Adam Schiff

They -- as we understand, the chief justice will be fair. I don't -- I'm not, for a moment, suggesting they don't think the chief justice is fair, quite the contrary. They're afraid he'll be fair.

Well, the short answer is if the President were so confident that this was a perfect call and that those around him would agree that there was nothing nefarious going on, he would want witnesses to come and testify. But, of course, he…

He truly believes that he is above the law. Doesn't matter who's listening. If it's good for him -- this is I guess a version of the Dershowitz argument, if it's good for him, it's good for the state because he is the state.

If you dare, if you have the unmitigated temerity to want witnesses in a trial, we will make you pay for it with endless delay.

The President of the United States used taxpayer dollars, the American people's money, to withhold aid from an ally at war to benefit his political campaign.

You can't have a fair trial without witnesses, and I think when I was asked that question before, I answered at the affirmative, what I meant (ph) the negative.

Do any of us have any question that Barack Obama would be impeached for that kind of misconduct?

When you hear graphically a man say the President of the United States told me to hold aid from our ally, to coerce foreign assistance in his election, when the American people hear that firsthand, not filtered through our statements, they…

If they were operating in good faith, if they really wanted a fair resolution, if they weren't just shooting for a delay, they would allow the chief justice to make these decisions.

The important constitutional point here is not that the acts within abuse of power constitute bribery, although they do. The important point is we charged a constitutional crime, the most serious crime.

Bear in mind that efforts to cheat an election are always going to be in proximity to an election. And if you say you can't hold the president accountable in an election year where they're trying to cheat in that election, then you are…

We look forward to hearing from the whistleblower.

The President said there was no quid pro quo. I guess that's the end of the story.

It doesn't matter whether you like it. It doesn't matter whether you dislike it. what matters is whether he is a danger to the country because he would do it again.

If we say that Donald Trump can do this, then this could happen to you.

Now, you'll hear the further defense that Biden is corrupt, that Joe Biden is corrupt, that Hunter Biden is corrupt.

You can be impeached for obstructing justice but you cannot be impeached for obstructing Congress.

Presidents of United States have every right to abuse their power.

You give a president that right there is no impeachment power.

That means that we protect people have the courage to come forward and blow the whistle, that we don't think, though the president might, that they're traders and spies.

If you can't have the ability to enforce an impeachment power, you might as well not put it in the Constitution.

Justice delayed is justice denied.

If the Congress cannot, because the president prevents it, investigate the President's own wrongdoing, there will never be in Article 1 because there will be no more impeachment power.

If there is no Article II, let me tell you something, there will never be an Article 1.

If we don't take Trump off the ballot, remember, it's not just removal from office. They'd take him off the ballot that the 2020 election is already essentially illegitimate.