Jerrold Nadler

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, the House of Representatives must now consider two Articles of Impeachment against President Trump. The first article charges that the President used his public office to coerce a foreign government into attacking his political rival. The second article charges that the President took extreme and unprecedented steps to obstruct our investigation into his conduct. Taken together, the two articles charge that President Trump placed his private political interests above our national security, above our elections, and above our system of checks and balances. After months of investigation, there can be no serious debate about the evidence at hand. On July 25, when he spoke to President Zelensky of Ukraine, President Trump had the upper hand. The President, through his agents, had already demanded that Ukraine announce an investigation of his political opponents. Ukraine needed our help, both military aid, which had been appropriated by Congress because of our security interests, and an Oval Office meeting to show the world that the United States continues to stand with Ukraine against Russian aggression. President Trump should have been focused on the interests of the American people on that call. Instead, he prioritized his private political interests. President Trump asked President Zelensky for a favor. He wanted Ukraine to announce two bogus investigations, one into former Vice President Biden, then his leading opponent in the 2020 election, and another to advance a conspiracy theory that Ukraine, not Russia, attacked our elections in 2016. Neither request was premised on any legitimate national security or foreign policy interests. One was intended to help President Trump conceal the truth about the 2016 election. The other was intended to help him gain an advantage in the 2020 election. After the call, President Trump ratcheted up the pressure. He deployed his private attorney and other agents, some acting far outside the regular channels of diplomacy, to make his desires clear. There would be no aid and no meeting until Ukraine announced the sham investigations. To our founding generation, abuse of power was a specific, well- defined offense. A President may not misuse the powers of the Presidency to obtain an improper personal benefit. The evidence shows that President Trump did exactly that. For this alone, he should be impeached. But the first article also identifies two aggravating factors. When President Trump conditioned military aid on a personal favor, he harmed America's national security. When he demanded that a foreign government target his domestic political rival, he took steps to corrupt our next election. To the Founders, these offenses clearly merited removal from office. The President faces a second Article of Impeachment for his efforts to obstruct our investigation of his misconduct. The Constitution grants the sole power of impeachment to the House of Representatives. Within our system of checks and balances, the President may not decide for himself what constitutes a valid impeachment inquiry, nor may he ignore lawful subpoenas or direct others to do so. Many Presidents, including President Trump, have asserted privileges and other objections to specific subpoenas, but only President Trump has ordered the categorical defiance of a congressional investigation, the automatic rejection of all subpoenas. The President is not above the law, and he should be impeached for this, as well. Congress cannot wait for the next election to address this misconduct. President Trump has demonstrated a clear pattern of wrongdoing. This is not the first time he has solicited foreign interference in an election, has been exposed, and has attempted to obstruct the resulting investigation. We cannot rely on the next election as a remedy for Presidential misconduct when the President threatens the very integrity of that election. He has shown us he will continue to put his selfish interests above the good of the country. We must act without delay. By his actions, President Trump has broken his oath of office. His conduct continues to undermine our Constitution and threaten our next election. His actions warrant his impeachment and demand his removal from office. Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the following Judiciary Committee staff for their extraordinary efforts during the Committee's consideration of the Impeachment of President Donald Trump: Amy Rutkin, Chief of Staff; Perry Apelbaum, Staff Director and Chief Counsel; John Doty, Senior Advisor; Aaron Hiller, Deputy Chief Counsel and Chief Oversight Counsel; Shadawn Reddick-Smith, Communications Director; Daniel Schwarz, Director of Strategic Communications; Moh Sharma, Director of Member Services and Outreach and Policy Advisor; David Greengrass, Senior Counsel; John Williams, Parliamentarian and Senior Counsel; Barry Berke, Special Counsel; Norm Eisen, Special Counsel; Ted Kalo, Special Counsel; James Park, Chief Counsel of Constitution Subcommittee; Arya Hariharan, Deputy Chief Oversight Counsel; Charles Gayle, Oversight Counsel; Maggie Goodlander, Oversight Counsel. Sarah Istel, Oversight Counsel; Joshua Matz, Oversight Counsel; Kerry Tirrell, Oversight Counsel; Sophia Brill, Counsel; Milagros Cisneros, Counsel; Benjamin Hernandez-Stern, Counsel; Matthew Morgan, Counsel; Matt Robinson, Counsel; Jessica Presley, Director of Digital Strategy; Kayla Hamedi, Deputy Press Secretary; Kingsley Animley, Director of Administration; Madeline Strasser, Chief Clerk; Tim Pearson, Publications Specialist; Janna Pinckney, IT Director; Faisal Siddiqui, Deputy IT Manager; Rachel Calanni, Professional Staff and Legislative Aide; Jordan Dashow, Professional Staff and Legislative Aide. William S. Emmons, Professional Staff and Legislative Aide; Julian Gerson, Professional Staff and Legislative Aide; Rosalind Jackson, Professional Staff and Legislative Aide; Priyanka Mara, Professional Staff and Legislative Aide; Thomas Kaelin, Oversight Intern; Anthony Valdez, Oversight Intern; Alex Wang, Fellow. Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support these Articles of Impeachment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Wisconsin knows full well the President asserted no privileges here. He simply ordered complete defiance of the impeachment inquiry. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Pennsylvania (Ms. Scanlon).

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman knows that impeachment was put into the Constitution as a defense of the Republic in between elections. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Washington (Ms. Jayapal).

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Ted Lieu).

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Raskin).

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Cicilline).

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I am hearing a lot from my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, except a defense of President Trump's conduct, which is indefensible. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Florida (Mr. Deutch).

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, the evidence is clear that President Trump took advantage of Ukraine's vulnerability and abused the powers of his office to pressure Ukraine to help his reelection campaign. This is the highest of high crimes, and President Trump must be held to account. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Correa).

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I would remind the gentleman that, after recovering millions of dollars in ill-gotten gains, the Mueller investigation was actually a net plus for the taxpayers. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Neguse).

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire how much time remains on both sides.

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Escobar).

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from New York (Mr. Jeffries).

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, abuse of power was no vague or weak notion to the Framers. It had a very specific meaning: the use of official power to obtain an improper personal benefit while ignoring or injuring the national interest. President Trump has abused his office and must be removed. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Cohen).

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Johnson).

Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, President Trump said no quid pro quo only after the White House learned of the whistleblower complaints and after the Washington Post had published an article about the President's pressure campaign on Ukraine. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from California (Ms. Bass).

Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I remind the gentleman that, if President Trump is impeached and removed, the new President will be Mike Pence, not Hillary Clinton. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Mucarsel-Powell).

Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lofgren).

Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, one specific concern of the Framers was a President who would corrupt our elections and who would abuse the great powers of his office to ensure his own reelection. The impeachment inquiry is not an effort to overturn an election. It is a reaffirmation of the simple truth that, in the United States of America, no person--not even the President--is above the law, and our democracy cannot allow a duly-elected President to abuse the power of his office for personal and political gain. Madam Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).

Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentlewoman from Texas.

Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Richmond).

Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Garcia).

Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Pennsylvania (Ms. Dean).

Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. The gentlewoman is correct. President Trump's behavior is not new. He has a pattern of engaging in misconduct and then obstructing any investigation into his misconduct to cover up his actions and hide the truth from the American people. Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Roybal-Allard) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request. (Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Langevin).

Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, the President's conduct constituted the highest of high crimes against our country. An offense does not have to violate a criminal statute to be impeachable. That was confirmed in President Nixon's case and again in President Clinton's. There is no higher crime than for the President to use the power of his office to corrupt our elections. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Pocan).