The goals of impeachment The 1st is abuse of power the president of the United States this is. The sitting foreigner for interference in our elections sheeting the American voters how did he do it Q leveraged life saving tax payer funded military aid that Ukraine desperately needed for assistance in his reelection campaign and he leveraged a White House meeting that he had promised to the new president Ukrainian president that president's allies keep desperately needed to show Vladimir Putin that the United States is willing to stand with Ukraine and he leverage that meeting for assistance in his reelection campaign that's abuse of power now my colleagues have suggested that somehow abuse of power is not a serious offense that. We should make light of the president's actions not treat it as the constitutional violation that is in fact abuse of power was a principal concern of the framers of the Constitution and it it was clear what it meant the exercise of official power to obtain improper personal benefit while ignoring or injuring the national interest that's abuse of power it's rooted in the president's duty constitutional duty to faithfully execute the law to put service over self to put the country over his personal interests I know from my colleagues that all 4 of the constitutional scholars who testified including the Republicans own witness have confirmed that abuse of power is an impeachable offense. President transactions in fact exemplify the framers fears and the very reason that abuse of power is a high crime and worse worse than President Nixon President Trump pressured a foreign government to aid in his crap scheme that's the abuse of power article but there's a 2nd article obstruction of Congress we know that no president in history in history as directed the entire executive branch not to cooperate with an impeachment inquiry has told every member of the executive branch not to speak to any of the impeachment and greet to any of the impeachment inquiry issues now the question is when you look at the abuse of power which is a constitutional violation and then you look at the president's obstruction of Congress it leads to some questions I would like my colleagues to think about as we head toward this important vote think about the people who the president has blocked from speaking Think about. Mick Mulvaney Now Mick Mulvaney acknowledged acting chief of staff acknowledge a quid pro quo says it happens all the time that's abuse of power then the president wouldn't let him speak that's obstruction of Congress why won't he let him speak what does he have to hide think about Secretary Perry and Bassett or Taylor describe the highly irregular Ukraine policy channel led by Rudy Giuliani that included Simon Volcker and Rick Perry that contributes to the abuse of power it highlights the abuse of power but it also is obstruction of Congress why why won't the president allow him to speak what is he afraid of. Think about John Bolton Fiona Hill testified the Bolton told her to notify it at the Council about the rogue effort he said I'm not a party I said I'm not a part of whatever drug deal little Mulvaney are cooking up bold in fact called Giuliani a hand grenade who's going to blow everybody up that's the abuse of power obstruction of Congress is clear why won't the president let him testify What's he hiding and finally John Eisenberg. Couldn't believe what he heard on the call he reported to us. Now Eisenberg can't speak what is it that the president is afraid he'll say that's obstruction of Congress abuse of power and structure in the Congress together that's what these articles are about we're protecting the Constitution we're protecting the American people and our elections that's why we need to proceed with these articles of impeachment go back generally years back you see resolution for our purposes misdirection throws seek recognition I move to strike the last word Mr Chairman is recognized and you Mr Chairman. Republican of Pennsylvania prosecutor in Baghdad when I was in the Navy prosecutors actually in the Iraqi court system I was a defense attorney in the Navy actually got to defend a navy seal against charges by the Obama administration and I had the honor of serving as a district judge in my hometown in the South Hills of Pittsburgh so I've been on all sides of courtroom and I can tell you that I would defend this case every single day and it's because the facts just aren't there let's go through each article abuse of power or quid pro quo bribery call it would ever your focus group wants to call it is the end of the day you don't have the facts to make out the case. You don't have the facts because the other party on your quid pro quo quid pro quo never felt pressure we have a primary document a primary source of information there is the transcript of the call that shows there is no connection we also have the other party presence Alinsky said it no time to the Ukrainians feel any pressure to have an investigation we also know that no investigation Abidin ever took place we also know that aid was given to Ukraine aid that they never knew at the time was being under review in aid they came in the form of javelin missiles now would the Obama administration gave which were well wishes and blankets so again no case can be made for abuse of power obstruction of Congress this with what we describe as right or not right it isn't right because only letters have been sent there's been no subpoena and how this works is is a subpoenas issued the executive branch Igs exercises their executive privilege just like Obama did in the courts decide this the courts have never decided this so where's the obstruction doesn't exist. Side I would defend this case every single day as a judge I would dismiss this for lack of merit even if the facts are viewed in light most favorable to the Democrats you still again cannot make out what we used as lawyers call a promise they should case this case would be dismissed on day one in a courtroom. But I'll tell you what case I'd prosecute I prosecute shift for abuse of power any day of the week why how about the fact the subpoenaed phone records from a member of Congress how about the fact he took down the Nunez's cell phone number and lead that. How about the fact that he dumped over $8000.00 pages on the Judiciary Committee 48 hours before we had a hearing in this committee that is the abuse of power and that is what I would prosecute every day of the week obstruction I prosecute the Democrats for obstruction of Congress still I love the fact that I had a motion to subpoena the whistleblower the whistleblower who by the way you cannot point to any statute there's no statute that gives out whistleblower the right to be Anonymous does not exist no matter what you say I had the motion to subpoena the whistleblower 2 weeks ago that motion was denied I never got my subpoena and it was done in a partisan fashion straight down partisan lines so that is the of shocks and I would prosecute that every single day folks as a legal analysis this is nothing more than a political hit job thanks and I yield the ranger my time gentleman years back to work purposes nation and move to strike the last word and. You know I want to reiterate. Democrat of Pennsylvania president's policies are personality or even his tweets were not judging the president himself or judging his actions and I understand that he ran to disrupt the government the problem is he went further by abusing his power endangered our elections and our national security. He remains an ongoing threat to both He's shown a pattern of inviting foreign interference in our elections and trying to cover it up twice he's threatening to do it again so we've heard a lot of loose talk about what evidence we have or don't have there is plenty of direct evidence of the president's wrong doing including for example is July 25th call records in which he said to the Ukrainian president I want you to do was a favor though and then proceeded to request investigations into his political rival in a de bunked conspiracy theory that the Senate and all of our national security services have rejected we have the testimony of his appointees ambassadors Sandland and Bowker about the May 23rd meeting in which the president said to them talk to Rudy we have testimony of 3 1st hand witnesses to the July 25th call to phone promptly reported the call to their superiors and to legal counsel we have the testimony of David Holmes who overheard the president ask him Bassett or son Lindh whether President Selenski was going to quote do the investigation we have the president's many public statements including his October 3rd statement that Ukraine and China should investigate his political rival even the minority counsel Mr Castro admitted that there was direct evidence he said quote We had some direct evidence on certain things and we had some direct evidence on the May 23rd meeting and someone gave some direct evidence and quote the 2nd hand accounts are also extensively corroborated for example embassador Taylor and Mr Morrison both testified that during a September 7th phone call with Ambassador sun President Trump said there was no quid pro quo but the president's Alinsky had to go to the microphone and announce investigations kind of giving with one hand and taking away with the other. Ambassador someone testified he had no reason to dispute ambassador Taylor's and Mr Morrison's testimony about this conversation there's also circumstantial evidence there was no contemporaneous explanation given for the president's decision to withhold the military aid that had bipartisan support from Congress that didn't come until after the Articles of Impeachment were filed and the uniform consensus of the State Department the Defense Department and White House witnesses is that the a should have been released given these facts the only logical explanation as ambassador son concluded was that like the White House meeting the aide was being used to leverage pressure on President Selenski at the end of the day the evidence is overwhelming and indisputable. President Trump's personal lawyer Rudy Giuliani pushed Ukraine to investigate his political rival and a de bunked conspiracy theory his efforts had nothing to do with u.s. Policy and were taken on the president's behalf and with the president's knowledge President Trump directed u.s. Officials and presidents Olinsky himself to work with Mr Giuliani President Trump ordered that critical military aid for Ukraine be withheld Ukrainian officials were informed the aide would not be released and must president Selenski publicly announce an investigation and President Trump refused to release the aide until his pressure campaign on the Ukraine was exposed President Trump refused to arrange a meeting with President Alinsky and President Trump's agents advise Ukrainian officials that the White House meeting would be scheduled only after President Selenski committed investigations President Trump ignored the anti-corruption talking points prepared for his calls President Trump and asked President Selenski directly to investigate President Trump's chief political rival and President Trump stonewalled Congress's Congress's investigation. You know I don't know what more you can ask for here we've got admissions from the president we've got corroboration from people he's appointed. The only thing you can do is stick your head in the sand if you're not willing to see what happened here and with that I would yield to my colleague from Florida is she here Ok she's. Thank you you're just seconds away for the next year I took a. Gentle lady as if I. Were purpose is to arms to see Greg move to strike the last word it is recognized for weeks my Democratic colleagues Armstrong Republican from North Dakota tested bribery. But they had a problem because these things will never change there was no pressure both President Selenski and President Trump said that there was no pressure no one to be no victim . You don't. Know if the aid was released and there was no investigation and you know what else there was no whistle blower there was no Adam shit so we are left with abuse of power and obstruction of justice and impeach them in is either a solemn constitutional affair which this is absolutely not our whatever the majority wants it to be which this absolutely is if you cannot prove any of it I guess you're going to use all of it so why not expand it to all the way back to the where this thing all started. And buried in the bottom of Article 2 of this impeachment is the language these actions were consistent with the president terms of previous efforts to undermine United States government investigations into foreign interference United States elections this is nothing more than a legislative drive by are probably more accurate of merged majorities attempt to return to the scene of a non crime but I guess after 2 years 1000 lawyers 40 agents 500 warrants 22800 subpoenas $30000000.00 There's simply no way they could leave it out. So here's just a reminder the investigation did not establish that members of the Trump campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference Sacto to Vaduz Moeller Report page 2. This started the day President Trump won new election this has been the foregone conclusion since the day the Democrats won back the majority this was never about facts or fairness so here we are where we were always going to be on a purely partisan impeachment that is destined to fail in the Senate and with that I yield back. General yells back for what purpose is a. Well can see great nation strike the last word tonight is recognized you know I have listened carefully as Zoe Lofgren Democrat from California who as we've said has been involved in the impeachment inquiry into Nixon Clinton and now try think it's important to look back to the founders in the foundation of what it is that we're doing here the founders knew that the. Howard is given to the president needed to have the capacity to be curbed in the case of abuse the framers of the Constitution consciously adopted a particular phrase from the English practice to help define the constitutional grounds for removal the content of the phrase high crimes and misdemeanors for the framers as to be related to what the framers knew on the whole about the English practice the broad sweep of English cars to show history and the vital role in Pietschmann had played in the limitation of royal prerogative and the control of abuses of ministerial and judicial power now when you're coming to private affairs in an ordinary criminal law it's possible in advance to define what it is you can't do you can't. Steal that money you can't. Have that person when you're talking about the abuse of presidential power. You can't always specifically define what a bad actor in the White House might do and therefore you have the term high crimes and misdemeanors and you have the abuse of presidential power it's important to note and in the 2nd article of impeachment against Richard Nixon there was an article for abuse of power the article principally addressed President Nixon's use of power including the powers that stood solely in the president to aid his political allies harm his political opponents gain improper personal political advantages he used his power and this is a quote it was undertaken for his personal political advantage and not in furtherance of any valid national political objective his presidential powers and again this is a quote We're seriously incompatible with our system of constitutional government and warranted removal from office we have a situation similar here but I want to address the issue raised by my colleague from Ohio because I do agree that there can be a tendency in the country these days to immediately think well I don't like that let's go to impeachment and that has frankly been prevalent send the Clinton impeachment lying under oath is a crime lying about sex is a shame but neither one involves the use of presidential powers. And the use of impeachment in that instance really in an improper way it was never the abuse of presidential power I think put it in the public mind that this is a tool to be used for disagreements about policy nothing could be further than the truth I was disappointed I voted against the Iraq war but the Congress voted some people thought we should have articles of impeachment about that no that did not undercut the cost to Szell order congress voted it was a mistake but it was the president and the Congress together it was not the president usurping the powers of another branch of government here we have a situation that is so obvious if you look at the facts how come it's just inconceivable that things I've heard today are just stunning to me that you could reach a conclusion as to really defense counsel here grasping at straws. The president misused his presidential power to gain a personal benefit to the detriment of the interests of the United States it was an abuse of power that harmed us and it is ongoing it is a threat to the constitutional order it meets the definition of high crimes and misdemeanors it is abuse of presidential power and is our responsibility to use the tool that our founders gave us in the Constitution to preserve that cause to show order we must impeach I yield back General he yields back 6 recognition for our purposes was to go and see great strides the last war and lose regular us and yet just record comment Louie Gohmert Republican of Texas about President Clinton's actions when you lie under oath it's perjury it's a crime. And I understand the comment that he wasn't acting in his official capacity that would set back the maid to movement if they took that position you know having sex with an employee it's that my juncture when you're present the United States that's not in his fishing capacity but no matter how long we spin today denied tomorrow it doesn't make up for the fact that we did not have fact witnesses I mean this this reminds me historically of the trial of salve Socrates you know where he got convicted by the jury of 501 people while because he was arrogant you want to try Donald Trump for being arrogant. I'm sure you'd have a lot of Republicans vote with you on that yeah he's arrogant he's got a lot of to be arrogant about but that is not a crime it is not a high crime for sure and it's certainly not a misdemeanor it's bothersome to people some people like it but that's not what impeachment is supposed to be about and to have had a trial the what few here say gossip mongering witnesses there were coming to a star chamber and so create their testimonies so people can't see them can't hear them but we have Adam Schiff put it together in in in a big report and we received the report on how much time to review it but that's all we need we don't even get to hear from the preparer of the report and get to cross-examine him this is a Stalinist top proceeding that's the way it worked under Stalin you didn't get to find out what the fact witness is because usually there weren't any just like here so what do you have you have people come in and give appearance give their impressions and give an appearance and oh gee we're well educated you know great that's fine and if you're ever not sure about being good at rationalizing go to law school you're trying to do that so that when you hate a person like that 3 witnesses obviously do don't drop you can come in and just misrepresent facts and use those to base your opinions on them just great but look at what really started this started before Muller It started back. Carter Paige had worked for the CIA a to help them against the Russians and what did they do they pervert that lied to the court and say oh he has worked with Russians misrepres