Skip to main content
Internet Archive's 25th Anniversary Logo

tv   Articles of Impeachment House Hearings Day 2 House Judiciary Debates...  CSPAN  December 13, 2019 2:38pm-4:15pm EST

2:38 pm
expected in the house next week. follow the process live on c-span. live on or listen live on the c-span radio app. the hash judiciary committee last night debated two articles of impeachment against perez trump, theesident meeting included further debate on the articles and amendments offered by committee members. this is the final portion of the evening before the committee went into recess.
2:39 pm
before the committee is the amendment of an issue the substantive. >> mister chairman -- >> for what purpose to the gentleman strike? >> for purposes the gentleman seek recognition -- that we have had. i would like to start out by commanding the chairman for following the rules. i think that this markup has been a lot better than it could've been and i think the chairman has been probably very even handed about that. that being said, let me say that the chairman and those on his side of the aisle are dead wrong and all of the issues, both today and last night, as well as beforehand. the constitution says that the president and other civil officials can be impeached for
2:40 pm
treason, bribery or other high crimes and misdemeanors. i think it is very obvious that there was no treason or bribery alleged here, and it goes on to what has been alleged in these two articles, whether they really are high crimes and misdemeanors. i would submit the answer in both of them as an emphatic no. what is accused of being an abuse of power is, in my opinion, a policy disagreement on how the president should have approached the issues that are outlined there. and let me say as far as for a day goes and the issue of the 391 million dollars of foreign aid to ukraine is the one in the center is that practically, every bit of foreign aid that the united states disperses following the congressional appropriation is contingent on
2:41 pm
something or another, and then what are the common threads, if so stated in the foreign aid an accident, is whether or not there is any type of corruption that is involved in that. i think we can all see that ukraine has been a pretty corrupt country and that president zelensky was elected on anti corruption platform, and we wish him well including the place up. the fact is that i think the president would have been derelict in his duty at least had he held off or just given the foreign aid without trying to check on corruption and that is what was going on. as far as obstruction of congress is concerned, earlier today i talked a bit about the fact that this article is drafted so loosely and so weekly, that it turns
2:42 pm
united states into a parliamentary form of government and the consequences of that is that whenever we have a president a majority house representatives controlled by opposite parties who are going to attempt to see the majority in the house of representatives try to impeach the president but, i would like to finally say that we have heard an awful lot about the fact that if donald trump does not impeach, it or removed from office he will steal the 2020 election. that is one of the most outlandish predictions that i have ever heard. the 2020 election will be looked at very closely by representatives both of the candidates, by the news media, via lot of citizens, whether they are involved in the campaigns of the candidates or not. and it's going to be pretty darn hard to steal the
2:43 pm
2020 election after all of this has happened, what is happening here is, there is an attempt to steal the 2016 election three years after the fact because, if donald trump is impeached and removed from office, based on this flimsy record, based upon all of the problems with extinguishing minority rights both in the intelligence committee and before tonight, here, and that would end up stealing the 2016 election, it will end up avoiding the votes of the 63 million people who voted for donald trump for president of the united states and, i think that 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
2:44 pm
to determine how you stand up for the constitution is by voting no on both articles of impeachment and i yield back the balance of my time. >> the betterment yields back the balance of his time. >> struck the last word. >> the gentleman is recognized. >> thank, you sir. i join with mr. sensenbrenner and committing the chairman on is running this committee tonight, it has been very difficult, it has been a long day, and all of us are tired, at least i am, and the chairman has done a great job, but i totally disagree with chairman sensenbrenner in his summation of what we have before us. i think they are dead wrong in their thinking on the articles of impeachment. there are two articles. this is in no way stealing the election. if donald trump is removed from office, the election of 2016 is
2:45 pm
not nullified. mike prince will be the president and that is no walk in the park. it is the same policies, some of them maybe even worse, maybe a little bit better ethics and morals, a little bit more civility, but as far as policies, they would be about the same. there has been a lot of discussion of what we have had here but basically this is an issue about abuse of power based on testimony of lieutenant colonel vindman, ambassador yovanovitch, ambassador taylor, and doctor hill. these are four independent class, acts people we should all look to, and who we all talk about is patriots, they are patriots but they are career foreign service folk we've done a great job for america, are not partisan came fourth out of a sense of duty to testify and what they testified to is what happened with the ukraine withdrawal, that there was an abuse of power and that is why they came
2:46 pm
forward and to say that this whole process is corrupt is basically an affront to each of those for patriots who came forward. for those four career foreign service officials, those for people who were nonpartisan. they did a service to this country. the fact is, the factor in disputed that what happened was a favor, although i would ask you for a favor, though, and mulvaney going, out get used to it. that is what politics is. that's what happened, and then we had sondland saying, they were all in on it, it was a requirement, and you get the military aid, you've got to announce the investigation. there is nothing other than that, and we've been here, in the last few hours, they could use it as the campaign ad for, trump they had the markets up at all that kind of stuff. snap payments are being cut drastically and poor
2:47 pm
people are going to be hurt, and they did not benefit from the trump tax scheme. a person said the two biggest mistake when he was up here were voting for the tax game and a book for the budget it came afterwards, exploding the debt, and somebody on the other side talked about how we need to be up here fighting. they have exploded the debt. they have no traditional republican philosophy whatsoever. the kurds? scion aria. they ruined us in the middle east forever. trump just sold him out for his friend in territory and the kurds -- to hell with you. and we gave syria to the russians and just yesterday trump met with the, the russian ambassador. no report i want to talk about what the white house said they talked about influence not to have influence in the next election, and trump told them, he should not try to influence our next elections
2:48 pm
elaborate said, we did not discuss the elections, that is not true. it's hard to figure out which one is lying, even when i have a very good track record so i hope we can get it finish today, past these two articles do it is important to protect our democracy, defend our -- support our oath, abide by our oath, support the constitution, and support our national security, all of which have been jeopardized by donald j trump, by his self dealing with ukraine. i said earlier today that the president of ukraine was an actor and a politici >> he could not say was under duress or any influence. he felt like he was being pressured. could not say that because he was inferior like a battered wife. say, he beat the up. he is there and when the police .eave he will do it again
2:49 pm
i look forward to meeting him. i will be in ukraine in february. i think you will do a wonderful .ob it is not the third worst. i yield back. >> the gentleman yields back. who seeks recognition? -- what does >> strike the last word. >> the gentleman is recognized. saying id start off by mr. cohen but-- he is wrong about the taxes. this is one of the main reasons we are seeing the economy take
2:50 pm
off. they're accounts are better. the president and republican .ongress passed those tax cuts republicans want to cut your taxes and democrats -- most of them -- want to raise your taxes relative to impeachment, back in the early 1970's, i was a college student our nation is going through a nether impeachment. richard nixon -- i voted for him. trouble was going to be reached. -- he was voted out. before the house took it up he designed from office -- resigned from office. country would our be going through a nether in each myth. and ias bill clinton
2:51 pm
would be involved in that. of the 41 people on this committee, five of us were there . nadler, ms. jackson were on there as well. i was a house manager. some of the folks on the others are going to get opportunity good luck. our leader at the time. he said we are not going to be very welcome over there and we were not. we will see what happens when you are over there. he was impeached by the house. the senate did not remove him from office. i think it is likely that is what we will see happen in this case. excuse me. clinton put his
2:52 pm
hand on the bible and swore to tell the truth. then he lied. he committed perjury. that is something hundreds of people across the country or in jail for. i do not think resident should be about the law. he committed a high crime and very different from this case. there is clearly not a high crime and misdemeanor. that is why i will be voting against impeaching president. i think the democrats have for an excuse to impeach this incident for a long time. when they took over the house, one of the members filed an article that day. since inauguration, many have wanted to impeach him. this is about politics. it is about hurting president, hurting his reputation. they dislike him. loatheve this present --
2:53 pm
this president. they want to hurt his chances in the next election but it may help. the one i am turned about is the democrats are lowering the bar for impeaching a president in the future, it is becoming routine. it is becoming normal. had oneears, we impeachment. in less than 50 years, we are in our third. i am concerned that from now on when you have the president of united states and the house upper tentative and opposite -- house of representatives and they are opposite parties you will have them pushing hard to impeach the president. it is divisive for the nation. so many other things do not get done you are going through
2:54 pm
impeachment. opioids.le, we have done very little in this committee. doing something about our southern border which is like a sieve. this committee is responsible but we do almost nothing. 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 or this congress. i want to thank the folks out there and god bless america. >> the gentleman's time is expired. >> i moved to strike the last word. >> the gentleman is recognized. >> mr. chairman, i want to start by agreeing with mr. sensenbrenner. it is always right to defend the constitution.
2:55 pm
that is the very reason we are here. there are two articles of impeachment. the first is the abuse of power. that he abused his power by soliciting for an inter-errands and cheating the american voters. how did he do it? militaryaxpayer funded needed.ine desperately he leveraged a white house meeting he promised the new ukrainian president that president 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 cap. that is abuse of power. my colleagues suggested abuse of
2:56 pm
power is not a serious offense. power is not that we should not treat it at the violation it is. it will concern thetion that it is. in fact, it is clear what it meant. proper working -- personal benefit while it is rooted in the constitutional duty to execute it. to put service over self. to put the country over his interest. i note that all four of scholars that testified -- the republican greatses -- greed -- a abuse of power is impeachable.
2:57 pm
the very reason abuse of power .s a high crime president trump pressured a foreign government to aid in his scheme. that is abuse of power. there is a second article. obstruction of congress. we know that no president in hasory -- and history -- ordered the executive branch to not cooperate with an impeachment inquiry. has told every member not to speak to any of the impeachment inquiry to any issues. is, if you look at abuse of power just a constitutional violation and you look at the president obstruction of congress it leads i would like my
2:58 pm
colleagues to think about as we had toward this important quote. think about the people the president blocked from speaking. mulvey -- mickel mulvaney. he acknowledged quid pro quo happens all the time. that is abuse of power. the president would not let him speak and that is obstruction of congress. perry,bout secretary ambassador taylor describes the ukraine policy channel -- led by rudy giuliani. that contributes to the abuse of power. but it is also obstruction of why will the president not allowed to speak? what is he afraid of?
2:59 pm
i not part of whatever drug deal they are cooking appeared -- .ooking up obstruction of congress is clear. why will the president not let him testify? eisenberg, lieutenant colonel vindman could not believe what he heard. he reported to eisenberg. now eisenberg cannot speak. what is it the president is afraid he will say. that is obstruction of congress. together, that is what these articles are about. we are protecting the constitution, american people, and elections. that is why we need to proceed. i yield back. >> the gentleman yields back. reason do you see
3:00 pm
recognition? >> strike the last word. >> gentleman is recognized. in thes a prosecutor iraqi core system. i was a defense attorney in the navy. sealt find it a navy against the trump administration. -- obama administration. i served as a judge in pittsburgh. i have been on all sides of the courtroom. i would defend this case every day. the facts are not there. let us go through each article. abuse of power, quid pro quo, bribery, call it whatever you want to. at the end of the day, you do not have the facts to make up the case. who do not have the facts. the party never felt pressure. we have a primary document, a
3:01 pm
primary source of information. that is the transcript of the call. it shows there was no connection. --also have the other party president zelensky -- who said that at no time did they feel pressure. we know that no investigation of biden took. page that came in the four -- form of javelin missiles. this is what we would describe as right. or not right. it is not right because letters have been sent. there is no subpoena. how this works is that a subpoena is issued. exercisesive branch their executive privilege like
3:02 pm
obama. the courts decide -- the court never decided where is the obstruction? it never existed. i would defend this everyday day. as a judge, i would dismiss this. if it was favorable to the democrats, you cannot make out what we call a case. this would be dismissed on day one. schiff forsecute abuse of power. he subpoenaed phone records from a member of congress? nunes'cellout devin phone? pages on ther 8000 judiciary committee 48 hours for we had a hearing? that is abuse of power. that is what i would prosecute every day of the week.
3:03 pm
obstruction? i would prosecute the democrats as well. how about the fact i had a motion to subpoena the whistleblower? you cannot point to any statute. there is no statute that gives the whistleblower the right to be anonymous. it does not exist. subpoena then to mode whistleblower -- the whistleblower two weeks ago. it was done in partisan fashion down partisan line. that is the obstruction. i would prosecute that everyday. that is legal analysis. this is nothing more than a political hitch off. i keeled the remainder of my time. >> the gentleman yields back. scanlanpose does ms. seek recognition? >> the move district the last word. >> the lady is recognized. >> this is not about
3:04 pm
disagreements with the president's policies, personality, or tweets. we are not judging the president himself but his actions. i understand he ran to disrupt the government. he went further. power, he his endangered our elections and national security. he remains an ongoing threat to both. ofhas shown a pattern inviting foreign interference in our elections and trying to cover it up twice. he is threatening to do it again. we have heard a lot of loose talk about what evidence we have or don't have. there is plenty of direct evidence of the president's wrongdoing including his july 25 call eckhard. he said to the ukrainian president, i want you to do us a favor though. that he requested investigations into a rival and a debunk
3:05 pm
conspiracy theory. we have the testimony of appointees and ambassador sondland and full car about -- volker in which they said, talk to rudy. we have three first-hand witnesses to the july 25th phone calls. we have the testimony of david holmes who heard the president ask ambassador sondland whether president zelensky was going to "do the investigation." we have the president's many statements including the october 3 statement. even the minority counsel, mr. castor, admitted there was direct evidence. "we had direct evidence on certain things and direct evidence on the may 23 meeting. sondland gave direct evidence.
3:06 pm
" the secondhand accounts are corroborated. ambassador taylor and mr. morrison both testified during a september 23 phone call with ambassador sondland, president trump said there was no quid pro quo. president zelensky had to announce investigations. giving with one hand and taking the other. ambassador sondland testified he had no reason to dispute ambassador taylor's and mr. morrison about the conversation. there is circumstantial evidence. there was no contemporaneous explanation for the president's decision to withhold aid. that did not come until after the articles was filed. the aide should have been released. given these facts, the only logical explanation as
3:07 pm
ambassador sondland concluded was that like the white house meeting, the aide was being used to leverage pressure on president zelensky. at the end of the day, the evidence is overwhelming and indisputable. president trump's personal --yer, rudy giuliani, bush 2 pushed to investigate a rival. it was taken with the president's knowledge. president trump directed officials and zelensky himself to work with giuliani. he ordered the critical military aid be withheld. ukrainian officials were informed it would not be released unless president zelensky publicly announced an investigation. president trump refused to aide.e eight until -- agents advised's
3:08 pm
ukrainian officials the white house meeting would only be scheduled after president zelensky committed -- admitted investigation. president trump ignored the talking points prepared for cause. he asked president zelensky directly to investigate president trump's chief political rival. president trump stonewalled congress'investigation. i do not know what more you can ask for here. we have admission from the president, corroboration from people he has appointed. the only thing you can do is stick your head in the sand if you are not willing to see what happened here. i yield to my colleague from florida. is she here? >> thank you. >> you're welcome.
3:09 pm
>> for what purpose does mr. armstrong seek recognition? >> strike last word. >> the gentleman is recognized. >> they talked about quid pro quo and vibrate. they had a problem. there was no pressure. both president zelensky and president trump said there was no pressure, no victim. and thereas released was no investigation. there was no whistleblower, there was no adam schiff. we are left with abuse of power and obstruction of congress. impeachment is either a constitutional affair which this is not. or whatever the majority wants it to be. that is what this is. they cannot prove any of it. they will use all of it. to where this it started? bob mueller. buried in the bottom of article
3:10 pm
two of the impeachment, is the language these actions were consistent with president trump's efforts to undermine the united states government investigations into foreign interference in the elections. this is nothing more than a legislative drive-by. attempt toajority return to the scene of a non-crime. after two years, 19 lawyers, 500 warrants, 2800 subpoenas, $30 million -- there is no way they can leave it out. here is a reminder. the investigation did not establish members of the trump campaign conspired or coordinated with the russian government in its election interference activities. mueller report, page two. this started the day president trump won the election. this has been the conclusion since the date the democrats won majority. this was never about facts or fairness. here we are where we were always
3:11 pm
going to be. on a partisan impeachment that is destined to fail. with that i yield back. gentleman yields back. for what purpose does mclaughlin seek recognition? >> to check the last word. >> lady is recognized. >> i have listened to the debate this evening and throughout the last two weeks. i think it is important to look back to the founders and foundation of what it is we are doing here. that theers knew powers given to the president needed to have the capacity to in the case curbed of abuse. they consciously adopted a particular phrase from the english practice to help define
3:12 pm
the constitutional grounds for removal. "highntent of the phrase crimes and misdemeanors" was to be related to what the framers no on the whole about the english practice. the broad sweep of english constitutional history and the vital role impeachment played in a limitation of royal prerogatives and the control of abuses of ministerial and judicial power. when you are coming to a private affair in an ordinary criminal law, it is possible in advance to define what you cannot do. you cannot steal that money. you cannot hit that person. the you are talking about abuse of presidential power, you cannot always specifically
3:13 pm
define what a bad actor in the white house might do. termfore, you have the high crimes and misdemeanors. you have the abuse of presidential power. it is important to know in the second article of impeachment against richard nixon there was an article for abuse of power. the article principally abusesed president nixons of power to aid his political allies, harm his political opponents, gain improper political advantage. -- this is aower quote. " it was undertaken for personal political advantage and not inference of any national objective." this was a quote. " they were incompatible with the system of constitutional
3:14 pm
government and warranted removal from office." we have a situation similar. i want to address the issue raised by my colleague from ohio. can be ae there tendency in the country these days to immediately think, i don't like that. let us go to impeachment. that has been prevalent since the clinton impeachment. -- lyinger of his 8 under oath is a crime. it did not use presidential power. --eachment in that instance it was never the abuse of presidential power. put in the public mind this is a tool to be used for disagreements about policy. nothing could be further from the truth. i was disappointed. i voted against the iraq war.
3:15 pm
congress voted. some 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 congress together. it was nothing president usurping the powers of another branch of government. situation that is so obvious. it is look at the facts, inconceivable. the things i have heard today are stunning to me. that you could reach a conclusion -- the defense counsel grasping at straws. the president misused his presidential power to gain a political and personal benefit at the detriment 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.
3:16 pm
us and it is ongoing. it is a threat of high crimes and misdemeanors. it is our responsibility to use us inol our founders gave the constitution to preserve the constitutional order. we must impeach. i yield back. >> the gentlelady yields back. for what purpose do you seek recognition? >> strike last word. >> recognized. >> comment about president clinton's actions. it isou under oath perjury, a crime. officialt acting in capacity. that would set back the me too movement. having sex with an employee that is that much younger when you are president of the united states -- that is not official
3:17 pm
capacity. no matter how long we spent today, tonight, tomorrow, it does not make up for the fact we did not have fact witnesses. historically of the trial of socrates. when he got convicted by the jury of 501 people why? because he was arrogant. you want to try donald trump for being arrogant? you would have republicans vote with you on that. lot to be arrogant about. that is not a crime. it is not a high crime. it is certainly not a misdemeanor. it is bothersome to people. some people like it. ist is not what impeachment supposed to be about. what few hearsay, gossip ,ongering witnesses there were
3:18 pm
come into a star chamber and secrete their testimony so people cannot hear them. we have adam schiff put it together in a report. we received the report. do not have time to review it. we don't even get to hear from the preparer of the report and cross-examine him. stalinesk proceeding. you do not get to find key witnesses because there were any -- work any. you have people guest appearance. oh we are well educated. that's great. , go toare ever not sure los go. like thehate a person
3:19 pm
three witnesses obviously do. you can come in and misrepresent facts and use those to base your opinions on. look at what really started it. it started before mueller. pagearted back -- carter work for the cia to help them against the russians. what do i do? they pervert that, like to the vice court and say he worked with russians. misrepresent who he is, what he said, and what he did. they lie about it. where did this come from? 's came from hillary clinton campaign. they hire fusion gps. they hired a foreigner to affect our election. they worked with an australian, and italian, christopher steele
3:20 pm
gaveted those people that him the information may have but the majority does not want to get there. we find out how bad the travesty was. top , the top people in the fbi and the department of justice perverted justice, because they didn't like got him i got elected. everything they, could they used all these foreign resources to try to change the outcome of this 2016 election and when they did not work, then they came forward with impeachment it was, oh let's project what we did on donald trump, but it turned out he didn't do that, and even mueller and weisman, as much as he hated trump, they could not find anything so we have got
3:21 pm
the russian collusion, we had a drop victories, and nowhere, but obstruction of justice? well, it is not obstruction of justice when you know you're innocent and you know the department of justice is trying to set you up and you're trying to expose the truth. no, it was others who were obstructing the trudeau justice. vindman, per heaven sake, you set that guy up as a hero, he is no hero. he was mad that trump did not do what he told him. for those who believe in praying for this country, pray for mercy, we can't afford justice so the country ends. i yield back. >> for what purposes mascara siesta the recognition? >> i moved a straight loss. >> word ladies recognized. >> mister chairman, five more minutes. five more minutes and a very long, long day, but when you look at what the other side is presented in defense of the president, what do we get? nada. nothing. none of your will
3:22 pm
defend the president's actions because quite simply you cannot defend the indefensible. you just can't. even if you like him and support his actions, you just will not defend what he did. it is really quite simple. it is not complicated at all. he offered official acts in exchange for a political favor. he is a clear and present danger to do it again. he ignored the power of the people and he will do it again. it is really just that simple, the president is an imminent threat, you should as pattern of conduct, he has made clear that he will continue to abuse his power, corrupt the 2020 elections. we must act with a sense of urgency to protect our democracy and defend our constitution. in the
3:23 pm
clinton case, the house voted to impeach 72 days after he authorized an inquiry. it has been 94 days since congress launched its investigation into the president's dealings with ukraine. impeachment is a decision such as a grand jury or prosecutor makes. we have seen more than enough evidence here to charge and move to trial in the senate. it is a president who is abusing his power. what is not fair is the president's refusal to participate in this inquiry for the sole purpose of hiding the facts from the american people. federal courts have ruled that congress has a constitutional right to obtain documents and testimony from the trump administration. one federal court said that the president -- the president obstruction is a farce and he
3:24 pm
is openly stonewalling it i agree. he is the first president to engage in wall-to-wall stonewalling and in some respects, an outright cover-up of his own behavior. he has refused to comply with all of the congressional subpoenas that had been issued to try to uncover the truth about his misconduct. and act that no other citizen can do without consequence. as he's been stated before, even president nixon shared documents and allowed current and former aides to testify as part of the impeachment process. the committee still recommended article of impeachment against him for obstruction. last night, i reminded him that all of this is really about preserving and protecting our democracy, for the little boys and girls across this nation so that they will know about what it means to make a promise, and to make
3:25 pm
a pledge, and to keep it, because democracy is a gift that each generation gives to the next and that is why we have to take action we have to move forward and impeach the president. with that, mister, chairman i will yield the remainder of my time to my colleague from florida, miss powell. >> thank, you miss garcia. i just wanted to answer to what mr. chabot said earlier and clarify that i along with so many of my colleagues, so many of us that you see sitting on this guy, as we did not come here to impeach the president of the united states. we came to lower health care costs and that is exactly what we did today. we voted on hr three today to lower prescription drug prices. they say, let the american people decide. well that is why last week we voted on the voting rights amendment act which many of my republican
3:26 pm
colleagues voted against. let americans decide,, yes that is exactly why we are here because we don't want russia, ukraine or china, making the decision for us in our american government. this president has committed the highest crime by abusing the power of his office, inviting foreign interference in our elections and that is why we are here today. please don't confuse americans with false claims and pushing debunked conspiracy theories. we are here to tell the american people the truth. i yield back. >> general idiot spoke. who seeks recognition? for what purposes mr. mcclintock street recognition? >> district last. where >> the gentleman's. recognized >> i've lost track of the number of newspapers that event of the record in these proceedings but i think it is a telling commentary on the quality of the case that this committee is relying on to support the exercise of one of the most profound actions we
3:27 pm
can take. i think it underscores the dereliction of duty of a judiciary committee drafting articles of impeachment without a single fact hearing. virtually the entire record is the schiff report and newspaper clippings. i will remind the committee yesterday, this week, mr. schiff's report on vice abuse was categorically completely contradicted by the inspector general's report. mr. schiff's work is not exactly what you can call the gold standard of accuracy, reliability or incisive analysis a newspaper clippings, with all due respect, are not exactly a solid foundation that can support our wielding such power. we should be made of stern or staff. a matter so momentous as this should be considered thoroughly and dispassionately unfairly. mister chairman, to substitute our judgment for that of the american people by nullifying a national election is a very weighty matter. to go and do
3:28 pm
that you have a record of fact that no reasonable person can deny. one set of reports are adam schiff a newspaper scrapbook as the foundation of impeachment, i predict will crumble and disintegrate before the senate finishes its consideration. abuse of power is exactly the vague and expensive ground that the founders considered as maladministration and rejected in favor of the narrow ground of treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors. the lawful exercise of the president's constitutional authority is not impeachable, at the moment we make it so, the president becomes a servant of congress, and the separation of powers which is protected our freedom for nearly two and a half centuries, will be greatly diminished, and similarly, the president's assertion of long established boundaries that maintain the
3:29 pm
separation of powers is also not impeachable. once we make it so, we also clearly diminish the separation of powers. the overall political hyperbole that we have heard over and over through these hearings, not to warn us that we are straying into partisan motives which must never animate the impeachment power of congress. public opinion has not coalesced around this act, which should also alert us to the danger that by proceeding we would further divide and alienate the american people, and rolling out into the political waters of this nation. we failed to find any law the president has very little. if you could, issue clearly articulate that and support it with a legally admissible evidence and put it in the articles. otherwise, your case is simply a disagreement decision the president is authorized to make and again, this is a matter that our constitutional
3:30 pm
reserves to the voters and not to the congress support of the witnesses requested by the minority, you have blinded the committee to the beginning of the whole story. if you are truly confident in your case, or should have nothing to fear from what a full airing of testimony could offer. the most chilling observation i have heard is, we can do this because we are not restricted like the department of justice is well, the same rights of due process, the same fatalities of the constitution are required of us. the impeachment and do johnston, congress made many of the same mistakes that we are making tonight. i would urge my colleagues to carefully consider how history is judge them, and how it will judge us. i yield back. >> the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does ms. jayapal seek recognition? >> i moved to strike last word. >> the lady is recognized. >> thank you, mister chairman,
3:31 pm
we just continued to hear the same excuses for the president's behavior and this is such a grave moment that were in, were talking about the highest constitutional crimes, abuse of power and obstruction of congress and so let me once again review with the facts. first, my republican colleagues have said that this is about corruption, that all the president trump's agencies, all of advisers, everyone unanimously told him that ukraine had passed all the anti corruption benchmarks. the department of defense said that ukraine had passed their review on anti corruption benchmarks, i know for the corruption policies were needed. president trump's administration cut programs designed to fight corruption in ukraine and president trump was given talking points by the national security council that specifically said, say these things about corruption, but
3:32 pm
guess what happened on those calls in april in july? president trump did not mention corruption. he did not use the talking points that he was given. the only two names that he mentioned on the july 25th call, joe and hunter biden. second, the republicans suggested that this was all about president trump's concerns with burden sharing with our allies. but that was not true. mr. homes testified that burden sharing was not a problem. europe was actually contributing four times as much money as the united states did and ambassador sondland testified that he was never asked to go to the european union and ask for more money and remember mr. sondland is president trump's ambassador to the european union. what was ambassador sondland told to communicate to ukraine by president trump? he was told to say that resumption would likely not occur unless
3:33 pm
president zelensky announced the investigation, specifically, he said the quote, unless zelensky went announced this investigation, there would be a stalemate over the aid. and what were those investigations? 2016 election interference and burisma meaning, the bidens so, finally, left with nothing else to argue in defense of the president, the republicans have raised one more thing which is that president trump had a legitimate reason, somehow a legitimate reason to investigate vice president biden but once again that makes no sense. and makes no sense because the facts are that that investigation, that issue of biden and burisma went back to 2015 and president trump released aid in 2017 in 2018, so clearly did not have a problem with the issues the 2015 because he had two opportunities to release aid and he did but something changed in 2019 and the only
3:34 pm
thing that change was vice president biden suddenly started being present trump in the polls so, the evidence is clear, president trump said do us a favor, though, and who is the us? well, he told us. he told us exactly what he meant by us. he told president zelensky that us, deal with rudy giuliani. president trump's personal attorney, who knows, and this is a, quote very much knows what is going on. president trump could've gone through official channels what he, wanted if this investigation was obscene -- -- -- actually legitimate. he could've asked the department to initiate investigation into the bidens and burisma, but he did not do that. at the department of justice said that he did not do that. he never asked him to do an investigation or even talk to ukraine. instead, president trump asked his personal attorney because us was not
3:35 pm
about america. this was not about official policy. this was about what was right for our country. this was not about putting america first. every witness testified that as well. this was personal. it was all for president trump's personal political gain. this was to benefit trump's own reelection campaign, and that is why he at his personal attorney to, the sea abuses power, he abused the powers of the people interested to him. he abused the office and he placed our safety, millions of dollars of taxpayer money, all at risk for his own personal political election and that is the one thing the president cannot do. he cannot use our, money the powers of the office that we entrusted to him, we the people, not for us but for himself. that is the greatest abuse of power and this president has left us no
3:36 pm
choice but to impeach him. i yield back. >> the gentlelady yields back. for what purpose of mistrust recognition? >> the strike last. where >> german is. recognize >> this morning i began by aligning our portable today. most of us are attorneys in this committee and in this case were also called the surface finders of fact. we are supposed to carefully and objectively analyze the claims, not against our personal preferences, but against the record of evidence. another we have done, that for the past 12 hours, it's time to summarize our case. at the end of the day, now literally the end of the day, there are just too short articles to disappear resolution they brought before us, abuse of power and obstruction of justice and on the first, the democrats know there is your direct evidence in the record of these proceedings to show the president trump engaged in any scheme of any kind, as they have alleged, or that he intended in his dealings with ukraine to influence the 2020
3:37 pm
election. all they have brought today is based on hearsay, speculation and conjecture. the truth is there is not a single fact witness to provide testimony to support their paper thin case which is precisely why we have been giving no opportunity for the fact witnesses for a minority hearing. what the evidence does show is that president trump holds a deep-seated, genuine reasonable skepticism of ukraine, into its history of pervasive corruption. his administration saw proof that newly elected president zelensky was a true reformer. president trump wanted to ensure that american taxpayer funded security assistance would not be squandered overseas by what is reported to be the third most corrupt nation in the world. trump, in discussions were never about what will happen in 2020 but what already happened in 2016. the democrats a second claim is that president trump obstructed justice by simply doing what virtually every of the president in the modern era has
3:38 pm
also done, to assert a legitimate executive privilege and legal immunity to avoid subpoenas issued to various white house officials. there is simply no evidence of any impeachable offense here anymore and if they had not promised and because the liberal base by christmas, the democrats could and should have simply gone a few blocks away to the federal court to get an order compelling the ex document information is subpoenaed but that is what has always been done in the past but they did not have time for that here because they are trying to be their own arbiter, completely reckless and machiavellian timeline to take down a president they loathe. the real abuse of power here is on the part of the house democrats, who is fiercely pursue this impeachment 20 times pastor, faster than the peter investigation of bill clinton to reach the predetermine political outcome. along the way, they have steam rolled over a constitutionally guaranteed new process, previously sacrosanct house rules of the federal rules of civil procedure. they have ignored exculpatory evidence,
3:39 pm
intimidated witnesses, restricted republican lines of questioning, denied defense witnesses and evolve into the president's counsel, restricted republican review of evidence, denied minority hearing and violate the proper minority notice of fairness at every single stage. the founders of this quarter country warned against a single party impeachment for good reason. they fear that it would bitterly and perhaps radically divide our nation. our chairman, mr., nadler gave a speech about that 20 years ago when he was imposing -- opposing the impeachment bill clinton. the obvious truth is that our liberal colleagues have vowed to impeach president trump's the day of his election. the reason they changed at least half a dozen time over the last few years they could ever make any traction or any facts to justify those various conspiracy theories, as the next election in 2020 is wrong so close now and their candidates for president are terribly week,, they obviously but somewhere at the liberal high command several days ago i can business policy to pull the trigger. the problem, is they have done that no hearing so the basement, could not cover a single top to justify the latest conspiracy
3:40 pm
theory about ukraine. so, what to do? left with no choice, to desperately create a totally fraudulent, unprecedented process to try to remove donald trump. the results are whatever and witnesses testify as, quote the shores proceeding with the thinnest evidence you are tomorrow as ever used to impeach the president. i'm a constitutional attorney by profession i have actually enjoyed the four minutes of real intellectual debate we had on the contours of article two section four but every high school students student at home could be displaying what is expressing required to impeach a president. you need treason, bribery, or high crime or misdemeanor. none of that exists here and everybody knows it. those high school students at home no it. our constituents know it and in their heart of hearts even our friends on the other side of the room tonight. my good friend mr. cohen said in his closing a few moments ago that he is proud to be a politician but i would say with all sincerity, this moment does not call for politicians. the weight of history is upon us here in this moment cause for statesman. this impeachment is going to fail and the democrats
3:41 pm
are gonna justly pay a heavy political price for it. the pandora's box be open today, that is a real tragedy of the vote we are about to take. god help us. i yield back. >> the gentleman yields back. >> i moved strict last word. >> ladies recognize. >> a little while ago, when michael is in the south of the aisle was saying that the president was not -- the reason that aid was withheld was because the president wanted to investigate corruption. the idea that the most corrupt president we have seen in recent history withheld military aid because he was concerned about corruption, is ludicrous. as my colleagues have pointed out, both cause the president trump had with president zelensky, trump never mention corruption. the parliament of defense vetted giving him the aid and said that it was okay. once upon a time president trump love his generals. this time he ignored
3:42 pm
them. members of congress authorize the aid and lobby the white house to release the aid. staff from the office of management and budget resigned because they were worried about what was going on and why the aid was withheld and worried about what the president was doing and they believe that withholding the aid was wrong. trump even cut funding for programs to deal with corruption in countries like ukraine, so amanda so concerned about corruption also has interesting friends. he has bromances with some of the world's most corrupt leaders, meters from saudi arabia, turkey, he had the president erdogan from turkey just a few weeks ago at the white house but we know is number one path is president putin so all of the president's men all the men around him that were indicted arrested incarcerated, my mother used to say that if you lay down with dogs, don't be surprised if you get up with
3:43 pm
louise. the man who claimed he wanted to clean up the swamp created his own swap and he is drowning in it now. i do have to say, though, that i have empathy for my republican colleagues because i don't believe that they have a choice. they have to defend the president and they do not step out of line because if they do, they will suffer the consequences. a few of my republican colleagues earlier did try to say that they did not believe that the president's conduct was appropriate and they got slapped quickly. the president said his conduct? he said, the call was absolutely perfect and so now you do not see any of them saying or questioning whether his behavior was appropriate. you have to fall in line and not only do you have to fall in line, you have to praise him constantly, like those famous press conferences we've seen in the oval office where they, won by one, go around the table and talk about their praise for him. it makes me feel like a meeting that
3:44 pm
would take place in north korea, where you have to praise dear leader so, you have to fall in line because the entire reason was corruption, but i know that you know better. you have to say that he did nothing wrong. one of my colleagues said that we are lowering the bar with impeachment, i believe that we have lowered the bar on the presidency. it is so sad to see my colleagues who i believe no it's better. they are not able to say it. they know that the man is corrupt. when it comes to impeachment, there is no higher crime than for the president to use, in the power of his office, to corrupt our elections. we will move to impeach president trump because of the abuse of power, self dealing, the betrayal of national security in the service of foreign interests, and the corruption of our elections that undermine our democratic system. so, if my
3:45 pm
colleagues on the other side of the aisle cannot bring themselves to do what is right and impeach the president, they know is a threat to our elections, that they know is a threat to our standing in the world, then we will have to do it and we will have to move to impeach. i yield now to representative jackson-lee. >> i thank the gentlelady for yielding. my conclusion is very remarks or simply this. to my friends on the other side of the, aisle to the americans who have listened to the soldiers everywhere who wear uniforms, i have no exit, i have no dislike of anyone who voted for anyone in 2016. i think issue an insult that one suggests the work of this committee is about it it's like for those who voted for president trump. president trump is before this committee and articles of impeachment for his own behavior. for his desire to do with public monies and a public
3:46 pm
position, a private matter, in a political matter, and that is to get dirt on his 2020 potential opponent. in honoring and defending the constitution, we defended honor ourselves. for that reason, as an indicted body for articles of impeachment, will get the opportunity for the congress to sign on president trump's ultimate result, i stand the constitution and for justice. i yield back. >> for what purposes mr. swalwell seek recognition? >> i move to strike the last. where >> the gentleman is recognized. >> pull me once, shame on you. for me twice, shame on me. if we allow the president to the united states to begin, abuse his office for his own personal gain, and shame on all of us, shame on our constitution. we know he's going to do that again because on june 12th this year he told george
3:47 pm
stephanopoulos, for this phone call, that president zelensky happen, but if he could again received from a foreign government as he did corruption, he would do it again. on july 20, for bob mueller testified to our committee. he said that the president could be tracked with up to ten times for obstruction of justice but the department of justice prevents him from doing that. the next day, the president did it again. every prosecutor when they are assigned a case will open up the file in the first thing we all do is we look at the rap sheet. was this an aberration, or was this a pattern of conduct that the person engages in? it is not just prosecutors who look or use a rap sheet, we all do in our everyday lives. if you're a small business owner you're hiring and employ and find out that they had multiple deaths in their past from their employer, you probably would not hire them. if you are apparent looking for a night out in hiring a
3:48 pm
babysitter and multiple references said the babysitter is always late, you would not ask that person to watch your kids. and if you are going to a restaurant or an anniversary that saw multiple bad health reviews, you would not go to that restaurant. the president does not just have bad reviews, he has really bad prior conduct, serious priors, he is a repeat offender, crimes against our constitution and yes, crimes that one day may be prosecuted statutory. 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 who will continue to protect him. unfortunately, the american people have a congress i can say he is not above the law and we are not helpless in holding him accountable. i know
3:49 pm
you'll to the gentleman from ohio. >> i thank the gentleman. we have heard a lot of explanations but why are here tonight, we do not like the policies, who do not like the president, but one thing we have not heard, the real reason we're here tonight is the conduct of the president, the grave misconduct, and so i just want to give very quickly the evidence that was presented and call records,, emails hundreds of press statements and tweets, that the president had been engaged on a personal basis on rudy and his, lawyer investigating ukraine, the president zelensky, sensitive about ukraine being taken seriously, not really as an interest -- as ambassador sondland said, david holmes testified under oath, i was surprised that it was so concrete, a demand that president zelensky personally commit to a specific investigation of president trump's political rival on cable news and the evidence go on and on of the presidents
3:50 pm
effort to use the enormous powers of his office to betray the national interest and cheat in the election in 2020 and use hundreds of millions of dollars of taxpayer money to attempt to achieve that objective. her founders talked a bit of piece of power because they recognize the power of the presidency was enormous. there was a danger to the president would use that power not for the public good, but for his own personal political or financial advantage. so, they created articles of impeachment, a final check against 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, we are acting out of love of our country, and love of our democracy. when generations look back on this moment, they will, ask what did we do to preserve our democracy? the only thing we can do to preserve that is to hold this president accountable because
3:51 pm
if we don't, they will ask us why we failed to preserve the greatest democracy on earth, that has been an example to the world. in this moment, we have to find the courage to ensure we can answer that question for all future generations and not be part of an effort to undermine the greatest democracy known to man. so, i urge my colleagues tonight, we must approve these articles of impeachment so we can make it clear that nobody in this country and the greatest country of the world is above the law, even the most powerful person present in the united states and with that, i yield back. >> to determine your back. for what purpose does mister jeffrey seek recognition? >> i'm with the trick last. word >> recognized. >> the record is clear, donald trump abused his power by soliciting foreign interference in the 2020 election, and
3:52 pm
thereby undermining the integrity of the democracy as well as our national security. my republican colleagues to spend all day arguing process. that is what you do when you cannot defend the indefensible. you argue process. well, here is a process concerning but you might reflect upon. earlier today, mitch mcconnell gave some indication as to how a possible trial in the senate may work. and this is what senator mcconnell said. i am going to coordinate with the president's lawyers so there won't be any difference between us and how to do this. in other words, the jury, senate republicans, are going to
3:53 pm
coordinate with the defendant, donald trump, on how exactly the kangaroo court is going to be run.. i submit to you respectfully that is a process concern. that the american people should be worried about. now america is a resilient nation we have been through minutes of turmoil before. we've always come through, we are resilient nation, and lincoln said we are in the heart of the civil, war america is the last, vast hope on earth. fdr, said on the eve of the second world war, democracy is not dying. reagan said in the
3:54 pm
midst of the cold war, 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 demagoguery? what exactly will history say about us?. i yield now to my distinguished colleague from the great state of texas, this -- mrs. escobar. >> thank, you mister chairman, i'm going to speak directly to the american people once again and i'm going to ask but they bypass the republican talking points that we've heard over and over and over again, especially for those americans
3:55 pm
who have been listening and watching all day, and instead go directly to the evidence yourself. over 100 hours of testimony, testimony by some of america's greatest patriots, over 250 text messages, mick mulvaney's own words, mr. mulvaney is the president's chief of staff and finally, the presidents own words, his own words inviting russia ukraine and china into our election. the republican colleagues that we have on this committee claim there is not enough evidence, review it for yourself and as to obstruction we have given a number of examples about obstruction but we have a living example that was released just tonight. actually, before i talk about that example, if my colleagues, my republican colleagues think that the president is so free from wrongdoing, i would ask them to join us in a calling on
3:56 pm
president trump to release it all. release the witnesses, release documents, let the american public make up their own minds, let them see it all. call on transparency, join us, but they will not, because the obstruction is convenient, tonight, there was a victory. the center for public integrity sued federal court for documents related to the ukraine scandal and this is what they got. they won in court, but what they got were heavily redacted documents. why? because, the president does not want these documents to see the light of day. i ask for unanimous consent, chairman, to enter these documents -- >> no objection -- >> along with the article, trump administration resist ukraine disclosures ordered by court. >> the time of the gentlelady
3:57 pm
has expired. for what purposes the ranking member mr. collins seek recognition? >> to strike the last word. >> denim is recognized. >> thank you, mister, chairman we are coming to the end here, it is amazing to me, especially from hearing from one of the -- on either side of the aisle, mr. jeffries, make a statement that said that the only thing that we had to offer was a process argument all day. i mean, he may have had to come in and out, and i am not sure, for the most part, for all of our i'll tell you i think it's part of what i'm about to 12 hours ours is that please the aid was, released there is nothing done, and that was an argument, we have don't want to hear a process the ages release there is argument, we had nothing going and was no argument we have a process argument a lot to do with where we are at right, now but the facts we want to do is where we are at right now are being but the facts are being taken home taken home and rebuffed, and rebuffed, every single hour every single hour of this of this day since day since not a father 9:00. it is it is amazing amazing to me to me that that as as we look we look
3:58 pm
forward forward, and going and going forward, it forward it has to be has to be said, said this is this is basically basically a concern in part concerning for many of us for many of us is is the focus the focus on on impeachment impeachment. but he could not but he could not make, make it as one by it as one my politics mr. colleagues, mr. griffin said, quid pro quo is griffin said quick work was not on the not something we all use values but but bribery is regret is something somebody something somebody understands, understands extortion is what somebody extortion is what something understands understands, or doing something doing something, we have that will be in the tech we never told you didn't speak a little snow is on the air if they were if they were so so assured that they had assure they had that all his crimes done all these crimes, but you but you can get can't, that is the that is the biggest biggest flaw we are floor we are having having right now right now. i know we i do we still have to saw this little bit of debate left, slow it up to be left but that is the issue but that is the, issue you cannot put them in, there and the who have said that you want to defend actions right, away we are defending the president actions, i want to do that right now for someone to say but we have again is not list -- what we
3:59 pm
have is o'clock and calendar impeachment. one of the things that has assured me most, of my work with this chairman now in the minority or majority, both ways, and it is amazing to me how little we have gotten in this. i wrote six letters to this chairman about how we are going to conduct what has become the short rubberstamp region of impeachment which we have tonight in the judiciary committee.. i received an answer to none of those letters except one. just the other, night when it was rejected, not a chance to we have any of our witnesses, so, in some way, i turn back on the democrats, what were you scared? what are you afraid of that they might actually say? because we just summarily rejected them for my question, to be, honest what are you afraid of? some of which had already been called. >> we are understanding the fact we have now become a committee that unfortunately mueller the chairman said over 20 years, ago we have except the facts from other places and
4:00 pm
not check on ourselves, we have regurgitated follow, talked about other people's work but not had a chance to look at it ourselves. we are the rubble stamp. this is no longer the judiciary committee that actually is a factor witness interrogator, it is a rubber stamp which someone else, particularly mr. schiff, has told, us and that is sad because that is not what this committee is about. i have watched the last two congress is, my friends, who are now in the majority, are in the minority, make passionate arguments for hours at a time, very, little nothing including the rules of the committee, we went home, seven or eight hours from the rules the committee, passionate, i understand what that committee is about, but can you tell me honestly for the majority's perspective that you almost been less hours percentage wise on impeachment than actually doing anything remotely related to the hearing as he did in a minority when you're arguing about the rules of the committee and the oversight? that should tell you a lot about what this is about.
4:01 pm
because we are spending more time in arguments about things that really at the end of the day -- they were not needed but we are spending less time percentage wise arguing about what you would call the highest of all powers that you're doing and honoring the constitution. i think it is just not congruent with what you're doing. the other problem i have is, this will be never, ending in just a few, weeks we have the senate finishes up wherever they do and we are back to this again, and i know that because adam schiff told me. so i know this because mr. green told me, so they will impeach him over and over again, i guess i'm waiting for the committee hearing schedule and february to see what we are investigating next. i guess that will dominate. but the two most, one most disturbing thing i said to the end of the day, if you can't make that president zelensky felt, threatened you can attack present zelensky, i cannot believe just in the last little bit here he was actually called a better life. president
4:02 pm
zelensky called a battered wife, the absolute destruction, in comparison to a battered wife is just amazing but this is what we stoop in his committee, at this time, during this important moment, on this impeachment debacle. i yield back. move to strike the last word thank you so much mister chairman just. a couple of things i want to clear up right off the bat. i feel compelled to say that a lieutenant alexander vindman is a hero. because he received the purple heart for sustaining injuries in iraq. and i am extremely proud of him for his courage on and off the battlefield. secondly you can say this one more time, the intelligence committee did not subpoena the phone records of any member of congress or any member of the
4:03 pm
press. abuse of power has been defined as official misconduct, commission often unlawful activity, done in an official capacity which affects the performance of official duties. president trump thought an announcement of political investigations in return for performing to official act. number one, he conditioned release of vital military assistance in ukraine on president zelensky's public announcement of the investigations. now imagine if there was a mayor who withheld critical dollars from the police chief to fight terrorism until that chief went to a microphone and simply announced an investigation of the mayor's political opponent. i do not
4:04 pm
believe any can immunity anywhere we would allow that. number to, the president conditioned ahead of state meeting at the white house on ukraine publicly announcing the investigations and finally, president trump acted corruptly throughout this course of conduct because he offered to perform these official acts in exchange for a private political benefit rather than because it was in the country's interest. this last element the, president acting corruptly, is perhaps it's the most important act. it bears repeating because it explains why this article is structured as an abuse of power. it has been suggested that it's as simple as we hate the president. i don't hate the
4:05 pm
president. i attended president trump's inauguration i. wanted to be there to watch a peaceful transfer of power. i felt it was my duty before coming to congress i provided dignitary protection for republican and democratic presidents. and i always considered it an honor. but president trump, with all that has been said, with all the excuses that we have heard today, president trump used his office to serve himself. to serve his private benefit. and by sueing doing so, he jeopardized america's national security interests and the integrity of our precious elections, every vote should
4:06 pm
count. and went all out to completely obstruct any investigation into his wrongdoing. yes, we've heard it many times. yes, the president was duly elected by the american people. we know that. and we take it very seriously. i want my vote to count. and everybody, i believe, who make their way to the polls, want their vote to count. but are you suggesting that the american people will allow the president to do anything that he wants to do anytime anyplace, anywhere? to my republican colleagues, i reject where you are willing to settle for. we have a responsibility to hold the president accountable. and i plan on doing my
4:07 pm
constitutional duty. he shall be held accountable and. with that mister chairman, i yield back. >> gentlelady yields back. if there are no further amendments we have concluded debate. the question occurs on the amendment to the substitute. all those in favor respond by saying i. those no. in the opinion of the chair the ayes have it. to be clear, the ice have it the amendment the nature of the substitute is agreed to. be clear to vote the committee just took is not a vote on the final passage of the article. it is a procedural vote which proceeds for final passage of each of the articles. it has been a long two days of consideration of these articles and it is now very late at night. i want to members on both sides of the aisle to think about what has
4:08 pm
happened over these past few days and to search their conscience is before we cast their final voice. therefore the committee will now stand in recess until tomorrow morning at 10 am, at which point i will move to divide the question so that each office may have the opportunity to cast up or down vote on each of the articles of impeachment on and until history beyond judge. >> richard sherman. there is no you have just blown up scheduled for everyone. you chose not to consult the ranking member on the schedule issue of this magnitude. >> so typical. >> this is the kangaroo court is that we are talking about. >> more stolen ask to an unbelievable degree. stubbornness. don't have a dictator. it's good to hear about. that unbelievable.
4:09 pm
injury rain everywhere is now
4:10 pm
4:11 pm
4:12 pm
>> with the house judiciary articles approving two of impeachment against president trump, the house rules committee will meet to determine the guidelines to determine how the debate will on fold on the house floor. watch live tuesday on c-span3, mpeachment or listen for free with the c-span radio app. herunday, she talks about book the first cell. on the surface, i should be proclaiming victory on the rooftops. -- both groups, the treatable in
4:13 pm
the non-treatable. i asked the fundamental question . frustration is wireless still --ng these pale lithic paleolithic approaches. we have $2 billion of research gone. at 8:00 eastern on c-span's q&a. >> for 40 years, c-span has been providing america unfiltered coverage of congress, the white house, the supreme court and public policy of events from washington dc -- washington, d.c. and around the country. c-span is brought to you by your
4:14 pm
local cable or satellite provider. c-span, your unfiltered view of government. klobuchar delivered remarks on foreign policy at the council of foreign relations in washington, d.c.. plan before her [inaudible] >> thank you for the work you ie doing and i also note that made a here from the judiciary hearing on the inspector general report on the fbi and i'm here and to return to pass my questions, which means the during is going on for a really long time, but it is truly an honor to be here at the council of


info Stream Only

Uploaded by TV Archive on