats. Judiciary democrats voted down my own subpoena, my own motion to subpoena the whistleblower, even though i said that he could he or she could testify
in executive session, which would be private. Yet they voted it down on party lines. Chairman nadler also refused request that chairman schiff testify before this committee. House democrats also denied every republican request for a fact witness. So i ask, who is really obstructing congress . If democrats had no case when it comes to obstruction, this Obstruction Charge is completely baseless and bogus. If they really wanted to charge someone with obstruction, how about they start with adam schiff . Thank you. I yield back the remainder of my time. Gentleman yields back. What purpose does miss bass seek recognition . Strike the last word. I would like to begin by answering my colleagues question. He asked who is really obstructing congress . Who is obstructing congress . President donald trump. The text of the constitution devotes only a few sentences to
a discussion of impeachment power. Yet among those few sentences is the clear statement that the house possesses the sole power of impeachment. And what that means is that within the sole discretion of the house to determine what evidence is necessary then for it to gather in order to exercise that power. So its unnecessary for the house to go to the court to enforce subpoenas issued pursuant to an impeachment investigation. If it did, the houses sole power of impeachment would be beholden to the dictates of the judicial rather than the executive branch. Past president s have disapproved of impeachments, criticized the house, doubted its motives and insisted they did nothing wrong, but no president , however, including president nixon, who was on the verge of being impeached for obstruction of justice, had to declare himself and the entire branch of government he oversees totally exempt from subpoenas issued by the house pursuant to its sole
comparemela.com © 2020. All Rights Reserved.