TEST. TEST. TEST.
CAPTIONING PERFORMED BY VITAC
>>> THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE WILL
PLEASE COME TO ORDER.
WHEN THE COMMITTEE RECESSED 
YESTERDAY IT HAD COMPLETED 
OPENING STATEMENTS ON THE 
RESOLUTION ABOUT TO BE 
CONSIDERED.
PUTIN TO NOTICE UNDER HOUSE 
RESOLUTION 660, I KNOW CALL 
HOUSE -- 
>> MR. CHAIRMAN -- 
>> IMPEACHING DONALD J. TRUMP 
PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED 
STATES -- 
>> POINT OF ORDER. 
>> THE GENTLEMAN WILL STATE HIS 
POINT OF ORDER. 
>> THE CHAIRMAN REFUSED TO 
SCHEDULE A DAY OF HEARINGS 
PURSUANT TO CLAUSE 2 J. 
>> WE'LL ENTERTAIN THAT POINT OF
ORDER ONCE WE COMPLETED CALLING 
UP THE RESOLUTION.
I CALL UP H REZ 775 FOR PURPOSES
OF MARKUP AND MOVE THAT THE 
COMMITTEE REPORT THE RESOLUTION 
FAVORABLY TO THE HOUSE.
THE CLERK WILL REPORT THE 
RESOLUTION. 
>> H REZ 755, IMPEACHING DONALD 
J. TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE 
UNITED STATES FOR HIGH CRIMES 
AND MISDEMEANORS DECEMBER 10th, 
2019.
THE FOLLOWING RESOLUTION WAS 
SUBMITTED, RESOLUTION, 
IMPEACHING DONALD JOHN TRUMP FOR
HIGH CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS, 
RESOLVE THAT DONALD J. TRUMP 
PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES 
IS IMPEACHED FOR HIGH CRIMES AND
MISDEMEANORS AND THE FOLLOWING 
ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT BE 
EXHIBITED TO THE UNITED STATES 
SENATE.
OF THE PEOPLE OF THE UNITED 
STATES OF AMERICA AGAINST DONALD
J. TRUMP PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED
STATES IN SUPPORT OF HIS 
IMPEACHMENT AGAINST HIM.
ARTICLE ONE, ABUSE OF POWER, THE
CONSTITUTION PROVIDES THAT THE 
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES SHALL 
HAVE THE SOLE POWER OF 
IMPEACHMENT AND THE PRESIDENT 
SHALL BE REMOVED FROM OFFICE FOR
THE CONVICTION OF TREASON, 
BRIBERY OR OTHER HIGH CRIMES AND
MISDEMEANORS.
IN HIS CONDUCT IN THE OFFICE OF 
THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED 
STATES TO THE BEST OF HIS 
ABILITY PRESERVE, PROTECT AND 
DEFEND THE CONSTITUTION OF THE 
UNITED STATES AND IN VIOLATION 
OF HIS DUTIES, DONALD J. TRUMP 
HAS ABUSED THE POWERS OF THE 
PRESIDENCY IN THAT USING THE 
POWERS OF THE HIGH OFFICE HE 
SOLICITED THE INTERFERENCE OF A 
FOREIGN GOVERNMENT IN THE 
PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION.
HE DO SO THROUGH A SCHEME OF 
CONDUCT THAT INCLUDED INCLUDING 
THE GOVERNMENT OF UKRAINE TO 
ANNOUNCE INVESTIGATIONS THAT 
WOULD BENEFIT HIS RE-ELECTION, 
HARM THE ELECTION PROSPECTS OF A
POLITICAL OPPONENT AND INFLUENCE
THE 2020 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION 
TO HIS ADVANTAGE.
PRESIDENT TRUMP SOUGHT TO 
PRESSURE THE GOVERNMENT OF 
UKRAINE TO TAKE THESE STEPS BY 
CONDITIONING OFFICIAL ACTS OF 
SIGNIFICANT VALUE OF UKRAINE ON 
ITS PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENT OF THE 
INVESTIGATIONS.
PRESIDENT TRUMP ENGAGED IN -- 
>> I WOULD ASK CONTENT THAT THE 
RESOLUTION BE CONSIDERED -- 
>> GIVEN THE SIGNIFICANT -- 
>> I OBJECT. 
>> THE OBJECTION IS HEARD.
CONTINUE. 
>> PERSONAL, POLITICAL BENEFIT 
IN DOING SO, PRESIDENT TRUMP 
USED THE POWERS OF THE 
PRESIDENCY IN A MANNER THAT 
COMPROMISED THE NATIONAL 
SECURITY OF THE UNITED STATES.
HE IGNORED AND INJURED THE 
INTEREST OF THE NATION.
ONE, PRESIDENT TRUMP ACTING BOTH
DIRECTLY AND THROUGH HIS AGENTS 
WITHIN AND OUTSIDE THE UNITED 
STATES GOVERNMENT, CORRUPTLY 
SOLICITED THE GOVERNMENT OF 
UKRAINE TO ANNOUNCE 
INVESTIGATIONS INTO A POLITICAL 
OPPONENT, FORMER VICE PRESIDENT 
JOE BIDEN AND A DISCREDITED 
THEORY PROMOTED BY RUSSIA THAT 
UKRAINE RATHER THAN RUSSIA 
INTERFERED IN THE 2016 UNITED 
STATES PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION.
TWO, WITH THE SAME CORRUPT 
MOTIVES, PRESIDENT TRUMP ACTING 
BOTH DIRECTLY AND THROUGH HIS 
AGENTS WITHIN AND OUTSIDE THE 
UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT, TO 
OFFICIAL ACTS ON THE PUBLIC 
ANNOUNCEMENTS THAT HE HAD 
REQUESTED, A, THE RELEASE OF 
$391 MILLION OF TAXPAYER FUNDS 
FOR THE PURPOSE OF PROVIDING 
SECURITY ASSISTANCE TO UKRAINE 
TO OPPOSE RUSSIAN AGGRESSION 
WHICH PRESIDENT TRUMP HAD ORDER 
SUSPENDED AND AHEAD OF STATE 
MEETING AT THE WHITE HOUSE WHICH
THE PRESIDENT OF UKRAINE SOUGHT 
TO SUPPORT.
THREE, FACED WITH THE PUBLIC 
REVELATION OF HIS ACTIONS, 
PRESIDENT TRUMP ULTIMATELY 
RELEASED THE MILITARY AND 
SECURITY ASSISTANCE TO THE 
GOVERNMENT OF UKRAINE BUT HAS 
PERSISTED IN URGING AND 
SOLICITING UKRAINE TO UNDERTAKE 
INVESTIGATIONS.
THESE ACTIONS WERE CONSISTENT 
WITH PRESIDENT TRUMP'S PREVIOUS 
INVITATIONS.
PRESIDENT TRUMP ABUSED THE 
POWERS OF THE PRESIDENCY BY 
IGNORING AND INJURING NATIONAL 
SECURITY AND OTHER INTERESTS TO 
OBTAIN A BENEFIT.
HE'S DETROYED THE NATION BY 
ABUSING HIS HIGH OFFICE.
PRESIDENT TRUMP BY SUCH CONTACT 
HAS DEMONSTRATED THAT HE WILL 
REMAIN A THREAT TO NATIONAL 
SECURITY AND THE CONSTITUTION IF
ALLOWED TO REMAIN IN OFFICE, HE 
HAS ACTED IN A MANNER 
INCOMPATIBLE WITH 
SELF-GOVERNANCE WITH THE RULE OF
LAW.
ARTICLE II, OBSTRUCTION OF 
CONGRESS.
THE INSTITUTION PROVIDES THAT 
THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 
SHALL HAVE THE SOLE POWER OF 
IMPEACHMENT AND THAT THE 
PRESIDENT SHALL BE REMOVED FROM 
OFFICE OF IMPEACHMENT -- ON 
IMPEACHMENT FOR THE CONVICTION 
OF TREASON, BRIBERY OR OTHER 
HIGH CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS.
IN HIS CONDUCT AND IN VIOLATION 
OF HIS OATH TO EXECUTE THE 
OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE 
UNITED STATES, AND IN VIOLATION 
OF HIS DUTY TO TAKE CARE OF THE 
LAWS BE FAITHFULLY EXECUTED, 
DONALD J. TRUMP HAS DIRECTED THE
UNPRECEDENTED AND INDISCRIMINATE
OF DEFIANCE ISSUED BY THE HOUSE 
OF REPRESENTATIVES PURSUANT TO 
ITS SOLE POWER OF IMPEACHMENT.
HE'S ABUSED THE POWERS OF THE 
PRESIDENCY IN A MANNER 
SUBVERSIVE TO THE CONSTITUTION.
THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES HAS
ENGAGED IN AN IMPEACHMENT 
INQUIRY FOCUSED ON PRESIDENT 
TRUMP'S CORRUPT SOLICITATION OF 
THE GOVERNMENT OF UKRAINE TO 
INTERFERE IN THE 2020 UNITED 
STATES PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION.
AS PART OF THIS IMPEACHMENT 
INQUIRY, THE COMMITTEES 
UNDERTAKING THE INVESTIGATION 
SERVED SUBPOENAS SEEKING 
DOCUMENTS AND TESTIMONY.
IN RESPONSE WITHOUT LAWFUL CAUSE
OR EXCUSE, PRESIDENT TRUMP 
DIRECTED DIRECT BRANCH AGENCIES 
NOT TO COMPLY WITH THOSE 
SUBPOENAS.
PRESIDENT TRUMP INTERPOSED THE 
POWERS OF THE PRESIDENCY AGAINST
THE SUBPOENAS OF THE HOUSE OF 
REPRESENTATIVES AND ASSUMED TO 
HIMSELF FUNCTIONS AND JUDGMENTS 
NECESSARY TO THE EXERCISE OF THE
SOLE POWER OF IMPEACHMENT.
VESTED BY THE CONSTITUTION IN 
THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.
PRESIDENT TRUMP ABUSED THE POWER
OF HIS HIGH OFFICE THROUGH THE 
FOLLOWING MEANS, DIRECTING THE 
WHITE HOUSE TO DEFY A LAWFUL 
SEASON BY WITHHOLDING THE 
PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, 
DIRECTING OTHER EXECUTIVE BRANCH
AGENCIES AND OFFICES TO DEFY 
SUBPOENAS AND WITH HOLD THE 
PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS AND 
RECORDS FROM THE COMMITTEES IN 
RESPONSE TO WHICH THE DEPARTMENT
OF STATE, DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 
REFUSED TO PRODUCE A DOCUMENT OR
RECORD.
THESE ACTIONS WERE CONSISTENT 
WITH THE -- WITH PRESIDENT 
TRUMP'S PREVIOUS EFFORTS TO 
UNDERMINE THE UNITED STATES 
INVESTIGATIONS INTO FOREIGN 
INTERFERENCE IN THE UNITED 
STATES ELECTIONS.
THROUGH THESE ACTIONS, PRESIDENT
TRUMP SOUGHT TO DETERMINE THE 
PROPRIETY AND SCOPE INTO AN 
INQUIRY AS WELL AS A PREROGATIVE
TO DENY INFORMATION TO THE HOUSE
OF REPRESENTATIVES IN EXERCISE 
OF ITS SOLE POWER OF 
IMPEACHMENT.
IN THE HISTORY OF THE REPUBLIC, 
NO PRESIDENT HAS EVER ORDERED 
THE COMPLETE DEFIANCE OF AN 
IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY OR SOUGHT TO
OBSTRUCT AND IMPEDE THE ABILITY 
OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 
TO INVESTIGATE HIGH CRIMES AND 
DISDEMEANORS.
THIS ABUSE OF OFFICE SERVED TO 
COVER UP THE MISCONDUCT AND 
SEIZE THE CONTROL OF POWER OF 
IMPEACHMENT.
AND THUS TO NULLIFY, A VITAL 
INSTITUTIONAL SAFEGUARD VESTED 
SOLELY IN THE HOUSE OF 
REPRESENTATIVES.
PRESIDENT TRUMP HAS ACTED IN A 
MANNER CONTRARY TO HIS TRUST AS 
PRESIDENT AND SUBVERSIVE OF 
CONSTITUTIONAL GOVERNMENT.
TO CAUSE OF LAW AND JUDGMENT AND
TO THE INJURY OF THE PEOPLE OF 
THE UNITED STATES.
PRESIDENT TRUMP BY SUCH CONDUCT 
HAS DETERMINED HE WILL REMAIN A 
THREAT.
PRESIDENT TRUMP THUS WARRANTS 
IMPEACHMENT, TRIAL, REMOVAL FROM
OFFICE AND DISQUALIFICATION TO 
HOLD THE OFFICE. 
>>> THE GENTLEMAN WILL STATE HIS
POINTED OF ORDER. 
>> THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN.
AGAIN, AS I MADE THE POINT OF 
ORDER ON THIS HEARING DAY, THE 
CHAIRMAN WAS FURNISHED WITH THE 
DEMANDS DURING THE IMPEACHMENT 
HEARING ON DECEMBER THE 4th.
AT ONE POINT, TELLING ME, AS I 
RESPONDED TO THIS, THAT WILL 
RULE WITH IT TODAY.
WE'RE HERE TODAY AND IT'S A 
FARCE THAT WE'RE HAVING TO RULE 
ON THIS TODAY BECAUSE THERE'S NO
OTHER TIME WE'RE TAKING UP THE 
ARTICLES TODAY.
THE RULE IS NOT -- BY THE WAY, 
THIS RULE IS NOT SUPERSEDED BY 
ANY PORTION OF H REZ 660.
AFTER DISCUSSING THIS, THEY 
CHOSE NOT TO EXEMPT THE MINORITY
HEARING DAY.
THIS COULD HAVE BEEN DONE.
THEY CHOSE NOT TO.
NOW WE'RE NOT HAVING IT, SO I 
CONTINUE MY POINT OF ORDER.
>> IF I UNDERSTAND THE 
GENTLEMAN'S POINT OF ORDER HE 
ASSERTS WE ARE VIOLATING CLAUSE 
2 J 1 OF HOUSE RULE 11 BY 
CONDUCTING THIS MARKUP BEFORE WE
HAVE HELD THE HEARING THAT THE 
MINORITY MEMBERS REQUESTED ON 
DECEMBER 4th.
IN MY VIEW, THE GENTLEMAN IS 
CLAIMING A BROADER BRIDGE THAN 
THE CLAUSE PROVIDES THE 
MINORITY.
THE MINORITY HAS ASKED FOR A DAY
OF HEARINGS ON THE MATTER OF THE
DECEMBER 4th HEARING WHICH WAS 
THE CONSTITUTIONAL GROUNDS FOR 
IMPEACHMENT.
I'M WILLING TO WORK WITH THE 
MINORITY TO SCHEDULE SUFFICIENT 
A HEARING BUT NOT BEFORE TODAY'S
MARKUP OF THE ARTICLES OF 
IMPEACHMENT.
THE RULE DOES NOT REQUIRE ME TO 
SCHEDULE A HEARING ON A 
PARTICULAR DAY NOR DOES IT 
REQUIRE ME TO SCHEDULE THE 
HEARING AS A CONDITION PRECEDENT
TO TAKE ANY LEGISLATIVE ACTION.
I REACHED THIS CONCLUSION AFTER 
REVIEWING THE PLAIN TEXT AND 
HISTORY OF THE HOUSE RULE, AFTER
CONSIDERING PRIOR PRECEDENT AND 
COMMITTEE PRACTICE, AND AFTER 
CONSULTING WITH AUTHORITIES IN 
THE CONGRESSIONAL RESEARCH 
SERVICE.
I BELIEVE MY SCHEDULING DECISION
IN THIS CASE IS REASONABLE FOR 
SEVERAL YEARS, FIRST, THE 
MINORITIES VIEWS HAVE NOT BEEN 
SHUT OUT.
THE HISTORY OF THE MINORITY DAY 
RULE SHOWS IT WAS WRITTEN TO 
PREVENT THE MAJORITY FROM THE 
PREVENTING THE MINORITY POSITION
FROM BEING REPRESENTED IN A 
HEARING.
AS A REPORT EXPLAINS, IT IS 
NORMAL PROCEDURE FOR WITNESSES 
REPRESENTING BOTH SIDES OF THE 
ISSUE TO GIVE TESTIMONY AT 
COMMITTEE HEARINGS.
IN THOSE INSTANCES WHEN 
WITNESSES REPRESENTING THE 
MINORITY POSITION ARE NOT 
ALLOTTED TIME, A SAFEGUARD 
SHOULD EXIST TO PROTECT THE 
MINORITY RIGHTS, UNQUOTE.
OF COURSE THAT DID NOT HAPPEN AT
THE DECEMBER 4th HEARING.
THE MINORITY HAD A WITNESS AT 
THE HEARING, PROFESSOR TURLEY, 
WHO REPRESENTED THEIR POSITION 
AND WAS AFFORDED AMPLE TIME TO 
DISCUSS THAT POSITION.
THE MINORITY DID NOT GET AS MANY
WITNESSES AS THEY WOULD HAVE 
PREFERRED BUT THAT IS NOT THE 
PURPOSE OF THE HOUSE RULE.
SECOND, THE MINORITY AND THE 
PRESIDENT HAVE SPECIAL 
PROTECTIONS UNDER HOUSE 
RESOLUTION 660.
THE PROCEDURES PROVIDED UNDER 
THE RESOLUTION GIVE THE 
PRESIDENT AND THE MINORITY A 
VARIETY OF SPECIAL PRIVILEGES TO
PRESENT EVIDENCE AND SUBPOENA 
WITNESSES.
THUS, THERE ARE ALTERNATIVE 
PROCEDURES UNDER H REZ 660 BY 
WHICH WITNESSES CAN BE REQUESTED
AND SUBPOENAED BUT THEY HAVE NOT
BEEN EXERCISED.
THIRD, THERE'S NO PRECEDENT FOR 
THE USE OF MINORITY DAYS TO 
DELAY COMMITTEE PROCEEDINGS.
IT IS CLEAR FROM THE HISTORY 
THAT THE MINORITY DAY RULE IS 
NOT INTENDED TO DELAY 
LEGISLATIVE ACTIVITY.
AS THE COMMITTEE AND THE 
ORGANIZATION OF THE CONGRESS 
EXPLAINED, WE DO NOT LOOK UPON 
THIS RULE AS AN AUTHORIZATION 
FOR DELAYING TACTICS, UNQUOTE.
THE RULE IS MADE PART OF THE 
HOUSE RULES IN 1971 BUT WAS NOT 
INVOKED IN EITHER THE NIXON OR 
CLINTON IMPEACHMENT.
THE ONLY PRECEDENT I'M AWARE OF 
IN THE CONTEXT OF IMPEACHMENT 
TOOK PLACE SEVERAL WEEKS AGO IN 
THE INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE.
THERE THE MINORITY ALSO 
REQUESTED A DAY OF HEARINGS EVEN
THOUGH THEY ALL SAID WITNESSES 
PARTICIPATE IN THEIR 
PROCEEDINGS.
THEY DID OFFER AN AMENDMENT 
CLAIMING THAT THE RULE HAS BEEN 
VIOLATED THAT AMENDMENT WAS 
REJECTED BY THE COMMITTEE.
THERE'S NO PRECEDENT SUPPORTING 
THE GENTLEMAN'S POINT OF ORDER 
AND THE ONE PRECEDENT WE HAVE 
INDICATES THAT A POINT OF ORDER 
DOES NOT LIE TO DELAY 
CONSIDERATION OF ARTICLES OF 
IMPEACHMENT.
FINALLY, PAST JUDICIARY 
COMMITTEE PRACTICE AND PRECEDENT
DO NOT SUPPORT THE GENTLEMAN'S 
POINT OF ORDER.
LAST YEAR, A NUMBER OF OTHER 
MEMBERS AND I SENT THE MINORITY 
THEIR REQUEST.
THE CHAIRMAN NEVER RESPONDED TO 
OUR REQUEST AND NEVER SCHEDULED 
A HEARING.
I DON'T BELIEVE A SINGLE MEMBER 
OF THE MAJORITY ARGUED IN FAVOR 
OF US BEING GRANTED OUR HEARING 
UNDER THE RULES.
BACK IN 2005 THEN CHAIRMAN 
SENSENBRENNER SCHEDULED THE 
HEARING BUT CUT OFF WITNESSES, 
SHUT OFF THE MICROPHONES AND 
SHUT OFF THE LIGHTS AND ENDED 
THE HEARING.
AGAIN, NO ONE IN THE THEN 
MAJORITY ARGUED IN FAVOR OF 
PROTECTING OUR RIGHTS.
AS A RESULT THERE'S NO COMMITTEE
PRACTICE OR PRECEDENT SUPPORTING
THE GENTLEMAN'S POINT OF ORDER.
FOR ALL THE FOREGOING REASONS I 
DO NOT SUSTAIN THE POINT OF 
ORDER. 
>> MR. CHAIRMAN?
I THINK IT IS OBVIOUS BY THE 
LENGTH OF THE CHAIRMAN'S ANSWER 
THAT THIS STRUCK A NERVE SEEING 
HOW THE CHAIRMAN HIMSELF SAYS IN
HIS OWN WORDS FROM PREVIOUS 
TIMES, IT'S NOT THE CHAIRMAN'S 
RIGHT TO DECIDE WHETHER THE 
HEARINGS ARE SUFFICIENT OR 
WHETHER HE THINKS THEY'RE 
ACCEPTABLE OR TO VIOLATE THE 
RULES IN ORDER TO INTERFERE.
IT IS INTERESTING TO ME THAT 
THIS TIME HAS BECOME THE 
ISSUE -- 
>> I MADE MY RULING ON THE POINT
OF ORDER.
DOES THE GENTLEMAN WISH TO 
APPEAL THE RULING OF THE CHAIR?
>> I WOULD LIKE THE CHAIRMAN TO 
TAKE ONE MORE MINUTE -- 
>> DOES THE GENTLEMAN WISH TO 
APPEAL THE RULING OF THE CHAIR?
YES OR NO. 
>> YES.
THE CHAIRMAN IS DOING THIS 
AGAIN. 
>> THE APPEAL OF THE RULING OF 
THE CHAIR IS NOT SUSTAINED. 
>> I MOVE TO TABLE IT. 
>> DID YOU NOT CALL FOR A VOTE?
I SUSTAINED THE POINT OF ORDER.
>> I CALL FOR A RULING OF THE 
CHAIR.
I CALL FOR A VOTE. 
>> I RULED THAT THE POINT OF 
ORDER IS NOT WELL TAKEN.
>> THAT'S PAINFULLY OBVIOUS.
I'VE APPEALED THE RULING OF THE 
CHAIR. 
>> AND I MOVED TO TABLE IT. 
>> THE GENTLEMAN'S APPEALED THE 
RULING OF THE CHAIR.
THE GENTLE LADY HAS MOVED TO 
TABLE THE RULING OF THE CHAIR.
ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE. 
>> AYE. 
>> WE WILL PROCEED TO 
AMENDMENTS. 
>> ROLL CALL.
>> THE GENTLEMAN ASKED FOR ROLL 
CALL ON THE MOTION TO TABLE THE 
APPEAL OF THE RULING OF THE 
CHAIR.
THE CLERK WILL CALL THE ROLE.
MR. NADLER. 
>> AYE. 
>> MS. LOFGREN. 
>> YES.
>> MS. JACKSON LEE. 
>> YES.
>> MR. COHEN. 
>> YES.
>> MR. JOHNSON OF GEORGIA. 
>> AYE. 
>> MR. DEUTCH?
>> AYE. 
>> MR. RICHMOND?
>> YES.
>> MR. JEFFRIES. 
>> AYE. 
>> MR. CICILLINE. 
>> AYE. 
>> MR. SWALWELL VOTES AYE. 
>> MS. DEMINGS. 
>> AYE. 
>> MR. CORE RAY YA. 
>> AYE. 
>> MR. NEGUSE. 
>> AYE. 
>> MS. McBATH. 
>> AYE. 
>> MR. STANTON. 
>> AYE. 
>> MS. DEAN. 
>> AYE. 
>> MS. ESCOBAR. 
>> AYE. 
>> MR. COLLINS. 
>> NO.
MR. JORDAN. 
>> NO. 
>> MR. BUCK. 
>> NO. 
>> MR. RATCLIFFE. 
>> NO >> MS. ROBY. 
>> NO.
>> MR. GATES. 
>> NO. 
>> MR. JOHNSON OF LOUISIANA. 
>> NO.
>> MR. BIGGS. 
>> NO.
>> MR. McCLINTOCK. 
>> NO.
>> MS. LESKO. 
>> NO.
>> MR. RESHEN THAT ALLER. 
>> NO.
>> MR. ARMSTRONG. 
>> NO.
>> MR. STEUBE. 
>> NO.
>> HAS EVERYONE VOTED WHO WISHES
TO VOTE.
THE CLERK WILL REPORT. 
>> MR. CHAIRMAN THERE ARE 23 
AYES AND 17 NOES. 
>> WE GO PROCEED TO AMENDMENTS.
THE CLERK WILL READ THE FIRST 
SECTION OF THE RESOLUTION.
>> IMPEACHING DONALD J. TRUMP 
PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES 
FOR HIGH CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS
AND THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
DECEMBER 10th, 2019.
MR. NADLER SUBMITTED THE 
FOLLOWING RESOLUTION.
RESOLUTION IMPEACHING DONALD J. 
TRUMP PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED 
STATES RESOLVED THAT DONALD J. 
TRUMP PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED 
STATES IS IMPEACHED FOR HIGH 
CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS AND THE 
FOLLOWING ARTICLES OF 
IMPEACHMENT BE EXHIBITED TO THE 
UNITED STATES SENATE.
ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT AGAINST 
DONALD J. TRUMP PRESIDENT OF THE
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA IN 
MAINTENANCE AND SUPPORT OF ITS 
IMPEACHMENT AGAINST HIM FOR HIGH
CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS. 
>> I WILL RECOGNIZE MYSELF FOR 
PURPOSES OF OFFERING AN 
AMENDMENT.
THE CLERK WILL REPORT THE 
AMENDMENT.
>> AMENDMENT IN THE NATURE OF A 
SUBSTITUTE OFFERED BY MR. NADLER
OF NEW YORK.
STRIKE ALL THAT FOLLOWS AFTER 
THE RESOLVING CLAUSE AND INSERT 
THE FOLLOWING.
>> WITHOUT OBJECTION, THE 
AMENDMENT SHALL BE CONSIDERED AS
BASE TEXT FOR FURTHER AMENDMENT.
I WILL NOW RECOGNIZE MYSELF TO 
EXPLAIN THE AMENDMENT IN THE 
NATURE OF A SUBSTITUTE.
IT MAKES A MINOR CHANGE IN 
CERTAIN PLACES WHERE THE 
UNDERLYING RESOLUTION REFERS TO 
DONALD J. TRUMP, THE AMENDMENT 
REFERS TO DONALD JOHN TRUMP.
OTHERWISE IT MAKES NO CHANGES TO
THE RESOLUTION.
I URGE ALL OF MY COLLEAGUES TO 
SUPPORT IT.
I RECOGNIZE THE RANKING MEMBER, 
THE GENTLEMAN FOR GEORGIA, FOR 
ANY COMMENTS HE MAY HAVE ON THE 
AMENDMENT. 
>> IT IS ABSOLUTELY IRRELEVANT, 
TAKING DONALD J. TRUMP AND 
MAKING IT DONALD JOHN TRUMP 
SHOWS THE FRANKLY ABSURDITY OF 
WHERE WE'RE AT.
WE'RE GOING TO SPEND PLENTY OF 
TIME LISTENING TO THIS.
WE'RE GOING TO TALK ABOUT THE 
BASIS THAT ARE ABSOLUTELY NO 
UNDERPINNING TO IMPEACH THIS 
PRESIDENT.
BUT I'M GOING TO GO BACK FOR 
JUST A MINUTE SINCE I DON'T HAVE
TIME AND HAD TO SIT THROUGH A 
WELL REHEARSED MANY DAYS PUT 
TOGETHER EXPLANATION ON WHY WHAT
WILL BE KNOWN IN 2019 OUTSIDE OF
THE FACT THAT THIS COMMITTEE 
FINALLY ACCOMPLISHED ITS GOAL 
AFTER THE CHAIRMAN STATED HE 
WANTED TO SINCE NOVEMBER OF LAST
YEAR, IMPEACH THIS PRESIDENT, 
WHAT WILL BE KNOWN BY THIS 
COMMITTEE FROM HERE ON OUT IS 
THAT THIS COMMITTEE HAS NOW 
SOUNDED THE DEATH OF MINORITY 
RIGHTS.
IT'S BECOME NOTHING BUT A RUBBER
STAMP.
THIS COMMITTEE IS AMAZING NOW ON
SUCH A CLOCK AND CALENDAR 
PROCESS THAT THEY DON'T CARE, 
FACTS BE DAMNED.
THEY DON'T CARE.
THEY DON'T CARE THAT WE HAD ONE 
WITNESS OUT OF THREE.
WHEN I ASKED FOR A SECOND 
WITNESS, I WAS TOLD I COULDN'T.
ONE WITNESS OUT OF TWO PANELS, 
THAT'S ALL WE HAD OF FACT 
WITNESSES.
THIS IS A JUST TRAVESTY AND A 
SHAM FROM DAY ONE.
I COULD TALK UNTIL I'M BLUE IN 
THE FACE BUT NOBODY ON THE 
MAJORITY THAT CARES.
BUT THE SPOT THAT IS LEFT WILL 
RESONATE OVER THE YEARS.
IT WILL RESONATE OVER THE YEARS 
IN THE SINCE THAT THERE'S NO 
FACT THAT WE CAN COME TO.
THEY HAD NO DESIRE TO HEAR ANY 
FACT WITNESSES OUTSIDE OF THEIR 
OWN CALENDAR IMPEACHMENT.
FOR THE CHAIRMAN HIMSELF WHO 
FOUGHT FOR A HEARING DAY TO SIT 
THERE AND READ THAT IS AN 
AMAZING STATEMENT IN A CRUSHING 
BELOW TO THIS COMMITTEE.
THERE'S NO WAY TO RECOVER FROM 
THIS.
THERE MAY BE.
I WONDER IF THE CHAIRMAN WOULD 
JOIN ME TO MAKE SURE THE RULES 
DON'T WAIVE THE POINT OF ORDER.
BUT I KNOW THEY WILL.
THAT'S WHY THEY'RE GOING TO TAKE
IT.
WHEN YOU LOOK INTO IT FURTHER, 
THIS POINT OF ORDER WOULD BE 
SUSTAINED.
THEY'RE GOING TO HAVE TO WAVE 
THEM.
WATCH AND SEE.
THEY WILL WAIVE THIS POINT OF 
ORDER ON THESE ARTICLES BY THE 
TIME IT COMES TO THE FLOOR.
FOR SOME OF YOU YOU MAY SAY, THE
RANKING MEMBER TALKING ABOUT 
PROCESS, THE RANKING MEMBER 
TALKS ABOUT PROCESS, NEVER THE 
FOUNDATION.
WE WILL INUNDATE YOU WITH THE 
FACTS.
WHAT IS IMPORTANT AND FOR MANY 
WHO REPORT ON THIS BODY AND FOR 
THOSE WHO HAVE SERVED IN THIS 
BODY, THE MEMBERS WHO HAVE GONE 
BEFORE AND PEOPLE WHO HAVE SET 
THIS COMMITTEE UP ARE THE ONES 
RIGHT NOW THAT SHOULD BE HANGING
THEIR HEAD IN SHAME.
WE HAD TWO HEARINGS.
NONE OF WHICH FEATURED FACT 
WITNESSES.
THERE'S NOT A DEMOCRAT IN THIS 
ROOM THAT SHOULD BE HAPPY ABOUT 
THIS.
DON'T GIVE ME THE SOLEMN 
MINIMUMTY FOR THE PRESIDENT.
THIS IS WHAT YOU WANTED.
WHEN IT COMES TO THE HEARING, 
WHEN IT COMES TO THE MINORITY 
RIGHTS, WHEN IT COMES TO ONE 
THAT IN WHICH WE HAVE SEEN TIME 
AFTER TIME AFTER TIME IN WHICH I
HAVE HAD TO WRITE THESE LETTERS 
ON THE ABUSE OF PROCEDURAL 
ISSUES IN THIS COMMITTEE, THIS 
IS A TRAVESTY.
THE AMERICAN PEOPLE SEE IT 
BECAUSE THE AMERICAN PEOPLE 
UNDERSTAND INHERENTLY FAIRNESS.
THEY UNDERSTAND DUE PROCESS.
WHY?
BECAUSE IT'S WHAT AMERICA WAS 
BASED ON.
IT'S WHAT AMERICA TAKES PRIDE 
IN.
WHEN WE DON'T HAVE IT, NOBODY 
CAN HAVE IT.
WHEN WE DON'T HAVE FAIRNESS IN 
THIS COMMITTEE, HOW CAN THEY 
STAND UP AND SAY ON THE TWO 
WEAKEST ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT 
IN THE HISTORY OF THIS COUNTRY, 
HONESTLY, WITH A STRAIGHT FACE 
LOOK AT THE AMERICAN PEOPLE AND 
SAY, WE DID GOOD.
NO, YOU DIDN'T.
YOU STAINED THIS BODY.
YOU'VE TAKEN THIS COMMITTEE AND 
MADE IT A RUBBER STAMP.
DID ANY OF THE MAJORITY RUN TO 
BE A RUBBER STAMP TO GET THE 
MAJORITY?
I KNOW THE MINORITY ON THIS SIDE
DID NOT.
WE'VE BECOME A RUBBER STAMP 
BECAUSE MY CHAIRMAN SAID SO 20 
YEARS AGO.
HE SAID SO 20 YEARS AGO WHEN HE 
SAID IF THE COMMITTEE ONLY 
ACCEPTS WHAT OTHER PEOPLE GIVE 
THEM AND DO NOT ON THEIR OWN VET
IT, THEN WE ARE NOTHING BUT A 
RUBBER STAMP.
YOU SHOULD HAVE RUN FOR A 
CHAIRMANSHIP MORE THAN TO BE A 
RUBBER STAMP.
WE KNEW THIS COMMITTEE WAS 
OVERTAKEN BECAUSE IT WAS TAKEN 
FROM US EARLIER THIS YEAR.
THERE'S THE FIRST EMBARRASSMENT 
AND THE REST OF IT HAS BEEN AN 
EMBARRASSMENT SINCE.
SO AS WE LOOK AT THIS AND AS WE 
GO FORWARD, WE'LL HAVE PLENTY OF
TIME TO SHOW THE COMPLETE FARCE 
OF SUBSTANCE.
BUT, MR. CHAIRMAN, WHAT WILL 
LIVE FROM THIS DAY IS YOUR 
RULING AND THE MAJORITY'S RULING
OF MINORITY RIGHTS ARE DEAD IN 
THIS CONGRESS AND ESPECIALLY 
THIS COMMITTEE.
I YIELD BACK.
>> MOVE TO STRIKE. 
>> ANY AMENDMENTS TO -- 
>> MR. CHAIRMAN -- 
>> ARE THERE ANY -- 
>> MOVE TO STRIKE.
>> FOR WHAT PURPOSES DOES MR. 
DEUTCH NEED TO BE RECOGNIZED. 
>> MOVE TO STRIKE THE LAST WORD.
I CANNOT ALLOW THE RANKING 
MEMBER TO MISCHARACTERIZE YOUR 
DESCRIPTION OF THE HISTORY OF 
THIS COMMITTEE.
IT MAY BE INCONVENIENT FOR THE 
RANKING MEMBER TO BE FORCED TO 
LISTEN TO THE HISTORY OF THIS 
COMMITTEE AND WHY EVERYTHING 
THAT YOU JUST LAID OUT IS SO 
IMPORTANT TO THE CONTINUING OF 
THIS SUBMIT REPRESENTING AND 
RECOGNIZING, RESPECTING MINORITY
RIGHTS.
BUT HE CHOOSES NOT TO.
I'M GOING TO STATE IT AGAIN.
I APPRECIATE THE RANKING MEMBER 
FOR ACKNOWLEDGING THEY HAVE THE 
OPPORTUNITY TO CALL WITNESSES 
AND THAT'S CONSISTENT WITH THE 
RULES.
BUT TO TURN AROUND AND SUGGEST 
THAT THE RULES ARE BEING 
TRAMPLED, THE RULES ARE DEAD, 
IGNORES EVERYTHING THAT YOU JUST
LAID OUT.
MORE THAN 50 YEARS AGO, MORE 50 
YEARS AGO, THE JOINT COMMITTEE 
ON THE ORGANIZATION OF CONGRESS 
MADE CLEAR IN THEIR REPORT TO 
THE HOUSE THAT IT'S NORMAL 
PROCEDURE FOR WITNESSES 
REPRESENTING BOTH SIDES OF THE 
ISSUE TO GIVE TESTIMONY AT 
COMMITTEE HEARINGS AND THAT'S 
WHERE THE RULE COMES FROM.
AND THAT'S WHAT'S HAPPENED.
THE RANKING MEMBER ACKNOWLEDGED 
IT.
HE WOULD HAVE LIKED MORE 
WITNESSES.
THERE'S NO RIGHT TO A SEPARATE 
DAY.
THE RULE MAKES CLEAR THEY HAVE 
THE RIGHT TO CALL WITNESSES AND 
THERE WERE WITNESSES CALLED.
THERE WERE WITNESSES CALLED ON 
DECEMBER 4th, ON DECEMBER 9th, 
MR. CASTER PRESENTED EVIDENCE 
AND GAVE OPENING STATEMENTS.
AND IT'S WORTH POINTING OUT TO 
MY COLLEAGUES ON THE OTHER SIDE 
THAT WE INVITED THE PRESIDENT OF
THE UNITED STATES TO THE 
DECEMBER 4th HEARING TO ADVOCATE
FOR HIS VIEWS, TO SUBMIT 
REQUESTED WITNESSES BUT HE CHOSE
NOT TO ATTEND AND HE CHOSE NOT 
TO SUGGEST ANY WITNESSES.
SO BEFORE TELLING US THE SKY IS 
FALLING AND THERE'S GREAT 
DISRESPECT FOR THE RULES, IT'S 
IMPORTANT TO ACTUALLY LOOK AT 
THE RULES -- 
>> DID THE GENTLEMAN SAY I 
DIDN'T REQUEST WITNESSES.
THAT IS WRONG.
>> I THANK THE CHAIRMAN.
WHAT I SAID WAS THE PRESIDENT 
WAS GIVEN THE OPPORTUNITY ON 
DECEMBER 4th TO PRESENT HIMSELF.
HE WAS ALSO GIVEN THE 
OPPORTUNITY TO PRESENT WITNESSES
AND HE DID NOT.
SO LET'S BE CAREFUL IN THE WAY 
WE SUGGEST THAT RULES ARE BEING 
VIOLATED WHEN EVERYTHING THAT'S 
BEING DONE HERE IS CONSISTENT 
WITH MORE THAN 50 YEARS OF 
INTERPRETATION OF THE RULES AND 
THE VERY ESSENCE OF WHY THE RULE
IS PUT TOGETHER IN THE FIRST 
PLACE.
IT'S IMPORTANT.
FACTS REALLY DO MATTER.
AND I'M NOT -- WE'RE NOT GOING 
TO ALLOW THE MINORITY TO 
MISINTERPRET THE RULES FOR THEIR
BENEFIT.
THAT'S WHAT MADE THIS COMMITTEE 
GREAT.
I YIELD BACK.
>> THE GENTLEMAN YIELDS BACK.
ARE THERE ANY AMENDMENTS TO THE 
AMENDMENT?
>> MR. CHAIRMAN.
>> WHAT PURPOSES DOES MR. JORDAN
SEEK RECOGNITION. 
>> I HAVE AN AMENDMENT AT THE 
DESK. 
>> I REVERSE A POINT OF ORDER.
>> GENTLE LADY REVERSES A POINT 
OF ORDER.
>> IN THE NATURE OF A SUBSTITUTE
OFFERED BY MR. JORDAN OF OHIO.
BEGINNING ON LINE 12, STRIKE 
ARTICLE ONE AND DESIGNATE THE 
ARTICLE ACCORDINGLY.
>> THE GENTLEMAN IS RECOGNIZED 
FOR THE PURPOSE OF EXPLAINING 
HIS AMENDMENT. 
>> THIS AMENDMENT STRIKES 
ARTICLE ONE -- 
>> I WITHDRAW MY POINT OF ORDER.
>> THIS AMENDMENT STRIKES 
ARTICLE ONE BECAUSE ARTICLE ONE 
IGNORES THE TRUTH.
FOUR FACTS, FIVE MEETINGS.
WE'VE TALKED ABOUT IT FOR FIVE 
MONTHS.
THERE HAVE BEEN FOUR FACTS THAT 
HAVE NOT CHANGED, WILL NEVER 
CHANGE AND WE'VE KNOWN IT SINCE 
SEPTEMBER 25th WHEN THE CALL 
TRANSCRIPT WAS RELEASED.
THE CALL TRANSCRIPT SHOWS NO 
QUID PRO QUO.
WHAT'S INTERESTING IS THE DAY 
THE TRANSCRIPT CAME OUT, EVEN 
CHAIRMAN NADLER SAID THERE WAS 
NO QUID PRO QUO.
WE KNOW SECOND THAT THE TWO 
INDIVIDUALS ON THE CALL, 
PRESIDENT ZELENSKY, PRESIDENT 
DONALD TRUMP HAVE SAID NO 
PUSHING AND LINKING BETWEEN 
MONEY AND AN ANNOUNCEMENT OF AN 
INVESTIGATION.
WE KNOW THAT THE UKRAINIANS KNEW
AT THE TIME OF THE CALL -- 
DIDN'T KNOW AT THE TIME OF THE 
CALL THAT THE AID HAD BEEN HELD 
UP AND MOST IMPORTANTLY, MOST 
IMPORTANTLY, WE KNOW THE 
UKRAINIANS TOOK NO ACTION, NO 
START OF AN INVESTIGATION, NO 
PROMISE TO START AN 
INVESTIGATION, NO ANNOUNCEMENT 
ON CNN, VIA TWEET, NO 
ANNOUNCEMENT WHATSOEVER THAT 
THERE WAS GOING TO BE ANY TYPE 
OF INVESTIGATION INTO BURISMA OR
THE BIDENS TO GET THE AID 
RELEASED.
THOSE FOUR FACTS.
THOSE FOUR FACTS HAVE NEVER 
CHANGED.
SECOND, FIVE KEY MEETINGS THAT 
TOOK PLACE BETWEEN JULY 18th 
WHEN THE AID WAS PAUSED, 
SEPTEMBER 11th WHEN THE AID WAS 
RELEASED.
FIVE KEY MEETINGS.
WE HAVE THE PHONE CALL.
JULY 25th WHICH YOU JUST 
DESCRIBED.
SECOND, THE VERY NEXT DAY, VERY 
NEXT DAY WE HAVE AMBASSADOR'S 
VOLKER, SONDLAND MEETING WITH 
ZELENSKY.
THIRD, AMBASSADOR BOLTON MET 
WITH PRESIDENT ZELENSKY ON 
AUGUST 29th.
VICE PRESIDENT PENCE MET WITH 
PRESIDENT ZELENSKY ON SEPTEMBER 
2nd, AND ON SEPTEMBER 5th, WE 
HAVE SENATOR JOHNSON AND MURPHY 
MEETING WITH PRESIDENT ZELENSKY.
IN NONE OF THOSE FIVE MEETINGS, 
NONE, DID LINKING DOLLARS, 
SECURITY ASSISTANCE DOLLARS, TO 
AN INVESTIGATION COME UP.
NEVER CAME UP.
AND YOU WOULD THINK IN THE LAST 
TWO YOU WOULD THINK IN THOSE 
LAST TWO AFTER THEY KNEW ON 
AUGUST 29th, VIA THE "POLITICO" 
ARTICLE THEY KNEW IT WAS HELD.
IT DIDN'T COME UP IN THOSE LAST 
TWO MEETINGS.
FOUR FACTS, FIVE MEETINGS HAVE 
NEVER CHANGED.
ARTICLE ONE IN THIS RESOLUTION 
IGNORES THE TRUTH, IGNORES THE 
FACTS, IGNORES WHAT HAPPENED AND
WHAT HAS BEEN LAID OUT FOR THE 
AMERICAN PEOPLE OVER THE LAST 
THREE WEEKS.
SO I HOPE THAT THIS COMMITTEE 
WILL COME TO ITS SENSES.
THAT IT WILL ADOPT THE AMENDMENT
AND STRIKE ARTICLE ONE FROM THE 
RESOLUTION.
WITH THAT, MR. CHAIRMAN, I YIELD
BACK. 
>> MR. CHAIRMAN I MOVE TO STRIKE
THE LAST WORD -- 
>> THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN.
I MOVE TO STRIKE THE LAST WORD.
MR. CHAIRMAN, THIS AMENDMENT 
ATTEMPTS TO STRIKE ARTICLE ONE 
IN ITS ENTIRETY.
PARTICULARLY, FIRST, I WANT TO 
BEGIN ON THE PRESIDENT'S OWN 
CONDUCT.
THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED 
STATES HIRED RUDY GIULIANI TO GO
TO UKRAINE AND LEAD THIS SCHEME 
TO SMEAR VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN.
HE BEGAN A CAMPAIGN TO SMEAR 
AMBASSADOR YOVANOVITCH AND 
DIRECTED THAT SHE BE FIRED TO 
CLEAR THE WAY OF THIS 
ANTI-CORRUPTION CHAMPION SO THAT
HIS SCHEME COULD BE FULLY 
IMPLEMENTED.
HE DIRECTED A HOLD ON THE 
MILITARY AID TO UKRAINE AND NO 
ONE COULD PROVIDE ANY OTHER 
EXPLANATION UNRELATED TO HIS 
SCHEME TO PRESSURE THEM, TO 
INTERFERE IN THE 2020 ELECTION.
THEN THE PRESIDENT IN HIS OWN 
WORDS ON JULY 25th, GETS ON THE 
TELEPHONE AND ASKS PRESIDENT 
ZELENSKY FOR A FAVOR TO BEGIN AN
INVESTIGATION OF HIS CHIEF 
POLITICAL RIVAL, FORMER VICE 
PRESIDENT JOE BIDEN.
THERE'S A READOUT OF THE CALL 
WHICH IS A DETAIL OF THIS 
CONVERSATION.
THERE'S DIRECT EVIDENCE FROM 
ALEXANDER VINDMAN WHO LISTENED 
IN ON AND HEARD THE PRESIDENT 
UTTER THOSE WORDS PRESSURING A 
FOREIGN LEADER TO CORRUPT OUR 
ELECTIONS.
THE PRESIDENT THEN MADE 
ADMISSIONS IN PUBLIC ON OCTOBER 
2nd, OCTOBER 3rd AND OCTOBER 4th
AND INVITED AN ANOTHER FOREIGN 
POWER, CHINA, TO INTERFERE IN 
THE AMERICAN ELECTION.
THE CHIEF OF STAFF WAS DIRECTED 
BY THE PRESIDENT TO PUT A HOLD 
ON THE AID.
AMBASSADOR SONDLAND TESTIFIED 
THAT THE UKRAINIANS WERE TOLD, 
AND I QUOTE, THE RESUMPTION OF 
U.S. AID WOULD LIKELY NOT OCCUR 
UNTIL UKRAINE PROVIDED THE 
PUBLIC ANTI-CORRUPTION STATEMENT
THAT WE HAD BEEN DISCUSSING FOR 
MANY WEEKS.
AND THEN HE TESTIFIED HE SPOKE 
WITH PRESIDENT TRUMP AND WHILE 
THE PRESIDENT CLAIMED THERE WAS 
NO QUID PRO QUO, HE MADE IT 
CLEAR THAT PRESIDENT ZELENSKY 
MUST PUBLICLY ANNOUNCE THE 
INVESTIGATIONS THAT PRESIDENT 
TRUMP DISCUSSED ON JULY 25th IN 
THE CALL IN ORDER FOR THIS 
SECURITY ASSISTANCE TO BE 
LIFTED.
THAT'S DIRECT EVIDENCE.
IN ADDITION TO THAT, THOSE ARE 
SOME OF THE HIGHLIGHTS, THERE 
ARE OVER 260 TEXT MESSAGES, 
THERE ARE CALL TRANSCRIPTS AS I 
MENTIONED OF THE PRESIDENT'S OWN
WORDS, THERE ARE EMAILS BETWEEN 
HIGH-RANKING OFFICIALS OF THE 
TRUMP ADMINISTRATION, HUNDREDS 
OF PRESS STATEMENTS, INTERVIEWS 
AND TWEETS BY THE PRESIDENT AND 
HIS PERSONAL ATTORNEY RUDY 
GIULIANI CORROBORATING THEIR 
DESIRE TO PURSUE INVESTIGATIONS 
OF VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN PRIOR TO
THE 2020 ELECTIONS.
I'M GOING TO GIVE THE COMMITTEE 
A COUPLE OF EXAMPLES.
PRESIDENT TRUMP HIMSELF SAID, 
AND I QUOTE, JUST SO YOU KNOW, 
WE'VE BEEN INVESTIGATING ON A 
PERSONAL BASIS THROUGH RUDY AND 
OTHER LAWYERS CORRUPTION IN THE 
2016 ELECTION.
ON JULY 19th, AMBASSADOR 
SONDLAND'S EMAILS, HE TALKED TO 
ZELENSKY AND HE, QUOTE, IS 
PREPARED TO RECEIVE POTUS'S CALL
AND WILL STATE THAT HE WILL TURN
OVER EVERY STONE OF THE 
INVESTIGATIONS.
ON JULY 19th, 2019, IN ADDITION 
TO THE EMAIL, AMBASSADOR 
SONDLAND TEXTED AMBASSADOR 
VOLKER AND MAKES THE SAME THING 
CLEAR.
I SPOKE DIRECTLY TO "Z" AND GAVE
HIM A FULL BRIEFING.
HE'S GOT IT.
HAD BREAKFAST WITH RUDY THIS 
MORNING.
MOST IMPORTANT IS FOR ZELENSKY 
TO SAY THAT HE WILL HELP 
INVESTIGATE ANY PERSONNEL ISSUES
IF THERE ARE ANY.
AMBASSADOR SONDLAND AND 
AMBASSADOR VOLKER TEXTED ABOUT 
POTUS WANTING THE DELIVERABLE, 
MEANING THAT FOR UKRAINE TO GET 
THE WHITE HOUSE MEETING, 
ZELENSKY NEEDS TO ANNOUNCE THE 
INVESTIGATION.
SONDLAND SAYS, AND I QUOTE, 
MORRISON IS READY TO GET DATES 
AS SOON AS YERMAK CONFIRMS.
HE RESPONDS, EXCELLENT.
NOT SURE I DID, I THINK POTUS 
WANTS THE DELIVERABLE.
VOLKER ASKS, DOES HE KNOW THAT?
SONDLAND SAYS, YEAH, CLEARLY 
LOTS OF CONVERSATIONS GOING ON.
AUGUST 16th, AMBASSADOR TAYLOR 
AND VOLKER DISCUSS UKRAINE'S 
CONCERN THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP WAS
NOT USING OFFICIAL CHANNELS LIKE
THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE TO 
REQUEST INVESTIGATIONS.
TAYLOR TEXTS AMBASSADOR VOLKER, 
THE PERSON WHO ASKED FOR AN 
OFFICIAL REQUEST WAS YERMAK?
VOLKER REPLIES, YES, BUT DON'T 
CITE HIM.
TAYLOR, I WON'T.
YOU'RE RIGHT.
THIS IS NOT GOOD.
WE NEED TO STAY CLEAR.
AND ON AUGUST 22nd, AMBASSADOR 
SONDLAND EMAILED SECRETARY OF 
STATE MIKE POMPEO TO MAKE CLEAR 
THAT TO BREAK THE LOGJAM, 
PRESIDENT ZELENSKY WILL HAVE TO 
MOVE FORWARD ON THE ISSUES 
IMPORTANT TO TRUMP.
THE LIST GOES ON AND ON.
THIS CLAIM THAT THIS IS THE 
THINNEST OF EVIDENCE IS SIMPLY 
NOT TRUE.
THERE'S OVERWHELMING EVIDENCE OF
THE EXISTENCE OF A SCHEME LED BY
THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED 
STATES TO CORRUPT THE AMERICAN 
ELECTIONS, TO WITH HOLD AID 
UNTIL SUCH TIME AS A PUBLIC 
ANNOUNCEMENT THAT WAS MADE THAT 
WOULD SMEAR THE CHIEF'S 
POLITICAL RIVAL.
WITH THAT, I YIELD BACK. 
>> THE GENTLEMAN YIELDS BACK.
FOR WHAT PURPOSES DO YOU SPEAK 
RECOGNITION?
>> THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR.
I MOVE TO STRIKE THE LAST WORD. 
>> THE LADY'S RECOGNIZED. 
>> MR. CHAIR, IT REALLY QUITE 
DISTURBED ME WHEN YOU, AGAIN, 
REJECTED THE RULE OF THE HOUSE 
THAT SAID THAT WE AS THE 
MINORITY WERE -- IT SAYS IN THE 
RULES THAT YOU REQUIRE, REQUIRE 
THAT YOU SET A DATE FOR A 
MINORITY HEARING AND THE REASON 
THAT THIS IS IMPORTANT IS 
BECAUSE THE RULES HAVE BEEN 
THROWN OUT THE WINDOW HERE ON 
THIS PROCESS.
IN FACT, I JUST CAN'T BELIEVE 
IT.
FIRST OF ALL, YOU HAVE AN 
UNPRECEDENTED WAY OF DOING 
IMPEACHMENT.
YOU DON'T GO THROUGH THE 
JUDICIARY COMMITTEE LIKE HAS 
BEEN DONE IN PREVIOUS 
IMPEACHMENTS, INSTEAD, SPEAKER 
PELOSI HANDS IT OVER TO ADAM 
SCHIFF.
ADAM SCHIFF, THE INTELLIGENCE 
COMMITTEE CHAIR, WHERE HE HAS 
THESE CLOSED-DOOR HEARINGS IN 
THE BASEMENT, I WAS DENIED 
SEVERAL TIMES, SEVERAL TIMES THE
RIGHT TO GO IN AND HEAR WHAT 
THESE FACT WITNESSES SAID.
YET I'M SUPPOSED TO VOTE ON THIS
TODAY.
AND WE HAVE NOT HAD ONE SINGLE 
FACT WITNESS HERE IN THIS 
COMMITTEE AT ALL.
AND THEN I HEAR FROM MY 
REPUBLICAN COLLEAGUES THAT WERE 
ON THE INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE 
THAT REPUBLICANS WERE REFUSED TO
HAVE ANY OF THEIR WITNESSES IN 
THAT COMMITTEE.
AND THEN ON TOP OF THAT, 
REPUBLICANS WERE TOLD -- 
INTERRUPTED, SILENCED BY 
CHAIRMAN STIFF WHEN THEY TRIED 
TO ASK WITNESSES QUESTIONS.
THEY SAID, TO THE WITNESS, DON'T
ANSWER THAT.
I MEAN -- AND SO NOW HERE IN 
JUDICIARY COMMITTEE WE'RE 
SUPPOSED TO VOTE ON SOMETHING 
WHEN WE HAVEN'T EVEN HEARD 
DIRECTLY FROM ANY FACT 
WITNESSES.
ALL WE HEARD FROM WAS A BUNCH OF
LIBERAL LAW PROFESSORS THAT YOU 
CALLED HERE THAT HAVE A KNOWN 
RECORD OF DISLIKING PRESIDENT 
TRUMP AND THEN YOU HAVE STAFF 
TALK TO US.
AND THEN AGAIN, HERE IN THIS 
COMMITTEE, OUR REPUBLICAN 
MEMBERS ASKED FOR WITNESSES SO 
THAT WE CAN ASK QUESTIONS TO GET
OUT THE TRUTH, TO GET OUT AT 
LEAST -- LET US SAY OUR SIDE OF 
THE STORY.
BUT, NO, AND SO THEN WE TURNED 
TO, OKAY, UNDER THE HOUSE RULES,
IT SAYS YOU'RE REQUIRED TO SET A
MINORITY HEARING SO THAT WE CAN 
AT LEAST CALL WITNESSES SO THEY 
CAN GET SOME TRUTH OUT TO THE 
AMERICAN PUBLIC INSTEAD OF THIS 
ONE-SIDED SHAM.
BUT, NO, HERE AGAIN, I THINK 
YOU'VE SAID, RIGHT HERE, NO, 
WE'RE NOT GOING TO DO THAT.
I'LL CONSIDER A DATE IN THE 
FUTURE THAT YOU CAN HAVE A 
MINORITY HEARING.
FOR GOODNESS SAKES, WE'RE VOTING
ON THIS TODAY.
IT'S NO GOOD TO HAVE A DATE IN 
THE FUTURE.
THEN IT'S DONE.
YOU'VE ALREADY PUT THROUGH THIS.
I MEAN, IT JUST CONTINUES TO 
AMAZE ME HOW CORRUPT, HOW UNFAIR
THIS PROCESS HAS BEEN FROM THE 
START.
FOR GOODNESS SAKES, YOU HAD 17 
OUT OF 24 OF MY DEMOCRATIC 
COLLEAGUES THAT HAVE ALREADY 
VOTED ON THE HOUSE FLOOR TO 
CONTINUE WITH ARTICLES OF 
IMPEACHMENT.
IT WAS -- IT WAS MR. GREEN WHO 
PUT A RESOLUTION ON THE FLOOR, 
ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT, IT WAS 
JULY 17th, AND THEN THERE WAS A 
VOTE TO TABLE IT.
AND THEY VOTED AGAINST THE 
TABLING MEANING THEY WANTED TO 
GO AHEAD WITH ARTICLES OF 
IMPEACHMENT.
THAT WAS EVEN BEFORE THE JULY 
25th CALL.
COME ON.
THIS IS A PREDETERMINED -- YOU 
GUYS HAVE BEEN WANTING TO 
IMPEACH THIS PRESIDENT SINCE HE 
GOT ELECTED.
FACT AFTER FACT AFTER FACT.
I KNOW THAT YOU -- SOME YOU 
REALLY THINK THE PRESIDENT DID 
SOMETHING WRONG.
BUT THE FACT IS, THERE IS -- 
NONE OF YOUR FACT WITNESSES WERE
ABLE TO ESTABLISH ANY EVIDENCE 
OF BRIBERY, TREASON, HIGH CRIMES
OR MISDEMEANORS.
NOT ONE SINGLE ONE AND THAT'S 
WHAT IT SAYS HAS TO BE DONE IN 
THE CONSTITUTION.
SO, AGAIN, I BELIEVE THE 
PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES 
IS RIGHT.
THIS IS A SHAM IMPEACHMENT AND 
IT SURE IS A SHAME AND I YIELD 
BACK THE BALANCE OF MY TIME. 
>> THE GENTLE LADY YIELDS BACK.
WHAT PURPOSES DOES MR. NEGUSE 
SEEK RECOGNITION. 
>> MOVE TO STRIKE THE LAST WORD.
WITH MUCH RESPECT TO MY 
COLLEAGUES ON THE OTHER SIDE OF 
THE AISLE, IT IS DIFFICULT TO 
FOLLOW SOME OF THESE ARGUMENTS.
I'VE HEARD VERY LITTLE IN THE 
WAY OF ANY SUBSTANTIVE DEFENSES 
ON THE PRESIDENT'S CONDUCT.
AND I'M COMPELLED TO RESPOND TO 
AT LEAST ONE OF THOSE WHICH IS 
THIS NOTION ABOUT THE 
CLOSED-DOOR DEPOSITIONS BECAUSE 
AS I UNDERSTAND IT, FROM READING
THESE TRANSCRIPTS, MANY MINORITY
MEMBERS WERE PRESENT AND GRANTED
EQUAL TIME TO QUESTION WITNESSES
BROUGHT BEFORE THE INTELLIGENCE 
COMMITTEE, THE FOREIGN AFFAIRS 
COMMITTEE AND THE GOVERNMENTAL 
OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE.
SOME OF THOSE MEMBERS ARE ON 
THIS COMMITTEE.
I STRUGGLE TO UNDERSTAND THE 
OBJECTIONS IN THAT REGARD.
THE IDEA THAT THE INTELLIGENCE 
COMMITTEE'S INVESTIGATION WAS 
NOT TRANSPARENT, IN MY VIEW, 
ALSO RINGS HOLLOW.
AS WE KNOW, THE TRANSCRIPTS FROM
THOSE INTERVIEWS AND THOSE 
DEPOSITIONS HAVE BEEN RELEASED.
I KNOW I'VE REVIEWED THEM.
I SUSPECT MANY OF MY COLLEAGUES 
HAVE AS WELL.
IF YOU DID NOT REVIEW THOSE 
TRANSCRIPTS, YOU SURELY WATCHED 
THE LIVE TESTIMONY OF AMBASSADOR
SONDLAND, LIEUTENANT COLONEL 
VINDMAN AND SO MANY OTHER PUBLIC
SERVANTS AS MILLIONS OF 
AMERICANS WATCHED ALONG WITH US.
SO, AGAIN, IT IS -- I UNDERSTAND
THAT WE'RE GOING TO HAVE A 
ROBUST DEBATE ABOUT THE LEGAL 
STANDARDS THAT GOVERNOR THE 
INQUIRY THAT IS BEFORE US AND 
THE DECISION WE MAKE ON THESE 
ARTICLES BUT LET US STAY TRUE TO
THE FACTS AND LET'S DISPENSE 
WITH THESE PROCESS ARGUMENTS AND
GET TO THE SUBSTANCE OF WHY WE 
ARE HERE TODAY.
I WILL ALSO JUST SAY, HISTORICAL
CONTEXT MATTERS.
I WAS NOT ON THE JUDICIARY 
COMMITTEE IN 1999 AND 1998, BUT 
MY UNDERSTANDING IS AT THAT TIME
THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE DID NOT 
EXAMINE ANY FACT WITNESSES 
DURING THE CLINTON IMPEACHMENT 
INQUIRY.
I KNOW THERE ARE MEMBERS OF THIS
COMMITTEE THAT WERE HERE AT THAT
TIME AND THEY ARE WELL AWARE 
THAT THEY DID QUESTION KEN STARR
AND THEN AFTERWARDS HAD HEARINGS
WITH LEGAL EXPERTS TO EXPOUND 
UPON THE LEGAL STANDARDS THAT 
WOULD DEFINE THE DECISION BEFORE
THE COMMITTEE.
I WOULD ALSO SAY THAT DURING THE
NIXON IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY, THE 
EXAMINATION OF WITNESSES, FACT 
WITNESSES, RATHER, WAS CONDUCTED
EXCLUSIVELY BEHIND CLOSED DOORS 
IN JULY OF 1974.
SO UNLIKE THE NIXON INQUIRY AS 
WELL AS THE CLINTON INQUIRY, THE
HOUSE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 
HEARINGS FEATURED TESTIMONY FROM
A DOZEN WITNESSES IN OPEN 
HEARINGS.
FACTS MATTER.
AND I HOPE THAT EACH AND EVERY 
ONE OF US THAT AGREE AT LEAST ON
THAT SIMPLE POINT.
AND WITH THAT -- I WOULD YIELD 
TO THE DISTINGUISHED MEMBER OF 
CALIFORNIA. 
>> I WOULD LIKE TO NOTE GOING 
BACK TO THE ANALOGY TO THE NIXON
IMPEACHMENT, THE GENTLEMAN IS 
CORRECT, THERE WAS REALLY NO 
PUBLIC PRESENTATION IN THE 
JUDICIARY COMMITTEE.
THERE WERE SOME -- QUITE A FEW 
DEPOSITIONS THAT WERE PRIVATE.
BUT THERE WAS A LOT OF PUBLIC 
TESTIMONY THAT WASN'T BEFORE THE
JUDICIARY COMMITTEE.
IT WAS BEFORE THE SENATE 
WATERGATE COMMITTEE.
AS YOU'LL RECALL, THE 
PRESIDENT'S COUNSEL, JOHN DEAN, 
APPEARED AND TESTIFIED THAT 
THERE WAS A CANCER ON THE 
PRESIDENCY AND A NUMBER OF OTHER
REVELATIONS THAT THERE WAS A 
RECORDING SYSTEM IN THE WHITE 
HOUSE.
ALL OF THAT HAPPENED IN THE 
SENATE AND THE FACT THAT IT 
HAPPENED IN THE SENATE DIDN'T 
MEAN THAT THE JUDICIARY 
COMMITTEE DIDN'T KNOW ABOUT IT.
THE WHOLE COUNTRY KNEW ABOUT IT 
AND TOOK NOTICE OF IT.
THERE'S ONLY A FEW MEMBERS OF 
US -- OF THIS COMMITTEE THAT 
WERE ON THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 
DURING THE CLINTON IMPEACHMENT.
I WAS ONE OF THEM.
MS. JACKSON LEE AND MR. NADLER 
WERE AS WELL AS 
MR. SENSENBRENNER AND THE 
GENTLEMAN FROM OHIO.
WE HAD A REPORT FROM MR. STARR, 
I REMEMBER IT VERY WELL, WE 
DIDN'T HAVE EXTENSIVE FACT 
WITNESSES.
WE HAD THE REPORT.
WE HAD EVIDENCE OVER IN THE FORD
BUILDING THAT WE COULD GO OVER 
AND LOOK AT PRIVATELY.
I DID.
A NUMBER OF MEMBERS DID.
BUT THE GENTLEMAN HAS CORRECTLY 
SUMMARIZED THE SITUATION.
AND I WOULD YIELD BACK TO THE 
GENTLEMAN.
>> MR. CHAIRMAN. 
>> I YIELD BACK THE BALANCE OF 
MY TIME. 
>> FOR WHAT PURPOSE DOES 
MR. SENSENBRENNER SEEK 
RECOGNITION. 
>> I MOVE TO STRIKE THE LAST 
WORD. 
>> THE GENTLEMAN IS RECOGNIZED. 
>> MR. CHAIRMAN I THINK IT'S 
OBVIOUS TO ALL OF THE AMERICAN 
PUBLIC THAT THIS IS A RAILROAD 
JOB.
THINGS HAVE BEEN GOING QUICKLY 
BUT I THINK THE REAL KEY IS, IS 
THAT ALL OF THE DENIALS OF 
MINORITY REQUESTS BOTH HERE AND 
IN THE INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE, 
THE REPUBLICANS AND THE 
PRESIDENT HAVE NOT BEEN ABLE TO 
PUT ON LIVE WITNESSES TO BE ABLE
TO BASICALLY PUT TOGETHER A 
DEFENSE AND IF YOU'RE GOING TO 
HAVE A TRIAL, BOTH A 
PROSECUTION AND A DEFENSE.
HERE WE DON'T HAVE A DEFENSE 
BECAUSE OF THE RULINGS THAT HAVE
BEEN MADE ONE OF WAS JUST MADE A
FEW MOMENTS AGO BY THE CHAIRMAN 
OF THIS COMMITTEE.
NOW, LET ME SAY, YOU KNOW, FIRST
OF ALL, THE HEARINGS THAT WERE 
IN THE BASEMENT OF THE CAPITOL 
WERE SECRET HEARINGS.
THEY WERE CLASSIFIED HEARINGS.
NONE OF THE MEMBERS WHO WERE IN 
THAT HEARING ROOM COULD 
ETHICALLY GO OUT AND TELL THE 
PUBLIC AND NEWS MEDIA WHAT WAS 
SAID THERE AND COULD IT HAVE 
BEEN HELD BEFORE THE ETHICS 
COMMITTEE OR WORSE IF THEY DID 
THAT.
THERE WERE LEAKS THAT CAME OUT 
OF THERE, I GRANT YOU THAT BUT 
NONE OF THE MEMBERS COULD.
THE OTHER POINT IS THAT THE VAST
MAJORITY OF MEMBERS OF THE 
JUDICIARY COMMITTEE, WHICH HAS 
ULTIMATE JURISDICTION OVER ALL 
PROPOSED IMPEACHMENTS WERE NOT 
MEMBERS OF THE THREE OTHER 
COMMITTEES, AND WERE NOT ALLOWED
TO GO INTO THE BASEMENT OF THE 
CAPITOL HEARING ROOM TO LISTEN 
TO WHAT WAS GOING ON.
AND TO SEE THOSE LIVE WITNESSES.
THERE ARE A NUMBER OF MY 
COLLEAGUES ON THIS SIDE OF THE 
AISLE THAT ATTEMPTED TO DO THAT.
AND CHAIRMAN SCHIFF KICKED THEM 
OUT OR WOULDN'T ALLOW THEM TO GO
IN THERE.
NOW, WHEN YOU HAVE A TRIAL, YOU 
REALLY CANNOT MAKE A 
DETERMINATION ON EXACTLY WHETHER
THE WITNESSES ARE TELLING THE 
TRUTH OR EXAGGERATING OR MIXING 
IT UP OR SPINNING IT SOME WAY OR
THE OTHER WITHOUT LOOKING AT 
THEM IN PERSON.
WE DON'T HAVE THAT OPPORTUNITY.
THERE WERE A FEW SELECT 
WITNESSES THAT WERE IN THE 
PUBLIC HEARINGS OVER IN THE 
INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE COUPLE 
WEEKS AGO, BUT THE INTELLIGENCE 
COMMITTEE DOES NOT HAVE THE 
JURISDICTION ON WHETHER TO 
RECOMMEND THE IMPEACHMENT OF 
ANYBODY, LET ALONE THE PRESIDENT
OF THE UNITED STATES.
NOW, YOU KNOW, WE HEARD 
COMPLAINTS ABOUT THE FACT THAT 
IN THE CLINTON IMPEACHMENT THERE
WERE NO FACT WITNESSES.
MR. SHABAT AND I WERE THERE.
WHAT HAPPENED THERE IS THAT BOTH
SIDES WERE ALLOWED TO PRESENT 
WHATEVER WITNESSES THEY WANTED 
TO.
KENNETH STARR DID ALL OF THE 
GRUNT WORK IN PUTTING TOGETHER 
THE FACTS.
HE SENT OVER 36 BOXES WHICH WERE
PUT OVER INTO THE FORD BUILDING.
THAT'S NOT HAPPENED HERE.
THE INDEPENDENT COUNSEL THAT WAS
APPOINTED TO LOOK INTO WHAT 
PRESIDENT TRUMP HAS DONE, MR. 
MUELLER CAME AND TESTIFIED AND 
THAT ENDED UP BEING A BIG 
FIZZLE, YOU KNOW, FOR WHAT THE 
DEMOCRATS WANTED TO DO.
SO, MUCH OF THE MUELLER STUFF 
AFTER HIS TESTIMONY AND THE 
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MEMBERS ON 
BOTH SIDES OF THE AISLE ENDED UP
DISAPPEARING INTO OUTER SPACE.
HAVE TO FIND SOMETHING ELSE.
NOW LET ME SAY THAT EVERYBODY ON
BOTH ENDS OF THE TELEPHONE CALL 
BETWEEN PRESIDENT TRUMP AND 
PRESIDENT ZELENSKY HAS SAID VERY
CLEARLY THERE WAS NO QUID PRO 
QUO OFFERED.
THERE WAS NO PRESSURE THAT WAS 
PUT ON THE UKRAINIANS.
I DON'T KNOW HOW MANY TIMES 
PRESIDENT ZELENSKY HAS HAD TO 
SAY THAT.
APPARENTLY IT'S NOT ENOUGH 
BECAUSE MINDS ON THE OTHER SIDE 
OF THE AISLE ARE CLOSED.
BUT THAT'S WHAT THE FACTS ARE.
AND THE FACTS, YOU KNOW, SPEAK 
FOR THEMSELVES.
THERE WAS NO IMPEACHABLE OFFENSE
HERE.
THAT'S WHY ARTICLE I OF THE 
IMPEACHMENT ENDED UP FALLING 
FLAT ON ITS FACE AND THAT IT 
SHOULD BE STRICKEN AND I SUPPORT
THE AMENDMENT TO STRIKE IT FROM 
THE GENTLEMAN OF OHIO AND YIELD 
BACK.
>> MR. CHAIRMAN.
>> GENTLEMAN YIELDS BACK.
>> I YIELD TO THE GENTLEMAN FROM
GEORGIA.
>> GENTLEMAN IS RECOGNIZED.
>> REAL QUICK.
ALSO JUST KENNETH STARR SCENE 
THOSE OVER BEFORE THE HEARINGS 
BEGAN, CORRECT.
WE DIDN'T GET A LETTER IN THE 
MIDDLE OF THE HEARING OH, BY THE
WAY WE HAVE A DOCUMENT DUMP OVER
THE WEEKEND.
>> NO, WE GOT THEM.
>> GENTLEMAN'S TIME HAS EXPIRED.
FOR WHAT PURPOSE DOES JACKSON 
LEE SEEK RECOGNITION.
>> STRIKE THE LAST WORD.
>> I THINK BEFORE I BEGIN TO 
COMMENT ON THE DISCUSSION HERE 
THAT IT IS IMPORTANT TO REMIND 
ALL OF US THAT THE PRESIDENT 
ABUSED HIS POWER AND IS A 
CONTINUING THREAT NOT ONLY TO 
DEMOCRACY BUT TO OUR NATIONAL 
SECURITY.
WE DO NOT TAKE THIS LIGHTLY.
WE TAKE IT VERY SERIOUSLY.
I BEG TO DIFFER WITH MY DEAR 
FRIEND, AS ONE WHO WAS HERE FOR 
THE IMPEACHMENT PROCEEDINGS IN 
1998, ALONG WITH MY COLLEAGUES, 
BOTH MR. SENSENBRENNER AND 
OTHERS.
LET ME BE VERY CLEAR OF THE 
DISTINCTIVE DIFFERENCE THAT WE 
HAD THEN AT THAT TIME.
FOR THE AMERICAN PEOPLE, THE 
SPECIAL PROSECUTOR WAS AN 
INDEPENDENT STATUTE THAT ALLOWED
DURING THE NIXON PROCEEDINGS AND
MR. STARR TO HAVE AN INDEPENDENT
INVESTIGATION.
CONGRESS OF NOT PRIVY TO ANY OF 
THAT INVESTIGATION.
AT ALL.
THEY PROCEEDED.
THEY WERE NOT INTERFERED WITH AS
MR. MUELLER WAS BY THE DOJ 
BECAUSE HE WAS AN EMPLOYEE OF 
THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, AND 
HIS EMPLOYER, HIS BOSS CAME OUT 
END CHARACTERIZED HIS REPORT 
BEFORE HE COULD EVEN DISCUSS IT.
IN THE INSTANCE OF THE 
PROCEEDINGS OF 1998, THE 
CONGRESS RECEIVED A REPORT JUST 
AS BOTH OUR FRIENDS ON THE OTHER
SIDE OF THE AISLE, AND WE, THE 
MAJORITY RECEIVED REPORTS FROM 
THE IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY 
COMMITTEES, WHO WERE 
INVESTIGATORY COMMITTEES.
THEY DID THEIR WORK, YES, IN A 
CLASSIFIED SETTING, AS I IMAGINE
BOTH MR. STARR AND JAROWSKI HAD 
TO DO.
THEY HAD WITNESSES THAT WERE NOT
IN THE PUBLIC.
THEN, OF COURSE, THERE WERE FULL
PUBLIC HEARINGS, 17 WITNESSES, 
FIRSTHAND WITNESSES WHO HEARD 
THE CALL AND TESTIFIED NOT ON 
ANY SECOND HAND KNOWLEDGE, BUT 
FIRSTHAND KNOWLEDGE.
IT IS CLEAR THAT WE'RE DEALING 
WITH A HE QUESTION OF A 
CONTINUING THREAT, WHICH IS WHY 
WE HAVE TO RESPOND.
LET ME BE VERY CLEAR.
I HOLD IN MY HANDS THAT 
UNCLASSIFIED TRANSCRIPT.
I BEG TO DIFFER WITH MY FRIENDS.
ALLOW ME JUST FOR A MOMENT TO 
TELL YOU THAT IN THE CALL, 
PRESIDENT ZELENSKY SAID THESE 
SENTENCES.
I WOULD ALSO LIKE TO THANK YOU 
FOR YOUR GREAT SUPPORT IN THE 
AREA OF DEFENSE.
WE'RE TRYING TO CONTINUE TO 
COOPERATE FOR THE NEXT STEPS 
SPECIFICALLY WE ALSO WANT TO BE 
READY TO BUY JAVELINS, THAT'S 
EQUIPMENT, MILITARY EQUIPMENT 
FROM THE UNITED STATES FOR 
DEFENSE PURPOSES.
UKRAINE IN THE MIDST OF A WAR 
AGAINST A NATION THAT SHOT DOWN 
AT LEAST SOME OF THOSE ALLEGED 
TO BE SEPARATIST USING RUSSIAN 
WEAPONS A COMMERCIAL AIRLINER.
THIS IS A SERIOUS WAR WHERE OUR 
MEN AND WOMEN IN THE MILITARY 
ARE ON THE GROUND TRYING TO 
ASSIST AND HERE'S THE VERY NEXT 
SENTENCE.
THE VERY NEXT SENTENCE IS NOT 
YES LET'S GET WITH THE 
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE LET'S 
REVIEW YOUR REQUEST.
THE VERY NEXT SENTENCE, I WOULD 
LIKE YOU TO DO A FAVOR, THOUGH.
THIS IS A DISCUSSION ABOUT 
DEFENSE.
THE NEXT SENTENCE SHOULD HAVE 
BEEN, I THINK WE ARE WELL AWARE 
OF YOUR DIFFICULT PREDICAMENT.
GOING TO HAVE YOU TALK TO THE 
SECRETARY OF DEFENSE.
BUT IT SAID A COUPLE OF 
SENTENCES LATER I WOULD LIKE TO 
HAVE THE ATTORNEY GENERAL CALL 
YOU OR YOUR PEOPLE AND I WOULD 
LIKE YOU TO GET TO THE BOTTOM OF
IT, INVESTIGATION.
SO, I WOULD JUST OFFER TO SAY 
THAT IT IS NOT FRIVOLOUS OR 
WITHOUT FACTS THAT WE PROCEED.
WE PROCEED WITH FACTS.
AND WE TAKE THIS IN A VERY 
SOMBER MANNER.
>> WOULD THE GENTLELADY YIELD.
>> I WOULD HAPPY TO.
>> I WOULD LIKE TO NOTE THAT 
WHILE THIS AID WAS BEING 
WITHHELD, PEOPLE DIED.
I WOULD LIKE TO ASK UNANIMOUS 
CONSENT TO PUT INTO THE RECORD 
AN ARTICLE FROM THE "LOS ANGELES
TIMES" ENTITLED TRUMP FROZE 
MILITARY AID AS UKRAINIAN 
SOLDIERS PERISHED IN BATTLE.
>> WITHOUT OBJECTION.
>> AND NOTE ALSO THAT THE 
HIGHEST DEATH TOLL ON ANY DAY IN
THE UKRAINE-RUSSIAN WAR WAS 
AUGUST 7th OF THIS YEAR WHILE 
AID WAS BEING WITHHELD, SO THIS 
HAD LIFE AND DEATH CONSEQUENCES.
AND I YIELD BACK.
>> VERY QUICKLY LET ME SAY MY 
PREDECESSOR SAID IMPEACHMENT IS 
DESIGNED FOR THE PRESIDENT AND 
HIS MINISTERS SOMEHOW TO BE 
CALLED INTO ACCOUNT.
THAT'S ALL WE'RE DOING ON BEHALF
OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE AND 
PROTECTING THE NATIONAL SECURITY
OF THIS NATION.
I YIELD BACK.
>> FOR WHAT PURPOSE -- GENTLEMAN
STRIKES THE LAST WORD.
GENTLEMAN IS RECOGNIZED.
>> REAL QUICKLY THE GENTLELADY 
FROM CALIFORNIA JUST MISSTATED 
SOMETHING I ADDRESSED HEAD ON 
LAST NIGHT.
UNDER SECRETARY HALE STATED THIS
WAS MONEY, NOT INTERFERING, NOT 
DEALING WITH ISSUES.
YOU'RE IN A WAR.
FOR THOSE OF US WHO HAVE BEEN IN
A WAR ZONE PEOPLE DO DIE IN A 
WAR ZONE.
THIS MONEY DID NOT STOP THAT.
I YIELD BACK.
>> RECLAIMING MY TIME.
THE BIGGEST DIFFERENCE IN THE 
CLINTON IMPEACHMENT AND THIS ONE
IS THAT PRESIDENT CLINTON 
COMMITTED A CRIME, PERJURY.
THIS PRESIDENT ISN'T EVEN 
ACCUSED OF ECONOMISTING A CRIME.
THE CONSTITUTION IS PRETTY CLEAR
ON WHAT CONSTITUTES AN 
IMPEACHABLE OFFENSE.
TREASON, BRIBERY AND OTHER HIGH 
CRIMES AND MISDEAMNORS OR 
WHATEVER OTHER ELSE NANCY PELOSI
AND ADAM SCHIFF DEEM 
IMPEACHABLE.
I THINK WE CAN ALL AGREE NO 
PRESIDENT SHOULD ABUSE THE 
POWERS OF HIS OR HER OFFICE JUST
LIKE THE CHAIRMAN OF THE HOUSE 
COMMITTEE SHOULDN'T ABUSE THE 
POWERS OF HIS OFFICE TO OBTAIN 
AND PUBLISH THE PHONE RECORDS OF
THE PRESIDENT'S PERSONAL 
ATTORNEY, A MEMBER OF THE MEDIA 
AND RANKING MEMBER OF THAT SAME 
COMMITTEE BUT THAT DOESN'T MAKE 
ALLEGED ABUSE OF POWER A HIGH 
CRIMES AND MISDEAMNORS.
IN THEIR NEWLY AUTHORED MEMO ON 
CONSTITUTIONAL GROUNDS FOR 
IMPEACHMENT THE MAJORITY ON THIS
COMMITTEE GOES TO GREAT LENGTHS 
TO EXPLAIN ABOUT ABUSE OF POWER 
IS AN IMPEACHABLE OFFENSE 
MENTIONING IT WAS ONE OF THE 
CHARGES AGAINST PRESIDENT NIXON 
AND BILL CLINTON.
WHAT THEY DON'T MENTION IS THAT 
THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES HAS
NEVER ADOPTED ALLEGED ABUSE OF 
POWER AS A CHARGE IN A 
PRESIDENTIAL IMPEACHMENT.
WHY?
BECAUSE THERE'S NO CRIMINAL 
STATUTE DESCRIBING WHAT ALLEGED 
ABUSE OF POWER ACTUALLY IS.
ABUSE OF POWER IS, THEREFORE, A 
VAGUE, AMBIGUOUS TERM.
ABUSE OF POWER LOOKS CONCISE 
LEGAL DEFINITION, THERE'S A 
HIGHER BURDEN OF PROOF TO SHOW 
ACTIONS OF THE PRESIDENT RISE TO
THE LEVEL OF IMPEACHMENT.
I BELIEVE THAT BILL CLINTON HAD 
ABUSED THE POWER ARE OF HIS 
OFFICE BUT WE FAILED TO CONVINCE
OUR COLLEAGUES IN THE HOUSE AND 
THAT PARTICULAR CHARGE WAS 
REJECTED.
IN THIS CASE THE EVIDENCE 
PROVIDED IS LESS CONVINCING.
IN FACT, I WOULD ARGUE IT'S 
NON-EXISTENT.
FIRST NO QUID PRO QUO.
SECOND, ATE WIDELY KNOWN FACT 
THAT UKRAINE IS ONE OF THE MOST 
CORRUPT COUNTRIES ON THE PLANET.
WHY CONGRESS REQUIRED THE 
ADMINISTRATION TO CERTIFY THAT 
THE UKRAINIAN GOVERNMENT HAD 
TAKEN STEPS TO CLEAN UP 
CORRUPTION BEFORE MILITARY AID 
COULD BE PROVIDED TO THE 
COUNTRY.
PRESIDENT TRUMP WAS WELL AWARE 
OF THAT FACT.
QUITE SKEPTICAL OF GIVING 
UKRAINE FOREIGN AID LONG BEFORE 
THE NOW FAMOUS JULY 25th PHONE 
CALL.
THIRD, UKRAINE ACTUALLY RECEIVED
THE AID AFTER THE PRESIDENT WAS 
SATISFIED THAT UKRAINE HAD TAKEN
MEANINGFUL STEPS TO ADDRESS 
CORRUPTION.
WHICH, AGAIN IS AN OBLIGATION 
REQUIRED BYLAW.
BASED ON THE ACTUAL FACTS OF 
THIS CASE AS OPPOSED TO HEARSAY 
AND INNUENDO COMPILED BY THE 
INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE IT'S 
CLEAR NO ABUSE OF POWER EVER 
TOOK PLACE AND CERTAINLY ISN'T 
ENOUGH EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT AN 
ARTICLE OF IMPEACHMENT.
MR. CHAIRMAN, AS YOU WELL KNOW 
THERE'S ANOTHER SIGNIFICANCE 
DIFFERENCE BETWEEN ABUSE OF 
POWER CHARGES AGAINST NIXON AND 
CLINTON AND THOSE PRESENTED 
HERE.
IN THE NIXON AND CLINTON 
IMPEACHMENTS, ABUSE OF POWER WAS
A TACKED ON CHARGE FAR LESS 
IMPORTANT IN THOSE CASES THAN 
THE ACTUAL HIGH CRIMES CHARGED 
AGAINST BOTH OF THEM.
HERE IT'S THE MAIN THRUST OF THE
HOUSE DEMOCRATS ENTIRE CASE.
LET ME PUT IT ANOTHER WAY.
ENTIRE ARGUMENT FOR IMPEACHMENT 
IN THIS CASE IS BASED ON A 
CHARGE THAT IS NOT A CRIME, MUCH
LESS A HIGH CRIME AND THAT HAS 
NEVER BEEN APPROVED BY THE HOUSE
OF REPRESENTATIVES IN A 
PRESIDENTIAL IMPEACHMENT BEFORE 
EVER IN HISTORY.
IF THAT'S THE BEST YOU GOT, YOU 
WASTEED A WHOLE LOT OF TIME AND 
TAXPAYER DOLLARS, ALL BECAUSE SO
MANY OF YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN, HATE 
THIS PRESIDENT.
ONE LAST THING.
I GUESS WE NOW KNOW WHY NANCY 
PELOSI WAS FOCUS GROUPING 
BRIBERY AS A POTENTIAL CHARGE 
BECAUSE SHE WAS DESPERATELY 
SEARCHING FOR A CRIME, ANY CRIME
TO JUSTIFY THIS SHAM 
IMPEACHMENT.
BUT THAT EFFORT WAS ABANDONED 
BECAUSE SHE KNOWS MOST MEMBERS 
OF CONGRESS KNOW AND NOW THE 
AMERICAN PEOPLE KNOW THERE'S 
SIMPLY WASN'T A CRIME COMMITTED 
HERE AND THERE SHOULDN'T BE AN 
IMPEACHMENT HERE EITHER.
I YIELD BACK.
>> GENTLEMAN YIELDED BACK.
FOR WHAT PURPOSE DO YOU SEEK 
RECOGNITION.
>> TO STRIKE THE LAST WORD.
>> GENTLEMAN IS RECOGNIZED.
>> THERE ARE NO CRIMES HERE?
THAT'S THE DEFENSE MY COLLEAGUES
ACROSS THE AISLE ARE PUTTING 
FORWARD?
HOW ABOUT THE HIGHEST CRIME THAT
ONE WHO HOLDS PUBLIC OFFICE 
COULD COMMIT?
A CRIME AGAINST OUR 
CONSTITUTION.
AFTER ALL, THE CONSTITUTION IS 
THE HIGHEST MOST SUPREME LAW OF 
THE LAND.
EVERY OTHER LAW, STATUTORY LAWS 
INCLUDED DERIVED FROM THE 
CONSTITUTION, NOT THE OTHER WAY 
AROUND.
THE PRESIDENT COMMITTED THE 
HIGHEST CRIME AGAINST THE 
CONSTITUTION BY ABUSING HIS 
OFFICE.
CHEATING IN AN ELECTION, 
INVITING FOREIGN INTERFERENCE 
FOR A PURELY PERSONAL GAIN WHILE
JEOPARDIZING OUR NATIONAL 
SECURITY AND THE INTEGRITY OF 
OUR ELECTIONS.
THE CONSTITUTION DOES NOT 
REQUIRE PRESIDENT TRUMP HAVE 
COMMITTED STATUTORY CRIMES.
AFTER ALL, WE IN CONGRESS ARE 
NOT CRIMINAL PROSECUTORS.
WE DO NOT PROSECUTE CRIMES, WE 
PROTECT THE CONSTITUTION.
BUT SINCE MY COLLEAGUES KEEP 
BRINGING UP WHAT POTENTIAL 
CRIMES A CRIMINAL PROSECUTOR 
COULD CHARGE THE PRESIDENT WITH 
LET GO THROUGH SOME OF THEM 
BECAUSE PRESIDENT TRUMP'S 
CONDUCT OVERLAPS WITH CRIMINAL 
ACTS.
LET'S START WITH CRIMINAL 
BRIBERY.
18 U.S. CODE 201 B 2 A.
RELEVANT HERE CRIMINAL BRIBERY 
OCCURS WHEN A PUBLIC OFFICIAL 
DEMANDS OR SEEKS ANYTHING OF 
VALUE PERSONALLY IN RETURN FOR 
BEING INFLUENCED IN THE 
PERFORMANCE OF AN OFFICIAL ACT, 
ADDITIONALLY THE PUBLIC OFFICIAL
MUST CARRY OUT THESE ACTS 
CORRUPTLY.
DEMANDS OR SEEKS.
PRESIDENT TRUMP DEMANDED AND 
SOUGHT THE ANNOUNCEMENT AND 
CONDUCT OF POLITICALLY MOTIVATED
INVESTIGATIONS BY PRESIDENT 
ZELENSKY.
ANYTHING OF VALUE PERSONALLY FOR
THE PURPOSES OF AND BRIBERY LAW 
THE PHRASE ANYTHING OF VALUE HAS
BEEN INTERPRETED BY THE COURTS 
BROADLY TO CARRY OUT THE 
CONGRESSIONAL PURPOSE OF 
PUNISHING THE ABUSE OF PUBLIC 
OFFICE.
IN RETURN FOR BEING INFLUENCED 
THE THIRD REQUIREMENT, AS THE 
INTEL COMMITTEE REPORT 
DEMONSTRATED PRESIDENT TRUMP 
SOUGHT AN ANNOUNCEMENT OF THESE 
INVESTIGATIONS IN RETURN FOR 
PERFORMING TWO OFFICIAL ACTS.
FIRST, THE CONDITIONED RELEASE 
OF VITAL MILITARY ASSISTANCE ON 
PRESIDENT ZELENSKY'S 
INVESTIGATIONS AND SECOND HE 
CONDITIONED A HEAD OF STATE 
MEETING ON THESE INVESTIGATIONS.
FOURTH, PERFORMANCE OF AN 
OFFICIAL ACT.
THE COURTS HAVE DEFINE AN 
OFFICIAL ACT AS ANY DECISION OR 
ACTION, MANNER, CAUSE, SUIT, 
PROCEEDING OR CONTROVERSY THAT 
MAY BE PENDING OR BROUGHT BEFORE
A PUBLIC OFFICIAL.
BOTH OF THE ACTS IN QUESTION, 
THE MILITARY AID AND WHITE HOUSE
MEETING MEET THIS REQUIREMENT.
FINALLY, CORRUPTLY.
PRESIDENT TRUMP BEHAVED 
CORRUPTLY THROUGHOUT THIS COURSE
OF CONDUCT BECAUSE HE USED HIS 
OFFICIAL OFFICE IN EXCHANGE TO 
SEEK A PRIVATE BENEFIT.
A SECOND CRIME?
HONEST SERVICES FRAUD.
U.S. CODE SECTION 1386 PRESIDENT
TRUMP KNOWINGLY AND WILLFULLY 
ORCHESTRATED A SCHEME TO DEFRAUD
THE AMERICAN PEOPLE OF HIS 
HONEST SERVICES AS PRESIDENT OF 
THE UNITED STATES.
THIS HAS BEEN A LINE OFTEN IN 
THE COURTS WITH BRIBERY EXCEPT 
IT ALSO INCLUDES YOUR WIRE 
COMMUNICATION.
CLEARLY -- 
>> WILL THE GENTLEMAN YIELD.
>> I WILL NOT.
THE JULY 25 PHONE CALL 
CONSTITUTES A WIRE 
COMMUNICATION.
SO THERE YOU HAVE IT.
AT LEAST TWO CRIMINAL STATUTORY 
CRIMES.
HOWEVER, ALL OF THESE 
CONVERSATIONS ABOUT STATUTORY 
CRIMES ARE MOOT BECAUSE THE 
PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES 
REFUSES TO ALLOW HIS OWN 
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE TO.
INDICT HIM.
SO THE PRESIDENT MAY BE CHARGED 
WITH CRIMES STATUTORILY ONE DAY 
BUT THAT'S NOT WHAT WE'RE DOING 
HERE ON THIS DAY AND WE'RE NOT 
RESTRICTED LIKE THE DEPARTMENT 
OF JUSTICE IS, SO WE WILL UPHOLD
OUR DUTY TO CHARGE THE PRESIDENT
WITH THE CRIMES AGAINST THE 
CONSTITUTION THAT HE HAS 
COMMITTED.
USING YOUR TAXPAYER DOLLARS.
JEOPARDIZING THE INTEGRITY OF 
YOUR VOTE FOR A PURELY POLITICAL
PURPOSE.
AND A PURELY PERSONAL GAIN.
MR. CHAIRMAN, WITH THAT I YIELD 
BACK.
>> I APPRECIATE THE GENTLEMAN'S 
RECITATION OF THE FACTS AS A 
FORMER PROSECUTOR.
YOU SPEAK WITH TREMENDOUS 
AUTHORITY.
I WOULD JUST LIKE TO NOTE THAT 
THE ARGUMENT THAT SOMEHOW LYING 
ABOUT A SEXUAL AFFAIR IS AN 
ABUSE OF PRESIDENTIAL POWER, BUT
THE MISUSE OF PRESIDENTIAL POWER
TO GET A BENEFIT SOMEHOW DOESN'T
MATTER.
IF IT'S LYING ABOUT SEX, WE 
COULD PUT STORMY DANIELS CASE 
AHEAD OF US.
WE DON'T BELIEVE THAT'S A HIGH 
CRIMES AND MISDEAMNORS.
>> WILL THE GENTLELADY YIELD.
>> NO.
IT'S NOT AN ABUSE OF 
PRESIDENTIAL POWER.
I YIELD BACK.
>> FOR WHAT DOES PURPOSE DO YOU 
SEEK RECOGNITION.
>> IN PROD SUPPORT OF THE 
AMENDMENT.
>> YIELD BRIEFLY?
>> DOES THE GENTLEMAN WISH TO 
YIELD.
>> YES.
>> THE IMPORTANT THING IS THAT 
BILL CLINTON LIED TO A GRAND 
JURY.
THAT IS A CRIME.
THE ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT THAT
PASSED THE HOUSE ACCUSED BILL 
CLINTON OF LYING TO A GRAND 
JURY, A CRIME AND SOMETHING THAT
OBSTRUCTS THE ABILITY OF THE 
COURT TO GET TO THE TRUTH.
THIS IS NOT WHAT IS HAPPENING 
HERE.
BIG DIFFERENCE.
>> THANK YOU.
RECLAIMING MY TIME.
>> GENTLEMAN RECLAIMS HIS TIME.
>> IT'S INTERESTING, THOUGH, 
WE'RE HERE BECAUSE OF FRAUD, NOT
BY THE PRESIDENT, BUT FROM 
WITHIN THE DEPARTMENT OF 
JUSTICE, AND I REALIZE PEOPLE ON
THE OTHER SIDE OF THE AISLE HAVE
BEEN SO BUSY TRYING TO FIND SOME
KIND OF CHARGE, CRIMINAL CHARGE 
TOE BRING AGAINST THE PRESIDENT,
NONE OF WHICH WORKED THAT THEY 
MAY NOT HAVE BEEN AWARE OF THE 
MOST RECENT HOROWITZ REPORT BUT 
IT'S CLEAR NOW -- IT IS CLEAR 
NOW THAT THE WHOLE INVESTIGATION
THAT HAS BROUGHT US HERE WITH 
CRIME AFTER CRIME BEING ALLEGED 
AND THEN HAVING TO BE DROPPED 
WAS A FRAUDULENT EFFORT BEFORE 
THE FISA COURT TO HAVE A 
SURVEILLANCE WARRANT DONE 
AGAINST CARTER PAGE.
THEY LIED INITIALLY, SAID THAT 
HE WAS A RUSSIAN AGENT WHEN 
ACTUALLY HE HAD BEEN USED BY THE
CIA AS A SPY AGAINST RUSSIA.
AND SO THEY LIED.
IT WAS FRAUDULENT.
HOPEFULLY THERE WILL BE PEOPLE 
WHO ANSWER FOR THEIR CRIMES AND 
THEIR FRAUD IN THE DEPARTMENT OF
JUSTICE IN THE DAYS TO COME AND 
IT SOUNDS LIKE THAT SHOULD BE 
THE CASE.
AND THEN THERE WAS FRAUD ALL THE
WAY THROUGH.
BUT FOR THREE YEARS WE'VE BEEN 
HEARING ABOUT THE CRIMES OF THE 
CANDIDATE TRUMP AND THEN THE 
CRIMES OF PRESIDENT TRUMP AND WE
COME NOW TODAY BASED ON THE 
INITIAL FRAUD THAT GOT THIS 
WHOLE IMPEACHMENT STUFF STARTED,
AND NO ONE ON THE OTHER SIDE IS 
WILLING TO ACKNOWLEDGE THE FRAUD
THAT BROUGHT US HERE, NOR THE 
FACT THAT SO MANY PEOPLE HERE 
HAVE BEEN SCREAMING ABOUT THE 
PRESIDENT'S CRIMES AND WE'RE 
EVEN HEARING TODAY LIKE WE JUST 
DID, OH, YES, THERE WERE CRIMES.
THEN WHY AREN'T THEY IN THIS 
IMPEACHMENT DOCUMENT?
BECAUSE THEY DON'T EXIST.
THEY'VE BEEN DISPROVEN OVER AND 
OVER AND OVER AGAIN AND THAT'S 
WHY THE GENTLEMAN'S AMENDMENT IS
SO WELL TAKEN.
YOU DON'T WANT TO GO DOWN THIS 
GROUND.
I THINK IT'S A BAD IDEA WHEN IT 
WAS PROPOSED BEFORE.
HIGH CRIMES AND MISDEAMNORS IF 
IT'S NOT TREASON, EVEN 
MISDEAMNORS ARE CRIMES.
SO WE HAD TO DROP THE FRAUD OF 
ALL THE CRIMES BEING ALLEGED, 
PEOPLE SAYING IN HERE AND IN THE
PUBLIC, GEE, WE'RE GOING TO GET 
THE PRESIDENT BECAUSE HE 
COLLUDED WITH RUSSIA, HOW 
TERRIBLE WAS THAT.
THAT'S ALL BEEN DISPROVED AND 
DROPPED.
NOW WE'RE LEFT WITH BRIBERY AND 
EXTORTION AND NOW EVEN THOSE HAD
TO BE DROPPED BECAUSE THERE WERE
NO CRIMES AND I APPRECIATE THE 
GENTLEMAN BRINGING UP CRIMES BUT
THOSE ARE NOT ALLEGED HERE.
SO LET ME JUST SAY, THIS IS A 
DAY THAT WILL LIVE IN INFAMY FOR
THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE.
THE DAYS OF EXEMPLARY CHAIRS 
LIKE DANIEL WEBSTER WHEN HE 
STOOD FOR PRINCIPLE, THOSE ARE 
GOING TO BE GONE BECAUSE THIS 
BECAME A TOOL OF THE MAJORITY TO
TRY TO DEFEAT -- USE TAXPAYER 
FUNDS TO DEFEAT A PRESIDENT AND,
BY THE WAY, THE KEN STARR 
REPORT, 36 BOXES, HE CAME IN AND
TESTIFIED.
WE WERE KEPT OUT OF HEARING THE 
WITNESSES.
THERE WERE IN THE WATERGATE, 
THESE WITNESSES TESTIFIED ON 
TELEVISION.
IT WAS PUBLIC.
IT WAS NOT A STARR CHAMBER LIKE 
THE SCHIFF CHAMBER BECAME.
I WOULD LIKE TO YIELD BACK TO 
MR. JORDAN.
>> WHEN DID IT HAPPEN?
EVERYTHING MR. SWALLOW JUST SAID
IF IT HAPPENED WHY ISN'T IT IN 
THE RESOLUTION?
DEMOCRATS SAID THERE'S SOME 
SCHEME TO HAVE AN ANNOUNCEMENT 
MADE BY PRESIDENT ZELENSKY TO 
GET A PHONE CALL WITH THE 
PRESIDENT TO GET A MEETING WITH 
THE PRESIDENT TO GET THE AID 
RELEASED.
WHEN DID THE ANNOUNCEMENT 
HAPPEN?
THEY GOT THE CALL ON JULY 25th.
THEY GOT THE MEETING ON 
SEPTEMBER 25th.
THEY GOT THE MONEY ON SEPTEMBER 
11th.
THERE WAS NEVER AN ANNOUNCEMENT 
FROM THE UKRAINIANS TO DO AN 
INVESTIGATION.
SO YOU CAN KEEP SAYING ALL THIS 
STUFF.
AND ALL THE POINTS THAT THIS 
HAPPENED.
DIDN'T HAPPEN.
NOT THE FACTS.
THOSE ARE NOT THE FACTS.
WE KNOW WHY THE AID ULTIMATELY 
GOT RELEASED BECAUSE WE LEARNED 
THIS GUY, THIS NEW PRESIDENT WAS
ACTUALLY THE TRANSFORMER, WOULD 
DEAL WITH CORRUPTION ISSUE IN 
HIS COUNTRY.
THAT'S WHAT HAPPENED.
YOU CAN MAKE UP ALL THE THINGS 
YOU WANT BUT THOSE ARE NOT THE 
FACTS.
>> GENTLEMAN'S TIME HAS EXPIRED.
MR. JEFFRIES.
GENTLEMAN IS RECOGNIZED.
>> LET'S GO THROUGH THE FACTS.
WE'RE HERE TODAY BECAUSE THE 
PRESIDENT ABUSED HIS POWER.
WE'RE HERE TODAY BECAUSE HE 
SOLICITED FOREIGN INTERFERENCE 
IN THE 2020 ELECTION.
HE WELCOMED FOREIGN INTERFERENCE
AS IT RELATES TO RUSSIA.
HE SOLICITED FOREIGN 
INTERFERENCE ON THE WHITE HOUSE 
LAWN WITH CHINA AND HE DID IT 
WITH UKRAINE.
HE'S A SERIAL SOLICITOR.
LET'S GO THROUGH THE FACTS.
CONGRESS ALLOCATED $391 MILLION 
IN MILITARY AID ON A BIPARTISAN 
BASIS.
TO UKRAINE.
CURRENTLY AT WAR WITH RUSSIAN 
BACKED SEPARATISTS IN THE EAST.
UKRAINE IS A FRIEND.
RUSSIA IS A FOE.
UKRAINE IS A DEMOCRACY.
RUSSIA IS A DICTATORSHIP.
UNITED STATES IS THE ONLY THING 
STANDING BETWEEN VLADIMIR PUTIN 
AND UKRAINE BEING COMPLETELY 
OVERRUN AS PART OF PUTIN'S 
FANTASY TO RECONSTRUCT THE 
SOVIET UNION, WHICH WOULD BE 
ADVERSE TO THE NATIONAL SECURITY
INTERESTS OF THE UNITED STATES 
AND EVERY SINGLE FACT WITNESS 
BEFORE THIS CONGRESS SAID SO.
YOU CAN'T EVEN DISPUTE THAT.
SO WE ALLOCATED AID ON A 
BIPARTISAN BASIS.
BUT THEN THE AID WAS WITHHELD.
SO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE DESERVE 
TO FIGURE OUT WHY.
IN FEBRUARY THERE WAS A LETTER 
SENT BY THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION
SAYING OKAY THE AID IS ON THE 
WAY.
BUT IT NEVER ARRIVED.
IN APRIL HE HAD A PHONE CALL, 
THE PRESIDENT, WITH ZELENSKY, 
THE WORD CORRUPTION WAS NOT 
MENTIONED ONCE.
AND THEN IN MAY THE DEPARTMENT 
OF DEFENSE WROTE TO THIS 
CONGRESS AND SAID ALL NECESSARY 
PRE-CONDITIONS FOR RECEIPT OF 
THE AID HAVE BEEN MET BY THE NEW
UKRAINIAN GOVERNMENT INCLUDING 
INTER ERUPTION OF 
ANTI-CORRUPTION PROTOCOLS.
WE HAVE THAT LETTER.
IT WAS SENT TO YOU AND IT WAS 
SENT TO US.
THEN ON JULY 18th, OFFICE OF 
MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET MEETING, 
THE AID WAS OFFICIALLY FROZEN AT
THE DIRECTION OF THE PRESIDENT.
TWICE DURING THE SUMMER, MITCH 
McCONNELL, THE SENATE REPUBLICAN
MAJORITY LEADER PUBLICLY STATED 
HE CALLED THE TRUMP 
ADMINISTRATION.
WHAT HAPPENED TO THE AID?
MITCHcCONNELL COULDN'T GET A 
GOOD ANSWER BUT THERE WAS NO 
GOOD ANSWER.
ON JULY 25th THERE'S ANOTHER 
CALL BETWEEN PRESIDENT TRUMP AND
PRESIDENT ZELENSKY.
THE WORD CORRUPTION IS NOT 
MENTIONED ONCE.
BUT HERE'S WHAT WAS SAID.
ZELENSKY TALKS ABOUT DEFENSE.
AND THE IMMEDIATE RESPONSE IS, 
DO US A FAVOR, THOUGH.
AND PRESIDENT TRUMP SAYS, I NEED
YOU TO LOOK INTO SOME THINGS.
NOT RELATED TO PROCUREMENT OF 
DEFENSE ARMS.
BUT RELATED TO A WILD CONSPIRACY
THEORY CONNECTED TO THE 2016 
CAMPAIGN AND ALSO SAYS I WANT 
YOU TO LOOK INTO JOE BIDEN.
AND THEN WHAT'S INTERESTING 
SINCE YOU THINK IT WAS SUCH A 
PERFECT CALL, HE MENTIONS RUDY 
GIULIANI.
I'M LOOKING AT THE TRANSCRIPT 
RIGHT NOW NOT ONCE, NOT TWICE, 
BUT THREE TIMES.
WHY ON AN OFFICIAL CALL WOULD 
THE PRESIDENT MENTION RUDY 
GIULIANI?
HE'S NOT AN AMBASSADOR.
HE'S NOT THE SECRETARY OF STATE.
HE'S NOT A MEMBER OF THE 
DIPLOMATIC CORE.
HE'S PRESIDENT TRUMP'S POLITICAL
ENFORCER.
THEN WHAT HAPPENS?
YOU SAID YOU WANT TO TALK ABOUT 
THE FACTS.
IN AUGUST GIULIANI TRAVELS TO 
MADRID AND MEETS WITH THE 
UKRAINIAN GOVERNMENT.
AS A FOLLOWUP TO TRUMP SAYING TO
UKRAINE GO MEET WITH GIULIANI.
THEN A STATEMENT IS DRAFTED 
ABOUT THIS PHONEY INVESTIGATION,
AND SENT TO THE UKRAINIANS.
BUT WHAT HAPPENS?
IN AUGUST THE WHISTLE-BLOWER 
COMPLAINT IS FILED.
THEN ON SEPTEMBER 9th, THE 
WHISTLE-BLOWER COMPLAINT IS MADE
PUBLIC TO CONGRESS.
TWO DAYS LATER ON SEPTEMBER 
11th, ALL OF A SUDDEN THE AID IS
RELEASED.
WHY WAS THE AID RELEASED?
BECAUSE THE PRESIDENT WAS CAUGHT
RED HANDED TRYING TO PRESSURE A 
FOREIGN GOVERNMENT TO TARGET AN 
AMERICAN CITIZEN.
I YIELD BACK.
>> GENTLEMAN YIELDS BACK.
FOR WHAT PURPOSE GOES MR. GATES 
SEEK RECOGNITION.
>> LAST WORD.
>> GENTLEMAN IS RECOGNIZED.
>> THERE WERE FIVE MEETINGS WE 
DETAILED THAT SHOWED WHY THE AID
WAS RELEASED.
THERE WAS A BELIEF BY THE 
ADMINISTRATION PREVIOUSLY 
UKRAINE WAS ONE OF THE MOST 
CORRUPT COUNTRIES IN THE WORLD.
AND AFTER A NUMBER OF EVENTS 
WITH THE VICE PRESIDENT, WITH A 
BIPARTISAN SENATE DELEGATION 
THERE WAS A RESOLUTION OF THAT 
AID BUT THIS DEBATE JUST LACKS A
CERTAIN SINCERITY.
I HEARD EARLIER, LIST OUT ALL 
THESE CRIMES.
SO IF I'M WATCHING AT HOME I'M 
THINKING WHERE ARE THEY IN THE 
IMPEACHMENT?
THAT'S A DEMOCRAT DRIVE BY TO GO
AHEAD AND LIST CRIMES THAT YOU 
DON'T ALLEGE AND YOU DON'T HAVE 
EVIDENCE FOR.
IF THERE'S EVER A MICROCOSM OF 
HOW TO CONSUME THIS DAY AND THE 
IMPORTANCE OF IT WITH THE 
AMERICAN PEOPLE IS THAT THEY ARE
NAMING CRIMES IN DEBATE THAT 
THEY DON'T HAVE IN THEIR 
IMPEACHMENT RESOLUTION BECAUSE 
THEY CAN'T PROVE THEM AND THERE 
ARE NO UNDERLIKE FACTS.
THEN MR. JEFFRIES BRINGS UP 
RUSSIA.
THE RESIDUE OF IMPEACHMENT 
THEORIES PAST AND FILED.
HOW IS DEBATING ABOUT HOW ARE WE
EVEN HERE DEBATING ABOUT 
MILITARY AID, JAVELINS THAT 
PRESIDENT TRUMP DELIVERED THAT 
PRESIDENT OBAMA WITHHELD.
I HEAR THEM CRYING THESE ALLEGE 
TEARS OVER THIS NOTION, TRUMP 
DIDN'T GIVE THIS AID, LET'S 
IMPEACH HIM.
WHERE WAS THIS CONCERN WHEN 
OBAMA WAS PRESIDENT?
OUR SUBSTANTIVE DEFENSE IS FOUR 
THINGS.
MR. JORDAN DREAMS OF THEM IN HIS
SLEEP.
BOTH PRESIDENT TRUMP AND 
PRESIDENT ZELENSKY SAID THERE 
WAS NO PRESSURE.
WE SAW THE CALL TRANSCRIPT AND 
THERE'S NO CONDITIONALITY.
THERE WAS NEVER AWARENESS ON THE
PART OF THE UKRAINE THAT THERE 
WAS A DELAY IN AID.
AND THE UKRAINE GOT THE AID 
WITHOUT OPENING THE 
INVESTIGATION THAT SEEMS TO BE 
SO TROUBLING TO DEMOCRATS.
EVERYTHING YOU'RE GOING TO HEAR 
THEM SAY TODAY CAN BE PRETTY 
MUCH CATEGORIZED INTO THREE 
AREAS.
FIRST EITHER STUFF PEOPLE 
PRESUMED AND HAD NO DIRECT 
EVIDENCE OF, KIND OF THEIR 
WATERCOOLER THEORY OF THE CASE.
SECOND, IT'S HEARSAY.
SOMEBODY TOLD SOMEBODY TOLD 
SOMEBODY ELSE THAT CREATED SOME 
CONCERN ABOUT THE PRESIDENT'S 
CONDUCT.
OR, IT IS REFLECTIVE OF A 
SINCERE POLICY DISAGREEMENT 
ABOUT HOW TO MAKE THE UKRAINE 
GREAT AGAIN.
I HEARD ALL THESE FOLKS COME BY 
THAT ARE PART OF THE DIPLOMATIC 
CORE.
THEY SURE SEEM TO BELIEVE WE 
SHOULD DO EVERYTHING FOR THE 
UKRAINE BUT IF THE PRESIDENT 
DISAGREES WITH THAT IT IS NOT 
IMPEACHABLE CONDUCT.
THEY ARE ALLEGING A SHAKE DOWN.
MOST AMERICANS KNOW YOU CANNOT 
HAVE A SHAKE DOWN IF THE PERSON 
ALLEGEDLY BEING SHOOK DOWN 
DOESN'T EVEN KNOW ABOUT THE 
SHAKE DOWN.
YOU HAVE PRESIDENT ZELENSKY HIM 
SAYING I FELT NO PRESSURE AND 
THEN TALK ABOUT BAD TIMING.
WE GOT THIS "TIME" ARTICLE THAT 
COMES OUT ON THE 10th OF 
DECEMBER, JUST A FEW DAYS AGO 
BECAUSE THEIR THEORY OF THE CASE
IS EVEN IF ZELENSKY DIDN'T KNOW 
THERE WAS PRESSURE THERE'S THIS 
OTHER GUY, YERMAK AND YERMAK 
KNEW FROM GORDON SONDLAND THERE 
WAS PRESSURE BUT THE SAME DAY 
THAT INTRODUCED THEIR ARTICLES 
OF IMPEACHMENT, YERMAK GIVES 
THIS INTERVIEWS WITH "TIME" 
MAGAZINE, GORDON AND I WERE 
NEVER ALONE TOGETHER.
WE BUMPED INTO EACH OTHER IN THE
HALLWAY NEXT TO THE ESCALATOR AS
I WAS WALKING OUT AND I REMEMBER
EVERYTHING.
IT'S FINE WITH MY MEMORY.
WE TALKED ABOUT HOW WELL THE 
MEETING WENT.
THAT'S ALL WE TALKED ABOUT.
HERE THEY ARE WITH NO CRIME, 
WITH NO VICTIM, WITH NO 
WITNESSES, WITH NO KNOWLEDGE OF 
ANY SHAKE DOWN AND YET THEY 
PROCEED.
TO ACCEPT THE DEMOCRATS THEORY 
OF THE CASE, YOU GOT TO BELIEVE 
THAT THE UKRAINIANS ARE LYING TO
US.
YOU GOT TO BELIEVE WHEN THEY SAY
THERE'S NO CONDITIONALITY, NO 
PRESSURE, NOTHING WRONG THEY ARE
SO WEAK AND SO DEPENDENT ON THE 
UNITED STATES THAT WE CAN'T 
BELIEVE A WORD THEY SAY.
WELL, AGAIN, WHERE WERE YOU 
DURING THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION?
WHEN THIS WEAK ALLY DIDN'T GET 
JAVELINS THAT WERE THEN 
WITHHELD.
I SUPPORT THE JORDAN AMENDMENT 
BECAUSE THIS ARTICLE I, ABUSE OF
POWER THEY ALLEGE IN THE PAYMENT
THEORY IS A JOKE.
THEY HAVE TO HAVE TO SAY ABUSE 
OF POWER BECAUSE THEY DON'T HAVE
EVIDENCE FOR OBSTRUCTION.
THEY HAVE TO SAY ABUSE OF POWER 
BECAUSE THEY HAVE NO EVIDENCE 
FOR BRIBERY OR TREASON.
THEY HAVE TO SAY ABUSE OF POWER 
BECAUSE ALL THOSE SPECIFIC 
CRIMES THAT THE GENTLEMAN FROM 
CALIFORNIA CLAIMED CANNOT BE 
SUPPORTED BY EVIDENCE.
THIS NOTION OF ABUSE OF POWER IS
THE LOWEST OF LOW ENERGY 
IMPEACHMENT THEORIES.
HECK, I DON'T KNOW THE ANY 
POLITICAL PARTY THAT DOESN'T 
THINK WHEN THE OTHER SIDE IS IN 
THE WHITE HOUSE THAT THEY ABUSE 
OF POWER, THEY DO TOO MUCH.
I HAVE A LOT OF CONSTITUENTS 
THINK BARACK OBAMA ABUSED HIS 
POWER.
BUT WE DIDN'T DO THIS TO THIS 
COUNTRY.
WE DIDN'T PUT HIM THROUGH THIS 
NONSENSE.
YOU SET THE STANDARD.
YOU SAID THIS WOULD BE 
BIPARTISAN, COMPELLING AND 
OVERWHELMING.
IT AIN'T THAT AND THIS LOOKS 
PRETTY BAD.
I YIELD BACK.
>> GENTLEMAN YIELDS BACK.
FOR WHAT PURPOSE?
>> THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN.
JUST IN RESPONSE.
>> STRIKE THE LAST WORD?
>> YES.
>> LADY IS RECOGNIZED.
>> IN RESPONSE TO MY COLLEAGUE 
FROM FLORIDA, YOU CANNOT ARGUE 
THINGS BOTH WAYS.
YOU CANNOT SAY THAT THE 
PRESIDENT WAS SO CONCERNED ABOUT
UKRAINE THAT HE RELEASED AID, 
WHICH IS TRUE HE RELEASED AID IN
2017.
HE RELEASED AID IN 2018.
AND THEN SUDDENLY HE BECAME 
CONCERNED IN 2019 RIGHT AFTER 
VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN ANNOUNCED 
HE WOULD RUN.
SO IF YOUR ARGUMENT IS THAT HE 
WAS SO CONCERNED ABOUT UKRAINE 
THAT HE RELEASED AID IN 2017 AND
2018, THEN WHY IN 2019 AFTER THE
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE CLEARED 
UKRAINE ON CHARGES OF 
CORRUPTION, WHY THEN DID HE 
DECIDE HE WAS SO CONCERNED ABOUT
CORRUPTION THAT HE WAS NOT GOING
TO RELEASE AID?
THAT MAKES -- I'M SORRY I'M NOT 
YIELDING.
I'M NOT YIELDING.
>> GENTLELADY HAS THE FLOOR.
>> THEY GOT A NEW PRESIDENT 
THAT'S WHY.
>> PEOPLE WILL NOT INTERRUPT.
>> THEY GOT A NEW PRESIDENT.
>> IT'S NOT PROPER HERE.
>> THEY GOT A NEW PRESIDENT WHO 
WAS KNOWN TO BE AN 
ANTI-CORRUPTION FIGHTER.
SO THAT ARGUMENT HAS NO WEIGHT 
WHATSOEVER.
NOW, IF YOU WANT TO ARGUE THAT 
THE PRESIDENT WAS SO CONCERNED 
ABOUT CORRUPTION AT THAT 
PARTICULAR MOMENT YOU HAVE TO 
LOOK AT THE WHOLE RECORD OF U.S.
POLICY AND OUR AGREEMENT THAT 
THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE WOULD 
LOOK UNDER CERTAIN CONDITIONS 
BEFORE THEY RELEASED MILITARY 
AID TO DETERMINE WHETHER OR NOT 
A COUNTRY HAD SATISFIED THOSE 
REQUIREMENTS AROUND CORRUPTION 
AND DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 
RELEASED THAT REPORT.
NOWHERE BETWEEN THE TIME THAT 
DONALD TRUMP WITHHELD AID AND 
THE TIME THAT HE RELEASED THAT 
AID WAS THERE AN ADDITIONAL 
ASSESSMENT REQUIRED OR DONE.
IN FACT, THE DEPARTMENT OF 
DEFENSE DECIDED THEY DIDN'T NEED
THE TO DO ANOTHER ASSESSMENT 
BECAUSE THEY HAD ALREADY DONE 
THE ASSESSMENT.
SO AT THE END OF THE DAY I HAVE 
ONLY TWO QUESTIONS FOR MY 
COLLEAGUES ON THE OTHER SIDE.
AND THESE ARE THE TWO QUESTIONS.
FORGET ABOUT PRESIDENT TRUMP.
FORGET ABOUT PRESIDENT TRUMP.
WILL ANY ONE OF MY COLLEAGUES ON
THE OTHER SIDE SAY THAT IT IS AN
ABUSE OF POWER TO CONDITION AID,
TO CONDITION AID ON OFFICIAL 
ACTS?
FORGET ABOUT PRESIDENT TRUMP.
FORGET ABOUT PRESIDENT TRUMP.
IS ANY ONE OF MY COLLEAGUES 
WILLING TO SAY THAT IT IS EVER 
OKAY FOR A PRESIDENT OF THE 
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA TO 
INVITE FOREIGN INTERFERENCE IN 
OUR ELECTIONS?
NOT A SINGLE ONE OF YOU HAS SAID
THAT SO FAR.
>> I'LL SAY IT.
>> I'LL YIELD TO MY COLLEAGUE 
FROM TEXAS.
>> THANK YOU.
>> I WOULD GLAD TO ANSWERED.
>> SHE HAS -- 
>> I WANT TO BREAK THIS DOWN.
>> GENTLELADY HAS THE TIME.
MEMBERS KNOW PERFECTLY WELL THAT
IT IS OUT OF ORDER TO INTERRUPT 
MEMBERS WHO HAVE THE TIME.
GENTLELADY -- 
>> MAY I ASK YOU A QUESTION.
>> GENTLELADY HAS YIELDED TO 
WHOM?
MISS ESCOBAR HAS THE TIME.
>> THANK YOU.
I WANT TO BREAK THIS DOWN IN 
SIMPLE TERMS FOR THE AMERICAN 
PUBLIC BECAUSE OUR REPUBLICAN 
COLLEAGUES ARE WORKING OVERTIME 
TO TRY TO CONVINCE US THAT WE 
DIDN'T SEE WHAT WE SAW WITH OUR 
OWN EYES AND WE DIDN'T HEAR WHAT
WE HEARD WITH OUR OWN EARS.
LET'S BRING IT DOWN TO AN 
EXAMPLE THAT WAS USED DURING THE
HEARING.
IF A GOVERNOR, IF A COMMUNITY 
SUFFERS A NATURAL DISASTER AND 
THE GOVERNOR OF THE STATE HAS 
AID THAT WILL HELP THAT 
COMMUNITY, BUT CALLS THE MAYOR 
OF YOUR COMMUNITY AND SAYS I 
WANT YOU TO DO ME A FAVOR, 
THOUGH.
AND CONDITIONS WITH GIVING THE 
AID TO THE COMMUNITY ON THE 
POLICE CHIEF SMEARING HIS 
POLITICAL OPPONENT, HAS THERE 
BEEN A CRIME?
THE ANSWER IS YES.
AND THAT GOVERNOR WOULD GO TO 
JAIL.
IF THAT GOVERNOR LATER RELEASES 
THE AID AFTER HE GOT CAUGHT, IT 
DOESN'T MATTER.
HE STILL COMMITTED THE CRIME.
FURTHERMORE, IF THAT GOVERNOR 
SAYS DURING THE INVESTIGATION, 
I'M GOING TO DEFY THE SUBPOENAS,
WE'RE GOING TO FIGHT THE 
SUBPOENAS, GUESS WHAT WOULD 
HAPPEN TO THAT GOVERNOR?
HE'S COMMITTED A CRIME.
HE WOULD GO TO JAIL.
IF THE GOVERNOR THEN TRIED TO 
COVER UP HIS WRONGDOING, COVER 
IT UP SO THAT HIS PEOPLE, HIS 
CONSTITUENTS COULDN'T SEE HIS 
WRONGDOING, WHAT WOULD HAPPEN TO
THAT GOVERNOR?
DID HE COMMIT A CRIME?
YES.
HE WOULD GO TO JAIL.
SO AS WILDLY AS THEY ARE TRYING 
THE TO CONVINCE YOU THAT THERE 
WAS NO WRONGDOING, I WANT THE 
AMERICAN PUBLIC TO UNDERSTAND 
WHAT IS GOING ON HERE.
IT'S CLEAR AS DAY.
WE SEEN IT WITH OUR OWN EYES.
WE'VE HEARD WITH IT OUR OWN 
EARS.
FACTS MATTER.
I YIELD BACK.
>> THANK YOU, MISS ESCOBAR.
I WOULD CLOSE WITH THIS SINGLE 
QUESTION IS IT EVER OKAY FOR A 
PRESIDENT TO CONDITION OFFICIAL 
ACTION ON PERSONAL GAIN?
I YIELD BACK.
>> MR. CHAIR?
>> WHO SEEKS RECOGNITION.
FOR WHAT PURPOSE DOES THE 
GENTLEMAN SEEK RECOGNITION.
>> UNANIMOUS CONSENT REQUEST.
I WOULD LIKE TO ASK UNANIMOUS 
CONSENT TO INTRODUCE INTO THE 
RECORD -- 
>> I CAN'T HEAR YOU SIR.
>> I WOULD LIKE THE TO 
INTRODUCE, ASK UNANIMOUS CONSENT
TO INTRODUCE INTHE RECORD THE 
TRANSCRIPT OF THE CALL WHERE THE
PRESIDENT SAYS I WOULD LIKE YOU 
TO DO US A FAVOR.
>> WITHOUT OBJECTION.
THE TRANSCRIPT WILL BE 
INTRODUCED.
THE FULL RECORD WILL BE 
INTRODUCED.
FOR WHAT PURPOSE?
>> STRIKE THE LAST WORD.
>> GENTLEMAN IS RECOGNIZED.
>> THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN.
I WANT TO ADDRESS THE COMMENTS 
THAT THERE ARE DEFINITELY CRIMES
IN THIS SITUATION.
FIRST OF ALL, I BELIEVE DURING 
THE MUELLER INVESTIGATION WENT 
ON NATIONAL TV AND SAID 
SOMETHING TO THE EFFECT OF AN 
INDICTMENT IS COMING.
HE KNEW IT.
AN INDICTMENT IS COMING.
SO I KNOW MR. SWALLOW KNOWS 
CRIMES, HE WAS A PROSECUTOR.
HE ALSO KNOWS THE OBLIGATION 
THAT A PROSECUTOR HAS NOT TO 
BRING A CRIME, NOT TO BRING A 
CHARGE UNLESS THERE'S A 
REASONABLE PROBABILITY OF 
CONVICTION.
I WOULD DIRECT MR. SWALWELL TO 
THE ELEMENTS OF BRIBERY WHOEVER 
BEING A PUBLIC OFFICIAL 
CORRUPTLY DEMANDS OR SEEKS 
PERSONALLY ANYTHING OF VALUE IN 
RETURN FOR BEING INFLUENCED IN 
THE PERFORMANCE OF AN OFFICIAL 
ACT.
THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE'S 
CRIMINAL DIVISION PUBLIC 
INTEGRITY SECTION OPINED 
SEPTEMBER THAT SOMETHING AS 
NEBULOUS OF AN INVESTIGATION 
DOESN'T CONSTITUTE SOMETHING OF 
VALUE UNDER THIS STATUTE.
THEY ALSO, THE OTHER ELEMENT 
THAT'S AT QUESTION HERE AND ONE 
OF THE REASONS WHY WE NEED MORE 
THAN ONE WEEK AS THE COMMITTEE 
OF JURISDICTION TO LOOK INTO 
THIS MATTER IS BECAUSE IF THERE 
ARE CRIMES WE SHOULD BE BRINGING
EXPERTS, WE SHOULD BE BRINGING 
IN TESTIMONY, AND IF THERE IS A 
CRIME I THINK IT'S FAR MORE FAIR
TO CHARGE A -- TO PASS ARTICLES 
OF IMPEACHMENT ON A PRESIDENT 
WHERE THE PRESIDENT CAN DEFEND 
AGAINST SPECIFIC ELEMENTS AS 
OPPOSED TO SOMETHING AS VAGUE AS
ABUSE OF POWER.
MR. SWALWELL, THE OFFICIAL ACT 
THAT YOU TALK ABOUT, UNDER THE 
McCONNELL SUPREME COURT 
McCONNELL DECISION, THAT 
DECISION SAYS SETTING UP A 
MEETING, TALKING TO ANOTHER 
OFFICIAL OR ORGANIZING AN EVENT 
WITHOUT MORE DOES NOT FIT THE 
DEFINITION OF OFFICIAL ACT.
THERE ARE TWO ELEMENTS MISSING 
IN YOUR ANALYSIS.
BUT THAT DOESN'T SURPRISE ME.
BECAUSE THERE WERE NO ELEMENTS 
THAT WERE, THAT THE SPECIAL 
COUNSEL FOUND IN THIS SITUATION.
I THINK THAT IT IS UNFORTUNATE 
WHEN THE GENTLEMAN FROM RHODE 
ISLAND TALKS ABOUT THE PRESIDENT
SENDING MR. GIULIANI TO THE 
UKRAINE TO SMEAR, TO SMEAR VICE 
PRESIDENT BIDEN.
LET'S TALK ABOUT WHAT VICE 
PRESIDENT BIDEN DID.
HIS SON SAT ON A BOARD AND MADE 
AN OUTRAGEOUS AMOUNT OF MONEY 
FOR SOMEONE THE THAT HAD NO 
BACKGROUND IN ENERGY, NO 
BACKGROUND IN THE UKRAINE, WHILE
HIS FATHER WAS THE VICE 
PRESIDENT.
IF THAT IS NOT A FAIR TOPIC FOR 
DISCUSSION IN THE WORLD OF 
POLITICS, I DON'T KNOW WHAT IS.
SMEARING IS TRYING TO CONJURE UP
FALSE INFORMATION OR MAKING A 
VAGUE ARGUMENT BASED ON FALSE 
INFORMATION.
THIS ISN'T SMEARING.
THIS IS SEEKING THE TRUTH ABOUT 
CORRUPTION, NOT A SINGLE MEMBER 
ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE AISLE 
HAS BEEN WILLING TO CONDEMN THE 
CONDUCT OF THE FORMER VICE 
PRESIDENT.
HOW FRUSTRATING IT MUST BE TO BE
PRESIDENT TRUMP AND HAVE YOUR 
SON SPEND OVER A MILLION DOLLARS
ON ATTORNEYS FEES WHEN THE 
SPECIAL COUNSEL IS INVESTIGATING
SOMETHING THAT NEVER HAPPENED 
THE?
THERE WAS NO COLLUSION.
NO SPIRE BETWEEN RUSSIA AND THE 
TRUMP CAMPAIGN.
BUT THERE IS CLEAR EVIDENCE OF 
WRONGDOING BETWEEN HUNTER BIDEN,
THE FORMER VICE PRESIDENT JOE 
BIDEN -- 
>> WOULD THE GENTLEMAN YIELD.
>> NO, I WILL NOT.
AND THE UKRAINE AND THE 
CORPORATION BURISMA.
SO THE IDEA THERE WAS A SMEAR 
GOING ON, LET'S LOOK AT THE 
FACTS.
AND I WOULD YIELD TO MY FRIEND 
FROM ARIZONA MR. BIGGS.
>> LET'S TALK ABOUT WHAT WAS 
GOING ON IN 2017-2018 AID WAS 
GIVEN AND IN 2019 THERE WAS A 
PAUSE PUT ON IT.
A NEW ADMINISTRATION IN THE 
UKRAINE AND THE BENCHMARKS, THE 
ANTI-CORRUPTION BENCHMARKS WERE 
DONE UNDER THE PREVIOUS 
ADMINISTRATION.
THAT WAS TESTIFIED TO IN THIS 
COMMITTEE.
BUT WHAT WE KNOW IS SEVERAL OF 
THE PREVIOUS CORRUPT 
ADMINISTRATORS AND CABINET LEVEL
OFFICIALS INCLUDING SOME 
OLIGARCHS HAD CLOSE RELATIONSHIP
TO ZELENSKY.
THERE WAS CONCERN WHETHER MR. 
ZELENSKY WAS THE REAL DEAL.
THE AID WAS PROSPECTIVE.
U.S. OFFICIALS CONTINUED TO MEET
WITH UKRAINIAN OFFICIALS AND 
DETERMINED ZELENSKY WAS THE REAL
DEAL SO THEY MADE EVERY EFFORT 
TO CONVINCE PRESIDENT TRUMP THAT
THAT WAS THE CASE.
ONCE TWO NEW ANTI-CORRUPTION 
MEASURES WERE RELEASED WITHIN 
TWO DAYS, SO WAS THE FUNDING.
THAT'S WHAT CHANGED.
YIELD BACK.
>> MR. CHAIRMAN, UNANIMOUS 
CONSENT REQUEST -- 
>> FOR WHAT PURPOSE IS THE 
GENTLEMAN FROM CALIFORNIA 
SEEKING RECOGNITION. 
>> UNANIMOUS CONSENT REQUEST FOR
ARTICLE ALL OF ROBERT MUELLER'S 
INDICTMENTS INCLUDING THE 34 
PEOPLE AND THREE COMPANIES THAT 
HE INDICTED IN HIS LENGTHY 
INVESTIGATION.
>> WITHOUT OBJECTION.
>> IN.
I WANT TO SEE IT.
>> THE GENTLEMAN RESERVES AN 
OBJECTION.
HE WANTS TO SEE IT.
THAT'S FAIR.
FOR WHAT PURPOSE?
>> I MOVE TO STRIKE THE LAST 
WORD.
>> WITHOUT OBJECTION.
>> I YIELD TO MY FRIEND AND 
COLLEAGUE FROM FLORIDA.
>> THANK YOU FOR YIELDING.
I GOT TO COME BACK TO THIS 
INTERVIEW WITH YERMAK.
IT'S LIKE THE TREE THAT FELL IN 
THE FOREST THAT NOBODY HEARD 
THAT DEMOLISHED THE DEMOCRATIC 
CASE.
THEY HAVE NO EVIDENCE THAT THE 
UKRAINIANS EVER KNEW THAT THIS 
AID WAS WITHHELD.
SO THEY ARE LITERALLY TRYING TO 
PROSECUTE AN IMPEACHMENT AGAINST
THE PRESIDENT FOR A SHAKE DOWN 
WHEN THE ALLEGED PEOPLE BEING 
SHOOK DOWN ONCE THEY FELT NO 
PRESSURE AND TWO DID NOT EVEN 
KNOW IT WAS HAPPENING.
THEN TIME AND AGAIN YOU HEARD 
THEM IN DEBATE, IN PRESS 
CONFERENCES, AND THE WHOLE 
CIRCUS SHOW GOING ON HERE SAY 
WELL WE GOT THIS TESTIMONY FROM 
GORDON SONDLAND, WE ALL REMEMBER
GORDON.
GORDON SONDLAND WANDERING HIS 
WAY TO AN ESCALATOR WITH THIS 
GUY WHO SPEAKS ENGLISH AS A 
SECOND LANGUAGE AND GORDON SAYS 
WELL MAYBE I SAID SOMETHING TO 
HIM ABOUT THE THIS.
WELL, I MEAN THAT WAS THE WHOLE 
DEAL FOR THEM.
AND THEN, I MEAN, YOU TALK ABOUT
EMBARRASSING.
THE SAME DAY THAT THEY 
INTRODUCED THEIR ARTICLES OF 
IMPEACHMENT THAT WE KNEW THEY 
WOULD INTRODUCE THE MOMENT THEY 
TOOK THE MAJORITY IT COMES OUTER
Mac DENIES THE WHOLE THING.
SHOW ME THE UKRAINIAN THAT WAS 
PRESSURED.
SHOW ME THE UKRAINIAN THAT KNEW 
THAT ANY OF THIS WAS TIED TO ANY
CONDITIONALITY?
THERE'S NO CONDITIONALITY IN THE
CALL SO IT'S QUITE EASY TO 
ANSWER THE GENTLELADY FROM 
PHILADELPHIA QUESTION.
IN THIS CASE THERE'S NO 
CONDITIONALITY.
YOU CAN'T PROVE IT.
YOU HAVE NONE OF OF IT.
AND, FRANKLY, EVEN THE 
UKRAINIANS, EVEN YOUR PURPORTED 
VICTIMS ARE COMING OUT IN THE 
PRESS AND SAYING THEIR THEORY OF
THE CASE IS WRONG, THEIR 
FUNDAMENTAL PREMISE HAS BEEN HE 
REJECTED.
I YIELD TO THE GENTLEMAN FROM 
OHIO.
I YIELD BACK TO THE GENTLEMAN 
FROM PENNSYLVANIA.
>> YES, I YIELD TO MY FRIEND 
FROM OHIO.
>> I THANK THE GENTLEMAN FOR 
YIELDING.
WE GOT A BRAND-NEW PRESIDENT -- 
ZELENSKY RAN ON ANTI-CORRUPTION.
LET'S SEE IF HE'S THE REAL DEAL.
THAT'S WHAT HAPPENED IN THE 55 
DAYS THE AID WAS PAUSD.
WE TALKED ABOUT FIVE CRITICAL 
MEETINGS THAT TOOK PLACE.
FIVE MEETINGS.
THE LAST ONE IS THE MOST 
IMPORTANT BECAUSE YOU HAD A 
DEMOCRAT SENATOR AND A 
REPUBLICAN SENATOR MEET WITH 
PRESIDENT ZELENSKY IN KIEV.
THEY KNEW THE AID HAD BEEN 
PAUSED AT THAT TIME.
THE ISSUE NEVER CAME UP.
BUT WHAT DID COME UP IS BOTH OF 
THESE SENATORS CAME BACK AND 
SAID THIS GUY IS THE REAL DEAL 
WORTH THE RISK, WORTH SENDING 
THE HARD EARNED TAX DOLLARS OF 
THE AMERICAN PEOPLE TO UKRAINE.
THAT IS WHAT HAPPENED.
THE FACTS ARE VERY CLEAR.
YOU CAN MAKE UP ALL THE STUFF 
YOU WANT BUT THE FACTS ARE ON 
THE PRESIDENT'S SIDE.
THEY'VE ALWAYS BEEN ON THE 
PRESIDENT'S SIDE.
DEMOCRATS KEEP SAYING TO GET THE
CALL, TO GET THE MEETING, TO GET
THE MONEY THERE HAD TO BE AN 
ANNOUNCEMENT.
DECEMBER 12th, THERE'S YET TO BE
AN ANNOUNCEMENT FROM UKRAINE 
ABOUT ANY TYPE OF INVESTIGATION 
INTO BURISMA OR THE BIDENS, AND 
IT WON'T HAPPEN IT DIDN'T NEED 
HAPPEN.
THAT WASN'T THE POINT.
THEY GOT THE CALL.
JULY 25th, THEY GOT THE MEETING 
SEPTEMBER 25th AND GOT THE MONEY
SEPTEMBER 11th.
THE OTHER THING I WANT TO POINT 
OUT I DON'T KNOW HOW MANY TIMES 
I'VE HEARD THIS THE DEMOCRATS 
TALK ABOUT THIS, ONE SENTENCE 
THE PRESIDENT SAID IN THE NOW 
FAMOUS CALL TRANSCRIPT.
I WOULD LIKE YOU TO DO US A 
FAVOR THOUGH.
DEMOCRATS DON'T READ THE PLAIN 
LANGUAGE.
YOUR STAR PROFESSOR WITNESS WHO 
WAS HERE LAST WEEK TALKED ABOUT 
THIS BEING THE ROYAL WEED.
SHE READ THE SENTENCE YOU GUYS 
TRIED TO PORTRAY THE SENTENCE.
SHE SAID I WAS I WOULD LIKE YOU 
TO DO ME A FAVOR THOUGH.
IT SAYS I WOULD LIKE YOU TO DO 
US A FAVOR.
GUESS WHAT THE NEXT TWO WORDS 
ARE?
BECAUSE OUR COUNTRY, NOT BECAUSE
I, PRESIDENT DOESN'T SAY I WOULD
LIKE YOU TO DO TO ME A FAVOR 
BECAUSE I'VE BEEN THROUGH A LOT.
HE DOESN'T SAY THAT.
VERY CLEAR I WOULD LIKE YOU TO 
DO US A FAVOR, THOUGH, BECAUSE 
OUR COUNTRY HAS BEEN THROUGH A 
LOT AND THAT'S THE 
UNDERSTATEMENT OF THE YEAR.
HECK, YEAH OUR COUNTRY HAS BEEN 
THROUGH A LOT.
THIS IS THE DAY AFTER BOB 
MUELLER SAT BEFORE THIS 
COMMITTEE AND WE LEARNED THAT 
THERE WAS NOTHING THERE BUT TWO 
YEARS HE PUT OUR COUNTRY THROUGH
ALL KINDS OF TURMOIL BECAUSE OF 
YOU GUYS.
THAT'S WHAT THE PRESIDENT IS 
POINTING OUT BECAUSE AT THE END 
OF THIS PARAGRAPH HE REFERENCES 
BOB MUELLER.
THAT'S WHAT HE'S TALKING ABOUT.
HECK YEAH OUR COUNTRY HAS BEEN 
THROUGH A LOT AND OUR PRESIDENT 
WAS TICKED ABOUT IT AND WANTED 
TO FIND OUT WHAT WAS GOING ON.
THAT'S VERY LEGITIMATE.
THAT'S WORKING ON BEHALF OF THE 
AMERICAN PEOPLE.
AS I SAID LAST NIGHT YOU GUYS 
DON'T RESPECT THE 63 MILLION 
PEOPLE WHO VOTED FOR THIS GUY 
THAT'S WHY THE SPEAKER OF THE 
HOUSE CALLED THE PRESIDENT AN 
IMPOSTER.
THAT'S WHAT IS WRONG.
I WANT YOU TO DO US A FAVOR 
BECAUSE OUR COUNTRY HAS BEEN 
THROUGH A LOT.
I YIELD BACK.
>> FOR WHAT PURPOSE MR. JOHNSON 
SEEKS RECOGNITION?
>> STRIKE THE LAST WORD.
>> THE GENTLEMAN IS RECOGNIZED.
>> I JUST WANT TO SLOW THIS DOWN
AND BE VERY METHODICAL ABOUT 
THIS BECAUSE MOST OF US HERE 
WE'RE ATTORNEYS AND ALSO FINDERS
OF FACT AND SUPPOSED TO 
CAREFULLY AND OBJECTIVELY LOOK 
AT THE CLAIMS.
THERE'S TWO PARTS, ABUSE OF 
POWER AND OBSTRUCTION OF 
JUSTICE.
DEMOCRATS NO THERE'S ZERO DIRECT
EVIDENCE TO SHOW PRESIDENT TRUMP
ENGAGED IN ANY SCHEME OF ANY 
KIND AS ALLEGED IN THE 
RESOLUTION OR THAT HE INTENDED 
IN HIS DEALINGS WITH THE UKRAINE
TO INFLUENCE THE 2020 ELECTION.
NO IMPEACHMENT SHOULD EVER 
PROCEED ON THE BASIS OF HEARSAY 
AND CONJECTURE AND SPECULATION 
THAT WOULDN'T EVEN BE ADMISSIBLE
IN A LOCAL TRAFFIC COURT.
TO MY FRIEND, THERE'S SIMPLY NO 
EVIDENCE OF ANY CONDITION AND I 
GUESS I NEED THE TO REPEAT THE 
FOUR INDISPUTABLE FACTS THAT ARE
IN THIS RECORD, REPETITION IS 
NECESSARY HERE.
FIRST BOTH PRESIDENT TRUMP AND 
ZELENSKY SAY THERE WAS NO 
PRESSURE EXEITHERED.
NUMBER TWO JULY 25th CALL 
TRANSCRIPT SHOWS NO 
CONDITIONALITY BETWEEN AID 
FUNDING AND INVESTIGATION.
NUMBER THREE UKRAINE WAS NOT 
AWARE OF THE AID THAT IT WAS 
BEING DELAYED AND NUMBER FOUR 
THEY NEVER OPENED AN 
INVESTIGATION THEY STILL 
RECEIVED THE AID AND GOT THE 
MEETING.
OUR COLLEAGUES KEEP 
MISREPRESENTING THE FACTS.
NOT ONLY DO THEY MISREPRESENT DO
ME THE FAVOR VERSUS DO US A 
FAVOR ONLY THREE OF THE 17 
WITNESSES CALLED BY CHAIRMAN 
SCHIFF LISTENED IN ON THE CALL.
CONTRARY TO THE ASSERTIONS WE 
HEARD THIS MORNING THEY DIDN'T 
PROVIDE KEY UNCONTROVERTIBLE 
FIRSTHAND TESTIMONY ON WHAT 
HAPPENED TO THE CALL.
ALL THREE TESTIMONIES CONTRA 
DIKTD EACH OTHER.
THE EVIDENCE SHOWS PRESIDENT 
TRUMP HOLDS A DEEP SEATED 
GENUINE AND REASONABLE SWEPTISM 
OF UKRAINE DUE TO ITS HISTORY OF
PERVASIVE CORRUPTION AND HIS 
ADMINISTRATION SOUGHT PROOF THAT
THE NEWLY ELECTED PRESIDENT WAS 
A TRUE REFORMER.
AS HAS BEEN POINTED OUT THE 
PRESIDENT FOUND OUT HE IS A 
SWAMP DRAINER AND THAT'S WHY THE
FUNDS WERE RELEASED.
PRESIDENT TRUMP WANTED TO ASSURE
THE TAXPAYER FUNDED MONEY WOULD 
NOT BE SQUANDERED AS THE THIRD 
MOST CORRUPT NATION IN THE WORLD
BEFORE ZELENSKY AND THE 
DISCUSSIONS THE THEY HAD WERE 
NEVER ABOUT WHAT WILL HAPPEN 
2020 BUT WHAT HAPPENED IN 2016.
THE SECOND PART IS PRESIDENT 
OBSTRUCTED CONGRESS.
HE DID WHAT VIRTUALLY EVERY 
PRESIDENT HAS DONE IN THE MODERN
ERA.
WHAT'S HIS BIG INFRACTION?
HE ASSERTED AN EXECUTIVE 
PRIVILEGE TO QUESTION SUBPOENAS 
ISSUED TO VARIOUS WHITE HOUSE 
WITNESSES.
ON EVERY PREVIOUS OCCASION OF 
THIS ASSERTION IN THE PAST THE 
NATURAL IMPASSE THAT EXISTS 
BETWEEN THE EXECUTIVE AND 
LEGISLATIVE BRANCHES HAS BEEN 
EASILY AND CALMLY RESOLVED 
EITHER BY GOOD FAITH NEGOTIATION
OR A SIMPLE FILING WITH THE 
THIRD BRANCH OF OUR GOVERNMENT 
THE JUDICIAL BRANCH.
LET THE COURTS DECIDE IT.
IN SPITE OF THEIR ALLEGATIONS 
DEMOCRATS KNOW PRESIDENT TRUMP 
HAS LAWFUL CAUSE TO CHALLENGE 
THOSE SUBPOENAS.
IN THIS CASE HOUSE DEMOCRATS ARE
TRYING TO IMPEACH PRESIDENT 
TRUMP SIMPLY FOR SEEKING 
JUDICIAL REVIEW OVER WHETHER THE
DIRECT COMMUNICATIONS BETWEEN 
HIGH RANKING ADVISORS AND THE 
PRESIDENT UNDER THESE 
CIRCUMSTANCES ARE PRIVILEGED OR 
SHOULD BE DISCLOSED.
THAT CASE WOULD BE EXPERIOD 
INDICTED IN THE COURTS AND 
WOULDN'T TAKE THAT LONG.
DEMOCRATS SAID THEY DON'T HAVE 
THAT LONG.
THEY PROMISED THEIR CONSTITUENTS
AN IMPEACHMENT BY CHRISTMAS.
OVER 25 ADMINISTRATION OFFICIALS
THAT TESTIFIED BEFORE OVERSIGHT 
COMMITTEE 20 BEFORE THIS 
COMMITTEE AT THE START OF THE 
IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY THE WHITE 
HOUSE PROVIDE 20,000 DOCUMENTS 
AND QUICKLY DECLASSIFIED AND 
PRODUCED TO EVERYONE THE CALL 
TRANSCRIPT.
DEMOCRATS KNOW THE THIS IS AN 
ABSURD CHARGE ABOUT OBSTRUCTION 
AND THE TRUTH IS IN THE HISTORY 
OF THE REPUBLIC THERE'S NEVER 
BEEN A FRAUDULENT IMPEACHMENT 
PROCESS DEPLOYED AGAINST A 
PRESIDENT LIKE THE ONE BEING 
USED AGAINST DONALD TRUMP.
THEY ARE THE ONES SEEKING TO 
NULLIFY OUR INSTITUTIONAL 
SAFEGUARDS WITH A SHAM.
THEY ARE TRYING TO NULLIFY THE 
VOTES OF THE 63 MILLION 
AMERICANS WHO THE ELECTED 
PRESIDENT TRUMP.
MY COLLEAGUE SHEILA JACKSON LEE 
A LITTLE WHILE AGO QUOTED 
BARBARA JORDAN BUT SHE'S THE ONE
WHO SAID DURING THE WATERGATE, 
DID YOU PROCESS QUADRUPLED.
THEY VIOLATED THAT HERE.
THEY VIOLATED THE RULES.
EVERYBODY IN THE COUNTRY CAN HE 
SITE.
THIS IMPEACHMENT WILL FAIL.
DEMOCRATS WILL PAY A HEAVY 
POLITICAL PRICE FOR IT BUT WHAT 
THE PANDORA'S BOX THEY OPENED 
TODAY WILL DO IRREPARABLE INJURY
TO OUR COUNTRY IN THE YEARS 
AHEAD.
THAT'S WHY WE'RE CONCERNED.
THAT'S WHY FACTS MATTER.
>> GENTLEMAN YIELDS BACK.
MISS GARCIA.
>> I MOVE TO STRIKE THE LAST 
WORD.
>> MR. CHAIRMAN, I'M OPPOSED TO 
THIS AMENDMENT.
IT'S INCREDIBLE TO ME THE OTHER 
SIDE OF THE AISLE HAS NOT SEEN 
THE FACTS AND HAS NOT READ SOME 
OF THE EVIDENCE BEFORE US.
IT IS OBVIOUS TO ME THAT THIS 
PRESIDENT HAS PUT HIS PERSONAL 
INTERESTS ABOVE THIS COUNTRY AND
WITH THAT I'LL YIELD BACK TO THE
GENTLEMAN THE FROM MARYLAND.
>> RHODE ISLAND.
>> RHODE ISLAND.
>> I THANK THE GENTLELADY FOR 
YIELDING.
WE'VE JUST HEARD OUR REPUBLICAN 
COLLEAGUES CLAIM THAT THERE WAS 
NO DEMAND, NO CONDITIONALITY FOR
THE RELEASE OF THIS AID AND IN 
FACT IT WAS MOTIVATED BY THIS 
PRESIDENT'S DEEP DESIRE TO 
FERRET OUT CORRUPTION.
THAT'S LAUGHABLE.
THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED 
STATES HAD TWO PHONE CALLS WITH 
PRESIDENT ZELENSKY.
HE NEVER ONCE EVEN UTTERED THE 
WORD CORRUPTION.
BECAUSE IT WASN'T ABOUT 
CORRUPTION AND THE REASON WE 
KNOW THAT IS THE DEPARTMENT OF 
DEFENSE HAD ALREADY CERTIFIED 
THAT STEPS HAD BEEN TAKEN COMBAT
CORRUPTION BACK ON MAY 23rd, AND
DESPITE THAT CERTIFICATION THAT 
HOLD REMAINED IN PLACE.
IN FACT THE PROFESSIONALS 
TESTIFIED ABOUT THEM TRYING THE 
TO FIGURE OUT HOW IS IT POSSIBLE
IT'S LEGAL TO HOLD THIS AID, 
BECAUSE CERTIFICATION HAPPENED, 
NO BASIS TO HOLD IT OTHER THAN 
THE PRESIDENT ORDERED IT.
IT'S NOT ABOUT CORRUPTION.
IT WAS ABOUT EXTRACTING A 
COMMITMENT TO ANNOUNCE PUBLICLY 
THAT THEY WERE LAUNCHING AN 
INVESTIGATION OF PRESIDENT 
TRUMP'S CHIEF POLITICAL RIVAL, A
SMEAR AGAINST VICE PRESIDENT 
BIDEN.
SO THIS NOTION THAT REALLY WHAT 
HAPPENED THE PRESIDENT JUST 
SATISFIED HIMSELF THAT MR. 
ZELENSKY WAS FOR REAL IS 
NONSENSE AND BETRAYED BY ALL OF 
THE EVIDENCE COLLECTED.
LET ME GIVE YOU SOME OF IT OR 
REMIND YOU OF IT BECAUSE YOU 
DON'T REMEMBER IT.
AMBASSADOR SONDLAND TESTIFIED 
UNDER OATH, MR. GIULIANI'S 
REQUEST WERE A QUID PRO QUO.
FOR ARRANGING A WHITE HOUSE 
VISIT FOR PRESIDENT ZELENSKY.
MR. GIULIANI DEMANDED THAT 
UKRAINE, MR. GIULIANI, BY THE 
WAY, THE PRESIDENT'S COUNSEL, 
MR. GIULIANI DEMANDED UKRAINE 
MAKE A PUBLIC STATEMENT 
ANNOUNCING THE INVESTIGATION OF 
THE 2016 ELECTION, DNC SERVER 
AND BURISMA.
MR. GULL WAS
BURISMA.
HE WAS EXPRESSING THE DESIRE TO 
THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED 
STATES AND WE KNEW THESE 
INVESTIGATIONS WERE IMPORTANT TO
THE PRESIDENT.
ON A CALL, PRESIDENT ZELENSKY 
HIMSELF RECOGNIZED THE 
COLLECTION BETWEEN THE MEETING 
AND THE INVESTIGATIONS.
AND HE SAID, I ALSO WANT TO 
THANK YOU FOR YOUR ICHBTATION TO
VISIT THE UNITED STATES, 
SPECIFICALLY WASHINGTON, D.C.
ON THE OTHER HAND I WANT TO 
ENSURE YOU WE'LL TRY TO BE VERY 
SERIOUS ABOUT THE CASE AND WILL 
WORK ON THE INVESTIGATION.
AND THE PRESIDENT SPOKE IN THAT 
CALL ABOUT THE BIDENS AND 
BURISMA.
THE OMB ULTIMATELY ANNOUNCES 
THAT THE AID WAS WITHHELD IS NO 
EXPLANATION, AND EVERYONE IN THE
ENT JENS COMMUNITY, ALL THE 
NATIONAL SECURITY TEAM, ALL 
RECOMMEND THE RELEASE OF THE 
AID.
THIS WAS AN IMPORTANT ALLY WITH 
THE UNITED STATES FACING A WAR 
WITH THE -- AND WAS IT WAS 
KILLING PEOPLE IN EASTERN 
UKRAINE.
WE WERE A LIFELINE.
THE ONLY PEOPLE WHO BENEFITTED 
FROM THIS SCHEME, PRESIDENT 
TRUMP BECAUSE HE THOUGHT HE WAS 
GOING TO GET AN ANNOUNCEMENT TO 
SPEAR HIS OPPONENT AND VLADIMIR 
PUTIN, THEY WERE TRYING TO 
WEAKEN THE UKRAINIANS.
AND THERE WAS A RECENT ARTICLE 
COME GRESSMAN BASS HELD UP, 
CAPTURED THIS, IT SAID PRESIDENT
ZELENSKY FACING PRESIDENT PUTIN 
ALL ALONE.
SO THIS BENEFITED RUSSIA, 
WEAKENING UKRAINE.
BUT THIS NOTION THAT THE REASON 
THAT THE AID WAS RELEASED 
BECAUSE THE PRESIDENT -- IS 
DEFIED BY ALL OF THE EVIDENCE 
COLLECTED IN A 300-PAGE REPORT 
COLLECTED BY THE INTELLIGENCE 
COMMITTEE.
IT WAS RELEASED BECAUSE THE 
PRESIDENT GOT CAUGHT.
THE WHISTLE-BLOWER FILED THE 
REPORT, A COMPLAINT, ALLEGING AN
ELABORATE SCHEME BY THE 
PRESIDENT.
BETRAYED THE NATIONAL INTEREST 
OF OUR COUNTRY, UNDERMINED OUR 
NATIONAL SECURITY, ADVANCED THE 
PERSONAL, POLITICAL INTERESTS OF
THE PRESIDENT, NOT THE NATIONAL 
INTERESTS OF OUR COUNTRY.
THAT ATTEMPTED TO CORRUPT OUR 
ELECTIONS BY DRGING IN FOREIGN 
INTERFOOENS.
IT'S THE HIGHEST OF HIGH CRIMES 
AND MISDEMEAN OERDS OUR FRAMERS 
SPOKE ABOUT, THIS ABUSE OF 
POWER, USING THE OFFICE OF THE 
PRESIDENCY TO ADVANCE YOUR OWN 
PERSONAL INTERESTS AND UNDERMINE
THE PUBLIC INTERESTS.
AND I'LL YIELD TO MR. CASS KIN 
MY REMAINING. 
>> TRYING TO YIELD.
DOES SHE WISH TO YIELD TO 
MR. RASKIN. 
>> I YIELD. 
>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
JUST TO FLESH OUT THE DETAIL OF 
WHAT THE GENTLEMAN FROM RHODE 
ISLAND, ONE WAS A STATE 
DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL AT THE U.S. 
EMBASSY IN KIEV WHO TESTIFIED 
THERE WAS A QUID PRO QUO.
HE SAW HIM ON THE PHONE WITH 
PRESIDENT TRUMP, AND HE REPORTED
RIGHT AT THAT TIME TO HIM, HE 
SAID THE PRESIDENT DOESN'T GIVE 
A BLANK ABOUT UKRAINE.
HE'S INTERESTED IN THE BIG 
STUFF.
AND WHAT'S THE BIG STUFF?
WHATEVER CAN BENEFIT HIM. 
>> GENTLEMAN YIELDS BACK.
FOR WHAT PURPOSE DOES MR. -- 
SEEK RECOGNITION. 
>> STRIKE THE LAST WORD. 
>> THE GENTLEMAN IS RECOGNIZED. 
>> THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN.
YOU KNOW, LAST NIGHT AND TODAY 
WE'VE HEARD MANY TIMES MY 
COLLEAGUES ON THE OTHER SIDE 
SAYING THE FACTS OF THIS ARE NOT
CONTESTED.
BUT THEY REALLY ARE.
AN EXAMPLE IS ONE JUST POINTED 
OUT AND HIGHLIGHTED JUST A 
MOMENT AGO.
ON THE TELEPHONE CALL, OF THE 17
WITNESSES THAT CAME IN, ONLY 
THREE TULLY LISTENED IN ON THE 
PHONE CALL.
EACH ONE OF THEM HAVE 
CONTRADICTORY TESTIMONY.
SO EVEN THE THREE WITNESSES THAT
HEARD THE CALL CONFLICTED.
AND WHY IS THAT IMPORTANT?
WHY DO I BRING THAT UP?
YEAH, I BRING IT UP BECAUSE OF 
THIS.
MANY OF MY COLLEAGUES IN FACT 
MOST OF MY COLLEAGUES ON THE 
OTHER SIDE OF THE AISLE TAKE 
EVERY INFERENCE IN THE LIGHT 
MOST NEGATIVE TT PRESIDENT OF 
THE UNITED STATES.
THAT'S BECAUSE THERE'S ANI MOUSE
THAT HAS BEEN MANIFEST SINCE THE
DAY AFTER HE WAS ELECTED.
SO HAVING WATCHED THIS 
PROCEDURE, CLOSELY ON THE HEELS 
OF THE OTHER PROCEDURES AND THE 
ATTEMPTS TO IMPEACH THIS 
PRESIDENT, AND INVESTIGATE, I AM
LEFT WONDERING, YOU WANT EVERY 
INFERENCE TO GO AGAINST THE 
PRESIDENT?
WHY SHOULD THE AMERICAN PUBLIC 
GIVE YOU ANY INFERENCE OF 
CREDIBILITY?
THE REALITY IS WHEN MY COLLEAGUE
FROM CALIFORNIA SAID -- WAS 
TALKING ABOUT THE RUSSIA ISSUE, 
NOT A SINGLE AMERICAN WAS 
INDICTED FOR CONSPIRING WITH 
RUSSIA TO INFLUENCE THE 
ELECTIONS, NOT ONE.
HE BELIEVES THERE WAS STILL SOME
COLLUSION WITH THE TRUMP 
CAMPAIGN.
BUT WHAT DO THE FACTS ACTUALLY 
GET TO?
SO WHEN MY COLLEAGUE JUST TALKED
ABOUT THE MONEY WAS RELEASED, 
THE AID WAS RELEASED, AGAIN, HE 
TAKES THIS INFERENCE BASED ON A 
TIMELINE, AND HE'S CITING RANK 
HEARSAY.
A GUY COMES IN AND SAYS, HEY, 
YOU KNOW WHAT?
I OVERHEARD THIS CONVERSATION.
I'M IN A RESTAURANT, WE WERE 
SITTING ON A PATIO ON A 
RESTAURANT, LOTS OF PEOPLE 
AROUND, BUT BOY, I COULD HEAR 
EVERYTHING.
I KNEW WHO IT WAS, WHAT WAS 
SAID.
I WAS SO CONCERNED ABOUT IT, I 
DIDN'T TELL ANYBODY.
I CAME IN ONCE THIS REALLY GOT 
GOING AND REVVED UP.
YOU WANT TO TAKE EVERY INFERENCE
AGAINST THE PRESIDENT.
WHY SHOULD WE GIVE YOU ANY 
INFROENS OF CREDIBILITY?
THE ONLY DIRECT EVIDENCE IN THIS
CASE REMAINS THE SAME AFTER ALL 
THIS TIME.
NO PRESSURE, NO PRESSURE IN THE 
PHONE CALL.
MR. ZELENSKY HAS SAID THAT 
REPEATEDLY.
HE SPENT EIGHT HOURS IN ONE 
PRESS CONFERENCE ALL DAY LONG 
TALKING ABOUT THERE WAS NO 
PRESSURE.
YERMAK SAID THERE WAS NO 
PRESSURE.
ARE THEY LYING?
NO.
BUT WE KNOW THE WHISTLE-BLOWER 
WAS LYING.
WE KNOW THAT MR. SCHIFF WAS 
LYING.
MR. SCHIFF CAME OUT THE DAY 
BEFORE AND SAID EIGHT TIMES, THE
PRESIDENT PUT DIRECT PRESSURE ON
THE UKRAINIANS.
OOPS.
FRANZ SCRIPTS RELEASED, NOT 
TRUE.
THAT WOULD BE THE FACTS BEING 
CONTESTED.
ABSOLUTELY.
WE KNOW THAT THERE WAS NO 
CONDITIONALITY.
EVERYBODY SAID THAT.
EVERYBODY THAT PARTICIPATED, 
EVERYBODY THAT LISTENED.
UKRAINE WAS UNAWARE OF THE HOLD.
SO HOW CAN YOU LEVERAGE THEM?
THEY WERE UNAWARE OF THE HOLD, 
AND THERE WAS NEVER ANY 
INVESTIGATION.
BUT WHAT HAPPENED?
WHAT TRIGGERED IT?
YOU HAVE HIGH RANKING U.S. 
OFFICIALS GOING TO THE UKRAINE, 
MEETING WITH THEM, CONVINCED THE
PRESIDENT.
YOU HAVE THE PRESIDENT OF THE 
UKRAINE SIGNING TWO PIECES OF 
LEGISLATION, REINTS STOOUGS THE 
ANTIKRUPGS TRIBUNAL AND REMOVING
THE IMMUNITY FROM PROSECUTION OF
THE LEGISLATIVE IN UKRAINE.
SIGNIFICANT WORTHY OF CONVINCING
THIS PRESIDENT THAT, YES, 
THEY'RE WORTH A CHANCE.
AND SO WITH THAT, YOU HAVE 
NOTHING.
YOUR CREDIBILITY IS IN TATTERS, 
QUITE FRANKLY.
I YIELD TO MY FRIEND FROM 
COLORADO. 
>> I THANK MY FRIEND FOR 
YIELDING.
I WANT TO ASK MY FRIENDS ON THE 
OTHER SIDE, AMBASSADOR SONDLAND 
IS YOUR STAR WITNESS, REALLY?
YOU'RE BASING AN IMPEACHMENT ON 
AMBASSADOR SONDLAND'S TESTIMONY?
HIS FIRST STATEMENT, HIS FIRST 
DEPOSITION, HE SAID 325 TIMES, I
DON'T REMEMBER, I DON'T KNOW, 
I'M NOT SURE.
325 TIMES.
YOU DON'T THINK WHEN THIS GETS 
OVER TO THE SENATE THAT HE'S 
GOING TO BE IMPEACHED?
ON ALL THE THINGS HE DIDN'T 
REMEMBER?
THEN, THEN HIS TESTIMONY 
IMPEACHED, NOT HIS OFFICE.
I SEE THE SMIRK.
THEN WHAT DOES HE DO?
HE READS AND HE LISTENS TO WHAT 
AMBASSADOR TAYLOR SAYS THAT HE 
KNOWS.
AND WHAT AMBASSADOR YOVANOVITCH 
SAYS THAT HE KNOWS AND ALL THESE
PEOPLE SAY HE KNOWS AND THEN HIS
MEMORY IS REFRESHED.
I YIELD BACK. 
>> GENTLEMAN YIELDS BACK.
FOR WHAT PURPOSES MR. RATCLIFFE 
SEEK RECOGNITION. 
>> MOVE TO STRIKE THE LAST WORD.
>> GENTLEMAN IS RECOGNIZED. 
>> THANK THE CHAIRMAN.
I WANT TO RESPOND TO MY GOOD 
FRIEND, CONGRESSMAN SITLINI'S 
COMMENTS, WHEN HE SAID THAT 
PRESIDENT TRUMP'S DEMAND CAN'T 
BE EXPLAINED BY CORRUPTION 
BECAUSE THE WORD CORRUPTION IS 
NEVER UTTERED ANYWHERE IN THE 
TRANSCRIPT.
THE PROBLEM WITH THAT IS THAT 
THE DEMOCRATS HAVE BUILT THIS 
ENTIRE FAKE IMPEACHMENT SCHEME 
AROUND AN ALLEGED DEMAND.
GUESS WHAT WORD IS NOT ANYWHERE 
IN THE TRANSCRIPT?
DEMAND.
NOWHERE IN THAT TRANSCRIPT DOES 
THE PRESIDENT MAKE A DEMAND.
DO YOU KNOW WHERE THE WORD 
DEMAND CAME FROM?
IT CAME FROM THE BHISEL BLOWER.
THAT'S THE FIRST TIME WE HEARD 
THE WORD DEMAND, WHEN HE 
NOTIFIED THE INSPECTOR GENERAL 
FOR THE INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY.
HE SAID PRESIDENT TRUMP MADE A 
DEMAND.
HE THOUGHT HE COULD DO THAT 
BECAUSE HE THOUGHT NO ONE WOULD 
BE ABLE EVER TO PROVE, BECAUSE 
WHAT PRESIDENT WOULD TAKE THE 
UNPRECEDENTED STEP OF RELEASING 
A TRANSCRIPT WITH A FOREIGN 
LEADER?
THIS PRESIDENT DID.
SOMETHING THAT THE 
WHISTLE-BLOWER NEVER EXPECTED.
PRESIDENT TRUMP, WE KEEP 
HEARING, GOT CAUGHT.
PRESIDENT TRUMP, WE KEEP 
HEARING, IS OBSTRUCTING JUSTICE.
THE PRESIDENT THAT TOOK THE 
UNPRECEDENTED STEP OF RELEASING 
A TRANSCRIPT SO THAT EVERYONE 
COULD SEE THE TRUTH, IS NOT 
OBSTRUCTING CONGRESS.
THE PRESIDENT DIDN'T GET CAUGHT.
THE WHISTLE-BLOWER GOT CAUGHT.
THE WHISTLE-BLOWER MADE FALSE 
STATEMENTS.
THE WHISTLE-BLOWER GOT CAUGHT 
WITH CHAIRMAN SCHIFF.
REMEMBER CHAIRMAN SCHIFF, THE 
PERSON THAT THE DEMOCRATS, 
INSTEAD OF THE HOUSE JUDICIARY 
COMMITTEE, WHICH HAS SPENT A 
FULL WEEK ON THIS, THAT'S NOT 
WHO'S BEEN IN CHARGE.
THE PERSON THEY PUT IN CHARGE 
WAS THE PERSON THAT GOT CAUGHT 
WITH THE WHISTLE-BLOWER.
HAVE YOU SPOKEN DIRECTLY WITH 
THE BHISEL BLOWER?
NO, WE HAVE NOT.
WE'D LIKE TO.
THAT WASN'T TRUE.
THE PERSON THAT SAID HE HAD 
EVIDENCE OF THE FIRST FAKE 
IMPEACHMENT SCAM, COLLUSION WITH
RUSSIA, HAD EVIDENCE OF THAT 
COLLUSION, AND DIDN'T HAVE IT.
THE PERSON WHO IN THE COURSE OF 
THAT READ INTO THE RECORD THE 
STEELE DOSSIER BECAUSE THE 
PEOPLE NEEDED TO KNOW THE TRUTH 
ABOUT WHAT HAPPENED.
BUT WE HEARD ABOUT THE TRUTH OF 
THE STEELE DOSSIER THIS WEEK 
WHEN THE INSPECTOR GENERAL TOLD 
US IT WAS ALL GAR BACHLK, 
RUBBISH, ALL MADE UP, YEAH, THAT
CHAIRMAN SCHIFF.
AND NOW HE GOT CAUGHT, NOT BEING
TRUTHFUL ABOUT A WHISTLE-BLOWER,
WHO AS I TOLD YOU THE OTHER DAY,
DIDN'T TELL THE TRUTH, VERBALLY,
AND IN WRITING.
AND THAT'S IN A TRANSCRIPT.
YOU KNOW WHAT WE DIDN'T GET IN 
THIS ONE-WEEK IMPEACHMENT 
SUMMARY IN THE HOUSE JUDICIARY 
COMMITTEE?
WE DIDN'T GET THAT TRANSCRIPT.
CHAIRMAN SCHIFF DIDN'T SEND THAT
ONE OVER.
ONLY IF YOU WERE ON THE 
INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE HAVE YOU 
SEEN THAT TRANSCRIPT.
I'D SEEN IT.
I'D LIKE EVERYONE TO SO HE IT. 
>> I YIELD. 
>> I WANT TO GO BACK TO WHERE 
MR. BUCK WAS REFERENCING THE 
GENTLEMAN FROM RHODE ISLAND 
WHERE THE GUY THOUGH MENTIONED 
611 TIMES, MR. SONDLAND THE GUY 
WHO PRESUMED THERE WAS A QUID 
PRO FAUX, HAD TO FILE AN ADDEND 
DUM TO HIS DEPOSITION 
APPROXIMATELY HE SAYS AMBASSADOR
TAYLOR RECALLS THAT MR. MORRISON
TOLD AMBASSADOR TAYLOR THAT I 
TOLD MR. MORRISON THAT I 
CONVEYED THIS MESSAGE TO 
MR. YOUR MAC IN CONNECTION WITH 
VICE PRESIDENT'S VISIT AND A 
MEETING WITH PRESIDENT ZELENSKY.
SIX PEOPLE HAVING FOUR 
CONVERSATIONS IN ONE SENTENCE.
YOUR MAC TALKS WITH SONDLAND, 
TALKS WITH TAYLOR, WE GET THE 
DEMOCRATS BELIEVING THAT THERE 
WAS THIS QUID PRO QUO THEY NEED 
TO IMPEACH THE PRESIDENT.
WHAT THEY FORGET IS WHAT 
MR. GATE ZBLA BROUGHT UP, 
SONDLAND TALKS WITH MORRISON, 
TALKS WITH TAYLOR, THIS IS PART 
OF THEIR SCHEME.
TWO DAYS AGO THE GUY WHO STARTED
IT, YOUR MAK, SAYS IT DIDN'T 
HAPPEN.
THAT'S THERE ARE GUY.
HAD TO FILE THE ADDENDUM TO HIS 
TESTIMONY, HAD TO WRITE THIS 
SENTENCE TO CLARIFY.
THIS IS AMAZING.
THIS IS THE CLARIFICATION.
RECALLS THAT MR. MORRISON TOLD I
CON VOOED THIS ON SEPTEMBER 1st 
2019 IN CONNECTION WITH VICE 
PRESIDENT PENCE, YOUR MAK IS THE
KEY HERE AND IT DIDN'T HAPPEN.
HE TOLD US THAT.
"TIME" MAGAZINE JUST REPORTED 
IT.
THE SAME DAY YOU ALL FILED YOUR 
ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT.
HOLY COW, THIS IS WHAT IT COMES 
DOWN TO.
I YIELD BACK. 
>> MR. CHAIRMAN. 
>> GENTLEMAN YIELDS BACK. 
>> I HAVE UNANIMOUS CONSENT. 
>> MOVE TO TRIKE THE LAST WORD. 
>> FOR WHAT PURPOSES SEEK 
RECOGNITION?
>> MR. CHAIRMAN, I MOVE TO 
STRIKE THE LAST WORD. 
>> RECOGNIZED.
>> YOU KNOW, LET ME JUST SAY, 
I'VE BEEN PRETTY SHOCKED AND 
DISAPPOINTED WITH MY COLLEAGUES 
ON THE OTHER SIDE.
THERE HAVE BEEN SO MANY THINGS 
THAT HAVE BEEN SAID
REPORTS THAT THE AID WAS BEING 
HELD, BECAUSE UKRAINE WAS BEING 
COERCED INTO DOING AN 
INVESTIGATION.
AND CONGRESS HAD INITIATED 
CONGRESSIONAL INVESTIGATIONS 
INTO WHY THE AID WAS BEING 
RELEASED.
WE -- YOU KNOW, WE CAN TALK 
ABOUT ALTERNATIVE FACTS ALL DAY 
LONG, BUT THE FACTS ARE REALLY 
PRETTY CLEAR.
THAT THE PRESIDENT ABUSED HIS 
POWER.
THE PRECIOUS POWER OF HIS 
OFFICE, TO COERCE A COUNTRY THAT
WAS DEPENDENT ON US.
A COUNTRY WHOSE FIGHT IN RUSSIAN
AGGRESSION BECAUSE WHEN UKRAINE 
FIGHTS RUSSIAN AGGRESSION 
THEY'RE HELPING US FIGHT RUSSIAN
AGGRESSION AND HE DID IT FOR 
PERSONAL GAIN AND HE SHOULD BE 
HELD ACCOUNTABLE.
I YIELD BACK. 
>> GENTLE LADY YIELDS BACK.
>> MR. CHAIRMAN I HAVE U MAN 
NEWS CONSENT. 
>> WHO?
>> ARIZONA. 
>> RECOGNIZED. 
>> MY FIRST CONSENT REQUEST IS 
THE RECORD OF THE CORRESPONDENCE
AND SUBPOENAS SERVED ON 
EXECUTIVE BRANCH OFFICIALS BY 
CHAIRMAN SCHIFF.
WE HAVE CONCERNS BECAUSE THREE 
OF THOSE SERVED PRIOR TO THE 
PASSAGE OF THE RES. 
>> WE WILL RESERVE THE RIGHT. 
>> I HAVE ANOTHER ONE.
TWO LETTERS SENT BY THE OFFICE 
OF THE VICE PRESIDENT DATED 
OCTOBER 15 AND DECEMBER 11.
THE FIRST IS A LETTER FROM 
SCHIFF, LEGITIMATE OVERSIGHT 
AUTHORITIES.
THE SECOND POINTS OUT AN 
ACCURACY IN CHAIRMAN SCHIFF'S 
REPORT.
AT THE TIME RELEASED -- 
>> ARE THESE PUBLIC 
CORRESPONDENCE?
>> THEY ARE. 
>> WITHOUT OBJECTION.
WHAT PURPOSES MISS ROBY SEEK 
RECOGNITION?
>> I MOVE TO STRIKE THE LAST 
WORD. 
>> RECOGNIZED. 
>> I YIELD TO 
MR. RUSSIAENTHAULER. 
>> I THANK YOU.
I THINK THAT YOU'VE GOT TO 
REMEMBER THAT THE ABUSE OF POWER
IS COMING FROM THE QUID PRO QUO 
CHARGE, WHICH THEN MORE FD INTO 
BRIBERY.
THE PROBLEM IS THAT MY 
COLLEAGUES ACROSS THE AISLE 
CAN'T MAKE OUT A PRIMA FAETSCHA 
CASE, MEANING THE ELEMENTS ARE 
NOT SUPPORTED BY THE FACTS.
LET'S GO BACK AND LOOK AT THE 
FEDERAL STATUTE FOR BRIBERY.
THEY'RE AS FOLLOWS.
WHOEVER BEING A PUBLIC OFFICIAL 
CORRUPTLY DEMANDS OR SEEKS 
PERSONALLY ANYTHING OF VALUE IN 
RETURN FOR BEING INFLUENCED IN 
THE PERFORMANCE OF AN OFFICIAL 
ACT.
AND WE COULD TEAR APART EACH ONE
OF THESE ELEMENTS.
LET ME FOCUS ON CORRUPTLY.
THE PRESIDENT DIDN'T HAVE 
CORRUPT INTENT.
AND THAT'S WHY THE DEMOCRATS 
CANNOT MAKE OUT A PRIMA FAISHA 
CASE.
CONTRARY TO SCHIFF'S PARODY 
VERSION.
R OF THE CALL, THE PRESIDENT 
WASN'T ASKING UKRAINE TO 
QUOTE/UNQUOTE MAKE UP DIRT ABOUT
MY OPPONENT.
THAT QUOTE CAME FROM A PARODY 
FROM CHAIRMAN SCHIFF.
THE PRESIDENT DIDN'T SAY IT IN 
THE PHONE CALL.
FOR WHATEVER REASON THAT IS 
BEING MISSED.
THERE WAS ALSO SIGNIFICANT 
REASON TO BELIEVE THAT THE 
BIDENS WERE INVOLVED IN 
CORRUPTION, AND THERE'S ALSO 
EVIDENCE UKRAINIAN OFFICIALS 
COLLUDED WITH DEMOCRATS IN THE 
2016 DPAN.
THERE'S BEEN A LOT OF TALK ABOUT
THIS BEING A CONSPIRACY THEORY.
IT'S NOT, "THE HILL," 
"POLITICO," "FINANCIAL TIMES," 
ALL REPORTED ON THIS.
IT'S BEING LABELED A CONSPIRACY 
THEORY.
ALSO THE PRESIDENT WAS NOT 
SEEKING TO HELP WITH HIS 2020 
CAMPAIGN.
HE WAS SEEKING ACCOUNTABILITY 
REGARDING UKRAINE/DEMOCRAT 
COLLUSION.
AND ALSO POTENTIAL CORRUPTION IN
THE OBAMA'S DEALINGS WITH THE 
UKRAINIANS AS WELL.
WE HAVE TO REMEMBER TOO WHAT 
PROFESSOR TOURLY SAID.
HE VOTED FOR HILLARY CLINTON.
HE IS NOT A TRUMP SUPPORTER.
HE WAS VERY IMPARTIAL.
HE SAID, TRUMP DOES NOT STATE A 
QUID PRO QUO IF THE CALL.
HE IS USING HIS INFLUENCE TO 
PROMPT THE UKRAINIANS TO 
INVESTIGATE AND TO COOPERATE 
WITH THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT.
IF PRESIDENT TRUMP HONESTABLY 
BELIEVED THERE WAS A CORRUPT 
AGREEMENT WITH HUNTER BIND THAT 
WAS NOT FULLY INVESTIGATED BY 
THE OBAMA ADDVATION, THE REQUEST
FOR AN INVESTIGATION IS NOT 
CORRUPT.
I WAS QUOTING PROFESSOR TURLEY.
I'D ALSO LIKE TO QUOTE THE 
MUELLER REPORT.
AND JUST AN ASIDE, WE HAVE TO 
REMEMBER, MONTHS AGO ROBERT 
MUELLER CAME IN HERE AND SAID 
THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE OF 
COLLUSION, NO EVIDENCE OF 
OBSTRUCTION.
BUT AGAIN WE'RE BACK HERE.
LET ME JUST GO BACK TO THE 
MUELLER REPORT.
THERE WAS DISCUSSION OF 
CORRUPTLY IN THAT REPORT, AS IT 
PERTAINS TO OBSTRUCTION OF 
JUSTICE IT WAS STATED, QUOTE, 
CORRUPTLY MEANS ACTING WITH AN 
IMPROPER MOTIVE OR ON TENT TO 
OBTAIN AN IMPROPER ADVANTAGE FOR
HIMSELF OR SOMEONE ELSE 
INCONSISTENT WITH THE OFFICIAL 
DUTY IN THE RIGHTS OF OTHERS.
BY MUELLER'S OWN STANDARD, THE 
PRESIDENT'S BEHAVIOR IS ENTIRELY
INCONSISTENT WITH THE DEFINITION
OF THE UNDERLYING STATUTE.
I YIELD BACK TO MY FRIEND FROM 
ALABAMA. 
>> I YIELD THE REMAINDER OF MY 
TIME TO THE GENTLEMAN FROM 
TEXAS. 
>> THANK MY FRIEND SO MUCH.
FIRST OF ALL, I WAS ASTOUNDED 
HAVING BEEN A PROSECUTOR, I'VE 
DEFENDED SOME CASES, I'VE BEEN A
JUDGE.
I HAVE SENT A LOT OF PEOPLE TO 
PRISON.
BUT I HAVE NEVER SENT SOMEONE TO
PRISON WHERE THE VICTIM DIDN'T 
KNOW OR FIGURE OUT THAT THEY 
WERE A VICTIM.
THAT'S EXTRAORDINARY TO HEAR, 
THAT YOU CAN COMMIT A CRIME LIKE
BRIBERY OR THEFT OR -- AND THE 
VICTIM NEVER KNOWS, NEVER 
FIGURES OUT THERE'S A VICTIM.
I'VE NEVER SENT ANYBODY TO 
PRISON WHEN THE VICTIM DIDN'T 
KNOW THEY WERE A VICTIM. 
>> THE GENTLEMAN. 
>> YES?
>> MISS ROBY. 
>> I YIELD TO MR. COLLINS. 
>> LET IT GO. 
>> AND ALSO THERE'S PROBABLY 
NOBODY ON THIS COMMITTEE THAT 
HAS FOLLOWED WHAT HAS HAPPENED 
IN UKRAINE MORE THAN I HAVE.
AND THERE'S NO QUESTION, PUTIN 
WANTS THE OLD SOVIET EMPIRE 
BACK.
WHAT HAPPENED WHEN PRESIDENT 
BUSH WAS IN OFFICE, PUTIN HAD 
RUSSIA INVADE GEORGIA.
AND PRESIDENT BUSH REACTED 
STRONGLY, AND HE PUT SANCTIONS 
IN PLACE.
AND SO WHAT HAPPENED WHEN 
PRESIDENT OBAMA TOOK OFFICE AND 
SECRETARY CLINTON WAS IN OFFICE,
THEY WENT OVER THERE WITH A RED 
PLASTIC RESET BUTTON AND THE 
MESSAGE WAS CLEAR TO PUTIN.
LOOK, BUSH OVERREACTED WHEN YOU 
INVADED GEORGIA, SO YOU CAN 
INVADE UKRAINE, AND WE'RE OKAY.
THAT MAY NOT HAVE BEEN WHAT THEY
INTENDPED BUT THAT'S EXACTLY 
WHAT PUTIN HEARD AND THAT'S WHY 
THEY INVADED UKRAINE, CRIMEA, 
AND YOU'RE UPSET AT TRUMP.
FOR HEAVEN SAKE. 
>> GENTLE LADY'S TIME HAS 
EXPIRED.
WHAT PURPOSE DOES MR. RAS -- 
>> MOVE TO STRIKE THE LAST WORD.
>> RECOGNIZED. 
>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
OUR COLLEAGUES REPROFB 
MR. CICILLINE FOR RAISING 
AMBASSADOR SONDLAND WHO WAS 
PRESIDENT TRUMP'S AMBASSADOR TO 
THE EU, WHICH WAS FASCINATING TO
ME BECAUSE THAT'S PRESIDENT 
TRUMP'S PICK.
HE CONTRIBUTED A MILLION DOLLARS
TO THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN.
HE BECAME THE AMBASSADOR TO THE 
EU.
THEY DON'T LIKE HIM NOW BECAUSE 
HE CLARIFIED HIS TESTIMONY TO 
SAY, YES, THERE WAS DEFINITELY A
QUID PRO QUO AT THE HEART OF 
THIS WHOLE THING.
NOW OF COURSE THEY TURN ON THE 
PRESIDENT'S OWN AMBASSADOR.
BUT WE DON'T HAVE TO RELY ON HIS
WORD.
I STARTED TO MENTION THIS 
BEFORE, BECAUSE HE HAD A LUNCH 
WITH DAVID HOLMES WHO WAS THE 
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT 
OFFICIAL, THE U.S. EMBASSY IN 
KIEV, AND THEY WENT OUT TO A 
RESTAURANT, AND AMBASSADOR 
SONDLAND GOT PRESIDENT TRUMP ON 
THE PHONE.
AND AFTERWARD, AND HOLMES COULD 
HEAR THE CONVERSATION.
AND THIS IS ALL UNCONTRADICTED 
BY OTHER WITNESSES WHO WERE 
THERE.
AND ESSENTIALLY AMBASSADOR 
SONDLAND SAID TO HIM THAT, YOU 
KNOW, ZELENSKY LOVES YOUR ASS 
AND YOU'RE GOING TO GET EXACTLY 
WHAT YOU WANT FROM HIM.
AFTERWARDS HOLMES SAYS WHAT IS 
IT WE CAN GET FROM HIM?
WELL, IT'S THE BIG STUFF.
HOLMES SAYS THE BIG STUFF LIKE 
THE WAR?
DEALING WITH RUSSIA?
NO, THE BIG STUFF, WHAT 
PRESIDENT TRUMP CARES ABOUT.
NOW I'M NOT QUOTING VERBATIM 
BECAUSE I DON'T HAVE IT IN 
FRONTAL OF ME.
THE SUBSTANCE IS CLEAR.
WHAT DOES HE CARE ABOUT?
WHAT CAN BENEFIT HIM.
LIKE THE BIDENS.
AND IT'S VERY CLEAR FROM MULE 
 
MOULT APPROXIMATELY WITNESSES 
EXACTLY WHAT HE WANTED TO GET 
FROM PRESIDENT ZELENSKY.
HE WANTED A STATEMENT ON 
TELEVISION THAT UKRAINE WAS 
INVESTIGATING AND WAS GOING TO 
INVESTIGATE VICE PRESIDENT JOE 
BIDEN.
AND HE WANTED A STATEMENT 
CONTRADICTING THE 2016 
UNDERSTANDING BY OUR 
INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE AND BY 
SPECIAL COUNSEL MUELLER THAT 
THERE HAD BEEN A SWEEPING AND 
SYSTEMATIC CAMPAIGN BY RUSSIA TO
INTERFERE AND SAYING IT WAS 
UKRAINE THAT INTERFERED IN OUR 
CAMPAIGN.
THAT'S WHAT HE WANTED.
THAT WAS THE BIG STUFF.
HE DIDN'T CARE ABOUT THE RUSSIAN
WAR ON THE PEOPLE OF UKRAINE.
HE DIDN'T CARE ABOUT CORRUPTION.
THEY INVITE US TO BELIEVE THAT 
DONALD TRUMP IS AN 
ANTICORRUPTION CRUSADER.
WHO WAS SHAKING DOWN PRESIDENT 
ZELENSKY ABOUT CORRUPTION.
WHEN HE DOESN'T RAISE ANY 
CORRUPTION ON THAT CALL EXCEPT 
FOR WHAT HE BELIEVED WAS GOING 
ON WITH THE BIDENS, EXCEPT THAT 
HE REUS TO DOED ANTICORRUPTION 
FUNDING FOR U KROOIN.
HE DOESN'T RAISE IT ANYWHERE 
ELSE THAT WE CAN FIND.
AND WHAT DO YOU KNOW?
YOU PICK UP "THE NEW YORK TIMES"
YESTERDAY, PRESIDENT TRUMP HAD 
TO PAY $2 MILLION TOLL CHARITIES
BECAUSE HE RIPPED OFF HIS OWN 
CHARITY FOR MILLIONS OF DOLLARS.
THIS IS THE ANTICORRUPTION 
CRUSADER THEY WANT US TO BELIEVE
IN, THE GUY WHO HAD TO PAY 
$25 MILLION TO STUDENTS AT THE 
PHONY TRUMP UNIVERSITY, WHICH 
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF NEW YORK
CALLED A CLASSIC BAIT AND SWITCH
OPERATION.
THIS IS THE GUY THEY WANT US TO 
BELIEVE WAS SHAKING DOWN THE 
PRESIDENT OF UKRAINE BECAUSE HE 
HAD SOME SECRET ANTICORRUPTION 
AGENDA THAT ACTUALLY WASN'T 
RELATED TO THE BIDENS, THAT 
WASN'T RELATED TO REHABILITATING
THE TOTALLY DISCREDITED RUSSIAN 
CONSPIRACY THEORY THAT IT WAS 
UKRAINE AND NOT RUSSIA THAT 
INTERFERED IN OUR CAMPAIGN IN 
2016.
COME ON.
GET REAL.
BE SERIOUS.
WE KNOW EXACTLY WHAT HAPPENED 
HERE.
17 WITNESSES.
IT'S UNCONTRADICTED.
THERE'S NO RIVAL STORY, NO RIVAL
STORY AT ALL.
AND OUR COLLEAGUES WILL NOT EVEN
TELL US WHETHER IN THEORY THEY 
THINK IT WOULD BE WRONG FOR THE 
PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES 
TO SHAKE DOWN FOREIGN 
GOVERNMENTS TO COME AND GET 
INVOLVED IN OUR PRESIDENTIAL 
CAMPAIGNS IN ORDER TO HARM THE 
PRESIDENT'S POLITICAL OPPONENTS.
THEY WON'T EVEN TELL NUS 
PRINCIPAL WHETHER THEY THINK 
THAT'S WRONG BECAUSE THEY THINK 
IT'S TOO DANGEROUS AT THAT 
POINT.
WE KNOW THAT THEY DON'T ACCEPT 
THE FACTS.
THEY DON'T ACCEPT THE EVIDENCE.
THEY DON'T LIKE THE FACT THAT 
THE DEPOSITIONS TOOK PLACE ON 
THE BASEMENT.
WITH ARE?
THE FIRST FLOOR?
IF WE FOUND SOME OTHER ROOM 
WOULD THAT BE ALL RIGHT?
THEIR PEOPLE WERE THERE.
I WAS IN THAT ROOM.
THERE WERE DEMOCRATS AND 
REPUBLICANS.
THE DEMOCRATIC COUNSEL GOT AN 
HOUR.
THE REPUBLICAN COUNSEL GOT AN 
HOUR.
IT WAS EVEN ON BOTH SIDES.
ENOUGH OF THESE PHONY PROCESSED 
OBJECTIONS.
LET'S GET BACK TO THE FACTS OF 
WHAT HAPPENED.
THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED 
STATES SHOOK DOWN A FOREIGN 
POWER TO COME GET INVOLVED IN 
OUR ELECTION.
THAT'S WRONG.
I YIELD BACK. 
>> MR. CHAIRMAN, DOWN HERE.
>> WHAT PURPOSE DOES THE 
GENTLEMAN SEEK RECOGNITION. 
>> MOVE TO STRIKE THE LAST WORD.
>> NOTED.
THE GENTLEMAN -- ARMSTRONG 
RECOGNIZED.
FOR WHAT PURPOSE?
>> MOVE TO STRIKE THE LAST WORD.
>> THANK YOU.
FIRST I THINK IT BEARS 
MENTIONING THAT THERE'S A LOT 
ABOUT DAVID HOLMES I WOULD SAY, 
BUT WHAT I WOULD SAY FIRST IS 
THAT FOR A GUY WHO HEARD PART OF
ONE-HALF OF A THREE-MINUTE PHONE
CALL HE HAD A 40-MINUTE OPENING 
STATEMENT OPINION AND SONDLAND 
SAID HE NEVER LINKED THEM IN HIS
MIND UNTIL THE TRANSCRIPT 
RELEASED IN AUGUST.
THE DEMOCRATIC REPORT, NOT THE 
REPUBLICAN REPORT, THE 
DEMOCRATIC REPORT DOES NOT 
ESTABLISH ANY LINKAGE BETWEEN 
THE ANNOUNCEMENT OR 
UNDERSTANDING OF INVESTIGATIONS 
FOR HIS PERSONAL POLITICAL 
BENEFIT.
THE ONLY TESTIMONY DEMOCRATS 
RELY ON TO PROVE THAT IS 
AMBASSADOR SONDLAND'S TESTIMONY.
HOWEVER THEY CONVENIENTLY LEAVE 
OUT THE MOST CRUCIAL ASPECT OF 
HIS TESTIMONY, AND THAT IS AFTER
BEING QUESTIONED, HE ONLY 
PRESUMED THE LINKAGE.
IN FACT, HE ADMITTED IN HIS 
PUBLIC TESTIMONY THAT NO ONE IN 
THE WORLD TOLD HIM THERE WAS ANY
LINKAGE.
BUT THIS IS THE BASIS FOR THE 
DEMOCRATIC'S ARTICLE ONE.
I WANT TO GO TO A BROADER REASON
OF WHY WE SHOULD ACCEPT 
MR. JORDAN'S AMENDMENT.
A DEMOCRATIC SENATOR SAID NEVER 
IN MY VIEW HAD AMERICA BEEN LED 
BY SUCH A DANGEROUS HEAD OF 
STATE.
HE BEMOANED THAT AMERICA WAS 
MISLED BY A RECKLESS AND 
ARROGANT PRESIDENT.
THAT WAS SENATOR DESCRIBING 
GEORGE P BUSH.
RONALD REAGAN WAS ACCUSED FOR 
PUSHING A GROWTH-BASED AGENDA.
FOR COMMITTING TROOPS TO LEBANON
OR TURNING BACK THE SAND NIFTAS 
IN NICARAGUA.
CLINTON WAS ACCUSED OF A 
FUND-RAISING, AIDS GETTING SWEET
HEARD APPOINTMENTS, USE OF THE 
FBI TO DIG UP DIRT ON POLITICAL 
EMPLOYEES, WACO AND A SWEDISH 
SLUSH FUND.
GEORGE W. BUSH WAS ACCUSED FOR 
DOMESTIC SPYING AND ENERGY TASK 
FORCE CONTROVERSY, PRESIDENTIAL 
RECORDS ACT, STEEL TARIFFS, THE 
IRAQ WAR AND NSA OVER RAECH.
OBAMA'S POLITICALLY MOTIVATING 
CHARITABLE GROUPS, FAST AND 
FURIOUS, CHECKING RECORDS ON AP 
JOURNALISTS, THE SEIZURE OF 
PRIVATE PROPERTY UNDER THE GUYS 
OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION.
THE PROBLEM WE'RE RUNNING INTO 
WHICH IS GOING TO LAST FAR 
LONGER THAN TODAY AND FAR LONGER
THAT NOT THIS CONGRESS IS THIS 
WILL BECOME THE NEW NORMAL.
EVERY ONE OF THOSE THINGS HAVE 
REPORTS, THEY PROBABLY HAD 
ELECTION CONSEQUENCES, THERE 
WERE HEARINGS HELD.
THEY DIDN'T HAVE A NEBULOUS AM 
BIG WOWS CHARGE OF ABUSE OF 
POWER.
IF YOU CANNOT PROVE AN 
UNDERLYING CRIME, YOU DO NOT GET
TO USE ALL OF THE EVIDENCE.
THIS WILL CONTINUE, MOVE 
FORWARD, IN THE HISTORY OF OUR 
COUNTRIES, THE PARTY WHO IS NOT 
IN THE WHITE HOUSE, HAS ACCUSED 
THE WHITE HOUSE OF ABUSE OF 
POWER.
IT STARTED 200 YEARS AGO.
IT WILL CONTINUE INTO THE 
FUTURE.
EXCEPT NOW CONGRATULATIONS, IT 
WILL BE IMPEACHMENT EVERY SINGLE
TIME ONE PARTY CONTROLS THE 
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES AND THE
OTHER PARTY IS IN THE WHITE 
HOUSE.
WITH THAT I YIELD TO MY FRIEND 
FROM LOUISIANA. 
>> I THANK MY FRIEND.
I WANT TO POINT OUT, WE ARE 
TALKING ABOUT AND HAVE BEEN FOR 
THE LAST TWO HOURS THIS 
AMENDMENT THAT MR. JORDAN 
BROUGHT.
HE WANTS TO STRIKE ARTICLE ONE 
OF THE RESOLUTION BECAUSE IT 
ISN'T WORTH THE PAPER IT'S ON.
ARTICLE TWO SECTION FOUR IS WHAT
GIVES US THE STANDARD FOR 
IMPEACHMENT.
YOU'VE GOT TO HAVE TREASON, 
BRIBERY.
YOU GUYS HAVE DEFAULT THE TO 
THIS ABUSE OF POWER.
IT'S NOT CRIMINAL, NOT A HIGH 
CRIME.
THERE IS ONE PROBLEM THAT 
EVERYBODY -- TO SUMMARIZE THIS, 
IF YOU'RE GETTING LOST IN THE 
ARGUE UCHLTS AT HOME, HERE'S 
WHAT IT COMES DOWN TO.
IN THE 243-YEAR HISTORY, THERE'S
TWO PREVIOUS PRESIDENTS 
IMPEACHED, ANDREW JOHNSON AND 
BILL CLINTON.
IN BOTH OF THOSE AND IN THE 
LENGTHY NIXON INVESTIGATION 
EVIDENCE CLEARLY ESTABLISHED 
THAT SPECIFIC CRIMINAL ACTS WERE
COMMITTED.
EVIDENCE CLEARLY ESTABLISHED 
THAT SPECIFIC CRIMINAL ACTS WERE
COMMITTED.
THESE GUYS DON'T HAVE THAT HERE.
THEY KNOW IT.
YOU KNOW IT.
IT'S NOT ON PAPER IN THE 
RESOLUTION IN ARTICLE ONE OR 
TWO.
IT'S NOTHING THAT'S BEEN SAID 
HERE IN THE LAST TWO HOURS.
THESE FACTS DON'T CHANGE.
THIS IS A COMPLETELY 
UNPRECEDENTED, SINGLE-PARTY 
IMPEACHMENT CHARADE, AND 
EVERYBODY AT HOME CAN SEE THAT 
CLEARLY.
THESE THINGS DON'T CHANGE AND 
THEY WON'T.
I YIELD BACK TO MY FRIEND. 
>> ARMSTRONG. 
>> ARMSTRONG. 
>> YIELD TO MY FRIEND FROM 
FLORIDA. 
>> I THANK THE GENTLEMAN FOR 
YIELDING.
NO EVIDENCE, QUOTE, WHEN TIME 
ASKED YERMAK IF HE FELT THERE 
WAS A CONNECTION BETWEEN U.S. 
MILITARY AID AND THE REQUEST FOR
INVESTIGATIONS, YERMAK WAS 
ADAMANT, WE NEVER HAD THAT 
FEELING, DID NOT HAVE THE 
FEELING THIS AID WAS CONNECTED 
TO ANY ONE SPECIFIC ISSUE.
I SEEK UNANIMOUS CONSENT TO 
ENTERED THIS "TIME" MAGAZINE 
ARTICLE. 
>> THAT OBJECTION, IT WILL BE 
THE ARTICLE WILL BE ENTERED.
FOR WHAT PURPOSES MR. COHEN SEEK
RECOGNITION?
>> TRIKE THE LAST WORD. 
>> GENTLEMAN IS RECOGNIZED. 
>> THANK YOU, SIR.
I TOOK THEATER AND DRAMA WHEN I 
WAS IN COLLEGE, ONE COURSE, AND 
I WAS TOLD THE FIRST THING YOU 
HAVE TO DO IS HAVE THE WILLING 
SUSPENSION OF DISBELIEF.
THE REPUBLICANS OBVIOUSLY TOOK 
THAT COURSE OVER AND OVER AND 
OVER AGAIN.
AND THEY DON'T -- I MEAN THEY'RE
THE FIFTH AVENUE CROWD.
THEY'VE TALKED ABOUT SONDLAND.
THAT'S THE MAN THE PRESIDENT 
APPOINTED AS HIS AMBASSADOR TO 
THE EU.
THAT'S THE MAN HE SAID WAS A 
GREAT GUY.
THAT'S THE MAN WHO'S STILL 
EMPLOYED.
AND SONDLAND SAID THEY WERE ALL 
IN THE LOOP.
POMPEO, GIULIANI, MULVANEY, 
BOLTON, THEY WERE ALL IN THE 
LOOP.
AND IT WAS ABOUT THE QUID PRO 
QUO.
IT WAS ABOUT HAVING AN 
INVESTIGATION ANNOUNCED ON CNN.
AND THEN YOU'LL GET THE MILITARY
AID.
AND SONDLAND TOLD -- AND WARSAW,
ONE OF THE AIDS TO PRESIDENT 
ZELENSKY -- YOU'VE GOT TO 
ANNOUNCE THE INVESTIGATION.
IT WAS A STRONG ARM.
THEY DID IT.
AND WHERE DO WE GET THESE PEOPLE
IN THE LOOP TO TESTIFY?
THEY'VE BEEN ASKED TO TESTIFY?
THE PRESIDENT SAYS NO.
HE WON'T LET THEM TESTIFY.
BECAUSE HE KNOWS THAT IF THEY 
TELL THE TRUTH, IT WILL HURT HIS
CASE, BECAUSE THEY KNOW THAT 
THEY HELD UP THE MILITARY AID.
PRESIDENT ZELENSKY HAS NO 
CHOICE.
HE NEEDS AMERICA TO PROTECT 
HIMSELF FROM THE BIG BEAR, 
RUSSIA.
THEY SAID HE HASN'T SAID THAT HE
FELT PRESSURED.
WELL, A, HE'S AN ACTOR, AND B, 
HE'S A POLITICIAN, AND HE 
DEPENDS ON US.
HE HAS NO CHOICE.
AND SO HE CAN'T SAY THAT.
BUT YOU KNEW IT.
AND HE TOLD PEOPLE.
AND HE KNEW THE AID WAS BEING 
WITHHELD.
THEY KNEW IT ON JULY THE 25th.
THERE WERE COMMUNICATIONS FROM 
THE EMBASSY THAT HAD BEEN 
RELEASED THAT THEY KNEW THE AID 
WAS BEING HELD UP.
THEY KNEW.
THERE WAS NO REASON FOR 
PRESIDENT TRUMP TO TELL SONDLAND
NO QUID PRO QUO, EXCEPT FOR 
SAYING I WANT YOU TO TESTIFY 
THAT I TOLD YOU THIS BECAUSE HE 
KNEW THAT THE WHISTLE-BLOWER HAD
COME OUT AND BLOWN THEIR COVER.
AND HE KNEW THAT WAS JIG WAS UP.
HE NEEDED TO FIND A WAY TO SAY 
SOMETHING THAT WOULD BE IN THE 
RECORD AND SONDLAND REMEMBERED 
IT.
THEY TALK ABOUT THE THREE 
PROFESSORS, THREE OF THE MOST 
RESPECTED PROFESSORS IN AMERICA,
ALL OF WHOM CAME IN HERE AND 
SAID THIS IS THE MOST 
IMPEACHABLE PRESIDENT, THE ABUSE
OF POWER IS ONE OF THE MOST 
SERIOUS OFFENSES YOU CAN 
IMAGINE, IT'S THE CONSTITUTION, 
LAW OF THE LAND, AND IF IT YOU 
ABUSE YOUR POWER, THAT'S THE 
MOST IMPEACHABLE CRIME YOU CAN 
BE CHARGED WITH.
THEY FORGET THEIR WITNESS 
MR. TURLEY SAID WHAT THE 
PRESIDENT DID WAS WRONG.
HE DIDN'T COME IN AND GIVE A 
CLEAN BILL OF HEALTH TO THE 
PRESIDENT.
HE SAID YOU NEED MORE 
INFORMATION.
YOU NEED MORE PROOF.
BUT YOU CAN'T GET THE PROOF 
BECAUSE THE PRESIDENT WON'T 
ALLOW HIS MEN TO TESTIFYP ONE OF
THEM IS RIGHT IN THE BOOK.
ONE OF THEM IS STILL AT AN 
INTERIM JOB.
THE OTHER WAS RUNNING FOR 
SENATOR.
THEY CAN'T DO IT.
THE PROOF IS THERE.
THIS IS THE MOST ABUSIVE ACT WE 
CAN IMAGINE, TRYING TO INFLUENCE
OUR ELECTIONS WITH FOREIGN 
INTERFERENCE, THAT TAKES POWER 
AWAY FROM THE AMERICAN PEOPLE, 
AND THAT WOULD END OUR COUNTRY 
AS WE KNOW IT, A DEMOCRACY, A 
SHINING CITY ON THE HILL, A 
BEACON OF HOPE TO PEOPLE AROUND 
THE WORLD WHO FOLLOWED OUR 
REVOLUTION TO GIVING PEOPLE THE 
POWER AND NOT KINGS.
THIS IS THE WAY TO REVERT BACK 
TO A KING, A MAN WHO THINKS HE 
CAN DO WHATEVER HE WANTS.
ARTICLE TWO SAYS I CAN DO 
WHATEVER I WANT, I'M PRESIDENT.
THAT'S NOT RIGHT.
WHEN HE SAID I NEED A FAVOR, 
THOUGH, HE WAS TALKING ABOUT 
GETTING DIRT ON THE BIDENS.
HE FEARED JOE BIDEN AS HIS 
PRIMARY POLITICAL RIVAL.
MICHAEL COHEN TOLD US, THE 
PRESIDENT DOESN'T COME OUT AND 
SAY EXACTLY WHAT HE WANTS.
HE SPEAKS IN CODE.
THAT'S THE PRESIDENT'S CODE.
MICHAEL COHEN KNOWS IT.
AND MICHAEL COHEN IS IN PRISON 
NOW.
INDIVIDUAL ONE IS NOT IN PRISON 
BECAUSE INDIVIDUAL ONE COULD NOT
BE INDICTED BECAUSE OF THE 
JUSTICE DEPARTMENT'S POLICIES 
THAT SAY YOU CAN'T INDICT A 
SITTING PRESIDENT.
BUT MICHAEL COHEN, WHO IS IN 
PRISON BECAUSE HE FACILITATED 
THE PAYMENTS TO MISS DANIELS AND
THE PAYMENTS TO MISS McDOOUBL, 
YOU TALK ABOUT ABUSE OF POWER, 
ABUSE OF POWER IS HAVING A 
CHARITABLE FOUNDATION AND TAKING
ADD VAMGZ OF THE CHARITIES AND 
HUESING THE MONEY AND HAVING TO 
PAY A $2 MILLION FINE AND NOT 
BEING ALLOWED TO BE ON A BOARD 
EVER AGAIN BECAUSE YOU DON'T 
HAVE THE CHARACTER TO BE OVER A 
CHARITABLE FOUNDATION.
USE OF POWER IS RIPPING OFF 
PEOPLE AT TRUMP UNIVERSITY AND 
PAYING $25 MILLION.
I YIELD BACK THE BALANCE OF MY 
TIME. 
>> GENTLEMAN YIELDS BACK.
FOR WHAT PURPOSES MR. CLINE SEEK
RECOGNITION. 
>> STRIKE THE LAST WORD. 
>> RECOGNIZED. 
>> I'M NOT GOING TO GO INTO WHY 
I DON'T SEE ANY OF THE REMARKS 
FROM THE GENTLEMAN FROM 
TENNESSEE IN THESE ARTICLES OF 
IMPEACHMENT, BUT I'M 
INCREDULOUS, AS A PROSECUTOR I'M
AMAZED AT WHAT THE MAJORITY ARE 
CALLING FACTS.
THEY KEEP TALKING ABOUT THE 
FACTS AND THE EVIDENCE.
WELL, THEIR EVIDENCE IS IN 
DISPUTE BECAUSE IT'S BASED ON 
HEARSAY OPINION AND SPECKLATION.
THESE ARE NOT FACTS.
THIS IS TESTIMONY ABOUT WHAT 
SOMEBODY THOUGHT OR WHAT 
SOMEBODY CONCLUDED FROM ACTS 
TAKEN BY MEMBERS OF THE 
ADMINISTRATION.
THE CHARGE IS ABUSE OF POWER.
BUT WHAT THE MAJORITY IS REALLY 
UPSET ABOUT IS THE FACT THAT THE
PRESIDENT AND THE ADMINISTRATION
IS EXERCISING ITS POWER UNDER 
THE CONSTITUTION.
IT'S AUTHORIZED POWERS, FOR 
EXAMPLE, THE PRESIDENT'S 
AUTHORITY TO SET FOREIGN POLICY 
AND FIRE, FOR EXAMPLE, AN 
AMBASSADOR IS NOT A SMEAR ON AN 
OFFICIAL.
IT'S THE USE OF ARTICLE TWO, 
SECTION TWO, OF THE 
CONSTITUTION.
THE PRESIDENT IS AUTHORIZED BY 
STATUTE TO PUT A STOP ON THE 
DISTRIBUTION OF FUNDS.
THE PRESIDENT IS INSTRUCTED IN 
THE NDAA TO ASK FOR AND MONITOR 
INVESTIGATIONS INTO CORRUPTION 
IN THE UKRAINE.
WHEN YOU TALK ABOUT DIRECT 
TESTIMONY FROM INDIVIDUALS LIKE 
LIEU TENLT -- YOU HAVE OPINIONS 
AND CONCLUSIONS AFTER THAT.
AND WHEN IT COMES TO ACTUAL 
TESTIMONY THAT HASN'T BEEN 
HEARD, IT JUST SHOWS THAT THE 
MAJORITY REALLY DOESN'T HAVE ANY
INTEREST IN GETTING TO THE 
BOTTOM OF THIS QUESTION, BECAUSE
IF THEY DID CARE ABOUT ACTUALLY 
FINDING OUT FACTS, THEY WOULD BE
CALLING MR. YERMAK BACK INTO 
THIS COMMITTEE.
THEY WOULD BE DELAYING THIS 
PROCESS.
BECAUSE WHAT WE HAVE HEAD FROM 
THIS ARTICLE IN "TIME" MAGAZINE 
IS INCREDIBLE.
AND EXCULPATORY, AND QUITE 
FRANKLY A BOMBSHELL.
WHEN YOU HAVE SPECIFIC REJECTION
OF CLAIMS MADE BY AMBASSADOR 
SONDLAND THAT HE WAS TOLD THE 
AID TO UKRAINE WOULD NOT BE 
RELEASED UNLESS INVESTIGATIONS 
WERE LAUNCHED, WHY IS HE NOT IN 
HERE?
WHEN ASKED IF HE THOUGHT THERE 
WAS A CONNECTION, HE STATED WE 
NEVER HAD THAT FEELING.
WE HAD A CLEAR UNDERSTANDING 
THAT THE AID HAD BEEN FROZEN.
WE SAID THAT'S BAD.
WHAT'S GOING ON HERE?
WE WERE TOLD THEY WOULD FIGURE 
IT OUT.
AFTER TIME IT WAS UNFROZEN.
WE DIDN'T HAVE THE FEELING IT 
WAS CONNECTED TO ONE SPECIFIC 
ISSUE.
IF YOU IGNORE THIS EVIDENCE AND 
YOU WERE IN A COURT CASE, YOU 
WOULD LOSE YOUR LAW LICENSE FOR 
ALLOWING A CASE TO GO FORWARD 
WITHOUT THIS EXCULPATORY 
EVIDENCE BEING PROVIDED TO THE 
DEFENSE.
IT IS JUST SO RIDICULOUS TO ME 
THAT WE ARE NOT TAKING TIME TO 
LOOK FURTHER INTO THIS.
AND WITH THAT I WANT TO YIELD TO
MR. COLLINS, THE RANKING MEMBER.
>> THANK YOU.
WELL, I APPRECIATE SO MUCH THE 
GENTLEMAN FROM TENNESSEE.
HE JUST ANSWERED A TON OF 
QUESTIONS FOR ME ABOUT HIS 
UNDERSTANDING OF PROPS AND 
THEATRICS BY HIS STUDY OF TRAUMA
IN HIS HIRE EDUCATION.
NOW WE UNDERSTAND A LOT OF 
THINGS.
ALSO WE HAVE ANOTHER THING.
FOLKS WHO STUDY DRAMA ALSO 
UNDERSTAND YOU READ THE LINES, 
READ THE STRANDS SCRIPT.
QUIT SAYING I WANT YOU TO DO ME 
A FAVOR.
IT'S NOT IN THE TRANSCRIPT.
ME AND US GETS CONFUSED WHEN 
YOU'RE TRYING TO MAKE UP FACTS.
THAT'S WHAT'S HAPPENING HERE.
HE PROVED MY POINT WERE WHY 
MR. JORDAN'S ARTICLE AMENDMENT 
IS GOOD.
IT'S WHAT I HAVE SAID ALL ALONG.
THE MOMENT I SAW THEY DECIDED TO
USE ABUSE OF POWER, THEY GAVE 
THEIR WHOLE CONFERENCE CART 
BLAUNCH TO MAKE UP ANYTHING THEY
WANT AND CALL IT ABUSE OF POWER 
BECAUSE THEY DON'T HAVE ANYTHING
ELSE TO GIVE.
THEY DON'T HAVE ACTUAL CLIMB 
THEY CAN ADD UP.
IF THEY DID IT WAS PORTRAYED 
FROM THE GENTLEMAN FROM 
MARYLAND, IF YOU HAD IT YOU 
WOULD PUT IT IN THE ARTICLES.
YOU DIDN'T.
THE LAST THING THAT IS AMAZING 
TO ME AND THE GENTLEMAN FROM 
TENNESSEE SAID IT, HE CALLED 
MR. ZPLELENCY A POLITICIAN AND 
AN ACTOR IN A DERRISIVE WAY, 
IMPLYING POLITICIANS LIE.
WE'VE SEEN THAT THIS MORNING 
EVEN WHEN YOU SEE THEY CAN'T 
READ A TRANSCRIPT.
IT'S AMAZING TO ME HOW WE ARE 
DEGRAGATING MR. ZELENSKY BECAUSE
WE CAN'T MAKE A CASE AGAINST 
THIS PRESIDENT.
THIS IS THE TRAGEDY, THEY'RE 
TRYING TO DEGENERATE BECAUSE 
THEY CAN'T MAKE THE FACT HE FELT
PRESSURED.
THAT IS THE CRITICAL ELEMENT OF 
THEIR CASE. 
>> U NAN MOUSE CONSENT REKWET. 
>> WHO'S SEEKING RECOGNITION FOR
UNANIMOUS REQUEST?
>> I WOULD LIKE TO -- THEY 
CALLED FROM THE IMPEACHMENT OF 
THE PRESIDENT FROM THE LOS 
ANGELES TIMES, THE PHILADELPHIA 
ENQUIRER AND THE BOSTON. 
>> OBJECTION.
I WANT TO READ IT. 
>> I'D LOVE FOR HIM TO READ IT. 
>> IT PROVES THAT I -- 
>> WHO SEEKS RECOGNITION?
DOES ANYONE ELSE SEEK 
RECOGNITION OF THIS AMENDMENT?
FOR WHAT PURPOSE DOES MR. STEUBE
SEEK?
>> MOVE TO STRIKE THE LAST WORD.
>> RECOGNIZED. 
>> THE FACT THAT MEMBERS OF THIS
COMMITTEE WOULD INSINUATE THE 
UKRAINIANS DIED BECAUSE THEY 
DIDN'T GET AID IS RIDICULOUS.
HAVING SERVED IN COMBAT TO BLAME
THAT AID WAS DELAYED A FEW WEEKS
WOULD HAVE SAVED LIEFBD IS IP 
SULTING.
THEY WANT YOU TO BELIEVE THAT 
UKRAINIANS DIED AND IT'S TRUMP'S
FAULT.
MEMBERS ON THE OTHER SIDE IS 
TALKING ABOUT BRIBERY AND LAYING
OUT A CASE AND ELEMENTS FOR 
BRIBERY.
IF IT WAS SO COMPELLING, WHY 
ISN'T IT IN THE ARTICLES OF 
IMPEACHMENT?
IT'S NOT.
THEY DIDN'T INCLUDE IT BECAUSE 
THERE'S NO EVIDENCE FOR THAT 
CHARGE.
THE AID WAS RELEASED.
THE UKRAINIANS DIDN'T START ANY 
INVESTIGATIONS.
THEY ALSO GOT A MEETING WITH 
PRESIDENT TRUMP.
AND PRESIDENT TRUMP DOESN'T HAVE
TO MEET WITH FOREIGN LEADERS.
ARTICLE TWO SECTION FOUR SAYS 
THE PRESIDENT VICE PRESIDENT ALL
OFFICERS SHALL BE -- FROM OFFICE
ON THE IMPEACHMENT FOR 
CONVICTION OF TREASON, BRIBERY, 
HIGH CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS.
WE DO NOT HAVE THAT.
CONGRESS HAS INTERPRETED IT TO 
MEAN HE'S COMMITTED AN ACTUAL 
CRIMINAL ACT.
FOR EXAMPLE NIXON WAS ACCUSED OF
A CRIMINAL ACT, BILL CLINTON, 
THREE.
THESE ARE CRIMES NOT TRIED IN 
THE HOUSE OF REPRESENT ISKZ.
THIS STANDARD PROVIDES CLARITY.
ALTHOUGH CRIM NOOMTY IS NOT 
REQUIRED, CLARITY IS NECESSARY.
THAT COMES FROM A COME PREENSIVE
RECORD.
BUT THROUGHOUT THIS 
INVESTIGATION THE DEMOCRATS 
COULDN'T SEEM TO FIND ANY 
CRIMINAL ACT.
INSTEAD OF RELYING ON HISTORICAL
PRECEDENT, THEY DECIDED TO 
IMPEACH HIM FOR ABUSE OF POWER, 
A VAGUE PHRASE THAT APPEARS 
NOWHERE IN THE CONSTITUTION IN 
DISCUSSIONING IMPEACHMENT.
IT HAS NO BASIS IN THIS FACT OR 
EVIDENCE BUT RATHER IS DEEPLY 
ROOTED IN PERSONAL OPINION AND 
PERCEPTION.
MR. TURLEY ALSO EXPLAINED THAT 
IMPLICATIONS, QUOTE, WE HAVE 
NEVER IMPEACHED A PRESIDENT 
SOLELY ON A NONCRIMINAL ABUSE OF
POWER.
THERE IS GOOD REASON.
ABUSES OF POWER TEND TO BE LESS 
DEFINED AND MORE DEBATABLE AS A 
BASIS FOR IMPEACHMENT THAN SOME 
OF THE CRIMES.
THE PRINCIPAL PROBLEM WITH 
PROVING IS THE LACK OF DIRECT 
EVIDENCE TO COMPEL KEY WITNESS 
TODAY'S TESTIFY.
LET'S TALK ABOUT THE DIRECT 
EVIDENCE.
THERE IS NONE.
THE ONLY PERSON WITH KNOWLEDGE 
IS PRESIDENT ZELENSKY.
WHO WAS CATEGORICALLY DENIED IT.
HEREIN LIES THE FACTS.
LET'S REVIEW.
NEVER IN THE HISTORY OF THE 
UNITED STATES HAS A PRESIDENT 
BEEN IMPEACHED SOLELY ON THE 
ABUSE OF POWER.
EVERY PRESIDENT IMPEACHED WAS 
FOR CRIMINAL ACTS.
DEMOCRATS FOUND NO EVIDENCE OF 
CRIMINAL MISCONDUCT OR EVEN 
PROVE A NONCRIMINAL STANDARD AND
HAVE RELIED ON HEARSAY AND 
CONJECTURE.
THEY'RE TRYING TO PULL THE WOOL 
OVER THE EYES OF THE AMERICANS 
AND THINK THAT WRONGDOING HAS 
OCCURRED BY USING FANCY 
RHETORIC, THEY THINK THEY CAN 
CONVINCE A NATION OF THEIR 
IDEAS.
DON'T FALL FOR IT, AMERICA.
I YIELD THE REMAINDER OF MY TIME
TO MR. JORDAN. 
>> THANK YOU.
IF THE DEMOCRATS ARE GOING TO 
TAKE SOME OF SONDLAND, YOU'VE 
GOT TO TAKE IT ALL.
YOU'RE GOING TO MENTION HIM 611 
TIMES IN YOUR REPORT.
IF YOU'RE GOING TO BUILD YOUR 
CASE AROUND THE GUY WHO 
PRESUMED, PRESUMED THERE WAS A 
QUID PRO QUO, THE GUY WHO HAD TO
FILE AN ADDENDUM TO HIS 
DEPOSITION, IF YOU'RE GOING TO 
DO ALL THAT, YOU CAN'T IGNORE 
THE DIRECT CONVERSATION HE HAD 
WITH THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED
STATES WHERE HE ASKED HIM, 
MR. PRESIDENT, WHAT DO YOU WANT 
FROM UKRAINE?
WHAT DID THE PRESIDENT SAY?
DRG, MR. SONDLAND LEFT THIS OUT 
OF HIS OPENING STATEMENT, 
20-SOME PAGE STATEMENT.
I WANT NOTHING.
I WANT NO QUID PRO QUO.
I WANT HIM TO DO WHAT HE SAID.
I WANT HIM TO DO WHAT HE RAN ON.
YOU CAN'T IGNORE THAT.
THE ONE PIECE THE DIRECT 
EVIDENCE, YOU WANT ALL THIS 
PRESUMPTION, ALL THIS ADDENDUM, 
YOU'RE GOING TO TAKE SOME OF 
SONDLAND, YOU'VE GOT TO TAKE ALL
OF HIM.
I YIELD BACK.
I YIELD TO MR. STEUBE. 
>> I YIELD TO MR. GATEZ. 
>> I HAVE 30 SECONDS.
I HAVE 30 SECONDS LEFT BEFORE 
THEY CUT THE CLOCK. 
>> I YIELD. 
>> I THANK THE GENTLEMAN FOR 
YIELDING.
I THINK THE GENTLEMAN FROM 
TENNESSEE, MR. COHEN'S DEBATE ON
THE LAST SUBJECT SHOWS WHAT 
WE'RE DEALING WITH.
THIS IS NOT A RIFLE SHOT 
IMPEACHMENT WITH FACTS AND 
EVIDENCE.
THIS IS BIRD SHOT.
HE TALKED ABOUT EVERYTHING FROM,
YOU KNOW, THE CAMPAIGN FINANCE 
CONCERNS TO TRUMP UNIVERSITY, 
CONCERNS ABOUT CHARITIES, THIS 
IS LIKE PIN THE TAIL ON YOUR 
FAVORITE IMPEACHMENT THEORY 
BECAUSE THEY DON'T HAVE EVIDENCE
FOR ANY ONE SINGLE THING TO 
IMPEACH THE PRESIDENT FOR.
I YIELD BACK. 
>> GENTLEMAN YIELDS BACK.
FOR WHAT PURPOSES DOES MISS 
McCLINTOCK SEEK RECOGNITION?
>> TO STRIKE THE LAST WORD. 
>> RECOGNIZED. 
>> MR. CHAIRMAN, THE 
CONSTITUTION INTRODUCES THE 
PRESIDENT WITH 15 WORDS, THE 
EXECUTIVES POWER SHALL BE VESTED
IN A PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED 
STATES OF AMERICA.
IT DOES NOT VEST ANY AUTHORITY 
IN LIEUTENANT CLOENLZ AT THE 
NSC, AMBASSADORS OR CABINET 
SECRETARIES.
THE ONLY AUTHORITY THEY EXERCISE
IS DELEGATED TO THEM BY THE 
PRESIDENT.
ALL OF THE CRITICISMS AND 
RESENTMENTS AND PERSONAL AND 
POLITICAL DISAGREEMENTS THAT WE 
HAVE HEARD FROM THOSE OFFICIALS 
ARE COMPLETELY IRRELEVANT.
IT IS DANGEROUS THAT SO MANY 
OFFICIALS IN THE EXECUTIVE 
BRANCH BELIEVE THAT THEY HAVE 
INDEPENDENT AUTHORITY TO 
OVERRIDE PRESIDENTIAL POLICY, 
LEAK CLASSIFIED DOCUMENTS, AND 
ACTIVELY WORK TO UNDERMINE THE 
LAWFUL DISCHARGE OF THE 
PRESIDENT'S DUTIES UNDER ARTICLE
TWO.
IF THEIR JUDGMENT CAN REPLACE 
THAT OF THE PRESIDENT, IT MEANS 
THAT THE PEOPLE OF THE UNITED 
STATES HAVE SIMPLY BEEN REMOVED 
FROM THE EQUATION.
SOMEONE SAID DURING THE 
DISCUSSION TODAY THAT THE 
PRESIDENT HAS ACTUALLY COMMITTED
REAL CRIMES.
THE ARTICLE DOES NOT CHARGE SUCH
CRIMES.
WHY NOT?
BECAUSE THERE'S NO EVIDENCE TO 
SUPPORT THEM.
IF THERE WAS EVIDENCE YOU KNOW 
IN A HEART BEAT THEY WOULD HAVE 
INCLUDED THESE CHARGES, SO IT'S 
OBSERVE THEY DON'T EVEN BELIEVE 
THEIR OWN RHETORIC.
ONE MEMBER SAID, WE ARE NOT 
RESTRICTED AS THE DEPARTMENT OF 
JUSTICE IS.
THINK ABOUT WHAT THAT STATEMENT 
MEANS.
THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE IS 
RESTRICTED BY THE BILL OF 
RIGHTS.
THE BILL OF RIGHTS SETS FORTH 
BASIC PRINCIPALS OF DUE PROCESS,
RIGHT TO CONFRONT YOUR ACCUSER, 
CALL WITNESSES IN YOUR DEFENSE, 
CHARGES HAVE TO BE SUPPORTED BY 
EVIDENCE, NOT GOSS IP, AND YOU 
HAVE THE RIGHT TO APPEAL TO THE 
COURTS TO PROTECT THESE RIGHTS.
YES, IT'S RESTRICTED BY THE BILL
OF RIGHTS.
BUT THE BILL OF RIGHTS RESTRICTS
ALL OF US WHO TAKE THE OATH OF 
OFFICE, AND THAT INCLUDES 
CONGRESS.
WE ARE RESTRICTED TO RESPECT 
THESE RIGHTS ALSO.
ONLY THE MAJORITY IS NOW PLACING
THEMSELVES ABOVE THE STREAM LAW 
OF THE LAND.
THE LAWFUL EXERCISE OF EXECUTIVE
POWER IS SIMPLY NOT AN 
IMPEACHABLE OFFENSE.
THE PRESIDENT IS RESPONSIBLE FOR
FAITHFULLY EXECUTING THE LAWS.
THE FOREIGN CORRUPT PRACTICES 
ACT MAKES IT A CRIME TO OFFER 
SOMETHING OF VALUE TO SECURE 
BUSINESS IN A FOREIGN COUNTRY.
WELL, THE FACTS OF MR. BIDEN'S 
ACTIONS IN THE UKRAINE CERTAINLY
LOOK LIKE THEY CROSSED THAT 
LINE.
DOES THE PRESIDENT HAVE THE 
AUTHORITY TO REQUEST COOPERATION
OF A FOREIGN GOVERNMENT TO 
INVESTIGATE POTENTIALLY CORRUPT 
INTERACTIONS BETWEEN U.S. 
OFFICIALS AND THEIR OWN 
OFFICIALS?
OF COURSE HE DOES.
THE DEMOCRATS IMPUTT THE MOST 
SINISTER MOTIVES.
NOTHING SUGGESTS THAT.
DO A FAVOR BECAUSE OUR COUNTRY 
HAS BEEN THROUGH A LOT AND 
UKRAINE KNOWS A LOT ABOUT IT.
THAT'S THE EXACT QUOTE.
NOW THE NATIONAL DEFENSE 
AUTHORIZATION ACT SPECIFICALLY 
REQUIRES THE ADMINISTRATION TO 
DETERMINE THAT UKRAINE IS TAKING
STEPS TO COMBAT CORRUPTION 
BEFORE AID CAN BE RELEASED.
NOW THE DEMOCRATS HAVE MADE MUCH
OF THE FACT THAT THE SECRETARY 
OF DEFENSE CERTIFIED THIS IN 
MAY.
THEY IGNORE TWO FACTS.
NUMBER ONE, THE SECRETARY OF 
DEFENSE EXERCISES NO AUTHORITY 
INDEPENDENT OF THE PRESIDENT, 
THE BUCK STILL STOPS AT THE 
PRESIDENT'S DESK.
AND TWO, THE PRESIDENT RETAINS 
RESPONSIBILITY TO DETERMINE THAT
THE FINDINGS OF HIS 
ADMINISTRATION REMAIN VALID.
PARTICULARLY CSS IS THE 
INTENTION OF THE NEWLY ELOEKTED 
PRESIDENT AND PARLIAMENT, AND 
LEFT WE FORGET, LAST YEAR THREE 
DEMOCRATIC SENATORS WROTE TO THE
UKRAINIAN GOVERNMENT DEMANDING 
IT INVESTIGATE PRESIDENT TRUMP.
THE DEMOCRATS FOUND NOTHING 
OBJECTIONABLE ABOUT THIS.
THE ONLY DIFFERENCE I SEE IS THE
PRESIDENT HAS THE AUTHORITY AND 
RESPONSIBILITY TO MAKE SUCH A 
REQUEST.
SO WHAT'S AT STAKE HERE?
THE WORST POSSIBLE 
INTERPRETATIONS OF THE 
PRESIDENT'S MOTIVES IN 
DISCHARGING HIS CONSTITUTIONAL 
POWERS ARE BEING IMPOOUTED TO 
HIM BY HIS MOST VIT RIOLLIC 
OPPONENTS.
IT'S CALLED POLITICS.
BUT IF THIS CAN BECOME THE NEW 
STANDARD OF IMPEACHMENT, THAT 
CONGRESS CAN IMPEACH ANY 
PRESIDENT WHOSE MOTE ISKZ HIS 
OPPONENTS QUESTION, IF THIS IS 
ALLOWED TO REPLACE TREASON, 
BRIBERY AND OTHER HIGH CRIMES, 
IS THE STANDARD FOR NULLIFYING A
NATIONAL ELECTION AND 
SUBSTITUTING THE JUDGMENT OF 
CONGRESS INSTEAD OF THE JUDGMENT
OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE, WELL 
THEN NO PRESIDENT CAN MAKE ANY 
DECISION WITHOUT SUBJECTING THE 
NATION TO THE TRAVESTY GOING ON 
TODAY.
THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH WILL BE SUB
ORDINATED TO THE LEDGE LABTIVE 
SERVING AT THE PLEASURE OF 
CONGRESS.
WE'LL HAVE BEEN UTTERLY STROYED.
I YIELD BACK. 
>> FOR WHAT PURPOSE DOES 
MR. COLLINS SEEK RECOGNITION?
>> MOVE TO STRIKE. 
>> RECOGNIZED. 
>> THANK YOU.
AS WE WENT THROUGH THIS 
AMENDMENT WHICH I THINK IS 
PROBABLY ONE OF THE MOST TELLING
AMENDMENTS AND WHEN PUT TO A 
VOTE IS GOING TO TELL A LOT, 
BECAUSE THIS IS THE MORE AMORE 
FOUS AMENDMENT YOU COULD HAVE.
THIS IS ONE EVEN WHEN I WAS 
WAITING FOR THE ANNOUNCEMENT 
FROM THE CHAIRMAN AND OTHERS, I 
WAS THERE AND WAS BEING 
INTERVIEWED.
WHEN I HEARD THIS ONE COME UP 
AND CONFIRM ABUSE OF POWER WAS 
ONE, IT WAS SIMPLY STUNNING.
MY FIRST REACTION HAS RUNG TRUE 
COMPLETELY HERE TODAY, BY MANY 
OF THE MEMBERS ON THE MAJORITY 
INCLUDING THE GENTLEMAN FROM 
TENNESSEE WHO CONFIRMED IT.
ABUSE OF POWER FOR ARTICLES OF 
IMPEACHMENT MEANS ANYTHING THEY 
WANT IT TO MEAN.
THIS IS THE CART BLAUNCH 
COVERAGE.
SAYING WE DON'T HAVE A CASE BUT 
GO OUT AND MAKE IT UP.
JUST GO OUT AND SAY WHAT YOU 
DON'T LIKE.
IF HE DIDN'T SAY SOMETHING NICE 
TO THIS, DO THIS AND THAT'S 
GOING TO COVER YOU.
YOU'LL BE OKAY BECAUSE REMEMBER 
THIS IS ALWAYS ABOUT AN 
ELECTION.
WE CONTINUE TO KNOW THAT BECAUSE
WE KEEP MISQUOTING THE 
TRANSCRIPT.
THEY DON'T HAVE THE FACTS.
THEY KEEP MISQUOTING SAYING DO 
ME A FAVOR.
IT'S SIMPLE.
IT'S US.
OUR COUNTRY.
IF YOU'VE GOT A CASE, MAKE IT.
DON'T MAKE IT UP BECAUSE YOU 
DON'T HAVE IT.
WHAT WE HAVE HERE ALSO IS THIS 
CONTINUAL JUST REPEATED ATTACKS 
ON THE UKRAINIAN PRESIDENT, 
MR. ZELENSKY.
THE REPEATED ATTACKS.
BECAUSE WE'RE EITHER CLAIMING HE
IS A LIAR OR A PUPPET OR AS WAS 
JUST CALLED A POLITICIAN AN 
ACTOR SO DISREGARD HIM.
THAT'S A LOT OF CONCERN FOR THE 
UKRAINIAN PEOPLE.
TAKING ON THEIR VERY PRESIDENT 
THEY'VE JUST ELECTED.
WHEN WE UNDERSTAND AND WE LOOK 
AT THIS, THIS IS HOW IT GETS TO 
THE PROBLEM.
WHEN YOU GET TO A CERTAIN POINT 
AND YOU CAN'T MAKE YOUR CASE, 
WHEN YOU CAN'T FACTUALLY ADD IT 
UP, HAVE LAW SCHOOL PROFESSOR 
TELL YOU IF YOU THINK THIS THEN 
THE INFERENCE IS OKAY, WE'VE 
LOWERED STANDARD WHERE ANYTHING 
CAN BE BROUGHT IN.
THE FACTUAL CASE JUST BEEN MADE 
OVER THE LAST ALMOST THREE HOURS
BY THE MINORITY SIDE HAS LAID 
BARE THE CASE.
THERE IS NONE.
YOU CAN MAKE IT UP.
YOU CAN CALL IT WHATEVER YOU 
WANT.
YOU CAN GO TRY AND SELL THAT TO 
THE AMERICAN PEOPLE, BUT THEY'RE
NOT BUYING IT.
THEY'RE NOT.
AND IT'S GOING TO GET HARDER AND
HARDER FOR MEMBERS TO ACTUALLY 
GO TO THAT WELL NEXT WEEK, GO TO
THAT BALLOT WHERE THEY STICK 
THEIR CARD IN AND VOTE YES ON 
ABUSE OF POWER, AND THEN 
ACTUALLY HAVE TO GO BACK AND 
EXPLAIN THAT.
IT'S EASY IN THIS ROOM.
YOU'VE GOT HELP FROM YOUR 
COLLEAGUES.
BUT WHEN YOU'RE BACK HOME TRYING
TO EXPLAIN WHY YOU'RE GOING TO 
TAKE DOWN A PRESIDENT OVER ABUSE
OF POWER BECAUSE OF SOME OF THE 
ARGUMENTS WE'VE HEARD THIS 
MORNING, THAT'S JUST AMAZING.
THERE IS TRUE SKEPTICISM ABOUT 
WHAT WENT ON IN THE UKRAINE, AND
IT'S DEEPLY ROOTED WITH THIS 
PRESIDENT.
THERE WAS ANOTHER TIME UKRAINE 
AID WAS HELD.
IT'S NOT THE FIRST TIME.
A FOREIGN AID RAN ON THIS.
I'VE SAID THIS BEFORE.
MOST PEOPLE ARE AMAZED THAT HE 
ACTUALLY DOES WHAT HE SAID HE'S 
GOING TO DO.
HE RUNS ON CAMPAIGN THAT OUR 
FOREIGN AID NEEDS TO BE LOOKED 
AT.
THAT'S WHAT OUR PRESIDENT SHOWS 
TRUE LEADERSHIP DOES.
IT WAS FOR 55 DAYS.
OTHER COUNTRY'S AID WAS HELD.
LEBANON WAS HELD.
OTHERS WERE ACTUALLY HELD.
THIS IS NOT NEW.
DO NOT LET THE MAJORITY TRY TO 
CONVINCE THE AMERICAN PEOPLE 
THAT WITHHOLDING AID OR NOT 
LOOKING INTO CORRUPTION IS A NEW
THING.
DON'T LET THEM DO THAT.
IN THE WORDS LIKE I SAID OTHERS,
MAYBE THAT'S WHEN YOU'RE HAVING 
TO PLAY A PART YOU HAVE TO DO 
THAT, MAKE IT UP, AD-LIB.
THAT'S WHAT THEY'RE DOING.
MR. HAIL TESTIFIED, ONE OF THE 
MORE EGROOEJUS ONES, I HAVE A 
FRIEND OF MINE WHO TEXTED ME 
JUST A FEW MINUTES AGO, 
MR. STEUBE BROUGHT THIS UP, ONE 
OF THE THINGS PERPETRATED THIS 
MORNING OUT TO THE AMERICAN 
PEOPLE WAS, THAT PEOPLE LOST 
THEIR LIVES IN UKRAINE OVER THIS
WITHHELD AID.
THIS FRIEND TEXTED ME, LOST 
LIMBS ON HIS OWN BODY IN DEFENSE
OF OUR COUNTRY IN A WAR ZONE.
HE SAYS, DON'T LET THEM GET AWAY
WITH THIS BECAUSE THIS IS A 
FUTURE ACT.
MR. HAIL TESTIFIED TO THIS FACT.
IN FACT HE REPEATED IN HIS 
DEPOSITION, WE WANT TO TALK 
ABOUT FACTS, GO TO THE 
DEPOSITION, THE TRANSCRIPT.
HE SAID THIS HAD NOTHING TO DO 
WITH RUNNING THE ARMY.
IN WAR ZONES PEOPLE GET HURT AND
DIE.
RUSSIA HAS INVADED.
THEY ARE FIGHTING.
IT IS A HOT WAR.
PEOPLE WILL.
BUT TO BLAME THIS CONVERSATION 
BECAUSE YOU'RE TRYING -- YOU 
HAVE SUCH A WEAK CASE, THAT 
YOU'RE GOING TO TRY AND THROW 
THAT IN JUST TO SCARE THE 
AMERICAN PEOPLE, THAT'S NOT 
RIGHT.
MAKE A CASE.
HAVE YOUR FACTS.
PUT IT IN THE ARTICLES.
BUT WHEN YOU CAN'T DO THAT, YOU 
GO IN THE BACK ROOM, YOU START 
WRITING ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT,
AND YOU SAY, UH-OH, WE GOT A 
PROBLEM.
LET'S PUT SOMETHING IN THERE 
THAT ALL OF OUR CONFERENCE CAN 
GET BEHIND BECAUSE THEY DON'T 
LIKE THE PRESIDENT.
I YIELD BACK. 
>> YIELDS BACK.
FOR WHAT PURPOSE DOES MISS DEAN 
SEEK RECOGNITION?
>> MOVE TO STRIKE THE LAST WORD.
>> RECOGNIZED. 
>> I RISE TO SPEAK IN OPPOSITION
TO THIS AMEND MENTD AND TO MY 
COLLEAGUES ON THE OTHER SIDE TO 
REMIND YOU OF THE FACTS THAT 
HAVE BEEN UNCOVERED AND REVIEW 
THEM AND PUT THEM ON THE RECORD 
FOR THE AMERICAN PUBLIC.
FACTS DO MATTER.
NOTICE THE CONTRAST BETWEEN THE 
CONVERSATION ON THIS SIDE OF THE
AISLE AND THAT.
THEY RUN AWAY FROM THE FACTS.
THEY'RE AFRAID TO ADMIT TO 
THEMSELVES OR TO THE AMERICAN 
PUBLIC OF WHAT THE PRESIDENT'S 
BEHAVIOR REALLY ADDS UP TO.
WHEN UKRAINIAN PRESIDENT 
ZELENSKY RACED THE ISSUE OF U.S.
MILITARY ASSISTANCE TO UKRAINE 
DURING THE JULY 25th CALL, 
PRESIDENT TRUMP REPLIED, QUOTE, 
I WOULD LIKE YOU TO DO US A 
FAVOR, THOUGH.
BECAUSE OUR COUNTRY HAS BEEN 
THROUGH A LOT, AND UKRAINE KNOWS
A LOT ABOUT THAT.
END QUOTE.
CONGRESS APPROPRIATED AND AUTHOR
OOIRZED $391 MILLION IN SECURITY
ASSISTANCE TO UKRAINE.
ON MAY 23rd THE DEPARTMENT OF 
DEFENSE CERTIFIED UKRAINE HAD 
COMPLETED THE REQUISITE 
ANTICORRUPTION REFORM ACTIONS TO
QUALIFY FOR ASSISTANCE APROP 
RAETED BY CONGRESS.
THE PRESIDENT HIMSELF DIRECTED 
THE AID TO BE PUT ON HOLD.
IN JULY, UKRAINIAN OFFICIALS 
ASKED PENTAGON STAFF ABOUT THE 
HOLD ON MILITARY ASSISTANCE.
NO LEGITIMATE PUBLIC POLICY OR 
NATIONAL SECURITY RATIONALE 
EXISTS AND THE PRESIDENT HAS NOT
BROUGHT ONE FORWARD FOR 
PRESIDENT TRUMP'S DECISION TO 
WITHHOLD SECURITY ASSISTANCE TO 
UKRAINE.
PROVIDING AID TO UKRAINE IS IN 
THE NATIONAL SECURITY INTEREST 
OF THE UNITED STATES.
WITHHOLDING IT IS IN THE 
PERSONAL POLITICAL INTEREST OF 
THE PRESIDENT AND OF PUTIN.
PRESIDENT TRUMP FAILED TO SAY 
THE WORD CORRUPTION DURING HIS 
APRIL 21st CALL WITH PRESIDENT 
ZELENSKY.
PRESIDENT TRUMP FAILED TO SAY 
THE WORD CORRUPTION DURING HIS 
JULY 25th CALL TO PRESIDENT 
ZELENSKY.
THE AID TO UKRAINE WAS RELEASED 
ONLY AFTER HOUSE COMMITTEES 
ANNOUNCED AN INVESTIGATION INTO 
THE ADMINISTRATION'S DECISION TO
HALT THE AID.
THE PRESIDENT INSTRUCTED ALL 
WITNESSES FROM THE 
ADMINISTRATION NOT TO TESTIFY 
AND WITHHELD ALL RELEVANT 
DOCUMENTS FROM HOUSE 
INVESTIGATORS.
ON OCTOBER 3rd, WHEN ASKED BY A 
REPORTER WHAT HE HOPED PRESIDENT
ZELENSKY WOULD DO FOLLOWING 
THEIR JULY 25th CALL, PRESIDENT 
TRUMP TOLD THE AMERICAN PUBLIC 
AND THE WORLD, WELL, I WOULD 
THINK THAT IF THEY WERE HONEST 
ABOUT IT, THEY'D START A MAJOR 
INVESTIGATION INTO THE BIDENS.
IT'S A VERY SIMPLE ANSWER.
ON OCTOBER 17th AT A PRESS 
BRIEFING IN THE WHITE HOUSE, 
ACTING CHIEF OF STAFF MICK 
MULVANEY SAID PRESIDENT TRUMP 
ABSOLUTELY MENTIONED CORRUPTION 
RELATED TO THE DNC SERVER IN 
CONNECTION WITH THE SECURITY 
ASSISTANCE DURING HIS JULY 25th 
CALL AND THAT SERVER WAS PART 
OF, QUOTE, WHY WE HELD THE MONEY
UP, END QUOTE.
UPON TAKING A QUESTION FROM A 
REPORTER ATTEMPTING TO CLARIFY 
THE ACKNOWLEDGE OF A QUID PRO 
QUO, MULVANEY REPLIED, QUOTE, WE
DO THAT ALL THE TIME WITH 
FOREIGN POLICY, GET OVER IT.
LET ME REMIND YOU OF A STATEMENT
THAT DR. FIONA HILL MADE IN HER 
OPENING STATEMENT IN HER 
EXTRAORDINARY POWERFUL OPENING 
STATEMENT AND CREDIBLE TESTIMONY
BEFORE THIS CONGRESS.
SHE SAID, AND I QUOTE, IF THE 
PRESIDENT OR ANYONE ELSE IMPEDES
OR SUBVERTS THE NATIONAL 
SECURITY OF THE UNITED STATES IN
ORDER TO FURTHER A DOMESTIC 
POLITICAL OR PERSONAL INTEREST, 
THAT IS MORE THAN WORTHY OF YOUR
ATTENTION.
I ASK MY COLLEAGUES RESPECTFULLY
ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THIS DAIS, 
IS IT NOT WORTHY OF OUR 
ATTENTION TO UPHOLD THE 
CONSTITUTION AND ASK THE 
PRESIDENT TO DO THE SAME, OR DO 
THEY THINK IT IS PROPER, DO THEY
THINK IT'S OKAY FOR ANY 
PRESIDENT, NOT JUST THIS ONE, 
BUT FOR ANY PRESIDENT TO INVITE 
FOREIGN INTERFERENCE INTO OUR 
ELECTIONS.
AND WITH THAT I YIELD TO THE 
S
GENTLEMAN FROM RHODE ISLAND. 
>> THERE WAS A LETTER SIGNED BY 
MORE THAN 500 LEGAL SCHOLARS 
ACROSS THE IDEALOGICAL SPECTRUM.
SPEAKING OF THE PRESIDENT'S 
CONDUCT, THEY SAY THE 
PRESIDENT'S CONDUCT IS PRECISELY
THE TYPE OF THAET TO OUR 
DEMOCRACY THAT THE FOUNDERS 
FEARED WHEN THEY INCLUDED THE 
REMEDY OF IMPEACHMENT IN THE 
CONSTITUTION.
CONDUCT NEED NOT BE CRIMINAL TO 
BE IMPEACHABLE.
THE START HERE IS 
CONSTITUTIONAL.
IT DOES NOT DEPEND ON WHAT 
CONGRESS HAS CHOSEN TO 
CRIMINALIZE.
THEY GO ONTO SAY IMPEACHMENT IS 
A REMEDY FOR CONDUCT THAT 
CONDUCTS ELECTIONS.
I YIELD BACK. 
>> THE GENTLE LADY YIELDS BACK.
I RECOGNIZE MYSELF ON THE 
AMENDMENT.
>> I'D LIKE TO CONTINUE TO READ 
BECAUSE THIS AGAIN IS A LETTER 
SIGNED BY MORE THAN 500 
CONSTITUTIONAL SCHOLARS.
I THINK SOME OF THE CONFUSION MY
COLLEAGUES HAVE BEEN STRUGGLING 
WITH IS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN 
IMPEACHABLE OFFENSES AND 
VIOLATIONS OF THE CRIMINAL 
STATUTE.
I HOPE THIS WILL HELP CLARIFY 
THAT.
THEY WRITE, IMPEACHMENT IS A 
REMEDY FOR GRAVE ABUSES OF THE 
PUBLIC TRUST.
IMPEACHMENT IS AN ESPECIALLY 
ESSENTIAL REMEDY FOR CONDUCT 
THAT CORRUPTS ELECTIONS.
THE PRIMARY CHECK ON THE 
PRESIDENT IS POLITICAL.
IF A PRESIDENT BEHAVIORS POORLY 
VOTERS COULD PUNISH HIM OR HER 
AT THE POLLS.
A PRESIDENT WHO CORRUPTS THE 
ELECTION SEEKS TO PLACE HIMSELF 
BEYOND THE REACH OF THIS 
POLITICAL CHECK.
GEORGE MASON DESCRIBED 
IMPEACHABLE OFFENSES AS ATTEMPTS
TO SUBVERT THE CONSTITUTION.
CORRUPTING ELECTIONS SUBVERTS 
THE PROCESS BY WHICH THE PROCESS
MAKES THE PRESIDENT ACCOUNTABLE.
IF THE PRESIDENT CHEATS IN HIS 
EFFORT AT REELECTION, TRUSTING 
THE DEMOCRATIC PROCESS TO SERVE 
AS A CHECK THROUGH THAT ELECTION
IS NO REMEDY AT ALL.
THIS IS WHAT IMPEACHMENT IS FOR.
THEY GO ONTO SAY WHETHER 
PRESIDENT TRUMP'S CONDUCT IS 
CLASSIFIED AS BRIBERY, AS A HIGH
CRIME OR MISDEMEANOR OR BOTH, IT
IS CLEARLY IMPEACHABLE UNDER OUR
CONSTITUTION.
IN ASKING UNANIMOUS CONSENT THAT
THIS LETTER THAT MORE THAN 500 
LEGAL SCHOLARS SIGNED BE ON THE 
RECORD, I HOPE MY COLLEAGUES ON 
THE OTHER SIDE OF THE AISLE WILL
UNDERSTAND THE BASIS OF THIS 
ARTICLE OF IMPEACHMENT, THAT THE
PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES 
VIOLATED THE PUBLIC TRUST, 
UNDERMINED THE NATIONAL SECURITY
OF THE UNITED STATES, BETRAYED 
OUR NATIONAL INTERESTS BY USING 
THE ENORMOUS POWER OF OUR 
OFFICE, NOT TO ADVANCE THE 
PUBLIC GOOD, NOT TO ADVANCE THE 
POLICIES OF THE UNITED STATES 
AND THE INTERESTS OF THE UNITED 
STATES, TO ADVANCE HIS OWN 
PERSONAL POLITICAL BENEFIT.
THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT THE FRAMERS
SPOKE ABOUT.
THAT'S NOT MY CONCLUSION ALONE.
IT WAS THE CONCLUSION OF THE 
SCHOLARS WE HEARD FROM IN HER 
 -- OUR HEARING AND 500 OTHERS.
A PRESIDENT COULD DEFACE A POST 
OFFICE, A MAILBOX.
THAT'S A FEDERAL CRIME.
NO ONE WOULD SUGGEST THE 
PRESIDENT COULD BE IMPEACHED FOR
THAT.
THE FRAMERS ARE TALKING ABOUT 
THE ABUSES OF THE PUBLIC TRUST, 
A VIOLATION OF THE SACRED OATH 
TO HONOR THE INTERESTS OF THE 
AMERICAN PEOPLE AND NOT ADVANCE 
YOUR OWN PERSONAL POLITICAL 
INTERESTS.
THESE SCHOLARS SAY IT BETTER 
THAN I HAVE SO I ASK THAT IT BE 
MADE PART OF THE RECORD. 
>> WITHOUT OBJECTION.
I WOULD SIMPLY POINT OUT A FEW 
THINGS.
NUMBER ONE, THAT THE IMPEACHMENT
OF PRESIDENT NIXON, ALTHOUGH HE 
HAD COMMITTED MANY CRIMES, THE 
COMMITTEE VOTED IMPEACHMENT FOR 
ABUSE OF POWER AND OBSTRUCTION 
OF JUSTICE.
IT DID NOT SPECIFY A SPECIFIC 
CRIME.
I WOULD ALSO POINT OUT THAT THE 
MAJORITY STAFF REPORT OF THE 
JUDICIARY COMMITTEE BACK IN 
1974, NOT JUST NOW AND I BELIEVE
IN 1998 BUT CERTAINLY 1974 
POINTED OUT THAT CRIMES AND 
IMPEACHABLE OFFENSES ARE 
DIFFERENT THINGS.
THERE ARE CRIMES WHICH MAY NOT 
BE IMPEACHABLE.
THERE ARE IMPEACHABLE OFFENSE 
WHICH IS MAY NOT BE CRIMES.
AN IMPEACHABLE OFFENSE, A HIGH 
CRIME AND MISDEMEANOR IS A GRAVE
AND SERIOUS OFFENSE AGAINST THE 
CONSTITUTION, AGAINST THE 
STRUCTURE AND FUNCTION OF 
GOVERNMENT.
I WOULD REFER YOU TO THE 
FEDERALIST PAPERS.
I WOULD ALSO SAY ONE OTHER 
THING.
WE REPEATEDLY HEARD THAT THE 
DEMOCRATS ARE ACCUSING PRESIDENT
ZELENSKY AND MR. YERMAK OF LYING
BECAUSE MR. ZELENSKY SAID HE 
WASN'T PRESSURED.
WELL, OF COURSE HE SAID HE 
WASN'T PRESSURED.
THE UNITED STATES IS A POWERFUL 
NATION ON WHICH HIS NATION IS 
DEPENDENT.
HE HAS A GUN TO HIS HEAD.
THE GUN IS THE FACT THAT THE 
PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, 
UPON WHOM HE DEPENDS FOR 
MILITARY AID, FOR HELP IN MANY 
DIFFERENT WAYS, HAS SHOWN 
HIMSELF WILLING TO WITHHOLD THAT
AID AND TO DO OTHER THINGS BASED
ON WHAT HE SAYS, BASED ON WHAT 
HE SAYS, BASED ON WHETHER HE'S 
WILLING TO PLAY ALONG WITH THE 
PRESIDENT FOR HIS PERSONAL 
POLITICAL GOALS.
SO OF COURSE HE DENIES HE WAS 
PRESSURED, BECAUSE HE KNOWS IF 
HE DIDN'T DENY THAT, THERE MIGHT
BE HEAVY CONSEQUENCES TO PAY AND
YOU CANNOT CREDIT THAT DENIAL 
WITHOUT ANY ASPERSIONS ON HIS 
CHARACTER BUT SIMPLY ON THE FACT
THAT THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED
STATES HOLDS A GUN TO HIS HEAD.
I YIELD BACK.
AND THE QUESTION IS ON THE 
AMENDMENT.
THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE. 
>> AYE. 
>> OPPOSED NO. 
>> NO. 
>> IN THE OPINION OF THE CHAIR, 
THE NOES HAVE IT. 
>> ROLL CALL.
>> MR. NADLER. 
>> NO. 
>> MS. JACKSON LEE VOTES NO.
MR. COHEN VOTES NO.
MR. JOHNSON OF GEORGIA VOTES NO.
MR. DEUTSCHE.
MR. DEUTSCHE VOTES NO.
MS. BASS VOTES NO.
MR. RICHMOND.
MR. JEFFREYS.
MR. JEFFREYS VOTES NO.
MR. SICILY KNEE VOTES NO.
MR. SWALWELL VOTES NO.
MR. RASKIN VOTES NO.
MS. DEMMINGS VOTES NO.
MS. SCANLAN VOTES NO.
MS. McBATH VOTES NO.
MR. STANTON VOTES NO.
MS. DEAN VOTES NO.
MR. POWELL VOTES NO.
MS. ESCOBAR VOTES NO.
MR. COLLINS VOTES AYE.
MR. SENSE BRENER VOTES AYE.
MR. GOMERT VOTES AYE.
MR. RATCLIFFE VOTES YES.
MS. ROBEY VOTES AYE.
MR. GATES.
MR. GATES VOTES AYE.
MR. JOHNSON OF LOUISIANA VOTES 
AYE.
MR. BIGGS VOTES AYE.
MR. McCLINTOCK VOTES AYE.
MS. LESSCO VOTES AYE.
MR. KLEIN VOTES AYE.
MR. ARMSTRONG VOTES YES.
MR. STUBY VOTES YES.
>> ARE THERE ANY MEMBERS WHO 
WISH TO VOTE WHO HAVEN'T VOTED?
THE CLERK WILL REPORT. 
>> MR. RICHMOND, YOU ARE NOT 
RECORDED.
>> NO.
>> MR. RICHMOND VOTES NO.
>> ANY OTHER MEMBERS WHO HAVEN'T
VOTED WHO WISH TO VOTE?
THE CLERK WILL REPORT.
>> MR. CHAIRMAN, THERE ARE 17 
AYES AND 23 NOES.
>> THE AMENDMENT IS NOT AGREED 
TO.
ARE THERE ANY FURTHER AMENDMENTS
TO THE AMENDMENT IN THE NATURE 
OF A SUBSTITUTE?
>> I HAVE AN AMENDMENT AT THE 
DESK. 
>> AMENDMENT TO THE AMENDMENT IN
THE NATURE OF A INSTITUTE TO HR 
S 755 OFFERED BY MR. GATES OF 
FLORIDA.
PAGE THREE, STRIKE LINES 10-11 
AND INSERT THE FOLLOWING, A 
WELL-KNOWN CORRUPT COMPANY 
BURISMA AND ITS CORRUPT HIRING 
OF HUNTER BIDEN AND.
>> THE GENTLEMAN IS RECOGNIZED 
TO EXPLAIN HIS AMENDMENT. 
>> THANK YOU MR. CHAIRMAN.
THIS AMENDMENT STRIKES THE 
REFERENCE TO JOE BIDEN AS THE 
CENTER OF THE PROPOSED 
INVESTIGATION AND REPLACES IT 
WITH BURISMA AND HUNTER BIDEN.
AN ESSENTIAL ELEMENT OF THE 
DEMOCRATS' CASE ON ABUSE OF 
POWER IS THAT THE BIDENS DID 
NOTHING WRONG.
IT CAN ONLY BE AN ABUSE OF POWER
AND NOT A CORRECT USE OF POWER 
IF THE PRESIDENT WAS PURSUING 
SOMETHING UNDER WHICH THERE WAS 
NO REASONABLE BASIS TO ASK A 
QUESTION ABOUT HUNTER BIDEN AND 
BURISMA.
HUNTER BIDEN AND BURISMA, THAT'S
AN INTERESTING STORY AND I THINK
JUST ABOUT EVERY AMERICAN KNOWS 
THERE'S SOMETHING UP WITH THAT.
$86,000 A MONTH, NO EXPERIENCE, 
WORKING FOR SOME FOREIGN 
GOVERNMENT WHILE YOUR DAD IS THE
VICE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED 
STATES.
IS THIS ANYONE WHO BELIEVES THIS
IS OKAY?
I KNOW WE HAVE A FEW OF MY 
DEMOCRATIC COLLEAGUES THAT MIGHT
RUN FOR PRESIDENT ONE DAY.
WOULD YOU LET YOUR VICE 
PRESIDENT HAVE THEIR SON OR 
DAUGHTER OR FAMILY MEMBER OUT 
MOONLIGHTING FOR SOME FOREIGN 
COMPANY?
MAYBE I'LL USE LANGUAGE FAMILIAR
TO THE FOREIGN VICE PRESIDENT.
COME ON, MAN, THIS LOOKS DIRTY 
AS IT IS.
HUNTER BIDEN WAS MAKING MORE 
THAN 500 TIMES MORE THAN A BOARD
MEMBER FOR EXXONMOBIL.
I FOUND THIS VERY EXTENSIVE 
PROFILE IN THE NEW YORKER.
HERE'S WHAT IT SAYS.
HUNTER SAID THAT AT THAT POINT 
HE HAD NOT SLEPT FOR SEVERAL 
DAYS, DRIVING EAST ON INTERSTATE
10 JUST BEYOND PALM SPRINGS HE 
LOST CONTROL OF HIS CAR WHICH 
JUMPED THE MEDIAN AND SKIDDED TO
A STOP ON THE SHOULDER OF THE 
WESTBOUND SIDE.
HE CALLED HERTZ WHICH CAME TO 
COLLECT THE DAMAGED CAR AND GAVE
HIM A SECOND RENTAL.
THE HERTZ RENTAL OFFICER TOLD ME
HE FOUND A CRACK PIPE IN THE CAR
AND A LINE OF WHITE POWDER 
RESIDUE.
HERTZ CALLED THE PRESCOTT POLICE
DEPARTMENT AND OFFICERS FILED A 
NARCOTICS OFFENSE REPORT LISTING
ITEMS SEIZED IN THE CAR, 
INCLUDING A PLASTIC BAG 
CONTAINING A WHITE POWDERY 
SUBSTANCE, A SECRET SERVICE 
BUSINESS CARD, CREDIT CARDS AND 
HUNTER BIDEN'S DRIVER'S LICENSE.
THAT IS WHAT WE WOULD CALL 
EVIDENCE.
I DON'T WANT TO MAKE LIGHT OF 
ANYBODY'S SUBSTANCE ABUSE 
ISSUES.
I KNOW THE PRESIDENT IS WORKING 
REAL HARD TO SOLVE THOSE 
THROUGHOUT THE COUNTRY, BUT IT'S
A LITTLE HARD TO BELIEVE THAT 
BURISMA HIRED HUNTER BIDEN TO 
RESOLVE THEIR INTERNATIONAL 
DISPUTES WHEN HE COULD NOT 
RESOLVE HIS OWN DISPUTE WITH 
HERTZ RENTAL CAR OVER LEAVING 
CCAINE AND A CRACK PIPE IN THE 
CAR.
HE SAID HE NEEDED TO GET AWAY 
AND FORGET SOON AFTER HIS 
ARRIVAL IN L.A.
HE SAID HE ASKED A HOMELESS MAN 
IN PER SHING SQUARE WHERE HE 
COULD BUY CRACK.
HE TOOK HIM TO A NEARBY HOMELESS
ENCAMPMENT WHERE SOMEONE PUT A 
GUN TO HIS HEAD BEFORE REALIZING
HE WAS THE BUYER.
HE RETURNED TO BUY CRACK A FEW 
TIMES THAT WEEK.
IT IS JUST HARD TO BELIEVE THAT 
THIS WAS THE GUY WANDERING 
THROUGH HOMELESS ENCAMPMENTS 
BUYING CRACK THAT WAS WORTH 
$86,000 A MONTH TO BURISMA 
HOLDING.
THAT MIGHT BE ONE OF THE REASONS
WHY WHEN ABC ASKED HUNTER BIDEN 
WOULD HE HAVE GOTTEN THIS JOB IN
THE ABSENCE OF HIS DAD BEING 
VICE PRESIDENT, HE SAID PROBABLY
NOT.
I LOOKED AT THE TESTIMONY OF MR.
KENT.
MR. KENT WAS ONE OF THE 
WITNESSES THEY CALLED ON THE 
FIRST DAY.
HE SAID BURISMA WAS SO DIRTY 
THAT OUR OWN EMBASSY HAD TO PULL
OUT OF A JOINT SPONSORSHIP WITH 
THEM.
WHEN AMBASSADOR YOVANOVITCH WAS 
BEING PREPPED FOR HER SENATE 
CONFIRMATION, THE OBAMA 
ADMINISTRATION WAS SO WORRIED 
ABOUT THE CORRUPTION AROUND 
BURISMA AND HUNTER BIDEN THAT 
HEY HELD SPECIAL PREP MOMENTS TO
TRY TO GET READY FOR THE 
INEVITABLE QUESTIONS ABOUT THIS 
OBVIOUS CORRUPTION THAT THE 
PRESIDENT ASKED ABOUT.
MR. KENT, AGAIN ONE OF THE 
WITNESSES FROM THE FIRST DAY, 
ALSO GAVE TESTIMONY THAT THE 
HEAD OF BURISMA HAD STOLEN $23 
MILLION IN THE U.S. AND THE U.K.
AND THAT HE PAID A BRIBE TO GET 
OFF THE HOOK.
AGAIN, IT'S NOT AS IF BURISMA IS
PULLING OUT NEW PLAYS, THEIR 
PLAYBOOK IS TO DO DIRTY STUFF 
AND THEN GO AND PAY BRIBES AND 
HIRE THE PEOPLE NECESSARY TO 
MAKE THOSE PROBLEMS GO AWAY.
THIS IS WHY THE MINORITY HEARING
ISSUE IS SO IMPORTANT, BY THE 
WAY.
YOU WONDER WHY REPUBLICANS ARE 
SO ANGRY THAT WE DIDN'T HAVE A 
HEARING TO PUT ON OUR OWN 
WITNESSES AND OUR OWN EVIDENCE 
AND IF THEY FEEL SO GOOD ABOUT 
THEIR CASE, WHY DID THAT BLOCK 
OUR ABILITY TO PUT IN EVIDENCE?
BECAUSE WE HAVE THE ABILITY TO 
SHOW THAT BURISMA IS CORRUPT.
WE HAVE THE ABILITY TO SHOW THAT
HUNTER BIDEN IS CORRUPT.
THAT TOTALLY EXCULPATES THE 
PRESIDENT BECAUSE THERE IS NO 
WAY IN THE UNITED STATES OF 
AMERICA THAT HONESTLY PURSUING 
ACTUAL CORRUPTION IS AN 
IMPEACHABLE OFFENSE.
THAT'S WHY I OFFER THE AMENDMENT
AND I ENCOURAGE MY COLLEAGUES TO
VOTE FOR IT. 
>> MR. CHAIRMAN, I WITHDRAW MY 
POINT OF ORDER.
>> MR. CHAIRMAN. 
>> THE GENTLEMAN YIELDS BACK.
FOR WHAT PURPOSE DOES MR. 
JOHNSON SEEK RECOGNITION?
>> I MOVE TO STRIKE THE LAST 
WORD. 
>> THE GENTLEMAN IS RECOGNIZED. 
>> MR. CHAIRMAN, I RISE IN 
OPPOSITION TO THIS AMENDMENT AND
I WOULD SAY THAT THE POT CALLING
THE KETTLE BLACK IS NOT 
SOMETHING THAT WE SHOULD DO.
I DON'T KNOW WHAT MEMBERS, IF 
ANY, HAVE HAD ANY PROBLEMS WITH 
SUBSTANCE ABUSE, BE BUSTED IN 
DUI, I DON'T KNOW, BUT IF I DID 
I WOULDN'T RAISE IT AGAINST 
ANYONE ON THIS COMMITTEE.
I DON'T THINK IT'S PROPER.
YOU KNOW, I THINK WE GOT TO GET 
BACK DOWN TO WHAT IS MOST 
IMPORTANT HERE.
THIS IS A QUESTION THAT STANDS 
OUT LIKE A BIG THROBBING SORE 
TOE INSIDE OF A SHOE THAT'S TOO 
SMALL.
AND THAT IS THIS QUESTION.
IS IT EVER OKAY FOR A PRESIDENT 
OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 
TO INVITE FOREIGN INTERFERENCE 
IN AN UPCOMING PRESIDENTIAL 
ELECTION CAMPAIGN?
>> SILENCE. 
>> DOES THE GENTLEMAN YIELD?
>> THE GENTLEMAN HAS THE TIME. 
>> THE SILENCE WAS AND IS 
DEAFENING AND THERE WILL BE 
PLENTY OF TIME FOR YOU TO 
RESPOND TO THAT QUESTION AND I 
WOULD INVITE YOU TO DO SO.
I GAVE YOU AN OPPORTUNITY OF 
ABOUT 10-15 SECONDS WHILE YOU 
COULD GET YOUR STORY TOGETHER 
AND NOBODY CAME UP WITH A STORY 
SO I'M GOING TO LET YOU MOVE TO 
STRIKE THE LAST WORD AND EXPLAIN
THAT TO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE.
IT'S NEVER PROPER FOR A UNITED 
STATES PRESIDENT TO HOLD A 
FOREIGN COUNTRY OVER A BARREL TO
MAKE THEM DO THAT PRESIDENT'S 
PERSONAL BIDDING AND HOLDING 
NEEDED SECURITY ASSISTANCE, 
DANGLING IT AND DANGLING THE 
FACT THAT I'LL GIVE IT TO YOU IF
YOU DO THIS.
I MEAN, THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT 
HAPPENED.
IT'S LIKE THE AMERICAN PEOPLE 
UNDERSTAND WHAT HAPPENED.
THOSE ARE THE FACTS.
THE PRESIDENT SAID IT WHEN HE 
RELEASED THE TRANSCRIPT OF THE 
SUMMARY OF THAT PHONE CALL ON 
JULY 25th, THE SUMMARY OF THE 
PRESIDENT'S OWN WORDS SHOWS THAT
THE PRESIDENT TRIED TO GET 
PRESIDENT ZELENSKY TO INTERFERE 
IN THE UPCOMING PRESIDENTIAL 
ELECTION.
THAT IS ESTABLISHED BY THE 
FACTS.
SO THIS IS NOT ABOUT HUNTER 
BIDEN.
THEY'VE SAID THAT ON THE OTHER 
SIDE REPEATEDLY UP UNTIL THEY 
START TALKING ABOUT HUNTER BIDEN
HAVING SOME SUBSTANCE ABUSE 
PROBLEMS.
YOU CAN'T HAVE IT BOTH WAYS.
LET'S BE HONEST.
THIS IS ABOUT OUR CONSCIENCE, 
THE CONSCIENCE OF THE NATION, 
THE CONSCIENCE OF MY FRIENDS ON 
THE OTHER SIDE OF THE AISLE.
DO YOU BELIEVE THAT WE SHOULD 
ALLOW THIS TO GO UNADDRESSED, 
WHAT THE PRESIDENT DID?
BECAUSE WE ARE A COUNTRY OF 
PRECEDENT.
WE ARE A COUNTRY OF RULE OF LAW.
WE ARE A COUNTRY OF NORMS AND 
TRADITIONS.
ARE WE GOING TO ALLOW THE 
VIOLATION OF OUR NORMS, OUR 
TRADITIONS, OUR LEGAL PRECEDENT,
BECAUSE AFTER ALL, BRIBERY WAS 
NOT A CRIME, THERE WAS NO 
CRIMINAL CODE WHEN THE FRAMERS 
PASSED THE CONSTITUTION, BUT 
THEY SAID BRIBERY IN THERE.
WHAT BRIBERY MEANT WAS I'M 
OFFERING YOU SOMETHING IF YOU DO
SOMETHING FOR ME.
I'LL GIVE YOU THIS.
IN OTHER WORDS, YOU GIVE ME 
THIS, I'LL GIVE YOU THAT.
THAT'S WHAT HE HAD IN THIS CASE.
THAT'S WHAT BRIBERY MEANS.
IT DOESN'T DEPEND ON A STATUTE.
IT DEPENDS ON WHAT WE KNOW WAS 
DONE.
AND SO LET'S NOT GET BOGGED DOWN
IN TECHNICALITIES AND CHARACTER 
ASSASSINATION.
LET'S KEEP OUR EYE ON WHAT 
REALLY HAPPENED IN THIS CASE AND
WHETHER OR NOT OUR CONSCIENCES 
DICTATE THAT WE DO SOMETHING 
ABOUT IT.
WE CAN'T LET IT GO UNADDRESSED.
AND THE WAY THAT WE DEAL WITH 
THIS GRAVE ABUSE OF THE PUBLIC 
TRUST IS WITH THE DRASTIC ACTION
THAT IT REQUIRES, BECAUSE THIS 
IS A DRASTIC CIRCUMSTANCE.
THE DRASTIC ACTION IS 
IMPEACHMENT AND THAT'S WHY WE'RE
HERE TODAY.
I ASK MY COLLEAGUES TO LET YOUR 
CONSCIENCE BE YOUR GUIDE.
I YIELD BACK.
>> GENTLEMAN YIELDS BACK.
TO WHAT PURPOSE DOES MR. SENSE 
BRENER -- 
>> MY MIND IS BOGGLED BY THE 
GENTLEMAN FROM GEORGIA SAYING 
THAT BRIBERY WAS OKAY UNTIL 1787
WHEN THE CONSTITUTION WAS 
ADOPTED AND TWO YEARS LATER WHEN
CONGRESS PASSED THE FIRST 
CRIMINAL CODE.
FIRST OF ALL, THERE'S A COMMON 
LAW DEFINITION OF BRIBERY.
I THINK PEOPLE LONG BEFORE 1787 
REALIZED THAT BRIBERY WAS NO 
GOOD.
BUT WE ALSO HAD CRIMINAL CODES 
IN EACH OF THE 13 INDEPENDENT 
STATES, COLONIES BEFORE THE 
DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE. 
>> WILL THE GENTLEMAN ANSWER MY 
QUESTION?
>> NO.
I DIDN'T INTERRUPT YOU. 
>> THE GENTLEMAN HAS THE TIME.
>> OKAY.
THE SECOND THING IS, IS THAT IF 
YOU ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE 
AISLE BELIEVE THAT JOE BIDEN IS 
A MAN WHO TELLS THE TRUTH, YOU 
OUGHT TO SUPPORT THIS AMENDMENT,
BECAUSE JOE BIDEN EVER SINCE 
HUNTER'S INVOLVEMENT WITH 
BURISMA HAS BEEN REPEATEDLY 
ASKED WHETHER HE MADE ANY 
ARRANGEMENTS TO GET HUNTER THIS 
REALLY CUSHY JOB.
HE SAID NO, MY SON'S BUSINESS 
INVOLVEMENTS ARE MY SON'S.
SO YOU PUT JOE BIDEN'S NAME IN 
YOUR ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT 
WHEN THE REAL MALEFACTOR IS 
HUNTER BIDEN.
IF THE REAL MALEFACTOR IS HUNTER
BIDEN, I GUESS YOUR CLAIM THAT 
THE PRESIDENT WAS TRYING TO 
INFLUENCE THE 2020 ELECTION 
WOULD GO OUT THE WINDOW.
IF YOU THINK THAT JOE BIDEN IS A
MAN WHO TELLS THE TRUTH -- AND 
I'LL GIVE HIM THE BENEFIT OF THE
DOUBT BECAUSE I THINK HE 
DESERVES IT -- THEN LET'S GET 
RID OF JOE BIDEN IN THIS ARTICLE
OF IMPEACHMENT, SUBSTITUTE HIS 
SON'S NAME IN THERE AND PROCEED.
I CHALLENGE YOU BECAUSE EVERY 
ONE OF YOU THAT WILL VOTE NO ON 
THIS AMENDMENT IS GOING TO BE 
SAYING I THINK THAT JOE BIDEN IS
A LIAR.
IF YOU DON'T THINK THAT JOE 
BIDEN IS A LIAR, VOTE YES.
I YIELD THE BALANCE OF MY TIME 
TO MR. GATES.
>> THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN.
AGAIN, IT'S IMPORTANT TO ANALYZE
THE BURDEN OF PROOF HERE.
IT'S THE DEMOCRATS WHO ARE 
SAYING ANY QUESTION ABOUT THE 
BIDEN SITUATION, BURISMA, IT 
COULD ONLY BE AN ABUSE OF POWER.
I THINK THIS AMENDMENT REALLY 
REFLECTS HOW THE PRESIDENT WAS 
USING HIS POWER PERFECTLY, 
ENTIRELY APPROPRIATELY.
AND IT ALSO SHOWS HOW SCARED 
THEY ARE OF THE FACTS.
IF WE HAD THE OPPORTUNITY TO 
CALL IN THOSE WHO WERE ENGAGED 
IN WORK WITH THE UKRAINIAN 
EMBASSY, FOLKS LIKE ALEXANDER 
CHA LUPA.
THE AMERICAN PEOPLE WOULD SEE WE
ARE NOT IN THIS DEBATE OR 
DISCUSSION BECAUSE THE PRESIDENT
DID ANYTHING WRONG OR 
IMPEACHABLE.
WE'RE HERE FUNDAMENTALLY BECAUSE
THEY CANNOT ACCEPT THE FACT THAT
HE WON THE 2016 ELECTION.
I THINK ALL AMERICANS KNOW THE 
PRESIDENT HAS A DIFFERENT 
APPROACH, BUT TO ACCEPT THEIR 
STANDARD WOULD MEAN THAT IF 
SOMEONE ANNOUNCES THEY'RE 
RUNNING FOR OFFENSE, IT'S KIND 
OF LIKE AN INSTANT IMMUNITY DEAL
FOR ANYTHING THEY WOULD EVER DO.
ARE THEY REALLY SAYING IF HUNTER
BIDEN, JOE BIDEN, BURISMA WERE 
ENGAGED IN SOME CORRUPT ACT, 
THAT BECAUSE JOE BIDEN ANNOUNCED
FOR THE PRESIDENCY, THAT SOMEHOW
ABSOLVES HIM?
IT'S A LUDICROUS POSITION.
HILLARY CLINTON THOUGHT BECAUSE 
SHE WAS IN A PRESIDENTIAL 
ELECTION THAT HER CRIMES DIDN'T 
HAVE TO BE HELD TO ACCOUNT.
IN A WAY, THAT TURNS OUT TO BE 
THE CASE.
BUT YOU KNOW WHAT, IT SHOULDN'T 
BE THE STANDARD IN THE UNITED 
STATES OF AMERICA.
I'M GLAD THAT WE HAVE A 
PRESIDENT WHO IS AT TIMES 
SKEPTICAL OF FOREIGN AID, WHO 
DOES PUT AMERICA FIRST, WHO 
UNDERSTANDS THAT IN CORRUPT 
PLACES THE RESOURCES WE PROVIDE 
DON'T ALWAYS MAKE IT TO AN AREA 
OF NEED.
BUT WE CONCLUDE WITH THIS.
ONCE THE MEETINGS HAPPENED THAT 
DEMONSTRATED THAT PRESIDENT 
ZELENSKY WAS A TRUE REFORMER, 
THAT HE WASN'T CORRUPT, THAT HE 
WAS HONEST, HONEST FROM THE 
POINT OF HIS CAMPAIGN ALL THE 
WAY UP UNTIL THE POINT WHEN HE 
SAID THERE WAS NO PRESSURE PUT 
ON HIM OR HIS GOVERNMENT FOR 
THIS AID.
IF YOU ACCEPT THAT PROPOSITION, 
IT'S VERY CLEAR THE PRESIDENT 
WAS ENTIRELY APPROPRIATE IN 
THOSE QUESTIONS.
AND I'VE GOT TO SAY IN DEBATE ON
THE LAST AMENDMENT NOW WE HAVE 
REACHED THE POINT IN TIME WHERE 
PRESUMPTIVE ISN'T THE ONLY 
PRESIDENT BEING ATTACKED IN THIS
HEARING.
I HEARD THEM GO AFTER ZELENSKY 
AS AN ACTOR, A POLITICIAN.
THEY CAN'T MAKE THE -- THEY'RE 
ATTACKING ZELENSKY.
>> FOR WHAT PURPOSE DOES MS. 
JACKSON LEE SEEK RECOGNITION?
>> I WAS ASKING IF I COULD 
RESPOND SINC MY NAME WAS 
CALLED.
>> GENTLE LADY IS RECOGNIZED. 
>> THIS IS ABOUT DISTRACTION, 
DISTRACTION, DISTRACTION.
OUR GOOD FRIENDS SPENT 3 HOURS 
SAYING THE PRESIDENT DID NOT 
TARGET THE BIDENS.
NOW THEY'RE SAYING THAT HE DID.
SO WHICH IS IT?
I'M HOLDING THE CLASSIFIED 
UNCLASSIFIED CONVERSATION.
LET ME JUST CLARIFY A CERTAIN 
POINT.
THAT POINT IS THAT I DID READ 
THE TRANSCRIPT AND IT DID SAY 
US, BUT THERE IS NOTHING IN THE 
PRESIDENT'S NOTES THAT EVEN 
SUGGESTED THAT THE QUESTION THAT
HE ASKED WAS FOR THE AMERICAN 
PEOPLE.
IN TESTIMONY BY MR. GOLDMAN, WHO
OBVIOUSLY WENT THROUGH EVERY 
ASPECT OF THIS, I ASKED A 
QUESTION ABOUT WHETHER OR NOT 
THE PRESIDENT SAID ANYTHING FROM
THE NOTES, THE BRIEFING THAT IS 
GIVEN BY THOSE REPRESENTATIVES 
OF THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT,
THE STAFF OF THE NATIONAL 
SECURITY COUNCIL, THE STATE 
DEPARTMENT, THE DEFENSE 
DEPARTMENT ON CORRUPTION.
HE DIDN'T SPEAK ANYTHING ABOUT 
CORRUPTION THAT HE WAS BRIEFED 
ON.
AND IF YOU GO THROUGH THE CALL, 
HE CONTINUES TO MENTION THE 
BIDENS.
AND SO THIS, AGAIN, IS ABOUT 
UKRAINE.
THE PRESIDENT DID ASK UKRAINE, 
THE PRESIDENT OF UKRAINE, A 
VULNERABLE LEADER OF A COUNTRY 
THAT IS FLEDGLING AND TRYING TO 
SURVIVE.
LET ME SAY THAT I INTEND TO 
INTRODUCE INTO THE RECORD AN 
ARTICLE THAT INDICATED VERY 
CLEARLY THAT PEOPLE DID DIE.
TRUMP FROZE MILITARY AID AS 
UKRAINIAN SOLDIERS PERISHED IN 
BATTLE, L.A. TIMES.
I ASKED UNANIMOUS CONSENT TO 
SUBMIT THAT INTO THE RECORD. 
>> WITHOUT OBJECTION. 
>> BUT THE FACTS ARE PRESIDENT 
TRUMP PROVIDED 510 MILLION IN 
AID IN 2017 AND 359 MILLION IN 
2018 BUT HE WANTED TO STOP IN 
2019, THE YEAR OR MONTHS BEFORE 
THE 2020 ELECTION.
IN ADDITION, PRESIDENT TRUMP'S 
ADVISORS CONFIRMED THAT 
PRESIDENT TRUMP'S 
INVESTIGATIONS, THE 2016 
ELECTION INTERFERENCE AND THE 
BIDENS WERE NOT U.S. POLICY, AND
AS WELL THEY HAVE DEBUNKED ANY 
ASSOCIATION THAT THERE WAS 
ANYTHING TO THE IMPROPRIETY OF 
THE FORMER VICE PRESIDENT AND 
HIS SERVICE AS IT RELATED TO 
UKRAINE.
I THINK IT IS ALSO IMPORTANT THE
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE AND STATE 
DEPARTMENT HAVE CONFIRMED THAT 
UKRAINE HAD MET ALL 
ANTI-CORRUPTION BENCHMARKS AND 
THE AID SHOULD BE RELEASED.
THAT'S THE POLICY OF THE UNITED 
STATES OF AMERICA.
THERE WAS NO NEED FOR THIS 
PRESIDENT TO IN ESSENCE TRY TO 
MAKE UP HIS OWN POLICY.
IN HIS OWN STATEMENT OF 
ADMINISTRATIVE POLICIES -- AND I
ASK UNANIMOUS CONSENT TO HAVE 
THOSE IN THE RECORD.
THIS IS FROM THE WHITE HOUSE.
NOTHING IN THIS SAID TO DISCUSS 
CORRUPTION.
WHY?
BECAUSE UKRAINE HAD ALREADY MET 
THE STANDARDS OF INDEPENDENT 
EXECUTIVE AGENCIES THAT THEY HAD
MET THAT STANDARD OF CORRUPTION.
THEIR MONEY SHOULD HAVE BEEN 
RELEASED.
AND WE WELL KNOW AS THE PROCESS 
OF THE WHISTLEBLOWER AND THE 
TIMING, THAT PRESIDENT ZELENSKY 
DESPERATE FOR MONEY, PEOPLE 
DYING IN THE FIELD, WAS ASKED TO
DO A CNN ANNOUNCEMENT AND HE WAS
GOING TO BE ON ONE OF CNN'S 
WELL-KNOWN SHOWS DEALING WITH 
INTERNATIONAL POLITICS.
BUT IT WAS STOPPED IN ITS TRACKS
AS TESTIFIED BY WITNESSES UNDER 
OATH BECAUSE OF THE 
WHISTLEBLOWER'S STATEMENT.
LET ME BE VERY CLEAR.
THERE IS SOME REPRESENTATION OF 
CRIME, CRIME, CRIME.
FIRST OF ALL, OUR SCHOLARS 
INDICATED THAT THESE ARE 
IMPEACHABLE OFFENSES.
THE CONDUCT OF THE PRESIDENT IS 
IMPEACHABLE AND THERE'S ENOUGH 
EVIDENCE TO SHOW.
AS I INDICATED YESTERDAY, THIS, 
MY FRIENDS, IS A LEGAL DOCUMENT,
THE CONSTITUTION.
IT IS A LEGAL DOCUMENT.
YOU CAN BREACH AND VIOLATE THE 
LAW OF THE CONSTITUTION.
THERE ARE CONSTITUTIONAL CRIMES.
AND THE VASTNESS OF THE 
IMPEACHMENT PROCESS DOES INCLUDE
THE EXCESS OF POWER BY THE 
PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES.
NOW I KNEW BARBARA JORDAN AND MY
FRIENDS WANTED TO QUOTE HER.
SHE ALSO SAID THE FRAMERS 
CONFIDED IN THE CONGRESS THE 
POWER IF NEED BE TO REMOVE A 
PRESIDENT IN ORDER TO STRIKE A 
DELICATE BALANCE BETWEEN A 
PRESIDENT SWOLLEN WITH POWER AND
GROWN TYRANNICAL.
YOU CAN VIOLATE THE CRIMES OF 
THE CONSTITUTION.
ABUSE OF POWER INCLUDES THAT.
THIS AMENDMENT SHOULD BE 
DEFEATED. 
>> THE GENTLE LADY'S TIME IS 
EXPIRED. 
>> MR. CHAIR?
>> FOR WHAT PURPOSE DOES MR. 
RATCLIFFE SEEK RECOGNITION?
>> MOVE TO STRIKE THE LAST WORD.
>> THE GENTLEMAN IS RECOGNIZED. 
>> I WANT TO ASK MY COLLEAGUE 
FROM GEORGIA, MR. JOHNSON'S 
QUESTION THAT HE ASKED BEFORE.
IS IT EVER OKAY TO INVITE A 
FOREIGN GOVERNMENT TO BECOME 
INVOLVED IN AN ELECTION 
INVOLVING A POLITICAL OPPONENT.
THE ANSWER IS YES.
IT BETTER BE.
WE DO IT ALL THE TIME.
HAVE YOU THAT QUICKLY FORGOTTEN 
HOW THE TRUMP RUSSIA 
INVESTIGATION PROCEEDED?
THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION ASKED 
GREAT BRITAIN AND ITALY AND 
AUSTRALIA AND OTHER COUNTRIES TO
ASSIST IN ITS INVESTIGATION OF A
PERSON WHO WAS A POLITICAL 
OPPONENT FROM THE OPPOSITE 
PARTY.
I KEEP HEARING OVER AND OVER 
AGAIN YOU CAN'T INVESTIGATE 
POLITICAL OPPONENTS.
WE HAVE A MEMBER OF THIS 
COMMITTEE WHO WAS AS A MEMBER OF
THIS COMMITTEE AND THE 
INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE 
INVESTIGATING HIS POLITICAL 
OPPONENT DONALD TRUMP AT THE 
VERY MOMENT HE WAS RUNNING TO 
REPLACE HIM AS PRESIDENT.
MY COLLEAGUE ON THE INTEL 
COMMITTEE, MR. CASTRO WAS 
INVESTIGATING PRESIDENT TRUMP AT
THE VERY SAME MOMENT HIS BROTHER
WAS RUNNING TO REPLACE PRESIDENT
TRUMP.
PRESIDENT TRUMP IS THE ONLY ONE 
WITH THE REALLY LEGITIMATE 
REASON TO BE DOING IT.
HE IS THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE, CHIEF
EXECUTIVE.
WE ARE IN THE JUDICIARY 
COMMITTEE, RIGHT?
WE DO UNDERSTAND THE 
CONSTITUTION.
WE DO UNDERSTAND THAT THE 
PRESIDENT AS THE UNITARY 
EXECUTIVE IS THE EXECUTIVE 
BRANCH AND ALL POWER IN THE 
EXECUTIVE BRANCH DERIVES FROM 
THE PRESIDENT AND THE PRESIDENT 
CAN AND SHOULD ASK FOR 
ASSISTANCE FROM FOREIGN 
GOVERNMENTS IN ONGOING CRIMINAL 
INVESTIGATIONS.
THERE WAS AN ONGOING CRIMINAL 
INVESTIGATION INTO WHAT HAPPENED
IN 2016.
ATTORNEY GENERAL BARR AT THE 
TIME OF THE JULY 25th CALL HAD 
LONG BEFORE THAT APPOINTED U.S. 
ATTORNEY JOHN DURHAM TO 
INVESTIGATE EXACTLY THAT ISSUE.
IT WASN'T JUST APPROPRIATE.
IT WAS ABSOLUTELY THE 
PRESIDENT'S CONSTITUTIONAL DUTY.
AND HUNTER BIDEN, THE PRESIDENT 
HAS AS THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE THE 
ABILITY TO ASK ABOUT MATTERS 
WHERE THERE IS A PRIMA FACIE 
CASE OF CORRUPTION.
WHAT DO WE HAVE WITH RESPECT TO 
HUNTER BIDEN?
TONS OF MONEY FOR A POSITION 
WHERE HE HAS NO UKRAINIAN 
EXPERIENCE, WHERE HE HAS NO 
EXPERIENCE WITH UKRAINE OR WITH 
ENERGY.
AND AT THE VERY SAME TIME THAT 
THE UKRAINIANS WERE DECIDING 
THAT HUNTER BIDEN WAS THE 
PERFECT PERSON TO GET THAT 
SWEETHEART DEAL, THE CHINESE 
WERE DECIDING THAT HUNTER BIDEN 
WAS THE PERFECT PERSON TO GET A 
SWEETHEART DEAL TO MANAGE $1.5 
BILLION IN FINANCIAL ASSETS.
AND WHEN THE UKRAINIAN 
GOVERNMENT WANTED TO INVESTIGATE
CORRUPTION, LIKE WE ALL KEEP 
TALKING ABOUT THEY NEED TO, 
WELL, THEY START INVESTIGATING 
BURISMA AND WHAT HAPPENS?
JOE BIDEN SAYS YOU BETTER FIRE 
THAT PROSECUTOR INVESTIGATING 
CORRUPTION INTO BURISMA OR 
YOU'RE NOT GOING TO GET A 
BILLION DOLLARS.
SIX HOURS LATER, THAT'S WHAT 
HAPPENED.
THAT'S CALLED INFLUENCE 
PEDDLING.
THAT IS A CRIME.
AND THERE IS A PRIMA FACIE CASE 
OF THAT AND IT'S ABSOLUTELY 
APPROPRIATE FOR A PRESIDENT TO 
ASK ABOUT THAT.
I YIELD TO MY FRIEND. 
>> I THANK THE GENTLEMAN FOR 
YIELDING. 
>> I JUST WANT TO RESPOND TO THE
COMMENTS FROM THE GENTLE LADY 
FROM TEXAS.
YOU GET YOUR NAME ON A BALLOT, 
YOU RUN FOR OFFICE, YOU TALK TO 
THE AMERICAN PEOPLE.
THEY DECIDE WHO THEY WANT MAKING
THE POLICY.
THAT'S HOW IT WORKS IN OUR 
COUNTRY.
IT'S NOT THE UNELECTED PEOPLE 
TELLING THE ELECTED INDIVIDUAL 
HOW WE DO THINGS BECAUSE THE 
UNELECTED PEOPLE AREN'T DIRECTLY
ACCOUNTABLE TO WE THE PEOPLE.
IT'S WHAT MAKES OUR SYSTEM THE 
BEST, THE GREATEST.
WHEN YOU TURN THAT ON ITS HEAD, 
THAT'S WHEN YOU GET PROBLEMS.
WE SAW IT HAPPEN BECAUSE WE 
HEARD CHUCK SCHUMER SAY ON 
JANUARY 3rd, 2017, WHEN YOU MESS
WITH THE INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY,
THEY HAVE SIX WAYS FROM SUNDAY 
AT GETTING BACK AT YOU.
NOW, THAT IS A SCARY STATEMENT 
BECAUSE THAT IS SAYING THE 
UNELECTED PEOPLE CAN GET BACK AT
THE PERSON WHO PUT THEIR NAME ON
THE BALLOT AND GOT ELECTED TO 
HIGH OFFICE, THE HIGHEST OFFICE 
IN THIS SITUATION.
FOR SOMEONE IN THE UNITED STATES
CONGRESS TO SAY THE PRESIDENT 
MADE UP HIS OWN POLICY AND 
SOMEHOW THAT IS WRONG, THAT 
SHOULD BE A FRIGHTENING POSITION
TO TAKE, BUT I GUESS THAT'S 
WHERE THE DEMOCRATS ARE TODAY IN
THEIR QUEST TO GO AFTER THIS 
PRESIDENT MAKING STATEMENTS LIKE
THAT, STATEMENTS BY OUR 
COLLEAGUE AND STATEMENTS BY 
SENATOR SCHUMER.
I YIELD BACK. 
>> STRIKE THE LAST WORD, GENTLE 
HEAD DI IS RECOGNIZED. 
>> THERE ARE ISSUES FOR THE 
ELECTION AND THERE ARE ISSUES 
FOR THIS COMMITTEE.
THE BEHAVIOR OF VICE PRESIDENT 
BIDEN'S SON AND FRANKLY THE 
BEHAVIOR OF PRESIDENT TRUMP'S 
TWO SONS AND DAUGHTER MAY BE 
DISCUSSED IN THE ELECTION.
BUT HERE WE ARE TALKING ABOUT 
THE ABUSE OF PRESIDENTIAL 
AUTHORITY.
THE PRESIDENT MUST TAKE CARE 
THAT THE LAWS BE FAITHFULLY 
EXECUTED.
WE KNOW FROM THE E-MAILS FROM 
THE STATE DEPARTMENT TO THE 
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE THAT THE 
UKRAINIANS KNEW THAT THE AID WAS
BEING WITHHELD.
THAT'S DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE.
WE ALSO KNOW THAT WHATEVER WAS 
GOING ON THAT PEOPLE MIGHT NOT 
LIKE WITH THE VICE PRESIDENT'S 
SON AND THE VICE PRESIDENT, THAT
WAS KNOWN IN 2015, 2016, 2017, 
2018.
IT WASN'T UNTIL VICE PRESIDENT 
BIDEN WAS BEATING PRESIDENT 
TRUMP IN THE POLLS THAT THIS 
ISSUE WAS RAISED TO TRY AND 
FORCE A FOREIGN COUNTRY TO 
INVENT AN INVESTIGATION TO BE 
USED POLITICALLY.
THAT IS NOT SEEING THAT THE LAWS
ARE FAITHFULLY EXECUTED.
THAT IS AN ABUSE OF PRESIDENTIAL
AUTHORITY.
AND I WOULD YIELD NOW TO THE 
GENTLEMAN FROM FLORIDA, MR. 
DEUTSCHE. 
>> IT'S BEEN ABOUT 3 HOURS SINCE
I MADE THIS POINT.
I GUESS IT NEEDS TO BE MADE FROM
TIME TO TIME.
WE CAN'T ALLOW THE 
MISCHARACTERIZATION AND 
MISSTATEMENT OF THE RULES TO 
ADVANCE POLITICAL ARGUMENTS 
HERE.
WE CAN'T STAND FOR IT.
SO I WANT TO ADDRESS AGAIN THESE
STATEMENTS THAT THERE WAS SOME 
RIGHT TO HAVE WITNESSES COME IN.
IT IS ABSOLUTELY TRUE THAT 
THAT'S THE CASE OVER 50 YEARS 
AGO WHEN THE RULE WAS WRITTEN 
WHEN RULE SIX WAS WRITTEN IT 
SAID IT'S NORMAL PROCEDURE FOR 
WITNESSES REPRESENTING BOTH 
SIDES OF THE ISSUE TO GIVE 
TESTIMONY AT COMMITTEE HEARINGS.
THAT'S WHAT HAPPENED AT THE 
DECEMBER 4th MEETING AND THAT'S 
WHAT HAPPENED AT THE DECEMBER 
9th MEETING.
LET'S BE HONEST ABOUT THE RULES.
HOUSE RESOLUTION 660, I WOULD 
POINT OUT AGAIN, PROVIDES AN 
OPPORTUNITY FOR THE PRESIDENT OF
THE UNITED STATES TO COME.
HE COULD HAVE COME ON DECEMBER 
4th.
HE COULD HAVE SENT ANY OF HIS 
WITNESSES AND HE DIDN'T.
BUT NO ONE SHOULD BE SURPRISED, 
BECAUSE THAT'S BEEN THE 
PRESIDENT'S APPROACH THROUGHOUT,
IS TO REFUSE TO ALLOW ANYONE, 
ANYONE WITH THE KIND OF 
INFORMATION THAT MY COLLEAGUES 
CLAIM THEY'RE INTERESTED IN FROM
COMING TO TESTIFY, FROM COMING 
TO ANSWER QUESTIONS DIRECTLY.
WITH THAT I YIELD TO MY FRIEND 
FROM NEW YORK, MR. JEFFREYS. 
>> I THANK THE DISTINGUISHED 
GENTLEMAN FROM FLORIDA. 
>> IT'S MY TIME.
I'D BE HAPPY TO YIELD TO THE 
GENTLEMAN FROM NEW YORK. 
>> THANK YOU.
THERE WERE 12 FACT WITNESS WHO 
IS TESTIFIED DURING THE INTEL 
HEARING, 12.
AND WE DON'T HEAR A THING ABOUT 
THOSE WITNESSES FROM MY 
COLLEAGUES ON THE OTHER SIDE OF 
THE AISLE, A THING.
THOSE WITNESSES WERE NOT 
POLITICAL OPERATIVES.
THEY WERE PATRIOTS.
IN FACT, THEY WERE TRUMP 
APPOINTEES.
AMBASSADOR TAYLOR, TRUMP 
APPOINTEE.
AMBASSADOR SONDLAND, TRUMP 
APPOINTEE.
DR. FIONA HILL, TRUMP APPOINTEE.
JENNIFER WILLIAMS, TRUMP 
APPOINTEE.
LIEUTENANT COLONEL VINDMAN, 
TRUMP APPOINTEE.
AMBASSADOR VOLKER, TRUMP 
APPOINTEE.
THEY ALL CONFIRMED THAT DONALD 
TRUMP PRESSURED A FOREIGN 
GOVERNMENT TO TARGET AN AMERICAN
CITIZEN FOR POLITICAL GAIN AND 
AT THE SAME TIME WITHHELD 
WITHOUT JUSTIFICATION $391 
MILLION IN MILITARY AID, 
UNDERMINING AMERICA'S NATIONAL 
SECURITY.
LET'S JUST LOOK AT AMBASSADOR 
VOLKER'S TESTIMONY.
HE TESTIFIED ABOUT THE ISSUE OF 
RAISING THE 2016 ELECTIONS OF 
VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN, ALL THESE 
THINGS THAT I CONSIDERED TO BE 
CONSPIRACY THEORY.
WHAT WAS HIS RESPONSE?
IT WAS PRETTY SIMPLE.
QUOTE, I THINK THE ALLEGATIONS 
AGAINST VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN ARE
SELF-SERVING AND NOT CREDIBLE.
THAT'S WHAT THIS IS ALL ABOUT.
I YIELD BACK.
>> MR. CHAIRMAN, I YIELD BACK. 
>> THE GENTLE LADY YIELDS BACK.
FOR WHAT PURPOSE DOES MR. GO 
MERIT SEEK RECOGNITION?
>> IN SUPPORT OF THE AMENDMENT. 
>> THANK YOU, MR. GENTLEMAN.
>> THE GENTLEMAN IS RECOGNIZED. 
>> IT'S AMAZING.
WE'RE HEARING FROM THE SAME 
PEOPLE ACCUSING US OF COVERING 
UP, NOT WILLING TO FACE THE 
TRUTH.
IT WAS ACCUSING US OF NOT FACING
THE FACTS WITH RUSSIAN COLLUSION
AND THE PRESIDENT SCHEMING WITH 
RUSSIA.
THESE TURNED OUT TO BE LIES AND 
WE WERE RIGHT.
THOSE ACCUSING US OF NOT FACING 
THE TRUTH WERE NOT FACING THE 
TRUTH.
WE HEARD ABOUT ALL KINDS OF 
OTHER ALLEGATIONS.
WE SAID, THAT DOESN'T APPEAR TO 
BE SUPPORTED.
WE WEREN'T FACING THE TRUTH AND 
THIS WAS A LOT OF MEDIA SUPPORT 
FOR THOSE POSITIONS.
BUT WE STILL PERSISTED THAT WE 
WERE THE ONES THAT WERE RIGHT.
THIS WEEK THESE THINGS ARE ALL 
BEING BORN OUT.
WE WERE RIGHT, THEY WERE WRONG.
NOW WE'RE NOT HEARING ANYBODY 
COME IN AND SAY, HEY, WE'RE 
REALLY SORRY WHEN WE ACCUSED 
Y'ALL OF BEING CRAZY AND NOT 
FACING THE TRUTH, YOU WERE 
RIGHT, THERE WAS NO RUSSIA 
COLLUSION, YOU WERE RIGHT THERE 
WAS NO EXTORTION.
AND MY FRIENDS ACROSS THE AISLE 
KEEP CHANGING THE SUBJECT.
WHAT THE CALL MADE CLEAR IS 
WE'RE INTERESTED IN FINDING OUT 
ABOUT IF THERE WAS UKRAINIAN 
COLLUSION OR INTERFERENCE IN OUR
ELECTION.
NOW, IT'S AMAZING HOW THE 
MAJORITY CAN TAKE TWO POSITIONS 
THAT COUNTERINDICATE EACH OTHER.
FIRST OF ALL, THEY SAY THIS WAS 
NO EFFORT BY REPUBLICANS, 
INCLUDING PRESIDENT TRUMP, TO 
STOP INTERFERENCE FROM FOREIGN 
COUNTRIES.
WE HEAR THAT OVER AND OVER, 
INCLUDING YESTERDAY AND TODAY.
AND YET THE ONLY WAY TO STEP UP 
AND DO WHAT PRESIDENT OBAMA 
REFUSED TO DO -- IF YOU 
REMEMBER, PRESIDENT OBAMA 
BELITTLED PRESIDENT TRUMP, 
CANDIDATE TRUMP FOR SAYING HE 
WAS CONCERNED ABOUT OUTSIDE 
INTERFERENCE.
IN FACT, PRESIDENT OBAMA MADE A 
MOCKERY OF ANYBODY THAT WAS SO 
STUPID THAT THEY THOUGHT 
SOMEBODY LIKE RUSSIA OR OTHERS 
MIGHT INTERFERE AND AFFECT OUR 
ELECTION.
HE MADE FUN OF THEM.
HE WOULDN'T DO ANYTHING ABOUT 
OUTSIDE INTERFERENCE, BECAUSE 
APPARENTLY HE MUST HAVE THOUGHT 
THE OUTSIDE INTERFERENCE WAS 
GOING TO HELP HILLARY CLINTON.
AS WE'VE HEARD, APPARENTLY THERE
ARE SOME PEOPLE ACCUSED IN 
UKRAINE OF DOING ALL THEY COULD 
TO HELP HILLARY CLINTON.
IT WAS UNHEARD OF TO HAVE A 
FOREIGN AMBASSADOR IN OUR 
COUNTRY TO STEP UP AND COME OUT 
WITH SUPPORT FOR HILLARY 
CLINTON.
SO WHAT WE CONTINUE TO SEE IS 
PROJECTING.
SOMEBODY ON THEIR SIDE ENGAGES 
IN ILLEGAL OR IMPROPER CONDUCT 
AND THAT'S WHAT THEY ACCUSE 
PRESIDENT TRUMP OR US OF DOING.
AND ALL OF THIS 
SELF-RIGHTEOUSNESS ABOUT FOR 
POLITICAL PURPOSES, I MEAN, THIS
IS FROM TRANSCRIPT FROM DECEMBER
1st, 1943, WHEN PRESIDENT 
ROOSEVELT WAS TALKING TO 
MARSHALL STALIN.
HE'S TALKING WITH STALIN.
THIS IS IN TEHRAN THEY'RE 
MEETING.
BUT HE WANTED TO TALK TO HIM 
ABOUT INTERNAL AMERICAN 
POLITICS.
AND FROM THE STENOGRAPHERS, THEY
SAY THAT PRESIDENT ROOSEVELT 
SAID THERE WERE IN THE UNITED 
STATES 6-7 MILLION AMERICANS OF 
POLISH EXTRACTION.
AS A POLITICAL MAN, HE DIDN'T 
WANT TO LOSE THEIR VOTES AND HE 
WAS EXPLAINING HE COULDN'T GO 
PUBLIC.
HE DIDN'T CARE WHEN BASICALLY 
THE SOVIET UNION TOOK OVER 
POLAND.
HE DIDN'T CARE IF THEY CUT DOWN 
POLAND'S BORDERS FROM THE EAST 
AND THE WEST.
AND HE GOES ON TO SAY -- THEY 
SAY JOKINGLY THAT WHEN THE 
SOVIET ARMIES INVADE AND OCCUPY 
THESE AREAS OF LITHUANIA, 
LATVIA, ESTONIA, HE DID NOT 
INTEND TO GO TO WAR WITH THE 
 
SOVIET UNION ON THIS POINT, BUT 
HE WENT ONTO EMPHASIZE THESE 
THINGS HE CAN'T GO PUBLIC WITH.
THESE THINGS WENT ON WITH 
DEMOCRATS BY MANY DECADES.
HERE THEY COME AFTER THE ONE GUY
WHO WANTS TO GET TO THE BOTTOM 
OF 2016 FOREIGN INTERFERENCE.
AND WHAT DO THEY ACCUSE HIM OF?
OF GETTING FOREIGN INTERFERENCE.
NO, YOU CAN'T ROOT OUT FOREIGN 
INTERFERENCE UNTIL YOU KNOW WHAT
IT WAS.
YOU CAN'T HAVE IT BOTH WAYS.
WELL, I GUESS THE DEMOCRATIC 
PARTY CAN'T HAVE IT BOTH WAYS, 
BUT THIS HAS GOT TO STOP BEFORE 
IT GOES TOO MUCH FURTHER. 
>> THE GENTLEMAN YIELDS BACK.
FOR WHAT PURPOSES DOES MR. 
SICILY KNEE SEEK RECOGNITION?
FOR WHAT PURPOSE DOES MR. 
CHAFFETZ SEEK RECOGNITION?
>> I SAID YOU WERE AGENTING THE 
 -- INVESTIGATING THE WRONG GUY,
THAT IT SHOULD HAVE BEEN THE 
BIDENS.
THE UKRAINE WAS THE THIRD MOST 
CORRUPT NATION ON EARTH AND THAT
HUNTER BIDEN HAD JUST PUT 
HIMSELF RIGHT SMACK DAB IN THE 
MIDDLE OF THAT CORRUPTION AND 
EVEN THOUGH THE DEMOCRATS AND 
THEIR FRIENDS IN THE MEDIA WOULD
HAVE YOU BELIEVE THAT BURISMA, 
BIDEN, CORRUPTION, THAT THIS WAS
ALL JUST A VAST RIGHT WING 
CONSPIRACY ALLEGATION WHEN IN 
ACTUALITY IT WAS THE OBAMA 
ADMINISTRATION THAT RAISED THIS 
ISSUE FIRST.
BACK IN 2015 GEORGE KENT 
REPORTED HIS CONCERNS ABOUT 
HUNTER BIDEN TO THE VICE 
PRESIDENT'S OFFICE AND THE 
FORMER AMBASSADOR TO UKRAINE 
MARIE YOVANOVITCH SAID SHE WAS 
COACHED BY THE OBAMA 
ADMINISTRATION ON HOW TO ANSWER 
PESKY QUESTIONS RELATED TO 
HUNTER BIDEN AND BURISMA THAT 
MIGHT ARISE DURING HER SENATE 
CONFIRMATION PROCESS.
AND NEARLY EVERY SINGLE WITNESS 
WHO TESTIFIED AT THE 
INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE 
IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY AGREED THAT 
HUNTER BIDEN'S BURISMA DEAL 
CREATED AT THE VERY LEAST THE 
APPEARANCE OF A CONFLICT OF 
INTEREST.
YET THE DEMOCRATS ON THE 
INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE AND 
CHAIRMAN SCHIFF AND DEMOCRATS IN
THIS COMMITTEE ARE DETERMINED TO
SWEEP ALL THIS UNDER THE RUG, 
IGNORE IT, NOT LET US CALL 
WITNESSES ON IT AND INSTEAD RUSH
TO IMPEACH THIS PRESIDENT.
YOU'VE GOT THE VICE PRESIDENT 
JOE BIDEN IN CHARGE OF 
OVERSEEING OUR UKRAINIAN POLICY 
AND HIS SON HUNTER BIDEN 
RECEIVING $50,000 A MONTH EVEN 
THOUGH HE HAD NO IDENTIFIABLE 
EXPERTISE IN ENERGY OR IN 
UKRAINE, YET THE DEMOCRATS 
WOULDN'T LET US CALL WITNESSES 
OR DELVE INTO THIS.
IT WAS INTERESTING THAT JOE 
BIDEN GOT IN AN ARGUMENT WITH A 
MAN AT ONE OF HIS EVENTS IN IOWA
RECENTLY, CALLED THE MAN A LIAR 
AND CHALLENGED HIM TO A PUSHUP 
CONTEST AND SPOUTED OFF A 
BUNCH 
OF OTHER MALARKEY.
NOW THIS COMMITTEE IS CONDUCTING
AN IMPEACHMENT INVESTIGATION 
AGAINST PRESIDENT TRUMP BASED 
ON, AS PROFESSOR TURLEY PUT IT 
RECENT LY
RECENTLY, WAFER THIN EVIDENCE.
THIS WAS A PROFESSOR WHO 
ACKNOWLEDGED THAT HE HAD NOT 
VOTED FOR PRESIDENT TRUMP.
IN FACT, ALL FOUR WITNESSES WHO 
TESTIFIED, NONE OF THEM HAD 
VOTED FOR HIM.
BUT HE SAID WAFER THIN EVIDENCE.
THAT'S WHAT WE'RE BEING CALLED 
TO IMPEACH A PRESIDENT ON.
WHILE WE'RE DOING THAT, THERE 
ARE SO MANY THINGS THAT ARE 
GETTING IGNORED.
IT LOOKS LIKE ONE THING, USMCA 
TRADE DEAL, LOOKS LIKE WE MIGHT 
ACTUALLY GET THAT ACROSS THE 
FINISH LINE.
I CERTAINLY HOPE SO BECAUSE IT 
WILL BE GOOD FOR THE COUNTRY.
IT'S BIPARTISAN.
I THINK IF THERE'S ANYTHING GOOD
TO COME OUT OF THIS IMPEACHMENT,
IT WILL GET PASSED BECAUSE THE 
DEMOCRATS WANT TO SHOW WE DID 
SOMETHING BECAUSE THEY HAVEN'T 
DONE MUCH OF ANYTHING ELSE.
WE HAD 68,000 AMERICANS WHO DIED
FROM OPIOID OVERDOSES LAST YEAR 
ALONE.
I THINK IT WAS 70,000 THE YEAR 
BEFORE THAT.
EVEN THOUGH THE NUMBER HAS GONE 
DOWN A BIT, IT'S NOT NECESSARILY
BECAUSE WE'RE DOING A WHOLE LOT 
BETTER.
IT'S BECAUSE OF NARCAN NOT QUITE
AS MANY PEOPLE ARE DYING BUT 
THERE'S JUST AS MANY PEOPLE 
INVOLVED WITH THIS SCOURGE, 
THESE OPIOIDS AND OTHER DRUGS.
OUR SOUTHERN BORDER IS STILL A 
SIEVE.
WE HAVE FAR TOO MANY PEOPLE 
COMING ACROSS OUR SOUTHERN 
BORDER.
THAT'S SOMETHING WE OUGHT TO BE 
ABLE TO WORK ON IN A BIPARTISAN 
MANNER THIS COMMITTEE TO DO 
SOMETHING ABOUT THAT AND OUR 
ASYLUM LAWS WHICH NEED TO BE 
REFORMED.
WE HAVE A $22 TRILLION DEBT 
HANGING OVER OUR HEAD.
THIS COMMITTEE HAS JURISDICTION 
OVERALL THESE ISSUES AND ISN'T 
DOING A THING BECAUSE WE'VE BEEN
SPENDING OUR TIME IN THE LAST 
YEAR ON IMPEACHMENT IN ONE FORM 
OR ANOTHER.
I HAVE A BILL, A BALANCED BUDGET
AMENDMENT WHICH WOULD ACTUALLY 
MOVE IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION OF 
DOING SOMETHING ABOUT THAT.
THOSE ARE IN OUR JURISDICTION.
OTHER THINGS LIKE INFRASTRUCTURE
NOT IN OUR JURISDICTION BUT THE 
UNITED STATES CONGRESS OUGHT TO 
ACT ON IT.
OUR HIGHWAYS AND BRIDGES ARE 
CRUMBING IN THIS COUNTRY.
IT'S UNFORTUNATE TAKING UP ALL 
THIS TIME ON IMPEACHMENT WHEN 
THERE ARE SO MANY OTHER THINGS 
THAT WE OUGHT TO BE WORKING ON 
FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE AMERICAN 
PEOPLE.
>> FOR WHAT PURPOSE DOES MR. 
JORDAN SEEK RECOGNITION?
>> YIELD TO THE RANKING MEMBER.
>> IT IS AMAZING TO HEAR THEY'VE
GOTTEN REALLY SENSITIVE ABOUT 
PROCESS ON THE MAJORITY SIDE 
WHEN WE POINTED OUT THE TRAGEDY 
OF BEING A RUBBER STAMP ON THIS 
COMMITTEE AND THE GENTLEMAN FROM
FLORIDA HAS BROUGHT OUT A COUPLE
OF THINGS.
IT'S JUST LIKE EVERYTHING ELSE 
IT ALL GOES THROUGH THE WHIM OF 
THE CHAIRMAN AND THE MAJORITY.
I GIVE IT BACK TO THE GENTLEMAN.
>> YIELD TO THE GENTLEMAN FROM 
FLORIDA. 
>> THANK THE GENTLEMAN FOR 
YIELDING.
IF DEMOCRATS CAN'T PROVE THAT 
THE BIDENS ARE CLEAN, THEN 
PRESIDENT TRUMP CAN'T BE GUILTY 
OF ABUSING POWER IF HE'S ASKING 
A REASONABLE QUESTION.
THEY CANNOT PROVE THAT THE 
QUESTIONS INTO THE BIDENS ARE 
UNREASONABLE.
I LISTENED VERY CLOSELY TO THE 
WITNESSES.
I HEARD MR. KENT SAY THEY WERE 
SO CONCERNED ABOUT BURISMA, WE 
HAD TO PULL OUT OF A PARTNERSHIP
WITH THE EMBASSY.
IF IT'S OKAY FOR OUR EMBASSY TO 
ASK THE QUESTIONS, WHY ISN'T IT 
OKAY FOR THE PRESIDENT?
I LISTENED TO AMBASSADOR 
YOVANOVITCH WHEN SHE GAVE 
TESTIMONY.
SHE SAID SHE WAS HAVING TO DO 
SPECIAL PREPARATION TO HAVE TO 
ANSWER THESE STICKY QUESTIONS 
ABOUT WHY THE VICE PRESIDENT'S 
SON WAS OFF MOON LIGHTING FOR 
SOME FOREIGN ENERGY COMPANY.
IF IT'S OKAY FOR THE OBAMA 
ADMINISTRATION TO ASK THOSE 
QUESTIONS, WHY ISN'T IT OKAY FOR
PRESIDENT TRUMP TO ASK THOSE 
QUESTIONS?
HERE'S ONE THING I KNOW.
CORRUPT PEOPLE, THEY DON'T JUST 
STEAL ONCE.
THEY KIND OF GET INTO THIS CYCLE
AND CULTURE OF CORRUPTION AND 
IT'S DISAPPOINTING.
I GO BACK TO THIS NEW YORKER 
ARTICLE.
I'M READING DIRECTLY FROM IT.
ONE OF KATHLEEN'S MOTIONS, THIS 
IS REGARDING HUNTER BIDEN'S 
DIVORCE, CONTAINED A REFERENCE 
TO A LARGE DIAMOND THAT HAD COME
INTO HUNTER'S POSSESSION.
WHEN I ASKED HIM ABOUT IT, HE 
TOLD ME HE HAD BEEN GIVEN THE 
DIAMOND BY A CHINESE ENERGY 
TYCOON.
HUNTER TOLD ME THAT TWO 
ASSOCIATES ACCOMPANIED HIM TO 
HIS FIRST MEETING WITH YEE IN 
MIAMI AND THEY SURPRISED HIM BY 
GIVING HIM A RARE VINTAGE OF 
SCOTCH WORTH THOUSANDS OF 
DOLLARS.
THIS GUY WASN'T JUST TAKING 
THESE WEIRD JOBS FROM THE 
UKRAINIANS.
HE WAS TAKING DIAMONDS AND 
SCOTCH FROM THE CHINESE.
I THINK IT IS ENTIRELY 
APPROPRIATE FOR THE PRESIDENT OF
THE UNITED STATES TO FIGURE OUT 
WHY THAT IS THE CASE.
THE AMERICAN PEOPLE WATCHING 
TODAY KNOW THIS IS AN 
IMPEACHMENT MOVEMENT THAT IS 
LOSING STEAM.
I WAS WATCHING CNN ON THE WAY 
INTO THE HEARING THIS MORNING, 
MAYBE ONE OF THE ONLY FOLKS BUT 
I WAS WATCHING.
I HEARD GLORIA BORGER SAY THE 
POLLING ON IMPEACHMENT IS BAD 
FOR DEMOCRATS.
I HEARD JIM SCIUTTO SAY THAT 
CHAIRMAN NADLER HAD GONE ON 
CNN'S AIR AND SAID ONCE WE HAVE 
THESE PUBLIC HEARINGS, WE WILL 
ANIMATE ALL THIS PUBLIC SUPPORT 
FOR IMPEACHMENT.
NOW YOU'VE HAD THE HEARINGS, 
YOU'VE CALLED THE WITNESSES AND 
YOU KNOW WHAT, YOU'RE LOSING 
GROUND.
YOU'RE LOSING GROUND WITH THE 
MEDIA.
YOU'RE LOSING GROUND WITH THE 
VOTERS AND YOU'RE EVEN LOSING 
GROUND AMONG YOUR OWN DEMOCRAT 
COLLEAGUES.
I BELIEVE THE PUBLIC REPORTING 
I'VE SEEN THAT SOME OF YOUR MORE
MODERATE MEMBERS AND DISTRICTS 
THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP WON ARE 
BEGGING YOU TO PURSUE SOMETHING 
OTHER THAN IMPEACHMENT.
THIS BLOOD LUST FOR IMPEACHMENT 
IS NOT GOING TO BE VISITED ON US
OR PRESIDENT TRUMP.
IT'S GOING TO BE VISITED ON YOUR
OWN MEMBERS AND THEY'RE ASKING 
YOU NOT TO DO THIS.
THE ONLY STANDARD THAT SPEAKER 
PELOSI, CHAIRMAN NADLER AND 
CHAIRMAN SCHIFF SET WAS A 
BIPARTISAN STANDARD.
THEY SAID THIS HAS TO BE 
BIPARTISAN.
THEY SAID IT ALL THROUGHOUT 
2018.
NOW THE ONLY THING THAT'S 
CHANGED IS NOT THE STRENGTHENING
OF THE EVIDENCE, IT'S THAT WE'RE
GOING INTO AN ELECTION.
THEY HAVE TAKEN A LOOK AT THE 
CANDIDATES IN THE DEMOCRATIC 
FIELD AND THEY REALIZED THEY 
HAVE TO CREATE THIS IMPEACHMENT 
PLATFORM BECAUSE THEIR 
CANDIDATES AREN'T CAPABLE OF 
DEFEATING PRESIDENT TRUMP IN A 
FAIR FIGHT.
WE KNOW THAT.
THE ONLY BIPARTISAN VOTE THAT 
OCCURRED ON IMPEACHMENT WAS A 
BIPARTISAN VOTE AGAINST OPENING 
THE INQUIRY AND THE ONLY 
POSSIBILITY FOR MOVEMENT FROM 
THAT VOTE -- ABERRATIONAL 
INVESTIGATION YOU'VE RUN, THE 
ONLY RISK IS THAT YOU'LL LOSE 
MORE VOTES THAN YOU STARTED 
WITH.
YOU LOST TWO OF YOUR MEMBERS THE
FIRST TIME.
YOU'RE NOT GOING TO LOSE LESS 
THAN TWO OF YOUR MEMBERS.
YOU'LL HAVE A RISK OF LOSING 
MORE THAN TWO OF YOUR MEMBERS.
REPUBLICANS ARE UNITED.
WE SEE THIS FOR WHAT IT IS.
WE KNOW THIS IS NOT JUST AN 
ATTACK ON PRESIDENT TRUMP 
POLITICALLY, THOUGH IT IS THE 
ELECTION THAT MOTIVATES THEM FOR
THIS BIZARRE BEHAVIOR.
IT'S NOT JUST AN ATTACK ON THE 
PRESIDENCY.
IT'S AN ATTACK ON US.
IT'S AN ATTACK ON THOSE OF US 
WHO BELIEVE IN THIS PRESIDENT, 
WHO UNDERSTAND VERY WELL WHO WE 
VOTED FOR AND HE'S GOT SOME 
NONTRADITIONAL WAYS OF DOING 
BUSINESS BUT WE ALSO SEE THE 
GREAT SUCCESS OF THIS COUNTRY, 
MORE JOBS, MORE OPPORTUNITY.
THEY HAVE NO ANSWER FOR THAT IN 
THE UPCOMING ELECTION AND IT'S 
WHY WE'RE HERE. 
>> GENTLEMAN'S TIME HAS EXPIRED.
FOR WHAT PURPOSE DOES MR. BIGGS 
SEEK RECOGNITION?
>> MOVE TO STRIKE THE LAST WORD.
>> THE GENTLEMAN IS RECOGNIZED. 
>> THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN.
I MENTIONED BEFORE THAT LOOKING 
AT THE EVIDENCE I'M STUNNED THAT
MY COLLEAGUES ON THE OTHER SIDE 
OF THE AISLE PERPETUALLY READ 
EVERY INFERENCE YOU CAN MAKE IN 
THE LIGHT MOST NEGATIVE TO THE 
PRESIDENT AND YET THIS WHOLE 
PROCEEDINGS AND THE WAY THIS HAS
BEEN SHAPED UP INDICATES THAT 
THERE IS AN INCREDIBLE INFERENCE
AGAINST THEIR CREDIBILITY 
BECAUSE OF THE WAY THEY'VE 
STACKED THE CARDS AGAINST THE 
PRESIDENT.
I WANT TO READ -- I SUPPORT THE 
GENTLEMAN'S AMENDMENT AND I WANT
TO READ THIS FROM A UKRAINIAN 
SOURCE WHO WAS NAMED AND CITED 
IN A RECENT PUBLICATION.
IT SAYS, QUOTE, BY INVITING 
INFLUENTIAL FOREIGNERS -- HAVING
HUNTER BIDEN ON BOARD, THE OWNER
OF BURISMA WANTED TO CORRECT THE
IMAGE AND TO GET COVER BECAUSE 
AUTHORITIES ARE SCARED BY THEIST
EMBASSY IN UKRAINE.
HUNTER BIDEN USING THE POLITICAL
CAPABILITIES OF HIS FAMILY ACTED
AS A RESCUE BUFFER BETWEEN 
BURISMA AND UKRAINIAN LAW 
ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES.
HIS WORKING FOR THE COMPANY OF A
CORRUPT OFFICIAL SMELLS.
LET'S TAKE A LOOK AT THE 
TRANSCRIPT OUR COLLEAGUES KEEP 
REFERRING TO.
PAGE FOUR
PAGE 4, THE OTHER THING THAT 
PRESIDENT TRUMP SAYS. 
THERE'S A LOT OF TALK ABOUT 
BIDEN'S SON AND THAT HE STOPPED 
THE PROSECUTION AND THAT A LOT 
OF PEOPLE WANT TO FIND OUT ABOUT
THAT, AND SO WHATEVER YOU CAN DO
WITH THE ATTORNEY GENERAL WOULD 
BE GREAT. 
BIDEN WENT AROUND BRAGGING THAT 
HE STOPPED THE PROSECUTION, AND 
IF YOU CAN LOOK INTO IT. 
IT SOUNDS HORRIBLE TO ME. 
THAT IS THE ESSENCE OF WHAT THEY
WANTED TO IMPEACH PRESIDENT 
TRUMP FOR. 
SO IT BEGS THE QUESTION, AND 
SIMPLY BEGS THE QUESTION, 
REALLY, DO YOU GET IMMUNITY, AND
IS IT A IMMUNITY-GRANTING EVENT 
TO HAVE A RELATIVE RUN FOR 
PUBLIC OFFICE?
DO YOU GET IMMUNITY FOR THAT?
OKAY. 
FLIP IT AROUND, DOES THE 
PRESIDENT HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO 
REQUEST AN INVESTIGATION?
MOST ASSUREDLY. 
AND HE MENTIONS THE ATTORNEY 
GENERAL HERE, AND HE SAYS IT IS 
CLEAR THAT HE WOULD LIKE AN 
INVESTIGATION INTO THE 
CORRUPTION SURROUNDING UKRAINE, 
BECAUSE WHAT DOES PRESIDENT 
ZELENSKY GOES ON TO TALK ABOUT 
TRYING TO RESTORE THE HONESTY IN
HIS COUNTRY. 
THAT IS WHAT HE IS TALKING 
ABOUT. 
YOU HAVE THE ATTORNEY GENERAL 
AND THE PRESIDENT OF BOTH 
COUNTRIES ACKNOWLEDGING 
CORRUPTION, AND GET IT FIXED UP.
AND IT LEADS YOU BACK TO THE 
WHOLE QUESTION OF THE DEMOCRATS 
WANTING TO IMPEACH PRESIDENT 
TRUMP FOR THESE AMORPHOUS ABUSE 
OF POWER ISSUES. 
THE AMORPHOUS ABUSE OF CONGRESS 
OR ISSUES. 
OBSTRUCTION OF CONGRESS. 
SO IT IS JUST BIZARRE. 
SO HUNTER BIDEN IS PLACED ON THE
BOARD OF BURISMA IN 2014 AND JOE
BIDEN IS CALLING FOR THE 
REPLACEMENT OF THE LEAD 
PROSECUTOR VIKTOR SHOKIN IN 
2016, AND IN THE MEANTIME, THE 
EVIDENCE IS CLEAR THAT BURISMA'S
COMPANY PAID ABOUT $3.4 BILLION 
TO A COMPANY CALLED ROSEMONT 
SENECA BOHEIR AND THE COMPANY OF
BEAU BIDEN AND HIS FRIEND 
ARCHER. 
AND SO THAT IS WHEN THE TIME OF 
THE BURISMA INVESTIGATIONS 
STOPPED. 
THE CREDIBILITY WAS LOW AND EVEN
MORE DUBIOUS AT THIS POINT. 
AND SO ACCORDING TO THE 
UKRAINIAN SOURCES, BURISMA IS 
NOT ON EVERYBODY'S FRONT BURNER 
IN THE UKRAINE. 
BUT IT IS HERE. 
BECAUSE WE WERE PROVIDING 
HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS OF DOLLARS 
TO THE UKRAINE. 
FOREIGN AID. 
AND THIS PRESIDENT SAID, WE NEED
TO STOP CORRUPTION. 
HE MENTIONS SPECIFICALLY THE 
CORRUPTION THAT HE HAD HEARD 
ABOUT. 
IS THAT IMPEACHABLE?
NO, IT IS ASKING FOR AN 
INVESTIGATION TO GET TO THE 
BOTTOM OF IT, AND YOU DO NOT GET
IMMUNITY JUST BECAUSE YOUR 
FATHER IS RUNNING THE PUBLIC 
OFFICE, AND JUST BECAUSE ANYBODY
RELATED TO YOU IS RUNNING FOR 
PUBLIC OFFICE, AND I WILL TELL 
YOU THAT THIS PRESIDENT HAS DONE
A REMARKABLE JOB IN SPITE OF 
THREE YEARS OF CONSTANT 
HARASSMENT BY THE MEMBERS OF 
THIS BODY AND THE MEDIA ON THE 
LEFT OF THIS COUNTRY, AND WE 
HAVE THE GREATEST ISSUES OF 
TRYING TO BRINGING ORDER TO THE 
BORDER, AND MORE PEOPLE WORKING 
THAN EVER BEFORE, AND BUILD UP 
THE PRESTIGE OF THE MILITARY AND
THERE ARE NO MORE APOLOGY TOURS 
THAT WE SAW IN THE LAST 
ADMINISTRATION AND HE HAS REALLY
WORKED TO MAKE AMERICA'S ESTEEM 
AND GREATNESS REPRIEVE. 
>> AND MR. CICILLINE?
>> MOVE TO STRIKE. 
I WANT TO BEGIN TO RESPOND TO 
THE GENTLEMAN OF OHIO'S 
LAMENTING ABOUT THE PRODUCTIITY
OF THIS CONGRESS. 
WE HAVE PASSED NEARLY 400 PIECES
OF LEGISLATION SINCE THE 
DEMOCRATIC HAS TAKEN TO PASS. 
THEY ARE FOR PRESCRIPTION DRUGS 
AND TO PROVIDE EQUAL PAY FOR 
EQUAL WORK, AND TO RAISE THE 
MINIMUM WAGE, AND THE BIGGEST 
ANTI-CORRUPTION BILL SINCE 
WATERGATE AND TO RESPOND TO NET 
NEUTRALITY AND CLIMATE CRISIS 
AND RECENTLY COMPLETED THE 
NEGOTIATIONS ON THE NEW TRADE 
DEAL, AND IT IS EXHAUSTING. 
SO SADLY, 80% OF THE BILLS ARE 
LAYING ON MITCH McCONNELL'S 
DESK. 
SO INSTEAD OF TRYING TO 
MISCHARACTERIZE WHAT HAS BEEN 
THE MOST PRODUCTIVE CONGRESS IN 
MODERN HISTORY, WE SHOULD ASSERT
SOME ENERGY TO PERSUADING MITCH 
McCONNELL TO DO HIS JOB AND 
BRING THOSE BILLS TO THE FLOOR. 
NOW, BACK TO THE FACTS OF THE 
IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY. 
SO NOW, THERE IS AN EFFORT TO 
CONFUSE WHAT THIS IS ABOUT, AND 
IT IS THE IMPEACHMENT ABOUT THE 
PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES 
TO USE THE POWER OF HIS OFFICE 
TO SMEAR A POLITICAL OPPONENT, 
AND DRAG THE FOREIGN POWER INTO 
THE ELECTIONS AND LEVERAGE TENS 
OF MILLIONS OF TAXPAYER MONEY TO
ACCOMPLISH THAT OBJECTIVE, AND 
SO THIS WOULD LIKE TO TALK ABOUT
WISH AWAY THE PRESIDENT'S MOTIVE
IN THIS SCHEME, BUT YOU CAN'T 
WISH IT AWAY. 
AND THAT IS ACCORDING TO THE 
MINORITY REPORT AS WELL. 
AND IN 2017 AND IN 2018 FOREIGN 
ASSISTANCE PROVIDED FOREIGN AID.
AND WHAT HAPPENED IN 2019, AND 
WHAT CHANGED?
THE PRESIDENT IS LOSING IN A 
NATIONAL POLL BY DOUBLE DIGITS 
TO JOE BIDEN. 
THOSE ARE THE FACTS. 
AND THIRD, MULTIPLE WITNESSES, 
TRUMP ADMINISTRATION OFFICIALS 
TESTIFIED THAT VICE PRESIDENT 
BIDEN DID NOTHING WRONG, 
INCLUDING MR. KENT, MR. 
YOVANOVITCH, AMBASSADOR HOLMES 
AND VOLKER, AND THE FIRING OF 
THE PRIOR PROSECUTOR WAS DONE IN
ACCORDANCE WITH OFFICIAL U.S. 
POLICY. 
IT WAS APPROVED BY THE JUSTICE 
DEPARTMENT, AND IT WAS THE 
POLICY OF THE UNITED STATES, AND
SUPPORTED BY THE EUROPEAN UNION 
AND MANY COUNTRIES THROUGHOUT 
EUROPE AND A BIPARTISAN 
COALITION AND CONGRESS, AND THIS
IS A CORRUPT PROSECUTOR AND 
OFFICIAL U.S. POLICY THAT THE 
VICE PRESIDENT WAS EXECUTING AND
BY CONTRAST WHAT WE HAVE IN THIS
CASE IS THE BASIS OF THIS 
IMPEACHMENT PROCEEDING IS 
EXACTLY THE OPPOSITE, AND WHAT 
PRESIDENT TRUMP WAS DOING IS NOT
OFFICIAL U.S. POLICY AND ALL OF 
THE WITNESSES CONFIRM, THAT AND 
IT WAS NOT DONE THROUGH THE 
JUSTICE DEPARTMENT AND IT WAS 
DONE THROUGH THE ADVICE OF ALL 
OF THE ADVISERS AND THAT IS WHAT
IS VERY DIFFERENT OF WHAT WE ARE
CONFRONTING TODAY, AND THIS IS 
WORK WHICH IS NOT DONE BY THE 
APPARATUS OF THE STATE 
DEPARTMENT, AND THIS IS AN 
EFFORT THAT IS LED BY THE 
PRESIDENT'S PERSONAL ATTORNEY, 
RUDOLPH GIULIANI AND THE SCHEME 
WAS LED BY THE WHOLE APPARATUS 
BEYOND THE STATE DEPARTMENT. 
SO LET'S NOT CONFUSE THESE TWO 
THINGS, THE FACTS MATTER AND THE
TRUTH MATTERS AND YOU CANNOT 
CONTINUE TO JUST MAKE ASSERTIONS
WHEN THE RECORD IS COMPLETELY 
OPPOSITE. 
I WOULD LIKE TO YIELD TO THE 
GENTLEMAN FROM CALIFORNIA, MR. 
SLALWELL. 
>> I THANK THE GENTLEMAN. 
IF PRESIDENT TRUMP AND MY 
COLLEAGUES WERE SO INTERESTED IN
ROOTING OUT CORRUPTION IN 
UKRAINE, THERE WAS SO MUCH THEY 
COULD HAVE DONE. 
MY REPUBLICAN COLLEAGUES FOR 
MANY YEARS WERE IN THE MAJORITY 
AND FOR MANY YEARS THE VICE 
PRESIDENT'S SON WAS ON THIS 
BOARD, THEY NEVER INVESTIGATED 
AND THE CONCERN ONLY CAME ABOUT 
ONCE VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN BECAME
PRESIDENT TRUMP'S CHIEF 
POLITICAL OPPONENT. 
ON APRIL 21st OF THIS YEAR, 
PRESIDENT TRUMP CALLED PRESIDENT
ZELENSKY TO CONGRATULATE HIM, 
AND IN THE TALKING POINTS, 
PRESIDENT TRUMP WAS TOLD TO 
BRING UPROOTING OUT CORRUPTION 
IN UKRAINE AND PRESIDENT TRUMP 
DID NOT DO IT, BUT THE WHITE 
HOUSE IN THE TALKING POINTS LIED
TO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE AND SAID 
THAT THE PRESIDENT HAD. 
JULY 25, AND AGAIN, NATIONAL 
SECURITY COUNCIL MEMBERS WERE 
WORKING HARD TO TELL THE 
PRESIDENT, IMPRESS UPON THE 
UKRAINIAN PRESIDENT THAT HE 
NEEDS TO ROOT OUT CORRUPTION, 
AND THE PRESIDENT NEVER BRINGS 
UP CORRUPTION. 
THE PRESIDENT WANTED TO 
INVESTIGATE ANY INDIVIDUAL U.S. 
CITIZEN, AND THERE IS IS A FOR 
MALL PROCESS THAT WE GO THROUGH 
AND THE PRESIDENT NEVER ASKED 
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL TO DO THIS.
THE PRESIDENT WAS NEVER 
INTERESTED IN FIGHTING 
CORRUPTION IN UKRAINE. 
HE WAS ONLY INTERESTED IN 
WEAPONIZING CORRUPTION IN 
UKRAINE FOR HIS OWN PERSONAL 
BENEFIT, AND THAT IS WHY WE MUST
HOLD HIM ACCOUNTABLE FOR THE 
ABUSE OF POWER. 
>> AND UNANIMOUS REQUEST -- 
>> THE GENTLEMAN YIELDS BACK, 
AND RECOGNIZE THE GENTLEMAN FOR 
THE UNANIMOUS CONSENT. 
>> I ASK THAT THIS ARTICLE DATED
FEBRUARY 12th, TWO WEEKS BEFORE 
THE CALL TO PRESIDENT ZELENSKY 
SAYS THAT TRUMP ASKS TOP 
POLITICAL ADVISERS IF HE SHOULD 
WORRY ABOUT RUNNING AGAINST JOE 
BIDEN. 
>> SO NOW, THERE ARE VOTES ON 
THE FLOOR. 
THE MEMBER VOTES ON THE FLOOR, 
AND THE COMMITTEE IS GOING TO 
STAND IN RECESS UNTIL AFTER THE 
VOTES. 
PLEASE RECONVENE IMMEDIATELY 
AFTER THE VOTES.
THE COMMITTEE STANDS IN RECESS. 
>>> AND NOW WHILE THE 24 
DEMOCRATS AND 17 REPUBLICANS OF 
THE HOUSE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 
WALK ACROSS THE STREET TO VOTE 
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,
WE ARE TAKING A SHORT BREAK. 
THE DEBATE OF THE ARTICLES OF 
IMPEACHMENT WILL CONTINUE THIS 
AFTERNOON. 
HERE ARE THE PHONE NUMBERS AND 
WE WANT YOUR REACTION TO WHAT 
YOU HAVE BEEN WATCHING. 
202-748-2902 FOR REPUBLICANS AND
748-2903 FOR DEMOCRATS AND 
748-2904 FOR INDEPENDENTS.
WE WILL ALSO BE ON THE LOOKOUT 
FOR THE STAKEOUT POSITION. 
>>> DURING THIS RECESS WE WANT 
TO HEAR YOUR VOICES UNFILTERED 
AND UNSCREENED. 
ANDREA IN PHILADELPHIA, THE 
DEMOCRATS LINE, AND YOU ARE UP 
FIRST. 
>> Caller: GOOD AFTERNOON AND 
THANK YOU FOR TAKING MY CALL. 
FOR THE LAST COUPLE OF WEEKS, I 
HAVE BEEN WATCHING THE HEARINGS 
AND I'M UTTERLY DISGUSTED OF THE
FRAT BOYISH ACTION OF THE 
REPUBLICAN PARTY AND THE ANTIC, 
AND THIS IS TO ME, IT IS JUST 
COMING OFF TO ME AS A WHOLE 
PARTY IS ITSELF ARE TRAIT ERS TO
THE NATION. 
>> OKAY.
WE WILL HAVE TO CUT YOU OFF AS 
DOUG COLLINS IS TO THE STAKEOUT 
POSITION. 
>> FOR THOSE WHO ARE READY. 
LET'S GO, BECAUSE WE HAVE TO GO 
VOTE. 
AND I THINK THAT WHAT WE HAVE 
SEEN THIS MORNING IS WHAT WE 
HAVE BEEN SAYING ALL ALONG, WHEN
YOU BROUGHT THE ARTICLES OF 
IMPEACHMENT THAT HAVE NOTHING TO
DO WITH THE EVIDENCE. 
IS PAINFUL, BECAUSE THE 
DEMOCRATS ARE TRYING TO SAY THAT
THEY HAVE SORT OF WHAT WE HAVE 
SEEN THIS MORNING MAKING IT UP 
WAY BEYOND THE SCOPE OF UKRAINE 
NO DIFFERENT THINGS THEY MAKE 
UP. 
SO TODAY IS A CONFIRMATION OF 
WHAT WE HAVE BEEN SAYING ALL 
ALONG AND THEY DO NOT HAVE A 
CASE. 
AND WHEN THEY HAVE, THEY HAVE 
HAD TALKING POINTS TO MAKE UP 
WHAT THEY WANT TO MAKE UP. 
NEXT. 
ANYBODY ELSE WANT TO SAY 
SOMETHING?
>> YES. 
>> OKAY. 
GO AHEAD, DEB. 
>> THIS IS CONTINUING TO BE A 
TOTAL TRAVESTY. 
I MEAN, THERE IS NO PROOF OF ANY
CRIME, NOT ONE SINGLE ONE OF 
THEIR DEMOCRATIC FACT WITNESSES 
WAS ABLE TO ESTABLISH BRIBERY, 
TREASON OR ANY HIGH CRIME OR 
MISDEMEANOR AND THEY HAVE 
NOTHING AND YET THEY CONTINUE 
DOWN THIS LINE. 
AND IT IS REALLY A SHAME. 
>> THE GAETS' AMENDMENT SAYS 
THAT PRESIDENT SOUGHT TO HAVE 
YOU PUBLICLY ANNOUNCE THE 
INVESTIGATIONS INTO THE BIDENS 
AND IS IT YOUR POSITION THAT THE
PRESIDENT DID NOT ASK FOR THE 
INVESTIGATION INTO BIDENS?
>> NO, THE POSITION IS WHAT IS 
IN THE TRANSCRIPT WHICH IS 
UNDOUBTEDLY VERY DIFFICULT FOR 
THE DEMOCRATS TO READ, BUT IT IS
HUNTER BIDEN'S CORRUPTION, AND 
THIS IS THE ISSUE THAT THE 
PRESIDENT HAS FELT ALL ALONG 
THAT THE CORRUPTION IN THE 
UKRAINE IS A PROBLEM, AND SO -- 
>> IN THE CALL HE IS ASKING 
FOR -- 
>> WELL, IT IS GOING BACK, AND 
IT DID NOT SAY TO -- 
>> IT IS. 
>> I DID NOT DISPUTE YOU THERE. 
I SAID, YES. 
OKAY. 
>> WHY REMOVE -- 
>> NANCY. 
>> SO, IT IS STILL YOUR 
CONTENTION THAT HE DID NOT BRING
UP CORRUPTION IN OOET OF THE 
CALLS THAT CORRUPTION IS WHAT HE
WAS FOCUSED ON AND NOT JOE 
BIDEN?
>> IT HAS BEEN AND NOTHING TO 
CHANGE THERE, BECAUSE IT IS THE 
FACTS. 
EVEN IN THE MISQUOTED TRANSCRIPT
WHICH WE KEEP DOING ALL OF THE 
TIME, BECAUSE THEY HAVE TO MAKE 
IT SALACIOUS TO BELIEVE IT IS A 
PERSONAL FAVOR AND HE SAID US 
AND THE COUNTRY, BECAUSE 
REMEMBER THE CONTEXT, IT IS THE 
DAY AFTER THE MUELLER REPORT, 
AND THE DAY AFTER EVERYTHING HAD
HAPPENED UP HERE AND THE COUNTRY
WAS TORN APART AND NO WORK WITH 
THE COLLUSION THAT WAS GONE, AND
THE WHOLE ISSUE OF CORRUPTION, 
AND WE ARE STILL DEALING WITH 
IT. 
AND AGAIN, ANOTHER THING BROUGHT
UP, AND THIS IS NOT THE ONLY 
TIME. 
IN EARLY 2017, AND 2018, WE HAD 
OTHER STUFF BROUGHT UP, AND 
THESE ARE THINGS THAT ARE NOT 
BROUGHT UP, BECAUSE THEY DON'T 
HAVE ANYTHING ELSE TO GO ON. 
AND HOW MANY TIMES HAVE YOU 
REPORTED ON THE FACT OF QUID PRO
QUO OR EXTORTION OR BRIBERY AND 
THEY DID THE FOCUS GROUPS AND 
NOW WE DON'T HAVE THOSE CHARGES 
IN THE ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT, 
AND THAT IS A TRAVESTY. 
>> WHAT HAVE YOU THOUGHT ABOUT 
JOE BIDEN?
>> I THINK THAT THE PHONE CALL 
IS FINE.
IT IS A CONVERSATION TAKEN AT A 
POINT IN TIME THAT THE PRESIDENT
IS EXPRESSING CONCERNS AS WE 
MOVE FORWARD. 
THIS AFTERNOON, YOU WILL SEE THE
SAME THING, AND THIS IS MY LAST 
STATEMENT BEFORE WE GO TO VOTES.
THEY TRIED THE BEST TO MAKE THE 
ARTICLES LOOK GOOD AND AS WE 
STARTED TO POKE HOLES IN THE 
STORY, YOU SAW THEM STEP BACK 
AND A COUPLE WILL COME FORWARD 
SAYING THIS IS WHAT WE TRIED TO 
SAY, BUT THIS IS ALL OVER THE 
MAP, AND THIS IS WHY THE 
AMERICAN PEOPLE NEED TO LOOK AT 
THE ARTICLES FOR WHAT THEY ARE, 
A PARTISAN IMPEACHMENT. 
>> AND BASICALLY, WITH HUNTER 
BIDEN, DOES NEED TO BE CALLED AS
A WITNESS IN THE SENATE?
>> I AM ANXIOUS TO SEE WHAT THE 
SENATE DOES AT ALL WITH THIS, 
AND BELIEVE ME, AND MAKE NO 
BONES ABOUT THIS, THIS IS WHAT 
THE DEMOCRATS HAVE BEEN 
INTENDING TO DO SINCE JANUARY 
AND THEY HAD TO FIND THE RIGHT 
OPPORTUNITY, AND IF THE SENATE 
WANTS TO CALL THOSE VOTES, IT IS
UP TO THE SENATE. 
>> HOW MANY MORE AMENDMENTS DO 
YOU HAVE?
>> A GOOD MANY. 
>> A GOOD MANY. 
>>> AND WE ARE GOING BACK TO 
YOUR CALLS 202 IS THE AREA 
748-8941 AND 8942 FOR 
INDEPENDENTS FOR 8922. 
UP NEXT ON THE INDEPENDENT LINE 
IS MARVIN IN BROOKLYN. 
HI, MARVIN. 
>> Caller: HI THERE. 
YEAH, I DON'T GET WHAT IS SO 
DIFFICULT TO GRASP, BECAUSE IF 
THE PRESIDENT WAS SO CONCERNED 
ABOUT CORRUPTION, HE HAD AN 
APPARATUS OF THE STATE 
DEPARTMENT AND THE DEPARTMENT OF
DEFENSE AND IF HE IS SETTING UP 
THE BACK CHANNELS AND SETTING UP
A LAWYER OR THE PRIVATE CITIZEN,
THAT IS SCREAMING CORRUPTION. 
SO I DON'T SEE WHAT IS DIFFICULT
TO GRASP ABOUT THAT. 
IF I, YOU KNOW, IT IS BOGGLES 
THE MIND THAT WE ARE GOING TO GO
TO THE MAT DEFENDING HIM ON 
THINGS LIKE PROCESS AND THE 
ABUSE OF POWER AND NOT BEING A 
CRIME, AND MIGHT, AND I WOULD 
REMIND THE AMERICAN PEOPLE THAT 
NIXON WAS TO BE IMPEACHED ON 
ABUSE OF POWER AND OBSTRUCTION 
OF JUSTICE AND THOSE ARE THE 
VERY THING THAT THE REPUBLICANS 
ARE NOT SAYING ARE CRIMES, BUT 
THEY HAVE NOT BEEN ESTABLISHED 
TO BE GROSS VIOLATIONS OF THE 
OFFICE. 
SO -- 
>> NIZRA ON THE INDEPENDENT LINE
IN BATON ROUGE. 
>> Caller: OH, HI. 
CAN YOU HEAR ME?
>> PLEASE. 
GO AHEAD. 
>> Caller: CAN YOU HEAR ME?
>> WE ARE LISTENING. 
>> Caller: OH, OKAY. 
THANK YOU. 
OKAY. 
WHEN PRESIDENT CLINTON GOT 
IMPEACHED, I BECAME AN 
INDEPENDENT, BECAUSE I WANTED TO
REMAIN IN A STATE TO GIVE 
WHOEVER WAS THE BEST THE BENEFIT
OF THE DOUBT. 
SO, I WAS REALLY UNDECIDED WHEN 
THESE TWO CANDIDATES RAN AGAINST
EACH OTHER, TRUMP AND HILLARY. 
I WAS -- 
>> OKAY. 
NIZRA, GIVE US THE BULLET POINT 
ASSESSMENT OF THIS MORNING. 
>> Caller: OKAY. 
MY BULLET POINT IS THAT I THINK 
THAT THE REPUBLICANS ARE IN 
DENIAL. 
I THINK THAT THEY ARE LIKE AN 
OSTRICH WITH THE HEAD STUCK IN 
THE HAND AND THE BODY IS EXPOSED
TO THE TRUTH. 
>> THANK YOU, MA'AM. 
SHARON IS A DEMOCRAT AND 
GASTONIA, NORTH CAROLINA, AND 
YOU ARE ON C-SPAN. 
>> Caller: HEY. 
HOW ARE YOU DOING?
I WANTED TO SAY THAT I WATCH 
THIS ALL OF THE TIME AND 
EVERYBODY KNOWS ME, THAT I DON'T
DO ANYTHING BUT TO WATCH THE 
NEWS AND ALL OF THE CHANNELS AND
THEY BUG ME OUT. 
BUT ANYWAY, THIS HEARING IS THE 
REPUBLICANS THAT THEY ARE 
PLAYING THE COUNTRY LIKE, YOU 
KNOW, THEY ARE LYING IN FRONT OF
PEOPLE, AND THEY ARE TAKING 
EVERYTHING OUT OF CONTEXT, AND 
IF YOU CAN'T DEFEND ANYTHING, 
WELL, THAT IS LAW 101 AND BANG 
ON THE TABLE AND SCREAM, SCREAM,
SCREAM, AND THEY HAVE YET TO 
FIND ANYTHING THAT THEY CAN 
FIGHT WITH, AND HUNTER BIDEN, I 
THOUGHT THAT 45 WAS SUPPOSED TO 
BE THE PRESIDENT FOR EVERYBODY. 
THEY DON'T TALK ABOUT HIS 
DAUGHTER, AND ALL OF HER 
TRADEMARKS SHE GOT FROM CHINA OR
JARED AND SAUDI AND HIS 
BUSINESSES. 
SO I JUST THINK THAT EVERYBODY 
NEEDS TO STOP, AND THEY NEED TO 
GET IT TOGETHER OR RESIGN. 
AS AN ARMY VET, I WILL TELL YOU 
NOW THAT I HATE TO TELL PEOPLE 
THAT I SERVED MY COUNTRY. 
>> AND NOW, PERCY IN MEMPHIS. 
ON THE REPUBLICAN LINE. 
>> Caller: HELLO. 
>> HOW ARE YOU?
>> Caller: WELL, IT IS SIMPLE 
AND IT SEEMS LIKE A DOUBLE 
STANDARD. 
WHEN YOU HAVE GOT THE SPECIFIC 
WORDING IN ONE CASE AND THEN 
THEY SAY, WELL, LOOK, THE 
PRESIDENT DIDN'T SAY THAT IT WAS
A DEMAND, BUT YOU CAN READ INTO 
IT, BUT THEN YOU ARE LOOKING 
INTO THE MENTALITY OF WHAT THE 
PRESIDENT WAS DOING. 
AND AS THE INDIVIDUAL THAT IS 
HIS JOB TO ESSENTIALLY TAKE CARE
OF THE FOREIGN POLICIES, WHAT 
WAS GOING ON WITH HUNTER AND 
BURISMA AND EVEN ARGUMENTATIVELY
THAT SOMETHING WAS NOT 
OFFICIALLY WRONG THAT IT LOOKED 
SHADY AND IT IS HIS JOB TO AT 
LEAST LOOK INTO THINGS THAT ARE 
SHADY. 
AND HE DID NOT SAY RIGHT OFF OF 
THE BAT THAT THEY HAVE DONE THIS
THING. 
IT SEEMED THAT HE WAS TRYING TO 
FIND OUT IF SOMETHING HAD 
HAPPENED AND AS SOON AS IT WAS 
MENTIONED THAT THEY JUMPED ON 
THE PRESIDENT WHETHER HE IS 
GOING TO BE RE-ELECTED OR JOE 
BIDEN IS BIGGEST COMPETITOR. 
MY EYES JOE BIDEN IS PRETTY MUCH
PUT HIMSELF OUT AT THIS POINT. 
>> AND THIS IS KIND OF PLAYING 
INTO WHAT THE PRESIDENT TWEETED 
OUT A LITTLE BIT EARLIER TODAY 
WITH REGARD TO THE MORNING 
HEARING. 
DEMS FOR VERONICA AND ESCOBAR 
PURPOSELY MISLED MY CALL. 
I SAID I WANT TO DO US A FAVOR, 
OUR COUNTRY AND NOT ME, AND THEY
KNOW THAT AND DECIDED TO LIE IN 
ORDER TO MAKE A FRAUDULENT 
POINT. 
VERY SAD. 
UP NEXT IS EVEN IN GLASTONGLAST 
CONNECTICUT ON THE INDEPENDENT 
LINE. 
>> Caller: I HAVE CALLED, 
BECAUSE I HAVE WALKED AWAY FROM 
THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY YEARS AGO. 
I THOUGHT THAT WHEN I VOTED FOR 
TRUMP, I WAS LITERALLY GIVING 
THE FINGER FOR THE DEMOCRAT AND 
REPUBLICAN ESTABLISHMENT AND I 
SEE THAT HE HAS REFORMED THE 
REPUBLICAN PARTY AND THE MINDSET
OF THE COUNTRY. 
A RIGHT NOW, YOU CAN SEE WHY 
THESE DEMOCRATS ARE IN PANIC 
MODE. 
YOU CAN SEE WHY THEY ARE JUST 
MAKING THINGS UP FOR THE LAST 
THREE YEARS THAT THEY HAVE BEEN 
PUTTING THIS COUNTRY THROUGH ALL
KINDS OF PROPAGANDA AND ALL 
TYPES OF LIES AND JUST 
HARASSMENT TO THE PRESIDENT. 
HE HAS BEEN DOING A GREAT JOB. 
WHEN I AM LOOKING AT THE 
HEARINGS AND EVEN TODAY'S 
HEARING, THEY HAVE NOTHING BUT 
HEARSAY, AND THEY KEEP SAYING 
THAT THEY HAVE EVIDENCE, BE ALL 
OF THE EVIDENCE IS ON THE 
PRESUMPTION AND HEARSAY. 
IT JUST SEEMS THAT THEY ARE WAY 
TOO FAR AND LOSING THEIR HOUSE 
AND THEIR POWER OVER THE 
COUNTRY. 
>> DEMOCRATS CURRENTLY HAVE 233 
MEMBERS IN THE HOUSE, AND THE 
REPUBLICANS HAVE 197. 
218 MAKES UP A MAJORITY. 
DAVID IN WATUMKA, ALASKA, OR IS 
THAT ALABAMA?
I AM SORRY ABOUT THAT. 
DAVID, ARE YOU ON?
>> Caller: YES. 
I AM FROM CENTRAL ALABAMA. 
I'M A MARTHA ROBEY FAN, BUT I'D 
LIKE TO KNOW HOW MUCH MONEY HAS 
BEEN SPENT BY THE DEMOCRATS FOR 
THIS WITCH HUNT FOR TRUMP. 
NO, HE DOESN'T SPEAK LIKE A 
POLISHED POLITICIAN. 
BECAUSE HE IS NOT A POLITICIAN. 
HE IS A BUSINESSMAN OF SORTS, 
BUT AT THE SAME TIME HE HAS MADE
MORE CHANGES AND HELPED THE 
UNITED STATES MORE THAN ANY 
PRESIDENT SINCE 1934 AS FAR AS 
I'M CONCERNED.
AND I WISH THAT THE DEMOCRATS 
WOULD QUIT WITH THEIR WITCH 
HUNT. 
I WISH THEY WOULD QUIT WASTING 
THE TAXPAYERS' MONEY, AND I WISH
THAT WE COULD MOVE ON THE 
SOMETHING LIKE VETERANS ISSUES 
WHICH I SUPPORT HERE IN CENTRAL 
ALABAMA. 
I AM TIRED OF VETERANS BEING 
TREATED LIKE SECOND-CLASS 
CITIZENS. 
>> THAT IS DAVID IN ALABAMA AND 
THIS IS JOHN IN SAN FRANCISCO ON
THE INDEPENDENT LINE. 
JOHN, YOU ARE ON C-SPAN. 
>> Caller: YES. 
YOU KNOW, I USED TO BE A 
DEMOCRAT AND I HAVE MOVED TO THE
INDEPENDENT, AND I CAN'T 
ASSOCIATE WITH EITHER PARTY. 
IT HAS COME DOWN TO A BLOODS AND
THE CRIPS TYPE OF SITUATION 
WHERE YOU HAVE TWO RIVAL GANGS, 
AND THE COUNTRY IS NOT BEING 
SERVED BY OUR PRESENT SYSTEM. 
I THINK THAT WE NEED TO LOOK 
OUTSIDE OF THE BOX. 
AND UKRAINE, IT WAS ACTUALLY A 
VIOLENT COUP DE TAT THAT 
OCCURRED THERE IN 2014, AND WE 
MADE A REGIME CHANGE IN THE 
UKRAINE, AND NEITHER PARTY WANTS
TO RECOGNIZE IT, AND THEY CALL 
IT THE REVOLUTION OF DIGNITY, 
BUT I WOULD ASK THE FOLKS AT 
HOME TO LOOK UP THE AZOV 
BRIGADE.
IT IS A NEO-NAZI PROTOTYPE GROUP
THAT WE ARE GIVING OUR MONEY TO,
AND OUR TAX DOLLARS ARE GOING 
THEM, AND IF PEOPLE KNEW ABOUT 
THAT, I'D IMAGINE THEY WOULD 
HAVE A DIFFERENT PERSPECTIVE ON 
THIS. 
>> JOHN IN SAN FRANCISCO. 
SUSAN FERICCIO TWEETED OUT THAT 
IMPEACHMENT ARTICLES MARK-UP IN 
THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE MIGHT 
TAKE A WHILE THIS AFTERNOON, AND
ONWARD. 
REPUBLICAN RANKING MEMBER DOUG 
COLLINS JUST SAID THAT THE GOP 
HAS A GOOD MANY AMENDMENTS, AND 
REPUBLICANS PLAN TO INTRODUCE 
TODAY. 
NOW, LET'S HEAR FROM DAN IN 
KALAMAZOO, MICHIGAN, ON THE 
DEMOCRATS LINE. 
DAN, GOOD AFTERNOON. 
>> Caller: WELL, HI. 
I'M SITTING HERE WATCHING THE 
MARK-UPS, AND IT IS SORT OF 
AMAZING WATCHING THE REPUBLICANS
TRY TO KEEP SHIFTING THE 
GOALPOSTS AT EVERY POSSIBLE 
OPPORTUNITY, AND ESPECIALLY 
WHEN, YOU KNOW, THE ARTICLES OF 
IMPEACHMENT THAT ARE ACTUALLY 
INTRODUCED BY THE DEMOCRATS WERE
REALLY NARROW IN SCOPE. 
WE HAVE NOT EVEN TALKED ABOUT 
DONALD TRUMP'S TAXES OR ANY SORT
OF THE EMOLUMENTS ISSUES THAT 
THE MAN HAS, AND I ONLY HOPE 
THAT STUFF COMES TO LIGHT AS WE 
CONTINUE TO PROGRESS. 
>> HOW WOULD THAT BE RELATED, 
DAN, TO THE TWO ARTICLES OF 
IMPEACHMENT?
ABUSE OF POWER AND OBSTRUCTION 
OF CONGRESS THAT HAVE BEEN 
DISCUSSED?
>> Caller: FOR ONE HAND, THE 
ABUSE OF POWER, AND THAT IS 
CLEARLY HAPPENING WITH HIS 
CONTINUED ACCESS AS FAR AS 
PEOPLE IN TRUMP TOWER AND THE 
USE OF TRUMP TOWER IS BASICALLY 
SORT OF A LOBBY FOR FOREIGN 
LOBBYISTS WHO DO WANT TO 
ACTUALLY GAIN INFLUENCE WITH 
DONALD TRUMP, BECAUSE OBVIOUSLY,
MONEY IS THE ONLY LANGUAGE THAT 
THE MAN SPEAKS, AND AS FAR AS 
ABUSE OF POWER, WELL, I MEAN, 
THAT IS A OBVIOUS COROLLARY FROM
THE WHOLE EMOLUMENTS THING, 
BECAUSE ANY PRESIDENT UP TO THIS
POINT HAS NOT DONE THAT SORT OF 
THING. 
>> PHILLIPS IN MIDDLETOWN, NEW 
YORK, AND SO, PHILIP, WHAT IS 
YOUR COMMENT ON THIS MORNING'S 
HEARING?
>> Caller: YES. 
MY COMMENT IS THAT I FEEL THAT 
OUR STREETS SHOULD BE FLOODED 
WITH INDIGNATION. 
IN AFGHANISTAN AND TORTURES AND 
SAUDI ARABIA AND THE 9/11 
INVOLVEMENT, AND 2008 FINANCIAL 
CRISIS, YEMEN, 13,435 LIVES BY 
THIS PRESIDENT, AND THE 
INVOLVEMENT IN THE BRIBERY THAT 
HE HAS BEEN GETTING IMPEACHED 
FOR. 
I MEAN, IMPEACHMENTS ARE OVERDUE
AND UNDERUSED AND SIGN OF POOR 
JUDGMENT IN ELECTING PRESIDENTS 
AND REPRESENTATIVES. 
THAT IS MY VIEW. 
>> THANK YOU FOR CALLING IN. 
MARK IN PHILADELPHIA CALLING IN 
FOR THE DEMOCRATS. 
>> Caller: HOW YOU DOING?
I FEEL LIKE THE REPUBLICANS LOOK
LIKE A CLOWN UP THERE TRYING TO 
JUSTIFY WHAT DONALD TRUMP IS 
DOING. 
AND AS FAR AS EXPERIENCE GO, 
DONALD TRUMP NEVER HELD ANY 
OFFICE. 
HE WAS NOT ELECTED FOR ANYTHING,
AND SO HE HAS NO EXPERIENCE AND 
ANOTHER THING, NOBODY LIKES A 
BULLY, AND WHEN YOU ARE A BULLY,
YOU ALWAYS GET WHAT YOU DESERVE 
AND SO THE PRESIDENT IS GETTING 
WHAT HE DESERVES AND THAT IS IT.
I FEEL LIKE THE REPUBLICANS 
SHOULD JUST, I MEAN, LOOK AT IT 
FOR WHAT IT IS, AND SUCK IT UP, 
AND GET SOMEBODY NEW. 
>> REPUBLICAN WHIP IN HOUSE 
STEVE SCALISE TWEETED OUT 
EARLIER THAT, OR THIS IS TWEETED
OUT ABOUT STEVE SCALISE, THAT HE
IS WHIPPING A NO VOTE ON THE 
ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT AGAINST 
PRESIDENT TRUMP AND HIS OFFICE 
INFORMED THE GOP LAWMAKERS LAST 
NIGHT THAT THE WHIP TEAM IS 
GOING TO BE SPEAKING WITH THEM 
TODAY. 
SPEAKER PELOSI ALSO TALKED ABOUT
THE WHIPPING AND VOTING PROCESS.
>> WHAT IS YOUR MESSAGE TO THE 
MODERATE DEMOCRATS WHO ARE 
UNDECIDED AND CONCERNED THAT A 
VOTE FORWARD FOR IMPEACHMENT 
COULD BACKFIRE ON THEM 
POLITICALLY. 
>> WE ARE NOT GOING WHIP THIS 
LEGISLATION AND NOR WOULD WE. 
THE PEOPLE HAVE TO COME TO THEIR
OWN CONCLUSION ASHS AND THEY 
HAVE SEEN THE FACTS AS PRESENTED
BY THE INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE 
AND THEY HAVE TAKEN AN OATH TO 
PROTECT THE CONSTITUTION, BUT 
THEY CAN SEE THE CONSTITUTIONAL 
EXPERTS SPEAK ABOUT IT, THEY 
WILL MAKE THEIR OWN DECISIONS 
ABOUT IT, AND I WON'T SAY 
ANYTHING TO THEM. 
>> AND SO THE PRESIDENT IS 
CALLING THIS IMPEACHMENT LIGHT, 
BECAUSE THERE ARE ONLY TWO 
ARTICLES AND THERE IS NO CRIMES 
IN HERE. 
>> THE PRESIDENT IS WRONG. 
YOU KNOW, WHAT CAN I SAY?
WE HAVE PUT FORTH OUR ARTICLES 
OF IMPEACHMENT, AND I'M VERY 
PROUD OF ALL OF THE COMMITTEES 
AND SIX COMMITTEES HAVE BEEN 
WORKING ON THIS FOR A VERY LONG 
TIME. 
THIS IS NOTHING SWIFT ABOUT IT. 
BUT IT IS URGENT. 
AND SO WE WILL BE BRINGING THE 
ARTICLES, AND THE COMMITTEE WILL
WORK ON IT TODAY AS YOU KNOW, 
AND I DON'T KNOW IF IT IS THIS 
MORNING OR THIS AFTERNOON AND 
THAT DEPENDS UPON THE PACE OF 
THE COMMITTEE AND THEN NEXT WEEK
WE WILL TAKE UP SOMETHING ELSE. 
>> AND SO, YOU HAVE ACCUSED HIM 
OF BRIBERY AND WHY DID YOU 
DECIDE NOT TO MAKE BRIBERY ONE 
OF THE ARTICLES?
>> I, MYSELF, I AM NOT A LAWYER,
AND SOMETIMES I ACT AS ONE, BUT 
NOT AS OFTEN AS I AM A DOCTOR, 
BECAUSE I PRACTICE MEDICINE ON 
THE SIDE WITHOUT BENEFIT OF THE 
DIPLOMA, TOO, AND THIS IS A 
DECISION THAT IS RECOMMENDED BY 
OUR WORKING TOGETHER WITH OUR 
COMMITTEE CHAIRS AND THE 
ATTORNEYS AND THE REST. 
SO THE ARTICLES ARE WHAT THEY 
ARE. 
THEY ARE VERY POWERFUL. 
THEY ARE VERY STRONG. 
THEY ARE A CONTINUATION OF THE 
PATTERN OF MISBEHAVIOR ON THE 
PART OF THE PRESIDENT. 
PEOPLE ARE REALIZING AND SEEING 
WHAT THAT WAS. 
THEY THINK THAT THE PUBLIC 
THINKS THAT THEY SHOULD BE 
DETERMINING WHO THE PRESIDENT OF
THE UNITED STATES IS AND NOT 
SOME FOREIGN POWER. 
THEY THINK THAT NOBODY IS ABOVE 
THE LAW, AND WE THINK THAT AS 
THEY THAT THE PRESIDENT SHOULD 
BE HELD ACCOUNTABLE FOR ABUSE OF
POWER, OBSTRUCTION OF CONGRESS, 
AND THIS IS THE FORM THAT WE 
WILL TAKE. 
IT IS NO USE OF HAVING A 
DISCUSSION HERE. 
THIS IS A DISCUSSION THAT WE 
WILL TAKE TO THE FLOOR OF THE 
SENATE. 
>> AND WHILE WE ARE IN THIS 
BREAK, AND THE HOUSE JUDICIARY 
COMMITTEE, WE WANT TO HEAR YOUR 
VOICES, AND A REMINDER 
202-748-9020 FOR DEMOCRATS AND 
THEN 9021 FOR REPUBLICANS AND 
9022 FOR INDEPENDENTS. 
ROBERT, WHAT IS YOUR OPINION OF 
THIS PROCESS?
HAVE. 
>> Caller: WELL, EITHER SIDE, 
AND IT IS UNDOUBTED THAT 
FAIRNESS IS NOT AN OPTION HERE.
IT IS VERY PARTISAN. 
I THINK THAT IS CONCERNING FOR A
LOT OF PEOPLE WHETHER THE 
REPUBLICANS OR THE DEMOCRATS, 
BECAUSE IT REALLY HURTS THE 
DEMOCRATS' GOAL IN THE END IF 
THEY GET THERE IN AN UNFAIR WAY,
AND IT MAKES THEM LOOK BAD. 
I WOULD SAY THAT THERE IS A LOT 
OF PRESUMPTIONS THAT GO INTO ALL
OF THIS FOR THE DEMOCRATS AND 
THERE IS FACTS THAT ARE ON THE 
REPUBLICAN SIDE, AND THERE IS 
JUST MULTIPLE THINGS THAT ARE 
NOT SITTING RIGHT WITH A LOT OF 
PEOPLE, AND I KNOW THAT I HAVE 
WATCHED. 
JUST LIKE YESTERDAY, THEY HAD 
THE ONE INDIVIDUAL QUESTIONING 
AND WAS A WITNESS AT THE SAME 
TIME. 
AND ANOTHER THING THAT DID NOT 
SIT RIGHT WITH ME IN THE 
COMMITTEE, AND ADAM SCHIFF'S 
COMMITTEE IS YOU HAVE SWALWELL 
SITTING ON THE BOARD AND INQUIRY
NOW TO IMPEACH HIM. 
SO THEY ARE DOING WHAT THEY ARE 
ACCUSING TRUMP OF DOING. 
>> ALL RIGHT. 
ROB, WE WANT TO LEAVE IT THERE 
AND HEAR FROM ISAAC FROM ACADIA,
CALIFORNIA, AND ON THE 
INDEPENDENT LINE. 
GO AHEAD. 
>> Caller: FIRST, I AM THINKING 
THAT THE REPUBLICANS ARE 
UNWILLING TO THINK THAT TRUMP 
DID ANYTHING WRONG AND ON THE 
OTHER SIDE THE DEMOCRATS ARE NOT
WANTING TO CONCEDE THAT BIDEN 
DID SOMETHING WRONG, BECAUSE 
THEN IT WOULD BE THAT TRUMP WAS 
AFTER CORRUPTION, BUT IT IS THE 
IDEA THAT HE WANTED A PUBLIC 
STATEMENT BY THE PRESIDENT THAT 
MAKES IT NOT JUST ABOUT 
CORRUPTION, BECAUSE IF HE WANTED
THE CORRUPTION INVESTIGATED IT 
COULD HAVE BEEN ROUTED OUT AND 
DONE AND MORE COVERTLY AND 
DISCLOSED, BUT HE WANTED THE 
ANNOUNCEMENT BECAUSE HE WANTED 
TO SMEAR BIDEN'S NAME, AND SO 
WHILE WE ARE WATCHING THIS 
TRIAL, THE REPUBLICANS ARE 
TAKING EVERY CHANCE TO SMEAR 
BIDEN'S NAME. 
AND SO DURING THIS WHOLE TIME, 
WE ARE SEEING THE REPUBLICANS 
GET EXACTLY WHAT THEY WANTED 
FROM EXTORTING THE OR IF WE CALL
IT EXTORTION AND WE DON'T KNOW 
YET, BUT ON THE OTHER HAND, THE 
DEMOCRATS WHILE IMPEACHING HIM 
ARE GETTING WHAT THEY WANT IN 
THAT THEY ARE KIND OF SMEAR'S 
TRUMP'S NAME, AND SO THEY ARE 
ALL DOING THE SMEARS ON EACH 
OTHER. 
>> ISAAC, IT SEEMS THAT YOU HAVE
BEEN FOLLOWING THIS PROCESS 
CLOSELY. 
>> Caller: VERY. 
VERY. 
I HAVE BEEN WATCHING ALL OF 
THESE PROCEEDINGS, AND IT IS 
ABSOLUTELY AND I WISH THAT MORE 
OFTEN THE REPUBLICANS WOULD ASK 
THE PEOPLE THAT THEY DON'T AGREE
WITH WHAT THEY THINK, AND THE 
DEMOCRATS WOULD ASK THE PEOPLE 
THEY DON'T AGREE WITH WHAT THEY 
THINK WHEN WE HAD THE SCHOLARS, 
THERE BECAUSE IF THEY WANTED TO 
LEARN SOMETHING THEY WOULD HAVE 
ASKED THE QUESTIONS THAT WOULD 
CHALLENGE THE WORLD VIEW, BUT 
THEY ARE ASKING THAT CONFIRM THE
WORLD VIEW, BECAUSE THIS IS 
SIMPLY ABOUT SMEARING THE NEXT 
CANDIDATE IN THE NEXT ELECTION. 
>> THAT IS ISAAC IN ACADIA, 
CALIFORNIA AND NOW WE HAVE KELLY
ON THE DEMOCRATIC LINE. 
>> Caller: HELLO. 
>> WE ARE LISTENING. 
>> Caller: IF THE REPUBLICANS 
WOULD LIKE TO DEFEND THEMSELVES,
THEY SHOULD ALLOW THE TESTIMONY,
AND COME IN AND TESTIFY. 
>> WHO YOU MEAN BY THE 
REPUBLICANS?
>> Caller: THE REPUBLICANS 
MEANING TRUMP'S PEOPLE, POMPEO, 
ALL OF THE PEOPLE THAT ARE 
REFUSING TO COME IN, THEY SHOULD
COME IN. 
IF THEY WANT TO GET THEIR POINT 
ACROSS, AND IF THEY WANT TO SAY 
THEIR PEACE, THEY SHOULD COME IN
AND TESTIFY. 
>> THAT IS KELLY IN ROCKLAND, 
CALIFORNIA. 
UP NEXT IS CLEO UP IN ST. PAUL, 
MINNESOTA, THE REPUBLICAN LINE. 
CLEO. 
>> Caller: HELLO. 
THANK YOU FOR TAKING MY CALL. 
>> UH-HUH. 
>> Caller: SO, I WAS RAISED IN 
CONGRESSMAN NUNES' DISTRICT AND 
I THINK THAT HE HAS DONE A 
HORRIBLE JOB OF GIVING THE FACTS
FOR THE REPUBLICANS AND I DON'T 
UNDERSTAND WHY HE IS TRYING TO 
PUT UP THE CHARADE OF THE 
PROCESS WHEN PRESIDENT TRUMP 
REFUSED HIS RIGHTS TO GET INTO 
THE HEARING TO BEGIN WITH. 
I THINK THAT THIS WHOLE PROCESS 
IS KIND OF A SHAM ON THE SIDE OF
THE REPUBLICANS. 
THE DEMOCRATS ARE PUTTING FORTH 
GOOD ARGUMENTS TO MAKE ME WANT 
TO CHANGE PARTIES EVEN. 
>> THAT IS CLEO IN ST. PAUL, 
MINNESOTA. 
THERE IS NO SET TIME ON THIS, 
BUT IT IS LOOKING LIKE THE 
COMMITTEE MAY BE BACK IN SESSION
AT ABOUT 2:00 P.M. EASTERN TIME,
AND THAT, AGAIN, THERE IS NO 
CONFIRMATION ON, THAT AND THAT 
IS JUST WHAT IT LOOKS LIKE AND 
AGAIN, WE WILL BRING THAT TO YOU
LIVE AND BE HERE ALL AFTERNOON 
AND EVENING IF NECESSARY. 
TAKING YOUR CALLS AND GETTING 
YOUR REACTIONS, UNFILTERED, 
UNSCREENED.
IN THE MEANTIME THOUGH, WE 
WANTED TO SHOW YOU PART OF THIS 
MORNING'S SESSION IN THE HOUSE 
JUDICIARY COMMITTEE. 
>> CHAIRMAN, WHAT PURPOSE IS MR.
SWALWELL IS SEEKING RECOGNITION?
>> NO CRIMES HERE?
THAT IS THE DEFENSE THAT MY 
COLLEAGUES ACROSS THE AISLE ARE 
PUTTING FORWARD. 
HOW ABOUT THE HIGHEST CRIME THAT
ONE WHO HOLDS PUBLIC OFFICE 
COULD COMMIT, A CRIME AGAINST 
OUR CONSTITUTION. 
AFTERALL, THE CONSTITUTION IS 
THE HIGHEST, MOST SUPREME LAW OF
THE LAND. 
EVERY OTHER LAW STATUTORY LAWS 
INCLUDED DERIVE FROM THE 
CONSTITUTION, NOT THE OTHER WAY 
AROUND. 
THE PRESIDENT COMMITTED THE 
HIGHEST CRIME AGAINST THE 
CONSTITUTION BY ABUSING HIS 
OFFICE. 
CHEATING IN AN ELECTION. 
INVITING FOREIGN INTERFERENCE 
FOR A PURELY PERSONAL GAIN, 
WHILE JEOPARDIZING OUR NATIONAL 
SECURITY AND THE INTEGRITY OF 
OUR ELECTIONS. 
NOW, THE CONSTITUTION DOES NOT 
REQUIRE PRESIDENT TRUMP HAVE 
COMMITTED STATUTORY CRIMES. 
AFTER ALL, WE IN CONGRESS ARE 
NOT CRIMINAL PROSECUTORS. 
WE DO NOT PROSECUTE CRIMES.
WE PROTECT THE CONSTITUTION, BUT
SINCE MY COLLEAGUES KEEP 
BRINGING UP WHAT POTENTIAL 
CRIMES A CRIMINAL PROSECUTOR 
COULD CHARGE THE PRESIDENT WITH,
LET'S GO THROUGH SOME OF THEM, 
BECAUSE PRESIDENT TRUMP'S 
CONDUCT OVERLAPS WITH CRIMINAL 
ACTS. 
LET'S START WITH CRIMINAL 
BRIBERY, 18-U.S. CODE-201-B-2-A.
AND RELEVANT HERE, CRIMINAL 
BRIBERY OCCURS WHEN A PUBLIC 
OFFICIAL DEMANDS OR SEEKS 
ANYTHING OF VALUE PERSONALLY IN 
RETURN FOR BEING INFLUENCED IN 
THE PERFORMANCE OF AN OFFICIAL 
ACT.
ADDITIONALLY THE PUBLIC OFFICIAL
MUST CARRY OUT THE ACTS 
CORRUPTLY. 
DEMANDS OR SEEKS. 
PRESIDENT TRUMP DEMAND AND 
SOUGHT THE ANNOUNCEMENT AND 
CONDUCT OF POLITICALLY MOTIVATED
INVESTIGATIONS BY PRESIDENT 
ZELENSKY. 
ANYTHING OF VALUE PERSONALLY.
FOR THE PURPOSES OF THE 
ANTI-BRIBERY LAW, THE PHRASE 
ANYTHING OF VALUE HAS BEEN 
INTERRUPTED BY THE COURTS 
BROADLY TO CARRY TOUT ABUSE OF 
PUBLIC OFFICE. 
IN RETURN FOR BEING INFLUENCED, 
THE THIRD REQUIREMENT AS THE 
INTEL COMMITTEE REPORT 
DEMONSTRATED PRESIDENT TRUMP 
SOUGHT AN ANNOUNCEMENT OF THE 
INVESTIGATION IN PERFORMANCE OF 
TWO OFFICIAL ACTS. 
FIRST, HE CONDITIONED THE 
RELEASE OF VITAL MILITARY 
ASSISTANCE OF PRESIDENT 
ZELENSKY'S ASSISTANCE AND SECOND
CONDITIONED A HEAD OF STATE 
MEETING ON THIS PERFORMANCE. 
AND THE PERFORMANCE OF THE 
OFFICIAL ACT. 
AND THE COURTS HAVE DEFINED 
OFFICIAL ACT AS A MATTER, SUIT, 
OR COURSE OF PROCEEDING BROUGHT 
BEFORE A PUBLIC OFFICIAL. 
AND BOTH OF THE HOLDING THE AID 
AND THE MEETING MEET THIS. 
AND THE BEHAVIOR IS CORRUPT. 
AND PRESIDENT TRUMP BEHAVED 
CORRUPTLY, BECAUSE HE USED THE 
OFFICIAL OFFICE TO SEEK A 
PRIVATE BENEFIT. 
A SECOND CRIME ON THE SERVICES 
FRAUD. 
18 US CODE SECTION 1346, 
PRESIDENT TRUMP WILLFULLY AND 
KNOWINGLY ORCHESTRATED A SCHEME 
OF FRAUD AS THE PRESIDENT OF THE
UNITED STATES. 
THIS IS INCLUDED IN BRIBERY AS 
WELL AS WIRE COMMUNICATION -- 
>> WOULD THE CHAIRMAN YIELD FOR 
A QUESTION?
>> I WILL NOT YIELD. 
OBVIOUSLY THAT PHONE CALL IS A 
CONSTITUTING A COMMUNICATION. 
AND SO THERE YOU HAVE IT. 
TWO STATUTORY CRIME, AND THERE 
YOU HAVE IT, THE CRIMES OF 
STATUTORY CRIMES ARE MOOT, 
BECAUSE THE PRESIDENT OF THE 
UNITED STATES REFUSES TO ALLOW 
HIS OWN DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE TO
INDICT HIM. 
SO THE PRESIDENT MAY BE CHARGED 
WITH CRIMES STATUTORILY ONE DAY,
BUT THAT IS NOT WHAT WE ARE 
DOING HERE ON THIS DAY. 
AND WE ARE NOT RESTRICTED LIKE 
THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE IS. 
SO WE WILL UPHOLD THE DUTY TO 
CHARGE THE PRESIDENT WITH THE 
CRIMES AGAINST THE CONSTITUTION 
THAT HE HAS COMMITTED. 
USING YOUR TAXPAYER DOLLARS. 
JEOPARDIZING THE INTEGRITY OF 
YOUR VOTE FOR A PURELY POLITICAL
PURPOSE. 
IN A PURELY PERSONAL GAIN. 
AND MR. CHAIRMAN, WITH THAT, I 
YIELD BACK, AND I YIELD TO THE 
GENTLE LADY OF CALIFORNIA. 
>> I APPRECIATE THE RECITATION 
OF THE FACTS AS FORMER 
PROSECUTOR AND YOU SPEAK WITH 
TREMENDOUS AUTHORITY AND I WOULD
LIKE TO NOTE THAT THE ARGUMENT 
THAT SOMEHOW LYING ABOUT A 
SEXUAL AFFAIR IS AN ABUSE OF 
PRESIDENTIAL POWER, BUT THE 
MISUSE OF PRESIDENTIAL POWER TO 
GET A BENEFIT SOMEHOW DOES NOT 
MATTER. 
IF IT IS LYING ABOUT SEX, WE 
COULD PUT STORMY DANIELS' CASE 
AHEAD OF US. 
AND WE DON'T BELIEVE IT IS A 
HIGH CRIME AND MISDEMEE -- 
MISDEMEANOR. 
>> WOULD THE GENTLE LADY YIELD?
>> NO, I WILL NOT. 
>> AND THE TIME HAS EXPIRE AND 
WHAT DOES MR. GOHMERT WISH TO BE
RECOGNIZED?
>> DO I HAVE TIME?
>> WILL THE GENTLEMAN YIELD 
BRIEFLY.
>> HE YIELDS. 
>> THE IMPORTANT THING IS THAT 
BILL CLINTON LIED TO A GRAND 
JURY. 
THAT IS A CRIME. 
THE ARTICLE OF IMPEACHMENT TO 
PASS THE HOUSE ACCUSED BILL 
CLINTON OF LYING TO A GRAND 
JURY. 
A CRIME AND SOMETHING THAT 
OBSTRUCTS THE ABILITY OF THE 
COURTS TO GET TO THE TRUTH. 
THIS IS NOT WHAT IS HAPPENING 
HERE. 
BIG DIFFERENCE. 
>> THANK YOU. 
>> I AM RECLAIMING MY TIME. 
>> AND THE GENTLEMAN RECLAIMS 
THE TIME. 
>> IT IS INTERESTING THOUGH. 
WE ARE HERE BECAUSE OF FRAUD. 
NOT BY THE PRESIDENT, BUT FROM 
WITHIN THE DEPARTMENT OF 
JUSTICE. 
AND I REALIZE THAT THE PEOPLE ON
THE OTHER SIDE OF THE AISLE HAVE
BEEN SO BUSY TRYING TO FIND SOME
CHARGE OR CRIMINAL CHARGE TO 
BRING UP AGAINST THE PRESIDENT, 
NONE OF WHICH WORKED, THAT THEY 
MAY NOT HAVE BEEN AWARE OF THE 
MOST RECENT HOROWITZ REPORT, BUT
IT IS CLEAR NOW, AND IT IS CLEAR
NOW THAT THE WHOLE INVESTIGATION
THAT HAS BROUGHT US HERE WITH 
CRIME AFTER CRIME ALLEGED AND 
THEN HAVING TO BE DROPPED WAS A 
FRAUDULENT EFFORT BEFORE THE 
FISA COURT TO HAVE A 
SURVEILLANCE WARRANT DONE 
AGAINST CARTER PAGE. 
THEY LIED INITIALLY AND SAID 
THAT HE WAS A RUSSIAN AGENT WHEN
ACTUALLY HE HAD BEEN USED BY THE
CIA AS A SPY AGAINST RUSSIA, AND
SO THEY LIED, AND IT WAS 
FRAUDULENT, AND THEY WILL HAVE 
HOPEFULLY PEOPLE ANSWERING FOR 
CRIMES AND THE FRAUD IN THE 
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE IN THE 
DAYS TO COME, AND IT SOUNDS LIKE
THAT SHOULD BE THE CASE, AND IT 
IS FRAUD ALL OF THE WAY THROUGH.
FOR THREE YEARS WE HAD BEEN 
HEARING ABOUT THE CRIMES OF THE 
CANDIDATE TRUMP AND THEN THE 
CRIMES OF PRESIDENT TRUMP, AND 
WE COME TODAY NOW BASED ON THE 
INITIAL FRAUD THAT GOT THIS 
WHOLE IMPEACHMENT STUFF STARTED.
NO ONE ON THE OTHER SIDE IS 
WILLING TO ACKNOWLEDGE THE FRAUD
THAT BROUGHT US HERE, FOR THE 
 
FACT THAT SO MANY PEOPLE HAVE 
BEEN SCREAMING HERE ABOUT THE 
PRESIDENT'S CRIMES AND NOW WE 
ARE HEARING TODAY LIKE WE JUST 
DID, OH, YES, THERE WERE CRIMES.
THEN WHY AREN'T THEY IN THIS 
IMPEACHMENT DOCUMENT?
BECAUSE THEY DON'T EXIST.
THEY HAVE BEEN DISPROVEN OVER 
AND OVER AND OVER AGAIN, AND 
THAT IS WHY THE GENTLEMAN'S 
AMENDMENT IS SO WELL TAKEN. 
YOU DON'T WANT TO GO DOWN THIS 
GROUND. 
I THOUGHT THAT IT WAS A BAD IDEA
WHEN IT WAS PROPOSED BEFORE AND 
HIGH CRIMES AND MISDEMEANOR AND 
EVEN TREASON, BUT CRIMES AND 
MISDEMEANORS ARE CRIMES.
SO WE HAVE HAD TO DROP THE 
FRAUD, AND PEOPLE SAYING IN HERE
AND THE PUBLIC, GEE, WE WILL GET
THE PRESIDENT, BECAUSE HE 
COLLUDED WITH RUSSIA AND HOW 
TERRIBLE IS THAT?
WELL, IT HAS BEEN DISPROVED AND 
DROPPED.
SO NOW WE ARE LEFT WITH BRIBERY 
AND EXTORTION AND NOW WE ARE 
EVEN THOSE HAD TO BE DROPPED, 
BECAUSE THERE WERE NO CRIMES. 
AND I APPRECIATE THE GENTLEMAN 
BRINGING UP CRIME, BUT THOSE ARE
NOT ALLEGED HERE. 
SO LET ME JUST SAY, THIS IS A 
DAY THAT WILL LIVE IN INFAMY FOR
THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE. 
THE DAYS OF EXEMPLARY CHAIRS 
LIKE DANIEL WEBSTER WHEN HE 
STOOD FOR PRINCIPLE, AND THOSE 
ARE GOING TO BE GONE, BECAUSE 
THIS BECAME A TOOL OF THE 
MAJORITY TO TRY TO DEFEAT AND 
USE TAXPAYER FUNDS TO DEFEAT A 
PRESIDENT. 
AND BY THE WAY, THE KEN STARR 
REPORT, 36 BOXES, HE CAME IN AND
TESTIFIED. 
WE WERE KEPT OUT OF HEARING THE 
WITNESSES. 
THERE WERE IN THE WATERGATE, 
THESE WITNESSES TESTIFIED ON 
TELEVISION. 
IT WAS PUBLIC. 
IT WAS NOT A STAR CHAMBER LIKE 
THE SCHIFF CHAMBER BECAME, AND I
WOULD LIKE TO YIELD BACK TO THE 
REMAINDER OF MY TIME TO MR. 
JORDAN. 
>> I WOULD LIKE TO SAY, WHEN DID
IT HAPPEN?
WHEN DID IT HAPPEN?
IF IT ALL HAPPENED, WHY ISN'T IT
IN THE RESOLUTION. 
THE DEMOCRATS SAY SOME SCHEME BY
THE PRESIDENT ZELENSKY WITH THE 
PRESIDENT TO GET THE AID 
RELEASED. 
WHEN DID THE ANNOUNCEMENT 
HAPPEN?
THEY GOT THE CALL ON JULY 25th. 
THEY GOT TO MEETING ON SEPTEMBER
25th, AND THEY GOT THE MONEY ON 
SEPTEMBER 11th, AND NEVER AN 
ANNOUNCEMENT FROM THE UKRAINIANS
TO DO AN INVESTIGATION, SO YOU 
KEEP SAYING ALL OF THE STUFF AND
THE POINTS THAT THIS HAPPENED 
AND HAPPENED AND IT DID NOT 
HAPPEN.
IT IS NOT THE FACTS.
IT IS NOT THE FACT, AND WE KNOW 
WHY THE AID WAS ULTIMATELY 
RELEASED, BECAUSE WE LEARNED 
THAT THIS GUY, THE NEW PRESIDENT
WAS ACTUALLY THE TRANSFORMER, 
AND THE REAL DEAL WAS ACTUALLY 
GOING TO DEAL WITH THE 
CORRUPTION ISSUE IN HIS COUNTRY.
THAT IS WHAT HAPPENED. 
YOU CAN MAKE UP ALL YOU WANT, 
BUT THOSE ARE NOT THE FACTS. 
>> THE GENTLEMAN'S TIME HAS 
EXPIRED. 
AND FOR WHAT PURPOSE DOES MR. 
JEFFRIES SEEK RECOGNITION?
>> STRIKE THE LAST WORD. 
>> LET'S GO THROUGH THE FACTS. 
WE ARE HERE TODAY, BECAUSE THE 
PRESIDENT ABUSED HIS POWER. 
WE ARE HERE BECAUSE HE SOLICITED
INTERFERENCE IN THE 2020 
ELECTION, AND HE HAD SOLICITED 
FOREIGN INTERFERENCE WITH 
RUSSIA, AND CHINA ON THE WHITE 
HOUSE LAWN AND NOW WITH UKRAINE.
HE IS A SERIAL SOLICITOR. 
AND GOING THROUGH THE FACTS. 
CONGRESS ALLOCATED $391 MILLION 
AID OF MILITARY AID ON A 
BIPARTISAN BASIS TO UKRAINE 
CURRENTLY AT WAR WITH 
SYRIAN-BACKED SEPARATISTS IN THE
EAST. 
AND RUSSIA IS A FOE, AND
SENT BY THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION
SAYING THAT, OKAY, THE AID IS ON
THE WAY. 
BUT IT NEVER ARRIVED.
IN APRIL, HE HAD A PHONE CALL, 
THE PRESIDENT WITH ZELENSKY, AND
THE WORD CORRUPTION WAS NOT 
MENTIONED ONCE. 
AND THEN IN MAY, THE DEPARTMENT 
OF DEFENSE WROTE TO THIS 
CONGRESS AND SAID THAT ALL 
NECESSARY PRECONDITIONS FOR THE 
RECEIPT OF THE AID HAVE BEEN MET
BY THE NEW UKRAINIAN GOVERNMENT 
INCLUDING THE IMPLEMENTATION OF 
ANTI-CORRUPTION PROTOCOLS. 
WE HAVE THAT LETTER. 
IT WAS SENT TO YOU, AND IT WAS 
SENT TO US. 
THEN IN JULY, ON THE 18th, AT AN
OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET 
MEETING, THE AID WAS OFFICIALLY 
FROZEN AT THE DIRECTION OF THE 
PRESIDENT. 
TWICE DURING THE SUMMER MITCH 
McCONNELL THE SENATE REPUBLICAN 
MAJORITY LEADER PUBLICLY STATED 
THAT HE CALLED THE TRUMP 
ADMINISTRATION, WHAT HAPPENED TO
THE AID. 
MITCH McCONNELL COULDN'T GET A 
GOOD ANSWER, BECAUSE THERE WAS 
NO GOOD ANSWER. 
THEN ON JULY 25th, THERE'S 
ANOTHER CALL BETWEEN PRESIDENT 
TRUMP AND PRESIDENT ZELENSKY, 
AND THE WORD CORRUPTION IS NOT 
MENTIONED ONCE, AND HERE IS WHAT
WAS SAID. 
ZELENSKY TALKS ABOUT DEFENSE, 
AND THE IMMEDIATE RESPONSE IS TO
DO US A FAVOR THOUGH. 
AND PRESIDENT TRUMP SAYS, I NEED
YOU TO LOOK INTO SOME THING, AND
NOT PROCUREMENT OF THE DEFENSE 
ARMS, BUT RELATED TO A WILD 
CONSPIRACY THEORY CONNECTED TO 
THE 2016 CAMPAIGN, AND ALSO SAYS
THAT I WANT YOU TO LOOK INTO JOE
BIDEN. 
AND THEN WHAT IS INTERESTING. 
SINCE YOU THINK IT WAS A PERFECT
CALL.
HE MENTIONS RUDOLPH GIULIANI AND
LOOKING AT THE TRANSCRIPT RIGHT 
NOW, NOT ONCE, TWICE BUT THREE 
TIMES AND WHY ON THE OFFICIAL 
CALL WOULD THE PRESIDENT MENTION
RUDY GIULIANI, BECAUSE HE IS NOT
THE AMBASSADOR OR THE SECRETARY 
OF THE STATE OR A MEMBER OF THE 
DIPLOMATIC CORPS, BUT HE IS 
PRESIDENT TRUMP'S POLITICAL 
ENFORCER, AND THEN WHAT HAPPENS?
YOU SAY THAT YOU WANT TO TALK 
ABOUT THE FACTS. 
IN AUGUST, GIULIANI TRAVELS TO 
MADRID AND MEETS WITH THE 
UKRAINIAN GOVERNMENT AS A 
FOLLOW-UP TO TRUMP SAYING TO 
UKRAINE, GO MEET WITH GIULIANI 
AND THEN A STATEMENT IS DRAFTED 
ABOUT THE PHONY INVESTIGATION, 
AND SENT TO THE UKRAINIANS. 
BUT WHAT HAPPENS?
IN AUGUST, A WHISTLE-BLOWER 
COMPLAINT IS FILED. 
THEN ON SEPTEMBER 9th, THE 
WHISTLE-BLOWER COMPLAINT IS MADE
PUBLIC TO CONGRESS. 
TWO DAYS LATER, ON SEPTEMBER 
11th ALL OF THE SUDDEN THE AID 
IS RELEASED. 
WHY WAS THE AID RELEASED?
BECAUSE THE PRESIDENT WAS CAUGHT
RED HANDED TRYING TO PRESSURE A 
FOREIGN GOVERNMENT TRYING TO 
TARGET AN AMERICAN CITIZEN. 
I YIELD BACK. 
>> THE GENTLEMAN YIELDS BACK, 
AND FOR WHAT PURPOSE DOES MR. 
GAETZ SEEK RECOGNITION?
>> STRIKE THE LAST WORD. 
AND SO THERE WERE DETAILS OF WHY
THE AID WAS RELEASED AND THERE 
WAS THE ADMINISTRATION TOLD THAT
UKRAINE WAS THE MOST CORRUPT 
COUNTRY IN THE WORLD, AND THEY 
HAD FAILED SUFFICIENT REFORMS. 
AND SO WITH THE VICE PRESIDENT 
WHO HAD SENT A DELEGATION TO 
SEEK AID. 
AND SO I HAVE HEARD MR. SWALWELL
LIST OUT THE CRIMES, AND I AM AT
HOME I AM SAYING, WHERE ARE THEY
IN THE IMPEACHMENT?
THAT IS A DEMOCRAT DRIVE-BY THAT
YOU ARE NOT ALLEGING OR HAVE 
EVIDENCE OF. 
IF THERE IS A MICROCOSM OF THE 
WAY TO CONSUME THIS DAY, IT IS 
THAT THEY ARE NAMING CRIMES AND 
DEBATE THAT THEY DON'T HAVE IN 
THE IMPEACHMENT RESOLUTION, 
BECAUSE THEY CAN'T PROVE THEM, 
BECAUSE THERE ARE NO UNDERLYING 
FACT, AND THEN I HEAR MY FRIEND 
FROM NEW YORK, MR. JEFFRIES 
BRING UP RUSSIA, THE RESIDUE OF 
THE THEORIES PAST AND FAILED.
HOW DEBATING ABOUT HOW ARE WE 
EVEN HERE, AND DEBATING ABOUT 
THE MILITARY AID AND JAVELINS 
THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP DELIVERED 
THAT PRESIDENT OBAMA WITHHELD. 
I HEAR THEM, CRYING THE 
ALLIGATOR TEARS AND CLUTCHING 
THE PEARLS OVER THE NOTION, 
THAT, OH, WELL, TRUMP DIDN'T 
GIVE THIS AID AND WE HAVE TO GO 
IMPEACH HIM FOR IT. 
AND WHERE IS THIS CONCERN ABOUT 
HOW TO MAKE THE UKRAINE GREAT 
WHEN OBAMA WAS THE PRESIDENT?
YOU WANT THE SUBSTANCETIVE 
DEFENSE AND THEY HAVE NEVER 
DREAMED AND I THINK THAT MR. 
JORDAN DREAMS ABOUT THEM IN HIS 
SLEEP. 
BOTH PRESIDENT TRUMP AND 
PRESIDENT ZELENSKY SAYS NO 
PRESSURE. 
WE SAW THE CALL TRANSCRIPT, AND 
NO CONDITIONALCONDITIONALITY, A 
AWARENESS FROM UKRAINE THAT THE 
AID WAS BEING HELD. 
AND SO, NOW, EVERYTHING THAT YOU
CAN HEAR TODAY CAN BE 
CATEGORIZED INTO THREE AREAS. 
FIRST, PEOPLE PRESUMED AND HAD 
NO DIRECT EVIDENCE OF, AND KIND 
OF THE WATER COOLER THEORY OF 
THE CASE. 
AND THE SECOND, IT IS HEARSAY. 
SOMEBODY TOLD SOMEBODY TOLD 
SOMEBODY ELSE THAT CREATED SOME 
CONCERN ABOUT THE PRESIDENT'S 
CONDUCT OR IT IS REFLECTIVE OF A
SINCERE POLICY DISAGREEMENT OF 
HOW TO MAKE UKRAINE GREAT AGAIN.
I HEARD THE FOLKS COMING BY THE 
DIPLOMATIC CORPS, AND THEY SURE 
SEEMED TO BELIEVE THAT WE SHOULD
DO EVERYTHING FOR THE UKRAINE, 
BUT IF THE PRESIDENT DISAGREES 
WITH THAT, IT IS NOT IMPEACHABLE
CONDUCT. 
THEY ARE ALLEGING A SHAKEDOWN, 
BUT MOST OF THE AMERICANS KNOW 
THAT YOU CANNOT HAVE A SHAKEDOWN
IF THE PERSON ALLEGEDLY BEING 
SHOOK DOWN DOESN'T KNOW IT. 
PRESIDENT ZELENSKY SAYING THAT I
DID NOT FEEL ANY PRESSURE AND 
TALK ABOUT BAD TIMING.
WE HAVE A "TIME" ARTICLE OUT ON 
THE 10th OF DECEMBER A FEW DAYS 
AGO BECAUSE THEIR THEORY IS THAT
EVEN IF ZELENSKY DIDN'T KNOW 
THAT THERE WAS PRESSURE THERE 
WAS THIS GUY YERMAK AND HE KNEW 
FROM GORDON SONDLAND THAT THERE 
WAS PRESSURE, AND ON THE SAME 
DAY OF THE ARTICLES OF 
IMPEACHMENT, YERMAK SAYS THAT I 
QUOTE, GORDON AND I WERE NEVER 
ALONE TOGETHER AND WE BUMPED 
INTO EACH OTHER ON THE ESCALATOR
AND I REMEMBER EVERYTHING.
IT IS FINE WITH MY MEMORY. 
WE TALKED ABOUT HOW WELL THE 
MEETING WENT, AND THAT IS ALL WE
TALKED ABOUT. 
HERE THEY ARE WITH NO CRIME, NO 
VICTIM, NO KNOWLEDGE OF ANY 
SHAKEDOWN, AND YET, THEY 
PROCEED. 
TO ACCEPT THE DEMOCRATS' THEORY 
OF THE CASE, YOU HAVE TO BELIEVE
THAT THE UKRAINIANS ARE LYING TO
US. 
YOU HAVE TO BELIEVE WHEN THEY 
SAY NO CONDITIONALITY OR 
ANYTHING WRONG, THEY ARE SO WEAK
AND DEPENDENT ON THE UNITED 
STATES THAT WE CAN'T BELIEVE A 
WORD THEY SAY. 
WELL, AGAIN, WHERE WERE YOU 
DURING THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION 
WHEN THIS WEAK ALLY DIDN'T GET 
JAVELINS THAT WERE THEN 
WITHHELD?
I SUPPORT THE JORDAN AMENDMENT, 
BECAUSE THIS ARTICLE I, THE 
ABUSE OF POWER THEY ALLEGE IN 
THE IMPEACHMENT THEORY IS A 
TOTAL JOKE. 
THEY HAVE TO ABUSE OF POWER, 
BECAUSE THEY HAVE NO EVIDENCE OF
OBSTRUCTION.
THEY HAVE TO SAY ABUSE OF POWER,
BECAUSE THERE IS NO EVIDENCE OF 
BRIBERY OR TREASON AND ALL OF 
THE CRIMES THAT THE GENTLEMAN 
FROM CALIFORNIA NAMED CANNOT BE 
SUPPORTED OF THE EVIDENCE. 
SO THIS IS THE RORSCHACH INKBLOT
OF IMPEACHMENT SO EVERYBODY CAN 
SEE WHAT THEY WANT TO SEE. 
THE NOTION OF THE ABUSEF POWER 
IS THE LOWEST OF LOW ENERGY 
IMPEACHMENT THEORIES. 
HECK, I DON'T KNOW ANY POLITICAL
PARTY THAT DOESN'T THINK THAT 
WHEN THE OTHER SIDE IS IN THE 
WHITE HOUSE THEY ABUSE POWER AND
DO TOO MUCH. 
I HAVE A LOT OF CONSTITUENTS WHO
THINK THAT BARACK OBAMA ABUSED 
THE POWER, BUT WE DIDN'T DO THIS
TO THE COUNTRY AND PUT THEM 
THROUGH THE NONSENSE AND THIS 
IMPEACHMENT, AND YOU SET THE 
STANDARD AND WE DID NOT. 
YOU SAID IT HAD TO BE BIPARTISAN
AND COMPELLING AND OVERWHELMING 
AND IT AIN'T THAT, AND THIS IS 
LOOKING BAD. 
>> AND SO GENTLEMAN YIELDS BACK.
AND FOR WHAT PURPOSES ARE YOU 
LOOKING FOR RECOGNITION. 
MOVE TO STRIKE THE LAST WORD?
>> YES. 
IN RESPONSE TO MY COLLEAGUE FROM
FLORIDA, YOU CANNOT ARGUE THINGS
BOTH WAYS. 
YOU CANNOT SAY THAT THE 
PRESIDENT WAS SO CONCERNED ABOUT
UKRAINE THAT HE RELEASED AID. 
WHICH IS TRUE, HE RELEASED AID 
IN 2017, AND HE RELEASED AID IN 
2018, AND THEN SUDDENLY, HE 
BECAME CONCERNED IN 2019 RIGHT 
AFTER VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN 
ANNOUNCED HE WAS GOING TO RUN.
SO IF YOUR ARGUMENT IS THAT HE 
IS SO CONCERNED ABOUT UKRAINE 
THAT HE RELEASED AID IN 2017 AND
2018 AND THEN WHY IN 2019 AFTER 
THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 
CLEARED UKRAINE ON THE CHARGES 
OF CORRUPTION, AND WHY THEN DID 
HE DECIDE THAT HE WAS SO 
CONCERNED ABOUT CORRUPTION THAT 
HE WAS NOT GOING TO RELEASE AID?
THAT MAKES -- 
>> BECAUSE HE IS -- ARE YOU 
YIELDING?
>> I AM NOT YIELDING. 
I AM NOT YIELDING. 
>> THE LADY HAS THE TIME. 
>> THEY GOT A NEW PRESIDENT AND 
THAT IS WHY. 
>> AND THE LADY HAS TIME, AND 
THE PEOPLE WILL NOT INTERRUPT. 
THIS IS NOT PROPER HERE. 
>> THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN. 
>> AND THEY HAVE A NEW PRESIDENT
WHO IS KNOWN TO BE AN 
ANTI-CORRUPTION FIGHTER AND SO 
THAT ARGUMENT HAS NO WEIGHT 
WHATSOEVER.
>> YES. 
>> CONCERNED ABOUT
CORRUPTION AT THAT PARTICULAR 
MOMENT, YOU HAVE TO LOOK AT THE 
WHOLE RECORD OF U.S. POLICY AND 
OUR AGREEMENT THAT THE 
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE WOULD LOOK
UNDER CERTAIN CONDITIONS BEFORE 
THEY RELEASE MILITARY AID TO 
DETERMINE WHETHER OR NOT A 
COUNTRY HAD SATISFIED THOSE 
REQUIREMENTS AROUND CORRUPTION 
AND THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 
RELEASED THAT REPORT.
NOWHERE BETWEEN THE TIME THAT 
DONALD TRUMP WITHHELD AID AND 
THE TIME THAT HE RELEASED THAT 
AID WAS THERE AN ADDITIONAL 
ASSESSMENT REQUIRED OR DONE.
IN FACT, THE DEPARTMENT OF 
DEFENSE DECIDED THEY DIDN'T NEED
TO DO ANOTHER ASSESSMENT BECAUSE
THEY HAD ALREADY DONE THE 
ASSESSMENT.
SO AT THE END OF THE DAY I HAVE 
ONLY TWO QUESTIONS FOR MY 
COLLEAGUES ON THE OTHER SIDE.
AND THESE ARE THE TWO QUESTIONS,
FORGET ABOUT PRESIDENT TRUMP.
FORGET ABOUT PRESIDENT TRUMP.
WILL ANY ONE OF MY COLLEAGUES ON
THE OTHER SIDE SAY THAT IT IS AN
ABUSE OF POWER TO CONDITION AID,
TO CONDITION AID ON OFFICIAL 
ACTS?
FORGET ABOUT PRESIDENT TRUMP.
FORGET ABOUT PRESIDENT TRUMP.
IS ANY ONE OF MY COLLEAGUES 
WILLING TO SAY THAT IT IS EVER 
OKAY FOR A PRESIDENT OF THE 
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA TO 
INVITE FOREIGN INTERFERENCE IN 
OUR ELECTIONS.
NOT A SINGLE ONE OF YOU HAS SAID
THAT SO FAR.
I YIELD TO MY COLLEAGUE FOR 
TEXAS. 
>> WILL THE GENTLE LADY YIELD SO
WE CAN ANSWER THE QUESTIONS.
>> I WANT TO BREAK THIS DOWN -- 
>> THE GENTLE LADY HAS THE 
TIME -- 
>> AND SHE ASKED US A QUESTION. 
>> THE MEMBERS KNOW IT IS OUT OF
ORDER TO INTERRUPT MEMBERS WHO 
HAVE THE TIME.
THE GENTLE -- 
>> UNLESS I ASK -- 
>> THE GENTLE LADY HAS YIELDED 
TO WHOM?
>> SHE ASKED US A QUESTION. 
>> THE GENTLE LADY YIELDED TO 
WHOM?
MS. ESCOBAR HAS THE TIME. 
>> THANK YOU, CHAIRMAN. 
>> AND THAT WAS A LITTLE OF THIS
MORNING'S HEARING ON THE 
ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT.
WE WANT TO HEAR YOUR VOICES 
UNFILTERED AND UNSCREENED.
THE COMMITTEE HAS NOT COME BACK 
FROM VOTING AND FROM POTENTIAL 
LUNCH BREAK AND WHEN THEY DO, OF
COURSE, WE WILL BE LIVE WITH 
THEM.
IN THE MEANTIME WE WANT TO GET 
YOUR REACTION TO THIS MORNING'S 
PROCESS AND TO THIS ENTIRE 
PROCESS OVER THE LAST COUPLE OF 
WEEKS.
STEVEN IN FT. WORTH, TEXAS, 
DEMOCRAT, YOU ARE ON.
HI?
>> Caller: YES, HOW ARE YOU 
DOING?
I HAVE A LOT OF OPINIONS.
I JUST THINK THERE'S A LOT OF 
SQUABBLING BETWEEN THE TWO.
I DON'T THINK THAT ANYONE'S 
REALLY -- I DON'T THINK THE 
REPUBLICANS -- I HATE TO SAY 
THAT WAY.
I DON'T THINK THEY'RE REALLY 
GOING FOR ANYTHING ABOUT THE LAW
TO THAT STATE.
I THINK THEY'RE REALLY JUST 
GOING TOWARDS THEIR PARTY AND 
TRYING TO DEFEND THEIR PARTY.
MAYBE BECAUSE THEY DON'T WANT TO
GIVE THE DEMOCRATS MORE POWER.
I DON'T KNOW.
I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE SITUATION 
IS.
BUT IT'S LIKE THEY KEEP 
DEFLECTING TO DIFFERENT SUBJECTS
OUTSIDE OF WHAT THIS IMPEACHMENT
IS ABOUT.
AND THAT'S MY ONLY CONCERN.
SO THE PEOPLE IN AMERICA, THE 
CITIZENS ARE REALLY CONCERNED 
ABOUT WHAT THE BIG DEAL IS ON --
IF IT'S ABOUT THE LAW OR IS IT 
ABOUT YOUR PARTIES AT THE END OF
THE DAY?
AND I THINK THAT'S MY OPINION. 
>> STEVEN, DO YOU THINK THAT 
DEFLECTION, AS YOU CALL IT, HAS 
BEEN EFFECTIVE?
>> HONESTLY, I DON'T THINK IT 
HAS.
AT LEAST NOT FOR THE 
REPUBLICANS.
I DO THINK IT'S BEEN EFFECTIVE 
FOR THE DEMOCRATS.
I THINK THAT'S HOW THERE'S BEEN 
SO MUCH TALK ABOUT IT IN THE 
NEWS AND I THINK THAT'S HOW SO 
MANY PEOPLE ARE GONE FROM BEING 
IN SUPPORT OF TRUMP TO BEING IN 
SUPPORT OF WHAT THE DEMOCRATS 
ARE DOING.
>> THANK YOU, SIR.
CURTIS IS CALLING IN FROM UTAH 
ON OUR REPUBLICAN LINE AND, 
CURTIS, WE'RE WILLING TO YOU. 
>> THANKS FOR TAKING MY CALL.
HEY, I'VE BEEN WATCHING THIS 
TODAY AND FOR THE LAST THREE 
YEARS AND I'VE HEARD OVER AND 
OVER AGAIN THAT CONTEMPT OF 
CONGRESS IS NOWHERE CLOSE TO 
HIGH CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS 
UNLESS THEY GO TO COURT AND WIN.
AND WHERE THEY DIDN'T WANT TO 
WASTE TIME AND GO TO COURT, 
THAT'S THEIR FAULT.
THAT CONTEMPT OF CONGRESS NEEDS 
TO GO AWAY.
AND WHAT'S WRONG WITH THE 
PRESIDENT SAYING, YOU KNOW, LOOK
INTO, YOU KNOW, BIDEN'S DEAL?
HE NEVER SAID ANYTHING ABOUT 
BEING PART OF THE 2020 ELECTION 
THAT HE'S TRYING TO HURT HIM OR 
ANYTHING LIKE THAT.
HE'S TRYING TO FIND OUT FOR THE 
UNITED STATES, PRESIDENT TRUMP 
IS.
ALL THIS IS BACK AND FORTH.
IT'S JUST BACK AND FORTH.
YOU KNOW, THE DEMOCRATS, IF THEY
SAY IT ENOUGH TIMES, THE 
AMERICAN PUBLIC ARE GOING TO 
THINK IT. 
>> JUST TO CLARIFY, YOU SAID 
CONTEMPT OF CONGRESS, THE ACTUAL
ARTICLE OF IMPEACHMENT IS 
ENTITLED OBSTRUCTION OF 
CONGRESS.
VICTORIA IS NEXT FROM BROKEN 
ARROW, OKLAHOMA -- I'M SORRY.
BROKEN ARROW, COLORADO.
>> BROKEN ARROW, OKLAHOMA.
>> THAT'S WHAT I THOUGHT.
GO AHEAD.
>> Caller: I JUST WANT TO MAKE 
THE POINT, I'M A REGISTERED 
REPUBLICAN BUT I'M NOT WITH 
THEM.
THEIR PLATFORM AGREES WITH MY 
OPINIONS ON SO MANY THINGS, THE 
DEMOCRATS DON'T.
BUT I WOULD LIKE TO SAY TO 
EVERYBODY, STOP AND THINK WHAT 
THIS IS REALLY ABOUT AND IT'S 
ABOUT POWER.
WE'RE SO CORRUPT IN THIS COUNTRY
NOW, I DON'T KNOW HOW WE'RE 
GOING TO TURN THINGS AROUND.
BUT BOTTOM LINE ON THIS THING 
HAPPENING RIGHT NOW IS YOU DON'T
HAVE EXACT EVIDENCE.
THEY DID DO THIS THE WRONG WAY.
THEY DON'T WANT TO ADMIT IT.
I DON'T WANT TO BE A PART OF THE
PERSON.
THERE'S EVIL ON BOTH SIDES AND 
UNTIL WE GET BACK TO GOD I DON'T
KNOW WHAT'S GOING TO HAPPEN IN 
THIS COUNTRY.
WE'VE REFUSED TO DO THINGS GOD'S
WAY AND OUR FOUNDING FATHERS 
UNDERSTOOD THAT.
BENJAMIN FRANKLIN WHEN HE SAID 
YOU HAVE A REPUBLIC IF YOU CAN 
KEEP IT, THEY DON'T TEACH THIS 
IN SCHOOLS ANYMORE.
I'M 69 YEARS OLD AND I'VE NEVER 
SEEN ANYTHING LIKE THIS IN MY 
LIFE.
BUT BENJAMIN FRANKLIN SAID IF WE
THINK WE CAN RUN THIS COUNTRY 
WITHOUT GOD, WE DEPEND ON GOD 
FOR EVERYTHING.
IF WE THINK WE CAN DO THIS 
OURSELVES WITHOUT HIS 
BLESSING -- 
>> THAT'S VICTORIA IN BROKEN 
ARROW, OKLAHOMA.
WE'RE GOING TO TAMPA. 
>> Caller: IF I HAD A HAT I 
WOULD TAKE IT OFF TO YOU FOR NOT
LAUGHING AT MOST OF THE CALLS.
I'VE BEEN WATCHING THIS FOR A 
LONG TIME NOW EVER SINCE BEFORE 
TRUMP BEGAN TO RUN AND NOTICED 
HIS BEHAVIORS, NOTICED HIS 
PERSONALITY.
NEVER HAS HE BEEN SUITED FOR 
THIS JOB AND I THINK THAT A LOT 
OF US KNOW THIS NOW.
BUT WHAT CONCERNS ME IS LAST 
WEEK I HEARD A GENTLEMAN FROM 
OREGON SAY SOMETHING ABOUT TRUMP
BEING DETHRONED.
WRONG WORD.
AND A GENTLEMAN JUST SAID 
THAT -- AND I'M AFRAID THAT 
WHAT'S HAPPENING, WE'RE 
FORGETTING THE ELEMENTARY THINGS
THAT WE'RE LEARNING IN CIVICS 
CLASS IN SCHOOL.
THE CONSTITUTION IS NOT A 
SUGGESTION AS TRUMP BELIEVES.
AND THE PEOPLE ON THE REPUBLICAN
SIDE, I'M CONCERNED THAT THEY --
THEY'RE COMPLETELY IGNORING IT 
AS WELL IN ORDER TO KEEP THIS 
GUY IN OFFICE FOR SOME REASON.
BUT ONE SUGGESTION HAS BEEN MADE
AND I HOPE THEY FOLLOW THROUGH 
WITH IT, WHICH IS TO NOT TAKE IT
TO THE SENATE JUST YET.
KEEP DIGGING.
IF YOU KEEP GIVING THIS MAN ROOM
YOU'LL HAVE ENOUGH THINGS TO GET
HIM OUT OF OFFICE.
>> THIS IS JASON IN MILWAUKEE.
>> Caller: I WOULD LIKE TO STATE
AN OBVIOUS OPINION, I'LL PICK UP
ON THAT.
WE'RE SIDETRACKED, THE AMERICAN 
PEOPLE ARE BEING SIDETRACKED.
OTHER PEOPLE IN CONGRESS WHO 
HAVE -- 
>> JASON.
CAN YOU DO US A FAVOR?
STAND IN ONE PLACE AND SPEAK 
CLEARLY IN YOUR CELL PHONE 
BECAUSE YOU'RE GOING IN AND OUT.
WE WANT TO HEAR WHAT YOU HAVE TO
SAY. 
>> IT'S OBVIOUS THAT THIS WHOLE 
IMPEACHMENT BY THE DEMOCRATS IS 
BASICALLY TO THROW OFF THE 
AMERICANS OVER THE PAST YEARS 
SINCE THE CLINTONS.
A LOT OF THEM HAVE TIES TO 
UKRAINE, RUSSIA, THINGS LIKE 
THAT.
THEIR CHILDREN, PELOSI, IT'S 
OBVIOUS THE PEOPLE WHO HAVE THE 
BIGGEST SHADY BUSINESS DEALS 
BEFORE AN ENTITY IS WHY THEY'RE 
IN CONGRESS BECAUSE THEY'RE 
TRYING THE HARDEST TO IMPEACH 
TRUMP.
THEY COULD HAVE TRIED FOR THIS 
IMPEACHMENT YEARS AGO OF SUCH IN
THE CONGRESS OR WHATEVER IT MAY 
BE.
BUT ONCE HE TALKED TO UKRAINE 
SPECIFIC, NOW IT'S, OH, MY GOD, 
IMPEACH HIM.
BECAUSE HALF OF THESE PEOPLE IN 
CONGRESS HAVE SMALL BUSINESSES 
AND THEY'RE DOING BUSINESS WITH 
FOREIGN ENTITIES.
JUST LIKE PELOSI JR. AND VICE 
PRESIDENT -- 
>> JASON, WHAT DO YOU THINK AS A
REPUBLICAN, WHAT DO YOU THINK 
ABOUT THE DEMOCRATS COMING TO 
YOUR CITY FOR THE CONVENTION 
THIS SUMMER?
>> Caller: THIS IS A 
DEMOCRATIC-OWNED CITY.
IT'S HARD TO BE REPUBLICAN OR 
CONSERVATIVE.
I'M CONSERVATIVE.
I'M NOT DEMOCRAT OR REPUBLICAN.
>> I APOLOGY.
WE'RE GOING -- DIDN'T -- WE 
WEREN'T ABLE TO CATCH A LOT OF 
THAT.
AND I APOLOGIZE.
WE'RE GOING TO MOVE ONTO NEW 
YORK, INDEPENDENCE LINE. 
>> Caller: THANK YOU FOR TAKING 
MY CALL.
I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE ONE POINT 
AND THEN A COMMENT.
THE POINT BEING WHETHER OR NOT 
THIS HOUSE INVESTIGATION AND 
CONCLUSIONS ARE VALID.
THE REFUSAL TO HONOR A LAWFUL 
SUBPOENA AND TO APPEAR AND WHEN 
COERCING OTHERS TO FOLLOW SUIT 
IS AGAINST THE CONSTITUTION.
THIS WAS SET FORTH BY THE 
FOUNDING FATHERS, IT'S 
UNCONSCIONABLE.
AND SECONDLY, I'D LIKE TO 
COMMENT ABOUT A CUBAN GENTLEMAN 
COMMENTING ON THE WHITE HOUSE 
UNDER PRESIDENT NIXON.
HE SAID IF IT SMELLS LIKE, IF IT
SOUNDS LIKE, AND IT LOOKS LIKE A
WHORE HOUSE, THEN IT'S A GOOD 
BET YOU'RE IN A WHORE HOUSE.
>> Caller: IT'S AN HONOR TO 
LISTEN TO CNN -- 
>> OR C-SPAN.
>> Caller:.
C-SPAN.
I'M SORRY.
AND LISTEN TO THE AMERICANS 
ACROSS THE STREET.
THE POINT IS, DID THE PRESIDENT 
DO ANYTHING THAT'S IMPEACHABLE 
AND TO STAND UPON THE LAWN AND 
TO INVITE FOREIGN POWERS INTO 
OUR DEMOCRATIC PROCESS OPENLY.
HE DID IT OPENLY.
AND THE ONLY THING I'M 
DISAPPOINTED ABOUT IS DEMOCRATS 
NOT HOLDING THE STANDARD OF THE 
CONSTITUTION IN FRONT OF THE 
REPUBLICANS AND ASKING THEM IS 
THAT WHAT WE'RE HERE FOR?
YOU CAN TALK ABOUT BIDEN, OBAMA,
GENTLEMAN WASHINGTON AND 
BENJAMIN FRANKLIN.
THE THING IS, IN MY MIND, DID 
TRUMP VIOLATE THE CONSTITUTION 
IN ANY SHAPE, FORM OR FASHION?
AND HE DID WHEN HE INVITED 
FOREIGN POLICY INTO OUR SYSTEM 
AND THEN -- YOU KNOW, YOU DON'T 
HAVE TO PROVE ANYTHING ELSE.
THAT'S WHAT HE DID, POINT-BLANK,
ON THE LAWN AND HE -- THREE 
TIMES.
>> ALL RIGHT.
I WANT TO SHOW YOU NOW AN 
EARLIER EXCHANGE BETWEEN 
REPRESENTATIVES HANK JOHNSON, 
DEMOCRAT OF GEORGIA, AND MATT 
GAETZ REPUBLICAN OF FLORIDA. 
>> AND REPLACES IT WITH THE TRUE
TOPIC OF THE INVESTIGATION 
BURISMA AND HUNTER BIDEN.
AN ESSENTIAL ELEMENT OF THE 
DEMOCRAT'S CASE ON ABUSE OF 
POWER IS THAT THE BIDENS DID 
NOTHING WRONG.
IT COULD ONLY BE AN ABUSE OF 
POWER AND NOT A CORRECT USE OF 
POWER IF THE PRESIDENT WAS 
PURSUING SOMETHING UNDER WHICH 
THERE WAS NO REASONABLE BASIS TO
ASK A QUESTION ABOUT HUNTER 
BIDEN AND BURISMA.
HUNTER BIDEN AND BURISMA, THAT'S
AN INTERESTING STORY AND I THINK
JUST ABOUT EVERY AMERICAN KNOWS 
THERE'S SOMETHING UP WITH THAT.
$86,000 A MONTH.
NO EXPERIENCE.
WORKING FOR SOME FOREIGN 
GOVERNMENT WHILE YOUR DAD IS THE
VICE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED 
STATES.
IS THERE ANYONE WHO BELIEVES 
THIS IS OKAY?
I KNOW WE GOT A FEW OF MY 
DEMOCRAT COLLEAGUES MAYBE RUN 
FOR PRESIDENT ONE DAY, WOULD YOU
LET YOUR VICE PRESIDENT HAVE 
THEIR SON OR DAUGHTER OR FAMILY 
MEMBER OUT MOONLIGHTING FOR SOME
FOREIGN COMPANY?
MAYBE I'LL USE LANGUAGE FAMILIAR
TO THE FORMER VICE PRESIDENT.
COME ON, MAN.
THIS LOOKS DIRTY AS IT IS.
HUNTER BIDEN WAS MAKING MORE 
THAN FIVE TIMES MORE THAN A 
BOARD MEMBER FROM EXXON MOBIL.
AND I FOUND THIS PROFILE ON 
HUNTER BIDEN IN THE NEW YORKER.
HUNTER SAID HE HAD NOT SLEPT FOR
SEVERAL DAYS, DRIVING EAST ON 
INTERSTATE 10, HE LOST CONTROL 
OF HIS CAR WHICH JUMPED THE 
MEDIAN AND SKIDDED TO A STOP.
HE CALLED HERTZ WHICH CAME TO 
COLLECT THE DAMAGED CAR AND GAVE
HIM A SECOND RENTAL.
THE HERTZ RENTAL OFFICER TOLD ME
HE FOUND A CRACK PIPE IN THE CAR
AND A LINE OF WHITE POWDER 
RESIDUE.
HERTZ CALLED THE POLICE 
DEPARTMENT AND OFFICERS FILED A 
NARCOTICS OFFENSE REPORT LISTING
ITEMS SEIZED IN THE CAR 
INCLUDING A PLASTIC BAG 
CONTAINING A WHITE POWDERY 
SUBSTANCE, A SECRET SERVICE 
BUSINESS CAR AND HUNTER BIDEN'S 
DRIVER'S LICENSE.
THAT IS WHAT WE WOULD CALL 
EVIDENCE.
AND I DON'T WANT TO MAKE LIGHT 
OF ANYBODY'S SUBSTANCE ABUSE 
ISSUES.
BUT IT'S A LITTLE HARD TO 
BELIEVE THAT BURISMA HIRED 
HUNTER BIDEN TO RESOLVE THEIR 
INTERNATIONAL DISPUTES WHEN HE 
COULD NOT RESOLVE HIS OWN 
DISPUTE WITH HERTZ RENTAL CAR 
OVER LEAVING COCAINE AND A CRACK
PIPE IN THE CAR.
IT COUNTRIES.
HUNTER STAYED IN LOS ANGELES FOR
ABOUT A WEEK.
HE SAID THAT HE NEEDED TO GET 
AWAY AND FORGET SOON AFTER HIS 
ARRIVAL IN L.A.
HE ASKED A HOMELESS MAN WHERE HE
COULD BUY CRACK.
HE WAS TAKEN TO A HOMELESS 
ENCAMPMENT.
HE RETURNED TO BUY MORE CRACK A 
FEW TIMES THAT WEEK.
AGAIN, NOT SAYING -- NOT CASTING
ANY JUDGMENT ON ANY CHALLENGES 
SOMEONE GOES THROUGH IN THEIR 
PERSONAL LIFE, BUT IT IS HARD TO
BELIEVE THAT THIS WAS THE GUY 
WANDERING THROUGH HOMELESS 
ENCAMPMENTS BUYING CRACK THAT 
WAS WORTH $86,000 A MONTH TO 
BURISMA HOLDINGS.
THAT MIGHT BE ONE OF THE REASONS
WHY WHEN HE WAS ASKED DO YOU 
THINK YOU WOULD HAVE GOTTEN THIS
JOB IN THE ABSENCE OF YOUR DAD 
BEING THE VICE PRESIDENT, WELL, 
HE SAID, PROBABLY NOT.
AND THEN I LOOK TO THE RECORD 
EVIDENCE AND I LOOKED AT THE 
TESTIMONY OF MR. KENT.
MR. KENT WAS ONE OF THE 
WITNESSES THEY CALLED ON THE 
FIRST DAY.
HE SAID BURISMA WAS SO DIRTY 
THAT OUR OWN EMBASSY HAD TO PULL
OUT OF A JOINT SPONSORSHIP WITH 
THEM.
WHEN AMBASSADOR YOVANOVITCH WAS 
BEING PREPPED FOR HER 
CONFIRMATION, THE OBAMA 
ADMINISTRATION WAS WORRIED ABOUT
THE CORRUPTION AROUND BURISMA 
THAT THEY HELD SPECIAL PREP 
MOMENTS TO GET READY FOR THE 
QUESTIONS ABOUT THIS OBVIOUS 
CORRUPTION THAT THE PRESIDENT 
ASKED ABOUT.
MR. KENT, AGAIN, ONE OF THEIR 
WITNESSES, ALSO GAVE TESTIMONY 
THAT BURISMA HAD -- THAT THE 
HEAD OF BURISMA HAD STOLEN 
$23 MILLION IN THE U.S. AND UK 
AND HE PAID A DESCRIBE TO GET 
OFF THE HOOK.
AGAIN, IT'S NOT AS IF BURISMA IS
PULLING OUT NEW PLAYING.
THEIR PLAYBOOK IS TO DO DIRTY 
STUFF AND PAY BRIBES AND HIRE 
PEOPLE NECESSARY TO MAKE THOSE 
PROBLEMS GO AWAY.
THIS IS WHY THE MINORITY HEARING
ISSUE IS SO IMPORTANT, BY THE 
WAY.
YOU WONDER WHY REPUBLICANS ARE 
SO ANGRY WE DIDN'T HAVE OUR OWN 
HEARING.
WHY DID THEY BLOCK OUR ABILITY 
TO PUT IN EVIDENCE?
IT'S BECAUSE WE HAVE THE ABILITY
TO SHOW THAT BURISMA IS CORRUPT.
WE HAVE THE ABILITY TO SHOW THAT
HUNTER BIDEN IS CORRUPT.
AND THAT TOTALLY EXCULPATES THE 
PRESIDENT.
BECAUSE THERE IS NO WAY IN THE 
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA THAT 
HONESTLY PURSUING ACTUAL 
CORRUPTION IS AN IMPEACHABLE 
OFFENSE.
THAT'S WHY I OFFER THE AMENDMENT
AND I ENCOURAGE MY COLLEAGUES TO
VOTE FOR IT. 
>> I WITHDRAW MY POINT OF ORDER.
>> MR. CHAIRMAN?
>> THE GENTLEMAN YIELDS BACK.
FOR WHAT PURPOSES DOES 
MR. JOHNSON SEEK RECOGNITION?
>> I MOVE TO STRIKE THE LAST 
WORD.
I RISE IN OPPOSITION TO THIS 
AMENDMENT AND I WOULD SAY THAT 
THE POT CALLING THE KETTLE BLACK
IS NOT SOMETHING THAT WE SHOULD 
DO.
I DON'T KNOW WHAT MEMBERS, IF 
ANY, HAVE HAD ANY PROBLEMS WITH 
SUBSTANCE ABUSE, BEEN BUSTED IN 
DUI, I DON'T KNOW.
BUT IF I DID, I WOULDN'T RAISE 
IT AGAINST ANYONE ON THIS 
COMMITTEE.
I DON'T THINK IT'S PROPER.
>> AND MR. JOHNSON WAS REFERRING
TO A DUI THAT MATT GAETZ 
RECEIVED IN 2008, I BELIEVE IT 
WAS.
BACK TO YOUR CALLS BEFORE THE 
HOUSE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 
RECONVENES.
KELLY, MILTON, FLORIDA, 
REPUBLICAN. 
>> Caller: THANK YOU FOR TAKING 
MY CALL.
YEAH, I KEEP HEARING, YOU KNOW, 
THIS WHOLE THING ABUSE OF POWER,
TRUMP IS ABUSING, YOU KNOW, 
POWER AND THE ONLY ABUSE OF 
POWER THAT I'VE SEEN IS FROM OUR
DEMOCRATIC CONGRESSMEN.
FROM THE TIME THAT OUR PRESIDENT
WAS ELECTED IN 2016, THEY HAVE 
BEEN WORKING ON THIS PLAN TO 
IMPEACH HIM AND REMOVE HIM FROM 
OFFICE.
THE AMERICAN PEOPLE VOTED HIM IN
BECAUSE HE'S NOT A POLITICIAN.
HE DOESN'T SPEAK LIKE A 
POLITICIAN.
HE'S NOT A CAREER POLITICIAN 
WHO'S BEEN MAKING MILLIONS OFF 
OF, YOU KNOW, THE AMERICAN 
PEOPLE.
HE IS A TRUE AMERICAN WHO STOOD 
UP AND SAW THAT THIS COUNTRY 
NEEDED HIM AND HE HAS STEPPED 
UP.
WHEN HE SAID THAT HE WAS GOING 
TO DRAIN THE SWAMP, THAT'S WHAT 
HE MEANT.
AND NANCY PELOSI AND ALL THESE 
CAREER POLITICIANS WHO HAVE BEEN
SITTING THERE FOR 30-SOMETHING 
YEARS ARE SCARED AND THEY'RE 
DESPERATE AND IT'S PLAYING ALL 
OVER IN FRONT OF THE AMERICAN 
PEOPLE ON A DAILY BASIS. 
>> THAT'S KELLY.
AND THIS IS DERRICK IN NEW YORK 
ON OUR INDEPENDENT LINE.
GO AHEAD, DERRICK. 
>> Caller: I FIRST WANT TO SAY 
THAT I DON'T FIND MYSELF 
NECESSARILY ALIGNED WITH THE 
DEMOCRATIC OR REPUBLICAN PARTY 
BECAUSE OF THE GROWTH AND 
EXTREME SIDES THAT ARE TAKING 
CONTROVERSIAL ISSUES.
PERTAINING TO THIS, WHAT IS 
GOING ON TODAY, IT'S -- IT'S 
REALLY SAD TO SEE REPUBLICANS 
HAVING ELECTED SOMEBODY WHO'S 
KNOWN FOR SPREADING MISTRUTH AND
FOR BEING A BULLY AND FOR QUITE 
HONESTLY TAKING MONEY FROM 
AMERICAN PEOPLE, UNLIKE THE 
CALLER PREVIOUSLY WHO HAD 
STATED.
I KNOW PEOPLE PERSONALLY WHO 
HAVE SAID THEY'VE DONE THINGS 
FOR TRUMP DOWN IN NEW YORK CITY 
AND THEY DID NOT GET PAID.
I DON'T BELIEVE THAT DONALD 
TRUMP IS SOMEBODY THAT SHOULD 
HAVE EVER BEEN IN THIS POSITION.
I DON'T BELIEVE THAT POLITICIANS
ARE PERFECT.
PUTTING A BUSINESSMAN IN THE 
POSITION OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE
UNITED STATES IS NOT THE RIGHT 
ANSWER. 
>> IS THAT AN IMPEACHABLE 
OFFENSE?
>> Caller: BEING A BUSINESSMAN 
IS NOT.
BUT THE NUMEROUS THINGS THAT THE
PRESIDENT HAS DONE HAS SHOWN 
THAT HE'S NOT SOMEBODY WHO'S FIT
FOR OFFICE AND HE SHOULD BE 
IMPEACHED BASED ON THE CLEARLY 
BIASSED INVESTIGATION INTO JOE 
BIDEN A YEAR BEFORE THE 
ELECTION.
IT WASN'T IMPORTANT BEFOREHAND?
>> ALL RIGHT.
DERRICK IN NEW YORK, THANK YOU.
PATRICK IN MASSACHUSETTS, 
DEMOCRATS LINE.
HI, PATRICK.
>> Caller: HELLO.
I WANT TO MAKE THE POINT THAT 
REPUBLICANS ARE HANGING THEIR 
HAT ON DONALD TRUMP BEING SO 
CONCERNED WITH CORRUPTION THAT 
HE JUST COULDN'T LET THIS MONEY 
GO TO UKRAINE.
BUT THREE DAYS AGO HE PAID THIS 
MASSIVE $2 MILLION FINE FOR 
RUNNING A STATE CHARITY THAT HE 
BASICALLY USED AS A SLUSH FUND 
TO PAY OFF LAWSUITS AND BUY 
ARTWORK AND I THINK HE PAID HIS 
KID'S BOY SCOUT DUES THROUGH IT.
AND AS PART OF THAT SETTLEMENT 
HE ADMITS TO FAULT, WHERE HE RAN
IT AS A CORRUPT INSTITUTION AND 
YOU CAN POINT THE SAME THING TO 
TRUMP UNIVERSITY.
AND BOTH OF THOSE SETTLEMENTS 
CAME OUT AFTER THE ELECTION.
THEY'RE NOT RELITIGATING THE 
ELECTION OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT.
THEY'RE NEW INFORMATION WE'VE 
HAD SINCE THE GUY WAS ELECTED --
>> THOSE ARE NOT PART OF 
H.RES.755, THE ARTICLES OF 
IMPEACHMENT. 
>> Caller:.
NO BUT THEY GO TO HIS GENERAL 
CORRUPTNESS.
YOU CAN SAY LOOK AT THE 
CORRUPTION IN THE WAY THAT YOU 
RAN YOUR BUSINESS.
NOW WE'RE FINDING OUT YOUR 
BUSINESS WAS CORRUPT.
THOSE SHOULD BE AN ARTICLES OF 
IMPEACHMENT, MAYBE.
THEY HAVEN'T BEEN LITIGATED IN 
FRONT OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE AND
MAYBE IT'S UP TO CONGRESS TO DO 
IT FOR US.
>> THAT'S PATRICK IN 
MASSACHUSETTS.
UP NEXT IS JAMIE ON OUR 
INDEPENDENT LINE IN NEW YORK.
>> Caller: THANK YOU FOR TAKING 
MY CALL.
>> PLEASE GO AHEAD.
>> Caller: I JUST WANT TO MAKE A
BROADER COMMENT SINCE YOU HAVE 
PLENTY OF PEOPLE TALKING ABOUT 
THIS PARTICULAR HEARING.
I JUST WANT TO ASK MY FELLOW 
AMERICANS TO PAY ATTENTION WHEN 
THESE POLITICIANS ON BOTH SIDES 
BRING UP THE CONSTITUTION RIGHTS
AND ALL THAT BECAUSE ESPECIALLY 
WITH THE IG HEARING YESTERDAY 
TALKING ABOUT SPYING ON TRUMP, 
THEY'RE SPYING ON ALL OF US.
THEY JUST RENEWED THE PATRIOTIC 
ACT.
IT'S UNCONSTITUTIONAL IN EVERY 
FORM.
IT'S RATHER HYPOCRITICAL FOR ALL
OF THEM TO BE TALKING ABOUT THIS
IN THE FIRST PLACE WHEN EVERY 
DAY THEY'RE NOT DOING SOMETHING 
TO STEM IT.
IT'S -- I DO THINK TRUMP HAS 
DONE SOME THINGS WRONG, BUT AT 
THE SAME TIME FOR THEM TO SIT 
THERE AND QUOTE FROM -- TO TALK 
ABOUT THE CONSTITUTION WHEN THEY
THEMSELVES BREACH IT ON A 
REGULAR BASIS, IT'S JUST -- IT'S
HILARIOUS IN ITS OWN RIGHT. 
>> ALL RIGHT.
THANK YOU, JAMIE.
WE APPRECIATE THAT.
AND UP NEXT IS JUSTIN IN SOUTH 
CAROLINA ON OUR REPUBLICAN LINE.
JUSTIN?
GO AHEAD.
>> Caller: I AM A MILLENNIAL, SO
I PARTICULARLY FIND THIS ISSUE 
VERY CONCERNING.
IN REALITY, WE'VE GOT MUCH 
BIGGER ISSUES TO BE CONCERNED 
ABOUT.
THEY WANT TO COMPLAIN ABOUT HOW 
TRUMP HAS INVESTED TO 
INVESTIGATE JOE BIDEN WHEN WE 
HAVE OBAMA WHO WANTED TO 
INVESTIGATE TRUMP BACK IN THE 
2016 ELECTION.
MY BIGGER CONCERNS ARE IS MY 
FUTURE.
AND MY FUTURE IS LOOKING AT THE 
FACTS THAT WE HAVE SOCIAL 
SECURITY WAITING TO BLOW UP AND 
IS CAUSING A FINANCIAL INCENTIVE
ISSUE TO START CREATING A -- 
LIKE, LITERALLY NO ONE WHO IS 
WANTING TO RETIRE IN ORDER TO 
KEEP THE MONEY IN THE GOVERNMENT
SO SOCIAL SECURITY CAN GET ITS 
FUNDS BACK.
THAT'S MY CONCERN.
WE NEED TO GET THE FINANCIAL 
BUDGET BALANCED, GET OUR 
FINANCES IN ORDER, GET THE 
DEFICIT TAKEN CARE OF BECAUSE 
OVER ONE-THIRD OF THE PUBLIC 
DEFICIT IS JUST IN THE HEALTH 
CARE AND SOCIAL SECURITY ALONE.
>> ALL RIGHT, JUSTIN.
THANKS FOR CALLING IN.
NEXT UP IS LEE IN WEST COLUMBIA,
TEXAS.
HI, LEE.
>> Caller: THANK YOU FOR TAKING 
MY CALL.
AND I JUST HAD THIS ONE OPINION 
THAT'S BEEN, LIKE -- YEAH, I WAS
GOING TO SAY THAT EPSTEIN DIDN'T
KILL HIMSELF AND I JUST THINK 
IT'S BS THAT -- 
>> ALL RIGHT.
DAVID IS IN CAMBRIDGE, 
MASSACHUSETTS.
DEMOCRAT.
WHAT HAVE YOU THOUGHT ABOUT THE 
DEBATE TODAY AND THE PROCESS 
OVER THE LAST COUPLE WEEKS?
>> Caller: YES, HI.
I WILL KEEP IT BRIEF BECAUSE I 
HAVE SO MUCH TO TALK ABOUT.
THE PERSON THAT SAID WE ELECTED 
DONALD TRUMP BECAUSE HE'S NOT A 
POLITICIAN TO SHAKE THINGS UP, 
IF I'M SICK, I'M NOT GOING TO GO
SEE A CARPENTER ABOUT IT BECAUSE
HE'S NOT LIKE OTHER DOCTORS AND 
I WANT TO SHAKE THINGS UP.
SECOND OF ALL, REPUBLICANS WANT 
TO TALK ABOUT THE MILLIONS OF 
DOLLARS THAT GO INTO THIS 
INVESTIGATION, THEN THEY'RE 
GOING TO KEEL OVER WHEN THEY 
FIND OUT ABOUT THE MILLIONS OF 
DOLLARS OF TAXPAYER MONEY THAT 
TRUMP USED TO CARRY HIMSELF TO 
AND FROM RESORTS.
IT WAS A FINAL MOST CENTRAL 
COMMAND, THAT IS WHAT DONALD 
TRUMP IS TELLING THESE HOUSE 
REPUBLICANS AND THAT'S EXACTLY 
WHAT THESE HOUSE REPUBLICANS ARE
TELLING THE AMERICAN PEOPLE.
>> ALL RIGHT.
THANK YOU.
DAVID IN CAMBRIDGE, 
MASSACHUSETTS.
HERE'S A LITTLE BIT MORE OF THIS
MORNING'S DEBATE. 
>> YIELDS BACK.
FOR WHAT PURPOSES -- 
>> I MOVE TO STRIKE THE LAST 
WORD.
>> THE GENTLEMAN IS RECOGNIZED. 
>> MY MIND IS BOGGLED BY THE 
GENTLEMAN FROM GEORGIA SAYING 
THAT ALL BRIBERY WAS OKAY UNTIL 
THE CONSTITUTION WAS ADOPTED AND
TWO YEARS LATER WHEN THE 
CONGRESS PASSED THE FIRST 
CRIMINAL CODE.
FIRST OF ALL, THERE'S A COMMON 
LAW DEFINITION OF BRIBERY.
I THINK PEOPLE LONG BEFORE 1787 
REALIZED THAT BRIBY WAS NO GOOD.
BUT WE ALSO HAD CRIMINAL CODES 
IN EACH OF THE 13 INDEPENDENT 
STATES, COLONIES BEFORE THE 
DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE. 
>> WILL THE GENTLEMAN ANSWER MY 
QUESTION?
>> I DIDN'T INTERRUPT YOU.
>> THE GENTLEMAN HAS THE TIME.
>> OKAY.
THE SECOND THING IS, IS THAT IF 
YOU ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE 
AISLE BELIEVE THAT JOE BIDEN IS 
A MAN WHO TELLS THE TRUTH, YOU 
OUGHT TO SUPPORT THIS AMENDMENT.
BECAUSE JOE BIDEN EVER SINCE 
HUNTER'S INVOLVEMENT WITH 
BURISMA HAS BEEN REPEATEDLY 
ASKED WHETHER HE MADE ANY 
ARRANGEMENTS TO GET HUNTER THIS 
REALLY COOSHY JOB.
SO YOU PUT JOE BIDEN'S NAME IN 
YOUR ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT 
WHEN THE REAL FACTOR IS HUNTER 
BIDEN.
HUNTER IS NOT RUNNING FOR 
ANYTHING.
AND IF REAL IT IS HUNTER BIDEN, 
I GUESS YOUR CLAIM THAT THE 
PRESIDENT WAS TRYING TO 
INFLUENCE THE 2020 ELECTION 
WOULD GO OUT THE WINDOW.
BUT IF YOU THINK THAT JOE BIDEN 
IS A MAN WHO TELLS THE TRUTH, 
AND I'LL GIVE HIM THE BENEFIT OF
THE DOUBT BECAUSE I THINK HE 
DESERVES IT, THEN LET'S GET RID 
OF JOE BIDEN IN THIS ARTICLES OF
IMPEACHMENT, SUBSTITUTE HIS 
SON'S NAME IN THERE AND PROCEED.
I CHALLENGE YOU, BECAUSE EVERY 
ONE OF YOU THAT WILL VOTE NO ON 
THIS AMENDMENT IS GOING TO BE 
SAYING I THINK THAT JOE BIDEN'S 
A LIAR.
IF YOU DON'T THINK THAT JOE 
BIDEN IS A LIAR, VOTE YES.
I YIELD THE BALANCE OF MY TIME 
TO MR. GAETZ.
>> THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN.
AND, AGAIN, IT'S IMPORTANT TO 
ANALYZE THE BURDEN OF PROOF 
HERE.
IT'S THE DEMOCRATS WHO ARE 
SAYING ANY QUESTION ABOUT THE 
BIDEN SITUATION, BURISMA, IT 
COULD ONLY BE AN ABUSE OF POWER.
AND I THINK THIS AMENDMENT 
REALLY REFLECTS HOW THE 
PRESIDENT WAS USING HIS POWER 
PERFECTLY, ENTIRELY 
APPROPRIATELY.
AND IT ALSO SHOWS HOW SCARED 
THEY ARE OF THE FACTS.
IF WE HAD THE OPPORTUNITY TO 
CALL IN THOSE WHO WERE ENGAGED 
IN WORK WITH THE UKRAINIAN 
EMBASSY, IF WE WERE ABLE TO 
BRING FORWARD HUNTER BIDEN, IF 
WE WERE ABLE TO DEMONSTRATE THE 
BIAS OF THE WHISTLE-BLOWER, THE 
AMERICAN PEOPLE WOULD SEE WE ARE
NOT IN THIS DEBATE AND IN THIS 
DISCUSSION BECAUSE THE PRESIDENT
DID ANYTHING WRONG OR 
IMPEACHABLE OR CRIMINAL.
WE'RE HERE, FUNDAMENTALLY, 
BECAUSE THEY CANNOT ACCEPT THE 
FACT THAT HE WON THE 2016 
ELECTION.
AND I THINK ALL AMERICANS KNOW 
THE PRESIDENT HAS A DIFFERENT 
APPROACH.
BUT TO ACCEPT THEIR STANDARD 
WOULD MEAN THAT IF SOMEONE 
ANNOUNCES THAT THEY'RE RUNNING 
FOR OFFICE, IT'S KIND OF LIKE AN
INSTANT IMMUNITY DEAL FOR 
ANYTHING THEY WOULD EVER DO.
ARE THEY REALLY SAYING IF JOE 
BIDEN, HUNTER BIDEN, BURISMA 
WERE ENGAGED IN SOME CORRUPT 
ACT, JUST BECAUSE JOE BIDEN 
ANNOUNCED FOR THE PRESIDENCY 
THAT THAT OUGHT TO ABSOLVE HIM 
OF THAT CRIMINAL ACTIVITY.
IT'S A LUDICROUS POSITION.
MAYBE IT'S INFORMED BY THE FACT 
THAT -- YOU ALL GOT A LITTLE 
LUCKY ON THE HILLARY CLINTON 
STUFF.
SHE THOUGHT BECAUSE SHE WAS IN A
PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION, THAT HER 
CRIMES DIDN'T HAVE TO BE HELD TO
ACCOUNT, AND IT TURNED OUT TO BE
THE CASE.
BUT IT SHOULDN'T BE THE STANDARD
IN THE UNITED STATES.
AND I'M GLAD THAT WE HAVE A 
PRESIDENT WHO IS AT TIMES 
SKEPTICAL OF FOREIGN AID WHO 
PUTS AMERICA FIRST, WHO 
UNDERSTANDS THAT IN CORRUPT 
PLACES THE RESOURCES WE PROVIDE 
DON'T ALWAYS MAKE IT TO AN AREA 
OF NEED.
BUT WE CONCLUDE WITH THIS.
ONCE THE MEETINGS HAPPENED THAT 
DEMONSTRATED THAT PRESIDENT 
ZELENSKY WAS A TRUE REFORMER, 
THAT HE WAS HONEST, HONEST FROM 
THE POINT OF HIS CAMPAIGN ALL 
THE WAY UP TO THE POINT WHEN HE 
SAID THERE WAS NO PRESSURE PUT 
ON HIM OR HIS GOVERNMENT FOR 
THIS AID, IF YOU ACCEPT THAT 
PROPOSITION, IT'S VERY CLEAR 
THAT THE PRESIDENT WAS ENTIRELY 
APPROPRIATE IN THOSE QUESTIONS.
AND I GOT TO SAY, WE HAVE NOW 
REACHED THE POINT IN TIME WHERE 
PRESIDENT TRUMP ISN'T THE ONLY 
PRESIDENT BEING ATTACKED IN THIS
MEETING.
I HEARD ZELENSKY GONE AFTER AS A
POLITICIAN, A LIAR.
THEY CAN'T -- 
>> CAN I RESPOND?
MY NAME WAS CALLED?
>> THEY'RE ATTACKING ZELENSKY 
AND IT -- 
>> THE GENTLEMAN'S TIME IS 
EXPIRED.
FOR WHAT PURPOSE DOES 
MS. JACKSON LEE SEEK 
RECOGNITION. 
>> STRIKE THE LAST WORD. 
>> THE GENTLE LADY IS 
RECOGNIZED. 
>> I THANK THE CHAIRMAN.
THIS IS ABOUT DISTRACTION, 
DISTRACTION, DISTRACTION.
OUR GOOD FRIENDS SPENT THREE 
HOURS SAYING THE PRESIDENT DID 
NOT TARGET THE BIDENS.
NOW THEY'RE SAYING THAT HE DID.
WHICH IS IT?
I'M HOLDING THE CLASSIFIED, 
UNCLASSIFIED CONVERSATION AND 
LET ME JUST CLARIFY A CERTAIN 
POINT AND THAT POINT IS THAT I 
DID READ THE TRANSCRIPT AND IT 
DID SAY US.
BUT THERE'S NOTHING IN THE 
PRESIDENT'S NOTES THAT EVEN 
SUGGESTED THAT THE QUESTION THAT
HE ASKED WAS FOR THE AMERICAN 
PEOPLE.
IN TESTIMONY BY MR. GOLDMAN WHO 
OBVIOUSLY WENT THROUGH EVERY 
ASPECT OF THIS, I ASKED A 
QUESTION ABOUT WHETHER OR NOT 
THE PRESIDENT SAID ANYTHING FROM
THE NOTES THAT ARE GIVEN, THE 
BRIEFING THAT IS GIVEN BY THOSE 
REPRESENTATIVES OF THE UNITED 
STATES GOVERNMENT.
THE STAFF OF THE NATIONAL 
SECURITY COUNCIL, THE STATE 
DEPARTMENT, THE DEFENSE 
DEPARTMENT ON CORRUPTION.
HE DIDN'T SPEAK ANYTHING ABOUT 
CORRUPTION THAT HE WAS BRIEFED 
ON.
AND IF YOU GO THROUGH THE CALL, 
HE CONTINUES TO MENTION THE 
BIDENS.
AND SO THIS, AGAIN, IS ABOUT 
UKRAINE.
THE PRESIDENT DID ASK UKRAINE, 
THE PRESIDENT OF UKRAINE, A 
VULNERABLE LEADER OF A COUNTRY 
THAT IS FLEDGING AND TRYING TO 
SURVIVE.
LET ME SAY THAT I INTEND TO 
INTRODUCE INTO THE RECORD AN 
ARTICLE THAT INDICATED VERY 
CLEARLY THAT PEOPLE DID DIE.
TRUMP FROZE MILITARY AID, AS 
UKRAINIAN SOLDIERS PERISHED IN 
BATTLE.
BUT THE FACTS ARE THE -- 
ALLOW -- THE FACTS ARE PRESIDENT
TRUMP PROVIDED 510 MILLION IN 
AID IN 2017 AND 359 MILLION IN 
2018.
BUT HE WANTED TO STOP IN 2019, 
THE YEAR OR MONTHS BEFORE THE 
2020 ELECTION.
IN ADDITION, PRESIDENT TRUMP'S 
ADVISERS CONFIRMED THAT THE 
INVESTIGATIONS INTO THE 2016 
ELECTION INTERFERENCE AND BIDENS
WERE NOT U.S. POLICY.
AND AS WELL, THEY HAVE DEBUNKED 
ANY ASSOCIATION THAT THERE WAS 
ANYTHING TO THE IMPROPRIETY OF 
THE FORMER VICE PRESIDENT AND 
HIS SERVICE AS IT RELATED TO 
UKRAINE.
I THINK IT IS ALSO IMPORTANT 
THAT THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 
AND STATE DEPARTMENT HAVE 
CONFIRMED THAT UKRAINE HAD MET 
ALL ANTI-CORRUPTION BENCHMARKS 
AND THE AID SHOULD BE RELEASED.
THAT'S THE POLICY OF THE UNITED 
STATES OF AMERICA.
THERE WAS NO NEED FOR THIS 
PRESIDENT TO TRY TO MAKE UP HIS 
OWN POLICY.
IN HIS OWN STATEMENT OF 
ADMINISTRATIVE POLICIES, AND I 
ASK UNANIMOUS CONSENT TO HAVE 
THOSE IN THE RECORD, THIS IS 
FROM THE WHITE HOUSE.
NOTHING IN THIS SAID TO DISCUSS 
CORRUPTION.
WHY?
BECAUSE UKRAINE HAD ALREADY MET 
THE STANDARDS OF INDEPENDENT 
EXECUTIVE AGENCIES THAT THEY HAD
MET THAT STANDARD OF CORRUPTION,
THEIR MONEY SHOULD HAVE BEEN 
RELEASED.
AND WE WELL KNOW, AS THE PROCESS
OF THE WHISTLE-BLOWER AND THE 
TIMING, THAT PRESIDENT ZELENSKY,
DESPERATE FOR MONEY, PEOPLE 
DYING IN THE FIELD, WAS ASKED TO
DO A CNN ANNOUNCEMENT AND HE WAS
GOING TO BE ON ONE OF CNN'S 
WELL-KNOWN SHOWS DEALING WITH 
INTERNATIONAL POLITICS, BUT IT 
WAS STOPPED IN ITS TRACKS AS 
TESTIFIED BY WITNESSES UNDER 
OATH BECAUSE OF THE 
WHISTLE-BLOWER'S STATEMENT.
LET ME BE VERY CLEAR.
THERE'S SOME REPRESENTATION OF 
CRIME, CRIME, CRIME.
FIRST OF ALL, OUR SCHOLARS 
INDICATED THAT THESE ARE 
IMPEACHABLE OFFENSES, THE 
CONDUCT OF THE PRESIDENT IS 
IMPEACHABLE AND THERE'S ENOUGH 
EVIDENCE TO SHOW.
BUT AS I INDICATED YESTERDAY, 
THIS, MY FRIENDS, IS A LEGAL 
DOCUMENT, THE CONSTITUTION.
IT IS A LEGAL DOCUMENT.
YOU CAN BREACH AND VIOLATE THE 
LAW OF THE CONSTITUTION.
THERE ARE CONSTITUTIONAL CRIMES.
AND THE VASTNESS OF THE 
IMPEACHMENT PROCESS DOES INCLUDE
THE EXCESS OF POWER BY THE 
PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES.
NOW, I KNEW BARBARA JORDAN AND 
MY FRIENDS WANTED TO QUOTE HER.
SHE ALSO SAID THE FRAMERS 
CONFIDED IN THE CONGRESS OF 
POWER IF NEED BE TO REMOVE A 
PRESIDENT IN ORDER TO STRIKE A 
DELICATE BALANCE BETWEEN A 
PRESIDENT, SWOLLEN WITH POWER, 
AND PRESERVATION OF THE 
INDEPENDENCE OF THE EXECUTIVE.
YOU CAN VIOLATE THE CRIMES OF 
THE CONSTITUTION, ABUSE OF POWER
INCLUDES THAT, THIS AMENDMENT 
SHOULD BE DEFEATED.
>> AND THE PORTION OF THE DEBATE
FROM THIS MORNING THAT WE WERE 
JUST SHOWING YOU WAS A PORTION 
DEDICATED TO MATT GAETZ' 
AMENDMENT TO PUT THE BIDENS INTO
THE IMPEACHMENT RESOLUTION.
THAT AMENDMENT HAS NOT BEEN 
VOTED ON YET AND AS YOU CAN SEE,
SOME OF THE MEMBERS OF THE 
JUDICIARY COMMITTEE ARE 
FILTERING BACK INTO THE ROOM.
AND THEY SHOULD BE BRINGING THAT
TOPIC UP WHEN THEY COME BACK IN 
THIS AFTERNOON.
AND WE'RE GOING TO WATCH THE 
ROOM AS THEY GET UNDER WAY.
>>> COMMITTEE WILL COME TO 
ORDER.
WHEN WE RECESSED WE WERE 
CONSIDERING THE AMENDMENT 
OFFERED BY MR. GAETZ.
WE WILL CONTINUE THAT 
CONSIDERATION NOW AND I NOW 
RECOGNIZE -- FOR WHAT PURPOSES 
DOES MR. BUCK SEEK RECOGNITION. 
>> STRIKE THE LAST WORD.
>> THE CHAIRMAN IS RECOGNIZED. 
>> I'VE HEARD FROM THE OTHER 
SIDE THIS ARGUMENT ABOUT 
OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE -- 
OBSTRUCTION OF CONGRESS, RATHER,
I APOLOGIZE.
AND I AM BAFFLED AND THE MORE I 
THINK ABOUT IT THE MORE I'M 
BAFFLED.
IN COLORADO WE HAVE A DIFFERENT 
TERM FOR THAT.
WE CALL IT A CAMPAIGN PROMISE.
YOU SEE WHEN CONGRESS HAS A 14% 
APPROVAL RATING, IT'S SOMEWHERE 
BETWEEN BEING AS POPULAR AS 
SHINGLES AND AN ALL-EXPENSE PAID
TRIP TO NORTH KOREA.
WE HAVE A NATIONAL DEBT OF OVER 
$22 TRILLION.
WE HAVE A DEFICIT OF OVER 
$1 TRILLION THIS YEAR.
WE WERE SENT HERE TO OBSTRUCT 
THIS CONGRESS.
WE WERE SENT HERE TO MAKE SURE 
THAT THIS POWER OF THE PURSE IS 
ACTUALLY EXERCISED AROUND THIS 
PLACE.
WE WERE SENT HERE TO MAKE SURE 
THAT WE DIDN'T NATIONALIZE AND 
RUIN HEALTH CARE.
WE WERE SENT HERE TO SECURE THE 
BORDER AND TO DO OUR VERY BEST 
TO PROHIBIT SANCTUARY CITIES IN 
THIS COUNTRY.
WE WERE SENT HERE TO STOP THIS 
BODY FROM IGNORING STATES' 
RIGHTS.
YESTERDAY WE PASSED THE NDNA 
BILL.
SOMEHOW, SOMEONE SLIPPED IN A 
PROVISION THAT EVERY FEDERAL 
EMPLOYEE, EVERY FEDERAL, NOT 
JUST DEFENSE DEPARTMENT 
EMPLOYEES, BUT EVERY FEDERAL 
EMPLOYEE WILL BE GIVEN THREE 
MONTHS OF PAID FAMILY LEAVE.
EVERY FEDERAL EMPLOYEE.
ALL THOSE AMERICANS SITTING OUT 
THERE DON'T GET THAT.
IT'S EXACTLY WHY WE'RE HERE.
TO MAKE SURE THAT WE HOLD 
CONGRESS TO A HIGHER STANDARD.
AND IF YOU ISSUE AN ARTICLE OF 
IMPEACHMENT FOR OBSTRUCTING 
CONGRESS, YOU'RE GOING TO MAKE 
THIS PRESIDENT MORE POPULAR, NOT
LESS POPULAR.
CONGRESS IS AN EMBARRASSMENT AND
THIS PRESIDENT IS HOLDING HIS 
CAMPAIGN PROMISES, MOVING THE 
EMBASSY TO JERUSALEM, CUTTING 
TAXES, CUTTING REGULATIONS, 
SUSTAINING AN AMAZING ECONOMY 
WITH LOW UNEMPLOYMENT, JOB 
CREATION, BRINGING MANUFACTURING
JOBS BACK, NEGOTIATING TRADE 
DEALS.
I THINK THAT WE SHOULD BE 
TALKING ABOUT HOW WE SUPPORT 
THIS PRESIDENT, HOW WE SUPPORT 
THIS AGENDA, AND NOT HOW WE 
UNDERMINE THE POSITIVE DIRECTION
THAT WE ARE GOING IN THIS 
COUNTRY.
WITH THAT, I YIELD BACK. 
>> WILL THE GENTLEMAN YIELD FOR 
A QUESTION?
>> NO.
THE GENTLEMAN YIELDS BACK.
>> THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR, TO 
STRIKE THE LAST WORD. 
>> THE GENTLE LADY IS 
RECOGNIZED. 
>> THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR.
THE ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT 
CLAIM THAT THE PRESIDENT HAD 
CORRUPT PURPOSES IN PURSUIT OF 
PERSONAL BENEFIT IS TO INFLUENCE
THE 2020 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION.
WELL, THEY HAVE ABSOLUTELY NO 
PROOF OF THAT.
LET'S READ THE ACTUAL TRANSCRIPT
OF THE PHONE CALL IN QUESTION.
I WANT TO REMIND YOU, FOR THE 
PEOPLE THAT READ IT, THERE'S 
ONLY ONE SECTION IN THIS ENTIRE 
TRANSCRIPT, AND IT'S NOT UNTIL 
PAGE FOUR OUT OF FIVE, THAT 
PRESIDENT TRUMP BRINGS UP BIDEN 
WHICH WAS WELL INTO THE JULY 
25th CALL.
PRESIDENT TRUMP SAID TO THE 
UKRAINIAN PRESIDENT, AND I 
QUOTE, THE OTHER THING, THERE'S 
A LOT OF TALK ABOUT BIDEN'S SON,
THAT BIDEN 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.
TO ANYONE WHO HASN'T SEEN THE 
VIDEO OF JOE BIDEN BRAGGING THAT
HE GOT A PROSECUTOR FIRED, I 
RECOMMEND YOU WATCH IT.
IT'S VERY TELLING.
BIDEN BRAGS ABOUT HOW HE GOT THE
UKRAINIAN PROSECUTOR FIRED WHO 
HAD BEEN INVESTIGATING BURISMA.
BURISMA IS THE CORRUPT UKRAINIAN
COMPANY THAT HIRED HUNTER BIDEN,
JOE BIDEN'S SON, TO SERVE ON 
THEIR BOARD AT THE VERY SAME 
TIME THAT VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN 
WAS THE POINT MAN TO UKRAINE.
JOE BIDEN SAYS HE TOLD UKRAINE 
HE WOULDN'T GIVE THEM $1 BILLION
IF THEY DIDN'T FIRE THE 
PROSECUTOR.
HE SAID, AND I QUOTE, IF THE 
PROSECUTOR IS NOT FIRED, YOU'RE 
NOT GETTING THE MONEY.
PUT YOURSELF IN PRESIDENT 
TRUMP'S SHOES.
HE HAS SEEN OR HEARD ABOUT THE 
VIDEO OF JOE BIDEN BRAGGING 
ABOUT HOW HE GOT THE PROSECUTOR 
FIRED.
THE SAME PROSECUTOR THAT HAD 
BEEN INVESTIGATING THE SAME 
CORRUPT COMPANY WHERE BIDEN'S 
SON GOT A SPOT ON THE BOARD 
GETTING PAID AT LEAST $50,000 A 
MONTH AT THE SAME TIME THAT JOE 
BIDEN, WHILE SERVING AS VICE 
PRESIDENT, WAS THE POINT MAN TO 
UKRAINE.
MY DEMOCRATIC COLLEAGUES SEEM 
CONVINCED THAT THE PRESIDENT WAS
TARGETING BIDEN TO INFLUENCE THE
2020 ELECTION.
THAT IS THEIR MAIN PREMISE OF 
THESE ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT.
BUT IT'S JUST AS LIKELY, AND I 
WOULD SAY MORE LIKELY, THAT 
PRESIDENT TRUMP WANTED TO GET TO
THE BOTTOM OF POSSIBLE 
CORRUPTION WITH THE BIDENS, 
BURISMA AND UKRAINE.
AND WITH THAT, I YIELD BACK.
>> THE GENTLE LADY YIELDS BACK.
I NOW RECOGNIZE MYSELF FOR FIVE 
MINUTES TO STRIKE THE LAST WORD.
AND I JUST WANT TO SAY, THE 
CENTRAL ISSUE OF THIS 
IMPEACHMENT IS THE CORRUPTION OF
OUR INSTITUTIONS THAT SAFEGUARD 
DEMOCRACY BY THIS PRESIDENT.
THOSE ARE TWO BASIC PROTECTIONS 
WE HAVE FOR OUR DEMOCRACY.
FREE AND FAIR ELECTIONS AND THE 
PRESIDENT IN ARTICLE I IS 
CHARGED WITH TRYING TO SUBVERT 
THE FREE AND FAIR ELECTIONS BY 
EXTORTING A FOREIGN POWER INTO 
INTERFERING IN THAT ELECTION, TO
GIVE HIM HELP IN HIS CAMPAIGN.
WE CANNOT TOLERATE A PRESIDENT 
SUBVERTING THE FAIRNESS AND 
INTEGRITY OF OUR ELECTIONS.
THE SECOND MAJOR SAFEGUARD OF 
OUR LIBERTIES DESIGNED BY THE 
FRAMERS OF THE CONSTITUTION, IS 
THE SEPARATION OF POWERS.
THAT POWER IS NOT UNITED IN ONE 
DICTATOR, BUT IT SPREAD OUT.
THE SECOND ARTICLE OF 
IMPEACHMENT CHARGES THAT THE 
PRESIDENT SOUGHT AND SEEKS TO 
DESTROY THE POWER OF CONGRESS.
CONGRESS MAY BE UNPOPULAR AND 
MAY BE WE SHOULD BE RE-ELECTED 
OR MAYBE WE SHOULDN'T BE 
RE-ELECTED, THAT'S A QUESTION 
FOR THE VOTERS.
BUT THE INSTITUTIONAL POWER OF 
CONGRESS TO SAFEGUARD OUR 
LIBERTIES BY PROVIDING A CHECK 
AND A BALANCE ON THE EXECUTIVE 
IS CRUCIAL TO THE CONSTITUTIONAL
SCHEME TO PROTECT OUR LIBERTIES.
SECOND TO THAT IS THE ABILITY TO
INVESTIGATE THE ACTIONS OF THE 
EXECUTIVE BRANCH, TO SEE WHAT'S 
GOING ON, AND TO HOLD THE 
EXECUTIVE, THE PRESIDENT, OR 
PEOPLE WORKING FOR HIM, 
ACCOUNTABLE.
THE SECOND ARTICLE OF 
IMPEACHMENT SAYS THAT THE 
PRESIDENT SOUGHT TO DESTROY THAT
BY CATEGORICALLY WITH HOLDING 
ALL INFORMATION FROM AN 
IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY.
THAT IS DIFFERENT FROM 
CONTESTING SOME SUBPOENAS ON THE
BASIS OF PRIVILEGE, SOME MAY BE 
CONTESTABLE, SOME MAY NOT BE, 
BUT A CATEGORICAL WITH HOLDING 
OF INFORMATION, WE WILL PROHIBIT
ANYBODY IN THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH 
FROM COMPLYING WITH ANY 
CONGRESSIONAL SUBPOENA NO MATTER
HOW JUSTIFIED.
WE WILL MAKE SURE THAT NOBODY IN
THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH GIVES ANY 
DOCUMENT TO CONGRESS WITH 
RESPECT TO THIS INQUIRY.
A SUBVERSION OF THE 
CONGRESSIONAL POWER TO KEEP THE 
CONGRESSIONAL IN CHECK.
WHETHER YOU THINK CONGRESS IS 
BEHAVING WELL OR BADLY, IF YOU 
WANT A DICTATOR, THEN YOU 
SUBVERT THE ABILITY OF CONGRESS 
TO HOLD THE EXECUTIVE IN CHECK.
WHAT IS CENTRAL HERE IS DO WE 
WANT A DICTATOR, NO MATTER HOW 
POPULAR HE MAY BE, NO MATTER HOW
GOOD OR BAD THE RESULTS OF HIS 
POLICIES MAY BE, NO PRESIDENT IS
SUPPOSED TO BE A DICTATOR IN THE
UNITED STATES.
WHEN I HEAR COLLEAGUES OF MINE 
ARGUING THAT CONGRESS IS 
UNPOPULAR AND THEREFORE 
OBSTRUCTION OF CONGRESS IS A 
GOOD THING, THIS SHOWS TERRIBLE 
IGNORANCE OR LACK OF CARE FOR 
OUR INSTITUTIONS, FOR OUR 
DEMOCRACY, FOR OUR FORM OF 
GOVERNMENT, FOR OUR LIBERTIES.
I, FOR ONE, WILL PROTECT OUR 
LIBERTIES, WILL DO EVERYTHING I 
CAN TO PROTECT OUR LIBERTIES, 
OUR DEMOCRACY, OUR FREE AND FAIR
ELECTIONS, AND THE SEPARATION OF
POWERS THAT SAYS CONGRESS AND 
THE PRESIDENT AND THE JUDICIARY 
CHECK EACH OTHER AND NOBODY CAN 
BE A DICTATOR.
I YIELD BACK.
>> MR. CHAIRMAN -- 
>> I NOW RECOGNIZE MR. JOHNSON.
FOR PURPOSE PURPOSES?
>> STRIKE THE LAST WORD.
>> THE GENTLEMAN IS RECOGNIZED. 
>> I WOULD SPEAK TO THE 
AMENDMENT WHICH IS WHY WE'RE 
HERE RIGHT NOW.
I THINK IT'S A REALLY BEAUTIFUL 
ARGUMENT.
I THINK YOU SHOULD MAKE IT IN 
COURT BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT YOU'RE
SUPPOSED TO DO UNDER OUR SYSTEM.
IF YOU WANT TO MAKE THAT 
ARGUMENT, YOU'RE SUPPOSED TO GO 
TO A FEDERAL COURT, THE THIRD 
BRANCH OF GOVERNMENT, TO RESOLVE
A DISPUTE BETWEEN THE EXECUTIVE 
AND THE LEGISLATIVE.
THAT'S WHAT'S HAPPENED BEFORE 
BUT YOU GUYS WON'T DO IT.
BECAUSE YOU GUARANTEED YOUR BASE
YOU WOULD GET AN IMPEACHMENT BY 
DECEMBER, BY CHRISTMAS.
THIS IS RIDICULOUS.
IT'S A TRAVESTY AND THAT'S WHY 
WE'RE CONCERNED.
I LOVE THE AMENDMENT AND TO 
RESET THE TABLE BECAUSE WE JUST 
HAD A BREAK, IT'S A GOOD ONE.
I THINK THE PEOPLE BACK HOME 
AREN'T ABLE TO FIND OUT BECAUSE 
THEY DON'T HAVE ALL THE 
HANDOUTS.
BUT THIS IS ALL HE WANTS TO DO.
ON PAGE 3, LINES 10 THROUGH 11, 
IT READS, THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP 
SUGGESTED AN INVESTIGATION OF, 
QUOTE, A POLITICAL OPPONENT, 
FORMER VICE PRESIDENT JOSEPH R. 
BIDEN JR.
THE AMENDMENT IS SIMPLE, IT'S 
THREE LINES.
HE WANTS TO REPLACE THAT WITH, 
QUOTE, A WELL KNOWN CORRUPT 
COMPANY BURISMA AND ITS CORRUPT 
HIRING OF HUNTER BIDEN, UNQUOTE.
IT COMPORTS WITH THE FACTS AND 
EVERYTHING THAT WE'VE BEEN 
SAYING HERE WHERE PEOPLE ARE 
PROBABLY SAYING I WONDER WHY THE
DEMOCRATS WOULD OPPOSE THAT?
HERE'S WHY.
A CONSTITUENT SENT ME A NOTE 
DURING OUR BREAK AND HE SAID 
THIS, QUOTE, LET ME GET THIS 
STRAIGHT, PRESIDENT TRUMP'S 
PHONE CALL AMOUNTS TO AN ABUSE 
OF POWER, BUT VICE PRESIDENT 
BIDEN'S ACTIONS DO NOT?
LET'S REVIEW WHAT WE KNOW.
IN BIDEN'S CASE, HE PERSONALLY 
WITHHELD U.S. AID UNTIL THE 
PROSECUTOR HE WANTED FIRE WAS 
ACTUALLY FIRED.
BIDEN RECEIVED A PERSONAL 
BENEFIT FOR HIS OFFICIAL ACT, 
NAMELY THE ABILITY OF HIS SON TO
COLLECT MONEY FROM A CORRUPT 
UKRAINIAN MONEY.
HUNTER AND JOE BIDEN HAD A 
DIRECT FINANCIAL STAKE IN 
AVOIDING AN INVESTIGATION OF 
BURISMA.
OF COURSE THIS IS JUST OBVIOUS, 
EVERYBODY CAN SEE IT.
THERE WAS AN ARTICLE IN THE "NEW
YORK TIMES" THAT WAS PUBLISHED 
IN MAY 2019 STATED THE FOLLOWING
ABOUT THE UKRAINIAN PROSECUTOR'S
OUSTER, AMONG THOSE WITH A STAKE
IN THE OUTCOME WAS HUNTER BIDEN.
OF COURSE JOE BIDEN HAD A 
PERSONAL INTEREST IN AVOIDING A 
POLITICAL SCANDAL INVOLVING HIS 
SON.
CLEARLY, A REQUESTED 
INFORMATIONAL INVESTIGATION INTO
BIDEN'S DEALINGS WAS JUSTIFIED 
AS AN INFORMATIONAL 
INVESTIGATION INTO AN ABUSE OF 
POWER BY THE PREVIOUS 
ADMINISTRATION.
BUT OF COURSE IF PRESIDENT 
TRUMP'S REQUESTEDAND IT ENDS UP 
PRESIDENT DONALD J. TRUMP.
THAT'S THE REASON THEY WON'T EP 
EACCEPT THE AMENDMENT BUT IT'S 
WHY EVERYONE OF US LOOKING AT 
THE FACTS OBJECTIVELY HAS A 
OBLIGATION TO DO IT.
I HAVE A MINUTE AND A HALF LEFT.
LET ME CORRECT SOMETHING ELSE IN
THE RECORD.
WE MAY BE A WHILE DOING THAT.
MY GOOD FRIEND SAID BEFORE THE 
BREAK AT SOME POINT BEFORE THE 
BREAK .THE UKRAINIANS UP IN 
ABOUT THE HOLD ONNEDET AID.
BUT THE FACT IS THEY DIDN'T KNOW
ABOUT DELAY IN FUNDING UNTIL 
AUGUST 28th.
UKRAINIAN OFFICIALS CONTACTED 
STATE DEPARTMENT WERE REPORTEDLY
ACTING ROGUE WITH THE THEN 
UKRAINE AMBASSADOR TO THE U.S. 
AND WORKING TO WITHHOLD 
INFORMATION FROM KYIV TO 
UNDERMINE THE ZELENSKY 
ADMINISTRATION.
THE SWAMP TRAINER THAT PRESIDENT
TRUMP AFFIRMED LATER.
ANDRIY YERMAK HAS PICKLY 
CONFIRMED THE PRESIDENT'S CLOSE 
ADVISER PRESIDENT ZELENSKYS HAD 
NO KNOWLEDGE OF THE HOLD UNTIL 
MADE PUBLIC BY THE POLITICAL 
ARTICLE ON AUGUST 28th.
LOOK, THAT IS THE FACT.
LIKE EVERYTHING ELSE THEY'RE 
TRYING TO OBSCURE HERE, YOU 
CAN'T TAKE YOUR EYE OFF THE 
BALL.
I KNOW THIS IS HARD TO FOLLOW 
BACK HOME FROM CONSCIENTIOUS 
CONSTITUENTS AND CITIZENS TRYING
TO DO THEIR DUTY, TRYING BE 
INFORMED AND ENGAGED AS 
ELECTORATE.
IT'S HARD TO FOLLOW.
BUT WHAT YOU HAVE TO KNOW IS 
THAT BOTH THE PROCESS AND THE 
SUBSTANCE OF THE ARGUMENTS IS --
IS COMPLETELY EMPTY.
IT'S VAPID THAT'S WHY WE ARE 
WASTING TIME HERE.
I YIELD BACK. 
>> FOR OUR PURPOSES MR. STANDEN 
SEEKS REPRESENTATION. 
>> I MOVE TO STRIKE THE LAST 
WORD. 
>> GENTLEMAN IS RECOGNIZED. 
>> THERE IS SOME DISCUSSION 
TODAY AS TO WHAT IS THE REASON 
WE ARE HERE?
IT'S BEEN SUGGESTED BY SOME THAT
WE ARE HERE BECAUSE WE DISAGREE 
WITH THE SPT AND HIS POLICIES.
A FEW MOMENTS AGO WE HEARD A 
LIST OF POLICIES WHERE THERE 
MIGHT BE SOME DISAGREEMENT WITH 
THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED 
STATES.
YOU KNOW, WE DO HAVE SOME POLICY
DISAGREEMENTS WITH THE PRESIDENT
OF THE UNITED STATES.
WE DO DISAGREE STRONGLY ABOUT 
SEPARATING CHILDREN FROM THEIR 
PARENTS AT THE SOUTHERN BORDER.
WE DO DISAGREE STRONGLY WITH 
THIS PRESIDENT IN HIS ATTEMPT TO
ELIMINATE PREEXISTING CONDITION 
PROTECTIONS UNDER THE AFFORDABLE
CARE ACT.
WE DISAGREE STRONGLY WITH THIS 
PRESIDENT ABOUT HIS DECISION TO 
REMOVE US FROM THE INTERNATIONAL
CLIMATE CHANGE ACCORD.
BUT NONE OF THOSE ARE THE 
REASONS WE ARE HERE TODAY VOTING
TODAY ON ARTICLES OF 
IMPEACHMENT.
WE ARE ONLY HERE TODAY VOTING ON
THE TWO ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT 
BECAUSE THIS PRESIDENT HAS 
CHOSEN TO PUT HIS PERSONAL 
INTERESTS AHEAD OF THE NATIONAL 
INTEREST.
WE ARE ONLY HERE TODAY BECAUSE 
IN PRESIDENT CHOSE TO ATTEMPT TO
WITHHOLD PUBLIC RESOURCES IN 
ORDER TO GAIN AN UNFAIR 
ADVANTAGE IN AN ELECTION.
THAT IS THE REASON WHY WE ARE 
HERE.
THAT'S THE ONLY REASON WHY WE 
ARE HERE.
WE ARE HERE VOTING ON THESE TWO 
ARTICLES.
BUT WE'RE ALSO HERE FOR THE VERY
IMPORTANT PRINCIPLE.
IS ANY PERSON ABOVE THE LAW?
THAT'S WHAT EACH MEMBER HAS TO 
THINK ABOUT AS THEY MAKE THIS 
IMPORTANT DECISION.
NOT TRYING TO DIVERT ATTENTION 
FROM THE CORE FACTS OR TRY TO 
MAKE THE IMPORTANT VOTE TODAY 
ABOUT SOMETHING OTHER THAN IT 
IS.
THAT'S WHAT WE NEED TO FOCUS ON 
AND I HOPE WE WILL FOR THE REST 
OF THE HEARING.
AT THIS POINT I WILL YIELD TO 
THE GENTLE LADY FROM TEXAS.
CONGRESSWOMAN ESCOBAR. 
>> THANK YOU, MR. STANTON.
THERE HAS BEEN MUCH REFERENCE 
MADE TO THE TRANSCRIPT AND I USE
AIR QUOTES BECAUSE IT'S NOT AN 
OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT PROCESS.
I WANT TO REMIND EVERYONE THIS 
WAS A DOCUMENT PROVIDED TO US BY
THE WHITE HOUSE WITH ELIPSES IN 
THE DOCUMENT AND WE DON'T KNOW 
WHAT WAS STATED BECAUSE IT'S NOT
AN OFFICIAL DOCUMENT.
MUCH HAS BEEN MADE ABOUT THE 
IDEA OF THE USE OF "DO US A 
FAVOR" AS THOUGH THE UNITED 
STATES OF AMERICA AND FOREIGN 
POLICY EXPERTS AND STATE 
DEPARTMENT EXPERTS WERE 
CLAMORING TO GET INFORMATION ON 
BURISMA OR INFORMATION ON HUNTER
BIDEN OR JOE BIDEN.
WE HEARD FROM MR. GOLDMAN LAST 
WEEK -- AND I ASKED HIM 
SPECIFICALLY -- IF HIS 
COMMITTEES HAD INVESTIGATED THAT
CLAIM, THAT THERE WAS SOME 
LEGITIMATE CONCERN BY THE 
GOVERNMENT ABOUT CORRUPTION 
REGARDING BURISMA.
AND HE SAID THEY THOROUGHLY 
INVESTIGATED IT AND FOUND 
ABSOLUTELY NO EVIDENCE.
MR. TRUMP IS WELCOME TO BE HERE.
HE WAS WELCOME TO BE HERE.
HE WAS WELCOME TO PARTICIPATE, 
HIS LAWYERS, SO THAT IF HE HAS 
ANY INFORMATION THAT WOULD 
EXONERATE HIM ABOUT THIS HE 
COULD PRESENT IT AT ANY TIME.
HE IS NOT.
NOW LET'S COMPARE THAT TO THE 
FACT THAT HE HAS PROHIBITED 
WITNESSES FROM COMING BEFORE OUR
COMMITTEE AND OTHER COMMITTEES.
HE HAS PREVENTED DOCUMENTS FROM 
SEEING THE LIGHT OF DAY.
HE HAS INTIMIDATED WITNESSES.
SO LET'S REMEMBER THAT HE IS 
DOING ABSOLUTELY EVERYTHING 
POSSIBLE TO HIDE HIS WRONGDOING.
IF HE COULD PROVE OTHERWISE, HE 
WOULD.
NOW, COMPARE THAT WITH THE 
INFORMATION THAT WAS CREATED 
THROUGH THE INVESTIGATIONS.
OVER 300 PAGES IN A REPORT, 
OVER -- OR 17 WITNESSES, OVER 
200 TEXT MESSAGES.
THAT'S JUST WHAT WAS ABLE TO 
MAKE LIGHT OF DAY.
THAT'S JUST WHAT WE WERE ABLE TO
DISCOVER BECAUSE OF PATRIOTS 
WILLING TO COME FORWARD.
SO, AGAIN, I WOULD SAY IF THERE 
IS ANY EVIDENCE THAT THE 
AMERICAN GOVERNMENT OR A FOREIGN
POLICY ADVISERS OR EXPERTS OR 
THE DIPLOMATS THAT DEALT WITH 
UKRAINE BELIEVED THAT THIS WAS 
ABOUT US, THEN THE PRESIDENT CAN
SHOW THE EVIDENCE.
THANK YOU, MR. STANTON.
I YIELD BACK. 
>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
AND MR. CHAIR, I YIELD BACK TO 
YOU. 
>> THE GENTLEMAN YIELDS BACK FOR
WHAT PURPOSE MR. DEUTCH SEEKS TO
BE RECOGNIZED.
>> MOVE TO STRIKE THE LAST WORD.
>> THE GENTLEMAN IS RECOGNIZED. 
>> THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN.
OUR COLLEAGUE FROM LA IS EXACTLY
RIGHT.
IT GETS CONFUSING.
IT DOES.
THERE IS A LOT WE'VE BEEN 
TALKING ABOUT WHICH IS WHY IT'S 
ALWAYS IMPORTANT TO RETURN TO 
THE FACTS.
AND I JUST WANTED TO SET A 
COUPLE OF FACTS STRAIGHT.
WE HEARD THAT WE WERE SOMEHOW 
SENT HERE, MEMBERS OF CONGRESS 
WERE SOMEHOW SENT HERE TO DEFEND
THE PRESIDENT OR TO DEFEND THE 
PRESIDENT'S POLICIES, OR -- OR 
TO DEFEND A AN OVERTURNING OF 
THE STATUS QUO.
I DIDN'T UNDERSTAND THE 
SUGGESTION.
BECAUSE THE FACT IS AND I THINK 
ON THE DAIS AND ON OUR COMMITTEE
AND EVERYONE IN AMERICA KNOWS 
AND NEEDS TO BE REMINDED THAT WE
ARE SENT HERE TO DEFEND THE 
CONSTITUTION.
THE CONSTITUTION PROVIDES THREE 
CO-EQUAL BRANCHES OF GOVERNMENT.
AND WHEN THE PRESIDENT OF THE 
UNITED STATES CHOOSES TO REFUSE 
TO ENGAGE WITH THE CO-EQUAL 
BRANCH OF GOVERNMENT THAT IS 
THIS BODY, WHEN THE PRESIDENT 
THROUGH HIS LAWYER MAKES CLEAR 
THAT HE WILL NOT RESPECT THE 
CONSTITUTION, WILL SILENCE 
ANYONE WHO MIGHT HAVE 
INFORMATION TO PROVIDE TO 
CONGRESS, WILL INSTRUCT THEM TO 
NOT TURN OVER A SINGLE DOCUMENT,
THAT IS THE OBSTRUCTION OF 
CONGRESS WE'RE TALKING ABOUT.
AND THE SUGGESTION THAT IT'S 
SOMEHOW STANDARD OPERATING 
PROCEDURE IN THE UNITED STATES 
OF AMERICA FOR A PRESIDENT TO 
DEFY CONGRESS COMPLETELY, AND 
THEN FOR OUR FRIENDS ON THE 
OTHER SIDE TO THROW UP THEIR 
HANDS AND SAY, OH, EVERY 
PRESIDENT DOES IT.
THE WAY WE RESOLVE THE ISSUES IS
TO GO TO COURT.
WE HAVE THREE CO-EQUAL BRANCHS 
OF GOVERNMENT.
IF ONE BRANCH SAYS THEY ARE 
GOING TO COMPLETELY OBSTRUCT THE
EVIDENCE OF THE SECOND, WE GO TO
COURT.
THAT'S THE WAY IT WORKS IN OUR 
COUNTRY.
AGAIN, IT'S IMPORTANT TO REMIND 
PEOPLE OF THE FACTS AND THE 
CONSTITUTION.
THAT'S NOT HOW IT WORKS.
IT DOESN'T WORK THAT WAY.
IT'S NEVER WORKED THAT WAY, 
NEVER IN THE ENTIRE HISTORY OF 
OUR COUNTRY HAVE WE HAD A 
PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES 
SIMPLY DEFY A CO-EQUAL BRANCH 
ALTOGETHER.
THERE IS NO EXAMPLE.
MY FRIENDS ON THE OTHER SIDE OF 
THE AISLE CANNOT POINT TO A 
SINGLE EXAMPLE WHERE A PRESIDENT
HAS SAID, I WILL NOT COOPERATE 
WITH YOU IN ANY PART OF YOUR 
WORK, PERIOD, THIS IS NOT A 
LEGITIMATE EFFORT, YOU ARE NOT A
CO-EQUAL BRANCH OF GOVERNMENT.
AND THEN SIMPLY SAYS, BUT YOU 
CAN GO TO COURT BECAUSE THAT'S 
HOW THINGS ALWAYS WORK.
AGAIN, IT'S JUST IMPORTANT TO 
REMEMBER THE FACTS ARE CLEAR, NO
PRESIDENT HAS EVER, EVER, EVER 
OBSTRUCTED CONGRESS IN THE 
MANNER THAT WE HAVE SEEN FROM 
PRESIDENT TRUMP.
>> WILL THE GENTLEMAN YIELD. 
>> IN A MOMENT.
AND SO AS WE GO FORWARD -- I 
DON'T KNOW HOW MUCH LONGER WE'LL
BE HERE.
IT'S ALWAYS IMPORTANT TO MAKE 
SURE THAT THE FACTS ARE CLEAR 
AND THAT WE DON'T MUDDY THE 
WATERS BY SUGGESTING THAT 
SOMETHING THAT IS SO 
UNPRECEDENTED THAT WE HAVE NEVER
SEEN BEFORE IN THE HISTORY OF 
OUR COUNTRY IS SOMEHOW JUST PART
AND PARCEL OF THE WAY THINGS 
WORK AROUND HERE.
THEY DON'T.
WE KNOW IT.
MY FRIENDS ON THE OTHER SIDE OF 
THE AISLE KNOW IT.
THE AMERICAN PEOPLE KNOW IT.
BUT MR. JOHNSON IS RIGHT, 
SOMETIMES IT'S IMPORTANT TO 
REMIND THEM OF IT.
I YIELD. 
>> WILL THE GENTLEMAN YIELD. 
>> THANK YOU, MR. DEUTCH, I WANT
TO ADD A LITTLE CONSTITUTIONAL 
POST SCRIPT TO UNDERSCORE THE 
IMPORTANT POINT MR. DEUTCH IS 
MAKING HERE.
THE ARTICLE 1 OF THE 
CONSTITUTION GIVES THE HOUSE OF 
REPRESENTATIVES THE SOLE POWER 
OF IMPEACHMENT.
IT GIVES THE SENATE THE SOLE 
POWER OF TRIAL.
EN AND AS SUPREME COURT DECISION
CALLED UNITED STATES VERSUS 
NIXON THE SUPREME COURT 
EMPHASIZED THE RULES AND 
PROCEDURES DEVELOPED INCLUDING 
THE EVIDENTIARY RULES ARE 
COMPLETELY WITHIN THE POWER OF 
THE HOUSE AND SENATE AND CANNOT 
BE SECOND GUESSED BY THE COURTS.
AND IN TERMS OF GENERAL 
CONGRESSIONAL OVERSIGHT, THE 
GENTLEMAN IS PERFECTLY CORRECT.
THE SUPREME COURT HAS EMPHASIZED
THAT THE FACT FINDING 
INVESTIGATIVE POWER OF CONGRESS 
IS CENTRAL TO -- INTEGRAL AND 
BUILT INTO OUR LEGISLATIVE 
POWER.
JAMES MADISON SAID THAT THOSE 
WHO MEAN TO BE DSH THOSE WHO 
MEAN TO BE THEIR OWN GOVERNORS 
MUST ARM THEMSELVES WITH THE 
POWER THAT KNOWLEDGE GIVES.
WHERE DOES CONGRESS GET THE 
KNOWLEDGE TO LEGISLATE FOR THE 
PEOPLE IS?
WE GET IT THROUGH SUBPOENAS, 
THROUGH THE DISCOVERY PROCESS 
AND SO ON.
NO ADMINISTRATION IN HISTORY HAS
ATTEMPTED TO DO WHAT IN DMARGS 
HAS DONE WHICH IS TO PULL THE 
CURTAIN OVER THE EXECUTIVE 
BRANCH AND DENY US ALL 
INVESTIGATIVE REQUESTS WE HAVE I
YIELD BACK. 
>> THE GENTLEMAN YIELDS BACK. 
>> AS DO I.
>> FOR PURPOSES GENTLEMAN SEEKS 
RECOGNITION. 
>> STRIKE THE LAST WORD. 
>> GENTLEMAN IS RECOGNIZE ZBLD 
WE'RE GOING TO BE HERE A LONG 
TIME TONIGHT.
DON'T LET ANYBODY THERE IS 
PLENTY OF BALLS WE CAN GO TO IF 
ANYBODY TIPPING KEEP ASKING WE 
HAVE TO FACT CHECK YOU ALL 
NIGHT.
WE WILL.
LET'S GO BACK TO THE TRANSCRIPT.
THE TRANSCRIPT EVERY WITNESS 
TESTIFIED THAT THE TRANSCRIPT 
WAS FINE.
DID THE THE TRANSCRIPT WAS 
ACCURATE REFLECTED THE CALL.
EVERYONE WHO TESTIFIED TO THAT.
THEY WAS ABLE TO MAKE ADDITIONS 
MAKE THE PROCESS.
TALK ABOUT ELIPSES.
THEY SHOULD HAVE PUT THEM IN THE
ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT.
THE WIDE GAPS HERE OF FACT AND 
LOGIC ARE AMAZING IN THIS.
SO, I MEAN, THIS IS -- LET'S GO 
BACK TO THE FACTS.
LET'S GET BACK TO WHAT WE'RE 
SAYING.
I DO APPRECIATE THE FACT THAT MY
FRIEND FLORIDA MR. DEUTCH SAID 
THAT WE'RE MUTDYING THE WATERS 
THE WAY WE TRIED TO GET THE 
FACTS OUT TODAY AND WHAT I'VE 
HEARD FROM THE MAJORITY 
COLLEAGUES OVER THE LAST SIX 
HOURS IF THERE WAS A A MUDDYING 
WATERS YOU ALLY E PROCESS.
S HAZARD OHHOUS WASTE SITE AT 
THIS POINT.
YOU DON'T HAVE THE FACT WHERE 
YOU NEED TO GET TO.
YOU HAVE I SAY IT WAS.
WE JUST DON'T LIKE HIM EVEN THE 
CHAIRMAN.
THIS IS ABOUT AN ISSUE OF GOING 
BACK THAT WE ARE TRYING TO GET A
DICTATOR.
I LOVE THROWING THE WORDS IN.
WE'RE TRYING TO STOP A DICTATOR.
TRYING TO STOP A DICTATOR.
THAT'S NOT WHAT YOU'RE TRYING TO
DO.
EUROPE USING INFLAMMATORY 
LANGUAGE BECAUSE YOU WANT TO 
MAKE A BETTER POINT BECAUSE 
RIGHT NOW YOUR FACTS ARE 
FAILING.
AND YOU PUT TWO ARTICLES OF 
QUICHEMENT THAT YOU REALLY DON'T
WANT TO DEFEND.
BECAUSE EITHER YOU DEFEND THEM 
PASSIONATELY AND LOOK SORT OF 
SILLY DOING IT OR YOU DON'T 
DEFEND THEM AND LOOK WORSE FOR 
BRINGING THEM.
AGAIN WE CAN FACT CHECK THIS ALL
NIGHT.
WE'RE HERE TO DO THIS.
IT'S JUST AMAZING THOUGH THAT 
AFTER THREE AND A HALF HOURS 
EARLIER LAYING OUT EVERYTHING 
THAT HAPPENED.
LOOK BEING AT WHAT WENT FORWARD.
THESE -- THESE ACTUALLY GOING 
FORWARD ARE NOT WHAT IS 
HAPPENING HERE.
SO AGAIN LET'S GET IT ONE THING 
CLEARLY FOR THOSE WHO MAY HAVE 
TUNED IN AFTER LUNCH AFTER NOW 
THE THE TRANSCRIPTS ARE 
ACCURATE.
YOU KNOW HOW I KNOW BECAUSE 
EVERYBODY TESTIFIED THEY WERE.
EVEN FIONA HILL SAYS THE LECHLT 
LPSES WAS NOT AT ISSUE.
THAT TALKING POINT LET'S MARK 
OFF.
DISCUSS THE FACT OF US AS 
ACCURACY.
IT'S CALLED HE HAD READING.
YOU READ THE TRANSCRIPT AS IT'S 
PUT IN.
IT SAID YOU US, NOT ME.
THESE THE THINGS SIMPLE THAT GO 
FORWARD.
I YIELD TO MR. JORDAN PROCESS. 
>> I THANK THE RANKING MEMBER 
FOR YIELDING.
I WANT TO GO BACK TO SOMETHING 
THE GENTLE LADY FROM TEXAS 
MENTIONED A FEW MINUTES AGO 
QUESTIONING WHETHER THE 
TRANSCRIPT WAS COMPLETE.
REMEMBER WHAT COLONEL VINDMAN 
TESTIFIED TO.
HE SAID IT WAS COMPLETE AND 
ACCURATE.
LUNT COLONEL VINDMAN SAID THAT 
IN HIS DEPOSITION IN THE 
TESTIMONY IN THE HEARING, 
COMPLETE AND ACCURATE 
TRANSCRIPT.
SO TO SAY -- TO SUGGEST IT'S NOT
IS NOT CONSISTENT WITH THE 
TESTIMONY WE RECEIVED FROM YOUR 
WITNESSES.
REMEMBER LIEUTENANT COLONEL 
VINDMAN IS THE SAME FOLKS WHO 
WOULDN'T TELL US WHO HE TALKED 
TO ABOUT THE CALL.
HE ONLY TOLD US FOUR OF THE 
INDIVIDUALS HE SPOKE WITH.
BUT THAT'S THE GUY WHO TOLD US 
THE TRANSCRIPT WAS COMPLETE AND 
ACCURATE.
I YOELD BACK TO THE RANKING 
MEMBER. 
>> I YIELD TO THE GENTLEMAN FROM
PLAY.
>> I WANT TO RESPOND TO MY 
COLLEAGUE, MR. RASCON.
WE COULD DEBATE THIS ALL DAY 
LONG.
BUT YOU MISSTATED U.S. V NICKEN.
I DON'T WANT TO GET TOO DEEP IN 
THE WEEDS FOR THE FOLKS AT HOME.
IN THAT CASE THE SUPREME COURT 
RECOGNIZED THE EXISTENCE OF 
EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE, A 
PROTECTION REQUIRING A BALANCING
OF INTEREST BETWEEN THE 
LEGISLATIVE AND EXECUTIVE 
BRANCHS BY THE JUDICIAL BRARMG.
BUT HERE IS THE IMPORTANT THING.
THEY SAID THAT THAT CASE THERE 
IS NOT ABSOLUTE UNQUALIFIED 
PRESIDENTIAL PRISM OF IMMUNITY 
FROM JUDICIAL PROCESS UNDER ALL 
CIRCUMSTANCES.
THAT'S FROM THE COURT.
BUT THE OTHER SIDE OF THAT IS 
TRUE AS WELL.
CONGRESS DOESN'T HAVE ABSOLUTE 
UNQUALIFIED AUTHORITY TO DEMAND 
EVIDENCE FROM THE PRESIDENT 
EITHER.
THAT'S THE WHOLE REASON THAT YOU
HAVE TO GO TO THE THIRD BRANCH 
OF THE JUDICIARY.
THIS IS A LEGITIMATE CLAIM OF 
PRIVILEGE.
IT'S A LEGITIMATE ISSUE THAT THE
COURTS COULD DECIDE.
IT'S A CASE OF FIRST IMPRESSION 
AS MY COLLEAGUE KNOWS BECAUSE 
THIS SPECIFIC SET OF FACTS HAS 
NOT BEEN ADDRESSED YET.
AND IT SHOULD BE RESOLVED BY THE
COURTS.
PROFESSOR TURLEY ADDRESSED IN 
HIS TESTIMONY TO THIS COMMITTEE 
AND SAID QUOTE, HE WROTE IN THE 
SUBMISSION THE ANSWER IS 
OBVIOUS.
A PRESIDENT CANNOT SUBSTITUTE 
HIS JUDGMENT FOR CONGRESS ON 
WHAT THEY ARE ENTITLED TO SEE 
AND LIKEWISE CONGRESS CANNOT 
SUBSTITUTE ITS JUDGMENT WHAT THE
PRESIDENT CAN WMD HIGH PRESSURE 
THE BALANCE OF THE INTEREST IS 
PERFORMED BY THE THIRD BRAFRM 
CONSTITUTIONALLY INVESTED WITH 
THE AUTHORITY TO REVIEW AND 
RESOLVES SUCH ZBUTS.
>> CAN I YAO. 
>> MGTS LET'S PUT IT IN THE 
CONTEXT AND LET'S ACKNOWLEDGE. 
>> MY FRIEND. 
>> THIS IS AN ISSUE.
I YIELD 20 SECONDS. 
>> THANK YOU.
WREE CITING DIFFERENT CASES.
I'M TALKING ABOUT THE 19939 
JUDGE WALTER NIXON CASE. 
>> AS I'LL REMIND THE GENTLEMEN 
FROM THE CONSTITUTIONAL SCHOLARS
ON BOTH SIDES OF IN ISSUE IT'S 
MY TIME NOT Y'ALL ZBLEES I YIELD
BACK. 
>> FAIR ENOUGH. 
>> THE. 
>> WE HAD TWO DIFFERENT NIXON 
CASES.
>> NO MR. RASCON WE'RE DONE WITH
IN. 
>> THE GENTLEMAN YIELDS BACK FOR
WHAT PURPOSE IS SHE SEEKING 
RECOGNITION. 
>> I MOVE TO STRIKE THE LAST 
WORD. 
>> GENTLE LADY IS RECOGNIZED.
>> LET'S GO BACK, AS HAS BEEN 
STATED TODAY, THE CONSTITUTION 
DEVOTES ONLY A FEW SENTENCES TO 
IMPEACHMENT.
I'M READING ONE.
IT'S ARTICLE ONE SECTION 2 THE 
LAST SENTENCE.
THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 
SHALL CHOOSE SPEAKER AND OTHER 
OFFICERS AND THUS HAVE SOLE 
POWER OF IMPEACHMENT.
AS PROFESSOR RASCON TOLD US 
PROPERLY THE CONSTITUTION USES 
THE WORD SOLE ONLY TWICE.
SOLE, NOT SHARED, NOT SHARED 
WITH THE JUDICIARY, NOT SHARED 
WITH THE EXECUTIVE.
THIS MEANS THAT WE HAVE THE -- 
THE SOLE OPPORTUNITY AND 
OBLIGATION FRANKLY TO DETERMINE 
WHAT EVIDENCE IS NECESSARY FOR 
IMPEACHMENT.
SOLE NOT SHARED WITH THE 
EXECUTIVE.
THINK BACK.
JUDICIARY CHAIRMAN PETER RODINO 
WARNED PRESIDENT NIXON ABOUT HIS
FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THE 
SUBPOENAS ISSUED IN THE 
WATERGATE INQUIRY.
UNDER THE CONSTITUTION IT'S NOT 
WITHIN THE POWER OF THE 
PRESIDENT TO CONDUCT INQUIRY 
INTO HIS OWN IMPEACHMENT TO 
DETERMINE WHICH EVIDENCE AND 
WHAT VERSION OR PORTION OF THE 
EVIDENCE IS RELEVANT AND 
NECESSARY TO SUCH AN INQUIRY.
THESE ARE MATTERS WHICH UNDER 
THE CONSTITUTION RODINO WROTE, 
THE HOUSE HAS THE SOLE POWER TO 
DETERMINE.
SOLE, NOT SHARED WITH THE 
EXECUTIVE.
SOLE, NOT SHARED WITH THE 
COURTS.
IT'S A CIVICS LESSON.
DON'T LET THE OTHER SIDE WHO 
HAVE SUCH TALENTED 
CONSTITUTIONAL ATTORNEYS OVER 
THERE DISTRACT YOU.
THIS IS NOT AN ORDINARY DISPUTE,
FOLKS.
THIS IS A VERY RARE 
THANKFULLY -- VERY RARE DISPUTE.
IT'S NOT AN ORDINARY DISPUTE 
WHERE YOU GO TO THE COURT.
WE DON'T NEED PERMISSION TO 
GO -- TO USE OUR CONSTITUTIONAL 
RULES.
IF PRESIDENT TRUMP IS ALLOWED TO
REFUSE TO COMPLY WITH REQUESTS 
FOR INFORMATION, IT WOULD GUT 
THE HOUSE IMPEACHMENT POWER AND 
UNDERMINE OUR BEDROCK PRINCIPLE 
OF SEPARATION OF POWERS.
LAST NIGHT AS WE LEFT HERE I 
WANTED TO JUST TELL YOU THIS, I 
WENT OUTSIDE AND THERE WAS A 
TEAM OF ABOUT 12 HIGH SCHOOL 
STUDENTS FROM OHIO WITH THEIR 
TEACHER.
AND THEY SAID WOULD YOU MIND 
STOPPING FOR A MINUTE COULD 
WEIOUS TALK TO YOU A MINUTE.
IT WAS SO INTERESTING TO WATCH 
AND LISTEN AND TO HEAR WHAT WAS 
GOING ON AT THIS IMPORTANT 
HISTORIC TIME.
WE LOVED LEARNING ABOUT OUR 
CONSTITUTION AND HOW MUCH YOU 
PRIZE IN CONSTITUTION.
THANK YOU FOR PROTECTING IT FOR 
US.
AND YOU KNOW WHAT THEY SAID TO 
ME.
WE DIDN'T UNDERSTAND THIS BEFORE
BUT I DO NOW.
IT'S YOUR JOB.
IT'S THE HOUSE'S JOB TO 
DETERMINE WHAT EVIDENCE COMES 
IN.
WE DO NOT NEED PERMISSION FROM 
THE PRESIDENT.
WE DO NOT NEED PERMISSION FROM 
THE COURTS.
IN FACT WE HAVE AN OBLIGATION TO
DO OUR JOB.
UNDER THIS SIMPLE SMART 
DOCUMENT.
TODAY, DECEMBER THE 12th MARKS 
THE ANNIVERSARY OF PENNSYLVANIA 
COMING INTO THE UNION.
I THINK ABOUT THOSE FRAMERS IN 
MY CITY OF PHILADELPHIA.
SO WISELY THINKING THROUGH THE 
WORDS.
TODAY MARKS 232 YEARS SINCE 
THOSE WISE MEN THOUGHT THROUGH 
HOW WOULD WE CONCEIVE OF OUR 
GOVERNMENT AND MAINTAIN 
SELF-GOVERNMENT?
DO NOT BE CONFUSED BY THE 
LAWYERS ON THE OTHER SIDE WHO 
WOULD TEACH THE WRONG CIVICS 
LESSON.
AND DISTRACT YOU WITH THE NOTION
WE NEED TO GO TO COURT.
WE NEED PERMISSION OF A 
PRESIDENT AND PERMISSION OF A 
COURT.
WE DO NOT.
WITH THAT I YIELD. 
>> WILL THE GENTLE LADY YIELD. 
>> I'D LIKE TO YIELD TO THE 
GENTLE LADY FROM TEXAS. 
>> I THANK THE GENTLE LADY AND 
FOR HER VERY FORCEFUL RESPONSE.
AND MIGHT I JUST SAY TO THE 
OBSTRUCTION OF CONGRESS, NEITHER
MR. NIXON OR MR. CLINTON 
OBSTRUCTED CONGRESS IN THE 
MANNER THAT THIS PRESIDENT IS 
DOING.
THE UNDERLYING AMENDMENT HAD TO 
DO WITH CORRUPTION AND I RAISE 
THE POINT OF THE DOCUMENT THAT 
SPEAKS ABOUT THE JULY 25th CALL.
LET ME JUST QUICKLY SAY THAT THE
LANGUAGE IS -- I WOULD LIKE YOU 
TO DO US A FAVOR, THOUGH.
AND AS THE WHITE HOUSE HAS 
DISTORTED THE INTERPRETATION, 
THE US DOES NOT HAVE ANY 
REFERENCE TO THE DEPARTMENT OF 
JUSTICE, DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE, 
DEPARTMENT OF STATE, AND CLEARLY
IN THE SAME DOCUMENT HE MENTIONS
THE VICE PRESIDENT.
HE MENTIONS CROWDSTRIKE, ALL OF 
THOSE HAVE BEEN DEBUNKED.
IT'S CLEAR THE VICE PRESIDENT 
WAS OPERATING AS THE VICE 
PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES 
AT THE TIME AND AS HE WAS 
OPERATING HE WAS OPERATING ON AN
OFFICIAL POLICY TO DEAL WITH 
UKRAINE.
THIS IS ABOUT THE PRESIDENT 
SEEKING TO HAVE UKRAINE 
INVESTIGATE THIS POLITICAL 
OPPONENT FOR PERSONAL AND 
PRIVATE REASONS.
NO ONE MISINTERPRETED WHAT WAS 
SAID.
AND LIEUTENANT COLONEL VINDMAN 
IMMEDIATELY WENT TO THE LEGAL 
COUNSEL IN THE WHITE HOUSE THAT 
IMMEDIATELY WENT DARK AND NEVER 
RESPONDED BECAUSE HE WAS SO 
OFFENDED BY IN CAMPAIGN EFFORT.
WITH THAT I YIELD BACK.
AND THANK THE GENTLE LADY FOR 
YIELDING.
>> THE GENTLELADY YIELDS BAP FOR
WHAT PURPOSE DOES MR. REFRESHEN 
THALER WISH TO BE RECOGNIZED. 
>> STRIKE THE LAST WORD. 
>> I YIELD TO MY GOOD FRIEND 
FROM TEXAS. 
>> THANK MY GOOD FRIEND FROM 
PENNSYLVANIA.
YOU DON'T HAVE TO BE A 
CONSTITUTIONAL SCHOLAR AS I WAS.
THIS IS UNIQUE PROCESS.
WE DON'T NEED TO HEAR FROM THE 
COURTS?
THIS WE ARE TOLD IS UNCHARTED 
TERRITORY BECAUSE NO PRESIDENT 
HAS JUST COMPLETELY REFUSED.
LET ME JUST TOUCH ON A LITTLE 
BIT HERE ON BOTH OF THOSE 
ISSUES.
THIS IS UNCHARTED TERRITORY.
NEVER IN THE HISTORY OF THIS 
COUNTRY HAVE WE HAD AN 
IMPEACHMENT PROCEEDING BEGUN BY 
LIES THAT GOT A WARRANT FROM A 
SECRET COURT THAT TURNED OUT AND
HAD BEEN BE DOCUMENTED TO BE 
LIES AND THEN KEPTING WARRANTS 
THREE AFTER THAT BASED ON LIES.
AND NOT ONE PERSON ON THE OTHER 
SIDE OF THE AISLE IS THE LEAST 
BIT EMBARRASSED THAT THEY WENT 
TO A SECRET COURT AND GOT 
WARRANTS BASED ON LIES, FIRST TO
INVESTIGATE -- SPY ON A 
CAMPAIGN -- OR SURVEIL, 
ELECTRONICALLY SURVEIL, AS 
HOROWITZ SAYS -- BUT THIS IS 
UNCHARTED TERRITORY.
NOBODY WANTS TO APOLOGIZE ON THE
OTHER SIDE.
I GET THAT.
IT MIGHT BE POLITICALLY 
EMBARRASSING.
BUT TO SAY WE DON'T NEED TO GO 
TO COURT.
I MEAN THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION 
WAS JUST INCREDIBLE AS AT 
GETTING SUBPOENAS DOING DOCUMENT
DUMPS OF STUFF WE WEREN'T 
LOOKING FOR ASKING FOR 
ESPECIALLY FROM JUDICIARY.
BUT THE OTHER STUFF THAT WE 
DEMANDED WE COULDN'T GET IT.
AND WE TRIED TO GET BOEHNER TO 
GO TO COURT LET'S GET A COURT 
ORDER REQUIRING IT TO HOLD HIM 
IN CONTEMPT.
THAT'S THE ONLY WAY WE'LL GET IT
DONE.
AND HE WOULDN'T DO IT.
AND SO KNOWS OF US THAT 
UNDERSTAND THE CONSTITUTION AND 
UNDERSTAND THEY'RE NOT JUST TWO 
ARTICLES WE UNUNDERSTOOD WE 
NEEDED A COURT ORDER BACKING US 
UP SO IT WASN'T US ABUSING THE 
OFFICES OF CONGRESS.
WE HAD AS TURLEY AND DERSHOWITZ 
AND OTHERS POINTED OUT YOU HAD 
THE COURT.
GO.
ANOTHER THING THAT'S UNCHARTED 
TERRITORY, WE STARTED THIS 
IMPEACHMENT PROCEEDING ABOUT THE
RUSSIA HOAX AND COLLUSION AND 
DEMANDING ALL THE DOCUMENTS 
ABOUT THE RUSSIA COLLUSION.
AND IT KEPT CHANGING AND THEN IT
WENT TO BRIBERY AND EXTORTION 
AND EE MONTHLY MTS AND ALL THESE
OTHER THINGS.
NEVER IN HISTORY HAS A PRESIDENT
BEEN ACCUSED OF CRIMES WITH -- 
WITH THE TARGET CONSTANTLY 
CHANGING.
NOW, WHEN YOU SUBPOENA DOCUMENTS
THERE HAS TO BE A REASONABLE 
BASIS FOR REQUESTING INFORMATION
OR SUBPOENAING WITNESSES.
YOU GOT TO HAVE A REASONABLE 
BASIS.
AND WHEN YOU KEEP CHANGING THE 
ALLEGATIONS AGAINST THE PARTY 
FROM WHOM YOU ARE DEMANDING 
INFORMATION THEN THEY HAVE THE 
REASONABLE EXPECTATION TO ADVISE
THEM OF WHAT THE NEW CHARGE IS 
TODAY WHAT THE NEW EVIDENCE IS 
TODAY.
BUT THEY COULDN'T GET ANY OF 
THOSE.
AND I WOULD HAVE BEEN VERY 
SURPRISED IF YOU WOULD HAVE -- 
NOW YOU FIND SOME OBAMA 
APPOINTEES THAT MIGHT HAVE 
UPHELD THE SUBPOENAS BUT NOT THE
SPROURS BECAUSE IT'S SO 
UNREASONABLE.
AND TO THE EARLIER ALLEGATION 
THAT GEE, EVEN THOUGH NOBODY IN 
UKRAINIAN GOVERNMENT HAS SAID 
THEY WERE A VICTIM, WELL IT'S 
BECAUSE THE PRESIDENT HAS A GUN 
TO THEIR HEAD.
WELL THAT'S NOT THE CASE.
THE REASON THAT THEY ARE NOT 
SAYING THAT IS BECAUSE THEY KNEW
THIS IS THE MOST HELPFUL 
PRESIDENT THEY HAVE HAD SINCE 
THE STEEL CURTAIN FELL, BECAUSES
IN A PRESIDENT, UNLIKE THE OBAMA
ADMINISTRATION WHEN THEY WERE 
UNDER ATTACK AND UKRAINIANS 
REALLY WERE DYING, WE OFFERED UP
BLANKETS, MEALS READY TO EAT FOR
THE MILITARY STUFF.
BUT THIS IS A PRESIDENT THAT'S 
REALLY HELPING THEM DEFEND 
THEMSELVES.
THIS IS A PRESIDENT THAT'S 
REALLY MADE A DIFFERENCE FROM 
UKRAINE.
SO IT WASN'T A GUN TO THEIR 
HEAD.
THEY SEE THIS AS A HELPFUL 
PRESIDENT.
AND ANOTHER THING, IF A VICTIM 
DOES FOR THE ADMIT TO BE A 
VICTIM -- ANYBODY THAT'S BEEN A 
PROSECUTOR SURELY KNOWS THIS.
YOU CAN GO TO COURT, FORCE IT TO
COURT.
AND THE VICTIM SAYS, I WASN'T A 
VICTIM, YOU DON'T GET A 
CONVICTION, AND IF YOU DO, THAT 
IS NOT SUSTAINED BECAUSE THAT'S 
WHAT COURTS AND CONGRESS CALL A 
NO EVIDENCE POINT.
YOU HAVE A NO-EVIDENCE POINT.
THAT'S WHY YOU HAD TO DROP 
BRIBERY, ALTHOUGH IT DOES APPLY 
TO VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN.
YOU SMARTLY DROPPED THE BRIBERY.
AND NOW YOU HAVE THIS ELUSIVE 
ABUSE OF POWER.
S IN OUTRAGEOUS AND NEEDS TO 
COME TO AN END. 
>> THE GENTLEMAN'S TIME IS 
EXPIRED.
FOR WHAT PURPOSE DOES MR. 
JEFFREY'S SEEK RECOGNITION. 
>> MOVE TO STRIKE THE LAST WORD.
>> GENTLEMAN IS RECOGNIZED. 
>> THE GENTLEMAN FROM TEXAS 
TALKED ABOUTABLE BASIS.
THE REASONABLE BASS IS THAT 
THERE ARE UNCONTROVERTED 
EVIDENCE THAT THE PRESIDENT HE 
PRESSURED UKRAINE TO TARGET AN 
AMERICAN CITIZEN JOE BIDEN FOR 
POLITICAL GAIN AND AT THE SAME 
TIME WITHHELD WITHOUT 
EXPLANATION $391 MILLION IN 
MILITARY AID THAT HAD BEEN 
ALLOCATED ON A BIPARTISAN BASIS.
AMBASSADOR TAYLOR, WEST POINT 
GRADUATE, VIETNAM WAR VETERAN, 
APPOINTED BY REAGAN, BUSH, 
TRUMP, TO THE DIPLOMATIC CORPS 
SAID THE FOLLOWING ABOUT THE 
WITHHOLDING OF THE MILITARY AID.
NO LEGITIMATE PUBLIC POLICY 
BASIS, NO LEGITIMATE NATIONAL 
SECURITY BASIS, NO LEGITIMATE 
SUBSTANTIVE BASIS.
THAT'S WHY CONGRESS PROCEEDED.
WE HAD MORE THAN 200 NATIONAL 
SECURITY PROFESSIONALS.
DEMOCRATS AND REPUBLICANS, WHO 
EXPRESSED CONCERN WITH THE 
PRESIDENT'S WRONGDOING AND SAID 
THIS UNDERMINES AMERICAN 
NATIONAL SECURITY.
AND THAT'S A BASIS FOR THE 
IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY.
BUT WHAT THE PRESIDENT HAS DONE 
IS SAID, UNLIKE THE MADISON YAN 
VISION OF DEMOCRACY WITH THE 
CHECKS AND BALANCES, SEPARATE 
AND CO-EQUAL BRANCHS OF 
GOVERNMENT, I ALONE CAN 
DETERMINE WHAT THE 
REPRESENTATIVES OF THE PEOPLE 
SEE IN CONNECTION WITH A 
LEGITIMATE INVESTIGATION.
AND AT THE SAME TIME THIS IS A 
PRESIDENT THAT ATTACKS 
EVERYBODY.
TO DISTRACT.
ATTACKS EVERYBODY WHO WON'T BEND
THE KNEE TO DONALD J. TRUMP.
HE HAS ATTACKED JOHN McCAIN, A 
WAR HERO.
ATTACKED MITT ROMNEY, 2012 
REPUBLICAN NOMINEE.
HE HAS ATTACKED BOB MUELLER, A 
MARINE, A DISTINGUISHED 
PROFESSIONAL IN LAW ENFORCEMENT.
HE HAS ATTACKED YOUR FORMER 
SPEAKER PAUL RYAN.
HE ATTACKS GOLD STAR FAMILIES.
HE EVEN ATTACKED TODAY A 
16-YEAR-OLD TEENAGE ACTIVIST, 
GRETA THUNBERG.
ARE YOU HERE TO DEFEND THAT AS 
WELL?
AND SO WHAT'S HAPPENED IS THAT 
INSTEAD OF ADDRESSING THE 
SUBSTANCE OF THE ALLEGATION YOU 
WANT TO ATTACK JOE BIDEN AND HIS
FAMILY.
ELIJAH CUMMINGS IS NO LONGER 
WITH US.
HE IS IN HEAVEN JUST LIKE THE 
PROPHET ELIJAH.
BUT HIS SPIRIT IS WITH US.
AND WE ARE BETTER THAN THIS.
WE ARE PROCEEDING IN A SERIOUS, 
SOLEMN AND SOBER FASHION BECAUSE
THE ALLEGATIONS ARE DEADLY 
SERIOUS.
IS IT OKAY FOR THE PRESIDENT TO 
SOLICIT FOREIGN INTERFERENCE IN 
THE 2020 ELECTION OR NOT?
WHO SHOULD DECIDE THE OUTCOME OF
OUR ELECTIONS?
IS IT THE RUSSIANS?
THE CHINESE?
THE UKRAINIANS?
OR THE AMERICAN PEOPLE?
IT SHOULD BE THE AMERICAN 
PEOPLE.
AND THAT'S WHY WE ARE HERE AT 
THIS MOMENT.
AND SO LET'S HAVE A SERIOUS 
DISCUSSION ABOUT IT AND STOP 
ACHING AMERICANS WHO REFUSE TO 
BEND THE KNEE TO THIS PRESIDENT.
>> WOULD THE GENTLEMAN YIELD. 
>> WOULD YOU YIELD. 
>> I YIELD. 
>> TO THE GENTLEMAN FROM 
TENNESSEE. 
>> THANK YOU, SIR.
>> ONE OF THE ISSUES, BIG ISSUES
HERE IS TRUMP CONDITIONING 
MILITARY AID ON AN INVESTIGATION
OF THE BIDENS.
JOE BIDEN, PERIOD, HIS PRIMARY 
POLITICAL OPPONENT IN HIS MIND.
THE REPUBLICANS HAVE SAID, NO IT
WAS ABOUT CORRUPTION.
IT WASN'T ABOUT THEM.
BUT LISTEN TO WHAT THEY TALKED 
ABOUT TODAY.
ALL THEY'VE TALKED ABOUT IS THE 
BIDENS.
HUNTER BIDEN'S AUTOMOBILE 
ACCIDENT.
HUNTER BIDEN THIS, HUNTER BIDEN 
THAT.
HUNTER BIDEN SALARY.
ANY HAVEN'T BROUGHT UP THE PAST 
UKRAINIAN LEADERS OR BUSINESS.
IT'S ALL THE BIDE.
S.
THEIR DEFENSE SPEAKS TO THE 
TRUTH OF THE ALLEGATIONS IN THIS
ARTICLE THAT IT WAS ALL ABOUT 
THE BIDENS.
THEY'RE ALL ABOUT THE BIDENS.
AND THAT'S WHAT IT'S ABOUT. 
>> WOULD THE GENTLEMAN YIELD. 
>> I YIELD. 
>> I DID BRING UP. 
>> YIELD BACK TO MR. JEFFREYY. 
>> OKAY I SHOULDN'T HAVE TRIED 
TO CORRECT YOU THEN I GUESS. 
>> FOREIGN INTERFERENCE IN AN 
AMERICAN ELECTION SOLICITED BY 
THE PRESIDENT IS NOT OKAY.
THAT IS AN ABUSE OF POWER.
IT UNDERMINES OUR NATIONAL 
SECURITY.
THE PRESIDENT SHOULD BE HELD 
ACCOUNTABLE BECAUSE NO ONE IS 
ABOVE THE LAW.
>> THE GENTLEMAN YIELDS BACK.
FOR WHAT PURPOSE DOES THE 
GENTLEMAN SEEK RECOGNITION. 
>> STRIKE THE LAST WORD. 
>> I THINK THE GENTLEMAN FROM 
NEW YORK LAID OUT IN AN 
ARTICULATE WAY THE BASIS AND 
JUSTIFICATION FOR BOTH ARTICLE 1
AND ARTICLE 2 BEFORE US.
BUT I JUST WANT TO TOUCH ON THE 
DEBATE AROUND OBSTRUCTION OF 
CONGRESS AND EXPLAIN TO MY 
COLLEAGUES AND TO THE AMERICAN 
PEOPLE WHY IN INSTANCE IS SO 
UNPRECEDENTED.
I WILL FIRST JUST SAY WITH MUCH 
RESPECT TO MY COLLEAGUE FROM 
COLORADO, I WANT TO ASSURE THE 
AMERICAN PEOPLE THAT OBSTRUCTION
OF CONGRESS TO COLORADANS MEANS 
THE SAME THING THAT IT DOES TO 
EVERYONE ELSE IN THIS COUNTRY.
IT MEANS THE DEFINES OF LAWFULLY
ISSUED SUBPOENAS BY THE UNITED 
STATES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.
IT MEANS IMPEDING THE ABILITY OF
THE UNITED STATES MOUSE OF 
REPRESENTATIVES TO PERFORM ITS 
CONSTITUTIONAL DUTY.
AND UNLIKE THE OBSTRUCTION OF 
CONGRESS THAT HAS TAKEN PLACE IN
THE PAST THIS PRESIDENT'S 
OBSTRUCTION OF CONGRESS HAS BEEN
TOTAL, HAS BEEN ABSOLUTE AND HAS
BEEN CATEGORICAL.
IN 1999 AND 98 WHEN PRESIDENT 
CLINTON WAS THE SUBJECT OF AN 
IMPEACHMENT INQUIRE IN.
THIS COMMITTEE PROPOUNDED 81 
INTERROGATORIES AND HE 
RESPONDED.
DURING THE WATERGATE 
INVESTIGATION NIXON'S CHIEF OF 
STAFF TESTIFIEDS.
NIXON'S COUNSEL TESTIFIED.
IN THIS INSTANCE THE PRESIDENT 
HAS TAKEN STEPS TO ENSURE THAT 
THIS COMMITTEE DOES NOT 
RECEIVE -- AND THE INTELLIGENCE 
COMMITTEE AS WELL -- KEY 
TESTIMONY FROM ANY HOST OF 
OFFICIALS IN OUR GOVERNMENT.
AND JUST TO GIVE YOU A 
HISTORICAL CONTEXT I WILL READ 
TO YOU A QUOTE.
"ALL MEMBERS OF THE WHITE HOUSE 
STAFF WILL APPEAR VOLUNTARILY 
WHEN REQUESTED BY THE COMMITTEE.
ANY WILL TESTIFY UNDER OATH, AND
THEY WILL ANSWER FULLY ALL 
PROPER QUESTIONS."
THAT'S FROM RICHARD NIXON'S 
ADMINISTRATION.
SO I HOPE, AGAIN, AS WE CONSIDER
THE GRAVITY OF THE ARTICLES 
BEFORE US, THAT WE CAN STAY TRUE
TO THE FACTS, AND RECOGNIZE THAT
WHEN WE IS HE SAY THAT NO 
PRESIDENT IN THE HISTORY OF IN 
REPUBLIC HAS EVER COMPLETELY 
DEFIED AN DEPECHEMENT INQUIRY AS
THIS ONE HAS, WE MEAN IT.
AND WITH THAT. 
>> WOULD THE GENTLEMAN YIELD. 
>> I WOULD YIELD TO THE 
DISTINGUISHED GENTLE WOMAN FROM 
CALIFORNIA. 
>> I ENJOYED LISTENING TO YOU.
YOU'RE ABSOLUTELY CORRECT IN 
YOUR REPORTING OF WHAT OCCURRED 
DURING BOTH THE NIXON AND 
CLINTON IMPEACHMENT.
BUT I WANTED TO ADDRESS THE 
ISSUE FROM A SLIGHTLY DIFFERENT 
POINT OF VIEW.
NOT ONLY HAS PRESIDENT TRUMP 
REFUSED TO PROVIDE INFORMATION 
THAT HE SHOULD HAVE PROVIDED.
HE DIDN'T ASSERT A PRIVILEGE.
HE JUST SAID NO.
I ACTUALLY HAVE JUST REREAD THE 
LETTER FROM THE PRESIDENT'S 
LAWYER.
IT'S PAGE AFTER PAGE COMPLAINING
ABOUT HOW THE HOUSE IS 
PROCEEDING.
BUT THE CONSTITUTION SAYS 
CONGRESS SHALL HAVE THE SOLE 
AUTHORITY TO IMPEACH.
WE DECIDE HOW TO PROCEED, NOT 
THE WHITE HOUSE.
AND IN THE END WITHOUT ASSERTING
ANY PRIVILEGE WHATSOEVER HE JUST
ANNOUNCES THEY ARE NOT GOING TO 
ADOPT, PROVIDE ANY INFORMATION.
THIS ISN'T SOMETHING THAT NEEDS 
TO BE ADJUDICATED BY THE THIRD 
BRANCH, THE JUDICIAL BRANCH, 
BECAUSE THERE IS NO -- THERE IS 
NO PRIVILEGE BEING ASSERTED 
HERE.
IT'S SIMPLY NO.
THAT'S NEVER HAPPENED BEFORE.
NEVER HAPPENED BEFORE IN THE 
HISTORY OF THE UNITED STATES.
AND I'LL TELL YOU IN ADDITION TO
BEING IMPROPER, A VALID ARTICLE,
ARTICLE 2 THAT WE ARE 
CONSIDERING TODAY, IF THIS 
BEHAVIOR PERSISTS THE BALANCE --
CAREFULLY BALANCED SHARING OF 
POWER BETWEEN THE THREE BRANCHES
OF GOVERNMENT IS GONE FOREVER.
IT MEANS THAT ONLY ONE BRANCH, 
THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH WILL HAVE 
THE RIGHT TO DECIDE WHAT HAPPENS
IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.
AND THAT IS A VERY DIFFERENT 
TYPE OF COUNTRY THAN WE HAVE 
ENJOYED FOR OVER 200 YEARS.
AND IT IS NOT A PIECE OF GOOD 
NEWS FOR FREEDOM IN THE UNITED 
STATES THAT I -- I YIELD BACK TO
MR. NEGUSE WITH THANKS FOR 
RECOGNIZING ME. 
>> I YIELD BACK THE BALANCE OF 
MY TIME. 
>> THE GENTLEMAN YIELDS BACK FOR
WHAT PURPOSE -- 
>> FOR WHAT PURPOSE DOES MR. 
McCLINTOCK SEEK RECOGNITION. 
>> TO STRIKE THE LAST WORD, MR. 
CHAIRMAN. 
>> THE GENTLEMAN IS RECOGNIZED. 
>> MR. CHAIRMAN, I HAVE TO OFFER
A DIFFERENT PERSPECTIVE ON THIS.
THE DOCTRINE OF EXECUTIVE 
PRIVILEGE ACTUALLY BEGAN WITH A 
SUBPOENA THAT THE HOUSE ISSUED 
TO PRESIDENT GEORGE WASHINGTON 
IN 1796 DEMANDING ALL THE PAPERS
RELATING TO THE JAY TREATY.
PRESIDENT WASHINGTON REFUSED 
THAT SUBPOENA BECAUSE HE HE SAID
THE POWERS OF THE HOUSE DID NOT 
EXTEND TO TREATIES.
HE ULTIMATELY ONLY PROVIDED THAT
INFORMATION TO THE SENATE AS A 
FUNCTION OF ITS TREATY APPROVAL 
PROCESS.
SO -- AND THE DOCTRINE THAT 
DATES BACK TO THOSE DAYS IS 
DERIVED FROM THE SEPARATION OF 
POWERS BETWEEN THE EXECUTIVE AND
LEGISLATIVE BRANCHES.
CONGRESS CAN NO MORE INTRUDE IN 
THE POLICY DISCUSSIONS OF THE 
PRESIDENT THAN THE PRESIDENT CAN
INTRUDE INTO OUR OWN POLICY 
DISCUSSIONS.
S THAT ESSENTIAL TO THE 
SEPARATION OF POWERS.
NOW THERE IS A NATURAL TENSION 
BETWEEN THE BRANCHES.
THAT'S A BY-PRODUCT OF THAT 
SEPARATION OF POWERS.
AND WHEN THE TENSION CANNOT BE 
RESOLVED THEN WE TURN TO THE 
JUDICIARY.
THAT'S THE APPROPRIATE WAY TO 
RESOLVE THIS, DIFFERENT 
INTERPRETATIONS OF THE 
BOUNDARIES BETWEEN PRESIDENT AND
THE CONGRESS, THE APPROPRIATE 
RESPONSE IS JUDICIAL REVIEW, NOT
IMPEACHMENT.
THE PRESIDENT HAS EVERY RIGHT TO
THE ASSERT HIS CONSTITUTIONAL 
RIGHTS.
AND HE HAS EVERY RESPONSIBILITY 
TO DEFEND THE PREROGATIVES OF 
HIS OFFICE, HIS OATH OF OFFICE 
COMPELS HIM TO DO SO.
IN MATTERS LIKE THIS, THE COURTS
HAVE ACTED QUICKLY TO RESOLVE 
SUCH DISPUTES.
BUT THE DEMOCRATS AREN'T WILLING
TO GO TO THE COURTS.
WHAT ARTICLE 2 SAYS IS WE'RE NOT
WILLING TO GO TO COURT.
WE'LL TAKE THE LAW INTO OUR OWN 
HANDS.
THESE ARE THE SAME PEOPLE 
TELLING US THAT NO ONE IS ABOVE 
THE LAW, OF COURSE EXCEPT FOR 
THEMSELVES.
WHAT THEY'RE SAYING IS CONGRESS 
ALONE WILL DECIDE THE LIMITS OF 
OUR OWN POWER.
THIS IS THE ESSENCE OF 
DESPOTISM.
THE REASON WE SEPARATE POWERS OF
GOVERNMENT IS THAT ONE BRANCH OF
GOVERNMENT ALONE CANNOT UNI 
LATERALLY DEFINE ITS POWER.
YET THIS IS THE POWER 
REPRESENTATIVES ARE PUTTING TO 
THEMSELVES.
IT'S TRUE WE HAVE THE SOLE POWER
OF IMPEACHMENT UNTHE 
CONSTITUTION BUT THE POWER DOES 
NOT EXCEED THE BOUNDS 
ESTABLISHED BY THE CONSTITUTION.
THE BOUNDS INCLUDE THE GROUNDS 
FOR IMPEACHMENT WHICH IN 
COMMITTEE IGNORED, AND THEY 
INCLUDE THE SEPARATION OF POWERS
THAT PROTECT ONE BRANCH FROM 
INTRUSION OF THE OTHER.
I WANT YOU TO THINK ABOUT THE 
ESSENCE OF THE DEMOCRATS' CLAIM 
AND WHAT IT MEANS TO AMERICAN 
JURISPRUDENCE.
YOU FACE AN ABUSIVE PROSECUTOR 
MAKING FALSE ACCUSATIONS.
WELL YOU HAVE CONSTITUTIONAL 
RIGHTS YOU ARE GARDNER TO USE TO
PROTECT YOURSELF.
YOU HAVE THE RIGHT TO CONFRONT 
YOUR ACCUSER.
YOU'VE GOT THE RIGHT TO CALL 
WITNESSES IN YOUR DEFENSE.
YOU HAVE THE RIGHT TO BE 
PROTECTED FROM UNREASONABLE 
SEARCHES AND SEIZURES.
BUT IN ARTICLE SAYS, IF YOU GO 
TO COURT TO DEFEND YOUR RIGHTS 
THAT'S AUTOMATICALLY OBSTRUCTION
OF JUSTICE OR IN THIS CASE 
OBSTRUCTION OF CONGRESS.
AND THE VERY FACT THAT YOU TRIED
TO DEFEND YOUR CONSTITUTIONAL 
RIGHTS IS EVIDENCE OF GUILT.
THESE ARE THE TOOLS OF TYRANTS.
AND WE HAVE SEEN THESE TOOLS 
USED AGAINST COLLEGE STUDENTS IN
TITLE 9 PROSECUTIONS AND 
PRODUCED FRIGHTENING LITANY OF 
INJUSTICES.
NOW THEY'RE BROUGHT INTO THIS 
ATTEMPT TO NULLIFY THE 2016 
NATIONAL ELECTION THAT THE LEFT 
REFUSED TO ACCEPT.
AND THAT SHOULD SCARE THE HELL 
OUT OF EVERY PERSON IN THE 
COUNTRY.
I YIELD BACK.
>> THE GENTLEMAN YIELDS BACK.
FOR WHAT PURPOSE DOES MR. 
CORREIA SEEK RECOGNITION. 
>> STRIKE THE LAST WORD. 
>> THE GENTLEMAN IS RECOGNIZED.
>> I WANT TO DO A LITTLE FACT 
CHECKING FOR FOLKS BACK IN 
ORANGE COUNTY.
I KNOW MY COLLEAGUES COMPARED 
VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN'S 
WITHHOLDING OF AID TO PRESIDENT 
TRUMP'S WITHHOLDING OF AID.
AND I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE I 
HAVE THE FACTS CORRECT HERE.
IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING THAT VICE 
PRESIDENT BIDEN HELD UP THE AID 
IN ORDER TO HAVE -- FIRING MR. 
SHULKIN.
BUT THIS WAS IN ACCORDANCE WITH 
U.S. POLICY -- EXPRESS U.S. 
POLICY THAT WAS SUPPORTED BY 
EUROPE AND A BIPARTISAN 
CONGRESS.
YET YOU HAVE PRESIDENT TRUMP WHO
HELD UP ALMOST $400 MILLION OF, 
AGAIN, BIPARTISAN APPROVED AID.
AND I KNOW MY COLLEAGUES ARE 
SAYING THAT HE DID THIS TO ROOT 
OUT CORRUPTION.
AND I THINK THERE ARE CHANNELS 
OF PURSUING HELP IN 
INVESTIGATIONS.
ON SEPTEMBER 25th THERE WAS A 
PUBLIC PRESS RELEASE PUT OUT BY 
THE DOJ SAYING THAT PRESIDENT 
TRUMP NEVER ASKED THEM TO 
INVESTIGATE THIS MATTER.
SO I'M LED TO CONCLUDE THAT THIS
MUST HAVE BEEN FOR THE 
PRESIDENT'S PERSONAL GAIN.
THE PRESIDENT INTERJECTED HIS 
PERSON LAWYER RUDY GIULIANI WHO 
TOLD US -- AND I QUOTE -- THIS 
IS NOT ABOUT FOREIGN POLICY, 
CLOSE QUOTE.
RUDY GIULIANI WENT ON TO SAY, 
THIS INFORMATION, OPEN QUOTE, 
THIS INFORMATION WILL BE VERY, 
VERY HELPFUL TO MY CLIENT, CLOSE
QUOTE.
AND AGAIN, HE SAID, OPEN QUOTE, 
I GUARANTEE YOU, JOE BIDEN WILL 
NOT GET TO ELECTION DAY WITHOUT 
BEING INVESTIGATED.
AGAIN, COMPARING AND CONTRASTING
HOLDING UP FOREIGN AID TO 
SUPPORT U.S. PUBLIC POLICY 
VERSUS HOLDING UP FOREIGN AID 
AGAINST U.S. STATED POLICY.
MR. CHAIR, I YIELD. 
>> WOULD THE GENTLEMAN YIELD 
BACK -- YIELD?
>> YES. 
>> THANK YOU, I THANK YOU THE 
GENTLEMAN FOR YOELDING OPINION I
KNOW THERE'S BEEN AN EFFORT TO 
TRY TO SUGGEST THAT THE TRUMP 
ADMINISTRATION OR PRESIDENT WAS 
INTERESTED IN CORRUPTION AND 
THAT'S WHY HE HELD UP THE AID.
THE THE EVIDENCE IS ABSOLUTELY 
TO THE CONTRARY.
ALL OF THE EVIDENCE.
AND IN FACT SOMETIMES YOU HAVE 
TO GO BACK TO THE SOURCE.
IF YOU LOOK AT THE REPORT 
COMPLETED BY THE INTELLIGENCE 
COMMITTEE OF 300 PAGE REPORT, 17
WITNESSES, OVER 100 HOURS OF 
TESTIMONY, THEY MAKE FINDINGS OF
FACT.
THERE IS FACT AND MAKE BELIEVE.
THE FINDINGS OF FACT -- AND I'M 
READING RIGHT FROM THE REPORT.
THE PRESIDENT SOLICITED THE 
INTERFERENCE OF A FOREIGN 
GOVERNMENT IN UKRAINE IN THE 
2020 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION.
IN FURTHERANCE OF THIS SCHEME, 
PRESIDENT TRUMP DIRECTLY AND 
ACTING THROUGH AGENTS WITHIN AND
OUTSIDE THE U.S. GOVERNMENT 
SOUGHT TO PRESSURE AND INDUCE 
UKRAINE'S NEWLY ELECTED 
PRESIDENT TO PUBLICLY ANNOUNCE 
UNFOUNDED ALLEGATIONS THAT WOULD
BENEFIT PRESIDENT TRUMP'S 
PERSONAL POLITICAL INTERESTS AND
RE-ELECTION EFFORT.
AS PART OF THE SCHEME PRESIDENT 
TRUMP -- THIS IS AGAIN FINDINGS 
OF FACT, PERSONALLY AND DIRECTLY
REQUESTED FOR THE PRESIDENT OF 
UKRAINE THAT THE GOVERNMENT OF 
UKRAINE PUBLICLY ANNOUNCE THE 
INVESTIGATION INTO THE 
PRESIDENT -- VICE PRESIDENT AND 
HIS SON.
PRESIDENT TRUMP ORDERED THE 
SUSPENSION OF $391 MILLION IN 
VITAL MILITARY ASSISTANCE 
URGENTLY NEEDED BY UKRAINE TO 
RESIST RUSSIAN AGGRESSION.
AND HERE IS THE IMPORTANT PART.
IN DIRECTING AND ORCHESTRATING 
THE SCHEME TO ADVANCE HIS 
PERSONAL POLITICAL INTERESTS, 
PRESIDENT TRUMP DID NOT 
IMPLEMENT, PROMOTE OR ADVANCE 
U.S. ANTI-CORRUPTION POLICIES.
IN FACT THE PRESIDENT SOUGHT TO 
PRESSURE AND INDUCE THE 
GOVERNMENT OF UKRAINE TO 
ANNOUNCE POLITICALLY MOTIVATED 
INVESTIGATIONS LACKING 
LEGITIMATE PREDICTION THAT THE 
UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT 
OTHERWISE DISCOURAGES AND 
OPPOSES AS A MATTER OF POLICY IN
THAT COUNTRY AND AROUND THE
UKRAINE AND UNDERMINED U.S. 
NATIONAL SECURITY.
SO THE FINDINGS OF FACT DETAILED
IN THE REPORT COMPLETELY REFUTE 
THAT CLAIM.
AGAIN, I RETURN TO THE MOST 
IMPORTANT FACT.
THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED 
STATES ABUSED THE POWER OF HIS 
OFFICE, THE ENORMOUS POWER OF 
THE PRESIDENCY, NOT TO ADVANCE 
THE PUBLIC GOOD BUT TO ADVANCE 
THE POLITICAL INTERESTS OF 
DONALD TRUMP.
HE USED TAXPAYER FUNDS, NEARLY 
$400 MILLION, TO LEVERAGE THAT 
AND IN DOING SO UNDERMINED THE 
NATIONAL SECURITY OF THE UNITED 
STATES.
HE MUST BE HELD ACCOUNTABLE 
BECAUSE NO ONE IN THIS COUNTRY, 
NO ONE INCLUDING THE PRESIDENT 
OF THE UNITED STATES, IS ABOVE 
THE LAW.
THE ONE BODY THAT IS CHARGED 
WITH MAKING CERTAIN WE VINDICATE
THE POWER OF THE PEOPLE TO HOLD 
THE PRESIDENT ACCOUNTABLE IS THE
CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES.
IF YOU'RE NOT UP TO THE JOB, YOU
DON'T BELONG IN CONGRESS.
>> I YIELD BACK.
>> GENTLEMAN YIELDS BACK.
THE QUESTION NOW OCCURS ON THE 
GAETZ AMENDMENT.
THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE.
OPPOSED, NO.
THE OPINION OF THE CHAIR, THE 
AYES HAVE IT. 
>> ROLL CALL. 
>> ROLL CALL IS REQUESTED.
THE CLERK WILL CALL THE ROLL. 
>> NADLER. 
>> NO. 
>> MS. LOFGREN VOTES NO.
MS. JACKSON LEE.
MS. JACKSON LEE VOTES NO.
MR. COHEN.
MR. COHEN VOTES NO.
MR. JOHNSON OF GEORGIA.
MR. JOHNSON OF GEORGIA VOTES NO.
MR. DEUTCH.
MR. DEUTCH VOTES NO.
MS. BASS.
MS. BASS VOTES NO.
MR. RICHMOND. 
>> NO. 
>> MR. RICHMOND VOTES NO.
MR. JEFFRIES. 
>> NO. 
>> MR. JEFFRIES VOTE NO.
MR. CICILLINE.
MR. CICILLINE VOTES NO.
MR. SWALWELL. 
>> NO. 
>> MR. SWALWELL VOTES NO.
MR. LEIU.
MR. RASKIN VOTES NO.
MS. JAYAPAL VOTES NO.
MS. DEMMINGS. 
>> NO. 
>> MS. DEMMINGS VOTES NO.
MR. CORREIA.
>> NO. 
>> MR. CORREA VOTES NO.
MS. SCANLON. 
>> NO. 
>> MS. SCANLON VOTES NO.
MS. GARCIA. 
>> NO. 
>> MS. GARCIA VOTES NO.
MR. NAGUS VOTES NO.
MS. McBATH. 
>> NO. 
>> MS. McBATH VOTES NO.
MR. STANTON. 
>> NO. 
>> MR. STANTON VOTE NO. 
>> MS. DEAN. 
>> NO. 
>> MS. DEAN VOTES NO.
MS. MUCARSEL-POWELL. 
>> NO. 
>> MS. MUCARSEL-POWELL VOTES NO.
MS. ESCOBAR. 
>> NO. 
>> MR. ESCOBAR VOTES NO.
MR. COLLINS. 
>> AYE. 
>> MR. COLLINS VOTES AYE.
MR. SENSENBRENNER VOTES AYE.
MR. CHABOT.
.
MR. CHABOT VOTES AYE.
MR. GOHMERT VOTES AYE.
MR. JORDAN VOTES YES.
MR. BUCK VOTES AYE.
MR. RATCLIFFE VOTES YES.
MS. ROBY VOTES AYE.
MR. GAETZ VOTES AYE.
MR. JOHNSON OF LOUISIANA, MR. 
JOHNSON OF LOUISIANA VOTES AYE.
MR. BIGGS.
MR. BIGGS VOTES AYE.
MR. McCLIPPING TO. 
>> AYE. 
>> MR. McCLINING TO VOTcCLINTOC.
MR. RESCHENTHALER VOTES AYE.
MR. CLINE VOTES AYE.
MR. ARMSTRONG.
MR. ARMSTRONG VOTES YES.
MR. STEUBE.
MR. STEUBE VOTES YES.
>> EVERYONE -- THE CLERK WILL 
REPORT.
>> MR. CHAIRMAN, THERE ARE 17 
AYES AND 23 NOS. 
>> THE AMENDMENT IS NOT AGREED 
TO.
ARE FROM FURTHER AMENDMENTS IN 
THE AMENDMENT OF A NATURE OF A 
SUBSTITUTE?
>> MR. CHAIRMAN?
>> WHO SEEKS RECOGNITION.
FOR WHAT PURPOSE DOES MR. BIGGS 
SEEK RECOGNITION?
>> AMENDMENT AT THE DESK. 
>> THE CLERK WILL REPORT THE 
AMENDMENT. 
>> THE AMENDMENT TO THE 
AMENDMENT IN THE NATURE OF A 
SUBSTITUTE TO H-RES 755 -- 
>> I RESERVE A POINT OF ORDER. 
>> -- BY MR. BIGGS OF ARIZONA. 
>> THE GENTLEMAN IS RECOGNIZED 
TO -- 
>> IS SHE GOING TO READ THE 
AMENDMENT, SIR?
>> THE CLERK WILL READ THE 
AMENDMENT. 
>> PAGE 4, STRIKE LINE 8, ALL 
THAT FOLLOWS THROUGH LINE 13, 
INSERT THE FOLLOWING.
3, THE AID WAS RELEASED WITHIN 
DAYS OF UKRAINIAN PRESIDENT 
ZELENSKY SIGNING TWO MAJOR 
ANTI-CORRUPTION MEASURES INTO 
LAW, CONVINCING PRESIDENT TRUMP 
THAT THE NEW UKRAINIAN 
ADMINISTRATION WAS SERIOUS ABOUT
REFORM MEASURES AND CONSISTENT 
WITH ADMINISTRATION POLICY TO 
ENSURE FOREIGN AID IS NOT USED 
FOR CORRUPT PURPOSES.
>> GENTLEMAN WILL EXPLAIN HIS 
AMENDMENT. 
>> I WITHDRAW MY POINT OF ORDER.
>> THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN.
I DRAW MY COLLEAGUES' ATTENTION 
TO A LETTER SENT YESTERDAY 
REGARDING THE TEMPORARY PAUSE ON
AID TO UKRAINE.
THE LETTER IS ADDRESSED TO MR. 
TOM ARMSTRONG.
GENERAL COUNSEL OF THE GAO.
I ASK UNANIMOUS CONSENT THAT IT 
BE INCLUDED IN THE RECORD. 
>> OBJECT. 
>> THE ENTIRE REASON WE'RE HERE 
TODAY IS BECAUSE DEMOCRATS HAVE 
ACCUSED THE PRESIDENT OF 
CONDITIONING AID TO UKRAINE ON 
INVESTIGATIONS INTO HIS 
POLITICAL OPPONENT.
TODAY, DEMOCRATS HAVE CONTINUED 
TO CLAIM PRESIDENT TRUMP 
WITHHELD, FROZE FOREIGN AID TO 
UKRAINE BUT THE OMB LETTER WALKS
THROUGH THE ENTIRE PROCESS 
BEHIND THIS TEMPORARY DELAY.
FIRST, THE MONEY WAS PAUSED BUT 
DOD WAS PERMITTED TO ENGAGE IN 
ALL OF THE ACTIVITIES SHORT OF 
OBLIGATION NECESSARY TO ENSURE 
THAT DOD WOULD NOT BE PRECLUDED 
FROM OBLIGATING THE FUNDS PRIOR 
TO THE EXPIRATION.
THE MONEY WAS PAUSED ACCORDING 
TO THE LETTER PENDING A POLICY 
DECISION AND WHAT WAS THE POLICY
DECISION?
YOUR TWO WITNESSES, FIONA HILL 
AND DAVID HALE, TESTIFIED THAT 
THERE WAS AN ONGOING GLOBAL 
REVIEW OF FOREIGN ASSISTANCE 
GENERALLY TO ENSURE ANY PROGRAM 
RECEIVING FUNDS WERE ACTUALLY 
WORTHY BENEFICIARIES OF OUR 
ASSISTANCE, THAT THE PROGRAMS 
MADE SENSE, ET CETERA.
MR. HALE FURTHER TESTIFIED THE 
PRESIDENT'S SKEPTICAL VIEWS ON 
FOREIGN ASSISTANCE GUIDED THE 
FOREIGN AFFAIRS REVIEW.
IN FACT, THE ONLY DIRECT 
EVIDENCE FOR THE REASONS FOR THE
PAUSE COMES FROM OMB OFFICIAL 
MARK SANDY WHO TESTIFIED THAT HE
LEARNED IN SEPTEMBER THAT THE 
PAUSE WAS RELATED TO, QUOTE, THE
PRESIDENT'S CONCERN ABOUT OTHER 
COUNTRIES CONTRIBUTING MORE TO 
UKRAINE, CLOSED QUOTE.
OMB RECEIVED REQUEST FOR 
INFORMATION ON WHAT OTHER 
COUNTRIES WERE CONTRIBUTING TO 
UKRAINE WHICH OMB PROVIDED IN 
THE FIRST WEEK OF SPENT THE AID 
WAS RELEASED, OF COURSE, ON 
SEPTEMBER 11th.
DEMOCRATS WANT TO IMPEACH THE 
PRESIDENT TO ENSURE TAXPAYER 
FUNDS ARE SPENT RESPONSIBLY.
-- WHICH PROHIBITS THE EXECUTIVE
FROM ESSENTIALLY POCKET VETOES 
FUNDS APPROPRIATED BY CONGRESS.
THIS LETTER THAT I'M TRYING TO 
INTRODUCE SHOWS INSTEAD THAT THE
ADMINISTRATION NEVER INTENDED OR
ACTUALLY VIOLATED THE LAW, IN 
FACT, IT SHOWS THAT IT ALWAYS 
INTENDED TO DISPERSE THE FUNDS.
THAT IS WHY DOD WAS PERMITTED TO
ENGAGE IN ALL ACTIVITIES IN 
PREPARATION FOR DELIVERY OF THE 
AID.
YOU'VE NOT MADE YOUR CASE, 
AGAIN.
THE OMB LETTER WALKS THROUGH AT 
GREAT LENGTH THE HISTORY BEHIND 
PROGRAMMATIC DELAYS.
IT TECHNOCRATICALLY DESTROYS 
THEIR IMPEACHMENT.
SAYS EVEN WITH THE TEMPORARY 
WITHHOLDING THE DEPARTMENT OF 
DEFENSE WAS ABLE TO OBLIGATE 84%
OF THE $250 MILLION FOR THE END 
OF THE FISCAL YEAR ON SEPTEMBER 
0th.
IN THE LAST YEAR OF THE OBAMA 
ADMINISTRATION, IT WAS ONLY 79%.
MORE RECENTLY IN 2018, 83%, IN 
2017, 91%.
LET'S GET BACK TO IT.
THE SPECIFIC LANGUAGE OF THE 
APPROPRIATIONS AUTHORITY SAYS 
FOR THE UKRAINE SECURITY 
ASSISTANCE INITIATIVE, IT'S 
HEREBY $250 MILLION IS HEREBY 
APPROPRIATED TO REMAIN AVAILABLE
UNTIL SEPTEMBER 30th, 2019.
THAT'S POINT ONE.
TO REMAIN AVAILABLE UNTIL 
SEPTEMBER 30th, 2019.
WHEN WE AUTHORIZED FUNDS, WE 
GIVE THE ADMINISTRATION A 
DEADLINE.
THE ADMINISTRATION COMPLIED WITH
THAT DEADLINE.
THE ADMINISTRATION ACTED 
COMPLETELY AND TOTALLY WITHIN 
THE BOUNDS OF THE LAW.
SECONDLY, THE OMB'S LETTER NOW 
DEFINITIVELY DESTROYS THE 
INSINUATION THAT THE PRESIDENT 
CHOSE TO DELAY FOR MALICIOUS OR 
CORRUPT PURPOSES.
THE BOTTOM LINE IS THE AID WAS 
LAWFULLY DELAYED AND LAWFULLY 
DELIVERED.
AND THAT MEANS THAT THIS ENTIRE 
PROCESS HAS BEEN A SHAM.
AND WITH THAT, I'M GOING TO 
ADDRESS A COUPLE OF ISSUES THAT 
I HEARD.
I HEARD ONE OF MY COLLEAGUES ON 
THE OTHER SIDE SAY NOT TOO LONG 
AGO THAT THE PRESIDENT SHOULD 
COME?
AND PROVE HIS OWN INNOCENCE.
THINK ABOUT WHAT THAT DOES.
COME IN AND PROVE YOUR OWN 
INNOCENCE.
FIRST OF ALL, THAT IS 
ANTITHETICAL TO THE 
ANGLO-AMERICAN JUDICIAL PROCESS.
IT'S ANTITHETICAL TO THE 
CONSTITUTIONAL -- CONSTITUTION, 
PARTICULARLY THE BILL OF RIGHTS.
IT'S ANTITHETICAL TO WHAT WE DO 
HERE.
SOMEONE SAID THAT VINDMAN SAID 
THAT -- WAS COMPLAINING ABOUT 
THE TRANSCRIPT, BUT AS HAS BEEN 
GONE OVER TODAY, THE TRANSCRIPT 
WAS COMPLETE AND ACCURATE 
ACCORDING TO MR. VINDMAN.
SOMEONE SAID, AND I WOULD ASK 
THIS OF MY COLLEAGUES, UNDER THE
STANDARD THAT WAS GIVEN EARLIER 
BY ONE OF MY COLLEAGUES, IF THE 
PRESIDENT EXERCISED EXECUTIVE 
PRIVILEGE AND REQUESTED A 
DECLARATORY JUDGMENT FROM A 
COURT, IF THE PRIVILEGE WAS 
UPHELD, WOULD YOU UNDERTAKE THEN
TO IMPEACH THE JUDGE?
I MEAN, THINK ABOUT THAT.
YOUR STANDARD GIVING ABSOLUTE 
PROCESS AUTHORITY TO THE HOUSE 
WOULD IMPEL YOU TO IMPEACH A 
JUDGE WHO SUSTAINED A LAWFUL 
EXERCISE OF THE PRIVILEGE, OF 
THE EXECUTIVE.
SO, I THINK, MR. CHAIRMAN, 
YOU'VE OVERGONE YOUR BOUNDS.
WHEN GET BACK TO THIS, MY 
AMENDMENT, IT BASICALLY COVERS 
AND SETS FORTH CLEARLY WHAT THE 
HOLDING OR THE PAUSE OF THE 
UKRAINIAN AID WAS ABOUT AND THEY
GOT THEIR MONEY AND GOT IT ON 
TIME.
>> GENTLE MAN YIELDS BACK.
WITHOUT ACTION, THE MATERIAL 
PREVIOUSLY SUBMITTED BY MR. 
COHEN, MR. SWALWELL AND MR. 
BIGGS WILL BE ENTERED INTO THE 
RECORD.
NOW, FOR WHAT PURPOSE DOES MS. 
BASS SEEK RECOGNITION?
>> RULE TO STRIKE THE LAST WORD.
>> GENTLELADY IS RECOGNIZED. 
>> THANK YOU, SIR.
I FIND IT INTERESTING THE STORY 
CERTAINLY SEEMS TO BE CHANGING.
YOU MENTIONED THE INFORMATION 
FROM OMB, BUT WHEN THE ACTING 
CHIEF OF STAFF GAVE HIS PRESS 
CONFERENCE, HE SAID VERY CLEARLY
THAT THE AID WAS BEING WITHHELD 
BECAUSE OF THE NEED TO 
INVESTIGATE THE 2016 ELECTION.
NOW, YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT 
CORRUPTION.
I THINK THE NOTION THAT 
PRESIDENT ZELENSKY DID NOT FEEL 
PRESSURE AND WAS JUST FINE WITH 
MILITARY ASSISTANCE BEING 
WITHHELD, FIRST OF ALL, THEY DID
KNOW THE MILITARY ASSISTANCE WAS
BEING WITHHELD AND THERE WAS NO 
REASON FOR THE ADMINISTRATION TO
HOLD BACK BECAUSE OF CORRUPTION,
CONSIDERING THAT THE DEPARTMENT 
OF DEFENSE HAD ALREADY SAID THAT
THERE WAS NO PROBLEM AND THAT 
THE AID COULD BE RELEASED.
THE AID WAS RELEASED AFTER THE 
ADMINISTRATION WAS BUSTED.
AFTER THERE WAS PRESSURE FROM 
CONGRESS FOR THE AID TO BE 
RELEASED.
AFTER WORD LEAKED OUT AND THE 
WHISTLE-BLOWER CAME FORWARD, 
THEN THE AID WAS RELEASED.
I THINK IT'S VERY IMPORTANT TO 
REMEMBER THAT.
PRESIDENT ZELENSKY NOT FEELING 
PRESSURE, AND HE WAS JUST FINE, 
HE WAS ESSENTIALLY BEING HELD 
HOSTAGE.
HE WAS A NEWLY ELECTED 
PRESIDENT.
HIS NATION WAS AT WAR.
AND PART OF THIS COUNTRY WAS 
SEIZED BY THE RUSSIANS.
SO WHAT ON EARTH WAS HE SUPPOSED
TO SNA SAY?
PUBLICLY COMPLAIN AND CRITICIZE 
PRESIDENT TRUMP WHEN THE WHOLE 
WORLD KNOWS HOW THE PRESIDENT 
DOESN'T RESPOND TO ANYTHING 
EXCEPT FOR PRAISE?
WHAT HOSTAGE WOULD COME FORWARD 
AND COMPLAIN PUBLICLY AGAINST 
THEIR CAPTORS ESPECIALLY IF THEY
KNEW THAT THE AID COULD BE 
WITHHELD OR THEY COULD BE 
COMPROMISED AT ANY POINT IN 
TIME?
LAST WEEK, PRESIDENT ZELENSKY 
HAD HIS FIRST MEETING WITH 
PRESIDENT PUTIN, AND 
UNFORTUNATELY, WE WERE NOT 
THERE.
HE HAD THAT MEETING ALONE.
WE ABSOLUTELY COMPROMISED HIS 
ABILITY TO DEFEND HIS NATION.
SEVERAL TIMES IT'S BEEN SAID 
THAT NO LIVES WERE LOST, BUT I 
WOULD LIKE TO ASK UNANIMOUS 
CONSENT TO ENTER INTO THE RECORD
AN ARTICLE FROM "NEWSWEEK" 
TALKING ABOUT THE FACT THAT 13 
UKRAINIAN SOLDIERS WERE KILLED.
>> WITHOUT OBJECTION.
>> PRESIDENT ZELENSKY AGREED TO 
PUBLICLY ANNOUNCE THE 
INVESTIGATIONS IN AN INTERVIEW 
ON CNN, BUT THE UKRAINE CANCELED
THAT INTERVIEW DAYS AFTER THE 
PRESIDENT'S SCHEME WAS EXPOSED 
AND THE MILITARY AID WAS 
RELEASED WHICH FURTHER 
UNDERSCORES THE PRESSURE THAT 
THE UKRAINIANS FELT WHEN THE AID
WAS WITHHELD.
THE PRESIDENT KNEW THIS WHEN 
PRESIDENT ZELENSKY ASKED FOR A, 
QUOTE, FAVOR.
AS LIEUTENANT COLONEL VINDMAN 
TESTIFIED, THIS WAS NOT A 
FRIENDLY REQUEST.
IT WAS A DEMAND.
FOR WEEKS THE UKRAINIAN 
OFFICIALS PUSHED BACK ON THE 
DEMAND OF THE PRESIDENT AND HIS 
AGENTS, ADVISING U.S. OFFICIALS 
THAT THEY DID NOT WANT TO BE AN 
INSTRUMENT IN WASHINGTON'S 
DOMESTIC RE-ELECTION POLITICS.
THIS WAS NOT JUST BUSINESS AS 
USUAL.
THIS WAS NOT THE PRESIDENT JUST 
BEING CONCERNED ABOUT 
CORRUPTION.
BUT AS THE PRESIDENT'S PRESSURE 
CAMPAIGN INCREASED AND THE 
PRESIDENT BEGAN WITHHOLDING 
CRITICAL ASSISTANCE FROM 
UKRAINE, SOMETHING THAT THE 
UKRAINIANS LEARNED ABOUT NO 
LATER THAN JULY 25th, THE 
UKRAINIANS BECAME DESPERATE, SO 
DESPERATE, IN FACT, THAT AS 
AMBASSADOR SONDLAND TOLD THE 
PRESIDENT, PRESIDENT ZELENSKY 
WAS WILLING TO DO ANYTHING.
AND ALTHOUGH THE AID HAS BEEN 
RELEASED, THE POWER OF 
Y
DISPARITIES BETWEEN THE TWO 
COUNTRIES HAS NOT CHANGED.
UKRAINE CONTINUES TO DEFEND ON 
THE UNITED STATES FOR MILITARY 
AID AND PRESIDENT ZELENSKY NEEDS
THE SUPPORT OF AMERICA AND ITS 
LEADERS, HE STRIVES TO BRING AN 
END TO THE WAR WITH RUSSIA.
IT IS NO SURPRISE, THEREFORE, 
THAT PRESIDENT ZELENSKY 
EXPRESSED THAT HE DIDN'T FEEL 
PRESSURE, BUT THE EVIDENCE 
REVEALS A DIFFERENT PICTURE.
THE EVIDENCE IS CLEAR THAT 
PRESIDENT TRUMP TOOK ADVANTAGE 
OF UKRAINIAN VULNERABILITY AND 
ABUSED THE POWERS OF HIS OFFICE 
TO PRESSURE UKRAINE TO HELP HIS 
RE-ELECTION CAMPAIGN.
THIS IS THE HIGHEST OF HIGH 
CRIMES AND PRESIDENT TRUMP MUST 
BE HELD ACCOUNTABLE.
YOU KNOW, IN ADDITION TO 
COMPROMISING UKRAINE, THIS 
COMPROMISED OUR STANDING IN THE 
WORLD BECAUSE WHAT DOES IT SAY 
TO OUR ALLIES?
WHAT DOES IT SAY TO VULNERABLE 
NEW DEMOCRACIES WHEN THEY NEED 
THE ASSISTANCE OF THE UNITED 
STATES, THEY BETTER BE PREPARED 
TO HELP THE PRESIDENT'S 
RE-ELECTION.
IT COMPROMISES OUR STANDING IN 
THE WORLD AND WHY WOULD ALLIES 
TRUST US ANYMORE IF THIS IS THE 
WAY THAT THEY ARE TREATED?
I YIELD BACK.
>> THE GENTLELADY YIELDS BACK.
FOR PURPOSES, MR. -- 
>> STRIKE THE LAST RECOGNIZED. 
>> I HAVE THREE POINTS I'D LIKE 
TO MAKE HERE.
FIRST OF ALL, AS WELL AS BEING 
ON THIS COMMITTEE, JUDICIARY 
COMMITTEE, HAVE BEEN A MEMBER OF
THE FOREIGN AFFAIRS COMMITTEE, 
HAVE BEEN FOR THE LAST 23 YEARS 
AND ONE THING THAT'S REALLY BEEN
CONCERNING TO ME IS ABOUT THIS 
PHONE CALL THAT THE GENTLEMAN 
MENTIONS IN THE AMENDMENT, AND I
APPRECIATE HIM OFFERING THIS 
AMENDMENT, BUT RELATIVE TO THAT 
PHONE CALL THAT OUR PRESIDENT, 
PRESIDENT TRUMP, HAD WITH THE 
PRESIDENT OF UKRAINE, THE NUMBER
OF PEOPLE THAT WERE LISTENING IN
ON THIS PHONE CALL, AND IS THAT 
IN THE NATIONAL INTEREST OF OUR 
COUNTRY?
IT'S INCREDIBLE HOW MANY 
PEOPLE -- YOU THINK OUR 
PRESIDENT'S TALKING TO THEIR 
PRESIDENT, YOU GOT ALL THESE 
PEOPLE LISTENING IN AND IF THEY 
AREN'T LISTENING IN, SHUT UP 
ABOUT IT.
YOU KNOW, THE PRESIDENT IS 
TALKING FRANKLY WITH ANOTHER 
PRESIDENT, YOU KNOW, HE'S GOING 
TO MAKE COMMENTS.
HE -- IN THAT CALL HE MADE SOME 
DISPARAGING COMMENTS RELATIVE TO
ANOTHER IMPORTANT ALLY OF OURS, 
GERMANY, AND ANGELA MERKEL.
IT'S NOT PARTICULARLY HELPFUL TO
HEAR THEM SAY -- HEAR OUR 
PRESIDENT SAYING SOMETHING LIKE,
WELL, THEY'LL GIVE YOU LIP 
SERVICE ABOUT COMING TO YOUR 
DEFENSE AND GIVING YOU AID, BUT 
THEY REALLY WON'T BE THERE FOR 
YOU, WE WILL BE HERE, YOU KNOW, 
TALKING ABOUT HOW IMPORTANT THE 
UNITED STATES IS AND AN ALLY.
OUR PRESIDENTS DO THAT, BUT, YOU
KNOW, YOU THINK YOU'RE DOING 
THAT IN CONFIDENCE WITH THE 
OTHER COUNTRY, NOT HAVING 
EVERYBODY ELSE LISTENING IN.
SO OUR STATE DEPARTMENT, THE 
EXECUTIVE BRANCH, MANY OTHERS, 
NEED TO TIGHTEN UP THESE PHONE 
CALLS FOR OUR NATIONAL SECURITY 
INTERESTS AND THAT GOES WHETHER 
WE HAVE A REPUBLICAN 
ADMINISTRATION, AS WE DO RIGHT 
NOW, OR A DEMOCRATIC 
ADMINISTRATION, AS WE HAVE MAYBE
DECADES DOWN THE ROAD.
SECONDLY, RELATIVE TO 
OBSTRUCTION OF CONGRESS, WHICH 
IS ONE OF THE TWO CHARGES, THERE
WEREN'T ANY -- NO CRIMES 
ALLEGED, ESSENTIALLY, BUT 
OBSTRUCTION OF CONGRESS.
WE HAVE THREE BRANCHES OF 
GOVERNMENT AND, OF COURSE, IT'S 
ALLEGED THAT, YOU KNOW, 
CONGRESS, THE LEGISLATIVE 
BRANCH, SAID WE WANT YOU TO 
BRING WITNESSES AND EVIDENCE, ET
CETERA, FROM THE OTHER BRANCH, 
EXECUTIVE BRANCH, AND SINCE THEY
DIDN'T DO IT, RATHER THAN GOING 
TO COURT, WHICH THEY COULD HAVE 
DONE, THE LEGISLATIVE BRANCH, 
THIS BRANCH, BASICALLY, THE 
DEMOCRATS BECAUSE THEY'RE IN 
CONTROL HERE IN THE HOUSE, THEY 
COULD HAVE FILED A LAWSUIT.
THEY COULD HAVE HAD THE COURTS 
DECIDE.
THAT'S WHAT HAPPENED SOME YEARS 
AGO BACK IN THE NIXON 
IMPEACHMENT.
HE WOULDN'T TURN OVER THE TAPES 
SO THEY WENT TO THE COURT, THE 
SUPREME COURT ULTIMATELY SAID IT
MAY HAVE TAKEN SOME MONTHS, BUT 
THEY SAY, YOU GOT TO TURN THOSE 
TAPES OVER AND HE DID AND HE 
RESIGNED BECAUSE THERE WAS BAD 
STUFF IN THOSE TAPES.
THE SMOKING GUN, SO TO SPEAK.
AND THAT'S WHAT THEY COULD HAVE 
DONE HERE, BUT INSTEAD OF GO TO 
THE COURT, WHICH IS WHAT YOU'RE 
SUPPOSED TO DO, THEY'RE KIND OF 
THE REFEREE BETWEEN THE 
LEGISLATIVE BRANCH AND THE 
EXECUTIVE BRANCH, THEY SAY WE'RE
NOT GOING TO GO TO COURTS, WE'RE
JUST GOING TO IMPEACH THIS GUY 
WHICH THEY'VE WANTED TO DO SINCE
HE GOT INAUGURATED.
WE HAD ONE MEMBER OF CONGRESS ON
THEIR SIDE WHO SAID THEY HAD TO 
IMPEACH HIM OR OTHERWISE, HE WAS
GOING TO GET RE-ELECTED.
SO, THERE'S SO MUCH POLITICS AND
THERE REALLY SHOULDN'T BE, AND 
THE THIRD POINT I WANTED TO MAKE
IS THAT I THINK THE DEMOCRATS, 
UNFORTUNATELY, ARE REALLY 
LOWERING THE BAR ON IMPEACHMENT 
IN OUR COUNTRY.
YOU KNOW, FOR ABOUT -- I HAPPEN 
TO BE A HISTORY MAJOR BE THE 
SECOND OLDEST COLLEGE IN THE 
COUNTRY, COLLEGE OF WILLIAM & 
MARY.
200 YEARS, OUR NATION'S HISTORY,
WE HAD 1 IMPEACHMENT.
ANDREW JOHNSON.
FOR 200 YEARS.
AND NOW IN LESS THAN 50 YEARS, 
WE'RE ON OUR THIRD WHICH IS 
REALLY UNFORTUNATE, I BELIEVE.
I THINK THEY'RE LOWERING THE 
BAR.
THEY'RE MAKING THIS TOO ROUTINE.
AND I THINK THAT'S VERY 
DANGEROUS BECAUSE WHEN YOU HAVE,
I THINK IN THE NEAR FUTURE, WHEN
YOU HAVE A PRESIDENT AND YOU 
HAVE A HOUSE OF DIFFERENT 
PARTIES, WE'RE GOING TO SEE THIS
MORE AND MORE OFTEN AND THIS IS 
VERY DIVISIVE FOR OUR COUNTRY.
WE'RE -- WE'RE NOT TOGETHER 
ENOUGH ON SO MANY THINGS AND I 
THINK THIS IS GOING TO FURTHER 
DIVIDE US AND I THINK THAT'S 
REALLY UNFORTUNATE.
WE SAW, FOR EXAMPLE, YOU KNOW, 
YEARS AND YEARS AGO, REMINDS ME 
A LITTLE BIT OF WHEN BOURK WAS 
NOMINATED TO THE SUPREME COURT.
SOME OF THE PRESS HERE ARE 
PROBABLY OLD ENOUGH TO REMEMBER 
THAT AND MAYBE SOME MEMBERS OF 
THE INSTITUTION IN GENERAL, BUT 
WHEN THE DEMOCRATS WENT AFTER 
BORK, WE SAW A TIT FOR TAT DOWN 
THE ROAD.
I'M AFRAID YOU'RE GOING DO SEE 
THAT HERE RELATIVE TO 
IMPEACHMENT OF OUR PRESIDENTS, 
TOO.
SO I THINK BOTH SIDES OUGHT TO 
STEP BACK AND CONSIDER WHAT 
WE'RE DOING HERE BECAUSE 
IMPEACHMENT CAN BE VERY 
DIVISIVE, AND I'VE BEEN THROUGH 
ONE OF THESE BEFORE.
I WAS ONE OF THE HOUSE MANAGERS 
IN BILL CLINTON'S ABOUT 20 YEARS
AGO.
AND THEY'RE UGLY.
SO I HAVE A LOT OF SYMPATHY FOR 
THE HOUSE MANAGERS THAT ARE 
GOING TO BE PICKED, PROBABLY 
SOME FROM THIS COMMITTEE, IN THE
NEAR FUTURE, AND I YIELD BACK. 
>> GENTLEMAN YIELDS BACK.
WHAT PURPOSE DOES MR. RICHMOND 
SEEK RECOGNITION?
>> MOVE TO STRIKE THE LAST WORD.
>> GENTLEMAN'S RECOGNIZED.
>> MR. CHAIRMAN, WE'VE HAD A LOT
OF CONVERSATION TODAY.
I'D JUST LIKE TO BREAK IT DOWN 
INTO A SIMPLE TERM THAT EVERYONE
AT HOME CAN UNDERSTAND, 
ESPECIALLY MY HOME DISTRICT, 
WHERE WE SPEAK A LOT OF SPANISH.
WE SPEAK LOT OF FRENCH.
WE DON'T GO AROUND SPEAKING A 
LOT OF LATIN.
AND SO HERE'S WHY WE'RE HERE 
TODAY.
SOME PEOPLE SAY QUID PRO QUO.
SOME PEOPLE TRANSLATE INTO THE 
AMERICAN DEFINITION OF A THIS 
FOR A THAT.
AND THE QUESTION IS, WHAT WAS 
THE THIS?
THE THIS WAS AN OVAL OFFICE 
VISIT AND MUCH-NEEDED MILITARY 
AID FOR THE THAT.
AND THE THAT WAS AN 
INVESTIGATION INTO JOE BIDEN, 
THE PRIMARY POLITICAL OPPONENT, 
AND, LOOK, WHEN YOU DESCRIBE A 
CRIME, YOU WANT TO MAKE SURE 
THAT YOU TELL THE JURY AND THE 
PEOPLE LISTENING ABOUT MOTIVE.
THE MOTIVE WAS THAT HE WAS 
AFRAID, PRESIDENT TRUMP WAS 
AFRAID THAT JOE BIDEN WAS 
BEATING HIM IN THE POLLS AND 
WOULD DEFEAT HIM FOR HIS 
RE-ELECTION.
HOW DO WE KNOW THAT, VERY 
QUICKLY?
BECAUSE WE'VE INTRODUCED 
ARTICLES WHERE HE SAID IT.
HE GAVE OUT THE AID IN 2016.
HE GAVE -- IN 2017.
HE GAVE OUT THE AID IN 2018.
2019, THE POLLS COME OUT, HE 
WITHHOLDS THE AID AND HE ASKS 
FOR AN INVESTIGATION.
BUT THAT'S JUST MOTIVE.
LET'S GO TO SWORN WITNESS 
TESTIMONY BECAUSE THAT'S THE 
PART I WANT US TO FOCUS ON, AND 
THE OTHER SIDE TALKED ABOUT THE 
CREDIBILITY OF LIEUTENANT 
COLONEL VINDMAN AND THEY 
ACCEPTED SOME OF THE THINGS THAT
HE SAID AS ACT.
WELL, IF YOU'RE GOING TO ACCEPT 
SOME OF THE THINGS HE SAID AS 
FACT, LET'S ACCEPT THEM ALL AS 
FACT.
IT WAS LIEUTENANT COLONEL 
VINDMAN THAT SAID UNDER OATH, 
AMBASSADOR SONDLAND BEGAN TO 
VIEW WHAT THE DELIVERABLE WOULD 
BE IN ORDER TO GET THE MEETING.
THE DELIVERABLE.
THAT WAS THE THAT FOR THE 
MEETING.
AND HE SAID, SPECIFICALLY, IT 
WAS AN INVESTIGATION INTO THE 
BIDENS.
LET'S GO TO JOHN BOLTON WHO 
D
SAID, HE DESCRIBED THIS 
THIS-FOR-THAT DEAL AS A DRUG 
DEAL.
SO IF WE LOOK AT ALL OF THE 
TESTIMONY OF PEOPLE UNDER OATH, 
THEY CLEARLY SAY THAT THIS WAS A
SWAP OF AN OVAL OFFICE VISIT OR 
MILITARY AID FOR AN 
INVESTIGATION INTO THE BIDENS.
NOW, THE WHISTLE-BLOWER COMES 
FORWARD, THE TRUMP 
ADMINISTRATION PANICS AND 
DEVELOP EVERYTHING WE HAVE NOW 
AND IS CALLED THE EXCUSE OR THE 
DEFENSE.
FIRST EXCUSE, WELL, THEY DIDN'T 
KNOW THE MONEY WAS BEING HELD.
NOT TRUE.
THERE'S AN EMAIL, TWO EMAILS 
WHERE THEY EXPRESS CONCERNS 
ABOUT IT, THEN YOU HAVE MS. 
KROFT WHO TESTIFIED TWO 
INDIVIDUALS FROM THE UKRAINIAN 
EMBASSY ASKED ABOUT AN OMB HOLD 
ON THE
ROUGHLY A WEEK APART.
SHE RECALLED THAT THAT OCCURRED 
BEFORE IT WAS PUBLICLY 
ANNOUNCED.
SO THAT'S ONE.
SECOND, THEIR DEFENSE OR EXCUSE 
IS THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP WANTED 
TO INVESTIGATE CORRUPTION.
THAT'S JUST LAUGHABLE ON ITS 
FACE.
IF YOU WANT TO -- IF PRESIDENT 
TRUMP WANTED TO INVESTIGATE 
CORRUPTION, HE CAN START AT 1600
PENNSYLVANIA AVENUE, LOOK IN THE
MIRROR, OR HE CAN LOOK AROUND 
THE CAST OF CRIMINALS THAT HAVE 
BEEN INDICTED FROM HIS CIRCLE.
YOU HAVE HIS LAWYER, YOU HAVE 
HIS NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISER, 
YOU HAVE MICHAEL FLYNN, RICK 
GATES, PAUL MANAFORT.
THE CIRCLE GOES ON.
HE'S SURROUNDED BY CRIMINALS.
THEN WE HEAR, WELL, CAN'T BE 
OBSTRUCTION OF CONGRESS, YOU ALL
COULD HAVE JUST WENT TO COURT.
WELL, WE'RE IN DECEMBER.
WE HAVE AN ONGOING CRIME.
WE HAVE A CRIME IN PROGRESS.
THAT'S -- THAT IS WHAT THE 911 
CALL WOULD SAY FROM A POLICE 
OFFICER, WE HAVE A CRIME IN 
PROGRESS.
THEY'RE SAYING WITH THE CRIME IN
PROGRESS, WHY DIDN'T YOU JUST 
SCHEDULE AN APPOINTMENT TO CALL 
THE POLICE?
WE HAVE AN EMERGENCY TO OUR 
NATIONAL ELECTION GOING ON RIGHT
NOW.
OUR OATH TO THE CONSTITUTION 
REQUIRES US TO TAKE THIS 
DRASTIC, SOLEMN, AND REGRETTABLE
STEP, BUT IT IS NECESSARY 
BECAUSE IF WE DON'T PROTECT 
AMERICA'S PRECIOUS RIGHT TO 
VOTE, IT IS CLEAR THAT THE OTHER
SIDE WON'T.
AND SO I TALKED ABOUT THE 
COURAGE OF ESTER YESTERDAY.
TODAY I'M REMINDED OF JUDAS 
BECAUSE FOR JUDAS FOR 30 PIECES 
OF SILVER BETRAYED JESUS.
FOR 30 POSITIVE TWEETS, FOR EASY
RE-ELECTION, THE OTHER SIDE IS 
WILLING TO BETRAY THE AMERICAN 
PEOPLE THEIR PRECIOUS RIGHT TO 
VOTE AND THE FUTURE OF OUR GREAT
COUNTRY.
WITH THAT, I YIELD BACK.
>> GENTLEMAN YIELDS BACK.
>> WHAT PURPOSE DOES MR. GOHMERT
SEEK RECOGNITION?
>> STRIKE THE LAST WORD. 
>> GENTLEMAN'S RECOGNIZED.
>> I'M REALLY INTRIGUED, FIRST 
WE'RE TOLD THAT THE OFFENSE IS 
WITHHOLDING AID EVEN THOUGH IT 
WAS PROVIDED AND, IN FACT, 
PROVIDED TREMENDOUSLY MORE 
HELPFUL IN BOTH SUBSTANCE AND IN
AMOUNT THAN THE PRIOR 
ADMINISTRATION THAT JUST LET 
PEOPLE DIE OVER THERE, BUT I 
THOUGHT THE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT HAD 
BEEN THE AID WAS PROVIDED, BUT 
NOW WE'RE TOLD THIS IS AN 
ONGOING CRIME.
SO, THAT -- I DON'T -- THOSE TWO
STATEMENTS DON'T SEEM TO WORK 
TOGETHER WELL.
BUT, YOU KNOW, THE DOUBLE 
STANDARDS THAT THEY SERVE ONE 
PARTY WELL.
WHEN IT COMES TO THE OBSTRUCTION
OF CONGRESS, THE POSITION OF THE
MAJORITY IS A TYRANNICAL 
POSITION.
WHEN WE ASK FOR SOMETHING, YOU 
EITHER GIVE IT OR WE'RE THROWING
YOU OUT OF OFFICE.
NEVER MIND WE DON'T KNOW WHAT 
WE'RE GOING TO CHARGE YOU WITH, 
WE FIGURE IF WE KEEP REQUESTING 
ENOUGH DOCUMENTS, KIND OF LIKE 
CHAIRMAN SCHIFF GETTING PHONE 
RECORDS AND RELEASE THEM, MAYBE 
WE CAN INTIMIDATE PEOPLE BY 
GETTING THEIR RECORDS AND 
RELEASING THEM ENOUGH THAT 
THEY'LL DO WHAT WE SAY.
THAT'S TYRANNICAL.
AND, IN FACT, WHEN WE LOOK AT 
OBSTRUCTION OF CONGRESS, 
VIOLATION OF THE RULES, THE 
MAJORITY COULD HAVE GONE AHEAD 
AND PASSED A TYRANNICAL RULE AND
SAID, WE'RE NOT GOING TO ALLOW 
THE MINORITY TO HAVE A MINORITY 
WITNESS DAY, EVEN THOUGH IT'S IN
THE RULES BECAUSE WE'RE TIRE 
 
TYRANTS AND WE DON'T CARE, BUT 
THEY DIDN'T PASS THAT RULE.
IT'S STILL PART OF THE RULES.
SO ONCE THIS THING IS RUSHED 
THROUGH PROBABLY TONIGHT, 
WHENEVER, THROUGH THE RULES 
COMMITTEE, THEY'LL PROBABLY COME
OUT WITH A RULE AS RANKING 
MEMBER MENTIONED EARLIER AND 
SAY, GEE, ALL SUCH POINTS OF 
ORDER ARE WAIVED.
YOU KNOW, ALL OF THE TIMES THAT 
THE MAJORITY VIOLATED THE RULES,
WE'RE GOING TO WAIVE THOSE AND 
NOBODY CAN RAISE THEM TO STOP 
THIS IMPEACHMENT.
THAT REALLY IS ABUSE OF POWER.
IT CERTAINLY IS, BUT, AND I'VE 
HAD A DOCUMENT PREPARED TO OFFER
AS AN AMENDMENT IN THE NATURE OF
A SUBSTITUTE, WHICH WOULD JUST 
CHANGE THE PRESIDENT'S NAME TO 
THAT OF CHAIRMAN SCHIFF AND 
CHAIRMAN NADLER REGARDING ABUSE 
OF POWER AND OBSTRUCTION OF 
CONGRESS BECAUSE THERE ARE 
PLENTY OF BASES FOR THAT, BUT IT
WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN RULED 
GERMANE SO I WASN'T GOING TO 
WASTE THE TIME.
BUT OBSTRUCTION OF CONGRESS WHEN
THERE IS NO REFEREE, THERE IS NO
ADJUDICATION, THERE'S NOTHING 
BUT A MAJORITY THAT SAYS, YOU 
GIVE US WHAT WE WANT UNTIL WE 
FIND A CRIME OR WE'RE GOING TO 
THROW YOU OUT OF OFFICE.
THAT IS SO UNREASONABLE, 
ESPECIALLY GIVEN THE HISTORY OF 
THE LAST THREE YEARS WHEN THE 
CHARGES CAME AND THE CHARGES 
WENT, THE PRESIDENT WAS, I THINK
IT WAS A HUGE MISTAKE FOR HIM 
EVER TO ALLOW DON McGAHN TO 
TESTIFY FOR 30 HOURS WHEN IT WAS
A BOGUS CHARGE TO BEGIN WITH.
THEY'RE SETTING PERJURY TRAPS, 
THANK GOD DON McGAHN DIDN'T FALL
INTO ONE, BUT THIS IS EVEN MORE 
OUTRAGEOUS.
GIVE US WHAT WE DEMAND, OR WE'RE
GOING TO THROW YOU OUT OF 
OFFICE.
WE CAN'T -- YOU KNOW, THERE'S 
ANOTHER THING THAT COULD HAVE 
BEEN DONE BESIDES GOING TO 
COURT.
COULD HAVE PASSED A BILL 
REQUIRING THE PRESIDENT TO DO 
CERTAIN THINGS, TURN OVER 
CERTAIN THINGS AND GOTTEN THE 
SENATE TO AGREE, PRESIDENT 
VETOES IT, YOU OVERRIDE THE 
VETO.
THEN YOU -- WHICH IS KIND OF 
WHAT HAPPENED TO ANDREW JOHNSON.
THEN YOU COULD REALLY HAVE A 
LEGITIMATE OBSTRUCTION OF 
CONGRESS.
IT'S NOT JUST OBSTRUCTION OF A 
MAJORITY IN ONE-HALF OF THE 
CONGRESS, BUT THAT WASN'T DONE, 
EITHER, AND EVEN IF THAT HAD 
BEEN DONE, EITHER THE PRESIDENT 
OR THE CONGRESS WOULD END UP 
HAVING TO GO TO THE SUPREME 
COURT TO SAY, TO GET THE COURTS 
TO SAY, THIS WAS A LAWFUL ACT, 
BUT IN THE CASE OF CONGRESS AND 
ANDREW JOHNSON, IT WAS AN 
UNCONSTITUTIONAL ACT TO SAY HE 
COULDN'T FIRE THE SECRETARY OF 
STATE.
SO, EITHER WAY, YOU GOT TO END 
UP IN COURT AT SOME POINT BEFORE
IF CAN BE AN OBSTRUCTION OF 
CONGRESS, BUT THE MAJORITY WAS 
IN A HURRY AND WHEN THE 
MAJORITY -- THIS MAJORITY IS IN 
A HURRY, THEN JUSTICE IS UNDONE 
AND SO IS OUR FUTURE.
I YIELD BACK. 
>> GENTLEMAN YIELDS BACK.
WHAT PURPOSE DOES MS. SCANLON 
SEEK RECOGNITION?
>> I MOVE TO STRIKE THE LAST 
WORD. 
>> GENTLELADY'S RECOGNIZED. 
>> AS I UNDERSTAND IT, THE 
AMENDMENT BEFORE US IS BASED ON 
A LETTER THAT HAS JUST BEEN 
ISSUED BY THE WHITE HOUSE MONTHS
AFTER THE WHOLE ISSUE OF THE 
PROPRIETY OF THIS JULY CALL WAS 
RAISED.
SO, YOU KNOW, I THINK IT TAKES 
US BACK TO BASICS AGAIN AND THE 
BASICS BEING IF IT LOOKS LIKE A 
DUCK AND IT SWIMS LIKE A DUCK, 
AND IT QUACKS LIKE A DUCK, IT'S 
PROBABLY A DUCK.
AND I'M AFRAID THAT THE JULY 
25th CALL IS A DUCK.
YOU KNOW, WE HAVE THE 
PRESIDENT'S OWN WORDS.
I WANT YOU TO DO US A FAVOR, 
THOUGH."
THEN HE GOES ON TO TALK ABOUT 
THE FAVORS THAT HE WANTS 
INVOLVING ELECTION ASSISTANCE 
FOR HIM TO CLARIFY WHAT HAPPENED
IN THE 2016 ELECTION AND THEN 
START ATTACKING HIS OPPONENT IN 
THE 2020 ELECTION.
IMMEDIATELY UPON HEARING THIS, 
NATIONAL SECURITY PROFESSIONALS 
AROUND THE WORLD SAY, WHOA, THIS
IS WRONG.
OKAY?
THIS QUACKS LIKE A DUCK.
OKAY.
THE PRESIDENT IS GOING AGAINST 
ALL OF OUR CAREFULLY THOUGHT OUT
NATIONAL SECURITY POLICY TO ASK 
FOR WHAT ONE WITNESS CALLED A 
DOMESTIC POLITICAL FAVOR.
OKAY?
SO, SO RIGHT OUT OF THE BAT, IT 
MAKES NO SENSE TO THE 
PROFESSIONALS HERE.
THEN WE HEAR -- THEN WE START 
HEARING THIS THING THAT, OH, 
WELL, HE'S REALLY TALKING ABOUT 
CORRUPTION.
WELL, NO, THE DEPARTMENT OF 
DEFENSE HAD SAID IT WAS OKAY TO 
RELEASE THE AID HERE BECAUSE 
THEY'D ALREADY CERTIFIED THAT 
CORRUPTION WASN'T AN ISSUE.
THE PEOPLE ON THE GROUND, THE 
AMBASSADORS, THE NATIONAL 
SECURITY PROFESSIONALS WHO'D 
BEEN APPOINTED BY THIS PRESIDENT
SAID, NO, THAT IS NOT AN EXCUSE.
WE THEN HEAR THAT OMB OFFICIALS,
OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET 
OFFICIALS, ARE SAYING, WHOA, 
WHO'S HOLDING UP THE AID?
WE DON'T HAVE A PROBLEM WITH THE
AID.
OH, IT'S THE PRESIDENT.
THE PRESIDENT IS HOLDING UP THE 
AID.
THEN WE HEAR FROM THE DEPARTMENT
OF JUSTICE, WHOA, WE DIDN'T HAVE
ANYTHING TO DO WITH ANY 
INQUIRIES INTO OUR -- OUR 
AMERICAN CITIZENS, THAT'S NOT 
THE DOJ'S INTEREST.
SO THE ONLY PERSON WHO HAD AN 
INTEREST IN THIS WAS THE 
PRESIDENT AND IT WAS HIS 
PERSONAL INTEREST.
THE UNANIMOUS OPINION OF ALL OF 
OUR AGENCIES IN THE U.S. 
GOVERNMENT WAS THIS WAS AGAINST 
OUR NATIONAL SECURITY AND OUR 
NATIONAL INTERESTS.
SO IT'S NOW, ONLY NOW, AFTER THE
PRESIDENT HAS REFUSED TO ALLOW 
US TO INQUIRE FROM ANYONE ELSE 
WHO WAS IN THE ROOM AND IT WAS 
ON THE CALL AND AFTER DENYING 
ALL OF THIS EVIDENCE, ONLY NOW 
AFTER ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT 
HAVE BEEN FILED, ONLY NOW DOES 
THE WHITE HOUSE COME UP WITH AN 
EXPLANATION?
IT'S WAY TOO LITTLE, IT'S WAY 
TOO LATE, AND IT SMELLS LIKE A 
DUCK.
SO WITH THAT, I YIELD BACK TO 
THE CHAIR.
>> WHAT PURPOSE DOES MR. GAETZ 
SEEK RECOGNITION?
>> MOVE TO STRIKE THE LAST WORD.
>> GENTLEMAN IS RECOGNIZED. 
>> THANK YOU.
BEFORE I MAKE MY POINT, DURING 
THE BREAK, A "REUTERS" 
PHOTOGRAPHER, JOSH ROBERTS, 
APPROACHED THE DAIS AND TOOK 
PICTURES OF THE NOTES ON THE 
DESK OF SEVERAL DEMOCRATIC 
COLLEAGUES.
WE NOTICED THAT AND ANNOUNCED IT
TO STAFF.
THAT REPORTER, THAT PHOTOGRAPHER
HAS BEEN REMOVED.
I JUST SAY, NO MEMBER, 
REPUBLICAN OR DEMOCRAT, SHOULD 
BE SUBJECT TO THAT.
WE OUGHT TO HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY
TO TAKE OUR NOTES, PARTICIPATE 
IN DEBATE AND HAVE A FAIR 
DISCUSSION SUBSTANTIVELY, 
THOUGH.
PRESIDENT TRUMP DID NOTHING 
WRONG.
AS WE SAT HERE TODAY, EACH AND 
EVERY ACTION OF THE PRESIDENT 
HAS BEEN EXPLAINED.
WE HAVE OFFERED THE BASIS, THE 
UNDERSTANDING, WE'VE GAINED AN 
APPRECIATION FOR WHY A PRESIDENT
WOULD HAVE REASONABLE CONCERN 
ABOUT UKRAINE.
WHY A PRESIDENT WOULD HAVE 
SPECIFIC CONCERN ABOUT THIS 
BIDEN/BURISMA NEXUS.
HERE'S WHAT YOU HAVEN'T HEARD 
TODAY.
YOU HAVEN'T HEARD ANY DEFENSE OF
BURISMA FROM THEM.
YOU HAVEN'T HEARD THEM SAY, OH, 
THIS WAS ALL BOGUS, PRESIDENT 
SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ASKING THIS
QUESTION BECAUSE WE HAVE PUT 
INTO THE REPORT, WE CITED IN THE
RECORD THE TESTIMONY OF PEOPLE 
LIKE GEORGE KENT WHO SAID THERE 
WERE DEEP, LEGITIMATE CONCERNS, 
EVEN THE TESTIMONY OF AMBASSADOR
YOVANOVITCH ABOUT HAVING TO 
EXPRESSLY PREPARE FOR THAT.
THEN THEY SAY, WELL, THIS AID'S 
BEEN WITHHELD, THE WITHHOLDING 
OF THIS AID IS THIS BAD 
PRESIDENTIAL CONDUCT, BUT THE 
BIGGS AMENDMENT THAT I ENCOURAGE
MY COLLEAGUES TO SUPPORT RIPENS 
THE FACT THAT THERE WAS A VERY 
UNDERSTANDABLE REASON FOR WHY 
THE AID WAS RELEASED WHEN IT WAS
AND HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH THE 
ELECTION OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT.
IT HAD TO DO WITH THE FACT THAT 
THE UKRAINE TOOK SUBSTANTIVE 
STEPS TO ENSURE THAT OUR AID 
WOULD BE APPROPRIATELY USED FOR 
THE CAUSE THAT IS NOW APPARENTLY
THE CAUSE CELEB OF THE LEFT AND 
THAT IS DEFENDING THE UKRAINE 
AGAINST RUSSIA.
AND THEY SAY, OH, WELL, THE 
PRESIDENT'S NEXT BAD ACT IS THIS
GREAT OBSTRUCTION OF CONGRESS.
THEY HAVE SUBJECTED PRESIDENT 
TRUMP TO MORE PRESIDENTIAL 
HARASSMENT THAN IN ANY OTHER 
TIME IN AMERICAN HISTORY.
ATTACKING HIS FAMILY.
NOT ALLOWING HIS ADMINISTRATION 
TO CONTINUE TO DO ITS WORK ON 
BEHALF OF THE PEOPLE.
AND AMAZINGLY, DESPITE ALL THIS 
DISTRACTION, DESPITE ALL OF THE 
OBSTRUCTION OF THE PRESIDENT 
THAT THE DEMOCRATS HAVE ENGAGED 
IN, JOBS ARE RISING.
WAGES ARE RISING.
OUR ECONOMY IS RESTORED AND 
RENEWED.
THERE ARE A FEW THINGS MY 
COLLEAGUES SAID, I -- THE 
COLLEAGUE FROM RHODE ISLAND 
READ, WELL, THESE ARE THE 
FINDINGS OF FACTS.
LET ME TELL YOU WHAT THE FACTUAL
FINDINGS ARE.
I JUST WANT AMERICA TO KNOW, HE 
WAS READING FROM THE ADAM SCHIFF
REPORT.
THE SAME ADAM SCHIFF REPORT THAT
ADAM SCHIFF, HIMSELF, WOULD NOT 
SIT THERE AND EXPLAIN.
THEY WERE -- THEY LACKED SO MUCH
CONFIDENCE IN THAT REPORT THAT 
WHEN IT WAS PRESENTED TO THE 
JUDICIARY COMMITTEE, THEY HAD 
SOME OF THEIR DONORS ASKING 
QUESTIONS OF OTHER OF THEIR 
DONORS AND THEN DOING THIS WEIRD
SWITCHAROO THAT WAS VERY 
UNEXPLAINABLE.
I DON'T KNOW HOW MY VERY SMART 
COLLEAGUES LIKE THE GENTLEMAN 
FROM NEW YORK CAN SAY, THERE IS 
UNCONTRADICTED EVIDENCE OF 
PRESSURE, UNCONTRADICTED 
EVIDENCE OF PRESSURE.
WHAT DO THEY THINK ZELENSKY'S 
STATEMENTS ARE?
WHEN ZELENSKY SAYS THERE IS NO 
PRESSURE, THAT IS AT A BARE 
MINIMUM EVIDENCE.
WHEN MR. YARMAK SAYS THERE IS NO
PRESSURE, THAT IS EVIDENCE.
THIS -- THERE IS NO EVIDENCE OF 
A QUID PRO QUO.
THERE'S NO EVIDENCE OF 
CONDITIONALITY.
AND THE REASON YOU KNOW THEY 
LACK THAT EVIDENTIARY BASIS IS 
BECAUSE THEY HAVE TO KEEP 
CHANGING THEIR LANGUAGE.
WHEN POLLSTERS AND PUNDITS TOLD 
THEM TO CALL IT BRIBERY, THAT 
WAS THE MESSAGE OF THE WEEK.
BRIBERY WAS ON EVERY ONE OF 
THEIR LIPS.
WE ASKED THE WITNESSES, DID YOU 
SEE ANY BRIBERY, WERE YOU PART 
OF ANY BRIBERY?
THE ANSWER WAS NO, SO THEY HAVE 
TO KEEP EVOLVING THE CLAIMS 
BECAUSE THERE IS NO FACTUAL 
PREDICATE.
ALSO HEARD MY COLLEAGUE FROM NEW
ORLEANS SAY THAT THIS HEARING 
WOULD BE INFORMED BY OUR 
UNDERSTANDING OF REGRET, WOULD 
BE THIS DEEP SENSE OF REGRET.
MY FRIEND IS FROM A DEEP BLUE 
DISTRICT, SO HE PROBABLY WON'T 
BE THE ONE REGRETTING IT THE 
MOST.
THE FOLKS THAT WILL BE 
REGRETTING WHAT THEY'RE DOING 
ARE THE DEMOCRATS IN SWING 
DISTRICTS WHO PROBABLY AREN'T 
COMING BACK.
I TELL THEM FOR THE UPCOMING 
YEAR, RENT, DON'T BUY HERE IN 
WASHINGTON, D.C.
AND SO TODAY, THE ONLY QUESTION 
THAT WE ARE LEFT WITH WHEN WE 
CONCLUDE THIS HEARING IS WHETHER
OR NOT AS WE MOVE IMPEACHMENT TO
THE FLOOR OF THE HOUSE OF 
REPRESENTATIVES, WHICH WILL 
OCCUR MORE RAPIDLY, WILL THEY 
LOSE VOTES OR WILL THEY LOSE THE
MAJORITY?
BECAUSE IF THESE FOLKS WHO 
PROMISED TO COME HERE AND WORK 
WITH US ON HEALTH CARE AND 
INFRASTRUCTURE VOTE FOR THIS 
IMPEACHMENT, THEY WON'T BE BACK.
WE'LL BE HOLDING THE GAVELS.
AND WE'LL REMEMBER NOT JUST HOW 
YOU TREATED US, NOT JUST HOW YOU
TREATED THE PRESIDENT, WE'LL 
REMEMBER HOW YOU TREATED THE 
AMERICAN PEOPLE AND WE'RE GOING 
TO COME AND RESTORE A SENSE OF 
HONOR AND INTEGRITY IN THE NEXT 
ELECTION.
I YIELD BACK.
>> GENTLEMAN YIELDS BACK.
FOR WHAT PURPOSE DOES MR. 
CICILLINE SEEK RECOGNITION?
>> MOVE TO STRIKE THE LAST WORD.
>> GENTLEMAN IS RECOGNIZED. 
>> I WANT TO RESPOND TO THE 
GENTLEMAN FROM OHIO'S REFERENCE 
THAT PEOPLE LISTENING ON A CALL 
SHOULD JUST SHUT UP.
COULDN'T DISAGREE MORE 
PASSIONATELY.
THE EXTRAORDINARY COURAGEOUS 
PATRIOTS WHO LOVE OUR COUNTRY 
SPOKE UP WHEN THEY SAW SOMETHING
THAT WAS WRONG, VIOLATED THE 
LAW, VIOLATED THE CONSTITUTION, 
AND UNDERMINED THE NATIONAL 
SECURITY INTERESTS OF THE UNITED
STATES.
AND THANK GOD THEY DID.
OTHERWISE, THE PRESIDENT OF THE 
UNITED STATES WOULD HAVE GOTTEN 
AWAY WITH THIS SCHEME OF 
DRAGGING FOREIGN INTERFERENCE 
INTO OUR ELECTIONS TO HELP HIM 
CHEAT IN 2020.
SO I SALUTE THE EXTRAORDINARY 
MEN AND WOMEN IN THE FOREIGN 
SERVICE AND OUR INTELLIGENCE 
COMMUNITY FOR THE COURAGE 
THEY'VE SHOWN INLE TOCOMING 
FORWARD REPORTING WHAT THEY'VE 
SEEN.
I WISH WE COULD FIND MORE OF IT 
ON THIS COMMITTEE.
I WANT TO SAY, FACTS ARE A 
STUBBORN THING.
THIS AMENDMENT, UNFORTUNATELY, 
IS JUST NOT TRUE BECAUSE WHAT WE
KNOW IS THIS SCHEME CALLED A 
DRUG DEAL BY THE PRESIDENT'S OWN
MR. BOLTON, CALLED DOMESTIC 
POLITICAL ERRAND BY ANOTHER 
TRUMP APPOINTEE FOR WHICH THERE 
WAS NO EXPLANATION, MY 
REPUBLICAN COLLEAGUES ARE TRYING
TO FIND AN ANSWER, SO THEY SAY, 
OH, IT WAS BECAUSE HE WAS 
FIGHTING CORRUPTION.
THE IDEA THAT DONALD TRUMP WAS 
LEADING AN ANTI-CORRUPTION 
EFFORT IS LIKE KIM JONG-UN 
LEADING A HUMAN RIGHTS EFFORT.
IT'S JUST NOT CREDIBLE.
IT'S JUST NOT CREDIBLE.
AND WE HAVE FACTS THAT WILL 
DEMONSTRATE THAT.
SO, FOR EXAMPLE, AT THE VERY 
TIME YOU CLAIM HE'S INTERESTED 
IN FERRETING OUT CORRUPTION IN 
UKRAINE, YOU KNOW WHAT HE 
PROPOSED?
CUTTING IT BY MORE THAN 50% 
CORRUPTION, ANTI-CORRUPTION 
EFFORTS IN UKRAINE.
HERE'S AN ARTICLE.
"TRUMP ADMINISTRATION SOUGHT 
BILLIONS OF DOLLARS IN CUTS TO 
PROGRAMS AIMED AT FIGHTING 
CORRUPTION IN UKRAINE AND 
ELSEWHERE."
WE RESTORED THE MONEY.
CONGRESS RESTORED THE MONEY.
HE PROPOSED DEEP CUTS.
THAT'S NOT EVIDENCE.
OF A SERIOUS COMMITMENT TO 
FIGHTING CORRUPTION.
IN ADDITION TO THAT, IN A LETTER
TO THE CHAIRMAN OF THE FOREIGN 
AFFAIRS COMMITTEE, SECRETARY OF 
DEFENSE SAYS ON BEHALF OF THE 
SECRETARY OF DEFENSE, THIS IS 
DATED MAY 23rd, 2019, LONG 
BEFORE THE JULY CALL, "ON BEHALF
OF THE SECRETARY OF DEFENSE, IN 
COORDINATION WITH THE SECRETARY 
OF STATE, I CERTIFIED THE 
GOVERNMENT OF UKRAINE HAS TAKEN 
SUBSTANTIAL ACTIONS TO MAKE 
DEFENSE INSTITUTIONAL REFORMS TO
THE PURPOSE OF DECREASING 
CORRUPTION, INCREASING 
ACCOUNTABILITY, AND SUSTAINING 
IMPROVEMENTS OF COMBATTING 
CAPABILITY ENABLED BY U.S. 
ASSISTANCE."
THERE'S A CERTIFICATION.
AND SO THERE'S ONLY ONE 
EXPLANATION FOR WHY IT WAS 
FINALLY RELEASED.
IT WAS REPORT OF A 
WHISTLE-BLOWER REPORT BEING 
FILED.
THE PRESIDENT GOT CAUGHT.
AND SO THIS NOTION THAT SOMEHOW 
THIS PRESIDENT WAS CONCERNED 
ABOUT CORRUPTION IS DEFIED BY 
ALL THE EVIDENCE COLLECTED.
I KNOW YOU WANT TO BELIEVE IT.
IT'S JUST NOT SUPPORTED BY THE 
EVIDENCE.
AND SO THIS AMENDMENT IS SILLY.
IT'S INACCURATE.
IT MISCHARACTERIZES THE 
OVERWHELMING BODY OF EVIDENCE 
THAT WAS COLLECTED IN THIS 
INVESTIGATION.
THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED 
STATES ATTEMPTED TO DRAG A 
FOREIGN POWER INTO OUR ELECTIONS
TO CORRUPT THE 2020 ELECTION, TO
CHEAT, UNDERMINE OUR NATIONAL 
SECURITY, BETRAY THE NATIONAL 
INTEREST OF THIS COUNTRY, AND HE
MUST BE HELD ACCOUNTABLE.
>> THE GENTLEMAN -- 
>> THE BALANCE OF MY TIME TO MR.
SWALWELL FROM CALIFORNIA. 
>> I THANK THE GENTLEMAN.
AND I JUST WANT TO HAVE A RESET 
OF THE FACTS HERE BECAUSE MY 
COLLEAGUES CLAIM THAT SO MANY OF
THESE FACTS ARE IN DISPUTE, BUT 
I WANT TO HEAR SOMEONE DISPUTE 
THE FACT THAT RUDY GIULIANI WAS 
DONALD TRUMP'S PERSONAL LAWYER.
I WANT TO HEAR SOMEONE DISPUTE 
THE FACT THAT WHEN RUDY WAS 
HIRED, THE ANTI-CORRUPTION 
AMBASSADOR, MARIE YOVANOVITCH, 
WAS FIRED.
I WANT TO HEAR SOMEONE DISPUTE 
THE FACT THAT DONALD TRUMP TOLD 
VICE PRESIDENT PENCE TO NOT GO 
TO PRESIDENT ZELENSKY'S 
INAUGURATION.
I WANT TO HEAR SOMEONE DISPUTE 
THE FACT THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP 
IGNORED THE TALKING POINTS ABOUT
ANTI-CORRUPTION IN HIS BOTH 
APRIL 21st AND JULY 25th CALLS 
WITH PRESIDENT ZELENSKY. 
>> WILL THE GENTLEMAN YIELD?
>> I WANT TO HEAR SOMEONE 
DISPUTE THE FACTS THAT PRESIDENT
TRUMP INVOKED HIS POLITICAL 
RIVAL'S NAME FOUR TIMES ON THAT 
JULY 25th CALL.
I WANT TO HEAR SOMEONE DISPUTE 
THE FACTS THAT THE PRESIDENT'S 
CHIEF OF STAFF SAID, WE ARE 
WITHHOLDING THE MILITARY AID 
BECAUSE THE UKRAINIANS NEED TO 
INVESTIGATE 2016.
NOT "I."
"WE."
"WE" AS IN MICK MULVANEY AND 
DONALD TRUMP.
I WANT TO HEAR SOMEONE DISPUTE 
THE FACTS THAT AMBASSADOR 
SONDLAND SAID THAT A WHITE HOUSE
MEETING, ABSOLUTELY, QUID PRO 
QUO, CONDITIONED ON THE 
INVESTIGATIONS.
I ALSO LISTENED TO YOUR WITNESS,
PROFESSOR TURLEY, AND HE SAID, 
PRESIDENT TRUMP'S CALL WAS 
ANYTHING BUT PERFECT.
THAT WAS YOUR WITNESS WHO SAID 
IT WAS ANYTHING BUT PERFECT.
I WANT TO SEE A SHOW OF HANDS ON
YOUR SIDE, DOES ANYONE AGREE 
WITH THE ONE WITNESS THAT YOU 
WERE ABLE TO BRING THAT THAT 
CALL WAS ANYTHING BUT PERFECT?
THAT IS SAD.
AND YOU WILL REGRET THAT YOU 
HAVE SANCTIONED THIS.
AND I YIELD BACK.
>> GENTLEMAN -- 
>> MR. CHAIRMAN. 
>> MR. CICILLINE'S TIME.
>> I YIELD BACK, MR. CHAIRMAN.
>> GENTLEMAN YIELDS BACK.
MR. JOHNSON, FOR WHAT PURPOSE 
DOES MR. JOHNSON SEEK 
RECOGNITION?
>> MOVE TO STRIKE THE LAST WORD.
>> GENTLEMAN IS RECOGNIZED. 
>> I WANT TO SPEAK IN FAVOR OF 
THE BIGGS AMENDMENT.
I'LL IGNORE MR. SWALWELL'S 
RHETORICAL QUESTION.
IT'S KIND OF A SILLY ONE.
I WANT TO REFUTE WHAT MR. 
CICILLINE SAID AND OTHERS HAVE 
SAID HERE THAT THERE'S JUST NO 
EVIDENCE IN THE RECORD THAT THE 
PRESIDENT WAS CONCERNED ABOUT 
CORRUPTION.
I MEAN, OF COURSE, THAT'S 
ABSURD.
EVERYBODY AT HOME KNOWS THIS.
THE PRESIDENT'S BEEN TALKING 
ABOUT FOREIGN GOVERNMENTS AND 
FOREIGN CORRUPTION AND THE 
MISUSE OF AMERICAN TAXPAYERS' 
TREASURE SINCE BEFORE HE RAN FOR
PRESIDENT.
HE TWEETS ABOUT IT ALL THE TIME.
I MEAN, EVERYBODY KNOWS THIS.
THIS IS ONE OF THESE THINGS IN 
THE LAW THAT'S JUST WELL 
UNDERSTOOD.
WE'D CALL IT REGEPS ILOCHETER.
 THE WINEHOUSE RELEASED A 
TRANSCRIPT OF THE REMARKS 
BETWEEN PRESIDENT TRUMP AND 
PRESIDENT ZELENSKY BEFORE THE 
BILATERAL MEETING IN NEW YORK.
SEPTEMBER 25th.
THIS IS AFTER THE FUNDS WERE 
RELEASED, OF COURSE.
HE'S EXPLAINING THAT HE BECAME 
CONVINCED THAT THE NEW UKRAINIAN
ADMINISTRATION WAS SERIOUS ABOUT
REFORM MEASURES.
LET ME READ YOU A COUPLE 
EXCERPTS FROM THAT.
PRESIDENT TRUMP SAYS, "HI, I'M 
HERE WITH THE PRESIDENT OF 
UKRAINE.
HE'S VERY, VERY STRONGLY LOOKING
INTO ALL SORTS OF CORRUPTION AND
SOME OF THE PROBLEMS THEY HAD 
OVER THE YEARS.
I THINK IT'S ONE OF THE PRIMARY 
REASONS HE GOT ELECTED" THE 
PRESIDENT SAYS.
"HIS REPUTATION IS ABSOLUTELY 
STERLING.
IT'S AN HONOR TO BE WITH YOU."
MR. ZELENSKY RESPONDS A FEW 
MOMENTS LATER, "THANK YOU FOR 
YOUR SUPPORT ESPECIALLY NOW, WE 
HAVE REALLY TWO WARS IN UKRAINE.
THE FIRST ONE IS WITH 
CORRUPTION, YOU KNOW?
WE'LL FIGHT.
WE'LL BE THE WINNER IN THIS 
FIGHT I'M SURE."
A COUPLE PAGES LATER IN THE 
TRANSCRIPT PRESIDENT TRUMP GOES 
BACK "AND STOP CORRUPTION IN 
UKRAINE BECAUSE THAT WILL REALLY
MAKE YOU GREAT.
THAT WILL MAKE YOU GREAT 
PERSONALLY" TALK BING TO 
ZELENSKY "AND BE TREMENDOUS FOR 
YOUR NATION IN TERMS OF WHAT YOU
WANT TO DO AND WHERE YOU TAKE 
IT.
"LATER, PRESIDENT TRUMP SAYS "I 
WANT HIM TO DO WHATEVER HE CAN.
THIS WASN'T HIS FAULT.
HE WASN'T THERE THE PREVIOUS 
YEARS.
HE'S BEEN HERE RECENTLY.
JUST RECENTLY.
I KNOW THE PRESIDENT.
HE WANTS TO STOP CORRUPTION."
THE PRESIDENT CONTINUES "HE WAS 
ELECTED, NUMBER ONE, ON THE 
BASIS OF STOPPING CORRUPTION 
WHICH UNFORTUNATELY PLAGUED 
UKRAINE.
IF HE DOES THAT, HE'S DOING 
REALLY THE WHOLE WORLD A BIG 
FAVOR.
I KNOW AND E THINK HE'S GOING TO
BE SUCCESSFUL."
IT GOES ON AND ON THROUGH THE 
TRANSCRIPT.
I ASK UNANIMOUS CONSENT TO ENTER
A CLEAN RECORD OF THIS INTO THE 
RECORD, MR. CHAIRMAN.
I WANT TO SAY -- 
>> WITHOUT OBJECTION. 
>> THANK YOU.
THIS IS ONE ADDITIONAL PIECE, 
ALL THE OTHER PIECES OF 
EVIDENCE, THE VERY THIN, 
PAPER-THIN RECORD WE HAVE HERE, 
ONE THING IS VERY CLEAR, YOU 
CAN'T EVEN -- I DON'T THINK YOU 
CAN REFUTE IT WITH A STRAIGHT 
FACE, EVERYBODY KNOWS THE 
PRESIDENT IS CONCERNED ABOUT THE
MISUSE OF AMERICAN TAXPAYER 
DOLLARS OVERSEAS.
IT'S ONE OF HIS PRIMARY DRIVING 
FORCES.
IT'S ONE OF HIS MAIN TALKING 
POINTS.
SO FOR ANYBODY TO SIT IN HERE 
TODAY AND PRETEND LIKE THAT 
ISN'T THE CASE, THAT HE 
WASN'T -- UKRAINE, THE THIRD 
MOST CORRUPT NATION IN THE WORLD
WAS THE ONLY ONE ON THE LIST HE 
WASN'T CONCERNED ABOUT, IT 
DOESN'T HOLD WATER, DOESN'T MAKE
SENSE.
NOBODY BACK HOME IS BUYING THIS.
NO ONE.
SO LET'S STOP WITH THE GAMES.
LET'S ACKNOWLEDGE THIS FOR WHAT 
IT IS AND LET'S MOVE ON.
I YIELD BACK.
>> GENTLEMAN YIELDS BACK. 
>> GENTLEMAN YIELDS -- 
>> YIELD THE REMAINDER OF MY 
TIME.
I HAD SOME LEFT.
I YIELD TO MR. JORDAN. 
>> I WANT TO ANSWER THE 
STATEMENT THAT GENTLEMAN FROM 
RHODE ISLAND MADE A LITTLE BIT 
EARLIER, HE SAID POINTING AT MR.
BIGGS AMENDMENT THAT HIS 
AMENDMENT WAS NOT TRUE.
HIS AMENDMENT'S REAL CLEAR.
IT SAYS THE UKRAIIANS UNDER 
PRESIDENT ZELENSKY SIGNED TWO 
MAJOR ANTI-CORRUPTION MEASURES.
THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT THEY DID.
ENACTED THIS HIGH 
ANTI-CORRUPTION COURT WHEN THE 
PARLIAMENT WAS FIRST SWORN IN 
AND GOT RID OF ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY
FOR MEMBERS OF THEIR PARLIAMENT.
TWO PRETTY DARN IMPORTANT 
ANTI-CORRUPTION MEASURES.
IN FACT, MR. MORRISON WHEN HE 
TESTIFIED IN FRONT OF THIS 
COMMITTEE TOLD US, EXCUSE ME, HE
DID HIS DEPOSITION, HE TOLD US 
THAT WHEN THEY WERE THERE WITH 
AMBASSADOR BOLTON VISITING WITH 
UKRAINIANS, AUGUST 27th, HE SAID
THE UKRAIIANS WERE TIRED 
BECAUSE THEY'D BEEN UP ALL NIGHT
PREPARING THIS LEGISLATION.
PUTTING IT TOGETHER.
THAT'S HOW FOCUSED THEY WERE ON 
THIS, AND THEN WHEN IT PASSED, 
WHEN IT WAS ENACTED, THAT'S, IN 
FACT, WHEN THE AID WAS RELEASED.
I YIELD -- IF I COULD TO THE 
GENTLEMAN, I YIELD BACK AND 
YIELD -- 
>> I YIELD TO THE RANKING 
MEMBER.
>> I'LL TAKE -- 
>> YIELD, MR. GAETZ. 
>> THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN.
I THINK HOUSE DEMOCRATS WOULD 
HAVE YOU BELIEVE THAT SOMEHOW 
THIS IMPEACHMENT EFFORT IS THE 
OUTGROWTH OF ORGANIC ACTIVITY 
FROM THE PRESIDENT WHEN THE 
REALITY IS THEY HAVE INTENDED TO
IMPEACH THIS PRESIDENT FROM THE 
VERY BEGINNING AND IT WAS 
ACTUALLY THE CHAIRMAN WHEN 
CAMPAIGNING TO BE THE HEAD OF 
THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE WHO SAID
THAT HE'D BE BEST ON THE 
IMPEACHMENT ISSUE, THIS IS A 
"NEW YORK TIMES" ARTICLE 
DECEMBER 18th, 2017, IT SAYS, 
"AS OUR CONSTITUTIONAL EXPERT 
AND WITH HIS DEMONSTRATED 
LEADERSHIP ON IMPEACHMENT IN THE
'90s, NADLER IS OUR STRONGEST 
MEMBER TO LEAD A POTENTIAL 
IMPEACHMENT."
THIS IS WHAT CHAIRMAN NADLER 
WROTE ON HIS POCKET-SIZED 
CAMPAIGN LITERATURE TO HIS 
FELLOW DEMOCRATS WHEN HE WANTED 
THE JOB.
HE WAS LITERALLY CAMPAIGNING ON 
IMPEACHMENT BEFORE THE PRESIDENT
EVEN MADE THE PHONE CALL TO 
PRESIDENT ZELENSKY.
IT'S WHO THEY ARE.
IT'S WHAT THEY'VE WANTED.
AND IT'S ALL BECAUSE THEY CANNOT
STAND THE FACT THAT THE 
AMERICA-FIRST MOVEMENT IS THE 
MOST POWERFUL MOVEMENT IN 
AMERICAN POLITICAL HISTORY.
MR. CHAIRMAN, I SEEK UNANIMOUS 
CONSENT TO ENTER INTO THE RECORD
THIS "NEW YORK TIMES" ARTICLE 
FROM DECEMBER 18th, 2017 -- 
>> WITHOUT OBJECTION. 
>> -- OUTLINING YOUR AMBITION ON
IMPEACHMENT.
>> BACK HOME IN MY TWO SECONDS 
LEFT, WE CALL THAT A MIC DROP 
MOMENT.
I YIELD BACK. 
>> GENTLEMAN YIELDS BACK.
>> MR. CHAIRMAN -- 
>> THE -- FOR WHAT PURPOSE DOES 
MS. JAYAPAL SPEAK RECOGNITION?
>> STRIKE THE LAST WORD. 
>> GENTLELADY'S RECOGNIZED. 
>> THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN.
I WANT TO GO BACK TO THE FACTS 
AND GO BACK TO THIS AMENDMENT.
MY COLLEAGUE FROM FLORIDA SAID 
THAT THIS AMENDMENT IS PUTTING 
FORWARD A, QUOTE, UNDERSTANDABLE
REASON FOR WHY THE PRESIDENT 
WITHHELD THE AID AND THEN 
SUDDENLY RELEASED THE AID.
AND MY COLLEAGUES ON THE OTHER 
SIDE HAVE ALSO MADE THE POINT 
THAT WE DON'T KNOW WHAT THE 
INTENT WAS OF THE PRESIDENT.
THIS IS THE STATED INTENT, THAT 
BECAUSE HE WAS WAITING FOR THE 
UKRAINIAN GOVERNMENT TO DO SOME 
MASSIVE ANTI-CORRUPTION 
MEASURES, THAT THAT WAS THE 
INTENT.
BUT I JUST WANT TO REMIND 
PEOPLE, AGAIN, OF WHAT I SAID 
YESTERDAY.
THE PRESIDENT IS THE SMOKING 
GUN.
AFTER HIS CALL WITH PRESIDENT 
ZELENSKY, THE PRESIDENT CAME OUT
ONTO THE LAWN AND HE WAS ASKED 
BY A REPORTER WHAT DID YOU WANT 
TO GET OUT OF THAT CALL WITH 
PRESIDENT ZELENSKY?
AND THE PRESIDENT SAID, "I 
WANTED HIM TO, AND THESE AREN'T 
THE EXACT WORDS BUT HE BASICALLY
SAID I WANTED HIM TO OPEN AN 
INVESTIGATION INTO THE BIDENS.
IT'S THAT SIMPLE.
SO THE PRESIDENT, HIMSELF, HAS 
TOLD US WHAT HIS INTENT IS, BUT 
LET'S GO ON TO SAY THAT IF MY 
REPUBLICAN COLLEAGUES, AS SOME 
JUST DID, ARGUE THAT THE 
PRESIDENT -- NOBODY CAN ARGUE 
THAT THE PRESIDENT IS SO 
INTERESTED IN CORRUPTION.
OF COURSE, HE'S SO INTERESTED IN
CORRUPTION.
I WOULD GO BACK, AGAIN, TO THE 
FACTS THAT ARE ON THE TABLE, 
WHICH IS THAT IN 2017 AND IN 
2018, THE PRESIDENT RELEASED AID
NOT JUST TO ANY COUNTRY BUT TO 
UKRAINE.
NOW, MY COLLEAGUES HAVE ALSO 
SAID THAT THE PRESIDENT KNEW 
THAT PRESIDENT ZELENSKY WAS AN 
ANTI-CORRUPTION FIGHTER, BUT 
THEY JUST WANTED TO SEE IF MAYBE
HE WAS REALLY GOING TO 
FOLLOWTHROUGH.
SO THEY'RE SAYING THAT THE 
PERSON BEFORE THIS PRESIDENT, 
BEFORE PRESIDENT ZELENSKY, THE 
PREVIOUS PRESIDENT OF UKRAINE, 
WAS A CORRUPT INDIVIDUAL.
THEY'VE SAID THAT THROUGH 
THEIR -- THROUGH THEIR REMARKS.
WELL, IF THAT PRESIDENT WAS 
CORRUPT, WHY IF PRESIDENT TRUMP 
CARES SO MUCH ABOUT CORRUPTION, 
WHY DID HE RELEASE THE AID IN 
2017 AND 2018 TO UKRAINE?
NOW, THEN I'D LIKE TO GET TO THE
QUESTION OF THIS PARTICULAR 
AMENDMENT.
I LOOKED AT THAT OMB LETTER AND 
I WOULD CALL THAT AN 
AFTER-THE-FACT COVER-UP.
WHY DO I SAY THAT?
I SAY THAT BECAUSE IF YOU LOOK 
AT THE TIMELINE, AND SOME OF MY 
COLLEAGUES LAID OU PIECES OF 
THIS.
LET ME LAY OUT A FEW MORE.
ON JUNE 18th, WE KNOW ABOUT THE 
MAY LETTER THE DEPARTMENT OF 
DEFENSE SAID SAYING UKRAINE 
PASSED ALL OF ITS 
ANTI-CORRUPTION REQUIREMENTS.
ON JUNE 18th THE DEPARTMENT OF 
DEFENSE PUBLICLY ANNOUNCED THAT 
IT WOULD RELEASE THE MILITARY 
AID TO UKRAINE.
LIEUTENANT COLONEL VINDMAN 
TESTIFIED THAT BY JULY 3rd, HE 
WAS AWARE OF THE HOLD AND HE WAS
AWARE THAT THE OFFICE OF 
MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET, OMB, WAS 
MAKING QUERIES THAT WERE, QUOTE,
ABNORMAL.
HE USED THAT WORD, "ABNORMAL."
FIONA HILL TESTIFIED THAT THERE 
WAS NO EXPLANATION GIVEN FOR THE
HOLD.
UNDERSECRETARY OF STATE DAVID 
HALE TESTIFIED THAT HE WAS 
FRUSTRATED BECAUSE HE WAS SIMPLY
TOLD THAT THIS WAS THE 
PRESIDENT'S WISH.
IN AUGUST, IN AUGUST, SEVERAL 
OMB DIVISIONS, SEVERAL 
DIVISIONS, WROTE A JOINT MEMO 
RECOMMENDING THAT MILITARY AID 
GO TO UKRAINE AS SOON AS 
POSSIBLE AND THEY SAID IN THAT 
MEMO THAT IT WAS NECESSARY THIS 
MILITARY AID WAS NECESSARY FOR 
SUPPORTING A STABLE AND PEACEFUL
EUROPE.
I WOULD ALSO NOTE THAT JUST 
RECENTLY, JUST A FEW WEEKS AGO, 
TWO OMB OFFICIALS RESIGNED AND 
THEY RESIGNED BECAUSE OF DEEP 
CONCERNS THAT THEY HAD ABOUT 
WHAT THEY WERE BEING ASKED TO 
DO.
ONE OF THOSE INDIVIDUALS WORKED 
IN THE LEGAL DEPARTMENT THAT 
ISSUED THIS AFTER-THE-FACT 
COVER-UP MEMO FROM OMB.
NOW, LET ME JUST ASK THE 
AMERICAN PEOPLE THIS.
IF THE PRESIDENT WAS WAITING, 
HAD DEEP CONCERNS ABOUT 
CORRUPTION AND WAS WAITING FOR 
UKRAINE TO TAKE MAJOR STEPS ON 
CORRUPTION, LET ME ASK YOU WHAT 
YOU THINK ANY PRESIDENT MIGHT DO
IN THAT SITUATION.
MIGHT THEY ASK THE DEPARTMENT 
DEFENSE TO FOLLOW UP ON THOSE 
MAJOR ANTI-CORRUPTION THINGS 
THAT THEY WERE TRYING TO GET 
DONE?
THEY DIDN'T -- HE DID NOT DO 
THAT.
WOULD THEY -- WOULD THAT 
PRESIDENT INFORM TOP AGEIES 
WHO ARE -- ABOUT THOSE CONCERNS?
NO, HE DIDN'T DO THAT, EITHER.
IN FACT, THEY WERE ALL 
UNIVERSALLY IN AGREEMENT THAT 
THE AID SHOULD BE RELEASED.
AND MIGHT THE PRESIDENT INFORM 
CONGRESS THAT THIS WAS SOMETHING
THAT HE WAS CONCERNED ABOUT AND 
HE HAD TO WITHHOLD THE AID?
HE DIDN'T DO THAT, EITHER.
AFTER-THE-FACT COVER-UP MEMO.
THAT'S ALL THIS IS AND WE NEED 
TO OPPOSE THIS AMENDMENT. 
>> GENTLELADY'S TIME HAS 
EXPIRED.
WHAT PURPOSE DOES MR. COLLINS 
SEEK RECOGNITION?
>> MOVE TO STRIKE THE LAST WORD.
>> GENTLEMAN'S RECOGNIZED. 
>> IT IS AMAZING THAT THIS IS AN
AFTER-THE-FACT COVER-UP SINCE IT
WAS ASKED FOR BY A DEMOCRATIC 
SENATOR.
A DEMOCRATIC SENATOR ASKED FOR 
THIS LETTER.
THAT'S AN AFTER-THE-FACT 
COVER-UP WHEN A DEMOCRATIC 
SENATOR ASKS FOR A LETTER 
EXPLAINING THE PROCESS ON HOW 
THIS HAPPENS?
AN AFTER-THE-FACT COVER-UP?
THIS IS EXACTLY WHAT I THOUGHT 
WOULD HAPPEN WHEN WE CAME BACK 
FROM LUNCH, COME BACK FROM OUR 
BREAK.
ALL THE THINGS WERE OVER, THEIR 
ARGUMENTS WERE DEAD, EVERYTHING 
WAS GOING AND THEY SAY, LET'S 
GET BACK IN THERE AND TELL THE 
SAME THINGS OVER AND OVER AGAIN.
MAYBE THE ONES WHO WERE WATCHING
IN THE MORNING WEREN'T WATCHING 
IN THE AFTERNOON.
THAT'S GOT TO BE ONE OF THE BEST
ONES I HEARD, THOUGH, AN 
AFTER-THE-FACT COVER-UP WHEN IT 
WAS ASKED FOR BY A DEMOCRATIC 
SENATOR JUST A FEW WEEKS AGO.
HOW IS THAT -- I GUESS TRUMP'S 
BLAMED FOR A DEMOCRATIC SENATOR 
SAYING, OH, BE CAREFUL WHAT YOU 
WISH FOR.
THERE'S OTHER THINGS COMING OUT 
AGAIN.
ONE OF THE THINGS THAT REALLY 
BUGGED ME HERE IS THIS LAWFUL 
DELAY.
THIS MONEY WAS NOT DUE TO BE 
APPROPRIATED, COULD HAVE BEEN BY
CONGRESS, WE WOULD HAVE SAID DO 
IT ON A CERTAIN DATE.
WE SAID BY SEPTEMBER 30th.
SO REALLY AND TRULY IF THERE WAS
NO INTERACTION BETWEEN THE U.S. 
AND UKRAINE AND THE MONEY WAS 
NOT LIFTED UNTIL SEPTEMBER 30th,
THERE WAS NOTHING WRONG HERE AND
STILL NOTHING WRONG HERE.
IT'S BEEN EVIDENCED TO ME THAT 
THE EVIDENCE REVEALS THAT ONLY 
THE MAJORITY -- AGAIN, THIS ONE 
IS JUST MIND-BOGGLING.
HOW DOES ANYBODY IN THE PRESS OR
ANYBODY ELSE LET THEM GET AWAY 
WITH THE CONTINUAL BELITTLING OF
MR. ZELENSKY?
THEY CALLED HIM A POLITICIAN, 
DEROGATORILY.
THEY CALLED HIM AN ACTOR, CALLED
HIM WEAK, EVERYTHING ELSE IN THE
WORLD, HE'S COWERING.
USE THE ADJECTIVES.
YOU KNOW, IF THEY DON'T BELIEF 
ME HERE, ACTS LIKE A DUCK, LOOKS
LIKE A DUCK, THEY'RE TEARING HIM
DOWN IN THE EYES OF THE PUBLIC 
AND DOING IT OVER AND OVER AGAIN
TO GET A THE PRESIDENT.
THIS IS CRAZY.
THERE SEEMS TO BE A PROBLEM OF 
RERUNS AROUND HERE.
THE REASON THEY KEEP REPEATING 
THIS, THEY CAN'T MAKE THEIR 
CASE.
THEY KEEP PUTTING THIS OUT 
THERE.
AGAIN, IT'S AMAZING TO ME.
THE NEXT UNTRUTH THAT WE'RE 
DEALING WITH HERE TODAY, THIS 
ONE IS VERY SENSITIVE TO MANY IN
THE MILITARY, MANY WHO HAVE BEEN
TEXTING ME WHO SERVED OVERSEAS 
IN OUR MILITARY AND OTHERS, WHEN
THEY SAY, AND PUT IT IN ARTICLE,
WE AGREED TO PUT IT IN THE 
ARTICLE, 13 UKRAINIAN SOLDIERS 
WERE KILLED DURING PRESIDENT 
DONALD TRUMP'S ADMINISTRATION 
WITHHOLDING AID FROM THE COUNTRY
FROM MID-JULY TO SEPTEMBER.
GUESS WHAT, MY COLLEAGUES, THERE
WAS UKRAINIANS KILLED WHEN THEY 
HAD RECEIVED THEIR PREVIOUS AID.
THERE WERE UKRAIIANS KILLED IN 
THIS BATTLE BEFORE.
THIS IS A -- THIS IS THE MOST 
DESPICABLE, DESPICABLE, OF 
DRIVE-BYS.
TO SAY THIS -- YOU'RE TELLING US
UNDERSECRETARY HALE -- READ THE 
TRANSCRIPT.
HE SAID THIS WAS PERSPECTIVE 
MONEY.
NOT CURRENT MONEY.
YET, WE KEEP PUTTING IT IN THE 
RECORD BECAUSE IF YOU TELL THE 
STORY ENOUGH TIMES, SOMEBODY OUT
THERE IS GOING TO BELIEVE IT.
THAT'S DESPICABLE FOR THESE 13 
WHO LOST THEIR LIVES IN UKRAINE 
AND DESPICABLE FOR ANYONE WHO 
ACTUALLY FOUGHT IN A BATTLE FOR 
THIS COUNTRY.
DON'T KEEP DOING IT, AND IF THEY
DO, CALL THEM OUT ON IT.
WE'RE GOING TO CALL FACTS FACTS 
HERE.
THERE'S NO CRIME.
YOU KNOW WHY?
IT'S INTERESTING, MY FRIEND FROM
CALIFORNIA JUST SAID, WHERE ARE 
THEY ON THESE DIFFERENT THINGS?
WHERE'S THE DEMOCRATS?
MY QUESTION IS, WHERE'S YOUR 
CRIMES?
YOU TALK ABOUT THEM, YOU WANT 
PEOPLE TO THINK THEY'RE THERE.
YOU WANT PEOPLE TO COME OUT AND 
SAY, WELL, THERE'S BRIBERY, 
EXTORTION, HIGH-MINDED WORDS.
AND YOU DO IT OVER AND OVER AND 
OVER AGAIN.
THE PROBLEM IS, IF YOU HAD IT, 
YOU WOULD HAVE PUT ARTICLES ON 
IT.
YOU DON'T HAVE IT SO YOU DIDN'T 
PUT ARTICLES ON IT.
THAT'S THE STAIN ON YOUR 
ARTICLES.
THAT'S THE STAIN ON THIS 
COMMITTEE.
THIS COMMITTEE COULDN'T MAKE 
THEIR CASE, SO THEY CAME UP WITH
ABUSE OF POWER.
SO THEY COULD PUT ANYTHING IN 
IT, AND TODAY WE'VE HEARD THAT 
OVER AND OVER AND OVER AGAIN.
WHY?
BECAUSE AT THE END OF THE DAY, 
THE AID WAS DELIVERED.
NOTHING WAS HELD.
BUT YET WE'RE GOING TO TELL 
BECAUSE THERE WAS SUPPOSEDLY 
PRESSURE THAT THE TWO ON THE 
CALL SAID DIDN'T EXIST AND THE 
UKRAINIAN LEADER SAID DID NOT 
EXIST OVER AND OVER AND OVER 
AGAIN, BUT OUR MAJORITY WOULD 
RATHER TAKE MR. ZELENSKY DOWN 
BECAUSE THEY CAN'T MAKE THEIR 
CASE.
MY QUESTION IS, WHO ARE THEY 
HURTING NOW?
THEY'RE TRYING TO TAKE DOWN THE 
AMERICAN PRESIDENT AND TRYING TO
TAKE DOWN THE UKRAINIAN 
PRESIDENT AT THE SAME TIME BY 
MAKING HIM LOOK SMALL IN THE 
MIDDLE OF HIS OWN COUNTRY, IN 
THE MIDDLE OF A HOT WAR.
YOU CAN'T HAVE QUID PRO QUO.
YOU CAN'T HAVE PRESSURE IF THE 
GENTLEMAN WHO IS SUPPOSEDLY 
PRESSURED SAYS THERE IS NO 
PRESSURE.
YOU CAN'T MAKE EXCUSES FOR HIM.
WHEN HE GOES OUT OVER AND OVER 
AGAIN AND TALKS ABOUT IT BECAUSE
HE LOOKS AT IT AS IT WAS IN THE 
CALL.
BUT ALSO TO ME, IT IS JUST 
AMAZING, CONTINUING THIS, 
DISCUSSIONS TO GET PEOPLE 
DISTRACTED.
PEOPLE DIED BECAUSE MONEY WAS 
WITHHELD.
THAT'S NOT TRUE.
QUIT SAYING IT.
AND I DON'T CARE HOW MANY TIMES 
YOU PUT IT IN "NEWSWEEK" 
ARTICLE, IT'S STILL NOT TRUE.
WHEN YOU UNDERSTAND WHAT'S GOING
ON HERE, THAT AT THE END OF THE 
DAY, IT'S VERY SIMPLE.
I'LL MAKE IT VERY SLOW FOR YOU 
TO COPY.
THEY CAN'T MAKE A CRIME.
THEY HOLD BACK TO THE FACT THAT 
WE CAN IMPEACH HIM FOR ANYTHING 
AND THAT'S WHAT THEY'VE DONE.
I YIELD BACK.
>> UNANIMOUS CONSENT REQUEST, 
MR. CHAIRMAN.
MR. CHAIRMAN -- 
>> THE GENTLEMAN YIELDS BACK.
>> UNANIMOUS CONSENT REQUEST.
>> GENTLEMAN IS RECOGNIZED -- 
>> "LOS ANGELES TIMES" STORY 
OCTOBER 16th, TRUMP FROZE 
UKRAINIAN AID AS UKRAINIAN 
SOLDIES PERISHED IN BATTLE. 
>> WITHOUT OBJECTION. 
>> I OBJECT. 
>> I'M NOT SURE HOW MANY TIMES 
THIS HAS BEEN PERPETRATED.
IT WAS PERSPECTIVE MONEY, NOT 
CURRENT MONEY. 
>> GENTLEMAN DOES NOT HAVE THE 
TIME.
WHAT PURPOSES DOES MR. DEUTCH --
>> UNANIMOUS CONSENT REQUEST. 
>> GENTLEMAN IS RECOGNIZED. 
>> >> UNANIMOUS CON SENT TO 
SUBMIT TO THE RECORD THE MAY 
23rd LETTER FROM JOHN RUDE 
CERTIFYING THE GOVERNMENT OF 
UKRAINE HAS TAKEN ACTION TO MAKE
CONSTITUTIONAL REFORMS TO -- 
>> WITHOUT OBJECTION. 
>> I MOVE TO STRIKE THE LAST 
WORD. 
>> THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN.
THE RANKING MEMBER IS RIGHT, 
IT'S IMPORTANT TO REPEAT SOME OF
WHAT'S BEEN SAID BECAUSE MOST OF
AMERICA DOESN'T WATCH ALL DAY 
LONG, BUT FOR PEOPLE WHO DO, 
THEY NEED TO UNDERSTAND THAT THE
REASON WE'RE HERE, THE REASON 
THAT WE'RE MOVING FORWARD ON 
ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT, IS 
BECAUSE THE PRESIDENT OF THE 
UNITED STATES ABUSED HIS POWER 
BY SOLICITING FOREIGN 
INTERFERENCE IN HIS OWN 
RE-ELECTION, THEREBY CHEATING 
AMERICAN VOTERS.
IT'S TRUE THAT ON MAY 23rd, THE 
DATE THAT UNDERSECRETARY OF 
DEFENSE CERTIFIED THAT UKRAINE 
HAD TAKEN ACTION TO MAKE 
INSTITUTIONAL REFORMS TO COMBAT 
CORRUPTION, IT'S TRUE THAT THEY 
HAD DONE THAT THAT DAY.
IT'S AN IMPORTANT DAY BECAUSE 
WE'VE TALKED A LOT ABOUT UKRAINE
NEEDING THE ASSISTANCE, THE 
SECURITY ASSISTANCE, AS THEY 
WERE AT WAR WITH RUSSIA, AND 
THEY DID.
THEY ALSO NEEDED THE WHITE HOUSE
MEETING AND ALSO ON MAY 23rd, 
IT'S JUST IMPORTANT FOR US TO 
REMEMBER WHAT THE FACTS ARE.
ON MAY 23rd A DELEGATION 
RETURNED FROM PRESIDENT 
ZELENSKY'S INAUGURATION.
THEY MET WITH THE PRESIDENT AND 
THE PRESIDENT TOLD THEM, "WORKED
WITH RUDY."
AMBASSADOR SONDLAND SAID, WORK 
WITH GIULIANI OR ABANDON THE 
GOAL OF A WHITE HOUSE MEETING."
LET ME SAY A WORD ABOUT 
AMBASSADOR SONDLAND.
MY COLLEAGUES HAVE CHALLENGED 
AMBASSADOR SONDLAND'S 
CREDIBILITY, BUT IT'S IMPORTANT 
TO PAY ATTENTION TO WHAT HE AND 
OTHERS HAVE TESTIFIED TO.
UNDER OATH.
AND IF YOU THINK THAT A 
MILLION-DOLLAR DONOR TO 
PRESIDENT TRUMP IS NOT CREDIBLE,
THEN WE SHOULD LOOK AT ALL OF 
THE TESTIMONY AND THE TEXT 
MESSAGES AND THE EMAILS TO 
OTHERS AND EXAMINE IT CLOSELY.
SO THEY CAME BACK AND THEY SAID,
"WORK WITH RUDY."
AND THEN ON MAY 29th, THE 
PRESIDENT INVITED PRESIDENT 
ZELENSKY TO THE WHITE HOUSE SO 
PRESIDENT ZELENSKY EXPECTED THAT
HE WOULD BE COMING.
AND SONDLAND SAID THERE WAS A 
PREREQUISITE.
VINDMAN SAID SONDLAND TOLD THE 
UKRAINIANS ON JULY 10th TO TREAT
THE INVESTIGATION -- THAT THE 
INVESTIGATION OF THE BIDENS WAS 
A DELIVERABLE, NECESSARY TO GET 
THE MEETING.
THEN ON JULY 19th, AMBASSADOR 
SONDLAND EMAILED ROBERT BLAIR 
AND LISA KENNEDY, BRIAN 
McCORMICK, CHIEF OF STAFF 
MULVANEY, SECRETARY PERRY, 
SECRETARY POMPEO, ALL OF THEM, 
AND SAID THAT ZELENSKY WAS 
PREPARED TO RECEIVE POTUS' CALL 
AND OFFER ASSURANCE ON THE 
INVESTIGATION.
VOLKER HAD BREAKFAST WITH 
GIULIANI AND TEXTED AMBASSADOR 
SONDLAND AND SAID, "MOST 
IMPORTANT IS FOR ZELENSKY TO SAY
HE WILL HELP WITH THE 
INVESTIGATION."
AND VOLKER TEXTED THE MORNING OF
THE CALL, HE TEXTED YERMAK AND 
SAID, HEARD FROM THE WHITE 
HOUSE, ASSUMING PRESIDENT 
ZELENSKY CONVINCES TRUMP THAT HE
WILL INVESTIGATE AND GET TO THE 
BOTTOM OF WHAT HAPPENED, WE WILL
NAIL DOWN A DATE FOR VISIT TO 
WASHINGTON.
THAT'S -- THOSE ARE THE FACTS.
THAT'S WHAT WAS PROVIDED IN TEXT
MESSAGES AND EMAILS AND THERE'S 
BEEN ALL THIS FOCUS ON THE CALL.
THIS IS AN EFFORT THAT STARTED 
THE MOMENT THAT THIS DELEGATION 
GOT BACK FROM THE INAUGURATION 
AND IT CONTINUED THROUGH THE END
OF MAY AND JUNE AND JULY AND 
THEN THERE WAS A CALL, BUT IT 
CONTINUED ON THROUGH AUGUST AND 
THROUGH SEPTEMBER.
THIS ISN'T ONE TIME WITH EIGHT 
LINES.
THIS IS A CONCERTED EFFORT TO 
MAKE SURE THAT UKRAINE WHO WAS 
AT WAR WITH RUSSIA UNDERSTOOD 
THAT THEY WEREN'T GOING TO GET 
THEIR SECURITY ASSISTANCE AND 
THEY WEREN'T GOING TO GET THEIR 
WHITE HOUSE MEETING UNTIL THEY 
ANNOUNCED AN INVESTIGATION OF 
THE PRESIDENT'S PRINCIPAL 
POLITICAL OPPONENT.
THAT IS ABUSE OF POWER.
AND MULTIPLE TIMES, MY 
COLLEAGUES OVER HERE HAVE ASKED 
IF ANYONE OBJECTS TO THE 
PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES 
ABUSING HIS POWER FOR POLITICAL 
GAIN LIKE THAT.
BUT I WOULD FINISH WITH THIS.
AMBASSADOR TAYLOR WHEN HE CAME 
AND TESTIFIED UNDER OATH, HE 
SAID DURING OUR CALL ON 
SEPTEMBER 8th, AMBASSADOR 
SONDLAND TRIED TO EXPLAIN THAT 
PRESIDENT TRUMP IS A BUSINESSMAN
WHEN A BUSINESSMAN IS ABOUT TO 
SIGN A CHECK TO SOMEONE WHO OWES
HIM SOMETHING, HE ASKS THAT 
PERSON TO PAY UP FOR SIGNING.
I ARGUE, HE SAID, THAT MADE NO 
SENSE, UKRAINIANS DID NOT OWE 
PRESIDENT TRUMP ANYTHING.
THAT'S TRUE.
THEY OWED HIM NOTHING TO GET THE
WHITE HOUSE MEETING.
THEY OWED HIM NOTHING TO GET 
THEIR AID AND THEY OWED NOTHING 
TO HIM FOR HIS ASSISTANCE TO HIS
CAMPAIGN.
I YIELD BACK. 
>> MR. CHAIRMAN -- 
>> GENTLEMAN YIELDS BACK.
WHAT PURPOSE DOES MR. 
SENSENBRENNER SEEK RECOGNITION?
>> MR. CHAIRMAN, I MOVE TO 
STRIKE THE LAST WORD. 
>> GENTLEMAN IS RECOGNIZED. 
>> I YIELD TO RANKING MEMBER. 
>> THANK YOU, MR. SENSENBRENNER.
IT'S AMAZING THE THINGS THAT THE
COME OUT OF THIS MARKUP, NOT THE
SIMPLE FACT THEY'RE GOING TO 
MARK UP THIS AND SEND IT TO THE 
FLOOR, IT'S WHAT THEY'LL 
PERPETRATE TO TRY THE HIDE THE 
WEAKNESS OF THEIR ARGUMENT.
I HAVE NOW GIVEN THE ARTICLE 
THAT THE GENTLEMAN FROM 
CALIFORNIA WANTS.
AGAIN, PERPETRATING THE 
FALSEHOOD THAT PEOPLE WERE 
KILLED BECAUSE OF MONEY.
AND IN THE OWN ARTICLE WHICH IS 
BIASED AGAINST THE PRESIDENT, 
BIASED AGAINST THE WHOLE 
SITUATION, IT HAS THIS LINE.
"ALTHOUGH THERE IS NO WAY TO 
LINK MARKOFF AND THE OTHER 
DOZENS' DEATH DIRECTLY TO THE 
LACK OF AID."
LET'S KEEP PUTTING STUFF IN HERE
THAT PROVES YOUR PATHETIC 
ARGUMENT.
THE ARTICLE, ITSELF, BIASED 
AGAINST THE PRESIDENT ACTUALLY 
SAYS THERE'S NO WAY TO LINK IT, 
YET WE'RE DOING IT EVERY TIME IN
HERE.
KEEP GIVING THEM.
I'LL KEEP ACCEPTING THEM.
WONDERFUL ARTICLE.
GREAT JOB.
BECAUSE YOU'RE MAKING MY POINT.
I GUESS I CAN HUSH AND LET YOU 
MAKE MY POINT FOR ME.
ALL I WANT TO DO IS BESMIRK THE 
DEAD AND GO AFTER MR. ZELENSKY 
AS WEAK AND POWERLESS.
THAT'S WHAT'S GOING TO COME OUT 
OF THIS.
SO I GUESS, MR. -- I WITHDRAW MY
OBJECTION ON THIS.
IT MAKES MY POINT.
YOU ALL HAVE ANY MORE YOU WANT 
TO PUT IN, KEEP GOING.
BESMIRCHING THE DEAD IS NOT 
GOING TO GET YOU ANYWHERE.
I YIELD BACK.
>> I YIELD BACK, MR. 
SENSENBRENNER.
>> I YIELD BACK.
>> GENTLEMAN YIELDS BACK. 
>> MR. CHAIRMAN?
>> GENTLEMAN YIELDS BACK.
WITHOUT OBJECTION, THE MATERIAL 
WILL BE INSERTED IN THE RECORD. 
>> I HAVE A UNANIMOUS CONSENT 
REQUEST. 
>> GENTLELADY'S RECOGNIZED FOR 
UNANIMOUS CONSENT REQUEST. 
>> I WOULD LIKE TO ASK UNANIMOUS
CONSENT TO PUT A "ROLL CALL" 
ARTICLE INTO THE RECORD ENTITLED
"UKRAINIAN LIVES HUNG IN THE 
BALANCE AS TRUMP HELD UP AID."
QUOTING A NATIONAL WAR COLLEGE 
OFFICIAL ABOUT THE -- 
>> WITHOUT OBJECTION. 
>> -- FIRST IMPACT ON THE WAR. 
>> FOR WHAT PURPOSE DOES MR. 
JOHNSON SEEK RECOGNITION?
>> MOVE TO STRIKE THE LAST WORD.
>> GENTLEMAN'S RECOGNIZED. 
>> THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN.
I MOVE IN OPPOSITION TO THE 
BIGGS AMENDMENT.
MY COLLEAGUE FROM GEORGIA TALKS 
ABOUT HOW DEMOCRATS ARE TRYING 
TO MAKE PRESIDENT ZELENSKY LOOK 
WEAK.
WELL, I TELL YOU, THAT BRINGS TO
MIND THE PICTURE OF PRESIDENT 
TRUMP AND PRESIDENT ZELENSKY 
MEETING IN NEW YORK IN SEPTEMBER
AT THE U.N. AND A BIG CHAIR FOR 
PRESIDENT TRUMP, LITTLE CHAIR 
FOR PRESIDENT ZELENSKY, BIG 6'4"
PRESIDENT TRUMP, 5'11" MR. 
ZELENSKY.
PRESIDENT ZELENSKY.
AND THEY'RE STANDING THERE AND 
PRESIDENT TRUMP IS HOLDING COURT
AND HE SAYS, OH, BY THE WAY, NO 
PRESSURE.
AND YOU SAW PRESIDENT ZELENSKY 
SHAKING HIS HEAD AS IF HIS 
DAUGHTER WAS DOWNSTAIRS IN THE 
BASEMENT DUCT TAPED.
I MEAN, THERE'S AN IMBALANCE OF 
POWER IN THAT RELATIONSHIP.
IT ALWAYS HAS BEEN.
AND THERE'S NO WAY THAT THE 
NATION OF UKRAINE CAN STAND UP 
TO THE POWER, TO THE POWER OF 
THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.
AND PRESIDENT TRUMP USED THAT 
UNEQUAL BARGAINING POSITION, HE 
LEVERAGED HIS POWER IN THAT 
RELATIONSHIP NOT FOR THE BENEFIT
OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 
BUT FOR HIS OWN BENEFIT.
HE, AGAIN, HELD PRESIDENT 
ZELENSKY OVER A BARREL UP THERE 
IN NEW YORK THE SAME WAY HE DID 
ON THE TELEPHONE CALL ON THE 
25th OF JULY.
AND HE TOLD HIM, LOOK, I KNOW 
THAT YOU NEED THOSE JAVELINS, 
BUT I NEED YOU TO DO ME A FAVOR,
OR DO US A FAVOR, AND WHO WAS 
"US," BY THE WAY?
WAS IT THE AMERICAN PEOPLE OR 
WAS IT THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN?
AND ALL OF THOSE CORRUPT 
OFFICIALS THAT HE ALIGNS HIMSELF
WITH, HALF OF WHOM ARE IN JAIL 
OR FACING CHARGES OR FACING 
SENTENCING.
WHO WAS HE TALKING ABOUT, US?
IT WASN'T THE AMERICAN PEOPLE.
IT WAS THE TRUMP ORGANIZATION 
AND THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN.
THAT'S WRONG.
IT'S WRONG FOR THE UNITED STATES
PRESIDENT TO USE HIS POSITION 
FOR HIMSELF.
IT'S WRONG.
AND THAT'S WHAT PRESIDENT TRUMP 
DID AND THAT'S WHAT WE'RE 
HOLDING HIM ACCOUNTABLE FOR 
TODAY, AND PRESIDENT TRUMP 
PRETTY MUCH SOLD OUT OUR 
CONSTITUTION FOR HIS OWN 
PERSONAL BENEFIT.
WE'RE CALLED UPON TODAY WITH THE
QUESTION OF WHETHER OR NOT WE'RE
GOING TO SELL OUT OUR POSITIONS,
WHETHER OR NOT WE'RE GOING TO BE
SELLOUTS.
I MEAN, EACH AND EVERY ONE OF US
HAD A CAREER BEFORE WE CAME TO 
CONGRESS.
I, MYSELF, WAS A CRIMINAL 
DEFENSE LAWYER, AND I ENJOY MY 
JOB.
I'M HONORED TO REPRESENT THE 
BIGGEST CLIENT THAT I'VE EVER 
REPRESENTED, AND THAT IS THE 
CITIZENS OF THE 4th CONGRESS 
DISTRICT OF GEORGIA.
BUT I WOULD GLADLY, TO PROTECT 
THE CONSTITUTION, GIVE UP MY JOB
THAT I LOVE, AND I'D GO BACK TO 
GEORGIA TO DO WHAT I USED TO DO,
IF I HAD TO PAY A HEAVY PRICE 
FOR DOING WHAT WAS RIGHT FOR THE
CONSTITUTION.
AND THAT'S WHAT MY FRIENDS ON 
THE OTHER SIDE OF THE AISLE ARE 
CHARGED WITH NOW.
I KNOW THAT THERE'S A LOT OF 
FEAR ABOUT WHAT -- ABOUT THEM 
BEING IN ZELENSKY'S POSITION.
ABOUT THEM BEING IN THAT LITTLE 
SMALL CHAIR WITH THE PRESIDENT, 
WITH THE BULLY PULPIT, THE 
RIGHT-WING MEDIA, FOX NEWS, 
EVERYTHING BEING ON HIS SIDE AND
HIM LEVYING AND LEVERAGING THAT 
POWER AGAINST THEM AS THEY 
APPROACH THEIR PRIMARIES.
THEY DON'T WANT TO GET 
PRIMARIED.
I KNOW THAT THAT IS THE DESIRE, 
BUT LET'S NOT SELL OUT THE 
COUNTRY FOR OUR OWN DESIRE WHICH
IS EXACTLY WHAT WE'RE CHARGED 
WITH PROTECTING OUR COUNTRY FROM
PRESIDENT TRUMP DOING.
LET'S NOT DO THAT.
LET'S MAKE OURSELVES LOOK GOOD 
IN THE EYES OF HISTORY.
LET'S DO THE RIGHT THING.
AND WITH THAT, I WILL YIELD 
BACK.
>> GENTLEMAN YIELDS BACK.
FOR WHAT PURPOSE DOES THE 
GENTLELADY FROM FLORIDA, MS. 
MUCARSEL-POWELL, SEEK 
RECOGNITION?
>> THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN.
I MOVE TO STRIKE THE LAST WORD. 
>> GENTLELADY'S RECOGNIZED. 
>> THANK YOU.
I WANT TO RESPOND TO -- I'VE 
BEEN HERE ALL DAY LISTENING TO 
ALL THE COMMENTS FROM MY 
REPUBLICAN COLLEAGUES, AND THE 
ONE THING THAT HAS CONTINUED TO 
BE MENTIONED IS THAT THERE HAS 
BEEN NO CRIME COMMITTED.
AND I HAVE BEEN ASKED BY SOME OF
THE PEOPLE THAT LIVE IN MY 
DISTRICT, LIVE IN MY COMMUNITY, 
AMERICANS THAT SAY, WHAT IS THE 
CRIME?
AND I HAVE TO SAY THAT THERE IS 
NO HIGHER CRIME THAN FOR THE 
PRESIDENT TO USE THE POWER OF 
HIS OFFICE TO CORRUPT OUR 
ELECTIONS.
WE ARE SEEING BEHAVIOR FROM THIS
PRESIDENT THAT WE HAVE NOT SEEN 
IN THE HISTORY OF OUR COUNTRY, 
VIOLATING THREE OF THE MOST 
DANGEROUS VIOLATIONS OF THE 
CONSTITUTION.
ONE, ABUSE OF POWER THROUGH 
SELF-DEALING.
TWO, BETRAYAL OF NATIONAL 
SECURITY.
THREE, CORRUPTION OF OUR 
ELECTIONS.
AND I WANT TO MAKE SOMETHING 
VERY CLEAR.
WE ARE HERE TODAY BECAUSE THE 
PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES 
OF AMERICA HAS VIOLATED THE LAW.
THE PRESIDENT'S CONDUCT MEETS 
ALL THE ELEMENTS OF CRIMINAL 
BRIBERY UNDER 18USC201B2A.
A PUBLIC OFFICIAL DEMANDS OR 
SEEKS ANYTHING OF VALUE PERSONA 
RETURN FOR BEING INFLUENCED IN 
THE PERFORMANCE OF ANY OFFICIAL 
ACT.
WHY ARE WE HERE?
HOW DID WE GET HERE?
THE INSPECTOR GENERAL OF THE 
INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY BROUGHT 
TO CONGRESS AN URGENT AND 
CREDIBLE THREAT TO OUR NATIONAL 
SECURITY AND OUR DEMOCRACY.
THAT IS WHY WE ARE HERE TODAY.
YOU HAVE HEARD CONSPIRACY 
THEORIES.
YOU HAVE HEARD THINGS THAT ARE 
NOT TRUE TO DISTRACT FROM THE 
FACT THAT THIS PRESIDENT ABUSED 
THE POWER OF HIS OFFICE TO 
EXTORT A FOREIGN GOVERNMENT FOR 
HIS OWN PRIVATE, POLITICAL GAIN,
NOT FOR THE INTEREST OF THE 
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.
NOW YOU WILL ALSO HEAR ABOUT 
THAT WE'RE TRYING TO OVERTURN 
OUR ELECTION.
IF YOU SEE, THEY HAVE A POSTER 
OVER THERE SAYING THAT WE'RE 
TRYING TO OVERTURN THE ELECTION.
THAT COULDN'T BE ANYTHING 
FARTHER FROM THE TRUTH.
IT IS A RIDICULOUS STATEMENT.
IMPEACHMENT ENSURES A DEMOCRATIC
GOVERNMENT.
IT WAS CREATED BY THE FOUNDERS 
AS A CHECK TO PREVENT A 
PRESIDENT FROM BECOMING A KING 
AND IT IS INCREDIBLE TO ME TO 
SEE SOME OF MY COLLEAGUES BEND 
OVER BACKWARDS TO COVER UP FOR 
THIS PRESIDENT.
MY SISTER IS A YOGA TEACHER.
SHE DOESN'T CONTORT THE WAY SOME
OF MY REPUBLICAN COLLEAGUES 
DISTORT THE FACTS ALL TO PROTECT
THIS PRESIDENT.
THE FOUNDERS KNEW THAT ELECTIONS
WOULD COME EVERY FOUR YEARS, BUT
INCLUDED IMPEACHMENT IN THE 
CONSTITUTION TO PROTECT THE 
REPUBLIC AGAINST A PRESIDENT WHO
WOULD BE AN IMMINENT THREAT TO 
OUR DEMOCRACY AND THAT IS WHY WE
ARE HERE TODAY BECAUSE THIS 
PRESIDENT HAS SHOWN US THAT HE 
IS WELCOMING FOREIGN 
INTERFERENCE.
HE HAS ASKED RUSSIA.
HE HAS ASKED UKRAINE.
HE HAS ASKED CHINA.
ASKING HIM -- ASKING THEM TO 
INVESTIGATE HIS POLITICAL 
OPPONENTS.
WE'VE SEEN IT.
WE HAVE SEEN THOSE VIDEOS.
THAT IS DIRECT EVIDENCE.
WE HAVE DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE.
WE HAVE A TRANSCRIPT OF A CALL.
WE HAVE TEXT MESSAGES.
WE HAVE E-MAILS FROM AMBASSADOR 
SONDLAND.
EVERYONE WAS IN THE LOOP.
THIS IS A SCHEME THAT BEGAN BACK
IN FEBRUARY AND MARCH.
THIS WAS A COMPLAINT THAT WAS 
BROUGHT FORTH TO CONGRESS 
BECAUSE IT WAS AN URGENT AND 
CREDIBLE THREAT.
THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED 
STATES HAS VIOLATED THE LAW.
HE HAS ABUSED HIS POWER.
HE IS UNDERMINING OUR FREEDOMS, 
OUR DEMOCRACY.
WE MUST ACT.
THAT IS WHY WE'RE HERE TODAY.
NO ONE, NO PRESIDENT IN THIS 
COUNTRY IS ABOVE THE LAW.
I YIELD BACK MY TIME.
>> THE GENTLEWOMAN YIELDS BACK. 
>> MOVE TO STRIKE THE LAST WORD.
>> IT IS RECOGNIZED.
>> I THINK THAT ARGUMENT WOULD 
HAVE MORE MERIT ON THE ABUSE OF 
POWER CHARGE IF WE DON'T TAKE A 
LOOK BACK AND LOOK AT THE WHOLE 
DESTINATION AND HOW WE GOT HERE 
AND THE REASON I SAY THAT 
BECAUSE FOR TWO YEARS WE HEARD 
ABOUT RUSSIAN CONSPIRACY, 
RUSSIAN COLLUSION, THE ROBERT 
MUELLER CAME OUT AND ACTUALLY, 
IF YOU WATCH THE MEDIA, ABOUT A 
WEEK BEFORE THE MUELLER REPORT 
CAME OUT WE STARTED SWITCHING TO
OBSTRUCTION AND OBSTRUCTION OF 
JUSTICE AND SO WE GO THROUGH 
THAT AND THE MUELLER REPORT 
COMES OUT AND SHOWS THERE'S 
ABSOLUTELY NO CONSPIRACY, 
ABSOLUTELY NO COLLUSION AND 
WE'LL CHECK THAT OFF THE LIST 
AND THEN WE GO TO TEN ARTICLES 
OF OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE AND WE
BRING BOB MUELLER INTO THE 
JUDICIARY HEARING AND I'M PRETTY
CERTAIN PEOPLE WERE KNOCKING OUT
STATUTES AT THE WASHINGTON 
MONUMENT AND THAT HEARING FELL 
FLAT AND OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE 
WAS ABANDONED.
SO THEN WE MOVED INTO A JULY 
25th PHONE CALL AND WE WENT TO 
QUID PRO QUO, AND QUID PRO QUO 
KEPT GOING AND KEPT GOING AND 
THEN THEY DECIDED THAT WASN'T 
WORKING VERY WELL AND WE PULL 
TESTED BRIBERY AND BRIBERY HAD A
LITTLE BIT OF A PROBLEM BECAUSE 
YOU CANNOT PROVE THE ELEMENTS OF
A CRIME AND I DON'T CARE HOW 
MANY DIFFERENT WAYS WE SAY IT, 
WHEN THE VICTIM OF A CRIME, 
ALLEGED VICTIM, CONTINUES TO GO 
ON NATIONAL TV, INTERNATIONAL 
PRESS CONFERENCES AND DENIED 
THAT HE WAS A VICTIM AND DENIED 
THAT THERE WAS A CRIME WE MOVE 
ON.
SO WE MOVE FROM THINGS -- 
CAMPAIGN FINANCE, WHICH DIDN'T 
EVEN WORK IN THE MUELLER REPORT 
AND CONTINUED MOVING FORWARD.
SO INSTEAD OF STARTING AN 
INVESTIGATION IN A GENERAL WAY 
AND MOVING TOWARDS A SPECIFIC 
CRIME.
WE TRY AND PICK 17 DIFFERENT 
SPECIFIC CRIMES AND WHEN THEY 
NEVER GET THERE, INSTEAD OF 
DOING WHAT ANY REASONABLE 
INVESTIGATORS DO, AND SAY THERE 
IS NO THERE THERE, AND WE PUT IT
TOGETHER AND SAY BECAUSE WE 
CAN'T PROVE IT WE WILL USE ALL 
OF IT AND SO IF WE WANT TO KNOW 
WHY WE ARE HERE TODAY.
THIS STARTED DATE PRESIDENT 
TRUMP GOT ELECTED.
IT'S CONTINUED THROUGH THE 
MUELLER REPORT, NOT TO BE 
DETERRED AND A SEPARATE 
DIFFERENT THING, THE DAY AFTER 
THE MUELLER REPORT HEARINGS 
HAPPENED IN THE JUDICIARY 
HEARING AND THEY SUBPOENAED THE 
PERSONAL E-MAILS OF EVERY MEMBER
OF THE TRUMP FAMILY.
THIS IS NEVER GOING TO STOP.
I AGREE WITH MY COLLEAGUE FROM 
OHIO.
IT IS NEVER GOING TO STOP.
YOU CANNOT MOVE THROUGH ALL OF 
THESE SPECIFIC CRIMES.
USE THESE WORDS FOR WEEKS AT A 
TIME AND THE MINUTE THEY FALL 
APART WE JUST MOVE ON TO THE 
NEXT THING.
I THINK THAT'S WHY YOU'RE LOSING
THE SUPPORT OF THE AMERICAN 
PEOPLE AND THAT'S WHY YOU'RE 
LOSING SUPPORT OF YOUR 
COLLEAGUES ON YOUR SIDE OF THE 
AISLE IN CONGRESS AND THAT'S WHY
YOU'RE HERE AND LET'S CALL IT 
LIKE IT IS AND SAY WHY WE GOT 
HERE AND WHERE WE CONTINUE TO 
GO.
>> I YIELD TO THE RANKING 
MEMBER. 
>> YOU JUST BROUGHT UP A GREAT 
POINT.
YOU KNOW WHY WE KNOW WHAT YOU 
SAID IS TRUE?
WE'VE HAD A LOT OF NON-TRUTH 
HERE, BUT WHAT YOU JUST SAID IS 
COMPLETELY TRUE THAT THIS WILL 
NEVER END.
YOU KNOW WHY WE KNOW THAT?
ADAM SCHIFF'S OWN WORDS AND AL 
GREEN'S OWN WORDS AND SCHIFF THE
OTHER DAY IN ONE OF HIS PRESS 
CONFERENCES, HE LOVES TO TESTIFY
IN FRONT OF CAMERAS AND JUST NOT
IN FRONT OF MEMBERS WHERE HE HAS
TO ACTUALLY ANSWER QUESTIONS AND
HE SAID WE'RE JUST GOING TO 
KEEP -- NO MATTER WHAT HAPPENS 
WE'LL KEEP INVESTIGATING, 
INVESTIGATING, INVESTIGATING, 
INVESTIGATING AND WE'LL -- IF 
YOU'RE ON THE INTEL COMMITTEE 
AND I KNOW OTHERS ARE, IT WOULD 
BE NICE TO GET BACK TO THE 
OVERSIGHT OF THE INTELLIGENCE 
COMMUNITY.
THAT WOULD BE NICE.
SHOCKING PROPOSITION FOR A 
COMMITTEE THAT'S SUPPOSED TO BE 
DOING THAT.
MR. GREEN SAID WE CAN IMPEACH 
HIM OVER AND OVER AND OVER 
AGAIN.
THIS IS WHAT'S HAPPENING.
IT'S A FARCE!
WE CAN'T COME UP WITH CRIMES SO 
WE SAY CRIMES AND WE CAN'T PUT 
IT IN THE ARTICLES AND WE CAN'T 
MAKE IT HAPPEN AND I JUST WANT 
TO COMMEND YOU FOR TELLING THE 
TRUTH.
YOU TOLD THE TRUTH.
THIS IS NOT GOING TO END NO 
MATTER WHAT EXCEPT AND THE 
REASON WE KNOW IT IS BECAUSE WE 
DON'T HAVE TO INFER.
WE DON'T HAVE TO FIND ARTICLES 
TO PUT ON THE RECORD.
WE JUST LISTEN TO THEIR OWN 
WORDS.
I YIELD BACK TO MR. ARMSTRONG. 
>> WITH THAT, I YIELD BACK.
>> THE GENTLEMAN YIELDS BACK, 
FOR WHAT PURPOSE DO YOU SEEK 
RECOGNITION?
>> I MOVE TO STRIKE THE LAST 
WORD?
>> THE GENTLE LADY IS 
RECOGNIZED.
>> YOU KNOW, I RISE TODAY IN 
OPPOSITION OF THIS AMENDMENT.
IT IS SO OBVIOUS -- IT'S SO 
OBVIOUS THAT IT IS A 
LAST-MINUTE, AFTER THE FACT 
DESPERATE SCRAMBLE TO COVER UP 
THE PRESIDENT'S WRONGDOING, AND 
I TELL YOU WHAT, WE'RE NOT 
FALLING FOR IT, AND I REALLY DO 
BELIEVE THE AMERICAN PEOPLE ARE 
NOT FALLING FOR IT, AND PROBABLY
ARE OFFENDED BY IT.
YOU KNOW, MY REPUBLICAN 
COLLEAGUES HAVE TALKED ABOUT A 
LOT OF THINGS TODAY AND THEY'RE 
WORKING VERY HARD TO PROTECT THE
PRESIDENT.
IT APPEARS LIKE AT ANY AND ALL 
COSTS, BUT I REALLY WISH THAT MY
COLLEAGUES ON THE OTHER SIDE 
WOULD WORK AS HARD TO PROTECT 
VOTING RIGHTS FOR THEIR AMERICAN
PEOPLE, BELIEVING THAT EVERYBODY
SHOULD HAVE THE RIGHT TO VOTE, 
AND THAT CHEATING IN OUR 
ELECTIONS BY ANYONE AT ANY TIME 
IN ANY PLACE IS JUST NOT RIGHT.
IT JUST AMAZES ME TO SUGGEST 
THAT ABUSE OF POWER IS SOMEHOW 
INADEQUATE OR INAPPROPRIATE OR 
NOT SERIOUS ENOUGH.
ABUSE OF POWER BY THE HIGHEST 
POSITION IN THE LAND, THE LEADER
IN THE FREE WORD, THAT ABUSE OF 
POWER IS NOT ENOUGH TO IMPEACH 
THIS PRESIDENT OR ANY OTHER 
PRESIDENT, BUT THE FRAMERS WERE 
SO DESPERATELY CONCERNED ABOUT 
ABUSE OF POWER BY THE PRESIDENT.
THEY WERE TERRIFIED OF THE 
THOUGHT OF AN UNPRINCIPLED MAN, 
A PERSON FINDING THEIR WAY INTO 
THE WHITE HOUSE.
TO SUGGEST THAT ABUSE OF POWER 
IS NOT SERIOUS IS NOT ENOUGH?
IS SIMPLY RIDICULOUS TO ME.
THE PRESIDENT HAS A 
CONSTITUTIONAL DUTY, AND THAT 
REALLY IS THE HIGHEST DOCUMENT 
IN THE LAND, TO VIOLATE THE 
CONSTITUTION.
HE HAS A CONSTITUTIONAL DUTY TO 
FAITHFULLY EXECUTE THE LAW.
WELL, THAT'S WHAT IT SAYS, TO 
FAITHFULLY EXECUTE THE LAW.
IS THERE ANYBODY HERE -- I DON'T
CARE WHAT COMES OUT OF YOUR 
MOUTH TODAY, IS THERE ANYBODY 
HERE THAT BELIEVES THAT THIS 
PRESIDENT HAS FAITHFULLY 
EXECUTED THE LAW AND FAITHFULLY 
EXECUTED THE DUTIES, THE SACRED 
TRUST THAT HAS BEEN PUT IN HIS 
HANDS AND ON HIS SHOULDER?
HE'S SUPPOSED TO FAITHFULLY 
EXECUTE THE LAW, NOT IGNORE IT, 
NOT ABUSE IT, AND NOT FORGET IT.
THE PRESIDENT IS SUPPOSED TO BE 
MOTIVATED BY PUBLIC INTEREST, 
PUBLIC INTEREST.
THE INTEREST OF THE PEOPLE AND 
RATHER THAN REMEMBERING THAT OR 
CARING ABOUT THAT, I'M NOT 
REALLY SURE HE EVER REALLY DID, 
THE PRESIDENT CHOSE TO TRY TO 
COERCE A FOREIGN POWER, A NEWLY 
ELECTED, YOUNG PRESIDENT THAT WE
ALL WERE EXCITED ABOUT, AN 
ANTI-CORRUPTION PRESIDENT.
THE PRESIDENT TRIED TO COERCE 
HIM INTO INTERFERING IN THE 2020
ELECTIONS.
THE THINGS THAT I HAVE HEARD 
TODAY ABOUT THE VICE PRESIDENT'S
CHILD, THE THINGS I'VE HEARD 
ABOUT THE VICE PRESIDENT'S SON 
WHEN WE HAVE MILLIONS OF PEOPLE 
IN THIS COUNTRY WHO ARE 
SUFFERING FROM ADDICTION, I 
BELIEVE TO PROTECT THE PRESIDENT
AT ANY CAUSE IS SHAMEFUL.
ARTICLE 2, IN THE NIXON 
IMPEACHMENT SAID THIS, THE 
ARTICLE PRINCIPALLY ADDRESSED 
PRESIDENT NIXON'S USE OF POWER 
INCLUDING POWERS VESTED SOLELY 
IN THE PRESIDENT TO HARM 
POLITICAL OPPONENTS AND GAIN 
IMPROPER PERSONAL POLITICAL 
ADVANTAGES.
AND EXPLAINING THIS ARTICLE OF 
IMPEACHMENT THE HOUSE JUDICIARY 
THEN STATED THAT PRESIDENT 
NIXON'S CONDUCT WAS UNDERTAKEN 
FOR HIS PERSONAL POLITICAL 
ADVANTAGE AND NOT IN THE 
FURTHERANCE OF ANY VALID 
NATIONAL POLICY OBJECTIVE.
THE PRESIDENT ABUSED HIS POWER 
AND TO ME AND AT LEAST THE 
MEMBERS OF THIS SIDE OF THE DEUS
THAT MATTERS AND WITH THAT, I 
YIELD THE REMAINING TIME TO MR. 
RICHMOND FROM LOUISIANA.
THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN.
I WANT TO REMIND PEOPLE WATCHING
THAT WHEN YOU LOOK AT THE 
CREDIBILITY OF THE TESTIMONY AND
WEIGHING THE EVIDENCE YOU CAN 
LOOK AT OTHER THINGS SO I WANT 
TO ENTER INTO THE RECORD THE 
UNANIMOUS CONSENT THE ROGER 
STONE, THE MEN IN TRUMP'S ORBIT,
IMPLICATED IN CRIMES. 
>> WITHOUT OBJECTION. 
>> CNN POLITICS.
SIX TRUMP ASSOCIATES HAVE BEEN 
CONVICTED IN MUELLER-RELATED 
INVESTIGATION.
AND MY WISE GRANDMOTHER WHO SAID
BIRDS OF A FEATHER FLY TOGETHER.
>> WITHOUT OBJECTION. 
>> AND ALSO PRESIDENT TRUMP HAS 
MADE 13,435 FALSE OR MISLEADING 
CLAIMS OVER 9 -- 
>> THE GENTLEMAN'S TIME HAS 
EXPIRED. 
>> WITHOUT OBJECTION AND THE 
GENTLEMAN'S TIME HAS EXPIRED.
FOR WHAT PURPOSES DOES MISS 
JACKSON-LEE SEEK RECOGNITION?
>> STRIKE THE LAST WORD.
>> THE GENTLE LADY IS 
RECOGNIZED. 
>> I WANT TO SPEAK FIRST TO THE 
UNDERLYING AMENDMENT THAT CALLS 
FOR THE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT THAT THE
AID WAS RELEASED IN THE ARTICLE,
FIRST ARTICLE, I BELIEVE.
I WANT TO RECOUNT NOT ONLY THE 
JULY 25th CALL WHERE PREVIOUSLY 
I INDICATED THE PRESIDENT'S 
LANGUAGE THAT WE'D LIKE FOR YOU 
TO DO US A FAVOR, THOUGH, THAT 
THIS WAS NOT TIED TO THE US 
REPRESENTING THE ENTITY OF A 
PUBLIC REPRESENTATION WHICH 
WOULD BE THE UNITED STATES OF 
AMERICA ESTABLISHED BY FOREIGN 
POLICY BY THE SECRETARY OF STATE
AND ESTABLISHED FOREIGN POLICY 
BY THE SECRETARY OF DEFENSE AND 
THAT IS BECAUSE, OF COURSE, THE 
SECRETARY OF DEFENSE AND STATE 
HAD ALREADY CERTIFIED THAT 
UKRAINE WAS WORKING TO GRADUATE 
TO WORKING TO ENSURE THE END OF 
CORRUPTION THAT HAD MET THE 
STANDARDS THAT WERE REQUIRED FOR
FUNDING.
THE OTHER THING IS WHEN 
LIEUTENANT COLONEL VINDMAN 
THOUGHT THAT THE WORDS THAT HE 
HEARD WERE APPALLING AND SEEMED 
TO HIM TO BE INAPPROPRIATE FOR A
CALL TO THE PRESIDENT AS IT 
RELATES TO A QUESTION TYING THE 
MILITARY AID TO THE 
INVESTIGATION, BIDEN AND SONS 
AND OTHERS AND NOT OFFICIAL 
POLICY, HE IMMEDIATELY GAVE IT 
TO THE NFC COUNSEL, JOHN 
EISENBERG.
JOHN EISENBERG, TOOK THE 
INFORMATION AND THEN ULTIMATELY 
PUT IT AND PUT IT IN A SEPARATE 
COATED FILING AND ASKED THAT THE
LIEUTENANT COLONEL NOT SAY 
ANYTHING ABOUT IT.
THAT IS UNUSUAL BECAUSE YOU 
WOULD THINK IF IT WAS A NORMAL 
BUSINESS AND IF IT IN TO DO WITH
STANDARD U.S. FOREIGN POLICY IT 
WOULD BE OKAY TO TALK ABOUT THAT
CALL, BUT THEY KNEW A MAJOR 
MISTAKE HAD BEEN MADE.
THEY KNEW THAT THE PRESIDENT HAD
OFFERED TO GIVE MILITARY AID IF 
HE GOT AN INVESTIGATION AGAINST 
HIS POLITICAL RIVAL AND HIS 
POLITICAL RIVAL HAPPENED TO BE 
JOE BIDEN, AND HE KNEW THAT THAT
WAS, IN FACT, KOVEN SPIKE WITH 
USUALLY USING PUBLIC OFFICE AND 
PUBLIC MONEY FOR PUBLIC AND 
PRIVATE DESIRES.
LET ME ALSO SAY THAT FRIENDS 
TALK ABOUT THE COURTS.
WE HAVE NOT SHIED AWAY FROM THE 
COURTS.
IN FACT, JUDGE HOWELL, REGARDING
THE GRAND JURY MATERIAL, 
SPECIFICALLY SAID THERE IS AN 
IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY, YOU CAN'T 
STAND IN THE WAY, MR. PRESIDENT.
JUDGE JACKSON INDICATED IN HER 
DECISION THAT THE PRESIDENT WAS 
NOT A KING, AND SO WE ARE HERE 
TO TALK ABOUT NOT AS A MOTHER, 
SOMEONE'S CHILD WHO MAY HAVE 
SOME CONCERNS LIKE EVERY 
AMERICAN'S CHILD MAY HAVE WHICH 
I AM SADDENED THAT THOSE 
PERSONAL MATTERS WERE RAISED.
WE ARE HERE TO TALK ABOUT THE 
ABUSE OF THIS PRESIDENT AND THE 
OBSTRUCTION OF CONGRESS BECAUSE 
IN RODINO'S STATEMENT DURING THE
NIXON PROCEEDINGS HE MADE IT 
VERY CLEAR TO PRESIDENT NIXON 
REGARDING HIS FAILURE TO COMPLY 
WITH SUBPOENAS ISSUED PURSUANT 
TO THE WATERGATE IMPEACHMENT 
INQUIRY AND THE CONSTITUTION 
REENFORCES THE FACT THAT WE HAVE
THE SOLE POWER OF IMPEACHMENT 
AND THE UNDERLYING DECISIONS OF 
THE TWO COURT DECISIONS I 
MENTIONED WERE THAT WE WERE IN 
AN IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY AND AS A 
REMINDER TO MY COLLEAGUES THIS 
COMMIT IMPROVED ARTICLES ON THE 
OBSTRUCTION OF CONGRESS MATTER.
I WANTED TO CLEAN UP AND BRING 
SOME MORE POINTS ON THAT, AND IT
WAS CLEAR THAT IT WAS A CASE 
WHERE THE PRESIDENT COULD NOT 
DICTATE TO THE HOUSE IMPEACHMENT
INQUIRY WHAT HE WAS REFUSING TO 
GIVE OR NOT.
THIS IS WHERE MY FRIENDS STEER 
OFF THE RAILS.
THEY REFUSE TO ACKNOWLEDGE THE 
FACTS OF THE CASE.
THE PRESIDENT TOOK PUBLIC MONEY 
WITH A PUBLIC INTENT, WITH THE 
PRIVATE INTENT TO USE THOSE 
MONIES TO DENY MR. ZELENSKY WHO 
WAS GOING TO GO AHEAD AND 
ANNOUNCE INVESTIGATIONS ON CNN, 
BUT WAS STOPPED IN HIS TRACKS 
WHEN THE WHISTLE-BLOWER'S LETTER
OR STATEMENT WAS RELEASED.
IT WAS OUT THE BAG THAT THE 
PRESIDENT HAD DONE THIS ON THE 
JULY 25th CALL.
LET'S BE CLEAR, THIS IS ABOUT 
FACTS AND THE CONSTITUTION.
I YIELD BACK, MR. CHAIRMAN.
>> THE GENTLE LADY YIELDS BACK.
FOR WHAT PURPOSE DO YOU SEEK 
RECOGNITION.
>> DID THE GENTLE LADY STRIKE 
THE LAST WORD?
>> Y EXCUSE ME.
I MOVE TO STRIKE THE LAST WORD. 
>> I HAVE BEEN ANXIOUSLY SITTING
HERE ALL DAY LONG AND I WANT TO 
SAY THIS TO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE 
BEFORE OUR DAY ENDS TODAY.
MY COLLEAGUES AND I HAVE BEEN 
EXPLAINING THE EVIDENCE THAT 
WE'VE HEARD.
WE'VE BEEN TALKING ABOUT ALL OF 
THE DOCUMENTS AND HEARD FROM SO 
MANY WITNESSES ALONG THE WAY, 
AND AS WE HAVE BEEN UPHOLDING 
OUR CONSTITUTIONAL OBLIGATION TO
DEFEND THE CONSTITUTION SOME 
TODAY HAVE ARGUED THAT WE HAVE 
NOT UPHELD OUR CONSTITUTIONAL 
OBLIGATION TO LEGISLATE, TO 
SOLVE PROBLEMS AND THAT ALL WE 
WANT TO DO IS IMPEACH THE 
PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, 
AND I TRULY WANT TO ASSURE THE 
AMERICAN PEOPLE AND TO GIVE YOU 
HOPE THAT THIS IS NOT TRUE.
I WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT WE SET 
THE RECORD STRAIGHT SO THAT YOU 
KNOW WE'RE WORKING ON YOUR 
BEHALF AND DESPITE WHAT MANY 
PEOPLE IN THE COUNTRY THINK, 
CONGRESS CAN WALK AND CHEW GUM 
AT THE SAME TIME.
THIS CONGRESS HAS BEEN WORKING 
VERY, VERY HARD ON BEHALF OF THE
AMERICAN PEOPLE IN SPITE OF 
EVERYTHING THAT'S HAPPENING WITH
THIS IMPEACHMENT.
THIS VERY DAY, A BILL, WE PASSED
A BILL THAT LOWERS THE COST OF 
PRESCRIPTION DRUGS FOR HUNDREDS 
OF MILLIONS OF AMERICANS HR-3.
IT WILL SAVE OUR TAXPAYERS OVER 
$456 BILLION OVER THE NEXT 
DECADE AND ALLOW FOR THE 
EXPANSION OF MEDICARE COVERAGE 
INCLUDING HEARING, DENTAL AND 
VISION BENEFITS.
JUST THIS WEEK WE ACHIEVED 
MONUMENTAL CHANGES TO THE 
U.S.-MEXICO-CANADA TRADE 
AGREEMENT.
Y WE'VE BEEN WAITING A VERY LONG
TIME FOR THAT.
THIS AGREEMENT IS HUGE.
IT'S A HUGE WIN FOR OUR 
FAMILIES, WORKERS AND BUSINESS 
OWNERS IN EVERY DISTRICT ACROSS 
THE UNITED STATES, AND WE 
CONTINUE TO WORK TO MAKE SURE 
THAT WE STAY COMPETITIVE IN A 
GLOBAL ENVIRONMENT.
YESTERDAY WE VOTED TO SUPPORT 
THE NDAA, THE LEGISLATION THAT 
WILL KEEP OUR COUNTRY SAFE AND 
WILL GIVE A RAISE TO OUR SERVICE
MEMBERS AND INCLUDES IMPORTANT 
REFORMS LIKE PAID PARENTAL LEAVE
FOR ALL FEDERAL EMPLOYEES AND 
THE TAX, AND EVEN ON THIS 
COMMITTEE WE'VE WORKED TOGETHER.
THIS WEEK MY REPUBLICAN 
COLLEAGUE, CONGRESSMAN RUSHEN 
THALER INTRODUCED LEGISLATION 
THAT WOULD END ONLINE CHILD 
EXPLOITATION.
SINCE WE'VE BEEN SITTING IN THIS
ROOM TODAY A DEAL HAS BEEN 
FORGED BY OUR COLLEAGUES TO FUND
OUR GOVERNMENT AND AVOID ANOTHER
SHUTDOWN.
THROUGHOUT THIS INVESTIGATION MY
COLLEAGUES AND I HAVE BEEN 
FULFILLING OUR DUTIES AS MEMBERS
OF CONGRESS.
DO NOT BE DECEIVED.
WE HAVE BEEN WORKING ON THE 
AMERICAN PUBLIC'S BEHALF, EVERY 
SINGLE DAY IN SPITE OF THE 
TRAGEDY THAT WE'RE IN NOW WITH 
THIS IMPEACHMENT.
THIS CONGRESS, THE HOUSE OF 
REPRESENTATIVES, WE HAVE PASSED 
OVER 275 BILLS.
275 BILLS, AND WE ARE DEFENDING 
OUR DEMOCRACY, AND DELIVERING ON
THE PROMISES THAT WE MADE TO 
EACH AND EVERY ONE OF OUR 
CONSTITUENTS.
I WANT THE AMERICAN PUBLIC TO 
KNOW THIS.
WE ARE TRULY DISHEARTENED BY 
WHAT IS HAPPENING HERE WITH 
IMPEACHMENT BUT DO KNOW THAT WE 
ARE WORKING ON YOUR BEHALF EACH 
AND EVERY SINGLE DAY.
WE WILL CONTINUE TO DO WHAT WE 
SWORE AN OATH TO DO AND THAT IS 
TO PROTECT AND SERVE YOU EVEN IN
THIS MOMENT, IN THIS TRAGEDY, BE
REST ASSURED WE WILL DO JUST 
THAT, AND I YIELD BACK THE 
BALANCE OF MY TIME.
>> THE GENTLE LADY YIELDS BACK.
WHAT PURPOSE DO YOU SEEK 
RECOGNITION?
>> SEEK TO STRIKE THE LAST WORD 
WANT.
>> GENTLEMAN IS RECOGNIZED. 
>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH, MR. 
CHAIRMAN.
IN LAW SCHOOL I TEACH MY 
STUDENTS TO TRY TO TAKE THE BEST
ARGUMENT OF THEIR OPPONENTS AND 
NOT THE WORST ARGUMENTS AND SO 
I'M GOING TOING NOER ALL OF THE 
FRIVOLOUS PROCESS OBJECTIONS 
ABOUT THE ROOMS AND THE 
TEMPERATURE AND ALL THAT KIND OF
STUFF WE'VE HEARD ABOUT AND I'M 
GOING TO TRY TO MAKE WHAT I 
THINK IS THE BEST ARGUMENT OR 
RECONSTRUCT THE BEST ARGUMENT 
THAT'S COME OUT TODAY, AND I 
UNDERSTAND THAT OUR COLLEAGUES 
FACE A DIFFICULT TASK BECAUSE 
70% OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE 
BELIEVE THAT THE PRESIDENT HAS 
DONE SOMETHING WRONG IN THESE 
ACTIONS OF TRYING TO PRESSURE A 
FOREIGN GOVERNMENT TO GET 
INVOLVED IN OUR ELECTION.
AND SO THEY'VE GOT A PROBLEM 
THERE, AND THEY'VE GOT ANOTHER 
PROBLEM WHICH IS THAT THERE IS 
AN OVERWHELMING AND 
UNCONTRADICTED BODY OF EVIDENCE 
THAT THE PRESIDENT DID THAT.
THE PRESIDENT WITHHELD HUNDREDS 
OF MILLIONS OF DOLLARS IN 
SECURITY ASSISTANCE THAT WE HAD 
VOTED FOR A BESIEGED FOREIGN 
ALLY RESISTING RUSSIAN 
AGGRESSION BECAUSE HE WAS TRYING
TO GET THE PRESIDENT OF THAT 
COUNTRY, ZELENSKY TO AGREE TO 
CONDUCT A PRESS CONFERENCE IN 
WHICH HE WOULD SAY HE WAS 
INVESTIGATING THE BIDENS, AND HE
ALSO WANTED PRESIDENT ZELENSKY 
TO VALIDATE VLADIMIR PUT KNOW'S 
FAVORITE DISINFORMATION 
CONSPIRACY THEORY ABOUT THE 2016
CAMPAIGN WHICH IS THAT IT WAS 
UKRAINE AND NOT RUSSIA THAT 
ENGAGED IN A SWEEPING AND 
SYSTEMATIC CAMPAIGN TO INTERFERE
IN OUR ELECTIONS.
SO WHAT DO YOU DO WITH THAT?
WE CAN UNDERSTAND WHY THEY'VE 
BEEN TALKING ABOUT PROCESS FOR 
MONTH, BUT I THINK THEY 
UNDERSTAND THIS IS A SERIOUS 
INVESTIGATION WITH RIGOROUS 
METHODS AND SERIOUS, INESCAPABLE
CONCLUSIONS AND THE AMERICAN 
PEOPLE ARE FOCUSED ON IT.
THE MAJORITY NOT ONLY SUPPORT 
THE INVESTIGATION.
A MAJORITY WOULD LIKE TO SEE THE
PRESIDENT IMPEACHED.
ACCORDING TO FOX NEWS.
IN ANY EVENT, HUGE NUMBERS OF 
AMERICANS ARE DISTURBED BY THIS.
WHAT HAVE THEY COME UP WITH?
THEY'VE NOT FOUND AN ALIBI.
HE CAN'T CLAIM SOMEBODY ELSE DID
IT, BUT THEY'VE COME UP WITH A 
DEFENSE WHICH TO ME LOOKS LIKE 
IT'S A MITIGATING FACTOR, A PLEA
FOR MERCY.
THE PRESIDENT DID ALL OF THESE 
THING, BUT HIS MOTIVE IS 
MISUNDERSTOOD.
ALL OF US THINK THAT HE WAS 
DOING IT BECAUSE HE WANTED TO 
ADVANCE HIS OWN RE-ELECTION 
PROSPECTS.
IN SOME SENSE HE WANTED TO HELP 
FOR WHATEVER REASON VLADIMIR 
PUTIN AND PUTIN HAS BEEN ON TV 
BRAGGING ABOUT THE FACT THAT 
EVERYONE IS FOCUSED ON THE 
UKRAINE IN THE 2016 ELECTION AND
NOT RUSSIA.
NOTE TO MR. PUTIN, THAT'S NOT 
RIGHT.
WE UNDERSTAND EXACTLY WHAT'S 
GOING ON HERE, BUT IN ANY EVENT,
THE NEW ARGUMENT AND THAT THE 
PRESIDENT WAS NOT TRYING TO 
ADVANCE HIS OWN POLITICAL 
INTEREST.
WHAT HE WAS TRYING TO DO WAS TO 
ADVANCE HIS PASSIONATELY HELD 
AND YET LITTLE KNOWN CAMPAIGN 
AGAINST CORRUPTION AND THAT'S 
WHY SO MUCH OF OUR DISCUSSION 
TODAY HAS BEEN ABOUT CORRUPTION 
BECAUSE THEY'RE TRYING TO SAY HE
WAS WAGING THIS CAMPAIGN ABOUT 
CORRUPTION, AND NOW WE'VE NOTED 
A NUMBER OF PROBLEMS THERE, AND 
I WANT TO JUST CATALOG SOME OF 
THE OTHER ONES TO TRY TO PUT 
THIS INTO IN ORDER SO PEOPLE DID
UNDERSTAND THE PROBLEM WITH 
THEIR BEST ARGUMENT.
THE FIRST IS THAT THE PRESIDENT 
NEVER RAISED THE WORD CORRUPTION
ON THE JULY 25th TELEPHONE CALL.
BIDEN'S NAME WAS MENTIONED 
SEVERAL TIMES.
IT WASN'T CORRUPTION, 
CORRUPTION, CORRUPTION.
IT WAS BIDEN, BIDEN, BIDEN. 
>> AND HE NEVER RAISED ANY OTHER
COMPANIES AT ALL.
IT WAS ALL ABOUT BURISMA, HUNTER
BIDEN'S COMPANY AND THAT'S ALL 
THAT HE MENTIONED AND AS FAR AS 
I KNOW HE'S NEVER MENTIONED ANY 
OTHER COMPANY IN CONNECTION WITH
CORRUPTION IN UKRAINE.
IN 2017 AND '18 WHEN CONGRESS 
VOTED MONEY FOR UKRAINE THE 
PRESIDENT PASSED IT ALONG AND HE
DIDN'T RAISE CORRUPTION IN 
UKRAINE OR THE BIDENS AT THAT 
POINT, IT ONLY BECAME AN ISSUE 
IN 2019.
IN 2019, WHY?
BECAUSE JOE BIDEN HAD SURPASSED 
HIM IN THE PUBLIC OPINION POLLS 
AND NOW SUDDENLY IT WAS A BIG 
ISSUE, AND SO HE CARED ABOUT IT.
WELL, WHAT'S THE OTHER EVIDENCE 
HERE?
THE PRESIDENT'S TEAM, RUDY 
GIULIANI AND PARNAS AND FRUMAN 
ENGAGED IN A SMEAR CAMPAIGN 
AGAINST A U.S. AMBASSADOR WHO 
WAS CRUSADING AGAINST CORRUPTION
IN THE UKRAINE AND THE PRESIDENT
GOT HER OUT OF THE WAY.
HE PULLED HER BACK SO ALL OF THE
EVIDENCE SHOWS THEY WERE 
PROMOTING AND A CORRUPT SCHEME 
AND THEY WEREN'T TRYING TO 
ATTACK IT.
THE YIELD BACK.
>> THE GENTLEMAN YIELDS BACK.
WHO SEEKS RECOGNITION?
>> THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN.
I MOVE TO STRIKE THE LAST WORD.
>> THE GENTLE LADY IS 
RECOGNIZED.
AND BRIEFLY, MR. CHAIRMAN AND 
MEMBERS, MR. RASKIN JUST SAID 
BIDEN'S NAME WAS USED MULTIPLE 
TIMES.
WELL, I THINK THAT'S A LITTLE 
MISLEADING.
AGAIN, THE ONLY PLACE IN THIS 
WHOLE TELEPHONE CALL WHERE BIDEN
IS EVEN BROUGHT UP IS IN ONE 
LITTLE PARAGRAPH AND THAT WAS ON
PAGE 4 OF FIVE PAGES OF THE 
TRANSCRIPT.
I MEAN, MOST OF THIS CALL WAS 
ABOUT CONGRATULATING PRESIDENT 
ZELENSKY AND THE NEW PARLIAMENT,
TALKING ABOUT HOW YOU KNOW, A 
LOT OF THESE EUROPEAN COUNTRIES 
AREN'T PITCHING IN WITH THE AID 
THAT WAS TO UKRAINE AS MUCH AS 
THE UNITED STATES HAS AND YOU 
KNOW, ALL KIND OF THINGS.
IT WAS A LONG PHONE CALL AND 
IT'S DISINGENUOUS TO SAY THAT 
BIDEN WAS MENTIONED SEVERAL 
TIMES.
LET ME READ AGAIN.
IN FACT, I KNOW THAT PRESIDENT 
TRUMP TWEETS THIS OUT, READ THE 
TRANSCRIPT, AND I WISH PEOPLE 
WOULD BECAUSE EVERYBODY WATCHES 
TV AND THEY GET ALL THESE 
COMMENT, BUT I DID THIS WITH MY 
HUSBAND.
I SAID WOULD YOU JUST PLEASE 
READ THE TRANSCRIPT.
IT'S ONLY FIVE PAGES LONG.
IT DOESN'T TAKE THAT MUCH TIME, 
AND YOU KNOW, AFTER HE READ IT, 
AND HE'S, LIKE, THAT'S IT?
THAT'S ALL THEY GOT?
BUT HERE, THIS IS THE MENTION 
ABOUT BIDEN.
PAGE 5.
THE OTHER THING, THERE'S A LOT 
OF TALK ABOUT BIDEN'S SON THAT 
BIDEN 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.
THAT'S IT, FOLKS.
THAT'S ALL THERE IS.
SO MR. MR. CHAIRMAN, I YIELD 
BACK.
>> THE GENTLE LADY YIELDS BACK.
THE QUESTION OCCURS ON THE 
AMENDMENT.
THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE?
>> OPPOSED NO.
>> NO.
>> IN THE OPINION OF THE CHAIR, 
THE NOES HAVE IT.
THE CLERK WILL CALL THE ROLL.
[ ROLL CALL ]
MR. JOHNSON OF GEORGIA?
MR. JOHNSON OF GEORGIA VOTES NO.
MR. DEUTSCH?
MR. DEUTSCH VOTES NO.
MISS BASS?
MISS BASS VOTES NO.
MR. RICHMOND?
>> NO.
>> MR. RICHMOND VOTES NO.
>> MR. JEFFERIES?
>> MR. JEFFERIES VOTES NO.
MR. SIS LINNEY?
>> NO.
>> SOME SWALWELL VOTES NO.
>> MR. RASKIN?
>> NO.
>> MISS JAY POL. 
>> MR. CORREA?
>> NO.
>> MISS SCANLON VOTES NO.
>> MISS GARCIA?
>> NO.
>> MISS GARCIA VOTES NO.
>> MISS McBATH.
>> NO.
MISS McBATH VOTES NO.
>> MR. SCANTON VOTES NO.
>> MISS DEAN VOTES NO.
MISS McCARSEL POWELL VOTES NO.
MISS ESCOBAR VOTES NO.
>> MR. COLLINS VOTES AYE.
MR. SENSENBRENNER VOTES AYE.
>> MR. CHABOT VOTES AYE.
MR. GOHMERT?
>> MR. GOHMERT VOTES AYE.
>> MR. BUCK VOTES AYE.
MR. RADCLIFFE. 
>> YES.
>> MISS ROBY?
>> MISS ROBY VOTES AYE.
>> MR. JOHNSON OF LOUISIANA?
>> AYE. 
>> MR. JOHNSON OF LOUISIANA 
VOTES AYE.
MR. BIGGS?
>> MR. BIGGS VOTES AYE.
MR. McCLINTOCK VOTES AYE.
>> MISS LESKO VOTES AYE. 
>> IN KLEIN VOTES AYE. 
>> MR. ARMSTRONG VOTES YES. 
>> MR. STUBY?
>> MR. STUBY VOTES YES.
HAS EVERYONE VOTED WHO WISHES TO
VOTE.
>> MR. CORREA, YOU ARE NOT 
RECORDED. 
>> MR. CORREA VOTES NO.
ANYONE ELSE WHO WISHES TO VOTE 
WHO HASN'T VOTED?
THE CLERK WILL REPORT.
>> MR. CHAIRMAN THERE ARE 17 
AYES AND 23 NOs.
THE AMENDMENT IS NOT AGREED TO.
ARE THERE ANY FURTHER AMENDMENTS
IN THE NATURE OF THE 
SUBSTANTIVE?
MR. CHAIRMAN, I HAVE AN 
AMENDMENT AT THE DESK.
>> MR. RUSHENTHALOR, AN 
AMENDMENT TO HRES 75 BY MR. 
RUSHENTHALOR.
PAGE 5 BEGINNING ON LINE 6, 
STRIKE ARTICLE 2.
>> I WITHDRAW MY POINT OF ORDER.
>> THE GENTLEMAN IS RECOGNIZED 
FOR FIVE MINUTES TO EXPLAIN HIS 
AMENDMENT.
>> THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN.
>> MY AMENDMENT WOULD STRIKE ALL
OF ARTICLE 2 WHICH IS THE 
OBSTRUCTION OF CONGRESS CHARGE.
THE FACTS SIMPLY DO NOT ALIGN 
WITH THE DEMOCRATS' CLAIM OF 
OBSTRUCTION.
OUR GOVERNMENT HAS THREE 
BRANCHES FOR A REASON.
WHEN THERE IS A DISAGREEMENT 
BETWEEN THE LEGISLATIVE BRANCH, 
THE REPUBLICANS RECOGNIZE THIS 
IN 2011 WHEN THEY INVESTIGATED 
PRESIDENT OBAMA'S FAST AND 
FURIOUS SCANDAL.
THE FAST AND FURIOUS SCANDAL 
ALLOWED 2,000 FIREARMS TO FALL 
INTO THE HANDS OF DRUG CARTELS 
AND RESULTED IN THE DEATH OF AN 
AMERICAN BORDER PATROL AGENT.
PEOPLE ACTUALLY DIED IN THE 
PRESIDENT OBAMA SCANDAL.
THROUGHOUT THE INVESTIGATIONS OF
THE SCANDAL THEY MADE NUMEROUS 
ATTEMPTS TO ACCOMMODATE THE 
OBAMA ADMINISTRATION, YET 
DESPITE THEIR EFFORT, PRESIDENT 
OBAMA INVOKED EXECUTIVE 
PRIVILEGE AND BARRED TESTIMONY 
AND DOCUMENTS.
SO WHAT DID THE REPUBLICANS DO?
THE APPROPRIATE THING.
THEY WENT TO THE COURTS.
COMPARE THOSE EFFORTS DURING 
THIS IMPEACHMENT SHAM.
HOUSE DEMOCRATS COULD HAVE 
WORKED THROUGH THE 
ADMINISTRATION TO REACH 
ACCOMMODATIONS FOR THEIR 
REQUEST, BUT THEY DIDN'T.
HOUSE DEMOCRATS SHOULD HAVE 
WORKED THROUGH THE COURT, BUT 
THEY DIDN'T, AND WHY IS THAT?
IT'S SIMPLE, BECAUSE THEY HAVE A
POLITICAL, EXPEDIENT DEADLINE TO
SEND THIS MESS OUT OF CONGRESS 
AND TO THE SENATE BEFORE 
CHRISTMAS. 
>> SO DESPITE WHAT YOU HEAR FROM
MY COLLEAGUE, THE ADMINISTRATION
HAS CONSISTENTLY COOPERATED WITH
DEMOCRATS EVEN THOUGH THEY'VE 
BEEN OUT TO GET THIS PRESIDENT 
SINCE THE VERY MOMENT HE WAS 
ELECTED.
LET'S JUST GO THROUGH THE 
NUMBERS.
OVER 25 ADMINISTRATION OFFICIALS
HAVE TESTIFIED BEFORE THE HOUSE 
OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE, OVER 25.
OVER 20 ADMINISTRATION OFFICIALS
HAVE TESTIFIED BEFORE THIS VERY 
COMMITTEE.
THE ADMINISTRATION HAS ALSO 
HANDED OVER MORE THAN 100,000 
PAGES OF DOCUMENTS SINCE THE 
START OF THE SHAM IMPEACHMENT 
INQUIRY AND LET'S CONTRAST THAT 
FROM THE CONDUCT OF THE 
DEMOCRATS.
DEMOCRATS HAVE THREATENED 
WITNESSES THAT QUOTE, UNQUOTE, 
ANY FAILURE TO APPEAR WOULD 
CONSTITUTE EVIDENCE OF 
OBSTRUCTION.
LET ME JUST GO THROUGH THAT 
LANGUAGE.
IT'S A LETTER THAT THAT WOULD 
CONSTITUTE EVIDENCE OF 
OBSTRUCTION.
THAT'S NOT A SUBPOENA.
THAT'S A LETTER.
DEMOCRATS INSISTED ON USING 
AGENCY COUNCIL, THEY WOULD HAVE 
THEIR SALARIES WITHHELD.
THAT KIND OF SOUNDS LIKE ABUSE 
OF POWER, BUT I DIGRESS A LITTLE
BIT.
DEMOCRATS HAVE NOT AFFORDED THIS
PRESIDENT BASIC PROCEDURE 
PROTECTIONS SUCH AS THE RIGHT TO
SEE ALL THE EVIDENCE, THE RIGHT 
TO CALL WITNESSES OR THE RIGHT 
TO HAVE COUNSEL AT HEARINGS.
BUT IT'S NOT JUST THE TRUMP 
ADMINISTRATION THAT'S BEEN 
RAILROADED BY THE DEMOCRATS.
JUDICIARY DEMOCRATS VOTED DOWN 
MY OWN SUBPOENA, MY OWN MOTION 
TO SUBPOENA THE WHISTLE-BLOWER 
EVEN THOUGH I SAID THAT HE OR 
SHE CAN TESTIFY IN EXECUTIVE 
SESSION WHICH WOULD BE PRIVATE 
AND YET THEY VOTED IT DOWN ON 
PARTY LINES.
CHAIRMAN NADLER ALSO REFUSED 
REQUESTS THAT TO HAVE CHAIRMAN 
SCHIFF TESTIFY BEFORE THIS 
COMMITTEE.
HOUSE DEMOCRATS ALSO HAD DENIED 
EVERY REPUBLICAN WHY FOR A FACT 
BNS.
SO I ASK, WHO IS REALLY 
OBSTRUCTION STRUCKING CONGRESS?
THE DEMOCRATS HAVE NO CASE WHEN 
HE'S OBSTRUCTION SAID.
IF THEY REALLY WANTED TO CHARGE 
SOMEONE WITH OBSTRUCTION, HOW 
ABOUT THEY START WITH ADAM 
SCHIFF?
THANK YOU, AND I YIELD BACK THE 
REMAINDER OF MY TIME.
>> THE GENTLEMAN YIELDS BACK.
WHAT PURPOSE DOES MISS BASS 
REQUEST RECOGNITION?
>> I STRIKE THE LAST WORD. 
>> WHO IS REALLY OBSTRUCTING 
CONGRESS?
WHO IS OBSTRUCTING CONGRESS?
PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP.
THE TEXT OF THE CONSTITUTION 
DEVOTES ONLY A FEW SENTENCES TO 
THE DISCUSSION OF IMPEACHMENT 
POWER, YET AMONG THOSE FEW 
SENTENCES IS THE CLEAR STATEMENT
THAT THE HOUSE POSSESSES THE 
SOLE POWER OF IMPEACHMENT AND 
WHAT THAT MEANS IS THAT WITHIN 
THE SOLE DISCRETION OF THE HOUSE
TO DETERMINE WHAT EVIDENCE IS 
NECESSARY THEN FOR IT TO GATHER 
IN ORDER TO EXERCISE THAT POWER.
SO IT'S UNNECESSARY FOR THE 
HOUSE TO GO TO THE COURT TO 
ENFORCE SUBPOENAS ISSUED 
PURSUANT TO AN IMPEACHMENT 
INVESTIGATION.
IF IT DID, THE HOUSE'S SOLE 
POWER OF IMPEACHMENT WOULD BE 
BEHOLDEN TO THE DICTATES OF THE 
JUDICIAL RATHER THAN THE 
EXECUTIVE BRANCH.
PAST PRESIDENTS HAVE DISAPPROVED
OF IMPEACHMENTS, CRITICIZED THE 
HOUSE, DOUBTED ITS MOTIVES AND 
INSISTED THEY DID NOTHING WRONG,
BUT NO PRESIDENT, HOWEVER, 
INCLUDING PRESIDENT NIXON WHO IS
ON THE VERGE OF BEING IMPEACHED 
FOR THE OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE, 
AND HE OVERSEES TOTALLY EXEMPT 
FROM SUBPOENAS ISSUED BY THE 
HOUSE PURSUANT TO ITS SOLE POWER
OF IMPEACH AM.
PRESIDENT TRUMP HAS MADE 
COMPLIANCE WITH EVERY DEMAND A 
CONDITION OF EVEN CONSIDERING 
WHETHER TO HONOR SUBPOENAS AND 
HE HAS DIRECTED HIS SENIOR 
OFFICIALS TO VIOLATE THEIR OWN 
LEGAL OBLIGATIONS TO TURN OVER 
SUBPOENAS.
INDEED, THE HOUSE WAS ONLY ABLE 
TO CONDUCT AN INQUIRY TO THE 
UKRAINE BECAUSE SEVERAL 
WITNESSES, LIKE THE AMBASSADORS 
AND THE LIEUTENANT COLONEL 
VIPDMAN DEFIED THE UNLAWFUL 
COMMAND, IT IS UNPRECEDENTED.
MY COLLEAGUES TALK ABOUT 
INFORMATION THAT WE SHOULD WAIT 
TO GET FROM THE COURTS.
WE REALLY WOULDN'T WAIT TO GET 
FROM THE COURTS IF THE PRESIDENT
WOULD COMPLY AND PROVIDE 
DOCUMENTS.
I REMEMBER WHEN AMBASSADOR 
SONDLAND WAS TESTIFYING AND HE 
SAID THAT HE WAS TESTIFYING FROM
MEMORY BECAUSE HE WASN'T EVEN 
ALLOWED TO HAVE ACCESS TO HIS 
OWN NOTES IN THE STATE 
DEPARTMENT.
PRESIDENT TRUMP HAS ABUSED HIS 
POWER AND IS A CONTINUED THREAT 
TO OUR DEMOCRACY OR NATIONAL 
SECURITY.
HE'S PUT HIMSELF BEFORE THE 
COUNTRY AND NO ONE IS BOOFR THE 
LAW.
WHEN I THINK OF OUR ELECTIONS 
AND MY CONCERN FOR OUR ELECTION 
NEXT YEAR, OUR ELECTIONS SHOULD 
BE DECIDED BY US, OUR FOREIGN 
APPROXIMATELY SEE AND NATIONAL 
SECURITY SHOULD BE BASED ON 
AMERICA'S INTEREST, NOT THE 
PRESIDENT'S PERSONAL AND 
POLITICAL INTERESTS.
WE'VE TALKED OVER AND OVER AGAIN
ABOUT THE REAL REASON FOR ALL OF
THIS WAS HIS CONCERN ABOUT 
CORRUPTION, BUT AS ONE OF MY 
COLLEAGUES SAID EARLIER TODAY, 
IF HE WAS CONCERNED ABOUT 
CORRUPTION HE WOULD BE CONCERNED
ABOUT WHAT IS GOING ON IN THE 
WHITE HOUSE ANY ALL OF THE 
PEOPLE WHO HE'S BEEN AFFILIATED 
WITH, WHO ARE SENT TO PRISON OR 
AWAITING COURT.
THEY NEVER DEFEND PRESIDENT 
TRUMP'S MISCONDUCT BY DISPUTING 
THE FACTS OF THE CASE, BUT 
RATHER DISTRACT WITH IRRELEVANT 
ISSUES.
SOMEONE ASKED THIS EARLIER BUT I
DON'T BELIEVE MY COLLEAGUES ON 
THE OTHER SIDE OF THE AISLE EVER
ANSWERED.
FORGET PRESIDENT TRUMP, IS IT 
EVER OKAY FOR A PRESIDENT TO 
INVITE FOREIGN INTERFERENCE IN 
OUR ELECTION?
AND WITH THAT I YIELD TO MY 
COLLEAGUE FROM CALIFORNIA.
>> THANK YOU FOR YIELDING.
>> I WOULD LIKE TO ASK UNANIMOUS
CONSENT TO PUT INTO THE RECORD 
THE LETTER FROM THE PRESIDENT'S 
COUNSEL, PAT CIPILLONE. 
>> WITHOUT OBJECTION.
>> JUST REFLECTING ON THE 
COMMENTS MADE BY MY COLLEAGUE 
FROM CALIFORNIA, CERTAINLY, WE 
HAVE A RIGHT TO RECEIVE 
INFORMATION.
WE HAVE A RIGHT TO MAKE A 
JUDGEMENT ON THE INFORMATION 
THAT WE HAVE BEEN ABLE TO OBTAIN
BECAUSE IMPEACHMENT IS SOLELY IN
THE PROVINCE OF THE CONGRESS, 
BUT JUST ON THE NARROW ISSUE OF 
THE ASSERTION OF PRIVILEGE, I 
THINK IT'S IMPORTANT TO NOTE 
THAT THE PRIVILEGE -- NO 
PRIVILEGE WAS ASSERTED IN THIS 
LETTER BY THE COUNSEL.
HE DOESN'T SAY IT'S EXECUTIVE 
PRIVILEGE.
HE DOESN'T SAY ANYTHING THAT YOU
CAN TAKE TO COURT.
HE JUST SAYS HE DOESN'T LIKE 
WHAT WE'RE DOING AND THEY'RE NOT
GOING TO GIVE US ANYTHING.
NOT A PIECE OF PAPER, NOT A 
WITNESS.
JUST NO, AND THAT IS AN ABSURD 
SITUATION.
IT IS NOT ACCEPTABLE AND IT IS 
REALLY OBSTRUCTION OF CONGRESS, 
AND I THANK THE GENTLE LADY FOR 
YIELDING AND YIELD BACK TO HER.
>> MY TIME HAS EXPIRED.
I YIELD BACK.
>> THE GENTLE LADY'S TIME HAS 
EXPIRED. 
>> CHAIRMAN?
>> FOR WHAT PURPOSE DOES MR. 
SENSENBRENNER SEEK RECOGNITION?
>> I MOVE TO STRIKE THE LAST 
WORD.
MY COLLEAGUES OF CALIFORNIA 
THSHGS IS THE GREATEST AMOUNT OF
CIRCULAR REASONING IN THE LAST 
COUPLE OF DAYS.
THERE'S BEEN A LOT OF IT, BUT I 
THINK THIS IS THE ONE THAT GRABS
THE BLUE RIBBON BECAUSE WHAT I 
HEAR IS THAT AN IMPEACHMENT 
INQUIRY, IF THE WHITE HOUSE DOES
NOT GIVE THE HOUSE OF 
REPRESENTATIVES IN THIS 
COMMITTEE EVERYTHING WE ASK FOR 
THEN THAT'S OBSTRUCTION OF 
CONGRESS AND AN IMPEACHABLE 
OFFENSE AND THAT'S NOT WHAT THE 
LAW SAID AND IT'S NOT WHAT THE 
LAW SHOULD BE.
THERE ARE CERTAIN PRIVILEGE AND 
IMMUNITIES THAT THE PRESIDENT 
HAS.
IRRESPECTIVE OF WHETHER WE'RE 
USING OUR ART BEINGEL 2 OR SOLE 
POWER OF IMPEACHMENT AND HE 
OUGHT TO PRESENT IT IN A COURT 
OF LAW.
THIS IS NOT A COURT OF LAW.
I DON'T BLAME WHITE HOUSE 
COUNSEL CIPILLONE AND WE KNOW 
WHAT THE ANSWER IS GOING TO BE 
AND THAT IS THAT WE'LL BLOW ANY 
CLAIM OF PRIVILEGE AWAY.
WE WILL BLOW ANY TYPE OF 
EXECUTIVE IMMUNITY AWAY.
WE ARE GOING TO SIMPLY SAY WE 
WANT IT AND YOU'VE GOT TO GIVE 
IT TO US NO MATTER WHETHER IT'S 
PRIVATE INFORMATION OR DOING 
SOME LEGITIMATE OVERSIGHT.
NOW, WE KNOW THAT THE REJECTION 
OF THE ARGUMENT THAT WE 
SHOULDN'T HAVE TO GO TO COURT 
FOR THAT IS BOGUS BECAUSE THE 
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES HAS 
GONE TO COURT TO TRY TO GET 
ENFORCEMENT OF SUBPOENAS THAT 
ARE AS A RESULT OF THIS 
IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY.
THE ENFORCEMENT AGAINST DON 
McGAHN HAS GOTTEN AS FAR AS THE 
D.C. CIRCUIT.
>> THERE ARE OTHERS THAT ARE 
PENDING A LITTLE BIT FURTHER 
BACKWARDS IN THE JUDICIAL 
SYSTEM, BUT WHAT I WOULD LIKE TO
ASK MY FRIENDS ON THE MAJORITY 
SIDE, IT'S OKAY.
SAY WE'RE DONE WITH THIS 
IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY NEXT WEEK, 
THE HOUSE PASSES BOTH ARTICLES 
OF IMPEACHMENT AND IT GOES TO 
THE SENATE FOR TRIAL.
DOES THAT MEAN THAT THE WHOLE 
NEXUS OF WHY YOU WERE ATTEMPTING
TO ENFORCE THOSE SUBPOENAS IS 
GONE?
ARE YOU GOING TO GO TO COURT AND
SAY IT'S GONE?
ARE YOU GOING TO MOVE TO DISMISS
THOSE ACTIONS TO SUPPORT 
ENFORCEMENT OF THE SUBPOENAS?
IF YOU ARE FOLLOWING THE 
ARGUMENT THAT I'VE JUST HEARD, 
YOU'VE GOT TO DO IT, BUT I DOUBT
IT.
I YIELD BACK.
>> THE GENTLEMAN YIELDS BACK.
I RECOGNIZE MYSELF FOR FIVE 
MINUTES.
THE ACTIONS OF THE WHITE HOUSE 
AND THE PRESIDENT IN THIS CASE 
ARE DIFFERENT IN KIND FROM ALL 
PREVIOUS ACTION OF EXECUTIVES.
IT IS NOT A QUESTION OF 
ASSERTING PRIVILEGE.
IT IS NOT A QUESTION OF 
ADJUDICATING RIGHTS EVEN IN 
COURT.
RATHER, THE COUNSEL WROTE GIVEN 
THAT YOUR INQUIRY LACKS ANY 
LEGITIMATE CONSTITUTIONAL 
FOUNDATION THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH 
CANNOT BE EXPECTED TO 
PARTICIPATE IN IT.
IT IS NOT UP TO THE PRESIDENT TO
DECIDE WHETHER AN IMPEACHMENT 
INQUIRY BY THE CONGRESS IS 
LEGITIMATE OR NOT.
THAT'S OUR FUNCTION AND THAT 
SENTENCE SHOWS RIGHT THERE AND 
IT'S THE PATIENT OF 
CONGRESSIONAL POWER.
NUMBER ONE, NUMBER TWO, IF THE 
WHITE HOUSE HAD ASSERTED 
PRIVILEGES THAT COULD BE 
ADJUDICATED AND MAYBE, IT MAY 
VERY WELL BE THAT HAD WE CHOSEN 
TO OPPOSE THAT AS A REASON FOR 
AN IMPEACHMENT, THAT WOULD BE 
INVALID, BUT THAT'S NOT WHAT 
WE'RE TALKING ABOUT.
WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THE 
PRESIDENT SAYING HE DOES NOT 
RECOGNIZE OUR IMPEACHMENT AND HE
WILL NOT PARTICIPATE IN IT, AND 
HE WILL NOT GRANT ANYTHING.
THAT IS AN OBSTRUCTION OF 
CONGRESS, AND THE ANTICIPATION 
OF CONGRESS TO DECIDE WHETHER TO
HAVE AN IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY AND 
IT'S A DECISION TO COMPLETELY 
TRY TO FRUSTRATE THAT INQUIRY BY
DENYING ALL PARTICIPATION, BY 
DENYING ALL DOCUMENTS AND 
WITNESSES WITHOUT ASSERTING 
PRIVILEGES.
IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH 
PRIVILEGES.
PRIVILEGES MAY BE ADJUDICATED IN
COURT AND THE ASSERTION BY THE 
EXECUTIVE THAT THE IMPEACHMENT 
POWER CANNOT BE EXERCISED BY 
CONGRESS P AND IT'S AN 
OBSTRUCTION OF CONGRESS AND IF 
ALLOWED TO GET AWAY WITH IT, 
ELIMINATES THE POWER OF 
IMPEACHMENT AS A CHECK ON THE 
POWER OF THE PRESIDENCY AND IS A
LARGE STEP TOWARD DICTATORSHIP 
BECAUSE THE THREAT OF 
IMPEACHMENT IS THE ONLY THREAT, 
AND THE ONLY ENFORCEMENT 
MECHANISM THAT CONGRESS HAS ON A
PRESIDENT WHO WOULD USURP POWERS
AND DESTROY THE SEPARATION OF 
POWERS ESPECIALLY GIVEN THE 
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE'S POLICY 
THAT A SITTING PRESIDENT CANNOT 
BE INDICTED AND HE CANNOT BE 
INVESTIGATED CRIMINALLY.
THAT LEAVES ONLY IMPEACHMENT AS 
A CHECK ON PRESIDENTIAL POWER 
AND YOU HAVE TO EXERCISE 
CONGRESS TO ALLOW THE 
IMPEACHMENT AND THE HOUSE IS THE
SOLE POWER OF IMPEACHMENT WHICH 
MEANS WE HAVE THE RIGHT TO GET 
THE DOCUMENT WEISE DEMAND AND 
MAYBE SUBJECT TO CERTAIN 
PRIVILEGE, BUT THAT'S AT ISSUE 
HERE AND INSTET WHAT HAS BEEN 
ASSERT SIDE THAT THE XEBL TIFF 
HAS THE RIGHT THAT THE 
IMPEACHMENT ROLE, AND THIS IS AN
ASSERTION OF TYRANNICAL POWER 
AND THAT'S WHY WE -- TO GO ALONG
WITH THIS AMENDMENT AND GET RID 
OF ARTICLE 2 AND SAY THAT IT IS 
PERMISSIBLE FOR THE PRESIDENT TO
DENY THE IMPEACHMENT POWER OF 
THE HOUSE IS A LONG STEP AWAY 
FROM CONSTITUTIONAL GOVERNMENT 
AND A LONG STEP AWAY FROM ANY 
CONTROL OVER THE POWER OF THE 
PRESIDENT AND A LONG STEP TOWARD
TYRANNY.
I OPPOSE THE AMENDMENT.
I YIELD BACK.
>> MR. CHAIRMAN?
>>. 
>> I WANT TO KNOW IF YOU WILL 
YIELD BACK. 
>> I JUST WANTED TO ASK, TO 
PARAPHRASE.
IT'S THE ONLY REMEDY.
WHY IS COURT NOT AN APPROPRIATE 
REMEDY IN THIS CASE?
>> YOUR MICROPHONE'S OFF.
WHAT MIGHT BE AN APPROPRIATE 
REMEDY IF PRIVILEGE WERE 
ASSERTED.
I'M NOT WILLING TO SAY YOU 
COULDN'T AMOUNT IT ON PRIVILEGE,
BUT NO PRIVILEGES HAS BEEN 
ASSERTED.
THERE IS NOTHING FOR A COURT TO 
REVIEW.
ALL THAT THE PRESIDENT HAS SAID 
IS THERE WILL BE NO -- HE HAS 
DIRECTED EVERYONE IN THE 
EXECUTIVE BRANCH DO NOT PROVIDE 
A PIECE OF PAPER.
DO NOT TESTIFY.
THERE'S NOTHING FOR THE COURT TO
REVIEW.
HE SIMPLY ASSERTED THAT HE 
DOESN'T RECOGNIZE THE 
CONSTITUTIONAL POWER OF CONGRESS
TO IMPEACH.
HE WILL RECOGNIZE THAT HE THINKS
IT'S INVALID AND THAT'S NOT HIS 
FUNCTION TO DO.
IT'S OUR FUNCTION TO DETERMINE 
WHETHER AN IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY 
IS VALID OR NOT IS A VALID 
INQUIRY. 
>> ISN'T THE NEXT STEP THEN TO 
HOLD A WITNESS IN CONTEMPT FOR 
EITHER NOT PRODUCING DOCUMENTS 
OR NOT APPEARING?
>> IF -- AND IF PRIVILEGE WERE 
ASSERTED, YES, BUT IT'S GONE 
BEYOND THAT.
WE COULD CERTAINLY DO THAT, 
BUT -- BUT IT'S NOT SUFFICIENT 
REMEDY.
THE REMEDY -- THE ONLY REMEDY 
FOR A PRESIDENT WHO SAYS THE 
HOUSE DOES NOT HAVE THE POWER TO
DETERMINE IF THERE IS AN 
IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY IS TO SAY 
THAT IS AN OBSTRUCTION OF 
CONGRESS.
MY TIME HAS EXPIRED.
I YIELD BACK.
>> MR. CHAIRMAN.
WHO SEEKS RECOGNITION?
>> FOR WHAT PURPOSE DOES MR. 
CHABOT SEEK REC OK MISSION?
>> STRIKE THE LAST WORD.
>> THE GENTLEMAN IS RECOGNIZED.
THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN.
I APPRECIATE THE GENTLEMAN 
OFFERING HIS AMENDMENT TO STRIKE
THE SECOND ARTICLE WHICH I 
THINK, UNFORTUNATELY, IS 
RIDICULOUS AS THE FIRST ARTICLE 
IN THIS CASE.
AN OBSTRUCTION CHARGE REQUIRES A
CONCERTED EFFORT TO INTERFERE 
WITH OR IMPEDE A CONGRESSIONAL 
ELECTION.
WHAT THE PRESIDENT DID ASSERTING
EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE IS NOT IN 
ANY WAY, SHAPE OR FORM 
OBSTRUCTION.
EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE IS A 
TIME-HONORED RIGHT OF EVERY 
ADMINISTRATION, BOTH REPUBLICAN 
AND DEMOCRATIC.
WHEN CONGRESS DISAGREES WITH A 
PARTICULAR ASSERTION OF 
EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE, THE REMEDY 
IS NOT IMPEACHMENT AND THE 
REMEDY IS TO GO TO COURT AND LET
THE BRANCH TO DECIDE A LITTLE 
ILWHO AGO TO DECIDE WHO IS 
CORRECT AND THAT'S WHY WE HAVE 
CHECKS AND BALANCES IN THIS 
COUNTRY.
WE HAVE THREE BRANCHES OF 
GOVERNMENT AND THEY'RE ALL 
SUPPOSED TO KEEP AN EYE ON EACH 
OTHER AND IN THIS CASE THE 
REMEDY IS TO LET THE COURTS 
DECIDE IF THE PRESIDENT AND THIS
CONGRESS DISAGREE, AND EXCEPT 
THAT THE HOUSE DEMOCRATS HAVE 
DECIDED THAT THEY DON'T WANT TO 
WAIT FOR THE COURTS TO DECIDE.
NOT WHEN THEY CAN INSTEAD JUST 
IMPEACH THE PRESIDENT AND THAT'S
NOT HAPPENING AND I THINK THAT 
WAS THEIR GOAL.
YOU WANT TO TALK ABOUT ABUSE OF 
POWER, WHAT THE HOUSE DEMOCRATS 
ARE DOING HERE IS A CLEAR CASE, 
IN MY VIEW OF ABUSING THEIR 
OFFICE FOR POLITICAL GAIN.
THE MAJORITY SHOULD HOLD 
THEMSELVES IN CONTEMPT FOR 
CONDUCTING THIS BIASED 
INVESTIGATION AND ATTACKING THE 
WHITE HOUSE FOR REFUSING TO 
PARTICIPATE IN SUCH A PATENTLY 
UNFAIR PROCESS, AND I THINK IF 
YOU LOOK AT THE RECORD OF THIS 
PRESIDENT THUS FAR, THE 
ACCOMPLISHMENTS ARE QUITE 
CONSIDERABLE.
IMPEACHING A PRESIDENT THAT HAS 
ACCOMPLISHED THESE THINGS IS 
ABSURD.
LOOK AT THE ECONOMY RIGHT NOW 
AND WHY IS THE ECONOMY DOING SO 
WELL?
I THINK IT'S PRINCIPALLY TWO 
THINGS.
THE TAX CUTS AND JOBS ACT THAT 
THIS PRESIDENT PUSHED AND WAS 
PASSED WHEN THE PREVIOUS 
CONGRESS WAS IN CONTROL, IT WAS 
REPUBLICANS BOTH THE HOUSE AND 
THE SENATE AT THAT TIME.
THE DEMOCRATS KEPT SCREAMING OH,
THESE ARE TAX CUTS FOR THE RICH 
AND TAX CUTS FOR THE RICH.
ABOUT 85% OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE
HAD THEIR TAXES REDUCED.
YES, WEALTHY PEOPLE GOT THEIR 
TAXES CUT, BUT SO DID VIRTUALLY 
EVERYBODY ELSE IN THIS ECONOMY.
THAT'S ONE OF THE PRINCIPAL 
REASONS THAT WE'RE SEEING THE 
ECONOMY CONTINUE TO GROW.
THAT'S ONE OF THE REASONS THAT 
UNEMPLOYMENT IN THIS COUNTRY 
IT'S AT HISTORIC LOWS AND IT'S 
50 PEM AND A LOT OF PEOPLE ARE 
DOING BELL.
85% OF THE PEOPLE GOT TAX CUTS 
AND AFRICAN-AMERICANS, HISPANIC 
EMPLOYMENTS IS AT AN ALL-TIME 
LOW IN CONJUNCTION WITH CONGRESS
BACK WHEN THE REPUBLICANS WERE 
IN THE MAJORITY.
I HAPPEN TO BE THE LEAD 
REPUBLICAN ON THE HOUSE SMALL 
BUSINESS COMMITTEE.
I WAS CHAIRMAN OF THAT COMMITTEE
FOR THE LAST TWO YEARS.
SMALL BUSINESSES ALL ACROSS 
AMERICA ARE DOING VERY WELL 
RIGHT NOW.
THEIR CONFIDENCE IS AT ALL TIME 
HIGHS.
70% OF NEW JOBS ARE CREATED BY 
SMALL BUSINESS FOLKS ALL ACROSS 
THIS COUNTRY.
THEY'RE THE BACKBONE OF THE 
AMERICAN ECONOMY, AND THE OTHER 
THING, OTHER THAN TAXES BEING 
REDUCED AND WHY THE ECONOMY IS 
DOING SO WELL IS BECAUSE THEY'VE
REDUCED THE RED TAPE AND THE 
BURE OK RASSET AND REGULATIONS 
THAT COME OUT OF WASHINGTON 
BECAUSE WHEN HE WAS RUNNING AS A
CANDIDATE HE SAID HIS GOAL WAS 
TO GET RID OF TWO EXISTING 
REGULATIONS RIGHT NOW, RED TAPE,
TWO EXISTING REGULATIONS AND FOR
EVERY NEW REGULATION COMING OUT 
OF WASHINGTON.
THAT WAS A TOUGH GOAL, BUT WE'VE
EXCEEDED THAT.
SO THOSE TWO THINGS TOGETHER, I 
THINK, ARE ONE OF THE PRINCIPLE 
REASONS THIS ECONOMY IS GROWING 
SO WELL.
THERE ARE SO MANY THINGS THAT 
YOU CAN TALK ABOUT THE 
SUCCESSES, BUT ONE THAT'S 
ACTUALLY GOING TO HAPPEN SOON IS
IMPROVING NAFTA.
USMCA, AND AGAIN, HOPEFULLY THE 
DEMOCRATS WILL PASS THIS AND 
THEY'RE IN CONTROL IN THE HOUSE 
NOW AND THEY FACE THE CHALLENGE 
BECAUSE IF THEY PASSED IT THEN 
THE PRESIDENT'S OBVIOUSLY GOING 
TO GET SOME CREDIT BECAUSE HE'S 
BEEN PUSHING THIS AND THEY DON'T
WANT THE PRESIDENT TO 
NECESSARILY GET ANY CREDIT AND 
THEY WANT TO GET THE LABEL OF 
THE DO-NOTHING CONGRESS, AND 
THEY'LL APPARENTLY IMPEACH THE 
PRESIDENT, AND IT'S UNFORTUNATE 
THAT WE'RE IMPEACHING THE 
PRESIDENT -- AND I AM VERY GLAD 
THAT WE'RE IMPEACHING IT -- 
EXCUSE ME, THE USMCA.
>> THE GENTLEMAN YIELDS BACK 
BEFORE HE GETS INTO TOO MUCH 
TROUBLE.
>> I RECOGNIZE, FOR WHAT PURPOSE
DOES MISS SCANLON SEEK 
RECOGNITION?
>> I MOVE TO STRIKE THE LAST 
WORD.
THE GENTLE LADY IS RECOGNIZED.
I'M REALLY UNCOMFORTABLE WITH 
THE SUGGESTION THAT'S BEEN MADE 
SEVERAL TIMES TODAY THAT THE 
U.S. CONSTITUTION IS FOR SALE.
YOU KNOW, THERE'S NO EXCEPTION 
IN THE CONSTITUTION THAT ALLOWS 
A PRESIDENT TO CHEAT IN AN 
ELECTION JUST BECAUSE THE 
ECONOMY'S GOING WELL.
MY OATH TO PROTECT AND DEFEND 
THE CONSTITUTION ISN'T FOR SALE.
LOOK, IF PRESIDENT TRUMP'S 
OBSTRUCTION, ABUSE OF POWER AND 
OBSTRUCTION OF CONGRESS ARE NOT 
IMPEACHABLE, NOTHING IS.
ARTICLE ONE CHARGES TRUMP WITH 
THE ABUSE OF POWER FOR 
ATTEMPTING TO UNDERMINE OUR 
ELECTIONS.
THE PRIMARY CHECK ON A PRESIDENT
BECOMING A KING IS ELECTIONS.
THIS PRESIDENT ABUSED HIS POWERS
TO UNDERMINE OUR ELECTIONS, 
THAT'S ARTICLE ONE.
ARTICLE 2 BLOCKS PRESIDENT TRUMP
SUBPOENAED BY CONGRESS IN THE 
INVESTIGATION.
CONGRESS' POWER TO INVESTIGATE 
AND IMPEACH THE PRESIDENT IS THE
BACKSTOP TO ELECTIONS TO PROTECT
OUR GOVERNMENT FROM BEING 
OVERRUN BY A TYRANNICAL 
EXECUTIVE.
THE PRESIDENT HAS UNDERMINED THE
CONSTITUTION BY OBSTRUCTING THE 
IMPEACHMENT POWER WITHOUT A 
LEGAL BASIS.
FOR OUR CONSTITUTION TO OPERATE 
PROPERLY, IT DEPENDS UPON PEOPLE
ACTING IN A REASONABLE MANNER.
WE'RE NOT DEALING WITH AN 
EXECUTIVE AT THIS POINT WHO IS 
ACTING IN A REASONABLE MANNER.
YOU KNOW, OFTEN PEOPLE ASK 
LAWYERS, OH, CAN I SUE?
AND IT'S AN OLD LAWYER JOKE.
OF COURSE, YOU CAN SUE.
THE QUESTION IS CAN YOU WIN?
PRESIDENT TRUMP HAS MADE A 
CAREER OUT OF SUING KNOWING THAT
HE HAD NO CHANCE TO WIN.
HE HAS CLOGGED UP OUR COURTS FOR
DECADES, AND HE USUALLY LOSES 
BECAUSE HE HASN'T A LEGAL LEG TO
STAND ON.
THAT'S THE SITUATION WE'RE IN 
NOW.
HE HAS DEFIED CONGRESSIONAL 
SUBPOENAS WITHOUT A LEGAL LEG TO
STAND ON.
HE HASN'T CLAIMED EXECUTIVE 
PRIVILEGE WHICH IS SOMETHING 
THAT COULD GO TO THE COURTS.
HE'S MADE UP SOMETHING CALLED 
ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY.
NEVER BEFORE IN THE HISTORY OF 
OUR COUNTRY HAVE WE HAD A 
PRESIDENT WHO SAID YOU CAN'T 
TALK TO ANYONE IN MY 
ADMINISTRATION.
YOU CAN'T SEE ANY DOCUMENTS.
WHEN WE HAD HOPE HICKS COME 
BEFORE, HIS COMMUNICATION 
SECRETARY COME BEFORE THIS 
COMMITTEE SEVERAL MONTHS AGO, 
SHE WAS SUBJECT TO A CLAIM OF 
ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY.
SHE WASN'T ALLOWED TO TESTIFY TO
ANYTHING THAT HAD HAPPENED THAT 
SHE'D SEEN, THAT HAD BEEN DONE 
FROM THE MOMENT SHE WALKED INTO 
THE WHITE HOUSE UNTIL SHE LEFT.
SHE WASN'T ALLOWED TO TELL US 
WHERE HER OFFICE WAS.
I MEAN, THIS IS THE KIND OF 
ABSOLUTE, I'M TEMPTED TO SAY, 
IRON CURTAIN THAT THE PRESIDENT 
HAS TRIED TO PLACE BETWEEN HIS 
ADMINISTRATION AND THE AMERICAN 
PEOPLE.
THERE IS NO WAY IN HELL I WILL 
VOTE TO REMOVE OBSTRUCTION OF 
CONGRESS FROM THESE ARTICLE, AND
I YIELD BACK.
>> THE GENTLE LADY YIELDS BACK.
>>.
THE GENTLELADY EFFECT. WHAT?
FOR OUR PURPOSES, MR. JORDAN.
>> STRIKE THE LAST WORD.
>> THE GENTLEMAN IS RECOGNIZED.
>> THAT'S WHAT BEGAN WITH
PENNSYLVANIA, AND HIS AMENDMENT,
HE SAID IN HIS REMARKS, HE SAID,
THE INSTRUCTION CAME FROM
CHAIRMAN SCHIFF. SO TRUE. BUT
YOU KNOW THE FIRST VICTIM WAS?
THIS COMMITTEE. THIS COMMITTEE,
UNLESS YOU ARE ON THE INTEL
COMMITTEE, THE OVERSIGHT
COMMITTEE, AND THE FOREIGN
AFFAIRS COMMITTEE, YOU COULDN'T
SIT IN FOR THE 17 FACT
WITNESSES. YOU COULD NOT BE A
PART OF THIS DEPOSITIONS. SOME
PEOPLE TRIED. MY GOOD FRIEND
FROM FLORIDA TRY TO GET IT AS A
MEMBER OF THE COMMITTEE THAT IS
NOW WORKING ON THE ARTICLES OF
IMPEACHMENT, BUT HE WAS NOT
ALLOWED. FOR THE FIRST VICTIM
OF THE REAL OBSTRUCTION TO GET
TO ALL THE INFORMATION WAS THIS
COMMITTEE, THE COMMITTEE
CHARGED WITH WRITING UP THE
ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT,
BACKING UP AS WE SPEAK, WASN'T
ALLOWED TO BE THERE FOR THE 17
FACT WITNESSES THAT WE ALL
DEPOSE.. NO SUBPOENA POWER FOR
REPUBLICANS, FOR DEPOSITIONS,
AS WE SAID, DONE IN SECRET, IN
THE BUNKER, IN THE BASEMENT OF
THE CAPITAL, IN THOSE
DEPOSITIONS., REMEMBER THESE
WITNESSES WERE SUBPOENAED.
RESOURCE TO ANSWER OUR
QUESTIONS. BUT ON THE DEMOCRATS
GOT ALL THE QUESTIONS ANSWERED.
THERE WERE QUESTIONS
REPUBLICANS ASKED THE CHAIRMAN
OF THE INTEL COMMITTEE PROVIDE
WITNESSES TRANSFERRING.
DEMOCRATS NEED WITNESSES FOR
THE OPEN HEARINGS. WE WERE NOT
ALLOWED TO CALL WITNESSES. WE
PUT A COUPLE PEOPLE ON THE WEST
FROM THE 70 PEOPLE THAT I HAVE
SUBPOENAED SO WE COULD HAVE
SOME PEOPLE THAT WE THOUGHT
MIGHT HELP MAKE THE REAL CASE I
PRESENT THE FACTS. BUT OF
COURSE THE ONE WITNESS WE
REALLY WANTED TO CALL, EVEN
THOUGH ADAM SCHIFF SAID WE WILL
GET A CHANCE TO HEAR FROM, WE
WERE NOT ALLOWED, AND THAT WAS
THE WHISTLEBLOWER. REMEMBER
WHEN THIS ALL HAPPENED IN
SEPTEMBER?, ADAM SCHIFF TOLD US
WE WILL GET THE WHISTLEBLOWER.
THE WHISTLEBLOWER WITH NO
FIRSTHAND KNOWLEDGE HE WAS
BIASED AGAINST THE PRESIDENT,
WHO WORKED WITH JOE BIDEN, HE
SAID, WE ARE GOING TO GET TO
HEAR FROM HIM BUT THAT CHANGED
HIS MIND. AND WHAT CHANGE, FOR
CHANGE THE CHAIRMAN'S MIND?
WELL, REMEMBER, THE DAY AFTER,
THE DAY AFTER THE CALL, THE
WHISTLEBLOWER RIGHTS THIS MEMO.
THE CALL WAS I DESCRIBED AS
CRAZY FRIGHTENING BUT HE WAITED
18 DAYS TO FOLLOW THIS
COMPLAINT. WHAT HAVE TO BE 18 A
TIMEFRAME? THE WHISTLEBLOWER
GOES OFF AND HE'S OUT OF SHEER,
GET SOME MARCHING ORDERS FROM
ADAM SCHIFF STAFF, AND
EVERYTHING CHANGES. WE DON'T
GET TO HEAR FROM HIM. WE DON'T
GET TO HEAR FROM THE PERSON, IT
BECAUSE WE DON'T GET TO HEAR
FROM THE WHISTLEBLOWER,
REMEMBER, THE COMPLAINT GETS
FILED ON AUGUST 12TH. VERY
FIRST POINT THERE WAS SO FOR
THAT COMPLAINT, HE SAYS THIS,,
MORE THAN HALF A DOZEN U.S.
OFFICIALS INFORMED ME OF THIS
EFFORT. WE HAVE NO IDEA. THE
COMMITTEE MARKING ARTICLES OF
IMPEACHMENT, WE HAVE NO IDEA
WHO THERE'S HALF A DOZEN U.S.
OFFICIALS ARE. WE DON'T KNOW IF
WE TALK TO THEM. WE DON'T KNOW
IF THEY CAME AND TESTIFIED. WE
DON'T KNOW IF THEY ARE THE
PEOPLE -- I GUESS IS THAT
COLONEL VINDMAN WAS ONE OF THEM,
BUT WHO KNOWS? WE DON'T KNOW
BECAUSE WE NEVER GOT TO TALK TO
THE INDIVIDUAL STARTED IT ALL
WITH THE COMPLAINT THAT THE
CHAIRMAN OF THE INTEL COMMITTEE
TOLD US IT ALL STARTED, FROM
WE'RE GOING TO HEAR FROM HIM,
MORE THAN WHEN IT IS DISCOVERED
THAT HIS STAFF HAS COMMUNICATED
TO THE WHISTLEBLOWER, NO, WE'RE
NOT GOING TO GET TO. SO THE
REAL VICTIM OF THE OBSTRUCTION
IS THIS COMMITTEE. WE HAVE NOT
HAD ANY FACT WITNESSES. WE HAVE
HAD FOR DEMOCRAT WITNESSES IN
FRONT OF US, THREE LAW
PROFESSORS, THE DEMOCRATIC
MAJORITY CALLED, IN AND ONE
DEMOCRAT LAW PROFESSOR THAT THE
REPUBLICANS CALLED IT. THAT'S
ALL WE'VE HEARD FROM. THOSE
WERE THE FOUR WITNESSES, AND
THEN A BUNCH OF STAFF. NONE OF
THE 17 WITNESSES, SO I SUPPORT
THE GENTLEMAN FROM
PENNSYLVANIA'S AMENDMENT. HE'S
EXACTLY RIGHT. THE OBSTRUCTION
CAME FROM THE CHAIRMAN OF THE
INTEL COMMITTEE. WITH THAT I
YIELD BACK.
>> THE GENTLEMAN FROM IS
RECOGNIZED.
>> MADAM CHAIR, WE ARE CHARGED
WITH A RESPONSIBILITY OF TAKING
THE FACTS AND URBAN ESTABLISH
THIS INVESTIGATION, AND
APPLYING THEM TO THE
CONSTITUTION THAT WE HAVE TO
PROTECT AND DEFEND. SO, LET'S
RETURN FOR A MINUTE TO THE
FACTS. THIS SERIES OF EVENTS
WAS DESCRIBED BY TRUMP
OFFICIALS, AMBASSADOR BOLTON TO
BE PARTICULAR, AS A DRUG DEAL.
IT WAS DESCRIBED BY DOCTOR
FIONA HILL AS A DOMESTIC
POLITICAL ERRAND. THERE IS
DIRECT EVIDENCE COLLECTED 17
WITNESSES, OVER 100 HOURS OF
TESTIMONY, 260 TEXT MATCHES,
THE TRANSCRIPT OF THE
PRESIDENT'S OWN WORDS, EMAILS
BETWEEN HIGH RANKING OFFICIALS
IN THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION,
AND WHAT WE KNOW, WHAT THE
DIRECT EVIDENCE IS IS THAT THE
PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES
HIRED RUDY GIULIANI TO LEAD
THIS EFFORT, THE PRESIDENT
ENGAGED IN A SMEAR CAMPAIGN
AGAINST A PASTOR YOVANOVITCH
AND THEN FIRED HER BECAUSE SHE
WAS AN ANTI CORRUPTION FIGHTER.
THE PRESIDENT PUT A HOLD ON
MILITARY AID TO UKRAINE. THE
PRESIDENT ANOTHER IS ACTING ON
HIS BEHALF DEMANDED PRESIDENT
ZELENSKY PUBLICLY ANNOUNCE AN
INVESTIGATION OF THE
PRESIDENT'S CHIEF POLITICAL
RIVAL. THE PRESIDENT PUT THE
THREE AMIGOS, AMBASSADOR
SONDLAND, PARRY, AND VOLKER IN
CHARGE OF UKRAINE. THE
PRESIDENT REFUSED TO HAVE A
MEETING OR RELEASE AID UNTIL
THE PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENT OF THE
INVESTIGATION OF HIS POLITICAL
OPPONENT. THE PRESIDENT TOLD
THE VICE PRESIDENT, OF VICE
PRESIDENT PENCE, NOT TO ATTEND
THE PRESIDENT OF UKRAINE'S
INAUGURATION, AND THE PRESIDENT
SPOKE TO AMBASSADOR SONDLAND
ABOUT WHAT AMBASSADOR SONDLAND
DESCRIBED AS A QUID PRO QUO.
JUST TO NAME A FEW HIGHLIGHTS
OF THE EVIDENCE. BUT WHAT WE
KNOW ALSO, IF YOU GO OUT A
LITTLE, MORE AND I SPEAK
SPECIFICALLY ABOUT TRUMP
ADMINISTRATION OFFICIALS WHO
WERE IN THE MIDDLE OF THIS
ACTIVITY. ON JULY 21ST 2019,
THERE WAS A TEXT FROM
AMBASSADOR TAYLOR TO AMBASSADOR
SONDLAND, AND I QUOTE,
PRESIDENT ZELENSKY IS SENSITIVE
ABOUT UKRAINE BEING TAKEN
SERIOUSLY, NOT NEARLY AS AN
INSTRUMENT IN WASHINGTON, BUT
IN DOMESTIC REELECTION
POLITICS. DAVID HOLMES
TESTIFIED, I WAS SURPRISED THAT
THE REQUIREMENT WAS SO SPECIFIC
AND CONCRETE. THIS WAS A DEMAND
THAT PRESIDENT ZELENSKY COULD
PERSONALLY COMMIT TO AN
INVESTIGATION OF PRESIDENT
TRUMP'S POLITICAL RIVAL ON A
CABLE NEWS CHANNEL. MR. HOLMES
ALSO TESTIFIED, IN RESPONSE TO
A QUESTION DURING COUNCIL'S
EXAMINATION YOU ARE
ACKNOWLEDGING, I THINK, MR.,
HOLMES ARE YOU, NOT THAT
UKRAINE VERY MUCH FELT PRESSURE
TO UNDERTAKE THESE
INVESTIGATIONS OF THE PRESIDENT,
RUDY GIULIANI AND AMBASSADOR
SONDLAND AND OTHERS WERE
DEMANDING. ANSWER, FOR MR.
HOLMES? YES, SIR. AMBASSADOR
TAYLOR HAS A CALL ON SEPTEMBER
8TH. AMBASSADOR SONDLAND,
AMBASSADOR TAYLOR, SAYS THIS AS
A CAREER DIPLOMAT. A VIETNAM OR
HERO. AMBASSADOR TAYLOR SAYS,
DURING OUR CALL, SONDLAND TRIED
TO EXPLAIN TO ME THAT PRESIDENT
TRUMP IS A BUSINESSMAN, AND
WHEN A BUSINESSMAN IS ABOUT TO
SIGN A CHECK TO SOMEONE WHO
OWES HIM SOMETHING, THE
BUSINESSMAN ASK THAT PERSON TO
PAY UP BEFORE SIGNING THE
CZECH. AMBASSADOR VOLKER MADE
THE SAME ARGUMENT. I ARGUED TO
BOTH OF THEM, THE EXPLANATION
IT MADE NO SENSE. UKRAINIANS DO
NOT OWE PRESIDENT TRUMP
ANYTHING, AND HOLDING UP
SECURITY ASSISTANCE FOR
DOMESTIC POLITICAL GAIN WAS
CRAZY. AND FINALLY, ON
SEPTEMBER 9TH, AMBASSADOR
TAYLOR IN A TEXT EXCHANGE WITH
AMBASSADOR SONDLAND AGAIN SAID,
AS I SAID ON THE PHONE, I THINK
IT IS CRAZY TO WITHHOLD
SECURITY ASSISTANCE FOR HELP
WITH A POLITICAL CAMPAIGN, AND
QUOTE. SO, THE RECORD IS FILLED
WITH EVIDENCE THAT IN FACT THE
PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES
ABUSED THE ENORMOUS POWER OF
HIS OFFICE IN AN EFFORT TO
CHEAT IN THE 2020 ELECTION, TO
DRAG FOREIGN INTERFERENCE INTO
THE 2020 ELECTION I DO AMERICAN
PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION. HE USED
THE POWER OF HIS OFFICE AND THE
HELP OF TAXPAYER FUNDS. TO
LEVERAGES EFFORT TO DRAG
FOREIGN POWERS INTO OUR
ELECTIONS. AND WHEN I HEAR MY
COLLEAGUES ON THE OTHER SIDE OF
THE AISLE SAY, WHO IS THE
VICTIM? THE VICTIM IS AMERICAN
DEMOCRACY. THE VICTIM IS THE
PEOPLE WE REPRESENT WHO EXPECT
US TO HONOR OUR OATH TO PROTECT
AND DEFEND THE CONSTITUTION.
ARE MY REPUBLICAN COLLEAGUES
REALLY SAYING THAT IT IS OKAY
FOR A PRESIDENT TO INVITE OR
DRAGON PERSUADE OR FORCE
FOREIGN POWERS TO DISTORT AN
AMERICAN PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION?
WE HAVE MEN AND WOMEN WHO HAVE
GIVEN THEIR LIVES TO PROTECT
OUR DEMOCRACY. WE OWE IT TO
THEM TO SAY, YOU KNOW WHO
DECIDES WILL BE THE AMERICAN
PRESIDENT? THE AMERICAN PEOPLE.
NOT SOME FOREIGN POWER. THAT IS
A SACRED RIGHT OF THIS COUNTRY
IF WE ALLOW THIS PERSON TO GET
AWAY WITH, US WE WILL HAVE LOST
OUR DEMOCRACY, AND WE WILL
CONVEY THAT RIGHT FORM POWERS
THAT WE NO LONGER HAVE
DEMOCRACY. AND SO I URGE MY
COLLEAGUES TO SUPPORT THESE
ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT. SO WE
CAN AGAIN WHEN YOU GET THE
RIGHT OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE TO
DETERMINE THEIR OWN FUTURE AND
ELECTORATE IN THE HITTERS AND
WITH THAT I YIELD BACK.
>> BOTTOM. CHAIR
>> FOR WHAT PURPOSES GENTLE
SEEK RECOGNITION?
>> TO STRIKE THE LAST WORD.
>> THE DENIM IS RECOGNIZED.
>> I WANT TO URGE SUPPORT THIS
AMENDMENT STRIKING ARTICLE, TWO
THERE IS BEEN A LATTE THAT IS
ACKNOWLEDGED AND I'M JUST
STRUCK BY THE HYPERBOLIC
LANGUAGE THAT IS BEING USED ON
THE OTHER SIDE, IN THIS
BREATHLESS CHARGE THAT WE HEAR
OVER AND OVER ABOUT ARTICLE,
TWO BUT THIS IS THE FIRST TIME
IN HISTORY OF THE REPUBLIC THAT
ANY PRESIDENT HAS INVOKED THIS
KIND OF PRIVILEGE OR INVOKE
THIS KIND OF COMMUNITY OVER
SUBPOENAS FROM CONGRESS AND OF
COURSE, IT'S JUST SIMPLY NOT
TRUE. I MEAN, A CURSORY REVIEW
OF THE HISTORY, EVEN A REVIEW
OF THE WITNESS TESTIMONY THAT
WAS PRESENTED IN THIS VERY
COMMITTEE A WEEK AGO WOULD SHOW
YOU THAT THAT IS JUST SIMPLY A
BASELESS CHARGE. THE TRUTH IS,
IN THE HISTORY OF THIS REPUBLIC,
THERE HAS NEVER BEEN A SINGLE
PARTY PROJECT AN IMPEACHMENT
PROCESS TO PUT AGAINST A
PRESIDENT LIKE THE ONE BEING
USED AGAINST DONALD TRUMP. THAT
IS WHAT IS UNPRECEDENTED HERE.
IT IS NOT THE CLAIM THAT A
PRESIDENT DOES NOT WANT TO TURN
OVER WITNESSES OR DOCUMENT.
THAT, AS WE HAVE SAID MANY
TIMES IT IS ACTUALLY QUITE
COMMON. AND BY THE WAY, LET'S
REMEMBER, IT NEEDS TO BE NOTED
AGAIN THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP HAS
CONSISTENTLY COOPERATED WITH
THIS CONGRESS IN FULFILLING ITS
OVERSIGHT AND INVESTIGATION
RESPONSIBILITIES. AND WHEN WE,
STARTED WITH 25 MINISTRATION
OFFICIALS HAVE TESTIFIED BEFORE
THE HOUSE OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE
THIS YEAR. OVER 20 HAVE
TESTIFIED BEFORE THE HOUSE
JUDICIARY COMMITTEE, AT THE
START OF THE BETWEEN AGREE THIS
YEAR. THE WHITE HOUSE ALSO
PRODUCED MORE THAN 100,000
PAGES OF DOCUMENTS FOR THE
OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE. IT'S PART
OF THEIR ALLEGATIONS, THE
DEMOCRATS KNOW THAT PRESIDENT
TRUMP HAS A LAWFUL CAUSE
CHALLENGING SUBPOENAS, BECAUSE
THEY INVOLVE DIRECT
COMMUNICATIONS BETWEEN HIGH
RANKING ADVISERS AND A
PRESIDENT. THAT IS VERY
SENSITIVE STUFF. IT IS ALWAYS
RECOGNIZED TO BE PRIVILEGED.
THERE IS A SPECIAL LEGAL
PROTECTION THAT APPLIES THERE
AND WE NEED THE COURTS TO SORT
THROUGH THE NUANCES OF IT, AND
MOST THESE INDIVIDUALS, BY THE,
WAY THEY SUBPOENA DID NOT
RELATED TO THE UKRAINE MATTER
AND ANY OBJECTIVE OBSERVER
WOULD REGARD THIS AS A MAYOR
FISHING EXPEDITION. SOME EVEN
CALLED IT PRESIDENTIAL
HARASSMENT. BECAUSE THE
ADMINISTRATION IS BEING USED BY
THE DEMOCRATIC COMMITTEE CHAIRS
TO ADVANCE THEIR POLITICAL
AGENDA. THIS AGENDA DOES NOT
ALLOW THEM TIME TO PROCEED TO A
COURT TO DO THIS THE RIGHT WAY,
TO GO THROUGH THE PROCESS THAT
IS HISTORIC AND IN ACCORDANCE
WITH OUR CUSTOM PRACTICE AND
OUR TRADITION IN THE
CONSTITUTION. PROFESSOR TURLEY
WAS OUR ONLY WITNESS AND THE
ONLY ONE ALLOWED IN THE
JUDICIARY COMMITTEE ON OUR SIDE
AND THE VERY, I, THINK
EXCEPTIONAL TESTIMONY HE
SUBMITTED TO US IN WRITING, HE
SAID, THIS I WANT TO REVIEW
THIS EXTORT AS IT IS RIGHT ON
POINT. QUOTE, THIS IS PAGE 42
OF HIS DOCUMENT, IF THIS
COMMITTEE ELECTED TO SEEK
IMPEACHMENT ON A PRESIDENT'S
FAILURE TO LEAD TO
CONGRESSIONAL DEMANDS ON AN
OVERSIGHT OR PETER
INVESTIGATION, IT WILL HAVE TO
DISTINGUISH A LONG LINE OF
CASES WHERE PRIOR PRESIDENTS
SOUGHT THE VERY SAME REVIEW
WHILE WITHHOLDING WITNESSES AND
DOCUMENTS. TAKE THE OBAMA
MINISTRATION POSITION, FOR,
INSTANCE ON THE INVESTIGATION A
FAST AND FURIOUS WHICH WAS
MENTIONED EARLIER. CONGRESS TO
FINALLY BEGIN AN OVERSIGHT
INVESTIGATION INTO THAT SCANDAL.
SOME MEMBERS CALLED FOR
IMPEACHMENT PROCEEDINGS.
PRESIDENT OBAMA EVOKE EXECUTIVE
PRIVILEGE AND BARRED ESSENTIAL
TESTIMONY IN CONGRESS.
PRESIDENT OBAMA DID THAT. THIS
IS NOT UNPRECEDENTED. THIS IS
CUSTOM AND PRACTICE. PROFESSOR
TURLEY CONTINUES THE POSITION
OF THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION WAS
REGARDED AS EXTREME THERE AND
SOME EVEN SAID ABSURD BUT HERE
IS THE IMPORTANT POINT,
PRESIDENT OBAMA HAD EVERY RIGHT
TO SEEK JUDICIAL REVIEW IN THE
MATTER AND MANY MEMBERS OF THIS
VERY COMMITTEE SUPPORTED THAT
POSITION. FACING IMPEACHMENT,
PROFESSOR TURLEY, CONTINUES ON
THIS OBSTRUCTION THEORY WOULD
ITSELF BE AN ABUSE OF POWER BY
CONGRESS. IT WOULD BE EXTREMELY
PRECEDENT -- DANGERS PRESIDENT
TO STEP FOR FUTURE PRESIDENT
AND CONGRESS IS IN MAKING
APPEAL TO A JUDICIAL BRANCH
INTO A HIGH CRIME AND
MISDEMEANOR, UNQUOTE. HERE'S
THE, DEAL IMPEACHMENT WAS NEVER
INTENDED TO BE A REMEDY FOR
POLITICAL DISAGREEMENTS. IT WAS
NOT INTENDED TO BE A REMEDY
EVEN FOR LEGAL DISAGREEMENTS
BETWEEN THE LEGISLATIVE BRANCH
IN THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH. THAT
IS WHY THERE IS A THIRD BRANCH
OF GOVERNMENT. THAT'S WHY WE
HAVE THE JUDICIARY. THIS IS A
VERY DANGEROUS ROAD INDEED, AS
PROFESSOR TURLEY NOTED. AND I
HOPE AND PRAY THAT FUTURE
CONGRESS IS, KIND OF WILL
EXERCISE GREATER RESTRAINT THEN
WHAT HAS BEEN SHOWN BY CHAIRMAN
SCHIFF, SPEAKER PELOSI AND
CHAIRMAN NADLER AND THE REST.
THE STABILITY OF OUR REPUBLIC
IS GOING TO RIP END ON THAT IN
THE FUTURE AND I PRAY THAT WE
CAN PUT THIS GENIE BACK IN THE
BOTTLE. I YIELD BACK.
>> FOR WHAT PURPOSE THE
GENTLEWOMAN FROM FLORIDA SEEK
RECOGNITION?
>> I SEEK TO STRIKE THE LAST
WORD.
>> THE GENTLEMAN IS RECOGNIZED.
>> IT IS TRULY DISHEARTENING TO
HEAR MY COLLEAGUES ON THE OTHER
SIDE ARGUE IN FAVOR OF
CRIPPLING THE VERY INSTITUTION
THAT THEY ARE PART OF. THE
POWER OF IMPEACHMENT HAS BUILT
IN DUE PROCESS PROTECTIONS. WE
ARE THE AMERICAN PEOPLES DULY
ELECTED REPRESENTATIVES AND WE,
MEMBERS OF CONGRESS ARE
EMPOWERED TO HOLD TO ACCOUNT
CORRUPT AND CRIMINAL
PRESIDENTS. WHEN THE PRESIDENT
OBSTRUCTED IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY,
HE IS OBSTRUCTING THE PEOPLE
WHO HAVE A RIGHT TO KNOW HOW
THE PRESIDENT IS RUNNING THEIR
GOVERNMENT. AFTER ALL, THAT IS
THE BASIS OF OUR GOVERNMENT, BY
THE, PEOPLE FOR THE PEOPLE. WE
HAVE REQUESTED HUNDREDS OF
DOCUMENTS THEN AND IT BEEN
PROVIDED WITH ABSOLUTELY NOT
ONE DOCUMENT. THE PRESIDENT HAS
ACTUALLY INSTRUCTED THE STATE
DEPARTMENT TO NOT GIVE US THE
INFORMATION THAT WE HAVE ASKED.
HE HAS TOLD WITNESSES, PEOPLE
THAT WE HAVE SUBPOENAED TO COME
IN FRONT OF CONGRESS TO TESTIFY
TO NOT COME AND TESTIFY. TALK
ABOUT A DANGEROUS PRECEDENT. I
THINK THAT THE PEOPLE DESERVE
TO KNOW HOW HE IS USING THE
OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENCY TO
ADVANCE HIS OWN INTERESTS ABOVE
THOSE OF THE PEOPLE FOR WHOM HE
WAS ELECTED TO SERVE. THE
PRESIDENT HAS ABUSED HIS OFFICE
AND IS NOW USING THAT POWER OF
THE OFFICE TO HIDE THE EXTENT
OF THAT ABUSE FROM THE PEOPLE.
THAT IS ABUSE OF POWER. THAT IS
AN IMPEACHABLE OFFENSE AND IT
IS WANT TO END BY SAYING THAT
IT IS ALSO APPALLING THAT
THROUGHOUT THIS PROCESS THE
PRESIDENT AND THE REPUBLICAN
PARTY HAVE CONTINUED TO ATTACK
FOREIGN SERVICE OFFICERS, THE
MEN AND WOMEN OF THE MILITARY,
OUR INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY,
THOSE WHO PROTECT US EVERY DAY
UNDERMINING OUR NATIONAL
SECURITY. THEY ARE PATRIOTS AND
THEY SHOULD BE TREATED AS SUCH.
AFTER ALL, WE ARE ALL
AMERICANS. I YIELD BACK.
>> THE GENTLELADY YIELDS BACK.
FOR WHAT PERSON FIRST DOES MR.
CORBYN SEEK RECOGNITION? I
>> PRESENT TO THE AMENDMENT.
>> THIS GENTLEMAN'S RECKLESS
WORD?
>> YES I DO.
>> THE GENTLEMAN'S RECOGNIZED.
>> THIS IS SO SURREAL, IT SEEMS
THAT WE HAVE COME TO A TIME
WHEN RIGHT IS WRONG, WRONG AS
RIGHT, BULLIES OF THE VICTIMS
AND THE VICTIMS ARE CALLED
BULLIES. FOR THREE YEARS, THIS
PRESIDENT HAS BEEN HARASSED, HE
HAS BEEN ELECTRONICALLY
SURVEILLED, SPIED UPON AS
NORMAL PEOPLE WOULD CALL IT,
ALLEGATIONS HAVE NEVER CEASED.
THEY CONTINUE WITH THEIR
CONTINUING TODAY. AT SOME POINT
YOU WOULD THINK THAT SOMEONE
WOULD LOOK AT THE ABUSES BY
CONGRESS, BY THE JUSTICE
DEPARTMENT, FRIENDS OF OUR
DEMOCRATS, BY THE FBI FRIENDS
OF OUR DEMOCRATS, WHO AIDED THE
PRESIDENT -- INVADED THE PRESS
WHEN HE WAS NOTHING BUT A
CANDIDATE. AT SOME POINT,
SOMEBODY WAS GOING TO GO, THIS
IS AT A CONTROL, WE TO STEP
BACK AND SAY, WAIT, WAIT, THE
STRAIN IS OFF THE TRACKS. IT IS
TIME TO GET -- AND HERE IS THE
WORD -- REASONABLE. WHAT IS
GOING ON IN THE LAST THREE
YEARS IS NOT REASONABLE. THERE
IS I DOCTRINE OUR ATTORNEYS,
KNOW IF YOU'RE GOING TO TRY TO
PURSUE SOME REMEDY, YOU NEED TO
HAVE CLEAN HANDS.. THE MAJORITY
HAS BEEN SO ABUSIVE. THIS --
THEY'VE PRODUCED WITNESSES
SOMETIMES THE SUBPOENAS,
SOMETIMES WITHOUT. NORMALLY
WHAT HAPPENS IF A SUBPOENA IS
RECEIVED A MEANS YOU'RE NOT
GOING TO BE ABLE TO USE AN
AGENCY ATTORNEY, EVEN THOUGH,
AND AN AGENCY ATTORNEY WILL NOT
BE ALLOWED IN, EVEN THOUGH THE
ONLY WAY THAT THE WITNESS CAN
APPEAR AND HAVE EXECUTIVE
PRIVILEGES PROPERLY CLAIMS TO
HAVE AN AGENCY OR DEPARTMENT
ATTORNEY WITH THEM, AND THAT IS
WHEN THINGS GET NEGOTIATED AND
GET WORKED OUT. BUT SOME OF OUR
FRIENDS KNOW THAT IF THEY ARE
ABUSIVE ENOUGH WITH SUBPOENAS,
AND WITH LAW FAIR, NOT WARFARE,
BUT USING THE LAW AS A WEAPON,
YOU CAN RUN PEOPLE OUT OF
OFFICE. THEY SUCCESSFULLY DID
THAT, CONTINUALLY SUING IS SARA
PALE AND, RYAN ZELENSKY COULD
NOT AFFORD TO KEEP HIRING
INDIVIDUAL LAWYERS, WHEN AGENCY
LAWYERS COULD NOT COME. THIS IS
THE KIND OF STUFF THAT HAS BEEN
GOING ON AND SO, THIS WILL END
UP SINCE OUR FRIENDS ARE NOT
BEING REASONABLE, AND NOT
WILLING TO NEGOTIATE WITH THE
ADMINISTRATION, SO AGENCY
LAWYERS COULD COME, CLAIM
EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE, EVEN
THOUGH THE TARGET KEPT CHANGING.
THEY DID NOT KNOW WHAT THEY
WERE GOING TO COME TESTIFY
ABOUT. THEY WERE BEING ACCUSED
OF ALL KINDS OF DIFFERENT
THINGS. THAT KEPT CHANGING AND
HAS CHANGED EVEN IN THE LAST 48
HOURS, TO 24 HOURS. IT HAS
CHANGED. HOW CAN YOU DEFEND
YOURSELF FROM THE CHARGE KEEPS
CHANGING? I MEAN, THIS IS LIKE
A STALIN ASKED TYPE COURT
SYSTEM. YOU KNOW, YOU DON'T GET
TO MEET AND CROSS EXAMINE
YOU'RE WITNESSES, AND IN FACT,
WE WILL JUST HAVE SOME LAW
PROFESSOR THAT'S PAID BY OUR
FRIENDS COME IN AND EXPLAIN
WHAT THE WITNESSES PROBABLY
SAID, DID SAY, WHAT IT, IS
THAT'S ALL YOU NEED TO HEAR, IF
YOU'RE GOING TO VOTE ON GUILT
OR INNOCENCE, YOU DON'T NEED TO
HEAR THE WITNESSES, WE DON'T
NEED NO STINKING WITNESSES,
JUST BRING US THE CHANCE TO
VOTE AND WE WILL VOTE. IT IS AN
OUTRAGE. THERE IS NOTHING
REASONABLE ABOUT WHAT HAS GONE
ON, AND ESPECIALLY, IT IS SO
IRONIC, THIS IS THE SAME WEEK
WHEN THE CORRUPTION OF THE
CORRUPTION OF PART DEPARTMENT
OF JUSTICE HAS BEEN SHOWN AND
THERE IS NO SORROW, NO APOLOGY,
NO, NO REMORSE WHATSOEVER BY
THIS INCREDIBLE ABUSIVE SYSTEM
SO, THE OBSTRUCTION OF CONGRESS
IS BY PEOPLE IN CONGRESS. THE
ADMINISTRATION HAS NOT BEEN
UNREASONABLE. THEY HAVE SEEN
WHAT HAS HAPPENED WHEN THIS
ABUSE OF JUSTICE DEPARTMENT
GETS PEOPLE IN A PERJURY TRAP.
THEY'VE GOT NOTHING TO GO, ON
BUT IF WE CAN GET YOU IN AND
GET YOU TO TESTIFY, THEN WE CAN
PROSECUTE YOU WHEN YOU MAKE A
MISTAKE LATER WHILE YOU'RE
TESTIFYING. IT WAS VERY, VERY
REASONABLE NOT TO ANSWER THE
SUBPOENAS WHEN YOU COULD NOT
HAVE AN AGENCY LAWYER AND THERE
IS NO NEGOTIATION WITH THE
OTHER SIDE. I YIELD BACK.
>> GENTLEMAN YIELDS BACK. FOR
WHAT PURPOSES MS. DEAN STRIKE
-- SEEK RECOGNITION?
>> THE STRIKE LAST. WHERE
>> THE LATEST RECOGNIZED.
>> THROUGH THE COURSE OF THIS
INVESTIGATION, WE HAVE SEEN A
STARK CONTRAST BETWEEN THE
PATRIOTS WHO STOOD UP TO TELL
THE TRUTH AND THOSE WHO HAVE
TURNED A BLIND EYE TO THE
TRUTH. AND SO, TONIGHT, TO
THOSE PATRIOTS I WANT TO LIFT
YOU UP. I WANT TO TELL YOU,
THANK YOU. I AM IN ALL OF YOU.
I AM IN ALL OF YOUR COURAGE.
YOU TOOK YOUR OATH AT GREAT
PERSONAL SACRIFICE, AND
PROFESSIONAL COST. PATRIOTS
LIKE LIEUTENANT COLONEL
ALEXANDER VINDMAN, PURPLE HEART
RECIPIENT AND IRAQ WAR VETERAN.
>> AMBASSADOR WILLIAM TAYLOR IN
VIETNAM WAR VETERAN MARIE
IVANOVICH, EXTRAORDINARY FORMER
AMBASSADOR AND JOINS THE
FOREIGN SERVICE DURING THE
REAGAN ADMINISTRATION. FIONA
HILL, FORMER DEPUTY ASSISTANT
TO THE PRESIDENT AND SENIOR
DIRECTOR OF EUROPE AND RUSSIA
ON THE NATIONAL SECURITY
COUNCIL. SO MANY OTHERS AND
MORE THAN A DOZEN OTHER
WITNESSES IN THIS
ADMINISTRATION CONFIRMED THE
DETAILS OF THE WRONGDOING OF
THE PRESIDENT. THEY DESCRIBED A
PRESIDENT WHO REFLECTS AND
REPEATEDLY ABUSED HIS POWER FOR
PERSONAL GAIN AND JEOPARDIZING
OUR SECURITY AND OUR DEMOCRACY.
THESE PATRIOTS HAD THE COURAGE
TO LIVE UP TO THEIR OATH. THEIR
WORDS MATTERED. PATRIOTS. MY
FAMILY KNOWS SOMETHING ABOUT
THE SACRIFICE OF SERVING US
INTO A MY BROTHERS SERVED IN
THE NAVY AND VIETNAM WAR. MY
BROTHER BOB SERVING SUE TERMS
IN VIETNAM. I'M LUCKY TO SERVE
WITH THOSE WHO HAVE SERVED ON
MY OWN STAFF. LIEUTENANT COLIN
MY LAWN WHO WAS CALLED TO
SERVICE TO ACTIVE DUTY AND
DAVID CARR AGAIN AND NOW AS
MEMBERS OF CONGRESS IT'S OUR
TURN TO STAND UP AND DOCTOR
KING ONE SAID THE ULTIMATE
MEASURE OF MAN IS NOT WHERE HE
STANDS ON MOMENTS OF COMFORT
IT'S WHERE HE STANDS IN TIMES
OF CHALLENGE AND CONTROVERSY.
THIS IS A TIME OF GREAT
CHALLENGE AND SOME OF MY
COLLEAGUES DO NOT WANT TO FACE
THE REALITY OF A PRESIDENTS
WRONGDOING. SO I ASKED MY
COLLEAGUES TONIGHT, WHAT ARE
YOU AFRAID OF? THIS COUNTRY WAS
BUILT BY THOSE WHO ARE BRAVE
ENOUGH TO STAND UP AGAINST KING
GEORGE. WE ARE CALLED TO STAND
UP AGAINST DONALD J TRUMP. WHAT
ARE YOU AFRAID OF? LOOK TO OUR
FRAMERS, LOOK TO OUR PATRIOTS
FOR COURAGE BECAUSE THIS IS
ABOUT COURAGE. THE COURAGE TO
HONOR MY OATH, YOUR OATH.
MISTER CHAIRMAN, I WILL WITH
SOMBER THIS PURPOSE AND HAVE
CONGRESS BE BOATING NO ON THIS
AMENDMENT AND VOTING YES ON
THESE ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT.
AND WITH THAT I YIELD BACK.
>> THEY GENERALLY 80 WIELDS
BACK.
>> WHAT PURPOSE DO YOU SEEK
RECOGNITION? YOU ARE NOW
RECOGNIZED.
>> THANK YOU MISTER CHAIRMAN. I
SUPPORT THE AMENDMENT AND I
OFFER THIS TO YOU. CHARGING THE
PRESIDENT WITH OBSTRUCTION IS
UNPRECEDENTED. IN AN OF ITSELF
THREATENS OUR SYSTEM OF
GOVERNMENT AND THE PRINCIPLES
OF POWERS AND CHECKS AND
BALANCES DEMANDED THEY PERMIT
TO RESIST DEMANDS OF OVERLY
BROAD AND BURDENSOME AND
OTHERWISE VIOLENT METHOD OF ITS
CONSTITUTIONAL PRIVILEGES. IT'S
WITH UNCERTAIN TO CAME AND TO
CONGRESS ON THE SOLE POWER OF
IMPEACHMENT THAT IMPLIES TO
COOPERATE IN ANY OF ALL
REQUESTS NO MATTER THEIR MERIT.
DISPUTES BETWEEN THE BRANCHES
ARE A FEATURE -- THEY ARE A
FEATURE OF OUR SYSTEM AND THEY
ARE NOT A BUG IN THE SYSTEM.
THE BRANCHES ARE REQUIRED TO
HAVE ACCOMMODATION TO REACH AN
AGREEMENT THAT TAKES INTO
ACCOUNT THE RELATIVE EQUITIES
ON BOTH SIDES. BOTH BRANCHES
HAVE RIGHTS AND INTEREST TO
PROTECT AND WE DO AND THE
EXECUTIVE DOES. THOSE DISPUTES
CANNOT BE RESOLVED AND THE
COURTS ARE TO STEP IN. ANYTHING
LEFT THAT THREATENS THE
SEPARATELY -- OF POWERS AND THE
FOUNDATION OF THIS
CONSTITUTION. THIS MAJORITY HAS
TAKEN THE POSITION AND QUITE
FRANKLY THE DUBIOUS POSITION AT
THE SPIKE THERE PRESIDENT TO
THE CONTRARY, THE FULL HOUSE IS
NOT REQUIRED TO OPEN AN
IMPEACHMENT PROCEEDING. THINK
OF THE IMPLICATION OF THAT. ANY
ROAD COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN CAN ON
HIS OR HER OWN HAVE IMPEACHMENT
PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE
CHAIRMAN AND THAT COULD BE
WHATEVER SUBPOENA AND DOCUMENT
REQUESTS THEY WISHED AND UNDER
THESE ARTICLES THAT THEY HAVE
NO CHOICE BUT TO COMPLY WITH A
SINGLE ROAD COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN
BECAUSE OF THIS FAILURE TO DO
SO WOULD BE IMPEACHABLE. HOW
DOES THAT COMPORT WITH THE
SEPARATION OF POWERS? THE HOUSE
SHOULD NOT BE ABLE TO
ARTIFICIALLY CREATE AN
IMPEACHABLE OFFENSE THROUGH HIS
OWN ACTIONS AND PRESIDENT
TRUMP'S ACTIONS ARE NOT
UNPRECEDENTED. MANY PRESIDENTS
HAVE DEFIED CONGRESSIONAL
SUBPOENAS, INCLUDING OBAMA ON
MANY OCCASIONS AS MY COLLEAGUE
FROM LOUISIANA POINTED OUT A
MINUTE AGO. THEY HAVE TO
COOPERATE WITH COOPERATIONS AS
WELL AND I WILL GIVE YOU THREE
HISTORICAL -- CASES THAT ARE
NOT ARTIFACTS BUT ARE ACTUAL
CASES WHERE FOR INSTANCE
PRESIDENT JACKSON SAID IN 1837,
HE CALLED A HOUSE SUBPOENA
ILLEGAL AND UNCONSTITUTIONAL
AND STATING THAT HE WOULD REPEL
ALL SUCH ATTEMPTS AS AN
INVASION OF THE PRINCIPLES OF
JUSTICE AS IN THE CONSTITUTION.
HE HAD IS DUTY TO THE PEOPLE OF
THE UNITED STATES TO RESIST AS
THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A SPANISH
INQUISITION. THAT IS FROM
ANDREW JACKSON. LATER,
PRESIDENT COOLIDGE SAID IN A
NEW YORK TIMES ARTICLE FROM
APRIL 24TH, THAT HE SENT A
MESSAGE IN THAT OP-ED PIECE TO
THE SENATE SAYING THAT HE WOULD
SEIZE TO PARTICIPATE IN THEIR
UNWARRANTED INTRUSION AND
QUESTIONING THE LEGITIMACY OF
THE INVESTIGATION. IN 1948,
PRESIDENT TRUMAN AND THE
EXECUTIVE ORDER IN THE REGISTRY
ORDERED EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENTS
TO DECLINE ANY SUBPOENA
PERTAINING TO THE INVESTIGATION
INTO IT THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH
PERSONNEL. THEN WE HAVE, THE
REASON OBAMA EXAMPLE. IF YOU
HAD A PROBLEM, YOU DON'T -- THE
CHAIRMAN SAID THAT HE DIDN'T
EXERT PRIVILEGE BUT ACTUALLY HE
CLAIMED EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE IN
A VERY BROAD WAY AND WERE ALL
VERY DISGUSTED ABOUT IT WHEN HE
DID. TYPICALLY WHAT WOULD
HAPPEN, WE ISSUED DISAPPEAR AND
HAD IT SERVED AND THE PERSON
DOESN'T SHOW UP. GUESS WHAT WE
DO? WE GO INTO COURT AND WE
PROVED THE PROMINENCE OF OUR
SUBPOENA. THE COURT ISSUES AN
ADDITIONAL ORDER FOR ARREST,
MAYBE IT'S A FIND, MAYBE IT'S A
CITATION BUT WE UNVEIL
OURSELVES TO THE PROCESS AND
YOU HAVEN'T DONE THAT. YOU
HAVEN'T DONE THAT BECAUSE MR.
SCHIFF SAID SO LAST WEEK
BECAUSE HE DIDN'T WANT TO TAKE
THE TIME TO UNVEIL HIMSELF OF
THE PROCESS THAT YOU CLAIM YOU
ARE DEFENDING. THAT IS
PRECISELY WHY PROFESSOR TURLEY
AND ALL OF US LOOK AT THIS WITH
OBJECTIVE EYES AND SAY THAT YOU
ARE THE ONES ABUSING THE
PROCESS, YOU ARE ABUSING
CONGRESS AND ARE ABUSING THE
PRESIDENT AND EXECUTIVE BRANCH.
BUT I'M AFRAID OF WHAT HAPPENS
IS WE DENIGRATE OUR BODY AND WE
DENIGRATE THE VERY PROCESS THAT
WE CLAIM TO BE PROTECTING TODAY
AND I YIELD BACK.
>> THE GENTLEMAN YIELDS BACK
AND WHY DOES MISS ESCOBAR SEEK
RECOGNITION? THE YOUNG LADY IS
RECOGNIZED.
>> WE HEARD OUR COLLEAGUES
ARGUE THAT OBSTRUCTION OF
CONGRESS HAS NOT HAPPENED. ONE
OF OUR COLLEAGUES CALLED THE
CHARGE RIDICULOUS. ANOTHER
COLLEAGUE SAID QUOTE, THE
PRESIDENT HAS CONSISTENTLY
COOPERATED WITH DEMOCRATS.
 A STUNNING STATEMENT. I'VE HAD
THE INCREDIBLE PRIVILEGE OF
SERVING ON THE HOUSE JUDICIARY
COMMITTEE NOW FOR ALMOST A
YEAR. THE FRESHMAN WERE SWORN
IN JANUARY 3RD AND WE'VE HAD
MANY HEARINGS. THERE IS A
THREAD THAT RUNS THROUGH ALL OF
THOSE HEARINGS AND ESPECIALLY
THOSE HEARINGS WHERE WE ARE
TRYING TO PROVIDE PROPER
OVERSIGHT OVER THE PRESIDENT OF
THE UNITED STATES. THAT THREAD
IS THAT MY COLLEAGUES COMPLAIN
ABOUT OUR EFFORTS TO BE A CHECK,
OUR EFFORTS TO PERFORM OUR
OBLIGATIONS UNDER THE
CONSTITUTION AND OUR EFFORTS TO
PROVIDE OVERSIGHT. WE HEAR IT
TIME AND TIME AGAIN. THIS IDEA
THAT THE PRESIDENT HAS
COOPERATED, THAT IS THE CLAIM
THAT IS ACTUALLY ABSURD. IN
FACT, DURING SOME OF OUR
OVERSIGHT HEARINGS WE HEARD
THAT THE PRESIDENT SAY THAT HE
WAS COVERED UNDER ABSOLUTE
IMMUNITY. WITHOUT LISTING THE
DOCUMENTS OR THE REASONS WHY HE
DESERVED ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY. NO
PRESIDENT -- NOT EVEN RICHARD
NIXON, NO PRESIDENT HAS REFUSED
TO HONOR SUBPOENAS DURING
IMPEACHMENT. IF YOU CAN IMAGINE,
THIS PRESIDENT HAS ACHIEVED A
NEW LOW AND LOWERED THE BAR
SIGNIFICANTLY. IF IT WERE NOT
FOR THE PATRIOTS AND I
ASSOCIATE MYSELF WITH THE
STATEMENT BY REPRESENTATIVE
DEAN WHO THANKED THEM. THEY ARE
HEROES, THEY PUT THEIR
REPUTATIONS, THEIR NAMES, THEIR
SAFETY AND THEIR SECURITY AT
RISK SO THAT THEY CAN DEFEND
THIS COUNTRY AND DEFEND THE
CONSTITUTION AND UPHOLD THE
OATH OF OFFICE AND THE OATH
THAT THEY TOOK UNDER PUBLIC
SERVANTS. LET'S FIND OUT JUST
HOW COOPERATIVE THIS PRESIDENT
HAS BEEN DURING THIS
INVESTIGATION. I'D LIKE TO ASK
REPRESENTATIVE SWALWELL, MY
COLLEAGUE WHO SERVES AND
REPRESENTATIVE SWALWELL, HOW
MANY DECK OF DOCUMENTS DID YOU
REQUEST DURING THIS
INVESTIGATION?
>> 71. ON PAGE 30 AND 31 IT WAS
71 DOCUMENTS.
>> HOW MANY WITNESSES?
>> 12 WITNESSES, WE ASKED TO
SHOW UP AND THE PRESIDENT
DIRECTED NOT TO SHOW UP.
>> JUST SAW THE AMERICAN PUBLIC
UNDERSTANDS. YOU REQUESTED 72
DOCUMENTS, 12 WITNESSES. HOW
MANY DOCUMENTS AND HOW MANY
WITNESSES DID THE PRESIDENT
PROVIDE?
>> 12 WERE ASKED TO SHOW UP AND
ZERO OF THE 71 DOCUMENTS WERE
PROVIDED.
>> THANK YOU SO MUCH
REPRESENTATIVE SWALLOW. I WANT
TO ASK THE AMERICAN PEOPLE,
WHAT IS THE PRESIDENT TRYING TO
HIDE FROM YOU? WHY IS HE TRYING
TO KEEP YOU IN THE DARK? IF HE
HAS NOTHING TO HIDE, THEN LET
HIM COME FORWARD WITH THOSE
DOCUMENTS AND THOSE WITNESSES.
I WANT TO CONCLUDE BY TOUCHING
A LITTLE BIT ON SOMETHING THAT
I MENTIONED LAST NIGHT.
UNFORTUNATELY, WE HAVE COME TO
EXPECT THIS KIND OF BEHAVIOR
FROM THE PRESIDENT. THIS REALLY
IS A VERY TRAGIC MOMENT IN
AMERICAN HISTORY, A VERY DARK
MOMENT IN AMERICAN HISTORY.
IT'S MADE EVEN MORE TRAGIC BY
ENABLERS WHO SEEK TO MAKE SURE
THAT THEY PROTECT ONE MAN AT
ANY COST, ONE MAN WHO IS NOT
FOR AMERICA AND ONE MAN WHO IS
FOR HIMSELF. THIS IS A
RECKONING FOR US AND THIS IS A
MOMENT WHERE WE SHOULD BE
STANDING WITH THE PATRIOTS. I
AM VERY PROUD, AS DARK AS THIS
MOMENT IS, I'M VERY PROUD TO
STAND WITH THE PATRIOTS HERE ON
THIS COMMITTEE. I WILL CONTINUE
TO STAND WITH THE PATRIOTS WHO
STAND WITH THIS COUNTRY AND I
YIELD BACK.
>> THE GENTLE LADY YIELDS BACK.
DOES WHAT PURPOSE DOES MISTER
BEN CLINE SEEK RECOGNITION? THE
GENTLEMAN IS RECOGNIZED.
>> THANK YOU MISTER CHAIRMAN.
WE ALREADY TALKED TODAY ABOUT
THE LACK OF EVIDENCE AND
SUPPORT OF THE FIRST ARTICLE OF
IMPEACHMENT. THE ABUSE OF POWER
ARTICLE. THEY CAN'T PROVE
BRIBERY, EXTORTION AND BE
CAMPAIGN FINANCE DISTORTION
CARS THEY DON'T HAVE THE PROOF
TO CREATE ONE. THERE WAS NO
HIGHER CRIME, THERE ARE HIGHER
CRIMES THAN ACTUAL CRIMES BUT
SINCE THE PRESIDENT DIDN'T
COMMIT ONE HERE WE ARE. IT IS
LAUGHABLE IF IT WASN'T SO SAD.
WE DO KNOW A FEW THINGS THOUGH,
THE SAME FOR FACTS THAT HAVE
BEEN REPUTE -- REPEATED
THROUGHOUT WITH PRESIDENT TRUMP
AND PRESIDENT ZELENSKY THERE
WAS NO PRESSURE ON THE PHONE
CALL AND NO CONDITIONALITY OF
AID AND UKRAINIANS WERE NOT
OVERT AWARE THAT THEY SPOKE AND
WE HAVE THE TIME ARTICLE
INVOLVING ANDREW YERMAK AND IN
FOURTH, UKRAINE DIDN'T HAVE AN
INVESTIGATION BUT RECEIVED AID
IN A MEETING WITH PRESIDENT
TRUMP.
 MY COLLEAGUE SAID EARLIER, WE
CAN'T PROVE ANY OF IT SO WILL
CALL IT ABUSE OF POWER AND THAT
IS TO A POINT. WE HAVE AN
ARTICLE AND A SECOND ARTICLE OF
OBSTRUCTION OF CONGRESS AND
DEMOCRATS HAVE ALLEGED THAT
THEY DIRECTED THE UNPRECEDENTED
KARA GLOBAL ISSUES SUBPOENAED
BY THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.
THE FACTS DON'T MATCH UP WITH
THESE CLAIMS. THEY HAVE A
LEGITIMATE CONSTITUTIONAL
PRIVILEGE AND THE COURTS CAN
AND SHOULD DETERMINE THE
BOUNDARIES OF THESE PRIVILEGES.
THE WHITE HOUSE RELEASED TO
CALL TRANSCRIPTS FOR REVIEWING
IN THIS PROCESS. AMBASSADOR
SONDLAND SAID, GO TELL THE
TRUTH WHEN THE AMBASSADOR TOLD
THE PRESIDENT HE WAS ASKED TO
TESTIFY BEFORE CONGRESS. IN
ADDITION, TO THE OBSTRUCTION
ANNOYED THE THIRD BRANCH OF
GOVERNMENT TO REVIEW CONGRESS
IN CONGRESS. THE MAJORITY OF
THE IMPEACHMENT OF THE
PRESIDENT FOR YIELDING TO THEIR
DEMAND OF OVERSIGHT AND
IMPEACHMENT INVESTIGATION,
FAILS TO DISTINGUISH WHERE
PRIOR PRESIDENT SAW A VERY SAME
REVIEW WHILE WITHHOLDING
TESTIFYING AND DOCUMENTS. THEY
IGNORED INSTANCES OF THE TWO
BRANCH HAD IT IN GOOD FAITH BUT
AFTER THE FAILURE OF THE
MAJORITY TO NEGOTIATE IN GOOD
FAITH OVER THE RULES AND IS
VERY IMPEACHMENT PROCEEDING,
WHY WOULD WE THINK THAT THERE
WOULD BE AN EFFORT BY THE
PRESIDENT TO ACKNOWLEDGE IN
WORKING WITH FAITH TO SOLVE
SUCH A DISPUTE? IT'S IN THEIR
MINDS A BETTER WAY TO LET THE
COURTS RESOLVE IT AND THEY ARE
RIGHT. PRESIDENT OBAMA DURING
THE FAST AND FURIOUS
ADMINISTRATION INVOKED
EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE ON THOSE
DOCUMENTS. DURING ITS
LITIGATION, THE OBAMA
ADMINISTRATION SAID THEY HAD NO
WAY IN THEIR WAY TO CONGRESS
AND THE FEDERAL COURT AND
THEY'RE COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT
IN THEIR FORM VERSUS ORDER
DISAGREED. PROFESSOR TURLEY AND
HIS TESTIMONY TESTIFIED THAT HE
THINKS THE DEMOCRATS
IMPEACHMENT PROCESS AND ABUSE
OF POWER. HE SAID, WHAT I'M
SAYING IS, IF YOU WANT A WELL
BASED LEGITIMATE IMPEACHMENT
CASE TO SET THIS ABBREVIATED
SCHEDULE AND DEMANDED DOCUMENTS
AND THEN IMPEACH. BECAUSE THEY
HAVE NOT BEEN TURNED OVER WHEN
THEY GO TO A COURT AND THE
PRESIDENT GOES TO A COURT, I
THINK THAT IS AN ABUSE OF
POWER. IF YOU MAKE A HIGH CRIME
AND MISDEMEANOR OUT OF GOING TO
THE COURTS, IT'S AN ABUSE OF
POWER, IT IS YOUR ABUSE OF
POWER. I URGE MY COLLEAGUES TO
SUPPORT TO SUBMIT AND I YIELD
BACK THE BALANCE OF MY TIME.
>> GENTLEMAN YIELDS BACK. WHAT
WAY DOES -- THE LADY IS
RECOGNIZED.
>> MY REPUBLICAN COLLEAGUES
HAVE BEEN PUTTING FORWARD A LOT
OF EXCUSES TODAY. I WANT TO GO
THROUGH THE ONES THAT WE'VE
HEARD THE MOST. FIRST, THEY
HAVE SAID THAT THE PRESIDENT'S
BEHAVIOR WAS ALL ABOUT HIS
LEGITIMATE CONCERNS ABOUT
CORRUPTION. BUT WHAT WE KNOW,
IS THAT ALL OF PRESIDENT
TRUMP'S AGENCIES, ALL OF HIS
ADVISERS, EVERYONE UNANIMOUSLY
TOLD HIM THAT UKRAINE HAD
PASSED ALL THE ANTI CORRUPTION
BENCH WORKS. WHAT WE KNOW, THE
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE SAID NO
FURTHER REVIEW ON YOU CRAIG
CORRUPTION IT WAS NECESSARY.
WHAT WE KNOW WAS THAT THE
PRESIDENT TRUMP'S BUDGET CUT
AID FOR UKRAINE WAS DESIGNED TO
FIGHT UKRAINE AND CORRUPTION.
WHAT WE KNOW, PRESIDENT TRUMP
BEFORE BOTH THE CALLS WITH
PRESIDENT ZELENSKY IN APRIL IN
JULY, WAS GIVEN OFFICIAL
TALKING POINTS, OFFICIAL
TALKING POINTS ON CORRUPTION IN
UKRAINE AND YET, HE NEVER USED
THOSE TALKING POINTS. HE NEVER
MENTIONED THE WORD CORRUPTION
ON EITHER CALL. THE ONLY TWO
NAMES THE PRESIDENT TRUMP
MENTIONED WERE JOE AND HUNTER
BIDEN ON JULY 25TH. SECOND
EXCUSE THE REPUBLICANS PUT
FORWARD. THEY SUGGEST THAT THIS
WAS ALL ABOUT THE PRESIDENT'S
DESIRE TO PUT THE EUROPEAN
UNION AND TO SHARE MORE OF THE
BURDEN OF FOREIGN ASSISTANCE.
WELL, LET'S LOOK AT THAT. MR.
HOLMES TOLD US, THAT EUROPE
PROVIDES FOUR TIMES AS MUCH
ASSISTANCE, MORE AID TO UKRAINE
THEN WE DO. ACTUALLY, THE
UNITED STATES AID GETS PAID
BACK. ON TOP OF THAT,
AMBASSADOR SONDLAND, PRESIDENT
TRUMP'S AMBASSADOR TO THE
EUROPEAN UNION TESTIFIED
CLEARLY THAT NOBODY EVER TOLD
HIM TO GO TO THE EUROPEAN UNION
AND ACTUALLY ASKED FOR MORE
MILITARY AID TO BE PROVIDED.
 THAT IS SIMPLY NOT THE CASE.
THE ONLY THING THAT PRESIDENT
TRUMP TOLD AMBASSADOR SONDLAND
TO COMMUNICATE TO UKRAINE, OR
WAS THAT? HE TOLD US THAT
PRESUMPTION OF AID WOULD LIKELY
NOT OCCUR UNLESS PRESIDENTIAL
AND SKI ANNOUNCED THE
INVESTIGATIONS. AND AMBASSADOR
SONDLAND, BEING CLEAR, AND THIS
IS A, QUOTE UNLESS ZELENSKY
WENT TO THE MIC AND ANNOUNCED
THESE INVESTIGATIONS THERE
WOULD BE A STALEMATE OVER THE
AID. SO, WHAT WERE THESE
INVESTIGATIONS? 2016 ELECTION
INTERFERENCE AND BURISMA.
MEANING, THE BIDENS. SO FINALLY,
LEFT WITH NO OTHER DEFENSES, MY
REPUBLICAN COLLEAGUES SAY THAT
PRESIDENT TRUMP HAD A
LEGITIMATE REASON TO
INVESTIGATE VICE PRESIDENT
BIDEN. NOW LET'S LOOK AT THE
FACT THAT MAKE NO SENSE
WHATSOEVER. THE MINORITIES OWN
REPORT STATES THE ALLEGATIONS
AGAINST BIDEN WHERE FROM 2015,
2015. BUT PRESIDENT TRUMP
READILY GAVE MILITARY AID TO
UKRAINE IN 2017 AND THEN AGAIN
IN 2018. PRESIDENT TRUMP'S OWN
AIDES TOLD HIM THAT THERE WAS
NO MERIT TO THESE
INVESTIGATIONS. SO, WHAT
CHANGED? WHAT LED TO THE SUDDEN
PUSH TO HOLD OUT
CONGRESSIONALLY APPROVED,
DESPERATELY NEEDED MILITARY AID?
WITHOUT TELLING ANYBODY THE
REASON? VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN
BEGAN BEATING PRESIDENT TRUMP
IN THE POLLS. THE EVIDENCE IS
CLEAR. WHEN PRESIDENT TRUMP
SAID, DO US A FAVOR, THOUGH,
WHO IS THE US? THEY KNOW. WE
KNOW WHO THE ICE WAS BECAUSE HE
SAID IT. PRESIDENT TRUMP TOLD
THE PRESIDENT ZELENSKY THAT HIS
PERSONAL ATTORNEY, HIS PERSONAL
LAWYER, RUDY GIULIANI, QUOTE,
VERY MUCH KNOWS WHAT'S GOING ON.
PRESIDENT TRUMP COULD'VE GONE
THROUGH OFFICIAL CHANNELS IF HE
WANTED. HE COULD'VE ASKED THE
ATTORNEY GENERAL TO CONDUCT
INVESTIGATION, COULD'VE
CONDUCTED ALL SORTS OF
LEGITIMATE INVESTIGATIONS BUT
HE DID NOT, AND WE KNOW THAT AS
WELL BECAUSE THE DEPARTMENT OF
JUSTICE SAID THAT PRESIDENT
TRUMP NEVER ASKED THEM TO DO
ANY INVESTIGATIONS OR EVEN TALK
TO UKRAINE. INSTEAD, PRESIDENT
TRUMP ASKED HIS PERSONAL
ATTORNEY BECAUSE US, BUT WAS
NOT ABOUT AMERICA, THE
PRESIDENT WAS NOT PUTTING
AMERICA FIRST, THIS WAS NOT
OFFICIAL POLICY, THIS WAS NOT
WHAT WAS RIGHT FOR OUR COUNTRY.
EVERY WITNESS TOLD US THAT AS
WELL. THIS WAS PERSONAL. IT WAS
ALL FOR PRESIDENT TRUMP'S
PERSONAL POLITICAL GAIN TO
BENEFIT HIS OWN CAMPAIGN AND
HIS REELECTION AND THAT IS WHY
HE USED HIS PERSONAL ATTORNEY
TO DO THAT. HE ABUSED HIS
POWER. HE ABUSED THE POWER
INTERESTED TO HIM BY WE THE
PEOPLE AND HE PLACED OUR SAFETY,
MILLIONS OF DOLLARS OF TAXPAYER
MONEY ON THE TABLE. THAT IS AN
ABUSE OF POWER. WE MUST IMPEACH
DONALD J TRUMP. I YIELD BACK.
>> THE GENTLELADY YIELDS BACK.
FOR WHAT PURPOSE IS MR.
ARMSTRONG BEAT RECOGNITION?
>> I WANT TO STRIKE THE LAST
WORD.
>> THE GENTLEMAN IS RECOGNIZED.
>> WE TALK ABOUT OBSTRUCTION OF
CONGRESS AND SUBPOENAS AND I'D
LIKE TO TALK ABOUT THE
SUBPOENAS FOR A LITTLE BIT, ON
THE DEMOCRATIC MAJORITIES ABUSE
OF SUBPOENAS AND HOW IT
STARTED. I STARTED IN THIS
COMMITTEE WITH A SUBPOENA TO
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, BILL BARR.
COMPLIANCE WITH THAT SUBPOENA
WOULD'VE REQUIRED HIM TO
VIOLATE THE LAW. SO, LIKE A
REASONABLE, RATIONAL,
DELIBERATIVE BODY, WE ARE, WHAT
DID WE DO? WE HELD HIM IN
CONTEMPT. WE HELD THE ATTORNEY
GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES IN
CONTEMPT OF CONGRESS FOR NOT
VIOLATING THE LAW. BUT IT GETS
BETTER, BECAUSE AFTER, THAT WE
HELD A HEARING IN THE JUDICIARY
ABOUT WHETHER OR NOT WE SHOULD
HAVE HELD HIM IN CONTEMPT.
OVERSIGHT DEMOCRATS SUBPOENAED
DOCUMENTS FROM COMMERCE, LEGAL
DOCUMENTS RELATING DIRECTLY TO
A CASE THAT WAS PENDING IN
FRONT OF THE SUPREME COURT. AND
AS I STATED EARLIER, THOSE SAME
DEMOCRATS ON OVERSIGHT SUBPOENA
THE PERSONAL EMAILS OF
PRESIDENT TRUMP'S CHILDREN.
DEMOCRATS ON WAYS AND MEANS
HAVE SUBPOENAED PRESIDENT
TRUMP'S TAX RETURNS FOR PURELY
POLITICAL PURPOSES. SPEAKING OF
POLITICS, ADAM SCHIFF USE THE
SUBPOENA POWER OF THE
INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE TO
OBTAIN PHONE RECORDS. HE THEN
RELEASED THE PHONE RECORDS OF A
MEMBER OF THE PRESS, AND THEN
THE RANKING MEMBER AND HIS
POLITICAL OPPONENT. YOU KNOW
WHO WE -- YOU CANNOT WEAPONIZE
THE SUBPOENA POWER OF CONGRESS
IN ORDER TO HARASS THE
EXECUTIVE BRANCH AND THEN NOT
EXPECT THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH TO
USE EVERY LEGAL GRAVITY AT ITS
DISPOSAL TO OPPOSE THOSE
SUBPOENAS. YOU CAN CONTINUE
WITH AN IMPEACHMENT PROCEEDING
THAT IS A POLITICAL PROCEEDING,
BUT WHAT YOU CANNOT DO IS
CHARGE OBSTRUCTION BECAUSE YOU
ARE GOING TO CONTINUE FASTER
THAN ALLOWING THE COURTS TO
DECIDE AND BEFORE I FINISH, I
JUST LIKE TO POINT OUT A COUPLE
OF THINGS. YOU KNOW WHO WE HAVE
NOT SUBPOENAED? AMBASSADOR
BOLTON HE. BASICALLY BEGS TO
HAVE AN ISSUE TO HIM. WE HAVE
NOT SUBPOENAED THE
WHISTLEBLOWER. WE HAVE NOT
SUBPOENAED ADAM SCHIFF. WE HAVE
NOT SUBPOENA SUBPOENAED ADAM
SCHIFF'S STAFF MEMBER TALK WITH
WHISTLEBLOWER. WE HAVE NOT
SUBPOENAED THE PEOPLE OF THE
PUZZLE OR MENTIONED HE TALKED
TO IN THIS PHONE CALL SO IF WE
WANT TO TALK ABOUT ABUSE AND
OBSTRUCTION AND WHY THESE
THINGS ARE GOING ON, I THINK AS
ANOTHER COMMENT PROFESSOR TRULY
SAID IN A DIFFERENT HEARING, WE
HAVE MET THE ENEMY AND HE IS
ASKED AND WITH THAT, I YIELD
BACK.
>> THE GENTLEMAN YIELDS BACK.
FOR OUR PURPOSES, DISMISSED OR
DETROIT SEEK RECOGNITION?
>> THE STRIKE LAST WORD.
>> THE GERMANS RECOGNIZED.
THANK
>> YOU THANK YOU MISTER
CHAIRMAN. THERE ARE TWO
ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT, EACH
IS VITALLY IMPORTANT.
OBSTRUCTION OF CONGRESS MATTERS
TO ALL OF US WHO VALUE THE
SEPARATION OF POWERS HERE IN
THE HOUSE, AND IT WILL MATTER
TO ALL THOSE WHO STEP HOW THE
SEPARATION OF POWERS IN THE
DIOCESE IN THE SENATE. ARTICLE
ONE INVEST IN THE SEOUL HAS THE
POWER OF IMPEACHMENT. THAT IS
SET FORTH IN THE CONSTITUTION.
SO, WHAT IS THE PRESIDENT DONE?
THE PRESIDENT TRUMP IS THE
FIRST AND ONLY PRESIDENT IN
AMERICAN HISTORY TO OPENLY AND
INDISCRIMINATELY DEFY ALL
ASPECTS OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL
IMPEACHMENT PROCESS. OCTOBER 26,
THE PRESIDENT ARGUED THAT
CONGRESS SHOULD NOT EVEN BE
ALLOWED TO IMPEACHMENT OF THE
CONSTITUTION, AND THEN ON
OCTOBER 8TH, THE WHITE HOUSE
COUNSEL ACTING ON BEHALF OF THE
PRESIDENT WROTE A LETTER TO THE
HOUSE AND SAID THAT PRESIDENT
TRUMP CANNOT PERMIT HIS
ADMINISTRATION TO PARTICIPATE.
WELL, THIS IS NOT A FISHING
EXPEDITION. THIS IS A MATTER OF
GREAT IMPORTANCE THAT WE HAVE
TALKED ABOUT AT LENGTH. THE
ABUSE OF POWER THAT THE
PRESIDENT HAS EXHIBITED. BUT
WHY DID THE PRESIDENT REFUSED
TO PRODUCE? WE HAVE HEARD ABOUT
THE DOZEN OFFICIALS HE HAS
BLOCKED. WHAT ABOUT ALL OF THE
DOCUMENTS THAT WE HAVE ASKED
FOR? WHAT ABOUT THE WITNESSES
WHO DID COME FORWARD, WHO TOLD
US ABOUT THE BRIEFING MATERIALS
FROM PRESIDENT TRUMP'S CALL
WITH PRESIDENT ZELENSKY THAT
WERE REPAIRED BY LIEUTENANT
COLONEL VINDMAN AND THE
NATIONAL SECURITY COUNCIL STAFF
SUMMARIES, CONCLUSIONS FROM
MEETINGS RELATED TO UKRAINE
INCLUDING MILITARY ASSISTANCE,
AND WHAT ABOUT THE MEMORANDUM
FROM PRESIDENT TRUMP'S
CONVERSATION WITH PRESIDENT
ZELENSKY, THE ONE WITH ALL THE
ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS IN THE
VICE PRESIDENT, THE NOTES TAKEN
BY JENNIFER WILLIAMS DURING THE
CALL BETWEEN PRESIDENT TRUMP
AND ZELENSKY. THE BRIEFING
MATERIALS PREPARED FOR THE VICE
PRESIDENT MEETING WITH
PRESIDENT ZELENSKY AND ON
NOVEMBER 24TH, THE NEWS REPORT
REVEALED THE WHITE HOUSE
CONDUCTED AN INTERNAL RECORDS
REVIEW THAT TURNED UP HUNDREDS
OF DOCUMENTS THAT REVEALED
EXTENSIVE EFFORTS TO GENERATE
AFTER THE ATTACK JUSTIFICATION
FOR THE DECISION. THAT IS WHAT
WE ARE TALKING ABOUT.
OBSTRUCTION OF CONGRESS MATTERS
BECAUSE WE KNOW WHAT WE ARE
LOOKING FOR. WE KNOW HOW
IMPORTANT IT IS. THE PRESIDENT
HAS STOOD IN THE WAY OF THIS
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES DOING
IT'S IMPORTANT WORK. THE
PRESIDENT SHOULD, ALLOW SHOULD
HAVE ALLOWED THESE OFFICIALS TO
SPEAK, SHOULD HAVE ALLOWED
THESE DOCUMENTS TO SPEAK. MY
COLLEAGUES ON THE OTHER SIDE
UNDERSTAND THAT THIS IS NOT A
FISHING EXPEDITION. THEY KNOW
THAT THESE DOCUMENTS ARE THERE
AND IF THEY WERE TO HELP THE
PRESIDENT THEY WOULD BE URGING
THE PRESIDENT TO WORK WITH US
RATHER THAN OBSTRUCT US. WE
HAVE TO PROCEED WITH THIS
OBSTRUCTION OF CONGRESS ARTICLE
OF IMPEACHMENT AND I OPPOSE
THIS AMENDMENT. I YIELD THE
BALANCE OF MY TIME.
>> THANK YOU, MR. DEUTCH. I'M
GOING TO TELL YOU, MONEY AND
THE ECONOMY ARE NOT OUR CORE
VALUES. CUTTING REGULATIONS ARE
NOT OUR CORE VALUES. TAX CUTS
FOR THE TOP 1% ARE NOT OUR CORE
VALUES. WITHHOLDING DESPERATELY
NEEDED SECURITY ASSISTANCE FROM
AN ALLY DESPERATELY IN NEED IS
NOT A CORE VALUE. COERCING A
FOREIGN POWER TO INTERFERE IN A
PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION IS NOT
OUR CORE VALUE. GIVING CONGRESS
THE FINGER AS IT SEEKS TO
EXERCISE ITS AUTHORITY AS A
COEQUAL BRANCH OF GOVERNMENT IS
NOT A CORE VALUE. I WILL TELL
YOU WHAT A CORE VALUE IS. FAIR
AND FREE ELECTIONS AND RESPECT
FOR THE CONSTITUTION AND TO
TAKE CARE THAT YOUR DUTIES ARE
FAITHFULLY EXECUTED AS
PRESIDENT. THAT IS OUR CORE
VALUE, THE FAITHFUL EXECUTION
OF THE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT,
THE UPHOLDING OF THE OATH OF
OFFICE ARE OUR CORE VALUES. TO
THE BEST OF YOUR ABILITY,
PRESERVING, PROTECTING AND
DEFENDING OUR CONSTITUTION.
THAT IS THE NATION'S CORE
VALUES. WHEN THE PRESIDENT
COMMITTED A GRAVE ABUSE OF THE
PUBLIC TRUST BY RUNNING
ROUGHSHOD OVER THE HIGH OFFICE
OF THE PRESIDENT, THEN CONGRESS
IS LEFT WITH NO CHOICE BUT TO
DO ITS DUTY TO PROTECT THE
PUBLIC AND THE REPUBLIC FROM A
CLEAR AND PRESENT DANGER. WE
MUST IMPEACH THIS PRESIDENT.
AND WITH THAT, I YIELD BACK.
>> GENTLEMAN YIELDS BACK. WHAT
PURPOSE DOES MISTER JEFFREY
SEEK RECOGNITION?
>> I WANT TO STRIKE THE LAST
WORD. THE
>> GENTLEMAN IS RECOGNIZED.
>> DONALD TRUMP PRESSURED A
FOREIGN GOVERNMENT TO TARGET AN
AMERICAN CITIZEN FOR POLITICAL
GAIN. AND AT THE SAME TIME,
WITHHELD 391 MILLION DOLLARS IN
MILITARY AID FROM A VULNERABLE
UKRAINE WITHOUT JUSTIFICATION
AS PART OF A SCHEME TO SOLICIT
FOREIGN INTERFERENCE IN THE
2020 ELECTION. THE JULY 25TH
ROUGH TRANSCRIPT IS A SMOKING
GUN, AND DONALD TRUMP'S WORDS
PULLED THE TRIGGER. FIVE WORDS,
DO US A FAVOR, THOUGH. AND A
CENTRAL QUESTION, FOR US TO
RESOLVE ON THIS COMMITTEE IS
WHETHER THE PRESIDENT SOUGHT A
POLITICAL FAVOR, OR IS HE, AS
MY REPUBLICAN COLLEAGUES
SUGGEST, AN ANTI CORRUPTION
CRUSADER? THAT NOTION IS
LAUGHABLE. BUT LET'S JUST CHECK
THE RECORD TO SEE WHAT IT SAYS.
DONALD TRUMP SPOKE TO THE
UKRAINIAN PRESIDENT TWICE, ONCE
ON APRIL 21ST. HE DID NOT USE
THE WORD CORRUPTION ONES. HE
HAD A SECOND CALL BUT THE
PRESIDENT OF UKRAINE ON JULY
25TH. HE DID NOT USE THE WORD
CORRUPTION ONES. DONALD TRUMP'S
OWN DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE WROTE
A LETTER TO THE CONGRESS ON MAY
23RD AND SAID THAT THE NEW
UKRAINIAN GOVERNMENT, THE NEW
UKRAINIAN GOVERNMENT SATISFIED
ALL NECESSARY PRECONDITIONS TO
RECEIVE THE AID, INCLUDING THE
IMPLEMENTATION OF ANTI
CORRUPTION PROTOCOLS. THAT WAS
DONALD TRUMP'S DEPARTMENT OF
DEFENSE SAYING THERE ARE NO
CORRUPTION CONCERNS THAT SHOULD
JUSTIFY A WITHHOLDING OF THE
AID. THAT IS WHY SO MANY TRUMP
APPOINTED WITNESSES CAME
FORWARD AND WERE TROUBLED. AND
I JUST WANT TO ENTER INTO THE
RECORD THREE. LIEUTENANT
COLONEL ALEXANDER VINDMAN, WHO
WAS ON THE CALL, REPORTED HIS
CONCERN BECAUSE, QUOTE, THEY
HAD SIGNIFICANT NATIONAL
SECURITY IMPLICATIONS FOR THE
COUNTRY. NOW, LIEUTENANT
COLONEL VINDMAN SAID, IT IS
IMPROPER FOR THE PRESIDENT OF
THE UNITED STATES TO DEMAND A
FOREIGN GOVERNMENT INVESTIGATE
A U.S. CITIZEN FOR A POLITICAL
OPPONENT. THAT WAS LIEUTENANT
COLONEL VINDMAN, IRAQ WAR
VETERAN, PURPLE HEART RECIPIENT,
20 YEARS OF ACTIVE DUTY. GORDON
SONDLAND, AMBASSADOR, APPOINTED
BY DONALD TRUMP. WHAT DID HE
SAY? EVERYBODY WAS IN THE LOOP.
IT WAS NO SECRET. WAS THERE A
QUID PRO QUO? THE ANSWER IS YES.
IT IS SONDLAND A NEVER TRUMPER?
HE WAS APPOINTED BY DONALD
TRUMP AND GAVE 1 MILLION
DOLLARS TO TRUMP'S INAUGURATION.
AND THEN, OF COURSE, THERE IS
BILL TAYLOR. WEST POINT
GRADUATE. WHAT DID HE SAY? TO
WITHHOLD THAT ASSISTANCE FOR NO
GOOD REASON OTHER THAN HELP
WITH A POLITICAL CAMPAIGN MADE
NO SENSE. IT WAS ILLOGICAL I
COULD NOT BE EXPLAINED. IT WAS
CRAZY. THAT IS THE EVIDENCE
THAT HAS BEEN ESTABLISHED.
DONALD TRUMP DID NOT CARE ABOUT
ALLEGED CORRUPTION IN UKRAINE,
HE SOUGHT A POLITICAL FAVOR,
AND AT THE SAME TIME, THAT
DONALD TRUMP WAS ALLEGEDLY
CONCERNED WITH CORRUPTION IN
UKRAINE, HE AUTHORIZED EIGHT
BILLION DOLLARS IN WEAPONS
SALES TO THE CORRUPT KINGDOM OF
SAUDI ARABIA, AND OTHER GULF
STATES. EIGHT BILLION DOLLARS
IN APRIL HE AUTHORIZED. HE WAS
SUPPOSEDLY CONCERNED ABOUT
CORRUPTION, THIS IS A REGIME
THAT BUTCHERED A WASHINGTON
POST JOURNALIST WITH A BONE SAW
AND THEN LIED ABOUT IT AND AT
THE SAME TIME HE WAS
WITHHOLDING MONEY FROM UKRAINE,
HE AUTHORIZED EIGHT BILLION
DOLLARS IN WEAPONS SALES OVER
THE OBJECTION OF CONGRESS. THE
PRESIDENT PRESSURED A FOREIGN
GOVERNMENT TO TARGET AN
AMERICAN CITIZEN FOR POLITICAL
GAIN. HE SOLICITED FOREIGN
INTERFERENCE IN THE 2020
ELECTION. THE RECORD IS CLEAR.
HE ABUSED HIS POWER. HE MUST BE
HELD ACCOUNTABLE. BECAUSE IN
AMERICA, NO ONE IS ABOVE THE
LAW. I YIELD BACK, MISTER
CHAIR.
>> GENTLEMAN YIELDS, BACK FOR
WHAT PURPOSE IS MR. COLLINS?
>> STRIKE GLASSWARE.
>> IT RECOGNIZED.
>> I HAVE LISTEN TO THIS, AND
THIS IDEA OF THE PROCESS, AND I
FULLY SUPPORT THIS, AND FRANKLY
WERE IN A POSITION RIGHT HERE
WHERE WE ALL NEED TO BE, BUT IT
IS ALSO BEEN INTERESTING TO
LISTEN ALL DAY TODAY TO THE,
TRYING TO BUILD A CASE OR
NOTHING OR LIKE I SAY, I
UNDERSTAND THE MAJORITY HAS
ALREADY DISPARAGE BEYOND
BELIEVE MR. ZELENSKY, AND I'M
NOT SURE WHAT I CHOSE TO,
CHARACTER ASSASSINATION, THEY
DID, I'M NOT SURE WHY THEY
CHOOSE TO CONTINUE TO PUT
ARTICLES SAYING THAT MEMBERS OF
THE UKRAINE DIED BECAUSE OF A
THAT WAS WITHHELD. THAT'S JUST
A LIE, AND EVEN THEIR OWN
ARTICLES TO PROVE IT SAYS, WE
CAN ACTUALLY SAY THAT THAT IS
TRUE, BUT KEEP SENDING IT OUT
THERE. BELIEVE, ME THE AMERICAN
PEOPLE ARE WATCHING THIS FARCE,
BUT IT IS AMAZING TO ME TO
LISTEN TO MY COLLEAGUES NOW
TALK ABOUT HOW WE DO PROPER
PROCESS AND SUBPOENAS. LET ME
JUST TAKE YOU ON A LITTLE
WONDERLAND TRIP BACK THROUGH
THIS COMMITTEE THIS YEAR IN
WHICH WE ISSUE THE SUBPOENAS
AND DID MORE THINGS THAT WERE
AMAZINGLY OUTRAGEOUS THAT I
COULD EVER IMAGINE. IN FACT, WE
LEARNED SOME STUFF THIS YEAR.
NO OFFENSE TO THE CHAIRMAN,
HE'S BEEN DOING AS BEST HE
COULD TO SATISFY THE MANY
DEMANDS OF BEING THE CHAIRMAN
WHO ASKED TO GO OVER TO GET
IMPEACHMENT OVER, BUT WE HAVE
LEARNED THIS YEAR THAT
SUBPOENAS WERE, THE JUST HELP
YOU LOOK BETTER IN COURT. WE
LEARNED THAT SUBPOENAS ARE A
CONVERSATION STARTER. I'M NOT
SURE WHAT THAT IS ABOUT, BUT I
KNOW IN COURT THEY'RE NOT A
CONVERSATION STARTER, THERE ARE
COMPELLING INFORMATION. THEY
ARE ACTUALLY WARNING US TO MOVE
FORWARD, AND SO WHEN YOU REALLY
LOOK AT THIS, IF YOU START TO
TALK ABOUT HOW THE DEMOCRATS BE
DENIED PROCESS AND DENIED THIS,
IT IS REALLY INTERESTING TO ME
THAT AGAIN, 70 SOMETHING DAYS,
THE OTHER DAY I THINK THE
GENTLELADY FROM CALIFORNIA SAID,
MAYBE TRIED TO MAKE A
COMPARISON THAT WAS NOT FASTER,
THE CONCERN INVESTIGATION SAID,
THAT WAS ALMOST AFTER THREE AND
A HALF YEARS INVESTIGATION. IN
THIS ONE, WE HAVE HAD SINCE
SEPTEMBER TILL NOW, THE
MAJORITY IS FRANKLY ACTING LIKE
PETULANT CHILDREN NOT GETTING
THEIR WAY QUICK ENOUGH BECAUSE
SANTA CLAUS HAD NOT COME YET.
BELIEVE ME, THEY'RE GETTING
READY TO VOTE FOR THE CHRISTMAS
PRESENT. I THINK THE AMERICAN
PEOPLE NEXT NOVEMBER WILL
REMEMBER THIS CHRISTMAS PRESENT.
BUT IT GOES BACK EVEN FURTHER,
I REMEMBER AT A TIME, IF WE
WANT TO TALK ABOUT THE SANCTITY
OF SUBPOENAS, AND WHY DO THE
MAJORITY WITHDRAW FROM THE SUIT?
WHY DID THEY WITHDRAW FROM THAT?
THEY WANTED TO CONTINUE -- TO
COULD'VE DONE THIS. THEY
COULD'VE HAD A CHARADE INSTILL
STAYED IN COURT. NO, THAT JUST
A WASTE OF TIME. WE'RE NOT
GONNA DO IT. DON'T HATE ME
THESE HIGH MUDDY ARGUMENTS
ABOUT PROCESS. THIS IS NOT
ABOUT PROCESS, THIS IS NOT
OBSTRUCTING CONGRESS, IT'S
ABOUT CONGRESS BEING PETULANT
AND SAYING, WE DON'T WANT WHAT
WE DON'T WANT BECAUSE WE WANTED
IT NOW, AND I CAN TAKE YOU BACK
TO FEBRUARY OF THIS YEAR,
ACTUALLY JOURNEY TOWN --
ATTORNEY GENERAL WHITAKER. YOU
REMEMBER THIS? I REMIND SOME OF
THE FOLKS WHO WROTE ABOUT, THIS
THEY WERE TRYING TO GET ACTING
ATTORNEY GENERAL WHITAKER HERE
BECAUSE THEY WERE TRYING TO
MAKE POLITICAL POINTS BEFORE,
AS THE YEAR GOT STARTED,
BECAUSE THERE IS NOTHING
ROLLING, IN MUELLER HAD NOT
HAPPENED, SO THEY COULD NOT
AWKWARD EXCEPT ANY BRA, GENERIC
TERMS AND ONE WEEK BEFORE BILL
BARR WAS SWORN IN, WE BROUGHT
IN MR. WHITAKER. NOW, WE
THREATENED HIM WITH THE
SUBPOENA, A PUBLIC DECLARATION
OF VOTE A SUBPOENA, UNTIL WE
FIND OUT THE NIGHT BEFORE THIS
ANIMAL LETTER SAYING, IF YOU
SHOW UP, WE WILL NOT DO THAT
SUBPOENA. I MEAN, WE FOUND IT
ALL RIGHT HERE. WE TALKED ABOUT
IT. SO, IT'S A LITTLE BIT HARD
FOR ME TO HEAR HOW THIS
CONGRESS, THIS COMMITTEE, WERE
NOT EVEN GO TO GET STARTED ON
MR. SCHIFF WHO AGAIN, LOVES THE,
CAMERA LOVES A MICROPHONE,
LOVES HIS OWN GAVEL, BUT
DOESN'T LIKE TO ACTUALLY HAVE
TO ANSWER QUESTIONS ABOUT HIS
OWN WORK AND WHAT HE'S ACTUALLY
DONE, DOESN'T LIKE TO ANSWER
QUESTION ABOUT MR. GOLDMAN LAST,
WEEK WHEN MR. GOLDEN WAS HERE,
ABOUT WHO ACTUALLY ORDERED THAT
SO THEY COULD UNMASK RANKING
MEMBERS OF JOURNALIST WHEN THEY
COULD'VE JUST EASILY PUT IT, IN
IF IT HAD BEEN PROPER, NUMBER
ONE, CONGRESSPERSON ONE,
INDIVIDUAL, IT DOESN'T MATTER,
THEY CAN USE WHATEVER THEY WANT
TO, DO BUT NO, THEY DID IT FOR
DRIVE-BY PURPOSES, SO, TONIGHT,
AS WE HEAR -- JUST PLAIN, FLAT
OUT HYPOCRISY. REMEMBER THAT
THIS IS A MAJORITY THAT HAD ONE
THING IN MIND. AND I WILL DENY
THAT THEY HAVE NOT PASSED
BILLS. I WAS DENIED THAT THEY
HAVE NOT PASSED BILLS ENOUGH TO
ACTUALLY GET ANY BIPARTISANSHIP
IN THE SENATE WHICH IS KNOWN
FOR THAT. WE HAVE DONE THAT
BEFORE THIS COMMITTEE. WE HAVE
PASSED BILLS IT ACTUALLY GET
SIGNED INTO LAW. WE HAVE SAID
-- INSTEAD WE WANT TO TALK
ABOUT SUBPOENAS EVIDENT FORCED,
PROCESS WE DON'T FOLLOW. WHY?
BECAUSE YOU CAN'T MAKE THE
ARGUMENT, YOU DON'T HAVE
OBSTRUCTION OF CONGRESS, I
YIELD BACK.
>> THE GENTLEMAN YIELDS BACK.
>> AND WE DISTRICT LAST.
>> WORD MISGIVINGS IS
RECOGNIZED.
>> I RISE IN OPPOSITION TO THIS
AMENDMENT. WHEN MY COLLEAGUE
SAID A MINUTE AGO THAT THEY ARE
USING A LAW AS A WEAPON. WELL,
THE LAWS A WEAPON AGAINST
PEOPLE WHO VIOLATE AND DON'T
RESPECT, IT DON'T OBEY IT. MY
REPUBLICAN COLLEAGUES HAVE
CLAIMED THAT THERE IS NOT
ENOUGH HERE TO IMPEACH A
PRESIDENT. I'VE HEARD THEM
PREVIOUSLY SAY THIS IS MERELY
ABOUT EIGHT LINES FROM A PHONE
CALL. PERHAPS THEY FORGOT THAT
THE PRESSURE AGAINST UKRAINE
LASTED FOR MONTHS.. PERHAPS
THEY FORGOT THAT TRYING TO
LIMIT THIS TO MERELY EIGHT LIES
ON ONE PHONE CALL UNDER
ESTIMATES THE RISK TO OUR
NATIONAL SECURITY, AND OUR
NATIONAL INTERESTS. FOR YOU SEE,
UKRAINE'S ABILITY TO PROTECT
THEMSELVES AGAINST RUSSIAN
AGGRESSION IS DIRECTLY TIED TO
OUR ABILITY TO PROTECT
OURSELVES FROM RUSSIAN
AGGRESSION, BUT THAT'S RIGHT,
THIS PRESIDENT ONLY CARES ABOUT,
AND I QUOTE, THE BIG STUFF. BIG
STUFF, BIG THINGS THAT ARE
DIRECTLY TIED TO HIS PERSONAL
AGENDA. BUT MY COLLEAGUES ALSO
SEEMED TO IGNORE THE PATTERN OF
BEHAVIOR, THE PATTERN OF
MISCONDUCT AND CERTAINLY THE
ABUSE OF POWER. FIRST, THE
PRESIDENT WELCOMED INTERFERENCE
IN THE 2016 ELECTION. HIS
CAMPAIGN HAD MULTIPLE CONTACTS
WITH RUSSIA, AND HE HIMSELF
PUBLICLY INVITED RUSSIA TO
INTERFERE -- REMEMBER THIS?
RUSSIA, IF YOU'RE LISTENING. I
HOPE YOU ARE ABLE TO FIND THE
30,000 EMAILS THAT ARE MISSING.
THEN, AFTER THE SPECIAL COUNSEL
WAS ASSIGNED TO INVESTIGATE THE
PRESIDENTS CONDUCT, THE
PRESIDENT TRIED TO COVER IT UP
BY OBSTRUCTING THE
INVESTIGATION AND REFUSING TO
COOPERATE AGAIN.
>> AND THEN JUST ONE DAY AFTER
THE SPECIAL COUNSEL TESTIFIED
BEFORE CONGRESS, THE PRESIDENT
WAS AT IT AGAIN, APPARENTLY
UNDETERRED AND EMBOLDEN. HE
DEMANDED INTERFERENCE INTO THE
2020 ELECTION, TELLING A
VULNERABLE ALLY, I WOULD LIKE
YOU TO DO US A FAVOR THOUGH.
AND CONDITION THAT IT
ANNOUNCEMENT -- THE OFFICIAL
ACT ON THE ANNOUNCEMENT OF A
SHAM INVESTIGATION INTO THE
PRESIDENT'S CHIEF POLITICAL
RIVAL, AND TRY TO FORM, AFTER
THE PRESIDENT SCHEME WAS
EXPOSED, AND CONGRESS LAUNCHED
INVESTIGATION, THE PRESIDENT
TRIED TO COVER IT UP BY TRYING
TO UNDERTAKE A COMPLETE
BLOCKADE OF CONGRESS
INVESTIGATION. THE PRESIDENT'S
MISCONDUCT IS A PART OF A
PATTERN, THE PRESS INVITE
FOREIGN POWERS DO INTERFERE IN
OUR ELECTION AND THEN HE
OBSTRUCTS INQUIRIES IN HIS
BEHAVIOR EITHER BY CONGRESS OR
BY LAW ENFORCEMENT AND OF
COURSE HE BELIEVES HE IS ABOVE
THE LAW AND HE CERTAINLY HAS
THE FULL SUPPORT OF MY
COLLEAGUES ON THE OTHER SIDE,
AND MOST RECENTLY, THE
PRESIDENT SUGGESTED PUBLICLY
THAT CHINA, WHY DON'T YOU COME
ON IN? THE WATER IS WARM. CHINA
SHOULD INTERFERE IN OUR
ELECTIONS BY INVESTIGATING
FORMER VICE PRESIDENT JOE BIDEN,
THE PERSON HAS TAKEN ALL
ACCOUNTABILITY FOR HIS CONDUCT,
AND HE HAS DOUBLED DOWN --
CONTINUE TO SOLICIT
INTERFERENCE IN OUR ELECTION,
NOT THE PAIN OF THE AMERICAN
PEOPLE. HE WILL CONTINUE TO
DISREGARD A COEQUAL BRANCH OF
GOVERNMENT, IN OTHER, WORDS
UNLESS HE IS STOPPED,, THE
PRESIDENT WILL CONTINUE TO
ERODE OUR DEMOCRACY ON WHICH
OUR COUNTRY WAS FOUNDED, WE
CANNOT AND WE WILL NOT ALLOW
THAT TO HAPPEN. MR. RATCLIFFE,
WILL DISTRICT LAST WORD.
>> I YIELD TO MR.
RESCHENTHALER.
>> I THANK THE GENTLEMAN FROM
TEXAS.
>> YOU KNOW, THERE IS A SAYING,
IT IS THAT FACTS DON'T CARE
ABOUT YOUR FEELINGS. SO LET'S
GO THROUGH SOME FACTS, LET'S
TALK ABOUT THE TRUMP
ADMINISTRATION. IN THE REPORT,
THE SCHIFF REPORT PRESIDENT
SHOULD ARGUE THAT PRESIDENT
TRUMP, HAS OBSTRUCTED THE
IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY. IN A
LETTER SENT TO REQUEST
DEPOSITION WITNESSES CHAIRMAN
SCHIFF WROTE ANY FAILURE TO
APPEAR FOR SCHEDULED DEPOSITION
SHAW CONSTITUTE EVIDENCE OF
OBSTRUCTION IN THE HOUSE
IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY, AND CODE,
HOWEVER, THERE IS AMPLE
EVIDENCE OF THE ADMINISTRATION
COMPLYING WITH CONGRESSIONAL
OVERSIGHT INVESTIGATIONS DURING
2017 AND 2018. EVEN WITH
CONGRESSIONAL PROBES, THE
ADMINISTRATION DID NOT FIND
LEGITIMATE. FOR, EXAMPLE OVER
25 ADMINISTRATION OFFICIALS
TESTIFYING BEFORE THE HOUSE
OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE. OVER 20
ADMINISTRATION OFFICIALS HAD
TESTIFIED BEFORE THE HOUSE
JUDICIARY COMMITTEE.
ADDITIONALLY, AS THE START OF
THE DEMOCRATS IMPEACHMENT
INQUIRY, THE ADMINISTRATION HAS
PRODUCED ONE -- 100,000 PAGES
OF DOCUMENTS TO THE HOUSE
OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE.
 AND I MUST, SAY THEY PRODUCED
THEM IN A TIMELY MATTER. THEY
DID NOT DUMP THEM WITHIN 48
HOURS OF THE HEARING, BUT AGAIN
I DIGRESS. THE ADMINISTRATION
ALSO ENRAGED INVESTIGATIONS BUT
IT IS AGREED WITH. FOR EXAMPLE,
THE HOUSE OVERSIGHT DEMOCRATS
INITIATED A SWEEPING
INVESTIGATION INTO THE WHITE
HOUSE SECURITY CLEARANCE
PRACTICES, DESPITE THE
PRESIDENT'S BROAD AUTHORITY TO
CREATE A SECURITY CLEARANCES TO
WHOEVER THE ADMINISTRATION
WISHES. IN THAT INVESTIGATION,
THE ADMINISTRATION PROVIDED THE
CURRENT WHITE HOUSE CHIEF
SECURITY OFFICER TO BRIEF BOTH
MEMBERS AND STAFF OF THE WHITE
HOUSE SECURITY CLEARANCE
PROCESS. THE ADMINISTRATION
PROCESS IT'S ALSO PROVIDING
IN-CAMERA REVIEWS OF OVER 500
PAGES OF WHITE HOUSE DOCUMENTS
POLICIES RELATED TO THE
SECURITY CLEARANCE PROCESS. THE
FBI HAS ALSO ALLOWED COMMITTEE
STAFF TO REVIEW HUNDREDS OF
DOCUMENTS PERTAINING TO THE
ROLE THAT WHITE HOUSE SECURITY
CLEARANCE HAS PLAYED. IT IS
BRIEF BUT MEMBERS OF THE
COMMITTEE STAFF ON THE WHITE
HOUSE PROCESS AND PROVIDED
COMMITTEE STAFF WITH MULTIPLE
FOLLOW-UP BRIEFINGS REGARDING
THEIR OWN INTERNAL SECURITY
CLEARANCE PROCESS. WE HAVE
HEARD DEMOCRATS TALK THIS
EVENING ABOUT THE BORDER, SO
LET'S JUST TALK ABOUT THE
BORDER, THE ADMINISTRATION'S
WILLINGNESS TO OPEN THEMSELVES
UP TO REVIEW IN THAT REGARD AS
WELL. THE ADMINISTRATION HAS
PRODUCED MORE THAN 9600
DOCUMENTS IN RESPONSE TO THE
COMMITTEE SUBPOENAS RELATED TO
CHILD SEPARATION AT THE BORDER.
AGAIN, THAT IS OVER 9600
DOCUMENTS. ADDITIONALLY, IN
AUGUST IN SEPTEMBER OF 2019,
THE ADMINISTRATION ACCOMMODATED
NINE SEPARATE MULTI DAY
SURPRISE CONGRESSIONAL VISITS
TO ICE AND DHS FACILITIES
ACROSS THE COUNTRY. THE
ADMINISTRATION HAS WORKED WITH
THE COMMITTEE STAFF TO OBSERVE
11 CPP HOLDING FACILITIES, 13
I.C.E. DETENTION FACILITIES AND
SIX STATE LICENSED PRIVATELY
RUN FACILITIES THE CONTRACT
HHS. SO, CONTRARY TO ASSERTIONS
FROM THE DEMOCRATS, THE TRUMP
ADMINISTRATION HAS COOPERATED
SUBSTANTIALLY IN MATTERS
RELATED TO THE BORDER. BUT
LET'S JUST CONTRAST THAT WITH
THE DEMOCRATS COMBATIVE
POSTURE. AND LETTERS TO THE
STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEES, THE
COMMITTEE THREATENED WITNESSES
THAT, AND I QUOTE, ANY FAILURE
TO APPEAR, ANY FAILURE TO
APPEAR IN THE RESPONSE TO A
MERE LETTER REQUESTING THEIR
PRESENCE FOR DEPOSITION SHALL,
AND I, QUOTE CONSTITUTE
EVIDENCE OF OBSTRUCTION. THIS
IS JUST, LETTERS NOT SUBPOENAS.
IN LETTERS TO STATE DEPARTMENT
EMPLOYEES, IN LETTERS TO THE
STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEES, THE
COMMITTEE THREATENED WITNESSES
THAT IF THEY INSIST ON HAVING
AGENCY COUNCIL PRESIDENT TO
PROTECT THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH
AND THE CONFIDENTIALITY
INTERESTS OR IF THEY MAKE ANY
EFFORT TO PROTECT
CONFIDENTIALITY INTERESTS AT
ALL, THESE OFFICIALS WILL HAVE
THEIR SALARIES WITHHELD.
WITHHOLDING OF SALARIES. THE
COMMITTEES HAVE NOT AFFORDED
THE PRESIDENT BASIC PROTECTIONS,
SUCH AS THE RIGHT TO SEE ALL
EVIDENCE, THE RIGHT TO PRESENT
EVIDENCE, THE RIGHT TO CALL
WITNESSES, THE RIGHT TO HAVE
COUNSEL PRESENT AT HEARINGS,
THE RIGHT TO CROSS EXAMINE ALL
WITNESSES, THE RIGHT TO MAKE
OBJECTIONS RELATING TO THE
EXAMINATION OF WITNESSES, OR
THE ADMISSIBILITY OF TESTIMONY
IN THE EVIDENCE, AND DID, NOT
FOR THE PRESIDENT THE RIGHT TO
RESPOND TO EVIDENCE AND
TESTIMONY PRESENTED. THANK, YOU
I YIELD A REMINDER OF MY TIME.
>> GENTLEMAN YIELDS BACK. FOR
WHAT PURPOSE DOES MR. SWALWELL
SEEK RECOGNITION?
>> TO STRIKE THE LAST WORD.
>> THE GENTLEMAN'S RECOGNIZED.
>> MY, COLLEAGUES THE URGENCY
OF THIS MOMENT IS THE GRAVE
RISK THAT THE PRESIDENT WILL
AGAIN ABUSE HIS POWER OF THE
PRESIDENCY TO TRY TO SECURE HIS
REELECTION WE HAVE REASON TO BE
CONCERNED. THE PRESIDENCY GIVE
SOME GREAT POWERS TO CAUSE
OTHERS TO INTERFERE IN OUR
ELECTIONS AND THE ONLY
PROTECTION WE HAVE IS TO ACT
NOW. BECAUSE THE PRESIDENT IS
CHEATING RIGHT NOW AND TO ANY
OF MY COLLEAGUES WHO ASKED WHY
MOVE ON THIS RIGHT NOW, IT IS A
CRIME SPREE IN PROGRESS AND AS
CHAIRMAN SCHIFF SAID EARLIER
THIS WEEK WHAT ARE WE SUPPOSED
TO DO? JUST LET HIM SHEET ONE
MORE TIME? EXPECT HIM TO
EVENTUALLY DO THE RIGHT THING?
AND HERE IS WHAT MY COLLEAGUES
LOGIC AMOUNTS TO IF WE WAIT. IT
AMOUNTS TO THIS, ALLOW THE
BUILDING TO BURN, COLLAPSE,
FALL TO THE GROUND, AND THEN
YOU SHOULD CALL THE FIRE
DEPARTMENT. THIS PRESIDENT HAS
SET OUR DEMOCRACY ON FIRE AND
WE MUST ACT TO SAVE IT. AND
THERE IS AN URGENCY TO ACT.
THIS PRESIDENT IS NOT ONLY
BEING IMPEACHED BECAUSE OF WHAT
HE HAS DONE, IT'S BECAUSE OF
WHAT HE CONTINUES TO DO. WE
KNOW WHAT HE HAS DONE. NOT
REALLY DISPUTED. ABUSED HIS
POWER, ASKED A FOREIGN
GOVERNMENT TO HELP HIM CHEAT,
JEOPARDIZING OUR NATIONAL
SECURITY AND OUR ELECTIONS FOR
HIS OWN PERSONAL GAIN. BUT THIS
WAS NOT A ONE-OFF, WE'VE COME
TO LEARN, AS MISDEMEANORS
EXPLAINED, THIS IS WHAT HE DOES
IN THIS IS WHAT HE WILL KEEP
DOING. IN 2016, AS HE SAID,
RUSSIA, IF YOU ARE LISTENING,
TO MY OPPONENTS EMAILS, YOU
WILL BE REWARDED. IT TURNS OUT
RUSSIA WAS LISTENING. IT TURNS
OUT, RUSSIA HACKED HIS
OPPONENTS EMAILS. THAT DAY,
THEY SOUGHT TO HACK HIS
OPPONENTS EMAILS. IN THAT
INVESTIGATION, HE WENT TO GREAT
LAKES TO OBSTRUCT IT SO, WHY IS
IT SO URGENT THAT WE ACT RIGHT
NOW? THE PRESIDENT'S LAWYER WAS
JUST IN UKRAINE. THE
PRESIDENT'S LAWYER SAID IN MAY,
I AM NOT MEDDLING IN AN
ELECTION. WE, KNOW I, DONALD
TRUMP AND I ARE MEDDLING IN AN
INVESTIGATION. AND THAT
MEDDLING CONTINUES TODAY. BUT
THE PRESIDENT'S OWN WORDS TELL
US ABOUT HIS CURRENT INTENT. ON
OCTOBER 2ND, THE PRESIDENT SAID
AND YOU KNOW WE'VE BEEN
INVESTIGATING ON A PERSONAL
BASIS RUDY AND OTHERS IN THE
2016 ELECTION. I THINK IF THEY
WERE HONEST ABOUT IT THEY
SHOULD START A MAJOR
INVESTIGATION TO THE BIDENS,
THAT SIMPLE. ON OCTOBER, THIRD
THE PRESIDENTS FROM THE WHITE
HOUSE LAWN AND CONFIRM THAT HE
WANTED UKRAINE TO INVESTIGATE
THE BIDENS. BUT THEN HE OUT OF
THE COUNTRY BECAUSE THAT IS
WHAT HE DOES RUSSIA, UKRAINE,
HE SAID CHINA SHOULD ALSO
INVESTIGATE THE BIDENS. MY
COLLEAGUES, WE SHOULD NOT HAVE
TO HOPE OR TO PRAY THAT CHINA
WAS NOT LISTENING WHEN HE SAID
THAT. FORTUNATELY, PEOPLE ON
THIS COMMITTEE ARE LISTENING.
AMERICANS ARE LISTENING. PEOPLE
WHO KNOW RIGHT FROM WRONG OUR
CHILDREN, ARE LISTENING. ARE
YOU LISTENING?? AND WHAT WE
HEAR DEEPLY CONCERNS US ABOUT
WHAT THE PRESIDENT WILL DO NEXT,
AND WE ARE NOT HELPLESS AND IN
FACT, WE KNOW THAT THE COURAGE
TO ACT IS THE ONLY THING THAT
HAS STOPPED THIS PRESIDENT AND
THAT IS NOT A LEAP OF FAITH.
YOU SEE, IT WAS THE COURAGE OF
DOCTOR FIONA HILL, AND
LIEUTENANT COLONEL VINDMAN TO
GO TO THE LAWYERS WHEN THEY
HEARD THE PRESIDENT WAS
CONDITIONING A WHITE HOUSE
VISIT FOR INVESTIGATIONS. IT
WAS THE COURAGE OF THE
WHISTLEBLOWER TO COME FORWARD.
THAT IS WHAT GOT UKRAINE THE
AID. THE PRESIDENT GOT CAUGHT
AND THEN UKRAINE GOT THE AID.
IF THOSE PEOPLE WERE NOT
COURAGEOUS THEN UKRAINE WOULD
NOT HAVE THE AID TODAY SO, WE
MUST FOLLOW THEIR PATTERN OF
CONDUCT AN ACT. WE HAVE PATTERN
EVIDENCE THAT NOT ONLY DONALD
TRUMP ACTS CORRUPTLY BUT THAT
WHEN YOU SHOW COURAGE AN ACT
AGAINST HIM, YOU CAN STOP HIM.
IT IS ACTUALLY THE ONLY WAY TO
EXTINGUISH HIS CORRUPT WAYS. IF
UNCHECKED, MY COLLEAGUES,
DONALD TRUMP DOES NOT GET
BETTER. HE GETS WORSE. HE GETS
MORE CORRUPT AND WE CANNOT WAIT
UNTIL THE NEXT ELECTION TO HOLD
THEM ACCOUNTABLE. NOT WHAT HE
IS TRYING TO RIG THE NEXT
ELECTION. SO WE MUST ACT,
PROTECT OUR NATIONAL SECURITY,
THE INTEGRITY OF OUR ELECTIONS
AND HONOR OUR OATH OF THE
CONSTITUTION. I YIELD BACK.
>> THE GENTLEMAN YIELDS BACK.
DISCUSSION GOES ON THE
AMENDMENT, DOESN'T FAVOR, SAY
AYE?
>> WE HAVE SOMEONE ASKING FOR
TIME.
>> I DIDN'T SEE A REQUEST.
>> YOU SEE IT NOW. YOU NOW
RECOGNIZE IT. DO NOT RECOGNIZE
IT.
>> I RECOGNIZE MR. GATES.
>> THANK YOU MISTER CHAIRMAN, I
MEAN TO STRIKE THE LAST WORD.
>> THE GENTLEMAN IS RECOGNIZED.
>> WELL, THEY ARE RIGHT, THEY
CAN'T WAIT TO THE NEXT ELECTION
BUT IT IS NOT THE REASON THEY
SAY. THE REASON THEY CANNOT
WAIT UNTIL THE NEXT ELECTION IS
BECAUSE THEY'RE TAKING A LOOK
AT THEIR CANDIDATE FIELD AND
THEY HAVE FUNDAMENTALLY CHANGED
EVERY STANDARD BUT THEY HAVE
SET FOR THEMSELVES FOR
IMPEACHMENT FOR THE AMERICAN
PEOPLE. WHAT DO YOU LIKE
PRESIDENT TRUMP OR DON'T LIKE
PRESIDENT TRUMP, IT WOULD AT
LEAST BE WORTH ACKNOWLEDGING
THE DEMOCRATS HAVE MOVED THE
GOALPOSTS ON WHAT IT WOULD
REQUIRE TO BRING US TO THIS
POINT, AND TO HARM OUR NATION
AND TO DISTRACT US SO MUCH FOR
THE CRITICAL NEEDS OF AMERICAN
PEOPLE WHO PROBABLY WONDER WHY
WE ARE NOT FOCUSED ON THEM
RIGHT NOW. FIRST, THEY TOLD, US
IT HAS TO BE BIPARTISAN. NOW, I
GET FOLKS WATCHING AT HOME
MIGHT THINK BUT I'M SOMEBODY
LIKE THE PRESIDENT, I WILL
PROBABLY BE A HARD VOTE FOR
THEM TO GET FOR IMPEACHMENT,
BUT IT'S NOT SOME -- JUSTIFY
CANNOT CONVINCE THE PRESIDENT
SUPPORTED NOT TO ABANDON, HIM
THEY CAN EVEN CONVINCE THE
PRESIDENT'S CRITICS TO ABANDON
HIM. I MEAN, JEFF AND, WE CALL
HIM, PETERSON TO MEMBERS OF
CONGRESS, TO DEMOCRATS, THEY
ARE NOT FANS OF THE PRESIDENT,
THEIR CRITICS OF THE PRESIDENT,
AND YET, THEY DID NOT VOTE WITH
DEMOCRATS BUT WITH REPUBLICANS.
WE'VE GOT SOME REPUBLICANS, MY
COLLEAGUE WILL HURT FROM TEXAS.
HE DOES NOT MIND BEING A CRITIC
FOR THE PRESIDENT, AND HE WAS
HONEST WITH DEMOCRATS, YOU TOLD
THEM THAT IT THIS IS NOT
IMPEACHABLE CONDUCT. HE TOLD US
THAT THE PROCESS WOULD BE FAIR
AND YET EVEN WHEN MEMBERS OF
THIS COMMITTEE SOUGHT THE
OPPORTUNITY NOT TO READ A
TRANSCRIPT ARE SEE SOMEONE
SECOND PERFORMANCE OF THEIR
TESTIMONY BUT TO SEE THEIR
FIRST HAND ACCOUNT, HOW THEY
REACTED, DID THEY FIDGET WHEN
THEY RESPONDED, WE WANTED TO
SEE THOSE THINGS, AND WE WERE
EXCLUDED BY THE INTELLIGENCE
COMMITTEE. DEMOCRATS SAID LET'S
PUT OUR COUNTRY THROUGH THIS
WOULD REQUIRE COMPELLING AN
OVERWHELMING EVIDENCE AND EACH
AND EVERY TIME THEY TRIED TO
PASS IT OUT ON THE PRESIDENT'S
CONDUCT WE ARE ABLE TO SHOW A
LEGITIMATE CONCERN THE
PRESIDENT HAD IN CORRUPTION. WE
ARE ABLE TO SIDE THE TRANSCRIPT
DEMONSTRATES NO CONDITIONALITY,
TIME AND AGAIN. DEMOCRATS SAID
LOOK, THERE IS JUST NO FACTUAL
DEBATE ABOUT WHAT THE PRESIDENT
DID. THE FACTUAL DEBATE COMES
FROM PRESIDENT ZELENSKY. THIS
PRESIDENT ZELENSKY WHO SAID, I
WAS NOT PASSIONATE THEY SAID
WELL, ZELENSKY MIGHT NOT HAVE
KNOWN BUT YERMAK, HE KNEW, SO I
WANT TO TALK TO YOUR MARK AND
THIS SHAKE DOWN, AND THE VERY
DAY INTRODUCED ARTICLES OF
IMPEACHMENT, YOU'RE MOCCASIN
INTERVIEW AND SAYS, HE NEVER
REALLY PERCEIVE THIS AS AN
EXCHANGE OF MILITARY FOR AID
FOR ANY ONE THING, TIME AND
AGAIN, THEY LET US DOWN IN
THEIR CLAIM SO ONE THING THEY
KNOW FOR CERTAIN IS THAT THIS
WAS A SIDE INEVITABILITY. HAD
SOMEONE ASKED ME RECENTLY DO
YOU FEEL SOME SENSE OF HISTORY,
DO SOME SENSE OF MOMENT YOU ARE
ABOUT TO VOTE ON IMPEACHMENT?
AND SADLY I KNEW THIS TIME WAS
COMING SINCE THE DEMOCRATS TOOK
CONTROL OF THE HOUSE OF
REPRESENTATIVES BECAUSE THEY
DID NOT LAY OUT A PLAN TO
APPROPRIATE FOR THE BUDGET, OR
WORK WITH US ON CRITICAL
GENERATIONAL ISSUES. THEY SET
OUT A PLAN FOR IMPEACHMENT. HOW
DO WE KNOW THAT? WELL, THE
CHAIRMAN HIMSELF CAMPAIGN FOR
THE LEAD DEMOCRAT ROLE IN THE
JUDICIARY COMMITTEE. HE DID NOT
SAY PICK ME BECAUSE I'M A GREAT
LEGISLATOR, AROUND SOME
PARTICULAR ISSUES THAT. HE SAID,
PICK ME BECAUSE I WILL BE THE
PERSON THEY CAN BEST LEAD OUR
CAUCUS THROUGH A POTENTIAL
IMPEACHMENT. THEY HAVE HAD A
BLOODLUST FOR IMPEACHMENT. IT
HAS BEEN THEIR OBSESSION AND IT
IS DEEPLY SADDENING TO US. WE
TAKE ABSOLUTELY NO JOY IN THE
FACT THAT IT IS SO CONSUMING,
BUT HERE WE STAND ON THE VERGE
OF IT AND MY EXPECTATION IS
THAT THIS NEW STANDARD AND THIS
SECOND ARTICLE WITH JUST THE
NOTION OF OBSTRUCTION OF
CONGRESS IS THEIR EXCUSE FOR
NOT BEING ABLE TO PROVE
OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE. PUBLIC
REPORTING HAS BEEN SAYING THE
CHAIRMAN WENT TO THE DEMOCRATIC
CAUCUS AND SOUGHT SUPPORT TO
BRING AN ARTICLE FOR
OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE AND
COULD NOT GET THEIR SUPPORT SO
HERE WE ARE NOW WITH
OBSTRUCTION OF CONGRESS, SORT
OF THE LOW ENERGY VERSION OF
THE OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE
CLAIM THAT THEY WANTED. THEY
HOPE THEY WERE GOING TO BE ABLE
TO CONVICT AND ACCUSE AND
EVIDENCE SOME CLAIM ON BRIBERY.
THAT IS WHAT THEY'RE POLLSTERS
AND PUNDITS TOLD THEM WOULD BE
BEST AS THEY SOLEMNLY TELL US
THIS IS SAD FOR THEM, THEY WERE
OUT POLLING WHAT LEXICON, WHAT
WORD CHOICE WOULD HELP TO MAKE
THE CASE TO THE AMERICAN PUBLIC
AND SO THEY SETTLE ON BRIBERY.
YOU ALL IN THE MEDIA HEARD IT.
YOU HEARD ON EVERY SHOW,
TALKING ABOUT THIS IS THE NEW
STANDARD, SPEAKER PELOSI
SPEAKING IN THIS NEW LANGUAGE
AND THEN WE ASKED THE WITNESSES,
WERE YOU A PART OF BRIBERY? DID
YOU SAY BRIBERY? THE EVIDENCE
WAS NOT THERE SO INSTEAD OF
BRIBERY, INSTEAD OF TREASON,
EXTORTION, YOU HAVE ABUSE OF
POWER, THE LOW ENERGY VERSION.
I'M DISAPPOINTED IN MY
COLLEAGUES BUT PROBABLY EVEN
THOSE WHO DON'T SUPPORT THE
PRESIDENT WE SHARE THE
DISAPPOINTMENT IN THIS VERY
MOMENT AND I YIELD BACK.
>> THE GENTLEMAN YIELDS BACK.
>> MISTER CHAIRMAN, HAVE
UNANIMOUS CONSENT REQUEST.
>> I RECOGNIZE MR. RUSSIANS ALL
FOR THE PURPOSE OF UNANIMOUS
CONSENT REQUEST.
>> THANK YOU, MISTER, PRESENT I
ASK UNANIMOUS CONSENT TO ENTER
THE LETTER I REFERENCED WHICH
IS THE LETTER FROM CHAIRMAN
ANGLE TO JOHN SOLOMON IN WHICH
CHAIRMAN ANGLES SAYS THAT
OFFICIALS WHO INSIST ON COUNCIL
HOW THEIR SALARY.
>> NO OBJECTION.
>> THANK YOU. THE QUESTION NOW
OCCURS ON THE AMENDMENT, THOSE
IN FAVOR SAY AYE, THERE IS A
POSE, NO, SNOW, IN THE OPINION
OF THE CHAIR THE NOSE HAVE IT
IN THE AMENDMENT IS NOT AGREED.
A REAL CAUSE REQUESTED. THE
CLERK WILL CALL THE ROLE.
>> MR. NADLER?
>> NO.
>> MR. NADLER VOTES NO.
>> IT'S LOFGREN?
>> NO.
>> MISS JACKSON-LEE?
>> NO.
>> MR. COHEN?
>> NO.
>> MR. JOHNSON OF GEORGIA?
>> NO.
>> MR. JOY?
>> NO.
>> MISS PASS?
>> NO.
>> MR. RICHMOND?
>> NO.
>> MR. JEFFRIES?
>> NO.
>> MR. JEFFRIES?
>> NO.
>> MR. CICILLINE?
>>
>> NO.
>> MR. SWALWELL?
>> NO.
>> MR. LIEU? MR. RASKIN? MR.
RASKIN VOTES NO. MISS JAYAPAL?
>> NO.
>> MISS DEMINGS?
>> NO.
>> MR. KOREA?
>> NO.
>> MISS SCANLON?
>> NO.
>> MR. SIYA -- THIS GARCIA?
>> NO.
>> MR. NEGUSE?
>> NO.
>> MISTER MCQUEEN -- MISSED
MCBATH?
>> NO.
>> MR. STANTON?
>> NO.
>> MISS DEAN
>>? NO
>>. MISS BECAUSE OF HOW
>>? NO
>>. MR. COLLINS?
>> I.
>> IT IS ESCOBAR?
>> NO.
>> MR. SENSENBRENNER?
>> I.
>>
>> MR. CHABOT?
>> I.
>> MR. GOHMERT?
>> A BIG OLD I.
>> MR. JORDAN?
>> I.
>>?
>> MR. BUCK?
>> I.
>> MISS ROBY?
>> I.
>> MR. GATES?
>> I.
>> MR. JOHNSON OF LOUISIANA?
>> I.
>> MR. BIG?
>> I.
>> MR. MCCLINTOCK?
>> I.
>> MISS LET'S GO?
>> MISS GLASGOW VOTES I.
>> MR. RESCHENTHALER?
>> I.
>> MR.?
>> KLEIN I
>>.
>> MISSED? MR. ARMSTRONG?
>>. I
>>? MR. STEW BE?
>> I.
>> THE CLERICAL REPORT?
>> WAS GERMAN, THERE 17 EYES
AND 23 KNOWS. THE AMENDMENT IS
NOT AGREED TO. ARE THERE ANY
FURTHER AMENDMENTS?
>> FOR WHAT PURPOSE IS MR.
JORDAN SEEK RECOGNITION?
>> I HAVE HIM AT THE DESK.
>> I RESERVE A POINT OF ORDER.
>> THE GENTLELADY RESERVE THE
POINT OF ORDER.
>> AND THEN INTO THE AMENDMENT
IN THE NATURE OF THE SUBSTITUTE,
A TRUST 7:55 OFFERED BY MR.
JORDAN IF OHIO, PAGE FOR,
STRIKE 1:23 AND ALL THAT
FOLLOWS THROUGH PAGE FIVE LINE
FIVE, PAGE EIGHT, STRIKE LINES
TEN THROUGH 17.
>> GENTLEMAN IS RECOGNIZED FOR
THE PURPOSE OF EXPLAINING.
>> I WITHDRAW MY POINT OF
ORDER.
>> WHATEVER IS WITHDRAWN.
>> MISS CHAIRMAN, THE SIMPLY
STRIKES THE LAST EIGHT LINES IN
ARTICLE ONE AND THE LAST EIGHT
LINES IN ARTICLE TWO. LOOK, WE
HAVE A RIGGED AND BRUSHED
PROCESS. YOU DON'T HAVE THE
FACTS ON YOUR SIDE. WE'VE BEEN
THROUGH THESE FACTS MANY TIMES.
UKRAINE DID NOT KNOW AID WAS
HELD UP AT THE TIME OF THE CALL
BUT THE DEMOCRATS ASSERT THAT
PRESIDENT TRUMP WAS PRESSURING
ZELENSKY ON THE CALL TO
INVESTIGATE THE BIDENS IN ORDER
TO GET THE AID THAT HE DID NOT
EVEN KNOW WAS ON HOLD. THAT IS
THEIR ARGUMENT. BY THE WAY,
DOWN THE ROAD, PRESIDENT
ZELENSKY SAYS THERE WAS NO
PRESSURE ON THE CALL, NO
PUSHING, NO LINKAGE WHATSOEVER.
BUT YOU HAVE A RIGGED AND RUSH
PROCESS WHERE YOU DON'T HAVE
THE FACTS. YOU HAVE A WRITTEN
RUSHED PROCESS WHERE YOU CANNOT
ACCEPT THE WILL OF THE AMERICAN
PEOPLE. SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE
PELOSI, NANCY PELOSI CALLED THE
PRESIDENT AN IMPOSTOR JUST
THREE WEEKS AGO. THE DEMOCRATS
HAVE NEVER ACCEPTED THE WILL OF
THE AMERICAN PEOPLE AND THAT IS
WHY THEY HAVE BEEN OUT TO GET
THIS PRESIDENT SINCE EVEN
BEFORE HE WAS ELECTED AND OF
COURSE YOU HAVE A WRITTEN RUSH
PROCESS WHEN YOU ARE AFRAID
THAT YOU CANNOT BEAT THE
PRESIDENT AT THE BALLOT BOX,
WHEN YOU ARE NERVOUS ABOUT ASKS
FALSE ELECTION, YOU HAVE THIS
KIND OF PROCESS, A RIGGED AND
RUSHED PROCESS. THIS IS NOT
ABOUT THE CONCERN, IS NOT ABOUT
THE CONCERN MR. SWALWELL TALKED
ABOUT EARLIER, THAT SOMEHOW THE
PRESIDENT IS GOING TO DO
SOMETHING WRONG AND TRY TO
INFLUENCE THE ELECTION.. NO,
THIS IS ABOUT THEIR CONCERN
THAT THEY CANNOT WIN NEXT YEAR
BASED ON WHAT THE PRESIDENT HAS
ACCOMPLISHED IN THE PAST THREE
YEARS. I MEAN, IT IS AN AMAZING
RECORD DESPITE OF DEMOCRATS
BEING COMPLETELY AGAINST THE
PRESIDENT, DESPITE THE
DEMOCRATS BEING AGAINST THE
PRESIDENT, FRANKLY, IT'S PART
OF A FEW REPUBLICANS BEING
AGAINST A PRESIDENT IT IS
AMAZING WHAT HAS BEEN
ACCOMPLISHED, TAXES HAVE BEEN,
CUT REGULATIONS, REDUCE THE
ECONOMY GROWING AT AN
UNBELIEVABLE RIGHT, LOWEST
UNEMPLOYMENT IN 50 YEARS,
266,000 JOBS I DID LAST MONTH
ALONE, 54,000 IN THE
MANUFACTURING SECTOR, MR. GORE
SEARCH, MR. KAVANAUGH ON THE
COURT, A LOT OF OTHER
VULNERABLE JUDGES CONFIRMED OUT
OF THE IRAN DEAL, EMBASSY IN
JERUSALEM, AND A NEW NAFTA
AGREEMENT GOING TO BE VOTED ON
NEXT WEEK. YEAH, YOU GUYS ARE
IN A RIGGED AND RUSH PROCESS
BECAUSE YOU ARE NERVOUS ABOUT
NEXT NOVEMBER. MR. GREEN SAYS
WE HAVE TO IMPEACH HIM BECAUSE
HE'S GOING TO WIN THE ELECTION.
YOU KNOW WHAT THIS IS ABOUT. I
THINK ABOUT THIS PRESIDENT. I
THINK THIS IS WHY THE AMERICAN
PEOPLE LIKE HIM SO, MUCH
BECAUSE HE IS DOING WHAT HE
SAID HE WOULD DO. EVERY
PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION I'VE BEEN
ABLE TO PARTICIPATE IN, BOTH
CANDIDATES, REPUBLICAN AND
DEMOCRAT CANDIDATE, WHEN THE
CAMPAIGN FOR THE JOB THEY TELL
THE COUNTRY IF YOU ELECT ME I'M
GOING TO MOVE THE EMBASSY TO
JERUSALEM. REPUBLICANS,
DEMOCRATS, THEY ALL CAMPAIGNED
ON, IT THEN THEY GET ELECTED,
THEY COME UP WITH 1 MILLION
REASONS WHY THEY SAY THEY
CANNOT DO WHAT THEY WERE GOING
TO DO, MORE IMPORTANTLY WHAT
THE AMERICAN PEOPLE LOOKING TO
DO EVEN TO THE SAME PEOPLE,
SAME INTER AGENCY CONSENSUS
THAT WE'VE HEARD OVER THE LAST
FEW MONTHS IMPEACHMENT CHOIR,
EVEN THOUGH THAT SAME INTER
AGENCY CONSENSUS WAS PROBABLY
AGAINST THAT, THIS PRESIDENT
SAID, I'M GLAD TO DO IT, AND
IT'S BEEN A GOOD THING, THAT IS
WHAT THE AMERICAN PEOPLE
APPRECIATE, AND THAT IS WHY WE
GOT THIS REGION RUSH PROCESS
BECAUSE IT IS REALLY ABOUT NEXT
NOVEMBER. THEY ARE ALL AFRAID.
SOME OF THEIR COLLEAGUES HAVE
SAID IT STRAIGHT UP, THEY ARE
AFRAID THEY CANNOT BEAT HIM AT
THE BALLOT BOX SO THEY'RE GOING
TO DO THIS RIGGED, RUSHED AND
WRONG IMPEACHMENT PROCESS. I
YIELD THE REMAINDER OF MY TIME.
>> I JUST WANT TO ASK THE
GENTLEMAN FROM OHIO QUESTION.
BASED ON THE STANDARDS THE
DEMOCRATS ARE STARTING HERE, IF
SOMEBODY IS IN THE HOUSE OR
SENATE RUNNING FOR PRESIDENT
AND THEY SUPPORT OR PUSH
IMPEACHMENT OF THE PRESIDENT,
WOULD THEY BE SUBJECT TO BEING
EXPELLED OR -- FOR ABUSING
THEIR POSITION? I'M JUST
CURIOUS.
>> I THINK I WILL LET MY
COLLEAGUE ANSWER THAT QUESTION,
BUT WHAT I DO KNOW IS THAT I
THINK MY COLLEAGUES ON THE
OTHER SIDE OF THE AISLE ARE, AS
I, SAID NERVOUS ABOUT THEIR
PROSPECTS NEXT NOVEMBER AGAINST
PRESIDENT TRUMP BASED ON HIS
AMAZING RECORD OF LEADERSHIP IN
THE LAST TWO YEARS. THAT I
WOULD YIELD BACK, THANK YOU.
>> THE GENTLEMAN YIELDS BACK. I
WILL RECOGNIZE MYSELF,. I THINK
THAT THE FACTS AMPLY
DEMONSTRATE THE CHARGES IN
THESE TWO ARTICLES OF
IMPEACHMENT, NAMELY THE
PRESIDENT PUT HIS OWN INTEREST
IN FRONT OF THE INTEREST OF THE
COUNTRY, THAT HE SOUGHT TO USE
THE POWER OF THE PRESIDENCY TO
WITHHOLD AID, MILITARY AID FROM
AN ALLY AND TO EXTORT THAT ALLY
INTO MAKING AN ANNOUNCEMENT, A
BOGUS INVESTIGATION OF A
POLITICAL OPPONENT OF HIS FOR
HIS OWN PERSONAL BENEFIT AND
THAT HE OBSTRUCTED CONGRESS BY
REFUSING A COOPERATION AND
STRUCK IN THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH
NOT TO COOPERATE WITH CONGRESS
IN THE EXECUTIVE IN THE
IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY. THIS
AMENDMENT, THIS AMENDMENT
SIMPLY TAKES THE LAST TWO
PARAGRAPHS OUT OF EACH ARTICLE,
TAKE THE PARAGRAPHS HAS WHERE
FOR THE PRESIDENT SHOULD BE
IMPEACHED, IT RENDERS THE TWO
ARTICLES SIMPLY A CATALOG OF
VARIOUS BAD ACT BY THE
PRESIDENT, AND TAKES THE FORCE
AND A FACT OF THE ARTICLES
ENTIRELY AWAY. IT IS SILLY. IF
YOU BELIEVE THAT THE PRESIDENT
IS GUILTY OF WHAT THE ARTICLES
CHARGE HIM WITH, YOU SHOULD
VOTE FOR THE ARTICLES OF
IMPEACHMENT. IF YOU BELIEVE HE
IS NOT, YOU SHOULD VOTE AGAINST
THE ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT,
BUT TO TRY TO HAVE THIS
AMENDMENT SIMPLY RENDERS THE
ARTICLES CATALOGUES OF BAD ACTS
AND TAKES OUT THE EFFECTIVE
SENTENCES IS SILLY, SO I URGE A
NO VOTE ON THIS AMENDMENT AND I
WOULD THEN URGE OF COURSE THAT
WE ADOPT THE ARTICLES OF
IMPEACHMENT. I YIELD BACK THE
BALANCE OF MY TIME.
>> MISTER CHAIRMAN.
>> WHAT PURPOSES MR. COLLINS
SEEK RECOGNITION?
>> STRIKE LAST. WORD
>> GENTLEMAN IS RECOGNIZED.
>> I THINK IT IS INTERESTING
HOW YOU JUST DESCRIBED THIS
BECAUSE REALLY THIS IS WHAT WE
HAVE SEEN THIS ENTIRE TIME, AT
THE FACTS HERE IS REALLY ALL
THAT YOU HAVE. YOU KEEP
THROWING AROUND THESE BAD FACTS
YOU DON'T LIKE IT IS
INTERESTING TO ME ALSO THAT TO
CATALOGUING, IT FINALLY GOT TO,
IT THE CATALAN ABOUT ACTUALLY
DON'T LIKE AND THAT THIS SIMPLY
TAKES AWAY THE PUNISHMENT, OF
WHAT THE ACTING RESULT WILL BE.
IT SHOULD NOT SURPRISE ANYONE
HERE, THOUGH, BECAUSE THIS IS
WHAT THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY AND
MAJORITY OF DONE ALL YEAR. IN
FACT, THEY DID AT ONE TIME ON
THE FLOOR OF THE HOUSE AND THE
SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE BROKE THE
RULES OF THE HOUSE ON THE FLOOR
AND INSTEAD OF OPENING UP TO
BREAKING THE RULES OF DECORUM
ON THE FLOOR, SHE HAD EVERYBODY
COME BACK DOWN, FOR THE
MAJORITY SIDE AND VOTE TO
RESTORE HER RIGHT TO SPEAK EVEN
THOUGH SHE POLITELY BROKE THE
RULES. SO, DON'T GIVE ME THIS
HIGH AND MIGHTY OH, THE RULES,
JUST HAVING A LIST OF IDEAS
HERE, THAT IS WHAT WE HAVE BEEN
DOING ALL YEAR. I TOLD THE
GROUP JUST THE OTHER DAY THAT
YOU CAN ALWAYS JUDGE MANY
THINGS BY WHAT YOU SPENT TIME
ON WHAT YOU SPEND MONEY ON.
SPENT TIME, ON SPEND MONEY ON.
I HAVE SAID ALREADY THAT THIS
IS AN IMPEACHMENT OF A CLOCK
AND CALENDAR AND I BELIEVE THAT
TO BE TRUE BECAUSE WE ARE
SEEING IT TONIGHT, WE ARE
SEEING IT IN THIS WHOLE,
PROCESS THREE HEARINGS, TO
HEARINGS, I'M SORRY, THAT IS
ALL WE ARE DOING, HERE THE
RUBBER STAMPING OF THIS
COMMITTEE, SO, IT IS A TIME
ISSUE BECAUSE THEY HAVE BEEN
TOLD, THAT I UNDERSTAND THE
LEADERSHIP WANTS THIS TO HAPPEN,
THIS IS WHY IT IS HAPPENING.
THEY'VE GOT A CHOICE AND I FEEL
FOR THE CHAIRMAN IN THAT REGARD
BECAUSE HE DOES NOT HAVE A
CHOICE IN THIS. THE SPEAKERS
AND OTHERS HAVE TOLD HIM THIS
IS WHAT WILL HAPPEN IN THIS
HOUSE IS PLAYING OUT, BUT HE
GOES BACK EVEN FURTHER TO THE
FIRST OF THE, YEAR THIS IS A
TIME IN MONEY ISSUE, IT IS A
CALENDAR CLOCK ISSUE BECAUSE
THE COMMITTEES, THE
INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE IN THE
JUDICIARY COMMITTEE DECIDED
EARLY ON TO SPEND MONEY CAN
BRING OUTSIDE HELP INTO PREPARE
FOR TONIGHT. THEY DID NOT KNOW
IT WAS GOING TO BE LIKE THIS IN
JANUARY OR NOVEMBER, WHEN THEY
DID HIRE THAT EXTRA HELP TO
COME IN BUT THEY KNEW THAT THEY
WERE GOING TO GET TO IT
SOMEHOW. THEY JUST DID NOT KNOW
HOW AND THEY KEPT WAITING AND I
KEPT WAITING, SO THEY HIRED
EXTRA OUTSIDE COUNSEL. UPDATED
ON THE INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE
AND ALL THEY WERE GOING TO DO
WAS INVESTIGATE THE PRESIDENT
AND THEY DID AND THE ONLY THING
I CAN SAY ON THAT PART IS
CONGRATULATIONS, THEY FINALLY
DID WHAT THEY ALWAYS WANTED TO
DO AND THAT IS WHAT WE ARE
SEEING RIGHT HERE, BUT TO
DESCRIBE THIS TONIGHT I
DESCRIBED THIS AS IT WE JUST
DESCRIBED IS SIMPLY TAKING AWAY
THE PUNISHMENT AND IS LIFTING A
LOT OF BAD ACTS, I CAN DO THAT
ABOUT THIS MAJORITY BAD YEAR
ALL YEAR IN THESE COMMITTEES IN
THIS INVESTIGATIONS, WE HAVE
HAD MORE HEARINGS IN WHICH THEY
GOT TO BASICALLY STREAM
ADMINISTRATION WITNESSES BUT
YET OFFERED NO SOLUTIONS, IT IS
MIND-BOGGLING. IT IS
DEHUMANIZING, AS ONE OF MY
COLLEAGUES SAID, AND I CALL
THEM OUT. WHEN WE TALK ABOUT
IMMIGRATION, NOW, TODAY, TO
AGAIN COME BEFORE THIS
COMMITTEE TO TAKE ALL OF THIS I
NEVER HAVE A FACT WITNESS I
THINK IS AN ISSUE I'M A FRIEND
FROM FLORIDA SAID THERE'S
ACTUALLY A PURPOSE TO SEE
PEOPLE AGAIN IF THEY'VE ALREADY
TESTIFIED BEFORE TO SEE HOW
THEY WOULD ANSWER QUESTIONS AND
THIS COMMITTEE THAT WOULD'VE
BEEN A GOOD THING BUT WE DO NOT
HAVE THAT. BUT TO SAY WITH A
STRAIGHT FACE, AND I APPRECIATE
THIS, TO SAY THAT AT THE END OF
THE DAY ALL WE ARE DOING IS
TAKING AWAY THE PUNISHMENT
BECAUSE YOU HAVE A LIST OF BAD
ACTS WHEN THE MAJORITY HAVE
DONE THAT ALL YEAR AND
ESPECIALLY THE CLASSIC CASE OF
THE SPEAKER ON THE FLOOR OF THE
HOUSE BREAKING THE LAW OF THE
RULES OF THE FLOOR AND THEN
HAVING THE MAJORITY COME DOWN
AND RESTORE HER RIGHTS, SIMPLY
BECAUSE THEY DID NOT LIKE THE
FACT BUT SHE HAD BROKE THE
RULES, YOU SEE, THIS IS WHERE
OUR AD. IT IS A MONEY IN TIME
ISSUES. IT WOULD BE NICE IF IT
WAS HIGH AND NOBLE AND IT WOULD
BE NICE IF ALL THE CRIMES ARE
TALKING ABOUT, EXTORTION,
BRIBERY, FRAUD, IT WOULD BE
NICE IF IT COULD'VE FOUND
ACTUAL FACTS ENOUGH TO PUT THAT
INTO AN ARTICLE. THEY COULD BUT
THEY WILL NOT, WHY? BECAUSE
THEY CAN'T. MAYBE IT IS BECAUSE
THEY'RE HAVING TROUBLE
EXPLAINING THOSE BECAUSE THEY
COULD NOT TEST GOOD ENOUGH AND
ALSO THAT MEMBERS THE NEED TO
GO BACK TO THE JUDICIARY TO SAY
OH MY, I WAS FORCED TO DO THIS
BUT REALLY THE PRESIDENT IS A
BAD GUY AND THIS WAS AN ABUSE
OF POWER. IF YOU SAY IT LONG
ENOUGH, SOMEBODY MIGHT BELIEVE
IT. THIS IS WHERE WE ARE AT AND
IT IS REALLY INTERESTING AGAIN,
FROM OBSTRUCTION OF CONGRESS TO
WATCH THIS MAJORITY WORK IS
JUST TRULY, TRULY AMAZING AND
TO SAY THIS, NO FACT PUT
TOGETHER, ABUSE OF POWER,
OBSTRUCTION OF, CONGRESS THIS
IS ALL THEY HAVE TO MAKE THIS
EXCUSE, GOOD LUCK. THAT DOG ATE
HUNTING ANYMORE. NOBODY IS, IT
JUST AIN'T WORKING AND WITH
THAT I YIELD BACK.
>> THE GENTLEMAN YIELDS BACK.
>> MISTER CHAIR?
>> FOR WAS PURPOSE DOES MOSCOW
SEEK RECOGNITION?
>> THANK YOU -- I MOVE TO
STRIKE THE LAST WORD.
>> THE SENATE IS RECOGNIZED.
>> THANK, YOU MISTER CHAIR. I
THINK IT IS AN APPROPRIATE TIME
TO REMIND YOU AGAIN OF YOUR OWN
WORDS THAT WERE STATED JUST A
FEW MONTHS AGO LAST YEAR.
DURING AN INTERVIEW ON MSNBC'S
MORNING JOE ON NOVEMBER 26TH
2018, CHAIRMAN NADLER OUTLINED
A THREE PRONG TEST THAT HE SAID
WOULD ALLOW FOR A LEGITIMATE
IMPEACHMENT PROCEEDING AND NOW
I QUOTE, CHAIRMAN NADLER'S
REMARKS. THERE REALLY ARE THREE
QUESTIONS, I THINK. FIRST, HAS
THE PRESIDENT COMMITTED
IMPEACHABLE OFFENSES? SECOND,
DID THOSE DEFENSES RISE TO THE
GRAVITY THAT IS WORTH PUTTING
THE COUNTRY THROUGH THE DRAMA
OF IMPEACHMENT, AND NUMBER
THREE, BECAUSE YOU DON'T WANT
TO TEAR THE COUNTRY APART, YOU
DON'T WANT HALF THE COUNTRY TO
SAY TO THE OTHER HALF, FOR THE
NEXT 30 YEARS WE WON THE
ELECTION AND 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
OFFENSIVE SO GRAVE THAT ONCE
YOU HAVE 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 THESE THREE
TESTS, THEN I THINK YOU DO THE
IMPEACHMENT. NOW, LET'S SEE IF
CHAIRMAN NADLER'S THREE PART
TEST HAS BEEN MET. FIRST, HAS
THE PRESIDENT COMMITTED AN
IMPEACHABLE OFFENSE? NO. THERE
HAS BEEN NO WITNESS, NO
DEMOCRAT WITNESS, FACT WITNESS
THAT CAN PROVE THAT FACT.
SECOND, DO THOSE OFFENSIVES
RISE TO THE GRAVITY THAT IS
WORTH PUTTING THE COUNTRY
THROUGH THE DRAMA OF
IMPEACHMENT? ABSOLUTELY NOT.
AND THIRD, HOW THE DEMOCRATS
LAID OUT A CASE SO CLEAR THAT
EVEN THE OPPOSITION HAS TO
AGREE? NO. AND YOU LET HOUSE
DEMOCRAT LEADERSHIP ARE TEARING
THE COUNTRY APART. HE SAID THE
EVIDENCE NEEDS TO BE CLEAR. IT
IS NOT. HE SAID OFFENSE IS
NEEDED TO BE GRAVE. THEY ARE
NOT. HE SAID THAT ONCE THE
EVIDENCE IS LAID OUT, THAT THE
OPPOSITION WILL ADMIT THEY HAD
TO DO IT. WELL, THAT HASN'T
HAPPENED. IN FACT, POLLING AND
THE FACT THAT NOT ONE SINGLE
REPUBLICAN VOTED ON THE
IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY RESOLUTION,
OR THE SCHIFF REPORT, AND I
DOUBT THAT ONE SINGLE
REPUBLICAN WILL VOTE ON THESE
ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT TONIGHT,
OR ON THE FLOOR OF THE HOUSE OF
REPRESENTATIVES REVEALS THAT
THE OPPOSITE IS IN FACT TRUE.
IN FACT, WHAT YOU HEAR
DEMOCRATIC COLLEAGUES HAVE DONE
IS THE OPPOSITE OF WHAT YOU
SAID HAD TO BE DONE. THIS IS A
PARTISAN IMPEACHMENT AND IT IS
TEARING THE COUNTRY APART AND
WITH THAT, I YIELD BACK.
>> LITTLE IDIOTS BACK. DOES
ANYONE ELSE --
>> MISTER CHAIRMAN. I SEEK
RECOGNITION.
>> FOR WHAT PERSON TO REFRESH
JOHNSON STREET RECOGNITION?
>> STRIKE LAST. WHERE
>> THE GENTLEMAN IS RECOGNIZED.
>> I THANK YOU, MISTER CHAIRMAN,
I AM JUST RISING TO SPEAK IN
SUPPORT OF THIS AMENDMENT FOR
MR. JORDAN AND I THINK IT IS
REALLY APPROPRIATE, I DO NOT
THINK WERE ASKING FOR ANYTHING
EXTRAORDINARY HERE BECAUSE I'M
READING THIS RESOLUTION AS IT'S
DRAFTED AND THE LANGUAGE JUST
JUMPS OFF THE PAGE. I MEAN,
THIS IS REALLY PERSONAL. THE
LIES THAT HE IS SEEKING TO
STRIKE FOR THIS AMENDMENT
SHOULD BE STRUCK. I MEAN, THE
VICTORY, ALL THE HATRED JUST
TRIPS, I MEAN, IT SOUNDS LIKE
IT IS OUT OF THE PETER STRZOK
LISA PAGE EXCHANGES, THE
VITRIOL HATRED FOR DONALD
TRUMP. RIGHT HERE, THE ONES WHO
WANT TO STRIKE, IT SAYS
PRESIDENT TRUMP WANTS
IMPEACHMENT AND TRIAL, REMOVAL
FROM OFFICE AND
DISQUALIFICATION TO HOLD AND
ENJOY ANY OFFICE OF HONOR OR
TRUST OR PROFIT UNDER THE
UNITED STATES. I MEAN, LOOK,
THEY DON'T JUST WANT TO REMOVE
HIM FROM THE OVAL OFFICE, OKAY?
THEY WANT TO CRUSH HIM. THEY
WANT TO DESTROY DONALD TRUMP.
THEY WANT TO BANISH HIM FROM
THE MARKETPLACE. I MEAN IT IS
SO OVER THE TOP, SO OVER THE
TOP. PROFESSOR TURLEY, AGAIN,
THE ONLY WITNESS THAT WE HAVE
BEEN ALLOWED IN THE JUDICIARY
COMMITTEE, THE COMMITTEE THAT
HAS APPROPRIATE JURISDICTION
OVER THIS ISSUE. AGAIN, ONE
WITNESS IN THE PROCESS AND HE
WAS NOT A DONALD TRUMP
SUPPORTER. HE CAME IN FAMOUSLY
AND SAID I DID NOT VOTE FOR HIM
AND DON'T SUPPORT HIM, BUT I
CAME TO GIVE OBJECTIVE ANALYSIS
BECAUSE MY ALLEGIANCE IS TO THE
CONSTITUTION. THAT IS WHAT
PROFESSOR TURLEY SAID. YOU KNOW
WHAT HE GOT FOR THAT OBJECTIVE
ANALYSIS THAT HE DELIVERED TO
THIS COMMITTEE, SO WELL AND SO
INTRICATELY? HE GOT DEATH
THREATS AHEAD TO PUBLISH AN
OP-ED A FEW DAYS LATER
EXPLAINING THAT THERE WAS THIS
OUTCRY CALLING FOR HIM TO BE
REMOVED FROM HIS TEACHING
POSITION AT HIS UNIVERSITY, HIS
LAW SCHOOL. DEATH THREATS
BECAUSE HE GAVE AN OBJECTIVE
VIEW OF THE CONSTITUTION, THE
VICTORY ALL, THE DEFCON, LEVEL
OF THE POLITICAL DEFCON SCALE
IS THAT ONE RIGHT NOW. IT IS SO
CRAZY AND IT IS BECAUSE OF
LANGUAGE LIKE THIS AND THE
RESOLUTION THAT IS PUSHING
THIS. BUT I WILL TELL YOU WHY
PROFESSOR TURLEY SAID, A COUPLE
OF EXCERPTS IN HIS SUMMARY OF
ALL OF THIS HE SAID, QUOTE AS,
I'VE STRESSED THIS IN HIS
WRITTEN REPORT HE SUBMITTED TO
US, AS I HAVE STRESSED IS
POSSIBLE TO ESTABLISH A CASE
FOR IMPEACHMENT BASED ON NON
CRIMINAL ALLEGATIONS, ABUSE OF
POWER, BUT ALTHOUGH CRIMINALITY
IS NOT REQUIRED IN SUCH A CASE,
CLARITY IS NECESSARY. THAT
COMES FROM A COMPLETE
COMPREHENSIVE RECORD THAT
ELIMINATES EXCULPATORY
MOTIVATIONS OR EXPLANATIONS.
THE PROBLEM IS THAT THIS IS AN
EXCEPTIONALLY NARROW
IMPEACHMENT RESTING ON THE
SCENE AS POSSIBLE EVIDENTIALLY
RECORD. EVEN UNDER THE MOST
FLEXIBLE ENGLISH IMPEACHMENT
MODEL THERE REMAIN AN
EXPECTATION THAT IMPEACHMENT
COULD NOT BE BASED ON
PRESUMPTION OF SPECULATION. IF
THE UNDERLYING ALLEGATION WAS
NOT CRIMINAL, THE EARLY ENGLISH
IMPEACHMENT FOLLOWED A FORMAT
SIMILAR TO A CRIMINAL CHILD
INCLUDING CALLING OF WITNESSES
AND ALL THE REST. HE SAID THE
HISTORY OF AMERICAN
PRESIDENTIAL IMPEACHMENT SHOWS
RESTRAINT EVEN WHEN THERE ARE
SUBSTANTIVE COMPLAINTS AGAINST
THE CONDUCT OF PRESIDENTS.
INDEED SOME OF OUR GREATEST
PRESIDENT WOULD HAVE BEEN
IMPEACHED FOR ACTS IN DIRECT
VIOLATION OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL
OATH OF OFFICE BECAUSE IT DID
NOT HAPPEN BECAUSE COOLER HEADS
PREVAILED IN THE CONGRESS. IS
ISSUES OF IMPEACHMENT HAS BEEN
PLAYING DURING THE TRUMP
ADMINISTRATION. MEMBERS OF
CALLED FOR A REMOVAL BASED ON A
PERIOD OF OBJECTIONS AGAINST
THIS PRESIDENT, REPRESENTATIVE
FROM TEXAS FOLLOWING A
RESOLUTION IN THE HOUSE FOR
IMPEACHMENT AFTER TRUMP CALLED
FOR PLAYERS KNEELING DURING THE
NATIONAL ANTHEM TO BE FIRED. I
MEAN, COME, ON IF YOU DO NOT
LIKE HIS POLITICAL POSITIONS,
GREAT, BUT YOU CANNOT IMPEACH A
PRESIDENT BECAUSE YOU DO NOT
LIKE HIM. THAT IS NOT HOW THIS
SYSTEM WORKS. WE ARE IN A
CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC. THERE
ARE RULES HERE. THERE ARE
STANDARDS. YOU DON'T GET TO
MAKE THAT DECISION, THE VOTERS
IN THIS COUNTRY DO AND WE HAVE
AN ELECTION COMING UP, LET THE
PEOPLE DECIDE, DO NOT PUT
YOURSELVES IN THEIR PLACE. YOU
DO NOT HAVE THE RIGHT TO DO IT,
YOU ARE NOT FOLLOWING THE
PROPER PROCEDURE, YOU ARE NOT
DOING THIS THE RIGHT WAY. IT IS
A REALLY USE CONSTITUTIONAL
DEVICE IN OUR HISTORY AND IT IS
SUPPOSED TO BE BUT PROFESSOR
TURLEY ENDED IT THIS WAY AND I
WILL AS WELL. HE SAID, QUOTE,
DESPITE MY DISAGREEMENT WITH
MONEY A PRESIDENT TRUMP'S
POLICY STATEMENT, AND PETER WAS
NEVER INTENDED TO BE USED AS A
MIDTERM CORRECTIVE OPTION FOR A
DEVICE -- DIVISIVE OR UNPOPULAR
LEADER. LOOK, WE GOT IT, YOU
DON'T LIKE HIM. IT DOES NOT
MEAN YOU CAN BANISHED HIM FROM
THE MARKETPLACE. YOU CAN'T
SENTIMENT OF HIS BUSINESSES AND
SAY YOU CAN'T HOLD A POSITION
OF HONOR OR TRUST. YOU DON'T
GET THE RIGHT TO DO THAT. THE
PEOPLE OF THIS COUNTRY DO. WE
LIVE IN A REPUBLIC. I'M JUST
SICK OF THIS. I YIELD BACK. I
DON'T YIELD BACK. AGAIN,
GENTLEMEN MR. JORDAN WAS TO,
TALK I 30 SECONDS.
>> 30 SECONDS, THANK, YOU LOOK,
IN 2016, THE DEMOCRATS HAD THE
INSURANCE POLICY. PETER STRZOK
AT LEAST A PAGE. THAT WAS THE
DEAL IN 2016. THE FBI, 2020, IT
IS IMPEACHMENT, 2020, THEY'RE
GOING TO USE IMPEACHMENT,
INSURANCE POLICY DID NOT WORK
IN 2016, IMPEACHMENT IS NOT
GOING TO WORK IN 2020 BECAUSE
THE AMERICAN PEOPLE APPRECIATE
WHAT THIS PRESIDENT IS GETTING
DONE ON THEIR BEHALF. I YIELD
BACK.
>> THE GENTLEMAN YIELDS BACK. I
WILL SEEKS RECOGNITION?
>> MISTER CHAIRMAN. FOR WHAT --
TO STRIKE THE LAST WORDS.
>> YOU ALMOST RECOGNIZED.
>> THANK YOU.
>> LOOK, IT REALLY IS AMAZING,
WE HAVE HEARD OVER AND OVER
THAT THIS WAS ALL ABOUT THE
BIDEN,'S ALL ABOUT INFORMATION
ON A PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE,
THE BIDENS, BUT IF YOU LOOK AT
THE PRESIDENT SAID, HE IS
TALKING ABOUT, YOU KNOW, WE'VE
BEEN THROUGH THIS COUNTRY, OUR
COUNTRY HAS 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. IT'S NEWS
TO ME, BUT MY DEMOCRAT FRIENDS
WILL KNOW BETTER, I DID NOT
KNOW BIDEN WAS INVOLVED WITH
CROWDSTRIKE AND NO HE WAS
INVOLVED WITH THE SERVER BEING
HACKED, IT DID NOT KNOW THAT
WAS ALL PART OF HIS THING, BUT
THAT IS WHAT THE PRESIDENT IS
ASKING ABOUT, BECAUSE THERE HAS
BEEN INFORMATION THAT THERE WAS
SOME PEOPLE IN UKRAINE THAT
KNEW SOMETHING ABOUT IT AND
THAT IS WHAT HE'S ASKING ABOUT
SO I APPRECIATE THE REVELATION
FROM OUR FRIENDS ACROSS THE
AISLE SO I GUESS YOU HAVE ONE
OF YOUR WEALTHY PEOPLE, A
SERVER YOU SAY, UKRAINE HAS IT,
AGAIN, I DID NOT KNOW THAT
BIDEN IS UP TO HIS YOUR BOSS IN
THAT THERE ARE A LOT OF THINGS
THE WHOLE SITUATION I THINK
YOU'RE SURROUNDING YOURSELF
SOME OF THE SAME PEOPLE. I
WOULD LIKE TO HAVE THE ATTORNEY
GENERAL CALL YOU AND YOUR
PEOPLE TO GET TO THE BOTTOM OF
IT, SO, THAT WAS THE WHOLE
THING ABOUT 2015, 2016 ELECTION
BUT ACCORDING TO OUR FRIENDS,
BIDEN WAS IN THE MIDDLE OF ALL
OF THIS SO ANYWAY IT IS
INTERESTING BUT MY FRIEND FROM
OHIO HAS A GRAND AMENDMENT.
THEY SAY IT IS NOT PERSONAL,
THAT THIS IS JUST ABOUT AN
ELECTION BUT THIS JUST TRYING
TO UNDO THE UNFAIRNESS OF THE
PRIOR ELECTION EVEN THOUGH IT
TURNS OUT THERE WAS NO RUSSIA
COLLUSION AND IT SOUNDS LIKE
THAT THERE WAS DESPITE WHAT THE
MEDIA IS SAYING THAT WE KNOW
THE UKRAINIAN AMBASSADOR CAME
OUT LAMBASTING TRUMP. CLEARLY
THAT WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DONE
WITHOUT OFFICIAL OKAY THEY WERE
ALL IN FOR HILLARY CLINTON,
THEY FIGURED AFTER THE ELECTION
THE TRUMP ONE, MAYBE THEY WOULD
BETTER TRY TO WARM UP THE TRUMP
THAT THERE IS SO MUCH AID THE
PRESIDENT DID NOT ASK THE
FORMER CORRUPT IMMIGRATION FOR
HELPING RING OUT CORRUPTION,
THAT IS JUST ALMOST
UNFATHOMABLE AT THAT POINT, THE
POINT TO CONTINUE TO BE MADE
ALL DAY TODAY. IN 2019, YOU HAD
THE ELECTION OF A MAN IN
UKRAINE, ZELENSKY, THAT SAID HE
WAS GOING TO FIGHT CORRUPTION,
AND PRESIDENT TRUMP HEARD FROM
OUR OWN PEOPLE, WE THINK HE IS
SINCERE, WE REALLY THINK HE'S
GOING TO TRY TO FIGHT
CORRUPTION SO OF COURSE THIS
THE FIRST TIME YOU TALKED TO A
UKRAINIAN LEADER THAT THE NEW
WE COULD NOT TRUST THE OTHER
ONE. THEY WERE SUPPORTING
HILLARY CLINTON, THERE WERE
CORRUPT, WHY WOULD HE TALK TO
THEM ABOUT THE CORRUPTION SO TO
SAY THIS RESOLVED BIDEN, FOR
HEAVEN'S, SAKE IT WAS
RIDICULOUS, BUT OUR FROM OHIO,
AMENDMENT PUTS IT TO THE TASK,
IS ABOUT TRYING TO CORRECT WHAT
YOU SAY WAS AN UNFAIR ELECTION,
WHICH WE KNOW NOW FROM THE
HOROWITZ REPORT IT WAS UNFAIR
BUT IT WAS FROM THE DEMOCRATS
SIDE, THE TRUMPETER SIDE, SO IF
THAT IS REALLY THE CASE, THEN
LET'S JUST STRIKE THE PART THAT
SAYS YOU CAN'T EVER RUN FOR
OFFICE AGAIN OR BE REELECTED
AGAIN. RIGHT? WOULDN'T THAT
HELP SOME OF YOUR VULNERABLE
DEMOCRATS IF YOU MADE IT MORE
REASONABLE LIKE THAT? OR DO YOU
WANT TO CONTINUE TO PERSIST IN
MAKING IT SO PERSONALLY THAT IS
WALK THE PLANK TIME SO WE WILL
SEE IT IS A GOOD AMENDMENT, I
WOULD ENCOURAGE MY COLLEAGUES
ON BOTH SIDES OF THE AISLE, BUT
WHERE MR. DRONES AMENDMENTS, HE
WILL BE BETTER OFF, THE COUNTRY
WILL BE BETTER OFF, BECAUSE I
FEEL SURE HE WILL BE REELECTED
AND THAT THE SCARY PART FOR ME
THOUGH IS, THAT BARR HAS BEEN
SET SO LOW I AM REALLY AFRAID,
NO MATTER WHAT PARTY IS IN THE
WHITE HOUSE, IF THERE IS AN
OPPOSING PARTY IN CONGRESS,
THEY'RE GOING TO USE THIS
TACTIC TO TRY TO TAKE THEM DOWN.
ONE SILVER LINING, THOUGH. IT'S
BEEN HARD TO KNOW WHO OR THE
DEEP STATE PEOPLE WERE,
ESPECIALLY IN THE STATE
DEPARTMENT. MY FRIENDS GOING
THROUGH THIS, WE NOW KNOW WHO
THE PEOPLE ARE THAT DON'T WANT
THE SWAMP DRAINED, AND WE CAN
DEAL WITH THAT. I YIELD BACK.
>> THE GENTLEMAN YIELDS BACK. I
RECOGNIZE MYSELF. I RECOGNIZE
MYSELF, I'M SORRY, I RECOGNIZE
MISS -- FOR WHAT PURPOSE DO YOU
SEEK RECOGNITION?
>> I YIELD TO THE CHAIRMAN.
>> THANK YOU. IMPEACHMENT WAS
PUT INTO THE CONSTITUTION
BECAUSE THE FRAMERS RECOGNIZE
THAT A PRESIDENT MIGHT ARISE
AND POSE SUCH A THREAT TO THE
COUNTRY AND TO OUR DEMOCRATIC
SYSTEM, TO OUR FREE ELECTIONS,
THAT WE COULD NOT WAIT UNTIL
THE NEXT ELECTION. THAT IS WHY
IMPEACHMENT WAS PUT INTO THE
CONSTITUTION. LET'S LOOK AT,
THAT WE'VE HEARD A LOT OF VERY
DISTRACTING FACTS ABOUT WHAT
MR. BIDEN MAY OR MAY NOT HAVE
DONE, ALL KINDS OF THINGS ABOUT
WHAT OUR MEMBERS MAY HAVE SAID
THREE OR FOUR YEARS AGO. ALL OF
THAT IS IRRELEVANT. WHAT IS
RELEVANT IS THAT THE PRESIDENT,
THAT AMPLE FACTS DEMONSTRATE
THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP PUT HIS
PERSONAL INTEREST ABOVE THE
INTERESTS OF THE COUNTRY AND
CITIZENS OF THE CONSTITUTION.
THIS IS THE HIGHEST OF
CONSTITUTIONAL CRIMES, AND
ABUSE OF POWER. ABUSE OF POWER
IS THE PREEMINENT CRIME WHICH
THE FRAMERS EVEN IN THE
FEDERALIST PAPERS TALKED ABOUT
AS HIGH CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS
OF THE CONSTITUTION, FOR THE
PURPOSE OF IMPEACHMENT.
PRESIDENT TRUMP'S ABUSE OF
POWER, HE DID IT IN TWO WAYS.
NUMBER ONE, HE ENDANGERS OUR
FREE ELECTIONS BY INVITING
FOREIGN POWERS TO INTERFERE,
THROUGH INFLUENCE OUR ELECTIONS
TWICE. HE INVITED THE RUSSIANS
IN 2016. REMEMBER, THE RUSSIANS,
IF YOU'RE LISTENING, PLEASE
FIND THE, EMAILS THAT WAS A
DIRECT SOLICITATION AND IN FACT
THEY TRIED TO HACK INTO THE
EMAILS OF THE DEMOCRATS THAT
VERY NIGHT AND THEN HE TRIED TO
COVER IT UP AND THEN FOR 2020
HE INVITED -- HE ASKED THE
UKRAINIANS TO ANNOUNCE A BOGUS
INVESTIGATION, WITH A PERSON HE
PERCEIVED AS HIS MAJOR
POLITICAL OPPONENT IN THE 2020
ELECTION. AND THEN BASICALLY
ADMITTED, NICKED OVER ANY SAID,
WE DID IT, THE PRESIDENT ON THE
TRANSCRIPT IT SHOWS VERY
CLEARLY THAT HE DID IT, HE
CIRCUMSTANCES OF WITHHELD AID
SHOWS VERY CLEARLY IT WAS A
QUID PRO QUO, AND YES, WE KNOW
THAT EVENTUALLY THE AID WAS
RELEASED, AND HE SAID, THE
PRESIDENT SAID THERE WAS NO
QUID PRO QUO, BOTH OF THESE
THINGS HAPPEN AFTER HE WAS
CAUGHT. IT WAS PUBLIC.
OBVIOUSLY THE BANK ROBBER
CAUGHT IN THE ACT AFTERWARDS
SAYS, I DID NOT MEAN TO ROB THE
BANK. HE WAS IN FACT CAUGHT IN
THE ACT. HE TRIED TO COVER IT
UP AGAIN, HE OBSTRUCTED
CONGRESS BY DIRECTING THE
ENTIRE ADMINISTRATION,
EVERYBODY IN THE EXECUTIVE
BRANCH DO NOT ANSWER ANY
QUESTION, DO NOT TESTIFY, DO
NOT GIVE ANY DOCUMENTS.
FUNDAMENTALLY DIFFERENT FROM
ONE OTHER PRESIDENTS HAVE DONE
ON OCCASION, WHICH IS THE POSE
CERTAIN CERTAIN SUBPOENAS AND
GROUNDS OF PRIVILEGE HE. DID
NOT INSERT ANY PRIVILEGE. SHE
SAID NO ONE SHOULD COOPERATE. I
WILL DECIDE WHETHER IT IS A
VALID IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY. I
WILL THIS -- TAKE THE FUNCTION
OF CONGRESS TO MYSELF BECAUSE I
DON'T RECOGNIZE CONGRESS IS
RIGHT. THAT IS A THREAT TO THE
SEPARATION OF POWERS AND TO OUR
LIBERTY. WHAT IS NOTEWORTHY,
THAT MEMBERS OF THE MINORITY
SPEAK ON EVERY OTHER SUBJECT
BUT ARE HARDLY BOTHERED TO
DISPUTE THE FACTS OF THE CASE,
WHICH ARE CLEAR. THAT IS WHY
FOR SO MUCH OF TODAY WE HAVE
DISTRACTING AND IRRELEVANT
ISSUES. EVEN, I WOULD SAY OTHER
THINGS, IT IS CLEAR THAT IT IS
AN ABUSE OF POWER FOR THE
PRESIDENT WHEN -- OR MEMBER OF
CONGRESS, FOR THAT, MATTER TO
CONDITION OFFICIAL ACTIONS ON
PERSONAL GAIN, AND I WAS
STARTLED, I WAS STARTLED TO
HEAR MR. RATCLIFFE SAY, I WAS
IMPRESSED BY HIS HONESTY BUT
STARTLED TO HEAR HIM SAY THAT
IT IS OKAY FOR A PRESIDENT TO
INVITE FOREIGN INTERFERENCE IN
OUR ELECTIONS. IT IS OKAY FOR A
PRESIDENT TO CHEAT AND TRY TO
RIG THE ELECTION. THE URGENCY
OF THIS IMPEACHMENT, A REASON
WHY WE CANNOT WAIT FOR THE NEXT
ELECTION, IS THAT THE PRESIDENT
HAS TRIED TO RIG THESE LAST
ELECTIONS, AND THIS ONE AS WELL,
AND HE IS REPEATING IT. HE GOES
OUT IN THE WHITE HOUSE LAWN AND
SAYS CHINA WANTED TO COME IN
AND RIG THE ELECTION, YET, MR.
GIULIANI IN THE UKRAINE THIS
PAST WEEK TRYING TO ENLIST
ASSISTANCE TO READ THE ELECTION,
SO THE PRESIDENT MUST BE
IMPEACHED AND SAFEGUARD THE
SECURITY OF OUR NATIONAL
ELECTIONS TO SAFEGUARD THE
SEPARATION OF POWERS, BOTH OF
WHICH ARE ESSENTIAL TO
SAFEGUARD OUR LIBERTIES. I
THANK THE GENTLEMAN FOR
YIELDING. I YIELD MY TIME BACK
TO HIM.
>> MISTER CHAIRMAN, SINCE I'VE
BEEN REFERENCED, AND I RESPOND.
>> AS MR. SWALWELL'S TIME.
>> I DO NOT YIELD. I YIELD
BACK.
>> GENTLEMAN YIELDS BACK.
>> YOU DON'T WANT TO CORRECT
THE FALSE STATEMENT?
>> THE GENTLEMAN YIELDS BACK.
WELL SEATS RECOGNITION?
>> MISTER CHAIRMAN.
>> FOR WHAT PURPOSES MISTER
CHAIRMAN?
>> MISTER CHAIRMAN I NOTICED
RECKLESS. WHERE
>> THE GERMAN IS RECOGNIZED.
>> I YIELD THE GENTLEMAN FROM
TEXAS.
>> APPRECIATE MY COLLEAGUE
YIELDING TO CORRECT THE RECORD
WHERE THE CHAIRMAN OF THE HOUSE
JUDICIARY COMMITTEE JUST MADE A
FALSE STATEMENT AND SAID THAT I
SAID THAT IT WAS OKAY TO
SOLICIT FOREIGN INTERFERENCE IN
AN ELECTION. I NEVER USE THE
WORD INTERFERENCE.
>> OKAY.
>> I SAID FOREIGN INVOLVEMENT
INVESTIGATIONS AND I USED AS AN
EXAMPLE FOR THAT THE OBAMA
ADMINISTRATION. IT WAS JUST A
FEW HOURS AGO. YOU MAY NOT
REMEMBER. I'VE -- I CAN'T
BELIEVE WE ARE SITTING HERE AT
THE END OF THIS, AN IMPEACHMENT
INQUIRY IN THE HOUSE OF
REPRESENTATIVES AND I LOOK AT
HOW ALL OF THIS STARTED, IT
STARTED WITH A PHONE CALL, A
CONGRATULATORY PHONE CALL
BETWEEN TWO PRESIDENTS. AND THE
VERY NEXT DAY, SOMEONE
CONTACTED SOMEONE AND A WEEK
LATER, SOMEONE WALKED IN TO THE
OFFICE OF CHAIRMAN SCHIFF AND
THAT PERSON WALKED OUT A WEEK
LATER, THE WHISTLEBLOWER, AND
WENT TO THE INSPECTOR GENERAL
AND FILED A COMPLAINT WITH A
FALSELY CLAIMED -- THAT FALSELY
CLAIMED THE PRESIDENT TRUMP HAD
MADE A DEMAND OF PRESIDENT
ZELENSKY. HE MADE A FALSE
STATEMENT AND WRITING AND THEN
THEY MADE A FALSE STATEMENT
PROBABLY IN THE COURSE OF WHAT
SHOULD HAVE BEEN AN
INVESTIGATION. WE SIT HERE
TODAY ABOUT VOTE ON IMPEACHING
A PRESIDENT WHERE NEITHER THE
HOUSE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE, THE
HOUSE INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE,
NOR ANY HOUSE COMMITTEE WHERE
THE DEMOCRATS ARE IN CHARGE, IS
ASK A SINGLE QUESTION OF A
SINGLE WITNESS ABOUT HOW THIS
STARTED, BECAUSE YOU GO BACK TO
THAT PHONE CALL, AND THE TWO
PEOPLE THAT WERE ON IT, THE
ONLY TWO PEOPLE THAT KNOW --
NOT JUST WHAT THEY SAID BUT
WHAT THEY MEANT WHEN THEY SAID
IT, AND THEY BOTH SAID IT WAS A
GREAT CALL, AND SO FIRST, LET
ME SAY I'M SORRY. LET ME SAY
I'M SORRY TO THE PRESIDENT OF
UKRAINE. I'M SORRY THAT AS A
RESULT OF ALL OF THIS YOU'VE
BEEN LABELED A PATHOLOGICAL
LIAR BY MY DEMOCRATIC
COLLEAGUES, AND I'M SORRY BUT
THEY PRETEND TO CARE ABOUT THE
UKRAINE, BUT THEY JUST MADE IT
INCREDIBLY HARD AND MORE
DIFFICULT FOR YOUR COUNTRY EVER
TO GET MILITARY ASSISTANCE. I'M
ALSO SORRY TO THE OTHER PERSON
THAT WAS ON THAT CALL WHO KNEW
WHAT HE SAID WHEN HE MEANT IT,
PRESIDENT TRUMP. I'M SORRY,
PRESIDENT TRUMP, THAT YOU'VE
TRIED TO KEEP EVERY PROMISE,
YOU'VE GIVEN US A GREAT ECONOMY
I DID AGAINST INCREDIBLE
HEADLANDS WHERE YOU WERE FAR --
FALSELY ACCUSED OF TREASON AND
ACCUSED OF BEING A RUSSIAN
AGENT BY THE FOLKS IN THIS ROOM
AND WHEN THAT FAILED WE SIT
HERE TODAY BECAUSE YOU SAID I
WOULD LIKE YOU TO DO US A FAVOR,
THOUGH, BECAUSE OUR COUNTRY HAS
BEEN THROUGH A LOT MY LAST
APOLOGY IS TO THE AMERICAN
PEOPLE, I AM SORRY ABOUT THE
SPECTACLE, I'M SORRY ABOUT THE
63 MILLION OF YOU THAT ARE SO
DEPLORABLE THAT AS A RESULT OF
THIS YOU'RE BEING TOLD YOUR
VOTES DON'T COUNT. I YIELD BACK.
>> I YIELD BACK AS WELL.
>> THE GENTLEMAN YIELDS BACK.
DOES ANYONE ELSE SEEK
RECOGNITION ON THIS AMENDMENT?
>> MISTER CHAIRMAN.
>> FOR WHAT PURPOSE DOES MR.
RUSSIANS ALL SEEK RECOGNITION?
>> THE STRIKE LAST. WHERE
>> IS THE GENEROUS. RECOGNIZE
>> THANK YOU MISTER CHAIRMAN.
WE HAVE BEEN HERE A WHILE AND I
DO WANT TO BE NOTED I DO HAVE
SOME LONGER AMENDMENT FOR
TONIGHT BUT SPEAK ON THIS
AMENDMENT, I SPEAK IN SUPPORT
OF MY COLLEAGUE JIM JORDAN'S
AMENDMENT, BUT I THINK THAT WE
ARE GETTING WAY TO CAUGHT UP IN
THE WEEDS IN PARTICULAR. WE'VE
GOT IT JUST ZOOM OUT, THINK
ABOUT WHY WE ARE HERE. WE ARE
HERE BECAUSE THE DEMOCRATS
AGAIN ARE TERRIFIED THAT THE
PRESIDENT IS GOING TO WIN
REELECTION. LET'S JUST GO
THROUGH A LIST OF HIS
ACCOMPLISHMENTS. DONALD TRUMP
SIGNED THE LARGE-SCALE CRIMINAL
JUSTICE REFORM LEGISLATION IN
DECADES, DECADES AND I SHOULD
ADD, IF IT WEREN'T FOR THIS
WASTE OF TIME WITH IMPEACHMENT,
QUICKLY WORKING ON MORE
BIPARTISAN CRIMINAL JUSTICE
REFORM, PARTICULARLY, I HAVE A
CRIMINAL JUSTICE BILL CALLED
CLEAN SLATE THAT WOULD EXPUNGE
NONVIOLENT FELONY OFFENSES FOR
HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF
INDIVIDUALS, A DEMOCRAT IS
WORKING WITH ME ON THAT AS YOU
KNOW, BUT ANYHOW, I DIGRESS,
DONALD TRUMP IS ALSO ENSURING
OUR WAR FIGHTERS CAN BE WAR
FIGHTERS. AS A DEFENSE ATTORNEY
IN THE NAVY, I ACTUALLY
DEFENDED A NAVY SEAL WHO WAS
FALSELY ACCUSED OF COVERING UP
ABUSE ON A WELL KNOWN TERRORIST
AND I CAN TELL YOU THAT WHEN
OUR WAR FIGHTERS ARE DRAGGED
INTO THE COURT-MARTIAL PROCESS,
THEY HAVE TO CONSTANTLY THEN
SECOND-GUESS THEMSELVES ON THE
BATTLEFIELD, AND FINALLY, WE
HAVE A PRESIDENT IT IS
RECOGNIZING THAT WAR FIGHTERS
SHOULD BE WAR FIGHTERS AND THEY
SHOULD BE FOCUSED ON CAPTURING
AND KILLING TARGETS NOT
WORRYING ABOUT WRONGFUL
PROSECUTIONS BACK AT HOME.
ADDITIONALLY, THE PRESIDENT HAS
PLACED TO CONSERVATIVE JUSTICES
ON THE SUPREME COURT WHO WILL
UPHOLD THE CONSTITUTION.
ADDITIONALLY, UNDER THIS
ADMINISTRATION WE ARE SEEING A
NATURAL GAS RENAISSANCE, COMING
THROUGH WESTERN PENNSYLVANIA.
YOU CAN SEE HOW THE ECONOMY IS
ROARING BECAUSE WE ARE FINALLY
TAKING ADVANTAGE OF THE NATURAL
RESOURCES WE HAVE. WE CAN USE
NATURAL GAS FOR ENERGY, WE CAN
USE IT FOR MANUFACTURING, WE
CAN USE IT FOR PETROCHEMICALS.
IT IS FANTASTIC BUT WE ARE
FINALLY TAKING ADVANTAGE OF THE
NATURAL RESOURCES WE HAVE.
ADDITIONALLY, THIS PRESIDENT
HAS DONE A LOT FOR
MANUFACTURING, PARTICULARLY THE
STEEL INDUSTRY WHICH IS COMING
BACK. JUST COME TO WESTERN
PENNSYLVANIA WHERE STEEL
MANUFACTURING IS COMING BACK.
DONALD TRUMP IS FOCUSED ON OUR
BORDER SECURITY AND ON BUILDING
THE WALL. UNDER THIS PRESIDENT
WE HAVE BEEN INCREASING
NATIONAL SECURITY, AND GOING
AFTER TERRORISTS AND OTHERS WHO
WISH TO DO US HARM. AGAIN, WE
ARE HERE BECAUSE THE DEMOCRATS
DON'T WANT TO TALK ABOUT THE
RED HOT TRUMP ECONOMY. THEY
DON'T WANT TO TALK ABOUT THE
LOWEST UNEMPLOYMENT RATES IN 50
YEARS WE ARE HERE BECAUSE THE
DEMOCRATS DON'T WANT TO TALK
ABOUT HOW PRESIDENT TRUMP IS
FINALLY HOLDING CHINA
ACCOUNTABLE FOR CURRENCY
MANIPULATION, FOR DUMPING STEEL
AND ALUMINUM IN AMERICAN
MARKETS. SOMEONE IS FINALLY
HOLDING CHINA ACCOUNTABLE FOR
IP THEFT, FORCED IP TRANSFERS.
THAT IS PRESIDENT TRUMP DOING
THAT. PRESIDENT TRUMP IS ALSO
RENEGOTIATING TRADE DEALS TO
BENEFIT AMERICAN WORKERS AND
FARMERS. WE SHOULD'VE PAST
USMCA MONTHS AGO. BUT WE HAVE
NOT DONE IT BECAUSE WE ARE
DEALING WITH IMPEACHMENT. THE
PRESIDENT IS WORKING ON FREE
TRADE AGREEMENTS WITH JAPAN. HE
IS WORKING ON FREE TRADE
AGREEMENTS ACROSS SOUTH
AMERICA. PRESIDENT TRUMP IS
ALSO REDUCING REGULATIONS.
THERE IS ONLY ONE WAY TO
INCREASE REVENUE, AND THAT IS
TO INCREASE GDP. THERE ARE ONLY
TWO WAYS TO DO THAT. YOU CUT
TAXES WILL REDUCE REGULATIONS.
YOU CAN DO BOTH, THIS PRESIDENT
SUPPORTS BOTH. THAT IS WHY WE
HAVE A STRONG ECONOMY. BUT THE
DEMOCRATS DON'T WANT TO TALK
ABOUT THIS WE ARE TALKING ABOUT
IMPEACHMENT BECAUSE OF
DISTRACTION ON THEIR REAL
AGENDA, WHICH INCLUDES SUCH
LUDICROUS IDEAS AS BANNING
AIRPLANES, GIVING ILLEGAL
IMMIGRANTS TAXPAYER FUNDED
HEALTH CARE, ABOLISHING OR
DEFUNDING ICE, BANNING FRACKING,
BANNING FOSSIL FUELS. GOOD LUCK
MAKING A CELL PHONE WITHOUT
PETROCHEMICALS. THEY ALSO WANT
TO TALK ABOUT TAKING AWAY
PRIVATE HEALTH CARE FROM
AMERICAN CITIZENS. THAT IS WHY
WE ARE HERE. THIS WHOLE PROCESS
IS AN ATTEMPT TO HIDE A RADICAL,
FAR-LEFT AGENDA. IT IS ALSO AN
ATTEMPT TO HIDE THE FACTS. THE
FACTS INDICATE THAT THERE WAS
NO QUID PRO QUO, AND THERE WAS
NO OBSTRUCTION OF CONGRESS.
WITH THAT, I YIELD.
>> THE GENTLEMAN YIELDS BACK.
>> I MOVED TO STRIKE THE LAST.
WORD
>> GENTLEMAN IS RECOGNIZED.
>> IT SEEMS IMPORTANT TO REMIND
MY REPUBLICAN COLLEAGUES WHY WE
ARE HERE. WHILE OF COURSE WE
HAVE POLICY DISAGREEMENTS WITH
THE PRESIDENT, THIS IS NOT
ABOUT POLICY DISAGREEMENTS.
THIS IS ABOUT AN OBLIGATION WE
HAVE TO PROTECT AND DEFEND THE
CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED
STATES. WE ALL BEGAN OUR TERM
OF OFFICE BY RAISING OUR
RIGHT-HAND AND PROMISING TO
PROTECT AND DEFEND THE
CONSTITUTION. AND WE ARE HERE
BECAUSE THE PRESIDENT OF THE
UNITED STATES ENGAGED IN A
SCHEME TO DRAG A FOREIGN POWER
INTO OUR ELECTIONS, TO CORRUPT
OUR ELECTIONS FOR HIS OWN
PERSONAL BENEFIT, AND HE USED
HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS OF DOLLARS
OF TAXPAYER MONEY TO ATTEMPT TO
ACHIEVE THAT OBJECTIVE. THERE
IS NOTHING MORE SACRED THAN
PROTECTING THE RIGHTS OF FREE
AND FAIR ELECTIONS IN THIS
COUNTRY. IT IS THE HEART AND
SOUL OF OUR DEMOCRACY. THE
PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES
REACH OUT TO A FOREIGN POWER
AND ATTEMPTED TO DRAG THEM INTO
CORRUPTING OUR ELECTIONS, TO
HELP HIM CHEAT AND WIN IN 2020.
WHEN MY COLLEAGUE SAY THE
PEOPLE ARE WORRIED ABOUT THE
ELECTION, WE ARE WORRIED. BUT
THE PERSON WHO IS REALLY
WORRIED ABOUT THE OUTCOME IS
CLEARLY PRESIDENT TRUMP. HE IS
REACHING OUT TO A FOREIGN POWER
ASKING THEM TO HELP HIM CHEAT
IN THE 2020 ELECTION. WE HAVE A
SOLEMN RESPONSIBILITY TO STAND
UP AND TO PROTECT OUR DEMOCRACY
AND PRESENT THIS PRESIDENT, OR
ANY PRESIDENT FROM ATTEMPTING
TO CORRUPT OUR ELECTIONS. IF WE
DON'T DO THAT, IF WE ALLOW
PRESIDENT TRUMP TO GET AWAY
WITH TRYING TO CHEAT IN 2020,
PARTICULARLY IN LIGHT OF WHAT
HE DID IN 2016, WE WILL NOT
HAVE A DEMOCRACY. WE WILL HAVE
A KING OR A MONARCH. AND TO
ELECT THEIR OWN LEADERS.
REMEMBER THE TRUMP
ADMINISTRATION OFFICIALS, MANY
OF THEM SAW THIS SCHEME AND
BECAME VERY ALARMED. THE
PRESIDENTS OWN AMBASSADOR MR.
BOLTON CALLED IT A DRUG DEAL.
FIONA HILL CALLED IT A DOMESTIC
POLITICAL ERRAND. THE
INVESTIGATION BEGAN BY THE
INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE, 17
WITNESSES, 100 HOURS OF
TESTIMONY, 260 TEXT MESSAGES,
TRANSCRIPTS OF THE PRESIDENTS
OWN WORDS ON THE CALL, EMAILS
EXCHANGE BETWEEN HIGH-LEVEL
TRUMP OFFICIALS, AND WE KNOW
THE DIRECT EVIDENCE. THE
PRESIDENT PUT THE THREE AMIGOS,
SONDLAND, -- THE PRESIDENT
REFUSED TO HAVE A MEETING, OR
TO RELEASE THE FUNDS THAT WERE
PUT ON HOLD UNTIL A PUBLIC
ANNOUNCEMENT OF A BOGUS
INVESTIGATION AGAINST HIS CHIEF
POLITICAL RIVAL. HE TOLD THE
VICE PRESIDENT DON'T GO TO THE
INAUGURATION. AMBASSADOR
SONDLAND TESTIFIED IT WAS A
QUID PRO QUO. THE PRESIDENT
HIRED HIS PERSONAL LAWYER TO
LEAD THIS EFFORT. HE SMEARED
AMBASSADOR YOVANOVITCH, AND
THEN FIRED HER BECAUSE SHE
STOOD IN THE WAY. SHE WAS AN
ANTI CORRUPTION CHAMPION, SHE
STOOD IN THE WAY OF THE
PRESIDENT SCHEME. THE PRESIDENT
AND THOSE ACTING ON HIS BEHALF
DEMANDED THAT ZELENSKY PUBLICLY
ANNOUNCE THE INVESTIGATION OF
HIS CHIEF POLITICAL RIVAL. IT
SHOULD BE REMEMBERED, PRESIDENT
ZELENSKY, THE EVIDENCE IS
FILLED WITH EXAMPLES OF TRUMP
ADMINISTRATION OFFICIALS WHO
SAY THINGS LIKE, PRESIDENT
ZELENSKY IS SENSITIVE ON
UKRAINE BEING TAKEN SERIOUSLY,
NOT AS AN INSTRUMENT IN
WASHINGTON.
 AMBASSADOR TAYLOR HAS A CALL
WITH AMBASSADOR SONDLAND SAYING,
TRUMP IS A BUSINESSMAN. A
BUSINESSMAN IS ABOUT TO SIGN A
CHECK TO SOMEONE WHO OWES HIM
SOMETHING, HE WILL ASK THAT
PERSON TO PAY HIM SOMETHING.
DONALD TRUMP IS NOT OWED
ANYTHING BY THE UKRAINIANS. IN
HOLDING UP SECURITY ASSISTANCE
FOR DOMESTIC POLITICAL GAIN,
THAT IS CRAZY. THERE IS
TREMENDOUS EVIDENCE IN THE
RECORD. THE PRESIDENT OF THE
UNITED STATES ATTEMPTED TO
LEVERAGE FOREIGN MILITARY
ASSISTANCE TO UKRAINE, TO DRAG
A FOREIGN POWER TO CORRUPT OUR
ELECTIONS, TO ALLOW HIM TO
CHEAT IN 2020. WE CANNOT ALLOW
THIS TO HAPPEN. IF WE DON'T
HOLD THIS PRESIDENT ACCOUNTABLE
AND MOVE FORWARD WITH
IMPEACHMENT, WE CAN HAVE EVERY
CONFIDENCE THE PRESIDENT WILL
CONTINUE TO DO THIS. HE IS
CONTINUING TO DO. IT RUDY
GIULIANI WAS IN UKRAINE LAST
WEEK. THIS IS A CRIME IN
PROGRESS, AND EITHER WE ARE
GOING TO DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT
AND PROTECT THE RIGHTS OF THE
AMERICAN PEOPLE, WHERE WE ARE
GOING TO LET SOME FOREIGN POWER
DO IT. DO YOU KNOW WHO HAS THE
RIGHT TO ELECT THE AMERICAN
PRESIDENT? CITIZENS OF THIS
COUNTRY AND NO ONE ELSE. MEN
AND WOMEN HAVE DIED ON THE
BATTLEFIELD TO PROTECT OUR
DEMOCRACY. THE LEAST WE CAN DO
IS SHOW OUR COURAGE TO STAND UP
TONIGHT AND DO OUR PART. WITH
THAT I YIELD BACK.
>> DOES ANYONE ELSE SEEK
RECOGNITION?
>> WHAT PURPOSE DOES MR.
ARMSTRONG SEEK RECOGNITION?
>> MOVE TO STRIKE THE LAST.
WORD
>> GENTLEMAN IS RECOGNIZED.
>> -- PARTICULARLY THE REMOVAL
FROM OFFICE AND
DISQUALIFICATION TO HOLD AND
ENJOY ANY OFFICE OF HONOR,
TRUST, OR PROFIT UNDER THE
UNITED STATES. AT NUMEROUS
POINTS IN TIME THROUGHOUT
TODAY'S DEBATE, MY FRIENDS ON
THE OTHER SIDE OF THE AISLE OF
HELD UP THE CONSTITUTION, WAVED
IT AROUND. I THINK IT IS
INTERESTING THAT NO ONE IS READ
FOR YET, AND THERE IS A REASON
FOR THAT, BUT I'M GOING TO READ
FROM THE CONSTITUTION. IF WE
WANT TO TALK ABOUT ARTICLE ONE,
THEN LET'S GO TO ARTICLE ONE
SECTION TWO, CLAUSE FIVE. THE
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVE SHALL
CHOOSE THEIR SPEAKER AND OTHER
OFFICERS, AND SHALL HAVE THE
SOLE POWER OF IMPEACHMENT.
ARTICLE ONE SECTION TWO DEALS
WITH THE HOUSE. ARTICLE ONE
SECTION THREE DEALS WITH THE
SENATE. THIS SENATE SHALL HAVE
THE SOLE POWER OF TRIAL
IMPEACHMENTS ARTICLE ONE,
SECTION THREE, CLAUSE SIX.
JUDGMENT IN CASE OF IMPEACHMENT
WILL NOT EXTEND FURTHER THAN TO
REMOVAL FROM OFFICE, AND
DISQUALIFICATION TO HOLD AND
ENJOY ANY OFFICE OF HONOR,
TRUST, OR PROFIT UNDER THE
UNITED STATES. THE LANGUAGE IN
THIS BILL IS OVER ABROAD, IT
GIVES THE U.S. HOUSE OF
REPRESENTATIVES AND THIS
IMPEACHMENT ARTICLE MORE POWER
THAN THE CONSTITUTION ALLOWS.
WE HAVE HEARD THROUGH THE
COURSE OF THIS INVESTIGATION,
WHEN WE HAVE LEARNED ABOUT
PROCESS, TALKED ABOUT SECRECY,
NOT BEING ALLOWED TO USE OUR
MINORITY RIGHTS, THIS IS MORE
AKIN TO A SPECIAL COUNSEL. ADAM
SCHIFF HAS REFERRED TO HIMSELF
AS THE SPECIAL COUNSEL. RIGHT
NOW, WHAT WE ARE DOING IS
BECOMING JUDGE JURY AND
EXECUTIONER. ISSUES OF REMOVAL
AND DISQUALIFICATION ARE
DIVISIBLE FROM OTHER ARTICLES
OF IMPEACHMENT. WHAT HAPPENS IN
THE SENATE IS THERE'S. A TWO
THIRDS VOTE, IF IMPEACHMENT IS
GRANTED AND A SIMPLE MAJORITY
IN WHICH THIS SAY THEY ARE
WITHHOLD FROM OTHER OFFICE.
WHILE THEY HAVE THE SOLE POWER
OF IMPEACHMENT, THE SENATE ALSO
PROVIDES THAT THE SENATE HAS
THE SOLE POWER OF IMPEACHMENT.
THE CONSTITUTION DESCRIBES THE
SENSE CONVICTION POWER WHICH
ALLOWS THE SENATE TO REMOVE
SOMEONE FROM OFFICE, AND
DISQUALIFICATION FROM HOLDING
FUTURE OFFICE. THE PRESIDENT
SHOULD BE REMOVED FROM OFFICE
AND DISQUALIFIED FROM HOLDING
FUTURE OFFICE. THE HOUSE HAS NO
CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY TO
INCLUDE THIS LANGUAGE THAT
SUGGESTS THE PRESIDENT SHOULD
BE REMOVED FROM OFFICE. AT BEST,
IT'S NOT NECESSARY, AND AT
WORST IT IS AN OVER BROAD
DESCRIPTION OF WHAT THE POWER
OF THIS BODY IS. TO INCLUDE THE
LANGUAGE OF THE PRESIDENT
SHOULD BE DISQUALIFIED FROM
OFFICE IS PREJUDICIAL TO THE
CONSTITUTIONALLY PRESCRIBED
PROCESS THAT THE SENATE WILL
TAKE UP. I AGREE WITH MY FRIEND
FROM OHIO AND OTHERS ON MY SIDE
IT REALLY SHOWS THE TRUE
MOTIVES OF THE SENATE. IT IS
CIRCULAR HOW THIS IS ALL GONE.
IT STARTED IN 2016, NOW WE ARE
BACK IN 2020. IN THE MIDDLE WE
HAD COLLUSION CONSPIRACY,
OBSTRUCTION, QUID PRO QUO,
BRIBERY, EXTORTION, ALL OF
THESE OTHER CRIMES WE HAVE COME
TO THE NEBULOUS PART. THERE
HAVE BEEN A LOT OF SMART
LAWYERS ON THE SIDE. I CAN
IMAGINE THIS IS AN OMISSION.
WHAT WE ARE TRULY DOING IS
TAKING POWER AWAY FROM THE
UNITED STATES SENATE, WHICH IS
AT THEIR SOLE DISCRETION. WE
HAVE THE RIGHT TO PROCEED WITH
THIS, WE KNOW THIS. WE HAVE
SEEN HOW THIS HAS GONE, IT HAS
BEEN FAST-TRACKED AND
RAILROADED SINCE DAY ONE. YOU
CAN EQUATE YOURSELF TO A GRAND
JURY, A SPECIAL COUNSEL, AND
INVESTIGATION. BUT YOU HAVE NO
RIGHT AS A U.S. HOUSE OF
REPRESENTATIVES TO BE JUDGED,
JURY, AND EXECUTIONER. SO YOU
MAY SAY TAKING THIS LANGUAGE
OUT IS RIDICULOUS, I THINK IT
IS CONSTITUTIONAL, AND WITH
THAT I YIELD TIME.
>> GENTLEMAN YIELDS BACK. DOES
ANYONE ELSE SEEK RECOGNITION?
FOR OUR PURPOSES, GENTLEMAN IS
RECOGNIZED.
>> THANK YOU MISTER CHAIRMAN.
THERE HAS BEEN MUCH SAID ABOUT
MOTIVE THIS EVENING FOR MY
DEMOCRATIC COLLEAGUES, THEY
SEEK TO OPINE AS TO THE
PRESIDENT'S MOTIVES, RATHER
THAN LOOK AT HIS OWN WORDS
REFLECTING IN THE TRANSCRIPT.
THEY SEEK TO OPINE INTO HIS
MOTIVE, RATHER THAN LISTEN TO
THE DIRECT STATEMENTS OF
PRESIDENT ZELENSKY THAT HE FELT
NO CONDITIONALITY AND NO
PRESSURE IN COMMUNICATIONS WITH
THE ADMINISTRATION. WITH THIS
AMENDMENT, IT SHOWS THE TRUE
MOTIVE OF THE DEMOCRATS BECAUSE
IT IS NOT ABOUT SOME CLEANSING
OF THE OFFICE. IT IS NOT ABOUT
SOME RESTORATION OF NATIONAL
SECURITY. IT IS ABOUT NATIONAL
SECURITY THEY WOULD'VE BEEN UP
IN ARMS AND PRESIDENT OBAMA
WITHHELD MILITARY AID TO THE
UKRAINIANS.
 IT IS ALL JUST A SHOW TO
DEMONSTRATE SOME ATTACK ON THE
PRESIDENT. FOUR FACTS NEVER
CHANGE, PRESIDENT TRUMP AND
PRESIDENT ZELENSKY BOTH DENIED
CONDITIONALITY. THE TRANSCRIPT
SHOWS NO QUID PRO QUO. UKRAINE
WAS NOT AWARE OF ANY DELAY IN
MILITARY AID AT THE TIME OF THE
CALL, AND THE AID WAS
ULTIMATELY DELIVERED IN THE
ABSENCE OF THE INVESTIGATIONS
THE DEMOCRATS WERE TALKING
ABOUT. NOTHING HAS CHANGED
THOSE FOUR FACTS. I DO WONDER
IF WE HAD HAD THE OPPORTUNITY
TO HEAR WITNESSES, WHAT MORE
WOULD WE HAVE LEARNED BEYOND
THAT. IF WE HAD BEEN ABLE TO
CALL CHAIRMAN SCHIFF AS A
WITNESS, LIKE WE HAD ASKED TO,
MAYBE WE WOULD'VE LEARNED ABOUT
HIS OFFICES CONTACT WITH THE
WHISTLEBLOWER. MAYBE WE
COULD'VE ASKED CHAIRMAN SCHIFF
WHY HE FELT IT INAPPROPRIATE TO
GO ENGAGE WITH SOME WEIRD
THEATRICAL RE-PERFORMANCE OF A
TRANSCRIPT THAT NEVER EXISTED.
IT WAS JUST SOMETHING HE DID IN
THE INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE. WE
COULD ASK HIM WHY HE WASN'T
FULLY FORTHCOMING ABOUT HIS
OFFICES CONTACT WITH THE
WHISTLEBLOWER WHEN HE WAS ASKED
ABOUT IT ON NATIONAL
TELEVISION. WE COULD'VE ASKED
CHAIRMAN SCHIFF HIS REASONS FOR
OMITTING EXCULPATORY EVIDENCE
IN THE MAJORITY'S REPORT, AND
MOST CERTAINLY WE WOULD'VE
WANTED TO ASK CHAIRMAN SCHIFF
WHETHER IT WAS HIS DECISION OR
SOMEONE ELSE'S DECISION TO
PUBLISH CORRESPONDENTS AND
COMMUNICATIONS BETWEEN THE
PRESIDENT'S PERSONAL LAWYER AND
OTHERS, JOURNALISTS, AND EVEN A
MEMBER OF CONGRESS. WE COULD'VE
LEARNED FROM THE WHISTLEBLOWER.
WE COULD'VE LEARNED THROUGH THE
MULTIPLE SOURCES THEY SPOKE TO
WEAR, AND WHETHER THE
INFORMATION WAS ACCURATE,
WHETHER IT WAS RELIABLE OR
VERIFIABLE. WE COULD'VE ASKED
THE WHISTLEBLOWER, WHY THE
OUTREACH TO CHAIRMAN SCHIFF
STAFF IN THIS PARTICULAR WAY?
WAS IT A SINCERE CONCERN OR THE
RESULT OF SOME POLITICAL BIAS?
WE COULD HAVE ASKED ABOUT
POTENTIAL CONTACT WITH
PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGNS. WE
COULD HAVE ASKED ABOUT HER
WITNESS NEARLY OR. WE COULD'VE
ASKED HER, HOW IS THAT ONE OF
THE TOP PEOPLE AT THE
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE CAN HAVE
A SPOUSE THAT GOES AND
MOONLIGHTS FOR PEOPLE TRYING TO
DIG UP DIRT ON A PRESIDENTIAL
CANDIDATE, AND THEN SEE THAT
VERY DIRT SHUTTLED INTO THE
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, INJECTED
INTO THE BLOODSTREAM OF OUR
INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE, AND
THEN USED AS AN ILLEGITIMATE
BASIS TO GO AND SPY ON AMERICAN
CITIZENS. WE COULD'VE ASKED,
WHICH UKRAINIAN LEGISLATOR SHE
WAS ASKING TO DIG UP DIRT ON
THE PRESIDENT. WHAT WAS ON THE
THUMB DRIVE THAT SHE GAVE TO
HER HUSBAND? WE WOULD'VE HAD A
LOT OF QUESTIONS FOR ALEXANDRA
CHALUPA. SHE WAS THE
INTERMEDIARY BETWEEN THE DNC
AND ELEMENTS OF THE UKRAINIAN
GOVERNMENT THAT WERE WORKING
AGAINST PRESIDENT TRUMP. WE
COULD'VE ASKED ALEXANDRA
CHALUPA, WHOSE IDEA AT THE DNC
WAS IT TO HAVE A SPECIFIC
OPERATIVE ASSIGNED TO THE
UKRAINE TO IMPAIR OUR ELECTIONS?
WHOSE IDEA WAS THAT? WHO FUNDED?
IT WAS IT SOME SPECIFIC DONOR?
WAS IT AN ELECTED OFFICIAL THAT
WAS OUT THERE TRYING TO BRING
UKRAINE INTO OUR ELECTION? WE
COULD HAVE ASKED WHO WITH
UKRAINIAN EMBASSY WERE YOU
TALKING TO? WHAT ELEMENTS OF
THE UKRAINIAN GOVERNMENT WERE
ENGAGED IN TRYING TO SEE
PRESIDENT TRUMP DEFEATED? WE
ALREADY SAW UKRAINE ENGAGING IN
OUR ELECTIONS IN PLAIN VIEW,
WHEN YOU HAVE THE AMBASSADOR
FROM UKRAINE WRITING OUGHT ADS
CRITICIZING THE PRESIDENT,
ANIMATING THE PRESIDENTS
LEGITIMATE CONCERNS THAT MAYBE
WE SHOULD ASK A FEW QUESTIONS
OF THESE CONCERNS. I DON'T KNOW
THAT WE HAVE LEARNED A GREAT
PEEL FROM THESE HEARINGS OTHER
THAN THAT THE DEMOCRATS HAVE
BEEN BANNED ON IMPEACHMENT EVER
SINCE THEY GOT HERE. THEY HAVE
BEEN UNABLE TO EVIDENCE
ACCUSATIONS AGAINST THE
PRESIDENT WITH ANYTHING OTHER
THAN HERE SAYING CONJECTURE,
BUT I WOULD HAVE LIKED TO HAVE
KNOWN A LOT MORE, AND THAT IS
WHY THE RULES OF THE HOUSE
ALLOW. NO MATTER WHO IS IN
CHARGE, THE MINORITY GETS TO
CALL WITNESSES AND BRING
FORWARD EVIDENCE, BECAUSE IT IS
CLEAR TO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE
WATCHING THAT THE PRESIDENT DID
NOT DO SOMETHING TO JUSTIFY
THIS IMPEACHMENT. BUT I THINK
WE COULD HAVE DONE A LOT MORE
TO FULFILL THE PRESIDENTS
PROMISED TO DRAIN THE SWAMP,
HAD WE FOLLOWED THE RULES.
>> GENTLEMAN YIELDS BACK.
 FOR WHAT PURPOSE DOES MR.
RICHMOND SEEK RECOGNITION?
>> I MOVED TO STRIKE THE LAST.
OUR
>> MOVE IS RECOGNIZED.
>> I'LL START BY YIELDING TIME
TO MY COLLEAGUE FROM
CALIFORNIA.
>> THERE IS A DOCTRINE WHERE,
IF YOU CAN ARGUE THE FACTS YOU
CANNOT ARGUE THE LAW. IN THE
CONSTITUTION, IT HAS THE VERY
LANGUAGE THAT IS IN THE ARTICLE,
AND I WOULD JUST LIKE TO READ
THIS. WILLIAM JEFFERSON CLINTON,
BY SUCH CONDUCT, WARRANTS
IMPEACHMENT AND TRIAL AND
REMOVAL FROM OFFICE, AND
DISQUALIFICATION TO HOLD AND
ENJOY ANY OFFICE OF HONOR,
TRUST, OR PROFIT UNDER THE
UNITED STATES. THE EXACT SAME
LANGUAGE THAT IS BEING
COMPLAINED ABOUT THIS EVENING
WITH MR. TRUMP WAS PUT INTO THE
ARTICLE BY THE REPUBLICANS
RELATIVE TO MR. CLINTON.
>> THANK YOU TO MY COLLEAGUE
FROM CALIFORNIA. MY COLLEAGUE
FROM LOUISIANA SAID THIS WAS
LANGUAGE DESIGNED TO GO AFTER
TRUMP. WHEN AN IMPEACH JUDGE
FROM LOUISIANA, WHICH MY
COLLEAGUE IS AWARE OF, AND IT
WENT OVER TO THE SENATE AND WAS
VOTED ON UNANIMOUSLY, 96 TO
ZERO, HAD THE SAME EXACT
LANGUAGE IN IT. THERE IS
NOTHING EXTRAORDINARY ABOUT THE
LANGUAGE IN THIS WHAT IS
EXTRAORDINARY, IS THE
GYMNASTICS AND HURDLES THAT MY
COLLEAGUES ON THE OTHER SIDE
ARE GOING THROUGH TO MAKE SURE
THAT THEY THROW A WHOLE BUNCH
OF STUFF AT THE WALL. HOPE THEY
CAN CONFUSE THE AMERICAN PEOPLE,
THAT SOMETHING STICKS. MY
FRIEND ON THE OTHER SIDE JUST
MENTIONED, THAT THIS PRESIDENT
WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT THIS
NEW UKRAINIAN ADMINISTRATION
WAS NOT CORRUPT LIKE THE LAST
ONE. HE GAVE THE LAST CORRUPTED
MINISTRATION 550 MILLION
DOLLARS. AGAIN, WHAT A JUDGE
WILL TELL YOU WHEN YOU WERE ON
A JURY IS THAT YOU GET TO APPLY
COMMON SENSE. IF IT DOESN'T
MAKE SENSE, YOU DON'T HAVE TO
BELIEVE IT, SO IF YOU 500
MILLION TO AN ADMINISTRATION
WAS CORRUPT, WHAT HAPPENS
BETWEEN 2018 AND 2019 BESIDES
YOU'RE NEXT POLITICAL OPPONENT?
WHAT THE JUDGE WILL ALSO TELL
YOU IS THAT YOU DO NOT HAVE TO
TAKE EVERYTHING THAT EVERYBODY
SAYS AS FACT. IN THIS, CASE
LET'S LOOK AT THE THREE
WITNESSES THAT TESTIFIED UNDER
OATH. VINDMAN. HE SAID IT WAS A
MEETING IN EXCHANGE FOR AN
INVESTIGATION INTO THE BIDENS.
SAUNA AND, A TRUMP SUPPORTER,
SAID IT WAS A QUID PRO QUO.
BILL TAYLOR, WEST BUOYANT, HE
SAID IT WAS CRAZY TO WITHHOLD
MILITARY AID FOR AN
INVESTIGATION, ALL UNDER OATH,
ALL WITH THE PENALTY OF PERJURY.
WHO THEY OFFER ON THE OTHER
SIDE? PRESIDENT TRUMP. 14,435
LIES TO DATE, SINCE HE HAS BEEN
PRESIDENT. NOT UNDER OATH, BUT
WE SHOULD TAKE HIS WORD FOR IT.
THEN IT IS SO ABSURD BECAUSE IN
A CALL, WE KNOW THE PRESIDENTS
VOCABULARY. WE KNOW WHAT HE
DOESN'T WHAT HE DOES NOT SAY.
HE MIGHT SAY WINNING A LOT, HE
MIGHT SAY GREAT. BUT IN HIS
ORDINARY CONVERSATION HE DOES
NOT USE THE WORDS QUID PRO QUO.
WHEN HE HAS THE CONVERSATION
AFTER THE WHISTLEBLOWER IS
KNOWN TO EVERYBODY, HE GETS A
CALL, FIRST THING OUT OF HIS
MOUTH IS I DON'T WANT A QUID
PRO QUO. WHERE DID THAT COME
FROM? IT CAME FROM THE FACT
THAT YOU ARE GUILTY OF THE
CRIME THAT IS CHARGED. JUST
LIKE A KID WHO JUST GOT CAUGHT
GOING INTO THE COOKIE JAR, WITH
CRUMBS ON HIS MOUTH, WHEN HIS
MOTHER SAYS WHAT ARE YOU DOING.
HE SAYS I DID NEED THAT COOKIE.
WE HAVE A CALL OUT OF THE BLUE
IN THE FIRST THING HE SAYS IS I
DON'T WANT A QUID PRO QUO, I
WANT THEM TO DO THE RIGHT
THING. NO YOU WOULD NOT HAVE
HELD UP VITAL MILITARY AID.
THIS IS A COUNTRY THAT IS BEING
OCCUPIED, BY HIS FRIEND PUTIN.
AND HE IS HOLDING UP THE VITAL
AID FOR THEM TO PROTECT THEIR
COUNTRY BECAUSE HE SAYS IT IS
ABOUT CORRUPTION, BUT WE KNOW
FROM THE FACTS IN THIS CASE,
FROM THE THREE PEOPLE WHO
TESTIFIED UNDER OATH THAT ALL
THIS WAS ABOUT WAS MAKING SURE
THAT HE GETS AN INVESTIGATION
INTO JOE BIDEN. WHY WAS THAT
IMPORTANT? BECAUSE WHEN YOU
PANIC YOU GO BACK TO WHAT
WORKED THE FIRST TIME. AND AN
INVESTIGATION WHERE HE GOT TO
RUN AROUND THE COUNTRY SAYING
LOCK HER UP, HE FIGURED IF HE
COULD GET ANOTHER INVESTIGATION,
HE COULD RUN AROUND THE COUNTRY
SAYING LOCK HIM UP AND IT MIGHT
WORK AGAIN. WITH THAT, MISTER
CHAIRMAN, I YIELD MY TIME.
>> WHO ELSE SEEKS RECOGNITION?
>> (INAUDIBLE) THANK YOU MISTER
CHAIRMAN YOU DID NOT GIVE US A
LOT OF WITNESSES IN THIS
COMMITTEE, KNOW FACT WITNESSES,
BUT WE DID GET ONE PROFESSOR,
PROFESSOR TURLEY WHO EARLY ON
IN HIS TOP MENTION THAT HE DID
NOT VOTE FOR PRESIDENT TRUMP,
AND NONE OF THE OTHER WITNESSES
DADDY THERE. THE EVIDENCE THAT
YOU HAVE AGAINST, HIM AS YOU
ARE BRINGING THESE IMPEACHMENT
CHARGES ON, IT IS WAFER THIN
EVIDENCE. WHAT IS NOT WAFER
THIN IS THE PARTISAN RESOLVE BY
THE DEMOCRATS, AT LEAST ON THIS
COMMITTEE TO GET RID OF THIS
PRESIDENT. THEY HAVE BEEN
LOOKING FOR AN EXCUSE TO
IMPEACH THIS PRESIDENT FOR A
LONG TIME, AND NOW THEY THINK
THEY HAVE GOT ONE. BUT HE WILL
NOT BE REMOVED FROM OFFICE IT
IS EMBARRASSING, AND IT IS A
MARK, AND IT IS VERY
EMBARRASSING BECAUSE THE
COUNTRY SHOULD NOT BE PUT
THROUGH THIS, I THINK ONE OF
THE THINGS THAT WE OUGHT TO DO
IS LOOK AT THE THINGS THIS
PRESIDENT IS DOING. THIS IS A
PRESIDENT THAT SUCCESSFULLY
GREW THE ECONOMY. IF YOU LOOK
AT THE SAVINGS ACCOUNTS, AND
401(K) S OF SO MANY AMERICANS
AND RETIREES.
 THAT IS NOT GOING TO GO ON
FOREVER, BUT IT IS CERTAINLY
SOMETHING POSITIVE THAT MOST
AMERICANS CAN BE PLEASED ABOUT.
THERE ARE MORE AMERICANS NOW
EMPLOYED THAN EVER BEFORE AND
OUR NATION'S HISTORY.
MANUFACTURING JOBS WHICH WE
NEED, THEY HAVE BEEN IN DECLINE
FOR A LONG TIME, THEY ARE
COMING BACK. MANUFACTURING JOBS
ARE INCLUDED BY HUNDREDS OF
THOUSANDS. UNEMPLOYMENT IS IT A
50 YEAR LOW. 4 MILLION
AMERICANS NO LONGER NEED TO
RELY UPON FOOD STAMPS. THAT IS
A POSITIVE THING. RETAIL SALES
ARE UP. WE ARE FINALLY BECOMING
ENERGY INDEPENDENT. THE U.S. IS
NOW A NET NATURAL GAS EXPORT OR
FOR THE FIRST TIME IN 60 YEARS.
WE ARE NOW AN EXPORTER OF
NATURAL GAS. I REMEMBER THE
PRESIDENT, I'M SURE MY
DEMOCRATIC COLLEAGUES REMEMBER
THIS TOO, HE WAS ENCOURAGING AS
TO PASS A RIGHT TO TRY LAW.
THIS ALLOWS PEOPLE WHO
OFTENTIMES, THEY DON'T HAVE A
LOT OF CHANTS, THEY HAVE A
DISEASE THAT IS BEING
CONSIDERED FATAL, AND THEY
WOULD LIKE TO TRY SOME DRUG
THAT MAY BE COMES OUT SOME
YEARS DOWN THE ROAD, BUT THEY
ARE WILLING TO TRY IT NOW. IT
IS GIVING SOME PEOPLE OF HOPE,
AND SOULFULLY WILL SAVE SOME
LIVES. THAT WAS THE PRESIDENT'S
IDEA WE ARE INCREASING THE PAY
FOR OUR MEN AND WOMEN IN
UNIFORM, AND THEY DESERVE EVEN
MORE. THERE ARE TWO GREAT
JUDGES, I WOULD ARGUE FROM MY
DEMOCRATIC COLLEAGUES WOULD
DISAGREE. THERE ARE TWO GREAT
JUDGES ON THE SUPREME COURT NOW.
THINGS WOULD LOOK VERY
DIFFERENT HAD HILLARY CLINTON
BEEN ELECTED LAST TIME.
ELECTIONS HAVE CONSEQUENCES AND
THERE ARE MANY CIRCUIT COURT
JUDGES THAT THEY ARE FILLING IN
THE SENATE. THE PRESIDENT
WITHDREW US FROM THAT AWFUL
IRAN DEAL, WHICH ESSENTIALLY
ALLOWED MONEY, BILLIONS OF
DOLLARS TO GO TO TERRORISTS.
THAT IS NOW BEING USED AGAINST
ASPIRE ON, WE HAVE SEEN OUR
U.S. EMBASSY MOVE TO JERUSALEM.
WE ARE STARTING TO STRENGTHEN
OUR SOUTHERN BORDERS, ALTHOUGH
THERE IS A LONG WAY TO GO THERE,
DESPITE ALL THESE THINGS. WHEN
THE DEMOCRATS TOOK OVER THE
HOUSE EARLIER THIS YEAR IN
JANUARY, ONE OF THE FIRST
THINGS THEY DID, ARTICLES OF
IMPEACHMENT WERE INTRODUCED.
THAT VERY SAME, DAY ONE OF
THEIR MEMBERS IN A PROFANITY
FILLED SPEECH FAMOUSLY SAID WE
ARE GOING TO HIM PEACH THE
BLEEP, SHE DID NOT IMPEACH IT.
>>
>> HE MIGHT GET REELECTED.
 IS THAT A REASON TO IMPEACH A
PRESIDENT? BECAUSE HE MIGHT GET
REELECTED? IT WAS TO THEM. IT
GOES BACK TWO YEARS TO THE
INAUGURATION. WE SAW IT IN THE
STREETS HERE IN WASHINGTON. A
LOT OF PEOPLE CAME APPEARED TO
PROTEST, AND THAT IS FINE. WE
SAW WINDOWS BROKEN, WE SAW ONE
PERSON SAYS SHE WAS DREAMING
ABOUT BLOWING UP THE WHITE
HOUSE. IT REALLY GOT UGLY. THE
BOTTOM LINE IS THEY HAVE BEEN
LOOKING FOR AN EXCUSE FOR YEARS
NOW TO IMPEACH THIS PRESIDENT.
THEY ARE WAFER THIN. WE SHOULD
NOT BE MOVING FORWARD ON
SOMETHING LIKE THIS THE COUNTRY
DESERVES A LOT BETTER THAN THEY
ARE GETTING IN THIS IMPEACHMENT
PROCESS. I WILL BE GLAD WHEN WE
GET BEYOND THIS, BECAUSE IT IS
BAD FOR THE COUNTRY.
>> THE GENTLEMAN YIELDS BACK.
THE GENTLEMAN IS RECOGNIZED.
>> I HEARD MY COLLEAGUE FROM
RHODE ISLAND SAY THIS ISN'T
ABOUT POLICY DIFFERENCES, THIS
IS ABOUT OUR OBLIGATION TO
PROTECT AND DEFEND OUR
CONSTITUTION. IT IS ABOUT
COURAGE. IT IS ABOUT POLICY
DIFFERENCES BECAUSE YOU SAID
NOTHING ON YOUR SIDE, WHEN
PRESIDENT OBAMA SENT HIS
SURROGATES OUT TO LIE ABOUT
BENGHAZI. YOU SAID NOTHING WHEN
PRESIDENT OBAMA'S
ADMINISTRATION ENTERED INTO A
GUN RUNNING DEAL WITH MEXICAN
CARTELS, AND THE FAST AND
FURIOUS PROGRAM WAS DEVELOPED.
YOU SAID NOTHING ABOUT DEMOCRAT
LEADERS. THIS IS ABOUT A POLICY
DIFFERENCE. IT IS NOT ABOUT
COURAGE. I DO NOT QUESTION
ANYONE'S COURAGE ON THE OTHER
SIDE OF THE AISLE, I QUESTION
YOUR JUDGMENT. I DO NOT
QUESTION YOUR COURAGE. I THINK
THE AMERICAN PEOPLE ARE GETTING
TIRED. I SAY THAT BECAUSE I
HAVE A FRIEND FROM COLLEGE,
JIM. AND JIM SENT ME A TEXT.
JIM'S DAD WAS A PASTOR SOUTH OF
THE MASON-DIXON LINE IN THE
SIXTIES AND SEVENTIES, HE WAS A
LEADER IN THE CIVIL RIGHTS
MOVEMENT. JIM DIDN'T VOTE FOR
TRUMP, ROMNEY, MCCAIN. JIM SENT
ME A TEXT AND SAID WILL YOU
TELL YOUR DEMOCRATIC COLLEAGUES
THAT I AM VOTING FOR DONALD
TRUMP THIS NEXT TIME AROUND? BY
THE WAY, HE TELLS ME HE
BELIEVES THAT YOUR PARTY IS
OVER REACHING AT THIS POINT.
OVERREACHING, THE LAST TEXT HE
SENT ME WAS INTERESTING HE SAID
THE STOCK MARKET CLOSED IT A
RECORD HIGH. I THOUGHT ABOUT
THAT OVERREACH COMMENT, AND I
THOUGHT ABOUT WHAT WAS MY MOST
LUDICROUS OF THE WAYS THIS
GROUP OF DEMOCRATS IN THE HOUSE
HAVE TRIED TO TAKE OUT THIS
PRESIDENT. AND THERE ARE A LOT
TO CHOOSE FROM MY FAVORITE
HAPPENS TO BE THE 25TH
AMENDMENT. I THOUGHT WHEN YOU
CAME UP WITH THE 25TH AMENDMENT
IT WAS RIGHT AT THE TOP. YOU
CALL IN A PROFESSOR FOR MEDIAL,
AND THAT PROFESSOR FROM YALE
COULD HAVE BEEN RIGHT OUT OF A
MOVIE ABOUT THE OLD SOVIET
UNION. SHE SAYS TESTIFYING IN
CONGRESS. THAT TAKES A MAJORITY
OF THE CABINET TO INVOKE THE
25TH AMENDMENT, BUT THIS
PRESIDENT MIGHT BE, HE WOULD
NEED AN EXAMINATION. WHEN ASKED
BY A, MEMBER COULD HE BE
DETAINED? COULD THE PRESIDENT
OF THE UNITED STATES BE
DETAINED FOR PURPOSES OF AN
EXAMINATION, SHE SAID YES.
RIGHT OUT OF THE OLD SOVIET
UNION. THAT WAS MY FAVORITE.
THE OTHER WAS THE EMOLUMENTS
CLAUSE.. I GUESS ANYONE THAT IS
SUCCESSFUL, AND THAT HAS
WORLDWIDE BUSINESSES, IS GOING
TO BE SUBJECT TO AN EMOLUMENTS
CLAUSE ARGUMENT. THANKFULLY YOU
DID NOT INCLUDE THAT IN THIS
SET OF ARTICLES. YOU HAVE HAD
FOUR ON THE FLOOR OF THE HOUSE
NOW. AND YOU WOULD THINK THAT
SOMEHOW, WE ARE NOT SHOWING
COURAGE WHEN WE STAND HERE AND
TELL YOU YOU DON'T HAVE THE
FACTS TO CONVICT THIS PRESIDENT
ON THESE CHARGES. AND YOU
DON'T. THE THING THAT IS GOING
TO CHANGE IS WHEN THIS MOVES
OVER TO THE SENATE, YOU LOSE
THE NARRATIVE. BECAUSE THE
REPUBLICANS IN THE SENATE WILL
CALL HUNTER BIDEN. THEY WILL
CALL THE WHISTLEBLOWER. AND YOU
BETTER WAIT AND SEE WHAT THE
AMERICAN PUBLIC DOES WHEN ALL
OF THE FACTS ARE OUT. YOU DON'T
GET TO HIDE THE FACTS IN THE
BASEMENT ANYMORE. ALL THE FACTS
ARE GOING TO COME OUT. I ASKED
A FEW OF MY FRIENDS IF THEY OWE
YOU TO MY FRIEND FROM ARIZONA.
-- YOU TOOK THE
>> 25TH AMENDMENT IT WAS RIGHT
AT THE TOP OF THE HEAP THERE.
VIRTUALLY EVERY TIME THE
PRESIDENT TWEETS SOMETHING, I
HAVE HEARD CRITICISM THAT HE
SHOULD BE IMPEACHED FOR
TWEETING. THE HARVARD LAW
PROFESSOR WHO WAS IN HERE LAST
WEEK WROTE A PIECE THAT HE
SHOULD BE IMPEACHED FOR
TWEETING IN 2017. THAT WAS
FINE. THE OTHER ONE IS THE
BRIBERY. WHEN YOU HAD,
PROFESSOR TRY TO EXPLAIN IT IT
TOOK FIVE MINUTES AND THEN WE
DID NOT HEAR ANY MORE ABOUT
WHAT BRIBERY WAS.
>> THE GENTLEMAN YIELDS BACK.
(INAUDIBLE) MR. JEFFREY SEEKS
RECOGNITION.
>> MY COLLEAGUE SUGGESTED THAT
WE ARE HERE BECAUSE WE HAVE
POLICY DISAGREEMENTS WITH THIS
PRESIDENT. WE DO HAVE SOME
POLICY DISAGREEMENTS WITH THIS
PRESIDENT. WE DISAGREE WITH THE
FACT THAT YOU PASSED, AS YOU'RE
SIGNATURE LEGISLATIVE
ACCOMPLISHMENT IN THE LAST
CONGRESS, A GOP TAX SCAM OR 83%
OF THE BENEFITS WENT TO THE
WEALTHIEST 1% WHO EXPLODED THE
DEFICIT AND THE DEBT. WE
DISAGREE WITH THAT.
 WE DISAGREE WITH YOUR POLICY
OF SEPARATING GODS CHILDREN
FROM THEIR PARENTS, AND CAGING
THOSE CHILDREN. THAT WAS
UNACCEPTABLE, UNCONSCIONABLE,
AND DOWN AMERICAN. WE DISAGREE
WITH THAT. WE DISAGREE WITH
YOUR EFFORT, THAT IS ONGOING,
TO STRIP AWAY HEALTH CA
