whether we are still a asks whether we are still a republic of laws, as our founders intended, or whether we will accept that one person can be above the law. in america, as we have said over and overagain, america, as we have said over and over again, no—one is america, as we have said over and overagain, no—one is above america, as we have said over and over again, no—one is above the law. but only as long as we hold every person accountable for breaking the law, even the president, will that be true. if the house does not act, if we wait and delay, we run the risk of allowing the president's misconduct. if we believed to be so, to be repeated at the expense of integrity of our elections, our national security and oui’ elections, our national security and our constitutional system of separation of powers. democrats did

not choose this impeachment. we did not choose this impeachment. we did not wish for it. we voted against it, we voted against it once, we voted against it twice, we voted against it three times as recently asjuly. we did not want this. however, president trump's misconduct has force our constitutional republic to protect itself. these votes that we are about to take in the process that will follow in the senate are not only an assessment of the president's into the constitution or his oath of office, it is, as well,

a test of our own. damning evidence of the president's high crimes as emerged. nevertheless, republican members of this house and of the senate have continued to defend the president whose actions seemed, to many of us, indefensible. all of us feel a sense of loyalty to party. it's what makes our two—party system functional, is what helps hold presidents and majorities accountable. but party loyalty must have its limits. and as evidence of the president's impeachable offences have mounted daily as the witnesses testified, it's become increasingly clear that the limits of partisanship have been reached and

passed. now, democrats and republicans together face a test before our constituents, our countrymen and our creator. the new york times on october 18 summarise the question now posed to house and senate. republicans and democrats, compromised by compromise, donald trump has hammered away at what republicans once saw as foundational virtues, decency, honesty, responsibility and yes, even civility. will they commit themselves in party wholly to mr trump, embracing his even most antidemocratic action or will they

check the first —— will they take the first step towards restoring confidence in the rule of law? madam speaker, we have seen republican courage throughout our history. from the civil war to the cold war. in 1950, margaret chase smith, the senator from maine, republican, spoke bravely against the cancer of mccarthyism in her party, leading six of her republican colleagues in declaration of conscience against their own leadership. we are republicans, they declared but we are americans first. in 1974, one congressman took the brave and principled step of becoming the first republican in the judiciary committee to support impeaching

president nixon. he said to his colleagues, and to the country, and i quote, "it isn't easy for me to align myself against the president to whom i gave my enthusiastic support, on whose side i've stood in many legislative battles, whose accomplishments in foreign and domestic affairs are consistently applauded. but it is impossible, he we nt applauded. but it is impossible, he went on to say, for me to condone or ignore the long train of abuses to which he has subjected the presidency and the people of this country. the constitution and my own oath of office demand that i bear true faith and allegiance to the principles of law and justice upon which this nation was founded. and he concluded, and i cannot in good

conscience, turn away from the evidence of evil that is, to me, so clear and compelling. my colleagues, that congressman's name was larry hogan senior. he represented the fifth district of maryland. which i i'iow fifth district of maryland. which i now represent. his son is presently the second term republican governor of our state. when larry hogan senior died in 2017, every obituary lead with praise for his act of political courage. who among us, many years from now, will receive such praise as a man or woman of courage? who will regret not having earnedit?

courage? who will regret not having earned it? we've talked a lot about partisan differences. there is one person who has spoken today, who is neither a person who has spoken today, who is neithera memberof the person who has spoken today, who is neithera member of the republican party nor the democratic party. his name isjustin party nor the democratic party. his name is justin amash, party nor the democratic party. his name isjustin amash, represented the republican district. he left the republican party and admonished his colleagues that, quote, this president will only be in power for a short time but excusing his behaviour will forever tarnish your name. he spoke on this floor in support of the two articles that we will consider this evening. neither a democrat nor a republican,

representative amash is the only memberof representative amash is the only member of this house who has no allegiance to either party but to his country. he is supporting, as i've said, both articles. we need not ask who will be the first to show courage by standing up to president trump. the question we must now ask is, who will be the la st must now ask is, who will be the last to find it? the pages of our history are filled with americans who had the courage to choose country over party or personality. but as president kennedy road, the stories of past courage can teach, they can offer hope, they can provide inspiration. but they cannot supply courage itself. for this,

president kennedy said each man, each woman must look into their own soul. i urge my fellow colleagues in the house and yes, in the senate. to look into your soul. summon the courage to vote for our concert tuition and democracy. i understand we will not see the same conclusion but to do less betrays our oath and that of our founders who pledged their lives, their fortune and their sacred honour. . let us needed turn away from the evidence which to me seems so away from the evidence which to me seems so clear away from the evidence which to me seems so clear i'ioi’ away from the evidence which to me seems so clear nor from our good conscience which compels us to do what, in our hearts, we know to be right. let us now allow the rule of

law to find its toehold. with our votes today, we can bear true faith and allegiance to the vision of our founders. and we can show future generation what it truly means to be americans first. vote yes. that was the house majority leader ste ny h oyer that was the house majority leader steny hoyer there. we will get the house majority leader kevin mccarthy soon. after that, we're going to have the chairman ‘s of the intelligence committee adam schiff who will wrap up the seedings and we will eventually get to the vote. i'm

estimating that will be on 15—20 minutes‘ time. we'll have the house of representatives voting on articles of impeachment against president trump, abuse of power and then obstruction of congress. at the same time, president trump has arrived in michigan where he is giving a rally tonight in battle creek. we understand he will deliver a christmas message to that brilliant will spend about a third of the speech speaking about the impeachment proceedings which the white house is describing as a scan and we are expecting to hear a lot about from the president. there you have it, the split screen, capitol hill where members of congress are voting on whether to impeach donald trump, making him only the third ever american president to be impeached and on the other side, battle creek, michigan where donald trump is giving effectively an election campaign brilliant hoping he can use what is happening on the

other side of the screen on capitol hill to rally support for him. that's go back to capitol hill for the final moments of the debate. let's have an honest conversation, what we found over the past few weeks as it's ok for the majority to tear down a foreign leader because they can't make their case, calling him a liar, week, or even a battered wife. it's below the dignity of this body and majority to tear down a foreign leader because they can't make their case against this one. we have broken rules in this house, even to this moment, chairman adam schiff and others have broken resolution 660 by not turning over the things they want to turn over. we still don't have a transcript, i guess minority hearing rule days don't matter either. there is a problem because we vote this tonight

by breaking the rules. what a shameful incident but we also found a creative interpretation of minority rights, the rise of partisanship because of things done further and members smeared in reports by drive—by political hacks when they match numbers of the ranking member and the members of the press. that should concern eve ryo ne the press. that should concern everyone of you and us, nothing but a drive by hit. this majority leader also says wherever law ends, charity begins but whenever the laws are disregarded, chaos and mob rule begin and the majority has taken to a new level. it's been said, where is bravery? i tell you it's found in this minority that slipped through the last year of nothing but ruled for —— rules being broken, people would down, we don't with anything else and we will be impeached. why,

because we won an election. one day you will be in minority and it isn't going to be that fund because pete when you look at it, when you actually trash the rules of this house, what did you gain at the end by trashing the institution you claim to love? that's what we found out so far but they are careful of saying, you want to deal in process. asi saying, you want to deal in process. as i said last night in the rules committee where they didn't want to listen, i will win on process and fa ct listen, i will win on process and fact because we have the truth on oui’ fact because we have the truth on our side. let me remind you. but here is what the process says. there was no pressure. no pressure. no conditionality, nothing done to get the aid in the aid actually came. there were five meetings but when you look at it right now, none of which matter, because right now the dark cloud is descending upon this house and i am fearful when i look in that abuse i don't know what i see but i tell you what i do see, i

see but i tell you what i do see, i see a president who will put his head down through this sham impeachment and will do hisjob head down through this sham impeachment and will do his job and put the american people first and tell them, i care about you, he will still put the economy first and make sure this country stands strong. that's what i see in this, that is where we are going. and it is with that hope in the future that i recognise right now that i yield one minute to the republican leader of this house, the republican from california, mr mccarthy. madam speaker, i must warn you, i am about to say something my democratic colleagues hate to hear. donaldj trump is president of the united states.

applause he is president today. he will be president tomorrow, and he will be president tomorrow, and he will be president when this impeachment is over. madam speaker, when they acce pt over. madam speaker, when they accept that, maybe this house can get back to work for the american people. now, tonight i rise not as the leader of the opposition to this impeachment, or as the elected representative from the central valley of california. i rise as kevin mccarthy, citizen, no better, no worse , kevin mccarthy, citizen, no better, no worse, than the 435 representatives who are in this chamber, or the 330 representatives who are in this chamber, orthe 330 million americans watching this institution make what i believed to be one of the worst decisions we have ever made. it doesn't matter whether you are a democrat or republican,

whether you are liberal or are conservative, whether you are the first generation of the 10th... conservative, whether you are the first generation of the 10th. .. so there you have, on capitol hill, the house minority leader, republican kevin mccarthy, speaking. and on the other side of your screen you have vice president pants, who is up at a rally in michigan where donald trump will be speaking to supporters in just a few minutes‘ time —— vice president pence. these two things happening at the same moment as americans wrestle with the impeachment of donald trump, and donald trump is out on the campaign trail. the proper grounds and process for impeachment now and in the future. four months, democrats and many in the media have attempted to normalise the impeachment process that would remove the julia to normalise the impeachment process that would remove thejulia duly —— duly elected president from office. after baseless outrage, this is their last attempt to stop the trump

presidency. madam speaker, speaker pelosi even admitted that democrats have been working on impeachment for 2.5 years. those were her words, they were not mine. because they lost to him in 2016, they will do anything or say anything to stop him in 2020. that is not america. that's not how democratic republics behave. elections matter. voters matter. and, in” elections matter. voters matter. and, in 11 months, the people's voice will be heard again. impeachment is the most consequential decision congress can make, other than sending our men and women into war, yet 85 days ago, speaker pelosi chose to impeach the

president of the united states. she wrote the script and created an artificial timeline to make the details fit. why else are we doing this just hours before christmas? if that's all it was, a rush to judgement, she could be forgiven. but, before the speaker saw one word or one shred of evidence, she moved to impeach. in the past, in this body, such a step demanded a vote from all of us from the start. but not only did she moved to impeach before she gave this house in the hundreds of millions of people we represent a say in whether to pursue an impeachment enquiry, she threw out the bipartisan standards this house gave president nixon and

clinton. that is why i immediately sent speaker pelosi a letter asking her to follow the rules of history, of tradition, and follow those standards that have served america well. what did she say? she rejected it. she rejected it because democrats knew a fair process would crumble their case. a fair process would have exposed to the american public what many already knew. democrats have wanted to impeach president trump since the day he was elected, and nothing was going to get in their way, certainly not the truth. madam speaker, chairman speaker —— chairman schiff said he had evidence of collusion. that was false. in january, had evidence of collusion. that was false. injanuary, where we all stood in this body, we stood up, we raised our hands, we saw that we would uphold the constitution.

applause and, a few mere hours after that, congresswoman tlaib said she was going to impeach the mother f—er. those were not my words. a year before taking the majority, chairman nadler campaigned to the democrats that he wanted to be chairman of the judiciary committee, where impeachment is. the new york times writes, madam speaker, because he is the strongest member to lead a potential impeachment. and congressmen raskin, a leading

democrat on thejudiciary committee, one that represented on the rules committee, for these articles yesterday, told a crowd he would impeach president trump two days before he was ever sworn into office. what we have seen is a rigged process that has led to the most pa rt rigged process that has led to the most part is in and least credible impeachment in the history of america. that is this legacy. any prosecutor in this country would be disbarred for such blatant bias, especially if that prosecutor was the fact witness, the judge, and the jury. madam speaker, democrats haven't just failed on jury. madam speaker, democrats haven'tjust failed on process. they haven'tjust failed on process. they have also failed on evidence. i've heard a lot of debate on this floor today, but i haven't heard one

member of this body dispute this simple fact. president trump provided lethal aid to ukraine. it came before the call, it came after the call, and it continues to this day. president trump provided ukraine tank busting farms. the previous administration, they gave blankets. this is the truth —— tank busting bombs. meanwhile, the democrat case is based on second—hand opinions and hearsay. simply put, there are no grounds for impeachment. as constitutional scholarjonathan turley, impeachment. as constitutional scholarjonathan tu rley, and impeachment. as constitutional scholarjonathan turley, and i would challenge to say he is probably the most respected, and we all know it, a democrat who didn't vote for the president, said under oath there was no bribery, there was no extortion, no bribery, there was no extortion, no obstruction ofjustice, and no abuse of power. based on the facts,

based on the truth, based on the lack of evidence, turley called this the fastest, thinnest and weakest impeachment in us history. such a definitive answer should be the end of all of this. but speaker pelosi is still moving forward with this impeachment, without evidence of fa ct impeachment, without evidence of fact or truth or public support. the speaker says it is out of allegiance to ourfounders. speaker says it is out of allegiance to our founders. on this speaker says it is out of allegiance to ourfounders. on this i agree. i agree with the speaker, we should listen to the founders, and if one does, it is very clear that this impeachment is unfounded and improper. in the federalist papers,

alexander hamilton wrote there would a lwa ys alexander hamilton wrote there would always be the greatest danger that impeachment would be driven by partners in animosity instead of real considerations of innocence or guilt. that impeachment would be driven bipartisan animosity instead of real demonstrations of innocence or guilt. james madison, another author of the federalist papers, wrote the danger of legislative abuse must lead to the same tyranny as is threatened by executive abuse. the founders did not want impeachment to be used for political or part of some battles. —— patterson battles. if my colleagues do not want to follow the high standards for undoing a national election, perhaps you could have followed speaker pelosi's standards —— partisan. at least the one she promised to follow back in march. it was a very sensible standard. she says impeachment is so divisive that

the evidence must be overwhelming, compelling, and bipartisan. not one of those criteria have been met today. based on the facts, based on the evidence, based on the truth, this impeachment even fails that speaker pelosi test. those now who say removing president trump would protect the integrity of our democracy have it backwards. by removing a duly elected president on empty articles of impeachment, congress will erode the public trust in our system of government. i understand you dislike the president. his beliefs, the way he governs, and even the people who voted for him. how do i know this? because you say so day in and day out. in 2016, they even dismissed

his supporters. remember calling us deplorables? now they are trying to disqualify a voice ahead of the 2020 election. they want to discredit the results of the last election to influence the next one. as i said, president trump will still be president when this is all over, but congress will have wasted months of time and taxpayers' dollars on impeachment rather than doing what american people want us to do. he didn't have to be this way. is this why we came here to serve? to trample on due process rights? to issue more subpoenas than laws? to appease the new democrat socialist

base? that is not leadership. that is raw political politics, and you know it. by refusing to acknowledge the truth or follow the facts, by substituting partisan animosity for real demonstrations of innocence or guilt, and by continuing the three year effort to undermine the president, this impeachment has divided this nation, without any concern for the repercussions. moreover, politicising this process has discredited the united states house of representatives, and could forever wea ken house of representatives, and could forever weaken the remedy of impeachment. to again quote professor tu rley, it impeachment. to again quote professor turley, it is the democrats' rush to impeachment on

these grounds with unfair procedures thatis these grounds with unfair procedures that is an abuse of power. history will write that. do you trust the wisdom of the people, or do you deny them assay in their government? fortu nately, them assay in their government? fortunately, the people will have the opportunity to speak up and render their verdict in 11 months to my fellow americans. to my fellow americans, if you approve of the way this house has conducted their business, if you want to see your tax dollars go forward to endless investigations, support this impeachment. but if you want to restore a working congress, like the previous congress, that listened to you and worked to bring the best economy this country has ever seen,

and one that once again will work with the president to get things done for you and your family, then join with us in rejecting this baseless impeachment. no know that is what is wonderful this system of hours. we are a government of, by and for the people. we work for you, not the other way around. now, people. we work for you, not the otherway around. now, i people. we work for you, not the other way around. now, i will say this stronger and with more conviction than i have ever said it before. in this time of great trial and tribulation, may god bless