Return to Transcripts main page
Don Lemon Tonight
The House Judiciary Committee Continues to Debate Articles of Impeachment. Aired 10-11p ET
Aired December 12, 2019 - 22:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
[22:00:00] CHABOT: In fact, when they took over the House, one of their members filed articles of impeachment that very day. And really, since Inauguration Day, many of them wanted to impeach him. This was really all about, in my view, it's all about politics, it's all about hurting the president, hurting his reputation. They dislike him intensely.
As I mentioned the other day, they really loathe this president and they're trying to hurt his chances in the next election. It may well do just the opposite.
But one of my real concerns and I have a lot of him about this whole thing, but the one that I really -- and I mentioned this earlier today, I'm very concerned about, is that the Democrats are really lowering the bar for impeaching a president in the future. It's becoming too routine, it's becoming the new normal.
For 200 years, in our nation, we had one impeachment. One. In 200 years, Andrew Johnson. And now in less than 50 years, we're in our third one this time around and I'm -- I really am concerned that from now on, in all likelihood, when you have the President of the United States and you have the House of Representatives and they're opposite parties, you're going to end up with the base of -- in the House of Representatives pushing very hard at members to impeach the president and it's very divisive for the nation.
So, many other things don't get done when you're going through an impeachment. For example, opioids. About 70,000, almost Americans, lost their lives last year but we've done very little about opioids in this Committee and we have jurisdiction over doing something about our southern border which is still like a sieve, far too many people come in illegal, this Committee's responsibility, but we do almost nothing there.
And overall in Congress, our infrastructure roads and highways, it's crumbling but we do very little about that. So, I think the American people deserve a lot better than what they're getting from this Committee or from what -- from this Congress.
So, in any event, I want to thank the folks out there and God bless America.
NADLER: The gentleman's time has expired.
For what purpose does Mr. Deutch seek recognition?
DEUTCH: Move to strike the last word.
NADLER: The gentleman is recognized.
DEUTCH: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Chairman, I want to start by agreeing with Mr. Sensenbrenner. It is always the right time to defend the Constitution and that's the very reason that were here.
There are two articles of impeachment. The first is abuse of power. The president of the United States abuses power by soliciting foreign interference in our elections, cheating the American voters. How did he do it?
He leveraged life-saving taxpayer-funded military aid that Ukraine desperately needed for assistance in his reelection campaign and he leveraged a White House meeting that he had promised to the new Ukrainian president that President Zelensky desperately needed to show Vladimir Putin that the United States is willing to stand with Ukraine and he leveraged that meeting for assistance in his reelection campaign. That's abuse of power.
Now, my colleagues have suggested that somehow, abuse of power is not a serious event that we should make light of the president's actions, not treat it as the constitutional violation like this. In fact, abuse power was a principal concern of the framers of the Constitution and it was clear what it meant.
The exercise of official power to obtain improper personal benefit while ignoring or injuring the national interest, that's abuse of power. It's rooted in the president's duty, constitutional duty to faithfully execute the law, to put service over self, to put the country over his personal interests.
I know for my colleagues that all four of the constitutional scholars are testified including the Republican's own witness, have confirmed that abuse of power is an impeachable offense.
President Trump's actions, in fact, exemplify the framer's fears and the very reason that abuse of power is a high crime. Worse -- worse than President Nixon, President Trump pressured a foreign government to aid in his corrupt scheme.
That's the abuse of power article. But there's a second article, obstruction of Congress. We know that no president in history, in history, has directed the entire executive branch not to cooperate with an impeachment inquiry, has told every member of the executive branch not to speak to any of the impeachment inquiry, to any of impeachment inquiry issues.
[20:05:00]
Now, the question is, when you look at the abuse of power which is a constitutional violation and then you look at the president's obstruction of Congress. It leads to some questions I would like my colleagues to think about as we head toward this important vote.
Think about the people who the president has blocked from speaking. Think about Mick Mulvaney. Now, Mick Mulvaney acknowledged, the acting Chief of Staff acknowledged a quid pro quo, says it happens all the time. That's abuse of power.
Then the president would let him speak. That's obstruction of Congress. Why won't you let him speak? Why does he have to hide?
Think about Secretary Perry, Ambassador Taylor described a highly irregular Ukraine policy channel led by Rudy Giuliani that included (inaudible) Volker and Rick Perry. That contributes to the abuse of power. It highlights the abuse of power but it also is obstruction of Congress. Why won't the president allow him to speak? What is he afraid of?
Think about John Bolton. Fiona Hill testified that Bolton told her to notify NSC counsel about rogue effort. He said that I'm not -- he said I'm not a part of whatever drug deals Sondland and Mulvaney are cooking up.
Bolton, in fact, called Giuliani a hand grenade who's going to blow everybody up. That's the abuse of power. Obstruction of Congress is clear, why won't the president let him testify? What's he hiding?
And finally, John Eisenberg. Lieutenant Colonel Vindman couldn't believe what he heard on the call. He reported to Eisenberg. Now Eisenberg can't speak. What is it that the president is afraid he'll say? That's obstruction of Congress.
Abuse of power and obstruction of the Congress together, that's what these articles are about. We're protecting the Constitution. We're protecting the American people in our elections. That's why we need to proceed with these articles of impeachment. I yield back.
NADLER: The gentleman yields back.
Mr. Reschenthaler -- for what purposes Mr. Reschenthaler seek recognition?
RESCHENTHALER: I move to strike the last word, Mr. Chairman.
NADLER: The gentleman is recognized.
RESCHENTHALER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I've been a prosecutor and I was a prosecutor in Baghdad when I was in the Navy, prosecuted terrorists, actually, in the Iraqi court system. I was a Defense Attorney in the Navy. I actually got to defend a Navy SEAL against trumped up charges by the Obama administration. And I had the honor of serving as a district judge in my hometown in the South Hills in Pittsburgh.
So, I've been on all sides of a courtroom and I can tell you that I would defend this case every single day and it's because the facts just aren't there. Let's go through each article. Abuse of power or quid pro quo, bribery. Call it whatever your focus group wants to call it because at the end of the day, you don't have facts to make out the case.
You don't have the facts because the other party on your quid pro quo, your alleged quid pro quo never felt pressure. We have a primary document, a primary source of information that is the transcript of the call, that shows there is no connection.
We also have the other party, President Zelensky, who said in no time did the Ukrainians feel any pressure to have an investigation. We also know that no investigation of Biden ever took place. We also know that aid was given to Ukraine. Aid that they never knew at the time was being under review and aid that came in the form of Javelin missiles, not what the Obama administration gave which were well wishes and blankets. So, again, no case can be made for abuse of power.
Obstruction of Congress. This is what we would describe as right or not right. It isn't right because only letters have been sent. There's been no subpoena.
And how this works is a subpoena is issued. The executive branch exercises their executive privilege, just like Obama did, and then the courts decide this. The courts have never decided this. So, where's the obstruction? It doesn't exist.
So, I would defend this case every single day. As a judge, I would dismiss this for lack of merit. Even if the facts are viewed in light most favorable to the Democrats, you still, again, cannot make out what we, as lawyers call a prima facie case. This case would be dismissed on day one in a courtroom.
But I'll tell you what case I'd prosecute. I'd prosecute Schiff for abuse of power any day of the week. Why? How about the fact that he subpoenaed phone records from a member of Congress? How about the fact that he took -- he singled out Devin Nunes' cellphone number and leak that? How about the fact that he dumped 8,000 pages on the Judiciary Committee 48 hours before we had hearing in this Committee? That is the abuse of power and that is what I would prosecute every day the week.
[20:10:00]
Obstruction? I'd prosecute the Democrats for obstruction Congress, too. How about the fact that I had a motion to subpoena the whistleblower? The whistleblower, who by the way, you cannot point to any statute, there's no statute that gives that whistleblower the right to be anonymous. It does not exist no matter what you say.
I had a motion to subpoena the whistleblower two weeks ago. That motion was the denied. I never got my subpoena and it was done in a partisan fashion, straight down partisan line. So, that is the obstruction and I would prosecute that every single day.
Folks, that's the legal analysis. This is nothing more than a political hit job. Thanks, and I yield the remainder of my time.
NADLER: The gentleman yields back.
To what purpose does Ms. Scanlon seek recognition?
SCANLON: I move to strike the last word.
NADLER: The gentlelady is recognized.
SCANLON: I want to reiterate. This is not about disagreements with the president's policies are personality or even his tweets. We're not judging the president himself. We're judging his actions. And I understand that he ran to disrupt the government. The problem is he went further.
By abusing his power, he endangered our elections and our national security. He remains an ongoing threat to both. He shown a pattern of inviting foreign interference in our elections and trying to cover it up twice. He's threatening to do it again.
So, we've heard a lot of loose talk about what evidence we have or don't have. There is plenty of direct evidence of the president's wrongdoing. Including, for example, his July 25th call record in which he said to the Ukrainian president, I want you to do us a favor, though. And then proceeded to request investigations into his political rival in a debunked conspiracy theory that the Senate and all of our national security services have rejected.
We have the testimony of his appointees, Ambassador Sondland and Volker about the May 23 meeting in which the president said to them, talk to Rudy. We have testimony of three first-hand witnesses to the July 25th call, two of whom promptly reported that call to their superiors and to legal counsel.
We have the testimony of David Holmes who overheard the president ask Ambassador Sondland whether President Zelensky was going to, quote, "do the investigation."
We have the president's many public statements including his October 3rd statement that Ukraine and China should investigate his political rival.
Even the minority counsel, Mr. Castor, admitted that there was direct evidence. He said, quote, "We had some direct evidence on certain things and we had some direct evidence on the May 23rd meeting and Sondland gave some direct evidence," end quote.
The secondhand accounts are also extensively corroborated. For example, Ambassador Taylor and Mr. Morrison both testified that during a September 7th phone call with Ambassador Sondland, President Trump said there was no quid pro quo but that President Zelensky had to go to the microphone and announce investigations. Kind of giving with one hand and taking away with the other.
Ambassador Sondland testified that he had no reason to dispute Ambassador Taylor's and Mr. Morrison's testimony about this conversation. There's also circumstantial evidence. There was no contemporaneous explanation given for the president's decision to withhold the military aid that had bipartisan support from Congress. That didn't come until after the articles of impeachment were filed.
And the uniform consensus of the State Department, the Defense Department, and White House witnesses is that the aid should've been released. Given these facts, the only logical explanation as Ambassador Sondland concluded was that like the White House meeting, the aid was being used to leverage pressure on President Zelensky.
At the end of the day, the evidence is overwhelming and indisputable. President Trump's personal lawyer, Rudy Giuliani, pushed Ukraine to investigate his political rival and a debunked conspiracy theory. His efforts had nothing to do with U.S. policy and we're taking on the president's behalf and with the president's knowledge. President Trump directed U.S. officials and Zelensky himself to work with Mr. Giuliani.
President Trump ordered the critical military aid for Ukraine be withheld. Ukrainian officials were informed the aid would not be released unless President Zelensky publicly announced an investigation and President Trump refused to release the aid until his pressure campaign on the Ukraine was exposed.
[20:15:00]
President Trump refused to arrange a meeting with President Zelensky and President Trump's agent advised Ukrainian officials that the White House meeting would be scheduled only after President Zelensky committed the investigations. President Trump ignore the anticorruption talking points prepared for his calls. President Trump and asked President Zelensky directly to investigate President Trump's chief political rival and President Trump stonewalled Congress' investigation.
I don't know what more you can ask for here. I mean, we've got admissions from the president. We've got corroboration from people he's appointed. The only thing you can do is stick your head in the sand if you're not willing to see what happened here.
And with that I would yield to my colleague from Florida. Is she here? OK. She's...
Thank you.
SCANLON: You're welcome.
Two seconds. I'll wait for the next yield.
SCANLON: Sorry. OK.
NADLER: The time of the gentlelady has expired.
SCANLON: Sorry.
NADLER: To what purpose does Mr. Armstrong seek recognition?
ARMSTRONG: Move to strike the last word.
NADLER: The gentleman is recognized.
ARMSTRONG: For weeks, my democratic colleagues talked about quid pro quo. And then they protested bribery. But they had a problem because these things will never change.
There was no pressure. Both President Zelensky and President Trump said that there was no pressure. No victim. No -- the aid was released and there was no investigation. And you know what else? There was no whistleblower. There was no Adam Schiff.
So, we are left with abuse of power and obstruction of justice. An impeachment is either a solemn constitutional affair which this is absolutely not or whatever the majority wants it to be which this absolutely is. If you cannot prove any of it, I guess you're going to use all of it.
So, why not expand it to all the way back to the -- where this thing all started, Bob Mueller. And buried in the bottom of Article 2 of this impeachment is the language. These actions were consistent with the President Trump's previous efforts to undermine United States government investigations into foreign interference United States elections.
This is nothing more than a legislative drive-by, are probably more accurate if majority's attempt to return to the scene of a non-crime. But I guess after two years, 19 lawyers, 40 agents, 500 warrants, 2,800 subpoenas, $30 million, there's simply no way they could leave it out.
So, here's just a reminder. The investigation did not establish that members of the Trump campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government and its election interference activities. Mueller report, Page 2. This started the day President Trump won the election. This has been the foregone conclusion since the day the Democrats won back the majority.
This was never about facts or fairness, so here we are where we were always going to be. On a purely partisan impeachment that is destined to fail in the Senate.
And with that, I yield back.
NADLER: The gentleman yields back.
For what purpose does Ms. Lofgren seek recognition?
LOFGREN: To strike the last word.
NADLER: The gentlelady is recognized.
LOFGREN: I've listened carefully to this very long debate this evening and throughout the last two weeks and I think it's important to look back to the founders and the foundation of what it is that we're doing here.
The founders knew that the powers given to the president needed to have the capacity to be curbed in the case of abuse. The framers of the Constitution consciously adopted a particular phrase from the English practice, to help define the constitutional grounds for removal.
The content of the phrase, high crimes and misdemeanors, for the framers, is to be related to what the framers new on the whole about the English practice, the broad sweep of English constitutional history and the vital role impeachment had played in the limitation of royal prerogatives and the control of abuses of ministerial and judicial power.
Now, when you're coming to private affairs in a ordinary criminal law, it is possible, in advance, to define what it is you can't do. You can't steal that money. You can't hit that person.
[20:20:00]
But when you're talking about the abuse of presidential power, you can't always specifically define what a bad actor in the white house might do. And therefore, you have the term a high crimes and misdemeanors and you have the abuse of presidential power.
It is important to note that in the second article of impeachment against Richard Nixon, there was an article for abuse of power. The article principally address President Nixon's use of power, including the powers vested solely in the president to aid his political allies, harm his political opponents, gained improper personal political advantages.
He used his power, and this is a quote, "it was undertaken for his personal political advantage and not in furtherance of any valid national political objective." His presidential powers, and again, this is a quote, "were seriously incompatible with our system of constitutional government and warranted removal from office."
We have a situation similar here, but I want to address the issue raised by my colleague from Ohio because I do agree that there can be a tendency in the country these days to immediately think well, I don't like that, let's go to impeachment. And that has, frankly, been prevalent since the Clinton impeachment.
Lying under oath is a crime. Lying about sex is a shame. But neither one involves the use of presidential powers. And the use of impeachment in that instance, really, in an improper way, was never the abuse of presidential power. I think putting in the public mind this is a tool to be used for disagreements about policy. Nothing could be further from the truth.
I was disappoint -- I voted against the Iraq war, but the Congress voted and some people thought we should have articles of impeachment about that. No, that did not undercut the constitutional order. Congress voted. It was a mistake, but it was the president of the Congress together. It was not the president usurping the powers of another branch of government.
Here, we have a situation that is so obvious. If you look at the facts, how can -- it is just inconceivable. The things I've heard today are just stunning to me, that you could reach a conclusion as a -- really, a defense counsel here grasping at straws. The president misused his presidential power to gain a personal benefit to the detriment of the interests of the United States.
It was an abuse of power that harmed us and it is ongoing. It is a threat to the constitutional order. It meets the definition of high crimes and misdemeanors. it is abuse of presidential power and it's our responsibility to use the tool that our founders gave us in the Constitution to preserve that constitutional order.
We must impeach. I yield back.
NADLER: The gentlelady yields back. Who seeks recognition?
For what purpose does Mr. Gohmert seek recognition?
GOHMERT: Strike the last word.
NADLER: The gentleman is recognized.
GOHMERT: Thank you. I just -- a quick comment. Comments about President Clinton's actions, when you lie under oath, it's perjury, it's a crime. And I understand the comment that he wasn't in his official capacity. That would set back the #MeToo movement if they took that position, having sex with an employee that is -- that much younger when you're President of the United States. That's not in his official capacity.
But no matter how long we spend today, tonight, tomorrow, it does not make up for the fact that we did not have fact witnesses. I mean, this reminds me, historically, of the trial of Socrates.
He got convicted by the jury of 501 people. Why? Because he was arrogant. You want to try Donald Trump for being arrogant? I'm sure you'd have a lot of Republicans vote with you on that.
Yes, he's arrogant. He's got a lot of -- to be arrogant about. But that is not a crime. It is not a high crime for sure and it's certainly not a misdemeanor.
[20:25:00]
It's bothersome to people. Some people like it, but that's not what impeachment is supposed to be about. And to have had a trial, the -- what few hearsay, gossip-mongering witnesses there were, come in to a Star Chamber and secrete their testimony so people can't see them, can't hear them. But we have Adam Schiff put together in a big report and we received the report, don't have much time to review it.
But that is all we need. We don't even get to hear from the preparer of the report and get to cross examine him. This is a Stalinesque type proceeding. that is the way it worked under Stalin. You didn't get to find out what the fact witness is because usually, there weren't any. Just like here.
So, what do you have? You have people come and give appearance, give their impressions and give an appearance and, oh-gee-we're-well- educated, great. That's fine.
And if you're ever not sure about being good at rationalizing, go to law school, you're trained to do that. So that when you hate a person like the three witnesses, obviously, do Donald Trump, you can come in and just misrepresent facts, and use those to base your opinions on them, just great.
But look at what really started this. It started before Mueller. It started back Carter Page had worked for the CIA to help them against the Russians. And what they do? They pervert that, like to the FISA court, and say, he has worked Russians, misrepresent who he is and what he did and what a patriot he was and then get a warrant.
And then as the time goes on, they lie about it. And where did this -- this all come from? It came from Hillary Clinton's campaign, the Democratic National Campaign- Committee, and they hired Fusion GPS, they hired a foreigner to affect our election. And they worked with Australian and Italians and they -- actually Christopher Steele admitted, you know what? Those people that gave me that information, may have been Russian. They may have been Ukrainian. It'd be nice to know.
But the majority doesn't want us to get there. And the very week we find out how bad this travesty was, the top people in the FBI and the department of justice perverted justice because they didn't like the guy that might get elected. They did everything they could. They used all these foreign resources to try to change the outcome of the 2016 election.
And when they did not work, then they came forward with impeachment. It was, oh, let's project what we did on Donald Trump, but it turned out he didn't do that. And even Mueller and Weissman, as much as they he hated Trump, they could not find anything to use against President Trump.
So, we had to drop the Russian collusion, we had to drop the treason. What about obstruction of justice? Well, it's not obstruction of justice when you know you're innocent and you know the Department of Justice is trying to set you up and you're trying to expose the truth. No, it was others who were obstructing the true justice.
Vindman, for heaven sake, you set that guy up as a hero. He is no hero. He was mad because Trump didn't what he told him.
For those who believe in praying for this country, pray for mercy. We can't afford justice or the country ends. I yield back.
NADLER: The gentleman yields back. For what purpose does Ms. Garcia seek recognition? GARCIA: Move to strike the last word, Mr. Chairman.
NADLER: The gentlelady is recognized.
GARCIA: Mr. Chairman, five more minutes. Five more minutes in a very long, long day. But when you look at what the other side has presented in defense of the president, what do we get? Nada. Nothing.
None of y'all will defend the president's actions because quite simply, you cannot defend the indefensible. You just can't. Even if you like him and support his actions, you just won't not defend what he did...
It's really quite simple. It's not complicated at all. He offered official acts in exchange for a political favor. He is a clear and present danger to do it again. He ignored the power of the people and he will do it again. It's really just that simple.
The president is an imminent threat. The president has showed us his pattern of conduct. He has made clear that he will continue to abuse his power to corrupt the 2020 elections. We must act with a sense of urgency to protect our democracy and defend our Constitution.
[20:30:00]
In the Clinton case, the House voted to impeach 72 days after it authorized an inquiry. It has been 94 days since Congress launched its investigation into the president's dealings with Ukraine.
Impeachment is a charging decision like a grand jury or a prosecutor makes. We have seen more than enough evidence here to charge and move to trial in the senate. It is a president who is abusing his power.
What is not fair is the president's blanket refusal to participate in this inquiry for the sole purpose of hiding the facts from the American people. Federal courts have ruled that Congress has a constitutional right to obtain documents and testimony from the Trump administration.
One federal court said that the president's obstructions is a farce and he is openly stonewalling and I agree. He is the first president to engage in wall-to-wall stonewalling and in some respects, an outright cover-up of his own behavior.
He has refused to comply with all of the congressional subpoenas that had been issued to try to uncover the truth about his misconduct. And act that no other citizen can do without consequence. As has been stated before, even President Nixon shared documents and allowed current and former aides to testify as part of the impeachment process. The Committee still recommended an article of impeachment against him for obstruction.
Last night, I reminded us that all of this is really about preserving and protecting our democracy for the little boys and girls across this nation. So, they will know about what it means to make a promise and to make a pledge, and to keep it because democracy is a gift that each generation gives to the next and that's why we have to take action, we have to move forward and we must impeach the president.
With that, Mr. Chairman, I will yield the remainder of my time to my colleague from Florida, Ms. Mucarsel-Powell.
MUCARSEL-POWELL: Thank you, Ms. Garcia.
I just wanted to answer to what Mr. Chabot said earlier and clarify that I, along with so many of my colleagues, so many of us that you see sitting on this dais, we did not come here to impeach the President of the United States. We came to lower health care cost and that's exactly what we did today.
We voted on H.R. 3 today to lower prescription drug prices. They say, let the American people decide. Well, that is why last week, we voted on the Voting Rights Amendment Act which many of my Republican colleagues voted against. Let Americans decide it.
Yes. That is exactly why we are here because we don't want Russia, Ukraine or China making the decision for us in our American government. This president has committed the highest crime by abusing the power of his office, inviting foreign interference in our elections and that is why we are here today.
Please don't confuse Americans with false claims and pushing debunked conspiracy theories. We are here to tell the American people the truth. I yield back.
NADLER: The gentlelady yields back. Who seeks recognition?
To what purposes Mr. McClintock seek recognition?
MCCLINTOCK: To strike the last word.
NADLER: The gentleman is recognized.
MCCLINTOCK: Mr. Chairman, I've lost track of the number of newspapers that had been entered in to the record in these proceedings but I think it is a telling commentary on the quality of the case that this Committee is relying on to support the exercise of one of the most profound actions we can take.
I think it underscores the dereliction of duty of a Judiciary Committee drafting articles of impeachment without a single fact hearing. Virtually, the entire record is the Schiff report and newspaper clippings.
As I reminded the Committee yesterday, this week, Mr. Schiff's report on FISA abuse was categorically and completely contradicted by the inspector general's report.
Mr. Schiff's work is not exactly what you can call the gold standard of accuracy, reliability or incisive analysis. And newspaper clippings, with all due respect, are not exactly the solid foundation that can support our wielding such power. Impeachment should be made of sterner stuff.
[20:35:00]
A matter so momentous as this should be considered thoroughly and dispassionately and fairly. Mr. Chairman, to substitute our judgment for that of the American people by nullifying a national election is a very weighty matter. If you're going to do that, you should have a record of fact that no reasonable person can deny.
A one-sided report from Adam Schiff and a newspaper scrapbook as the foundation of impeachment that I predict will crumble and disintegrate before the Senate finishes its consideration.
Abuse of power is exactly the vague and expensive ground that the founders considered as maladministration and rejected in favor of the narrow ground of treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors. The lawful exercise of the president's constitutional authority is not impeachable and the moment we make it so, the president becomes a servant of Congress, and the separation of powers which is protected, our freedom for nearly two and a half centuries, will be greatly diminished.
And similarly, the president's assertion of long-established boundaries that maintain the separation of powers is also not impeachable. And once we make it so, we also clearly diminish the separation of powers.
The overall political hyperbole that we've heard over and over through these hearings ought to warn us that we are straying into partisan motives which must never animate the impeachment power of Congress. Public opinion has not coalesced around this act, which should also alert us to the danger that by proceeding, we would further divide and alienate the American people, and roil and agitate the political waters of this nation.
You failed to define any law that the president has violated. If you could, you should clearly articulate that. You should support it with legally admissible evidence and put it in the articles. Otherwise, your case is simply a disagreement with decision the president is authorized to make, and again, this is a matter that our constitutional reserves to the voters and not to the Congress.
And by denying the witnesses requested by the minority, you've blinded the Committee to getting the whole story. If you're truly confident of your case you should have nothing to fear from what a full airing of testimony would offer.
The most chilling observation I have heard is that we can do this because we are not restricted like the Department of Justice is. Well, the same rights of due process and the same fidelity to the Constitution are required of us.
In the impeachment of Andrew Johnson, Congress made many of the same mistakes that we are making tonight. I would urge my colleagues to carefully consider how history has judged them and how it will judge us. I yield back.
NADLER: The gentlemen yields back. To what purposes does Ms. Jayapal seek recognition?
JAYAPAL: I move to strike the last word.
NADLER: The gentlelady is recognized.
JAYAPAL: Thank you.
Mr. Chairman, we just continue to hear the same excuses for the President's behavior and this is such a grave moment that we're in. We're talking about the highest constitutional crimes, abuse of power, and obstruction of Congress. And so, let me once again just review the facts.
First, my Republican colleagues have said that this is about corruption, that all the President Trump's agencies, all of his advisers, everyone unanimously told him that Ukraine had passed all the anti-corruption benchmarks. The department of defense said that Ukraine had passed their review on anti-corruption benchmarks and no further corruption policies were needed.
President Trump's administration cut programs designed to fight corruption in Ukraine. And President Trump was given talking points by the National Security Council that specifically said if talk to -- say these things about corruption.
But guess what happened on those calls in April in July? President Trump did not mention corruption. He did not use the talking points that he was given. The only two names that he mentioned on the July 25th call, were Joe and Hunter Biden.
Second, the Republicans suggested that this was all about President Trump's concerns with burden-sharing with our allies. But that was not true. That wasn't true.
Mr. Holmes testified that burden sharing was not a problem. Europe was actually contributing four times as much money as the United States did and Ambassador Sondland testified that he was never asked to go to the European Union and ask for more money.
[20:40:00]
And remember, Mr. Sondland is President Trump's ambassador to the European Union. What was Ambassador Sondland told to communicate to Ukraine by President Trump? He was told to say that resumption of aid would likely not occur unless President Zelensky announced the investigation.
Specifically, he said that quote, "unless Zelensky went to the mike and announce these investigations, there would be a stalemate over the aid." And what were those investigations? 2016 election interference and Burisma. Meaning, the Bidens.
So, finally, left with nothing else to argue in defense of the president, the Republicans have raised one more thing which is that President Trump had a legitimate reason, somehow a legitimate reason to investigate Vice President Biden. But once again, that makes no sense.
It makes no sense because the facts are that that investigation of the -- that issue of the Biden -- of Biden and Burisma went back to 2015 and President Trump released aid in 2017 and 2018. So, we clearly didn't have a problem in 20 -- with the issues of 2015 because he had two opportunities to release aid and he did. But something changed in 2019 and the only thing that changed is that vice President Biden suddenly started beating President Trump in the polls.
So, the evidence is clear. President Trump said do us a favor, though. And who is the us? Well, he told us. He told us exactly what he meant by us. He told President Zelensky that us meant deal with Rudy Giuliani, President Trump's personal attorney, who knows, and this is a quote, "very much knows what is going on."
President Trump could've gone through official channels if he wanted, if this investigation was actually legitimate. He could have asked the Department of Justice to an investigation into the Bidens and Burisma. But he didn't do that. He did not do that.
And the Department of Justice said that he didn't do that. He never asked him to do an investigation or even talk to Ukraine. Instead, President Trump asked his personal attorney because us was not about America. This wasn't about official policy. This wasn't about what was right for our country. This was not about putting America first.
Every witness testified to that that as well. This was personal. It was all for President Trump's personal political gain. This was to benefit Trump's own reelection campaign and that's why he had his personal attorney do this. He abused his power, he abused the power that people entrusted to him, he abused the office and he placed our safety, millions of dollars of taxpayer money, all at risk for his own personal political election.
And that is the one thing the president can't do. He cannot use our, money. The powers of the office that we entrusted to him, we the people, not for us but for himself. That is the gravest abuse of power and this president has left us no choice but to impeach him.
I yield back.
NADLER: The gentlelady yields back.
For what purpose does Mr. Johnson seek recognition?
M. JOHNSON: Move to strike the last word.
NADLER: The gentleman is recognized.
M. JOHNSON: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
This morning, I began by outlining our important role today. Most of us who are attorneys on this Committee and in this case, we're also called the service finders of fact.
We're supposed to carefully and objectively analyze the claims, not against our personal preferences, but against the record of evidence. And now we've done that for the 12 hours and it's time to summarize our case.
At the end of the day, now literally the end of the day, there are just two short articles to this impeachment resolution they brought before us, abuse of power and obstruction of justice. And let's review both.
On the first, the Democrats know there is zero direct evidence in the record of these proceedings to show that President Trump engaged in any scheme of any kind, as they have alleged, or that he intended in his dealings with Ukraine to influence the 2020 election.
All they've argued today is based on hearsay, speculation, and conjecture. Completely. The truth is, there's not a single fact witness that could provide testimony to support their paper-thin case which is precisely why we'd been given no opportunity or for a fact witnesses for a minority hearing.
What the evidence does show is that President Trump holds a deep- seated, genuine, and reasonable skepticism of Ukraine due to it's history of pervasive corruption and his administration saw proof that the newly elected President Zelensky was a true reformer.
President Trump wanted to ensure that American taxpayer funded security assistance would not be squandered overseas by what is reported to be the third most corrupt nation in the world. The Trump- Ukraine discussions were never about what will happen in 2020 but rather about what already happened in 2016.
[20:45:00]
The Democrats' second claim is that President Trump obstructed justice by simply doing what virtually every other president in the modern era has also done, to assert a legitimate executive privilege and legal immunity to avoid subpoenas issued to various White House officials.
There is simply no evidence of any impeachable offense here either. And if they had not promised an impeachment to their liberal base by Christmas, the Democrats could and should have simply gone a few blocks away to the federal court to get a simple order compelling the extra documents in the information they subpoenaed.
But that's what's always been done in the past, but they did not have time for that here because they are trying to meet their own arbitrary completely reckless and Machiavellian timeline to take down a president they loathe.
The real abuse of power here is on the part of the House Democrats as they has feverishly pursued this impeachment 20 times faster than the impeachment investigation of Bill Clinton to reach their predetermined political outcome. Along the way, they have steamrolled over a constitutionally guaranteed due process, previously sacrosanct House rules of the federal rules of civil procedure.
They have ignored or blocked exculpatory evidence, intimidated witnesses, restricted Republican lines of questioning, denied defense witnesses and involvement of the president's counsel, restricted Republican review of evidence, denied minority hearing and violated proper minority notice and fairness at every single stage.
The founders of this country warned against this single party impeachment for a good reason. They feared that it would bitterly and perhaps irreparably divide our nation. Our Chairman, Mr. Nadler, gave a speech about that 20 years ago when he was opposing the impeachment of Bill Clinton.
The obvious truth is that our liberal colleagues have vowed to impeach President Trump since the day of his election. Their reason of the day changed at least a half a dozen times over the last three years but they can never get any traction or any facts to justify those various conspiracy theories.
As the next election in 2020 is drawing so close now and their candidates for president are so terribly week, they obviously met somewhere at the liberal high command about 75 days ago and convinced Nancy Pelosi. They had to pull the trigger.
The problem, is they've done that and in all those hearings in the basement, they couldn't uncover a single fact to justify their latest conspiracy theory about Ukraine.
So, what to do? They're left with no choice, to desperately create a totally fraudulent, unprecedented process to try to railroad Donald Trump. The results is what our expert witnesses testified as, quote, "the shortest proceeding with the thinnest evidentiary record and the narrowest grounds ever used to impeach a president.
I'm a constitutional law attorney by profession and I've actually enjoyed the sparse four minutes of real intellectual debate we had today on the actual contours of Article 2 Section 4. But every high school civic student at home can read its plain language and see what is expressly required to impeach a president.
You need treason, bribery, or a high crime or misdemeanor. None of that exists here and everybody knows it. Those high school students at home know it. Our constituents know it. And in their heart of hearts, even our friends on the other side of the room tonight know it.
My good friend, Mr. Cohen, said in his closing a few moments ago that he is proud to be a politician. But I would say with all sincerity, this moment doesn't call for politicians. The weight of history is upon us here and this moment calls for statesman.
This impeachment is going to fail and the Democrats are going to justly pay a heavy political price for it. But the Pandora's box they've opened today will do a reparable damage to our country in the years ahead and that is the real tragedy of the vote we're about to take.
God help us. I yield back.
NADLER: The gentleman yields back. To what purposed does the -- does Ms. Bass seek recognition?
BASS: I move to strike the last word.
NADLER: The gentlelady is recognized.
BASS: A little while ago, one of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle who was saying that the president was not -- the reason why aid was withheld was because the president wanted to investigate corruption. The idea that the most corrupt president that we have seen in recent history withheld military aid because he was concerned about corruption is ludicrous.
As my colleagues have pointed out, both cause the President Trump had with President Zelensky, Trump never mentioned corruption. The Department of Defense vetted giving him the aid and said that it was OK. Once upon a time, President Trump loved his generals. This time he ignored them.
Members of Congress authorized the aid and lobbied the White House to release the aid. Staff from the Office of Management and Budget resigned because they were worried about what was going on and why the aid was withheld. They were worried about what the president was doing and they believe that withholding the aid was wrong.
Trump even cut funding for programs to deal with corruption in countries like Ukraine. So, a man that is so concerned about corruption also has interesting friends. He has bromances with some of the world's most corrupt leaders, the leaders from Saudi Arabia, Turkey. He had the President Erdogan from Turkey just a couple of few weeks ago at the White House. But we know his number one pal is President Putin.
[20:50:00]
So, all of the president's men, all the men around him that were indicted, arrested, incarcerated, my mother used to say that if you lay down with dogs, don't be surprised if you get up with fleas. The who claimed he wanted to clean up the swamp created his own swap and he's drowning in it now.
I do have to say, though, that I have empathy for my Republican colleagues because I don't believe that they have a choice. They have to defend the president and they dare not step out of line because if they do, they will suffer the consequences. A few of my Republican colleagues earlier did try to say that they did not believe that the president's conduct was appropriate and they got slapped quickly.
The president said his conduct? He said, the call was absolutely perfect. And so now, you don't hear any of them saying or questioning whether his behavior was appropriate. You have to fall in line and not only do you have to fall in line, you have to praise him constantly, like those famous press conferences we've seen in the Oval Office where they one by one, go around the table and talk about their praise for him. It makes me feel like a meeting that would take place in North Korea, where you have to praise dear leader. So, you have to fall in line because the entire reason was corruption. But I know that you know better. You have to say that he did nothing wrong. One of my colleagues said that we are lowering the bar on impeachment. I believe that we have lowered the bar on the presidency.
It is so sad to see my colleagues who I believe know what's better. They are not able to say it. They know that the man is corrupt.
When it comes to impeachment, there is no higher crime than for the president to use, the power of his office to corrupt our elections. We will move to impeach President Trump because of the abuse of power through self-dealing, the betrayal of national security in the service of foreign interests, and the corruption of our elections that undermine our democratic system.
So, if my colleagues on the other side of the aisle cannot bring themselves to do what is right and impeach the president, that would -- that they know is a threat to our elections, that they would -- that they know is a threat to our standing in the world, then we will have to do it and we will have to move to impeach.
I yield now to Representative Jackson Lee.
JACKSON LEE: I thank the gentlelady for yielding.
My conclusory remarks or simply this. To my friends on the other side of the aisle, to the Americans who listened to the soldiers everywhere who wear uniforms, I have no angst. I have no dislike of anyone who voted for anyone in 2016.
I take issue at insult that one would suggest the work of this Committee is about a dislike for those who voted for President Trump. President Trump is before this Committee in articles of impeachment for his own behavior. For his desire to do with public monies and a public position, to do a private matter and a political matter, and that is to get dirt on his 2020 potential opponent.
In honoring and defending the Constitution, we defend and honor ourselves. And for that reason, as an indicting body to articles of impeachment, we will give the opportunity for the Congress to decide on President Trump's ultimate result but I stand with the Constitution and stand for justice. I yield back.
NADLER: The gentlelady's time has expired.
To what purpose does Mr. Swalwell seek recognition?
SWALWELL: I move to strike the last word.
NADLER: The gentleman's recognized.
SWALWELL: Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.
We allow the President to the United States to again, abuse his office for his own personal gain, and shame on all of us, and shame on our Constitution. We know he's going to do that again because on June 12th this year, he told George Stephanopoulos, before this phone call with President Zelensky happened, that if could, again, receive help from a foreign government as he did from Russia, he would do it again.
On July 24, Bob Mueller testified to our Committee. He said that the president can be charged with up to 10 crimes of obstruction of justice but the Department of Justice prevents him from doing that.
The next day, the president did it again. Every prosecutor when they are assigned a case will open up the file and the first thing we all do is we look at the rap sheet. Was this an aberration or was this a pattern of conduct that the person engages in?
[20:55:00]
But it's not just prosecutors who look or use a rap sheet. We all do it in our everyday lives. If you're a small business owner and you're hiring and employee and find out that they had multiple thefts in their past from their employer, you probably wouldn't hire them.
If you're a apparent looking for a night out and hiring a babysitter and multiple references said the babysitter is always late, you would not ask that person to watch your kids. And if you are going to a restaurant or an anniversary and saw a multiple bad Yelp! reviews, you wouldn't go to that restaurant.
The president does not just have bad reviews, he has really bad prior conduct, serious priors. He is a repeat offender. Crimes against our Constitution, and yes, crimes that one day may be prosecuted statutorily. He has abused his power in the past. He is abusing his power right now. He will abuse it tomorrow.
We have a Department of Justice who will continue to protect him. Unfortunately, the American people have a Congress who can say that he is not above the law and we're not helpless in holding him accountable.
And I'll yield to the gentleman from Rhode Island.
CICILLINE: I thank the gentleman.
We've heard a lot of explanation about why we're here tonight, that we don't like the policies of the president. We don't like the president.
But the one thing we haven't heard, the real reason we're here tonight is the conduct of the president, the grave misconduct. And so, I just want recount very quickly again the evidence that was presented and text messages and call records and e-mails and hundreds of press statements and tweets, President Trump acknowledging that he'd been engaged on a personal basis through Rudy, his lawyer in investigating Ukraine.
That President Zelensky is sensitive about Ukraine being taken seriously, not really as an instrument in Washington domestic reelection politics as Ambassador Sondland said. That David Holmes testified under oath. I was surprised the requirement was so specific and concrete, there was a demand that President Zelensky personally commit to a specific investigation of President Trump's political rival on cable news. And the evidence goes on and on and on of the presidents effort to use the enormous powers of his office to betray the national interest and cheat in the election in 2020 and use hundreds of millions of dollars of taxpayer money to attempt to achieve that objective.
Her founders talked about abuse of power because they recognize that the power of the presidency was enormous. There was a danger that the president would use that power not for the public good, but for his own personal political or financial advantage. And so, they created articles of impeachment to give a final check against that abuse of power.
No one's here because we want to do this. We're here because we have no choice. We're not acting out of hate, we're acting out of love of our country, and love of our democracy.
When generations look back on this moment, they will, ask what did we do to preserve our democracy? And the only thing we can do to preserve that is to hold this president accountable because if we don't, they will ask us why we failed to preserve the greatest democracy on earth, that has been an example to the world. And in this moment, we have to find the courage to be sure we can answer that question for all future generations and not be part of an effort to undermine the greatest democracy known to man.
And so, I urge my colleagues tonight, we must approve these articles of impeachment so we can make it clear that nobody in this country and the greatest country in the world is above the law, even the most powerful person, the President of the United States.
And with that, I yield back.
NADLER: The gentleman yields back.
For what purpose does Mr. Jeffries seek recognition?
NADLER: The gentleman is recognized.
JEFFRIES: The record is clear, Donald Trump abused his power by soliciting foreign interference in the 2020 election, and thereby undermining the integrity of our democracy as well as our national security.
My Republican colleagues have spent all day arguing process. That's what you do when you can't defend the indefensible, you argue process. Well, here's a process concern that you might reflect upon.
Earlier today, Mitch McConnell gave some indication as to how a possible trial in the Senate may run and this is what Senator McConnell said, I'm going to coordinate with the President's lawyers so there won't be any difference between us on how to do this.
In other words -
[23:00:00]
