Return to Transcripts main page
Cuomo Prime Time
House Judiciary Debating Articles Of Impeachment. Aired 9-10p ET
Aired December 11, 2019 - 21:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
[21:00:00]
REP. ERIC SWALWELL (D-CA): A 10-year-old should know right from wrong. But our children will only know right from wrong if we lead by example. Wrong is wrong, from your workplace to the White House.
There's no time to spare here, no time to waste. This is a constitutional crime spree. That's why courage is so badly needed right here, right now. Our national security and democracy are depending on it.
And I yield back.
REP. JERROLD NADLER (D-NY): Gentleman yields back. Mr. Biggs.
REP. ANDY BIGGS (R-AZ): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Democrats have not only a different - drawn different inferences from the facts, they have actually created facts to satisfy the obsession of the rage. It is a kind of mass hysteria, kind of cognitive dissonance. It's an alternative reality that they've created.
One of our colleagues across the aisle said "If the President were innocent, he would come forward, he would come forward, and bring documents, give us all the documents we want, and - and everybody would come."
To where? To this Committee? We can't even get a fact witness in here. There's no fact witness can come in here. We get law professors and staff asking staff questions.
Is he going to go to - to Schiff's bunker, where he's holding secret hearings, selectively leaking material that's damaging to the President, is that where you want him to come, if he's innocent?
"Yes, bring it to us. We'll scotch it. We're going to - we're going to blast it. We're going to - we're going to basically curb it, and - and create the fact situation we want by misinterpreting everything you do."
Well here's one for instance. They claim that the President publicly, he wanted a public announcement of investigations.
But the only witness who said anything about that was a guy named Gordon Sondland, Ambassador Gordon Sondland, who admitted that no one on Earth told him that, but he presumed it.
He also said that the only direct conversation he had with the President about these things was that the President said he wanted nothing from Ukraine, except that it clean up its corruption.
The best evidence is the transcript between President Zelensky and President Trump. It shows no conditionality, no quid pro quo, no this for that. Aid was never even mentioned on the call.
Subsequently, the President of the Ukraine and various Ukrainian government officials said, including people - those who listened to the call, they said "There was no pressure. There was no conditions."
In fact, the most recent statement was about a week ago from the President of the Ukraine, said "It was fine. There's no pressure. What's the deal?"
Well President Trump apparently, and he did, he said, "You know, if you can do us a favor, find out what happened in the 2016 election, and with the cooperation of the Attorney General," indicating he wanted a real investigation to determine the reason for the termination of the Ukrainian investigation into the corruption of Burisma, and all corruption in the Ukraine.
Well here we go. We're told by the Democrats, you know what, there was - there was no attempt. That's been debunked.
And yet, Politico wrote in January of 2017, "They found evidence of Ukraine government involvement in the race," meaning the 2016 race. Multiple media outlets concurred in those facts.
They claimed the focal point of the attack was - was Joe Biden. But President Trump was concerned about all corruption in Ukraine.
All the witnesses testified that that was a legitimate concern. But the most notorious example of corruption was Burisma, who just happened to have on its Board of Directors, Hunter Biden.
And they say, "You know what? That's not proper to investigate that type of conduct because his father's a politician." That's what that's about. That's the corruption. That's the abuse of power that's going on.
Dems claim that the only reason that President Trump released the aid was because he - the hold on aid became public. Well the fact of the matter is they produced no evidence on that, but some timeline, from which they drew some inferences.
But the stronger inference is that the reason the aid was actually released is because on the same day that it was released, the Ukraine's - Ukrainian government implemented two important anti- corruption laws, the ending of immunity for - immunity for Ukrainian legislators and reinstatement of a vigorous anti-corruption court.
With a certain degree of shamelessness, Democrats have asserted that President Trump defied subpoenas issued by the House. But the fact of the matter is he has allowed a number of State Department employees to participate and testify without retribution.
But he has asserted valid constitutional privilege. And he's instructed some not to comply with subpoenas that he felt violated that privilege.
We could - we could - we could assert a remedy. But you don't want to assert a remedy. You don't want to - to go in to court. You don't want to negotiate with the Executive branch. You want to hurry and impeach.
If you took this to court, and you wanted to find out, you - a court would say the privilege is bad. The privilege is - is - is overly broad and would narrow the privilege.
[21:05:00]
You don't want that. You want impeachment. That's all you want. And your case comes down to this. It rests on gossip, rumors, and innuendos. You don't have direct evidence. You don't have direct evidence of this. And that's the crying shame here.
Mr. - Professor Turley was correct. The abuse of power is not by President Trump. It is by this body who's producing this - trying to produce this preconceived, preordained result that - I yield back.
NADLER: Gentleman yields back. Mr. Raskin.
REP. JAMIE RASKIN (D-MD): Mr. Chairman, it was a Republican Congressman from Maryland, Larry Hogan, who's the father of our current Governor, who in 1974, as a Member of this Committee, articulated the task before us tonight.
Party loyalty, he said, must fall before the law itself. No man, not even the President of the United States is above the law.
And Congressman Hogan voted to impeach President Nixon for two crimes, two crimes our colleagues claim they never heard of before, abuse of power and obstruction of justice.
And he voted to impeach the President for ordering crimes against democracy in the 1972 Presidential election, and then blocking Congress' efforts to investigate.
The House had no choice but to impeach because under our Constitution the President's job is to take care that the laws are faithfully executed.
If the President doesn't faithfully execute the laws, but thwarts them, to pursue his own political or financial gain, if he commits high crimes and misdemeanors against democracy itself, as Richard Nixon did, then impeachment is the people's essential instrument for protecting the integrity of our elections, and maintaining self- government in America.
Today, we bring our fellow citizens, overwhelming and totally uncontradicted evidence of two high crimes and misdemeanors against the American people. And we present this evidence to all the American people, not just the 63 million invoked by one of our colleagues, but the 65.8 million who voted for the President's major opponent, and the millions who voted for other candidates, and the millions more who've become voters since.
First, President Trump secretly conditioned a White House meeting and the release of hundreds of millions of dollars in security assistance, that we had voted for Ukraine, on the Ukrainian President's agreement to become a mouthpiece for President Trump's 2020 campaign.
Trump executed this scheme for one reason, and one reason only, to get himself reelected.
But then, secondly, as official after official, in his own Administration, came forward to report the President's misconduct, and to testify under oath about it, he covered up his crime by categorically obstructing Congress' investigation, blockading and intimidating witnesses, and withholding all of the evidence that he could.
Now, the Founders predicted a corrupt President might drag foreign powers into our politics, to promote the President's ambitions at the expense of the voting rights, and democratic sovereignty of the people. And they considered this a key impeachable offense.
In America, elections belong to the people, not to the President. And that's because the government belongs to the people. It doesn't belong to the President. The government is not the private property of the President or a royal family.
Here, as President Gerald Ford said, the people rule. Here, the people rule. The President's abuse of power and obstruction of Congress are not only high crimes, they're crimes in progress right now.
President Trump declares his conduct perfect, indeed absolutely perfect. He says "Read the transcript," when the transcript is proof positive of his guilt. He brags that "Article Two allows me to do whatever I want," demonstrating his unfamiliarity with Article Two, Section 4, which is all about impeachment.
Look, I've been a professor of constitutional law and election law for 29 years. I've devoted my career to studying, teaching, and defending the Constitution of the United States. And my passion has been popular self-government and the Democratic and voting rights of the people.
And I confess that I am afraid if we allow presidents to invite foreign governments to participate overtly or covertly in our elections, and this becomes in America the new normal.
[21:10:00]
Even if our colleagues don't believe a shred of the overwhelming evidence that we've seen in this investigation, will one of them - will just one of them say that it would be wrong for pre - for any President to commit the conduct this President is accused of? Will any of them say that the presidents of the United States should
not drag foreign powers into our elections?
Ben Franklin said "I have observed that wrong is always growing more wrong, until there is no bearing it, but that right however opposed comes right at last." So, what must we do?
Stand by the Constitution and take strong action for your country. If you make yourself a sheep, Ben Franklin said, the wolves will eat you. Let's stand strong America, for our democracy.
I yield back.
NADLER: The Gentleman yields back. Mr. McClintock.
REP. TOM MCCLINTOCK (R-CA): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Nearly 2 years ago, the House Intelligence Committee's minority, under Adam Schiff, issued its report on FISA abuse.
It stated that "FBI officials did not abuse the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act process, omit material information, or subvert this vital tool to spy on the Trump campaign."
Well, on Monday, Michael Horowitz issued his detailed report that categorically contradicts every contention in Mr. Schiff's FISA report. There wasn't a shred of truth in it.
Yet also, on Monday, Chairman Nadler announced that this Judiciary Committee would blindly accept Mr. Schiff's latest report on impeachment without a single fact hearing of our own.
No one disputes that Joe Biden's son was paid millions of dollars to sit on the Board of a corrupt Ukrainian oil and gas company, Burisma, despite having no experience in oil, or gas, or Ukraine, and that Biden threatened to withhold $1 billion in loan guarantees to the Ukrainian government, unless it fired Prosecutor General - General, Viktor Shokin.
Now, Biden says he was merely carrying out Administration policy and knew nothing of his son's affairs.
But Shokin has testified in sworn affidavits that he was fired specifically because he was about to question Hunter Biden about his relationship with Burisma. His successor soon shut down the investigation, giving credence to Shokin's sworn testimony.
Now the President's July 25th phone call with President Zelensky is the centerpiece of the Democrats' case. In it, he asked for help in getting to the bottom of scandals that involve potentially corrupt interactions between officials in Ukraine and the United States.
There is no direct evidence that the President ever linked aid to an investigation.
Now, the Constitution vests all Executive authority in the President, gives him plenary responsibility to conduct our Foreign Affairs and commands him to take care that the laws be faithfully executed.
Now, among these laws is the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act that makes it a crime to secure business in a foreign country by offering something of value to a foreign official. And being a candidate doesn't shield a person from scrutiny. You can just ask candidate Trump about that.
Also, the National Defense Authorization Act requires the Administration to determine that Ukraine is taking steps to combat corruption.
And just because the Secretary of Defense certified this in May does not relieve the President of his Executive authority to review and maintain his Administration's findings.
Now, within days of the Zelensky conversation, a handful of dissidents within our government hatched a plan to portray it as a solicitation to intervene in the election in exchange for foreign aid. This false narrative was laid out in a whistleblower complaint.
So far, we've learned that the whistleblower coordinated with Adam Schiff's office while concealing that relationship that he is said to be a protege of Joe Biden, and is represented by an attorney, who 10 days after the Inauguration, tweeted "Coup has started. First of many steps. Rebellion. Impeachment will follow ultimately"
The first article charges the President with the made-up crime of abuse of Office. He violated no law. He exercised authority, clearly granted to him by the Constitution. Instead, the Democrats would nullify the election because they impute to him impure motives.
Well this is precisely the abuse of impeachment the American Founders feared that the power to overrule a national election would devolve into a weapon of partisan warfare, reducing the President to serving at the pleasure of Congress, and destroying the separation of powers at the heart of our Constitution.
The second article charges the President with obstruction of Congress, another made-up crime, because he sought to defend, in court, his constitutional right to maintain the confidentiality of policy discussions, the same confidentiality that this Congress enjoys.
They say this has prevented them from securing proof for their charges. Yet, the Democrats have suppressed nearly every witness Republicans have tried to call in the President's defense.
[21:15:00]
In free societies, the defendant is allowed to assert his constitutional rights, and prosecutors are not allowed to decide what witnesses the defense may call. This second article turns these principles upside down.
Now, I have every confidence the President will be acquitted and will be reelected. It's not damage to the President, I fear. It is damage to the Presidency, to the Congress, to the Constitution,
the Bill of Rights that the Democrats do today by establishing dangerous precedents and principles that are antithetical to the rule of law and the fundamental architecture of our Constitution.
I yield back.
REP. MARY GAY SCANLON (D-PA): The Gentlewoman from Washington is recognized.
REP. PRAMILA JAYAPAL (D-WA): When I was just 16 years old, I came to this country by myself. My parents made the ultimate sacrifice of placing an ocean between them and their beloved child because they believed that America was worth it.
Two decades later, I raised my hand, and I swore my oath to country and to Constitution, for the first time, when I became an American citizen of the greatest nation on this Earth.
For naturalized citizens, like me, being an American is a conscious choice and a granted privilege, a dream we chase across deserts and seas to join the larger American story, one of generations overcoming every challenge and every obstacle because America is worth it.
Why? What's so different about this shining city upon a hill? It is three words, "We, the People."
America is a bold vision rooted in a fragile idea of a democracy, in which power is derived, not from the bloodlines of monarchs, but from the votes of people. Ours is a nation of imagination and faith.
All of us engaged in this great experiment of democracy. We take our power. And collectively, through our elections, we entrust it to a President who must always act in our interest, not in theirs.
The Framers believed in the promise of America. But they also knew the dangers of power unchecked.
And so, they gifted us the Constitution of the United States, the protective and connective tissue that functions as the highest law of this land, and which entrusts this body, the people's House, the solemn responsibility to hold the Executive accountable, and that is what we confront today.
The facts are clear. Donald Trump abused the power of the Office of the Presidency to pursue his own personal, political gain, and leveraged critically-needed Congressionally-approved military aid to coerce a fragile foreign ally to interfere in our elections.
This is not hearsay. The President was the first and best witness in this case. The President admitted to his wrongdoing and corrupt intent on national television. The President is the smoking gun.
His obstruction of Congress and blanket directive to deny us even a single witness, a single document, is unprecedented. And yet, in spite of that obstruction, multiple patriots came forward, and provided damning corroborating testimony.
Understand the seriousness of what this means. President Trump has solicited foreign interference before. He is doing it now, and he will do it again. The smoking gun is already reloaded. And whether or not it gets fired, that's up to us.
The abuse of Presidential power and obstruction of Congress are the highest of constitutional crimes and the gravest of betrayals.
If we allow this President to put himself above the law, we allow all future presidents to be above the law. We submit then to the fact that we will no longer be a democracy, we will be a monarchy or a dictatorship.
This moment is a test. It is a test of the vision of our Framers, the resilience of our Constitution, and the character of our elected officials.
[21:20:00]
As we cast our votes, we must reflect on our responsibility to our children, and our children's children. We must summon the courage to do what is right and to defend our democracy.
For this reason, I will vote to impeach Donald J. Trump, soberly shouldering the responsibility that was given to me by my constituents and honoring my oath to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States of America.
Mine is not a vote against any person. It is a vote for the Constitution and for We, the People, because America is so deeply worth it.
SCANLON: The Gentlewoman from Arizona is recognized.
REP. DEBBIE LESKO (R-AZ): Thank you, Madam Chairman.
If anyone is guilty of abusing power or obstructing Congress around here, it's the Democrats, not the President. This is the most corrupt rigged railroad job I've seen in my entire life.
First, we now have proof - proof that Obama's FBI doctored evidence and used knowingly false opposition research, paid for by the Democrats and Hillary Clinton, to spy on the Trump campaign.
Then Obama's Administration started an investigation against Trump that lasted nearly 2 years, based on false claims by Adam Schiff, and other Democrats, that Trump colluded with Russia.
They issued 2,800 subpoenas, 500 warrants, and spent over $25 million of taxpayer dollars, and came up with nothing.
In fact, the Mueller report determined that no American citizen, let alone the President of the United States, colluded with Russia. But that didn't stop the Democrats. Oh, no. Next, it was obstruction of justice, then quid pro quo, then bribery, then extortion, then witness tampering, then treason, and the list goes on and on. It would be laughable if it wasn't so serious.
On top of that, Democrats rigged the process from the start. First, contrary to all previous impeachment hearings, Speaker Pelosi moved fact witness hearings to Chairman Schiff, where the President had no due process rights to listen to or cross-examine witnesses.
Schiff conducted closed-door hearings in a basement room where he repeatedly blocked Republican Congress Members from entering, including me, rejected Republican witness requests, silenced Republicans when they tried to ask witnesses questions, and constantly leaked selectively details to the press.
Not until the hearings reached the Judiciary Committee did the Democrats allow the President to even have a chance to hear or cross- examine witnesses.
But, by then, it was too late because Chairman Nadler blocked the President from any due process by refusing to bring forward any fact witnesses the President could cross-examine. And Chairman Nadler refused to schedule a minority hearing, again, violating House rules.
Here are the facts. There is no evidence the President committed any impeachable offense.
Not one Democrat fact witness was able to identify a crime. Not one Democrat witness established that the President committed bribery, treason, or any high crime and misdemeanor, as required under the Constitution.
Democrats have been determined to impeach the President since he was elected. In fact, 17 out of the 24 Democrat Members on this very Judiciary Committee voted in favor of impeachment, even before the President's phone call, and before any one of these impeachment hearings took place.
In closing, there is no evidence that the President committed an impeachable offense. But don't take my word for it. Take the words from a constitutional attorney who said he does not support the President and did not even vote for him.
In his testimony, he said, and I quote, "This would be the first impeachment in history where there would be considerable debate and, in my view, not compelling evidence of a commission of a crime. This impeachment not only fails to satisfy the standard of past impeachments but would create a dangerous precedent."
[21:25:00]
Well folks, the Democrats have done what they set out to do. They're going to impeach the President, come heck or high water.
Doesn't matter that they have no proof, doesn't matter that 17 out of 24 Democrats on this Committee already voted in favor of impeachment, Democrats don't seem to notice or care that it is not the President that has committed abuse of power or obstruction of Congress, but it is them.
It's time for my Democratic colleagues to look themselves in the mirror. And I yield back.
SCANLON: The - the Gentlewoman from Florida is recognized.
REP. VAL DEMINGS (D-FL): This is a defining moment in our history, and a challenging time for our nation. But America has been through tough times before, and I am sure that we will go through tough times again. So, I do not fear this moment or this time.
I grew up in Florida. I am the youngest of seven children. My mother cleaned houses for a living, and my father was a janitor, but he also mowed lawns and picked oranges. I remember my dad used to go to work seven days a week to make ends meet for our family.
I grew up poor. But my parents were good, decent, honest people, who taught me to be decent and respectful. They taught me to work hard, and play by the rules, and treat others the way that I want to be treated.
You see, I was the first, in my family, to go to college. And after graduation, I joined the Orlando Police Department, and started out as a patrol officer, working midnight shift.
But the story does not end there. I had the awesome opportunity of working my way up through the ranks to become Orlando's first woman Chief of Police. And now, I am privileged to serve in Congress.
But hear me clearly. I believe that only in America can a little Black girl, the daughter of a maid and a janitor, growing up in the South in the 60s, have such an amazing opportunity. So, regardless of the spirited, sometimes painful political debates, no one can make me give up on America.
You see, I believe in the promise of America because I've seen the promise of America. I come before you tonight as an American Dream realized, because America is great, and decent, and our democracy complete, because we live in a government of the people.
I've taken four oaths in my lifetime, two as a law enforcement officer, and two now, as a Member of Congress.
Different oaths, different times, in different places, but each oath stated that I will protect and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic.
My oath was not to an individual. It wasn't to a political party or institution. My oath was to the United States Constitution.
And I come before you tonight as an African-American female. I come before you tonight as a descendant of slaves, slaves who knew they would not make it, but dreamed and prayed that one day that I would make it. I come before you tonight proclaiming that in spite of America's
complicated history, my faith is in the Constitution. And I say that today with perfect peace.
I've enforced the laws. And now, I write the laws. And I know that nobody is above the law.
But the law means nothing if the accused, whether the man who breaks in your house, or the President, can destroy evidence, stop witnesses from testifying, and blatantly refuse to cooperate in the investigation.
I ask you to name somebody in your family or in your community who can do that.
[21:30:00]
The President is the Commander-in-Chief. And his responsibility is great. However, our President put his personal interests above the interests of the nation, corrupting and cheating our democracy, and he shall be held accountable.
The Framers were so concerned about a President abusing his power that they gave us the power of impeachment. George Washington was particularly concerned about unprincipled men finding their way into the White House.
Well those times have found us. And we only have one option. And that's to hold this President accountable because you know what? Nobody is above the law.
Thank you. And I yield back.
NADLER: Gentlelady yields back. Mr. Reschenthaler.
REP. GUY RESCHENTHALER (R-PA): We've heard some great speeches tonight, but let's not forget that this is a political hit job.
Democrats just know they can't beat President Trump in 2020. They can't beat the President on his merits. So, they've taken some thoughts and feelings and assumptions from some unelected bureaucrats, and decided to impeach a duly-elected President.
But let's just take a step back and just assess where we are. We have two articles of impeachment against the President, abuse of power and obstruction of Congress. Let's just dissect each one. Let's start with abuse of power.
Abuse of power is at this point just a vestige of quid pro quo. Remember, quid pro quo is what the Democrats were calling - calling this. Before it, they tested quid pro quo with focus groups, and found out that bribery was a lot more compelling than an old Latin phrase.
Now the Democrats have dropped bribery, and they've accused the President of a very vague term, "Abuse of power." That's because the crime of bribery, quid pro quo, this for that, simply did not take place.
Chairman Schiff and Chairman Nadler in the cohorts cannot make out what lawyers call a prima facie case.
I was a district judge. And I'm telling you, I would have thrown this case out the preliminary hearing level because it has no merit.
There are no elements to support an underlying crime. The Democrats simply cannot make out, again, what we would call a prima facie case. This - this would be dismissed at a very early level in court.
And remember, President Zelensky has repeatedly said there was no pressure. The call transcript, the primary evidence we have, not rumors and conjuncture of bureaucrats, the actual document shows there was no link - linkage whatsoever between aid and the investigation.
The Ukrainians were not even aware that aid was on hold when the President spoke. And Ukraine ultimately never had an investigation, yet they received lethal aid, Javelin missiles. So simply put, there was no quid pro quo.
If the Democrats really want to charge somebody with abuse of power, they should look no further than Chairman Schiff.
The Chairman used his subpoena power to subpoena individual phone records, then went through those records, singled out Devin Nunes, in an attempt to smear Ranking Member. That's the abuse of power.
You want to talk about more abuse? How about dropping 8,000 pages of documents on Judiciary Republicans less than 48 hours before our last hearing? That's an abuse of - that's an abuse of power.
If this were a court of law, Chairman Schiff right now would be facing sanctions, and would be defending his law license.
Let's talk about obstruction briefly. Let's deconstruct that.
Our government, remember, has three branches of government. And when there's a disagreement between the Executive branch and Legislative branch, that's when the courts step in to resolve this.
And that's what happened when Republicans had an issue with President Obama during Fast and Furious. That issue went to the courts.
But now, Democrats refuse to go to the courts, and why? It's simple, because it doesn't fit their political timeline to get this to the Senate before Christmas. The only obstruction here is that of the Democrat Party.
Let's not forget that, last week, Judiciary Democrats voted down my motion to subpoena the whistleblower on partisan lines. That was obstruction of Congress.
Let's not forget that Chairman Nadler refuses to have Chairman Schiff testify here under oath. That is obstruction of Congress.
[21:35:00]
And let's not forget that the other side still refuses to bring any fact witnesses before this Committee. Again, that is obstruction of Congress.
So, in conclusion, do we have abuse of power? Yes. Adam Schiff. Do we have obstruction of Congress? Yes, House Democrats. So, let's call this for what it is, a political hit job.
Thank you. And I yield back.
NADLER: The Gentleman yields back. Mr. Correa.
REP. LOU CORREA (D-CA): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I was elected to Congress, to work across the aisle, with Democrats and Republicans, to ensure that the voices of my constituents were heard loud and clear. They sent me to work for good jobs, education, healthcare, safe streets, and housing, among other issues.
As a son of - of immigrants, my election to Congress is an example of the American Dream, and how hard work can make the American Dream come true. My mom cleaned hotel rooms for $1.60 an hour when I was growing up. And today, her son is a Member of Congress.
Yet, sadly, on my way to Congress, in 2016, the Presidential election was tarnished by foreign influence, a danger our Founding Fathers warned us about. Then, later on, we ask ourselves, that our presents - President solicit foreign interference in our democratic elections? And sadly, the answer is yes.
As a Member of the Homeland Security Committee, I know firsthand the dangers and threats that foreign interference present our democracy.
And when our nation gained its independence, the Framers viewed the power of the Presidency as a public trust. The Presidency is a public trust. The Constitution, the highest law in the land, created system of checks and balances to prevent the creation of a king.
Congress is a co-equal branch of our government, equal with the Presidency.
Let me repeat, Congress is equal with the Presidency, with duties that are given to us by the Framers of our Constitution. And Congress has a job to investigate the allegations of misconduct of the Executive branch, including our President.
I don't take impeachment lightly. And I've had the opportunity to vote on it on the resolutions to impeach the President on the floor. And every time I have voted "No."
Today, I have listened and studied the evidence presented in these hearings. And I'm here to do my job as a Member of Congress and to protect the American Dream. It's my constitutional job to ensure that no one, no one is above the law, and I need to assure that our nation is secure from all threats, foreign and domestic. And as my fellow Californian, President Ronald Reagan, once said, "America is a shining city upon a hill whose beacon light guides freedom-loving people everywhere." And I'm here today to ensure that America continues to be that shining city of democracy and rule of law.
[21:40:00]
(FOREIGN LANGUAGE)
And today, I ask God for wisdom and guidance in uniting our great nation. Mr. Chair, I yield.
NADLER: The Gentleman yields back. Mr. Cline.
REP. BEN CLINE (R-VA): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
John Adams said, "I first saw the Constitution of the United States in a foreign country.
I read it with great satisfaction, as the result of good heads prompted by good hearts, as an experiment better adapted to the genius, character, situation, and relations of this nation and country than any which had ever been proposed.
I have repeatedly laid myself under the most serious obligations to support the Constitution. What other form of government, indeed, can so well deserve our esteem and love?"
I love this country, and I love this Constitution, which is why I'm so disappointed to see that we are witnessing, for the first time, the constitutional power of impeachment being misused, not for the removal of a President for high crimes or misdemeanors, not for treason, bribery, extortion, not even for campaign finance violations.
No. The majority is misusing the constitutional power of impeachment to remove a President from Office because they don't like his policies.
And I agree with my colleagues, they're right. This is no small event.
The leaders of one-half of one branch of government have decided that they, not the American people, should determine who their President should be, that the provisions of Article Two, Section 1 of the Constitution that determined how the people elect the President shall be superseded by the impeachment powers under Article One Section 2 of the Constitution.
And while the Constitution gives broad latitude to the House to set its own rules for impeachment, past Congresses have understood that if it is to be viewed as legitimate by the American people, the proceeding must be as devoid as politic - of politics as possible.
In fact, Speaker Pelosi said herself that impeachment must be compelling, overwhelming, and bipartisan. Sadly, this process possesses none of these characteristics. Throughout this partisan process, the Judiciary Committee sadly has been sidelined as nothing more than a rubber stamp. And when you sideline the Judiciary Committee, you sideline justice.
While transcripts of most of the testimony in the Intelligence Committee were eventually made public, Judiciary Committee Members were not able to watch the private proceedings, question witnesses, or ensure the accuracy of the transcripts.
We learned that Chairman Schiff, at times, ordered witnesses not to answer Republican questions, lied about his contact with the whistleblower, and obtained the phone records of Members of Congress, and of the press. Then, he refused to hear - appear before this Committee to defend his egregious actions.
But putting aside the severely flawed process by which the Democratic majority has proceeded, they've simply failed to establish a viable case for impeachment against the President.
I have reviewed the evidence. I have read the transcripts. And the proof of a high crime or misdemeanor is just not there.
And Mr. Chairman, you've said yourself in 1998 that the President's accusers must go beyond hearsay and innuendo.
So, let's review the intelligence evidence. Ambassador to the EU, Gordon Sondland, depends on which of his three testimonies, you are - you are reading, the one consistency is that in all three direct messages from the White House, was no quid pro quo.
In addition to Ambassador Sondland, 16 other officials opted to testify in this investigation, all testifying to hearsay opinion and speculation. Marie Yovanovitch, Alexander Vindman, Kurt Volker, Bill Taylor, Jennifer Williams, Fiona Hill, and the list goes on, all testifying to hearsay opinion or speculation.
But there are facts. No matter how the Democrats try to spin it, there are four facts that will never change.
There was no pressure on the call. There was no conditionality of aid in the transcript. The Ukrainians were not aware that the aid was withheld. And the - and Ukraine didn't open an investigation, but still received the aid and a meeting with President Trump.
Regret - regrettably, my Democratic colleagues have proven time and time again that they aren't concerned about the facts.
Tonight, the majority takes a step down a path that achieves a goal they have long sought, the removal of President Trump from Office, but at what cost, at what price?
Certainly, the rejection and destruction of bipartisanship on this Committee, the abandonment of the rules that have served this Committee for two prior impeachments, but it's come at a greater cost, the very fabric of this country depends on the respect for the verdict of the voters. Thomas Jefferson said "I know no safe depository of the ultimate powers of society but the people themselves. And if we think them not enlightened enough to exercise their control with a wholesome direction, the remedy is not to take it from them, but to inform them - their discretion by education."
This is a sad day for the institution of Congress, a blatantly political process, and yes, an abuse of power by the majority, designed to achieve what they simply could not achieve at the ballot box. As I said, it's a sad day for America.
I yield back.
NADLER: Gentleman yields back. Ms. Scanlon.
SCANLON: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[21:45:00]
2 years ago, I never dreamed that I would be sitting here as a Member of Congress. The only office I'd been elected to was school board in the small town where I live, just outside of Philadelphia.
I loved my job as a public interest lawyer. And I loved volunteering with kids, helping them to get a good start, and helping them to understand why our government and our laws are what make our country, that shining city on a hill, a beacon of freedom and opportunity to the entire world.
One of the schools where I volunteered is Constitution High School. It's located just a few blocks from Independence Hall, where our Constitution was written. Students at Constitution High learn the importance of active citizenship, to be informed participants in our government, and to put public service before self.
I believed in those lessons with my entire heart. Those lessons brought me to Congress. When I took the oath of Office, just over a year ago, many of my students came with me. They looked down from the House gallery.
As I chose to be sworn in on our Constitution, this one, right here, I took an oath to support and defend the Constitution, and to put our country before myself.
The question we must answer today, not only as Members of Congress, but as Americans, is will we accept a President who refuses to do the same?
We wouldn't be here today but for the bravery and the active citizenship of ordinary men and women who also took oaths to support and defend our Constitution, and chose to put service to country before self.
American citizens, like Ambassadors Bill Taylor and Marie Yovanovitch, Lieutenant Colonel, Alexander Vindman, David Holmes, and Fiona Hill, they demonstrated a love of country and an unclouded understanding of right and wrong. They testified to Congress despite opposition from the President, and at great personal risk.
We expect these qualities in our public servants. We must demand them from our President.
This President has failed that test of honor, of unselfish service to our country, of understanding the difference between right and wrong and, above all, of the need to put aside his personal interests when our nation's security and our values are at stake.
This moment is about more than disagreements with the President's personality or policies. Those disagreements belong in the voting booth.
Our task today is not to judge the President himself. Instead, we must judge the President's actions, and whether they have undermined our government, because it is the Office of the President to which we owe our loyalty, not the man who occupies it.
We must not turn a blind eye to the undisputed facts. The President used the highest Office in our government, and precious taxpayer dollars, to pressure a foreign country, so that he could cheat on our elections.
And then, when he got caught, he tried to cover it up by obstructing our investigation and our courts. In doing so, I believe that he betrayed the American people. There is no higher crime under our Constitution than that.
This is exactly the type of behavior that our Founders feared most. They knew that with the awesome power of the Presidency came the risk of a President abusing that power for personal gain.
They trusted us, the people, with our Republic, to safeguard the values they enshrined in our Constitution. This is not the first time we faced this trial.
At another time, when the future of our country was in jeopardy, President Lincoln charged the American people with the same responsibility, that we must dedicate ourselves to the great task of ensuring the government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.
A government where the President abuses his power is not of the people. A government where the President pressures a foreign country to undermine our elections is not by the people. And a government where the President puts his own interests before those of the country is not for the people.
This is not complicated. You know it. I know it. My Constitution High students know it. And, in their hearts, I believe that our colleagues across the aisle know it.
We have no principled alternative but to support these articles of impeachment. Our Constitution, our country, and our children depend upon it.
[21:50:00]
I yield back.
NADLER: Gentlelady yields back. Mr. Armstrong.
REP. KELLY ARMSTRONG (R-ND): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
My Democratic colleagues have tried to cloak this proceeding as a somber, serious process that they regret having to advance. But that is not the case.
This is a nakedly partisan exercise. This has always been about the fact that these Democrats hate this President. They have been focused on removing him since the day he was elected.
And long ago, they decided that impeachment was the remedy. They constantly and consistently marched ahead, undeterred by facts.
And make no mistake, this started long before a July 25th phone call.
But the Russia conspiracy theory bombed, and obstruction of justice was abandoned after the Mueller hearings fell flat. Campaign finance charges never got off the ground. They poll-tested bribery, but that doesn't work because the alleged victim says there was no crime.
But none of that matters because this was never about the truth. This was about politics. So, here we are tonight, on an ambiguous abuse of power charge.
Prior to the election, a Member of this Committee launched a Change.org petition regarding mental diagnosis of the President.
And, shortly after the election, our Chairman stated he was legally elected, but Russian interference makes his election illegitimate.
A press release from another Member read, this President's semi-elect does not deserve to be President.
And once President Trump was sworn in, the Democrats introduced articles of impeachment almost immediately.
In 3 years, they have introduced 10 resolutions related to impeachment, and 17 Members of this Committee have voted to consider impeachment. And every one of those votes occurred before the July 25th phone call.
Here are some statements made by Members of this Committee.
"Cloud of treason means we must have a total shutdown of any POTUS agenda item."
March, 2017, a tweet accompanying a picture of President Obama read, "Great to see our last real President enjoying life."
April, 2018, another Member, "I don't think this President was fit to serve even before he took office," April 2018. Finally, an exasperated Committee Member wrapped it all up, by revealing, "I think we just need to impeach the guy."
There it is. That's what this hearing has always been about, and that's why we are all here tonight. The Democrats just want to impeach a duly-elected President. They want him gone. This began the day President Trump was elected, and it's culminated here.
But this never-ending march towards impeachment and overturning the results of the 2016 election has consequences because you are telling 63 million voters that you don't respect or honor their vote.
These are voters in over 2,600 counties, representing 84 percent of the geo - geographic area of America, voters in states like mine that not long ago sent Democrats to Congress, but in recent years have found no home in today's Democratic Party, who feel that their Midwestern sensibilities have been replaced by liberal elitist ideology, who feel that partisan points are more important than practical solutions, voters who know that rather than working to win back their trust, and their support, you would rather invalidate the results of the last election, and abolish the Electoral College to silence their voices in the future.
Your never-ending quest towards impeachment is a constant reminder to these Americans that you don't trust their judgment, that you mock their way of life, and that you couldn't care less about the issues that matter most to them.
And as Chairman Nadler so ominously stated in November of 2018, if you're serious about removing a President from Office, what you're really doing is overturning the results of the last election.
Well, they were serious.
They have spent the last 3 years talking about interference in the 2016 election, unwilling to accept the results. I wonder if my colleagues recognize the irony that their impeachment vendetta is the greatest interference of all, and it's homegrown right here in the halls of Congress.
I yield back.
NADLER: The Gentleman yields back. Ms. Garcia.
REP. SYLVIA GARCIA (D-TX): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The American people, and all of us in this Committee, will have to live with the decisions we make today. We are moving forward with articles of impeachment against the President of the United States, for his abuse of power and obstruction of Congress.
This should weigh heavily on each one of us because the future of our democracy depends on it.
[21:55:00] I have raised my right hand and put my left hand on the Bible more than once. I have sworn an oath of Office to the American people and to the Constitution of the United States.
We have all taken this oath and are bound by it to support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic. This very action of taking an oath and giving your word is a powerful one.
Many of us take different oaths throughout our lives. From a young age, we develop our sense of right and wrong. We learn the Golden Rule, and for many of us, the 10 Commandments.
We are taught that our word matters, and what happens when we go back on it. This is true for millions of young girls and boys, across the country, that have taken the Girl Scout or the Boy Scout pledge.
As a country girl, I took the 4-H Pledge. I still remember the parts that remain with me today. "I pledge my heart to greater loyalty, my hands to larger service, for my club, my community, and my country."
This pledge is meant to teach the value of fulfilling your promise to others, of loyalty and service. Today's proceedings are about our pledge to the Constitution and the future of the Republic.
This commitment was shattered by Donald J. Trump when he violated his oath of Office, his promise of loyalty and service to the American people.
The Framers of the Constitution included impeachment as a safeguard against a corrupt President, whose ego and self-dealing could destroy the very foundations of our Constitution.
It's as though they had a crystal ball when they were writing the Constitution. And when they looked at it, who did they see? Donald J. Trump, A, abusing his power, B, betraying the nation, and C, corrupting our elections.
These are the ABCs of impeachable behavior the Framers feared the most. Donald J. Trump abused his power when he obstructed Congress and ordered government officials not to appear before us.
Donald J. Trump betrayed our nation when he declared "I have the right to do whatever I want as President," wrongfully using the Constitution to argue that he is above the law. Donald J. Trump corrupted our elections when he asked a foreign government to interfere for his personal and political gain.
I take no pleasure in the work of this Committee today. I grew up poor, in rural South Texas, one of 10 children.
I know the taste of commodity cheese and butter. I know what it's like to stand in line at a welfare clinic to get a shot. And I know what it's like to pick cotton in the hot, blistering Texas sun.
I never imagined that I would be a Member of Congress. Even less, I never imagined I would be in a position where I would need to consider impeaching a President. Yet, last year, I became one of the first two Latinas, alongside Ms. Escobar, to be elected to Congress from Texas.
I didn't come here to impeach a President. I came here to make a difference in the lives of my constituents, and the American people, and to make things better for our next generation of children.
And here we are, in the middle of a constitutional crisis. We must defend our democracy for every little boy and girl in this country, and show them that pledges they take matter, and the promises they make do matter.
Democracy is a gift that each generation gives the next. We must act and we must impeach.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
NADLER: The Gentlelady yields back. Mr. Steube.
REP. GREG STEUBE (R-FL): Since this President has been elected, Democrats have clamored for impeachment.
On the first day of my swearing-in, as a Member of this Congress, Democrats in my class were calling for impeachment on the day that we swore in, long before President Trump made a phone call to the newly- elected President of the Ukraine.
For almost a year, this Democrat-led Congress in this Committee has focused its efforts and its energy on impeaching President Trump.
First, the Democrats' theory of impeachment was Russia collusion. After 22 months of investigations, and millions in tax dollars spent, on Democratic lawyers investigating the President, they found nothing. No collusion. Bob Mueller sat before this Committee and testified that there was no evidence that the Trump campaign colluded or conspired with Russia.
Next, it was obstruction of justice. But after searching diligently, and trying to find any evidence, that the President obstructed justice, Democrats abandoned that theory.
By comparison, Clinton's impeachment in Article Two had seven different incidents of obstruction of justice, supported by the evidence collected by an Independent Counsel.
