Been looking for an excuse to impeach this president for a long time now. In fact, when they took over the house pardon of the interruption here. Im going to step out here at the top of the hour, but our coverage of the impeachment proceedings continue now on msnbc. Stay with us. Its all about politics, hurting the president , hurting his reputation. They dislike him intensely. As i mentioned the other day, they really loathe this president and theyre trying to hurt his chances in the next election. But one of my real concerns, and i have a lot of them about this whole thing, and i mentioned this earlier today, im very concerned about is that the democrats are really lowering the bar for impeaching a president in the future. Its becoming too routine. Its becoming the new normal. For 200 years in our nation we had one impeachment, one in 200 years, Andrew Johnson. And now in less than 50 years
were in our third one this time around. And i really am concerned that from now on in all likelihood when you have the president of the United States and you have the House Of Representatives and their opposite parties, youre going to end up with a base in the House Of Representatives pushing very hard for members to impeach that president , and its very divisive for the nation. So many other things dont get done when youre going through an impeachment. For example, opioids. 70,000 almost americans lost their lives last year, but weve done very little about opioids in this committee, and we have jurisdiction over it doing Something Like our southern border which is like a sieve, and this committees responsibility but we do almost nothing there. And over all in congress our infrastructure, roads and highways are crumbling and we do very little about that. So i think the American People deserve a lot better from what theyre getting from this
committee and this congress. In any event i want to thank the folks out there and god bless america. Gentlemans time has expired. For what purpose does mr. Deuche seek recognition . I move to strike the last word. It is always the right time to defend the constitution. And thats the very reason that were here. There are two articles of impeachment. The first is abuse of power. The president of the United States abused his power by soliciting foreign interference in our elections. How did he do it . He leveraged lifesaving taxpayer 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 ukrainian president that president zelensky desperately needed to show Vladimir Putin that the United States is willing to stand with ukraine. And he leveraged that meeting for assistance in his reelection campaign. Thats 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 it is. In fact, abuse of power was a principle concern of the Framers Of The Constitution. And it was clear what it meant. The exercise of official power to obstatain an improper person benefit while ignoring the National Interests, thats abuse of power. Its rooted thin president s duty, constitutional duty to faithfully execute the law. To put service over self, to put the country over his personal interests. I note for my colleagues all four of the constitutional scholars who testified including the republicans own witness have confirmed that abuse of power is an Impeachable Offense. President trumps own actions in fact exemplify the framers fears and the very reason that abuse of power is high crime. Worse than president nixon President Trump pressured a Foreign Government to aid in his corrupt scheme. Thats the abuse of power article. But theres a second article, Obstruction Of Congress. We know that no president in history, in history has 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 Inquiry 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. He acknowledged quid pro quo, says it happens all the time. Thats abuse of power. Then the president wouldnt let him speak. Thats Obstruction Of Congress. Why wont he let him speak . What does he have to hide . Think about secretary perry, ambassador taylor described the
highly irregular Ukraine Policy Channel Led by Rudy Giuliani that included sondland, volker and rick perry. That Contributings Es to the abf power, it highlights the abuse of power. But it also is Obstruction Of Congress. Why why wont the president allow him to speak . What is he afraid of . Think about john bolton. Fiona hill testified that bolton told her to notify nsc counsel about the rogue effort he said im not a part of whatever drug Deal Sondland and mulvaney are cooking up. Both in fact called giuliani a hand grenade whos going to blow everybody up. Thats the abuse of power. Obstruction of congress is clear. Why wont he let him testify . Whats he hiding . And Lieutenant Colonel vendman couldnt believe what he heard on the call and now eisenberg
cant speak. What is it that the president is afraid hell say . Thats Obstruction Of Congress. Abuse of power and Obstruction Of Congress, together thats what these articles are about. Were protecting the constitution. Were protecting the American People and our elections. Thats why we need to proceed with these articles of impeachment. I yield back. Gentleman yields back. I move to strike the last word, mr. Chairman. Gentleman is recognized. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Ive been a prosecutor. Prosecuted terrorists actually in the iraq court system, i actually got to defend a navy seal against trumpedup charges by the Obama Administration. And i had the honor of defending a District Judge in my hometown of pittsburgh. So ive been on all sides of the courtroom. So i can tell you i would defend this case every single day. It is because the facts just
arent there. Lets go through each article. Abuse of power, quid pro quo, bribery. Call it whatever your focus group wants to call it because at the end of the day you dont have the facts to make up the case. You dont have the facts because the other party on your alleged quid pro quo never felt pressure. We have a primary document, primary source of information that is the transcript of the call that shows there is no connection. We also have the other party, president zelensky who said at no time did the ukrainians feel any pressure to have an investigation. We also know any investigation of biden ever took place. We also know that aid was given to ukraine, aid they never knew at the time was being under review, and aid that came in the form of javelin missiles. Not what the Obama Administration gave, which were
well wishes and blankets. So, again, no case can be made for abuse of power. Obstruction of congress. It isnt right because only letters have been sent. Theres been no subpoena. And how this work said is a subpoena is issued. The Executive Branch exercises their Executive Privilege just like obama did. And the courts have never decided this so where is obstruction . It doesnt exist. Even if the facts are viewed like most favorable to the democrats, you still again cannot make out what we as lawyers call a prima facie case. This case would be dismissed on day one. But ill tell you what case id
prosecute. Id prosecute schiff for abuse of power any day of the week. Why . How about the fact he subpoenaed Phone Records from a member of congress . How about the fact he singled out devin nunes phone number and leaked that . How about the fact he dumped over 8,000 pages on the Judiciary Committee 48 hours before we had a hearing in this committee . That is abuse of power and that is what i would prosecute every day of the week. Obstruction id prosecute the democrats for Obstruction Of Congress, too. How about the fact i had a Motion Subpoena the whistleblower. Which by the way you cannot point to any statute. Theres no statute that gives the whistleblower the right to be anonymous. Does not exist no matter what you say. I had a Motion Subpoena the whistleblower two weeks ago. That motion was denied, i never got my subpoena and it was done
in a partisan fashion right down the partisan line and so that is obstruction and i would prosecute that every single day. Folks, this is nothing more than a political hit job. And i yield the remanlder inder time. Gentleman yields back. Move to strike the last work. Gentle lady is recognized. I want to reiterate this is not about disagreements with the president s policies or personality or even his tweets. Were not judging the president himself. Were judging his actions. And i understand that he ran to disrupt the government. The problem is he went further. By abusing his power he endangered our elections and our National Security. He remains an ongoing threat to
both. So weve heard a lot of loose talk about what evidence we have or dont have. There is plenty of direct evidence of the president s wrongdoing including for example his July 25th Call record in which he said to the ukrainian president , i want you to do us a favor, though. And then proceeded to request investigations into his political rival in a debunked Conspiracy Theory that the senate and all of our National Security services have rejected. We have the testimony of his appointees, ambassador somdland a and volker about the May 23rd Meeting in which the president said to them, talk to rudy. We have the testimony of three firsthand witnesses to the July 25th Call, two of whom promptly reported the call to their superiors and to legal counsel. We have the testimony of david holmes who overheard the president ask ambassador
sondland whether president zelensky was going to, quote, do the investigation. We have president s many public statements including his October 3rd Statement that ukraine and china should investigate his political rival. Even the minority counsel admitted 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 sondland gave some direct evidence, end quote. The secondhand accounts were also extensively corroborated. For example, ambassador taylor and mr. Morrison, both testified that during a september phone call with ambassador sondland President Trump said there was no quid pro quo but then president zelensky had to go to the phone and announce investigations. Ambassador sondland testified he had no reason to dispute ambassador taylors and mr. Morrisons testify about this conversation. Theres also circumstantial
evidence. There was no contemporaneous explanation given for the president s decision to with hold military aid that had bipartisan support from congress. That didnt come until after the articles of impeachment were filed. And the unified response from the State Department and white house witnesses is that the aid should have been released. Given these facts the only logical explanation as ambassador sondland concluded is that the aid was being used to leverage pressure on president zelensky. At the end of the day the evidence is overwhelming and the disputable. President trumps personal lawyer, Rudy Giuliani, pushed ukraine to investigate his political rival and a debunked Conspiracy Theory. His efforts had nothing to do and were taken with the
president s knowledge. President trump ordered that Critical Military aid be withheld. Officials were informed the aid would not be released unless president zelensky publicly announced an investigation, and President Trump refused to release the aid until his Pressure Campaign on the ukraine was exposed. President trump refused to arrange a meeting with president zelensky, and President Trumps agents advised ukrainian officials that the white house meeting would be scheduled only after president zelensky committed to the investigations. President trump ignored the anticorruption Talking Points prepared for his calls. President trump asked president zelensky directly to investigate President Trumps chief political rival. And President Trump stonewalled congress investigation. You know, i dont know what more you can ask for here. Weve got admissions from the president. Weve got corroboration from people hes appointed. The only thing you can do is stick your head in the sand if youre not willing to see what happened here. And with that i would yield to my colleague from florida. Is she here . Okay, shes oh, thank you. A few seconds. Ill wait for the next yield. Okay. The time for the gentle lady has expired. They had a problem because these things will never change. There was no pressure. Both president zelensky and President Trump said there was no pressure, no victim the aid was released and there was no investigation. And you know what else . There was no whistleblower and no adam schiff. If you cannot prove any of it, i guess youre going to use all of it, so why not expand it all the way back to where this thing all started . Bob mueller. And buried in the bottom of article 2 of this impeachment is the language these action were consistent with President Trumps efforts to undermine the government but i guess after two years, 19 lawyers, 40 agents, 500 warrants, 2,800 subpoenas, 30 million theres
simply no way they could leave it out. Here is just a reminder. The Investigation Dild not establish members of the Trump Campaign coordinated or transpired with the russian government. Mueller report page 2. This started it day President Trump the election. This has been the forgone 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. The gentleman yields back. The gentle lady is recognized. You know, ive listened carefully to this very long debate this evening and throughout the last two weeks, and i think its important to look back to the founders and the foundation of what it is
that were doing here. The founders knew that the powers 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 is to be related to what the framers knew on the whole about the english practice, the broad sweep of english constitutional history and the vital Role Impeachment had play in a limitation of royal prerogatives and the control of abuses of ministerial and judicial power. Now, when youre coming to
private affairs in an ordinary criminal law its possible in advance to define what it is you cant do. You cant steal that money. You cant hit that person. But when youre talking about the abuse of president ial power, you cant always specifically define what a bad actor in the house might do, and therefore you have the term High Crimes And Misdemeanors, and you have the abuse of president ial power. Its important to note in the second article of impeachment against Richard Nixon<