Return to Transcripts main page
CNN Live Event/Special
House Panel Debates Impeachment Articles Before Vote. Aired 12- 1p ET
Aired December 12, 2019 - 12:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
[12:00:00] JEFFREY TOOBIN, CNN CHIEF LEGAL ANALYST: -- the abuse of power article of impeachment. They're not talking much about the obstruction of Congress. But I think this has been a civic education here, and people can decide whether they think this conduct is an impeachable offense or not, because the issue has been aired out very well between the two sides.
WOLF BLITZER, CNN HOST: I think they've - they're about to finish the roll call right now. Let's - there's not going to be a surprise - the Republicans will lose, the Democrats will win. Then there will be a second amendment that presumably will be introduced.
NADLER: The clerk will report.
RICHMOND: I'm recorded (ph).
CLERK: Mr. Richmond, you are not recorded.
RICHMOND: No, no.
CLERK: Mr. Richmond votes no.
NADLER: Are there any other members who haven't voted who wish to vote? The clerk will report.
CLERK: Mr. Chairman, there are 17 ayes and 23 noes.
NADLER: The amendment is not agreed to. Are there any further amendments to the amendment in the nature of a substitute?
GAETZ: Mr. Chairman?
NADLER: Gaetz?
GAETZ: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have an amendment at the desk.
NADLER: Gentleman -- the gentleman has amendment at the desk (ph). The clerk will report the amendment.
(UNKNOWN): I have an order (ph).
(UNKNOWN): She has (inaudible).
NADLER: The gentlelady will show support of order.
(UNKNOWN): Amendments will (ph)...
CLERK: Amendments -- the amendment in the nature of a substitute to H.Res. 755 offered by Mr. Gaetz of Florida strike to -- page three strike lines 10 through 11 and insert the following: "A, a well-known corrupt company Burisma and its corrupt hiring of Hunter Biden," end.
NADLER: The gentleman is recognized to explain his amendment.
GAETZ: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
This amendment strikes the reference to Joe Biden as the center of the proposed investigation and replaces it with the true topic of the investigation Burisma and Hunter Biden.
An essential element of the Democrats' case on abuse of power is that the Bidens did nothing wrong. It can only be an abuse of power and not a correct use of power if the president was pursuing something under which there was no reasonable basis to ask a question about Hunter Biden and Burisma.
Hunter Biden and Burisma, what's an interesting story, and I think just about every American knows, there's something up with that, $86,000 a month, no experience, working for some foreign government while your dad is the vice president of the United States?
Is there anyone who believes this is OK? I know we got a few of my Democrat colleagues maybe run for president or might run for president one day, would you let your vice president have their son or daughter or family member out moonlighting for some foreign company?
Maybe I'll use language familiar to the former vice president. Come on man, this looks dirty as it is. Hunter Biden was making more than five times more than a board member for Exxon Mobil. I've heard of that company and so I want to read (ph) up on Hunter Biden, learn a little more about it.
I found this very extensive profile in the New Yorker, and here's -- here's what it says, Hunter said that at that point, he had not slept for several days, driving, east (ph) on Interstate 10 just beyond Palm Springs. He lost control of his car which jumped the median and skidded to a stop on the shoulder of the westbound side.
He called Hertz (ph) which came to collect the damaged car and gave him a second rental. The Hertz Rental officer told me he found a crack pipe in the car and in one of the consoles aligned of white powder residue. Beau Biden's attorney general badge is on the dashboard.
Hertz called the Prescott Police Department and officers filed a narcotics offense report listing items seized in the car, including a past -- plastic bag containing white powdery substance, a Secret Service business card, credit cards and a Hunter Biden's driver's license. That is what we would call evidence and I don't want to make light of anybody's substance abuse issues. I know the president is working real hard to solve those throughout the country, but it's a little hard to believe that Burisma hired Hunter Biden to resolve their international disputes when he could not resolve his own dispute with Hertz Rental Car over leaving cocaine and crack pipe in the car.
It continues. Hunter stayed in Los Angeles for about a week. He said that he needed to get away and forget sooner after his arrival in L.A. He said he asked a homeless man in Pershing Square where he could buy crack.
(UNKNOWN): Resident (ph)...
GAETZ: Hunter said that the man took him to a nearby homeless encampment where a narrow passageway between gets tense, someone put a gun to his head before realizing that he was the buyer.
(UNKNOWN): End of the year (ph).
GAETZ: He refer -- he returned to buy more crack a few times that week. Again, not send -- you're not casting any judgment or any challenges, so it goes through their personal life but it is just hard to believe that this was the guy wandering through homeless encampments, buy the crack that was worth $86,000 a month to Burisma Holding.
And that might be one of the reasons why what ABC asked Hunter Biden, "Hey, do you think you would have gotten this job in the absence of your dad being the vice president?" Well, he said, "Probably not."
[12:05:00]
And then I looked to the record evidence and I looked to the testimony of Mr. Kent. Mr. Kent was one of the witnesses they called on the first day. He said, "Burisma was so dirty that our own embassy had to pull out of a joint sponsorship with them."
When Ambassador Yovanovitch was being prepped for Senate confirmation, the Obama administration was so worried about the corruption around the Burisma and Hunter Biden that they held special prep moments to try to get ready for the inevitable questions about this obvious corruption that the president asked about.
Mr. Kent, again, one of the witnesses from the first day also gave testimony that Burisma had stood -- that the head of Burisma had stolen $23 million in the U.S. and the U.K. and that he paid a bribe (ph) to get off the hook.
So, again, it's not as if Burisma is pulling out new place, their playbook is to do dirty stuff and then going pay bribes and hire the people necessary to make those problems go away. This is why the minority hearing issue is so important by the way.
You -- you wonder why Republicans are so angry that we didn't have a hearing to put on our own witnesses and own evidence, and you may wonder why well if they feel so good about their case, why did they block our ability to put in evidence.
It's because we have the ability to show that Burisma is corrupt we have the ability to show that Hunter Biden is corrupt and that totally exculpates the -- the president because there is no way in the United States of America that honestly pursuing actual corruption is an impeachable offense. That's why I do offer (ph) the amendment and I encourage my colleagues to vote for it.
(UNKNOWN): Mr. Chairman, I was -- I withdraw my point of order.
(UNKNOWN): Mr. Chairman?
NADLER: The gentleman -- gentleman yields back. Of what purposes Mr. Johnson seek recognition?
H. JOHNSON: I move to strike the last word.
NADLER: The gentleman is recognized.
H. JOHNSON: Mr. Chairman I rise in our position to this amendment and I would say that the -- the pot calling the kettle black is not something that we should do. I don't know...
(LAUGHTER)
... I don't know what members, if any, have had any problems with substance abuse been busted in a DUI. I don't know but if I did, I wouldn't raise it against anyone on this committee.
I don't think it's proper and, you know, I think we got to get back down to what is most important here. This is something -- this is a question that stands out like a big throbbing sore toe inside of a shoot that's too small and that is this question.
Is it ever OK for a president of the United States of America to invite foreign interference in an upcoming presidential election campaign?
(UNKNOWN): Is the gentleman seeking an answer?
H. JOHNSON: The silence...
(UNKNOWN): It is -- the gentleman yield?
(UNKNOWN): Gentleman, I'm glad to answer...
H. JOHNSON: ... the silence...
NADLER: Gentleman has the time.
H. JOHNSON: ... the silence...
(UNKNOWN): What?
(UNKNOWN): He had -- people responding... H. JOHNSON: ... was and is deafening, and there'll be plenty of time for you to respond to that question, and I would invite you to do so. I gave you an opportunity of about 10 to 15 seconds while you could get your story together and nobody came up with a story. So, I'm going to let you move to strike the last word and explain that to the American people.
It's never proper for a United States president to hold a foreign country over a barrel to make them do that president's personal bidding and holding needed security assistance dangling it -- and dangling the fact that I'll give it to you if you do this. I mean, that's exactly what happened.
It's like the American people understand what happened. Those are the -- those are the facts the president said it when he released the transcript of the summary of -- of that phone call on July 25th. The summary of the president's own words shows that the president tried to get President Zelensky to interfere in the upcoming presidential election.
That established by the facts. So, this is not about Hunter Biden, and they've said that on the other side repeatedly up until they start talking about Hunter Biden having some substance abuse problems. You can't have it both ways. Let's be honest. This is about our conscience, the conscience of the nation, the conscience of my friends on the other side of the aisle.
[12:10:00]
Do you believe that we should allow this to go unaddressed what the president did? Because we are a country of precedent, we are a country you all rule of law, we are country of norms and traditions. Are we going to allow the violation of our norms, our traditions, our legal precedent because after all bribery was not a crime.
There was no criminal code when the framers passed the Constitution, but they said bribery in there and what bribery meant was I'm offering you something if you do something for me, I'll give you this. In other words, you give me this, I'll give you that. That's what we had in this case. That's what bribery means.
It doesn't depend on a statute. It depends on what we know was done. And so let's not get bogged down in technicalities and in character assassination. Let's keep our eye on what really happened in this case and whether or not our conscious -- consciences dictate that we do something about it.
We can't let it go unaddressed in the way that we deal with this grave abuse of the public trust is with the drastic action that it requires because this is a drastic circumstance. The drastic action is impeachment, and that's why we're here today. And I ask my colleagues to let your conscience be your guide.
I yield back.
NADLER: The gentleman yields back. Mr. -- for what purposes... SENSENBRENNER: What...
NADLER: ... Mr. Sensenbrenner seeking recognition?
SENSENBRENNER: Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
NADLER: The gentleman is recognized.
SENSENBRENNER: Mr. Chairman, I -- my mind is boggled by gentleman from Georgia saying that oh bribery was OK until 1787 when the Constitution was adopted, and two years later when the Congress passed the first criminal code first caller (ph) is a common law definition of bribery.
I think people long before 1787 realized that bribery was no good, but we also had criminal codes in each of the 13 independent states, colonies before of the Declaration of Independence.
H. JOHNSON: Will gentleman answer my question?
SENSENBRENNER: No, I'm -- I'm saying...
(UNKNOWN): Gentleman...
SENSENBRENNER: ... I didn't interrupt you.
(CROSSTALK)
(UNKNOWN): The gentleman is suspended (ph).
NADLER: The gentleman has the time.
(UNKNOWN): Then move on (ph).
SENSENBRENNER: OK. The second thing is, is that if you on the other side of the aisle believe that Joe Biden is a man who tells the truth, you ought to support this amendment because Joe Biden ever since Hunter's involvement with Burisma has been repeatedly asked whether he made any arrangements to get under this really cushy job.
And he said, "No or my son's business involvements are my sons. I'm not involved in that." So, you put Joe Biden's name in your articles of impeachment when the real malefactor is Hunter Biden. Hunter is not running for anything, and if the real malefactor really is Hunter Biden, I guess your claim that the president was trying to influence the 2020 election would go out the window.
But if you think that Joe Biden is a man who tells the truth, and I'll give him the benefit of the doubt because I think he deserves it then let's get rid of Joe Biden in this article of impeachment, substitute his son's name in there and proceed. I challenge you because everyone of you that will vote no on this amendment is going to be saying, "I think that Joe Biden is a liar."
If you don't think that Joe Biden is a liar, vote yes. I yield the balance of my time to Mr. Gaetz. GAETZ: Thank you, Mr. Chairman and -- and again, it's important to analyze the burden of proof here. It's the Democrats who were saying any question about the Biden situation, Burisma, it could only be an abuse of power.
(UNKNOWN): Maybe...
GAETZ: And I think this amendment really reflects how the president was using his power perfectly, entirely, appropriately and it also shows how scared they are of the fact. If we had the opportunity to call in those who were engaged in, work with the Ukrainian Embassy, folks like Alexander Chalupa.
[12:15:00]
If we were able to bring forward Hunter Biden, if we're able to demonstrate the bias of the whistleblower, the American people would see we are not in this debate and in this discussion because the president done (ph) wrong or impeachable or criminal.
We're here fundamentally because they cannot accept the fact that he won the 2016 Election, and I think all Americans know the president has a different approach, but to accept their standard would mean that if someone announces that they're running for office. It's kind of like instant immunity deal for anything that they would ever do.
I mean, it -- are they really saying that if Joe Biden, Hunter Biden, Burisma were engaged in some corrupt act that just because Joe Biden announced for the presidency, that that somehow auto absolve him of that criminal activity? It's alluded for his (ph) position. Maybe it's informed by the fact that...
(UNKNOWN): I used that...
GAETZ: ... you all got a little lucky on the Hillary Clinton stuff...
(UNKNOWN): No, no.
GAETZ: ... you know, she thought that because she was in a presidential election that her crimes didn't have to be held to accounting. In a way, that turned out to be the case. But you know what, it's shouldn't be the standard in the United States of America.
And I'm glad that we have a president who is at times skeptical of foreign aid, who does put America first who understands that in corrupt places, the resources we provide don't always make it to an area of need.
But we conclude with this, once the meetings happened that demonstrated that President Zelensky was a true reformer, but he wasn't corrupt, that he was honest. Honest from the point of his campaign all the way up into the point when he said, there was no pressure put on him or his government for this aid.
If you accept that proposition, it's very clear of the president was entirely appropriate in those questions and I got to say in debate in the last amended, now we have reached the point of time where President Trump and the only president being attacked in this hearing.
I heard the gentleman from Tennessee go after Zelensky as -- well, an actor, a politician and they presumed he's a liar when he says there was nothing wrong. You know what, they can't -- like the case...
(UNKNOWN): Mr. Chairman, can I respond?
GAETZ: ... against the president...
(UNKNOWN): My name was called.
GAETZ: ... they're attacking Zelensky and it's just -- it just shows the absurdity whatever (ph).
(CROSSTALK)
NADLER: The gentleman's time has expired. For what purpose does Ms. Jackson Lee seek recognition?
(UNKNOWN): I was asking if I could respond as my name was -- as I was called.
NADLER: No.
(UNKNOWN): No?
NADLER: For that purpose does Ms. Jackson Lee seek recognition?
JACKSON LEE: I rise to strike the last word.
NADLER: The gentlelady is recognized.
JACKSON LEE: I thank the chairman. This is about distraction, distraction, distraction. Our good friends spent three hours saying president did not target the Bidens. Now, they're saying that he did. So, which is it?
Now, I'm holding the classified unclassified conversation and let me just clarify a certain point and that point is that I did read the transcript, and it did say us, but there is nothing in the president's notes that even suggested that the question that he asked was for the American people.
In testimony by Mr. Goldman who obviously went through every aspect of this, I asked the question about whether or not the president said anything from the notes that are given the briefing that is given by those representatives of the United States government, the staff of the national Security Council, the State Department, the Defense Department on corruption.
He didn't speak anything about corruption that he was briefed on, and if you go through the call, he continues to mention the Bidens. And so this again, is about Ukraine. The president did ask Ukraine, the president of Ukraine, a vulnerable leader of a country that is fledgling (ph) and trying to survive. Now, let me say that I intend to introduce into the record an article that indicated very clearly that people did die, truck froze military aid as Ukrainian soldiers perished in battle L.A. Times. Ask unanimous consent to submit that into the record.
NADLER: Without objection.
JACKSON LEE: But the facts are...
(UNKNOWN): Objection.
JACKSON LEE: ... the -- allowed. The facts are President Trump provided 510 million in aid in 2017 and 359 million in 2018, but he wanted to stop in 2019, the year or months before the 2020 election.
In addition, President Trump's advisers confirmed that President Trump's investigations, the 2016 election interference and the Bidens were not U.S. policy and as well they have debunked any association of that there was anything to the impropriety of the former vice president and his service as related to Ukraine.
[12:20:00]
I think it is also important the Department of Defense and State Department have confirmed that Ukraine admit all anticorruption benchmark and the aid should be released. That's the policy of the United States of America.
There was no need for this president to in essence try to make up his own policy and his own statement of administrative policies. And ask unanimous consent to ask those in the record, this is from the White House, nothing in this said to discuss corruption.
Why? Because Ukraine had already met the standards of independent executive agencies that they had met that standard of corruption, their money should have been released and we well know as the process of the whistleblower and the timing that President Zelensky desperate for money, people dying in the field was asked to do a CNN announcement.
And he was going to be on one of CNN's well-known shows dealing with international politics, but it was stopped in his tracks as testified by witnesses under oath because of the whistleblower statement. Let me be very clear there is some representation crime, crime, crime. First of all, our scholars indicated that these are impeachable offenses, the conduct of the president is impeachable and there's enough evidence to show.
But as I indicated yesterday, this, my friends, is a legal document, the Constitution. It is a legal document. You can breach and violate the law of the Constitution. There are constitutional crimes and the vastness of the impeachment process does include the excess of power by the president of the United States.
Now, I knew Barbara Jordan and my friends wanted to quote her. She also said, "The framers confided in the Congress the power if need be to remove a president in order to strike a delicate balance between a president swollen with power and grown theoretical and preservation of the independence of the executive."
You can violate the crimes of the Constitution. Abuse of power includes that. This amendment should be defeated.
(UNKNOWN): Right.
NADLER: The gentlelady's time has expired.
(UNKNOWN): Mr. Chair?
NADLER: For what purpose does Mr. Ratcliffe seek recognition?
RATCLIFFE: I move to strike the last word.
NADLER: The gentleman is recognized.
RATCLIFFE: I thank the chair. I want to answer my colleague from Georgia, Mr. Johnson's question that he asked before. Is it ever OK to invite a foreign government to become involved in an election involving a political opponent? The answer is yes, the better be, we do it all the time.
Have you that quickly forgotten how the Trump Russia investigation proceeded? The Obama administration asked Great Britain and Italy and Australia and other countries to assist in its investigation of a person who was a political opponent from the opposite party.
I keep hearing over and over, again, you can't investigate political opponents. We have a member of this committee who was as a member of this committee and the Intelligence Committee investigating his political opponent, Donald Trump, at the very moment he was running to replace him as president.
My colleague on the Intel Committee, Mr. Castro, was investigating President Trump at the very same moment his brother was running to replace President Trump. President Trump is the only one with the really legitimate reason to be doing it. He is the chief executive -- chief executive.
We're -- we're -- we are in the Judiciary Committee, right, we do understand the Constitution. We do understand that the president as the unitary executive is the executive branch and all power in the executive branch derives from the president and the president can and should ask for assistance from foreign governments in ongoing criminal investigations.
There was an ongoing criminal investigation into what happened in the 2016. The Attorney General Barr at the time of the July 25 call had long before that appointed U.S. Attorney John Durham to -- to -- to investigate exactly that issue. It wasn't just appropriate. It was absolutely the president's constitutional duty.
[12:30:00] And Hunter Biden, the president has -- as the chief executive, the ability to ask about matters where there is a prima facie case of corruption. What do we have with respect to Hunter Biden? Tons of money for a position where he is no Ukrainian experience where he has no experience with Ukraine or with energy and at the very same time that Ukrainians were deciding that Hunter Biden was the perfect person to get that sweetheart deal.
The Chinese were deciding that Hunter Biden was the perfect person to get a sweetheart deal demands $1.5 billion in financial assets. And when the Ukrainian government wanted to investigate corruption, like we all keep talking about they need to, will they start investigating Burisma and what happens?
Joe Biden says, "You better fire that prosecutor investigating corruption into Burisma or you're not going to get $1 billion, then six hours later, that's what happened. That's called influence peddling. That is a crime and there is a prima facie case of that and is absolutely appropriate for president to ask about that.
I yield to my friend, Mr. Jordan.
JORDAN: I thank the gentleman -- I thank the gentleman for yielding. I just want to respond to the -- the comments from the gentlelady from Texas. She said the president made up his own policy.
Well, that's how it works in our country. You get your name on the ballot. You run for office. You go talk to the American people they evaluated all on Election Day to decide who they want making the policy.
That's how it works in our country. It's not the unelected people telling the elected individual how we do things because the unelected people aren't directly accountable to we, the people. It's what makes our system the best, the greatest, and when you turn that on its head, that's when you get problems.
And we saw it happened because we heard Chuck Schumer say on January 3, 2017, "When you mess with the Intelligence Community, they have six ways from Sunday at getting back at you."
Now, that is a scary statement because that is saying the unelected people can get back at the person who put their name on the ballot and got elected to high office -- the highest office in this situation.
So, for someone all -- in the United States Congress to say the president made up his own policy and somehow that is wrong, that -- that should be a frightening position to take, but I guess that's where the Democrats are today in their quest to go after this president making statements like that statements by our colleagues and statements by Senator Schumer.
I yield back.
NADLER: Gentleman yields back.
LOFGREN: Mr. Chairman?
NADLER: What purpose does Ms. Lofgren's recognition?
LOFGREN: To strike the last word.
NADLER: Young lady is recognized.
LOFGREN: You know there are issues for the election and then there are issues for this committee. The behavior of Vice President Biden's son and frankly the behavior of President Trump's two sons and daughter may be discussed in the election.
But here we are talking about the abuse of presidential authority the -- the president must take care that the laws be faithfully executed. We know from the e-mails from the State Department to the Department of Defense that the Ukrainians knew that the aide was being withheld, that's documentary evidence.
We also know that whatever was going on that people might not like with the vice president son and the vice president that was known in 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018, it wasn't until Vice President Biden was beating President Trump in the polls that this issue was raised to try and force a foreign country to invent an investigation to be used politically. That is not seeing that the laws are faithfully as executed, that is an abuse of presidential authority and I would yield now to the gentleman from Florida, Mr. Deutch.
DEUTCH: And I thank from my friend from California. I just -- it's about three hours since I made this point. I guess it needs to be made, from time to time. We just can't simply allow the mischaracterization and the misstatement of the rules, the history of rules, and house resolutions to advance political arguments here, we can't stand for it.
And so I want to address again the -- these statements that there are some right to have to have witnesses come in, it is absolutely true that's the case over 50 years ago when the rule was written, when rule six was written. It set its normal procedure for witnesses representing both sides of the issue to give testimony at committee hearings.
And that's what happened at December -- at the December 4th meeting and that's what happened at the December 9th meeting. Let's be honest about the rules and House Resolutions 660, I would point out again provides an opportunity for the President of the United States to come. He could have come on December 4th, he could have said any of his witnesses and he didn't.
But no one should be surprised because that's been the president's approach throughout is to refuse to allow anyone -- anyone with the kind of information that my colleagues claim they're interested in from coming to testify, from coming to answer questions directly, and with that I yield to my friend from New York, Mr. Jeffries.
JEFFRIES: I thank the distinguish gentleman from Florida. There were 12... LOFGREN: It's my time, I'd be happy to yield with the gentleman from Florida.
JEFFRIES: I thank the distinguished gentlelady from California. There were 12 fact witnesses who testified during the Intel hearing, 12, and we don't hear a thing about those witnesses for my colleagues on the other side of the aisle. A thing. Those witnesses were not political operatives, they were patriots.
In fact, they were Trump appointees. Ambassador Taylor, Trump appointee. Ambassador Sondland, Trump appointee. Dr. Fiona Hill, Trump appointee. Jennifer Williams, Trump appointee. Lieutenant Colonel Vindman, Trump appointee. Ambassador Volker, Trump appointee. They all confirm that Donald pressured a foreign government to target an American citizen political game and at the same time withheld without justification $391 million in military aid undermining America's national security.
Let's just look at Ambassador Volker's testimony, he testified about the issue of raising the 2016 elections of Vice President Biden, all these things that I consider to be conspiracy varies. What was his response? It was pretty simple, quote, "I think the allegations against Vice President Biden are self-serving and not credible." That's what this is all about. I yield back.
LOFGREN: Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
NADLER: The gentlelady yields back. What purpose does Mr. Gohmert seek recognition?
GOHMERT: Support of the amendment.
NADLER: Does the gentleman desire to strike the last word?
GOHMERT: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
NADLER: The gentleman is recognized.
GOHMERT: It's amazing, we're hearing from the same people accusing us of covering up not willing to face the truth. They're the same arguments that we've been hearing for three years now. First, it was accusing us of not being willing to face the facts about Russian collusion and the president scheming with Russia and that turned out all to be lies, we were right and those accusing us of not facing the truth were the ones who are not facing the truth.
We heard about all kinds of other allegations and is a way that they don't appear to be supported when we weren't facing the truth and there was a lot of media support for those positions. But we still persisted that we were the ones that were right.
And this week, these things are all being born out. We were right, they were wrong, and now we're not hearing anybody come in and say, hey, we're really sorry when we accuse you all of being crazy and not facing the truth. You were right, there was no Russia collusion. You were right there was no extortion. And my friends across the aisle keep changing the subject. What the call made clear is we're interested in -- in finding out about if there was Ukrainian collusion or -- or interference in our election. Now, it's amazing how the majority can take two positions that counter indicate each other.
First of all, they say there was -- there was no effort by Republicans including President Trump to stop interference from foreign countries. We hear that over and over including yesterday and today. And yet the only way to step up and do what President Obama refused to do, if you remember President Obama belittle President Trump, candidate Trump for saying he was concerned about outside interference.
[12:35:00]
And in fact President Obama made a mockery of anybody that was so stupid that they thought somebody like Russia or others might interfere and affect our election. They made fun of them. He wouldn't do anything about outside interference because apparently he must have thought the outside interference was going to help Hillary Clinton.
As we've heard, there apparently are some people that certainly are accused in Ukraine of doing all they could to help Hillary Clinton, in fact it was unheard of to have a foreign ambassador in our county step up and do some -- come out with support for Hillary Clinton.
So what we continue to see is projecting, somebody on their side engages in illegal or improper conduct and that's what they accuse President Trump or us of doing. And all of this self-righteousness about you know it over for political purposes, I mean this is from transcript from December 1st 1943 when President Roosevelt was talking to Marshall Stalin.
He's talking with Stalin, this is an apparently in Tehran (ph) they're meeting, but he wanted to talk to him about internal American politics. And from stenographers they say that President Roosevelt said there was -- there were in the United States 6 to 7 million Americans Polish extraction as political man, he didn't want to lose their votes, and he was explaining they couldn't go public, he didn't care when basically the Soviet Union took over Poland.
He didn't care if they cut down Poland's borders from the East and from the West. And he goes on to say, they say jokingly that when the Soviet armies occupy -- invade and occupy these areas of Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, he did not intend to go to war with the Soviet Union on this point.
But he continues to emphasized you know some these things he can't go public with. These kind of things have going on by Democrats for many decades and here they come after the one guy he wants to get to the bottom of 2016 foreign interference. And what do they accuse him of, of getting foreign interference.
No, you can't root out foreign interference until you know what it was. So you can't have it both well I guess the Democratic Party can have it both ways but this has got to stop before it goes too much further. I yield back.
NADLER: The gentleman yields back. For what purpose does Mr. Cicilline seek recognition? I'm sorry. What purpose does Mr. Chabot seek recognition?
CHABOT: Strike the last word.
NADLER: Gentleman is recognized.
CHABOT: Thank you Mr. Chairman. I said it in the previous hearing before this committee that you are investigating the wrong guy that it should've been Biden or Biden's. The Ukraine was the third most corrupt nation on earth and that Hunter Biden had just put himself right smack dab in the middle of that corruption.
And that even though Democrats and many of their friends in the media would have you believe that this the Burisma-Biden corruption that this was all just the vast right-wing conspiracy allegation, when in actuality, it was the Obama administration did raise this issue first.
Back in 2015, George Kent reported his concerns about Hunter Biden out to the vice president's office and the former Ambassador to Ukraine Marie Yovanovitch said she was coached by the Obama administration on how to answer pesky questions related to the Hunter Biden and Burisma that might arise during her Senate confirmation process.
And nearly every single witness who testified at the intelligence committee impeachment inquiry agreed that Hunter Biden's Burisma deal created at the very least the appearance of a conflict of interest.
Yet the Democrats on the intelligence committee under Chairman Schiff and now Democrats in this committee are determined to sweep all this under the rug, ignore it, not let us call witnesses on it instead a rush to impeach this president.
[12:40:00]
You've got the Vice President Joe Biden in charge of overseeing our Ukrainian policy and his son Hunter Biden are receiving $50,000 a month even though he had no identifiable expertise in energy or in Ukraine, yet the Democrats wouldn't let us call witnesses or delve into this.
And it was interesting that Joe Biden got in an argument with the a man that one of his events in Iowa recently called the man a liar and challenged him to a push-up contest and spelled off a bunch of other malarkey.
And now, the committee -- this committee is conducting an impeachment investigation against President Trump based on as Professor Turley put it recently, wafer thin evidence and they're ignoring evidence of something that truly doesn't smell right.
Wafer thin evidence and this was a professor to acknowledge that he had not voted for President Trump, in fact all four witnesses who testified, none of them had -- had voted for him. But he said wafer thin evidence, that's what we're being called to impeach a president.
And while we're doing that, there are so many things that are getting ignored. Now, looks like one thing USMCA trade deals which is very important to replace NAFTA. It looks like we might actually get that across the finish line, I certainly hope so because it will be good for the country, it's bipartisan.
But I think, if there's anything good to come out of this impeachment, it's probably that that actually will get past because the Democrats want to show we did something, we did something, because I haven't done much of anything else, very little is best in the law.
We had 68,000 Americans who died from opioid overdoses last year alone. I think it was 70,000 a year before that and even though the numbers going down a bit, it's not necessarily because we're doing a whole lot better, it's because we actually because of Narcan not quite as many people are dying but there are just as many people that are involved with this discourage opioids and -- and other drugs.
Our southern border is still a sieve, we have far too many people coming across our southern border. That's something we ought to be able to work on in a bipartisan manner in this committee to do something about that. In our asylum laws which need to be reformed.
We had a $22 trillion debt hanging over our head. The reason I'm mentioning these issues, this committee has jurisdiction over all these things and isn't doing a thing because we've been spending all our time for the last year on impeachment in one form or another, but I have a bill balanced budget amendment which could actually move in the right direction to doing something about, it should have done years ago.
Those are all in our -- in our jurisdiction. Other things like infrastructure, not in our jurisdiction but the United States Congress sought to act on it. We have our highways and our bridges are crumbling in this country. It's actually some we generally agree on but the Democrats probably don't want the president to take any credit for that, so that's not likely to happen.
It's unfortunate, taken up all this time on impeachment when there are so many other things that we ought to be working on for the benefit of the American people.
NADLER: What purpose does Mr. Sensenbrenner seek -- just Mr. Jordan seek recognition?
JORDAN: I yield to the Ranking Member.
COLLINS: I'll just take a quick sec. It is amazing though to hear now they gotten really sense of about process on majority side when we actually pointed out the tragedy and the travesty of being rubberstamped in this committee and the gentleman from Florida has brought out a couple of things.
But let me just remind, as he said just a few minutes ago, the White House going to send everything, nope, just like everything else, it all goes to the whim in the whimper of the chairman and the majority.
They can't stand anybody they want. It all goes to their majority of opinion. I get back to the gentleman.
JORDAN: I yield to the gentleman from Florida.
GAETZ: Thank you to the gentleman for yielding. If Democrats can't prove that the Biden's are clean then President Trump can't be guilty of abusing power if he's asking a reasonable question.
They cannot prove the questions in the Biden's are unreasonable. Now the gentleman from New York said, well you just start listening to the witnesses, I listen very closely to the witnesses. What I heard was Mr. Kent say that they were so concerned about Burisma, we had to pull out of a partnership with the embassy.
So it's OK for our embassy to ask the questions, why didn't OK for the president. I listen to the ambassador of Yovanovitch when she gave testimony, she said that she was having to do special preparation to have to answer these sticky questions about why the vice president's son was off moonlighting for some foreign energy company.
So if it's OK for Yovanovitch to ask those questions, if it's OK for the Obama administration to ask those questions, why is it OK for President Trump to ask those questions? Here's one thing I know, corrupt people they don't just deal once. They kind of get into this lifecycle and culture of corruption and it's -- it's disappointing.
[12:45:00]
I go back to this New Yorker article, I'm reading directly from it. One of Kathleen's motions, this is regarding Hunter Biden's divorce contains a reference to a large diamond that had come into Hunter's possession. When I asked him about it, he told me he had been given the diamond by Chinese energy tycoon, Ye Jianming.
Hunter told me that two associates accompanied him to his first meeting with Ye in Miami and they surprised him by giving him a rare vintage of scotch worth thousands of dollars. So this guy wouldn't just take in these weird jobs from the Ukrainians, U.S. taken diamonds and scotch from the Chinese, and I think it is entirely appropriate for the president of the United States figure out why that's the case.
The American people watching today know that this is an impeachment movement that is losing steam. I was watching CNN on the way into the hearing this morning, maybe one of the only folks but I was watching and I heard Gloria Borger say the polling on impeachment is bad for Democrats.
I heard Jim Scioto say that Chairman Nadler had gone on CNN's air and said, well once we have these public hearings, we will animate all this public support for impeachment. Well, now you've had the hearings, you've called the witnesses, and you know what? You're losing ground. You're losing ground with the media. You're losing ground with the voters. And you're even losing ground among your own Democrat colleagues. I believe the public reporting I've seen that some of your more moderate members and districts that President Trump won are begging you to pursue something other than impeachment. This bloodlust for impeachment is not going to be visiting on us or President Trump, it's going to be visited on your own members and they're asking you not to do this.
The only standard that Speaker Pelosi, Chairman Nadler, and Chairman Schiff set was a bipartisan standard. They said this has to be bipartisan. They said it all throughout the 2018 calendar year.
But now, the only thing that has changed is not a strengthening of the evidence, it's that we're going into an election. And they have taken a look at the candidates that they have in the Democratic field and they've realized that they have to create this impeachment platform because their candidates are incapable of defeating President Trump in a fair fight. We know that. The American people know that.
And so, the only bipartisan vote that has occurred on impeachment was a bipartisan vote against opening the inquiry. And the only possibility for movement from that vote to now despite wasting all our time, despite having all these hearings, despite all the damage to our institutions through this very weird and aberrational investigation you've run, the only risk is that you'll lose more votes than you started with.
You lost too you remember the first time and like you're not going to lose less than two of your members, you won't have a risk of losing more than two of your members. And you know what? Republicans are united. We see this for what it is and we know just as my colleague from Ohio, Mr. Jordan said, this is not just an attack on President Trump politically though it is the election that motivates them for this bizarre behavior.
It's not just an attack on the presidency, it's an attack on us. It's an attack on those of us who believe in this president who understand very well who we voted for, and he's got some nontraditional ways of doing business, but we also see the great success of this country. More jobs, more opportunity, they have no answer for that in the upcoming election and it's why we're here.
NADLER: The gentleman's time is expired. For what purpose does Mr. Biggs seek recognition.
BIGGS: Move to strike the last word.
NADLER: Gentleman is recognized.
BIGGS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I mentioned before that -- that looking at the evidence I'm stunned that my -- my colleagues in the other side of the aisle perpetually read every inference you can make it in the like most negative to the president and yet this whole proceedings in that way this has been shaped up indicates that there -- there's an incredible inference against their credibility because of the way they've stocked the cards against the president. So I want to our read -- you know I support -- I support the gentleman's amendment and I want to read this up from a Ukrainian source who was so maimed and cited in a recent publication.
And says quote, "By inviting influential foreigners, Ukrainian business wants to get to a -- get additional protection. P.R. and logging mechanisms to grasp additional spheres of interest. Having Hunter Biden on board, the owner of Burisma wanted to correct the image and to get cover because authorities are scared by the U.S. Embassy in Ukraine.
Hunter Biden using the political capabilities of his family acted as a rescue buffer between Burisma and Ukraine law-enforcement agencies. He's working at the company of a corrupt official smells."
So let's take a look at the -- the actual -- the document, the transcript that they keep -- our colleagues keep referring to. Page four, the other thing President Trump says, there's a lot of talk about Biden's son that Biden stopped the prosecution a lot of people want to find out about that.
[12:50:00]
So whatever you can do with the Attorney General, it'll be great. Biden went around bragging that he stopped the prosecution so if you can look into it, sounds horrible to me. That is the essence of what they want to impeach President Trump for.
So it begs the question, it certainly begs the question really. Do you get immunity, is it an immunity grabbing event to have a relative run for public office? Do you get immunity for that?
Let's flip it on the 10, the question is does the president have the authority to request an investigation? Most assuredly. He mentions the Attorney General here, it is clear that he would like an investigation into the corruption surrounding Ukraine because what this President Zelensky going to say, he goes on to talk about trying to restore the honesty in his country.
That's what he's talking about. You got the Attorney General, you got the president of both countries acknowledging that there's corruption and let's get it fixed up. And at least you're back to this whole question of -- of Democrats wanting to impeach President Trump for these amorphous abusive of power issues. These amorphous abuse of Congress or issues, obstruction congress.
It's just bizarre. So Hunter Biden is put in place on the board of Burisma in 2014, Joe Biden calls for the removal of Chief Prosecutor Viktor Shokin in 2016. In the meantime, evidence is clear that Burisma's company paid about $3.4 million to a company called Rosemont Seneca Bohai, the company of Hunter and his partner Archer.
That is really intriguing. The investigation surrounding Burisma stock and the Burisma's reputation in Ukraine is low and it was dubious even before this impeachment inquiry raised to new attention. Now listen, let's face it, according to Ukrainian sources Burisma is not on everybody's front burner in the Ukraine, but it is here because we were providing hundreds of millions of dollars to the Ukraine in foreign aid.
And this president said, we need to stop corruption. He mentioned specifically the corruption that he had heard about. Is that impeachable? No. He's asking for an investigation to get to the bottom of it because you do not get immunity just because your father is running for public office, just because anyone related to his running for public office.
And I would tell you, this president has done a remarkable job in spite of three years of constant harassment by the Democrats of this body and the media on the left of this country. We have a great economy. He's trying to bring order to the border. We have more people working than ever before. This president has restored the military and actually prestige around the world.
There are no more apology tours on the foreign-policy side that we saw on the previous administration. He has really worked to make America's esteem and greatness reprieves.
NADLER: The gentleman's time is expired. Mr. Cicilline what purpose does...
CICILLINE: Move to strike the last word Mr. Chairman.
NADLER: You are recognized.
CICILLINE: I want to just begin very quickly in respond to the gentleman from Ohio's lamenting about the productivity of this Congress. And remind my friends on the outside of the aisle and the American people that we have passed nearly 400 pieces of legislation since Democrats took the majority, 275 of those bills are bipartisan. They range in legislation to drive down the cost of prescription drugs, to protect coverage for pre-existing conditions, to provide equal pay for equal work, to raise the minimum wage from 33 million Americans, the biggest anticorruption bill since Watergate H.R. 1, legislation to restore net neutrality to respond to the climate crisis.
Universal background checks and we recently completed negotiations on that new trade deals. So the list is exhaustive. Sadly 80 percent of those bills are lying at Mitch McConnell's desk awaiting action. So I heard my colleagues may be trying to mischaracterize what is one of the most productive Congress is a modern history, we ought to assert some energy in persuading Mitch McConnell to do his job and bring those bills to the floor.
[12:55:00]
Now, let's get back to the facts of this impeachment hearing. First and foremost, there's just been this effort to really confuse what this is about and what this impeachment is about. It is about the president of the United States using the power of his office to smear a political opponent, to drag a foreign power into our elections to corrupt the elections, and leverage hundreds of millions of dollars of taxpayer money to accomplish that objective.
So this amendment would like to wish away the motive of the president to engage in this corrupt scheme. But you can't wish it away, you can't amend it away. The facts are the facts, the allegation that we're talking about here originated in 2015. And that's according to the minority report as well.
And in 2017 in 2018 foreign assistant was provided by Ukraine. What happened in 2019? What changed? The president is losing in a national poll by double digits to Joe Biden. We also say -- those are the facts. Multiple witnesses Trump administration officials testified that Vice President Biden did nothing wrong including Mr. Kent, Ambassador Yovanovitch, Mr. Holmes. Ambassador Volker.
Vice President Biden's firing of the prior prosecutor was done in accordance with official U.S. policy. It's approved by the Justice Department, was the policy of the United States, it was supported by the European Union in many countries throughout Europe, and a bipartisan coalition in Congress. This is a corrupt prosecutor. It was official U.S. policy that the Vice President was executing.
By contrast, what we have in this case, the basis of this impeachment proceeding is exactly the opposite. What President Trump was doing was not official U.S. policy and all the witnesses confirmed that it was not done through the Justice Department, and it was done against the advice of all of his advisers. And so that's what very different about what we're confronting today.
And this was work which was not done by the apparatus of the State Department, this is an effort that was led by the president's personal attorney Rudolph Giuliani. The scheme was led by this whole apparatus outside the State Department.
So, let's not confuse these two things. Facts matter, the truth matters, you cannot continue just to make assertions when the record is completely the opposite. And I like to yield to the gentleman from California, Mr. Swalwell.
SWALWELL: I thank the gentleman. If President Trump and my Republican colleagues were so interested in rooting out corruption in Ukraine, there was so much they could do that they never did. My Republican colleagues, for many years we're in the majority. For many years, the vice president's son was on this board, they never investigated this.
Their concern only came about once Vice President Biden became President Trump's chief political opponent. On April 21 of this year, President Trump called President Zelensky to graduate him. In his talking points, President Trump was told to bring up, rooting out corruption in Ukraine.
President Trump never did it, but the White House in their talking points lied to the American people and said the president had. July 25, again National Security Council members worked really hard to tell the president, impress upon the Ukrainian president, he needs to root out corruption in this country. The president never brings up corruption.
The president wanted to investigate any individual U.S. citizen, there's a formal process we go through. The president never asked the Attorney General to do this. The president was never interested in fighting corruption in Ukraine. He was only interested in weaponizing corruption in Ukraine for his own personal benefit and that's why we must hold him accountable for an abuse of power and I yield back.
CICILLINE: Mr. Chairman, I have a unanimous request?
NADLER: The gentleman yields back. I recognize the gentleman for unanimous request.
CICILLINE: Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'd ask that this article dated February 12, 2019 just two weeks before the call to Mr. President Zelensky entitled Trump as top political adviser is whether he should worry about running against Joe Biden be part of the record.
NADLER: Without objection? There are votes on the floor. A number of votes on the floor. Committee will stand in recess until after the votes. Please reconvene immediately after the votes.
The committee stands in recess.
WOLF BLITZER, CNN HOST: All right, they started at 9:00 this morning Eastern Time. It's now approaching 1 p.m. here on the East Coast. Four hours of this hearing. They've been reviewing amendments, two amendments specifically so far, two of the articles of impeachment, two articles of impeachment against the president of the United States, abuse of power, obstruction of Congress.
They're getting through the second amendment. The Democrats are in the majority. So those amendments Republicans are opposing clearly will fail. But it's significant, Jeffrey Toobin, what we're seeing right now, the Republicans are making their arguments, well-known arguments. The Democrats are --
[13:00:00]
