president trump. and the chairman expects the committee to vote soon, possibly even this week on at least two or more charges against the president. here's the abc news special report. our special coverage of the impeachment of president trump. it is a critical day for the inquiry with closing arguments from both sides as the house drives towards a final vote on impeachment by christmas. that's the scene right now in the committee room we have come to know quite well. 1100 house longworth building. the chairman of the judiciary committee, jerrold nadler will gavel in the final hearing. they will outline and debate the law. the standards and what institutes an impeachable

offense. the counsel will outline the facts and the evidence. did president trump abuse his power when he pressured ukraine to investigate joe biden and the democrats? and what about his refusal to cooperate in any way with this impeachment investigation? mary bruce is there on capitol hill, and after this marathon day of hearings, the democrats will get down to the final drafting of these impeachment articles. >> reporter: and today's hearing is likely their last chance to try to convince the american public that the president abused his power and should be impeached before they introduce and vote on those charges. now democrats have spent the weekend hunkered down here at the capitol preparing for this final push. they will turn this hearing room into a high-stakes courtroom. there will be three congressional lawyers and democrats are going to systematically go through their evidence, outlining their case and why they feel the evidence rises to the level of impeachme impeachment. democrats feel they have a rock solid case. they feel the president pressured ukraine to investigate his political rivals to try to

gain an advantage in the 2020 election. the republicans are going to do the opposite. they will pick apart that same evidence and say there is no proof that the president was trying to get a leg up in the 2020 election. they will likely continue to rail against this process which they said has been unfair to the president. even though president trump is refusing to mount a defense declining to send any legal representation today, george. >> mary, thanks very much. let's go to our chief white house correspondent, jon karl. the white house so far refusing to send anyone to this hearing, but the president was busy yesterday, more than a hundred tweets. >> reporter: this is very much on the top of his mind. more than 100 tweets beginning just after midnight on saturday until just after midnight last night. a hundred tweets either directly about this process or indirectly, criticizing what he's calling over and over again, a witch hunt, a hoax, and although the white house has declined to take part in this hearing, make no mistake about it, george. the republicans on this

committee and the republican counsel for this committee are very much operating in lockstep with the white house and are representing the white house view at this hearing. >> okay, jon. thanks. and our chief justice correspondent, pierre thomas. pierre, this is one of those split screen days in washington. while this hearing is going on, we're awaiting the release of that report. the inspector general report of the origins of how the fbi handled the russia investigation. >> reporter: that's right, george. extraordinary day here in washington. the reputation of the fbi literally on the line. the inspector general is expected to answer the critical question, was the search warrant that allowed the fbi to look into the communications, even listen to the phone calls of a trump associate, was that legally obtained? we'll get the answer to that. the sources are suggesting that the warrant was lawfully obtained, but the report we're gllio astheave a number of fbi, tt o fbi denc o tre e bias against the president and

the fbi. we're awaiting that report, george. >> okay, pierre. thanks very much. i'm here with david muir. we're seeing the counsel getting ready to make their presentations. >> stay for them, george. pivotal day for this closing argument. the millions have been watching these hearings. daniel goldman will be back. he worked ten years as a u.s. attorney, and welcome joined by barry berke, investigating this president. on the republican side, you will see steve castor return. he's the chief investigative counsel. he has done a lot of the questioning in the closed door depositions that the american people are very familiar with his face as well. one face we'll see new to us but not congress, ashley callan. she's been an investigator for more than a decade. >> the judiciary committee will go first. diary committee.rom the 90 minutes from the house intelligence committee, and

there will be questions and statements from the chair. oonw wid tte cardoza. prensheth narrative that begins before 2016 and extends through this july 25th phone call in the events before and after, and whether it will be focused. each side will make a choice in terms of its opening presentation that might give us some clues about that, but it's all going to come out in the drafting and i don't know that even the committee knows how they will proceed. >> it appears they have not reached a final decision yet, dan, but one of the things you keep hearing from democrats talking about patterns of behavior. >> right. so the more you hear about patterns, the more you think they're going to try to incorporate what happened in the muler report rather than just ukraine, and that's the real question here. remember, up to this point, meaning before that ukraine call of july 25th, democrats had decided not to move forward with

impeachment proceedings, and now after the ukraine call they decide, this is too much. nancy pelosi says, we now must move forward. the question now is, do they bring that together? do they say, you know what? because this was ongoing doesn't mean -- we weren't going to do it before, but this is now part of such a disturbing practice that we are going to incorporate it at least into the telling of the story even if it's not a separate impeachment article. >> and another thing you heard democrats talk about is the necessity to protect the next election from foreign interference. foreign interference on the minds of the founders. >> i think this is incredibly important for this idea of pattern and practice like linking it to the mueller report. a past election and the idea that we would also do this going forward in a prospective election. this idea that foreign interference in elections is the key player here, and this is what we'll see hit upon hard here. >> chairman nadler has taken his

seat there in 1100 house longworth building. the chairman of the house judiciary committee. he's tangoed with president trump in the past in new york city. they dealt with each other over a real estate project, and he's been the leading voice for impeachment on the judiciary committee. he wanted to pursue this even before house speaker nancy pelosi did, when the mueller report was introduced by robert mueller and we expect that behind the scenes he has been pushing for more carbon monoxide -- focus on that obstruction evidence that was obtained in the mueller report. cecilia vega, no doubt he's watching this morning. >> we'll see a continuation in those tweets and going back to nadler, over the weekend he said they believe they have a rock solid case and if this was a court of law, it would be represented to a jury, and a guilty verdict would be given to them in three minutes flat. you have mark meadows saying this weekend, i don't see a >> there's the gavel.

let's go to chairman nadler. he will make his opening statement. doug collins, the ranking republican from georgia will then follow with his opening statement. he's taking his time getting ready there. he wants to get settled, still holding the gavel. >> the house committee on the judiciary will come to order. the chair is authorized to declare -- >> object. >> objection noted. we are conducting this hearing on the impeachment inquiry into president donald j. trump.

pres tationco ielligence and the house judiciary committee pursuant to house resolution 660 and the special judiciary committee procedures that are described in section 4-5 a of tt resolution. here's how we will proceed. i will make an opening statement, and then i will recognize the ranking member for an opening statement. after that, we will hear two sets of presentations. we will hear 30-minute opening arguments from counsels for the majority and the minority. >> you are, jerry nadler. you're the one doing this. american government. >> order in the room. order in the room. order in the committee room. >> we voted for donald trump. they're trying to remove him. americans -- >> you see there in the committee room, we couldn't quite make out what this protest is about.

any sense? >> no, george. >> reporter: we also can't hear what he's saying, but it's notable, we have not seen any interruptions from inside the room like that. they're keeping things locked down so far. >> let's turn back in. >> we ask the audiences to observe, but not to demonstratidemonstrate, not to indicate agreement or diz disagreement with any member of the committee. the audience is here to observe only, and we will maintain de r decorum in the hearing room. i will make an opening statement, and then i will recognize the ranking member for an opening statement. after that, we will hear two sets of presentations. we will hear 30-minute opening arguments from counsels for the majority and the minority of this committee. then we will hear 45-minute presentations of evidence from the majority and minority counsel from the permanent select committee on intelligence. followed by 45 minutes of

questioning by the chair and ranking member who may yield to counsel for questioning during this period. finally, all of our members will have the opportunity to question the presenters from the intelligence committee under the five-minute rule. i would note that the president's counsel was given the opportunity to participate today, but the white house has declined the invitation. i will now recognize myself for an opening statement. no matter his party or his politics, if the president places his own interests above those in the country, he betrays his oath of office. the president of the united states, the speaker of the house, the majority leader of the senate, the chief justice of the supreme court and the chairman and ranking members of the house committee on the judiciary all have one important thing in common. we have each taken an oath to preserve, protect and defend the constitution of the united states. if the president puts himself before the country, he violates

the president's most basic responsibility. he breaks his oath to the american people. if he puts himself before the country in a manner that threatens our democracy, then our oath, our promise to the american people requires us to come to the defense of the nation. that all stands even when it is politically inconvenient, even when it might bring us under criticism, even when it might cost us our jobs as members of congress. and even if the president is unwilling to honor his oath, i am compelled to honor mine. as we heard in our last hearing, the framers of the constitution were careful students of history, and clear in their vision for the new nation. they knew that threats to democracy can take many forms, that we must protect against them. they warned us against the danger that would be monarchs, fake populists and charismatic

demagogu demagogues. they knew the most threat to our country might come from within in the form of a corrupt executive who put his private interests above the interest of the nation. they also knew they could not anticipate every threat a president someday might pose, so they adopted the phrase, treason, bribery and other crimes and misdemeanors to capture the full spectrum of misconduct. george mason who proposed this standard said it was meant to capture all manner of great and dangerous defenses against the constitution. the debates around the framing made clear that the most serious of such offenses include abuse of power, the trail of the nation through foreign entanglements and corruption of public office. any one of these violations of the public trust would compel the members of this committee to take action. we combined the single course of action and stated the strongest

possible case for impeachment and removal from office. president trump put himself before country. despite the political partisanship that seems to punctuate our hearings these days, i believe that there is common ground around some of these ideas. common ground in this hearing room, and common ground across the country at large. we agree for example, that impeachment is a solemn, serious undertaking. we agree that it is meant to address serious threats to democratic institutions like our free and fair elections. we agree that when the elections themselves are threatened by enemies foreign or domestic, we cannot wait until the next election to address the threat. we surely agree that no public official including and especially the president of the united states should use his public office for private gain, and we agree that no president may put himself before the

country. the constitution and his oath of office,romise american citizens require the president to put the country first. if we can drop our blinders for just one moment, i think we would agree on a common set of facts as well. on july 25th, president trump called president zelensky of ukraine and asked him for a favor. that call was part of a concerted effort by president trump to compel the government of ukraine to announce an investigation, not an investigation of corruption or at large, but an investigation of president trump's political rivals and only his political rivals. president trump put himself before country. the record shows that president trump withheld military aid allocated by the united states congress from ukraine. it also shows that he withheld a white house meeting from president zelensky.

multiple witnesses including respected diplomats, national security professionals and decorated war veterans all testified to the same basic fact. president trump withheld the aid and the meeting in order to pressure a foreign government to do him that favor. president trump put himself before the country, and when the president got caught, when congress discovered that the aid has been withheld from ukraine, the president took extraordinary and unprecedented steps to conceal evidence from congress and from the american people. these facts are not in dispute. in fact, most of the arguments about these facts appeared to be beside the point. as we review the evidence today, i expect we will hear much about the whistle-blower who brought his concerns about the july 25th call to the inspector general of the intelligence community. let me be clear. every fact alleged by the

whistle-blower has been substantiated by multiple witnesses again and again, each of whom has been questioned extensively by republicans and democrats alike. they also match up with the president's own words as released by the white house, words that he still says were perfect. i also expect to hear complaints about the term quid pro quo as if a person needs to verbally acknowledge the name of a crime while he is committing it for it to be a crime at all. the record on this point is also clear. multiple officials testified that the president's demand for an investigation into his rivals was apart of his personal, political agenda and not related to the foreign policy objectives of the united states. multiple officials testified that the president intended to withhold the aid -- intended to withhold the aid until ukraine announced the investigations. and yes, multiple officials

testified that they understood this arrangement to be a quid pro quo for the president's personal political benefit. president trump put himself before country. the president's supporters are going to argue that this whole process is unfair. the record before us is clear on this point as well. we invited the president to participate in this hearing, to question witnesses and to present evidence that might explain the charges against him. president trump chose not to show. he may not have much to say in his own defense, but he cannot claim he did not have an opportunity to be heard. finally, as we proceed today, we will hear a great deal about the speed with which the house is addressing the president's actions. to the members of the committee, to the members of the house and to my fellow citizens, i want to be absolutely clear. the integrity of our next election is at stake.

nothing could be more elcome an elections in 2016. he demanded it for 2020, and then he got caught. if you do not believe that he will do it again, let me remind you that the president's personal lawyer spent last week in ukraine meeting with government officials in an apparent attempt to gen up so-called favors and forced congress to consider impeachment of a sitting president. this pattern of conduct represents a continuing risk to the country. the evidence shows that donald j. trump, the president of the united states, has put himself before his country. he has violated his most basic responsibilities to the people. he has broken his oath. i will under mine. if you would under yours, then i would urge you to do your duty. let us review the record here in

full view of the american people. then we will swiftly defend our country. we promised that we would. i now recognize the ranking member of the judiciary committee, the gentleman from georgia, mr. collins, for your opening statement. the gentleman from georgia is recognized. the gentleman from georgia is recognized. >> are you going to recognize the possible motion before me? there was a request. >>namous consent. >> the gentleman from georgia is recognized. we'll obtain that order. >> point of order, mr. chairman. mr. chairman, i have a point of order. >> gentleman, state his point of order. >> you had a proper demand to clause 2-j 1 of rule 11. you're refusing to schedule that hearing, therefore, i insist on my point of order unless you're willing to immediately schedule a minority hearing day. >> that is not a proper point of

order in today's hearing as i have told the ranking member several times now. i am considering the minority's request. >> it's not to be considered. >> the gentleman will suspend. if the ranking member thinks we will be violating the rules of the house, before holding a minority day hearing, his point of order would be timely in a meeting where we considered articles of impeachment. that is not the purpose of today's hearing and that is not timely. the gentleman from georgia. >> well, that got us started again. the chairman completely not answering a question. it is timely, and it's frankly not up to his disgrecretion, bu they have not cared to begin with. so my question is just schedule the hearing, but undoubtedly that's not what they want out there. let's start over. now that the chairman is recognized and we have got that point. there have been famous moments in impeachment.

there have been famous moments in impeachment as we have gone forward. famous lines from nixon like what did the president know and when did he know it? clinton, i did not have sex with that woman. this one would be, where's the impea impeachable offense? why are we here? this has become known as the focus group impeachment. we don't have a crime, we don't have anything we can pin, and nobody understands what the majority is trying to do, except interfere and basically make sure that they believe the president can't win next year if he's impeached. the focus group impeachment takes words and then takes them to people and says, how can we explain this better because we don't have the facts to match it? a focus group impeachment says, you know, we aren't really working with good facts, but we need a good p.r. move. that's where we're here today. this is all about as i said last week, a clock and a calendar. it became evident to me this was true because last wednesday after a long day of hearing here, the next morning before anything else could get started,

the speaker of the house walked up to the podium and said, go write articles of impeachment. she just quit. she just stopped. go write articles of impeachment. i appreciate that the majority practice for two days this weekend on this hearing. i appreciate the fact that you got to try to get it right to try to convince the american people of your problem, but your speaker has already undercut you. she took the thrill out of the room. you're writing articles of impeachment. why couldn't we just save that time today? if you are going to write those articles of impeachment, write them. there's probably a reason for that. the chairman laid out amazing claims, none of which i think after this hearing today the american people can honestly look at and see there was overwhelming evidence, a proper reason he abused his power because as the speaker, another statement she said, that to do impeachment, you have to be so compelling and overwhelming and bipartisan. all of which we are not.

so why not? why are we here? well, i think we can do this. let's look at the three things that typically are associated with making your case for a crime. let's do it against what the majority has said. i think they have motive, they have means and they have opportunity. what's their motive? it's november 2020. it's been said over and over and over again. the chairman said it again this morning. it's been said all along that we have to do this because if we don't impeach him, he'll win again next year. the reason it's shown is his last week on the jobs report in the economy, as i had a man come up to me in the grocery store this weekend and he said, keep doing what you are doing. he said, i have never seen an economy this good. he said, people are working. people are being taken care of, and this is just a fatal distraction on a president that they don't like. motive is easy. november 2016, they lost. january 2017, just a few minutes in, "the washington post" confirmed what every democrat has been talking about. now is the time for impeachment.

we see tweet after tweet. it's amazing that they start with impeachment and they spend two years trying to figure out, what do we impeach him on? well, the means became what we see now. the means is it's to always talk about impeachment, and say this president is doing something wrong, to sigh he's illegitimate as the chairman has said before, that he's not even a legitimate president, is to constantly tear down at a president who is working on behalf of the american people. the sham impeachment when we go through this, i think the chairman said something that was interesting. the president should not be above the law, and should be held accountable for the oath of their office. i think congress ought to be held accountable, and not do what we're doing right now, and that's running a process that doesn't fit fairness, and fitting a fact pattern you're having to force against a president you don't like. what was the opportunity? the opportunity came last november when they got the majority, and they began their impeachment run. they began in the process even

as they're selecting the chairman. the chairman said i would be the best person for impeachment. this is november of last year. before we had any hearings, before we had -- were even sworn into this congress. for anyone, the media are watching on tv or watching in this room, for anyone to think this was not a baked deal is not being honest with themselves. you see, presumption has now become the standard instead of proof. it should cause anyone to begin to question because the entire case is built on a presumption, whereas we found out last week from three scholars that inference is okay. if you informer what they mean, that's okay. it's an interesting line. they made their whole case built on gordon sondland. you'll see that a lot today. he testified he presumed the aid was connected to an investigation, but he said nobody ever told him that. sondland even asked the

president directly. he said, what do you want, the president? he said, i want nothing. zelensky to do what he ran on. he wanted nothing. just look over the past three weeks when the chairman of the intelligence committee who by the way, is absent today, yes, he can't back up his own report, but he started his own hearing by making up the factual call when he made it up, he started the fairy tale we're having today. if you can't even put the transcript in the right context, just read it. chairman schiff can't even read the transcript. he had to make it up, and it didn't sound as bad. it didn't sound as bad. he said, let's make up some dirt. that's not what was said. the chairman misled the american people as an attorney, as a chairman, as a member of congress who swore an oath to basically be honest with the american people, and uphold the constitution. that was such a massive malpractice i have ever seen.

they don't care about what was actually in the transcript. they don't care what happened, and we heard from witnesses last week they don't care that the aid released. they're looking at facts to make it fit their narrative. what else happened? you know, this is also the chairman schiff who also said this is collusion in plain sight, that it was already there before the mueller report came out, that this was going to happen, and maybe i might need to just not stop commenting on chairman schiff because i may end up on the next phone records subpoena as we go forward. you see, we have taken a dangerous turn in this congress. subpoenas are fine, properly done and should be done properly, but they should never be at the expense of a political vendetta. professor turley testified last week, presumption is no substitute for proof. the current case for impeachment is not just woefully ined a

kwat -- inc inadequate, and dangerous for an american president. my friends said, when we got the mueller report, it didn't go real well. we had a lot of hearings, didn't go well. we finally got bob mueller and they said, this would be the movie version. my colleagues on the majority had live readings from capitol hill. they made dramatic broadcasts and even wrote a comic book rendition, that breathed life into the report, and it didn't work. they brought bob mueller and said his testimony would be the thing people watched and would be convinced. guess what? they wasn't convinced. in fact, it fell flat. you know today i guess is the movie version of the schiff report except one thing, the star witness failed to show up. mr. nunes is here. his staff is here. the leading headline is there. schiff report, but where's mr. schiff? and mueller, robert mueller

testified against our report. the author of the schiff report is not here. he's sending his staff to do it for him. i guess that's what you get when you're making up impeachment as you go. as we look forward here, there's plenty of time to discuss the factual case for this, and what has not been made, but this committee is not hearing from a factual witness, or doing anything from hearing past law school professors and staff. the chairman said something about the president not being able to come. show me where he would have a proper process in this that's not talking to staff and law school professors. where witnesses will be called by both sides. i want to say this. i love this institution. i was here as a 19-year-old kid as an intern almost 32 years ago. this institution as we see it

today is in danger. we see chairmen issuing subpoenas for personal vendettas. we see committees such as the judiciary committee that has held many, many substantive hearings, has been the center point of impeachment being used as a rubber stamp because we get our marching orders from not this committee, but the speaker. we're not able to do what we need to do because we're a rubber stamp. i love this institution, but in the last three days -- over the last three or four days, i see stuff that bothers me to no end, and it should bother everyone. go write articles, facts be damned. another member of the house majority said, we can keep impreachii impreachii impeaching him over and over and over again. adam schiff said when he wasn't going to come, instead hide

behind his staff, he also told us that we're going to keep investigating because they know this is going nowhere in the senate, and they're desperate to have an impeachment vote on this president. the economy is good, job creation is up, military is strong, our country is safe. the judiciary committee has been relegated to this. why? because they have the means, they have the motive and they have the opportunity, and at the end of the day, all this is about is about a clock and a calendar because they can't get over the fact donald trump is president of the united states, and they don't have a candidate that they think can beat him. it's all political, and as we was talking about before, this is a show. unfortunately today, the witness who was supposed to be the star witness chose to take a pass and let his staff answer for him pitch yield back. >> mr. chairman, i have a point of order. >> thank you, mr. comin collins.

the gentleman will state his point of order. >> the clause 2j-1 requires you to schedule a hearing date. . not to discuss it, but to schedule one, and schedule it as a reasonable time, not after articles have been drawn. not after there's been a vote on articles of impeachment. inquire and insist mr. chairman, that you immediately schedule a minority hearing day or tell us why you are -- >> the gentleman -- >> why are you ignoring the rules? >> the gentleman -- we have already gone through that, but i will repeat that's not a proper point of order in today's hearing as i have told the ranking minority member several times i'm considering the minority's request. if you think we would be violating the rules of the house if we considered articles of impeachment before holding a minority day hearing, that point of order would be timely at a meeting which we consider such articles. it's not the purpose of today's hearing and the point of order

is not in order. >> i would like to ask something. >> that objection. that objection or other opening statements will be included in the record. >> observe my point of objection on that. i have a question. you brought my name into this. >> the gentleman. >> you brought my name into. >> the gentleman will suspend. the gentleman is recognized. >> thank you, mr. chairman. telling me you are considering you have nothing to consider, and you have told me that, i'll admit on record is nowhere close the actually following your duty as a chairman to follow the rules. and so the point of order is very well taken. i think the issue we have is not -- i think your timing is -- i mean, show me please in the rule. have your parliamentary show me where you have come to a time of being able to deny it at a certain point. >> i further resume the right to object. >> as i have said, the point of order would be in order at the meeting where we are

considering -- >> reserving the right to object. >> we will hear presentations. >> i appeal the decision of the chair. >> there is no appeal to decision. there was not a ruling on the motion. >> ruling on the point of order. >> you made a ruling on the point of order. >> you made a ruling on the point of order, mr. chairman. you can't not -- >> here on the judiciary committee. >> it was not a cognitive point of order. there was no ruling to appeal. >> mr. chairman, the rule wasn't the obligation, not consideration. >> this usually happens behind closed doors but it's happening right here. republicans would like a hearing before any final votes on the articles. >> we will now hear presentations of evidence. >> mr. chairman. >> the chairman has the votes on this committee. he's going to move forward to the witnesses. >> i have a parliamentary inquiry. >> i will not recognize that inquiry at this time. we will hear the presentations of the evidence from counsel.

>> does your staff just ask questions of other staff, and the members get dealt out of this whole hearing for the next four hours, you're going to try to overturn the results of an election with unelected people? >> the gentleman will suspend. >> one of the president's strongest allies in congress, matt gaetz. >> the gentleman will not yell our disrupt the proceedings. we will proceed to the counsel of the judiciary committee. barry berke will present for the majority, and steve castor for the minority. to help you stay within the time, there's a timing light on your table. when the light switches from green to yellow, you have one minute to conclude your testimony. when the light turns red, it signals your time has expired. mr. berke, you may begin. >> you do realize -- >> suspend. >> you have not talked to my objection. i want everybody to have an opening statement. it's your opening statement comment.

nothing else. >> mr. berke is recognized. berke has the floor. >> thank you, mr. chairman. ranking member collins and all the members. before i had the great honor of being a counsel for this committee, my young son asked me a question. he said, dad, does the president have to be a good person? like many questions by young children, it had a certain clarity, but it was hard to answer. i said, son, it is not a requirement that the president be a good person, but that is the hope, and it is not a requirement that the president be a good person. that is not why we are here today. that is not the issue, but the very document that created the awesome presidency and its powers that we have made clear it is a requirement that the president be a person who does

not abuse his power. it is a requirement that the president be a person who does not risk national security of this nation in the integrity of our elections in order to further his own re-election prospects. it is a requirement that the president not be a person who acts as though he is above the law in putting his personal and political interests above the nation's interests. that is the lesson of the constitution. that is the lesson of the founders. they were concerned that someone would be elected president who would use all the power of that office to serve his own personal interests at the expense of the people who elected him. they decided there needed to be a remedy because they had suffered the abuses of king george where they had no remedy. the remedy they opposed was that

if a president commits a grave offense, a high crime or m misdemeanor, this body has the power to impeach that president. they wanted to ensure that a president could not serve his own interests over that of the nation. it flows from the very oath that all members of this body must take to support and defend the constitution and bear true faith and allegiant to the same. that is why we are here today, and it is an unfortunate occasion that these proceedings are necessary. but the president's actions have left no choice. the founders were very clear in spelling out what they saw to be the greatest abuses that would raise the most concerns for our nation. they spelled them out as warning signals that if a president

violated or committed one of these, that would be a reason to potentially impeach that president. they were abuse of power, corruption of elections. the conduct we're going to be talking about today of president trump didn't violate one of these, but all three. first, the evidence is overwhelming that the president abused his power by pressuring ukraine and its new president to investigate a political opponent. the evidence is overwhelming that the president abused his power by ramping up that pressure, by conditioning a wanted white house meeting and a needed military aid that had been approved in order to get that president to investigate a political rival. it is clear and overwhelming that in abusing that power, the president betrayed the national interest by putting his own political prospects over the

national security of our country. it is clear that the president risked corrupting our elections by inviting foreign interference to knock out anned adversary, t help his prospects in re-election. it is why in debating the constitution, james madison warned that because the presidency was to be administered by a single man, his corruption might be fatal to the republic. in the scheme by president trump, it was so brazen, so clear supported by documents and actions, sworn testimony, uncontradicted contemporaneous records that it's hard to imagine that anybody could dispute those acts let alone argue that that conduct does not constitute an impeachable offense or offenses. this is a big deal. president trump did what a president of our nation is not allowed to do.

it is why last week the constitutional scholar, professor michael gerhardt said, if what we're talking about is not impeachable, then nothing is impeachable. president trump's actions are impeachable offenses. they threaten our rule of law. they threaten our institutions and as james madison warned us, they threaten our republic. let me begin where we must with the facts and evidence. first, it's important to understand why ukraine was so important to our national security. ukraine was under attack by its aggressive and hostile neighbor, russia. they had already encroached on its territories. the ukraine was at great risk that russia would again, take further territory or try. europe had a stake in this, and so did we. i'm going to turn to an expert on this. ambassador taylor who is one of

the most highly decorated diplomats and recognized diplomats for over 40 years, he served our country honorably, and he was appointed by president trump himself to be in charge of the u.s. embassy in ukraine. >> the russians are violating all of the rules, treaties, understanding that they committed to that actually kept the peace in europe for nearly 70 years. that rule of law -- that order that kept the peace in europe and allowed for prosperity as well as peace in europe was violated by the russians. it affects the world that we live in, that our children will grow up in, our grandchildren. this affects the kind of world that we want to see abroad. >> that is ambassador taylor explaining why ukraine was so important, and explaining why

the president's actions so significantly risked hurting our national security, our national defense policy and our national interest. you have heard there is significant proof that president trump himself told the new president of ukraine, president zelensky, that he wanted him to investigate a political rival. former vice president joe biden. you'll hear a lot about that today, but that proof is only the tip of the iceberg. there are so many more events and meetings and contemporaneous text messages, email, other documents that show this happened and happened exactly as it is alleged. it is clear that in the scheme to pressure ukraine to investigate a political rival, the person at the center of that scheme was president donald trump. the facts cannot be disputed. president trump used the powers of government for a domestic, political errand to put his political interest point of view that of the nation.

i'm going to turn to another expert. i'll turn to dr. fiona hill, the national security council in the trump administration and she's going to explain what happened. >> but it struck me yesterday when you put up on the screen ambassador sondland's emails and who was on these emails and you said, these are the people you need to know that he was absolutely right because he was being involved in a domestic political errand, and we were being involved in national security foreign policy, and those two things had just diverged. >> and that tells you what the evidence shows. the president put his own domestic political interest over the nation's national security and foreign policy. a president cannot abuse his power to secure an election. he can not do that at the expense of american people. that is an impeachable offense. the president has tried to make excuses for his conduct, why

it's not wrongful or corrupt or an abuse of power, but the truth holds together. it makes sense. it's consistent with the evidence. when someone is offering an excuse that is not true, it is not consistent with the evidence, and it does not make sense, it cannot be squared with what the facts show, and you will see these excuses do not make sense. the facts are clear that president trump put his own political and personal interests over the nation's interest. i would like to go through what you are going to see about the president's scheme, and you are going to hear about today from the facts that we have. first, you're going to hear that president trump's personal lawyer rudy giuliani pushed ukraine to open an investigation of his political rival. mr. giuliani prior to the july 25th call, he made public statements that ukraine should

investigate the former vice president joe biden. he tweeted about it, putting pressure on the new president. he went to ukraine and later went again with the assist and direction of u.s. officials who were told to aid the president's personal lawyer on the president's behalf. you'll hear that president trump told his aides that he was relying on for ukraine that he wanted them to, quote, talk to rudy. what you are going to hear is that his close advisers had just gotten back on may 23rd from the inauguration of the new president, president zelensky. they told president trump, we were impressed. he was elected on an anti-corruption platform, a reform platform. you should schedule a white house meeting. it's very important. this is very good for the united states, and the president's response was, talk to rudy, who had been out there claiming what

the ukrainian president had to do was investigate his political rival. you'll hear that president trump's advisers told president zelensky that president trump would not schedule the wanted white house meeting unless he announced a ukrainian investigation of former vice president biden. there are documents and sworn testimony this happened and there is no question from the evidence that the president did this, and president zelensky desperately needed a white house meeting both to show russia that the u.s. was still supporting ukraine and for his own credibility as a new president. you'll hear then to ramp up the pressure what president trump did, is he told his agencies to withhold military and security aid that had been approved and was supposed to be released to ukraine, hundreds of millions of dollars in order to put more pressure on ukraine. all the agencies involved, state department, defense department,

national security council said it should be released, that it had been approved. it was going to be released until president trump personally stopped it, and again, contemporaneous evidence and documents show it and prove it. people said that they were shocked. ambassador taylor said he was in astonishment. witnesses said that it was illogical to do this, and the president never offered an explanation, but ultimately it was discovered why he did it. then on the july 25th call, president trump explicitly told him he wanted him to do two ukrainian investigations. one of a u.s. citizen and his political rival and the other about the origins of the interference in the 2016 election. some conspiracy theory that russia who all the intelligence agencies agreed, interfered with the 2016 election, that maybe it was ukraine. again another investigation intended to help the president politically. that is it, and you know the president cared about the investigations that would help him politically and not ukraine

and not the national security interest. you don't have to take my word. i'll play something from david holmes who had worked in the u.s. embassy in ukraine and was speaking to ambassador sondland who president trump appointed, ambassador sondland had just come to the ukraine on the 26th. he met with president zelensky. he went to a restaurant with mr. holmes, the u.s. affairs counselor in ukraine and he called president trump on his cell phone and mr. holmes could hear that call and he spoke to mr. sondland. let's see what happened on july 26th, the day after that call. >> i heard ambassador sondland greet the president andi explai he was calling from kyiv. i heard president trump clarify that the ambassador was in ukraine. he relied, yes, he was in ukraine, and stated that president zelensky, quote, loves your ass. i then heard president trump ask, so he's going to do the investigation? ambassador sondland replied that he's going to do it, adding that president zelensky will do

anything you ask him to do. >> that is sworn testimony by david holmes who heard it from the president himself, and it was clear to everyone the most experienced people in government who donald trump himself appointed in their positions, they knew what was going on. let's look at a text message from ambassador taylor around this time on september 9th. he said, as i said on the phone, i think it's crazy to withhold security assistance for help with a political campaign. again, that is president trump putting his own political and personal interests over the nation's interest to hold aid desperately needed by ukraine in order to combat russia and show the support, he did it to help his own campaign. now there have been excuses offer bed by the president. i would like to briefly talk about those excuses. the first excuse offered by

president trump is that the aid was ultimately released and president trump met with mr. zelensky. we heard it today. the challenge with that though as an excuse was the aid was only released after president trump got caught doing the scheme. on september 9th the committees of this house started their investigation and announced they were investigating his conduct with regard to ukraine. two days later was when he released the aid, and there was also a news article which we'll talk about in a moment by "the washington post" on september 5th exposing his scheme, and he met with president zelensky not at the white house, but in new york. another excuse offered, the president was motivated by general corruption concerns. again, the evidence shows that is not true that's what caused him to withhold the aid. president zelensky was elected on an anti-corruption platform, and people told him again and again president zelensky, he's

doing it the right way. they urged him to be supportive. on his call with president zelensky on july 25th, president trump ignored the talking points that were prepared to talk about corruption. he only wanted to talk about two things, the two investigations that helped him politically. every intelligence agency unanimously supported releasing the aid to ukraine. that was appropriate. they did a study, a corruption study. they said, release it. the white house never provided an explanation. the aid had already been approved and it was not for any corruption issues that president trump withheld it. the next is that ukraine was not pressured and the argument about that as well today they haven't said they were pressured. well, ukraine was pressured then and still are pressured there, desperately in need of the united states support as they battle the threat of russia. so of course, they have to be careful what they said, but

contemporaneous dochuments, emails, they knew what presiden was doing, and what they had to do. this is from bill taylor to ambassador gordon sondland and kurt volker. gordon, one thing kurt and i talked about yesterday was saw that danyliuk's point that president zelensky is sensitive about ukraine being taken seriously. not merely an instrument in washington domestic re-election politics. they not only felt the pressure. they got the message. they were not going to get a white house meeting. they were ultimately not going to get military aid unless they furthered president trump's re-election efforts. that is a corrupt abuse of power. another argument that's made is that trump never said quid pro quo, and what you are going to hear on a call with ambassador sondland after a "washington

poticle came out on september 5th. there was an article that came out that exposed the ukrainian scheme. days after that, president trump was on a phone call with ambassador sondland and without prompting said, there was no quid pro quo because he got caught. so he's offering his defense, but even ambassador sondland in a sworn testimony didn't buy it because ultimately then, president trump not only was not dissuaded. he then described what he wanted. he didn't want ukraine to actually conduct these investigations. he wanted them to announce investigations of his political rival, to help him politically. he continued and you'll hear more about that. again, none of these excuses hold any water, and they are refuted by testimony, contemporaneous records and more. now some have suggested that we should wait to proceed with these impeachment proceedings because we have not heard from

all of the witnesses or obtained all of the documents. but the reason we have not heard from all the witnesses or documents is because president trump himself has obstructed the investigation. he directed his most senior a s aides who are involved these events not to testify, to defy subpoenas. he has told every one of his agencies with records that could be relevant not to produce those records to us. to try to obstruct our investigation. now this is evidence that president trump is replaying the playbook used in the prior department of justice investigation. in that investigation, he directed his white house counsel to create a false, phony record and document and lie denying that president trump had told him to fire the special counsel. he did many other things to try to interfere with that investigation. he attacked the investigators and witnesses and called them horrible names just as he has done here, and president trump

thought he got away with it. on july 24th was the day that special counsel -- the special counsel testified before this committee in the house intelligence committee. the 24th. it was exactly the following day, the 25th that president trump spoke to president zelens zelensky in furtherance of his ukrainian scheme. he thought he got away with it, and thought he could use his powers. he could act like he was above the law, and if he got caught, he would again use his powers to try to obstruct the investigation and prevent the facts from congress oming out, that's exactly what he did. but fortunately -- fortunately, because of the true american patriots who came forward to testify despite the threats by the president against the people who worked in his own administration, they told the story. they on their own produced documents that provide

uncontrove uncontroverted, clear and overwhelming evidence that president trump did commit this scheme. he put his political re-election interests over the nation's national security and the integrity of the elections. he did it spenintentionally and corruptly, and he abused his powers in the way the founders feared the most. no person in this country has the ability to prevent investigations and neither does the president. our constitution does not allow it. no one is above the law. not even the president. then one of the concerns and requirements of finding an impeachable offense s there an urgency or a sense that you have because it could be repeated. well, first, all the constitutional experts who testified recognized that obstructing an investigation is an impeachable offense, but here

the defense we're talking about that's being interfered or obstructed with is interfering with the very election that's coming up, and i submit to you given what happened with the department of justice investigation, given what's happening here, if, in fact, president trump can get away with what he did again, our imagination is the only limit to what president trump may do next and a what a future president may do next to try to abuse his or her power to serve his own personal interests over the nation's interest. i would like to turn back to what the founders most cared about, and we talk about the abcs of potential presidential president's conduct was a trifecta checking all three boxes. let's begin with abuse of power. what that means it's to use the power of the office to obtain an

improper personal benefit while ignoring or injuring the national interest or acts in ways that are grossly inconsistent with and undermine the separation of powers that is the foundation of our democratic system. now, these -- this question of whether the president engaged in abuse of power came up before when this congress considered the impeachment of president nixon. after action was taken president nixon said if the president does it it is not illegal. this body rejected that because that's not so. that's goes contrary to what the founders said. president trump has said the same thing in responding to the prior investigation by department of justice and defending his conduct. here's what he said. >> then i have an article ii where i have the right to do whatever i want as president. >> that he has the right to do whatever he wants as president. at