Return to Transcripts main page
CNN Live Event/Special
House Panel Debates Impeachment Articles Against President Donald Trump. Aired 3-4p ET
Aired December 12, 2019 - 15:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
[15:00:00]
DEUTCH: Again, it's just important to remember the facts are clear.
No president has ever, ever, ever obstructed Congress in the manner that we've seen from President Trump.
JORDAN: Will the gentleman yield?
DEUTCH: In a moment. And so as -- as we go forward and we like -- I don't how much longer we'll be here, it's always important to make that the facts are clear and that we don't muddy the waters by suggesting that something that is so unprecedented that we've never seen before in the history of our country is somehow just part in parcel of the way things work around here.
They don't. We know it, my friends on the other side of the aisle know it. The American people know it but Mr. Johnson's right. Sometimes it's important to remind them of it. I yield to (inaudible).
JORDAN: Will -- will the gentleman yield for a question.
RASKIN: Thank you, Mr. Deutch.
I just want to add a little constitutional post-script to underscore the very important point that Mr. Deutch is making here.
The -- Article I of the Constitution gives the House of Representatives the sole power of impeachment. It gives the Senate the sole power of trial. In a Supreme Court decision called the United States v. Nixon, the Supreme Court emphasized that the rules and the procedures developed, including the evidentiary rules, are completely within the power of the House and the Senate and cannot be second guessed by the courts.
And in terms of general congressional oversight, the gentleman is perfectly correct, the Supreme Court has emphasized that the fact finding investigative power of Congress is -- is central to -- integral to and built into our legislative power.
James Madison said that those who mean to be their -- those who mean to be their own governors must arm themselves with the power that knowledge gives. And where does Congress get the knowledge to legislate for the people. We get it through subpoenas, through the discovery process and so on. No administration in history has ever attempted to do what this administration has done, which is to pull the curtain down over the Executive Branch and to deny us all of the investigative request that we have.
NADLER: The gentleman yields back.
DEUTCH: As do I.
COLLINS: I do. (Inaudible).
NADLER: For what purposes does the gentleman seek recognition.
COLLINS: To strike last word.
NADLER: The gentleman's recognized.
COLLINS: Thank you.
Look, we're going to be here a long time tonight. And don't let anybody worry: There's plenty of balls we can go to. So if anybody thinks that might be in our midst, don't worry about it, keep asking. Because if we have to fact check you all all night we will because this is all that's been happening right now.
Let's go back to the transcript. The transcript. Every witnesses testified that the transcript was fine. That the transcript was accurate. The transcript reflected the call. Everyone who testified to that, they were able to make conditions, they were able to make a process.
Talk about ellipses. You want to talk about ellipses, look at -- you know they should have put the ellipses in the articles of impeachment. The wide gaps here of fact and logic are amazing in this.
So I mean this is -- let's -- let's go back to the facts. Let's -- let's get back to what we're saying. I do appreciate the fact that my friend from Florida, Mr. Deutch, said that we're muddying the waters. That way that we have tried to get these facts out today and what I've heard from my majority colleagues over the last six hours, if this was a muddying the waters, you all are an EPA hazardous waste site at this point.
This is muddying the waters because you don't have the facts to get to where you need to get to and you just want to continue to say well it was, it was, it was. We just don't like him. Even the chairman. This is about an issue of when we go back that we're trying to get a dictator.
I love how we throw these words in. We're trying to stop a dictator. We're trying to stop a dictator. That's not what you're trying to do. You're using inflammatory (ph) language because you want to make a better point because right now your facts are failing.
And you put two articles of impeachment that you really don't want to defend because you either defend them passionately and you look sort of silly doing it or you don't defend it and you look even worse for bringing them.
So again, we can fact check this all night. We're here to do this. This -- it is just amazing though that after three and half hours earlier laying out everything that happened, looking at what went forward, these -- these actually going forward is not what is happening here.
So again, let's -- let's get one thing clearly for those who may have tuned back in after lunch, maybe after a nap; the transcripts were accurate. You know how I know that? Because everybody testified that they were. Even Fiona Hill said the ellipses didn't mean -- that was not even an issue for them.
The transcript was accurate. So let's quit perpetrating that discussion point out there. That talking point, let's mark off our list. Let's discuss the fact of us is accuracy is actually called reading.
You read the transcript as it is put in. It said us, not me. These are the kind of things that are simple as we go forward. With that, I yield to Mr. Jordan.
JORDAN: I thank the ranking member for yielding.
I just wanted to go back to something the gentlelady from Texas mentioned a few minutes ago. She questioned whether the transcript was complete.
Remember what Colonel Vindman testified to. He said it was complete and accurate. Lieutenant Colonel Vindman said that in his deposition in his -- in the testimony and the hearing. Complete and accurate transcript.
[15:05:00]
So to say -- to suggest that it's not is just not consistent with the testimony we received from your witnesses. Remember, Lieutenant Colonel Vindman's the same guy who wouldn't tell us all the folks he talked to about the call.
Wouldn't tell us -- he said he shared the call with five people but would only tell us four of those individuals. But that's the guy who told us that the transcript was complete and accurate. I yield back to the ranking member.
COLLINS: I yield to the gentleman from Louisiana, Mr. Johnson.
M. JOHNSON: Thank you very much.
I just want to respond to my colleague over here, Mr. Raskin. He's -- he was a constitutional law professor. I was a constitutional law litigator for 20 years. We could debate this all day long.
But you just misstated U.S. v. Nixon. OK. And I don't want to get too deep into the weeds for the folks back home but this is really important. In that case, in 1974, the Supreme Court recognized the existence of executive privilege, which is a protection that requires a balance of interest between the Legislative and the Executive branches by the Judicial Branch.
But here's the important thing, they said in that case there's not an absolute unqualified presidential privilege of immunity from judicial process under all circumstances. That's the quote from the court.
But the correlate -- the other side of that is true as well. Congress doesn't have an absolute unqualified authority to demand evidence from the president either. That's the whole reason that you have to go to the third branch of the Judiciary.
This is a legitimate claim of privilege. It is a legitimate issue that the courts could decide. It is a case of first impression, as my colleague knows because this specific set of facts has not been addressed yet, and it should be resolved by the courts.
Professor Turley addressed this in his testimony to this committee, and he said quote he wrote in his submission, the answer is obvious. A president cannot substitute his judgment for Congress on what they're entitled to see and likewise, Congress cannot substitute its judgment as to what the president can withhold.
The balance of those interest is performed by the third branch that is constitutionally invested with authority to review and resolve such disputes.
RASKIN: Would my friend yield.
M. JOHNSON: That -- wait a minute. That's the answer. So if we're going to cite Supreme Court cases let's put it in the appropriate context and let's acknowledge...
RASKIN: My friend.
M. JOHNSON: ... that this is an issue. I'll yield, 20 seconds (inaudible)...
RASKIN: Thank you.
We're citing different cases. I'm talking about the 1993 Judge Walter Nixon case, which was...
COLLINS: Well, as I'll remind the gentleman from the constitutional scholars on both sides of this argument, it is my time, my (inaudible).
M. JOHNSON: All right, sorry. I'm sorry, you pick (ph). Fair enough.
RASKIN: We -- we had two different Nixon cases...
(CROSSTALK)
COLLINS: We'll put you all in -- no, Mr. Raskin, we're done with this.
I yield back my time.
RASKIN: All right.
NADLER: Gentleman yields back.
For what purpose does Ms. Dean seek recognition?
DEAN: I move to strike the last word.
NADLER: Gentlelady's recognized.
DEAN: You know, let -- let's go back. As has been stated today, the Constitution devotes only a few sentences to impeachment, so I'm going to read one. It's Article 1, Section 2, the very last sentence: "The House of Representatives shall choose their speaker and other officers and shall have the sole power of impeachment." As Professor Raskin just told us properly, the Constitution uses the word "sole" only twice. Sole, not shared, not shared with the Judiciary, not shared with the Executive. This means that we have the -- the sole opportunity and obligation, frankly, to determine what evidence is necessary for impeachment, sole, not shared with the Executive.
Think back. Judiciary Chairman Peter Rodino warned President Nixon about his failure to comply with subpoenas issued in the Watergate impeachment inquiry. Under the Constitution, it is not within the power of the president to conduct an inquiry into his own impeachment to determine which evidence and what version or portion of that evidence is relevant and necessary to such an inquiry. These are matters which, under the Constitution, Rodino wrote, "The House has the sole power to determine -- " sole, not shared with the Executive; sole, not shared with the courts. It's a civics lesson. Don't let the other side, who have such talented constitutional attorneys over there, distract you.
This is not an ordinary dispute, folks. This is a very rare, thankfully, very rare dispute. It is not an ordinary dispute where you go to the court. We don't need permission to go -- to use our constitutional rules. If President Trump is allowed to refuse to comply with requests for information, it would gut the House impeachment power and undermine our bedrock principle of separation of powers.
Last night, as we left here, and wanted to just tell you this: I went outside and there was a team of about 12 high school students from Ohio with their teacher, and they said, "Would you mind stopping for a minute? Could we just talk to you for a minute. It was so interesting to watch and to listen and to hear what was going on at this important historic time. We loved learning about our Constitution, and how much you prize this Constitution. Thank you for protecting it for us."
And you know what they said to me? "We didn't understand this before, but you -- I do now. It's your job."
[15:10:00] It is the House's job to determine what evidence comes in. We do not need permission from the president. We do not need permission from the courts. In fact, we have an obligation to do our job under this simple, smart document.
I think about those framers in my city of Philadelphia, so wisely thinking through these words. Today marks 232 years since those wise men thought through how, would we conceive of our government, and how would we maintain self-government? Do not be confused by the lawyers on the other side, who would teach the wrong civics lesson and distract you with the notion we need to go to court. We need permission of a president. We need permission of a court. We do not.
With that, I yield...
(CROSSTALK)
DEAN: I'd like to yield to the gentlelady from Texas.
JACKSON LEE: I thank the gentlelady, and for her very forceful response, and might I just say to the obstruction of Congress, neither Mr. Nixon or Mr. Clinton obstructed Congress in the manner that this president's doing.
The underlying amendment had to do with corruption, and I raise the point of the document that speaks about the July 25th call. Let me just quickly say that the language is, "I would like you to do us a favor, though." And, as the White House has distorted the interpretation, the "us" does not have any reference to the Department of Justice, Department of Defense, the Department of State. And clearly, in this same document he mentions the vice president. He mentions CrowdStrike. All of those have been debunked. It is clear that the vice president was operating as a vice president of the United States at the time, and as he was operating, he was operating on an official policy to deal with Ukraine.
This is about the president seeking to have Ukraine investigate this political opponent for personal and private reasons. No one misinterpreted what was said, and Lieutenant Colonel Vindman immediately went to the legal counsel in the White House that immediately went dark and never responded, because he was so offended by this campaign effort (ph).
And with that, I yield back, and thank the gentlelady for yielding.
NADLER: Gentlelady yields back.
For what purpose does Mr. Reschenthaler seek recognition?
RESCHENTHALER: Yes, Mr. Chairman. Strike the last word?
NADLER: Gentleman is recognized.
RESCHENTHALER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield to my colleague and good friend from Texas.
GOHMERT: I thank my dear friend from Pennsylvania.
You don't have to be a constitutional scholar if you just had Coach Barker (ph) for Civics in high school as I did.
This is unique, so we don't need to hear from the courts. This, we're told, is uncharted territory because no president has just completely refused. Let me -- let me just touch on a little bit here on both of those issues.
This is uncharted territory. Never in the history of this country have we had an impeachment proceeding begun by lies that got a warrant from a secret court that turned out and had been documented to be lies, and then kept getting warrants, three after that, based on lies. And not one person on the other side of the aisle is the least bit embarrassed that they went to a secret court and got warrants based on lies first to investigate -- or, spy on a campaign or surveil, electronically surveil, Mr. Horowitz says. But this is uncharted territory. Nobody wants to apologize on the other side. OK, I get that. It might be politically embarrassing.
But to say we don't need to go to court? I mean, the Obama administration was just incredible at getting subpoenas, doing document dumps of stuff that didn't -- we really weren't looking for, asking for, especially from Judiciary. But the other stuff that we demanded, we couldn't get it. And we tried to get Boehner to go to court. Let's get a court order requiring it so that we can hold them in contempt. That's the only way we'll ever get this done, and he wouldn't do it.
And so those of us that understand the Constitution and that understand there are not just two articles, we understood. We needed to get that court order to back us up so it wasn't us abusing the offices of Congress. We had, as Turley and Dershowitz and (inaudible) pointed out, you have the court. You go.
[15:15:00]
And another thing that's uncharted territory: We started this impeachment proceeding about the Russia hoax and the Russia collusion, and demanding all these documents about the Russia collusion, and it kept changing. And then it went to bribery and extortion and emoluments and all these other things.
GOHMERT: Never in history has a president been accused of crimes with the -- with the target constantly changing.
Now, when you subpoena documents, there has to be a reasonable basis for requesting information, or subpoenaing witnesses. You've got to have a reasonable basis. And when you keep changing the allegations against the party from whom you're demanding information, then they have the reasonable expectation to advise them of what the new charge is today, what the new evidence is today. But they couldn't get any of those, and I would have been very surprised if you would have -- now, you'd find some Obama appointees that might have upheld subpoenas, but not the Supreme Court because this is so unreasonable. And to the earlier allegation that, gee, even though nobody in the Ukrainian government has said they were a victim, well, it's because the president had a gun to their head. Well, that's not the case. The reason that they are not saying that is because they knew this is the most helpful president they have had since the -- the steel curtain fell. Because this is a president, unlike the Obama administration when they were -- be -- under attack and Ukrainians really were dying. We offered up blankets, some meals ready for the military, stuff.
But this is a president that's really helping them defend themselves. This is a president that's really made a difference from Ukraine. So it wasn't a gun to their head. They -- they see this as a helpful president.
And another thing: If a victim does not admit to be a victim -- anybody that's been a prosecutor surely knows this -- you can go to court, force it to court and the victim says, "I wasn't a victim." You don't get a conviction, and if you do, that is not sustained because that's what courts and Congress call a no evidence point.
You have a no evidence point. That's why you had to drop bribery, although it does apply to -- to Vice President Biden. You smartly dropped the bribery, and now you have this elusive abuse of power? This is outrageous, and it needs to come to an end.
NADLER: The gentleman's time is expired.
For purpose does Mr. Jeffries seek recognition?
JEFFRIES: Move to strike the last word.
NADLER: Gentleman is recognized.
JEFFRIES: The gentleman from Texas talked about reasonable basis. The reasonable basis here is that there's uncontroverted evidence that the president pressured a foreign government, Ukraine, to target an American citizen, Joe Biden, for political gain, and at the same time, withheld, without explanation, $391 million in military aid that had been allocated on a bipartisan basis.
Ambassador Taylor, West Point graduate, Vietnam War veteran, appointed by Reagan, Bush, Trump to the diplomatic corps, said the following about the withholding of that military aid: "No legitimate public policy basis, no legitimate national security basis, no legitimate substantive basis." That's why Congress proceeded. We had more than 200 national security professionals, Democrats and Republicans, who expressed concern with the president's wrongdoing and said this undermines American national security, and that's a basis for the impeachment inquiry.
But what the president has done is said, unlike the Madisonian vision of democracy where there are checks and balances, separate and coequal branches of government, I alone can determine what the representatives of the people see, in connection with a legitimate investigation.
And at the same time is the president that attacks everybody to distract, attacks everybody who won't bend the knee to Donald J. Trump. He's attacked John McCain, a war hero. He's attacked Mitt Romney, 2012 Republican nominee.
[15:20:00]
He's attacked Bob Mueller, a Marine, a distinguished professional in law enforcement. He's attacked your former speaker, Paul Ryan. He attacks Gold Star families. He even attacked, today, a 16-year-old teenage activist, Greta Thunberg. Are you here to defend that, as well?
And so what's happened is that instead of addressing the substance of the allegation, you want to attack Joe Biden and his family. Elijah Cummings is no longer with us. He's in Heaven, just like the Prophet Elijah, but his spirit is with us, and we are better than this.
We're proceeding in a serious, solemn and sober fashion because the allegations are deadly serious. Is it OK for the president to solicit foreign interference in the 2020 election or not? Who should decide the outcome of our elections? Is it the Russians, the Chinese, the Ukrainians or the American people? It should be the American people, and that's why we're here at this moment, and so let's have a serious discussion about it and stop attacking Americans who refuse to bend the knee to this president.
(UNKNOWN): Would the gentleman yield?
(inaudible) will yield...
JEFFRIES: I yield to the gentleman from Tennessee.
COHEN: Thank you, sir.
One of the issues, big issues here is Trump conditioning military aid on an investigation of the Bidens, Joe Biden, period, his primary political opponent in his mind. The Republicans have said no, it was about corruption. It wasn't about them. But listen to what they've talked about today. All they've talked about is the Bidens, Hunter Biden's automobile accident, Hunter Biden's this, Hunter Biden's that, Hunter Biden's salary. They haven't brought up the corruption of the past Ukrainian leaders or any Ukrainian business. It's all the Bidens. Their defense speaks to the truth of the allegations in this article, that it was all about the Bidens. They're all about the Bidens, and that's what it's about.
GOHMERT: Will the gentleman yield?
COHEN: I yield.
GOHMERT: Yeah. I did bring up...
COHEN: I yield back to Mr. Jeffries.
GOHMERT: Yeah, OK. I -- I shouldn't have tried to correct you then, I guess.
NADLER: Mr. Jeffries?
JEFFRIES: Foreign interference in an American election solicited by the president is not OK. That is an abuse of power. It undermined our national security. The president should be held accountable because no one is above the law.
NADLER: The gentleman yields back.
For what purpose does Mr. Neguse seek recognition?
NEGUSE: Move to strike the last word.
NADLER: Gentleman is recognized.
NEGUSE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I think the gentleman from New York laid out, in such an articulate way, the basis and the justification for both Article 1 and Article 2 before us, but I just want to touch on the debate around obstruction of Congress and explain to my colleagues and to the American people why this instance is so unprecedented.
I will first just say with much respect to my colleague from Colorado, I want to assure the American people that obstruction of Congress to Coloradans means the same thing that it does to everyone else in this country: It means the defiance of lawfully-issued subpoenas by the United States House of Representatives. It means impeding the ability of the United States House of Representative to perform its constitutional duty, and unlike the obstruction of Congress that has taken place in the past, this president's obstruction of Congress has been total, has been absolute and has been categorical.
In 1999, in '98, when President Clinton was the subject of an impeachment inquiry, this committee propounded 81 interrogatories to his administration and he responded. In 1974, during the Watergate investigation, Nixon's chief of staff testified. Nixon's counsel testified. In this instance the president has taken steps to ensure that this committee does not receive -- and the Intelligence Committee, as well -- key testimony from any host of officials in our government.
[15:25:00]
And just to give you a historical context, I will read to you a quote: "All members of the White House staff will appear voluntarily when requested by the committee. It will testify under oath, and they will answer fully all proper questions." That's from Richard Nixon's administration.
So I hope, again, as we consider the gravity of the articles before us that we can stay true to the facts and recognize that when we say that no president in the history of this republic has ever completely defied an impeachment inquiry as this one has, we mean it.
And with that...
LOFGREN: Would the gentleman yield?
NEGUSE: ... I yield to the distinguished gentlewoman from California.
LOFGREN: I enjoyed listening to your absolutely correct in your reporting of what occurred during both the Nixon and Clinton impeachment. But I wanted to address the issue from a slightly different point of view. Not only has President Trump refused to provide information that he should've provided, he didn't assert a privilege. He just said no.
I actually have just reread the letter from Mr. Cipolitti (sic), the president's lawyer, dated October 8th, 2019. It's page after page after page of complaining about how the House is proceeding, but the Constitution says Congress shall have the sole authority to impeach. We decide how to proceed, not the White House.
And in the end, without asserting any privilege whatsoever, he just announces they're not going to cooperate, provide any information. This isn't something that -- that needs to be adjudicated by the third branch, the judicial branch, because there's no -- there's no privilege being asserted here. It's simply no. That's never happened before, never happened before in the history of the United States.
And I'll tell you, in addition to being improper, a valid article, Article 2 that we are considering today, if this behavior persists, the balance, carefully-balanced sharing of power between the three branches of government is gone forever. It means that only one branch, the executive branch, will have the right to decide what happens in the United States of America, and that is a very different type of country than we have enjoyed for over 200 years, and it is not a piece of good news for freedom in the United States.
And I yield back to Mr. Neguse with thanks for recognizing me.
NEGUSE: And I yield back the balance of my time.
NADLER: Gentleman yields back.
For which -- for what...
(UNKNOWN): (OFF-MIKE)
NADLER: For what purpose does Mr. McClintock seek recognition?
MCCLINTOCK: To strike the last word, Mr. Chairman.
NADLER: Gentleman is recognized.
MCCLINTOCK: Mr. Chairman, I -- I have to offer a -- a different perspective on this. The -- the -- the doctrine of executive privilege actually began with a subpoena that the House issued to President George Washington in 1796 demanding all the papers relating to the Jay Treaty. President Washington refused that subpoena because he said that the powers of the House did not extend to treaties. He (inaudible) -- only provided that information to the Senate as a function of its treaty approval process. So the -- the -- and the doctrine that dates back to those days is derived from the separation of powers between the executive and legislative branches. Congress can no more intrude into the policy discussions of the president than the president can intrude into our own policy discussions. That is essential to the separation of powers.
Now, there is a natural tension between the branches. That's a byproduct of that separation of powers, and when that tension cannot be resolved, then we turn to the judiciary. That's the appropriate way to resolve this. Different interpretations of the boundaries between the Congress and the president, the appropriate response is judicial review, not impeachment.
The president has every right to assert his constitutional rights, and he has every responsibility to defend the prerogatives of his office. His very Oath of Office compels him to do so. In matters like this the -- the courts have acted quickly to resolve such disputes, but the Democrats aren't willing to go to the courts.
[15:30:00]
What -- what Article 2 says is, "We're not willing to go to court. We'll take the law into our own hands." These are the same people who tell us that no one is above the law, of course, except for themselves. What they're saying is, "Congress alone will decide the limits of our own power." This is the essence of despotism. The reason why we separate powers of government is so that one branch alone cannot unilaterally define its own power. And yet, this is the power that the Democrats are now arrogating to themselves.
It's true: We have the sole power of impeachment under the Constitution, but that power does not exceed the bounds that are established by that very Constitution. Those bounds include the grounds for impeachment, which this committee has ignored, and they include the separation of powers that protect one branch from intrusions of the other.
I want you to think about the essence of the Democrats' claim and what it means to American jurisprudence. If you face an abusive prosecutor who's making false accusations, well, you have constitutional rights that you're guaranteed to use to protect yourself. You've got the right to confront your accuser. You've got the right to call witnesses in your defense. You have the right to be protected from unreasonable searches and seizures.
MCCLINTOCK: But this article says if you go to court to defend your rights, that's automatically an obstruction of justice, or in this case, an obstruction of Congress. And the very fact that you tried to defend your constitutional rights is evidence of guilt. These are the tools of tyrants.
And we've already seen these tools used against college students in Title IX prosecutions, and they've produced a frightening litany of injustices. Now these tools are being brought into this attempt to nullify the 2016 national election that the left has refused to accept. And that should scare the hell out of every person in this country.
I yield back.
NADLER: The gentleman yields back.
For what purpose does Mr. Correa seek recognition?
CORREA: Move to strike the last word.
NADLER: The gentleman is recognized.
CORREA: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I just wanted to do a little fact-checking, if I can, for my folks back in California, in Orange County. I know some of my colleagues compared Vice President Biden's withholding of aid to President Trump's withholding of aid. And I just want to make sure that I have the facts correct here.
It's my understanding that Vice President Biden held up the aid in order to have -- firing Mr. Shokin. But this was in accordance with U.S. policy, express U.S. policy, that was supported by Europe and a bipartisan Congress.
Yet you have President Trump, who held up almost $400 million of, again, bipartisan-approved aid. And I know my colleagues are saying that he did this to root out corruption. And I think there are channels of pursuing help in investigations.
On September 25th there was a public press release put out by the DOJ saying that President Trump never asked them to investigate this matter. So I'm led to conclude that this must have been for the president's personal gain.
The president interjected his personal lawyer, Rudy Giuliani, who told us, and I quote, "This is not about foreign policy," close quote.
Rudy Giuliani went on to say, "This information" -- open quote, "This information will be very, very helpful to my client," close quote.
And again, he said, open quote, "I guarantee you, Joe Biden will not get to Election Day without being investigated, again, comparing and contrasting holding up foreign aid to support U.S. public policy, versus holding up foreign aid against U.S. stated policy.
Mr. Chair, I yield.
CICILLINE: Would the gentleman yield back -- yield?
CORREA: Yes.
CICILLINE Thank you. I thank you the gentleman for yielding.
You know, I know there's been an effort to try to suggest that the Trump administration or the president was interested in corruption and that's why he held up the aid. The evidence is absolutely to the contrary -- all of the evidence.
And in fact sometimes you have to go back to the source. If you look at the report completed by the Intelligence Committee, a 300-page report, 17 witnesses, over 100 hours of testimony, they make findings of fact.
Now, there's fact and there's make believe. The findings of fact -- and I'm going to read right from the report.
"In furth -- the president solicited the interference of a foreign government in Ukraine in the 2020 U.S. presidential election.
[15:35:00]
In furtherance of this scheme, President Trump, directly and acting through his agents within and outside the U.S. government, sought to pressure and induce Ukraine's newly elected president, Zelensky, to publicly announce unfounded allegations that would benefit President Trump's personal political interests and re-election effort."
"As part of this scheme, President Trump" -- this is, again, findings of fact -- "personally and directly requested for the president of Ukraine that the government of Ukraine publicly announce the investigation into the president -- vice president -- and his son."
"President Trump ordered the suspension of $391 million in vital military assistance urgently needed by Ukraine to resist Russian aggression."
And here's the important part. "In directing and orchestrating this scheme to advance his personal political interests, President Trump did not implement, promote or advance U.S. anti-corruption policies. In fact, the president sought to pressure and induce the government of Ukraine to announce politically motivated investigations lacking legitimate prediction that the United States government otherwise discourages and opposes as a matter of policy in that country and around the world."
"In so doing, the president undermined U.S. policy supporting anti- corruption reform and rule of law in Ukraine and undermined U.S. national security."
So you -- the findings of fact that are detailed in the report completely refute that claim. And again, I return to the most important fact. The president of the United States abused the power of his office, the enormous power of the presidency, not to advance the public good but to advance the political interests of Donald Trump.
He used taxpayer funds, nearly $400 million, to leverage that, and in doing so undermined the national security of the United States.
He must be held accountable because no one in this country, no one, including the president of the United States, is above the law. And the one body that is charged with making certain that we vindicate the power of the people to hold the president accountable is the Congress of the United States. If you're not up to the job, you don't belong in Congress.
I yield back.
NADLER: The gentleman yields back.
The question now occurs on the Gaetz amendment. Those in favor say aye.
Opposed, no.
No.
In the opinion of the chair, the nays have it and the amendment is not agreed to.
(UNKNOWN): Roll call?
NADLER: Roll call is requested. The clerk will call the roll.
CLERK: Mr. Nadler?
NADLER: No.
CLERK: Mr. Nadler votes no.
Ms. Lofgren?
LOFGREN: No.
CLERK: Ms. Lofgren votes no.
Ms. Jackson Lee?
JACKSON LEE: No.
CLERK: Ms. Jackson Lee votes no.
Mr. Cohen?
COHEN: No.
CLERK: Mr. Cohen votes no.
Mr. Johnson of Georgia?
H. JOHNSON: No.
CLERK: Mr. Johnson of Georgia votes no.
Mr. Deutch?
DEUTCH: No.
CLERK: Mr. Deutch votes no.
Ms. Bass? BASS: No.
CLERK: Ms. Bass votes no.
Mr. Richmond?
RICHMOND: No.
CLERK: Mr. Richmond votes no.
Mr. Jeffries?
JEFFRIES: No.
CLERK: Mr. Jeffries votes no.
Mr. Cicilline?
CICILLINE: No.
CLERK: Mr. Cicilline votes no.
Mr. Swalwell?
SWALWELL: No.
CLERK: Mr. Swalwell votes no.
Mr. Lieu?
Mr. Raskin?
RASKIN: No.
CLERK: Mr. Raskin votes no.
Ms. Jayapal?
JAYAPAL: No.
CLERK: Ms. Jayapal votes no.
Ms. Demings?
DEMINGS: No.
CLERK: Ms. Demings votes no.
Mr. Correa?
CORREA: No.
CLERK: Mr. Correa votes no.
Ms. Scanlon?
SCANLON: No.
CLERK: Ms. Scanlon votes no.
Ms. Garcia?
GARCIA: No.
CLERK: Ms. Garcia votes no.
Mr. Neguse?
NEGUSE: No.
CLERK: Mr. Neguse votes no.
Ms. McBath?
MCBATH: No.
CLERK: Ms. McBath votes no.
Mr. Stanton?
STANTON: No.
CLERK: Mr. Stanton votes no.
Ms. Dean?
DEAN: No.
CLERK: Ms. Dean votes no.
Ms. Mucarsel-Powell?
MUCARSEL-POWELL: No.
CLERK: Ms. Mucarsel-Powell votes no.
Ms. Escobar?
ESCOBAR: No.
CLERK: Ms. Escobar votes no.
Mr. Collins?
COLLINS: Aye.
CLERK: Mr. Collins votes aye.
Mr. Sensenbrenner?
SENSENBRENNER: Aye.
CLERK: Mr. Sensenbrenner votes aye. Mr. Chabot?
CHABOT: Aye.
CLERK: Mr. Chabot votes aye.
Mr. Gohmert?
GOHMERT: Aye.
CLERK: Mr. Gohmert votes aye.
Mr. Jordan?
JORDAN: Yes.
CLERK: Mr. Jordan votes yes.
Mr. Buck?
BUCK: Aye.
CLERK: Mr. Buck votes aye.
Mr. Ratcliffe?
RATCLIFFE: Yes.
CLERK: Mr. Ratcliffe votes yes.
Ms. Roby?
ROBY: Aye.
CLERK: Ms. Roby votes aye.
Mr. Gaetz?
GAETZ: Aye.
CLERK: Mr. Gaetz votes aye.
Mr. Johnson of Louisiana?
M. JOHNSON: Aye.
CLERK: Mr. Johnson of Louisiana votes aye.
Mr. Biggs?
BIGGS: Aye.
CLERK: Mr. Biggs votes aye.
Mr. McClintock?
MCCLINTOCK: Aye.
CLERK: Mr. McClintock votes aye.
Ms. Lesko?
LESKO: Aye.
CLERK: Ms. Lesko votes aye.
Mr. Reschenthaler?
RESCHENTHALER: Aye.
CLERK: Mr. Reschenthaler votes aye.
Mr. Cline?
CLINE: Aye.
CLERK: Mr. Cline votes aye.
Mr. Armstrong?
ARMSTRONG: Yes.
CLERK: Mr. Armstrong votes yes.
Mr. Steube?
STEUBE: Yes.
CLERK: Mr. Steube votes yes.
NADLER: Has everyone voted who wishes 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?
BIGGS: Mr. Chairman?
NADLER: Who seeks recognition? Mr. Biggs -- for what purpose does Mr. Biggs seek recognition?
BIGGS: I have an amendment at the desk.
NADLER: The gentleman has an amendment at the desk. The clerk will report the amendment.
CLERK: Amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute to H.Res.755, offered by Mr. Biggs of Arizona.
[15:40:00] (UNKNOWN): I reserve a point of order.
NADLER: The gentlelady reserves a point of order. The gentleman is recognized to explain his amendment.
BIGGS: Is she going to read the amendment, sir?
NADLER: The clerk will read the amendment.
CLERK: Page four, strike line eight and all that follows through line 13 and insert the following: Three, the aid was released within days of Ukrainian President Zelensky signing two major anticorruption measures into law, convincing President Trump that the new Ukrainian administration was serious about reform measures, and consistent with administration policy to ensure foreign aid is not used for corrupt purposes.
NADLER: The gentleman will explain his amendment.
(UNKNOWN): I withdraw my point of order.
BIGGS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I draw my colleagues' attention to a letter sent yesterday from the Office of Management and Budget regarding the temporary pause on aid to Ukraine. The letter is addressed to Mr. Tom Armstrong, general counsel at the GAO, and I ask unanimous consent that it be included in the record.
NADLER: Object.
BIGGS: The entire reason we are here today is because Democrats have accused the president of conditioning aid to Ukraine on investigations into his political opponent. To date, Democrats have continued to claim President Trump withheld or froze -- froze foreign aid to Ukraine, but the OMB letter walks through the entire process behind this temporary delay.
First, the money was paused, but DOD was permitted to engage in all of the activities short of obligation necessary to ensure that DOD would not be precluded from obligating the funds prior to the expiration. The money was paused, according to the letter, pending a policy decision. And what was the policy decision? Your two witnesses, Fiona Hill and David Hale, testified that there was an ongoing global review of foreign assistance generally to ensure any program receiving funds were actually worthy of beneficiaries of our assistance, that the programs made sense, et cetera.
Mr. Hale further testified that the president's skeptical views on foreign assistance guided the foreign affairs review. In fact, the only direct evidence for the reasons for the pause comes from OMB official Mark Sandy, who testified that he learned in September that the pause was related to, quote, "the president's concern about other countries contributing more to Ukraine," close quote. He explained how OMB received requests for information on what other countries were contributing to Ukraine, which OMB provided in the first week of September. The aid was released, of course, on September 11.
So Democrats want to impeach the president for trying to ensure that taxpayer funds are spent efficiently and responsibly. Democrats have accused this president of a myriad of things, including violation of the Impoundment Control Act, which prohibits the executive from essentially pocket -- pocket-vetoing funds appropriated by Congress.
This letter that I'm trying to introduce shows, instead, that the administration never intended or actually violated the law. In fact, it shows that it always intended to disburse the funds. That is why DOD was permitted to engage in all activities in preparation for the delivery of the aid. You've not made your case again.
The OMB letter walks through, at great length, the history behind programmatic delays -- delays. I'm sure this would be boring to my friends on the other side, since it technocratically destroys their central theory for impeachment.
In the letter, the OMB general counsel said, "Even with the temporary withholding, the Department of Defense was able to obligate about 84 percent of the $250 million before the end of the fiscal year on September 30th. In the last year of the Obama administration it was only 79 percent. More recently, in 2018, it was 83 percent, in 2017, 91 percent."
Let's get back to it. The specific language of the appropriations authority says, "For the Ukraine security assistance initiative, it's hereby -- $250 million is hereby appropriated to remain available until September 30th, 2019." That's point one: to remain available until September 30th, 2019. When we authorize funds, we give the administration a deadline. The administration complied with that deadline. The administration acted completely and totally within the bounds of the law.
Secondly, the OMB's letter now definitively destroys the insinuation that the president chose to delay for malicious or corrupt purposes.
The bottom line is the aid was lawfully delayed and lawfully delivered, and that means that this entire process has been a sham.
And with that, I'm going to address a couple of issues that I heard. I heard one of my colleagues on the other side say not too long ago that the president should come in and prove his own innocence. Think about what that does. Come in and prove your own innocence.
First of all, that is antithetical to the Anglo-American judicial process. It's antithetical to the constitutional and -- Constitution, particularly, the Bill of Rights. It's antithetical to what we do here.
Someone said that Vindman said that -- that -- was complaining about the -- the transcript, but -- that has been gone over today. The transcript was complete and accurate, according to Mr. Vindman.
Someone said -- and I -- and -- and I would ask this of my -- my colleagues. Under the standard that was given earlier by one of my colleagues, if the president exercised executive privilege and requested a declaratory judgment from a court, if the privilege was upheld, would you undertake, then, to impeach the judge?
[15:45:00]
I mean, think about that. Your standard, giving absolute process authority to the House, would impel you to impeach a judge who sustained an lawful exercise of the privilege of the -- of the executive.
So I think, Mr. Chairman, you've over -- overgone your bounds, and when we get back to this -- my amendment, it basically covers and sets forth clearly what the holding or the pause of the Ukrainian aid was about, and they got their money and they got it on time.
NADLER: The gentleman yields back.
The -- without objection, the material previously subject -- submitted by Mr. Cohen, Mr. Swalwell and Mr. Biggs will be admitted into the record.
And now, for what purpose does the -- Ms. Bass seek recognition?
BASS: Move to strike the last word.
NADLER: Gentlelady's recognized.
BASS: Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I find it interesting that the story certainly seems to be changing. You mentioned the information from OMB, but when the acting chief of staff gave his press conference, he said very clearly that the aid was being withheld because of the need to investigate the 2016 election. Now you are talking about corruption.
I think that the notion that President Zelensky did not feel pressure and was just fine with military assistance being withheld, first of all, they did know that the military assistance was being withheld, and there was no reason for the administration to hold back on the -- because of corruption, considering that the Department of Defense had already said that there was no problem, and that the aid could be released.
The aid was released after the administration was busted, after there was pressure from Congress for the aid to be released, after word leaked out and the whistleblower came forward, then the aid was released. I think it's very important to remember that.
BASS: President Zelensky not feeling pressure, and he was just fine? He was essentially being held hostage. He was a newly-elected president. His nation was at war, and part of his country was seized by the Russians. So what on Earth was he supposed to say? Was he supposed to publicly complain and criticize President Trump when the whole world knows how the president doesn't respond to anything except for praise? What hostage would come forward and complain publicly against their captors, especially if they knew that the aid could be withheld or they could be compromised at any point in time?
Last week, President Zelensky had his first meeting with President Putin. And unfortunately, we were not there. He had that meeting alone. We absolutely compromised his ability to defend his nation.
Several times, it's been said that no lives were lost but I would like to ask unanimous consent to enter into the record an article from Newsweek, talking about the fact that 13 Ukrainian soldiers were killed.
NADLER: Without objection.
BASS: President Zelensky agreed to publicly announce the investigations in an interview on CNN, but the Ukraine canceled that interview days after the president's scheme was exposed and the military aid was released, which further underscores the pressure that the Ukrainians felt when the aid was withheld.
The president knew this when President Zelensky asked for a, quote, "favor." As Lieutenant Colonel Vindman testified, this was not a friendly request, it was a demand. For weeks, the Ukrainian officials pushed back on the demand of the president and his agents, advising U.S. officials that they did not want to be an instrument in Washington's domestic re-election politics.
This was not just business as usual. This was not the president just being concerned about corruption. But as the president's pressure campaign increased and the president began withholding critical assistance from Ukraine, something that the Ukrainians learned about no later than July 25th, the Ukrainians became desperate, so desperate in fact that as Ambassador Sondland told the president, President Zelensky was willing to do anything.
And although the aid has been released, the power disparities between the two countries has not changed. Ukraine continues to depend on the United States for military aid, and President Zelensky needs the support of America and its leader as he strives to bring an end to the war with Russia. It is no surprise, therefore, that President Zelensky expressed that he didn't feel pressure. But the evidence reveals a different picture.
[15:50:00]
The evidence is clear that President Trump took advantage of Ukraine's vulnerability and abused the powers of his office to pressure Ukraine to help his re-election campaign. This is the highest of high crimes and President Trump must be held accountable.
You know, in addition to compromising Ukraine, this compromised our standing in the world because what does it say to our allies, what does it say to vulnerable new democracies, when they need the assistance of the United States, they'd better be prepared to help the president's re-election? It compromises our standing in the world and why would allies trust us any more if this is the way that they are treated?
I yield back my time (ph).
NADLER: The gentlelady yields back.
For what purpose does Mr. Chabot seek recognition?
CHABOT: Strike the last word, Mr. Chairman.
NADLER: The gentleman is recognized.
CHABOT: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I just got three points that I'd like to make here. First of all, as well as being on this committee, the Judiciary Committee, I'm also a member of the Foreign Affairs Committee, have been for the last 23 years. And one thing that's really been concerning to me is about this phone call that the gentleman mentions in the -- in the amendment, and I appreciate him offering this amendment.
But relative to that phone call that our president, President Trump, had with the president of Ukraine, the number of people that were listening in on this phone call. And is that in the national interest of our country?
It's incredible, how many people. You think our president's talking to their president, you've got all these people listening in. And if they aren't listening in, shut up about it. You know, the president is talking frankly with another president, you know? He's going to make comments. He -- in that call, he made some disparaging comments relative to another important ally of ours, Germany, and Angela Merkel.
It's not particularly helpful to have them say, here -- our president saying something like, well, they'll give you lip service about coming to your defense and giving you aid, but they really won't be there for you. We will be here, you know, talking about how important the United States is, and an ally.
Our presidents do that but, you know, you think you're doing that in confidence with the other country, not having everybody else listening in. So our State Department, the executive branch and many others need to tighten up these phone calls for our national security interests, and that goes whether we have a Republican administration, as we do right now, or a Democratic administration, as we have maybe decades down the road.
Secondly, relative to obstruction of Congress, which is one of the two charges, there weren't any -- you know, no crimes alleged, essentially, but obstruction of Congress. We have three branches of government. And of course, it's alleged that, you know, Congress, the legislative branch said we want you to bring witnesses and evidence, et cetera from the other branch, executive branch. And since they didn't do it, rather than go to court, which they could have done, the legislative branch -- this branch -- basically the Democrats because they're in control here in the House -- they could have filed a lawsuit, they could have had the courts decide.
That's what happened, some years ago, back in the Nixon impeachment. He wouldn't turn over the tapes so they went to the court, the Supreme Court ultimately said -- it may have taken some months, but they said you've got to turn those tapes over. And he did, and he resigned. Because there was bad stuff in those tapes, the smoking gun, so to speak.
And that's what they could have done here. But instead of go to the court, which is what you're supposed to do -- they're kind of the referee between the legislative branch and the executive branch -- they said, no, we're not going to go to courts, we're just going to impeach this guy, which they've wanted to do since he got inaugurated.
We have one member of Congress on their side who said they had to impeach him or -- otherwise, he was going to get re-elected. So there's so much politics in there, and there really shouldn't be.
And the third point I wanted to make is that I think the Democrats, unfortunately, are really lowering the bar on impeachment in our country. You know, for about -- and I happen to be a history major from the second-oldest college in the country, the College of William and Mary. Two hundred years, our nation's history, we had one impeachment, Andrew Johnson, for 200 years. And now, in less than 50 years, we're on our third, which is really unfortunate, I believe.
I think they're lowering the bar. They're making this too routine. And I think that's very dangerous because when you have, I think in the near future, when you have a president and you have a House of different parties, we're going to see this more and more often.
And this is very divisive for our country. We're -- we're not together enough on so many things, and I think this is going to further divide us, and I think that's really unfortunate.
[15:55:00]
CHABOT: We saw, for example, you know, years and years ago, it reminds me a little bit of when Bork was nominated to the Supreme Court. Some of the press here are probably old enough to remember that, and maybe some members of the institution in general. But when the Democrats went after Bork, then we saw a tit-for-tat down the road. And I'm afraid you're going to see that here, relative to impeachment of our president, too.
So I think both sides ought to step back and consider what we're doing here because impeachment can be very divisive. And I've been through one of these before, I was one of the House managers in Bill Clinton's about 20 years ago and -- and they're ugly. So I have a lot of sympathy for the House managers that are going to be picked by some from this committee in the near future.
And I yield back.
NADLER: The gentleman yields back.
For what purpose Mr. Richmond seek recognition?
RICHMOND: I move to strike the last word.
NADLER: The gentleman is recognized.
RICHMOND: Mr. Chairman, we've had a lot of conversations, and I'd just like to break it down into a simple term that everyone at home can understand, especially my home district, where we speak a lot of Spanish, we speak a lot of French, we don't go around speaking a lot of Latin.
And so here's why we're here today. Some people say quid pro quo. Some people translate into American definition of "a this for a that."
And the question is what was the "this"? The "this" was a Oval Office visit and much-needed military aid for the "that." And the "that" was an investigation into Joe Biden, a primary political opponent.
And look, when you describe a crime, you want to make sure that you tell the jury and the people listening about motive. The motive was that he was afraid. President Trump was afraid that Joe Biden was beating him in the polls and would defeat him for his re-election.
How do we know that very quickly? Because we've introduced articles where he said it. He gave out the aid in 2016 -- in 2017. He gave out the aid in 2018. 2019, the polls come out, he withholds that aid and he asked for an investigation.
But that's just motive. Let's go to sworn witness testimony, because that's the part I want us to focus on.
And the other side talked about the credibility of Lieutenant Colonel Vindman and they accepted some of the things that he said as fact. Well, if you're going to accept some of the things he said as fact, let's accept them all as fact.
It was Lieutenant Colonel Vindman that said under oath, Ambassador Sondland began to review what the deliverable would be in order to get the meeting. The deliverable, that was the "that" for the meeting. And he said specifically it was an investigation into the Bidens.
Let's go to John Bolton, who said he described this "this for that" deal as a drug deal.
So if we look at all of the testimony of people under oath, they clearly say that this was a swap of an Oval Office visit, or military aid, for an investigation into the Bidens.
Now, the whistleblower comes forward, the Trump administration panics and then they developed everything that we have now, and that's called the excuse or the defense.
First excuse: Well, they didn't know the money was being held. Not true.
There's an e-mail -- two e-mails where they expressed concerns about it. Then you had Ms. Croft who testified that two individuals from the Ukrainian Embassy asked about an OMB hold on the security assistance roughly a week apart, and she recalled that that occurred before it was publicly announced. So that's one.
Second, their defense or excuse is that President Trump wanted to investigate corruption. Now, that's just laughable on its face.
If you wanted -- if President Trump wanted to investigate corruption, he could start at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, look in the mirror, or he could look around the cast of criminals that have been indicted from his circle. You have his lawyer, you have his national security advisor, you have Michael Flynn, Rick Gates, Paul Manafort. The circle goes on. He's surrounded by criminals.
Then we hear, "Well, it can't be obstruction of Congress, you all could have just went to court." But we're in December. We have an ongoing --
[16:00:00]
