House Judiciary Committee Debates on Articles of Impeachment

#House #Judiciary #Committee #Debates #Articles #Impeachment

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 WRE 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 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 DEMOCRAS 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 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 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 TCOMING 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 CARE