David Thomas: “I do think at this point we perhaps need to go back to the basics. I keep hearing that somehow we are going to abrogate…”

“I do think at this point we perhaps need to go back to the basics. I keep hearing that somehow we are going to abrogate a vote. What we have before us are four articles. The question is whether or not the facts examined by the Committee on the Judiciary meet the articles. I think anyone who looks at the information will clearly reach the conclusion that, in fact, the facts are not friendly. The question is, do oaths mean something? I think they do. Should oaths mean something to the most powerful person in the United States? I think they should. The President had one opportunity not to lie. He had a second opportunity not to obstruct justice. He had a third opportunity. At any number of turns, the President of the United States would not have required us to be in the position we are in tonight. The question is simply, do the facts rise to the articles? We do not remove him. We simply agree. Mr. Speaker, the matter before us is not about a private matter as most of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have been alleging for eleven months and throughout the debate today. This debate concerns they very foundation of our system of government. I urge my colleagues to think long and hard about what we are doing in this hallowed chamber. We have been charged by the American people, our constituents, to serve to the best of our abilities swear to uphold the Constitution.”