-No matter his party or his politics,
if the President places his own interests
above those of the country, he betrays his oath of office.
The President of the United States,
the Speaker of the House,
the Majority Leader of the Senate,
the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court,
and the Chairman and the Ranking Members
of the House Committee on the Judiciary
all have one important thing in common --
we have each taken an oath to preserve, protect,
and defend the Constitution of the United States.
If the President puts himself before the country,
he violates a President's most basic responsibility.
He breaks his oath to the American people.
If he puts himself before the country
in a manner that threatens our democracy,
then our oath, our promise to the American people,
requires us to come to the defense of the nation.
That oath stands even when it is politically inconvenient,
even when it might bring us under criticism,
even when it might cost us our jobs as members of Congress.
And even if the President is unwilling to honor his oath,
I am compelled to honor mine.
As we heard in our last hearing, the framers of the Constitution
were careful students of history and clear
in their vision for the new nation.
They knew that threats to democracy can take many forms
and that we must protect against them.
They warned us against the dangers of would-be
monarchs, fake populists, and charismatic demagogues.
They knew that the most dangerous threat to our country
might come from within,
in the form of a corrupt executive
who put his private interests
above the interests of the nation.
They also knew that they could not anticipate every threat
a President might someday pose, so they adopted the phrase
"treason, bribery, and other high crimes and misdemeanors"
to capture the full spectrum of possible
Presidential misconduct.
George Mason, who proposed this standard,
said that it was meant to capture all manner of great
and dangerous offenses against the Constitution.
The debates around the framing make clear
that the most serious such offenses include abuse of power,
betrayal of the nation through foreign entanglements,
and corruption of public office.
Any one of these violations of the public trust
would compel the members of this Committee to take action.
When combined in a single course of action,
they state the strongest possible case for impeachment
and removal from office.
President Trump put himself before country.
Despite the political partisanship
that seems to punctuate our hearings these days,
I believe that there is common ground
around some of these ideas --
common ground in this hearing room,
and common ground across the country at large.
We agree, for example, that impeachment is a solemn,
serious undertaking.
We agree that it is meant to address serious threats
to democratic institutions like our free and fair elections.
We agree that when the elections themselves are threatened
by enemies foreign or domestic,
we cannot wait until the next election to address the threat.
We surely agree that no public official,
including and especially
the President of the United States,
should use his public office for private gain.
And we agree that no President may put himself
before the country.
The Constitution and his oath of office,
his promise to America's citizens,
require the President to put the country first.
If we could drop our blinders for just one moment,
I think we would agree on a common set of facts, as well.
On July 25th,
President Trump called President Zelensky of Ukraine
and asked him for a favor.
That call was part of a concerted effort
by President Trump to compel the government of Ukraine
to announce an investigation.
Not an investigation of corruption writ large,
but an investigation of President Trump's
political rivals, and only his political rivals.
President Trump put himself before country.
The record shows that President Trump withheld military aid,
allocated by the United States Congress, from Ukraine.
It also shows that he withheld a White House
meeting from President Zelensky.
Multiple witnesses, including respected diplomats,
national security professionals, and decorated war veterans,
all testified to the same basic fact --
President Trump withheld the aid and the meeting in order
to pressure a foreign government to do him that favor.
President Trump put himself before country.
And when the President got caught,
when Congress discovered
that the aid had been withheld from Ukraine,
the President took extraordinary and unprecedented steps
to conceal evidence from Congress
and from the American people.
These facts are not in dispute.
In fact, most of the arguments about these facts
appear to be beside the point.
As we review the evidence today,
I expect we will hear much about the whistleblower
who brought his concerns about the July 25th call
to the Inspector General of the Intelligence Community.
Let me be clear -- every fact alleged
by the whistleblower has been substantiated
by multiple witnesses again and again,
each of whom has been questioned extensively by Democrats
and Republicans alike.
The allegations also match up with the President's own words,
as released by the White House --
words that he still says were perfect.
I also expect to hear complaints about the term "quid pro quo,"
as if a person needs to verbally acknowledge the name of a crime
while he is committing it for it to be a crime at all.
The record on this point is also clear --
multiple officials testified that the President's demand
for an investigation into his rivals
was a part of his personal political agenda,
and not related to the foreign policy objectives
of the United States.
Multiple officials testified that the President
intended to withhold the aid
until Ukraine announced the investigations.
And yes, multiple officials testified
that they understood this arrangement
to be a quid pro quo
for the President's personal political benefit.
President Trump put himself before country.
The President's supporters are going to argue
that this whole process is unfair.
The record before us is clear on this point, as well.
We invited the President to participate in this hearing,
to question witnesses, and to present evidence
that might explain the charges against him.
President Trump chose not to show.
He may not have much to say in his own defense,
but he cannot claim that he did not have
an opportunity to be heard.
Finally, as we proceed today, we will hear a great deal
about the speed with which the House
is addressing the President's actions.
To the members of the Committee, to the members of the House,
and to my fellow citizens, I want to be absolutely clear.
The integrity of our next election is at stake.
Nothing could be more urgent.
The President welcomed foreign interference
in our elections in 2016.
He demanded it for 2020.
Then he got caught.
If you do not believe that he will do it again,
let me remind you that the President's personal lawyer
spent last week back in Ukraine
meeting with government officials
in an apparent attempt to gin up the same so-called favors
that brought us here today and forced Congress
to consider the impeachment of a sitting President.
This pattern of conduct
represents a continuing risk to the country.
The evidence shows that Donald J Trump,
the President of the United States,
has put himself before his country.
He has violated his most basic responsibilities to the people.
He has broken his oath. I will honor mine.
If you would honor yours, then I would urge you to your duty.
Let us review the record here,
in full view of the American people,
and then let us move swiftly to defend our country.
We promised that we would.
I now recognize the ranking member
of the Judiciary Committee, the gentleman from Georgia --
-Mr Chairman, have you unanimous consent?
-The gentleman from Georgia is recognized.
The gentleman from Georgia is recognized after that.
The gentleman from Georgia is recognized.
-So you're not going to recognize
a possible motion before me?
-Unanimous consent, Mr Chairman. -Unanimous consent request.
Unanimous consent request.
-The gentleman from Georgia is recognized.
We'll entertain that later.
-Point of order, Mr Chairman.
-The gentleman from Georgia is recognized.
-Mr Chairman, I have a point of order.
-The gentleman will state his point of order.
-Mr Chairman, last week you were furnished with a proper demand
for minority hearing pursuant to Clause 2J1 of Rule 11.
In a blatant, egregious violation of those rules,
you are refusing to schedule that hearing.
Therefore, I insist on my point of order
unless you are willing to immediately schedule
a minority hearing day.
-That is not a proper point of order in today's hearing.
As I have told the ranking member several times now,
I am considering the minority's request.
-It's not to be considered, Mr Chairman.
-The gentleman will suspend.
If the ranking member thinks we would be violating
the rules of the House,
if we considered articles of impeachment
before holding the minority day hearing,
this point of order would be timely in a meeting
where we considered articles of impeachment.
That is not the purpose of today's hearing,
and the point of order is not timely.