Return to Transcripts main page
CNN Live Event/Special
Debate of Articles of Impeachment Continues on the House Floor. Aired 4:30-5p ET
Aired December 18, 2019 - 16:30 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
WENSTRUP: It's yet another attempt to reach their predetermined conclusion of impeachment, on a -- a conclusion built on political bias, accusations and innuendo.
[16:30:00]
These repetitive and false allegations reveal a political obsession disguised as some kind of righteous oversight.
When they didn't win at the ballot box, they pursued a Russian collusion narrative that Special Counsel Robert Mueller had to waste time and taxpayer dollars to prove false. When the Russia collusion malicious deception didn't work, Madam Speaker, Democrats sought a new path forward to get impeachment. They created a made-for-TV set of hearings complete with witness auditions held in the basement of the Capitol.
Despite all their efforts, the charges the House considers today lack evidence to support them. There wasn't one witness that said a crime or impeachable offense was committed. Madam Speaker, I remind my colleagues, no crime, no impeachable offense. That's a pretty good defense, if you ask me. I will work diligently to further reveal the truths and further reveal the abuses of power, Madam Speaker, that Democrats paid for and enacted during the last three years, abuses of power from the other side of the aisle within this body and within our FBI.
Americans deserve the truth. All in all, history will remember today as the political impeachment that set the precedent for presidents to be impeached every time there's a divided government. I oppose the articles before us today, and I yield back to the other side and their superior imaginations.
SPEAKER: Gentleman from California.
SCHIFF: I'm proud to recognize the gentleman from Illinois, Mr. Quigley, for two minutes.
SPEAKER: Gentleman's recognized for two minutes.
QUIGLEY: Thank you, Madam Speaker. Indeed, we are here today because the president of the United States abused his power and betrayed his Oath of Office. He laid siege to the foundation of our democracy, the electorial (sic) process. These actions have posed a direct threat to the freedom and fairness of the upcoming 2020 election. The very day after Robert Mueller testified that Russia had systematically and relentlessly attacked the 2016 election, the president picked up the phone and made his now- infamous July 25th call to Ukrainian President Zelensky asking the president, Zelensky, on that call to quote, "Do us a favor, though," and announce investigation into his political rival, Joe Biden.
We have since learned from numerous National Security Council and State Department officials the president did not even expect Ukraine to open these investigations. Rather, he just wanted them announced so he could smear his rival. Rather than trusting the voters to decide who could hold -- who should hold the White House, he again sought the aid of a foreign country to tip the scales in favor again.
After Russia's unprecedented interference, a dark cloud hung over the 2016 election, and instead of leading the American people out from under the cloud, the president instead, emboldened by perceived lack of consequence, attempted to pressure Zelensky to interfere in the 2020 election.
After a courageous whistleblower came forward and warned Congress and the public about the president's scheme, the president stood on the White House lawn in front of TV cameras broadcasting around the world and called for China to interfere, too.
Some of my colleagues have asked, "Why not wait? Why are we proceeding?" That's very simple: Because nothing could be more urgent. We are on the precipice of the 2020 election, and Congress has ultimate responsibility to protect the sacred equalizer, our right to vote. To defend the integrity of our elections and to fulfill our duty to the Constitution, I will be voting in favor of impeachment today, and I yield back.
SPEAKER: Gentleman from Georgia.
COLLINS: Thank you, Madam Speaker. At this point, I yield one minute to the gentleman from Colorado, Mr. Lamborn.
SPEAKER: Gentleman's recognized for one minute.
LAMBORN: Madam Speaker, Madam Speaker, anyone -- anyone watching this impeachment's sound and fury signifying nothing should look for three misrepresentations the Democrats are making: One, Trump endangered national security. No. The 55-day delay did not stop the Ukrainians from defending themselves. Trump actually gave them lethal aid, which Obama never did. During Obama's negligence, Democrats said nothing. Two, Trump is not above the law. No one is, but why don't the Democrats tell us what law he broke? They can't, because he didn't break any.
So Democrats have resorted to two vague and subjective articles, abuse of power and obstruction of justice. And three, the evidence is not in dispute. No, the evidence is very much in dispute. In fact, for every statement Democrats cherry-pick to indict Trump, many more statements back up the president. Section 36
Status: Complete Checked Out by: Spike Jones Checked In: 12/18/2019 9:28 PM Last Edited by: Spike Jones Edited At: 12/18/2019 9:29 PM
LAMBORN: In reality, this is nothing but a partisan ploy by Democrats to overturn an election. But this charade will fail and the Senate will exonerate Trump, and everyone knows it.
SPEAKER: Gentleman yields back.
The gentleman from California?
SCHIFF: Madam Speaker, I'm proud to recognize the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Castro, for two minutes.
SPEAKER: The gentleman is recognized for two minutes.
CASTRO: Thank you.
As my colleagues have said, the evidence of the president's abuse of power and obstruction of Congress is uncontested. But let's outline a few key events involving the nearly $400 million in military aid that was held up by President Trump and for President Trump despite congressional mandate.
The summer of 2019 was a summer of shame at the White House. On July 3rd, the White House first blocks security assistance money for Ukraine with no explanation. On July 10th, Gordon Sondland states during a White House meeting with Ukrainian officials that they will get a White House meeting only after announcing an investigation into President Trump's political rival.
On July 18th, a White House staffer announces the freeze on Ukrainian aid per direct presidential order. And just one day after Robert Mueller's testimony before Congress, President Trump makes the now- infamous phone call with Zelensky, asking him to investigate the Bidens.
Then, things start to fall apart. See, the White House learns that a whistleblower has reported President Trump's phone call with President Zelensky in a complaint. And on September 9th, Congress starts to investigate the president's actions. And then the jig is up. On September 11th, the aid is suddenly released without explanation, over two months later.
When you read the call transcript and follow the timeline I've laid out, guilty is guilty. Nothing changed during that time regarding the president's supposed concerns over corruption. So let's be clear. The military aid was released because the president got caught.
But getting caught doesn't get you off the hook. And I ask my colleagues, is attempted murder a crime? Is attempted robbery a crime? Is attempted extortion and bribery by a president a crime? Yes, it is. And the only question now is whether we will find the moral courage to stand up for our country and impeach the president of the United States.
I yield back.
SPEAKER: Gentleman from Georgia?
COLLINS: Thank you, Madam Speaker. At this time, I yield a minute and a half to the gentleman from Alabama, Mr. Palmer.
SPEAKER: Gentleman is recognized for a minute and a half.
PALMER: Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to the impeachment of President Trump. Today is a day that diminishes the reputation and stature of the United States House of Representatives, a day I never dreamed I'd see.
Today, my Democrat colleagues seek to overturn an election by forcing a vote that will forever be a stain on this Congress. They are not just voting to impeach President Trump, my colleagues are voting to impeach the judgment of every person who voted for him and the process by which we elect a president and by which we will govern our nation.
My Democrat colleagues claim the Russians influenced the outcome of the 2016 election. But based on their corrupt impeachment proceedings, it appears my colleagues have been influenced by how Russia conducts political trials: no real evidence, no real crime, no due process and no justice.
The Democrats have failed to show any legitimate justification for the impeachment of President Trump. When they could not find real evidence, they made it up, called it a parody. They conducted most of the hearings in secret, they instructed witnesses not to answer Republican members' questions and they denied Republicans our right to call witnesses, making it absolutely clear their objective was, from the beginning, pathetically political.
We all understand that elections have consequences. To all my colleagues, Democrat and Republicans alike, this day will surely have consequences as well, as we descend into more disrespect, distrust and even contempt that will eventually be destructive of this chamber and I fear, eventually, our republic.
I urge all members to vote no on impeachment.
I yield back.
SPEAKER: Gentleman from California?
SCHIFF: I thank the speaker.
Very quickly, my colleagues have made repeated reference to some secret proceedings in some secret star chamber. This is apparently what they call depositions. I remind my colleagues that when they were in the majority, they conducted depositions. But they were different in this respect: in the depositions we conducted in the Intelligence Committee, over a hundred members were able to participate. That's how secret they were. We revealed all of the transcripts of those depositions.
The repetition of this falsehood does not make it true. It only makes the falsehood that mush more deliberate.
With that, I am pleased to recognize the gentleman from Michigan, Mr. Amash, for two minutes.
SPEAKER: Gentleman's recognized for two minutes.
AMASH: Thank you, Madam Speaker.
I rise today in support of these articles of impeachment. I come to this floor not as a Democrat, not as a Republican, but as an American who cares deeply about the Constitution, the rule of law and the rights of the people.
Under our system of government, impeachment is not about policy disagreements or ineffective governance, nor is it about criminality based on statutes that did not exist at the time our Constitution was written.
Impeachment is about maintaining the integrity of the office of the presidency, and ensuring that executive power is directed toward proper ends in accordance with the law. The Constitution grants the House the sole power of impeachment and the Senate, the sole power to try all impeachments.
We in the House are empowered to charge impeachable conduct. The Constitution describes such conduct as high crimes and misdemeanors because it pertains to high office and relates to the misuse of that office. We need not rely on any other branch or body to endorse our determinations. We have the sole power of impeachment.
In Federalist Number 65, Alexander Hamilton wrote that high crimes and misdemeanors, quote, "Are those offenses which proceed from the misconduct of public men. Or in other words, from the abuse or violation of some public trust. They are of a nature which may, with peculiar propriety, be denominated political as they relate chiefly to injuries done immediately to the society itself," end quote.
President Donald J. Trump has abused and violated the public trust by using his high office to solicit the aid of a foreign power, not for the benefit of the United States of America, but instead for his personal and political gain. His actions reflect precisely the type of conduct the framers of the Constitution intended to remedy through the power of impeachment. And it is our duty to impeach him.
I yield back.
SPEAKER: The gentleman from Georgia?
COLLINS: Thank you, Madam Speaker. Undoubtedly the House Resolution 660 does not matter to the majority and particularly the manager of this bill, because the inspector general I see is -- transcript has not been released, there has not been documents transferred that were supposed to be transferred to the White House, and we're still not sure we got everything we were supposed to get in Judiciary Committee. I guess when you want to be transparent and open, you hold it in a SCIF and do whatever you want.
With that, I yield two minutes to the gentleman from Florida, Mr. Steube.
SPEAKER: The gentleman is recognized for two minutes.
STEUBE: Thank you, Madam Speaker.
This impeachment charade did not start with a whistleblower complaint. The campaign to impeach a duly elected president and overturn the will of 63 million Americans started 19 minutes after the president took the oath of office. Nineteen minutes after the inauguration, the Washington Post published a story headline, "The Campaign to Impeach President Trump Has Begun."
The first day of this Congress, on day one, a Democratic member of my class called for the impeachment of the president, long before the call to the Ukraine.
Then it was the Russia collusion hoax, then obstruction of justice, then bribery, then quid pro quo, none of which are included in these articles before us today.
The first article of impeachment, crafted as a fiction, is not an enumerated basis in the Constitution for impeachment. The Democratic majority would have you believe that abuse of power is a high crime or misdemeanor. It's not, it's an opinion.
It's not even a crime that can be charged in a court of law, unlike Presidents Nixon and Clinton, who were tried for actual crimes, this president is being impeached on vague phrases that appear nowhere in our Constitution.
The second article, obstruction of Congress, again, doesn't exist in the Constitution as a basis for impeachment, and is attempting to impeach a duly elected president for asserting constitutionally based privileges that have been asserted on a bipartisan basis by administrations of both political parties throughout our nation's history.
This House is impeaching a president over a phone call to another world leader, a few lines in a phone transcript that have been completely and utterly misrepresented by the majority.
The process that ensued was anything but open, transparent, bipartisan or equitable, abandoning all past historical due process afforded the minority and the president.
The Democrats ran a partisan investigation, refusing the rights of the minority, refusing the ability for the president's counsel to call witnesses, refusing to allow the president's counsel to cross-examine fact witnesses and refusing a minority hearing day, just to name a few.
The majority waves around a report drafted that they can -- the Democratic staff concocted as a matter of fact. When they needed backup for their approach, they paraded out liberal professors with animus against the president who gave them license to impeach the president for any reason they wish.
House Democrats are making themselves kings in a manner far worse and more obvious than what they are accusing the president of doing. The only abuse of power here is the Democratic-led Congress.
I yield back.
SPEAKER: The gentleman from California?
SCHIFF: Madam Speaker, I'm proud to yield one minute to Mr. Cisneros, the gentleman from California.
SPEAKER: The gentleman's recognized for one minute.
CISNEROS: Thank you, Madam Speaker.
When I was 18 years old, I joined the United States Navy and took the oath to support and defend the Constitution for the first time. I took that oath again earlier this year, as a member of Congress. And every day, I work hard to live by that oath and give the 39th District the representation it deserves.
And I've always maintained that impeachment is a serious undertaking and must be done with incredible care. When the unprecedented allegations against the president and his interactions with Ukraine were first reported, I felt it was Congresses duty to investigate and find out the truth.
And now the facts are before Congress and the American people. The president betrayed his oath to support and defend the constitution by attempting to undermine the integrity of our election for his own personal benefit.
He asked a foreign government to investigate a political rival and endangered our national security by withholding military aid to an ally. For me it's not about personal politics or a party affiliation. It's about upholding my oath to put our country and our Constitution first and protect our national security.
This is why I will vote to move forward with the impeachment of the president. I hope all my colleagues will join me in recognizing this great (ph) threat and stand up to this administration in defense of our country and our Constitution. With that I yield back the balance of my time.
SPEAKER: Gentleman from Georgia.
COLLINS: Thank you, Madam Speaker. I yield a minute and a half to the gentleman from Tennessee Mr. Kustoff.
SPEAKER: The gentleman is recognized for a minute and a half.
KUSTOFF: Madam Speaker, going back almost three years to when the president was sworn into office, we'd seen some members on the other side of the aisle pledging and promising to impeach President Trump. Prior to the start of this inquiry, Speaker Pelosi claimed that the impeachment must be compelling, overwhelming, and bipartisan.
The impeachment inquiry was announced less than three months ago and what we know is that the process has been fast, faulty, and flawed.
What we've witnessed since September 24th when the inquiry was announced is that the evidence we've seen is not compelling, it's not overwhelming, and the process is undoubtedly and unquestionably not bipartisan.
I'm viewing this through the lens of a former United States attorney and as we take this vote, here's the bottom line for the American people; there was no bribery, there was no extortion, there was no quid pro quo, there were no high crimes and misdemeanors committed by the president. And I yield back.
SPEAKER: Gentleman from California.
SCHIFF: Madam Speaker, I now recognize the gentlewoman from California, Ms. Chu for one minute.
SPEAKER: Gentlelady's recognized for one minute.
CHU: Madam Speaker, we know that President Trump withheld needed military aid to Ukraine. We know that he used it to demand Ukraine interfere in the 2020 election for his own benefit. And we know that Ukraine knew.
None of these facts have been disputed. Instead the White House has tried to hide the truth but the president is not above the law, nobody is. Corruption and obstruction, the president is guilty of both.
The blatant abuse of power was made clear from over 100 hours of testimony before three committees and was clear in the call summary released by the White House. The obstruction has been made clear by the president's refusal to cooperate at every turn even when ordered by a court.
Setting a precedent that any president can abuse their power to interfere in our elections is an existential threat to our democracy. It's also a betrayal of the oath of office and the Constitution. There in fulfillment of my own oath of office, it's with solemn purpose today that I vote to impeach President Donald Trump.
SPEAKER: Gentleman from Georgia.
COLLINS: Thank you, Madam Speaker. At this time I yield a minute and a half to the gentleman from Ohio, Mr. Gibbs.
SPEAKER: Gentleman's recognized for a minute and a half.
GIBBS: Thank you. Madam Speaker, Democrats started with quid pro quo. That didn't work so well. Then it was bribery, extortion. Then they brought their witnesses in and not one can answer if they any evidence of bribery, extortion, or any crime when questioned. It was just silence.
Then the witnesses they always testified they heard this -- heard this from so and so and so. (Inaudible) when the Democrats brought their star witness in, Ambassador Sondland, when asked he said I presume the aid was held up.
I presumed. Testimony was all hearsay, conjuncture and assumptions. So now it's abuse of power with no underlying crime, which is opinion. Abuse of power to the Democrats is they don't like his policies or he treated a reporter harshly.
Obstruction of Congress -- you know there are three co-equal branches of government. When the Executive Branch and the Legislative Branch have an impasse that's when the Judicial Branch intervenes.
They didn't do that. The Democrats didn't sought that route. Every president, including George Washington could have been impeached based on these fact less articles. There's no crime, there's victim as Ukraine received their aid before September 30th deadline and no witnesses that witnessed anything.
This isn't about the rule of law, its politics at its worst. It's disgraceful. It's time to end this charade and scamming the American people. I urge everybody to vote no on these Articles of Impeachment. I yield back.
SPEAKER: Gentleman from California.
SCHIFF: Madam Speaker, I'm happy to remind my colleagues of Ambassador Sondland's testimony. He posed the question was there a quid pro quo, the answer is yes. When he was asked about a quid pro quo involving the military aid, he said it was as clear as two plus two equals four. I'm pleased to yield one minute to Ms. Schakowsky the gentlewoman form Illinois.
SPEAKER: The gentlelady is recognized for one minute.
SCHAKOWSKY: It is my adult son, Ian Schakowsky, whom I will always credit for my decision last June to support an impeachment inquiry. It had never been my goal to impeach a president but Ian made such a compelling case.
He reminded me of the oath I have taken 11 times now to support and defend the Constitution of the United States. He said mom, this is not about politics. This is not about party. And pushing back against my arguments he said this has nothing to do with the final outcome, it's about doing the right thing even if others don't.
He made me see that it was about my legacy, my modest place in history. I want to thank you, my son, for helping me do the right thing today, to vote to impeach the president of the United States, Donald Trump because no American is above the law. And I yield back.
SPEAKER: Gentleman from Georgia.
COLLINS: Thank you, Madam Speaker. I also would like to remind the gentleman from California, Mr. Sondland also said he had no direct evidence. He presumed that that was going on. I guess we're back to presumption again. With that I give a minute and a half to the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Flores.
SPEAKER: The gentleman is recognized for a minute and a half.
FLORES: Madam Speaker, on March 11th of this year the Speaker of the House said the following in an interview with the Washington -- in the Washington Post, quote; impeachment is so divisive the country that unless there's something so compelling and overwhelming and bipartisan I don't think that we should go down that path because it divides the country. Unquote.
I think most Americans would agree with that statement because it sounds thoughtful and reasonable. So here we are today to vote on the Articles of Impeachment. How did the majority party do in meeting the objectives set -- set forth by the Speaker.
Here are the answers. First, the only compelling attribute about this sham is the lengths the majority has gone to -- to appease the radical socialist wing of their party. Second, the over -- the only overwhelming feature about this sham is the abuse of power by the majority and the reckless disregard for fairness by the majority throughout this entire circus.
And finally, the only bipartisan activity related to this sham will be the votes against these flimsy Articles of Impeachment. I asked my colleagues to -- to join me in opposing these deplorable Articles of Impeachment and to demand that the House get back to working on the priorities that hard working families care about the most. I yield back.
SPEAKER: Gentleman from California.
SCHIFF: Madam Speaker, I'm proud to recognize Mr. Ruppersberger for one minute, the gentleman from Maryland.
SPEAKER: The gentleman's recognized for one minute.
RUPPERSBERGER: Yes. Madam Speaker, I spent 12 years on the House Intelligence Committee, including four as ranking member. My bipartisan cooperation with the Republican chairman was widely recognized.
When it comes to national security there's no room for bipartisan politics. All 17 witnesses, mostly Trump appointees told the same story during the Intelligence Committee hearings, each testifying that our commander in chief jeopardized American national security for the sake of his re-election.
The president held hostage military aid for the fight against a common enemy, Russia. He willfully obstructed Congresses constitutionally prescribed impeachment powers. Over the last two years I resisted cause to begin impeachment proceedings and I resent those who say this is about reversing the election.
This isn't about whether or not you like Trump, it's about upholding our Constitution, allowing this conduct to go unquestioned sets a dangerous precedent and permanent damages are a system of checks and balances. No one is above the law.
President Trump's actions are a clear threat to our national security and democracy. We must uphold our oath of office and support these articles. I yield back the balance of my time.
SPEAKER: Gentleman from Georgia.
COLLINS: Thank you, Madam Speaker. I yield a minute and a half to the gentleman from Michigan, Mr. Walberg.
SPEAKER: The gentleman is recognized for a minute and a half.
WALBERG: Thank you, Madam Speaker. I rise today in strong opposition to these baseless Articles of Impeachment. Our founding fathers never intended an impeachment to be a one-sided political weapon.
Sadly, the majority has reduced this serious constitutional action to a purely partisan tactic to take down President Trump. History will not be kind to the vote today. It will be remembered as a rushed process that lacks credibility or transparency, with a predetermined outcome that puts a premium on political theater instead of facts.
By any objective standard, the Democrats impeachment case is the thinnest imaginable. There is no impeachable offense before us today. It's a complete and total sham. I close not by quoting a President from the past but rather from the duly elected President Donald Trump.
"To my Democrat colleagues through you, Madam Speaker, you are the ones interfering in America's election. You are the ones subverting America's democracy. You are the ones obstructing justice. You are the ones bringing pain and suffering to our republic for your own selfish, personal, political and partisan gain."
These are hard words, I know, but that is the sad reality of this entire process. I will proudly vote no today, a vote that upholds our Constitution, defends our President and preserves the pillars of our nation's democracy. And now, I yield back.
SPEAKER: The gentleman from California?
SCHIFF: Madam Speaker, I recognize the gentleman from Arizona, Mr. Grijalva, for one minute.
SPEAKER: The gentleman's recognized for one minute.
GRIJALVA: I will vote in favor of impeachment today. The facts are irrefutable and the ongoing obstruction and coverup is shameful. You know, my parents came here as immigrants and I'm proud to live in a nation that rewarded their hard work by providing a better future for my sisters and I, and as a first generation American and now a member of Congress, a story like mine is only made possible by a nation that upholds the rule of law and truly lives of (ph) the values enshrined in our Constitution.
Mona and I are blessed with three wonderful daughters and five grandkids. Because of this living legacy and the legacy I intend to pass on to my grandchildren, my vote today is rooted in protecting their future. The underpinnings for impeachment are real and historic. Trump has perverted the rule of law, abused his power and engaged in a coverup. No amount of misdirection, lies, disinformation, tantrums and cries of victimization by Trump and others can undo the abuse of power and obstruction of Congress that remain clear and present.
The President leaves us no choice but to vote to impeach so that we can protect our democracy and correct the damage that's already done. I will vote in favor of impeachment of Donald J. Trump, not as a partisan act but as a serious, urgent and necessary one, and I yield back.
SPEAKER: The gentleman from Georgia?
COLLINS: Thank you, Madam Speaker. I yield one minute to the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Brady.
SPEAKER: Gentleman's recognized for one minute.
BRADY: 21 years ago this week, I spoke here on impeachment. In this, sadly, history will not treat Democrats well. They'll be forever remembered as the Senator Joe McCarthys of our time. So blinded by their hatred of President Trump they abandoned American rights of due process and fairness and just decency.
Reminiscent of Joe McCarthy, they assaulted the Constitution, took glee in secret hearings, blocked evidence and switched charges like rogue prosecutors. Ultimately, they chose abuse of power because they practice it so well.
President Trump committed no crime or impeachable offense, none. His legacy won't be stained, Democrats will. We'll look back at these days and sigh in shame because Trump haters in Congress, like red haters of the past, are willing to plunge America into darkness for raw political gain.
This impeachment betrays the nation, the Constitution and the American people. I vote no.
SPEAKER: Gentleman yields back. Gentleman from California?
SCHIFF: Madam Speaker, I recognize the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Doggett, for one minute.
SPEAKER: Gentleman is recognized for one minute.
DOGGETT: Tyranny rarely appears full born. It arises, it encroaches as freedom ebbs. Our nation's great founders sought to protect us from tyranny with a carefully crafted system of checks and balances, but now comes along a President who actually says he's constitutionally empowered to do whatever he wants, that he can neither be prosecuted nor even investigated for any crime, and that he can totally ignore any impeachment proceeding of which he disapproves.
[17:00:00]
These are the claims of a wannabe tyrant who has extolled the virtues of tyrants and autocrats from Manila to Moscow.
