You are viewing this post: Meet Debbie Mucarsel-Powell Husband Robert Powell And Explore Her Net Worth And Kids? The 118 New Answer
Are you looking for an answer to the topic “Meet Debbie Mucarsel-Powell Husband Robert Powell And Explore Her Net Worth And Kids“? We answer all your questions at the website Bangkokbikethailandchallenge.com in category: Bangkokbikethailandchallenge.com/digital-marketing. You will find the answer right below.
Keep Reading
Debbie Mucarsel-Powell is a prominent American politician and college administrator. Let’s learn more about her professional and personal life.
Debbie Mucarsel-Powell is a well-known politician who serves as the representative of the US’s 26th congressional district in Flora. The district serves western Miami-Dade County, including Homestead and still as the Flora Keys.
Therefore, she is also a member of the Democratic Party. She volunteered for the 2016 presential campaigns of John Kerry and Barack Obama.
In fact, she ran unsuccessfully against Anitere Flores for the Flora State Senate. To learn more about them, read the full article below.
Who Is Debbie Mucarsel-Powell Husband Robert Powell? Age Gap
To date, Debbie Mucarsel-Powell is married to her Ukrainian husband Robert Powell. However, the couple has yet to publicly announce their actual wedding date.
Speaking of Debbie, she was born on January 18, 1971 in Guayaquil, Ecuador. Powell will be 50 years old in 2020. She appears to be quite tall judging by her photos compared to her surroundings.
However, details of her actual height and other body measurements are not publicly available at this time. We are monitoring the information and will update this information as it is released.
Regarding her educational background, she studied at Pomona Catholic High School in Pomona, California. She received a bachelor’s degree in political science from Pitzer College.
advertisement
And also a master’s degree in International Political Economy from Claremont Graduate University. Guayaquil, Ecuador Powell was born in Guayaquil, Ecuador and is an American.
Explore Debbie Mucarsel-Powell Robert Powell Net Worth 2022
Like other celebrities, Debbie Mucarsel-Powell has yet to reveal her actual net worth to the public. She is a politician by profession and earns a lot from it.
In addition, we have no ea about her husband, where she also d not disclose her husband’s profession on any of the platforms.
As of 2022, she has an estimated net worth of around $4-5 million, which is enough for her to live a luxurious life.
People loved and admired her policy in which she has served for the betterment of her country until now. She has been in a political career for a long time, of which we have no ea of the exact date.
Also, her professional background has given her some name and fame in the industry, which is also a good thing.
Debbie Mucarsel-Powell Robert Powell Ks Details
Husband and wife Debbie Mucarsel-Powell and Robert Rowell are now blessed with two children. However, they have yet to reveal any details about them in the mainstream.
As the children of such educated parents, we believe that the children received a successful career from their parents.
Also, we have no ea where their ks are or what they’re up to. As soon as we have received the information about this, we will keep you informed.
WATCH: Use of force in Portland reminds immigrants ‘what they left behind,’ Mucarsel-Powell says
WATCH: Use of force in Portland reminds immigrants ‘what they left behind,’ Mucarsel-Powell says
WATCH: Use of force in Portland reminds immigrants ‘what they left behind,’ Mucarsel-Powell says
Images related to the topicWATCH: Use of force in Portland reminds immigrants ‘what they left behind,’ Mucarsel-Powell says
See some more details on the topic Meet Debbie Mucarsel-Powell Husband Robert Powell And Explore Her Net Worth And Kids here:
Meet Debbie Mucarsel-Powell Husband Robert Powell And …
Debbie Mucarsel-Powell is a well-known female politician who is serving as the US Flora’s representative 26th congressional district. The …
Source: musicliberia.com
Date Published: 5/12/2022
View: 2218
Meet Debbie Mucarsel-Powell Husband Robert Powell And Explore …
Debbie Mucarsel-Powell is a well known American politician and faculty administrator. Let us be taught extra about her skilled and private life.
Source: dokaw.com
Date Published: 2/13/2021
View: 7140
Meet Debbie Mucarsel-Powell Husband Robert Powell And Explore …
Meet Debbie Mucarsel-Powell Husband Robert Powell And Explore Her Net Worth And Ks. 2 months ago. 0 Views. 1 min read. SocietyAlert.com report Meet Debbie …
Source: societyalert.com
Date Published: 5/6/2021
View: 3723
Who Is Souraya Faas From Libertarian Party ? Explore …
Earlier, she introduced her candacy for the 2016 U.S. presential race. Despite being Republican, Faas most popular to race her unbiased …
Source: thetalkstoday.com
Date Published: 2/15/2022
View: 2198
Who Is Souraya Faas From Libertarian Party Explore Wikipedia & Net Worth Of Politician The Talks Today
However, the Wikipedia profile of the Libertarian Party Souraya Faas should be registered on the positioning. She is a well-known American politician of Syrian origin. Scroll down the article to be taught separately.
Souraya Faas is a politician from the Libertarian Party, ranked as the third largest political party in the United States. She previously presented her candidacy for the 2016 US presidential race.
Despite being a Republican, Faas is most popular for contesting her unbiased candidacy after the problem of reaching a solemn consensus on a chosen candidate.
Souraya Faas’ is doing an outstanding job in maintaining nationwide security in the United States. She is a well-respected female politician in the United States with robust opinions and beliefs.
Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov Family Photo Disclosed Meet His Daughter Ekaterina Lavrova
Sergei Lavrov, a Russian politician, is subject to private sanctions within the European Union, United States and Canada for his role in the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine, which has piqued the curiosity of people who want to know about his family.
Sergey Lavrov is Russia’s Foreign Minister, previously Russia’s Permanent Representative to the United Nations as a member of United Russia. Lavrov served in this position from 1994 to 2004.
On March 3, the Russian diplomat said he believed some international leaders were preparing for a conflict against Russia and that Moscow would continue its army operation to the top of Ukraine.
Lavrov added that Russia has no concept of a nuclear conflict. Each week after the Russian invasion of Ukraine, Sergei additionally accused Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, an ethnic Jew.
– H. RES. 755, ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT AGAINST PRESIDENT DONALD J. TRUMP VOLUME I
[House Hearing, 116 Congress] [By U.S. Government Publishing Office] MARKUP BY: H.RES. 755, ARTICLE OF IMPEACHMENT AGAINST PRESIDENT DONALD J. TRUMP VOLUME I =================================== == ============================== HEARING BEFORE THE COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ONE HUNDRED SIXTEENTH CONGRESS FIRST SESSION —– —– 11.-13. DECEMBER 2019 ———- Serial no. 116-69 ———- Printed for use by the Committee on the Judiciary [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT] Available at http://judiciary.house.gov or www.govinfo.gov Chairman ZOE LOFGREN, Calif. DOUG COLLINS, Georgia, Ranking SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas Member STEVE COHEN, Tennessee F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, Jr., HENRY C. “HANK” JOHNSON, Jr., Wisconsin, Georgia STEVE CHABOT, Ohio THEODORE E DEUTCH, Florida LOUIE GOHMERT, Texas KAREN BASS, California JIM JORDAN, Ohio CEDRIC L. RICHMOND, Louisiana KEN BUCK, Colorado HAKEEM S. JEFFRIES, New York JOHN RATCLIF FE, Texas DAVID N. CICILLINE, Rhode Island MARTHA ROBY, Alabama ERIC SWALWELL, California MATT GAETZ, Florida TED LIEU, California MIKE JOHNSON, Louisiana JAMIE RASKIN, Maryland ANDY BIGGS, Arizona PRAMILA JAYAPAL, Washington TOM McCLINTOCK, California VAL BUTLER DEMINGS, Florida DEBBIE LESKO, Arizona J. LUIS CORREA, California GUY RESCHENTHALER, Pennsylvania MARY GAY SCANLON, Pennsylvania, BEN CLINE, Virgi nia Vice Chairmen KELLY ARMSTRONG, North Dakota SYLVIA R. GARCIA, Texas W. GREGORY STEUBE, Florida JOE NEGUSE, Colorado LUCY McBATH, Georgia GREG STANTON, Arizona MADELEINE DEAN, Pennsylvania DEBBIE MUCARSEL-POWELL, Florida VERONICA ESCOBAR, Texas Perry Apelbaum, Majority Staff Director & Chief Counsel Brendan Belair, Minority Staff Director CONTENTS ———- VOLUME I DECEMBER 11-13, 2019 OPENING STATEMENTS Page The Honorable Jerrold Nadler, Chairman of the Judiciary Committee………. ………………….. ……………………. 2 The Honorable Doug Collins, Member of the Rankings, C Committee on the Judiciary . . . . . . . . . . . . …….. 5 The Honorable Zoe Lofgren, Congresswoman for the State of California, Committee on the Judiciary…………………… … 8 The Honorable F. James Sensenbrenner, Member of Congress for the State of Wisconsin, Judiciary Committee……. 9 The Honorable Sheila Jackson Lee, Member of Congress for the State of Texas, Committee on Judiciary……. 11 The Honorable Steve Chabot, Ohio State Congressman, Judiciary Committee …………………… 12 The Honorable Steve Cohen, Tennessee State Congressman, Judiciary Committee .. . ………………….. 14 The Honorable Louie Gohmert, Member of the Texas State Congress, Committee on the Judiciary…… … ………………. 15 The Honorable Hank Johnson, Georgia State Congressman, Committee on the Judiciary …. …………. … 1 6 The Honorable Jim Jordan, a Member of Congress from the State of Ohio, Committee on the Judiciary.. ………………………….. 18 The Honorable Ted Deutch, Member of the Florida State Congress, Committee on the Judiciary… …………………… 19 The Honorable Ken Buck, Member of the Colorado State Congress, Committee on the Judiciary…….. ………………….. 21 The Honorable Karen Bass, Member of the California State Congress, Committee on the Judiciary….. ……………….. 22 The Honorable John Ratcliffe, Member of the Texas State Congress, Committee on the Judiciary……….. …………………. 24 The Honorable Cedric Richmond, Member of the Louisiana State Congress, Judiciary Committee……. 26 The Honorable Martha Roby, Congressman for the State of Alabama, Judiciary Committee………………………………. 27 The Honorable Hakeem Jeffries, a Congressman from the State of New York, Judiciary Committee…………….. 29 The Honorable Matt Gaetz, Congressman r of the State of Florida, Judiciary Committee……… …………………. 30 The Honorable David Cicilline, Congressman of the State of Rhode Island, Committee on the Judiciary …….. …… 32 The Honorable Mike Johnson, Member of the Louisiana State Congress, Committee on the Judiciary ……………… …. 33 The Honorable Eric Swalwell, a Member of the California State Congress, Committee on the Judiciary……. 35 The Honorable Andy Biggs, a Member of the Arizona State Congress, Committee on the Judiciary …………………………… 36 The Honorable Jamie Raskin, Member of Congress from the State of Maryland, Committee on Judiciary…………….. 38 The Honorable Tom McClintock, Member of the California State Congress, Committee on the Judiciary …………………. …… 39 The Honorable Pramila Jayapal, Member of the Washington State Congress, Committee on the Judiciary………. ……. 41 The Honorable Debbie Lesko, Member of the Arizona State Congress, Committee on the Judiciary …………………… 42 The Honorable Val Demings, Member of the Florida State Congress, Committee on the Judiciary………………………………. 43 The Honorable Guy Reschenthaler, Member of the Pennsylvania State Congress, Committee on the Judiciary…… ……. 44 The Honorable Lou Correa, Member of the California State Congress, Committee on the Judiciary…. ………………. .. 46 The Honorable Ben Cline, Member of the Virginia State Congress, Committee on the Judiciary ………… ……………….. 47 The Honorable Mary Gay Scanlon, a Pennsylvania State Congresswoman, Committee on the Judiciary……. 48 The Honorable Kelly Armstrong, a North Dakota State Congresswoman, Judiciary Committee…….. ……. 50 The Honorable Sylvia Garcia, T State Congresswoman exas, Committee on the Judiciary………………….. …. 51 The Honorable Greg Steube, Member of the Florida State Congress, Committee on the Judiciary. ……………………… .. 53 The Honorable Joe Neguse, a Member of the Colorado State Congress, Committee on the Judiciary … …………………. 54 The Honorable Lucy McBath, a Georgia State Congresswoman, Committee on the Judiciary…………. …………… 56 The Honorable Greg Stanton, Member of the Arizona State Congress, Committee on the Judiciary…………………………… …………… 57 The Honorable Madeleine Dean, Member of the Pennsylvania State Congress, Committee on the Judiciary………………………….. 58 The Honorable Debbie Mucarsel-Powell, Florida State Congresswoman, Committee on the Judiciary………………… 60 The Honorable Veronica Escobar, a State of Texas Congresswoman, Committee on the Judiciary……. 61 AWARDS EDUCATIONAL MATERIALS H. Res. 755, Impeachment Trial Against President Donald J. Trump…………………………………………… … ………………. 68 Change in nature of a replacement for H.R. 755 offered by Mr. Nadler (NY)…….. …………………………… …. 83 Amendment of the change in the capacity of a replacement for H Res. 755 Offered by Mr. Jordan (OH) …………………… ……… 95 Amendment of the amendment in the nature of a replacement for H Res. 755 Offer from Mr. Gaetz (FL)……………….. ……… 196 Amendment of amendment with substitute character to H. Res. 755 offers from Mr. Biggs (AZ) …………………… ……. 250 Alteration of Substitute Amendment to H. Res. 755 Offered by Mr. Reschenthaler (PA)……. 333 LETTERS, STATEMENTS, ETC., SUBMITTED FOR MARKUP Article, Los Angeles Times, “ Trump froz Military Aid–as Ukrainian Soldiers Perished in Battle,” October 15, 2019 Submitted by the Honorable Zoe Lofgren…………………. …. 106 Memorandum from President Trump, Telephone Conversation with President Volodymyr Zelenskyy of Ukraine, July 25, 2019 Submitted by the Honorable Ben Cline …………………. …. .. 12 6 Letter from Matthew Morgan (Vice President’s Office) to Chairman Elijah Cummings (HCOR), Chairman Eliot Engel (HFAC), Chairman Adam Schiff (HPSCI), October 15, 2019 Submitted by the Honorable Andy Biggs …. . …………………………………. 144 Letter from Matthew Morgan (Office of the Vice President) to Chairman Adam Schiff (HPSCI) 11 October 2019 Submitted by the Honorable Andy Biggs………………………….. …………. 146 Articles, Time, “Exclusive: Top Ukraine Official Andriy Yermak Casts Doubt on Key Impeachment Testimony,” December 10, 2019 Submitted by the Honorable Matt Gaetz…. …………………… 156 Articles, The Philadelphia Inquirer , “Impeach President Donald Trump–Philadelphia Inquirer Editorial Board”, December 11, 2019 Submitted by The Honorable Steve Cohen ………………… 170 Articles, The Boston Globe, “Impeach the President,” December 5, 2019 Submitted by The Honorable Steve Cohen.. ….. 173 Articles, USA Today, ”USA TODAY Editors: Impeachment of President Trump,” December 11, 2019 Submitted by the Honorable Steve Cohen…… ……………. …………………. 176 article, Los Angeles Times, “Editorial: We have seen enough. Trump should be impeached,” December 7, 2019, submitted by the Honorable Steve Cohen Letter to Congress of Legal Scholars, December 6, 2019, submitted by the Honorable David Cicilline………… …. ….. 188 Articles, Los Angeles Times, “Trump Froze Military Aid – as Ukrainian Soldiers Perished in Battle”, October 15, 2019 Submitted by the Honorable Sheila Jackson Lee … …….. 204 Articles, CNBC, “Trump Asked Top Political Advisors Whether He Should Worry About Running Against Joe Biden”, March 6, 2019 Submitted by the Honorable David Cicilline…….. …… 266 Articles , Newsweek, “Thirteen Ukrainian Soldiers Died While Trump-Ordered Freeze on Military Aid,” October 4, 2019 Submitted by the Honorable Karen Bass….. …………….. …. 256 Remarks by President Trump and President Zelensky of Ukraine before Bilateral Meeting, New York, NY Submitted by the Honorable Mike Johnson….. …………… ……………. …. 272 Articles, New York Times, “In Fight for Ju Diary Slot, Democrats Broach the “I” Word: Impeachment,” December 18, 2017 Submitted by the Honorable Matt Gaetz….. ……………… … 284 Articles, Los Angeles Times, “Trump Froze Military Aid – as Ukrainian Soldiers Perished in Battle”, October 15, 2019 Submitted by the Honorable Eric Swalwell ………. ………. 292 Letter from John Rood (DOD) to four Committee Chairs, May 23, 2019, submitted by the Honorable Ted Deutch….. ………… …. 304 Articles, roll call, “Ukrainian Lives Hung in Balance as Trump Help up Aid”, October 24, 2019 Submitted by the Honorable Zoe Lofgren…… ……. ………………………………… .. 310 articles, The Guardian, “Roger Stone to Michael Cohen: the men in Trump’s orbit implicated in crimes,” November 15, 2019 Submitted by the Honorable Cedric Richmond………….. …….. 322 Letter from Pat A. Cipollone (White House) to Speaker Nancy Pe losi, et al. October 8, 2019 Submitted by the Honorable Zoe Lofgren…………………… ……….. …………………. 338 Letters from Chairman Eliot L. Engel (HFAC), Chairman Adam B. Schiff (HPSCI), and Chairman Elijah E. Cummings ( HCOR), to John J. Sullivan (State Department), October 1, 2019. Submitted by Mr. Guy Reschenthaler……… …………….. 376 FOIA Production, December 12, 2019 DOD and OMB to Center for Public Integrity Submitted by the Honorable Veronica Escobar…442 H. RES. 755, ARTICLE OF IMPEACHMENT AGAINST PRESIDENT DONALD J. TRUMP ———- WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 11, 2019 House Committee on the Judiciary Washington, DC. The Committee met as called at 7:00 p.m. in Room 1100, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Jerrold Nadler [Chairman of the Committee] presided. Present: Representatives Nadler, Lofgren, Jackson Lee, Cohen, Johnson of Georgia, Deutch, Bass, Richmond, Jeffries, Cicilline, Swalwell, Raskin, Jayapal, Demings, Correa, Scanlon, Garcia, Neguse, McBath, Stanton, Dean, Mucarsel- Powell, Escobar, Collins, Sensenbrenner, Chabot, Gohmert, Jordan, Buck, Ratcliffe, Roby, Gaetz, Louisiana Johnson, Biggs, McClintock, Lesko, Reschenthaler, Cline, Armstrong and Steube. Staff present: Amy Rutkin, Chief of Staff; Perry Apelbaum, Director of Staff and Chief Counsel; Aaron Hiller, Deputy Chief Counsel and Chief Oversight Counsel; Barry Berke, legal counsel; Norm Eisen, Counsel; Arya Hariharan, Deputy Head of the Inspectorate; James Park, Chief Constitutional Counselor; Joshua Matz, legal counsel; Sarah Istel, consultant; Matthew Morgan, Counsel; Kerry Tirrell, attorney; Sophia Brill, consultant; Charles Gayle, attorney; Maggie Goodlander, consultant; Matthew N. Robinson, Attorney; Ted Kalo, attorney; Priyanka Mara, professional contributor; William S. Emmons, Legislative Aide/Professional Staff Member; Madeline Strasser, general manager; Rachel Calanni, Legislative Adjutant/Professional Staff Member; Julian Gerson, professional contributor; Anthony Valdez, companion; Thomas Kaelin, Fellow; David Greengrass, Senior Counsel; John Doty, Senior Advisor; Moh Sharma, Member Services and Outreach Advisor; John Williams, MP; Jordan Dashow, professional contributor; Shadawn Reddick-Smith, communications director; Daniel Schwarz, Head of Strategic Communications; Kayla Hamedi, deputy press secretary; Kingsley Animeley, Administrative Director; Tim Pearson, Publishing Specialist; Janna Pickney, Head of IT; Faisal Siddiqui, Assistant IT Manager; Nick Ashley, intern; Alex Espinoza, intern; Alex Thomson, intern; Mariam Siddiqui, intern; Catherine Larson, intern; Kiah Lewis, intern; Brendan Belair, Minority Staff Director; Bobby Parmiter, Minority Deputy Chief Counsel; Ashley Callen, Minority Chief Oversight Counsel; Danny Johnson, Minority Supervision Advisor; Jake Greenberg, Minority Supervision Advisor; Paul Taylor, Minority Chief Counsel, Constitution Subcommittee; Daniel Flores, Minority Chief Counsel, Antitrust Subcommittee; Ella Yates, Director of Minority Member Services; Jon Ferro, Minority MP; and Erica Barker, Deputy Minority Parliamentarian. Chairman Nadler. The Judiciary Committee will please come to order. presence of the quorum. The chairman is entitled to pronounce an interruption at any time without objection. Under Committee Rule 2 and House Rule 11(2), the Chair may today postpone further hearings on the question of approving any action or matter or the adoption of an amendment ordering a roll call vote yes and no. Today we meet to begin reviewing the impeachment case against President Donald J. Trump. Although it is our practice to limit the opening remarks to the Chair and the most senior member of the Committee, I believe that on an occasion as important and solemn as this it would be appropriate for all members to have an opportunity to make an opening statement. Before we begin, I would like to note the absence of our colleague Ted Lieu, who required medical intervention on Monday evening and will not be able to attend that appointment. From what I understand he’s in good spirits and planning to go back to work next week. His testimony will be part of the record and I know all my colleagues join me in wishing him a speedy recovery. I will now recognize myself for an opening address. Today we begin reviewing two impeachment cases against President Donald J. Trump. The first article accuses the President of using the powers of his public office to demand that a foreign government attack his political rivals. The second article accuses the President of obstructing Congress’ investigation into his conduct. Other presidents have defied congressional oversight, but President Trump’s stone wall was complete, absolute, and without precedent in American history. Taken together, the two articles accuse President Trump of putting his private political interests above our national security, our free and fair elections, and our ability to hold officials accountable. This committee now owes it to the American people to give close attention to these articles and to describe their factual basis, meaning and importance. I think three questions should frame our debate: First, does the evidence clearly show that the President committed these acts? Second, do they rise to the level of actionable felonies and misdemeanors? Third, what are the implications for our national security, for the integrity of our elections, and for our country if we do not act? As to the first question, there can be no serious debate about what President Trump has done. When he called Ukrainian President Zelenskyy on July 25 this year, President Trump had the upper hand. Ukraine was invaded by Russia. Selenskyj had only recently been elected. He desperately needed our help. He needed it in the form of military aid, already approved by Congress because of our national security interests in Ukraine, and he needed help in the form of an Oval Office meeting so he could show the world that the United States is with him against Russia Aggression. President Trump’s call should have focused on America’s national security and the interests of the American people. Instead, he completely ignored them in order to advance his own personal, political interests. President Trump asked for a favor. He wanted Ukraine to announce two fake investigations: one into former Vice President Biden, his leading opponent in the 2020 election; and another to promote a conspiracy theory that Ukraine, not Russia, attacked our 2016 elections. These were not legitimate requests. Neither was supported by evidence. An investigation should help President Trump hide the truth about the 2016 election. The other should help him gain an advantage in the 2020 campaign. Both were disconnected from reality and official US politics. The evidence shows that these requests were not linked to any real interest in eradicating corruption. President Trump busily does business with corrupt governments every day. The evidence shows that President Trump didn’t care if a real investigation took place. A public announcement that Ukraine’s government was investigating his rivals would have been enough for him to release the aid, whether or not an actual investigation ever took place. After the call, President Trump increased the pressure. He dangled the offer of an Oval Office meeting. He withheld $391 million in military aid. His personal lawyer came to put pressure on the Ukrainians directly. The President dispatched other agents, including outside the official channels of diplomacy, to express his wishes. By September, President Zelensky was ready to announce the two fake investigations. Then the scandal broke out to the public. Caught in the act, the President had to release the aid. When the House of Representatives opened an investigation into the President’s actions, President Trump did everything in his power to obstruct the investigation. He declared resistance across the board. He ordered all federal government officials to resist all subpoenas related to the investigation. On his orders, the administration also refused to produce a single document related to the investigation, not one. To put this disability into context, President Nixon provided recordings of his Oval Office conversations during the Watergate hearings. Later President Clinton gave his DNA. President Trump’s blockade, on the other hand, was absolute. Those are the facts. You are overwhelming. It can not be denied. Having reviewed the evidence, we come to our second question: Is the President’s proven conduct contestable? The answer is simple, absolutely. Under Article I of the Constitution, a President may be charged with felonies and misdemeanors. The highest of all crimes is abuse of power. It occurs when a President uses his official powers to serve his own personal, selfish interests at the expense of the common good. For the founding generation that fought a king and won our freedom, this was a specific, well-defined offense. The first article of the impeachment trial accuses President Trump of abuse of power. The article describes President Trump’s behavior and lays out two complicating factors that we must consider. By pressuring Ukraine for a personal favor, President Trump has both betrayed our national security and attempted to corrupt our elections. When the President weakens an ally who advances American security interests by fighting an American adversary, the President weakens America, and when the President demands that a foreign government investigate his domestic rivals, he corrupts our elections. For the founders, this type of corruption was particularly damaging. Free and fair elections are the foundation of our democracy. If our elections are corrupt, everything is corrupt. The President faces a second impeachment hearing over his ongoing efforts to prevent a lawful investigation into his conduct. Never in our nation’s history has a President categorically defied Congress on this matter. If the President can first abuse his powers and then block all requests for information from Congress, Congress will fail in its duty to control and counterbalance the Executive Branch and the President will become a dictator. Later tonight, you’ll learn more about both articles and how they describe a pattern of behavior that President Trump seems determined to repeat. My colleagues will also respond to various procedural objections raised in the President’s defense, but I would like to address one of those objections right away. Some ask why not take more time? Why is this necessary now? Why do we need to impeach the President? Why not let the next election take care of itself? That brings us to the third and final question: What is the risk if we don’t act? In the past 94 days since the House inquiry began, in fact the last 3 years, an undeniable truth has come to light: If we don’t act on President Trump’s abuse of power, the abuse will continue. We cannot rely on an election to solve our problems when the President threatens the integrity of that election, nor can we sit on our hands while the President undermines our national security and while he is protecting his personal interests and those of our adversary allows Russia to move forward. Just last week, the President’s personal lawyer was in Ukraine again. That wasn’t 3 years ago. That wasn’t 3 months ago. That was Saturday. President Trump’s continued abuse of power threatens our security and our elections. The threat is urgent. If we don’t act now, what happens next will be both our responsibility and his. I will close with a word to my Republican colleagues. I know you. I have been working with many of you for years. I think you are good and decent officials. I know this moment may be difficult, but you still have a choice. I hope that each member of this committee will withstand the political pressures of the moment. I hope that none of us will try to justify behavior that we know in our hearts to be wrong. I hope we are able to work together to hold this President, or any President, accountable for violating his most basic obligations to the country and its citizens. And as you ponder this election, please remember that one way or another, President Trump won’t be President forever. When his time is up, when his influence on our politics is over, when our country, as certain as it will be, returns to calmer times and stronger leadership, history will look back on our actions here today. How would you be remembered? Each of us has taken an oath to support and defend the Constitution against all enemies at home and abroad. I hope that I will remember that I honor this oath. I hope you feel the same way. And so, with a heavy heart, but clearly in my duty to our country, I support these articles of impeachment. I urge my colleagues to support them as well. I am returning the credit of my time. I now salute the senior member of the Judiciary Committee, the gentleman from Georgia, Mr. Collins, for his opening statement. Mr Collins. Thank you Mr. Chairman. I find it amazing at best, hilarious, I think at worst we come to a, quote, celebratory and amazing moment. We have been on this path since November 2016. That’s not new. We’ve been trying to do this for almost 3 years if you’re a majority member of this party. The only thing that has changed is the possibility since last November when you became the majority. The only thing that changed about your desire to impeach this President was that you became the majority, and we spent the whole year in this committee impeaching the President. We’ve had occasional surcharges on bills, most of which are so partisan they can’t even get through in the Senate. Most of these don’t address any subject that we talked about, but I find it amazing that we’re taking it now with such a solemn oath that we’ve thought of something to come to this point now and say: This is very solemn, like jumping up and sneaking up on you. It’s about the holiday season. It doesn’t jump up and sneak up on you when you’ve been expecting it all along. And we did. What was amazing to me were some things we saw. So let’s get some perspective here for a while. What did our committee, this great committee, come for? That is the question for us. Let’s just take it for a moment in these impeachment hearings. This is our third. I’ll count to three until tomorrow. Three hearings on this impeachment committee and that’s all we have. What do we learn from these three hearings? We’ve had a bunch of law professors, three of whom can’t stand the President, who can’t stand his constituents and can’t stand the fact that he’s still in office, telling us why he should be impeached and that conclusions are fine were to find an impeachment. We had a hearing just two days ago with staff lecturing us on what is relevant and not relevant and what they found in the report while the member who wrote the report was hiding in his closet somewhere, or in his office, does not want to face the questions of this committee. That should be a thorn in everyone’s side here. So let’s think about what we saw and what we didn’t see. And again, Chairman Schiff is nowhere to be found. When we understand that, we’re happy. Tonight it started again. We’re talking about tearing down national institutions, and we’re starting to talk about compromising our security when, even in the Chairman’s opening remarks tonight, we begin with one of the most astounding dismantlings I’ve ever seen: When they argument that the President pressured Mr Zelensky then they attack Mr Zelensky and then say he was pressured when Mr Zelensky has said on numerous occasions I was not pressured I will not used, the call was good, i’m not paying any pressure to do anything. Then here is what the majority says. The majority say Mr. Zelensky is a liar and we in this body, the Democrats, are tearing down a world leader in the eyes of those who dislike him in his own country and Russia which is attacking him. Just think about it for a second. Let that sink in. When we can’t get our arguments across, we tear down — not only trying to tear down the leader of the free world, President Trump, we tear down the newly elected leader of Ukraine. This is amazing to me. Sie können Ihren Fall nicht gegen den Präsidenten vorbringen, weil nichts passiert ist, und wenn Präsident Zelensky bestätigt, dass nichts passiert ist, fangen wir an, ihn niederzureißen. Ich hätte nie gedacht, dass wir den Ozean verlassen würden, um zu versuchen, die Integrität eines Weltführers anzufechten, wie wir es bei den letzten beiden Anhörungen getan haben. Wir haben auch festgestellt – andere Dinge, die wir in unseren sehr minimalen Anhörungen hier in diesem Gremium gefunden haben, sind, dass andere Komitees politische Vendettas gegen hochrangige Mitglieder und andere, einschließlich Pressevertreter, die heute Abend hier sitzen, eingesetzt haben Telefonaufzeichnungen eingeben, Namen nennen. Ich meine, du redest davon, dich zu rächen. Wir nannten Namen, Mr. Nunes, Mr. Solomon, andere, fast vier Nummern, die wir uns ansahen, und niemand wollte es zugeben. Mr. Goldman–Mr. Schiff war natürlich nicht hier – aber selbst Mr. Goldman würde nicht zugeben, wer das gesagt hat, wenn sie einfach die Aufzeichnungen Kongressabgeordneter eins, Kongressabgeordneter zwei, Reporter eins hätten einreichen können. no Sie haben bekommen, was sie wollten. Sie haben ihren Drive-by bekommen. Sie haben ihren politischen Schmutz bekommen. Das ist die Bilanz, die im Justizausschuss aufgebaut wird, keine Bilanz von Tatsachen gegen diesen Präsidenten, eine Bilanz einer demokratischen Partei, die alle Verankerungen von Fairness und gutem Geschmack verloren hat. Das ist es, was wir hier sehen, und wir können heute Abend all die blumigen Eröffnungsstatements haben, die wir wollen, aber sie können sich dieser Tatsache nicht entziehen. Was ist die große Lüge, die hier an uns verübt wird? Die große Lüge ist folgende. Und einer der Demokraten hat dem amerikanischen Volk gesagt, dass sie dies seit 3 Jahren sagen. Die große Lüge, die wir heute Abend verübt hören, ist: Erstens heiligt der Zweck die Mittel. Die Lügen, dass die Schein-Amtsenthebung in Ordnung ist, weil die Bedrohung so real und so dringend und so unmittelbar bevorsteht. Die großen Lügen, dass politische Zweckmäßigkeit ehrenhaft und gerechtfertigt sei, und die Geschichte hat gezeigt, dass dies falsch und gefährlich ist. Die großen Lügen, die Adam Schiff vor Augen geführt hatte, sagte er über die Zusammenarbeit von Präsident Trump mit Russen, und der Bericht von Sonderermittler Mueller entlarvte diese Lüge, aber sie breitet sich jedes Mal, wenn wir uns treffen, wie ein Krebsgeschwür aus. Die großen Lügen, die Beweise für die Amtsenthebung sind erdrückend und unbestritten, die Fakten sind unbestritten. Allein die Tatsache, dass Leute in diesem Ausschuss die Tatsachen bestreiten, macht sie zu umstrittenen Tatsachen, nicht zu unbestrittenen Tatsachen. Das Problem, das wir hier sehen, ist, wenn Sie sogar zu den Artikeln selbst kommen, Machtmissbrauch, wenn Sie sich diese Artikel ansehen und sie mit der Geschichte vergleichen, bin ich froh, dass der Vorsitzende die Geschichte angesprochen hat. Weil ich keine Geschichte schreiben würde. Es wird zu einem späteren Zeitpunkt für uns geschrieben, weil sie nicht immer die Mehrheit sein werden, da er davon sprach, dass dieser Präsident nicht immer Präsident ist. I do believe he will be President for 5 more years. But at this time, there will be a turnover at some point, and what do we have? This is the articles that we wrote after all of these hearings and all of these grand pronouncements, and all these thoughts of crimes in plain sight, we get abuse of power with no real dates on this is the abuse? It is just generic, vague statements. You know why I believe that is, is because the Democrats can’t come up with an argument for it. They don’t have the “who knew it and when they knew it.” All they have is, well, here, members, we are going to give you abuse of power. You go home pick something you don’t like about the President, there is your abuse of power. This is a much about political expediency as it is anything else, and that should never be in Articles of Impeachment. And anybody that defend that is treading on very thin ice. And then obstruction of Congress. The only obstruction we have seen here is obstruction from Chairman Schiff of this investigation. He did not turn over the documents as he was supposed to. We get those last Saturday in a massive document after we have already had a hearing, after we had another– getting ready for another hearing in which we are supposed to lay out the report and tonight, tonight, he sends a letter of classified information that has been classified over to us tonight. Don’t think for a second, American public, that this majority wants you to find the truth. The obstruction has only occurred from Adam Schiff and the HPSCI and the majority keeping people from actually trying to find the truth. That is the only obstruction here, so why don’t we just have that as an obstruction charge, but it will be against Adam Schiff and the majority, not the President. Two articles like that, abuse of power and obstruction of Congress? In 70-something days, the only abuse of power here is the majority racing the fastest they have ever had the clock and the calendar determining what impeachment looks like. That is the abuse of power, as Professor Turley said. But before I finish, I cannot stop without this. The real legacy of this impeachment hearing will not be the removal of Donald Trump as President. In fact, if anything, they see the majority for what they are, on a 3-year vendetta to get someone that they couldn’t beat, and they are desperate to do it before he beats them again next year. Here is the real damage, it is the institutional damage to this body, it is the institutional damage to getting information, even after the hearing started from not having the rules followed, from having this committee as the chairman warned us about 20 years ago when he said, this great committee, the Judiciary Committee, should never accept a report from someone else without verifying it, having hearings to make sure it was there unless, as the chairman said, we become a rubber stamp. I don’t know about you, but I am not a rubber stamp, and I don’t like what I have been forced to do. Sit here, be lectured to by law professors and a staff that does not wear a pin telling us what is relevant or not. We are a rubber stamp of the worst kind because we didn’t even try to make a point. The minority hearing date which, by the way, get ready. We will talk about this more, we are going to talk about it some tonight, and we will get it shot down tomorrow. And Rules Committee will take care of it before reporters and for media and people who have watched this body in the institution that I have loved all of my life and watched this since I was an intern up here being destroyed day after day. If the minority has no rights and one day this majority will be back in the minority, and they will be crying and screaming for minority rights to be upheld, and I will just point back to 2019 and say, This is the year you put a dagger in minority rights. Justify the most basic obligations of this committee have been overrun. So tonight, we have experienced–we are in December. After a year of trashing this institution, a year of trying to trash this administration and this President, we come up with abuse of power and can’t define it? We come up with obstruction of Congress after 72 days. I know they are desperate. You know how I know it? Adam Schiff’s own words yesterday. We can’t go to court. That would take too long. An election is coming. Let me finish the last part of that sentence as he likes to put words into President Trump’s mouth when he faked the call transcript, No, Adam, what you need to continue to say is, we can’t beat him next year. The only thing we need is a 30-second commercial saying we impeached him. That is the wrong reason to impeach somebody and the American people are seeing through this, but at the end of the day, my heart breaks for a committee that has trashed this institution and this is where we are now. With that, I yield back. Chairman Nadler. The gentleman yields back. We will now proceed with 5-minute opening statements from other members of the committee. I now recognize the gentlelady from California, Ms. Lofgren, for 5 minutes. Ms. Lofgren. This is a serious moment for our country. I have worked on presidential impeachments as part of this committee twice before, and a third time brings me no joy. Members of Congress all take an oath to uphold the Constitution when the President violates the constitutional order, we have an obligation to live up to our oath of office to deal with that. Last week, this committee got direct evidence about the President’s actions that threaten our national security, undermine the integrity of the next election, and his violation of his oath. As a staff member to my predecessor, Congressman Don Edwards, I watched his opening in the Nixon impeachment, and it rings true today. He said the value and beauty of our Constitution and representative government, if it is going to work, requires that we all respect and obey the Constitution. It is the compact we have with each other. Put simply, no one is above the law, and the President of the United States must follow the Constitution. President Trump has not only abused his power for the upcoming election, he used a foreign power to do it. George Washington would likely be astonished, since he warned against the insidious wilds of foreign influence. One of my most vivid memories from the 1974 impeachment was Representative Chuck Wiggins, one of the most vigorous defenders of President Nixon when he realized that Nixon had lied to him. I have been waiting for Republican Members here to have their Chuck Wiggins’ moment, but it seems like we live in an alternate reality whereas one columnist recently said, If it swims and quacks like a duck, it is a piano. It is understandable that Republicans feel loyalty to the leader of their party, but loyalty to our country and our Constitution must be greater. I have reviewed what Republican committee members said during the Nixon impeachment. Representative Larry Hogan said, it is not easy for me to align myself against the President, to whom I gave my enthusiastic support. But I cannot, in good conscience, turn away from the evidence. Caldwell Butler, another pro-Nixon Republican said, the misuse of powers is the very essence of tyranny, and that Nixon’s lack of remorse for his misconduct and concern for his constitutional responsibility were a factor in the supporting impeachment. That is a problem today as well. President Trump continues his misconduct. He is not contrite. He poses an ongoing threat. Representative Butler said this about the Republicans, is, we, not the Democrats, who must demonstrate that we are capable of enforcing the high standard. Where are the Caldwell Butlers and Larry Hogans of today in the Republican Party? What is before us is a serious abuse of power and obstruction of Congress, and I hope that every member here will vote their conscience. We are blessed to live in a wonderful free country. An important thing that keeps us free is the Constitution of the United States and the generations of Americans who have defended that Constitution on the battlefield, in the courts, in the Congress. The Founders included the impeachment clause in the Constitution purposefully, and they gave Congress the sole authority to impeach for a reason. If the President who had been granted vast powers abuse that power, threaten the constitutional order, then Congress could and should act to try to curb that abuse. It is the foundation of our free society. The power to impeach is not to punish a President. It is to protect Americans from a President who would abuse his power, upend the constitutional order, and threaten our democracy. Regrettably, President Trump has engaged in the abuse of power. His failure does not permit us to fail to fulfill our oath. It is with considerable regret that I find our country faced with the need to impeach President Trump for his abuse of power, but the future of our democracy and constitutional order require it. And I yield back. Chairman Nadler. The gentlelady yields back. Mr. Sensenbrenner. Mr. Sensenbrenner. Mr. Chairman, I agree with everybody that tonight is a very solemn night. This is the third time in the last 40 years, 45 years that this committee has sat to the Articles of Impeachment against the President of the United States. What we are debating here, in my opinion, is the weakest case in history, and yet, the Democrats have decided to go full speed ahead, again, because of the clock and the calendar, with an incomplete record, simply by using hearsay evidence and trashing the rules of the House every time they can in order to speed things up where they preordained conclusion, and that is a partisan vote for impeachment, something that both the Speaker and the chairman of this committee rejected earlier on when they thought they could make this bipartisan. If they could have made it bipartisan, they blew their opportunity very early on with their trashing of the rules, and the trashing of what has been the history of this committee. Now, let’s look at these two articles. Unlike the Nixon and Clinton impeachment, there is no crime that is alleged to have been committed by the President of the United States. There are policy differences, but I would submit that given the definition of treason, bribery, and other high crimes and misdemeanors, that does not mean that policy differences should be enough to remove a President from office. There is no allegation of bribery in these articles. There is no allegation of extortion. They have defined for themselves what a high crime and misdemeanor will be. This bar is so low that what is happening is that a future President can be impeached for any disagreement when the presidency and the House of Representatives are controlled by different parties. And that goes back to establishing a parliamentary system, which the Framers explicitly rejected at the time of the constitutional convention. And the United Kingdom or Canada or other parliamentary democracies, if the government loses the confidence of a majority of the lower House, the government’s out, and there either is a new government or a new election that happens. The Framers didn’t want that. We had an independent presidency. The President was independently elected. He did not serve at the sufferance of Congress. He served for a fixed term, and it was only if he really obstructed the functions of government or was treasonous, he could be impeached. Now let’s look at obstruction of Congress. Again, in the past, whenever the executive and legislative branches in the United States have had a disagreement, they have gone to court, and the third branch decides this difference. This committee and this majority are so high bound to their clock and their calendar that they will not allow the judicial process to work out. What brought Richard Nixon down, honestly, was the Supreme Court saying that he had to turn over certain documents. And within 2 or 3 weeks after that, the President knew his time was up. The Republicans had convinced him of that, and he resigned mooting out the impeachment. So, yes, the Constitution is at stake. The Framers of our Constitution’s enlightened decisions are at stake. We are not to go on the road to becoming a parliamentary democracy, like England and Canada are. We need an independent President who does not have to suffer to anything a congressional majority might throw at him. That is what the courts are for to figure it out. And I would appeal to my chairman, the majority members of this committee to listen to what Madison and Hamilton had to say during the ratification of the Constitution, and during the debates at the convention. Put aside your partisan politics and don’t listen to what Pelosi, Schiff, and Nadler are telling you, because the future of our country and the viability of our Constitution, as the Framers decided it, are at stake. I yield back. Chairman Nadler. The gentleman yields back. Ms. Jackson Lee. Ms. Jackson Lee. The Constitution begins with, “We, the people of the United States,” among other things, promote the general welfare and establish this Constitution for the United States of America. The President of the United States, Donald J. Trump, perpetrated constitutional crimes. Why does this matter today, now, in this moment of the journey of America’s history? Because truth matters and where truth rests, trust builds. The Constitution is a plain language set of laws that Americans for generations have adhered to and been protected by. It is a list of crimes the Framers feared and are forbidden actions not to be taken by our governors. The Founding Fathers believed the bill of rights is a living document, freedom of speech and privacy, ending slavery. So today, my case will rest on truth and trust. I will ignore the politics of impeachment, but rather, the facts and truth I must abide by. The Congress has the power to impeach the President, the President can be impeached and removed from office for the convictions of treason, bribery, high crimes and misdemeanors. This is the law of the land, so here are the facts: First, President Trump violated his oath of office by placing his personal and political interests above the national interests by scheming to get Ukraine to investigate a potential election opponent. Second, President Trump betrayed the national interest by withholding vital, congressionally appropriated security to a beleaguered and besieged ally facing armed aggression from Russia, America’s implacable foe. Third, the essential purpose of the scheme concocted by President Trump was to enlist a foreign country to help him fix the 2020 presidential election in his favor, the very type of interference our Framers most feared. And then he blocked witnesses and documents obstructing Congress. These acts are precise and evidence-based and must stand the test of truth and trust in a Constitution that has been the foundation of this Nation for centuries. The truth is, this President did ask for a favor, though. Witnesses under oath swore to that. The truth is, $391 million were withheld. The truth is, the only goal of the President’s acts harm the American people, violated his oath, and promoted his 2020 election. Now, truth raises a question again: Did the President follow his oath, another sacred duty, to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, that the law saved a besieged small nation those monies that were needed by Ukraine? Many lives during that time of delay were lost in a country fighting for its survival, yes, and, was America’s national security in jeopardy? Yes. The bright light of this constitutional democracy dimmed because of his acts. The truth is no longer for all; it is for one man, Donald J. Trump, his truth, his way. We must reject that abuse of power, because this is not America, no one is above the law. Reminded of my grandfather who left his native land to join with his wife, and to bring his aspirations and hopes to the United States. I am reminded that he died an early death because of lack of access to healthcare, but yet, I am told he was still inspired by this Nation and I am reminded that my widowed grandmother watched Eric, Alan, and Samuel go off to war in World War II. These are America’s stories, families who believe, and when the Commander in Chief violates his oath and abuses power, corrupts our democracy, it is a continuing threat to our national security. The truth is, it becomes like the leaves on a tree. It falls to the ground, and the trust that is a cornerstone of our democracy, shakes in the stare of a Government no longer for the people and by the people, but a Government led by a President who undermines our democracy over and over again, and even looking forward to interfering with our election in 2020. It matters to the waitress on an early bus for the breakfast shift. It matters to the steel worker helping to build America. It matters to the teacher in our fifth grade social studies class. It matters to a mother kissing her young military recruit before they go off to their service to this Nation. It is important that we begin to understand that we cannot be stopped by distractions. This must be the time when we rise and sacrifice so that the wheels of justice turn toward right, our sacrifice is unselfish, our truth will set this Nation free. For this reason, I vote aye and must vote aye on the Articles of Impeachment, Article I and Article II for his truth is marching on. His truth is marching on. Impeachment cannot be warped by equivocation wrapped in doubt. It must be done, both by the past and present. And the question is, the America that we know and love can it survive the pillars of abuse? No, it cannot, and that is why I put my faith and trust and truth, and that is why we stand tonight for America’s future. I yield back. Chairman Nadler. The gentlelady yields back. Mr. Chabot. Mr. Chabot. Mr. Chairman, as we consider this evening Articles of Impeachment that if adopted by this committee, the full House, and, God forbid, garners a two-thirds vote in the Senate would result in the overturning of a presidential election, it seems appropriate to consider how in the world we got here? We are witnessing, I believe, the most tragic mockery of justice in the history of this Nation. We are witnessing an inexplicable rush to impeach a President who is disliked–no, loathed–by most of my Democratic colleagues and by their supporters. And as a result of that loathing, they see fit to abandon all basic tenets of fairness, due process, and justice guaranteed to every American under the Constitution. After the farce in the Intelligence Committee, we had dumped in our laps a report recommending impeachment with no time to adequately consider or review the materials. So much for the rules allowing members of the Judiciary Committee, or any committee for that matter, to responsibly consider such materials, especially if they are involving something as important as the impeachment and potential removal of the President of the United States. The report from the Intelligence Committee was based largely on testimony taken in secret depositions in the basement of the Capitol Building, which was closed to most Members of Congress, closed to the media, and closed to the American people. If that is not bad enough, the report scandalously published the phone records of the President’s personal attorney, a member of the media, and a fellow member of this body. Under what legal authority these phone records were obtained, we have no idea. Then last Wednesday, this committee, the committee actually charged with handling impeachment, held the first of two hearings in which we heard from exactly zero fact witnesses. On Saturday, the Democrats on this committee announced that they had, without precedent, changed the requirements for impeachment so that the commission of an actual crime would no longer be necessary to satisfy the standard of high crimes and misdemeanors. And they announced that the President would not be permitted to present a case in his own defense. Every school child in America knows that it is improper and unfair to change the rules in the middle of the game, Mr. Chairman. It is an ex post facto law, and forbidden under the Constitution. The flaunting of the law by the majority on this committee has been breathtaking. This past Monday, during our second hearing, again, without any fact witnesses, we had the bizarre situation in which, rather than members questioning witnesses, we had staff questioning staff, and even had a staff witness get up from the witness stand down there, walk over to this dais, and begin questioning another staff witness. At the same time, Republicans on this committee were denied the absolute right to have a minority hearing day, which is guaranteed by this committee’s own rules. The chairman of this committee, and the majority, have seen fit to abuse this committee’s rules and ignore the rights of the minority with impunity. The majority should keep in mind that they will one day be in the minority, and they are setting a precedent in which they will likely one day be the victim themselves. Now, we are debating Articles of Impeachment drafted by the majority on this committee, really by Nancy Pelosi and her cohorts, without any consultation with the minority party and based on what constitutional scholar, Jonathan Turley, called wafer-thin evidence. Tomorrow, this committee will hold a vote to impeach a President without having heard from a single fact witness, and without allowing the minority party the ability to call any witnesses or present any defense. What a travesty of justice. In summary, over the last few weeks, House Democrats have either actively participated in, or acquiesced to, the drafting of Impeachment Articles based solely on evidence collected in secret hearings, closed to the media, and to the American people. Constitutionally prohibited ex post facto rules were welcomed. The President’s Fourth Amendment rights under the Constitution were ignored. The President’s due process rights under the Fifth Amendment, and his right to face his accusers and present a defense under the Sixth Amendment were also totally ignored. If George Orwell had written the script, no one would have believed it. People would say that it is ridiculously implausible, and yet, here we are. To satisfy their bases extreme hatred of President Trump, House Democrats have taken a blow torch to House rules, the rule of law, and, most frighteningly, to the Bill of Rights. This is a sad day in American history, Mr. Chairman. The folks in the liberal media might be cheering you on, but I highly doubt that either history or the American people will judge you so leniently. And I yield back. Chairman Nadler. The gentleman yields back. Mr. Cohen. Mr. Cohen. Thank you Mr. Chairman. Our Constitution embodies our values and laws, and invests the power of our government and the authority of the people expressed through free and fair elections. When President Trump, for his own personal political gain, asked for a “favor” from a foreign leader, he did exactly what our Founding Fathers feared most, he invited the influence of a foreign power into our elections. This is one of the primary reasons the Founders placed impeachment in our Constitution. Last week, Professor Karlan summed up his wrongdoing well, when she stated, quote, “When President Trump invited, indeed demanded, foreign involvement in our upcoming election, he struck at the very heart of what makes this country the republic to which we pledge allegiance. That demand constituted an abuse of power.” She continued on, “Drawing a foreign government into our election process is an especially serious abuse of power because it undermines democracy itself.” It is as if our Founders could see into 2019 and when they did, they saw Donald Trump corrupting our democracy by saying to President Zelensky of Ukraine, “I would like you to do us a favor, though.” President Trump’s subversive and illegal action in seeking foreign interference are an effrontery to our Constitution, and to free and fair elections. They are an affront to our Founders. They are an affront to the suffragists who fought for women’s voting rights. They are an affront to the memory of Medgar Evers, a civil rights leader assassinated in Jackson, Mississippi. They are an affront to the memories of Andrew Goodman, James Cheney, and Michael Shwerner, civil rights workers murdered in Philadelphia, Mississippi, during the freedom summer of 1964, while registering African Americans to vote. They are an affront to the memory of Viola Liuzzo, a mother of five who was murdered by the Ku Klux Klan while she was in Alabama to participate in the Selma to Montgomery march, and they are an affront to the memory of the Reverend Martin Luther King, Jr., who championed the Voting Rights Act of 1965. And they are an affront to every servicemember who has ever fought to defend our Nation and our system of self-government which is based upon free and fair elections. President Trump’s attempt to subvert our election was an attack on America. The President got caught when the whistleblower exposed the President’s scheme. Then the President sought to cover-up the scheme. He stonewalled Congress as we pursued our investigation. He instructed his staff, cabinet, and other Federal officials to do the same. Previous presidents facing impeachment, even President Nixon, cooperated with Congress, but President Trump has thumbed his nose at constitutional power, and he refused to appear to defend himself. Congress is a coequal branch of government and was foremost in the Founders’ minds. They placed Congress first in Article I of the Constitution. President Trump’s obstruction of Congress is an affront to Peter Rodino, who chaired this committee in the summer of 1974 when Congress investigated Nixon’s betrayal of his oath of office. It is also an affront to the memory of Representative Barbara Jordan, who as a member of this committee said she would not, quote, “be an idle spectator to the diminution, the subversion, the destruction of the Constitution.” And it is an affront to the memory of Congressman Elijah Cummings who knew we were better than this. And it is an affront to the many patriots who loved this country enough to defy the President’s tyrannical attempt to prohibit their testimony, including Ambassador Yovanovitch, Ambassador Taylor, Lieutenant Colonel Vindman, and Dr. Fiona Hill. And further, it is an affront to the memory Caldwell Butler, a principled Republican of the Judiciary Committee in 1974. He did not support impeachment before the hearings, but he listened to the evidence and that convinced him. He announced his vote for impeachment by saying, “For years we Republicans have campaigned against corruption and misconduct, but Watergate is our shame.” His sense of right and wrong was inviolate. When his mother warned him that his future would go, quote, “down the drain,” unquote, he responded, “Dear Mother, you are probably right; however, I feel that my loyalty to the Republican Party does not relieve me of the obligation that I have.” His mother was wrong. Representative Butler served for another decade. And President Trump’s obstruction of Congress is an affront to the citizens of my district, all Members of Congress, and all Americans who support free and fair elections. We, the people’s House, have a duty to uphold our oath of office and to be a check on a President who abuses his power, betrays his oath, and corrupts our elections. Those who want to turn a blind eye to President Trump corrupting our democracy will try to get us to look away. We should not look away. I will not look away. I will remember our Founders’ great plan for our great Nation and I will remember the rule of law. Above all, I will adhere to my oath of office. I yield back the balance of my time. Chairman Nadler. The gentleman yields back. Mr. Gohmert? Mr. Gohmert. This is truly a sad day for America. It is a sad week for America. You want to know where the Hogans and Butlers are? They are right here. There are people here willing to vote against our President, but a funny thing happened on the way to this hearing. We just got a report from Obama’s inspector general, and his report confirms what we had a feeling was true, but we were willing to wait and hear what the truth was, and that is, the President, nor his campaign, committed any crimes. For 3 years, we have heard from people that are now in the majority talk about the crimes of the President, and where are they? Well, they kept saying, Mr. President, come in, you got to testify. We will be fair with you. Come tell us about the crimes and here is the crimes you have committed. And where are they now that we have the Articles of Impeachment? A vague abuse of power, obstruction of Congress. The very things the majority has done in preventing us from having the witnesses that could shed light on this, not opinion, but fact witnesses. We needed to hear from those witnesses; people like Sean Misko, Abigail Grace, Eric Ciaramella, Devon Archer, Joe Biden, Nellie Ohr, Alexandra Chalupa, and so many others. They don’t want fact witnesses, let’s hear from professors who hate Donald Trump who are willing to sell their education just to make a point against somebody they don’t like. This is a dangerous, dangerous time in America. They talk about abuse of power, but they are willing to obscure evidence in a basement hearing over and over. They are willing to block witnesses from coming in here and testifying before Congress. They are willing to obtain and publish phone records of people. There are no probable cause. There is no crimes by any of these people, but it reminds me a lot of what happened under the Bush Department of Justice when we got an IG report that said, there were probably over 3,000 national security letters like subpoenas sent out on fishing expeditions. I was outraged. Here I am, Hogan or Butler, and I was talking with Senator Schumer. I was outraged like he was. The report said of the abuses, and I call the White House and I said, this is outrageous. The abuses of Americans’ rights, somebody’s got to answer for this, and we need a new Attorney General, and my mistake was, not demanding a new Director of the FBI, because Mueller stayed and he screwed it up even worse than it had been before. Yes. Some of us stand up and call it like it is no matter which administration is in office and now we have heard from Horowitz, we have heard from Barr and Durham, all 3 years screaming about lies were the real lies. And at some point, I would think, Uh-oh, I am a Democrat. Uh-oh, the report says all these things we said were crimes, they didn’t happen. They didn’t exist. It was all a fabrication and, in fact, all four of those warrants should never have been issued. And I hope some of my friends across the aisle will finally join me in saying, let’s either get rid of the FISA courts, or figure out a way to make them better because they are so abusive and they have been. And my party didn’t want to fix it; their party doesn’t want to fix it. It needs to be fixed. Let me just say, I came in here, I did not want to get emotional, and I have sat through trials that were hard to sit through, but nothing like sitting this week in this committee hearing. Indeed, like Jefferson, I tremble that God is just and his justice won’t sleep forever, but the abuses, the obstruction of Congress, have come from Congress. I would have expected Donald Trump to just say, You came after me, my business associates, my family now. I am going back and I am going to make billions of dollars, the heck with you guys, but he has hung in there. It is amazing. At some point, the majority has got to say–they probably won’t–we are really sorry. There was nothing on which to base all those allegations of crimes on and we owe you indeed apology. Let’s see the Hogans and Butlers in the Democratic Party. Hadn’t seen one yet. Yield back. Chairman Nadler. The gentleman yields back. Mr. Johnson. Mr. Johnson of Georgia. Thank you Mr. Chairman. Until this investigation began, I did not support impeaching President Trump and I would like to tell you all what changed my mind. America first. We have heard those words a lot recently. We haven’t always agreed on what they mean, but we know this: Our Founders created impeachment so that no President could place himself above the law. Impeachment gives Congress the ability and the responsibility to put America first. I don’t take that responsibility lightly. While I didn’t vote for President Trump, I respect the office that he holds. I didn’t call for impeachment when the President shut down our government or tried to rip healthcare from those with preexisting conditions, or embarrassed us on the world stage, or pardoned political cronies, or took money from our troops to fund his wall, or tore babies from their mothers at the border. I didn’t call for his impeachment then, not because I supported this President’s actions, I simply felt that impeachment should be reserved for moments when our democracy itself is in danger. When the sign says, in case of emergency, break glass, there better be one heck of an emergency. I did not call for impeachment before, but I call for impeachment today because this is one heck of an emergency. The facts are clear: President Trump undermined America’s foreign policy to pursue what his own national security staff called a domestic, political errand. He withheld military aid, putting America’s national security at risk in what his hand-picked ambassador called a quid pro quo. President Trump didn’t just abuse his power with Ukraine, he made them an offer they could not refuse–help me get re- elected, or you won’t get the assistance you desperately need from the United States of America. And then he tried to cover it up, but fortunately, we the people, are not as dumb as President Trump thinks we are. If you break the law and withhold documents, we know it is not because those documents make you look good, maybe that is why more Americans support impeachment now than at any time since Richard Nixon’s final weeks, or maybe it is because the American people understand how much is at stake. President Trump’s high crimes threaten our democracy itself. I am a black man representing Georgia, born when Jim Crow was alive and well. To me, the idea that elections can be undermined is not theoretical. I have constituents who remember what it is like to live in a democracy in name only and they can tell you what it is like when powerful men undermine fair and free elections. They know our Democratic process is fragile. We are here because President Trump tried to sabotage that Democratic process. He didn’t want to let the voters decide. He decided to cheat in the upcoming election and he got caught. Let me remind my colleagues there is no such thing as attempted cheating. If a child copies off a test and a teacher catches them in the act, it is not okay just because that child didn’t get away with it. The cheater got caught, and President Trump got caught. We know there was a conspiracy, a crime, and a cover-up. There is only one thing we don’t know, what will Congress do about it? Will we hold the President accountable, or will we serve as his accomplices? We are not voting on whether President Trump should remain in office. That is the Senate’s job. Our job today is simply to decide whether the President crossed a line. If you truly believe President Trump’s behavior was acceptable, then by all means give him the green light to undermine our democracy again. But if you know what the American people know, that this moment is different, and our very republic is at stake, then it is not too late. Put the law above the President, put your oath above your political ambition, put the country we all love above the interest of just one man. Put America first. And I yield back. Chairman Nadler. The gentleman yields back. Mr. Jordan. Mr. Jordan. They are never going to stop. Congressman Green said yesterday if the Senate doesn’t convict, it will not end. This is not about Ukraine. Facts are on the President’s side. Zelensky said he wasn’t pressured. Ukrainians didn’t even know aid was held at the time of the call, and, most importantly, they did nothing to get the aid released. This is about one basic fact: The Democrats have never accepted the will of the American people. Three weeks ago, Nancy Pelosi called the President of the United States an imposter and the attacks on the President started before the election. July 31, 2016, the FBI opened the Trump-Russia investigation and spied on four American citizens associated with President Trump’s campaign. They took the dossier to the FISA court and they lied to the court 17 times. Didn’t tell the court the guy who wrote the dossier was desperate to stop Trump, didn’t tell the court the guy who wrote the dossier was working for the Clinton campaign, didn’t tell the court that the guy who wrote the dossier had been fired by the FBI for leaking information to the press. And the FBI continued the investigation after the election. Mr. Jordan. On January 3, 2017, Senator Schumer said this: If you mess with the intelligence community, they have six ways from Sunday of getting back at you. It took all of 3 days for that statement to come true. January 6, at Trump Tower, Jim Comey briefs President-elect Trump on the dossier, the dossier that the FBI already knew was false. They do it so that they can leak it to the press and the press will write about the fact they briefed him. The President was told he wasn’t under investigation when, in fact, they were investigating him and trying to trap him at that meeting. And, of course, they continued their investigation after the inauguration. When we deposed Jim Comey in this committee, last Congress, he said after 10 months of the FBI’s investigation they didn’t have a thing. Comey gets fired on May 9, 2017. Eight days later, Bob Mueller gets hired and we get 2 years of the Mueller investigation–19 lawyers, 40 agents, 500 warrants, 2,800 subpoenas, but zero collusion. But Democrats don’t care about the facts, and they are never going to stop. The whistleblower’s lawyer said 10 days after the President was sworn in: Coup has started, impeachment to follow. Sixteen Democrats on this committee voted to move forward with impeachment before Bob Mueller ever sat in front of this committee and testified, before President Trump and President Zelensky ever had their call. They are never going to stop with their attacks because they can’t stand the fact that President Trump is actually draining the swamp and doing what he said he would do, and most importantly, getting results: taxes cut, regulations reduced, economy growing at an unbelievable pace, lowest unemployment in 50 years, Gorsuch and Kavanaugh on the Court, out of the Iran deal, embassy in Jerusalem, hostages home from North Korea, and, oh, by the way a new NAFTA agreement coming any day now. They can’t stand it, and they are never going to stop. And it is not just because they don’t like the President. It is not just because they don’t like the President. They don’t like us. They don’t like the 63 million people who voted for this President, all of us in flyover country, all of us common folk in Ohio, Wisconsin, Tennessee, and Texas. They don’t like us. How about what Ms. Karlan said last week sitting right there, a Democrat professor who came in here and told us what she believes: Liberals tend to cluster; conservatives spread out because they don’t even want to be around themselves. How about our colleague, Maxine Waters, June of 2018, when she said this: And if you see anybody from that Cabinet in a restaurant, in a department store, at a gasoline station, you get out and you create a crowd and you push back on them and you tell them they are not welcome anymore, anywhere. That is scary. How about Peter Strzok, the guy who ran the Clinton investigation, the guy who ran the Trump-Russia investigation, the deputy head of counterintelligence who was fired when he said this: Went to a southern Virginia Wal-Mart. I can smell the Trump support. They don’t like us. That is what this is about. They don’t like the President. They don’t like the President’s supporters. And they dislike us so much they are willing to weaponize the government. A few years ago it was the IRS. More recently, it was the FBI. And now it is the impeachment power of Congress, going after 63 million people and the guy we put in the White House. Think about what Chairman Schiff did last week. He released the phone records of the President’s personal lawyer, he released the phone records of a member of the press, and he released the phone records of a Republican Member of Congress. This is scary stuff. This is scary stuff, what they are doing. And, frankly, it is dangerous for our country. It is not healthy for our country. And we should all remember what Emmet Flood told us, the President’s lawyer, what he told us this past spring when the Mueller report first came out: It would be well to remember that what can be done to a President can be done to any of us. This is scary stuff and serious stuff, and I hope you guys will reconsider and stop it while you can. I yield back. Chairman Nadler. The gentleman yields back. Mr. Deutch. Mr. Deutch. I have been worried about the impact of President Trump’s attacks against our democracy and how they are felt by my kids, and how they are felt by our kids, by a younger generation that is just beginning to vote, that is just beginning to lead. And so I asked my kids on our family group text what they thought at this moment. And they responded almost immediately, and they told me what they were feeling and what their friends were feeling. And they confirmed the worst: Their faith in our democracy is shaken. One of my kids said: Trump has made me feel like our country is failing. He has taken away America’s common sense. Another said: If our democracy is fragile enough to be manipulated by the President, then I worry for our future as a country. Why is our democracy so fragile? Well, the President smears the press as the enemy of the people. He attacks verifiable facts and calls them fake news. He attacks his opponents in the ugliest and the most hateful ways. He degrades diplomats and he lashes out at law enforcement. He questions the patriotism of those who have bled on our battlefields. He questions America’s leadership in the world. He believes Russia over our intelligence community, Russia over our NATO allies, Russia over Ukraine. All these things break long-held American positions of leadership in the world, and they will all be a part of the next election. But we are here at this moment to protect that election. The President’s ongoing attacks on the 2020 elections and his effort to cover it up, that is why we are here tonight, the President’s abuses of power to cheat America’s voters and threaten our national security. He welcomed Russian interference in the 2016 election. He solicited interference by Ukraine and by China in our 2020 election. The ongoing pattern of this President’s abuse of power, his obstruction of investigations, refusing to turn over even one document, that is what requires us to act now. This is a moment that the President has forced upon us. These are the high crimes that violate the supreme law of our Nation, the Constitution of the United States. When my kids were younger we taught them to tell the truth. We all teach our kids to tell the truth. If you have got nothing to hide, honesty is the clearest path to putting trouble behind you. You know that is true. Everyone does. If the President had not abused his power, if everything he did was truly perfect, he would have asked–no, he would have demanded that everyone who works for him come forward and tell the truth and bring all of their documents with them, let them speak, let them all speak. But instead of ordering his staff to tell the truth, he silenced them. What message does that send the next generation of American voters, the next generation of American leaders? The President violated his oath of office to defend and protect the Constitution. We cannot allow our children to believe that the abuse of power by the strongest leader in our country is acceptable or that it is normal. Yesterday, my daughter sent another text. She said: It feels like we are losing the battle to get people to care about democracy. I am worried we won’t be able to fix it. President Trump’s violations threaten to break the foundation of our democracy. Impeachment, and removal from office, is the only way to fix it. I yield back. Chairman Nadler. The gentleman yields back. Mr. Gohmert. Point of order. Chairman Nadler. The gentleman will state his point of order. Mr. Gohmert. We started this proceeding tonight, and we on the minority side do not have the current amendment in the nature of a substitute to H. Res. 755, because the one we have says the abuse of power is Article I and the other is obstruction of Congress. Chairman Nadler. The gentleman—- Mr. Gohmert. And we keep hearing about crimes. Chairman Nadler. The gentleman—- Mr. Gohmert. We should be able to have the amendment that includes the crimes you are talking about. Chairman Nadler. The gentleman will suspend. That is not a point of order. Mr. Buck. Mr. Buck. Thank you Mr. Chairman. How will history judge this impeachment? I believe the American people will remember this impeachment effort unkindly, instead remembering Democrats have been resisting and looking for an excuse to impeach this President since the day he was elected. There were false charges that pro-Trump Russians had shut down the power grids in Vermont. A frivolous lawsuit was filed claiming voting machines were rigged in three States. More than 50 House Democrats boycotted President Trump’s swearing-in ceremony, including the chairman of this committee. The Washington Post ran an article titled, “The Campaign to Impeach President Trump Has Begun,” on January 17, 2017. Strangely enough, the article was posted at 12:19 p.m. while the inaugural ceremonies were still happening. The ACLU’s executive director stated, “We think that President Trump will be in violation of the Constitution and Federal statutes on day one.” Then the genre of assassination and personal harm began with Kathy Griffin posing with a model of Trump’s severed head. And actor Robert De Niro using his Tony Award’s speech to say: Eff Trump. I would like to punch him in the face. Then came the efforts to impeach based on the Emoluments Clause and calls to remove President Trump under the 25th amendment due to insanity. Then bureaucrats and President Obama’s holdover appointees began to run roughshod on the Constitution by resisting from within the administration. On March 21, 2017, Representative Maxine Waters tweeted, “Get ready for impeachment.” March 21, 2017. On May 16, 2017, a Representative from this committee became the second Member of the House to raise the topic of future impeachment proceedings. Representatives Brad Sherman and Al Green introduced the Democrats’ first impeachment resolution for obstruction of justice and Russian interference in July of 2017. Representative Cohen, then the ranking member on the Subcommittee on the Constitution and Civil Justice, introduced five Articles of Impeachment against President Trump in November of 2017. Representative Tlaib said, “We are going to impeach the blank,” during a January 3, 2019, swearing-in ceremony. What about May 6, 2019, when Representative Al Green said: I am concerned that if we don’t impeach this President, he will get reelected. Then Democrats cannot let go of the Russian collusion story, even after Special Counsel Robert Mueller stated in his report that the Trump campaign did not coordinate with Russia. In fact, when Representative Green forced a vote, 95 colleagues of ours voted in favor of proceeding to impeachment on July 17, 2019. Sixteen of our Democratic colleagues on this committee voted for that. It is clear that my Democrat colleagues have prejudged this case. They have ignored the President’s right to assert executive privilege, asserting that a court case to determine the bounds of the President’s privilege will take too long to serve justice to the American people. Democrats are so righteous in their belief that President Trump must be impeached that they ignore plain facts. Professor Turley was right when he said this impeachment, quote, “will be the shortest investigation, producing the thinnest record of wrongdoing, for the narrowest impeachment in history,” end of quote. At the end of the day, I want to invoke the words of my colleague from the Rules Committee, Congressman Alcee Hastings, who said during one debate with the majority’s efforts–that the majority’s efforts would backfire. He said: “You will lose. This will cost you the majority next year, and some of you aren’t going to be here in the next Congress. I hope you have had your fun.” Well, I tell my colleagues, go ahead, vote to impeach President Trump tomorrow. But when you walk out of this hearing room, call your freshman colleagues and tell them they are not coming back and you hope they have had their fun. Say goodbye to your majority status. And please join us in January of 2021 when President Trump is inaugurated again. I yield back. Chairman Nadler. The gentleman yields back. Ms. Bass. Ms. Bass. Mr. Chairman, this is a sad day in U.S. history when we have to vote on Articles of Impeachment because Donald Trump has abused the power of the Office of the Presidency in his attempt to cheat his way to reelection. This evening we will begin the process because of the uncontested facts. President Trump directed military aid approved by Congress be withheld until a vulnerable ally publicly announced an investigation of the President’s top opponent in the upcoming election. Fortunately, he was caught in the act by a brave patriot who took the risk of anonymously reporting, and military assistance was finally released. However, during the 8 weeks that President Trump withheld military aid from our ally, at least 13 Ukrainians died in the field. Now, I know Ukraine is far away and it might be difficult to imagine how and why this country should be of any concern to us here. In part, it is a matter of us honoring our commitments. But it is more than that. When countries are unstable, they can collapse, become failed states, and can be taken over by governments hostile to the U.S. or become fertile ground for terrorist organizations. The President comprised our national security for his personal gain when military assistance was withheld from Ukraine that left this country vulnerable to a neighbor that had already invaded its territory. As a member of the Foreign Affairs Committee, I regularly meet with heads of state, and I often have to apologize for some embarrassing statement or tweet the President has made. Since the Ukraine scandal, I have faced questions from leaders around the world. They ask: What is going on here? Where does the U.S. stand in regard to past commitments? Is this Presidency just an anomaly, or has the U.S. Presidency been permanently diminished, weakened, corrupted? Has something fundamentally changed in the U.S.? The world is watching how we handle this crisis. There are many nations attempting to reestablish or create democratic governments after decades of autocratic or corrupt rule, and they are looking to the United States. When Members of Congress travel on congressional delegations, we emphasize the importance of adhering to the rule of law. We encourage leaders to conduct free, fair, and transparent elections that are supported by and accountable to their citizens. Now, Members of Congress have to acknowledge the challenges we face in our country, but we explain that because of the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights, when efforts are made to restrict and limit the right to vote, we are free to speak out and challenge our government. We preach good governance and transparency. We insist that countries fight corruption. And one of the best ways to counter abuse is to encourage people to come forward and report, but to ensure that when people do come forward they are protected and remain anonymous. We explain that in the U.S. there are specific laws that protect people who come forward. Congressional delegations come and go, but there are thousands of Federal employees who live and work around the world from the State Department, USAID. These patriots work in difficult conditions. What message does it send around the world when they see the President and his supporters attack and attempt to reveal the identity of the patriot who took the risk that exposed Trump’s abuse of his Presidency, his abuse of power? What message does it send when the world witnesses the President and his supporters denigrate, disrespect, and via Twitter harass a patriot while she was testifying in public? He has compromised their ability to fight for our values and democracy. This is another example of why the actions of this President threatens U.S. national security. The President’s defenders shout, coup, hoax, and demonstrate their 150 percent loyalty to the President while off the record acknowledge his wrongdoing. People from around the world understand this as autocratic behavior. They know if they step out of line they might lose their lives, or in this instance, they might lose their election. The President has forbidden everyone in the administration from cooperating even when subpoenaed, leaving the only tool available to us impeachment. This is not a coup, and it is irresponsible to label a constitutional process a coup. It is the responsibility of this committee to follow the Constitution. The world is waiting to see if we will hold ourselves to the democratic principles we insist that others uphold. Will we demonstrate our ability to peacefully hold our leaders accountable? We have an opportunity to show the world how a mature democracy handles a crisis. We have an opportunity to show the world that our democracy remains strong and it is this President that is an anomaly. We have an opportunity to demonstrate to the world and in the United States no one is above the law, including President Trump. This is why we must adopt Articles of Impeachment and take the first step toward relieving our Nation and the world of this Presidency. I yield back. Chairman Nadler. The gentlelady yields back. Mr. Ratcliffe. Mr. Ratcliffe. I thank the chair. Article I, section 2, clause 5 of the Constitution gives the House of Representatives the sole power of impeachment. The Constitution authorizes impeachment only on the basis of treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors. That is the express criteria. Those are the only constitutional grounds we have to act upon. Today we are marking up two Articles of Impeachment, abuse of power and obstruction of Congress. Nowhere does the Constitution mention either one. Neither meets the written criteria set forth by the Founders. Neither one has ever been sustained as the basis for impeachment. Which explains why I had two Members of Congress, one Republican and one Democrat, approach me on the floor yesterday to ask me exactly what obstruction of Congress means. They asked because they had never heard of it before. We are marking up Articles of Impeachment for offenses that aren’t crimes, that some Members of Congress have never heard of before, much less know what it means. The Democrats keep repeating over and over again: The President is not above the law. I have said it before, the President is not above the law, but he damn sure shouldn’t be below it either. I have said it before because Democrats have tried this before. During the Mueller hearing Democrats said repeatedly, emphatically, unequivocally that Donald Trump must be impeached for obstruction of justice. That was until they heard the special counsel admit to me that his obstruction of justice analysis was done under a one-of-a-kind, never before used by the Department of Justice legal standard that inverted a presumption of innocence to a presumption of guilt. Now the Democrats are taking it one step further. Instead of creating legal standards out of thin air, they are creating impeachable offenses out of thin air. Whatever happened to quid pro quo, extortion, and bribery? The Democrats have been telling us, it was clear, the facts were undisputed, the evidence was overwhelming. Except it wasn’t any of those things and now it is all gone. Instead they have reached in to the grab bag for a nebulous abuse of power accusation that legal scholars admit is not a crime. And now Democrats say the President obstructed Congress in its investigation into an alleged quid pro quo extortion bribery scheme that they now have to concede never existed in the first place. Gee, where have I heard that before? I remember, it was when my same colleagues across the aisle first falsely accused the President of collusion and conspiracy with Russia. And when that fell apart, they accused him of obstructing justice into their investigation of false conspiracy and collusion allegations. Every time Democrats get caught trying to frame this President with some crime he didn’t commit, they follow up by accusing him of obstructing their efforts to frame him for the things that he never did in the first place. I would like to say you can’t make this stuff up, but it is all made up. I have got to concede, though, to my colleagues, you all move fast. The day after we watched the Russian conspiracy and obstruction of justice claims from the special counsel go down like the Hindenberg, the next frame job started with a phone call where the only two people on the call both said it was a great call and none of the things that the Democrats allege happened. But I will admit, this time it is hard to blame some of my colleagues on this committee for doing too much this time around. I concede that because the once-respected House Judiciary Committee with jurisdiction over the Constitution and impeachment was humiliatingly excluded until the bitter end from participating at all in matters involving the Constitution and impeachment. One week. History will reflect that the House Judiciary Committee’s involvement in the impeachment of President Donald J. Trump started with a hearing on Wednesday, December 4, and ended with a markup that started 7 days later on Wednesday, December 11. How does that sound for fairness? How does that sound for due process? The Founders warned and feared that today might come. Alexander Hamilton said the greatest danger of impeachment would be depriving a President of due process. The greatest danger, Hamilton said, would be if impeachment was used politically by a party that had the most votes in the House instead of being used on the basis of guilt or innocence for specified crimes under the Constitution. And today the committee of jurisdiction, after only 1 week, is marking up a bill to impeach a President for crimes that aren’t specified under the Constitution by the party that has the most votes in the House and pledged to impeach him from the first day of his Presidency. Today’s Democrats are the Founders’ worst nightmare come true. Right now, I imagine most Americans are thinking: If only we could impeach them. To those Americans, I say: You can, next November. Chairman Nadler. The gentleman’s time has expired. Mr. Richmond. Mr. Richmond. Thank you Mr. Chairman. President Trump, on January 20, 2017, you raised your hand and swore to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution. Now we must preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution from you. Donald Trump once bragged he could shoot someone on 5th Avenue and get away with it. Well, he is shooting holes in our Constitution on Pennsylvania Avenue. We can’t let him get away with it. The Constitution was written and signed over 232 years ago. Since then, we have elected 45 Presidents. In all that time only four occasions has the House of Representatives considered Articles of Impeachment. So I do not take this lightly. I take it seriously. I take it very, very seriously. I have heard Republicans say: Why are we rushing to judgment? This is not a rush to judgment. It is a rush to justice. And we must not delay. Corruption is corrosive. It eats away like acid. And the longer we wait the more time we allow for this President to do irreparable damage to our country and our democracy. My Lord, just last week the President’s political crony, Rudy Giuliani, was back at it in Ukraine–Ukraine–continuing to create new conspiracy theories. So, please, don’t tell us to wait, because the corruption continues. In trying times like this, many people in this room look for guidance in Scripture. Look no further than the story of Esther. Esther summoned the courage to stand up to the king and speak truth to power. Under threat of execution, she refused to hide, saying: “If I parish, I parish.” She was willing to lose her life to save her people, and some people in this room aren’t willing to lose an election to save our democracy. The truth is staring us in our face. President Trump sent roughly $250 million in military aid to Ukraine in 2017. No problem. He sent nearly $300 million in military aid in 2018. No problem. So what was the problem in 2019? He was behind in the polls to Joe Biden. Even FOX News polls showed he was losing. He panicked and he concocted this outlandish, corrupt conspiracy. He withheld congressionally approved military aid for Ukraine until Ukraine agreed to do him a personal favor, and that personal favor was to announce a bogus investigation against the very person beating him in the polls. You don’t need Sherlock Holmes to figure this one out. We have the evidence. The transcript of the call is a crystal clear confession. His chief of staff, co-conspirator admitted to it in the White House press briefing room. We have hours of testimony from State Department witnesses, confessions, admissions, witnesses, video. We have everything but DNA. What else do you need? You need the courage of Esther. The Constitution does vest the President with certain powers, but not the power to lie, not the power to obstruct, not the power to cheat our democracy, not the power to threaten our national security. There is no question that the President has abused his power. If we allow this, look the other way, say it is just politics, what are we telling other nations about the rule of law? What are we saying about our democracy? What are we showing our children if we cower to a bully with a bully pulpit? During the darkest days of the revolution, Thomas Paine wrote: “These are the times that try men’s souls. The summer soldier and the sunshine patriot will, in this crisis, shrink from the service of their country.” To my Republican colleagues, fighting when it is comfortable is easy. Running and hiding is easy. But it doesn’t leave a legacy. How do you want to be remembered during this watershed moment in our Nation’s history? I ask my Republican colleagues, will you stand with President Trump and allow your legacy to be tied to his actions? If the tables were turned, do you think he would stand with you? And let me conclude by reminding the members of this committee, on both sides of the aisle, we each took an oath as well. We solemnly swore that when the time came we would, and I quote, support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that we would bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that we take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion. Members of this committee, Members of this House, that time has come. The time has come to be the winter soldier. The time has come to show the courage of Esther. And with that, I yield back. Chairman Nadler. The gentleman yields back. Mrs. Roby. Mrs. Roby. I have made clear how woefully incomplete this process has been, how the minority’s rights to a hearing have been completely disregarded, how no fact witnesses were called before us, and how staff questioning staff to get the truth was bizarre. No matter what any member on this side says here tonight, the majority will unanimously vote to send these Articles of Impeachment to the House floor. However, I have a duty to continue to point out how flawed this process has been. All Members of Congress are required to take an oath of office at the beginning of every Congress. By taking this oath we swear above all else to defend the Constitution of the United States. I have the distinct honor to represent the hardworking people of southeast Alabama. They have placed their trust in me to represent their values and be their voice here in Congress. This revered and longstanding oath serves as a guiding principle for every decision I make as a Member of Congress. For the record, let me be clear: I believe in the rule of law. I believe that no person is above the law. I believe process is vital to this very institution. I have stated time and time again before this committee, process matters. Without abiding by a framework that adheres to our constitution, we are charting a course that does not follow our country’s founding principles. Whether you identify as a Republican, a Democrat, or independent, whether you agree or disagree with the President’s policies, whether you like or even dislike a President, the American people should feel cheated by what has taken place here. We sit here tonight without all the facts of the case because the majority decided to conduct an incomplete and inadequate pursuit of the truth. Many questions remain. With the consequential decision of impeaching a President, it is our right and duty to the citizens of this country to properly use the powers of congressional oversight to adjudicate impasses through the courts and arrive at actual undisputed facts of a case that all Americans, regardless of ideology, can agree are truthful and honest. In the impeachment proceedings of President Nixon, the underlying facts were undisputed. In the impeachment proceedings of President Clinton, the underlying facts were also undisputed. Here before us tonight that is not the case. The Articles of Impeachment before us in this committee do not meet the necessary requirements nor have they followed an exhaustive pursuit to even find out all of the facts of the case. Therefore, the bar to impeach a sitting President of the United States has not been met. For the sake of our country and for the future trajectory of this body, I implore my colleagues to take a hard look at the course of this investigation. It has severely discounted the tenets of our democratic system. Tomorrow we write history, a history that cannot be undone. A dangerous precedent will be set for future majorities of this body. The American people deserve a process that puts politics aside. The American people deserve a process that is led by our promise to protect and defend the Constitution. The American people simply deserve better. And with that, Mr. Chairman, I would like to yield the remainder of my time to Mr. Collins. Mr. Collins. Thank you for yielding. I just want to repeat. We are in an interesting situation. We can make up facts or we can not make up facts. But there is one fact that needs to be refuted, and that is the idea that lives were lost during the pause. And Under Secretary Hale testified that funds were prospective in this. In fact, on page 85 of his testimony, he said: Bear this in mind, this is future assistance. This is not to keep the Army going now. It is to help them in the future. And so to be careless with the facts on primetime, to say that people’s lives were lost in this, is just categorically wrong. If we actually had a chance to actually go to lessons of the testimony, we would actually see that in the testimony of Under Secretary Hale as we go forward. Again, it is amazing to me, some people are saying you don’t attack the substance. We attack the substance. It is real simple. They got the aid. They didn’t do anything to get it. And we are attacking the fact that there is no way for us to even have talked about this because this process has been such a rushed process. But that is something that is just not right to say, and when no one else can check it, when actually Professor Hale said it, and he said that was prospective, not now.Related searches to Meet Debbie Mucarsel-Powell Husband Robert Powell And Explore Her Net Worth And Kids
Information related to the topic Meet Debbie Mucarsel-Powell Husband Robert Powell And Explore Her Net Worth And Kids
Here are the search results of the thread Meet Debbie Mucarsel-Powell Husband Robert Powell And Explore Her Net Worth And Kids from Bing. You can read more if you want.
You have just come across an article on the topic Meet Debbie Mucarsel-Powell Husband Robert Powell And Explore Her Net Worth And Kids. If you found this article useful, please share it. Thank you very much.
Articles compiled by Bangkokbikethailandchallenge.com. See more articles in category: DIGITAL MARKETING