oh, it is a foggy, rainy, windy, miserable day. our wet weather causing problems on the roads, in the air. in short, it's a great day to be inside. good afternoon and thanks for joining us. i'm larry beil. >> and i'm ama daetz. we have live team coverage on storm watch. spencer will let us know what the rest of the evening looks like. but right now we're going to abc news for a special report on the impeachment proceedings. stephanopoulos. >> good evening. we're back now with our special coverage of the impeachment of president trump. six hours of debate have been winding down here on capitol hill. you see liz cheney, a remember of the republican leadership, one of the final speakers for the republicans, weighing in on impeachment. let's listen in. >> more powerful than the force of freedom. it is our miraculous constitutional system, madam speaker, defended by our men and women in uniform, that have safeguarded that freedom for 230

years. each one of us in this chamber bears a sacred duty, passed down through generations and affirmed in our oath of office to preserve and protect our constitution. madam speaker, our nation's framers recognized that this republic is fragile. and that extreme partisanship can be among the most severe threats to its survival. that is why in federalist 65, alexander hamilton wrote, quote, there will always be the greatest danger that impeachment, the impeachment decision, will be regulated more by the comparative strength of parties than by real demonstrations of innocence or guilt. here, madam speaker, our democratic colleagues have been working to remove this president since the day he was elected. searching for an offense on which they could impeach. failing to find one, madam

speaker, they have decided to assume one, rather than attempting to enforce their subpoenas in court, they have also decided to declare it a high crime and misdemeanor when the president of the united states asserts his constitutional privileges. the democrats are asking members of this body to impeach despite the fact that they have presented no direct evidence of any impeachable offense. let me say it one more time, madam speaker, they have presented no direct evidence of any impeachable offense. if anyone in this chamber still believes the democrats have proven their case, i would urge those members to ask the chairman of the intelligence committee, mr. schiff, why he failed to appear to answer questions about his report before members vote for impeachment.

they might want to know why the author of the impeachment report will not defend it under questioning. if the house impeaches here, madam speaker, it will create exactly the type of risk the framers cautioned us to avoid. it will mean that divided government can imperil a democratically-elected president based on unproven allegations and inoue when doe in the absence of direct testimony. despite all the rhetoric you've heard today, madam speaker, passage of these articles of impeachment may permanently damage our republic. from this day forward, a hyper-partisan bare majority can cite this precedent to try to remove a future commander in chief. i urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, madam speaker, think of our republic, think of the constitution, think of the oath that we all swore to protect and defend that constitution and vote against

these partisan, reckless and dangerous articles of impeachment. i yield back. >> liz cheney, member of republican leadership. >> proud to recognize mr. levin for one minute. >> gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> just a few speakers left on either side now. >> madam speaker, today we proclaim that no person is above the law. not even the president of the united states. donald j. trump abused the power of his office and violated his oath of office by extorting a new and inexperienced president of a vulnerable foreign ally to dig up dirt on mr. trump's domestic political opponents. he then obstructed the congress, this equal branch of our government, from undertaking our

duty. outlined in the constitution itself to investigate and check these violations. today, we do nothing more and nothing less than fulfill our duty to our country and to our constitution. mr. trump has allowed foreign powers to interfere in our domestic affairs. he has endangered our national security and our democracy itself. for those reasons, we must impeach this president. thank you, madam speaker. i yield back. >> gentleman from georgia. >> speaker, at this point, i have a yield for unanimous consent -- >> mary bruce, house speaker nancy pelosi was there for much of the day in that chamber. when she returns, takes the chair, we'll be having the votes. >> george, she will preside, just shortly over these two votes on the two articles of

impeachment, abuse of power and obstruction. and we do expect these to be near party line votes. as we have seen over the more than six hours of debate, republicans are largely in lock-step with the president and democrats are largely united, as well. we do expect at least two democrats to defect and oppose impeachment, which, as you can imagine, republicans are eager to seize upon to tout as some kind of bipartisan opposition to this movement. >> not much mystery left in this final vote. nancy pelosi, the house speaker, does have the votes. although one presidential candidate, tulsi gabbard, says she is undecided. >> madam speaker, is the gentleman ready to close? >> no, we have a few more speakers. >> then i reserve. >> madam speaker, i recognize the gentleman from new york. >> what's going to happen right here, jon karl, the democrats are going to run out the clock with their last couple of speakers and we expect to hear the leaders, likely to be kevin mccarthy on the republican side

to close for the republicans, perhaps steny hoyer for the democrats. meantime, donald trump out on the campaign trail. >> donald trump left the white house a short while ago, didn't answer any questions, george, as he left, on his way to michigan. he's got a rally that's going to begin shortly, actually, the rally is already under way, he will appear at that rally shortly in battle creek, michigan. and you can be sure, in full battle mode. he -- we've gotten a sense, in terms of what he has been tweeting today, and that, of course, letter he spent to speaker pelosi yesterday, complete defiance, looking ahead to a fight in the senate, taking this impeachment as inevitable and also his victory, he believes, in the senate, as equally ininvestable. >> martha raddatz in battle creek for us tonight. martha, give us a sense of the mood as the president is about to take the stage. >> george, it's certainly not somber or sad here in battle creek. this group is fired up.

they were just shouting "four more years, four more years." we know that donald trump will probably sent here tonight about impeachment, but he will also talk about the economy, he will talk about things that he thinks he's done well as president. the people i have talked to here tonight did not watch the impeachment hearing. they are really echoing what president trump has said in his tweets, what president trump has said for weeks. they say they back him, no matter what, because the economy is strong. >> okay, martha, thank you. and terry moran, one of the great unknowns here, we've seen public opinion polling hasn't moved much. it's pretty much divided down the middle. 49/48, depending on the poll. we don't know what that will mean 11 months from now on election day. >> that's right. that is a long way away, an eternity in politics between now and the election. but it does show, essentially,

howdy slided the country is, not just over donald trump, but over everything, it seems, that has come up in his presidency. you get that same locked in 50/50 country and in it, donald trump seems to want to keep it that way. he has a strategy that if he can get his base out and discourage the other side, it will work. and, in fact, it may be working. there was something in our poll, some numbers in our poll that were significant, compared with the clinton impeachment, substantially fewer americans are paying attention. the effort to discredit it, to throw up a completely alternative explanation, an alternative reality, if you will, may have just a general exhaustion with the pitch of parasan ship that has been going on for three years, means that substantially fewer americans are paying attention at all. >> in part because there's not much drama in these proceedings.

we've known for several weeks how this is going to turn out, and david muir, i want to bring you in on that, because one of the things we're seeing here is, both sides, voters in the country, taking their cues from their leaders, falling in behind their leaders. president trump on the republican side, nancy pelosi taking the lead for the democrats. >> yeah, somewhat baked in at this point. terry makes a good point about exhaustion. we hear about it when we're traveling the country. i was struck watching this play out with you today, george, about howdy sli divided this co is and reflects the divided country at this point. two starkly different arguments coming out of congress. democrats who say this is a president who used the power of the office for personal political gain to influence the upcoming election and there's an urgency with 2020 quickly approaching. and you heard it from liz cheney there moments ago, republicans saying, you know, where is the direct evidence of any crime here and warning that this kind of partisan ship, you know, people remember the clinton impeachment as highly part san, but this, compared to that, is

really quite striking. and you heard warnings from the republicans today that this will only get worse coming forward. >> the question, cecilia vega, can the president move on and persuade voters that are not currently with him. he speaks in loving terms about his base. >> he does. he will try to sell them on his accomplishments. they have been trying to get a number of them in their cap, as behead into impeachment, in terms of trade, in terms of china. you know, you have to remember, though, this is a president who is so emboldened, he said during the last campaign that he would walk onto fifth avenue and shoot someone and his base would stick with him. you're going to see that sense of dedefiance. u'll see it today and tomorrow. people ask, if he's not going to be removed today what is the point of this? for the democrats, they say, this is their constitutional obligation and i don't know that the american public yet feels

that trickle down. >> kate shaw, i had to smile when cecilia brought up shooting someone on fifth avenue and getting away with it. that was actually an argument at some level that the president's lawyers made in court in dealing with witnesses, one of the suits dealing with witnesses coming before congress and courts. >> making the argument the president's legal team in the impeachment proceedings and the legal cases, including requests for the president's taxes, that have been mthose lawyer said, he wasn't talking about the base, but he was talking about whether local investigators could even investigate a shooting that the president committed on fifth avenue. the president's lawyer said, not while he's president, you can't investigate. so, this kind of general view that ordinary legal processes don't apply at all to the president is something you see reflected in the impeachment arguments and court. >> and that absolute view of presidential power has become a subject of the second article of impeachment. >> right, the obstruction of

congress article. and that's a really interesting one to think about, because you keep hearing the republicans saying, well, you know, what is wrong with the president invoking privilege? basically taking the position that certain, or all, his inner circle of people should be immune from having to testify. but they haven't even really invoked the privilege. they've simply said, no one's testifying. so, that's one of the arguments that the democrats have as a legal matter to say, there hasn't even been an invocation of the privilege, but that is a much more, sort of technical legalistic article than article one. >> i want to go back to the floor. the number two republic, steve scalise, is speaking. >> this isn't about some solemn duty tonight. let's talk about what this is really about. this has been about a political vendetta, a political vendetta that didn't just start with the

zelensky call. it started long before that. just listen to some of the quotes from democrats in this chamber. speaker pelosi, quote, it's been going on for 22 months, two and a half years, actually. we cannot accept a second term for donald trump. what's more serious is that he can't win. this isn't about some crime that was committed. it's about fear that he might win re-election. that's not why you impeach a president. al green, quote, i'm concerned that if we don't impeach this president he will get re-elected. the list goes on, madam speaker, in fact, there are some quotes that i can't even read on this house floor that some of our colleagues made. and keep in mind, more than 100 democrats on this house floor voted to impeach this president before the zelensky phone call. just look at some of these articles of impeachment they voted for. two years ago, 58 democrats voted to impeach the president

over comments he made about nfl players needing for the pledge of allegiance. impeaching the president, over 50 democrats voted to impeach him for that. just this summer, over 90 democrats voted to impeach the president for comments he made about the squad. so, he makes comments about some other members of congress, who make a lot of comments about him, and 95 members vote to impeach the president of the united states. this is a political vendetta. it has nothing to do with a crime committed. there was no crime. and why don't we listen to some of the witnesses? obviously, we weren't able to call all the witnesses we wanted, but there were witnesses. in fact, gordon sondland, u.s. ambassador to the european union, he's mentioned over 600 times in the ship repochiff rep. he was their star witness. what did he say? did president trump ever tell you personally about any preconditions for anything? his answer, no.

any preconditions for the aid to be released? no. any preconditions for a white house meeting, under oath, hech theed nhe testified no. abuse of power. let's talk about that article of impeachment. george washington law professor turley who admitted he voted against donald trump spoke to this claim of abuse of power, in fact, he said, quote, if you make a high crime and misdemeanor out of going to the courts, it is an abuse of power, it's your abuse of power. you are doing precisely what you are criticizing the president of doing. abuse of power. there's a house rule, madam speaker, that requires, not allows, but requires that the minority get a day of hearing, which we asked for, they broke this rule, they didn't allow us to have a minority day of hearing. they didn't want to hear the facts, because it was never about the facts. there was no crime.

it is about a personal vendetta. let's talk about obstruction of congress, as they make up these terms to impeach a president, because they didn't find a crime and they were looking, it's been an impeachment in search of a crime, but they talk about obstruction of congress and saying the president defied subpoenas. subpoena after subpoena. let's you go there the departments. the department of state, they subpoenaed. do you know that literally just four days after the subpoena, the secretary of state himself responded to your subpoena? the department of defense, a week later, responded to the subpoena. the department of energy responded to the subpoena. we can go on and on with all of these agencies. that's an abuse of power, that's an obstruction of congress, responding to your subpoena? that's what they did. they responded. you might not have liked the answer, but that's not the way this works. you don't impeach a president because you don't like his foreign policy, as so many of those foreign policy experts came and testified. but this isn't just about donald trump. they don't just hate donald trump, they hate the 63 million americans who voted for this

president. the forgotten men and women of this country who have been left behind, madam speaker. >> house will be in order. gentleman may proceed. >> thank you, madam speaker. it's those forgotten men and women of this country that washington had left behind and what's this president doing for them? he's delivering for them. 600 jobs in pennsylvania. 1,000 jobs, workers in mingo junction, ohio. $750 million investment for 600 new jobs across this country. "detroit news," chrysler, 6,500 new jobs. this's what this president is doing to deliver for those men and women of this country who have been left behind. it's about time somebody stands up for them, and president trump is. so, it is a political vendetta, but if they're going to go through with this, madam speaker, impeachment will not just be a stain on this democrat majority -- >> gentleman's time has expired.

members are reminded to address remarks to the chair. gentleman from california. >> madam speaker, i recognize ms. custer for unanimous consent. >> i request the unanimous consent for enter in my statement into the record regarding the 75th anniversary of the battle of the bulge in favor of articles of impeachment, thank you. >> without objection. >> madam speaker, it is now my pleasure to recognize the gentleman from maryland, the majority leader of the house of representatives, mr. hoyer for one minute. >> the gentleman is recognized. >> number two democrat in the

house, steny hoyer. >> the gentleman will suspend. the house will come to order. gentleman's recognized. >> madam speaker, i have had the honor of serving in this house for over 38 years. i've served during six presidencies. i've been here through moments of tremendous progress and terrible tragedy. i've seen periods of rank partis partisanship and patriotic bipartisanship. i've seen our two-party system work. and i've seen it break down. nev never, in all my years of serving in this great institution that i love, and the

people of my district, did i ever expect to encounter such an obvious wrongdoing by a president of the united states. nor did i expect to witness such a craven rationalization of presidential actions, which have put our national security at risk, undermine the integrity of our elections and defined the constitutional authority of the congress to conduct oversight. we've heard from republics that this impeachment really has to do with policy differences, or how we feel personally about the president. about his temperament or that we simply dislike him. throughout the trump presidency,

democrats have resisted pursuing impeachment, even as we watched with dismay and disgust at a pattern of wrongdoing. that pattern included ordering federal agencies to lie to the public. firing the fbi director for refusing to end investigations of his campaign. siding with vladimir putin against our intelligence agencies. taking funding away from the military to put towards an ineffective border wall. and setting policies that have led the separation of families and caging of children. we have to be sure deep

disagreements with the policies and actions taken by this president. there's been a lot of talk about the 63 million people who voted for mr. trump. little talk about the 65 million people who voted for hillary clinton. the policy difference or those votes, this president was elected legitimately >> the house will stay in order. the gentleman deserves to be heard. gentleman's recognized. >> because we have an electoral college. but none of these are reasons to pursue what chairman schiff has

called a wrenching process for the nation. in fact, democrats rejected that process emphatically in three specific votes. in december of 2017, democrats overwhelmingly voted against pursuing articles of impeachment. including the speaker and myself. we did so again in 2018, with over 60% of the democrats rejecting pursuing articles of impeachment. and again, just months ago, in july of 2019, 60% of the democrats said no to pursuing

articles of impeachment. just days before the infamous july 25th telephone call. we did the same with 60% of democrats voting not to proceed. credible witnesses, many of whom were appointed to office by president trump, the krob rated the details and timeline of his abuse of presidential power. which forms the basis of the first article of impeachment in this resolution. instead -- i will not recount all of the witnesses or abuses that have occurred. i congratulate my colleagues and mr. nadler and his committee and

mr. schiff and his committee for setting forth a compelling case. they've been laid out fully in the articles before us and by colleagues in their remarks. what i will do is remind americans that the house provided president trump every opportunity to prove his innocence. but the witnesses were precluded from coming forth. the witnesses who have personal knowledge did not come. either at the president's request, in which he refused to show up because he thought it was a sham, as so many of you have said, or to the committees. instead, he ignored congressional subpoenas for documents and for testimony by white house officials and ordered his subordinates not to cooperate. perhaps they could have

exonerated him. this itself, i suggest to you, is unprecedented. when president nixon and clinton were asked to hand over documents and allow officials to testify, ultimately, both complied. because it is the law. such actions of the president can be taken as further evidence of his obstruction and abuse of power. it is in and of itself impeachable conduct. the subject of the second article of impeachment. these two articles for us concern two very profound constitutional issues. about the abuse of power in our republic. first, whether it is acceptable for the president of the united states, any president, to

solicit foreign interference in our elections. there is a difference as to whether he's done that and the place to try that is in the united states senate. but we believe strongly there is probable cause to conclude that. to understood mimine our nation security, the integrity of our elections and the integrity of our democracy. and secondly, whether it is permissible for the president to obstruct congress and act as if he is above the law. and immune from constitutional oversight. the on december 4th, the judiciary committee heard the testimony of constitutional law experts who weighed in on these points. some 1,500 historians have said the same thing as professor noah

feldman said. if we cannot impeach a president who abuses his office for personal advantage, we know longer live in a democracy. we live in a monarchy or we live under the dictatorship. the votes we are about to take concern the rule of law and our democracy itself. let us not forget the words of john lock, so influential to the founders of our republic. john lock, mill len ya ago, said this -- whether law ends, tyranny begins. this impeachment asks whether we are still a republic of laws. as our founders intended or whether we will accept that one person can be above the law.

in america, as we have said over and over again, no one is above the law. but only as long as we hold every person accountable for breaking the law the, even a president, will that be true. if the house does not act, if we wait and delay, we run the risk of allowing the president's misconduct, if we believe it to be so, to be repeated at the expense of the integrity of our elections, our national security and our constitutional system of separation of powers. the democrats did not choose this impeachment. we did not wish for it.

we voted against it -- we voted against it once, we voted against it twice, we voted against it three times as recently as july. we did not want this. however, president trump's misconduct has forced our constitutional republic toll protect itself. these votes that we are about to take and the process that will follow in the senate are not only an assessment of the president's commitment to the constitution or to his oath of office, it is, as well, a test of our own. damning evidence of the president's high crimes has

emerged. nevertheless, republic members of this house and of the senate have continued to defend the president, whose actions seem, to many of us, to be indefensible. all of us feel a sense of loyalty to party. it's what makes our two-party system function. it's what helps hold presidents and majorities accountable. the but party loyalty must have itself lim its limits, and as evidence of the president's impeachable offenses have mounted daily as the witnesses testified, it has become increasingly clear that the limits of partisanship have been reached and passed. now democrats and republicans together face a test, before our

constituents, our countrymen and our creator. "the new york times" on october 18th summarized the question posed to house and senate, republicans and democrats, compromise by compromise, donald trumps that hammered away at what republicans once saw as foundational virtues. decen decency, honesty, responsibility and, yes, even civility. going on to say, will they commit themselves wholly to mr. trump, embracing even his most anti-democratic actions or will they take the first step towards separating themselves from him and restoring confidence in the rule of law?

madam speaker, we have seen republican courage throughout our history. from the civil war to the cold war. in 1950, margaret chase smith, the senator from maine, a republican, spoke bravely against the cancer of mccarthyism in her party. leading sis ining six of her r colleagues in a declaration of conscience against their own leadership. we are republicans, they decl e declar declared, but we are americans first. in 1974, one congressman took the brave and principled step of becoming the first republican on the judiciary committee to support impeaching president nixon. he said to his colleagues and to the country, and i quote, it

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

my colleagues, that congressman's name was larry hogan sr. he represented the fifth district of maryland, which i now represent. his son is presently the second term republican governor of our state. when larry hogan sr. died in 2017, every obituary led with praise for his act of political courage. who among us the, many years from now, will receive such praise as a man or woman of courage? who will regret not having earned it? we've talked a lot about partisan differences. there is one person who has

spoken today who is neither a member of the republican party nor the democratic party. his name is justin amash. who represents a republican district. he left the republican party and in doing so, heed a mon fished his colleagues that, quote, this president will only be in power for a short time, but excusing his behavior will forever tarnish your name. he spoke on this floor in support of the two articles that we will consider this evening. neither democrat nor republican. representative amash is, of course, the only member of this house who has no allegiance to either party.

but to his country. he is supporting, as i've said, both articles. we need not ask who will be the first to show courage by standing up to president trump. the question we must now ask is, who will be the last to find it? the pages of our history are filled with americans who had the courage to choose country over party or personality. but as president kennedy wrote, the stories of past courage can teach, they can offer hope, they can provide inspiration. but they cannot supply courage itself. for this, president kennedy said, each man, each woman, must look into their own soul. i urge my fellow colleagues in

the house and, yes, in the senate, to look into your soul. summon the courage to vote for our constitution and our democracy. t i understand we will all not see the same conclusion, but to do less betrays our oath and that of our founders. who pledged their lives, their fortune and their sacred honor. let us neither turn away from the evidence, which, to me, seems so clear, nor from our good conscience, which compels us to do what in our hearts we know to be right. let us not allow the rule of law to end or for tyranny to find its toe hold. with our votes today, we can

bear the true faith and allegiance to the vision of our founders and we can show future generations what it truly means to be americans first. vote yes. >> democratic leader steny hoyer addressing the question posed by every impeachment, what are the limits of party loyalty. >> madam speaker, a few weeks ago, just off of this floor, i said that a dark cloud was descending upon this body and today, because of the clock and the calendar, it is closing. it is a amazing to me what i just heard from the majority leader, that mr. schiff and mr. nadler presented a compelling case for impeachment. if this is a compelling case for impeachment, i'm not sure why

we're here right now. it is not anywhere close to compelling. but you know what is interesting is what i have heard today. the majority leader just spoke and said that if the president was given every opportunity to come prove his innocence -- i tell you what, madam speaker, let me have just a few minutes, stop the clock, let me go around to the press corps and i'm going to accuse you of something. you did it, you did it, you did it, you did it. now prove us wrong. you did it. guess what? you don't want to because deep down, you know that that's turning the entire jurisprudence of this country upside down. you are innocent. and today, from this floor, we have heard the majority leader say this president is guilty and not the other way around. he is innocent and these come nowhere close to proving it. but what is left of this body?

let's have an honest conversation, madam speaker. what we have found is that it is okay for the majority to tear down a foreign leader because they can't make their case. they called him a liar or weak or worse or as he was called in the committee, even looked like a battered wife. it is below the dignity to tear down a foreign leader because they can't make their case against this one. we have broken rules in this house, even to this moment. chairman schiff and the others have broken house resolution 660 by not turning over the things they should be turning over. i still have not got a transcript. the white house still has not got their stiff. i guess minority hearing rule days don't matter, either. you see, there is a problem here, because we're going to vote this tonight while breaking the rules. what a shameful incident. but we also found a creative interpretation of minority

rights. we saw the rise of partisan ship because things that have been done and we've seen members smeared in reports by drive-by political hacks when they match number numbers of the ranking member and the members of the press. that ought to concern every one of you as much as it concerns every one of us. nothing but a drive-by hit. but you know something? this majority leader also just said, wherever law ends, tyranny begins, but i will say this, in this house, wherever the rules are disregarded, chaos and mob rule actually begin and the majority has taken that to a new level. it has been said today, where is bravery, i'll tell you where bravery and courage is found, it's found in this minority that's lived through the last year of nothing but rules being broken, people being put down, questions not being answered and this majority saying, be damned with anything else, we're going to impeach and do whatever we want to do. why? because we want an election. i guarantee, one day, you'll be back in the minority and it ain't going to be that fun. because when you look at it,

when you actually trash the rules of this house, you ought to really look at, what did you gain at the end by trashing the institution you claim to love? that's the things we found out so far. but you know, they're really careful, saying, you want to deal in process. as i said last night in the rules committee, where they didn't want to listen,ty win on process and i will win on facts because we have the truth on our side. let me remind you that here's what the process actually says. there was no pressure. look at the call. president zelensky, president trump, no pressure. there was no conditionality. there was nothing done to get the aid and the aid actually came. there were five meetings, but when you look at it right now, none of which matter, because right now, the dark cloud is descending upon this house. and i am fearful, i don't know what i see, but i tell you what i do see, i see coming off a president who will put his head down even through this sham impeachment and he will do his job. he will put the american people first. he will tell them that i care

about you, he will still put the economy first and he will make sure this country stands strong. that's what i see in this abyss. that's where we're going. and madam speaker, it is with that hope in the future that i recognize that i yield one minute to the republican leader of this house, the republican from california, mr. mccarthy. >> gentleman's recognized. >> madam speaker, i must warn you, i'm about to say something my democratic colleagues hate to hear. donald j. trump is president of the united states. he is president today, he'll be president tomorrow and he will be president when this

impeachment is over. madam speaker, when they accept that, maybe this house can get back to work for the american people. now, tonight, i rise not as the leader of the opposition to this impeachment or as the elected representative from the central valley of california, i rise as kevin mccarthy, citizen, no better, no worse than the 435 representatives that are in this chamb chamber. or the 330 million americans watching this institution make what i believe to be one of the worst decisions we have ever made. it doesn't matter whether you're a democrat or a republican, whether you're liberal or conservative, whether you're the first generation or the tenth, at our core, we are all american.

all of us. we choose our future. we choose what kind of nation we want to be. here is our choice tonight. the wi will we let impeachment become an exercise of raw, political power, regardless if it damages our country? or will we protect the proper grounds and process for impeachment now and in the future? for months democrats and many in the media have attempted to normalize the impeachment process that would remove a president from office. after three years of breathless and baseless outrage, this is their last attempt to stop the trump presidency. madam speaker, speaker pelosi even recently admitted that democrats have been working on this impeachment for two and a half years.

those were her words, they were not mine. because they lost to him in 2016, they'll do anything or say anything to stop him in 2020. that's not america. that's not how democrat iic republics behave. elections matter. voters matter. and in 11 months, the people's voice will be heard again. impeachment is the most consequential decision congress can make other than sending our men and women into war. yet, 85 days ago, speaker pelosi chose to impeach the president of the united states. she wrote the script and created an artificial timeline to make

the details fit. why else are we doing this just hours before christmas? if that's all it was, a rush to judgment, she could be forgiven, but before the speaker saw one word or one shred of evidence, she moved to impeach. in the past, in this body, such a step demanded a vote, from all of us, from the start. but not only did she move to impeach before she gave this house and the hundreds of millions of people we represent a say in whether to pursue an impeachment inquiry, she threw out the bipartisan standards this house gave president nixon and clinton. that is why i immediately sent speaker pelosi a letter, asking her to follow the rules of

history, of tradition and follow those standards that have served america well. what did she say? she rejected it. she rejected it, because democrats knew a fair process would crumble their case. a fair process would have exposed to the american public what many already knew. democrats have wanted to impeach president trump since the day he was elected. and nothing was going to get in their way, certainly not the truth. madam speaker, chairman schiff said he had evidence, more than circumstantial, of collusion. that was false. in january, where we all stood in this body, we stood up, we raised our hands, we swore that we'd uphold the constitution.

and a few mere hours after that, congresswoman talib said she was going to impeach the mother f-er. those are not my words. a year before taking the majority, chairman nadler campaigned to the democrats that he wanted to be chairman of the judiciary committee, where impeachment is. "new york times" writes, ma dad spe madam speaker, because he is the strongest member to lead a potential impeachment. and congress raskin, a leading democrat on the judiciary committee, one that the democ t democrats had represent in the rules committee for these articles just yesterday, told a crowd he would impeach president trump two days before he was

ever sworn into office. what we've seen is a rigged process that has led to the most partisan and least credible impeach nment the hecachment in amera. that is this legacy. any prosecutor in this country would be disbarred for such blatant bias, especially if that prosecutor was the fact witness, the judge and the jury. madam speaker, democrats haven't just failed on process, they've also failed on evidence. i've heard a lot of debate on this floor today, but i haven't heard one member of this bodice put this simple fact. president trump provided lethal aid to ukraine.

it came before the call, it came after the call and it continues to this day. president trump provided ukraine tank-busting bombs. the previous administration, they gave blankets. this is the truth. meanwhile, the democrats' case is based on second-hand opinions and hearsay. simply put, there are no grounds for impeachment. as constitutional scholar jonathan turley, and i would challenge to say probably the most respected and we all know it, a democrat who did not vote for the president, said under oa oath, there was no bribery, there was no extortion, no obstruction of justice and no abuse of power. based on the facts, based on the truth, based on the lack of evidence, turley called this the

fastest, thinnest and weakness impeachment in the u.s. history. such a definitive answer should be the end of all of this. but speaker pelosi is still moving forward with this impeachment. without evidence of facts or trupt or public support. the speaker says it is out of allegiance to our founders. on this, i agree. i agree with the speaker, we should listen to the founders. and if one does, it's very clear that this impeachment is unfounded and improper. in the federalist papers, alexander hamilton wrote, there would always be the greatest danger that impeachment would be driven bipartisan animosity instead of real demonstrations of innocence or guilt.

that impeachment would be driven bipartisan animosity instead of real demonstrations of innocence or guilt. james madison, another author of the federalist papers, wrote, the danger of legislative abuse must lead to the same tyranny also is threatened by executive abuse. the founder s did not want impeachment to be used for political or partisan battles. if my colleagues do not want to follow the constitutional high standards for undoing a national election, perhaps you could have followed speaker pelosi's standard. at least the one she promised to follow back in march. it was a very sensible standard. she says, impeachment is so divisive that the evidence must be overwhelming, compelling and bipartisan.

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

disqualify our voice before the 2020 election. they want to undo the results of the last election to influence the next one. as i said, president trump will still be president when this is all over. but congress will have wasted months of time and taxpayer dollars on impeachment rather than doing what america's people want us to do. it didn't have to be this way. suspect thp why we came here to serve? to trample on due process rights? to issue more subpoenas than laws? to appease the new democrat socialist base?

that is not leadership. that is raw political politics and you know it. by refusing to acknowledge the truth or follow the facts by substituting partisan animosity for real demonstration of innocence or guilt and by continuing a three-year effort to undermine the president, this impeachment has divided this nation, without any concern for the repercussions. more over, politicizing this process has discredited the united states house of representatives. and could forever weaken the remedy of impeachment. so, again, quote, professor turley, it is the democrats' rush to impeachment on these grounds with unfair procedures that is an abuse of power.

history will write that. madam speaker, as i said at the beginning, we face a choice. do you trust the wisdom of the people or do you deny them a ty in their government? fortunately, the people will have the opportunity to speak up and render their verdict in 11 months, to my fellow americans. to my fellow americans, if you approve of the way this house has conducted their business, if you want to see your tax dollars go forward to endless investigations, support this impeachment. but if you want to restore a working congress, like the previous congress, that listened to you and worked to bring the best economy in this country has ever seen -- [ applause ]

>> the live special will be seen in its entirety after this debate and vote. >> join with us in rejecting this baseless impeachment. that's what's wonderful about this system of ours. we are a government of, by and for the people. always remember, we work for you, not the other way around now i will say this stronger and with more conviction than i have ever said it before. in this time of great trial and tribulation may god bless america. i yield back. [ applause ]