faithfully execute the law. faithfully execute the law. is there anybody here, i don't care what comes out of your mouth today, is there anybody here that believes that this president has faithfully executed the law. and faithfully executed the duties, the sacred trust that has been put in his hands and on his shoulders. his post to faithfully execute the law, not ignored. not abuse it, and not forget it. president is supposed to be motivated by public interest. public interest. the interest of the people. rather than remanding bad or caring about thought, i'm not the president tried to chorus the power, a newly act, elected, young president that we were all

excited about, and anticorruption president. the president tried to coerce him into interfering in the 2020 election. some things that i have heard today about vice presidents child, things i've heard about the vice president's son. we have millions of people in this country who are suffering from addiction. i just believe to protect this president at any cost is shameful. article number two. and the nixon impeachment said this. the article principally addressed president nixon's use of power including powers vested solely in the president to harm his political opponents and gain improper for personal and political advantages. and explain in this article of

impeachment the house judiciary committee then stated that presidents nixon's conduct was undertaken for his personal, political advantage and not for any valid national policy objective. the president abused his power and to me, and at least the members on the side of the dais, that matters. and to that i yield the remaining time to mr. richmond of louisiana. >> thank you mr. chairman. very quickly, i want to remind the people watching that when you look at the credibility of testimony and weighing the evidence, you can look at other things. i want to enter into the record unanimous consent of the guardian article, roger stone and michael cohen, cnn politics, six trump associates have been convicted in mueller conviction.

my wife's grandmother said birds of a feather flock together and also, president trump had made a 13,435 false or misleading claims. >> that objection and then the gentleman's time is expired. for what purposes do you seek recognition? >> strike the last word. >> the lady is recognized. biko chairman, thank you. i wanted to speak first to the underlying amendments to call for the acknowledgment that the aide was released. in the article, the first article i believe. and i want to again recount not only the july 25th call where

previously it had indicated the presidents language of, we would like you to do us a favor though, that was not tied to us representing the entity of a public representation which would be the united states of america established foreign policy by the secretary of state, established foreign policy by the secretary of defense. and that is because of course the secretary of defense and state had already certified that ukraine was working to graduate, working to ensure the end of corruption that have met the standards that were required for funding. the other thing is that, when lieutenant colonel vindman thought that the words that he heard were appalling and seemed to him to be inappropriate for a

call to the president, as it relates to the question tying the military aid to the investigation by his sons and others, not official policy, he immediately gave it to the nfc counsel john eisenberg. john eisenberg took the information and then ultimately put it in a separate coded filing and asked that the lieutenant colonel not say anything about it. that is unusual because you would think that if it was normal business, if it had to do with standard u.s. and foreign policy, it would be okay to talk about that call. but they knew a major mistake had been made. they knew that the president had failed to give military aid if

he had given investigation against his political rival and if the political rival happened to be joe biden and he knew that that was in fact conspicuously using public office and public money for a public and private desires. let me also say that our friends talk about the courts. we have not shied away from the courts. in fact judge howell, regarding the 6e grand jury material, said there is an impeachment inquiry and you can stand in the way. judge jackson indicated in her decision that the president was not a king. and so we are here to talk about not as a mother but someone's child. they have concerns like every american's child may have which i am saddened that those personal matters will raised. we are here to talk about the

abuse of this president and the obstruction of congress, another amendment that we voted against. because in rodino's statement the nixon proceedings, he said the constitution reinforcing that we have the sole power of impeachment. underlying the two court decisions that we mentioned was that we were in an impeachment inquiry. as a remainder to my colleague, this committee ultimately approved an article of impeachment against richard nixon on the obstruction of congress matter. and whether to clean up and bring up some more points on that. and it's clear that that was a case of the president cannot dictate to the house impeachment inquiry what he was refusing to give or not. this is where my friends steer off the rails. they refuse to acknowledge the facts of the case. the president took public money

with a public content, with private intent to use those monies to deny mr. zelensky who was going to go ahead and announce investigations on cnn but was stopped in his tracks when the whistle-blowers letter or statement was released, it was without the bag that the president had done this on the july 25th call. let's be clear, this is not about facts or the constitution. >> the gentle lady yields back. >> layton and gentlemen i have been sitting here >> gentle lady strike the last word? >> yes please. i've been anxiously sitting here all day long and i just wanted to say this to the american people before our day ends today my colleagues and i have been explaining the evidence that we have heard of. we've been talking about all the

documents and have heard from so many witnesses along the way. and as we've been -- as we have upheld our constitutional obligation to defend the constitution some today have argued that we have not upheld the constitution to legislate, to solve problems, and that all we want to do is impeach the president of the united states. i truly want to assure the american people and to give you hope that this is not true. i want to make sure that we set the record straight so that you know that we have been working on your behalf. despite what people in this country think, congress can walk and chew gum at the same time. this congress has been working very, very hard on behalf of the american people and spite of everything that has been happening within this impeachment.

this very day, a bill -- we caught passed a bill that lowers the cost of prescription drugs for hundreds of millions of americans, hr three. it will save our taxpayers over $456 billion over the next decade. and allow for the expansion of medicare coverage including hearing, dental and vision benefits, just this week. we achieved monumental changes to the u.s. mexico canada trade agreement. yes, we've been waiting a very long time for that. this agreement is huge, it's huge for our families. our workers and business families in every district across the united states. we continue to work to make sure that we stay competitive in a global environment. we have supported the nda, legislation that will keep our country safe and will give a raise to our service members and includes important reforms like,

paid parental leave for all federal employees and repealing the whittles tax. even on the skin did we have worked together. this week my republican colleagues, that's a bipartisan group of lawmakers introduced legislation that would end child exploitation. since we've been sitting in this room today, a deal has been forged by our colleagues to find our government. and avoid another shutdown. throughout this investigation, my colleagues and i have been fulfilling our duties as members of congress. do not be deceived. we have been working on the american public's behalf, every single day. in spite of the tragedy that we are in now with this impeachme

impeachment. this congress, the house of representatives, we have passed over 275 bills. 275 bills. and we are defending our democracy and delivering on the promises that we made to each and every one of our constituents. i want the american public to know this. we are truly disheartened by what's happening here with impeachment. but, do know that we are working on your behalf. each and every single day. we will continue to do what we swore an oath to do. and to protect and serve you even in this moment, in this tragedy, be rest assured we will do just that. i yelled back the balance of my time. >> gentle lady wheels back.

>> house judiciary lawmakers continue to debate articles of impeachment against president trump. we will take a quick break and be right back with more impeachment traffic, coverage. as a struggling actor, i need all the breaks that i can get. at liberty butchemel... cut. liberty mu... line? cut. liberty mutual customizes your car insurance so you only pay for what you need. cut. liberty m... am i allowed to riff? what if i come out of the water? liberty biberty... cut. we'll dub it. liberty mutual customizes your car insurance so you only pay for what you need. only pay for what you need.

♪ liberty. liberty. liberty. liberty. ♪ i'm finding it hard to stay on a faster laptop could help. plus, tech support to stay worry free. worry free...boom boom! get free next business day shipping or ...1 hour in-store pick up shopping season solved at office depot officemax or officedepot.com. most people think as a reliable phone company. but to businesses, we're a reliable partner. we keep companies ready for what's next. (man) we weave security into their business. (second man) virtualize their operations. (woman) and build ai customer experiences. (second woman) we also keep them ready for the next big opportunity. like 5g. almost all of the fortune 500 partner with us. (woman) when it comes to digital transformation... verizon keeps business ready.

[ dramatic music ]ing ] ahhhh! -ahhhh! elliott. you came back!

>> welcome back. the house judiciary committee continues to debate articles of impeachment against president trump. they are expected to vote on adopting those articles today, setting up a full house vote next week. let's listen in. >> italy became an issue in 2019. joe biden had surpassed him in the public's opinion polls and it suddenly it was a big issue. what's the other evidence here? the president's team, rudy giuliani -- engaged in a smear campaign against the u.s. ambassador who was crusading in

the corruption against the ukraine and the president got her out of the way. he pulled her back. all the evidence shows they were promoting corruption in a sche scheme. >> the chairman yields back. what purpose does the gentle lead to seek recognition? >> thank you mr. chairman, i move to strike the last word. briefly mr. chairman and membe members, mr. ralston just said that biden's name was used multiple times. well i think that's a little misleading. again, the only place in this whole telephone call where biden is even brought up is one paragraph and that was on page number 4 of 5 pages of the transcript. most of this call was about congratulating president zelensky and the new

parliament, talking about how a lot of these european countries are not pitching in with the aid which was to the ukraine, which was what the united states had to. all kinds of things. it's really disingenuous to say the whole thing was about this and biden -- let me read again. i know president trump tweets this out and reads the transcripts. i wish people would. everybody watches tv and they get all these comments, but i did this with my husband and i said, would you just please read the transcript? it's only five pages long, it doesn't take that much time. after he read it he was like, that's it? that's all they got? but here. this is the mention about biden. again page five. the other thing, there's a lot

of talk about biden's son, that biden stopped the prosecution and a lot of people want to find out about that. so whatever you can do with the attorney general would be great. biden went around dragging that he stopped prosecution. so if you can look into it, it sounds horrible to me. that's it folks, that's all there is. so mr. chairman, i yelled back. >> gentle lady yields back. those opposed? those -- the opinion of the chair is that those have it. roll call is requested in the clerk will call the roll. >> mr. nadler both know. ms. lofgren both snow. ms. jackson lee. i'll make snow. mr. : both snow. mr. johnson of georgia vote snow. mr. deutsch both snow. ms. bass both snow.

-- vote snow. mr. jeffries vote snow. it's just a silly snow. mr. swalwell vote snow. mr. raskin, mr. negus votes no. ms. bass votes no. mr. stanton votes no. ms. dean votes no. miss russell powell votes no. ms. escobar votes no. mr. collins votes aye. mr. jensen burner votes aye. mr. savitz votes aye. mr. jordan votes yes.

mr. buck votes aye. mr. radcliffe votes yes. ms. robie votes aye. mr. gates votes aye mr. bigs votes aye. mr. mcclintock votes aye. mr. let's go votes aye. mr. rush and dollar votes aye. mr. klein votes aye. mr. armstrong votes yes. mr. sue b votes yes. >> has everyone voted who wishes to vote? >> mr. korea you are not recorded. mr. korea both snow. votes no. >> mr. chairman, there are 17 ayes and 23 nos.

>> the amendment is not agreed to. are there any -- >> mr. chairman i have an amendment at the desk. >> mr. russian dollar has an amendment at the desk. >> amendment to the amendment and the nature of the substitute to hrs 755, offered by mr. russian faller of pennsylvania. >> gentle lady reserves point of order. >> beginning on line six, article 32. >> i withdraw my point of order. >> if the gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes to explain his amendment. >> thank you mr. chairman. my amendment would strike all of article two which is the obstruction of congress charge. if the facts simply do not align with the democrats claim of obstruction. our government has three branches for a reason. when there is a disagreement between the executive and legislative branch, it is supposed to be resolved by the third branch, the court. republicans recognize this in

2011 when they investigated president obama's fast and furious scandal. a fast and furious scandal allowed 2,000 firearms to fall into the hands of drug cartels and resulted in the death of an american border patrol agent. people actually died in president obama scandal. throughout the republican's investigation that scandal they made numerous attempts to accommodate the obama administration. yet, despite their efforts, president obama invoked executive privilege and barred testimony and documents. so what did the republicans do? the appropriate thing. they went to the courts. compare those efforts with what we have seen from the democrats during this impeachment sham. house democrats could have worked with the administration to reach accommodations for their request. but, they didn't. house democrats should have worked through the courts. but they didn't.

and why is that? it's simple. they have a political expedient deadline to send this mass out of congress into the senate before christmas. despite what you hear from my colleagues, the administration has consistently cooperated with democrats even though they have been out to get this president since he was elected. let's go through the numbers. over 25 administration officials have testified for the house oversight committee. over 25. over 20 administration officials have testified before this very committee. the administration has also handed over more than 100,000 pages of documents since the start of this sham impeachment inquiry. let's contrast that with a conduct from the democrats. democrats have threatened witnesses that "any failure to appear in response to a letter

requesting their presence would constitute evidence of obstruction. let me just go through that language. it's a letter that constitutes evidence of his obstruction. not a subpoena, a letter. democrats have also told the state department employees that they have insisted on using agency councils to protect executive branch confidentiality interest and they would have their salaries withheld. that kind of sounds like a abuse of power but i digress a little bit. democrats have not afforded this president basic procedure protection such as the right to see all the evidence, the right to call witnesses, and the right to have counsel at hearings. it's not just the trump administration that has been railroaded by the democrats. judiciary democrats voted down my own subpoena, my own motion to subpoena the whistle-blower. even though we said that he or

she could testify in an executive session which would be private and yet they voted it down on party lines. chairman nadler also refused request that chairman schiff testified before the committee. house democrats also had denied every republican request for a fact witness. so i ask who is really obstructing congress. the democrats have no case when it comes to obstruction. this obstruction charge is completely and bogus. if they wanted to charge someone with obstruction, how about they start with adam schiff? thank you and i yelled back the remainder of my time. >> we are going to squeeze in a quick break. the house judiciary committee has been debating articles of impeachment ahead of an expected committee vote later today and then the houseboat and discussion next week. we will take a quick break and be right back. what'd we decide on the flyers again?

uh, "fifteen minutes could save you 15% or more on car insurance." i think we're gonna swap over to "over seventy-five years of savings and service." what, we're just gonna swap over? yep. pump the breaks on this, swap it over to that. pump the breaks, and, uh, swap over? that's right. instead of all this that i've already-? yeah. what are we gonna do with these? keep it at your desk, and save it for next time. geico. over 75 years of savings and service. (children playing) (dog barking) ♪ (music building)

experience the power of sanctuary at the lincoln wish list sales event. sign and drive off in a new lincoln with zero down, zero due at signing, and a complimentary first month's payment. so chantix can help you quit slow turkey. along with support, chantix is proven to help you quit. with chantix you can keep smoking at first and ease into quitting so when the day arrives, you'll be more ready to kiss cigarettes goodbye. when you try to quit smoking, with or without chantix, you may have nicotine withdrawal symptoms. stop chantix and get help right away if you have changes in behavior or thinking, aggression, hostility, depressed mood, suicidal thoughts or actions, seizures, new or worse heart or blood vessel problems, sleepwalking, or life-threatening allergic and skin reactions. decrease alcohol use. use caution driving or operating machinery. tell your doctor if you've had mental health problems. the most common side effect is nausea. talk to your doctor about chantix.

doprevagen is the number oneild mempharmacist-recommendeding? the most common side effect is nausea. memory support brand. you can find it in the vitamin aisle in stores everywhere. prevagen. healthier brain. better life. the zip code you're born into can determine your future. your school. your job. your dreams. your problems. (indistinct shouting) but at the y, we create opportunities for everyone, no matter who you are or where you're from. for a better us, donate to your local y today.

>> welcome back. the house judiciary committee debating articles of impeachment were president trump and we are expecting committee vote for a full houseboat next week. >> i moved to strike the last

word. >> listening to my two colleagues from california, this seems to be the greatest amount of circular reasoning that we've heard in the last couple of days. there has been a lot of it, but this is one that i think grabs the blue ribbon. because what i hear is that an impeachment inquiry, if the white house does not give the house of representatives in this committee everything we ask for then that's obstruction of congress and an impeachable offense. there are certain privileges and immunities that the president has irrespective of whether we are doing oversight or whether we are using our article to power, the sole power of impeachment. and he ought to be able to present those in a court of law. this is not a court of law.

i don't blame white house counsel, and we know what the answer is going to be. we need to blow any claim of privilege away and any type of executive community away. we are going to simply say we wanted and we will make you have to give it to us no matter whether it's private information or doing some legitimate oversight. and we have the rejection of the argument that we shouldn't have to go to court. to try to get enforcement of subpoenas that is a result of this impeachment inquiry. the enforcement against don mcgann, has gotten as far as the d.c. circuit.

these are pending further backwards into the judicial system. but what i would like to ask my friends on the majority side, okay. say we are done with this impeachment inquiry next week. the house passes both articles of impeachment and goes to the senate for trial. does that mean that the whole nexus that means the whole subpoena is gone, are you going to go to court and say it's gone, are you going to dismiss those actions to support enforcement of the subpoenas? if you are following the argument that i just heard, you have to do it. but i doubt it, i yelled back. >> gentleman yields back. i recognize myself for 5 minut

5 minutes. the actions of the white house of the president in this case are different in kind from all previous actions of executives of presidents. it is not a question of asserting privilege or is it a question of adjudicating rights even in court. rather, the council wrote, given that your inquiry lacks any legitimate constitutional foundation, the executive branch cannot be expected to participate in it. it's not up to the president to decide whether an impeachment inquiry by the congress is legitimate or not, that is our function. that sentence shows right there a usurpation by the president of congressional power. number one. number two, if the white house simply asserted privileges for a number of witnesses, that could be adjudicated. and maybe, it may very well be that had we chosen to oppose

that as a reason for an impeachment, that would be invalid. but that's not what we are talking about. we are talking about the president saying, he does not recognize our impeachment, and he will not participate in it. he will not create anything. that's an obstruction of congress. it's a usurpation of congress is role to decide whether to have an impeachment inquiry and it's the decision to completely try to frustrate that inquiry by denying participation by denying all documents and witnesses without asserting any privileges. it's nothing to do with privileges. villages may be adjudicated in court. an assertion by the executive that the impeachment power cannot be exercised by congress is an obstruction of congress, and if allowed to get away with

it, eliminate the power of impeachment as a check on the power of the presidency and it's a large step towards dictatorship. the threat of impeachment is the only threat, the only enforcement mechanism that congress has on a president who would use her powers and destroy the separation of powers, especially given the department of justice's policy that the sitting president cannot be indicted and the administration's assertion that he cannot even be investigated criminally. that leaves only impeachment as a remedy and as a check on presidential power. if you don't want a dictatorsh dictatorship, you have to allow congress to exercise the power of impeachment and the house is the sole power of impeachment, which means we have the right to get the documents that we demand. may be subject to certain privileges but that's not an issue here because no privilege has been asserted. instead what has been asserted is the executive has the right to determine that the

impeachment inquiry is invalid. they usurped the role of the house. this is an assertion of tyrannical power and that is why we must impeach the president on this article. to go along with the amendment, getting rid of article two and say in effect that it is permissible for the president to deny the impeachment power of the house, it's a long step away from constitutional government. a long step away from any control over the power of the president and a long step towards tyranny. i oppose the amendment. i yelled back. >> mr. chairman -- >> ic's recognition. >> i was going to ask if you would yield for one quick question on that. i just wanted to ask, to paraphrase is that it's the only remedy. why is court not an appropriate remedy in this case?

>> where it might be an appropriate remedy, if the privilege were asserted. i'm not willing to say that you could mount an impeachment based on -- privilege. but no privileges have been asserted. there's nothing for the court to review. although the president has said is, he has directed everyone in the executive branch, do not provide a piece of paper. do not testify. there's nothing for the court to review. he is simply asserted that the constitution -- that he doesn't recognize a constitutional power of congress to impeach. he will recognize that he thinks it's invalid and that's not his function to do, that's our function to determine whether an impeachment inquiry is valid or not. >> isn't the next step then, to hold a witness in contempt for either not reducing documents or not appearing? >> if, and it's a privilege were asserted, yes. but it's gone beyond that.

we could certainly do that but it's not a sufficient remedy. the only remedy for the president that says the house does not have the power to determine an impeachment inquiry is to say that's an obstruction of congress. my time has expired, i yield back. >> who seeks recognition? and for what purpose -- >> strike the last word of mr. chairman. >> thank you mr. chairman. i appreciate the gentleman offering his amendment to strike the second article which i think unfortunately is ridiculous as the first article in this case. an obstruction charge requires a concerted effort to interfere with or impede a congressional election. but the president did, asserting executive privilege, is not in any way, shape or form obstruction. executive privilege is a time-honored constitutionally protected right of each and

every administration. it's been asserted time and time again by administration after administration, both republican and democratic. congress agrees with particular search and executive privilege, the remedy is to go to court. and the third branch of government as i mentioned a little while ago, they decide who is correct. checks and balances in the country, three branches of government and they are all supposed to keep an eye on each other. in this case the remedy is to go to the courts and let the courts decide if the president and the congress disagree. except that the house democrats have decided that they don't want to wait for the courts to decide to come not when they can instead just impeach the president and may be damage him politically. although apparently, that's not happening. but i think that was the goal. you want to talk about abuse of power, the house democrats and what they are doing here is a clear case in my view of abusing your office for political gain.

the majority would hold themselves in contempt for conducting this one-sided biased impeachment investigation, then attacking the white house for refusing to participate in such a patently unfair process. i think if you look at the record of this president thus far, and he's only been in office to this three years at this point, the accomplishment accomplishments -- it's patently absurd. look at the economy right now. and why is the economy doing so well? i think it's principally two things come tax cuts and jobs act that this president pushed and was passed when the previous congress was in control. it was republicans, 4,000 and the senate at that time. the democrats kept screaming these are tax cuts for the rich, tax cuts for the rich. about 85% of american people have their taxes reduced. yes, wealthy people got their taxes cut but so did virtually everybody else in this economy. that's one of the principal

reasons that we see the economy continue to grow. that's one of the reasons that unemployment in this country is so low right now. it's at historic lows, about 50 years. it's not just wealthy people doing well. a lot of people are doing well and it's because of the tax cuts. about as i mentioned 85% of the people got their tax cuts. unemployment in this country among african-americans, hispanic-americans and asian-americans is at an all-time low. unemployment is an all-time low among those groups, in conjunction with congress back when republicans were in the majority. i happen to be the ranking member, the lead republican on the house small business committee. i was the chairman of that committee for the last two years. small businesses all across america are doing very well right now. their confidence is at all-time highs. why is it so important that small businesses do well? about 70% of the new jobs

created in the american economy are created by small business folks all across the country. they are the backbone of the american economy. the other thing other than being taxes reduced when you see the economy grow so well is because he has reduced the red take, the bureaucracy, the regulations that come out of washington. when he was running as a candidate he said his goal was to get rid of two existing regulations right now, and for every new regulation coming out of washington. that's a tough goal but we have exceeded that. that's one of the reasons this economy is growing so well. there are so many things that you could talk about, about the successes. but one that is actually going to happen soon is, improving nafta. the usmca. and hopefully democrats will pass this, they are in control in the house now and they face a

challenge because if they passed it, then the president is obviously going to get some credit because he has been pushing this. they don't really want the president necessarily getting any credit, but they are also trying to get rid of the label of being a "do-nothing congress" and said been in control. they will impeach the president and at the same time pass the usmca. it's unfortunate that it takes impeaching a president to pass it but i'm happy that we are impeaching -- excuse me, passing the usmca, because that's good for the country. >> the house judiciary committee is debating articles of impeachment and we are expecting a vote later today and a full house vote next week. we will take a quick break and be right back. ♪

(employee) half a millionar sales preowned vehicles,er most with tech features like blind spot detection, back up camera... [kristen gasps] (employee) because you never know what might be behind you. (kristen bell) does the sloth come standard? (kristen bell vo) looking to buy? enterprise makes it easy.

>> welcome back to fox news.

house judiciary committee debating articles on impeachment for president trump. second committee vote later tonight with the full house vote next week. >> no subpoena power for republicans and depositions as i said done in secret in the bunker in the basement of the capital. in those depositions remember those witnesses were subpoenaed. they are supposed to answer our questions but only the democrats got all their questions answered. there were questions that republicans ask that the chairman of the intel committee prevented the witnesses from answering. democrats denied republicans witnesses for the opening hearings, we weren't allowed to call the witnesses we want to come up we had to submit a list. we put on the list from adam schiff just to get people that might make the real case and submit the facts. the one witness we really wanted to call, even though adam schiff initially said we would get a chance to hear from him, we won't allo are allowed to end tt

was a whistle-blower. remember when this all happen in september, adam schiff told us we would get to hear from the whistle-blower? the whistle-blower with no first-hand knowledge who is biased against the president, who worked with joe biden? he said it, you will get to hear from him, but then changed his mind. what changed the chairman's mind? remember, the day after the call, the whistle-blower writes this memo. he says the call -- he describes it as crazy frightening but he weights 18 days to file the complaint and what happens in 18 days? the whistle-blower goes off and see his adam schiff and get some marching orders from adam schiff's staff and everything changes. we don't get to hear from him. we don't get to hear from that person. and because we don't get to hear from the whistle-blower, remember the complaint that gets filed on august 12? the very first point the whistle-blower makes in the complaint is this. over the past four months, more than half a dozen u.s. officials

informed me about the effort. we have no idea. the committee marking up articles of impeachment, we have no idea who those half a dozen u.s. officials are. we don't know if we talk to them, we don't know if they came and testified. my guess is that colonel vindman was one of them but, who knows? we don't know because we never got to talk to the individual who started it all with the complaint that the chairman of the intel committee told us when it all started, we will hear from him. that was discovered that his staff had communicated with the whistle-blower, no, we are not going to get to you. so the real victim of the obstruction years this committee. we have had for democrat witnesses in front of us. three law professors that the majority called in and one that the republicans called in and those are the four witnesses and a bunch of staff. one of the 17 witnesses. so i support the gentleman from pennsylvania as a memento and he's exactly right. the obstruction came from the chairman of the intel committee

and with that, i yelled back. >> the gentleman from rhode island is recognized. >> i'd like to and strike the last word. we are charged with the responsible you've taken the facts established in this investigation and applying them to the constitution that we have sworn to protect and defend. so let's return for a minute to the facts. this series of events was described by trump officials, and buster bolton to be particular, it was a drug deal. it was described by dr. fiona hill as a domestic political errand. that was collected from 17 witnesses, over 100 hours of testimony, 260 text messages, transcript of the president's own words, emails of high-ranking officials and what we know was a direct evidence as the president of the united states hired rudy giuliani to lead the effort. the president engaged in a smear

campaign against investor jovanovicyovanovitch and then fr because she was an anticorruption fighter. the president put a hold on military aid to the ukraine and president and others acting on his behalf demented president zelensky announce the arrival. the three amigos, in charge of the ukraine. the president refused to have a meeting on relief aid until the public announcement of the investigation of his political opponent. the president told the vice president depends not to attend the new president of the ukraine's inauguration. the president spoke to ambassadoambassador sondland abt he described as quid pro quo. what we know also, if you drill down a little bit more, i want to speak specifically about, trump administration officials who are in the middle of this activity. on july 21st, 2019, there was a text from ambassador taylor to

ambassador sondland and i quote "president zelensky is sensitive about the ukraine being taken seriously, not merely as an instrument in washington domestic reelection politics." david holmes testified" i was surprised that the requirement was so specific and concrete. this was a demand that president zelensky personally commits to a specific investigation of president trump's political rebel on a cable gnomic cable news channel." mr. holmes also testified in response to a question during council's examination, "you are acknowledging mr. holmes, are you not, that you're very much felt pressured to undertake these investigations at the president, rudy giuliani and ambassador sondland and others were demanding." the answer from mr. holmes, "yes, sir." ambassador taylor has a call on december 8 and ambassador taylor says this is a career diplomat. a vietnam war hero.

ambassador taylor says, "during our call, he tried to explain to me that president trump is a businessman and one a businessman is about to sign a check to someone who owes him something, the businessman asked the person to pay out before signing the check. ambassador volker made the same argument. that explanation made no sense. ukrainians did not owe president trump anything. and holding up security assistance for domestic political gain was crazy. finally on september 9, ambassador taylor in a text exchange of ambassador sondland said, "again, as i sat on the phone i think it's crazy to withhold security assistance help for a political campaign." so the record is filled with evidence that in fact, the president of the united states abused the enormous power of his office in an effort to cheat in the 2020 election, to drag foreign interference into the

2020 election and to corrupt a presidential election. use the power of his office with the help of taxpayer funds to leverage his effort to drag foreign powers into our elections. and when i hear my colleagues on the other side of the aisle say, who is the victim? the victim's american democracy. the victim is the people we represent who expect us to honor our oath and protect the constitution. my american colleagues really saying that it's okay for a president to invite or persuade or coerce foreign powers to distort an american presidential election? we have men and women who have given ou their lives to uphold r democracy. we owe it to them to say, you know who gets to decide the american president? the american people. that's a sacred right of citizens and if we allow the president to get away with this, we will have lost our democracy and convey that right to foreign

powers and no longer have a democracy. so i urge my colleagues to support these articles of impeachment so we can again vindicate the right of the american people to determine their own future, and >> for what purpose does this gentleman seek recognition? >> strike the last word >> the gentleman is recognized. >> there's been a lot today as everybody has acknowledged, i'm struck by the hyperbolic language being used on the other side in this breathless charge that we hear over and over about article two that this is the first time in the history of the republic that any president has invoked this kind of privilege or invoked this immunity, a cursory review of the history, even a review of the witness testimony that was presented in the very committee a week ago would show you that's just a baseless charge. the truth is in the history of

this republic, there has never been a single party fraudulent impeachment process deployed against a president like the one that's been used against donald trump, that is what is unprecedented. it's not the claim that a president doesn't want to turn over witnesses or documents, that is quite common. it needs to be noted again that president trump has consistently cooperated with this congress in fulfilling its oversight and investigation responsibilities. when we started, there were 25 administration officials that testified, at the start of the impeachment inquiry this year, the house, the white house produced more than 100,000 pages of documents to the oversight committee. in spite of their allegation, the democrats know president trump has a lawful cause to challenge these subpoenas because they involve