Ranking member Collins opening remarks at today's impeachment hearing: "For some of you who may say, the ranking member talks about process...never the foundation - believe me, we will inundate you with the facts, and I have already. Some of you just don’t choose to report them."
Rep. Collins (R): "We’ll have plenty of time to show the complete farce of substance, but Mr. Chairman, what will live from this day is your ruling and the majority’s ruling of minority rights are dead in this Congress and especially this committee."
Rep. Deutch (D) responds: "I cannot allow the ranking member to mischaracterize your description of the history of this committee."
Rep. Deutch (D): "I appreciate the ranking member for acknowledging that they had the opportunity to call witnesses... But to then turn around and suggest that the rules are being trampled, the rules are dead, ignores everything that you just laid out."
Rep. Jim Jordan (R): "Article I in this resolution ignores the truth, ignores the facts, it ignores what happened and what has been laid out for the American people over the last three weeks. So I hope that this committee will come to its senses."
Rep. Joe Neguse (D): "I understand that we’re going to have a robust debate about the legal standards that govern the inquiry that is before us and the decision we make on these articles. But let us stay true to the facts, and let’s dispense with these process arguments..."
Rep. Neguse (D): "... and get to the substance of why we are here today."
Rep. Neguse (D): "I will also just say, historical context matters. I was not on the judiciary committee in 1999, 1998, but my understanding is that at that time, the judiciary committee did not examine any fact witnesses during the Clinton impeachment inquiry."
Rep. Neguse (D): "I know there are members of this committee who were here at that time... well aware that they did question Ken Starr, and then afterwards, had hearings with legal experts to expound upon the legal standards that would define the decision before the committee."
Rep. Neguse (D): "I would also say that during the Nixon impeachment inquiry, the examination of witnesses, fact witnesses rather, was conducted exclusively behind closed doors, in July of 1974."
Rep. Neguse (D): "So, unlike both the Nixon inquiry as well as the Clinton inquiry, the House Intelligence Committee’s hearings featured testimony from a dozen witnesses in open hearings, subject to public examination by Republican members and counsel."
Rep. Steve Chabot (R): "There’s another significant difference between the abuse of power charges against Nixon & Clinton and those presented here. In the Nixon and Clinton impeachments, abuse of power was a tacked-on charge..."
Rep. Chabot (R): "... far less important in those cases than the actual high crimes charged against both of them. Here it’s the main thrust of the House Democrats’ entire case."
Rep. Chabot (R): "Let me put it another way -- the entire argument for impeachment in this case is based on a charge that is not a crime, much less a high crime, and has never been approved by the House of Representatives in a presidential impeachment before, ever in history."
Rep. Chabot (R): "If that’s the best you got, you wasted a whole lot of time and taxpayer dollars all because so many of you, Mr. Chairman, hate this president."
Rep. Zoe Lofgren (D): "I would just like to note that the argument that somehow, lying about a sexual affair is an abuse of presidential power, but the misuse of presidential power to get a benefit somehow doesn’t matter..."
Rep. Lofgren (D): "... If it’s -- lying about sex, we could put Stormy Daniels’ case ahead of us. We don’t believe that’s a high crime and misdemeanor."
Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner (R): "The important thing is, is that Bill Clinton lied to a grand jury. That is a crime."
Rep. Sensenbrenner (R): "The article of impeachment that passed the House accused Bill Clinton of lying to a grand jury, a crime, and something that obstructs the ability of the courts to get to the truth. This is not what is happening here. Big difference."
Rep. Jordan (R): "If it all happened, why isn’t it in the resolution? Democrats say there’s some scheme to have an announcement made by President Zelensky to get a phone call with the president to get a meeting with the president and to get the aid released."
Rep. Jordan (R): "When did the announcement happen? They got the call, on July 25, they got the meeting on September 25, they got the money on September 11. There was never an announcement from the Ukrainians to do an investigation."
Rep. Jordan (R): "So you can keep saying all this stuff, and all the points that this happened, this happened -- didn’t happen. Not the facts. Those are not the facts. And we know why the aid ultimately got released."
Rep. Jordan (R): "Because we learned that this guy, this new president, was actually...the transformer, the real deal, was actually going to deal with the corruption issue in his country. That’s what happened. You can make up all the things you want, but those are not the facts."
Rep. Louie Gohmert (R): "Let me just say, this is a day that will live in infamy for the Judiciary Committee. The days of exemplary chairs like Daniel Webster when he stood for principle, those are going to be gone."
Rep. Gohmert (R): "Because this became a tool of the majority to try to defeat, use taxpayer funds to defeat a president."
Rep. Hakeem Jeffries (D): "You said you want to talk about the facts? In August Giuliani travels to Madrid and meets with the Ukrainian government, as a follow up to Trump saying to Ukraine, go meet with Giuliani. And then a statement is drafted about this phony investigation..."
Rep. Jeffries (D): " ...and sent to the Ukrainians. But what happens? In August, the whistleblower complaint is filed. Then on September 9, the whistleblower complaint is made public to Congress."
Rep. Jeffries (D): "Two days later, on September 11, all of a sudden, the aid is released. Why was the aid released? Because the President was caught red-handed. Trying to pressure a foreign government to target an American citizen."
Rep. Jeffries (D): "We're here today because the president abused his power... He had welcomed foreign interference as it relates to Russia. He solicited foreign interference on the White House lawn with China, and he did it with Ukraine. He's a serial solicitor."
Rep. Matt Gaetz (R): "This debate just lacks a certain sincerity. I heard earlier Mr. Swalwell say… list out all these crimes. If I'm watching at home I'm thinking, well, where are they in the impeachment? That is just a Democrat drive-by..."
Rep. Gaetz (R): "... to go and list crimes that you don't allege and that you don't have evidence for."
Rep. Gaetz (R): "If there is ever a microcosm of how to consume this day and the importance of it with the American people, it's that they're naming crimes in debate that they don't even have in their impeachment resolution because they can't prove them."
Rep. Gaetz (R): "I hear [Democrats] you know, crying these alligator tears, clutching their pearls over this notion that Trump didn't give this aid, we got to go impeach him for it. Where was all this concern about how to make the Ukraine great again when Obama was president?"
Rep. Swalwell (D): "The Constitution does not require President Trump have committed statutory crimes... But since my colleagues keep bringing up what potential crimes a criminal prosecutor could charge a President with, let's go through some of them." 
Rep. Andy Biggs (R) echoes emerging GOP argument -- Ukraine's implementation of anti-corruption reforms was what prompted aid release: "Once two new anti-corruption measures were released, within two days, so was the funding. That’s what changed."
Rep Jayapal (D): "You cannot say that the president was so concerned about Ukraine that he released aid, which is true, he released aid in 2017, he released aid in 2018 & then suddenly he became concerned in 2019 right after Vice Pres. Biden announced that he was going to run."
Jayapal: "So if your argument is that he was so concerned about Ukraine that he released aid in 2017 & 2018, then why in 2019 after the Dept. of Defense cleared Ukraine on charges of corruption, why then did he decide he was so concerned... that he was not going to release aid?"
Rep. Jordan responds: "Because -- because they got a new president that's why."
Rep. Jayapal (D): "Forget about President Trump. Is any one of my colleagues willing to say that it is ever okay for a president of the United States of America to invite foreign interference in our elections? Not a single one of you has said that so far."
Rep. Gohmert (R): "I'll say it."
Rep. Mike Johnson (R): "Impeachment not only mandates due process, but due process quadrupled. They have violated that here. They have violated the rules. And everybody in the country can see it."
Rep. Johnson (R): "This impeachment is going to fail. Democrats will pay a heavy political price for it. But the Pandora’s box they’ve opened today will do irreparable injury to our country in the years ahead."
Rep. Biggs (R) again argues Ukraine anti-corruption reforms prompted aid release: "You have the president of the Ukraine signing two pieces of legislation... "
Rep. Biggs (R): "... reinstituting the anti-corruption tribunal and also removing immunity from prosecution of the legislative branch in Ukraine. Significant anti-corruption measures worthy, worthy of convincing this president that yes, they are worth a chance."
Rep. Biggs (R): "And so with that, you have nothing, your credibility is in tatters, quite frankly.
Rep. Veronica Escobar (D): "If a community suffers a natural disaster and the governor of the state has aid that will help that community but calls the mayor of your community and says, I want you to do me a favor though..."
Rep. Escobar (D): "... and conditions giving the aid to the community on the police chief smearing his political opponent, has there been a crime, the answer is yes. And that governor would go to jail."
Rep. Jordan (R): "I don't know how many times I've heard the Democrats talk about this one sentence the President said in the now-famous call transcript with President Zelensky: "I would like you to do us a favor though." The Democrats don't read the plain language."
Rep. Jordan (R): "In fact your star professor witness who was here last week, she talked about this being the royal 'we,' she read the sentence the way you guys always try to portray the sentence -- she said it was 'I would like you to do me a favor though.'"
Rep. Jordan (R): "That's not what it says. It says 'I would like you to do us a favor though, because,' and guess what the next two words are? Guess what the next two words are. 'Because our country.' Not 'because I.'"
Rep. Jordan (R): "The president doesn't say 'I would like you to do me a favor, though because I've been through a lot' ... Very clear. 'I would like you to do us a favor though because our country has been through a lot.' And that is the understatement of the year."
Rep. Raskin (D): "This is the anti-corruption crusader they want us to believe in. The guy who had to pay $25 million to students at the phony Trump University, which the attorney general of New York called a classic bait-and-switch operation... Come on! Get real! Be serious!"
Rep. Raskin (D): "Enough of these phony process objections. Let’s get back to the facts of what happened. The president of the United States shook down a foreign power to come get involved in our election. That’s wrong."
Rep. Raskin (D): "We know that they don’t accept the facts... they don’t like the fact that the depositions took place in the basement? Where should they have been - on the 1st floor? The 2nd floor, would they accept the facts? If we found some other room, would that be alright?"
Rep. Gaetz (R): "This is not a rifle shot impeachment, with facts and evidence. This is birdshot."
Rep. Gaetz (R): "I mean, he talked about everything from, you know, the campaign finance concerns to Trump University, concerns about charities -- this is like pin-the-tail on your favorite impeachment theory, because they don’t have evidence for any one single thing."
Rep. Collins (R): "The last thing that is amazing to me, and the gentleman from Tennessee said it -- he called the -- Mr. Zelensky a politician and an actor in a derisive way."
Rep. Collins (R): "Basically implying politicians lie -- well we've seen that this morning, even in just what they’re talking about, how they can’t even read a transcript, and he’s an actor."
Rep. Collins (R): "It’s amazing to me, how we in this committee, are denigrating Mr. Zelensky in the eyes of his country and in the world because we can’t make a case against this president."
Rep. Nadler (D): "I would simply point out a few things. Number one, that the impeachment of President Nixon, although he had committed many crimes, he was impeached -- the committee voted impeachment for abuse of power, and obstruction of justice."
Nadler (D): "It did not specify a specific crime. I would also point out that the majority staff report of the Judiciary Committee back in 1974, not just now, and I believe in 1998, but certainly in 1974, pointed out that crimes and impeachable offenses are different things."
Nadler (D): "There are crimes which may not be impeachable; there are impeachable offenses which may not be crimes."
Nadler (D): "An impeachable offense, a high crime and misdemeanor, is a grave and serious offense against the Constitution, against the structure and function of government. I would refer you to the Federalist Papers."
Nadler (D): "I would also say one other thing -- we’ve repeatedly heard that the Democrats are accusing President Zelensky and Mr. Yermak of lying, because Mr. Zelensky said, President Zelensky said he wasn’t pressured. Well of course he said he wasn’t pressured."
Nadler: "[Zelensky] has a gun to his head. The gun is the fact that the president of the United States, upon whom he depends for military aid, for help in many different ways, has shown himself willing to withhold that aid, and to do other things based on what he says."
Nadler (D): "Based on what he says. Based on whether he’s willing to play along with the president for his personal political goals. So of course he denies he was pressured."
Nadler (D): "Because he knows that if he didn’t deny that, there might be heavy consequences to pay... and you cannot credit that denial without any aspersions on his character but simply on the fact that the president of the United States holds a gun to his head."
