ONCE AGAIN, WE'RE LIVE ON 
CAPITOL HILL AS WE AWAIT THE 
HOUSE RULES COMMITTEE HEARING 
NOW, WHICH WILL BE SETTING THE 
PARAMETERS FOR TOMORROW'S HOUSE 
DEBATE ON ARTICLES OF 
IMPEACHMENT AGAINST PRESIDENT 
TRUMP.
WE DID EXPECT IT TO GET UNDER 
WAY AT 11:00 STRAIGHT UP HERE, 
BUT MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE ARE
OVER IN THE HOUSE CHAMBER 
TAKING -- HOLDING VOTES, WE DO 
EXPECT THEM TO WRAP UP THOSE 
VOTES IN JUST A COUPLE MINUTES 
AFTER WHICH THE MEETING WILL GET
UNDER WAY HERE ON CAPITOL HILL.
LIVE COVERAGE OF THE HOUSE RULES
COMMITTEE HERE ON ESPN 3.
>>> THE RULES COMMITTEE WILL 
COME TO ORDER.
THE RULES COMMITTEE WILL COME TO
ORDER.
IT'S UNFORTUNATE THAT WE HAVE TO
BE HERE TODAY.
BUT THE ACTIONS OF THE PRESIDENT
OF THE UNITED STATES MAKE THAT 
NECESSARY.
PRESIDENT TRUMP WITHHELD 
CONGRESSIONALLY APPROVED AID TO 
UKRAINE, A PARTNER UNDER SIEGE.
NOT TO FIGHT CORRUPTION, BUT TO 
EXTRACT A PERSONAL POLITICAL 
FAVOR.
PRESIDENT TRUMP REFUSED TO MEET 
WITH UKRAINE'S PRESIDENT IN THE 
WHITE HOUSE UNTIL HE COMPLETED 
THIS SCHEME.
ALL THE WHILE LEADERS IN RUSSIA,
THE VERY NATION HOLDING A LARGE 
PART OF UKRAINE HOSTAGE, THE 
VERY NATION THAT INTERFERED WITH
OUR ELECTIONS IN 2016 HAD YET 
ANOTHER MEETING IN THE OVAL 
OFFICE JUST LAST WEEK.
THESE ARE NOT MY OPINIONS.
THESE ARE UNCONTESTED FACTS.
WE LISTENED TO THE HEARINGS.
WE HAVE READ THE TRANSCRIPTS.
IT'S CLEAR THAT THIS PRESIDENT 
ACTED IN A BAY THAT NOT ONLY 
VIOLATES THE PUBLIC TRUST BUT 
JEOPARDIZED OUR NATIONAL 
SECURITY.
HE UNDERMINED OUR DEMOCRACY.
HE ACTED IN A WAY THAT RISES TO 
THE LEVEL OF IMPEACHMENT.
THAT'S WHY WE'RE CONSIDERING 
H-REZ 755 TODAY, A RESOLUTION 
IMPEACHING DONALD TRUMP FOR HIGH
CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORERS.
CONGRESS HAS NO OTHER CHOICE BUT
TO ACT WITH URGENCY.
THE FOUNDERS OF THIS NATION WERE
CONCERNED ABOUT FOREIGN 
INTERFERENCE IN OUR ELECTIONS.
THEY UNDERSTOOD ALLOWING OUTSIDE
FORCES TO DECIDE AMERICAN 
CAMPAIGNS WOULD CAUSE THE 
FUNDAMENTALS OF OUR DEMOCRACY TO
CRUMBLE.
THE EVIDENCE SHOWS THAT IS 
EXACTLY WHAT PRESIDENT TRUMP 
DID.
NOT ONLY ALLOWED, BUT SOLICITED 
FOREIGN INTERFERENCE, ALL TO 
HELP HIM WIN HIS RE-ELECTION 
CAMPAIGN, WHICH SHOCKS ME, QUITE
FRANKLY, ABOUT SO MANY OF MY 
REPUBLICAN FRIENDS IS THEIR 
INABILITY TO ACKNOWLEDGE THAT 
PRESIDENT TRUMP ACTED 
IMPROPERLY.
IT SEEMS THE ONLY REPUBLICAN 
MEMBERS WILLING TO ADMIT THE 
PRESIDENT DID SOMETHING WRONG 
HAVE ALREADY RETIRED OR 
ANNOUNCED PLANS THEY INTEND TO 
RETIRE AT THE END OF THIS 
CONGRESS.
I GET IT.
IT'S HARD TO CRITICIZE A 
PRESIDENT OF YOUR OWN PARTY.
BUT THAT SHOULDN'T MATTER HERE.
I ADMIRED PRESIDENT CLINTON WHEN
HE WAS PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED 
STATES, I STILL DO TODAY.
BUT WHEN THIS HOUSE IMPEACHED 
HIM, WHICH I DIDN'T AGREE WITH, 
I WENT TO THE HOUSE FLOOR AND I 
SAID I THOUGHT WHAT PRESIDENT 
CLINTON DID WAS WRONG.
BECAUSE MOMENTS LIKE THIS CALL 
FOR MORE THAN JUST REFLEXIVE 
PARTISANSHIP, THEY REQUIRE 
HONESTY, THEY REQUIRE COURAGE.
ARE ANY REPUBLICANS TODAY 
WILLING TO MUSTER THE STRENGTH 
TO SAY THAT WHAT THIS PRESIDENT 
DID WAS WRONG?
LET ME SAY AGAIN WHAT HAPPENED 
HERE.
THE PRESIDENT WITHHELD 
CONGRESSIONALLY APPROVED 
MILITARY AID TO A COUNTRY UNDER 
SIEGE TO ABSTRACT A PERSONAL 
POLITICAL FAVOR.
HE DID NOT DO THIS AS A MATTER 
OF U.S. POLICY.
HE DID THIS FOR HIS OWN BENEFIT.
THAT IS WRONG.
IF THAT IS NOT IMPEACHABLE 
CONDUCT, I DON'T KNOW WHAT IS.
NOW, I'VE HEARD SOME ON THE 
OTHER SIDE SUGGEST THAT THIS 
PROCESS IS ABOUT OVERTURNING AN 
ELECTION.
THAT IS ABSURD.
THIS IS ABOUT PRESIDENT TRUMP 
USING HIS OFFICE TO TRY AND RIG 
THE NEXT ELECTION.
THINK ABOUT THAT.
WE LIKE TO SAY THAT EVERY VOTE 
MATTERS.
THAT EVERY VOTE COUNTS.
WE LEARNED IN BRAID SCHOOL ABOUT
ALL THE PEOPLE WHO FOUGHT AND 
DIED FOR THAT RIGHT.
IT IS A SACRED THING.
YOU KNOW, I REMEMBER AS A MIDDLE
SCHOOLER, IN 1972, LEAVING 
LEAFLETS AT THE HOMES OF 
POTENTIAL VOTERS URGING THEM TO 
SUPPORT GEORGE McGOVERN FOR 
PRESIDENT -- NO RELATION, BY THE
WAY.
I THOUGHT HE HAD A GREAT LAST 
NAME.
HE WAS DEDICATED TO ENDING THE 
WAR IN VIETNAM, FEEDING THE 
HUNGRY, HELPING THE POOR.
I REMEMBER EVEN TO THIS DAY WHAT
AN HONOR IT WAS TO ASK PEOPLE TO
SUPPORT HIM.
EVEN THOUGH I WAS TOO YOUNG TO 
VOTE MYSELF.
WHAT A PRIVILEGE LATER IN LIFE 
TO ASK FOR VOTER SUPPORT IN MY 
OWN CAMPAIGNS.
I'VE BEEN A PART OF WINNING 
CAMPAIGNS AND PART OF LOSING 
ONES, TOO.
PEOPLE I THOUGHT WOULD BE GREAT 
PRESIDENTS LIKE SENATOR McGOVERN
WERE NEVER GIVEN THAT CHANCE.
MAKE NO MISTAKE, I WAS 
DISAPPOINTED BUT I ACCEPTED IT.
I WOULD TAKE LOSING AN ELECTION 
ANY DAY OF THE WEEK WHEN THE 
AMERICAN PEOPLE RENDER THAT 
VERDICT.
I WILL NEVER BE OKAY IF OTHER 
NATIONS DECIDE OUR LEADERS FOR 
US.
THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED 
STATES IS ROLLING OUT THE 
WELCOME MAT FOR THAT KIND OF 
FOREIGN INTERFERENCE.
TO NOT ACT WOULD SET A DANGEROUS
PRECEDENT.
NOT JUST FOR THIS PRESIDENT, BUT
FOR EVERY FUTURE PRESIDENT.
THE EVIDENCE IS AS CLEAR AS IT 
IS OVERWHELMING.
AND THIS ADMINISTRATION HAS NOT 
HANDED OVER A SINGLE SUBPOENAED 
DOCUMENT TO REFUTE IT.
NOT ONE.
NOW IT'S UP TO US TO DECIDE 
WHETHER THE UNITED STATES IS 
STILL A NATION WHERE NO ONE IS 
ABOVE THE LAW.
OR WHETHER AMERICA IS ALLOWED TO
BECOME A LAND RUN BY THOSE WHO 
ACT MORE LIKE KINGS OR QUEENS.
AS IF THE LAW DOESN'T APPLY TO 
THEM.
IT'S NO SECRET THAT PRESIDENT 
TRUMP HAS A PENCHANT FOR COZYING
UP TO NOTORIOUS DICTADICTATORS.
HE COZIED UP TO PRESIDENT PUTIN,
FELL IN LOVE WITH KIM JONG-UN.
EVERY DAY WE LET PRESIDENT TRUMP
ACT LIKE THE LAW DOESN'T APPLY 
TO HIM, WE MOVE A LITTLE CLOSER 
TO THEM.
BENJAMIN FRANKLIN LEFT THE 
CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION AND 
SAID THE FOUNDERS CREATED A 
REPUBLIC, IF YOU CAN KEEP IT.
THERE ARE NO GUARANTEES.
OUR SYSTEM OF GOVERNMENT WILL 
PERSIST ONLY IF WE FIGHT FOR IT.
THE SIMPLE QUESTION FOR US IS 
THIS -- ARE WE WILLING TO FIGHT 
FOR THIS DEMOCRACY?
I EXPECT WE'LL HAVE A LOT OF 
DEBATE HERE TODAY.
I HOPE EVERYONE SEARCHES THEIR 
CONSCIOUS.
TO MY REPUBLICAN FRIENDS, 
IMAGINE ANY DEMOCRATIC PRESIDENT
SITTING IN THE OVAL OFFICE, 
PRESIDENT OBAMA, PRESIDENT 
CLINTON, ANY OF THEM, WOULD YOUR
ANSWER HERE STILL BE THE SAME?
NO ONE SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO USE 
THE POWERS OF THE PRESIDENCY TO 
UNDERMINE OUR ELECTIONS OR 
CHEAT
IN A CAMPAIGN, NO MATTER WHO IT 
IS OR NO MATTER WHAT THEIR 
PARTY.
WE ALL TOOK AN OATH.
NOT TO DEFEND A POLITICAL PARTY,
BUT TO UPHOLD THE CONSTITUTION 
OF THE UNITED STATES.
HISTORY IS TESTING US.
WE CAN'T CONTROL WHAT THE SENATE
WILL DO.
BUT EACH OF US CAN DECIDE 
WHETHER WE PASS THAT TEST, 
WHETHER WE DEFEND OUR DEMOCRACY 
AND WHETHER WE UPHOLD OUR OATH.
TODAY WE'LL PUT A PROCESS IN 
PLACE TO CONSIDER THE ARTICLES 
ON THE HOUSE FLOOR.
WHEN I CAST MY VOTE IN FAVOR, MY
CONSCIOUS WILL BE CLEAR.
BEFORE I TURN TO OUR RANKING 
MEMBER, I WANT TO FIRST 
RECOGNIZE HIS LEADERSHIP ON THIS
COMMITTEE.
WE TAKE UP A LOT OF CONTENTIOUS 
MATTERS UP HERE IN THE RULES 
COMMITTEE.
AND OFTEN WE ARE ON DIFFERENT 
SIDES OF MANY ISSUES.
BUT HE LEADS WITH INTEGRITY AND 
HE CARES DEEPLY ABOUT THIS 
HOUSE.
THERE WILL BE PASSIONATE 
DISAGREEMENT HERE TODAY, BUT I 
HAVE NO DOUBT WE WILL CONTINUE 
WORKING TOGETHER IN THE FUTURE 
AND SIDE BY SIDE ON THIS 
COMMITTEE TO BETTER THIS 
INSTITUTION.
LET ME ALSO STATE FOR THE RECORD
THAT CHAIRMAN NADLER IS UNABLE 
TO BE HERE TODAY BECAUSE OF A 
FAMILY MEDICAL EMERGENCY.
WE ARE ALL KEEPING HIM AND HIS 
FAMILY IN OUR THOUGHTS AND 
PRAYERS.
TESTIFYING INSTEAD TODAY IS 
CONGRESSMAN RASKIN.
HE'S NOT ONLY A VALUED MEMBER OF
THIS COMMITTEE, BUT ALSO THE 
JUDICIARY AND OVERSIGHTS 
COMMITTEE.
IN ADDITION, CONGRESSMAN RASKIN 
IS A CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 
PROFESSOR.
SO HE HAS A UNIQUE 
UNDERSTANDING WHAT WE'RE TALKING
ABOUT HERE TODAY.
I APPRECIATE HIM STEPPING IN AND
TESTIFYING THIS MORNING.
I WANT TO WELCOME BACK RANKING 
MEMBER COLLINS, FORMER MEMBER OF
THE RULES COMMITTEE.
SOMEONE WHO I DON'T OFTEN AGREE 
WITH, BUT SOMEONE WHO I RESPECT 
NONETHELESS AND APPRECIATE ALL 
OF HIS CONTRIBUTIONS TO THIS 
INSTITUTION.
HAVING SAID THAT, I NOW WILL 
TURN THIS OVER TO OUR RANKING 
MEMBER, MR. COLE FOR ME REMARKS 
HE WISHES TO MAKE.
>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH, MR. 
CHAIRMAN.
LET ME BEGIN BY RECIPROCATING 
PERSONAL AND PROFESSIONAL 
RESPECT FOR YOU AND THE OTHER 
MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE.
THIS IS A DAY WHERE WE'RE GOING 
TO DISAGREE AND DISAGREE 
STRONGLY.
IT IS, AS YOU REFERENCED, MANIER
CHAIRMAN, A SAD DAY.
A SAD DAY FOR ME PERSONALLY, FOR
THE RULES COMMITTEE, FOR THE 
INSTITUTION OF THE HOUSE AND FOR
THE AMERICAN PEOPLE.
WE'RE MEETING TODAY ON A RULE 
FOR CONSIDERING ARTICLES OF 
IMPEACHMENT AGAINST A SITTING 
PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES 
ON THE FLOOR OF THE HOUSE OF 
REPRESENTATIVES.
THIS IS NOT THE RESULT OF A FAIR
PROCESS, AND CERTAINLY NOT A 
BIPARTISAN ONE.
SADLY THE DEMOCRATS IMPEACHMENT 
INQUIRY HAS BEEN FLAWED AND 
PARTISANED FROM DAY ONE.
SO I GUESS IT SHOULD COME AS NO 
SURPRISE THAT DEMOCRATS 
PREORDAINED OUTCOME IS ALSO 
FLAWED AND PARTISAN.
SEVEN WEEKS AGO WHEN THIS 
COMMITTEE MET TO CONSIDER A 
RESOLUTION TO GUIDE THE PROCESS 
FOR THE DEMOCRATS UNPRECEDENTED 
IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY I WARNED 
THAT THEY WERE TREADING ON SHAKY
GROUND WITH THEIR UNFAIR AND 
CLOSED PROCESS.
REFLECTING HOW THINGS HAVE 
PLAYED OUT SINCE THEN, REAFFIRMS
MY EARLIER JUDGMENT THAT THIS 
FLAWED PROCESS WAS CRAFTED TO 
ENSURE A PARTISAN PREORDAINED 
RESULT.
UNFORTUNATELY THIS ENTIRE 
PROCESS WAS TARNISHED FURTHER BY
THE SPEED WITH WHICH MY 
DEMOCRATIC COLLEAGUES ON THE 
O
JUDICIARY AND INTELLIGENCE 
COMMITTEES RUSHED TO IMPEACH THE
PRESIDENT FOR SOMETHING, 
ANYTHING, WHETHER THERE ARE 
STONES LEFT UNTURNED OR WHETHER 
THERE'S ANY PROOF AT ALL.
THERE'S NO WAY THIS CAN OR 
SHOULD BE VIEWED AS LEGITIMATE.
CERTAINLY NOT BY REPUBLICANS 
WHOSE MINORITY RIGHTS HAVE BEEN 
TRAMPLED ON EVERY STEP ALONG THE
WAY AND CERTAINLY NOT BY THE 
AMERICAN PEOPLE OBSERVING THIS 
DISASTROUS POLITICAL SHOW SCENE 
BY SCENE.
AS I'VE SAID BEFORE, UNLIKE ANY 
IMPEACHMENT PROCEEDINGS IN 
MODERN HISTORY, THE PARTISAN 
PROCESS PRESCRIBED AND PURSUED 
BY DEMOCRATS IS TRULY 
UNPRECEDENTED.
IT CONTRADICTS SPEAKER PELOSI'S 
OWN WORDS, BACK IN MARCH OF THIS
YEAR, SHE SAID, QUOTE, 
IMPEACHMENT IS SO DIVISIVE TO 
THE COUNTRY THAT UNLESS THERE'S 
SOMETHING SO COMPELLING AND 
OVERWHELMING AND BIPARTISAN, I 
DON'T THINK WE SHOULD GO DOWN 
THAT PATH BECAUSE IT DIVIDES THE
COUNTRY, UNQUOTE.
THE KEY WORD IS BIPARTISAN.
INDEED DURING THE NIXON AND 
CLINTON IMPEACHMENTS THE PROCESS
FOR OPENING THE INQUIRY WAS 
CONSIDERED ON A BIPARTISAN 
BASIS.
BACK THEN BOTH SIDES TREATED THE
PROCESS WITH THE SERIOUSNESS IT 
DESERVED.
NEGOTIATING AND FINDING 
AGREEMENT ACROSS THE AISLE TO 
ENSURE FAIRNESS AND DUE PROCESS 
FOR ALL INVOLVED IN THE 
INQUIRIES.
BUT THAT'S NOT THE CASE TODAY.
INSTEAD DEMOCRATS HAVE PUSHED 
FORWARD USING A PARTISAN PROCESS
THAT LIMITED THE PRESIDENT'S 
RIGHT TO DUE PROCESS, PREVENTED 
THE MINORITY FROM EXERCISING 
THEIR RIGHTS AND CHARGED AHEAD 
TOWARDS A VOTE TO IMPEACH THE 
PRESIDENT WHETHER THE EVIDENCE 
IS THERE OR NOT.
I SUPPOSE I SHOULD NOT BE 
SURPRISED BY ANY OF THIS.
DEMOCRATS IN THE HOUSE HAVE BEEN
PUSHING TO IMPEACH PRESIDENT 
TRUMP SINCE BEFORE HE WAS EVEN 
SWORN IN.
IN DECEMBER OF 2017, WHEN A 
CURRENT DEMOCRATIC MEMBER OF THE
HOUSE FORCED A VOTE ON 
IMPEACHMENT RESOLUTION, 58 
DEMOCRATS VOTED THEN TO IMPEACH 
THE PRESIDENT, EVEN WITHOUT AN 
INVESTIGATION, WITHOUT ANY 
EVIDENCE TO POINT TO.
THOSE NUMBERS ARE ONLY GROWN 
SINCE THEN.
TO THE POINT WHERE THE MAJORITY 
IS NOW PUSHING FORWARD WITH A 
FINAL VOTE ON IMPEACHMENT, 
NEEDLESS OF WHERE IT TAKES THE 
COUNTRY AND REGARDLESS OF 
WHETHER THEY HAVE PROVEN THEIR 
CASE.
MR. CHAIRMAN, IT DIDN'T HAVE TO 
BE THIS WAY.
THE WHEN SHE BECAME ENTRUSTED 
WITH THE GAVEL OVER IN THE 
HOUSE, SPEAKER PELOSI ASSURED US
ALL SHE WOULD NOT MOVE FORWARD 
WITH IMPEACHMENT UNLESS IT WAS 
BIPARTISAN AND UNLESS THERE WAS 
A CLEAR CONSENSUS IN THE 
COUNTRY.
NEITHER OF THOSE TWO COMMISSIONS
ARE PRESENT HERE.
INDEED, THE LATEST REAL CLEAR 
POLITICS AVERAGE OF POLLS ON 
IMPEACHMENT SHOWS THE COUNTRY 
EVENLY SPLIT, 46.5 OF AMERICANS 
IN FAVOR OF IMPEACHMENT, 46.5% 
AGAINST.
THAT IS HARDLY WHAT I WOULD CALL
A NATIONAL CONSENSUS IN FAVOR OF
IMPEACHING PRESIDENT TRUMP.
WHEN HALF OF AMERICANS ARE 
TELLING YOU THAT WHAT YOU'RE 
DOING IS WRONG, YOU SHOULD 
LISTEN.
I THINK THIS IS THE CASE GIVEN 
HOW CLOSE WE ARE TO THE NEXT 
ELECTION.
IN 11 MONTHS THE AMERICAN PEOPLE
ARE GOING TO VOTE ON THE NEXT 
PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES.
WHY ARE WE PLUNGING THE COUNTRY 
INTO THIS TURMOIL NOW WHEN THE 
VOTERS THEMSELVES WILL RESOLVE 
THE MATTER ONE WAY OR ANOTHER 
LESS THAN A YEAR FROM TODAY.
ALL IT DOES ACHIEVE IS MAKE THE 
POLITICAL POLARIZATION AND 
DIVISIONS IN OUR COUNTRY EVEN 
WORSE.
THAT MAKES NO SENSE TO ME.
WE MAY BE MOVING FORWARD WITH A 
VOTE, I CERTAINLY DO NOT BELIEVE
THE MAJORITY HAS PROVEN ITS CASE
OR CONVINCED THE AMERICAN PEOPLE
THAT THE WEEKS OF WASTED TIME 
WAS WORTH IT.
PERSONALLY I BELIEVE THE 
ARTICLES THEMSELVES ARE 
UNWARRANTED.
THE MAJORITY IS SEEKING TO 
REMOVE THE PRESIDENT OVER 
SOMETHING THAT DIDN'T HAPPEN.
THE ALLEGED QUID PRO QUO WITH 
THE PRESIDENT OF UKRAINE.
NEVER MIND THAT THE FOREIGN AID 
WENT TO UKRAINE AS IT WAS 
SUPPOSED TO, NEVER MIND THAT NO 
INVESTIGATIONS WERE REQUIRED FOR
THE UKRAINE TO GET THE AID.
AND NEVER MIND THAT THE TWO 
PARTICIPANTS IN THE FAMOUS 
CONVERSATION, PRESIDENT TRUMP 
AND PRESIDENT ZELENSKY, SAID 
NOTHING INAPPROPRIATE HAPPENED.
ACCORDING TO THE MAJORITY, 
HOWEVER, A QUID PRO QUO THAT 
NEVER EXISTED IS AN APPROPRIATE 
BASIS FOR REMOVING THE PRESIDENT
FROM OFFICE.
EVEN THOUGH THE MAJORITY HAS NOT
PROVEN ITS CASE, EVEN THOUGH 
THERE'S NO BASIS FOR 
IMPEACHMENT, THEY'RE STILL 
MOVING FORWARD TODAY.
WHAT I CANNOT DISCERN IS A 
LEGITIMATE REASON WHY.
WHY THE MAJORITY IS MOVING 
FORWARD WHEN THE PROCESS IS SO 
PARTISAN.
WHY THEY'RE MOVING FORWARD WHEN 
THE AMERICAN PEOPLE ARE NOT WITH
THEM, WHY THEY ARE MOVING 
FORWARD WHEN THEY HAVE NOT 
PROVEN THEIR CASE AND WHY THEY 
ARE MOVING FORWARD WHEN THERE'S 
NO BASIS FOR IMPEACHMENT.
WHY?
WHY PUT THE COUNTRY THROUGH ALL 
OF THIS?
IT MAKES EVEN LESS SENSE TO ME 
WHEN WE CONSIDER THE REALITIES 
OF THE UNITED STATES SENATE.
WE ALREADY KNOW THAT THE VOTES 
TO CONVICT AND REMOVE THE 
PRESIDENT FROM OFFICE SIMPLY 
AREN'T THERE.
BLUNTLY PUT THIS IS A MATTER 
THAT CONGRESS AS A WHOLE CANNOT 
RESOLVE ON ITS OWN.
THE MAJORITY IS PLUNGING FORWARD
REGARDLESS OF THE NEEDLESS DRAMA
OR DAMAGE TO THE INSTITUTION OR 
THE COUNTRY KNOWING FULL WELL AT
THE END OF THE DAY THE PRESIDENT
WILL REMAIN IN OFFICE.
FOR WHAT?
SCORING POLITICAL POINTS WITH 
THEIR PARTY'S BASE?
AGAIN, MR. CHAIRMAN, THIS DOES 
NOT MAKE SENSE TO ME.
WE DIDN'T NEED TO GO THIS ROUTE.
WE DIDN'T NEED TO PUSH FORWARD 
ON A PARTISAN IMPEACHMENT 
PROCESS THAT HAD ONLY ONE 
POSSIBLE RESULT.
BUT WE'RE HERE ANY WAY 
REGARDLESS OF THE DAMAGE IT DOES
TO THE INSTITUTION AND 
REGARDLESS OF HOW MUCH FURTHER 
IT DIVIDES THE COUNTRY.
AS I SAID AT THE BEGINNING, MR. 
CHAIRMAN, THIS IS A SAD DAY FOR 
ALL OF US.
IT IS ESPECIALLY SAD FOR ME 
KNOWING THIS DAY WAS INEVITABLE.
NO MATTER WHAT HAPPENS, NO 
MATTER WHERE THE INVESTIGATIONS 
LED, THE DEMOCRATIC MAJORITY IN 
THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES WAS
PUSHING SINCE THE DAY THEY TOOK 
OVER TO IMPEACH PRESIDENT TRUMP.
FACTS DON'T WARRANT THAT, MR. 
CHAIRMAN.
THE PROCESS IS UNWORTHY OF THE 
OUTCOME.
THE PRESIDENT SHOULD NOT BE 
IMPEACHED, I URGE ALL MEMBERS 
BOTH HERE AND IN THE RULES 
COMMITTEE AND TOMORROW IN THE 
HOUSE FLOOR TO VOTE NO.
THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN.
>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
I APPRECIATE YOUR COMMENTS.
OBVIOUSLY WE HAVE STRONG 
DISAGREEMENTS.
I JUST WANT A TECHNICAL POINT I 
WOULD LIKE TO MAKE.
NONE OF US IN THIS HOUSE HAVE 
HAD AN OPPORTUNITY TO VOTE ON 
IMPEACHMENT.
THE RESOLUTION THAT THE 
GENTLEMAN REFERS TO WAS -- SOME 
OF US OPPOSED TABLING IT, WE 
THOUGHT IT SHOULD GO TO 
COMMITTEE WHERE IT COULD BE 
APPROPRIATELY EVALUATED.
THE COMMITTEES HAVE DONE THEIR 
WORK, INVESTIGATED THE WRONG 
DOINGS, AND NOW THE COMMITTEE 
RECOMMENDED ARTICLES OF 
IMPEACHMENT.
THE FIRST TIME ANYONE CAN VOTE 
ON IMPEACHMENT IS TOMORROW.
I WANT TO WELCOME BOTH OF OUR 
WITNESSES.
AND MR. RASKIN, WE BEGIN WITH 
YOU.
>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH, MR. 
CHAIRMAN.
GOOD MORNING, CHAIR MARN 
CHAIRMAN McCOVER, GOOD MORNING 
TO MY GOOD FRIEND MR. COLLINS.
IT'S MY SOLEMN RESPONSIBILITY 
THIS MORNING TO PRESENT FOR YOUR
CONSIDERATION HOUSE RESOLUTION 
755 AND THE ACCOMPANYING REPORT 
CONCERNING THE IMPEACHMENT OF 
DONALD JOHN TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF 
THE UNITED STATES FOR HIGH 
CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS 
COMMITTED AGAINST THE PEOPLE OF 
THE UNITED STATES.
I'M APPEARING, AS YOU SAID, MR. 
CHAIRMAN, THIS MORNING IN PLACE 
OF CHAIRMAN NADLER, WHO COULD 
NOT BE WITH US.
I'M SURE I SPEAK FOR ALL THE 
MEMBERS OF BOTH THE JUDICIARY 
COMMITTEE AND RULES COMMITTEE 
SENDING STRENGTH, LOVE AND 
PRAYERS TO CHAIRMAN NADLER'S 
WIFE JOYCE AND ALL OUR HOPES FOR
A SPEEDY RECOVERY.
THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE ALONG 
WITH OTHER COMMITTEES WHICH 
INVESTIGATED PRESIDENT TRUMP'S 
OFFENSES, THE PERMANENT SELECT 
COMMITTEE ON INTELLIGENCE, THE 
COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND 
REFORM BRING THESE ARTICLES WITH
A SOLID PURPOSE AND HEAVY HEART 
BUT IN ACTIVE FAITH WITH THE 
CONSTITUTIONAL OATHS OF OFFICE 
WE HAVE ALL SWORN.
INVESTIGATING COMMITTEES 
CONDUCTED 100 HOURS OF 
DEPOSITION TESTIMONY WITH 17 
SWORN WITNESSES AND 30 HOURS OF 
PUBLIC TESTIMONY WITH 12 
WITNESSES.
THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE IS NOW 
IN POSSESSION OF OVERWHELMING 
EVIDENCE THAT THE PRESIDENT OF 
THE UNITED STATES HAS COMMITTED 
HIGH CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS, 
VIOLATED 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 VIOLATED HIS 
CONSTITUTIONAL DUTY TO TAKE CARE
THAT THE LAWS ARE FAITHFULLY 
EXECUTED.
WE PRESENT TWO ARTICLES OF 
IMPEACHMENT SUPPORTED BY 
HUNDREDS OF PAGES OF DETAILED 
EVIDENCE AND METICULOUS 
ANALYSIS.
THE EVIDENCE AND ANALYSIS LEAD 
TO THE CONCLUSIONS EMBODIED IN 
THESE ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT.
FIRST, PRESIDENT TRUMP HAS 
COMMITTED THE HIGH CRIME AND 
MISDEMEANOR OF ABUSE OF OFFICE.
HE ABUSED THE AWESOME POWERS OF 
THE PRESIDENCY BY USING HIS 
OFFICE TO CORRUPTLY DEMAND A 
FOREIGN GOVERNMENT INTERFERE IN 
OUR AMERICAN PRESIDENTIAL 
ELECTION IN ORDER TO PROMOTE HIS
OWN POLITICAL CAMPAIGN IN 2020.
HE CORRUPTLY CONDITIONED THE 
RELEASE OF $391 MILLION IN 
FOREIGN SECURITY ASSISTANCE THAT
HE HELD BACK FROM THE UKRAINIAN 
GOVERNMENT ALONG WITH A LONG 
HOPE FOR HOUSE PRESIDENTIAL 
MEETING.
HE CONDITIONED THOSE ON 
UKRAINIAN PRESIDENT ZELENSKY'S 
AGREEMENT TO GO PUBLIC WITH TWO 
STATEMENTS, ONE STATEMENT WAS 
ANNOUNCING A CRIMINAL 
INVESTIGATION INTO FORMER VICE 
PRESIDENT JOE BIDEN, A LEADING 
PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE AND RIVAL
OF THE PRESIDENT, THE OTHER 
STATEMENT WAS ANNOUNCING AN 
INVESTIGATION THAT WOULD 
REHABILITATE A DISCREDITED PRO 
RUSSIAN CONSPIRACY THEORY 
SHOWING IT WAS UKRAINE AND NOT 
PUTIN'S RUSSIA THAT TRIED TO 
DISRUPT THE LAST AMERICAN 
PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION IN 2016.
THIS SCHEME TO CORRUPT AN 
AMERICAN PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION 
SUBORDINATED THE DEMOCRATIC 
SOVEREIGNTY OF THE PEOPLE TO THE
PRIVATE POLITICAL AMBITIONS OF 
ONE MAN, THE PRESIDENT HIMSELF.
IT IMMEDIATELY PLACED THE 
NATIONAL SECURITY INTERESTS OF 
THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AT 
RISK AND IT CONTINUES TO EMBROIL
THE NATION AND OUR GOVERNMENT IN
CONFLICT.
SECOND, AFTER THIS CORRUPT 
SCHEME CAME TO LIGHT, NUMEROUS 
PUBLIC SERVANTS WITH KNOWLEDGE 
OF KEY EVENTS SURFACED TO 
TESTIFY IN OUR COMMITTEE 
INVESTIGATIONS ABOUT THE 
PRESIDENT'S ACTIONS, PRESIDENT 
TRUMP DIRECTED THE WHOLESALE 
CATEGOICAL AND OBSTRUCTION INTO
THIS IMPEACHMENT INVESTIGATION.
HE DID SO BY ORDERING A BLOCKADE
OF ADMINISTRATION WITNESSES, BY 
TRYING TO MUZZLE AND INTIMIDATE 
WITNESSES WHO DID COME FORWARD 
AND DID NOT PRODUCE A SINGLE 
SUBPOENAED DOCUMENT.
IN THE HISTORY OF THE REPUBLIC 
NO PRESIDENT OTHER THAN THIS ONE
HAS EVER CLAIMED AND EXERCISED 
THE UNILATERAL RIGHT AND POWER 
TO THWART AND DEFEAT A HOUSE 
PRESIDENTIAL IMPEACHMENT 
INQUIRY.
THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN THE FINAL 
AND UNAVOIDABLE RESULT OF THE 
PRESIDENT'S OUT RANL OUTRAGEOUS 
OF CONGRESS IF 17 HAD NOT COME 
FORWARD AND TESTIFIED ABOUT THE 
UKRAINE SHAKEDOWN AND ITS 
SCANDALOUS EFFECTS ON OUR 
NATIONAL SECURITY, OUR 
DEMOCRACY, AND OUR 
CONSTITUTIONAL SYSTEM OF 
GOVERNMENT.
MAKE NO MISTAKE, WHILE THIS 
INVESTIGATION WAS SAVED BY THE 
COURAGE AND OLD-FASHIONED 
PATRIOTISM OF WITNESSES LIKE 
AMBASSADOR WILLIAM TAYLOR, 
AMBASSADOR MARIA YOVANOVITCH, 
DR. FIONA HILL, THE PRESIDENT'S 
AGGRESSIVE AND UNPRECEDENTED 
RESISTANCE TO CONGRESSIONAL 
SUBPOENAS FOR WITNESSES AND 
DOCUMENTS IS BLATANTLY AND 
DANGEROUSLY UNCONSTITUTIONAL.
IF ACCEPTED, AND NORMALIZED NOW,
IT WILL UNDERMINE PERHAPS FOR 
ALL TIME THE CONGRESSIONAL 
IMPEACHMENT POWER ITSELF.
WHICH IS THE PEOPLES LAST 
INSTRUMENT OF CONSTITUTIONAL 
SELF-DEFENSE AGAINST A SITTING 
PRESIDENT WHO BEHAVES LIKE A 
KING AND TRAMPLES THE RULE OF 
LAW.
BY OBSTRUCTING AN IMPEACHMENT 
INQUIRY WITH INPUNITY, THE 
FRAMERS SAID WE SHOULD PROTECT 
OURSELVES FROM A PRESIDENT BEING
A TYRANT AND A DESPITE.
THESE ARTICLES CHARGE THAT 
PRESIDENT TRUMP IS ENGAGED IN 
SYSTEMATIC ABUSE OF HIS POWERS, 
OBSTRUCTED CONGRESS AND REALIZED
THE WORST FEARS OF THE FRAMERS 
BY SUBORDINATING OUR NATIONAL 
SECURITY AND DRAGGING FOREIGN 
POWERS INTO AMERICAN POLITICS TO
CORRUPT OUR ELECTIONS ALL FOR 
THE GREATER CAUSE OF HIS OWN 
PERSONAL GAIN AND AMBITION.
ARTICLE 1 PROVIDES THAT THE 
PRESIDENT SHALL BE -- AS OUR 
CONSTITUTIONAL EXPERT WITNESSES 
TESTIFIED, THE FRAMERS SOUGHT TO
CAPTURE A BROAD RANGE OF 
PRESIDENTIAL MISCONDUCT AND 
WRONG DOING THROUGH THIS 
PROVISION.
BUT THE COMMANDING AND 
COMPREHENSIVE IMPULSE FOR 
INCLUDING IMPEACHMENT POWER IN 
THE CONSTITUTION WAS TO PREVENT 
THE PRESIDENT'S ABUSE OF POWER 
WHICH THE FRAMERS SAW AS THE 
ESSENCE OF IMPEACHABLE CONDUCT.
IN FEDERALIST 65, HAMILTON WROTE
IMPEACHABLE OFFENSES ARE DEFINED
OF ABUSE OF TRUST.
FROM THE RATIFYING CONVENTIONS 
WE FIND THE FRAMERS FEARED 
PRINCIPALLY THREE KINDS OF 
BETRAYAL OF OFFICE.
BY ABUSIVE POWER BY EXPLOITING 
PUBLIC OFFICE FOR PRIVATE, 
POLITICAL, FINANCIAL GAIN.
NUMBER ONE.
NUMBER TWO, ABUSE OF POWER BY 
BETRAYING THE NATIONAL INTEREST 
IN THE PUBLIC TRUST THROUGH 
ENTANGLEMENT WITH FOREIGN 
GOVERNMENTS.
AND NUMBER THREE, ABUSE OF POWER
BY CORRUPTING DEMOCRATIC 
ELECTIONS AND DENYING THE PEOPLE
PROP EVERY AGENCY THROUGH SELF 
GOVERNMENT.
ACCORDING TO THE FRAMERS, ANY 
ONE OF THESE VIOLATIONS OF THE 
PUBLIC TRUST WOULD BE ENOUGH TO 
JUSTIFY PRESIDENTIAL IMPEACHMENT
FOR ABUSE OF POWER.
HOWEVER PRESIDENT TRUMP'S 
CONDUCT HAS REALIZED ALL THREE 
OF THE FRAMERS WORST FEARS OF 
PRESIDENTIAL ABUSE OF POWER.
NEVER BEFORE IN AMERICAN HISTORY
HAS AN IMPEACHMENT INVESTIGATION
CRYSTALIZED IN FINDINGS OF 
CONDUCT THAT IMPLICATE ALL OF 
THE MAJOR REASONS THAT THE 
FRAMERS BUILT IMPEACHMENT INTO 
OUR CONSTITUTION.
MR. CHAIRMAN, THE CONDUCT WE SET
BEFORE YOU TODAY IS NOT SOME 
KIND OF SURPRISING ABERRATION OR
DEVIATION IN THE PRESIDENT'S 
BEHAVIOR FOR WHICH HE IS 
REMORSEFUL.
ON THE CONTRARY, THE PRESIDENT 
IS COMPLETELY UNREPENTANT AND 
DECLARES HIS BEHAVIOR HERE 
PERFECT, ABSOLUTELY PERFECT.
HE SAYS THAT ARTICLE II OF THE 
CONSTITUTION GIVES HIM THE POWER
TO DO WHATEVER HE WANTS, 
CONVENIENTLY FORGETTING ARTICLE 
II SECTION 4 WHICH GIVES US THE 
POWER TO CHECK HIS MISCONDUCT 
WITH THE INSTRUMENT OF 
IMPEACHMENT.
WE BELIEVE THIS CONDUCT IS 
IMPEACHABLE AND SHOULD NEVER 
TAKE PLACE AGAIN UNDER OUR 
CONSTITUTIONAL SYSTEM.
HE BELIEVES HIS CONDUCT IS 
PERFECT AND WE KNOW, THEREFOREs 
IT WILL TAKE PLACE AGAIN AND 
AGAIN.
OUR REPORT POINTS OUT THIS 
PATTERN OF SHOWING SPECTACULAR 
DISRESPECT FOR THE RULE OF LAW 
BY INVITING AND WELCOMING 
FOREIGN POWER IN OUR ELECTIONS 
WAS IN PLAIN VIEW IN THE 2016 
ELECTION.
CANDIDATE DONALD TRUMP UTTERED 
THE INFAMOUS WORDS, RUSSIA, IF 
YOU'RE LISTENING, I HOPE YOU'RE 
ABLE TO FIND THE 30,000 EMAILS 
THAT ARE MISSING AND JUST FIVE 
HOURS LATER RUSSIAN AGENTS MOVED
TO HACK HIS POLITICAL OPPONENTS 
COMPUTERS AS PART OF THEIR 
CONTINUING EFFORT TO UPEND THE 
2016 PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGN.
AS IDENTIFIED BY THE JUSTICE 
DEPARTMENT, THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN 
HAD MORE THAN 100 CONTACTS WITH 
RUSSIAN OPERATIVES OVER THE 
COURSE OF THAT CAMPAIGN AND NONE
OF THEM WERE REPORTED BY THE 
TRUMP CAMPAIGN TO LAW 
ENFORCEMENT OR NATIONAL SECURITY
AGENCIES.
MOREOVER, DURING THE SPECIAL 
COUNCIL INVESTIGATION INTO THE 
SWEEPING AND SYSTEMATIC RUSSIAN 
CAMPAIGN TO SUBVERT OUR 
ELECTION, PRESIDENT TRUMP 
ENGAGED IN ANOTHER SYSTEMATIC 
CAMPAIGN OF OBSTRUCTION OF THE 
INVESTIGATIVE PROCESS TO OBSCURE
HIS OWN INVOLVEMENT.
MR. CHAIRMAN, WE PRESENT YOU NOT
JUST WITH HIGH CRIMES AND 
MISDEMEANORS, BUT A 
CONSTITUTIONAL CRIME IN 
PROGRESS, UP TO THIS VERY 
MINUTE.
MAYOR GIULIANI, THE PRESIDENT'S 
PRIVATE LAWYER, FRESH FROM HIS 
OVERSEAS TRAVEL LOOKING TO 
REHABILITATE ONCE AGAIN THE 
DISCREDITED CONSPIRACY THEORIES 
AT THE HEART OF THE PRESIDENT'S 
DEFENSE ADMITTED THAT HE 
PARTICIPATED DIRECTLY IN THE 
SMEAR CAMPAIGN TO OUST 
AMBASSADOR YOVANOVITCH FROM HER 
JOB.
ACCORDING TO THE "NEW YORKER" 
MAGAZINE, GIULIANI SAID I 
BELIEVE I NEEDED YOVANOVITCH OUT
OF THE WAY.
SHE WAS GOING TO MAKE THE 
INVESTIGATIONS DIFFICULT FOR 
EVERYONE.
HERE, OF COURSE, MR. GIULIANI 
REFERS TO THE PRESIDENT'S SOUGHT
OFF INVESTIGATIONS INTO JOE 
BIDEN AND THE REMNANTS OF THE 
DISCREDITED CONSPIRACY THEORY 
PUSHED BY RUSSIA AS PROPAGANDA 
THAT IT WAS UKRAINE AND NOT 
RUSSIA THAT INTERFERED IN THE 
2016 AMERICAN PRESIDENTIAL 
ELECTION.
GIVEN THAT AN UNREPENTANT 
PRESIDENT CONSIDERS HIS BEHAVIOR
PERFECT, GIVEN THAT HE THINKS 
THE CONSTITUTION EMPOWERS HIM TO
DO WHATEVER HE WANTS, GIVEN THAT
HE AND HIS TEAM ARE STILL 
AWAITING PRESIDENT ZELENSKY'S 
STATEMENT ON INVESTIGATING JOE 
BIDEN, GIVEN THAT HE HAS ALREADY
INVITED CHINA TO PERFORM AN 
INVESTIGATION OF ITS OWN, WE CAN
ONLY ASK WHAT THE 2020 ELECTION 
WILL BE LIKE OR, INDEED, WHAT 
ANY FUTURE ELECTION IN AMERICA 
WILL BE LIKE IF WE JUST LET THIS
MISCONDUCT GO AND AUTHORIZE AND 
LICENSE PRESIDENTS TO COERCE, 
CAJOLE, PRESSURE AND ENTICE 
FOREIGN POWERTORS ENTER OUR 
ELECTION CAMPAIGNS WHO WILL BE 
INVITED IN NEXT?
THE PRESIDENT'S CONTINUING 
COURSE OF CONDUCT CONSTITUTES A 
CLEAR AND PRESENT DANGER TO 
DEMOCRACY IN AMERICA.
WE CANNOT ALLOW THIS MISCONDUCT 
TO PASS.
IT WOULD BE A SELLOUT OF OUR 
CONSTITUTION, OUR FOREIGN 
POLICY, OUR NATIONAL SECURITY, 
AND OUR DEMOCRACY.
THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN.
I YIELD BACK.
>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH, MR. 
COLLINS.
WELCOME BACK TO THE RULES 
COMMITTEE.
>> THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN.
GOOD TO SEE YOU.
AND MR. COLE AS WELL, MEMBERS 
WHO HAVE SPENT MANY HOURS IN 
THIS ROOM WITH, YOU KNOW, THE 
CHAIRMAN MADE A STATEMENT ABOUT 
MY FRIEND HERE, MR. RASKIN, HE 
IS A FINE ATTORNEY.
IT'S BEEN AMAZING TO ME 
THROUGHOUT THIS YEAR HOW THE 
JUDICIARY COMMITTEE SIDELINED 
FINE ATTORNEYS LIKE HIMSELF INTO
NOT ASKING QUESTIONS, NOT BEING 
A PART OF THE PROCESS.
IT'S BEEN INTERESTING TO WATCH.
HE'S ACTUALLY A GOOD ONE.
AS YOU SAID, HE'S A GOOD 
CONSTITUTIONAL ATTORNEY.
I'M NOT A CONSTITUTIONAL 
ATTORNEY.
I'M A PASTOR, AN ATTORNEY FROM 
NORTH GEORGIA.
I BELIEVE YOU LOOK AT THIS, YOU 
CAN APPLY CONSTITUTIONAL LENSES,
BUT IT'S A COMMON SENSE LENS.
MR. COLE MADE A COMMENT IN HIS 
OPENING STATEMENT, YOU SAID IT 
DOESN'T MAKE SENSE.
YEAH, IT DOES.
IT MAKES PERFECT SENSE.
LOOK AT THE PATTERN.
YOU KNOW, THE ONLY THING THAT 
IS -- THAT IS CLEAR AND PRESENT 
DANGER RIGHT NOW IN THIS ROOM IS
THE PATTERN OF ATTACK AND ABUSE 
OF RULES AND THE DECISIONS TO 
GET AT THIS PRESIDENT.
THEY STARTED OVER THREE YEARS 
AGO, THE NIGHT HE WAS ELECTED.
I SAID THE OTHER DAY IN THE 
COMMITTEE HEARING, I THOUGHT 
ABOUT HAVING THE MEANS, MOTIVE 
AND OPPORTUNITY.
THE OPPORTUNITY FOR THIS DAY 
OCCURRED LAST NOVEMBER WHEN WE 
LAST MAJORITY.
IT OCCURRED.
BECAUSE THEY ALREADY TALKED 
ABOUT IT FOR YEARS PRIOR, SO NOW
WE JUST BRING IT FORWARD.
WE TRIED A LOT OF DIFFERENT 
THINGS TO GET THERE.
WE'LL TALK ABOUT THAT, I'M SURE,
AS THE TIME GOES ON TODAY.
LOOK, WE CAN HAVE PLENTY OF TIME
TO TALK ABOUT THE ARTICLES, THE 
VERY VAGUE ARTICLES THAT WE DID 
IT'S INTERESTING, IF YOU READ 
THE REPORT FROM THE MAJORITY, 
THERE'S A LOT OF DISCUSSION 
ABOUT CRIMES, BUT THEY COULDN'T 
FIND IT IN THEMSELVES TO CHARGE 
ONE.
COMMONSENSE.
ARTICLES -- WHEN YOU THINK ABOUT
IMPEACHMENT, YOU'RE THINKING 
ABOUT IMPEACHING A PRESIDENT FOR
CRIMES.
YOU'RE SAYING IT'S IN THIS 
MAJORITY HAS TRIED SO HARD TO BE
LIKE CLINTON AND NIXON AND 
FAILED SO MISERABLY.
BUT EVERY TIME WE TRY, WE TRY 
ONCE AGAIN, EXCEPT THE ONE THING
WHEN IT CAME DOWN TO THE END, 
THE ONE THING THEY COULDN'T DO 
IT ACTUALLY FIND A CRIME.
THEY TALK ABOUT IT A BUNCH.
IF YOU READ THE MAJORITY'S 
REPORT, IT'S WELL WRITTEN.
IT'S SOME OF THE BEST WORK 
YOU'LL SEE.
FRANKLY IN SOME WAYS A FICTIONAL
ACCOUNT OF WHAT THIS ACTUALLY 
IS, BUT IT ACTUALLY TALKS ABOUT 
IT.
THAT THE PROBLEM HERE IS A 
MAJORITY BENT ON FINDING 
SOMETHING FOR THIS PRESIDENT.
MR. COLE, IT'S NOT A SURPRISE.
IN FACT, IT'S A SAD DAY, NOT 
JUST FOR THE RULES COMMITTEE BUT
FOR THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE.
IT'S TELLING THAT THE ARTICLES 
OF IMPEACHMENT -- TO SHOW TO SH 
PARTISAN THIS, AND THE 
CONCERNING PART I SEE, AND 
MR. MCGOVERN, WE ARE FRIENDS, 
BUT WITH HE DISAGREE.
WE DISAGREE ON PROBABLY A LOT OF
THINGS.
THIS GLASS HALF FULL.
THAT'S WHAT WE'RE SUPPOSED TO 
DO.
THAT'S WHAT OUR VOTERS SEND US 
HERE TO DO.
WE HAVE WORKED TOGETHER.
IF AS THE SPEAKER SAID, SHOULD 
BE OVERWHELMING, BIPARTISAN AND 
THE AMERICAN PEOPLE UNDERSTAND 
IT, THEN WHY ARE WE IN THE RULES
COMMITTEE TODAY?
WHEN IT WAS WITH CLINTON IT WAS 
STRAIGHT TO THE FLOOR.
IT WASN'T -- DIDN'T HAVE TO COME
TO THE RULES COMMITTEE.
BECAUSE BHOET SIDES COULD SEE 
THERE WAS SOMETHING THAT NEEDED 
TO BE DISCUSSED BUT THAT'S NOT 
TRUE HERE.
WE HAVE TO BRING IT TO THE RULES
COMMITTEE PLACE THAT I HAVE 
SPENT MANY HOURS AND MANY OF US 
ON THIS GROUP HAVE DISCUSSED 
MANY THINGS, BUT THIS SHOULD NOT
BE ONE OF THEM.
I HEAR A LOT -- I'VE HEARD FROM 
MR. RASKIN AND THE CHAIRMAN, THE
FOUNDERS.
WE CHERRY-PICK THE FOUNDERS.
THAT'S WHAT YOU DO WHEN YOU'RE 
PARTISANS, YOU CHERRY-PICK THE 
FOUNDERS.
IF YOU LIKE THIS, BUT IF YOU 
LIKE THE OTHER ONE.
THE ONE THING THAT'S NOT 
MENTIONED IS WHAT WE'RE HERE 
FOR.
THAT WAS FOUND IN FEDERALIST, I 
THINK IT WAS 65, HAMILTON.
WHEN HE SAID THIS.
HE SAID THE FOUNDERS WARNED 
AGAINST A VAGUE OPEN-ENDED 
CHARGE BECAUSE IT COULD BE 
APPLIED BY A MAJORITY OF THE 
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES AGAINST
AN OPPOSITION PRESIDENT.
ALEXANDER HAMILTON CALLED 
PARTISAN IMPEACHMENT REGULATED 
BY MORE OF THE COMPARE TON 
STRENGTH OF PARTIES THAN THE 
REAL DEMONSTRATION OF INNOCENCE 
OR GUILT THE GREATEST DANGER.
ADDITIONALLY THE FOUNDERS 
EXPLICITLY EXCLUESED FROM THE 
IMPEACHMENT CLAUSE BECAUSE THEY 
DID NOT WANT THE PRESIDENT 
SUBJECT TO WHIMS OF CONGRESS, 
THEIR WORZ.
SO VAGUE A TERM DURING THE 
PLEASURE OF THE SENATE.
I WOULD SAY IT WOULD BE A TENURE
TO THE PLEASURE OF THIS HOUSE.
WHEN WE UNDERSTAND WHAT'S GOING 
ON HERE, WHEN WE LOOK AT THE 
DISCUSSIONS HERE, THERE ARE MANY
THINGS I WANT TO TALK ABOUT.
FIRST, I WANT TO DO IS WHEN WE 
TALK ABOUT HOW WE GET TO A 
CERTAIN PLACE, PROPER RESULTS 
GET TO PROPER PLACE.
I'VE SAID IN MANY TIMES IN OUR 
DISCUSSIONS LATELY IS THIS IS 
ALL ABOUT A CLOCK AND A CALENDAR
MRP AND HAS BEEN FOR A WHILE.
SINCE JANUARY WHEN WE WERE SWORN
IN IT'S ABOUT A CLOCK AND A 
CALENDAR.
IF WE WENT INTO THE NEXT YEAR, 
IT WOULD BE TOO CLOSE TO THE 
ELECTIONS THEY'RE TRYING TO 
INTERFERE WITH.
YES, THEY'RE TRYING TO INTERFERE
WITH ELECTIONS, THE 2020 
ELECTION.
BY ACTUALLY BEGINNING THIS 
PROCESS AND GOING FORWARD.
NOW, THE CONDUCT IS NOT RESPECTS
THE AMERICAN PEOPLE.
THE CLOCK AND THE CALENDAR KNOW 
NO MASTERS EXCEPT THEMSELVES.
OUR COMMITTEE HELD ITS FIRST 
HEARING ON DECEMBER 4th, THE DAY
AFTER SCHIFF PUBLIC BELY 
RELEASED HIS REPORT.
IN THE FIRST MINUTES OF THE 
REPORT MR. SENSENBRENNER OFFERED
A DEMAND.
THE CHAIRMAN SET A DEADLINE OF 
DECEMBER 6th FOR THE PRESIDENT 
TO REQUEST ADDITIONAL WITNESSES.
IT WASN'T UNTIL SATURDAY, THE 
DAY AFTER THE DEADLINE, CHAIRMAN
SCHIFF THFRD 8,000 PAGES OF 
MATERIAL TO THE JUDICIARY 
COMMITTEE.
WE STILL HAVEN'T GOTTEN 
EVERYTHING.
NOT THAT IT MATTERS TO THE 
MAJORITY.
FOR INSTITUTIONALISTS, THIS 
SHOULD BOTHER YOU.
YOU CAN STILL GO AHEAD AND VOTE 
FOR YOUR YES TOMORROW AND VOTE 
YES FOR TODAY, BUT IT SHOULD 
MATTER FOR THIS INSTITUTION THAT
WHILE I WAS IN GEORGIA, I 
RECEIVED A CALL FROM MY STAFF 
SAYING THEY JUST RELEASED 8,000 
DOCUMENTS THUMB DRIVES.
SOME OF WHICH WOULD BE KEPT IN A
SECURE HOLDING.
AND WHEN I ASKED THE CHAIRMAN 
ABOUT THESE DOCUMENTS, HE SAID, 
WELL, WE'RE NOT GOING TO READ 
THEM EITHER.
WE'RE JUST GOING TO GO AHEAD.
THAT WAS FROM MY CHAIRMAN, WHOM 
I RESPECT.
IT'S VERY DIFFICULT IN A HEARING
OF THIS MAGNITUDE, HOW CAN 
ANYONE, REPUBLICAN OR DEMOCRAT, 
ACTUALLY GO BACK AND LOOK THEIR 
CONSTITUENTS IN THE FACE AND 
SAY, WE LOOKED AT ALL THE 
EVIDENCE.
I LOOKED 5D EVERYTHING AND I 
CAME TO THIS CONCLUSION.
WE ONLY CHERRY-PICKED THE 
EVIDENCE, WHICH IS STILL NOT ALL
RELEASED.
THERE'S THE INSPECTOR GENERAL IG
REPORT THAT HAS NOT BEEN 
RELEASED.
WHETHER IT'S GOOD OR BAD IS 
IRRELEVANT.
WHEN YEAR TALKING ABOUT 
IMPEACHING A PRESIDENT, 
SHOULDN'T THE UNDERLYING 
EVIDENCE SENT TO JUDICIARY 
COMMITTEE ACTUALLY MATTER?
AGAIN, IT DOESN'T TAKE 
CONSTITUTIONAL EXPERTS COMING IN
AND TELLING US ABOUT IT.
IT TAKES COMMON SENSE TO KNOW 
THAT YOU DON'T IMPEACH SOMEBODY 
WITHOUT AT LEAST MAKING ALL THE 
EVIDENCE PROPER.
BUT, YOU KNOW, THAT'S WHAT 
HAPPENS WHEN YOU'RE TO THE 
TYRANNY OF A CLOCK AND A 
CALENDAR.
WHEN YOU'RE THE TYRANNY OF A 
CLOCK AND A CALENDAR, NOTHING 
ELSE MATTERS.
IT'S LIKE WHAT'S GOING TO HAPPEN
HERE IN THE HOLIDAYS IS YOU'RE 
GETTING CLOSE TO THAT DAY AND 
YOU'RE SUPPOSED TO GIVE THAT 
GIFT.
NOTHING ELSE MATTERS.
YOU JUST HAVE TO GET IT.
AT THE LAST MINUTE IF YOU DON'T 
HAVE ANYTHING, I BET YOU'VE DONE
THIS, YOU GO OUT AND GET THE 
FIRST THING YOU GET.
THE CLOCK WAS RUNNING OUT.
THEY FOUND A PHONE CALL THEY 
DIDN'T LIKE.
THEY DIDN'T LIKE THIS 
ADMINISTRATION.
THEY DIDN'T LIKE WHAT THE 
PRESIDENT DID.
THEY TRIED TO MAKE UP CLAIMS, 
THERE WAS PRESSURE AND ALL THESE
THINGS THEY OUTLINED IN THEIR 
REPORT.
AT THE END OF THE DAY IT'S 
LAST-MINUTE KRIS MAGAZINE 
SHOPPING.
THEY RAN AND FOUND SOMETHING AND
SAID, WE CAN DO IT, BUT NO 
CRIMES.
NONE IN THE ARTICLES.
ABUSE OF POWER IN WHICH ANY 
MEMBER CAN MAKE UP ANYTHING THEY
WANT TO AND CALL IT AN ABUSE OF 
POWER.
BUT IN THE REPORT THEY DOCUMENT 
BRIBERY AND EXTORTION AND ALL 
THESE OTHER THINGS THEY CAN'T 
PUT INTO THE ARTICLES.
AND THE OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE, 
IT'S SORT OF INTERESTING WHEN I 
JUST READ CHAIRMAN SCHIFF 
TRANSFERRED ON A SATURDAY 8,000 
PAGES OF WHAT WE WERE SUPPOSED 
TO BE WORKING ON FOR THE NEXT 
HEARING.
WE SUBMITTED OUR LIST OF 
WITNESSES TO NADLER -- 
MR. NADLER BEFORE THE SCHIFF -- 
WE SUBMITTED IT BEFORE SCHIFF 
HAD SENT US ANY MORE EVIDENCE.
LAST MONDAY WE HAD A HEARING SO 
SCHIFF'S STAFF AND NADLER'S 
CONSULTANTS COULD TELL US THE 
PRESIDENT NEEDS TO BE IMPEACH.
AGAIN, NOTHING FROM CHAIRMAN 
SCHIFF, WHO MADE THE REFERENCE 
TO HIMSELF BEING LIKE KEN STARR,
BUT FOR THOSE IN THIS ROOM WHO 
HAVE AT LEAST OPENED A HISTORY 
BOOK, KEN STARR ACTUALLY CAME 
AND TESTIFIED AND TOOK QUESTIONS
FROM EVERYONE, INCLUDING THE 
WHITE HOUSE COUNSEL.
ON MONDAY THE CHAIRMAN DIRECTED 
ALL OF OUR WITNESSES OUT OF 
HAND.
ON TUESDAY THE MORNING AFTER THE
PRESENTATION OF ARTICLES WERE 
UNVEILED.
REMEMBER, THINK ABOUT THIS.
NO FACTUAL BASE WITNESSES.
WE HAD A BUNCH OF LAW 
PROFESSORS.
ONE FOR US.
BY THE WAY, I DID ASK FOR 
ANOTHER ONE.
DIDN'T GET IT.
NO REASONING.
WE JUST WENT BACK -- WE WERE IN 
IMPEACHMENT HEARINGS AND WE WENT
BACK TO THE 3-1 RATIO.
I ASKED FOR ONE MORE AND 
BASICALLY DIDN'T GET IT.
IT WAS AN INTERESTING 
CONVERSATION BETWEEN THE 
CHAIRMAN AND I.
DIDN'T GET IT.
THEN WE CAME IN AND GOT OUR 
WITNESS LIST.
SUMMARILY DISMISSED.
WE GET INFORMATION DUMPED TO US 
IN THE MIDDLE OF WHAT WE'RE 
SUPPOSED TO BE DOING -- RIGHT 
BEFORE WE HAVE HEARINGS.
BEFORE WE HAD TO TURN IN OUR 
WITNESS LIST.
JUDGE, I DON'T THINK THIS WOULD 
FLY IN ANY REGULAR COURT 
PROCEEDINGS.
SO BEFORE ANYBODY WANTS TO TWEET
OR SAY ANYTHING I WE'RE NOT IN A
COURT, I KNOW THAT.
WE'RE IN A KANGAROO COURT, IT 
FEELS LIKE.
BECAUSE AULD OF THIS IS 
BACKWARDS.
WHAT'S MORE IS UP THAN DOWN.
WE'RE MORE ALICE IN WONDERLAND 
THAN HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.
IF HE NEEDS TO BE IMPEACHED 
WANT, DON'T YOU THINK THERE 
NEEDS TO BE A MODOCUM OF PROCESS
AND RESULTS.
ACCESS TO COMMITTEE RECORDS 
BROKEN.
RULES FOR DECORUM IN DEBATE, WE 
SAW THAT BROKEN EVEN ON THE 
HOUSE FLOORS.
HRES 660, THE AUTHORIZATION FOR 
THE WHOLE THING, THE CHAIRMAN 
COULD HAVE USED IT TO RUN A FAIR
PROCESS.
UNFORTUNATELY, WE DIDN'T.
THE PROBLEM COMES DOWN TO 
SEVERAL THINGS TODAY, 
MR. CHAIRMAN I'M GOING TO LEAVE 
YOU WITH, AND THIS IS IT.
AFTER ALL THAT'S BEEN SAID, ALL 
TALKED ABOUT AND ALL IN THAT 
WONDERFULLY WRITTEN REPORT, 
THERE ARE FOUR THINGS THAT WILL 
NEVER CHANGE.
BOTH THE PRESIDENT AND 
MR. ZELENSKY SAY THERE WAS NO 
PRESSURE.
THE CALL TRANSCRIPT SHOWS NO 
CONDITIONALITY IN AID AND 
INVESTIGATION.
MR. SONDLAND, THEIR KEY WITNESS,
THE ONLY THING THEY EVER QUOTE 
IS HI OPENING STATEMENT.
THEY DON'T LIKE TO QUOTE WHEN HE
WAS ACTUALLY QUESTIONED WHEN HE 
SAID, WELL, YEAH, I PRESUME 
THAT.
WHEN YOU TALK ABOUT MR. YERMAK, 
WHO SAID WE DIDN'T HAVE ANY 
QUESTION ABOUT CONDITIONALITY OF
AID.
THAT JUST CAME OUT THE OTHER 
DAY.
I DON'T KNOW WHERE WE'RE GETTING
THIS.
THE UKRAINIANS WEREN'T AWARE THE
AID WAS WITHHELD.
AND UKRAINIANS DIDN'T OPEN AN 
INVESTIGATION AND STILL GOT 
THEIR AID.
WHAT WE SAW WAS MR. ZELENSKY, 
PRESIDENT ZELENSKY, PILLARED IN 
OUR COMMITTEE.
HE'S EITHER A LIAR, A 
PATHOLOGICAL LIAR ACCORDING TO 
THE MAJORITY, OR HE'S SO WEAK HE
SHOULDN'T BE GOVERNING THAT 
COUNTRY.
THAT'S TRAGIC.
WE ACTUALLY DID THAT TO A 
SITTING WORLD LEADER IN OUR 
COMMITTEE.
THESE ARE THINGS THAT BOTHER US,
BUT I ALSO KNOW THIS IS ON A 
CLOCK AND A CALENDAR, TOO.
WE'LL HAVE A FEW HOURS HERE, 
WE'LL TALK ABOUT IT, BUT I WILL 
REMIND MY MAJORITY FRIENDS, AND 
I DO CONSIDER YOU FRIENDS, THE 
CLOCK AND THE CALENDAR ARE 
TERRIBLE MASTERS.
AND THEY LEAD TO AWFUL RESULTS.
YES, THERE WILL BE A DAY OF 
RECKONING.
THE CALENDAR AND THE CLOCK WILL 
CONTINUE, BUT WHAT YOU DO HERE 
AND HOW WE HAVE TRASHED THE 
PROCESS IN GETTING HERE WILL 
LIVE ON AND IT WILL AFFECT 
EVERYTHING THAT WE'VE COME 
FORTH.
SO WHATEVER YOU MAY GAIN WILL BE
SHORT-LIVED BECAUSE THE CLOCK 
AND THE CALENDAR ALSO RECOGNIZE 
COMMON SENSE, WHICH IS NOT BEEN 
USED IN THIS PROCEEDING.
WITH THAT, MR. CHAIRMAN, I YIELD
BACK.
>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
I WANT TO THANK BOTH OF YOU FOR 
YOUR OPENING STATEMENT.
MR. COLLINS, YOU RAISE THE ISSUE
OF WHY WE'RE IN THE RULES 
COMMITTEE.
LET ME JUST STATE FOR THE 
RECORD, AS YOU KNOW, THE 
CONSTITUTION GIVES THE HOUSE THE
SOLE POWER OF IMPEACHMENT AND 
THE POWER TO DETERMINE ITS OWN 
RULES.
WHEN PRESIDENT NIXON DURING THE 
TIME HE WAS GOING TO BE 
IMPEACHED, THE CHAIRMAN OF THE 
RULES COMMITTEE SPOKE ON THE 
HOUSE FLOOR AND ANNOUNCED THERE 
WOULD BE A RULE GOVERNING HOW 
THAT PROCEEDING WOULD MOVE 
FORWARD.
WHEN THE CLINTON ARTICLES OF 
IMPEACHMENT WERE BROUGHT 
FORWARD, THERE WAS UNANIMOUS 
CONSENT REQUEST TO KIND OF 
GOVERN HOW WE CONDUCTED 
OURSELVES.
AND I'M NOT SURE HOW LIKELY IT 
WOULD BE THAT WE WOULD GET 
UNANIMOUS CONSENT REQUEST.
I WOULD LIKE TO ASK UNANIMOUS 
CONSENT TO ENTER INTO RECORD A 
LETTER SENT TO THE CHAIRMAN OF 
THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE SIGNED 
BY, I THINK, 70 REPUBLICAN 
MEMBERS, INCLUDING THE KEVIN 
McCARTHY, THE REPUBLICAN LEADER.
BASICALLY -- LET ME READ THE KEY
LINE HERE.
WE WILL AVAIL OURSELVES OF EVERY
PARLIAMENTARY TOOL AVAILABLE TO 
US IN COMMITTEE AND HOUSE FLOOR 
TO HIGHLIGHT YOUR INACTION.
TRANSLATED, TO TRY TO DELAY AND 
MAKE THIS PROCESS IS IMPOSSIBLE 
AS IT CAN BE MADE.
I'M NOT SURE IN LIGHT OF THIS 
LETTER WE COULD GET A UNANIMOUS 
CONSENT REQUEST WITH REGARD TO 
THESE PROCEEDINGS TO BREAK FOR A
CUP OF COFFEE, NEVER MIND, YOU 
KNOW, DETERMINE THE RULES OF 
ENGAGEMENT.
SO, I POINT THAT OUT.
IN TERMS OF PROCESS, I JUST WANT
TO AGAIN STATE FOR THE RECORD, 
BECAUSE I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT, 
THAT I THINK THE HOUSE HAS 
ENGAGED IN A FAIR IMPEACHMENT 
INQUIRY PROCESS.
DEMOCRATS AND REPUBLICANS HAVE 
HAD EQUAL OPPORTUNITY TO 
PARTICIPATE IN THE MONTH-LONG 
IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY.
MEMBERS OF BOTH PARTIES HAVE 
BEEN INVOLVED AT EACH STAGE, 
SITTING IN, ASKING QUESTIONS 
DURING CLOSED-DOOR DEPOSITIONS.
THE COMMITTEE TOOK MOEMPB 100 
HOURS OF DEPOSITION TESTIMONY 
FROM 17 WITNESSES, HELD SEVEN 
PUBLIC HEARINGS, WHICH INCLUDED 
REPUBLICAN-REQUESTED WITNESSES.
THEY PRODUCED A 300-PAGE PUBLIC 
REPORT THAT LAID OUT THEIR 
FINDINGS AND EVIDENCE.
THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE THEN 
TOOK THAT REPORT AND CONDUCTED 
TWO PUBLIC HEARINGS EVALUATING 
THE EVIDENCE AND LEGAL STANDARD 
FOR IMPEACHMENT BEFORE REPORTING
THE TWO ARTICLES THAT WE ARE 
DEALING WITH HERE TODAY.
AND I SHOULD ALSO POINT OUT THAT
PRESIDENT TRUMP WAS PROVIDED AN 
OPPORTUNITY TO PARTICIPATE IN 
THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE'S REVIEW
OF THE EVIDENCE PRESENTED 
AGAINST HIM AS PRESIDENT CLINTON
WAS DURING HIS IMPEACHMENT 
INQUIRY.
PRESIDENT TRUMP CHOSE NOT TO 
PARTICIPATE.
PRESIDENT TRUMP TO DATE HAS NOT 
PROVIDED ANY EXCULPATORY 
EVIDENCE BUT, INSTEAD, HAS 
BLOCKED NUMEROUS WITNESSES FROM 
TESTIFYING ABOUT HIS ACTIONS.
AND SO, I JUST THOUGHT IT WAS 
IMPORTANT TO POINT THAT OUT.
MR. RASKIN, I SAW YOU SCRIBBLING
FURIOUSLY WHILE MR. COLLINS WAS 
TESTIFYING.
I DON'T KNOW WHETHER THERE IS 
SOMETHING YOU WANTED TO RESPOND 
TO. 
>> THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN.
MY FRIEND, MR. COLLINS, SPEAKS 
VERY FAST SO IT'S HARD TO KEEP 
UP WITH EVERYTHING THAT HE'S 
SAYING.
BUT A COUPLE OF THINGS --
>> THAT'S AS SLOW AS --
>> IT'S ALL RIGHT.
I'M FROM MASSACHUSETTS AND 
PEOPLE SAY THE SAME THING ABOUT 
MY ACCENT.
>> I MEAN, I'LL -- TODAY YOU 
HAVE TO GIVE ME CREDIT.
THAT WAS AS SLOW AS YOU'VE EVER 
HEARD ME. 
>> I GIVE YOU CREDIT.
YOU WERE MAKING AN EFFORT AT THE
BEGINNING, AND SO WAS I.
THEY ACCUSE ME OF THE SAME.
LET ME -- HE RAISES SOME RAEM 
IMPORTANT POINTS.
I'D LOVE THE CHANCE TO BRIEFLY 
ADDRESS THEM.
ONE THING WE'VE BEEN HEARING IS 
THAT WE DIDN'T CHARGE CRIMES, 
AND IN SOME SENSE, THAT JUST 
DUPLICATES A BASIC CONFUSION 
THAT PEOPLE HAVE ABOUT WHAT THE 
PROCESS IS.
WE ARE NOT CRIMINAL PROSECUTORS,
PROSECUTING A CRIMINAL DEFENDANT
IN COURT TO SEND TO JAIL.
THAT'S NOT WHAT WE'RE DOING.
WE'RE MEMBERS OF CONGRESS 
WORKING TO PROTECT THE COUNTRY 
AGAINST A PRESIDENT WHO'S 
COMMITTING HIGH CRIMES AND 
MISDEMEANORS, CONSTITUTIONAL 
OFFENSES AGAINST THE PEOPLE OF 
THE COUNTRY.
NOW, LOTS OF THE CONDUCT THAT WE
PLEAD IN OUR SPECIFIC ARTICLES 
ALLEGING ABUSE OF POWER AND 
OBSTRUCTION OF CONGRESS 
THEMSELVES COULD BECOME PART OF 
CRIMINAL INDICTMENTS LATER ON.
BUT IT'S BEEN A CURIOUS THING 
FOR ME TO HEAR OUR COLLEAGUES 
ACROSS THE AISLE REPEATEDLY MAKE
THIS POINT AND KIND OF SPREAD 
THIS CONFUSION THAT THERE ARE 
NOT CRIMES IN THERE WHEN THEY 
WERE THE VERY FIRST ONES TO SAY 
AND CONTINUE SAYING THE 
PRESIDENT MAY NOT BE INDICTED, 
THE PRESIDENT MAY NOT BE 
PROSECUTED WHILE HE'S IN OFFICE.
THEN THEY CAN'T TURN AROUND AND 
SAY, YOU CAN'T IMPEACH HIM 
BECAUSE YOU HAVEN'T CHARGED HIM 
WITH ANY CRIMES.
HEADS YOU WIN, TAILS I LOSE IS 
THE ESSENCE OF THAT ARGUMENT.
IF YOU GO BACK TO THE RICHARD 
NIXON CASE, WITH HE DIDN'T HAVE 
TO SEE RICHARD NIXON HAD BEEN 
CONVICTED OF BURGLARY IN THE 
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA BY ORDERING
THE BREAK ENGINE TO THE 
WATERGATE HOTEL BEFORE HE WAS 
TO -- BEFORE HE WAS CHARGED WITH
ABUSE OF POWER AS A HIGH CRIME 
AND MISDEMEANOR.
THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT WE'RE 
CHARGING PRESIDENT TRUMP WITH 
HERE.
WE DON'T HAVE TO FIRST GO OUT 
AND PROVE THAT HE COMMITTED 
BRIBERY OR COMMITTED HONEST 
SERVICES FRAUD OR EXTORTION, ALL
THINGS HE COULD BE PROSECUTED 
FOR LATER.
WE SIMPLY HAVE TO ALLEGE THE 
COURSE OF CONSTITUTIONAL 
CRIMINAL CONDUCT HE WAS ENGAGED 
IN.
AND SO I THINK WE CAN SET THAT 
ONE ASIDE.
A SECOND THING THAT MY FRIEND 
SAID WAS THAT THERE WERE NO FACT
WITNESSES.
THAT THIS WAS BASED ON THE 
REPORT THAT WAS DELIVERED TO US 
BY THE HOUSE COMMITTEE ON 
INTELLIGENCE.
OF COURSE, THAT'S A PLAY ON 
WORDS, TOO.
THERE WERE 17 FACT WITNESSES WHO
APPEARED BEFORE THE HOUSE 
COMMITTEE ON INTELLIGENCE, THE 
HOUSE OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE AND 
THE HOUSE FOREIGN AFFAIRS 
COMMITTEE.
THE WAY WE STRUCTURED THIS 
IMPEACHMENT PROCESS, WHICH IS 
COMPLETELY OUR PREROGATIVE UNDER
ARTICLE 1, SECTION 2, CLAUSE 5, 
AS YOU SAID, MR. CHAIRMAN, IS TO
HAVE FACT INVESTIGATION INTO 
THIS AFFAIR, WHICH INVOLVED 
FOREIGN GOVERNMENTS AND 
AMBASSADORS AND SO ON IN THE 
INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE.
THEN TO HAVE THEM BRING THE 
FACTS IN A COMPREHENSIVE REPORT 
TO THE HOUSE JUDICIARY 
COMMITTEE, WHICH WOULD THEN MAKE
THE DECISION ABOUT THE LAW.
DO ALL OF THESE EVENTS RISE TO 
WHAT WE THINK IS IMPEACHABLE 
CONDUCT?
OF COURSE WE DID.
THERE ARE LOTS OF FACT 
WITNESSES.
THE FACT WE ALSO HAD THE COUNSEL
FOR THE HOUSE INTELLIGENCE 
COMMITTEE COME INTO DELIVER THE 
REPORT AND DEFEND THE REPORT AND
ALL OF MY FRIENDS ON THE OTHER 
SIDE OF THE AISLE HAD THE CHANCE
TO QUESTION AS WE HAD THE CHANCE
TO QUESTION.
WHEN YOU SAY THERE ARE NO FACT 
WITNESSES, THAT'S ALSO A PERFECT
DESCRIPTION OF WHAT TOOK PLACE 
DURING THE BILL CLINTON 
IMPEACHMENT BECAUSE ALL OF THAT 
TOOK PLACE AS PART OF THE 
INDEPENDENT COUNSEL 
INVESTIGATION BY KENNETH STARR.
THERE WERE CLOSED DOOR, SECRET 
DEPOSITIONS TAKING PLACE THERE.
THEN KENNETH STARR CAME TO 
DELIVER THE REPORT.
REMEMBER ALL THE BOXES OF 
MATERIAL THEY BROUGHT OVER IN A 
U-HAUL TRUCK AND GAVE IT TO THE 
HOUSE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE.
THAT WAS THE END OF IT.
MONICA LEWINSKY DIDN'T TESTIFY 
BEFORE THE HOUSE JUDICIARY 
COMMITTEE.
THERE WEREN'T WITNESSES THERE 
BROUGHT BEFORE THE HOUSE 
JUDICIARY COMMITTEE.
WE'RE FOLLOWING THE EXACT SAME 
PATTERN THAT TOOK PLACE HERE, 
EXCEPT IT WAS THE HOUSE OF 
REPRESENTATIVES HERE, WHICH DID 
ITS OWN FACT INVESTIGATION 
THROUGH THIS ASSORTMENT OF 
COMMITTEES.
FINALLY, THE -- LET ME SAY A 
WORD ABOUT THE FAIRNESS OF THE 
PROCESS.
WE ALL KNOW WHAT THEY TEACH YOU 
IN LAW SCHOOL, WHICH IS IF THE 
FACTS ARE AGAINST YOU, YOU POUND
THE LAW.
THE LAWS ARE AGAINST YOU, YOU 
POUND THE FACTS.
IF THE LAW AND THE FACTS ARE 
AGAINST YOU, YOU TALK ABOUT 
PROCESS AND YOU POUND THE TABLE.
I'M AFRAID I'VE SEEN A LITTLE 
BIT OF THAT IN THE PERFORMANCE 
OF OUR COLLEAGUES HERE.
I DON'T BLAME THEM BECAUSE 
THEY'RE DEALING WITH THE HAND 
THEY WERE DEALT.
WE HAVE 17 FACT WITNESSES AND 
ALL OF THEIR DEPOSITIONS AND ALL
THEIR TESTIMONY WAS PUBLISHED IN
THE REPORT, EVERYBODY CAN FIND 
IT.
AND ALL OF THEIR TESTIMONY IS 
ESSENTIALLY UNREFUTED AND 
UNCONTRADICTED.
IT TELLS ONE STORY, WHICH IS THE
PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES 
CONDUCTED A SHAKEDOWN OF A 
FOREIGN POWER.
HE USED $391 MILLION THAT WE IN 
CONGRESS VOTED FOR A BESIEGED 
STRUGGLING DEMOCRACY, UKRAINE, 
TO DEFEND ITSELF AGAINST RUSSIAN
INVASION AND ATTACK.
TO COERCE THAT -- THE PRESIDENT 
OF THAT FOREIGN GOVERNMENT, 
PRESIDENT ZELENSKY, TO GET 
INVOLVED IN A ELECTION CAMPAIGN.
WHAT DID HE WANT HIM TO DO?
WELL, HE WANTED PRESIDENT 
ZELENSKY TO MAKE AN ANNOUNCEMENT
ON TELEVISION THAT JOE BIDEN WAS
BEING INVESTIGATED.
NOW, WHAT DOES THAT HAVE TO DO 
WITH THE FOREIGN POLICY OF THE 
UNITED STATES?
WHAT DOES IT HAVE TO DO WITH 
WHAT CONGRESS VOTED FOR?
WHAT DOES IT HAVE TO DO WITH ANY
LEGITIMATE INTEREST OF THE U.S. 
GOVERNMENT?
BUT THE OTHER THING HE WANTED 
PRESIDENT ZELENSKY TO DO WAS TO 
REHABILITATE THE COMPLETELY 
DISCREDITED CONSPIRACY THEORY 
THAT IT WAS UKRAINE AND NOT 
RUSSIA THAT INTERFERED IN OUR 
ELECTION.
OUR ENTIRE INTELLIGENCE 
COMMUNITY, THE NSA, THE CIA, THE
FBI, THE SENATE COMMITTEE ON 
INTELLIGENCE ISSUED THIS.
ALL OF THEM SAY THE SAME THING, 
WHICH IS THAT IT WAS RUSSIA THAT
CONDUCTED WHAT THE DEPARTMENT OF
JUSTICE CALLED A SWEEPING AND 
SYSTEMATIC CAMPAIGN AGAINST OUR 
ELECTION IN 2016.
YOU REMEMBER, MR. CHAIRMAN, THEY
INJECTED PROPAGANDA INTO OUR 
POLLTY THROUGH SOCIAL MEDIA, 
FACEBOOK, TWITTER, SO ON.
THEY DIRECTLY CONDUCTED CYBER 
INVASION AND ATTACK AGAINST THE 
DCC, HILLARY CLINTON'S 
HEADQUARTERS.
THEY TRIED TO GET INTO OUR STATE
BOARDS OF ELECTIONS.
ALL 50 THEY TRIED TO GET INTO.
THAT'S WHAT RUSSIA DID.
SUDDENLY WE HAVE THE PRESIDENT 
OF THE UNITED STATES TELLING 
PRESIDENT ZELENSKY THAT IF HE 
WANTS $391 MILLION THAT WE VOTED
FOR HIM AND HE'S BEEN CERTIFIED 
BY THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE AND
THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE CLEARING
EVERY ANTI-CORRUPTION SCREEN 
THAT HAD BEEN PUT IN PLACE AND 
CALLED FOR BY CONGRESS, IF HE 
WANTS THE MONEY AND IF HE WANTS 
THE WHITE HOUSE MEETING THAT HE 
DESPERATELY WANTED TO SHOW THAT 
AMERICA WAS ON UKRAINE'S SIDE 
AND NOT RUSSIA'S SIDE, IF HE 
WANTED TO GET THAT STUFF, HE HAD
TO COME AND GET INVOLVED IN OUR 
PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGN AND HE HAD
TO REHABILITATE THIS DISCREDITED
STORY ABOUT 2016.
I YIELD BACK.
>> WELL, THANK YOU.
YOU KNOW, I THINK -- I'VE BEEN 
LISTENING TO SOME COMMENTARY ON 
THE NEWS, THE PUNDITS, AND I 
THINK PEOPLE NEED A LESSON IN 
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW.
THAT'S WHY IT'S GREAT YOU'RE 
HERE.
LET ME ASK YOU A BASIC QUESTION 
BECAUSE I THINK SOMETIMES PEOPLE
DON'T UNDERSTAND.
WHY IS IMPEACHMENT IN THE 
CONSTITUTION?
>> THAT'S A GREAT QUESTION.
MR. COLLINS INVOKED INDIRECTLY 
MY FAVORITE AMERICAN 
REVOLUTIONARY, TOM PAYNE WHO 
WROTE "COMMON SENSE" AND "THE 
AGE OF REASON."
HE SAID YOU CAN'T HAVE ONE 
WITHOUT THE OTHER.
YOU NEED THE COMMON SENSE OF 
PEOPLE AND YOU NEED PEOPLE TO BE
CONDUCTING THINGS ACCORDING TO 
REASON, FACTS, IMPURISM, 
SCIENCE.
WHY DID PAYNE COME ALL THE WAY 
OVER HERE TO PARTICIPATE IN THE 
AMERICAN REVOLUTION WHICH IS NOT
FOREORDAINED TO WIN ANYWAY?
BECAUSE AMERICA WAS THE FIRST 
NATION BORNE OUT MUCH A 
REVOLUTIONARY STRUGGLE AGAINST 
MONARCHY, AGAINST THE IDEA THAT 
YOU COULD HAVE HEREDITARY RULE.
PAYNE SAID, A HEREDITARY RULER 
IS AS RIDICULOUS AS A HEREDITARY
MATHEMATICIAN OR HEREDITARY 
ARTIST.
NOW, IMPEACHMENT IS AN 
INSTRUMENT THAT OUR FOUNDERS PUT
INTO THE CONSTITUTION INFORMED 
BY THE BRITISH EXPERIENCE.
THERE WAS IMPEACHMENT THAT 
PARLIAMENT HAD BUT IT WASN'T 
AGAINST THE KING.
IT WAS ONLY AGAINST ROYAL 
MINIMUMSTERS.
WHY?
BECAUSE OF THE BRITISH DOCTRINE,
THE KING CAN DO NO WRONG.
RIGHT?
THAT'S KIND OF LIKE THE KING CAN
DO WHATEVER HE WANTS.
THE KING CAN DO NO WRONG.
THEREFORE, THE KING COULDN'T BE 
IMPEACHED.
OUR FOUNDERS INSISTED 
IMPEACHMENT BE IN THERE NOT JUST
FOR OTHER CIVIL OFFICERS WHO 
MIGHT COMMIT HIGH CRIMES AND 
MISDEMEANORS, BUT AGAINST THE 
PRESIDENT HIMSELF.
THE PRESIDENT IN THE DOMESTICS 
EMOLUMENTS COLUMN IS HAS A FIXED
SALARY AND OFFICE AND HE CAN'T 
RECEIVE ANY OTHER EMOLUMENTS 
FROM THE GOVERNMENT ITSELF, ANY 
OTHER PAYMENTS.
THE PRESIDENT IS EFFECTIVELY AN 
EMPLOYEE OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE.
THAT'S THE WAY HE'S DESIGNED.
HE'S NOT ABOVE THE PEOPLE.
HE'S A SERVANT OF THE PEOPLE 
LIKE ALL OF US ARE.
THE PRESIDENT'S CORE JOB IS 
WHAT?
TO TAKE CARE THE LAWS ARE 
FAITHFULLY EXECUTED.
IF HE DOESN'T FAITHFULLY EXECUTE
THE LAWS, IF HE THWARTS THE 
LAWS, TRAMPLES THE LAWS AND 
COMMITS CRIMES AGAINST THE 
AMERICAN PEOPLE, THEN WE'RE NOT 
GOING ON SEND HIM TO PRISON.
HE WOULDN'T GO TO JAIL FOR ONE 
DAY BUT HE NEEDS TOE REMOVED IN 
ORDER TO PROTECT DEMOCRACY. 
>> FOR THE RECORD, WHY IS ABUSE 
OF POWER AN IMPEACHABLE OFFENSE?
>> ABUSE OF POWER IS THE 
ULTIMATE IMPEACHMENT.
PUTTING THE PRESIDENT ABOVE THE 
RULE OF LAW, ABOVE THE 
CONSTITUTION.
THE FOUNDERS DIDN'T WANT A 
PRESIDENT WHO WOULD WHAIF LIKE A
KING.
WE'D SEEN ENOUGH OF THAT.
WE WANTED A PRESIDENT WHO WOULD 
IMPLEMENT THE LAWS, IMPLEMENT 
THE AFFORDABLE CARE ACT AND 
IMPLEMENT THE LAWS.
THAT'S WHAT YOU'RE SUPPOSED TO 
BE DOING. 
>> SO, WE'VE SEEN EVIDENCE THE 
PRESIDENT DECIDED TO WITHHOLD 
FROM UKRAINE IMPORTANT OFFICIAL 
ACTS, WHITE HOUSE VISIT, 
MILITARY AID IN ORDER TO 
PRESSURE UKRAINE TO ANNOUNCE 
INVESTIGATIONS OF VICE PRESIDENT
BIDEN IN THE 2016 ELECTIONS.
WHY DOES THAT CONSTITUTE AN 
IMPEACHABLE OFFENSE?
>> S -- WELL, IT BASICALLY 
IMPLICATES EVERY ONE OF THE 
CONCERNS RAISED AT THE 
CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION.
IT PLACES PERSONAL AGENDA OF THE
PRESIDENT OVER EP FORCING THE 
LAWS.
TWO, IT DRAGS FOREIGN POWERS 
INTO OUR ELECTION.
THAT WAS SOMETHING THAT THE 
FRAMERS WERE TERRIFIED ABOUT.
THERE WAS A GREAT EXCHANGE 
BETWEEN ADAMS AND JEFFERSON 
ABOUT JUST THIS ISSUE, THAT 
THERE WOULD BE CONSTANT FOREIGN 
INTRIGUE AND INFLUENCE, ATTEMPTS
TO COME AND INFLUENCE BECAUSE WE
WOULD BE AN OPEN DEMOCRACY AND 
SO PEOPLE WOULD TRY TO EXPLOIT 
OUR OPENNESS BY GETTING INVOLVED
IN OUR ELECTIONS WITH THEIR 
FOREIGN GOVERNMENT CONCERNS, 
WHICH IS WHY THE PRESIDENT HAD 
TO HAVE COMPLETE, UNDIVIDED 
LOYALTY TO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE 
AND THE AMERICAN CONSTITUTION 
AND NOT GET INVOLVED WITH 
FOREIGN GOVERNMENTS.
NOT DRAG FOREIGN GOVERNMENTS 
INTO OUR AFFAIRS.
BASICALLY YOU HAVE EVERYTHING 
THE FRAMERS WERE CONCERNED ABOUT
TIED UP INTO ONE BUNDLE HERE, 
WHICH IS INVOLVING FOREIGN 
GOVERNMENTS IN OUR ELECTIONS, 
PLACING THE PRESIDENT'S 
INTERESTS OVER ALL -- OVER 
EVERYTHING ELSE, AND THEN 
ESSENTIALLY THREATENING THE RULE
OF THE PEOPLE IN DEMOCRACY.
>> AND WHERE DO YOU DRAW THE 
LINE BETWEEN A LEGITIMATE USE OF
PRESIDENTIAL POWER AND AN ABUSE 
OF POWER?
I MEAN AND WHY IS IT SIGNIFICANT
THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP ACTED FOR 
HIS PERSONAL POLITICAL ADVANTAGE
AND NOT FOR THE FURTHERANCE OF 
ANY VALID NATIONAL POLICY 
OBJECTIVE?
>> THAT'S A GREAT QUESTION 
BECAUSE OUR COLLEAGUES HAVE 
SHREWDLY ZEROED IN ON THE FACT 
THAT SOME OF THE WITNESSES, 
INCLUDING AMBASSADOR SONDLAND 
SAID, WELL, OF COURSE THERE WAS 
A QUID PRO QUO.
THE PRESIDENT WAS NOT GOING TO 
RELEASE THE AID.
HE WAS NOT GOING TO HAVE THE 
MEETING UNTIL HE GOT WHAT HE 
WANTED IN TERMS OF POLITICAL 
INTERFERENCE.
AND THEN EVEN THE PRESIDENT'S 
WHITE HOUSE CHIEF OF STAFF SAID,
YES -- I'M NOT QUOTING DIRECTLY.
HE WAS SAYING, YES, THIS IS THE 
WAY WE PROCEED.
GET USED TO IT.
OUR COLLEAGUES HAVE SAID, 
THERE'S ALWAYS QUID PRO QUO TIED
UP IN FOREIGN POLICY.
IN OTHER WORDS, IT'S LEGIT TO 
SAY TO A FOREIGN GOVERNMENT, 
WE'LL GIVE YOU THIS AID IF YOU 
COMPLY THAT THE AID IS ALL BEING
USED IN THE PROPER WAY.
WE WILL GIVE YOU THIS ASSISTANCE
IF YOU ATTEND THESE CONFERENCES 
AND MEETINGS WITH US TO MAKE 
SURE THE ASSISTANCE IS BEING 
USED PROPERLY AND SO ON.
THERE'S NOTHING WRONG WITH THAT.
LOOK ADD WHAT HAPPENED HERE.
THIS WAS AN ARRANGEMENT WHERE 
THE PRESIDENT CONDITIONED ALL OF
THIS OF FOREIGN ASSISTANCE WE 
HAD SENT $200 MILLION TO THE 
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE, $191 
MILLION TO THE DEPARTMENT OF 
STATE TO HELP UKRAINE DEFEND 
ITSELF AGAINST RUSSIA.
AND THE PRESIDENT SAID, BUT I --
BUT WHAT HE WAS HOLDING OUT FOR 
WAS THE INTERFERENCE OF THE 
UKRAINIAN PRESIDENT IN OUR 
ELECTION TO HARM HIS POLITICAL 
OPPONENT.
I THINK EVERYONE CAN RECOGNIZE 
THAT IS NOT THE NORMAL KIND OF 
PUSH AND PULL AND ORANGEMENTS 
NATIONS MAKE FOR EACH OTHER.
WHY?
BECAUSE THE PRESIDENT PRIVILEGED
HIS OWN POLITICAL INTEREST.
THAT'S WHY IT WAS ALL DONE 
SECRETLY.
LUCKILY WITNESSES WERE WILLING 
TO COME FORWARD. 
>> I'LL ASK YOU AND MR. RASKIN 
THE SAME QUESTION.
WAS THE PRESIDENT'S CALL WITH 
PRESIDENT ZELENSKY PERFECT, AS 
THE PRESIDENT HAS SAID?
AND WAS IT APPROPRIATE FOR HIM 
TO ASK FORECOUNTRY TO 
INVESTIGATE AN AMERICAN CITIZEN?
>> I'VE SAID THIS BEFORE.
THERE WAS NOTHING WRONG WITH THE
CALL.
WHEN YOU LOOK AT IT AGAIN -- 
FRANKLY, THE LAST -- THE PROBLEM
WE'RE HAVING NOW IS EXACTLY THE 
LAST 15 MINUTES OF THIS.
GREAT ORATORY ON A LOT OF THINGS
THAT MEAN NOTHING TO THIS 
IMPEACHMENT.
WE GET DOWN TO THE BOTTOM LINE 
HERE.
I'LL LET HIM ANSWER THAT 
QUESTION AND I'LL GET BACK TO.
EVERYTHING THROWN OUT HERE IS 
EXACTLY THE PROBLEM WE'VE HAD IN
THE DISCUSSION AND THIS -- WE'VE
DISPROVEN THE FACT.
WIE TALKED ABOUT THE LAW.
I CAN TALK ABOUT BOTH OF THEM.
THE PROBLEM WE HAVE HERE IS THIS
IS THE VERY PROBLEM -- I'LL 
ADDRESS ONE THING OR IF YOU WANT
ME TO SWITCH RIGHT NOW, I WILL. 
>> THAT'S FINE.
>> I'LL GIVE IT TO HIM.
I'M LOOKING AT THE -- 
TRANSCRIPTS SAYING, I WOULD LIKE
YOU TO DO US A FAVOR, THOUGH.
DO YOU THINK IT WAS A PRESIDENT 
CALL?
>> LIEUTENANT COLONEL VINDMAN 
SAID IT WAS PERFECTLY OKAY.
IT WAS HIS IN TESTIMONY.
LIEUTENANT COLONEL VINDMAN SAID 
WOULD IT BE IN YOUR EXPERIENCE 
THAT A PRESIDENT WOULD DO THAT?
>> DO YOU THINK IT'S RIGHT FOR A
U.S. PRESIDENT TO ASK A FOREIGN 
GOVERNMENT TO INVESTIGATE A U.S.
CITIZEN?
>> NO, I KNOW IT'S WRONG.
ONE OF THE INTERESTING THINGS 
ABOUT THE HEARING IS EVERY 
SINGLE -- I THINK EVERY SINGLE 
MEMBER OF CONGRESS WHO HAS AT 
LEAST ENDORSED IMPEACHMENT 
INQUIRY HAS SAID IT'S COMPLETELY
WRONG FOR THE U.S. PRESIDENT TO 
USE ANY OF THE MEANS AT HIS 
DISPOSAL TO DRAG FOREIGN 
GOVERNMENTS INTO OUR ELECTION.
WE WERE UNABLE TO GET OUR 
COLLEAGUES ON THE JUDICIARY 
COMMITTEE TO WEIGH IN ON THAT 
SAYING LET'S ASSUME YOU THINK, 
LET'S STIPULATE YOU THINK THAT 
THE PRESIDENT DID NOTHING WRONG 
HERE.
DO YOU THINK IT'S WRONG FOR THE 
PRESIDENT.
UNITED STATES TO USE FOREIGN 
POWERS INVOLVED IN OUR ELECTION.
WE COULDN'T GET AN ANSWER.
I REISSUED THE INVITATION TO 
MR. COLLINS.
I CERTAINLY WOULD NOT WANT THAT 
TO BECOME THE PATTERN FOR ALL 
FUTURE PRESIDENCIES. 
>> I THINK THE INTERESTING THING
HERE, MR. CHAIRMAN, IF I COULD, 
I DON'T WANT THIS TO BE THE 
PATTERN FOR FUTURE IMPEACHMENTS.
THIS IS THE PROBLEM I HAVE.
THE UNDERSTANDING HERE IS, I 
GUESS IT'S OKAY, THOUGH, TO GET 
INVOLVED IN A 2016 ELECTION WHEN
YOU PAY A THIRD PARTY TO PAY FOR
A DOSSIER.
THESE ARE THE THINGS WE CAN TALK
ABOUT.
THE INTERESTING ISSUE THAT'S 
JUST DISCUSSED HERE IS EXACTLY 
WHERE WE ARE RIGHT NOW IN A 
QUESTION AND COMMENT BECAUSE 
WHAT MR. RASKIN JUST BROUGHT UP 
IS AN INTERESTING POINT.
SO, IS IT OKAY IF YOU'RE RUNNING
FOR PRESIDENT THAT YOU CAN'T BE 
INVESTIGATED?
EVEN IF YOU DID SOMETHING 
OVERSEAS?
IF YOU'RE RUNNING FOR PRESIDENT 
AND YOU DID SOMETHING OVERSEAS, 
IT WOULD BE OFF LIMITS, 
ACCORDING TO MR. RASKIN'S 
ARGUMENT FOR THE UNITED STATES 
GOVERNMENT TO INVESTIGATE THAT.
THAT'S THE ARGUMENT HE JUST SET 
UP.
I THINK YOU NEED TO BE VERY 
CAREFUL WITH THAT ARGUMENT. 
>> I APPRECIATE -- I GUESS 
DAIMPB AGAIN, I MENTIONED THIS 
IN MY OPENING STATEMENT.
THE FRUSTRATING -- IT WOULD SEEM
TO OBVIOUS TO SO MANY OF US 
ABOUT INAPPROPRIATE BEHAVIOR, WE
CAN'T EVEN GET -- I LOOK AT, YOU
KNOW, OUR FORMER COLLEAGUE 
CHARLIE DENT, SAID HE SPOKE TO 
REPUBLICANS WHO WERE ABSOLUTELY 
DISGUST GUSTED AND EXHAUSTED BY 
THE PRESIDENT'S WHATEVER.
DAVID JOLLY SAID, QUOTE, WE'VE 
WITNESSED AN IMPEACHABLE MOMENT.
REED RIBLE OF WISCONSIN SAID, 
CLEARLY THERE WAS SOME TYPE OF 
QUID PRO QUO WHEN ASKED IF -- 
FORMER SOUTH CAROLINA REPUBLICAN
BOB ENGLISH WHO SERVED ON THE 
JUDICIARY COMMITTEE DURING THE 
CLINTON IMPEACHMENT SAID LAST 
MONTH IN A TWEET WITHOUT A 
DOUBT, IF BARACK OBAMA HAD DONE 
THE THINGS REVEALED IN THE 
TESTIMONY IN THE CURRENT 
INQUIRY, WE REPUBLICANS WOULD 
HAVE IMPEACHED HIM.
JOE SCARBOROUGH, FORMER 
REPUBLICAN CONGRESSMAN FOR 
FLORIDA SAID, EVERY REPUBLICAN 
KNOWS DONALD TRUMP WAS ASKED FOR
DIRT ON JOE BIDEN IN EXCHANGE 
FOR RELEASING MILITARY FUNDS.
LET'S GO ON TO -- I DON'T KNOW.
DO YOU WANT TO RESPOND, 
MR. RASKIN?
>> SURE, I'D BE DELIGHTED TO.
ONE THING I JUST PASSED A NOTE 
SAY I MAY HAVE GOTTEN THE 
NUMBERS WRONG.
THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE HAD 
$250 MILLION APPROPRIATION FOR 
THE PURPOSES OF AIDING UKRAINE 
AND THE STATE HAD $141 MILLION.
I MAY HAVE MISSPOKEN AND SAID 
$200 MILLION.
AS TO THAT POINT, AGAIN, I FEEL 
FOR MY FRIENDS BECAUSE I THINK 
THEY'RE PUT INTO A SITUATION, 
PUT INTO A BOX, SO TO SPEAK, 
WHICH IS WHAT PRESIDENT TRUMP 
WAS QUOTD AS SAYING HE WANTED 
ABOUT PRESIDENT ZELENSKY, HE 
WANTED HIM IN A BOX.
BUT I THINK SO THEY'RE PUT INTO 
SOMETHING OF A CORNER HERE 
BECAUSE THE PRESIDENT HAS 
DECLARED HIS CONDUCT PRESIDENT.
ABSOLUTELY PERFECT.
AND HE CAN DO WHATEVER HE WANTS.
AND SO THEY ARE UNABLE TO SAY --
TO MAKE THE CASE THAT I WOULD 
MAKE, IF I WERE TRYING TO DEFEND
THE PRESIDENT, I WOULD SAY, 
OKAY, THAT WAS TOTALLY WRONG AND
OFF LIMITS BUT IT'S NOT 
IMPEACHABLE FOR X, Y AND Z 
REASONS.
THEY'RE NOT ALLOWED ANYONE 
SPACE.
THEY MUST GO WITH THE 
PRESIDENT'S ASSERTION THAT THIS 
WAS CATEGORICALLY CORRECT.
THERE WAS NOTHING WRONG WITH IT.
WAS IT WAS PERFECTLY RIGHT.
HE QUOTED LEGAL SCHOLARS.
HE INVOKED LEAGUE SCHOLARS WHO 
TOLD HIM THE PHONE CALL WAS 
PERFECT AS WELL. 
>> I WANT TO MOVE MY QUESTIONING
ALONG HERE.
ON THE ISSUE OF OBSTRUCTION OF 
CONGRESS, WHY IS OBSTRUCTION OF 
CONGRESS AN IMPEACHABLE OFFENSE?
>> WELL, LOOK, THIS IS 
SOMETHING -- MR. COLLINS MADE AN
IMPORTANT POINT.
WE HAVE TO THINK ABOUT THIS IN 
INSTITUTIONAL TERMS.
HE RIGHTLY CALLS US TO REDOUBLE 
OUR COMMITMENT TO FAIRNESS IN 
THE PROCESS.
I'VE SEEN PROCESS OF FAIRNESS IN
THIS PROCESS.
I'VE SEEN IN THE CLOSED DOOR 
DEPOSITIONS, I SAW DEMOCRATIC 
COUNSEL GET AN HOUR, I SAW THE 
REPUBLICAN COUNSEL GET AN HOUR, 
I SAW THE DEMOCRATIC MEMBERS GET
TO QUESTION, I'VE SEEN THIS 
COMMITTEE BEND OVER BACKWARDS TO
GET ALL OF THE DEPOSITIONS OUT 
AS QUICKLY AS POSSIBLE WHILE THE
PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES 
IS STOPPING AT LEAST SEVEN 
WITNESSES FROM COMING FORWARD.
IT MAY BE MORE THAN THAT.
BUT HE HAS BLOCKADED WITNESSES.
THE PRESIDENT WHO SAYS THE 
PROCESS IS UNFAIR IS THE ONE 
STOPPING EVERYONE FROM COMING TO
TESTIFY.
AND IS ESSENTIALLY TRYING TO 
BLOCKADE THE WHOLE 
INVESTIGATION.
LIKE, WHY IS THIS ESSENTIAL, 
MR. CHAIRMAN?
IT'S ESSENTIAL BECAUSE FOR 
INSTITUTIONAL REASONS.
IT'S ESSENTIAL FOR INSTITUTIONAL
REASONS BECAUSE IN THE FUTURE IT
MIGHT BE A MAJORITY DEMOCRATIC 
CONGRESS, IT MIGHT BE A MAJORITY
REPUBLICAN CONGRESS.
IN ANY EVENT, IT'S CONGRESS.
ONE OF OUR JOBS IS -- AS MEMBERS
OF CONGRESS IS TO MAKE SURE THE 
PRESIDENT DOES NOT VIOLATE THE 
LAWS.
WE'RE SUPPOSED TO STAND SENTINEL
TO MAKE SURE THE PRESIDENT WILL 
ONLY ENFORCE THE LAWS, TAKE CARE
THE LAWS ARE FAITHFULLY 
EXECUTED.
WHAT HAPPENS IF YOU GET A 
PRESIDENT WHO TOTALLY TRASHES 
THE LAW?
SOME OF US THINK WE MAY BE THERE
NOW.
I KNOW SOME OF OUR COLLEAGUES 
DON'T BELIEVE THAT.
CERTAINLY THEY CAN IMAGINE A 
SITUATION WHERE A PRESIDENT 
ADVERTISES SPECTACULAR 
DISRESPECT AND CONTEMPT FOR THE 
LAW AND TRASHES THE LAW.
WHAT'S OUR ULTIMATE CHECK 
AGAINST THAT?
IT'S GOING TO BE IMPEACHMENT.
THAT'S WHY IT'S?
THE INSTITUTION.
BUT NOW WE HAVE A PRESIDENT FOR 
THE FIRST TIME IN AMERICAN 
HISTORY SAYS, I AM GOING TO TRY 
TO BLOCK THE ABILITY OF CONGRESS
TO IMPEACH ME BY NOT TURNING 
OVER ONE SINGLE DOCUMENT, BY 
TRYING TO HOLD BACK PEOPLE FROM 
TESTIFYING LIKE SECRETARY 
POMPEO, LIKE CHIEF OF STAFF 
MULVANEY, LIKE MULTIPLE OTHER 
MEMBERS OF ADMINISTRATION.
I DON'T WANT THEM TO COME 
FORWARD TO TESTIFY.
AND SO WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO 
USE OUR COMMON SENSE TO DERIVE 
CONCLUSIONS ABOUT WHAT THAT 
MEANS.
WHAT DOES OUR COMMON SENSE TELL 
US WHEN YOU HAVE ALL THESE OTHER
PEOPLE COMING FORWARD AND 
TESTIFYING ABOUT THE MISCONDUCT 
OF THE PRESIDENT AND THEN THE 
PRESIDENT TRYING TO BLOCK 
EVERYBODY ELSE FROM COMING 
FORWARD TO TESTIFY IN HIS 
ADMINISTRATION?
>> LET ME JUST POINT OUT FOR THE
RECORD, WE HAVE REQUESTED 
SEVERAL DOCUMENTS AND TESTIMONY 
FROM MEMBERS OF THIS 
ADMINISTRATION.
AND WHAT HAS THE PRESIDENT AND 
HIS ADMINISTRATION DONE IN 
RESPONSE?
NOTHING.
I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT FOR 
PEOPLE TO UNDERSTAND JUST FOR 
THE RECORD.
REQUEST FOR DOCUMENTS FROM THE 
STATE DEPARTMENT, IGNORED.
REQUESTS FOR DOCUMENTS FROM THE 
DEPARTMENT OF THE DEFENSE, 
IGNORED.
QUSZ FOR DOCUMENTS FROM THE VICE
PRESIDENT, IGNORED.
REQUESTS FOR DOCUMENTS FROM 
GIULIANI ASSOCIATE LEV PARNAS, 
IGNORED.
REQUESTS FOR DOCUMENTS FROM 
GIULIANI IGOR FRUMAN, IGNORED.
REQUESTS FOR DOCUMENTS FROM RUDY
GIULIANI, THE PRESIDENT'S 
LAWYER, IGNORE PD.
"FROM TESTIMONY OF NATIONAL 
SECURITY ADVISER JOHN BOLTON, 
IGNORED.
REQUESTS FROM THE TESTIMONY OF 
WHITE HOUSE CHIEF OF STAFF, MICK
MULVANEY, IGNORED.
HERE'S A LIST OF ALL THE 
REQUESTS THAT HAVE BEEN MADE, 
THE RED MARKS ARE BASICALLY TO 
DEMONSTRATE NONCOMPLIANCE, 
THEY'VE BEEN IGNORED.
I THINK THIS IS WHAT YOU CALL 
OBSTRUCTION, PLAIN AND SIMPLE.
THE ONLY PEOPLE THAT HAVE 
COMPLIED ARE PATRIOTIC PUBLIC 
SERVANTS.
I MEAN, I GUESS I JUST ASK, WHAT
PRESUMPTIONS SHOULD WE MAKE WHEN
THE PRESIDENT PREVENTS WITNESSES
FROM COMPLYING WITH 
CONGRESSIONAL SUBPOENAS?
>> LET'S USE OUR COMMON SENSE.
PEOPLE WHO HAVE EXCULPATORY 
EVIDENCE, A FANCY WAY OF SAYING 
EVIDENCE THAT SHOWS THEIR 
INNOCENCE, WANT THE COURT TO SEE
THE EVIDENCE.
PEOPLE WHO HAVE EVIDENCE THAT 
DEMONSTRATES THEIR INNOCENCE 
WOULD BRING THAT TO CONGRESS.
PEOPLE WHO HAVE EVIDENCE WHICH 
THEY THINK MAY BE INCULPATORY, 
EVIDENCE TO LEAD PEOPLE TO 
BELIEVE THIS THEIR GUILT, THEY 
TAKE IT AWAY.
YOU MADE A PROFOUNDLY IMPORTANT 
POINT, MR. CHAIRMAN, WHICH LINKS
ARTICLES 1 AND ARTICLES 2 OF THE
IMPEACHMENT ARTICLES.
DO WE WANT TO SET A PRECEDENT 
THAT U.S. CITIZENS CAN BECOME 
PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES 
BY INVITING FOREIGN POWERS TO 
GET INVOLVED IN OUR ELECTION.
THEN ONCE THEY'RE IN, IF 
CONGRESS STIDZ THAT THEIR 
CONDUCT IS IMPEACHABLE AND 
INVOLVES HIGH CRIMES AND 
MISDEMEANORS, THEY CAN THEN PULL
A CURTAIN DOWN OVER THE 
EXECUTIVE BRANCH AND NOT ALLOW 
ANY INVESTIGATION, NOT ALLOW 
SUBPOENAS TO BE HONORED AND SO 
ON.
THAT IS A VERY DANGEROUS 
PROSPECT THAT WOULD HAVE 
TERRIFIED AND HORRIFIED AND 
SHOCKED THE FRAMERS OF OUR 
CONSTITUTION.
>> THANK YOU.
AND YOU WANT -- DO YOU WANT --
>> OKAY.
>> I'M ABOUT TO YIELD TO MY -- 
TO MY RANKING MEMBER, I'M SURE, 
HAS LOTS AND LOTS OF QUESTIONS.
I DO WANT TO TAKE A MOMENT, I 
THINK IT'S IMPORTANT WE REMEMBER
THIS.
I WANT TO REMIND EVERYBODY WHY 
WE'RE HERE TODAY.
THE PRESIDENT ABUSED THE POWER 
OF HIS OFFICE FOR HIS OWN 
PERSONAL GAIN AND OBSTRUCTED A 
CONGRESSIONAL INVESTIGATION TO 
LOOK INTO THAT CONDUCT.
HOW DID HE DO THAT?
HE WITHHELD AID FOR A COUNTRY 
UNDER SIEGE BY RUSSIA TO 
LEVERAGE HELP FOR HIS POLITICAL 
CAMPAIGN.
PRESIDENT TRUMP'S ABUSE OF POWER
HAS ENDAJED OUR FREE ELECTIONS 
AND NATIONAL SECURITY REMAINS AN
ONGOING THREAT TO THEM BOTH.
HE SHOWED US A PATTERN OF 
INVITING FOREIGN INTERFERENCE IN
OUR ELECTIONS AND TRYING TO 
COVER IT UP TWICE.
AND HE'S THREATENED TO DO IT 
AGAIN.
WITH THE 2020 ELECTIONS FAST 
APPROACHING WE MUST ACT WITH A 
SENSE OF URGENCY TO PROTECT OUR 
DEMOCRACY AND DEFEND OUR 
CONSTITUTION.
ON OUR FIRST DAY AS MEMBERS OF 
CONGRESS WE TOOK AN OATH TO 
SUPPORT AND DEFEND THE 
CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED 
STATES AGAINST ALL ENEMIES, 
FOREIGN AND DOMESTIC.
I DO NOT SWEAR ALLEGIANCE TO A 
POLITICAL PARTY.
I SWOR ALLEGIANCE TO THE 
CONSTITUTION.
I HOPE ALL MY COLLEAGUES WILL DO
THE SAME.
WITH THAT I WOULD YIELD TO THE 
RANKING MEMBER FORMY QUESTIONS 
HE MIGHT HAVE. 
>> YOU'RE RIGHT.
I DO HAVE QUESTIONS AND I 
APPRECIATE YOUR FORBEARANCE --
>> I'M VERY LIBERAL. 
>> YES, YOU ARE.
IN THIS SENSE, IN THE FINEST 
SENSE OF THE WORD.
I EXPRESS MY APPRECIATION FOR 
THAT, AS WE'VE DISCUSSED.
TO MY FRIEND, MR. RASKIN, A 
NUMBER OF MY QUESTIONS HAVE BEEN
CRAFTED OR WERE ORIGINALLY 
CRAFTED FOR CHAIRMAN NADLER.
YOU MAY OR MAY NOT BE ABLE TO 
ANSWER THOSE DIRECTLY.
WE CERTAINLY UNDERSTAND WHY HE'S
NOT HERE.
AS THE CHAIRMAN SAID, WE 
SYMPATHIZE HIM DURING A 
DIFFICULT TIME BUT WE THINK IT'S
IMPORTANT FOR THE RECORD SO I 
WANT TO HIGH LATE THAT FOR YOU.
MR. CHAIRMAN, I ASKED UNANIMOUS 
CONSENT TO INTERVIEW THE RECORD 
A DOCUMENT ENTITLED, QUOTE, HOW 
WE RESIST TRUMP, UNQUOTE, 
AUTHORED BY CONGRESSMAN JUDGERRY
NADLER AND POSTED ON 
WWW.JERRYNADLER.COM ON NOVEMBER 
16th OF 2016. 
>> WITHOUT OBJECTION. 
>> THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN.
>> IN THIS DOCUMENT, CHAIRMAN 
NADLER WROTE, QUOTE, WE CANNOT 
WAIT FOUR YEARS TO VOTE 
MR. TRUMP OUT OF OFFICE SO WE 
MUST DO EVERYTHING WE CAN TO 
STOP TRUMP AND HIS EXTREME 
AGENDA NOW, UNQUOTE.
MR. RASKIN, ON AUGUST 8th 
CHAIRMAN NADLER STATED WITH 
RESPECT TO THE JUDICIARY 
COMMITTEE'S HEARING REGARDING 
THE MUELLER REPORT THAT, QUOTE, 
THIS IS A FORMAL IMPEACHMENT 
PROCEEDINGS RNLGT BUT THE HOW 
THE -- UNQUOTE, BUT THE HOUSE 
DID NOT ACTUALLY AUTHORIZE 
IMPEACHMENT PROCEEDINGS UNTIL 
THE ADOPTION OF H RES 660 ON 
OCTOBER 31st.
I BELIEVE IT'S IMPORTANT TO 
CLARIFY FOR THE RECORD WHEN 
FORMAL IMPEACHMENT PROCEEDINGS 
ACTUALLY STARTED.
IS CHAIRMAN NADLER CORRECT WHEN 
HE SAID THEY STARTED ON AUGUST 
8th OR DID THEY BEGIN WHEN THE 
HOUSE AUTHORIZED THEM ON OCTOBER
31st?
>> FORGIVE ME, MR. COLE, I WAS 
NOT PREPARED TO ANSWER THAT 
QUESTION BUT I THINK THE 
JUDICIARY COMMITTEE HAS TAKEN 
FORMAL POSITIONS WHICH WE CAN 
TRACK ABOUT THIS QUESTION.
THE HOUSE OF THE REPRESENTATIVES
CAN DESIGN AND STRUCTURE 
IMPEACHMENT AS IT SEES FIT. 
>> WELL, IT --
>> MR. COLE, COULD I --
>> CERTAINLY.
>> NOT OUTSIDE OF HOUSE RULES 
THEY CAN'T.
NOT WITHOUT PASSING RESOLUTION.
THAT'S THE PROBLEM WE HAD WITH 
THIS EARLIER ON.
THEY WERE GOING OUTSIDE HOUSE 
RULES.
AGAIN, WHEN COUNSEL HAS BEEN 
HERE FOREVER, THIS IS WHAT 
HAPPENED.
THEY WENT OUTSIDE OF HOUSE 
RULES.
THAT'S THE PROBLEM I'VE HAD WITH
THIS THIS.
WE CAN DISCUSS THAT MORE IN 
DEPTH. 
>> I THINK THE SPIRIT BEHIND 
THIS SUGGESTS THIS HAS BEEN 
GOING ON QUITE SOME TIME, LONGER
THAN THE FORMAL PROCEEDINGS.
MR. RASKIN, ON DECEMBER 10, 1998
DURING THE CLINTON IMPEACHMENT 
PROCEEDINGS, CHAIRMAN NADLER 
STATED IN THE HOUSE JUDICIARY 
COMMITTEE THAT, QUOTE, THERE 
MUST NEVER BE A NARROWLY VOTED 
IMPEACHMENT OR IMPEACHMENT 
SUPPORTED BY ONE OF OUR MAJOR 
POLITICAL PARTIES AND OPPOSED BY
ANOTHER.
SUCH AN IMPEACHMENT WILL PRODUCE
DIVISIVENESS AND BITTERNESS IN 
POLITICS FOR YEARS TO COME AND 
WILL CALL INTO QUESTION THE VERY
LEGITIMACY OF OUR POLITICAL 
INSTITUTIONS.
DO YOU BELIEVE THIS IMPEACHMENT,
WHICH IS SUPPORTED BY ONLY ONE 
POLITICAL PARTY HAS PRODUCED --
>> AGAIN, I'M GOING TO HAVE TO 
ALLOW CHAIRMAN NADLER TO SPEAK 
FOR HIS OWN WORDS. 
>> I CERTAINLY UNDERSTAND THAT.
>> SO -- LOOK, THERE'S BEEN A 
LOT OF BITTERNESS AND DIVISION 
IN OUR COUNTRY FOR SEVERAL YEARS
NOW PRECEDING ANY IMPEACHMENT 
PROCEEDINGS.
IT'S A SAD THING.
I HOPE EVERYBODY RALLIES AROUND 
THE CONSTITUTION BECAUSE IT'S 
THE CONSTITUTION THAT WILL GET 
US THROUGH THIS DIFFICULT TIME 
IN OUR HISTORY.
LET ME JUST SAY ABOUT THE 
CLINTON IMPEACHMENT THE CONDUCT 
PRESIDENT CLINTON WAS CHARGED 
WITH -- HE WASN'T CONVICTED FOR 
PERJURY BUT HE WAS ESSENTIALLY 
CHARGED WITH PERJURING HIMSELF 
IN DESCRIBING PRIVATE CONDUCT, A
SEXUAL AFFAIR.
AND THE CONDUCT WE'RE LOOKING AT
TODAY GOES RIGHT AT THE HEART OF
WHY IMPEACHMENT IS IN THE 
CONSTITUTION.
IMPEACHMENT IS IN THE 
CONSTITUTION BECAUSE PUBLIC 
OFFENSES AGAINST DEMOCRACY 
ITSELF.
I THINK YOU CANNOT COMPARE WHAT 
PRESIDENT CLINTON WAS IMPEACHED 
FOR BY THE HOUSE OF 
REPRESENTATIVES, AND I HOLD NO 
BRIEF FOR HIS CONDUCT IN ANY WAY
BUT I DON'T THINK YOU CAN 
COMPARE THAT TO THE MASSIVE 
OVERWHELMING AND UNREFUTED 
EVIDENCE WE HAVE THAT THE 
PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES 
TODAY HAS TRIED TO DRAG A 
FOREIGN POWER INTO OUR ELECTIONS
TO HIS OWN POLITICAL ADVANTAGE.
>> THAT WASN'T EXACTLY THE 
QUESTION I ASKED, BUT LET ME 
TURN TO MR. COLLINS AND SEE IF 
YOU AGREE WITH MR. RASKIN, IF 
THERE'S ANYTHING YOU WOULD 
DISAGREE WITH THERE AND WHAT'S 
BEEN THE IMPACT OF THIS PROCESS 
ON THE DOMESTIC POLITICS OF THE 
COUNTRY SINCE IT HAS BEEN 
ESSENTIALLY PARTISAN IN NATURE?
>> LOOK, NOT TRYING -- AGAIN, 
I'LL CUT SOME SLA, THAT HE WAS 
TRYING TO ANSWER FOR A 
CHAIRMAN'S OWN WORDS AND I GET 
THAT.
BUT THERE'S SEVERAL THINGS -- 
LET'S JUST TALK HERE FOR A 
MINUTE.
LET'S UNPACK.
THE ONLY THICK I APPRECIATE OUT 
OF THE LAST FEW MINUTES IS THE 
CHAIRMAN TRYING TO BRING IT IN 
ABOUT IMPEACHMENT.
I AGREE WITH HIM ON THAT POINT, 
THAT THIS IS ABOUT IMPEACHMENT.
WHAT I DISAGREE IS IT'S NOT 
ABOUT ABUSE OF POWER.
IT'S NOT ABOUT EVERYTHING ELSE.
IT WOULD COME FROM -- THIS IS 
SOMETHING YOU LOVE TO SEE IN THE
LAW.
IT'S A WRITTEN RECORD OF MOTIVE.
YOU'VE SEEN IT SINCE THE DAY HE 
WAS ELECTED.
YOU'VE SEEN IT IN THIS WHOLE 
PROCESS WORKING OUT.
YOU SAW IT LAST YEAR WHEN MY 
CHAIRMAN RAN FOR THE JOB BECAUSE
HE WOULD BE THE BEST FOR 
IMPEACHMENT.
WHAT WAS HANGING OUT LAST YEAR 
FOR IMPEACHMENT?
IT BECAME A MUELLER REPORT THAT 
DIDN'T GIVE THEM EVERYTHING THEY
WANTED.
THEN WE CAME INTO A CALL.
THIS IS -- THIS IS A PATTERN.
LOOK, I SAID THIS TO MY 
CHAIRMAN, WHO I RESPECT.
YOU GOT THE VOTES.
GO EXPLAIN IT TO THE AMERICAN 
PEOPLE.
TALK ABOUT AFFLICTING AN 
ELECTION.
THERE ARE A FEW THINGS HERE THAT
IS INTERESTING.
AS I SAID EARLIER ON.
TIME AND LOOK ARE TERRIBLE 
MASTERS.
I'VE HEARD IT SO MANY TIMES FROM
THE CHAIRMAN OF THIS KESHGS THE 
CHAIRMAN OF OTHER COMMITTEES.
WE HAVE TO DO IT BEFORE THE 2020
ELECTION.
PUT A CANDIDATE UP WORTH VOTING 
FOR, HOW ABOUT THAT, INSTEAD OF 
GOING AFTER A PRESIDENT WHO 
YOU'RE HAVING TROUBLE BEATING 
BECAUSE OF THE THINGS THAT 
HAPPENED IN OUR COUNTRY.
WITH UNEMPLOYMENT, THE ECONOMY 
GOING WELL.
THAT'S WHAT POLITICAL PRIMARYING
ARE FOR.
NOT THIS WHEN YOU LOOK BACK -- I
STILL NEVER GOT AN ANSWER TO MY 
QUESTION I HAD A FEW MINUTES AGO
ABOUT HAVE WITH NOW SET A 
STANDARD IF YOU RUN FOR 
PRESIDENT YOU CAN DO ANYTHING 
YOU WANT TO OVERSEAS AND NOT GET
INVESTIGATED FOR IT.
I HAVEN'T GOT THAT ANSWERED.
BUT THE CHAIRMAN'S QUESTION 
ABOUT REQUESTING STUFF.
AS THE CHAIRMAN KNOWS AND MY 
CHAIRMAN KNOWS BECAUSE MY 
CHAIRMAN LIKES SUBPOENAS.
HE LIKES TO THREATEN THEM 
ANYWAY.
BUT THE SECRETARY OF DEFENSE 
RESPONDED, HE SAID IT WAS OPEN 
TO NEGOTIATION.
SECRETARY OF STATE, PART OF THE 
DOCUMENT DUMP WAS PART OF THAT.
HOUSE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE, THE 
DUMP WE DID GET FROM THE 
INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE HAD OMB 
RECORDS FROM THE BUDGET 
COMMITTEE IN IT.
THERE ARE ISSUES HERE THAT I'VE 
HAD PROBLEMS WITH ALL YEAR IN 
THIS.
AND, YOU KNOW, IF YOU DIDN'T 
RECEIVE A LETTER, AS WE HAVE 
DONE IN THE PAST WHEN WE WERE 
UNDER MAJORITY UNDER PRESIDENT 
OBAMA AND PRESIDENT OBAMA IN 
FAST AND FURIOUS AND OTHER 
TIMES, THE THING THAT AMAZES ME 
SEEMS LIKE THE MAJORITY ALL OF A
SUDDEN DISCOVERED THE EXECUTIVE 
BRANCH AND THE LEGISLATIVE 
BRANCH DON'T PLAY TOGETHER IN 
THE SANDBOX.
THIS IS NOT A SHOCK FOR ANY OF 
US HERE DURING THE OBAMA 
ADMINISTRATION.
I WAS IN OVERSIGHT FOR THE FIRST
TWO YEARS.
WE PULLED OUR HAIR OUT.
WE HAD THE IRS, EVERYTHING ELSE 
AND WE WERE CONSTANTLY BEING 
STONEWALLED AND STOPPED, HAD TO 
ACTUALLY ISSUE SUBPOENAS WHICH 
FINALLY THE COURTS DID RULE, AND
I THINK THIS IS YOUR PROBLEM, 
THE COURTS RULED MANY YEARS 
LATER THAT ATTORNEY GENERAL 
HOLDER DID VIOLATE NOT GIVING 
THE INFORMATION OUT.
THAT WAS ACTUALLY DONE.
BUT IT WAS MANY YEARS LATER.
AGAIN, CALENDAR AND CLOCK IS A 
TERRIBLE MASTER.
AND YOU'RE HAVING TO DO THIS 
BECAUSE YOU PROMISED IT.
YOU PROMISED IT.
WE'RE CARRYING THROUGH ON A 
PROMISE HERE.
THE OTHER THING IS WE TALK ABOUT
FAIRNESS HERE.
MY FRIEND SAID THAT, OH, THIS 
HAS BEEN COMPLETELY FAIR.
NOBODY'S QUESTIONING THE FACT 
THAT OUR FOLKS GOT TO QUESTION 
THE WITNESSES.
NOBODY IS QUESTIONING THAT FACT.
BUT WHAT ABOUT THE FACT OF THE 
MAJORITY PREVENTING WITNESSES 
UNDER RULES FROM USING AGENCY 
COUNSEL?
EVEN UNDER THE AUSPICES OF AN 
IMPEACHMENT INVESTIGATION.
HOW ABOUT CUTTING OFF REPUBLICAN
QUESTIONS AND REFUSING TO ALLOW 
THE THIRD BRANCH TO EVEN RULES 
ON CLAIMS OF PRIVILEGE WHEN ONE 
WAS ACTUALLY DONE, YOU ACTUALLY 
WITHDREW FROM THE LAWSUIT.
AGAIN, IT'S NOT A MATTER OF TIME
HERE.
IT'S NOT A MATTER OF FACTS.
AGAIN, WHEN WE GO BACK TO IT, I 
CANNOT REPEAT THIS OVER AND OVER
AGAIN BECAUSE IT COMES UP WITH 
MR. RASKIN, COMES UP WITH THE 
CHAIRMAN, IT WILL COME UP MANY 
TIMES.
PUT PRESSURE ON A WORLD LEADER.
FOLKS, THIS PRESSURE IS 
AMAZINGLY BECAUSE THE GUY WHO 
WAS SUPPOSED TO BE PRESSURE 
DENIED IT EVER HAPPENED, ON 
MULTIPLE OCCASIONS.
EVEN ONE OF HIS OWN MEMBERS OF 
CABINET SAID -- YERMAK SAID WE 
NEVER TALKED ABOUT 
CONDITIONALITY.
THE ONLY TIME THEY TALKED ABOUT 
THIS WAS PRESUMPTION AND 
HEARSAY.
SONDLAND SAID IT WAS 
PRESUMPTION.
THAT'S WHAT I PRESUMED.
WHEN HE ACTUALLY ASKED THE 
PRESIDENT STRAIGHT UP, HE SAID, 
WHAT DO YOU WANT?
I WANT NOTHING.
I JUST WANT WHAT HE PROMISED AND
HE RAN ON.
IT'S PRESUMPTION AND HEARSAY.
GRANTED, THIS IS NOT A COURT OF 
LAW BECAUSE, BELIEVE ME, THIS 
WOULD HAVE BEEN OVER A LONG TIME
ALG.
WE WOULDN'T HAVE GOTTEN TO THIS 
PLACE THE RULES HAVE ALLOWED IT 
TO GET TO THIS PLACE BECAUSE 
MAJORITY RULES IN THIS PLACE.
BUT HERE'S THE PROBLEM.
THE PRESSURE ISSUE IS SAD 
BECAUSE, AGAIN, TO CONTINUE THIS
LINE OF THOUGHT AFTER THE 
PRESIDENT OF THE UKRAINE HAS 
CAME OUT AND DENIED AND DENIED 
IT AND DENIED IT, YOU'RE EITHER 
CALLING HIM APRIL PATHOLOGICAL 
LIAR, A WORLD LEADER, OR YOU'RE 
CALLING AS WAS ACTUALLY -- HE 
WAS ACTUALLY CALLED IN OUR 
COMMITTEE LAST WEEK A BATTERED 
WIFE.
HE WAS ACTUALLY CALLED THAT.
COMPARED TO A BATTERED WIFE.
HOW LOW HAVE WE SUNK?
THIS IS THE PROBLEM -- BECAUSE 
AT THE END OF THE DAY -- WE CAN 
GO INTO PROCESS FILES.
I DON'T SAY IT'S A MISTAKE BUT I
TOOK MY OWN CHAIRMAN AT HIS 
WORD.
WHEN I READ ABOUT HIS COMMENTS 
FROM 20 YEARS AGO.
WHEN HE SAID THE JUDICIARY 
COMMITTEE SHOULD NEVER TAKE A 
REPORT FROM A THIRD PARTY AND 
ACTUALLY NOT TRY TO INVESTIGATE 
IT ITSELF.
OTHERWISE WE BECOME A RUBBER 
STAMP.
CONGRATULATIONS.
OUR JUDICIARY COMMITTEE BECAME A
RUBBER STAMP.
I HOPE WE RECOVER.
BECAUSE THAT'S ALL WE'RE DOING 
RIGHT NOW IS JUST RUBBER 
STAMPING WHAT ADAM SCHIFF DID 
UNDER HIS OWN RULES, UNDER HIS 
OWN TIME FRAME, HIS OWN WAYS.
ALSO A MAN WHO'S BEEN OUT FOR 
THIS PRESIDENT SINCE DAY ONE AND
WOULD NOT COME AND TESTIFY.
THAT'S THE MOST AMAZING, 
SHOCKING THING TO ME IN THIS 
WHOLE PROCESS.
WHEN YOU UNDERSTAND WHERE WE'RE 
AT HERE -- I CAN UNDERSTAND WHY 
MR. RASKIN, WHO IS ELOQUENT IN 
HIS DISCUSSION OF CONSTITUTION 
OF WHY WE HAVE IMPEACHMENT, CUT 
TO THE FACT.
YOU DON'T LIKE THE GUY.
YOU DON'T LIKE THE CONVERSATION,
YOU DON'T LIKE HOW HE DOES 
BUSINESS.
AT THE END THE OF DAY, WHEN YOU 
START TALKING ABOUT THE PRESSURE
ON A FOREIGN POWER TO DO 
SOMETHING FOR YOU PERSONALLY -- 
AGAIN, TO EVEN GET TO THAT 
REMOTELY YOU HAVE TO CHANGE 
WORDS IN THE TRANSCRIPT INSTEAD 
OF DO US A FAVOR FOR OUR 
COUNTRY, DO US, YOU HAVE TO 
CHANGE IT TO ME.
YOU HAVE TO CHANGE THE FACTS.
LAST TIME I CHECKED, THIS 
COUNTRY IS NOT REAL KIND TO 
THOSE WHO ARE ACCUSED, HAVING 
THOSE IN POWER CHANGE THE RULES 
TO FIT THEIR GAME.
THAT'S NOT DUE PROCESS.
BUT I'M GOING TO GO BACK OVER IT
BECAUSE THE CHAIRMAN ACTUALLY 
SAID HERE'S WHY WE'RE HERE.
THERE ARE FOUR FACTS THAT WILL 
NEVER CHANGE.
IT GOES STRAIGHT TO THE HEART 
ANYTHING OUTSIDE OF ABUSE OF 
POWER, THERE'S NO PRESSURE, 
PRESIDENT TRUMP, PRESIDENT 
ZELENSKY.
IT SHOWS NO CONDITIONALITY OF 
TRADE.
THE ONLY ONE RELIED ON IN 600 
TIMES IN THE INTELLIGENCE 
COMMITTEE REPORT WAS 
MR. SONDLAND, WHO AFTER HE GOT 
PAST HIS PERFECT OPENING 
STATEMENT, WHEN QUESTIONED SAID,
WELL, THAT'S WHAT I PRESUMED IT 
TO BE.
WHEN ACTUALLY TALKED TO THE 
PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, 
HE WAS TOLD, NO, ALL I WANT HIM 
TO DO IS HIS JOB.
NOTHING ELSE.
WHEN HE ACTUALLY SAID, I HAVE A 
CONVERSATION WITH MR. YERMAK, HE
SAID THERE WAS NOTHING DISCUSSED
OF CONDITIONALITY.
HOW DO YOU PUT THIS MUCH FAITH 
IN MR. SONDLAND WHEN HE'S 
CONDITIONALLY TOLD STORIES THAT 
CHANGE?
AND ALL OF THE REST WERE 
HEARSAY.
ALL OF THE REST WERE ACTUALLY 
GOING OFF OTHER THINGS.
EVEN LIEUTENANT COLONEL VINDMAN 
WHO I RESPECT AS A SOLDIER 
ACTUALLY SAID WHEN THE QUESTION 
WAS ASKED, IS IT OKAY TO HAVE 
THIS CALL?
YES, IT'S OKAY FOR A PRESIDENT 
TO DO THAT, TO ASK FOR A 
POLITICAL INVESTIGATION BECAUSE 
IT HAPPENS.
AND HE EVEN SAID THAT.
SO THE QUESTION COMES BACK, THE 
UKRAINIANS WERE NOT EVEN AWARE 
THEIR AID WAS WITHHELD.
AND THE UKRAINES DIDN'T OPEN AN 
INVESTIGATION TO GET THE MONEY. 
>> LET ME ASK YOU, IS THIS THE 
FIRST PARTISAN IMPEACHMENT 
INQUIRY IN THE NATION'S HISTORY?
>> YES. 
>> MAZ A PRESIDENT EVER BEEN 
IMPEACHED WITHOUT MINORITY VOTES
BEFORE?
>> I THINK THERE'S SOME 
DISCUSSION ABOUT THAT WITH THE 
JOHNSON IMPEACHMENT FROM MANY 
YEARS AGO.
THAT WAS ALSO WHEN CONGRESS 
ITSELF SET HIM UP WITH THE LAW.
SO, I THINK YOU HAVE TO SAY THAT
WAS AN IMPEACHMENT.
THIS IS IN THE MODERN DAY ERA, 
THIS WAS A PARTISAN IMPEACHMENT.
>> SPEAKER PELOSI SAID 
IMPEACHMENT MUST BE, QUOTE, 
COMPELLING AND OVERWHELMINGLY 
BIPARTISAN.
THERE'S BIPARTISAN OPPOSITION TO
THE INQUIRY.
APPEARS THERE WILL BE BIPARTISAN
OPPOSITION TO THE ARTICLES.
RANKING MEMBER COLLINS, GWYNN 
ALL OF THAT, DO YOU BELIEVE THE 
UPCOMING VOTE ON H R.
SECHLT 755 COMPORTS WITH THE 
STANDARDS SET BY THE SPEAKER 
HERSELF?
>> NO, IT COMES NOWHERE CLOSE.
>> IS YOUR BELIEF THAT THE 
MEETING AND ARBITRARY DEADLINE 
IS MORE IMPORTANT TO THE 
DEMOCRATIC MAJORITY THAN 
BUILDING A VIABLE CASE IF, IN 
FACT, THERE IS CAUSE FOR 
IMPEACHMENT?
>> THEIR OWN WORDS CONVICT HIM 
OF THAT.
>> THE PREMISE OF THESE ARTICLES
OF IMPEACHMENT REST ON A PAUSE 
PLACED ON UKRAINE SECURITY 
ASSISTANCE.
A PAUSE, BY THE WAY, OF LESS 
THAN TWO MONTHS.
55 DAYS, I BELIEVE.
DEMOCRATS HAVE SPUN CREATIVE 
NARRATIVES AS TO THE MEANING AND
THE MOTIVE OF THIS PAUSE BUT 
OFFERED NO FACTUAL EVIDENCE.
DID UKRAINE EVER INITIATE 
INVESTIGATIONS INTO THE BIDENS?
>> NO.
>> WAS THE AID ULTIMATELY 
RELEASED?
>> YES.
>> DO YOU BELIEVE THE TAXPAYER 
DOLLARS OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE 
WERE WELL SERVED BY THE PAUSE?
>> THEY WERE.
THE PRESIDENT HIMSELF NOT POLICY
MAKERS, NOT ADMINISTRATIVE 
OFFICIALS IN DIFFERENT OFFICES 
HAVE FINAL AUTHORITY.
THAT'S THE PRESIDENT'S CALL.
THAT'S THE PRESIDENT'S DECISION.
AND HE MADE THAT CALL.
>> IS IT UNUSUAL FOR AID TO BE 
PAUSED ON BY A CHIEF EXECUTIVE?
>> NO.
>> DID THE DEMOCRATIC MAJORITY 
SUBPOENA ALL CORE WITNESSES WITH
FIRSTHAND EVIDENCE ON ANY 
POTENTIAL QUID PRO QUO WITH THE 
UKRAINIAN CONTROVERSY?
>> NO. 
>> HAS ANYONE IN THE TRUMP 
ADMINISTRATION BEEN CHARGED WITH
OR CONVICTED OF A CRIME UNDER 
THE CURRENT ALLEGATIONS RELATED 
TO THE UKRAINE?
>> NO. 
>> LET ME CONTINUE.
IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING THAT THE 
MINORITY PROPERLY EXERCISED ITS 
RIGHT UNDER CLAUSE 2, J-1 OF 
RULE 11 TO DEMAND A MINORITY 
HEARING.
IS THAT THE CASE?
>> THAT IS CORRECT. 
>> WHAT DAY DID YOU ASK FOR THAT
HEARING?
>> WE ASKED FOR IT ON THE FIRST 
DAY OF OUR -- WHEN WE CONVENED 
IN THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE. 
>> I BELIEVE --
>> MR. SENSENBRENNER.
I DON'T REMEMBER THE DATES IN 
FRONT --
>> DECEMBER 4th.
I'LL BE HAPPY TO PROVIDE THAT.
HAS THAT HEARING BEEN SCHEDULED?
>> NO.
IT WAS SUMMARILY DISMISSED WITH 
A LONG LETTER IN SENSE IT WAS 
DILATORY.
>> ON THE VERY FIRST DAY THE 
REQUEST COULD HAVE BEEN MADE.
MR. 
MR. RASKIN, ARE YOU FAMILIAR 
WITH THE RELATED -- IF A 
MAJORITY OF THE MINORITY MEMBERS
MAKE THEIR DEMAND BEFORE THE 
COMMITTEE'S HEARING IS GAVELED 
CLOSE?
>> I BELIEVE, I THINK, 
MR. COLLINS INVOKED THAT AT OUR 
HEARING. 
>> SO YOU ARE FAMILIAR --
>> YEAH, JUST FAMILIAR.
I WASN'T AWARE OF IT BEFORE. 
>> STATEMENTS POSTED ON THE 
RULES MAJORITY WEBSITE IN 
DOCUMENT ENTITLED, QUOTE, HOUSE 
RULES WHICH GOVERN THE COMMITTEE
HEARING PROCESS, UNQUOTE, BASED 
ON REVIEW OF THE HEARING VIDEO, 
THE MINORITY PROPERLY PRESENTED 
THEIR REQUEST TO CHAIRMAN NADLER
BEFORE THE ORIGINAL HEARING 
CONCLUDED.
ARE YOU FAMILIAR WITH A MEMO 
WRITTEN -- MR. RASKIN.
I SHOULD HAVE MADE THAT CLEAR.
BY FORM OTHER RULES COMMITTEE 
CHAIRMAN DAVID DRYER GOVERNING 
MINORITY RULE DAY?
>> NO. 
>> CHAIRMAN MCGOVERN I ASK 
UNANIMOUS CONSENT THIS MEMO BE 
MADE PART OF THE RECORD AND WILL
NOTE THE MEMO STATES, IN PART, 
THAT A POINT OF ORDER MAY LIE 
AGAINST REPORTED MEASURE IN 
WHICH THE MINORITY'S DEMAND FOR 
A HEARING WAS IMPROPERLY 
REJECTED. 
>> WITHOUT OBJECTION.
I'LL ASK UNANIMOUS CONSENT.
AND INSERT IT IN THE RECORD, OUR
RESPONSE TO YOUR LETTER.
WE CAN TALK ABOUT THAT AFTER 
YOUR QUESTIONS. 
>> CERTAINLY APPROPRIATE.
THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN. 
>> DURING THE MARKUP OF HRES 
755, CHAIRMAN NADLER, 
INTERPRETING THE RULE REQUIRES 
THAT THE MINORITY HEARING DAY 
OCCUR PRIOR TO THE CONSIDERATION
OF RELEVANT MEASURE OR MATTER 
WOULD PERMIT THE MINORITY TO 
PROPERLY DELAY PROCEEDINGS.
WERE YOU TRYING TO IMPROPERLY 
TRYING TO DELAY PROCEEDINGS, 
MR. COLLINS?
>> NO.
I WAS TRYING TO HAVE PROPER 
FOLLOW-UP OF RULES. 
>> AND, AGAIN, YOU MADE THIS 
REQUEST THE VERY FIRST DAY OF 
HEARINGS, IS THAT CORRECT?
>> WE DID.
>> THE HEARING AT WHICH THE 
DEMAND WAS PROPERLY MADE WAS 
ENTITLED, IN PART, QUOTE, THE 
IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY OF DONALD J.
TRUMP, UNQUOTE.
MY COLLEAGUES ON THE OTHER SIDE 
THE AISLE HAVE OFFERED A NUMBER 
OF REASONS WHY CHAIRMAN NADLER'S
REFUSAL TO SCHEDULE A MINORITY 
HEARING IS APPROPRIATE.
I'D LIKE TO TAKE A MOMENT TO 
RESPOND TO THOSE.
MY COLLEAGUES CLAIM THAT THE 
LEGISLATIVE HISTORY OF THE RULES
SUGGEST THAT IT WAS DESIGNED AS 
A BACKSTOP TO ENSURE THE 
MINORITY GETS AT LEAST ONE 
WITNESS AT A HEARING.
I DO NOT FIND THIS REASONING TO 
BE COMPELLING IF THAT, INDEED, 
WAS THE PURPOSE OF THE RULE THE 
PLAIN READING OF THE TEXT WOULD 
SAY OTHERWISE.
WHILE TRADITIONALLY IT'S BEEN 
USED AS A NEGOTIATING POINT 
BETWEEN MAJORITY AND MINORITY 
REGARDING THE NUMBER OF 
WITNESSES, THE MERE FACT THE 
MINORITY HAS A WITNESS AT A 
HEARING DOES NOT MEAN THAT 
THERE'S AN IMPLICIT WAIVER OF 
THE RIGHT TO DEMAND A MINORITY 
DAY HEARING.
THERE ARE TIMES IN WHICH THE 
MINORITY WAVES THE RIGHT TO 
MINORITY DAY HEARING.
FOR EXAMPLE, OUR DISCUSSIONS 
REGARDING MEDICARE FOR ALL 
HEARING.
WE WAVED THAT RIGHT TO A 
MINORITY DAY HEARING IN ORDER TO
SECURE TWO MORE WITNESSES.
MR. COLLINS, AT ANY TIME DID YOU
WAVE YOUR RIGHTS UNDER CLAUSE 2,
J-1 OF RULE 11?
>> NO, I DID NOT.
I BELIEVE THAT'S WHY WE'RE HERE 
TODAY, ACTUALLY. 
>> DID YOU ASK A SECOND WITNESS 
DAY AND DID THEY PROVIDE THAT 
SECOND WITNESS -- WITNESS, 
EXCUSE ME, AND DID THEY PROVIDE 
THAT SECOND WITNESS IN EXCHANGE 
FOR WAVING YOUR RIGHTS?
>> NO, IT WAS NOT EVEN 
DISCUSSED. 
>> MY COLLEAGUES ON THE OTHER 
SIDE OF THE AISLE HAVE 
PREVIOUSLY QUOTED JOINT 
COMMITTEE ON ORGANIZATION OF 
CONGRESS 1966 RECOMMENDATIONS 
WHICH STATED THAT A MINIMUM 
SAFEGUARD BE ESTABLISHED FOR, 
QUOTE, THOSE INFREQUENT INDENTS 
WHEN A WITNESS NOT A -- HOWEVER,
THAT'S NOT THE CASE TODAY.
WITNESS WAS ALLOTTED TIME IN 
THIS CASE BUT NOT WITNESSES.
IN OTHER WORDS, WE DIDN'T GET 
ANYTHING IN EXCHANGE FOR OUR 
RIGHT NOT BEING EXERCISED.
WHILE THIS MAY HAVE BEEN ONE 
REASON FOR THE ADOPTION OF THE 
MINORITY HEARING DAY PROVISION, 
IT DOESN'T RENDER MEANINGLESS 
THE PLAIN READING OF THE TEXT.
SO, WE SPENT A LOT OF TIME ON 
THIS, BUT WE THINK IT'S VERY 
IMPORTANT.
WE SIMPLY WEREN'T GIVEN 
SOMETHING THAT WE THINK BY, YOU 
KNOW, BY RIGHT WE SHOULD HAVE 
HAD.
AND WOULD ACTUALLY SUBJECT THIS 
TO A POINT OF ORDER.
MY COLLEAGUES ALSO CLAIM 
CHAIRMAN NADLER IS NOT REQUIRED 
TO SCHEDULE THE MINORITY HEARING
DAY BEFORE THE MATTER IS 
REPORTED OUT OF COMMITTEE.
YOU GOT TO BE KIDDING.
IN OTHER WORDS, WE CANNOT AGREE 
THAT THE HOUSE INTENDED THAT THE
RIGHT FOR THE MINORITY HEARING 
DAY CAN BE FULFILLED BY 
SCHEDULING A HEARING ON A 
MEASURE AFTER THE MEASURE'S 
VOTED OUT OF THE FULL COMMITTEE.
I MEAN, THAT JUST DOESN'T MAKE 
ANY SENSE.
SO, MR. COLLINS, PRESUME PASSAGE
OF THESE ARTICLES OF 
IMPEACHMENT, ISN'T THE MINORITY 
HEARING DAY NOW IRRELEVANT?
>> I BELIEVE IT IS.
AND I BELIEVE THAT'S THE CONCERN
MANY OF US HAVE WHO 
INSTITUTIONALLY LOVE THIS PLACE 
IRRELEVANT?
>> YES. 
AND THAT IS WHY SO MANY OF US 
LOVE THIS PLACE. 
>> AND SO EVEN THOUGH THE HOUSE 
RULES DID NOT REQUIRE CHAIRMAN 
NADLER, FOR MARKING UP THE 
IMPEACHMENTS, AND THE MEMBERS OF
THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE, AND THE
RULES COMMITTEE, AND YOU BELIEVE
IT WOULD HAVE BEEN BETTER FOR 
THE AMERICAN INSTITUTION AND TO 
VENT ALL OF THIS DISAGREEMENT 
AND THE RANCOR AND TO SCHEDULE 
THE HEARING. 
IT IS JUST ONE DAY?
>> I APOLOGIZE THAT I LEARNED OF
IT ONE DAY WHEN MR. COLLINS 
RAISED IT. 
I LOOKED AT IT, AND IT SAYS THAT
THE CHAIR OF THE COMMITTEE IS 
NOT REQUIRED TO SCHEDULE THE 
MINORITY HEARING PRECEDENT TO 
THE CONTINUING COURSE OF 
LEGISLATIVE ACTION, AND I HAVING
BEEN IN THE MINORITY FOR THE 
FIRST TIME HERE, I FEEL YOUR 
EXASPERATION ABOUT THAT, THAT IT
MAY NOT BE HAPPENING BEFORE THE 
BILL PASSES AND IF WE WANT TO 
MAKE A CHANGE TO THAT RULE THAT 
SOMETHING THAT WE SHOULD TALK 
ABOUT WITH FUTURE CONGRESSES. 
>> I AP APPRECIATE THAT, AND THE
SENTIMENT BEHIND IT, BECAUSE I 
KNOW IT IS SINCERE. 
AGAIN, I CAN GO ON AND ON ON 
THIS, BUT WE DO BELIEVE, MR. 
CHAIRMAN, IT IS A VIOLATION OF 
THE SPIRIT OF THE LETTER, AND WE
TRIED TO MAKE YOUR REQUEST 
RESPECTFUL, AND WE TRIED TO. 
>> IT WAS. 
>> TO US THE FACTS ARE CLEAR 
THAT CHAIRMAN NADLER IGNORED THE
RIGHT OF THE COMMITTEE TO BE 
IGNORED BY THE DEMOCRATIC 
MAJORITY NOW, AND BEING SO, IT 
FUNDAMENTALLY ALTERS THE TOOLS 
OF THE COMMITTEE, AND SO WE HOPE
THAT THE COMMITTEE WILL REPAIR 
THIS AND AT THE VERY LEAST HAVE 
THIS MATTER DEBATEDED ON THE 
HOUSE FLOOR. 
MR. RASKIN, AFTER THE ADOPTION 
OF H-RES-660, RANKING MEMBER 
COLLINS WROTE SEVEN LETTERS TO 
CHAIRMAN NADLER ON THE SUBJECT 
OF THE COMMITTEE'S CONSIDERATION
OF IMPEACHMENT. 
AND ON THE 12th HE WROTE THAT 
THE MATTER OF THE COMMITTEE'S 
CONSIDERATION, AND ON NOVEMBER 
14th, HE WROTE CHAIRMAN NADLER 
ASKING FOR THE SAME TRANSPARENCY
AND FAIRNESS IN PRIOR 
IMPEACHMENT INQUIRIES BE 
PRIORITIZED. 
AND ON NOVEMBER 18th, HE WROTE 
CHAIRMAN NADLER FOR A PARTICULAR
WITNESS, AND THE COORDINATION OF
CERTAIN WITNESSES TO CONCEAL 
RELEVANT FACTS. 
ON SEPTEMBER 21st, HE WROTE 
CHAIRMAN NADLER THAT HE HAD 
OBTAINED ALL DOCUMENTS FROM 
CHAIRMAN SCHIFF PURSUANT TO 
HOUSE RESOLUTION 660, AND ON 
NOVEMBER 30th, THE PERSISTENT 
MR. COLLINS WROTE CHAIRMAN 
NADLER ASKING FOR EXPANDED PANEL
AND BALANCED COMPOSITION OF THE 
ACADEMIC WITNESSES TO OPINE ON 
THE SUBJECT MATTERS AT ISSUE. 
AND THEN DECEMBER 2nd, HE WROTE 
CHAIRMAN NADLER FOR CLARITY OF 
HOW HE WANTS TO CONDUCT THE 
INQUIRY, AND REFERENCING FIVE 
PREVIOUS LETTERS THAT WERE NEVER
ANSWERED AND ON DECEMBER 3rd, HE
WROTE HIM REMINDING HIM OF THE 
RECENT LETTERS AND ASKING THE 
JUDICIARY COMMITTEE TO PROVIDE 
THE PRESIDENT DUE PROCESS WITH 
THE INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE AND 
CHAIRMAN SCHIFF DID NOT. 
AND SO IT IS MY UNDERSTANDING 
THAT CHAIRMAN NADLER DID NOT 
PROVIDE A RESPONSE TO ANY OF 
THESE LETTERS?
IS IT YOUR KNOWLEDGE THAT 
CHAIRMAN NADLER DOES NOT RESPOND
TO RANKING MINORITY LEADERS?
>> NO, AND LIKE THE 
AFOREMENTIONED THOMAS JEFFERSON 
WAS A PROLIFIC LETTER WRITER, SO
I DON'T KNOW IF THEY ENGAGED TO 
FOLLOW UP ON ALL OF THOSE, BUT 
WE ARE TOGETHER ON A DAILY BASIS
PRETTY MUCH, SO I CAN'T SPEAK 
FOR THE CHAIRMAN. 
>> I WANTED TO NOTICE FOR THE 
LETTER, BUT WHEN I SENT A NOTE 
TO MY CHAIRMAN, HE DID RESPOND 
AND WE APPRECIATE THAT VERY 
MUCH. 
>> AND SIR -- 
>> YES. 
>> IT IS NOT TRUE IN OUR 
COMMITTEE, AND WE HAVE ONE 
LETTER FROM THE WITNESS LIST AND
THE OTHER WAS WHEN WE HAD A 
DISCUSSION OF THE WITNESS LIST 
WHICH TURNED INTO A CONVERSATION
OF ASKING FOR THREE TO TWO, AND 
RATIOS WHEN I WAS ASKING FOR THE
WITNESSES, AND THAT IS THE ONLY 
REGRET I HAVE. 
I UNDERSTAND THAT THE CHAIRMAN 
IS UNDER A LOT OF PRESSURE, AND 
THE CALENDAR WILL KILL YOU A 
LOT. 
>> AND IN A SENSE, THIS 
COMMITTEE DOES HAVE A 
RESPONSIBILITY TO MAKE SURE THAT
THE OTHER COMMITTEES OPERATE 
ACCORDING TO OUR RULES, AND 
COMMON COURTESY. 
MR. COLLINS, THE ARTICLE OF 
IMPEACHMENT ARE BASED ON A 
REPORT WRITTEN BY CHAIRMAN 
SCHIFF AND TRANSMITTED TO THE 
JUDICIARY COMMITTEE, CORRECT?
>> THAT IS CORRECT. 
>> DID THAT IMPEACHMENT REPORT 
RELY ON HEARSAY TO SUPPORT THEIR
ASSERTIONS?
>> YES. 
>> WHAT EXPLANATIONS DOES 
CHAIRMAN SCHIFF PROVIDED OF WHY 
HEARSAY AND THE FIRST READ 
TESTIMONY WAS INCORRECTLY 
PRESENTED AS EVIDENCE?
>> WELL, BESIDES HIS OWN 
DISCUSSION OF MAKING UP THE 
PHONE CALL TO BEGIN WITH, AND HE
IS NOT PROVIDED ON, BECAUSE HE 
DID NOT COME TESTIFY IN MY 
COMMITTEE. 
>> WELL, DID YOU ASK CHAIRMAN 
NADLER FOR MR. SCHIFF TO 
TESTIFY?
>> I DID. 
>> YOU ASKED FOR ARTICLES OF 
IMPEACHMENT OF THE COMMANDER IN 
CHIEF BASED ON NONSUPPORTED 
ALLEGATIONS AND HEARSAY AND YOU 
WERE NOT ABLE TO ASK QUESTIONS 
OF THE AUTHOR OF THE RECORD?
>> THAT IS RIGHT. 
I GOT A STAFF NUMBER. 
>> AND SO I WOULD LIKE TO SAY 
THAT THE CHAIRMAN WAS UNWILLING 
TO ANSWER ABOUT THE REPORT, BUT 
HE DID APPEAR ON FOX NEWS, AND 
THAT IS UNFORTUNATE THAT IT MADE
TELEVISION DOCUMENTS OTHER THAN 
TRANSPARENT AND THOROUGH 
BIPARTISAN INVESTIGATION, AND 
ALSO WORTHY OF THE RECORD, MR. 
COLLINS, WAS THE PRESIDENT -- 
AND THIS IS AN ODD THING FOR US,
BECAUSE GENERALLY THE JUDICIARY 
COMMITTEE IS THE MAIN COMMITTEE 
OF IMPEACHMENT, AND THAT IS 
HISTORICALLY HAS BEEN THE CASE. 
AND THAT IS CLEARLY NOT THE CASE
HERE. 
>> NO, NO. 
>> AND THE COMMITTEE OF 
INTELLIGENCE IS THE MAIN 
COMMITTEE OF IMPEACHMENT. 
DID THE PRESIDENT HAVE ANY 
COUNSEL THERE?
>> NO, SOMEWHERE WE LOST THE 
RIGHT TO BE IN IMPEACHMENT, AND 
WE GOT IT IN THE END TO FINISH 
IT, BUT WE LOST IT. 
>> THERE IS A DIFFERENCE OF 
WINDOW DRESSINGS AND SUBSTANCE. 
BUT THE END OF HEARINGS WHERE 
YOU ARE NOT ALLOWED TO QUESTION 
THE AUTHOR OF THE REPORT ON 
WHICH THE IMPEACHMENT IS BASE 
AND THE PRESIDENT NEVER HAD 
REPRESENTATION THERE, AND IN THE
PAST WE ALWAYS HAD 
REPRESENTATION. 
YOU WERE AT THE JUDICIARY, AND 
THE PRESIDENT WAS THERE, AND HE 
COULD ASK QUESTIONS, BUT THE 
MAIN PLACE WHERE ALL OF THESE 
THINGS COME OUT OF, THE 
PRESIDENT WAS SPECIFICALLY 
EXCLUDED AND YOU WERE NOT IN 
WHAT IS SUPPOSED TO BE THE MAIN 
COMMITTEE ON JUDICIARY, AND YOU 
WERE NOT ALLOWED TO ASK THE 
AUTHOR OF THE PRINCIPLE REPORT 
QUESTIONS. 
>> YOU HAVE JUST PERMITTED IN A 
SHORT SUMMATION ARE CRUX OF THE 
WHOLE PROBLEM WHICH I HAVE 
ADMIRED. 
BY THE TIME IT GOT TO THE 
JUDICIARY COMMITTEE, IT WAS DONE
DEAL. 
THE TRAIN WAS ON THE TRACKS AND 
THEY HAD TO CATCH UP TO IT. 
IT WAS DECIDED WHAT THEY WANTED 
TO DO.
AND HERE IT IS AND I HAVE HEARD 
THIS ARGUMENT AND YOU CAN WINDOW
DRESS IT, BUT WHEN WE GO TO 
INSTITUTIONAL INTEGRITY PROBLEM 
HERE, WHEN YOU DO WHATEVER YOU 
THINK OF H-RES-660, THE ONLY 
PLACE IT PROVIDED THE 
OPPORTUNITY FOR FAIRNESS FOR THE
PRESIDENT AND THE ADMINISTRATION
WAS IN THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE, 
BECAUSE AT THAT POINT IN TIME 
THERE THEY WOULD HAVE BEEN ABLE 
TO ASK FOR WITNESSES BY THE WAY,
WHICH THEY WERE TURNED DOWN AND 
ALL OF THESE THINGS, BUT NEVER 
OPPORTUNITY. 
AND THERE IS NO WAY, AND I DON'T
CARE HOW MUCH THE MAJORITY 
PRETTIES THIS UP, AND THERE IS 
NO WAY TO BE CALLING FOUR LAW 
SCHOOL PROFESSORS AND TWO STAFF 
MEMBER, AND THAT IS THE ONLY 
MEMBERS THAT YOU HAVE TO PROVIDE
ANY OPPORTUNITY FOR THE 
PRESIDENT TO QUESTION AND GET 
ANYTHING OUT OF THEM, AND I HAVE
HEARD FROM MY MAJORITY 
COLLEAGUES, BUT AS A DEFENSE 
COLLEAGUE, IF HE IS INNOCENT, 
JUST TELL HIM TO COME PROVE IT, 
AND WHEN IS THAT EVER PART OF 
WHAT WE ARE DOING HERE. 
REALLY?
I DON'T THINK THAT ANY OF THE 
CIVIL LIBERTARIANS ON THE 
DEMOCRATIC AISLE SHOULD BE 
LAYING AWAKE AT NIGHT, HOW CAN I
BE ASSOCIATED WITH THIS. 
BECAUSE WE CAN DO IT FAIRLY AND 
STILL GET THE RESULTS, AND THEY 
ARE OUTNUMBERING US, AND TRYING 
TO DO IT FOR THREE YEARS. 
>> MR. RASKINS, DID YOU HAVE ANY
PROBLEMS WITH THE REPORT?
>> NO. 
>> REALLY, NOBODY ON OUR SIDE 
HAD ANY CONVERSATIONS. 
TO YOUR KNOWLEDGE DID CHAIRMAN 
NADLER HAVE ANY CONVERSATIONS 
WITH CHAIRMAN SCHIFF ABOUT THE 
CONTENTS OF THE REPORT?
>> I AM SORRY, YOU SAY ABOUT THE
CONTENTS OF THE REPORT -- 
>> WELL, NONE OF OUR PEOPLE HAVE
HAD THAT OPPORTUNITY. 
>> WELL, AS A COMMITTEE, WE HAVE
BEEN TALKING ABOUT THE SUBSTANCE
OF IT FOR A LONG TIME NOW. 
I DID NOT, WELL, I MEAN -- 
>> WELL, WE HAVE BEENHE SUBSTAN 
REPORT AND WE DIDN'T HAVE AN 
OPPORTUNITY TO QUESTION THE 
AUTHOR OF THE REPORT. 
>> OH, OKAY. 
I SEE WHAT YOU MEAN. 
>> FORMALLY OR INFORMALLY TO MY 
KNOWLEDGE. 
>> AGAIN, THE COUNSEL FOR THE 
INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE CAME OVER
TO DISCUSS ALL OF THE FACTUAL 
FINDINGS THAT WERE IN THE 
INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE'S 
REPORT -- 
>> BUT HE IS NOT THE PRINCIPLE 
AUTHOR OF THE REPORT OF, AND THE
CHAIRMAN IS THE PRINCIPLE 
AUTHOR. 
AND BY THE WAY, A FACT WITNESS 
AS WELL IN MANY WAYS. 
AND SO -- 
>> IF I COULD RESPOND TO THIS 
GENERAL LINE OF ATTACK. 
THE HOUSE RESOLUTION 660 HAD A 
NUMBER OF SIGNIFICANT PROCEDURAL
PROTECTIONS FOR THE PRESIDENT. 
AND SO THE GRAND JURY AND THE 
TRIAL TAKES PLACE IN THE SENATE,
BUT STILL, WE HAD SIGNIFICANT 
PROCEDURAL PRODUCTIONS. 
WE INVITED THE PRESIDENTIAL 
COUNSEL THE OPPORTUNITY TO 
PARTICIPATE AND OBJECT TO THE 
ADMISSIBILITY OF THE TESTIMONY, 
AND TO MAKE PRESENTATION OF THE 
EVIDENCE BEFORE THE FULL 
JUDICIARY COMMITTEE AND THE 
ABILITY TO CALL WITNESSES, AND 
THE PRESIDENT CHOSE NOT THE 
AVAIL HIMSELF OF THE 
OPPORTUNITY, AND IT IS REMINDING
ME OF THE PRESIDENT BLOCKADING 
ALL OF THE WITNESSES AND SAYING 
THAT YOU DON'T HAVE ENOUGH 
PEOPLE WITH DIRECT FIRST HAND 
KNOWLEDGE. 
>> WERE THOSE RIGHTS ONLY IN THE
JUDICIARY COMMITTEE, BECAUSE YOU
ARE NOT THE IMPEACHMENT 
COMMITTEE, BUT THE FALLOUT, AND 
SO DID THE PRESIDENT GET THOSE 
RIGHT IN THE INTELLIGENCE 
COMMITTEE?
>> I WILL HAVE TO GO BACK TO 
CHECK. 
>> I ASSURE YOU NOT. 
>> YOU MAY NOT ACCEPT THIS 
ANALOGY, BUT THIS IS THE ANALOGY
THAT WE PROCEEDED ON, BECAUSE 
THIS IS THE FIRST IMPEACHMENT 
WHERE THE HOUSE WAS THE 
FACT-FINDER ITSELF, AND SO WHEN 
THE SPECIAL COUNSEL AND THE 
INDEPENDENT COUNSEL DID THEIR 
WORK IN THE NIXON AND THE 
CLINTON IMPEACHMENTS, ALL OF 
THAT WAS CLOSED DOOR 
DEPOSITIONS, AND THEY DID NOT 
WANT THE WITNESSES TO 
COORDINATING THE TESTIMONY AND 
SO ON. 
AND THAT IS HOW THE 
INVESTIGATIONS TAKE PLACE. 
THE HOUSE COMMITTEE ON 
INTELLIGENCE AND OUR 
FACT-FINDING COMMITTEE, AND THAT
WHY THEY PERFORMED CLOSED DOOR 
DEPOSITIONS, BECAUSE THEY WANTED
TO AVOID WITNESSES COACHING EACH
OTHER AND TESTIMONY. 
>> AND LET ME GIVE MR. COLLINS A
CHANCE TO ANSWER HERE. 
>> I AM THE RANKING MEMBER WHO 
SAID THAT IF THE PRESIDENT SAW 
SOMETHING THAT HE DID NOT LIKE, 
HE COULD HAVE WRITTEN A LETTER 
LIKE ANYBODY ELSE IN THE WORLD. 
AND THAT HOW HE WOULD BE TAKEN 
CARE OF, BUT LET ME HIT A COUPLE
OF THESE. 
AND WE STILL HAVE NOT RECEIVED 
ALL OF THE DOCUMENTS THAT WE 
WERE SUPPOSED TO HAVE RECEIVED. 
AND THEY SAID THEY HAVE NOT, AND
I HAVE NOT. 
AND THAT IS A DIRECT VIOLATION 
OF H-660, BUT I DON'T KNOW HOW 
TO GET AROUND IT, AND
PRETEND IT IS NOT HAPPENING, BUT
THE STAFF MEMBER FOR MR. GOLDMAN
WOULD NOT TESTIFY ON THE METHOD 
OF THE INVESTIGATION, AND EVEN 
IN AN EGREGIOUS VIOLATION IN 
THEIR OWN REPORTING, MEMBERS OF 
CONGRESS AND THEIR PHONE 
RECORDS, HE WOULD NOT ACTUALLY 
SAY WHO ORDERED THAT CHAIRMAN 
SCHIFF OR HIM, AND I HAVE 
DEFAULTED TO YOU THE MR. SCHIFF,
BUT MR. GOLDMAN SAID THAT WE 
WILL NOT DISCUSS THE PROCEDURE 
OF THEIR INVESTIGATION. 
THIS IS THE MOST AMAZING THOUGHT
WHEN YOU ARE TRYING TO GET DUE 
PROCESS TO THE PRESIDENT OF THE 
UNITED STATES, AND WE CAN PRETTY
IT UP ANY WAY, BUT IT IS NOT 
BINDING. 
LOOK, YOU WILL IMPEACHMENT, AND 
YOU HAVE THE VOTES, BUT AT THE 
END OF THE DAY, IT IS WORTH THE 
INTEGRITY OF THE HOUSE?
I DON'T THINK SO. 
>> ATTEND OF THE DAY, MR. 
COLLINS SAID THAT WHEN HE ASKED 
HOW THE REPORT WAS CONDUCTED AND
NEVER GOT A ANSWER. 
AND THEN THERE WERE PHONE CALLS 
REVEALED FROM THE PHONE RECORDS 
OF CHAIRMAN NUNES, AND HOW DID 
YOU GET THOSE -- 
>> WELL, I HAVE TO HAVE STAFF 
COUNSEL -- 
>> WELL, HE WOULD NOT ANSWER 
THAT, RIGHT, MR. COLLINS?
>> RIGHT. 
AND JUST ASKING SOMEBODY WHO 
WOULD NOT ANSWER THE QUESTION. 
>> WELL, I UNDERSTAND THAT WE 
FORCEFULLY REPRESENTED THAT NO 
MEMBER OF THE HOUSE OF 
REPRESENTATIVES AND NO MEMBER OF
THE PRESS WAS TARGETED WITH ANY 
INVESTIGATIVE RESOURCES. 
>> MR. -- REALLY?
I DON'T KNOW HOW HE GOT THAT 
STATEMENT OUT WITHOUT STUMBLING 
ALL OVER EVERYTHING. 
YOU CANNOT -- I MEAN, THIS IS 
TALKING ABOUT THE METADATA AND 
THE NUMBERS AND AT SOME POINT 
SOMEBODY WITH THE RANKING 
MEMBER'S PHONE NUMBER HAD TO GO 
DOWN THERE TO LOOK FOR HIS PHONE
NUMBER, AND LOOK FOR MR. 
N
SOLOMON'S PHONE NUMBER, AND THIS
IS HOW SCREWED IT UP. 
THEY WANT TO GLOSS OVER THE 
PROCESS AND HOW THEY DID THE 
INVESTIGATION, BECAUSE THE TIME 
AND THE CALENDAR ARE TERRIBLE 
MASTERS, BUT THIS IS WHAT WE ARE
TALKING ABOUT, AND THEY WOULD 
NOT TALK ABOUT IT. 
TO SAY THAT NOBODY IS DOING THIS
INTENTIONALLY IS JUST NOT BEING 
FACTUALLY ACCURATE. 
IT DOES NOT HAPPEN ON ITS OWN. 
>> I WOULD ASK BOTH OF YOU THIS 
QUESTION. 
WHO SPECIFICALLY MATCHED THE 
PHONE NUMBERS OF RANKING MEMBER 
NUNES AND WHAT METHOD DID THEY 
USE?
>> I HAVE NO IDEA. 
IF I COULD SAY IN RESPONSE TO 
THE WHOLE LINE OF QUESTIONING. 
THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED 
STATES WAS GIVEN THE OPPORTUNITY
TO CALL ANY WITNESSES THAT HE 
WANTED, ANY OF THE 17 WITNESSES 
WHO APPEARED BEFORE THE HOUSE 
INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE AND 
OVERSIGHT AND IN FOREIGN AFFAIRS
AND COULD HAVE BEEN CALLED BY 
THE PRESIDENT, AND HE WOULD HAVE
HAD THE OPPORTUNITY TO 
CROSS-EXAMINE ANY OF THEM, BUT 
OF COURSE HE DID NOT WANT TO, 
BECAUSE ALL OF THEM TOLD 
DIFFERENT PIECES OF THE SAME 
STORY WHICH IS THAT THE 
PRESIDENT EXECUTED THIS 
SHAKEDOWN OF PRESIDENT ZELENSKY 
TO COME TO GET INVOLVED IN OUR 
CAMPAIGN AT THE EXPENSE OF -- 
>> THAT IS NOT HOLDING WATER. 
I CANNOT SAY THIS AGAIN. 
GOING BACK TO THE CALENDAR AND 
THE CLOCK AND WHEN I TALKED TO 
THE CHAIRMAN HIMSELF, AND ASKED 
HIM LE LETTERS ASKING FOR THE 
WITNESS DAY, AND HE DID NOT 
BUILD IT IN FOR THE CALENDAR TO 
ACCEPT ONE OF OUR WITNESSES MUCH
LESS THE WHITE HOUSE, AND DON'T 
TELL ME THAT THEY WOULD HAVE 
ACCEPTED IT, BECAUSE IT WAS 
NEVER ON THE CALENDAR. 
>> THESE NUMBERS DIDN'T 
SPECIFICALLY -- AND WHO 
SPECIFICALLY ORDERED THE 
INCLUSION OF THE PHONE RECORDS 
IN THE SCHIFF REPORT?
>> RANKING MEMBER, I AM AFRAID I
CANNOT ANSWER THESE QUESTIONS, 
BECAUSE I DON'T KNOW. 
>> UNDOUBTEDLY, THE INTELLIGENCE
COMMITTEE CARRYING OUT A 
VENDETTA AGAINST A MEMBER OF 
CONGRESS. 
>> EITHER OF YOU BELIEVE IT IS 
PROPER TO HAVE CALL LOGS THAT 
ARE NOT -- 
>> NO, IT IS NOTHING BUT A 
POLITICAL DRIVE-BY, AND I TOLD 
YOU THAT THEY COULD HAVE DONE IT
SEVERAL WAYS AND MEMBER ONE, AND
PERSON ONE, AND ANY OTHER WAY, 
BUT THEY CHOSE TO ACTUALLY USE 
THE NAMES.
THIS IS A POLITICAL HIT-JOB. 
>> GIVE YOU AN OPPORTUNITY TO 
RESPOND, MR. RASKIN. 
APPROPRIATE FOR THE NAMES AND 
NUMBERS TO BE RELEASED, AND THE 
TARGETS OF THE INVESTIGATION, 
AND JUST SWEPT UP?
>> YEAH. 
I WAS NOT INVOLVED IN THAT PART 
OF IT, AND SO, FORGIVE ME 
AGAIN -- 
>> AGAIN, I UNDERSTAND. 
>> WILL THE GENTLEMAN YIELD FOR 
A MOMENT?
WE DID HAVE TESTIMONY ON THIS. 
>> YOU WILL GET YOUR OPPORTUNITY
HERE. 
>> YES, THE TESTIMONY WAS, I AM 
NOT GOING TO TELL YOU. 
>> AND HOW MANY TIMES, MR. 
COLLINS, THE SCHIFF REPORT OR 
HEARSAY STATEMENTS WERE USED AS 
EVIDENCE?
>> HUNDREDS. 
>> WELL, ONLY 54. 
>> WHEN YOU TAKE OFF ONE PERSON 
TALKING OFF ANOTHER PERSON OFF 
ANOTHER, IT GOES UP. 
>> AND SO IN THESE NEWS REPORT, 
THE ONLY -- 
>> I AM SORRY, IF YOU COULD 
REPEAT?
>> HOW MANY TIMES IN THE SCHIFF 
REPORTERS, AND THE NEWS REPORTS 
OF THE ONLY FACTUAL REPORTERS?
>> ONE. 
>> OUT OF 56 TIMES. 
AND SO, I UNDERSTAND THAT THIS 
WAS NOT TRANSMITTED TO THE 
JUDICIARY COMMITTEE UNTIL FRIDAY
DECEMBER 6th, AND DOES THAT 
COMPORT WITH YOUR MEMORY?
>> THAT IS CORRECT. 
>> OKAY. 
SO JUDICIARY COMMITTEE MAJORITY 
DID IT HAVE ACCESS TO ANY 
EVIDENCE BEYOND THE ACTUAL 
ACCESS OF THE INTELLIGENCE 
COMMITTEE BEFORE THE JUDICIARY 
COMMITTEE CONSIDERED THE 
ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT?
>> WELL, I DON'T REMEMBER 
EXACTLY WHEN ALL OF THE 
DEPOSITION STATEMENTS WERE 
RELEASED PUBLICLY, AND SOME OF 
THEM HAD BEEN RELEASED PUBLICLY 
BEFORE THAT TIME, AND WE CAN GO 
BACK TO CHECK THE EXACT 
CHRONOLOGY. 
THERE ARE MEMBERS OF THE 
JUDICIARY COMMITTEE WHO ARE ALSO
IN OTHER INVESTIGATIONS. 
>> YES, I UNDERSTAND. 
CERTAINLY. 
IT IS MY UNDERSTANDING THAT 
CHAIRMAN SCHIFF DID NOT TRANSMIT
ALL OF THE MATERIAL COLLECTED BE
I THE INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE TO 
THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE, AND IS 
THAT THE CASE?
>> IT IS STILL TRUE TO THIS DAY.
>> AND SO YOU DO NOT AGREE, AND 
I WOULD ASK BOTH OF YOU THAT THE
HOUSE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE WOULD 
HAVE HAD THE TIME AND 
OPPORTUNITY TO REVIEW ALL OF 
THAT INFORMATION?
>> WE DID NOT HAVE THAT TIME AND
INFORMATION AND IT IS A 
VIOLATION OF THE HOUSE RULES 
660. 
>> ALL I CAN TELL YOU IS THAT 
THE VAST AMOUNT OF WHAT WAS 
PRODUCED PUBLICLY ALONG THE WAY,
AND I KNOW THAT THE INTELLIGENCE
COMMITTEE MADE THE COMMITMENT TO
RELEASE THOSE DEPOSITIONS, AND 
THOSE DEPOSITION STATEMENTS 
PUBLICLY. 
I CONSIDERED IT A FAIR AN 
TRANSPARENT PROCESS. 
I DON'T THINK THAT I GOT TO SEE 
A SINGLE THROUGH THE JUDICIAL 
COMMITTEE THAT WAS NOT JUST 
COMING OUT TO BE RELEASED BY THE
INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE. 
IN ANY EVENT, ALL OF IT IS IN 
THE FINAL REPORT AND THERE FOR 
ALL OF AMERICA TO SEE. 
I DON'T WANT US TO LOSE PICTURE 
OF THIS -- 
>> YOU DON'T REALLY KNOW IF IT 
IS ALL THERE IN THE FINAL 
REPORT, AND IF YOU HAVE NOT SEEN
IT. 
>> WE DO NOT KNOW, AND THAT IS 
THE STATEMENT OF ASSUMING, AND 
THE FACTS ASIDE. 
THIS IS THE CLASSIC OF THE 
EVIDENCE FROM THE PROSECUTOR, 
AND IN A TRIAL, AND WE DON'T 
KNOW WHAT WE HAVE NOT SEEN. 
WE KNOW WHAT WE, A FEW THINGS 
THAT WE KNOW THAT HAVE NOT BEEN 
TRANSFERRED, BUT WE HAVE HEARD 
OF OTHER THINGS THAT ARE NOT 
TRANSFERRED AND IT CANNOT BE IN 
THE REPORT IF IT HAD BEEN 
TRANSFERRED, BECAUSE WE WOULD 
THEN SAY IT HAS BEEN 
TRANSFERRED. 
>> AND NOW, LOOKING AT THE 
INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE 
PROCEEDINGS WAS FLAWED AND THAT 
IS MY VIEW UNDERSTOOD LINE, AND 
THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE FAILED 
TO CREATE AN EVIDENTIARY RECORD 
SUFFICIENT TO MOVE ON TO 
BASICALLY RELY ON THE 
INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE. 
AND THE RELATED RULES OF THE 
HOUSE AND THE ENTIRE CIRCUS HAS 
BEEN POLITICALLY MOTIVATED FROM 
THE VERY BEGINNING. 
ON THE OBSTRUCTION OF CONGRESS 
CHARGE, IT IS UNCOMMON FOR 
THE -- EXCUSE ME, IT IS 
UNCOMMON, AND I ASK THIS FOR 
BOTH OF YOU -- UNCOMMON FOR THE 
EXECUTIVE BRANCH TO PUSH BACK 
FOR REQUESTS FOR INFORMATION 
FROM CONGRESS?
>> NO, IT IS NOT UNCOMMON FOR 
THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH TO PUSH 
BACK ON THE THIS OR THAT 
DOCUMENTER TO TIMING OF A VISIT,
BUT WHAT IS BREATHTAKING IN THE 
UNPRECEDENTED AND RADICAL NATURE
IS THIS PRESIDENT'S 
DETERMINATION TO SHUTDOWN ALL 
DISCOVERY. 
THEY DID NOT PRODUCE A SINGLE 
DOCUMENT TO U THAT WAS 
SUBPOENAED IN THE ORDER, AND 
SPECIFICALLY TOLD EVERY MEMBER 
OF THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH
COOPERATE, AND THIS IS AN 
ESCALATION IN KIND OVER 
ANYTHING. 
AND INCLUDING RICHARD NIXON WHO 
TRIED TO BLOCK SIX OR SEVEN 
REQUESTS ON THE WATERGATE TAPES 
AND THIS IS PART OF THE CASE 
AGAINST HIM FOR ABUSE OF POWER, 
BUT PRESIDENT TRUMP MAKES 
PRESIDENT NIXON LOOK LIKE A 
LITTLE LEAGUER WHEN IT COMES TO 
OBSTRUCTION. 
>> MR. KOL LIN, SAME THING, DO 
YOU THINK IT IS COMMON FOR THE 
PRESIDENT TO PUSHBACK ON 
CONGRESSIONAL SUBPOENAS?
>> NO, IT IS COMMON. 
>> WELL, IF IT IS COMMON, DO YOU
BELIEVE IT IS A HIGH CRIME OR 
MISDEMEANOR TO ASSERT PRIVILEGES
AND RESPONSES TO CONGRESSIONAL 
REQUESTS FOR SUBPOENAS?
>> NO, AND I WANTED TO GO AHEAD 
TO GIVE THE HISTORY, AND SINCE 
WE HAVE HAD THE HISTORY LESSONS 
HERE. 
IN OUR OWN COMMITTEE THIS YEAR 
WHICH IS A TOTAL WALK TOWARDS 
THE IMPEACHMENT THE WHOLE TIME, 
BUT WHAT IS INTERESTING IN OUR 
COMMITTEE, WE WOULD SEND OUT 
SUBPOENAS AND LETTERS AND STUFF,
AND NEVER FOLLOWED UP ON, AND 
ONE OF THE INTEREST THINGS ABOUT
OUR COMMITTEE IS THAT WE NEVER 
ENGAGED WITH THE AGENCIES FOR 
DOCUMENTS, BUT MR. SCHIFF WHILE 
WE WERE STRUGGLING WITH MUELLER 
AND OTHER THING, HE NEGOTIATED 
WITH THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 
THAT HE GOT DOCUMENTS RELEASED 
THAT WE COULDN'T. 
AND ELIOT ENGEL WHO IS ONE OF 
THE QUIETER CHAIRMANS BUT MORE 
EFFECTIVE ACROSS THE AISLE HAD 
ENGAGED ALL YEAR WITH THE 
ADMINISTRATION ON WAYS TO GET 
DOCUMENT, AND IT IS A MATTER OF 
HOW YOU GO ABOUT, AND TO SAY IT 
IS UNHEARD OF IS NOT RIGHT. 
>> AND AGAIN, TO BOTH OF YOU AND
GETTING TO THE POINT THAT YOU 
ARE MAKING, A NORMAL 
ACCOMMODATIONS PROCESS FOR 
RESOLVING INTERBRANCH DISPUTES 
BETWEEN THE HOUSE AND THE 
EXECUTIVE BRANCH, CORRECT?
>> YES. 
>> AND THAT PROCESS HAS NOT 
OCCURRED HERE, MR. COLLINS, AND 
THAT IS WHAT YOU ARE TELLING ME?
IT DOES NOT FIT NEATLY INTO THE,
YOU KNOW, THE SPEAKER'S 
IMPEACHMENT AND CHRISTMAS TIME 
LINE TO BORROW YOUR WAY OF 
LOOKING AT IT. 
WE HAVE NOT GONE THE COURT. 
>> NO, THEY HAVEN'T. 
>> AND THEY WERE NOT REALLY 
ENGAGED. 
THIS IS A NORMAL GIVE AND TAKE 
AND WHERE BOTH SIDES TEND TO 
AVOID, QUOTE AN EXCHANGE WHERE 
THEY MIGHT GO TO COURT AND LOSE 
SOMETHING, BUT ALL OF THAT HAS 
BEEN SET ASIDE, AND WE HAVE NOT 
HAD ANY PROCESS LIKE THAT?
>> AND I WOULD POINT OUT 
SOMETHING THAT I DISAGREE WITH, 
MR. McGAHN AND A COURT CASE THAT
WE LOST AND BEING APPEALED, BUT 
IT IS SAYING THAT THE PROCESS IS
WORKING, BUT IT IS NOT WORKING 
AS FAST AS WE WANT TO. 
SO THAT IS WHERE WE HAVE TO GO 
BACK TO THE PROCESS AND THE ONE 
THAT THEY HAD THAT WAS ONE OF 
THE MEMBERS OF THE 
ADMINISTRATIONS CONTESTED, BUT 
THEY WITHDREW THE SUBPOENA FROM 
THE LAWSUIT, BECAUSE THEY DIDN'T
WANT TO DEAL WITH IT. 
>> I KNOW THAT MR. RASKIN WOULD 
HAVE A DIFFERENT VIEW, AND IF HE
WANTS TO RESPOND, I WILL. 
BUT I WANTED TO ASK YOU, MR. 
COLLINS, IS THERE ANY EVIDENCE 
THAT THE PRESIDENT'S PAUSE ON 
THE UKRAINIAN AID WOULD HAVE HAD
ANY -- 
>> I APOLOGIZE. 
>> THAT IS ALL RIGHT. 
I AM THROWING QUESTIONS AT 
.
.
TEST. 
>>> THE HOUSE RULES COMMITTEE 
TAKING A RECESS ON THE HOUSE 
FLOOR. 
AND WHILE WE WAIT FOR THE 
MEMBERS TO RETURN, WE WILL SHOW 
YOU OPENING STATEMENTS FROM TOM 
COLE AND THE MEMBERS OF THE 
JUDICIARY COMMITTEE DOUG COLLINS
AND JAMIE RASKIN WHO IS 
REPRESENTING THE JUDICIARY 
DEMOCRATS IN JERROLD NADLER'S 
ABSENCE FOR A FAMILY EMERGENCY. 
>>> THE RULES COMMITTEE WILL 
COME TO ORDER. 
THE RULES COMMITTEE WILL COME TO
ORDER. 
IT IS UNFORTUNATE THAT WE HAVE 
TO BE HERE TODAY, BUT THE 
ACTIONS OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE 
UNITED STATES MAKE THIS 
NECESSARY. 
PRESIDENT TRUMP WITHHELD 
CONGRESSIONALLY HELD APPROVED 
AID TO UKRAINE AND UNDER SIEGE 
NOT TO FIGHT CORRUPTION, BUT TO 
EXTRACT A PERSONAL POLITICAL 
FAVOR AND PRESIDENT TRUMP 
REFUSED TO MEET WITH THE 
PRESIDENT OF UKRAINE IN THE 
WHITE HOUSE UNTIL HE COMPLETED 
THE SCHEME, AND ALL OF THE WHILE
THE LEADERS IN RUSSIA WHO IS 
HOLDING A LARGE PART OF UKRAINE 
HOSTAGE AND THE VERY NATION WHO 
INTERFERED WITH OUR ELECTIONS IN
2016 HAD YET ANOTHER MEETING IN 
THE OVAL OFFICE LAST WEEK. 
THIS IS NOT MY OPINIONS, BUT 
UNCONTESTED FACTS.
WE HAVE LISTENED TO THE 
HEARINGS.
WE HAVE READ THE TRANSCRIPTS.
IT IS CLEAR THAT THIS PRESIDENT 
ACTED IN A WAY THAT NOT ONLY 
VIOLATES THE PUBLIC TRUST, BUT 
HE JEOPARDIZED OUR NATIONAL 
SECURITY. 
HE UNDERMINED OUR DEMOCRACY. 
HE ACTED IN A WAY THAT RISES TO 
THE LEVEL OF IMPEACHMENT. 
THAT IS WHY WE ARE CONSIDERING 
H-RES 755 TODAY, A RESOLUTION 
IMPEACHING DONALD JOHN TRUMP, 
THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED 
STATES, FOR HIGH CRIMES AND 
MISDEMEANORS. 
CONGRESS HAS NO OTHER CHOICE BUT
TO ACT WITH URGENCY. 
WHEN I THINK BACK TO THE 
FOUNDERS OF THE NATION, THEY 
WERE PARTICULARLY CONCERNED 
ABOUT FOREIGN INTERFERENCE IN 
OUR ELECTIONS. 
THEY UNDERSTOOD THAT ALLOWING 
OUTSIDE FORCES TO DECIDE 
AMERICAN CAMPAIGNS WOULD CAUSE 
THE FUNDAMENTALS OF THE 
DEMOCRACY TO CRUMBLE. 
BUT THE EVIDENCE SHOWS THAT IS 
EXACTLY WHAT PRESIDENT TRUMP 
DID. 
NOT ONLY ALLOWED, BUT SOLICITED 
FOREIGN INTERFERENCE ALL TO HELP
HIM WIN HIS RE-ELECTION 
CAMPAIGN. 
WHAT IS SHOCKING ME ABOUT MY 
REPUBLICAN FRIENDS IS THEIR 
INABILITY TO ACKNOWLEDGE THAT 
PRESIDENT TRUMP ACTED 
IMPROPERLY. 
AND ONLY THOSE WHO ARE ADMITTING
THAT HE DID SOMETHING WRONG HAVE
RETIRED OR PLANNING TO RETIRE AT
THE END OF THE CONGRESS. 
I GET IT. 
IT IS HARD TO CRITICIZE A 
PRESIDENT OF YOUR OWN PARTY, BUT
IT SHOULDN'T, YOU KNOW, BUT IT 
SHOULD NOT MATTER HERE. 
I ADMIRED PRESIDENT CLINTON WHEN
HE WAS PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED 
STATES, AND I STILL DO TODAY, 
BUT WHEN THIS HOUSE IMPEACHED 
HIM, WHICH I DID NOT AGREE W I 
WENT TO THE HOUSE FLOOR AND I 
SAID THAT WHAT PRESIDENT CLINTON
DID WAS WRONG, BECAUSE MOMENTS 
LIKE THIS CALL FOR MORE THAN 
JUST REFLECTIVE PARTNERSHIP, BUT
IS ANY MEMBER WILLING TO SAY 
THAT WHAT THIS PRESIDENT DID WAS
WRONG. 
NOW, LET ME SAY WHAT HAPPENED 
HERE. 
THE PRESIDENT WITHHELD 
CONGRESSIONALLY APPROVED 
MILITARY AID FOR A COUNTRY UNDER
SIEGE TO EXTRACT A POLITICAL 
FAVOR. 
HE DID NOT DO IT AS A MT. ER OF 
U.S. POLICY, BUT HE DID IT FOR 
HIS OWN BENEFIT. 
THAT IS WRONG. 
AND IF THAT IS NOT IMPEACHABLE 
CONDUCT, I DON'T KNOW WHAT IS. 
NOW, I HAVE HEARD SOME ON THE 
OTHER SIDE SUGGEST THAT THIS 
PROCESS IS ABOUT OVERTURNING AN 
ELECTION. 
THAT IS ABSURD. 
THIS IS ABOUT PRESIDENT TRUMP 
USING HIS OFFICE TO TRY AND RIG 
THE NEXT ELECTION. 
THINK ABOUT THAT. 
WE LIKE TO SAY THAT EVERY VOTE 
MATTERS, THAT EVERY VOTE COUNTS.
WE LEARNED IN GRADE SCHOOL ABOUT
ALL OF THE PEOPLE WHO FOUGHT AND
DIED FOR THAT RIGHT. 
IT IS A SACRED THING. 
YOU KNOW, I REMEMBER AS A MIDDLE
SCHOOLER IN 1972, LEAVING 
LEAFLETS AT THE HOMES OF THE 
POTENTIAL VOTERS TO URGE THEM TO
SUPPORT GEORGE McGOVERN FOR 
PRESIDENT AND NO RELATION BY THE
WAY, BUT HE HAD A GREAT LAST 
NAME, AND HE WAS DEDICATED TO 
THE WAR IN VIETNAM AND FEEDING 
THE HUNGRY AND HELPING THE POOR.
I REMEMBER EVEN TO THIS DAY WHAT
AN HONOR IT WAS TO HAVE PEOPLE 
SUPPORT HIM EVEN THOUGH I WAS 
TOO YOUNG THE VOTE MYSELF. 
WHAT A PRIVILEGE IT WAS LATER IN
LIFE TO ASK THE VOTERS TO ASK 
FOR THEIR SUPPORT IN MY OWN 
CAMPAIGNS. 
I HAVE BEEN A PART OF WINNING 
CAMPAIGNS AND LOSING ONES, TOO. 
AND PEOPLE I THOUGHT THAT WOULD 
BE GREAT PRESIDENTS LIKE SENATOR
McGOVERN WERE NOT GIVEN THE 
CHANCE. 
MAKE NO MISTAKE, I WAS 
DISAPPOINTED, BUT I ACCEPTED IT.
I WOULD TAKE LOSING AN ELECTION 
ANY DAY OF THE WEEK WHEN THE 
AMERICAN PEOPLE RENDER THAT 
VERDICT, BUT I WILL NEVER, AND I
MEAN I WILL NEVER BE OKAY IF 
OTHER NATIONS DECIDE OUR LEADERS
FOR US. 
AND THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED 
STATES IS ROLLING OUT THE 
WELCOME MAT FOR THAT KIND OF THE
FOREIGN INTERFERENCE. 
TO NOT ACT WOULD SET A DANGEROUS
PRECEDENT AND NOT JUST FOR THIS 
PRESIDENT, BUT EVERY FUTURE 
PRESIDENT. 
THE EVIDENCE IS AS CLEAR AS IT 
IS OVERWHELMING. 
AND IN THIS ADMINISTRATION, IT 
HAS NOT HANDED OVER A SINGLE 
SUBPOENAED DOCUMENT TO REFUTE 
IT. 
NOT ONE. 
NOW IT IS UP TO US TO DECIDE 
WHETHER THE UNITED STATES IS 
STILL A NATION WHERE NO ONE IS 
ABOVE THE LAW OR WHETHER AMERICA
IS ALLOWED TO BECOME A LAND RUN 
BY THOSE WHO ACT MORE LIKE KINGS
OR QUEENS. 
AS IF THE LAW DOES NOT APPLY TO 
THEM. 
YOU KNOW, IT IS NO SECRET THAT 
PRESIDENT TRUMP HAS A PENCHANT 
FOR COZYING UP FOR NOTORIOUS 
DICTATORS. 
HE HAS COMPLIMENTED VLADIMIR 
PUTIN AND KIM JONG-UN AND 
PRESIDENT DUTERTE, AND I CAN GO 
ON AND ON AND ON, AND MAYBE THE 
PRESIDENT IS JEALOUS THEY CAN DO
WHATEVER THEY WANT TO. 
THE DICTATORS ARE THE ANTITHESIS
FOR WHAT WE STAND FOR. 
AND EVERY DAY WE LET THE 
PRESIDENT ACT LIKE THE LAW DOES 
NOT APPLY TO HIM, WE MOVE CLOSER
TO THEM. 
BENJAMIN FRANKLIN LEFT THE 
CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION AND 
SAID THAT THE FOUNDERS HAVE 
FOUNDED A REPUBLIC, IF YOU CAN 
KEEP IT. 
THERE ARE NO GUARANTEES AND IT 
WILL PERSIST ONLY IF WE FIGHT 
FOR IT. 
AND THE SIMPLE QUESTION IS THIS,
ARE WE WILLING TO FIGHT FOR THIS
DEMOCRACY. 
I EXPECT THAT WE WILL HAVE A LOT
OF DEBATE HERE TODAY. 
I HOPE THAT EVERYONE IS 
SEARCHING THEIR CONSCIOUS. 
TO MY REPUBLICAN FRIENDS, 
IMAGINE ANY DEMOCRATIC PRESIDENT
SITTING IN THE OVAL OFFICE, 
PRESIDENT OBAMA, PRESIDENT 
CLINTON OR ANY OF THEM, AND 
WOULD YOUR ANSWER HERE STILL BE 
THE SAME?
NO ONE SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO USE 
THE POWERS OF THE PRESIDENCY TO 
UNDERMINE OUR ELECTIONS OR CHEAT
IN A CAMPAIGN, NO MATTER WHO IT 
IS AND NO MATTER WHAT THEIR 
PARTY. 
WE ALL TOOK AN OATH NOT TO 
DEFEND A POLITICAL PARTY, BUT TO
UPHOLD THE CONSTITUTION OF THE 
UNITED STATES. 
HISTORY IS TESTING US. 
WE CANNOT CONTROL WHAT THE 
SENATE WILL DO, BUT EACH OF US 
CAN DECIDE WHETHER WE PASS THAT 
TEST OR DEFEND THE DEMOCRACY AND
WHETHER WE UPHOLD OUR OATH. 
TODAY, WE'LL PUT A PROCESS IN 
PLACE TO CONSIDER THE ARTICLES 
ON THE HOUSE FLOOR. 
AND WHEN I CAST MY VOTE IN 
FAVOR, MY CONSCIOUS WILL BE 
CLEAR. 
BEFORE I TURN TO THE RANGING 
 --
RANKING MEMBER, I WILL RECOGNIZE
HIS ROLE HERE ON THE COMMITTEE. 
WE ARE CONTENTIOUS HERE, AND 
OFTEN ON THE DIFFERENT SIDES, 
BUT HE HAS INTEGRITY AND HE 
CARES DEEPLY ABOUT THE HOUSE. 
THERE IS GOING TO BE PASSIONATE 
DISAGREEMENT HERE, BUT I HAVE NO
DOUBT THAT WE WILL WORK TOGETHER
IN THE FUTURE AND SIDE BY SIDE 
IN THIS COMMITTEE TO BETTER THIS
INSTITUTION. 
I AM ALSO MUST STATE FOR THE 
RECORD THAT CHAIRMAN NADLER IS 
UNABLE TO BE HERE BECAUSE OF A 
FAMILY MEDICAL EMERGENCY, AND WE
ARE ALL KEEPING HIM AND HIS 
FAMILY IN OUR THOUGHTS AND 
PRAYERS. 
TESTIFYING INSTEAD TODAY IS 
CONGRESSMAN RASKIN WHO IS NOT 
ONLY A VALUED MEMBER OF THIS 
COMMITTEE, BUT ALSO THE 
JUDICIARY AND OVERSIGHTS 
COMMITTEE. 
AND SO IN ADDITION, CONGRESSMAN 
RASKIN IS A CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 
PROFESSOR, AND SO HE HAS A 
COMPREHENSIVE AND UNIQUE 
UNDERSTANDING OF WHAT WE ARE 
TALKING ABOUT TODAY, AND I 
APPRECIATE HIM STEPPING IN AND 
TESTIFYING THIS MORNING. 
I WANTED TO WELCOME BACK RANKING
MEMBER COLLINS, A FORMER MEMBER 
OF THE RULES COMMITTEE, AND 
SOMEONE WHO I DON'T OFTEN AGREE 
WITH, BUT SOMEONE WHO I RESPECT 
NONETHELESS, AND APPRECIATE ALL 
OF HIS CONTRIBUTIONS TO THIS 
INSTITUTION. 
HAVING SAID THAT, I AM NOW GOING
TO TURN THIS OVER TO OUR RANKING
MEMBER MR. COLE FOR ANY REMARKS 
HE WISHES TO MAKE. 
>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH, MR. 
CHAIRMAN. 
LET ME BEGIN BY RECIPROCATING 
THE PERSONAL AND PROFESSIONAL 
RESPECT FOR YOU AND OTHER 
MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE AS 
WELL, BECAUSE I DO THINK HIGHLY 
OF EACH AND EVERY PERSON ON THIS
COMMITTEE, AND IN PARTICULARLY 
OF YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN. 
BUT THIS IS A DAY WHERE WE ARE 
GOING TO DISAGREE AND DISAGREE 
VERY STRONGLY. 
IT IS AS YOU REFERENCED, MR. 
CHAIRMAN, A SAD DAY. 
A SAD DAY FOR ME PERSONALLY, THE
RULES COMMITTEE AND THE 
INSTITUTION OF THE HOUSE AND FOR
THE AMERICAN PEOPLE. 
WE ARE MEETING TODAY ON A RULE 
FOR CONSIDERING ARTICLES OF 
IMPEACHMENT AGAINST A SITTING 
PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES 
ON THE FLOOR OF THE HOUSE OF 
REPRESENTATIVES. 
THIS IS NOT THE RESULT OF A FAIR
PROCESS. 
CERTAINLY NOT A BIPARTISAN. 
SADLY, THE DEMOCRATS' 
IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY HAS BEEN 
FLAWED AND PARTISAN FROM DAY 
ONE, SO IT SHOULD COME AS NO 
SURPRISE THAT THE DEMOCRATS HAVE
THE PREORDAINED OUTCOME IS ALSO 
FLAWED AND PARTISAN. 
SEVEN WEEKS AGO WHEN THIS 
COMMITTEE MET TO CONSIDER A 
RESOLUTION TO GUIDE THE PROCESS 
FOR THE DEMOCRATS' UNPRECEDENTED
IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY, I WARNED 
THAT THEY WERE TREADING ON THE 
SHAKY GROUND WITH THE UNFAIR AND
CLOSED PROCESS. 
REFLECTING ON HOW THINGS HAVE 
PLAYED OUT SINCE THEN REAFFIRMS 
MY EARLIER JUDGMENT THAT THIS 
FLAWED PROCESS WAS CRAFTED TO 
ENSURE A PARTISAN PREORDAINED 
RESULT. 
UNFORTUNATELY, THIS ENTIRE 
PROCESS WAS TARNISHED FURTHER BY
THE SPEED WITH WHICH MY 
DEMOCRATIC COLLEAGUES ON THE 
JUDICIARY COMMITTEE AND 
INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEES HAVE 
RUSHED TO THEIR PREDETERMINED 
JUDGMENT, TO IMPEACH THE 
PRESIDENT FOR SOMETHING, 
ANYTHING, WHETHER THERE ARE 
STONES LEFT UNTURNED OR ANY 
PROOF AT ALL. 
THERE IS NO WAY THAT THIS 
COMMITTEE CERTAINLY NOT BY 
REPUBLICANS WHOSE MINORITY 
RIGHTS HAVE BEEN TRAMPLED ON 
EVERY STEP OF THE WAY, AROUND 
CERTAINLY NOT BY THE AMERICAN 
PEOPLE OBSERVING THIS DISASTROUS
POLITICAL SHOW SCENE BY SCENE. 
AS I HAVE SAID BEFORE, UNLIKE 
ANY IMPEACHMENT PROCEEDINGS IN 
MODERN HISTORY, THE PARTISAN 
PROCESS PRESCRIBED AND PURSUED 
BY THE DEMOCRATS IS TRULY 
UNPRECEDENTED AND CONTRADICTS 
SPEAKER PELOSI'S OWN WORDS THAT 
BACK IN MARCH OF THIS YEAR SHE 
SAID, QUOTE, IMPEACHMENT IS SO 
DIVISIVE TO THE COUNTRY, THAT 
UNLESS THERE IS SOMETHING SO 
COMPELLING AND OVERWHELMING AND 
BIPARTISAN, I DON'T BELIEVE WE 
SHOULD GO DOWN THAT PATH, 
BECAUSE IT DIVIDES THE COUNTRY. 
AND THE KEY WORD IN THAT NOTE IS
BIPARTISAN. 
AND IN THE CLINTON AND NIXON 
IMPEACHMENTS, THE OPENING OF THE
INQUIRY WAS CONSIDERED ON A 
BIPARTISAN BASIS, AND BACK THEN,
BOTH SIDES TREATED THE PROCESS 
WITH THE SERIOUSNESS THAT IT 
DESERVE AND NEGOTIATING AND 
FINDING AGREEMENT ACROSS THE 
AISLE TO FIND AGREEMENT AND DUE 
PROCESS FOR ALL INVOLVED IN THE 
INQUIRIES, BUT THAT IS NOT THE 
CASE TODAY. 
INSTEAD, DEMOCRATS HAVE PUSHED 
FORWARD USING A PARTISAN PROCESS
THAT LIMITED THE PRESIDENT'S 
RIGHT TO DUE PROCESS AND 
PRESENTED THE MAJORITY FROM 
EXERCIING THEIR RIGHTS AND 
CHARGED AHEAD FOR A VOTE TO 
IMPEACH THE PRESIDENT WHETHER 
THE EVIDENCE IS THERE OR NOT. 
I SUPPOSE I SHOULDN'T BE 
SURPRISED BY ANY OF THIS. 
DEMOCRATS IN THE HOUSE HAVE BEEN
PUSHING TO IMPEACH PRESIDENT 
TRUMP SINCE BEFORE HE WAS EVEN 
SWORN IN. 
IN DECEMBER OF 2017, WHEN A 
CURRENT DEMOCRATIC MEMBER OF THE
HOUSE FORCED A VOTE ON 
IMPEACHMENT RESOLUTION, 58 
DEMOCRATS VOTED THEN TO IMPEACH 
PRESIDENT TRUMP EVEN WITHOUT AN 
INVESTIGATION, WITHOUT ANY 
EVIDENCE TO POINT TO. 
AND THOSE NUMBERS HAVE ONLY 
GROWN SINCE THEN. 
TO THE POINT WHERE THE MAJORITY 
IS NOW PUSHING FORWARD WITH A 
FINAL VOTE ON IMPEACHMENT, AND 
HEEDLESS OF WHERE IT TAKES THE 
COUNTRY, AND REGARDLESS OF 
WHETHER THEY HAVE PROVEN THEIR 
CASE. 
MR. CHAIRMAN, IT DIDN'T HAVE TO 
BE THIS WAY. 
WHEN WE, WHEN SHE BECAME 
ENTRUSTED WITH THE GAVEL OVER 
THE HOUSE, THIS CONGRESS, 
SPEAKER PELOSI ASSURED US ALL 
THAT SHE WOULD NOT MOVE FORWARD 
WITH IMPEACHMENT UNLESS IT WAS 
BIPARTISAN AND A CLEAR CONSENSUS
IN THE COUNTRY, AND NEITHER OF 
THOSE TWO COMMISSIONS ARE 
PRESENT HERE. 
INDEED, THE LATEST REAL CLEAR 
POLITICS AVERAGE OF POLLS ON THE
IMPEACHMENT SHOWING THE COUNTRY 
EVENTUALLY SPLIT WITH 46.5% OF 
AMERICANS IN FAVOR OF 
IMPEACHMENT, AND 46.5% AGAINST. 
THAT IS HARDLY WHAT I WOULD CALL
A NATIONAL CONSENSUS IN FAVOR OF
IMPEACHING PRESIDENT TRUMP. 
WHEN HALF OF AMERICANS ARE 
TELLING YOU THAT WHAT YOU ARE 
DOING IS WRONG, YOU SHOULD 
LISTEN. 
I THINK THAT THIS IS ESPECIALLY 
THE CASE GIVEN HOW CLOSE WE ARE 
TO THE NEXT ELECTION. 
IN 11 MONTHS, THE AMERICAN 
PEOPLE ARE GOING TO VOTE ON THE 
NEXT PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED 
STATES. 
WHY THEN ARE WE PLUNGING THE 
COUNTRY INTO THIS KIND OF THE 
TURMOIL, AND THIS KIND OF THE 
TRAUMA NOW, WHEN THE VOTER 
THEMSELVES WILL RESOLVE THE 
MATTER ONE WAY OR ANOTHER LESS 
THAN ONE YEAR FROM TODAY. 
ALL IT DOES ACHIEVE IS TO MAKE 
THE POLITICAL POLARIZATION AND 
DIVISION IN THE COUNTRY WORSE. 
THAT MAKES NO SENSE TO ME. 
WE MAY BE MOVING FORWARD WITH A 
VOTE, I CERTAINLY DO NOT FEEL 
THAT THE MAJORITY HAS PROVN ITS
CASE OR PROVEN TO THE AMERICAN 
PEOPLE THAT THE WEEKS OF WASTED 
TIME IS WORTH IT. 
AND PERSONALLY, THE ARTICLES 
THEMSELVES ARE UNWARRANTED. 
THE MAJORITY SEEKING TO IMPEACH 
THE PRESIDENT OVER SOMETHING 
THAT DID NOT HAPPEN. 
THE ALLEGED QUID PRO QUO WITH 
THE PRESIDENT OF UKRAINE. 
NEVERMIND THAT FOREIGN AID WENT 
TO THE UKRAINE AS IT WAS 
SUPPOSED TO, AND NEVERMIND THAT 
NO INVESTIGATIONS REQUIRED FOR 
THE UKRAINE TO GET THE AID, AND 
NEVERMIND THAT THE TWO 
PARTICIPANTS IN THE FAMOUS 
CONVERSATION PRESIDENT TRUMP AND
PRESIDENT ZELENSKY SAID NOTHING 
INAPPROPRIATE HAPPENED. 
ACCORDING TO THE MAJORITY 
HOWEVER, A QUID PRO QUO THAT 
NEVER EXISTED IS AN APPROPRIATE 
BASIS FOR REMOVING THE PRESIDENT
FROM OFFICE. 
AND YET, EVEN THOUGH THE 
MAJORITY HAS NOT PROVEN THE 
CASE, AND EVEN THOUGH THERE IS 
NO BASIS FOR IMPEACHMENT THEY 
ARE MOVING FORWARD TODAY. 
AND WHAT I CANNOT DISCERN IS A 
LEGITIMATE REASON WHY THE 
MAJORITY IS MOVING FORWARD WHEN 
THE PROCESS IS PARTISAN AND WHEN
THE AMERICAN PEOPLE ARE NOT WITH
THEM, AND WHY THEY ARE MOVING 
FORWARD WHEN THEY HAVE NOT 
PROVEN THE CASE, AND WHY THEY 
ARE MOVING FORWARD WHEN THERE IS
NO THERE'S NO 
BASIS FOR IMPEACHMENT.
WHY?
WHY PUT THE COUNTRY THROUGH ALL 
OF THIS?
IT MAKES EVEN LESS SENSE TO ME 
WHEN WE CONSIDER THE REALITIES 
OF THE UNITED STATES SENATE.
WE ALREADY KNOW THAT THE VOTES 
TO CONVICT AND REMOVE THE 
PRESIDENT FROM OFFICE SIMPLY 
AREN'T THERE.
BLUNTLY PUT, THIS IS A MATTER 
THAT CONGRESS, AS A WHOLE, 
CANNOT RESOLVE ON ITS OWN, YET 
THE MAJORITY IS PLUNGING 
FORWARD, REGARDLESS OF THE 
NEEDLESS DRAMA OR THE DAMAGE TO 
THE CONSTITUTION AND THE COUNTRY
KNOWING FULL WELL AT THE END OF 
THE DAY THE PRESIDENT WILL 
REMAIN IN OFFICE.
AND FOR WHAT?
SCORING POLITICAL POINTS WITH 
THEIR PARTY'S BASE?
AGAIN, MR. CHAIRMAN, THIS DOES 
NOT MAKE MY SENSE TO ME.
WE DIDN'T NEED TO GO THIS ROUTE.
WE DIDN'T NEED TO PUSH FORWARD 
ON A PARTISAN IMPEACHMENT 
PROCESS THAT HAD ONLY ONE 
POSSIBLE RESULT.
BUT WE'RE HERE ANYWAY REGARDLESS
OF THE DAMAGE IT DOES TO THE 
INSTITUTION AND REGARDLESS OF 
HOW MUCH FURTHER IT DIVIDES THE 
COUNTRY.
AS I SAID AT THE BEGINNING, MR. 
CHAIRMAN, THIS IS A SAD DAY FOR 
ALL OF US.
BUT IT IS ESPECIALLY SAD FOR ME 
KNOWING THAT THIS DAY WAS 
INEVITABLE.
PREORDAINED FROM THE START.
NO MATTER WHAT HAPPENED, NOWHERE
WHERE THE INVESTIGATIONS LED, 
THE DEMOCRATIC MAJORITY IN THE 
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES WAS 
PUSHING SINCE THE DAY NAY TOOK 
OVER TO IMPEACH PRESIDENT TRUMP.
THE FACTS DON'T WARRANT THAT, 
MR. CHAIRMAN, AND THE PROCESS IS
UNWORTHY OF THE OUTCOME.
THE PRESIDENT SHOULD NOT BE 
IMPEACHED AND I URGE ALL MEMBERS
BOTH HERE AND THE RULES 
COMMITTEE AND TOMORROW ON THE 
HOUSE FLOOR TO VOTE NO.
THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN. 
>> AND I APPRECIATE YOUR 
COMMENTS.
OBVIOUSLY WE HAVE STRONG 
DISAGREEMENTS.
AND JUST ONE TECHNICAL POINT I 
WOULD LIKE TO MAKE, NONE OF US 
IN THIS HOUSE HAVE HAD AN 
OPPORTUNITY TO VOTE ON 
IMPEACHMENT.
THE RESOLUTION THAT THE 
GENTLEMAN REFERS TO WAS SOME OF 
US OPPOSED TABLING IT BECAUSE WE
THOUGHT IT SHOULD GO TO 
COMMITTEE WHERE IT COULD BE 
APPROPRIATELY EVALUATED AND 
THAT'S WHAT THIS PROCESS HAS 
ACHIEVED.
THE COMMITTEES HAVE DONE THEIR 
WORK AND INVESTIGATED THE CLAIMS
AND NOW THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 
HAS RECOMMENDED ARTICLES OF 
IMPEACHMENT.
THE FIRST TIME ANYBODY IN THIS 
HOUSE WILL GET TO BE AN 
OPPORTUNITY TO VOTE ON 
IMPEACHMENT WILL BE TOMORROW.
I WANT TO WELCOME BOTH OF OUR 
WITNESSES AND MR. RASKIN, WE 
WILL BEGIN WITH YOU.
>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH, MR. 
CHAIRMAN.
GOOD MORNING, CHAIRMAN McGOVERN,
GOOD MORNING RANKING MEMBER 
COLE, GOOD MORNING TO ALL OF OUR
DISTINGUISHED COLLEAGUES ON THE 
HOUSE RULES COMMITTEE AND GOOD 
MORNING TO MY FRIEND 
MR. COLLINS.
IT IS MY RESPONSIBILITY THIS 
MORNING TO PRESENT FOR YOUR 
CONSIDERATION HOUSE HAZARD 755 
CONCERNING THE IMPEACHMENT OF 
DONALD JOHN TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF 
THE UNITED STATES, FOR HIGH 
CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS 
COMMITTED AGAINST THE PEOPLE OF 
THE UNITED STATES.
I'M APPEARING AS YOU SAID, MR. 
CHAIRMAN, THIS MORNING IN PLACE 
OF CHAIRMAN NADLER WHO COULD NOT
BE WITH US.
I'M SURE I SPEAK FOR ALL OF THE 
MEMBERS OF BOTH THE JUDICIARY 
COMMITTEE IN SENDING PRAYERS TO 
MR. NADLER'S WIFE.
THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE ALONG 
WITH THE OTHER COMMITTEES WHICH 
INVESTIGATED PRESIDENT TRUMP'S 
OFFENSES, THE PERMANENT SELECT 
COMMITTEE ON INTELLIGENCE, THE 
COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS AND
THE COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND 
REFORM BRING THESE ARTICLES WITH
A SOLEMN PURPOSE AND HEAVY HEART
BUT IN ACTIVE FAITH WITH THE 
CONSTITUTIONAL OATHS OF OFFICE 
THAT WE HAVE ALL SWORN.
THE INVESTIGATING COMMITTEES 
CONDUCTED 100 HOURS OF 
DEPOSITION TESTIMONY WITH 17 
SWORN WITNESSES AND 30 HOURS OF 
PUBLIC TESTIMONY WITH 12 
WITNESSES.
THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE IS NOW 
IN POSSESSION OF OVERWHELMING 
EVIDENCE THAT THE PRESIDENT OF 
THE UNITED STATES HAS COMMITTED 
HIGH CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS, 
VIOLATED HIS INSTITUTIONAL 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 VIOLATED HIS 
DUTY TO TAKE CARE THAT THE LAWS 
ARE FAITHFULLY EXECUTED.
WE PRESENT TWO ARTICLES OF 
IMPEACHMENT SUPPORTED BY 
HUNDREDS OF PAGES OF ZALD 
EVIDENCE AND ANNULUS.
THE EVIDENCE AND ANALYSIS LEAD 
TO THE CONCLUSIONS EMBODIED IN 
THESE ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT.
FIRST, PRESIDENT TRUMP HAS 
COMMITTED THE HIGH CRIME AND 
MISDEMEANOR OF ABUSE OF OFFICE.
HE ABUSED THE POWERS OF THE 
PRESIDENCY BY USING HIS OFFICE 
TO CORRUPTLY DEMAND THAT A 
FOREIGN GOVERNMENT INTERFERE IN 
OUR AMERICAN PRESIDENTIAL 
ELECTION IN ORDER TO PROMOTE HIS
OWN POLITICAL CAMPAIGN IN 2020.
HE CORRUPTLY CONDITIONED THE 
RELEASE OF $391 MILLION IN 
FOREIGN SECURITY ASSISTANCE THAT
HE HELD BACK FROM THE UKRAINIAN 
GOVERNMENT ALONG WITH A LONG 
HOPE FOR WHITE HOUSE 
PRESIDENTIAL MEETING.
HE CONDITIONED THOSE ON THE 
UKRAINE'S FORMER VICE PRESIDENT 
JOE BIDEN, A LEADING 
PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE.
THE OTHER STATEMENT WAS 
ANNOUNCING AN INVESTIGATION THAT
WOULD REHABILITATE A DISCREDITED
PRO-RUSSIAN CONSPIRACY THEORY BY
SHOWING THAT IT WAS UKRAINE AND 
NOT PUTIN'S RUSSIA THAT TRIED TO
DISRUPT THE LAST AMERICAN 
PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION IN 2016.
THIS SCHEME TO CORRUPT AN 
AMERICAN PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION 
SUBORDINATED THE SOVEREIGNTY OF 
THE PEOPLE TO THE PRIVATE 
POLITICAL AMBITIONS OF ONE MAN, 
THE PRESIDENT HIMSELF.
IT IMMEDIATELY PLACED THE 
NATIONAL SECURITY INTERESTS OF 
THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AT 
RISK AND IT CONTINUES TO EMBROIL
THE NATION IN OUR GOVERNMENT IN 
CONFLICT.
SECOND, AFTER THIS CORRUPT 
SCHEME CAME TO LIGHT, IN 
NUMEROUS PUBLIC SERVANTS WITH 
KNOWLEDGE OF KEY EVENTS SURFACED
TO TESTIFY ABOUT THE PRESIDENT'S
ACTIONS, PRESIDENT TRUMP 
DIRECTED THE WHOLESALE, 
INDISCRIMINATE OBSTRUCTION OF 
THIS CONGRESSIONAL IMPEACHMENT 
INVESTIGATION.
HE DID SO BY ORDERING A BLOCKADE
OF ADMINISTRATION WITNESSES, BY 
TRYING TO MUZZLE AND INTIMIDATE 
WITNESSES WHO DID COME FORWARD, 
AND BY REFUSING TO PRODUCE EVEN 
A SINGLE SUBPOENAED DOCUMENT.
IN THE HISTORY OF THE REPUBLIC 
NO PRESIDENT HAS EVER EXERCISED 
THE RIGHT AND POWER TO THWART 
AND DEFEAT A HOUSE PRESIDENTIAL 
IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY YET THAT 
WOULD HAVE BEEN THE FINAL AND 
UNAVOIDABLE RESULT OF THE 
PRESIDENT'S OUTRAGEOUS DEFIANCE 
OF CONGRESS HAD 17 BRAVE 
WITNESSES NOT COME FORWARD IN 
THE CASE OF THE PRESIDENT'S 
THREATS AND TESTIFIED ABOUT THE 
UKRAINE SHAKE DOWN AND ITS 
SCANDALOUS AFFECTS ON OUR 
NATIONAL SECURITY, OUR 
DEMOCRACY, AND OUR 
CONSTITUTIONAL SYSTEM OF 
GOVERNMENT.
BUT MAKE NO MISTAKE, WHILE THIS 
INVESTIGATION WAS SAVED BY THE 
COURAGE AND PATRIOTISM OF 
WITNESS LIKE AMBASSADOR WILLIAM 
TAYLOR, LIEUTENANT COLONEL 
ALEXANDER VINDMAN, AND DR. FIONA
HILL, THE PRESIDENT'S AGGRESSIVE
AND UNPRECEDENTED RESISTANCE TO 
CONGRESSIONAL SUBPOENAS FOR 
WITNESSES AND DOCUMENTS IS 
DANGEROUSLY UNCONSTITUTIONAL.
IF ACCEPTED AND NORMALIZED NOW, 
IT WILL UNDERMINE PERHAPS FOR 
ALL TIME THE CONGRESSIONAL 
IMPEACHMENT POWER ITSELF WHICH 
IS THE PEOPLE'S LAST INSTRUMENT 
OF CONSTITUTIONAL SELF-DEFENSE 
AGAINST A SITTING PRESIDENT WHO 
BEHAVES LIKE A KING AND TRAMPLES
THE RULE OF LAW.
BY OBSTRUCTING AN IMPEACHMENT 
INQUIRY WITH IMPUNITY, THE 
PRESIDENT WILL HAVE THE POWER TO
ACTIVELY DESTROY THE PEOPLE'S 
FINAL CHECK ON HIS OWN CORRUPT 
MISCONDUCT AND ABUSE OF POWER.
THE FRAMERS INSISTED THAT WE 
HAVE IMPEACHMENT IN THE 
CONSTITUTION TO PROTECT 
OURSELVES FROM A PRESIDENT 
BECOMING A TYRANT AND WE CANNOT 
AND WE WILL NOT ALLOW THE 
IMPEACHMENT POWER ITSELF TO BE 
DESTROYED.
THESE ARTICLES CHARGE THAT 
PRESIDENT TRUMP HAS ENGAGED IN 
ABUSE OF HIS POWERS, OBSTRUCTED 
CONGRESS AND REALIZED THE WORST 
FEARS OF THE FRAMERS BY 
SUBORDINATING OUR NATIONAL 
SECURITY AND DRAGGING FOREIGN 
POWERS INTO AMERICAN POLITICS TO
CORRUPT OUR ELECTIONS ALL FOR 
THE GREATER CAUSE OF HIS OWN 
PERSONAL GAIN AND AMBITION.
ARTICLE I SECTION FOUR OF THE 
CONSTITUTION PROVIDED THAT IS 
THE PRESIDENT SHALL BE IMPEACHED
FOR TREASON, BRIBERY OR OTHER 
HIGH CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS.
THIS IS THE CHECK THAT THE 
PEOPLE'S REPRESENTATIVES 
MAINTAIN OVER THE EXECUTIVE 
BRANCH.
AS OUR CONSTITUTIONAL EXPERT 
WITNESSES TESTIFIED, THE FRAMERS
SOUGHT TO CAPTURE A BROAD RANGE 
OF PRESIDENTIAL MISCONDUCT AND 
WRONGDOING THROUGH THIS 
PROVISION, BUT THE COMMANDING 
IMPULSE FOR INCLUDING THE 
IMPEACHMENT POWER IN THE 
CONSTITUTION WAS TO PREVENT THE 
PRESIDENT'S ABUSE OF POWER WHICH
THE FRAMERS SAW AS THE VERY 
ESSENCE OF IMPEACHABLE CONDUCT.
IN FEDERALIST NUMBER 65, 
HAMILTON WROTE THAT IMPEACHABLE 
OFFENSES ARE DEFINED BY ABUSE OF
SOME PUBLIC TRUST.
FROM THE FEDERALIST PAPERS AND 
THE RECORDS OF THE 
CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION, WE 
FIND THAT THE FRAMERS FEARED 
THREE KINDS OF BETRAYAL OF 
OFFICE, BY ABUSE OF POWER, ABUSE
OF POWER BY EXPLOITING PUBLIC 
OFFICE FOR PRIVATE, POLITICAL OR
FINANCIAL GAIN, NUMBER ONE, 
NUMBER TWO, ABUSE OF POWER BY 
BETRAYING THE NATIONAL INTEREST 
IN THE PUBLIC TRUST THROUGH 
ENTAKE ADVANTAGELEMENT WITH 
FOREIGN GOVERNMENTS AND ABUSE OF
POWER BY CORRUPTING DEMOCRATIC 
ELECTIONS AND DENYING THE PEOPLE
PROPER AGENCY THROUGH 
SELF-GOVERNMENT.
ANY ONE OF THESE VIOLATIONS OF 
THE PUBLIC TRUST WOULD BE ENOUGH
TO ADJUST PRESIDENTIAL 
IMPEACHMENT FOR ABUSE OF POWER.
HOWEVER, PRESIDENT TRUMP'S 
CONDUCT HAS REALIZED ALL THREE 
OF THE FRAMERS' WORST FEARS OF 
PRESIDENTIAL ABUSE OF POWER.
NEVER BEFORE IN AMERICAN HISTORY
HAS AN IMPEACHMENT INVESTIGATE 
CRYSTALLIZED IN FINDINGS OF 
CONDUCT THAT IMPLICATE ALL OF 
THE MAJOR REASONS THAT THE 
FRAMERS BUILT IMPEACHMENT INTO 
OUR CONSTITUTION.
MR. CHAIRMAN, THE CONDUCT WE SET
BEFORE YOU TODAY IS NOT SOME 
KIND OF SURPRISING ABERRATION OR
DEVIATION IN THE PRESIDENT'S 
BEHAVIOR FOR WHICH HE IS 
REMORSEFUL.
ON THE CONTRARY, THE PRESIDENT 
IS UNREPENTANT AND DECLARES HIS 
BEHAVIOR HERE PROTECT, 
ABSOLUTELY PERFECT.
HE SAYS THAT ARTICLE II OF THE 
INSTITUTION GIVES HIM THE POWER 
TO DO WHATEVER HE WANTS, 
FORGETTING ARTICLE II, SECTION 
FOUR, WHICH GIVES US THE POWER 
TO CHECK HIS CONDUCT WITH THE 
INSTRUMENT OF IMPEACHMENT.
WE BELIEVE THIS CONDUCT IS 
IMPEACHABLE AND SHOULD NEVER 
TAKE PLACE AGAIN UNDER OUR 
CONSTITUTIONAL SYSTEM.
HE BELIEVES HIS CONDUCT IS 
PERFECT AND WE KNOW, THEREFORE, 
THAT WILL TAKE PLACE AGAIN AND 
AGAIN.
INDEED OUR REPORT POINTS OUT 
THAT THIS PATTERN OF SHOWING 
SPECTACULAR DISRESPECT FOR THE 
RULE OF LAW BY INVITING AND 
WELCOMING FOREIGN POWERS INTO 
OUR ELECTIONS WAS IN PLAIN VIEW 
IN THE 2016 PRESIDENTIAL 
ELECTION.
AMERICA REMEMBERS WHEN 
THEN-CANDIDATE DONALD TRUMP 
UTTERED THE IMPERISHABLY WORDS 
RUSSIA, IF YOU'RE LISTENING, I 
HOPE YOU'RE ABLE TO FIND THE 
30,000 EMAILS THAT ARE MISSING.
AND JUST FIVE HOURS LATER, 
RUSSIAN AGENTS MOVED TO HACK HIS
POLITICAL OPPONENT'S COMPUTER TO
UP END THE 2016 PRESIDENTIAL 
CAMPAIGN.
THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN HAS MORE THAN
100 CONTACTS WITH RUSSIAN 
OPERATIVES OVER THE COURSE OF 
THAT CAMPAIGN AND NONE OF THEM 
WERE REPORTED BY THE TRUMP 
CAMPAIGN TO LAW ENFORCEMENT OR 
NATIONAL SECURITY AGENCIES.
MOREOVER, DURING THIS SPECIAL 
COUNSEL INVESTIGATION INTO THE 
SWEEPING AND SYSTEMIC RUSSIAN 
CAMPAIGN TO SUBVERT OUR 
ELECTION, PRESIDENT TRUMP 
ENGAGED IN ANOTHER SYSTEMIC 
CAMPAIGN OF OBSTRUCTION OF THE 
INVESTIGATIVE PROCESS TO OBSCURE
HIS OWN INVOLVEMENT.
MR. CHAIRMAN, WE PRESENT YOU NOT
JUST WITH HIGH CRIMES AND 
MISDEMEANORS, BUT A CRIME IN 
PROGRESS, UP TO THIS VERY 
MINUTE.
MAYOR GIULIANI, THE PRESIDENT'S 
PRIVATE LAWYER, FRESH FROM HIS 
OVERSEAS TRAVEL LOOKING TO 
REHABILITATE ONCE AGAIN THE 
DISCREDITED CONSPIRACY THEORIES 
AT THE HEART OF THE PRESIDENT'S 
DEFENSE ADMITTED THAT HE 
PARTICIPATED DIRECTLY IN THE 
SMEAR CAMPAIGN TO OUST 
AMBASSADOR YOVANOVITCH FROM HER 
JOB, ACCORDING TO "THE NEW 
YORKER" MAGAZINE GIULIANI SAID I
BELIEVE THAT I NEEDED 
YOVANOVITCH OUT OF THE WAY.
SHE WAS GOING TO MAKE THE 
INVESTIGATIONS DIFFICULT FOR 
EVERYONE AND HERE OF COURSE 
MR. GIULIANI REFERS TO THE 
PRESIDENT'S SOUGHT-AFTER 
INVESTIGATIONS INTO JOE BIDEN 
AND THE REMNANTS OF THE 
DISCREDITED CONSPIRACY THEORY 
PUSHED BY RUSSIA AS PROPAGANDA 
THAT IT WAS UKRAINE AND NOT RUSH
THAT INTERFERED IN THE 2016 
AMERICAN PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION.
GIVEN THAT AN UNREPENTANT 
PRESIDENT CONSIDERS HIS BEHAVIOR
PERFECT, GIVEN THAT HE THINKS 
THAT THE CONSTITUTION EMPOWERS 
HIM TO DO WHATEVER HE WANTS, 
GIVEN THAT HE AND HIS TEAM ARE 
STILL AWAITING PRESIDENT 
ZELENSKY'S STATEMENT ABOUT 
INVESTIGATING JOE BIDEN, GIVEN 
THAT HE'S INVITED CHINA TO 
PERFORM AN INVESTIGATION OF ITS 
OWN, WE CAN ONLY ASK WHAT THE 
2020 ELECTION WILL BE LIKE OR 
INDEED WHAT ANY FUTURE ELECTION 
IN AMERICA WILL BE LIKE IF WE 
JUST LET THIS MISCONDUCT GO AND 
AUTHORIZE AND LICENSE PRESIDENTS
TO COERCE, CAJOLE, PRESSURE AND 
ENTICE FOREIGN POWERS TO ENTER 
OUR ELECTION CAMPAIGNS ON BEHALF
OF THE PRESIDENT.
WHO WILL BE INVITED IN NEXT?
THE PRESIDENT'S CONTINUING 
COURSE OF CONDUCT CONSTITUTES A 
CLEAR AND PRESENT DANGER TO 
DEMOCRACY IN AMERICA.
WE CANNOT ALLOW THIS MISCONDUCT 
TO PASS.
IT WOULD BE A SELLOUT OF OUR 
CONSTITUTION, OUR FOREIGN 
POLICY, OUR NATIONAL SECURITY 
AND OUR DEMOCRACY.
THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN.
I YIELD BACK.
>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
MR. COLLINS WELCOME BACK TO THE 
RULES COMMITTEE. 
>> THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN.
IT'S GOOD TO SEE YOU.
AND, MR. COLE, AS WELL AND THE 
MEMBERS WHO HAVE SPENT MANY 
HOURS IN THIS ROOM WITH, YOU 
KNOW, THE CHAIRMAN MADE A 
STATEMENT ABOUT MY FRIEND HERE 
MR. RASKIN AND HE IS A FINE 
ATTORNEY AND IT'S BEEN AMAZING 
TO ME THROUGHOUT THIS YEAR HOW 
THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE HAS 
SIDELINED FINE ATTORNEYS LIKE 
HIMSELF INTO NOT ASKING 
QUESTIONS AND NOT BEING A PART 
OF THE PROCESS.
IT'S BEEN INTERESTING TO WATCH.
BECAUSE HE'S A GOOD ONE.
HE'S A GOOD CONSTITUTIONAL 
ATTORNEY.
I'M NOT A CONSTITUTIONAL 
ATTORNEY.
I'M A PASTOR AND AN ATTORNEY 
FROM NORTH GEORGIA.
BUT I BELIEVE YOU CAN TAKE A 
LOOK AT THIS AND APPLY 
CONSTITUTIONAL LENSES, BUT IT'S 
A COMMONSENSE LENS.
MR. COLE MADE A COMMENT WHEN 
HE -- IN HIS OPENING STATEMENTS,
HE SAYS, YOU SAY, IT DOESN'T 
MAKE SENSE.
YEAH, IT DOES.
IT MAKES PERFECT SENSE.
LOOK AT THE PATTERN.
THE ONLY THING THAT IS CLEAR AND
PRESENT DANGER RIGHT NOW IN THIS
ROOM IS THE PATTERN OF ATTACK 
AND ABUSE OF RULES AND DECISIONS
TO GET AT THIS PRESIDENT THAT 
STARTED OVER THREE YEARS AGO, 
REALLY THE NIGHT HE WAS ELECTED.
AND I SAID THE OTHER DAY IN THE 
COMMITTEE HEARING, I THOUGHT 
ABOUT HAVING THE MEANS AND THE 
MOTIVE AND THE OPPORTUNITY, THE 
OPPORTUNITY FOR THIS DAY 
OCCURRED LAST NOVEMBER WHEN WE 
LOST THE MAJORITY.
IT OCCURRED.
BUT THEY HAD TALKED ABOUT IT FOR
YEARS AND PRIOR, AND SO WE BRING
IT FORWARD AND WE TRIED A LOT OF
DIFFERENT THINGS TO GET THERE.
WE'LL TALK ABOUT THAT, I'M SURE 
AS THE TIME GOES ON TODAY.
WE CAN TALK ABOUT THE ARTICLES 
AND THE VERY VAGUE ARTICLES THAT
WE DID.
IT'S PRETTY INTERESTING IF YOU 
READ THE REPORT, THERE'S A LOT 
OF DISCUSSION ABOUT CRIMES BUT 
THEY COULDN'T FIND IT IN 
THEMSELVES TO CHARGE ONE.
COMMONSENSE.
ARTICLES.
WHEN YOU THINK ABOUT 
IMPEACHMENT, YOU'RE THINKING 
ABOUT IMPEACHING A PRESIDENT FOR
CRIMES.
AND THIS MAJORITY HAS TRIED TO 
HARD TO BE LIKE CLINTON AND 
NIXON AND FAILED SO MISERABLY.
BUT EVERY TIME WE TRY, WE TRY 
ONCE AGAIN ACCEPT THE ONE THING 
WHEN IT CAME DOWN TO THE END, 
THE ONE THING THEY COULDN'T DO 
WAS FIND A CRIME.
THEY TALK ABOUT IT A BUNCH.
IF YOU READ THE REPORT, IT IS 
WELL WRITTEN.
IT IS SOME OF THE BEST WORK 
YOU'LL SEE FRANKLY IN SOME WAYS 
OF FICTIONAL ACCOUNTS, BUT IT 
ACTUALLY TALKS ABOUT IT.
THAT THE PROBLEM HERE IS A 
MAJORITY BENT ON FINDING 
SOMETHING FOR THIS PRESIDENT.
IT'S NOT A SURPRISE.
IN FACT IT'S A SAD DAY NOT ONLY 
FOR THE RULES COMMITTEE BUT FOR 
THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE.
IT'S TELLING THAT THE ARTICLES 
OF IMPEACHMENT, TO SHOW YOU HOW 
PARTISAN THIS IS AND REALLY THE 
CONCERNING PART THAT I SEE, 
MR. McGOVERN IS A FRIEND AND WE 
DISAGREE.
WE DISAGREE PROBABLY ON A LOT OF
THINGS.
AND THAT'S FINE.
THAT'S WHAT WE'RE SUPPOSED TO 
DO.
THAT'S WHAT OUR VOTERS SEND US 
HERE FOR.
WE HAVE WORKED TOGETHER.
THE QUESTION I HAVE HERE IS, 
THOUGH, IF THIS WAS AS -- AS THE
SPEAKER SAID, IT SHOULD BE 
OVERWHELMING, BIPARTISAN AND THE
AMERICAN PEOPLE UNDERSTAND IT, 
WHY ARE WE IN THE RULES 
COMMITTEE TODAY?
WHEN IT WAS WITH CLINTON, IT WAS
STRAIGHT TO THE FLOOR.
IT DOESN'T HAVE TO COME TO THE 
RULES COMMITTEE BECAUSE BOTH 
SIDES COULD SEE THERE WAS 
SOMETHING NEEDING TO BE 
DISCUSSED AND THAT'S NOT TRUE 
HERE.
AND SO WE'RE HAVING TO BRING IT 
UP HERE TO THE RULES COMMITTEE 
PLACE THAT I HAVE SPENT MANY 
HOURS AND MANY OF US ON THIS 
GROUP HAVE DISCUSSED MANY THINGS
BUT THIS SHOULD NOT BE ONE OF 
THEM.
IT'S INTERESTING, I'VE HEARD A 
LOT ALREADY, THE DISCUSSION OF 
THE FOUNDERS AND IT'S 
INTERESTING, WE CHERRY PICK THE 
FOUNDERS, THAT'S WHAT PARTISANS 
DO.
IF YOU LIKE THIS PARTISAN OR IF 
YOU LIKE THAT, BUT THE ONE 
THAT'S NOT MENTIONED IS THE 
THING THAT WE'RE HERE FOR.
AND THAT WAS FOUND IN 
FEDERALIST -- I THINK IT WAS 65.
IT WAS HAMILTON.
WHEN HE SAID THIS, THE FOUNDERS 
WARNED AGAINST A VAGUE 
OPEN-ENDED CHARGE BECAUSE IT 
COULD BE APPLIED IN A PARTISAN 
FASHION BY THE MAJORITY OF THE 
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES AGAINST
AN OPPOSITION PRESIDENT.
ALEXANDER HAMILTON CALLED 
PARTISAN IMPEACHMENT REGULATED 
BY THE COMPARATIVE STRENGTH OF 
PARTIES THAN THE REAL 
DEMONSTRATION OF INNOCENCE OR 
GUILT.
THE GREATEST DANGER.
AND THEY EXCLUTED THE TERM MILD 
ADMINISTRATION FROM THE CLAUSE 
BECAUSE THEY DID NOT WANT THE 
SUBJECT PRESENT TO THE WHIMS OF 
CONGRESS.
VAGUE A TERM WILL BE THE 
EQUIVALENT TO A TENURED DURING 
THE PLEASURE OF THE SENATE AND I
WOULD SAY IT WOULD BE A TENURE 
TO THE PLEASURE OF THIS HOUSE.
WHEN WE UNDERSTAND WHAT'S GOING 
ON HERE, WHEN WE LOOK AT THE 
DISCUSSIONS HERE, THERE ARE MANY
THINGS I WANT TO TALK ABOUT, BUT
THE FIRST I WANT TO DO, WHEN WE 
TALK ABOUT HOW WE GET TO A 
CERTAIN PLATES, PROPER PROCESS 
LEADS TO PROPER RESULTS AND 
WE'VE NOT HAD ANY OF THAT IN 
THIS PROCESS.
I'VE SAID MANY TIMES IN OUR 
DISCUSSIONS LATELY IS THIS IS 
ALL ABOUT A CLOCK AND A 
CALENDAR.
IT HAS BEEN FOR A WHILE.
SINCE JANUARY WHEN WE WERE SWORN
IN, IT WAS ABOUT A CLOCK AND A 
CALENDAR.
WHY DO I SAY THAT?
BECAUSE WE HAD TO GET TO IT BY 
THE END OF THE YEAR, IF WE WENT 
INTO THE NEXT YEAR, IT WOULD BE 
TOO CLOSE TO THE ELECTIONS THAT 
THEY'RE TRYING TO INTERFERE 
WITH.
AND, YES, THEY'RE TRYING TO 
INTERFERE WITH ELECTIONS, THE 
2020 ELECTION.
NOW THE CONDUCT IS CONDUCTED IN 
THE RESPECTS OF THE AMERICAN 
PEOPLE.
THEY KNOW KNOW MASTERERS EXPECT 
THEMSELVES.
IN THE FIRST MINUTES OF THE 
HEARING, THE CHAIRMAN SET A 
DEADLINE OF DECEMBER 6th FOR THE
REPUBLICANS AND THE PRESIDENT TO
REQUEST ADDITIONAL WITNESSES.
IT WASN'T UNTIL SATURDAY, THE 
DAY AFTER THE DEADLINE, THAT 
CHAIRMAN SCHIFF TRANSMITTED 
8,000 PAGES OF MATERIAL TO THE 
JUDICIARY COMMITTEE AND WE STILL
HAVE NOT GOTTEN EVERYTHING.
NOT THAT IT MATTERS TO THE 
MAJORITY.
THIS SHOULD BOTHER YOU.
YOU CAN VOTE FOR YOUR YES 
TOMORROW, BUT IT SHOULD MATTER 
FOR THIS INSTITUTION THAT WHILE 
I WAS IN GEORGIA, I RECEIVED A 
CALL FROM MY STAFF SAYING THEY 
JUST RELEASED 8,000 DOCUMENTS, 
SOME OF WHICH WERE GOING TO BE 
KEPT IN A SECURE HOLDING AND 
WHEN I ASKED THE CHAIRMAN ABOUT 
THESE DOCUMENTS, HE SAID WE'RE 
NOT GOING TO READ THEM EITHER.
WE'RE NOT GOING TO HAVE A CHANCE
TO GO THROUGH THEM.
THAT WAS FROM MY CHAIRMAN WHO I 
RESPECT GREATLY.
WE'VE DONE A LOT OF THINGS 
TOGETHER.
BUT IT HAS BEEN VERY DIFFICULT 
WHEN IN A HEARING OF THIS 
MAGNITUDE, HOW CAN ANYONE, 
REPUBLIC OR DEMOCRAT, ACTUALLY 
GO BACK AND LOOK AT THEIR 
CONSTITUENTS IN THE FACE AND SAY
WE LOOKED AT ALL THE EVIDENCE, I
LOOKED AT EVERYTHING AND I CAME 
TO THIS CONCLUSION?
NO, WE CHERRY PICKED THE 
EVIDENCE BECAUSE THAT MATERIAL 
WHICH HAS STILL NOT ALL BEEN 
RELEASED, THE INSPECTOR GENERAL 
IG REPORT THAT HAS NOT BEEN 
RELEASED.
WHETHER IT'S GOOD OR BAD IS 
IRRELEVANT.
WHEN YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT 
IMPEACHING A PRESIDENT, 
SHOULDN'T THAT UNDERLYING 
EVIDENCE SENT TO JUDICIARY 
COMMITTEE ACTUALLY MATTER.
AGAIN, IT DOESN'T TAKE EXPERTING
COMING IN AND TELLING US ABOUT 
IT.
IT TAKES COMMONSENSE TO KNOW YOU
DON'T IMPEACH SOMEBODY WITHOUT 
MAKING ALL THE EVIDENCE PROPER.
WHEN YOU'RE THE TERNY OF A CLOCK
AND A CALENDAR NOTHING ELSE 
MATTERS.
YOU JUST GOT TO GET -- THE LAST 
MINUTE IF YOU DON'T HAVE 
ANYTHING, YOU GO OUT AND BUY THE
FIRST THING YOU GET.
AND THIS IS WHAT WAS HAPPENING, 
THE CLOCK WAS RUNNING OUT.
THEY FOUND A PHONE CALL THEY 
DIDN'T LIKE.
THEY DIDN'T LIKE THIS 
ADMINISTRATION.
THEY DIDN'T LIKE WHAT THE 
PRESIDENT DID.
THEY TRIED TO MAKE UP CLAIMS 
THAT THERE WAS PRESSURE AND 
OTHER THINGS, BUT AT THE END OF 
THE DAY IT IS SIMPLY LAST-MINUTE
CHRISTMAS SHOPPING.
THEY SAID, WE CAN DO IT, BUT NO 
CRIMES.
NONE IN THE ARTICLES.
ABUSE OF POWER IN WHICH ANY 
MEMBER CAN MAKE UP ANYTHING THEY
WANT TO AND CALL IT AN ABUSE OF 
POWER.
BUT IN THE REPORT, THEY DOCUMENT
BRIBERY AND EXTORTION, AND ALL 
THESE OTHER THINGS WHICH THEY 
CAN'T PUT INTO THE ARTICLES AND 
THEN THE OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE,
AGAIN, IS INTERESTING WHEN I 
JUST READ, CHAIRMAN SCHIFF 
TRANSFERRED ON A SATURDAY 8,000 
PAGES OF WHAT WE WERE SUPPOSED 
TO BE WORKING ON FOR THE NEXT 
HEARING.
WE SUBMITTED OUR LIST OF 
WITNESSES TO MR. NADLER BEFORE 
SCHIFF SENT -- WE SUBMITTED IT 
BEFORE SCHIFF HAD SENT US 
ANYMORE EVIDENCE.
LAST MONDAY WE HAD A HEARING SO 
THE CONSULTANTS COULD TELL US 
THAT THE PRESIDENT NEEDS TO BE 
IMPEACHED.
NOTHING FROM CHAIRMAN SCHIFF WHO
HAD MADE THE REFERENCE TO 
HIMSELF BEING LIKE KEN STARR.
KEN STARR ACTUALLY CAME AND 
TESTIFIED AND TOOK QUESTIONS 
FROM EVERYONE INCLUDING THE 
WHITE HOUSE COUNSEL.
ON MONDAY, THE CHAIRMAN REJECTED
ALL OF OUR WITNESSES OUT OF HAND
AND ON TUESDAY, THE MORNING 
AFTER THE PRESENTATION OF 
ARTICLES WERE UNVEILED, 
REMEMBER, THINK ABOUT THIS, NO 
FACTUAL BASE WITNESSES, WE HAD A
BUNCH OF LAW PROFESSORS, ONE FOR
US -- I DID ASK FOR ANOTHER ONE.
DIDN'T GET IT.
NO REASONING.
WE JUST WENT BACK -- WE WERE IN 
IMPEACHMENT HEARINGS AND WE WENT
BACK TO THE NORMAL 3:1 RATIO.
IT WAS AN INTERESTING 
CONVERSATION BETWEEN THE 
CHAIRMAN AND I.
DIDN'T GET IT.
THEN WE CAME IN AND GOT OUR 
WITNESS LIST DISMISSED.
WE GET INFORMATION DUMPED TO US 
IN THE MIDDLE OF WHAT WE'RE 
SUPPOSED TO BE DOING RIGHT 
BEFORE WE'RE HAVING TO HAVE 
HEARINGS.
AFTER WE HAD TO TURN IN OUR 
WITNESS LIST.
JUDGE, I DON'T THINK THIS WOULD 
FLY ON ANY REGULAR, NORMAL COURT
PROCEEDING BECAUSE I KNOW THIS 
IS NOT.
BEFORE ANYONE WANTS TO TWEET OR 
ANYTHING, WE'RE NOT IN A COURT.
WE'RE IN A KANGAROO COURT, IT 
FEELS LIKE.
ALL OF THIS IS BACKWARDS.
WE'RE MORE ALICE IN WONDERLAND 
THAN HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.
WHETHER YOU AGREE HE NEEDS TO BE
IMPEACHED OR NOT, DO YOU NOT 
THINK THERE NEEDS TO BE A 
MONOCLE OF PROCESS AND RIGHTS?
ALL OF THIS IS TRUE.
THE RULES COMPLETELY ASIDE, 
BROKEN, DUE PROCESS RIGHTS 
COMPLETELY OUT THE WINDOW, RULES
FOR DECORUM IN DEBATE, WE'VE 
SEEN THAT BROKEN.
THE CHAIRMAN COULD HAVE USED IT 
TO RUN A FAIR PROCESS.
UNFORTUNATELY WE DIDN'T.
THE PROBLEM COMES DOWN TODAY IS 
THERE ARE SEVERAL THINGS I'M 
GOING TO LEAVE YOU WITH, MR. 
CHAIRMAN, THIS IS IT.
AFTER ALL THAT HAS BEEN SAID, 
TALKED ABOUT, THERE'S FOUR FACTS
THAT WILL NEVER CHANGE, BOTH THE
PRESIDENT AND MR. ZELENSKY SAY 
THERE WAS NO PRESSURE.
THE CALL TRANSCRIPT SHOWS NO 
CONDITIONALITY IN AID AND 
INVESTIGATION.
BY THE WAY, MR. SONDLAND, THEIR 
KEY WITNESS, THE ONLY THING THEY
EVER QUOTE IS HIS OPENING 
STATEMENT.
THEY DON'T LIKE TO QUOTE WHEN HE
WAS QUESTIONED WHEN HE SAID I 
PRESUME THAT.
AND MR. YERMAK SAID WE DIDN'T 
HAVE ANY CONVERSATION ABOUT 
CONDITIONTY OF AID.
THAT AIM OUT JUST THE OTHER DAY.
I'M NOT SURE WHERE WE'RE GETTING
THIS.
UKRAINIANS WERE NOT AWARE WAS 
WITHHELD AND THE UKRAINIANS 
DIDN'T GET A MEETING AND STILL 
GOT THEIR AID.
BUT WHAT WE DID SEE, WE SAW 
MR. ZELENSKY, PRESIDENT 
ZELENSKY, PILLARED IN OUR 
COMMITTEE, HE'S EITHER A LIAR OR
SO WEAK HE SHOULDN'T BE 
GOVERNING THAT COUNTRY.
THAT'S TRAGIC.
WE DID THAT TO A SITTING WORLD 
LEADER IN OUR COMMITTEE.
THESE ARE THE KINDS OF THINGS 
THAT BOTHER MANY OF US.
I KNOW THIS IS ON A CALENDAR 
TOO.
WE'LL HAVE A FEW HOURS HERE, 
WE'LL TALK ABOUT IT, BUT I WILL 
REMIND MY FRIENDS, AND I DO 
CONSIDER YOU FRIENDS, THE CLOCK 
IN THE CALENDAR ARE TERRIBLE 
MASTERS AND THEY LEAD TO AWFUL 
RESULTS.
AND, YES, THERE WILL BE A DAY OF
RECKONING, THE CALENDAR AND THE 
CLOCK WILL CONTINUE.
BUT WHAT YOU DO HERE AND HOW WE 
HAVE TRASHED THE PROCESS IN 
GETTING HERE WILL LIVE ON AND IT
WILL AFFECT EVERYTHING THAT 
WE'VE COME FOR.
WHATEVER YOU MAY GAIN, WILL BE 
SHORT-LIVED BECAUSE THE CLOCK 
AND CALENDAR RECOGNIZE 
COMMONSENSE WHICH HAS NOT BEEN 
USED IN THIS PROCEEDING.
>>> THE RULES COMMITTEE WILL 
COME TO ORDER.
WE WELCOME BACK OUR TWO 
WITNESSES.
AT THIS TIME I AM HAPPY TO YIELD
TO MY DISTINGUISHED COLLEAGUE 
FROM FLORIDA. 
>> THANK YOU SO VERY MUCH, MR. 
CHAIRMAN.
WITH YOUR PERMISSION, I WOULD 
LIKE VERY MUCH TO YIELD TO OUR 
COLLEAGUE MS. SCANLON FOR SOME 
QUESTIONS THAT SHE MAY HAVE OF 
OUR WITNESS. 
>> WITHOUT OBJECTION. 
>> THANK YOU.
I JUST WANTED TO CLARIFY ONE 
THING.
WE HAD A LINE OF QUESTIONING 
FROM MR. COLE RIGHT BEFORE WE 
BROKE AND IT HAD TO DO WHETHER 
OR NOT THERE HAD BEEN SUBPOENAS 
ISSUED FOR RANKING MEMBER NUNES'
PHONE RECORDS AND, YOU KNOW, 
THERE SEEMED TO BE SOME 
CONFUSION FROM OUR TWO WITNESSES
HERE.
BUT I RECALL THE TESTIMONY THAT 
WE HAD IN JUDICIARY WHICH WAS 
THAT IN FACT NO SUBPOENAS HAD 
BEEN ISSUED FOR ANY MEMBER OF 
CONGRESS OR FOR ANY JOURNALIST 
THAT THE INTEL COMMITTEE HAS 
SUBPOENAED META DATA, JUST CALL 
RECORDS, NOT ACTUALLY PHONE 
TAPS, OF FOUR PEOPLE WHO HAD 
BEEN INVOLVED IN THIS SCHEME TO 
ABUSE THE POWER OF OFFICE AND 
SMEAR AMBASSADOR YOVANOVITCH.
AFTER EACH OF THOSE PEOPLE HAD 
BEEN SUBPOENAED INDIVIDUALLY, SO
THAT WAS GIULIANI, SONDLAND, TWO
HAVE BEEN INDICTED FOR CRIMES 
NOW RELATED TO THIS 
INVESTIGATION.
SO ONCE THOSE PHONE RECORDS WERE
BROUGHT IN, PATTERNS WERE 
NOTICED AROUND PARTICULAR EVENTS
AND THAT WAS WHEN RANKING MEMBER
NUNES' PHONE NUMBER WAS 
IDENTIFIED.
IT WASN'T THAT HIS NUMBER WAS 
SOUGHT.
HE JUST HAPPENED TO BE IN 
CONVERSATION WITH THE 
CO-CONSPIRATORS THERE.
IF PEOPLE ARE INTERESTED IN 
THAT, IN ADDITION TO THE 
TESTIMONY WE HEARD IN JUDICIARY,
THAT INFORMATION CAN BE FOUND IN
THE INTEL REPORT THAT WAS FILED 
ON PAGES 45 THROUGH 47 AND THEN 
AT FOOTNOTES 76 WHICH IS ON PAGE
155.
AND I WOULD JUST NOTE 
PARTICULARLY THERE IT SAYS THE 
COMMITTEE DID NOT SUBPOENA THE 
CALL DETAIL RECORDS FOR ANY 
MEMBER OF CONGRESS OR STAFF.
SO TO THE EXTENT THAT WE WERE 
GETTING DISTRACTED BY SOME 
NOTION THAT PEOPLE WERE TRYING 
TO IMPROPERLY INVESTIGATE 
MEMBERS OF CONGRESS, I THINK WE 
SHOULD PUT THAT TO BED AND CALL 
IT OUT FOR BEING A DISTRACTION 
AND NOT THE TRUTH.
MR. RASKIN, DID THAT REFLECT OUR
RECOLLECTION ON ANY OF THAT?
>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR 
ADDING THE DETAILS.
MY PRIMARY RECOLLECTION OF OUR 
CONVERSATION ABOUT THAT WAS 
PRECISELY THIS, THAT THE 
INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE TARGETED 
NO MEMBER OF CONGRESS, IT 
TARGETED NO JOURNALIST, IT DID 
NOT DIRECT SUBPOENAS AGAINST ANY
OF THEM AND I BELIEVE THAT THE 
NAMES THAT CAME UP, CAME UP IN 
THE NORMAL COURSE OF STANDARD 
INVESTIGATORY PROCEDURE.
THERE'S NOTHING UNTOWARD THERE 
THAT I CAN SEE. 
>> AND ALSO, THERE WAS TESTIMONY
FROM MR. NUNES -- NOT TESTIMONY,
QUESTIONING OF AMBASSADOR TAYLOR
BY MR. NUNES INDICATING THAT HE 
HAD BEEN PHONING FOLKS IN THE 
UKRAINE, RIGHT?
SO HE HAD ACKNOWLEDGED THAT?
>> THAT HE, MR. NUNES HAD?
>> YES.
>> YES.
I BELIEVE THAT'S IN THE 
TRANSCRIPT AS WELL.
HE BASICALLY HAS SAID THAT HE 
WAS CONDUCTING A KIND OF 
INVESTIGATION OF HIS OWN INTO 
WHAT HAPPENED. 
>> OKAY.
HOPEFULLY THAT PUTS THAT TO BED 
AND I YIELD BACK TO 
MR. HASTINGS. 
>> YES, I YIELD -- 
>> I APPRECIATE IT.
I APPRECIATE THE GENTLE LADY 
BRINGING IT UP BUT IT HAD 
NOTHING TO DO WITH THE QUESTIONS
THAT WAS ASKED.
I ALWAYS ACKNOWLEDGED THAT THEY 
WERE PROPERLY DONE SUBPOENAS.
I BELIEVE THAT SUBPOENA POWER OF
THE COMMITTEE WORKS AND I -- IN 
FACT, I SAID IT IN THE JUDICIARY
COMMITTEE THAT DAY TO MR. GOLD 
MAN, NEVER QUESTIONED THE 
PROCESS, NEVER QUESTIONED THE 
SUBPOENA AND ALSO ACKNOWLEDGED 
IT WAS NEVER A DIRECT SUBPOENA 
ON ANY MEMBERS OF CONGRESS.
WHAT I DID SAY, AND WHAT I WILL 
CONTINUE TO SAY WAS, EVEN IN 
THE -- THE GENTLE LADY JUST 
ACKNOWLEDGED IT, WHEN THEY 
STARTED GOING THROUGH THE PHONE 
RECORDS THEY LOOKED AT THE 
PEOPLE THEY CALLED AND SOMEONE 
HAD THE RANKING MEMBER'S PHONE 
NUMBER AND THAT COLLABORATED 
THAT WITH THE PHONE CALL.
EVEN TO THAT POINT, I CAN SAY, 
OKAY.
BUT MY PROBLEM COMES IS THE WAY 
IT WAS PUT IN IS WHAT I WOULD 
CONSIDER A POLITICAL HIT JOB IN 
THE REPORT ITSELF WHEN IT COULD 
HAVE BEEN DONE MANY DIFFERENT 
WAYS.
IT WAS NOT OF APPLICABLE NOTICE 
TO THIS ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT,
IT WAS NOT FURTHERING A 
NARRATIVE EXCEPT TO GETTING BACK
AT THE RANKING MEMBER.
CONGRESS MEMBER ONE, CONGRESS 
MEMBER TWO.
NOTHING THAT WAS SAID THAT -- 
AND I APPRECIATE THE GENTLE LADY
BRINGING THIS UP.
BUT I NEVER QUESTIONED THE 
SUBPOENA.
MY QUESTION WAS WHO SAID TO 
START PUTTING THIS TOGETHER AND 
PUT THEM IN THE REPORT.
>> IF I COULD JUST SAY, I JUST 
BRISTLE A LITTLE BIT AT THE 
SUGGESTION THAT CHAIRMAN SCHIFF 
AND THE INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE 
DID ANYTHING WRONG THERE.
I WAS STATE ASSISTANT ATTORNEY 
GENERAL FOR A COUPLE YEARS AND 
MY RECOLLECTION IS IF YOU GET A 
TABLE OF TELEPHONE RECORDS AND 
OTHER NUMBERS COME UP, YOU DO 
YOUR DUE DILIGENCE ON ALL OF THE
OTHER NUMBERS TO SEE WHO'S 
INVOLVED.
WE'RE TALKING ABOUT POSSIBLY CON
SPEARTORIAL ACTIVITY.
I THINK THEY DID THEIR REGULAR 
DUE DILIGENCE ON IT AND THAT'S 
HOW THOSE CALLERS WERE 
IDENTIFIED. 
>> COULD I ASK MY FRIEND TO 
YIELD FOR JUST A MOMENT?
>> I HAVE THE TIME AND I'LL 
YIELD TO YOU. 
>> THANK YOU, SO MUCH.
I APPRECIATE THAT.
I DID NOT KNOW THAT I UNDERSTOOD
WHAT YOU JUST SAID.
I THOUGHT YOU SAID YOUR 
EXPERIENCE IN THE STATE 
PROSECUTOR'S OFFICE LED YOU TO 
RELEASE THE KINDS OF NAMES OF 
CO-CONSPIRATORS.
CERTAINLY YOU'RE NOT SUGGESTING 
THAT MR. NUNES WAS A 
CO-CONSPIRATOR IN ANY WAY, 
SHAPE, OR FORM?
>> NO, NOT AT ALL.
>> THANK YOU.
ARE YOU FINISHED?
>> YES.
>> THANK YOU.
MR. CHAIRMAN, WHEN WE TOOK OUR 
RECESS TO VOTE, YOU HAD JUST 
MADE WHAT I CONSIDERED TO BE A 
VERY PROFOUND STATEMENT THAT'S 
SHORT AND IT IS THAT THE 
PRESIDENT'S ACTIONS IN YOUR 
WORDS, WERE SO WRONG AND IT'S 
HARD FOR ME TO BELIEVE THAT ALL 
OF US HERE AND IN THE PREVIOUS 
COMMITTEE AND AS THIS MATTER 
PROCEEDS DO NOT ALL UNDERSTAND 
THAT.
BUT THE DIE IS PRETTY MUCH CAST.
IN THIS INSTITUTION, WE'RE FOND 
OF SAYING AFTER EVERYTHING IS 
EXHAUSTED AND TALKING ABOUT 
WHATEVER THE ISSUE IS, THAT 
EVERYBODY HAS SAID EVERYTHING 
THAT NEEDS TO BE SAID BUT I 
HAVEN'T SAID IT YET.
AND THAT'S WHAT'S GOING TO 
HAPPEN WITH EVERY ONE OF THE 
MEMBERS WHO COME AFTER ME.
BUT WHAT IS DISTURBING TO ME IS 
THAT WE -- IT'S LIKE WE'RE IN 
ALTERNATIVE UNIVERSES NOT JUST 
HERE IN THE RULES COMMITTEE BUT 
IN THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE, IN 
THE INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE WHERE
I SERVED FOR EIGHT YEARS.
AND REALLY IN AMERICA.
AND IT'S REGRETTABLE THAT MY 
FRIENDS -- THE REPUBLICANS, ARE 
NOT ADDRESSING OR DEFENDING THE 
PRESIDENT'S ACTIONS.
WHAT YOU'RE DOING IS TALKING 
ABOUT THE PROCESS.
YOU HAVEN'T SEEN NOTHING YET IF 
YOU LISTEN TO LINDSEY GRAHAM AND
THE MAJORITY LEADER McCONNELL 
ABOUT HOW IF AND WHEN THIS 
MATTER GETS TO THEM HOW THEY'RE 
GOING TO ACT.
HOW DARE SOMEBODY SAY THAT THEY 
ARE GOING TO PRETEND THAT 
THEY'RE FAIR AND THE OTHER ONE 
IS GOING TO COLLABORATE WITH THE
WHITE HOUSE.
I WOULD ASSUME THAT THE MANAGERS
THAT ARE DEMOCRATS, WHEN THEY 
GET OVER THERE, THEY'RE GOING TO
BE TALKING ABOUT PROCESS.
IF YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT 
UNFAIRNESS, JUST THE MERE FACT 
THAT BOTH OF THOSE PEOPLE WHO 
SHOULD RECUSE THEMSELVES IN MY 
JUDGMENT, MADE THOSE KINDS OF 
STATEMENTS INDICATES WHERE THEY 
ARE.
BUT TO TURN BACK TO YOU, MR. 
CHAIRMAN, ABOUT SOMETHING BEING 
WRONG WITH WHAT THE PRESIDENT 
DID.
WHEN I WAS A BOY, THAT'S 83 
YEARS AGO.
MY DAD WHO NEVER WENT TO SCHOOL 
A DAY IN HIS LIFE, WHEN I HAD 
CRUCIAL ISSUES OVER THE COURSE 
OF TIME BOTH AS A CHILD, A 
LITTLE BOY, AND HE LIVED LONG 
ENOUGH TO SEE ME BECOME A LAWYER
AND THE DIFFICULTIES ALONG THE 
WAY IN COLLEGE AND WHAT HAVE 
YOU.
HE WOULD ALWAYS SAY TO ME THAT 
RIGHT DON'T WRONG NOBODY.
AND THE FACT OF THE MATTER IS, 
THAT WHAT WE ARE DOING HERE IS 
RIGHT.
LET ME JUST EXCISE ONE THING.
SO-CALLED CORRUPTION, AND MR. 
CHAIRMAN, WITH YOUR PERMISSION, 
JUST TO MAKE SURE THAT THIS 
RECORD IS COMPLETE, NOT THAT 
THIS TRANSCRIPT HAS NOT BEEN 
RELEASED, BUT I ASK UNANIMOUS 
CONSENT THAT THE UNCLASSIFIED 
VERSION OF THE TELEPHONE 
CONVERSATION OF THE PRESIDENT 
WITH PRESIDENT ZELENSKY OF 
UKRAINE BE MADE A PART OF THE 
RECORD. 
>> WITHOUT OBJECTION.
>> I'M GOING TO BACK TO THAT.
WE FIND OURSELVES HERE TODAY 
DISCUSSING TWO ARTICLES OF 
IMPEACHMENT PRESIDENT DONALD 
JOHN TRUMP BECAUSE OF HIS 
DISREGARD AND DISRESPECT FOR THE
UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION.
PRESIDENT TRUMP WITHHELD 
AMERICAN TAXPAYER MONEY THAT WAS
APPROPRIATED BY THEIR DULY 
ELECTED MEMBERS OF CONGRESS, ALL
OF US, TO HELP OUR ALLY FIGHT A 
HOT WAR.
IT WOULD BE ONE THING IF AS WE 
DO HELP AROUND THE WORLD, IF 
THIS WAS NOT AN ENEMY OF THE 
UNITED STATES, A CORRUPT ENEMY 
OF THE UNITED STATES, RUSSIA, I 
DON'T HAVE TO ASK ANYBODY ABOUT 
IT.
I'VE BEEN THERE.
I SAW THE CHANGES THAT TOOK 
PLACE.
I MONITORED THE ELECTIONS THERE.
I KNOW THAT CORRUPTION IS RIPE 
IN THAT COMPANY.
YOU ALL AREN'T PREPARED TO 
DEFEND THAT KIND OF ACTION WITH 
REFERENCE TO CORRUPTION, I FIND 
IT STRANGE THAT YOU'RE IN THAT 
POSITION.
BUT TRUMP WITHHELD THIS TAXPAYER
MONEY TO HELP THE ALLY FIGHT A 
HOT WAR AGAINST RUSSIA TO HE, 
PRESIDENT TRUMP COULD OBTAIN A 
PERSONAL POLITICAL BENEFIT.
I'M GOING TO GET BACK TO THIS 
DOCUMENT AT SOME POINT TO TALK 
ABOUT THAT.
AND JUST IN CASE FOLKS THINK 
THAT THE FACTS WHICH MY 
COLLEAGUES WILL NOT DISCUSS ARE 
A BIT TOO TENUOUS, A BIT TOO 
HAZY, PLEASE REMEMBER THAT ON 
OCTOBER 3rd, 2019, PRESIDENT 
TRUMP WENT OUT ON THE WHITE 
HOUSE LAWN, STOOD IN FRONT OF A 
BUNCH OF REPORTERS AND 
TELEVISION CAMERAS AND ADVISED 
PRESIDENT ZELENSKY TO ANNOUNCE 
THE INVESTIGATION.
FOR GOOD MEASURE, HE THEN 
ENCOURAGED CHINA TO ALSO START 
AN INVESTIGATION INTO THE BIDEN 
FAMILY.
NOT LONG AFTERWARDS ON OCTOBER 
17th, 2019, PRESIDENT TRUMP 
ALLOWED HIS CHIEF OF STAFF MICK 
MULVANEY TO HOLD A PRESS 
CONFERENCE IN WHICH MR. MULVANEY
NOT ONLY ADMITTED THAT A QUID 
PRO QUO EXISTED, BUT THAT WE 
SHOULD GET OVER IT BECAUSE THAT 
IS JUST THE WAY THINGS ARE, HE 
SAID, WHEN IT COMES TO FOREIGN 
AFFAIRS AND APPARENTLY FOREIGN 
COUNTRIES BEING LOBBIED TO 
MEDDLED IN OUR ELECTION.
MICK IS DEAD WRONG.
THAT IS NOW HOW WE EXERCISE OUR 
POLICY IN THIS COUNTRY.
I'M NO WORLD EXPERT, BUT I BEGAN
MY CAREER HERE 27 YEARS AGO ON 
THE FOREIGN AFFAIRS COMMITTEE.
I WAS APPOINTED BY NEWT 
GINGRICH.
I WENT WITH DONALD PAYNE OFTEN 
TO 26 COUNTRIES IN AFRICA AND 
OVER THE COURSE OF TIME, I 
BECAME THE PRESIDENT OF THE 
PARLIAMENTARY ASSEMBLY OF 
COOPERATION IN EUROPE.
IF YOU SAY THAT, YOU OUGHT TO BE
PRESIDENT OF THAT ORGANIZATION.
BUT THERE ARE 57 COUNTRIES IN 
THAT ORGANIZATION INCLUDING 
RUSSIA AND CANADA AND THE UNITED
STATES MAKE IT A TRANSATLANTIC 
ORGANIZATION.
I WENT TO EUROPE 36 TIMES DURING
THE A TWO-YEAR PERIOD TO MOST OF
THOSE COUNTRIES I MADE IT TO 47 
OF THOSE 57 COUNTRIES AND I 
SWORE IN MONTENEGRO AS THE 57th 
COUNTRY IN THE ORGANIZATION FOR 
SECURITY AND COOPERATION IN 
EUROPE.
I THINK I KNOW A LITTLE BIT MORE
ABOUT THE WORLD THAN MICK 
MULVANEY AND THAT IS NOT THE WAY
PRESIDENT BUSH, PRESIDENT 
CLINTON, PRESIDENT OBAMA, THAT 
IS NOT THE WAY THEY CONDUCTED 
POLICY AT ALL.
WELL, HE SAYS GET IT OVER IT.
I, FOR ONE, WILL NOT ACCEPT THAT
VISION OF THIS GREAT COUNTRY, 
LET ALONE GET OVER IT.
MR. CHAIRMAN, ALSO CONSIDER AN 
ARTICLE OF OBSTRUCTION OF 
CONGRESS TODAY, WE ARE, AND I 
BELIEVE THE RECORD SHOWS THAT 
THE ADMINISTRATION'S OBSTRUCTION
TO BE BEYOND DEBATE AND YOU HAVE
DEMONSTRABLY SHOWN LOTS OF THAT 
OBSTRUCTION AND WHILE MANY OF 
OUR MEMBERS DON'T WANT TO BRING 
IT UP, I CANNOT WHEN I WAS ILL 
AT HOME FOR A PROTRACTED PERIOD 
OF TIME, I READ EVERY LINE OF 
THE MUELLER REPORT.
AND THE MUELLER REPORT CLEARLY 
REFLECTS THAT THE PRESIDENT 
OBSTRUCTED JUSTICE LONG BEFORE 
WE GET TO THIS PARTICULAR MATTER
THAT WE ARE DEALING WITH.
WE ARE STEWARDS OF THE HOUSE OF 
REPRESENTATIVES AND TO NOT HAVE 
ALL MEMBERS OF THIS BODY OBJECT 
IN THE MOST STRENUOUS TERMS TO 
THE ADMINISTRATION'S COMPLETE 
OBJECTION OF OUR CLEAR, 
CONSTITUTIONAL PREROGATIVE, TO 
CONDUCT AN IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY 
IS TO ME TRULY DISAPPOINTING.
TO NOT OBJECT, TO NOT DRAW THE 
LINE HERE IS TO DO A GREAT 
DISSERVICE NOT ONLY TO THOSE WHO
CAME BEFORE US BUT THOSE WHO 
WILL COME AFTER US.
WITH THAT, MR. CHAIRMAN, I HAVE 
A FEW QUESTIONS FOR MR. RASKIN.
MR. RASKIN, DID PRESIDENT TRUMP 
SOLICIT UKRAINE'S INTERFERENCE 
IN OUR COUNTRY'S 2020 ELECTION. 
>> IT IS OVERWHELMINGLY CLEAR 
THAT HE DID. 
>> DID PRESIDENT TRUMP SOLICIT 
THIS FOREIGN INTERFERENCE IN 
ORDER TO OBTAIN A PERSONAL 
POLITICAL BENEFIT?
>> HE ABSOLUTELY DID. 
>> DID PRESIDENT TRUMP CONDITION
THE RELEASE OF TAXPAYER MONEY 
APPROPRIATED BY CONGRESS ON 
PRESIDENT ZELENSKY ANNOUNCING AN
INVESTIGATION INTO PRESIDENT 
TRUMP'S POLITICAL OPPONENT. 
>> ALL OF THE EVIDENCE WE HAVE 
SAYS THAT HE DID. 
>> DID PRESIDENT TRUMP'S ACTIONS
UNDERMINE THE NATIONAL SECURITY 
OF THE UNITED STATES AND THAT OF
A KEY ALLY, NAMELY UKRAINE?
>> I BELIEVE THAT THEY DID.
UKRAINE HAD BEEN INVADED AND 
ATTACKED BY RUSSIA.
THERE HAD BEEN MORE THAN 13,000 
CASUALTIES IN THAT WAR.
THE PRESIDENT WAS DESPERATE, THE
PRESIDENT OF UKRAINE WAS 
DESPERATE TO GET SECURITY 
ASSISTANCE AND THAT WAS PROVIDED
BY CONGRESS.
CONGRESS DECIDED THAT THIS MONEY
WAS A GOOD INVESTMENT TO DEFEND 
A BESIEGED ALLY THAT WE NEEDED 
TO CONTAIN THE CONTINUING 
IMPERIAL DESIGNS OF VLADIMIR 
PUTIN TO EXPAND RUSSIAN POWER 
AND TO CONTROL NATIONS IN THE 
NEIGHBORHOOD THERE. 
>> ON JANUARY 20th, 2017, DONALD
JOHN TRUMP TOOK AN OATH TO 
PRESERVE, PROTECT AND DEFEND THE
CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED 
STATES.
HAS, IN YOUR OPINION, THE 
PRESIDENT VIOLATED THAT OATH?
>> I THINK THIS WAS AN ESSENTIAL
BETRAYAL OF HIS OATH OF OFFICE 
WHEN HE DECIDED TO TRY AND 
COERCE A FOREIGN GOVERNMENT TO 
GET INVOLVED IN OUR PRESIDENTIAL
ELECTION, THIS PRESIDENTIAL 
ELECTION, IN ORDER TO STEER THE 
RESULTS IN A PARTICULAR 
DIRECTION AND THEN AS THE 
PATTERN SHOWS, TO COVER IT ALL 
UP BY STONEWALLING CONGRESS AND 
BY ISSUING AN UNPRECEDENTED, 
INDISCRIMINATE BAN ON 
PARTICIPATION IN A CONGRESSIONAL
IMPEACHMENT INVESTIGATION.
WE GOT A LETTER WHERE HE DIDN'T 
BOTHER TO INVOKE A PRIVILEGE.
HE DIDN'T BOTHER TO INVOKE THE 
PHONY ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY PRETEXT.
HE SAID, NO, WE'RE NOT GOING TO 
PARTICIPATE.
THEY THINK THEY ARE NOT SUBJECT 
TO CONGRESSIONAL SUBPOENA AND 
LIKE YOU, MR. HASTINGS, I WOULD 
WISH THAT EVEN IF OUR COLLEAGUES
ACROSS THE AISLE DIFFER WITH US 
ON ARTICLE I, THEY HAVE SOME 
DIFFERENCE WHICH IS YET TO BE 
EXPRESSED CERTAINLY UNDER OATH 
BY ANYONE.
IF THEY BELIEVE THERE'S A 
DIFFERENT STORY OR THE PRESIDENT
HAS AN ALIBI, OKAY, FINE.
BUT IN TERMS OF ARTICLE II, THE 
PRESIDENT CANNOT HAVE THE POWER 
TO DESTROY OUR OVERSIGHT 
INVESTIGATIVE POWER IF WE'RE 
GOING TO BE ABLE TO IMPEACH A 
CORRUPT PRESIDENT. 
>> AND THAT'S THE NEXT QUESTION 
I WANTED TO ASK YOU, DOES THE 
UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION PLACE
THE POWER OF IMPEACHMENT SOLELY 
IN THE CONGRESS. 
>> SOLELY IN THE HOUSE OF 
REPRESENTATIVES. 
>> IN THE HOUSE OF 
REPRESENTATIVES. 
>> AND THE REASON WHY IT'S 
STATED THAT WAY, MR. HASTINGS, 
IS BECAUSE THE FRAMERS DIDN'T 
WANT THE SENATE THINKING THAT 
THEY COULD INITIATIVE AN 
IMPEACHMENT AND THEY WANTED TO 
DEMARCATE IT SAYING THAT THE 
SUPREME COURT SHOULD IMPEACH.
THERE WERE LOTS OF IDEAS OUT 
THERE.
BUT THEY SAID THAT THE HOUSE OF 
REPRESENTATIVES WAS THE ORGAN 
THAT REPRESENTS THE PEOPLE.
WE ARE THE PEOPLE'S BODY.
THE SENATE HAS SOME CLAIM AFTER 
THE ENACTMENT OF THE 17th 
AMENDMENT, THEY'RE ELECTED BY 
THE PEOPLE NOW TOO.
BUT THEY REALLY STILL DO 
REPRESENT ON THE KIND OF 
DISPROPORTIONATE BASIS OF EACH 
STATE GETTING TO DESPITE THE 
SIZE OF THE STATE.
BUT WE ARE AS CLOSE AS YOU GET 
IN OUR CONSTITUTION TO THE PURE 
REPRESENTATIVES OF THE PEOPLE. 
>> AND THE SENATE ACTS ON OATH 
AND AFFIRMATION AS WELL. 
>> THEY WILL DECIDE ON MATTERS 
OF LAW, BUT THEY WILL MAKE THE 
FINAL APPLICATION OF THE LAW TO 
THE FACTS IN THIS CASE.
AND THAT'S WHY I THINK YOU'RE 
CORRECT TO POINT OUT THAT ALL OF
THEM HAVE TO THINK VERY 
CAREFULLY ABOUT WHAT THE 
INSTITUTIONAL OATH OF A JUROR 
ENTAILS.
SOME OF THEM HAVE BEEN SAYING 
THINGS THAT SEEM TO BE APART OF 
WHAT WE WOULD EXPECT OF JURORS 
IN ANY OTHER CONTEXT. 
>> IT'S ANY UNDERSTANDING AND 
THE CHAIRMAN HAS POINTED OUT 
SOME OF THIS, BUT I WANT TO 
HIGHLIGHT THE NUMBER.
IT'S MY UNDERSTAND THAT THE 
EXECUTIVE BRANCH HAS RECEIVED 
OVER 70 SPECIFIC INDIVIDUALIZED 
REQUESTS FOR DOCUMENTS DURING 
CONGRESS'S IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY.
HOW MANY DOCUMENTS HAVE BEEN 
PRODUCED?
>> ZERO HAVE BEEN PRODUCED.
WE HAVE NOT GOTTEN ANYTHING.
WE'VE NOT GOTTEN ANYTHING FROM 
THE OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND 
BUDGET.
WE'VE NOT GOTTEN ANYTHING FROM 
THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE.
WE HAVE WITNESSES WHO COMPLAIN 
TO US IN THIS PROCESS THAT THEIR
OWN DOCUMENTS HAD ESSENTIALLY 
BEEN EMBARGOED AND CONTROLLED BY
THE PRESIDENT AND BY THE 
EXECUTIVE BRANCH WHEN THEY 
WANTED TO TURN IT OVER SO WE 
COULD FIND OUT WHAT WAS GOING 
ON.
WE'RE IN A SEARCH FOR THE TRUTH 
HERE.
THIS IS NOT A GAME.
WE WANT TO KNOW WHAT HAPPENED. 
>> IN RESPONSE TO DUALLY 
AUTHORIZED SUBPOENAS, HOW MANY 
TOP AIDES HAS PRESIDENT TRUMP 
MADE AVAILABLE?
>> HE'S TRIED TO BLOCK ALL OF 
THE WITNESSES.
WE ENDED UP HAVING 17 WITNESSES 
BUT THERE'S STILL A NUMBER OF 
KEY FACT WITNESSES WHO HAVE NOT 
COME FORWARD BECAUSE THE 
PRESIDENT HAS SUCCEEDED IN 
BLOCKING AND RESTRAINING THEIR 
TESTIMONY LIKE THE SECRETARY OF 
ENERGY, LIKE THE DIRECTOR OF THE
OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND 
BUDGET -- 
>> MY RECOLLECTION DURING THE 
JUDICIARY PROCEEDINGS IS THAT 
YOU PUT THIS QUESTION IN A 
DIFFERENT FORM THAT I'M ABOUT TO
PUT TO MY COLLEAGUES NOW.
AND THAT'S ALL OF US IN THIS 
ROOM.
I ASK THE QUESTION, HOW MANY OF 
MY FRIENDS HERE ON THIS DAIS 
THINK IT IS OKAY FOR AN AMERICAN
PRESIDENT TO SOLICIT FOREIGN 
INTERFERENCE IN OUR ELECTIONS?
RAISE YOUR HANDS IF YOU THINK 
THAT'S OKAY.
ANYBODY?
I SEE NONE.
AND IN THAT LIGHT CLEARLY WE 
HAVE THESE DIFFERENCES.
MR. COLLINS?
>> YES, SIR.
>> WOULD YOU CONSIDER UKRAINE A 
STRATEGIC PARTNER TO THE UNITED 
STATES?
>> YES, SIR.
>> DO YOU WANT US TO BELIEVE 
THAT WITH HOLDING THE AID FOR 
THE REASONS OUR INVESTIGATION 
IDENTIFIES DID NOT HARM NATIONAL
SECURITY?
>> WHICH ONES ARE YOU TALKING 
ABOUT?
>> I'M TALKING -- 
>> THE ONES THAT THE MAJORITY 
STIPULATE TO OR THE MINORITY 
STIPULATES TO. 
>> THE MAJORITY. 
>> NO, I DO NOT AGREE WITH THE 
MAJORITY'S INTERPRETATION OF THE
CALL. 
>> I SEEM TO THINK THAT'S GOING 
TO BE YOUR ROLE.
YOU DON'T THINK THAT ASKING A 
PRESIDENT OF A FOREIGN COUNTRY 
THAT IS IN A HOT WAR THAT WE 
WITH HOLD AID FROM HIM?
YOU DON'T THINK THAT AFFECTS OUR
NATIONAL SECURITY, IF YOU THINK 
UKRAINE IS OUR ALLY AS I BELIEVE
YOU DO AND I DO?
>> I JUST DON'T 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?
>> YOU'D 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 WE'RE 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, I'VE HEARD THAT 
BEFORE.
I'M NOT GOING TO ELABORATE.
BUT I CAN ASSURE YOU IF THEY 
POINT AS YOU DO AND MANY DO TO 
PRESIDENT OBAMA NOT PROVIDING 
LETHAL WEAPONS WHAT THE MINORITY
FAILS TO NOTE DURING THE EARLY 
STANLS OF THE TRUMP 
ADMINISTRATION THE LETHAL 
WEAPONS WERE PROVIDED TO 
UKRAINE.
AND IT WASN'T UNTIL THE LEAD UP 
TO THE 2020 ELECTION AND AFTER 
FORMER THE VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN 
NOUNSED HIS CANDIDACY DID 
PRESIDENT TRUMP EXERT OFFICIAL 
DUTIES AND PLACE PENNSYLVANIA 
HOLD ON LETHAL AID.
LET ME TURN TO CORRUPTION.
OSTENSIBLY, THIS JULY 25th THE 
TRANSCRIPT REFLECTS ACCORDING TO
MY FRIENDS ON THE OTHER SIDE, 
BOTH IN JUDICIARY AND TO THE 
EXTENT THAT THE REPORT FROM 
INTELLIGENCE REFLECTS IT, THAT 
IN THIS PARTICULAR MATTER THAT 
CORRUPTION WAS WHAT WAS BEING 
SOUGHT TO BE DETERMINED.
LET ME URGE PRESIDENT TRUMP TO 
LOOK AROUND THE WORLD IF HE 
WANTS TO TALK ABOUT CORRUPTION.
AND HAVE HIM ANSWER FOR ME WHY 
HE COZIES UP TO RUSSIA AND ALL 
ROADS LEAD TO RUSSIA WHEN WE ALL
KNOW HOW CORRUPT THEY ARE AND 
WHAT THEY HAVE DONE IN THE 
PREVIOUS ELECTION AND WHAT THEY 
ARE DOING IN THE RUN UP TO THIS 
ELECTION.
AND YES, MY COUNTY -- MY STATE 
HAD TWO COUNTIES THAT HACKERS 
FROM RUSSIA WERE SUCCESSFUL.
AND HE HAS THE AUDACITY TO GO 
OUT AND SAY NOW THEY DON'T TALK 
ABOUT RUSSIA IN THE ELECTIONS, 
THEY'RE TALKING ABOUT UKRAINE.
WHY IS IT THAT THE THE PRESIDENT
AS THE CHAIRMAN POINTED OUT, 
CODYS UP TO A DICTATOR LIKE 
DUTERTE IN THE PHILIPPINES?
WHY IS HE NOT LOOKING RIGHT HERE
IN THIS HEMISPHERE WHERE WE HAVE
NOT PAID AS MUCH ATTENTION AS WE
SHOULD- DSH AND I BELIEVE MY 
COLLEAGUE WILL ADDRESS.
BUT I NEED TO RAISE VENEZUELA.
AND I AREN'T HAVEN'T HEARD MUCH 
WITH HIM REFERENCE TO LATELY 
ABOUT VENEZUELA, ABOUT EL 
SALVADOR, HAVEN'T HEARD OTHER 
THAN CHINA DEALING WITH TRADE 
ANYBODY IN HERE THAT DOESN'T 
BELIEVE CHINA IS CORRUPT, THEN 
YOU SHOULD JUST VISIT ANY ONE OF
THE PLACES WHERE PEOPLE ARE IN 
GULAGS AND BEING HELD AND HOW 
INTELLECTUALS AND RELIGIOUS 
LEADERS ARE BEING TORTURED IN 
THAT COUNTRY.
NOT TO MENTION -- THE CHAIRMAN 
POINTED TO IT, AS WHAT THE 
PRESIDENT SAID, THAT HE FELL IN 
LOVE WITH KIM JONG UN.
AND KIM JONG UN IS PREPARING 
MISSILES AND IF SUCCESSFUL MAY 
ONE DAY BE ABLE TO REACH THIS 
COUNTRY.
AND THERE IS NO REASON TO 
BELIEVE THAT HE WOULDN'T.
IS THE PRESIDENT AWARE OF WHAT'S
GOING ON IN ITALY?
IS HE AWARE OF WHAT'S GOING ON 
IN INDIA?
HOW ABOUT IRAN?
I HAVEN'T HEARD HIM SAY A 
MUMBLING WORD ABOUT WHAT'S 
HAPPENING IN IRAN?
IS HE AWARE OF WHAT'S GOING ON 
IN LEBANON?
IS HE AWARE OF THE CORRUPTION 
THAT'S BEING IDENTIFIED AND HOW 
CHILE IS ON THE BUBBLE?
I JUST CAN'T BELIEVE YOU PEOPLE.
AND LET ME TURN NOW TO THIS -- 
AND ASK YOU ALL -- AND I ALREADY
KNOW THE ANSWER -- CAN ANYBODY 
IN HERE, PARTICULARLY THOSE OF 
US ON THE RULES COMMITTEE -- 
NEIGHBOR ANY OTHER PRESIDENT IN 
THE HISTORY OF THE UNITED STATES
THAT HAS ASKED OF A FOREIGN 
GOVERNMENT OR ITS LEADERS TO 
INVESTIGATE AN AMERICAN CITIZEN 
FOR POLITICAL PURPOSES?
CAN ANYBODY IN HERE IDENTIFY ANY
PRESIDENT THAT HAS DONE THAT?
SEEING NONE, I'LL PROCEED.
THE SIMPLE FACT OF THE MATTER IS
THAT MY COLLEAGUES HAVE 
DETERMINED THAT THEY'RE GOING TO
GO DOWN THE ROAD OF DISTRACTION 
AND ARE NOT GOING TO DISCUSS THE
FACTS IN THIS MATTER LET ME TELL
YOU SOME OF THE PEOPLE THAT YOU 
ALL SHOULD HAVE HEARD FROM AND 
SOME WOULD ARGUE THAT WE SHOULD 
WAIT UNTIL THE COURTS -- AND I'M
SURE THAT THE ADMINISTRATION 
WOULD FIGHT ALL THE WAY TO KEEP 
SECRETARY POMPEO FROM 
TESTIFYING, JOHN BOLTON FROM 
TESTIFYING, MICK MULVANEY, DAN 
McGAHN -- DON McGAHN THE MAN 
THAT THE PRESIDENT TOLD TO GO 
AND FIRE THE FBI DIRECTOR.
HOW ABOUT ROBERT BLARE AND 
MICHAEL DUFFY, THE GUYS FROM 
MICK MULVANEY'S SHOP WHERE THE 
AID HAS BEEN WITHHELD?
LET ME TURN TO THIS DOCUMENT.
FIRST OFF, LET ME ASK BOTH OF 
YOU WHETHER YOU KNOW IF A FULL 
VERBATIM TRANSCRIPT EXISTS OF 
THIS JULY 25th CALL?
MR. COLLINS DO YOU KNOW. 
>> I KNOW THAT ALL THE WITNESSES
TESTIFIED THIS WAS A CLEAR AND 
ACCURATE TRANSCRIPT. 
>> MR. RASKIN DO YOU KNOW 
WHETHER A VERPT IMTRANSCRIPT 
EXISTS.
>> OF THE ALL 25 CALL?
>> THAT IS NOT A VERB 
IMTRANSCRIPT.
BUT I'VE NEVER SEEN -- I'VE 
NEVER SEEN A VERBATIM 
TRANSCRIPT. 
>> THERE IS NO WITNESS THAT 
TESTIFIED OR CONTRADICTED THE 
STATEMENTS IN THAT IN ANY OF THE
TESTIMONY. 
>> EXCUSE ME. 
>> THEY DID NOT.
THEY SAID THAT THE TRANSCRIPT 
WAS ACCURATE. 
>> WELL WHAT ABOUT ALL THE 
PEOPLE THAT TESTIFIED BEFORE THE
COMMITTEE THAT DISCUSSED MATTERS
THAT THEY THOUGHT WERE WRONG 
THAT THE PRESIDENT DID?
>> WELL, MR. HASTINGS, I WISH WE
HAD ALL THOSE PEOPLE TESTIFY 
BEFORE MY COMMITTEE, BUT THEY 
DIDN'T.
>> LET ME TURN TO THE FOOTNOTE 
ON THIS UNCLASSIFIED DOCUMENT 
THAT'S IN THE RECORD.
IT SAYS A MEMBER COUPLE OF A 
TELEPHONE CONVERSATION IS NOT A 
VERBATIM TRANSCRIPT OF A 
DISCUSSION.
THE TEXT IN THIS DOCUMENT 
RECORDS THE NOTES AND 
RECOLLECTIONS OF SITUATION ROOM 
DUTY OFFICERS AND NSC POLICY 
STAFF ASSIGNED TO LISTEN AND 
MEMORIALIZE THE CONVERSATION IN 
WRITTEN FORM AS THE CONVERSATION
TAKES PLACE.
A NUMBER OF FACTORS CAN AFFECT 
THE ACCURACY OF THE RECORD, 
INCLUDING POOR 
TELECOMMUNICATIONS CONNECTIONS, 
AND VARIATIONS IN ACCENT AND/OR 
INTERPRETATION.
THE WORD, QUOTE QB INAUDIBLE, 
UNQUOTE, IS USED TO INDICATE, IT
SAYS, INDICATE PORTIONS OF A 
CONVERSATION THAT THE NOTE TAKER
WAS UNABLE TO HEAR.
DO EITHER OF YOU KNOW WHY THE 
FULL TRANSCRIPT IS IN A 
CLASSIFIED SERVER THAT CAN BE 
ACCESSED ONLY BY THE HIGHEST 
OF -- OF AUTHORITIES INSOFAR AS 
CLASSIFICATION OF THEIR ABILITY?
DO ANY OF YOU KNOW WHY THIS 
THING IS IN A SERVER, THE 
CLASSIFIED SERVER. 
>> NO, I CANNOT GIVE YOU THE 
FULL EXPLANATION OF THAT. 
>> MR. KOHL LICENSE. 
>> MR. MORRISON TESTIFIED IT WAS
PUT THERE IN DPFRT ORDER.
HE TESTIFIED TO THAT. 
>> ADMINISTRATIVE ERROR. 
>> THAT'S HIS WORDS NOT MINE. 
>> WHO IS MR. MORRIS. 
>> THE GENTLEMAN THAT TESTIFIED 
AT COMMITTEE THE FROM THE NSY. 
>> DID HE PUT IT IN THE SERVER.
>> HE WOULD HAVE TESTIFIED TO OF
IT WE WOULD HAVED LOVED THE 
WITNESSES IN ZBLEEV WOULD YOU 
LOVE TO HAVE THE SERVER
>> I'D LOVE THE WITNESSES.
>> WE GOT PEOPLE RUNNING AROUND 
UKRAINE. 
>> WE HAVE PEOPLE BRIBING 
PUBLISHING PUBLIC OFFICIALS 
THAT'S A UKRAINEENING ISSUE AS 
WELL BUT ON THIS THERE IS NO 
CREDIBLE WITNESS MO SAID THERE 
IS ANYTHING IN THE TRANSCRIPT 
THAT WAS NOT THERE.
>> I FIND. 
>> NONE OF YOUR WITNESSES.
YOUR WITNESSES.
>> I FIND THAT THE PRESIDENT, 
GOES OUT ISSUES THIS 
UNCLASSIFIED STATEMENT.
AND THERE IS A STATEMENT OUT 
THERE SOMEWHERE IN A CLASSIFIED 
SERVER THAT MAY HAVE GOTTEN 
THERE MISTAKENLY, ACCORDING TO 
MR. MORRISON, AS YOU ARE 
TESTIFYING, BUT MY QUESTION 
ULTIMATELY WOULD BE, WHY IS IT 
THERE?
WHY HASN'T IT BEEN RETRIEVED?
AND WHY HAVE YOU ALL NOT 
RECEIVED IT?
>> BUT I DIGRESS.
LET ME GO ON FINISH UP WITH THIS
FINISH UP WITH THE UNCLASSIFIED 
THE HEARING. 
>> FLS A GHIKS.
ARE YOU IMPLYING THERE WAS 
ANOTHER TRANSCRIPT OUT THERE. 
>> I'M IMPLYING THERE IS MORE 
THAN WHAT WE HAVE HERE. 
>> THAT'S IN THE SERBER.
>> WHICH NO WITNESS TO TO 
TESTIFIED TO. 
>> NO WITNESS. 
>> OF YOUR TNSS WITNESSES 
TESTIFIED TO. 
>> UNDERSTOOD. 
>> I WAS MAKING SURE YOU DIDN'T 
BELIEVE THERE WAS ANOTHER 
TRANSCRIPT OUT THERE. 
>> I DON'T KNOW WHAT'S OUT 
THERE.
I KNOW SOMETHING IN THIS SERVE 
SFWLEER WELL THAT'S ABOUT LIKE 
WITH THE INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE 
THAT THEY HAVEN'T TRANSFERRED TO
JUDICIALARY. 
>> I'D LOVE TO SEE IN THE SERVE 
SFWLEER I'D LOVE TO SEE FROM THE
INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE FROM 8660
WE ARE IN AGREEMENT THERE. 
>> IN THAT REGARD WE ARE.
I WOULD ALSO LET ME TELL YOU 
WHAT EVEN THE MEDIA IN DEALING 
WITH THIS STATEMENT HAVE NOT 
GONE INTO CERTAIN OF ITS 
PARTICULARS.
HERE IS WHAT WAS SAID BY MR. 
ZELENSKY.
AND I'M TRUN INDICATING THIS SO 
WE CAN GET OH OTHER BUSINESS. 
>> I WOULD LIKE TO THANK YOU FOR
YOUR SUPPORT.
-- MR. MR. LINZEE SKI TO 
PRESIDENT TRUMP. 
>> IN THE AREA OF DEFENSE.
WE ARE READY TO CONTINUE TO 
COOPERATE FOR THE NEXT STEPS, 
SPECIFICALLY WE ARE ALMOST READY
TO BUY JAVELINS FROM THE UNITED 
STATES FOR DEFENSE PURPOSES.
>> PRESIDENT TRUMP REPLIES.
I'D LIKE YOU TO DO US A FAVOR, 
THOUGH.
THIS IS FROM THE MAN TALKING 
ABOUT BUY JAVELINS.
HE GOES IMMEDIATELY TO I'D LIKE 
FOR YOU TO DO US A FAVOR THOUGH.
AND A LOT OF EMPHASIS HAS NOT 
BEEN PLACED ON THAT LANGUAGE.
AND I'M NOT A LINGUISTIC PERSON.
BUT THE LAST TIME I RECALL 
SOMEBODY ASKING ME TO DO A 
FAVOR, THOUGH, IT WAS FOR 
SOMETHING THAT THEY WANTED, AND 
I CAN'T BELIEVE THAT POLICY IS 
WHAT HE WAS TALKING ABOUT.
HE GOES ON TO SAY, BECAUSE OUR 
COUNTRY HAS BEEN THROUGH A LOT, 
AND UKRAINE KNOWS A LOT ABOUT 
IT.
I'D LIKE YOU TO FIND OUT WHAT 
HAPPENED WITH THIS WHOLE 
SITUATION WITH UKRAINE.
THEY SAY CROWDSTRIKE -- I GUESS 
YOU HAVE ONE OF YOUR WEALTH 
PEOPLE, THE SERVER, THEY SAY 
UKRAINE HAS IT.
THERE ARE A LOT OF THINGS THAT 
WENT ON, THE WHOLE SITUATION.
I THINK YOU ARE SURROUNDING 
YOURSELF WITH SOME OF THE SAME 
PEOPLE.
I'D LIKE YOU -- I'D LIKE TO HAVE
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, MEANING 
OUR ATTORNEY GENERAL -- AND MY 
QUESTION IS, WHY WOULD YOU LIKE 
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL TO CALL YOU
OR YOUR PEOPLE?
AND I'D LIKE YOU TO GET TO THE 
BOTTOM OF IT.
AS SAW YESTERDAY THAT WHOLE 
NON-SENSE ENED WITH A VERY POOR 
PERFORMANCE BY ROBERT MUELLER, 
AN INCOMPETENT PERFORMANCE.
BUT THEY SAY A LOT OF IT STARTED
WITH UKRAINE.
AND MY QUESTION IS, WHO SAID 
THAT?
THE ONLY PEOPLE THAT I KNOW THAT
SAID THAT ARE THE RUSSIANS.
YES, MR. RASKIN. 
>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR 
RAISING THIS IMPORTANT POINT, 
MR. HASTINGS.
DR. FIONA HILL, LEADING RUSSIA 
EXPERT, WHO FIGURES IMPORTANTLY 
IN THIS WHOLE MATTER, HAS 
TESTIFIED BEFORE IN COMMITTEE --
AND IT'S COMPLETELY 
UNCONTRADICTED AND UNREFUTED, 
THAT THIS CROWDSTRIKE STORY 
ABOUT UKRAINE BEING THE ONE THAT
ATTACKED OUR ELECTION IN 2016 IS
RUSSIAN DISINFORMATION.
THE PRESIDENT THERE WAS 
ESSENTIALLY JUST REPEATING 
RUSSIAN DISINFORMATION AND 
PROPAGANDA.
EITHER WAITINGLY OR UNWITTINGLY.
IT SEEMS HE THOUGHT HE HAD 
SOMETHING THERE BUT THAT'S WHAT 
HE WAS REPEATING.
THERE IS NOTHING BEHIND IT.
IT'S BEEN COMPLETELY DEBUNKED 
AND DISCREDITED. 
>> UM-HUM. 
>> BUT WHAT MAKES ME SUSPICIOUS,
MR. HASTINGS, IS THAT HE DECIDED
TO TIE THAT IN WITH HIS OTHER 
PLAN. 
>> OKAY. 
>> WHICH IS TO GET PRESIDENT 
ZELENSKY TO COME AND POINT THE 
FINGER AT JOE BIDEN AND SAY THIS
IS THE GUY WE ARE INVESTIGATING.
YOU TALK ABOUT NATIONAL SECURITY
AND HOW NATIONAL SECURITY WAS 
COMPROMISED.
AND OBVIOUSLY AMERICA IS A 
COUNTRY THAT NATIONS ALL OVER 
THE WORLD LOOK TO.
AND WE ARE INTERESTED IN OUR -- 
THE SECURITY OF OUR LAND AND OUR
PEOPLE BUT ALSO THAT OF OUR 
ALLIES AND STRATEGIC PARTNERS 
AROUND THE WORLD.
AND WE SHOULD HAVE SOME INTEREST
IN WHAT HAPPENS TO UKRAINE AND 
WHETHER RUSSIA IS GOING TO GET 
TO TRAMPLE NATIONAL SECURITY 
ORND.
BUT HERE IS ANOTHER WAY NATIONAL
SECURITY IS KBHIKTED IF WE SAY 
EVER AFTER WE ARE GOING TO ALLOW
THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED 
STATES TO USE THE AWESOME POWERS
OF HIS OFFICE TO SHAKEDOWN 
FOREIGN LEADERS.
DUTERTE IN PHILIPPINES.
AND PUTIN IN RUSSIA OR 
STRUGGLING DEMOCRATS THAT NEED 
OUR HELP LIKE THE REFORMERS 
ZELENSKY IS UKRAINE.
BUT THE PRESIDENT CAN SHAKE THEM
DOWN AND GET THEM INVOLVED ON A 
COVERT BASIS IN OUR CAMPAIGN.
THE PRESIDENT MIGHT THINK HE IS 
SLICK GETTING AWAY WITH THAT BUT
NOW THERE IS A FOREIGN 
GOVERNMENT WITH SOMETHING ON US.
THEY HAVE LEVERAGE ON US AT THAT
POINT. 
>> IT TURNS OUT. 
>> MR. HASTINGS WOULD YOU LIKE 
ME. 
>> OF COURSE. 
>> YOU ARE ALWAYS GREAT AT THIS.
I THINK WE ARE LOOKING AT THE 
WRONG DIRECTION HERE.
IT'S INTERESTING WE CAN TALK 
ABOUT ALL THE OTHER CORRUPTION 
AND THE DISLIKE OF THE WAY IN 
PRESIDENT DEALT WITH THEM.
BUT WE HAVE TO REMEMBER EVEN IN 
THE TRANSCRIPT YOU JUST READ 
IT'S A BACKWARDS LOOK NOT A 
FORWARDS LOOK.
A 2016 LOOK AT WHAT HAPPENED 
THEN.
AND YOU RIGHTLY READ THE 
TRANSCRIPT AND TALKING ABOUT 
ROBERT MUELLER COMING OUT OF THE
2016 ELECTION. 
>> >> DID YOU READ IT REPORT. 
>> I DID READ EVERY BIT AS DID 
MY COMMITTEE. 
>> AND YOU AGREE WITH THE 
FINDING. 
>> I ZBREE WITH THE FINDING NO 
EXCLUSION ARE RUSSIA AND HE 
DISINTERESTED AGREED WITH THE 
MEMBERS OF THE JSHD STRAER ON 
THE OBSTRUCTION. 
>> AND 10 OBSTRUCTIONS OF THE 
JUSTICE BY THE PRESIDENT. 
>> BECAUSE HE DIDN'T.
NO OBVIOUSLY YOU DIDN'T LISTEN 
THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE WHEN 
SEVERAL MEMBERS OUTLINED POWER 
OPPONENTS UPON THE STREEN HERE 
IS THIS AND THIS NP BUT HE 
LOOKED AT THN THEM AND SAID 
DISAGREE WITH YOUR CONCLUSION.
YOU HAVE TO TAKE THE WHOLE 
TRANSCRIPT.
THIS IS THE THIS IS WHAT I'M 
TALKING WITH.
THE MUELLER REPORT HAD BEEN 
DONE.
BUT FIONA HILL. 
>> I'M RECLAIMING. 
>> FIONA HILL IS INTERESTING 
BECAUSE HE BROUGHT UP THE FEEN 
OI AIL ERA HILL I WANT TO SAY 
THIS.
YURKENS EVEN FIONA HILL SAID THE
UKRAINEENING BET ON THE WRONG 
HORSE AFTER BEING REMINDED BY 
KEN VOGEL THAT THE UKRAINIAN 
OFFICIALS, THE SHENGO -- THE 
KBIR FOR THE UKRAINIAN 
PARLIAMENT WAS PROVIDING 
INFORMING TO KNELL MRI OAR.
ALL TO THE STEEL DOSSIER.
ALIGNING THEMSELVES WITH 
CLINTON.
>> WERE YOU THERE WHEN MISS HILL
TESTIFIED. 
>> NOT FOR MISS HILL'S 
TESTIMONY, NO. 
>> I'M HAPPY TO TRANSCRIPT THE 
READ THE TRANSCRIPT JUST LIKE 
YOU. 
>> ALL I CAN TELL YOU SHE 
DROPPED A TIME ON PRESIDENT 
TRUMP'S ACTIONS IN UKRAINE. 
>> BUT NOT ENOUGH TO FIND 
ARTICLES OF IMPEACH. 
>> STANDING ALONE PERHAPS. 
>> THIS IS WHERE WE CAN HONESTLY
DISAGREE.
IS I DISAGREE THAT ABUSE OF 
POWER IS A CATEGORICAL TORNADO 
WATCH KAUCH AND THANK YOU. 
>> YOU'RE GOING TO BILL FILL 
BUSTER. 
>> THANK YOU. 
>> I'M RECLAIMING MY TIME BOTH 
OF Y'ALL TALK PRETTY FAST I 
MIGHT ADD IN DEFENSE OF MR. 
COLLINS FOR A MINUTE.
CONTINUING, WHAT PRESIDENT TRUMP
SAYS IS IT'S VERY IMPORTANT THAT
YOU DO IT IF IT'S POSSIBLE.
TRUNCATING AGAIN BECAUSE THERE 
IS SO MUCH IN HERE.
BUT I'LL TRY TO START 
MID-PARAGRAPH WITH MR. 
ZELENSKY'S REPLY.
I'D LIKE TO HOPE AND SEE HIM 
HAVING YOUR TRUST.
TALKING ABOUT AN AMBASSADOR HE 
IS STANDING TO THE UNITED 
STATES, AND YOUR CONFIDENCE HAVE
AND PERSONAL RELATIONS WITH -- 
SO WE CAN COOPERATE EVEN MORE 
SO.
I WILL PERSONALLY TELL YOU THAT 
ONE OF MY ASSISTANTS SPOKE WITH 
MR. GIULIANI JUST RECENTLY.
AND WE ARE HOPING VERY MUCH THAT
MR. GIULIANI WILL BE ABLE TO 
TRAVEL TO UKRAINE, AND WE WILL 
MEET ONCE HE COMES TO UKRAINE.
MY QUESTION THERE IS, MEET ABOUT
WHAT?
WHEN GIULIANI COMES TO UKRAINE?
AND THE PRESIDENT JUST RECENTLY 
SAID THAT GIULIANI IS A GOOD 
MAN, AND A PATRIOT, AND HE -- HE
IS DOING THIS FOR LOVE.
LAST TIME I BOUGHT AN AIRLINE 
TICKET, I DIDN'T PRESENT 
SOMETHING THAT SAID LOVE.
AND THE QUESTION BECOMES, WHO IS
PAYING GIULIANI?
I HAVE A THEORY ABOUT IT, BUT I 
WON'T GO INTO IT.
THEN HE GOES ON TO SAY I WANTED 
TO SHARE ASSURE YOU ONCE AGAIN 
YOU HAVE NOBODY BUT FRIENDS 
AROUND US.
I'LL MAKE SURE YOU SURROUND 
MYSELF WITH THE BEST AND MOST 
EXPERIENCED PEOPLE.
HE GOES ON AT SOME POINT SO WE 
CAN CONTINUE OUR STRATEGIC 
PARTNERSHIP.
I ALSO PLAN TO SURROUND MYSELF 
WITH GREAT PEOPLE IN ADDITION TO
THAT INVESTIGATION.
I GUARANTEE YOU AS THE PRESIDENT
OF UKRAINE THAT ALL THE 
INVESTIGATIONS WILL BE DONE 
OPENLY AND CONDITION DIDDLY.
THAT I CAN ASSURE YOU.
THEN TRUMP SAYS GOOD BECAUSE I 
HEARD YOU YOU HAD A PROSECUTOR 
WHO WAS VERY GOOD AND SHUT DOWN.
OPINION AND THAT'S REALLY 
UNFAIR.
A LOT OF PEOPLE ARE TALKING 
ABOUT THAT, THE WAY THEY SHUT 
YOUR GOOD PROSECUTOR DOWN AND 
YOU HAD SOME VERY BAD PEOPLE 
INVOLVED.
MR. GIULIANI IS A HIGHLY 
RESPECTED MAN.
HE WAS THE MAYOR OF NEW YORK 
CITY, A GREAT MAN.
AND I'D LIKE HIM TO CULL YOU.
I'LL ALSO -- I WILL ASK HIM TO 
CALL YOU ALONG WITH THE ATTORNEY
GENERAL.
RUDY VERY MUCH KNOWS WHAT'S 
HAPPENING.
AND HE IS A VERY CAPABLE GUY.
IF YOU COULD SPEAK TO HIM, THAT 
WOULD BE GREAT.
THE FORMER AMBASSADOR FROM THE 
UNITED STATES, THE WOMAN WAS BAD
NEWS.
AND THE PEOPLE SHE WAS DEALING 
WITH IN THE UKRAINE WERE BAD 
NEWS.
SO I JUST WANTED TO LET YOU KNOW
THAT.
THE OTHER THING, THERE IS A LOT 
OF TALK ABOUT BIDEN'S SON, THAT 
BOYDEN STOPPED THE PROSECUTION 
AND A LOT OF PEOPLE WANT TO FIND
OUT ABOUT THAT.
SO 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, IT 
SOUNDS HORRIBLE TO ME.
NOW THEN, ZELENSKY SAYS 
TRUNCATING AGAIN, THAT SINCE WE 
HAVE WON THE ABSOLUTE MAJORITY 
IN PERSON, MY CANDIDATE WHO WILL
BE APPROVED BY THE PARLIAMENT 
AND START AS A NEW PROSECUTOR IN
SEPTEMBER, HE OR SHE WILL LOOK 
INTO THE SITUATION, SPECIFICALLY
TO THE COMPANY.
AND MY GUESS IS HE IS TALKING 
ABOUT BURISMA IN THAT PARTICULAR
INCIDENT, MENTIONED IN THIS 
ISSUE, THE ISSUE OF THE 
INVESTIGATION OF THE CASE IS 
ACTUALLY THE ISSUE OF MAKING 
SURE TO RESTORE THE HONESTY SO 
WE WILL TAKE CARE OF THAT AND 
WE'LL WORK ON THE INVESTIGATION 
OF THE CASE.
ON TOP OF THAT, I'D KINDLY ASK 
YOU IF YOU HAVE ANY ADDITIONAL 
INFORMATION YOU CAN PROVIDE US 
IT WOULD BE VERY HELPFUL FOR THE
INVESTIGATION TO MAKE SURE WE 
ADMINISTRATIVE JUSTICE IN OUR 
COUNTRY WITH REGARD TO THE 
AMBASSADOR TO THE UNITED STATES 
FROM UKRAINE.
AS FAR AS I CAN RECALL HER NAME 
WAS YOVANOVITCH. 
>> SHE DIDN'T DEV HAVING 
PRESIDENT PRESIDENT TRUMP SAY 
SHE WILL GO THROUGH SOME THINGS.
>> I'M SURE YOU'LL FIGURE IF 
OUT.
I HEARD THE PROSECUTOR WAS 
TREATED BADLY.
NOW EVERYBODY IN THE EUROPEAN 
UNION, FRIENDS OF MINE KNEW THAT
PRESHENGO WAS A COOK AND THERE 
IS NOBODY IN THE ROOM.
AND TRUMP SHOULD HAVE KNOWN THAT
OR HAD POOR STAFFING DURING THAT
PERIOD OF TIME.
I'M ENDING HERE WE ARE HE SAYS 
GOOD AND THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
I APPRECIATE THAT.
I'LL TELL RUDY AND ATTORNEY 
GENERAL BARR TO CALL.
AND I JUST CAN'T BELIEVE THAT 
PERRY AND SONDLAND AND RUDY 
GIULIANI AND WHOEVER THE THREE 
AMIGOS WERE WERE RUNNING AROUND 
IN UKRAINE IN SOME FASHION ASIDE
FROM THE DIPLOMATIC 
RESPONSIBILITIES THAT WE HAVE 
WITH ANY COUNTRY.
AND YES, MR. MR. COLLINS WE DO 
HAVE AN FBI, PEOPLE THAT DO 
INVESTIGATIONS IN FOREIGN 
COUNTRIES WHEN THERE ARE 
COMMISSIONS OF CRIMES.
AND WE DON'T USE PEOPLE RUNNING 
AROUND.
OTHERWISE THEY COULD HAVE USED 
ME.
I WAS ON THE INTEL COMMITTEE.
AND PEOPLE COULD HAVE ASKED ME.
I WENT TO UKRAINE.
I DID AFTER THE ORANGE 
REVOLUTION THE MONITORING TO 
THEM BEING ABLE TO STAND UP 
THEIR GOVERNMENT.
AND THANKS TO THE LITHENS AND 
THE POLISH ALONG WITH BREZINSKY 
THEY WERE ABLE TO DO THAT.
AND I WENT BACK TO THE UKRAINE A
SECOND TIME TO MONITOR THEIR 
ELECTIONS.
I'M NO ROOKIE WHEN IT COMES TO 
THIS STUFF.
BUT WHEN IT COMES TO POLICY WHAT
WE HAVE HERE IS A CORRUPT 
PRESIDENT THAT WANTED TO DO 
SOMETHING TO ADVANCE HIS 
POLITICAL CIRCUMSTANCES.
AND AS THE CHAIRMAN SAID, THAT 
IS SO LONG.
WHAT SAY YOU, MR. RASKIN. 
>> WELL, FIRST OF ALL, I'M MOVED
FOR YOUR STATEMENTS AND ALSO BY 
YOUR WORK FOR DEMOCRACY AND FOR 
FREEDOM AND ANTI-CORRUPTION IN 
EUROPE.
AND I KNOW THAT'S SOMETHING THAT
HAS BEEN VERY IMPORTANT TO YOU.
THE PRESIDENT ESSENTIALLY 
EMPOWERED AND OUTSOURCED AN 
ALTERNATIVE CHANNEL TO THE 
REGULAR STATE AND SECURITY 
COUNSEL.
AND RUDY GIULIANI AS YOU SAY WAS
AT THE HEART OF IT.
WE HAVE LOTS OF TESTIMONY FROM 
WITNESSES WHO SAID WHENEVER THE 
PRESIDENT GOT SOME KIND OF 
REPORT ON UKRAINE HE WOULD SAY 
TALK TO RUDY.
TALK IT TO RUDY.
IN OTHER WORDS RUDY HAS THE 
FRANCHISED ON UKRAINE.
WANT WE NOTE WHAT RUDIA WANTED 
TO DO.
RUDE NO NOW PUTS HIMSELF FRONT 
AND CENTER IN THE CAMPAIGN. 
>> ON FOX NEWS THIS MORNING. 
>> HE PUT HIMSELF FRONT AND 
CENTER IN THE CAMPAIGN TO SMEAR 
OUR AMBASSADOR, THE U.S. 
AMBASSADOR TO UKRAINE, FIGHTING 
CORRUPTION.
WHO WAS ONE OF THE WORLD'S 
LEADING ANTI-CORRUPTION 
FIGHTERS.
AND SHE UNDERSTOOD THAT UKRAINE 
HAD A CHANCE WITH THE ELECTION 
OF PRESIDENT ZELENSKY.
INSTEAD OF BOLSTERING UKRAINE.
HELPING THEM GET THE AID PHOTO 
VOTED FOR THEM, APPROVED BY THE 
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE HAVING 
CLEARED ALL ANTI-CORRUPTION 
CRITERIA WE LEGISLATED AND THE 
DEPARTMENT OF STATE WHICH HAD 
DONE THAT, ALL THE Ts ARE 
CROSSED THE Is DOTTED, THE SET 
TOGETHER AND THE PRESIDENT HOLDS
IT UP AND THIS OTHER TEAM IS PUT
IN ACTION TO GET THE HEADACHE 
DOWN OF PRESIDENT ZELENSKY TO 
GET THE DOMESTIC POLITICAL 
ERRENED RUN THAT HE WANTED. 
>> IT'S IN MY JUDGMENT A SHAME, 
WHAT HAPPENED.
AND MY COLLEAGUES ON THE OTHER 
SIDE OF THE AISLE, I CAN'T 
BELIEVE THEY WON'T ADDRESS THE 
FACTS AS YOU HAVE OUTLINED AND 
AS I HAVE ATTEMPTED TO AND THE 
CHAIRMAN HAS.
ALL THEY WANT TO TALK ABOUT IS 
PROCESS.
THIS AIN'T ABOUT PROCESS.
THIS IS THE PRESIDENT ABUSING 
HIS POWER.
AND YOU ALL WILL PARDON ME FOR 
NOT USING MY INSIDE VOICE.
BUT Y'ALL DON'T EITHER.
I YIELD BACK, MR. CHAIRMAN.
>> I'M HAPPY TO YIELD NOW TO THE
GENTLEMAN FROM GEORGIA MR. 
WOODALL. 
>> THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN.
I RARELILY FIND MYSELF IN 
DISAGREEMENT WITH MY GOODENT 
FRIEND FROM FLORIDA.
MORE OFTEN THAN NOT I FIND 
MYSELF EDUCATED WITH HIM.
I'VE GOT TO DISAGREE WITH HIM 
TODAY BECAUSE THIS IS ALL ABOUT 
PROCESS TODAY.
THIS IS ALL ABOUT PROCESS.
I DON'T KNOW HOW MANY MINDS WERE
CHANGE WHEN THE GENTLEMAN FROM 
FLORIDA READ THE TRANSCRIPT 
AGAIN.
I SUSPECT NONE.
PROBABLY THE MOST SINGLE READ 
TRANSCRIPT IN AMERICAN HISTORY.
FOLKS KNOW WHAT THEY THINK THAT 
THEY KNOW.
BUT TO MY FRIEND FROM FLORIDA'S 
POINT, IS THERE -- IS THERE A 
VERBATIM TRANSCRIPT SOMEWHERE?
I DON'T KNOW YOU ASKED THE 
QUESTION OF THE TWO WITNESSES WE
CALLED TO TESTIFY, TWO OF THE 
BRIGHTEST MEMBERS OF CONGRESS IN
MY ESTIMATION.
THEY DON'T KNOW.
AND IF I UNDERSTOOD MY FRIEND 
FROM GEORGIA CORRECTLY, THERE 
WERE NO WITNESSES WHO ARE 
WORKING ON THAT TRANSCRIPT THAT 
YOU HAD AN OPPORTUNITY TO TALK 
TO DIRECTLY?
>> NO WE HAD NO WITNESSES IN 
JUDICIARY.
>> SO MY FRIEND FROM FLORIDA IS 
RIGHTLY OUTRAGED BY HIS 
PERCEPTION OF WRONG DOING.
I HOPE THAT HE IS EQUALLY 
OUTRAGED BY THE INABILITY TO GET
INFORMATION NOT JUST OUR 
INABILITY ON THE RULES COMMITTEE
BUT YOUR INABILITY.
IF WE HAD AN INTELLIGENCE 
COMMITTEE MEMBER THEY COULD HAVE
ANSWERED MR. HASTINGS QUESTION.
AND I DON'T KNOW.
I'LL ASK MY FRIENDS AS MR. 
HASTINGS DID, IS THERE SOMEBODY 
IN THIS ROOM ON THIS COMMITTEE 
THAT BELIEVES THAT THE AMERICAN 
PEOPLE AND OUR SUPPORT OF THE 
CONSTITUTION THAT WE HAVE ALL 
SWORN TO UPHOLD IS THREATENED BY
HAVING A MEMBER OF THE COMMITTEE
OF JURISDICTION BE HERE TO SHARE
WITH US?
HOW ARE THE AMERICAN PEOPLE 
ADVANTAGED BY THE ABSENCE OF 
OUR -- BY THE INABILITY OF OUR 
WITNESSES TO ANSWER MR. 
HASTINGS' QUESTIONS?
HOW IS AMERICA ADVANTAGED BY 
THAT?
>> OUR FRIEND FROM THE JUDICIARY
I HOPE I'M MISQUOTING YOU I 
WON'T TAKE ANY OFFENSE WITH YOUR
CORRECTING ME.
I BELIEVE YOU SAID YOU ASKED THE
CHAIRMAN ABOUT HAVING A MINORITY
WITNESS DAY.
AND HE DISMISSED IT AS DILL 
TORY. 
>> THAT WAS PART OF THE LONG 
LETTER HE IT WAS A DILATORY 
TACTIC, THE BASICALLY THE ANSWER
GIVEN TO MR. COLE. 
>> I HAVE THE LETTER SENT TO MR.
COLE.
AND IF WE NEEDED A FIEPER 
CHAIRMAN ON THE DEMOCRATIC SIDE 
OF THE AISLE WE MIGHT HAVE OTHER
CHOICES ON OUR SIDE BUT THERE IS
NO FINER CHAIRMAN ON THE RULES 
COMMITTEE AND THE STAFF HE HAS 
TO SUPPORT HIM.
BUT I DON'T KNOW IF YOU'VE SEEN 
THE LETTER.
I'LL SHARE WITH YOU WHAT IT SAYS
MR. COLLINS.
IT SAYS THAT NOT TO WORRY, IN 
THIS CASE, HOWEVER, IT SAYS, 
CHAIRMAN NADLER HAS 
APPROPRIATELY SAID THAT HE WILL 
WORK WITH THE MIRPT TO SCHEDULE 
THEIR HEARING. 
>> WILL THE GENTLEMAN YIELD. 
>> BE HAPPY TO. 
>> MAYBE HE WASN'T HERE WHEN I 
REFRPSED MR. NADLER'S RESPONSE 
BEFORE.
BUT I'M QUOTING HERE HE SAYS I'M
WILLING TO WORK WITH THE 
MINORITY TO SCHEDULE SUCH A 
HEARING. 
>> MY FRIEND -- MY FRIEND FROM 
MASSACHUSETTS MISCONSTRUES MY 
STATEMENT.
I STIPULATE WHAT YOU ARE SAYING 
IS ABSOLUTELY TRUE. 
>> INTERINTERJECT. 
>> I WAS GOING TO ASK MY FRIEND 
FROM GEORGIAWAY WHAT GOOD IT 
WOULD TO DO TO HOLD THE MINORITY
HEARING TU DAYS OR THREE WEEKS 
AFTER WE VOTED TO GOECH. 
>> WHAT HE IS DID IT MATTER IF 
YOU SAY THE INNOCENCE 
PROBABILITY WILL COME AROUND AND
CLEAR HIM?
THAT'S NOT HAPPENING HERE.
IF CHAIRMAN NADLER SAID URINE 
APRIL 1st NEXT YEARS LOOKS LIKE 
A GREAT DAY FOR THE MINORITY DAY
HEARING?
WHAT GOOD DOES IT DO?
NONE.
IT GOES TO THE BASIC FAIRNESS.
ONE THING IF YOU WILL LOU ME. 
>> PLEASE. 
>> THERE IS NO WITNESS IN THE 
END OF STATE STATEMENT SAID 
THERE WAS A ANOTHER TRANSCRIPT 
OR THE NUMBER TWO THE TRANSCRIPT
WE HAVE WAS NOT ACCURATE.
THAT'S A FACT PROCESS.
THE OTHER THING IS HERE I HAVE 
TALKED ABOUT PROCESS AND WILL 
CONTINUE TO BUT I ALSO 
ACKNOWLEDGE AND A FACTUAL 
DEFENSE OF THE FACTS WRONG HERE.
YOU MAY DISAGREE WITH MY 
INTERPRETATION.
BUT I HAVE MADE A FACTUAL THE 
DEFENSE.
WE TALK ABOUT THE FOUR THINGS 
THAT DIDN'T CHANGE, THE PRESSURE
BUT ALSO MIGHT HAVE FIVE 
MEETINGS IF YOU WANT TO DRAW 
CORRELATION BETWEEN THE 
CONDITIONED AID AND IT DID IT 
COME IN THE UP FIVE MEETING.
ON THE JULY 25th WE HAVE THE 
TRANSCRIPT OF THE CALL BETWEEN 
THE PRESIDENTS.
ON JULY A 26th SPECIAL 
ENVOYTOLOGIER AND TAYLOR.
THE ALLEGED LINK IN AID IN 
INVESTIGATIONS NEVER CAME UP.
BOLT.
MIDWEST MET WITHES ZELENSKY.
LINK IN AID NEVER CAME UP.
VICE PRESIDENT PENCE MET WITH 
ZELENSKY.
LINK AND AID NEVER CAME IN.
THE SUPPOSED LINK IN AID NEVER 
CAME UP.
I POINT OUT THE LAST TWO 
IMPORTANT.
AFTER IT BECAME PUBLIC KNOWLEDGE
THAT THE AID WAS BEING HELD.
NOTHING CAME UP, FACTS MATTER.
AND WHEN YOU DON'T HAVE THE 
RIGHT FACTS THEN YOU HAVE TO GO 
TO THE MORE AMORPHOUS TOPICS 
THAT'S SOMETHING I HAVE FOLLOW 
YOU HAD FAUPT BACK WE MAY 
DISAGREE.
BUT I HAVE FOUGHT BACK ON FACTS.
>> MR. RASKIN APPROPRIATELY 
POINTS OUT WHAT WE ARE DOING IS 
PRECEDENT SETTING.
HOPEFULLY IT'S NOT UNPRECEDENTED
BUT IT IS CERTAINLY PRECEDENT 
SETTING.
I THINK HE ASKED US TO THINK OF 
THE RATE QUESTION.
AND HIS QUESTION WAS IF THIS 
WERE A DEMOCRAT PRESIDENT WOULD 
YOUR ANSWERS BE THE SAME.
I CARE LESS ABOUT REPUBLICAN AND
DEMOCRATIC PRESIDENT.
I KNOW MR. RASKIN HAS A LOVE OF 
THE LAW.
MY QUESTION MR. RASKIN, IS HOW 
ARE THE AMERICAN PEOPLE 
ADVANTAGED BY MR. COLLINS HAVING
NO OPPORTUNITY TO PUT TOGETHER A
LIST OF FACT WITNESSES OF HIS 
CHOOSING, HAVE THEM SHARE THEIR 
STORY AND THEN THE VERY ABLE 
MAJORITY ON THE JUDICIARY 
COMMITTEE, THE DEMOCRATS 
CROSS-EXAMINE THOSE WITNESS SNS 
HOW ARE THE PEOPLE ADVANTAGED BY
THAT ABSENCE?
>> SO THE FIRST THING WE NEED TO
SAY AGAIN IS THAT THE PRESIDENT 
AND HIS TEAM HAD THE POWER TO 
CALL WHATEVER WITNESSES THEY 
WANTED. 
>> WELL, IF I COULD RECLAIM MY 
TIME FOR A MOMENT YOU SAID THAT 
SEVERAL TIMES. 
>> YEAH. 
>> THE FIRST TIME YOU SAID IT 
YOU PROPERLY CAVEATED IT WITH 
ANY OF THE 17 WITNESSES THAT THE
DEMOCRATS CALLED ON THE 
INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE THE 
PRESIDENT COULD HAVE CALLED ANY 
ONE OF THOSE DEMOCRATIC 
WITNESSES BACK TO TESTIFY AGAIN.
I DON'T BELIEVE YOU MEAN THE 
PRESIDENT HAS THE RIGHT TO CALL 
ANY WITNESS THAT WANTS IN FRONT 
OF THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE POR 
PETE'S SAKE YOU WOULDN'T GIVE 
THE RANKING MEMBER THE RIGHT. 
>> HE DIDN'T HAVE THE RIGHT TO 
CALL IRRELEVANT WITNESSES 
ULTIMATELY UP TO THE CHAIR TO 
DECIDE WHETHER THE PERSON WAS 
RELEVANT SFWLOORNT TO BE CLEAR 
THERE IS THE ABILITY -- I HAVE A
MISUNDERSTANDING THE PRESIDENT 
HAD THE ABILITY TO CALL A 
WITNESS INTO THE JUDICIARY OTHER
THAN THE 17 WITNESSES THAT THE 
DEMOCRATS ON THE INTELLIGENCE 
COMMITTEE DECIDED THEY WERE 
GOING TO DEPOSITION. 
>> HE COULD HAVE SUBMITTED NAMES
FOR ANYBODY WANTED TO. 
>> MY RANKING MEMBER SUBMITTED 
NAMES AND THE AENTS WAS NO, NO 
WE'RE NOT DOING THAT.
BUT YOUR CONFESSION OF THE FAIR 
APPEAR FREE PROCESS THAT 
ADVANTAGES THE AMERICAN PEOPLE 
IS THAT THE PRESIDENT COULD 
SUBMIT ANY TAME HE WANTS TO THE 
CHAIRMAN JUST GETS TO SAY NO. 
>> MY DEAR MR. WOODALL YOU 
UNDERSTAND WE ARE IN THE. 
CONNECTING INFORMATION TO 
ESTABLISH AN INDICTMENT IN 
ESSENCE.
CHARGES AGAINST THE PRESIDENT.
THESE ARE ARTICLES OF 
IMPEACHMENT.
THE TRIAL PROCESS TAKES PLACE IN
THE SENATE.
THAT'S WHERE THEY CONDUCT A 
TRIAL.
WHERE THEIR RULES WILL GOVERN 
AND ANYBODY PRESUMABLY WILL BE 
ABLE TO BRING IN WHATEVER 
WITNESSES THEY WANT TO BRING IN.
NOW WE HAVE TRIED TO RUN A 
COMPLETELY OPEN, FAIR AND 
TRANSPARENT PROCESS HERE. 
>> RECLAIMING MY TIME FOR A 
MOMENT BECAUSE YOU HAVE 
FREQUENTLY -- YOU DID WHEN WE 
ESTABLISHED THE RULES FOR THE 
IMPEACHMENT PROCESS IN THIS 
COMMITTEE, YOU FREQUENTLY 
REFERRED TO THE GRAND JURY ROOM,
THE GRAND JURY ROOM IS NOT 
INTENDED TO BE A PLACE OF 
FAIRNESS.
IT'S INTENDED TO BE A PLACE OF 
INDICTMENT.
>> MR. WOODALL. 
>> WOULD YOU YIELD. 
>> HAPPY TO YIELD. 
>> MY GOODNESS FRASHS GRACIOUS 
WHAT DID YOU SAY. 
>> THE GRAND JURY ROOM IS NOT 
INTENDED TO PROVIDE FAIRNESS TO 
ANY DEFENDANT DEFENDANT.
IT'S INTENDED TO INDICT.
AS MY FRIEND FROM MARYLAND 
STATED THE DEFENSE COMES NEXT. 
>> UNDERSTOOD.
BUT ARE YOU SAYING THAT 
PROSECUTORS DON'T HAVE ANY OTHER
RESPONSIBILITY IN THE GRAND JURY
OTHER THAN TO INDICT. 
>> OF COURSE NOT.
OF COURSE NOT. 
>> I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE. 
>> OF COURSE NOT. 
>> MR. WOODALL, THE PROSECUTOR 
HAS AN OBLIGATION TO THE PEOPLE 
THAT THE PROSECUTOR SERVES IN --
IN THE SAME WHICH THAT WE HAVE 
THAT SAME OBLIGATION AND THE 
WORDS -- I WANT TO QUOTE HIM 
CORRECTLY -- MR. RASKIN SAID 
THERE'S BEEN PLENTY OF FAIRNESS 
THIS THIS PROCESS.
AND MY QUESTION IS HOW ARE THE 
AMERICAN PEOPLE ADVANTAGESED BY 
MR. CALENS GETTING NO WITNESSES 
BEFORE THE COMMITTEE AND THE 
WHITE HOUSE GETTING ABSOLUTELY 
NO WITNESSES TO FRONT OF THE 
COMMITTEE?
AND THE ANSWER IS, MR. WOODALL, 
THIS WENT INTENDED TO BE A 
DEFENSE OF THE PRESIDENT THIS 
WAS. 
>> I CLEARLY DIDN'T MAKE MYSELF 
CLEAR.
THE PRESIDENT AND MR. COLLINS 
COULD HAVE CALLED ANY OF THE 
WITNESSES WHO APPEARED ANY OF 
THE 17 WORN SWORN WITNESSES.
>> ANY OF YOUR. 
>> IT'S NOT YOURS OR MINE THESE 
ARE AMERICAN CITIZENS. 
>> THESE ARE DSH. 
>> THAT IS NATIONAL SECURITY 
COUNCILS EMPLOYEES. 
>> REDLAMG MY TIME. 
>> THE LET ME JUST SAY WE CAN'T 
SPEAK OVER ONE SNORE THE 
STENOGRAPHER CAN BARELY KEEP UP 
BECAUSE WE TALK SO FAST.
IF WE ARE TALKING OVER EACH 
OTHER, I CAUTION THE WITNESSES 
AND MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE ASK
THE QUESTION, LET THE ANSWER 
AND -- 
>> AND I AM HAMSTRUNG, MR. 
CHAIRMAN, BY THE FACT THAT MR. 
RASKIN ISN'T THE DECISION MAKER 
ON THESE ISSUES.
AND, AGAIN, TO MR. COLLINS POINT
ABOUT THE CLOCK BEING THE 
MASTER, MR. NADLER, CHAIRMAN 
NADLER HAS PUT IN MONTHS OF WORK
ON THIS, NOT AS MUCH TIME AS 
CHAIRMAN SCHIFF PUT IN ON THIS, 
BUT PUT IN MONTHS OF WORK.
AND WE HAVE NEITHER OF THE TWO 
COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN WHO WHO HAVE 
DONE ALL OF THE WORK HERE FORCED
TO ANSWER OUR QUESTIONS.
AND I HAVE NO DOUBT THAT MR. 
RASKIN IS EXASPERATED BECAUSE HE
IS AN ANSWERER AND HE IS A FACT 
PROVIDER.
AND HE EDUCATES THIS COMMITTEE 
ON A REGULAR BASIS ON MATTERS OF
THE LAW.
BUT IT OEFDS MY SENSE OF 
FAIRNESS THAT MY RANKING MEMBER 
CAN'T HAVE A WITNESS OF HIS 
CHOOSING -- I'M NOT TALKING 
ABOUT 100 WITNESSES, I'M TALKING
ABOUT A WITNESS OF HIS CHOOSING 
TO COME AND THAT THE PROCESS 
GETS DESCRIBED OVER AND OVER 
AGAIN AS THE WHITE HOUSE HAD 
PLENTY OF OPPORTUNITY AS AND 
EVERYBODY HAD AN EQUAL CHANCE TO
QUESTION.
NON-SENSE.
NON-SENSE.
AND TO LET THAT RECORD STAND 
PERPETUATES THE MYTH THAT THIS 
IS SUPPOSED TO HAVE BEEN A FAIR 
PROCESS.
I WOULD ARGUE IT COULD HAVE BEEN
A FAIR PROCESS.
IT SIMPLY WASN'T MR. COLLINS 
JUST TO BE CLEAR HERE.
I THINK THE OPERATIVE WORD MY 
MARYLAND SAID WAS TRIED PROCESS.
I'LL GIVE A TRY TP.
IT JUST WASN'T A ROAD REAL GOOD 
ONE TO BE FAIR IN THIS.
AGAIN YOU CAN'T HAVE IT BOTH 
WAYS.
YOU CAN'T CALL IT A GRAND JURY 
WHERE THE PROSECUTION ONLY CALLS
WITNESSES.
THERE IS NO EXKULPER TO.
THEY HAVE TO LIVE UP TO 
PROSECUTOR INTEGRITY.
AND THEN ON THE OTHER SIDE SAY 
WE WANT TO FAIR TO PEOPLE CAN 
GIVE THEIR SIDE OF THE DEFERS.
THEY DON'T CALL THAT SIDE OF THE
DEFERS IN THE GRAND JURY.
THEY DON'T DO THAT.
HERE IS THE ISSUE.
I'VE NEVER BEEN -- WHEN -- IN 
THE COURT OR WHEN I WAS 
PRACTICING I NEVER WANT TO THE 
PROSECUTOR TO SAY WHO COULD I 
CALL AND THE PROSECUTOR SAYS YOU
CAN CALL ALL MY WITNESSES.
TLAEFT AT SOME POINT IN THE MIX 
MR. RASKIN INL AT LEAST AND 
OTHERS EVEN ON ON THE DEMOCRAT 
SIDE THEY WOULD HAVE TO 
ACKNOWLEDGE THAT THE KMARM 
DETERMINING RELEVANCE OF MY 
WITNESSES CALLED OR A WHITE 
HOUSE IS A PROBLEMATIC EXERCISE.
BECAUSE IF THEY DETERMINE 
RELEVANCY THEY DISCOUNT ANY 
POSSIBILITY OF EXKULPER TO 
EVIDENCE COMING FROM MY 
WITNESSES.
THEY'RE SAYING THEY ARE 
IRRELEVANT AND WE DON'T WANT TO 
HEAR FROM THEM AND DISCOUNTING 
ANY POSSIBILITY THEY WILL BE 
EXKULPER TO.
LETS MAKE IT CHLORTHP THAT'S WHY
WE FELT IT WAS AN UNFAIR 
PROCESS. 
>> MR. RASKIN YOU SAID EARLIER 
INJURY RIGHTFULLY, YOU SAID SOME
FOLKS CAN'T CONCEDE THE CALL WAS
NOT PERFECT.
SURELY FOLKS COULD CONCEDE THAT 
THINGS WERE MOT PERFECT AND MR. 
COLLINS DID NOT KARNGZ THE CALL 
AS PERFECT.
MY QUESTION IS CANDIDATE YOU 
CONCEDE. 
>> I HAVEN'T HEARD ANYBODY SAY 
THAT. 
>> WHO SAID THAT. 
>> COLLINS SAYS HE WASN'T TRYING
TO VOEB DESCRIBE IT AS PERFECT 
BUT NON-CRIMINAL.
I'M MISQUOTING HIS STATEMENT.
BUT MY QUESTION -- PIE QUESTION 
TO YOU IS CAN YOU NOT CONCEDE 
THAT HAVING THE CHAIRMAN WHO 
IS -- WHO IS LEADING THE 
IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY DETERMINE 
RELEVANCY OF THE -- LOR LACK OF 
A BETTER WORD, DEFENSE WITNESSES
IS FLAWED?
>> YEAH, SO THIS WAS THE EXACT 
SAME PROCESS THAT TOOK PLACE IN 
THE CLINTON IMPEACHMENT.
THE SAME PROCESS THAT TOOK PLACE
IN THE NIXON IMPEACHMENT, THE 
MINORITY GETS THE RIGHT TO 
REQUEST WITNESSES AND IF THEY'RE
RELEVANT HE THEY WILL BE 
ACCEPTED.
IT'S HARD TO KNOW WHAT TO DO 
OTHERWISE ESPECIALLY IN AN 
ENVIRONMENT WHERE PEOPLE ARE 
BRINGING ALL KINDS OF EXTRANZ 
CONSPIRACY THEORIES TO TRUE TO 
EXPLAIN WHAT'S GOING ON. 
>> JUST TO QUOTE YOUR -- YOU 
BECOME TO YOU, BUS I WANT TO USE
THE BEST SOURCES I CAN. 
>> YEAH. 
>> ON THIS MATERIAL.
WHEN YOU CITED THE HOUSE RULE 
THAT REQUIRED THE MINORITY 
WITNESSES BE HEARD, YOU SAID IN 
YOUR RECOLLECTION THAT'S NOT A 
CONDITION PRECEDENT TO HAVING 
THE HEARING AND REPORTING THE 
BILL.
AND YOU ARE OF COURSE RIGHT. 
>> YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT THE 
MINORITY HEARING PROVISION. 
>> THAT'S RIGHT. 
>> ABOUT THE INDEPENDENT HEARING
FOR THE MINORITY. 
>> YEAH.
THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NO HOUSE 
RULE THAT REQUIRES THAT WE HEAR 
FROM THE MINORITY BEFORE NOT 
JUST THE DYE HAS BEEN CAST BUT 
THE BILL REPORTED PASSED ON THE 
FLOOR AND SENT TO THE PRESIDENT.
THAT IS NOT A REQUIREMENT.
AND YOU ARE RIGHT WE SHOULD GO 
BACK AND LOOK AT THAT IF WE ARE 
TRYING TO GIVE THE MINORITY A 
VOICE.
BUT YOU HAVE TO TELL ME HOW THE 
AMERICAN PEOPLE ARE ADVANTAGED 
BY HEARING FROM EXKULPER TO 
WITNESSES AFTER THE HOUSE VOTED.
>> FIRST OF ALL, IF THERE IS A 
NAME OF AN EXKULPER TO WITNESS 
PLEASE PUT IT FORWARD.
WE HAVE DONE NOTHING OTHER THAN 
TRYING TO GET ALL THE 
PRESIDENT'S MEN TO COME AND 
TESTIFY.
IT'S THE PRESIDENT BLOCKADING 
SECRETARY POMPEO AND SECRETARY 
PERRY AND THE DIRECTOR OF THE 
OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET 
AND NUMEROUS WITNESSES.
TO ME IT'S THE HEIGHT OF IRONY 
YOU GUYS MAKE THE ARGUMENT THAT 
SOMEHOW WE DON'T WANT THE 
EVIDENCE IN.
WE WANT ALL THE EVIDENCE.
THAT'S WHY WE WANT TO HOLD THE 
PRESIDENT IN OBSTRUCTION OF 
JUSTICE BECAUSE HE PREVENTS US 
FROM GETTING AUTO ALL THE 
WITNESSES.
>> PROCESS IT WOULDN'T SURPRISE 
ME IF YOU WERE RIGHT.
LET ME ASK THE GENTLEMAN FROM 
GENTLEMAN.
IS THAT RIGHT YOU SUBMITTED A 
LIST OF WITNESSES YOU WANTED TO 
COME TO THE COMMITTEE AND THE 
PRESIDENT SAID THE WITNESSES 
WOULD NOT BE ALLOWED TO TESTIFY.
>> NO THE PRESIDENT TAUJD TO ME 
ABOUT THAT. 
>> NO, THAT'S NOT RIGHT. 
>> THE INTERESTING THING I FOUND
OUT SOMETHING NEW.
THIS IS THE FIRST TIME I HEARD 
MR. RASKIN THAT IF I'D CALLED 
ONE OF THE 17 I'D HAVE GOT THEM.
THAT'S BEEN STRG INTERESTING.
HE SAID IT A COUPLE OF TIMES IF 
I'D CALLED -- NOW THEY ARE 
HAVING TO CORRECT.
HIM.
HE SAID IT EFRL SEFRLS SEVERAL 
TIMES HE IS IN A TOUGH POSITION 
AND DOING AN ADMIRABLE JOB WHAT 
HE IS DOING.
BUT IT'S INTERESTING THAT COMES 
OUT.
BECAUSE I KNOW HE IS AN 
INTEGRATE RAL PART OF THE TEAM.
IF I CALLED ONE OF THE 17 THAELD
BE ACCEPTED.
WOULDN'T IT HAVE BEEN LOGICAL 
FOR THE CHAIRMAN TO CALL SOME OF
THE 17 TO SO WE COULD HAVE THE 
IMPRESSION WE WERE DOING OUR OWN
INTERVIEWS OF WPSS BECAUSE WHAT 
HAPPENED EVEN IN THE INTEL 
COMMITTEE WAS IS SOME -- AFTER 
YOU TALK TO THEM GAVE THEM, THEN
THEY HAD TO COME BACK APPEAR 
SOME REUPPED TESTIMONY WHICH 
WOULDN'T WE HAVE BROUGHT THEM 
BACK SAYING OKAY YOU YOU HAVE 
DONE THIS A COUPLE OF TIMES.
WE DIDN'T GET THAT IN THE 
MAJORITY WHOSE JOB IT WAS TO 
PROSECUTE DIDN'T DO THAT AS 
WELL. 
>> AS YOU RECALL, WE FOUGHT THAT
ON OUR SIDE OF THE AISLE WHEN 
THE PROCESS WAS BEING SET UP.
THOUGHT IT WAS ODD THE 
INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE WAS GOING
TO BE THE ONLY ONE TALKING TO 
FACT FINDERS, TRIED TO REQUIRE 
THAT EXCULPATORY EVIDENCE BE 
PROVIDED TO THE JUDICIARY
PIECE OF PROCESS BECAUSE MY 
FRIEND FROM FLORIDA RAISED IT.
AND HE RAISED IN THE CONTEXT OF 
MR. McCONNELL AND MR. GRAHAM, 
SENATOR McCONNELL AND SENATOR 
GRAHAM, AND THAT THEY SHOULD 
RECUSE THEMSELVES BECAUSE 
THEY'VE ALREADY PICKED A DOUGH 
IN THIS PARTICULAR FIGHT.
I THINK WE SO OFTEN SAY THINGS 
TO ONE ANOTHER AROUND HERE THAT 
THE AMERICAN PEOPLE END UP 
LISTENING TO THAT TURNED OUT TO 
BE FLAWED AND, AGAIN, I THINK 
EVERYONE ON THIS COMMITTEE HAS 
GREAT RESPECT FOR MR. RASKIN.
HE'S NOT JUST A VALUABLE MEMBER 
OF THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE, HE'S
AN EVEN MORE VALUABLE MEMBER OF 
OUR -- OF OUR RULES COMMITTEE, 
BUT BECAUSE I DIDN'T HAVE A 
CHANCE WHEN I FOUND OUT I WASN'T
GOING TO HAVE A CHANCE TO TALK 
TO MR. NADLER, I WENT AND 
BRUSHED UP ON RASKIN POLICY AND 
I THINK THEY MISQUOTED YOU, TO 
BE FAIR, MR. RASKIN, BUT, YOU 
KNOW, "SALON" DID AN INTERVIEW 
WITH YOU EVEN BEFORE THE 
PRESIDENT WAS ELECTED AND THEIR 
HEADLINE IS, "AT LEAST ONE 
DEMOCRATIC CONGRESSMAN IS 
ALREADY PREPARING TO IMPEACH 
DONALD TRUMP."
THE ARTICLE IS "DONALD TRUMP 
WON'T BE SWORN IN FOR ANOTHER 48
HOURS AND AT LEAST ONE 
DEMOCRATIC CONGRESSMAN HAS 
ALREADY SEEN ENOUGH."
AND YOU GO ON TO TALK ABOUT THE 
EMOLUMENTS CLAUSE AND YOUR, I 
THINK, LEGITIMATE QUESTIONS AS A
CONSTITUTIONALIST ABOUT THOSE 
ISSUES.
THAT WAS 48 HOURS BEFORE THE 
PRESIDENT WAS SWORN IN.
YOU'RE SITTING ON THE GRAND JURY
THAT IS IMPARTIALLY CONSIDERING 
THE EVIDENCE.
AND THE EMOLUMENTS CLAUSE THAT 
YOU WERE QUOTED AS SUPPORTING 
IMPEACH THE ON BEHALF OF 48 
HOURS BEFORE THE PRESIDENT WAS 
EVEN ELECTED, I CAN'T FIND 
ANYWHERE IN THE ARTICLES THAT WE
SEE BEFORE US TODAY.
IT -- HAVE YOU CHANGED YOUR MIND
FROM THEN OR DO YOU THINK AS 
POLITICO IS REPORTING THAT WE'RE
GOING TO SEE PART 2 OF 
IMPEACHMENT COME DOWN THE ROAD, 
THAT THIS WAS JUST IMPEACHMENT 
NUMBER 1 AND THERE'S GOING TO BE
IMPEACHMENT NUMBER 2 AND 
IMPEACHMENT NUMBER 3?
>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR THAT 
QUESTION.
I WOULD LOVE NOTHING MORE THAN 
TO HAVE A SEPARATE HEARING ON MY
PERSONAL VIEWS ABOUT THE MEANING
OF THE FOREIGN EMOLUMENTS CLAUSE
AND THE DOMESTIC EMOLUMENTS 
CLAUSE.
I'VE WRITTEN WIDELY ABOUT IT 
INCLUDING IN THE "WASHINGTON 
POST" I'VE WRITTEN SEVERAL 
PIECES ABOUT IT BUT I'M HERE TO 
REPRESENT THE JUDICIARY 
COMMITTEE BECAUSE OF THE ABSENCE
OF MR. NADLER AND WOULDN'T BE 
FAIR MORE ME TO GET INTO THAT. 
>> FAIR ENOUGH. 
>> BECAUSE I WOULDN'T BE 
REPRESENTING THE VIEWS OF THE 
ENTIRE -- 
>> I THINK THAT'S PERFECTLY -- I
THINK THAT'S PERFECTLY FAIR.
THE -- WHEN WE VOTED TO TABLE, 
AS MR. COLE REFERENCED IN REGARD
TO MR. McGOVERN'S VOTE IN 
DECEMBER OF '17, OF COURSE, YOU 
OPPOSED THAT MOTION TO TABLE 
AS -- AS WELL, AND AT THAT TIME,
YOU SAID IT WAS A VOTE OUT OF 
FRUSTRATION AND THAT WHAT YOU 
WANTED WAS A REAL INQUIRY, A 
REAL INQUIRY INTO CORRUPTION AND
CRIMINALITY IN THE TRUMP 
ADMINISTRATION.
NOW, THIS WAS TWO YEARS BEFORE 
THIS PHONE CALL EVER HAPPENED, 
AND SO, AGAIN, I'M LOOKING AT 
ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT HERE.
I'VE GOT MEMBERS OF THE 
JUDICIARY COMMITTEE WHO WERE 
CERTAIN OF CORRUPTION AND 
CRIMINALITY IN THE TRUMP 
ADMINISTRATION THAT EXISTS 
NOWHERE HERE, AND -- 
>> MR. WOODALL. 
>> PLEASE.
>> YOU WOULD CONCEDE THAT THERE 
ARE OTHER EPISODES OF CORRUPTION
IN THE BUSINESS CAREER OF DONALD
TRUMP AND IN THE POLITICAL 
CAREER, NO?
THAT ARE NOT PART -- ALL PART OF
THIS PROCESS.
AND SO, I MEAN, I DON'T KNOW 
IF -- LOOK, THERE ARE PATTERNS 
OF CONDUCT AND BEHAVIOR THAT 
HAVE BEEN NOTICED.
ONE OF THEM ISEXTREMELY 
RELEVANT TO THIS INVESTIGATION.
THAT'S WHAT TOOK PLACE IN 2016.
THAT'S WHEN DONALD TRUMP 
ESSENTIALLY INVITED IN RUSSIA, 
THE WHOLE WORLD HEARD HIM SAY 
IT, INVITED RUSSIA TO COME INTO 
OUR ELECTION.
HE WELCOMED THEIR INTERFERENCE.
THE SPECIAL COUNSEL OF THE 
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE FOUND MORE
THAN 100 CONTACTS BETWEEN THE 
TRUMP CAMPAIGN AND RUSSIAN 
NATIONALS THERE.
AND THEN WHEN IT BEGAN TO 
HAPPEN, THE PRESIDENT MOVED TO 
BSTRUCT THE INVESTIGATION.
THAT'S IN THE MUELLER REPORT 
WHICH WE TALKED ABOUT TODAY, ALL
OF THOSE EPISODES OF CORRUPTION.
SO THERE IS A PATTERN OF 
EVIDENCE, AND I DON'T KNOW, 
LOOK, WHEN -- WHEN BILL CLINTON 
GOT IMPEACHED FOR WHAT HE DID, 
YOU COULD CERTAINLY FIND 
REPUBLICANS WHO'D BEEN CALLING 
FOR HIS IMPEACHMENT FOR SEVERAL 
YEARS FOR OTHER STUFF.
THERE WERE CONSPIRACY THEORIES 
ABOUT HIM GOING ON FOR YEARS.
THAT DOESN'T NECESSARILY 
DISCREDIT WHAT HAPPENED IN THE 
IMPEACHMENT OF BILL CLINTON.
YOU GOT TO TAKE IT ON ITS OWN 
MATERIALS.
THAT'S WHY WE'RE TRYING TO GET 
BACK TO THE FACTS OF WHAT 
HAPPENED HERE WITH THE UKRAINE 
SHAKEDOWN. 
>> I THINK YOU'RE MISTAKING MY 
INTENT.
I WAS NOT CITING COMMENTS THAT 
YOU MADE IN THE PAST TO PUT YOU 
AS A NEVER-TRUMPER WHOSE SOLE 
PURPOSE WAS TO REVERSE A 
LEGITIMATE AMERICAN ELECTION.
THAT WAS NOT MY INTENT.
MY INTENT WAS TO MENTION YOU AS 
SOMEONE WHO'S A THOUGHTFUL LEGAL
MIND WHO HAD OTHER LEGAL 
CONCERNS GOING BACK FOR YEARS 
AND WHEN FOLKS SAY, ROB, WHAT DO
YOU MEAN THIS PROCESS IS RUSHED?
WE'VE DONE IT OVER JUST UNDER 90
DAYS, ISN'T THAT LONG ENOUGH?
WELL, NO, THAT'S FASTER THAN ANY
OTHER PROCESS.
THAT'S FASTER -- WE GOT A 
RESPONSE FROM THE JUSTICE 
DEPARTMENT WHEN WE ASKED FOR OUR
FAST AND FURIOUS DOCUMENTS.
BUT -- BUT WHAT IT ISN'T IS A 
COMPLETE PROCESS, I THINK BY 
YOUR OWN TESTIMONY HERE, THAT 
THERE'S MORE THAT WE COULD HAVE 
DONE THAT WE DIDN'T DO, AND MY 
QUESTION, THEN, IS, BECAUSE I DO
THINK WE'RE ALL ABOUT 
ADVANTAGING THE AMERICAN PEOPLE 
AND THE REPUBLIC AND THE 
CONSTITUTION, ARE WE ADVANTAGED,
ARE THE AMERICAN PEOPLE ADD VN 
ADVANTAGED BY -- BECAUSE, AGAIN,
POLITICO IS REPORTING THE 
INVESTIGATIONS ARE GOING TO 
CONTINUE, THAT THE 
INVESTIGATIONS DO NOT STOP WITH 
THE HOUSE VOTE TOMORROW.
WE WILL CONTINUE TO INVESTIGATE 
THE POTENTIAL IMPEACHMENT OF THE
PRESIDENT LONG AFTER WE HAVE 
ALREADY VOTED TO IMPEACH THE 
PRESIDENT IS THE STORY THAT -- 
THAT IS OUT THERE TODAY.
ARE WE ADVANTAGED AS AN 
INSTITUTION TO HAVE IMPEACHMENT 
NUMBER 1, IMPEACHMENT NUMBER 2, 
IMPEACHMENT NUMBER, INSTEAD OF 
AS WE DID IN THE BILL CLINTON 
ERA PUT ALL OF THE ARTICLES INTO
A SINGLE DOCUMENT AFTER A LONGER
AND MORE THOROUGH INVESTIGATION 
AND HAVE THIS PROCESS SEPTEMBER 
TO THE SENATE JUST ONCE?
>> I BELIEVE I'M GOING TO ASK MY
STAFF TO CONFIRM THIS, I BELIEVE
THE CLINTON INVESTIGATION MOVED 
MUCH FOR QUICKLY AFTER THE 
S.T.A.R. REPORT ARRIVED IN 
CONGRESS THAN WE HAVE SO FAR.
I THINK THEY'RE APPROXIMATELY IN
THE SAME BALLPARK.
LOOK, YOUR BASIC QUESTION IS AN 
EXCELLENT ONE.
YOU ASK AN EXCELLENT QUESTION 
HERE, AND ALL I CAN SAY IS THAT 
WE HAVE A CLEAR AND PRESENT 
DANGER TO OUR DEMOCRACY RIGHT 
NOW BECAUSE OF THE ELECTORAL 
CORRUPTION.
THIS PRESIDENT INVITED IN A 
FOREIGN POWER TO COME AND 
INTERFERE IN OUR ELECTION.
AND HE USED ALL OF THE RESOURCES
OF HIS OFFICE TO COERCE 
PRESIDENT ZELENSKY TO COME IN TO
MAKE THESE ANNOUNCEMENTS HE 
WANTED FOR A TOTALLY POLITICAL 
PURPOSE.
IT'S THIS ELECTION.
IT'S GOING ON RIGHT NOW.
SO WE'VE GOT TO DEAL WITH THIS 
AND WE HAVE A VERY SERIOUS AND 
COMPLICATED PROBLEM TO ADDRESS 
AS A COUNTRY RIGHT NOW, WHICH IS
DO WE WANT TO ESTABLISH THAT 
THIS CAN BE THE NORM GOING 
FORWARD?
THAT ANY PRESIDENT, WHETHER 
THEIR LAST NAME IS TRUMP OR 
OBAMA OR WOODALL OR ANYTHING 
ELSE CAN GO TO FOREIGN 
GOVERNMENTS IN THE MIDDLE OF A 
CAMPAIGN, LURE THEM IN EITHER 
THROUGH COERCION OR THROUGH 
HONEY, WHATEVER IT MIGHT BE, AND
GET THEM TO PARTICIPATE -- 
>> RIGHT. 
>> -- IN OUR ELECTION.
THAT'S A REALLY SERIOUS PROBLEM.
SO, LOOK, I AGREE WITH YOU, 
THERE ARE -- AND, YOU KNOW, YOU 
ASK A TRENCHANT QUESTION, MR. 
WOODALL, THERE ARE OTHER THINGS 
THAT ARE NOT PART OF THIS BUT 
THAT IS BECAUSE OF THE URGENCY 
OF THIS SITUATION. 
>> I TAKE THAT -- I TAKE THAT 
POINT.
MR. COLLINS?
>> I SAY IT AGAIN, CLOCK AND 
CALENDAR.
THAT'S WHY WE'RE DOING IT.
THAT'S WHAT IT IS.
WE SAY THINGS LIKE IT'S 
IMPERATIVE, ONGOING, WHATEVER 
YOU WANT TO CALL IT, IT'S A 
CLOCK AND CALENDAR ISSUE.
LOOK, WE ALREADY KNOW WHEN THIS 
FAILS THERE WILL PROBABLY BE 
OTHERS.
THAT'S BEEN REPORTED WILDLY.
NOT JUST IN -- STRAIGHT OUT OF 
THE WORDS OF MR. SCHIFF, 
STRAIGHT OUT OF THE WORDS OF MR.
GREEN, OTHER COLLEAGUES THAT 
WE'VE HAD, AND, AGAIN, IT'S -- 
IT WAS SAID THIS WAY, THE 
CURRENT LACK OF PROOF IS ANOTHER
REASON WHY AN ABBREVIATED 
INVESTIGATION OF THIS MATTER IS 
SO DAMAGING TO THE CASE OF 
IMPEACHMENT.
IT DOESN'T HAVE THE FOOTING ON 
IT AND IF YOU'RE DOING IT 
BECAUSE YOU WANT TO GET INTO AN 
ELECTION, WHEN OBVIOUSLY THE 
DISCUSSION WAS A PREVIOUS ONE, 
WHICH THERE WAS -- ISSUES THAT 
WE -- THEN I CAN'T HELP YOU AND 
TIME AND CALENDAR WILL TAKE 
OVER. 
>> WELL, WE'RE TALKING TODAY 
ABOUT REVERSING AMERICA'S LAST 
ELECTION.
CANDIDLY, I HAVE EVERY BIT AS 
MUCH CONCERN ABOUT THE TIME THAT
WE WILL REVERSE THE NEXT 
ELECTION.
OR THE ELECTION AFTER THAT OR 
THE ELECTION AFTER THAT.
TO DO THIS?
A PARTISAN WAY, OF COURSE, THERE
ARE ALWAYS GOING TO BE 
DIFFERENCES OF DISAGREE WITH MY 
ABOUT MUCH MORE THAN I AGREE 
WITH HIM ABOUT BUT THAT DOESN'T 
MEAN WE CAN'T FIND A PROCESS TO 
MOVE FORWARD ON TOGETHER.
IT IS NOT MORE DIVIDED IN THIS 
CONGRESS TODAY THAN IT WAS IN 
1998 WHEN FOLKS FOUND A PROCESS 
THAT THEY COULD WORK ON TOGETHER
BECAUSE AS MUCH AS WE CARED 
ABOUT THE PRESIDENCY THEN, WE 
CARED MORE ABOUT THE 
CONSTITUTION LATER.
AND WE FOUND A WAY TO MOVE 
FORWARD AND MOVING FORWARD IN A 
PARTISAN WAY IS GOING TO HAVE 
REPERCUSSIONS.
I KNOW MY FRIEND Y MARYLAND 
KNOWS THAT.
HE BELIEVES IT'S URGENT ENOUGH 
THAT IT'S WORTH THE RISK, BUT IT
IS A MEASURABLE AND SUBSTANTIAL 
RISK, AND CERTAINLY THE 13 OF 
US, 14 WITH MR. COLLINS HERE 
TODAY, ARE GOING TO BE JUDGED ON
THAT FRONT BECAUSE DESPITE OUR 
OWN PERSONAL INTERESTS IN THE 
FACTS, WE ARE NOT A FACT 
COMMITTEE.
WE ARE A PROCESS COMMITTEE.
AND I DON'T BELIEVE AMERICA IS 
GOING TO JUDGE US HARSHLY 
BECAUSE OF THE WAY THE FACTS 
COME OUT.
I THINK AMERICA'S GOING TO JUDGE
US HARSHLY BECAUSE OF THE 
PROCESS THAT HAS COME FORWARD.
AND WITH THAT, I YIELD BACK. 
>> I THANK THE GENTLEMAN.
LET ME JUST SAY I, YOU KNOW, YOU
KNOW, WE KEEP ON HEARING A LOT 
ABOUT THE CLOCK AND CALENDAR, 
BUT I WOULD REMIND EVERYONE THAT
WE ARE HERE BECAUSE ABUSE AND 
OBSTRUCTION.
AND THE PRESIDENT'S ABUSE OF 
POWER AND OBSTRUCTION OF 
CONGRESS.
THAT'S WHY WE'RE HERE.
AND, YOU KNOW, I SAID IT IN MY 
OPENING, I'LL SAY THIS AGAIN, I 
MEAN, WE JUST HAVE A DIFFERENCE 
OF OPINION, MY FRIENDS TRY TO 
CHARACTERIZE THIS AS TRYING TO 
OVERTURN THE LAST ELECTION.
I LOOK AT THIS, YOU KNOW, AS A 
CRIME IN PROGRESS.
AND THAT WE'RE TRYING TO PREVENT
THE PRESIDENT FROM RIGGING THE 
NEXT ELECTION.
I, AGAIN, I HAVE NEVER, EVER, 
EVER SEEN OR WITNESSED A MOMENT 
LIKE THIS WHERE A PRESIDENT OF 
EITHER PARTY HAS PUBLICLY 
INVITED FOREIGN INTERVENTION IN 
OUR ELECTION.
HE DID IT WHEN HE WAS RUNNING 
FOR PRESIDENT.
HE DID IT WITH UKRAINE.
AND -- AND I -- AND THE 
ADMINISTRATION HAS PURPOSELY 
DECIDED NOT TO COOPERATE TO DRAG
THEIR FEET, HOPING THAT, YOU 
KNOW, WE'LL GET THROUGH THE NEXT
ELECTION.
I MEAN, THIS IS -- I SAID IT'S 
WRONG, I MEAN, IT IS BEYOND THE 
PALE AND WE JUST HAVE A 
DIFFERENCE OF OPINION ON THIS.
I YIELD TO THE GENTLELADY FROM 
CALIFORNIA, MS. TORRES. 
>> THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN.
THANK YOU TO BOTH OF YOU FOR 
BEING HERE.
I ALSO WANT TO THANK MY 
COLLEAGUES THAT HAVE SPOKEN 
BEFORE ME TODAY FOR USING YOUR 
INDOOR VOICE AND FOR EXERCISING 
A DECORUM.
WE ARE ON THE THIRD FLOOR OF THE
U.S. CAPITOL.
AND I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT FOR 
US TO BE RESPECTFUL WITH EACH 
OTHER.
TODAY, WE REGRETFULLY FACE ONE 
OF THE MOST SOLEMN DUTIES THE 
CONSTITUTION VESTS IN CONGRESS.
I, LIKE ALL OF YOU HERE, DID NOT
COME TO CONGRESS TO IMPEACH A 
PRESIDENT.
AS A MATTER OF FACT ON, JANUARY 
JANUARY 20th OF 2017, I STOOD IN
THE FREEZING RAIN TO WATCH 
DONALD TRUMP BE SWORN IN AS THE 
45th PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED 
STATES.
I WAS THERE IN GOOD FAITH.
I WAS THERE BECAUSE I BELIEVE IN
THE PEACEFUL TRANSFER OF POWER.
I WAS THERE BECAUSE I BELIEVE IN
THE RULE OF LAW.
AND MAYBE FOOLISHLY I ALSO 
BELIEVE IN SECOND CHANCES.
THAT WE WOULD HAVE ELECTED 
SOMEONE WHO CAN STAND UP AND 
REPRESENT ALL AMERICANS.
BUT THEN IN SEPTEMBER, 
APPROXIMATELY THREE MONTHS AGO, 
WE LEARNED THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP 
HAD WITHHELD CRITICAL MILITARY 
FUNDING TO UKRAINE.
A STRATEGIC PARTNER IN A WAR 
WITH RUSSIA.
AND THEN OCTOBER 3rd, PRESIDENT 
TRUMP ANNOUNCED THAT CHINA AND 
UKRAINE SHOULD INVESTIGATE HIS 
POLITICAL RIVALS ON NATIONAL TV.
THE PRESIDENT'S PERSONAL 
ATTORNEY ALSO SAID THAT BIDEN 
SHOULD BE INVESTIGATED.
NOW, PRESIDENT TRUMP FAMOUSLY 
SAID THAT HE COULD SHOOT SOMEONE
DEAD IN THE MIDDLE OF 5th AVENUE
IN NEW YORK CITY AND HE WOULD 
GET AWAY WITH IT.
WHAT MINDSET DO YOU HAVE TO BE 
IN TO SAY THAT OUT LOUD ON 
NATIONAL TV AND TO BELIEVE THAT?
WELL, ANYONE WHO TURNS A BLIND 
EYE TO BEHAVIOR LIKE THIS IS 
PROVIDING HIM THAT RIGHT.
FIVE GOP PRIMARIES HAVE BEEN 
CANCELED.
KANSAS, ALASKA, SOUTH CAROLINA, 
ARIZONA, NEVADA.
GOP, REPUBLICANS ACROSS THE 
NATION, ARE LOCKED IN STEP TO 
DEFEND AT ANY COST THE BAD 
ACTIONS AND ILLEGAL ACTIONS OF 
THIS PRESIDENT.
THE FACTS ARE CLEAR.
TO QUOTE THE "USA TODAY" 
EDITORIAL BOARD, TRUMP USED YOUR
TAX DOLLARS TO SHAKE DOWN A 
VULNERABLE FOREIGN GOVERNMENT TO
INTERFERE IN A U.S. ELECTION FOR
HIS PERSONAL BENEFIT.
AMBASSADOR GORDON SONDLAND, 
PRESIDENT TRUMP'S HANDPICKED 
AMBASSADOR TO THE EUROPEAN 
UNION, TESTIFIED TO PRESIDENT 
TRUMP'S ABUSE OF POWER UNDER 
OATH AND HE SAID, "I KNOW THAT 
MEMBERS OF THIS COMMITTEE HAVE 
FREQUENTLY FRAMED THESE 
COMPLICATED ISSUES IN A FORM OF 
A SIMPLE QUESTION.
WAS THERE A QUID PRO QUO?
AS I TESTIFIED PREVIOUSLY WITH 
REGARD TO THE REQUESTED WHITE 
HOUSE CALL AND WHITE HOUSE 
MEETING, THE ANSWER IS YES."
WE ALSO HAVE THE ROUGH 
TRANSCRIPT OF TRUMP'S JULY 25th 
CALL RELEASED BY THE PRESIDENT, 
HIMSELF.
FOR ALL THE CLAIMS THAT 
PRESIDENT TRUMP WAS WITHHOLDING 
MILITARY AID OVER CORRUPTION IN 
UKRAINE, HE NEVER ONCE UTTERS 
THE WORD, "CORRUPTION," IN THE 
CALL.
HE DOES ASK FOR A FAVOR, THOUGH.
A FAVOR THAT HAS NOTHING TO DO 
WITH U.S. NATIONAL INTEREST AND 
EVERYTHING TO DO WITH HIS OWN 
POLITICAL INTERESTS.
TRUMP'S ACTIONS WERE CLEAR ABUSE
OF PRESIDENTIAL POWER.
HE CONDITIONED OFFICIAL ACTS OF 
OFFICE ON A POLITICAL ADVANTAGE 
IN THE NEXT ELECTION.
THINK ABOUT THAT.
ALL OF US HERE, MEMBERS OF 
CONGRESS, HAVE TAKEN ETHICS 
TRAINING ON THE HOUSE RULES.
AND ON FEDERAL CRIMES.
I JUST DID THE TRAINING LAST 
WEEK.
WE'VE ALL SWORN THE SAME OATH OF
OFFICE TO PROTECT AND DEFEND OUR
CONSTITUTION.
AND IMAGINE, IMAGINE IF A CITY 
IN OUR DISTRICTS ASKED FOR OUR 
HELP WITH A GRANT OR AN 
APPROPRIATIONS REQUEST.
WOULD ANY OF US REPLY, I WOULD 
LIKE YOU TO DO US A FAVOR, 
THOUGH?
AND ANNOUNCE AN INVESTIGATION 
INTO MY POLITICAL OPPONENT.
OF COURSE NOT.
AND WHY WOULD YOU NOT DO THAT?
BECAUSE NO ONE, NO ONE IS ABOVE 
THE LAW.
NOT EVEN THE PRESIDENT.
AND YOU KNOW THAT ASKING FOR 
THAT TYPE OF FAVOR IS ILLEGAL.
THE RULE OF LAW IS WHAT GIVES 
OUR GREAT COUNTRY ITS STRENGTH.
THE RULE OF LAW IS WHAT 
SEPARATES US FROM THIRD-WORLD 
COUNTRIES WHERE DICTATORS REIGN 
FOR DECADES ON.
THE RULE OF LAW IS WHAT MAKES US
OUR GREAT COUNTRY, THE ENVY OF 
THE WORLD.
THE PLACE THAT OTHER COUNTRIES 
LOOK FOR INSPIRATION.
AS THEY GROW THEIR OWN 
DEMOCRACIES.
AND IT IS THE RULE OF LAW THAT 
BRINGS ALL OF US HERE TODAY.
AND AS THE ONLY MEMBER OF 
CONGRESS FROM CENTRAL AMERICA, 
TAKE IT FROM ME, THAT WE NEVER 
WANT TO SEE A DAY WHEN THE RULE 
OF LAW SIMPLY FADES AWAY.
I NEVER WANT TO SEE A DAY WHERE 
AMERICAN FAMILIES HAVE TO SEND 
THEIR CHILDREN TO LIVE OUTSIDE 
OF THE COUNTRY BECAUSE OF PUBLIC
CORRUPTION.
LOOK AT HONDURAS.
THEIR CONSTITUTION BANNED 
PRESIDENTIAL RE-ELECTIONS.
THEIR CONSTITUTION CLEARLY 
STATES THAT IF PRESIDENTS TRY TO
GET RID OF THE RE-ELECTION BAN 
THAT THEY SHOULD BE REMOVED FROM
OFFICE IMMEDIATELY AND DESPITE 
ALL OF THIS, PRESIDENT HERNANDEZ
RAN AGAIN, ANYWAY, AND THE 
SUPREME COURT IN HONDURAS FILLED
WITH HIS SUPPORTERS GOT RID OF 
TERM LIMITS AND HE IS NOW 
SERVING HIS SECOND TERM IN 
VIOLATION OF HIS COUNTRY'S 
FOUNDING PRINCIPLES.
HONDURAS IS NOW A NARCO STATE.
AND WE HAVE THOUSANDS OF 
HONDURAN FAMILIES ON OUR 
SOUTHERN BORDER SEEKING ASYLUM.
IN GUATEMALA, THE PEOPLE HAVE 
BEEN WAGING AN UPHILL BATTLE 
AGAINST CORRUPTION FOR YEARS.
FORMER PRESIDENT ODO PEREZ 
MOLINA TOOK BRIBES IN EXCHANGE 
FOR LOWER TAXES.
MILLIONS OF TAX DOLLARS LINE THE
POCKETS OF HIGH-RANKING 
OFFICIALS.
INSTEAD OF MEETING THE NEEDS OF 
THE PEOPLE IN ONE OF THE POOREST
COUNTRIES IN LATIN AMERICA.
TODAY PRESIDENT TRUMP SAID AFTER
A MEETING WITH PRESIDENT 
MORALES, "IN GUATEMALA, THEY 
HANDLE THINGS MUCH TOUGHER THAN 
THE U.S."
IMAGINE THAT.
CCEG, THE ANTI-CORRUPTION 
ORGANIZATION FORMED TO BRING 
JUSTICE TO GUATEMALA BROUGHT 
HUNDREDS OF CASES OF CORRUPTION 
TO LIGHT, BUT ONCE AGAIN, THEY 
BEGAN -- ONCE THEY BEGAN 
INVESTIGATING PRESIDENT JIMMY 
MORALES FOR ILLEGAL CAMPAIGN 
FINANCING, HE PROMPTLY SHOT DOWN
THE COMMISSION.
DOES THIS SOUND FAMILIAR TO 
ANYONE?
PRESIDENT MORALES EVEN FORCED 
THE FORMER ATTORNEY GENERAL 
ALDANO WHO WORKED TO FIGHT 
CORRUPTION TO SEEK ASYLUM IN THE
UNITED STATES BECAUSE HER SAFETY
IS NOW AT RISK.
DOES THIS SOUND FAMILIAR TO 
ANYONE?
I BRING THESE EXAMPLES UP TO 
REMIND MY COLLEAGUES THAT THE 
FUTURE HEALTH OF OUR DEMOCRACY 
IS NOT ASSURED.
WE CAN SLIDE BACK TO TYRANNY ONE
CORRUPT ACT AT A TIME.
AND UNTIL OUR DEDEMOCRACY IS 
LIKE THE FAKE VILLAGE IN NORTH 
KOREA 
THAT FACES THE LOOK 
ING FACADE THAT MASKS THE 
TYRANNY WITHIN, THAT'S WHY THE 
ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT ARE SO 
IMPORTANT.
MR. CHAIRMAN, THE CONSTITUTION 
DID NOT COME FROM A HIGHER 
POWER.
IT IS JUST A DOCUMENT, A PIECE 
OF PAPER, WITH WORDS WRITTEN ON 
IT.
BUT WE, THE PEOPLE, GIVE THE 
CONSTITUTION ITS POWER.
WE, THE PEOPLE, DECIDE TO FOLLOW
AND HONOR OUR LAWS.
AND TODAY, WE, THE PEOPLE, MUST 
AGREE THAT THE LAWS APPLY TO 
EVERYONE.
INCLUDING THE PRESIDENT OF THE 
UNITED STATES.
THAT -- THAT IS THE PRESIDENT 
THAT WE EXPECT OF ALL ELECTED 
OFFICIALS.
AND IT'S THE PRECEDENT WE MUST 
REAFFIRM IN THESE PROCEEDINGS.
60 YEARS AGO MARTIN LUTHER KING 
ISSUED A WARNING DURING THE 
CIVIL RIGHTS ERA WHICH RESONATES
VERY MUCH WITH THE CHOICE BEFORE
US TODAY.
DR. KING SAID, "IF YOU FAIL TO 
ACT NOW, HISTORY WILL HAVE TO 
RECORD THAT THE GREATEST TRAGEDY
OF THIS PERIOD OF SOCIAL 
TRANSITION WAS NOT THE STRIDENT 
CLAMBER OF THE BAD PEOPLE BUT 
THE APPALLING SILENCE OF THE 
GOOD PEOPLE."
LET'S MOVE FORWARD.
I WANT TO ASK YOU, DO YOU KNOW 
HOW MANY WITNESSES WERE BLOCKED 
FROM TESTIFYING?
>> I BELIEVE THERE ARE NINE 
ADMINISTRATION WITNESSES -- 
>> TURN THE MIC ON.
>> SOMEBODY WILL CORRECT ME IF 
I'M WRONG, BUT I BELIEVE THAT 
THERE WERE NINE ADMINISTRATION 
WITNESSES WHO WERE CALLED WHO 
DID NOT COME FORWARD, AND IF I 
MIGHT, MS. TORRES, I'M MOVED BY 
WHAT YOU HAD TO SAY.
I WAS NOT AWARE THAT THERE WERE 
GOP PRIMARIES BEING CANCELED.
>> CANCELED. 
>> IT ALLOWS US TO REFOCUS ON 
THE IMPORTANCE OF ELECTIONS AND 
SOVEREIGNTY OF THE PEOPLE.
I KNOW SOME PEOPLE WOULD SAY, 
WELL, THAT'S JUST A PRIVATE 
AFFAIR, LET THEM DO THEIR OWN 
THING, BUT FORGIVE THE LAW 
PROFESSOR IN 34 ME, THERE'S A 
LINE OF CASES.
IT SAYS THAT PARTY PRIMARIES ARE
ACTUALLY ESSENTIAL FOR THE 
VOTING RIGHTS OF ALL CITIZENS.
AND EQUAL PROTECTION DOES APPLY 
THERE, SO I -- 
>> BUT REPUBLICANS IN FIVE 
STATES ARE BEING DENIED AN 
OPPORTUNITY TO CHOOSE A 
REPUBLICAN CANDIDATE TO MOVE 
FORWARD AND REPRESENT THEM.
>> SO -- 
>> FIVE. 
>> THE GENERAL POINT THERE IS 
THAT OUR SYSTEM IS BASED ON THE 
IDEA OF POPULAR SELF-GOVERNMENT 
SO YOU NEED TO HAVE THE CHANNELS
OF EFFECTIVE POLITICAL 
PARTICIPATION OPEN SO PEOPLE CAN
PARTICIPATE AND PEOPLE CAN 
COMPETE, COMPETITION IS GOOD IN 
ECONOMICS, IT'S GOOD IN SPORTS, 
IT'S GOOD IN POLITICS, TOO.
WE WANT TO HAVE A PLAY OF IDEAS.
AND A MARKETPLACE OF IDEAS.
SO WE'RE ABLE TO GET THE BEST 
IDEAS OUT THERE.
BUT THE OTHER CRITICAL POINT YOU
MADE, AND THANK YOU FOR POINTING
US TO THE CENTRAL AMERICAN AND 
LATIN AMERICAN EXAMPLE BECAUSE 
THERE'S BEEN A LOT OF 
INSTABILITY IN DEMOCRACY THERE 
WHERE IT'S UNDER ATTACK BY 
DESPOTS AND DICTAORS AND 
CORRUPT FORCES AND WE'RE SEEING 
THIS ALL OVER THE WORLD NOW.
WHAT'S TAKING PLACE IN AMERICA 
HAS GOT TO BE SEEN IN A GLOBAL 
CONTEXT.
THERE ARE DICTATORS, DESPOTS, 
TYRANTS, CLEP TO KRATS.
PUTIN IS ONE OF THE LEADERS.
CHANNELING ILLEGAL EGYPT, DUTER 
PHILIPPINES.
HOMICIDAL CROWN PRINCE OF SAUDI 
ARABIA.
AND ON AND ON.
THEY'RE ALL BESIEGE DEMOCRACY.
WHO'S THE BEACON OF HOPE IN 
TERMS OF DEMOCRACY?
AMERICA IS.
WE GOT TO SHOW HOW IT'S REALLY 
DONE. 
>> SO I'M GOING TO ASK YOU ONE 
LAST QUESTION.
DID WITNESS INTIMIDATION OCCUR 
DURING YOUR COMMITTEE HEARING?
>> TO BE CLEAR, THERE WERE NINE 
SENIOR OFFICIALS WHO REFUSED 
CONGRESSIONAL SUBPOENAS.
>> ON WHAT GROUNDS?
>> WELL, THEY -- THEY -- THEY 
WERE DIFFERENT STATEMENTS MADE 
BY DIFFERENT OF THEM.
SOME OF THEM SAID THAT IT WAS 
BECAUSE OF AN EXECUTIVE BRANCH 
POLICY.
AND SO I'D HAVE TO GO BACK AND 
LOOK AND SEE WHICH ONES INVOKED 
THIS OR THAT DOCTRINE, PERHAPS.
I'M NOT SURE, BUT WE'VE NEVER 
SEEN ANYTHING LIKE THIS IN SCALE
AND SCOPE AND DEGREE IN AMERICAN
HISTORY. 
>> A COVER-UP. 
>> WE JUST HAVE NOT.
AND THE CHAIRMAN OF THE 
INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE AND THE 
CHAIR OF THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE
HAVE PRAISED THOSE PEOPLE WHO'VE
COME FORWARD AND IF I COULD, IF 
YOU'D ALLOW ME ONE THOUGHT ABOUT
THIS, I THINK IT'S BEEN SAID A 
COUPLE TIMES, "YOUR WITNESSES."
I THINK THERE WERE MULTIPLE 
WITNESSES THERE WHO TOTALLY 
RECOILED AND REBELLED AGAINST 
THE IDEA THAT THEY WERE 
ANYBODY'S WITNESS.
THESE ARE PEOPLE WHO DEVOTED 
THEIR LIVES TO THE STATE 
DEPARTMENT, THE NATIONAL 
SECURITY COUNCIL, SERVING THE 
AMERICAN PEOPLE.
WE HAVE PEOPLE LIKE AMBASSADOR 
TAYLOR, DECORATED VIETNAM WAR 
HERO.
WE HAVE THE LIEUTENANT COLONEL 
WHO WAS INJURED IN IRAQ AS A 
PURPLE HEARTIONA HILL.
AMBASSADOR YOVANOVITCH.
COMMITTED HER WHOLE CAREER TO 
AMERICAN DEMOCRACY AS AN 
EXAMPLE.
THESE PEOPLE ARE NOT MAJORITY 
WITNESSES OR MINORITY WITNESSES 
OR THESE OR OURS.
THE VAST MAJORITY OF THEM SAID 
WE'RE NOT HERE IN ANY PARTISAN 
CONTEXT, WE'RE NOT HERE WITH ANY
PARTISAN PURPOSE, WE'RE HERE TO 
TELL THE TRUTH.
THEY SWORE AN OATH TO TELL THE 
TRUTH.
THOSE PEOPLE WENT UNDER OATH.
THEY ARE NOT THROWING TOMATOES 
FROM THE SIDELINES.
THEY WENT UNDER OATH AND TOLD 
EXACTLY WHAT THEY SAW AND WHAT 
THEY HEARD AND WE HAVE THEIR 
DIRECT TESTIMONY. 
>> AND RATHER THAN COMMENDING 
THEM FOR THEIR COURAGE, SOMEONE 
ON TWITTER DECIDED TO INTIMIDATE
AND DIMINISH THEIR TESTIMONY.
>> YOU KNOW, I NEVER THOUGHT IN 
MY LIFETIME WE WOULD GET TO A 
POINT WHERE THE PRESIDENT OF THE
UNITED STATES HECKLES PEOPLE FOR
DOING THEIR CIVIC DUTY OF GOING 
UNDER OATH TO TELL THE TRUTH.
>> IT -- 
>> MR. CHAIRMAN -- OH. 
>> WOULD MY FRIEND YIELD ONE 
MOMENT?
>> I WOULD ABSOLUTELY YIELD TO 
YOU. 
>> I WAS SIMILARLY SHOCKED, AS 
MR. RASKIN WAS, WHEN I HEARD 
FOLKS WERE CANCELING THEIR 
PRIMARIES.
SO, SINCE SOUTH CAROLINA HAPPENS
TO BE MY NEIGHBOR, I WENT BACK 
AND LOOKED AND TURNS OUT THAT'S 
SOMETHING THEY DO, DID IT FOR 
REAGAN AND BUSH AND CLINTON AND 
OBAMA.
THE PARTY THAT'S IN POWER AND 
HAS THE WHITE HOUSE IN NAME OF 
SAVING DOLLARS CANCELS IT.
I SHARE THAT WITH YOU BECAUSE I 
WAS COMFORTED WHEN I HEARD THAT 
IT WAS A HISTORICAL PRACTICE AS 
OPPOSED TO SOMETHING THAT HAD 
JUST -- 
>> AND I APPRECIATE -- 
>> I THANK MY FRIEND. 
>> I APPRECIATE YOUR FEEDBACK ON
THAT.
I'M GOING TO YIELD BACK TO MR. 
CHAIRMAN. 
>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
SO I THINK THE COMMITTEE IS 
GOING TO TAKE A FIVE-MINUTE 
BREAK SO YOU CAN STRETCH YOUR 
LEGS AND DO WHATEVER ELSE YOU 
NEED TO DO. 
>> BREATHE. 
>> ALL RIGHT.
>> IS THERE -- 
>> YEAH.
THIS IS STRICT FIVE MINUTES, IF 
WE CAN.
WITHOUT OBJECTION, THE COMMITTEE
STANDS --
>> RULES COMMITTEE WILL COME TO 
ORDER.
I'LL NOW YIELD TO THE GENTLEMAN 
FROM TEXAS, DR. BURGESS.
>> THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN.
I THANK OUR WITNESSES FOR 
STAYING WITH US THROUGHOUT ALL 
OF THIS.
I KNOW YOU'VE BEEN THROUGH A LOT
ALREADY, BUT I CAN'T HELP BUT BE
STRUCK BY THE FACT THAT THIS 
DOES SEEM TO BE PROCEEDING 
RATHER RAPIDLY.
IT DID, AFTER ALL, ALL START 
WITH A PHONE CALL.
NO, NOT WITH A PHONE CALL IN 
JULY BUT WITH A PHONE CALL IN 
NOVEMBER WHEN MOLLY HEMINGWAY 
OVERHEARD INCOMING CHAIRMAN 
NADLER TALKING TO CONSTITUENTS 
ON THE TELEPHONE AND SAID THAT 
IMPEACHMENT OF THE PRESIDENT WAS
GOING TO BE OF THE HIGHEST ORDER
SO ALTHOUGH THERE'S NOT A 
TRANSCRIPT OF THAT CALL, IT WAS 
WELL DOCUMENTED IN SOCIAL MEDIA 
AND THAT SEEMS TO BE ONE OF THE 
THINGS THAT WE CAN NOW USE AS 
EVIDENCE THAT CAN BE INTRODUCED.
MR. COLLINS, CORRECT ME IF I'M 
WRONG, BUT IT DOES SEEM LIKE 
THIS IS AN EXERCISE -- I THINK 
THIS IS REFLECTED IN YOUR 
DISSENTING VIEWS YOU SUBMITTED, 
THIS SEEMS LIKE IMPEACHMENT 
FIRST, BUILD A CASE SECOND. 
>> IT DOES. 
>> AND THERE'S AN INHERENT 
PROBLEM WITH THAT, OF COURSE, IN
THAT THE OLD SAYING GOES WHEN 
YOUR ONLY TOOL IS A HAMMER, THE 
WHOLE WORLD LOOKS LIKE A NAIL, 
AND YOU'VE ALREADY ALLUDED TO 
THE CLOCK AND CALENDAR, AND I 
WOULD ALSO SUBMIT THAT THIS DOES
SEEM LIKE WE ARE -- WE ARE 
BUSILY TRYING TO FIND THE DATA 
THAT WOULD ACTUALLY DEFINE THE 
CRIMES THAT WE CAN THEN 
PROSECUTE THE CRIME.
THE DIFFICULTY, AND, AGAIN, THIS
IS REFLECTED IN YOUR MINORITY 
VIEWS, THE DIFFICULTIES FOR 
FUTURE PRESIDENTS AND, INDEED, 
FUTURE CONGRESSES, SAYS IN THESE
DISSENTING VIEWS IF PARTISAN 
PASSIONS ARE NOT RESTRAINED, THE
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES WILL BE
THROWN INTO AN ENDLESS CYCLE OF 
IMPEACHMENT, FOREGOING ITS DUTY 
TO LEGISLATE AND USURPING THE 
PLACE OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE IN 
ELECTING THEIR PRESIDENT.
AND, YOU KNOW, WE HAVE SEEN A 
WEEK, OR WE ARE SEEING A WEEK 
THIS WEEK UNLIKE ANY OTHER THAT 
WE HAVE SEEN THIS YEAR IN THAT 
TODAY WE VOTED ON THE 
APPROPRIATIONS FOR $1.4 
TRILLION.
WE ARE GOING TO VOTE TOMORROW, I
THINK, ON ARTICLES OF 
IMPEACHMENT AND THEN ON 
THURSDAY, WE'RE GOING TO VOTE ON
APPROVING A SIGNIFICANT AND 
IMPORTANT TRADE AUTHORIZATION 
THAT HAS ACTUALLY BEEN BASICALLY
AGREED TO FOR THE PAST YEAR BUT 
WE'RE JUST NOW BRINGING IT UP 
THIS WEEK AND I GUESS IT JUST 
BEGS THE QUESTION, THE 
COMMITTEES AND JURISDICTIONS, 
CERTAINLY YOUR COMMITTEE HAS 
BEEN INVOLVED IN THIS.
A LOT OF TIME IN YOUR COMMITTEE 
HAS BEEN TAKEN UP WITH THIS 
PROCESS.
NO QUESTION THE INTELLIGENCE 
COMMITTEE HAS BEEN DOING THIS 
WORK.
I DON'T KNOW IF THEY HAD OTHER 
WORK THEY SHOULD HAVE BEEN DOING
THIS FALL, BUT THEY'VE BEEN 
DOING THIS WORK EXCLUSIVELY.
AND ALTHOUGH I'M A MEMBER OF THE
COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE
AND CERTAINLY, WE HAVE OUR 
JURISDICTIONAL TUSSLES WITH 
COMMITTEE ON WAYS AND MEANS, IT 
BOTHERS ME THAT THE COMMITTEE ON
WAYS AND MEANS HAS HAD TO GIVE 
UP THEIR HEARING ROOM FOR ALL OF
THESE WEEKS SO THAT INTELLIGENCE
AND THEN JUDICIARY COULD HOLD 
THE HEARINGS ON THE ARTICLES OF 
IMPEACHMENT IN THE WAYS AND 
MEANS HEARING ROOM.
DOES THIS BOTHER ANYONE ELSE 
THAT ALL OF CONGRESS' ATTENTION 
HAS BEEN DIVERTED TO THIS AT THE
EXCLUSION OF EVERY OTHER 
PROCESS?
>> IT BOTHERS ME, BELIEVE ME, 
I'LL LET THE WAYS AND MEANS 
FOLKS, NO OFFENSE TO THEM, I LET
THEM KEEP THEIR ROOM.
I PREFER JUDICIARY AND OTHERS.
LOOK, I'M NOT GOING TO BE ONE --
I THINK WE HAD A LARGE NUMBER, 
ESPECIALLY THE JUDICIARY 
COMMITTEE THIS YEAR.
WE HAVE PASSED OTHER BILLS.
SOME ACTUALLY MADE BIPARTISANLY.
IT'S BEEN A START AND STOP 
PROCESS.
I REMEMBER WHEN IMPEACHMENT WAS 
TAKEN AWAY FROM US, THE WAY WE 
DESCRIBED IT, IN SEPTEMBER, WE 
WENT LIKE ALMOST A 2, 2 1/2-WEEK
PERIOD, WE DIDN'T KNOW WHAT TO 
DO.
WE LITERALLY HAD BEEN DOING SO 
MUCH INVESTIGATION, THE MUELLER,
EVERYTHING, THERE WAS NOTHING IN
THE HOPPER, SO TO SPEAK, FOR US 
TO MOVE FORWARD ON.
THE CHAIRMAN DID A GOOD JOB 
TRYING TO RECOVER FROM THAT.
I DISAGREE WITH SOME OF THE 
BILLS THAT WE PASSED BUT AT 
LEAST WE HAD SOME OTHER 
HEARINGS.
I THNK OVER TIME, WITHOUT 
ELABORATING ON THIS A GREAT 
DEAL, I THINK THE BIGGEST ISSUE 
THAT WE HAVE HERE IS AT THE END 
OF THE DAY I THINK THERE'S NOT 
A -- THERE'S A LARGE DECISION 
BEING MADE AND THAT DECISION'S 
BEING MADE ON WE NEED TO DO 
THIS, YOU KNOW, NOW AND I 
DISAGREE VEHEMENTLY WITH THE 
MAJORITY ON THIS PANEL.
WE NEED THIS NOW.
BUT I DO, AFTER TAKING A STEP 
BACK, LOOK AT THE -- BECAUSE 
WE'VE HAD TO LIVE WITHIN 
JUDICIARY, IN PARTICULAR, THIS 
YEAR.
THE INSTITUTIONAL DISCUSSION AND
DAMAGES, I WOULD CALL IT, TO OUR
RULES AND OUR PROCESSES AND OUR 
THINGS, THOSE ARE THE THINGS 
THAT CONCERN ME.
YOU KNOW, WHETHER I'M HERE OR 
NOT BECAUSE THE GOOD THING, THE 
LOGICAL THING, IS MOST ALL OF US
WON'T BE HERE IN A NUMBER OF 
YEARS, WHATEVER THAT YEAR MAY 
BE, BUT THERE WILL BE OTHERS.
THE INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE IS A 
COMMITTEE YOU USED TO NEVER HEAR
OF.
IT WAS A COMMITTEE THAT DID ITS 
JOB IN SILENCE IN THE DARK IN 
THE BASEMENT.
WHEN I FIRST GOT HERE, I THOUGHT
THEY WERE COMBINED BECAUSE EVERY
TIME I SAW THEM, I SAW BOTH OF 
THEM TOGETHER.
AND NOW IT'S BECOME A COMMITTEE 
THAT I DON'T THINK IT EVER, EVER
INTENDED TO BE AND I DON'T THINK
IT SHOULD HAVE HAD THIS TIME.
IT COULD HAVE BEEN HANDLED 
DIFFERENTLY.
I MAY DISAGREE WITH THE FINDINGS
OF MY JUDICIARY COLLEAGUES AND 
EVEN INTEL COLLEAGUES, BUT THIS 
SHOULD HAVE NEVER BEEN IN INTEL 
TO START WITH.
I DISAGREE INHERENTLY WITH THAT.
THERE ARE OTHER COMMITTEES THAT 
COULD HAVE HANDLED IT PROPERLY.
I DON'T THINK THIS IS WHERE IT 
SHOULD BE.
I FEEL LIKE I KNOW WHY IT WAS, 
BUT IT JUST SHOULDN'T HAVE BEEN 
DOWN THERE. 
>> WELL, AND THE OPTICS OF 
HAVING THIS DONE ABSOLUTELY IN 
SECRET IN A SECURE 
COMPARTMENTALIZED FACILITY 
DOWNSTAIRS NOT JUST IN SECRET 
BUT BEHIND LOCKED DOORS WITH 
ARMED GUARDS UPFRONT. 
>> AND ESPECIALLY WELL NONE OF 
IT WAS CLASSIFIED.
I MEAN, THAT'S THE WHOLE 
DIFFERENT ISSUE.
I MEAN, IF IT WAS ALL 
NONCLASSIFIED, THEN WHY, YOU 
KNOW, DO THAT?
AND, AGAIN -- I'M NOT GOING 
TO -- WE'RE LATE IN THE DAY, I'M
TIRED, EVERYBODY ELSE IS TIRED.
THERE ARE REASONS THAT IT WAS 
HAPPENING, BUT, YOU KNOW, THEY 
DID IT FOR A PURPOSE.
THEY GOT THE INTENDED RESULT, 
AGAIN, IT WAS NOT CLASSIFIED.
WHAT BOTHERED ME WAS, TALK ABOUT
THE RULES -- I TALK TO THE HOUSE
PARLIAMENTARIANS AND OTHERS, 
THERE WAS NO REASON WE COULD 
HAVE NOT GOT THAT INFORMATION 
BEFORE IT WAS DECIDED TO BE 
RELEASED.
I'M A MEMBER OF CONGRESS.
I COULD HAVE WENT TO ANY OF 
THESE COMMITTEES AND I DID GO TO
TWO OF THOSE COMMITTEES WAS 
TURNED DOWN TO GET THAT 
INFORMATION WHILE IT WAS GOING 
ON.
THAT WAS JUST A FLAGRANT 
VIOLATION OF HOUSE RULES AND YOU
CAN DRESS IT UP AND MAKE IT LOOK
BETTER AND SAY, WELL, IT WAS ALL
IN A BIGGER CAUSE, BUT THAT 
LEADS US DOWN SOME PRETTY BAD 
ROADS AS WELL. 
>> AND I WILL TELL -- YOU'VE 
BEEN A MEMBER OF THIS COMMITTEE 
IN THE PAST, SO YOU KNOW THE 
RESPONSIBILITY THAT RESTS WITH 
THIS COMMITTEE.
ANYTHING THAT COMES TO THE FLOOR
IS GOING TO COME THROUGH US.
WE SET THE RULES AND THE 
PARAMETERS AROUND THE DEBATE.
SO IT IS AN IMPORTANT JOB THAT 
IS DONE UP HERE.
IT CERTAINLY HAS BOTHERED ME 
THAT ALL OF THIS ACTIVITY WAS 
DONE DOWNSTAIRS IN SECRET.
EVEN AS A MEMBER OF THE RULES 
COMMITTEE, I WAS NOT ALLOWED TO 
REVIEW THE TRANSCRIPTS UNTIL 
VERY LATE IN THE PROCESS.
THERE WAS A LOT OF MATERIAL THAT
WAS COLLECTED.
I KNEW THAT AS A MEMBER OF THE 
RULES COMMITTEE, EVENTUALLY WAS 
GOING TO BE ASKED TO RENDER SOME
SORT OF JUDGMENT, BUT IT WAS 
VIRTUALLY IMPOSSIBLE TO KEEP UP 
THAN WITH THE VOLUME OF 
INFORMATION THAT WHEN IT CAME 
OUT, THERE WAS A LOT THAT CAME 
OUT.
YOU WERE ALSO DOING NOW YOUR 
OPEN HEARINGS IN BOTH -- IN BOTH
INTELLIGENCE AND SUBSEQUENTLY 
JUDICIARY.
SO THERE WAS A LOT OF MATERIAL 
WITH WHICH TO KEEP UP.
BUT LET ME JUST ASK YOU, WERE 
ALL OF THE TRANSCRIPTS THAT WERE
COLLECTED DOWN IN THE 
INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE SECURE 
ROOM, WERE ALL OF THOSE MADE 
AVAILABLE TO ALL MEMBERS OF 
CONGRESS?
>> NO.
WE STILL HAVE ONE THAT -- WE 
KNOW OF ONE THAT IS STILL OUT 
THAT IS STILL -- INSPECTOR 
GENERAL, INTELLIGENCE 
COMMITTEE'S REPORT -- 
>> MAY I ASK, IS THAT CLASSIFIED
INFORMATION?
>> YOU'D HAVE TO ASK MR. SCHIFF.
HE DOESN'T SEEM TO WANT TO TALK 
ABOUT THAT ON THE RECORD.
HE JUST KEEPS IT.
WE DON'T HAVE IT.
IT ALSO IS A VIOLATION OF 660.
CLEARLY A VIOLATION OF 660.
THE WHITE HOUSE, WE KNOW, HAS 
NOT GOT ALL THE INFORMATION SENT
TO THEM.
THAT'S A CLEAR VIOLATION OF 660.
>> WHEN YOU SAY 660?
>> THE HOUSE RESOLUTION -- 
>> THE HOUSE RESOLUTION THAT 
AUTHORIZED -- 
>> CAME OUT OF THIS COMMITTEE, 
YES.
I ALSO WANT TO SAY ONE THING, 
AGAIN, NOT TRYING TO BE 
CONTROVERSIAL HERE, BUT MADE A 
STATEMENT THAT SHOULD REALLY 
FRANKLY BOTHER EVERY MEMBER NO 
MATTER WHAT COMMITTEE THEY SERVE
ON.
AND I'M NOT GOING TO TAKE ANY 
COMMITTEE AND NAME THEM, BUT YOU
SAID, I'M IN THE RULES 
COMMITTEE, I COULDN'T GO -- ANY 
MEMBER WHO WEARS A PIN HAS THE 
POWER AND AUTHORITY TO GO LOOK 
AT THOSE, AND IF WE CAN'T TRUST 
MEMBERS TO GO LOOK AT THOSE AND 
DO THAT AS THEIR JOB, THEN I 
REALLY QUESTION WHY ARE WE DOING
THIS?
I MEAN, BECAUSE YOU CAN SAY, 
LEAKS.
GOLLY, THAT DIDN'T STOP THE 
LEAKS FROM COMING OUT OF THE 
ROOMS.
WE HAD PLENTY OF LEAKS, AND, BUT
IT DIDN'T MATTER BECAUSE WHEN 
YOU STOP MEMBERS FROM BEING 
MEMBERS, THEN INHERENTLY, NO 
MATTER HOW GOOD YOUR, QUOTE, 
INTENTION IS, OR HOW BREATHLESS 
YOU THINK THE NEXT ELECTION'S IN
PERIL, THE MOMENT YOU HAVE TO 
TAKE DOWN THE LIBERTIES AND THE 
RIGHTS AND RESPONSIBILITIES OF 
MEMBERS TO GET THERE, THAT'S A 
PROBLEM.
>> WELL, MR. CHAIRMAN, I 
APOLOGIZE.
I SHOULD HAVE BROUGHT COPIES OF 
THE LETTERS THAT I SENT TO THE 
SPEAKER AND TO THE CHAIRMAN OF 
THE INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE 
ASKING TO REVIEW THOSE -- REVIEW
THOSE DOCUMENTS ON A MORE 
CONTEMPORANEOUS BASIS BECAUSE, 
AGAIN, I KNEW WE WERE GOING IT 
GET TO THIS DAY.
I KNEW THIS DAY WAS COMING IN 
THE RULES COMMITTEE.
WE WERE GOING TO BE ASKED TO 
VOTE ON STUFF THAT, AGAIN, JUST 
THE SHEER VOLUME OF INFORMATION 
THAT WE NOW HAVE TO SORT THROUGH
IN ORDER TO MAKE AN INFORMED 
DECISION FOR I GUESS OUR 
CONSTITUENTS BUT FOR OTHER 
MEMBERS OF THE ENTIRE HOUSE OF 
REPRESENTATIVES BECAUSE THEY ARE
ALL GOING TO BE HANGING ON WHAT 
WE DECIDE HERE TONIGHT. 
>> I AGREE.
AND I JUST WANT TO ASK BECAUSE 
I'M NOT MAKING THIS UP, AND THIS
IS FOR ANY MEMBER OF THE 
COMMITTEE, ANY MEMBER WATCHING 
RIGHT NOW, THIS IS CLAUSE 2E, 
2A, OF RULE 11, THIS IS A RULE 
OF THE HOUSE.
IT'S REALLY INTERESTING BECAUSE 
THEY COULD HAVE WAIVED A LOT OF 
THIS BUT THEY DIDN'T.
THIS IS ALWAYS AVAILABLE TO US 
YET WAS DENIED BY US ON MANY 
OCCASIONS AND, AGAIN, IT JUST 
GOES -- NO MATTER HOW DESPERATE 
YOU ARE TO GET TO AN END RESULT,
THIS IS WHAT CONCERNS ME THIS 
TIME NEXT YEAR OR THE NEXT YEAR.
WHEN IS THIS GOING TO BE BROUGHT
BACK UP AGAIN?
>> SO, LET ME JUST ASK YOU, MR. 
COLLINS, IT SEEMS TO ME, IN 
FACT, THE WORDS IN YOUR MINORITY
VIEWS ARE THAT THE CHARGES ARE 
VAGUE AND INMALLEABLE.
I THINK MY FELLOW TEXAN, MR. 
RATCLIFFE, ASKED THE QUESTION --
I THINK IT WAS DURING A 
JUDICIARY HEARING.
MAY HAVE BEEN DURING AN 
INTELLIGENCE HEARING.
WHAT WAS THE CRIME?
WERE YOU AWARE IN TALKING TO THE
WITNESSES, ASK THE WITNESSES AT 
THE WITNESS TABLE WHAT -- WHAT 
WAS THE CRIME THAT YOU 
WITNESSED?
AND IN GENERAL, WHAT ANSWER WAS 
HE GIVEN TO THAT QUESTION?
>> THAT THEY WITNESS NONE AND I 
THINK WHAT THE MAJORITY IS DOING
IS TAKING FULL ADVANTAGE OF THE 
POLITICAL NATURE OF IMPEACHMENT 
IN NONDEFINING TO MOVE FORWARD 
WITH THIS. 
>> WHICH, OF COURSE, IS ONE OF 
THE INHERENT DIFFICULTIES GOING 
FORWARD IF YOU ALLOW THE CHARGE 
TO PROCEED THAT IS VAGUE AND 
MALLEABLE, IT CERTAINLY CAN 
OCCUR AGAIN UNDER DIFFERENT 
CIRCUMSTANCES.
A LOT HAS BEEN SAID TODAY ABOUT 
FACT WITNESSES AND -- LET ME 
JUST ASK YOU THIS.
WAS THERE ANYONE THAT YOU 
INTERVIEWED DURING THE JUDICIARY
COMMITTEE PROCEEDINGS THAT HAD 
DIRECT KNOWLEDGE OF THE PHONE 
CALL?
>> I CHUCKLE A LITTLE BIT 
BECAUSE, AGAIN, WE DIDN'T GET TO
INTERVIEW ANYBODY.
WE HAD -- WE HAD FOUR LAW SCHOOL
PROFESSORS AND TWO STAFF 
MEMBERS.
THAT'S IT.
AND WHAT WAS REALLY INTERESTING 
IS WHAT WE HAD TWO 
PRESENTATIONS, ONE OF WHICH, BY 
THE WAY, OUR WITNESS ACTUALLY 
TESTIFIED HE PRESENTED AND THEN 
HAD TO TESTIFY UNDER OATH AND 
THEN THE ONE WHO PRESENTED FOR 
THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE ACTUALLY
THEN LEFT THE PRESENTING TABLE 
AND CAME AND QUESTIONED OUR 
MEMBER UNDER OATH.
AND TRANSFERRED OUT WITH THE 
INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE STAFF 
MEMBER.
SO, YOU KNOW, NO, LIKE I SAID, I
CAN'T LAY THIS OUT ANY BETTER, 
BUT I WANT TO MAKE IT VERY CLEAR
AND I'VE DONE THIS ALL DAY, I'LL
FIGHT THIS ON PROCESS, I'LL 
FIGHT THIS ON FACT.
WE WIN BOTH.
AND I THINK THAT'S WHAT'S, YOU 
KNOW, COMING OUT THE MOST IN 
THIS.
>> I'M GLAD YOU BROUGHT UP ABOUT
PROCESS BECAUSE WE DO GET A LOT 
OF CRITICISM THAT WE'RE TALKING 
A LOT OF PROCESS.
THIS IS THE RULES COMMITTEE.
THAT'S KIND OF WHAT WE DO IS THE
PROCESS.
YOU REMEMBER, YOU WERE ON THE 
RULES COMMITTEE.
WELL, THERE'S A STATEMENT FROM 
LIEUTENANT GENERAL KEITH 
KELLOGG, NATIONAL SECURITY 
ADVISER TO THE VICE PRESIDENT, 
AND I'M GOING TO READ JUST A 
PORTION OF THIS.
"I WAS ON THE MUCH-REPORTED JULY
25th CALL BETWEEN PRESIDENT 
DONALD TRUMP AND PRESIDENT 
ZELENSKY.
AS AN EXCEEDINGLY PROUD MEMBER 
OF PRESIDENT TRUMP'S 
ADMINISTRATION AND A COMBAT 
VETERAN WHO RETIRED WITH THE 
RANK OF LIEUTENANT GENERAL IN 
THE ARMY, I HEARD NOTHING WRONG 
OR IMPROPER ON THE CALL.
I HAVE HAD NO CONCERNS."
SO, WAS THIS -- I MEAN, I'M 
ASSUMING THIS TYPE OF 
INFORMATION WAS MADE AVAILABLE 
TO YOU WHILE YOU WERE -- WHILE 
YOU WERE CONDUCTING YOUR 
HEARING.
IS THAT NOT CORRECT?
>> YEAH, HE DIDN'T TESTIFY.
HE SUBMITTED THAT. 
>> HE SUBMITTED.
SO, MR. CHAIRMAN, I ASK 
UNANIMOUS CONSENT TO PUT 
LIEUTENANT GENERAL KEITH 
KELLOGG'S STATEMENT INTO THE 
RECORD. 
>> WITHOUT OBJECTION.
>> WELL, AGAIN, IT JUST GOES -- 
YOU DIDN'T HAVE TESTIMONY FROM 
AN ACTUAL FACT WITNESS AS FAR AS
WE KNOW, NO ACTUAL CRIME WAS -- 
WAS ELUCIDATED WHEN MR. 
RATCLIFFE OF TEXAS ASKED HIS 
QUESTIONS OF THE -- OF THE 
WITNESSES WHO WERE THERE.
SO IT GETS TO A POINT WHERE WHAT
ARE WE DOING, WHY ARE WE DOING 
THIS?
AND WE DO NEED TO HAVE A GOOD 
ANSWER FOR THE AMERICAN PEOPLE 
BECAUSE THEY ARE GOING TO BE 
ASKING US THESE QUESTIONS AND 
THEY SHOULD ASK US THESE 
QUESTIONS.
AND WITHOUT AN IDENTIFIABLE 
CRIME, WITH PEOPLE WHO WERE 
PRESENT WHEN THE TELEPHONE CALL 
WAS MADE, WHO ARE -- HAVE 
SIGNIFICANT CREDENTIALS AND SAY 
THERE WAS NOTHING WRONG, THEY 
WITNESSED NOTHING IMPROPER, WHAT
ARE PEOPLE TO THINK?
>> WELL, I AGREE WITH YOUR 
ASSESSMENT HERE AND THIS IS ONE 
OF THE AREN'T WE BROUGHT OUT THE
PROBLEMS THAT WE'VE BEEN 
BRINGING OUT.
BUT, AGAIN, I'LL ALSO HAVE TO 
SAY I'VE DONE EVERYTHING I 
POSSIBLY CAN DO ON MY SIDE.
I KNOW MY COLLEAGUES HAVE AS 
WELL.
I'M NOT GOING TO ANSWER THAT 
QUESTION.
EVERYBODY WHO VOTES YES TOMORROW
IS GOING TO HAVE TO ANSWER THAT 
QUESTION. 
>> I THINK THAT'S AN EXCELLENT 
POINT.
ANYONE WHO VOTES YES TOMORROW 
WILL HAVE TO ANSWER THOSE 
QUESTIONS.
LET ME ASK YOU ONE LAST THING.
IT HAS TO DO WITH THE 
TRANSCRIPT -- ABOUT THE 
TRANSCRIPT OF THE TELEPHONE 
CALLS BUT THE FACT THAT PHONE 
CALLS WERE RELEASED AS PART OF 
IT.
I KNOW IT WASN'T YOUR REPORT, IT
WAS THE INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE'S
REPORT, THAT DETAILED TELEPHONE 
CALLS.
AGAIN, THE TRANSCRIPTS OF THE 
CALLS, THEMSELVES, WERE NOT 
REVEALED.
JUST WHO MADE CALLS TO WHOM.
I GOT TO TELL YOU, OF ALL THE 
THINGS THAT WE'VE ENCOUNTERED IN
THIS, THAT'S THE ONE THAT I'VE 
GOTTEN THE GREATEST AMOUNT OF 
ANXIETY BACK HOME, PEOPLE ASK 
ME, WAIT A MINUTE, THEY 
INTERCEPTED A CALL FROM THE 
PRESIDENT'S LAWYER TO THE 
PRESIDENT?
I MEAN, THAT'S PRETTY SERIOUS 
STUFF.
THEY INTERCEPTED A CALL FROM A 
MEMBER OF CONGRESS.
I REALIZE THAT WE'RE NOT HELD IN
VERY HIGH REGARD OUTSIDE OF THIS
ROOM, BUT STILL, A MEMBER OF 
CONGRESS WAS -- WAS LISTED ON 
THAT FORM AND NOT GIVEN AN 
OPPORTUNITY TO KNOW ABOUT THAT 
BEFORE THEIR NAME WAS LISTED?
THAT SEEMS TO ME TO BE REALLY 
GOING TOO FAR.
>> WELL, LOOK, AND I SAID -- I 
TESTIFIED TO THIS BEFORE, 
SUBPOENAS WERE ISSUED WERE VALID
SUBPOENAS.
THEY GOT THE NUMBERS.
DID THE METADATA.
THEY CAN MATCH NUMBERS.
TO SAY THERE WASN'T A 
DETERMINATION AS WE LOOK AT THE 
CALLS, TO HAVE THOSE NUMBERS 
SUCH AS THE RANKING MEMBER, SUCH
AS A MEMBER OF THE MEDIA AND 
OTHERS, YOU KNOW, EVEN IF YOU 
WANTED TO -- EVEN IF YOU JUST 
GROSSLY IN YOUR MIND COULD COME 
TO THE CONCLUSION IT WAS OKAY TO
KNOW THAT, AT WHAT POINT WAS IT 
OKAY TO PUT IT INTO THAT REPORT 
AND NOT SAY ANYTHING ABOUT IT?
THERE WAS NO REASON TO PUT THAT 
IN THE REPORT.
I MEAN, IT'S THE UNINDICTED 
CO-CONSPIRATOR KIND OF THING, I 
HEARD THIS ALREADY, WELL, THAT'S
EVEN MORE OF A SMEAR ON A MEMBER
OF CONGRESS.
WELL, WE DIDN'T REALLY DO 
ANYTHING WRONG, THAT'S WHAT WE 
DO.
NO.
THAT SHOULD NEVER HAVE HAPPENED.
THERE WAS WAYS TO DO IT.
MR. GOLDMAN HAD NO ANSWER FOR 
THAT.
IN FACT, HE WAS VERY 
UNCOMFORTABLE BECAUSE HE TOLD US
HE WASN'T GOING TO TALK ABOUT 
HOW THEY DID THEIR INVESTIGATION
WHICH IS PROBLEMATIC EVEN 
FURTHER BECAUSE WE ARE THE 
COMMITTEE, THIS IS OUR ONE 
CHANCE TO ACTUALLY LOOK INTO HOW
THE SORT OF METHODOLOGY WAS THAT
WENT BEHIND IT.
AND, AGAIN, I DON'T WANT -- 
LOOK, IT'S VERY IMPORTANT TO 
MEMBERS OF CONGRESS AND IT 
SHOULD BE ON BOTH SIDES OF THE 
AISLE DOING THAT BECAUSE AT THE 
END OF THE DAY, IT DID NOT MAKE 
THEIR CASE BETTER.
IT DID NOT MAKE THEIR CASE 
STRONGER.
IT DID NOT MAKE THEIR CASE ANY 
BETTER EXCEPT FOR THE SIMPLE 
FACT ALL OF A SUDDEN WHEN THIS 
REPORT CAME OUT, THERE WAS 15 OR
20 OR 30 OR 40 OR 50 OR 500 
MEDIA OUTLETS THAT PICKED THAT 
UP.
AND IT JUST -- IT JUST INHERITED
THIS STORY OF -- 
>> IT SNOWBALLED. 
>> IT SNOWBALLED.
THAT'S I THINK EXACTLY WHAT THEY
WANTED BECAUSE, FRANKLY, IF I 
HAD THE REPORT I HAD TO PUT OUT,
I'D WANT SOMETHING TO TAKE 
ATTENTION AWAY FROM IT AND SORT 
OF WHAT THEY DID, THREW IT IN 
THERE AS A GRATUITOUS THAT MEANT
NOTHING BUT IT GOES TO SHOW YOU 
RUSHED AND HOW PARTISAN THIS HAS
BECOME. 
>> SO YOUR OPINION -- 
>> THAT SHOULD SCARE EVERYONE. 
>> YOUR OPINION THAT WAS A 
DIVERSIONARY TACTIC?
>> I THINK IT WAS A TACTIC TO 
SAY LOOK AT WHAT ELSE WE'VE DONE
HERE, ALSO LOOK AT THE RANKING 
MEMBER, LET'S LOOK AT THE 
OTHERS.
ALL OF THIS INVOLVED -- I THINK 
IT WAS SIMPLY -- AGAIN, WITHOUT 
GOING INTO THE MIND OF MR. 
SCHIFF WHO I WOULD ACTUALLY 
BLAME FOR THIS, MR. GOLDMAN, WE 
DON'T KNOW.
WHAT WAS YOUR REASON FOR DOING 
THAT?
WHAT WAS YOUR REASON FOR PUTTING
HIS NAME IN THERE?
EXCEPT TO MAKE A POINT BECAUSE 
YOU ALL HAD BEEN PUBLICLY 
FEUDING FOR A LONG TIME ABOUT 
HOW THIS PROCESS IS GOING.
WHY ELSE WOULD YOU PUT IT IN 
THERE?
BECAUSE THERE'S NO -- THERE WAS 
NO EVIDENTIARY VALUE FOR IT.
>> AS A PRACTICAL MATTER, LET ME
JUST SHARE WITH YOU, AS A RANK 
AND FILE MEMBER OF CONGRESS, 
HUMBLE BACK VENTURE THAT I AM, 
WE TALK ABOUT DAMAGE TO NATIONAL
SECURITY.
THIS WAS DAMAGING TO NATIONAL 
SECURITY.
THE RELEASE OF THE INFORMATION 
WAS DAMAGING TO NATIONAL 
SECURITY BECAUSE YOU AND I ARE 
GOING TO HAVE TO MAKE A 
DETERMINATION, AND I REALIZE 
IT'S NOT QUITE THE SAME THING, 
BUT THE REAUTHORIZATION IS 215 
OF THE PATRIOT ACT IS GOING TO 
COME IN FRONT OF US AT SOME 
POINT AND HOW AM I SUPPOSED 
TOVOTE FOR THE COLLECTION OF 
AMORPHOUS METADATA TO BE HELD IN
SOME PLACE UNTIL IT'S QUERIED BY
ONE OF OUR INTELLIGENCE -- 
>> I APPRECIATE THAT.
THIS IS DEFINITELY TWO 
CONVERSATIONS TO HAVE ON A 
DIFFERENT LEVEL.
I AGREE WITH YOUR CONCERNS.
I'VE HAD SIMILAR CONCERNS.
MY CONCERN MORE WITH THIS IS HOW
WE TREAT EACH OTHER AND I THINK 
THAT'S -- THIS IS WHERE THIS 
HITS FOR ME, HOW WE'RE TREATING 
EACH OTHER.
NOT THE FACT WE CAN DISAGREEMENT
VEHEMENTLY AND, YOU KNOW, WE'VE 
HAD GREAT TIMES UP HERE.
I CAN REMEMBER MR. HASTINGS, AND
I APPRECIATE MS. TORRES TALKING 
ABOUT OUR INSIDE VOICERS.
MR. HASTINGS AND I HAVE 
SOMETIMES NOT USED OUR INSIDE 
VOICES IN HERE.
IT'S BECAUSE WE GET PASSIONATE 
ABOUT WHAT WE DO.
WE DISAGREE VEHEMENTLY.
I'D NEVER THINK OF TAKING A 
REPORT AND PUT HIS NAME IN IT IN
A DEROGATORY WAY THAT HAD 
NOTHING OF VALUE TO ADD TO MY 
REPORT.
I JUST WOULDN'T HAVE THOUGHT 
THAT.
AND SO IF THAT'S THE LEVEL THAT 
WE'VE GOTTEN TO, NO MATTER WHAT 
YOU BELIEVE ABOUT THE FACTS, NO 
MATTER WHAT YOU BELIEVE ABOUT 
THE PRESIDENT, THE PHONE CALL, 
THE TRANSCRIPT, THE WITNESSES OR
ANYTHING ELSE, TO DO THE THINGS 
LIKE THAT THAT HAVE THESE 
GRATUITOUS KIND OF POLITICAL I 
CALL IT HIT JOB, IN THE MIDDLE 
OF A REPORT THAT DIDN'T HAVE TO 
BE THERE, THAT DOES NOT BENEFIT 
YOU AT ALL, IS A PROBLEM.
>> ONE LAST OBSERVATION THEN -- 
AND I APPRECIATE YOUR COMMENTS.
WE HAD THE -- AS YOU MENTIONED, 
YOU DID HAVE ONE PANEL OF 
WITNESSES.
THERE WERE FOUR WITNESSES.
ONE OF WHICH YOU SELECTED.
I DO WISH YOU'D SELECTED SOMEONE
WHO HAD ACTUALLY VOTED FOR THE 
PRESIDENT.
THAT WOULD HAVE MADE ME FEEL 
BETTER.
HOWEVER, I THOUGHT THE -- I 
THOUGHT THE WITNESS YOU DID 
SELECT DID A VERY GOOD JOB AND 
CERTAINLY, I MEAN, AS YOU 
RECALL, HE CAME AND TESTIFIED 
HERE TO THE RULES COMMITTEE AT 
ONE POINT WHEN WE WERE 
CONTEMPLATING A LEGAL ACTION 
AGAINST THEN-PRESIDENT OBAMA 
OVER SOME PART OF THE AFFORDABLE
CARE ACT THAT WE THOUGHT HAD 
BEEN ADMINISTERED IMPROPERLY.
SO I ALWAYS ENJOY LISTENING TO 
MR. TURLEY TESTIFY.
HIS STATEMENT THAT HE'S 
CONCERNED ABOUT THE LOWERING OF 
IMPEACHMENT STANDARDS TO FIT A 
POSITY OF EVIDENCE AND ABUNDANCE
OF ANGER.
I THINK THOSE ARE THE WORDS THAT
ARE GOING TO ECHO DOWN 
THROUGHOUT HISTORY.
THAT IS WHAT THIS EXERCISE HAS 
BEEN ALL ABOUT.
VERY LITTLE FACTS AND A GREAT 
DEAL OF ANGER.
ANGER AT THE PRESIDENT.
ANGER AT THE AMERICAN PEOPLE FOR
ELECTING HIM.
AND IT REVERBERATES OVER AND 
OVER AND OVER AGAIN, AND I'VE 
SAID BEFORE IN THIS COMMITTEE, 
THAT IS NOT A GOOD LOOK FOR US.
THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN.
I'LL YIELD BACK. 
>> I THANK THE GENTLEMAN.
AND HE HAD MENTIONED HE HAD SENT
SEVERAL INQUIRIES TO OUR 
LEADERSHIP.
I THINK WE'LL PROBABLY BE HERE 
FOR A LITTLE WHILE LONGER, IF 
YOUR STAFF WANT TO COLLECT THEM,
WE'RE MORE THAN HAPPY TO MAKE 
THEM PART OF THE RECORD.
I JUST -- I WOULD ALSO SAY THAT 
THOSE OF US WHO VOTE YES ON 
IMPEACHMENT, OBVIOUSLY, HAVE TO 
ANSWER TO OUR CONSTITUENTS.
THOSE WHO VOTE NO HAVE TO ANSWER
TO THEIR CONSTITUENTS AS WELL.
>> I FULLY AGREE, MR. CHAIRMAN.
FULLY. 
>> THESE ARE VOTES OF 
CONSCIENCE.
AND, YOU KNOW, I'M VOTING, YOU 
KNOW, I'VE NOT BEEN A SUPPORTER 
OF THE PRESIDENT, WHEN HE RAN 
FOR PRESIDENT.
THAT'S NO SECRET.
BUT I ASSURE YOU THAT MY VOTE 
FOR IMPEACHMENT IS BASED ON MY 
STRONG BELIEF THAT WHAT HE DID 
RISES TO THE LEVEL OF AN 
IMPEACHABLE OFFENSE.
AND I GENUINELY BELIEVE, AS I 
SAID OVER AND OVER AND OVER 
AGAIN, THAT WE SEE A CRIME IN 
PROGRESS AND I'M WORRIED ABOUT 
THE NEXT ELECTION.
AND THAT'S WHY THERE IS URGENCY 
HERE.
AND I APPRECIATE THE 
CONVERSATION YOU JUST HAD.
IT'S ALL FINE AND RELEVANT ABOUT
GETTING IN THE WEEDS OVER THE 
INVESTIGATION, BUT WE ALSO NEED 
TO TALK ABOUT THE PRESIDENT'S 
BEHAVIOR AND WHAT HE DID.
I NOW YIELD TO THE GENTLEMAN 
FROM COLORADO.
>> THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR.
AND, FIRST, I'D LIKE TO 
INTRODUCE INTO THE RECORD FOUR 
THINGS.
THE OATH THAT THE SENATORS HAVE 
TO TAKE OF IMPARTIALITY, IF THEY
SIT AT JURORS IN A TRIAL ON 
IMPEACHMENT. 
>> WITHOUT OBJECTION.
>> SECOND, A LETTER FROM 700 
HISTORIANS, THEIR STATEMENT ON 
THE IMPEACHMENT OF PRESIDENT 
TRUMP. 
>> WITHOUT OBJECTION.
>> THIRD IS THE EDITORIAL FROM 
"USA TODAY" DATED, I THINK, 
DECEMBER 12th, CONCERNING 
IMPEACHMENT OF PRESIDENT TRUMP.
>> WITHOUT OBJECTION.
>> AND FOURTH IS A "LAW REVIEW" 
ARTICLE, A COLORADO LAWYER, 
SCOTT BARKER, CALLED "AN 
OVERVIEW OF PRESIDENTIAL 
IMPEACHMENT."
>> WITHOUT OBJECTION. 
>> I HAVE AN UNUSUAL REQUEST.
AS A FORMER MEMBER, I HAVE TO 
ASK, "USA TODAY," I HAD THE 
RESPONSE TO THE EDITORIAL IN THE
SAME PAPER. 
>> YOU WANT TO PUT THAT IN?
>> CAN I PUT THAT IN AS WELL?
WITHOUT OBJECTION.
>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
>> I'D LIKE TO PUT IN MY -- 
>> MR. PERLMUTTER. 
>> I'D LIKE TO READ A STATEMENT 
AND ASK QUESTIONS OF MY TWO 
COLLEAGUES HERE.
THE PRESIDENT SHOULD BE 
IMPEACHED.
HIS ACTIONS WERE AN ABUSE OF 
POWER THAT JOPARDIZED AMERICA'S
NATIONAL SECURITY AND 
COMPROMISED OUR ELECTIONS.
NO ONE IS ABOVE THE LAW AND THAT
INCLUDES THE PRESIDENT.
BY WITHHOLDING ALMOST $400 
MILLION UKRAINE DESPERATELY 
NEEDED TO DEFEND ITSELF AGAINST 
RUSSIA UNTIL UKRAINE DID THE 
PRESIDENT'S POLITICAL BIDDING, 
THE PRESIDENT COMMITTED HIGH 
CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS FOR 
WHICH HE SHOULD BE IMPEACHED 
UNDER ARTICLE 1, SECTION 2, 
CLAUSE 5, AND ARTICLE 2, SECTION
4, OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THE 
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.
THIS ABUSE OF POWER IS 
COMPOUNDED BY THE PRESIDENT'S 
REFUSAL TO COOPERATE WITH 
CONGRESS' IMPEACHMENT 
INVESTIGATION AND STONEWALLING 
OF WITNESSES FROM TESTIFYING OR 
TURNING OVER DOCUMENTS TO 
CONGRESS.
ALMOST 14,000 PEOPLE HAVE BEEN 
KILLED SINCE RUSSIA INVADED 
UKRAINE.
WITHHOLDING $400 MILLION THAT 
CONGRESS APPROPRIATED TO HELP 
UKRAINE DEFEND ITSELF UNLESS 
UKRAINE HELPED THE PRESIDENT DIG
UP DIRT ON HIS POLITICAL RIVAL, 
JOE BIDEN, WAS THE LAST STRAW 
FOR ME.
PEOPLE'S LIVES AND OUR NATIONAL 
SECURITY WERE PLACED AT RISK.
THIS WAS MORE THAN HUSH MONEY 
FOR STRIPPERS OR PROFITING FROM 
FOREIGN GOVERNMENTS, STAYING AT 
RESORT PROPERTIES OR EVEN 
OBSTRUCTING JUSTICE AS LAID OUT 
IN THE MUELLER REPORT.
THE FOUNDERS FOUGHT AND DIED FOR
FREEDOM AND INDEPENDENCE FROM A 
TYRANNICAL RULER AND A FOREIGN 
GOVERNMENT.
IMPEACHMENT AND REMOVAL FROM 
OFFICE WAS THE REMEDY THEY 
INCLUDED IN THE CONSTITUTION TO 
ACT AS A CHECK ON A PRESIDENT 
WHO PLACED HIMSELF ABOVE THE 
LAW, ABUSED HIS POWER FOR HIS 
OWN PERSONAL BENEFIT, AND 
INVITED FOREIGN GOVERNMENTS TO 
GET INVOLVED IN OUR DOMESTIC 
AFFAIRS, ESPECIALLY OUR 
ELECTIONS.
A PRESIDENT WHO FLAUNTS THE 
SEPARATION OF POWERS AND CHECKS 
AND BALANCES IN OUR CONSTITUTION
AND WHO REFUSES TO ALLOW 
WITNESSES TO APPEAR BEFORE 
CONGRESS WOULD RECEIVE OUR 
FOUNDERS' UNIVERSAL 
CONDEMNATION.
TREATING TAXPAYER MONEY AS HIS 
OWN TO EXTORT A, QUOTE, FAVOR, 
FROM A FOREIGN GOVERNMENT TO AID
HIM IN HIS RE-ELECTION GOES TO 
THE VERY HEART OF CONCERNS 
RAISED BY OUR NATION'S FOUNDERS 
WHEN THEY DRAFTED AND ADVOCATED 
FOR IMPEACHMENT TO ACT AS A 
CHECK ON THE AWESOME POWERS OF 
THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE.
FOR INSTANCE, MADISON SAID IN 
FEDERALIST 47, "THE ACCUMULATION
OF ALL POWERS, LEGISLATIVE, 
EXECUTIVE, AND JUDICIARY, IN THE
SAME HANDS MAY JUSTLY BE 
PRONOUNCED A VERY DEFINITION OF 
TYRANNY."
HE WENT ON TO SAY DURING THE 
CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION, "THE 
EXECUTIVE WILL HAVE GREAT 
OPPORTUNITIES OF ABUSING HIS 
POWER."
AND FURTHER THAT A PRESIDENT, 
"MIGHT BETRAY HIS TRUST TO 
FOREIGN POWERS."
GEORGE WASHINGTON'S FAREWELL 
ADDRESS WARNED OF FOREIGN 
INFLUENCE AND CORRUPTION WHICH 
LEADS TO THE, "POLICY AND WILL,"
OF AMERICA BEING SUBJECTED TO 
THE POLICY AND WILL OF ANOTHER.
ALEXANDER HAMILTON WROTE IN 
FEDERALIST 65 THAT IMPEACHMENT, 
"PROCEEDS FROM THE MISCONDUCT OF
PUBLIC MEN, FROM THE ABUSE OR 
VIOLATION OF A PUBLIC TRUST."
FOLLOWING IN THAT, THE "USA 
TODAY" EDITORIAL BOARD STATED IT
PERFECTLY WHEN THEY WROTE IN 
THEIR DECEMBER 12th, 2019, 
EDITORIAL, "IN HIS THUGGISH 
EFFORT TO TRADE AMERICAN ARMS 
FOR FOREIGN DIRT ON FORMER VICE 
PRESIDENT JOE BIDEN AND HIS SON,
HUNTER, TRUMP RESEMBLES NOT SO 
MUCH CLINTON AS HE DOES RICHARD 
NIXON, ANOTHER CORRUPT PRESIDENT
WHO TRIED TO CHEAT HIS WAY TO 
RE-ELECTION."
THIS ISN'T PARTY POLITICS AS 
USUAL, THEY GO ON TO SAY.
IT IS PRECISELY THE MISCONDUCT 
THE FRAMERS HAD IN MIND WHEN 
THEY WROTE IMPEACHMENT INTO THE 
CONSTITUTION.
IMPEACHMENT IS THE REMEDY THE 
FOUNDERS PLACED IN THE 
CONSTITUTION TO REMOVE A 
PRESIDENT DURING HIS OR HER TERM
OF OFFICE.
THIS IS ESPECIALLY -- IN THE 
UPCOMING ELECTION.
THE PRESIDENT INVITED FOREIGN 
PARTICIPATION IN OUR ELECTION AT
LEAST THREE TIMES.
FIRST WITH, "RUSSIA, IF YOU'RE 
LISTENING," SECOND WITH HIS 
DEMANDS ON UKRAINE TO, "DO US A 
FAVOR," AND THIRD, WITH HIS 
REQUEST FOR CHINA TO GET 
INVOLVED IN THE 2020 ELECTION BY
STARTING, "AN INVESTIGATION INTO
THE BIDENS."
ANY FURTHER DELAY OR SIMPLY 
ALLOWING THE ELECTION CYCLE TO 
RUN ITS COURSE RESULTS IN THE 
HARM AND ABUSE IMPEACHMENT WAS 
DESIGNED TO PREVENT.
FOR THE SAKE OF THE 
CONSTITUTION, FAIR ELECTIONS 
FREE OF FOREIGN INTERFERENCE AND
OUR NATIONAL SECURITY, PRESIDENT
TRUMP SHOULD BE IMPEACHED.
SO, OBVIOUSLY, AND TO MY 
S
FRIENDS, WE HAVE VERY DIFFERENT 
OPINIONS ABOUT THIS AND WE -- WE
WORK UP HERE IN THE RULES 
COMMITTEE A LOT OF HOURS.
WE RESPECT ONE ANOTHER.
BUT FOR ME, THIS GOES TO THE 
HEART OF THE CONSTITUTION AND TO
MY FRIEND, MR. COLLINS, YOU AND 
I COULDN'T DISAGREE MORE ON 
THIS.
AND I WOULD WANT TO COMPLIMENT 
MY FRIEND, MY GUESS IS THAT AS 
AN ATTORNEY, AND I -- YOU'VE 
KIND OF COME OFF WITH THAT 
COUNTRY ATTORNEY KIND OF 
APPROACH AND A NUMBER OF US 
THINK OF OURSELVES AS KIND OF 
COUNTRY ATTORNEYS.
MY FIRST QUESTION JUST IS SORT 
OF A GENERAL PROPOSITION TO YOU,
SIR, AND TO YOU, MR. RASKIN, DO 
YOU, AS AN ATTORNEY, UNDERSTAND 
THE TERMINOLOGY, "TIME IS OF THE
US SENSE"?
YOU KNOW WHAT THAT MEANS, MR. 
COLLINS?
WHAT'S IT MEAN?
>> I NEED TO -- 
>> BECAUSE AS YOU WOULD SAY, THE
CLOCK IS TICKING.
WOULD YOU AGREE WITH THAT, MR. 
RASKIN?
>> YES. 
>> THE CLOCK IS TICKING ON THE 
2020 ELECTIONS.
AND I THINK WE WOULD ALL AGREE 
THAT IF THIS IMPEACHMENT WERE 
HELD IN JULY OR AUGUST OR 
SEPTEMBER, DRAWN WAY OUT, THAT 
THAT -- THAT TIME IS OF THE 
ESSENCE.
THAT THAT WOULD REALLY AFFECT 
THE 2020 ELECTIONS.
SO, I APPRECIATE THE GENTLEMAN'S
STATEMENT THAT, OH, THIS HAS 
BEEN RUSHED AND THERE JUST 
HASN'T BEEN ENOUGH TIME AND ALL 
OF THAT SORT OF STUFF, BUT TIME 
IS OF THE ESSENCE, AND THIS 
INSTANCE BEGAN, AT LEAST WHAT 
STARTED IT ALL, AND MR. HASTINGS
INTRODUCED THIS INTO THE RECORD,
THE MEMO OF JULY 25th, 2019, 
WHICH GENERALLY TRANSCRIBES BUT 
NOT COMPLETELY TRANSCRIBES THE 
PRESIDENT'S CONVERSATION OR 
PARTS, THEREOF, WITH PRESIDENT 
ZELENSKY, AND, YOU KNOW, WE WERE
TALKING ABOUT IT AND YOU USED 
THE WORD, "TRANSCRIPT," AND MR. 
HASTINGS SAID "MEMO."
I MEAN, IT'S A MEMORANDUM OF A 
TELEPHONE CONVERSATION AND IT'S 
NOT A VERBATIM TRANSCRIPT.
IT GOES DOWN AT THE BOTTOM, THE 
WORD, "INAUDIBLE," IS USED TO 
INDICATION PORTIONS OF A 
CONVERSATION THAT THE NOTETAKER 
WAS UNABLE TO HEAR.
SO I'D LIKE TO ASK YOU A 
QUESTION, MR. COCOLLINS, YOU, T,
MR. RASKIN.
JUST IN TERMS OF THE 
COMPLETENESS OF THIS DOCUMENT 
BECAUSE I THINK THAT THIS 
DOCUMENT EVEN WITH THINGS THAT 
ARE NOT TRANSCRIBED IS A PRETTY 
DAMNING PIECE OF EVIDENCE 
AGAINST THE PRESIDENT.
AND I THINK MR. MULVANEY'S 
COMMENTS A MONTH LATER SAYING, 
OH, WE DO THIS ALL THE TIME AND 
"GET OVER IT," THAT, TOO, IS 
DAMNING, BUT THE PRESIDENT SAYS 
I WOULD LIKE YOU -- THIS IS 
RIGHT AFTER MR. ZELENSKY SAYS 
"WE'RE READY TO CONTINUE TO 
COOPERATE FOR THE NEXT STEPS, 
SPECIFICALLY, WE'RE ALMOST READY
TO BUY MORE JAVELINS FROM THE 
UNITED STATES FOR DEFENSE 
PURPOSES."
THE PRESIDENT'S NEXT WORDS 
ARE -- OUR PRESIDENT -- "I WOULD
LIKE YOU TO DO US A FAVOR, 
THOUGH, BECAUSE OUR COUNTRY'S 
BEEN THROUGH A LOT AND UKRAINE 
KNOWS A LOT ABOUT.
 IT.
I WOULD LIKE YOU TO FIND OUT 
WHAT HAPPENED WITH THIS WHOLE 
SITUATION WITH UKRAINE.
THEY SAY CROWDSTRIKE, DOT, DOT, 
DOT."
GENTLEMAN, IN YOUR EXPERIENCE, 
WHAT DOES "DOT, DOT, DOT," MEAN?
MR. RASKIN, I'LL START WITH YOU.
>> WHAT DO ELLIPSES MEAN?
>> YES.
>> SOMETHING'S LEFT OUT. 
>> YEAH.
>> WE CAN SAY GENERALLY THAT 
SOMETHING TO BE CONTINUED, BUT 
WE DON'T KNOW SPECIFICALLY WHAT 
IN EVERY CASE, BUT YOU TRY TO --
YOU TRY TO DEDUCE IT FROM THE 
CONTEXT. 
>> AND I ASSUME, MR. COLLINS, 
YOU WOULD AGREE WITH THAT. 
>> TO A POINT, I HAVE NOT HEARD.
>> OKAY. 
>> I WILL SAY -- 
>> WAS THAT A YES?
>> YES. 
>> OKAY.
SO THEN IT GOES ON, "I GUESS YOU
HAVE ONE OF YOUR WEALTHY PEOPLE,
DOT, DOT, DOT, THE SERVER, THEY 
SAY UKRAINE HAS IT."
SO, AGAIN, JUST IN THAT ONE 
PARAGRAPH, RIGHT AFTER PRESIDENT
ZELENSKY SAYS "WE'RE READY TO 
BUY THE JAVELINS FOR OUR 
DEFENSE," THERE ARE MISSING 
PIECES TO THIS MEMORANDUM.
AND IT DOESN'T SAY THE WORD 
INAUDIBLE IS USED TO INDICATION 
PORTIONS OF A CONVERSATION THE 
NOTE TAKER WAS UNABLE TO HEAR, 
DOES IT?
IN YOUR READINGS, GENTLEMEN?
>> NO. 
>> I GUESS THAT'S A NO.
SO, THIS DOCUMENT, AND MR. 
BURGESS WAS GOING INTO THE 
CLASSIFIED NATURE AND WHY WAS 
EVERYBODY DOWN IN THE 
INTELLIGENCE ROOM DOWNSTAIRS.
JUST LOOKING AT IT ON ITS FACE, 
IT SAYS, AND IT'S CROSSED OUT 
NOW, AND YOU APPARENTLY IT WAS 
AN INADVERTENT ERROR, BUT CAN 
YOU TELL ME, MR. COLLINS, WHEN 
THIS MEMORANDUM UP AT THE TOP, 
THERE'S A CROSS-OUT, AND I THINK
UNDERNEATH THE CROSS-OUT, IT 
SAYS "SECRET//ORCON/NO FORM."
DO EITHER OF YOU KNOW WHAT THOSE
MEAN?
>> THE PRESIDENT DECLASSIFIED 
THE -- 
>> MY QUESTION IS WHAT IS THAT?
>> WE DON'T NORMALLY TRANSMIT 
THE TELEPHONE CALLS BETWEEN TWO 
WORLD LEADERS AND OUR PRESIDENT 
DOESN'T DO THAT.
IN ORDER OF TRANSPARENCY, HE DID
IN THIS CASE.
THAT MEANS IT'S 
DECLASSIFICATION. 
>> SO THIS -- 
>> THERE'S NO -- 
>> NO, NO, WAIT A SECOND.
EARLIER, YOU SAID IT WAS AN 
INADVERTENT ERROR, BUT NOW 
YOU'RE SAYING THAT, OH, WHEN 
THERE ARE CONVERSATIONS BETWEEN 
TWO FOREIGN LEADERS, WE MARK IT 
AS SECRET?
>> NO -- 
>> OR  CONVERSATIONS BETWEEN TW 
LEADERS WE MARK IT AS ORCON OR 
NO FORM. 
>> WE'RE TALKING ABOUT TWO 
DIFFERENT THINGS.
>> MR. COLLINS, INITIALLY THIS 
DOCUMENT WAS TREATED AS 
CLASSIFIED AND TOP SECRET, WAS 
IT NOT?
>> IF YOU LET ME EXPLAIN HERE 
BECAUSE WE ARE TALKING TWO 
DIFFERENT THINGS. 
>> OKAY.
THEN WE DON'T, I WON'T ANSWER. 
>> MR. RASKIN. 
>> CAN I JUST TRY TO ANSWER 
WHERE I THINK YOU'RE GOING?
HERE'S WHAT I WOULD SAY ABOUT 
THIS.
THERE'S NO MYSTERY HERE, RIGHT?
AS YOU STATED, THE JULY 25th 
CONTEMPORANEOUS MEMORANDUM 
ITSELF IS OVERWHELMING DAMNING 
OF THE PRESIDENT'S DESIGNS ON 
PRESIDENT ZELENSKY.
YOU ADD THAT UP WITH EVERYTHING 
THAT CAME BEFORE AND EVERYTHING 
THAT CAME AFTER AND IT'S ALL 
UNCONTRADICTED.
TO ME, IT LOOKS LIKE IT'S CASE 
CLOSED.
LET'S TALK ABOUT JULY 26th, THE 
NEXT DAY.
>> I THINK THAT'S A GOOD IDEA.
>> THE DAY AFTER THE JULY 25 
CALL, THE AMBASSADOR CALLED 
AMBASSADOR SONDLAND, HIS 
AMBASSADOR TO THE EU, BUT HE'S 
PART OF THE THREE AMIGOS, AND HE
CALLED TO ASK WHETHER PRESIDENT 
ZELENSKY WAS GOING TO DO THE 
INVESTIGATION.
AMBASSADOR SONDLAND STATED HE 
WOULD DO IT AND WOULD DO 
ANYTHING HE ASKED HIM TO AND HE 
FAMOUSLY SAID, HE LOVES YOUR 
ASS.
ACCORDING TO DAVID HOLMES, WHO 
OVERHEARD THE CONVERSATION OR 
PART OF THE CONVERSATION, 
AMBASSADOR SONDLAND AND 
PRESIDENT TRUMP SPOKE ONLY ABOUT
THE INVESTIGATION IN THEIR 
DISCUSSION ABOUT UKRAINE.
NOTHING ABOUT THE WAR.
NOTHING ABOUT CORRUPTION AND SO 
ON.
AND AFTER SONDLAND HUNG UP THE 
PHONE, HE TOLD HOLMES THAT 
PRESIDENT TRUMP, FORGIVE ME NOW,
I HOPE MY CHILDREN ARE NOT 
WATCHING AND HE TOLD HOLMES THAT
PRESIDENT TRUMP DID NOT GIVE A 
SHIT ABOUT UKRAINE.
RATHER HE CLAIMED THE PRESIDENT 
CARED ONLY ABOUT THE BIG STUFF.
THE BIG STUFF WAS THE STUFF THAT
BENEFITED HIM PERSONALLY LIKE, 
QUOTE, THE BIDEN INVESTIGATION 
THAT MR. GIULIANI WAS PITCHING.
THIS IS NOT AGATHA CHRISTIE 
MYSTERY.
THERE IS NO HYPOTHESIS OF THE 
FACTS.
THE PRESIDENT WENT AFTER EXACTLY
WHAT HE WANTED AND WE KNOW THAT 
OUR PRESIDENT IS VERY CAPABLE OF
STATING WHAT HE WANTS AND 
TELLING PEOPLE WHAT HIS WILL IS.
>> SO LET'S TALK ABOUT THAT FOR 
A COUPLE OF SECONDS AND I KNOW, 
MR. CHAIRMAN, YOU'D LIKE TO GET 
MOVING, BUT I JUST HAVE A FEW 
MORE QUESTIONS.
SO HOLMES, MR. RASKIN, WAS THE 
POLITICAL COUNSELOR AT THE U.S. 
EMBASSY IN KIEV, RIGHT?
>> CORRECT.
>> AND HIS JOB WAS, AND I THINK 
IN HIS WORDS WERE, GATHER 
INFORMATION ABOUT UKRAINE'S 
INTERNAL POLITICS, FOREIGN 
RELATIONS AND SECURITY POLICIES 
AND REPORT BACK TO WASHINGTON, 
REPRESENT U.S. POLICIES TO 
FOREIGN CONTACTS AND ADVISE THE 
AMBASSADOR ON POLICY DEVELOPMENT
AND IMPLEMENTATION.
I THINK THAT COMES FROM HIS 
OPENING REMARKS. 
>> YES.
>> SO GOING BACK TO THE 
QUESTIONS I WAS ASKING MR. 
COLLINS AND YOU ABOUT THE SECRET
MEMO OF THIS MEMO WHICH 
INITIALLY WAS UNCLASSIFIED TWO 
MONTHS LATER.
TWO MONTHS LATER, HOLMES, I 
THINK, TESTIFIED CONTRARY TO 
STANDARD PROCEDURE, THE EMBASSY 
RECEIVED NO READOUT OF THE CALL 
AND HE WAS UNAWARE OF WHAT WAS 
DISCUSSED UNTIL THE TRANSCRIPT 
WAS RELEASED ON SEPTEMBER 25th, 
IS THAT YOUR UNDERSTANDING?
>> SAY THAT ONCE MORE?
>> THAT HE, HOLMES, WAS UNAWARE 
OF WHAT WAS DISCUSSED -- 
>> IT WAS NO ORDINARY PROCEDURE 
THAT HE WOULD GET TO KNOW 
SOMETHING LIKE THAT UNTIL THIS 
THING WAS RELEASED TWO MONTHS 
LATER. 
>> CORRECT.
>> AND TAKEN OUT OF THE TOP 
SECRET SERVER.
>> THAT'S RIGHT.
MY RECOLLECTION IS HE WAS NOT ON
THE JULY CALL. 
>> EVEN THOUGH IT WAS AN 
INADVERTENT ERROR TO PUT IT IN 
THE TOP SECRET SERVER.
SO YOU WERE -- YOU KIND OF 
GLOSSED OVER CRUDER TERMS THAT 
SONDLAND AND WAS SAYING IN 
CONNECTION WITH THIS CALL 
BETWEEN HIMSELF AND THE 
PRESIDENT, BUT HOLMES, AS YOU 
SAID, HE BEING HEAR, COULD HE 
NOT, THE PHONE CONVERSATION 
BETWEEN AMBASSADOR SONDLAND 
AND -- AND THE PRESIDENT TRUMP?
>> HE COULD HEAR IT.
>> AND I THINK HIS TESTIMONY WAS
AMBASSADOR SONDLAND WENT ON TO 
STATE PRESIDENT ZELENSKY LOVES 
YOUR ASS.
I THEN HEARD PRESIDENT TRUMP ASK
SO HE'S GOING TO DO THE 
INVESTIGATION?
AMBASSADOR SONDLAND REPLIED THAT
HE'S GOING TO DO IT, ADDING THAT
PRESIDENT ZELENSKY WILL DO 
ANYTHING YOU ASK HIM TO.
AND THEN YOUR REMARKS ABOUT 
WHETHER THE PRESIDENT CARED 
ABOUT UKRAINE OR NOT, BUT IT 
ACTUALLY IS FINAL STATEMENT.
I NOTED THERE WAS BIG STUFF 
GOING ON IN UKRAINE LIKE A WAR 
WITH RUSSIA AND AMBASSADOR 
SONDLAND REPLIED THAT HE MEANT 
BIG STUFF THAT BENEFITS THE 
PRESIDENT LIKE THE BIDEN 
INVESTIGATION THAT GIULIANI WAS 
PUSHING.
SO A COUPLE OF MORE THINGS THAT 
I THINK HAVE TO BE DISCUSSED AND
THAT WAS MR. TAYLOR, AND YOU 
MENTIONED THIS.
THE INDIVIDUALS WHO TESTIFIED, 
AND BY THE WAY, I'D SAY TO MY 
FRIEND MR. COLLINS THAT YOU SAID
OH, WE DIDN'T GET ANY WITNESSES.
YOU HAD MR. CASTER.
YOU HAD YOUR -- MR. TURLEY 
TESTIFY AND THEN THE 
INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE, IF I AM 
CORRECT, HAD AT LEAST THREE 
WITNESSES THAT THE REPUBLICAN 
RASKIN AND YOU'VE BEEN A HECK OF
A DEFENSE COUNSELOR, AND IT GOT 
PRETTY MUDDY AND THE OLD SAYING 
IN LAW SCHOOL THAT I WENT TO, IF
YOU DON'T HAVE A FACT DO YOUR 
BEST TO DISSTRAKT.
>> I HAVE THE TRUTH.
>> HUH?
>> I HAVE THE TRUTH.
>> SO THE THREE WITNESSES THAT 
THE MINORITY CALLED DURING THE 
INVESTIGATIONS, AMBASSADOR 
VOLCKER, UNDERSECRETARY HALE AND
MR. MORRISON.
THREE WITNESSES AND MR. RASKIN, 
YOU SAID A NUMBER OF OTHER 
WITNESSES WERE CALLED LIKE MR. 
BOLTON AND SECRETARY POMPEO, MR.
MULVANEY, AND THE ON EYE WANT 
THE RECORD TO REFLECT THAT 
PLENTY OF WITNESSES WERE CALLED 
AND THE PRESIDENT HAS HAD THE 
OPPORTUNITY TO CALL WITNESSES.
HE AND HIS STAFF WERE INVITED TO
PARTICIPATE IN THE 
INVESTIGATION, WERE THEY NOT?
>> YES, INDEED. 
>> THEY THOSE NOT TO. 
>> WE WERE DISAPPOINTED THAT HE 
CHOSE NOT TO PARTICIPATE JUST 
LIKE WE WERE DISAPPOINTED WHEN 
HE CHOSE TO BLOCKADE WITNESSES 
FROM COMING AND REFUSED TO TURN 
OVER SUBPOENA DOCUMENTS.
>> JUST A COMMENT THAT CAME OUT 
OF TESTIMONY BY MR. THAIOR 
BECAUSE THOSE INDIVIDUALS THAT 
DID TESTIFY WERE EITHER 
DECORATED WAR HEROES, 
INDIVIDUALS WHO HAD BEEN PUBLIC 
SERVANTS WORKING IN THE 
INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY, THE 
STATE DEPARTMENT, A WHOLE RANGE 
OF THINGS OVER THE COURSE OF 
DECADES UNDER BOTH REPUBLICANS 
AND DEMOCRATS, AND MR. TAYLOR 
WAS ONE OF THOSE.
WHAT WAS HIS BACKGROUND, IF YOU 
RECALL?
>> HE WAS A VIETNAM WAR HERO AND
HAD SPENT HIS LIFE IN FIRST THE 
MILITARY SERVICE AND THEN THE 
CIVILIAN SERVICE OF THE COUNTRY,
AND I THINK HE WAS, IF I'M 
REMEMBERING CORRECTLY, HE WAS 
SCANDALIZED ABOUT THE TREATMENT 
OF AMBASSADOR YOVANOVITCH WHO 
WAS THE TARGET OF AN 
UNPRECEDENTED SMEAR CAMPAIGN BY 
PEOPLE WORKING DIRECTLY WITH THE
PRESIDENT INCLUDING RUDY 
GIULIANI.
SHE WAS SOMEBODY WHO WORKED FOR 
AMERICA AND FOUGHT FOR OUR 
FOREIGN POLICY PRIORITIES IN 
UKRAINE.
SHE DESCRIBED HERSELF AS BEING 
NON-PARTISAN.
SHE HAS A FAMILY BACKGROUND OF 
FLEEING PERSECUTION FROM 
TOTALITARIAN REGIMES AND THEY 
SET HER UP AND DESCRIBED HER AS 
TOOL OF GEORGE SOROS AND SOMEONE
ON THE SIDE OF THE CORRUPT AND 
SO ON UNTIL FINALLY THE 
PRESIDENT DECIDED TO RECALL HER 
AND BRING HER BACK.
THAT IS A SCANDALOUS CHAPTER IN 
AMERICAN HISTORY THAT THAT WAS 
ALLOWED TO HAPPEN TO ONE OF OUR 
AMBASSADORS, AND IT WAS ALL TO 
CLEAR THE WAY FOR THE SHAKEDOWN 
OF PRESIDENT ZELENSKY BECAUSE AS
MR. GIULIANI SAID TODAY, HE'S 
QUOTED IN THE PAPER TODAY, SHE 
WAS IN THE WAY OF THE PLAN TO 
GET FROM PRESIDENT ZELENSKY WHAT
THE PRESIDENT WANTED. 
>> LAST THING IN AMBASSADOR 
TAYLOR'S TESTIMONY, HE WAS 
TALKING ABOUT CONVERSATIONS WITH
AMBASSADOR SONDLAND AND IN THAT 
CONVERSATION, AMBASSADOR TAYLOR 
SAID, QUOTE, PRESIDENT TRUMP HAD
TOLD HIM, SONDLAND, HE WANTS 
PRESIDENT ZELENSKY TO STATE 
PUBLICLY THAT UKRAINE WILL 
INVESTIGATE BURISMA AND ALLEGE 
UKRAINIAN INTERFERENCE IN THE 
2016 U.S. ELECTION.
IN FACT, AMBASSADOR SONDLAND 
SAID EVERYTHING WAS DEPENDENT ON
SUCH AN ANNOUNCEMENT INCLUDING 
SECURITY ASSISTANCE.
HE SAID THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP 
WANTED PRESIDENT ZELENSKY IN A 
BOX, MAKING PUBLIC STATEMENTS 
ABOUT ORDERING SUCH AN 
INVESTIGATION.
EARLIER -- AND IF I HAD TO PICK 
ONE QUOTE FOR PEOPLE TO REMEMBER
FROM AMBASSADOR TAYLOR, IT'S 
WHEN HE SAID AS I SAID ON THE 
PHONE, I THINK IT'S CRAZY TO 
WITHHOLD SECURITY ASSISTANCE FOR
HELP WITH A POLITICAL CAMPAIGN, 
AND THAT WAS IN A TEXT MESSAGE 
THAT HE WAS ENGAGED IN, AND I 
BELIEVE THAT WAS WITH SONDLAND 
AND VOLCKER.
I THINK IT'S CRAZY TO WITHHOLD 
SECURITY ASSISTANCE FOR HELP 
WITH THE POLITICAL CAMPAIGN THAT
WAS ON SEPTEMBER 9, 2019.
>> LAST QUESTION I'D LIKE TO ASK
YOU IS CONCERNING MR. GIULIANI 
WHO YOU JUST MENTIONED.
AND IN THAT TAYLOR DEPOSITION, 
THERE IS A REFERENCE TO A NEW 
YORK TIMES REPORT CONCERNING MR.
GIULIANI'S ROLE, AND IT'S A 
REPORT FROM MAY 19, WHO SAID MR.
GIULIANI PLANS TO TRAVEL TO THE 
UKRAINIAN CAPITAL IN THE COMING 
DAYS TO MEET WITH THE PRESIDENT 
ELECT TO URGE HIM TO PURSUE 
INQUIRIES THAT ALLIES OF THE 
WHITE HOUSE CONTEND COULD YIELD 
NEW INFORMATION ABOUT TWO 
MATTERS OF INTENSE INTEREST TO 
MR. TRUMP.
ONE IS THE ORIGIN OF THE SPECIAL
COUNSEL'S INVESTIGATION INTO 
RUSSIA'S INTERFERENCE IN THE 
2016 ELECTION.
THE OTHER IS THE INVOLVEMENT OF 
FORMER VICE PRESIDENT JOE 
BIDEN'S JUNIOR SON IN THE GAS 
COMPANY OWNED BY A UKRAINIAN 
OLIGARCH.
SO THIS IS IN MAY OF 2019.
THE AMBASSADORS WERE TOLD THEY 
SHOULD WORK WITH MR. GIULIANI 
AND THEIR TESTIMONY AGAIN FROM 
THE SONDLAND DEPOSITION IS THEY 
WERE DISAPPOINTED BY THE 
PRESIDENT'S DIRECTION THAT WE 
INVOLVE MR. GIULIANI.
OUR VIEW IS THAT MEN AND WOMEN 
OF THE STATE DEPARTMENT, NOT THE
PRESIDENT'S PERSONAL LAWYER 
SHOULD TAKE RESPONSIBILITY FOR 
ALL ASPECTS OF U.S. FOREIGN 
POLICY TOWARDS UKRAINE.
DO YOU RECALL THAT TESTIMONY?
>> YES.
>> WELL, MR. SONDLAND AND I 
DON'T KNOW WHO CAME UP WITH THE 
NAME REFERRING TO THE THREE 
AMIGOS INVOLVING MR. SONDLAND, 
MR. GIULIANI AND MR. PERRY AND 
THEY COULD WORK WITH MR. 
GIULIANI.
IN WORKING WITH MR. GIULIANI 
THAT, QUOTE, ALL COMMUNICATIONS 
FLOWED THROUGH RUDY GIULIANI.
HE DETERMINED IN HIS TESTIMONY 
HE SAID THIS TURNED OUT TO BE A 
MISTAKE, BUT I DID NOT 
UNDERSTAND UNTIL MUCH LATER THAT
MR. GIULIANI'S AGENDA MIGHT HAVE
INCLUDED AN EFFORT TO PROMPT 
UKRAINIANS TO INVESTIGATE VICE 
PRESIDENT BIDEN OR HIS SON OR TO
INVOLVE UKRAINIANS DIRECTLY OR 
INDIRECTLY IN THE PRESIDENT'S 
2020 RE-ELECTION CAMPAIGN.
DO YOU RECALL THAT TESTIMONY?
>> WHOSE STATEMENT WAS THAT?
>> FROM THE SONDLAND DEPOSITION 
AT -- PAGE 16 -- 297.
>> I RECALL READING THAT, YES.
WELL, THE ARTICLES THAT THE 
JUDICIARY COMMITTEE HAS BROUGHT 
TALK ABOUT AN ABUSE OF POWER, 
TALK ABOUT BETRAYAL OF NATIONAL 
SECURITY, TALK ABOUT CORRUPTION.
ARE THESE THE KINDS OF PIECES OF
EVIDENCE THAT SUPPORT THE 
ARTICLES THAT YOUR COMMITTEE 
DRAFTED THAT YOU WOULD LIKE THE 
WHOLE HOUSE TO VOTE ON TOMORROW?
>> YES.
IT WAS A VOTE OF 23 TO 17 IN 
COMMITTEE.
THE MAJORITY FELT WE WERE 
BROUGHT TO THE INESCAPABLE 
CONCLUSION THAT THE PRESIDENT OF
THE UNITED STATES HAD ABUSED HIS
POWER IN SWEEPING AND SYSTEMATIC
WAYS FOR PERSONAL PURPOSES BY 
BRINGING A FOREIGN GOVERNMENT 
INTO OUR ELECTIONS IN ORDER TO 
ALTER OUR POLITICAL DESTINY AS A
PEOPLE, AND HE PROCEEDED TO 
OBSTRUCT JUSTICE IN ORDER TO 
COVER THAT UP.
THAT'S A PATTERN THAT WE SAW 
AGAIN FROM THE 2016 CAMPAIGN, 
AND THE PRESIDENT HAS 
DEMONSTRATED HIS UNREPENTANCE.
HE HAS DESCRIBED HIS BEHAVIOR 
PERFECT, AND ABSOLUTELY PERFECT 
AND ASSURES US THAT ARTICLE 2 OF
THE CONSTITUTION GIVES HIM THE 
POWER TO DO WHATEVER HE WANTS TO
DO SO WE HAVE A VERY CLEAR 
CHOICE AS A COUNTRY RIGHT NOW.
>> WELL, AND TO END WITH THAT, 
IN FACT, I THINK THE PRESIDENT 
ACTUALLY SAID A COUPLE OF DAYS 
BEFORE THE CONVERSATION WITH MR.
ZELENSKY THAT ARTICLE 2 OF THE 
CONSTITUTION ALLOWS HIM TO, 
QUOTE, DO WHATEVER I WANT AS 
PRESIDENT, CLOSED QUOTE.
AND I THINK THAT'S THE PROBLEM.
THAT'S THE CORE OF THE ISSUE 
THAT WE ARE IN A DEMOCRATIC 
REPUBLIC, THAT WE ARE -- HAVE A 
FRAMEWORK OF LAWS OF CHECKS AND 
BALANCES THAT LIMIT A PRESIDENT 
FROM DOING SOMETHING LIKE THAT 
OR TO ENTANGLE OTHER GOVERNMENTS
IN OUR POLITICS AND IN OUR 
DOMESTIC AFFAIRS AND THAT IS WHY
WE BROUGHT THESE ARTICLES OF 
IMPEACHMENT AND THAT'S WHY I'M 
GOING TO VOTE FOR THEM TOMORROW.
I YIELD BACK.
>> BEFORE YOU YIELD BACK BECAUSE
I'M GOING TO ANSWER THIS 
QUESTION ONE WAY OR THE OTHER 
AND I WOULD LOVE TO ANSWER IT 
WITH YOU. 
>> SURE.
>> THE TWO ISSUES AND IT'S NOT 
FOR FOREIGN SHARING AND THAT WAS
WHAT'S ALSO LISTED. 
>> SO NOW YOU ARE GOING TO HAVE 
TO SPEAK SLOWER.
I HAVEN'T INTERRUPTED YOU 
BEFORE. 
>> IT WAS MY -- WHAT I WANTED TO
MAKE SURE IS MY CLARIFICATION IN
MY ANSWER AND OUT OF RESPECT TO 
YOUR QUESTION.
THEY WERE TWO SEPARATE 
QUESTIONS.
MR. MORRISON SAID IT WAS PUT IN 
ANOTHER SERVER BY AN 
ADMINISTRATIVE MISTAKE.
ALL OF THE CONVERSATIONS THAT 
THEY HAVE WITH FOREIGN LEADERS 
ARE MARKED THE WAY THAT ONE IS 
MARKED UNLESS THE PRESIDENT 
DECLASSIFIES IT, AND THEN YOU 
HAVE THE SECRET CLASSIFICATION.
>> THAT BRINGS -- 
>> AND I APPRECIATE IT.
THANK YOU FOR CLARIFYING THAT.
IN HIS TESTIMONY MR. HOLMES ALSO
SAID THAT IT WAS UNUSUAL FOR HIM
NOT TO GET A READOUT.
I THINK THE TERM WAS READOUT OF 
THE CALL.
DOES -- DO YOU KNOW WHETHER THAT
WAS UNUSUAL OR NOT OR YOU JUST 
HAVE TO ACCEPT HIS TESTIMONY?
>> THAT WOULD BE HIS TESTIMONY 
AND IT'S NOT SOMETHING I CAN 
TALK ABOUT.
>> I WANTED TO DO IT WITH YOU 
BECAUSE I CAN DO IT IN A MINUTE 
I JUST FOUND OUT.
>> AND I THANK YOU FOR 
CLARIFYING.
NO PROBLEM, SIR.
>> I WILL YIELD TO THE 
GENTLEWOMAN FROM ARIZONA, MISS 
LESKO WHO DOES NOT ONLY HAVE THE
PRIVILEGE OF SERVING IN THIS 
COMMITTEE OR THE JUDICIARY 
COMMITTEE. 
>> I'M GOING TO DREAM 
IMPEACHMENT, ALTHOUGH TO ME IT'S
A NIGHTMARE, QUITE FRANKLY.
MR. CHAIRMAN, BEFORE I START 
ASKING QUESTIONS AND I HAVE 
SEVERAL OF THEM, SORRY MR. 
COLLINS AND MR. RASKIN, I WOULD 
LIKE TO ASK UNANIMOUS CONSENT TO
INCLUDE MY STATEMENT ON THESE 
ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT INTO THE
RECORD. 
>> WITHOUT OBJECTION.
>> AND MR. CHAIRMAN, I ALSO ASK 
TO UNANIMOUS CONSENT TO INCLUDE 
PRESIDENT TRUMP'S LETTER TO 
SPEAKER PELOSI INTO THE RECORD. 
>> WITHOUT OBJECTION AND I WAS 
GOING TO DO IT AT THE END, BUT 
YOU BEAT ME TO IT.
>> I BEAT YOU TO IT. 
>> I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT TO 
HAVE THAT A PART OF THE RECORD 
AFTER HAVING JUST READ IT.
>> ALL RIGHT.
BEFORE I -- BEFORE I GET INTO MY
QUESTIONS I THOUGHT IT WAS VERY 
INTERESTING.
I HAD STAFF LOOK UP VOTES ON 
IMPEACHMENT AND CHAIRMAN 
McGOVERN, AT THE BEGINNING, IN I
BELIEVE OPENING STATEMENT YOU 
SAID SOMETHING TO THE EFFECT 
THAT NO DEMOCRAT CONGRESSMEN OR 
WOMEN ON THE RULES COMMITTEE HAS
VOTED FOR THE ARTICLES OF 
IMPEACHMENT BEFORE.
>> YES. 
>> I THINK THAT'S WHAT YOU SAID,
RIGHT?
>> I DID.
BOY, I THINK THAT'S A LITTLE 
DISPUTABLE OR MANY A LITTLE 
MISLEADING, I'M NOT SURE, BUT I 
CAN TELL YOU I HAVE HERE THE 
FINAL VOTE RESULT FOR.
IT WAS H RESOLUTION 646 AND IT 
WAS DATED DECEMBER 6, 2017.
58 DEMOCRATS INCLUDING MANY ON 
THIS COMMITTEE VOTED TO ADVANCE 
AN ARTICLE OF IMPEACHMENT FOR 
THE HIGH CRIME OR MISDEMEANOR OF
DISSING THE NFL ANTHEM PROTEST 
AND CALLING A MEMBER OF CONGRESS
WACKY.
THIS WAS A HOUSE RESOLUTION THAT
MR. PEARL MUDDER INTRODUCED AND 
ALL NINE OF THE DEMOCRATIC 
MEMBERS ON THE RULES COMMITTEE 
VOTED TO TABLE IT WHICH MEANS 
THAT IF THIS WAS -- A -- AGAINST
TABLING IT.
LET ME CLARIFY IT, AGAINST 
TABLING IT, WHICH MEANS IF IT 
WASN'T TABLED YOU WOULD HAVE 
VOTED ON THE FLOOR ON THE HOUSE 
OF REPRESENTATIVES TO IMPEACH 
THE PRESIDENT.
>> IF THE GENTLE LADY WOULD 
YIELD FOR A CORRECTION.
THE INTENT WAS TO VOTE TO 
ADVANCE IT TO THE JUDICIARY 
COMMITTEE.
THAT IS -- THAT IS, YOU KNOW, I 
VOTED AGAINST TABLING BECAUSE I 
WANTED TO SEND IT TO THE 
JUDICIARY COMMITTEE WHICH I 
THOUGHT THAT WAS THE APPROPRIATE
WAY TO DEAL WITH IT.
I STAND BY WHAT I SAID.
NOBODY YET HAS VOTED ON AN 
ARTICLE OF IMPEACHMENT AND 
TOMORROW, ASSUMING WE GET THE 
RULE, WILL BE THE FIRST TIME 
THAT ANYBODY, DEMOCRAT OR 
REPUBLICAN, WOULD VOTE, BUT 
THANK YOU FOR CLARIFYING FOR THE
RECORD. 
>> WITH ALL DUE RESPECT I ASKED 
MY STAFF THAT BECAUSE YOU SAID 
THAT IN YOUR OPENING STATEMENT.
I SAID IS THAT ACCURATE?
THEY SAID NO, THAT WAS A 
REFERRAL.
THIS IS AN ARTICLE ON 
IMPEACHMENT ON THE FLOOR OF THE 
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES THAT IF
IT HAD NOT BEEN TABLED YOU WOULD
ACTUALLY HAVE BEEN VOTING ON THE
FLOOR OF THE HOUSE OF 
REPRESENTATIVES FOR ARTICLES OF 
IMPEACHMENT AGAINST THE 
PRESIDENT.
THE ONE THAT WAS ON DECEMBER 6, 
2017 WAS BECAUSE YOU DIDN'T LIKE
THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP SAID 
SOMETHING NEGATIVE ABOUT THE NFL
ANTHEM PROTEST AND CALLED A 
MEMBER OF CONGRESS WACKY AND ALL
NINE OF YOU -- ALL NINE OF YOU 
HERE VOTED AGAINST TABLING THAT.
>> MR. CHAIRMAN, WITH ALL DUE 
RESPECT IF I CAN INTERRUPT.
I DON'T THINK MISS SCANLON, MISS
SHALALA OR MYSELF REMEMBER THE 
HOUSE.
>> OH, OH, OH.
I WAS ON THE WRONG ONE.
I APOLOGIZE.
THANK YOU FOR POINTING THAT OUT 
TO ME.
THIS ONE WAS MR. McGOVERN, 
HASTINGS, RASKIN AND DESONLIER 
VOTED AGAINST TABLING.
THERE'S ANOTHER ONE WHERE IT'S 
ALL NINE, SO I MISSTEPPED.
>> WHAT ARE WE TALKING ABOUT, 
IMPEACHMENT?
>> YES.
IT WAS HOUSE RESOLUTION 646.
IT WAS -- THE STAFF HAS TOLD ME 
THERE WERE ARTICLES OF 
IMPEACHMENT ON THE FLOOR OF THE 
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES AND 
REPRESENTATIVE McGOVERN, 
HASTINGS, RASKIN AND DESOLNIER 
VOTED AGAINST TABLING MEANING 
THAT IF IT WASN'T TABLED YOU 
WOULD HAVE BEEN ABLE TO VOTE ON 
THE FLOOR FOR ARTICLES OF 
IMPEACHMENT AND THEN ON JANUARY 
19, 2018, HOUSE RESOLUTION 705, 
AND I HAVE THIS ONE RIGHT HERE, 
66 DEMOCRATS INCLUDING MANY ON 
THIS COMMITTEE VOTED TO ADVANCE 
IMPEACHMENT FOR THE HIGH CRIME 
OR MISDEMEANOR OF PRESIDENT 
TRUMP'S RHETORIC, AND ON THAT 
ONE, MR. McGOVERN, HASTINGS, AND
DESOLNIER ALL VOTED AGAINST 
TABLING, SO MEANING THAT IF IT 
WASN'T TABLED THERE WOULD HAVE 
BEEN A VOTE.
THEN ON THIS ONE, MORE RECENT --
>> THE GENTLE LADY WILL YIELD.
IF THERE WAS A VOTE YOU DON'T 
KNOW HOW WE WOULD HAVE VOTED ON 
IT?
I APPRECIATE IT.
AND I WOULD SIMPLY SAY WE COULD 
HAVE THIS CONVERSATION AND IT 
HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH THE 
ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT BEFORE 
US RIGHT NOW, BUT I'M HAPPY 
TO -- 
>> THANK YOU, MR. McGOVERN, BUT 
A LOT OF WHAT HAS BEEN SAID 
TODAY HASN'T HAD ANYTHING TO DO 
WITH ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT.
THIS DOES.
IT WAS PREDETERMINED THAT YOU 
WERE GOING TO IMPEACH A 
PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES 
AND YOU'RE JUST SEARCHING AROUND
FOR ANYTHING AND EVERYTHING TO 
IMPEACH HIM ON.
SO IMPEACHMENT NUMBER THREE ON 
JULY 17, 2019, HOUSE RESOLUTION 
498, 95 DEMOCRATS INCLUDING MANY
CHAIRMEN AND MANY MEMBERS OF 
THIS COMMITTEE, IN FACT, LET'S 
SEE.
I HAVE MR. McGOVERN, TORRES, 
RASKIN, SCANLON, DESOLNER ALL 
VOTED AGAINST TABLING VOTED TO 
ADVANCE IMPEACHMENT FOR THE HIGH
CRIME AND MISDEMEANOR OF 
INSULTING THE SQUAD, AND SO, MR.
COLLINS, MY QUESTION TO YOU IS 
DO YOU THINK THE FACT THAT SO 
MANY OF MY DEMOCRATIC 
COLLEAGUES, 17 OUT OF THE 
JUDICIARY MEMBERS THAT ARE 
DEMOCRATIC AND HERE A NUMBER 
VOTED TO VOTE FORWARD ARTICLES 
OF IMPEACHMENT PRAYER TO THE 
JULY 25, 1919 PHONE CALL THAT 
THE DEMOCRATS ARE USING AS THE 
CENTRAL CASE OF IMPEACHING THE 
PRESIDENT AND DO YOU THINK THAT 
UNDERMINES ON. 
>> I DO BELIEVE THAT IT'S TRUE 
AND WE'VE SEEN THIS OVER TIME.
>> MR. COLLINS, DO YOU ALSO 
THINK THAT MOVING ARTICLES OF 
IMPEACHMENT -- AGAINST THE 
PRESIDENT BECAUSE HE DISSED THE 
ANTHEM PROTEST AGAINST THE 
RHETORIC AND INSULTING THE SQUAD
KIND OF LOWERED THE BAR FOR 
IMPEACHMENT. 
>> THINK A LOT OF THIS DOES.
I THINK THIS LOWERS THE BAR FOR 
IMPEACHMENT AND IT'S SOMETHING 
THAT WE'RE HAVING TO PLOW 
THROUGH AT THIS POINT AND AGAIN,
THEY HAVE THE VOTES AND THEY'LL 
MOVE IT FORWARD.
>> THANK YOU.
MR. COLLINS, EARLIER, MUCH 
EARLIER, MR. RASKIN HAD SAID 
SOMETHING, HE WAS COMPARING HOW 
THE CLOSED-DOOR HEARINGS THAT 
ADAM SCHIFF DID WERE COMPARABLE 
TO WHAT KEN STARR DID IN THE 
CLINTON IMPEACHMENT, BUT ISN'T 
IT TRUE THAT REPUBLICANS ON THE 
JUDICIARY COMMITTEE ASKED TO 
HAVE MR. SCHIFF TESTIFY LIKE KEN
STARR DID AND THE DEMOCRATS 
REFUSED US?
>> YES.
>> THANK YOU.
AND I ALSO WANT TO -- TO -- I 
THINK YOU ALREADY ADDRESSED 
THIS, MR. COLLINS, BUT ANOTHER 
STATEMENT MR. RASKIN SAID 
EARLIER THAT THERE WAS NO 
EVIDENCE THAT TRUMP TRIED TO 
ROOT OUT CORRUPTION PRAYER TO 
JOE BIDEN BECOMING CANDIDATE OR 
SOMETHING TO THAT EFFECT, AND I 
JUST, FROM WHAT I HEARD THAT'S 
ABSOLUTELY FALSE, AND I WANTED 
TO HEAR WHAT YOU SAID.
I WAS TOLD THAT TRUMP ACTUALLY 
HAD A MEETING WITH A FORMER 
UKRAINIAN POROSHENKO CONCERNED 
ABOUT CORRUPTION IN UKRAINE 
PRIOR TO GIVING HIM AID AND ALSO
THAT TWO OF THE WITNESSES, 
DEMOCRAT WITNESSES TESTIFIED 
THAT ALL ALONG, TRUMP WAS 
CONCERNED ABOUT CORRUPTION IN 
UKRAINE.
IS THAT ACCURATE?
>> THAT WAS THE TESTIMONY OF THE
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 WE'RE 
DOING NOW, IT'S THE SAME PROCESS
THAT WAS USED IN THE CLINTON 
IMPEACHMENT, MR. COLLINS, DO YOU
AGREE WITH THAT, BECAUSE I SURE 
DON'T. 
>> 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 WE'RE DOING HERE TODAY AND 
THAT IS, FRANKLY, THE ONLY 
BIPARTISAN NATURE OF THIS 
IMPEACHMENT IS NO.
IT'S NOT BIPARTISAN IN THE SENSE
OF SEEING IT SHOULD GO FORWARD.
IT'S BIPARTISAN AND NO AND THAT 
IS THE ONLY BIPARTISAN THAT YOU 
WILL SEE.
>> MY FRIENDS ACROSS THE AISLE 
SAY THEY'RE STANDING FOR TRUE 
AND THAT'S FINE.
THAT'S THEIR ARGUMENT AND MY 
ARGUMENT IS EVERYTHING THAT 
WE'VE TALKED ABOUT SO FAR AND 
THAT'S 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 WITH AN OUTSIDE COUNSEL AND
IT WAS SAID EARLIER THAT THE 
STARR -- THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE
HANDLED THE STAR FASTER THAN 
THIS, IT'S NOT TRUE.
IT WAS LONGER THAN THIS, AND 
THERE WERE SEVERAL -- 
>> THERE WERE TWO AND A HALF 
WEEKS SET UP BEFORE THE FIRST 
IMPANELING OF SCHOLARLY 
WITNESSES AND WE NEVER HAD THAT.
WE BARELY HAD TWO AND A HALF 
WEEKS OF THE ENTIRE THING AND SO
WHEN YOU LOOK AT IT, THERE'S 
AGAIN, I HAVE ARGUED HERE TODAY 
AND I FEEL COMFORTABLE IN MY 
ARGUMENT, AND I'VE NOT BEEN 
AFRAID TO BACK AWAY FROM EITHER 
AND WE CAN GENERALLY DISAGREE 
WITH THIS, WE WOULDN'T BE HERE.
SO I THINK MOVING THIS FORWARD 
AT A LATE HOUR AND DISCUSSING 
THE FACTS THAT THIS IS, YOU 
KNOW, AN ISSUE WE HAVE, I WILL 
SAY SOMETHING THAT NEEDS 
CLARIFICATION.
AGAIN, I KNOW FROM MY DEMOCRATIC
FRIENDS IT DOES MATTER AND IT 
NEEDS TO BE ADDED TO THE RECORD 
AND IT'S BEEN BROUGHT UP WITH 
MR. MULVANEY SEVERAL TIMES ON 
HIS COMMENTS ON THAT'S THE WAY 
IT'S DONE.
GET OVER IT.
IT WAS REFERRING TO GENERAL 
CONDITIONS PLACED ON FOREIGN AID
TO ALL COUNTRIES AND HE DID 
CLARIFY HIS STATEMENT LATER.
IF WE'VE GOTTEN TO THE POINT, WE
DON'T DO THAT BECAUSE IT DOESN'T
FIT THE NARRATIVE WE WON'T DO 
THAT, AND IT'S NOT MISSPOKE AT 
SOME POINT IN THEIR LIFE.
IT'S POSSIBLY EVEN TODAY.
SO WE JUST HAVE TO LOOK AT IT 
FROM THAT PERSPECTIVE AND MOVE 
FORWARD?
>> I'VE MADE ALL OF THE POINTS 
AND I'VE SEEN THIS DONE 
DIFFERENTLY AND IT DOES CONCERN 
ME THAT THE FUTURE HAS 
PREDICATED ON THIS -- AS I -- 
AS -- LIKE I SAID, IT'S JUST A 
CONCERN THAT THE BAR IS AT A 
CERTAIN POINT NOW THAT IT IS 
ANYTHING YOU WANT IT TO MAKE.
IT'S ALWAYS BEEN A CONCERN AND 
THE FOUNDERS ARE CONCERNED ABOUT
MANY THINGS AND THEY WERE ALSO 
VERY CONCERNED ABOUT THIS BEING 
AN OVERREACH AND THE BRANCHES 
THAT IMPEACHMENT COULD BE USED 
IN A PARTISAN WAY OR IN A -- OR 
AS THE QUOTE WAS, WHOEVER HAD 
THE MOST VOTE, BASICALLY, WHO 
WAS STRONGER IN THEIR MAJORITY.
THAT'S VERY TRUE IN THE HOUSE, 
AND I THINK THAT'S WHY IT IS 
RESTING IN THE HOUSE AND WHY I 
AGREE WITH MY FRIEND ON THE 
CONSTITUTION.
IT DIDN'T REST IN THE HOUSE FOR 
THE REASON AND FOR THE SAME 
REASON TAXES AND RESONATE HERE 
BECAUSE WE'RE CLOSEST TO THE 
PEOPLE.
THIS IS NORMAL THAT IMPEACHMENT 
IS HERE AND I JUST DON'T WANT IT
TO BE THAT YOU DON'T EVEN HAVE 
TO JUMP TO CLEAR THE BAR ANYMORE
AND THAT'S THE CONCERN WITH 
IMPEACHMENT GOING FORWARD NOW. 
>> THANK YOU.
I'M GOING TO ACTUALLY TURN TO 
THE ACTUAL BILL, AND I'M ON PAGE
2 NOW UNDER ARTICLE 1, ABUSE OF 
POWER, AND I READ, THE 
CONSTITUTION PROVIDES THAT THE 
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES SHOULD 
HAVE THE SOLE POWER OF 
IMPEACHMENT AND THAT THE 
PRESIDENT SHALL BE REMOVED FROM 
OFFICE ON IMPEACHMENT FOR THE 
COMMISSION OF TREASON, BRIBERY 
OR HIGH CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS.
SO MR. COLLINS, I HAVE A 
QUESTION FOR YOU, WERE ANY OF 
THE DEMOCRATS FACT WITNESSES 
ABLE TO ESTABLISH THAT THE 
PRESIDENT COMMITTEE TREASON, 
BRIBERY OR HIGH CRIMES AND 
MISDEMEANORS.
>> NO.
NOT IN THE SENSE THAT IT WAS 
LAID OUT, AND AGAIN, AND I'VE 
MADE THIS COMMENT EARLIER AND I 
APPRECIATE THE GENTLE LADY FOR 
BRINGING THIS UP.
THEY'RE NOT DEPENDING ON A CRIME
AND THEY FREELY ADMIT, THEY'RE 
NOT DEPENDING ON A CRIME AND 
THEY'RE DEPENDING ON THE ACTS 
AND ABUSE OF POWER.
WITHIN THE REPORT ITSELF THEY 
MENTION BRIBERY AND EXTORTION 
AND THESE OTHER THINGSES AND 
THEY COULDN'T BRING IT UP TO TO 
GET THE ELEMENTS TO BE CRASS AND
CRIMINAL ABOUT IT, THEY COULDN'T
GET THE ELEMENTS THAT THEY COULD
EXPLAIN IT TO THE AMERICAN 
PEOPLE.
AT LEAST IN MY OPINION. 
>> THERE YOU, MR. COLLINS.
I'LL BE ASKING YOU SEVERAL 
QUESTIONS AND FURTHER DOWN ON 
PAGE 2.
THE DEMOCRATS ARE CLAIMING WHICH
I THINK IS INACCURATE AND USING 
THE POWERS OF HIS HIGH OFFICE 
THE UKRAINE AND THE 2020 UNITED 
STATES PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION.
MR. COLLINS, WAS THERE ANY 
MENTION OF THE 2020 ELECTION AND
THE PHONE CALL?
>> NO.
>> AND MR. COLLINS, HAS THERE 
BEEN ANY PROOF OR EVIDENCE OR 
WITNESS THAT CAN PROVE THAT MR. 
TRUMP WAS REFERRING TO THE 2020 
ELECTION. 
>> NO, AND THE ONLY TESTIMONY 
AND IT WAS NEVER TO THAT AND IT 
WAS DISCUSSING AID AND 
CONDITIONS THAT THEY TRIED TO 
PUT FORWARD.
>> AND THEN IN -- ON THE BOTTOM 
OF PAGE 2 AND TO PAGE 3, IT SAYS
THAT IT ALLEGES, I THINK A LOT 
OF THIS IS WISHFUL THINKING 
FAIRYTALE GOING ON HERE BY MY 
DEMOCRATIC COLLEAGUES.
IT SAID IT WOULD BENEFIT HIS 
RE-ELECTION AND HARM REELECTION 
PROSPECTS OF A POLITICAL 
OPPONENT AND INFLUENCE THE 2020 
UNITED STATES PRESIDENTIAL 
ELECTION TO HIS ADVANTAGE.
AGAIN, HAS THERE BEEN ANY PROOF 
OF THAT, MR. COLLINS.
>> IT DID RAISE THE QUESTION 
FROM EARLIER TODAY AND IT'S NOW 
BY RUNNING FOR PRESIDENT YOU'RE 
FREE TO DO WHATEVER YOU WANT TO 
AND NOT BE INVESTIGATED 
OVERSEAS.
>> THANK YOU.
AND THEN THE OTHER THING IS 
REPEATEDLY SAID IN THESE 
ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT IS THAT 
TRUMP HAD CORRUPT PURPOSES OR 
CORRUPT INTENT.
HAS THERE BEEN ANY PROOF FROM 
THEIR WITNESSES, FROM ANYONE 
THAT TRUMP'S INTENT OR PURPOSES 
WERE CORRUPT?
>> DEPENDING ON HOW YOU'RE 
WORDING THAT QUESTION IS NO AND 
HOW THEY WOULD PRESUME WHAT 
THEIR INTENTION WERE IN THE 
PHONE CALLS AND THOSE ARE 
PRESUMPTIONS OR BELIEFS BY 
SOMEONE ELSE AND IT GOES BACK TO
THE FACT THAT MR. SONDLAND 
HIMSELF WAS PRESUMED AND THEN HE
TALKED TO THE PRESIDENT HIMSELF 
SAID I DON'T WANT ANYTHING.
I JUST WANT HIM TO DO THE JOB 
THAT HE RAN FOR.
>> EXACTLY, AND I HAVE SAID 
BEFORE IN JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 
AND ELSEWHERE THAT THERE'S NO 
WAY THAT YOU CAN PROVE WHAT WAS 
ON TRUMP'S MIND OR THAT HE HAD 
CORRUPT INTENT BECAUSE THERE 
WERE OTHER LOGICAL EXPLANATIONS.
YES, INDEED, THERE IS BECAUSE 
THERE WAS PROOF OR THERE IS 
EVIDENCE THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP 
WAS CONCERNED ABOUT CORRUPTION 
IN UKRAINE.
HE ALSO SAID IN HIS PHONE CALL 
THAT HE WAS VERY CONCERNED THAT 
OTHER EUROPEAN COUNTRIES WEREN'T
PITCHING IN TO UKRAINE.
HE ALSO TALKED ABOUT THE VIDEO 
OF JOE BIDEN SAYING HE GOT THE 
PROSECUTOR FIRED SAYING HE WOULD
WITHHOLD $1 BILLION FROM 
UKRAINE.
SO TO ME THOSE ARE ALL LOGICAL 
EXPLANATIONS OF WHY PRESIDENT 
TRUMP WOULD WANT TO TALK ABOUT 
THAT AND NOT SOME NEFARIOUS 
REASON. 
>> AND I THINK -- 
>> AND SO -- 
>> MR. KOHL SNINS. 
>> DID YOU WANT TO ADD 
SOMETHING?
>> NO.
I APOLOGIZE.
>> LET'S SEE, THIS IS A GOOD 
ONE.
THIS GETS UNDER MY SKIN SO I 
GUESS THAT'S WHY YOU GUYS KEEP 
USING IT.
ON PAGE 3 AT THE BOTTOM, MY 
DEMOCRATIC COLLEAGUES AND 
JUDICIARY COMMITTEE AND HERE IN 
THE IMPEACHMENT, THEY KEEP ON 
SAYING THAT IT SAYS A 
DISCREDITED THEORY WE'RE TALKING
ABOUT UKRAINE NOW, A DISCREDITED
THEORY PROMOTED BY RUSSIA 
ALLEGING THAT UKRAINE, RATHER 
THAN RUSSIA, INTERFERED IN THE 
2016 ELECTION.
MR. COLLINS, DID REPUBLICANS 
ORE -- I DON'T THINK PRESIDENT 
TRUMP EVER SAID THAT, EVER SAY 
THAT RUSSIA WAS NEVER INVOLVED 
OR DID WE JUST SAY THAT IT'S 
POSSIBLE THAT BOTH COULD HAVE 
INFLUENCED THE 2016 -- I BELIEVE
RUSSIA HAS BEEN INVOLVED IN 
ELECTIONS FOR YEARS.
IT IS ONE OF THE DISTURBING 
PARTS.
IT WAS ONE ONE THINGS THAT WE 
WOULD DEAL WITH IT LEGISLATIVELY
AND I WOULD KEEP IT INTO IT 
IN-DEPTH.
TALK ABOUT THE UKRAINIANS AND 
I'LL SAY THAT INDIVIDUALS WHO 
DID SIDE WITH IT AND FIONA HILL 
WAS BETTING ON THE WRONG HORSE.
THIS GOES TO THE DISCUSSION THAT
WE HAD AND AT THIS POINT IT'S 
BECOME VERY CLEAR.
WE'VE TALKED ABOUT THIS OVER AND
OVER AND OVER.
THESE ARE THE FACTS AND WE LOOK 
AT IT.
I THINK IT WAS INTERESTING THAT 
YOU WOULD SAY THAT I HEAR THIS A
GOOD BIT THAT THESE ARE 
UNDISPUTED FACTS.
THEY ARE DISPUTED BECAUSE IF WE 
DIDN'T HAVE UNDISPUTED FACTS WE 
WOULD ALL BE AGREEING HERE AND 
THAT'S NOT TRUE.
WE DON'T AGREE ON THE BASIS, AND
THE MOTIVATION OF THE CALL.
WE DON'T BELIEVE THAT THAT'S -- 
THAT'S AN INHERENT DIFFERENCE IN
THE TWO SIDES AND WHY WE'RE 
HERE.
>> WOULD THE GENTLE LADY YIELD 
FOR A UNANIMOUS CONSENT REQUEST?
>> YES. 
>> I HAVE A NOVEMBER 8th 
POLITICAL ARTICLE THAT UKRAINE 
DIDN'T INTERFERE IN THE 2016 
CAMPAIGN AND TRUMP OFFICIALS 
TESTIFIED.
I APPRECIATE THE GENTLEMAN 
PUTTING IT IN THE RECORD AND 
THEY'VE NOT SAID UKRAINE AND I 
SAID UKRAINIANS AND THERE'S A 
DIFFERENCE AND THE UNITED STATES
AND THEY ARE AMERICANS AND 
SOMEONE IS NOT THE AMERICAN 
GOVERNMENT AND THIS IS THE POINT
THAT I'VE TRIED TO MAKE DURING 
THE REST OF THIS -- DURING THE 
HEARING TODAY.
AND IN FACT, I THINK IT WAS OP 
ED'S GUEST COLUMNS WRITTEN BY 
UKRAINIAN OFFICIALS THAT WERE 
AGAINST PRESIDENT TRUMP IF MY 
MEMORY SERVES ME CORRECTLY.
NOT TO BELABOR THIS, AND ON PAGE
4 OF THE ARTICLES OF 
IMPEACHMENT, IT CLAIMS THAT HE 
CONDITIONED TWO OFFICIAL ACTS ON
PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENTS THAT HE HAD
REQUESTED.
AGAIN, MR. COLLINS, IS THERE ANY
PROOF OF THAT?
>> NO.
THERE'S NOT.
I WENT THROUGH THIS OVER AND 
OVER.
HE HAD A PUBLIC STANCE ON 
CORRUPTION.
LIKE ALL OF US, WE HAD MEMBERS 
AND YOU WANT TO MAKE SURE HE'S 
MAKING THE STANCE AND ALSO, HE'S
GOING TO DO IT.
SAY THAT YOU CAN DO IT AND THIS 
IS AGAIN, THIS IS CONCERNED 
ABOUT THE CORRUPTION ISSUE THAT 
WE BROUGHT UP BEFORE. 
>> AND I'M JUST SAYING SO I'M 
NOT REPEATING MYSELF.
OVER AND OVER AGAIN IN HERE, AND
OPENLY AND SOLICITING UKRAINE 
FOR THE POLITICAL BENEFIT.
AS YOU KNOW, CHAIRMAN McGOVERN, 
I SERVE ON THE JUDICIARY 
COMMITTEE AND I WENT OVER 
TRANSCRIPTS.
I LISTEN TO MUCH LIVE TESTIMONY 
AS I COULD, AND I WAS REJECTED 
FOR ACTUALLY GOING INTO THE MR. 
SKIFF'S ROOM SO THAT I COULD 
CROSS EXAMINE WITNESSES WHICH 
WAS DISHEARTENING AND UNFAIR AND
THERE'S NO PROOF -- THERE'S NO 
PROOF OF THIS AND IT'S WISHFUL 
THINKING AND IT'S WHAT YOU WANT 
AND AS MR. COLLINS SAID IN THE 
NADLER REPORT, I MEAN, IT THROWS
OUT ALL KINDS OF STUFF AND IT 
TALKS ABOUT BRIBERY WHICH ISN'T 
EVEN IN THE ARTICLES OF 
IMPEACHMENT HERE, SO OBVIOUSLY, 
IT DIDN'T HAVE MUCH PROOF ON 
THAT, AND YOU JUST KEEP THROWING
OUT THESE THINGS.
ALL RIGHT.
LET'S MOVE TO ARTICLE 2, 
OBSTRUCTION OF CONGRESS.
MR. COLLINS, CAN YOU KIND OF 
EXPLAIN WHAT THE NORMAL 
PROCEDURE WHAT HAS BEEN DONE IN 
THE PAST WHEN THE LEGISLATIVE 
BRANCH WANTS SOMETHING OF THE 
EXECUTIVE BRANCH, AND WHEN MY 
UNDERSTANDING WHEN THEY FIRST 
PURSUE ACCOMMODATIONS WHEN THEY 
TALK WITH EACH OTHER TO SEE WHAT
THEY CAN COME UP WITH AND THEN 
WHEN THEY RUN INTO A ROADBLOCK 
THEN ONE OF THEM GOES TO COURT 
AND THEY GET A RULING.
IS THAT YOUR UNDERSTANDING?
AND DID THE HOUSE DEMOCRATS 
PURSUE ANY ACCOMMODATION, AND IF
THERE WAS A ROADBLOCK DID THEY 
TAKE THE TIME TO GO TO COURT OR 
DID THEY JUST MOVE FORWARD WITH 
ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT?
>> AGAIN, IT'S A WHOLE YEAR 
PROCESS, AND WHENEVER THEY WOULD
CALL THE LAST COUPLE OF MONTHS 
AND THE WITNESS WOULDN'T COME.
IN A COUPLE OF CASES THE WITNESS
ACTUALLY WENT TO COURT TO 
DETERMINE, YOU KNOW, SHOULD THEY
TESTIFY OR NOT GIVEN THE 
POSITION AND THE HOUSE MAJORITY 
WITHDREW FROM THE SUIT.
SO THEY DIDN'T WANT TO CONTINUE 
THAT PROCESS IN COURT.
HISTORICALLY, AND LOOK, IF YOU 
TAKE THE MAJORITY'S ARGUMENT ON 
FACE VALUE THAT THERE IS A TIME 
ISSUE HERE AND THERE IS AN 
ELECTION ISSUE THAT THERE IS A 
CLEAR AND PRESENT DANGER THAT 
THEY'VE SAID MANY TIMES THEN YOU
WOULD WANT TO AVOID SOMETHING 
THAT COULD DRAG THIS OUT 
FURTHER.
I GET THAT, AND THIS IS NOT 
HISTORICALLY THE WAY THIS IS 
DONE AND IT'S NOT HISTORICALLY 
THE WAY INVESTIGATIONS AND 
IMPEACHMENT HAVE BEEN DONE AND 
THOSE TOOK SEVERAL YEARS.
NIXON, CLINTON, AND THERE WERE 
INVESTIGATIONS FOR A LONG TIME 
INTO THESE THINGS AS WE GO 
ALONG.
REMEMBER THAT WE WERE TIED UP 
FOR THE FIRST HALF OF THE YEAR 
IN MUELLER AND WE GOT OUT OF 
MULER IN JULY AND WE WENT 
SEPARATE INTO THIS RIGHT AFTER 
AND THIS IS THE SITUATION WE'RE 
IN.
>> THANK YOU, MR. COLLINS, I'M 
NOW GOING TO TURN INTO WHAT I 
CALL THE NADLER REPORT WHICH WAS
KIND OF DUMPED ON US -- I DON'T 
THINK IT WAS MIDNIGHT LAST 
NIGHT.
IT WAS AFTER MIDNIGHT THE NIGHT 
BEFORE.
658 PAGES AND I WAS FRANTICALLY 
TRYING TO READ THROUGH IT WHILE 
I WAS IN DIFFERENT COMMITTEES, 
BUT MR. COLLINS, AT THE 
BEGINNING OF THIS, IT SAYS TO ME
THAT WAS LAUGHABLE, AND I HAVE 
TO ADMIT.
IT SAYS FROM START TO FINISH, 
EFFICIENCY AND FAIRNESS AND THE 
MINORITY IS PRESENT AND ABLE TO 
PARTICIPATE AT EVERY STAGE.
BOY, MR. COLLINS, DO YOU THINK 
THAT'S TRUE?
>> I THINK THEY'RE TALKING ABOUT
WHAT THEY WITNESSED AND NOT WHAT
THEY DID.
I THINK THIS IS THE INTERESTING 
PART OF THIS IS GETTING IT FROM 
OUR COMMITTEE AND BEING A 
RUBBER-STAMP FOR WHAT SOMEBODY 
ELSE DID.
GRANTED, I'M NOT GOING TO -- AND
I'VE WANT DENIED THAT WITNESSES 
DIDN'T TESTIFY IN THE 
INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE AND WE 
DIDN'T HAVE OUR TIME.
WOE HAD OUR MEMBERS ACTUALLY 
DISCUSSED AND THOSE WERE 
ACTUALLY TESTIMONIAL TIMES AND I
DO THINK IT WAS INTERESTING, AND
THIS IS THE CRAZINESS OF THIS.
I THINK IT WAS -- BUT I'M NOT 
SURE.
MR. CASTER IS A STAFF MEMBER 
BEING OUR WITNESS AND THE ONLY 
REASON MR. CASTER WAS A WITNESS 
IS BECAUSE MR. SCHIFF WOULDN'T 
TESTIFY BECAUSE MR. NUNES SHOULD
HAVE BEEN SITTING IN THAT SEAT 
AND HE WAS IN THE BEGINNING OF 
THE HEARING AND HE WAS BEHIND 
MR. CASTER.
SO I UNDER -- I DON'T AGREE WITH
IT IN ANY WAY, SHAPE OR FORM, 
BUT THE DISCUSSION THAT YOU JUST
READ IS VIEWING ANOTHER 
COMMITTEE, NOT OUR OWN BECAUSE 
ONCE IT GOT TO US AS I FOUND OUT
TODAY AND I'M HOPING IT WAS A 
MISSPEAK, AND I ASSUME FROM MY 
FRIEND THAT IT PROBABLY WAS THAT
ONLY 17 MEMBERS THAT WERE CALLED
WERE THE ONES THAT WE COULD HAVE
CALLED AND I ASSUME IT WAS A 
MISSPEAK AND YOU'RE INTERESTING 
WHEN DEALING WITH SUCH MAGNITUDE
AS AN IMPEACHMENT THAT YOU ALLOW
THE CHAIRMAN OF THE COMMITTEE TO
DETERMINE THEIR RELEVANCE, WHEN 
NO IDEA AND NOT EVEN A QUESTION 
COULD THIS PROVIDE EXCULPATORY 
THAT WOULD GO FURTHER IN THIS 
PROCESS AND JUST SAY THOSE 
WITNESSES ARE NOT RELEVANT, AND 
REALLY WHAT -- I NEVER HAD TO 
GET A LETTER FROM CHAIRMAN 
NADLER ABOUT THAT, BECAUSE I 
BEING SEE THE TIMING OF IT.
>> I'VE BEEN AROUND THIS GAME 
LONG ENOUGH.
YOU HAVE TO NOTICE HEARINGS AND 
THE WAY WE WERE NOTICING 
HEARINGS, WAS THEREN'T ENOUGH 
TIME TO NOTICE A NEW HEARING TO 
HAVE TO ADD WITNESS DAY AND YOU 
DIDN'T HAVE THE TIME BECAUSE I 
YOU S.T.A.R.T. NOTICING HEARINGS
AND YOU CAN LOOK, BUT THEY'RE 
NOT GOING TO GET WITNESSES.
IT DIDN'T MATTER BECAUSE THEY 
HAD THE TIME AND THIS FWS INTO 
THE GENERAL CONCERN I HAVE ABOUT
WHERE DID WE GO IN THIS BODY, IN
THIS HOUSE COME JANUARY 1 
BECAUSE IT WAS LONG GONE FROM US
TOMORROW AND WHERE ARE WE GOING 
TO BE ON JANUARY 1?
WE ALL HAVE TO WORK TOGETHER.
WE ALL HAVE TO LOOK FORWARD AND 
WHO SITS IN THESE SEATS AFTER 
THIS TIME AND THAT'S A GENERAL 
CONCERN THAT A LOT OF US HAVE 
AND THE MAJORITY WILL GET WHAT 
THEY WANT AND THAT'S FINE, BUT 
IS THAT IN LONG TERM BENEFIT, 
AND ALSO THE LONG-TERM BENEFIT 
OF THIS BODY?
I WOULD HAVE TO SAY NO.
>> AND THANK YOU.
MR. CHAIRMAN, I'M GOING TO CLOSE
WITH SOMETHING THAT I HAVE SAID 
BEFORE IN JUDICIARY COMMITTEE, 
AND AT THE RISK OF REPEATING IT,
IT'S AN OLDIE BUT A GOODIE, IN 
MY OPINION.
IT'S ACTUALLY CHAIRMAN NADLER'S 
OWN WORDS.
AND I WANT TO REPEAT.
SO DURING AN INTERVIEW ON 
MSNBC'S "MORNING JOE" ON 
NOVEMBER 26, 2018, SO NOT THAT 
LONG AGO, CHAIRMAN NADLER 
OUTLINED A THREE-PRONGED TEST 
THAT SAID WOULD ALLOW FOR A 
LEGITIMATE IMPEACHMENT 
PROCEEDING.
NOW, AND I QUOTE, THERE ARE 
REALLY THREE QUESTIONS, I THINK.
FIRST, HAS THE PRESIDENT 
COMMITTED IMPEACHABLE OFFENSES?
I BELIEVE THE ANSWER IS NO, AND 
THERE HAS BEEN NO PROOF.
SECOND, DO THESE OFFENSES RISE 
TO THE GRAVITY THAT'S WORTH 
PUTTING THE COUNTRY THROUGH THE 
DRAMA OF IMPEACHMENT?
AGAIN, I WOULD SAY NO BECAUSE 
THERE HAS BEEN NO EVIDENCE OF 
ANY CRIME COMMITTED OR NO 
EVIDENCE PUT FORWARD, THEY WERE 
NOT ABLE TO ESTABLISH TREASON, 
BRIBERY OR ANY HIGH CRIMES OR 
MISDEMEANORS AND THREE, BECAUSE 
YOU DON'T WANT TO TEAR THE 
COUNTRY APART.
YOU DON'T WANT HALF OF THE 
COUNTRY TO SAY TO THE OTHER HALF
FOR THE NEXT 30 YEARS WE WON THE
ELECTION.
YOU STOLE IT FROM US.
YOU HAVE TO BE ABLE TO THINK AT 
THE BEGINNING OF THE IMPEACHMENT
PROCESS THAT THE EVIDENCE IS SO 
CLEAR OF OFFENSES SO GRAVE THAT 
ONCE YOU'VE LAID OUT ALL THE 
EVIDENCE, A GOOD FRACTION OF THE
OPPOSITION, VOTERS WILL 
RELUCTANTLY ADMIT TO THEMSELVES 
THEY HAD TO DO IT, OTHERWISE, 
YOU HAVE A PARTISAN IMPEACHMENT 
WHICH WILL TEAR THE COUNTRY 
APART.
IF YOU MEET THOSE THREE TESTS 
THEN I THINK YOU DO THE 
IMPEACHMENT.
WELL, ON ALL THREE COUNTS I 
DON'T THINK MR. NADLER HAS MET 
HIS TASK AND ESPECIALLY IN THE 
LAST ONE, EVEN IF YOU CONTEST 
THE OTHER ONES THIS HAS BEEN A 
PARTISAN IMPEACHMENT, NOT ONE 
REPUBLICAN VOTED TO MOVE FORWARD
WITH HOUSE RESOLUTION 660 TO 
MOVE FORWARD WITH THE INQUIRY.
NOT ONE REPUBLICAN IN JUDICIARY 
COMMITTEE VOTED FOR THE ARTICLES
OF IMPEACHMENT.
I SUSPECT NOT ONE REPUBLICAN 
WILL VOTE TO MOVE THIS FORWARD 
IN RULES TONIGHT, AND I SUSPECT 
THAT NOT ONE REPUBLICAN WILL 
VOTE FOR THESE ARTICLES OF 
IMPEACHMENT ON THE FLOOR OF THE 
UNITED STATES HOUSE OF 
REPRESENTATIVES AND MR. CHAIRMAN
AND MEMBERS, THIS IS TEARING THE
COUNTRY APART.
AND WITH THAT, I YIELD BACK.
?
THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
I'M KIND OF A STICKLER FOR 
DETAILS AND ACCURACY IN TERMS OF
SOME OF THE THINGS THAT HAVE 
BEEN SAID HERE BECAUSE THESE 
HEARINGS ARE GOING TO BE 
ENSHRINED IN, YOU KNOW, IN 
OUR -- IN OUR FILES AND THEY'LL 
BE THERE FOREVER.
I WANT TO GO BACK TO SOMETHING 
THE GENTLEWOMAN SAID ABOUT THE 
VOTES ON IMPEACHMENT.
I REPEAT, NOBODY -- NOBODY, 
DEMOCRAT OR REPUBLICAN HAS HAD 
AN OPPORTUNITY TO VOTE ON 
ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT AND 
CONTRARY TO WHAT HAS BEEN SAID, 
VOTING TO NOT TABLE DOESN'T MEAN
YOU GET AN AUTOMATIC VOTE ON THE
IMPEACHMENT.
I'LL GIVE YOU AN EXAMPLE, ON 
NOVEMBER 2007 THE HOUSE VOTED TO
IMPEACH VICE PRESIDENT CHENEY 
AND THEN MOVED TO ADOPT A MOTION
TO REFER THE RESOLUTION TO THE 
JUDICIARY COMMITTEE AND THAT'S 
WHAT MOST OF US HAD IN MIND.
SO I CAN'T SAY EVERYBODY, BUT I 
CAN SAY THAT IT IS JUST 
INACCURATE TO SAY THAT PEOPLE 
WOULD HAVE AUTOMATICALLY VOTED 
FOR IMPEACHMENT OR VOTING OUT 
THE TABLE WOULD MEAN AN 
AUTOMATIC VOTE ON IMPEACHMENT.
I JUST THINK IT'S IMPORTANT FOR 
THE RECORD TO BE CLEAR AND 
HAVING SAID THAT, IT HAS 
NOTHING -- ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO
DO WITH WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT
HERE TODAY AND I APPRECIATE THE 
FACT THAT THE GENTLEWOMAN IS NOT
PHASED BY THE OVERWHELMING 
EVIDENCE AND THE PRESIDENT'S 
BEHAVIOR, BUT SOME OF US 
GENUINELY ARE, AND MANY OF OUR 
CONSTITUENTS ARE, AND I THINK 
THAT IS WHAT COMPELS US TO BE 
HERE TODAY.
AND WITH THAT, I WANT TO YIELD 
TO THE -- 
>> MY NAME WAS INVOKED ON. 
>> MISS TORRES?
>> YES.
SO IN REFERENCE TO THE SQUAD, 
I'M NOT SURE WHY MEMBERS AND THE
PRESIDENT CONTINUE TO PICK ON 
THEM THE WAY THEY DO, NOT THAT I
NEED TO DEFEND ANY OF THEM 
BECAUSE I THINK THEY DO A GREAT 
JOB DEFENDING THEMSELVES, BUT I 
BELIEVE THAT THE TWEET THAT 
CAUSED THAT RESOLUTION FROM THE 
PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES 
ACTUALLY STATES GO BACK TO THE 
COUNTRIES WHERE YOU CAME FROM 
REFERRING TO AMERICAN CITIZEN 
MEMBERS OF CONGRESS.
IF THAT'S NOT DESPICABLE RACISM 
THAT WILL CONTINUE TO BE 
TOLERATED BY SOME MEMBERS OF OUR
CAUCUS I DON'T KNOW WHAT IS, AND
I YIELD BACK. 
>> I APPRECIATE THAT.
THE CONCERN THAT WE HAVE IS THE 
BAR HAS BEEN LOWERED.
MISS SCANLON?
>> THANK YOU.
MR. RASKIN, I SAW YOU SITTING UP
IN YOUR SEAT OVER A COUPLE OF 
QUESTIONS SO I JUST WANTED TO 
ASK IF YOU'D CARE TO COMMENT ON 
THE QUESTION ABOUT WHETHER THE 
CONDUCT ALLEGED IN THE ARTICLES 
IS NOT JUST A CONSTITUTIONAL 
CRIME, BUT ALSO A STATUTORY 
CRIME THAT COULD BE CRIMINALLY 
PROSECUTED?
>> YES, OF COURSE.
THERE ARE A WHOLE SERIES OF 
CRIMES IN THE MIDDLE OF THE 
DIAGRAM WHICH ARE BOTH HIGH 
CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS AND ALSO
POSSIBLY STATUTORY CRIMES, BUT 
IT HAS NEVER BEEN THE 
UNDERSTANDING OF ANY CONGRESS, 
WHETHER IT WAS THE CONGRESS, THE
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES THAT 
IMPEACHED BILL CLINTON OR THE 
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES THAT 
BROUGHT ARTICLES AGAINST RICHARD
NIXON OR BACK TO ANDREW JOHNSON 
AND YOU NEED TO PROVE A 
STATUTORY DEFENSE, AND YOU CAN 
UNDERSTAND HOW NONSENSICAL THAT 
IS BECAUSE IT'S IMPOSSIBLE TO 
SQUARE WITH THE OTHER ARGUMENT 
WE'VE HEARD SO LONG FROM OUR 
COLLEAGUES WHICH IS THAT THE 
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE MAY NOT, 
UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES, 
PROSECUTE, TRY OR CONVICT A 
PRESIDENT WHILE HE'S IN OFFICE 
WHATEVER THE MERITS OF THAT 
PROPOSITION AND I DO BELIEVE 
THEY DESERVE GREATER SCRUTINY.
WHATEVER THE PER ID, THE 
PRESIDENT CANNOT BE PROSECUTED 
BECAUSE HE CAN IMPEACH AND THEN 
WHEN THERE'S AN IMPEACHMENT 
INVESTIGATION THEN IT IS BEING 
SAID YOU MUST FIRST PROVE THAT 
HE'S COMMITTED A CRIME.
IT JUST DOESN'T MAKE ANY SENSE.
IT'S A GAME OF THREE-CARD MONTY.
ALL OF IT SUPPORT THE 
PRESIDENT'S OWN CLAIM THAT HE IS
BASICALLY ABOVE THE LAW.
HE SAYS THAT UNDER THE 
CONSTITUTION HE CAN DO WHATEVER 
HE WANTS AND SO I THINK THAT ALL
OF US SHOULD BE AWARE OF ALL 
TIME OF MAKING ARGUMENTS THAT 
PUT THE PRESIDENT IN A DIFFERENT
KIND OF BOX, A BOX THAT IS ABOVE
THE CONSTITUTION AND ABOVE THE 
PEOPLE.
THAT'S GOING TO BE REALLY 
DANGEROUS FOR US.
>> OKAY.
I ALSO WONDERED IF YOU COULD 
ADDRESS THE FACT -- IT STRUCK ME
THAT WITH RESPECT TO THIS CALL 
WITH THE PRESIDENT OF THE 
UKRAINE THAT OCCURRED ON JULY 
25th THAT WE DIDN'T HEAR ANY 
RATIONALE AND NO WITNESS HAS 
TESTIFIED THAT THERE WAS ANY 
LEGITIMATE AND RATIONALE UNTIL 
AFTER THE WHISTLE-BLOWER BLEW 
THE WHISTLE ON THAT CALL AND 
THERE WERE NO CONTEMPORANEOUS 
CONVERSATIONS.
COULD YOU ADDRESS THAT POINT?
>> MISS SCANLON, YOU ARE 
ABSOLUTELY RIGHT.
ALL OF THESE ARE AFTER THE FACT 
CONCOCTIONS AND RATIONALIZATIONS
THAT DON'T SQUARE WITH ANY OF 
THE EVIDENCE THAT WE HAVE ON THE
RECORD AND WHEN I SAY EVIDENCE 
I'M TALKING ABOUT THE EVIDENCE 
THAT IS ACTUAL -- THAT HAS 
ACTUALLY BEEN SUBMITTED TO 
CONGRESS THROUGH PEOPLE'S SWORN 
TESTIMONY.
I'M NOT TALKING ABOUT THE KIND 
OF STUFF THAT PEOPLE JUST PUT ON
SOCIAL MEDIA OR A TWEET.
I'M TALKING ABOUT REAL EVIDENCE.
SO WHAT DO WE KNOW?
>> IF THE PRESIDENT WAS 
CONCERNED ABOUT CONTINUING 
CORRUPTION IN UKRAINE, WHY DID 
HE CUT ANTI-CORRUPTION FUNDING 
TO UKRAINE IN HALF IF HE WAS 
CONCERNED ABOUT FIGHTING 
CORRUPTION IN UKRAINE, WHY DID 
HE RECALL THE U.S. AMBASSADOR TO
UKRAINE WHO WAS THE LEAD 
CHAMPION OF THE ANTI-CORRUPTION 
EFFORT THERE AND WHY DID HE 
RECALL UNDER CIRCUMSTANCES WHERE
HE WAS UNDER ATTACK BY PEOPLE 
WHO WERE WORKING WITH THE RETRO 
GRADE CORRUPT FORCES IN UKRAINE 
AS PART OF THE SMEAR CAMPAIGN.
THAT'S A REALLY SERIOUS PROBL
WHEN YOU THINK ABOUT IT.
IN ANY EVENT, CONGRESS PASSED 
THE AID TO GO TO THE REFORMER 
PRESIDENT, THE ANTI-CORRUPTION 
PRESIDENT AND PRESIDENT 
ZELENSKY.
WE ATTACHED STRIFRJENCE 
ANTI-CORRUPTION CRITERIA WHICH 
WAS SATISFIED ACCORDING TO 
PRESIDENT TRUMP'S OWN DEPARTMENT
OF DEFENSE AND THE MONEY WAS ON 
HIS WAY AND THEN HE HELD IT UP 
BECAUSE EVERYONE KNOWS WHY HE 
HELD IT UP.
HE HELD IT UP BECAUSE HE WANTED 
THESE STATEMENTS AND THESE 
ANNOUNCEMENTS FROM PRESIDENT 
ZELENSKY THAT HAD TO DO WITH JOE
BIDEN AND TRYING TO OVERTHROW 
OUR INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY'S 
UNDERSTANDING THAT IT WAS RUSSIA
THAT INTERFERED IN OUR 
PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGN IN 2016, 
INSTEAD REPLACING UKRAINE.
WELL, THAT AGAIN IS NONSENSICAL,
BUT NONE OF THAT APPEARS ON THE 
RECORD ANYWHERE.
WE ASKED LOTS OF WITNESSES AND 
THEY ALSO SAID, F THE PRESIDENT 
WAS CONCERNED ABOUT BURDEN 
SHARING AND THE EUROPEAN 
COUNTRIES HAVE GIVEN BILLIONS OF
DOLLARS TO UKRAINE, $12 BILLION 
TO UKRAINE.
HOW INSULTING IS THAT FOR US TO 
GO AROUND SAYING AS A WAY TO 
JUSTIFY THAT OUR PRESIDENT'S 
BEHAVIOR, OH, THEY WEREN'T DOING
ENOUGH FOR UKRAINE?
THE EU MEMBER COUNTRIES PUT UP 
$12 BILLION AND I'M PROUD OF THE
MORE THAN BILLION DOLLARS THAT 
WE PUT IN OVER THE LAST FEW 
YEARS, BUT THAT'S NOT AS MUCH AS
THE EU MEMBER COUNTRIES 
COLLECTIVELY PUT IN, SO WE'D 
RATHER PICK A FIGHT WITH OUR OWN
DEMOCRATIC ALLIES AND SAY 
THEY'RE NOT DOING ENOUGH EACH 
THOUGH AMBASSADOR AMBASSADOR 
SONDLAND TESTIFIED WHEN WE ASKED
HIM, DID THE PRESIDENT EVER SAY 
TO YOU, GO TO THE EU MEMBER 
COUNTRIES AND TELL THEM THEY 
NEED TO INCREASE THEIR FUNDING?
NO.
NEVER HAPPENED.
THERE'S NO RECORD OF THE 
PRESIDENT DOING ANYTHING TO TRY 
TO GET THEM TO PUT MORE MONEY 
IN.
IT'S AN AFTER THE FACT 
RATIONALIZATION.
IT'S A PRETEXT AND BENEATH THE 
DIGNITY OF THIS FOR US TO KEEP 
SPREADING THIS AS SOME KIND OF 
PLAUSIBLE RATIONALE FOR THE 
PRESIDENT'S BEHAVIOR.
IF YOU DON'T THINK IT'S A BIG 
DEAL FOR THE PRESIDENT OF THE 
UNITED STATES TO SHAKE DOWN 
FOREIGN GOVERNMENTS AND PRESSURE
THEM TO GET INVOLVED IN THE 
CAMPAIGNS, JUST TELL US SO AND 
DON'T MAKE UP THE FAIRYTALE 
EXPLANATIONS FOR WHAT'S GOING 
ON.
>> CONTRARY TO THESE AFTER THE 
FACT RATIONALIZATIONS AND WE 
HAVE CONTEMPORANEOUS WITNESSES 
LIKE AMBASSADOR SONDLAND AND 
OTHERS THAT SAID NO, IT WAS 
CLEAR THAT WHAT WAS IMPORTANT TO
THE PRESIDENT WAS GETTING THIS 
PERSONAL POLITICAL FAVOR?
>> I MEAN, THE PRESIDENT HIMSELF
SAID WHEN ASKED IN PUBLIC WHAT 
WOULD HE HAVE THE UKRAINIANS DO,
HE BASIC LEAD THE SAME THING.
THIS STUFF IS PGS IN PLAIN 
SIGHT.
WE HAVE A VERY HEAVY DECISION TO
MAKE ABOUT WHAT TO DO WITH THE 
PRESIDENT WHO ENLISTED AND 
RECRUITS FOREIGN GOVERNMENTS TO 
GET INVOLVED IN OUR ELECTIONS.
IS THAT WHAT DEMOCRACY IS GOING 
TO BE LIKE FOR THE REST OF THE 
21st CENTURY?
IS THAT WHAT IT'S GOING TO BE 
LIKE FOR OUR CHILDREN AND 
GRANDCHILDREN AND 
GREAT-GRANDCHILDREN?
WE HAVE TO DECIDE THAT.
DR. FIONA HILL SAID IN HER 
TESTIMONY, RUSSIA CAN'T BEAT US 
MILITARILY.
RUSSIA CAN'T BEAT US 
INTELLECTUALLY AND THEY HAVE 
INTERVENTIONS IN ELECTIONS 
AROUND THE WORLD.
SHE SAID SHE THINKS OF RUSSIA AS
THE WORLD'S LARGEST SUPER PAC, 
RIGHT?
AND ARE WE GOING TO BE ALLOWING 
THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED 
STATES TO BE WORKING WITH 
VLADIMIR PUTIN'S SUPER PAC FOR 
THE TYRANTS AND THE DESPOTS AND 
THE PEOPLE WHO ARE TRYING TO 
INTERFERE WITH THE GROWTH AND 
THE SPREAD OF DEMOCRAT SEE 
AROUND THE WORLD?
I HOPE NOT.
I WANTED TO SPEND A COUPLE OF 
MINUTES LOOKING AT THE 
FUNDAMENTAL QUESTION HERE BEFORE
US WHICH IS SHOULD THESE 
ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT MOVE 
FORWARD AND MR. COLLINS, I 
UNDERSTAND FROM THE DISSENTING 
VIEWS FROM THE MINORITY THAT I 
THINK IT'S TOO VAGUE TO CHARGE 
WITH ABUSE OF POWER HERE AND I 
ALSO UNDERSTAND THAT YOU ACCEPT 
THAT ABUSE OF POWER CAN FORM THE
BASIS FOR AN IMPEACHMENT, 
CORRECT?
>> YES.
>> BUT MY UNDERSTANDING IS YOU 
NEED MORE CONCRETE FACTS AND I 
WOULD LIKE TO EXPLORE FOR A 
MINUTE WHAT CONCRETE FACTS COULD
GET YOU, IF ANY, COULD GET YOU 
OVER THAT BAR?
SO IF A PRESIDENT WERE TO SEND 
OUR TROOPS TO WAR IN EXCHANGE 
FOR A PERSONAL CASH PAYMENT THAT
WOULD BE IMPEACHABLE, WOULDN'T 
IT?
>> I THINK WHAT WE'RE GOING TO 
GO DOWN A ROAD HERE OF 
HYPOTHETICALS THAT FRANKLY, I'M 
JUST NOT GOING TO PLAY WITH.
THERE WILL BE THINGS -- 
>> I'M RECLAIMING MY TIME. 
>> THAT WAS A HYPOTHETICAL THAT 
THE FRAMERS OF THE CONSTITUTION 
LOOKED AT -- 
>> SURE.
>> THAT THE EXECUTIVE.
CAN INTERFERE WITH THAT.
YES.
WHEN THE FRAMERS WERE LOOK AT 
WHAT KINDS OF OFFENSES SHOULD BE
IMPEACHABLE DIDN'T THEY LOOK TO 
THE EXAMPLE OF AN EXECUTIVE THAT
WAS PAID OFF BY A FOREIGN 
COUNTRY?
>> ABSOLUTELY.
FIRST OF ALL, ALL FOUR 
WITNESSES, THE THREE CALLED BY 
THE MAJORITY AND PROFESSOR 
TURLEY FROM GW WHO WAS THE 
MINORITY WITNESS, ALL OF THEM 
SAID THAT ABUSE POWER IS AN 
IMPEACHABLE OFFENSE.
IN OTHER WORDS, WE HAD UNANIMOUS
AGREEMENT AMONG OUR ACADEMIC 
SCHOLARS THAT ABUSE OF POWER IS 
AN IMPEACHABLE OFFENSE AND 
NOTHING VAGUE OR NEP LOUSE ABOUT
IT AND ABUSE OF POWER MEANT 
SOMETHING WITH THE FRAMERS AND 
WE HAVE
WRESTLE WITH THE FACTS, IT'S
OUR JOB. THEY ALL SAID. THAT
WHEN THEY CANVASSED ALL OF THE
RECORDS OF CONSTITUTION
CONVENTION, IN THE RATIFYING
CONVENTIONS, AND THE FEDERALIST
PAPERS, AND ANYONE CAN RETRACE
THEIR STEPS, BECAUSE WE GOT A
USE THIS EPISODE AS A CIVICS
LESSON FOR AMERICA, WHEN YOU
RETRACE IT YOU, FIND THAT THERE
WERE THREE KIND OF THINGS ON
THEIR. MINE ONE WAS A PRESIDENT
THAT TRIES TO CORRUPT OUR
ELECTIONS. TOO WAS A PRESIDENT
THAT MAKES DEALS WITH FOREIGN
POWERS IN ORDER TO ALTER THE
COURSE OF OUR POLITICAL
DESTINY. IN OTHER WORDS TAKING
THE CHOICE FROM WE THE PEOPLE,
AND GIVING IT TO FOREIGN DESPOT
SPIES, AND PEOPLE WITH NOT
WITHOUT OUR BEST INTERESTS AT
HEART. AND THE THIRD THING, WAS
THE PRESIDENT ELEVATING HIS OWN
PERSONAL FINANCIAL AND
POLITICAL INTERESTS, OVER THE
COMMON GOOD, AND I REALLY WANNA
AND FULL-SIZE THAT POINT,
BECAUSE THE FRAMERS WANTED THE
PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES
TO HAVE COMPLETE AND UNDIVIDED
LOYALTY TO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE.
AND NOT FOREIGN POWERS, AND NOT
HIS OR HER OWN FINANCIAL PLANS.
AND CERTAINLY NOT ELEVATING HIS
OR OWN ELECTORAL AMBITIONS OVER
THE RULE OF LAW. SO THAT HE
COULD BE ABLE TO CORRUPT
ELECTION JUST TO BE REELECTED.
IS THERE ANYBODY WHO REALLY
SHOULD BE ABOVE JUSTICE? AND
ESPECIALLY THE PERSON WHO
HIMSELF HAS THE MORAL MEANS OF
INJUSTICE, SO WE HAVE MORE TO
FEAR FROM THE PRESIDENT,
BECAUSE OF HIS AWESOME POWERS,
HOW CAN WE SAY THAT HE SHOULD
BE BEYOND THE --? IT
>> THAT'S ONE OF THE THINGS
THAT I FOUND VERY INTERESTING
AS I'VE GONE THROUGH THIS,
LISTENING TO THE EXPERTS. I DID
WANT TO ASK UNANIMOUS CONSENT,
I'M NOT SURE WHICH ONE WHICH
LETTER MR. PERLMAN INTRODUCED.
BUT WE DO HAVE A LETTER THAT
HAS 500 LEGAL SCHOLARS THAT
SIGNED ON, SAYING THAT THERE IS
GROUNDS FOR IMPEACHMENT IN OUR
CURRENT FACTS SITUATION. AND
OVER FIVE 700 HISTORIANS, WHO
HAVE SIGNED A SEPARATE LETTER.
BUT SO I WANTED TO EXPLORE A
LITTLE BIT, AND I'M SORRY IF
MR. COLLINS DOESN'T WANT TO DO
THIS, MAYBE HE CAN CONSIDER
ANOTHER QUESTION, I'M TRYING TO,
FIND DO WE HAVE ANY COMMON
GROUND HERE? WITH RESPECT TO
WHAT MIGHT BE IMPEACHABLE, IF
THE PRESIDENT ORDERED THE
GOVERNMENT TO WITHHOLD PAYMENT
FROM A CONTRACTOR BUILDING THAT
WALL IN THE SOUTHERN BORDER
UNLESS THE CONTRACTOR -- WOULD
NOT BE ACCUSED ABUSE OF POWER?
>> IF YOU WANT TO TALK ABOUT
THE ISSUE AT HAND, I'LL BE
HAPPY TO BUT I THINK WERE WAY
PAST WHAT THE RULES COMMITTEE
DETERMINED. I THINK WITH ALL
DUE RESPECT, WE'RE JUST GETTING
INTO THE FLOOR, AND I'LL
DISCUSS AS I HAVE THE CAT THE
FACTS OF THIS CASE, WHICH WE
BOTH DISAGREE GREATLY, I DON'T,
I'M NOT JUST GOING TO CHASE
WHAT IS IMPEACHABLE EVENT? I
WISH THE MAJORITY WOULD'VE DONE
THAT A LONG TIME AGO.
>> RECLAIMING MY TIME. I THINK
THE MINORITIES REPORT SAYS YOU
DON'T THINK THE ABUSE OF POWER
ALLEGATION IS CONCRETE, ENOUGH
SO I'M TRYING TO FIGURE OUT,
WHAT IF ANYTHING, IS CONCRETE?
WHAT IF THE FACTS SHOWED THAT
THE PRESIDENT HAD ORDERED OUR
GOVERNMENT TO HOLD FOREIGN AID
TO ISRAEL? UNLESS THE PRIME
MINISTER OF ISRAEL PAID OFF FOR
A PRESIDENT? WOULD NOT BE
ENOUGH?
>> THE GENTLELADY IS VERY GOOD,
BUT I WILL CONTINUE TO SAY THAT
IF THE GENTLELADY CONTINUE TO
REPORT, YOU ARE RELYING OUT A
HYPOTHETICAL, A THEORETICAL,
WHICH IS FINE, BUT WITH ALL DUE
RESPECT I'M NOT GOING TO
PARTICIPATE IN. IT
>> WOULD THE GENTLEMAN AGREE
THAT IF THE HOME PRESIDENT
ABUSED HIS OFFICE OR OFFICE BY,
IF WE COULD AGREE THAT THE
PRESIDENT HAVE SOUGHT THIS
FAVOR FOR, PERSONAL POLITICAL
REASONS, RATHER THAN THESE,
AFTER THE FACT, EXPLANATIONS
THAT HE SOUGHT, WOULD THAT BE
IMPEACHABLE, IF WE AGREED UPON
THE INTENT?
>> A, GRAND FOR THE LAST ROUND,
OF THIS IF YOU ALLEGED CRIMES,
IF YOU ALLEGED ACTUAL THINGS,
INSTEAD OF SAYING IN AMORPHOUS
ABUSE OF POWER, WHICH WE
LISTENED IN OUR REPORT, NONE OF
THOSE SPECIFICS, YOU'VE
PROPAGATED YOUR REPORT WITH ALL
THESE OTHER THINGS. THERE ARE
OTHER WAYS THAT YOU CAN BUILD,
IT ON THE GENTLELADY KNOWS MY
-- AND I'VE NEVER NOT DENY.
THAT WHAT I'M NOT GOING TO DO,
AND NOT BECAUSE I DON'T FINDING
CONVINCING, OR RELATIVE TO THIS
HEARING, OF GETTING RULES TO
PUT THIS ON THE FLOOR TOMORROW,
IS WHAT OUR REPORTS ACTUALLY
SAY. YOU CAN GO BACK TO THE IT
NIXON IMPEACHMENT THERE WERE
ABUSE OF POWER. IN THIS, HOW
MR. RASKIN CAN NEST SUCCESS AT
LENGTH IN THIS DISCUSSION, I
WILL BE BACK TO WHAT I FIND
HERE IS NOT AN ABUSE OF POWER I
SAID THIS AMAZING OCCASIONS AND,
TO ENGAGE IN HYPOTHETICALS TO
MAKE THIS ABUSE OF POWER LOOK
BETTER AND I APPRECIATE THE
GENTLELADY.
>> MR. RASKIN, YOU HAD?
SOMETHING
>> NIXON WAS CHARGED IN THE
ABUSE OF POWER ARTICLE WITH
CONDUCTING A BREAK IN OTHERS
POLITICAL OPPONENTS AND
CAMPAIGN HEADQUARTERS.
PRESIDENT TRUMP IS BEING
CHARGED WITH CONDUCTING A
BREAK-IN OF AMERICAN DEMOCRACY
IN ORDER TO HARM HIS POLITICAL
OPPONENT. THE TWO CRIMES HAVE
THE ADDITIONAL FACTOR AS YOU
POINTED OUT OF DRAGGING A
FOREIGN GOVERNMENT INTO THE
EQUATION AND EXTRAS THAT THE
FRAMERS CLEARED BUT BOTH OF
THESE ARE ABUSE OF POWER AND
THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
DIDN'T SAY OH, YOU'VE GOT TO
DEMONSTRATE THAT THERE IS
BURGLARY IN COLUMBIA BEFORE YOU
TAKE IT UP AS AN ABUSE OF
POWER. SO, IT IS TRUE THAT OUR
ABUSE OF POWER CLAIM HAS SOME
OVERLAPPING ELEMENTS OF BRIBERY
AS WHICH WAS DISCUSSED IN THE
REPORT WITH THE SERVICES FRAUD
AGAINST THE PEOPLE PERHAPS AN
EXTORTION AND MANY OTHER CRIMES
AND ALL OF THIS CAN BE
PROSECUTED ON TO THE
CONSTITUTION LATER BUT THAT'S
AND CONTROL OF OUR
CONSTITUTIONAL RESPONSIBILITY
AND HIGH CRIMES, MISDEMEANORS
AGAINST PEOPLE IN THE MEANTIME.
>> MR. COLLINS -- PUT I'M JUST
CURIOUS, YOU HAVE THE PRESENCE
OF PRESIDENT NIXON WHO WAS
ACCUSED OF ABUSE OF POWER
BECAUSE HE ORDERED THE FBI TO
INVESTIGATE HIS POLITICAL
OPPONENTS TO GET DIRT ON THEM.
DO YOU THINK THAT WAS
IMPEACHABLE?
>> AGAIN, I WILL COMMENT ON THE
PHONE CALL AND I'LL TALK ABOUT
WHAT MR. TURLEY SAID. LET'S BE
CLEAR AND CONVINCING AND
COMPREHENSIVE. THIS IS NOT AS
CONTESTED. THE MAJORITY HAS NOT
ACCEPTED THE EVIDENCE HERE.
WHEN YOU LOOK AT IT FROM MY
PERSPECTIVE THAT'S BEEN LAID
OUT IN MY REPORT AND GOES BACK
TO THE FACT THAT I WILL SIT
HERE WITH THE FACTS IN DISPUTE
AND IT'S NOT AN ABUSE OF POWER.
>> MR. COLLINS? I'M TRYING TO
FIND OUT WHAT IF ANYTHING YOU
WILL CONSIDER IMPEACHABLE? WE
HAVEN'T SEEN THAT YET. YOU
WON'T EVEN CONCEIVE WHAT IS
PRESENT FROM THE NIXON
SITUATION. HERE WE HAVE A
SITUATION AND I'M ASKING IF THE
FACTS WERE TO SHOW THAT THE
PRESIDENT WOULD HAVE HELD FOR
NEED FROM A DIFFERENT COUNTRY
AND DONE A POLITICAL FAVOR, NOT
FOR MATTERS OF NATIONAL
SECURITY, WOULD THAT BE
IMPEACHABLE? YOU DON'T SEEM TO
BE ABLE TO ANSWER THAT
QUESTION.
>> I'M JUST NOT GOING TO FOLLOW
YOUR PATH BECAUSE -- YOU AND I
BOTH HAVE ORDERS ON PAPER
TOMORROW AND IT'S THIS CASE AND
IT'S NOT -- BECAUSE I DON'T
THINK YOU'VE MADE THIS CASE AND
THAT'S WHY I'M PUSHING BACK AND
WILL CONTINUE TO REAPPLY AND
PUSH BACK ON MUCH GOING TO
THROW BECAUSE YOU HAVE NOT
MAJOR CASE.
>> WITH ALL DUE RESPECT MR.
COLLINS. THE HOUSE IS NOT THE
FINDER OF FACT. THE TRIAL IS
FOR THE SENATE AND WERE TALKING
ABOUT WHETHER THERE'S ENOUGH
EVIDENCE TO PICK UP THE CASE.
>> I DISAGREE THAT THERE IS
NOT.
>> ONE OTHER THING I WANTED TO
PUSH BACK ON WHAT IS THIS IDEA
THAT SOMEHOW THIS IMPEACHMENT
PROCESS IS SOME KIND OF RADICAL
LEFT PLOT OF SOME SORT. I DO
HAVE TO THANK OUR COLLEAGUES ON
THE OTHER SIDE FOR THAT THERE
SOCCER MOM CARPOOL DRIVING PGA
RUNNING THE APPLE FESTIVAL AT
THE CHURCH MOM IS SOME KIND OF
RADICAL BUT I WANT TO MAKE IT
CLEAR FOR THE RECORD AT THE
ONLY RADICAL VIEW I MEAN
BRAISING IS THE IDEA THAT WE
THE PEOPLE, SHOULD BE GOVERNED
BY A CONSTITUTION THAT DIVIDES
OF POWERS BETWEEN THREE COEQUAL
BRANCHES AND ESTABLISHES CHECKS
AND BALANCES ON THE PRESIDENT.
DESPITE THE RHETORIC THAT
SOMEHOW THIS IS A COMPLETELY
PARTISAN EXERCISE. MY FAITH IN
THESE CORE CONSTITUTIONAL
PRINCIPLES IS THAT I BELIEVE
IT'S STILL A SHARED AMERICAN
VALUE THAT UNITES DEMOCRATS,
INDEPENDENTS, CONSERVATIVES,
LIBERTARIANS. I THINK THERE IS
A GROWING CONSENSUS EVEN AMONG
REPUBLICANS WHO SPEAK OFF THE
RECORD OR ARE NOT DEPENDENT ON
THE PRESIDENT AND I'D LIKE TO
POINT TO A COUPLE OF EXAMPLES
AND THIS WEEKEND TOM RIDGE, THE
FORMER REPUBLICAN OF MY HOME
STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA THE FIRST
HOMELAND SECRETARY OF THE
UNITED STATES AND A MEMBER OF
CONGRESS AND VIETNAM THAT THAT
HE BELIEVED THE PRESIDENT'S
CONDUCT WAS AN ABUSE OF POWER
TO ASK A FOREIGN LEADER FOR A
POLITICAL FAVOR. OUR FORMER
COLLEAGUE MR. DENT FROM
PENNSYLVANIA SAID HE HAS SPOKEN
WITH REPUBLICANS WHO ARE
DISGUSTED AND EXHAUSTED BY THE
PRESIDENT'S BEHAVIOR. ANOTHER
FORMER REPORTER REPUBLICAN
COLLEAGUE OF OURS SAID WE
WITNESSED AN IMPEACHABLE MOMENT,
FORMER RICK CUP REPUBLICAN
CONGRESSMAN SAID RECENTLY,
CLEARLY THERE WAS SOME KIND OF
QUID PRO QUO, AND WHEN ASKED IF
HE BELIEVE IT THE TESTIMONY, HE
SAID I DO. FORMER SOUTH
CAROLINA CONGRESSMAN BOB
WINGLESS WHICH SERVED DURING
THE CLINTON CLINTON IMPEACHMENT
SAID WITHOUT A DOUBT, IF BARACK
OBAMA HAD DONE THE THINGS
REVEALED IN THE CURRENT INQUIRY,
WE REPUBLICANS ONE OF
IMPEACHED. AND WHILE I'M AS IT
AND I, DON'T WANT MY COLLEAGUES
TO HAVE A STROKE, JOE
SCARBOROUGH, WHO IS A FORMER
REPUBLICAN CONGRESSMAN, SAID
EVERY REPUBLICAN KNOWS HE WAS
ASKING FOR DIRT ON JOE BIDEN.
THESE ARE JUST A FEW OF THE
FOLKS THAT CAME OUT HERE.
>> WELL YOU YIELD JUST ONE
MOMENT, SO I CAN ADD ONE?
WILLIAM WEBSTER. THE ONLY
PERSON THAT HAS BEEN THE FBI
AND CIA DIRECTOR, SAID THE
SAME.
>> H 95. AND WITH THAT I WOULD
YIELD BACK TO MR. RASKIN.
>> I JUST WANNA SAY, NOTHING
STRIKES ME AS MORE CONSERVATIVE,
THAN WANT TO CONSERVE THE
CONSTITUTION, AND THE BILL OF
RIGHTS,. AND THE POLITICAL
ORDER THAT HAS BEEN QUEST TO US
BY THE FRAMERS. AND THE
CONSERVATIVE TRADITION IS A
GREAT TRADITION, IN AMERICA,
LIKE THE LIBERAL TRADITION, AT
THE HEART OF THE LIBERAL IS
LIBERTY. AND LIBERALS HAVE
EVERY REASON TO STAND BY THE
THE CONSTITUTION, JUST LIKE
PROGRESSIVES, PEOPLE TO LOOK
FOR PROGRESS, THEY HAVE REASONS
TO RALLY AROUND THE
CONSTITUTION. WE ARE NOT ONE
PARTY, WERE NOT ONE BELIEF
SYSTEM, WHERE NOT ONE RACE, ONE
ETHNICITY, BUT WE HAVE ONE
CONSTITUTION. IN OUR COUNTRY WE
GOT A CLING, REALLY CLOSELY TO
OUR CONSTITUTION. AND I KNOW
THAT WE ARE ALL GOING TO AGREE,
IN THE END, BUT I THINK THAT IF
WE ARE ALL CONSTITUTIONAL
PATRIOTS, WILL BE A ABLE TO SEE
OUR WAY THROUGH OUR DARKNESS
THIS DARK MOMENT.
>> OKAY, ALL THESE THAT YOU
JUST MENTIONED THE, REPUBLICANS
THE GREAT GUYS. HE'S A GOOD
GUY. JUST ONE DIFFERENCE. THEY
DON'T WEAR PANTS. CURRENTLY IN
THIS CONGRESS, THEY ARE NOT
VOTING ON THESE ARTICLES. I
WOULD HAVE TO ASSUME, IN MY
POSITION THAT IF THEY DID, WE
CAN ALWAYS DISAGREE. BUT
THEY'RE NOT. AND I THINK THAT
FROM A CONSTITUTIONAL
PERSPECTIVE, AND I APPRECIATE
IT, I WILL SAY THIS. I'M
LOOKING AT FACTS, ARE LOOKING
AT FACTS, WE DISAGREE. AND I
THINK AT THE END OF THE DAY,
IT'S THE WAY IT'S CARDI B. I
DON'T MEAN TO PROLONG THAT, AND
FROM THAT PERSPECTIVE I HOPE
THAT, -- I DON'T FIGHT LUST FOR
THE CONSTITUTION THAN MR.
RASKIN HERE, I'LL NEVER BACK
OUT. I'M NOT SAYING THAT NOT
FIGHTING THIS, AND THEN THE
CASE OF MY VOTERS AND THE
AMERICAN. PEOPLE TO FRAME THIS
IN ANYTHING ELSE IS JUST --
HEAR THE FACTS, LET'S DEAL WITH
THE FACTS AND WILL GO FROM
THERE. I YIELD BACK.
>> I HAVE ONE THING TO, A FINE
STATEMENT FROM MR. COHEN, FOR
THOSE THAT DON'T KNOW WEARING,
A PIN MEANS, YOU GOT TO WEAR A
PIN IN ORDER TO GET INTO THE
BUILDINGS, BECAUSE THERE'S SO
MANY OF US. THERE IS 435, SOME
OF US ARE FAMOUS HERE, MR.
COLLINS IS FAMOUS THEY'LL LET
HIM IN. BUT THE REST OF US --
WE GOT A WHERE ARE PINS IN
ORDER TO GET IN. BUT I DO WANT
TO PUSH BACK AND LEFT A GUESS
THE IDEA THAT THIS CONVERSATION
IS ONLY FOUR PEOPLE WEARING.
PINS I THINK THAT AMERICANS
GOTTA THINK ABOUT THIS, IN A
REALLY PROFOUND WAY. THE
FRAMERS OF THE CONSTITUTION
WERE TRYING TO DECIDE WHETHER
IMPEACHMENT SHOULD BE LOCATED
IN THE SUPREME COURT, AND TREAT
IT AS A MATTER OF LAW, AND
LEGAL INJECTION, OR WHETHER IT
SHOULD BE WITH CONGRESS. AND
THE PEOPLES REPRESENTATIVES.
AND THEY THOUGHT IT WAS SO
IMPORTANT AND SO FUNDAMENTAL
THAT IT HAD TO BE WITH THE
PEOPLE. WHERE THEY KNOW OR
POLITICIANS, THEY KNOW WHERE
GOT OF THE STUFF GOING. ON WERE
FIGHTING IN OUR CAUCUS TO LOWER
PRESCRIPTION DRUGS, TO A PASTY
YOU KNOW VERSATILE CRIMINAL
BACKGROUND CHECK, MY COLLEAGUES
HAVE AN AGENDA, WE HAVE AN
AGENDA. WE GOT TO DEAL WITH ALL
THAT AND THINK ABOUT
IMPEACHMENT. AND WHAT ELSE TO
REPRESENTATIVES HAVE TO? DO WE
GOTTA INTERACT WITH OUR
CONSTITUENTS. WHEN PEOPLE SAY
TO, ME YOU DON'T WANT TO TALK
TO THE PUBLIC ABOUT IT WE JUST
WANTED -- I DON'T THINK THAT'S.
RIGHT I THINK THIS IS A
NATIONAL DIALOG, THAT WERE
ENGAGED IN, IT'S ABOUT THE
DESTINY, THAT THE FUTURE OF OUR
WHOLE COUNTRY. OUR WHOLE PHONE
FORM OF GOVERNMENT. I'M GLAD
THAT YOU RAISE THIS, I'M GLAD
THAT WE HEAR FROM CONSERVATIVES
ALL THE TIME, ON HARSH SIDE I'M
SURE, ON THE LIBERAL SIDE --
THAT'S THE WAY THAT IT SHOULD,
BE WE GOTTA NOT BE BOUND BY
WHAT THESE LABELS ARE ALL
ABOUT. OUR GREATEST POLITICAL
LEADERS HAVE UNDERSTOOD THAT
WERE IN PARTISAN COMPETITION IN
THE ELECTION. THOMAS JEFFERSON
UNDERSTOOD HE WAS A BRAWLER HE
KNEW HE WAS SAVVY, WHEN HE GOT
ELECTED IN THE 1800S HE SAID
THAT WERE ALL REPUBLICS
REPUBLICANS, WERE ALL
FEDERALISTS. GEORGE WASHINGTON
ALSO THE WORLD PART OF THE WORD
PARTY COMES FROM THE WORLD,
PARTY IN PART. WE GOTTA LOOK
FOR THE WHOLE. BARRACK OBAMA
SAID, THIS IS NOT THE RED
STATES OF AMERICA, OR THE BLUE
STATES, THIS IS THE UNITED
STATES OF AMERICA. SO WHEN WE
GET ELECTED WE GO TO THINK
ABOUT THE GOOD OF EVERYONE. AND
I KNOW THAT EVERYONE IN THIS
ROOM COMES IN THAT SPIRIT, AND
IS TRYING TO SPEAK TO THE WHOLE
COUNTRY, AND NOT JUST TO A
NARROW BASE.
>> THANK YOU MISTER RASKIN, I
CAN NEVER MATCH YOU ON THE
HISTORICAL REFERENCES BUT I DO
WANT TO CLOSE BY NOTING
FRANKLIN'S RESPONSE TO A
CONSISTENT WHEN HE SAID WHEN HE
AND FELL LOW FRAMERS CAME OUT
OF INDEPENDENCE HALL AND THEY
ASKED WHAT KIND OF GOVERNMENT
WHAT THEY PRODUCE? A REPUBLIC
OF YOU CAN KEEP IT. (INAUDIBLE)
(TECHNICAL PROBLEM) I YIELD
BACK. (INAUDIBLE)
>> I WILL USE IT WISELY, I
PROMISE. THANK YOU MISTER
HASTINGS. I WANT TO THANK BOTH
MR. RASKIN AND MR. COLLINS FOR
INJURING A LONG DAY AND FOR ALL
THE HARD WORK YOU'VE PUT IN.
JUST SOME OBSERVATIONS AND SOME
QUESTIONS IF I MIGHT. WHEN THE
AMERICAN FOUNDERS GATHERED FOR
THE SECOND INSTITUTION
CONVENTION MORE THAN YEARS AGO
THEY LAY DOWN MORE THAN LAWS
AND PROCEDURES BUT FATHER
VALUES THAT WOULD LEAD THIS
YOUNG. NATION GEORGE WASHINGTON
ASKED WHETHER WE SHOULD HAVE A
GOVERNMENT OF RESPONSIBILITY ON
WHETHER OUR VALUES ARE SECURE
TO US, OR SHOULD WE SUBMIT TO
ONE THAT ARE THE RESULTS OF
CHANCE OR THE MOMENT BY SOME OF
ASPIRING DEMAGOGUE THAT MIGHT
NOT HAVE THE INTEREST OF HIS
COUNTRIES RATHER HIS VIEWS.
THEY FOUND TOURISTS DID NOT
TAKE THE MATTER OF IMPEACHMENT
LIGHTLY. AS DESCRIBED IN
THOUGHTFUL BUT DEBATE OVER THE
FRAMERS OVER THE POWER TO
REMOVE A PRESIDENT AND THE
CONDITIONS OUT WARRANT SUCH
CONDITION. IT WAS TO ROOT
RESERVED FOR ONLY TREES TREASON
AND BRIBERY. AND THEY ADDED
HIGH CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS,
MEANING NOT JUST SERIOUS CRIMES
AGAINST AN INDIVIDUAL, BUT IT
BORROWS FROM 14TH CENTURY
ENGLISH LAWS, THOSE CRIMES
INSTEAD COMMITTED AGAINST THE
STATE INSTEAD. OR IN THIS CASE,
THE VERY NATION THE PRESIDENT
IS SWORN TO PROTECT. AND OUR
FOUNDERS FEARED TWO THINGS THAT
YOU TOUCHED UPON THIS EARLIER,
MR. RASKIN. TWO THINGS ABOVE
OTHERS, THE OVERREACH OF
EXECUTIVE BRANCH POWERS BUT WHY
THEY CALL THE CHIEF MAGISTRATE
OF THE PRESIDENT, AND THE
INTERFERENCE OF FOREIGN POWERS
THAT AT THE TIME GREAT BRITAIN
AND FRANCE CAME TO MIND, BUT
THE INTERFERENCE OF FOREIGN
POWERS IN OUR FOREIGN AFFAIRS.
AND BOTH THEY FEARED WOULD
UNDERMINE THE FOUNDATION OF OUR
DEMOCRACY, THEY FEAR THOSE
FEARS OF GIVEN RISE OF THE VERY
REVOLUTION, THE AMERICAN
COLONIES SOUGHT INDEPENDENCE
FROM THE FIRST PLACE. THAT'S
EXACTLY WHY IMPEACHMENT EXISTS
AT ALL. THE LAST TIME THIS
IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY A -- BRING
ANSWERS TO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE
TO THOSE ALLEGATIONS. SINCE
THAT TIME MORE THAN A MONTH,
AGO WE'VE HEARD MEMBERS OF THE
JUDICIAL CAN COMMITMENT, WE
THANK YOU BECAUSE, WE'VE HEARD
PUBLICLY FROM MANY KEY
WITNESSES THAT ILLUMINATED THE
ALARMING PATTERN OF BEHAVIOR
THAT THE PRESIDENT HAS ENGAGED
IN. AND THESE ARE NOT PARTISAN
ACTORS BUT CAREER DIPLOMATS,
EXPERIENCED INTELLIGENCE
OFFICERS AND DEDICATED PUBLIC
SERVANTS. ONE OF THE PROTEST
THINGS FOR ME WAS TO OBSERVE
THOSE PEOPLE TESTIFYING, AND
GIVING AS PEOPLE DEDICATED TO
THE COUNTRY, PATRIOTS WHO,
SPOKE OUT NOT AS PARTISANS BUT
WHO PEOPLE THAT LOVE THIS
COUNTRY. LIEUTENANT LIEUTENANT
COLONEL VINDMAN DESCRIBED THE
SUBVERSION OF AMERICAS
SUBVERSION OF A MERE OF
UKRAINIAN. DOCTOR HILL
TESTIFIED THE BACK CHANNELS OF
OUTSIDE OF OUR USUAL SECURE AND
DIPLOMATIC POLICY, THAT SOUGHT
TO ACQUIRE I'M A MEETING BY THE
PRESIDENT.
 AT THE BEHEST OF THE PRESIDENT
CLEARED ON CERTAIN TERMS THAT
THIS WAS A CLEAR QUID PRO QUO.
THESE ANOTHER BRAVE AMERICANS
GAVE TESTIMONY NOT AS PARTISAN
DEMOCRATS BUT AS EXPERTS IN THE
FIELD AND THAT THIS PROCESS HAS
NOT BEEN ON POLITICS BUT ONE OF
DUTY. WE HAVE BEEN COMMITTED TO
A PROCESS WITH ONLY GOALS OF
DISCOVERING THE TRUTH AND
PROTECTING THE AMERICAN PUBLIC.
WHICH IS WHY I'M SO TROUBLED
THAT MEMBERS OF THE TRUMP
ADMINISTRATION REPEATEDLY
REFUSED TO TESTIFY AND TO DEFY
TRANSPARENCY. DESPITE THIS, WE
HAVE A CLEAR PICTURE BETWEEN
THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED
STATES AND THE GOVERNMENT OF
UKRAINE. REGRETTABLY, I AM
CONVINCED THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP
HAS ABUSE THE POWER OF HIS
PUBLIC OFFICE AND LEVERAGE A
FOREIGN GOVERNMENT FOR BENEFIT
AND OBSTRUCTED THE
CONGRESSIONAL OVERSIGHT. IN THE
END, IT COMES DOWN AS WHAT YOU
MENTIONED MR. RASKIN, TO ONE
SIMPLE QUESTION POSED BY GEORGE
MISSION. SHALL ANY MAN BE ABOVE
JUSTICE AND THE ADS ARE MUST
UNEQUIVOCALLY BE NO. IT'S A
MOMENT IN OUR NATION'S HISTORY
AND NOT A RICHEST
IRRESPONSIBILITY BUT A
OBLIGATION TO PROTECT THE
REPUBLIC FOR WHY WE MUST UPHOLD
THE DUTY BY TAKING THESE
ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT THAT I
HOPE THOSE ON BOTH SIDES CAN
PROSPER IN THE FUTURE OF OUR
COUNTRY THAT IT HINGES ON WHAT
WE SAY TODAY AND WE CAN
ADVOCATE OUR RESPONSIBILITY BY
CHOOSING TO IGNORE THE UNLAWFUL
ACTIONS OF THE PRESIDENT AND
HAVE A CENTURIES OF PROGRESS.
I'M BLESSED WITH THREE
BEAUTIFUL GRANDCHILDREN AND ONE
ON THE WAY. WHEN I TALK TO THEM
ABOUT RIGHT AND WRONG I WANT TO
BE ABLE TO LOOK THEM IN THE EYE
AND TELL THEM THAT I'VE ALWAYS
DONE MY BEST TO WITHHOLD WHAT
IS GOOD AND WHAT IS FAIR. IF
THAT MEANS CASTING A LOW TO
HOLD ACCOUNTABLE THE PRESIDENT
OF THE HIGHEST OFFICE IN THE
LAND. WHEN THE PRESIDENT WAS
BLATANTLY AND ABUSED HIS OFFICE
AND JEOPARDIZE OUR NATIONAL
SECURITY AND PUT HIS OWN
POLITICAL FAVOR AHEAD OF OUR
NATIONAL INTEREST AND FOR THE
STEAK OF OUR CHILDREN, OUR
GRANDCHILDREN AND I URGE MY
COLLEAGUES TO DO THE SAME. WITH
THAT I WOULD LIKE IF I MAY, TO
POSE A FEW QUESTIONS AND PART
OF IT INVOLVES AROUND THE
UNCLASSIFIED TRANSCRIPT OF THE
PHONE CALL. THE ARGUMENT MADE
BY THE PRESIDENT AND THIS
ADMINISTRATION ON THE JULY 25TH
CALL WAS INTENDED TO DEAL WITH
WIDESPREAD CORRUPTION IN THE
UKRAINE. THAT IS HOW I
UNDERSTAND THE ARGUMENT, IS
THAT CORRECTION -- IS THAT
CORRECT MR. RASKIN?
>> WHOSE ARGUMENT?
>> THE PRESIDENT AND THE WHITE
HOUSE. THERE ARE ARGUMENTS AND
THE PUSHBACK WAS TO COMBAT THE
GENERAL CORRUPTION IN ANY WAY
DESCRIBED IN THE ACTUAL
TRANSCRIPT. THAT'S THE ARGUMENT?
>> IT'S IMPOSSIBLE FOR ME TO
TAKE IT SERIOUSLY AND HAVE
RESEARCHED ALL OF THIS IN THE
CONTEXT. I THINK THERE IS SOME
HALFHEARTED EFFORT.
>> WHAT'S INTERESTING, WHEN YOU
READ THE TRANSCRIPT IS THAT MR.
LIEU'S ANKLE WAS THE PROSECUTOR
AND WHO TRUMP WAS REFERRING TO
I PREFER TO PRESIDENT ZELENSKY
WHO WAS VERY GOOD AND WAS SHUT
DOWN AND THAT WAS REALLY UNFAIR
AND PEOPLE WERE TALKING ABOUT
THAT HOW THEY SHUT DOWN A VERY
GOOD PROSECUTOR AND YOU HAD
SOME VERY BAD PEOPLE AND THIS
IS MR. YURIY LUTSENKO THAT HE'S
REFERRING TO.
>> NO IT IS NOT..
>> IT'S NOT ENTIRELY CLEAR
THEN.
>> IT'S NOT MENTIONED AT ALL
BUT MR. LUTSENKO IS VIEWED TO
BE CORRUPT HIMSELF. THAT'S PART
OF WHAT HAD HAPPENED WITH
PRESIDENT ZELENSKY WHO WAS THE
REMOVAL OF LUTSENKO ANOTHER
PROSECUTORS BROUGHT UP BY THE
WORLD COMMUNITY.
>> THAT IS CORRECT. THERE WAS A
HISTORY AND ZELENSKY WAS
ELECTED AS A REFORMER SO YES.
>> IN FACT. DURING THE CALL, IT
SEEMS TO ME THAT I WANT TO SAY
THAT THE TWO PRESIDENTS WERE
TALKING PAST ONE ANOTHER BUT ON
ONE HAND, PRESIDENT TRUMP TO
SEEM TO BE ARGUING FOR
RETAINING THE PROSECUTORS WHO
WERE DEEMED BY THE WORLD
GENERALLY TO BE CORRUPT AND PRO
RUSSIAN. YET, PRESIDENT
ZELENSKY IS TALKING ABOUT
BRINGING IN NEW AND CAPABLE
PEOPLE. IS IT NOW HOW I READ
THE TRANSCRIPT? OR SHOULD I NOT
READ IT THAT WAY?
>> WHO'S TALKING?
>> TALKING PAST EACH OTHER? THE
PRESIDENT IS ARGUING FOR THE
STATUS QUO THAT WAS DEEMED TO
BE --
>> THE WAY I READ IT IS
PRESIDENT ZELENSKY IS WALKING A
TIGHTROPE AS A REFORMER AND IS
TAKING ON THE EVE CORRECT
FORCES IN SOCIETY. BUT IS
PRESENTED ESSENTIALLY WITH
ANOTHER CORRUPT SCHEME. THAT IS
WHAT SO HEARTBREAKING ABOUT
THIS AS DESCRIBED TO US BY
DOCTOR FIONA HILL. AND
AMBASSADOR YOVANOVITCH. THIS
WAS A MOMENT WHERE THEY WERE
TRYING TO MOVE FORWARD FROM ALL
THE CORRUPTION. I THINK IT WAS
GEORGE KENT WHO SAID, WE TRY TO
TEACH THE OTHER COUNTRIES NOT
TO ENGAGE POLITICALLY AND BASED
PROSECUTIONS. NOT TO HAVE A
SITUATION WHERE SOMEONE GETS
INTO OFFICE AND DECIDE TO
PROSECUTE THEIR OPPONENTS. WE
GO AFTER SOMEONE WHO IS
CONSIDERED A POLITICAL THREAT
TO THE PRESIDENT AND HERE WE
WERE, THE MOST POWERFUL COUNTRY
IN THE WORLD WHO WAS DEPENDING
ON AND WE WERE IMPOSING THAT
SCENARIO ON THEM.
>> I DO KNOW THAT DESPITE
SUGGESTIONS TO THE CONTRARY,
THE ONLY REAL REFERENCE HERE TO
THIS ARGUMENT AND AS IT SAYS
THE PRESIDENT WOULD LIKE TO
FIND OUT WHAT HAPPENED WITH
THIS WHOLE SITUATION AND THEY
SAY CROWDSTRIKE AND ONE OF YOUR
WEALTHY PEOPLE AND THE SERVER
THEY SAY UKRAINE HAS IT.
UNFORTUNATELY, IT'S
UNINTELLIGENT -- UNINTELLIGIBLE
TO UNDERSTAND WHAT HE'S TALKING
ABOUT BUT IS THERE IS NO POINT
A SUGGESTION THAT HE IS KNOWN
MORE BROADLY ABOUT CORRUPTION.
I WANT TO FOCUS IF I CAN A FEW
MINUTES ON THE ROLE OF RUDY
GIULIANI IN OFFICE. HE'S WELL
KNOWN TO NEW YORKERS. MY NOTE
THAT AMBASSADOR TAYLOR IN HIS
TESTIMONY SAID THAT HE HAD
SUSPICIONS BEFORE TAKING THE
JOB AND SAID IN PART CAN ANYONE
HOPE TO SUCCEED GIULIANI AND
THE BIDEN ISSUE SWIRLING. WHAT
WAS YOUR SENSE OF WHAT HE MEANT
BY THAT IN HIS TESTIMONY?
AMBASSADOR TAYLOR SAID THAT HE
HAD SUSPICIONS BEFORE TAKING
THE JOB AND CAN ANYONE HOPE TO
SUCCEED WHAT THE GIULIANI AND
BIDEN ISSUE SWORD AND CAN YOU
EXPAND FURTHER ON THAT? CAN HE
SHARE THAT WITH US?
>> THE GENERAL CONCERN WAS THAT
NOBODY KNEW IN WHAT CAPACITY
RUDY GIULIANI WAS OPERATING. I
THINK THAT'S A DILEMMA AND A
CONFUSION THAT EXISTS IS VERY
DAY. SOMETIMES HE'S ACTING IN
BUSINESS FROM SOFT AND
SOMETIMES IS ACTING AS THE
PRESIDENT'S LAWYER. SOMETIMES
HE'S ACTING AS LAWYERS FOR
OTHER PEOPLE AND SOMETIMES HE'S
ACTING ON ERRANDS FROM FOREIGN
GOVERNMENT OR DOING WORK WITH
FOREIGN GOVERNMENTS. THERE IS
AN INTERESTING ANALYST OF
CORRUPTION TODAY IN SARA CHASE
WHO'S WRITTEN A LOT ABOUT
CORRUPTION WHERE SHE LIVED AND
YOU HAVE TO UNDERSTAND
CORRUPTION TODAY CROSSES
DIFFERENT DOMAINS. SOME OF IT
IS THE GOVERNMENT SECTOR, SOME
OF IT IS THE PRIVATE SECTOR,
SOME OF IT IS THE UNDERWORLD
AND YOU HAVE CERTAIN PLAYERS
WHO ACROSS ALL OF THESE
BOUNDARIES AND UNIFY THEM IN
DIFFERENT WAYS. I THINK THAT
PEOPLE UNDERSTOOD THAT RUDY
GIULIANI HAD THE EAR THE
PRESIDENT. HE SEEMED TO BE
AUTHORIZED BY THE PRESIDENT TO
GO ON THIS DOMESTIC POLITICAL
WAY TO MAKE THIS HAPPEN AND HE
HAD AN ENTRÉE INTO THE HIGHEST
LEVELS OF THE U.S. GOVERNMENT
AND SEEMED TO BE WORKING WITH A
LOT OF THE GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS
INVOLVED THERE. THAT'S WHY
PRESIDENT TRUMP KEPT TELLING
PEOPLE, GO TALK TO RUDY.
>> DID YOU HEAR -- IN THE
COMMITTEE ANY EVIDENCE OR
UNCOVERED THAT THE WHITE HOUSE
LACKED CONFIDENCE IN THE STATE
DEPARTMENT AND THE DIPLOMATIC
CORPS OR THE DEPARTMENT OF
JUSTICE TO COMMUNICATE WITH
UKRAINE. AND THE NEED FOR A
BROAD TECH AND CORRUPTION IN
GENERAL?
>> I MISSED THE BEGINNING OF
YOUR QUESTION.
>> DID YOU UNCOVER ANY EVIDENCE
OR TESTIMONY THAT SUGGESTS THE
WHITE HOUSE LACKED CONFIDENCE
IN THE STATE DEPARTMENT OR THE
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE? OR THE
DIPLOMATIC COURT TO COMMUNICATE
THAT THE PRESIDENT'S DESIRE TO
HAVE CORRUPTION IN GENERAL?
>> THERE'S A PREMISE THERE
WHICH IS THE PRESIDENT HAD A
GENERAL INTEREST IN CORRUPTION
IN UKRAINE. WE SAW LITTLE OR NO
EVIDENCE OF THAT AT ALL.
REMEMBER, THERE ARE HUNDREDS
THAT GO TO UKRAINE UNDER THE
PRIOR CORRUPT PRESIDENT WITHOUT
A PEEP BEING MENTIONED ABOUT
IT. AND THERE WAS DURING
ZELENSKY'S RISE, WHERE THE
PRESIDENT GOT INTERESTED, BUT
THAT HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH
ZELENSKY. IT WAS BECAUSE JOE
BIDEN WAS RUNNING FOR PRESIDENT,
AND HE WAS GO LOOKING FOR A
HOOK, SAYING GO AFTER JOE
BIDEN. AND THIS WAS THE PATH OF
THE PLAN THAT HE DECIDED ON,
AND HE SAYS WAS SINGLE-MINDED
ABOUT THE WHOLE, THING AND HE
BROUGHT A WHOLE LOT OF PEOPLE
TOGETHER. I'M TRYING TO GIVE
HIM EVERY OPPORTUNITY TO MAKE A
CASE, YOU HAVE TO COME TO THE
CONCLUSION THAT HE SOMEHOW
LACKED CONFIDENCE IN THE NORMAL
DIPLOMATIC CHANNELS, OTHERWISE
WHY WHEN HE TURNED TO RUDY
GIULIANI? TO CONDUCT A SUMMIT
INVESTIGATION?
>> THAT'S A GREAT POINT,
ATTORNEY GENERAL BARR RELEASED
A STATEMENT SAYING THAT HE WAS
NEVER CONTACTED HIM FOR ANY --
AND HE NEVER ASKED HIM TO USE
ANY FORMAL DIPLOMATIC CHANNELS
TO CONNECT WITH THE LAW
ENFORCEMENT AUTHORITIES IN
UKRAINE, THERE ARE REAL CRIMES
THAT ARE BEING COMMITTED BY
AMERICANS AROUND THE WORLD,
AMERICANS INVOLVED IN
CONSPIRACY OR DIFFERENT PEOPLE,
WE ACTUALLY HAVE A WAY OF
WORKING ON THIS PROBLEM BETWEEN
GOVERNMENTS. THE PRESIDENT, WHO
WOULD HAVE BETTER ASKS US TO
THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE THAN
ANYBODY NEVER CONTACTED THEM
WITHOUT GETTING IN TOUCH WITH
UKRAINE WITHOUT ANY CORRUPTION
THAT HE KNEW ABOUT. HE NEVER
TURNED OUT ANY, EVIDENCE HE
NEVER SUGGESTED HE ONLY -- WENT
DIRECTLY TO THE PRESIDENT OF
UKRAINE, TOLD HIM WHAT HE
WANTED HIM TO, DO MAKE THAT IN
BATON OUNCE MUD ABOUT JOE
BIDEN.
>> I DO KNOW GOING BACK TO THE
TRANSCRIPT WHICH IS MUCH TALKED
ABOUT, THE PRESIDENT MENTIONED
JUST A FEW MOMENTS AGO, THE
THINGS THAT HE WAS INTERESTED
IN, HER WHICH WERE NET REALLY
ABOUT BIDEN'S AND THE SO-CALLED
SERVER. IT WAS ACTUALLY
ZELENSKY THAT RAISES THE NAME
GIULIANI FIRST, SO SOMETHING
HAD BEEN COMMUNICATED WELL
BEFORE JULY 25TH, BECAUSE HE
SAYS, I WILL PERSONALLY TELL
YOU THAT ONE OF MY ASSISTANCE
TOOK SPOKE TO MR. GIULIANI, AND
WE WERE HOPING VERY MUCH AND
MR. GIULIANI WOULD BE WILLING
TO TRAVEL TO UKRAINE, ONCE HE
ARRIVES. THERE WAS ALREADY A
PATHWAYS AND CLEARING GIULIANI
WHO, I DON'T THINK WOULD BE
TAPPED TO TALK ABOUT CORRUPTION
GENERALLY WHEN YOU HAD UTTERLY
GENERAL BARR AND SECRETARY
POMPEO, AND THOUSANDS OF
MEMBERS OF BOTH STATE
DEPARTMENT AND DEPARTMENT OF
JUSTICE THAT WOULD DO IT, WHY
WOULD THEY CHOOSE GIULIANI?
THERE IS CLEARLY A QUEUE FOR
PRESIDENT ZELENSKY TO RAISE THE
NAME OF GIULIANI, IT'S THEN THE
PRESIDENTS SUGGESTION THAT THE
LOT OF PEOPLE ARE TALKING ABOUT
THAT, THE WAY THEY SHOT A VERY
GOOD PROSECUTOR DOWN, YOU HAD
SOME VERY BAD PEOPLE INVOLVE,
MR. GIULIANI IS A VERY
RESPECTIVE MAN HE'S THE MAYOR
OF NEW YORK, I'D LIKE HIM TO
CALL YOU. I'LL ASK YOU TO CALL
HIM ALONG WITH ATTORNEY GENERAL,
RUDY KNOWS WHAT'S GOING ON,
HE'S A VERY CUP CAPABLE GUY. AN
INDICATION THAT THESE UNUSUAL
CHANNELS OF OPERATING, NOT THE
NORMAL DIPLOMATIC CHANNELS, AND
AGAIN IN THE CONVERSATION, WELL
SHE'S GONNA GO THROUGH SOME
THINGS, SPEAKING OF AMBASSADOR
IVANOVICH, I WILL HAVE GIULIANI
GIVE YOU A CALL, AND I WILL
HAVE ATTORNEY GENERAL BARR GIVE
YOUR CALL WILL GET TO THE
BOTTOM OF. IT AND THE PRESIDENT
SAID, GOOD I, APPRECIATE THAT I
WILL TELL RUDY, AND ATTORNEY
GENERAL BARR TO CALL YOU. AND
SO, ON IT GOES. AND IT'S JUST,
IN MY MIND, TROUBLING THAT MR.
GIULIANI, WOULD BE MENTIONED IN
THE SAME BREATH REPEATEDLY
WHETHER THE ATTORNEY GENERAL,
AND CLEARLY REPRESENTING THE
PRESIDENT PERSONALLY, IT'S HARD
TO TELL WHAT ROLE HE'S PLAYING,
HE'S THE PRESIDENT'S PERSONAL
ATTORNEY, REPRESENTATIVE THE
UNITED STATES? DOING THE
PRESIDENT'S BIDDING? OR IS HE
DOING SOMETHING TO HIS OWN
COMMERCIAL AND BUSINESS
INTERESTS? YESTERDAY MR.
GIULIANI HAS REPORTED TO BE
SAID THAT HE WAS GIVEN DETAILED
AND FORMATION ABOUT HOW
AMBASSADOR YOVANOVITCH WAS
IMPEDING OF INVESTIGATIONS THAT
COULD BENEFIT MR. TRUMP. THAT
COULD BENEFIT THE UNITED STATES,
MR. TRUMP. GIULIANI SAID
SECRETARY POMPEO THAT MR.
IVANOVICH WAS BLOCKING THESE
VISAS FOR UKRAINIANS TO COME TO
THE UNITED STATES TO PRESENT
EVIDENCE TO HIM GIULIANI, AND
FEDERAL AUTHORITIES THAT HE
CLAIMED WERE DAMAGING TO VICE
PRESIDENT BIDEN AND UKRAINIANS
THAT DISTRIBUTED DOCUMENTS THAT
LED TO THE RESIGNATION OF
2016'S CAMPAIGN CHAIRMAN PAUL
MANAFORT. IS THERE A ANY
EVIDENCE AT ALL THAT SUPPORTS
MR. GIULIANI'S CLAIMS AGAINST
AMBASSADOR YOVANOVITCH, EITHER
THOSE REPORTED YESTERDAY OR
REPORTED EARLIER IN THIS
INVESTIGATION?
>> WE ASKED THAT TO NUMEROUS
WITNESSES WHETHER THERE WAS
ANYTHING TO THIS CONSPIRACY
THEORY BASICALLY. THE ANSWER WE
GOT WAS NO, THERE IS BASICALLY
NOTHING AND THEY ARE NOT AWARE
THAT THERE WAS AN ORGANIZED PAY
ON THE UKRAINIAN GOVERNMENT TO
GET INVOLVED IN THE 2016
CAMPAIGN. MY FRIEND, MR.
COLLINS POINTED OUT THAT HE AND
OTHERS SUPPORTERS OF THE
PRESIDENT HAVE SAID THAT THERE
WERE UKRAINIANS RECEPTIVE AND
THE UKRAINIAN AMBASSADOR OF THE
UNITED STATES IS ONE OF THE
ONES THAT SAID THINGS. YOU
CANNOT PUT THAT IN THE SAME
SENTENCE OR PARAGRAPHS OR BOOK
WITH WHAT RUSSIA HAS BEEN DOING
TO ELECTIONS AROUND THE WORLD.
OUR DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE AND
SPECIAL COUNSEL FOUND A
SWEEPING AND SYSTEMATIC
CAMPAIGN TO SUBVERT AND
UNDERMINED AMERICAN ELECTION.
THEY HAVE HUNDREDS OF EMPLOYEES
WORKING AROUND THIS AROUND THE
CLOCK AND THEY SPENT MILLIONS
OF DOLLARS OR REBELS ION OR
TRYING TO INJECT POISON, RACIAL
AND ETHNIC PROPAGANDA TO OUR
SOCIAL MEDIA SYSTEM. THAT'S ONE
THING MISTER MORALLY THAT MAKES
ME VERY SAD BECAUSE WE ARE
TRYING TO STAND UP TO THE RULE
ON IMPEACHMENT AND THE RUSSIAN
I HAVE A LOT TO DO WITH IT AND
WHY DIDN'T WE HAVE HUNDREDS OF
NEO-NAZIS MARCHING IN BROAD
DAYLIGHT IN CHARLOTTESVILLE?
IT'S BECAUSE IT WAS A DIVISIVE
RACIAL PROPAGANDA AND ETHNIC
AND RELIGIOUS PROPAGANDA
BRINGING US TO AMERICAN
SOCIETY. IT'S ALMOST A
PATRIOTIC DUTY FOR US IN THIS
VERY TOUGH TIME TO TRY TO
BRIDGE THE ETHNIC AND RACIAL
SECTIONAL DIFFERENCES AND
REGIONAL. ALL OF THOSE THINGS
THAT WE CANNOT ALLOW THE
ENEMIES OF DEMOCRACY TO
EXACERBATE THE EXAM
PRE-EXISTING PHONE LINES IN THE
COUNTRY AND THE WHOLE GULF
COAST WITHIN OUR COUNTRY.
>> JUST TAKING AND EXTENDING
THAT FURTHER. THE DEPOSITION
FROM DOCTOR HILL. SHE IS QUOTED
AS SAYING, I WENT BACK TO TALK
TO AMBASSADOR BOLTON AND PUT
THIS TO OUR AND AS SEA COUNSEL
AND SAID HE WILL TELL EISENBERG
DOM A PART OF WHATEVER DRUG
DEAL THERE COOKING UP AND
TELLING THEM THAT YOU HEARD
THAT I WILL TALK TO JOHN
EISENBERG ABOUT THIS. YOU KNOW
WHAT HAD TRANSPIRED AMBASSADOR
SONDLAND INDICATED WITH THE
CHIEF OF STAFF THAT THEY WILL
HAVE A WHITE HOUSE MEETING OR A
PRESIDENTIAL MEANING TO SET UP
THE INVESTIGATIONS AGAIN. THE
MAIN THING I WAS CONCERNED
ABOUT WHAT I HAVE SAID TO JOHN,
IS THAT WE NEED THIS IN FRONT
OF THE UKRAINIANS. I WANT TO GO
BACK AND EXTEND THIS TO THE
RESULT OF MR. GIULIANI'S
CAMPAIGN AND THAT NOTION
AGAINST AMBASSADOR YOVANOVITCH.
WHICH IS PART OF THE DEPOSITION
OF DR. HILL. WHY DID THE
REMOVAL OF AMBASSADOR
YOVANOVITCH BE A TURNING POINT
FOR YOU AS FAR A CONSPIRACY.
BECAUSE THERE'S NO SPACE FOR
REMOVAL. THIS WAS A MISMATCH OF
CONSPIRACY THEORIES THAT I TOLD
YOU I BELIEVE FIRMLY WAS
BASELESS AND THE IDEA WHAT WE
WOULD URGE AND I HAD HAD
ACCUSATION SIMILAR TO THIS
MEETING AS WELL AND MY ENTIRE
FIRST YEAR MY TENURE OF
NATIONAL SECURITY COUNCIL,
FILLED WITH CALLS AND
CONSPIRACY THEORIES THAT HAS
BEEN ANNOUNCED THAT I'VE BEEN
GETTING IN THIS DEPOSITION. IT
GOES ON TO SAY, THE MOST
OBVIOUS EXHIBITION WILL POINTS
IS DEALINGS WITH INDIVIDUALS
WHO WANT TO PROVE THESE
POSITIONS INSIDE OF UKRAINE
ITSELF. ALSO TO DEFLECT NOT
JUST THE MUELLER REPORT FROM
RUSSIAN INTERFERENCE BUT BEEN
CONFIRMED BY HER OWN SENATE
REPORT. I WOULD I KNOW ITSELF
TO BE TRUE AS A FORMER
INTELLIGENCE ANALYST AND AS
BEEN IN RUSSIA FOR MORE THAN 30
YEARS. THE FACT THAT AMBASSADOR
YOVANOVITCH WAS RELEASED AFTER
THIS WAS PRETTY TO STARING AND
WHO YOU UNDERSTAND WHAT WAS
RESPONSIBLE FOR A REMOVAL. WE
HAVE THE CAMPAIGN THAT MOOT
RUDY GIULIANI SET THIS IN
MOTION AND WRITING ARTICLES AND
PUBLICATIONS THAT EXPECTED A
BETTER OF. SHE THEN ASKED, HE
DISCUSSED AMBASSADOR
YOVANOVITCH WITH AMBASSADOR
BOLTON? I DID. WHAT WAS HIS
REACTION? HIS REACTION WAS PAIN
AND HE SAID HE DIRECTLY SAID,
RUDY GIULIANI IS A HAND GRENADE
THAT'S GOING TO BLOW AND MADE
IT CLEAR THAT HE DIDN'T FEEL
THERE WAS ANYTHING THAT HE
COULD PERSONALLY DO ABOUT THIS.
AMBASSADOR BOLTON, I ALSO KNOW
THAT ON JULY 2ND IN TORONTO
CANADA, AMBASSADOR BOLTON AND
MADE A PRESIDENT ZELENSKY A
QUID PRO QUO DESCRIBING
AMBASSADOR SONDLAND THE
REFERENCE TO THE GIULIANI FACT
AND THE NEED FOR THE
ANNOUNCEMENT OF THE TWO
POLITICAL INVESTIGATIONS AND I
NOTE PARENT THAT UGLY
AMBASSADOR SONDLAND LATER
TESTIFIED TO MR. GIULIANI AND
WAS EXPRESSING DESIRES OF THE
PRESIDENT OF UNITED STATES OF
AMERICA WOULD REMOVE THESE
INVESTIGATIONS OR MORE TO THE
PRESIDENT I WASN'T SOMETHING
THAT THE INVESTIGATIONS WERE
DONE BUT IT WAS THE
INVESTIGATION SO THAT WOULD AID
THE PRESIDENT'S ELECTION
CAMPAIGN.
 AND MR. MARLEY THAT'S RIGHT
THAT MIGHT BE THE ULTIMATE AND
MOST DEFINITELY REFUTATION OF
THAT THE PRESIDENT WAS
INTERESTED IN FERRETING OUT
CORRUPTION. HE JUST WANTED THE
ANNOUNCEMENT FOR ELECTORAL
PURPOSES.
>> AND THAT'S THE TESTIMONY OF
HIS AMBASSADOR, AMBASSADOR
VOLKER HAD A BREAKFAST WITH HIS
ASSOCIATE LESS LESS PARNAS,
HERE IN WASHINGTON, THE SAME
MR. PARNAS, NOTE THAT HAS
CURRENTLY UNDER INDICTMENT FOR
CAMPAIGN FINANCE VIOLATIONS
VIOLATION, THE AMBASSADOR
STRESSED HIS BELIEF THAT THE
ATTACKS BEING A DATED AGAINST
THE PRESIDENT WAS AGAINST THE
MAN OF INTEGRITY. HE COUNSEL
MR. GIULIANI THAT THE UKRAINIAN
PRESIDENT WAS -- TO PRESERVE
HIS SELF IN PIN POWER IN,
COURTING TO AMBASSADOR VOLKER
MR. GIULIANI AGREED WITH PRO
PSYCHOS FALSE ACCUSATION FOR
THE BENEFIT OF PRESIDENT TRUMP,
DID NOT SEIZE. THIS DOES YOUR
TESTIMONY ANYWAY TO CONTRADICT
OR TESTIMONY?
>> I DON'T BELIEVE SO.? ALSO
>> TESTIMONY ON AUGUST 2ND, MR.
YERMAK THAT MET WITH MR.
GIULIANI IN. MADRID IF THEY
AGREED THAT UKRAINE WOULD ISSUE
A PUBLIC STATEMENT, IT'S THE
PUBLIC STATEMENT PART OF THIS,
BECAUSE THAT UNDERMINES THE
BIDEN CANDIDACY, IT DOES
NOTHING TO ADDRESS CORRUPTION,
BECAUSE THE PRESIDENT AS IT,
WAS TESTIFIED BY AMBASSADOR
SONDLAND, MR. TRUMP DIDN'T SEEM
TO CARE AT ALL WHETHER THE
INVESTIGATION WAS ACTUALLY
CONDUCTED, SIMPLY THAT IT WAS
ANNOUNCED. AND VOLKER ANNOUNCED
TO GIULIANI TO REPORT TO THE
BOSS THE RESULTS OF THE MEETING
WITH MR. YERMAK SO THAT THEY
WHITE HOUSE MEETING CAN BE
ARRANGED, WHICH WAS SOUGHT
AFTER. I'LL STOP THERE IN
RELATES TO MR. GIULIANI, WHICH
TO ME (INAUDIBLE)
(TECHNICAL PROBLEM) WITHOUT ANY
PORTFOLIO FOR THE UNITED STATES
SIMPLY ACTING AS AN ADVOCATE ON
BEHALF OF THE PRESIDENT.
CLEARLY AS LATE AS TODAY,
WITHOUT TALKING THE
INVESTIGATION INTO BIDEN FOR
THE PRESIDENT. THERE IS AN OLD
PROBLEM SOLVING CALLED ALL
COMES RAZOR I'M SURE YOU'RE
FAMILIAR WITH, THAT SAYS ONE
PRESENTED WITH COMPETING
HYPOTHESIS, ONE SHOULD SELECT
THE SIMPLE OF A SOLUTION. I
BELIEVE THAT THOSE WHO SUPPORT
THE PRESIDENT'S VIEW, YOU'D
HAVE TO ASSUME THAT DESPITE THE
TRANSCRIPT OF JULY 25TH,
SPECIFICALLY MENTIONED THE VICE
PRESIDENT OUTRIGHT, AND CLOCKED
CROWDSTRIKE AND THE SERVER. WE
SHOULD ASSUME THAT THE
PRESIDENT ASSAD IS REFERRING IN
ANY WAY AT ALL. WE MUST ASSUME
SECRETARY POMPEO, ATTORNEY
GENERAL BARR WOULD INCOMPETENT
TO PURSUE -- THE NEED WAS TO
REACH OUT TO MR. GIULIANI,
ALTHOUGH THERE IS NO EVIDENCE
OF HIS FAILURE AND CONFIDENCE
IN THEM. WE MUST ASSUME MR.
GIULIANI WAS IN A SPECIAL
POSITION TO PURSUE UKRAINIAN
CORRUPTION GENERALLY, ALTHOUGH
THERE IS NO EVIDENCE OR
RATIONALE FOR THAT. ALL WE MUST
ASSUME THAT AMBASSADOR SALMAN
SONDLAND AND MULVANEY WERE
INVOLVED THEY CONFIRMED A QUID
PRO QUO. WE MUST ASSUME VINDMAN,
VOLKER AND SONDLAND, AS WELL AS
MR. HOMES AND DOCTOR HILL, WERE
ALL ARRAIGNED AGAINST THE
PRESIDENTS DESPITE, A NOT A
MODICUM OF EVIDENCE. WE MUST
ASSUME THAT DON MCGAHN AND JOHN
BOLTON AND OTHERS SOMEHOW ALL
OF THE KEY TO THE PRESIDENTS OF
IT IN A SENSE, IF ONLY THEY
TESTIFY. BUT OF COURSE, THEY
REFUSED TO TESTIFY. I CHOOSE TO
FOLLOW THE EVIDENCE WHICH IS
LAID OUT IN THE REPORTS OF THE
HOUSE INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE
AND THE HOUSE JUDICIARY
COMMITTEE AND I CAN SEE, AN
URGE SUPPORT OF THE RULE. THANK
YOU MISTER CHAIRMAN.
>> (INAUDIBLE) MR. RASKIN, AT
THE HEART OF THE ACCUSATIONS
AGAINST VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN,
WHICH IS AT THE HEART OF WHAT
WERE TALKING ABOUT, PRESIDENT
TRUMP SPEARS AGAINST THE VICE
PRESIDENT ARE, DEBUNKED
ACCUSATIONS MADE BY A CORRUPT
UKRAINIAN PROSECUTOR VICTOR
SHOKIN. WE HEARD ME RIGHT
PRESIDENT TRUMP AND HIS
SUPPORTERS ARE SO DESPERATE TO
UNDERMINE VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN,
THAT THEY ACTUALLY COLLUDED
WITH UKRAINIAN FRAUDSTER.
DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY
GEORGE KIT TESTIFIED THAT THERE
WAS QUOTE, BROAD BASED
CONSENSUS AND, QUOTE AMONG THE
UNITED STATES, OUR EUROPEAN
ALLIES, AND INTERNATIONAL
FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS, THAT
MR. SHOKIN WAS AND, I QUOTE A
TYPICAL UKRAINIAN PROSECUTOR,
WHO LIVED A LIFESTYLE FOREIGN
EXCESSIVE THE IF HIS GOVERNMENT
SALARIED, TO NEVER PROSECUTED
ANYONE KNOWN FOR COMMITTING A
CRIME, WHO COVERED UP CRIMES
THAT WERE KNOWN AND KEPT INCOME
COMMITTED. THAT'S A NICE WAY TO
SAY THAT EVERYONE IN THE WORLD
AGREE THAT THE SICK RAINY AND
PROSECUTOR WAS A BROAD GUY AND
CORRUPT. AND SO, MISTER RASKIN,
WOULD IT BE ACCURATE TO SAY
THAT THE ALLEGATIONS OF VICE
PRESIDENT BIDEN IN
APPROPRIATELY PRESSURED UKRAINE
TO REMOVE MR. SHULKIN ARE
COMPLETELY WITHOUT MERIT?
>> TOTALLY WITHOUT MERIT, VICE
PRESIDENT BIDEN WAS ACTING TO
ARTICULATE AND IMPLEMENT U.S.
FOREIGN POLICY, IN THAT MOMENT,
AND THAT POLICY WAS TO GET RID
OF A PRO CORRUPT PROSECUTOR.
>> OKAY, SO LET ME REPEAT IT,
WAS PART OF THE OFFICIAL POLICY
OF THE UNITED STATES, AND THE
REST OF THE WORLD, TO FIGHT
CORRUPTION IN UKRAINE CORRECT?
>> YES IT WAS.
>> DID VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN,
ASK UKRAINE TO HELP HIM CHEAT
IN AN ELECTION, LIKE PRESIDENT
TRUMP?
>> NO HE DID NOT.
>> OKAY, YOU KNOW, WE CAN ALL
SEE KATE ALL WE WANT BUT IT
WILL NOT CHANGE A SIMPLE FACT
THERE WAS NOTHING APPROPRIATE
ABOUT PRESIDENT TRUMP'S
PERSONAL LAWYER CONTINUED TO
RIDE AROUND KEY OF WITH A
CORRUPT FORMER UKRAINIAN
PROSECUTORS IN SEARCH OF DIRT
FOR JOE BIDEN. I BELIEVE THE
AMERICAN PEOPLE KNOW THAT JOE
BIDEN IS AN HONORABLE MAN AND,
THEY KNOW IT'S WRONG TO SEEK
FOREIGN HELP TO CHEAT AN
ELECTION. AND THE PRESIDENT'S
ONGOING PRIDES PRESSURE ON
UKRAINE, TO INVESTIGATE A
FORMER VICE PRESIDENT, IS
POWERFUL EVIDENCE TO WHY WE
HAVE NO CHOICE BUT TO MOVE
FORWARD WITH THESE ARTICLES OF
IMPEACHMENT. MISTER CHAIRMAN,
THERE IS NOTHING MORE
DISTRESSING TO ME THAN THE FACT
THAT NO ONE OF OUR REPUBLICAN
COLLEAGUES ARE WILLING TO
CONFRONT THE PRESIDENT OVER HIS
MISCONDUCT. AND I HAVE
CREDIBILITY ON THIS. I
CONFRONTED PRESIDENT CLINTON,
ON HIS MISCONDUCT. I'VE COME TO
IMPEACH HIM WITH DEEP SADNESS.
THE FACTS OF THIS CASE ARE
PAINFUL. AND INDISPUTABLE. WE
KNOW THAT THE PRESIDENT ABUSED
HIS OFFICE, ASKING THE LEADER
OF THE UKRAINE TO ANNOUNCE AN
INVESTIGATION OF HIS POLITICAL
RIVAL. WE KNOW THAT HE
ILLEGALLY HOLDUP CONGRESSIONAL
APPROPRIATED AID TO THE UKRAINE,
AND WE KNOW THAT HE CONDITIONED
THE RELEASE OF VITAL MILITARY
AID, ON UKRAINIAN PRESIDENT
ZELENSKY'S OPENING AN
INVESTIGATION, BASED ON A
DEBUNKED CONSPIRACY THERAPY OF
HIS POLITICAL RIVAL AND FOREIGN
INTERFERENCE IN THE 2016
ELECTION. WE ALSO KNOWN THAT
THE PRESIDENT HAS BLOCKED
CONGRESSIONAL ATTEMPTS TO HIS
MISCONDUCT BY ORDERING
EXECUTIVE BRANCH OFFICIALS TO
DEFY SUBPOENAS AND WITHHOLD
INFORMATION. THESE FACTS ARE
UNCONTESTED, AND FIRM AND
PUBLIC BY CAREER PUBLIC
SERVANTS. WHO HAVE DEDICATED
THEIR LIVES TO SERVING OUR
COUNTRY. FURTHER, THEY ARE
UNCONTESTED BY THE PRESIDENT,
AND CONFIRMED BY HIS CHIEF OF
STAFF. WE HAVE NOW REACHED THE
POINT, WHERE DESPITE THE
UNPRECEDENTED OBSTRUCTION FROM
THE PRESIDENT, THE EVIDENCE OF
THIS CASE IS POWERFUL ENOUGH,
TO LAY THIS VOTE ANY FURTHER
WOULD BE IRRESPONSIBLE. ANY
DELAY WOULD RISK INTERFERENCE
IN THE 2020 ELECTIONS, AND THE
PERMANENT AROSE SHUNS OF OUR
CHECKS AND BALANCES. THIS IS
NOT A MATTER OF POLITICS. I
HAVE NEVER AND, WILL NEVER
SUPPORT THE IMPEACHMENT OF A
PRESIDENT OVER A POLICY
DISAGREEMENT. OR A DIFFERENT
IDEOLOGY. THIS IS A MATTER OF
PROTECTING THE INTEGRITY OF OUR
DEMOCRACY, FOR THE REST OF OUR
GENERATION. AS WE LABOUR, TO
PASS SONG TO FUTURE GENERATIONS
MAYBE ARE HALLMARKS OF OUR
SOCIETY, OUR FINANCIAL MIGHT,
ARE BRILLIANT SCIENTIFIC
ENTERPRISES, THE GIFTS OF OUR
NATURAL RESOURCES, THE STRENGTH
OF OUR MILITARY AND DIPLOMATIC
CORPS AS A FORCE FOR GOOD, WE
MUCH ALSO ACT WITH ACTIVE
STEWARDSHIP AND PASS ON A
BRIGHT AND FUNCTIONAL
DEMOCRACY. IF WE DON'T DO OUR
DUTY TO PROTECT THE
CONSTITUTION, THE REPUBLIC THAT
WE HAND TO OUR CHILDREN WILL BE
LESS VIBRANT, LESS RESOURCEFUL
(INAUDIBLE) THAT WERE FORTUNATE
TO INHERIT. THE FOUNDERS OF THE
CONSTITUTION KNEW THAT
DEMOCRACY IS FRAGILE. THEY KNEW
THAT ITS SURVIVAL DEPENDS ON
THE STRENGTH AND COURAGE THAT
WE DISPLAY, AND MAINTAINING IT.
BUT THIS FRAGILITY IS ALSO A
STRENGTH. IT REQUIRES OUR
PUBLIC SERVANTS TO PUT OUT
NATIONS AHEAD OF OUR OWN, TO
ROOT OUT CORRUPTION, AND TO
HOLD EACH OTHER ACCOUNTABLE,
THE HIGH STANDARDS OF
DEMOCRACY. THAT DEMOCRACY
TIMMINS. THAT'S WHY WE TAKE AN
OATH TO DEFEND THE
CONSTITUTION. IF PROTECTING THE
CONSTITUTION WERE TRIVIAL, WE
WOULDN'T HAVE TO TAKE AN OATH.
FOR OVER 200 YEARS HONESTY AND
VIGILANCE A COURAGE HAVE WON
OUT AS GENERATIONS OF AMERICANS
HAVE A DEAR TO THEIR OATH OF
OFFICE AND MET THE STANDARDS OF
SERVICE THAT OUR DEMOCRACY
NECESSITATE INCESSANT EIGHT.
MANY DIED PROTECTING OUR
DEMOCRACY, WE CANNOT LET THIS
LEGACY BE DEMEANED. ON OUR
WATCH. PRESIDENT TRUMP HAS NOT
TREATED HIS OATH OF OFFICE WITH
THE SERIOUSNESS IT REQUIRES.
BUT ULTIMATELY, THIS IS NOT
ONLY A VOTE ABOUT ONE PERSON,
THIS IS A VOTE ABOUT HIS AND
OUR OATH OF OFFICE. THIS IS A
VOTE TO DETERMINE WHETHER WE
WILL MAINTAIN OUR DEMOCRACY, OR
SAID OUR NATION ON A PATH TO
UPEND THE VALUES AND STANDARDS
THE FRAMERS LAID OUT FOR US. I
YIELD BACK.
>> (INAUDIBLE) (LAUGHS) IF IT'S
ANY CONSOLATION, I'VE BEEN IN
THE NUMBER NINE -- NUMBER FOUR
-- (INAUDIBLE) (LAUGHS)
>>
THANK YOU MISTER CHAIRMAN.
WHICH MAY BE A REFLECTION OF
WHAT WE'RE DOING HERE. I DO
WANT TO SAY, ON COMING IN HERE
SEVEN EIGHT HOURS AGO, AND I'VE
HEARD A FEW OF MY COLLEAGUES
SAY THIS, IT'S HARD NOT TO BE
AS A MEMBER OF THIS INSTITUTION
THAT HAS GREAT REVERENCE FOR
THIS INSTITUTION AND FOR MR.
COLLINS SAID MR. CALL THAT HE
BELIEVES HE'S AN
INSTITUTIONALIST. NOT TO BE
SIDE, I THINK WERE ALL. SIDE
AND DEPRESSED, FROM OUR
PERSPECTIVES. THIS IS NOT THE
INSTITUTION AT IS OPTIMUM. AND
ALL SAY FOR THE ACCUSATIONS
ABOUT NEVER TRUMPERS, I WILL
ADMIT TO BE AN ALMOST NEVER
TRUMPER, AFTER HE WAS ELECTED,
I AGREED WITH PRESIDENT OBAMA,
AND SECRETARY CLINTON, THAT WE
SHOULD GIVE HIM A CHANCE. I
REMEMBER TEASING SOME OF MY
STAFF, WELL MAYBE HE'S JUST
ARTHUR TOOK OVER FROM OUR
GARFIELD, GIVEN HIS REPUTATION
IN NEW YORK, NO OFFENSE, THAT
HE WOULD NOT BE CAPABLE. AND HE
STARTED OUT TO START THE CIVIL
SERVANTS WHICH WE HAVE
BENEFITED FROM, HE'S A VERY
COURAGEOUS PUBLIC SERVICE. IN
RESPECT OF YOUR POSITION, I
CAN'T HELP BUT ADMIRE, THESE
FOLKS. WHEN HAVING AS A
OVERSIGHTS HOURS OF THESE
DEPOSITIONS OF MR. RASKIN,
AMBASSADOR TAYLOR, KERNEL VILMA
AND, IT'S JUST REMARKABLE, ON
GETTING A SENSE OF THAT, AND
READING THE 300 PAGES AND
READING TO THE JUDICIARY
HEARINGS, I'M JUST -- MY
CONCERN IS, NOW THAT I'VE HEARD
MEMBERS OF BOTH PARTIES SAY
PATTERNED THERE, IS A PATTERN
HERE, I'LL BE HONEST I'M
CONCERNED ABOUT THE PATTERN.
THE PRESIDENTS PATTERN. ONE OF
THE REASONS WHY I WASN'T EARLY
A SIGN OR TO STEVE COHEN'S
ARTICLE OF IMPEACHMENT
>> CHAIRMAN --
>> I'M NOT OFFENDED, OKAY. BUT
HAVING SIGNED ON THE COHEN SAID
NEVER CAME TO THE FLOOR, IS THE
CHAIRMAN SAID, I APPROACH THOSE
SUPPORTING THOSE, AS REFERRING
TO THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE TO
HAVE A HEARING. BECAUSE MY OWN
INTUITIVE BELIEF, IS THAT THIS
PARTICULAR PRESIDENT, WHETHER
REPUBLICAN OR DEMOCRAT, IN MY
PERCEPTION, RULES DON'T HAVE
THE SAME EFFECT ON HIM AS THE
MAJORITY OF PEOPLE. AND I THINK
RULES ARE IMPORTANT. I THINK
UNFORTUNATELY AS PART OF OUR
BUSINESS CULTURE RIGHT NOW,
STRETCHING THE RULES AND
BREAKING THE RULES, AND GIVING
AWAY FROM THEM IS PART OF
WHAT'S WRONG WITH THIS COUNTRY.
SO, MR. RASKIN, AND MR. COLLINS,
I HAVE REALLY ONE QUESTION, AND
THIS PATTERN OF THINGS WERE ALL
GONNA LABEL THE CONSEQUENCES OF
HER. VOTES I HEAR MY COLLEAGUES
FEEL STRONGLY THAT THEY WERE
VOTED AGAINST THESE MOST LIKELY,
BE APPARENTLY MR. MCCAUL
BELIEVES THAT THERE WILL BE A
TRIAL, THAT THE PRESIDENT WILL
BE ACQUITTED, SO WHAT I'M
AFRAID OF IS THAT THE POWER OF
THE PRESIDENT WILL BE EMPOWERED
TO BREAK MORE RULES. I DON'T
THINK HE'S CAPABLE OF. AND I
HOPE THAT'S NOT TRUE. SO WHAT
HAPPENS AFTER? THIS AND I WANT
TO READ A QUOTE FROM JAMES
MADISON IN 51. WHEN HE TALKED
ABOUT THE BALANCE OF, AND I'M
AN AMATEUR I, HOPE TO SAY THIS
IN FRONT OF A PROFESSIONAL LIKE
MR. RASKIN, BUT I WANT HIM TO
REPLY TO. THIS I DON'T TAKE IS
THIS AS A HYPOTHETICAL. OUR
ACTIONS ARE THE ACTIONS OF THE
SENATE ARE PART PART OF A
PATTERN. WHICH WILL BE
CORRECTED AFTER THIS IS ALL,
DONE OR IF I'M RIGHT, THE
PRESENT WILL GO AHEAD AND PUSH
THE RULES AGAIN IN THEIR MIND
FOLDED HE MADE THIS PHONE CALL
TODAY AFTER THE MUELLER REPORT.
AND THIS IS IN THE CONTEXT OF
FOREIGN INTERFERENCE. THAT, THE
BRITISH, THE FRENCH, GERMANS
TWICE IN WORLD WAR I IN WORLD
WAR II, WERE VERY AGGRESSIVE IN
AFFECTING OUR DEMOCRACY. THE
FOUNDERS WERE PROSPECTIVE AND
DECEPTIVE THAT DEMOCRACY IN
THOSE DAYS WAS AN UNUSUAL
THING. THAT MEDICINE SAID YOU
HAD TO BIND THE INSTITUTIONS.
THESE THREE INSTITUTIONS, THE
JUDICIARY, THE PRESIDENCY, AND
THE CONGRESS BUYING THEM SO
THERE IS A CHECK AND BALANCE.
BUT PUT THIS IN THE CONTEXT OF
WHAT WE KNOW ABOUT THE MUELLER
REPORT, AND WHEN MR. RASKIN
STOPPED ABOUT, AND THE
TECHNOLOGY THAT MR. PUTIN AND
HIS AGENTS HAVE PERFECTED, WE
AS AMERICANS TEND TO THINK OF
AMERICAN EXCEPTIONALISM, MAYBE
SOMETIMES THAT THE RUSSIANS ARE
VERY SOPHISTICATED, THEY ARE
VERY VERY SOPHISTICATED, AT
PROPAGANDA, THAT IS MR. RASKIN
SAID, THEIR ULTIMATE GOAL IS TO
DISRUPT DEMOCRACY AND BASICALLY
HAVE US DESTROY YOURSELVES. MR.
PUTIN BELOW BELIEVES THAT THE
WORST THING TO HAPPEN TO RUSSIA
WAS THE IMPLOSION OF THE SOVIET
UNION. HE SEES THE MESS OF MEN
AND WOMEN AS INCAPABLE OF
GOVERNING THE SELVES. WHICH TO
A, SITTING HERE, WE ALL BELIEVE
THAT IF IT IS THE OPPOSITE OF
WHAT WE LIVE FOR. OF WHAT
PEOPLE HAVE SACRIFICED YOUR
LIFE. FOR SO MR. PUTIN WANTS US
TO BE FIGHTING EACH OTHER, AND
HAS VIEWS SOCIAL MEDIA, SOMEONE
FROM THE BAY AREA WHO DEALS
WITH THESE COMPANIES, AND IS
FRUSTRATED WITH THEM TO GOVERN
THEMSELVES, THEY HAVE USED IT
IN THE WAY, AS THE MUELLER
REPORT SAYS, TO REPORT THIS
PRESIDENT, ACCORDING TO THE
REPORT. AND I THOUGHT THAT WAS
DAMNING ENOUGH TO GO AHEAD WITH
IMPEACHMENT, BUT WE DIDN'T. AND
THE OBSTRUCTION WAS CLEAR TO ME
BUT WE DIDN'T, SO IN THE
CONTEXT OF THAT, REPORTED
SITTING HERE A FEW MONTHS
BEFORE OUR DEMOCRATIC PRIMARY,
WHICH WILL BE SUPER PRIMARY. IN
MARCH, AND LESS THAN A YEAR
AWAY FROM ELECTIONS, KNOWING
THAT THEY ARE GOING TO DO THESE,
THINGS IN THE CONTEXT OF WHAT
WE ARE DOING TO DO IS NOT A
HYPOTHETICAL. IS A CONTINUAL
EFFORT BY FOREIGN ACTORS WHO DO
NOT BELIEVE IN THIS INSTITUTION
OR IN DEMOCRACY, OR AVERAGE
PEOPLE GOVERNING THEMSELVES.
WHAT DO WE ANTICIPATE THE
CONSEQUENCES AFTER WE VOTE?
TOMORROW? AND AFTER THE SENATE
TAKES WHAT I THINK IS A MISTAKE
AND THEIR ACTION? SO LET ME
JUST READ WHAT MEDICINE SAID.
ALL THE FOUNDERS ARE AMAZING
WRITERS BECAUSE PEOPLE WROTE
AND READ WELL THEN. HE SAID IN
51, THE INTEREST OF THE MEN,
MUST BE CONNECTED, WITH THE
CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS OF THE
PLACE. IT MAY BE A REFLECTION
ON HUMAN NATURE, THAT SUCH
DEVICES SHOULD BE NECESSARY. TO
CONTROL THE ABUSES OF
GOVERNMENT. BUT WHAT IS
GOVERNMENT ITSELF, BUT THE
GREATEST OF ALL REFLECTIONS ON
HUMAN NATURE? IF MEN WERE
ANGELS NO GOVERNMENT WOULD BE
NECESSARY. IF ANGELS WERE
GOVERN, NEITHER EXTERNAL OR
INTERNAL CONTROLS ON GOVERNMENT
WOULD BE NECESSARY. IN FRAMING
IN GOVERNMENT, WHICH IS TO BE
ADMINISTERED BY MEN OVERMINE,
THE GREAT DIFFICULTY LIES IN
THIS. YOU MUST FIRST ENABLE THE
GOVERNMENT TO CONTROL THE
GOVERNMENT. AND IN THE NEXT
PLACE, OBLIGE IT TO CONTROL
ITSELF. SO OUR FAILURE TO
CONTROL HERSELF, AS A CONGRESS,
FOR THE DIFFICULTIES OF THE
TIME, MAKE ME THINK THAT THE
CONSEQUENCES OF OUR DECISION,
AND THE INABILITY TO HOLD THIS
PRESIDENT ACCOUNTABLE, AND
CONSTRAIN HIM PROPERLY UNDER
THE CONSTITUTION, IT'S NOT A
HYPOTHETICAL. IT'S SOMETHING
WERE GOING TO HAVE TO DEAL
WITH. IN THE DAYS TO COME AND
BEFORE THE NEXT ELECTION. WHILE
FOREIGN ACTORS, AND DOMESTIC
ACTORS TRY TO DISRUPT OUR
DEMOCRACY. SO MR. RASKIN, WHAT
WE DO AFTER THIS DECISION? HOW
DO WE CONSTRAIN THE
ADMINISTRATION AND PROPERLY
BALANCE THAT WITH THE NEEDS OF
THIS INSTITUTION?
>> YOU ASKED AT 6:50 PM? I'LL
TRY MY HARDEST TO ANSWER THIS.
>> 30 SECONDS LEFT
>> MR. COLLINS IF YOU WANT TO
JUMP IN?
>> I'LL GIVE IT MY BEST SHOT.
FIRST WHAT ARE THE CONSEQUENCES
IN TERMS OF THE 2020 ELECTION?
THAT'S SOMETHING THAT LET ME
SAY THIS. I DON'T WANT TO
ASSUME THE INEVITABILITY OF
YOUR PREMISE, THAT WERE NOT
ACTUALLY GOING TO DEAL WITH
THIS PROBLEM. THE HOUSE OF
REPRESENTATIVES HAS BEEN
IMMERSED IN THEM. WE KNOW A LOT
MORE ABOUT THE FACTS, WE KNOW A
LOT ABOUT THE DETAILS, AND NOW
IT'S GOING OVER THE SENATE. AND
NOW I WANT TO BELIEVE THAT 100
SENATORS ARE GOING TO ADHERE TO
THEIR CONSTITUTIONAL OATH,
REFLECT ON WHAT THAT MEANS, AND
BE OPEN MINDED, CRITICAL
THINKING JURORS IN THE PROCESS.
BUT WHAT WILL HAPPEN IF WE
DON'T DEAL WITH IT? IF WE ALL
JUST GO HOME AND SAY, HEY
AUTHORITARIANISM IS ON THE RISE,
DEMOCRACIES ON THE RUN, THERE'S
ONLY SO MUCH WE CAN DO AT THIS
POINT. AND WE DON'T DEAL WITH.
IT WELL, I THINK THAT PRESIDENT
ZELENSKY'S GOT TO BE WATCHING,
UKRAINE'S GOT TO BE WATCHING,
FROM THEIR PERSPECTIVE, THERE
IN THE MIDDLE OF THIS. ALL OF
US ARE SORT OF ACTING LIKE WELL,
PRESIDENT TRUMP GOT CAUGHT SO
OF COURSE THEY'RE NOT GONNA GO
THROUGH WITH IT, BUT IF WE LET
HIM GO WHY WOULDN'T THEY GO
THROUGH WITH THEM? WHY WON'T HE
HAVE TO MAKE THIS ANNOUNCEMENT
ABOUT THE BIDENS AND THEN FOR
HIS OWN DOMESTIC POLITICAL
CONSUMPTION GO THROUGH WITH AN
INVESTIGATION? WE JUST SENT A
NEW PRECEDENT THERE. A NEW
STANDARD, THAT THE PRESIDENT
CAN GO AND TRY TO RECRUIT
FOREIGN GOVERNMENTS TO GET IN
OUR CAMPAIGN BY THREATENING,
ANNOUNCING, AND ENGAGING IN
CRIMINAL INVESTIGATIONS OF
THEIR POLITICAL OPPONENTS.
THAT'S BEEN A RECORD REPUBLICS
OF STUFF. THAT'S TIN POT
DICTATORSHIP STUFF, THAT'S
TERRIFIES ME. HERE'S ANOTHER
PART PATTERN. THAT WE HAVE TO
DEAL. WITH ROBERT MUELLER CAME
TO TESTIFY, AND AS THE
PRESIDENT MENTIONED ON THE JULY
25TH PHONE CALL, BASICALLY HE
HAD GOTTEN AWAY WITH
EVERYTHING. RIGHT? MUELLER
FOUND A SWEEPING SYSTEMATIC
CAMPAIGN BY RUSSIA, MORE THAN
100 CAMPAIGNS, BUT ATTORNEY
GENERAL BARR HAD TAKEN THE
REPORT FOR THREE AND A HALF
WEEKS, AND HE HAD FED AMERICA
THERE IS NOTHING IN THERE,
NOTHING TO BE SEEN HERE,
PROMPTING NOT ONE BUT TWO
LETTERS OF APPROACH FROM
COUNSEL MUELLER AND OF ANDREW
AND YET IT WAS TOO LATE FOR
DEMOCRACY TO CATCH UP AND HAVE
A SERIOUS REGULARS ANALYSIS OF
WHAT WAS IN THE REPORT. AND IN
THE VERY NEXT DAY, PRESIDENT
TRUMP HAS A PHONE CALL WITH
PRESIDENT ZELENSKY, AND SAYS,
GO TO IT BUT TO US A FAVOR
THOUGH. KIND OF PUTTING THE
ICING ON THE CAKE OF THIS
EFFORT, TO DRAG THEM INTO OUR
DOMESTIC POLITICS. THAT'S THE
PATTERN, BECAUSE IF IT CAN BE
DONE TO WANT STRUGGLING
DEMOCRACY, IT CAN BE DONE TO
ANOTHER STRUGGLING DEMOCRACY,
AND IF WE ALLOW ONE TIE RAN
ACROSS AUTHORITARIAN DESPERATE
LIKE VLADIMIR PUTIN TO COME ON
IN WHILE WATERS WARM, WHY NOT
OTHERS? WHY NOT TURKEY? WHY NOT
THE PRESIDENT'S FRIENDS IN
SAUDI ARABIA? HE ALREADY
WHITEWASHED THE ASSASSINATION
MELTED BUTTER OF DISMEMBERMENT
OF A JOURNALIST, WHAT BIG DEAL
WOULD IT BE TO SAY COME ON IN
AND GET INVOLVED IN OUR
ELECTION CAMPAIGN, SO THAT'S A
SERIOUS PROBLEM. WHAT ABOUT,
YOU SAY CHECKS AND BALANCES?
IT'S INTERESTING, BECAUSE THE
FRAMES CHECKS AND BALANCES
APPEARS ON THE FEDERALIST
PAPERS NOT, TO REACH FOR TO THE
THREE BRANCHES, BUT YOU REFER
TO THE HOUSE AND THE SENATE.
THOSE ARE THE CHECKS AND
BALANCES YOU SHOULD BE THINKING
ABOUT. RIGHT NOW. BECAUSE THE
PEOPLE'S BODY, WILL SPEAK THIS
WEEK. AND IF IT GOES THE WAY IT
GOES THE WAY I HOPE IT GO, WE
WILL IMPEACH THIS PRESIDENT.
FOR BUSH USE OF POWER, WE WILL
IMPEACH THIS PRESIDENT FOR
OBSTRUCTION OF CONGRESS, WE ARE
PLACING OUR CONGRESS OBLIGATES
US TO IN THE SENATE TO DO THEIR
JOB. BUT WE ALSO PLACE OR FAITH
IN THE PEOPLE, TO MAKE THE
SENATE THROUGH THEIR JOB,
BECAUSE WE ARE POLITICIANS, WE
KNOW THAT IF WE DON'T RESPOND
EXCLUSIVELY AN ENTIRELY TO THE
WILL OF THE CONSTITUENTS, BUT
WE DO A LOT, THAT'S AN
IMPORTANT INGREDIENT, IN
REPRESENTATIVE DEMOCRACY. BUT
LOOK, IN CONGRESS ITSELF, WE
CANNOT BE AFRAID OF OUR OWN
POWER. ONE THING I DISAGREE
WITH, I HEARD ONE OF MOM THE
MAJORITY COLLEAGUES SAY, WE
HAVE THREE COEQUAL BRANCHES.
I'VE BEEN TRYING TO CORRECT
THIS FROM THE VERY BEGINNING.
OUR FRAMERS THE FOUNDERS OF
AMERICA, OVERTHREW A KING. AND
THE, FIRST SENTENCE OF THE
CONSTITUTION STATES THAT WE THE
PEOPLE IN ORDER TO FORM A
PERFECT UNION PROVIDE FOR THE
COMMON DEFENSE PROMOTE THE
GENERAL WELFARE, AND PRESERVES
TO OURSELVES IN OUR POSTERITY
THE FORM OF LIBERTY. THE VERY
NEXT SENTENCE, STARTS ARTICLE
ONE, ALL LEGISLATIVE POWER IS
VESTED IN THE CONGRESS OF THE
UNITED STATES. THE SENATE AND,
THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVE.
SEE WHAT JUST HAPPENED THERE?
THE SOVEREIGN POLITICAL POWER
OF THE PEOPLE OF AMERICA, FLOW
FROM THE ACTIVE CONSTITUTION
MAKING INTO THE CONGRESS OF THE
UNITED STATES. AND THEN YOU GET
37 PARAGRAPHS LAYING OUT ALL
THE POWERS OF CONGRESS, THE
POWER OF APPROPRIATION AND
SPENDING, THE POWER TO REGULATE
CONGRESS, THE POWER TO DECLARE
WAR THE, POWER TO THE SEAT OF
GOVERNMENT, THE POWER OF
RECOVERING. ON A NON. IN CLAUSE
18 TO HAVE ALL THE OTHER POWERS
NECESSARY TO THE ENFORCEMENT
AND EXECUTION OF THE FOREGOING.
POWERS AND THEN AN ARTICLE TO
YOU, GET TO THE PRESIDENT,
REMEMBERED ARTICLES OF
CONFEDERATION AND WE DON'T EVEN
HAVE A PRESIDENT. SO WE WANTED
TO CREATE SOMETHING THAT WOULD
SHOW EXECUTIVE ENERGY TO
EXECUTE OUR LAWS, THAT WAS THE
LAW THE JOB. TO FAITHFULLY
EXECUTE, TO BE THE
COMMANDER-IN-CHIEF OF THE ARMY
NEIGHBOR NAVY IN TIMES OF
INSURRECTION. THAT'S THE CORE
OF WHAT THE JAR JOB IS. AND IN
SECTION FOUR ARTICLE TWO IS ALL
ABOUT IMPEACHMENT. IN ORDER TO
MAKE SURE A PRESIDENT DOESN'T
BECOME A KING. THINK ABOUT
THIS. WHY DO WE HAVE THE POWER
TO IMPEACH THE PRESIDENT AND HE
DOESN'T HAVE THE POWER TO
IMPEACH US? AND IT WAS A GREAT
REPUBLICAN PRESIDENT, GERALD
FORD WHO ANSWERED IT. HERE, THE
PEOPLE RULE. HERE ARE, THE
PEOPLE AND, THEIR
REPRESENTATIVES RULE. SO IF THE
PRESIDENT WANTS TO BE IMPEACHED,
HE DOESN'T GO TO JAIL FOR ONE
DAY BECAUSE OF. THAT THAT'S
CRIMINAL PROSECUTION IT HAS
NOTHING TO DO WITH. US BUT WHAT
WE'RE DOING, IS PROTECTING THE
COUNTRY, AND THE CONSTITUTION.
>> MR. COLLINS, YOU HAVE 30
SECONDS.
>> (LAUGHS)
>> I THINK MY FRIEND JUST
SUMMED UP THE ENTIRE THING FOR
ME. HE DID. WE WENT ON A
WHIRLWIND TRIP HE'S A WONDERFUL
TEACHER, I WOULD'VE HAD LOVED
TO HAVE HIM CLASS. AND HE IS,
WHY NO ALL OVER THE WORLD, IN A
30,000 FOOT LEVEL YOU WATCH HIM
ALONG IN HIS ORATORICAL HITS
THE COMMON MAN AND TOUCHES THE
WINGS OF THE GUARDS. THE
PROBLEM IS HE NEVER ADDRESS THE
ISSUE WITH DEALING WITH. AND I
THINK THAT'S THE REAL HEART OF
THE PROBLEM WE HARDWARE NOW. IT
IS ONE THING TO SPEAK INTEREST
OR RHETORICAL FLOURISHES WHICH
WE HAVE. THANK YOU. FORWARD OF
DEALING WITH THIS BUT THE
BOTTOM LINE IS THE QUESTION
THAT WE WHERE DO WE GO FROM
HERE? IT'S LIKE THE SIMPLE MAN
WHO WANTS NEEDED TO GET HIS, I
USED TO WATCH SOMETHING STRANGE,
TO MY COLLEAGUE SAID, I REALLY
ENJOY THE WEST. WEARING MY
FAMILY HAS WATCHED IT OVER AND
OVER AGAIN. AND THAT ANSWER
RIGHT THERE, WHICH I RESPECT,
IS AMAZING. WE DIFFERENCE SO
MANY, THINGS BUT JAMIE AND I
JUST GET ALONG REALLY WELL ON
MANY THINGS. HE IS WRONG, I'M
RIGHT. BUT WE'LL DEAL WITH THAT
I'M KIDDING. THERE WAS AN
EPISODE IN WHICH PRESIDENT
MARTIN, WAS IN ONE OF HIS
RHETORICAL FLOURISHES, AND TOLD
HE ASKED HIM ABOUT A FRIEND WHO
CALLED TO GOVERN SOMETHING FIX
AT THE VA. AND HE WENT ON THIS
WRONG IF, YOU REMEMBER THE
SAYING HE WENT ON TO THIS LONG
STORY ABOUT THE RED TAPE, AND
THAT VETERANS HAD TO COME TO
RETAIN, BECAUSE THERE IS SO RED
TAPE. THAT'S WHEN RED TAPE
COMES FROM. AND CHARLIE WHO WAS
THE BODY MAN FOR THE PRESIDENT
LOOKED AT HIM AND SAID, MISTER
PRESIDENT ALL I WANT TO KNOW IS
HOW TO GET THIS FIXED. AND I
THINK THAT'S WHAT WE'RE SEEING
HERE A LOT TODAY. THIS FUTURE,
WHAT IS GOING? ON WHAT'S GONNA
HAPPEN? WHAT HAPPENS TOMORROW?
WHAT'S GONNA HAPPEN TOMORROW'S
UP ARE GOING TO VOTE FOR
ARTICLES OF. IMPEACHMENT BUT
AFTER THAT IT'S GOING TO GO TO
THE SENATE, WHICH IS A
PREDETERMINED OBSERVATION NOT
BECAUSE OF ANYTHING, BUT THAT'S
FINE. THAT'S THE PATH WE CHOSE.
BUT WHERE DO WE GO FROM? HERE
THIS IS MY QUESTION. BECAUSE I
THINK WHEN YOU ARE LOOKING AT
THIS TO SIMPLY SAY INCOME AT IT
FROM THE FACT THAT IT'S THE
ONLY WAY THE MAJORITY CAN COME
AT. THIS IS THAT THE PRESIDENT
IT'S SOMETHING. WRONG AT WHICH
POINT AS HE'S EVER DONE
ANYTHING RIGHT FOR THIS
MAJORITY? HE NEVER HAS. AND I
THINK THAT WHEN YOU LOOK AT THE
DISCUSSION, AND I UNDERSTAND
YOUR DISCUSSION BUT WHEN YOU
LOOK AT IT FROM THE FACT, THAT
FROM THE MOMENT THROUGH THE
ELECTION THERE'S BEEN
DISCUSSION OF IMPEACHMENT. FROM
MOMENTS IN THIS AND MORNING THE
WASHINGTON POST SAYS NOW THE
IMPEACHMENT BEGINS. WHEN WE
BEGAN TO LOOK AT THIS PROCESS
ALL THE WAY THROUGH, MY
QUESTION IS NOT HOW OR WHY ARE
WE DO THIS BUT WHERE? WHEN DO
WE DO IT AGAIN? BECAUSE IT'S
NOT A MATTER OF FACTS, I DON'T
ENGAGE IN HYPOTHETICALS. WE GO
BACK TO THE SIMPLE FACTS OF
WHAT HAPPENED. FOR BASIC
TRUTHS. ZELENSKY AND PRESIDENT
TRUMP SAID NO PRESSURE. THE
TRANSCRIPT THERE IS NO
CONDITIONALITY. THE CRANES HAD
DIDN'T OPEN INVESTIGATION,
STILL RECEIVED AID, AND GOT A
MEETING WITH THE PRESIDENT.
THERE WERE FIVE MEETINGS. THREE
OF WHICH TOOK PLACE FROM THE
CALL TO THE ACTUAL TIME WHERE
THE UKRAINIANS FOUND OUT ABOUT
THE AID BEING HELD. TO THE
THOSE MEETINGS WERE AFTER THE
AID WAS BEING. HEALTH NONE OF
THESE INVOLVE PRESIDENT PENCE,
NONE OF THESE ACTUALLY DISCUSS
AID BEING LINKED TO THE MONEY.
NONE. SO WE START OFF, AND WE
GIVE RHETORICAL FLOURISHES HERE
AT THE END, WHICH IS FINE, I
UNDERSTAND IT IF I HAD TO SELL
THIS I WOULD BE RHETORICAL
RHETORICAL IN FLOURISHES,
BECAUSE THE CONSTITUTION IS THE
DISSEMINATION OF THIS CONGRESS
IS GOING TO BE CALM THE BODY IN
WHICH WE IMPEACH BECAUSE OF
BIPARTISAN IDEAS. WHICH IS ALSO
WHAT THE FOUNDERS DISCUSSED.
YOU HAVE THE MAJORITY, WE HAVE
THE MAJORITY FOR A WHILE WHILE
I WAS HERE, FOR SIX YEARS. IT'S
A MASSIVE RESPONSIBILITY. AND
INDEED IN TIMES WE DID IT WELL
AND IN TIMES WE DIDN'T DO IT.
WELL AND I BELIEVE THIS IS WHY
LAST NOVEMBER WE GOT OUR
ELECTION THAT GAVE US THE
MAJORITY AND GIVE YOU THE
GAVEL. BUT REMEMBER, JUST
BECAUSE YOU CAN, DOESN'T MEAN
YOU SHOULD. AND SOMETIMES WHEN
THE FACTS, ESPECIALLY WHEN YOU
GO OUT THE PERSPECTIVE AS, I
SAID EARLIER TODAY, I'LL FIGHT
PROCESS IN A FIGHT FACTS AND
I'LL WIN ON BOTH. BECAUSE WHEN
I TAKE THESE CASES AND I'LL
TAKE IT TO THE FLOOR TOMORROW,
AND I'LL TAKE IT TO THE
AMERICAN PEOPLE, JUST AS THIS
PRESIDENT WILL. JUST AS THOSE
WHO FOLLOW HIM, AND WE
UNDERSTAND WHAT ACTUALLY
HAPPENED, AND WHAT HE'S
ACTUALLY'S CHARGED, NOT WEIGHED
WE ASSUME AND, NOT WHAT WE HAVE
BROUGHT ABOARD. BUT WHAT HAS
ACTUALLY THAT I ACTUALLY SEE
NOTHING THAT HELPS US DOWN THE
LINE, BUT I'D USE SEE TWO
THINGS. I SEE A PROCESS THAT IS
BEING TRASHED, AND THE RULES
AND PROCESSES OF THE COMMITTEE,
AND OF THE WHOLE. AND I SEE A
PROCESS OF IMPEACHMENT THAT HAS
BEEN LOWER, TOWARDS YOU DON'T
EVEN HAVE TO JUMP ANYMORE. AND
THAT IS MY CONCERN. I KNOW MR.
RASKIN DOESN'T SHARE IT, BUT IF
YOU ASK THAT IS MY CONCERN.
WHERE DO WE GO FROM HERE? IN
SOME WAYS LOOKING AT THIS, GOD
HELP US. I YIELD BACK.
>> LET ME JUST FINISH WITH,
FROM MY PERSPECTIVE THE
SPECIFICITY, AND MR. COLEMAN
AND I WERE TALKING ABOUT THE
PEOPLE READING OF THE SUMMARY
OF THE PHONE CALL, AND
DIFFERENT GREAT PEOPLE READING
IT AND HAVING DIFFERENT
REALITIES WHEN THEY READ IT.
BUT, AS ALL OF US CAN RELATE TO,
IF CANDIDATE FOR FEDERAL OFFICE,
THE LAW SAYS CANNOT, AND COACH
SNOWING THE SOLICIT FROM ANY
FOREIGN ANY CONTRIBUTION OR THE
NATION. AND THAT IS DEFINED AS
ANYTHING OF VALUE. WHEN I READ
THAT SUMMARY, HE'S CLEARLY
ASKING FOR SOME THING OF VALUE.
AN INVESTIGATION THAT WOULD
COST HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF
DOLLARS AGAINST HIS PRIMARY
OPPONENT. THE DAY AFTER THE
MUELLER REPORT THEY BEFORE HE
WENT OUT AND TOLD THAT THE
SECOND AMENDMENT GAVE HIM THE
RIGHT TO DO ANYTHING YOU WANT
IT. SO MAYBE BRIEFLY MISTRUST
CAN, THE PRESIDENT WITHHELD IS
FUNDS, MR. COLLINS RELEASED
THEM, BUT MY RECOLLECTION IS
THAT IN HE RELEASED THEM
BECAUSE PEOPLE IN THE CONGRESS,
IN THE PRESS WAS STARTING TO
SAY, YOU NEED TO RELEASE. THESE
SO WAS THE PRESSURE, BROUGHT TO
HIM, TO RELEASE TO THAT GOT HIM
TO RELEASE? IT AND IN THAT TIME,
THE UKRAINE WAS EXPOSED TO HIS
HATRED TOWARDS MR. PUTIN. WAS
HE FAITHFULLY EXECUTING THE
DUTIES OF HIS OFFICE WHEN HE
DID IT?
>> HE GOT CAUGHT RED-HANDED,
AND DON'T SEE ANY AMBIGUITY IN
HISTORICAL RECORD ON THIS. WE
ANNOUNCED THIS INVESTIGATION ON
THE 9TH OF SEPTEMBER, AND AND
IT WAS ON THE 11TH THAT THE
MONEY WAS FINALLY RELEASED.
>> THANK YOU I YIELD BACK
>> I HAVE GOOD NEWS FOR BOTH OF
YOU, I THINK EVERYBODY HAS
ASKED TO QUESTION, THERE IS
NOBODY LEFT OF THIS COMMITTEE.
I DO WANT TO CLOSE WITH, I WANT
TO THANK BOTH ARE WITNESSES,
FOR ENDURING THIS SUPERLONG
HEARING, I WANT TO THANK THE
MEMBERS OF THIS COMMITTEE
REPUBLICANS AND DEMOCRATS, WE
HAVE VERY SHARP DISAGREEMENTS
ON, THIS BUT I THINK THIS
HEARING WAS CONDUCTED WITH
CIVILITY I, WANT TO THANK MR.
COHEN HIS TEAM FOR HELPING WITH
THIS, I LIKE THIS HEARING,
FRANKLY BETTER THAN THE ONE
THAT WAS IN YOUR COMMITTEE, BUT
I THINK PEOPLE FEEL VERY
STRONGLY ABOUT THESE ISSUES AND
I THINK THAT I DO I WANT TO
THANK EVERYBODY FOR THEIR
COOPERATION TODAY. AND YOU ARE
DISMISSED, AND THERE ARE NO
OTHER WITNESSES HERE SO THAT
WILL END THE HEARING PORTION OF
THIS.
>> MAY I BE RECOGNIZE MISTER
CHAIRMAN.
>> YOU MAY.
>> I HAVE THE FOUR LETTERS THAT
I SENT AN INDIVIDUAL ASK
INTERVIEW THE DOCUMENTS TO
LETTERS THAT WERE GROUP
PROJECTS I WOULD LIKE TO ADD
THEM.
>> WITHOUT OBJECTION
>> I THINK IT'S ALSO SUB NICK
SIGNIFICANT THAT MR. POROSHENKO
CAME AND TALKED TO A SESSION OF
CONGRESS IN 2014 -- IN HIS
ADDRESS, HE REFERENCED A LOT OF
THINGS, THAT UKRAINE HAD
VOLUNTARILY WITHDRAWN FROM
BEING A NUCLEAR POWER, WITH A
PROMISE THAT THEY WOULD ALL'S
ALWAYS BE PROTECTED, AND MAYBE
THEY WEREN'T, BUT, HE ALSO,
THIS WAS THE SPEECH IN WHICH HE
ALSO SAID, THAT THEY NEEDED
MORE MILITARY EQUIPMENT, BOTH
LETHAL AND NOT LETHAL, NIGHT
VISION GOGGLES ARE IMPORTANT
BUT WE CANNOT WIN A WAR WITH
BLANKETS. THIS WAS FROM 2014,
DONALD TRUMP WAS NOT PRESIDENT,
I THOUGHT IT WOULD IT'S
IMPORTANT TO PUT IN THIS PART
OF THE RECORD. OUR NATIONAL
SUCK NO NATIONAL SECURITY WAS
THREATENED BY PRESIDENT TRUMP'S
ACTIONS.
>> THIS COMES TO A CLOSE, AND
WE WILL RECESS WORK ALL OF A
CHAIR WE WILL WORK WITH YOU AT
ANY TIME TO RECONVENED YOUR
OBLIGATIONS -- TONIGHT WITH
THAT, THE HEARING IS CLOSE.
>> I CAN PROMISE YOU THAT, I
CAN PROMISE THAT I THINK, THAT
IT'LL BE -- (INAUDIBLE)
(LAUGHS) SEEN (INAUDIBLE)
 THE HOUSE RULES COMMITTEE
CONSIDER THE IMPEACHMENT
REVOLUTION RESOLUTION ON
PRESIDENT TRUMP. THE RESOLUTION
TAKES TWO ARTICLES OF
IMPEACHMENT, ONE ON OBSTRUCTION
OF CONGRESS AND THE OTHER ON
THE BROADER ISSUE OF THE PHONE
CALL FROM THE PRESIDENT OF
UKRAINE. PRESIDENT TRUMP TODAY,
TALKING ABOUT THAT AT THE WHITE
HOUSE, WILL SHOW YOU SOME OF
THAT LATER IN OUR PROGRAM
SCHEDULE, WHAT WE CAN TELL YOU
IS THAT THE HOUSE RULES
COMMITTEE IS EXPECTED TO GAVEL
BACK IN HERE BEFORE THE EVENING
IS OUT, AND CONSIDER THOSE
RULES, DEBATE THOSE AND GAVEL
OUT LATER THIS EVENING. THE
HOUSE IS SET TO DEBATE SOMETIME
TOMORROW MORNING, THEY GAVEL IN,
THE U.S. HOUSE AT 9:00 EASTERN
TOMORROW, THERE WILL BE LIVE ON
C-SPAN. AS WE WAIT FOR THE
COMMITTEE TO RETURN WE TAKE YOU
BACK TO THE BEGINNING OF THE
COMMITTEE WITH OPENING
STATEMENTS.
>> THE RULES COMMITTEE WILL
COME TO ORDER. THE RULES
COMMITTEE WILL COME TO ORDER.
IT'S UNFORTUNATE THAT WE HAVE
TO BE HERE TODAY. BUT THE
ACTIONS THAT THE PRESIDENT
THEY'VE NEEDED STATES HAVE MADE
THAT THE EXCESS ERIE. PRESIDENT
TRUMP WITHHELD CONGRESSIONAL
APPROVED A TO THE UKRAINE A,
PARTNER UNDER SIEGE, NOT TO
FIGHT CORRUPTION, BUT TO
EXTRACT A PERSONAL POLITICAL
FAVOR. PRESIDENT TRUMP REFUSED
TO MEET WITH THE CRANES
PRESIDENT IN THE WHITE HOUSE
UNTIL HE COMPLETED THIS SCHEME.
ALL THE WHILE, THE ROAD RUSSIA
THE VERY NATION HOLDING PART OF
UKRAINE HOSTAGE, THE VERY
NATION THAT INTERFERED IN OUR
ELECTION IN 2016, HAD ANOTHER
MEETING IN THE OVAL OFFICE JUST
LAST WEEK. THESE ARE NOT MY
OPINIONS, THESE ARE UNCONTESTED
FACTS. WE'VE LISTENED TO THE
HEARINGS, WE'VE READ THE
TRANSCRIPTS. AND IT'S CLEAR
THAT THIS PRESIDENT ACTED IN A
WAY THAT NOT ONLY VIOLATES THE
PUBLIC TRUST, HUGE APOLOGIZED
OUR NATIONAL SECURITY. AND HE
UNDERMINED OUR DEMOCRACY. HE
ACTED IN A WAY THAT RISES TO
THE LEVEL OF IMPEACHMENT. THAT
IS WHY WE ARE CONSIDERING H
RAISE 65 TODAY, IMPEACHING
DONALD J TRUMP FOR HIGH CRIMES
AND MISDEMEANORS. CONGRESS HAS
NO OTHER CHOICE THAN TO ACT
WITH URGENCY, AND WHEN I THINK
BACK TO THE FOUNDERS OF THIS
NATION, THEY WERE PARTICULARLY
CONCERNED ABOUT FOREIGN
INTERFERENCE IN OUR ELECTIONS.
THEY UNDERSTOOD THAT ALLOWING
OUTSIDE FORCES TO DECIDE
AMERICAN CAMPAIGNS WOULD CAUSE
THE FUNDAMENTALS OF OUR
DEMOCRACY TO CRUMBLE. BUT THE
EVIDENCE SHOWS THAT IS EXACTLY
WHAT PRESIDENT TRUMP DID. NOT
ONLY ALLOWED, BUT SOLICITED
FOREIGN INTERFERENCE, ALL TO
HEAR HIM IN HIS REELECTION
CAMPAIGN. WHAT SHOCKS ME, QUITE
FRANKLY, ABOUT SO MANY OF MY
REPUBLICAN FRIENDS, IS THEIR
INABILITY TO ACKNOWLEDGE THAT
PRESIDENT TRUMP ACTED
IMPROPERLY. IT SEEMS THE ONLY
REPUBLICANS WILLING TO ADMIT
THAT SAID THAT HE DID SOMETHING
WRONG HAVE ALREADY RETIRED, OR
ANNOUNCED PLANS THEY CAN THEY
INTEND TO RETIRE AT THE END OF
THIS CONGRESS. I GET IT, IT'S
HARD TO CRITICIZE THE PRESIDENT
OF YOUR OWN PARTY. BUT THAT
SHOULDN'T MATTER HERE. I ADMIRE
PRESIDENT CLINTON WHEN HE WAS
PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES
AND I STILL DO TODAY. BUT WHEN
THIS HOUSE IMPEACHED HIM, WHICH
I DIDN'T AGREE WITH, I WENT TO
THE HOST AND SAID THAT WHAT
PRESIDENT CLINTON DID WAS
WRONG. BECAUSE MOMENTS LIKE
THIS CALL FOR MORE THAN JUST
REFLECTIVE PARTNERSHIP. THEY
REQUIRE HONESTY. AND THEY
REQUIRE COURAGE. ARE ANY
REPUBLICANS TODAY WILLING TO
MUSTER THE STRENGTH TO SAY THAT
WHAT THIS PRESIDENT DID WAS
WRONG? NOW LET ME SAY AGAIN
WHAT HAPPENED HERE. THE
PRESIDENT WITHHELD
CONGRESSIONAL APPROVED AID TO A
COUNTRY UNDER SIEGE TO EXTRACT
A PERSONAL POLITICAL FAVOR. HE
DID NOT DO THIS AS A MATTER OF
U.S. POLICY, HE DID THIS FOR
HIS OWN BENEFIT. THAT IS WRONG.
AND IF THAT IS NOT IMPEACHABLE
CONDUCT, I DON'T KNOW WHAT IT
IS. NOW I'VE HEARD SOME ON THE
OTHER SIDE TO SUGGEST THAT THIS
PROCESS IS ABOUT OVERTURNING AN
ELECTION THAT IS ABSURD. THAT
IS ABOUT PRESIDENT TRUMP USING
HIS OFFICE TO TRY AND RIGGED
THE NEXT ELECTION. NOW THINK
ABOUT THAT. WE LIKE TO SAY THAT
EVERY BONE VOTE MATTERS. THAT
EVERY VOTE COUNTS. WE LEARNED
ABOUT GREAT SCHOOL ABOUT ALL
THE PEOPLE THAT FOUGHT FOR THAT
RIGHT. IT IS A SECRET THING. I
REMEMBER, AS A MIDDLE SCHOOLER
IN 1972. LEAVING LEAFLETS OF
POTENTIAL VOTERS, URGING THEM
TO SUPPORT GEORGIA GO MCGOVERN
FOR PRESIDENT. AND HE WAS
DEDICATED TO ENDING THEY EBB
WAR IN VIETNAM, FEEDING THE
HUNGRY, AND HELPING THE POOR. I
REMEMBER, EVEN TO THIS DAY WHAT
AN HONOR IT WAS TO ASK PEOPLE
TO SUPPORT HIM EVEN THOUGH I
WAS TOO YOUNG TO VOTE MYSELF.
AND WHAT A PRIVILEGED WAS TO
ASK I'VE BEEN PROUD OF WINNING
CAMPAIGNS AND I'VE BEEN PROUD
OF LOSING ONES TO PEOPLE I
THOUGHT WOULD BE GREAT
PRESIDENT LIKE SENATOR MCGOVERN
WOULD NEVER GIVEN THAT CHANCE I
MAY I WOULD TAKE LOSING AN
ELECTION WHEN THE AMERICAN
PEOPLE RENDER THAT VERDICT AND
I WILL NEVER IF OUR NATION
DECIDES OUR LEADERS FOR US. THE
PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES
IS ROLLING OUT THE WELCOME MAT
TO THAT FOREIGN INTERFERENCE TO
NOT ACT, WOULD SEND A DANGEROUS
PRESIDENT NOT JUST FOR THIS
PRESIDENT BUT FOR ANY FUTURE
PRESIDENT THE. THE EVIDENCE IS
AS CLEAR AS IT IS OVERWHELMING
AND THIS ADMINISTRATION HASN'T
HANDED OVER A SINGLE SUBPOENA
ARTICLE. NOT NOW IS OUR TIME TO
DECIDE WHETHER THE UNITED
STATES IS AMERICA OH IS ALLOWED
TO ACT LIKE THOSE WHO ACT LIKE
KINGS OR QUEENS AS IF THE LAW
DOESN'T APPLY TO THEM IT'S NO
SECRET THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP HAS
A PENCHANT FORCED'S CLOSING UP
TO VLADIMIR PUTIN CONGRATULATED
THE RODRIGO DETERRED ARE,
LAUDED PRESIDENT ERDOGAN FELL
IN LOVE WITH KING JOHN OWN. I
CAN GO ON AND ON AND ON. AND
MAYBE THE PRESIDENT IS JEALOUS,
THAT THEY CAN DO WHATEVER THEY,
WANT THESE DICTATORS ARE THE
ANTICIPATES OF WHAT AMERICA
STANDS FOR. AND EVERY DAY WE
LET PRESIDENT TRUMP LIKE THE
LAW DOESN'T APPLY TO HIM, WE
MOVED A LITTLE CLOSER TO THEM.
NOW BENJAMIN FRANKLIN LEFT THE
CONSTITUTION CONVENTION AND
SAID THE FOUNDERS HAVE CREATED
A REPUBLICAN IF YOU CAN KEEP.
IT THERE ARE NO GUARANTEES. OUR
SYSTEM OF GOVERNMENT PURSE WILL
PERSIST ONLY IF WE FIGHT FOR IT
AND THE QUESTION FOR US IS THIS
ARE WE WILLING TO FIGHT FOR
THIS DEMOCRACY? I EXPECT WILL
HAVE A LOT OF DEBATE HERE TODAY
I HOPE EVERYONE SEARCHES THEIR
CONFIDENCE TO MY REPUBLICAN
FRIENDS IMAGINE ANY PRESIDENT
OBAMA, PRESIDENT CLINTON, ANY
OF THEM WOULD YOUR ANSWER HERE
STILL BE THE SAME? NO ONE
SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO USE THE
POWER OF THE PRESIDENCY TO
UNDERMINE OUR ELECTIONS OR,
CHEATED IN A CAMPAIGN. NO
MATTER WHO IT IS. AND NO MATTER
WHAT THEIR PARTY. WE ALL TOOK
AN OATH, NOT TO DEFEND A
POLITICAL PARTY BUT TO UPHOLD
THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED
STATES. HISTORY IS TESTING US,
WE CAN'T CONTROL WHAT THE
SENATE WILL DO BUT EACH OF US
CAN DECIDE WHETHER WE PASSED
THAT TEST WHETHER WE DEFEND OR
WHETHER WE UPHOLD OUR OATH,
TODAY WE WILL PUT AND WHEN I
CAST MY VOTE IN FAVOR MY
CONSCIOUS WILL BE CLEAR BETWEEN
I TURN TO MY RANKING MEMBER I
WANT TO RECOGNIZE HIM WE TAKE A
LOT OF CONSENSUS RULES AND
OFTEN WHERE OUR DIFFERENCES OF
MANY ISSUES. BUT HE LEADS WITH
INTEGRITY AND, HE CARES DEEPLY
ABOUT THIS HOUSE. THERE WILL BE
PASSIONATE DISAGREEMENT HERE
TODAY BUT I HAVE NO DOUBT SIDE
BY SIDE IN THIS COMMITTEE TO
BETTER THIS INSTITUTION. AND
LET ME ALSO CHAIR STATE FOR THE
RECORD THAT MR. CHAIRMAN NADLER
IS UNABLE TO BE HERE TODAY
BECAUSE OF A FAMILY MEDICAL
EMERGENCY, AND WERE ALL KEEPING
HIM AND HIS FAMILY IN OUR
THOUGHTS AND PRAYERS.
TESTIFYING INSTEAD TODAY IS
CONGRESSMAN RASKIN, HE IS NOT
ONLY A VALID MEMBER OF THIS
COMMITTEE, BUT ALSO THE
JUDICIARY COMMITTEE. IN
ADDITION CONGRESSMAN RASKIN IS
A CONSTITUTIONAL LAW PROFESSOR,
SO HE HAS A VERY COMPREHENSIVE
AND UNIQUE UNDERSTANDING WHAT
WERE TALKING ABOUT HERE TODAY.
AND I APPRECIATE HIM STEPPING
IN BUT I ALSO WANT TO WELCOME
BACK MR. COLLINS SOMEONE WHOM
WE DON'T AGREE WITH BUT I
RESPECT NEVERTHELESS AND I
APPRECIATE HIS CONTRIBUTIONS TO
THIS INSTITUTION I WILL TURN
THIS OVER TO OUR RANKING MEMBER
MR. COLE >> THANK YOU VERY MUCH,
MR. CHAIRMAN. LET ME BEGIN BY
RECIPROCATING PERSONAL AND
PROFESSIONAL RESPECT FOR YOU
AND THE OTHER MEMBERS OF THE
COMMITTEE. THIS IS A DAY WHERE
WE'RE GOING TO DISAGREE AND
DISAGREE STRONGLY. IT IS, AS
YOU REFERENCED, MANIER CHAIRMAN,
A SAD DAY. A SAD DAY FOR ME
PERSONALLY, FOR THE RULES
COMMITTEE, FOR THE INSTITUTION
OF THE HOUSE AND FOR THE
AMERICAN PEOPLE. WE'RE MEETING
TODAY ON A RULE FOR CONSIDERING
ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT AGAINST
A SITTING PRESIDENT OF THE
UNITED STATES ON THE FLOOR OF
THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.
THIS IS NOT THE RESULT OF A
FAIR PROCESS, AND CERTAINLY NOT
A BIPARTISAN ONE. SADLY THE
DEMOCRATS IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY
HAS BEEN FLAWED AND PARTISANED
FROM DAY ONE. SO I GUESS IT
SHOULD COME AS NO SURPRISE THAT
DEMOCRATS PREORDAINED OUTCOME
IS ALSO FLAWED AND PARTISAN.
SEVEN WEEKS AGO WHEN THIS
COMMITTEE MET TO CONSIDER A
RESOLUTION TO GUIDE THE PROCESS
FOR THE DEMOCRATS UNPRECEDENTED
IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY I WARNED
THAT THEY WERE TREADING ON
SHAKY GROUND WITH THEIR UNFAIR
AND CLOSED PROCESS. REFLECTING
HOW THINGS HAVE PLAYED OUT
SINCE THEN, REAFFIRMS MY
EARLIER JUDGMENT THAT THIS
FLAWED PROCESS WAS CRAFTED TO
ENSURE A PARTISAN PREORDAINED
RESULT. UNFORTUNATELY THIS
ENTIRE PROCESS WAS TARNISHED
FURTHER BY THE SPEED WITH WHICH
MY DEMOCRATIC COLLEAGUES ON THE
GOO JUDICIARY AND INTELLIGENCE
COMMITTEES RUSHED TO IMPEACH
THE PRESIDENT FOR SOMETHING,
ANYTHING, WHETHER THERE ARE
STONES LEFT UNTURNED OR WHETHER
THERE'S ANY PROOF AT ALL.
THERE'S NO WAY THIS CAN OR
SHOULD BE VIEWED AS LEGITIMATE.
CERTAINLY NOT BY REPUBLICANS
WHOSE MINORITY RIGHTS HAVE BEEN
TRAMPLED ON EVERY STEP ALONG
THE WAY AND CERTAINLY NOT BY
THE AMERICAN PEOPLE OBSERVING
THIS DISASTROUS POLITICAL SHOW
SCENE BY SCENE. AS I'VE SAID
BEFORE, UNLIKE ANY IMPEACHMENT
PROCEEDINGS IN MODERN HISTORY,
THE PARTISAN PROCESS PRESCRIBED
AND PURSUED BY DEMOCRATS IS
TRULY UNPRECEDENTED. IT
CONTRADICTS SPEAKER PELOSI'S
OWN WORDS, BACK IN MARCH OF
THIS YEAR, SHE SAID, QUOTE,
IMPEACHMENT IS SO DIVISIVE TO
THE COUNTRY THAT UNLESS THERE'S
SOMETHING SO COMPELLING AND
OVERWHELMING AND BIPARTISAN, I
DON'T THINK WE SHOULD GO DOWN
THAT PATH BECAUSE IT DIVIDES
THE COUNTRY, UNQUOTE. THE KEY
WORD IS BIPARTISAN. INDEED
DURING THE NIXON AND CLINTON
IMPEACHMENTS THE PROCESS FOR
OPENING THE INQUIRY WAS
CONSIDERED ON A BIPARTISAN
BASIS. BACK THEN BOTH SIDES
TREATED THE PROCESS WITH THE
SERIOUSNESS IT DESERVED. SNEGS
NEGOTIATING AND FINDING
AGREEMENT ACROSS THE AISLE TO
ENSURE FAIRNESS AND DUE PROCESS
FOR ALL INVOLVED IN THE
INQUIRIES. BUT THAT'S NOT THE
CASE TODAY. INSTEAD DEMOCRATS
HAVE PUSHED FORWARD USING A
PARTISAN PROCESS THAT LIMITED
THE PRESIDENT'S RIGHT TO DUE
PROCESS, PREVENTED THE MINORITY
FROM EXERCISING THEIR RIGHTS
AND CHARGED AHEAD TOWARDS A
VOTE TO IMPEACH THE PRESIDENT
WHETHER THE EVIDENCE IS THERE
OR NOT. I SUPPOSE I SHOULD NOT
BE SURPRISED BY ANY OF THIS.
DEMOCRATS IN THE HOUSE HAVE
BEEN PUSHING TO IMPEACH
PRESIDENT TRUMP SINCE BEFORE HE
WAS EVEN SWORN IN. IN DECEMBER
OF 2017, WHEN A CURRENT
DEMOCRATIC MEMBER OF THE HOUSE
FORCED A VOTE ON IMPEACHMENT
RESOLUTION, 58 DEMOCRATS VOTED
THEN TO IMPEACH THE PRESIDENT,
EVEN WITHOUT AN INVESTIGATION,
WITHOUT ANY EVIDENCE TO POINT
TO. THOSE NUMBERS ARE ONLY
GROWN SINCE THEN. TO THE POINT
WHERE THE MAJORITY IS NOW
PUSHING FORWARD WITH A FINAL
VOTE ON IMPEACHMENT, NEEDLESS
OF WHERE IT TAKES THE COUNTRY
AND REGARDLESS OF WHETHER THEY
HAVE PROVEN THEIR CASE. MR.
CHAIRMAN, IT DIDN'T HAVE TO BE
THIS WAY. THE WHEN SHE BECAME
ENTRUSTED WITH THE GAVEL OVER
IN THE HOUSE, SPEAKER PELOSI
ASSURED US ALL SHE WOULD NOT
MOVE FORWARD WITH IMPEACHMENT
UNLESS IT WAS BIPARTISAN AND
UNLESS THERE WAS A CLEAR
CONSENSUS IN THE COUNTRY.
NEITHER OF THOSE TWO
COMMISSIONS ARE PRESENT HERE.
INDEED, THE LATEST REAL CLEAR
POLITICS AVERAGE OF POLLS ON
IMPEACHMENT SHOWS THE COUNTRY
EVENLY SPLIT, 46.5 OF AMERICANS
IN FAVOR OF IMPEACHMENT, 46.5%
AGAINST. THAT IS HARDLY WHAT I
WOULD CALL A NATIONAL CONSENSUS
IN FAVOR OF IMPEACHING
PRESIDENT TRUMP. WHEN HALF OF
AMERICANS ARE TELLING YOU THAT
WHAT YOU'RE DOING IS WRONG, YOU
SHOULD LISTEN. I THINK THIS IS
THE CASE GIVEN HOW CLOSE WE ARE
TO THE NEXT ELECTION. IN 11
MONTHS THE AMERICAN PEOPLE ARE
GOING TO VOTE ON THE NEXT
PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES.
WHY ARE WE PLUNGES THEING THE
COUNTRY INTO THIS TURMOIL NOW
WHEN THE VOTERS THEMSELVES WILL
RESOLVE THE MATTER ONE WAY OR
ANOTHER LESS THAN A YEAR FROM
TODAY. ALL IT DOES ACHIEVE IS
MAKE THE POLITICAL POLARIZATION
AND DIVISIONS IN OUR COUNTRY
EVEN WORSE. THAT MAKES NO SENSE
TO ME. WE MAY BE MOVING FORWARD
WITH A VOTE, I CERTAINLY DO NOT
BELIEVE THE MAJORITY HAS PROVEN
ITS CASE OR CONVINCED THE
AMERICAN PEOPLE THAT THE WEEKS
OF WASTED TIME WAS WORTH IT.
PERSONALLY I BELIEVE THE
ARTICLES THEMSELVES ARE
UNWARRANTED. THE MAJORITY IS
SEEKING TO REMOVE THE PRESIDENT
OVER SOMETHING THAT DIDN'T
HAPPEN. THE ALLEGED QUID PRO
QUO WITH THE PRESIDENT OF
UKRAINE. NEVER MIND THAT THE
FOREIGN AID WENT TO UKRAINE AS
IT WAS SUPPOSED TO, NEVER MIND
THAT NO INVESTIGATIONS WERE
REQUIRED FOR THE UKRAINE TO GET
THE AID. AND NEVER MIND THAT
THE TWO PARTICIPANTS IN THE
FAMOUS CONVERSATION, PRESIDENT
TRUMP AND PRESIDENT ZELENSKY,
SAID NOTHING INAPPROPRIATE
HAPPENED. ACCORDING TO THE
MAJORITY, HOWEVER, A QUID PRO
QUO THAT NEVER EXISTED IS AN
APPROPRIATE BASIS FOR REMOVING
THE PRESIDENT FROM OFFICE. EVEN
THOUGH THE MAJORITY HAS NOT
PROVEN ITS CASE, EVEN THOUGH
THERE'S NO BASIS FOR
IMPEACHMENT, THEY'RE STILL
MOVING FORWARD TODAY. WHAT I
CANNOT DISCERN IS A LEGITIMATE
REASON WHY. WHY THE MAJORITY IS
MOVING FORWARD WHEN THE PROCESS
IS SO PARTISAN. WHY THEY'RE
MOVING FORWARD WHEN THE
AMERICAN PEOPLE ARE NOT WITH
THEM, WHY THEY ARE MOVING
FORWARD WHEN THEY HAVE NOT
PROVEN THEIR CASE AND WHY THEY
ARE MOVING FORWARD WHEN THERE'S
NO BASIS FOR IMPEACHMENT. WHY?
WHY PUT THE COUNTRY THROUGH ALL
OF THIS? IT MAKES EVEN LESS
SENSE TO ME WHEN WE CONSIDER
THE REALITIES OF THE UNITED
STATES SENATE. WE ALREADY KNOW
THAT THE VOTES TO CONVICT AND
REMOVE THE PRESIDENT FROM
OFFICE SIMPLY AREN'T THERE.
BLUNTLY PUT THIS IS A MATTER
THAT CONGRESS AS A WHOLE CANNOT
RESOLVE ON ITS OWN. THE
MAJORITY IS PLUNGING FORWARD
REGARD LZ OFLESS OF THE
NEEDLESS DRAMA OR DAMAGE TO THE
INSTITUTION OR THE COUNTRY
KNOWING FULL WELL AT THE END OF
THE DAY THE PRESIDENT WILL
REMAIN IN OFFICE. FOR WHAT?
SCORING POLITICAL POINTS WITH
THEIR PARTY'S BASE? AGAIN, MR.
CHAIRMAN, THIS DOES NOT MAKE
SENSE TO ME. WE DIDN'T NEED TO
GO THIS ROUTE. WE DIDN'T NEED
TO PUSH FORWARD ON A PARTISAN
IMPEACHMENT PROCESS THAT HAD
ONLY ONE POSSIBLE RESULT. BUT
WE'RE HERE ANY WAY REGARDLESS
OF THE DAMAGE IT DOES TO THE
INSTITUTION AND REGARDLESS OF
HOW MUCH FURTHER IT DIVIDES THE
COUNTRY. AS I SAID AT THE
BEGINNING, MR. CHAIRMAN, THIS
IS A SAD DAY FOR ALL OF US. IT
IS ESPECIALLY SAD FOR ME
KNOWING THIS DAY WAS
INEVITABLE. NO MATTER WHAT
HAPPENS, NO MATTER WHERE THE
INVESTIGATIONS LED, THE
DEMOCRATIC MAJORITY IN THE
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES WAS
PUSHING SINCE THE DAY THEY TOOK
OVER TO IMPEACH PRESIDENT
TRUMP. FACTS DON'T WARRANT THAT,
MR. CHAIRMAN. THE PROCESS IS
UNWORTHY OF THE OUTCOME. THE
PRESIDENT SHOULD NOT BE
IMPEACHED, I URGE ALL MEMBERS
BOTH HERE AND IN THE RULES
COMMITTEE AND TOMORROW IN THE
HOUSE FLOOR TO VOTE NO. THANK
YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN. >> THANK YOU
VERY MUCH. I APPRECIATE YOUR
COMMENTS. OBVIOUSLY WE HAVE
STRONG DISAGREEMENTS. I JUST
WANT A TECHNICAL POINT I WOULD
LIKE TO MAKE. NONE OF US IN
THIS HOUSE HAVE HAD AN
OPPORTUNITY TO VOTE ON
IMPEACHMENT. THE RESOLUTION
THAT THE GENTLEMAN REFERS TO
WAS SOME OF US OPPOSED TABLING
IT, WE THOUGHT IT SHOULD GO TO
COMMITTEE WHERE IT COULD BE
APPROPRIATELY EVALUATED. THE
COMMITTEES HAVE DONE THEIR WORK,
INVESTIGATED THE WRONG DOINGS,
AND NOW THE COMMITTEE
RECOMMENDED ARTICLES OF
IMPEACHMENT. THE FIRST TIME
ANYONE CAN VOTE ON IMPEACHMENT
IS TOMORROW. I WANT TO WELCOME
BOTH OF OUR WITNESSES. AND MR.
RASKIN, WE BEGIN WITH YOU. YOU.
>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH, MR.
CHAIRMAN. GOOD MORNING, CHAIR
MARN MMC CARECHAIRMAN MCCOVER,
GOOD MORNING TO MY GOOD FRIEND
MR. COLLINS. IT'S MY SOLEMN
RESPONSIBILITY THIS MORNING TO
PRESENT FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION
HOUSE RESOLUTION 755 AND THE
ACCOMPANYING REPORT CONCERNING
THE IMPEACHMENT OF DONALD JOHN
TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED
STATES FOR HIGH CRIMES AND
MISDEMEANORS COMMITTED AGAINST
THE PEOPLE OF THE UNITED
STATES. I'M APPEARING, AS YOU
SAID, MR. CHAIRMAN, THIS
MORNING IN PLACE OF CHAIRMAN
NADLER, WHO COULD NOT BE WITH
US. I'M SURE I SPEAK FOR ALL
THE MEMBERS OF BOTH THE
JUDICIARY COMMITTEE AND RULES
COMMITTEE SENDING STRENGTH,
LOVE AND PRAYERS TO CHAIRMAN
NADLER'S WIFE JOYCE AND ALL OUR
HOPES FOR A SPEEDY RECOVERY.
THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE ALONG
WITH OTHER COMMITTEES WHICH
INVESTIGATED PRESIDENT TRUMP'S
OFFENSES, THE PERMANENT SELECT
COMMITTEE ON INTELLIGENCE, THE
COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND
REFORM BRING THESE ARTICLES
WITH A SOLID PURPOSE AND HEAVY
HEART BUT IN ACTIVE FAITH WITH
THE CONSTITUTIONAL OATHS OF
OFFICE WE HAVE ALL SWORN.
INVESTIGATING COMMITTEES
CONDUCTED 100 HOURS OF
DEPOSITION TESTIMONY WITH 17
SWORN WITNESSES AND 30 HOURS OF
PUBLIC TESTIMONY WITH 12
WITNESSES. THE JUDICIARY
COMMITTEE IS NOW IN POSSESSION
OF OVERWHELMING EVIDENCE THAT
THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED
STATES HAS COMMITTED HIGH
CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS,
VIOLATED 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 VIOLATED HIS
CONSTITUTIONAL DUTY TO TAKE
CARE THAT THE LAWS ARE
FAITHFULLY EXECUTED. WE PRESENT
TWO ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT
SUPPORTED BY HUNDREDS OF PAGES
OF DETAILED EVIDENCE AND
METICULOUS ANALYSIS. THE
EVIDENCE AND ANALYSIS LEAD TO
THE CONCLUSIONS EMBODIED IN
THESE ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT.
FIRST, PRESIDENT TRUMP HAS
COMMITTED THE HIGH CRIME AND
MISDEMEANOR OF ABUSE OF OFFICE.
HE ABUSED THE AWESOME POWERS OF
THE PRESIDENCY BY USING HIS
OFFICE TO CORRUPTLY DEMAND A
FOREIGN GOVERNMENT INTERFERE IN
OUR AMERICAN PRESIDENTIAL
ELECTION IN ORDER TO PROMOTE
HIS OWN POLITICAL CAMPAIGN IN
2020. HE CORRUPTLY CONDITIONED
THE RELEASE OF 391$391 MILLION
IN FOREIGN SECURITY ASSISTANCE
THAT HE HELD BACK FROM THE
UKRAINIAN GOVERNMENT ALONG WITH
A LONG HOPE FOR HOUSE
PRESIDENTIAL MEETING. HE
CONDITIONED THOSE ON UKRAINIAN
PRESIDENT ZELENSKY'S AGREEMENT
TO GO PUBLIC WITH TWO
STATEMENTS, ONE STATEMENT WAS
ANNOUNCING A CRIMINAL
INVESTIGATION INTO FORMER VICE
PRESIDENT JOE BIDEN, A LEADING
PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE AND
RIVAL OF THE PRESIDENT, THE
OTHER STATEMENT WAS ANNOUNCING
AN INVESTIGATION THAT WOULD
REHABILITATE A DISCREDITED PRO
RUSSIAN CONSPIRACY THEORY
SHOWING IT WAS UKRAINE AND NOT
PUTIN'S RUSSIA THAT TRIED TO
DISRUPT THE LAST AMERICAN
PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION IN 2016.
THIS SCHEME TO CORRUPT AN
AMERICAN PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION
SUBORDINATED THE DEMOCRATIC
SOVEREIGNTY OF THE PEOPLE TO
THE PRIVATE POLITICAL AMBITIONS
OF ONE MAN, THE PRESIDENT
HIMSELF. IT IMMEDIATELY PLACED
THE NATIONAL SECURITY INTERESTS
OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
AT RISK AND IT CONTINUES TO
EMBROIL THE NATION AND OUR
GOVERNMENT IN CONFLICT. SECOND,
AFTER THIS CORRUPT SCHEME CAME
TO LIGHT, NUMEROUS PUBLIC
SERVANTS WITH KNOWLEDGE OF KEY
EVENTS SURFACED TO TESTIFY IN
OUR COMMITTEE INVESTIGATIONS
ABOUT THE PRESIDENT'S ACTIONS,
PRESIDENT TRUMP DIRECTED THE
WHOLESALE CATEGORYICAL AND
OBSTRUCTION INTO THIS
IMPEACHMENT INVESTIGATION. HE
DID SO BY ORDERING A BLOCKADE
OF ADMINISTRATION WITNESSES, BY
TRYING TO MUZZLE AND INTIMIDATE
WITNESSES WHO DID COME FORWARD
AND DID NOT PRODUCE A SINGLE
SUBPOENAED DOCUMENT. IN THE
HISTORY OF THE REPUBLIC NO
PRESIDENT OTHER THAN THIS ONE
HAS EVER CLAIMED AND EXERCISED
THE UNILATERAL RIGHT AND POWER
TO THWART AND DEFEAT A HOUSE
PRESIDENTIAL IMPEACHMENT
INQUIRY. THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN
THE FINAL AND UNAVOIDABLE
RESULT OF THE PRESIDENT'S OUT
RANL OUTRAGEOUS DEFIANCE OF
CONGRESS IF 17 HAD NOT COME
FORWARD AND TESTIFIED ABOUT THE
UKRAINE SHAKEDOWN AND ITS
SCANDALOUS EFFECTS ON OUR
NATIONAL SECURITY, OUR
DEMOCRACY, AND OUR
CONSTITUTIONAL SYSTEM OF
GOVERNMENT. MAKE NO MISTAKE,
WHILE THIS INVESTIGATION WAS
SAVED BY THE COURAGE AND
OLD-FASHIONED PATRIOTISM OF
WITNESSES LIKE AMBASSADOR
WILLIAM TAYLOR, AM AMBASSADOR
MARIA YOVANOVITCH, DR. FIONA
HILL, THE PRESIDENT'S
AGGRESSIVE AND UNPRECEDENTED
RESISTANCE TO CONGRESSIONAL
SUBPOENAS FOR WITNESSES AND
DOCUMENTS IS BLATANTLY AND
DANGEROUSLY UNCONSTITUTIONAL.
IF ACCEPTED, AND NORMALIZED NOW,
IT WILL UNDERMINE PERHAPS FOR
ALL TIME THE CONGRESSIONAL
IMPEACHMENT POWER ITSELF. WHICH
IS THE PEOPLES LAST INSTRUMENT
OF CONSTITUTIONAL SELF-DEFENSE
AGAINST A SITTING PRESIDENT WHO
BEHAVES LIKE A KING AND
TRAMPLES THE RULE OF LAW. BY
OBSTRUCTING AN
PREECHLTIMPEACHMENT INQUIRY
WITH INPUNITY, THE FRAMERS SAID
WE SHOULD PROTECT OURSELVES
FROM A PRESIDENT BEING A TYRANT
AND A DESPITE. THESE ARTICLES
CHARGE THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP IS
ENGAGED IN SYSTEMATIC ABUSE OF
HIS POWERS, OBSTRUCTED CONGRESS
AND REALIZED THE WORST FEARS OF
THE FRAMERS BY SUBORDINATING
OUR NATIONAL SECURITY AND
DRAGGING FOREIGN POWERS INTO
AMERICAN POLITICS TO CORRUPT
OUR ELECTIONS ALL FOR THE
GREATER CAUSE OF HIS OWN
PERSONAL GAIN AND AMBITION.
ARTICLE 1 PROVIDES THAT THE
PRESIDENT SHALL BE AS OUR
CONSTITUTIONAL EXPERT WITNESSES
TESTIFIED, THE FRAMERS SOUGHT
TO CAPTURE A BROAD RANGE OF
PRESIDENTIAL MISCONDUCT AND
WRONG DOING THROUGH THIS
PROVISION. BUT THE COMMANDING
AND COMPREHENSIVE IMPULSE FOR
INCLUDING IMPEACHMENT POWER IN
THE CONSTITUTION WAS TO PREVENT
THE PRESIDENT'S ABUSE OF POWER
WHICH THE FRAMERS SAW AS THE
ESSENCE OF IMPEACHABLE CONDUCT.
IN FEDERALIST 65, HAMILTON
WROTE IMPEACHABLE OFFENSES ARE
DEFINED OF ABUSE OF TRUST. FROM
THE RATIFYING CONVENTIONS WE
FIND THE FRAMERS FEARED
PRINCIPALLY THREE KINDS OF
BETRAYAL OF OFFICE. BY ABUSIVE
POWER BY EXPLOITING PUBLIC
OFFICE FOR PRIVATE, POLITICAL,
FINANCIAL GAIN. NUMBER ONE.
NUMBER TWO, ABUSE OF POWER BY
BETRAYING THE NATIONAL INTEREST
IN THE PUBLIC TRUST THROUGH
ENTANGLEMENT WITH FOREIGN
GOVERNMENTS. AND NUMBER THREE,
ABUSE OF POWER BY CORRUPTING
DEMOCRATIC ELECTIONS AND
DENYING THE PEOPLE PROP EVERY
AGENCY THROUGH SELF GOVERNMENT.
ACCORDING TO THE FRAMERS, ANY
ONE OF THESE VIOLATIONS OF THE
PUBLIC TRUST WOULD BE ENOUGH TO
JUSTIFY PRESIDENTIAL
IMPEACHMENT FOR ABUSE OF POWER.
HOWEVER PRESIDENT TRUMP'S
CONDUCT HAS REALIZED ALL THREE
OF THE FRAMERS WORST FEARS OF
PRESIDENTIAL ABUSE OF POWER.
NEVER BEFORE IN AMERICAN
HISTORY HAS AN IMPEACHMENT
INVESTIGATION CRYSTALIZED IN
FINDINGS OF CONDUCT THAT
IMPLICATE ALL OF THE MAJOR
REASONS THAT THE FRAMERS BUILT
IMPEACHMENT INTO OUR
CONSTITUTION. MR. CHAIRMAN, THE
CONDUCT WE SET BEFORE YOU TODAY
IS NOT SOME KIND OF SURPRISING
ABERRATION OR DEVIATION IN THE
PRESIDENT'S BEHAVIOR FOR WHICH
HE IS REMORSEFUL. ON THE
CONTRARY, THE PRESIDENT IS
COMPLETELY UNREPENTANT AND
DECLARES HIS BEHAVIOR HERE
PERFECT, ABSOLUTELY PERFECT. HE
SAYS THAT ARTICLE II OF THE
CONSTITUTION GIVES HIM THE
POWER TO DO WHATEVER HE WANTS,
CONVENIENTLY FORGETTING ARTICLE
II SECTION 4 WHICH GIVES US THE
POWER TO CHECK HIS MISCONDUCT
WITH THE INSTRUMENT OF
IMPEACHMENT. WE BELIEVE THIS
CONDUCT IS IMPEACHABLE AND
SHOULD NEVER TAKE PLACE AGAIN
UNDER OUR CONSTITUTIONAL
SYSTEM. HE BELIEVES HIS CONDUCT
IS PERFECT AND WE KNOW,
THEREFORESIT IT WILL TAKE PLACE
AGAIN AND AGAIN. OUR REPORT
POINTS OUT THIS PATTERN OF
SHOWING SPECTACULAR DISRESPECT
FOR THE RULE OF LAW BY INVITING
AND WELCOMING FOREIGN POW
NEARER IN OUR ELECTIONS WAS IN
PLAIN VIEW IN THE 2016
ELECTION. CANDIDATE DONALD
TRUMP UTTERED THE INFAMOUS
WORDS, RUSSIA, IF YOU'RE
LISTENING, I HOPE YOU'RE ABLE
TO FIND THE 30,000 EMAILS THAT
ARE MISSING AND JUST FIVE HOURS
LATER RUSSIAN AGENTS MOVED TO
HACK HIS POLITICAL OPPONENTS
COMPUTERS AS PART OF THEIR
CONTINUING EFFORT TO UPEND THE
2016 PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGN. AS
IDENTIFIED BY THE JUSTICE
DEPARTMENT, THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN
HAD MORE THAN 100 CONTACTS WITH
RUSSIAN OPERATIVES OVER THE
COURSE OF THAT CAMPAIGN AND
NONE OF THEM WERE REPORTED BY
THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN TO LAW
ENFORCEMENT OR NATIONAL
SECURITY AGENCIES. MOREOVER,
DURING THE SPECIAL COUNCIL
INVESTIGATION INTO THE SWEEPING
AND SYSTEMATIC RUSSIAN CAMPAIGN
TO SUBVERT OUR ELECTION,
PRESIDENT TRUMP ENGAGED IN
ANOTHER SYSTEMATIC CAMPAIGN OF
OBSTRUCTION OF THE
INVESTIGATIVE PROCESS TO
OBSCURE HIS OWN INVOLVEMENT.
MR. CHAIRMAN, WE PRESENT YOU
NOT JUST WITH HIGH CRIMES AND
MISDEMEANORS, BUT A
CONSTITUTIONAL CRIME IN
PROGRESS, UP TO THIS VERY
MINUTE. MAYOR GIULIANI, THE
PRESIDENT'S PRIVATE LAWYER,
FRESH FROM HIS OVERSEAS TRAVEL
LOOKING TO REHABILITATE ONCE
AGAIN THE DISCREDITED
CONSPIRACY THEORIES AT THE
HEART OF THE PRESIDENT'S
DEFENSE ADMITTED THAT HE
PARTICIPATED DIRECTLY IN THE
SMEAR CAMPAIGN TO OUST
AMBASSADOR YOVANOVITCH FROM HER
JOB. ACCORDING TO THE "NEW
YORKER" MAGAZINE, GIULIANI SAID
I BELIEVE I NEEDED YOVANOVITCH
OUT OF THE WAY. SHE WAS GOING
TO MAKE THE INVESTIGATIONS
DIFFICULT FOR EVERYONE. HERE,
OF COURSE, MR. GIULIANI REFERS
TO THE PRESIDENT'S SOUGHT OFF
INVESTIGATIONS INTO JOE BIDEN
AND THE REMNANTS OF THE
DISCREDITED CONSPIRACY THEORY
PUSHED BY RUSSIA AS PROPAGANDA
THAT IT WAS UKRAINE AND NOT
RUSSIA THAT INTERFERED IN THE
2016 AMERICAN PRESIDENTIAL
ELECTION. GIVEN THAT AN
UNREPENTANT PRESIDENT CONSIDERS
HIS BEHAVIOR PERFECT, GIVEN
THAT HE THINKS THE CONSTITUTION
EMPOWERS HIM TO DO WHATEVER HE
WANTS, GIVEN THAT HE AND HIS
TEAM ARE STILL AWAITING
PRESIDENT ZELENSKY'S STATEMENT
ON INVESTIGATING JOE BIDEN,
GIVEN THAT HE HAS ALREADY
INVITED CHINA TO PERFORM AN
INVESTIGATION OF ITS OWN, WE
CAN ONLY ASK WHAT THE 2020
ELECTION WILL BE LIKE OR,
INDEED, WHAT ANY FUTURE
ELECTION IN AMERICA WILL BE
LIKE IF WE JUST LET THIS
MISCONDUCT GO AND AUTHORIZE AND
LICENSE PRESIDENTS TO COERCE,
CAJOLE, PRESSURE AND ENTICE
FOREIGN POWERTORS ENTER OUR
ELECTION CAMPAIGNS WHO WILL BE
INVITED IN NEXT? THE
PRESIDENT'S CONTINUING COURSE
OF CONDUCT CONSTITUTES A CLEAR
AND PRESENT DANGER TO DEMOCRACY
IN AMERICA. WE CANNOT ALLOW
THIS MISCONDUCT TO PASS. IT
WOULD BE A SELLOUT OF OUR
CONSTITUTION, OUR FOREIGN
POLICY, OUR NATIONAL SECURITY,
AND OUR DEMOCRACY. THANK YOU,
MR. CHAIRMAN. I YIELD BACK. >>
THANK YOU VERY MUCH, MR.
COLLINS. WELCOME BACK TO THE
RULES COMMITTEE. >> THANK YOU,
MR. CHAIRMAN. GOOD TO SEE YOU.
AND MR. COLE AS WELL, MEMBERS
WHO HAVE SPENT MANY HOURS IN
THIS ROOM WITH, YOU KNOW, THE
CHAIRMAN MADE A STATEMENT ABOUT
MY FRIEND HERE, MR. RASKIN, HE
IS A FINE ATTORNEY. IT'S BEEN
AMAZING TO ME THROUGHOUT THIS
YEAR HOW THE JUDICIARY
COMMITTEE SIDELINED FINE
ATTORNEYS LIKE HIMSELF INTO NOT
ASKING QUESTIONS, NOT BEING A
PART OF THE PROCESS. IT'S BEEN
INTERESTING TO WATCH. HE'S
ACTUALLY A GOOD ONE. AS YOU
SAID, HE'S A GOOD
CONSTITUTIONAL ATTORNEY. I'M
NOT A CONSTITUTIONAL ATTORNEY.
I'M A PASTOR, AN ATTORNEY FROM
NORTH GEORGIA. I BELIEVE YOU
LOOK AT THIS, YOU CAN APPLY
CONSTITUTIONAL LENSES, BUT IT'S
A COMMON SENSE LENS. MR. COLE
MADE A COMMENT IN HIS OPENING
STATEMENT, YOU SAID IT DOESN'T
MAKE SENSE. YEAH, IT DOES. IT
MAKES PERFECT SENSE. LOOK AT
THE PATTERN. YOU KNOW, THE ONLY
THING THAT IS THAT IS CLEAR AND
PRESENT DANGER RIGHT NOW IN
THIS ROOM IS THE PATTERN OF
ATTACK AND ABUSE OF RULES AND
THE DECISIONS TO GET AT THIS
PRESIDENT. THEY STARTED OVER
THREE YEARS AGO, THE NIGHT HE
WAS ELECTED. I SAID THE OTHER
DAY IN THE COMMITTEE HEARING, I
THOUGHT ABOUT HAVING THE MEANS,
MOTIVE AND OPPORTUNITY. THE
OPPORTUNITY FOR THIS DAY
OCCURRED LAST NOVEMBER WHEN WE
LAST MAJORITY. IT OCCURRED.
BECAUSE THEY ALREADY TALKED
ABOUT IT FOR YEARS PRIOR, SO
NOW WE JUST BRING IT FORWARD.
WE TRIED A LOT OF DIFFERENT
THINGS TO GET THERE. WE'LL TALK
ABOUT THAT, I'M SURE, AS THE
TIME GOES ON TODAY. LOOK, WE
CAN HAVE PLENTY OF TIME TO TALK
ABOUT THE ARTICLES, THE VERY
VAGUE ARTICLES THAT WE DID IT'S
INTERESTING, IF YOU READ THE
REPORT FROM THE MAJORITY,
THERE'S A LOT OF DISCUSSION
ABOUT CRIMES, BUT THEY COULDN'T
FIND IT IN THEMSELVES TO CHARGE
ONE. COMMONSENSE. ARTICLES WHEN
YOU THINK ABOUT IMPEACHMENT,
YOU'RE THINKING ABOUT
IMPEACHING A PRESIDENT FOR
CRIMES. YOU'RE SAYING IT'S IN
THIS MAJORITY HAS TRIED SO HARD
TO BE LIKE CLINTON AND NIXON
AND FAILED SO MISERABLY. BUT
EVERY TIME WE TRY, WE TRY ONCE
AGAIN, EXCEPT THE ONE THING
WHEN IT CAME DOWN TO THE END,
THE ONE THING THEY COULDN'T DO
IT ACTUALLY FIND A CRIME. THEY
TALK ABOUT IT A BUNCH. IF YOU
READ THE MAJORITY'S REPORT,
IT'S WELL WRITTEN. IT'S SOME OF
THE BEST WORK YOU'LL SEE.
FRANKLY IN SOME WAYS A
FICTIONAL ACCOUNT OF WHAT THIS
ACTUALLY IS, BUT IT ACTUALLY
TALKS ABOUT IT. THAT THE
PROBLEM HERE IS A MAJORITY BENT
ON FINDING SOMETHING FOR THIS
PRESIDENT. MR. COLE, IT'S NOT A
SURPRISE. IN FACT, IT'S A SAD
DAY, NOT JUST FOR THE RULES
COMMITTEE BUT FOR THE JUDICIARY
COMMITTEE. IT'S TELLING THAT
THE ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT TO
SHOW TO SHOW YOU HOW PARTISAN
THIS, AND THE CONCERNING PART I
SEE, AND MR. MCGOVERN, WE ARE
FRIENDS, BUT WITH HE DISAGREE.
WE DISAGREE ON PROBABLY A LOT
OF THINGS. THIS GLASS HALF
FULL. THAT'S WHAT WE'RE
SUPPOSED TO DO. THAT'S WHAT OUR
VOTERS SENDS US HERE TO DO. WE
HAVE WORKED TOGETHER. IF AS THE
SPEAKER SAID, SHOULD BE
OVERWHELMING, BIPARTISAN AND
THE AMERICAN PEOPLE UNDERSTAND
IT, THEN WHY ARE WE IN THE
RULES COMMITTEE TODAY? WHEN IT
WAS WITH CLINTON IT WAS
STRAIGHT TO THE FLOOR. IT
WASN'T DIDN'T HAVE TO COME TO
THE RULES COMMITTEE. BECAUSE
BHOET SIDES COULD SEE THERE WAS
SOMETHING THAT NEEDED TO BE
DISCUSSED BUT THAT'S NOT TRUE
HERE. WE HAVE TO BRING IT TO
THE RULES COMMITTEE PLACE THAT
I HAVE SPENT MANY HOURS AND
MANY OF US ON THIS GROUP HAVE
DISCUSSED MANY THINGS, BUT THIS
SHOULD NOT BE ONE OF THEM. I
HEAR A LOT I'VE HEARD FROM MR.
RASKIN AND THE CHAIRMAN, THE
FOUNDERS. WE CHERRY-PICK THE
FOUNDERS. THAT'S WHAT YOU DO
WHEN YOU'RE PARTISANS, YOU
CHERRY-PICK THE FOUNDERS. IF
YOU LIKE THIS, BUT IF YOU LIKE
THE OTHER ONE. THE ONE THING
THAT'S NOT MENTIONED IS WHAT
WE'RE HERE FOR. THAT WAS FOUND
IN FEDERALIST, I THINK IT WAS
65, HAMILTON. WHEN HE SAID
THIS. HE SAID THE FOUNDERS
WARNED AGAINST A VAGUE
OPEN-ENDED CHARGE BECAUSE IT
COULD BE APPLIED BY A MAJORITY
OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
AGAINST AN OPPOSITION
PRESIDENT. ALEXANDER HAMILTON
CALLED PARTISAN IMPEACHMENT
REGULATED BY MORE OF THE
COMPARE TON STRENGTH OF PARTIES
THAN THE REAL DEMONSTRATION OF
INNOCENCE OR GUILT THE GREATEST
DANGER. ADDITIONALLY THE
FOUNDERS EXPLICITLY EXCLUESED
FROM THE IMPEACHMENT CLAUSE
BECAUSE THEY DID NOT WANT THE
PRESIDENT SUBJECT TO THEWHIMS
OF CONGRESS, THEIR WORZ. SO
VAGUE A TERM DURING THE
PLEASURE OF THE SENATE. I WOULD
SAY IT WOULD BE A TENURE TO THE
PLEASURE OF THIS HOUSE. WHEN WE
UNDERSTAND WHAT'S GOING ON HERE,
WHEN WE LOOK AT THE DISCUSSIONS
HERE, THERE ARE MANY THINGS I
WANT TO TALK ABOUT. FIRST, I
WANT TO DO IS WHEN WE TALK
ABOUT HOW WE GET TO A CERTAIN
PLACE, PROPER RESULTS GET TO
PROPER PLACE. I'VE SAID IN MANY
TIMES IN OUR DISCUSSIONS LATELY
IS THIS IS ALL ABOUT A CLOCK
AND A CALENDAR MRP AND HAS BEEN
FOR A WHILE. SINCE JANUARY WHEN
WE WERE SWORN IN IT'S ABOUT A
CLOCK AND A CALENDAR. IF WE
WENT INTO THE NEXT YEAR, IT
WOULD BE TOO CLOSE TO THE
ELECTIONS THEY'RE TRYING TO
INTERFERE WITH. YES, THEY'RE
TRYING TO INTERFERE WITH
ELECTIONS, THE 2020 ELECTION.
BY ACTUALLY BEGINNING THIS
PROCESS AND GOING FORWARD. NOW,
THE CONDUCT IS NOT RESPECTS THE
AMERICAN PEOPLE. THE CLOCK AND
THE CALENDAR KNOW NO MASTERS
EXCEPT THEMSELVES. OUR
COMMITTEE HELD ITS FIRST
HEARING ON DECEMBER 4TH, THE
DAY AFTER SCHIFF PUBLIC BELY
RELEASED HIS REPORT. IN THE
FIRST MINUTES OF THE REPORT MR.
SENSENBRENNER OFFERED A DEMAND.
THE CHAIRMAN SET A DEADLINE OF
DECEMBER 6TH FOR THE PRESIDENT
TO REQUEST ADDITIONAL
WITNESSES. IT WASN'T UNTIL
SATURDAY, THE DAY AFTER THE
DEADLINE, CHAIRMAN SCHIFF THFRD
8,000 PAGES OF MATERIAL TO THE
JUDICIARY COMMITTEE. WE STILL
HAVEN'T GOTTEN EVERYTHING. NOT
THAT IT MATTERS TO THE
MAJORITY. FOR INSTITUTIONALISTS,
THIS SHOULD BOTHER YOU. YOU CAN
STILL GO AHEAD AND VOTE FOR
YOUR YES TOMORROW AND VOTE YES
FOR TODAY, BUT IT SHOULD MATTER
FOR THIS INSTITUTION THAT WHILE
I WAS IN GEORGIA, I RECEIVED A
CALL FROM MY STAFF SAYING THEY
JUST RELEASED 8,000 DOCUMENTS
THUMB DRIVES. SOME OF WHICH
WOULD BE KEPT IN A SECURE
HOLDING. AND WHEN I ASKED THE
CHAIRMAN ABOUT THESE DOCUMENTS,
HE SAID, WELL, WE'RE NOT GOING
TO READ THEM EITHER. WE'RE JUST
GOING TO GO AHEAD. THAT WAS
FROM MY CHAIRMAN, WHOM I
RESPECT. IT'S VERY DIFFICULT IN
A HEARING OF THIS MAGNITUDE,
HOW CAN ANYONE, REPUBLICAN OR
DEMOCRAT, ACTUALLY GO BACK AND
LOOK THEIR CONSTITUENTS IN THE
FACE AND SAY, WE LOOKED AT ALL
THE EVIDENCE. I LOOKED 5D
EVERYTHING AND I CAME TO THIS
CONCLUSION. WE ONLY
CHERRY-PICKED THE EVIDENCE,
WHICH IS STILL NOT ALL
RELEASED. THERE'S THE INSPECTOR
GENERAL IG REPORT THAT HAS NOT
BEEN RELEASED. WHETHER IT'S
GOOD OR BAD IS IRRELEVANT. WHEN
YEAR TALKING ABOUT IMPEACHING A
PRESIDENT, SHOULDN'T THE
UNDERLYING EVIDENCE SENT TO
JUDICIARY COMMITTEE ACTUALLY
MATTER? AGAIN, IT DOESN'T TAKE
CONSTITUTIONAL EXPERTS COMING
IN AND TELLING US ABOUT IT. IT
TAKES COMMON SENSE TO KNOW THAT
YOU DON'T IMPEACH SOMEBODY
WITHOUT AT LEAST MAKING ALL THE
EVIDENCE PROPER. BUT, YOU KNOW,
THAT'S WHAT HAPPENS WHEN YOU'RE
TO THE TYRANNY OF A CLOCK AND A
CALENDAR. WHEN YOU'RE THE
TYRANNY OF A CLOCK AND A
CALENDAR, NOTHING ELSE MATTERS.
IT'S LIKE WHAT'S GOING TO
HAPPEN HERE IN THE HOLIDAYS IS
YOU'RE GETTING CLOSE TO THAT
DAY AND YOU'RE SUPPOSED TO GIVE
THAT GIFT. NOTHING ELSE
MATTERS. YOU JUST HAVE TO GET
IT. AT THE LAST MINUTE IF YOU
DON'T HAVE ANYTHING, I BET
YOU'VE DONE THIS, YOU GO OUT
AND GET THE FIRST THING YOU
GET. THE CLOCK WAS RUNNING OUT.
THEY FOUND A PHONE CALL THEY
DIDN'T LIKE. THEY DIDN'T LIKE
THIS ADMINISTRATION. THEY
DIDN'T LIKE WHAT THE PRESIDENT
DID. THEY TRIED TO MAKE UP
CLAIMS, THERE WAS PRESSURE AND
ALL THESE THINGS THEY OUTLINED
IN THEIR REPORT. AT THE END OF
THE DAY IT'S LAST-MINUTE KRIS
MAGAZINE SHOPPING. THEY RAN AND
FOUND SOMETHING AND SAID, WE
CAN DO IT, BUT NO CRIMES. NONE
IN THE ARTICLES. ABUSE OF POWER
IN WHICH ANY MEMBER CAN MAKE UP
ANYTHING THEY WANT TO AND CALL
IT AN ABUSE OF POWER. BUT IN
THE REPORT THEY DOCUMENT
BRIBERY AND EXTORTION AND ALL
THESE OTHER THINGS THEY CAN'T
PUT INTO THE ARTICLES. AND THE
OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE, IT'S
SORT OF INTERESTING WHEN I JUST
READ CHAIRMAN SCHIFF
TRANSFERRED ON A SATURDAY 8,000
PAGES OF WHAT WE WERE SUPPOSED
TO BE WORKING ON FOR THE NEXT
HEARING. WE SUBMITTED OUR LIST
OF WITNESSES TO NADLER MR.
NADLER BEFORE THE SCHIFF WE
SUBMITTED IT BEFORE SCHIFF HAD
SENT US ANY MORE EVIDENCE. LAST
MONDAY WE HAD A HEARING SO
SCHIFF'S STAFF AND NADLER'S
CONSULTANTS COULD TELL US THE
PRESIDENT NEEDS TO BE IMPEACH.
AGAIN, NOTHING FROM CHAIRMAN
SCHIFF, WHO MADE THE REFERENCE
TO HIMSELF BEING LIKE KEN STARR,
BUT FOR THOSE IN THIS ROOM WHO
HAVE AT LEAST OPENED A HISTORY
BOOK, KEN STARR ACTUALLY CAME
AND TESTIFIED AND TOOK
QUESTIONS FROM EVERYONE,
INCLUDING THE WHITE HOUSE
COUNSEL. ON MONDAY THE CHAIRMAN
DIRECTED ALL OF OUR WITNESSES
OUT OF HAND. ON TUESDAY THE
MORNING AFTER THE PRESENTATION
OF ARTICLES WERE UNVEILED.
REMEMBER, THINK ABOUT THIS. NO
FACTUAL BASE WITNESSES. WE HAD
A BUNCH OF LAW PROFESSORS. ONE
FOR US. BY THE WAY, I DID ASK
FOR ANOTHER ONE. DIDN'T GET IT.
NO REASONING. WE JUST WENT BACK
WE WERE IN IMPEACHMENT HEARINGS
AND WE WENT BACK TO THE 3-1
RATIO. I ASKED FOR ONE MORE AND
BASICALLY DIDN'T GET IT. IT WAS
AN INTERESTING CONVERSATION
BETWEEN THE CHAIRMAN AND I.
DIDN'T GET IT. THEN WE CAME IN
AND GOT OUR WITNESS LIST.
SUMMARILY DISMISSED. WE GET
INFORMATION DUMPED TO US IN THE
MIDDLE OF WHAT WE'RE SUPPOSED
TO BE DOING RIGHT BEFORE WE
HAVE HEARINGS. BEFORE WE HAD TO
TURN IN OUR WITNESS LIST. JUDGE,
I DON'T THINK THIS WOULD FLY IN
ANY REGULAR COURT PROCEEDINGS.
SO BEFORE ANYBODY WANTS TO
TWEET OR SAY ANYTHING I WE'RE
NOT IN A COURT, I KNOW THAT.
WE'RE IN A KANGAROO COURT, IT
FEELS LIKE. BECAUSE AULD OF
THIS IS BACKWARDS. WHAT'S MORE
IS UP THAN DOWN. WE'RE MORE
ALICE IN WONDERLAND THAN HOUSE
OF REPRESENTATIVES. IF HE NEEDS
TO BE IMPEACHED WANT, DON'T YOU
THINK THERE NEEDS TO BE A
MODOCUM OF PROCESS AND RESULTS.
ACCESS TO COMMITTEE RECORDS
BROKEN. RULES FOR DECORUM IN
DEBATE, WE SAW THAT BROKEN EVEN
ON THE HOUSE FLOORS. HRES 660,
THE AUTHORIZATION FOR THE WHOLE
THING, THE CHAIRMAN COULD HAVE
USED IT TO RUN A FAIR PROCESS.
UNFORTUNATELY, WE DIDN'T. THE
PROBLEM COMES DOWN TO SEVERAL
THINGS TODAY, MR. CHAIRMAN I'M
GOING TO LEAVE YOU WITH, AND
THIS IS IT. AFTER ALL THAT'S
BEEN SAID, ALL TALKED ABOUT AND
ALL IN THAT WONDERFULLY WRITTEN
REPORT, THERE ARE FOUR THINGS
THAT WILL NEVER CHANGE. BOTH
THE PRESIDENT AND MR. ZELENSKY
SAY THERE WAS NO PRESSURE. THE
CALL TRANSCRIPT SHOWS NO
CONDITIONALITY IN AID AND
INVESTIGATION. MR. SONDLAND,
THEIR KEY WITNESS, THE ONLY
THING THEY EVER QUOTE IS HI
OPENING STATEMENT. THEY DON'T
LIKE TO QUOTE WHEN HE WAS
ACTUALLY QUESTIONED WHEN HE
SAID, WELL, YEAH, I PRESUME
THAT. WHEN YOU TALK ABOUT MR.
YERMAK, WHO SAID WE DIDN'T HAVE
ANY QUESTION ABOUT
CONDITIONALITY OF AID. THAT
JUST CAME OUT THE OTHER DAY. I
DON'T KNOW WHERE WE'RE GETTING
THIS. THE UKRAINIANS WEREN'T
AWARE THE AID WAS WITHHELD. AND
UKRAINIANS DIDN'T OPEN AN
INVESTIGATION AND STILL GOT
THEIR AID. WHAT WE SAW WAS MR.
ZELENSKY, PRESIDENT ZELENSKY,
PILLARED IN OUR COMMITTEE. HE'S
EITHER A LIAR, A PATHOLOGICAL
LIAR ACCORDING TO THE MAJORITY,
OR HE'S SO WEAK HE SHOULDN'T BE
GOVERNING THAT COUNTRY. THAT'S
TRAGIC. WE ACTUALLY DID THAT TO
A SITTING WORLD LEADER IN OUR
COMMITTEE. THESE ARE THINGS
THAT BOTHER US, BUT I ALSO KNOW
THIS IS ON A CLOCK AND A
CALENDAR, TOO. WE'LL HAVE A FEW
HOURS HERE, WE'LL TALK ABOUT IT,
BUT I WILL REMIND MY MAJORITY
FRIENDS, AND I DO CONSIDER YOU
FRIENDS, THE CLOCK AND THE
CALENDAR ARE TERRIBLE MASTERS.
AND THEY LEAD TO AWFUL RESULTS.
YES, THERE WILL BE A DAY OF
RECKONING. THE CALENDAR AND THE
CLOCK WILL CONTINUE, BUT WHAT
YOU DO HERE AND HOW WE HAVE
TRASHED THE PROCESS IN GETTING
HERE WILL LIVE ON AND IT WILL
AFFECT EVERYTHING THAT WE'VE
COME FORTH. SO WHATEVER YOU MAY
GAIN WILL BE SHORT-LIVED
BECAUSE THE CLOCK AND THE
CALENDAR ALSO RECOGNIZE COMMON
SENSE, WHICH IS NOT BEEN USED
IN THIS PROCEEDING. WITH THAT,
MR. CHAIRMAN, I YIELD BACK.
THOSE WERE OPENING STATEMENTS A
FOUR ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT
AGAINST MR. TRUMP. ONE FOR
ABUSE OF POWER THE OTHER FOR
OBSTRUCTION OF CONGRESS, THE
COMMITTEE WILL RETURN LATER
TONIGHT TO REPORT A RULE ON THE
HOUSE ROLE ON THE TWO ARTICLES
SET TO BEGIN OUR 9 AM EASTERN.
AS ALWAYS YOU CAN WATCH LIVE
COVERAGE ON C-SPAN. SO UNTIL
THE RULES COMMITTEE GAVELS BACK
IN SESSION WILL SHOW YOU MORE
ABOUT TODAY'S MEETING.
(INAUDIBLE) (INAUDIBLE)
(INAUDIBLE) (INAUDIBLE)
 THE RULES COMMITTEE WILL COME
TO ORDER AT THIS TIME I AM
HAPPY TO YIELD TO MY
DISTINGUISHED COLLEAGUE FROM
FLORIDA MR. HASTINGS. THANK YOU
VERY MUCH WITH YOUR PERMISSION
I WOULD LIKE VERY MUCH TO YIELD
TO OUR CALL COLLEAGUE MISS
SCANLON TO
>> WITHOUT OBJECTION.
>> THANK YOU I JUST WANTED TO
CLARIFY ONE THING WE HAD ONE
LINE OF QUESTIONING FROM MR.
COLE, IT HAD TO DO WITH WHETHER
OR NOT THERE HAD BEEN SUBPOENAS
ISSUES FOR RENTING RANKING
MEMBER NUNEZ RANKING
 THERE SEEM TO BE SOME
CONFUSION FROM OUR KEY
WITNESSES HERE, BUT I RECALL
THE TESTIMONY THAT WE HAD IN
JUDICIARY WHICH WAS THAT NO
SUBPOENAS HAD BEEN ISSUED FOR
ANY MEMBER OF CONGRESS OR FOR
ANY JOURNALIST AND THAT THE
INTEL COMMITTEE HAD A
SUBPOENAED METADATA WHICH IS
NOT PHONE CAPS OF A FOREIGN
PEOPLE WHO HAD BEEN INVOLVED IN
THE SAME TO ABUSE THE POWER OF
OFFICE AND SMEAR AMBASSADOR
YOVANOVITCH. AFTER EACH OF
THOSE PEOPLE HAVE BEEN
SUBPOENAED INDIVIDUALLY, SO
THAT WAS GIULIANI, PARNAS, FOR
MEN, AND SONDLAND, TWO OF THEM
INDICTED FOR CRIMES RELATED TO
THIS INVESTIGATION, ONCE THOSE
PHONE RECORDS WERE BROUGHT IN
PATTERNS WERE NOTICED ABOUND
PARTICULAR EVENTS, AND THAT WAS
WHEN THE RANKING MEMBER NUNES
THIS PHONE NUMBER WAS
IDENTIFIED. IT WAS NOT THAT IT
WAS SAD, HE HAPPENED TO BE
FAMILIAR WITH THE
COCONSPIRATORS THERE. IN
ADDITION TO THE TESTIMONY WE
HEARD AND THE JUDICIARY, THAT
INFORMATION CAN BE FOUND IN THE
INTEL BRIEF THAT WAS FILED ON
PAGES 45 THROUGH 47 AND THEN
AND FOOTNOTE 76, WHICH IS ON
PAGE 175. I WOULD NOTE
PARTICULARLY THERE IT SAYS THE
COMMITTEE DID NOT SUBPOENA THE
CALL RECORD FOR ANY MEMBER OF
CONGRESS OR STAFF. TO THE
EXTENT THAT WE WERE GETTING
THIS CORRECTED BY SOME NOTION
THAT PEOPLE WERE TRYING TO
IMPROPERLY INVESTIGATE MEMBERS
OF CONGRESS, WE SHOULD CALL
THAT OUT FOR BEING A
DISTRACTION AND NOT A TRUTH.
MR. RASKIN, DID THAT REFRESH
YOUR RECOLLECTION ON THAT?
>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR
ADDING THE DETAILS. MY PRIMARY
RECOLLECTION OF OUR
CONVERSATION WITH THAT WAS THIS,
THAT THE INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE
TARGETED NO MEMBER OF CONGRESS,
AND TARGETED NO JOURNALIST, IT
DID NOT DIRECT SUBPOENAS
AGAINST ANY OF THEM. I BELIEVE
THAT THE NAMES THAT CAME UP
CAME UP IN THE NORMAL COURSE OF
STANDARD INVESTIGATORY
PROCEDURE. THERE'S NOTHING
UNTOWARD THERE THAT I CAN SEE.
>> THERE WAS TESTIMONY FROM MR.
NUNEZ -- SORRY, QUESTIONING OF
AMBASSADOR TAYLOR BY MR. NUNEZ
INDICATING THAT HE HAD BEEN
FALLING FOLKS IN THE UKRAINE.
SO HE ACKNOWLEDGED THAT?
>> HE, MR. NUNES? YES. YES, I
BELIEVE THAT IS IN THE
TRANSCRIPT AS WELL. HE
BASICALLY HAS SAID THAT HE WAS
CONDUCTING A KIND OF
INVESTIGATION OF HIS OWN INTO
WHAT HAPPENED.
>> HOPEFULLY, THAT PUTS IT BACK.
AND I YIELD BACK.
>> I APPRECIATE THE GENTLELADY
BRINGING IT UP, BUT HAD NOTHING
TO THE QUESTIONS THAT WAS ASKED,
AND IT DOES NOT PUT IT ABOUT. I
HAVE ACKNOWLEDGE THERE WERE
PROPERLY DONE SUBPOENAS, I'M
STILL IN INSTITUTIONS, I
BELIEVE IN THE SUBPOENA POWER
WORKS. I'VE NEVER DENIED THAT
COMMITTEES -- IN THE JUDICIARY
COMMITTEE, NEVER QUESTIONED THE
SUBPOENA AND ACKNOWLEDGE IT WAS
NEVER A DIRECT SUBPOENA ON ANY
MEMBER OF CONGRESS. WHAT I DID
SAY IT WAS, EVEN THE GENTLELADY
JUST ACKNOWLEDGED IT WAS WHEN
THEY STARTED GOING THROUGH THE
PHONE RECORDS AND LOOKING INTO
THE PEOPLE THEY CALLED, AND
THEN SOMEONE HAD THE RANKING
MEMBERS PHONE NUMBER. AND THEY
COLLABORATED WITH THAT PHONE
CALL. EVEN TO THAT, POINT I
COULD SAY OKAY, BUT MY PROBLEM
COMES IN THE WAY THAT IT WAS
ACTUALLY PUT ON, WHAT I WOULD
CONSIDER A POLITICAL HIT JOB
WHEN IT COULD HAVE BEEN DONE
MANY DIFFERENT WAYS, BECAUSE IT
WAS NOT AN APPLAUDABLE NOTICE,
OR ANYTHING THAT WAS FURTHERING
EXCEPT TO LOOK AT GETTING TO
THE RANKING MEMBER AND OTHERS.
THEY COULD'VE PUT THAT IN, AS
WE'VE SEEN IN OTHER REPORTS,
CONGRESS MEMBER ONE, CONGRESS
MEMBER TO. NOTHING THAT WAS
SAID, AND I APPRECIATE THE
GENTLELADY BRINGING THAT UP,
BUT IT WAS NEVER A QUESTION. MY
QUESTION WAS WHAT WAS SAD TO
PUT THEM TOGETHER INTO THE
REPORT.
>> IF I CAN SAY, I JUST BRISTLE
A LITTLE BIT AT THE SUGGESTION
THAT CHAIRMAN SCHIFF AND THE
INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE DID
ANYTHING WRONG THERE. I WAS
STATE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR A
COUPLE OF YEARS, AND MY
RECOLLECTION IS THAT IF YOU GET
A TABLE OF TELEPHONE RECORDS
AND OTHER NUMBERS COME UP, YOU
DO YOU'RE DUE DILIGENCE ON ALL
THE OTHER NUMBERS TO SEE WHO IS
INVOLVED IN WHAT WE ARE TALKING
ABOUT, IT'S POSSIBLY
CONSPIRATORIAL ACTIVITY. THAT
WAS THE THING THAT THE NUMBERS
PROVIDE, AND THAT IS HOW THEY
WERE IDENTIFIED.
>> COULD I ASK MY FRIEND TO
YIELD?
>> I HAVE THE TIME AND, I WILL
YIELD.
>> I DON'T THINK I UNDERSTAND.
I THINK YOUR EXPERIENCE LED YOU
TO RELEASE THE KINDS OF NAMES
OF COCONSPIRATORS, AS THOSE
THINGS WERE DISCOVERED,
CERTAINLY YOU ARE NOT
SUGGESTING THAT MR. NUNES WAS A
COCONSPIRATOR IN ANY WAY, SHAPE
OR FORM?
>> NOT AT ALL.
>> ARE YOU FINISHED?
>> MISTER CHAIRMAN, WIN WE TOOK
OUR RECESS TO VOTE, YOU HAD
JUST MADE IT WHAT I CONSIDER TO
BE A VERY PROFOUND STATEMENT
THAT WAS SHORT, AND THAT IS
THAT THE PRESIDENT'S ACTIONS IN
YOUR WORDS, WERE SO WRONG, AND
IT IS HARD FOR ME TO BELIEVE
THAT ALL OF US HERE AND IN THE
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE, AND ASKED
THIS MATTER FOR SEATS DO NOT
ALL UNDERSTAND THAT, BUT THE
DIE IS CAST. IN THIS
INSTITUTION WE ARE FOND OF
SAYING AFTER EVERYBODY IS
EXHAUSTED AND TALKING ABOUT
WHATEVER THE ISSUE IS THAT
EVERYBODY HAS SAID EVERYTHING
THAT NEEDS TO BE SAID BUT I
HAVEN'T SAID IT YET, AND THAT
IS WHAT IS GOING TO HAPPEN WITH
EVERY ONE OF THE MEMBERS OF
THAT THAT COME AFTER ME, BUT
WHAT IS DISTURBING TO ME IS
THAT IT'S LIKE WHERE AN
ALTERNATIVE UNIVERSES, NOT JUST
HERE IN THE RULES COMMITTEE BUT
IN THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE, AND
THE INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE
WHERE I SERVED FOR EIGHT YEARS.
REALLY, IN AMERICA. IT'S A
REGRETTABLE THAT MY FRIENDS THE
REPUBLICANS ARE NOT ADDRESSING
OR DEFENDING THE PRESIDENT'S
ACTIONS. WHAT YOU ARE DOING IS
TALKING ABOUT THE PROCESS. YOU
HAVEN'T SEEN ANYTHING YET IF
YOU LISTEN TO LINDSEY GRAHAM
AND THE MAJORITY LEADER
MCCONNELL ABOUT HOW IF AND WHEN
THIS MATTER GETS TO THEM HOW
THEY ARE GOING TO ACT. HOW DARE
ARE SOMEBODY SAYING THAT THEY
ARE GOING TO PRETEND THAT THEY
ARE FAKE, AND THE OTHER ONE IS
GOING TO COLLABORATE WITH THE
WHITE HOUSE? I WOULD ASSUME
THAT THE MANAGERS OF THE
DEMOCRATS WHEN THEY GET OVER
THERE ARE GOING TO BE TALK
ABOUT PROCESS BECAUSE YOU'RE
TALKING ABOUT UNFAIRNESS JUST
THE MERE FACT THAT BOTH OF
THOSE PEOPLE WHO SHOULDN'T
RECUSE THEMSELVES IN MY
JUDGMENT MADE THOSE KIND OF
STATEMENTS INDICATES WHERE THEY
ARE BUT TO TURN BACK TO YOU
MISTER CHAIRMAN ABOUT SOMETHING
BEING WRONG WITH WHAT THE
PRESIDENT DID. WHEN I WAS A BOY,
AND THAT WAS 83 YEARS AGO, MY
FATHER, WHO NEVER WENT TO
SCHOOL TODAY IN HIS LIFE, WHEN
I HAD CRUCIAL ISSUES WITH AS A
CHILD AND HE LIVED LONG ENOUGH
TO SEE ME BECOME A LAWYER AND
THE DIFFICULTIES ALONG THE WAY
IN COLLEGE AND WHAT HAVE YOU.
HE WOULD ALWAYS SAY TO ME THAT
RIGHT DON'T WRONG NOBODY. THE
FACT OF THE MATTER IS THAT WHAT
WE ARE DOING HERE IS RIGHT LET
ME JUST EXCISE ONE THING.
SO-CALLED CORRUPTION -- AND
WITH YOUR PERMISSION, TO MAKE
SURE THAT THIS RECORD IS
COMPLETE NOT THAT THIS
TRANSCRIPT HAS NOT BEEN
RELEASED, I ASK THE UNANIMOUS
CONSENT THAT THE UNCLASSIFIED
CONVERSATION OF THE PRESIDENT
WITH PRESIDENT ZELENSKY TO BE
MADE A PART OF IT.
>> WITHOUT OBJECTION.
>> I'M GOING TO COME BACK TO
THAT. WE ARE DISCUSSING TWO
ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT BECAUSE
HIS DISREGARD AND DISRESPECT
FOR THE UNITED STATES
CONSTITUTION. PRESIDENT TRUMP
WITHHELD AMERICAN TAXPAYER
MONEY THAT IT WAS APPROPRIATED
BY THEIR DULY ELECTED MEMBERS
OF CONGRESS, ALL OF US, TO HELP
OUR ALLY FIGHT A HOT WAR. IT
WOULD BE ONE THING IF AS WE DO
HELP AROUND THE WORLD, IF THIS
WAS NOT AN ENEMY OF THE UNITED
STATES, A CORRUPT ENEMY OF THE
UNITED STATES, I'VE BEEN THERE,
I SAW THE CHANGES THAT TOOK
PLACE, I MONITORED ELECTIONS
THERE, SO I KNOW THAT A
CORRUPTION IS RIFE IN THAT
COUNTRY AND YET WE WITNESSED
LAST WEEK SERGEI LAUGH RALPH
COMING HERE IN THE OVAL OFFICE
WITH THE PRESIDENT SMILING, AND
YOU ALL ARE PREPARED TO DEFEND
THAT KIND OF ACTION WITH
REFERENCE TO CORRUPTION? I FIND
IT STRANGE THAT YOU ARE IN THAT
POSITION. BUT TRUMP WITHHELD
THIS MONEY TO HELP OUR ALLY
FIGHT A HOT WAR AGAINST RUSSIA.
SO HE, PRESIDENT TRUMP, COULD
OBTAIN A PERSONAL POLITICAL
BENEFIT. I'M GOING TO GET BACK
TO THIS DOCUMENT TO TALK ABOUT
THAT AND JUST IN CASE FOLKS
THINK THAT THE FACTS, WHICH MY
COLLEAGUES WILL NOT DISCUSS ARE
A BIT TOO TENUOUS OR HAZY,
PLEASE REMEMBER THAT ON OCTOBER
32,019 PRESIDENT TRUMP WENT OUT
ON THE WHITE HOUSE LAWN, STOOD
IN FRONT OF A BUNCH OF
REPORTERS AND TELEVISION
CORNERS AND ADVISED PRESIDENT
ZELENSKY TO ANNOUNCE THE
INVESTIGATION. FOR GOOD MEASURE
EVEN ENCOURAGED CHINA TO ALSO
START AN INVESTIGATION IN TO
THE BIDEN FAMILY. NOT LONG
AFTERWARDS ON OCTOBER 17TH 2019,
PRESIDENT TRUMP ALLOWED HIS
CHIEF OF STAFF MICK MULVANEY TO
HOLD A PRESS CONFERENCE IN
WHICH MR. MULVANEY NOT ONLY
ADMITTED THAT A QUID PRO QUO
EXISTED BUT THAT WE SHOULD GET
OVER IT BECAUSE THAT IS JUST
THE WAY THE THINGS ARE WHEN IT
COMES TO FOREIGN AFFAIRS AND
FOREIGN COUNTRIES BEING LOBBIED
TO MEDDLE IN OUR ELECTIONS MICK
IS DEAD WRONG. THAT IS NOT HOW
WE EXERCISE OUR POLICY IN THIS
COUNTRY. I AM NO WORLD EXPERT
BUT I BEGAN MY CAREER HERE 27
YEARS AGO ON THE FOREIGN
AFFAIRS COMMITTEE. I WAS
APPOINTED BY NUDE GINGRICH,
ALONG WITH THE DOG BE WRITERS
TO STUDY THE REVERSION OF
MAINLAND CHINA. I MET WITH HIM
OFTEN TO 26 COUNTRIES IN AFRICA
AND OVER THE COURSE OF TIME I
BECAME THE PRESIDENT OF THE
PARLIAMENTARY ASSEMBLY OF THE
ORGANIZATION FOR SECURITY IN
EUROPE. 
PA
RLIAMENTARY IF YOU CAN SAY THATT
TO BE PRESIDENT OF THAT
ORGANIZATION. BUT THERE ARE 57
COUNTRIES AND THAT ORGANIZATION,
INCLUDING RUSSIA. I WENT TO
EUROPE 36 TIMES DURING A
TWO-YEAR PERIOD TO MOST OF
THOSE COUNTRIES AND I MADE IT
TO 47 OF THOSE COUNTRIES AND I
SWORE IN MONTENEGRO AS THE 57TH
COUNTRY IN THE ORGANIZATION FOR
SECURITY AND COOPERATION IN
EUROPE. I THINK I KNOW A LITTLE
BIT MORE ABOUT THE WORLD THEN
MICK MULVANEY AND THAT IS NOT
THE WAY PRESIDENT BUSH,
PRESIDENT CLINTON, PRESIDENT
OBAMA, THAT IS NOT THE WAY THEY
CONDUCTED POLICY AT ALL. HE
SAYS GET OVER IT? I WILL NOT
ACCEPT THAT IN THIS COUNTRY AND
LET ALONE GET OVER IT. MISTER
CHAIRMAN, ALSO CONSIDER AN
ARTICLE OF OBSTRUCTION OF
CONGRESS TODAY WE ARE AND I
BELIEVE THE RECORD SHOWS THAT
THE ADMINISTRATION'S
OBSTRUCTION OUGHT TO BE BEYOND
DEBATE THAT YOU HAVE
DEMONSTRABLY SHOWN LOTS OF THAT
OBSTRUCTION. WHILE MANY OTHER
MEMBERS DO NOT WANT TO BRING
THAT UP, I CANNOT, WHEN I WAS
AT ILL AT HOME I READ EVERY
LINE OF THE MUELLER REPORT. AND
THE MUELLER REPORT CLEARLY
REFLECTS THAT THE PRESIDENT
OBSTRUCTED JUSTICE LONG BEFORE
WE GET TO THIS PARTICULAR
MATTER THAT WE HAVE VIEWED. WE
ARE STEWARDS OF THE HOUSE OF
REPRESENTATIVES, AND DID NOT
HAVE ALL MEMBERS OF THIS BODY
OBJECT IN THE WHOLE STRENUOUS
TERMS TO THIS ADMINISTRATIONS
COMPLETE OBSTRUCTION OF OUR
CLEAR CONSTITUTIONAL
PREROGATIVE, CONDUCTING
IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY IS TO ME
TRULY DISAPPOINTING. DO NOT
OBJECT OR DRAW THE LINE HERE IS
TO DO A GREAT DISSERVICE, NOT
ONLY TO THOSE WHO CAME BEFORE
US BUT THOSE WHO WILL COME
AFTER US. WITH THAT I HAVE A
FEW QUESTIONS FROM MR. RASKIN.
MR. RASKIN, DID PRESIDENT TRUMP
SOLICIT UKRAINE'S INTERFERENCE
IN OUR COUNTRIES 2020 ELECTION?
>> IT IS OVERWHELMINGLY CLEAR
THAT HE FIT.
>> THIS PRESIDENT TRUMP'S
ILLICIT THIS FOREIGN
INTERFERENCE IN ORDER TO OBTAIN
A PERSONAL POLITICAL BENEFIT?
>> HE DID.
>> THE PRESIDENT TRUMP
CONDITION THE RELEASE OF
TAXPAYER MONEY APPROPRIATED BY
CONGRESS ON PRESIDENT ZELENSKY
ANNOUNCING AN INVESTIGATION
INTO PRESIDENT TRUMP'S
POLITICAL OPPONENT?
>> ALL THE EVIDENCE WE HAVE
SAID HE DID?
>> DID HE UNDERMINED THE
SECURITY OF THE UNITED STATES
AND THAT OF A KEY ALLY, BUT
NAMELY, UKRAINE?
>> UKRAINE HAD BEEN INVITED BY
RUSSIA THERE HAVE BEEN MORE
THAN 13,000 CASUALTIES AND THAT
WAR. THE PRESIDENT WAS
DESPERATE TO GET SECURITY
ASSISTANCE AND THAT WAS
PROVIDED BY CONGRESS. CONGRESS
DECIDED THAT THIS MONEY WAS A
GOOD INVESTMENT TO DEFEND A
BESEECHED ALLY THAT WE NEEDED
TO CONTAIN THE CONTINUING
IMPERIAL DESIGNS OF VLADIMIR
PUTIN TO EXPAND RUSSIAN POWER
AND TO CONTROL NATIONS IN THE
NEIGHBORHOOD.
>> ON JANUARY 20TH, 2017 DONALD
JOHN TRUMP TOOK AN OATH TO
PRESERVE, PROTECT, AND DEFEND
THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED
STATES. HAS THE PRESIDENT
VIOLATED THE OATH.
>> THIS WAS AN ESSENTIAL
BETRAYAL OF HIS OFFICE WHEN HE
DECIDED TO GET INVOLVED IN THIS
PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION IN ORDER
TO STEER THE RESULT ANY
PARTICULAR DIRECTION, AND THEN
TO COVER IT UP BY STONEWALLING
CONGRESS AND BY ISSUING AN
UNPRECEDENTED INDISCRIMINATE
BAN ON PARTICIPATION IN A
CONGRESSIONAL IMPEACHMENT
INVESTIGATION. WE GOT A LETTER
FROM MR. CIPOLLONE WHERE HE DID
NOT EVEN BOTHER TO INVOKE A
PRIVILEGE. HE DIDN'T EVEN
BOTHER TO INVOKE THE PHONY
ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY PRETEXT
THEY'VE BEEN USING HE JUST SAID
WE WON'T PARTICIPATE. THEY
REALLY THINK THAT, UNLIKE EVERY
OTHER AMERICAN CITIZEN, THEY
ARE NOT SUBJECT TO
CONGRESSIONAL SUBPOENA. AND
UNLIKE YOU, I PUT IT WHICH THAT
EVEN IF OUR COLLEAGUES ACROSS
THE AISLE DIFFER WITH US ON
ARTICLE ONE, THEY HAVE SOME
DIFFERENCE THAT IS YET TO BE
EXPRESSED UNDER OATH, BUT IN
TERMS OF ARTICLE TO THE
PRESIDENT DOES NOT HAVE THE
POWER TO DESTROY OUR OVERSIGHT
INVESTIGATIVE POWER IF WE ARE
GOING TO BE ABLE TO IMPEACH A
CORRUPT PRESIDENT.
>> THAT'S THE NEXT QUESTION I
WANT TO ASK. YOU THIS THE
CONSTITUTION PLACE THE POWER OF
IMPEACHMENT IN THE HOUSE OF
REPRESENTATIVES?
>> THE WAY THEY DID THAT IT'S
BECAUSE THE FARMERS DID NOT
WANT THE SENATE INITIATING
IMPEACHMENT, AND THEY WANTED TO
DEMARCATE IT FROM THE
DISCUSSIONS TAKING PLACE, WHICH
IS THAT THE SUPREME COURT
SHOULD IMPEACH, OR THE STATE
LEGISLATURE, THERE LOTS OF
IDEAS OUT THERE, BUT LOOK, THEY
SAY THAT THE HOUSE OF
REPRESENTATIVES REPRESENTS THE
PEOPLE. WE ARE THE PEOPLE'S
BODY. THE SENATE HAS SOME CLAIM
AFTER THE ENACTMENT OF THE 17TH
AMENDMENT THAT ARE ELECTED BY
THE PEOPLE TO, USE TO BE
ELECTED BY THE STATE
LEGISLATURE, BUT THEY DO
REPRESENT ON THE
DISPROPORTIONATE BASIS OF EACH
STATE GETTING TO, DESPITE THE
SIZE OF THE STATE, BUT WE ARE
AS CLOSE AS YOU GET IN OUR
CONSTITUTION TO THE PURE
REPRESENTATIVES OF THE PEOPLE.
>> AND THE SENATE ACTS ON OATH
AFFIRMATION AS WELL, AM I
CORRECT?
>> THEY WILL DECIDE ON MATTERS
OF LAW BUT THEY WILL MAKE THE
FINAL APPLICATION OF THE LAW IN
THIS CASE, AND THAT IS WHY I
THINK YOU'RE CORRECT TO POINT
OUT THAT ALL THREE HAVE TO
THINK VERY CAREFULLY ABOUT WHAT
THE CONSTITUTIONAL OATH OF A
JUROR ENTAILS.
>> SOME OF THEM HAVE BEEN
SAYING THINGS THAT SEEM TO BE
APART FROM WHAT WE WOULD EXPECT
A JUROR AND ANY OTHER CONTACT.
>> IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING AND
MCGOVERN HAS POINTED OUT SOME
OF THIS. IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING
THAT THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH HAS
RECEIVED OVER 70 SPECIFIC
INDIVIDUALIZE REQUESTS FOR
DOCUMENTS DURING CONGRESS IS
IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY. HOW MANY
DOCUMENTS HAVE BEEN PRODUCED?
>> NOTHING. WE HAVE NOT DONE
ANYTHING FROM THE OFFICE OF
MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET OR THE
DEPARTMENT OF STATE. WE HAVE
WITNESSES WHO COMPLAINED AS
THAT THEIR OWN DOCUMENTS THAT
HAD BEEN EMBARGOED AND
CONTROLLED BY THE PRESIDENT AND
THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH, THEY
WANTED TO TURN IT OVER TO FIND
WHAT WAS GOING ON. THIS IS NOT
A GAME. WE WANT TO KNOW WHAT
HAPPENED.
>> IN RESPONSE TO DULY
AUTHORIZE SUBPOENAS, HOW MANY
TOP AIDES HAS PRESIDENT TRUMP
MADE AVAILABLE FOR THE
COMMITTEES CONDUCTING THE
IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY?
>> HE HAS TRIED TO BLOCK ALL
THE WITNESSES, WE ENDED UP
HAVING 17 WITNESSES BUT THERE
ARE STILL A NUMBER OF KEY
WITNESSES THAT HAVE NOT COME
FORWARD BECAUSE THE PRESIDENT
HAS SUCCEEDED AND BLOCKING AND
RESTRAINING THEIR TESTIMONY,
LIKE THE SECRETARY OF ENERGY,
LIKE THE DIRECTOR OF HONEST MAN
AND BUDGET.
>> MY RECOLLECTION DURING THE
JUDICIARY PROCEEDINGS, IS THAT
YOU PUT THIS QUESTION IN A
DIFFERENT FORM AND THEN WHAT
I'M ABOUT TO PUT TO MY
COLLEAGUES NOW, AND THAT IS ALL
OF US IN THIS ROOM, I ASKED THE
QUESTION, HOW MANY OF MY
FRIENDS HERE ON THIS DIAZ THINK
IT IS OKAY FOR AN AMERICAN
PRESIDENT TO SOLICIT FOREIGN
INTERFERENCE IN OUR ELECTIONS,
RAISE YOUR HANDS IF YOU THINK
THAT'S OKAY. ANYBODY? I SEE
NONE. AND IN THAT LIGHT CLEARLY
WE HAVE THESE DIFFERENCES. MR.
COLLINS? WOULD YOU CONSIDER
UKRAINE A STRATEGIC PARTNER TO
THE UNITED STATES?
>> YES.
>> DO YOU WANT US TO BELIEVED
THAT WITHHOLDING IN THE AID DID
NOT HARM THE UNITED STATES
NATIONAL SECURITY?
>> WHICH ONES ARE YOU TALKING
ABOUT? THE ONES THE THE
MAJORITY STIPULATE TO RICK?
>> THE MAJORITY.
>> NO. I DO NOT AGREE WITH THE
INTERPRETATION OF THE CALL.
>> YOU DON'T THINK THAT ASKING
THE PRESIDENT OF A FOREIGN
COUNTRY THAT IS IN A HOT WAR
THAT WE WITHHOLD AID FROM HIM,
YOU DON'T THINK THAT AFFECTS
OUR NATIONAL SECURITY, IF YOU
THINK UKRAINE IS OUR ALLY AS I
BELIEVE YOU DO AND I DO.
>> I DON'T EXCEPT THE PREMISE
OF YOUR FACTS.
>> WHAT A VALUE FOR UKRAINE DO
YOU SEE IN THE OVAL OFFICE THAT
IT WAS BEING SOFT.
>> YOU HAVE TO ASK UKRAINE.
>> WITH SUCH A VISIT SEND A
STRONG MESSAGE TO RUSSIA, SUCH
AS LABYRINTH BEING IN THE
UNITED STATES.
>> I THINK A BETTER STATEMENT
WAS WHEN HE SENT WEAPONS TO
SHOOT DOWN RUSSIAN ASSETS.
>> AND THAT IGNORES THE FACT
THAT THE HOT WAR WAS ONGOING?
>> WERE GOING IN CIRCLES HERE
AND I DO NOT BELIEVE THERE'S
ANYTHING WRONG WITH THE AID
BEING HELD.
>> ACTUALLY MR. TRUMP DID MORE
THAN WAS PREVIOUSLY DONE SO --
>> I'VE HEARD THAT BEFORE. I
WILL NOT ELABORATE BUT IF THEY
BELIEVE AS YOU DO THAT
PRESIDENT OBAMA DID NOT PROVIDE
LEVEL WEAPONS, WITH THE
MINORITY FAILS TO NOTE IS THAT
DURING THE EARLY STAGES OF THE
TRUMP ADMINISTRATION, THE
LETHAL WEAPONS WERE PROVIDED TO
UKRAINE. AND IT WASN'T UNTIL
2019 DURING THE LEAD UP TO THE
2020 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION AND
AFTER PRESIDENT BIDEN ANNOUNCED
HIS CANDIDACY, AND PLACE THE
HOLD ON LEVEL EIGHT. LET'S TURN
TO CORRUPTION. OSTENSIBLY, THIS
JULY 25TH TRANSCRIPT REFLECTS,
ACCORDING TO MY FRIENDS ON THE
OTHER SIDE BOTH IN THE
JUDICIARY AND FROM INTELLIGENCE
REFLECTS THAT IN THIS
PARTICULAR MATTER, THAT
CORRUPTION WAS BEING SOUGHT TO
BE DETERMINED MEN. LET ME URGE
PRESIDENT TRUMP TO LOOK AROUND
THE WORLD. IF HE WANTS TO TALK
ABOUT CORRUPTION. AND HAVE HIM
ANSWER FOR ME WHY HE COZY'S UP
TO RUSSIA AND ALL ROADS LEAD TO
RUSSIA WHEN WE ALL KNOW HOW
CORRUPT THEY ARE AND WHAT THEY
HAVE DONE. NOT ONLY IN THE
PREVIOUS ELECTION BUT EVEN AS
WE ARE IN THE RUN UP TO THIS
ELECTION. AND YES, MY COUNTY
HAD TWO COUNTIES OF THAT
HACKERS FROM RUSSIA WERE
SUCCESSFUL. AND HE HAS THE
AUDACITY TO GO OUT AND SAY HOW
THEY DON'T TALK ABOUT RUSSIA IN
THE ELECTIONS, THEY'RE TALKING
ABOUT UKRAINE. WHY IS IT THAT
THE PRESIDENT CLOSING UP TO A
DICTATOR LIKE DUTERTE IN THE
PHILIPPINES? WHY IS HE NOT
LOOKING RIGHT HERE IN THIS
HEMISPHERE WHERE WE HAVE NOT
PAID AS MUCH ATTENTION AS WE
SHOULD AND I BELIEVE MY
COLLEAGUE IS GOING TO ADDRESS
IT BUT I DO NEED TO RAISE
VENEZUELA, AND I HAVE NOT HEARD
VERY MUCH FONDLY FROM HIM WITH
REFERENCE TO VENEZUELA. I
HAVEN'T HEARD VERY MUCH FROM
HIM ABOUT EL SALVADOR. I
HAVEN'T HEARD ANYTHING, OTHER
THAN CHINA DEALING WITH TRADE
ANYBODY IT DOESN'T LEAVE CHINA
IS CORRUPT SHOULD JUST VISIT
ANY ONE OF THE PLACES WHERE
PEOPLE ARE BEING HELD AND HOW
INTELLECTUALS AND RELIGIOUS
LEADERS ARE BEING TORTURED IN
THAT COUNTRY. NOT TO MENTION
THE CHAIRMAN POINTED TO IT AS
WHAT THE PRESIDENT SAID HE FELL
IN LOVE WITH KIM JONG-UN AND
KIM JOHN MOON IS PREPARING
MISSILES. HE MAY ONE DAY BE
ABLE TO REACH THIS COUNTRY AND
THERE'S NO REASON TO BELIEVE
THAT HE WOULD NOT. IF THE
PRESIDENT AWARE OF WHAT'S GOING
ON IN ITALY OR IN INDIA? HOW
ABOUT IRAN? I HAVEN'T HEARD HIM
SAY ANYTHING ABOUT WHAT'S
HAPPENING IN IRAN. IS HE AWARE
OF WHAT'S GOING ON IN LEBANON?
IS HE AWARE OF THE CORRUPTION
THAT IS BEING IDENTIFIED AND
HOW CHILE IS ON THE BUBBLE? I
JUST CAN'T BELIEVE YOU PEOPLE
LET ME TURN NOW TO THIS AND ASK
YOU ALL, RICK AND ALREADY KNOW
THE ANSWER CAN ANYBODY FROM ANY
OTHER PRESIDENT IN THE HISTORY
OF THE UNITED STATES THAT HAS
ASKED A FOREIGN GOVERNMENT OR
ITS LEADERS TO INVESTIGATE AND
CITIZEN FOR A POLITICAL PURPOSE?
CAN ANYBODY IN HERE IDENTIFY
ANY PRESIDENT THAT HAS DONE
THAT? SEEING NONE, I WILL
PROCEED. THE SIMPLE FACT OF THE
MATTER IS THAT MY COLLEAGUES
HAVE DETERMINED THAT THEY WILL
GO DOWN THE ROAD OF DISTRACTION
AND ARE NOT GOING TO DISCUSS
THE FACTS IN THIS MATTER. LET
ME TELL YOU SOME OF THE PEOPLE
THAT YOU SHOULD HEARD FROM, AND
SOME WOULD ARGUE THAT WE SHOULD
WAIT UNTIL THE COURTS, AND I'M
SURE THAT THE ADMINISTRATION
WOULD FIND ALL THE WAYS TO KEEP
SECRETARY POMPEO FROM
TESTIFYING. OR JOHN BOLTON FROM
TESTIFYING OR DON MCGAHN,
DEMANDED THE PRESIDENT TOLD TO
GO AND FIRE THE FBI OFF THE
RECORD. HOW ABOUT ROBERT BLAIR
OR MICHAEL DUFFY THE GUYS FROM
MCVEIGH NIECE SHOP WHERE THE
AID HAS BEEN WITHHELD? LET ME
TURN TO THIS DOCUMENT. FIRST
OFF, LET ME ASK BOTH OF YOU
WHAT YOU KNOW IF A FULL
VERBATIM TRANSCRIPT EXISTS OF
THIS JULY 25TH CALL. DO YOU
KNOW?
>> I KNOW THAT ALL THE
WITNESSES TESTIFIED THAT THIS
WAS CLEAR AND ACCURATE.
>> MISTER RASKIN, DO YOU KNOW
WHETHER A VERBATIM TRANSCRIPT
EXISTS?
>>. THE (INAUDIBLE) --
>> THERE'S NO WITNESS TO
CONTRADICT THAT THE STATEMENTS
AND THAT --
>> THEY DID NOT.
>> THEY SAY THE TRANSCRIPT WAS
ACCURATE.
>> WELL, WHAT ABOUT THOSE
PEOPLE THAT TESTIFIED BEFORE
YOUR COMMITTEE? THAT DISCUSSED
MATTERS THAT THEY THOUGHT WERE
WRONG THAT THE PRESIDENT DID?
>> I WISH SHE WOULD'VE HAD
THOSE PEOPLE TESTIFY, BUT THEY
DID NOT.
>> LET ME TURN TO THE FOOTNOTE
ON THIS UNCLASSIFIED DOCUMENT
THAT IS IN THE RECORD. IT IS A
MEMORANDUM OF THE TELEPHONE
CONVERSATION IS NOT A VERBATIM
TRANSCRIPT OF A DISCUSSION. THE
TEXT IN THIS DOCUMENT RECORDS
THE NOTES AND RECOLLECTIONS OF
SITUATION ROOM DUTY OFFICERS
AND NFC POLICY STAFF ASSIGNED
TO LISTEN AND MEMORIALIZES THE
CONVERSATION IN WRITTEN FORM AS
CONVERSATION TAKES PLACE. A
NUMBER OF FACTORS CAN EFFECT
THE ACCURACY OF THE RECORD,
INCLUDING FOR
TELECOMMUNICATIONS AND
VARIATIONS AN ACCENT AND YOUR
INTERPRETATION. THE WORD
INAUDIBLE IS USED TO INDICATE,
IT SAYS INDICATE FORTUNES OF A
CONVERSATION THAT THE NOTETAKER
WAS UNABLE TO HEAR. DO EITHER
OF YOU KNOW WHY THE FULL
TRANSCRIPT IS IN A CLASSIFIED
SERVER THAT CAN BE ACCESSED
ONLY BY THE HEIGHT OF
AUTHORITIES IN TERMS OF
CLASSIFICATION OF THEIR ABILITY.
DO ENOUGH YOU KNOW WHY THIS
THING IS IN A SERVER.
>> NO.
>> MR. MORRISON TESTIFIED IT
WAS AN ADMINISTRATIVE ERROR.
>> A MINUTE OF? AIR
>> THAT'S HIS WORDS NOT MINE.
>> WHO IS MR. MORRISON? IS HE
THE FORCE HAVE PUT IT IN THE
SERVER?
>> YOU'D HAVE TO ASK HIM. WE
WOULD'VE LED TO HAVE THESE
WITNESSES ACTUALLY INTRODUCED.
WE HAVE PEOPLE RUNNING AROUND
UKRAINE LOOKING FOR A SERVER
UNDER SOME CROWDSTRIKE NOTION.
>> AND THAT A UKRAINIAN ISSUE
AS WELL, BUT ON THIS ONE THERE
IS NO CREDIBLE WITNESSES WHO
SAY THERE IS ANYTHING IN THAT
TRANSCRIPT THAT WAS NOT THERE.
>> THE PRESIDENT GOES OUT,
ISSUES THIS UNCLASSIFIED
STATEMENT AND THERE IS A
STATEMENT OUT THERE IN A
CLASSIFIED SERVER THAT MAY HAVE
GOTTEN THEIR MISTAKENLY,
ACCORDING TO MR. MORRISON AS
YOU ARE TESTIFYING, BUT MY
QUESTION ULTIMATELY WOULD BE,
WHY IS IT THERE, WHY HASN'T BE
RETRIEVED AND WHY HAVE YOU ALL
NOT RECEIVED IT? BUT I DIGRESS.
LET ME FINISH UP WITH THIS
UNCLASSIFIED --
>> LET ME JUST FINISH. ARE YOU
IMPLYING THERE'S ANOTHER
TRANSCRIPT OUT THERE?
>> I'M IMPLYING THERE'S MORE
THAN WHAT WE HAVE HERE THAT'S
IN THE SERVER.
>> NO WITNESS TESTIFIED TO THAT.
I DON'T HOPE THAT YOU BELIEVE
THAT THERE IS ANOTHER
TRANSCRIPT OUT THERE.
>> THAT'S LIKE US WITH A DOZEN
COMMITTEE'S FINDINGS.
>> I'D LIKE TO SEE WHAT'S IN
THE SERVER.
>> I THINK YOU AND I ARE IN
AGREEMENT. IN THAT REGARD
>> WE ARE --
 MEMBERS RETURNED FROM THEIR
CLOSED DOOR MEETING, WE SHOULD
NASTY DEBATE AND POSSIBLE
AMENDMENTS BEFORE A FINAL VOTE
ON THE RULE. THIS IS LIVE
COVERAGE.
 OKAY THE RULES COMMITTEE WILL
COME TO ORDER. AT THIS TIME,
THE CHAIR WILL ENTERTAIN MOTION
FROM THE DISTINGUISHED
GENTLEMAN FROM PENNSYLVANIA.
>> THANK YOU. I MOVE THE HOUSE
RESOLUTION SEVEN 85, IMPEACHING
THE PRESIDENT, DONALD TRUMP. A
CLOSED RULE. IT PROVIDES THE
IMMEDIATELY UPON ADOPTION OF
THIS RESOLUTION WITHOUT
INTERVENTION OF ANY POINT OF
ORDER THE, HOUSE WILL PROCEED
WITH THE CONSIDERATION OF HOUSE
CONSIDERATION 7:55, IT PROVIDES
SIX HOURS OF DEBATE, EQUALLY
DIVIDED AND CONTROLLED BY THE
CHAIR AND RANKING MINORITY
MEMBER OF THE COMMITTEE ON THE
JUDICIARY, OR THEIR RESPECTIVE
DESIGNATES. THE RULE PROVIDES
THAT THEY ADMIT EVEN IN THE
NATURE OF A SUBSTITUTE
RECOMMENDED BY CONGRESS --
SORRY, THE COMMITTEE ON THE
JUDICIARY SHALL BE CONSIDERED
AS ADOPTED. THE RULE PROVIDES
THAT THE QUESTION OF ADOPTION
OF THE RESOLUTION SHALL BE
DIVIDED BETWEEN THE TWO
ARTICLES THE RULE PROVIDES THAT
DURING CONSIDERATION OF HOUSE
RESOLUTION 7:55 ONLY THE
PRESIDENT SHOULD BE ADMITTED TO
THE HALL OF THE HOUSE LEADING
THERE TO. A, MEMBERS OF
CONGRESS, WOULD BE THE
DELEGATES AND THE RESIDENT
COMMISSIONER, SEE THE,
PRESIDENT AND VICE PRESIDENT OF
THE UNITED STATES. THE OTHER
PERSONS AS DESIGNATED BY THE
SPEAKER, SECTION. THREE
PROVIDES FOR CONSIDERATION OF A
RESOLUTION APPOINTING IN
AUTHORIZING MANAGERS FOR THE
IMPEACHMENT TRIAL OF DONALD
TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED
STATES, IF OFFERED BY THE CHAIR
OF THE JUDICIARY OR HIS
DESIGNATE. IT PROVIDES TEN
MINUTES OF DEBATE ON THE
RESOLUTION, EQUALLY DIVIDED
CONTROLLED BY THE CHAIR, AND
RANKING MINORITY MEMBER OF THE
JUDICIARY COMMITTEE. IT WEIGHS
ALL POINTS OF ORDERS AGAINST
CONSIDERATION OF THE RESOLUTION
SPECIFIED IN SECTION THREE. THE
RULE PROVIDES THAT NO OTHER
RESOLUTION INCIDENT STILL TO
IMPEACHMENT RELATING TO OUR
RESOLUTION 7:55 SHALL BE
PRIVILEGED DURING THE REMAINDER
OF THE 116TH CONGRESS. THE RULE
PROVIDES THAT THE CHAIR OF THE
COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY MAY
INSERT IN THE RECORD SUCH
MATERIAL AS HE MADE HIM
EXPLANATORY OF HOUSE RESOLUTION
7:55 AND SPECIFIED IN SECTION
THREE, NOT LATER THAN THE DATE
THAT IS FIVE LEGISLATIVE DAYS
AFTER ADOPTION OF EACH
PERSPECTIVE RESOLUTION. I YIELD
BACK.
>> IS THERE ANY AMENDMENT OR
DISCUSSION?
>> THANK YOU. I'M AN AMENDMENT
TO THE ROLE, I MOVED TO PROVIDE
12 HOURS OF GENERAL DEBATE,
EQUALLY DIVIDED BETWEEN THE
CHAIR AND RANKING MEMBERS OF
THE COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY.
BECAUSE THE DEMOCRATIC HASTY
TIMEFRAME TO IMPEACH THE
PRESIDENT, IT'S IMPERATIVE THAT
WE HAVE AMPLE TIME TO DEBATE
THE FILE. WE SHOULD STRIVE TO
BECOME AS CLOSE AS POSSIBLE TO
BE A LOT AT THE TIME FOR DEBATE
IN THE CLINTON IMPEACHMENT.
MEMBERS SHOULD HAVE EFFICIENT
TIME TO EXPLAIN TO THE AMERICAN
PEOPLE THEIR POSITION ON THESE
IMPEACHMENT AMENDMENT.
PROVIDING 12 HOURS OF DEBATE
WILL ALLOW EACH MEMBER OF THIS
CONGRESS A MERE ONE MINUTE AND
40 SECONDS TO DEBATE, THE
IMPEACHMENT ARTICLE, BUT I
DEMAND THAT ON BOTH SIDES THEY
HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO STATE
THEIR POSITIONS WHO HAD ASKED
FOR THE 12 HOUR.
>> I THANK THE GENTLEMAN, WE
PROVIDED SIX HOURS OF DEBATE
PLUS AN HOUR OF DEBATE, THAT
SEVEN HOURS TOTAL. IT SEEMS
LIKE A REASONABLE AMOUNT OF
TIME WE'RE DEALING WITH FEWER
HOURS OR COUPLES OF IMPEACHMENT
WITH PRESIDENT TRUMP, THAN WE
WERE THE PRESIDENT CLINTON, AND
I THINK IT'S A FAIR AMOUNT OF
TIME, I RESPECT THE GENTLEMAN
BUT I WILL URGE A NO VOTE ON
HIS AMENDMENT.
>> ANY OTHER PERSONS REQUESTING
TIME?
>> I WOULD SPEAK IN FAVOR OF
THE AMENDMENT. NOT EVERY MEMBER
OF CONGRESS HAS THE PRIVILEGE
THAT WE DO OF SERVING ON THE
RULES COMMITTEE. WE HAVE
ENJOYED A LIMITED TIME TODAY,
FLEW SO WE'VE ALL HAD AMPLE
TIME TO TALK. I THINK EVERY
MEMBER OF CONGRESS SHOULD BE
URGED TO TAKE THE TIME TO
EXPLAIN TO THEIR CONSTITUENTS,
THIS IS NOT A TRIVIAL MATTER
THAT WE ARE TAKING, UP THIS IS
A MATTER OF GREAT IMPORTANCE
FOR THE FUTURE OF OUR COUNTRY,
AND WE'VE ALL TALKED ABOUT OUR
ALLEGIANCE TO THE CONSTITUTION.
WE SHOULD PROVIDE MEMBERS AN
OPPORTUNITY TO EXPLAIN
THEMSELVES. I SAY THE AMENDMENT
IS WELL REASONED AND CONSIDERED.
IF I WOULD URGE US TO TAKE THIS
UP, THEY PROVIDED AN
OPPORTUNITY, AND I THINK THEY
SHOULD TAKE IT.
>> I THINK SEVEN HOURS OF
DEBATE WILL EXTEND TO 12 HOURS,
WHEN IT'S ALL SAID AND DONE.
>> I JUST NOTE, FOR THE RECORD,
IT'S NOT OFTEN WE SUPPORT EVERY
AMENDMENT, SO I JUST LIKE TO
SHOUT OUT MY FRIEND.
>> CALL THE ROLL.
>> MR. HASTINGS
>> I HAVE AN AMENDMENT TO THE
RULE TO AMEND SECTION ONE THAT
WAVES ALL POINTS OF ORDER IN
THE RESOLUTION, EXCEPT FOR
THOSE IN VIOLATIONS OF CLAUSE
11. THE RULE WAVES ALL POINTS
OF ORDER, IN THE HOUSE RULE 11,
WE SPEND SO MUCH TIME TALKING
ABOUT TODAY, WHICH. IS A RIGHTS
FOR A HEARING ON DECEMBER 4TH.
MISTER CHAIRMAN, AS YOU KNOW,
MINORITY MEMBERS OF THE HOUSE
JUDICIARY COMMITTEE DID
EXERCISE THEIR RIGHTS UNDER
THAT SECTION, AND ASKED FOR A
DAY OF HEARING, BUT AS OF TODAY
THAT HEARING IS NOT BEEN
SCHEDULED, HE RESPONDED TO
POLLS OF CONCERNS ON THAT ISSUE,
AND AS I READ DURING THE
HEARING TODAY, IT CONCLUDED
THAT BECAUSE MR. NADLER HAS
APPROPRIATELY SAID HE WILL WORK
WITH THE MINORITY TO SCHEDULE
THAT HEARING, AFTER OUR VOTE ON
IMPEACHMENT DOES HE BELIEVE
THAT SECTION HAD BEEN SATISFIED,
YOU STATED THAT YOU -- THAT THE
INTENT OF THE RULE WAS TO
PROVIDE FALSE INVOICE, I DON'T
THINK THAT WOULD ALLOW FOR THAT
VOICE. IT COULD WELL BE THAT
THE HOUSE PARLIAMENTARIAN AND
THE SPEAKER TOMORROW WILL AGREE
WITH YOU THAT HAVING CONSULTED
WITH CHAIRMAN NADLER AND AGREED
TO HOLD A HEARING AFTER THE
FACT THAT IT DOES SATISFY THE
SECTION HOW THE RULES, I THINK
IT WOULD BE MID MEANINGLESS, IF
THAT IS TRUE. BUT BY ALLOWING
AND EXPOSING THIS POINT OF
ORDER TOMORROW WE WILL AT LEAST
MAKE CLEAR TO THE AMERICAN
PEOPLE ONLY ONE OF TWO THINGS
IS TRUE, EITHER THE HOUSE OF
REPRESENTATIVES HAS A PROCESS
AND ON THE DAY WE ACCUSED
PRESIDENT TRUMP OF BREAKING THE,
RULES REACHED WHO'S TO FOLLOW
OUR OWN. OR, WE WILL CHOOSE TO
WAIVE THOSE RULES, AND LEAVE
THE IMPRESSION THAT SOMEBODY OF
MY COLLEAGUES HAVE TALKED ABOUT
TODAY, THAT THE RULES DO NOT
APPLY TO EVERYONE, AND DO NOT
EXIST TO SERVE EVERYONE. I KNOW
THAT IS NOT THE INTENTION, AS
HIS LETTER MAKES IT CLEAR, I
JUST ASK MY COLLEAGUES, BECAUSE
THIS HAS BEEN A SOURCE OF GREAT
DEBATE AND DISAGREEMENT, THAT
WE EXPOSE THIS POINT OF ORDER,
AND IF IT TURNS OUT, AS THE
CHAIRMAN BELIEFS IT WILL, THAT
THIS REQUIREMENT HAS BEEN
SATISFIED, THEN NO HARM, NO
FOUL. BUT IF IT TURNS OUT THAT
THIS REQUIREMENT HAS NOT BEEN
SATISFIED, WE WOULD DO THE
AMERICAN PEOPLE A GREAT SERVICE
BY SATISFYING IT AND THEN
MOVING FORWARD. I THINK BY
CHAIRMAN.
>> ANY OTHER DISCUSSION?
>> IF I CAN JUST ADD ONE MORE
THING. TO READ THAT SECTION
MAKES IT CLEAR THAT THERE IS NO
AMBIGUITY IN THIS REQUEST. IF
THE MINORITY ACTS, THE REQUEST
MUST BE GRANTED. IT IS NOT UP
TO THE DISCRETION OF THE CHAIR
THAT ABSENCE OF DISCRETION WAS
INTENTIONAL, AS WE CRAFTED THIS
SECTION ON MINORITY RIGHTS. I
JUST PUT THAT OUT THERE FOR MY
COLLEAGUES BECAUSE ONE DAY WE
WILL ALL BE INDIFFERENT PLACES
AND THE PRESIDENT TODAY WILL
MATTER.
>> WE'VE BEEN IN YOUR SEAT BUT
THERE IS NO WHERE IN THAT ROLE
IS TO SAY WHEN THE CHAIRMAN
MUST SCHEDULE THAT HEARING.
WE'VE HAD THIS DISCUSSION
BEFORE AND I DON'T THINK THIS
IS SOMETHING TO A POINT OF
ORDER. THE STANDARD FOR ANY
MEASURE TO BE PROVIDED AGAINST
POINTS OF ORDER. 86 BLANKET
WAIVERS WERE PROVIDED BY THE
REPUBLICAN MAJORITY AND WE HAVE
NOT BEEN ADVISED THAT ANY
POINTS OF ORDER LIE AGAINST THE
RESOLUTION SO THE WAIVER IS OUT
OF AN ABUNDANCE OF CAUTION IN
KEEPING WITH MODERN RULES AND
PRACTICES. EVEN THOUGH THEY DID
NOT LIE AGAINST THE RESOLUTION,
THEY COULD BE BROUGHT UP THAT
WOULD BE HAVE TO BE ARGUED
AGAINST AND RULED ON,
NEEDLESSLY DELAYING THE FLOOR.
THAT IS WHY IT REFLECTED WAIVER
IS INCLUDED IN EVERY SINGLE
ROLL THAT WE REPORT OUT OF HERE
UNDER REPUBLICANS AND DEMOCRATS,
SO I DISAGREE WITH YOU ON HOW
YOU INTERPRET THE MINORITY DAY
RULE, I RESPONDED TO YOU,,
ASKED MY OPINIONS BUT, LOOK WE
NEED TO MAKE SURE THIS
RESOLUTION MOVES FORWARD, SO
WITH THAT THE GENTLELADY FROM
ARIZONA?
>> I WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK IN
FAVOR OF MR. WOODALL'S
AMENDMENT, I THINK THE AMERICAN
PUBLIC WOULD THINK THAT IT IS
REALLY RIDICULOUS TO GRANT A
MINORITY HEARING DATE AFTER WE
VOTE ON THE ARTICLES OF
IMPEACHMENT. ANY PERSON WITH
ANY COMMON SENSE KNOWS THAT
IT'S REALLY, IN MY OPINION,
OUTRAGEOUS. SO, IF YOU GO
FORWARD WITH THIS, AS I ASSUME
YOU ARE, I THINK WE ARE GOING
TO MAKE HAY OUT OF IT, FOR
SURE.
>> YOU CAN MAKE IT WHATEVER YOU
WANT. AS I SAID BEFORE, THE
WHOLE POINT OF THIS RESOLUTION
WAS TO ENSURE THAT THE MINORITY
AT ANY RIGHT TO A WITNESS
DURING COMMITTEE PROCEDURES.
THAT HAS NOT GRANTED IN THE
JUDICIARY COMMITTEE. IT'S JUST
TO PROTECT CHAIRMAN OR
CHAIRWOMAN WHO BASICALLY ALLOW
NO MINORITY WITNESSES. I WILL
ALSO SAY THAT WE RECEIVED A
LETTER FROM 17 MEMBERS OF THE
PARTY, SAYING THAT THEY WILL
USE EVERY MILITARY TACTIC
WITHIN THEIR MEANS TO TRY TO
DELAY AND DERAIL THIS PROCESS.
I DO NOT WANT THIS TO TURN INTO
A CIRCUS, THIS IS A SERIOUS
MATTER THAT IT WILL BE
CONSIDERED AN ORDERLY AND
RESPECTFUL WAY.
 SO WE JUST DISAGREE ON THAT.
MR. WOODALL?
>> AS WE HEARD, ON ONE FOR
THEIR POINT, I MAY NOT HAVE
EXPLAINED MY MOTION
APPROPRIATELY. I AGREE WITH YOU
IN THE NATIONS OF THE RULES
COMMITTEE, OUR STANDARD
PRACTICE OF WAIVING ALL POINTS
OF ORDERS, TO ALLOW THE
MAJORITY TO CONDUCT ITS
BUSINESS WITHOUT DILATORY
TACTIC. I WANT TO KEEP THAT
SECTION THAT WAVES ALL POINTS
OF ORDERS WITH THE ONE
EXCEPTION OF THIS MINORITY
WITNESS. IF I CAN READ FROM THE
HOUSE PRACTICE MANUAL, WHENEVER
A HEARING IS CALLED ON A
MEASURE OR MATTER, MINORITY
MEMBERS MAY HAVE A RIGHT TO
CALL WITNESSES OF THEIR OWN
CHOOSING. THAT HAS NOT HAPPENED
HERE. THAT HAS NOT HAPPENED
HERE, AS HAS BEEN SAID SO OFTEN
TODAY, THOSE FACTS ARE
UNDISPUTED. UNDISPUTED.
>> FIVE WITNESSES THAT HAVE
TESTIFIED, TO IN THE JUDICIARY
COMMITTEE AND THREE BY THE
REPUBLICAN MINORITY, THAT AT
LEAST FIVE WITNESSES AND THE
PRESIDENT WAS INVITED TO
PRESENT A CASE, WHICH HE
REFUSED TO DO.
>> I APPRECIATE MY FRIEND
RAISING THAT BUT, WHAT YOU
HEARD FROM THE RANKING MEMBER
IS THAT HE WAS GIVEN CHOICES BY
THE CHAIRMAN, TAKE IT OR LEAVE
IT. YOU CAN INVITE A PROFESSOR
OF YOUR OWN CHOOSING BUT YOU
CANNOT INDICT A WITNESS OF YOUR
OWN CHOOSING. YOU CAN BRING THE
FACT WITNESSES TO THIS HEARING.
THAT IS WHAT THIS SECTION --
>> SO THE GENTLEMAN IS MAKING A
DISTINCTION BETWEEN THE
EXAMINATIONS AND DEPOSITIONS
THAT WERE TAKEN IN THE
INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE, VERSUS
WHAT WAS DONE IN THE JUDICIARY
COMMITTEE, IS THAT HOW THAT
UNTIL MAN IS PROCEEDING?
>> NO. I WOULD SAY I AM TAKING
THE RULE ON ITS FACE, MINORITY
MEMBERS TO HAVE A RIGHT TO CALL
WITNESSES OF THEIR OWN
CHOOSING. THAT RIGHT WAS NOT
OFFERED OR GRANTED, AND IT GOES
ON TO SAY THE CHAIR MAY SET THE
DAY UNDER A REASONABLE
SCHEDULE. IT COULD WELL BE THAT
THE CHAIRMAN IS ABSOLUTELY
RIGHT. AND WHEN WE DECIDED THAT
THE SCHEDULE MUST BE REASONABLE,
WE DECIDED THAT SCHEDULING THE
HEARING AFTER THE BILL HAS
ALREADY BEEN PASSED AND SENT TO
THE SENATE WAS REASONABLE. BUT
I DON'T BELIEVE THAT WE BELIEVE
THAT. I BELIEVE NONE OF US
KNOWS THAT IS NOT WHAT WE
INTENDED. THERE ARE BILLS ON
WHICH IT MOVING AND PLAYING
FAST AND LOOSE MAY BE
APPROPRIATE. IMPEACHING THE
PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES
CANNOT BE, BY ANY DEFINITION BE
ONE OF THOSE RESOLUTIONS, IT
CANNOT BE. IT CANNOT BE. THE
RULE IS CLEAR, WE HAVE THE
RIGHT TO WAIVE THE RULE FOR
SUGGEST THAT THE RULE HAS BEEN
SATISFIED AS THE CHAIRMAN'S
LETTER DOES, I THINK CREATES A
VERY DANGEROUS PRECEDENT THAT
FUTURE CHAIRMAN ARE GOING TO BE
MUCH MORE LIBERAL WITH AND MUCH
LESS ENTHUSIASTIC ABOUT
PROTECTING MINORITY RIGHTS THEN
THE CHAIRMAN WOULD BE. THE
CHAIR MAY SET THE DAY UNDER A
REASONABLE SCHEDULE. IS THE DAY
AFTER WE PASSED A BILL
REASONABLE?
>> THAT'S THE BEST CASE
SCENARIO. THE CHAIRMAN HAS BEEN
VERY INDULGENT.
>> I THINK YOU'RE
MISINTERPRETING WHAT THE RULE
ACTUALLY STATES AND WE DO NOT
AGREE AND WHAT WE'RE DOING ITS
STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURE
AND WE ARE GOING TO FOLLOW
THAT.
>> TO BE FAIR, I AM NOT TRYING
TO MISTAKE THE RULE, I'M
READING IT OUT OF THE HOUSE
PRACTICE MANUAL.
>> I ANSWER TO YOU IN A LENGTHY
LETTER HOW BASED ON PRESIDENT
AND HOW IT WAS INTERPRETED --
THE IDEA THAT SOMEHOW IF IT
WORKED AWAY, THE MINORITY WOULD
HAVE IT MOVE BELIEF AS IF THERE
WERE A SUPERPOWER CALLING A
WITNESS ANYTIME OR SCHEDULING A
HEARING WHENEVER THEY WANT TO
TWO OR DELAY LEGISLATION, THERE
WOULD'VE BEEN A WHOLE LOT MORE
HEARINGS LAST CONGRESS, CALL BY
DEMOCRATS. SO WE JUST DISAGREE.
AND WE CAN CONTINUE THIS IF WE
LIKE BUT I DON'T AGREE WITH
YOUR ASSUMPTION.
>> I KNOW THAT IN THIS
COMMITTEE AS THE CHAIRMAN IF
YOU DON'T AGREE WITH ME THAT
MEANS I'M GOING TO LOSE, I
UNDERSTAND. THAT
>> YOU CAN ASK FOR A VOTE.
>> MISTER CHAIRMAN THIS IS NOT
A RULE OF THIS COMMITTEE, THIS
IS A RULE OF THE UNITED STATES.
>> IS THERE A POINT OF ORDER TO
BE MADE?
>> WHEN I RAISED THAT POINT OF
ORDER ON THE FLOOR OF THE HOUSE
IT WILL BE DENIED.
>> I'M NOT EXPOSING THIS BILL
TO ANY POINT OF ORDER. I WOULD
URGE MY COLLEAGUES TO VOTE NO
ON THE WHAT ALL AMENDMENT, ALL
THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE. OPPOSE?
NO. THE NOSE HAVE IT.
>> (INAUDIBLE) (LAUGHS).
>> CALL THE ROLL.
>> MR. CASINGS?
>> NO.
>> IT'S FACING SNOW.
>> MR. TORRES FOR NO?
>> MR. RASKIN, NOW.
>> MR. RASKIN. NO
>> MISS SCANLON?
>> NO.
>> THE SCANDAL, AND NO?.
>> MR. MORALLY?
>> NO.
>> THIS MORALLY, NOW.
>> MISTER JUST DON'T?
>> NOW.
>> IT'S JUST TONY, KNOW. --
I'D LIKE TO YIELD TO THE
GENTLEMAN FROM OKLAHOMA.
>> THIS IS A SAD DAY, I DON'T
THINK ANYBODY ON THIS PANEL
THAT CAME HERE WITH THE
EXPECTATION THAT VOTING ON
IMPEACHMENT FOR THE PRESIDENT I
THINK THEY ALL REGRET THIS. I
THINK WE ALL DO. I WANT TO TELL
YOU FORCE THAT I'M VERY PROUD
OF THIS COMMITTEE AND VERY
PROUD THAT THE DISCUSSION HAS
BEEN CIVIL AND PROFESSIONAL. I
THINK THE POINTS HAVE BEEN FAIR
BY ALL SIDES AND I THINK THAT'S
A CREDIT TO THIS COMMUNITY. I'M
VERY PROUD OF YOU, I THINK YOU
HAVE PRESIDED OVER THIS PROCESS
WHICH IS A DIFFICULT ONE AND
ONE VERY CLEARLY DISAGREE AND
THERE IS NOT MUCH OPPORTUNITY
FOR AGREEMENT TO ARRIVE BUT
YOU'VE GIVEN EVERYBODY AN
OPPORTUNITY TO HALF THEIR SAY
AND ALLOWED EVERY QUESTION TO
BE ASKED EVERY, POINT TO BE
MADE, WE'VE MADE DECISIONS AT
YOUR PREROGATIVE AS CHAIRMAN
AND WE RESPECT THAT. BUT I
THINK YOU'VE DONE SO IN A VERY
FAIR AND OPEN AND TRANSPARENT
MATTER, PERSONALLY, I AM VERY
GRATEFUL. I DO THINK THAT AS A
CONGRESS WERE ON AN AWFULLY
DANGEROUS AND DIVISIVE HORSE. I
THOUGHT ABOUT THIS QUITE A BIT,
I THINK ALL OF US ARE. I'VE
BEEN AROUND THIS BUSINESS FOR A
LONG TIME, AND I HAVE WATCHED
THE LAST IMPEACHMENT PROCESS,
WERE NOT A MEMBER OF CONGRESS,
BUT I WAS ASSOCIATED WITH
CONGRESS AT THE TIME. AND I
THOUGHT, PROBABLY WHERE WE WENT
WRONG IN THAT PROCESS IS THAT I
DON'T THINK THAT MOST OF THE
REPUBLICAN MEMBERS OF THE
NINETIES EVER REGARDED
PRESIDENT CLINTON AS A
LEGITIMATELY ELECTED PRESIDENT.
I WOULD CAUTION MY FRIENDS I
THINK YOU'RE MAKING PRECISELY
THE SAME MISTAKE NOW. NO
QUESTION WE CAN QUIBBLE ABOUT
VOTES MANY MANY MEMBERS OF
CONGRESS ON YOUR SIDE HAVE BEEN
TRYING TO IMPEACH THE PRESIDENT
FROM THE VERY FIRST DAY. NO
QUESTION ABOUT THAT. UNDER
TESTIMONY ABOUT THAT, AND YOU
ARE GOING TO IMPEACH THE
PRESIDENT IN THIS CASE IF WE GO
AHEAD TOMORROW FOR SOMETHING
THAT LOOKED IT'LL HAPPEN THIS
DISPUTE HAVE BEEN ABOUT AID TO
THE UKRAINE AND UKRAINE IN AID
WAS GIVEN IT WAS WITHHELD AT
LEAST 55 DAYS AND WITH IT
DELIVERED WITHIN THE TIME
LEGALLY TESTIFIED WITHIN THE
END OF THE FISCAL YEAR. WITH NO
INVESTIGATIONS UNDERTAKEN UNDER
THE UKRAINE, IN EXCHANGE FOR
THAT AID OR, AN EXCHANGE FOR A
TIME AT THE WHITE HOUSE WILL
VISIT FOR THE PRESIDENT, AND
BOTH THE PRINCIPLES INVOLVED IN
CRITICAL CONVERSATIONS
PRESIDENT TRUMP AND PRESIDENT
ZELENSKY, ALL SAID EVERYTHING
IS FINE. NO PRESSURE WAS
INTENDED, NONE WAS FELT. THIS
PROCESS THAT WERE ENGAGED IN
MISTER CHAIRMAN IS GOING TO
FAIL. WILL HAVE A VOTE TOMORROW
IT MAY SUCCEED I, OCCUPY THE
MAJORITY HERE I RESPECT THAT.
BUT WE'RE HERE BECAUSE THE
SPEAKER DID NOT FOLLOW THE VERY
CONDITIONS SHE LAID DOWN AT THE
BEGINNING. SHE SAID WE WILL NOT
GO DOWN THE ROAD OF IMPEACHMENT,
UNLESS IT'S BIPARTISAN, THIS IS
NOT BIPARTISAN, WE WILL NOT GO
DOWN THIS ROAD UNLESS THERE IS
A CONSENSUS OF THE COUNTRY,
THERE IS NO CONSENSUS OF THE
COUNTRY, AND WE ARE PRECISELY A
YEAR, LESS THAN NOW 11 MONTHS
FROM ELECTION, WHERE THE
AMERICAN PEOPLE CAN, AND WILL
MAKE THIS DECISION. I WANT TO
CONCLUDE, MISTER CHAIRMAN AND
NOW MORE OPTIMISTIC NOTE. A LOT
OF PEOPLE SAY THIS CONGRESS IS
BROKEN. WE FOCUS, THE PUBLIC
SHOULD FOCUS, ON THIS MEASURE
TODAY, BUT WE OUGHT TO REFLECT
ABOUT WHAT'S HAPPENED THIS
WEEK. WHAT HAPPENED IN THIS
COMMITTEE, WHAT WE SAW LAST
NIGHT. WE HAD A MAJOR
BIPARTISAN AGREEMENT ON FUNDING
THE THE GOVERNMENT FOR THE
REMAINING OF THE YEAR, BY WHICH
THE PRESIDENT WAS PRETTY IN
TRICKLE IN THAT PROCESS AS WELL,
HE PARTICIPATED. HE'S NOT
WILLING TO NEGOTIATE, HE
CERTAINLY DID. WE ARE GOING TO
HAVE MAJOR TAX CHANGES, THREE
MAJOR ITEMS TO FOUND THE ACA
WERE ELIMINATED TODAY, I'M VERY
PLEASED WITH THAT, THE
PRESIDENT WAS INVOLVED IN THAT,
WE HAVE THE TAX EXCHANGES
PACKAGE, THAT WE ALL STAYED A
LITTLE LATER BUT THAT'S BECAUSE
THE PRINCIPLES ON ALL SIDES
WERE ACTUALLY NEGOTIATED. THAT
TELLS ME THAT THINGS ARE GOING
IN A WORKABLE FASHION, AND WERE
GOING TO HAVE A USMCA VOTES ON
VOTE ON THURSDAY AGAIN THIS
COMMITTEE WAS INVOLVED, AND I
THINK IT WILL BE BIPARTISAN.
WELL I'M VERY DISAPPOINTED
ABOUT WHAT'S HAPPENING, I DON'T
THINK THAT'S GOOD FOR THE
COUNTRY, MY FRIEND MR. COLLINS
MADE SOME VERY GOOD POINTS
ABOUT LOWERING THE BAR FOR
IMPEACHMENT AND SETTING US UP
FOR ENGAGE IN THIS AGAIN, I AM
PLEASED TO SAY THAT I'VE BEEN
OFFERED MANY BIPARTISAN MANNER.
AND MISTER CHAIRMAN THAT'S IN
PART BECAUSE THE WAY UNIT WHICH
YOU'VE OPERATED, A VERY
DIVISIVE PROCESS, BUT ONE AGAIN
YOU'VE BEEN OPEN AND FAIR AND
TRANSPARENT, WE HAVE AGREED
WITH YOU ALL YOUR DECISIONS, WE
HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO
FANTASTIC AMENDMENTS, BUT THE
REALITY IS THAT YOU ALLOW THOSE
AMENDMENTS TO RESPECT FAIRLY,
AND SO FOR THAT I EXTENT MY
SINCERE APPRECIATION AND LOOK
FORWARD TO SEEING YOU ON THE
FLOOR TOMORROW AND, APPRECIATE
THE MANNER IN WHICH YOU
DISCHARGE ARE DIRTIEST IN THIS
COMMITTEE. I WANT TO THANK
>> THE GENTLEMAN FROM OKLAHOMA
FOR HIS KIND WORDS DEMOCRATS
AND REPUBLICANS, AND ALL THE
STAFF THAT HAVE PUT IN THE LONG
HOURS DURING THIS WEEK, BUT IT
WE SAT HERE ALL DAY, AND WE
DEFINITELY HAVE A VERY SERIOUS
AND THOUGHTFUL MANNER I DID I
HAD A NUMBER OF PEOPLE SAY THAT
THEY WERE SURPRISED THAT
DESPITE THE DIFFICULT TOPIC
BEFORE US, WHAT THEY HAVE
OBSERVED LAY OUT ON TV WAS
RELATIVELY CIVIL. I'M PROUD OF
THIS COMMITTEE TO. AND WE HAVE
STRONG DISAGREEMENTS OVER THE
MATTER AT HAND, I THINK THE
PRESIDENT BEHAVED IN A WAY THAT
IS REPREHENSIBLE QUITE FRANKLY,
AND YET HE DID THE AGE DID GO
TO UKRAINE, BUT ONLY AFTER HE
GOT CAUGHT WITHHOLDING IT.
WHILE THIS COMMITTEE WAS
GATHERING THIS AFTERNOON, THE
PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES
SENT THE SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE A
LETTER ON THE IMPEACHMENT
PROCESS, AND MISS ASKED
UNANIMOUS CONSENT TO PUT IN THE
RECORD, I'M NOT SURE HOW MANY
OF YOU READ IT. BUT IT'S SIX
PAGES LONG, AND IT ESSENTIALLY
A SENT A SENSE TO ONE LONG
TWITTER ROUND. HE CALLS
IMPEACHMENT A LEGAL COUP. SAYS
THAT MORE DUE PROCESS WERE A
AFFORDED TO THE SALEM WITCH
TRIALS TRIALS. INNOCENT PEOPLE
WERE THROWN IN SHALLOW GRADES,
80 ROLLED AND FARMER NAME GILES
CORY WAS PLACED BETWEEN ROCKS
AND CRUSHED TO DEATH, TO SAY
THAT HE'S BEEN TREATED WORSE
THAN THE SALEM WITCH TRIALS IS
ENHANCED. SO LIKE SO MANY OF
THEM DIPS MISSIVES ON
IMPEACHMENT. I KNOW A LITTLE
BIT ABOUT THE SILHOUETTE SHRUBS
BECAUSE I'M FROM MASSACHUSETTS.
AND HERE'S A LITTLE BIT MORE
HISTORY ABOUT MASSACHUSETTS. IT
WAS OUR FOREBEARS WHO WERE
KILLED IN THE MOSQUE BOSTON
MASSACRES. AND WHO FIRED THE
SHOT HEARD OF A AROUND THE
WORLD. IT WAS OUR COMMONWEALTH
THAT STOOD UP TO A TYRANNICAL
KING AND INSIGHT INSISTED THAT
RIGHTS COME FROM THE GOVERNMENT
NOT THE WHIMS OF A MONARCH. IN
HIS LETTER THE PRESIDENT EVEN
RIGHTS AND I QUOTE THAT THE
PRESIDENT WILL HOLD YOU
ACCOUNTABLE IN THE 2020
ELECTION AND. QUOTE THE
PRESIDENT DOESN'T GET IT. IF
THIS IS NOT ABOUT HIS
REELECTION. IT'S NOT ABOUT
ANYONE'S POLITICAL FUTURE. OUR
FOUNDER HANDED US TO THE
FRAGILE THING MORE THAN 200
YEARS AGO, AN EXPERIMENT
EARNEST SELF GOVERNMENT.
FLEDGLING DEMOCRACY UNLIKE
ANYTHING WE'VE EVER SEEN AT A
TIME. A REPUBLIC OF BY AND FOR
THE PEOPLE. THIS IS WHETHER WE
THE PEOPLE SAY TO CONGRESS, ARE
WILLING TO STAND UP AND PROTECT
THAT FRAGILE IDEAL THAT HAS
BEEN INTERESTED TO ALL OF US.
WE SHAPE THE STOMACH RECEIVED
BY DAY BY DAY VOTE BY VOTE SOME
VOTES ARE MORE CANE THAN OTHERS,
BUT EACH AND EVERYONE HELPS TO
SIDE THE TYPE OF COUNTRY WERE
GONNA BE VOTING ON IMPEACHMENT
IS PARTICULARLY IMPORTANT, IT
WILL DEFINE OUR DEMOCRACY FROM
HERE ON OUT. NOT A SINGLE
REPUBLICAN TODAY EVEN HINTED
THAT THE PRESIDENT DID WAS
WRONG. IT WAS WRONG. IT WAS
WRONG. AND FOR ME, I WILL LEAVE
HERE TODAY WITH A CLEAR
CONSCIENCE. I DON'T KNOW IF
PRESIDENT TRUMP IS WATCHING
RIGHT NOW, BUT IF YOU WERE I
WOULD SAY, MISTER PRESIDENT
THIS IS NOT ABOUT YOU. THIS IS
ABOUT ALL OF US. WHAT KIND OF
BEHAVIOR YOU'RE WILLING TO
TOLERATE WHOEVER SITS IN THE
OVAL OFFICE. AND WHETHER WE
LIVE IN THE GOVERNMENT BY FOR
THE PEOPLE. OUR REPUBLIC IF YOU
CAN KEEP IT, I QUOTE THOSE
FAMOUS WORDS BY BENJAMIN
FRANKLIN. NO ONE WANTED TO BE
HERE TODAY. BUT I AM PROUD THAT
WHEN HISTORY CALLED UPON US, WE
FOUGHT TO KEEP THE VISION OF
OUR FOUNDERS ALIVE AND OUR
TIME. WE FOUGHT TO KEEP THIS
REPUBLICAN TACT. SO THIS SAYS
BEEN A LONG DAY, I TOMORROW
PROMISES TO BE A LONG DAY. EVEN
THOUGH WE HAD DISAGREEMENTS IN
THIS COMMITTEE, AS I SAID
BEFORE I'M PROUD OF EACH AND
EVERY MEMBER OF THIS COMMITTEE.
I THINK SHOWED THAT WE CAN HAVE
DIFFICULT DISCUSSIONS, AND BE
CIVIL, AND BE SERIOUS, AND I
THINK THAT NO MATTER WHERE WE
FALL ON THIS ISSUE, I THINK
THAT'S ALL WE SHOULD BE PROUD
OF. I THINK EVERYBODY, AND NOW
I ASK THAT WAY WE QUESTIONS NOW
AND THE MOTIONS FOR THE
GENTLEMAN FROM PENNSYLVANIA,
ALL THOSE UNFAVORABLE SAY I.
AND THE OPINION OF THE CHAIR
THE AYES HAVE A. THE YAYS THE
NAYS HAVE BEEN WRIST WERE
REQUESTED. ROLL CALL MRS. STARS
I MR. PROMOTER I MR. RASKIN I
MR. I
>> MISS FINN I MISSED MOST
MORALLY
>> I MISSED I MR. TO SONY MR.
SONIA I
>> MR. CALL
>> MR. COAL
>> MISTER MRS. LESKO
>> MISSED MISTER CHAIRMAN THE
CLERK REPORT THE TOTAL 90S FOR
NAYS. THE AYES HAVE IT AND I
WILL JUST RULE FOR THE
MAJORITY. AGAIN I THINK
EVERYBODY UNAWARE THAT,
ABSOLUTELY.
>> WE TALK ABOUT DEMOCRACY IN
THE FEDERAL SYSTEM -- EVEN
BEFORE,
>> I AGREE
>> I AGREE
>> THANK YOU. WITHOUT OBJECTION
THE COMMITTEE IS ADJOURNED.
>>
 ONE FOR ABUSE OF POWER IN THE
OTHER FOR OBSTRUCTION OF
CONGRESS. THE ARTICLE THE HOUSE
BEGINS DEBATE TOMORROW.
FOLLOWED BY SIX HOURS OF DEBATE
IN THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE. NO
AMENDMENTS ARE ALLOWED TO BE
OFFERED. FOLLOWING THE
IMPEACHMENT DEBATE ALL OF THE
LIVE WEDNESDAY FOLLOWING AT
NINE EASTERN ON C-SPAN. FOLLOW
THE HOUSE IMPEACHMENT PROCESS
AND THE ADMINISTRATION'S
RESPONSE ON C-SPAN. WATCH LIVE
UNFILTERED COVERA
