Doug Collins Defends Trump In Closing Statement Of Impeachment Hearing | NBC News

Channel: NBC News
Published: 12/05/2019 03:25 AM

In his closing statement, Rep. Doug Collins comes to President Trump's defense, and says the Democrats have not revealed sufficient evidence to support the impeachment inquiry. » Subscribe to NBC News: » Watch more NBC video: NBC News D...

Thank you mr. chairman, well today has been interesting. I guess to say the least it has been. We have found many things in fact, three of our four witnesses here today alleged numerous crimes committed by the president. Any times it seemed like we were even trying to make up crimes as we go out. Well, if it wasn't this well, it was the intent to do it. It went along that is interesting today, as ...
started this day and i'm gon na come back to it now as much as i respect these who came before us today. This is way too early because we've not as a committee, done our job we've, not as a committee cometogether looked at evidence taken fact: witnesses pay, put pull here in front of us under oath, just say what happened and how did it happen and why did it Happen we're taking the work of the intel committee and the other committees we're taking it. It seemingly at face value - and i will remind all that the chairman even is the biggest proponent of this - not happening in his earlier statements almost 20 years ago, when he said we should not take a report from another entity and just accept it. Otherwise, we are a rubber stamp. Now to my democratic majority. They may not care because, as i've said before, this is about a clock in the calendara clock and a calendar they're so obsessed with the election next year.

They they just gloss over things. In fact, what is interesting is, as i said earlier, three of the four witnesses alleged numerous crimes committed by the president. However, during the intel committee hearings, none of the fact witnesses identified a crime if you're writing about this. That should alarm you, so this impeachment narrative being spun by the majority, is a fake one. Its majority spending three percent of the facts, while ignoring 90 percent of the seven percent of the other. In fact professor turley earlier said today, impeachment needs proof not presumptions. We have one of the fact witnesses in the intel committee ipresume. That was what was going on mr. sanderman. You know what is happening here today is also we found out today. I thought it's really interesting. This is the judiciary committee, but we also found something today.

The facts don't matter in fact, facts don't matter unless we can fit those facts to fit the narrative we want to spend before this committee and the american people, if they don't matter. We also heard one of the witnesses state today that it doesn't matter if aid was released or not. Of course, it matters, but unfortunately the only one of the many facts ignored by the majority they're, ignoring a ton of society, facts that matter. It apparently doesn'tmatter to the democrats that ambassador, both or the former special envoy to the ukraine made clear in his testimony. There was no conditionality on the white house meeting or the aid. The democrats and their witnesses haven't mentioned that, because it's unhelpful to the narrative they're spending, it apparently doesn't matter that democrats to the democrats in the majority hear that the president did not condition his aide on an investigation. In fact, son mr. soglin statement is cut to the contrary, was presumption. It was right here in this room. He called it a guest right where you're sitting call it a guess, a presumption, what he thought. God forbid, if we walk into our courtrooms or inour our proceedings now to find somebody guilty of something we're calling a crime and we walk into court now and all of a sudden. Well, i thought it was the witness that i presumed it was god forbid.

This is where we're at, but you know, we've also heard today that you can make inference, though it's okay, if you're just inferring, i don't know about the professor's here for those of us in court on both sides. I i've never heard him going inherit. Judge say just infer what you think they meant and that'll be enough. It'S not inference. You know it probably doesn't matter that the president didn't condition a meeting on an investigation. He metwith a lenski with no preconditions does list. He didn't even find out about the hold on the ada until is after a month after the call when he read it in politico. They heed was released shortly thereafter in ukraine. Didn'T have anything to do to get the aid released. Not only was the aid release, but lethal aid was given as well, and if you think that doesn't matter, there were five meetings between the 8th time, the aedra stop, and that time the aid was released and in none of those meetings between ambassadors and others, including The vice president and senators, none of that was ever connected to a promise of anything on. Nothing was everconnected five times and two of those were after presidents, lansky learned that aid was being held. Tell me there's not a problem here with the story.

That'S why fact witnesses aren't here right now? The evidence against the president is really about policy differences, in fact, three of the democratic star witnesses, hill taylor and kent weren't, even on the call they read transcripts like everyone else on july 26, solinsky met with volker and sunland and made no reference to quid pro Quo or hold on aid, they met several more times no references, but none of those are in those arkan. None of these inconvenient acts, or so many other inconvenient facts matter for the majority. Moreoverwe, don't even know what, if additional hearings, we will have to address other fight. This is the part that bothers me greatly. It is something we have seen from january of this year. No concern about a process that works, but simply a getting to an end that we want. You know i agree with professor feldman. He may find that strange, but i do agree with you on something: it's not his job to assess the credibility of witnesses. Is this committees job and i agree, but this committee can't do our jobs if none of the witnesses testified before our committee, even ones that we have talked about calling today and the majority has said we don'twant do that. We still don't have an answer on what this committee will do once this hearing ends. The committee received mr. chairman shifts report yesterday, but we still don't have the underlying evidence.

The rules even set up by this body are not being followed to this day, but yet nobody talks about. On the majority side, the witness is produced by chairmanship and american people talked about their feelings, their guesses, their presumptions, but even though the facts may not matter to the majority, 97 % of the other facts do matter to the american people. So my problem is this: as the ranking member of this committee, one of the oldest most should be fact-based legal basedcommittees. We have here where impeachment should have been all along. I have a group of members who have no idea where we're headed next. I bet you, though, if i ask the majority members outside the chairman: they don't have a clue either very much one, because if they haven't, they should share it, because this is not a time to play, hide the ball. This is not a time to say we're. Gon na figure it out on the fly you're talking about overturning 63 million votes of a president, duly elected, who is doing his job every day and by the way was overseas today, while we're doing this working with our nato allies. So the question ihave is: where do we head? Next, we've heard this ambiguous presentation, but i here's my challenges. I'Ve already been voted down in table today. Mr. schiff should testify chairmanship.

Not his staff must appear before this committee to answer questions about the content of his report. That'S what ken started 20 years ago in history demanded, i told the chairman just a while ago and a couple of weeks he'll when we're doing a markup. I said mr. chairman, the history lights are on us. It is time that we talk and share how we're going forward. I'M still waiting for answers. So, mr. chairman, as we look ahead as the democratic majority promised that this was going tobe a fair process when it got to judiciary for the president and others, the president - and you may say he could have come today, what would have this done? Nothing, there's! No fat witnesses here nothing to rebut. In fact, it's been a good time just to see that really nothing came of it at the end of the day. So why should he be here? Let'S bring five witnesses in, let's bring people in because, as you said, mr. chairman you're saying your words, we should never on this committee accept or entity, giving us a report and not investigate it. Ourselves, undoubtedly we're well on our way to doing that because of a calendar and a clockso.

Mr. chairman, i know you're about to give a statement and they've worked on it. You'Ve worked on it very hard, i'm sure, but i won't before you gavel this hearing before you start your statement before you go any further. I would like to know two things number one: when do you plan on scheduling our minority hearing day and number two? Why, or with when, are we actually going to have real witnesses here that are fact witnesses in this case when or what you said many years ago is faded, just like the leaves and fall, i don't really care anymore that somebody else gives us a report. Undoubtedly chairmanship is chairman over everything with impeachmentand. He doesn't get to testify. He'S gon na send a staff member, but i don't even know if we're gon na have a hearing past that to figure out anything, that's been going on. So my question is, i started out today is: where is fairness? It was promised it's not being delivered. The facts talked about we're. Not facts delivered this president, as facts were given, did nothing wrong, nothing to be impeached and nothing for while we're here and in the words of one of our witnesses. Mr. turley, if you were rushed through this, you do it on flimsy grounds.

The american people will not forget the light of history so today, before you give your opening statementyour closing statement before you get to this time, my question is: is: will you talk to this committee? Your chairman, you hold a very prestigious role. Will you let us know where we're going? Are we gon na adjourn from here after you sum up everything saying that they all did good and go out from here? We'Re still wondering the lights are on it's time to answer the question, i yield back. Hey nbc news viewers, thanks for checking out our youtube channel subscribe by clicking on that button down here and click on any of the videos over here to watch. The latest interviews show highlights and digital exclusives thanks for watching.

Watch Next