Rep. Nadler the house commissioning to medium the judiciary will come forward. The quorum is present. Hearingonducting this on the impeachment inquiry into president donald j. Trump, the presentations from the house pertinent select committee on intelligence in the House Judiciary Committee pursuant to House Resolution 660 and the special to sherry Committee Procedures that are described in section four a of that were season of that. I will make an Opening Statement and then i will recognize the Ranking Member for no statement. After that we will hear two sets of presentations. Openinghear 30 minute arguments from councils for the majority and minority. [gavel] rep. Nadler order in the room. Order in the room. Order in the committee room. [indiscernible] rep. Nadler committee will come to order. Obviously i shouldnt have to remind everyone present that the audience is here to observe, but not to demonstrate, not to indicate agreement or disagreement with any witness or with any member
Who they offer on the other side . President trump. 14,435 lies to date, since he has been president. Not under oath, but we should take his word for it. Then it is so absurd because in a call, we know the president s vocabulary. We know what he doesnt what he does not say. He might say winning a lot, he might say great. But in his ordinary conversation he does not use the words quid pro quo. When he has the conversation after the whistleblower is known to everybody, he gets a call, first thing out of his mouth is i dont want a quid pro quo. Where did that come from . It came from the fact that you are guilty of the crime that is charged. Just like a kid who just got caught going into the cookie jar, with crumbs on his mouth, when his mother says what are you doing. He says i did need that cookie. We have a call out of the blue in the first thing he says is i dont want a quid pro quo, i want them to do the right thing. No you would not have held up vital military aid. This is a country
Sensenbrenner votes. I mr. Chavez . Mr. Shouted both. I mr. Gohmert . I. Mr. Jordan . Mr. Jordan votes yes. Mr. Back . Mr. Backfoot yes. Mr. Ratcliffe . Mr. Ratcliffe as. Yes mister will be . Miss robots i. Mr. Gates . Mr. Gates but i. Mr. Johnson of louisiana . Mr. Johnson of louisiana birdseye. Mr. Bigs . Mister exhibits i. Mr. Mcclintock . Mr. Maclean talk about i. Miss lesko . Missed last but i. Mr. Reschenthaler . Mr. Reschenthaler boats i. Mr. Cline . Mr. Cline votes i. Mr. Armstrong . Mr. Armstrong votes yes. Mister still be . Mister studios yes. Are there any members of the committee who wish to the clerical report. Mister, chairman there are 17 eyes and 23 knows. The amendment is not agreed to. The committee will now stand in recess for half an hour. The House Judiciary Committee continues its work on the articles of impeachment. They are debating amendments, and theyre taking but have our breaking during this break were going to take your phone calls. Get your reaction to wha
Witnesses, yes. Thank you. And also another thing that i want to clear up for the record, mr. Ras kin said previously that the same process that were doing now, its the same process that was used in the clinton impeachment, mr. Collins, do you agree with that, because i sure dont. No, i do not. Would you care to expand . I think there are a lot of Different Things and it goes back to the inherent nature of what were doing here today and that is, frankly, the only bipartisan nature of this impeachment is no. Its not bipartisan in the sense of seeing it should go forward. Its bipartisan and no and that is the only bipartisan that you will see. My friends across the aisle say theyre standing for true and thats fine. Thats their argument and my argument is everything that weve talked about so far and thats also why at a certain point in time we continue to go on here, but i think when you look at the actual things that are going on the issues of how witnesses are called and how you deal wi
You dont think that affects our National Security, if you think ukraine is our ally as i believe you do and i do . I just dont accept the premise of your premises of thoughts. All right. What value for ukraine do you see in the oval office visit that was being sought . Youd have to ask ukraine. Do you recognize that such a visit would send a strong message to russia sort of like lavrov being in the Oval Office Last week and the rest of the world that the United States supported ukraine and was ready to defend it against russian aggression. I think a better statement was when mr. Trump sent russian weapons to shoot down russian assets. That ignored the fact that the aid was withhold and hot war was going. All due respect were going in circles. I do not believe there was anything wrong for the reasons stated. And mr. Trump did more for the ukrainians in the hot war than was previously done. You know, ive heard that before. Im not going to elaborate. But i can assure you if they point as