Return to Transcripts main page
CNN Live Event/Special
House Judiciary Committee To Debate Articles Of Impeachment; House Formally Introduces Articles of Impeachment. Aired 9-10a ET
Aired December 12, 2019 - 09:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
[09:00:00]
MANU RAJU, CNN SENIOR CONGRESSIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Yes. And then at that point any member can simply say they move to offer an amendment, and when they offer amendment they have to actually provide the text of that language to the court -- could be read, allowed before all of the members of the committee, and then each of the members can simply say they want a chance to talk and to speak about that particular amendment.
And as you said, there are 41 members of this committee, 40 are expected to attend, one is not, Ted Lieu, because of health issues. He's not expected to be here this week but will be back next week. But each of those members could speak. And so that could take time for each individual amendment. And when that amendment is voted down which we expect because Republicans are expected to offer amendments, Democrats are happy with these articles and don't plan to do that. That's why this is really unpredictable how this contentious day will play out -- Wolf.
WOLF BLITZER, CNN ANCHOR: Yes, you make a good point. 40 members now. Ted Lieu had some medical issues. We wish him a speedy, speedy recovery. He's not going to be here. They read his statement last night.
There's Jerry Nadler, the chairman of the committee, he's getting ready to bring down the gavel and open this session.
You know, Jeffrey Toobin is with us as well. Do we anticipate as part of this process he will actually read the two articles of impeachment before the committee members?
JEFFREY TOOBIN, CNN CHIEF LEGAL ANALYST: Am I allowed to say I don't know?
(LAUGHTER)
BLITZER: You're not allowed to say that.
TOOBIN: I -- I don't know.
BLITZER: Well, let me ask Manu. Maybe he knows. Manu, are you still there?
RAJU: Yes, I am. Yes. I didn't hear the question, Wolf.
BLITZER: Will Nadler read the two articles of impeachment? They're, what, about 10, 12 pages?
RAJU: He can. And that is something within his rights. But they can also decide to waive the reading of those amendments to those articles in order to speed the proceedings. But we do expect him at least to read some of these aloud. We'll see if he reads all the entire text of this. But that's how they'll probably play out today. The question -- what the Democrats have been told to essentially clear their schedules today because it's going to take a while to get through all of the text, both of the articles themselves and as well as the -- each of the amendments because each of the amendments could also be read aloud so people understand what they are voting on.
But we do expect, we're told at least that the chairman of the committee plans to at least read some of the language from the articles themselves so we'll see if he does that when he opens up the proceedings here in a matter of minutes -- Wolf.
BLITZER: Yes. It's going to be a few moments away.
You know, Jeffrey, let me talk to you about something you do know the answer to.
(LAUGHTER)
BLITZER: You look at these Republicans. They are not shy, so many of them, whether it's Jim Jordan or Doug Collins, the ranking member, Louie Gohmert, John Ratcliffe, Matt Gaetz. This is a lively bunch.
TOOBIN: Well, and, you know, committees have personalities. And there has always been the House Judiciary Committee as a place where partisans go. If you are a congressman who really cares about like bringing home the bacon and getting projects built in your district, you don't go in the Judiciary Committee. You go in the Appropriations Committee. That is a far less contentious.
If you are someone who cares about civil liberties, who cares about religious freedom, who cares about hot-button social issues you go on the Judiciary Committee. That's why you have, you know, Democrats like Shirley Jackson Lee, like Jamie Raskin, a new member from Massachusetts, who's a constitutional law professor. Why you have, you know, Jim Jordan and Doug Collins. I mean, that's -- so it's not a coincidence that you have such passionate people in this committee and we get to enjoy their company.
BLITZER: You see the photographers, they're crouching down. They're about to begin. Let's watch Jerry Nadler, the chairman.
REP. JERRY NADLER (D-NY): The Judiciary Committee will please come to order, a quorum being present.
When the committee recessed yesterday, it had completed opening statements on the resolution about to be considered. Pursuant to notice under House Resolution 660, I now call up... COLLINS: Mr. Chairman...
NADLER: House Resolution 755, impeaching Donald John Trump, president of the United States, for high crimes and misdemeanors.
COLLINS: Mr. Chairman, point of order?
NADLER: The gentleman will state his point of order.
COLLINS: Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against the consideration of this resolution on the grounds that the chairman willfully refused to schedule a properly demanded minority day of hearings pursuant to clause 2.J.1 (ph) or Rule 11.
NADLER: I'll -- we'll entertain that point of order once we've completed calling up the resolution.
I now call up H.Res. 755 impeaching Donald John Trump, president of the United States, for high crimes and misdemeanors, for purposes of markup, and move that the committee report the resolution favorably to the House.
The clerk will report the resolution.
CLERK: H.Res. 755, impeaching Donald John Trump, president of the United States, for high crimes and misdemeanors, in the House of Representatives, December 10th, 2019.
Mr. Nadler submitted the following resolution, which was referred to the committee on the Judiciary.
[09:05:00]
Resolution: Impeaching Donald John Trump, president of the United States, for high crimes and misdemeanor. Resolve that Donald J. Trump, president of the United States, is impeached for high crimes and misdemeanors, and that the following articles of impeachment be exhibited to the United States Senate.
Articles of impeachment exhibited by the House of Representatives of the United States of America, in the name of itself and of the people of the United States of America against Donald J. Trump, president of the United States of America, in maintenance and support of its impeachment against him for high crimes and misdemeanors.
Article 1: Abuse of power. The Constitution provides that the House of Representatives shall have the sole power of impeachment and that the president shall be removed from office of impeachment for the conviction of treason, bribery or other high crimes and misdemeanors.
In his conduct of the office of the president of the Untied States and in violation of his constitutional oath faithfully to execute the office of the president of the United States and to the best of his ability preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States and in violation of his constitutional duty to take care of the laws, be faithfully executed, Donald J. Trump has abused the powers of the presidency in that using the powers of the high office, President Trump solicited the interference of a foreign government, Ukraine, in the 2020 United States presidential election.
He did so through a scheme or a course of conduct that included soliciting the government of Ukraine to publicly announce investigations that would benefit his re-election, harm the election prospects of a political opponent and influence the 2020 United States presidential election to his advantage.
President Trump also sought to pressure the government of Ukraine to take these steps by conditioning official United States government acts of significant value of Ukraine on its public announcement of the investigations.
President Trump engaged in this scheme or course of conduct for...
(UNKNOWN): Mr. Chairman, I'd ask unanimous consent that the resolution be considered as read.
NADLER: Given the significance...
(UNKNOWN): I object.
NADLER: The objection is heard. The clerk will continue.
CLERK: ... of personal -- personal, political benefit. In doing so, President Trump used the powers of the presidency in a manner that compromised the national security of the United States and undermined the integrity of the United States democratic process. He thus ignored and injured the interests of the nation.
President Trump engaged in this scheme or course of conduct through the following means. One, President Trump, acting both directly and through his agents within and outside the United States government, corruptly solicited the government of Ukraine to publicly announce investigations into, A, a political opponent, former Vice President Joseph R. Biden, Jr., and, B, a discredited theory promoted by Russia alleging that Ukraine rather than Russia interfered in the 2016 United States presidential election.
CLERK: Two, with the same corrupt motives, President Trump, acting both directly and through his agents within and outside the United States government, conditioned two official acts on the public announcements that he had requested, A, the release of $391 million of United States taxpayer funds that Congress had appropriated on a bipartisan basis for the purpose of providing vital military and security assistance to Ukraine to oppose Russian aggression, which President Trump had ordered suspended; and B, a head of state meeting at the White House which president of Ukraine sought to demonstrate continued United States support for the government of Ukraine in the face of Russian aggression.
Three, faced with the public revelation of his actions, President Trump ultimately released the military and security assistance to the government of Ukraine, but has persisted in openly and corruptly urging and soliciting Ukraine to undertake investigations for his personal political benefit. These actions were consistent with President Trump's previous invitations of foreign interference in United States elections.
In all of this, President Trump abused the powers of the presidency by ignoring and injuring national security and other vital national interests to obtain an improper personal political benefit. He has also betrayed the nation by abusing his high office to enlist a foreign power in corrupting democratic elections.
Wherefore President Trump by such conduct has demonstrated that he will remain a threat to national security and the Constitution if allowed to remain in office, he has acted in a manner grossly incompatible with self-governance and the rule of law.
President Trump thus warrants impeachment and trial, removal from office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any office of honor, trust or profit under the United States.
Article 2, Obstruction of Congress. The Constitution provides that the House of Representatives shall have the sole power of impeachment and that the president shall be removed from office of impeachment -- on impeachment for the conviction of treason, bribery or other high crimes and misdemeanors.
In his conduct of the Office of the President of the United States and in violation of his constitutional oath faithfully to execute the Office of the President of the United States and to the best of his ability preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States, and in violation of his constitutional duty to take care of -- the laws be faithfully executed, Donald J. Trump has directed the unprecedented, categorical and indiscriminate defiance of subpoenas issued by the House of Representatives pursuant to its sole power of impeachment.
President Trump has abused the powers of the presidency in a manner offensive to and subversive of the Constitution in that the House of Representatives had engaged in an impeachment inquiry focused on President Trump's corrupt solicitation of the government of Ukraine to interfere in the 2020 United States presidential election.
[09:10:00]
As part of this impeachment inquiry, the committees undertaking the investigation served subpoenas seeking documents and testimony deemed vital to the inquiry from various executive branch agencies and offices and current and former officials. In response, without lawful cause or excuse, President Trump directed executive branch agencies, offices and officials not to comply with those subpoenas. President Trump this interposed the powers of the presidency against the lawful subpoenas of the House of Representatives and assumed to himself functions and judgments necessary to the exercise of the sole power of impeachment vested by the Constitution in the House of Representatives.
President Trump abused the power of his high office through the following means. One, directing the White House to defy a lawful subpoena by withholding the production of documents sought therein by the committees.
Two, directing other executive branch agencies and offices to defy lawful subpoenas and withhold the production of documents and records from the committees, in response to which the Department of State, Office of Management and Budget, Department of Energy and Department of Defense refused to produce a single document or record.
Three, directing current and former executive branch officials not to cooperate with the committees, in response to which nine administrative officials defied subpoenas for testimony, namely John Michael "Mick" Mulvaney, Robert B. Blair, John A. Eisenberg, Michael Ellis, Preston Wells Griffith, Russell T. Vought, Michael Duffey, Brian McCormack and T. Ulrich Brechbuhl.
These actions were consistent with President Trump's previous efforts to undermine United States government investigations into foreign interference in United States elections.
CLERK: Through these actions, President Trump sought to arrogate to himself the right to determine the propriety, scope and nature of an impeachment inquiry into his own conduct, as well as the unilateral prerogative to deny any and all information to the House of Representative in exercise of its sole power of impeachment.
In the history of the republic, no president has ever ordered the complete defiance of an impeachment inquiry or sought to obstruct and impede so comprehensively the ability of the House of Representatives to investigate high crimes and misdemeanors.
This abuse of office served to cover up the president's own repeated misconduct and to seize the control of power of impeachment. And thus, to nullify a vital constitutional safeguard vested solely in the House of Representatives.
In all of this, President Trump has acted in a manner contrary to his trust as president and subversive of constitutional government, to (ph) the great prejudice of cause of law and justice and to the manifest injury of the people of the United States, wherefore President Trump, by such conduct, has demonstrated that he will remain a threat to the Constitution if allowed to remain in office, and has acted in a manner grossly incompatible with self-governance and the rule of law.
President Trump thus warrants impeachment, trial, removal from office and disqualification to hold and enjoy the office of honor, trust and profit under the United States.
NADLER: Thank you.
The gentleman will now state his point of order.
COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Again, as I made the point of order on this minority hearing day, the chairman was furnished with a demand, signed by all Republican members of the committee, during the impeachment hearing held on December the 4th. The Chairman has refused to respond to multiple additional requests that that hearing be scheduled. And at one point, actually telling me, as I actually responded to this, that we'll rule with it today.
Well, we're here today, and it's a farce that we haven't ruled on this today because there's no other time. We're actually taking up the articles today.
So the rule is not super -- and by the way, the rule is -- this rule is not superseded by any portion of H.Res. 660, that could have been done by the majority but they were too busy and in a hurry to get H. 660 to the floor that, after discussing this, they chose not to exempt the minority hearing day. This could have been done, they chose not to, now we're not having it so I continue my point of order.
NADLER: If I understand -- if I understand the gentleman's point of order, he asserts we are violating clause 2(j)(1) of House Rule XI by conducting this markup before we have held the hearing that the minority members requested on December 4th.
In my view, the gentleman is claiming a broader privilege than clause 2(j)(1) actually provides the minority.
The minority has asked for a day of hearings on the matter of the December 4th hearing, which was the constitutional grounds for impeachment. I'm willing to work with the minority to schedule such a hearing, but not before today's markup of the articles of impeachment.
The House Rule does not require me to schedule a hearing on a particular day, nor does it require me to schedule the hearing as a condition precedent to taking any specific legislative action. Otherwise, the minority would have the ability to delay or block majority legislative action, which is clearly not the purpose of the rule.
I have reached this conclusion after reviewing the plain text and legislative history of the House Rule, after considering prior precedent and committee practice, and after consulting with parliamentary authorities and the Congressional Research Service.
I believe my scheduling decision in this case is reasonable for several reasons. First, the minority's views have not been shut out. The legislative history of the minority day rule shows that it was written to prevent the committee majority from preventing the minority position from being represented in a hearing.
As the report from the Joint Committee on the Organization of Congress in 1966 explains, "It is normal procedure for witnesses representing both sides of the issue to give testimony at committee hearings.
[09:15:00] In those infrequent instances when witnesses representing the minority position are not allotted time, a minimum safeguard should exist to protect minority rights," unquote.
Of course, that did not happen at the December 4th hearing. The minority -- the minority had a witness at the hearing, Professor Turley, who ably represented their position and was afforded ample time to discuss that position. Rather than being shut out, the minority simply did not get as many witnesses as they would have preferred. But that is not the purpose of the House Rule.
Second, the minority and the president have special protections under House Resolution 660. The procedures provided under House Resolution 660 give the president and the minority a variety of special privileges to present evidence and -- and subpoena witnesses. Thus, there are alternative procedures under H.Res. 660 by which witnesses can be requested, and even subpoenaed, but they have not been exercised.
Third, there is no precedent for the use of minority days to delay committee legislative or impeachment proceedings. It is clear from the legislative history that the Minority Day Rule is not intended to delay legislative activity. Again, as the committee and the organization of the Congress explicitly explained, "We do not look upon this rule as an authorization for delaying tactics," unquote.
The Minority Day Rule was made part of the House Rules in 1971, but it was not invoked in either the Nixon or Clinton impeachments. As a matter of fact, the only precedent I am aware of in the context of impeachment took place several weeks ago in the Intelligence Committee. There, the minority also requested a day of hearings, even though they all said witnesses participate in their proceedings. The minority ultimately did not raise a point of order. While they did offer an amendment, claiming that the Minority Day Rule had been violated, that amendment was rejected by the committee. Thus, there is no precedent -- no precedent supporting the gentleman's point of order, and the one precedent we have indicates that a point of order does not lie to delay consideration of articles of impeachment.
Finally, past Judiciary Committee practice and precedent do not support the gentleman's point of order. Last year, a number of other members and I sent then-Chairman Goodlatte a Minority Day request. The chairman never -- never responded to our request and never scheduled a hearing. I don't believe a single member of the then-majority argued in favor of us being granted our hearing under the rules.
Back in 2005, then-Chairman Sensenbrenner scheduled the Minority Day hearing, but cut off witnesses, shut off the microphones, shut off the lights and abruptly ended the hearing while members were seeking recognition to speak. Again, no one in the then-majority argued in favor of protecting our rights. As a result, there's no committee practice or precedent supporting the gentleman's point of order.
For all the foregoing reasons, I do not sustain the point of order.
COLLINS: Mr. Chairman? NADLER: For what purpose does the gentleman seek recognition?
COLLINS: I think it is very obvious by the, one, the length of the chairman's answer to my question that this has struck a nerve, seeing how the chairman himself says it in his own words from previous times. The chairman -- it is not the chairman's right to decide whether prior hearings are sufficient, or the chairman's right to decide whether he thinks they're acceptable, or the chairman's right to violate the rules in order to interfere.
It is interesting to me that this time has become the issue...
NADLER: Yeah, I made...
COLLINS: ... and a point of -- and my (inaudible) the point of order.
NADLER: I've made the -- I've made the ruling on the point of order.
COLLINS: Yeah, wait, wait...
NADLER: Does the gentleman wish to appeal the ruling of the chair?
COLLINS: I would -- I would like, for the sake of history...
NADLER: Does the gentleman wish to (inaudible)...
COLLINS: I'd like, for the sake of history the chairman take one more minute (inaudible).
NADLER: Does the -- does the gentleman wish to appeal the ruling of the chair, yes or no?
COLLINS: Yes, obviously, (inaudible) the clock and calendar of impeachment again, because the chairman is doing this again.
NADLER: The appeal of the -- the appeal -- the -- the appeal -- the appeal of the ruling of the chair is not sustained.
(UNKNOWN): I'd move to table this.
NADLER: The...
COLLINS: Did you actually call for a vote? How is it not sustained? You didn't call for a vote.
(UNKNOWN): Sustained the point of order.
NADLER: I sustained the point of order.
COLLINS: I called for an appeal of the ruling of the chair. Now I call for a vote.
NADLER: I -- I -- I sustained the point...
(UNKNOWN): And I move to table.
NADLER: I ruled that the point of order is not well-taken.
COLLINS: Well, that's painfully obvious.
(UNKNOWN): (inaudible) motion to table is appealed.
COLLINS: I've appealed the ruling of the chair.
NADLER: (inaudible)
(UNKNOWN): And I -- and I move to table.
NADLER: The gentleman has appealed the ruling of the chair. The gentlelady has moved to table the appeal of the ruling of the chair. The motion to table is not debatable.
All in favor of the motion to table say "Aye."
Opposed, "No."
The appeal of the -- the motion -- the appeal of the ruling of the chair is tabled.
We will now proceed to amendments.
COLLINS: Roll call.
NADLER: The -- the -- the gentleman asked for roll call on the motion to table the appeal of the ruling of the chair. The clerk will call the roll.
CLERK: Mr. Nadler?
NADLER: Aye.
CLERK: Mr. Nadler votes aye.
Ms. Lofgren?
LOFGREN: Yes.
CLERK: Ms. Lofgren votes yes.
Ms. Jackson Lee?
JACKSON LEE: Yes.
CLERK: Ms. Jackson Lee votes yes.
Mr. Cohen?
COHEN: Aye.
CLERK: Mr. Cohen votes aye.
Mr. Johnson of Georgia?
H. JOHNSON: Aye.
CLERK: Mr. Johnson of Georgia votes aye.
Mr. Deutch?
DEUTCH: Aye.
CLERK: Mr. Deutch votes aye.
Ms. Bass?
BASS: Aye.
CLERK: Ms. Bass votes aye.
Mr. Richmond?
RICHMOND: Yes.
CLERK: Mr. Richmond votes yes.
Mr. Jeffries?
JEFFRIES: Aye.
CLERK: Mr. Jeffries votes aye.
Mr. Cicilline?
CICILLINE: Aye.
CLERK: Mr. Cicilline votes aye.
Mr. Swalwell?
SWALWELL: Aye.
CLERK: Mr. Swalwell votes aye.
Mr. Lieu?
Mr. Raskin?
RASKIN: Aye.
CLERK: Mr. Raskin votes aye.
[09:20:00]
Ms. Jayapal?
JAYAPAL: Aye.
CLERK: Ms. Jayapal votes aye.
Ms. Demings? DEMINGS: Aye.
CLERK: Ms. Demings votes aye.
Mr. Correa?
CORREA: Aye.
CLERK: Mr. Correa votes aye.
Ms. Scanlon?
SCANLON: Aye.
CLERK: Ms. Scanlon votes aye.
Ms. Garcia?
GARCIA: Aye.
CLERK: Ms. Garcia votes aye.
Mr. Neguse?
NEGUSE: Aye.
CLERK: Mr. Neguse votes aye.
Ms. McBath?
MCBATH: Aye.
CLERK: Ms. McBath votes aye.
Mr. Stanton?
STANTON: Aye.
CLERK: Mr. Stanton votes aye.
Ms. Dean?
DEAN: Aye.
CLERK: Ms. Dean votes aye.
Ms. Mucarsel-Powell?
MUCARSEL-POWELL: Aye.
CLERK: Ms. Mucasel-Powell votes aye.
Ms. Escobar?
ESCOBAR: Aye.
CLERK: Ms. Escobar votes aye.
Mr. Collins?
COLLINS: No.
CLERK: Mr. Collins votes no.
Mr. Sensenbrenner?
SENSENBRENNER: No.
CLERK: Mr. Sensenbrenner votes no.
Mr. Chabot?
CHABOT: No.
CLERK: Mr. Chabot votes no.
Mr. Gohmert?
GOHMERT: (OFF-MIKE)
CLERK: Mr. Gohmert votes no.
Mr. Jordan?
JORDAN: No.
CLERK: Mr. Jordan votes no.
Mr. Buck?
BUCK: No.
CLERK: Mr. Buck votes no.
Mr. Ratcliffe?
RATCLIFFE: No.
CLERK: Mr. Ratcliffe votes no.
Ms. Roby?
ROBY: No.
CLERK: Ms. Roby votes no.
Mr. Gaetz?
GAETZ: (OFF-MIKE)
CLERK: Mr. Gaetz votes no.
Mr. Johnson of Louisiana? M. JOHNSON: No.
CLERK: Mr. Johnson of Louisiana votes no.
Mr. Biggs?
BIGGS: (OFF-MIKE)
CLERK: Mr. Biggs votes no.
Mr. McClintock?
MCCLINTOCK: No.
CLERK: Mr. McClintock votes no.
Ms. Lesko?
LESKO: No.
CLERK: Ms. Lesko votes no.
Mr. Reschenthaler?
RESCHENTHALER: (OFF-MIKE)
CLERK: Mr. Reschenthaler votes no.
Mr. Cline?
CLINE: No.
CLERK: Mr. Cline votes no.
Mr. Armstrong?
ARMSTRONG: No.
CLERK: Mr. Armstrong votes no.
Mr. Steube?
STEUBE: No.
CLERK: Mr. Steube votes no.
NADLER: Has everyone voted who wishes to vote? Clerk will report.
CLERK: Mr. Chairman, there are 23 ayes and 17 nos.
NADLER: Appeal of the ruling of the chair is tabled.
We will now proceed to amendments. The clerk will read the first section of the resolution.
CLERK: H.Res. 755 Impeaching Donald John Trump, president of the United States, for high crimes and misdemeanors. In the House of Representative, December 10, 2019, Mr. Nadler submitted the following resolution, which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.
Resolution, Impeaching Donald John Trump, president of the United States, for high crimes and misdemeanors. Resolved that Donald J. Trump, president of the United States, is impeached for high crimes and misdemeanors and the that following articles of impeachment be exhibited to the United States Senate.
Articles of impeachment exhibited by the House of Representatives of the United States of America in the name of itself and of the people of the United States of America against Donald J. Trump, president of the United States of America, in maintenance and support of its impeachment against him for high crimes and misdemeanors.
NADLER: I will -- I now recognize myself for purposes of offering an amendment in the nature of a substitute. The clerk will report the amendment.
CLERK: Amendment in the nature of a substitute to H.Res. 755 offered by Mr. Nadler of New York: Strike all that follows after the resolving clause and insert the following...
NADLER: Without objection, the amendment shall be considered as read. Without objection, the amendment shall considered as base text for further amendment.
I will now recognize myself to explain the amendment in the nature of a substitute.
This amendment makes a minor change in certain places where the underlying resolution refers to Donald J. Trump. The amendment refers to Donald John Trump. Otherwise, it makes no changes to the resolution. I urge all of my colleagues to support it.
I now recognize the ranking member, the gentleman from Georgia, Mr. Collins, for any comments he may have on the amendment.
COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The amendment in the nature of a substitute is absolutely irrelevant. Asking (ph) -- taking Donald J. Trump and make it Donald Trump -- John Trump just simply shows the frankly absurdity of where we're at.
And today we're going to spend plenty of time for you listening here. We're going to talk about this amendment in nature of a substitute. We're going to talk about the factual bases that are absolutely no factual underpinning to impeach this president.
But I'm going to go back for just a minute since I didn't have time and had to sit through a well-rehearsed, many days put together explanation on why -- that what will be known in 2019 outside of the fact that this committee finally accomplished its goal, after the chairman stated he wanted to since November last year, to impeach this president. What will be known by this committee from here on out is that this committee has now sounded the death of minority rights in this committee. This committee has become nothing but a rubber stamp. This committee is amazingly now on such a clock and calendar process that they don't care. Facts be damned. They don't care.
They don't care that they -- we had one witness out of three. When I asked for a second witness, I was told I couldn't, even though there had been staff conversations well before I was told I was asking -- asking too late. One witness out of two panels, that's all we had of fact witnesses.
This is a just travesty and a sham from day one. I could talk until I'm blue in the face, but nobody on the majority cares.
But the spot that is left by what has just happened will resonate over the years. It will resonate over the years in the sense that there is no fact that we can come to. They had no desire to hear any fact witnesses outside of their own train-driven, clock-calendar impeachment.
For the chairman himself, who vehemently fought for minority hearing day, to sit there and read that is an amazing statement and a crushing blow to this committee. There's no way to recover from that.
[09:25:00]
In fact, there may be. I wonder if the chairman would join me in making sure that the Rules Committee next week, they don't waive (ph) the point of order against this. But I know they will. That's why they're going to take it. Because I guarantee you when you look into it further, this point of order would be sustained against these impeachment articles, so they're going to have to waive them next week. Watch and see. They will waive this point of order and waive any other point of order on these articles by the time it comes to the floor.
For some of you may say, "The ranking member talks about process. The ranking member talks about process. The ranking member talks about process, never the foundation." Believe me, we will inundate you with the facts and I have already. Some of you (ph) just don't choose to report them.
What is important -- and for many who report on this body and for many who have sat in this body and for those who have served in this body, the members who have gone before and the people who have set this committee up and the people who have set our Congress up are the ones right now that should be hanging their head in shame.
We had two hearings, none of which featured fact witnesses. There's not a Democrat in this room that should be happy about this. The solemnity -- the solemnity should be on the death of this committee's process and procedures.
Don't give me the solemnity about impeaching a president. You've been wanting to do that for a long time. You ought to take it and just rejoice. Go at it because this is what you wanted.
But when it comes to the hearing, when it comes to the minority rights, when it comes to one that in which we have seen time after time after time in which I have had to write this chairman multi-page letters on the abuse of procedural issues in this committee, this is a travesty. Write about it if you want, talk about it if you want, but the American people see it because the American people understand inherently fairness. They understand due process. Why? Because it's what America was based on. It is what America takes pride in.
And when we don't have it, nobody can have it. When we don't have fairness in this committee, how can they stand up and say, of the two weakest articles of impeachment in the history of this country -- honestly with a straight face look at the American people and say "We did good"? No, you didn't. You stained this body. You've taken this committee and made it a rubber stamp.
Did any of the majority run to be a rubber stamp to get the majority? I know the minority on this side did not. You know why I know it's a major - why we're become a rubber stamp? Because my chairman said said so 20 years ago.
He said so 20 years ago when he said if the committee only accepts what other people give them and do not on their own verify it and thoroughly vet it, then we are nothing but a rubber stamp.
Mr. Chairman, you should have run for chairmanship I believe than more to be a rubber stamp for Mr. Schiff and Ms. Pelosi. We already knew this committee was overrun and overtaken because Mr. Schiff and Ms. Pelosi took it from us earlier this year. There is the first embarrassment, and the rest of it is has been an embarrassment since.
So as we look at this as we go forward, we'll have plenty of time to show the complete farce of substance. But, Mr. Chairman, what will live from this day is your ruling and the majority's ruling of minority rights are dead in this Congress, and especially this committee.
I yield back.
DEUTCH: Mr. Chairman?
NADLER: The chairman yields back.
DEUTCH: Mr. Chairman?
NADLER: Are there any amendments to the amendments...
DEUTCH: Mr. Chairman?
NADLER: Are there any amendments to the amendment...
DEUTCH: Mr. Chairman (ph), I move to strike the last word.
NADLER: For what purpose does the gentleman -- Mr. Deutch is recognized. DEUTCH: I move to strike the last word.
NADLER: The gentleman is recognized.
DEUTCH: Mr. Chairman, I cannot allow the ranking member to mischaracterize your description of the history of this committee.
It may be inconvenient for the ranking member to be forced to listen to the history of this committee and why every -- everything that you just laid out is so important to the continuing of this committee representing and recognizing, respecting minority rights. He chooses not to, so I'm going to restate it again.
I appreciate the ranking member for acknowledging that they have the opportunity to call witnesses, and that's consistent with the rules. But to then turn around and suggest that rules are being trampled, the rules are dead, ignores everything that you just laid out.
Fifty -- more than 50 years ago, more than 50 years ago, the Joint Committee on the Organization of Congress made clear in their report to the House and Senate that it's normal procedure for witnesses representing both sides of the issue to give testimony at committee hearings. And that's where the rule comes from and that's what's happened.
The ranking member acknowledged it. He would have liked more witnesses. There's no right to a separate day. The rule makes clear they have the right to call witnesses and there were witnesses called. There were witnesses called -- minority witnesses on December 4th, on December 9th the minority's witness Mr. Castor presented evidence and gave opening statements.
[09:30:00]
And it's worth pointing out to my colleagues on the other side that we invited the president of the United States to the December 4th hearing to advocate for his views, to submit requested witnesses, but he chose not to attend, and he chose not to suggest any witnesses.
So before -- before telling us the sky is falling and there's great disrespect for the rules, it's important to actually look at...
COLLINS: Did the gentleman just say I didn't request witnesses? That is wrong.
NADLER: The gentleman -- the gentleman has the time.
DEUTCH: I thank you, Chairman.
What I said is that the president was given the opportunity on December 4th to present himself. He was also given the opportunity to present witnesses and he did not.
So let's be careful in the way we suggest that rules are being violated when everything that's being done here is consistent with more than 50 years of interpretation of the rules and the very essence of why the rule was put together in the first place.
So it's important, facts really do matter. And I'm not -- I'm not -- we're not going to allow the minority to -- to misinterpret the rules for their own benefit or to suggest the history is irrelevant. It matters a lot. That's what's made this committee and this institution great.
And I yield back.
NADLER: The gentleman yields back.
Are there any amendments to the amendment in the nature of a substitute?
JORDAN: Mr. Chairman, I've got...
NADLER: For what purpose does the -- does Mr. Jordan seek recognition?
JORDAN: I have an amendment at the desk.
NADLER: The clerk will report the amendment.
(UNKNOWN): I reserve a point of order.
NADLER: The gentlelady reserves a point of order.
CLERK: Amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute to H.Res 755 offered by Mr. Jordan of Ohio. Page one beginning on line 12, strike Article 1 and redesignate the succeeding article accordingly.
NADLER: The gentleman is recognized for the purpose of explaining his amendment.
JORDAN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
This -- this amendment strikes Article 1...
(UNKNOWN): I withdraw my point of order.
JORDAN: This amendment strikes Article 1 because Article 1 ignores the truth.
Four facts, five meetings. We've talked about it now for three months. We've known that there been four facts that have not changed, will not change, will never change, and we've known it since September 25th when the call transcript was released. The call transcript shows no quid pro quo. What's interesting is the day the transcript came out, even Chairman Nadler said there was no quid pro quo in the call transcript.
We know second that the two individuals on the call, President Zelensky, President Trump, have both said no pressure, no pushing, no linkage whatsoever between security assistance money and any type of announcement of an investigation.
We know that the Ukrainians knew at the time of the call -- didn't know at the time of the call that the aid had been held up.
And most importantly, most importantly, we know the Ukrainians took no action, no start of an investigation, no promise to start an investigation, no announcement on CNN, via tweet, no -- no announcement whatsoever that there was going to be any type of investigation into Burisma or the Bidens to get the aid released.
Those four facts -- those four facts have never changed.
Second, five key meetings that took place between July 18 when the aid was paused, September 11th when the aid was released. Five key meetings. We have the phone call, July 25th, which you just described. Second, the very next day -- the very next day we have Ambassadors Volker, Sondland, Taylor meeting with President Zelensky. Third, Ambassador Bolton met with President Zelensky on August 29th. Fourth, Vice President Pence met with President Zelensky on September 2nd. And fifth, on September 5th, we have bipartisan senator -- Senator Johnson, Senator Murphy -- Senator Murphy meeting with President Zelensky.
In none of those five meetings, none, did linking dollars -- security assistance dollars to an investigation come up. Never came up. And you would think in the last two -- you would think in those last two, after they knew on August 29 via the Politico article -- that they knew the aid was held, you would think it would have come up in those last two meetings, but it didn't come up.
Four facts, five meetings have never changed.
Article 1 in this resolution ignores the truth, it ignores the facts, it ignores -- it ignores what happened and what has been laid out for the American people over the last three weeks. So I hope this committee will come to its senses, that'll adopt the amendment and strike Article 1 from the resolution.
With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
(UNKNOWN): Mr. Chairman, I move to strike...
NADLER: The gentleman yields back.
I now recognize Mr. Cicilline in opposition to the amendment.
CICILLINE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I move to strike last word.
Mr. Chairman, this amendment attempts to strike Article 1 in its entirety, so I'm going to go through the evidence that was actually developed during the course of this investigation, and particularly first begin with a focus on the president's own conduct.
The president of the United States hired Rudy Giuliani, his personal lawyer, to go to Ukraine and lead this scheme to smear Vice President Biden.
[09:35:00]
He then began a campaign personally to smear Ambassador Yovanovitch and then ultimately directed that she be fired to clear the way of this anticorruption champion so that his scheme could be fully implemented.
He directed a hold on the military aid to Ukraine and no one could provide any other explanation unrelated to his scheme to pressure them to interfere in the 2020 election.
Then the president in his own words on July 20th (ph) gets on the telephone and asks President Zelensky for a favor, to begin an investigation of his chief political rival, former Vice President Joe Biden.
There's a readout of the call in evidence, which is a detail of this conversation. There's direct evidence from Alexander Vindman, Ms. Williams, Mr. Morrison, who listened in on and heard the president utter those words, right out of his own mouth, pressuring a foreign leader to corrupt our elections.
The president then made admissions in public on October 2nd, October 3rd and October 4th and then invited another foreign power, China, to interfere in the American presidential election.
His chief of staff acknowledged that the president directed him to put this unexplained hold on aid to Ukraine. The president directed the vice president not to attend the inauguration of President Zelensky because he hadn't yet got what he was demanding, a public announcement intended to damage his political opponent.
Ambassador Sondland testified that the Ukrainians were told, and I quote, "The resumption of U.S. aid would likely not occur until Ukraine provided the public anti-corruption statement that we had been discussing for many weeks."
And then he testified that he spoke with President Trump, and while the president claimed there was no quid pro quo, he made it clear that President Zelensky must publicly announce the two investigations that President Trump discussed on July 25th in the call in order for the security assistance to be lifted.
That's direct evidence. But in addition to that -- and those are just some of the highlights, there are over 260 text messages; there are call transcripts, as I mentioned, of the president's own words; there are e-mails between high-ranking officials of the Trump administration, hundreds of press statements, interviews and tweets by the president and his personal attorney Rudy Giuliani corroborating their desire to pursue investigations of Vice President Biden prior to the 2020 elections.
I'm going to give the committee a couple of, just, examples. President Trump himself, on October 2nd, said, and I quote, "And just so you know, we've been investigating, on a personal basis, through Rudy and other lawyers, corruption in the 2016 election." On July 19th, Ambassador Sondland e-mails multiple high-ranking officials that he, quote, "talked to Zelensky" and he, quote, "is prepared to receive POTUS's call and will state that he will turn over every stone of the investigations."
And on July 19th, 2019, in addition to the e-mail, Ambassador Sondland texted Ambassador Volker, makes the same thing clear. Sondland: "Looks like POTUS call tomorrow. I spoke directly to Z and gave him a full briefing. He's got it."
Volker: "Had breakfast with Rudy this morning, teeing up a call with Yermak Monday. Must have helped (ph). Most important is for Zelensky to say that he will help investigate and address any specific personnel issues if there are any."
On August 8th, Ambassador Sondland and Ambassador Volker text about POTUS wanting the deliverable, meaning that, for Ukraine to get the White House meeting, Zelensky needs to announce the investigation.
Sondland says, and I quote, "Morrison is ready to get dates as soon as Yermak confirms."
Volker responds, "Excellent. How did you sway him?"
Sondland responds, "Not sure I did. I think POTUS really wants the deliverable."
Volker asks, "But does he know that?"
Sondland says, "Yep (ph), clearly lots of conversations going on."
On August 16th, Ambassador Taylor and Volker discuss Ukraine's concern that President Trump was not using official channels like the Department of Justice to request investigations. Taylor texts Ambassador Volker, "The person who asked for an official request was Yermak?"
Volker replies, "Yes, but don't cite him."
Taylor: "I won't. You're right. This is not good. We need to stay clear."
And on August 22nd, Ambassador Sondland e-mailed Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and others to make clear that, to break the logjam, meaning releasing the military aid, President Zelensky would have to, quote, "move forward on the issues of importance to Trump, again meaning the investigations."
And the list goes on and on. So this claim that this is the thinnest of evidence is simply not true. There is overwhelming evidence of the existence of a scheme led by the president, led by his personal lawyer, Rudy Giuliani, to corrupt the American elections, to continue to withhold military aid until such time as a public announcement was made that would smear the president's chief political rival.
And with that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back. (UNKNOWN): Mr. Chairman...
NADLER: The gentleman yields back.
For what purposes does Ms. Lesko seek recognition?
LESKO: Thank you, Mr. Chair. I move to strike the last word.
[09:40:00]
NADLER: The gentlelady is recognized.
LESKO: You know, Mr. Chair, it really quite disturbed me when you, again, rejected the rule of the House that said that we as the minority were -- it says in the rules that you require -- require that you set a date for a minority hearing.
And the reason that this is important is because the rules have been thrown out the window here on this process. In fact, I just can't believe it.
I mean, first of all, you have an unprecedented way of doing impeachment. You don't go through the Judiciary Committee, like has been done in previous impeachments; instead, Speaker Pelosi hands it over to Adam Schiff -- Adam Schiff, the Intelligence Committee chair, where he has these closed-door hearings in the basement. I was denied several times, several times, the right to go in and hear what these fact witnesses said. Yet I'm supposed to vote on this today.
And we have not had one single fact witness here in this committee at all. And then I hear from my Republican colleagues that were on the Intelligence Committee that Republicans were refused to have any of their witnesses in that committee.
And then, on top of that, Republicans were told -- interrupted, silenced by Chairman Schiff when they tried to ask witnesses questions. They said to the witness, "Don't answer that."
I mean -- and so now, here in Judiciary Committee, we're supposed to vote on something when we haven't even heard directly from any fact witnesses. All we heard from was a bunch of liberal law professors that you called here that have a known record of disliking President Trump.
And then you had staff talk to us. And then again, here in this committee, our Republican members asked for witnesses so that we can ask questions to get out the truth, to get out, at least -- let us say our side of the story.
But, no. And so then we turned to, OK, under the House rules, it says you're required to set a minority hearing so that we can at least call witnesses so we can get some truth out to the American public, instead of this one-sided sham.
But, no, here again, I think you've said, right here, no, "We're not going to do that -- well, I'll consider a date in the future that you can have a minority hearing."
For goodness sakes, we're voting on this today. It's no good to have a date in the future. Then it's done. You've already put through this. I mean, it just continues to amaze me how corrupt, how unfair this process has been from the start.
I mean, for goodness sakes, you had 17 out of 24 of my Democratic colleagues that have already voted on the House floor to continue with articles of impeachment.
It was -- it was -- it was Mr. Green who put a resolution on the floor, articles of impeachment -- it was July 17th, and then there was a vote to table it. And they voted against the tabling, meaning they wanted to go ahead with articles of impeachment. That was even before the July 25th call. I mean, come on. This is a predetermined -- you guys have been wanting to impeach this president since he got elected.
Fact after fact after fact.
I know that you -- some of you really think the president did something wrong, but the fact is there is no -- none of your witnesses -- none of your fact witnesses were able to establish any evidence of bribery, treason, high crimes or misdemeanors. Not one single one. And that's what it says has to be done in the Constitution.
So again, I believe the president of the United States is right: This is a sham impeachment, and it sure is a shame.
And I yield back the balance of my time.
NADLER: The gentlelady yields back.
For what purpose does Mr. Neguse seek recognition?
NEGUSE: Move to strike the last word.
NADLER: Gentleman's recognized.
NEGUSE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And with much respect to my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, it is difficult to follow some of these arguments. I've heard very little in the way of any substantive defenses of the president's conduct, but instead focused, again, on some very farcical process arguments, in my view.
[09:45:00]
And I'm compelled to respond to at least one of those, which is this notion about the closed door depositions. Because, as I understand it from reading these transcripts, many minority members were present and granted equal time to question witnesses brought before the Intelligence Committee, the Foreign Affairs Committee and the Government Oversight Committee. Some of those members are actually on this committee. So I struggle to understand the objections in that regard. The idea that the Intelligence Committee's investigation was not sufficiently transparent, in my view, also rings hollow, because, as we know, the transcripts from those interviews, those depositions have been released. I know I've reviewed them. I suspect many of my colleagues have as well. And if you did not review those transcripts, you surely watched the live testimony of Ambassador Sondland, Lieutenant Colonel Vindman and so many other public servants over the course of many weeks as millions of Americans watched along with us.
So again, it is -- I understand that we're going to have a robust debate about the legal standards that govern the inquiry that is before us and the decision we make on these articles, but let us stay true to the facts, and let's dispense with these process arguments and get to the substance of why we are here today.
I will also just say historical context matters. I was not on the Judiciary Committee in 1999 and 1998, but my understanding is at that time the Judiciary Committee did not examine any fact witnesses during the Clinton impeachment inquiry. I know there are members of this committee were here at that time, and they will -- are well-aware that they did question Ken Starr and then afterwards had hearings with legal experts to expound upon the legal standards that would define the decision before the committee.
I would also say that during the Nixon impeachment inquiry the examination of witnesses -- fact witnesses, rather, was conducted exclusively behind closed doors in July of 1974.
So unlike both the Nixon inquiry as well as the Clinton inquiry, the House Intelligence Committee's hearings featured testimony from a dozen witnesses in open hearings subject to public examination by Republican members and counsel. Facts matter, and I hope that each and every one of us would agree at least on that simple point.
LOFGREN: Would the gentleman yield?
NEGUSE: And with that, I would yield to the distinguished member from California, Ms. Lofgren.
LOFGREN: I -- I would just like to note, going back to the analogy to the Nixon impeachment, the gentleman is correct that there was really no public presentation in the Judiciary Committee. There were some -- quite a few depositions that were private.
But there was a lot of public testimony. It wasn't before the Judiciary Committee. It was before the Senate Watergate Committee.
As you'll recall, the president's counsel, John Dean, appeared and testified that there was a cancer on the presidency and a number of other -- a revelation that there was a recording system in the White House. All of that happened in the Senate. And the fact that it happened in the Senate didn't mean that the Judiciary Committee didn't know about it. I mean, the whole country knew about it and took notice of it.
There's only a few members of us -- of this committee that were on the Judiciary Committee during the Clinton impeachment. I was one of them. Ms. Jackson Lee and Mr. Nadler were as well, as well as Mr. Sensenbrenner and the gentleman from Ohio.
We had a report from Mr. Starr. I remember it very well. But we didn't have extensive fact witnesses. We had the report. We had evidence over in the Ford Building that we could go over and look at privately. I did. A number of members did.
But the gentleman has correctly summarized the situation.
I would yield back to the gentlemen.
NEGUSE: Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
NADLER: The gentleman yields back.
For what purpose does Mr. Sensenbrenner seek recognition?
SENSENBRENNER: Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
NADLER: Gentleman's recognized.
SENSENBRENNER: Mr. Chairman, I think it's obvious, you know, to all the American public that this is a railroad job. You know, things have been going quickly, but I think the real key is that with all of the denials of minority requests both here and in the Intelligence Committee, the Republicans and the president have not been able to put on live witnesses to be able to basically put together a defense.
[09:50:00]
And if you're going to have a trial you have to have both prosecution and a defense. Here we don't have a defense because of the rulings that have been made, one of which was made just a few minutes ago by the chairman of this committee.
Now, let me say, you know, first of all, the hearings that were in the basements of the Capitol were secret hearings. They were classified hearings. None of the members who were in that hearing room could ethically go out and tell the public and the news media exactly what was said there, and they probably could have been held before the Ethics Committee or worse if they attempted to do that. There were leaks that came out of there, I grant you that, but none of the members could.
The other point is is that the vast majority of members of the Judiciary Committee, which has ultimate jurisdiction over all proposed impeachments, were not members of the three other committees and were not allowed to go into the basement of the Capitol hearing room to listen to what was going on and to see those live witnesses.
There were a number of my colleagues on this side of the aisle, including Ms. Lesko and Mr. Gaetz, that attempted to do that, and Chairman Schiff kicked them out or wouldn't allow them to come in -- or go in there. Now, when you have a trial, you really cannot make a determination on exactly whether the witnesses are telling the truth or exaggerating or mixing it up or spinning it some way or the other without looking at them in person. We don't have that opportunity.
There were a few select witnesses that were in the public hearings over in the Intelligence Committee couple of weeks ago, but the Intelligence Committee does not have the jurisdiction on whether to recommend the impeachment of anybody, let alone the president of the United States.
Now, you know, we've heard complaints about the fact that in the Clinton impeachment there were no fact witnesses. Mr. Chabot and I were there, as was Ms. Lofgren, Ms. Jackson Lee and the chairman. And what happened there is that both sides were allowed to present whatever witnesses they wanted to.
Kenneth Starr did all of the grunt work in putting together the facts. He sent over 36 boxes of evidence which were put over into the Ford Building.
That's not happened here. The independent counsel that was appointed to look into what President Trump has done. Mr. Mueller came and testified and that ended up being a big fizzle, you know, for what the Democrats wanted to do. So much of the Mueller stuff after his testimony and the cross-examination by members on both sides of the aisle ended up disappearing into outer space. So they had to find something else.
Now, let me say that everybody on both ends of the telephone call between President Trump and President Zelensky has said very clearly there was no quid pro quo offered. There was no pressure that was put on the Ukrainians. I don't know how many times President Zelensky has had to say that.
Apparently it's not enough, because minds on the other side of the aisle are closed. But that's what the facts are. And the facts, you know, again speak for themselves. There was no impeachable offense here.
And that's why Article 1 of the impeachment ended up falling flat on its face and that it should be stricken. And I support the amendment to strike it from the gentleman of Ohio.
I yield back.
JACKSON LEE: Mr. Chairman...
NADLER: Gentleman yields back.
The gentlelady from...
SENSENBRENNER: I yield to the gentleman from Georgia.
(CROSSTALK)
NADLER: The gentleman's recognized for...
COLLINS: OK.
NADLER: (inaudible) seconds.
COLLINS: Real quick, also -- and just in -- Ken Starr sent those over before the hearings began too, correct? They didn't...
SENSENBRENNER: Yes.
COLLINS: We didn't get a letter in the middle of hearings saying, "Oh, by the way, we just got a document dump on the weekend," and where the chairman told me, "Well, we're not going to be able to read them anyway."
SENSENBRENNER: No, we -- we got them...
NADLER: Gentleman's time has expired.
(CROSSTALK)
NADLER: Gentleman's time has expired.
For what purpose does Ms. Jackson Lee seek recognition?
JACKSON LEE: To strike the last word, Mr. Chairman.
NADLER: Gentlelady is recognized.
JACKSON LEE: I -- I think before I begin to comment on the discussion here that it is important to remind all of us the president abused his power and is a continuing threat not only to democracy but to our national security. We do not take this lightly; we take it very seriously.
[09:55:00]
And I -- I beg to differ with my dear friend, as one who was here for the impeachment proceedings in 1998, along with my colleagues, both Mr. Sensenbrenner, Mr. Chabot, Mr. Nadler, Ms. Lofgren. Let me be very clear of the distinctive difference that we had then at that time.
For the American people, the special prosecutor is -- was an independent statute that allowed both Mr. Jaworski during the Nixon impeachment proceedings and then Mr. Starr to have an independent process of investigation. The Congress was not privy to any of that investigation, at all. They proceeded. They were not interfered with, as Mr. Mueller was, by the DOJ, because he was an employee of the Department of Justice. And his employer, his boss, came out and characterized his report before he could even discuss it.
In the instance of the proceedings of 1998, the Congress received a report, just as both our friends on the other side of the aisle, and we, in the majority, received reports from the impeachment inquiry committees, who were investigatory committees. They did their work, yes, in a classified setting, as I imagine both Mr. Starr and Mr. Jaworski had to do in certain instances. They were like prosecutors. They had witnesses that were not in the public. And then, of course, there were full public hearings, 17 witnesses, firsthand witnesses, who heard the call and testified, not on any secondhand knowledge but firsthand knowledge.
It is clear that we're dealing with a question of a continuing threat, which is why we have to respond. And let me be very clear. I hold in my hands that unclassified transcript. I beg to differ with my friends.
Allow me just for a moment to tell you that, in the call, President Zelensky said these sentences. "I would also like to thank you for your great support in the area of defense. We're trying to continue to cooperate for the next steps. Specifically, we also want to be ready to buy Javelins."
That's equipment, military equipment, from the United States for defense purposes. Ukraine, in the midst of a war against a nation that shot down at least some of those alleged to be separatists using Russian weapons, a commercial airliner. This is a serious war, where our men and women with military -- in the military -- are on the ground trying to assist.
And here's the very next sentence. The very next sentence is not "Yes, let's get with the Department of Defense; let's review your request."
The very next sentence, "I would like you to do a favor, though."
This is a discussion about defense. The next sentence should have been, "I think we are well aware of your difficult predicament. I'm going to have you talk to the secretary of defense."
But it said, a couple of sentences later, "I would like to have the attorney general call you or your people, and I'd like you to get to the bottom of it," investigations.
So I would just offer to say that it is not frivolous and without facts that we proceed. We proceed with facts. And we take this in a very somber manner.
LOFGREN (?): Would the gentlelady yield?
JACKSON LEE: I'd be happy to yield to the gentlelady from...
LOFGREN (?): I would just like to note that, while this aid was being withheld, people died. And I'd like to ask unanimous consent to put into the record an article from the Los Angeles Times entitled "Trump Froze Military Aid As Ukrainian Soldiers Perished in Battle."
NADLER: Without objection.
LOFGREN (?): And note also that the highest death toll on any day in the Ukraine-Russian war was August 7th of this year, while aid was being withheld. So this had life-and-death consequences. And I yield back to the gentlelady.
JACKSON LEE: Very quickly, let me say my predecessor, Barbara Jordan, said that impeachment is designed for the president and his high ministers somehow to be called into account. That is all we're doing on behalf of the American people, and protecting the national security of this nation.
I yield back.
(UNKNOWN): Mr. Chairman...
NADLER: The gentlelady yields back.
For what purpose does Mr. Chabot seek recognition?
CHABOT: Can we strike the last word?
NADLER: The gentleman strikes the last word. The gentleman is recognized.
CHABOT: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield to the ranking member.
COLLINS: Just real quickly, the gentlelady from California just misstated something that I addressed head-on last night. And Undersecretary -
[10:00:00]
