Chris Murphy: 'What are we doing? Why are we here?', speech following Ulvade school massacre - 2022

25 May 2022, Washington DC, USA

Mr. President, there are 14 kids dead in an elementary school in Texas right now. What are we doing? What are we doing?

Just days after a shooter walked into a grocery store to gun down African American patrons, we have another Sandy Hook on our hands. What are we doing? There were more mass shootings than days in the year. Our kids are living in fear every single time they set foot in a classroom because they think they're going to be next. What are we doing?

Why do you spend all this time running for the United States Senate? Why do you go through all the hassle of getting this job, of putting yourself in a position of authority, if your answer is that, as the slaughter increases, as our kids run for their lives, we do nothing? What are we doing?

Why are you here if not to solve a problem as existential as this? This isn't inevitable. These kids weren't unlucky. This only happens in this country and nowhere else. Nowhere else do little kids go to school thinking that they might be shot that day.

Nowhere else do parents have to talk to their kids, as I have had to do, about why they got locked into a bathroom and told to be quiet for five minutes just in case a bad man entered that building. Nowhere else does that happen except here in the United States of America. And it is a choice. It is our choice to let it continue. What are we doing?

In Sandy Hook Elementary school after those kids came back into those classrooms, they had to adopt a practice in which there would be a safe word that the kids would say. If they started to get thoughts in their brain about what they saw that day, if they started to get nightmares during the day, reliving stepping over their classmates bodies as they tried to flee the school. In one classroom, that word was "monkey."

And over and over and over, through the day, kids would stand up and yell ‘monkey’. And a teacher or a paraprofessional would have to go over to that kid, take them out of the classroom, talk to them about what they had seen, worked them through their issues. Sandy Hook will never, ever be the same. This community in Texas will never, ever be the same.

Why? Why are we here if not to try to make sure that fewer schools and fewer communities go through what Sandy Hook has gone through, what Uvalde is going through? Our heart is breaking for these families. Every ounce of love and thoughts and prayers we can send, we are sending.

But I'm here on this floor to beg, to literally get down on my hands and knees and beg my colleagues. Find a path forward here, work with us to find a way to pass laws that make this less likely. I understand my Republican colleagues will not agree to everything that I may support, but there is a common denominator that we can find.

There is a place where we can achieve agreement that may not guarantee that American never, ever again sees a mass shooting, that may not overnight cut in half the number of murders that happen in America. It will not solve the problem of American violence by itself. But by doing something, we at least stop sending this quiet message of endorsement to these killers, whose brains are breaking, who see the highest levels of government doing nothing, shooting after shooting.

What are we doing? Why are we here? What are we doing? I yield the floor.

Hakeem Jeffries: 'We do not take this step to divide', Impeachment proceedings - 2019

Watch @RepJeffries shoot down Republicans' argument that impeachment is ‘divisive’ with a history lesson on civil rights in America pic.twitter.com/YoRA8ZXECC

— NowThis (@nowthisnews) December 19, 2019

19 December 2019, Washington DC, USA

America is the leader of the free world. We play that role because it is in the best interests of the national security of the United States. We play that role because we believe in liberty and justice for all. We play that role because freedom is in our DNA. Freedom from oppression. Freedom from tyranny, freedom from abuse of power, freedom is in our DNA. What role should this committee play in defending freedom? The House is a separate and co-equal branch of government. We don't work for this president or any president. We work for the American people. We have a constitutional responsibility to serve as a check and balance on an out of control Executive branch. That is not the Democratic party playbook. That is the playbook in a democratic republic.

We do not take this step to divide. Though some will cynically argue the impeachment of this president will further divide an already fractured union. But there is a difference between division and clarification. Slavery once divided the nation. But emancipators rose up to clarify that all men are created equally. Suffrage once divided the nation, but women rose up to clarify that all voices must be heard in our democracy. Jim Crow once divided the nation, but civil rights champions rose up to clarify that all are entitled to equal protection under the law. We do not take this step to divide. And at this moment, this committee can rise up to clarify that under the Constitution, here in America, no one is above the law.

We will hold this president accountable for his stunning abuse of power, we will hold this president accountable for undermining our national security, we will hold his president accountable for corrupting our democracy, we will impeach Donald John Trump, we will clarify that in America, no one is above the law.

Adam Schiff: 'You might think it's okay', House Intelligence Committee - 2019

28 March 2019, Washington DC, USA

My colleagues might think it’s okay that the Russians offered dirt on the Democratic candidate for president as part of what’s described as the Russian government’s effort to help the Trump campaign. You might think that’s okay. My colleagues might think it’s okay that when that was offered to the son of the president, who had a pivotal role in the campaign, that the president’s son did not call the FBI, he did not adamantly refuse that foreign help — no, instead that son said he would ‘love’ the help with the Russians.

You might think it was okay that he took that meeting. You might think it’s okay that Paul Manafort, the campaign chair, someone with great experience running campaigns, also took that meeting. You might think it’s okay that the president’s son-in-law also took that meeting. You might think it’s okay that they concealed it from the public. You might think it’s okay that their only disappointment after that meeting was that the dirt they received on Hillary Clinton wasn’t better. You might think it’s okay. I don’t.

You might think it’s okay that, when it was discovered a year later that they had lied about that meeting and said it was about adoptions, you might think it’s okay that the president is reported to have helped dictate that lie. You might think it’s okay. I don’t.

You might think it’s okay that the campaign chairman of a presidential campaign would offer information about that campaign to a Russian oligarch in exchange for money or debt forgiveness. You might think that’s okay. I don’t. You might think it’s okay that that campaign chairman offered polling data, campaign polling data, to someone linked to Russian intelligence. I don’t think that’s okay.

You might think it’s okay if that the president himself called on Russia to hack his opponent’s emails, if they were listening. You might think it’s okay that, later that day, the Russians in fact attempted to hack a server affiliated with that campaign. I don’t think that’s okay.

You might think that it’s okay that the president’s son-in-law sought to establish a secret back-channel of communication with Russians through a Russian diplomatic facility. I don’t think that’s okay.

You might think it’s okay that an associate of the president made direct contact with the GRU through Guccifer 2.0 and WikiLeaks, that is considered a hostile intelligence agency. You might think it’s okay that a senior campaign official was instructed to reach that associate and find out what that hostile intelligence agency had to say, in terms of dirt on his opponent.

You might think it’s okay that the national security adviser-designate secretly conferred with a Russian ambassador about undermining U.S. sanctions, and you might think it’s okay he lied about it to the FBI.

You might say that’s all okay. You might say that’s just what you need to do to win. But I don’t think it’s okay. I think it’s immoral, I think it’s unethical, I think it’s unpatriotic and, yes, I think it’s corrupt, and evidence of collusion.

Now, I have always said that whether this amounts to proof of conspiracy was another matter. Whether the special counsel could prove beyond a reasonable doubt the proof of that crime was up to the special counsel and that I would accept his decision, and I do. He is a good an honorable man and he is a good prosecutor.

But I do not think that conduct, criminal or not, is okay. And the day we do think that’s okay is the day we will look back and say, that is the day America lost its way.

And I’ll tell you one more thing that is a propos of the hearing today. I don’t think it’s okay that during a presidential campaign Mr. Trump sought the Kremin’s help to consummate a real estate deal in Moscow that would make him a fortune. According to the special counsel, hundreds of millions of dollars. I don’t think it’s okay that he concealed it from the public. don't think it's okay he advocated a new and more favorable policy towards the Russians, even as he was seeking the Russian's help, the Kremlin’s help, to make money.

I don't think it's okay that his attorney lied to our committee. There is a different word for that than collusion and it's called compromise. And that's the subject of our hearing today.