WATCH | House Judiciary Committee debates Trump impeachment articles (FULL LIVE STREAM)

decide. He decided to cheat in the upcoming election. And he

got caught

That was an example from the congressman about Heidi was

taking the personal and political

and also referencing President Trump. Who is there audience

right now? >> I think they are thinking

about their constituent. Some of them are thinking about

reelection and that is not to say that what they said was not

sincere but we see on both sides there is a PR element to this

The Republicans are angry but they amp up the anger a bit for the cameras. The Democrats are sincere but they want to demonstrate to the public how serious and solemn they are in undertaking this very dramatic and historic move That has been a theme in the Democratic messaging ever since the impeachment inquiry (we heard it from Nancy Pelosi on down, the idea that this is a solemn moment. This is not a moment there celebrated, this is not anything they wanted. I think they have been very concerned about being credible messengers for this accountability not looking as if it is a partisan exercise Will become in your Roundup last night because you are working on this like the live update covering this initial markup hearing last night. You had this great line that you wrote Democrats in repentance portray the vote as a moment in history and they are to be on the right side of it. We did hear Democrats saying I was by her Republican colleagues could be on the right side of it. But Republicans have the same refrain. Repugnance tried to cast the vote today as loyalty to the Constitution and our founding fathers. The case they made was the impeachment was put in place not to be a single party decision but it was supposed to be something that you collectively decided. There was fear among the founders that if you did do a single party impeachment the country would be terribly divided >> the Republicans are encouraging Democrats to vote their conscience and vote against impeachment each one was appealing to the other to do right by history >> Let’s talk about the Republican arguments last night It was largely on process and then outrage at the fact that, in their view, Democrats have been trying to impeach the president for years now. Not just for the last couple of months. You heard over and over again Rebecca been saying and they do has of Democrats they can point to specifically you have been trying to impeach the president since the day he was elected. You hear many arguments, though on the substance of the charges >> You did not. Most of it was process and the fact that this was a witch hunt as the president would call it, a sham, hope, this was an attempt by the Democrats to finally after three years of trying, find something to pin the president down on and impeach him. You did not hear a lot of conversation about the phone call with Volodymyr Zelensky or the withholding a military aid. With the military a question to come up the only point they did, was the aid was eventually released and no harm was done In terms of the president’s behavior in the president’s actions you did not hear the Republicans defend that at all I think >> I remember interviewing Congressman Al Green three years ago early 2017. Right after the president was inaugurated really calling for President Trump’s impeachment So we saw quite quickly couple of members who were kind of stepping out as to what Speaker Pelosi wanted them to be doing and calling for impeachment very early on And that is what the Republicans are pointing to now pico it has been a huge part of Republican messaging to point out the idea that so many Democrats wanted to impeach Trump from the start Were so upset about his election Obviously, the election had been interfered with by Russian, there was fundamentally unfair that Trump may have confided that interference Democrats only some of them had extremely feelings about that from the beginning. We knew it was a challenge for Nancy Pelosi to keep her members in line because she obviously did not want it to look like it was a foregone conclusion. The Democrats were just hunting around for the right excuse to begin an impeachment proceeding We know that there was a lot of tension in the caucus about this. Nancy Pelosi waited until this Ukraine’s saga to begin while members of her party were making motions that there were a number of actions Trump had taken that could have incited this in the past. I think it has been a difficult exercise in leadership for Pelosi. What I am very curious about is once we get to the house floor likely next week, will we see the Democratic caucus remain unified. It does not sound like we will pit it sounds like there will be a handful of Democratic defections because we know that public opinion on impeachment has really not moved that my >> That’s such a great point and I want to dig more into that in a moment. It seems like at this

point the judiciary committee is because we heard the Democratic house is absolutely for voting for these articles of impeachment, the repugnance absolutely against it >> For three years we have heard from people that are now in the majority talk about the crimes of the president And where are they? Well they can sing Mr. President come in, we will be fair with you, come tell us about the crimes. And here’s the crimes you have committed. And where are they now that we have the articles of impeachment? A vague abuse of power, obstruction of Congress. The very thing is the majority has done. I would have expected President Trump to just say you came after me, my business Associates, my family now I’m going back and I’m going to make billions of dollars, the heck with you guys but he has hung in there. It is amazing >> Democrats would certainly love it if President Trump decided had enough of this. And it’s not looking like that. The president has been on the campaign essentially pushing back at this impeachment process. I want to dig into the articles themselves a little bit because we will be hearing a lot about them in very specific detail this morning This hearing, this markup hearing is expected to get underway in just about 10 minutes time. Let’s talk about unity and possible defections >> Beaker Pelosi is very good at vote counting and very good at pulling the caucus together. She knows her rank. She is also someone who is willing to allow members develop how they need to vote Whether does to vote their conscience or whether it is to keep their seats come reelection time >> that’s right and Democratic leadership has said they are not going to whip this vote. That means they are not going to putting really tough pressure on members to vote the party line Whether that is true behind the scenes, we are not quite sure But Nancy Pelosi is dealing with the caucus in the house that is made up of a huge range of members from different areas of the country from districts, many of which elected Trump. She is dealing with these purple districts when district Democrats who feel as if they were to vote for impeachment, their reelection would be in “Jeopardy” and then the house majority for Democrats would be in “Jeopardy”. It is kind of a share political question in a certain way. And perhaps by easing up on some of those members , she does herself a favor politically >> Now she can have defections but only a certain number I was going to say there is no way but we cannot predict anything that is going to happen. Is very unlikely that Speaker Pelosi would allow a vote to go to the floor she was not 100% sure she had the votes to pass something as grave as this assets significant as the >> The chances that this passes the for next week is almost at 100%, let’s put it at 99%. To Alisa’s point about the Democratic caucus. You had a number of progressives win in 2018. Like AOC, like Ilhan Omar on the platform of defeating President Trump. You had a number of Democrats win in these purple district on jobs, healthcare So those voters were not interested in what Trump did and who he talked to in Ukraine, they’re worried about their own pocketbooks So in order for Nancy Pelosi to keep the majority, it is not those progressives that she needs to worry about. They are going to win reelection. It’s as moderate Democrats and that’s why Nancy Pelosi has been so reluctant to even bring up impeachment. That’s why it is with a heavy heart I think she is doing this because as Republicans have taunted her, this could cost them the majority put we heard that last night. We heard Republicans saying say goodbye to your majority >> Okay part of trying to keep everyone happy especially the moderates is creating these limited articles of impeachment There is some progressives and activists outside and serving in Congress would have loved to have seen a laundry list of articles of impeachment listing all kinds of things whether it is the emollients clause, whether it is President Trump’s treatment of women. You could have throw the kitchen sink it here and made some people happy but that is not the way the Democrats chose to go. Let’s talk about what is actually in these two articles of impeachment. We have got abuse of power which is a very broadly defined article was so much that happened bid Trump in Ukraine, the withholding of aid, the pressure on Volodymyr Zelensky, the withholding of a Whitehouse meeting for some time. This

whole idea of the alleged quid pro quo is in that article In the second one we had is Trump’s response to the inquiry itself. Obstruction of Congress President Trump telling deputies, telling agencies not to comply, not to handover documents, not to allowed officials to testify. These are two very clearly defined articles that I think Democrats knew that if the American people are going to understand anything, it would probably be those. We are not getting into a lot of ancillary issues >> Colby does this out moderate Democrats go back to their districts and say look, yeah, I’m going to vote for this, for this very specific thing, this very specific set of actions, the president is alleged to have taken You know, were going to move on from it after that >> they are going to try to go out there like Ely said and explain these articles because they are pretty simple in nature. You can understand the present makes a phone call, the present withhold aid, the president asked for an investigation into Joe Biden That’s not hard to wrap your head around. Like the mullah or investigation was very complicated and trying to impeach him on the Mueller report would’ve been a huge challenge for Democrats. The reason why Nancy Pelosi wanted to hold dismal before the end of the year was so they could get back to healthcare and all the things that the moderate Democrats want to run on next year picot of course they’re still working on Capitol Hill. December is often a really busy time on the hill It’s like everything that has been in the works is do or die time and it’s time to get it passed or let it wither on the vine. So we are seeing our college report on everything from like a new NAFTA trade deal on D at down. Who wins in a case like that ? >> Right so what was interesting is that Nancy Pelosi announce the articles of impeachment and almost in the next breath announced a negotiation with the White House on trade Which is a huge win for President Trump. He is been fighting for trade in a new NAFTA since the beginning of his presidency. So if he ends up getting that, that is going to be another talking point for him on the campaign trail next year Certainly moderate Democrats or Democrats at large can campaign on that as well >> They can also say we are not hung up on impeachment right >> Yes of the whole argument of, you know, we can walk into, at the same time. We can do two things at the same type >> I think that is a message they are hoping they can take back to their districts. As the sun undergoes its trial I think Democratic leadership is hoping that these members will be back at home focused on this kitchen table issues, putting impeachment that aside for now and doing what they can to bolster their own reelection >> Also space force one of President Trump’s other goals looks like it is going to happen with attached to it parental leave for federal workers. Which is something that Democrats have been pushing for a long time. It is also a priority of Ivanka Trump, the presidents daughter. She’s going to take a lot of credit for parental leave for federal workers >> 12 weeks >> Which is significant for federal workers >> Also something Democrats can go home and say we are not just hung up on impeachment, we are doing other things at the same time. Okay so as we watch today we are expecting to see these two articles of impeachment gone over with a fine tooth comb which is what happens in a markup. Ultimately, the goal of Democrats at the end of the day is to vote on these two articles and pass them out a committee, call me >> right and that’s what we will see at the end of the day You’ll see hours and hours of debate, hours of fighting, most of the Republican side bit at the end of all this they are going to debate, vote on article 1 and they will vote on article 2. They’re going to get all the debate out of the way on the front and and then do those two votes at the very very end of this markup which could end up being in the early evening likely >> We know there a couple of constraints on the timing. Is the White House Christmas party for certain lawmakers this evening so they do not want to miss that. We know there’s a congressional delegation that is going to be leaving for Europe to commemorate and anniversary for the Battle of the Bulge of all things. They do want to leave on time tonight Similar to how this whole timeline has been compressed by the Christmas holidays in the coming of the 2020 election, tonight I think we are going to see lawmakers who are bit exhausted ready to finish the business of the week and prepare for what is happening on the floor next week >> Chairman never has come into the room so we will bring you live in on erupted. I want to thank you guys for being with us >> we will be back after break to break into what is going on, explain the process and talk about the highlights of what is

happening Once this gets out of the committee is to go to the house floor and Democrats want to get this done before they leave for the winter recess so we are looking at next week for house floor vote. That is another opportunity in the final opportunity for Republicans to push back on this. Today is the last chance for these judiciary members on the repugnant side of the aisle to have their moment in the spotlight. To sort of have less people the fight for airtime as opposed to when it goes to the whole house floor And give their consent and their dissatisfaction with how this has gone >> We have to remember that the house is such a different chamber than the Senate but once the process moves over even though there is going to be quite a bit of conflict, it will be a more subdued process in certain ways There are Republicans that want to keep that trial as possible It might not be what the president wants but I think we will see the Township very much when we moved to the other side of the capital. This is the people’s house and you heard it all last night. I made you heard the story of America, you’re the story of legislatures and you heard a lot of hyperbole and a lot of drama from both sides of the aisle. If you were turning into that last night not having seen anything else you would really feel like democracy was on the line. Absolutely and you would be confused. You know, you hear both sides make these really compelling arguments and passionate arguments and without all the facts, who do you believe if you are the American people question mark what is true? Did the President abuse power or was it just par for the course? Was it just a present chatting up a foreign leader about investigations and corruption? That’s what the Democrats need to convince the American people of and they only have a couple more days to do it >> all right you can see there the members gathering. The way a markup works as they dig through the process here. They will dig through the substance of the bill and make technical changes and tweaks to language for this is not the high drama that we saw in the Intel committee where witnesses are coming before the committee and testifying and dropping bombshells. This is much more about these committee members hatching over things and it is a chance for committee members to have their final say before these articles get out of this committee It is their final chance to make their case to the American public, Elise >> That’s right and I think it’s been difficult for Democrats on the judiciary committee to tell that unified story but it looks like we about to clear and it will be interesting to see if they can do that better today >> Let’s go to Chairman Nadler as he calls this markup hearing to order >> The Judiciary Committee well please come to order, corn being present when the committee reset yesterday I had completed opening statements on the resolution about to be considered. Notice under house resolution 660 I now call 755 impeaching Donald John Trump president of the United States for high crimes and misdemeanors >> Mr. Chairman, point of order. I make a point order against consideration on the grounds that the chairman willfully refused to schedule a day of hearings >> we will entertain that point of order once we have completed calling up the resolution >> we now call up a dress 755 impeaching Donald John Trump for high crimes and misdemeanors. For purposes of markup and move that the committee reported the resolution favorably to the house. The clerk will report the resolution >> HR 755 impeaching Donald John Trump president of the United States for high cream crimes and misdemeanors and House of Representatives December 10th, 2019 Mr. Nadler submitted the following resolution which was referred to the committee on the Judiciary Resolution impeaching Donald John Trump president of the United States resolved that President Trump is impeach for high crimes and misdemeanors at the following articles of impeachment be exhibited to the United States Senate articles of impeachment exhibited by the House of Representatives of the United States of America in the name of itself and of the people of the United States of America against Donald J Trump president of the United States of America and made in support of this impeachment against him for high crimes and misdemeanors. Article 1 abuse of power. The cost if you provide the House of Representatives shall have the sole power of impeachment the president shall be removed from office by impeachment for the conviction of treason, bribery or other high crimes and misdemeanors been in his conduct of the office of president of the United States and in violation of his constitutional

oath to faithfully execute the office of the president of the nine states and to the best of his abilities preserve, protect and defend the coast constitute of the United States In his violation of his constitutional duty to take care of the laws he faithfully executed Donald J Trump is abuse the powers of the presidency and that using the powers of the high of’s President Trump’s is elicited the interference of a foreign government, you great in the 2020 United States presidential election. He did so through scheme or course of conduct that included soliciting the government of Ukraine to publicly announce into the cases that would benefit his relax, harm the election prospect of a political opponent, and influence the 2020 presidential election to his advantage President Trump also sought to pressure the government of Ukraine to take the steps by conditioning government accepts significant value to vacate of its public announcement of the investigation. President Trump engaged in the chair >> chairman object >> objection reserve >> personal political benefit In doing so President Trump use the powers of the presidency in a manner that compromised the necessary of the United States and undermine the integrity of the United States Democratic process. He does ignored and injured the interest of the nation. President Trump engaged in a scheme or course of conduct to the following means. One, President Trump acting both directly and through his agent within and outside the United States government solicited the government of Ukraine to publicly announce investigations into a, political opponent Former Vice President Joe Biden and become a disk credited theory promoted by Russia a lashing that Ukraine rather than Russia interfered in the 2016 United States presidential election. To, with the same corrupt motors President Trump with his agents on the public announcements that he had requested a, the release of $391 million of United States taxpayer funds that Congress had appropriated on a bipartisan basis for the purpose of writing invite all military and security assistance to Ukraine, depose Russian aggression and be ahead of state meeting at the White House which present of the or Craig continue to demonstrate United States support for the government of Ukraine in the state of Russian aggression three the public revelation of his actions President Trump ultimately released the military security assistance but his presence was openly and corruptly soliciting Ukraine to undergo investigation for political benefit >> this actions are consistent with President Trump’s previous invitations of interference in United States election. I love this President Trump abuse the powers of the business by injury national security another vital national interest to obtain and him proper personal benefit. He has also betrayed the nation by abusing his I asked her to enlist a foreign power in corrupting Democratic elections >> he has demonstrated he will remain a threat to national security and the Constitution if allowed to remain in office but he has acted in a manner grossly incompatible with self-governance and the role of law. President Trump warns impeachment and trial, removed from office and disqualification to hold and enjoy any office of honor under United States Article 2 obstruction of Congress The custody provides of the house of it because cell have the sole power of impeachment and that the president shall be removed from the office on impeachment for the conviction of treason, bribery or other high crimes and misdemeanors. In his conduct of the office of the president of the United States and in violation of his constant national to faithfully execute the president of the United States and to the best of the belly preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States. In violation of his constitutional duties take care the laws he faithfully executed Donald J Trump has directed the unprecedented and categorical and indiscriminate subpoenas issued by the House of Representatives pursuant to its sole power of impeachment President Trump is a bruise the powers of the presidency in a matter and subversive of the Constitution Avenue. The House of Representatives has engaged in an impeachment inquiry focused on President Trump’s corrupts alliteration of the government of Ukraine, to interfere in the 2020 United States presidential election. As part of this impeachment inquiry the committee is undertaking the investigation seeking documents and testimony deemed vital to the inquiry by various executive offices in current official to go President Trump directed executive branch officers and officials not to comply with those subpoenas. President Trump does interpose the powers of the presidency against the lawful subpoenas of the House of Representatives and is himself functions and judgments necessary to exercise the sole power of the impeachment and House of Representatives. President Trump abuse the power of his high office in the following means One, directing the White House to defy a lawful subpoena by withholding the production of documents saw two, directing other executive branches and offices to defy law foes the thing is, and but for the production of documents and records from the committee and reports to which the Office of Management and Budget, Department of Energy and

department of defense refused to produce a single document of record >> three, directing executive committee not to cooperate with the committee nine defied name he John Mulvaney Robert B Blair dyne a Eisenberg Michael Ellis, pesty, Russell T Vann, Michael Duffy, Brian McCormick These actions were consistent with President Trump’s previous efforts to undermine United States government, investigations into foreign interference in United States election through these actions President Trump’s sought to the right to determine the property, scope and nature of an impeachment inquiry into his own conduct as well as the unilateral prerogative to deny any and all information to the House of Representatives in exercise of its sole power of impeachment. In the history of the Republic and no president has ever ordered the complete defiance of an impeachment inquiry or sought to obstruct and impede so capacitively the ability of the House of Representatives to investigate high crimes and misdemeanors This abuse of officers to cover-up the president’s own repeated Wisconsin and to seize control of the power of impeachment. Thus to nullify a vital constitutional safeguard vested solely in the House of Representatives. In all of this, President Trump has acted in a manner contrary to his trust as president and subversive of constitutional government through the great cause of law and justice and to manifest injury to the people of the United States. President Trump by such conduct has demonstrated that he will remain a threat to the Constitution if allowed to remain in office and has acted in a manner grossly incompatible with self-governance of the role of law. President Trump the sworn impeachment trial and removal from office and disqualification to hold and enjoy the office of honor trust or profit under United States >> the gentleman will now stay his point of order up >> thank you Mr. Chairman the chairman was furnished with the demand signed by all the Republican members of the committee during impeachment hearing held on December 4th the chairman has refused to respond to multiple additional requests that the hearing be scheduled and at one point, actually telling me and I actually responded to this. That we will roll with it today. We are here today and it is a farce that we are having a role on this today because there is no other time we are actually taking up the articles today The rule is and by the way this rule is not superseded by any portion of 660 that could’ve been done by majority but they were too busy and in a hurry to get it 60 the floor that after discussing this, they chose not to exempt the minority hearing date. This could’ve been done, they chose not to and now we’re not having it. I continue my point of order >> If I understand the gentleman’s point of honor he asserts we are violating clause to Jay one of house role 11 by conducting this markup before we have held a hearing that the minority members requested on December 4th In my view the gentleman is claiming a broader privilege than clause to Jay one actually provides the minority The minority has do hearings on the matter of the December 4th hearing which was a constitutional grounds for impeachment. I’m willing to work with the minority to schedule such a hearing but not before today’s markup of the articles of impeachment. The house rule does not require me to schedule a hearing on a particular day, nor does it require me to schedule a hearing as a condition precedent for taking any specific legislative action. Otherwise, the minority would have the ability to delay or block legislative action which is clearly not the purpose of the role. I reach this conclusion after reviewing the plaintext and legislative history of the house rule after considering prior precedent in committee practice, after consulting with problem interior parties >> I believe my scheduling is reasonable for several reasons First the minority’s views have not been shut out. The legislative history in the morning or the day rule shows that it was Rittman to preventing the minority position from being represented in the hearing. As a reporter for the joint committee and the organization of Congress in 1966 explains, it is procedure for representatives both sides to give testimony in committee hearings and when representatives representing the minority position are not a lot of time a statute exists to protect minority rights. Of course that did not happen at the December 4th hearing. The minority had a witness at the hearing, Professor Turley which ably represented their position as was afforded ample time to discuss that position Rather than being shut out the minority did not get as many witnesses as they would have preferred that is not the purpose of the house rule Second, the minority and the president has special protections under House resolution 660. The procedures proceeded under House resolution 660 give the president and the minority a variety of special privileges to present evidence and subpoena witnesses There are alternative procedures by which witnesses can be

requested and even subpoena but they have not been exercised Third, there is no president for the use of minority delays for legislative or impeachment proceedings. It is clear that the minority day rule is not intended to lay legislative activity. Again it’s the committee and the organization of Congress explicitly explained, we do not look upon this rule as an authorization for delaying tactics. It is made part of the house rules in 1971 but is not involved in either the Nixon or Clinton impeachment as a matter fact the only person I am aware of in the conference of impeachment took place several weeks ago in the intelligence committee. There the minority also requested a day of hearings even though they all sent witnesses to participate in the proceedings for the minority ultimately did not raise a point of order. While they did offer an amendment that amendment was rejected by the committee. Thus there is No precedent, and the president supporting the gentleman’s point of order. The one precedent we have indicates that point of order does not lie to delay consideration of articles of impeachment. Finally, the judiciary committee practice and president do not support the gentleman’s point of order. Last year other members and I sent the minority request. The chairman never responded to our request and never scheduled a hearing. I do not believe a single member of the majority argued in favor of us granting a hearing under the rules. Back in 2005 then chairman go to the minority day hearing but cut off witnesses , shut off the microphone, shut off the lights and abruptly ended the hearing while members were seeking recognition to speak. Again no one in the majority argued in favor of protecting our rights. As a result there is no committee practice or president supporting the gentleman’s point of order >> For all those reasons I do not sustain the point of order >> Mr. Chairman >> what purpose does the gentleman seek recognition? The gentleman’s answer to my question has struck a nerve. In his own words it is not the chairman’s right to decide whether prior hearings are sufficient are the chairman’s right to violate the rules in order to interfere >> it is interesting to me that this time has become the issue >> I made my ruling on the play of order. If the gentleman wishes to appeal this ruling, if the gentleman >> I would like for the sake of history for the chairman to take more — >> does the gentleman wish to appear the point yes or know ? >> >> The chairman is doing this again >> the ruling of the chair is not sustain >> I moved to table >> Did you actually call for a vote ? >> I did not sustain, you did not call for a vote >> I sustained the point of order >> I call for a bill really the chair, now it’s time for a vote >> I moved that the point of order is not well taken >> That is painfully office. I have appeal the ruling of the chair >> I moved to table >> the gentleman has moved in the later has moved to Cabell, the motion to table is not debatable all in favor the motion to table say I. Opposed name. The motion to table is sustained >> the gentleman asked for roll call on the motion to table. The appeal of the ruling of the chair the clerk will call the rule. Mr. Nadler, eye. Mr Nadler foci miss often miss Jackson-Lee votes yes. Mr Collins foci. Mr. Johnson of Georgia. Mr. Johnson of Georgia votes eye. Mr. Deutz votes eye Mr. Richman flights yes Misjudgments voice I Mr. Sicily votes eye Mr. swallow , swallow votes eye, Mr. Lou Mr. Raskin I is Chaya pull strength foci. To Korea Mr. Korea votes I miss Scanlan The Scanlon foci, Ms. Garcia’s gazebo said Mr. Negus piston goes foci miss McBeth’s McBeth votes eye. Mr. Stanton votes I miss Powell foci. Miss Escobar Assessed for votes I Mr. Collins votes know Mr. Tessa Burger votes know. Mr Javits, Mr. Chavez voice know Mr. Gomer, Mr. Gomer both know Mr. Jordan, Mr. Jordan votes no Mr. bug votes to know. Mr Radcliffe votes know. Miss Roby votes no >> Mr. Gates votes do Mr Johnson of Louisiana votes no pastor makes or breaks those no Mr. McClintock votes know. Miss Liska votes no

The rest of “no >> Mr. Klein votes no. Mr Armstrong, Mr. Armstrong those no piston Mr. Stevie votes no Has everyone voted who wishes to vote ? >> The clerk will report. Mr Chairman there are 23 guesses at 17 noes We will now proceed to MMS. The clerk will read the first section of the resolution Interest 755 impeaching Donald John Trump president of the United States for high crimes and misdemeanors and House of Representatives December the 20 19th is another cemented the following resolution which was referred to the committee on the Judiciary. Resolution impeaching John on J Trump president of the United States for high crayons and misdemeanors resolve that Donald J Trump is not the United States and the beach for high crimes and misdemeanors in the following articles of impeachment be exhibited to the state Senate Articles of impeachment about how servers is in the United States American the name of itself and the people of the United States of America against Donald J Trump president of the night states of America and maintenance and support of its impeachment against him for high crimes and misdemeanors >> I now recognize myself for purposes of offering an amendment. The report the clerk will report the amendment go the amendment in the name of the substitute for HR 7’5” offered by Mr. Noller of New York. All that follows after the resulting clause and insert the following >> with that enchantment the amount will be considered as read without objection I will now recognize myself to explain the amendment in the nature of the substitute this amendment makes a minor change In certain places where the underlying resolution refers to Donald J Trump the amendment refers to Donald John Trump otherwise it makes no changes to the resolution and I urge all of my colleagues to reap support up and I now recognize the ranking member Mr. Collins for any recommendation >> the nature the substitute is absolutely irrelevant Making Donald J Trump and making Donald Trump. Don Trump just simply shows the frankly absurdity of where we are apt to >> today were going to spend plenty of time for you listing here. Were going to talk about this amendment substitute, were going to talk about the factual basis that have actually know factual basis to impeach the president. I’m going to go back for just a minute since I did not have time and had to sit through a well rehearsed many days put together an explanation of what will be known in 2019 outside of the fact that this committee finally accomplished its goal after the chairman stated he wanted to since November of last year impeach this president. What will be known by this committee from here on out is that this committee has now founded sounded the death of minority rights in this committee but this committee has become nothing but a rubber stamp, this committee is amazingly now on such a clock and calendar process that they do not care Facts be . They do not care They do not care that we had one witness out of three when I asked for a second witness I was told I could not. Even though there had recovery such as well before, I was told I was asking too late. One witness out of two panels. That’s all we had of witnesses. This is a travesty and a sham from day one. I could talk until I’m blue in the face but nobody on the majority cares but the spot that is left by what has just happened will resonate over the years. It will resonate over the years in a sense that there is no fact that we can come to. They had no desire to hear any witnesses outside of their own plane driven clock impeachment. The chairman itself of vehemently fought for minority hearing to sit there and read that is an amazing statement in a crushing blow to this committee. There is no way to recover from that. In fact there may be. I wonder if the chairman would join me in making sure that the rules committee next week, they do not way the point of order against this. But I know they will. That’s why they’re going to take it Because I will guarantee you when you look into it further, this point of order would be sustained against these impeachment articles so they’re going to have to wave them next week. Watch and see. They will waive this point of order and waive any other point of order on these articles by the time it comes to the floor. Some of you may say the ranking member talks about process. The ranking member talks about process, the ranking member talks about the process never the foundation believe me we will in you date you with the

fact that I have already put some of you do not choose to report them. What is important for many who report on this body and for many have said in this body and for those who have served in this body, the members of gone before on the people of set this committee up in the people that have set our Congress up of the ones right now that should be hanging their head in shame. We had two hearings none of which featured witnesses. There is not a Democrat in this room that should be happy about this. The sol amenities should be on the death of this committee’s process and procedure. Do not give me the Solomon a about impeaching a president could you have been wanting to do that for a long time. You want to take it and just rejoice, go at it because this is what you wanted But when it comes to the hearing, when it comes to the minority rights, when it comes which we’ve seen time after time in which I’ve had to write this chairman multipage letters on the abuse of procedural issues in this committee, this is a travesty. Lie about it if you, talk about it if you want but the American people see it because the American people understand inherently fairness They understand to process Why? Because it is what America was based on. It is what America takes pride in. When we do not have it, nobody can have it. When we do not have fairness in this committee, how can they stand up and say the two weakest articles of impeachment in the history of this country, honestly with a straight face look to the American people and say we did good. No you did not You stained this body. You have taken this committee and made it a rubber stamp Did any of the majority run to be a rubber stamp to get the magic? I know the minority on this side did not. You know why we become a rubber stamp question mark because my stair chairman said so 20 years ago He said so 20 years ago when he said if the committee only accepts what other people give him and do not on their own verified and thoroughly vetted then we are nothing but a rubber stamp. Mr. Chairman you should have run for chairmanship I believe more than to be a rubber stamp for Mr. Schiff and Ms Pelosi. We already do this committee was overrun and overtaken Miss because Mr Schiff and Ms. Pelosi took it from us earlier this year. That was the first embarrassment. The rest of it has been in embarrassment since. We look at this and as we go forward , we will have plenty of time to show the complete farce of substance. Mr. Chairman what will live from the state is your ruling in the majority’s ruling of minority rights are dead in this Congress and especially this community. I yelled back >> Mr. Chairman go are there any amendments ? >> What purpose does the gentleman >> I moved to strike the lighter story. I cannot allow the ranking member to mischaracterize your description of the history of this committee. It may be an inconvenience for the ranking member to be forced to listen to the history of this committee and why everything that you just laid out is so important. To the continuing of this committee representing and recognizing respecting minority rights but he chooses not to present going to restate it again. I appreciate the ranking member for acknowledging that they have the opportunity to call witnesses. And that is consistent with the rules. But to then turn around and suggest TO that the rules are being SUGGEST trampled, the THE rules are dead. Ignores everything that you just laid out. More than 50 years ago More than 50 years ago the joint committee on the organization of Congress made clear in their report to the house and senate that is normal procedure for witnesses representing both sides of the issue to give testimony in committee hearings And that is where the rule comes from. And that is what has happened. The ranking member acknowledged that There is No right to a separate day the rule makes clear they have the right to call witnesses on their way which is called on December ARTICLE ONE IGNORES THE

TRUTH >> TO TWO INDIVIDUALS ON THE CALL, NO PRESSURE, NO PUSHING, NO LINKAGE WHATSOEVER BETWEEN SECURITY ASSISTANT MONEY AND ANY TYPE OF INVESTIGATION. WE KNEW THAT THE UKRAINIANS KNEW AT THE TIME OF THE CALL THAT THE AID HAD BEEN HELD UP. MOST IMPORTANTLY, WE KNEW THE UKRAINIANS TOOK NO ACTION, NO INVESTIGATION, NO ANNOUNCEMENT ON CNN, NO ANNOUNCEMENT WHATSOEVER THERE WAS ANY TYPE OF INVESTIGATION INTO THE BIDENS TO GET THE AID RELEASED. THOSE FOUR FACTS. THOSE FOUR FACTS HAVE NEVER CHANGED. SECOND, FIVE KEY MEETINGS THAT TOOK PLACE BETWEEN JULY 18th WHEN THE AID WAS PAUSED, SEPTEMBER 11th WHEN THE AID WAS RELEASED. FIVE TEAM MEETINGS, WE HAVE THE PHONE CALL. 5/25th. YOU JUST DESCRIBED. SECOND, THE VERY NEXT DAY, THE NEXT DAY WE HAVE A MEETING WITH PRESIDENT ZELENSKY THIRD, MEETING AUGUST 29th, MET SEPTEMBER 2nd AND FIFTH ON SEPTEMBER 5th, WE HAVE BIPARTISAN SENATOR, SENATOR JOHNSON, SENATOR MURPHY MEETING WITH PRESIDENT ZELENSKY. IN NONE OF THOSE FIVE MEETINGS DID LINKING DOLLARS, SECURITY ASSISTANT DOLLARS TO AN INVESTIGATION COME UP. NEVER CAME UP. YOU WOULD THINK IN THE LAST TWO THEY KNEW THE AID WAS WITHHELD IT WOULD COME UP IN THE LAST TWO MEETINGS BUT IT DIDN’T COME UP. MORE FACTS, THE FIVE MEETINGS HAVE NEVER CHANGED ARTICLE ONE IGNORES THE TRUTH, THE FACTS AND IGNORES WHAT HAPPENED AND WHAT HAS BEEN LAID OUT FOR THE AMERICAN PEOPLE OVER THE LAST THREE WEEKS. I HOPE THIS COMMITTEE WILL ADOPT THE AMENDMENT AND STRIKE ARTICLE ONE. WITH THAT, I YIELD BACK >> MR. CHAIRMAN, THIS AMENDMENT ATTEMPTS TO STRIKE ARTICLE ONE IN ITS ENTIRETY. I’M GOING TO GO THROUGH THE EVIDENCE AND PARTICULARLY BEGIN WITH FOCUS ON THE PRESIDENT’S OWN CONDUCT. THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES HIRED RUDY GIULIANI TO GO TO UKRAINE AND LEAD THIS SCHEME TO SMEAR BY PRESIDENT BIDEN. HE THEN BEGAN A CAMPAIGN PERSONALLY TO SMEAR AMBASSADOR YOVANOVICH AND RECOMMEND SHE BE FIRED TO CLEAR THE WAY OF THIS ANTI CORRUPTION CHAMPION SO HIS SCHEME COULD BE FULLY IMPLEMENTED. HE DIRECTED A HOLD ON THE MILITARY AID TO UKRAINE AND NO ONE COULD PROVIDE ANY EXPLANATION TO PRESSURE THEM TO INTERFERE IN THE 2020 ELECTION THEN THE PRESIDENT IN HIS OWN WORDS GETS ON THE TELEPHONE AND ASKED PRESIDENT ZELENSKY FOR A FAVOR, TO BEGIN AN INVESTIGATION OF HIS CHIEF POLITICAL RIVAL FORMER VICE PRESIDENT JOE BIDEN DETAIL OF THE CONVERSATION, DIRECT EVIDENCE FROM ALEXANDER, MR. FORESTMAN WHO LISTENED IN ON AND HEARD THE PRESIDENT OUT OF HIS OWN MOUTH PRESSURING A FOREIGN LEADER TO CORRUPT OUR ELECTION. THE PRESIDENT THEN MADE ADMISSIONS IN PUBLIC ON

OCTOBER 2nd, OCTOBER 3rd AND 4th AND INVITED ANOTHER POWER TO INTERFERE. CHIEF OF STAFF ACKNOWLEDGED THAT THE PRESIDENT DIRECT HIM TO PUT THIS UNEXPLAINED HOLD ON AID TO UKRAINE. THE PRESIDENT DIRECTED THE VICE PRESIDENT NOT TO ATTEND THE INAUGURATION OF PRESIDENT ZELENSKY BECAUSE HE HADN’T YET GOT WHAT HE WAS DEMANDING, A PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENT INTERBEDDED TO DAMAGE HIS POLITICAL OPPONENT. AMBASSADOR TESTIFIED THAT THE UKRAINIANS WERE TOLD AND I QUOTE THE RESUMPTION OF U.S. AID WOULD LIKELY NOT RECUR UNTIL UKRAINE PROVIDED THE STATEMENT WE HAVE BEEN DISCUSSING FOR MANY WEEKS AND THEN TESTIFIED HE SPOKE TO PRESIDENT TRUMP AND WHILE THE PRESIDENT CLAIMED THERE WAS NO KID PRO QUO HE MADE IT CLEAR HE MUST ANNOUNCE THE INVESTIGATION PRESIDENT TRUMP DISCUSSED IN THE 25th CALL IN ORDER FOR IT TO BE LIFTED. THAT’S DIRECT EVIDENCE IN ADDITION TO THAT, THEY HIGHLIGHT THERE’S OVER 260 TEXT MESSAGES AND CALLS AS THE PRESIDENT’S OWN WORDS. E-MAILS BETWEEN HIGH RANKING OFFICIALS IN THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION HUNDREDSOF PRESS STATEMENTS AND TWEETS BY THE PRESIDENT AND HIS PERSONAL ATTORNEY CORROBORATING THEIR DESIRE TO PURSUE INVESTIGATION INTO BIDEN PRIOR TO THE 2020 ELECTION. I’M GOING TO GIVE THE COMMITTEE A COUPLE OF EXAMPLES. PRESIDENT TRUMP HIMSELF SAID OCTOBER 2nd, I QUOTE JUST SO YOU KNOW, WE’VE BEEN INVESTIGATING ON A PERSONAL BASIS THROUGH RUDY AND OTHER LAWYERS CORRUPTION IN THE ELECTION. AMBASSADOR E-MAILED MULTIPLE HIGH RANKING OFFICIALS HE TALKED TOSSEN CAN I AND WILL RECEIVE TO ZELENSKY IN ADDITION TO THE E-MAIL, TEXTING AMBASSADOR, IT’S THE SAME THING CLEAR. GAVE HIM A FULL BRIEFING, HE’S GOT IT. I HAD BREAKFAST WITH RUDY THIS MORNING. MOST IMPORTANT TO SAY HELP INVESTIGATE AND ADDRESS ANY ANY PERSONAL ISSUES. THE DELIVER RABBLE MEANING THAT FOR UKRAINE TO GET TO THE WHITE HOUSE MEETING SEEN CAN I NEEDS TO ANNOUNCE THE INVESTIGATION HE SAYS READY TO GET DATES AS SOON AS THEY CONFIRM. RESPONSE EXCELLENT. HOW TO JUST SWAY HIM HE RESPONDS NOT SURE I DID. I THINK POTUS WANTS THE DELIVER RABBLE. HE ASKED DOES HE KNOW THAT? HE SAID YEP, CLEARLY LOTS OF CONVERSATIONS GOING ON AUGUST 16th, AMBASSADOR TAYLOR DISCUSSES THE CONCERN HE WAS NOT USING OFFICIAL CHANNELS LIKE THE PRESIDENT OF JUSTICE. TAYLOR TEXT AMBASSADOR A PERSON WHO ASKED FOR AN OFFICIAL REQUEST HE REPLIES YES BUT DON’T SITE. I WON’T, YOU’RE RIGHT. THIS IS NOT GOOD. WE NEED TO STAY CLEAR. NOW 22nd AMBASSADOR E-MAILED SECRETARY OF STATE TO MAKE SURE TO BREAK THE LAW JAM MEANING RELEASING THE MILITARY AID PRESIDENT ZELENSKY WOULD HAVE TO MOVE FORWARD ON ISSUES AND IMPORTANCE TO TRUMP MEANING THE INVESTIGATION AND THE LIST GOES ON AND ON. THIS CLAIMS THIS IS THE EVIDENCE AND SIMPLY NOT TRUE. THERE’S OVERWHELMING EVIDENCE OF AN EXISTENCE OF A SCHEME LED BY THE PRESIDENT TO CORRUPT THE AMERICAN ELECTIONS TO CONTINUE TO BIG HOLD MILITARY AID UNTIL SUCH TIME AS A PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENT WAS MADE THAT WOULD SMEAR THE PRESIDENT’S CHIEF POLITICAL ARRIVALS >> >> THANK YOU MR. CHAIR. I’VE MOVED TO STRIKE THE LAST WORD MR. CHAIR, IT REALLY QUIET DISTURBED ME WHEN YOU REJECTED THE RULE OF THE HOUSE WHEN IT SAYS IN THE RULE YOU REQUIRE THAT YOU SET A DATE FOR A MINORITY HEARING AND THE REASON THIS IS IMPORTANT IS BECAUSE THE RULES HAVE BEEN THROWN OUT THE WINDOW HERE ON THIS PROCESS. IN FACT, I CAN’T BELIEVE IT FIRST OF ALL, YOU DON’T GO TO THE COMMITTEE, INSTEAD IT’S HANDED OVER TO ADAM S. WHERE HE HAS CLOSED DOOR HEARINGS IN THE

BASEMENT. I WAS TOLD SEVERAL TIMES I COULDN’T GO IN AND I’M SUPPOSE TO VOTE ON THIS TODAY AND WE’VE NOT HAD ONE SINGLE FACT WITNESS IN THE COMMITTEE AT ALL AND THEN I HEAR FROM MY REPUBLICAN COLLEAGUE WE’RE ON THE INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE THAT REPUBLICANS WERE REFUSED TO HAVE ANY OF THEIR WITNESSES IN THAT COMMITTEE AND THEN ON TOP OF THAT REPUBLICANS WERE TOLD, INTERRUPTED, SILENCED BY CHAIRMAN SCHIFF WHEN THEY TRIED TO ASK WITNESSES QUESTIONS. I MEAN, NOWEN HEARING JUDICIARY COMMITTEE, WE’RE SUPPOSE TO VOTE ON SOMETHING WHEN WE HAVEN’T HEARD DIRECTLY FROM ANY FACT WITNESSES. ALL WE HEARD FROM WAS ABUNCH OF LIBERAL LAW PROFESSORS THAT YOU CALLED HERE THAT HAVE A KNOWN RECORD OF DISLIKING PRESIDENT TRUMP AND THEN YOU HAVE STAFF TALK TO US AND THEN AGAIN HERE IN THIS COMMITTEE, OUR REPUBLICAN MEMBERS ASK FOR WITNESSES SO THAT WE CAN ASK QUESTIONS TO GET THE TRUTH AND SAY OUR SIDE OF THE STORY NO, SO THEN WE TURN TO OKAY, UNDER THE HOUSE RULE IT SAYS YOU’RE REQUIRED TO SET A MINORITY HEARING SO THAT WE CAN AT LEAST CALL WITNESSES AND WE CAN GIVE SOME TRUTH TO THE AMERICAN PUBLIC INSTEAD OF THIS ONE SIDED SHAM BUT NO, HERE AGAIN, RIGHT HERE NO, WE’RE NOT GOING TO DO THAT. I’LL CONSIDER THE FUTURE A MINORITY HEARING FOR GOODNESS SAKES, WE’RE VOTING ON THIS TODAY. IT’S DONE. YOU’VE ALREADY PUT THROUGH THIS. IT JUST CONTINUES TO AMAZE ME HOW CORRUPT, HOW UNFAIR THIS PROCESS HAS BEEN FROM THE START. I MEAN, FOR GOODNESS SAKES, 17 OUT OF 24 OF MY DEMOCRATIC COLLEAGUES THAT HAVE ALREADY VOTED ON THE HOUSE FLOOR TO CONTINUE WITH THE ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT, IT WAS MR. GREEN WHO PUT A RESOLUTION ON THE FLOOR, ARTICLE OF IMPEACHMENT, JULY 17th AND THEN THERE WAS A VOTE TO TABLE IT AND THEY VOTED AGAINST THE TABLING MEANING THEY WANTED TO GO AHEAD WITH ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT THAT WAS EVEN BEFORE THE JULY 25th CALL. I MEAN, COME ON. THIS IS A PREDETERMINED, YOU GUYS HAVE BEEN WANTING TO IMPEACH THIS PRESIDENT SINCE HE GOT ELECTED. I KNOW SOME OF YOU THINK THE PRESIDENT DID SOMETHING WRONG. THE FACT IS THERE IS NO, NONE OF YOUR WITNESSES, NONE OF YOUR FACT WITNESSES WERE ABLE TO ESTABLISH ANY EVIDENCE OF BRIBERY, REASON, HIGH CRIME OR MISDEMEANORS. THAT’S WHAT IT SAYS HAS TO BE DONE IN THE CONSTITUTION. AGAIN, I BELIEVE THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES IS RIGHT THIS IS A SHAM IMPEACHMENT AND IT SURE IS A SHAME AND I YIELD BACK THE BALANCE OF MY TIME >> THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN AND WITH MUCH RESPECT TO MY COLLEAGUES IT IS DIFFICULT TO FOLLOW SOME OF THESE ARGUMENTS. I’VE HEARD LITTLE IN THE WAY OF ANY SUBBASE TIFF DEFENSES OF THE PRESIDENT’S CONDUCT BUT AGAIN FOCUSED ON SOME ARGUMENTS IN MY VIEW AND I’M COMPELLED TO RESPOND TO AT LEAST ONE OF THOSE WHICH IS THE NOTION ABOUT THE CLOSED DOOR DEPOSITIONS. AS I UNDERSTAND IT FROM READING THE TRANSCRIPTS, MANY MINORITY MEMBERS WERE PRESENT AND GRANTED EQUAL TIME TO QUESTION WITNESSES BROUGHT BEFORE THE INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE, FOREIGN AFFAIRS COMMITTEE AND OVERSITES COMMITTEE. SOME OF THESE MEMBERS ARE ON THE COMMITTEE. I STRUGGLE TO UNDERSTAND THE REJECTIONS IN THAT REGARD. THE IDEA THAT THE INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE’S INVESTIGATION WAS NOT SUFFICIENTLY TRANSPARENT IN MY VIEW ALSO RINGS HOLLOW. AS WE KNOW, THE TRANSCRIPTS FROM THOSE INTERVIEWS WAS DEPOSITIONS THAT HAVE BEEN RELEASED. I KNOW I REVIEWED THEM. I SUSPECT MANY OF MY COLLEAGUES HAVE AS WELL

LET US STAY TRUE TO THE FACTS AND LET’S DISPERSE THE PROCESS ARGUMENTS AND GET TO THE SUB TANS OF WHY WE ARE HERE TODAY. I WILL ALSO SAY HISTORICAL CONTEXT MATTERS. I WAS NOT ON A JUDICIARY COMMITTEE IN 1999 OR 1998. MY UNDERSTANDING IS AT THAT TIME, THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE DID NOT EXAMINE ANY FACT WITNESSES DURING THE CLINTON IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY. I KNOW THERE ARE MEMBERS OF THIS COMMITTEE HERE AT THAT TIME THEY ARE WELL AWARE THEY QUESTIONED KEN STAR AND AFTERWARDS HAD HEARINGS WITH LEGAL EXPERTS TO EXPOUND UPON THE LEGAL STANDARDS TO DEFINE A DECISION BEFORE THE COMMITTEE. I WOULD SAY DURING THE NIXON IMPEACHMENT, THE EXAMINATION OF WITNESSES. UNLIKE BOTH THE NIXON INQUIRY AS WELL AS THE CLINTON INQUIRY, THE HOUSE INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEES HEARINGS FEATURED TESTIMONY FROM A DOZEN WITNESSES IN OPEN HEARING SUBJECT BY REPUBLICAN MEMBERS IN COUNSEL FACTS MATTER. I HOPE THAT EACH AND EVERY ONE OF US CAN AGREE AT LEAST ON THAT. I WOULD YIELD TO THE MEMBER OF CALIFORNIA >> I WOULD LIKE TO KNOW GOING BACK TO THE ANALOGY TO THE NIXON IMPEACHMENT THERE WAS REALLY NO PUBLIC PRESENTATION IN THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE. THERE WERE SOME QUIET A FEW DEADLY WEAPON TUITIONS THAT WERE PRIVATE BUT THERE WAS A LOT OF TESTIMONY BEFORE THE COMMITTEE AS YOU’LL RECALL, THE PRESIDENT’S COUNSEL JOHN DEAN APPEARED THERE WAS A RECORDING THE WHOLE COUNTRY KNEW ABOUT IT AND TOOK NOTICE OF IT. THERE’S ONLY A FEW MEMBERS OF THIS COMMITTEE THAT WERE ON THE DISH THEIR COMMITTEE DURING THE CLINTON IMPEACHMENT I WAS ONE OF THEM. MISS JACKSON AND ADLER AND THE GENTLEMAN FROM OHIO. WE HAD A REPORT FROM MR. STAR. I KNEW IT VERY WELL. WE HAD THE REPORT. WE HAD EVIDENCE IN THE FORD BUILDING WE COULD GO OVER AND LOOK AT PRIVATELY. A NUMBER OF MEMBERS DID. GENTLEMAN HAVE CORRECTLY SUMMARIZED THE SITUATION I WOULD YIELD BACK >> I MOVE TO STRIKE THE LAST WORD. MISS CHAIRMAN, I THINK IT’S OBVIOUS TO ALL THE AMERICAN PUBLIC THAT THIS IS A RAILROAD TRACK. THE REAL KEY IS WE WERE HERE IN THE INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE. THE REPUBLICANS AND THE PRESIDENT HAVE NOT BEEN ABLE TO PUT ON LIVE WITNESSES. IF YOU’RE GOING TO HAVE A TRIAL YOU’RE GOING TO HAVE A PROSECUTION AND DEFENSE. WE DON’T HAVE A DEFENSE BECAUSE OF THE RULINGS THAT HAVE BEEN MADE. ONE OF WHICH WAS MADE JUST A FEW MINUTES AGO BY THE CHAIRMAN OF THIS COMMITTEE. NOW, LET ME SAY FIRST OF ALL THE HEARINGS THAT WERE IN THE BASEMENT OF THE CAPITOL WERE SECRET HEARINGS. THEY WERE CLASSIFIED HEARINGS. NONE OF THE MEMBERS WHO WERE IN THAT ROOM COULD ETHICALLY GO OUT AND TELL THE PUBLIC AND THE NEWS MEDIA EXACTLY WHAT WAS SAID THERE THEY PROBABLY COULD HAVE BEEN HELD BEFORE THE ETHICS COMMITTEE OR WORSE IF THEY ATTEMPTED TO DO THAT. THERE WERE LEAKS THAT CAME OUT OF THERE. I GRANT YOU THAT NONE OF THE MEMBERS COULD. THE OTHER POINT IS THAT THE VAST MAJORITY OF MEMBERS OF THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE WHICH HAS ULTIMATE JURISDICTION OVER ALL PROPOSED IMPEACHMENTS ARE NOT MEMBERS OF THE THREE OTHER COMMITTEES AND WERE NOT ALLOWED

TO GO INTO THE BASEMENT OF THE CAPITOL HEARING ROOM TO LISTEN TO WHAT WAS GOING ON THERE WERE A NUMBER OF MY COLLEAGUES THAT ELECTED TO DO THAT. WHEN YOU HAVE A TRIAL YOU REALLY CANNOT MAKE A DETERMINATION ON EXACTLY WHETHER THE WITNESSES ARE TELLING THE TRUTH OR EXAGGERATING OR MIXING IT UP OR SPINNING IT SOMEWHERE OR THE OTHER WITHOUT LOOKING AT THEM IN PERSON. WE DON’T HAVE THAT OPPORTUNITY. THERE WERE A FEW SELECT WITNESSES THAT WERE IN THE PUBLIC HEARINGS OVER IN THE INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE A COUPLE OF WEEKS AGO WE HEARD COMPLAINTS ABOUT THE FACT IN THE CLINTON IMPEACHMENT, THERE WERE NO FACT WITNESSES. WE WERE THERE AND WHAT HAPPENED THERE IS BOTH SIDES WERE ALLOWED TO PRESENT WHATEVER WITNESSES THEY WANTED TO. STAR DID ALL THE GRONING WORK PUTTING TOGETHER THE FACTS HE SENT OVER 36 BOXES OF EVIDENCE WHICH WAS PUT OVER INTO THE BUILDING. THAT’S NOT HAPPENED HERE. THE INDEPENDENT COUNSEL LOOKED INTO WHAT PRESIDENT TRUMP HAS DONE. MR MULER CAME AND TESTIFIED AND THAT ENDED UP BEING A BIG FIZZLE FOR WHAT THE DEMOCRATS WANTED TO DO. MUCH OF THE MULER STUFF AFTER HIS TESTIMONY AND THE CROSS EXAMINATION BY MEMBERS ON BOTH SIDES OF THE AISLE ENDED UP DISAPPEARING INTO OUTER SPACE. LET ME SAY EVERYBODY ON BOTH ENDS OF THE TELEPHONE CALL BETWEEN PRESIDENT TRUMP AND PRESIDENT ZELENSKY HAS SAID VERY CLEARLY THERE WAS NO QUID PRO QUO OFFER. THERE WAS NO PRESSURE PUT ON THE UKRAINIANS. I DON’T KNOW HOW MANY TIMES PRESIDENT ZELENSKY HAS TO SAY THAT. APPARENTLY, IT’S NOT ENOUGH BECAUSE MINDS ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE AISLE ARE CLOSED AND THAT’S WHAT THE FACTS ARE. THE FACTS SPEAK FOR THEMSELVES. THERE WAS NO IMPEACHABLE OFFENSE HERE. THAT’S WHY ARTICLE ONE ENDED UP FALLING FLAT ON ITS FACE AND THAT IT SHOULD BE STRICKEN AND I SUPPORT THE AMENDMENT TO STRIKE IT FROM A GENTLEMAN OF OHIO AND YIELD BACK >> GENTLEMAN YIELDS BACK >> REAL QUICK. ALSO, JUST KENT STAR SENT THOSE OVER BEFORE THE HEARINGS BEGAN TOO, CORRECT. WE DIDN’T GET IT IN THE MIDDLE OF THE HEARING? >> THE GENTLEMAN’S TIME HAS EXPIRED >> TO STRIKE THE LAST WORD MR CHAIRMAN >> I THINK BEFORE I BEGIN TO COMMENT ON THE DISCUSSION HERE, IT’S IMPORTANT TO REMIND ALL OF US THAT THE PRESIDENT ABUSED HIS POWER AND IS A CONTINUING THREAT NOT ONLY TO DEMOCRACY BUT OUR NATIONAL SECURITY. WE DO NOT TAKE THIS LIGHTLY. WE TAKE IT VERY SERIOUSLY. I BEG TO DIFFER WITH MY DEAR FRIEND AS ONE WHO WAS HERE FOR THE IMPEACHMENT PROCEEDINGS IN 1998 ALONG WITH MY COLLEAGUES I NEED TO BE VERY CLEAR OF THE DISTINCTIVE DIFFERENCE WE HAD FOR THE AMERICAN PEOPLE THE PROSECUTOR WAS AN INDEPENDENT STATUTE THAT ALLOWED DURING THE NIXON IMPEACHMENT PROCEEDINGS AND MRS. STAR TO HAVE AN INDEPENDENT PROCESS OF INVESTIGATION. THE CONGRESS WAS NOT PREVIEWED TO ANY OF THAT INVESTIGATION AT ALL. THEY PROCEEDED AND WERE NOT INTERFERED WITH AS MR. MULER WAS BECAUSE HE WAS AN EMPLOYEE OF THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE AND HIS EMPLOYER CAME OUT AND CHARACTERIZED HIS REPORT BEFORE HE COULD DISCUSS IT. IN

THE INSTANCE OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF 1998, CONGRESS RECEIVED A REPORT JUST AS BOTH OUR PRESIDENT ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE AISLE AND WE, THE MAJORITY RECEIVED REPORTS FROM THE COMMITTEE WHO WERE INVESTIGATING COMMITTEES THEY DID THEIR WORK IN A CLASSIFIED SETTING AS I IMAGINED BOTH MR. STAR HAD TO DO IN CERTAIN INSTANCES. THEY WERE LIKE PROSECUTORS. THEY HAD WITNESSES NOT IN THE PUBLIC AND THEN THERE WERE FULL PUBLIC HEARINGS, 17 WITNESSES, FIRSTHAND WITNESSES WHO HEARD THE CALL AND TESTIFIED ON FIRSTHAND KNOWLEDGE. IT’S CLEAR WE’RE DEALING WITH THE QUESTION OF A CONTINUING THREAT WHICH IS WHY WE HAVE TO RESPOND. LET ME BE CLEAR. I HOLD IN MY HAND THE UNCLASSIFIED TRANSCRIPT. I BEG TO DIFFER WITH MY FRIENDS. ALLOW ME TO TELL YOU FOR A MOMENT IN THE CALL PRESIDENT ZELENSKY SAID THESE SENTENCES. I WOULD LIKE THORACIC OUTLET THANK YOU FOR YOUR DEFENSE AND TRYING TO COOPERATE. WE WANT TO BE READY TO BUY JAVELINS. THAT’S MILITARY EQUIPMENT FROM THE UNITED STATES FOR DEFENSE PURPOSES. UKRAINE, IN THE MIDST OF A WAR AGAINST A NATION THAT SHOT DOWN AT LEAST SOME OF THOSE ALLEGED TO BE SEPARATIST, COMMERCIAL AIRLINES OUR MEN AND WOMEN IN THE MILITARY ARE ON THE GROUND TRYING TO ASSIST AND HERE’S THE NEXT SENTENCE LET GET WITH THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE. LET’S REVIEW YOUR REQUEST. THE VERY NEXT SENTENCE I WOULD LIKE YOU TO DO A FAVOR THOUGH >> THIS IS A DISCUSSION ABOUT DEFENSE. THE NEXT SENTENCE SHOULD HAVE BEEN WE’RE WELL AWARE OF THE PREDICAMENT >> I WOULD LIKE TO HAVE THE ATTORNEY GENERAL CALL YOU OR YOUR PEOPLE AND WOULD LIKE YOU TO GET TO THE BOTTOM OF THIS INVESTIGATION. I WOULD JUST OFFER TO SAY THAT IT IS NOT WITHOUT FACTS WE PROCEED >> THE MILITARY AS UKRAINIAN SOLDIERS PERISHED THE BATTLE NOTE ALSO THE HIGHEST DEATH TOTAL ON ANY DAY IN THE UKRAINE RUSSIAN WAR WAS AUGUST 7th THIS YEAR WHILE AID WAS BEING WITHHELD. THIS HAS LIFE AND DEATH CONSEQUENCES AND I YIELD BACK TO THE GENTLEMAN >> VERY QUICKLY. IMPEACHMENT IS DESIGNED FOR THE PRESIDENT AND HIS HIGHER MINISTERS TO BE CALLED INTO ACCOUNT. THAT’S ALL WE’RE DOING ON THE BEHALF OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE AND PROSECTING THE NATIONAL SECURITY OF THIS NATION. I YIELD BACK >> FOR THOSE OF US THAT HAVE BEEN IN A WAR ZONE, PEOPLE DO DIE IN THE WAR ZONE >> PRESIDENT CLINTON SUBMITTED A CRIME AND PERJURY. THE CONSTITUTION IS PRETTY CLEAR ON WHAT CONSTITUTES AN IMPEACHABLE OFFENSE. REASON, BRIBERY AND OTHER HIGH CRIMES. IT’S NOT REASON, BRIBERY AND OTHER HIGH CRIMES AND DEMEANORS AND WHATEVER ELSE NANCY AND ADAM SCHIFF DEEM IMPEACHABLE. I THINK WE COULD SAY NO PRESIDENT INTERVENES WITH THE HOUSING OFFICES. JUST LIKE THE PRESIDENT SHOULDN’T ABUSE THE POWERS TO OBTAIN THE PHONE RECORDS OF THE PRESIDENT’S PERSONAL ATTORNEY, A MEMBER OF

THE MEDIA, RANKS MEMBER OF THE SAME COMMITTEE. THAT DOESN’T MAKE ALLEGED ABUSIVE POWER. ON THEIR CONSTITUTIONAL GROUNDS OF IMPEACHMENT, THE MAJORITY GOES TO GREAT LENGTHS TO EXPLAIN WHY THE ABUSIVE POWER IS AN IMPEACHABLE OFFENSE MENTIONING IT WAS ONE OF THE CHARGES AGAINST RICHARD NIXON AND BILL CLINTON. WHAT THEY DON’T MENTION IS THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES HAS NEVER ADOPTED AN ALLEGED ABUSIVE EMPOWER AS AN IMPEACHMENT. WHY? THERE’S NO CRIMINAL STATUTE DESCRIBING WHAT ALLEGED ABUSIVE POWER IS. IT’S THERE ARE FOR A BIG AND AM BIGGOUS AMBIGUOUS TERM. THEY SHOW THE ACTIONS OF THE PRESIDENT RISE TO A LEVEL OF IMPEACHMENT. I BELIEVE BILL CLINTON HAD ABUSED THE POWER OF HIS OFFICE AND WE FAILED TO CONVINCE THE COLLEAGUES IN THE HOUSE AND THAT PARTICULAR CHARGE WAS REJECTED BY THE CASE. IN THIS CASE, THE EVIDENCE PROVIDED IS LESS CONVINCING AND NONEXISTENT. FIST, NO QUID PRO QUO. SECOND, IT’S LIKELY KNOWN THAT UKRAINE IS ONE OF THE MOST CORRUPT COUNTRIES ON THE PLANET PRESIDENT TRUMP WAS WELL AWARE OF THE FACT AND QUIET SKEPTICAL OF GETTING UKRAINE FOREIGN AID LONG BEFORE THE JULY 25th PHONE CALL. THIRD UKRAINE ACTUALLY RECEIVED THE AID AFTER THE PRESIDENT WAS SATISFIED THAT UKRAINE HAD TAKEN MEANINGFUL STEPS. WHICH AGAIN IS AN OBLIGATION REQUIRED BY LAW BASED ON THE ACTUAL FACTS OF THE CASE COMPILED BY THE INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE, IT’S CLEAR NO ABUSIVE POWER EVER TOOK PLACE AND THERE CERTAINLY ISN’T ENOUGH EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT AN ARTICLE OF IMPEACHMENT. MR CHAIRMAN, AS YOU WELL KNOW THERE’S A SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE POWER CHARGES BETWEEN NIXON AND CLINTON AND THOSE PRESENTED HERE. IN THE NIXON IMPEACHMENT, ABUSIVE POWER WAS ATTACKED ON CHARGE. FAR LESS IMPORTANT THAN THE ACTUAL HIGH CRIMES CHARGED AGAINST BOTH OF THEM. HERE IT’S THE MAIN THRUST OF THE HOUSE DEMOCRATS ENTIRE CASE. LET ME PUT IT ANOTHER WAY THE ENTIRE ARGUMENT FOR IMPEACHMENT IN THIS CASE IS BASED ON A CHARGE THAT IS NOT A CRIME. MUCH LESS A HIGH CRIME AND THAT HAS NEVER BEEN APPROVED BY THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES AND A PRESIDENTIAL IMPEACHMENT BEFORE EVER IN HISTORY. IF THAT’S THE BEST YOU GOT, YOU WASTED A WHOLE LOT OF TIME AND TAXPAYER DOLLARS ALL BECAUSE SO MANY OF YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN, HATE THIS PRESIDENT. ONE LAST THING, I GUESS WE NOW KNOW WHY NANCY PELOSI WAS FOCUSED ON BRIBERY AS A POTENTIAL CHARGE. SHE WAS DESPERATELY SEARCHING FOR A CRIME, ANY CRIME TO JUSTIFY THIS SHAM IMPEACHMENT. THAT WAS ABANDONED BECAUSE SHE KNOWS MOST MEMBERS OF CONGRESS KNOW AND NOW THE AMERICAN PEOPLE KNOW THERE SIMPLY WASN’T A CRIME COMMITTED HERE AND THERE SHOULDN’T BE AN IMPEACHMENT HERE EITHER. I YIELD BACK >> STRIKE THE LAST WORD. THERE ARE NO CRIMES HERE. THAT IS THE DEFENSE MY COLLEAGUES ACROSS THE AISLE LOOK FORWARD. HOW ABOUT THE HIGHEST CRIME ONE WHO HOLDS PUBLIC OFFICE COULD COMMIT? A CRIME AGAINST HOUR CONSTITUTION. AFTERALL, THE CONSTITUTION IS THE HIGHEST MOST SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND. EVERY OTHER LAW, STATUTORY LAWS INCLUDED DERIVE FROM THE CONSTITUTION, NOT THE OTHER WAY AROUND. THE PRESIDENT COMMITTED THE HIGHEST CRIME AGAINST THE CONSTITUTION BY ABUSING HIS OFFICE. CHEATING IN AN ELECTION AND INVITING FOREIGN INTERFERENCE FOR PURELY PERSONAL GAIN WHILE JEOPARDIZING OUR NATIONAL SECURITY AND THE INTEGRITY OF OUR ELECTIONS. NOW, THE CONSTITUTION DOES NOT REQUIRE PRESIDENT TRUMP HAVE COMMITTED STATUTORY CRIMES AFTERALL, WE IN CONGRESS ARE NOT CRIMINAL PROSECUTORS. WE DO NOT PROSECUTE CRIMES, WE PROTECT THE CONSTITUTION. SINCE MY COLLEAGUES KEEP BRINGING UP WHAT POTENTIAL CRIMES A CRIMINAL PROSECUTOR COULD CHARGE A PRESIDENT WITH, LET’S GO THROUGH SOME OF THEM. PRESIDENT TRUMP’S CONDUCT OVERLAPS WITH CRIMINAL

ACTS. LET’S START THE CRIMINAL BRIBERY, 18U.S. CODE 201B2A RELEVANT HERE, CRIMINAL BRIBERY OCCURS WHEN A PUBLIC OFFICIAL DEMANDS OR SEEKS ANYTHING OF VALUE PERSONALLY. IN RETURN TO BEING INFLUENCED IN THE PERFORMANCE OF AN OFFICIAL ACT ADDITIONALLY, THE PUBLIC OFFICIAL MUST CARRY OUT THESE ACTS ABRUPTLY. PRESIDENT TRUMP DEMANDED AND SOUGHT THE ANNOUNCEMENT AND CONDUCT LITTICLY MOTIVATED. ANYTHING OF VALUE PERSONALLY, FOR THE PURPOSE OF ANTI BRIBERY LAW, THE VALUE HAS BEEN BROADLY CARRIED OUT THE PURPOSE OF PUNISHING THE ABUSE OF PUBLIC OFFICE. THE THIRD REQUIREMENT AS THE SPELL COMMITTEE REPORTED PRESIDENT TRUMP SOUGHT AN ANNOUNCEMENT OF THESE INVESTIGATIONS IN RETURN FOR THE TWO OFFICIAL ACTS FIRST, THE CONDITIONED RELEASE OF VITAL MILITARY ASSISTANT AND SECOND, HE CONDITIONED A HEAD OF STATE MEETING ON THESE INVESTIGATIONS. FOURTH, PERFORMANCE OF AN OFFICIAL ACT THE COURTS DEFINED AN OFFICIAL ACT AS ANY DECISION OR ACTION, MATTER, CAUSE, SUIT OR CONTROVERSY THAT MAY BE WITH THE OFFICIAL. THE MILITARY AID AND THE WHITE HOUSE MEET THIS REQUIREMENT. FINALLY, CORRUPTLY PRESIDENT TRUMP BEHAVED CORRUPTLY THROUGHOUT THIS COURSE OF CONDUCT BECAUSE HE USED THIS OFFICIAL OFFICE IN EXCHANGE TO SEEK A PRIVATE BENEFIT. A SECOND CRIME, SERVICE FRAUD. 18U.S CODE SECTION 1346. PRESIDENT TRUMP KNOWINGLY AND WILLFULLY ORCHESTRATED A SCHEME TO DEFRAUD THE AMERICAN PEOPLE OF THE SERVICES AS PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES. THIS HAS BEEN A LINE OFTEN IN THE COURTS WITH BRIBERY ACCEPTED AND ALSO INCLUDED USING A WIDER COMMUNICATION, CLEARLY >> DO YOU YIELD YOUR QUESTION? >> I DO NOT YIELD. THE JULY 25 PHONE CALL CONSTITUTES A WIRE COMMUNICATION. THERE YOU HAVE IT. AT LEAST TWO CRIMINAL STATUTORY CRIMES. HOWEVER, ALL OF THESE CONVERSATIONS ABOUT STATUTORY CRIMES ARE MOOT BECAUSE THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES REFUSES TO ALLOW HIS OWN DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE TO INDICT HIM. THE PRESIDENT MAY BE CHARGED WITH CRIMES STATUTORILY ONE DAY BUT THAT’S NOT WHAT WE’RE DOING HERE ON THIS DAY. WE ARE NOT RESTRICTED LIKE THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE IS. WE WILL UPHOLD OUR DUTY TO CHARGE THE PRESIDENT WITH THE CRIMES AGAINST THE CONSTITUTION THAT HE HAS COMMITTED USING YOUR TAXPAYER DOLLARS JEOPARDIZING THE INTEGRITY OF YOUR VOTE FOR A PURELY POLITICAL PURPOSE AND A PURELY PERSONAL GAIN. MR CHAIRMAN, WITH THAT I YIELD >> I APPRECIATE THE GENTLEMAN’S FORMER PROSECUTOR SPEAKING WITH AUTHORITY. I WOULD LIKE TO KNOW THAT THE ARGUMENT THAT SOMEHOW LYING ABOUT A SEXUAL AFFAIR IS AN ABUSE OF PRESIDENTIAL POWER BUT THE MISUSE OF PRESIDENTIAL POWERS TO GET A BENEFIT SOMEHOW DOESN’T MATTER. IF IT’S LYING ABOUT SEX WE COULD PUT STORMY DANIELS AHEAD OF US. WE DON’T BELIEVE THAT’S A HIGH CRIME >> YIELD >> IT IS NOT BEFORE US. IT SHOULD NOT BE FOR US. IT’S NOT AN ABUSE OF PRESIDENTIAL POWER I FIELD BACK >> GENTLEMAN, THIS TIME HAS EXPIRED >> I RISE IN SUPPORT >> YIELD BRIEFLY >> GENTLEMAN YIELD BRIEFLY? >> YES >> THE IMPORTANT THING IS THAT BILL CLINTON LIED TO A GRAND JURY. THAT IS A CRIME. THE ARTICLE OF IMPEACHMENT PASSED THE HOUSE AND ACCUSED BILL CLINTON OF LYING TO A GRAND JURY, A CRIME AND SOMETHING THAT OBSTRUCTS THE ABILITY OF THE COURTS TO GET TO THE TRUTH. THIS IS NOT WHAT IS HAPPENING HERE. BIG DIFFERENCE >> THANK YOU. IT IS INTERESTING THOUGH WE’RE HERE BECAUSE OF FRAUD. NOT VALUED PRESIDENT BUT FROM WITHIN THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE. I REALIZE PEOPLE ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE AISLE HAVE BEEN BUSY TRYING TO FIND SOME KIND OF CRIMINAL CHARGE TO BRING AGAINST THE PRESIDENT NONE OF WHICH WORKED THAT THEY MAY NOT HAVE BEEN AWARE OF THE MOST RESENT REPORT BUT IT IS CLEAR NOW, IT IS CLEAR NOW THAT THE

WHOLE INVESTIGATION THAT HAS BROUGHT US HERE WITH CRIME AFTER CRIME BEING ALLEGED AND HAVING TO BE DROPPED WAS A FRAUDULENT EFFORT BEFORE THE COURT TO HAVE A SURVEILLANCE WARRANT DONE AGAINST CARTER PAGE. THEY LIED INITIALLY AND SAID THAT HE WAS A RUSSIAN AGENT WHEN ACTUALLY HE HAD BEEN USED BY THE CIA AS A SPY AGAINST RUSSIA. SO THEY LIED. IT WAS FRAUDULENT AND THERE HOPEFULLY WILL BE PEOPLE WHO WILL ANSWER FOR THEIR CRIMES AND FRAUD IN THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE FOR THE DAYS TO COME AND THAT SOUNDS LIKE IT SHOULD BE THE CASE. IT WAS FRAUD THROUGH. FOR THREE YEARS WE’VE BEEN HEARING ABOUT THE CRIMES OF THE CANDIDATE TRUMP AND THEN THE CRIMES OF PRESIDENT TRUMP AND WE COME NOW TODAY BASED ON THE INITIAL FRAUD THAT GOT THIS WHOLE IMPEACHMENT STUFF STARTED AND NO ONE ON THE OTHER SIDE IS WILLING TO ACKNOWLEDGE THE FRAUD THAT BROUGHT US HERE NOR THE FACT THAT SO MANY PEOPLE HERE HAVE BEEN SCREAMING ABOUT THE PRESIDENT’S CRIMES AND WE’RE EVEN HEARING TODAY LIKE WE JUST DID OH YES, THERE WERE CRIMES WHY AREN’T THEY IN THIS IMPEACHMENT DOCUMENT? BECAUSE THEY DON’T EXIST. THEY’VE BEEN DISPROVEN OVER AND OVER AND OVER AGAIN AND THAT’S WHY THE GENTLEMAN’S AMENDMENT IS SO WELL TAKEN. YOU DON’T WANT TO GO DOWN THIS GROUND. I THINK IT’S A BAD IDEA WHEN IT WAS PROPOSED BEFORE. HIGH CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS IF IT’S NOT REASON, EVEN MISDEMEANORS ARE CRIMES. SO WE’VE HAD TO DROP THE FRAUD OF ALL THE CRIMES BEING ALLEGED AND PEOPLE SAYING IN HERE AND IN THE PUBLIC GEE, WE’RE GOING TO GET THE PRESIDENT BECAUSE HE CONCLUDED WITH RUSSIA AND THAT’S BEEN DISPROVEN AND DROPPED. NOW WE’RE LEFT WITH BRIBERY AND DISTORTION AND NOW THOSE HAD TO BE DROPPED BECAUSE THERE WERE NO CRIMES AND I APPRECIATE THE GENTLEMAN BRINGING UP CRIMES BUT THOSE ARE NOT ALLEGED HERE. LET ME JUST SAY THIS IS A DAY THAT WILL LIVE IN EMERGENCY INFAMY. THOSE DAYS ARE GOING TO BE GONE. THIS BECAME A TOOL OF THE MAJORITY TO TRY TO DEFEAT, USE TAXPAYER FUNDS, TO DEFEAT A PRESIDENT. BY THE WAY, THE STAR REPORT, 36 BOXES, HE CAME IN AND TESTIFIED. WE WERE KEPT OUT OF HEARING THE WITNESSES. THERE WERE, IN THE WATER GATE, THESE WITNESSES TESTIFIED ON TELEVISION. IT WAS PUBLIC. IT WAS NOT A STAR CHAMBER LIKE THE SCHIFF CHAMBER BECAME. I WOULD LIKE TO YIELD BACK MY TIME TO MY FRIEND >> WHEN DID IT HAPPEN? IF IT HAPPENED WHY ISN’T IT IN THE RESOLUTION. DEMOCRATS SAY THERE’S SOME SCHEME TO HAVE AN ANNOUNCEMENT MADE BY PRESIDENT ZELENSKY TO GET A PHONE CALL WITH THE PRESIDENT AND GET THE AID RELEASED. WHEN DID THE ANNOUNCEMENT HAPPEN? THEY GOT THE CALL ON JULY 25th. THEY GOT THE MEETING ON SEPTEMBER 25th THEY GOT THEIR MONEY ON SEPTEMBER 11th. THERE WAS NEVER AN ANNOUNCEMENT FROM THE UKRAINIANS TO DO AN INVESTIGATION. YOU CAN KEEP SAYING ALL THIS STUFF AND ALL THE POINTS THIS HAPPENED, IT DIDN’T HAPPEN. NOT THE FACTS THOSE ARE NOT THE FACTS. WE KNOW WHY THE AID GOT RELEASED, WE LEARNED THIS GUY, THE NEW PRESIDENT WAS ACTUALLY THE TRANSFORMER, THE REAL DEAL WAS ACTUALLY A DEAL WITH THE CORRUPTION DEAL IN HIS COUNTRY THAT’S WHAT HAPPENED. YOU CAN MAKE UP ALL THE THINGS YOU WANT. THOSE ARE NOT THE FACTS >> GENTLEMAN, TIME EXPIRED >>> WE’RE HERE TODAY BECAUSE THE PRESIDENT APEWSED HIS POWER WE’RE HERE BECAUSE HE WELCOMED FOREIGN INTERFERENCE AS IT RELATES TO RUSSIA. HE SOLICITED THE WHITE HOUSE LAWN WITH CHINA AND DID IT WITH UKRAINE. HE’S A SERIAL SOLICITOR. LET’S GO THROUGH THE FACTS. CONGRESS ALLOCATED $391 MILLION ON A MILITARY AID TO UKRAINE. CURRENTLY AT WAR WITH RUSSIAN BACKED SEPARATIST IN THE EAST. UKRAINE IS A FRIEND AND RUSSIA IS A FOE. THE UNITED STATES IS PROBABLY THE

ONLY THING STANDING BETWEEN PUTIN AND UKRAINE BEING OVERRUN IT WOULD BE IN THE NATIONAL SECURITY INTEREST OF THE UNITED STATES AND EVERY SINGLE FACT WITNESS BEFORE THIS CONGRESS SAID SO. YOU CAN’T EVEN DISPUTE THAT. WE ALLOCATED ON A BIPARTISAN BASIS. THEN THE AID WAS WITHHELD. FOR THE AMERICAN PEOPLE AND THEY DESERVE TO FIGURE OUT WHY. IN FEBRUARY, THERE WAS A LETTER SAYING OKAY, THE AID IS ON THE WAY. IT NEVER ARRIVED. IN APRIL HE HAD A PHONE CALL TO PRESIDENT ZELENSKY. THE WORD CORRUPTION WAS NOT MENTIONED ONCE. THEN IN MAY, THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE WROTE TO THIS CONGRESS. AND SAID ALL NECESSARY PRECONDITIONS WAS A RECEIPT OF THE AID HAVE BEEN MET BY THE NEW UKRAINIAN GOVERNMENT INCLUDING THE IMPLEMENTATION OF ANTI CORRUPTION PROTOCOLS. WE HAVE THAT LETTER. IT WAS SENT TO YOU AND US. THEN IN JULY ON THE 18th AT AN OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET MEETING, THE AID WAS OFFICIALLY FROZEN AT THE DIRECTION OF THE PRESIDENT TWICE DURING THE SUMMER, MITCH MCCONNELL, THE SENATE REPUBLICAN MAJORITY LEADER CALLED THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION, WHAT HAPPENED TO THE AID? MITCH MCCONNELL COULDN’T GET A GOOD ANSWER. THEN ON JULY 25th THERE WAS ANOTHER CALL BETWEEN PRESIDENT TRUMP AND PRESIDENT ZELENSKY. THE WORD CORRUPTION IS NOT MENTIONED ONCE. HERE’S WHAT WAS SAID ZELENSKY TALKS ABOUT DEFENSE THE IMMEDIATE RESPONSE WAS DO US A FAVOR THOUGH. AND PRESIDENT TRUMP SAYS I NEED YOU TO LOOK INTO SOME THINGS. RELATED TO A WILD CONSPIRACY THEORY RELATED TO THE 2016 CAMPAIGN AND ALSO SAYS I WANT YOU TO LOOK INTO JOE BIDEN THEN WHAT’S INTERESTING IF YOU THINK IT WAS SUCH A PERFECT CALL, HE MENTIONS RUDOLPH GIULIANI. NOT ONCE, TWICE BUT THREE TIMES. WHY ON AN OFFICIAL CALL WOULD THE PRESIDENT MENTION RUDOLPH GIULIANI? HE’S NOT AN AMBASSADOR, HE’S NOT A DIPLOMAT, HE’S PRESIDENT TRUMP’S POLITICAL ENFORCER. THEN WHAT HAPPENS? YOU SAID YOU WANT TO TALK ABOUT THE FACTS. IN AUGUST, GIULIANI TRAVELS TO MADRID AND MEETS WITH THE UKRAINIAN GOVERNMENT AS A FOLLOW UP TO TRUMP SAYING UKRAINE, GO MEET WITH GIULIANI THEN A STATEMENT IS DRAFTED ABOUT THE PHONY INVESTIGATION AND SENT TO THE UKRAINIANS. WHAT HAPPENS? IN AUGUST, THE WHISTLE BLOWER COMPLAINT IS FILED SEPTEMBER 9th, THE WHISTLE BLOWER COMPLAINT IS MADE PUBLIC TO CONGRESS. TWO DAYS LATER ON SEPTEMBER 11th, ALL THE SUDDEN THE AID IS RELEASED. WHY WAS THE AID RELEASED? BECAUSE THE PRESIDENT WAS CAUGHT RED HANDED TRYING TO PRESSURE A FOREIGN GOVERNMENT TO TARGET AN AMERICAN CITIZEN. I YIELD BACK >> FOR WHAT PURPOSE? >> THERE WERE FIVE MEETINGS WE DETAILED THAT SHOWED WHY THE AID WAS RELEASED. THERE WAS BELIEF ON THE ADMINISTRATION BELIEVING UKRAINE WAS ONE OF THE MOST CORRUPT AND AFTER A NUMBER OF EVENTS WITH THE VICE PRESIDENT FOR THE BIPARTISAN SENATE, THERE WAS A RESOLUTION OF THAT AID BUT THIS DEBATE JUST LAPS A CERTAIN SINCERITY. I HEARD EARLIER MY FRIEND SAY LIST OUT ALL THESE CRIMES. IF I’M WATCHING AT HOME I’M THINKING WHERE ARE THEY IN THE IMPEACHMENT? THAT’S JUST A DEMOCRAT DRIVE BY TO GO LIST CRIMES YOU DON’T ALLEGE AND HAVE EVIDENCE FOR THEY’RE AIMING CRIMES IN DEBATE THEY DON’T HAVE IN THE IMPEACHMENT RESOLUTION. THEN I HEAR MY FRIEND FROM NEW YORK BRING UP RUSSIA. THE IMPEACHMENT

THEORIES PASSED AND FAILED THEY’RE DEBATING ABOUT HOW ARE YOU HERE? DEBATING ABOUT MILITARY AID AND JAVELINS PRESIDENT TRUMP DELIVERED THAT PRESIDENT OBAMA WITHHELD WHERE WAS THIS CONCERN ABOUT HOW TO MAKE THE UKRAINE GREAT AGAIN? I THINK MR. JORDAN DREAMS OF THEM IN HIS SLEEP. BOTH PRESIDENT TRUMP AND ZELENSKY SAYS THERE WAS NO PRESSURE EVERYTHING YOU’RE GOING TO HEAR THEM SAY TODAY CAN BE CATEGORIZED INTO THREE AREAS FIRST, IT’S STUFF PEOPLE PRESUMED AND HAD NO DIRECT EVIDENCE OF AND SECOND IT’S HEARSAY, SOMEBODY TOLD SOMEBODY AND TOLD SOMEBODY ELSE THAT CREATED SOME CONCERN ABOUT THE PRESIDENT’S CONDUCT OR IT IS REFLECTIVE OF A SINCERE POLICY DISAGREEMENT ABOUT HOW TO MAKE THE UKRAINE GREAT AGAIN. THEY BELIEVE WE OUGHT TO DO EVERYTHING FOR THE UKRAINE. I THINK MOST AMERICANS KNOW THAT YOU CANNOT HAVE A SHAKE DOWN IF THE PERSON BEING SHOOK DOWN DOESN’T KNOW ABOUT THE SHAKE DOWN. PRESIDENT SAYING HIMSELF I FELT NO PRESSURE AND THEN TALK ABOUT BAD TIMING. WE GOT THIS TIME ARTICLE THAT COMES OUT ON THE 10th OF DECEMBER. JUST A FEW DAYS AGO THERE’S ANOTHER GUY. HE KNEW THERE WAS PRESSURE. THE SAME DAY THEY INTRODUCED THEIR ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT, HE GIVES AN INTERVIEW AND SAYS I QUOTE GORDON AND I WERE NEVER ALONE TOGETHER. WE BUMPED INTO EACH OTHER INTO THE HALLWAY. I REMEMBER EVERYTHING. IT’S FINE WITH MY MEMORY. WE TALKED ABOUT HOW WELL THE MEETING WENT. THAT IS ALL WE TALKED ABOUT. HERE THEY ARE WITH NO CRIME, NO VICTIM, WITH NO WITNESSES AND NO KNOWLEDGE OF ANY SHAKE DOWN AND YET THEY PROCEED. YOU GOT TO BELIEVE WHEN THEY’RE LYING TO US. THEY’RE SO WEAK AND SO DEPENDENT ON THE UNITED STATES WE CAN’T BELIEVE A WORD THEY SAY. AGAIN, WHERE WERE YOU DURING THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION WHEN THIS WEAK ALLIE DIDN’T GET JAVELINS THEN WITHHELD. I SUPPORT THE JORDAN AMENDMENT. THIS ARTICLE ONE, THIS ABUSIVE POWER THEY ALLEGED IN THE IMPEACHMENT THEORY IS A TOTAL JOKE. THEY HAVE TO SAY ABUSIVE POWER BECAUSE THEY DON’T HAVE EVIDENCE FOR ABINSTRUCTION THEY OBSTRUCTION. ALL THOSE SPECIFIC CRIMES THAT THE GENTLEMAN FROM CALIFORNIA NAMED CANNOT BE SUPPORTED BY THE EVIDENCE. THIS IS SORT OF THE INKBLOT TEST OF THE IMPEACHMENT SO THAT THE COUNTRY CAN STARE AND EVERYBODY CAN SEE WHAT THEY WANT TO SEE. THIS NOTION OF ABUSIVE POWER. JUST THE LOWEST OF LOW ENERGY IMPEACHMENT THEORIES. HECK, I DON’T KNOW ANY POLITICAL PARTY THAT DOESN’T THINK WHEN THE OTHER SIDE IS IN THE WHITE HOUSE THEY ABUSE POWER OR DO TOO MUCH. WE DIDN’T DO THIS TO THE COUNTRY AND PUT THEM THROUGH THE NONSENSE. YOU SET THE STANDARD. YOU SET IT UP TO BE BIPARTISAN AND OVERWHELMING. IT AIN’T THAT AND I LOOKS BAD. I YIELD BACK >> YOU CANNOT ARGUE THINGS BOTH WAYS. YOU CAN’T SAY THE PRESIDENT WAS SO CONCERNED ABOUT UKRAINE HE RELEASED AID. HE RELEASED AID IN 2017, HE RELEASED AID IN 2018 AND THEN SUDDENLY BECAME CONCERNED IN 2019 AFTER VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN ANNOUNCED HE WAS GOING TO RUN IF YOUR ARGUMENT IS THAT HE WAS SO CONCERNED ABOUT UKRAINE THAT HE RELEASED AID IN 2017 AND 2018 THEN WHY IN 2019 AFTER THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE CLEARED UKRAINE ON CHARGES OF CORRUPTION, WHY THEN DID HE

DECIDE HE WAS SO CONCERNED ABOUT CORRUPTION THAT HE WAS NOT GOING TO RELEASE AID? THAT MAKES, I’M SORRY, I’M NOT YIELDING. I’M NOT YIELDING >> THEY GOT A NEW PRESIDENT, THAT’S WHY >> THE YOUNG LADY HAS THE TIME AND THE COMMITTEE WILL BE IN ORDER AND THE COMMITTEE WILL NOT INTERRUPT. CONTINUE >> THEY GOT A NEW PRESIDENT WHO WAS KNOWN TO BE AN ANTI CORRUPTION FIGHTER. THAT ARGUMENT HAS NO WEIGHT WHATSOEVER. NOW, IF YOU WANT TO ARGUE THAT THE PRESIDENT WAS SO CONCERNED ABOUT CORRUPTION AT THAT PARTICULAR MOMENT, YOU HAVE TO LOOK AT THE WHOLE RECORD OF U.S. POLICY AND OUR AGREEMENT THAT THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE WOULD LOOK UNDER CERTAIN CONDITIONS BEFORE THEY RELEASED MILITARY AID TO DETERMINE WHETHER OR NOT A COUNTRY HAS SATISFIED THOSE REQUIREMENTS AROUND CORRUPTION AND THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE RELEASED THAT REPORT. NOWHERE BETWEEN THE TIME DONALD TRUMP WITHHELD AID AND THE TIME HE RELEASED THE AID WAS THERE AN ADDITIONAL ASSESSMENT REQUIRED OR DONE. IN FACT, THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE SIDED THEY DIDN’T NEED TO DO ANOTHER ASSESSMENT BECAUSE THEY HAVE ALREADY DONE THE ASSESSMENT. AT THE END OF THE DAY I HAVE ONLY TWO QUESTIONS FOR MY COLLEAGUES ON THE OTHER SIDE. THESE ARE THE TWO QUESTIONS. FORGET ABOUT PRESIDENT TRUMP. FORGET ABOUT PRESIDENT TRUMP. WILL ANY ONE OF MY COLLEAGUES ON THE OTHER SIDE SAY THAT IT IS AN ABUSE OF POWER TO CONDITION AID, TO CONDITION AID ON OFFICIAL ACT? FORGET ABOUT PRESIDENT TRUMP. IS ANY ONE OF MY COLLEAGUES WILLING TO SAY THAT IT IS EVER OKAY FOR A PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA TO INVITE FOREIGN INTERFERENCE IN OUR ELECTIONS? NOT A SINGLE ONE OF YOU HAS SAID THAT SO FAR >> I’LL SAY >> I YIELD TO MY COLLEAGUE FROM TEXAS >> WILL YOU YIELD SO WE CAN ANSWER THE QUESTION >> I’LL BE GLAD TO ANSWER THE QUESTION >> I WANT TO BREAK THIS DOWN >> SHE HAS THE TIME >> SHE ASKED US >> MEMBERS YOU KNOW PERFECTLY WELL IT IS OUT OF ORDER TO INTERRUPT MEMBERS WHO HAVE THE TIME >> UNLESS THEY ASK YOU >> DID SHE YIELD IT TO WHOM? SHE NOW HAS THE TIME >> THANK YOU, CHAIRMAN. THANK YOU REPRESENTATIVE. I WANT TO BREAK THIS DOWN IN SIMPLE TERMS FOR THE AMERICAN PUBLIC BECAUSE OUR REPUBLICAN COLLEAGUES ARE WORKING OVERTIME TO TRY TO CONVINCE US THAT WE DIDN’T SEE WHAT WE SAW WITH OUR OWN EYES AND WE DIDN’T HEAR WHAT WE HEARD WITH OUR OWN EARS. LET’S BRING IT DOWN TO AN EXAMPLE USED DURING THE HEARING. IF A GOVERNOR, IF A COMMUNITY SUFFERS A NATURAL DISASTER AND THE GOVERNOR OF THE STATE HAS AID THAT WILL HELP THAT COMMUNITY, BUT CALLS THE MAYOR OF YOUR COMMUNITY AND SAYS I WANT YOU TO DO ME A FAVOR THOUGH AND CONDITION WITH GIVING THE AID TO THE COMMUNITY ON THE POLICE CHIEF SMEARING HIS POLITICAL OPPONENT HAS THERE BEEN A CRIME? THE ANSWER IS YES. THAT GOVERNOR WOULD GO TO JAIL. IF THAT GOVERNOR LATER RELEASES THE AID AFTER HE GOT CAUGHT, IT DOESN’T MATTER. HE STILL COMMITTED THE CRIME. FURTHER MORE, IF THAT GOVERNOR SAYS DURING THE INVESTIGATION I’M GOING TO FIGHT THE SUBPOENAS, GUESS WHAT HAPPENED TO THE GOVERNOR? HE COMMITTED A CRIME. HE WOULD GO TO JAIL. IF THE GOVERNOR THEN TRIED TO COVER UP HIS WRONG DOING, COVER IT UP SO THAT HIS PEOPLE, HIS CONSTITUENTS COULDN’T SEE HIS WRONG DOING, WHAT WOULD HAPPEN TO THE GOVERNOR? DID HE COMMIT A CRIME? YES, HE WOULD GO TO JAIL AS WILDLY AS THEY’RE TRYING TO CONVINCE YOU THERE WAS NO WRONG DOING, I WANT THE AMERICAN PUBLIC TO UNDERSTAND WHAT IS GOING ON HERE. IT’S CLEAR AS DAY. WE’VE SEEN IT WITH OUR OWN EYES. WE’VE HEARD IT WITH OUR OWN EARS. FACTS MATTER. I YIELD BACK. [CAPTIONERS TRANSITIONING] RECORD WILL BE INTRODUCED

>> STRIKE THE LAST WORD >> GENTLEMAN IS RECOGNIZED >> THANK YOU MR. CHAIRMAN. THANK YOU FOR COMING BACK. I WANT TO ADDRESS COMMENTS THERE ARE DEFINITELY CRIMES IN THIS SITUATION. FIRST OF ALL, DURING THE MUELLER INVESTIGATION, HE WENT ON NATIONAL TV AND SAID SOMETHING TO THE EFFECT THAT AN INDICTMENT IS COMING. HE KNEW IT. I KNOW THAT MR. SMALL WELL WAS A PROSECUTOR AND NOS CRIMES AND HE NOS NOT TO BRING A CHARGE OR A CRIME UNLESS THERE IS A REASONABLE PROBABILITY OF CONVICTION. I WOULD DIRECT HIM TO THE ELEMENTS OF BRIBERY. WHO EVER BEING A PUBLIC OFFICIAL FOR BEING INFLUENCED IN THE PERFORMANCE OF AN OFFICIAL ACT THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE’S CRIMINAL INTEGRITY DEPARTMENT WITH SOMETHING AS NAPI LIST AS AN INVESTIGATION IS NOT OF CONCRETE VALUE. AND A CON INSTITUTE’S SOMETHING OF VALUE UNDER THIS STATUTE. ALSO THE OTHER ELEMENT IF THERE ARE CRIMES, WE SHOULD BE BRINGING IN EXPERTS AND TESTIMONY AND IF THERE IS A CRIME, IT IS MORE FAIR TO CHARGE — TO PASS ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT ON A PRESIDENT DEFENDING AGAINST SPECIFIC ELEMENTS AS OPPOSED TO ABUSE OF POWER. MR. SWALWELL , THE ACT THAT YOU TALK ABOUT UNDER THE McCONNELL DECISION IN THE SUPREME COURT, THAT DECISION SAYS THAT SETTING UP A ORGANIZING EVENT DOES NOT SET UP THE DEFINITION OF AN OFFICIAL ACT. THERE ARE TWO ELEMENTS MISSING IN YOUR ANALYSIS BUT THAT DOES NOT SURPRISE ME BECAUSE THERE WERE NO ELEMENTS THAT THE SPECIAL COUNCIL FOUND IN THIS SITUATION. I THINK IT IS UNFORTUNATE WHEN THE GENTLEMAN FROM RHODE ISLAND TALKS ABOUT THE PRESIDENT SENDING MR GIULIANI TO THE UKRAINE TO SMEAR VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN. LET’S TALK ABOUT WHAT VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN DID. HIS SON SAT ON A BOARD AND MADE AN A RED JUST AMOUNT OF MONEY FOR SOMEONE WHO HAD NO BACKGROUND IN ENERGY OR NO BACKGROUND IN UKRAINE WHILE HIS FATHER WAS VICE PRESIDENT. IF THAT IS NOT A FAIR TOPIC FOR DISCUSSION IN THE WORLD OF POLITICS, I DON’T KNOW WHAT IS IT’S MARRYING IS TRYING TO CONJURE UP FALSE INFORMATION OR MAKING A FAKE ARGUMENT BASED ON FALSE INFORMATION THIS IS NOT SMEARING, THIS IS SEEKING THE TRUTH ABOUT CORRUPTION. NOT A SINGLE MEMBER ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE AISLE HAS BEEN WILLING TO CONDEMN THE CONDUCT OF THE FORMER VICE PRESIDENT HOW FRUSTRATING IT MUST BE TO BE PRESIDENT TRUMP AND HAVE YOUR SON SPEND OVER $1 MILLION ON ATTORNEYS FEES WHEN THE SPECIAL COUNCIL IS INVESTIGATING SOMETHING THAT NEVER HAPPENED THERE WAS NO COLLUSION AND THERE WAS NO CONSPIRACY BETWEEN RUSSIA AND THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN BUT, THERE IS CLEAR EVIDENCE OF WRONGDOING BETWEEN HUNTER BIDEN , THE FORMER VICE PRESIDENT, JOE BIDEN >> WITH ALL GENTLEMAN YIELD? >> NO, I WILL NOT. AND THE UKRAINE AND THE CORPORATION SO THE IDEA THERE WAS A SMEAR GOING ON, LET’S LOOK AT THE FACTS. I WILL YIELD TO MY FRIEND FROM ARIZONA >> THANK YOU VERY MUCH, LET’S TALK ABOUT WHAT WAS GOING ON IN 2017 AND 20 18 AND IN 2019 THERE WAS A PAUSE PUT ON IT. AND BENCHMARKS WERE PUT UNDER THE PREVIOUS ADMINISTRATION TESTIFIED IN THIS COMMITTEE. WE KNOW THAT SEVERAL PREVIOUS CORRUPT ADMINISTRATORS AND CABINET OFFICIALS INCLUDING SOME OLIGARCHS HAVE RELATIONSHIPS

THERE WAS CONCERN OVER WAS THE REAL DEAL. THE PAUSE WAS UNKNOWN AND THEY MET WITH HIM TO DETERMINE HE WAS THE REAL DEAL. ONCE TWO NEW ANTICORRUPTION MEASURES WERE DONE IN TWO DAYS, THAT’S WHAT CHANGED. YIELD BACK >> FOR PURPOSES, THE GENTLEMAN FROM CALIFORNIA? >> THE UNANIMOUS CONSENT REQUEST FOR A NOVEMBER 15, 2019 ARTICLE ALL OF ROBERT MUELLER’S INDICTMENTS IN HIS LENGTHY INVESTIGATION >> I OBJECT >> I OBJECT, I WANT TO SEE IT >> THE GENTLEMAN RESERVES A OBJECTION AND WANTS TO SEE IT AND THAT IS FAIR >> WHAT PURPOSE DO YOU SEEK RESIGNATION TIERS I MOVED TO STRIKE. I YIELD TO MY FRIEND AND COLLEAGUE FROM FLORIDA >> I THINK THE GENTLEMAN FOR YIELDING. I NEED TO COME BACK TO THIS INTERVIEW BECAUSE IT’S LIKE THE TREE IN THE FOREST THAT FELL AND NOBODY HEARD AND IT DEMOLISHES THE CASE. THEY HAVE NO EVIDENCE THAT UKRAINIANS EVER KNEW THIS AID WAS WITHHELD THEY ARE LITERALLY TRYING TO PROSECUTE AN IMPEACHMENT AGAINST THE PRESIDENT FOR A SHAKE DOWN WHEN THE ALLEGED PEOPLE BEING SHOOK DOWN FELT NO PRESSURE AND NUMBER TWO DID NOT EVEN KNOW IT WAS HAPPENING. TIME AND AGAIN, YOU HEARD THEM IN DEBATE AND THE PRESS CONFERENCES AND THE WHOLE CIRCUS OF SHOWS GOING ON HERE WE HAVE THIS TESTIMONY FROM GORDON SONDLAND AND WE ALL REMEMBER HIM. WANDERING HIS WAY TO AN ESCALATOR WITH THIS GUY WHO SPEAKS ENGLISH AS A SECOND LANGUAGE. GORDON SAYS, MAYBE I SAID SOMETHING TO HIM ABOUT THIS THAT WAS THE WHOLE DEAL FOR THEM. AND THEN, YOU TALK ABOUT EMBARRASSING. THIS SAME DAY THAT THEY INTRODUCE THE ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT THAT WE KNEW WHAT THEY WOULD INTRODUCE ONE WAY OR THE OTHER, THE MOMENT THEY TOOK MAJORITY. SO, SHOW ME THE UKRAINIAN THAT WAS PRESSURED SHOW ME THE UKRAINIAN THAT NEW ANY OF THIS WAS TIED TO ANY CONDITIONALITY. THERE IS NO CONDITIONALITY IN THE CALL AND SO IT IS QUITE EASY TO ANSWER THE GENTLE LADY FROM WASHINGTON’S QUESTION. THERE IS NO CONDITIONALITY. YOU CANNOT PROVE IT AND YOU HAVE NO EVIDENCE OF IT. FRANKLY, EVEN THE UKRAINIANS AND THEIR PURPORTED VICTIMS ARE COMING OUT IN THE PRESS THAT THE FUNDAMENTAL PREMISE HAS BEEN REJECTED. I YIELD TO THE GENTLEMAN FROM OHIO >> PENNSYLVANIA >> I YIELD BACK TO THE GENTLEMAN FROM PENNSYLVANIA >> I YIELD TO MY FRIEND FROM OHIO >> THANK YOU FOR YIELDING ZELENSKY RAN ON THE CORRUPTION AND LET’S SEE IF HE IS THE REAL DEAL. WE TALK ABOUT FIVE CRITICAL MEETINGS THAT TOOK PLACE FIVE MEETINGS AND I THINK THE LAST IS MOST IMPORTANT BECAUSE YOU HAD A DEMOCRAT SENATOR AND A REPUBLICAN SENATOR MEET WITH PRESIDENTNINE . THEY KNEW THE AID HAD BEEN PAUSED AT THAT TIME AND THE ISSUE NEVER CAME UP WHAT DID COME UP WAS THAT BOTH CENTERS CAME BACK AND SAID THIS IS THE REAL DEAL AND WE ARE SPENDING THE HARD EARNED TAX DOLLARS OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE TO UKRAINE. THAT IS WHAT HAPPENED ON THE FACTS ARE CLEAR THE FACTS ARE ON THE PRESIDENT’S SIDE AND ALWAYS HAVE BEEN ON HIS SIDE. THE DEMOCRATS KEEP SAYING TO GET THE CALL AND TO MAKE THE MONEY, THERE HAD TO BE AN ANNOUNCEMENT. DECEMBER 12, THERE IS YET TO BE AN ANNOUNCEMENT ABOUT ANY KIND OF INVESTIGATION IT NEVER HAPPENED BECAUSE IT NEVER NEEDED TO HAPPEN AND THAT WASN’T THE POINT. THEY GOT THE PAUL CALL. THEY GOT THE MONEY SEPTEMBER 11 >> THE OTHER THING I WANT TO POINT OUT AND I DON’T KNOW HOW MANY TIMES I HAVE HEARD THIS WITH THE DEMOCRATS TALKING ABOUT THIS IN THE NOW FAMOUS CALL TRANSCRIPT WITH PRESIDENT ZELENSKY . THE DEMOCRATS DON’T READ THE PLAIN LANGUAGE AND THE STAR PROFESSOR WITNESS HERE LAST WEEK TALKED ABOUT THIS BEING THE ROYAL WE. YOU TRY TO PORTRAY THE SENTENCE AND SHE SAID, I WOULD

LIKE YOU TO DO ME A FAVOR, THOUGH. THAT’S NOT WHAT IT SAYS IT HAS COME I WOULD LIKE YOU TO DO US A FAVOR. GUESS WHAT THE NEXT TWO WORDS ARE? BECAUSE OUR COUNTRY, IT DOESN’T SAY I WOULD LIKE YOU TO DO ME A FAVOR. IT DOESN’T SAY THAT I WOULD LIKE YOU TO DO US A FAVOR BECAUSE OUR COUNTRY HAS BEEN THROUGH A LOT. THAT IS THE UNDERSTATEMENT OF THE YEAR. HECK YEAH, OUR COUNTRY HAS BEEN THROUGH A LOT THIS IS THE DAY AFTER BOB MUELLER SET THROUGH THIS COMMITTEE AND WE LEARNED THERE WAS NOTHING THERE. FOR TWO YEARS OUR COUNTRY HAS BEEN PUT THROUGH TURMOIL BECAUSE OF YOU GUYS THAT’S WHAT THE PRESIDENT IS POINTING OUT. IN THE PARAGRAPH, HE REFERENCES BOB MUELLER HECK YEAH, OUR COUNTRY HAD BEEN THROUGH A LOT AND THE PRESIDENT WAS PRETTY TICKED ABOUT IT AND WANTED TO FIND OUT WHAT WAS GOING ON. THAT IS VERY LEGITIMATE AND WORKING ON BEHALF OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE. AS I SAID LAST NIGHT, 63 MILLION PEOPLE VOTED FOR THIS GUY AND THAT’S WHY THE SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE CALLED IT AN IMPOSTER I YELLED BACK >> THE GENTLEMAN YIELDS BACK MR. JOHNSON >> MR. DIRECTOR, A LAST WORD >> THE GENTLEMAN IS RECOGNIZED >> I WANT TO SLOW DOWN AND BUY ARTICLE BOTH GENTLEMEN ARE ATTORNEYS AND IN THIS CASE, WE ARE SUPPOSED TO BE FINDERS OF FACT. TO CAREFULLY AND OBJECTIVELY ANALYZE THE CLAIMS AGAINST THE RECORD. LET’S DO THAT THERE ARE TWO ARTICLES, ABUSE OF POWER AND OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE. ON THE FIRST, DEMOCRATS KNOW THERE IS ZERO DIRECT EVIDENCE IN THESE PROCEEDINGS THE PRESIDENT TRUMP ENGAGED IN ANY SCHEME OF ANY KIND AS IS IN THE RESOLUTION OR THAT HE INFLUENCE THE 2020 ELECTION. NO INFLUENCE — IMPEACHMENT SHOULD PROCEED ON THE BASIS OF HEARSAY, CONJECTURE AND SPECULATION THAT WOULD NOT BE ADMISSIBLE IN THE LOCAL TRAFFIC COURT. WE SAY THAT OVER AND OVER. AND THERE IS SIMPLY NO EVIDENCE OF ANY CONDITION. I GUESS I NEED TO REPEAT THE FOUR INDISPUTABLE FACTS IN THIS RECORD. BECAUSE REPETITION IS REALLY NECESSARY HERE. FIRST, PRESIDENT TRUMP AND PRESIDENT ZELENSKY SAY NO PRESSURE WAS EXERTED. THE CALL TRANSCRIPT SHOWS NO CONDITIONALITY AND NUMBER THREE IS UKRAINE WAS NOT AWARE OF THE AID, AS IT HAS BEEN SAID OVER AND OVER, THAT IT WAS NOT BEEN DELAYED. THEY STILL RECEIVE THE AID AND THEY GOT THE MEETING OUR COLLEAGUES KEEP MISREPRESENTING THE FACTS. NOT ONLY DO THEY MISREPRESENT THAT DO ME A FAVOR DO US A FAVOR BUT THREE OF THE 17 WITNESSES LISTENED IN ON THE CALL THAT WERE CALLED BY CHAIRMANSHIP FROM WHAT WE HAVE HEARD THIS MORNING, THEY DID NOT PROVIDE UNCONTROVERTED THEORIES. THEY CONTRADICTED EACH OTHER AND THE OTHER SHOWS THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP HOLDS A DEEP-SEATED AND REASONABLE SKEPTICISM OF UKRAINE DUE TO ITS HISTORY OF PERVASIVE CORRUPTION AND THE NEWLY ELECTED PRESIDENT IS A TRUE REPORTER — REFORMER AND THE PRESIDENT FOUND OUT HE IS A SWAMP TRAINER AND THE FUNDS WERE RELEASED. PRESIDENT TRUMP WANTED TO ENSURE THE TAXPAYER ASSISTANCE WOULD NOT BE SQUANDERED BY WHAT IS PURPORTED TO BE THE THIRD MOST CORRUPTION LADEN COUNTRY IN THE WORLD PRIOR TO PRESIDENT ZELENSKY . THE SECOND CLAIM OF THIS RESOLUTION IS THE PRESIDENT OBSTRUCTED CONGRESS. BUT, HE SIMPLY DID WHAT EVERY OTHER PRESIDENT HAS DONE. WHAT IS HIS BIG INFRACTION? HE HAS EXERTED POLITICAL IMMUNITY TO QUESTION SUBPOENAS BY ISSUED TO VARIOUS WHITE HOUSE OF VISUALS. THERE IS NO EVIDENCE OF IMPEACHABLE CONDUCT AND THAT AND IT IS COMMONPLACE. ON EVERY PREVIOUS ESTERS AND IN THE PAST, WHAT IS BETWEEN THE BRANCHES HAS BEEN EASILY AND CALMLY RESOLVED EITHER BY GOOD FAITH NEGOTIATION OR A SIMPLE FILING WITH THE THIRD BRANCH OF OUR GOVERNMENT, THE JUDICIAL GOVERNMENT PRESIDENT TRUMP HAS LAWFUL CAUSE TO CHALLENGE THE SUBPOENAS IN THESE MATTERS. IN THIS CALLOUS THEY ARE TRYING TO SUBPOENA PRESIDENT TRUMP FOR SEEKING JUDICIAL REVIEW BETWEEN HIGH-RANKING ADVISORS AND WHETHER IT SHOULD BE DISCLOSED THAT WOULD BE EXPEDITED IN THE COURTS AND WOULD NOT TAKE LONG DEMOCRATS DO NOT HAVE TIME FOR THAT. WHY? THEY PROMISED

IMPEACHMENT BY CHRISTMAS. IT SHOULD BE NOTED THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP HAS CONSISTENTLY QUESTIONED ABOUT THIS OVERSIGHT RESPONSIBILITIES ADMINISTRATIONS OFFICIALS WITH 20 BEFORE THIS COMMITTEE AT THE START OF THE INQUIRY, THE WHITE HOUSE PRODUCED MORE THAN 100 PAGES OF DOCUMENTS >> THERE HAS NEVER BEEN A SINGLE IMPEACHMENT PROCESS LIKE THE ONE AGAINST PRESIDENT TRUMP. THEY ARE SEEKING TO NULLIFY WITH A SHAM. IT IS TO NOTIFY FOR DOUGH PROCESS AND ALL THE REST. MY COLLEAGUE EVOKED AND QUOTED BARBARA JORDAN WHO SAID DURING THE WATERGATE INQUIRY THAT IMPEACHMENT NOT ONLY MANDATES DUE PROCESS BUT DUE PROCESS QUADRUPLED. THEY HAVE VIOLATED THAT HERE. THEY HAVE VIOLATED THE RULES AND EVERYONE IN THE COUNTRY CAN SEE THE PRESS WILL PAY A HEAVY PRICE FOR IT. THE PANDORA’S BOX WILL DO IRREPARABLE INJURY TO OUR COUNTRY AHEAD. THAT’S MY CONCERN AND WHY THE FACTS MATTER. I YELLED BACK >> THE GENTLEMAN YIELDS BACK >> MR. CHAIRMAN, I MOVE TO STRIKE THE LAST WORD >> RECOGNIZED >> MR. CHAIRMAN, IT’S INCREDIBLE TO ME THAT THE OTHER SIDE OF THE AISLE DOES NOT SEE THE FACTS AND IS APPARENTLY NOT AWARE OF WHAT IS BEFORE US. IT IS OBVIOUS TO ME THE PRESIDENT HAS PUT PERSONAL INTEREST ABOVE THIS COUNTRY. WITH THAT, I WILL YIELD BACK TO THE GENTLEMAN FROM MARYLAND >> RHODE ISLAND >> RHODE ISLAND >> I THINK THE GENTLE LADY FOR YIELDING WE HAVE JUST HEARD REPUBLICAN COLLEAGUES CLAIM THERE IS NO DEMAND OR CONDITIONALITY FOR THIS AID IT WAS GENERATED BY THE PRESIDENT’S DEEP DESIRE TO FERRET OUT CORRUPTION. THAT IS LAUGHABLE. THE PRESIDENT HAD TWO PHONE CALLS WITH PRESIDENT ZELENSKY AND NEVER ONCE UTTERED THE WORD CORRUPTION. IT WAS NOT ABOUT CORRUPTION THE REASON WE KNOW THAT IS BECAUSE THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE HAD ALREADY CERTIFIED THAT STEPS HAD BEEN TAKEN TO COMBAT CORRUPTION BACK ON MAY 20 THIRD. DESPITE THAT CERTIFICATION, THAT HOLD REMAINED IN PLACE. IN FACT, THE PROFESSIONALS TESTIFIED ABOUT THEM TRYING TO FIGURE OUT HOW IT IS POSSIBLE TO WITHHOLD AID. THE CERTIFICATION SHOWS NO BASIS OTHER THAN THE PRESIDENT ORDERED IT. IT’S NOT ABOUT CORRUPTION IT WAS ABOUT EXTRACTING A COMMITMENT TO ANNOUNCE PUBLICLY AN INVESTIGATION INTO MR TRUMP’S CHIEF POLITICAL RIVAL, MR. BIDEN . THE PRESIDENT SATISFIED HIMSELF AND THIS IS NONSENSE. IT IS PORTRAYED BY ALL EVIDENCE COLLECTED. LET ME REMIND YOU OF IT BECAUSE YOU APPARENTLY DO NOT REMEMBER. MR SANS TESTIFIED UNDER OATH THAT IT WAS QUID PRO QUO FOR OUR RAISING THE WHITE HOUSE FOR PRESIDENT ZELENSKY . RUDY GIULIANI DEMANDED A PUBLIC STATEMENT ANNOUNCING THE INVESTIGATION OF THE FORMER VICE PRESIDENT. WE KNEW THIS WAS IMPORTANT TO THE PRESIDENT. AND ON THE JULY 25 CALL, PRESIDENT ZELENSKY HIMSELF RECOGNIZED THE CONNECTION BETWEEN THE MEETING AND INVESTIGATION. HE SAID, I ALSO WANT TO THANK YOU FOR YOUR VISIT TO THE UNITED STATES. WE WILL BE SERIOUS ABOUT THE CASE AND WORK ON THE INVESTIGATION. THE PRESIDENT SPOKE ON THE CALL ABOUT THE BIDENS AND ABOUT BURISMA . ULTIMATELY ANNOUNCING WITH NO EXPLANATION AND EVERYONE IN THE INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE AND THE NATIONAL SECURITY TEAM RECOMMENDED RELEASE OF THE AID AN IMPORTANT ALLY OF THE UNITED STATES FACING A WAR WITH THE RUSSIANS THAT TOOK PART OF THEIR COUNTRY AND THREATENING TO KILL PEOPLE IN EASTERN UKRAINE. THE MILITARY AID WAS A LIFELINE FOR THIS EMERGING DEMOCRACY. THE ONLY PEOPLE WHO BENEFITED FROM THIS SCHEME WAS PRESIDENT TRUMP AS WELL AS VLADIMIR PUTIN AND RUSSIA WHO WERE TRYING TO WEAKEN

THE UKRAINIAN’S. THERE WAS A RECENT ARTICLE THAT CAPTURED THIS THAT SAID PRESIDENT ZELENSKY IS FACING PRESIDENT PUTIN ALL ALONE. THIS IS RUSSIA WEAKENING UKRAINE BUT THIS NOTION THAT THE AID WAS LISTED BECAUSE OF THE EVIDENCE COLLECTED IN THE 300 PAGE REPORT COLLECTED BY THE INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE. IT WAS RELEASED BECAUSE THE PRESIDENT GOT CAUGHT AND THE WHISTLEBLOWER FILED THE REPORT ALLEGING AN ELABORATE SCHEME BY THE PRESIDENT THAT PORTRAYED AND BETRAYED THE NATIONAL INTEREST OF OUR COUNTRY THE PERSONAL INTERESTS OF THE PRESIDENT AND NOT THE NATIONAL INTEREST OF OUR COUNTRY. AN ATTEMPT TO CORRUPT OUR ELECTION BY DRAGGING AND FOREIGN INTERFERENCE. IT IS THE HIGHEST OF HIGH CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS OUR FRAMERS SPOKE ABOUT THIS ABUSE OF POWER AND ABUSING THE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENCY TO ADVANCE PERSONAL INTEREST AND UNDERMINE THE PUBLIC >> AND MY REMAINING 30 MINUTES >> THANK YOU VERY MUCH >> I YIELD TO MR. RASKIN >> I YIELD TO MR. RASKIN >> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. TO FLESH OUT THE DETAIL OF WHAT THE GENTLEMAN FROM RHODE ISLAND WAS WAITING. ONE OF THE DEPOSITIONS WAS DAVID HOLMAN, A STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL AT THE U.S EMBASSY IN KYIV. HE TESTIFIED A QUID PRO QUO . HE SAW HIM ON THE PHONE WITH PRESIDENT TRUMP AND HE REPORTED AT THAT TIME TO HIM HE SAID, THE PRESIDENT DOES A GIVE A BLANK ABOUT UKRAINE AND IS INTERESTED IN THE BIG STUFF WHAT IS THE BIG STUFF? WHATEVER WILL BENEFIT HIM. I YIELD BACK >> RECOGNITION, THE GENTLEMAN IS RECOGNIZED >> THANK YOU. LAST NIGHT AND TODAY WE HAVE HEARD MANY TIMES FROM MY COLLEAGUES ON THE OTHER SIDE THAT SAY THE FACTS ON THIS ARE NOT CONTESTED, YET THEY REALLY ARE. I JUST WANT TO POINT OUT HIGHLIGHTED BY MY COLLEAGUE FROM LOUISIANA A MOMENT AGO. ON THE TELEPHONE CALL, LISTENING, OF THE 17 WITNESSES THAT CAME IN, ONLY THREE ACTUALLY LISTENED AND ON THE PHONE CALL. BUT EACH HAVE CONTRADICTORY TESTIMONY SO, EVEN THE THREE WITNESSES THAT HEARD THE CALL ARE CONFLICTED. WHY IS THAT IMPORTANT AND WHY DO I BRING THAT UP? I BRING IT UP BECAUSE OF THIS. MOST OF MY COLLEAGUES ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE AISLE TAKE EVERY INFERENCE IN THE LIGHT MOST NEGATIVE TO THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES THAT IS BECAUSE THERE IS ANIMOSITY THERE MANIFESTED SINCE 2016, THE DAY AFTER HE WAS ELECTED. SO, HAVING WATCHED THIS PROCEDURE, MOSTLY ON THE HEELS OF THE OTHER PROCEDURES AND THE ATTEMPTS TO IMPEACH THIS PRESIDENT AND INVESTIGATE. I AM LEFT WONDERING YOU WANT EVERY INFERENCE TO GO AGAINST THE PRESIDENT, WHY SHOULD THE AMERICAN PUBLIC GIVE YOU ANY INFERENCE OF CREDIBILITY? THE REALITY IS WHEN MY COLLEAGUE FROM CALIFORNIA WAS TALKING ABOUT THE RUSSIAN ISSUE , NOT A SINGLE AMERICAN WAS INDICTED FOR CONSPIRING WITH RUSSIA TO INFLUENCE THE ELECTIONS. NOT ONE. IF YOU STILL BELIEVE THERE WAS COLLUSION WITH THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN BUT, WHAT ARE THE FACTS GET TO? WHAT MY COLLEAGUE JUST TALKED ABOUT THAT THE MONEY WAS RELEASED, THE AID WAS RELEASED AGAIN, HE TAKES THIS INFERENCE BASED ON A TIMELINE AND HE IS CITING FRANK HEARSAY DO YOU KNOW WHAT? I OVERHEARD A CONVERSATION WHILE I WAS SITTING ON THE PATIO AT A RESTAURANT WITH A LOT OF PEOPLE SITTING AROUND AND I COULD HEAR EVERYTHING. I WAS SO CONCERNED ABOUT IT THAT I DIDN’T TELL ANYBODY. I CAME IN ONCE THIS GOT REALLY GOING AND REVVED UP. YOU WANT TO TAKE EVERY INFERENCE AGAINST THE PRESIDENT, WHY SHOULD WE GIVE YOU CREDIBILITY? THE ONLY DIRECT EVIDENCE IN THIS CASE REMAINS THE SAME AFTER ALL OF THIS TIME. NO PRESSURE. NO PRESSURE ON THE PHONE CALL. MR ZELENSKY HAS SAID THAT REPEATEDLY . ALL DAY LONG HE HAS SAID NO PRESSURE ARE THEY LYING? NO. WE KNOW THE WHISTLEBLOWER WAS LYING. WE KNOW THAT

MR SCHIFF WAS LYING WHEN HE SAID EIGHT TIMES PRESSURE WAS PUT ON THE UKRAINIANS. NOT TRUE. THERE WAS NO CONDITIONALITY AND EVERYONE SAYS THERE IS NO CONDITIONALITY. EVERYONE LISTENED. UKRAINE WAS UNAWARE, SO HOW CAN YOU LEVERAGE? >> THERE WAS NEVER ANY INVESTIGATION. WHAT HAPPENED AND WHAT TRIGGERED IT. YOU HAVE HIGH RANKING U.S. OFFICIALS GOING TO YOUR CRANE AND MEETING WITH THEM AND YOU HAVE THE PRESIDENT OF UKRAINE SIGNING TO PIECES OF LEGISLATION REASSIGNING THE TRIBUNAL AND ASSIGNING IMMUNITY FROM PROSECUTION OF THE LEGISLATIVE BRANCH OF UKRAINE SIGNIFICANT ANTICORRUPTION MEASURES WERE THE OF CONVINCING — WERE THE — WORTHY OF CONVINCING THERE WAS A CHANCE . I YIELD TO MY FRIEND FROM COLORADO >> AMBASSADOR SONDLAND IS YOUR WITNESS. YOU ARE BASING IMPEACHMENT ON AMBASSADOR SONDLAND’S TESTIMONY ? IN HIS FIRST TESTIMONY, HE SAID 325 TIMES, I DON’T REMEMBER, I DON’T KNOW, I’M NOT SURE. 325 TIMES. YOU DON’T THINK THAT WHEN THIS GETS TO THE SENATE THAT HE IS GOING TO BE IMPEACHED ON ALL THE THINGS THAT HE DIDN’T REMEMBER? THEN, HIS TESTIMONY IS IMPEACHED AND NOT HIS OFFICE I SEE THE SMIRK. THEN HE READS AND HE LISTENS TO WHAT I’M PASSENGER TALES IS THE DAY AMBASSADOR — ABBAS OR TAYLOR SAYS AND MEMORY IS REFRESHED. I YIELD BACK >> MR. RADCLIFFE SEEKS RECOGNITION >> I MOVED TO STRIKE THE LAST WORD >> MOVED AND RECOGNIZED >> THANK YOU. I WANT TO RESPOND TO THE CONGRESSMAN’S COMMENTS WHEN HE SAID THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP’S DEMAND CANNOT BE EXPLAINED BY CORRUPTION BECAUSE THE WORD CORRUPTION IS NEVER ANSWERED ANYWHERE IN THE TRANSCRIPT. THE PROBLEM WITH THAT IS THAT THE DEMOCRATS HAVE BUILT A FAKE IMPEACHMENT SCHEME AROUND AN ALLEGED DEMAND. WHAT WORD IS NOT ANYWHERE IN THE TRANSCRIPT? IT IS DEMAND. NOWHERE DOES THE PRESIDENT MAKE A DEMAND. THE WORD DEMAND CAME FROM THE WHISTLEBLOWER AND THAT’S THE FIRST TIME WE HEARD THE WORD DEMAND. HE NOTIFIED THE INSPECTOR GENERAL FOR THE INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY. HE THOUGHT HE COULD DO THAT BECAUSE NO ONE WOULD BE ABLE TO PROVE BECAUSE WHAT PRESIDENT WOULD TAKE THE UNPRECEDENTED STEP OF RELEASING A TRANSCRIPT WITH A FOREIGN LEADER? THIS PRESIDENT DID. SOMETHING THE WHISTLEBLOWER NEVER EXPECT PRESIDENT TRUMP, WE KEPT HEARING , GOT CAUGHT. PRESIDENT TRUMP, WE KEEP HEARING, IS OBSTRUCTING JUSTICE. THE PRESIDENT THAT TOOK THE UNPRECEDENTED STEP OF RELEASING A TRANSCRIPT SO EVERYONE COULD SEE THE TRUTH IS NOT OBSTRUCTING CONGRESS. THE PRESIDENT DID NOT GET CAUGHT THE WHISTLEBLOWER GOT CAUGHT THE WHISTLEBLOWER MADE FALSE STATEMENTS. THE WHISTLEBLOWER GOT CAUGHT WITH CHAIRMAN SHIFTS — 46 — CHAIRMAN SCHIFF . THE PERSON THAT GOT CAUGHT WAS THE WHISTLEBLOWER. HAVE YOU SPOKEN DIRECTLY TO THE WHISTLEBLOWER? NO, WE HAVE NOT. THE PERSON THAT SAID HE HAD EVIDENCE OF THE FIRST FAKE IMPEACHMENT SCAM, COLLUSION WITH RUSSIA HAD EVIDENCE OF THE COLLUSION AND THEN DIDN’T HAVE IT. THE PERSON WHO, IN THE COURSE OF THAT, READ INTO THE DOCUMENT, THE STEELE DOSSIER, THAT PEOPLE NEEDED TO KNOW THE TRUTH. WE HEARD ABOUT THE THIS WEEK WHEN THE INSPECTOR GENERAL SAID IT WAS RUBBISH AND ALL MADE UP. YEAH, THAT CHAIRMAN SCHIFF . NOW HE WAS CAUGHT NOT BEING TRUTHFUL ABOUT A WHISTLEBLOWER WHO DID NOT TELL THE TRUTH VERBALLY AND IN WRITING. THAT IS IN A TRANSCRIPT

DO YOU KNOW WHAT WE DID NOT GET IN THIS ONE WEEK IMPEACHMENT SUMMARY AND IN THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE, WE DIDN’T GET THE TRANSCRIPT. CHAIRMAN SCHIFF DID NOT SEND IT OVER. ONLY IF YOU WERE ON THE INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE WILL YOU SEE THAT TRANSCRIPT. I’VE SEEN IT AND I WOULD LIKE EVERYONE TO SEE IT. I YIELD TO CONGRESSMAN JORDAN >> AND REFERENCING THE GENTLEMAN FROM ROAD ISLAND. AND MR SONDLAND WHO PRESUMED THERE WAS A QUID PRO QUO AND FILED AN ADDENDUM TO THE DEPOSITION TESTIMONY. IN THE ADDENDUM, HE SAID HE RECALLED THAT MR. MORRISON RECALL THAT I CONVEYED THIS MESSAGE ON SEPTEMBER 1, 2019 IN CONNECTION TO THE VICE PRESIDENT’S VISIT TO WARSAW AND THE CONVERSATION WITH PRESIDENT ZELENSKY . HERE’S THE THING, SOMEHOW THROUGH ALL OF THAT WE GET THE DEMOCRATS BELIEVING THERE WAS QUID PRO QUO AND THEY NEED TO IMPEACH THE PRESIDENT WHAT THEY FORGET IS WHAT MR GATES BROUGHT UP A FEW MINUTES AGO. THEY ARE TALKING AND THIS IS PART OF THEIR SCHEME. TWO DAYS AGO, THE GUY WHO STARTED IT SAID IT DIDN’T HAPPEN AND THAT’S THEIR GUY HE HAD TO FILE HIS ADDENDUM TO HIS TESTIMONY AND RIGHT THE SENTENCE TO CLARIFY AND I THINK THIS IS AMAZING. THIS IS THE CLARIFICATION. AMBASSADOR TAYLOR RECALLED IN SEPTEMBER 2019 IN THE MEETING WITH PRESIDENT ZELENSKY . HE IS THE KEY HERE IN TIME MAGAZINE JUST REPORTED IT DID NOT HAPPEN. THE SAME DAY THAT ESTHER GATES SAID YOU FILED YOUR ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT HOLY COW, THIS IS WHAT IT COMES TO? I YIELD BACK >> I YIELD BACK >> MR. CHAIRMAN, I MOVE TO STRIKE THE LAST WORD >> FOR WHAT PURPOSE? >> MR. CHAIR, I MOVED TO STRIKE THE LAST WORD? >> THE LADY IS RECOGNIZED >> LET ME JUST SAY THAT I HAVE BEEN PRETTY SHOCKED AND DISAPPOINTED WITH MY COLLEAGUES ON THE OTHER SIDE. THERE HAVE BEEN SO MANY THINGS THAT HAVE BEEN SAID LIKE THE PRESIDENT NEVER USED THE WORD DEMAND. I CAN TELL YOU THIS. WHEN A ROBBER POINT A GUN AT YOU TO TAKE YOUR MONEY, THEY USUALLY DON’T WALK UP AND SAY, I’M ROBBING YOU RIGHT NOW. THE OTHER ARGUMENT WE HAVE HEARD THIS MORNING IS THAT THE AIDE WAS RELEASED , IT WAS EVENTUALLY RELEASED AND THERE WAS NO INVESTIGATION OR AN ANNOUNCEMENT OF AN INVESTIGATION. BUT THE AIDE WAS RELEASED BECAUSE THE PRESIDENT GOT CAUGHT. IT WAS RELEASED AFTER THE WHISTLEBLOWER’S COMPLAINT. IT WAS RELEASED AFTER PUBLIC REPORTS THE AIDE WAS BEING WITHHELD BECAUSE UKRAINE WAS BEING COERCED INTO DOING AN INVESTIGATION. AND, CONGRESS HAD INITIATED CONGRESSIONAL AND BEST OCCASIONS INTO WHY THE AIDE WAS BEING RELEASED. YOU KNOW, WE CAN TALK ABOUT THE EFFECTS ALL DAY LONG, BUT THE EFFECTS ARE PRETTY CLEAR THE PRESIDENT ABUSED HIS POWER, THE PRECIOUS POWER OF HIS OFFICE TO COERCE A COUNTRY DEPENDENT ON US. A COUNTRY WHO IS FIGHTING RUSSIAN AGGRESSION BECAUSE WHEN UKRAINE FIGHTS AGGRESSION, THEY ARE HELPING US FIGHT THE RUSSIAN AGGRESSION AND HE DID IT FOR PERSONAL GAIN ANY HE SHOULD BE HELD ACCOUNTABLE. MR. CHAIR, I YIELD BACK >> THE LADY YIELDS BACK >> MR. CHAIRMAN, I HAVE A QUESTION >> THE GENTLEMAN IS RECOGNIZED >> THANK YOU MR. CHAIRMAN. THERE IS RECOMMEND — THERE IS INFORMATION ABOUT CORRESPONDENCE AND A SUBPOENA SERVED BY CHAIRMAN SCHIFF >> WE RESIDE — REVERSE THE RIGHT TO OBJECT >> I HAVE OTHERS >> THOSE CITED OCTOBER 15 AND DECEMBER 11 OFFERS TO WORK WITH CONGRESS WITH LEGITIMATE OVERSIGHT AUTHORITIES. THERE WERE INACCURACIES IN THE REPORT CONTRARY TO THE ASSERTION — >> ARE THESE PUBLIC CORRESPONDENCE? >> IT IS CORRESPONDENCE BETWEEN THE VICE PRESIDENT >> WHAT PURPOSES?

>> I MOVED TO STRIKE THE LAST WORD >> THE GENTLE LADY IS RECOGNIZED >> I YIELD >> THANK YOU. I THINK YOU NEED TO REMEMBER THAT THE ABUSE OF POWER IS COMING FROM THE QUID PRO QUO CHARGE WHICH THEN MORPHED INTO BRIBERY. THE PROBLEM IS THAT MY COLLEAGUES CANNOT MAKE OUT THE CASE WHICH MEANS THE ELEMENTS ARE NOT SUPPORTED BY THE FACT. LET’S GO BACK AND LOOK AT THE FEDERAL STATUTE FOR BRIBERY. THE ELEMENTS ARE AS FOLLOWS. WHOEVER BEING A PUBLIC OFFICIAL CORRUPTLY OF DEMANDS OR RECEIVES PERSONALLY ANYTHING OF VALUE IN RETURN FOR BEING AN INFLUENCE IN THE PERFORMANCE OF AN OFFICIAL ACT. WE CAN TEAR APART EACH OF THESE ELEMENTS, BUT LET ME FOCUS ON CORRUPT THE PRESIDENT DID NOT HAVE CORRUPT INTENT AND THAT’S WHY THE DEMOCRATS CANNOT MAKE OUT A CASE. PRIOR TO THE JULY 25 CALL, THE PRESIDENT WAS NOT ASKING UKRAINE TO QUOTE UNQUOTE MAKEUP DIRT ON MY OPPONENT. FOR WHATEVER REASON, THAT IS BEING MISSED. THERE WAS ALSO SIGNIFICANT REASON TO BELIEVE THE BUTTONS WERE INVOLVED IN CORRUPTION AND THERE IS EVIDENCE THAT UKRAINIAN OFFICIALS COLLUDED WITH DEMOCRATS IN THE 2016 CAMPAIGN. THERE IS A LOT BEING TALKED ABOUT WITH THE CONSPIRACY THEORY BUT THEY ALL REPORTED ON THIS. FOR WHATEVER REASON, NOW IT IS LABELED A CONSPIRACY THEORY. ALSO THE PRESIDENT WAS NOT SEEKING TO HELP WITH THE 2020 CAMPAIGN BUT WAS SEEKING ACCOUNTABILITY REGARDING THE UKRAINE DEMOCRAT COLLUSION AND 2016 AND ALSO POTENTIAL CORRUPTION IN THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION’S DEALINGS WITH UKRAINE AS WELL. WE HAVE TO REMEMBER TOO WHAT PROFESSOR TURLEY SAID. PROFESSOR TURLEY VOTED FOR HILLARY CLINTON AND IS NOT A TRUMP SUPPORTER AND HE WAS IMPARTIAL. I QUOTE THE PROFESSOR. PRESIDENT TRUMP DID NOT STATE A QUID PRO QUO IN THE CALL. HE IS USING THE STATEMENT TO PROMPT THE UKRAINIANS TO COOPERATE PRESIDENT TRUMP BELIEVE THERE WAS A CORRUPT AGREEMENT WITH HUNTER BIDEN THAT WAS NOT FULLY INVESTIGATED BY THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION, THE REQUEST FOR INVESTIGATION IS NOT CORRUPT AGAIN, QUOTING PROFESSOR TURLEY I WOULD ALSO LIKE TO QUOTE THE MUELLER REPORT. AS AN ASIDE, WE NEED TO REMEMBER MONTHS AGO THE MOTHER CAME HERE AND SAID THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE OF COLLUSION OR OF OBSTRUCTION. AGAIN, WE ARE BACK HERE. LET ME GO TO THE MUELLER REPORT THERE WAS DISCUSSION OF CORRUPTION IN THE REPORT AS IT PERTAINED TO OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE. IT WAS SAYING THAT CORRUPTLY MEANS ACTING WITH AN IMPROPER MOTIVE OR WITH INTENT TO ATTAIN AN IMPROPER ADVANTAGE FOR HIMSELF OR SOMEONE ELSE INCONSISTENT WITH THE OFFICIAL DUTY ON THE RIGHTS OF OTHERS. BY THAT STANDARD, BY MUELLER POPA’S OWN STANDARD, THE PRESIDENT’S BEHAVIOR IS INCONSISTENT WITH THE DEFINITION OF THE UNDERLYING STATUTE. WITH THAT, I YIELD BACK TO MY FRIEND AND COLLEAGUE FROM ALABAMA >> I YIELD THE REMAINDER OF MY TIME TO THE GENTLEMAN FROM TEXAS >> THANK YOU MY FRIEND, SO MUCH FIRST OF ALL, I WAS ASTOUNDED, HAVING BEEN A PROSECUTOR AND HAVING DEFENDED CASES. I’VE BEEN A JUDGE AND I’VE SINCE A LOT OF PEOPLE TO PRISON. I HAVE NEVER SENT SOMEONE TO PRISON WHERE THE VICTIM DID NOT KNOW OR FIGURE OUT THEY WERE A VICTIM. THAT IS EXTRAORDINARY TO HEAR. THAT YOU CAN COMMIT A CRIME LIKE BRIBERY OR THEFT AND THE VICTIM NEVER NOS OR FIGURES OUT I’VE NEVER SENT ANYBODY TO PRISON WHEN THE VICTIM DID NOT KNOW THEY WERE A VICTIM. THERE MR. ROBY >> I LET IT GO >> I YIELD TO MR. COLLINS TIERS ALL RIGHT, THERE IS ALSO PROBABLY NOBODY ON THIS COMMITTEE THAT HAS FOLLOWED WHAT HAS HAPPENED OVER TIME IN UKRAINE MORE THAN I HAVE. THERE IS NO QUESTION THAT PUTIN WANTS THE OLD SOVIET EMPIRE BACK WHAT HAPPENED WHEN PRESIDENT BUSH WAS IN OFFICE WAS THAT PUTIN HAD RUSSIA INVADE GEORGIA PRESIDENT BUSH REACTED STRONGLY AND PUT SANCTIONS IN PLACE. SO, WHAT HAPPENED WHEN PRESIDENT OBAMA TOOK OFFICE AND CLINTON WAS IN OFFICE? THEY WENT OVER WITH A RED PLASTIC RESET BUTTON AND THE MESSAGE WAS CLEAR TO PUTIN . LOOK, BUSH OVERREACTED WHEN YOU INVADED GEORGIA AND SO YOU CAN INVADE

UKRAINE AND WE ARE OKAY. THAT MAY NOT BE WHAT THEY INTENDED, BUT THAT’S WHAT PUTIN HEARD AND THEY INVADED UKRAINE, CRIMEA AND EUROPE IS UPSET AT TRUMP? FOR HEAVEN SAKE >> THE GENTLE LADY’S TIME IS EXPIRED. AND RECOGNIZING >> I MOVED TO STRIKE THE LAST WORD >> RECOGNIZED >> AND MOVING SONDLAND AS AMBASSADOR TO THE EU WHICH IS PRESIDENT TRUMP’S PICK HE CONTRIBUTED MONEY TO THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN AND BECAME AMBASSADOR TO THE EU. THEY DON’T LIKE HIM NOW BECAUSE HE CLARIFIED HIS TESTIMONY TO SAY, YES, THERE WAS DEFINITELY QUIT PRO QUOTE AT THE HEART OF THIS WHOLE THING. OF COURSE, THEY TURN ON THE PRESIDENT’S OWN AMBASSADOR. WE DON’T HAVE TO RELY ON HIS WORD. I MENTIONED THIS BEFORE BECAUSE HE HAD LUNCH WITH DAVID HOLMES, THE SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL AT THE U.S. EMBASSY IN KYIV. THEY WENT TO A RESTAURANT AND AMBASSADOR SONDLAND GOT PRESIDENT TRUMP ON THE PHONE AFTERWARDS , AND HOLMES COULD HEAR THE CONVERSATION. THIS IS ALL UNCONTRADICTED BY OTHER WITNESSES WHO WERE THERE. AND ESSENTIALLY THE AMBASSADOR SAID TO HIM, YOU KNOW, ZELENSKY LOVES YOUR AND YOU WILL GET EXACTLY WHAT YOU WANT FROM HIM. AND HOLMES SAID, WHAT CAN WE GET? HE SAID, IT’S THE BIG STUFF. HOLMES SAID, DO YOU MEAN THE WAR BY THE BIG STUFF? AND HE SAID, NO, WHAT MR. TRUMP CARES ABOUT. I DON’T HAVE THE VERBATIM IN FRONT OF ME, BUT THE SUBSTANCE IS CLEAR. WHAT CAN BENEFIT HIM, LIKE THE BIDENS. IT WAS EXACTLY WHAT PRESIDENT TRUMP WANTED TO GET FROM PRESIDENT ZELENSKY. HE WANTED A STATEMENT ON TELEVISION THAT UKRAINE WAS INVESTIGATING AND IS GOING TO INVESTIGATE VP JOE BIDEN. HE WANTED A STATEMENT CONTRADICTING THE 2016 UNDERSTANDING BY OUR INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE AND BY SPECIAL COUNCIL MUELLER THAT THERE HAD BEEN INTERFERENCE IN SAYING THAT UKRAINE INTERFERED THAT’S WHAT HE WANTED AND THAT WAS THE BIG STUFF. HE DID NOT CARE ABOUT THE RUSSIAN WAR ON THE PEOPLE OF UKRAINE. HE DID NOT CARE ABOUT CORRUPTION. THEY INVITE US TO BELIEVE THAT DONALD TRUMP IS AN ANTI-CORRUPTION CREW SHADER. HE WAS SHAKING DOWN PRESIDENT ZELENSKY AND HE DOESN’T RAISE CORRUPTION ON THE CALL EXCEPT FOR WHAT HE BELIEVED WAS GOING ON WITH THE BIDENS EXCEPT THAT HE REDUCED ANTICORRUPTION FUNDING FOR UKRAINE AND HE DOESN’T RAISE IT ANYWHERE ELSE THAT WE CAN FIND IT. YOU PICK UP THE NEW YORK TIMES YESTERDAY AND PRESIDENT TRUMP HAD TO PAY $2 MILLION TO CHARITIES BECAUSE HE RIPPED OFF HIS OWN CHARITY FOR MILLIONS OF DOLLARS. THIS IS THE ANTICORRUPTION CRUSADER THEY WANT US TO BELIEVE IN. THE GUY WHO PAID MILLIONS OF DOLLARS WHICH THE ATTORNEY JOURNAL OF NEW YORK CALLED A CLASSIC BAIT AND SWITCH OPERATION. THIS IS THE GUY THEY WANTED US TO BELIEVE WAS SHAKING DOWN THE PRESIDENT OF UKRAINE BECAUSE THEY BELIEVED HE HAD A SECRET ANTI-TRUMP AGENDA THAT WASN’T RELATED TO THE BIDENS OR RELATED TO REHABILITATING THE TOTALLY DISCREDITED RUSSIAN CONSPIRACY THEORY THAT IT WAS UKRAINE AND NOT RUSSIA THAT INTERFERED IN OUR CAMPAIGN IN 2016. COME ON. GET REAL. BE SERIOUS. WE KNOW EXACTLY WHAT HAPPENED HERE WITH 17 WITNESSES. IT IS UNCONTRADICTED AND THERE IS NO RIVAL STORY. NO RIVAL STORY AT ALL. OUR COLLEAGUES WILL NOT EVEN TELL US WHETHER IN THEORY THEY THINK IT WOULD BE WRONG FOR THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES TO SHAKE DOWN FOREIGN GOVERNMENTS AND TO GET INVOLVED IN OUR PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGNS IN ORDER TO HARM THE PRESIDENT’S POLITICAL OPPONENTS. THEY WON’T EVEN TELL US IN PRINCIPLE WHETHER THEY THINK IT IS WRONG BECAUSE AT THAT POINT IT IS TOO DANGEROUS. WE KNOW THEY DON’T ACCEPT THE FACTS OR THE EVIDENCE AND THEY DON’T LIKE THE FACT THAT THE DEPOSITIONS TOOK PLACE IN THE BASEMENT. WHERE SHOULD THEY HAVE BEEN? THE FIRST FLOOR OR THE SECOND FLOOR? IF WE FOUND ANOTHER ROOM, WOULD THAT BE ALL

RIGHT? I WAS IN THAT ROOM AND THERE WERE DEMOCRATS AND THERE WERE REPUBLICANS. THE DEMOCRATIC COUNCIL GOT ONE HOUR AND THE REPUBLICAN COUNCIL GOT ONE HOUR AND IT WAS ON BOTH SIDES. ENOUGH OF THESE PHONY OBJECTIONS. LET’S GET BACK TO THE FACTS OF WHAT HAPPENED. THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES SHOULD DOWN A FOREIGN POWER TO GET INVOLVED IN OUR ELECTION. THAT IS WRONG. I YIELD BACK >> MR. CHAIRMAN >> YIELDS BACK >> MR. CHAIRMAN >> TO WHAT PURPOSES DO YOU SEEK RECOGNITION? >> I MOVED TO STRIKE LAST WORD >> THE GENTLEMAN IS RECOGNIZED >> THANK YOU VERY MUCH >> THERE IS MENTIONING A LOT ABOUT DAVID HOLMES FOR A GUY WHO HEARD PART OF ONE HALF OF A THREE-MINUTE PHONE CALL. HE HAD A 40 MINUTE OPENING STATEMENT. SONDLAND TESTIFIED THAT BIDEN WAS NEVER LINKED IN HIS MIND UNTIL THE TRANSCRIPT WAS RELEASED AT THE END OF AUGUST . THE DEMOCRATIC REPORT AND NOT THE REPUBLICAN REPORT, THE DEMOCRATIC REPORT DOES NOT ESTABLISH A LINK BETWEEN THE INVESTIGATION FOR HIS POLITICAL BENEFIT. ONLY DEMOCRATS RELYING ON THAT INVESTIGATION AS AMBASSADOR SONDLAND’S TESTIMONY. THEY LEAVE OUT CRUCIAL PARTS OF THE TESTIMONY WHICH IS AFTER BEING QUESTIONED THAT HE ONLY PRESUMED TO THE LINKAGE. IN FACT, HE ADMITTED IN HIS PUBLIC TESTIMONY THAT NO ONE IN THE WORLD TOLD HIM THERE WAS ANY LANGUAGE. THIS WAS THE BASIC BASIS FOR THE DEMOCRATS. I WANT TO GO FURTHER ABOUT WHY WE SHOULD ACCEPT THE AMENDMENT. A DEMOCRATIC SENATOR WAS SAY NEVER, IN MY VIEW, HAD AMERICAN BEEN LED BY SUCH A DANGEROUS HEAD OF STATE. HE BEMOANED THAT AMERICA WAS LED BY A RECKLESS AND ARROGANT PRESIDENT THAT WAS SENATOR ROBERT BYRD FROM WEST VIRGINIA DESCRIBING GEORGE W. BUSH RONALD REAGAN WAS ACCUSED OF ABUSE OF POWER FOR PUSHING A GROWTH-BASED ECONOMIC AGENDA FOR COMMITTING TROOPS TO LEBANON OR FOR TURNING BACK THE SANDINISTAS AND IN NICARAGUA CLINTON, EXCLUDING THE IMPEACHMENT, WAS ACCUSED OF ABUSIVE ACCUSATIONS FOR AN ASIAN FUNDRAISING AID TO GIVING SWEETHEART APPOINTMENTS AND USE OF THE FBI TO DIG UP DIRT ON POLITICAL EMPLOYEES AS WELL AS WACO AND A SWEDISH SLUSH FUND. GEORGE W BUSH WAS ACCUSED FOR DOMESTIC SPYING AND ENERGY TASK FORCE CONTROVERSY. THE PRESIDENTIAL RECORDS THAT, TARIFFS, THE IRAQ WAR AND NSA OVERREACH. OBAMA’S IRS ENGAGED IN TARGETING CHARITABLE GROUPS FAST AND FURIOUS GUNRUNNING SCANDAL THAN COLLECTING PHONE RECORDS ON AP JOURNALISTS WITHOUT A RECORD WARRANT. AND ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION THE PROBLEM WE ARE RUNNING INTO, WHICH IS GOING TO LAST LONGER THAN TODAY AND FAR LONGER IN THIS CONGRESS IS THAT THIS WILL BECOME THE NEW NORMAL EVERY ONE OF THOSE THINGS THAT I MENTIONED HAVE REPORTS WRITTEN ABOUT THEM AND THEY PROBABLY HAD ELECTION CONSEQUENCES. THERE WERE HEARINGS HELD BUT THEY DID NOT HAVE A NEBULOUS AND AMBIGUOUS CHARGE OF POWER. IF YOU CANNOT PROVE AN UNDERLYING CRYING, YOU DON’T GET TO USE ALL THE EVIDENCE YOU ARE PRESENTING THIS WILL CONTINUE AND THIS WILL MOVE FORWARD AND THE HISTORY OF OUR COUNTRY, THE PARTY NOT IN THE WHITE HOUSE HAS ACCUSED THE WHITE HOUSE OF POWER. IT STARTED 200 YEARS AGO AND WILL CONTINUE INTO THE FUTURE CONGRATULATIONS, NOW IT WILL BE IMPEACHMENT EVERY TIME ONE PARTY CONTROLS THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES AND THE OTHER PARTY IS IN THE WHITE HOUSE WITH THAT, I YIELD MY FRIEND FROM LOUISIANA >> I THINK MY FRIEND. FOR THE LAST TWO HOURS WE HAVE BEEN TALKING ABOUT THIS AMENDMENT THAT MR. JORDAN BROUGHT TO STRIKE ARTICLE 1 OF THE RESOLUTION. IT’S NOT WORTH THE PAPER IT IS WRITTEN ON. ARTICLE 4 OF THE CONSTITUTION GIVES US THE POWER TO IMPEACH THE PRESIDENT. YOU HAVE TO HAVE TREASON, BRIBERY OR A HIGH CRIME OR MISDEMEANOR. YOU HAVE DEVOLVED THIS TO AN ABUSE OF POWER ALLEGATION WHICH IS CERTAINLY NOT A HIGH CRIME TO SUMMARIZE, IF YOU GET LOST IN THE ARGUMENTS AT HOME, HERE’S WHAT IT COMES DOWN TO. IN THE 243 YEAR HISTORY OF THE COUNTRY, THERE HAVE ALWAYS BEEN TO PRESIDENTS IMPEACHED BY A VOTE OF THE HOUSE AND THOSE ARE ANDREW JOHNSON AND BILL CLINTON AND THEN NIXON IMPEACHMENT INVESTIGATION, EVIDENCE CLEARLY ESTABLISH THAT CRIMINAL ACTS WERE COMMITTED EVIDENCE CLEARLY ESTABLISH THAT SPECIFIC CRIMINAL ACTS WERE COMMITTED. YOU GUYS DON’T HAVE IT HERE AND THEY KNOW IT AND YOU

KNOW IT IT’S NOT AN ARTICLE 1 OR ARTICLE 2 AND IN NOTHING THAT HAS BEEN SAID HERE IN THE LAST TWO HOURS. THE FACTS DO NOT CHANGE. THIS IS AN UNPRECEDENTED SINGLE PARTY IMPEACHMENT CHARADE. EVERYBODY AT HOME CAN SEE THAT CLEARLY. THESE THINGS DON’T CHANGE AND THEY WON’T. I YIELD BACK TO MY FRIEND >> MR. ARMSTRONG >> I YIELD TO MY FRIEND FROM FLORIDA >> I THINK THE GENTLEMAN FOR YIELDING. NO EVIDENCE NO ONE FELT THERE WAS A CONNECTION BETWEEN U.S. MILITARY AID IN THE REQUEST FOR INVESTIGATIONS THE EARMARK WAS ADEQUATE AND WE NEVER HAD THE FEELING THIS WILL AID WAS CONNECTED TO A SPECIFIC ISSUE. MR. CHAIRMAN, I SEEK UNANIMOUS CONSENT TO ENTER THE TIME ARTICLE INTO THE RECORD >> THE ARTICLE WILL BE ENTERED >> MR. COHEN SEEKS RECOGNITION >> STRIKE THE LAST WORD >> RECOGNIZED >> I TOOK THEATER AND DRAMA IN COLLEGE AND I WAS TOLD THE FIRST THING YOU HAVE TO DO IS TO HAVE THE WILLING SUSPENSION OF DISBELIEF. THE REPUBLICANS OBVIOUSLY TOOK THE COURSE OVER AND OVER AND OVER AGAIN I MEAN, THEY ARE THE FIFTH AVENUE CROWD. THEY HAVE TALKED ABOUT SONDLAND . THAT IS THE MAN THE PRESIDENT AND POINTED AS HIS AMBASSADOR TO THE EU. THAT IS THE MAN HE SAYS IS A GREAT GUY AND THE MAN WHO IS STILL EMPLOYED. SONDLAND HAS SAID THEY WERE ALL IN THE LOOP . POMPEO, GIULIANI, MULVANEY, THEY WERE ALL IN THE LOOP. IT WAS ALL ABOUT THE QUID PRO QUO. IT WAS ABOUT HAVING AN INVESTIGATION ANNOUNCED ON CNN AND THEN YOU GET THE MILITARY AID. AND SONDLAND TOLD IN WARSAW TO PRESIDENT ZELENSKY THAT YOU HAVE TO ANNOUNCE THE INVESTIGATION. IT WAS A STRONG ARM . THEY DID IT AND WHERE DO WE GET THESE PEOPLE IN THE LOOP TO TESTIFY. THE PRESIDENT SAYS NO, HE WON’T LET THEM TESTIFY BECAUSE HE NOS IF THEY TELL THE TRUTH THAT IT WILL HURT HIS CASE BECAUSE THEY KNOW THAT THEY HELD UP THE MILITARY AID. PRESIDENT ZELENSKY HAS NO CHOICE . HE NEEDS AMERICA TO PROTECT HIMSELF FROM RUSSIA THEY SAY HE HASN’T SAID THAT HE FELT PRESSURED. A, HE IS AN ACTOR AND B, HE’S A POLITICIAN AND HE DEPENDS ON US. HE HAS NO CHOICE. HE CAN SAY THAT. HE KNEW THE AID WAS BEING WITHHELD. HE KNEW IT JULY 25 AND THERE WERE COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE EMBASSY THERE WAS NO QUID PRO QUO FROM SONDLAND . HE KNEW THAT THE WHISTLEBLOWER HAD COME FORWARD AND HE KNEW THE JIG WAS UP. HE NEEDED TO FIND SOMETHING TO SAY IN THE RECORD. THEIR BEST WITNESS, THEY TALK ABOUT THE THREE PROFESSORS, THE THREE MOST RESPECTED PROFESSORS IN AMERICA AND THEY ALL SAID THIS IS THE MOST IMPEACHABLE PRESIDENT. HIS ABUSE OF POWER IS ONE OF THE MOST SERIOUS OFFENSES YOU CAN IMAGINE. IT’S THE CONSTITUTION AND THE LAW OF THE LAND. IF YOU ABUSE YOUR POWER, THAT IS THE MOST IMPEACHABLE CRIME YOU CAN BE CHARGED WITH. THEY FORGET THEIR WITNESS SAID THAT WHAT THE PRESIDENT DID WAS WRONG. HE DID NOT COME IN AND GIVE A CLEAN BILL OF HEALTH. HE SAID, YOU NEED MORE INFORMATION AND YOU NEED MORE PROOF. YOU CANNOT GET THE PROOF BECAUSE THE PRESIDENT WILL NOT ALLOW HIS MEN TO TESTIFY. ONE IS WRITING A BOOK AND THE OTHER IS IN AN INTERIM JOB. THE OTHER ONE IS RUNNING FOR SENATOR. THEY CAN’T DO IT. THE PROOF IS THERE AND THIS IS THE MOST ABUSIVE ACT WE CAN IMAGINE. TRYING TO INFLUENCE ELECTIONS WITH FOREIGN INTERFERENCE THAT TAKES POWER AWAY FROM THE AMERICAN PEOPLE THAT WOULD END OUR COUNTRY AS WE KNOW IT. A DEMOCRACY AND A SHINING CITY ON THE HILL AND A BEACON OF HOPE FROM AROUND THE WORLD WHO LOOK AT A GOVERNMENT WHO GIVES PEOPLE THE POWER AND NOT KINGS THIS IS A MAN WHO THINKS HE CAN DO WHATEVER HE WANTS. ARTICLE 2 SAYS, I CAN DO WHATEVER I WANT, I’M PRESIDENT. THAT’S NOT RIGHT WHEN HE SAYS, I NEED A FAVOR, HE WAS TALKING ABOUT GETTING DIRT

ON THE BIDENS. HE FEARS JOE BIDEN AS HIS PRIMARY POLITICAL RIVAL. MICHAEL COHEN DOESN’T SAY WHAT HE WANTS AND HE SPEAKS IN CODE. THAT IS THE PRESIDENT’S CODE. MICHAEL COHEN NOS IT AND IS IN PRISON NOW. INDIVIDUAL 1 IS NOT IN PRISON NOW BECAUSE INDIVIDUAL 1 COULD NOT BEAT INDICTED BECAUSE OF THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT’S POLICY THAT YOU CANNOT INDICT A SITTING PRESIDENT. MICHAEL COHEN IS IN PRISON BECAUSE HE FACILITATED PAYMENTS TO MS. DANIELS AND MS McDOUGALL THE ABUSE OF POWER IS HAVING A TERRIBLE FOUNDATION IN TAKING ADVANTAGE OF CHARITIES AND USING MONEY FOR YOUR OWN PURPOSES AND HAVING TO PAY A $2 MILLION FINE AND NOT BEING ALLOWED ON A BOARD EVER AGAIN BECAUSE YOU DON’T HAVE THE CHARACTER TO BE OVER A CHARITABLE FOUNDATION ABUSE OF POWER IS RIPPING OFF THE PEOPLE AT TRUMP UNIVERSITY AND PAYING $25 MILLION. I YIELD BACK THE BALANCE OF MY TIME >> THE GENTLEMAN YIELDS BACK >> I MOVED TO STRIKE THE LAST WORD >> GENTLEMAN RECOGNIZED >> I’M NOT GOING TO GO INTO WHY I DON’T SEE REMARKS FROM THE GENTLEMAN FROM TENNESSEE IN THESE ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT. I DO WANT TO SAY I’M A LITTLE INCREDULOUS AS A PROSECUTOR. I’M AMAZED AT WHAT THE MAJORITY ARE CALLING FAX. THEY KEEP TALKING ABOUT THE EVIDENCE. WELL, THE EVIDENCE IS IN DISPUTE BECAUSE IT IS BASED UPON HEARSAY, OPINION AND SPECULATION. THESE ARE NOT FACTS , IT IS TESTIMONY ABOUT WHAT SOMEONE CONCLUDED FROM ACTS TAKEN BY MEMBERS OF THE ADMINISTRATION. THE CHARGE IS ABUSE OF POWER BUT WHAT THE MAJORITY IS REALLY UPSET ABOUT IS THE FACT THAT THE PRESIDENT AND THE ADMINISTRATION IS EXERCISING ITS POWER UNDER THE CONSTITUTION. ITS AUTHORIZED POWERS. FOR EXAMPLE, THE PRESIDENT’S AUTHORITY TO SET FOREIGN POLICY AND FIRE, FOR EXAMPLE, AN AMBASSADOR. IT IS NOT A SMEAR ON A OFFICIAL, IT IS THE USE OF ARTICLE 2, SECTION 2 OF THE CONSTITUTION. THE PRESIDENT IS AUTHORIZED BY STATUTE TO PUT A STOP ON THE DISTRIBUTION OF FUNDS. THE PRESIDENT IS INSTRUCTED IN THE NDAA TO ASK FOR INFORMATION FROM UKRAINE YOU HAVE THE FACT THEY WERE ON THE CALL AND THE TRANSCRIPT SPEAKS FOR ITSELF. YOU HAVE OPINIONS AND CONCLUSIONS AFTER THAT WHEN IT COMES TO ACTUAL TESTIMONY THAT HAS NOT BEEN HEARD, IT JUST SHOWS THE MAJORITY DOESN’T HAVE INTEREST IN GETTING TO THE BOTTOM OF THIS QUESTION BECAUSE IF THEY DID CARE ABOUT ACTUALLY FINDING OUT ABOUT FACTS, THEY WOULD BE CALLING HIM BACK INTO THIS COMMITTEE IN DELAYING THIS PROCESS. WHAT WE HAVE READ FROM THIS ARTICLE IN TIME MAGAZINE IS INCREDIBLE. IT IS EXCULPATORY AND QUITE FRANKLY A BOMBSHELL WHEN YOU HAVE SPECIFIC REJECTION OF CLAIMS MADE BY AMBASSADOR SONDLAND THAT AID WOULD NOT BE RELEASED UNLESS INVESTIGATION WERE LOST. WHY IS HE NOT HERE? IT WAS STATED WE NEVER HAD THAT FEELING AND WE HAVE A UNDERSTAND THE AID HAD BEEN FROZEN. WE WERE TOLD THEY WOULD FIGURE IT OUT AND AFTER A CERTAIN TIME IT WAS UNFROZEN. IT WASN’T CONNECTED TO ANY SPECIFIC ISSUE. IF YOU IGNORE THIS EVIDENCE AND YOU ARE IN A COURT CASE, YOU WOULD LOSE YOUR LAW LICENSE FOR ALLOWING A CASE TO GO FORWARD WITHOUT THIS EXCULPATORY EVIDENCE PROVIDED TO THE DEFENSE >> IT IS SO RIDICULOUS TO ME THAT WE ARE NOT TAKING TIME TO LOOK FURTHER INTO THAT. WITH THAT, I WANT TO YIELD TO MR COLLINS >> [ CAPTIONERS TRANSITIONING ] >> AND CALL IT ABUSE OF POWER BECAUSE THEY DON’T HAVE ANYTHING

ELSE TO GIVE, THEY DON’T HAVE AN ACTUAL CRIME BECAUSE IF THEY DID , IF YOU HAVE THE CRIME, IF YOU HAD IT YOU WOULD’VE PUT IT IN THE ARTICLES YOU DIDN’T DO IT BUT THE LAST THING THAT’S AMAZING TO ME AND THE GENTLEMAN FROM TENNESSEE SENATE, HE CALLED PRESIDENT ZELENSKY A POLITICIAN AND AN ACTOR IN A DERISIVE WAY BASICALLY IMPLYING THAT POLITICIANS LIE, EVEN BETWEEN THAT THIS MORNING, AND HE IS AN ACTOR. IT’S AMAZING TO ME HOW WE IN THIS COMMITTEE ARE AGGREGATING MR. ZELENSKY IN THE EYES OF HIS COUNTRY IN THE WORLD BECAUSE WE CAN’T MAKE A CASE AGAINST THIS PRESIDENT. THIS IS THE TRAGEDY OF THIS IMPEACHMENT RIGHT NOW THEY CAN’T MAKE THE FACT THAT HE FELT PRESSURE, THAT THE CRITICAL ELEMENT OF THE CASE >> WHO IS SEEKING RECOGNITION? THE MAC >> I WOULD LIKE UNANIMOUS REQUEST TO INTRODUCE THE USA TODAY, THE CALLS FOR IMPEACHMENT OF THE PRESIDENT, FROM THE PHILADELPHIA INQUIRER AND THE BOSTON GLOBE — >> I WANT TO READ IT >> THE OBJECTION IS HEARD >> I WOULD LOVE FOR HIM TO READ IT. FEMALE >> DOES ANYONE ELSE SEEK RECOGNITION OF THIS AMENDMENT? WHAT PURPOSE? >> MOVE TO STRIKE LAST WORD >> THE FACT THAT MEMBERS OF THIS COMMITTEE WOULD INSULATE THAT UKRAINIANS GOT IN THE HAND OF RUSSIANS IS — HAVING SERVED IN THE COMBAT THEATER, TO BLAME THE AIDE WAS DELAYED A FEW WEEKS WOULD’VE SAVED LIVES IS FRANKLY ENFOLDING TO ME AND ALL THAT SERVED. NOW DEMOCRATS WANT YOU TO BELIEVE THAT UKRAINIANS DIED AT ITS TRUMPS ALL. WHAT WE IMPEACH HIM ON THAT. MEMBERS ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE AISLE ARE TALKING ABOUT BRIBERY AND LAYING OUT A CASE FOR BRIBERY YET, IF THEIR CASE WAS SO COMPELLING AND OVERWHELMING AND THEY HAD THE ELEMENTS, WHY IS IN THE ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT? THEY DIDN’T INCLUDE IT BECAUSE THERE’S NO EVIDENCE FOR THAT. THE AIDE WAS RELEASED BEFORE THE DEADLINE SET OUT BY CONGRESS. THEY RELEASED THE AIDE. UKRAINIANS DIDN’T START ANY INVESTIGATIONS. THEY ALSO GOT A MEETING WITH PRESIDENT TRUMP AND PRESIDENT TRUMP DOESN’T HAVE TO MEET WITH FOREIGN LEADERS AND HE STILL AGREED TO MEET WITH THEM ARTICLE 2 SAYS THE PRESIDENT, VICE PRESIDENT SHALL BE REMOVED, TREASON AND OTHER HIGH CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS. CONGRESS HAS INTERPRETED THIS TO MEAN THAT CONGRESS HAS COMMITTED AN ACTUAL ACT , FOR EXAMPLE, HE WAS ACCUSED OF A CRIMINAL ACT, BILL CLINTON, THREE, THESE WERE CRIMES THAT WERE NOT TRIED IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, COULD HAVE BEEN TRIED IN THE CRIMINAL COURT. THE STANDARD OF CRIMINALITY PROVIDES CLARITY AND IS ONE W. MR TURLEY’S PLANT, ALTHOUGH CRIMINALITY IS NOT REQUIRED, CLARITY IS NECESSARY. THAT COMES FROM A COMPLETE AND COMPREHENSIVE RECORD THAT ELIMINATES THE SCOPE EXPLANATIONS. BUT THROUGHOUT THIS INVESTIGATION THE DEMOCRATS COULDN’T FIND ANY WILL ACT ON THE PRESENT. INSTEAD OF RELYING ON PRECEDENT, THEY DECIDED TO IMPEACH AND FOR ABUSE OF POWER A VAGUE PHRASE THAT APPEARS NOWHERE IN THE CONSTITUTION WHEN DISCUSSING IMPEACHMENT. IT HAS NO BASIS IN FACT OR EVIDENCE RATHER IS DEEPLY ROOTED IN PERSONAL OPINION AND PERCEPTION MR. TURLEY ALSO EXPLAINED THE APPLICATION OF THIS OCCURRENCE QUOTE WE HAVE NEVER IMPEACHED A PRESIDENT SOLELY OR EVEN LARGELY ON THE BASIS OF A NONCRIMINAL ABUSE OF POWER ALLEGATION. THERE IS GOOD REASON FOR THAT [ABUSES OF POWER TEND TO BE LESS DEFINED AND MORE DEBATABLE AS A BASIS FOR IMPEACHMENT AND SOME OF THE CRIMES ALREADY MENTIONED HE WENT ON TO SAY THAT THE PROBLEM WITH PROVING ABUSE OF POWER THEORY IS A LACK OF DIRECT EVIDENCE DUE TO FAILURE TO PROVIDE THE WITNESSES. LET’S TALK ABOUT THAT DIRECT EVIDENCE, THERE IS NOT, THE ONLY PERSON WHO WOULD HAVE FIRSTHAND KNOWLEDGE OF THE QUID PRO QUO BRIBERY EXTORTION OR WHATEVER BUZZWORD THE DEMOCRATS WENT TO TROT OUT NEXT IS PRESIDENT ZELENSKY, WHO HAS CATEGORICALLY DENIED ANY SUCH AGREEMENT OR PRESSURE. HEREIN LIES THE ISSUE ON HINGING YOUR IMPEACHMENT ON A NONCRIMINAL ABUSE OF POWER ALLEGATION. THE FACTS DON’T SUPPORT YOUR CLAIMS NEVER IN THE HISTORY OF THE USSR PRESENT IN IMPEACHED SOLELY ON THE BASIS OF ABUSE OF POWER. EVERY PRESIDENT WAS BEEN IMPEACHED HAS BEEN IMPEACHED FOR CRIMINAL ACTS

THE DEMOCRATS HAVE FAILED TO PROVE A NONCRIMINAL STANDARD FOR ABUSE OF POWER AND HAVE RELIED ON HEARSAY AND CONJECTURE. THE DEMOCRATS ARE TRYING TO DO IS PULL THE WOOL OVER THE EYES OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE AND MAKE THEM THINK THAT WRONGDOING HAS OCCURRED WHERE THERE IS NONE. BY USING FANCY RHETORIC AND FLOWERY LANGUAGE THEY THINK THEY CAN CONVINCE A NATION OF THEIR ILL-CONCEIVED IDEAS. DON’T FALL FOR IT, AMERICA. I YIELD THE REMAINDER OF MY TIME TO MR JORDAN >> IF THE DEMOCRATS ARE GOING TO TO TAKE SOME OF SONLAND YOU GOT TO TAKE ALL OF IT. IF YOU’RE GOING TO MENTION THEM 611 TIMES AND REPORT IF YOU’RE GOING TO BUILD YOUR CASE AROUND THE GUY WHO PRESUMED, PRESUMED HER WAS A QUID PRO QUO, THE GUY WHO HAD TO FILE AN ADDENDUM TO HIS DEPOSITION, IF YOU’RE GOING TO DO ALL THAT YOU CAN’T IGNORE THE DIRECT CONVERSATION HE HAD WITH THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES WHERE HE ASKED MR. PRESIDENT WHAT DO YOU WANT FROM UKRAINE? WHAT IS THE PRESIDENT SAY? INTERESTING, SONLAND LEFT THIS OUT OF HIS OPENING STATEMENT, WHAT YOU WANT FROM UKRAINE AND THE PRESIDENT SAID I WANT NOTHING, NO QUID PRO QUO, I WANT HIM TO DO WHAT HE SAID . I WANT HIM TO DO WHAT HE RAN ON YOU CAN’T IGNORE THAT. THE ONE PIECE OF DIRECT EVIDENCE, YOU WANT ALL THIS PRESUMPTION, YOU WANT ALL THIS ADDENDUM, YOU HAVE TO TAKE SOME OF SONLAND YOU HAVE TO TAKE ALL OF IT. I YIELD BACK >> I YIELD TO MR. STEVIE >> I YIELD TO MR. GATES. I HAVE 30 SECONDS. I HAVE 30 SECONDS LEFT BEFORE THEY CUT THE CLOCK >> I THINK THE GENTLEMAN FOR YIELDING, I JUST THINK THE GENTLEMAN FROM TENNESSEE, THE DEBATE ON THE LAST SUBJECT RELATIONS THAT WE ARE DEALING WITH, THIS IS NOT A RIFLE SHOT IMPEACHMENT WITH FACTS AND EVIDENCE, THIS IS A BIRD SHOT, HE TALKS ABOUT EVERYTHING FROM YOU KNOW THE CAMPAIGN-FINANCE CONCERNS, TO TRUMP UNIVERSITY, CONCERNS ABOUT CHARITIES THIS IS LIKE PIN THE TAIL ON YOUR FAVORITE IMPEACHMENT VERY BECAUSE THEY DON’T HAVE EVIDENCE FOR ONE THING TO IMPEACH THE PRESIDENT ON >> THE GENTLEMAN YELLED BACK WHAT PURPOSE DOES MR. McCLINTOCK SEEK RECOGNITION? >> STRIKE THE LAST WORD >> THAT GENTLEMAN IS REGULATED >> THE CONSTITUTION INTRODUCES THE PRESIDENT WITH 15 WORDS, THE EXECUTIVE POWER SHALL BE VESTED IN THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. IT DOES NOT VEST ANY AUTHORITY IN LIEUTENANT COLONEL’S OF THE NSC, AMBASSADORS, STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIALS OR CABINET SECRETARIES, THE ONLY AUTHORITIES THAT THESE OFFICIALS EXERCISE, IS DELEGATED TO THEM BY THE PRESIDENT. SO, ALL OF THE CRITICISMS AND RESENTMENTS AND PERSONAL AND POLITICAL DISAGREEMENTS THAT WE HAVE HEARD FROM THOSE OFFICIALS ARE COMPLETELY IRRELEVANT. IT IS DANGEROUS THAT SO MANY OFFICIALS BELIEVE THAT THEY HAVE INDEPENDENT AUTHORITY TO OVERRIDE PRESIDENTIAL POLICY LEAK CLASSIFIED DOCUMENTS AND ACTIVELY WORK TO UNDERMINE A LAWFUL DISCHARGE OF THE PRESIDENT’S DUTIES UNDER ARTICLE 2 IF THEIR JUDGMENT CAN REPLACE THAT OF THE PRESIDENT, IT MEANS THAT THE PEOPLE OF THE UNITED STATES HAVE SIMPLY BEEN REMOVED FROM THE EQUATION. SOMEONE SAID DURING THE DISCUSSION TODAY THAT THE PRESIDENT HAS ACTUALLY COMMITTED REAL CRIMES. THE ARTICLE DOES NOT CHARGE SUCH CRIMES. WHY NOT? BECAUSE THERE’S NO EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT THEM. IF THERE WAS EVIDENCE, YOU KNOW THAT IN A HEARTBEAT THEY WOULD HAVE INCLUDED THESE CHARGES, SO IT’S OBVIOUSLY THEY DON’T EVEN BELIEVE THEIR OWN RHETORIC. ONE MEMBER SAID, WE ARE NOT RESTRICTED AS THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE IS, THINK ABOUT WHAT THAT STATEMENT MEANS THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE IS RESTRICTED BY THE BILL OF RIGHTS. THE BILL OF RIGHTS SETS FORTH BASIC PRINCIPLES OF DUE PROCESS, THE RIGHT TO CONFRONT YOUR ACCUSER, THE RIGHT TO CALL WITNESSES IN YOUR DEFENSE, CHARGES HAVE TO BE SUPPORTED BY EVIDENCE, NOT GOSSIP. AND YOU HAVE THE RIGHT TO APPEAL TO THE COURTS TO PROTECT THESE RIGHTS, YES, THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE IS RESTRICTED BY THE BILL OF RIGHTS BUT OUR BILL OF RIGHTS WITH ITS DUE PROCESS RESTRICTIONS, RESTRICTS ALL OF US WHO TAKE THE OATH OF OFFICE. THAT INCLUDES CONGRESS. WE ARE RESTRICTED TO RESPECT THESE RIGHTS ALSO. ONLY THE MAJORITY IS NOW PLACING THEMSELVES ABOVE THE SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND. THE LAWFUL EXERCISE OF EXECUTIVE POWER IS SIMPLY NOT UNIMPEACHABLE OFFENSE. THE PRESIDENT IS RESPONSIBLE FOR FAITHFULLY EXECUTING THE LAWS, THE FOREIGN CORRUPT PRACTICES ACT MAKES IT A CRIME TO OFFER SOMETHING OF VALUE TO SECURE BUSINESS IN A FOREIGN

COUNTRY. THE FACTS OF MR BIDEN’S ACTIONS IN THE UKRAINE CERTAINLY LOOK LIKE THEY CROSS THAT LINE DOES THE PRESIDENT HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO REQUEST COOPERATION OF A FOREIGN GOVERNMENT TO INVESTIGATE POTENTIALLY CORRUPT INTERACTIONS BETWEEN U.S OFFICIALS AND THEIR OWN OFFICIALS? OF COURSE HE DOES DEMOCRATS INTO THE MOST SINISTER MOTIVES TO THIS REQUEST. NOTHING IN THE CONVERSATION SUGGEST THAT. DO US A FAVOR BECAUSE OUR COUNTRY HAS BEEN THROUGH A LOT AND UKRAINE KNOWS A LOT ABOUT IT. THAT’S THE EXACT QUOTE. THE NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT SPECIFICALLY REQUIRES THE ADMINISTRATION TO DETERMINE THAT UKRAINE IS TAKING STEPS TO COMBAT CORRUPTION BEFORE IT CAN BE RELEASED. THE DEMOCRATS HAVE MADE MUCH OF THE FACT THAT THE SECRETARY OF DEFENSE CERTIFIED THIS INMATE IN MAY. NUMBER 1 THE SECRETARY OF DEFENSE EXERCISES NO AUTHORITY INDEPENDENT OF THE PRESIDENT, THE BUCK STILL STOPS AT THE PRESIDENT DESK AND THE PRESIDENT RETAINS RESPONSIBILITY DETERMINED THAT THE FINDINGS OF HIS ADMINISTRATION REMAIN VALID PARTICULARLY AS HE ASSESSES THE ATTENTION OF THE NEWLY ELECTED PRESIDENT AND PARLIAMENT AND LEST WE FORGET, LAST YEAR, THREE DEMOCRATIC SENATORS WROTE TO THE UKRAINIAN GOVERNMENT, DEMANDING THAT IT COOPERATE IN INVESTIGATING PRESIDENT FROM THE DEMOCRATS FOUND ABSOLUTELY NOTHING OBJECTIONABLE ABOUT THIS. THE ONLY DIFFERENCE I SEE IS THAT THE PRESIDENT ACTUALLY HAS THE AUTHORITY AND THE RESPONSIBILITY TO MAKE SUCH A REQUEST. SO WHAT’S AT STAKE HERE? THE WORST POSSIBLE INTERPRETATIONS OF THE PRESIDENT’S MOTIVES AND DISCHARGING HIS CONSTITUTIONAL POWERS ARE BEING IMPUTED TO HIM BY HIS MOST VITRIOLIC OPPONENTS NOW THERE’S NOTHING EXTRAORDINARY ABOUT THAT, IT’S CALLED, POLITICS. BUT IF THIS CAN BECOME THE NEW STANDARD OF IMPEACHMENT, THAT CONGRESS CAN IMPEACH ANY PRESIDENT WHOSE MOTIVES HIS OPPONENTS QUESTION, IF THIS IS ALLOWED TO REPLACE TREES AND BRIBERY ANOTHER HIGH CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS AS THE STANDARD FOR NULLIFYING A NATIONAL ELECTION AND SUBSTITUTING THE JUDGMENT OF CONGRESS INSTEAD OF THE JUDGMENT OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE, WELL THEN NO PRESIDENT CAN MAKE ANY DECISION WITHOUT SUBJECTING THE NATION TO THE TRAVESTY GOING ON TODAY THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH WILL BE SUBORDINATED TO THE LEGISLATIVE, SERVING UP THE PLEASURE OF CONGRESS, AND THE SEPARATION OF POWER IS AT THE HEART OF OUR, WILL HAVE BEEN DESTROYED >> THE GENTLE GUILT BACK >> MOVED TO STRIKE >> AS WE WENT THROUGH THIS AMENDMENT WHICH I THINK IS PROBABLY ON OF THE MOST TELLING AMENDMENTS, THIS IS THE MOST AMORPHOUS AMENDMENT THAT YOU CAN HAVE. EVEN WHEN I WAS WAITING FOR THE ANNOUNCEMENT FROM THE CHAIRMAN AND OTHERS AT THE PODIUM I WAS ACTUALLY THERE AND WAS BEING INTERVIEWED AND WHEN I HEARD OF THIS ONE, BEEN CONFIRMED ABUSE OF POWER WAS ONE OF THEIR ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT, IT WAS SIMPLY STUNNING AND MY FIRST REACTION HAS RUNG TRUE COMPLETELY HERE TODAY, BY MANY OF THE MEMBERS ON THE MAJORITY INCLUDING THE GENTLEMAN FROM TENNESSEE WHO RECENTLY CONFIRMED. ABUSE OF POWER FOR ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT CAN MEAN ANYTHING THEY WANTED TO MEAN. IT’S THE CARTE BLANCHE COVERAGE, IT’S SAYING WE DON’T HAVE A CASE BUT GO OUT AND MAKE IT UP. JUST GO OUT AND SAY WHAT YOU DON’T LIKE. IF HE DIDN’T SAY SOMETHING NICE TO THIS, DO THIS AND THAT WILL COVER YOU, YOU WILL BE OKAY BECAUSE REMEMBER, THIS IS ALWAYS ABOUT AN ELECTION. YOU KNOW HOW WE CONTINUE TO KNOW THIS? WE KEEP MISQUOTING THE TRANSCRIPT. THEY DON’T HAVE THE FAX SO WE KEEP MISQUOTING THE TRANSCRIPTS AIN’T DO ME A FAVOR. IT’S SIMPLE, IF YOU’VE GOT A CASE MAKE IT BUT DON’T MAKE IT UP BECAUSE YOU DON’T HAVE IT. WHAT WE HAVE HERE ALSO IS THIS CONTINUAL JUST REPEATED ATTACKS ON THE UKRAINIAN PRESIDENT , ZELENSKY. THE REPEATED ATTACKS. BECAUSE WE ARE EITHER CLAIMING HE IS A LIAR OR A PUPPET OR HE IS A POLITICIAN, AN ACTOR SO DISREGARD HIM. WOW. THAT’S A LOT OF CONCERN FOR THE UKRAINIAN PEOPLE, TAKING ON THEIR PRESIDENT THAT THEY JUST ELECTED. WHEN WE UNDERSTAND AND WE LOOK AT THIS, THIS IS HOW IT GETS TO THE PROBLEM. WHEN YOU GET TO A CERTAIN POINT AND YOU CAN’T MAKE YOUR CASE, WHEN YOU CAN’T ACTUALLY ADDED UP, WHEN YOU HAVE LAW SCHOOL PROFESSORS TELL YOU IF YOU THINK THIS AND THIS THEN THE INFERENCE IS OKAY, THEN WE HAVE LOWERED THE STANDARD WHERE ANYTHING CAN BE BROUGHT IN. THE FACTUAL CASE THAT HAS BEEN MADE OVER THE PAST, ALMOST 3 HOURS NOW BY THE MINORITY SIDE IS LAID BARE THE CASE OF ABUSE OF POWER, THERE IS NONE. YOU CAN MAKE IT UP, YOU CAN CALL IT WHATEVER YOU WANT AND YOU CAN TRY AND SELL THAT TO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE THAT THEY ARE NOT BUYING IT. THEY ARE

NOT. AND IT’S GOING TO GET HARDER AND HARDER FOR MEMBERS TO ACTUALLY GO AND SAY, NEXT WEEK , WHERE THEY STICK THEIR CARD IN AND VOTE YES ON THE ABUSE OF POWER THAN ACTUALLY HAVE TO GO BACK AND EXPLAIN THAT. IT’S EASY IN THIS ROOM YOU’VE GOT HELP FROM YOUR COLLEAGUES BUT WHEN YOU ARE BACK HOME TRYING TO EXPLAIN WHY YOU’RE GOING TO TAKE DOWN A PRESIDENT, DULY ELECTED OVER ABUSE OF POWER BECAUSE SOME OF THE ARGUMENTS WE HEARD THIS MORNING? THAT’S AMAZING. THERE IS TRUE SKEPTICISM ABOUT WHAT WENT ON IN THE UKRAINE AND IS DEEPLY ROOTED WITH THIS PRESIDENT AND BY THE WAY THERE WAS ANOTHER TIME, UKRAINE EIGHT WAS HELD, IT’S NOT THE FIRST TIME I’VE SAID THIS BEFORE, MOST PEOPLE WERE AMAZED THAT HE ACTUALLY DOES WHAT HE SAYS HE’S GOING TO DO, HE ACTUALLY DOES THOSE KIND OF THINGS. THAT’S WHAT TRUE LEADERSHIP DOES OTHER COUNTRIES AID WAS ALSO HELD, LEBANON WAS ACTUALLY HELD OTHERS WERE ACTUALLY HELD, THIS IS NOT A NEW THING. DO NOT LET THE MAJORITY CONVINCE, TRY TO CONVINCE THE AMERICAN PEOPLE THAT WITHHOLDING AID OR NOT LOOKING INTO CORRUPTION IS A NEW THING, DON’T LET THEM DO IT WHEN YOU ARE HAVING TO PLAY A PART YOU HAVE TO DO THAT, YOU HAVE TO MAKE IT UP, IT’S ALL INLAND, THAT’S WHAT THEY’RE DOING. MR. HALE TESTIFIED ONE OF THE MORE EGREGIOUS ONES, I HAVE A FRIEND OF MINE WHO TEXTED ME A FEW MINUTES AGO, AGAIN IT NEEDS TO BE HIT ONE OF THE THINGS PERPETRATED THIS MORNING OUT TO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE WAS, PEOPLE LOST THEIR LIVES IN THE UKRAINE OVER THIS AID. THIS FRIEND OF MINE, WHO TEXTED ME A FEW MINUTES AGO, LOST LIMBS ON HIS OWN BODY IN DEFENSE OF OUR COUNTRY. IN A WAR ZONE. HE SAYS, DON’T LET THEM GET AWAY WITH THIS BECAUSE THIS IS A FUTURE ACT, MR. HALE TESTIFIED TO THIS FACT, IN FACT HE REPEATED IT IN HIS DEPOSITION, GO TO THE TRANSCRIPT HE SAID THIS WAS FUTURE AID AND HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH RUNNING THE ARMY RIGHT THEN RUSSIA HAS INVADED UKRAINE, THEY ARE FIGHTING, IT IS A HOT WAR BUT TO BLAME THIS CONVERSATION BECAUSE YOU HAVE SUCH A WEAK CASE? YOU’RE GOING TO TRY AND THROW THAT INTO SCARE THE AMERICAN PEOPLE, THAT’S NOT RIGHT. MAKE A CASE, HAVE YOUR FAX, PUT IT IN THE ARTICLE BUT WHEN YOU CAN’T DO THAT, YOU GO IN THE BACK ROOM AND YOU START WRITING ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT AND YOU SAY , OH, WE’VE GOT A PROBLEM. LET’S PUT SOMETHING IN THERE THAT ALL OF OUR CONFERENCE CAN GET BEHIND BECAUSE THEY DON’T LIKE THE PRESIDENT. I YIELD BACK >> TO MY COLLEAGUES ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE AISLE, I WILL REMIND YOU OF THE FACTS THAT HAVE BEEN RECOVERED AND REVIEW THEM AND PUT THEM ON THE RECORD AGAIN FOR THE AMERICAN PUBLIC. BECAUSE FACTS DO MATTER. NOTICE THE CONTRACT BETWEEN THE CONVERSATION ON THIS SIDE OF THE AISLE, AND THAT. THEY RUN AWAY FROM THE FACTS, THEY ARE AFRAID TO ADMIT TO THEMSELVES OR TO THE AMERICAN PUBLIC OF WHAT THE PRESIDENT’S BEHAVIOR REALLY ADDS UP TO. LET ME JUST RECITE THE FACTS, WHEN UKRAINIAN PRESIDENT ZELENSKY RAISED THE ISSUE OF U.S. MILITARY ASSISTANCE TO UKRAINE DURING THE JULY 25 CALL, PRESIDENT TRUMP REPLIED, QUOTE, I WOULD LIKE YOU TO DO US A FAVOR THOUGH, BECAUSE OUR COUNTRY HAS BEEN THROUGH A LOT AND UKRAINE KNOWS A LOT ABOUT THAT. CONGRESS APPROPRIATED AND AUTHORIZED $391 MILLION IN SECURITY ASSISTANCE TO UKRAINE. ON MAY 23 THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE CERTIFY TO CONGRESS THAT UKRAINE HAD COMPLETED THE REQUISITE ANTICORRUPTION REFORM ACTIONS TO QUALIFY FOR THE SECURITY ASSISTANCE APPROPRIATED BY CONGRESS. THE PRESIDENT HIMSELF DIRECTED THE AID TO BE PUT ON HOLD. IN JULY UKRAINIAN OFFICIALS ASKED PENTAGON STAFF ABOUT THE HOLD ON MILITARY ASSISTANCE. NO LEGITIMATE PUBLIC POLICY OR NATIONAL SECURITY RATIONALE, EXISTS AND THE PRESIDENT HAS NOT BROUGHT ONE FORWARD, PRESIDENT TRUMP’S DECISION TO WITHHOLD THE SECURITY ASSISTANCE FROM UKRAINE. PROVIDING AID TO UKRAINE IS IN THE NATIONAL SECURITY INTEREST OF THE UNITED STATES. WITHHOLDING IT IS IN THE PERSONAL POLITICAL INTEREST OF THE PRESIDENT AND OF PUTIN PRESIDENT TRUMP FAILED TO SAY THE WORD CORRUPTION DURING HIS APRIL 21 CALL WITH PRESIDENT ZELENSKY, PRESIDENT TRUMP FAILED TO SAY THE WORD CORRUPTION DURING HIS JULY 25 CALL TO PRESIDENT ZELENSKY. THE EIGHT TO UKRAINE WAS RELEASED ONLY AFTER HOUSE COMMITTEES AND ANNOUNCED AN INVESTIGATION INTO THE ADMINISTRATION’S DECISION TO HOLD THE AID. THE PRESIDENT INSTRUCTED ALL WITNESSES FROM THE ADMINISTRATION NOT TO TESTIFY AND WITHHELD ALL

RELEVANT DOCUMENTS FROM HOUSE INVESTIGATORS. ON OCTOBER 3, WHEN ASKED BY A REPORTER, WHAT HE HOPED PRESIDENT ZELENSKY WOULD TO FOLLOWING THE JULY 25 CALL, PRESIDENT TRUMP TOLD THE AMERICAN PEOPLE IN THE WORLD, WELL, I WOULD THINK THAT IF THEY WERE HONEST ABOUT IT, THEY WOULD START A MAJOR INVESTIGATION INTO THE BIDENS. IT’S A VERY SIMPLE ANSWER. ON OCTOBER 17 AT A PRESS BRIEFING IN THE WHITE HOUSE, ACTING CHIEF OF STAFF NICK MULVANEY SAID PRESIDENT TRUMP ABSOLUTELY MENTIONED CORRUPTION RELATED TO THE DNC SERVER DURING HIS JULY 25 CALL AND THAT SERVER WAS PART OF WHY WE HELD THE MONEY UP UPON TAKING A QUESTION FROM A REPORTER, ATTEMPTING TO CLARIFY THE ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF A QUID PRO QUO, MULVANEY REPLIED, WE DO THAT ALL THE TIME WITH FOREIGN-POLICY, GET OVER IT. LET ME REMIND YOU OF A STATEMENT THAT DR. FIONA HILL MADE IN HER OPENING STATEMENT IN HER EXTRAORDINARY POWERFUL OPENING STATEMENT AN INCREDIBLE TESTIMONY BEFORE THIS CONGRESS SHE SAID AND I QUOTE, IF THE PRESIDENT OR ANYONE ELSE IN P OR SUBVERTS THE NATIONAL SECURITY OF THE UNITED STATES, IN ORDER TO FURTHER A DOMESTIC POLITICAL OR PERSONAL INTEREST, THAT IS MORE THAN WORTHY OF YOUR ATTENTION. I ASKED MY COLLEAGUES RESPECTFULLY, ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THIS DAIS, IS THIS NOT WORTHY OF OUR ATTENTION TO UPHOLD THE CONSTITUTION AND ASK THE PRESIDENT TO DO THE SAME? OR DO THEY THINK IT IS PROPER, DO THEY THINK IT’S OKAY, FOR ANY PRESIDENT, NOT JUST THIS ONE BUT FOR ANY PRESIDENT TO INVITE FOREIGN INTERFERENCE INTO OUR ELECTIONS? WITH THAT MR. CHAIRMAN, I YIELD TO THE GENTLEMAN FROM RHODE ISLAND >> I THINK THE GENTLE LADY FROM YIELDING. THERE WAS A LETTER SIGNED BY MORE THAN FIVE LEGAL SCHOLARS ACROSS THE SPECTRUM, I WOULD LIKE TO READ FROM VERY BRIEFLY. THEY SAY THE PRESIDENT CONGRESS CONDUCT IS THE THREAT TO OUR DEMOCRACY THAT THE FOUNDERS FEARED WHEN THEY INCLUDE THE REMEDY OF IMPEACHMENT IN THE CONSTITUTION WE TAKE NO POSITION ON WHETHER THE PRESIDENT COMMITTED CRIME BUT CONDUCT CANNOT BE CRIMINAL TO BE PEACEABLE. THE STANDARD IS CONSTITUTIONAL. THEY GO ON TO SAY IMPEACHMENT IS ESSENTIAL REMEDY FOR CONDUCT THAT CORRUPTS ELECTIONS. I KNOW MY TIME IS ABOUT TO EXPIRE. I WOULD LIKE TO READ ADDITIONAL PARTS OF THAT. I YIELD BACK >> THE GENTLE LADY YIELD BACK I RECOGNIZE MYSELF >> THANK YOU MR. CHAIRMAN, I WOULD LIKE TO CONTINUE TO READ BECAUSE THIS AGAIN, IS A LETTER SIGNED BY MORE THAN 500 CONSTITUTIONAL SCHOLARS. AND I THINK SOME OF THE CONCLUSION MY COLLEAGUES HAVE BEEN STRUGGLING WITH, IS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN IMPEACHABLE OFFENSES AND VIOLATIONS OF THE CRIMINAL STATUTE, SO I HOPE THIS WILL HELP CLARIFY THAT. THEY WRITE, IMPEACHMENT IS A REMEDY FOR GRAVE ABUSES OF THE PUBLIC TRUST. IMPEACHMENT IS AN ESPECIALLY ESSENTIAL REMEDY FOR CONDUCT THAT CORRUPTS ELECTIONS THE PRIMARY CHECK ON A PRESIDENT IS POLITICAL, IF A PRESIDENT BELIEVES POORLY VOTERS CAN PUMP PUNISH HIM OR HER AT THE POLLS, IF A PRESIDENT WHO CORRUPTS THE SYSTEM OF ELECTIONS TO PLACE HIMSELF BEYOND THE REACH OF THIS POLITICAL CHECK. THE CONSTITUTION ENGINES, GEORGE MASON DESCRIBED IMPEACHMENT, AS ATTEMPTS TO OBSERVE THE CONSTITUTION SIMPLY, IF A PRESIDENT XI’S AT HIS EFFORTS AT REELECTION, TRUSTING THE DEMOCRATIC PROCESS TO SERVE AS A CHECK THROUGH THAT ELECTION IS NO REMEDY AT ALL THIS IS WHAT IMPEACHMENT IS FOR THEY GO ON TO SAY IN THIS LETTER, WHETHER HIS CONDUCT IS CLASSIFIED AS BRIBERY OR HIGH CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS IT IS CLEARLY IMPEACHABLE UNDER OUR CONSTITUTION. IN ASKING UNANIMOUS CONSENT THAT THIS LETTER HAS MORE THAN 500 LEGAL SCHOLARS, I HOPE MY COLLEAGUES ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE AISLE WILL UNDERSTAND THAT THE BASIS OF THIS ARTICLE OF IMPEACHMENT THAT THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, VIOLATED THE PUBLIC TRUST, UNDERMINES THE NATIONAL SECURITY OF THE UNITED STATES, BETRAYED OUR NATIONAL INTEREST, BY USING THE ENORMOUS POWER OF HIS OFFICE. NOT TO ADVANCE THE PUBLIC GOOD, NOT TO ADVANCE THE POLICIES OF THE UNITED STATES IN THE INTEREST OF THE UNITED STATES, TO ADVANCE HIS OWN PERSONAL POLITICAL BENEFIT. THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT THE FRAMERS SPOKE ABOUT, THAT’S NOT MY CONCLUSION ALONE, IT WAS THE CONCLUSION OF THE SCHOLARS WE HEARD FROM IN OUR HEARINGS, AND OR THAN 500 LEGAL SCHOLARS THAT HAVE JOINED US. I HOPE IT’LL PUT TO REST THIS NOTION THAT YOU HAVE TO VIOLATE A CRIMINAL STATUTE. A PRESIDENT COULD

DEFACE A POST OFFICE, A MAILBOX, THAT’S A FEDERAL CRIME. NO ONE WOULD SUGGEST THE PRESIDENT COULD BE IMPEACHED FOR THAT. THE FRAMERS ARE TALKING ABOUT THE ABUSES OF THE PUBLIC TRUST, A VIOLATION OF THE MOST SACRED OATH, TO HONOR THE INTEREST OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE NOT TO ADVANCE YOUR OWN PERSONAL INTERESTS. THESE SCHOLARS IT MUCH BETTER THAN I CAN I ASK UNANIMOUS CONSENT TO BE MADE A PART OF THE RECORD >> I WOULD SIMPLY POINT OUT A FEW THINGS, NUMBER 1 THAT THE IMPEACHMENT OF PRESIDENT NIXON ALTHOUGH HE HAD COMMITTED ANY CRIMES, ABUSE OF POWER, OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE, IT DID NOT SPECIFY A SPECIFIC CRIME. I WILL ALSO POINT OUT THAT THE MAJORITY STAFF REPORT OF THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE IN 1974, NOT JUST NOW, AND I BELIEVE IN 1998 CERTAINLY 1974, POINTED OUT THAT CRIMES AND IMPEACHABLE OFFENSES ARE DIFFERENT THINGS. THERE CRIMES WHICH MAY NOT BE IMPEACHABLE THERE ARE IMPEACHABLE OFFENSES WHICH MAY NOT BE CRIMES. AND IMPEACHABLE OFFENSE, HIGH CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS, THAT’S A GRAVE AND SERIOUS OFFENSE AGAINST THE CONSTITUTION I WOULD REFER YOU TO THE FEDERALIST PAGES. I WOULD ALSO SAY ONE OTHER THING. WE HAVE REPEATEDLY HEARD THAT THE DEMOCRATS ARE ACCUSING PRESIDENT ZELENSKY AND MR. YERMAK OF LYING BECAUSE PRESIDENT ZELENSKY SAID HE WASN’T PRESSURED. OF COURSE HE SAID HE WASN’T PRESSURED THE UNITED STATES IS A POWERFUL NATION ON WHICH HIS NATION IS DEPENDENT. HE HAS A GUN TO HIS HEAD. THE FACT THAT THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES UPON WHOM HE DEPENDS FOR FOR HELP IN MANY DIFFERENT WAYS, HAS SHOWN HIMSELF WILLING TO WITHHOLD THAT AID AND TO DO OTHER THINGS, BASED ON WHAT HE SAYS. BASED ON WHETHER HE IS WILLING TO PLAY ALONG WITH THE PRESIDENT FOR HIS PERSONAL AND POLITICAL GOALS. OF COURSE HE DENIES HE WAS PRESSURED BECAUSE THAT IF HE KNOWS THAT IF HE DIDN’T TONIGHT, THERE MIGHT BE HEAVY CONSEQUENCES TO PAY AND YOU CANNOT CREDIT THAT DENIAL , WITHOUT ANY ASPERSIONS ON HIS CHARACTER, SIMPLY ON THE FACT THAT THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES PULLED A GUN TO HIS HEAD I YIELD BACK AND THE QUESTION IS ON THE AMENDMENT, THOSE IN FAVOR SAY I, THE NOSE HABIT >> ROLL CALL IS REQUESTED >>> [ ROLL CALL ] >>> ANY MEMBERS TO VOTE WHICH HAD NOT VOTED? MR. RICHMOND YOU ARE NOT RECORDED >> NO >> ANY OTHER MEMBERS WHO HAVEN’T VOTED WHO WISH TO VOTE? THE CLERK WILL REPORT MR. SHERMAN THERE ARE 17 EYES AND 23 NOSE >> ANY FURTHER AMENDMENTS? >> THE GENTLEMAN BEST MEGA

THE GENTLE LADY RESERVES THE POINT OF ORDER >> AMENDMENT TO THE AMENDMENT OFFERED BY MR. GATES OF FLORIDA, PAGE 3 STRIKE LINES 10 THROUGH 11 AND INSERT THE FOLLOWING >> THE GENTLEMAN IS RECOGNIZED TO EXPLAIN HIS AMENDMENT >> DISTRACTS THE REFERENCE TO JOE BIDEN AS THE CENTER OF THE PROPOSED INVESTIGATION AND REPLACES IT WITH THE TRUE TOPIC OF THE INVESTIGATION, BURISMA AND HUNTER BIDEN. AN ESSENTIAL ELEMENT OF THE DEMOCRATS CASE ON ABUSE OF POWER IS THAT THE BIDENS DID NOTHING WRONG, IT CAN ONLY BE AN ABUSE OF POWER AND NOT A CORRECT USE OF POWER IF THE PRESIDENT WAS PURSUING SOMETHING UNDER WHICH THERE WAS NO REASONABLE BASIS TO ASK A QUESTION ABOUT HUNTER BIDEN AND CHARISMA. HUNTER BIDEN AND CHARISMA, WHAT AN INTERESTING STORY, AND I THINK JUST ABOUT EVERY AMERICAN KNOWS, THERE’S SOMETHING UP WITH THAT, $86,000 A MONTH? NO EXPERIENCE? WORKING FOR SOME FOREIGN GOVERNMENT WHILE YOUR DAD IS A VICE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES? IS THERE ANYONE WHO BELIEVES THIS IS OKAY? I KNOW WE HAVE A FEW OF MY COLLEAGUES MAYBE WHO ARE RUNNING FOR PRESIDENT OR MIGHT RUN FOR PRESIDENT, WOULD YOU LET YOUR VICE PRESIDENT HAVE THEIR SON OR DAUGHTER OR FAMILY MEMBER OUT LIGHTING FOR SOME FOREIGN COMPANY? MAYBE I’LL USE LANGUAGE FAMILIAR TO THE FORMER VICE PRESIDENT. ON, MAN. THIS LOOKS DIRTY AS IT IS. HUNTER BIDEN WAS MAKING MORE THAN FIVE TIMES MORE THAN A BOARD MEMBER FOR EXXON MOBIL. I’VE HEARD OF THAT COMPANY. I WANTED TO READ UP ON HUNTER BIDEN AND LEARN MORE ABOUT HIM I FOUND THIS VERY EXTENSIVE PROFILE IN THE NEW YORKER AND HERE’S WHAT IT SAYS, HUNTER SAID AT THAT POINT, HE HAD NOT SLEPT FOR SEVERAL DAYS DRIVING EAST ON INTERSTATE 10, JUST BEYOND PALM SPRINGS HE LOST CONTROL OF HIS CAR WHICH JUMPED THE MEDIAN AND SKIDDED TO A STOP ON THE SHOULDER OF THE WESTBOUND SIDE. HE CALLED HERTZ, WHICH CAME TO COLLECT THE DAMAGED CAR AND GAVE HIM A SECOND RENTAL THE HERTZ RENTAL OFFICER TOLD ME HE FOUND A CRACK PIPE IN THE CAR ONE OF THE CONSULS A LINE OF WHITE POWDER RESIDUE. THE ATTORNEY, HERTZ CALLED THE PRESCOTT POLICE DEPARTMENT AT OFFICERS FILED A NARCOTICS OFFENSE REPORT, LISTING ITEMS SEIZED IN THE CAR INCLUDING THE PLASTIC BAG CONTAINING A WHITE POWDER SUBSTANCE, SECRET SERVICE BUSINESS CARD, CREDIT CARDS AND HUNTER BIDEN’S DRIVERS LICENSE THAT IS WHAT WE WOULD CALL EVIDENCE, AND I DON’T WANT TO MAKE LIGHT OF ANYBODY’S SUBSTANCE ABUSE ISSUES, I KNOW THE PRESIDENT IS WORKING HARD TO SOLVE THOSE THROUGHOUT THE COUNTRY BUT IT’S HARD TO BELIEVE THAT BURISMA HIRED HUNTER BIDEN TO RESOLVE THEIR INTERNATIONAL DISPUTES WHEN HE COULD NOT RESOLVE HIS OWN DISPUTE WITH HERTZ RENTAL CAR OVER LEAVING COCAINE AND A CRACK PIPE IN THE CAR. IT CONTINUES HUNTER STAYED IN LOS ANGELES FOR ABOUT A WEEK, HE SAID HE NEEDED TO GET AWAY AND FORGET SOON AFTER HIS ARRIVAL IN L.A. HE SAID HE ASKED A HOMELESS MAN WHERE HE COULD BUY CRACK. HUNTER SAID THE MAN TOOK HIM TO A NEARBY HOMELESS AND CAP WERE A NARROW PASSAGEWAY BETWEEN THE TENSE, SOMEONE PUT A GUN TO HIS HEAD BEFORE REALIZING THAT HE WAS THE BUYER, HE RETURNED TO BUY MORE CRACK A FEW TIMES THAT WEEK. AGAIN, NOT CASTING ANY JUDGMENT ON ANY CHALLENGES SOMEONE GOES THROUGH IN THEIR PERSONAL LIFE BUT IT’S HARD TO BELIEVE THAT THIS WAS THE GUY WANDERING THROUGH HOMELESS AND CAN’T ENCOMPASS BUYING CRACK THAT WAS GETTING $86,000 A MONTH TO BURISMA HOLDING. THAT MIGHT BE ONE OF THE WAYS WHEN ABC ASKED, DO YOU THINK YOU WOULD’VE GOTTEN THIS JOB IN THE ABSENCE OF YOUR DAD BEING THE VICE PRESIDENT? WELL, HE SAID, PROBABLY NOT. AND THEN I LOOKED TO THE RECORD EVIDENCE. AND I LOOKED AT THE TESTIMONY OF MR KENT, MR. KENT WAS ONE OF THE WITNESSES THEY CALLED ON THE FIRST DAY. HE SAID THE REASON WAS SO DIRTY THAT OUR OWN EMBASSY HAD TO PULL OUT OF THE JOINT SPONSORSHIP WITH THEM WHEN AMBASSADOR YOVANOVITCH WAS BEING PREPPED FOR SENATE CONFIRMATION, THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION WAS SO WORRIED ABOUT THE CORRUPTION AROUND BURISMA AND HUNTER BIDEN, THAT THEY HELD SPECIAL PREP MOMENTS TO TRY AND GET READY FOR THE INEVITABLE QUESTIONS ABOUT THIS OBVIOUS CORRUPTION THAT THE PRESIDENT ASKED ABOUT. MR. KENT AGAIN ONE OF THEIR WITNESSES FROM THE FIRST DAY, ALSO GAVE TESTIMONY, THAT THE REASON A, THAT THE HEAD OF BURISMA HAVE STOLEN $23 MILLION IN THE USA THE U.K. AND HE PAID A BRIBE TO GET OFF THE HOOK. SO IT’S NOT AS IF HER EASEMENT IS PULLING OUT NEW PLAYS, THEIR PLAYBOOK IS TO DO DIRTY STUFF AND THEN GO AND PAY TRIBES AND HIRE THE PEOPLE NECESSARY TO MAKE THOSE PROBLEMS GO AWAY THIS IS WHY THE MINORITY HEARING ISSUE IS SO IMPORTANT BY THE

WAY. YOU WONDER WHY REPUBLICANS ARE SO ANGRY THAT WE DIDN’T HAVE A HEARING TO PUT ON OUR OWN WITNESSES AND EVIDENCE AND YOU MAY WONDER WHY IF THEY FEEL SO GOOD ABOUT THE CASE WHY DID THEY BLOCK OUR ABILITY TO PUT IN EVIDENCE, IT’S BECAUSE WE HAVE THE ABILITY TO SHOW THAT BURISMA IS CORRUPT. WE HAVE THE ABILITY TO SHOW THAT HUNTER BIDEN IS CORRUPT. AND THAT TOTALLY ESCALATES THE PRESIDENT. BECAUSE THERE’S NO WAY OF UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, THAT HONESTLY PURSUING ACTUAL CORRUPTION IS IN IMPEACHABLE OFFENSE, THAT’S WHY I OFFER THE AMENDMENT AND I ENCOURAGE MY COLLEAGUES TO VOTE FOR IT >> MR. CHAIRMAN, I WITHDRAW MY POINT OF ORDER >> MR. CHAIRMAN? >> THE GENTLEMAN YIELDS BACK >> I YIELD TO STRIKE THE LAST WORD >> MR. CHAIRMAN I RISE IN OPPOSITION TO THIS AMENDMENT AND I WOULD SAY THAT THE POT CALLING THE KETTLE BLACK IS NOT SOMETHING THAT WE SHOULD DO. I DON’T KNOW WHAT MEMBERS IF ANY HAVE HAD ANY PROBLEMS WITH SUBSTANCE ABUSE INVESTED IN DUI, I DON’T KNOW, BUT IF I DID, I WOULDN’T RAISE IT AGAINST ANYONE ON THIS COMMITTEE. I DON’T THINK IT’S PROPER AND YOU KNOW, I THINK, WE’VE GOT TO GET BACK DOWN TO WHAT IS MOST IMPORTANT HERE THIS IS A QUESTION THAT STANDS OUT LIKE A BIG THROBBING SORT SO INSIDE OF A SHOE THAT’S TOO SMALL. AND THAT IS THIS QUESTION, IS IT EVER OKAY FOR A PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, TO INVITE FOREIGN INTERFERENCE IN AN UPCOMING PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION CAMPAIGN? >> IS THE GENTLEMAN YIELDING? >> THE GENTLEMAN HAS THE TIME >> THE SILENCE WAS AND IS DEAFENING, AND THERE WILL BE PLENTY OF TIME FOR YOU TO RESPOND TO THAT QUESTION AND I WOULD INVITE YOU TO DO SO. I GAVE YOU AN OPPORTUNITY OF ABOUT 10 OR 15 SECONDS WHILE YOU CAN GET YOUR STORY TOGETHER AND NOBODY CAME UP WITH A STORY SO I’M GOING TO LET YOU MOVE TO STRIKE THE LAST WORD AND EXPLAIN THAT TO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE IT’S NEVER PROPER FOR A UNITED STATES PRESIDENT TO HOLD A FOREIGN COUNTRY OVER A BARREL TO MAKE THEM DO THAT PRESIDENT’S PERSONAL BIDDING AND HOLDING NEEDED SECURITY SIX, ASSISTANCE, DANGLING IT, I’LL GIVE IT TO YOU IF YOU DO THIS. I MEAN, THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT HAPPENED. IT’S LIKE THE AMERICAN PEOPLE UNDERSTAND WHAT HAPPENED THOSE ARE THE FACTS, THE PRESIDENT SAID IT, WHEN HE RELEASED THE TRANSCRIPT OF THE SUMMARY OF THAT PHONE CALL ON JULY 25, THE SUMMARY OF THE PRESIDENT’S OWN WORDS, SHOWS THAT THE PRESIDENT TRIED TO GET PRESIDENT ZELENSKY TO INTERFERE IN THE UPCOMING PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION THAT IS ESTABLISHED BY THE FACTS, SO THIS IS NOT ABOUT HUNTER BIDEN AND THEY HAVE SAID THAT ON THE OTHER SIDE REPEATEDLY, UP UNTIL THEY START TALKING ABOUT HUNTER BIDEN HAVING SOME SUBSTANCE ABUSE PROBLEMS. YOU CAN’T HAVE IT BOTH WAYS MUST BE HONEST, THIS IS ABOUT OUR CONSCIENCE , THE CONSCIOUS OF THE NATION, THE CONSCIENCE OF MY FRIENDS ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE AISLE. DO YOU BELIEVE THAT WE SHOULD ALLOW THIS TO GO UNADDRESSED, WHAT THE PRESIDENT DID, BECAUSE WE ARE A COUNTRY OF PRESIDENT , WE ARE A COUNTRY OF RULE OF LAW, WE ARE A COUNTRY OF NORMS AND TRADITIONS. ARE WE GOING TO ALLOW THE VIOLATION OF OUR NORMS, OUR TRADITIONS, OUR LEGAL PRECEDENTS, BECAUSE AFTER ALL, LIBRARY WAS NOT A CRIME, THERE WAS NO CRIMINAL CODE WHEN THE FRAMERS PASS THE CONSTITUTION BUT THEY SAID BRIBERY IN THERE AND WHAT BRIBERY MEANT WAS, I’M OFFERING YOU SOMETHING IF YOU DO SOMETHING FOR ME. I’LL GIVE YOU THIS IN

OTHER WORDS, YOU GIVE ME THIS, I’LL GIVE YOU THAT. THAT’S WHAT WE HAD IN THIS CASE, THAT’S WHAT BRIBERY MEANS, IT DOESN’T DEPEND ON A STATUTE, IT DEPENDS ON WHAT WE KNOW WAS DONE. AND SO, LET’S NOT GET BOGGED DOWN IN TECHNICALITIES AND IN CHARACTER ASSASSINATION. LET’S KEEP OUR EYE ON WHAT REALLY HAPPENED IN THIS CASE AND WHETHER OR NOT OUR CONSCIENCES DICTATE THAT WE DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT, WE CAN’T LET IT GO UNADDRESSED. AND THE WAY THAT WE DEAL WITH THIS GRAVE ABUSE OF THE PUBLIC TRUST IS WITH THE DRASTIC ACTION THAT IT REQUIRES BECAUSE THIS IS A DRASTIC CIRCUMSTANCE. THE DRASTIC ACTION IS IMPEACHMENT AND THAT’S WHY WE ARE HERE TODAY. AND I ASKED MY COLLEAGUES TO LET YOUR CONSCIENCE BE YOUR GUIDE. I YIELD BACK >> THE GENTLEMAN YIELDS BACK >> MR. CHAIRMAN I MOVED TO STRIKE THE LAST WORD >> MR. CHAIRMAN, MY MIND IS WOBBLED BY THE GENTLEMAN FROM GEORGIA SAYING THAT BRIBERY WAS OKAY UNTIL 1787 WHEN THE CONSTITUTION WAS ADOPTED AND TWO YEARS LATER WHEN CONGRESS PASSED THE FIRST CRIMINAL CODE, FIRST OF ALL THERE’S A COMMON LAW DEFINITION OF BRIBERY, I THINK PEOPLE REALIZE THAT BRIBERY WAS NO GOOD BUT WE ALSO HAVE CRIMINAL CODES IN EACH OF THE 13 INDEPENDENT STATES, COLONIES BEFORE THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE >> WILL THE GENTLEMAN ANSWER MY QUESTION? >> NO, I DIDN’T INTERRUPT YOU >> THE GENTLEMAN HAS THE TIME >> OKAY. THE SECOND THING IS, IF YOU, ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE AISLE, TO LEAVE THAT JOE BIDEN IS A MAN WHO TELLS THE TRUTH, YOU OUGHT TO SUPPORT THIS AMENDMENT. BECAUSE JOE BIDEN, EVER SINCE HUNTERS INVOLVEMENT WITH BURISMA HAS REPEATEDLY ASKED WHETHER HE MADE ANY ARRANGEMENTS TO GET HUNTER THIS REALLY CUSHY JOB. AND HE SAID NO. OR MY SONS BUSINESS INVOLVEMENT OR MY SONS AND I’M NOT INVOLVED IN THAT. SO YOU PUT JOE BIDEN’S IN YOUR ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT, WHEN THE REAL MALEFACTOR IS HUNTER BIDEN HUNTER IS NOT RUNNING FOR ANYTHING. AND IF THE MALEFACTOR IS HUNTER BIDEN, I GUESS YOUR CLAIM THAT THE PRESIDENT WAS TRYING TO INFLUENCE THE 2020 ELECTION, WOULD GO OUT THE WINDOW. BUT IF YOU THINK THAT JOE BIDEN IS A MAN WHO TELLS THE TRUTH, AND I’LL GIVE HIM THE BENEFIT OF THE DOUBT BECAUSE I THINK HE DESERVES IT. THEN LET’S GET RID OF JOE BIDEN IN THE ARTICLE OF IMPEACHMENT, SUBSTITUTE HIS SONS NAME IN THERE, AND PERCEIVE. I CHALLENGE YOU, BECAUSE EVERYONE OF YOU THAT WILL VOTE NO ON THIS AMENDMENT IS GOING TO BE SAYING, I THINK THAT JOE BIDEN IS A LIAR. IF YOU DON’T THINK THAT JOE BIDEN IS A LIAR, VOTE YES. I YIELD THE BALANCE OF MY TIME TO MR. GAETZ >> THANK YOU MR. CHAIRMAN AND AGAIN, IT’S IMPORTANT TO ANALYZE THE BURDEN OF PROOF HERE. IT’S THE DEMOCRATS WHO ARE SAYING, ANY QUESTION ABOUT THE BIDEN SITUATION, BURISMA, IT COULD ONLY BE AN ABUSE OF POWER. I THINK THIS AMENDMENT REALLY REFLECTS HOW THE PRESIDENT WAS USING HIS POWER PERFECTLY ENTIRELY APPROPRIATELY. IT ALSO SHOWS HOW SCARED THEY ARE OF THE FACTS. IF WE HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO CALL IN THOSE WHO WERE ENGAGED IN, WORK WITH THE UKRAINIAN EMBASSY, IF WE ARE ABLE TO BRING FORWARD HUNTER BIDEN, IF WE ARE ABLE TO DEMONSTRATE THE BIAS OF THE WHISTLEBLOWER, THE AMERICAN PEOPLE WOULD SEE, WE ARE NOT IN THIS DEBATE AND THIS DISCUSSION, THAT THE PRESIDENT ANYTHING WRONG OR IMPEACHABLE, WE ARE HERE FUNDAMENTALLY BECAUSE THEY CANNOT ACCEPT THE FACT THAT HE WON THE 2016 ELECTION. I THINK ALL AMERICANS KNOW THE PRESIDENT HAS A DIFFERENT APPROACH BUT TO ACCEPT THEIR STANDARD WOULD MEAN THAT IF SOMEONE ANNOUNCES THAT THEY ARE RUNNING FOR OFFICE, IT’S KIND OF LIKE AN INSTANT IMMUNITY DEAL FOR ANYTHING THEY WOULD EVER DO. I MEAN, ARE THEY REALLY SAYING, THAT IF JOE BIDEN, HUNTER BIDEN, BURISMA, WERE ENGAGED IN SOME CORRUPT ACT THAT JUST BECAUSE JOE BIDEN ANNOUNCED THE PRESIDENCY, THAT WOULD SOMEHOW ABSOLVE HIM OF THE CRIMINAL ACTIVITY? IT’S A LUDICROUS POSITION. MAYBE IT’S INFORMED BY THE FACT THAT YOU ALL GOT A LITTLE LUCKY ON THE HILLARY CLINTON STUFF, SHE THOUGHT THAT BECAUSE SHE WAS IN A PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION, THAT HER CRIMES DIDN’T HAVE TO BE

HELD TO ACCOUNT IN A WAY, THAT TURNED OUT TO BE THE CASE. BUT YOU KNOW WHAT, IT SHOULDN’T BE THE STANDARD IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND I’M GLAD THAT WE HAVE A PRESIDENT WHO IS AT TIMES, SKEPTICAL OF THIS FOREIGN AID, WHO DOES PUT AMERICA FIRST THAT UNDERSTANDS THAT IN CORRUPT PLACES, THE RESOURCES WE PROVIDE DON’T ALWAYS MAKE IT TO AN AREA OF NEED BUT WE CONCLUDE WITH THIS, ONCE THE MEETINGS HAPPENED THAT DEMONSTRATED THAT PRESIDENT ZELENSKY WAS A TRUE REFORMER, THAT HE WASN’T CORRUPT, THAT HE WAS HONEST, HONEST FROM THE POINT OF HIS CAMPAIGN ALL THE WAY UP UNTIL THE POINT WHEN HE SAID THERE WAS NO PRESSURE PUT ON HIM OR HIS GOVERNMENT FOR THE STATE. YOU ACCEPT THAT PROPOSITION, IT’S VERY CLEAR THAT THE PRESIDENT WAS ENTIRELY APPROPRIATE IN THOSE QUESTIONS I’VE GOT TO SAY, NOW WE HAVE REACHED THE POINT IN TIME WHERE PRESIDENT TRUMP ISN’T THE ONLY PRESIDENT BEING ATTACKED IN THIS HEARING. THE GENTLEMAN FROM TENNESSEE WENT AFTER PRESIDENT ZELENSKY AS AN ACTOR, POLITICIAN, THEY PRESUME HE WAS A LIAR WHEN HE SAID THERE’S NOTHING WRONG >> MY NAME WAS CALLED CAN I RESPOND? >> IT JUST SHOWS THE ABSURDITY — >> I WAS ASKING IF I COULD RESPOND BECAUSE MY NAME WAS CALLED >> NO >> STRIKE THE LAST WORD >> THE LADY IS RECOGNIZED >> I THINK THE CHAIRMAN. THIS IS ABOUT DISTRACTION, DISTRACTION, DISTRACTION. THREE HOURS SAYING THEY DID NOT TARGET THE VIOLENCE NOW THEY’RE SAYING THAT HE DID SO WHICH IS IT? I’M HOLDING THE CLASSIFIED UNCLASSIFIED CONVERSATION AND LET ME JUST CLARIFY A CERTAIN POINT, AND THAT POINT IS THAT I DID READ THE TRANSCRIPT AND IT DID SAY US , BUT THERE’S NOTHING IN THE PRESIDENT’S NOTE THAT EVEN SUGGESTED THAT THE QUESTION THAT HE ASKED BEFORE THE AMERICAN PEOPLE. IN TESTIMONY BY MR. GOLDMAN WHO OBVIOUSLY WENT THROUGH EVERY ASPECT OF THIS, I ASKED THE QUESTION, ABOUT WHETHER OR NOT THE PRESIDENT SAID ANYTHING FROM THE NOTES THAT ARE GIVEN THE BRIEFING THAT IS GIVEN BY THOSE REPRESENTATIVES OF THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT. STAFF OF THE NATIONAL SECURITY COUNCIL, THE STATE DEPARTMENT, THE DEFENSE DEPARTMENT ON CORRUPTION. HE DIDN’T SPEAK ANYTHING ABOUT CORRUPTION THAT HE WAS BRIEFED ON. AND IF YOU GO THROUGH THE CALL, HE CONTINUES TO MENTION THE BIDEN’S. AND SO, THIS AGAIN, IS ABOUT UKRAINE THE PRESIDENT DID ASK UKRAINE, THE PRESIDENT OF UKRAINE, A VULNERABLE LEADER OF A COUNTRY THAT IS FLEDGLING AND TRYING TO SURVIVE NOW LET ME SAY THAT I INTEND TO INTRODUCE INTO THE RECORD, AN ARTICLE THAT INDICATED VERY CLEARLY, THAT PEOPLE DID DIE TRUMP FROZE MILITARY AID AS UKRAINIANS SOCIALIST — I ASKED CONSENT TO SUBMIT THAT TO THE RECORD. THE FACTS ARE, — THE FACTS ARE, PRESIDENT TRUMP PROVIDED $510 MILLION IN EIGHT IN 2017 AND 359 MILLION IN 2018 BUT HE WANTED TO STOP IN 2019 , THE YEAR OR MONTHS BEFORE THE 2020 ELECTION. IN ADDITION, PRESIDENT TRUMP’S ADVISORS CONFIRMED THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP’S INVESTIGATION, 2016 ELECTION INTERFERENCE AND THE BIDEN’S WERE NOT U.S. POLICY AND AS WELL, THEY HAVE DEBUNKED ANY ASSOCIATION THAT THERE WAS ANYTHING TO THE IMPROPRIETY OF THE FORMER VICE PRESIDENT AND HIS SERVICE AS IT RELATED TO UKRAINE I THINK IT’S ALSO IMPORTANT THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE AND THE STATE DEPARTMENT CONFIRMED THAT UKRAINE HAD MET ALL BENCHMARKS AND THE AID SHOULD BE RELEASED, THAT IS THE POLICY OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. THERE WAS NO NEED FOR THIS PRESIDENT TO AN ESSENCE, TRY TO MAKE UP HIS OWN POLICY. IN HIS OWN STATEMENT OF ADMINISTRATIVE POLICIES, AND I ASKED UNANIMOUS CONSENT TO HAVE THOSE IN THE RECORD, THIS FROM THE WHITE HOUSE, NOTHING IN THIS SAID TO DISCUSS CORRUPTION WHY? BECAUSE UKRAINE HAD ALREADY MET THE STANDARDS OF INDEPENDENT EXECUTIVE AGENCIES THAT THEY HAD MET THAT STANDARD OF CORRUPTION, THAT MONEY SHOULD HAVE BEEN RELEASED. AND WE WELL KNOW AS THE PROCESS OF THE WHISTLEBLOWER AND THE TIMING THAT PRESIDENT ZELENSKY , DESPERATE FOR MONEY, PEOPLE DYING IN THE FIELD, WAS

ASKED TO DO A CNN ANNOUNCEMENT AND HE WAS GOING TO BE ONE OF CNN’S WELL-KNOWN SHOWS DEALING WITH INTERNATIONAL POLITICS. BUT IT WAS STOPPED IN ITS TRACKS, AS TESTIFIED BY WITNESSES, UNDER OATH, BECAUSE OF THE WHISTLEBLOWERS STATEMENT LET ME BE VERY CLEAR, THERE IS SOME REPRESENTATION OF CRIME, CRIME, CRIME. FIRST OF ALL, OUR SCHOLARS INDICATE THAT THESE ARE IMPEACHABLE OFFENSES, THE CONDUCT OF THE PRESIDENT IS IMPEACHABLE AND THERE’S ENOUGH EVIDENCE TO SHOW BUT AS I INDICATED YESTERDAY, THIS MY FRIENDS, IS A LEGAL DOCUMENT OF THE CONSTITUTION. IT IS A LEGAL DOCUMENT. YOU CAN BREACH AND VIOLATE THE LAW OF THE CONSTITUTION. THERE ARE CONSTITUTIONAL CRIMES, AND THE VASTNESS OF THE IMPEACHMENT PROCESS DOES INCLUDE THE EXCESS OF POWER I THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES. NOW, I KNEW BARBARA JORDAN AND MY FRIENDS WANTED TO QUOTE HER , SHE ALSO SAID, THE FRAMERS CONFIDED IN THE CONGRESS OF POWER IF NEED BE, TO REMOVE A PRESIDENT IN ORDER TO STRIKE A DELICATE BALANCE BETWEEN A PRESIDENT SWOLLEN WITH POWER AND PRESERVATION OF THE INDEPENDENCE OF THE EXECUTIVE. YOU CAN VIOLATE THE CRIMES OF THE CONSTITUTION, ABUSE OF POWER INCLUDES THAT, THIS AMENDMENT SHOULD BE DEFEATED >> THE GENTLE LADY, THE TIME HAS EXPIRED >> MR. CHAIR? >> MOVE TO STRIKE THE LAST WORD >> THE GENTLEMAN IS RECOGNIZED >> I WANT TO ANSWER MY COLLEAGUE FROM GEORGIA MR. JOHNSON’S QUESTION THAT HE ASKED BEFORE IS IT EVER OKAY TO INVITE A FOREIGN GOVERNMENT TO BECOME INVOLVED IN AN ELECTION INVOLVING A POLITICAL OPPONENT, THE ANSWER IS YES. IT BETTER BE, WE DO IT ALL THE TIME. HAVE YOU THAT QUICKLY FORGOTTEN HOW THE TRUMP RUSSIA INVESTIGATION PROCEEDED QUESTION MARK THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION ASKED GREAT WRITTEN AND ITALY AND AUSTRALIA TO ASSIST IN ITS INVESTIGATION OF A PERSON WHO WAS A POLITICAL OPPONENT, FROM THE OPPOSITE PARTY I KEEP HEARING OVER AND OVER AGAIN YOU CAN’T INVESTIGATE POLITICAL OPPONENTS. WE HAVE A MEMBER OF THIS COMMITTEE WHO WAS AS A MEMBER OF THIS COMMITTEE AND THE INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE, INVESTIGATING HIS POLITICAL OPPONENT, DONALD TRUMP AT THE VERY MOMENT HE WAS RUNNING TO REPLACE HIM AS PRESIDENT. MY CALLING ON THE INTEL COMMITTEE, MR. CASTRO WAS INVESTIGATING PRESIDENT TRUMP AT THE VERY SAME MOMENT HIS BROTHER WAS RUNNING TO REPLACE PRESIDENT TRUMP PRESIDENT TRUMP, THE ONLY ONE WITH THE REALLY LEGITIMATE REASON TO BE DOING IT. HE IS THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE CHIEF EXECUTIVE. WE ARE IN THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE, RIGHT? WE DO UNDERSTAND THE CONSTITUTION, WE UNDERSTAND THAT THE PRESIDENT IS THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH. AND ALL POWER IN THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH DERIVES FROM THE PRESIDENT. AND THE PRESIDENT CAN AND SHOULD ASK FOR ASSISTANCE FROM FOREIGN GOVERNMENTS AND ONGOING CRIMINAL INVESTIGATIONS. THERE WAS AN ONGOING CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION INTO WHAT HAPPENED IN THE 2016, ATTORNEY GENERAL BARR, HAD LONG BEFORE THE APPOINTED U.S ATTORNEY JOHN DURHAM TO INVESTIGATE EXACTLY THAT ISSUE IT WASN’T JUST APPROPRIATE, IT WAS ABSOLUTELY THE PRESIDENT’S CONSTITUTIONAL DUTY. AND HUNTER BIDEN? THE PRESIDENT HAS, AS THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE, THE ABILITY TO ASK ABOUT MATTERS WHERE THERE IS A PRIMA FACIE CASE OF CORRUPTION, WHAT DO WE HAVE IN RESPECT TO HUNTER BIDEN? TONS OF MONEY FOR A POSITION WHERE HE HAS NO UKRAINIAN EXPERIENCE, WHERE HE HAS NO EXPERIENCE WITH UKRAINE OR WITH ENERGY AND AT THE VERY SAME TIME, THE UKRAINIANS WERE DECIDING THAT HUNTER BIDEN WAS THE PERFECT PERSON TO GET THAT SWEETHEART DEAL, THE CHINESE WERE DECIDING THAT HUNTER BIDEN WAS THE PERFECT PERSON TO GET A SWEETHEART DEAL TO MANAGE $1.5 MILLION IN FINANCIAL ASSETS. AND WHEN THE UKRAINIAN GOVERNMENT WANTED TO INVESTIGATE CORRUPTION , LIKE WE ALL KEEP TALKING ABOUT, THEY NEED TO, THEY START INVESTIGATING THE REASON AND WHAT HAPPENS, JOE BIDEN SAYS YOU BETTER FIRE THAT PROSECUTOR INVESTIGATING CORRUPTION INTO BURISMA, OR YOU ARE NOT GOING TO GET $1 BILLION AND SIX

HOURS LATER, THAT’S WHAT HAPPENED. THAT’S CALLED INFLUENCE PEDDLING, THAT IS A CRIME. AND THERE IS A PRIMA FACIE CASE OF THAT. AND IT’S ABSOLUTELY APPROPRIATE FOR A PRESIDENT TO ASK ABOUT THAT. I YIELD TO MY FRIEND >> I JUST WANT TO RESPOND TO THE COMMENTS FROM THE GENTLE LADY FROM TEXAS SHE SAID THE PRESIDENT MADE UP HIS OWN POLICY, WELL THAT’S HOW IT WORKS IN OUR COUNTRY. YOU GET YOUR NAME ON A BALLOT, YOU RUN FOR OFFICE, YOU GO TALK TO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE, THEY EVALUATED ALL AND ON ELECTION DAY THEY DECIDE WHO THEY WANT MAKING THE POLICY, THAT’S HOW IT WORKS IN OUR COUNTRY. IT’S NOT THE UNELECTED PEOPLE, TELLING THE ELECTED INDIVIDUAL HOW WE DO THINGS. BECAUSE THE ON ELECTED PEOPLE AREN’T DIRECTLY ACCOUNTABLE TO THE PEOPLE. IS WHAT MAKES OUR SYSTEM THE BEST, THE GREATEST, AND WHEN YOU TURN THAT ON ITS HEAD, THAT’S WHEN YOU GET PROBLEMS. AND WE SAW IT HAPPEN, BECAUSE WE SAW CHUCK’S ESSAY ON 2017, WHEN YOU MESS WITH THE INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY, THEY HAVE SIX WAYS FROM SUNDAY AT GETTING BACK AT YOU. THAT IS A SCARY STATEMENT BECAUSE THAT IS SAYING THE UNELECTED PEOPLE CAN GET BACK AT THE PERSON WHO PUT THEIR NAME ON A BALLOT AND GOT ELECTED TO HIGH OFFICE. THE HIGHEST OFFICE IN THIS SITUATION. SO, FOR SOMEONE IN THE UNITED STATES CONGRESS TO SAY THE PRESIDENT MADE UP HIS OWN POLICY AND SOMEHOW THAT’S WRONG, THAT SHOULD BE A FRIGHTENING POSITION TO TAKE BUT I GUESS THAT’S WHERE THE DEMOCRATS ARE TODAY. IN THEIR QUEST TO GO AFTER THIS PRESIDENT TAKING STATEMENTS LIKE THAT STATEMENT BY OUR COLLEAGUE AND STATEMENTS BY SENATOR SCHUMER. I YIELD BACK >> WHAT PURPOSE ? >> STRIKE THE LAST WORD >> THERE ARE ISSUES FOR THE ELECTION AND THERE ARE ISSUES FOR THIS COMMITTEE. THE BEHAVIOR OF VICE PRESIDENTS BIDEN SON AND FRANKLY THE BEHAVIOR OF PRESIDENT TRUMP’S TWO SONS AND DAUGHTER MAY BE DISCUSSED IN THE ELECTION. BUT HERE, WE ARE TALKING ABOUT THE ABUSE OF PRESIDENTIAL AUTHORITY, THE PRESIDENT MUST TAKE CARE THAT THE LAWS BE FAITHFULLY EXECUTED WE KNOW, FROM THE EMAILS FROM THE STATE DEPARTMENT TO THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE, THAT THE UKRAINIANS KNEW THAT THE AIDE WAS BEING WITHHELD, THAT’S DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE. WE ALSO KNOW, THAT WHATEVER WAS GOING ON THAT PEOPLE MIGHT NOT LIKE WITH THE VICE PRESIDENT SON AND THE VICE PRESIDENT, THAT WAS KNOWN IN 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018, BUT IT WASN’T UNTIL VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN WAS BEATING PRESIDENT TRUMP IN THE POLLS, THAT THIS ISSUE WAS RAISED, TO TRY AND FORCE A FOREIGN COUNTRY TO INVENT AN INVESTIGATION TO BE USED POLITICALLY. THAT IS NOT SEEING THAT THE LAWS ARE FAITHFULLY EXECUTED. THAT IS AN ABUSE OF PRESIDENTIAL AUTHORITY AND I WOULD YIELD NOW TO THE GENTLEMAN FROM FLORIDA >> IT’S BEEN ABOUT THREE HOURS SINCE I MADE THIS POINT I GUESS IT NEEDS TO BE MADE AGAIN FROM TIME TO TIME, WE CAN’T SIMPLY ALLOW THE MISCHARACTERIZATION AND THE MISSTATEMENT OF THE RULES, THE HISTORY OF THE RULES, AND HOUSE RESOLUTIONS , WE CAN’T STAND FOR IT, I WANT TO ADDRESS AGAIN IT IS ABSOLUTELY TRUE THAT IS THE CASE OVER 50 YEARS AGO WHEN THE RULE WAS WRITTEN AND SAID IT’S NORMAL PROCEDURE FOR WITNESSES REPRESENTING BOTH SIDES TO REPRESENT TESTIMONY AT HEARINGS, THAT’S WHAT HAPPENED AT THE DECEMBER 4 MEETING LET’S BE HONEST ABOUT THE RULES, AND HOUSE RESOLUTION 660 IT PROVIDES AN OPPORTUNITY >> AMBASSADOR VOLKER, TRUMP APPOINTEE, THEY ALL CONFIRMED

THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP PRESSURED A FOREIGN GOVERNMENT TO TARGET AN AMERICAN CYST FROM POLITICAL GAIN AND AT THE SAME TIME HELD WITHOUT JUSTIFICATION 391 $391 MILLION IN MILITARY AID UNDERMINING AMERICA’S NATIONAL SECURITY. LET’S LOOK AT AMBASSADOR VOLKER’S TESTIMONY HE TESTIFIED ABOUT THE ISSUE OF RAISING THE 2016 ELECTIONS OF VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN, ALL OF THESE THINGS I CONSIDERED TO BE CONSPIRACY THEORIES WHAT WAS HIS RESPONSE? IT WAS PRETTY SIMPLE. QUOTE. I THINK THE ALLEGATIONS AGAINST VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN A SELF-SERVING AND NOT CREDIBLE. THAT’S WHAT THIS IS ALL ABOUT. I YIELDBACK >> CHAIRMAN, I YIELD BACK >> THE YOUNG LADY YIELDS BACK WE SEEK RECOGNITION? >> IN SUPPORT OF THE AMENDMENT >> DESIRE TO STRIKE THE LAST WORD >> THANK YOU, CHAIRMAN >> GENTLEMAN IS READY >> YOU KNOW, IT’S AMAZING, WE’RE HEARING FROM THE SAME PEOPLE ACCUSING US OF COVERING UP, NOT WILLING TO FACE THE TRUTH THEY’RE THE SAME ARGUMENTS WE’VE BEEN HEARING FOR 3 YEARS NOW FIRST IT WAS ACCUSING US NOT BEING WILLING TO FACE THE FACTS AND THE PRESIDENT IN COLLUSION WITH RUSSIA. THOSE TURNED OUT TO BE LIES. WE WERE RIGHT, AND THOSE NOT FACING THE TRUTH WERE THE ONES NOT FACING THE TRUTH. WE HEARD ABOUT ALL KINDS OF OTHER ALLEGATIONS, AND WE SAID WAIT, THAT DOESN’T APPEAR TO BE SUPPORTIVE, OR WE WEREN’T FACING THE TRUTH. AND IT WAS A LOT OF MEDIA SUPPORT FOR THOSE POSITIONS BUT WE STILL PERSISTED THAT WE WERE THE ONES THAT WERE RIGHT. AND WE WERE RIGHT. THEY HAPPEN WRONG, AND WE’RE NOT HEARING ANYONE COME IN AND SAY WE’RE REALLY SORRY WHEN WE ACCUSED YOU OF NOT BEING SAFE. YOU WERE RIGHT IT WAS NO RUSSIA COLLUSION. YOU WERE RIGHT. IT WAS NO EXTORG, AND MY FRIENDS ACROSS THE AISLE KEEP CHANGING THE SUBJECT. WHAT THE CALL MADE CLEAR IS THAT WE’RE INTERESTED IN FINDING OUT ABOUT IF IT WAS UKRAINIAN COLLUSION OR INTERFERENCE IN OUR ELECTION NOW, IT’S AMAZING HOW THE MAJORITY CAN TAKE TWO POSITIONS THAT COUNTER INDICATE EACH OTHER FIRST OF ALL, YOU SAID IT WAS NO EFFORT BY REPUBLICANS INCLUDING PRESIDENT TRUMP TO STOP INTERFERENCE FROM FOREIGN COUNTRIES. WE HEAR THAT OVER AND OVER INCLUDING YESTERDAY AND TODAY. AND REALLY THE ONLY WAY TO STEP UP AND DO WHAT PRESIDENT OBAMA REFUSED TO DO, IF YOU REMEMBER PRESIDENT OBAMA BELITTLED PRESIDENT TRUMP, CANDIDATE TRUMP FOR SAYING HE CONCERNED ABOUT OUTSIDE INTERFERENCE, AND IN FACT, PRESIDENT TRUMP MADE A MOCKERY ABOUT THOSE WHO THEY THOUGHT HE MIGHT MOCK SOMEONE WHO WOULD INTERFERE WITH THE ELECTIONS. HE WOULDN’T DO ANYTHING ABOUT OUTSIDE INTERFERENCE BECAUSE APPARENTLY HE MUST HAVE THOUGHT THE OUTSIDE INTERFERENCE WOULD HELP HILLARY CLINTON, AND WE HEARD IT WAS PEOPLE CERTAINLY ACCUSED IN UKRAINE OF DOING ALL THEY COULD TO HELP HILLARY CLINTON. IN FACT, IT WAS UNHEARD OF TO HAVE A FOREIGN AMBASSADOR IN OUR COUNTRY STEP UP AND COME OUT WITH SUPPORT FOR HILLARY CLINTON. SO WHAT WE CONTINUE TO SEE IS PROJECTING SOMEBODY ON THEIR SIDE ENGAGES IN ILLEGAL OR IMPROPER CONDUCT, AND THAT’S WHAT THEY ACCUSE PRESIDENT TRUMP OF DOING, AND ALL OF THIS

SELF-RIGHTEOUSNESS ABOUT POLITICAL PURPOSES, AND I MEAN THIS IS THE TRANSCRIPT FROM 1943 WHEN PRESIDENT ROOSEVELT WAS TALKING TO MARSHAL STALIN. HE’S TALKING TO STALIN. THIS IS APPARENTLY A MEETING, AND HE WANTED TO TALK TO HIM ABOUT INTERNAL AMERICAN POLITICS AND FROM STENOGRAPHERS, THEY SAY THAT PRESIDENT ROOSEVELT WAS THERE IN THE UNITED STATES, 6 TO 7 MILLION AMERICANS, ABSTRACTION, THE POLITICAL MAP, HE DIDN’T WANT TO LOSE THEIR VOTES, AND HE WAS EXPLAINING HE DIDN’T WANT TO GO PUBLIC. HE DIDN’T CARE BASICALLY WHEN THE SOVIET UNION TOOK OVER POLAND HE DIDN’T CARE WHEN THEY CUT DOWN POLAND’S BORDERS FROM THE EAST TO THE WEST, AND HE GOES ON TO SAY, JOKINGLY THAT WHEN THE SOVIET ARMIES ACUPAY OCCUPY AND INVADE AND ACUPAY, HE DIDN’T WANT TO GO TO WAR BUT CONTINUES TO EMPHASIZE THINGS HE CAN’T GO PUBLIC WITH. THESE THINGS HAVE GONE ON BY DEMOCRATS FOR MANY DECADES AND HERE THEY COME AFTER THE ONE GUY, HE WANTS TO GET TO THE BOTTOM OF 2016 FOREIGN INTERFERENCE, WHAT DO THEY ACCUSE HIM OF? GETTING FOREIGN INTERFERENCE. NO, YOU CAN’T RULE OUT FOREIGN INTERFERENCE UNTIL YOU KNOW WHAT IT WAS. YOU CAN’T HAVE IT BOTH WAYS. WELL, I GUESS THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY CAN HAVE IT BOTH WAYS, BUT THIS HAS GOT TO STOP BEFORE IT GOES TO YOU MUCH FURTHER. I YIELD BACK >> THE GENTLEMAN YIELDS BACK, AND SEEK RECOGNITION WHAT PURPOSE ARE YOU SEEKING RECOGNITION? >> FOR A STRIKE >> GENTLEMAN IS RECOGNIZED >> I HAD YOU WERE RECOGNIZING THE WRONG GUY THAT SHOULD HAVE BEEN BIDEN AND THAT UKRAINE WAS THE THIRD MOST CORRUPT NATION ON EARTH AND THAT HUNTER BIDEN HAD JUST PUT HIMSELF RIGHT SNACK DAB IN THE MIDDLE OF THAT CORRUPTION, AND EVEN THOUGH DEMOCRATS AND MANY OF THEIR FRIENDS IN THE MEDIA WOULD HAVE YOU BELIEVE THAT THIS BURISMA, BIDEN CORRUPTION, THAT THIS WAS ALL A VAST RIGHT WING CONSPIRACY ALLEGATION, WHEN IN ACTUALLY, IT WAS THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION THAT RAISED THIS ISSUES FIRST BACK IN 2015 GEORGE KENT RAISED HIS CONCERNS ABOUT BIDEN TO THE OFFICE, AND THE FORMER AMBASSADOR TO UKRAINE MARIE YOVANOVITCH, SORRY ABOUT THAT SAID SHE WAS COACHED BY THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION ON HOW TO ANSWER PESKY QUESTIONS ABOUT BITEEN AND BURISMA THAT MIGHT ARISE IN HER INTELLIGENCE CONFERENCE. AND NEARLY EVERY PERSON AGREED THAT HUNTER BIDEN’S BURISMA DEAL CREATED AT THE VERY LEAST A CONFLICT OF INTEREST. YET THE DEMOCRATS ON THE INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE AND NOW DEMOCRATS IN THIS COMMITTEE ARE DETERMINED TO SWEEP ALL OF THIS UNDER THE RUG AND IGNORE IT, NOT LET US CO-WITNESS ON IT. AND INSTEAD RUSH TO IMPEACH THIS PRESIDENT YOU’VE GOT THE VICE PRESIDENT RECEIVING COPOLICY AND SON HUNTER BIDEN RECEIVING OVER $150,000 A MONTH EVEN THOUGH HE HAD NO EXPERTISE IN ENERGY OR IN UKRAINE. YET THEY WOULDN’T LET US CALL WITNESSES OR DELVE INTO THIS. AND IT WAS INTERESTING THAT JOE BIDEN GOT INTO AN ARGUMENT WITH A MAN THAT ONE OF HIS EVENTS IN IOWA RECENTLY CALLED THE MAN A LIAR AND CHALLENGED HIM TO A PUSHUP CONTEST AND SPOUTED OFF A BUNCH OF OTHER MALARKEY, AND NOW THE COMMITTEE, THIS COMMITTEE IS CONDUCTOR AN IMPEACHMENT INVESTIGATION BASED ON AS PROFESSOR TURLEY PUT IT RECENTLY, THIN EVIDENCE AND EVIDENCE THAT DOESN’T SMELL RIGHT, WAFER THEN EVIDENCE. AND THIS WAS A PROFESS WHO ACKNOWLEDGED HE DIDN’T VOTE FOR

PRESIDENT TRUMP. IN FACT ALL FOUR WITNESSES THAT TESTIFIED, NONE OF THEM HAD VOTED FOR HIM HE SAID WAFER THIN EVIDENCE, THAT’S WHAT WE’RE CALLED TO IMPEACH A PRESIDENT ON. AND WHILE WE’RE DOING THAT, THERE ARE SO MANY THINGS GETTING IGNORED. IT WAS ONE THING THAT USMCA TRADE DEAL WHICH IS VERY IMPORTANT TO REPLACE NAFTA, IT LOOKS LIKE WE MIGHT GETS ACROSS THE FINISHLINE. I HOPE SO. IT WILL GEE FOR THE COUNTRY. IT’S BIPARTISAN. BUT I THINK IF ANYTHING GOOD COMES OUT OF THE IMPEACHMENT, IT WILL GET PAST BECAUSE THE DEMOCRATS WANT TO SHOW WE DID SOMETHING. WE DID SOMETHING. VERY LITTLE IS PASSED IN THE LAW. WE HAVE 68,000 AMERICANS WHO DIED FROM OPIOID OVERDOSES FROM LAST YEAR ALONE. I THINK IT WAS 70,000 THE YEAR BEFORE THAT, AND EVEN THOUGH THE NUMBER HAS GONE DOWN A BIT, IT’S NOT NECESSARILY BECAUSE WE’RE DOING A WHOLE LOT BETTER, IT WAS BECAUSE NOT QUITE AS MANY PEOPLE ARE DYING, BUT THERE’S JUST AS MANY PEOPLE THAT ARE INVOLVED WITH THIS SCOURGE, THESE OPIOIDS AND OTHER DRUGS OUR SOUTHERN BORDER IS — WEHAVE FAR TOO MANY PEOPLE COMING ACROSS THE BORDER. THAT’S SOMETHING WE SHOULD WORK ON AND OUR ASYLUM LAWS THAT NEED TO BE REFORMED WE HAVE A $22 TRILLION DEBT HANGING OVER OUR LED. THE REASON I MENTIONED THESE THINGS IS BECAUSE THIS COMMITTEE ISN’T DOING A THING AND SPENDING ALL OUR TIME ON IMPEACHMENT IN ONE FORM OR THE OTHER. I HAVE A BILL, A BALANCED BUDGET AMENDMENT WHICH ACTUALLY MOVING IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION AND DOING SOMETHING ABOUT THAT, WE SHOULD HAVE DONE IT YEARS AGO, THOSE ARE ALL IN OUR JURISDICTION, INFRASTRUCTURE, NOT IN OUR JURISDICTION, BUT UNITED STATES CONGRESS MIGHT ACT ON IT. WE HAVE HIGHWAYS AND BRIDGES CRUMBLING IN THIS COUNTRY CITES SOMETHING WE GENERALLY AGREE ON. BUT THE DEMOCRATS DON’T WANT THEM TO TAKE ANY CREDIT FOR THAT. THAT’S UNLIKELY TO HAPPEN. IT’S UNFORTUNATE TAKING UP ALL ALL THIS TIME ON IMPEACHMENT WHEN IT’S SO MANY THINGS WE SHOULD BE WORKING ON FOR THE BENEFIT FOR THE AMERICAN PEOPLE >> MR. JORDAN, DO YOU SEEK RECOGNITION? >> I YIELD TO THE RANKING MEMBER >> I MEANTED TO SAY QUICKLY, IT IS AMAZING THAT THEY GOT REALLY EXPENSIVE ABOUT PROCESS ON THE MAJORITY SIDE WHEN WE POINTED OUT THE TRAGEDY AND TRAVESTY OF BEING A RUBBERSTAMP IN THIS COMMITTEE AND GENTLEMAN FROM FLORIDA BROUGHT UP A COUPLE OF THINGS. LET ME REMIND, THE WHITE HOUSE AND EVERYTHING, JUST LIKE EVERYTHING ELSE, IT ALL GOES TO THE WHIM AND WHIMBER OF THE CHAIRMAN AND MAJORITY. THEY CAN’T DO ANYTHING THEY WANT. IT ALL GOES BACK TO THE MAJORITY OPINION. I YIELD BACK >> YIELD TO THE GENTLEMAN FROM FLORIDA >> THANK YOU FOR YIELDING. THEY CAN’T BE CLEAN IF PRESIDENT TRUMP CAN’T BE RESPONSIBLE FOR ABUSE OF POWER. THEY CANT PROVE THE QUESTION INTO THE BIDENS ARE UNREASONABLE. THE GENTLEMAN FROM NEW YORK SAID YOU’RE NOT LISTENING TO THE WITNESSES. I LISTENED VERY CLOSELY TOOCH WITNESSES. I HEARD MR. KENT SAY THEY WERE SO CONCERNED ABOUT BURISMA, THEY HAD TO PULL BACK SO IF IT’S OKAY FOR KENT TO ASK QUESTIONS WHY NOT THE PRESIDENT? I LISTENED TO YOVANOVITCH, AND SHE SAID IT’S PREPARATION TO ASK STICKY QUESTIONS ABOUT WHY THE VICE PRESIDENT’S SON WAS OFF MOONLIGHTING FOR FOREIGN COUNTRY. IF IT’S OKAY FOR THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION TO ASK THOSE QUESTIONS, WHY NOT PRESIDENT TRUMP TO ASK THOSE QUESTIONS? HERE’S ONE THING I KNOW. CORRUPT PEOPLE, THEY DON’T JUST STEAL ONCE. THEY GET INTO THIS CYCLE AND CULTURE OF CORRUPTION, AND IT’S DISAPPOINTING. I READ BACK TO THIS NEW YORKER ARTICLE. I’M READING DIRECTLY FROM IT. ONE OF CATHELENE MOTIONS IS IN REGARDS TO A LARGE DIAMOND. WHEN ASKED ABOUT IT, HE TOLD ME HE HAD BEEN GIVEN THE DIAMOND BY A LARGE ENERGY TYCOON. HE TOLD ME TWO ASSOCIATES ACCOMPANIED HIM IN MIAMI, AND THEY SURPRISED HIM BY GIVING HIM A RARE VINTAGE OF SCOTCH WORTH THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS. THIS GUY WASN’T JUST TAKING THESE WEIRD JOBS FROM THE UKRAINIANS. HE WAS TAKING DIAMONDS AND SCOTCH FROM THE CHINESE, AND I THINK IT IS ENTIRELY APPROPRIATE FOR THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES TO FIGURE OUT WHY THAT’S THE CASE. THE AMERICAN PEOPLE WATCHING TODAY KNOW THIS ISN’T AN IMPEACHMENT MOVEMENT. IT’S LOSING STEAM. I WAS WATCHING THE HEARING ON THE WAY IN THIS MORNING, MAYBE ONE OF THE ONLY FOLKS, BUT I WAS WATCHING, AND I HEARD GLORIA SAY THE POLLING ON IMPEACHMENT IS BAD FOR DEMOCRATS. I HEARD THE CHAIRMAN SAY THAT HE HAD GOB ON CN T KWS

ONCE WE HAD ALL OF THESE PUBLIC HEARINGS, AND WE’LL ANIMATE ALL OF THESE SUPPORT FROM HEARINGS WELL, NOW YOU’VE HAD THE HEARINGS AND CALLED WITNESSES, AND YOU KNOW WHAT? YOU’RE LOSING GROUND. YOU’RE LOSING GROUND WITH THE VOTERS AND EVEN WITH YOUR OWN DEMOCRATIC COLLEAGUES. I BELIEVE SOME OF THE REPORTING I’VE SEEN ARE BEGGING YOU TO PURSUE SOMETHING OTHER THAN IMPEACHMENT. THIS BLOOD LOSS FOR UMPEACHMENT IS NOT GOING TO BE VISITED ON US OR PRESIDENT TRUMP. IT’S GOING TO BE VISITED ON YOUR OWN MEMBERS, AND THEY’RE ASKING YOU NOT TO DO THIS. THE ONLY STANDARD THAT SPEAKER PELOSI AND SPEAKER CHAIRMAN SCHIFF SAID, IT HAS TO BE BIPARTISAN. THEY SAID IT ALL THROUGHOUT THE CALENDER YEAR BUT THE ONLY THING THAT CHANGED IS NOT THE STRENGTHENING OF THE EVIDENCE. IT’S GOING INTO THE ELECTION, AND THEY TAKEN A LOOK OF THE DEMOCRATIC CANDIDATES, AND THEY REALIZE THEY TO TAKE A LOOK BECAUSE THEY’RE NOT CAPABLE OF DEFEATING PRESIDENT TRUMP IN A FAIR FIGHT. WE KNOW THAT. THE AMERICAN PEOPLE KNOW THAT. AND SO THE ONLY BIPARTISAN VOTE ON IMPEACHMENT IS A BIPARTISAN VOTE AGAINST OPENING AN INQUIRY. AND THE ONLY POSSIBILITY FOR THAT MOVEMENT FROM THEN TO NOW DESPITE ALL OF THE HEARINGS DESPITE ALL OF THE DAMAGED INSTITUTIONS THROUGH THIS VERY WEIRD AND INVESTIGATION YOU’VE RUN, THE ONLY THING IS THAT YOU’LL LOSE MOST VOTES THAN YOU STARTED WITH. YOU LOST TWO OF YOUR MEMBERS. YOU’LL NOT LOSE TWO MEMBERS BUT HAVE A RISK OF LOSING MORE MEMBERS. AND YOU KNOW WHAT, REPUBLICANS ARE UNITED. WE SEE THIS FOR WHAT IT IS. AND WE KNOW JUST AS MY COLLEAGUE FROM OHIO MR. JORDAN SAID, IT’S NOT AN ATTACK ON PRESIDENT TRUMP POLITICALLY THOUGH IT IS THE ELECTION THAT MOTIVATES THEM FOR THIS BIZARRE BEHAVIOR. IT’S NOT JUST AN ATTACK ON THE PRESIDENCY. IT’S AN ATTACK ON US. IT’S AN ATTACK THAT BELIEVES IN THE PRESIDENT AND UNDERSTAND VERY WELL WHO WE VOTED FOR AND HAS NONTRADITIONAL WAYS OF DOING BUSINESS BUT WE SEE THE GREAT SUCCESS OF THE COUNTRY. MORE JOBS, MORE OPPORTUNITY. THEY HAVE NO ANSWER FOR THAT IN THE UPCOMING ELECTION. THAT’S WHY WE’RE HERE >> FOR PURPOSES, MR. BEAK SEEKS RECOGNITION >> MAUVE TO STRIKE THE LAST WORK >> THANK YOU, CHAIRMAN. I MENTIONED BEFORE THAT LOOKING AT THE EVIDENCE, I’M STUNNED THAT MY COLLEAGUES ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE AISLE PER PETTILY READ READ EVERY INFENCE THEY CAN MAKE, AND IT’S AN INCREDIBLE INFRERNS OF CREDIBILITY STACKED UP, AND I SUPPORT THE GENTLEMAN’S AMENDMENT, AND I WANT TO READ THIS FROM A UKRAINIAN SOURCE WHO IS NAMED AND CITED IN A RECENT PUBLIGATION. IT SAYS QUOTE, BY INVITING OFFICIAL FOREIGNERS, UKRAINIAN WANTS TO GET INTEREST, AND HAVING HUNTER BIDEN ON BOARD, THE OWNER WANTED TO CORRECT THE IMAGE AND GET COVER BECAUSE AUTHORITIES ARE SCARED BY THE U.S. EMBASSY IN UKRAINE HUNTER BIDEN USING AS THE CAPABILITIES OF HIS FAMILY ACTED AS A BUFFER FOR HIS FAMILY AND UKRAINIAN AGENCY. HIS CORRUPTION SMELLS. SO LET’S LOOK AT THE TRANSCRIPT OUR COLLEAGUES KEEP REFERRING TO FACE FORWARD. THE OTHER THING PRESIDENT TRUMP SAYS, THERE’S A LOT OF TALK ABOUT BIDEN’S SON, AND A LOT OF PEOPLE WANT TO DO OUT ABOUT THAT. WHATEVER YOU CAN DO WITH THE ATTORNEY GENERAL WOULD BE GREAT. BIDEN WENT IN SAYING YOU CAN STOP PROSECUTION IF YOU LOOK INTO IT, IT SOUNDS HORRIBLE TO ME. THAT IS THE ESSENCE OF WHAT THEY WANT TO IMPEACH PRESIDENT TRUMP FOR. SO IT BEGATHIZE QUESTION, IT REALLY BEGS THE QUESTION, REALLY, DO YOU GET IMMUNITY, IS IT AN IMMUNITY GRANTING VENT TO HAVE A PUBLIC RUN FOR PUBLIC OFFICE? DO YOU GET IMMUNITY FOR THAT? LET’S FLIP IT. THE QUESTION IS DOES THE HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO REQUEST AN INVESTIGATION INMOST ASSURE UDLY. HE MENTIONS THE ATTORNEY GENERAL HERE. IT IS CLEAR THAT HE WOULD LIKE AN INVESTIGATION INTO THE CORRUPTION SURROUNDING UKRAINE BECAUSE WHAT THIS PRESIDENT ZELENSKY GOES ON TO SAY? HE

GOES ON TALKING ABOUT TRYING TO RESTORE THE HONESTY IN HIS COUNTRY. THAT’S WHAT HE’S TALKING ABOUT. YOU HAVE THE ATTORNEY GENERAL. YOU HAVE THE PRESIDENT OF BOTH COUNTRIES ACKNOWLEDGING THAT THERE’S CORRUPTION, AND LET GET IT FIXED UP, AND AT LEAST YOU’RE BACK TO THIS WHOLE QUESTION OF DEMOCRATS WANTING TO IMPEACH PRESIDENT TRUMP FOR THESE ABUSE OF POWER ISSUES. THESE AMOR THESE ISSUES OF OBSTRUCTION OF CONGRESS. IT’S JUST BIZARRE. HUNTER BIDEN PLACED ON THE BOARD OF BURISMA IN 2014, AND IN THE MEANTIME, EVIDENCE IS CLEAR THAT BURISMA’S COMPANY PAID ABOUT 3.4 $3.4 MILLION A COMPANY CALLED ROSEMONT CINEMA, THE COMPANY OF HUNTER AND HIS PARTNER. THAT IS REALLY INTRIGUING, THE INVESTIGATIONS SURROUNDING BURISMA STOPPED, AND BURISMA’S REPUTATION IN UKRAINE IS LOW, AND IT WAS DUBIOUS EVEN BEFORE THIS IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY RAISED IT TO NEW ATTENTION NOW, LET’S FACE IT, ACCORDING TO UKRAINIAN SOURCES, BURISMA IS NOT ON EVERYBODY’S FRONT BURNER IN THE UKRAINE, BUT IT IS HERE BECAUSE WE WERE PROVIDING HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS OF DOLLARS IN FOREIGN AID TO UKRAINE. THIS PRESIDENT SAID WE NEED TO STOP CORRUPTION. HE MENTIONS THE CORRUPTION HE HEARD ABOUT. IS THAT IMPEACHABLE? NO. HE’S ASKING FOR AN INVESTIGATION TO GET TOOT BOTTOM OF IT BECAUSE YOU DON’T GET IMMUNITY BECAUSE YOUR FATHER IS RUNNING FOR PUBLIC OFF THE OFFICE, JUST BECAUSE ANYONE RELATED TO YOU IS RUNNING FOR PUBLIC OFFICE. AND I WILL TELL YOU THIS PRESIDENT HAS DONE A REMARKABLE JOB IN SPITE OF 3 YEARS OF CONSTANT HARASSMENT BY THE DEMOCRATS OF THIS BODY AND MEDIA ON THE LEFT OF THIS COUNTRY. WE HAVE A GREAT ECONOMY. HE’S TRYING TO BRING ORDER TO THE BORD BORDER WE HAVE MORE PEOPLE WORKING THAN EVER BEFORE. THIS PRESIDENT SUPPORTS THE MILITARY AND PRESTIGE AROUND THE WORLD. IT IS NO MORE POLICY ON THE FOREIGN SIDE THAT WE SAW ON THE PRESENTATION. HE IS WORKING WITH GREATNESS >> MOVE TO STRIKE THE LAST WORD >> I WANT TO BEGIN VERY QUICKLY AND BEGIN WITH THE GENTLEMAN FROM OHIO LAMONTING ABOUT THE PRODUCTIVITY IN CONGRESS AND REMIND MY FRIENDS ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE AISLE THAT WE PASSED NEARLY 400-PIECES OF LEGISLATION AND 275 OF THOSE BILLS ARE BIPARTISAN AND RAISE THE COST OF PREEXISTING DRUGS AND PREEXISTING CONDITIONS AND PROVIDE EQUAL CARE FOR EQUAL WORK AND RAISE THE MINIMUM WAGE FOR 3 # MILLION AMERICANS AND BIGGEST ANTI CORRUPTION BILL. THE LIST IS EXHAUSTIVE, AND SADLY 87% OF THOSE BILLS ARE LYING ON MITCH MCCONNELL’S DISC DESK AND NOW LET’S GET BACK TO THE FACTS OF THIS IMPEACHMENT HEARING >> WHAT HAPPENED IN 2019? WHAT CHANGE SND THE PRESIDENT IS LOSING IN A NATIONAL POLL BY DOUBLE DIGITS TO JOE BIDEN THOSE ARE THE FACTS. THIRD, MULTIPLE WITNESSES, TRUMP ADMINISTRATION OFFICIALS, TESTIFIED THAT VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN DID NOTHING WRONG INCLUDING MR. KENT, AMBASSADOR

YOVANOVITCH, AMBASSADOR HOLMES AND AMBASSADOR VOLKER. THE FIRING WAS DONE IN ACCORDANCE WITH OFFICIAL U.S. POLICY. IT’S APRUBD BY THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT, APPROVED BY THE UNITED STATES AND MANY COUNTRIES THROUGHOUT YOU’RE AND A BIPARTISAN. THIS IS A CORRUPT PROSECUTOR AND OFFICIAL U.S POLICY THAT THE VICE PRESIDENT WAS EXECUTING. BY CONTRAST, WHAT WE HAVE IN THIS CASE, THE BASIS OF THIS IMPEACHMENT PROCEEDING IS EXACTLY THE OPPOSITE. WHAT PRESIDENT TRUMP WAS DOING WAS NOT OFFICIAL U.S POLICY, AND ALL OF THE WITNESSES CONFIRM THAT. IT WAS NOT DONE THROUGH THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT, AND IT WAS DONE AGAINST THE ADVICE OF ALL OF HIS ADVISORS AND SO THAT’S WHAT’S VERY DIFFERENT ABOUT WHAT WE’RE CONFRONTING TODAY. AND THIS WAS WORK NOT DONE BY THE STATE DEPARTMENT BUT LED BY THE PRESIDENT’S PERSON ATTORNEY LET’S NOT CONFUSE THESE TWO THINGS. FACTS MATTER. THE TRUTH MATTERS. YOU CAN’T CONTINUE TO MAKE ASSERTIONS >> I WOULD LIKE TO YIELD FROM THE GENTLEMAN FROM CALIFORNIA >> I THANK THE GENTLEMAN IF PRESIDENT TRUMP WAS SO INTERESTED IN YIELDING, FOR MANY YEARS THE VICE PRESIDENT’S SON WAS ON THE BOARD. THEY NEVER INVESTIGATED THIS. IT ONLY CAME ABOUT WHEN VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN BECAME PRESIDENT TRUMP’S POLITICAL OPPONENT. HE CALLED ZELENSKY TO CONGRATULATE HIM, AND THEN IN HIS TALKING POINTS HE TOLD HIM TO BRING UP CORRUPTION IN UKRAINE. HE NEVER DID IT, BUT THEY LIED TO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE AND SAID THE PRESIDENT HAD. JULY 25TH, AGAIN, NATIONAL SECURITY COUNSEL MEMBERS WORKED REALLY HARD TO TELL THE PRESIDENT, IMPRESS UPON THE UKRAINIAN PRESIDENT HE NEEDS TO ROOT OUT CORRUPTION. THE PRESIDENT NEVER BRINGS UP CORRUPTION. HE WANTED TO INVESTIGATE A U.S. CITIZEN IT’S A FORMAL PROCESS THEY GO THROUGH. THE PRESIDENT NEVER ASKED THE ATTORNEY GENERAL TO DO THIS. THE PRESIDENT WAS NEVER INTERESTED IN FIGHTING CORRUPTION IN UKRAINE. HE WAS ONLY INTERESTED IN WEAPONIZING CORRUPTION IN UKRAINE FOR HIS OWN PERSONAL BENEFIT. AND THAT’S WHY WE MUST HOLD HIM COUNTABLE FOR ABUSE OF POWER RECOGNIZE THE CONSENT REQUEST >> THE ARTICLE IS DATED FEBRUARY FEBRUARY 12TH, 2019, JUST 2-WEEKS BEFORE THE CALL WHEN HE ASKED WHETHER HE SHOULD WORRY ABOUT RUNNING AGAINST JOE BIDEN >> NO OBJECTION >> >> THERE ARE VOTES ON THE FLOOR MEMBER VOTES ON THE FLOOR. THE MEETING WILL STAND IN RECESS UNTIL AFTER THE VOTES. PLEASE RECONVENE IMMEDIATELY AFTER THE VOTES. THE COMMITTEE IS IN RECESS. THANKS >> THE SUBSTANTIVE ISSUES IS MUCH MORE SERIOUS

>> IT’S FASCINATING BECAUSE IT HAS BEEN OTHER DAYS WHERE THE PRESIDENT’S TEAM IS NOT PAYING ATTENTION TO THIS HEARING WHATEVER IS GOING ON IN CAPITOL HILL IS CERTAINLY BENEATH FROM WHAT THEY’RE PAYING ATTENTION TO. HE SEEMS VERY ENGAGED AND CALLING OUT SPECIFIC NUMBERS BY NAMES AS THEY’VE SPOKEN THIS MORNING >> THAT’S RIGHT. HE TRIED TO CORRECT A PAIR OF DEMOCRATIC HOUSE MEMBERS IN REAL TIME AFTER THEY SPOKE IN THE HEARING TO TRY TO SAY THEY HAD MISCHARACTERIZED HIS INTENT AND MISCHARACTERIZED WHAT HE SAID IN HIS PHONE CALL WITH THE UKRAINIAN PRESIDENT, AND OF COURSE WE’VE ALL SEEN THE ROUGH TRANSCRIPT OF THAT CALL IT’S VERY CLEAR WHAT THE PRESIDENT WAS SAYING THERE IT SPEAKS TO THE CONCERNS ABOUT THE IMPEACHMENT MEETINGS, AND IT’S FOCUSING ON GOVERNING AND CHILD CARE AND PAID LEAVE POLICIES AND OTHER INITIATIVES, BUT HIS FOCUS IS CLEARLY ON WHAT’S HAPPENING IN THE HOUSE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE >> REPUBLICANS HAVE BEEN CRITICIZED, OR IT’S BEEN NOTED SEVERAL TIMES AS THEY TRY TO DEFEND THE PRESIDENT, THEY’RE FOCUSED ON HOW, YOU KNOW, THEY HAVE ISSUE WITH HOW DEMOCRATS ARE RUNNING THE SHOW BECAUSE DEMOCRATS DO HAVE CONTROL HERE IN THIS COMMITSY, BUT AS WELL AS IN THE HOUSE GENERALLY, AND I HEARD ONE SAYING WE’RE ALL JUST FOCUSENED ON THE PROCESS, AND WE’RE NOT AND THEN HE WENT THROUGH 10 ITEMS HE DIDN’T LIKE ABOUT THE PROCESS. OTHER MEMBERS ON THE SIDE OF THE AISLE WHAT ARE YOU NOTICING AS THEY’RE TRYING TO LAUNCH A DEFENSE >> TODAY HAS BEEN A SUBSTANTIAL DEBATE ABOUT WHETHER PRESIDENT TRUMP ABUSED HIS POWER, AND IF SO DOES THAT MERIT IMPEACHMENT WHICH I THOUGHT WAS INTERESTING AND UNIQUE TO THE IMPEACHMENT HEARINGS WE HAD SO FAR. I DO SEE REPUBLICANS TRYING TO TALK MORE ABOUT SUBSTANCE DONALD TRUMP OVER THE PAST WEEK TWEETED AND SAID DEFEND ME ON THAT. AND HE HAD THERE’S NO WAY UKRAINE KNEW ABOUT THE AID BEING WITHHELD WHEN UKRAINE’S PRESIDENT HOPPED ON THE PHONE IN JULY WHICH IGNORED TESTIMONY FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE THAT THERE’S INDICATIONS THAT THEY MIGHT HAVE ANOTHER AREA IS THE CRIME TO IMPEACH TRUMP. I THINK IT’S A DEBATE. THE CONSTITUTIONAL SCHOLARS A COUPLE OF WEEKS TOUCHED ON THIS. THE REPUBLICANS SAID YOU DON’T HAVE TO MEET TO GET IMPEACHED. THOSE ARE TWO SEPARATE THINGS. BUT JONATHAN TURLEY SAID I THINK IT WILL BE BETTER IF YOU WOULD CONVINCE AMERICA HE BASICALLY COMMITTED A CRIME. BASICALLY HE PUT IT TO BILL CLINTON, HE’S ACCUSED OF TWO THINGS, LYING TO A GRAND JURY AND OBSTRUCTER A GRAND JURY PROCESS. I WANTED TO PULL UP A PROCESS WHO PULLED BACK IN THAT WAY. SHE SAID THIS IS A LEGAL DOCUMENT, THIS CONSTITUTION, I’M QUOTING HERE YOU CAN BREECH AND VIOLATE THE LAWS OF THE CONSTITUTION THEY’RE CONSTITUTIONAL CRIMES WE’RE GETTING INTO A SUBSTANTIAL DEBATE HERE >> THERE’S A QUESTION ON THE TABLE OF WHAT PRESIDENT TRUMP DID IS WORTH IMPEACHMENT. LET’S LISTEN TO CHAIRMAN NADHER, AND HE REFERRED TO IMPEACHER NIXON, AND HE USED THAT AS A REFERENCE TO DEFENSE PRESIDENT TRUMP, AND THOSE ARE AN ABUSE OF POWER AND OBSTRUCTION OF CONGRESS >> AND THE IMPEACHMENT OF PRESIDENT NUXEN, ALTHOUGH HE COMMITTED MANY CRIMES, THEY IMPEACHED FOR ABUSE OF POWER AND OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE. IT DID NOT SPECIFY A SPECIFIC CRIME, AND I WOULD POINT OUT THAT THE MAJORITY STAFF REPORT OF THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE BACK IN 1974, AND I BELIEVE 1998 BUT CERTAINLY 1974 POINTED OUT

DIFFERENT THINGS. IT’S CRIMES NOT IMPEACHABLE AND DIFFERENT THINGS THAT MIGHT NOT PEE A CRIME. IT IS A GRAVE AND SERIOUS OFFENSE AGAINST THE CONSTITUTION AND OBSTRUCTION FORM OF GOVERNMENT >> AT THE BEGINNING WE’RE TALKING ABOUT PRESIDENT NIXON, ALTHOUGH HE DIDN’T STEP DOWN, THEY RECOMMENDED IT, AND THEY DID MAKE IT THROUGH THIS PART. IT IS IN PLACE. WHAT ARE THE OTHER TAKEAWAYS FROM WHAT NADLER WAS SAYING? >> HE WAS TRYING TO GET AT WHAT I WAS SAYING EARLIER, IT’S A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN CRIME AND IMPEACHMENT. THEY NEED A VAGUE TERM THAT REPUBLICANS HAVE JUMPED ON THEM FOR WHICH IS ABUSE OF POWER. I HEARD REPUBLICANS SAY A LOT LIKE LISTEN. ABUSE OF POWER ISN’T SOMETHING YOU FIND IN THE CRIMINAL CODE. IT’S TOO VAGUE YOU’RE MAKING UP STUFF TO THROW UP THERE. WHEREAS DEMOCRATS ARGUE, LIKE, THE FOUNDERS LEFT THIS PURPOSELY VAGUE FOR US BECAUSE THEY COULDN’T IMAGINE SOME CRIMES THAT THE PRESIDENTS WOULD COMMIT THAT WOULD BE IMPEACHABLE, AND WE THINK DONALD TRUMP HAS LEVERAGED THE ENTIRE STATE DEPARTMENT FOR HIS POLITICAL BENEFIT. THE FACTS SHOW ABUSE OF POWER. THEY’RE TALKING PAST EACH OTHER >> IT’S NO RULE BOOK FOR CONGRESS AND TURNS TO PAGE 47 AND SAYS ABUSE OF POWER, AND THERE’S A CHECKLIST FOR ALL OF THE THINGS THAT FIT THAT CRITERIA. IT’S A JUDGMENT CALL THAT THESE ELECTED REPRESENTATIVES ARE BEING ASKED TO DO, AND THAT’S THE WAY THE FOUNDERS SET UP THE SYSTEM IT’S AN ENTIRE POLITICAL PROCESS, AND THAT’S BY DESIGN IT’S DIFFERENT THAN A CRIMINAL PROCESS AND DIFFERENT THAN WHAT YOU OR I WOULD GO THROUGH IN A COURT OF LAW ACCUSED PHOTOGRAPH CRIME. AND THE CHALLENGE IS NOT ONLY TO CONVINCE THEIR COLLEAGUES IN THAT COMMITTEE BUT THE AMERICAN PUBLIC THAT WHAT TRUMP HAS DONE IS WORTHY OF IMPEACHMENT. THEY’VE HAD A HARD TIME MOVING THE NEEDLE ON THAT POLLING >> LET’S LISTEN TO THE CONGRESSMAN FROM THE REPUBLICAN PERSPECTIVE, AND HE SOUNDED AGITATED, AND OUR COLLEAGUE REPORTED HE WAS HUDDLING WITH COUNSEL BEFORE HE LAUNCHED THIS ATTEMPT TO TRY TO MAKE THE CASE AGAINST IMPEACHMENT >> THIS NOTION OF ABUSE OF POWER IS LOWEST IN IMPEACHMENT THEORIES. HECK, I DON’T KNOW ANY POLITICAL PARTIES THAT DON’T THINK WITH THE OTHER SIDE OF THE WHITE HOUSE THAT DON’T HAVE ABUSE OF POWER. I HAVE A LOT OF CONSTITUENTS THAT THINK BARACK OBAMA ABUSES SEDHIS POWER. YOU SET THE STANDARD. IT’S BIPARTISAN AND OVERWHELMING. I YIELD BACK >> LOW ENERGY, SOUNDS LIKE A CALL TO SOMEONE AND A WORD >> THAT WOULD BE THE AUDIENCE HAS WON. WE ALL REMEMBER THE 2016 CAMPAIGN WHERE THE THEN CANDIDATE DONALD TRUMP USED THAT WORD LOW ENERGY TO TEAR DOWN BUSH AND PREVENT THE FLORIDA GOVERNOR FROM GAINING ANY TRACTION IN THAT RACE AND USED IT QUITE EFFECTIVELY. IT’S ONE OF THE CATCH PHRASES THAT HE GAVE THE CONGRESSMAN FROM FLL. I’M SURE THEY KNOW HE’S ONE OF THE MOST TRUSTED ALLIES IN THE HOUSE AND USED HIS PERCH ON THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE TO REALLY ARTICULATE A FIERY TRUMP >> THE CONGRESSMAN HAS A LOT ON HIS PLATE, AND THIS IS THE MOMENT WE’RE SEEING HIM TEAR THROUGH AJNDA ITEMS BECAUSE IT’S ACTIVITY ON CAPITOL HILL GENDA ITEMS BECAUSE IT’S ACTIVITY ON CAPITOL HILL MEMBERS WILL HANG OUT WITH THE PRESIDENT AT THE WHITE HOUSE? >> YEAH. THAT’S RIGHT. IT’S ONE OF THOSE MOMENTS WHERE THEY HANG OUT AT THE HOUSE, AND THEY PUT ASIDE THEIR DIFFERENCES AND IT’S THE CONGRESSIONAL BALL. IT’S HOSTED BY THE FIRST LADY. IT’S TRADITION IT’S UNCLEAR WHO WILL SHOW UP. I DON’T KNOW IF PELOSI WILL BE THERE OR ANY DEMOCRATS. I ASSUME IT WILL BE MOSTLY A REPUBLICAN GATHERING, BUT NONETHELESS IT IS A SOCIAL EVENT ON A VERY MOMENTOUS DAY IN TERMS OF THE IMPEACHMENT SERIES >> AND I WANT TO GET A READING FROM YOU BEFORE WE LET YOU GO WHAT ARE THE OTHER AGENDA ITEMS THEY HOPE TO ACCOMPLISH FROM THIS PAIRNL PARENTAL LEAD, AND ALSO TRADE DEAL, NAFTA AND SOMETHING THEY’RE TALKING ABOUT, HOW IS THE WHITE HOUSE VIEWING THOSE ITEMS? >> THEY’RE QUITE OPTIMISTIC ABOUT THAT. THE USMCA, THE TRAIT DEAL TO REPLACE NAFTA, THE

PRESIDENT NEGOTIATED THE TERMS WITH THE CANADIANS MANY, MANY MONTHS AGO, AND THAT BILL HAS BEN HOLDING IN CONGRESS FOR SOME TIME NOW. THE WHITE HOUSE HAS BEEN PUSHING HARD FOR IT. AND FINALLY IT WAS A BREAK THIS WEEK WHEN SPEAKER PELOSI AND OTHER DEMOCRATIC LEADERS ANNOUNCED SUPPORT FOR A COMPROINIZE OF THE UAMCA DEAL. THAT BILL IS IN THE SENATE AND PROBABLY WON’T GET PASSED AND SIGNED INTO LAW UNTIL EARLY NEXT YEAR. IT’S A POLITICAL MOMENT TOO. IT WAS A DECISION BY THE DEMOCRATS TO MOVE THIS FORWARD, SO THEY’RE MORE VULNERABLE DEMOCRATIC LAWMAKERS SAY WE WEREN’T JUST IMPEACHING THE PRESIDENT BUT DOING BUSINESS FOR THE AMERICAN PEOPLE AND TRYING TO GET THINGS DONE. IT WILL STAND POTENTIALLY AS ONLY THE LEGISLATIVE ACHIEVEMENT OF THIS ENTIRE YEAR >> AND FINALLY AS WE TURN OUR ATTENTION TO WHAT GOING TO HAPPEN IN JANUARY BECAUSE WE’RE SEEING ? >> ALL RIGHT. STAY WITH US. I WANT TO PLAY A LITTLE BIT OF A TAPE FROM CONGRESSMAN JEREMY NADLER. THIS IS THE RANKING CHAIRMAN COMMITTEE, AND DOUG COLLINS. EVEN AS THEY GO HEAD TO HEAD, THEY HAVE A WORKING RELATIONSHIP. LET’S PLAY A LITTLE BIT OF HOW TODAY STARTED >> BACK IN 2005, THE CHAIRMAN SCHEDULED THE MINORITY DAY HEARING BUT CUT OFF WITNESSES, SHUT OFF THE MICROPHONES AND SHUT OFF THE LIGHTS AND REFUSED RECOGNITION WHEN THEY REFUSED TO SPEAK. NO ONE IN THE MAJORITY ARGUED OUR ROTHS. IT’S NO PRACTICE FOR THE POINT OF ORDER FOR THE FOREGOING REASONS, I DON’T SUSTAIN THE POINT OF ORDER >> MR. CHAIRMAN, I THINK THAT THE ANSWER TO MY QUESTION, THIS STRUCK A NERVE SAYING IN PREVIOUS RIGHTS, IT IS NOT THE CHAIRMAN’S RIGHT TO DECIDE WHETHER IT IS SUFFICIENT OR WHETHER IT’S ACCEPTABLE OR CHAIRMAN’S RIGHT TO VIOLATE THE RULES IN ORD TO INTERFERE. IT IS INTERESTING TO ME THAT THIS TIME HAS BECOME THE ISSUE >> I WOULD LIKE THE CHAIRMAN TO TAKE ONE MORE MINUTE >> DOES HE APPEAL, YES OR NO? >> YES >> THE APPEAL OF THE RULING OF THE CHAIR IS NOT SUSTAINED >> I MOVE TO TABLE >> DID YOU ACTUALLY CALL FOR A VOTE? HOW DO YOU NOT SUSTAIN AND NOT CALL FOR A VOTE? >> I SUSTAINED FOR A POINT OF ORDER >> I CALL FOR A BILL RULE OF CHAIR. AND I CALL FOR A VOTE >> I RULE THAT THE POINT OF ORDER IS NOT WELL TAKEN >> WELL, THAT’S PAINFULLY OBVIOUS >> ALL RIGHT. LET’S GO TO CAPITOL HILL AND BRING IN OUR COLLEAGUE WHO HAS BEEN THERE THIS MORNING. SO DO THEY SEEM TO HAVE A HEALTHY WORKING RELATIONSHIP? DO THEY SEEM TO GET ALONG? >> Reporter: YOU KNOW WHEN I WATCHED THESE TWO, IT’S ALSO FASCINATING TO ME TO SEE A CHAIRMAN AND RANKING MEMBER AND WHAT THAT RELATIONSHIP AND LIKE AND THESE TWO MEN, YOU CAN DETECT IT IS SOME LEVEL OF RESPECT FOR WHAT BOTH SIDES SAY I THINK HE GIVES HIM VIEW TO TALK AND INTERJECT. I THINK THEY HAVE A REPORE THERE, BUT I CAN’T SPEAK ON PERSONAL RELATIONSHIPS, BUT WE MIGHT BE ABLE TO FORGIVE THESE TWO MEN BECAUSE THEY HAVE BEEN ABLE TO HAVE SOME OF THE MOST WEIGHTY ISSUES IN FRONT OF THEM THIS YEAR, THE RUSSIA PROBE,

OBSTRUCTION, GETTING SUBPOENAS FROM SOME OF THE WITNESSES THEY WANTED TO HEAR FROM, DEALING WITH THE MUELLER INVESTIGATION, SO IF IT IS RANCOR, IT IS PROBABLY BECAUSE IT IS A LOT OF SERIOUS ISSUES IN FRONT OF THE TWO MEN, THEY SORT OF PER SONIFIED BOTH OF THEIR SIDES AND REPRESENT BOTH OF THEIR SIDE VIEWED WITH THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION, AND WE KNOW IT’S WIDE GOALS BETWEEN THE TWO >> SO RHONDA, THIS COMMITTEE IS ON A BREAK FOR A VOTE. THERE’S SO MUCH ELSE HAPPENING ON CAPITOL HILL RIGHT NOW. TAKE US THROUGH WHAT ELSE IS IN PLAY >> Reporter: RIGHT. SO THEY BROKE FOR A VOTE ON THE HOUSE FLOOR RIGHT NOW. THAT IS A BILL. IT IS ACTUALLY NAMED AFTER THE LATE ELIJAH CUMMINGS IT’S A LOWER DRUG PRICE FOR MEDICAID AND MEDICARE RECIPIENTS. IT ISN’T SOMETHING SUPPORTED BY REPUBLICANS RIGHT NOW. IT WILL PROBABLY PASS THE HOUSE BUT PROBABLY NOT PASS THE SENATE EVEN IF TAKEN UP, AND THE PRESIDENT HAS MENTIONED THAT HE WILL VETO IT IF IT DID PASS THE SENATE. SPEAKER PELOSI HAS BEEN SPEAKING ACTUALLY ALL DAY ABOUT THIS. SHE HAD A PRESS CONFERENCE A LITTLE BIT AGO TALKING ABOUT THE NEED TO PASS THIS, AND THE LAST FEW WEEKS AND- HOAR WEEKLY PRESSERS, SHE USUALLY BEGINS TALKING ABOUT THIS BILL AND HOW IT’S IMPORTANT. SO YEAH, A LOT OF BIG ISSUES HAPPENING HERE IN THE HOUSE. AND ALSO, BETSY, THE SECRETARY OF EDUCATION IS HERE TESTIFYING TO THE COMMITTEE ON THE FACT THAT THERE WERE STUDENT LOAN RECIPIENTS WHO WERE DEFRAUDED BY FOR-PROFIT SCHOOLS SO AGAIN, ANOTHER BIG ISSUE THERE TOO. SO A LOT AN ALWAYS HAPPENING ON THE HILL ALONGSIDE THIS IMPEACHMENT INVESTIGATION >> WELL, RHONDA COLEMAN, THANK YOU SO: HOPEFULLY YOU’LL GET A BRIEF BREAK BEFORE YOU HEAD BACK INTO THE HEARING ROOM. TURNING BACK TO AMBER PHILLIPS, REPORT FOR THE 6, AND JACKIE WHO WRITES OUR MORNING NEWS LETTER I WANT TO GET A SENSE OF WHAT STANDS OUT TO YOU, AND EVEN THOUGH A MARKUP IS VERY PROCEDURAL, IT’S A BIG MOMENT BECAUSE WE EXPECT THEM TO GET OUT TODAY. WHAT’S STANDING OUT TOO? >> IT MIGHT SOUND CYNICAL, BUT I THINK THE INEVITABLY INEVTU INEVTABILITY, YOU ARE THE WHITE HOUSE SENATE PREPARING FOR A TRIAL AND MOVE THROUGH IT AS QUICKLY AS POSSIBLE >> ONE THING WE’RE WATCHING FOR IS DEFECTIONS. BE DON’T EXPECT TO SEE DEFECTIONS ON THIS COMMITTEE, AND WE HEARD LAST NIGHT ON THE OPENING STATEMENTS, EVERYONE WAS QUITE SOLID ON THE DEMOCRATIC SIDE AND REPUBLICAN SIDE, BUT HOUSE LEADERSHIP IS PREPARING FOR POSSIBLE SANCTIONS WHEN THE FULL HOUSE VOTES >> YEAH. THIS IS NOT EXPECTED SINCE WE KNEW >> NOT UNEXPECTED? >> THANK YOU. SINCE WE KNEW IT WAS 30 DEMOCRATS WHO WON AND HELPED DEMOCRATS IN THE HOUSE IN DISTRICTS THAT VOTED FOR TRUMP, AND THEY ARE ONE REASON, 30 REASONS NANCY PELOSI HAS WAITED THIS LONG TO BEGIN IMPEACHMENT AND SO OUR COLLEAGUES REPORTED LAST NIGHT THAT DEMOCRATIC LEADER ARE EXPECTING AT LEAST TWO DEFECTIONS. WE KNOW IT WAS TWO DEMOCRATS WHO VOTED AGAINST THE RULES SETTING UP IMPEACHMENT WHICH WAS KIND OF A PROXY VOTE, BUT AS MANY AS HALF A DOZEN AND MAYBE MORE. I WANT TO NOTE THAT IS INTERESTING. POLITICALLY, IT’S NOT COMPLETELY OUT OF LEFT FIELD IN PART THE DEMOCRATS ARE REPRESENTING THE TRUMP DISTRICT, AND DOZENS OF REPUBLICANS VOTED NOT TO IMPEACH HIM, AND THEY ACTUALLY HELPED SINK TWO ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT AGAINST THE FOUR HE WANTED. SO THIS WOULD BE A NORMAL THING FOR IMPEACHMENT >> YEAH. WE’VE KNOWN ALL ALONG THE HOUSE SPEAKER PELOSI WAS READY TO GO THROUGH THIS PROCESS, AND WE’RE SEEING EXACTLY WHY RIGHT NOW, AND I THINK THAT’S IN PART OF WHY YOU’RE SEEING THE PARALLEL TRACKS OF THE POLICY BEING MOVED FORWARD FROM THE SPEAKER URTENDING THE REFORM IN MADRID DURING A REALLY MOMENTOUS PART OF THIS IMPEACHMENT PROCESS TO USMCA GETTING PUSHED ONTO THESONT. THE SENATE. BUT I THINK IT’S A FEW MEMBERS OF THE

HOUSE JUDICIARY, ONE IN PARTICULAR, LUCY MCBATH WHO I THINK IS THE ONLY MEMBER ON THE COMMITTEE WHO COMES FROM, REPRESENTS A VULNERABLE DISTRICT WHO PREVIOUSLY VOTED FOR TRUMP IN 2016, AND SHE DELIVERED A PRETTY GOOD MESSAGE THAT THIS WAS NOT THE AMERICA HER SON JORDAN WHO WAS KILLED BY GUN VIOLENCE WOULD HAVE WANTED. I THINK IT DOES COME TO A MATTER, BOILS DOWN A MATTER OF WHAT IS THE MOAT ECSPEED I WENT THING POLITICALLY FOR DEMOCRATS TO DO, OR DO THEY BELIEVE IT WILL HOLD A LOT OF WAIT IN YEARS TO COME IT IS INTERESTING BECAUSE THE WAY THE WHITE HOUSE IS DOING THIS IS THAT THE MEDIA HAS GOTTEN IT WRONG ALL ALONG EDWARD HAS BEEN SO CONCERNED WITH REPUBLICANS, AND KEEPING AN EYE ON MCROMNEY, AND WILL THEY VOTE TO IMPEACH THE PRESIDENT, AND IN REALITY, THEY THINK IT’S DEMOCRATS WE SHOULD ALL KEEP AN EYE ON IN THE HOUSE AND SENATE, PEOPLE LIKE JOE AND DOUG CALL WHOONZ ARE VULNERABLE >> GREAT ONE, JACKIE. YOU KNOW, DO YOU GET THE SENSE THAT SPEAKER PELOSI IS SUCCEEDING IN THE MESSAGING OF WE WEREN’T IMPEACHING PRESIDENT TRUMP A YEAR AGO. WE ARE WORKING ON THIS NOW, AND SHE’S TRYING TO HAVE THIS VERY SOLEMN TONE. SHE IS QUOTING EVERYTHING FROM SCRIPTURE TO THE CONSTITUTION TO FOUNDING FATHERS WHEN SHE TALKS ABOUT IMPEACHMENT. JACKIE, DO YOU THINK THAT IS RESINATING FROM THE MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC THAT THINGS ARE CHANGING, THAT THE STORY AND CIRCUMSTANCES HAVE CHANGED. IT’S NOT THE THE DEMOCRATS HAVE BEEN ON THIS IMPEACHMENT PATH ALL ALONG WHICH IS WHAT REPUBLICANS ARE TRYING TO IMPRUCH >> IT IT’S A CONTRAST BETWEEN THE WAY DEMOCRATS ARE SPEAKING AND THE WAY REPUBLICANS AND RHETORIC REPUBLICANS ARE USING AND HOW THEY’RE TRYING TO COME ACROSS AS COMBATIVE, AGGRESSIVE AND REALLY ON THE DEFENSIVE FOR THE PRESIDENT. SO, YOU KNOW, I’M NOT NECESSARILY SURE HOUSE SPEAKER PELOSI, IF THAT’S RESINATING WITH VOTERS PER SE, SOME WHO HAVE TUNED OUT, SOME WHO HAVE BEEN BEEN IN BATTLEGROUNDS AND THEY TAPERER OFF FOR THE IMPEACHMENT PROCESS I DO THINK IT WILL BE A NEWT NEW GRAVITY. YOU WILL HAVE THEM SITTING ON THE BENCH CIRCUMSTANCE DAYS A WEEK AND LISTENING TO TESTIMONY AND DEBATE. IT WILL PUT A PAUSE ON THE PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGN, SO I THINK REGARDLESS OF WHAT, YOU KNOW, HOUSE SPEAKER PELOSI HAS BEEN ABLE TO COMPLISH, THE NEW PHASE OF IF AND WHEN THIS DOES MAKE IT TO THE SENATE, WILL FEEL CONSEQUENTIAL >> OKAY. LET’S TALK ABOUT PROCESS A LITTLE BIT, WHAT HAPPENING TODAY, THESE TWO ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT ARE ESSENTIALLY BEING MARKED UP, AND IT’S IDEAS BEING PROPOSED OR SUGGESTED. ONE OF THEM WAS TO CHANGE IT FROM DONALD J. TRUMP TO DONALD JOHN TRUMP. GET THAT IMMEDIATELY CHANGED. BUT WE’VE SEEN REPUBLICANS TRY TO PUT STUFF OUT THERE. JORDAN PUSHING BACK AGAINST THE ABUSE OF POWER WHICH IS A KEY PART OF THE ARTICLES, AND WE HEARD MATT GATES. HE WANTED TO TAKE OUT REFERENCES TO FORMER VICE PRESIDENT JOE BIDEN AND PUT IN SPECIFIC LANGUAGE ABOUT BURISMA AND HUNTER BIDEN, AND THEN HE WENT ON A TEAR ABOUT THE DRUG PROBLEMS THAT HUNTER BIDEN TALKED ABOUT, AND HE TALKED ABOUT ALLEGATIONS OF BUYING DRUGS AND STUFF LIKE THAT. AND IT WAS VERY INFLAMMATORY. WE SAW PUSHBACK AFTER THAT >> YEAH. I WAS LIKE THIS WHOLE THING IS SO DRAMATIC, AND LAWMAKERS KNOW THIS IS A DRAMATIC MOMENT, AND I THOUGHT SOMETIMES THE DRAMA CAME ACROSS AS LIKE LUCY MCBATH TALKING ABOUT HER SON THAT DIED AND REALITY TV — ISH. AND SO WHAT HAPPENED THEY WANT TO MUDDY THE WATERS ON WHO IS BEING INVESTIGATING AND/OR TRY TO COMMUNICATE THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP WAS WAS RIGHT IN ASKING THEM TO INVESTIGATE THE BIDENS. IT’S THERE IN THE PHONE TRANSCRIPT YOU CAN’T DENY IT. HOW DO THEY SEE IT AS AN OKAY THING TO DO THEY IMPUGN HUNTER BIDEN HIMSELF. YOU TALK ABOUT HIM BEING ON THE BOARD OF BURISMA, AND HOW BURISMA IS CORRUPT WHICH NOBODY DISAGREED WITH, AND NEW A FRANKLY SHOCKING DEVELOPMENT, HE GAVE MATT ON AND ON ABOUT A MASSIVE PUBLIC HEARING ABOUT SUBSTANCE ABUSE. HE OPENED UP AND TALKED ABOUT SUBSTANCE ABUSE AND FAMILY PROBLEMS. HE DOESN’T HAVE A SQUEAKY CLEAN PROBLEM

AND LIKE WHERE ARE WE GOING, AND JOHNSON KINDLY GOES, I WOULDN’T CALL, YOU KNOW, THE KETTLE BLACK >> YEAH, POT CALLING THE KETTLE BLACK >> THANK YOU, POT CALLING THE KETTLE BLACK, AND CALLING OW THAT HE HIMSELF HAS BEEN ARRESTED FOR A DUI >> YEAH. HE SAID BACKGROUND AND HISTORY, AND YOU MIGHT HAVE A HISTORY OF DUI. IT WAS A JOLT IN THE ROOM BECAUSE THEY KNOW MATT HAS A DUI ON HIS RECORD IT GOT DIRTY AND PERSONAL >> I WAS LAUGHING TO MYSELF FOR A MOMENT BECAUSE I WAS READING LIVE COMMENTS ON THE LIVESTREAM, AND IT WAS WHY ARE THE DEMOCRATS SPEAKING MORE CALMLY THAN THE REPUBLICANS. BUT I THINK IT IS PART OF THE TRAGEDY TO BE SERIOUS AND SOBER AND ABOUT TOPICS THAT THE DEMOCRATS ARE WEIGHING REALLY HEAVILY, AND MATT GATES AND DOUG COLLINS AND GYM JORDAN ARE TRYING TO MUDDY THE WATERS AND DEFLECT BECAUSE THEY REALIZE THAT, YOU KNOW, THE FACTS WOULD HAVE CAME OUT DON’T EXONERATE THIS PRESIDENT >> AND VERY QUICKLY, THE PRESIDENT TWEETED SOMETHING I’VE BEEN WAITING FOR THEM TO ECHO, AND HE SAID I DID NOTHING WRONG AND TALKING POINTS FROM THE REPUBLICAN LEADERSHIP TO THIS COMMITTEE SAID JUST SAY IT WAS AN IMPEACHABLE CONDUCT WHICH IS DIFFERENT, AND I THINK THAT’S JUST INTERESTED EVEN IF THEY’RE DEFENDING TRUMP, THEY’RE NOT WILLING TO GO AS FAR AS THE PRESIDENT DOES >> OUR COLLEAGUE AARON HAD A GREAT PIECE SAID IT WAS CRIMINAL CONDUCT. THE TWO ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT AREN’T EXPLICITLY MENTIONED IN THE CONSTITUTION BECAUSE THEY ULTIMATELY DECIDED NOT TO INTRODUCE OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE OR BRIBERY WHICH ARE TWO CRIMES PER SE >> ALL RIGHT. JACKIE FROM THE RED POWER UP WHICH YOU CAN SUBSCRIBE TO, AND AMBER PHILLIPS WRITES THE EVENING NEWS LETTER AMBER STAY WITH US FOR A MOMENT I WANT TO TALK ABOUT THE HISTORY HERE FOR A LITTLE BIT BECAUSE EVEN THOUGH PROCEEDINGS ARE ABOUT PRESIDENT TRUMP, TWO OTHERS HAVE BEEN MENTIONED A LOT, BILL CLINTON AND RICHARD NIXON. LET’S LISTEN TO CONGRESSMAN FROM OHIO >> AND THE NEW MEMO IS GROUNDS FOR IMPEACHMENT. THE MAJORITY GOES TO GREATLENGTHS TO EXPLAIN WHY ABUSE OF POWER IS GOOD. AND IT WAS BOTH RICHARD NIXON AND BILLCLIPTEN. WHAT THEY DON’T MENTION IS THAT THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES NEVER ADOPTED ALLEGED ABUSE OF POWER AS IT IS CHARGED IN IMPEACHMENT. WHO? BECAUSE IT’S NO CRIMINAL STATUTE ALLEGING WHAT ALLEGED ABUSE OF POWER ACTUALLY IS. ABUSE OF POWER IS A VAGUE AND AMBIGUOUS TERM OPEN TO INTERPRETATION FOR EVERY INDIVIDUAL BECAUSE IT LACKS A CONCISE DEFINITION IT IS A HIGHER BURDEN OF PROOF TO SHOW THE ACTIONS OF THE PRESIDENT RISE TO THE LEVEL OF IMPEACHMENT CONSTITUTION SAYS PROTECT AGAINST SOME KIND OF ABUSE THEY COULDN’T IMAGINE

THEY DIDN’T LIST OUT EVERY CRIME THEY COULD THINK OF A LAWMAKER DOING. IT’S THEIR PREROGATIVE TO SAY THIS IS WHY WE THINK TRUMP, THE KEY TERM IN THIS CONSTITUTION, IS TRUMP MEANT HIGH CRIMES AND MISDEMEANOR >> AS THIS HAS ALL BEEN GOING ON, YOU REPORTED THIS GREAT LEAD, EVEN AS THE HOUSE BEGAN DRAFTING CHARGES AGAINST PRESIDENT TRUMP, HIS PRIVATE ATTORNEY, WHO MANY BELIEVE IS PARTLY RESPONSIBLE FOR LEADING TRUMP ON THE PATH TO HIS LIKELY IMPEACHMENT MADE AN AUDACIOUS TRIP TO THE COUNTRY AT THE CENTER OF THE SCANDAL. THIS IS RUDY GIULIANI TRAVELING TO KIEV WHAT ARE PEOPLE MAKING OF THIS RIGHT NOW? WE HEARD MATT GATES ON THE SUNDAY SHOW SAY IT WAS WEIRD. MATT GATES WE TALKED ABOUT A MAJOR DEFENDER OF PRESIDENT TRUMP. SO WHAT’S THE INTERPRETATION OF WHAT RUDY GIULIANI IS UP TO? >> THERE’S A SENSE AS WITH MANY THINGS IN THIS ADMINISTRATION AND THIS WHITE HOUSE, THERE’S A DOUBLING DOWN OF WHAT WAS GOING ON BEFORE. SO YOU KNOW, I WAS RIGHT TO PURSUE THIS AGENDA, I’M GOING TO CONTINUE TO PURSUE THIS AGENDA. REMEMBER THAT RUDY GIULIANI WENT THERE WITH A DOCUMENTARY CREW FROM ONE AMERICA NEWS NETWORK THE IDEA WAS TO PUT OUT IN VIDEO FORM ARGUMENTS RUDY GIULIANI HAD BEEN MAKING ON FOX NEWS THROUGHOUT THE COURSE OF THE YEAR. AND THIS ALSO HAPPENED BEFORE REPORTING WE HAD IN THE PAPER THAT THE SENATE IS NARROWING IN ON AN IDEA OF HAVING A TRIAL WITH NO WITNESSES. A QUICK TRIAL THAT WOULDN’T NECESSARILY GO INTO THE DETAILS OF EVERYTHING THAT’S BEEN GOING ON. IF THAT WEREN’T TO HAVE HAPPENED, YOU WOULD WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT YOU HAVE SOME CONTENT TO SHOW SORT OF THE REPUBLICAN SIDE OF THE ARGUMENTS. AND RUDY GIULIANI WAS PUTTING TOGETHER ALL OF THIS NARRATIVE BEFORE THE SUSPECTED SENATE TRIAL. SO I THINK RUDY GIULIANI HAS SAID HE’S GOING TO DELIVER A REPORT ON HIS ACTIVITIES, WHAT HE’S GATHERED AND I THINK YOU CAN SEE THIS MIGHT END UP COINCIDING WITH THE SENATE TRIAL >> WHAT DOES IT MEAN FOR HIM TO DELIVER A REPORT? IS IT LIKE A FORMAL PROCESS THAT WOULD BE USED? I MEAN — >> ONE OF THE THINGS I THINK YOU’VE SEEN HAPPENING THROUGHOUT THIS PROCESS IS UKRAINE IS A VERY COMPLICATED PLACE TO UNDERSTAND AND MOST AMERICANS DON’T HAVE, NOR SHOULD THEY NECESSARILY HAVE A DETAILED UNDERSTAND OF UKRAINIAN PROSECUTORS INTERNATIONAL POLITICS IN UKRAINE. SO WHEN RUDY GIULIANI INTERVIEWS SPECIFIC PEOPLE AND SORT OF CHERRY PICKS INFORMATION IN ORDER TO MAKE A POINT ABOUT WHAT HE’S SAYING IS CORRUPTION ON JOE BIDEN’S PART IN UKRAINE, THAT STUFF CAN STICK BECAUSE IT’S VERY DIFFICULT TO — YOU HAVE TO SORT OF EXPLAIN THE ENTIRE CONTEXT IN UKRAINE AND PEOPLE DON’T REALLY NECESSARILY HAVE SORT OF PATIENCE FOR THAT KIND OF ARGUMENT. SO BRINGING THAT ARGUMENT BACK DURING A SENATE TRIAL COULD CERTAINLY BE HELPFUL >>> OKAY. SO EVEN AS THAT’S HAPPENING, WE SEE THIS IMPEACHMENT PROCESS MARCHING ON DO YOU GET THE SENSE OF HOW REPUBLICANS ARE VIEWING THE ROLE OF RUDY GIULIANI RIGHT NOW? IS THERE AN APPETITE FOR HIM TO BE INVOLVED IN THIS? DOES THE WHITE HOUSE HAVE AN APPETITE FOR HIM TO BE INVOLVED IN THIS? >> WE’VE HEARD MIXED THINGS ON THAT FRONT. WE’VE HEARD WHITE HOUSE OFFICIALS SAY THEY REALLY DON’T WANT HIM INVOLVED. BUT HE CONTINUES TO SAY THE PRESIDENT KNOWS WHAT HE’S DOING AND THAT HE’S COMPILING THIS REPORT AND THE PRESIDENT KNOWS ABOUT THAT SO THERE SEEMS TO BE DIVISION IN THE TRUMP CAMP ABOUT WHAT ROLE THEY WANT RUDY GIULIANI TO PLAY GOING FORWARD. RUDY GIULIANI IS ALSO UNDER INVESTIGATION FOR HIS ACTIVITIES BY THE SOUTHERN DEMOCRATIC OF NEW YORK WHICH HAS ALL READY INDICTED TWO OF HIS ASSOCIATES WHO WERE WORKING WITH HIM ON UKRAINIAN ISSUES OVER THE COURSE OF THE YEAR. AND I THINK THAT IS SOMETHING THAT AS THE IMPEACHMENT PROCESS SORT OF COMES TO A CLOSE WITH THE VOTE AND THEN WHAT WE ASSUME WILL BE A FAIRLY QUICK TRIAL IN THE SENATE, THE SOUTHERN DEMOCRATIC OF NEW YORK PROCESS WILL CONTINUE OVER THE COURSE OF THE YEAR AND THAT WILL COINCIDE WITH THE ELECTION >> DO YOU GET THE SENSE THAT REPUBLICANS JUST WANT RUDY GIULIANI TO GO AWAY >> THEY WANT NOTHING TO DO WITH HIM. THIS IS A SAFE ASSUMPTION I HAVEN’T DONE MY OWN REPORTING ON THIS. BUT LISTEN, YOU HEARD TRUMP’S OWN EUROPEAN UNION AMBASSADOR SAY I DIDN’T THINK IT WAS GOOD IDEA FOR RUDY GIULIANI TO LEAD THIS UKRAINE POLICY. HE KNOWS NOTHING ABOUT UKRAINE HE’S NOT A DIPLOMAT. HE’S NOT A GOVERNMENT OFFICIAL. WHAT IS GOING ON? IN ADDITION HE HAS HIS OWN CONFLICTS OF INTEREST, BUSINESS WISE, WHICH YOU GUYS HAVE REPORTED ON EXTENSIVELY SO I THINK WE CAN EXTRAPOLATE FROM THAT THAT REPUBLICAN SENATORS WHO ARE SMART AND UNDERSTAND GOOD POLITICS AND BAD POLITICS DO NOT WANT RUDY GIULIANI INVOLVED IN ANY OF THIS. COLLEAGUES HAVE RECORDED THAT LINDSAY GRAHAM, THE

CHAIRMAN OF THE SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE IS HAVING HIS OWN INVESTIGATIONS INTO THE BIDENS HE HASN’T CALLED RUDY GIULIANI TO COME TALK ABOUT THIS. EVEN AS RUDY GIULIANI COMES BACK FROM UKRAINE WAVING LIKE SOME REPORT HE’S GOING TO GIVE THEM. I’M SPECULATING HERE THAT COULD BE ONE REASON WHY OUR REPORTING SAID MITCH McCONNELL DOESN’T WANT ANY WITNESSES >> ONE THING YOU’VE BEEN REPORTING ON IS THIS QUESTION OF HOW SECURE THE PRESIDENT’S CONVERSATION IS. HOW SECURE THE CONVERSATIONS ARE OF PEOPLE THAT ARE ARE WORKING FOR HIM. AND THERE HAVE BEEN SOME SHOCKING MOMENTS WHERE THE PRESIDENT HAS BEEN BRAGGING OR TALKING ABOUT HIS COMMUNICATIONS, WE SAW THIS IN MAR-A-LAGO. BUT ALSO THIS INVESTIGATION PROCESS HAS REVEALED SOME VERY SURPRISING DECISIONS BY TRUMP ALLIES TO HAVE A CONVERSATION AND, YOU KNOW, IN A RESTAURANT IN UKRAINE WITH THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES NOW, DEMOCRATS ARE CRITICAL OF THIS. BUT, WHAT IS THE INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY SAYING ABOUT IT? >> FOR THE INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY, THIS IS AN ON SEC MIGHT MARRY, IT’S HOW YOU CONTROL YOUR COMMUNICATIONS TO THE BEST OF YOUR ABILITY TO ENSURE THE A FOREIGN GOVERNMENT IS NOT EAVESDROPPING ON THEM. YOU SEE THIS ON THE DOOR. DON’T DO THINGS WITH YOUR COMPUTER THAT MIGHT MAKE YOU MORE VULNERABLE TO THIS KIND OF EAVESDROP ORGANIZE SPYING. AND WHAT’S INTERESTING ABOUT THIS ENTIRE PROCESS AND YOU SEE CERTAIN ON SEC VULNERABILITIES IN THE REPORT. GORE DAN GORDON SUMLAND. ADAM SCHIFF AND THE HOUSE INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE SUBPOENAS PHONE ORDERS, RUDY GIULIANI’S PHONE RECORDS, AS WELL AS ONE OF HIS ASSOCIATES AND WHAT YOU SAW IN THOSE PHONE RECORDS IS DURING KEY MOMENTS OF THE UKRAINE SAGA THE DAY FOR EXAMPLE THAT THE U.S. AMBASSADOR TO UKRAINE WAS RECALLED, RUDY GIULIANI WAS FURIOUSLY CALLING THE WHITE HOUSE. BECAUSE THE RECORDS ARE SUBPOENAED FROM AT&T YOU KNOW THAT HE’S SPEAKING ON A CELL PHONE, THAT’S NOT POSSIBLE, EVEN IF IT’S ON A SECURE WHITE HOUSE LINE, A SECURE WHITE HOUSE HAND LINE, IF HE’S ON AN OPEN CELL PHONE LINE, THAT’S A HUGELY VULNERABLE ENVIRONMENT TO DISCUSS ANYTHING SENSITIVE. AND THE RECALL OF THE U.S AMBASSADOR OF UKRAINE WOULD BE SOMETHING OF DEEP INTEREST TO RUSSIAN INTELLIGENCE AND OTHER INTELLIGENCE AGENCIES FOR THAT MATTER. SO, YOU KNOW, IT’S A BIT OF AN IRONY THAT, YOU KNOW, THE LAST ELECTION CYCLE, 2016 WAS DOMINATED ABOUT WHETHER HILLARY CLINTON AS SECRETARY OF STATE WAS USING THIS PRIVATE EMAIL SERVER AND THERE FOR HAVING INSECURE COMMUNICATIONS OPEN TO SPYING BY FOREIGN GOVERNMENTS AND THAT STORY HAS SORT OF UNDER GIRDED THE ENTIRE IMPEACHMENT PROCESS HERE. BUT HAS GOTTEN LESS ATTENTION >> YEAH, IT’S FASCINATING. THIS QUESTION OF THE PHONE CALLS, PHONE RECORDS, IT WAS A SURPRISE THING THAT CAME OUT. DO WE KNOW MUCH AT THIS POINT? IS THERE ANY MORE INFORMATION ABOUT THE WHO? THE WHAT? THE WHY? YOU MADE VERY IMPORTANT CONNECTIONS ABOUT TIMING. WHICH REPORTERS HAVE BEEN DIGGING INTO. AND I’D LIKE TO HEAR FROM YOU, DO WE HAVE A SENSE THAT HOUSE INVESTIGATORS ARE PUSHING ON THAT TO FIND OUT MORE. THAT’S SOMETHING ELSE WE SHOULD TALK ABOUT. REPUBLICANS ARE VERY INTERESTED IN WHO GOT THE PHONE CALLS BUT IS THERE STILL A WINDOW OPEN FOR DEMOCRATS TO DO INVESTIGATION INTO WHY RUDY GIULIANI WOULD BE MAKING THESE CALLS, WHO WAS HE CALLING, THERE WERE CALLS TO NEGATIVE ONE MINUS ONE, IS THAT THE PRESIDENT? THEY HAVE THE TUNE TO FLUSH THIS OUT MORE, BUT THE WINDOW IS CLOSING IN TERMS OF THE HOUSEWORK OF THIS PHASE >> CONGRESS COULD START UP ANY INVESTIGATION IT WANTS TO. AND I THINK THERE ARE VALID THINGS HERE TO INVESTIGATE. THEY’RE NOT GOING TO, POLITICALLY. ONE, I MEAN RUDY GIULIANI IS A PUBLIC FIGURE BUT YOU HAVE THIS CLICK OF CONGRESS INVESTIGATING A PRIVATE CITIZEN, THAT WOULD BE ICKY. DEMOCRATS HAVE PUT TOGETHER THE EVIDENCE, ALL THE EVIDENCE THEY THINK THEY CAN TO IMPEACH TRUMP AND THEY’RE MOVING FORWARD. THEY WISH THEY HAD MORE. THEY COULDN’T GET MORE THESE CALLS WERE TANTALIZING TRAILS BUT THEY HAVEN’T PURSUED

IT. THEY’RE JUST RUNNING OUT OF TIME. AND THEN THREE, I THINK DEMOCRATS ARE VERY CAUTIOUS OF THIS POLITICAL ARGUMENT REPUBLICANS ARE MAKING. THEY’RE SCREAMING AT THE TOP OF THEIR LUNGS THE DEMOCRATS ARE JUST ATTACKING TRUMP BECAUSE THEY DON’T LIKE HIM. AND THEY’RE AFRAID THEY CAN’T BEAT HIM IN NOVEMBER. NANCY PELOSI HAS HER OWN MAJORITY TO WORRY ABOUT IT’S NOT LIKE ON A RAZOR’S EDGE IN NOVEMBER. BUT SHE CAN MAKE MASSIVE POLITICAL MISTAKES. I THINK MOVING FORWARD ON INVESTIGATING RUDY GIULIANI WOULD — COULD MERIT BEING DESCRIBED AS A MASSIVE POLITICAL MISTAKE >> SHE DOESN’T HAVE TO WORRY ABOUT IT BECAUSE THE DISTRICT OF NEW YORK IS DOING IT. ADAM SCHIFF SAID THEY’RE GOING TO CONTINUE TO LOOK INTO THE PHONE CALLS THEY OUTLINED IN THE REPORT. IT’S UNCLEAR WHETHER THAT’S GOING TO GO ANY WHERE >> ADAM SCHIFF WAS ASKED ABOUT A REPUBLICAN LAWMAKER IN THOSE PHONE CALLS. ADAM SCHIFF’S COLLEAGUE ON THE INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE. HE SAID WE’LL REFER TO THE ETHICS COMMITTEE, THEY’RE NOT GOING TO GO DOWN THAT ROAD OF WHAT NUNEZ KNEW ABOUT UKRAINE AND GIULIANI AND WHEN >> REPUBLICANS WERE CRITICAL AS THE PHONE CALLS CAME UP AND WONDERING WHO WAS SEEKING THEM WAS IT ADAM SCHIFF? WAS IT AS ATTORNEY FOR THE COMMITTEE? THEY WERE TRYING TO PULL AT THREAD THIS IS WEEK ASKING COUNCIL FOR THE DEMOCRATS, WHO INITIATED THIS? WHO GOT THESE PHONE RECORDS, AND THEY DIDN’T ANSWER THEY SAID THAT’S PART OF A BEHIND THE SCENES INVESTIGATION, WE’RE NOT GOING TO SPEAK TO THAT. WHY IS THAT RELEVANT TO REPUBLICANS >> THIS WAS SORT OF INVESTIGATORY MALPRACTICE BY SCHIFF. HE SHOULDN’T INCLUDE A PHONE CALL WITH A MEMBER OF CONGRESS OR A JOURNALIST, THAT WAS DETAILED IN THE REPORT. HE SHOULDN’T INCLUDE A PHONE CALL WITH THE PRESIDENT’S PERSONAL ATTORNEY. AND I THINK IT’S PRETTY CLEAR FROM THE REPORT, THEY HAVEN’T SAID EXACTLY WHOSE RECORDS THEY SUBPOENAED, BUT WHEN YOU LOOK AT THE CONTEXT OF THE REPORT, IT SEEMS CLEAR THEY SUBPOENAED RUDY GIULIANI’S RECORDS AND HIS ASSOCIATES. WHEN THEY WERE CALLING DEVEN NUNEZ OR A JOURNALIST FROM THE HILL, THOSE RECORDS WOULD THEN SHOW UP ON THEIR — I THINK IT ALL CAME FROM AT&T. ON THEIR PHONE CALL LOG. SO THE REPUBLICANS, AS YOU SAY, HAVE RAISED ALLEGATIONS THAT THIS WAS WRONG, THAT DEVEN NUNEZ OR THE JOURNALIST’S NAME SHOULD HAVE BEEN BLOTTED OUT OR NOT INCLUDED AT ALL. I THINK THE DEFENSE OF THAT ON THE HOUSE INTELLIGENCE SIDE ON THE DEMOCRAT’S SIDE HAS ESSENTIALLY BEEN THAT WE NEEDED TO IN OUR REPORT DEMONSTRATE A PATTERN OF BEHAVIOR. AND THEY’RE ESSENTIALLY ACCUSING JOHN SOLOMON AND DEVEN NUNEZ OF INVOLVEMENT IN WHAT WAS SORT OF GIULIANI’S SPEARHEADED CAMPAIGN AGAINST JOE BIDEN >> ONE OF THE DEFENSES REPUBLICANS ARE MAKING TODAY AND THEY HAVE BEEN MAKING IS THAT THE DEFENSE MONEY FOR UKRAINE THAT WAS HELD UP WAS ULTIMATELY DELIVERED. AND WITHOUT, YOU KNOW, AN INVESTIGATION ANNOUNCEMENT COMING FROM UKRAINE, WITHOUT THIS ANNOUNCEMENT OR A DRAMATIC UNVEILING ON CNN OR ANYTHING ELSE THAT THEY’RE INVESTIGATING BARISMA OR THE BIDENS OR ANYTHING ELSE. SO DEMOCRAT HAVES A LOT OF PROBLEMS WITH THAT BECAUSE THE TIMELINE IS QUESTIONABLE. IT’S A BIT POROUS HOW ARE YOU VIEWING THAT DEFENSE? >> ONCE AGAIN, I THINK IT FITS IN THE PATTERN OF REPUBLICANS HAVING THIS BUMPER STICKER DEFENSE THAT JUST LIKE CAN RESONATE OUTSIDE OF WASHINGTON MORE QUICKLY THAN I THINK DEMOCRATS MORE NUANCED ARGUMENTS AND REBUTTALLED CAN. I HEAR REPUBLICANS SAY UKRAINE GOT THEIR MONEY. UKRAINE GOT THEIR MONEY. IT TAKES A COUPLE PARAGRAPHS TO EXPLAIN THE OTHER SIDE. WHICH IS AROUND THE TIME THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP RELEASED THE AID, WE KNOW THAT THERE WAS THIS WHISTLEBLOWER COMPLAINT CIRCULATING IN WASHINGTON. THE NEW YORK TIMES HAS REPORTED THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP WAS BRIEFED ON THIS AROUND THAT TIME. THEIR NARRATIVE IS ESSENTIALLY SAYING HE GOT CAUGHT OR HE FEARED HE WAS GOING TO GET CAUGHT SO HE RELEASED THE AID. I HEARD AN ARGUMENT FROM JIM JORDAN SAYING ON THE DAY TRUMP RELEASED AID THERE WERE TWO ANTI-CORRUPTION LAWS THAT WERE GOING TO BE SIGNED INTO LAW IN UKRAINE WHICH IS INTERESTING >> ONE OF THE THINGS THE DEMOCRATS HAVE PERHAPS NOT BEEN ABLE TO GET ACROSS HERE, AS CLEARLY AS THEY PERHAPS WANTED IS THAT THE QUID PRO QUO IS FOR THE WHITE HOUSE MEETING, RIGHT, THE INITIAL QUID PRO QUO IS THAT DONALD TRUMP AND HIS ADMINISTRATION ARE WITHHOLDING A PROMISED OVAL OFFICE MEETING FOR ZELENSKY UNTIL HE PUBLICLY ANNOUNCES THESE INVESTIGATIONS THAT WILL HELP TRUMP POLITICALLY IN THE 2020 ELECTION. INTO JOE BIDEN AS WELL AS WHAT HAPPENED

IN 2016. AS YOU LOOK AT THE TIMELINE, THE INITIAL QUID PRO QUO IS YOU WON’T GET A HIGH PROFILE MEETING WITH THE WHITE HOUSE, WHICH IS IMPORTANT. YOU WANT TO SHOW RUSSIA THAT THE U.S. IS BEHIND UKRAINE, EVEN THOUGH THE ADMINISTRATION HAS CHANGED. UNTIL YOU MAKE THIS PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENT. IT’S CLEAR IN THE REPORT. IT’S CLEAR FROM THE TESTIMONY. IT’S CLEAR FROM THE TEXT MESSAGES RELEASED THAT THERE WAS AN OBVIOUS EXCHANGE FOR THAT MEETING IN EXCHANGE FOR THIS ANNOUNCEMENT. THEN WHAT HAPPENS IS AS THEY GO BACK AND FORTH ABOUT THE ANNOUNCEMENT AND WHETHER OR NOT IT’S GOING TO BE MADE. THE UKRAINIANS LEARN THAT ACTUALLY THE MILITARY IS NOT COMING EITHER. AND IT’S COMMUNICATED TO THEM THROUGH THE U.S. AMBASSADOR TO THE EU, GORDON SOME LIND THE INITIAL QUID PRO QUO IS FOR THE MEETING AND THE ARGUMENT IS SUBSEQUENT TO THAT THE AID WAS SORT OF A PILE ON. IT WAS SORT OF AN ADDED MEASURE OF PRESSURE AND WHAT THE REPUBLICANS HAVE TRIED TO SAY IS WELL BECAUSE THE UKRAINIANS, SOME UKRAINIANS CERTAINLY BUT NOT ALL, DIDN’T KNOW ABOUT THE AID BEING HELD UP IN JULY, IT COULDN’T HAVE BEEN A QUID PRO QUO BECAUSE THEY DIDN’T KNOW IT. THE UKRAINIANS KNEW FULL WELL THEY NEEDED THE MEETING AT THE WHITE HOUSE. AND THEY KNEW FULL WELL THEY WEREN’T GETTING IT UNTIL ZELENSKY MADE THIS COMMITMENT ON THE INVESTIGATION >> IN THE VERY FIRST PHONE CALL BETWEEN ZELENSKY AND THE WHITE HOUSE. IT’S CLEAR THE WHITE HOUSE WANTS TIME WITH THE PRESIDENT OR ANYONE THAT CAN GET CLOSE TO THE PRESIDENT. BUT DO YOU THINK THAT IT’S BEEN MADE TO THE CLEAR PUBLIC OF WHY THAT MEETING IS SO PRECIOUS AND SO IMPORTANT TO THE NEW LEADER OF UKRAINE? >> I THINK THE DEMOCRATS HAVE STRUGGLED A LITTLE BIT IN CLARIFYING THAT. INITIALLY THE NARRATIVE WAS THE QUID PRO QUO WAS FOR THE AID. BUT IT BECAME CLEAR OVER THE COURSE OF THE INVESTIGATION THAT THE FIRST QUID PRO QUO WAS REALLY FOR THAT MEETING AND THE IMPORTANCE OF THAT MEETING FOR THE UKRAINIANS CAN’T BE OVER STATED. RIGHT THE FIRST NEW GOVERNMENT IN UKRAINE WHICH WAS THE FIRST UPRISING. THEY ARE AT WILLIAM BARR WITH RUSSIA BACKED PROXIES IN THE EAST. THEY’RE TRYING TO NEGOTIATE A SETTLEMENT IN THAT WAR. THEY RECEIVE MILITARY AID WITH THE UNITED STATES NEGOTIATING WITH RUSSIA WITHOUT SHOWING THE KREMLIN THAT THE U.S. IS STILL BACKING US EVEN THOUGH WE HAVE A NEW GOVERNMENT IS A PERILOUS POSITION NOR THEM THE WAY TO SHOW THE U.S. STILL BACKS UKRAINE IS WITH A BIG HANDSHAKE WHITE HOUSE MEETING AND ENDORSING WHAT DONALD TRUMP IS SAYING >> IT STILL HASN’T HAPPENED TRUMP AND ZELENSKY MET ON THE SIDELINES OF THE U.N. IN A PREVIOUSLY PLAN MEETING AND ZELENSKY MADE A JOKE. IT WASN’T A JOKE. WHERE’S THE MEETING? ARE YOU GOING TO INVITE ME? HE STILL HASN’T GOTTEN THAT. AND PAUL MAKES A GOOD POINT. THE MEETING GETS LOST IN DEMOCRATS TALKING ABOUT THE AID. THEY JUST FEEL LIKE THAT’S THE MORE EGREGIOUS THING TO HOLD UP. BUT THEY STILL HAVEN’T GOTTEN THAT. THEY COULD ERASE REPUBLICANS TALKING POINT OF UKRAINE GOT THEIR MONEY BY PERHAPS UPPING AND EXPLAINING THE IMPORTANCE OF THIS OVAL OFFICE MEETING TO UKRAINE . BUT THAT TAKES A LOT OF DETAILS AS PAUL OUTLINES ELOQUENTLY. LIKE RUSSIAN BACKED SEPARATISTS. THE 2014 NEW GOVERNMENT. AND IT’S HARD FOR DEMOCRATS RIGHT NOW >> IF SOMETHING SIGNIFICANT HAPPENED THIS WEEK, ZELENSKY MET WITH VLADIMIR PUTIN. AND THERE WAS CONCERN THAT ZELENSKY WAS GOING INTO THIS MEETING COMPROMISED OR NOT IN THE STRONGEST POSITION. WE TALKED TO ROBIN DICKSON WHO SAID THIS WAS A REAL CONCERN OF THE UKRAINIANS THAT ZELENSKY HAS BEEN DINGED BY THIS PROCESS >> YEAH. I THINK THERE ARE SERIOUS CONCERNS IN UKRAINE RIGHT NOW THAT THEY DO NOT ACTUALLY ENJOY DESPITE WHAT IS ON PAPER, WHAT’S PASSED THROUGH CONGRESS, BIPARTISAN BACKING FROM CONGRESS. SUPPORT FROM THE PENTAGON. SUPPORT FROM THE STATE DEPARTMENT. DONALD TRUMP DOESN’T LIKE UKRAINE AND DOESN’T SUPPORT THEM. NOW THERE ARE ACCUSATIONS ABOUT UKRAINE MEDALING IN THE ELECTION. WHICH HAS NOT BEEN PROVEN. CORRUPTION AND UKRAINE ARE TWO WORDS COMING TOGETHER ALL THE TIME THESE DAYS >> THEY NO LONGER ENJOY THE KIND OF STEADFAST U.S. BACKING THEY’VE ENJOYED AND AS WE SAW FROM THIS SUMMIT WITH PUTIN AND ZELENSKY, NOTHING REALLY CAME OF IT. WE’RE STILL SORT OF AT A STAND STILL >> THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR JOINING US. I WANT TO PLAY SOME TAPE, AMBER, FROM LAST NIGHT T JUDICIARY COMMITTEE MADE THIS UNUSUAL MOVE OF HAVING SOME OF THE ACTION HAPPEN IN PRIME TIME LAST NIGHT. LET’S LISTEN TO

THESE OPENING SPEECHES. THE OPPORTUNITY FOR MEMBERS ON BOTH SIDES OF THE AISLE TO MAKE THEIR CASE FOR OR AGAINST THE ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT >> TODAY WE MEET TO BEGIN CONSIDERATION OF ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT AGAINST PRESIDENT DONALD J TRUMP. OTHER PRESIDENTS HAVE RESISTED CONGRESSIONAL OVER SIGHT. BUT PRESIDENT TRUMP’S STONE WALL WAS COMPLETE, ABSOLUTE AND WITHOUT PRECEDENT IN AMERICAN HISTORY >> WHEN THEY CAN’T MAKE THEIR ARGUMENT THAT THE PRESIDENT PRESSURED PLAZA HEN SKI, THEY THEN ATTACK MR. ZELENSKY THE MAJORITY IS SAYING MR. ZELENSKY IS A LIAR AND WE’RE TEARING DOWN A WORLD LEADER IN THE EYES OF THOSE WHO DON’T LIKE HIM IN HIS OWN COUNTRY AND RUSSIA WHO IS ATTACKING HIM. WHEN WE CAN’T MAKE OUR CASE WE NOT ONLY TRY TO TEAR DOWN THE LEADER OF THE FREE WORLD, PRESIDENT TRUMP, WE’RE TEARING DOWN THE NEWLY ELECTED LEADER OF THE UKRAINE. AFTER ALL THESE HEARINGS AND GRAND PRONOUNCEMENTS AND TALKS OF CRIME IN PLAIN SIGHT WE GET ABUSE OF POWER? WITH NO REAL DATES ON THIS IS THE ABUSE. IT’S JUST GENERIC, VAGUE STATEMENTS >> UNDERSTANDABLE THAT REPUBLICANS FEEL LOYALTY TO THE LEADER OF THEIR PARTY. BUT LOYALTY TO OUR COUNTRY AND OUR CONSTITUTION MUST BE GREATER >> WHAT WE’RE DEBATING HERE IN MY OPINION IS THE WEAKEST CASE IN HISTORY. AND YET THE DEMOCRATS HAVE DECIDED TO GO FULL SPEED AHEAD, AGAIN, BECAUSE OF THE CLOCK AND THE CALENDAR, WITH AN INCOMPLETE RECORD, SIMPLY BY USING HEARSAY EVIDENCE, AND TRASHING THE RULES OF THE HOUSE EVERY TIME THEY CAN IN ORDER TO SPEED THINGS UP WITH A PREORDAINED CONCLUSION AND THAT’S A PARTISAN VOTE FOR IMPEACHMENT >> TOMORROW THIS COMMITTEE WILL HOLD A VOTE TO IMPEACH A PRESIDENT WITHOUT HAVING HEARD FROM A SINGLE WITNESS AND WITHOUT ALLOWING THE MINORITY PARTY THE ABILITY TO CALL WITNESSES OR PRESENT ANY DEFENSE, WHAT A TRAVESTY OF JUSTICE >> THE HOUSE IS A SEPARATE AND COEQUAL BRANCH OF GOVERNMENT. WE DON’T WORK FOR THIS PRESIDENT OR ANY PRESIDENT. WE WORK FOR THE AMERICAN PEOPLE. FORTUNATELY, WE THE PEOPLE ARE NOT AS DUMB AS PRESIDENT TRUMP THINKS WE ARE IF YOU BREAK THE LAW, AND WITHHOLD DOCK YOU WANTS, WE KNOW IT’S NOT BECAUSE THOSE DOCUMENTS MAYBE YOU LOOK GOOD >> IF THE PRESIDENT HAD NOT ABUSED HIS POWER. IF EVERYTHING HE DID WAS TRULY PERFECT , HE WOULD HAVE DEMANDED THAT EVERYONE THAT WORKS FOR HIM COME FORWARD AND TELL THE TRUTH. BUT INSTEAD OF ORDERING HIS STAFF TO TELL THE TRUTH, HE SILENCED THEM >> THINK ABOUT WHAT CHAIRMAN SCHIFF DID LAST WEEK. HE RELEASED THE PHONE RECORDS OF THE PRESIDENT’S PERSONAL LAWYER THE PHONE RECORDS OF A MEMBER OF THE PRESS AND THE PEN RECORD OF A REPUBLICAN — AND THE PHONE RECORDS OF A REPUBLICAN MEMBER OF CONGRESS. THIS IS SCARY STUFF. IT’S DANGEROUS FOR OUR COUNTRY. IT’S NOT HEALTHY FOR OUR COUNTRY. AND WE SHOULD REMEMBER WHAT EMMET FOOD TOLD US, THE PRESIDENT’S LAWYER, WHAT HE TOLD US WHEN THE MULLER REPORT CAME OUT. IT WOULD BE WELL TO REMEMBER THAT WHAT CAN BE DONE TO A PRESIDENT CAN BE DONE TO ANY OF US >> WE ARE MARKING UP ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT FOR OFFENSES THAT AREN’T CRIMES THAT SOME MEMBERS OF CONGRESS HAVE NEVER HEARD OF BEFORE. MUCH LESS KNOW WHAT IT MEANS >> HOUSE DEMOCRATS AREN’T CLARIFYING THAT NO ONE’S ABOVE THE LAW. THEY’RE JUST CLARIFYING THAT NONE OF THEM ARE ABOVE PARTISAN SHIP AND POLITICS. THIS IS THE QUICKEST, THINNEST, WEAKEST, MOST PARTISAN IMPEACHMENT IN ALL OF AMERICAN PRESIDENTIAL HISTORY. AND FOR ALL THE RADICAL LEFT ATTACKS ON THE PRESIDENT’S HONESTY THERE LIES LIE THEY CONTINUE TO FUEL THE IMPEACHMENT >>> WE SAW THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE GAVEL IN AT 7:00 LAST NIGHT. WHICH IS UNUSUAL TO GET ROLLING THE ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT. THAT’S NIGHT WAS A CHANCE FOR EVERY MEMBER TO MAKE THEIR OWN OPENING STATEMENT AMBER PHILLIPS WITH THE FIX THANK YOU FOR BEING HERE, I’D LIKE TO KNOW WHAT’S STANDING OUT TO YOU TODAY SO FAR, I’D HATE TO REDUCE THIS TO WINNERS AND LOSERS, I THINK IT DOES A DISSERVICE, BUT DO YOU GET THE SENSE OF DEMOCRATS OR REPUBLICANS FEELING GOOD ABOUT HOW THEY’RE HANDLING THE PROCESS AT THIS POINT >> I SEE A UNITED FRONT FROM REPUBLICANS ON THE COMMITTEE THEY’VE UNITED AGAINST THIS IDEA THAT THE DEMOCRAT HAVES A PRETERMED OUTCOME THAT THEY’RE TRYING TO MAKE THE EVIDENCE FIT THAT OUTCOME AND THEY’VE PRETTY RESOLUTELY STOOD BEHIND THE

PRESIDENT IN A WAY I WASN’T SURE THEY WOULD. I THINK AMBER HAS WRITTEN ABOUT THIS TOO. THERE’S SOME DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE IDEA THAT THE PRESIDENT DID NOTHING WRONG AND THE IDEA THAT HE — WELL, MAYBE THE CALL WASN’T PERFECT AND MAYBE IT’S NOT A GREAT IDEA TO ASK A FOREIGN GOVERNMENT TO INVESTIGATE YOUR POLITICAL OPPONENTS BUT IT’S NOT IMPEACHABLE. AND WE THOUGHT MAYBE THEY’D GO TOWARD THE NOT IMPEACHABLE ARM. BUT THEY’RE GOING TOWARD THE THERE’S NOTHING AT ALL WRONG HERE. WE’RE SEEING THAT UNITED ACROSS THE ENTIRE REPUBLICAN SIDE OF THE COMMITTEE. DEMOCRATS ON THE OTHER HAND ARE TRYING TO RECON WITH THE ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT THEY’VE CHOSEN REPUBLICANS ARE MAKING A POINT OF ARGUING THOSE ARTICLES DON’T INCLUDE A STATUTORY CRIME WHICH I THINK IS SOMETHING DEMOCRATS HAVE TO DEAL WITH NOW BECAUSE THEY DON’T. ABUSE OF POWER IS KIND OF A NEBULOUS CONCEPT OBSTRUCTION OF CONGRESS IS NOT SOMETHING YOU CAN BE PROSECUTED FOR IN A COURT OF LAW. SO WE’VE SEEN SOME DEMOCRATS COME FORWARD AND SAY WELL, THIS ACTUALLY WAS BRIBE BRIBERY. WE’VE SEEN OTHERS SAY THIS IS NOT ABOUT STATUTORY CRIMES BUT CRIMES AGAINST THE CONSTITUTION. WHAT DOES THAT MEAN TO YOUR AVERAGE PERSON WHO DOESN’T UNDERSTAND THE PROCESS. THE DEMOCRATS ARE NEED TO BE FOCUSED. THEY NEED TO MAKE A CONCISE CASE TO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE >> WHEN IS IT IMPORTANT TO ASK WHEN THERE ARE WINNERS AND LOSERS IN THIS PROCESS? >> THERE ARE GOING TO BE WINNERS AND LOSERS, THE PRESIDENT WON’T BE REMOVED FROM OFFICE, BUT THIS ALL PLAY INTO THE 2020 ELECTION, CERTAINLY, AND IF THIS EVEN MOVES THE NEEDLE A LITTLE BIT ONE WAY OR ANOTHER THAT CAN BE A SIGNIFICANT IMPACT. IF THIS MAKES YOUR AVERAGE SWING VOTER THAT MUCH MORE UNLIKELY TO SUPPORT HIM, THAT CAN HAVE A SIGNIFICANT IMPACT. IF IT MOTIVATES THE PRESIDENT’S SUPPORTERS BECAUSE THEY FEEL HE’S BEING PERSECUTED THROUGH THIN CHARGES AND NOT BEING ACCUSED OF A CRIME, THAT CAN BE SIGNIFICANT AS WELL. PRACTICALLY SPEAKING, AS FAR AS REMOVAL FROM OFFICE, A LOT OF THIS ISN’T GOING TO MATTER, AS FAR AS CASES BEING MADE, AS FAR AS THE STAGE CRAFT HERE, ALL OF THIS WILL HAVE AN IMPACT ON THE 2020 ELECTION >> IT’S BEEN INTERESTING TO HEAR DEMOCRATS MAKE THEIR CASE. SOME HAVE JUST BEEN SORT OF LIKE ALMOST LIKE I CAN’T BELIEVE THIS IS HAPPENING. OF COURSE THE PRESIDENT HAS DONE SOMETHING WRONG. AND SOME HAVE SAID, YOU KNOW, WE’RE GOING TO FOCUS ON THESE TWO SPECIFIC ARTICLES. BUT THEN YOU’VE ALSO HAD DEMOCRATS REFERENCING LIKE PAST BEHAVIOR OR OTHER ACCUSATIONS AGAINST THE PRESIDENT, WHICH REPUBLICANS HAVE BEEN QUICK TO JUMP ON THEY’RE LIKE YOU WANT BOTH THINGS, YOU WANT TO FOCUS ON TWO ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT. YET YOU’RE REFERENCING OTHER BEHAVIOR BY THE PRESIDENT THAT COMES NOWHERE NEAR THESE ARTICLES >> THAT GETS THE DEMOCRAT’S CENTRAL STRUGGLE HERE, THEY DON’T LIKE TRUMP. THEY WISH HE DIDN’T WIN. HOW DO THEY CONVINCE VOTERS TO THEY’RE IMPEACHING HIM ON LEGITIMATE ISSUES. BECAUSE REPUBLICANS ARE HAVING THIS NOT NUANCED ARM. SHOUTING FROM THE ROOFTOPS. THEY’RE TRYING TO GET HIM OUT OF OFFICE. THEY WOULDN’T WIN IN 2016. IGNORING THE FACT THAT PENCE WOULD BE PRESIDENT IF TRUMP WERE REMOVED FROM OFFICE >> THIS IS UNQUESTIONABLY A CULMINATION OF EVERYTHING THAT’S COME BEFORE IT. EVEN DEMOCRATS ARE ACKNOWLEDGING THAT. THEY’RE SAYING WELL, HE’S TRIED TO GET FOREIGN INTERFERENCE IN AN ELECTION BEFORE. IF WE DON’T STOP HIM NOW, HE’S GOING TO TRY TO DO IT AGAIN, HE’S DONE IT SO MANY TIMES BEFORE, YET THEY’VE DECIDED THEY’RE NOT GOING TO INCLUDE THOSE PREVIOUS INSTANCES IN THESE IMPEACHMENT ARTICLES BECAUSE THEY’RE WORRIED THEY’LL BE ACCUSED OF BRINGING UP OLD STUFF OR SOME OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE STUFF THAT ROBERT MULLER DIDN’T ACTUALLY ACCUSE THE PRESIDENT OF A CRIME. THEY HAVE ELECTED TO GO VERY NARROW WITH THIS. KEEP THIS VERY FOCUSED ON THE UKRAINE SITUATION, BUT THAT’S NOT WITHOUT ITS PROBLEMS AS FAR AS A STRATEGY GOES A NEWLY ELECTED YOUNG PRESIDENT THAT WE ALL WERE EXCITED ABOUT

AND TAKE ANTICORRUPTION PRESIDENT. HE WAS TRIED TO

COERCE AND INTERFERING IN THE 2020 ELECTIONS. THE THINGS I

HAVE HEARD TODAY. ABOUT VICE PRESIDENT CHALL AND THE THINGS

I’VE HEARD ABOUT THE VICE PRESIDENT SON, WE HAVE MILLIONS

OF PEOPLE IN THIS COUNTRY WHO ARE SUFFERING FROM ADDICTION. I

BELIEVE TO PROTECT THIS PRESIDENT AT ANY COST IS

SHAMEFUL. ARTICLE 2,

THE NIXON IMPEACHMENT SAID THIS THE ARTICLE PRINCIPALLY ADDRESS

PRESIDENT NIXON’S USE OF POWER INCLUDING POWERS VESTED SOLELY

IN THE PRESIDENT. TO AID HIS POLITICAL ALLIES AND HARM HIS

POLITICAL OPPONENTS IN PROPER

PERSONAL POLITICAL ADVANTAGE AND EXPLAIN IN THIS ARTICLE THAT

THE HOUSE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE THEN STATED

THAT PRESIDENT NIXON’S CONDUCT WAS UNDERTAKEN FOR HIS PERSONAL

POLITICAL ADVANTAGE AND NOT IN THE FURTHERANCE OF ANY VALID

NATIONAL POLICY. THE PRESIDENT ABUSED HIS POWER

INTO ME AND AT LEAST THE MEMBERS ON THIS SIDE OF THE DAIS THAT

MATTERS. WITH THAT I YIELD THE REMAINING TIME TO MR. RICHMAN

FROM LOUISIANA >> THANK YOU MR. CHAIRMAN. I

WANT TO REMIND PEOPLE WHEN THE PEOPLE ARE WATCHING AND YOU LOOK

AT THE CREDIBILITY OF A TESTIMONY

, AND WEIGHING THE EVIDENCE YOU CAN LOOK AT OTHER THINGS. I WANT

TO ENTER INTO THE RECORD THE GUARDIAN ARTICLE ROGER STONE AND

MICHAEL COHEN. THE MEN IMPLICATED IN CRIMES. CNN

POLITICS AND SIX TRUMP ASSOCIATES HAVE BEEN CONVICTED

IN MUELLER RELATED INVESTIGATIONS

>> MY GRANDMOTHER SAID BIRDS OF A FEATHER FLOCK TOGETHER. ALSO,

RESIDENT TRUMP HAS MADE 13,435 POSTS ON MISLEADING CLAIMS OVER

900 >> THAT OBJECTION. THE TIME HAS

EXPIRED

>> STRIKE THE LAST WORD. THANK YOU CHAIRMAN. I WANT TO SPEAK

FIRST TO THE UNDERLYING AMENDMENTS THAT CALLS FOR THE

ACKNOWLEDGMENT THAT THE AIDE WAS RELEASED

IN THE ARTICLE, THE FIRST ARTICLE I BELIEVE. I WANT TO,

AGAIN, RECOUNT NOT ONLY TO JULY 25 CALL, WHERE PREVIOUSLY I HAVE

INDICATED THE PRESIDENTS LANGUAGE, WE WOULD LIKE YOU TO

DO US A FAVOR. THAT WAS NOT TIED TO US REPRESENTING THE ENTITY OF A PUBLIC RIS PRESENTATION WOULD BE THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. ESTABLISH FOREIGN POLICY BY THE SECRETARY OF STATE. THAT IS BECAUSE THE SECRETARY OF DEFENSE ANNE STATE HAD ALREADY CERTIFIED THAT THE UKRAINE WAS WORKING TO GRADUATE AND WORKING TO ENSURE THE END OF CORRUPTION THAT HAVE MET THE STANDARDS THAT WERE REQUIRED FOR FUNDING. THE OTHER THING IS WHEN LIEUTENANT COLONEL THEN MEN THOUGHT THE WORDS THAT HE HEARD WERE APPALLING TO BE INAPPROPRIATE FOR A CALL TO THE PRESIDENT AS IT RELATES TO A QUESTION TYING THE MILITARY AID TO INVESTIGATION BIDEN AND OTHERS , SONS AND OTHERS AND NOT OFFICIAL POLICY. HE IMMEDIATELY GIVE IT TO THE NFC COUNSEL JOHN EISENBERG. JOHN EISENBERG TOOK THE INFORMATION AND THEN ULTIMATELY PUT IT IN A SEPARATE COATED FILING. AND ASKED THAT LIEUTENANT COLONEL NOT SAY ANYTHING ABOUT IT. THAT IS UNUSUAL. YOU WOULD THINK THAT IF IT WAS NORMAL BUSINESS AND IT HAD TO DO WAS STANDARD U.S FOREIGN-POLICY IT WOULD BE OKAY TO TALK ABOUT THAT CALL. THEY KNEW A MAJOR MISTAKE HAD BEEN MADE. THEY KNEW THAT THE PRESIDENT HAD OFFERED TO GIVE MILITARY AID IF HE GOT AN INVESTIGATION AGAINST HIS POLITICAL RIVAL AND HIS POLITICAL RIVAL HAPPEN TO BE JOE BIDEN THAT WAS CONSPICUOUSLY USING PUBLIC OFFICE IN PUBLIC MONEY

FOR PUBLIC AND PRIVATE DESIRES LET ME ALSO SAY OUR FRIENDS TALK ABOUT THE COURTS. WE HAVE NOT SHIED AWAY FROM THE COURTS JUDGE HOWELL , REGARDING THE GRAND JURY MATERIAL SPECIFICALLY SAID THERE IS AN IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY YOU CAN’T STAND IN THE WAY MR PRESIDENT. JUDGE JACKSON INDICATED IN HER DECISION THAT THE PRESIDENT WAS NOT A KING. WE ARE HERE TO TALK ABOUT NOT AS A MOTHER SOMEONE’S CHILD WHO MAY HAVE SOME CONCERNS. LIKE EVERY AMERICAN’S CHILD MAY HAVE WHICH I AM SADDENED THAT THOSE PERSONAL MATTERS WERE RAISED. WE ARE HERE TO TALK ABOUT THE ABUSE OF THIS PRESIDENT AND THE OBSTRUCTION OF CONGRESS. ANOTHER AMENDMENT WE VOTED AGAINST AND RODINO STATEMENT DURING THE NIXON PROCEEDINGS HE MADE IT CLEAR TO PRESIDENT NIXON REGARDING HIS FAVOR TO COMPLY WITH SUBPOENAS ISSUES PURSUED TO THE WATERGATE IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY. THE CONSTITUTION REINFORCES THE FACT THAT WE HAVE THE SOLE POWER OF IMPEACHMENT. THE UNDERLYING DECISIONS OF THE TWO COURT DECISIONS I MENTION IS THAT WE WERE AN IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY. AS A REMINDER TO MY COLLEAGUES THIS COMMITTEE ME ULTIMATELY APPROVED AN ARTICLE OF IMPEACHMENT IT IS CLEAR IT WAS A CASE WHERE THE PRESIDENT CANNOT DICTATE TO THE HOUSE IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY WHAT HE WAS REFUSING TO GIVE OR NOT. THIS IS WHERE MY FRIENDS STEER OFF THE RAILS. THEY REFUSE TO ACKNOWLEDGE THE FACTS OF THE CASE. THE PRESIDENT TOOK MONEY TO USE THE MONIES TO DENY MR ZELINSKI HE WAS GOING TO GO AHEAD AND ANNOUNCE THE INVESTIGATIONS ON CNN. WHAT WAS STOPPED IN HIS TRACKS WHEN THE WHISTLEBLOWER LETTER OR STATEMENT WAS RELEASED, IT WAS OUT OF THE BAG. THAT THE PRESIDENT HAD DONE THIS ON THE JULY 25 CALL. LET’S BE CLEAR THIS IS ABOUT FACTS AND THE CONSTITUTION >> LADIES AND GENTLEMEN I’VE BEEN SITTING HERE ALL DAY I’VE BEEN SITTING HERE ALL DAY LONG. I WANT TO SAY THIS TO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE BEFORE OUR DAY ENDS TODAY MY COLLEAGUES AND I HAVE EXPLAINED THE EVIDENCE THAT WE HAVE HEARD. WE HAVE BEEN TALKING ABOUT ALL THE DOCUMENTS AND HEARD FROM SO MANY WITNESSES ALONG THE WAY. AS WE HAVE BEEN UPHOLDING OUR CONSTITUTIONAL OBLIGATION TO DEFEND THE CONSTITUTION, SOME TODAY HAVE ARGUED WE HAVE NOT UPHELD OUR CONSTITUTIONAL OBLIGATION TO LEGISLATE AND TO SOLVE PROBLEMS. ALL WE WANT TO DO IS IMPEACH THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES I TRULY WANT TO ASSURE THE AMERICAN PEOPLE AND GIVE YOU HOPE THIS IS NOT TRUE. I WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT WE SET THE RECORD STRAIGHT SO YOU KNOW WE HAVE BEEN WORKING ON YOUR BEHALF. DESPITE WHAT MANY PEOPLE IN THIS COUNTRY THINK CONGRESS CAN WALK AND CHEW GUM AT THE SAME TIME THIS CONGRESS HAS BEEN WORKING VERY HARD ON BEHALF OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE. IN SPITE OF EVERYTHING THAT IS HAPPENING WITH THIS IMPEACHMENT. THIS VERY DAY A BILL , WE PASSED A BILL THAT LOWERS THE COST OF PRESCRIPTION DRUGS FOR HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS OF AMERICANS. HR THREE. IT WILL SAVE OUR TAXPAYERS OVER $456 BILLION OVER THE NEXT DECADE AND ALLOW FOR THE EXPANSION OF MEDICARE COVERAGE. INCLUDING HEARING, DENTAL AND VISION BENEFITS. JUST THIS WEEK WE ACHIEVED MONUMENTAL CHANGES TO THE U.S. MEXICO CANADA TRADE AGREEMENT. WE HAVE BEEN WAITING A LONG TIME FOR THAT. THIS AGREEMENT IS HUGE. IT’S A HUGE WIN FOR OUR FAMILIES, WORKERS AND BUSINESS OWNERS. IN EVERY DISTRICT ACROSS THE UNITED STATES. WE CONTINUE TO WORK TO MAKE SURE THAT WE STAY COMPETITIVE IN A GLOBAL ENVIRONMENT. YESTERDAY WE VOTED TO SUPPORT THE NDA A LEGISLATION THAT WILL KEEP OUR COUNTRY SAFE. AND WILL GIVE A RAISE TO OUR SERVICEMEMBERS AND INCLUDE IMPORTANT REFORMS LIKELY FOR ALL FEDERAL EMPLOYEES AND RE-APPEALING THE WIDOWS TAX YOU IN ON THIS COMMITTEE WE HAVE

WORKED TOGETHER. THIS WEEK BY REPUBLICAN COLLEAGUES , CONGRESSMAN RUSH AND PAUL AND I WERE AMONG A BIPARTISAN GROUP OF LAWMAKERS TO INTRODUCE LEGISLATION THAT WOULD END ONLINE CHILD EXPLOITATION. SINCE WE HAVE BEEN SITTING IN THIS ROOM TODAY A DEAL HAS BEEN FORGED. BY OUR COLLEAGUES. TO FUND OUR GOVERNMENT. AND AVOID ANOTHER SHUTDOWN. THROUGHOUT THIS INVESTIGATION MY COLLEAGUES AND I HAVE BEEN FULFILLING OUR DUTIES. AS MEMBERS OF CONGRESS. DO NOT BE DECEIVED. WE HAVE BEEN WORKING ON THE AMERICAN PUBLIC’S BEHALF EVERY SINGLE DAY. IN SPITE OF THE TRAGEDY WE ARE IN NOW WITH THIS IMPEACHMENT. THIS CONGRESS, THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, WE HAVE PASSED OVER 275 BILLS. 275 BILLS WE ARE DEFENDING OUR DEMOCRACY AND DELIVERING ON THE PROMISES THAT WE MAKE TO EACH AND EVERY ONE OF OUR CONSTITUENTS. I WANT THE AMERICAN PUBLIC TO KNOW THIS. WE ARE TRULY DISHEARTENED BY WHAT IS HAPPENING HERE WITH IMPEACHMENT. DO KNOW WE ARE WORKING ON YOUR BEHALF. EACH AND EVERY SINGLE DAY. WE WILL CONTINUE TO DO WHAT WE SWORE AN OATH TO DO. THAT IS TO PROTECT AND SERVE YOU. EVEN IN THIS MOMENT. IN THIS TRAGEDY, BE REST ASSURED WE WILL DO JUST THAT >> WHAT PURPOSE >> I TRY TO TEACH MY STUDENTS TO PICK THE BEST ARGUMENT. I WILL IGNORE ALL OF THE FRIVOLOUS PROCESS OBJECTIONS ABOUT THE ROOMS AND THE TEMPERATURE. ALL THAT STUFF WE HAVE HEARD ABOUT. I WILL TRY TO MAKE WHAT I THINK IS THE BEST ARGUMENT OR RECONSTRUCT THE BEST ARGUMENT THAT HAS COME OUT TODAY OUR COLLEAGUES FACE A DIFFICULT TASK. 70% OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE BELIEVE THAT THE PRESIDENT HAS DONE SOMETHING WRONG. IN THESE ACTIONS OF TRYING TO PRESSURE A FOREIGN GOVERNMENT TO GET INVOLVED IN OUR ELECTION THEY HAVE A PROBLEM THERE. THEY HAVE ANOTHER PROBLEM WHICH IS THERE IS AN OVERWHELMING AND UNCONTRADICTED BODY OF EVIDENCE THAT THE PRESIDENT DID THAT THE PRESIDENT WITHHELD HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS OF DOLLARS IN SECURITY ASSISTANCE. THAT WE HAD VOTED FOR OR BESIEGED FOR AN ALLY HE WAS TRYING TO GET THE PRESIDENT OF THAT COUNTRY. TO AGREE TO CONDUCT A PRESS CONFERENCE HE WOULD SAY HE WAS INVESTIGATING THE BIDENS. HE ALSO WANTED PRESIDENT ZELINSKI TO VALIDATE VLADIMIR PUTIN’S DISINFORMATION CONSPIRACY THEORY ABOUT THE 2016 CAMPAIGN WHICH IS THAT IT WAS THE UKRAINE AND NOT RUSSIA THAT ENGAGED IN THE SWEEPING AND SYSTEMATIC CAMPAIGN TO INTERFERE IN OUR ELECTIONS. WHAT DO YOU DO WITH THAT? WE CAN UNDERSTAND WHY THEY HAVE BEEN TALKING ABOUT PROCESS FOR MONTHS. I THINK THEY UNDERSTAND THIS IS A SERIOUS INVESTIGATION. WITH THE RIGOROUS METHODS. AND SERIOUS INESCAPABLE CONCLUSIONS. THE AMERICAN PEOPLE ARE FOCUSED ON IT. THE MAJORITY WOULD LIKE TO SEE THE PRESIDENT IMPEACHED. ACCORDING TO FOX NEWS ANYWAY. HUGE NUMBERS OF AMERICANS ARE VERY DISTURBED BY THIS. WHAT HAVE THEY COME UP WITH? THEY HAVE NOT FOUND AN ALIBI THEY COME UP WITH THE DEFENSE WHICH TO ME LOOKS A MITIGATING FACTOR. A PLEA FOR MERCY. THE PRESIDENT DID ALL OF THESE THINGS. HIS MOTIVE IS MISUNDERSTOOD. ALL OF US THINK HE WAS DOING IT BECAUSE HE WANTED TO ADVANCE HIS OWN REELECTION PROSPECTS. IN SOME SENSE HE WANTED TO HELP FOR WHATEVER REASON HIS FRIEND VLADIMIR PUTIN PUTIN HAS BEEN ON TV BRAGGING ABOUT THE FACT THAT EVERYONE IS FOCUSED ON THE UKRAINE IN THE 2016 ELECTION AND NOT RUSSIA NOTE TO MR. PUTIN THAT’S NOT RIGHT. WE UNDERSTAND WHAT’S

GOING ON. IN ANY EVENT , THE NEW ARGUMENT IS THAT THE PRESIDENT WAS NOT TRYING TO ADVANCE HIS OWN POLITICAL INTEREST. HE WAS TRYING TO ADVANCE LITTLE-KNOWN CAMPAIGN AGAINST CORRUPTION. THAT’S WHY SO MUCH OF A DISCUSSION TODAY HAS BEEN ABOUT CORRUPTION I WANT TO CATALOG SOME OF THE OTHER ONES. TO TRY TO PUT THIS IN ORDER. SO PEOPLE CAN UNDERSTAND THE PROBLEM WITH THEIR BEST ARGUMENT THE PRESIDENT NEVER RAISE THE WORD CORRUPTION ON THE JULY 25 TELEPHONE CALL. BIDENS NAME WAS MENTIONED SEVERAL TIMES. WASN’T CORRUPTION, CORRUPTION, CORRUPTION. IT WAS BIDEN, BIDEN, BIDEN. YOU NEVER RAISED ANY OTHER COMPANIES AT ALL. IT WAS ALL ABOUT CHARISMA , HUNTER BIDENS COMPANY. THAT’S ALL HE MENTIONED. HE’S NEVER MENTIONED ANY OTHER COMPANY IN CONNECTION WITH CORRUPTION IN THE UKRAINE IN 2017 AND 18 THE PRESIDENT PASSED IT ALONG. HE DID NOT EVEN RAISE THE BIDENS AT THAT POINT IT BECAME AN ISSUE IN 2019. WHY? JOE BIDEN HAD SURPASSED HIM IN THE PUBLIC OPINION POLLS. NOW SUDDENLY IT WAS A BIG ISSUE. HE CARED ABOUT IT. WHAT IS THE OTHER EVIDENCE? THE PRESIDENT’S TEAM, RUDY GIULIANI AND PARNAS AND FRUMAN ENGAGE IN A SMEAR CAMPAIGN AGAINST THE U.S. AMBASSADOR WHO WAS AGAINST THE UKRAINE. THE PRESIDENT GOT HER OUT OF THE WAY. HE PULLED HER BACK. ALL THE EVIDENCE SHOWS THEY WERE PROMOTING CORRUPTION AND A CORRUPT SCHEME. THEY WERE NOT TRYING TO ATTACK IT >> THANK YOU CHAIRMAN >> WHAT PURPOSES DO YOU GENERALLY SEEK RECOGNITION? >> I MOVED TO STRIKE THE LAST WORD. BRIEFLY MR. CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS, BIDEN’S NAME WAS USED MULTIPLE TIMES. I THINK THAT IS A LITTLE MISLEADING THE ONLY PLACE IN THIS WHOLE TELEPHONE CALL WHERE BIDEN IS EVEN BROUGHT UP IS IN ONE LITTLE PARAGRAPH. THAT WAS ON PAGE 4 OF FIVE PAGES OF THE TRANSCRIPTS MOST OF THE CALL WAS ABOUT CONGRATULATING PRESIDENT ZELENSKY AND THE NEW PARLIAMENT. TALKING ABOUT HOW A LOT OF THE EUROPEAN COUNTRIES AREN’T PITCHING IN WITH THE AID THAT WAS THE UKRAINE AS MUCH AS THE UNITED STATES HAD. ALL KINDS OF THINGS. IT WAS A LONG PHONE CALL. IT IS DISINGENUOUS TO SAY THE WHOLE THING WAS ABOUT THIS BIDEN WAS MENTIONED SEVERAL TIMES I KNOW THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP TWEETS THIS OUT. HE READS THE TRANSCRIPT. I WISH PEOPLE WOULD EVERYBODY WATCHES TV THEY GET THESE COMMENTS. I DID THIS WITH MY HUSBAND. I SO WOULD YOU PLEASE READ THE TRANSCRIPTS IT’S ONLY FIVE PAGES LONG. IT DOESN’T TAKE THAT MUCH. AFTER HE READ IT HE WAS LIKE THAT IS IT THAT’S ALL THEY’VE GOT? THIS IS A MENTION ABOUT BIDEN. PAGE 5, THE OTHER THING, THERE’S A LOT OF TALK ABOUT BIDEN’S SON. THAT BIDEN STOPPED THE PROSECUTION. A LOT OF PEOPLE WANT TO FIND OUT ABOUT THAT. WHATEVER YOU CAN DO WITH THE ATTORNEY GENERAL WOULD BE GREAT. BIDEN WENT AROUND BRAGGING THAT HE STOPPED THE PROSECUTION. IF YOU CAN LOOK INTO IT, IT SOUNDS HORRIBLE TO ME. THAT’S IT FOLKS. THAT’S ALL THERE IS. MR. CHAIRMAN I YIELD BACK >> THE QUESTION NOW OCCURS ON THE AMENDMENT. THOSE IN FAVOR SAY I. THOSE OPPOSED SAY NO. THE OPINION OF THE CHAIR. THE AMENDMENT IS NOT AGREED TO. A ROLLCALL IS REQUESTED >> MR. NADLER? >> KNOW >> NO’S LOFGREN VOTES NO >> MISS JACKSON-LEE VOTES NO MR. COHEN VOTES NO. MR. JOHNSON OF GEORGIA VOTES NO. ESTHER JOINTS VOTES NO. MR. RICHMOND? MR. JEFFRIES? MR. CESSA LEANING? HE VOTES NO. MISTRESS WALL BALL

VOTES NO. MR. RASKIN? HE VOTES NO. MISS DEMING’S? NO MR. CORREA? MISS SCANLAN? >> NO >> MR. AND IT GOES VOTES NO. MR STANTON VOTES NO >> NO >> MISS ESCOBAR VOTES NO. MR COLLINS VOTES EYE MR. GOMER VOTES AYE. MR. JORDAN VOTES YES MISS ROBIE? MISS ROBIE VOTES AYE. MR. GATES VOTES AYE. MR JOHNSON OF LOUISIANA VOTES AYE MR. McCLINTOCK VOTES AYE. MISS LESKO VOTES I AYE. MR ARMSTRONG? MR. ARMSTRONG VOTES YES >> DOES EVERYONE VOTED WHO WISHES TO VOTE >> MR. CORREA VOTES NO >> ANYONE ELSE WHO WISHES TO VOTE? >> MR. CHAIRMAN THERE ARE 17 DASHES >> ARE THERE ANY FURTHER AMENDMENTS? MR. CHAIRMAN I HAVE AN AMENDMENT >> AMENDMENT TO THE AMENDMENT IN THE NATURE OF THE SUBSTITUTE OFFERED BY MR. ROSENTHAL OF PENNSYLVANIA STAGE FIVE BEGINNING ON LINE 6 STRIKE ARTICLE TO >> I WITHDRAW MY POINT OF ORDER >> THE GENTLEMAN IS RECOGNIZED FOR FIVE MINUTES TO EXPLAIN HIS AMENDMENT >> THANK YOU MR. CHAIRMAN >> MY AMENDMENT WOULD STRIKE ALL OF ARTICLE 2. THE FACTS SIMPLY DO NOT ALIGN WITH THE DEMOCRATS CLAIM OF OBSTRUCTION. OUR GOVERNMENT HAS THREE BRANCHES FOR A REASON WHEN THERE IS A DISAGREEMENT BETWEEN THE EXECUTIVE AND THE LEGISLATIVE BRANCH IT IS SUPPOSED TO BE RESOLVED BY THE THIRD BRANCH, THE COURT REPUBLICANS RECOGNIZE THIS IN 2011 WHEN THE INVESTIGATED PRESIDENT OBAMA’S FAST AND FURIOUS SCANDAL. THE FAST AND FURIOUS CANDLE ALLOWED 2000 FIREARMS TO FALL INTO THE HANDS OF DRUG CARTELS. AND RESULTED IN THE DEATH OF AN AMERICAN BORDER PATROL AGENT. PEOPLE ACTUALLY DIED IN PRESIDENT OBAMA SCANDAL THROUGHOUT THE REPUBLICANS INVESTIGATION OF THE SCANDAL THEY MADE NUMEROUS ATTEMPTS TO ACCOMMODATE THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION. YET DESPITE THEIR EFFORTS PRESIDENT OBAMA INVOKE EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE AND BARRED TESTIMONY AND DOCUMENTS WHAT DID THE REPUBLICANS DO? THE APPROPRIATE THING THEY WENT TO THE COURTS COMPARED THOSE EFFORTS WITH WHAT WE HAVE SEEN FROM THE DEMOCRATS DURING THIS IMPEACHMENT SHAM HOUSE DEMOCRATS COULD WORK FOR THE ADMINISTRATION TO REACH ACCOMMODATIONS FOR THEIR REQUEST. THEY DIDN’T. WHY IS THAT? IT IS SIMPLE. THEY HAVE A DEADLINE TO SEND THIS MESS OUT OF CONGRESS AND INTO THE SENATE BEFORE CHRISTMAS DESPITE WHAT YOU HEAR FROM MY COLLEAGUES THE ADMINISTRATION HAS CONSISTENTLY COOPERATED WITH DEMOCRATS. EVEN THOUGH THEY HAVE BEEN OUT TO GET THIS PRESIDENT SINCE THE VERY MOMENT HE WAS ELECTED. LET’S GO THROUGH THE NUMBERS. OVER 25 ADMINISTRATION OFFICIALS HAVE TESTIFIED BEFORE THE HOUSE OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE OVER 25. 20 ADMINISTRATION OFFICIALS HAVE TESTIFIED BEFORE THIS COMMITTEE THE ADMINISTRATION HAS ALSO HANDED OVER MORE THAN 100,000 PAGES OF DOCUMENTS. SINCE THE START OF THE SHAM IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY DEMOCRATS HAVE THREATENED WITNESSES THAT QUOTE ON QUOTE ANY FAILURE TO APPEAR IN RESPONSE TO A LETTER REQUESTING THEIR PRESENTS WOULD CONSTITUTE EVIDENCE OF OBSTRUCTION. LET ME GO THROUGH THAT LANGUAGE. A LETTER WOULD CONSTITUTE EVIDENCE OF OBSTRUCTION. THAT’S NOT A

SUBPOENA THAT IS A LETTER DEMOCRATS HAVE TOLD THE STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE THAT THEY INSISTED ON USING AGENCY COUNSEL TO PROTECT EXECUTIVE BRANCH CONFIDENTIALITY INTEREST. THEY WOULD HAVE THEIR SALARIES WITHHELD. THAT SOUNDS LIKE ABUSE OF POWER. I DIGRESS A LITTLE BIT. DEMOCRATS HAVE NOT AFFORDED THIS PRESIDENT BASIC PROCEDURE PROTECTIONS. SUCH AS THE RIGHT TO SEE THE EVIDENCE AND THE RIGHT TO CALL WITNESSES OR THE RIGHT TO HAVE COUNSEL AT HEARINGS. JUST NOT THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION THAT HAS BEEN RAILROADED BY THE DEMOCRATS JUDICIARY DEMOCRATS VOTED DOWN MY OWN SUBPOENA AND MY MOM OCEAN MOTION TO SUBPOENA EVEN THOUGH I SAID HE OR SHE COULD TESTIFY AT THE EXECUTIVE SESSION. YET THEY VOTED IT DOWN CHAIRMAN NADLER REFUSED THE REQUEST THE CHAIRMAN SHIFT TESTIFY BEFORE THE COMMITTEE HOUSE DEMOCRATS ALSO DENIED EVERY REPUBLICAN REQUEST FOR A FACT WITNESS. I ASK WHO IS REALLY OBSTRUCTING CONGRESS? THE DEMOCRATS HAVE NO CASE WHEN IT COMES TO OBSTRUCTION THIS OBSTRUCTION CHARGE IS BASELESS AND BOGUS. IF THEY REALLY WANTED TO CHARGE SOMEWHAT THE WITH OBSTRUCTION HOW ABOUT THEY START WITH ADAM SCHIFF THANK YOU >> I WOULD LIKE TO BEGIN BY ANSWERING MY COLLEAGUES QUESTION. WHO IS REALLY OBSTRUCTING CONGRESS? WHO IS? PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP. THE TEXT OF THE CONSTITUTION DEVOTES A FEW SENTENCES TO A DISCUSSION OF IMPEACHMENT POWER AMONG THE FEW SENTENCES IS THE CLEAR STATEMENT THAT THE HOUSE POSSESSES THE SOLE POWER OF IMPEACHMENT. THAT MEANS IT WAS IN THE SOLE DISCRETION OF THE HOUSE TO DETERMINE WHAT EVIDENCE IS NECESSARY FOR IT TOGETHER IN ORDER TO EXERCISE THAT POWER THE HOUSE IS SO POWER OF IMPEACHMENT WOULD BE HOLED INTO THE DICTATES OF THE JUDICIAL RAN THE THAN THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH. PAST PRESIDENTS HAVE DISAPPROVED OF IMPEACHMENT AND CRITICIZE THE HOUSE. DOUBTED ITS MOTIVES AND INSISTED THEY DID NOTHING WRONG NO PRESIDENT INCLUDING PRESIDENT NIXON WHO WAS ON THE VERGE OF BEING IMPEACHED FOR OBSTRUCTION OF CONGRESS HAD DECLARED HIMSELF AND THE ENTIRE BRANCH OF GOVERNMENT HE OVERSEES TOTALLY EXEMPT FROM SUBPOENAS ISSUED BY THE HOUSE. PURSUANT TO ITS SOLE POWER OF IMPEACHMENT. PRESIDENT TRUMP HAS MADE COMPLIANCE WITH EVERY DEMAND. A CONDITION OF CONSIDERING WHETHER TO HONOR SUBPOENAS. HE HAS DIRECTED HIS SENIOR OFFICIALS TO VIOLATE THEIR OWN LEGAL OBLIGATIONS TO TURNOVER SUBPOENAS AND PROVIDE TESTIMONY THE HOUSE WAS ONLY ABLE TO CONDUCT ITS INQUIRY INTO THE UKRAINE MATTER BECAUSE SEVERAL WITNESSES LIKE THE AMBASSADORS IN THE ETERNAL COLONEL HAVE THE COURAGE TO DEFY THE PRESIDENTS UNLAWFUL COMMANDS MY COLLEAGUES TALK ABOUT INFORMATION THAT WE SHOULD WAIT TO GET FROM THE COURT WE WOULD NOT HAVE TO WAIT TO GET FROM THE COURT IF THE PRESIDENT WOULD COMPLY AND PROVIDE DOCUMENTS. I REMEMBER WHEN AMBASSADOR SUMLIN WAS TESTIFYING. HE SAID HE WAS TESTIFYING FROM MEMORY. HE WASN’T EVEN ALLOWED TO HAVE ACCESS TO HIS OWN NOTES IN THE STATE DEPARTMENT. PRESIDENT TRUMP HAS ABUSED HIS POWER AND IS A CONTINUED THREAT TO OUR DEMOCRACY AND NATIONAL SECURITY HE PUT HIMSELF BEFORE THE COUNTRY AND NO ONE IS ABOVE THE LAW. WHEN I THINK OF OUR ELECTIONS AND MY CONCERN, OUR ELECTIONS SHOULD BE DECIDED BY US WE TALKED IT OVER AND OVER AGAIN ABOUT THE REAL REASON FOR ALL OF THIS WAS HIS CONCERN ABOUT CORRUPTION. AS ONE OF MY COLLEAGUES SAID EARLIER TODAY IF HE WAS CONCERNED ABOUT CORRUPTION HE WOULD BE CONCERNED ABOUT WHAT IS GOING ON IN THE WHITE HOUSE. AND ALL THE PEOPLE WHO HE HAS BEEN AFFILIATED WITH. WHO ARE AWAITING SENTENCES OR SENT TO PRISON, SERVING TIME OR ARE AWAITING COURT IT’S NOTEWORTHY THAT MEMBERS OF THE MINORITY NEVER ACTUALLY DEFENDED PRESIDENT TRUMP’S MISCONDUCT. BY DECEIT DISPUTING THE FACTS OF THE CASE. BUT INSTEAD TRYING TO DISTRACT WITH

THE RELEVANT ISSUES I DON’T BELIEVE MY COLLEAGUES ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE AISLE ANSWERED. FORGET PRESIDENT TRUMP. IS IT EVER OKAY FOR A PRESIDENT TO INVITE FOREIGN INTERFERENCE IN OUR ELECTION? WITH THAT I YIELD TO MY COLLEAGUE FROM CALIFORNIA >> I WOULD LIKE TO ASK UNANIMOUS CONSENT BEFORE THE END OF THE RECORD. A LETTER FROM THE PRESIDENT’S COUNSEL. DATED OCTOBER 8, 2019 >> WITH THAT OBJECTION >> CERTAINLY WE HAVE A RIGHT TO RECEIVE INFORMATION. WE HAVE A RIGHT TO MAKE A JUDGMENT ON THE INFORMATION THAT WE HAVE BEEN ABLE TO OBTAIN IMPEACHMENT IS SOLELY IN THE PROVINCE OF THE CONGRESS. JUST ON THE NARROW ISSUE OF THE ASSERTION OF PRIVILEGE, I THINK IT’S IMPORTANT TO NOTE THE PRIVILEGE, NO PRIVILEGE WAS ASSERTED IN THIS LETTER BY THE COUNCIL HE DOESN’T SAY IT IS EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE. HE DOESN’T SAY ANYTHING YOU COULD TAKE TO COURT. HE SAYS HE DOESN’T LIKE WHAT WE ARE DOING. THEY WILL NOT GIVE US ANYTHING THAT IS AN ABSURD SITUATION. IT IS NOT ACCEPTABLE. IT IS REALLY OBSTRUCTION OF CONGRESS. I THINK THE GENTLE LADY FOR YIELDING. I YIELD BACK TO HER. MY TIME HAS EXPIRED >> FOR PURPOSES >> I WILL DISTRACT THE LAST WORD. LISTENING TO MY TWO COLLEAGUES FROM CALIFORNIA, THIS SEEMS TO BE THE GREATEST AMOUNT OF CIRCULAR REASONING WE HAVE HEARD IN THE LAST COUPLE OF DAYS. THERE HAS BEEN A LOT THIS IS ONE THAT GRABS THE BLUE RIBBON. WHAT I HEAR IS AN IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY, IF THE WHITE HOUSE DOES NOT GIVE THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES IN THIS COMMITTEE EVERYTHING WE ASK FOR, THEN THAT IS OBSTRUCTION OF CONGRESS AND AN IMPEACHABLE OFFENSE. THAT’S NOT WHAT THE LAW SAYS OR WHAT THE LAW SHOULD BE THERE ARE CERTAIN PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES THAT THE PRESIDENT HAS. YOU ARE RESPECTIVE OF WHETHER WE ARE DOING OVERSIGHT OR WHETHER WE ARE USING OUR ARTICLE TO POWER. THE SOLE POWER OF IMPEACHMENT. HE OUGHT TO BE ABLE TO PRESENT THOSE IN A COURT OF LAW. THIS IS NOT A COURT OF LAW I DON’T KNOW IF THERE WERE ANY PRIVILEGES INVOLVED. WE KNOW WHAT THE ANSWER WILL BE. WE WILL BLOW ANY CLAIM OF PRIVILEGE AWAY. WE WILL BLOW ANY TYPE OF EXECUTIVE IMMUNITY AWAY. WE ARE GOING TO SIMPLY SAY WE WANTED, WHETHER IT’S PRIVATE INFORMATION OR DOING SOME LEGITIMATE OVERSIGHT. WE KNOW THAT THE REJECTION OF THE ARGUMENT THAT WE SHOULD NOT HAVE TO GO TO COURT FOR THAT IS BOGUS THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES HAS GONE TO COURT. TO TRY TO GET ENFORCEMENT SUBPOENAS THAT ARE A RESULT OF THIS IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY. THE ENFORCEMENT AGAINST DON AGAIN IT HAS GOTTEN AS FAR AS THE DC CIRCUIT. OTHERS ARE PENDING FURTHER BACKWARDS. IN THE JUDICIAL SYSTEM. WHAT I WOULD LIKE TO ASK BY MY FRIENDS ON THE MAJORITY SIDE, OKAY THEY WERE DONE WITH THIS IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY NEXT WEEK. THE HOUSE PASS BOTH ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT. IT GOES TO THE SENATE FOR TRIAL. DOES THAT MEAN THE WHOLE NEXUS OF WHY YOU WERE ATTEMPTING TO ENFORCE THOSE SUBPOENAS IS GONE? ARE YOU GOING TO GO TO COURT AND SAY IT IS GONE? WE ARE MOVED TO DISMISS THOSE ACTIONS TO SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT OF THE SUBPOENAS? IF YOU ARE FOLLOWING THE ARGUMENT THAT I JUST HEARD YOU HAVE TO DO IT. I DOUBTED >> I RECOGNIZE MYSELF. FOR FIVE MINUTES THE ACTIONS OF THE WHITE HOUSE OF THE PRESIDENT IN THIS CASE ARE DIFFERENT IN KIND FROM ALL PREVIOUS ACTIONS

OF EXECUTIVES OF PRESIDENTS IT’S NOT A QUESTION OF A CERTAIN PRIVILEGE. RATHER THE COUNSEL WROTE GIVING YOUR INQUIRY LACKS ANY LEGITIMATE CONSTITUTIONAL FOUNDATION THAT IS OUR FUNCTION. THAT SENTENCE SHOWS RIGHT THERE NUMBER ONE. NUMBER TWO IF THE WHITE HOUSE HAS SIMPLY ASSERTED PRIVILEGES FOR A NUMBER OF WITNESSES THAT COULD BE ADJUDICATED TO OPPOSE THAT AS A REASON FOR IMPEACHMENT THAT WOULD BE INVALID. THAT’S NOT WHAT WE ARE TALKING ABOUT WE ARE TALKING ABOUT THE PRESIDENT SAYING HE DOES NOT RECOGNIZE OUR IMPEACHMENT. HE WILL NOT PARTICIPATE IN IT. HE WILL NOT GRANT ANYTHING. THAT IS AN OBSTRUCTION OF CONGRESS TO DECIDE WHETHER TO HAVE AN IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY. IT IS A DECISION TO TRY TO FRUSTRATE THAT INQUIRY BY DENYING ALL PRECIPITATION PARTICIPATION WITHOUT ASSERTING PRIVILEGES. PRIVILEGES MAY BE ADJUDICATED IN COURT IMPEACHMENT POWER CANNOT BE EXERCISED BY CONGRESS. IF ALLOWED TO GET AWAY WITH IT AND ELIMINATES THE POWER OF IMPEACHMENT. AS A CHECK ON THE POWER OF THE PRESIDENCY. IT IS A LARGE STEP TOWARD DICTATORSHIP THE THREAT OF IMPEACHMENT IS THE ONLY THREAT. ON A PRESIDENT WHO DESERVES POWERS AND DESTROYS THE SEPARATION OF POWERS. ESPECIALLY GIVEN THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE POLICY. THAT THE SITTING PRESIDENT CANNOT BE INDICTED THAT LEAVES ONLY IMPEACHMENT AS A REMEDY AND IS A CHECK ON PRESIDENTIAL POWER. IF YOU DON’T WANT A DICTATORSHIP YOU HAVE TO ALLOW CONGRESS TO EXERCISE THE POWER OF IMPEACHMENT. THIS MEANS WE HAVE THE RIGHT TO GET THE DOCUMENTS WE DEMAND. MAY BE SUBJECT TO CERTAIN PRIVILEGES THAT IS NOT AN ISSUE. INSTEAD WHAT HAS BEEN ASSERTED AS OF THE EXECUTIVE IS THE RIGHT TO DETERMINE THAT THE IMPEACHMENT INCREASE IS INVALID THIS IS AN ASSERTION OF TYRANNICAL POWER. WE MUST IMPEACH THE PRESIDENT ON THIS ARTICLE. TO GO ALONG WITH THIS AMENDMENT AND GET RID OF ARTICLE 2. AN EFFECT THAT IS PERMISSIBLE FOR THE PRESIDENT TO DENY THE IMPEACHMENT POWER OF THE HOUSE IS A LONG STEP AWAY FROM CONSTITUTIONAL GOVERNMENT, AND A LONG STEP AWAY FROM ANY CONTROL OVER THE POWER OF THE PRESIDENT I OPPOSE THE AMENDMENT. I YIELD BACK >> MR. CHAIRMAN? >> I ASKED YOU IF YOU WOULD YIELD FOR ONE QUICK MINUTE. ONE QUICK QUESTION ON THAT. YOU SAID IT IS THE ONLY REMEDY. WHY IS COURT AN APPROPRIATE REMEDY IN THIS CASE? >> WHAT MIGHT BE AN APPROPRIATE REMEDY IT’S A PRIVILEGE WE ARE ASSERTING. I’M NOT WILLING TO SAY YOU COULD MOUNT AN IMPEACHMENT BASED. NO PRIVILEGES HAVE BEEN ASSERTED. THERE IS NOTHING FOR THE COURT TO REVIEW ALL THAT THE PRESIDENT SAID IS THERE WILL — HE HAS DIRECTED EVERYONE TO NOT PROVIDE A PIECE OF PAPER. DO NOT TESTIFY. THERE IS NOTHING FOR THE COURT TO REVIEW HE IS SIMPLY ASSERTING THAT THE CONSTITUTION, THAT HE DOESN’T RECOGNIZE THE CONSTITUTIONAL POWER IT IS NOT HIS FUNCTION TO DO >> IS IN THE NEXT STEP TO HOLD A WITNESS IN CONTEMPT FOR NOT PRODUCING DOCUMENTS OR NOT APPEARING? >> IF A PRIVILEGE WERE ASSERTED, YES. IT HAS BE GONE BEYOND THAT THE ONLY REMEDY FOR A PRESIDENT WHO SAYS THE HOUSE DOES NOT HAVE THE POWER TO DETERMINE IN

IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY IS TO SAY THAT IS AN OBSTRUCTION OF CONGRESS >> MY TIME IS EXPIRED. I YIELD BACK >> WHAT PURPOSE — >> GENTLEMAN IS RECOGNIZE >> I APPRECIATE THE GENTLEMAN OFFERING HIS AMENDMENT TO STRIKE THE SECOND ARTICLE. WHICH I THINK IS RIDICULOUS. AS THE FIRST ARTICLE IN THIS CASE OBSTRUCTION CHARGE REQUIRES A CONCERTED EFFORT TO INTERFERE WITH OR IMPEDE A CONGRESSIONAL ELECTION. WHAT THE PRESIDENT DID ASSERTING EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE IS NOT IN ANY WAY SHAPE OR FORM OBSTRUCTION. EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE IS A TIME HONORED CONSTITUTIONALLY PROTECTED RIGHT OF EACH AND EVERY ADMINISTRATION. IT’S BEEN ASSERTED TIME AND TIME AGAIN BY ADMINISTRATION AFTER ADMINISTRATION. BOTH REPUBLICAN AND DEMOCRATIC WHEN CONGRESS DISAGREES WITH EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE THE REMEDY IS NOT IMPEACHMENT. THE REMEDY IS TO GO TO COURT AND LET THE THIRD BRANCH OF GOVERNMENT DECIDE WHO IS CORRECT. THAT’S WHY WE HAVE CHECKS AND BALANCES IN THIS COUNTRY. WE HAVE THREE BRANCHES OF GOVERNMENT. IN THIS CASE THE REMEDY IS TO GO TO THE COURT AND LET THE COURT DECIDE IF THE PRESIDENT AND THE CONGRESS DISAGREE EXCEPT THAT THE HOUSE DEMOCRATS HAVE DECIDED THEY DO NOT WANT TO WAIT FOR THE COURTS TO DECIDE NOT WHEN THEY CAN IMPEACH THE PRESIDENT. AND MAYBE DAMAGE HIM POLITICALLY. APPARENTLY THAT IS NOT HAPPENING. I THINK THAT WAS THEIR GOAL. YOU WANT TO TALK ABOUT ABUSE OF POWER, WHAT THE HOUSE DEMOCRATS ARE DOING HERE IS A CLEAR CASE IN MY VIEW. THE MAJORITY SHOULD HOLD THEMSELVES IN CONTEMPT FOR CONDUCTING THIS ONE-SIDED BIAS IMPEACHMENT INVESTIGATION AND THEN ATTACKING THE WHITE HOUSE FOR REFUSING TO PARTICIPATE IN AN UNFAIR PROCESS. IF YOU LOOK AT THE RECORD OF THIS PRESIDENT, THUS FAR , HE’S ONLY BEEN IN OFFICE THREE YEARS. THE ACCOMPLISHMENTS ARE QUITE CONSIDERABLE. IMPEACHING A PRESIDENT THAT HAS ACCOMPLISHED THESE THINGS IS ABSURD. LOOK AT THE ECONOMY RIGHT NOW. WHY IS THE ECONOMY DOING SO WELL? IT IS TWO THINGS. THE TAX CUTS AND JOBS ACT THAT THIS PRESIDENT PUSHED. AND WAS PASSED WHEN THE PREVIOUS CONGRESS WAS IN CONTROL. THE DEMOCRATS KEPT SCREAMING THESE ARE TAX CUTS 85% OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE HAVE THEIR TAXES REDUCED. WEALTHY PEOPLE GOT THEIR TAXES TAUGHT CUT. SO DID EVERYONE ELSE IN THE ECONOMY. THAT’S ONE OF THE PRINCIPAL REASONS WE ARE SEEING THE ECONOMY CONTINUE TO GROW THAT’S A REASON UNEMPLOYMENT IS SO LOW RIGHT NOW IT IS NOT JUST WEALTHY PEOPLE DOING WELL. A LOT OF PEOPLE ARE DOING WELL IT IS BECAUSE OF THE TAX CUTS. 85% OF THE PEOPLE GOT THEIR TAX CUT UNEMPLOYMENT IS AT AN ALL-TIME LOW BECAUSE OF THIS PRESIDENT’S POLICIES. IN CONJUNCTION WITH CONGRESS BACK WHEN REPUBLICANS WERE IN THE MAJORITY. I HAPPEN TO BE THE LEAD REPUBLICAN ON THE HOUSE SMALL BUSINESS COMMITTEE. I WAS THE CHAIRMAN FOR THE LAST TWO YEARS. SMALL BUSINESSES ARE DOING VERY WELL RIGHT NOW. THEIR CONFIDENCE IS AT AN ALL-TIME HIGH. WHY IS IT SO IMPORTANT SMALL BUSINESSES DO WELL? 70% OF THE NEW JOBS ARE CREATED BY SMALL BUSINESS FOLKS. ALL ACROSS THIS COUNTRY. THE OTHER THING, OTHER THAN TAXES BEING REDUCED IS BECAUSE HE HAS REDUCED THE REDTAPE. THE BUREAUCRACY. THE REGULATIONS THAT COME OUT OF WASHINGTON. HE SAID HIS GOAL WAS TO GET RID OF TWO EXISTING REGULATIONS RIGHT NOW FOR EVERY NEW REGULATION COMING OUT OF WASHINGTON. THAT WAS A TOUGH GOAL. THOSE TWO THINGS TOGETHER ARE ONE OF THE PRINCIPAL REASONS THIS ECONOMY IS GROWING SO WELL THERE ARE SO MANY THINGS YOU COULD TALK ABOUT. ONE THAT WILL ACTUALLY HAPPEN SOON IS IMPROVING NAFTA. USMCA HOPEFULLY THE DEMOCRATS WILL PASS THIS IN THE HOUSE. THEY FACE THE CHALLENGE. IF THEY PASSED IT, THEN THE PRESIDENT OBVIOUSLY IS GOING TO GET CREDIT. HE HAS BEEN PUSHING THIS. THEY ALSO ARE TRYING TO GET RID OF THE LABEL OF BEING A

DO-NOTHING CONGRESS SINCE THEY HAVE BEEN IN CONTROL NOW. THEY WILL APPARENTLY IMPEACH THE PRESIDENT. AT THE SAME TIME PAY US. IT UNFORTUNATELY TAKES IMPEACHING A PRESIDENT TO PASS IT >> I RECOGNIZE — >> I MOVED TO STRIKE THE LAST WORD I AM REALLY UNCOMFORTABLE WITH THE SUGGESTION THAT HAS BEEN MADE SEVERAL TIMES TODAY. THAT THE U.S. CONSTITUTION IS FOR SALE. THERE IS NO EXCEPTION IN THE CONSTITUTION THAT ALLOWS A PRESIDENT TO CHEAT IN AN ELECTION BECAUSE THE ECONOMY IS GOING WELL MY OATH TO PROTECT AND DEFEND THE CONSTITUTION ISN’T FOR SALE IF PRESIDENT TRUMP’S OBSTRUCTION AND ABUSE OF POWER AND OBSTRUCTION OF CONGRESS ARE NOT IMPEACHABLE NOTHING IS ARTICLE 1 CHARGES TRUMP WITH THE ABUSE OF POWER FOR ATTEMPTING TO UNDERMINE OUR ELECTIONS. THE PRIMARY CHECK ON A PRESIDENT BECOMING A KING’S ELECTIONS THIS PRESIDENT ABUSED HIS POWERS TO UNDERMINE OUR ELECTIONS. THAT IS ARTICLE 1. ARTICLE TO WHICH MY COLLEAGUE SUGGESTED WE SHOULD ABANDON. CHARGES PRESIDENT TRUMP WITH OBSTRUCTION OF CONGRESS FOR BLOCKING THE PRODUCTION OF ALL DOCUMENTS AND WITNESSES SUBPOENAED BY CONGRESS IN THE IMPEACHMENT INVESTIGATION. CONGRESS’S POWER TO INVESTIGATE AND IMPEACH THE PRESIDENT IS THE BACKSTOP TO ELECTIONS. TO PROTECT OUR GOVERNMENT. FROM BEING OVERRUN BY A TYRANNICAL EXECUTIVE. THE PRESIDENT HAS UNDERMINED OUR CONSTITUTION OBSTRUCTING CONGRESSES IMPEACHMENT POWER WITHOUT A LEGAL BASIS FOR OUR CONSTITUTION TO OPERATE PROPERLY IT DEPENDS UPON PEOPLE OUT ACTING IN A REASONABLE MANNER. WE ARE NOT DEALING WITH AN EXECUTIVE AT THIS POINT WHO IS ACTING ANY REASONABLE MANNER OFTEN PEOPLE ASK LAWYERS CAN I SUE? IT IS AN OLD LAWYER JOKE OF COURSE YOU CAN SEE WHO THE QUESTION IS CAN YOU WIN? PRESIDENT TRUMP HAS MADE A CAREER OUT OF SUING. KNOWING THAT HE HAD NO CHANCE TO WIN. HE HAS CLOGGED UP OUR COURTS. FOR DECADES. HE USUALLY LOSES BECAUSE HE HASN’T A LEGAL LEG TO STAND ON. THAT IS THE SITUATION WE ARE IN NOW. HE HAS DEFIED CONGRESSIONAL SUBPOENAS WITHOUT A LEGAL LEG TO STAND ON. HE HASN’T CLAIMED EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE TOUCHES SOMETHING THAT COULD GO TO THE COURTS. HE’S MADE UP SOMETHING CALLED ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY. NEVER BEFORE IN THE HISTORY OF OUR COUNTRY HAVE WE HAD A PRESIDENT WHO SAID YOU CAN’T TALK TO ANYONE IN MY ADMINISTRATION. YOU CAN’T SEE ANY DOCUMENTS. WHEN WE HAD HOPE HICKS COME BEFORE, THE COMMUNICATION SECRETARY. COME BEFORE THIS COMMITTEE SEVERAL MONTHS AGO SHE WAS SUBJECT TO A CLAIM OF ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY. SHE WASN’T ALLOWED TO TESTIFY TO ANYTHING THAT HAD HAPPENED THAT SHE HAD SEEN THAT HAVE BEEN DONE FROM THE MOMENT SHE WALKED INTO THE WHITE HOUSE UNTIL SHE LEFT. SHE WASN’T ALLOWED TO TELL US WHERE HER OFFICE WAS THIS IS THE ABSOLUTE IRON CURTAIN THAT THIS PRESIDENT HAS TRIED TO PLACE BETWEEN HIS ADMINISTRATION AND THE AMERICAN PEOPLE. THERE IS NO WAY I WILL VOTE TO REMOVE OBSTRUCTION OF CONGRESS FROM THESE ARTICLES. I YIELD BACK >> THE JAN LADY YELLS BACK WHAT PURPOSES MR. JORDAN? >> I SUPPORT THE GENTLEMAN FROM PENNSYLVANIA. HE SAID IN HIS REMARKS THE REAL OBSTRUCTION CAME FROM CHAIRMAN SHIFT WHICH IS SO TRUE. YOU THE FIRST VICTIM WAS? THIS COMMITTEE. UNLESS YOU RUN THE INTEL COMMITTEE YOU COULD NOT SET IN FOR THE 17 FACT WITNESSES YOU COULD NOT BE A PART OF THOSE DEPOSITIONS. SOME PEOPLE TRIED A GOOD FRIEND FROM FLORIDA TRIED TO GET IN. THE FIRST VICTIM OF THE REAL OBSTRUCTION TO GET TO ALL THE INFORMATION WAS THIS COMMITTEE. THE COMMITTEE CHARGED WITH WRITING OF THE ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT MARKING THEM UP AS WE SPEAK WASN’T ALLOWED TO BE IN THERE FOR THE 17 WITNESSES THE DEMOCRAT ROLES WERE WORSE NO SUBPOENA POWER FOR

REPUBLICANS. DEPOSITIONS AS I SAID DONE IN SECRET IN THE BUNKER OF THE BASEMENT OF THE CAPITAL. IN THOSE DEPOSITIONS THESE WITNESSES WERE SUBPOENAED THEY’RE SUPPOSED TO ANSWER OUR QUESTIONS ONLY THE DEMOCRATS GOT ALL OF THEIR QUESTIONS ANSWERED. THERE WERE QUESTIONS THAT REPUBLICANS ASKED. DEMOCRATS DENIED REPUBLICAN WITNESSES FOR THE OPENING HEARINGS. WE WERE ALLOWED TO CALL THE WITNESSES THAT WE WANTED WE WERE NOT ALLOWED TO CALL OUR WITNESSES. THE ONE WITNESS THAT WE WANTED TO CALL EVEN THOUGH ADAM SHIFT SAID WE DID NOT GET A CHANCE TO HEAR FROM HIM. WHEN THIS ALL HAPPENED IN SEPTEMBER ADAM SCHIFF TOLD US WE WILL GET A HEAR FROM THE WHISTLEBLOWER THE WHISTLEBLOWER WITH NO FIRST-HAND KNOWLEDGE. WHO WAS BIASED AGAINST THE PRESIDENT AND WORKED WITH JOE BIDEN. HE THEN CHANGED HIS MIND. WHAT CHANGE THE CHAIRMAN’S MIND? THE DAY AFTER THE CALL THE WHISTLEBLOWER RIGHTS THIS MEMO. THE CALL WAS DESCRIBED AS CRAZY AND FRIGHTENING. HE WAITS 18 DAYS TO FILE HIS COMPLAINT. THE WHISTLEBLOWER GOES OFF AND SEES ADAM SHIFT IN THAT TIMEFRAME GETS MARCHING ORDERS FROM ADAM SCHIFF STAFF EVERYTHING CHANGES. WE DO NOT GET TO HEAR FROM HIM. WE DON’T GET TO HEAR FROM THE PERSON BECAUSE WE DON’T GET TO HEAR FROM THE WHISTLEBLOWER, REMEMBER THE COMPLAINT ON AUGUST 12. HE SAYS THIS. OVER THE PAST FOUR MONTHS MORE THAN HALF A DOZEN U.S. OFFICIALS INFORMED ME ABOUT THIS EFFORT. WE HAVE NO IDEA THE COMMITTEE MARKING UP ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT. WE HAVE NO IDEA WHO THOSE OFFICIALS ARE WE DO NOT KNOW IF WE TALK TO THEM OR IF THEY CAME AND TESTIFIED. MY GUESS IS COLONEL BITTMAN WAS ONE OF THEM. WHO KNOWS. WE DON’T KNOW WE NEVER GOT TO TALK TO THE INDIVIDUAL WHO STARTED IT ALL THAT’S THE CHAIRMAN OF THE INTEL COMMITTEE TOLD US WHEN IT ALL STARTED. WHEN IT IS DISCOVERED THAT HAS STAFF I COMMUNICATED WITH WHISTLEBLOWER NOPE, WE WILL NOT GET TO. THE REAL VICTIM IS THIS COMMITTEE. WE HAVE HAD FOUR DEMOCRATIC WITNESSES IN FRONT OF US ONE DEMOCRAT LAW PROFESSOR THAT THE REPUBLICANS CALLED IN. THOSE ARE THE FOUR WITNESSES AND A BUNCH OF STUFF. OF THE 17 WITNESSES. I SUPPORT THE GENTLEMAN FROM PENNSYLVANIA’S AMENDMENT >> THE GENTLEMAN FROM RHODE ISLAND IS RECOGNIZED >> WE ARE CHARGED WITH THE RESPONSIBILITY OF TAKING THE FACTS THAT HAVE BEEN ESTABLISHED IN THIS INVESTIGATION. APPLYING THEM TO THE CONSTITUTION THAT WE HAVE SWORN AND PROTECT AND DEFEND. THIS SERIES OF EVENTS WAS DESCRIBED BY TRUMP OFFICIALS AND AMBASSADOR BOLTON IS A DRUG DEAL. IT WAS DESCRIBED BY FIONA HILL AS A DOMESTIC POLITICAL ERRAND 260 TEXT MESSAGES AND THE TRANSCRIPT OF THE PRESIDENT’S OWN WORDS. EMAILS BETWEEN HIGH-RANKING OFFICIALS OF THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION. THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES HIRED RUDY GIULIANI TO LEAD THIS EFFORT HE FIRED AMBASSADOR YVONNE ELITCH. THE PRESIDENT PUT A HOLD ON THE MILITARY AID TO THE UKRAINE. HE DEMANDED THAT ZELENSKY ANNOUNCE — THE PRESIDENT PUT THE THREE AMIGOS AND AMBASSADOR SOLD ONE SOMEONE IN CHARGE OF THE UKRAINE THE PRESIDENT TOLD THE VICE PRESIDENT, VICE PRESIDENT PENCE, NOT TO ATTEND THE UKRAINE INAUGURATION JUST TO NAME A FEW HIGHLIGHTS OF THE EVIDENCE. IF YOU DRILL DOWN MORE I DON’T WANT TO DASHA TRUMP ADMINISTRATION OFFICIALS WHO ARE IN THE MIDDLE OF THIS ACTIVITY. JULY 21, 2019 THERE WAS A TEXT FROM AMBASSADOR TAYLOR TO AMBASSADOR SONLAND DAVID HOLMES TESTIFIED. I WAS SURPRISED THE REQUIREMENT WAS SO

SPECIFIC AND CONCRETE. THIS WAS A DEMAND THE PRESIDENT ZELENSKY ZELENSKY MR. HOLMES TESTIFIED IN RESPONSE TO A QUESTION DURING — YOUR ACKNOWLEDGING MR. HOLMES THE UKRAINE FELT PRESSURED TO UNDERTAKE THE INVESTIGATIONS THAT THE PRESIDENT AND RUDY GIULIANI AND OTHERS WERE DEMANDING ANSWER TO MR. HOLMES YES SIR AMBASSADOR TAYLOR HAS A CALL IN SEPTEMBER 8. AMBASSADOR TAYLOR SAYS THIS IS A CAREER DIPLOMAT A VIETNAM WAR HERO. AMBASSADOR TAYLOR SAYS PRESIDENT TRUMP IS A BUSINESSMAN. WHAT A BUSINESSMAN IS ABOUT TO SIGN A CHECK, THIS IS LIKE ASKING A PERSON TO PAY UP BEFORE ASSIGNING A CHECK THAT EXPLANATION MADE NO SENSE UKRAINIANS DO NOT OWE PRESIDENT TRUMP ANYTHING. AND HOLDING UP SECURITY ASSISTANCE FOR DOMESTIC POLITICAL GAIN WAS CRAZY FINALLY ON SEPTEMBER 9 AMBASSADOR TAYLOR IN A TEXT EXCHANGE WITH AMBASSADOR SONLAND , I THINK IT’S CRAZY TO WITHHOLD SECURITY ASSISTANCE FOR HELP WITH THE POLITICAL CAMPAIGN END QUOTE. THE RECORD IS FILLED WITH EVIDENCE. IN FACT, THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES ABUSE THE ENORMOUS POWER OF HIS OFFICE IN AN EFFORT TO CHEAT IN THE 2020 ELECTIONS TO DRIVE FOR INTERFERENCE INTO THE 2020 ELECTION AND TO CORRUPT AND AMERICAN PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION. AND USE THE POWER OF HIS OFFICE WITH THE HELP OF TAXPAYER FUNDS. TO LEVERAGE HIS EFFORT TO DRAG FOREIGN POWERS INTO OUR ELECTIONS. WHEN I HEAR MY COLLEAGUES ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE AISLE SAY WHO IS THE VICTIM , THE VICTIM IS AMERICAN DEMOCRACY. THE VICTIM IS THE PEOPLE WE REPRESENT. WHO EXPECT US TO HONOR OUR OATH AND PROTECT AND DEFEND THE CONSTITUTION. ARE MY REPUBLICAN COLLEAGUES SAYING IT IS OKAY FOR A PRESIDENT TO INVITE OR DRAG OR PERSUADE OR COERCE FOREIGN POWERS TO DISTORT AN AMERICAN PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION? WE HAVE MANY WOMEN WHO HAVE GIVEN OUR LIVES TO PROTECT OUR DEMOCRACY. WE OWE IT TO THEM TO BE SURE YOU DON’T GET TO DECIDE WHO’S GOING TO BE THE AMERICAN PRESIDENT. THE AMERICAN PEOPLE, NOT SOME FOREIGN POWER. IF WE ALLOW THE PRESIDENT TO GET AWAY WITH THIS WE WILL OF LOST OUR DEMOCRACY AND WE WILL CONVEY THAT TO FOREIGN POWERS. I URGE MY COLLEAGUES TO SUPPORT THESE ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT. SO WE CAN VINDICATE THE RIGHT OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE. TO DETERMINE THEIR OWN FUTURE AND ELECT THEIR OWN LEADERS >> MADAM CHAIR? >> THE GENTLEMAN IS RECOGNIZED >> I WANT TO URGE SUPPORT FOR THIS AMENDMENT STRIKING ARTICLE THERE HAS BEEN A LOT SAID TODAY AS EVERYONE HAS ACKNOWLEDGED I’M STRUCK BY THE HYPERBOLIC LANGUAGE THAT IS BEING USED ON THE OTHER SIDE AND THIS BREATHLESS CHARGE WE HEAR ABOUT OVER AND OVER. THIS IS THE FIRST TIME IN THE HISTORY OF THE PUBLIC THAT ANY PRESIDENT HAS INVOKED THIS KIND OF IMMUNITY AND PRIVILEGE OVER SUBPOENAS FROM CONGRESS. IT IS SIMPLY NOT TRUE A REVIEW OF THE HISTORY, EVEN A REVIEW OF THE WITNESS TESTIMONY THAT WAS PRESENTED IN THIS VERY COMMITTEE A WEEK AGO. IT WAS SURELY THAT IS A BASELESS CHARGE. THERE HAS NEVER BEEN A SINGLE PARTY FRAUDULENT AND PEACH PROCESS DEPLOYED AGAINST THE PRESIDENT LIKE THE ONE THAT’S BEING USED AGAINST DONALD TRUMP. IT’S NOT THE CLAIM THAT THE PRESIDENT DOESN’T WANT TO TURN OVER WITNESSES OR DOCUMENTS. THAT AS WE SAID IS QUITE COMMON BY THE WAY LET’S REMEMBER IT NEEDS TO BE NOTED AGAIN THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP HAS CONSISTENTLY COOPERATED WITH THIS CONGRESS AND FULFILLING ITS OVERSIGHT AND INVESTIGATION RESPONSIBILITIES THIS MORNING THERE WERE 25 ADMINISTRATION OFFICIALS THAT TESTIFIED. OVER 20 HAD TESTIFIED BEFORE THE HOUSE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE. AT THE START OF THE IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY. THE WHITE HOUSE PRODUCED MORE THAN 100,000 PAGES OF DOCUMENTS. TO THE OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE. IN SPITE OF THEIR ALLEGATION THE DEMOCRATS NOW PRESIDENT TRUMP HAS A LAWFUL COST TO CHALLENGE THE SUBPOENAS THEY INVOLVE DIRECT COMMUNICATIONS BETWEEN HIGH-RANKING ADVISORS AND A PRESIDENT THAT IS VERY SENSITIVE STUFF. IT’S RECOGNIZED TO BE PRIVILEGED. WE NEED THE COURTS

TO SORT THROUGH THE NUANCES MOST OF THESE INDIVIDUALS ARE NOT RELATED TO THE UKRAINE MATTER. ANY OBJECTIVE OBSERVER THE ADMINISTRATION IS BEING USED BY THESE DEMOCRATIC COMMITTEE CHAIRS. TO ADVANCE THEIR POLITICAL AGENDA. THIS AGENDA DOES NOT ALLOW THEM TIME TO PROCEED TO DO THIS THE RIGHT WAY AND GO THROUGH THE PROCESS THAT IS HISTORIC. PROFESSOR TURLEY WAS OUR ONLY WITNESS. THE ONLY ONE THAT WE WERE ALLOWED IN THE EXCEPTIONAL TESTIMONY HE SUBMITTED TO US IN WRITING. HE SAID QUOTE, THIS IS PAGE 42 OF HIS DOCUMENT IF THIS COMMITTEE ELECTS TO SEEK IMPEACHMENT ON THE PRESIDENTS FILLER TO YIELD THE CONGRESSIONAL DEMANDS IT WILL HAVE TO DISTINGUISH A LONG LINE OF CASES WHERE PRIOR PRESIDENTS SOUGHT THE VERY SAME REVIEW WHILE WITHHOLDING WITNESSES AND DOCUMENTS. TAKE THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION ON THE INVESTIGATION OF FAST AND FURIOUS. CONGRESS BEGAN AN OVERSIGHT INVESTIGATION INTO THAT SCANDAL. SOME MEMBERS CALL FOR IMPEACHMENT PROCEEDINGS PRESIDENT OBAMA INVOKED EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGES. THIS IS NOT UNPRECEDENTED. PROFESSOR TURLEY CONTINUES THE POSITION WAS REGARDED AS EXTREME. SOME EVEN SAID EXTREME RESIDENT OBAMA HAD EVERY RIGHT TO SEEK JUDICIAL REVIEW IN THE MATTER. MANY MEMBERS OF THIS COMMITTEE SUPPORTED THAT POSITION. ON THIS OBSTRUCTION THEORY WOULD BE AN ABUSE OF POWER BY CONGRESS. IT WOULD BE DANGEROUS TO SET FOR FUTURE PRESIDENTS AND CONGRESSES HERE IS THE DEAL. IMPEACHMENT WAS NEVER INTENDED TO BE A REMEDY FOR POLITICAL DISAGREEMENTS. IT WASN’T INTENDED TO BE A REMEDY FOR LEGAL DISAGREEMENTS. BETWEEN THE LEGISLATIVE BRANCH AND THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH. THAT’S WHY THERE IS A THIRD BRANCH OF GOVERNMENT. THIS IS A VERY DANGEROUS ROAD AS PROFESSOR TURLEY NOTED. I HOPE AND PRAY THAT FUTURE CONGRESSES CAN AND WILL EXERCISE GREATER RESTRAINT. IN WHAT HAS BEEN SHOW BY SHERMAN SHIFT CHAIRMAN SCHIFF. THE CIVILITY OF OUR REPUBLIC WILL DEPEND ON THAT IN THE FUTURE. I PRAY WE CAN PUT THIS GENIE BACK IN THE BOTTLE >> FOR WHAT PURPOSE THE GENTLEMAN FROM FLORIDA SEEKS RECOGNITION? >> I MOVED TO STRIKE THE LAST WORD >> IT’S TRULY DISHEARTENING TO HEAR MY COLLEAGUES ON THE OTHER SIDE ARGUE IN FAVOR OF CRIPPLING THE VERY INSTITUTION THEY ARE A PART OF. THE POWER OF IMPEACHMENT HAS BILLED IN DUE PROCESS FOR PROTECTIONS. WE ARE THE AMERICAN PEOPLE AND DULY ELECTED REPRESENTATIVES. WE ARE EMPOWERED TO HOLD TO ACCOUNT CORRUPT AND CRIMINAL PRESIDENTS. WHEN THE PRESIDENT OBSTRUCTS AND IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY HE IS OBSTRUCTING THE PEOPLE WHO HAVE A RIGHT TO KNOW OF THE PRESIDENT IS RUNNING THEIR GOVERNMENT AFTER ALL THAT IS THE BASIS OF OUR GOVERNMENT. BY THE PEOPLE AND FOR THE PEOPLE. WE HAVE REQUESTED HUNDREDS OF DOCUMENTS AND HAVE BEEN PROVIDED BY ABSOLUTELY NOT ONE DOCUMENT. THE PRESIDENT HAS INSTRUCTED THE SAFETY DEPARTMENT TO NOT GIVE US THE INFORMATION WE HAVE ASKED. SHE HAS TOLD WITNESSES TO COME IN FRONT OF CONGRESS TO TESTIFY. TO NOT COME AND TESTIFY. TALK ABOUT A DANGEROUS PRESIDENT. THE PEOPLE DESERVE TO KNOW HOW HE IS USING THE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENCY OF THE PEOPLE WHOM HE WAS ELECTED TO SERVE. THE PRESIDENT HAS ABUSED HIS OFFICE AND IS USING THE POWER OF THE OFFICE TO HIDE THE EXTENT OF THAT ABUSE FROM THE PEOPLE. THAT IS ABUSE OF POWER. THAT IS AN IMPEACHABLE DEFENSE. I WANT TO END BY SAYING IT IS ALSO APPALLING THAT THROUGHOUT THIS PROCESS THE PRESIDENT AND THE REPUBLICAN PARTY HAVE CONTINUOUSLY ATTACKED FOREIGN SERVICE OFFICERS THE MEN AND WOMEN OF THE MILITARY. OUR INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY THOSE WHO PROTECT US EVERY DAY UNDERMINING OUR NATIONAL SECURITY. THEY ARE PATRIOTS AND THEY SHOULD BE TREATED AS SUCH AFTER ALL WE ARE ALL AMERICANS I YIELD BACK

>> I RISE IN SUPPORT >> THE GENTLEMAN IS RECOGNIZED >> THIS IS SO SURREAL, AND IT SEEMS WE HAVE COME TO A TIME WHERE RIGHT IS WRONG AND WRONG IS RIGHT AND BULLIES ARE THE VICTIMS AND THE VICTIMS ARE CALLED BULLIES. FOR THREE YEARS THIS PRESIDENT HAS BEEN HARASSED. HE HAS BEEN ELECTRONICALLY SURVEILLED, SPIED UPON US NORMAL PEOPLE WOULD CALL IT. ALLEGATIONS HAVE NEVER CEASED. THEY CONTINUE AND THEY ARE CONTINUING TODAY. AT SOME POINT YOU WOULD THINK THAT SOMEONE WOULD LOOK AT THE ABUSES BY CONGRESS AND BY THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT AND FRIENDS OF OUR DEMOCRATS. BY THE FBI FRIENDS OF OUR DEMOCRATS WHO HATED THE PRESIDENT WHEN HE WAS NOTHING BUT A CANDIDATE AT SOME POINT SOMEBODY WOULD SAY THIS IS OUT-OF-CONTROL. WE NEED TO STEP BACK AND SAY WAIT, THIS TRAIN IS OFF THE TRACKS. IT IS TIME TO GET REASONABLE. WHAT HAS GONE ON THE LAST THREE YEARS IS NOT REASONABLE. THERE IS A DOCTRINE AND ATTORNEYS NO YOU WERE GOING TO TRY TO PURSUE SOME REMEDY YOU NEED TO HAVE CLEAN HANDS. THE MAJORITY HAS BEEN SO ABUSIVE, SURE THIS ADMINISTRATION HAS PRODUCED TONS OF WITNESSES AFTER SUBPOENAS. SOME WITHOUT SOMETIMES IT WAS JUST NEGOTIATED. NORMALLY WHAT HAPPENS IS SUBPOENA IS RECEIVED AND IT MEANS YOU ARE NOT GOING TO BE ABLE TO USE AN AGENCY ATTORNEY EVEN THOUGH AN AGENCY ATTORNEY WILL NOT BE ALLOWED IN EVEN THOUGH THE ONLY WAY THAT THE WITNESS CAN APPEAR AND HAVE EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE PROPERLY CLAIMED IS TO HAVE AN AGENCY OR DEPARTMENT ATTORNEY WITH THEM THAT’S WHEN THINGS GET NEGOTIATED AND GET WORKED OUT SOME OF OUR FRIENDS NOW THAT IF THEY ARE ABUSIVE ENOUGH WITH SUBPOENAS AND WITH LAW FAIR AND USING THE LAW AS A WEAPON YOU CAN RUN PEOPLE OUT OF OFFICE. THEY SUCCESSFULLY DID THAT WITH SARAH PALIN, RYAN ZINKE E, HE COULD NOT KEEP HIRING INDIVIDUAL LAWYERS. THIS IS THE KIND OF STUFF THAT HAS BEEN GOING ON. THIS WILL END UP, SINCE OUR FRIENDS ARE NOT BEING REASONABLE WE ARE NOT WILLING TO NEGOTIATE WITH THE ADMINISTRATION SO AGENCY LAWYERS COULD CLAIM EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE. EVEN THOUGH THE TARGET KEPT CHANGING. THEY DID NOT KNOW WHAT THEY WOULD COME AND TESTIFY ABOUT. THEY WERE BEING ACCUSED OF ALL KINDS OF DIFFERENT THINGS. IT HAS CHANGED EVEN IN THE LAST 48 HOURS. HOW DO YOU DEFEND YOUR SELF WHEN THE CHARGE KEEPS CHANGING? THIS IS A STOLEN S COURT SYSTEM. YOU DO NOT GET TO MEET AND CROSS-EXAMINE YOUR WITNESSES. IN FACT, WE WILL JUST HAVE SOME LAW PROFESSOR THAT IS PAID BY OUR FRIENDS. COME IN AND EXPLAIN WHAT THE WITNESSES PROBABLY SAID OR DID SAY, OR WHAT IT IS THAT’S ALL YOU NEED TO HEAR YOU WILL VOTE ON GUILTY OR INNOCENT OR IMPEACHMENT OR NOT WE DON’T NEED NO STINKING WITNESSES. BRING US THE CHANCE TO VOTE AND WE WILL VOTE. IT IS AN OUTRAGE. THERE’S NOTHING REASONABLE ABOUT WHAT HAS GONE ON. ESPECIALLY, IT IS SO IRONIC THIS IS THE SAME WEEK AND THE CORRUPTION OF THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE HAS BEEN SHOWN THERE IS NO SORROW OR APOLOGY NO REMORSE WHATSOEVER BY THIS INCREDIBLE ABUSIVE SYSTEM. THE OBSTRUCTION OF CONGRESS IS BY PEOPLE IN CONGRESS. THE MINISTRATION HAS NOT BEEN UNREASONABLE. THEY HAVE SEEN WHAT HAS HAPPENED. WHEN THIS ABUSE OF THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT GETS PEOPLE IN A PERJURY TRAP

THEY HAVE NOTHING TO GO ON. IF WE CAN GET YOU IN A GATED TESTIFY WE CAN PROSECUTE YOU IF YOU MAKE A MISTAKE WHILE YOU ARE TESTIFYING. IT WAS VERY REASONABLE NOT TO COME ANSWER THE SUBPOENAS WHEN YOU COULD NOT HAVE AN AGENCY LAWYER. THERE ARE NO NEGOTIATIONS WITH THE OTHER SIDE >> GENTLEMAN YIELDS BACK >> THROUGHOUT THE COURSE OF THIS INVESTIGATION WE HAVE SEEN A STARK CONTRAST BETWEEN THE PATRIOTS WHO STOOD UP TO TELL THE TRUTH AND THOSE WHO HAVE TURNED A BLIND EYE TO THE TRUTH TONIGHT , TO THOSE PATRIOTS I WANT TO LIFT YOU UP. I WANT TO TELL YOU THANK YOU. I AM IN AWE OF YOU. I AM IN AWE OF YOUR COURAGE TO UPHOLD YOUR OATH AT A GREAT PERSONAL SACRIFICE. AND PROFESSIONAL COST. PATRIOTS LIKE LIEUTENANT COLONEL ALEXANDER LINDEMANN. PURPLE HEART RECIPIENT AND IRAQ WAR VETERAN AMBASSADOR WILLIAM TAYLOR VIETNAM WAR VETERAN. MARIA YOVANOVITCH FORMER AMBASSADOR TO THE UKRAINE. WHO JOINED THE FOREIGN SERVICE DURING THE REAGAN ADMINISTRATION. DR. FIONA HILL DR. FORMER ASSISTANT TO THE PRESIDENT AND SENIOR DIRECTOR OF EUROPEAN RUSSIA ON THE NATIONAL SECURITY COUNCIL. SO MANY OTHERS. MORE THAN A DOZEN OTHER WITNESSES. THIS ADMINISTRATION CONFIRM THE DETAILS OF THE WRONGDOING OF THE PRESIDENT THEY DESCRIBE THE PRESIDENT WHO REFLEXES REFLECTIVELY AND REPEATEDLY ABUSED HIS POWER FOR PERSONAL GAIN. JEOPARDIZING OUR SECURITY AND OUR OWN DEMOCRACY. EACH PATRIOT HAVE THE COURAGE TO LIVE UP TO THEIR OATH. THEIR WORDS MATTERED PATRIOTS, MY FAMILY KNOW SOMETHING ABOUT THE SACRIFICE OF SERVICE. TWO AND MY BROTHER SERVED IN THE NAVY DURING THE VIETNAM WAR. MY MOTHER BROTHER BOB SERVING TWO TOURS I’M LUCKY TO HAVE SERVED WITH THOSE WHO SERVED ON MY OWN STAFF. ONE THE TENANT WAS RECENTLY CALLED TO SERVICE TO ACTIVE DUTY. AND STAFFERS TIM KAINE AND DAVE CAR AGAIN. NOW AS MEMBERS OF CONGRESS IT IS OUR TURN TO STAND UP. DR. KING ONCE SAID THE ULTIMATE MEASURE OF A MAN IS NOT WHERE HE STANDS IN MOMENTS OF COMFORT AND CONVENIENCE. IT’S WHERE HE STANDS AT TIMES OF CHALLENGE AND CONTROVERSY. THIS IS A TIME OF GREAT CHALLENGE. SOME OF MY COLLEAGUES DO NOT WANT TO FACE THE REALITIES OF A PRESIDENTS WRONGDOING. SO I ASKED MY COLLEAGUES TONIGHT, WHAT ARE YOU AFRAID OF? THIS COUNTRY WAS BUILT BY THOSE WHO ARE BRAVE ENOUGH TO STAND UP AGAINST KING GEORGE. WE ARE CALLED TO STAND UP AGAINST DONALD JAY TRUMP. WHAT ARE YOU AFRAID OF? LOOK TO OUR FRAMERS LOOK TO OUR PATRIOTS FOR COURAGE THIS IS ABOUT COURAGE. THE COURAGE TO HONOR OUR OATH. MY OATH, YOUR OATH, MR. CHAIRMAN I WILL WITH SOMBERNESS OF PURPOSE YET WITH CONFIDENCE IN OUR CONSTITUTION BE VOTING NO ON THIS AMENDMENT AND VOTING YES ON THESE ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT WITH THAT I YIELD BACK >> WHAT PURPOSES? >> I SUPPORT THE AMENDMENT I OFFER THIS TO YOU. CHARGING THE PRESIDENT WITH OBSTRUCTION OF CONGRESS IS UNPRECEDENTED. IN ITSELF IT THREATENS OUR SYSTEM OF GOVERNMENT. THE PRINCIPLES OF SEPARATION OF POWERS AND CHECKS AND BALANCES TO MANNED A PRESIDENT BE PERMITTED TO RESIST A MAN THAT THE PRESIDENT FINDS HARASSING OR OTHERWISE VIOLATIVE OF HIS CONSTITUTIONAL PRIVILEGES. IT IS AN ABSURDITY TO CLAIM THAT THE SOLE POWER OF IMPEACHMENT IMPLIES DUTIES TO THE PRESIDENT TO COOPERATE IN ANY AND ALL CONGRESSIONAL REQUESTS. NO MATTER THEIR MERIT DISPUTES BETWEEN THE BRANCHES ARE ACTUALLY A FEATURE. THEY ARE A FEATURE OF OUR SYSTEM THEY ARE NOT A BUG IN THE SYSTEM. THE BRANCHES ARE REQUIRED TO ENGAGE IN A PROCESS OF ACCOMMODATION. TO REACH AN AGREEMENT THAT TAKES INTO ACCOUNT THE RELATIVE EQUITIES OF BOTH SIDES. BOTH BRANCHES HAVE RIGHTS AND INTEREST TO PROTECT IF THOSE DISPUTES CANNOT BE RESOLVED THE COURTS ARE TO STEP IN. ANYTHING LESS THREATENS THE SEPARATION OF POWERS. IT’S THE VERY FOUNDATION OF THIS CONSTITUTION. THIS MAJORITY HAS TAKEN THE POSITION, A DUBIOUS POSITION, THAT DESPITE THEIR

VOTE OF A FULL HOUSE IS NOT REQUIRED TO OPEN AN IMPEACHMENT PROCEEDING. THINK OF THE IMPLICATION OF THAT. ANY ROAD CHAIRMAN CAN COMMIT AN IMPEACHMENT PROCEEDING AGAINST THE PRESIDENT UNDER THE THEORY OF THESE ARTICLES THE PRESIDENT HAS NO CHOICE BUT TO COMPLY WITH A SINGLE ROAD COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN HIS FAILURE TO DO SO WOULD BE IMPEACHABLE. HOW DOES THAT WITH THE SEPARATION OF POWERS? THOU SHALL NOT BE ARTIFICIALLY ABLE TO CREATE IMPEACHABLE DEFENSE THROUGH ITS OWN ACTIONS PRESIDENT TRUMP’S ACTIONS ARE NOT UNPRECEDENTED. ANY PRESIDENTS HAVE TO FIGHT CONGRESSIONAL SUBPOENAS INCLUDING PRESIDENT OBAMA ON MANY OCCASIONS MAYBE PRESIDENTS HAVE OUTRIGHT REFUSED TO COOPERATE WITH CONGRESSIONAL INVESTIGATIONS AS WELL. I WILL GIVE YOU THREE HISTORICAL CASES THAT ARE NOT ARTIFACTS. THEIR ACTUAL CASES FOR INSTANCE PRESIDENT JACKSON SAID IN 1837, HE CALLED A HOUSE SUBPOENA ILLEGAL AND UNCONSTITUTIONAL. STATING HE WOULD REPEL ALL SUCH ATTEMPTS AS AN INVASION OF THE PRINCIPLE OF JUSTICE. AS WELL AS OF THE CONSTITUTION. HIS SACRED DUTY TO THE PEOPLE THE UNITED STATES TO RESIST THEM AS HE WOULD THE ESTABLISHMENT OF THE SPANISH ACQUISITION. THAT IS FROM ANDREW JACKSON. LATER PRESIDENT COOLIDGE SAID IN THE NEW YORK TIMES ARTICLE FROM APRIL 24, THAT HE SENT A MESSAGE TO THE SENATE SAYING HE WOULD CEASE TO PARTICIPATE IN THEIR UNWARRANTED INTRUSION. AND QUESTIONING THE LEGITIMACY OF THEIR INVESTIGATION. IN 1948 PRESIDENT TRUMAN AND EXECUTIVE PUBLISH EXECUTIVE ORDER IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER ORDERING EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENTS TO RESPECTFULLY DECLINE ANY SUBPOENA PERTAINING TO CONGRESSIONAL INVESTIGATION INTO EXECUTIVE BRANCH PERSONNEL WE HAVE THE RECENT OBAMA EXAMPLE. IF YOU HAVE A PROBLEM, YOU DON’T NECESSARILY , THE CHAIRMAN SAID HE DID NOT EXERT PRIVILEGE. ACTUALLY HE CLAIMED EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE IN A VERY BROAD WAY TYPICALLY WHAT WOULD HAPPEN IS I WOULD ISSUE A SUBPOENA AND HAVE IT SERVED. THE PERSON DOES NOT SHOW UP. GUESS WHAT WE DO? WE GO INTO COURT. WE PROVE THE PROVIDENCE OF OUR SUBPOENA. THE COURT THEN ISSUES AN ADDITIONAL ORDER. MAYBE IT IS A WARRANT FOR ARREST. MAYBE IT’S A FINE WE UNVEIL OURSELVES THROUGH THE PROCESS. YOU HAVEN’T DONE THAT MR. SCHIFF SAID SO JUST LAST WEEK. BECAUSE HE DID NOT WANT TO TAKE THE TIME TO UNVEIL HIMSELF OF THE PROCESS THAT YOU CLAIM YOU ARE DEFENDING. THAT IS PRECISELY WHY PROFESSOR TURLEY AND ALL WHO LOOK AT THIS WITH THE OBJECTIVE I SAY YOU ARE THE ONES ABUSING THE PROCESS. YOU ARE ABUSING CONGRESS AND ABUSING THE PRESIDENT AND THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH. I’M AFRAID WHAT HAPPENS IS WE ACTUALLY INTEGRATE OUR BODY AND WE INTEGRATE THE VERY PROCESS THAT WE CLAIM TO BE PROTECTING TODAY WITH THAT I YIELD BACK >> MISS ESCOBAR’S RECOGNITION >> WE HAVE HEARD OUR COLLEAGUES ARGUE THAT OBSTRUCTION OF CONGRESS HAS NOT HAPPENED ONE OF OUR COLLEAGUES CALLED THE CHARGE RIDICULOUS. ANOTHER COLLEAGUE SAID THE PRESIDENT HAS CONSISTENTLY COOPERATED WITH DEMOCRATS. A STUNNING STATEMENT I HAVE HAD THE INCREDIBLE PRIVILEGE OF SERVING ON THE HOUSE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE FOR ALMOST A YEAR. FRESHMAN WERE SWORN IN JANUARY 3. WE HAVE HAD MANY HEARINGS. THERE IS A THREAD THAT RUNS THROUGH ALL OF THOSE HEARINGS. ESPECIALLY THOSE HEARINGS WHERE WE ARE TRYING TO PROVIDE PROPER OVERSIGHT OVER THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES. THAT THREAD IS THAT MY COLLEAGUES COMPLAINED BITTERLY. ABOUT OUR EFFORTS TO BE IN CHECK. OUR EFFORTS TO PERFORM OUR OBLIGATION TO THE CONSTITUTION. AND OUR EFFORTS TO PROVIDE OVERSIGHT. WE HEAR IT TIME AND TIME AGAIN. THIS IDEA THAT THE PRESIDENT HAS COOPERATED, THAT IS THE CLAIM THAT IS ACTUALLY ABSURD. DURING SOME OF OUR OVERSIGHT HEARINGS WE HEARD THE PRESIDENT SAY HE

WAS COVERED UNDER ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY. WITHOUT LISTING THE DOCUMENTS OR THE REASONS WHY HE DESERVED ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY NO PRESIDENT, NOT EVEN RICHARD NIXON, NO PRESIDENT HAS REFUSED TO HONOR SUBPOENAS DURING IMPEACHMENT. IF YOU CAN IMAGINE , THIS PRESIDENT HAS ACHIEVED A NEW LOW. AND LOWER THE BAR SIGNIFICANTLY. IF IT WERE NOT FOR THE PATRIOTS, AND I ASSOCIATE MYSELF WITH THE STATEMENT BY REPRESENTATIVE DEAN. WHO THANKED THEM, THEY ARE HEROES. THEY PUT THEIR REPUTATION, THEIR NAMES AND THEIR SAFETY AND THEIR SECURITY AT RISK. SO THEY COULD DEFEND THIS COUNTRY AND DEFEND THE CONSTITUTION AND UPHOLD THE OATH OF OFFICE. THE OATH THAT THEY TOOK AS PUBLIC SERVICE LET’S FIND OUT JUST HOW COOPERATIVE THIS PRESIDENT HAS BEEN DURING THIS INVESTIGATION I WOULD LIKE TO ASK REPRESENTATIVE’S WALL WELL AND MY COLLEAGUE WHO SERVES ON INTELLIGENCE. HOW MANY DOCUMENTS DID YOU ALL REQUEST DURING THIS INVESTIGATION? >> 71 >> ON PAGES 30 AND 31 IT WAS 71 DOCUMENTS >> HOW MANY WITNESSES? >> 12 WITNESSES WE ASKED TO SHOW UP >> SO THE AMERICAN PUBLIC UNDERSTANDS YOU REQUESTED 72 DOCUMENTS AND 12 WITNESSES. HOW MANY DOCUMENTS AND HOW MANY WITNESSES DID THE PRESIDENT PROVIDE? >> 12 WERE ASKED. ZERO OF THE 71 DOCUMENTS WERE PROVIDED >> THANK YOU SO MUCH. I WANT TO ASK THE AMERICAN PEOPLE WHAT IS THE PRESIDENT TRYING TO HIDE FROM YOU? WHY IS HE TRYING TO KEEP YOU IN THE DARK? IF HE HAS NOTHING TO HIDE, THEN LET HIM COME FORWARD WITH THOSE DOCUMENTS AND THOSE WITNESSES I WANT TO CONCLUDE BY JUST TOUCHING A LITTLE BIT ON SOMETHING I MENTIONED LAST NIGHT. UNFORTUNATELY WE HAVE COME TO EXPECT THIS KIND OF BEHAVIOR FROM THE PRESIDENT THIS REALLY IS A VERY TRAGIC MOMENT IN AMERICAN HISTORY. A DARK MOMENT IN AMERICAN HISTORY IT’S MADE EVEN MORE TRAGIC BY ENABLERS. WHO SEEK TO MAKE SURE THEY PROTECT ONE MAN AT ANY COST. ONE MAN WHO IS NOT FOR AMERICA. ONE MAN WHO IS FOR HIMSELF. THIS IS A RECKONING FOR US. THIS IS A MOMENT WHEN WE SHOULD BE STANDING WITH THE PATRIOTS. I AM VERY PROUD AS DARK AS THIS MOMENT IS. I AM PROUD TO STAND WITH THE PATRIOTS HERE ON THIS COMMITTEE. I WILL CONTINUE TO STAND WITH THE PATRIOTS WHO DEFEND THIS COUNTRY. MR. CHAIRMAN I YIELD BACK >> FOR WHAT PURPOSES >> THE GENTLEMAN IS RECOGNIZED >> WE HAVE TALKED TODAY ABOUT THE LACK OF EVIDENCE AND SUPPORT OF THE FIRST ARTICLE OF IMPEACHMENT. THE ABUSE OF POWER ARTICLE THEY CAN’T PROVE BRIBERY OR EXTORTION IF THEY DON’T HAVE THE ELEMENTS TO PROVE ANY CRIME THEY CREATED ONE. THEY SAID THERE WAS NO HIGHER CRIME THERE ARE HIGHER CRIMES. THERE ARE ACTUAL CRIMES. SINCE THE PRESIDENT DID NOT COMMIT ONE HERE WE ARE. LAUGHABLE IF IT WEREN’T SO SAD. THE SAME FOR FACTS THAT HAVE BEEN REPEATED THROUGHOUT PRESIDENT TRUMP AND PRESIDENT ZELENSKY SAID THERE WAS NO PRESSURE ON THE CALL. THERE WAS NO CONDITIONALITY OF AID. THE UKRAINIANS WERE NOT AWARE THAT THE AIDE WAS WITHHELD WHEN THE PRESIDENT SPOKE. AND WE HAVE THE TIME MAGAZINE ARTICLE INVOLVING — WHICH HASN’T BEEN PURSUED BY THE COMMITTEE. UKRAINE DID NOT OPEN AN INVESTIGATION BUT STILL RECEIVE THE AID. MY COLLEAGUE SAID EARLIER WE CAN’T PROVE ANY OF IT. WE WILL ACCUSE HIM OF ALL OF IT AND CALL HIM AND ABUSE OF POWER. WE HAVE AN ARTICLE CHARGING OBSTRUCTION OF CONGRESS THE DEMOCRATS HAVE ALLEGED THE PRESIDENT DIRECTED THE UNPRECEDENTED CATEGORICAL AND INDISCRIMINATE DEFIANCE OF SUBPOENAS ISSUED BY THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES. THE FACTS DON’T MATCH UP WITH THESE CLAIMS. THE PRESIDENT HAS LEGITIMATE

CONSTITUTIONAL PRIVILEGES. THE COURT SHOULD DETERMINE THE BOUNDARIES OF THESE PRIVILEGES WHITE HOUSE RELEASED TO CALL TRANSCRIPTS FOR THE PUBLIC FOR REVIEW DURING THIS PROCESS. THE PRESIDENT TOLD HIM GO TELL THE TRUTH IN ADDITION THE CLAIMS OF INSTRUCTION IGNORE THE APPROPRIATE ROLE OF THE THIRD BRANCH OF GOVERNMENT. TO REVIEW CONFLICTS BETWEEN THE EXECUTIVE AND CONGRESS. THE MAJORITY, FAILING TO YIELD THEIR DEMANDS FAILS TO DISTINGUISH INSTANCES WHERE PRIOR PRESIDENTS SOUGHT THE VERY SAME REVIEW. WHILE WITHHOLDING TESTIMONY AND DOCUMENTS TO IGNORE INSTANCES WHERE THE TWO BRANCHES NEGOTIATED IN GOOD FAITH. OVER THERE RETURN OF DOCUMENTS. AFTER THE FAILURE OF THE MAJORITY TO NEGOTIATE IN GOOD FAITH OVER THE RULES FOR THIS VERY IMPEACHMENT PROCEEDING WHY WOULD WE THINK THAT THERE WOULD BE AN EFFORT BY THE PRESIDENT TO ACKNOWLEDGE AND WORK IN GOOD FAITH TO RESOLVE THE DISPUTE. BETTER AND THEIR MINDS TO WAIT FOR THE RECOURSE THEY ARE RIGHT PRESIDENT OBAMA DURING THE FAST AND FURIOUS INVESTIGATION INVOKED EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE AND BARRED DOCUMENTS AND TESTIMONY. THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION ARGUED THE COURTS HAD NO AUTHORITY OVER ITS DENIAL OF SUCH WITNESSES. BUT THE FEDERAL COURT AND COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND GOVERNMENT REFORM DISAGREED PROFESSOR TURLEY AND HIS TESTIMONY TO THIS COMMITTEE TESTIFIED HE THINKS THE DEMOCRATS IMPEACHMENT PROCESS IS AN ABUSE OF POWER. HE SAID QUOTE, WHAT I AM SAYING IS IF YOU WANT A WELL BASED LEGITIMATE IMPEACHMENT CASE TO SET THE ABBREVIATED SCHEDULE AND DEMAND DOCUMENTS AND IMPEACH BECAUSE THEY HAVEN’T BEEN TURNED OVER WHEN THEY GO TO A COURT, WHEN THE PRESIDENT GOES TO A COURT I THINK THAT. IS AN ABUSE OF POWER. IF YOU MAKE A HIGH CRIME MISDEMEANOR OUT OF GOING TO THE COURTS IT IS AN ABUSE OF POWER. IT IS YOUR ABUSE OF POWER. I URGE MY COLLEAGUES TO SUPPORT THIS AMENDMENT >> THANK YOU MR. CHAIRMAN. MY REPUBLICAN COLLEAGUES HAVE BEEN PUTTING FORWARD A LOT OF EXCUSES TODAY. I WANT TO GO THROUGH THE ONES THAT WE HAVE HEARD THE MOST. FIRST, THEY HAVE SAID THE PRESIDENT’S BEHAVIOR WAS ALL ABOUT HIS SUPPOSEDLY LEGITIMATE CONCERN ABOUT CORRUPTION. WHAT WE KNOW IS THAT ALL OF PRESIDENT TRUMP’S AGENCIES, ALL OF HIS ADVISORS AND EVERYONE UNANIMOUSLY TOLD HIM THAT UKRAINE HAVE PASSED ALL THE ANTICORRUPTION BENCHMARKS. WHAT WE KNOW IS THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE SAID NO FURTHER REVIEW ON THE CLAIM CORRUPTION WAS NECESSARY. WHAT WE KNOW IS THE PRESIDENT TRUMP’S BUDGET CUTS AID FOR THE UKRAINE DESIGNED TO FIGHT THE UKRAINE CORRUPTION AND WHAT WE KNOW IS THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP WITH BOTH CALLS OF PRESIDENT ZELENSKY WAS GIVEN OFFICIAL TALKING POINTS OFFICIAL TALKING POINTS ON CORRUPTION IN THE UKRAINE AND YES HE NEVER USE THOSE TALKING POINTS. HE NEVER MENTIONED THE WORD CORRUPTION ON EITHER CALL. THE ONLY TWO NAMES THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP MENTIONED WERE JOE AND HUNTER BIDEN. ON JULY 25 THE SECOND EXCUSE THE REPUBLICANS PUT FORWARD. THEY SUGGEST THIS WAS ALL ABOUT THE PRESIDENT’S DESIRE TO GET THE EUROPEAN UNION TO SHARE MORE OF THE BURDEN OF FOREIGN ASSISTANCE. LET’S LOOK AT THAT MR. HOLMES TOLD US THAT EUROPE PROVIDES FOUR TIMES AS MUCH ASSISTANCE AND MORE AID TO THE UKRAINE THAN WE DO. ACTUALLY THE UNITED STATES A LARGELY GETS PAID BACK. ON TOP OF THAT AMBASSADOR SONLAND AND PRESIDENT TRUMP’S AMBASSADOR TO THE EUROPEAN UNION TESTIFIED CLEARLY THAT NOBODY EVER TOLD HIM TO GO TO THE EUROPEAN UNION. AND ACTUALLY ASK FOR MORE MILITARY AID TO BE PROVIDED. THAT SIMPLY WASN’T THE CASE. THE ONLY THING THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP TOLD AMBASSADOR SONLAND TO COMMUNICATE TO THE UKRAINE, WHAT WAS THAT. HE TOLD US THE RESUMPTION OF AID WOULD LIKELY NOT OCCUR UNLESS PRESIDENT ZELENSKY ANNOUNCED THE INVESTIGATION. AMBASSADOR SONLAND MAKE CLEAR ON LEST AS THEY WERE ANNOUNCED THERE WOULD BE A STALEMATE OVER THE AID WHAT WERE THESE INVESTIGATIONS? 2016 ELECTION INTERFERENCE. AND BURISMA. MEANING THE BIDENS. FINALLY LEFT WITH NO OTHER DEFENSES. MY REPUBLICAN

COLLEAGUES SAY PRESIDENT TRUMP HAD A LEGITIMATE REASON TO INVESTIGATE VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN. ONCE AGAIN LET’S LOOK AT THE FACTS. THAT MAKES NO SENSE WHATSOEVER. THE MINORITIES OWN REPORT STATES THAT THE ALLEGATIONS AGAINST THE BIDENS WERE FROM 2015 PRESIDENT TRUMP READILY GAVE MILITARY AID TO THE UKRAINE IN 2017 AND THEN AGAIN IN 2018 PRESIDENT TRUMP’S OWN AIDE TOLD HIM THAT THERE WAS NO MERIT TO THESE INVESTIGATIONS. WHAT CHANGED? WHAT LED TO THE SUDDEN PUSH TO HOLD UP CONGRESSIONALLY APPROVED DESPERATELY NEEDED MILITARY AID WITHOUT TELLING ANYBODY THE REASON? VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN BEGAN BEATING PRESIDENT TRUMP IN THE POLLS. THE EVIDENCE IS CLEAR WHEN PRESIDENT TRUMP SAID DO US A FAVOR, WHO WAS THE US? WE KNOW WHO THE US WAS. HE SAID IT PRESIDENT TRUMP TOLD PRESIDENT ZELENSKY THAT HIS PERSONAL ATTORNEY, HIS PERSONAL LAWYER, RUDY GIULIANI , QUOTE VERY MUCH KNOWS WHAT IS GOING ON. PRESIDENT TRUMP COULD’VE GONE THROUGH OFFICIAL CHANNELS IF HE WANTED. HE COULD’VE ASKED FOR THE ATTORNEY GENERAL TO CONDUCT AN INVESTIGATION. HE COULD’VE CONDUCTED ALL SORTS OF LEGITIMATE INVESTIGATIONS BUT HE DIDN’T. WE KNOW THAT BECAUSE THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE SAID THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP NEVER ASKED THEM TO DO ANY INVESTIGATIONS EVEN TALK TO THE UKRAINE. INSTEAD PRESIDENT TRUMP ASKED HIS PERSONAL ATTORNEY BECAUSE US WAS NOT ABOUT AMERICANA. THE PRESIDENT WAS NOT PUTTING AMERICA FIRST. THIS WASN’T OFFICIAL POLICY. THIS WASN’T WHAT WAS RIGHT FOR OUR COUNTRY EVERY WITNESS TOLD US THAT TOO THIS WAS PERSONAL. IT WAS OFFER PRESIDENT TRUMP’S PERSONAL AND POLITICAL GAIN. TO BENEFIT HIS OWN CAMPAIGN AND HIS REELECTION. THAT’S WHY HE USED HIS PERSONAL ATTORNEY TO DO THAT. HE ABUSED HIS POWER AND THE BOWER ENTRUSTED TO HIM BY WE THE PEOPLE. HE PLACED OUR SAFETY, MILLIONS OF DOLLARS OF TAXPAYER MONEY ON THE TABLE THAT IS AN ABUSE OF POWER. WE MUST IMPEACH DONALD JAY TRUMP. I YIELD BACK >> WE MOVED TO STRIKE THE LAST WORD >> THE GENTLEMAN IS RECOGNIZED >> I WOULD LIKE TO TALK ABOUT SUBPOENAS FOR A LITTLE BIT ADAMIC CRADDICK — IT STARTED IN THIS COMMITTEE WITH THE SUBPOENA TO THE ATTORNEY GENERAL BILL BARR. THE COMPLIANCE WHATEVER REQUIRED HIM TO VIOLATE THE LAW. LIKE A REASONABLE AND RATIONAL WILL DELIVER TO BODY. WHAT DO WE DO? WE HELD THEM IN CONTEMPT WE HELD THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES IN CONTEMPT OF CONGRESS FOR NOT VIOLATING THE LAW. IT GETS BETTER. AFTER THAT WE HELD A HEARING ABOUT WHETHER OR NOT WE SHOULD HAVE HELD HIM IN CONTEMPT. OVERSIGHT DEMOCRATS SUBPOENAED DOCUMENTS FROM COMMERCE AND LEGAL DOCUMENTS RELATING DIRECTLY TO A CASE THAT WAS PENDING IN FRONT OF THE SUPREME COURT. AS I STATED EARLIER THE SAME DEMOCRATS SUBPOENAED THE PERSONAL EMAILS OF PRESIDENT TRUMP’S CHILDREN DEMOCRATS HAVE SUBPOENAED PRESIDENT TRUMP’S TAX RETURNS FOR PURELY POLITICAL PURPOSES. SPEAKING OF POLITICS, ADAM SCHIFF IS THE SUBPOENA POWER OF THE INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE TO OBTAIN PHONE RECORDS. HE RELEASED THE PHONE RECORDS OF A MEMBER OF THE PRESS AND THE RANKING MEMBER IN HIS POLITICAL OPPONENT YOU CANNOT WEAPONIZE THE SUBPOENA POWER OF CONGRESS IN ORDER TO ARREST THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH AND NOT EXPECT THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH TO USE EVERY LEGAL REMEDY AT THEIR DISPOSAL TO OPPOSE THE SUBPOENAS. YOU CAN CONTINUE WITH AN IMPEACHMENT PROCEEDING. IT’S A POLITICAL PROCEEDING. WHAT YOU CANNOT DO IS CHARGE OBSTRUCTION BECAUSE YOU WILL CONTINUE FASTER THAN ALLOWING THE COURTS TO DECIDE IT. BEFORE I FINISH I WOULD LIKE TO POINT OUT A COUPLE OF THINGS WE HAVEN’T SUBPOENAED AMBASSADOR BOLTON. HE BEGGED ONE TO HAVE ONE ISSUED TO HIM. WE HAVEN’T SUBPOENAED THE WHISTLEBLOWER OR ADAM SCHIFF WE HAVEN’T SUBPOENAED ALL THE PEOPLE THAT THE WHISTLEBLOWER MENTIONED TO TALK TO IN RELATION. IF WE WANT TO TALK ABOUT ABUSE AND OBSTRUCTION AND WHY THESE THINGS ARE GOING ON I THINK IS ANOTHER COMMENT , WE HAVE MET THE ENEMY AND HE IS US. WITH THAT I YIELD BACK >>

THE GENTLEMAN IS RECOGNIZED. MR CHAIRMAN THERE ARE TWO ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT. EACH IS VITALLY IMPORTANT ARTICLE 1 BEST IN THE HOUSE, SOLE POWER OF IMPEACHMENT. THAT SET FORTH IN THE CONSTITUTION WHAT HAS THE PRESIDENT DONE? PRESIDENT TRUMP IS THE FIRST AND ONLY PRESIDENT IN AMERICAN HISTORY TO OPENLY AND INDISCRIMINATELY DEFY ALL ASPECTS OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL IMPEACHMENT PROCESS OCTOBER 26 THE PRESIDENT ARGUED THAT CONGRESS SHOULD NOT EVEN BE ALLOWED TO IMPEACH HIM UNDER THE CONSTITUTION. ON OCTOBER 8 THE WHITE HOUSE COUNSEL ACTING ON BEHALF OF THE PRESIDENT WROTE A LETTER TO THE HOUSE AND SAID THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP CANNOT PERMIT HIS ADMINISTRATION TO PARTICIPATE. THIS IS NOT A FISHING EXPEDITION THIS IS A MATTER OF GRAVE IMPORTANCE. WE HAVE TALKED ABOUT IT AT LENGTH. THE ABUSE OF POWER THE PRESIDENT HAS EXHIBITED WHAT IS THE PRESIDENT REFUSED TO PRODUCE WHAT WE HAVE HEARD ABOUT THE DOZENS OF OFFICIALS THAT HE HAS BLOCKED. WHAT ABOUT ALL THE DOCUMENTS THAT WE HAVE ASKED FOR? WHAT ABOUT THE WITNESSES THAT DID COME FORWARD. WHO TOLD US ABOUT THE BRIEF MATERIALS FROM PRESIDENT TRUMP’S CALL. AND THE NATIONAL SECURITY COUNCIL STAFF AND THE CONCLUSIONS FOR MEETINGS RELATED TO THE UKRAINE. INCLUDING MILITARY ASSISTANCE. WHAT ABOUT THE MEMORANDUM OF CONVERSATION FROM PRESIDENT TRUMP’S MEETING IN NEW YORK WITH PRESIDENT TRENT ONE ZELENSKY. WHAT ABOUT THE ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS FROM THE VICE PRESIDENT. THE NOTES TAKEN FROM JENNIFER WILLIAMS. THE BRIEFING MATERIALS PREPARED FOR THE VICE PRESIDENTS MEETING ON NOVEMBER 24 THE NEWS REPORT REVEALED THE WHITE HOUSE CONDUCTED A RECORDS REVIEW AND TURNED UP HUNDREDS OF DOCUMENTS THAT REVEAL EXTENSIVE EFFORTS TO GENERATE AFTER-THE-FACT OF THE JUSTIFICATION FOR THE DECISION THAT’S WHAT WE ARE TALKING ABOUT. OBSTRUCTION MATTERS BECAUSE WE KNOW WHAT WE ARE LOOKING FOR. WE KNOW HOW IMPORTANT IT IS. THE PRESIDENT HAS STOOD IN THE WAY OF THIS HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES. DOING IT’S IMPORTANT WORK. THE PRESIDENT SHOULD HAVE ALLOWED THESE OFFICIALS TO SPEAK SHOULD’VE ALLOWED THESE DOCUMENTS TO SPEAK. MY COLLEAGUES ON THE OTHER SIDE UNDERSTAND THIS IS NOT A FISHING EXPEDITION THEY KNOW THESE DOCUMENTS ARE THEIR. IF THEY WERE TO HELP THE PRESIDENT THEY WOULD BE URGING THE PRESIDENT TO WORK WITH US RATHER THAN OBSTRUCT US. WE HAVE TO PROCEED. I OPPOSE THIS AMENDMENT. I YIELD THE BALANCE OF MY TIME TO MR. JOHNSON >> TONIGHT WE ARE CALLED UPON TO PROTECT THE NATION’S CORE VALUES. MONEY AND THE ECONOMY ARE NOT OUR CORE VALUES WITHHOLDING DESPERATELY NEEDED SECURITY ASSISTANCE FROM AIDE ALLY. DESPERATELY IN NEED. THAT IS NOT A CORE VALUE. CO-WORST THAN A FOREIGN POWER TO INTERFERE IN A PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION IS NOT OUR CORE VALUE GIVING CONGRESS THE FIGURE RESPECT FOR THE CONSTITUTION AND TO TAKE CARE OF YOUR DUTIES ARE FAITHFULLY EXECUTED A FAITHFUL EXECUTION OF THE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT OUR CORE VALUES TO THE BEST OF YOUR ABILITY PRESERVING AND PROTECTING AND DEFENDING OUR CONSTITUTION. THAT IS THE NATION’S CORE VALUES. WHEN A PRESIDENT COMMITS A GRAVE ABUSE OF THE PUBLIC TRUST BY RUNNING A ROUGHSHOD OVER THE HIGH OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT AND CONGRESS IS LEFT WITH NO CHOICE THAN TO DO ITS DUTY TO PROTECT THE PUBLIC AND THE REPUBLIC FROM CLEAR AND

PRESENT DANGER. WE MUST IMPEACH THIS PRESIDENT. WITH THAT I YIELD BACK >> THE GENTLEMAN YIELD BACK >> WE MOVED TO STRIKE THE LAST WORD >> THE GENTLEMAN IS RECOGNIZED >> DONALD TRUMP PRESSURE OF A FOREIGN GOVERNMENT TO TARGET AN AMERICAN CITIZEN FOR POLITICAL GAIN. AT THE SAME TIME WITH HELP $391 MILLION IN MILITARY AID TO VACATION AS PART OF A SCHEME TO SOLICIT FOREIGN INTERFERENCE IN THE 2020 ELECTION. THE JULY 25 ROUGH TRANSCRIPT IS A SMOKING GUN. AND DONALD TRUMP’S WORDS PULLED THE TRIGGER. DO US A FAVOR THE CENTRAL QUESTION FOR US TO RESOLVE ON THIS COMMITTEE IS WHETHER THE PRESIDENT SOUGHT A POLITICAL FAVOR , OR IS HE AS MY REPUBLICAN COLLEAGUES SUGGEST AN ANTI- CORRUPTION CRUSADER? THAT NOTION IS LAUGHABLE. LET’S JUST CHECK THE RECORD. TO SEE WHAT IT SAYS DONALD TRUMP SPOKE TO THE UKRAINIAN PRESIDENT TWICE. ONCE ON APRIL 21. HE DID NOT USE THE WORD CORRUPTION ONCE. HE HAD A SECOND CALL WITH THE PRESIDENT OF THE UKRAINE. ON JULY 25. HE DID NOT USE THE WORD CORRUPTION ONCE DONALD TRUMP’S OWN DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE WROTE A LETTER TO THE CONGRESS ON MAY 23. AND SAID THAT THE NEW UKRAINIAN GOVERNMENT, THE NEW UKRAINIAN GOVERNMENT HAVE SATISFIED ALL NECESSARY PRECONDITIONS TO RECEIVE THE AID. INCLUDING THE IMPLEMENTATION OF ANTICORRUPTION PROTOCOL. THAT WAS DONALD TRUMP’S DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE. SAYING THERE ARE NO CORRUPTION CONCERNS THAT SHOULD JUSTIFY THE WITHHOLDING OF THE AID. THAT’S WHY SO MANY TRUMP APPOINTED WITNESSES CAME FORWARD AND WERE TROUBLED I JUST WANT TO ENTER INTO THE RECORD. LIEUTENANT COLONEL ALEXANDER GOODMAN WHO WAS ON THE CALL REPORTED HIS CONCERN BECAUSE QUOTE, THEY HAS SIGNIFICANT NATIONAL SECURITY IMPLICATIONS FOR THE COUNTRY THE LIEUTENANT COLONEL SAID IT IS IMPROPER FOR THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES TO DEMAND A FOREIGN GOVERNMENT INVESTIGATION INTO A U.S. CITIZEN FOR A POLITICAL OPPONENT. THAT WAS LIEUTENANT COLONEL DENMAN. IRAQ WAR VETERAN. PURPLE HEART RECIPIENT. 20 YEARS OF ACTIVE DUTY GORDON SONDLAND, AMBASSADOR, APPOINTED BY DONALD TRUMP. WHAT DID HE SAY? EVERYBODY WAS IN THE LOOP. IT WAS NO SECRET. WAS THERE A QUID PRO QUO? THE ANSWER IS YES. IS SONLAND A NEVER TRUMPER? IT WAS APPOINTED BY DONALD TRUMP. HE GAVE $1 MILLION TO TRUMPS INAUGURATION. OF COURSE THERE IS BILL TAYLOR. WEST POINT GRADUATE. WHAT DID HE SAY? TO WITHHOLD THE ASSISTANT FOR NO GOOD REASON OTHER THAN HELP WITH THE POLITICAL CAMPAIGN MADE NO SENSE IT WAS ILLOGICAL. IT CANNOT BE EXPLAINED. IT WAS CRAZY. THAT WAS THE RECORD EVIDENCE THAT HAS BEEN ESTABLISHED. DONALD TRUMP DID NOT CARE ABOUT ALLEGED CORRUPTION IN THE UKRAINE. HE SOUGHT A POLITICAL FAVOR. AT THE SAME TIME, DONALD TRUMP WAS ALLEGEDLY CONCERNED WITH CORRUPTION IN THE UKRAINE. HE AUTHORIZED $8 BILLION IN WEAPONS SALES TO THE CORRUPT KINGDOM OF SAUDI ARABIA ANOTHER GULF STATE. $8 BILLION IN APRIL HE AUTHORIZED HE WAS SUPPOSEDLY CONCERNED ABOUT CORRUPTION. THIS IS A REGIME THAT BUTCHERED A WASHINGTON POST JOURNALIST WITH A BONE SAW AND THEN LIED ABOUT IT AT THE SAME TIME HE WAS WITHHOLDING MONEY FROM THE UKRAINE. HE AUTHORIZED A BILLION DOLLARS IN WEAPONS SALES OVER THE OBJECTION OF CONGRESS THE PRESIDENT PRESSURED A FOREIGN GOVERNMENT TO TARGET AN

AMERICAN CITIZEN FOR POLITICAL GAIN HE SOLICITED FOREIGN INTERFERENCE IN THE 2020 ELECTION. THE RECORD IS CLEAR HE ABUSED HIS POWER. HE MUST BE HELD ACCOUNTABLE. IN AMERICA NO ONE IS ABOVE THE LAW. I YIELD BACK >> I HAVE LISTENED TO THIS. THIS IDEA OF THE PROCESS. THE IDEA , I SUPPORT THIS. FRANKLY WE ARE IN A POSITION THAT WE DON’T NEED TO BE. HAS BEEN INTERESTING TO LISTEN ALL DAY TODAY. TO THE TRYING TO BUILD A CASE OUT OF NOTHING. THE MAJORITY HAS DISPARAGED BEYOND BELIEF. I AM NOT SURE WHY, I AM NOT SURE WHY THEY CHOOSE TO CONTINUE TO PUT OUT THE ARTICLES THEY DIE BECAUSE OF AID THAT WAS WITHHELD KEEP SENDING IT OUT THERE. THE AMERICAN PEOPLE ARE WATCHING. IT IS AMAZING TO ME TO LISTEN TO MY COLLEAGUES TALK ABOUT HOW WE DID PROPER PROCESS. LET ME TAKE YOU ON A WONDERLAND TRIP BACK THROUGH THIS COMMITTEE THIS YEAR. WE DID MORE THINGS THAT WERE AMAZINGLY OUTRAGEOUS THAN I COULD EVER IMAGINE WE LEARNED SOME STUFF THIS YEAR NO OFFENSE TO MY CHAIRMAN. HE’S BEEN DOING THE BEST HE COULD. TO SATISFY THE DEMANDS OF BEING THE CHAIRMAN. WE HAVE LEARNED THIS YEAR SUBPOENAS, THEY HELPED YOU LOOK BETTER IN COURT. WE LEARNED THAT SUBPOENAS ARE A CONVERSATION STARTER. I AM NOT SURE WHAT THAT IS ABOUT. I KNOW IN COURT THEIR COMPELLING INFORMATION WHEN YOU LOOK AT THIS AND YOU START TALKING ABOUT DEMOCRATS HAVE BEEN DENIED PROCESS AND DENIED THIS IT’S INTERESTING TO ME. 70 SOMETHING DAYS, THE OTHER DAY I THINK THIS YOUNG LADY IN CALIFORNIA SAID THEY TRIED TO MAKE A COMPARISON THAT WAS AFTER THREE AND HALF YEARS OF INVESTIGATION. IN THIS ONE WE HAVE HAD SINCE SEPTEMBER UNTIL NOW THE MAJORITY IS ACTING LIKE PETULANT CHILDREN. THEY’RE NOT GETTING THEIR WAY QUICK ENOUGH BECAUSE SANTA CLAUS HASN’T COME YET. THERE GETTING READY TO VOTE FOR THEIR CHRISTMAS PRESENT. THE AMERICAN PEOPLE NEXT NOVEMBER WILL REMEMBER THIS CHRISTMAS PRESENT. IT GOES BACK FURTHER. I REMEMBER A TIME WHEN WE WANT TO TALK ABOUT THE SANCTITY OF SUBPOENAS WHY DID THE MAJORITY WITHDRAW FROM THE CONFERENCE? THEY COULD’VE HAD THE CHARADE AND STILL STAYED IN COURT. IT’S A WASTE OF TIME. DON’T HAND ME THESE HIGH AND MIGHTY ARGUMENTS ABOUT PROCESS. THIS IS NOT ABOUT OBSTRUCTING CONGRESS. IT’S ABOUT CONGRESS BEING PETULANT. AND SAYING WE DO NOT WHAT WE WON’T WANT. IN FEBRUARY OF THIS YEAR ACTING ATTORNEY GENERAL WHITAKER , DO YOU REMEMBER THIS? I WILL REMIND SOME OF THE FOLKS THEY WERE TRYING TO GET ACTING ATTORNEY GENERAL WHITAKER HERE THEY WERE TRYING TO MAKE POLITICAL POINTS AS THE YEAR GOT STARTED BECAUSE THERE WAS NOTHING ROLLING AT MUELLER HADN’T HAPPENED. THEY COULDN’T TALK ABOUT IT EXCEPT FOR BROAD GENERIC TERMS. ONE WEEK BEFORE BILL BARR WAS SWORN IN WE BROUGHT IN MR. WHITAKER WE THREATENED HIM WITH A SUBPOENA AND MADE PUBLIC DECLARATION ABOUT A SUBPOENA UNTIL WE FOUND OUT THE NIGHT BEFORE THEY SENT HIM A LETTER IF YOU SHOW UP WE WILL NOT DO THAT SUBPOENA WE FOUND IT ALL RIGHT HERE. WE TALKED ABOUT IT. IT’S HARD FOR ME TO HEAR HOW THIS CONGRESS AND THIS COMMITTEE, AND WE WON’T EVEN GET STARTED ON MR SCHIFF. HE LOVES THE CAMERA AND THE MICROPHONE AND LOVES HIS OWN GAVEL. HE DOESN’T LIKE TO ANSWER HIS QUESTIONS ABOUT HIS OWN WORK AND WHAT HE’S ACTUALLY DONE LAST WEEK WHEN MR. GOLDMAN WAS HERE WHO ACTUALLY ORDERED THE MATCHING OF THAT SO THEY CAN UNMASK RANKING MEMBER AND JOURNALIST. THEY COULD HAVE JUST AS EASILY PUT IN IF IT HAD BEEN PROPER NUMBER ONE CONGRESSPERSON ONE IT DOESN’T MATTER THEY COULD USE WHATEVER THEY WANTED TO. THEY DID IT FOR DRIVE-BY PURPOSES TONIGHT AS WE HEAR THE ANGST AND WE HEAR THE PLANE OUT HYPOCRISY

REMEMBER THIS IS A MAJORITY THEY HAVE ONE THING IN MIND THEY HAVE NOT PASSED BILLS. I DENY THEY HAVE NOT PASSED BILLS ENOUGH THAT CAN GET ANY BIPARTISANSHIP IN THE UNIT SENATE. WE WANT TO TALK ABOUT SUBPOENAS YOU DON’T HAVE ABUSE OF POWER AND YOU DEFINITELY DON’T HAVE OBSTRUCTION OF CONGRESS >> GENTLEMAN YIELDS BACK MRS. DEMING SEEKS RECOGNITION >> I MOVED TO STRIKE THE LAST WORD. MR. CHAIRMAN I RISE IN OPPOSITION TO THIS AMENDMENT ONE OF MY COLLEAGUES SAID WE ARE USING THE LAW AS A WEAPON. THE LAW IS A WEAPON. AGAINST PEOPLE WHO DON’T RESPECT IT AND DON’T OBEY IT. MY REPUBLICAN COLLEAGUES HAVE CLAIMED THERE IS NOT ENOUGH HERE. TO IMPEACH A PRESIDENT. I HAVE HEARD THEM PREVIOUSLY SAY THIS IS MERELY ABOUT EIGHT LINES FROM ONE PHONE CALL. PERHAPS THEY HAVE FORGOTTEN THAT THE PRESSURE AGAINST THE UKRAINE LASTED FOR MONTHS. PERHAPS THEY FORGOT THEY ARE TRYING TO LIMIT THIS TO MERELY EIGHT LINES ON ONE PHONE CALL. UNDERESTIMATES THE RISKS TO OUR NATIONAL SECURITY INTERNATIONAL INTEREST. YOU SEE, UKRAINE’S ABILITY TO PROTECT THEMSELVES AGAINST RUSSIAN AGGRESSION IS DIRECTLY TIED TO OUR ABILITY TO PROTECT OURSELVES FROM RUSSIAN AGGRESSION. THAT’S RIGHT, THIS PRESIDENT ONLY CARES ABOUT THE BIG STUFF THE BIG STUFF, BIG THINGS THAT ARE DIRECTLY TIED TO HIS PERSONAL AGENDA. MY COLLEAGUES ALSO SEEM TO IGNORE THE PATTERN OF BEHAVIOR THE PATTERN OF MISCONDUCT CERTAINLY THE ABUSE OF POWER FIRST THE PRESIDENT WELCOMED INTERFERENCE IN THE 2016 ELECTION. HIS CAMPAIGN HAVE MULTIPLE CONTACTS WITH RUSSIA HE PUBLICLY HIMSELF INVITED RUSSIA TO INTERFERE RUSSIA IF YOU ARE LISTENING, REMEMBER THIS? I HOPE YOU WERE ABLE TO FIND THE 30,000 EMAILS THAT ARE MISSING. THEN AFTER THE SPECIAL COUNSEL WAS ASSIGNED TO INVESTIGATE THE PRESIDENT’S CONDUCT THE PRESIDENT TRIED TO COVER IT UP. BY OBSTRUCTING THE INVESTIGATION, AND REFUSING TO COOPERATE. THEN THIS ONE REALLY ADDS AND TAKES THE CAKE. ONE DAY AFTER THE SPECIAL COUNSEL TESTIFIED BEFORE CONGRESS THE PRESIDENT WAS ADDED AGAIN APPARENTLY UNDETERMINED AND BOLD AND. HE DEMANDED INTERFERENCE INTO THE 2020 ELECTIONS. TELLING A VULNERABLE ALLY, I WOULD LIKE YOU TO DO US A FAVOR CONDITIONED OFFICIAL ACTS ON THE ANNOUNCEMENT OF A SHAM INVESTIGATION INTO THE PRESIDENT’S CHIEF POLITICAL RIVAL. AND TRUE TO FORM, AFTER THE PRESIDENT SCHEME WAS EXPOSED AND HE WAS CAUGHT, AND CONGRESS LAUNCHED AN INVESTIGATION THE PRESIDENT TRIED TO COVER IT UP BY TRYING TO UNDERTAKE A COMPLETE BLOCKADE. OF THE INVESTIGATION. THE PRESIDENT’S CONDUCT IS PART ANY PATTERN FIRST THE PRESIDENT INVITES FOREIGN POWERS TO INTERFERE IN OUR ELECTION, AND THEN HE INSTRUCTS UNLAWFUL INQUIRIES INTO HIS BEHAVIOR. WHETHER BY CONGRESS, OR BY LAW ENFORCEMENT THEN HE DOES IT AGAIN. REMEMBER HE BELIEVES HE IS ABOVE THE LAW HE CERTAINLY HAS THE FULL SUPPORT OF MY COLLEAGUES ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE AISLE. MOST RECENTLY THE PRESIDENT SUGGESTED PUBLICLY THAT CHINA, WHY DON’T YOU COME ON IN THE WATER IS WARM. CHINA SHOULD INTERFERE IN OUR ELECTIONS BY INVESTIGATING FORMER VICE PRESIDENT JOE BIDEN THE PRESIDENT HAS TAKEN NO ACCOUNTABILITY FOR HIS MISCONDUCT. HE HAS SHOWN NO REMORSE. WHETHER HE HAS DOUBLE DOWN AND MADE CLEAR HE WILL CONTINUE TO SOLICIT INTERFERENCE IN OUR ELECTION FOR HIS OWN PERSONAL GAIN, NOT THE GAIN OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE. HE

WILL CONTINUE TO DISREGARD A COEQUAL BRANCH OF GOVERNMENT THAT WAS DESIGNED TO KEEP THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH IN CHECK. IN OTHER WORDS UNLESS HE IS STOPPED THE PRESIDENT WILL CONTINUE TO ERODE OUR DEMOCRACY AND THE VALUES OF WHICH OUR COUNTRY WAS FOUNDED. WE CANNOT AND WE WILL NOT ALLOW THAT TO HAPPEN. MR. CHAIRMAN I YIELD BACK >> MR. RADCLIFFE SEEKS RECOGNITION >> I YIELD. THE GENTLEMAN FROM TEXAS. THERE IS A SAYING , FAX DON’T CARE ABOUT YOUR FEELINGS. LET’S GO THROUGH FACTS. LET’S TALK ABOUT THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION, AND HOW MUCH THEY ACTUALLY HAVE COOPERATED WITH CONGRESS. IN A REPORT, THE SCHIFF REPORT, HE ARGUED THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP HAS OBSTRUCTED THE IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY. AND LETTER SENT TO REQUEST DEPOSITION WITNESSES CHAIRMAN SCHIFF WROTE , ANY FAILURE TO APPEAR FOR SCHEDULED DEPOSITIONS SHALL CONSTITUTE EVIDENCE OF OBSTRUCTION OF THE HOUSES IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY. END QUOTE HOWEVER, THERE IS AMPLE EVIDENCE THAT THE ADMINISTRATION COMPLYING WITH THE CONGRESSIONAL OVERSIGHT IN THE INVESTIGATIONS DURING 2017 AND 2018. EVEN WITH CONGRESSIONAL PROBES THE ADMINISTRATION DID NOT FIND LEGITIMATE. FOR EXAMPLE, OVER 25 ADMINISTRATION OFFICIALS TESTIFIED BEFORE THE HOUSE OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE OVER 20 ADMINISTRATION OFFICIALS TESTIFIED BEFORE THE HOUSE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE ADDITIONALLY AS THE START OF THE DEMOCRAT IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY THE ADMINISTRATION HAS PRODUCED MORE THAN 100,000 PAGES OF DOCUMENTS TO THE HOUSE OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE. THAT’S OVER 100,000 PAGES OF DOCUMENTS THEY WERE PRODUCED IN A TIMELY MANNER. THEY DID NOT DUMP THEM WITHIN 48 HOURS OF THE HEARING I DIGRESS. THE ADMINISTRATION ALSO ENGAGED IN THE INVESTIGATIONS THAT THEY DISAGREE WITH. THE HOUSE OVERSIGHT DEMOCRATS INITIATE A SWEEPING INVESTIGATION INTO THE WHITE HOUSE SECURITY CLEARANCE PRACTICES DESPITE THE PRESIDENT’S BROAD AUTHORITY TO GRANT SECURITY CLEARANCES TO WHOMEVER THE ADMINISTRATION WISHES. IN THAT INVESTIGATION THE ADMINISTRATION PROVIDED THE CURRENT WHITE HOUSE CHIEF SECURITY OFFICER TO BRIEF BOTH MEMBERS AND STAFF THE WHITE HOUSE SECURITY CLEARANCE PROCESS. THE ADMINISTRATION IS ALSO PROVIDING REVIEWS OF OVER 500 PAGES WHITE HOUSE DOCUMENTS RELATED TO THE SECURITY CLEARANCE PROCESS. THE FBI HAS ALLOWED COMMUNITY STAFF TO REVIEW HUNDREDS OF DOCUMENTS PERTAINING TO THE ROLE THE WHITE HOUSE SECURITY CLEARANCE PLAYED AND BRIEFED BOTH MEMBERS OF THE COMMUNITY STAFF , AND PROVIDED COMMUNITY STAFF WITH MULTIPLE FALL OUT BRIEFINGS REGARDING THEIR OWN INTERNAL SECURITY CLEARANCE PROCESS WE’VE HEARD DEMOCRATS TALK THIS EVENING ABOUT THE BORDER THE ADMINISTRATION HAS PRODUCED MORE THAN 9600 DOCUMENTS LET’S JUST CONTRAST THAT WITH THE DEMOCRATS’ COMBATIVE POSTURE. IN LETTERS TO THE STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEES, THE COMMITTEE THREATENED WITNESSES THAT AND I, QUOTE, ANY FAILURE TO APPEAR, ANY FAILURE TO APPEAR IN RESPONSE TO A MERE LETTER REQUESTING THEIR PRESENTS FOR DEPOSITION SHALL AND I, QUOTE, CONSTITUTE EVIDENCE OF OBSTRUCTION. THIS IS JUST LETTERS NOT SUBPOENAS. IN LETTERS THE STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEES AND LETTERS TO THE STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEES THE COMMITTEE THREATENED WITNESSES THAT IF THEY INSIST ON HAVING AGENCY COUNSEL PRESENT TO PROTECT THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH, IN A CONFIDENTIALITY INTEREST OR IF

THEY MAKE ANY EFFORT TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY INTERESTS AT ALL, THESE OFFICIALS WILL HAVE THEIR SALARIES WITHHELD WITHHOLDING OF SALARIES. THE COMMITTEE S HAVE NOT AFFORDED THE PRESIDENT BASIC PROTECTIONS SUCH AS THE RIGHT TO SEE ALL EVIDENCE, THE RIGHT TO PRESENT EVIDENCE, THE RIGHT TO CALL WITNESSES, THE RIGHT TO HAVE COUNSEL PRESENT AT HEARINGS, THE RIGHT TO CROSS-EXAMINE ALL WITNESSES, THE RIGHT TO MAKE OBJECTIONS RELATING TO EXAMINATION OF WITNESSES, OR THE ADMISSIBILITY OF TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE AND DID NOT AFFORD THE PRESIDENT THE RIGHT TO RESPOND TO EVIDENCE AND TESTIMONY PRESENTED. THANK YOU. I’LL YIELD THE REMAINDER OF MY TIME >> THE GENTLEMAN YIELDS BACK WHAT PURPOSE DOES MR. SWALWELL SEEK RECOGNITION? >> TO STRIKE THE LAST WORD >> THE URGENCY OF THIS MOMENT IS THE GRAVE RISK THAT THE PRESIDENT WILL AGAIN ABUSE HIS POWER OF THE PRESIDENCY TO TRY AND SECURE HIS REELECTION. WE HAVE REASON TO BE CONCERNED. THE PRESIDENCY GIVES HIM GREAT POWERS TO CAUSE OTHERS TO INTERFERE IN OUR ELECTIONS. AND THE ONLY PROTECTION WE HAVE IS TO ACT NOW. BECAUSE THE PRESIDENT IS CHEATING RIGHT NOW AND TO ANY OF MY COLLEAGUES WHO ASK WHY MOVE ON THIS RIGHT NOW, IT’S A CRIME SPREE IN PROGRESS. AND AS CHAIRMAN SCHIFF SAID EARLIER THIS WEEK, WHAT ARE WE SUPPOSED TO DO? JUST LET HIM CHEAT ONE MORE TIME? EXPECT HIM TO EVENTUALLY DO THE RIGHT THING? AND HERE’S WHAT MY COLLEAGUES’ LOGIC AMOUNTS TO IF WE WAIT. IT AMOUNTS TO THIS. ALLOW THE BUILDING TO BURN, COLLAPSE, FALL TO THE GROUND AND THEN YOU SHOULD CALL THE FIRE DEPARTMENT THIS PRESIDENT HAS SET OUR DEMOCRACY ON FIRE. AND WE MUST ACT TO SAVE IT. AND THERE’S AN URGENCY TO ACT. AND THIS PRESIDENT IS NOT ONLY BEING IMPEACHED BECAUSE OF WHAT HE HAS DONE. IT’S BECAUSE OF WHAT HE CONTINUES TO DO WE KNOW WHAT HE’S DONE. NOT REALLY DISPUTED. ABUSED HIS POWER. ASKED A FOREIGN GOVERNMENT TO HELP HIM CHEAT JEOPARDIZING OUR NATIONAL SECURITY, INTEGRITY OF OUR ELECTIONS FOR HIS OWN PERSONAL GAIN. BUT THIS WAS NOT A ONE OFF. WE’VE COME TO LEARN AS MS DEMINGS JUST EXPLAINED, THIS IS WHAT HE DOES. AND THIS IS WHAT HE WILL KEEP DOING. IN 2016 AS HE SAID, RUSSIA, IF YOU’RE LISTENING, PACK MY OPPONENTS E-MAILS. YOU’LL BE REWARDED TURNS OUT, RUSSIA WAS LISTENING TURNS OUT, RUSSIA HACKED HIS OPPONENTS E-MAILS. THAT DAY THEY SOUGHT TO PACK HIS OPPONENTS E-MAILS. IN THAT INVESTIGATION HE WENT TO GREAT LENGTHS TO OBSTRUCT IT. SO WHY IS IT SO URGENT THAT WE ACT RIGHT NOW? THE PRESIDENT’S LAWYER WAS JUST IN UKRAINE. THE PRESIDENT’S LAWYER SAID IN MAY, I’M NOT MEDDLING IN AN ELECTION WE, NOT I, WE DONALD TRUMP AND I, OR MEDDLING IN AN INVESTIGATION. AND THAT MEDDLING CONTINUES TODAY. BUT THE PRESIDENT’S OWN WORDS TELL US ABOUT HIS CURRENT INTENT. ON OCTOBER 2nd, THE PRESIDENT SAID, AND YOU KNOW WE’VE BEEN INVESTIGATING ON A PERSONAL BASIS THROUGH RUDY AND OTHERS CORRUPTION IN THE 2016 ELECTION I THINK THAT IF WE ARE HONEST ABOUT IT THEY SHOULD START A MAJOR INVESTIGATION INTO THE BIDENS. THAT SIMPLE. ON OCTOBER 3rd, THE PRESIDENT STOOD ON THE WHITE HOUSE LAWN AND CONFIRMED THAT HE WANTED UKRAINE TO INVESTIGATE THE BIDENS. BUT THEN HE ADDED A COUNTRY BECAUSE THAT’S WHAT HE DOES. RUSSIA, UKRAINE, HE SAID CHINA SHOULD ALSO INVESTIGATE THE BIDENS. MY COLLEAGUES, WE SHOULD NOT HAVE TO HOPE OR PRAY THAT CHINA WASN’T LISTENING WHEN HE SAID THAT. BUT FORTUNATELY, PEOPLE ON THIS COMMITTEE ARE LISTENING AMERICANS ARE LISTENING. PEOPLE WHO KNOW RIGHT FROM WRONG, OUR CHILDREN ARE LISTENING. ARE YOU LISTENING? AND WHAT WE HEAR DEEPLY CONCERNS US ABOUT WHAT THE PRESIDENT WILL DO NEXT. AND WE ARE NOT HELPLESS IN FACT, WE KNOW THAT THE COURAGE TO ACT IS THE ONLY THING THAT HAS STOPPED THIS PRESIDENT THAT’S NOT A LEAP OF FAITH. YOU SEE, IT WAS THE COURAGE OF DR FIONA HILL AND LIEUTENANT COLONEL VINDMAN TO, QUOTE, GO TO THE LAWYERS, WHEN THEY HEARD THAT THE PRESIDENT WAS CONDITIONING A WHITE HOUSE VISIT FOR INVESTIGATIONS. IT WAS THE COURAGE OF THE WHISTLEBLOWER TO COME FORWARD. THAT’S WHAT GOT UKRAINE THE AIDE. THE PRESIDENT GOT CAUGHT. THEN UKRAINE GOT THE AIDE. IF THOSE PEOPLE WERE NOT COURAGEOUS, AND ACTED, UKRAINE

WOULD NOT HAVE THE AIDE TODAY SO WE MUST FOLLOW THEIR PATTERN CONDUCT. AND ACT. WE HAVE PATTERN EVIDENCE THAT NOT ONLY DONALD TRUMP ASKED CORRUPTLY, BUT THAT WHEN YOU SHOW COURAGE AND ACT AGAINST HIM, YOU CAN STOP HIM. IT’S ACTUALLY THE ONLY WAY TO EXTINGUISH HIS CORRUPT WAYS. IF UNCHECKED, MY COLLEAGUES, DONALD TRUMP DOES NOT GET BETTER. HE GETS WORSE. HE GETS MORE CORRUPT. AND WE CAN’T WAIT TILL THE NEXT ELECTION TO HOLD HIM ACCOUNTABLE. NOT WHEN HE IS TRYING TO RIG THE NEXT ELECTION SO WE MUST ACT. TO PROTECT OUR NATIONAL SECURITY, THE INTEGRITY OF OUR ELECTIONS AND HONOR OUR OATH TO THE CONSTITUTION. YIELD BACK >> THE QUESTION IS ON THE AMENDMENT. THOSE IN FAVOR SAY HI >> WE HAVE SOMEONE ASKING FOR TIME >> I DIDN’T SEE A REQUEST >> YOU STOPPED. NOW RECOGNIZING IT YOU’VE NOW RECOGNIZED IT >> I RECOGNIZE MR. GATES >> THANK YOU. MOVE TO STRIKE THE LAST WORD >> THE GENTLEMAN IS RECOGNIZED >> THEY ARE RIGHT. THEY CAN’T WAIT BUT IT’S NOT THE REASON THEY SAY. THE REASON THEY CAN’T WAIT TILL THE NEXT ELECTION IS BECAUSE THEY’VE TAKEN A LOOK AT THEIR CANDIDATE FIELD AND THEY HAVE FUNDAMENTALLY CHANGED EVERY STANDARD THAT THEY’VE SET FOR THEMSELVES FOR IMPEACHMENT FOR THE AMERICAN PEOPLE. WHETHER YOU LIKE PRESIDENT TRUMP OR DON’T LIKE TRUMP, IT WOULD AT LEAST BE WORTH ACKNOWLEDGING THE DEMOCRATS HAVE MOVED THE GOALPOST ON WHAT IT WOULD REQUIRE TO BRING US TO THIS POINT. AND TO HARM OUR NATION AND TO DISTRACT US SO MUCH FROM THE CRITICAL NEEDS OF AMERICAN PEOPLE WHO PROBABLY WONDER WHY WE ARE NOT FOCUSED ON THEM RIGHT NOW. FIRST THEY TOLD US IT HAS TO BE BIPARTISAN I GET FOLKS WATCHING AT HOME MIGHT THINK THAT I’M SOMEBODY WHO REALLY LIKES THE PRESIDENT AND I WOULD PROBABLY BE A HARD VOTE FOR HIM TO GET FOR IMPEACHMENT. BUT IT’S NOT JUST THEY CAN’T CONVINCE THE PRESIDENT’S SUPPORTERS NOT TO ABANDON HIM. THEY CAN’T EVEN CONVINCE THE PRESIDENT’S CRITICS TO ABANDON HIM. JEFF BEN TRUE, COLLIN PETERSON, TWO MEMBERS OF CONGRESS, TWO DEMOCRATS, THEY ARE NOT FANS OF THE PRESIDENT THERE CRITICS OF THE PRESIDENT YET THEY DIDN’T VOTE WITH DEMOCRATS. THEY VOTED WITH REPUBLICANS. WE’VE EVEN GOT SOME REPUBLICANS. MY COLLEAGUE WILL HURD FROM TEXAS DOESN’T MIND BEING A CRITIC OF THE PRESIDENT HE WAS HONEST WITH DEMOCRATS. HE TOLD THEM THIS IS NOT IMPEACHABLE CONDUCT. THEY TOLD US THAT THE PROCESS WOULD BE FAIR. AND YET WHEN EVEN MEMBERS OF THIS COMMITTEE SOUGHT THE OPPORTUNITY NOT TO READ A TRANSCRIPT OR SEE SOMEONE’S SECOND PERFORMANCE OF THEIR TESTIMONY BUT TO SEE THEIR FIRSTHAND ACCOUNT, HOW THEY REACTED, HOW THEY WERE BREATHING, DID THEY FIDGET WHEN THEY RESPONDED, WE WANTED TO SEE THOSE THINGS AND WE WERE EXCLUDED BY THE INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE. DEMOCRATS SAID THAT TO PUT OUR COUNTRY THROUGH THIS WOULD REQUIRE COMPELLING AND OVERWHELMING EVIDENCE AND EACH AND EVERY TIME THEY TRIED TO CAST DOUBT ON THE PRESIDENT’S CONDUCT, WE ARE ABLE TO SHOW A LEGITIMATE CONCERN THE PRESIDENT HAD IN CORRUPTION. WE ARE ABLE TO CITE THE TRANSCRIPT THAT DEMONSTRATES NO CONDITIONALITY AND TIME AND AGAIN DEMOCRATS’ SAY THERE’S JUST NO FACTUAL DEBATE ABOUT WHAT THE PRESIDENT DID. THE FACTUAL DEBATE COMES FROM PRESIDENT ZELENSKY. PRESIDENT ZELENSKY SAID I WASN’T PRESSURED AND THEY SAID ZELENSKY MIGHT NOT HAVE KNOWN. SONDLAND TALKED AND CONVEYED THIS SHAKEDOWN. AND THE VERY DAY THEY INTRODUCED ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT, HE GIVES AN INTERVIEW AND SAYS WE NEVER REALLY PERCEIVED THIS AS AN EXCHANGE OF MILITARY FOR AID FOR ANY ONE THING TIME AND AGAIN THEY LET US DOWN IN THEIR CLAIMS BUT ONE THING WE KNOW FOR CERTAIN, IS THAT THIS WAS A SAD INEVITABILITY. I HAD SOMEONE ASKED ME RECENTLY DO YOU FEEL SOME SENSE OF HISTORY, SOME SENSE OF MOMENT THAT YOU’RE ABOUT TO VOTE ON IMPEACHMENT? SADLY I KNEW THIS TIME WAS COMING SINCE THE DEMOCRATS TOOK CONTROL OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES BECAUSE THEY DIDN’T LAY OUT A PLAN TO APPROPRIATE FOR THE BUDGET, WORK WITH US ON CRITICAL GENERATIONAL ISSUES, THEY SET OUT A PLAN FOR IMPEACHMENT. HOW DO WE KNOW THAT? WHEN THE CHAIRMAN HIMSELF CAMPAIGNED FOR THE LEAD DEMOCRAT ROLE ON THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE, HE DIDN’T SAY PICK ME BECAUSE I’M A GREAT LEGISLATOR AROUND SOME PARTICULAR ISSUE SET. HE SAID PICK ME BECAUSE I WILL BE THE PERSON THAT CAN BEST LEAD OUR CAUCUS THROUGH A POTENTIAL IMPEACHMENT. THEY’VE HAD A BLOODLUST FOR IMPEACHMENT IT HAS BEEN THEIR OBSESSION. AND IT’S DEEPLY SADDENING TO US. WE TAKE ABSOLUTELY NO JOY IN THE FACT THAT IT IS SO CONSUMING. BUT HERE WE STAND ON THE VERGE OF IT. AND MY EXPECTATION IS THAT THIS NEW STANDARD IN THE SECOND ARTICLE WITH JUST THE NOTION OF

OBSTRUCTION OF CONGRESS IS THEIR EXCUSE FOR NOT BEING ABLE TO PROVE OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE PUBLIC REPORTING HAS BEEN THE CHAIRMAN WENT TO THE DEMOCRATIC CAUCUS AND SOUGHT SUPPORT TO BRING AN ARTICLE FOR OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE AND COULDN’T GET THEIR SUPPORT. NOW HERE WE ARE WITH OBSTRUCTION OF CONGRESS THE LOW-ENERGY VERSION OF THE OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE CLAIM THAT THEY WANTED THEY HOPED THEY WERE GOING TO BE ABLE TO CONVICT AND ACCUSE AND EVIDENCE SOME CLAIM ON BRIBERY THAT’S WHAT THEIR POLLSTERS AND PUNDITS TOLD THEM WOULD BE BEST AS THEY SOLEMNLY TELL US THIS IS SAID TO THEM. THEY WERE OUT PULLING WHAT LEXICON, WHAT WORD CHOICE WOULD HELP THEM MAKE THE CASE TO THE AMERICAN PUBLIC AND SO THEY SET ON BRIBERY, YOU ALL IN THE MEDIA HEARD IT. YOU HEARD THEM ON EVERY SHOW TALKING ABOUT THIS IS THE NEW STANDARD. SPEAKER PELOSI SPEAKING THIS LANGUAGE AND WE ASKED THE WITNESSES DID YOU SEE BRIBERY? AND THE EVIDENCE WASN’T THERE. SO INSTEAD OF BRIBERY, INSTEAD OF TREASON, EXTORTION, YOU HAVE ABUSE OF POWER. THE LOW-ENERGY VERSION I’M DISAPPOINTED IN MY COLLEAGUES. BUT PROBABLY EVEN THOSE WHO DON’T SUPPORT THE PRESIDENT WOULD SHARE THAT DISAPPOINTMENT IN THIS VERY MOMENT. AND I YIELD BACK >> GENTLEMEN YIELD BACK >> I HAVE A UNANIMOUS CONSENT REQUEST >> I RECOGNIZE MR. RESCHENTHALER FOR THE PURPOSE >> THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN. I ASK UNANIMOUS CONSENT TO ENTER THE I REFERENCED WHICH IS THE LETTER FROM CHAIRMAN ENGEL TO JOHN SULLIVAN IN WHICH CHAIRMAN ENGEL SAYS OFFICIALS WHO INSIST ON COUNSEL WILL HAVE THEIR SALARY — >> OBJECTION >> THANK YOU >> THE QUESTION NOW OCCURS ON THE AMENDMENT. THOSE IN FAVOR, SAY AYE. THOSE OPPOSED, NO. IN THE OPINION OF THE CHAIR THE NOES HAVE IT AND THE AMENDMENT IS NOT AGREED TO. THE ROLLCALL IS REQUESTED THE CLERK WILL CALL THE ROLL >> KNOEDLER? >> NO >> MS. LOFGREN? >> NO >> JACLYN LEE? >> NO >> MR. COHEN? >> NO >> MR. JOHNSON OF GEORGIA? >> NO >> MR. DEUTSH? >> NO >> BASSETT? >> NO >> MR. RICHMOND? >> NO >> JEFFRIES? >> NO >> MR. CECILIANI? >> NO >> MR. SWALWELL? >> NO >> MR. LOU, MR. RASKIN? >> NO >> MS. JAYAPAL? >> NO >> MS. DEMING? >> NO >> MR. CORREA? >> NO >> MS. SCANLAN? >> NO >> MS GARCIA? >> NO >> NO >> MS. MCBETH? >> NO >> MR. STANTON? >> NO. MS. DEAN VOTE NO >> NO. MS. ESCOBAR? >> NO >> MR. COLLINS? >> AYE >> MR. SENSENBRENNER? >> AYE >> MR. SHEPHERD VOTE AYE >> MR. GOHMERT? >> AYE >> MR. JORDAN? >> AYE >> MR. BUCK BOTH AYE. MR RATCLIFFE? >> YES >> MS. ROBEY VOTES AYE >> MR. GATES? >> AYE >> MR. JOHN SCIARRA OF LOUISIANA? >> AYE >> MR. BIGGS? >> AYE >> MR. McCLINTOCK? >> AYE >> MS. LESKO? >> AYE >> MR. RESCHENTHALER? >> AYE >> MR. KLEIN? >> AYE >> MR. ARMSTRONG? >> YES >> MR. STEWIE? >> YES >> HAS EVERY MEMBER VOTED WHO WISHES TO VOTE? THE CLERK WILL REPORT >> MR CHAIRMAN THERE ARE 17 BYES AND 17 NOES >> ARE THERE ANY FURTHER AMENDMENTS TO THE AMENDMENT IN THE NATURE OF SUBSTANCE? >> DETERMINE? I HAVE AN AMENDMENT AT THE DESK >> I RESERVE A POINT OF ORDER >> THE CLERK WILL REPORT THE AMENDMENT >> AMENDMENT TO THE AMENDMENT OF THE NATURE OF A SUBSTITUTE 755 OFFERED BY MR. JORDAN OF OHIO PAGE FOUR STRIKE LINE 23 AND ALL THAT FOLLOWS THROUGH PAGE FIVE LINE FIVE. PAGE EIGHT STRIKES THE LINE 10 THROUGH 17 >> THE GENTLEMAN IS RECOGNIZED FOR THE PURPOSE OF EXPLAINING HIS AMENDMENT >> FIRST OF ALL MY POINT ORDER >> PORTABLE IS WITHDRAWN >> SIMPLY STRIKES THE LAST EIGHT LINES IN ARTICLE ONE AND THE LAST EIGHT LINES IN ARTICLE TWO YOU HAVE A RIGGED AND RUSHED PROCESS WHEN YOU DON’T HAVE THE FACTS ON YOUR SIDE. WE’VE BEEN THROUGH THESE FACTS MANY TIMES. UKRAINE DIDN’T KNOW AID WAS HELD UP AT THE TIME OF THE CALL BY THE

DEMOCRATS ASSERT THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP WAS PRESSURING ZELENSKY ON THE CALL TO INVESTIGATE THE BUTTONS IN ORDER TO GET THE AID THAT HE DIDN’T EVEN KNOW WAS ON HOLD. THAT’S THEIR ARGUMENT. AND BY THE WAY, DOWN THE ROAD PRESIDENT ZELENSKY SAID THERE WAS NO PRESSURE ON THE CALL. NO PUSHING. NO LINKAGE WHATSOEVER. BUT YOU HAVE A RIGGED AND RUSHED PROCESS WHEN YOU DON’T HAVE THE FACTS. YOU HAVE A RIGGED AND RUSHED PROCESS WHEN YOU CAN’T ACCEPT THE WILL OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE. SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE PELOSI, NANCY PELOSI CALLED THE PRESIDENT AN IMPOSTER JUST THREE WEEKS AGO. THE DEMOCRATS HAVE NEVER ACCEPTED THE WILL OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE AND THAT’S WHY THEY’VE BEEN UP TO GET THIS PRESIDENT SINCE EVEN BEFORE HE WAS ELECTED. AND OF COURSE YOU HAVE A RIGGED AND RUSHED PROCESS WHEN YOU’RE AFRAID THAT YOU CAN’T BEAT THE PRESIDENT AT THE BALLOT BOX WHEN YOU’RE NERVOUS ABOUT NEXT FALL’S ELECTION YOU HAVE THIS KIND OF PROCESS. A RIGGED AND RUSHED PROCESS. THIS IS NOT ABOUT THE CONCERN. THIS IS NOT ABOUT THE CONCERN MR SWALWELL TALKED ABOUT THAT SOMEHOW THE PRESIDENT WAS GOING TO DO SOMETHING WRONG AND TRY TO INFLUENCE THE ELECTION. THIS IS ABOUT THEIR CONCERN THAT THEY CAN’T WIN NEXT YEAR BASED ON WHAT THE PRESIDENT HAS ACCOMPLISHED IN THE PAST THREE YEARS IT’S AN AMAZING RECORD IN SPITE OF THE DEMOCRATS BEING COMPLETELY AGAINST THE PRESIDENT AND DESPITE OF THE MAINSTREAM PRESS BEING AGAINST THE PRESIDENT, IN IN SPITE OF A FEW REPUBLICANS IT’S AMAZING WHAT’S BEEN ACCOMPLISHED. TAXES HAVE BEEN CUT, REGULATIONS REDUCED, THE ECONOMY GROWING AT AN UNBELIEVABLE RATE. LOWEST UNEMPLOYMENT IN 50 YEARS 266,000 JOBS ADDED LAST MONTH ALONE. 54,000 IN THE MANUFACTURING SECTOR. MR GORSUCH, MR. KAVANAUGH ON THE COURT. A LOT OF OTHER JUDGES CONFIRMED. OUT OF THE IRAN DEAL, EMPATHY JERUSALEM, HOSTAGES HOME FROM NORTH KOREA, NEW NAFTA AGREEMENT NEXT WEEK. YOU GUYS, IT’S A RIGGED, RUSHED PROCESS BECAUSE YOU’RE NERVOUS ABOUT NEXT NOVEMBER. MR. GREEN SAYS WE HAVE TO IMPEACH HIM BECAUSE HE’S GOING TO WIN THE ELECTION. WE KNOW WHAT THIS IS ABOUT. THINK ABOUT THIS PRESIDENT. THINK ABOUT THIS IS WHY THE AMERICAN PEOPLE LIKE HIM SO MUCH IS BECAUSE HE’S DOING WHAT HE SAID HE WOULD DO. EVERY PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION I’VE BEEN ABLE TO PARTICIPATE IN BOTH CANDIDATES, REPUBLICAN AND DEMOCRAT, CANDIDATES WHEN THEY CAMPAIGN FOR THE JOB THEY TELL THE COUNTRY IF YOU ELECT ME I’M GOING TO MOVE THE EMBASSY TO JERUSALEM REPUBLICANS AND DEMOCRATS. THEY CAMPAIGN ON IT. THEN THEY GET ELECTED AND THEY COME UP WITH A MILLION REASONS WHY THEY CAN’T DO WHAT THEY SAID THEY WERE GOING TO DO. WHAT THE AMERICAN PEOPLE ELECTED THEM TO DO. AND THEY NEVER GET IT DONE BY THIS PRESIDENT SAID I’M GOING TO DO IT EVEN THOUGH THE SAME PEOPLE, THE SAME INTERAGENCY CONSENSUS WE’VE HEARD SO MUCH ABOUT OVER THE LAST THREE MONTHS IN THIS IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY, EVEN THOUGH THAT SAME INTERAGENCY CONSENSUS WAS PROBABLY AGAINST HIM ON THAT MOVE, THIS PRESIDENT SAID I’M GOING TO DO IT. AND IT’S BEEN A GOOD THING. AND THAT’S WHAT THE AMERICAN PEOPLE APPRECIATE. AND THAT’S WHY WE GOT THIS RIGGED AND RUSHED PROCESS BECAUSE IT’S REALLY ABOUT NEXT NOVEMBER THEY ARE ALL AFRAID. SOME OF THEIR COLLEAGUES HAVE SAID IT STRAIGHT UP. THEY’RE ALL AFRAID THAT THEY CAN’T BEAT HIM AT THE BALLOT BOX. THEY’RE GOING TO DO THIS RIGGED, RUSHED AND WRONG EACH PROCESS. I WOULD URGE A YES VOTE ON THE INVESTMENT. I WOULD YIELD THE REMAINDER OF MY TIME >> I WANTED TO ASK THE GENTLEMAN FROM OHIO A QUESTION. BASED ON THE STANDARDS THE DEMOCRATS ARE ASSERTING HERE, IF SOMEBODY IS IN THE HOUSE OR SENATE, RUNNING FOR PRESIDENT, AND THEY SUPPORT OR PUSH THEM EACH OF THE PRESIDENT, WOULD THEY BE SUBJECT TO BEING EXPELLED FOR ABUSING THEIR POSITION? JUST CURIOUS >> I THINK I’LL LET MY COLLEAGUE ANSWER THAT QUESTION BUT WHAT I DO KNOW IS I THINK MY COLLEAGUES ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE AISLE ARE AS I SAID NERVOUS ABOUT THEIR PROSPECTS FOR NEXT NOVEMBER AGAINST PRESIDENT TRUMP BASED ON HIS AMAZING RECORD OF LEADERSHIP IN THE LAST THREE YEARS. I WOULD YIELD BACK. THANK YOU >> THE GENTLEMAN YELLED BACK. I RECOGNIZE MYSELF TO SPEAK IN OPPOSITION TO THE AMENDMENT. I THINK THAT THE FACTS APTLY DEMONSTRATE THE CHARGES IN THESE TWO ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT NAMELY THAT THE PRESIDENT PUT HIS OWN INTERESTS IN FRONT OF THE INTEREST OF THE COUNTRY. THAT HE SOUGHT TO USE THE POWER OF THE PRESIDENCY TO WITHHOLD AID, MILITARY AID FROM AN ALLY. AND TO EXTORT THAT ALLY INTO MAKING AN ANNOUNCEMENT OF A BOGUS INVESTIGATION OF A POLITICAL OPPONENT OF HIS. FOR HIS OWN PERSONAL BENEFIT AND THAT HE OBSTRUCTED CONGRESS BY REFUSING

ALL COOPERATION AND INSTRUCTING THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH NOT TO COOPERATE WITH CONGRESS IN THE IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY. THIS AMENDMENT, SIMPLY TAKE THE LAST TWO PARAGRAPHS OF EACH ARTICLE IT TAKES THE PARAGRAPH THAT SAYS WHEREFORE THE PRESIDENT SHOULD BE IMPEACHED. IT RENDERS THE TWO ARTICLES SIMPLY A CATALOG OF VARIOUS BAD AXE BY THE PRESIDENT BUT TAKES THE FORCE AND EFFECT OF THE ARTICLES ENTIRELY AWAY IT IS SILLY IF YOU BELIEVE THAT THE PRESIDENT IS GUILTY OF WHAT THE ARTICLES CHARGE HIM WITH, YOU SHOULD VOTE FOR THE ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT. IF YOU BELIEVE HE IS NOT, YOU SHOULD VOTE AGAINST THE ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT. BUT TO TRY TO HAVE THIS AMENDMENT THAT SIMPLY RENDERS THE ARTICLES, CATALOGS OF BAD AXE AND TAKES OUT THE EFFECT OF SENTENCES IS SILLY. SO I URGE A NO VOTE ON THIS AMENDMENT. AND I WILL URGE OF COURSE THAT WE ADOPT THE ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT. I YIELD BACK THE BALANCE OF MY TIME >> MR CHAIR? >> >> WHAT PURPOSE? >> MOVED TO STRIKE LEFTWARD >> THE GENTLEMAN IS RECOGNIZED >> IT’S REALLY INTERESTING HOW YOU JUST DESCRIBED THIS BECAUSE REALLY THIS IS WHAT WE THINK THIS ENTIRE TIME. THE FACTS IS REALLY ALL THAT YOU HAVE. YOU KEEP THROWING AROUND THESE BAD FACTS THAT YOU DON’T LIKE. IT’S INTERESTING TO ME ALSO THAT THE CATALOGING AND YOU GOT TO IT. IT TOOK A LITTLE BIT BUT THE CATALOG OF BAD AXE THAT YOU DON’T LIKE AND SIMPLY TAKES AWAY THE PUNISHMENT IF YOU WOULD OR WHAT THE END RESULT WILL BE. IT SHOULD NOT SURPRISE ANYONE BECAUSE THIS IS WHAT THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY HAVE DONE ALL YEAR. THEY DID IT ONE TIME ON THE FLOOR OF THE HOUSE WHEN THE SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE BROKE THE RULES OF THE HOUSE ON THE FLOOR AND INSTEAD OF OWNING UP TO BREAKING THE RULES OF DECORUM ON THE FLOOR SHE HAD EVERYBODY COMEBACK DOWN ON — >> THE CATALOG OF BAD AXE THAT YOU DON’T LIKE AND SIMPLY TAKES AWAY THE PUNISHMENT IF YOU WOULD OR WHAT THE ACTUAL END RESULT WILL BE. IT SHOULD NOT SURPRISE ANYONE HERE BECAUSE THIS IS WHAT THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY HAVE DONE ALL YEAR. THEY DID IT ONE TIME ON THE FLOOR OF THE HOUSE WHEN THE SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE BROKE THE RULES OF THE HOUSE ON THE FLOOR AND INSTEAD OF OWNING UP TO BREAKING THE RULES OF DECORUM ON THE FLOOR SHE HAD EVERYBODY COMEBACK DOWN ON THE MAJORITY SIDE AND VOTE TO RESTORE HER RIGHT TO SPEAK EVEN THOUGH SHE BLATANTLY BROKE THE RULES. SO DON’T GIVE ME THIS HIGH AND MIGHTY WE ARE TAKING AWAY THE RULES AND HAVING A LIST OF IDEAS HERE. THAT’S WHAT WE’VE BEEN DOING ALL YEAR. I TOLD THE AUDIENCE THE OTHER DAY. THE GROUP JUST THE OTHER DAY THAT YOU CAN ALWAYS JUDGE MANY THINGS BY WHAT YOU SPEND TIME ON AND WHAT YOU SPEND MONEY ON. SPENT TIME AND MONEY ON. I’VE SAID ALREADY THAT THIS IS AN IMPEACHMENT OF CLOCK AND CALENDAR AND I BELIEVE THAT TO BE TRUE BECAUSE WE ARE SEEING IT TONIGHT. THIS WHOLE PROCESS THREE HEARINGS, TWO HEARINGS I’M SORRY, AND A MARKUP, THAT’S ALL WE ARE DOING THE RUBBER STEP IN THIS COMMITTEE IS OUT SO IT’S A TIME YOU SHOULD BECAUSE THEY’VE BEEN TOLD AND I UNDERSTAND THIS IS THE LEADERSHIP WANTS THIS TO HAPPEN, THIS IS WHY IT’S HAPPENING. THEY’VE GOT NO CHOICE. I FEEL FOR THE CHAIRMAN IN THAT REGARD BECAUSE HE DOESN’T HAVE A CHOICE. THE SPEAKER AND OTHERS HAVE TOLD HIM THIS IS WHAT’S GOING TO HAPPEN AND WE SEE HOW IT’S PLAYING OUT IT GOES BACK FURTHER TO THE FIRST OF THE YEAR. THIS IS A TIME AND MONEY ISSUE. THIS IS A CALENDAR AND CLOCK ISSUE BECAUSE THE COMMITTEE, THE INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE AND THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE DECIDED EARLY ON TO SPEND MONEY TO BRING OUTSIDE HELP IN HOW TO PREPARE FOR TONIGHT. THEY DIDN’T KNOW EXACTLY IT WAS GOING TO BE LIKE THIS IN JANUARY OR NOVEMBER AND DECEMBER WHEN THEY DID HIRE THE EXTRA HELP BUT THEY KNEW THEY WERE GOING TO GET TO IT SOMEHOW. THEY DIDN’T KNOW HOW AND THEY KEPT WAITING AND WAITING SO THEY HIRED EXTRA OUTSIDE COUNSEL. THEY DID IT ON THE INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE AND THEY WANTED IT BECAUSE ALL THEY WERE GOING TO DO WAS INVESTIGATE THE PRESIDENT. AND THEY DID. THE ONLY THING I CAN SAY IS CONGRATULATIONS. THEY FINALLY MADE IT TO WHAT THEY’VE ALWAYS WANTED TO DO. THAT’S WHAT WE’RE SEEING RIGHT HERE. TO DESCRIBE THIS TONIGHT AND DESCRIBE IT AS IT WAS DESCRIBED IS SIMPLY TAKING AWAY THE PUNISHMENT AND LISTING A LOT OF BAD AXE. I COULD DO THAT ABOUT THE MAJORITY ALL YEAR IN THESE CAVITIES AND INVESTIGATIONS WE HAVE HAD MORE HEARINGS IN WHICH THEY GOT TO BASICALLY SCREAM AT ADMINISTRATION WITNESSES BUT YET OFFER NO SOLUTIONS. IT IS MIND BOGGLING IT’S DEHUMANIZING. ONE OF MY COLLEAGUES SAID. AND I CALL THEM OUT WHEN WE WERE TALKING ABOUT IMMIGRATION. NOW TODAY, TO AGAIN COME BEFORE THIS COMMITTEE TO TAKE ALL OF THIS AND NEVER HAVE A FACT WITNESS. I THINK IT WAS INTERESTING WHAT MY FRIEND FROM FLORIDA SAID. THERE IS A PURPOSE TO SEE PEOPLE AT WITNESS EVEN IF THEY’VE TESTIFIED TO SEE HOW THEY WOULD ANSWER QUESTIONS IN THIS COMMITTEE THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN A GOOD THING. BUT WE DON’T HAVE THAT. BUT TO SAY WITH A STRAIGHT FACE AND I APPRECIATE THIS, TO SAY AT THE END OF THE DAY ALL WE ARE DOING IS TAKING AWAY THE PUNISHMENT BECAUSE YOU HAVE A LIST OF BAD ACTORS, WHEN THE MAJORITY HAVE DONE THAT ALL

YEAR AND ESPECIALLY THE CLASSIC CASE OF THE SPEAKER ON THE FLOOR OF THE HOUSE BREAKING THE LAW OF THE RULES OF THE FLOOR AND THEN HAVING THE MAJORITY COME DOWN AND RESTORE HER RIGHT SIMPLY BECAUSE THEY DIDN’T LIKE THE FACT THAT SHE HAD BROKE THE RULES. THIS IS WHERE WE ARE AT IT’S A MONEY AND TIME ISSUE. IT WOULD BE NICE IF IT WAS HIGH AND NOBLE. WOULD HAVE BEEN NICE IF IT WAS EXCEPT FOR ALL THE CRIMES THEY’VE TALKED ABOUT, EXTORTION, BRIBERY, WOULD HAVE BEEN NICE IF THEY COULD HAVE FOUND ACTUAL FACTS TO PUT THAT INTO AN ARTICLE. THEY COULDN’T. THEY WON’T. BECAUSE THEY CAN’T. MAYBE IT’S BECAUSE THEY’RE HAVING TROUBLE EXPLAINING THOSE BECAUSE THEY COULDN’T. PAUL TESTING WASN’T GOOD AND THEY GET MEMBERS WHO NEED TO GO BACK AND SAY I WAS FORCED TO DO THIS BUT REALLY THE PRESIDENT IS A BAD GUY AND THIS WAS AN ABUSE OF POWER AGAIN, SAY IT LONG ENOUGH SOMEBODY MIGHT BELIEVE IT. BUT THIS IS WHERE WE’RE AT. AND IT’S REALLY INTERESTING AGAIN. FROM OBSTRUCTION OF CONGRESS TO WATCH THIS CONGRESS, THIS MAJORITY WORK IS JUST TRULY AMAZING. AND TO SAY THIS, WHEN NO FACTS TOGETHER, ABUSE OF POWER, OBSTRUCTION OF CONGRESS THIS IS ALL THEY’VE GOT? THIS IS ALL THEY HAVE? TO MAKE THIS EXCUSE? GOOD LUCK THAT DOG AIN’T HUNTING ANYMORE NOBODY IS. JUST AIN’T WORKING. I YIELD BACK >> THE GENTLEMAN YIELDS BACK >> MR CHAIR? >> WHAT PURPOSE? >> THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR. I THINK IT’S AN APPROPRIATE TIME OR I MOVE TO STRIKE THE LAST WORD >> AGONIZED >> THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR. I THINK IT’S AN APPROPRIATE TIME TO REMIND YOU AGAIN OF YOUR OWN WORDS THAT WERE STATED JUST A FEW MONTHS AGO LAST YEAR. DURING AN INTERVIEW ON MSNBC THIS MORNING JOE, ON NOVEMBER 26, 2018, CHAIRMAN NADLER OUTLINED THE THREE-PRONGED TEST THAT HE SAID WOULD ALLOW FOR A LEGITIMATE IMPEACHMENT PROCEEDING. AND NOW I, QUOTE, CHAIRMAN NADLER’S REMARKS THEIR REALLY ARE THREE QUESTIONS I THINK. FIRST, HAS THE PRESIDENT COMMITTED IMPEACHABLE OFFENSES? SECOND, DO THOSE OFFENSES RISE TO THE GRAVITY THAT’S WORTH PUTTING THE COUNTRY THROUGH THE DRAMA OF IMPEACHMENT? NUMBER 3, BECAUSE YOU DON’T WANT TO TEAR THE COUNTRY APART, YOU DON’T WANT HALF OF THE COUNTRY TO SAY TO THE OTHER HALF, FOR THE NEXT 30 YEARS, WE WON THE ELECTION, YOU STOLE IT FROM US YOU HAVE TO BE ABLE TO THINK AT THE BEGINNING OF THE IMPEACHMENT PROCESS THAT THE EVIDENCE IS SO CLEAR OF OFFENSES SO GRAVE THAT ONCE YOU’VE LAID OUT ALL THE EVIDENCE A GOOD FRACTION OF THE OPPOSITION VOTERS WILL RELUCTANTLY ADMIT TO THEMSELVES THEY HAD TO DO IT. OTHERWISE YOU HAVE A PARTISAN IMPEACHMENT WHICH WILL TEAR THE COUNTRY APART. IF YOU MEET THESE THREE TESTS, THEN I THINK YOU DO THE IMPEACHMENT NOW, LET’S SEE IF CHAIRMAN NADLER’S THREE-PRONGED TEST HAS BEEN MET. FIRST, HAS THE PRESIDENT COMMITTED AN IMPEACHABLE OFFENSE? NO. THERE HAS BEEN NO WITNESS, NO DEMOCRAT WITNESS, FACT WITNESS, THAT CAN PROVE THAT FACT. SECOND, DO THOSE OFFENSES RISE TO THE GRAVITY THAT’S WORTH PUTTING THE COUNTRY THROUGH THE DRAMA OF IMPEACHMENT? ABSOLUTELY NOT. THIRD, HAVE THE DEMOCRATS LAID OUT A CASE SO CLEAR THAT EVEN THE OPPOSITION HAS TO AGREE? NO. YOU AND HOUSE DEMOCRATS LEADERSHIP ARE TEARING THE COUNTRY APART HE SAID THE EVIDENCE NEEDS TO BE CLEAR. IT IS NOT. YOU SAID OFFENSES NEED TO BE GRAVE. THEY ARE NOT. YOU SAID ONCE THE EVIDENCE IS LAID OUT, THAT THE OPPOSITION WILL ADMIT THEY HAD TO DO IT. THAT HASN’T HAPPENED. IN FACT POLLING ON THE FACT THAT NOT ONE SINGLE REPUBLICAN VOTED ON THE IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY RESOLUTION OR THE SHIFT REPORT AND I DOUBT THAT ONE SINGLE REPUBLICAN WILL VOTE ON THESE ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT TONIGHT OR ON THE FLOOR OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES REVEALS THAT THE OPPOSITE IS IN FACT TRUE. IN FACT, WHAT YOU AND YOUR DEMOCRATIC COLLEAGUES HAVE DONE IS THE OPPOSITE OF WHAT YOU SAID HAD TO BE DONE. THIS IS A PARTISAN IMPEACHMENT. ENTITIES TEARING THE COUNTRY APART. AND WITH THAT I YIELD BACK >> GENTLE LADY YIELDS BACK >> MR. CHAIRMAN? >> WHAT PURPOSE DOES MR. JOHNSON SEEK RECOGNITION? >> STRIKE THE LAST WORD >> GENTLEMAN IS RECOGNIZED >> THANK YOU. I AM JUST RISING TO SPEAK IN SUPPORT OF THIS AMENDMENT. FOR MR JORDAN AND I THINK IT’S REALLY APPROPRIATE. I DON’T THINK WE ARE ASKING FOR ANYTHING

EXTRAORDINARY BECAUSE I’M READING THIS RESOLUTION AS IT’S DRAFTED AND THE LANGUAGE JUMPS OFF THE PAGE. THIS IS REALLY PERSONAL. THE LINES THAT HE IS SEEKING TO STRIKE WITH THIS AMENDMENT SHOULD BE STRUCK. THE VITRIOLIC, THE HATRED JUST DRIPS FROM THE PLEADING HERE. IT SOUNDS LIKE IT CAME RIGHT OUT OF THE PETER STRZOK, LISA PAGE EXCHANGE IS LISTEN TO WHAT IT SAYS. RIGHT HERE, ON THE PAGE, THE LINES THAT WE WANT TO STRIKE. IN PART PRESIDENT TRUMP WARRANTS IMPEACHMENT AND TRIAL, REMOVAL FROM OFFICE AND DISQUALIFICATION TO HOLD AND ENJOY ANY OFFICE OF HONOR OR TRUST OR PROFIT UNDER THE UNITED STATES. LOOK. THEY DON’T JUST WANT TO REMOVE HIM FROM THE OVAL OFFICE. THEY WANT TO CRUSH HIM. THEY WANT TO DESTROY DONALD TRUMP. THEY WANT TO BANISH HIM FROM THE MARKETPLACE IT’S SO OVER THE TOP. PROFESSOR TURLEY AGAIN THE ONLY WITNESS, THE ONLY WITNESS WE’VE BEEN ALLOWED IN THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE , THE COMMITTEE THAT HAS JURISDICTION OVER THIS ISSUE, WE GOT ONE WITNESS IN THE PROCESS AND HE WAS NOT A DONALD TRUMP SUPPORTER. HE CAME IN AND SAID I DON’T EVEN, I’D DIDN’T VOTE FOR HIM BUT I CAME TO GIVE OBJECTIVE ANALYSIS BECAUSE MY ALLEGIANCES TO THE CONSTITUTION. YOU KNOW WHAT HE GOT FOR THAT OBJECTIVE ANALYSIS THAT HE DELIVERED? SO ARTICULATELY. HE GOT DEATH THREATS. HE HAD TO PUBLISH AN OP-ED EXPLAINING THAT THERE WAS THIS OUTCRY AND A CALL FOR HIM TO BE REMOVED FROM HIS POSITION AT HIS UNIVERSITY. DEATH THREATS BECAUSE HE GAVE AN OBJECTIVE VIEW OF THE CONSTITUTION. THE VITRIOLIC, THE DEFCON LEVEL, THE POLITICAL SCALE IS AT ONE RIGHT NOW AND IT’S SO CRAZY AND IT’S BECAUSE OF LANGUAGE LIKE THIS IN THE RESOLUTION THAT IS PUSHING THIS. TELL YOU WHAT PROFESSOR TURLEY SAID. A COUPLE EXCERPTS IN HIS SUMMARY AS I HAVE STRESSED, THIS IS IN HIS WRITTEN REPORT THAT HE SUBMITTED, AS I HAVE STRESSED, IT IS POSSIBLE TO ESTABLISH A CASE FOR IMPEACHMENT BASED ON NONCRIMINAL ALLEGATION OF ABUSE OF POWER. BUT ALTHOUGH CRIMINALITY IS NOT REQUIRED, CLARITY IS NECESSARY. THAT COMES FROM A COMPLETE AND COMPREHENSIVE RECORD THAT ELIMINATES EXCULPATORY MOTIVATIONS OR EXPLANATIONS. THE PROBLEM IS THAT THIS IS AN EXCEPTIONALLY NARROW IMPEACHMENT RESTING ON THE THINNEST POSSIBLE EVIDENTIARY RECORD. EVEN UNDER THE MOST FLEXIBLE MODEL THERE REMAINED AN EXPECTATION THAT IMPEACHMENT COULD BE USED OR BASED ON PRESUMPTION OR SPECULATION ON KEY ELEMENTS. THE UNDERLYING ALLEGATION COULD NOT, COULD BE NONCRIMINAL THE EARLY ENGLISH IMPEACHMENT FOLLOWED A FORMAT SIMILAR TO CRIMINAL CHARGE TRIAL INCLUDING CALLING OF WITNESSES AND ALL THE REST. HE SAID THE HISTORY OF AMERICAN PRESIDENTIAL IMPEACHMENT SHOWS RESTRAINT EVEN WHEN THERE ARE SUBSTANTIVE COMPLAINTS AGAINST THE CONDUCT OF PRESIDENTS. SOME OF OUR GREATEST PRESIDENTS COULD HAVE BEEN IMPEACHED FOR ACTS IN VIOLATION OF THEIR CONSTITUTIONAL OATH OF OFFICE BUT IT DIDN’T HAPPEN BECAUSE COOLER HEADS PREVAILED UNDER CONGRESS. THIS MISUSE PROFESSOR TURLEY CONTINUES, THIS MISUSE HAS BEEN PLAYING DURING THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION MEMBERS HAVE CALLED FOR REMOVAL BASED ON A MYRIAD OF OBJECTIONS AGAINST THIS PRESIDENT, AL GREEN OF TEXAS FILED A RESOLUTION FOR IMPEACHMENT AFTER TRUMP CALLED FOR PLAYERS KNEELING DURING THE NATIONAL ANTHEM TO BE FIRED COME ON. YOU DON’T LIKE HIS POLITICAL POSITIONS, GREAT BUT YOU CAN’T IMPEACH A PRESIDENT BECAUSE YOU DON’T LIKE HIM THAT’S NOT HOW THIS SYSTEM WORKS. WE ARE IN A CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC. THERE ARE RULES. THERE ARE STANDARDS YOU DON’T GET TO MAKE THAT DECISION. THE VOTERS DO WE HAVE AN ELECTION COMING UP IN ABOUT 11 MONTHS. LET THE PEOPLE DECIDE. DON’T PUT YOURSELVES IN THEIR PLACE. YOU DON’T HAVE THE RIGHT TO DO IT. YOU’RE NOT FOLLOWING THE PROPER PROCEDURE YOU’RE NOT DOING THIS THE RIGHT WAY. IT’S A RARELY USED DEVICE IN OUR HISTORY. IT IS SUPPOSED TO BE. PROFESSOR TURLEY ENDED THIS WAY. HE SAID, QUOTE, DESPITE MY DISAGREEMENT WITH MANY OF PRESIDENT TRUMP’S POLICIES AND STATEMENTS, IMPEACHMENT WAS NEVER INTENDED TO BE USED AS A MIDTERM CORRECTIVE OPTION FOR A DIVISIVE OR UNPOPULAR LEADER. WE GET IT YOU DON’T LIKE HIM THAT DOESN’T MEAN YOU CAN BANISH HIM FROM THE MARKETPLACE. YOU CAN’T SEND HIM OUT OF HIS BUSINESSES AND SAY HE CAN’T HOLD A POSITION OF HONOR OR TRUST YOU DON’T GET THE RIGHT TO DO THAT. THE PEOPLE OF THIS COUNTRY DO. WE LIVE IN A REPUBLIC. I’M JUST SICK OF THIS. I GOT BACK FORGET I DON’T YIELD BACK. I YIELD TO THE GENTLEMAN, MR JORDAN. I’VE GOT 30 SECONDS >> THANK YOU. IN 2016 THE DEMOCRATS HAD THE INSURANCE POLICY. PETR >>> LISA PAGE WAS THEIR DEAL IN 2016. THE FBI. 2020, IT IS IMPEACHMENT. 2020 THEY’RE GOING TO USE IMPEACHMENT. INSURANCE POLICY DIDN’T WORK IN 2016 IMPEACHMENT IS NOT GOING TO WORK IN 2020 BECAUSE THE AMERICAN PEOPLE APPRECIATE WHAT THIS PRESIDENT IS GETTING DONE ON THEIR BEHALF. I YIELD BACK >> THE GENTLEMAN YIELDS BACK ANYBODY ELSE? >> DETERMINE? >> WHAT PURPOSE? >> MOTION TO STRIKE THE LAST WORDS >> THE GENTLEMAN IS RECOGNIZED

>> THANK YOU. IT TRULY IS AMAZING. WE’VE HEARD OVER AND OVER THAT THIS WAS ALL ABOUT THE BIDENS. ALL ABOUT GETTING INFORMATION ON PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE, BUT IF YOU LOOK AT WHAT THE PRESIDENT SAID, HE’S TALKING ABOUT WE’VE BEEN THROUGH THIS COUNTRY, OUR COUNTRY HAS BEEN THROUGH A LOT. AND UKRAINE KNOWS A LOT ABOUT IT. I WOULD LIKE YOU TO FIND OUT WHAT HAPPENED WITH THIS WHOLE SITUATION WITH UKRAINE. THEY SAY CRAP STRIKE IT’S NEWS TO ME BUT MY DEMOCRAT FRIENDS WILL KNOW BETTER, I DIDN’T KNOW BIDEN WAS INVOLVED WITH CROWD STRIKE. I DIDN’T KNOW HE WAS INVOLVED WITH THE DNC SERVER BEING HACKED. I DIDN’T KNOW THAT WAS PART OF HIS THING BUT THAT’S WHAT THE PRESIDENT IS ASKING ABOUT. BECAUSE THERE HAS BEEN INFORMATION THAT THERE WERE PEOPLE IN UKRAINE THAT KNEW SOMETHING ABOUT THAT AND THAT’S WHAT HE’S ASKING ABOUT. SO I APPRECIATE THE REVELATION FROM OUR FRIENDS ACROSS THE AISLE BIDEN WAS IN THE MIDDLE OF ALL THAT. AND THEN SAID I GUESS YOU HAVE ONE OF YOUR WEALTHY PEOPLE, THE SERVER THEY SAY UKRAINE HAS IT. AGAIN, I DIDN’T KNOW BIDEN WAS ALL IN UP TO HIS EYEBALLS IN THAT. BUT THERE WERE A LOT OF THINGS THAT WENT ON. THE WHOLE SITUATION. AND I THINK YOUR SURROUNDING YOURSELF WITH SOME OF THE SAME PEOPLE. I WOULD LIKE TO HAVE THE ATTORNEY GENERAL CALL YOU AND YOUR PEOPLE AND I COULD GET TO THE BOTTOM OF IT. SO THAT WAS THE WHOLE THING ABOUT THE 2016 ELECTION. BUT ACCORDING TO OUR FRIENDS, BIDEN WAS IN THE MIDDLE OF ALL OF THIS MESS. SO ANYWAY IT’S INTERESTING. BUT MY FRIEND FROM OHIO HAS A BRILLIANT AMENDMENT. THEY SAY IT’S NOT PERSONAL. THAT THIS ISN’T JUST ABOUT AN ELECTION. THAT THIS IS TRYING TO UNDO THE UNFAIRNESS OF THE PRIOR ELECTION. EVEN THOUGH IT TURNS OUT THERE WAS NO RUSH AND COLLUSION. AND IT SOUNDS LIKE THAT THERE WAS DESPITE WHAT THE MEDIA IS SAYING THAT WE KNOW THE UKRAINIAN AMBASSADOR CAME OUT LAMBASTING TRUMP. CLEARLY THAT THE WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DONE WITHOUT OFFICIAL OKAY. THEY WERE ALL IN FOR HILLARY CLINTON. THAT’S WHY IT WAS REPORTED THAT THEY WERE FIGURING AFTER THE ELECTION THAT TRUMP WON MAYBE WE BETTER TRY TO WARM UP TO TRUMP. BUT THERE’S BEEN SO MUCH MADE OF THE FACT THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP DID NOT ASK THE FORMER CORRUPT ADMINISTRATION FOR HELP IN ROOTING OUT CORRUPTION. THAT IS JUST ALMOST UNFATHOMABLE THAT THAT POINT WOULD CONTINUE TO BE MADE ALL DAY TODAY. IN 2019, YOU HAD THE ELECTION OF A MAN IN UKRAINE, ZELENSKY, THAT SAID HE WAS GOING TO FIGHT CORRUPTION. AND PRESIDENT TRUMP HEARD FROM OUR OWN PEOPLE WE THINK HE IS SINCERE. WE REALLY THINK HE’S GOING TO TRY TO FIGHT CORRUPTION. SO OF COURSE THIS IS THE FIRST TIME THAT HE TALKS TO UKRAINIAN LEADER BECAUSE HE KNEW HE COULDN’T TRUST THE OTHER ONES. THEY WERE SUPPORTING HILLARY CLINTON. THEY WERE CORRUPT. WHY WOULD HE TALK TO THEM ABOUT HELPING ROOT OUT THE CORRUPTION? SO TO SAY THIS WAS ALL ABOUT BIDEN FOR HEAVEN SAKE? THAT’S RIDICULOUS BUT MY FRIEND FROM OHIO’S AMENDMENT PUTS OUR FRIENDS TO THE TEST. IS IT REALLY ABOUT TRYING TO CORRECT WHAT YOU SAY WAS AN UNFAIR ELECTION WHICH WE KNOW NOW FROM THE HOROWITZ REPORT IT WAS UNFAIR BUT IT WAS FROM THE DEMOCRATS’ SIDE? FROM THE TRUMP HATER SIDE. IF THAT’S REALLY THE CASE, THEN LET’S JUST STRIKE THE PART THAT SAYS HE CAN’T EVER RUN FOR OFFICE AGAIN OR BE REELECTED AGAIN. RIGHT? WOULDN’T THAT HELP SOME OF YOUR VULNERABLE DEMOCRATS IF YOU MADE IT MORE REASONABLE LIKE THAT? OR DO YOU WANT TO CONTINUE TO PERSIST IN MAKING IT SO PERSONAL THAT IT IS WALK OFF THE PLANK TIME FOR ANYBODY THAT WANTS TO TRY TO BE REASONABLE ABOUT WHAT’S GOING ON HERE? SO WE WILL SEE. BUT IT’S A GOOD AMENDMENT I WOULD ENCOURAGE MY COLLEAGUES ON BOTH SIDES OF THE AISLE. HELP SOME OF YOUR VULNERABLE PEOPLE OUT. VOTE FOR MR. JORDAN’S AMENDMENT. YOU’LL BE BETTER OFF THE COUNTRY WILL BE BETTER OFF I FEEL SURE HE WILL BE REELECTED. AND THE SCARY PART FOR ME IS THAT BAR HAS BEEN SET SO LOW I AM REALLY AFRAID NO MATTER WHAT PARTY IS IN THE WHITE HOUSE IF THERE’S AN OPPOSING PARTY IN CONGRESS ARE GOING TO USE THIS TACTIC TO TRY TO TAKE THEM DOWN. ONE SILVER LINING, IT’S BEEN HARD TO KNOW WHO ARE THE DEEP STATE PEOPLE WERE ESPECIALLY IN THE STATE DEPARTMENT. BY FRIENDS GOING THROUGH THIS, WE NOW KNOW WHO THE PEOPLE ARE

THAT DON’T WANT THE SWAMP DRAINED AND WE CAN DEAL WITH THAT. I YIELD BACK >> THE GENTLEMAN YIELDS BACK. I RECOGNIZE MYSELF. I RECOGNIZE MYSELF. I’M SORRY. I RECOGNIZE — >> FOR WHAT PURPOSE DOES MR SWALWELL YIELD RECOGNITION? >> I YIELD TO THE CHAIRMAN >> THANK YOU. IMPEACHMENT WAS PUT INTO THE CONSTITUTION BECAUSE THE FRAMERS RECOGNIZED THAT A PRESIDENT MIGHT ARISE WHO POSED SUCH A THREAT TO THE COUNTRY TO OUR DEMOCRATIC SYSTEM AND OUR FREE ELECTIONS THAT WE COULDN’T WAIT TILL THE NEXT ELECTION TO CURE IT. THAT’S WHY IMPEACHMENT WAS PUT INTO THE CONSTITUTION. LET’S LOOK AT, WE’VE HEARD A LOT OF VERY DISTRACTING FACTS ABOUT WHAT HUNTER BIDEN MAY OR MAY NOT HAVE DONE ABOUT ALL KINDS OF THINGS OF WHAT OUR MEMBERS MAY HAVE SAID THREE OR FOUR YEARS AGO ALL OF THAT IS IRRELEVANT WHAT’S RELEVANT IS THAT THERE ARE AMPLE FACTS DEMONSTRATING THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP PUT HIS PERSONAL INTERESTS ABOVE THE INTERESTS OF THE COUNTRY AND CITIZENS IN THE CONSTITUTION THIS IS THE HIGHEST OF CONSTITUTIONAL CRIMES. AND ABUSE OF POWER. ABUSE OF POWER IS THE PREEMINENT CRIME WHICH THE FRAMERS EVEN IN THE FEDERALIST PAPERS TALKED ABOUT AS HIGH CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS FOR THE CONSTITUTION, FOR THE PURPOSE OF IMPEACHMENT. IN PRESIDENT TRUMP’S ABUSE OF POWER, HE DID IT IN TWO WAYS NUMBER 1, HE ENDANGERED OUR FREE ELECTIONS. BY INVITING FOREIGN POWERS TO INTERFERE TO INFLUENCE OUR ELECTIONS TWICE. HE INVITED THE RUSSIANS IN 2016. REMEMBER IF YOU’RE LISTENING, PLEASE FIND THE E-MAILS. THAT WAS A DIRECT SOLICITATION AND THE FACT THEY TRIED TO HACK INTO THE E-MAILS OF THE DEMOCRATS THAT VERY NIGHT. AND THEN HE TRIED TO COVER IT UP. AND THEN FOR 2020, HE INVITED IN, HE ASKED THE UKRAINIANS TO ANNOUNCE THE BOGUS INVESTIGATION OF THE PERSON HE PERCEIVED AS HIS MAJOR POLITICAL OPPONENT IN THE 2020 ELECTION. AND BASICALLY ADMITTED, MICK MULVANEY SAID WE DID IT THE PRESIDENT IS ON THE TRANSCRIPT, SHOWS VERY CLEARLY THAT HE DID IT. THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE WITHHELD AIDE SHOWS VERY CLEARLY IT WAS A QUID PRO QUO. YES, WE KNOW THAT EVENTUALLY THE AIDE WAS RELEASED AND HE SAID, THE PRESIDENT SAID THERE WAS NO QUID PRO QUO. BOTH OF THOSE THINGS HAPPENED AFTER HE WAS CAUGHT AND IT WAS PUBLIC OBVIOUSLY, THE BANK ROBBER CAUGHT IN THE ACT AFTERWARDS SAYS I DIDN’T MEAN TO ROB THE BANK. BUT HE WAS IN FACT CAUGHT IN THE ACT. HE TRIED TO COVER IT UP AGAIN. HE OBSTRUCTED CONGRESS BY DIRECTING THE ENTIRE ADMINISTRATION , EVERYBODY IN THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH, DO NOT ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS. DO NOT TESTIFY. DO NOT GET ANY DOCUMENTS FUNDAMENTALLY DIFFERENT FROM WHAT OTHER PRESIDENTS HAVE DONE ON OCCASION WHICH IS TO OPPOSE CERTAIN SUBPOENAS AND GROUNDS OF PRIVILEGE. HE DIDN’T ASSERT ANY PRIVILEGE. HE JUST SAID NOBODY SHOULD COOPERATE. I WILL DECIDE WHETHER IT’S A VALID IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY. I WILL TAKE THE FUNCTION OF CONGRESS TO MYSELF. BECAUSE I DON’T RECOGNIZE CONGRESS’ RIGHT THAT IS A THREAT TO THE SEPARATION OF POWERS AND A THREAT TO OUR LIBERTY. IT’S NOTEWORTHY THAT MEMBERS OF THE MINORITY SPEAK ABOUT EVERY OTHER SUBJECT BUT HARDLY BOTHER TO DISPUTE THE FACTS OF THE CASE WHICH ARE CLEAR. THAT’S WHY WE’VE HEARD SO MUCH TODAY WITH DISTRACTING AND IRRELEVANT ISSUES. EVEN I WOULD SAY OTHER THINGS. IT IS CLEAR THAT IT IS AN ABUSE OF POWER FOR THE PRESIDENT OR ANY MEMBER OF CONGRESS FOR THAT MATTER TO CONDITION OFFICIAL ACTIONS ON THEIR OWN PERSONAL GAIN. AND I WAS STARTLED, I WAS STARTLED TO HEAR MR. RATCLIFFE SAY, I WAS IMPRESSED BY HIS HONESTY BUT STARTLED TO HEAR HIM SAY THAT IT IS OKAY FOR A PRESIDENT TO INVITE FOREIGN INTERFERENCE IN OUR ELECTIONS. IT IS OKAY FOR A PRESIDENT TO CHEAT AND TRY TO RIG THE ELECTION. THE URGENCY OF THIS IMPEACHMENT, THE REASON WHY WE CANNOT WAIT FOR THE NEXT ELECTION, IS THAT THE PRESIDENT HAS TRIED TO RIGOLETS, LAST ELECTION AND THIS ONE TOO AND HE’S REPEATING IT. HE GOES OUT ON THE FLOOR AND HE SAYS CHINA WANTED TO COME IN AND TRY TO RIG THE ELECTION. HE HAD MR. GIULIANI IN THE UKRAINE PAST WEEK TRYING TO ENLIST ASSISTANCE TO RIG THE ELECTION THE PRESIDENT MUST BE IMPEACHED TO SAFEGUARD THE SECURITY OF OUR ELECTIONS, TO SAFEGUARD THE SEPARATIONS OF POWERS, BOTH OF WHICH ARE ESSENTIAL TO SAFEGUARD OUR LIBERTIES. I THINK

THE GENTLEMAN FOR GILDING. I YIELD MY TIME BACK TO HIM >> SINCE I’VE BEEN REFERENCED, MAY I RESPOND? >> I DO NOT YIELD MY TIME >> MR. SWALWELL’S TIME >> I DO NOT YIELD >> THE GENTLEMAN YIELDS BACK >> DON’T WANT TO CORRECT A FALSE STATEMENT? >> WHO ELSE SEEKS RECOGNITION? >> FOR WHAT PURPOSE — >> I MOVED TO STRIKE THE LAST WORD >> THE GENTLEMAN IS RECOGNIZED >> I YIELD TO THE GENTLEMAN FROM TEXAS >> I APPRECIATE MY COLLEAGUE YIELDING TO CORRECT THE RECORD WHERE THE CHAIRMAN JUST MADE A FALSE STATEMENT. SAID THAT I SAID THAT IT WAS OKAY TO SOLICIT FOREIGN INTERFERENCE IN AN ELECTION. I NEVER USED THE WORD INTERFERENCE >> OKAY >> I SAID FOREIGN INVOLVEMENT IN INVESTIGATIONS. AND I USED AS AN EXAMPLE FOR THAT CAR THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION. JUST A FEW HOURS AGO YOU MAY NOT REMEMBER, I CAN’T BELIEVE WE ARE SITTING HERE AT THE END OF THIS, IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, AND I LOOK AT HOW ALL OF THIS STARTED. STARTED WITH A PHONE CALL, A CONGRATULATORY PHONE CALL BETWEEN TWO PRESIDENTS. AND THE VERY NEXT DAY, SOMEONE CONTACTED SOMEONE AND A WEEK LATER, SOMEONE WALKED INTO THE OFFICE OF CHAIRMAN SCHIFF. AND THAT PERSON WALKED OUT A WEEK LATER, A WHISTLEBLOWER, WENT TO THE INSPECTOR GENERAL, AND FILED A COMPLAINT WHERE THEY FALSELY CLAIMED THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP HAD MADE A DEMAND OF PRESIDENT ZELENSKY. THEY MADE A FALSE STATEMENT IN WRITING AND THEN THEY MADE A FALSE STATEMENT VERBALLY. IN THE COURSE OF WHAT SHOULD HAVE BEEN AN INVESTIGATION. WE SIT HERE TODAY ABOUT TO VOTE ON IMPEACHING A PRESIDENT WHERE NEITHER THE HOUSE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE, THE HOUSE INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE OR ANY HOUSE COMMITTEE WHERE THE DEMOCRATS ARE IN CHARGE HAS ASKED A SINGLE QUESTION OF A SINGLE WITNESS ABOUT HOW THIS STARTED. BECAUSE YOU GO BACK TO THAT PHONE CALL. AND THE TWO PEOPLE THAT WERE ON IT, THE ONLY TWO PEOPLE THAT KNOW NOT JUST WHAT THEY SAID BUT WHAT THEY MEANT, WHEN THEY SAID IT, AND THEY BOTH SAID IT WAS A GREAT CALL. SO FIRST LET ME SAY I’M SORRY. LET ME SAY I’M SORRY TO THE PRESIDENT OF UKRAINE. I’M SORRY THAT AS A RESULT OF ALL OF THIS YOU’VE BEEN LABELED A PATHOLOGICAL LIAR BY MY DEMOCRATIC COLLEAGUES. AND I’M SORRY THAT THEY PRETEND TO CARE ABOUT THE UKRAINE BUT THEY’VE JUST MADE IT INCREDIBLY HARD AND MORE DIFFICULT FOR YOUR COUNTRY EVER TO GET MILITARY ASSISTANCE. I’M ALSO SORRY TO THE OTHER PERSON THAT WAS ON THAT CALL, WHO KNEW WHAT HE SAID WHEN HE MEANT IT. PRESIDENT TRUMP. I’M SORRY , PRESIDENT TRUMP, THAT YOU’VE TRIED TO KEEP EVERY PROMISE, YOU’VE GIVEN US A GREAT ECONOMY, AND YOU DID IT AGAINST INCREDIBLE HEADWINDS WHERE YOU WERE FALSELY ACCUSED OF TREASON, YOU WERE ACCUSED OF BEING A RUSSIAN AGENT. BY THE FOLKS IN THIS ROOM. AND WHEN THAT FAILED, WE SIT HERE TODAY, BECAUSE NOW THEY ARE FRAMING YOU BECAUSE YOU SAID I’D LIKE YOU TO DO US A FAVOR. BECAUSE OUR COUNTRY HAS BEEN THROUGH A LOT MY LAST APOLOGY IS TO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE. I’M SORRY THAT YOU’VE HAD TO VIEW THIS SPECTACLE. I’M SORRY TO THE 63 MILLION OF YOU THAT ARE SO DEPLORABLE THAT AS A RESULT OF THIS YOU’RE BEING TOLD YOUR VOTES DON’T COUNT. I YIELD BACK >> I YIELD BACK AS WELL >> THE GENTLEMAN YIELDS BACK DOES ANYONE ELSE SEEK RECOGNITION? >> RECOGNITION >> MR. RESCHENTHALER >> STRIKE THE LAST WORD >> THE GENTLEMAN IS RECOGNIZED >> WE’VE BEEN HERE A WHILE. AND I DO WANT IT TO BE NOTED I HAVE SEVERAL OTHER AMENDMENTS FOR TONIGHT BUT SPEAKING ON THIS AMENDMENT, SPEAKING IN SUPPORT OF MY COLLEAGUE JIM JORDAN’S AMENDMENT, I THINK THAT WE ARE GETTING WAY TOO CAUGHT UP IN THE WEEDS IN PARTICULAR. WE’VE GOT TO ZOOM OUT AND THINK ABOUT WHY WE ARE HERE. WE ARE HERE BECAUSE THE DEMOCRATS AGAIN ARE TERRIFIED THAT THE PRESIDENT IS GOING TO WIN REELECTION. LET’S GO THROUGH A LIST OF HIS

ACCOMPLISHMENTS. DONALD TRUMP SIGNED THE LARGEST SCALE CRIMINAL JUSTICE REFORM LEGISLATION IN DECADES. AND I SHOULD ADD IF IT WEREN’T FOR THIS WASTE OF TIME WITH IMPEACHMENT, WE COULD BE WORKING ON MORE BIPARTISAN CRIMINAL JUSTICE REFORM PARTICULARLY CRIMINAL JUSTICE BILL CALLED CLEAN SLATE THAT WOULD EXPUNGE NONVIOLENT FELONY OFFENSES FOR HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF INDIVIDUALS, LISA BLUNT ROCHESTER IS WORKING WITH ME ON THAT. SHE’S A DEMOCRAT AS YOU KNOW. I DIGRESS AGAIN. DONALD TRUMP IS ALSO ENSURING OUR WAR FIGHTERS TO BE WAR FIGHTERS. I WAS A DEFENSE ATTORNEY IN THE NAVY. I DEFENDED A NAVY S.E.A.L. WHO WAS FALSELY ACCUSED OF COVERING UP ABUSE ON A WELL-KNOWN TERRORIST. I CAN TELL YOU THAT WHEN OUR WAR FIGHTERS ARE DRAGGED INTO THE COURT-MARTIAL PROCESS, THEY HAVE TO CONSTANTLY SECOND-GUESS THEMSELVES ON THE BATTLEFIELD AND FINALLY WE HAVE A PRESIDENT THAT IS RECOGNIZING THE WAR FIGHTERS SHOULD BE WAR FIGHTERS AND THEY SHOULD BE FOCUSED ON CAPTURING AND KILLING TARGETS NOT WORRYING ABOUT WRONGFUL PROSECUTION BACK AT HOME ADDITIONALLY THE PRESIDENT HAS PLACED TWO CONSERVATIVE JUSTICES ON THE SUPREME COURT WILL UPHOLD THE CONSTITUTION. ADDITIONALLY UNDER THIS ADMINISTRATION WE ARE SEEING THE NATURAL GAS RENAISSANCE. COME TO WESTERN PENNSYLVANIA AND SEE HOW THE ECONOMY IS ROARING BECAUSE WE ARE FINALLY TAKING ADVANTAGE OF THE NATURAL RESOURCES WE HAVE WE CAN USE THIS NATURAL GAS FOR ENERGY, FOR MANUFACTURING, WE CAN USE IT FOR PETROCHEMICALS. IT IS FANTASTIC WE ARE FINALLY TAKING ADVANTAGE OF THE NATURAL RESOURCES WE HAVE. ADDITIONALLY THIS PRESIDENT HAS DONE A LOT FOR MANUFACTURING PARTICULARLY THE STEEL INDUSTRY WHICH IS COMING BACK AND COME TO WESTERN PENNSYLVANIA. STEAL MANUFACTURING IS COMING BACK DONALD TRUMP IS ALSO INVESTING AND FOCUSED IN OUR BORDER SECURITY AND BUILDING A WALL. UNDER THIS PRESIDENT’S LEADERSHIP, WE ARE ENHANCING OUR NATIONAL SECURITY AND GOING AFTER TERRORISTS AND OTHERS WHO WISH TO DO US HARM BUT AGAIN WE ARE HERE BECAUSE THE DEMOCRATS DON’T WANT TO TALK ABOUT THE RED-HOT TRUMP ECONOMY THEY DON’T WANT TO TALK ABOUT THE LOWEST UNEMPLOYMENT RATE IN 50 YEARS. WE ARE HERE BECAUSE DEMOCRATS DON’T WANT TO TALK ABOUT HOW PRESIDENT TRUMP IS FINALLY HOLDING CHINA ACCOUNTABLE FOR CURRENCY MILLER CREATION, DUMPING STEAL AND ALUMINUM IN AMERICAN MARKETS, SOMEONE IS FINALLY HOLDING CHINA ACCOUNTABLE FOR IP THEFT AND FORCED IP TRANSFER. THAT’S PRESIDENT TRUMP WHO IS DOING THAT. PRESIDENT TRUMP IS ALSO RENEGOTIATING TRADE DEALS TO BENEFIT AMERICAN WORKERS AND FARMERS. WE SHOULD HAVE PASSED USMCA MONTHS AGO BUT AGAIN WE HAVEN’T DONE IT BECAUSE WE ARE DEALING WITH IMPEACHMENT. THE PRESIDENT HAS WORKED ON FREE TRADE AGREEMENTS WITH JAPAN. HE WORKED ON FREE TRADE AGREEMENTS ACROSS SOUTH AMERICA. PRESIDENT TRUMP HAS ALSO REDUCED REGULATION. THERE’S ONLY ONE WAY TO INCREASE REVENUE AND THAT’S TO INCREASE GDP. THERE’S ONLY TWO WAYS TO INCREASE GDP YOU CUT TAXES OR REDUCE REGULATIONS. YOU CAN DO BOTH THIS PRESIDENT SUPPORTS BOTH THAT’S WHY YOU HAVE SUCH A STRONG ECONOMY. BUT THE DEMOCRATS DON’T WANT TO TALK ABOUT THIS. SO INSTEAD WE ARE TALKING ABOUT IMPEACHMENT BECAUSE IT DISTRACTS FROM THE AGENDA. WHICH INCLUDES SUCH LUDICROUS IDEAS AS BANNING AIRPLANES, GETTING ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS TAXPAYER-FUNDED HEALTHCARE, ABOLISHING OR DEFUNDING I.C.E., BANNING FRACKING, BANNING FOSSIL FUELS, GOOD LUCK MAKING A CELL PHONE WITHOUT PETROCHEMICALS. THEY ALSO DON’T WANT TO TALK ABOUT TAKING PRIVATE HEALTHCARE AWAY FROM AMERICAN CITIZENS. SO AGAIN THAT’S REALLY WHY WE ARE HERE THIS WHOLE PROCESS IS A DISTRACTION. IT’S AN ATTEMPT TO HIDE A RADICAL FAR LEFT AGENDA IT’S ALSO AN ATTEMPT TO HIDE THE FACTS. THE FACTS INDICATE THAT THERE WAS NO QUID PRO QUO AND THERE WAS NO OBSTRUCTION OF CONGRESS. WITH THAT I YIELD >> THE GENTLEMAN YIELDS BACK MR. CICILLINE? >> I MOVE TO STRIKE >> THE GENTLEMAN IS RECOGNIZED >> IT SEEMS IMPORTANT TO REMIND MY COLLEAGUES WHY WE ARE HERE OF COURSE WE HAVE POLICY DISAGREEMENTS WITH THE PRESIDENT, THIS IS NOT ABOUT A POLICY DISAGREEMENTS. THIS IS ABOUT AN OBLIGATION WE HAVE TO PROTECT AND DEFEND THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES. WE ALL BEGAN OUR TERM OF OFFICE BY RAISING HER RIGHT HAND AND PROMISING TO PROTECT AND DEFEND THE CONSTITUTION AND WE ARE HERE BECAUSE THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES ENGAGED IN A SCHEME TO DRAG A FOREIGN POWER INTO OUR ELECTIONS TO CORRUPT OUR ELECTIONS FOR HIS OWN

PERSONAL BENEFIT AND HE USED HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS OF DOLLARS OF TAXPAYER MONEY TO ATTEMPT TO ACHIEVE THAT OBJECTIVE. THINK ABOUT THIS. THERE IS NOTHING MORE SACRED THAN PROTECTING THE RIGHT TO FREE AND FAIR ELECTIONS IN THIS COUNTRY. IT’S THE HEART AND SOUL OF OUR DEMOCRACY THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES REACHED OUT TO A FOREIGN POWER IN AN ATTEMPT TO DRAG THEM INTO CORRUPTING OUR ELECTIONS TO HELP HIM CHEAT AND WIN IN THE ELECTION IN 2020. AND SO WHEN MY REPUBLICAN COLLEAGUES SAY PEOPLE ARE WORRIED ABOUT THE ELECTION WE ARE WORRIED. BUT THE PERSON WHO IS REALLY WORRIED ABOUT THE OUTCOME IS CLEARLY PRESIDENT TRUMP. BECAUSE HE IS REACHING OUT TO A FOREIGN POWER ASKING THEM TO HELP HIM CHEAT IN THE 2020 ELECTION. WE HAVE A SOLEMN RESPONSIBILITY TO STAND UP AND PROTECT OUR DEMOCRACY AND PREVENT THIS PRESIDENT OR ANY PRESIDENT FROM ATTEMPTING TO CORRUPT OUR ELECTIONS. SO IF WE DON’T DO THAT, IF WE ALLOW PRESIDENT TRUMP TO GET AWAY WITH TRYING TO CHEAT IN 2020, PARTICULARLY IN LIGHT OF WHAT HE DID IN 2016, WE WON’T HAVE A DEMOCRACY. WE’LL HAVE A KING OR A MONARCH. THE AMERICAN PEOPLE WILL LOSE THEIR VOICE AND THEIR RIGHT TO SELF-DETERMINATION AND TO ELECT THEIR OWN LEADERS. SO MY REPUBLICAN COLLEAGUES SHOULD REMEMBER THAT TRUMP ADMINISTRATION OFFICIALS, MANY OF THEM SAW THIS SCHEME AND BECAME ALARMED. THE PRESIDENT’S OWN AMBASSADOR ESTHER BOLTON CALLED IT A DRUG DEAL. DR. FIONA HILL, ANOTHER TRUMP ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL, CALLED IT A DOMESTIC POLITICAL ERRANDS. THE INVESTIGATION BEGAN BY THE INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE 17 WITNESSES, 100 HOURS OF TESTIMONY, 260 TEXT MESSAGES TRANSCRIPTS OF THE PRESIDENT’S OWN WORDS ON THE CALL. E-MAILS EXCHANGED BETWEEN HIGH-LEVEL TRUMP OFFICIALS. AND WE KNOW THE DIRECT EVIDENCE. THE PRESIDENT PUT THE THREE AMIGOS, SONDLAND, PERRY AND VOLKER CHARGE OF THIS THE PRESIDENT REFUSED TO HAVE A MEETING OR TO RELEASE THE FUNDS PUT ON HOLD UNTIL A PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENT OF A BOGUS INVESTIGATION AGAINST HIS CHIEF POLITICAL RIVAL. HE TOLD THE VICE PRESIDENT DON’T GO TO THE INAUGURATION. SPOKE TO AMBASSADOR SONDLAND AND SONDLAND TESTIFIED IT WAS A QUID PRO QUO THE PRESIDENT HIRED HIS PERSONAL LAWYER RUDY GIULIANI TO LEAD THIS EFFORT. HE SMEARED AMBASSADOR YOVANOVITCH AND FIRED HER BECAUSE SHE STOOD IN THE WAY SHE WAS AN ANTICORRUPTION CHAMPION AND SHE STOOD IN THE WAY OF THE PRESIDENT’S SCHEMES AND THE PRESIDENT AND THOSE ACTING ON HIS BEHALF DEMANDED THAT ZELENSKY PUBLICLY ANNOUNCE INVESTIGATIONS OF HIS CHIEF POLITICAL RIVAL. IT SHOULD BE REMEMBERED THE AMERICAN PEOPLE SHOULD KNOW THAT PRESIDENT ZELENSKY, THE EVIDENCE IS FILLED WITH EXAMPLES OF TRUMP ADMINISTRATION OFFICIALS WHO SAY THINGS LIKE PRESIDENT ZELENSKY IS SENSITIVE ABOUT UKRAINE BEING TAKEN SERIOUSLY NOT MERELY AS AN INSTRUMENT IN WASHINGTON DOMESTIC REELECTION POLITICS. BUT AMBASSADOR TAYLOR HAS A CALL WITH SONDLAND SAYING DURING OUR CALL SONDLAND TRIED TO EXPLAIN TO ME THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP IS A BUSINESSMAN AND ABOUT TO SIGN A CHECK AS SOMEONE WHO OWES HIM SOMETHING THE BUSINESSMAN ASKED THAT PERSON TO PAY UP BEFORE SIGNING THE CHECK AND I ARGUE TO VOLKER AND TAYLOR, DONALD TRUMP ISN’T OUT ANYTHING BY THE UKRAINIANS. AND I, QUOTE, IN HOLDING UP SECURITY ASSISTANCE FOR DOMESTIC POLITICAL GAIN, IS CRAZY. SO THERE IS TREMENDOUS EVIDENCE IN THE RECORD. THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES ATTEMPTED TO LEVERAGE FOREIGN MILITARY ASSISTANCE TO UKRAINE TO DRAG A FOREIGN POWER TO CORRUPT OUR ELECTIONS AND ALLOW HIM TO CHEAT IN 2020 C1 >> ANYONE ELSE SEEK RECOGNITION ON THE AMENDMENT? >> MR. ARMSTRONG >> ARMSTRONG SEEKING RECOGNITION >> MOVE TO STRIKE THE LAST WORD >> GENTLEMEN IS RECOGNIZED >> I’M GOING GOING TO THE LAST AMENDMENT AND PARTICULARLY THE REMOVAL FROM OFFICE TO HOLD AND ENJOY ANY OFFICE OF HONOR, TRUST, OR PROFIT UNDER THE UNITED STATES. AT NUMEROUS TIMES

DURING TODAY’S DEBATE MY FRIENDS ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE AISLE HELD UP A POCKET CONSTITUTION AND WAVED IT AROUND. I THINK IT’S INTERESTING THAT NOBODY READ FROM THAT, AND I WILL READ FROM IT ARTICLE 1 SECTION 2 CLAUSE 5. THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES SHALL CHOOSE THEIR SPEAKER AND OTHER OFFICERS AND SHALL HAVE THE SOLE POWER OF IMPEACHMENT. ARTICLE 1, SECTION 2 DEALS WITH THE U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES. ARTICLE 1 SECTION 3 DEALS WITH THE SENATE THE SENATE SHALL HAVE THE SOLE POWER TO TRIAL IMPEACHMENTS ARTICLE 1 SECTION 3 CLAUSE 6, IMPEACHMENT WILL NOT EXTEND FURTHER FROM REMOVAL FROM OFFICE AND DISQUALIFICATION TO ENJOY AND OFFICE OF HONOR, TRUST OR PROFIT IN THE UNITED STATES ARTICLE 1, SECTION 3, CLAUSE 7 THE LANGUAGE IN THIS BILL IS OVERBROAD, GIVES THE U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES AND THIS IMPEACHMENT ARTICLE MORE POWER THAN THE INSTITUTION ALLOWS. WE HAVE HEARD THROUGH THE COURSE OF THIS INVESTIGATION WHEN WE HAVE COMPLAIN BODY PROCESS, WHEN WE HAVE TALKED ABOUT SECRECY, NOT BEEN ABLE TO USE MINORITY RIGHT THIS IS IS AKIN TO A SPECIAL COUNSEL. ADAM SCHIFF HAS REFERRED TO HIMSELF AS SPECIAL COUNSEL. WE ARE BECOMING THE JUDGE, JURY, AND EXECUTIONER. OFFICIALLY, WHAT HAPPENS IN THE SENATE IS THERE IS A 2/3 VOTE IF AN IMPEACHMENT IS GRANTED. THEN A SIMPLE MAJORITY IN WHICH TO SAY WHETHER THEY WILL HOLD ANOTHER OFFICE WHILE THE HOUSE HAS THE SOLE POWER OF IMPEACH, THE SENATE PROVIDES, THE INSTITUTIONS PROVIDES THAT THEY WILL HAVE A — >> I DON’T WANT TO GET INTO — >> THE CONSTITUTION DESCRIBES THE SENATE’S’S POWER, AND THE DEMOCRAT ARTICLE WAS IMPEACHMENT STATE THE PRESIDENT SHOULD BE REMOVED FROM OFFICE AND DISQUALIFIED TO HOLD FUTURE OFFICE. THE HOUSE HAS NO CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY TO INCLUDE THE LANGUAGE TO SUGGEST THAT THE PRESIDENT SHOULD BE REMOVED FROM OFFICE. AT BEST IT’S UNNECESSARY AND AT WORST IT’S OVERBROAD. TO INCLUDE THE LANGUAGE THAT THE PRESIDENT SHOULD BE DISQUALIFIED FROM OFFICE IS PREJUDICIAL TO THE CONSTITUTIONALLY DESCRIBED PROCESS THAT THE SENATE WILL TAKE UP. I AGREE WITH MY FRIEND FROM OHIO AND OTHERS FROM MY SIDE T SHOWS THE TRUE MOTIVES OF THE SEPTEMBER. IT’S CIRCUMSTANCE HOW THIS HAS GONE. IT STARTED IN 2016 AND NOW IN 2020 WE HAVE COLLUSION, CONSPIRACY, OBSTRUCTION, QUID PRO QUO, BRIBERY, EXTORTION, ALL THESE CRIMES AND WE COME TO THE NEBULAS PART OF THIS. THERE ARE SMART LAWYERS ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE CASE SO I DON’T IMAGINE THIS IS AN OMISSION. WHAT WE ARE TRULY DOING IS TAKING POWER AWAY FROM THE UNITED STATES SENATE AT THEIR SOLE DISCRETION. YOU HAVE THE RIGHT TO PROCEED WITH THIS WE KNOW THIS. WE HAVE SEEN HOW THIS HAS GONE. IT’S BEEN FAST TRACKED AND RAILROADED SINCE DAY ONE. AND YOU CAN EQUATE YOURSELF TO A GRAND JURY, A SPECIAL COUNSEL, AND AN INVESTIGATION BUT YOU HAVE NO RIGHT AS THE U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TO BE JUDGE, JURY, AND EXECUTIONER YOU MAY SAY THIS LANGUAGE IS RIDICULOUS BUT I THINK IT’S CONSTITUTIONAL. WITH THAT, I YIELD BACK >> THE GENTLEMAN YIELDS BACK ANYONE ELSE SEEK TO BE RECOGNIZED? >> LAST WORD? >> GENTLEMAN IS RECOGNIZED >> THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN THERE WAS MUCH SAID THIS EVENING FROM MY DEMOCRATIC COLLEAGUES, OPINING FROM THE PRESIDENT’S MOTIVE RATHER THAN LOOKING AT HIS OPEN WORDS THEY SEEK TO OPINE HIS MOTIVE RATHER THAN LISTENING TO THE DIRECT STATEMENTS FROM PRESIDENT ZELENSKY THAT HE FELT NO CONDITIONALITY AND NO PRESSURE BUT THIS AMENDMENT, THIS AMENDMENT SHOWS THE TRUE MOTIVE OF THE DEMOCRATS BECAUSE IT’S NOT ABOUT SOME CLEANSING OF THE OFFICE. IT’S NOT ABOUT SOME RESTORATION OF NATIONAL SECURITY. IF IT’S ABOUT NATIONAL SECURITY, THEY WOULD HAVE BEEN UP IN ARM WHEN IS PRESIDENT OBAMA WITHHELD MILITARY AID TO THE UKRANIANS BUT THEY WEREN’T IT’S ALL JUST A SHOW TO DEMONSTRATE AN ATTACK ON THE PRESIDENT. FOUR FACTS NEVER CHANGED. PRESIDENT TRUMP AND PRESIDENT ZELENSKY DENY CONDITIONALITY. THE TRANSCRIPTS SHOW NO QUID PRO QUO. UKRAINE WAS NOT AWARE OF ANY DELAY IN MILITARY AID AT THE OF THE CALL, AND IT WAS DELIVERED. NOTHING

HAS CHANGED THOSE FOUR FACTS BUT I DO WONDER IF WE HAD HAD THE OPPORTUNITY TO HEAR WITNESSES WHAT MORE WOULD WE HAVE LEARNED BEYOND THAT? IF WE WOULD HAVE BEEN ABLE TO CALL CHAIRMAN SCHIFF AS WAY WITNESS MAYBE WE WOULD HAVE LEARNED ABOUT HIS CONTACT WITH THE WHISTLEBLOWER MAYBE WE COULD HAVE ASKED CHAIRMAN SCHIFF WHY HE ENGAGED IN A WEIRD THEATRICAL PERFORMANCE ABOUT A TRANSCRIPT THAT NEVER EXISTED. IT WAS JUST A FAKE THING HE DID IN THE INTELLIGENT COMMITTEE. MAYBE WE COULD HAVE ASKED ABOUT HIS RELATIONSHIP WITH THE WHISTLEBLOWER. WE COULD HAVE ASKED CHAIRMAN SCHIFF HIS REASON FOR ADMITTING EXCULPATORY EVIDENCE, WHETHER IT WAS HIS DECISION OR SOMEONE ELSE’S DECISION TO PUBLISH CORRESPONDENCE AND COMMUNICATIONS BETWEEN THE PRESIDENT’S PERSONAL LAWYER, JOURNALISTS, AND EVEN A MEMBER OF CONGRESS. WE COULD HAVE ALSO LEARNED A LOT FROM THE WHISTLEBLOWER. WE COULD HAVE LEARNED ABOUT WHO THE MULTIPLE SOURCES THAT WERE THEY SPOKE TO AND WHETHER OR NOT IT WAS ACCURATE, WHETHER OR NOT IT WAS RELIABLE AND VERIFIABLE. WE COULD HAVE ASKED THE WHISTLEBLOWER WHY THE OUTREACH TO CHAIRMAN SCHIFF’S STAFF, WHETHER OR NOT IT WAS A TRULY A SINCERE CONCERN OR A RESULT OF A POLITICAL BIAS. WE COULD HAVE ASKED THE WHISTLEBLOWER ABOUT THE CONTACT WITH THE PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGN. WE COULD HAVE ASKED NELLY ORR A LOT OF QUESTIONS, TOO. SHE WAS ON THE WITNESS LIST. WE PROBABLY WANTED TO KNOW FROM NELLY ORR HOW IS IT ONE OF THE TOP PEOPLE FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE HAS A SPOUSE TO MOONLIGHT TO TRY AND DIG UP DIRT ON A PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGN AND SEE THE VERY DIRT SHUTTLED INTO THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE AND INJECTED INTO THE BLOODSTREAM OF THEINTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE AND ASKED NELLY ORR WHAT WAS ON THE THUMB SHE GAVE TO HER HUSBAND WE WOULD HAVE HAD A LOT OF QUESTIONS FOR ALEXANDRA CHALUPA SHE WAS THE INTERMETIARY. WE COULD ASKED WHOSE IDEA WAS IT TO ASSIGN TO THE UKRAINE TO REPAIR OUR ELECTIONS? WHOSE IDEA? WHO FUNDED IT? IT WAS A DONOR, AN ELECTED OFFICIAL THAT WAS TRYING TO BRING UKRAINE INTO OUR ELECTION? WE COULD ASKED WHAT WERE YOU TALKING TO? WHAT LET MES WERE ENGAGED IN TRYING TO GET TRUMP DEFEATED? WE HAD OP-EDS ANIMATING THE PRESIDENT, LEGITIMIZING HIS CONCERN THAT WE OUGHT TO VERIFY ZELENSKY THAT HE IS THE REAL DEAL THAT HE TURNED OUT TO BE. I DON’T THINK WHAT WE HAVE LEARNED FROM THESE HEARINGS OTHER THAN THE DEMOCRATS HAVE BEEN UNFAIR IN THEIR PROSE, THAT THEY HAVE BEEN UNABLE TO EVIDENCE ANYTHING OTHER THAN HEARSAY AND CONJECTURE. THAT’S WHY THE HOUSE SAYS BRING FORWARD ALL WITNESSES AND EVIDENCE. IT’S CLEAR TO THE PRESIDENT DID NOT DO SOMETHING TO JUSTIFY THE IMPEACHMENT BUT I THINK WE COULD HAVE DONE A LOT MORE TO FULFILL THE PRESIDENT’S PROMISE TO DRAIN THE SWAMP IF WE HAD CONTINUED >> I MOVE TO STRIKE THE LAST WORD >> GENTLEMAN IS RECOGNIZED >> MR. CHAIRMAN, I START BY YIELDING TIME TO MY COLLEAGUE OF CALIFORNIA >> THANK YOU. THERE IS A DOCTRINE IF YOU CAN’T ARGUE THE FACTS, YOU CAN’T ARGUE A LAW, ARGUE A LOT. IN THE CONSTITUTION IT HAS THE LANGUAGE IN THE ARTICLES, AND I WOULD LIKE TO READ THIS. WHERE TZFOREWILLIAM JEFFERSON CLINTON WAS FOUND TO BE REMOVED FROM OFFICE, THE EXACT SAME LANGUAGE THAT IS BEING COMPLAINED ABOUT THIS EVENING WITH MR. TRUMP WAS PUT INTO THE ARTICLES BY THE REPUBLICANS RELATIVE TO MR CLINTON, AND I YIELD BACK WITH THANKS >> THANK YOU TO MY COLLEAGUE FROM CALIFORNIA. I JUST REMIND YOU, IT WAS BROUGHT UP BY MY COLLEAGUE FROM LOUISIANA THAT

THIS WAS EXTRAORDINARY LANGUAGE TO GO AFTER DONALD TRUMP. THIS JUDICIARY COMMITTEE, WHEN AN IMPEACHED JUDGE FROM LOUISIANA WHICH MY COLLEAGUE IS VERY AWARE OF, WENT OVER TO THE SENATE AND WAS VOTED ON UNANIMOUSLY 96-0 HAD THE SAME EXACT LANGUAGE IN IT. THERE IS NOTHING EXTRAORDINARY ABOUT THE LANGUAGE IN THIS. WHAT IS EXTRAORDINARY IS THE GYMNASTICS AND HURDLES THAT MY COLLEAGUES ON THE OTHER SIDE ARE GOING THROUGH TO MAKE SURE THAT THEY THROW A WHOLE BUNCH OF STUFF AT THE WALL AND HOPE THEY CONFUSE THE AMERICAN PEOPLE, HOPE THAT SOMETHING STICKS. MY FRIEND ON THE OTHER SIDE JUST MENTIONED THIS PRESIDENT WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT THIS NEW UKRANIAN ADMINISTRATION WAS NOT CORRUPT LIKE THE LAST ONE. WELL, HE GAVE THE LAST CORRUPT ADMINISTRATION $550 MILLION. AGAIN, WHAT A JUDGE WILL TELL YOU WHEN YOU ARE ON A JURY IS YOU GET TO APPLY COMMON SENSE. IF IT DOESN’T MAKE SENSE, YOU DON’T HAVE TO BELIEVE IT. IF YOU GAVE $550 MILLION TO AN ADMINISTRATION YOU KNEW WAS CORRUPT, WHAT HAPPENS BETWEEN 2018 AND 2019 BESIDES YOU BEING SCARED TO DEATH OF YOUR NEXT POLITICAL OPPONENT? WHAT THE JUDGE WILL ALSO TELL YOU IS THAT YOU DO NOT HAVE TO TAKE EVERYTHING THAT EVERYBODY SAYS AS FACT. BUT IN THIS CASE, LET’S LOOK AT THE 3 WITNESSES THAT TESTIFIED UNDER OATH, VINDMAN, PURPLE HEART, LIEUTENANT COLONEL. HE SAID IT WAS AN INVESTIGATION INTO BIDEN TRUMP SUPPORTER SAID IT WAS QUID PRO QUO. BILL TAYLOR, WEST POINT SAID THAT IT WAS CRAZY TO WITHHOLD MILITARY AID FOR AN INVESTIGATION ALL UNDER OATH, ALL WITH THE PENALTY OF PERJURY WHO DO THEY OFFER ON THE OTHER SIDE? PRESIDENT TRUMP. 14435 LIES TO DATE SINCE HE HAS BEEN PRESIDENT, NOT UNDER OATH BUT WE SHOULD TAKE HIS WORD FOR IT, SO ABSURD BECAUSE IN A CALL, WE KNOW THE PRESIDENT’S VOCABULARY. HE MAY SAY BIGLY OR GREAT OR HE MIGHT SAY WINNING A LOT BUT IN THE ORDER OF AN ORDINARY CONVERSATION HE DOES NOT SAY QUID PRO QUO. AFTER THE WHISTLEBLOWER IS KNOWN TO EVERYBODY HE GETS A CALL, AND HEY, I DON’T WANT A QUID PRO QUO. WHY DOES THAT COME FROM? IT CAME FROM THE FACT THAT YOU ARE GUILTY OF THE CRIME CHARGED LIKE A KID WITH HIS HAPPENED IN THE COOKIE JAR WITH HIS CRUMBS ON HIS MOUTH AND HE SAID I DIDN’T HAVE A COOKIE. HE SAYS I DON’T WANT A QUID PRO QUO. I WANT THEM TO DO THE RIGHT THING. NO. YOU WOULD NOT HAVE HELD UP THEIR VITAL MILITARY AID. THIS IS A COUNTRY THAT IS BEING OCCUPIED BY HIS FRIEND PUTIN. HE IS HOLDING UP THE VITAL AID FOR THEM TO PROTECT THEIR COUNTRY BECAUSE HE SAID IT’S ABOUT CORRUPTION. BUT WE KNOW FROM THE FACTS IN THE CASE, FROM THE 3 PEOPLE WHO TESTIFIED UNDER OATH THAT ALL THIS WAS ABOUT WAS MAKING SURE THAT HE GETS AN INVESTIGATION INTO JOE BIDEN WHY WAS THAT IMPORTANT? WHEN YOU PANIC, YOU GO BACK TO WHAT WORKED THE FIRST TIME. AN INVESTIGATION WHERE HE GOT TO RUN AROUND THE COUNTRY SAYING LOCK HER UP, AND HE FIGURED HE COULD RUN AROUND THE COUNTRY SAYING LOCK HIM UP AND IT MIGHT WORK AGAIN. WITH THAT, I YIELD BACK >> YIELDED BACK >> MR. CHAIRMAN, YOU DIDN’T GIVE US A LOT OF WITNESSES IN THE COMMITTEE AND ONE FACT WITNESS, AND WE GOT ONE PROFESSOR, PROFESSOR CURLEY WHO EARLY ON IN HIS TALKS MENTIONED HE DIDN’T VOTE FOR THE PRESIDENT, AND NONE OF THE OTHER WITNESSES, EITHER AND ONE THING HE SAID THE EVIDENCE THAT YOU HAVE AGAINST HIM THAT YOU ARE BRINGING THE IMPEACHMENT CHARGES ARE ON WAFER THIN EVIDENCE. AND WHAT IS NOT WAFER THIN IS THE EFFORTS BY THIS

COMMITTEE TO GET RID OF THIS PRESIDENT. THEY HAVE BEEN LOOKING FOR AN EXCUSE TO IMPEACH THE PRESIDENT FOR A LONG TIME, AND NOW THEY HAVE ONE, AND THEY KNOW HE WILL NOT BE REMOVED FROM OFFICE BUT IT’S EMBARRASSING, AND IT’S A MARK, AND UNFORTUNATE BECAUSE THE COUNTRY SHOULDN’T BE PUT THROUGH THIS BUT I THINK ONE OF THE THINGS WE OUGHT TO DO IS LOOK AT THE THINGS THAT THE PRESIDENT HAS ACCOMPLISHED THAT THEY ARE TALKING ABOUT GETTING RID OF THIS IS A PRESIDENT THAT HAS SUCCESSFULLY GROWN THIS ECONOMY IF YOU LOOK AT THE SAVINGS ACCOUNTS AND 401K ACCOUNTS OF SO MANY AMERICANS AND SO MANY RETIREES, THEY ARE UP AS THE STOCK MARKET IS, AND THAT WILL NOT GO ON FOREVER BUT THAT IS SOMETHING POSITIVE THAT MOST PERSONS TO BE PLEASE BODY, AND THERE ARE MORE AMERICANS EMPLOYED THAN EVER BEFORE IN THE NATION’S HISTORY. MANUFACTURING JOBS WHICH WE USED TO BE HURTING IN THE COUNTRY AND WAS IN DECLINE FOR A LONG TIME ARE COMING BACK UNEMPLOYMENT, 50-YEAR LOW. 4 MILLION AMERICANS NO LONGER NEED TO RELY FOOD STAMPS. THAT’S A POSITIVE THING. RETAIL SALES ARE UP. WE ARE FINALLY BECOMING ENERGY INDEPENDENT. THE U.S. IS NOW A NET NATURAL GAS EXPORTER FOR THE FIRST TIME IN 60 YEARS, 60 YEARS. WE ARE NOW AN EXPORTER OF NATURAL GAS. RIGHT TO TRY. I REMEMBER THE PRESIDENT AND I’M SURE MY DEMOCRATIC COLLEAGUES REMEMBER THIS, TOO, THE PRESIDENT WAS ENCOURAGED TO PASS THE RIGHT TO TRY LAW WHICH ALLOWS PEOPLE TO OFTENTIMES HAVE A — THEY DON’T HAVE A LOT OF CHANCE. THEY HAVE A DISEASE CONSIDERED FATAL, AND THEY WOULD LIKE TO TRY SOME DRUG THAT MAY BE COMES OUT SOME YEARS DOWN THE ROAD BUT ARE WILLING TO TRY IT NOW, AND BECAUSE OF THIS, IT’S GIVING SOME PEOPLE HOPE AND HOPEFULLY SAVING LIVES. THAT’S THE PRESIDENT’S IDEA. THE MILITARY IS STRONGER THAN IT’S BEEN IN A LONG, LONG TIME, AND THANK GOD, WE ARE INCREASING PAY FOR MEN AND WOMEN IN UNIFORM, AND THEY DESERVE EVEN MORE THERE ARE TWO GREAT JUDGES, I ARGUE, FROM MY DEMOCRATIC COLLEAGUES WHO WOULD PROBABLY DISAGREE WITH ME HERE BUT TWO GREAT JUDGES ON THE SUPREME COURT NOW. AND ELECTIONS HAVE CONSEQUENCES. THEY WOULD HAVE BEEN VERY, VERY DIFFERENT HAD HILLARY CLINTON BEEN ELECTED LAST TIME. ELECTIONS HAVE CONSEQUENCES. AND THERE ARE MANY CIRCUIT COURT JUDGES THAT THEY ARE FILLING IN THE SENATE, AND THANK GOD FOR THAT. THE PRESIDENT WITHDREW US FROM THAT AWFUL IRAN DEAL WHICH ALLOWED MONEY, BILLIONS TO GO TO TERRORISTS TOO BE USED AGAINST US. AND WE HAVE SEEN — FINALLY, WE ARE STRENGTHENING OUR SOUTHERN BORDERS THOUGH WE HAVE A LONG WAY WAY TO GO. WHEN THE DEMOCRATS TOOK OVER, THE FIRST THING THEY DID, THE ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT WERE INTRODUCED, AND THE VERY SAME DAY, ONE OF THEIR MEMBERS IN A PROFANITY-FILLED SPEECH SAID WE WILL IMPEACH THE [BLEEP] BUT DID NOT SAY BLEEP. IS THAT A REASON TO IMPEACH THE PRESIDENT BECAUSE HE MIGHT GET REELECTED? IT WAS TO THEM. IT GOES BACK TWO YEARS TO THE INAUGURATION. A LOT OF PEOPLE CAME UP TO PROTEST, AND THAT’S FINE. WE SAW A LOT OF WINDOWS BROKEN. WE HAD ONE PERSON SAYING SHE WAS DREAMING ABOUT BLOWING UP THE WHITE HOUSE AND THAT SORT OF THING. IT REALLY DID GET UGLY. THE BOTTOM LINE IS THEY HAVE BEEN LOOKING FOR AN EXCUSE FOR YEARS NOW TO IMPEACH THE PRESIDENT. THEY ARE WAFER THIN. WE SHOULD NOT BE MOVING FORWARD ON SOMETHING LIKE THIS. THE COUNTRY DESERVES A LOT BETTER THAN THEY ARE GETTING IN THE IMPEACHMENT PROCESS. I WILL BE GLAD WHEN WE GET BEYOND THIS IT’S BAD FOR THE COUNTRY AND DIVISIVE. I YIELD BACK >> THE GENTLEMAN YIELDS BACK >> MOVE TO STRIKE THE LAST WORD >> MOVE IS RECOGNIZED >> THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN. I HEAR MY COLLEAGUE FROM RHODE ISLAND SAY THIS ISN’T ABOUT POLICY DIFFERENCES BUT THE OBLIGATION TO PROTECT AND DEFEND OUR CONSTITUTION. IT’S ABOUT COURAGE. OF COURSE IT’S ABOUT POLICY DIFFERENCES. YOU SAID NOTHING ON YOUR SIDE WHEN PRESIDENT OBAMA SENT SURROGATES OUT TO LIE ABOUT BENGHAZI. YOU

SAID NOTHING WHEN PRESIDENT OBAMA’S ADMINISTRATION ENTERED INTO A GUN-RUNNING DEAL WITH MEXICAN CARTELS AND THE FAST AND FURIOUS PROGRAM WAS DEVELOPED YOU SAID NOTHING ABOUT DEMOCRATIC LEADERS. THIS IS ABOUT A POLICY DIFFERENCE. IT’S NOT ABOUT COURAGE. I DON’T QUESTION ANYONE’S COURAGE ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE AISLE. I QUESTION YOUR JUDGMENT. I DON’T QUESTION YOUR COURAGE. I THINK THAT THE AMERICAN PEOPLE ARE GETTING TIRED, AND I SAY THAT BECAUSE I HAVE A FRIEND FROM COLLEGE, JIM. AND JIM SENT ME A TEXT. JUST SO YOU KNOW A LITTLE BIT ABOUT JIM, HIS DAD WAS A PASTOR SOUTH OF THE MASON-DIXON LINE IN THE 60s AND 70s AND A LEADER IN THE CIVIL RIGHTS MOVEMENT. HE DIDN’T VOTE FOR DONALD TRUMP, HE DIDN’T VOTE FOR MITT MITT ROMNEY, AND HE DIDN’T VOTE FOR JOHN McCAIN BUT HE SENDS ME A TEXT AND SAID I WILL BE VOTING FOR DONALD TRUMP THIS TIME AROUND BECAUSE HE BELIEVES YOUR PARTY IS OVER REACHING THIS TIME, OVER REACHING. THE LAST TEXT HE WENT ME WAS INTERESTING HE SAID THE STOCK MARKET IS CLOSED AT A RECORD HIGH. THEY’RE LOSING. BUT I THOUGHT ABOUT THE OVER REACH COMMENT, AND I THOUGHT ABOUT WHAT WAS MY — THE MOST LUDICROUS OF THE WAYS THAT THE GROUP OF DEMOCRATS IN THE HOUSE TRIED TO TAKE OUT THIS PRESIDENT? THERE ARE A LOT TO CHOOSE FROM. MY FAVORITE HAPPENS TO BE THE 25th AMENDMENT. I THOUGHT WHEN YA’LL CAME UP WITH THE 25th AMENDMENT, IT WAS RIGHT AT THE TOP. YOU CALL IN A PROFESSOR FROM YALE AND THAT PROFESSOR FROM YALE COULD HAVE BEEN RIGHT OUT OF A MOVIE ABOUT THE OLD SOVIET UNION. SHE SAID, TESTIFYING IN CONGRESS, WELL, IT TAKES A MAJORITY OF THE CABINET TO INVOKE THE 25th AMENDMENT BUT THIS PRESIDENT MIGHT BE — HE WOULD NEED AN EXAMINATION. WHEN ASKED BY A MEMBER COULD HE BE DETAINED? COULD THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES BE DETAINED FOR PURPOSES OF A EXAMINATION? SHE SAID YES, RIGHT OUT OF THE OLD SOVIET UNION. THAT WAS MY FAVORITE, AND THE SECOND FAVORITE WAS THE EMOLUMENTS CLAUSE. I SAYS ANYONE THAT IS SUCCESSFUL AND HAS WORLD WIDE BUSINESSES IS GOING TO BE SUBJECT TO AN EMOLUMENTS CLAUSE ARGUMENT. THANKFULLY DID YOU NOT INCLUDE THIS IN THE SET OF ARTICLES. YOU HAVE HAD 4 ON THE HOUSE, AND YOU THINK THAT SOMEHOW WE’RE NOT SHOWING COURAGE WHEN WE STAND HERE AND TELL YOU DON’T HAVE THE FACTS TO CONVICT THIS PRESIDENT ON THESE CHARGES. AND YOU DON’T. THE THING THAT’S GOING TO CHANGE IS WHEN THIS MOVES OVER TO THE SENATE, YOU LOSE THE NARRATIVE BECAUSE THE REPUBLICANS WILL CALL HUNTER BIDEN. THEY WILL CALL THE WHISTLEBLOWER, AND YOU BETTER WAIT AND SEE WHAT THE AMERICAN BELIEVE DOES WHEN ALL THE FACTS ARE OUT. YOU DON’T GET TO HIDE THE FACTS IN THE BASEMENT ANY ALL THE FACTS WILL BE COMING OUT. I ASKED A FEW OF MY FRIENDS IF THEY HAD ANY FAVORITES, AND I WILL YIELD TO MY FRIEND TO ASK IF THEY HAD MORE OUTRAGEOUS SCENARIOS >> THANK YOU ANSWER YIELDING AND THE 25th AMENDMENT WAS RIGHT AT THE TOP OF THE HEAP THERE. BUT VIRTUALLY EVERY TIME THAT THE PRESIDENT TWEETS SOMETHING, I HEAR CRITICISM HE SHOULD BE IMPEACHED FOR TWEETING. IN FACT, THE HARVARD LAW PROFESSOR THAT WAS IN HERE LAST WEEK WROTE A PIECE HE SHOULD BE IMPEACHED FOR TWEETING IN 2017. THAT WAS FUN THE OTHER WAS BROIBRY. THAT WAS FUN THE PROFESSOR TOOK HER 5 MINUTES TO TRY AND EXPLAIN WHAT BRIBERY WAS. WE DIDN’T HEAR ANYTHING MORE ABOUT WHAT BRIBERY WAS >> YIELD THAT. GENTLEMAN YIELDED BACK >> CHAIRMAN? CHAIRMAN? >> THE GENTLEMAN SEEK RECOGNITION? >> STRIKE THE LAST WORD

>> SO RECOGNIZED >> MY COLLEAGUE SUGGESTS THAT WE HAVE POLICY DISAGREEMENTS WITH THE PRESIDENT. WE DO HAVE POLICY DISAGREEMENTS WE HAVE A DISAGREEMENT THAT YOU PASSED YOUR SIGNATURE LEGISLATIVE PACKAGE A GOP TAX SCAM WHERE 83% OF THE BENEFITS WENT TO THE WEALTHIEST ONE%. YOU EXPLODED THE DEFICIT AND THE DEBT. WE DISAGREE WITH THAT. WE DISAGREE WITH THE POLICY OF SEPARATING GOD’S CHILDREN FROM THEIR PARENTS AND CAGING THOSE CONCERN. THAT WAS UNACCEPTABLE, UNCONSCIONABLE AND UNAMERICAN WE DISAGREE WITH THAT. WE DISAGREE WITH YOUR EFFORT, ONGOING TO STRIP AWAY HEALTHCARE PROTECTION FROM MORE THAN 100 MILLION AMERICANS WITH PRE-EXISTING CONDITIONS. WE DISAGREE WITH THAT AS WELL. BUT WE ARE NOT HERE AT THIS MOMENT UNDERTAKING THIS SOLEMN RESPONSIBILITY BECAUSE WE DISAGREE WITH HIS POLICY POSITIONS. WE’LL DEAL WITH THAT NEXT ON NOVEMBER. WE’RE HERE BECAUSE THE PRESIDENT PRESSURED A FOREIGN GOVERNMENT TO TARGET AN AMERICAN CITIZEN FOR POLITICAL GAIN THEREBY SOLICITING FOREIGN INTERFERENCE IN THE 2020 ELECTION BY WITHHOLDING $391 MILLION IN MILITARY AID WITHOUT JUSTIFICATION. THE PRESIDENT SAID THAT WAS PERFECT. HERE’S WHAT OTHERS HAVE HAD TO SAY ABOUT THAT. AMBASSADOR SONDLAND WHO GAVE THE PRESIDENT $1 MILLION FOR THE INAUGURATION SAID IT WAS A QUID PRO QUO LIEUTENANT COLONEL VINDMAN, IRAQ WAR VETERAN SAID IT WAS IMPROPER. DR. FIONA HILL, TRUMP APPOINTEE, POLITICAL ERRAND. AMBASSADOR HALER, WEST POINT GRADUATE, APPOINTED BY REAGAN, BUSH, AND TRUMP, VIETNAM WAR HERO. HE SAID IT WAS CRAZY. JOHN BOLTON, A SUPER CONSERVATIVE TRUMP NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISOR SAID IT WAS A DRUG DEAL. WHAT WAS THE FRAMERS OF THE CONSTITUTION HAVE SAID? IMPEACHABLE. I YIELD TO MY COLLEAGUE FROM CALIFORNIA >> I THANK THE GENTLEMEN. IN MY COLLEAGUE’S EFFORTS TO DEFEND THIS PRESIDENT, YOU WANT HIM TO BE SOMEONE HE IS NOT. YOU WANT HIM TO BE SOMEONE HE IS TELLING YOU HE IS NOT. YOU ARE TRYING TO DEFEND THE CALL, AND HE IS SAYING, GUYS, IT WAS A PERFECT CALL. HE’S NOT WHO YOU WANT HIM TO BE. LET ME SELL YOU HOW SELFISH HIS ACTS WERE. YOU CAN DENY THIS AS MUCH AS YOU WANT PEOPLE DIED IN UKRAINE AT THE HANDS OF RUSSIA. AND UKRAINE SINCE SEPTEMBER 2018 WHEN IT WAS VOTED ON BY CONGRESS WAS COUNTING ON OUR SUPPORT. ONE YEAR PAST AND PEOPLE DIED. YOU MAY NOT WANT TO THINK ABOUT THAT. IT MAY BE HARD TO THINK ABOUT THAT. BUT THEY DIED WHEN THIS SELFISH, SELFISH PRESIDENT WITHHELD THE AID FOR HIS OWN PERSONAL GAIN. I GET IT. OH, OBAMA, YOU KNOW, HE ONLY GAVE THEM XYZ. WE PROVE THAT PRESIDENT OBAMA GAVE THEM NOT ONLY MILITARY IS CAPABILITY, MILITARY TRAINING, AND MEDICAL EQUIPMENT. SO DON’T TELL YOURSELF UKRANIANS DIDN’T DIE THEY DIED. AMBASSADOR TAYLOR HE SAID THESE ARE WEAPONS AND ASSISTANCE TO ALLOW THEM TO DETER FURTHER INCURSION BY RUSSIANS. IF THAT FURTHER INCURSION AND AGGRESSION WERE TO HAVE TAKEN PLACE, MORE WOULD HAVE DIED. BUT YOU DIDN’T ONLY HURT UKRAINE, MR. PRESIDENT BY DOING THIS, YOU HELPED RUSSIA, AND TO MY COLLEAGUES WHO BELIEVE WE HAVE AN ANTI-CORRUPTION PRESIDENT IN THE WHITE HOUSE, I ASK YOU THIS. HOW MANY TIMES DID THIS ANTI-CORRUPTION PRESIDENT MEET WITH THE MOST CORRUPT LEADER IN THE WORLD, VLADIMIR PUTIN? HOW MANY TIMES DID HE TALK TO HIM? 16 TIMES BETWEEN MEETING AND PHONE CONVERSATIONS AND HOW MANY CONDITIONS DID THE PRESIDENT PUT ON VLADIMIR PUTIN TO GET AN AUDIENCE WITH THE MOST POWERFUL BETTER THAN IN THE WORLD WITH THE HIGHEST OFFICE? ZERO CONDITIONS. THAT’S WHO YOU ARE DEFENDING. KEEP DEFENDING HIM. WE WILL DEFEND THE

INSTITUTION AND NATIONAL SECURITY. I YIELD BACK >> THE GENTLEMAN YIELDS BACK >> MR. CHAIRMAN I MOVE TO STRIKE THE LAST WORD >> SO RECOGNIZED >> I WANT TO THANK MY COLLEAGUE MR. JEFFERIES FOR LAYING BARE WHAT WE ALL HAVE KNOWN. THEY HAVE POLICY DIFFERENCES, AND AS HE SAID, THEY WILL DEAL WITH IT NEXT NOVEMBER. THEY ARE NOT REALLY INTERESTED IN REMOVING THIS PRESIDENT FROM OFFICE. THEY DON’T THINK THE SENATE WILL REMOVE HIM FROM OFFICE. THEY GET IT. THIS IS A POLITICAL EXERCISE TO HELP THEM IN NEXT NOVEMBER’S ELECTION. THAT’S WHAT IT’S ALL ABOUT FOR THEM, AND IT’S INFURIATING TO ME THAT THEY PUT ON THIS SHOW AND WAVE WEATHER CONSTITUTION WHICH THEY MUST HAVE JUST FOUND BECAUSE, YOU KNOW, I’VE BEEN AT THIS A LONG TIME, AND I DON’T SEE FOLKS ON THEIR SIDE OF THE AISLE WAVING THE CONSTITUTION MUCH LESS READING FROM IT VERY OFTEN. BUT IT’S GOOD TO SEE WHAT THEIR REAL MOTIVES ARE, TO USE THIS FOR A POLITE POLITICAL MANEUVER FOR THE ELECTION. I YIELD TO THE MEMBER >> I AM NOT SURE IF THE HEARING IS BAD ON THAT END. UNDOUBTEDLY IT IS. I DID NOT SAY NO ONE DIED. UNDOUBTEDLY YOU CAN HAVE TROUBLE READING AN ARTICLE SAYING THAT NO ONE DIED. NO ONE SAID THAT YOU ARE JUST SITTING THERE TELLING UNTRUTH BECAUSE YOU DON’T GET IT BECAUSE YOU HAVE A PERSONAL AGENDA AND MAYBE ARE AUDITIONING TO BE AN IMPEACHMENT MANAGER. THAT’S GREAT. BUT YOU CAN’T GET INTO THIS ONE. AS SOMEONE WHO WATCHED PEOPLE DIE ON THE BATTLE FIELD, I KNOW WHEN PEOPLE DIE. I KNOW WHEN THEY COME INTO THE HOSPITAL AND THEY WERE SHOT UP AND WHIT AN IED. TO COME IN AND TAKE A SHOT AND SAY, MR. COLLINS DOESN’T THINK PEOPLE DIED, THAT’S A LOAD OF HOGWASH. AND IT’S SO WRONG TO GET A CHEAP SHOT WHEN YOU CAN’T EVEN READ YOUR OWN ARTICLE THAT YOU PUT IN SUBMISSION. MAYBE WE CAN GO BY IT WORD BY WORD ALTHOUGH THERE IS NO WAY TO LINK THE DEATHS DIRECTLY TO LACK OF AID. UNDER SECRETARY HALE SAID THIS WAS PROSPECTIVE, NOT AT THE TIME. I AM NOT SURE WHAT PARTY — I COULD MAYBE DRAW A PICTURE AND PUT IT ON A CHART FOR YOU THAT’S THE MOST RIDICULOUS COMMENT, AND THERE’S BEEN A LOT OF THEM HERE. THAT IS THE MOST AMAZING, AMAZING LACK OF HONESTY AND INTEGRITY I’VE SEEN SO FAR LOOKING AT YOUR OWN ARTICLE. TO SAY THAT I NEVER SAID NO ONE DIED. WE KNOW PEOPLE DIED. LET ME EXPLAIN IT TO YOU. WAR, PEOPLE DIE. IS THAT DIFFICULT TO UNDERSTAND? MAYBE THAT’S WHY YOU ARE BACK HERE WITH US TONIGHT? IT’S NOT HARD TO UNDERSTAND. AND TO SAY THAT TO — AGAIN, TWO THINGS, THE MOST AMAZING THING TODAY, TEARING DOWN THE UKRANIAN — MR. ZELENSKY AND BESMIRCHING THE FOLKS WHO DIED, THAT’S AMAZING TO ME, AND EVEN FOR THIS MAJORITY. TO SIT THERE AND KEEP REPEATING THE LIE AFTER LIE AFTER LIE. THEY DIED. MR. HALE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE SAID IT WAS PROSPECTIVE MONEY, NOT CURRENT MONEY. PEOPLE DIED WHEN THE MONEY WAS RELEASED EARLIER ARE WE GOING TO CLAIM THAT WAS BECAUSE WE DIDN’T GIVE THEM ENOUGH MONEY? I DON’T KNOW. I GET. IT YA’LL GOT AN AGENDA TO PUSH. THE CLOCK IS TICKING. BUT TO SIT AND COME BACK WITH THAT ONE AND ACCUSE ME THAT I SAID NOBODY DIED? I NEVER SAID NOBODY DIED. UNDOUBTEDLY, YOU DON’T UNDERSTAND THAT BECAUSE YOUR OWN ARTICLE THAT YOU WANTED TO GET IN SO QUICKLY SAID THERE IS NO WAY TO ACTUALLY TELL — THIS WAS AN ARTICLE THAT WAS SLANTED AGAINST THE POSITION THAT THE PRESIDENT HAD. SO IF YOU WANT TO CHANGE THIS DEBATE, GO RIGHT AHEAD. FOR THE MEN AND WOMEN WHO SERVED IN THE MILITARY AND WATCHED AND BEEN OVERSEAS AND WATCHED THIS AROUND THE WORLD, FIGHTING IN UKRAINE AND OTHERS RIGHT NOW, FOR YOU TO SAY THAT, THAT’S JUST WRONG. AND I’M NOT YIELDING TO ANYONE. MAKE LIKE I SAID, MAYBE IT’S A READING COMPREHENSION PROBLEM. MAYBE WE JUST DON’T HAVE IT. MAYBE IT’S JUST BECAUSE WE DON’T HAVE THE FACTS TO MAKE THE ARGUMENT. I’LL GO BACK TO THE FACTS THAT YOU COULDN’T HAVE MADE THE CASE OTHERWISE, YOU WOULD HAVE ROASTED HIM IN THE ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT. YOU CAN’T DO IT. SO WHAT DO WE DO? TODAY WE TAKE THE TACT OF TEARING DOWN MR ZELENSKY, JUST TEARING HIM DOWN AND CONTINUING THE UNFORTUNATE

MISREPRESENTATIVE OF MONEY AND DEATH OF SOLDIERS FIGHTING FOR THEIR COUNTRY. THAT IS THE DARK THING THAT WE SEE TODAY. I YIELD BACK >> MR. CHAIRMAN? >> THE TIME HAS NOW EXPIRED. AND NOW WHAT PURPOSE DO YOU SEEK? >> STRIKE THE LAST WORD, MR CHAIRMAN >> THE GENTLE LADY IS RECOGNIZED >> I WILL TAKE A DIFFERENT PERSPECTIVE FROM MY GOOD FRIEND DOUG COLLINS. THE CONSTITUTION IS A GUIDE WHICH I WILL NEVER ABANDON. THE AMERICAN PEOPLE WHO WATCH THIS DEBATE, WHO, MEN AND WOMEN WEARING UNIFORM AROUND THE NATION, I HOPE THAT YOU’LL UNDERSTAND THAT WE WILL NEVER ABANDON THE CONSTITUTION. THAT IS WHY WE ARE HERE TODAY, TO DISCUSS THE ARTICLE WAS IMPEACHMENT. WHEN I BEGAN MY WORDS YESTERDAY, I SAID WE THE PEOPLE OF THE UNITED STATES AS EVIDENCED BY JAMES MADISON TO PROMOTE THE GENERAL WELFARE AND ESTABLISH THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA LET ME SPEAK BRIEFLY TO SAY THAT THE LANGUAGE THAT THE GENTLEMAN IS TRYING TO STRIKE IS ALREADY ESTABLISHED, AND IT WAS IN THE ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT IN 1998 LET ME ALSO SAY THAT MY GOOD FRIENDS ARE SPEAKING TO AN AUDIENCE OF 1, THE PERSON WHO NOW IS ABSORBING THE ACCOLADES AND ALL THE GREAT WORK HE HAS DONE. AND I HAVE NO QUARREL OF THE REPRESENTATION OF THEIR PRESIDENT. I DON’T WANT SERVE A MAN OR A PRESIDENT. BENJAMIN FRANKLIN ANSWERED THE QUESTION WHEN THEY SHOUTED OUT, MR FRANKLIN, WHAT DO WE HAVE A MONARCHY OR A REPUBLIC? HE SAID A REPUBLIC IF WE CAN KEEP IT TODAY, THE MAJORITY OF DEMOCRATS ARE ATTEMPTING TO KEEP THIS REPUBLIC AND MAINTAIN THAT THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES CANNOT ABUSE HIS POWER AND CANNOT USURP CONGRESS. THE CHAIRMAN MADE IT VERY CLEAR. HE MADE IT VERY CLEAR BY STATING THAT THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES AT THAT TIME IN THE NIXON PROCEEDINGS COULD NOT DESIGN FOR HIMSELF HOW THE IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY WOULD WORK. AND THEN, TO TALK ABOUT THE PRESIDENT’S USE OF HIS PUBLIC OFFICE TO USE FOREIGN FUNDS TO GET A FOREIGN ENTITY TO HELP WITH HIS CAMPAIGN. I DISAGREE WITH THE PRESIDENT FOR CUTTING SNAP FOR POOR PEOPLE OR SEPARATING CHILDREN. A NEWLY ELECTED PRESIDENT, THE PRESIDENT WHO HAD RUN ON THE GET CORRUPTION OUT CAMPAIGN LITERALLY, HE CAMPAIGNED. HIS PARTY WAS AN ANTICORRUPTION PARTY AND COMES HAT IN HAND BECAUSE HE MISSED THE INAUGURATION. HE DID NOT GO HE SENT SONDLAND, AND HE SENT PERRY. MR. PENCE DID NOT GO. HE WANTED TO SAY ANYTHING THAT HE COULD TO MAKE SURE HE WOULD GET THESE DOLLARS AND CALLING FOR AN INVESTIGATION ON AN OPPONENT, IT WAS NOT BENEATH HIM. HOW DO YOU THINK THAT HE WOULD ADMIT NOW PUBLICALLY THAT HE IS WILLING TO DO IT? LET ME SHOW YOU THE ATMOSPHERE IN WHICH UKRAINE LIVED. PUTIN RELATIONS RECLAIMS CRIMEA RIGHT ON THE BORDER, ARROGANTLY WITHOUT, IN ANY DEFENSE BY UKRAINE. THEY LOST CRIMEA WAS TAKEN. JUST LIKE WE WOULD HAVE LOST MISSISSIPPI OR TEXAS OR NEW YORK OR CALIFORNIA AND THEN THEY LIVED IN THE ATMOSPHERE OF A JETLINER EXPLODES OVER UKRAINE, SHOT DOWN BY RUSSIAN WEAPONS, BY SEPARATISTS SUPPORTED BY UKRAINE. OR BY RUSSIA. AND THEN UKRAINE, IN UKRAINE, THE U.S TRAINED AN ARMY IN THE WEST TO FIGHT THE EAST, IMPACTING OUR NATIONAL SECURITY. SO LET ME SAY TO MY COLLEAGUES, I READ THE INSTITUTION REGULARLY. MY PREDECESSOR ALWAYS SAID, KEEP A CONSTITUTION IN YOUR HAND BARBARA JORDAN SAID WE THE PEOPLE BUT I’M CLEAR THAT THE IMBALANCE OF POWER BETWEEN UKRAINE AND THE UNITED STATES AND 2 HEADS OF STATE WOULD HAVE CAUSED THAT PRESIDENT TO DO ALMOST ANYTHING. AND AS AMBASSADOR SONDLAND SAID, HE

WILL DO ANYTHING YOU DESIRE HIM TO DO, AND HE WILL CALL FOR INVESTIGATION. AND SO HE WAS WILLING TO GO ON CNN AND ANNOUNCE THOSE INVESTIGATIONS THE PRESIDENT HAS ABUSED HIS POWER. THE PRESIDENT HAS TRIED TO OBSTRUCT CONGRESS IN TRYING TO CREATE HIS OWN WAY OF US DOING OUR IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY. I BELIEVE WE ARE DOING THE RIGHT THING. I SUPPORT THE ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT. I YIELD BACK >> STRIKE THE LAST WORD >> THE GENTLEMEN IS RECOGNIZED >> MR. CHAIRMAN, DARE I STATE THE OBVIOUS? I HAVE NOT HEARD A NEW POINT OR AN ORIGINAL THOUGHT FROM EITHER SIDE IN THE LAST 3 HOURS. THE SAME TALKING POINTS REPORTED OVER AND OVER AGAIN AD NASEUM BY BOTH SIDES. DENYING A FACT DOESN’T MAKE IT FALSE AND REPEATING IT OVER AND OVER DOESN’T MAKE IT TRUE. WE ALL KNOW THAT WITHOUT PUTTING IT ON AND ENDLESS LOOP. I WILL OFFER A MODERATE SUGGESTION IF NO ONE HAS ANYTHING NEW TO ADD THEY RESIST THE TEMPTATION, AND WITH THAT, I YIELD BACK >> THE POINT IS WELL TAKEN. WHO ELSE SEEKS RECOGNITION? FOR WHAT PURPOSE? >> STRIKE THE LAST WORD >> GENTLEWOMAN IS RECOGNIZED >> I THANK THE GENTLELADY FOR YIELDING. I HEARD THE LAST SPEAKER FROM TEXAS TALKING ABOUT THE CAMPAIGN, AND HOW ABOUT THE FBI SPYING ON FOUR AMERICAN CITIZENS WITH THE CAMPAIGN IN 2016? THE PEOPLE RUNNING THE INVESTIGATION WERE THE ONES WHO SAID WE’LL STOP TRUMP AND TRUMP SHOULD LOSE 100 MILLION TO 0 THEY ARE THE ONES WHO SAID WE HAVE AN INSURANCE POLICY AND RAN THE INVESTIGATION WHERE THEY WENT TO THE COURT AND LIED TO THE COURT. WE JUST LEARNED THIS, LIED TO THE COURT 17 TIMES AND DIDN’T TELL THE COURT THAT THE GUY WHO WROTE THE DOSSIER WAS, QUOTE, DESPERATE TO STOP TRUMP AND THE DOSSIER TO FURTHER SPY, DOESN’T TELL THE SOUTHER THAT THE GUY WHO WROTE THE DOSSIER WAS WORKING FOR THE CLINT ONLY CAMPAIGN. DIDN’T DO THAT. DIDN’T TELL THE COURT THAT THE GUY THAT WROTE THE DOSSIER, CHRISTOPHER STEEL, WAS FIRED BECAUSE HE WAS TALKING TO THE PRESS. WE ARE TALKING ABOUT THAT FACT, AND NOW IN 2020, NOW IN 2020 WE DON’T HAVE THE FBI SPYING ON PEOPLE WITH THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN YET WE’VE DON’T HAVE THEM GOING TO DEFY THE COURT AND LYING. WHAT WE HAVE INSTEAD, AN INSURANCE POLICY INSTEAD NOW IS IMPEACHMENT. THAT’S WHAT THEY ARE DOING. THAT’S HOW THEY WILL MAKE IT TOUGHER ON THE PRESIDENT TO WIN RE-ELECTION. THAT’S WHAT THIS IS ABOUT, AND THAT’S WHY IT’S SO WRONG. LET THE AMERICAN PEOPLE DECIDE. WE ARE 11 MONTHS AWAY, LESS THAN 11 MONTHS AWAY FROM THE NEXT ELECTION. LET THE AMERICAN PEOPLE DECIDE. WE ALREADY HAD THE FBI TRY AND WEIGH IN 2016 AND DO ALL THE THINGS THAT MR. HOROWITZ TOLD US ABOUT THIS WEEK AND NOW IN 2020, THE DEMOCRATS IN CONGRESS ARE TRYING TO CREATE AN INSURANCE POLICY WITH THE IMPEACHMENT EFFORT. LET THE AMERICAN PEOPLE DECIDE. I YIELD BACK TO THE GENTLE LADY FROM ALABAMA >> THANK YOU, GENTLEMEN. I WILL YIELD THE REMAINDER OF MY TIME TO MR. WRECKEN WRECK RECKENTHALER >> THANK YOU. AND I WANT TO DRAW ATTENTION TO SOME OF WHAT THE DEMOCRATIC WITNESSES JUST SAID. I HAVE TO FIND IT. I HEARD IT BE SAID WHEN THE FACTS NOT ON YOUR SIDE OR THE LAW IS NOT ON YOUR SIDE, ARGUE FOR A LONG TIME. THE FACTS AND THE LAW ARE ON OUR SIDE. IT’S VERY CLEAR THAT THE DEMOCRATS CANNOT MAKE OUT A PRIMA FACIE CASE. THE DEMOCRATS HAVE BECOME ORIGINALISTS ALL OF A SUDDEN LET’S GO BACK TO THE STATUE. THE FEDERAL BRIBERY STATUTE CONTAINS WHOEVER BEING A PUBLIC OFFICIAL, COMMANDS AND RECEIVES PERSONALLY ANYTHING OF VALUE IN RETURN FOR BEING INFLUENCED IN THE PERFORMANCE OF AN OFFICIAL ACT SO WE CAN TAKE ANY ONE OF THOSE ELEMENTS AND DECONSTRUCT IT

LET’S START WITH OFFICIAL ACTS WE HAVEN’T HIT THAT. A MEETING OF THE WHITE HOUSE IS NOT, A QUOTE, UNQUOTE, OFFICIAL ACT UNDER THE SUPREME COURT’S McDONALD PRECEDENT. SETTING UP A MEETING, TALKING TO ANOTHER OFFICIAL OR ORGANIZING AN EVENT DOES NOT FIT THE DEFINITION OF AN OFFICIAL ACT. SO RIGHT THERE UNDER THE SUPREME COURT PRECEDENT, YOU DON’T HAVE AN OFFICIAL ACT. YOU CAN ALSO LOOK AT THE ELEMENT, ANYTHING OF VALUE. THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE CRIMINAL DIVISION, PUBLIC INTEGRITY SECTION, OPINED IN ACCEPT THAT SOMETHING AS NEBULAS AS AN INVESTIGATION IS NOT OF SUFFICIENT CONCRETE VALUE TO CONSTITUTE SOMETHING OF VALUE UNDER THE CAMPAIGN FINANCE LAWS IF WE ARE ARGUING THE LAW, I WILL ARGUE IT ALL NIGHT. THE LAW IS NOT ON YOUR SIDE. YOU CANNOT MAKE THE PRIMA FACIE CASE. I WAS A DISTRICT JUDGE IN PENNSYLVANIA. I WOULD HAVE DISMISSED THIS EVERY TIME IF IT CAME BEFORE ME BECAUSE THERE ARE NOT THE ELEMENTS NEEDED TO SUPPORT THE PRIMA FACIE CASE. I ONLY HAVE 30 SECONDS LEFT. IF SOMEONE WOULD YIELD ME MORE TIME, I WOULD APPRECIATE IT. BUT THE PRESIDENT DID NOT HAVE CORRUPT INTENT. AGAIN, THE DEMOCRATS ARE USING A PARODY VERSION OF CHAIRMAN SCHIFF TALKING ABOUT THE WHEN — HE SAID — THE PRESIDENT DOESN’T SAY THAT AND IT’S IMPORTANT THAT IT’S USED TO SUPPORT THE ELEMENT IF ANYONE HAS MORE TIME, I WOULD APPRECIATE IT BEING YIELDED TO ME >> IT’S NOT ALREADY DONE. YOU ARE INCORRECT, SIR >> I AM TOLD YOU HAVE ALREADY SPOKEN >> THAT WOULD BE IN ERROR, SIR >> I’M SORRY? >> NOT ON JORDAN? >> NO. YOU HAVE SPOKEN ON THE AMENDMENT ALREADY >> NO, NOT ON JORDAN >> ON THIS AMENDMENT >> I DON’T THINK SO >> ANYONE ELSE SEEK RECOGNITION? NO ONE ELSE SEEKS RECOGNITION? >> MR. CHAIRMAN? >> MR. BUCK YIELDED IT TO ME >> MR. RATCLIFFE SEEKS — MR RATCLIFFE SEEK RECOGNITION? >> MOVE TO STRIKE THE LAST WORD >> GENTLEMAN IS RECOGNIZED >> MY FRIEND FROM ARIZONA >> THANK YOU SO MUCH. I GUESS IT MEANS WE ARE NOT DOING THE MINORITY HEARING TODAY. I WOULD SAY THAT JAMES MADISON — WE HEARD PEOPLE INTONE JAMES MADISON. HE SAID IN 1787 THAT IMPEACHMENT WAS FOR, QUOTE, REMOVAL OF AN OFFICER WHO HAD RENDERED HIMSELF AS UNJUSTLY CRIMINAL IN THE EYES OF THE MAJORITY OF THE PEOPLE, CLOSED QUOTE. YOU DON’T HAVE THAT. WHAT YOU HAVE HERE IS A SLOP BUCKET YOU ARE CALLING ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT. SO WHAT WE HAVE HEARD OVER THE LAST TWO DAYS IS BASICALLY EVERY GRIEVANCE THAT THE DEMOCRATS HAVE, LADLING IT IN THE SLOP BUCKET AND THROWING IT OUT THERE AND TRIED TO PIGEON HOLE THE REASON INTO OBSTRUCTION OF CONGRESS OR ABUSE OF POWER. THAT — THAT’S THE PROBLEM THAT YOU HAVE HERE, THAT YOU ARE ALL OVER THE MAP BECAUSE YOU CAN’T DELIVER A CRIME. THERE IS NO HIGH CRIME. THERE IS NO MISDEMEANOR. THERE IS NO BRIBERY. REMEMBER THEY TRIED TO EXPLAIN BRIBERY, AND IT TOOK ALMOST A FULL 5 MINUTES. AFTER SHE WAS DONE, WE DIDN’T HEAR ANYBODY TALKING ABOUT BRIBERY ANYMORE AS AN IMPEACHABLE OFFENSE. WE TALK ABOUT QUID PRO QUO. THAT WAS PRETTY MUCH OFF THE TABLE UNTIL TONIGHT IT’S KIND OF REVVED BACK UP AGAIN. BUT YOU DON’T HAVE A SPECIFIC CHARGE AND YOU USED THE TWO AMORPHUS WEAK AREAS. AND YOU HAVE TRIED DEFINITE AVENUES FOR THREE YEARS NOW. I AM REMINDED THAT ONE OF MY COLLEAGUES ON THE OTHER SIDE SAID YOU WANT TRUMP TO BE

SOMETHING HE ISN’T. IN REALITY IS, THAT’S PROJECTION. THE REALITY IS YOU WANT HIM TO BE SOMETHING HE ISN’T. THAT’S WHY YOU ARE TRYING TO IMPEACH HIM AND WHY YOU TRIED ALL KINDS OF THEORIES THAT HAVE ALL FALLEN FLAT. THE BIG ONE WAS THE MUELLER — THE MUELLER IMPEACHMENT. YOU REALLY WANTED THAT ONE. IT DIDN’T WORK SO WELL. IT DIDN’T WORK SO WELL BECAUSE THERE WAS NOTHING THERE I WILL SAY SOMETHING ABOUT PRESIDENT ZELENSKY AND THIS DISCUSSION WITH THE PRESIDENT HE, HIMSELF, PRESIDENT ZELENSKY WITHOUT INSTIGATION IN THIS CONVERSATION AT ALL, ABOUT AMBASSADOR YOVANOVITCH AFTER SHE WAS RECALLED SAID HER ATTITUDE TOWARDS ME WAS FAR FROM THE BEST. SHE ADMIRED THE PREVIOUS PRESIDENT AND SHE WAS ON HIS SIDE. THIS IS THE ANTI-CORRUPTION CRUSADER THAT YOU KEEP TALKING ABOUT THEN YOU TALK ABOUT PRESIDENT PORASCHENKO BEING CORRUPT. I AM NOT SAYING HE WASN’T. BUT PRESIDENT ZELENSKY SAID THAT YOVANOVITCH WAS ON HIS SIDE. SHE WOULD NOT ACCEPT ME AS THE NEW PRESIDENT WELL ENOUGH. THE REASON I BRING THAT UP IS BECAUSE YOU HAVE REPEATEDLY SAID THERE IS NOTHING CONTESTED HERE THE FACTS ARE NOT CONTESTED. I GO BACK TO SOMETHING I THINK IS VERY IMPORTANT. ALL THE INTERFERENCES YOU’VE DRAWN HAVE BEEN DESIGNED TO GO AGAINST THIS PRESIDENT AND PAINT HIM IN THE LIGHT LEAST FAVORABLE, AND THAT’S BECAUSE YOU TRIED TO PROJECT HIM INTO BEING SOMETHING YOU WANT HIM TO BE. BUT WHEN YOU LOOK AT THE FACTS AND DIRECT EVIDENCE, THE DIRECT EVIDENCE IS REAL CLEAR. UKRAINE RECEIVED THE AID, PROVIDED NOTHING IN TURN AND THEY STATED — PRESIDENT ZELENSKY AND THE FOREIGN MINISTER SAID THEY FELT NO PRESSURE. THERE WAS NO PRESSURE THERE. EVEN AMBASSADOR SOUND SONDLAND WHO YOU RELIED ON 600 TIMES IN YOUR EFFORT SAID, HEY, NOBODY TOLD ME. I JUST PRESUMED IT. YOU DON’T HAVE A CASE. YOU NEVER HAD A CASE YOU JUST WANTED TO HAVE A CASE AND THAT’S THE SADNESS ABOUT IT YOU’RE IMPEACHING HIM BECAUSE YOU WANTED TO FOR THREE YEARS YOU CAN’T BEAT HIM IN A REELECTION. YOU ARE NOT GOING TO BEAT HIM IN A RE-ELECTION AND YOU ARE GOING TO IMPEACHMENT THAT IS A TRAGEDY FOR AMERICA. I YIELD >> THE GENTLEMAN YIELDS BACK >> MOVE TO STRIKE THE LAST WORD >> GENTLEMAN IS RECOGNIZED >> THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR. WITH MUCH RESPECT TO MY COLLEAGUE WHO QUOTED JAMES MADISON, THERE WAS A DESCRIPTION OF ABUSIVE POWER AMORPHOUS BY SOMEONE AND NEBULAS USED BY A COLLEAGUE, AND I OFFER YOU THE FOLLOWING QUOTE THAT IS LIBERTY MAY BE ENDANGERED BY THE ABUSE OF LIBERTY BUT ALSO BY THE ABUSE OF POWER. THAT QUOTE IS FROM JAMES MADISON. THE PART OF THE DEBATE THAT IS SO FRUSTRATING FOR ME, AND I THINK A LOT OF AMERICANS WATCHING TONIGHT IS THE DIMINISHMENT OF THE PUBLIC SERVICE PATRIOTS WHO STEPPED FORWARD AND PROVIDED THE EVIDENCE THAT DEMONSTRATES THAT THE PRESIDENT ABUSED HIS POWER PEOPLE LIKE COLONEL VINDMAN WHO SERVED HIS COUNTRY BRAVELY OVERSEES, PEOPLE LIKE AMBASSADOR BILL TAYLOR, A WEST POINT GRADUATE, A VIETNAM VETERAN PEOPLE LIKE DR. FIONA HILL, PEOPLE LIKE LAURA COOPER, OFFICIAL AFTER OFFICIAL AFTER OFFICIAL FROM THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION. THESE INDIVIDUALS SERVED IN THE PRESIDENT’S ADMINISTRATION AMBASSADOR TAYLOR WAS NOT APPOINTED BY PRESIDENT OBAMA. HE WAS APPOINTED BY PRESIDENT TRUMP. SO I WOULD HOPE THAT MY COLLEAGUES, AS WE PROCEED WITH THE SOLEMN DUTY THAT THIS COMMITTEE IS CHARGED WITH, THAT WE RESPECT THE PEOPLE WHO CAME

FORWARD WHO HAVE SERVED UNDER THE REPUBLICAN AND DEMOCRATIC ADMINISTRATION TO TELL THE TRUTH UNDER OATH AND TO HELP THIS COMMITTEE AS IT SEEKS TO HOLD THIS ADMINISTRATION ACCOUNTABLE AND WITH THAT, I YIELD TO MS LAUGHLIN FROM CALIFORNIA >> I THANK YOU, MR.NEGUSE. I WAS >>> WILLING TO LISTEN TO THE DEBATE AND MOST OF US ARE LAWYERS BUT OUR FOUNDING FATHERS, CONSIDERING THE CODE PRECEDENT IN THE McCONNELL CASE AND THE SUPREME COURT CASE AS PRECEDENT IN 1789 IS RIDICULOUS MR. NEG USE IS POINTING OUT WHAT FOUNDING FATHER HIS IN MIND AND THAT HIGH CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS WERE THE ACTIONS THAT THE PRESIDENT USE WITH THE EXTRAORDINARY POWER HE WAS GIVEN UNDER THE INSTITUTION TO SUBVERT THE CONSTITUTIONAL ORDER, PREVENT THE CONSTITUTIONAL SYSTEM FROM WORKING, AND THAT IS THE CONCERN THAT WE HAVE HERE, NOT ONLY THAT THE PRESIDENT HAS DONE THAT BUT THAT HE IS NOT CONTRITE. HE IS NOT CORRECTING HIS BEHAVIOR. HE IS CONTINUING TO DO IT. HE IS PRESENTING AN ONGOING THREAT. HE WILL CONTINUE TO SUBVERT THE CONSTITUTIONAL ORDER. SO I THANK MR. NEGUSE FOR YIELDING TO ME ON THE IDEA THAT THIS COURT DATE WOULD HAVE BEEN PRECEDENT IN 1789. I YIELD BACK >> MR. NEGUSE? >> I YIELD THE BALANCE OF MY TIME >> THANK YOU, AND I WANT TO REMIND MY COLLEAGUES WE HAVE INTRODUCED INTO THE RECORD A LETTER FROM 500 LEGAL SCHOLARS THAT REALLY REINFORCED THE POINT MR. NEGUSE JUST MADE, AND IMPEACHMENT IS CONDUCT THAT CORRUPTS ELECTIONS. IF A PRESIDENT BEHAVES POORLY, HE CAN BE PUNISHED BY HIS PARTY OR AT THE POLLS. BUT THE PRESIDENT LOOKS TO PLACE HIMSELF BEYOND THE REACH OF THE POLITICAL CHECK. GEORGE MASON DECIDES IMPEACHABLE OFFENSES AS ATTEMPTS TO SUBVERT THE CONSTITUTION BY WHICH CONSTITUTION MAKES THE DEMOCRAT ACCOUNTABLE, AND IF THE PRESIDENT CHEATS IN HISSISTS OF REELECTION IS NO REMEDY AT ALL THIS IS WHAT IMPEACHMENT IS FOR I ASK MY REPUBLICAN COLLEAGUES, HOW MANY OF YOU WOULD ALLOW OR SOLICIT A FOREIGN POWER TO HELP WITH AN ELECTION? PLEASE RAISE YOUR HAND? NOT ONE OF YOU. YOU KNOW IT WOULD CORRUPT THE AMERICAN PEOPLE TO DECIDE WHO WOULD REPRESENT THEM IN THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES. I WAS MAYOR OF PROVIDENCE, LIKE IF I GOT A FEDERAL GRANT OF $1 MILLION — >> GENTLEMAN, GENTLEMAN? GENTLEMAN? >> MR. CHAIRMAN? >> THE TIME HAS EXPIRED >> I HAVE MOVE TO STRIKE THE LAST WORD >> NO. YOU HAVE ALREADY SPOKEN THE QUESTION IS NOW ON THE AMENDMENT. THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE. OPPOSED NO? >> NO >> THE NAYS HAVE IT >> ROLL CALL? >> THE CLERK WILL CALL THE ROLL >> MR. NADLER VOTES NO >> MS. LOFGREN VOTES NO >> MS. JACKSON LEE >> MS. JACKSON LEE VOTES NO >> MR. COHEN. MR. COHEN VOTES NO. MR JOHNSON? MR. JOHNSON VOTES NO MR. DEUTCH? DR. DEUTCH VOTES NO MS. RICHMOND? NO. MS RICHMOND VOTES NO. MR. LOU? MR.CORREA VOTES NO. MISS SCANLON VOTES NO. MISCELLANEOUS GARCIA VOTES NO. MR. NEGUSE VOTES NO. MR STAN TONIGHT VOTES NO >>>

PENDING BEFORE THE COMMITTEE IS IN NATURE OF A SUBSTITUTE

STRIKE THE LAST WORD ON THE AMENDMENT IN THE NATURE OF

SUBSIDY >> GENTLEMEN IS A RECOGNIZE

>> CHAIRMAN. THIS IS GOING TO BE THE LAST OF A VERY LONG DAY THAT

WE HAVE HAD. I WOULD LIKE TO COMMEND THE CHAIRMAN FOR

FOLLOWING THE RULES. THIS MARKUP HAS BEEN A LOT BETTER THAN IT

COULD HAVE BEEN. AND I THINK THE CHAIRMAN HAS BEEN VERY EVEN

HANDED. THE CHAIRMAN

AND THOSE ON HIS SIDE OF THE AISLE ARE DEAD WRONG. NOT ALL OF

THE ISSUES THAT WE HAVE BEEN DEBATING. THE PRESIDENT CAN BE IMPEACHED FOR HIGH CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS IT’S OBVIOUS THAT THERE WAS NO PRISONER BRIBERY ALLEGED. IT GOES DOWN TO WHAT HAS BEEN ALLEGED IN THESE TWO ARTICLES WHETHER THEY ARE HIGH CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS. I WOULD SUBMIT THE ANSWER ON BOTH IS EMPHATICALLY NO. WHAT IS ACCUSED OF BEING AN ABUSE OF POWER? IN MY OPINION A POLICY DISAGREEMENT ON HOW THE PRESIDENT SHOULD’VE APPROACHED THE ISSUES OUTLINED THERE. LET ME SAY AS FAR AS FOREIGN AID GOES. AND THE ISSUE OF THE $391 MILLION OF FOREIGN AID TO UKRAINE IS WHAT IS IN THE CENTER. PRACTICALLY EVERY BIT OF FOREIGN AID THAT THE UNITED STATES DISBURSES FOLLOWING AN APPROPRIATION IS CONTINGENT UPON SOMETHING ONE OF THE COMMON THREADS IS WHETHER OR NOT THERE IS ANY TYPE OF CORRUPTION INVOLVED WE HAVE ALL CONCEDED THAT UKRAINE HAS BEEN A PRETTY CORRUPT COUNTRY. AND THAT PRESIDENT VOLODYMYR ZELENSKY WAS ELECTED ON AN ANTICORRUPTION PLATFORM THE PRESENT WOULD BE DERELICT IN HIS DUTY IF HE HAD GIVEN FOREIGN AID WITHOUT CHECKING ON CORRUPTION THAT IS WHAT WAS GOING ON. AS FAR AS OBSTRUCTION OF CONGRESS EARLIER TODAY I TALKED A LITTLE BIT ABOUT THE FACT THAT THIS ARTICLE IS DRAFTED SO LOOSELY AND SO WEAKLY THAT IT TURNS THE UNITED STATES INTO A PARLIAMENTARY FORM OF GOVERNMENT. THE CONSEQUENCE OF THAT. WHENEVER WE HAVE A PRESENT IN THE MAJORITY HOUSE CONTROLLED BY OPPOSITE PARTIES. YOU WILL ATTEMPT TO SEE THE MAJORITY TRY TO IMPEACH THE PRESIDENT. WHAT I WOULD LIKE TO SAY. WE HAVE HEARD AN AWFUL LOT ABOUT THE FACT THAT IF PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP IS NOT IMPEACHED. THAT HE WILL STILL THE 2020 ELECTION. THAT IS ONE OF THE MOST OUTLANDISH PREDICTIONS I HAVE EVER HEARD THE 2020 ELECTION IS GOING TO LOOK AT VERY CLOSELY. BY REPRESENTING THE BOTH OF THE CANDIDATES. THE NEWS MEDIA AND BY A LOT OF CITIZENS. WHETHER THEY ARE INVOLVED WITH THE CAMPAIGN OR NOT. AND THAT’S GOING TO BE HARD TO STEAL THE 2020 ELECTION AFTER ALL OF THIS HAS HAPPENED. WHAT HAPPENING HERE. IS THERE IS ANY ATTEMPT TO STEAL THE 2016 ELECTION THREE YEARS AFTER THE FACT. IF PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP IS IMPEACHED AND REMOVED FROM OFFICE BASED ON THIS FLIMSY RECORD. ALL THE PROBLEMS OF

EXTINGUISHING MINORITY RIGHTS THAT WILL END UP STEALING THE 2016 ELECTION. AND AVOIDING THAT THE VOTES OF THE 63 MILLION PEOPLE WHO VOTED FOR PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP FOR PRESENT UNITED STATES. I THINK THAT WILL BE SOMETHING THAT WILL HAUNT THIS COUNTRY FOR DECADES TO COME. THE TIME TO STAND UP FOR THE CONSTITUTION IS NOW THE TIME TO DETERMINE HOW YOU STAND UP TO THE CONSTITUTION IS BY VOTING NO ON BOTH ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT. AND I YIELD BACK THE BALANCE OF MY TIME >> STRIKE THE LAST WORD BUT THE GENTLEMAN IS A RECOGNIZE >> I JOIN IN COMMENDING THE CHAIRMAN ON HIS RUNNING OF THE COMMITTEE TONIGHT. IT’S BEEN VERY DIFFICULT. IT’S BEEN A VERY LONG DAY. WE ARE ALL TIRED. AT LEAST I AM. THE CHAIRMAN HAS DONE A GREAT JOB. I TOTALLY DISAGREE WITH THE SUMMATION OF WHAT WE HAD BEFORE US. I THINK THEY ARE DEAD WRONG IN THEIR OPINION ON THE ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT. THERE ARE TWO ARTICLES. THIS IS NOT STEALING AN ELECTION. IF PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP IS REMOVED FROM OFFICE. THE ELECTION OF 2016 IS NOT NULLIFIED VICE PRESIDENT MIKE PENCE WILL BE THE PRESIDENT AND THAT IS NO WALK IN THE PARK. THE SAME POLICIES, SOME MAY BE WORSE MAYBE A LITTLE BETTER ETHICS, MORALS, AND CIVILITY AS FOR POLITICS IT WILL BE THE SAME. THERE’S BEEN A LOT OF DISCUSSION. BASICALLY THIS IS AN ISSUE ABOUT ABUSE OF POWER BASED ON TESTIMONY OF FOUR INDEPENDENT WITNESSES PEOPLE WE SHOULD LOOK TOO. WE TALK ABOUT THEM AS PATRIOTS THEY ARE CAREER FOREIGN SERVICE EMPLOYEES WHO’VE DONE A GREAT JOB. IN THE CAME FORWARD OUT OF A SENSE OF DUTY TO TESTIFY. AND WHAT THEY TESTIFIED TO IS WHAT HAPPENED WITH THAT UKRAINE WAS WRONG THAT THERE WAS AN ABUSE OF POWER. THAT’S WHY THEY CAME FORWARD. TO SAY THAT THE WHOLE PROCESS IS CORRUPT IS AN AFFRONT TO THOSE FOUR PATRIOTS THAT CAME FOR. THOSE OF FOUR CAREER FOREIGN SERVICE PEOPLE. THEY DID A SERVICE TO THIS COUNTRY. THE FACTS ARE INDISPUTABLE. WHAT HAPPENED WAS CALLED A FAVOR. AND THEY SAID THEY WERE ALL IN ON IT WAS A REQUIREMENT TO GET THE MILITARY AID YOU HAVE TO ANNOUNCE INVESTIGATION. THERE IS NOTHING OTHER THAN THAT. WE HAVE BEEN HERE THE LAST FEW HOURS THEY USE IT AS A CAMPAIGN AD FOR PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP SNAP PAYMENTS ARE BEING CUT DRASTICALLY AND POOR PEOPLE ARE BEING HURT BOB CORKER SAID THE TWO BIGGEST MISTAKES HE MADE WERE VOTING FOR THE TAX SCAM AND THE BUDGET THAT CAME AFTERWARDS. SOMEBODY ON THE OTHER SIDE TALKED ABOUT HOW WE NEED TO BE UP HERE. THEY HAVE EXPLODED THE DEBT. THEY HAVE NO TRADITIONAL PHILOSOPHY WHATSOEVER THE KURDS HAVE RUINED US IN THE MIDDLE EAST FOREVER. WE GAVE ASSYRIA TO THE RUSSIANS. AND YESTERDAY PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP MET WITH THE RUSSIAN AMBASSADOR. NO REPORT OF WHAT THEY TALKED ABOUT HE SAID YOU SHOULD TRY TO INFLUENCE THE NEXT ELECTIONS THEY SAID WE DID DISCUSS THE ELECTIONS. IT’S HARD TO FIGURE OUT WHO IS LYING? MADE OF THEM HAVE A GOOD TRACK RECORD I HOPE WE CAN PASS THESE ARTICLES AND DO WHAT IS IMPORTANT TO PROTECT OUR DEMOCRACY, SUPPORT OUR OATH ABIDE BY OUR OATH. SUPPORT THE CONSTITUTION AND OUR NATIONAL SECURITY. ALL OF WHICH HAVE BEEN

JEOPARDIZED BY PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP AND HIS DEALINGS WITH UKRAINE. I SAID EARLIER TODAY THAT THE PRESIDENT OF UKRAINE WAS AN ACTOR AND A POLITICIAN A LOT OF ACTORS ARE GREAT. I LOVE ACTORS AND POLITICIANS. I AM A POLITICIAN. THAT IS WHY HE COULD NOT SAY HE WAS UNDER ANY DURESS OR INFLUENCE. HE COULDN’T SAY THAT BECAUSE HE’S IN AN INFERIOR POSITION. HE CAN’T SAY HE BEAT ME UP. BECAUSE HE’S THERE. AND WHEN THE POLICE LEAVE HE WILL DO IT AGAIN HE WAS IN A TERRIBLE POSITION. I LOOK FORWARD TO MEETING HIM. I WILL BE IN UKRAINE IN FEBRUARY I THINK IT’S GOING TO DO A WONDERFUL JOB. FOR SOME PEOPLE WHO SAY THAT UKRAINE WAS THE THIRD WORST COUNTRY IN THE WORLD. IT’S 120th IN THE RANKINGS NOT GOOD BUT NOT THE THIRD WORST. I YIELD BACK THE BALANCE OF MY TIME. GOD BLESS THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. BUT GENTLEMEN YIELD THE BACK. WE ALL SHARE THOSE SENTIMENTS. WHO ELSE SEEKS RECOGNITION? WHAT PURPOSE? >> THANK YOU. MR. CHAIRMAN. I HAVE TO RESPOND TO THE GENTLEMAN FROM TENNESSEE. I WOULD START OFF BY SAYING THAT I REALLY LIKE MR. ON. WE’VE WORKED ON A NUMBER OF BILLS. BUT HE’S FLAT-OUT WRONG ABOUT THE TAXES. THEY REALLY HELP THIS COUNTRY. ONE OF THE MAIN REASONS WE SEE THE ECONOMY TAKE OFF THE PRESIDENT AND A REPUBLICAN CONGRESS PASS THOSE IT’S A BIG DIFFERENCE. RELATIVE TO IMPEACHMENT. BACK IN THE EARLY 1970S. I WAS A COLLEGE STUDENT. THE NATION WAS GOING THROUGH ANOTHER IMPEACHMENT. I VOTED FOR HIM IN 1972. OBVIOUSLY HE GOT IN TROUBLE AND WAS GOING TO BE IMPEACHED. HE RESIGNED BEFORE THE HOUSE TO GET UP LITTLE DID I KNOW THAT AT 25 YEARS LATER THAT THE NATION WOULD BE GOING THROUGH ANOTHER IMPEACHMENT. AND THAT WAS BILL CLINTON. AND THAT I WOULD BE CLOSELY INVOLVED IN THAT. OF THE 41 PEOPLE INVOLVED IN THAT COMMITTEE. FIVE OF US WERE HERE IN THOSE DAYS SOME OF THE FOLKS ON THE OTHER SIDE WILL GET THE OPPORTUNITY AND GOOD LUCK HE SAID WERE NOT GOING TO BE VERY WELCOME OVER THERE. AND WE WEREN’T BILL CLINTON WAS IMPEACHED BY THE HOUSE. IN THE SENATE DID NOT REMOVE HIM FROM OFFICE BILL CLINTON COMMITTED PERJURY I DON’T THINK THE PRESIDENT SHOULD BE ABOVE THE LAW THE MEMBERS FILED ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT THIS IN MY VIEW IS ALL ABOUT POLITICS. ALL ABOUT HURTING THE PRESIDENT AND HIS REPUTATION THEY DISLIKE HIM INTENTIONALLY THEY LOATHE THIS PRESIDENT AND THEY ARE HURTING HIS CHANCES IN THE NEXT ELECTION AND IT MAY DO JUST THE OPPOSITE. ONE OF MY REAL CONCERNS. I MENTION THIS EARLIER TODAY. I’M VERY CONCERNED DEMOCRATS ARE LOWERING THE BAR FOR IMPEACHING THE PRESIDENT IN

THE FUTURE. IT’S BECOMING TOO ROUTINE. WE’VE HAD ONE IMPEACHMENT INTO HUNDRED YEARS. ANDREW JOHNSON. AND IN 50 YEARS RUN A THIRD ONE. I AM CONCERNED FROM NOW ON IN ALL LIKELIHOOD WHEN YOU HAVE THE PRESENT UNITED STATES AND THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES IN THEIR OPPOSITE PARTIES. YOU WILL END UP WITH THE BASE PUSHING VERY HARD TO IMPEACH THAT PRESIDENT. IT IS A VERY DIVISIVE FOR THE NATION. SO MANY OTHER THINGS DON’T GET DONE. OPIOIDS ARE OVER 70,000. WE’VE DONE VERY LITTLE ABOUT OPIOIDS DOING SOMETHING ABOUT THE SOUTHERN BORDER. FAR TOO MANY PEOPLE COME IN. OVERALL IN CONGRESS THE INFRASTRUCTURE IS CRUMBLING. WE DO VERY LITTLE ABOUT THAT I THINK THE AMERICAN PEOPLE DESERVE A LOT BETTER THAN WHAT THEY ARE GETTING FROM THIS COMMITTEE AND THIS CONGRESS I WANT TO THANK THE FOLKS OUT THERE, GOD BLESS AMERICA PICS BUT GENTLEMEN YOUR TIME IS EXPIRED >> I MOVED TO STRIKE THE LAST WORD >> GENTLEMEN IS A WRECK NICE BUT MR. CHAIRMAN. I WANT TO START BY AGREEING THAT IT IS THE RIGHT TIME TO DEFEND THE CONSTITUTION. THAT’S THE VERY REASON WE ARE HERE. THERE ARE TWO ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT ABUSE OF POWER. THE PRESIDENT ABUSED HIS POWER BY CHEATING THE AMERICAN VOTERS HOW DID HE DO IT? HE LEVERAGED LIFE SAVING , TAXPAYER-FUNDED MILITARY AID THAT UKRAINE DESPERATELY NEEDED HE LEVERAGED A WHITE HOUSE MEETING THAT HE PROMISED TO THE PRESIDENT OF UKRAINE. THAT PRESIDENT VOLODYMYR ZELENSKY DESPERATELY NEEDED TO SHOW VLADIMIR PUTIN THAT THE UNITED STATES IS WILLING TO STAND WITH UKRAINE HE LEVERAGED THAT MEETING FOR ASSISTANCE IN HIS REELECTION CAMPAIGN. THAT IS ABUSE OF POWER MY COLLEAGUES SUGGESTED THAT ABUSE OF POWER IS NOT A SERIOUS OFFENSE NOT TREATED LIKE THE CONSTITUTIONAL VIOLATION THAT IT IS. THE ABUSE OF POWER WAS PRINCIPAL CONCERN TO THE FRAMERS OF THE CONSTITUTION. IT WAS CLEAR WHAT IT MEANT. OBTAINING A PERSONAL BENEFIT WHILE IGNORING THE NATIONAL INTEREST. THAT’S ABUSE OF POWER. IT IS ROOTED IN THE PRESIDENT’S CONSTITUTIONAL DUTY TO FAITHFULLY EXECUTE THE LAW. TO PUT SERVICE OVER SELF, THE COUNTRY OVER PERSONAL INTEREST. I NOTE THAT ALL FOUR OF THE CONSTITUTION SCHOLARS WHO TESTIFIED. HAVE CONFIRMED THAT ABUSE OF POWER IS IN IMPEACHABLE OFFENSE. PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP’S ACTIONS EXEMPLIFY THE FRAMERS FEARS AND THE VERY REASON ABUSE OF POWER IS A HIGH CRIME WORSENED THE NIXON. PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP PRESSURED A FEDERAL GOVERNMENT. THAT IS ABUSE OF POWER. THERE IS A SECOND ARTICLE OBSTRUCTION OF CONGRESS. WE KNOW THAT NO PRESIDENT IN HISTORY HAS DIRECTED THE ENTIRE EXECUTIVE BRANCH TO NOT COOPERATE. HAS TOLD EVERY MEMBER OF THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH TO NOT SPEAK TO ANY OF THE IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY ISSUES THE QUESTION IS WHEN YOU LOOK AT THE ABUSE OF POWER WHICH THE CONSTITUTIONAL VIOLATION. AND YOU LOOK AT THE PRESENCE OBSTRUCTION OF CONGRESS. IT LEADS TO QUESTIONS THAT I WOULD LIKE MY COLLEAGUES TO THINK ABOUT AS WE HEAD TOWARDS IS IMPORTANT BOAT. THINK ABOUT THE PEOPLE THAT THE PRESIDENT HAS BLOCKED FROM SPEAKING. MICK MULVANEY THE ACTING CHIEF OF STAFF ACKNOWLEDGED

THE QUID PRO QUO. THEN THE PRESIDENT WOULD NOT LET HIM SPEAK. THAT’S OBSTRUCTION OF CONGRESS. WHY WON’T HE LET HIM SPEAK? WHAT DOES HE HAVE TO HIDE THINK ABOUT SECRETARY.. LED BY RUDY GIULIANI THAT CONTRIBUTES TO THE ABUSE OF POWER, IT HIGHLIGHTS THE ABUSE OF POWER. IT IS ALSO OBSTRUCTION OF CONGRESS. WHY WON’T THE PRESIDENT ALLOW HIM TO SPEAK? WHAT IS HE AFRAID OF? THINK ABOUT JOHN BOLTON. FIONA HILL SAID THAT BOLTON TOLD HER TO NOTIFY HIM ABOUT THE ROGUE EFFORT. FAIN I’M NOT PART OF ANY DRUG DEAL HE CALLED RUDY GIULIANI TO HANG GRENADE THAT’S GOING TO BLOW EVERYBODY UP. THAT IS THE ABUSE OF POWER. OBSTRUCTION OF CONGRESS IS CLEAR. WHY WON’T THE PRESIDENT LET HIM TESTIFY. AND FINALLY JOHN EISENBERG. IT WAS REPORTED AND NOW HE CANNOT SPEAK. WHAT IS IT THAT THE PRESIDENT IS AFRAID HE WILL SAY ABUSE OF POWER AND OBSTRUCTION OF CONGRESS TOGETHER. THAT IS WHAT THESE ARTICLES ARE ABOUT WE ARE PROTECTING THE AMERICAN PEOPLE IN OUR ELECTIONS. THAT IS WHY WE NEED TO PROCEED WITH ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT. I YIELD BACK >> THE GENTLEMAN YIELD BACK >> I MOVED TO STRIKE THE LAST WORD >> I BEEN A PROSECUTOR, I PROSECUTED TERRORISTS IN THE NAVY. I WAS A DEFENSE ATTORNEY I DEFENDED A NAVY SEAL AGAINST TRUMPED UP CHARGES FROM THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION. AND I HAD THE HONOR OF SERVING IN MY HOMETOWN I’VE BEEN IN ALL SIDES OF THE COURTROOM. AND I WOULD DEFEND THIS CASE EVERY SINGLE DAY. BECAUSE THE FACTS ARE NOT THERE. LET’S GO THROUGH EACH ARTICLE. ABUSE OF POWER OR QUID PRO QUO, BRIBERY CALL IT WHATEVER YOUR FOCUS GROUP WANTS TO CALL. AT THE END OF THE DAY YOU DO NOT HAVE THE FACTS TO MAKE THE CASE. YOU DON’T HAVE THE FAX BECAUSE THE OTHER PARTY IN YOUR LEGEND QUID PRO QUO NEVER FELT PRESSURE. WE HAVE A PRIMARY SOURCE DOCUMENT. THE PRIMARY SOURCE OF INFORMATION. THE TRANSCRIPT OF THE CALL. IT SHOWS THERE IS NO CONNECTION. WE ALSO HAVE THE OTHER PARTY WHO SAID AT NO TIME DID THE UKRAINIANS FEEL ANY PRESSURE TO HAVE AN INVESTIGATION. WE KNOW THAT NO INVESTIGATION OF BIDEN EVER TOOK PLACE. WE ALSO KNOW THAT THE AIDE WAS GIVEN TO UKRAINE THEY NEVER KNEW IT WAS UNDER REVIEW. AID THE CAME IN THE FORM OF A JAVELIN THE MISSILES. NOT WHAT THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION GAVE WHICH WERE WELL WISHES AND BLANKETS THERE IS NO CASE FOR ABUSE OF POWER. OBSTRUCTION OF CONGRESS THIS IS NOT RIGHT. ONLY WILL LENDERS HAVE BEEN SENT. THERE IS NO SUBPOENA. HOW THIS WORKS IS A SUBPOENA IS ISSUED. THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH EXERCISES THEIR EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE. JUST LIKE OBAMA DID. AND IN THE COURT DECIDES. THE COURTS HAVE NEVER DECIDE THIS. WHERE IS OBSTRUCTION? IT DOESN’T EXIST I WOULD DEFEND THIS EVERY SINGLE DAY. AS A JUDGE I WOULD DO MISS IT DISMISSIVE FOR LACK OF MERIT. YOU CANNOT MAKE OUT WHAT WE CALL A PRIME CASE. IT WOULD BE DISMISSED ON DAY ONE IN A COURTROOM. I WILL TELL YOU WHICH CASE I WOULD PROSECUTE. I WOULD PROSECUTE SHIFT FOR ABUSE OF POWER. HOW ABOUT THE FACT THAT YOU SUBPOENAED PHONE RECORDS FROM A MEMBER OF CONGRESS. THAT HE SINGLED OUT NUNEZ PHONE NUMBER AND LEAK THAT. THAT HE DUMPED 8000 PAGES ON THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 48 HOURS BEFORE WE HAD A HEARING. THAT IS ABUSE OF POWER. AND THAT IS WHAT I WOULD PROSECUTE EVERY DAY OF THE WEEK. OBSTRUCTION. I WOULD PROSECUTE THE DEMOCRATS FOR OBSTRUCTION OF CONGRESS. I HAD A MOTION TO SUBPOENA THE WHISTLEBLOWER YOU CANNOT POINT TO ANY STATUTE THERE IS NO STATUTE GIVING 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 WAS DENIED. I NEVER GOT MY SUBPOENA. IT WAS DONE IN PARTISAN FASHION. THAT IS THE OBSTRUCTION THAT I WOULD PROSECUTE EVERY SINGLE DAY. THAT IS A LEGAL ANALYSIS. THIS IS NOTHING MORE THAN A POLITICAL HIT JOB. THANKS. I YIELD THE REMAINDER MY TIME. GENTLEMAN YIELD THE BACK >> I MOVED TO STRIKE THE LAST WORD >> THE LADY IS WRECK NICE >> I WANT TO REITERATE THAT THIS IS NOT ABOUT DISAGREEMENTS WITH THE PRESIDENT POLICIES, PERSONALITIES , OR TWEETS. WE ARE NOT JUDGING THE PRESIDENT HIMSELF. WE ARE JUDGING HIS ACTIONS. I UNDERSTAND THAT HE RAN TO DISRUPT THE GOVERNMENT MY PROBLEM IS THAT HE WENT FURTHER BY ABUSING HIS POWER. HE ENDANGERED OUR ELECTIONS IN OUR NATIONAL SECURITY. HE REMAINS AN ONGOING THREAT TO BOTH. HE IS SHOWN A PATTERN OF INVITING FOREIGN INTERFERENCE AND TRYING TO COVER IT UP. HE IS THREATENING TO DO IT AGAIN WE HAVE HEARD A LOT OF LOOSE TALK ABOUT WHAT EVIDENCE WE HAVE OR DO NOT HAVE. THERE IS PLENTY OF DIRECT EVIDENCE OF THE PRESENCE OF WRONGDOING. HIS JULY 25 CALL WHERE HE SAID TO THE PRESIDENT OF UKRAINE I WANT YOU TO DO US A FAVOR AND THEN REQUESTED INVESTIGATIONS INTO HIS POLITICAL RIVAL IN A DEBUNKED CONSPIRACY THEORY WE HAVE THE TESTIMONY OF HIS EMPLOYEES ABOUT THE MAY 23 MEETING WHERE THE PRESIDENT SAID TALK TO RUDY GIULIANI. WE HAVE TESTIMONY OF THREE FIRST-HAND WITNESSES TO THE JULY 25 CALL. THEY REPORTED THE CALL TO THEIR SUPERIORS AND LEGAL CANCEL. WE HAD THE TESTIMONY OF DAVID HOLMES OVERHEAR THE PRESIDENT ASK IF PRESIDENT VOLODYMYR ZELENSKY WAS GOING TO DO THE INVESTIGATION WE HAVE THE PRESENCE OF MANY PUBLIC STATEMENTS. INCLUDING THE ONE WHERE UKRAINE AND CHINA SHOULD INVESTIGATE THEY SAID THAT WE HAD SOME DIRECT EVIDENCE ON THE MAY 23 MEETING THE SECONDHAND ACCOUNT IS ALSO EXTENSIVELY CORROBORATED. THEY BOTH TESTIFIED THAT TRUMPS HE SAID THAT THERE WAS NO QUID PRO QUO. BUT THAT PRESIDENT VOLODYMYR ZELENSKY HAD TO GO TO THE MICROPHONE AND ANNOUNCE INVESTIGATIONS. THAT IS GIVING WITH ONE HAND AND TAKEN AWAY WITH THE OTHER. HE TESTIFIED THAT HE HAD NO REASON TO DISPUTE TAYLOR’S AND MORRISON’S TESTIMONY. THERE IS A CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE. THERE WAS NO EXPLANATION GIVEN FOR THE PRESIDENT’S DECISION TO WITHHOLD MILITARY AID THAT HAD BIPARTISAN SUPPORT FROM CONGRESS. THAT DID NOT COME UNTIL AFTER THE ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT WERE FILED. THE UNIFORM CONSENSUS OF THE STATE DEPARTMENT, AND WHITE HOUSE WITNESSES IS THAT THE AGE SHOULD’VE BEEN RELEASED. GIVEN THESE FACTS THE ONLY LOGICAL EXPLANATION AS WAS CONCLUDED IS THE AIDE WAS BEING USED TO LEVERAGE PRESSURE ON PRESIDENT VOLODYMYR ZELENSKY. AT THE END OF THE DAY. THE EVIDENCE IS OVERWHELMING AND INDISPUTABLE RUDY GIULIANI PUSHED UKRAINE TO INVESTIGATE HIS POLITICAL RIVAL IN A DEBUNKED CONSPIRACY THEORY HIS EFFORTS HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH U.S. POLICY AND WERE TAKEN ON THE PRESIDENT’S BEHALF AND WITH THE PRESIDENT’S KNOWLEDGE PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP DIRECTED U.S. OFFICIALS AND PRESIDENT VOLODYMYR ZELENSKY TO WORK WITH RUDY GIULIANI. HE ORDERED THE CRITICAL MILITARY AID TO UKRAINE BE WITHHELD. UKRAINE OFFICIALS WERE INFORMED THAT THE AID WOULD NOT BE RELEASED UNLESS PRESIDENT VOLODYMYR ZELENSKY ANNOUNCED A INVESTIGATION. PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP REFUSED TO RELEASE THE AIDE UNTIL PRESSURE WAS EXPOSED TRUMPS HE REFUSED TO ARRANGE A MEETING AND THEY ADVISED UKRAINIAN OFFICIALS THAT IT WOULD BE SCHEDULED AFTER PRESIDENT VOLODYMYR ZELENSKY COMMITTED TO THE INVESTIGATIONS. PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP IGNORED THE ANTICORRUPTION TALKING POINTS AND ASKED PRESIDENT VOLODYMYR ZELENSKY TO INVESTIGATE JOE BIDEN. AND IT STONEWALLED CONGRESS AND THEIR

INVESTIGATION. WHAT MORE CAN YOU ASK FOR? WE HAVE A MISSION FROM THE PRESIDENT, CORROBORATION FROM PEOPLE HE HAS APPOINTED THE ONLY THING YOU CAN DO IS STICK YOUR HEAD IN THE SAND IF YOU’RE NOT WILLING TO SEE WHAT HAPPENED HERE. WITHOUT I YIELD TO MY COLLEAGUE FROM FLORIDA. IS SHE HERE? >> THANK YOU. TWO SECONDS >> THE TIME HAS EXPIRED FOR WEEKS MY DEMOCRATIC COLLEAGUES TALKED ABOUT QUID PRO QUO. AND THEN BRIBERY. THERE WAS NO PRESSURE BOTH PRESIDENT VOLODYMYR ZELENSKY AND PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP SAID THAT THERE WAS NO PRESSURE. NO VICTIM THE AIDE WAS RELEASED AND THERE WAS NO INVESTIGATION THERE WAS NO WHISTLEBLOWER AND THERE WAS NO ADAM SCHIFF. WE ARE LEFT WITH ABUSE OF POWER AND OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE. WHATEVER THE MAJORITY WANTS IT TO BE. IF YOU CANNOT PROVE IT I GUESS YOU WILL USE ALL OF IT. SO WHY NOT EXPAND IT ALL THE WAY BACK TO WHERE IT ALL STARTED SPECIAL COUNSEL ROBERT MUELLER THIS IS NOTHING MORE THAN A LEGISLATIVE A DRIVE-BY. MORE ACCURATELY THE MAJORITY’S ATTEMPT TO RETURN TO THE SCENE OF A NON-CRIME AFTER TWO YEARS, 19 LAWYERS, 40 AGENTS , 500 WARNS, 2200 SUBPOENAS, AND $30 MILLION THERE IS NO WAY THAT THEY CAN LET AGO. HERE IS A REMINDER. THE INVESTIGATION DID NOT ESTABLISH THAT THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN COORDINATED WITH THE RUSSIAN GOVERNMENT IN THEIR ELECTION ACTIVITIES. MUELLER REPORT PAGE 2. THIS HAS BEEN A FOREGONE CONCLUSION SINCE THE DEMOCRATS WON THE MAJORITY. THIS IS NEVER BEEN ABOUT FACTS OR FAIRNESS HERE IS WHERE WE ARE, WHERE WE WERE ALWAYS GOING TO BE. A PARTISAN IMPEACHMENT THAT WILL FAIL IN THE SENATE. WITHOUT I YIELD BACK. BUT THE GENTLEMAN YIELD BACK >> I HAVE LISTENED CAREFULLY TO THIS VERY LONG DEBATE THIS EVENING AND THROUGHOUT THE LAST TWO WEEKS. IT IS IMPORTANT TO LOOK AT THE FOUNDATION OF WHAT IT IS WE ARE DOING HERE. THE FOUNDERS OF NEW THAT THE POWER GIVEN TO THE PRESIDENT NEEDED TO HAVE THE CAPACITY TO BE CURVED IN THE CASE OF ABUSE. THE FRAMERS OF THE CONSTITUTION CONSCIOUSLY ADOPTED A PARTICULAR PHRASE TO HELP DEFINE THE CONSTITUTIONAL GROUNDS FOR REMOVAL THE CONTENT OF THE PHRASE HIGH CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS IS RELATED TO WHAT THE FRAMERS KNEW ABOUT THE ENGLISH PROJECT. A BROAD SWEEP OF CONSTITUTIONAL HISTORY. AND THE VITAL ROLE THAT IMPEACHMENT PLAYED IN THE CONTROL OF ABUSES OF JUDICIAL POWER WHEN YOU’RE COMING TO PRIVATE AFFAIRS IN CRIMINAL LAW. IT’S POSSIBLE IN ADVANCE TO DEFINE WHAT YOU CANNOT DO. YOU CANNOT STEAL MONEY, YOU CANNOT HIT THAT PERSON WHEN YOU’RE TALKING ABOUT THE ABUSE OF PRESIDENTIAL POWER. YOU CANNOT DEFINE WHAT A BAD ACTOR IN THE WHITE HOUSE MIGHT DO THEREFORE YOU HAVE THE TERM HIGH CRIME AND MISDEMEANOR IT’S IMPORTANT TO KNOW IN THE SECOND ARTICLE OF IMPEACHMENT

AGAINST RICHARD NIXON WAS AN ARTICLE OF ABUSE OF POWER INCLUDING THE POWER VESTED SOLELY IN THE PRESIDENT TO AID HIS POLITICAL ALLY, GAIN ADVANTAGES. HE USED HIS POWER IT WAS UNDERTAKEN FOR HIS PERSONAL POLITICAL ADVANTAGE AND NOT A VALID POLITICAL OBJECTIVE. AGAIN THE POWERS WERE INCOMPATIBLE WITH OUR SYSTEM OF CONSTITUTIONAL GOVERNMENT AND WARRANTED REMOVAL FROM OFFICE WE HAD A SITUATION SIMILAR HERE I WANT TO ADDRESS THE ISSUE RAISED BY MY COLLEAGUE IN OHIO I DO AGREE THAT THERE IS A TENDENCY IN THE COUNTRY THESE DAYS TO IMMEDIATELY THINK I DO NOT LIKE THAT. LET’S GO TO IMPEACHMENT. THAT FRANKLY HAS BEEN PREVALENT SINCE THE CLINTON IMPEACHMENT. LYING UNDER OATH IS A CRIME. LYING ABOUT SEX IS A SHAME. NEITHER ONE INVOLVES THE USE OF PRESIDENTIAL POWERS. THE USE OF IMPEACHMENT IN THAT INSTANCE IN THE PROPER WAY WAS NEVER THE ABUSE OF PRESIDENTIAL POWER PUT IN THE MIND THAT THIS IS A TOOL TO BE USED ABOUT DISAGREEMENTS OF POLITICAL POLICY. I VOTED AGAINST THE IRAQ WAR. SOME PEOPLE THOUGHT WE SHOULD HAVE ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT ABOUT THAT. THAT DID NOT UNDERCUT THE CONSTITUTIONAL ORDER. CONGRESS VOTED. IT WAS A MISTAKE. BUT THE PRESIDENT AND 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. IT’S INCONCEIVABLE. THE THINGS I’VE HEARD TODAY ARE STUNNING TO ME THAT YOU COULD REACH A CONCLUSION AS A DEFENSE COUNSEL GRASPING AT STRAWS. THE PRESIDENT MISUSED HIS PRESIDENTIAL POWER TO GAIN A PERSONAL BENEFIT TO THE DETRIMENT OF THE INTEREST 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 IT IS 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. BUT THE GENTLE LADY YIELD BACK. WHO SEEKS RECOGNITION? FOR WHAT PURPOSE? BUT TO STRIKE THE LAST WORD >> COMMENTS ABOUT PRESIDENT CLINTON’S ACTIONS. HE LIED UNDER OATH, THAT’S PERJURY AND A CRIME. I UNDERSTAND THE COMMENT THAT HE WAS NOT ACTING IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY. THAT WOULD SET BACK THE ME TOO MOVEMENT HAVING SEX WITH AN EMPLOYEE THAT IS AT MUCH YOUNGER WHEN YOU’RE PRESENT A NINE STATES. THAT WAS NOT IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY? NO MATTER HOW LONG WE SPENT TODAY, TONIGHT, TOMORROW IT DOESN’T MAKE UP FOR THE FACT THAT WE DID NOT HAVE FACT WITNESSES. THIS REMINDS ME HISTORICALLY OF THE TRIAL OF SOCRATES. HE WAS CONVICTED OF A JURY OF 501 PEOPLE BECAUSE HE WAS ARROGANT. IF YOU WANT TO TRY DONALD TRUMP FOR BEING ARROGANT. YOU HAVE A LOT OF REPUBLICANS VOTE WITH YOU ON THAT. HE IS ARROGANT AND HAS A LOT TO BE ARROGANT ABOUT. THAT IS NOT A CRIME, IT’S NOT A HIGH CRIME, AND IT CERTAINLY IS NOT A MISDEMEANOR. IT’S BOTHERSOME TO PEOPLE. SOME PEOPLE LIKE IT THAT IS NOT WHAT IMPEACHMENT IS SUPPOSED TO BE ABOUT. TO HAVE A TRIAL WITH FEW HEARSAY GOSSIP MONGERING WITNESSES COMING INTO A STAR CHAMBER AND SECRETE THEIR TESTIMONIES OF THE PEOPLE CAN’T SEE OR HEAR THEM. BUT WE HAVE ADAM SCHIFF PUT IT TOGETHER IN A BIG REPORT AND WE RECEIVED THE REPORT. DON’T HAVE MUCH TIME

TO REPUTED THIS IS A STALL IN PROCEEDING. THAT’S HOW WORKED UNDER STALIN. YOU DIDN’T GET TO FIND OUT WHO THE WITNESSES WERE. YOU HAVE PEOPLE COMING IN AND GIVING APPEARANCE WE ARE WELL EDUCATED, AND THAT IS FINE GO TO LAW SCHOOL. WHEN YOU HATE A PERSON LIKE THOSE WITNESSES DO WITH THE TRUMP. YOU CAN COME IN AND MISREPRESENT FACTS AND USE THOSE TO BASE YOUR OPINIONS ON THIS IS STARTED BEFORE MUELLER IT STARTED WITH CARTER PAGE. HE WORKED FOR THE CIA TO HELP THEM AGAINST THE RUSSIANS THEY LIED TO THE COURT AND SAY OH HE WORKED WITH RUSSIANS MISREPRESENTED WHO HE IS, WHAT HE DID AND WHAT A PATRIOT WAS IN THE GET A WARRANT AND THEN AS TIME GOES ON THEY LIE ABOUT. WHERE DOES THIS COME FROM? IT CAME FROM HILLARY CLINTON’S CAMPAIGN. THEY HIRED A FOREIGNER TO AFFECT OUR ELECTIONS. AND THEY WORKED WITH AN AUSTRALIAN, ITALIAN CHRISTOPHER STEELE ADMITTED THAT THOSE PEOPLE WHO GET ME THAT INFORMATION MAY HAVE BEEN RUSSIAN. THEY MAY HAVE BEEN UKRAINIAN. THE MAJORITY DOESN’T WANT US TO GET THERE THE TOP PEOPLE IN THE FBI AND THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE PERVERTED JUSTICE BECAUSE THEY DID NOT LIKE THE GUY THAT MADE GET ELECTED. THEY DID EVERYTHING THEY COULD. THEY USED ALL THE FOREIGN RESOURCES TO CHANGE THE OUTCOME OF THE 2016 ELECTION WHEN THAT DIDN’T WORK THEY CAME FORWARD WITH IMPEACHMENT IT WASN’T LET’S PROJECT WHAT WE DID ON THE TRUMP. IT TURNED OUT HE DIDN’T DO THAT. AND AS MUCH AS MUELLER AND WISEMAN HATED TRUMP THEY COULD NOT FIND ANYTHING TO USE AGAINST PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP. SO WE HAD TO DROP THE RUSSIAN COLLUSION, TREASON, OBSTRUCTION IT’S NOT OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE WHEN YOU KNOW YOU ARE INNOCENT. AND THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE IS TRYING TO SET YOU UP AND YOU’RE TRYING TO EXPOSE THE TRUTH. IT WAS OTHERS THAT WERE OBSTRUCTING THE TRUE JUSTICE DENMAN WAS NO HERO PRAY FOR MERCY. WE CANNOT AFFORD JUSTICE OR THE COUNTRY ENDS >> DENMAN YIELD BACK >> THE LADY IS RECKLESS >> MR. CHAIRMAN. FIVE MORE MINUTES IN A VERY LONG DAY. WHEN YOU LOOK AT WHAT THE OTHER SIDE PRESENTED IN DEFENSE OF THE PRESENT. WHAT WE GET? NOTHING NONE OF YOU WILL DEFEND THE PRESIDENT’S ACTIONS. BECAUSE YOU CANNOT DEFEND THE INDEFENSIBLE YOU JUST CANNOT. EVEN IF YOU LIKE HIM AND SUPPORT HIS ACTIONS , YOU WILL NOT DEFEND WHAT HE DID. IT’S QUITE A SIMPLE. IT’S NOT COMPLICATED AT ALL. HE OFFERED OFFICIAL ACTS IN EXCHANGE FOR POLITICAL FAVOR. HE IS A CLEAR AND PRESENT DANGER TO DO IT AGAIN. IGNORE THE POWER THE PEOPLE AND HE WILL DO IT AGAIN. IT’S REALLY JUST THAT SIMPLE. THE PRESIDENT HAS SHOWN AS HIS PATTERN OF CONDUCT HE WILL MAKE CLEAR THAT HE WILL CONTINUE TO CORRUPT THE 2020 ELECTION BY ABUSE OF POWER. WE MUST ACT WITH A SENSE OF EMERGENCY TO PROTECT OUR DEMOCRACY AND DEFEND OUR CONSTITUTION. THE HOUSE OF VOTED TO IMPEACH 72 DAYS AFTER AUTHORIZING AN INQUIRY. IT HAS BEEN 94 DAYS SINCE CONGRESS LAUNCHED THE INVESTIGATION INTO THE PRESIDENT’S DEALINGS WITH UKRAINE IMPEACHMENT IS A CHARGING DECISION. LIKE A GRAND JURY OR PROSECUTOR. WE HAVE SEEN MORE THAN ENOUGH EVIDENCE IT IS THE PRESIDENT WHO IS ABUSING HIS POWER. WHAT IS NOT

FAIR IS THE PRESIDENTS 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 PRESENCE OBSTRUCTION IS A FARCE AND HE IS OPENLY STONEWALLING HE IS A FIRST PRESENT IS ENGAGED IN WALL-TO-WALL STONEWALLING. AN OUT RIGHT COVER-UP OF HIS OWN BEHAVIOR. HE HAS REFUSED TO COMPLY WITH ALL OF THE CONGRESSIONAL SUBPOENAS THAT HAVE BEEN ISSUED TO UNCOVER THE TRUTH OF HIS MISCONDUCT ENACTED NO OTHER CITIZEN CAN DO WITHOUT CONSEQUENCE. AS 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 FOR OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE LAST NIGHT I REMINDED US THAT THIS IS ABOUT PRESERVING AND PROTECTING OUR DEMOCRACY FOR THE LITTLE BOYS AND GIRLS ACROSS THE NATION. THE DAY WILL KNOW WHAT IT MEANS TO MAKE A PROMISE, A PLEDGE AND TO KEEP IT. DEMOCRACY IS A GIFT THAT EACH GENERATION GIVES TO THE NEXT. THAT IS WHY WE HAVE TO TAKE ACTION, WE HAVE TO MOVE FORWARD, AND WE MUST IMPEACH THE PRESIDENT. WITH THAT MR. CHAIRMAN I YIELD THE REMAINDER OF MY TIME TO MY COLLEAGUE FROM FLORIDA >> THANK YOU.. I WANT TO ANSWER WHAT WAS SAID EARLIER. I WANT TO CLARIFY THAT I WITH MY COLLEAGUES THAT YOU SEE SYDNEY HERE. WE CAN COME TO IMPEACH THE PRESIDENT. WE CAME TO LOWER HEALTHCARE COST. WE VOTED ON HR3 TODAY. WE VOTED ON THE VOTING RIGHTS AMENDMENT ACT. WHICH MY REPUBLICAN COLLEAGUES VOTED AGAINST WE DO NOT WANT RUSSIA, UKRAINE , OR CHINA MAKING DECISIONS FOR US AND OUR AMERICAN GOVERNMENT. THIS PRESENT HAS COMMITTED THE HIGHEST CRIME BY ABUSING THE POWER OF HIS OFFICE. AND INVITING FOR AN APPEARANCE IN THE ELECTION. THAT IS WHY WE ARE HERE TODAY. DO NOT CONFUSE AMERICANS WITH FALSE CLAIMS AND PUSHING DEBUNKED CONSPIRACY THEORIES. WE ARE HERE TO TELL THE AMERICAN PEOPLE THE TRUTH. I YIELD BACK. BUT GENTLE LADY YIELD BACK. WHO SEEKS RECOGNITION ? >> I WOULD LIKE TO STRIKE THE LAST WORD >> MR. CHAIRMAN I HAVE LOST TRACK OF THE NUMBER OF NEWSPAPER ARTICLES THAT HAVE BEEN ENTERED INTO THE RECORD IN THESE PROCEEDINGS. 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 UNDERTAKE. IT UNDERSCORES THE DERELICTION OF DUTY DRAFTING ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT WITHOUT A SINGLE FACT OR HEARING VIRTUALLY THE ENTIRE RECORD IS THE SHIFT REPORT AND NEWSPAPER CLIPPINGS. AS I REMINDED THE COMMITTEE YESTERDAY. THE REPORT WAS CONTRADICTED BY THE INSPECTOR GENERAL’S REPORT MR. SHIFTS AT WORK IS NOT WHAT YOU CAN CALL THE GOLD STANDARD OF ACCURACY, RELIABILITY, OR PRECISE ANALYSIS. NEWSPAPER CLIPPINGS ARE NOT THE SOLID FOUNDATION THAT SUPPORTS WIELDING SUCH POWER. IMPEACHMENT SHOULD BE MADE OF STERN STUFF BY NULLIFYING A NATIONAL ELECTION IS AWAITING MATTER IF YOU’RE GOING TO DO THAT YOU SHOULD HAVE A RECORD THE FACT THAT NO REASONABLE PERSON CAN DENY. A ONE-SIDED REPORT FROM ADAM SCHIFF AND A NEWSPAPER SCRAPBOOK IS THE FOUNDATION OF IMPEACHMENT THAT WILL CRUMBLE AND DISINTEGRATE BEFORE THE SENATE FINISHES THE CONSIDERATION ABUSE OF POWER IS THE VAGUE AND EXPANSIVE GROUND THAT THE

FOUNDERS CONSIDERED AND REJECTED IN FAVOR OF THE NARROW GROUND OF TREASON , BRIBERY, OR OTHER HIGH CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS. UNLAWFUL EXERCISE OF THE PRESIDENTIAL’S CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY IS NOT IMPEACHABLE. THE MOMENT WE MAKE IT SO THE PRESENT BECOMES A SERVANT OF CONGRESS AND THE SEPARATION OF POWERS THAT IS PROTECTED OUR FREEDOM WILL BE GREATLY DIMINISHED. THE PRESENCE ASSERTION OF THE LONG-ESTABLISHED BOUNDARIES IS ALSO NOT IMPEACHABLE. ONCE WE MAKE IT SO WE CLEARLY DIMINISHED THE SEPARATION OF POWERS. THE OVERWRITE HYPERBOLE SHOULD WARN US THAT WE ARE STRAYING INTO PARTISAN MOTIVES THAT SHOULD NOT ANIMATE THE IMPEACHMENT POWER OF CONGRESS. OPINION HAS NOT COALESCED AROUND THIS ACT THAT WE WOULD FURTHER DIVIDE AND ALIENATE THE AMERICAN PEOPLE YOU SHOULD CLEARLY ARTICULATE AND SUPPORT IT WITH ADMISSIBLE EVIDENCE AND PUT IT IN THE ARTICLES OTHERWISE THIS IS A MATTER THAT THE CONSTITUTION RESERVES TO THE VOTERS AND NOT THE CONGRESS. BY DENYING THE WITNESSES REQUESTED BY THE MINORITY YOU BLIGHTED THE COMMITTEE FROM GETTING THE WHOLE STORY. IF YOU’RE CONFIDENT OF YOUR CASE YOU SHOULD HAVE NOTHING TO FEAR FROM WHAT A FULL HEARING OF TESTIMONY WOULD OFFER. THE MOST CHILLING OBSERVATION I HAVE HEARD IS THAT WE CAN DO THIS BECAUSE WE ARE NOT RESTRICTED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE. THE SAME RIGHTS OF DUE PROCESS IN THE SAME FIDELITY OF THE CONSTITUTION IS REQUIRED OF US. THE IMPEACHMENT OF ANDREW JOHNSON, CONGRESS MADE MANY OF THE SAME MISTAKES THAT WE ARE MAKING TONIGHT. I URGE MY COLLEAGUES TO CAREFULLY CONSIDER HOW HISTORY HAS ADJUDGED THEM AND HOW IT WILL JUDGE US. I YIELD BACK STRIKE THAT GENTLE LADY IS WRECK NICE BUT WE CONTINUE TO HEAR THE SAME EXCUSES FOR THE PRESIDENTS BEHAVIOR. THIS IS SUCH A GRAVE A MOMENT THAT WE ARE IN. WE ARE TALKING ABOUT THE HIGHEST CONSTITUTIONAL CRIMES, ABUSE OF POWER AND OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE. LET’S REVIEW THE FACTS MY REPUBLICAN COLLEAGUES SAID THAT THIS IS ABOUT CORRUPTION ALL OF PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP’S AGENCIES ADVISORS, EVERYONE TOLD HIM THAT UKRAINE HAD PASSED ALL THE ANTICORRUPTION BENCHMARK. THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE SAID THAT UKRAINE PASSED THEIR REVIEW ON ANTICORRUPTION BENCHMARKS. AND THAT NO FURTHER POLICIES WERE NEEDED TRUMPS HE WAS GIVEN TALKING POINTS BY THE NATIONAL SECURITY COUNCIL. THAT SPECIFICALLY SAID TO SAY THESE THINGS ABOUT CORRUPTION TRUMPS HE DID NOT MENTION CORRUPTION. HE DID NOT USE THE TALKING POINTS THAT HE WAS GIVEN THE ONLY NAMES THAT HE MENTIONED WERE JOE AND HUNTER BIDEN IT WAS ALL ABOUT TRUMPS CONCERNS ABOUT BURDEN SHARING WITH OUR ALLIES THE INVESTOR TESTIFIED THAT HE WAS NEVER ASKED TO GO TO EUROPEAN UNION WHAT WAS GORDON SONDLAND TOLD TO CONVEY? THAT IT WOULD NOT INCUR UNLESS PRESIDENT VOLODYMYR ZELENSKY ANNOUNCE INVESTIGATION. HE SAID UNLESS PRESIDENT VOLODYMYR ZELENSKY ANNOUNCE INVESTIGATION THERE WOULD BE A STALEMATE OVER THE AGE. WHAT WERE THOSE INVESTIGATIONS? THE 2016 ELECTION INTERFERENCE AND BURISMA. MEANING THE BIDENS TRUMPS HE HAD A LEGITIMATE REASON TO INVESTIGATE JOE BIDEN

IT MAKES NO SENSE. THE FACTS ARE THAT THAT INVESTIGATION OF BIDEN AND BURISMA WENT BACK TO 2015 HE CLEARLY DID NOT HAVE A PROBLEM WITH THE ISSUES OF 2015 HE HAD TWO OPPORTUNITIES TO RELEASE EIGHT AND HE DID SOMETHING CHANGE IN 2019. THE ONLY THING THAT CHANGED IS THAT JOE BIDEN STARTED BEATING PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP IN THE POLLS. THE EVIDENCE IS CLEAR PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP SAID IT DO US A FAVOR. WHO WAS THE S? HE TOLD US EXACTLY WHAT HE MEANT HE TOLD PRESIDENT VOLODYMYR ZELENSKY MEANT DEAL WITH RUDY GIULIANI. TRUMPS PERSONAL ATTORNEY. WHO KNOWS WHAT IS GOING ON. HE COULD’VE GONE THROUGH OFFICIAL CHANNELS IF THE INVESTIGATION WASN’T LEGITIMATE HE COULD’VE ASKED THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE TO INITIATE THE BIDENS. HE DIDN’T DO THAT THIS WAS IN ABOUT OFFICIAL POLICY. IT WASN’T ABOUT WHAT IS RIGHT FOR OUR COUNTRY EVERY WITNESS TESTIFIED TO THAT AS WELL. THIS WAS PERSONAL. IT WAS ALL FOR PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP AND HIS POLITICAL GAIN. TO BENEFIT HIS REELECTION CAMPAIGN. AND THAT IS WHY HE HAD HIS PERSONAL ATTORNEY TO. HE ABUSED HIS POWER, HE ABUSE THE POWER THAT THE PEOPLE ENTRUSTED IT TO HIM HE ABUSED THE OFFICE. HE PLACED OUR SAFETY, MILLIONS OF DOLLARS OF TAXPAYER MONEY AT RISK. HE CANNOT USE THE POWER OF THE OFFICE. HE CANNOT USE IT FOR HIMSELF. THAT IS THE GREATEST ABUSE OF POWER. HE HAS LEFT US NO CHOICE BUT TO IMPEACH HIM. I YIELD BACK BUT THIS MORNING I BEGAN OUTLINING THE IMPORTANT ROLE OF THE DAY. MOST OF US ARE ATTORNEYS. IN THIS CASE WE ARE ALL CALLED TO SERVICE FINDERS ON THE FACT. WE ARE SUPPOSED TO CAREFULLY ANALYZE THE CLAIMS NOT AGAINST OUR PERSONAL PREFERENCES WE’VE DONE THAT FOR THE PAST 12 HOURS. IT IS TIME TO SUMMARIZE OUR CASE. LITERALLY AT THE END OF THE DAY. THERE TWO SHORT ARTICLES TO THE RESOLUTION BROUGHT BEFORE US. ABUSE OF POWER AND OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE. LET’S REVIEW BOTH SHOWING THAT PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP ENGAGED IN ANY SCHEME OR HE INTENDED TO INFLUENCE THE 2020 ELECTION. ALL THEY HAVE ARGUED IS BASED ON HEARSAY, SPECULATION, AND CONJECTURE. THE TRUTH IS THERE’S NOT A SINGLE FACT WITNESS IT CAN PROVIDE TESTIMONY TO SUPPORT THEIR PAPERTHIN CASE. WHICH IS PRECISELY WHY WE BEEN GIVEN NO OPPORTUNITY FOR A FACT WITNESS OR MINORITY. THE EVIDENCE DOES SHOW THAT TRUMPS HE HOLDS A DEEP-SEATED SKEPTICISM OF UKRAINE DUE TO ITS HISTORY OF PERVASIVE CORRUPTION HIS ADMINISTRATION SOUGHT PROOF THAT PRESIDENT VOLODYMYR ZELENSKY WAS A TRUE REFORMER PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP WANTED TO ENSURE THAT AMERICAN TAXPAYER SECURITY WOULD NOT BE SQUANDERED OVERSEAS BY THE THIRD MOST CORRUPTED NATION IN THE WORLD. THE DISCUSSIONS WERE NEVER ABOUT WHAT WOULD HAPPEN IN 2020. BUT WHAT HAD ALREADY HAPPENED IN 2016. THE DEMOCRATS A SECOND CLAIM IS THAT PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP OBSTRUCTED JUSTICE BY DOING WHAT EVERY OTHER PRESIDENT IN THE MODERN ERA HAS DONE THERE IS NO EVIDENCE OF AN IMPEACHABLE OFFENSE THE DEMOCRATS SHOULD HAVE GONE TO FEDERAL COURT TO GET A SIMPLE ORDER COMPELLING THAT INFORMATION THAT THEY

SUBPOENA. THAT IS WHAT HAS BEEN DONE IN THE PAST. THEY DID NOT HAVE TIME FOR THAT HERE. BECAUSE THEY ARE TRYING TO MEET THEIR OWN RECKLESS TIMELINE TO TAKE DOWN A PRESIDENT THAT THEY LOAD THE REAL ABUSE OF POWER IS ON THE HOUSE DEMOCRATS. AS THEY FEVERISHLY PURSUED THIS IMPEACHMENT 20 TIMES FASTER THAN THE IMPEACHMENT OF BILL CLINTON ALONG THE WAY THEY HAVE STEAMROLLED OVER DUE PROCESS, HOUSE RULES, AND THE FEDERAL RULES OF PROCEDURE. THEY HAVE IGNORED OR BLOCKED EVIDENCE, INTIMIDATED WITNESSES, RESTRICTED REPUBLICAN LINES OF QUESTIONING, DENY WITNESSES , RESTRICTED REPUBLICAN REVIEW OF EVIDENCE, AND VIOLATED PROPER NOTICE THAT EVERY SINGLE STAGE THE FOUNDERS WARNED AGAINST A SINGLE PARTY IMPEACHMENT FOR GOOD REASON. THEY FEARED THAT IT WOULD BITTERLY DIVIDE OUR NATION OUR CHAIRMAN NADLER GAVE A SPEECH ABOUT THAT 20 YEARS AGO WHEN HE WAS DEPOSING BILL CLINTON. THE OBVIOUS TRUTH THAT LIBERAL COLLEAGUES HAVE BOWED TO IMPEACH THEM SINCE THE DAY OF HIS ELECTION. THERE REASON THE DAY HAS CHANGED HALF A DOZEN TIMES BUT THEY CAN NEVER GET ANY TRACTION OR FAXED TO JUSTIFY THE CONSPIRACY THEORIES AS THE NEXT ELECTION 2020 IS DRAWING CLOSE. THEY MET SOMEWHERE AND CONVINCED THE HOUSE SPEAKER NANCY PELOSI THAT THEY HAD TO PULL THE TRIGGER THE PROBLEM IS THEY HAVE DONE THAT , AND IN ALL THOSE HEARINGS THEY COULDN’T UNCOVER A SINGLE REASON. THE RESULT IS WHAT THE EXPERT WITNESS TESTIFIED I AM A CONSTITUTIONAL LAW ATTORNEY BY PROFESSION. AND I’VE ENJOYED THE DEBATE THAT WE’VE HAD ON ARTICLE 2 SECTION 4 EVERYBODY CAN READ THE EXPRESS LANGUAGE. YOU NEED TREASON, BRIBERY, OR HIGH CRIME OR MISDEMEANOR. NONE OF THAT EXISTS HERE AND EVERYBODY KNOWS IT. THOSE HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS AT HOME KNOW IT, OUR CONSTITUENTS OF NOTE , AND EVEN OUR FRIENDS ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE ROOM KNOW IT. MY GOOD FRIEND MR. COHEN SAID HE’S PROUD TO BE A POLITICIAN. THIS IS A CALL FOR POLITICIANS. THIS MOMENT CALLS FOR STATESMEN. THIS IMPEACHMENT IS GOING TO FAIL AND THE DEMOCRATS ARE GOING TO PAY A HEAVY POLITICAL PRICE FOR IT. THE PANDORA BOX THEY’VE OPENED WILL DO IRREPARABLE DAMAGE TO OUR COUNTRY. AND THAT IS A REAL TRAGEDY OF THE VOTE WE ARE ABOUT TO TAKE. GOD HELP US I YIELD BACK >> A LITTLE WHILE AGO ONE OF MY COLLEAGUES ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE AISLE SAID THAT 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. WITHHELD MILITARY AID BECAUSE HE WAS CONCERNED ABOUT CORRUPTION IS A LUDICROUS AS MY COLLEAGUES HAVE POINTED OUT, BOTH CALLS THE PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP HAD WITH PRESIDENT VOLODYMYR ZELENSKY. HE NEVER MENTIONED CORRUPTION. THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE BEDDED GIVING AID AND SAID IT WAS OKAY ONCE UPON A TIME PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP LOVED HIS A GENERALS. THIS TIME HE IGNORED THEM. MEMBERS OF CONGRESS AUTHORIZED THE AID AND LOBBIED THE WHITE HOUSE TO RELEASE THE EIGHT STAFF AND THE OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET RESIGNED BECAUSE THEY WERE WORRIED ABOUT WHAT WAS GOING ON AND WHY THE AIDE WAS WITHHELD. THEY WERE WORRIED ABOUT WHAT THE PRESIDENT WAS DOING. SOME OF THEM CUT FUNDING FOR PROGRAMS TO DEAL WITH CORRUPTION IN COMPANIES LIKE UKRAINE. THE MAN THAT IS SO CONCERNED ABOUT CORRUPTION HAS INTERESTING FRIENDS. AND HE HAS ROMANCE WITH LEADERS FROM SAUDI ARABIA, TURKEY. WE KNOW HIS NUMBER ONE PAL IS RUSSIAN PRESIDENT VLADIMIR PUTIN. ALL THE PRESIDENTS MEN, AND THE MEN AROUND HIM THAT WERE INDICTED , ARRESTED, INCARCERATED. MY MOTHER SAID IF YOU LAY DOWN WITH DOGS DON’T BE SURPRISED IF YOU GET UP WITH FLEAS. THE MAN WHO CLAIMED HE WANTED TO CLEAN UP THE SWAN CREATED HIS OWN SWAB AND IS DROWNING IN IT NOW. I DO HAVE TO SAY THAT I HAVE EMPATHY FOR MY REPUBLICAN COLLEAGUES. THEY HAVE TO DEFEND THE PRESIDENT AND THEY DARE NIGHT NOT STEP OUT OF LINE. IF YOU OF MY REPUBLICAN COLLEAGUES DID TRY

TO SAY THAT THEY DIDN’T BELIEVE THE PRESIDENT’S CONDUCT WAS APPROPRIATE. THEY GOT SLAPPED QUICKLY. THE PRESIDENT SAID HIS CONDUCT. THAT THE CALL WAS ABSOLUTELY PERFECT IT MAKES ME FEEL LIKE A MEETING THAT WOULD TAKE PLACE IN NORTH KOREA WHERE YOU HAVE TO PRAISE THE LEADER. YOU HAVE TO FALL IN LINE BECAUSE THE ENTIRE REASON WAS CORRUPTION. YOU HAVE TO SAY THAT HE DID NOTHING WRONG. ONE OF MY COLLEAGUES SAID THAT WE ARE LOWERING THE BAR ON IMPEACHMENT. I BELIEVE WE HAVE LOWERED THE BAR ON THE PRESIDENCY. IT IS SAD TO SEE MY COLLEAGUES WHO KNOW WHAT IS BETTER. THEY ARE NOT ABLE TO SAY IT. THEY KNOW THE MAN IS CORRUPT THE PRESIDENT DOES NOT HAVE THE POWER IN HIS OFFICE TO CORRUPT ELECTIONS. WILL MOVE TO IMPEACH PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP BECAUSE OF THE ABUSE OF POWERS, THE BETRAYAL OF NATIONAL SECURITY IF MY COLLEAGUES ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE AISLE CANNOT BRING THEMSELVES TO DO WHAT IS RIGHT AND IMPEACH THE PRESIDENT THAT THEY KNOW IS A THREAT TO TO OUR ELECTION THAT THEY KNOW IS A THREAT TO OUR STANDING IN THE WORLD. WE WILL HAVE TO DO IT. AND WE WILL HAVE TO MOVE TO IMPEACH. I YIELD TO REPRESENTATIVE JACKSON LEE LIKE I THINK THE GENTLE LADY FOR YIELDING. MY CONCLUDING REMARKS. TO MY FRIENDS ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE AISLE. TO THE SOLDIERS WHO WEAR UNIFORMS. I HAVE NO ANGST, NO DISLIKE OF ANYONE WHO VOTED FOR ANYONE IN 2016. I TAKE ISSUE THAT ONE WOULD SUGGEST THE WORK OF THIS COMMITTEE IS ABOUT A DISLIKE FOR THOSE WHO VOTED FOR PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP IS BEFORE THIS COMMITTEE FOR HIS OWN BEHAVIOR FOR HIS OWN DESIRE TO DO WITH PUBLIC MONIES IN A PUBLIC POSITION TO DO A PRIVATE MATTER, A POLITICAL MATTER. THAT IS TO GET THE DIRT ON HIS 2020 POTENTIAL OPPONENT. IN HONORING AND DEFENDING THE CONSTITUTION WE DEFEND AND HONOR OURSELVES FOR THAT REASON AS AN INDICTING BODY WE WILL GIVE THE OPPORTUNITY FOR THE CONGRESS TO DECIDE ON PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP’S ULTIMATE RESULTS. I STAND WITH THE CONSTITUTION AND STAND FOR JUSTICE. I YIELD BACK >> THE GENTLE LADIES TIME IS EXPIRED >> FOR WHAT PURPOSE DO YOU SEEK RECOGNITION ? >> I MOVED TO STRIKE THE LAST WORD >> FULL ME ONCE, SHAME ON YOU, FULL ME TWICE SHAME ON ME WE ALLOWED THE PRESENT UNITED STATES TO ABUSE HIS OFFICE FOR HIS OWN PERSONAL GAIN SHAME ON ALL OF US. AND SHAME ON OUR CONSTITUTION. WE KNOW HE’S GOING TO DO IT AGAIN. ON JUNE 12 HE TOLD GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS THAT IF HE COULD RECEIVE HELP FROM A FOREIGN GOVERNMENT AS HE DID FROM RUSSIA HE WOULD DO IT AGAIN. ON JULY 24 MUELLER TESTIFIED AND SAID THAT THE PRESIDENT COULD BE CHARGED WITH 10 CRIMES OF OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE. BUT THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE PREVENTS HIM FROM DOING THAT. THE NEXT DAY THE PRESIDENT IT DID IT AGAIN EVERY PROSECUTOR WHEN THEY ARE ASSIGNED A CASE WILL OPEN UP A FILE. THE FIRST THING WE DO IS LOOK AT THE RAP SHEET. WAS THIS AN ABERRATION OR A PATTERN OF CONDUCT THAT THE PERSON ENGAGES IN IT’S NOT JUST PROSECUTORS THAT USE A RAP SHEET. WE ALL DO IT IN OUR EVERYDAY LIVES. IF YOUR SMALL BUSINESS OWNER AND YOU’RE HIRING AN EMPLOYEE AND YOU FIND OUT THAT THEY HAVE MULTIPLE THEFT FROM A PREVIOUS EMPLOYER , YOU WOULD PROBABLY NOT HIRE THEM. IF YOUR PARENT LOOKING FOR A BABYSITTER AND MULTIPLE REFERENCES SAY THE BABYSITTER IS ALWAYS LATE. YOU WERE NOT OFTEN TO WATCH YOUR KIDS. IF YOU GO TO A RESTAURANT AND YOU SAW 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 PRAYERS. HE IS A REPEAT OFFENDER. CRIMES AGAINST OUR CONSTITUTION, CRIMES THAT ONE DAY MAY BE PROSECUTED. HE HAS ABUSED HIS POWER IN THE PAST. HE IS ABUSING HIS POWER RIGHT NOW AND HE WILL ABUSE IT TOMORROW WE HAVE A DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE IT WILL CONTINUE TO PROTECT HIM. FORTUNATELY THE AMERICAN PEOPLE HAVE A CONGRESS THEY CAN SAY HE’S NOT ABOVE THE LAW AND WE ARE NOT HELPLESS AND HOLDING HIM ACCOUNTABLE. I YIELD TO THE GENTLEMAN FROM RHODE ISLAND. SO WE’VE HEARD A LOT OF EXPLANATION AS TO WHY WE ARE HERE WE DON’T LIKE THE POLICIES OF THE PRESIDENT. THE ONE THING WE HAVE NOT HEARD , THE REAL REASON WE ARE HERE TONIGHT IS THE CONDUCT OF THE PRESIDENT. THE GRAVE MISCONDUCT. I WANT TO RECOUNT QUICKLY THE EVIDENCE THAT WAS PRESENTED IN TEXT MESSAGES, CALLS, EMAILS AND PRESS STATEMENTS AND TWEETS PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP ACKNOWLEDGING THAT HE WAS ENGAGED THROUGH RUDY GIULIANI AND INVESTIGATING UKRAINE. THAT PRESIDENT VOLODYMYR ZELENSKY IS SENSITIVE ABOUT UKRAINE BEING TAKEN SERIOUSLY THE DAVID HOLMES TESTIFIED THAT THE REQUIREMENT WAS SO CONCRETE AND THE EVIDENCE GOES ON AND ON OF THE PRESIDENTS EFFORT TO CHEAT IN THE ELECTION AND USE MILLIONS OF DOLLARS OF TAXPAYERS MONEY TO ACHIEVE THAT OBJECTIVE THEY TALKED ABOUT ABUSE BECAUSE THEY UNDERSTOOD THAT IT WAS ENORMOUS THE PRESIDENT WOULD USE THAT POWER NOT FOR THE PUBLIC GOOD BUT FOR HIS OWN ADVANTAGE. THEY CREATED ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT TO GIVE A FINAL CHECK AGAINST THAT ABUSE OF POWER. NO ONE IS HERE BECAUSE WE WANT TO DO THIS WE ARE HERE BECAUSE WE HAVE NO CHOICE WE ARE NOT ACTING OUT OF HATE BUT OUT OF THE LOVE FOR OUR COUNTRY AND OUR DEMOCRACY. AND WHEN GENERATIONS LOOK BACK THEY WILL ASK WHAT DO WE DO TO PRESERVE OUR DEMOCRACY. THE ONLY THING WE CAN DO IS HOLD THE PRESIDENT ACCOUNTABLE. IF WE DON’T THEY WILL ASK WHY WE FAILED TO PRESERVE THE GREATEST DEMOCRACY ON EARTH THAT IS BEEN EXAMPLE TO THE WORLD IN THIS MOMENT WE HAVE TO FIND THE COURAGE TO ANSWER THAT QUESTION FOR ALL FUTURE GENERATIONS. I URGE MY COLLEAGUES TONIGHT. WE MUST APPROVE THESE ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT. TO MAKE IT CLEAR THAT NOBODY IN THIS COUNTRY IS ABOVE THE LAW. EVEN THE MOST POWERFUL PERSON IN THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES. WITH THAT I YIELD BACK BUT THE RECORD IS CLEAR PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP ABUSED HIS POWER BY SOLICITING FOREIGN INTERFERENCE AND UNDERMINING THE INTEGRITY OF OUR DEMOCRACY AND OUR NATIONAL SECURITY. MY REPUBLICAN COLLEAGUES HAVE SPENT ALL DAY ARGUING PROCESS. THAT IS WHAT YOU DO WHEN YOU CANNOT DEFEND THE INDEFENSIBLE. YOU ARGUE PROCESS HERE IS A PROCESS CONCERNED THAT YOU MIGHT REFLECT UPON EARLIER TODAY, MITCH McCONNELL GAVE SOME INDICATION AS TO HOW A POSSIBLE TRIAL IN THE SENATE MAY RUN. THIS IS WHAT HE SAID. I’M GOING TO COORDINATE WITH THE PRESIDENTS OF LAWYERS SO THERE WILL NOT BE ANY DIFFERENCE BETWEEN US ON HOW TO DO THIS THE SENATE REPUBLICANS ARE GOING TO COORDINATE WITH THE DEFENDANT ON HOW THE KANGAROO COURT IS GOING TO BE RUN. THAT IS A PROCESS CONCERNED. THAT THE AMERICAN PEOPLE SHOULD BE WORRIED ABOUT. AMERICA IS A RESILIENT NATION AND WE HAVE

BEEN THROUGH MOMENTS OF TURMOIL BEFORE. WE HAVE ALWAYS COME THROUGH. WE ARE A RESILIENT NATION. LINCOLN SAID DURING THE HEIGHT OF THE CIVIL WAR. AMERICA IS THE LAST HOPE ON EARTH. FDR SAID ON THE EVE OF THE SECOND WORLD WAR, DEMOCRACY IS NOT DYING REAGAN SAID IN THE MIDST OF THE COLD WAR. THAT AMERICA IS A SHINING CITY ON A HILL. WHAT EXACTLY WILL HISTORY SAY ABOUT US? WILL WE PUT PRINCIPLE OVER PARTY? WILL WE PUT THE CONSTITUTION ABOVE CORRUPTION? WILL WE PUT DEMOCRACY OVER DEMIGOD WHAT WILL HISTORY SAY ABOUT US I YIELD TO MY DISTINGUISHED COLLEAGUE FROM THE GREAT STATE OF TEXAS >> FOR ALL THE AMERICANS HAVE BEEN LISTENING AND WATCHING ALL DAY. GO TO THE EVIDENCE. OVER 100 HOURS OF TESTIMONY BY SOME OF AMERICA’S GREATEST PATRIOTS MICK MULVANEY’S OWN WORDS. HE IS THE PRESIDENT’S CHIEF OF STAFF AND FINALLY THE PRESENCE OWN WORDS INVITING RUSSIA, UKRAINE, AND CHINA INTO OUR ELECTION THE REPUBLICAN COLLEAGUES CLAIM THAT THERE IS NOT ENOUGH EVIDENCE WE HAVE A LIVING EXAMPLE THAT WAS RELEASED JUST TONIGHT BEFORE I TALK ABOUT THAT EXAMPLE , IF MY COLLEAGUES THINK THAT THE PRESIDENT IS FREE FROM WRONGDOING , I WOULD ASK THEM TO JOIN US IN CALLING ON PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP TO RELEASE AT ALL RELEASE THE WITNESSES, RELEASE THE DOCUMENTS, LET THE AMERICAN PUBLIC MAKE UP THEIR OWN MINDS THE OBSTRUCTION IS CAN BE IN TONIGHT WAS A VICTORY. THE CENTER FOR PUBLIC INTEGRITY SUED IN FEDERAL COURT. FOR DOCUMENTS RELATED TO THE UKRAINE SCANDAL AND THIS IS WHAT THEY GOT WHAT THEY GOT WERE HEAVILY REDACTED DOCUMENTS. WHY? BECAUSE THE PRESIDENT DOES NOT WANT