House Impeachment Inquiry Hearing – Feldman, Karlan, Gerhardt & Turley Testimony

WASHINGTON, D.C., AND AROUND THE COUNTRY SO YOU CAN MAKE UP YOUR OWN MIND CREATED BY CABLE IN 1979. C-SPAN IS BROUGHT TO YOU BY YOUR LOCAL SATELLITE PROVIDER. C-SPAN, YOUR UNFILTERED VIEW OF GOVERNMENT. >>> A LIVE LOOK THIS MORNING INSIDE ROOM 1100 ON CAPITOL HILL WHERE TODAY'S HOUSE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY HEARING WILL GET UNDER WAY IN ABOUT A HALF AN HOUR. THE COMMITTEE WILL HEAR FROM SCHOLARS ON THE HISTORY OF PRESIDENTIAL IMPEACHMENT PROCEEDINGS. THE DEMOCRATS HAVE INVITED THREE WITNESSES TO TESTIFY TODAY, NOAH FELDMAN, PAMELA KARLAN AND MICHAEL GERHARDT. THE MINORITY REPUBLICANS HAVE ONE WITNESS AND THAT'S GEORGE WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY LAW PROFESSOR JONATHAN TURLEY WHO'S EXPECTED TO ARGUE AGAINST ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT. THE HOUSE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE IS COMPRISED OF 24 DEMOCRATS AND 17 REPUBLICANS. TODAY'S HEARINGS WILL BE RUN BY CHAIRMAN JERROLD NADLER WHILE DOUG COLLINS WILL SERVE AS THE RANKING MEMBER. THIS IS LIVE COVERAGE ON C-SPAN3. >>> THE HOUSE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE WILL OPEN THE HEARING IN ABOUT 15 MINUTES OR SO. THIS IS THE ONLY JUDICIARY HEARING COMMITTEE THAT IS SCHEDULED. AS WITH PRIOR HEARINGS, WE HAVE SEVEN CAMERAS IN THE ROOM TO PROVIDE YOU WITH COVERAGE OF TODAY'S PROCEEDINGS. THERE ARE AREAS OUTSIDE OF THE ROOM WITH MIC PHONES SET UP IN CASE ANYONE WANTS TO COMMENT. IF YOU'RE AWAY FROM YOUR TELEVISION TODAY AND YOU WANT TO KEEP TABS ON THE HEARINGS, YOU CAN WATCH IT ONLINE AT C-SPAN.ORG OR LISTEN LIVE WITH THE FREE C-SPAN RADIO APP. >>> WE'RE MINUTES AWAY FROM THE START OF TODAY'S HOUSE IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY HEARING. MEMBERS WILL BE HEARING FROM FOUR CONSTITUTIONAL SCHOLARS. THREE FROM THE MAJORITY DEMOCRATS AND ONE FROM THE MINORITY REPUBLICANSMENT PRESIDENT TRUMP IS OVERSEAS. AND IF WE HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY DURING OUR COVERAGE, WE'LL OPEN OUR PHONE LINES, GET YOUR REACTION. WE DO EXPECT COMMITTEE MEMBERS AND WITNESSES TO BEGIN FILTERING IN HERE IN JUST THE NEXT FEW MINUTES. THIS IS LIVE COVERAGE ON CSPAN 3. >>> THE HOUSE COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY WILL COME TO ORDER. >> MR. CHAIRMAN YOU'RE UPSURPING THE RIGHT TO OBJECT. >> OBJECTION IS NOTED. >> I REZRBRESERVE THE RIGHT TO OBJECT. PEROPPORTUNITY TO CAUSE G, I'M FURNISHING YOU WITH A DEMAND ON MINORITY HEARINGS ON THIS SUBJECT SIGNED BY ALL THE REPUBLICAN -- >> THE GENTLEMAN WILL SUSPEND. >> PURSUANT TO CAUSE 2 J 1 RULE 11 I'M FURNISH YOU WITH A LETTER SIGNED BY ALL THE REPUBLICAN MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE. I REQUEST YOU SET THIS DATE BEFORE THE COMMITTEE VOTES ON ANY ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT I WITHDRAW MY RESERVATION. >> WE WILL CONFER ON THIS LATER. THE QUORUM IS PRESENT. THIS IS THE FIRST HEARING WE'RE CONDUCTING PURSUANT TO THE RESOLUTION 660. AND THE SPECIAL JUDICIARY COMMITTEE PROCEDURES THAT ARE DESCRIBED IN SECTION 4A OF THAT RESOLUTION. HERE IS HOW THE COMMITTEE WILL PROVIDE FOR THIS HEARING. I WILL MAKE AN OPENING STATEMENT AND THEN I'LL RECOGNIZE THE RANKING MEMBER FOR AN OPENING STATEMENT. EACH WITNESS WILL HAVE TEN MINUTES TO MAKE THEIR STATEMENTS AND THEN WE'LL PROCEED TO QUESTIONS. I WILL NOW RECOGNIZE MYSELF FOR AN OPENING STATEMENT -- >> MR. CHAIRMAN, PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRY. >> I HAVE TIME FOR AN OPENING STATEMENT. PARLIAMENTARY STATEMENT IS NOT IN ORDER AT THIS TIME. ON JULY 25TH PRESIDENT TRUMP CALLED PRESIDENT ZELENSKY OF UKRAINE AND IN PRESIDENT TRUMP'S WORDS ASKED HIM FOR A FAVOR. THAT CALL WAS PART OF A CONCERTED EFFORT BY THE PRESIDENT AND HIS MEN TO SOLICIT A PERSONAL ADVANTAGE IN THE NEXT ELECTION. THIS TIME IN THE FORM OF AN INVESTIGATION OF HIS POLITICAL ADVERSARIES BY A FOREIGN GOVERNMENT. TO OBTAIN THAT PRIVATE POLITICAL ADVANTAGE, PRESIDENT TRUMP WITHHELD AN OFFICIAL WHITE HOUSE MEETING FROM THE NEWLY ELECTED PRESIDENT OF A FRAGILE DEMOCRACY, AND WITHHELD VITAL MILITARY AID FROM A VULNERABLE ALLY. WHEN CONGRESS FOUND OUT ABOUT THIS SCHEME AND BEGAN TO INVESTIGATION, PRESIDENT TRUMP TOOK EXTRAORDINARY AND UNPRECEDENTED STEPS TO COVER UP HIS EFFORTS AND WITHHOLD EVIDENCE FROM THE INVESTIGATORS. AND WHEN WITNESSES DISOBEYED HIM, WHEN CAREER PROFESSIONALS CAME FORWARD AND TOLD US THE TRUTH, HE ATTACKED THEM VICIOUSLY. CALLING THEM TRAITORS AND LIARS, PROMISING THEY'LL, QUOTE GO THROUGH SOME THINGS, CLOSED QUOTE. THIS IS NOT THE FIRST TIME PRESIDENT TRUMP HAS ENGAGED IN THIS PATTERN OF CONDUCT. IN 2:16, THE RUSSIAN GOVERNMENT ENGAGED IN A SWEEPING CAMPAIGN OF INTERFERENCE IN OUR ELECTIONS. IN THE WORDS OF SPECIAL COUNSEL ROBERT MUELLER, THE RUSSIAN GOVERNMENT PERCEIVED IT WOULD BENEFIT FROM A TRUMP PRESIDENCY AND WORKED TO SECURE THAT OUTCOME, CLOSED QUOTE. THE PRESIDENT WELCOMED THAT INTERFERENCE. WE SAW THIS IN REAL TIME WHEN PRESIDENT TRUMP ASKED RUSSIA TO HACK HIS POLITICAL OPPONENTS. THE VERY NEXT DAY, THE RUSSIAN MILITARY INTELLIGENCE UNIT ATTEMPTED TO HACK THAT POLITICAL OPPONENT. WHEN HIS OWN JUSTICE DEPARTMENT TRIED TO UNCOVER THE EXTENT TO WHICH A FOREIGN GOVERNMENT HAD BROKEN OUR LAWS, PRESIDENT TRUMP TOOK EXTRAORDINARY AND UNPRECEDENTED STEPS TO OBSTRUCT THE INVESTIGATION. INCLUDING IGNORING SUBPOENAS, ORDERING THE CREATION OF FALSE RECORDS, AND PUBLICLY ATTACKING AND INTIMIDATING WITNESSES. THAT'S NOW THIS ADMINISTRATION'S LEVEL OF OBSTRUCTION IS WITHOUT PRECEDENT. NO OTHER PRESIDENT HAS VOWED TO, QUOTE, FIGHT FOR ALL THE SUBPOENAS, UNQUOTE, AS PRESIDENT TRUMP PROMISED. IN THE 1974 IMPEACHMENT PROCEEDINGS, PRESIDENT NIXON PRODUCED DOZENS OF RECORDINGS. 1998, PRESIDENT CLINTON PHYSICALLY GAVE HIS BLOOD. PRESIDENT TRUMP BY CONTRAST, HAS REFUSED TO PRODUCE A SINGLE DOCUMENT AND DIRECTED EVERY WITNESS NOT TO TESTIFY. THOSE ARE THE FACTS BEFORE US. THE IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY HAS MOVED BACK TO THE HOUSE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE. AS WE BEGIN A REVIEW OF THESE FACTS, THE PRESIDENT'S PATTERN OF BEHAVIOR BECOMES CLEAR. PRESIDENT TRUMP WELCOMED FOREIGN INTERFERENCE IN THE 2016 ELECTION. HE DEMANDED IT FOR THE 2020 ELECTION. IN BOTH CASES, HE GOT CAUGHT AND IN BOTH CASES HE DID EVERYTHING IN HIS POWER TO PREVENT THE AMERICAN PEOPLE FROM LEARNING THE TRUTH ABOUT HIS CONDUCT. JULY 24TH, THE SPECIAL COUNSEL TESTIFIED BEFORE THIS COMMITTEE. HE IMPLORED US TO SEE THE NATURE OF THE THREAT TO OUR COUNTRY. QUOTE, OVER THE COURSE OF MY CAREER, I HAVE SEEN A NUMBER OF CHALLENGES TO OUR DEMOCRACY. THE RUSSIAN GOVERNMENT'S EFFORTS TO INTERFERE IN OUR ELECTIONS IS AMONG THE MOST SERIOUS. THIS DESERVES THE ATTENTION OF EVERY AMERICAN. CLOSED QUOTE. IGNORING THAT WARNING PRESIDENT TRUMP CALLED THE UKRAINIAN PRESIDENT THE VERY NEXT DAY TO ASK HIM TO INVESTIGATE THE PRESIDENT'S POLITICAL OPPONENT. AS WE EXERCISE OUR RESPONSIBILITY TO DETERMINE WHETHER THIS PATTERN OF BEHAVIOR CONSTITUTES AN IMPEACHABLE OFFENSE, IT'S IMPORTANT TO PLACE PRESIDENT TRUMP'S CONDUCT INTO HISTORICAL CONTEXT. SINCE THE FOUNDING OF OUR COUNTRY, THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES HAS IMPEACHED ONLY TWO PRESIDENTS. A THIRD WAS ON HIS WAY TO IMPEACHMENT WHEN HE WAS RESIGNED. THIS COMMITTEE HASN'T VOTED TO IMPEACH TWO PRESIDENTS. WE HAVE VOTED TO IMPEACH ONE PRESIDENT FOR OBSTRUCTING A CONGRESSIONAL INVESTIGATION. TO THE EXTENT THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP'S CONDUCT FITS THESE CATEGORIES, THERE'S PRECEDENT FOR RECOMMENDING IMPEACHMENT HERE. NEVER BEFORE IN THE HISTORY OF THE REPUBLIC HAVE WE BEEN FORCED TO CONSIDER THE CONDUCT OF A PRESIDENT WHO HAS SOLICITED FAVORS FROM A FOREIGN GOVERNMENT. NEVER BEFORE HAS A PRESIDENT ENGAGED IN THE COURSE OF CONDUCT, THAT INCLUDED ALL OF THE ACTS THAT MOST CONCERNED THE FRAMERS. THE PATRIOTS WHO FOUNDED OUR COUNTRY WERE NOT FEARFUL MEN. THEY FOUGHT A WAR. THEY WITNESSED TERRIBLE VIOLENCE. THEY OVERTHREW A KING. IT IS A MEANT TO FRAME OUR CONSTITUTION, THOSE PATRIOTS STILL FEARED ONE THREAT ABOVE ALL, FOREIGN INTERFERENCE IN OUR ELECTIONS. AL THEY WERE DEEPLY WORRIED WE WOULD LOSE OUR NEW FOUND LIBERTY, NOT THROUGH A WAR. IF A FOREIGN ARMY WERE TO INVADE WE'D SEE THAT COMING, BUT FROM CORRUPTION FROM WITHIN. IN THE EARLY YEARS OF THE REPUBLIC THEY ASKED EACH OF US TO BE VIGILANT TO THAT THREAT. WASHINGTON WARNED US QUOTE, TO BE CONSTANTLY AWAKE SINCE HISTORY HAD EXPERIENCED PROVED FOREIGN INFLUENCE IS ONE OF THE FOES OF REPUBLICAN GOVERNMENT. AS OFTEN AS ELECTIONS HAPPEN, THE DANGER OF FOREIGN INFLUENCE RECURS. HAMILTON'S WARNING WAS MORE SPECIFIC AND MORE DIRE. IN THE FEDERALIST PAPERS HE WROTE THE MOST DEADLY ADVERSARIES OF REPUBLICAN GOVERNMENT, END QUOTE, WOULD CERTAINLY ATTEMPT TO QUOTE, RAISE A CREATURE OF THEIR OWN FOR THE CHIEF MAGESTRICY OF THE GOVERNMENT. WHAT KIND OF PRESIDENT WOULD DO THAT? HOW WILL WE KNOW IF THE PRESIDENT HAS BETRAYED HIS COUNTRY IN THIS MANNER? HOW WILL WE KNOW IF HE'S BETRAYED HIS COUNTRY IN THIS MANNER FOR PETTY PERSONAL GAIN? HAMILTON HAD A RESPONSE FOR THAT AS WELL. HE WROTE WHEN A MAN UNPRINCIPLED IN PRIVATE LIFE, DESPERATE IN FORTUNE, BOLD IN HIS TEMPER, KNOWN TO HAVE SCOFFED IN PRIVATE AT THE PRINCIPLES OF LIBERTY, WHEN SUCH A MAN IS SEEN TO MOUNT THE HOBBY HORSE OF POPULARITY AND JOIN THE CRY OF DANGER TO LIBERTY TO TAKE EVERY OPPORTUNITY OF EMBARRASSING THE GENERAL GOVERNMENT AND BRINGING IT UNDER SUSPICION, IT MAY JUSTLY BE SUSPECTED HIS OBJECT IS TO THROW THINGS INTO CONFUSION, THAT HE MAY RIDE THE STORM AND DIRECT THE WHIRLWIND. LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, THE STORM IN WHICH WE FIND OURSELVES TODAY WAS SET IN MOTION BY PRESIDENT TRUMP. I DO NOT WISH THIS MOMENT ON THE COUNTRY. IT IS NOT A PLEASANT TASK WE UNDERTAKE. WE HAVE TAKEN AN OATH TO PROTECT THE CONSTITUTION AND THE FACTS ARE CLEAR. PRESIDENT TRUMP DID NOT SEEK TO BENEFIT FROM FOREIGN INTERFERENCE IN OUR ELECTIONS, HE DIRECTLY AND EXPLICITEDLY INVITED FOREIGN INTERFERENCE IN OUR ELECTIONS. HE USED THE POWERS OF HIS OFFICE TO TRY TO MAKE IT HAPPEN. HE SENT HIS AGENTS TO MAKE CLEAR THAT THIS IS WHAT HE WANTED AND DEMANDED. HE WAS WILLING TO COMPROMISE OUR SECURITY AND HIS OFFICE FOR PERSONAL POLITICAL GAIN. IT DOES NOT MATTER THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP GOT CAUGHT AND ULTIMATELY RELEASED THE FUNDS THAT UKRAINE SO DESPERATELY NEEDED. IT MATTERS THAT HE ENLISTED A FOREIGN GOVERNMENT TO INTERVENE IN OUR ELECTIONS TO THE FIRST CLASS. IT DOES NOT MATTER THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP FELT THAT THESE INVESTIGATIONS WERE UNFAIR TO HIM. IT MATTERS THAT HE USED THIS OFFICE NOT MERELY TO DEFEND HIMSELF BUT TO OBSTRUCT INVESTIGATORS AT EVERY TURN. WE'RE ALL AWARE THAT THE NEXT ELECTION IS LOOMING, BUT WE CANNOT WAIT FOR THE ELECTION TO ADDRESS THE PRESENT CRISIS. THE INTEGRITY OF THAT ELECTION IS ONE OF THE VERY THINGS AT STAKE. THE PRESIDENT HAS SHOWN US HIS PATTERN OF CONDUCT. IF WE DO NOT ACT TO HOLD HIM IN CHECK NOW, PRESIDENT TRUMP WILL ALMOST CERTAINLY TRY AGAIN TO SOLICIT INTERFERENCE IN THE ELECTION FOR HIS PERSONAL POLITICAL GAIN. TODAY WE WILL BEGIN OUR CONVERSATION WHERE WE SHOULD, WITH THE TEXT OF THE CONSTITUTION. WE ARE EMPOWERED TO RECOMMEND THE IMPEACHMENT OF PRESIDENT TRUMP TO THE HOUSE IF WE FIND THAT HE HAS COMMITTED TREASON, BRIBERY OR OTHER HIGH CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS. OUR WITNESS PANEL WILL HELP US TO GUIDE THAT CONVERSATION. IN A FEW DAYS, WE'LL RECONVENE AND HEAR FROM THE COMMITTEES THAT WORK TO UNCOVER THE FACTS BEFORE US. AND WHEN WE APPLY CONSTITUTION TO THOSE FACTS, IF IT IS TRUE THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP HAS COMMITTED AN IMPEACHABLE OFFENSE OR MULTIPLE IMPEACHABLE OFFENSES, THEN WE MUST MOVE SWIFTLY TO DO OUR DUTY AND CHARGE HIM ACCORDINGLY. I THANK THE WITNESSES FOR BEING HERE TODAY. I NOW RECOGNIZE THE RANKING MEMBER OF THE JUDICIAL -- >> MR. CHAIRMAN. >> MR. COLLINS FOR HIS OPENING STATEMENT. >> MR. CHAIRMAN. MAY I MAKE A PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRY BEFORE YOU -- >> THE GENTLEMAN IS NOT IN ORDER FOR A PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRY. I RECOGNIZE THE RANKING MEMBER FOR AN OPENING STATEMENT. >> I THANK THE CHAIRMAN, AND IT IS INTERESTING THAT, AGAIN, PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRY IS SOME OF THE THINGS I WANT TO DISCUSS TODAY BECAUSE WE'RE SORT OF COMING HERE TODAY IN A DIFFERENT ARENA. FOR EVERYBODY WHO HAS NOT BEEN HERE BEFORE, IT'S A NEW ROOM, NEW RULES. IT'S A NEW MONTH. WE EVEN HAVE GOT CUTE LITTLE STICKERS FOR OUR STAFF SO WE CAN COME IN BECAUSE WE WANT TO MAKE THIS IMPORTANT AND THIS IS IMPEACHMENT. BECAUSE WE'VE DONE SUCH A TERRIBLE JOB OF IT IN THIS COMMITTEE BEFORE. BUT WHAT'S NOT NEW IS BASICALLY WHAT'S JUST BEEN REITERATED BY THE CHAIRMAN. WHAT'S NOT NEW IS THE FACTS. WHAT'S NOT NEW IS IT'S THE SAME SAD STORY. WHAT'S INTERESTING BEFORE I GET INTO MY -- PART OF MY OPENING STATEMENT. WHAT WAS JUST SAID BY THE CHAIRMAN. WE WENT BACK TO A REDO OF MR. MUELLER. WE'RE ALSO SAYING, QUOTING HIM SAYING THE ATTENTION OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE SHOULD BE ON FOREIGN INTERFERENCE. I AGREE WITH HIM COMPLETELY, EXCEPT I GUESS THE AMERICAN PEOPLE DID NOT INCLUDE THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE. BECAUSE WE DIDN'T TAKE IT UP. WE DIDN'T HAVE HEARINGS. WE DIDN'T DO ANYTHING TO DELVE DEEPLY INTO THIS ISSUE. WE PASSED ELECTION BILLS, BUT DID NOT GET INTO THE IN DEPTH PART OF WHAT MR. MUELLER TALKED ABOUT. TAKING HIS OWN REPORT AND HAVING HEARINGS ABOUT THAT. WE DIDN'T DO IT. I GUESS THE AMERICAN PEOPLE DOESN'T INCLUDE THE HOUSE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE. YOU KNOW, WE ALSO JUST HEARD AN INTERESTING DECISION. WE'RE GOING TO HAVE A LOT OF INTERESTING DISCUSSIONS TODAY ABOUT THE CONSTITUTION AND OTHER THINGS. BUT WE ALSO TALK ABOUT THE FOUNDERS. WHAT'S INTERESTING IS THE CHAIRMAN TALKED A LOT ABOUT THE FOUNDERS FROM THE QUOTES. THIS IS WHY WE HAVE THE HEARING. HE DIDN'T QUOTE WAS THE FOUNDERS BEING REALLY CONCERNED ABOUT POLITICAL IMPEACHMENT. BECAUSE YOU JUST DON'T LIKE THE GUY. YOU DIDN'T LIKE HIM SINCE NOVEMBER OF 2016. THE CHAIRMAN HAS TALKED ABOUT IMPEACHMENT SINCE LAST YEAR WHEN HE WAS ELECTED CHAIRMAN. ON NOVEMBER 17TH BEFORE HE WAS SWORN IN AS CHAIRMAN. DON'T TELL ME THIS IS ABOUT NEW EVIDENCE AND NEW THINGS AND NEW STUFF. WE MAY HAVE A NEW HEARING ROOM. WE MAY HAVE CHAIRS THAT AREN'T COMFORTABLE, BUT THIS IS NOTHING NEW, FOLKS. THIS IS SAD. SO WHAT DO WE HAVE HERE TODAY? YOU KNOW WHAT I'M THINKING? I LOOKED AT THIS AND WHAT IS INTERESTING IS THERE'S TWO THINGS THAT HAVE BECOME VERY CLEAR. THIS IMPEACHMENT IS NOT REALLY ABOUT FACTS. IF IT WAS I BELIEVE THE OTHER COMMITTEES WOULD HAVE SENT OVER RECOMMENDATIONS FOR IMPEACHMENT. THEY'RE PUTTING IT ON THIS COMMITTEE BECAUSE IF IT GOES BADLY I GUESS THEY WANT TO BLAME ADAM SCHIFF'S COMMITTEE AND OTHERS WANT TO BLAME THIS COMMITTEE. THEY'RE DRAFTING ARTICLES. DON'T BE FOOLED. THEY'RE GETTING READY FOR THIS. WE WENT AFTER THIS WITH UKRAINE, MUELLER, EEMEMOLUMENTS. THE CLOCK AND THE CALENDAR, IF YOU WANT TO KNOW WHAT THEY VALUE, YOU LOOK AT THEIR CHECKBOOK AND THEIR CALENDAR, YOU KNOW WHAT THEY VALUE. THAT'S WHAT THIS COMMITTEE VALUES. TIME. THEY WANT TO DO IT BEFORE THE END OF THE YEAR. WHY? BECAUSE THE CHAIRMAN SAID IT JUST A SECOND AGO. WE'RE SCARED OF THE ELECTIONS NEXT YEAR. WE'RE SCARED OF THE ELECTIONS THAT WE'LL LOSE AGAIN. SO WE GOT TO DO THIS NOW. THE CLOCK AND THE CALENDAR ARE WHAT'S DRIVING IMPEACHMENT, NOT THE FACTS. WHEN WE UNDERSTAND THIS, THAT'S WHAT THE WITNESSES WILL SAY TODAY. WHAT DO WE HAVE HERE TODAY? WHAT IS REALLY INTERESTING OVER THE TODAY AND FOR THE NEXT FEW WEEKS. AMERICA WILL SEE WHY MOST PEOPLE DON'T GO TO LAW SCHOOL. NO OFFENSE TO OUR PROFESSORS. BUT, PLEASE, REALLY? WE'RE BRINGING YOU IN HERE TO TESTIFY ON STUFF MOST OF YOU HAVE ALREADY WRITTEN ABOUT, ALL FOURS. FOR OPINIONS WE ALREADY KNOW OUT OF THE CLASSROOMS THAT MAYBE YOU'RE GETTING READY FOR FINALS IN TO DISCUSS THINGS YOU PROBABLY HAVEN'T EVEN HAD -- UNLESS YOU'RE REALLY GOOD ON TV OR WATCHING THE HEARINGS FOR THE LAST COUPLE WEEKS, YOU COULDN'T POSSIBLY ACTUALLY DIGESTED THE ADAM SCHIFF REPORT FROM YESTERDAY OR THE REPUBLICAN RESPONSE IN ANY REAL WAY. WE CAN BE THEORETICAL ALL WE WANT, BUT THE AMERICAN PEOPLE IS REALLY GOING TO LOOK AT THIS AND SAY HUH? WHAT ARE WE DOING? THERE'S NO FACT WITNESSES PLANNED FOR THIS COMMITTEE. THAT'S AN INTERESTING THING. THERE'S NO PLAN AT ALL EXCEPT NEXT WEEK AN AMBIGUOUS HEARING A PRESENTATION FROM THE THE OTHER COMMITTEE THAT SENT US THE REPORT AND JUDICIARY COMMITTEE, WHICH I'M NOT STILL SURE WHAT THEY WANT US TO PRESENT ON. AND NOTHING ELSE. NO PLAN. I ASKED THE CHAIRMAN BEFORE WE LEFT FOR THANKSGIVING TO STAY IN TOUCH, LET'S TALK ABOUT WHAT WE HAVE. HISTORY WILL SHINE A BRIGHT LIGHT ON US STARTING THIS MORNING. CRICKETS. UNTIL I ASKED FOR A WITNESS THE OTHER DAY AND LET'S JUST SAY THAT DIDN'T GO WELL. THERE'S NO WHISTLE-BLOWER. BY THE WAY, IT WAS PROVED TODAY THAT HE'S NOT -- OR SHE'S NOT AFFORDED THE PROTECTION OF IDENTITY. IT'S NOT IN THE STATUTE. IT'S SOMETHING THAT WAS DISCUSSED BY ADAM SCHIFF. WE ALSO DON'T HAVE ADAM SCHIFF WHO WROTE THE REPORT. HE SAID YESTERDAY I'M NOT GOING TO -- I'LL SEND STAFF TO DO THAT. HE'S NOT GOING TO, BUT TO ME IF HE WAS GOING TO HE'D COME BEGGING TO US. YOU KNOW, HERE'S THE PROBLEM. IT SUMS IT UP SIMPLY LIKE THIS. JUST 19 MINUTES AFTER NOON ON INAUGURATION DAY 2017 "THE WASHINGTON POST" RAN THE HEADLINE THE CAMPAIGN TO IMPEACH THE PRESIDENT HAS BEGUN. A TWEET FROM JANUARY 2017, THE COUP HAS STARTED. THE IMPEACHMENT WILL FOLLOW. IN MAY OF THIS YEAR, AL GREEN SAID IF WE DON'T IMPEACH THE PRESIDENT HE'LL GET REELECTED. DO YOU KNOW WHAT'S HAPPENING? HERE WE GO. WHY DID EVERYTHING I SAY ABOUT NO FACT WITNESSES FOR THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE, WE DIDN'T EVEN FIND YOUR NAMES OUT UNTIL LESS THAN 48 HOURS AGO. I DON'T KNOW WHAT WE'RE PLAYING HIDE THE BALL ON, IT'S PRETTY EASY WHAT YOU'RE GOING TO SAY. WE CAN'T GET THAT STRAIGHT. WHAT ARE WE DOING FOR THE NEXT TWO WEEKS? I HAVE NO IDEA. AN AMBIGUOUS HEARING ON THE REPORT. IF WE'RE NOT GOING TO HAVE FACT WITNESSES THEN WE'RE THE RUBBER STAMP HIDING OUT BACK. WHAT A DISGRACE TO THIS COMMITTEE. TO HAVE A COMMITTEE OF IMPEACHMENT SIMPLY TAKE FROM OTHER ENTITIES AND RUBBER STAMP IT. YOU SAY WHY DID THE THINGS I SAY MATTER ABOUT FACT WITNESSES AND ACTUALLY HAVING A DUE PROCESS? BY THE WAY, JUST A COUPLE MONTHS AGO, THE DEMOCRATS GOT ALL SORT OF DRESSED UP IF YOU WOULD AND SAID WE'RE GOING TO HAVE DUE PROCESS PROTECTION FOR THE PRESIDENT IN GOOD FAIRNESS THROUGHOUT THIS. THIS IS THE ONLY COMMITTEE IN WHICH THE PRESIDENT WOULD EVEN HAVE A POSSIBILITY, BUT NO OFFENSE TO YOU, THE LAW PROFESSORS. THE PRESIDENT HAS NOTHING TO ASK YOU. YOU'RE NOT GOING TO PROVIDE ANYTHING HE CAN'T READ. AND HIS ATTORNEYS HAVE NOTHING ELSE. PUT WITNESSES IN HERE THAT CAN BE FACT WITNESSES WHO CAN BE CROSS-EXAMINED. THAT'S FAIRNESS AND EVERY ATTORNEY ON THIS PANEL KNOWS THAT. THIS IS A SHAM. YOU KNOW, WHAT I ALSO SEE HERE IS QUOTES LIKE THIS. THERE MUST NEVER BE A NARROWLY VOTED IMPEACHMENT OR IMPEACHMENT SUPPORTED BY A MAJOR POLITICAL PARTIES OR IMPOSED BY ANOTHER. IT WILL PRODUCE BITTERNESS IN POLITICS FOR YEARS TO COME AND WILL CALL INTO QUESTION THE VERY LEGITIMACY OF OUR POLITICAL INSTITUTIONS. AMERICAN PEOPLE ARE WATCHING, THEY'LL NOT FORGET. YOU HAVE THE VOTES. YOU MAY HAVE THE MUSCLE BUT YOU DO NOT HAVE LEGITIMACY OF A NATIONAL CONSENSUS OR CONSTITUTIONAL IMPAIRMENT. THE COUP D'ETAT WILL GO DOWN IN INFAMY IN THE HISTORY OF THE NATION. HOW ABOUT THIS ONE. I THINK THE KEY POINT IS THE REPUBLICANS ARE RUNNING A RAILROAD JOB WITH NO ATTEMPT AT FAIR PROCEDURE. TODAY WHEN THE DEMOCRATS OFFERED AMENDMENTS, MOTIONS IN COMMITTEE TO SAY WE SHOULD FIRST ADOPT STANDARDS SO WE KNOW WHAT WE'RE DEALING WITH, STANDARDS FOR IMPEACHMENT THAT WAS VOTED DOWN OR RULED OUT OF ORDER. WHEN WE SAY THE IMPORTANT THING IS TO START LOOKING AT THE QUESTION BEFORE WE HAVE A VOTE WITH NO INQUIRY, THAT WAS VOTED DOWN. THAT'S ALL WE DISCUSSED. THE ESSENTIAL QUESTION, HERE IT IS, TO SET UP A FAIR PROCESS AS TO WHETHER THE COUNTRY PUT THIS COUNTRY THROUGH AN IMPEACHMENT PROCEEDING, THAT WAS RULED OUT OF ORDER. THE REPUBLICANS REFUSED TO LET US DISCUSS IT. THOSE ARE ALL, CHAIRMAN NADLER, BEFORE HE WAS CHAIRMAN. I GUESS 20 YEARS MAKES A DIFFERENCE. IT'S AN INTERESTING TIME. WE'RE HAVING A FACTLESS IMPEACHMENT. YOU HEARD A ONE SIDED PRESENTATION OF FACTS ABOUT THIS PRESIDENT. TODAY WE'LL PRESENT THE OTHER SIDE IF WE SHOULD GET SO CONVENIENTLY LEFT OUT. REMEMBER, FAIRNESS DOES DICTATE THAT. MAYBE NOT HERE BECAUSE WE'RE NOT SCHEDULING ANYTHING ELSE. I HAVE A DEMOCRATIC MAJORITY WHO HAS POLL TESTED WHAT THEY THINK THE PRESIDENT DID. THAT'S NOT FOLLOWING THE FACTS. WE JUST A DEEP SEATED HATRED OF A MAN WHO CAME TO THE WHITE HOUSE AND DID WHAT HE SAID HE WAS GOING TO DO. THE MOST AMAZING QUESTION I GOT IN THE FIRST THREE MONTHS OF THIS GENTLEMAN'S PRESIDENCY WAS PUT FORWARD WAS THIS, CAN YOU BELIEVE HE IS PUTTING FORWARD THOSE IDEAS? YES, HE TOLD YOU. HE DID WHAT HE SAID. THIS WILL ALSO BE ONE OF THE FIRST IMPEACHMENTS, THE CHAIRMAN MENTIONED THERE WAS TWO OF THEM. THE ONE BEFORE HE RESIGNED, HIM AND CLINTON. WHICH THE FACTS EVEN BY DEMOCRATS AND REPUBLICANS WERE NOT REALLY DISPUTED. IN THIS ONE THEIR COUNTERINDICATIVE OF EACH OTHER. THERE ARE NO SET FACTS HERE. THERE IS NOT ANYTHING THAT PRESENTS AN IMPEACHMENT HERE EXCEPT A PRESIDENT CARRYING OUT HIS JOB IN THE WAY THE CONSTITUTION SAW THAT HE SEES FIT TO DO IT. THIS IS WHERE WE'RE AT TODAY. THE INTERESTING THING I COME TO WITH MOST EVERYBODY HERE, IS THIS MAY BE A NEW TIME AND PLACE AND WE MAY BE LOOKING PRETTY FOR IMPEACHMENT. THIS IS NOT AN IMPEACHMENT. THIS IS JUST A SIMPLE RAILROAD JOB. AND TODAY'S IS A WASTE OF TIME. BECAUSE THIS IS WHERE WE'RE AT. SO I CLOSE TODAY WITH THIS, IT DIDN'T START WITH MUELLER, A PHONE CALL. DO YOU KNOW WHERE THIS STARTED? IT STARTED WITH TEARS IN BROOKLYN IN NOVEMBER 2016. WHEN AN ELECTION WAS LOST. SO WE'RE HERE, NO PLAN, NO FACT WITNESSES, SIMPLY BEING A RUBBER STAMP FOR WHAT WE HAVE. HEY, WE GOT LAW PROFESSORS HERE. WHAT A START OF A PARTY. MR. CHAIRMAN, BEFORE I YIELD BACK, I HAVE A MOTION. UNDER CLAUSE 2, RULE 11. >> THE GENTLEMAN WAS RECOGNIZED FOR THE PURPOSE OF AN OPENING STATEMENT NOT FOR THE PURPOSE OF MAKING A MOTION. >> I YIELD BACK AND MAKE A MOTION FOR CLAUSE 2, RULE 11. >> THE GENTLEMAN IS RECOGNIZED. >> I MOVE TO REQUIRE THE ATTENDANTS IN TESTIMONY OF CHAIRMAN SCHIFF BEFORE THIS COMMITTEE AND TRANSMIT THIS LETTER ACCORDINGLY. >> FOR PURPOSES THE GENTLE LADY SEEK RECOGNITION? MOTION TO TABLE IS MADE AND NOT DEBATABLE. ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE, OPPOSED? >> RECORD THE VOTE. >> RECORDED VOTE IS REQUESTED. THE CLERK -- >> PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRY, MR. CHAIRMAN. >> THE CLERK WILL CALL THE ROLL. YOU'RE NOT RECOGNIZED AT THIS TIME, THERE'S A VOTE -- >> JUST TO REMIND -- YOU DON'T WANT CHAIRMAN SCHIFF COMING, CORRECT? >> THE CLERK WILL CALL THE ROLE. >> MR. NADLE MS. JACKSON LEE? MR. COHEN? MR. JOHNSON OF GEORGIA? MR. JOHNSON OF GEORGIA VOTES AYE. MR. DEUTSCHE. MR. RICHMOND. MR. JEFFRIES. MR. SISOLINI? MR. SALVO. MR. LU? MR. RASKIN. MS. DEMINGS, MR. CARRERA. MS. SCANLON. MS. GARCIA. MS. McBETH. MR. STANTON. MS. DEAN? MS. POWELL? MS. ESCOBAR. MR. COLLINS. MR. SENSESON BRENNER. MR. GOMER, MR. JORDAN. MR. BUCK, MR. RADCLIFF. MR. GATES? MR. JOHNSON OF LOUISIANA? MR. BIGGS? MR. McCLINTOCK. MR. CLINE? MR. ARMSTRONG. MR. STUBIE? >> HAS EVERYONE VOTED WHO WISHES TO VOTE? >> MS. BASS VOTES AYE. >> CLERK WILL REPORT. >> 24 AYES AND 17 NOES. THE MOTION TO TABLE IS AGREED TO. >> I HAVE A PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRY. >> GENTLEMAN WILL STATE HIS PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRY. >> THE IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY PROCEDURES STATES THAT MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE CAN RAISE OBJECTIONS RELATING TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF TESTIMONY IN EVIDENCE. BUT IT DOESN'T SAY WHAT RULES APPLY TO ADMISSIBILITY. SO I'M HOPING YOU CAN EXPLAIN TO US WHAT OBJECTIONS MAY BE MADE UNDER THIS CLAUSE AND IF YOU INTEND TO USE THE FEDERAL RULES OF EVIDENCE -- >> THE GENTLEMAN WILL SUSPEND. THAT'S NOT A PROPER PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRY. >> IT IS. >> IT IS NOT. >> I STATED A RULE -- >> STATED A RULE, YOU CAN IGNORE IT AND NOT ANSWER IT, YOU CAN'T SAY -- >> I'M ASKING FOR THE APPLICATION OF THE RULE FOR AN EXPLANATION. >> YOU WILL APPLY THE RULES, PERIOD. >> YOU WON'T HELP US UNDERSTAND THAT? THERE'S NO CLARITY THERE. HOW ARE YOU DECIDING THAT? THE IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY -- >> I WOULD -- >> HOW IS THAT UNCLEAR? >> IT'S THE RULES OF THE HOUSE AND THEY'LL BE APPLIED. PERIOD. >> I'M ASKING HOW WILL THEY BE APPLIED HERE, SIR. >> THEY'LL BE APPLIED ACCORDING TO THE RULES. >> BUT NOT ANSWERING YOUR QUESTION. >> CIRCULAR RESPONSE. THANK YOU. MR. CHAIRMAN, CAN YOU PLEASE ITERATE THE SCHEDULE GOING FORWARD? IN OTHER WORDS THE ADDITIONAL HEARINGS -- >> THE GENTLEMAN WILL SUSPEND DE -- >> RELEASING. >> THAT'S NOT A PROPER PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRY. WITHOUT OBJECTION ALL OTHER OPENING STATEMENTS WILL BE INCLUDED IN THE RECORD. I'LL NOW -- >> MR. CHAIRMAN. >> NOAH FELDMAN -- >> MR. CHAIRMAN. I SEEK RECOGNITION. >> GENTLEMAN IS -- I AM NOT GOING TO RECOGNIZE YOU NOW. I AM INTRODUCING THE WITNESSES. >> MR. CHAIRMAN -- >> NOAH FELDMAN IS THE PROFESSOR OF LAW AT HARVARD LAW SCHOOL. HE'S AUTHORED SEVEN BOOKS, INCLUDING A BIOGRAPHY OF JAMES MADISON AS WELL AS MANY ESSAYS AND ARTICLES ON CONSTITUTIONAL SUBJECTS. PROFESSOR FELDMAN RECEIVED HIS UNDERGRADUATE DEGREE FROM HARVARD COLLEGE, DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY FROM OXFORD UNIVERSITY AND A J.D. FROM YALE LAW SCHOOL. HE ALSO SERVED AS A LAW CLERK TO JUSTICE DAVID SUITOR OF THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT. PAMELA CARLINE SERVES AS THE MONTGOMERY PROFESSOR OF PUBLIC INTEREST LAW AND AT STANFORD LAW SCHOOL. SHE'S AN AUTHOR OF KEEPING FAITH OF THE CONSTITUTION AND DOZENS OF SCHOLARLY ARTICLES. SHE SERVED AS A LAW CLERK TO JUSTICE HARRY BLACKBURN OF THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT AND AS A DEPUTY ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL. SHE EARNED THREE DEGREES FROM YALE UNIVERSITY. A B.A. IN HISTORY, AN M.A. IN HISTORY AND A J.D. FROM YALE LAW SCHOOL. MICHAEL GAREHART IS A PROFESSOR OF JURISPRUDENCE AT THE UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA SCHOOL OF LAW AND DIRECTOR OF UNC'S CENTER FOR LAW AND GOVERNMENT. HE'S THE AUTHOR OF MANY BOOKS, INCLUDING FEDERAL IMPEACHMENT PROCESS, THE CONSTITUTIONAL AND HISTORICAL ANALYSIS. AS WELL AS MORE THAN 50 LAW REVIEW PUBLICATIONS ON A DIVERSE RANGE OF TOPICS IN CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, FEDERAL JURISDICTION AND THE LEGISLATIVE PROCESS. HE RECEIVED HIS J.D. FROM THE UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO LAW SCHOOL. HIS M.S. FROM THE LONDON SCHOOL OF ECONOMICS, AND HIS B.A. FROM YALE UNIVERSITY. JONATHAN TURLEY IS THE MAURICE C. SHAPIRO CHAIR OF PUBLIC INTEREST LAW AT GEORGE WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY LAW SCHOOL WHERE HE TEACHES TORTS, CRIMINAL PROCEDURE AND CONSTITUTIONAL LAW. AFTER A STINT AT TULANE LAW SCHOOL, HE JOINED THE JW LAW FACULTY IN 1990. IN 1998 HE BECAME THE YOUNGEST CHAIRED PROFESSOR IN THE SCHOOL'S HISTORY. HE'S WRITTEN OVER THREE DOZEN ACADEMIC ARTICLES FOR A VARIETY OF LEADING LAW JOURNALS AND HIS ARTICLES ON LEGAL ISSUES APPEAR FREQUENTLY IN PUBLICATIONS. HE EARNED DEGREES FROM THE UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO, NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW. WE WELCOME OUR DISTINGUISHED WITNESSES. WE THANK THEM FOR PARTICIPATING IN TODAY'S HEARING. IF YOU WOULD PLEASE RISE I'LL BEGIN BY SWEARING YOU IN. RAISE YOUR -- DO YOU SWEAR OR AFFIRM UNDER PENALTY OF PERJURY THAT THE TESTIMONY YOU'RE ABOUT TO GIVE IS TRUE AND CORRECT TO THE BEST OF YOUR KNOWLEDGE, INFORMATION AND BELIEF SO HELP YOU GOD? LET THE RECORDS SHOW THE WITNESSES ANSWERED IN THE AFFIRMATIVE. EACH OF YOUR WRITTEN STATEMENTS WILL BE ENTERED INTO THE RECORD IN ITS ENTIRETY. I ASK THAT YOU SUMMARIZE YOUR TESTIMONY IN TEN MINUTES. TO HELP YOU STAY WITHIN THAT TIME THERE'S A TIMING LIGHT ON YOUR TABLE. WHEN THE LIGHT SWITCHES FROM GREEN TO YELLOW, YOU HAVE ONE MINUTE TO CONCLUDE YOUR TESTIMONY. WHEN THE LIGHT TURNS RED, IT SIGNALS YOUR TEN MINUTES HAVE EXPIRED. PROFESSOR FELDMAN, YOU MAY BEGIN. >> MR. CHAIRMAN -- >> MR. CHAIRMAN, I HAVE A MOTION. >> THE GENTLEMAN IS NOT IN ORDER TO OFFER A MOTION -- >> MR. CHAIRMAN I SEE RECOGNITION FOR A PRIVILEGE MOTION. >> MR. CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE, THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR THE OPPORTUNITY TO APPEAR. MY NAME IS NOAH FELDMAN I SERVE -- >> THE WITNESS WILL PROCEED. >> I SERVE AS THE FELIX FRANKFER -- >> I SEEK RECOGNITION FOR MY MOTION. >> THE GENTLEMAN WILL SUSPEND THE TIME IS THE WITNESS'. >> PRIVILEGED MOTION NEEDS TO BE RECOGNIZED. YOU CAN CALL IT NOT -- >> IN BETWEEN THE WITNESSES IT MAY BE RECOGNIZED, NOT ONCE I RECOGNIZE THE WITNESS. THE WITNESS WILL PROCEED, WE'LL ENTERTAIN THE MOTION AFTER THE FIRST WITNESS. >> MY JOB IS TO TEACH THE CONSTITUTION FROM ITS ORIGINS UNTIL THE PRESENT. I'M HERE TO DESCRIBE THREE THINGS. WHY THE FRAMERS OF OUR CONSTITUTION INCLUDED A PROVISION FOR THE IMPEACHMENT OF THE PRESIDENT. WHAT THAT PROVISION PROVIDING FOR IMPEACHMENT FOR HIGH CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS MEANS. AND LAST, HOW IT APPLIES TO THE QUESTION BEFORE YOU AND BEFORE THE AMERICAN PEOPLE WHETHER PRESIDENT TRUMP HAS COMMITTED IMPEACHABLE OFFENSES UNDER THE CONSTITUTION. LET ME BEGIN BY STATING MY CONCLUSIONS. THE FRAMERS PROVIDED FOR THE IMPEACHMENT OF THE PRESIDENT BECAUSE THEY FEARED THAT THE PRESIDENT MIGHT ABUSE THE POWER OF HIS OFFICE FOR PERSON BENEFIT, TO CORRUPT THE ELECTORAL PROCESS AND INSURE HIS REELECTION, OR TO SUBVERT THE NATIONAL SECURITY OF THE UNITED STATES. HIGH CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS ARE ABUSES OF POWER AND PUBLIC TRUST CONNECTED TO THE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENCY. ON THE BASIS OF THE TESTIMONY AND THE EVIDENCE BEFORE THE HOUSE. PRESIDENT TRUMP HAS COMMITTED IMPEACHABLE HIGH CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS BY CORRUPTLY ABUSING THE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENCY. SPECIFICALLY, PRESIDENT TRUMP HAS ABUSED HIS OFFICE BY CORRUPTLY SOLICITING PRESIDENT ZELENSKY OF UKRAINE TO ANNOUNCE INVESTIGATIONS OF HIS POLITICAL RIVALS IN ORDER TO GAIN PERSONAL ADVANTAGE, INCLUDING IN THE 2020 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION. LET ME BEGIN FOR WHY THE FRAMERS PROVIDED FOR IMPEACHMENT IN THE FIRST PLACE. THEY BORROWED THE CONCEPT OF IMPEACHMENT FROM ENGLAND BUT WITH ONE ENORMOUS DIFFERENCE. THE HOUSE OF COMMONS AND THE HOUSE OF LORDS COULD USE IMPEACHMENT IN ORDER TO LIMIT THE MINISTERS OF THE KING. THEY COULD NOT IMPEACH THE KING AND IN THAT SENSE THE KING WAS ABOVE THE LAW. IN STARK CONTRAST, THE FRAMERS FROM THE VERY OUTSET OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION IN 178 7 MADE IT CLEAR THE PRESIDENT WOULD BE SUBJECT TO IMPEACHMENT IN ORDER TO DEMONSTRATE THAT THE PRESIDENT WAS SUBORDINATE TO THE LAW. IF YOU WILL, I WOULD LIKE YOU TO THINK NOW ABOUT A SPECIFIC DATE IN THE CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION, JULY 20TH, 1787. IT WAS THE MIDDLE OF A LONG HOT SUMMER. ON THAT DAY, TWO MEMBERS OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION ACTUALLY MOVED TO TAKE OUT THE IMPEACHMENT PROVISION FROM THE DRAFT CONSTITUTION. THEY HAD A REASON FOR THAT AND THE REASON WAS THEY SAID THE PRESIDENT WILL HAVE TO STAND FOR REELECTION. IF THE PRESIDENT HAS TO STAND FOR REELECTION THAT IS ENOUGH. WE DON'T NEED A SEPARATE PROVISION FOR IMPEACHMENT. WHEN THAT PROPOSAL WAS MADE, SIGNIFICANT DISAGREEMENT ENSUED. THE GOVERNOR OF NORTH CAROLINA, A MAN CALLED WILLIAM DAVIE IMMEDIATELY SAID IF THE PRESIDENT CANNOT BE IMPEACHED HE WILL SPARE MORE METHODS OR MEANS WHATEVER TO GET HIMSELF REELECTED. FOLLOWING DAVIE, GEORGE MASON OF VIRGINIA, A FIERCE REPUBLICAN CRITIC OF EXECUTIVE POWER SAID NO POINT IS MORE IMPORTANT. SHALL ANY MAN BE ABOVE JUSTICE HE ASKED. THUS EXPRESSING THE CORE CONCERN THE PRESIDENT MUST BE SUBORDINATE TO THE LAW. JAMES MADISON SAID IT WAS QUOTE, UNDISPENSABLE THAT SOME PROVISION BE MADE FOR IMPEACHMENT. WHY? HE SAID STANDING FOR REELECTION WAS NOT A SUFFICIENT SECURITY AGAINST PRESIDENTIAL MISCONDUCT OR CORRUPTION. A PRESIDENT HE SAID MIGHT BETRAY HIS TRUST TO FOREIGN POWERS. A PRESIDENT IN A CORRUPT FASHION ABUSED THE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENCY SAID JAMES MADISON, QUOTE, MIGHT BE FATAL TO THE REPUBLIC, CLOSED QUOTE. AND THEN A REMARKABLE THING HAPPENED IN THE CONVENTION. MORRIS OF PENNSYLVANIA, ONE OF THE TWO PEOPLE WHO HAD INTRODUCED THE MOTION TO ELIMINATE IMPEACHMENT GOT UP AND SAID I WAS WRONG. HE TOLD THE OTHER FRAMERS PRESENT HE HAD CHANGED HIS MIND ON THE BASIS OF THE DEBATE ON JULY 20TH AND THAT IT WAS NOW HIS OPINION THAT IN ORDER TO AVOID CORRUPTION OF THE ELECTORAL PROCESS A PRESIDENT WOULD HAVE TO BE SUBJECT TO IMPEACHMENT REGARDLESS OF THE AVAILABILITY OF A FURTHER ELECTION. THE UPSHOT OF THIS DEBATE IS THAT THE FRAMERS KEPT IMPEACHMENT IN THE CONSTITUTION SPECIFICALLY IN ORDER TO PROTECT AGAINST THE ABUSE OF OFFICE WITH THE CAPACITY TO CORRUPT THE ELECTORAL PROCESS OR LEAD TO PERSONAL GAIN. TURNING TO THE LANGUAGE OF THE CONSTITUTION, THE FRAMERS USED THE WORDS HIGH CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS TO DESCRIBE THOSE FORMS OF ACTION THAT THEY CONSIDERED IMPEACHABLE. THESE WERE NOT VAGUE OR ABSTRACT TERMS TO THE FRAMERS. HIGH CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS WAS VERY -- THE WORDS HIGH CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS REPRESENTED VERY SPECIFIC LANGUAGE THAT WAS WELL-UNDERSTOOD BY THE ENTIRE GENERATION OF THE FRAMERS. INDEED, THEY WERE BORROWED FROM AN IMPEACHMENT TRIAL IN ENGLAND THAT WAS TAKING PLACE AS THE FRAMERS WERE SPEAKING, WHICH WAS REFERRED TO, IN FACT, BY GEORGE MASON. THE WORDS HIGH CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS REFER TO ABUSE OF THE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENCY FOR PERSONAL ADVANTAGE OR TO CORRUPT THE ELECTORAL PROCESS OR TO SUBVERT THE NATIONAL SECURITY OF THE UNITED STATES. THERE'S NO MYSTERY ABOUT THE WORDS HIGH CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS. THE WORD HIGH MODIFIES BOTH CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS. THEY'RE BOTH HIGH. AND HIGH MEANS CONNECTED TO THE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENCY. CONNECTED TO OFFICE. A CLASSIC FORM WAS ABUSE OF OFFICE FOR PERSONAL ADVANTAGE. WHEN THEY SAID BRIBERY, THEY WERE NAMING ONE VERSION, THE ABUSE OF OFFICE, THE ABUSE OF OFFICE FOR PERSONAL OR INDIVIDUAL GAIN. THE OTHER FORMS OF ABUSE OF OFFICE, ABUSE OF OFFICE TO AFFECT ELECTIONS, TO COMPROMISE NATIONAL SECURITY WERE ALSO FAMILIAR TO THE FRAMERS. NOW HOW DOES THIS LANGUAGE OF HIGH CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS APPLY TO PRESIDENT TRUMP'S ALLEGED CONDUCT? LET ME BE CLEAR, THE CONSTITUTION GIVES THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, THAT IS THE MEDICATION OF THIS COMMITTEE AND THE OTHER MEMBERS OF THE HOUSE, QUOTE, SOLE POWER OF IMPEACHMENT. IT'S NOT MY RESPONSIBILITY OR MY JOB TO DETERMINE THE CREDIBILITY OF THE WITNESSES WHO APPEAR BEFORE THE HOUSE THUS FAR. THAT IS YOUR CONSTITUTIONAL RESPONSIBILITY. MY COMMENTS WILL THEREFORE, FOLLOW MY ROLE, WHICH IS TO DESCRIBE AND APPLY THE MEANING OF IMPEACHABLE OFFENSES TO THE FACTS DESCRIBED BY THE TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE BEFORE THE HOUSE. PRESIDENT TRUMP'S CONDUCT AS DESCRIBED IN THE TESTIMONY IN EVIDENCE CLEARLY CONSTITUTES IMPEACHABLE HIGH CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS UNDER THE CONSTITUTION. IN PARTICULAR, THE MEMORANDUM AND OTHER TESTIMONY RELATING TO THE JULY 25TH, 2019, PHONE CALL BETWEEN THE TWO PRESIDENTS, PRESIDENT TRUMP AND PRESIDENT ZELENSKY MORE THAN SUFFICIENTLY INDICATES THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP ABUSED HIS OFFICE BY SOLICITING THE PRESIDENT OF UKRAINE TO INVESTIGATE HIS POLITICAL RIVALS IN ORDER TO GAIN PERSONAL POLITICAL ADVANTAGE, INCLUDING IN RELATION TO THE 2020 ELECTION. AGAIN, WORDS ABUSE OF OFFICE ARE NOT MYSTICAL OR MAGICAL. THEY'RE VERY CLEAR. THE ABUSE OF OFFICE OCCURS WHEN THE PRESIDENT USES A FEATURE OF HIS POWER, THE AWESOME POWER OF HIS OFFICE NOT TO SERVE THE INTERESTS OF THE AMERICAN PUBLIC, BUT TO SERVE HIS PERSONAL INDIVIDUAL PARTISAN EELECTORAL INTERESTS. THAT'S WHAT THE EVIDENCE BEFORE THE HOUSE INDICATES. FINALLY, LET ME BE CLEAR. THAT ON ITS OWN SOLICITING THE LEADER OF A FOREIGN GOVERNMENT IN ORDER TO ANNOUNCE INVESTIGATIONS OF POLITICAL RIVALS AND PERFORM THOSE INVESTIGATIONS WOULD CONSTITUTE A HIGH CRIME AND MISDEMEANOR. BUT THE HOUSE ALSO HAS EVIDENCE BEFORE IT THAT THE PRESIDENT COMMITTED TWO FURTHER ACTS THAT ALSO QUALIFY AS HIGH CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS. IN PARTICULAR, THE HOUSE HEARD EVIDENCE THAT THE PRESIDENT PLACED A HOLD ON CRITICAL U.S. AID TO UKRAINE AND CONDITIONED ITS RELEASE ON ANNOUNCEMENT INVESTIGATIONS OF THE BIDENS AND CROWDSTRIKE CONSPIRACY THEORY. FURTHERMORE, THE HOUSE ALSO HEARD EVIDENCE THAT THE PRESIDENT CONDITIONED A WHITE HOUSE VISIT DESPERATELY SOUGHT BY THE UKRAINIAN PRESIDENT ON ANNOUNCEMENT OF THE INVESTIGATIONS. BOTH OF THESE ACTS CONSTITUTE IMPEACHABLE HIGH CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS UNDER THE CONSTITUTION. THEY EACH INCAPSULATE THE FRAMERS' WORRY THAT THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES WOULD TAKE ANY MEANS WHATEVER TO INSURE HIS REELECTION. THAT'S THE REASON THE FRAMERS PROVIDED FOR IMPEACHMENT IN A CASE LIKE THIS ONE. >> MR. CHAIRMAN -- >> THE GENTLEMAN'S TIME IS EXPIRED. >> MR. CHAIRMAN, I SEEK RECOGNITION. >> GENTLEMAN'S RECOGNIZED. >> I OFFER A MOTION TO POSTPONE TO A DATE CERTAIN. >> I MOVE TO TABLE THE MOTION. >> MOTION TO TABLE IS HEARD. AND IS NOT DEBATABLE -- >> MR. CHAIRMAN. MAY WE HAVE THE MOTION READ, PLEASE? >> THE MOTION WAS STATED AS TO ADJOURN -- >> MAY WE HAVE THE MOTION READ? >> THE MOTION WILL BE READ. >> THE MOTION WILL BE READ TO A DATE CERTAIN, WEDNESDAY DECEMBER 11TH, 2019, SO WE CAN GET A RESPONSE TO THE SIX LETTERS -- >> GENTLEMAN HAS STATED HIS MOTION, MOTION TO TABLE IS MADE. >> CORRECT. >> MOTION TO TABLE IS MADE AND NOT DEBATABLE. ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE. THE CLERK WILL CALL THE ROLL. >> MR. NADLER. >> EYE. >> LIS LOVE GRAN? >> MR. COHEN. >> MR. COHEN. >> MR. JOHNSON VOTESAYE, MR. RICHMOND, MR. JEFFRIES VOTES AYE, YES, MR. LEEU, MR. RASKIN, MISS JI PAUL, MISS DEMINGS, MISS CORIA, MR. SCANLON, MR. NEGATIVE OOUS, MISS McBATH, MR. STANTON, MR. STEEN, MISS STEEN, MISS McCAR SILL POWELL, MISS ESCOBAR, NO. >> MR. COLLINS, MR. SENSE INBURNER, MR. SHABBAT, MR. GOME ERT, MR. GOME ERT, MR. JORDON, MR. BUCK, MR. BUCK, MR. RAT CLIFR, MISS ROBY, MR. GATES, MR. GATES, MR. JOHNSON OF LOUISIANA, MR. BIGS, MR. BIGS, MR. McCLINTOCK, MISS LESKO, MR. RUSHENTHAULER, MR. KLINE, MR. ARMSTRONG, MR. ARM STRONG, MR. STUBY. >> HAS EVERYONE VOTED WHO WISHES TO VOTE? THE CLERK WILL REPORT. >> THERE ARE 24 AYEs AND 17 NOs. >> THE MOIGS TO TABLE IS ADOPTED. I RECOGNIZE PROFESSOR KARLAN FOR HER TESTIMONY. >> MR. CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE, THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR THE OPPORTUNITY TO TESTIFY. TWICE I HAVE HAD THE PRIVILEGE OF REPRESENTING THIS COMMITTEE AND ITS LEADERSHIP IN VOTING RIGHTS CASES BEFORE THE SUPREME COURT. ONCE WHEN IT WAS UNDER THE LEADERSHIP OF CHAIRMAN SENSON BRENNER AND IT'S GOOD TO SEE YOU AGAIN AND WITH MR. SHABBAT AS ONE OF MY OTHER CLIENTS AND ONCE UNDER THE LEADERSHIP OF CHAIRMAN CONYERS. IT WAS A GREAT HONOR FOR ME TO REPRESENT THIS COMMITTEE BECAUSE OF THIS COMMITTEE'S KEY ROLE OVER THE PAST 50 YEARS IN ENSURING THAT AMERICAN SIT ZBLENDS HAVE THE RIGHT TO VOTE IN FREE AND FAIR ELECTIONS. TODAY YOU'RE BEING ASKED TO CONSIDER WHETHER PROTECTING THOSE REQUIRES IMPEACHING A PRESIDENT. THAT IS AN ALWAYS RESPONSIBILITY. EVERYTHING I KNOW ABOUT OUR CONSTITUTION AND ITS VALUES AND MY REVIEW OF THE EVIDENTIARY RECORD, AND HERE MR. COLLINS I WOULD LIKE TO SAY TO YOU SIR, THAT I READ TRANS SCRIPTS OF EVERY ONE IN THE WITNESSES THAT APPEARED IN THE LIVE HEARING BECAUSE I WOULD NOT SPEAK ABOUT THESE THINGS WITHOUT REVIEWING THE FACTS. SO I'M INSULTED BY THE SUGGESTION THAT AS A LAW PRO FEFRT I DON'T CARE ABOUT THOSE FACTS. BUT EVERYTHING I READ ON THOSE OCCASIONS TELLS ME THAT WHEN PRESIDENT TRUMP INVITED INDEED DEMANDED FOREIGN INVOLVEMENT IN OUR UP COMING ELECTION, HE STRUCK AT THE VERY HEART OF WHAT THAT MAKES THIS A EPUBLIC TO WHICH WE PLEDGE ALLEGIANCE. THAT CONSTITUTED AN ABUSE OF POWER. I WANT TO EXPLAIN IN MY TESTIMONY, DRAWING A FOREIGN GOVERNMENT INTO OUR ELECTIONS IS AN ESPECIALLY SERIOUS ABUSE OF POWER BECAUSE IT UNDERMINES DEMOCRACY ITSELF. OUR CONSTITUTION BEGINS WITH THE WORDS WE THE PEOPLE FOR A REASON. OUR GOVERNMENT IN JAMES MADISON'S WORDS DERIVES ALL ITS POWERS DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY FROM THE GREAT BODY OF THE PEOPLE. AND THE WAY IT DERIVES THESE POWERS IS THROUGH ELECTIONS. ELECTIONS MATTER, BOTH TO THE LEGITIMACY OF OUR GOVERNMENT AND OUR FREEMDS. BECAUSE AS THE SUPREME COURT DECLARED MORE THAN A CENTURY AGO, VOTING IS PRESERVATIVE OF ALL RIGHTS. SO IT IS HARDLY SURPRISING THAT THE CONSTITUTION IS MARBLED WITH PROVISIONS. INDEED A MAJORITY OF THE AMENDMENTS TO OUR CONSTITUTIONS SINCE THE CIVIL WAR HAVE DEALT WITH VOTING OR WITH TERMS OF OFFICE. AND AMONG THE MOST IMPORTANT PROVISIONS OF OUR ORIGINAL CONSTITUTION IS THE GUARANTEE OF PERIODIC ELECTIONS FOR THE PRESIDENCY, ONE EVERY FOUR YEARS. AMERICA HAS KEPT THAT PROMISE FOR MORE THAN TWO CENTURIES AND IT HAS DONE SO EVEN DURING WARTIME. FOR EXAMPLE WE INVENTED THE IDEA OF ABSENTEE VOTING SO THAT UNION TROOPS WHO SUPPORTED PRESIDENT LYNCHON COULD STAY IN THE FIELD. AND SINCE THEN COUNTLESS OTHER AMERICANS HAVE FOUGHT AND DIED TO PROTECT OUR RIGHT TO VOTE. BUT THE FRAMERS REALIZED ELECTION ALONE COULD NOT GUARANTEE THAT THE UNITED STATES WOULD REMAIN REPUBLIC. ONE OF THE KEY REASONS FOR INCLUDING THE IMPEACHMENT POWER WAS A RISK THAT UNSCRUPLOUS OFFICIALS MIGHT TRY TO RIG THE ELECTION PROES. YOU'VE ALREADY HEARD TWO PEOPLE GIVE WILLIAM DAVY HIS PROPS. HAMILTON GOT A WHOLE MUSICAL AND HE'S GOING TO GET JUST THIS COMMITTEE HEARING. HE WARNED THAT UNLESS THE CONSTITUTION CONTAINED AN IMPEACHMENT PROVISION A PRESIDENT MIGHT SPARE NO MEANS TO GET HIMSELF RE-ELECTED. GEORGE MASON INSISTED THAT A PRESIDENT WHO PROCURED THROUGH IMPROPER AND CORRUPT ACTS SHOULD NOT YES SCAPE PUNISHMENT BY REPEATING HIS GUILT. MAZON WAS THE PERSON RESPONSIBLE FOR ADDING THESE TO THE LIST-WE KNOW FROM THAT THAT THE LIST WAS DESIGNED TO REACH A PRESIDENT WHO ACTS TO SUBVERT AN ELECTION, WHETHER THAT ELECTION IS THE ONE THAT BROUGHT HIM INTO OFFICE OR ITS AN UP COMING ELECTION WHERE HE SEEKS AN ADDITIONAL TERM. MOREOVER, THE FOUNDING GENERATION LIKE EVERY GENERATION OF AMERICANS SINCE WAS ESPECIALLY CONCERNED TO PROTECT OUR GOVERNMENT AND OUR DEMOCRATIC PROCESS FROM OUTSIDE INTERFERENCE. FOR EXAMPLE, JOHN ADD OMZ, DURING THE RATIFICATION, EXPRESSED CONCERN WITH THE VERY IDEA OF HAVING AN ELECTED PRESIDENT, WRITING TO THOMAS JEFFERSON THAT YOU ARE APP REHENSISK OF FOREIGN INTERFERENCE, INTRIGUE, INFLUENCE. SO AM I. BUT AS OFTEN AS ELERGSS HAPPEN, THE DANGER OCCURS. AND IN HIS FAREWELL ADDRESS, PRESIDENT WASHINGTON WARNED THAT HISTORY AND EXPERIENCE PROVED THAT FOREIGN INFLUENCE IS ONE OF THE MOST BANEFUL FOES OF REPUBLICAN GOVERNMENT. AND HE EXPLAINED THAT THIS WAS IN PART BECAUSE FOREIGN GOVERNMENTS WOULD TRY AND FOMENT DISAGREEMENT AMONG THE AMERICAN PEOPLE AND INFLUENCE WHAT WE THOUGHT. THE VERY IDEA THAT A PRESIDENT MIGHT SEEK THE AID OF A FOREIGN GOVERNMENT IN HIS RE-ELECTION CAMPAIGN WOULD HAVE HORRIFIED THEM. BUT BASED ON THE EVIDENTIARY RECORD, THAT IS WHAT PRESIDENT TRUMP HAS DONE. THE LIST OF IMPEACHABLE OFFENSES THAT THE FRAMERS INCLUDED IN THE CONSTITUTION SHOWS THAT THE ESSENCE OF AN IMPEACHABLE OFFENSE IS A PRESIDENT'S DECISION TO SACRIFICE THE NATIONAL INTEREST FOR HIS OWN PRIVATE ENDS. TREASON, THE FIRST THING LISTED, LAY IN AN INDIVIDUAL'S GIVING AID TO A FOREIGN ENEMY. THAT IS PUTTING A FOREIGN ENEMY'S ADVERSARY'S INTERESTS ABOVE THOSE OF THE UNITED STATES. BRIBERY OCCURRED WHEN AN OFFICIAL SLITSED, RECEIVED OR OFFERED A PERSONAL FAVOR OR BENEFIT TO INFLUENCE OFFICIAL ACTION RISKING THAT HE WOULD PUT HIS PRIVATE INTEREST. HIGH CRIMES AND MISDEMENORS CAPTURED THE OTHER WAYS MIGHT DISREGARD PUBLIC INTERESTS IN THE DISCHARGE OF POLITICAL OFFICE. BASED ON THE EVIDENTIARY RECORD BEFORE YOU, WHAT HAS HAPPENED IN THE CASE TODAY IS SOMETHING THAT I DO NOT THINK WE HAVE EVER SEEN BEFORE. A PRESIDENT WHO HAS DOUBLED DOWN ON VIOLATING HIS OATH TO FAITHFULLY EXECUTE THE LAWS AND TO PROTECT AND DEFEND THE CONSTITUTION. THE EVIDENCE REVEALS A PRESIDENT WHO USED THE POWERS OF HIS OFFICE TO DEMAND THAT A FOREIGN GOVERNMENT PARTICIPATE IN UNDERMINING A COMPETING CANDIDATE FOR THE PRESIDENCY. AS PRESIDENT JOHN KENNEDY DECLARED, THE RIGHT TO VOTE IN A FREE AMERICAN ELECTION IS THE MOST POWERFUL AND PRECIOUS RIGHT IN THE WORLD. BUT OUR ELECTIONS BECOME LESS FREE WHEN THEY ARE DISTORTED BY FOREIGN INTERFERENCE. WHAT HAPPENED IN 2016 WAS BAD ENOUGH. THERE IS WIDESPREAD AGREEMENT THAT RUSSIAN OPERATIVES INTERFOOENDEN VOOEND TO MANIPULATE THE PROCESS. BUT THAT IS MAGNIFIED. IF A SITTING PRESIDENT ABUSES THE POWERS OF HIS OFFICE ACTUALLY TO INVITE FOREIGN INTERVENTION. TO SEE WHY, IMAGINE LIVING IN A PART OF LOUISIANA OR TEXAS THAT'S PRONE TO DEVASTATING HURRICANES AND FLOODING. WHAT WOULD YOU THINK IF YOU LIVED THERE AND YOUR GOVERNOR ASKED FOR A MEETING WITH THE PRESIDENT TO DISCUSS GETTING DISASTER AID THAT CONGRESS HAS PROVIDED FOR. WHAT WOULD YOU THINK IF THAT PRESIDENT SAID, I WOULD LIKE TO DO YOU -- I WOULD LIKE YOU TO DO US A FAVOR. I'LL MEET WITH YOU AND I'LL SEND THE DISASTER RELIEF ONCE YOU BRAND MY OPPONENT A CRIMINAL. WOULDN'T YOU KNOW IN YOUR GUT THAT SUCH A PRESIDENT HAD ABUSED HIS OFFICE? THAT HE BETRAYED THE NATIONAL INTEREST AND THAT HE WAS TRYING TO CORRUPT THE ELECTORAL PROCESS? I BELIEVE THAT THE EVIDENTIARY RECORD SHOWS WRONGFUL ACTS ON THAT SCALE HERE. IT SHOWS A PRESIDENT WHO DELAYED MEETING A FOREIGN LEADER AND PROVIDING ASSISTANCE THAT CONGRESS AND HIS OWN ADVISERS AGREED SERVICE HIS OWN -- AND IN LIMITING RUSSIAN AGGRESSION. SAYING RUSSIA, IF YOU'RE LISTENING, YOU KNOW, A PRESIDENT WHO CARED ABOUT THE CONSTITUTION SAY RUSSIA IF YOU'RE LISTENING BUTT OUT OF OUR ELECTIONS. IT SHOWS A PRESIDENT WHO DID THIS TO STRONG ARM A FOREIGN LEADER INTO SMEARING ONE OF THE PRESIDENT'S OPPONENTS IN OUR ELECTION SEASON. THAT'S NOT POLITICS AS USUAL AT LEAST NOT IN THE UNITED STATES OR ANY MATURE DEMOCRACY. IS IT IS INSTEAD A CARDINAL REASON WHY THE CONSTITUTION CONTAINS AN IMPEACHMENT POWER. PUT SIMPLY, A PRESIDENT SHOULD RESIST FOREIGN INTERFERENCE IN OUR ELECTIONS, NOT DEMAND IF AND NOT WELCOME IT. IF WE ARE TO KEEP FAITH WITH OUR CONSTITUTION AND WITH OUR REPUBLIC, PRESIDENT TRUMP MUST BE HELD TO ACCOUNT. THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU. PROFESSOR GERHARDT. >> THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN, RANKING MEMBER, OTHER DISTINGUISHED MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE. IT'S AN HONOR AND A PRIVILEGE TO JOIN THE OTHER DISTINGUISHED WITNESSES TO DISCUSS A MATTER OF GRAVE CONCERN TO OUR COUNTRY AND TO OUR CONSTITUTION. BECAUSE THIS HOUSE, THE PEOPLE'S HOUSE, HAS THE SOLE POWER OF IMPEACHMENT, THERE IS NO BETTER FORUM TO DISCUSS THE CONSTITUTIONAL STANDARD FOR IMPEACHMENT AND WHETHER THAT STANDARD HAS BEEN MET IN THE CASE OF THE CURRENT PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES. AS I EXPLAINED IN THE REMAINDER AND BALANCE OF MY OPENING STATEMENT, THE RECORD COMPILED THUS FAR SHOWS THE PRESIDENT HAS COMMITTED SEVERAL IMPEACHABLE OFFENSES, INCLUDING BRIBERY, ABUSE OF POWER AND SOLICITING OF PERSONAL FAVOR FROM A FOREIGN LEADER TO BENEFIT HIMSELF PERSONALLY, OBSTRUCTING JUSTICE, AND OBSTRUCTING CONGRESS. OUR HEARING TODAY SHOULD SERVE AS A REMINDER OF ONE OF THE FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLES THAT DROVE THE FOUNDERS OF OUR CONSTITUTION TO BREAK FROM ENGLAND AND TO DRAFT THEIR OWN CONSTITUTION, THE PRINCIPLE THAT IN THIS COUNTRY, NO ONE IS KING. WE HAVE FOLLOWED THAT PRINCIPLE SINCE BEFORE THE FOUNDING OF THE CONSTITUTION AND IT IS RECOGNIZED AROUND THE WORLD AS A FIXED, INSPIRING, AMERICAN IDEAL. IN HIS THIRD MESSAGE TO CONGRESS IN 1903, ROOSEVELT DELIVERED ONE OF THE FINEST ARTICULATIONS OF THIS. HE SAID NO ONE IS ABOVE THE LAW AND NO MAN IS BELOW. NOR DO WE ASK ANY MAN'S PERMISSION WHEN WE REQUIRE HIM TO OBEY IT. OBEDIENCE TO THE LAW IS DEMANDED AS A RIGHT, NOT ASKED FOR AS A FAVOR. THREE FEATURES OF OUR CONSTITUTION PROTECT THE PRINCIPLE THAT NO ONE, NOT EVEN THE PRESIDENT, IS ABOVE THE LAW. FIRST IN THE BRITISH SYSTEM, THE PUBLIC HAD NO CHOICE OVER THE MONARCH WHO RULED THEM. IN OURS THE FLAME FRAMERS ALLOWED THEM TO SERVE AS A MEANS TO ENSURE ACCOUNTABILITY. SECOND IN THE BRITISH SYSTEM THE KING COULD DO NO WRONG AND NO OTHER PARTS OF THE GOVERNMENT COULD CHECK HIS MISCONDUCT. IN OUR CONSTITUTION THE FRAMERS DEVELOPED SEPARATION OF POWERS WHICH CONSISTS OF CHECKS AND BALANCES DESIGNED TO PREVENT FROM -- EVERYONE BUT THE KING WAS IMPEACHABLE. OUR FRAMERS PLEDGED THEIR LIVES AND FORTUNES TO REBEL AGAINST A MONARCH THEY SAW AS CORRUPT, TYRANNICAL AND ENTITLED. OUR DECORATION OF INDEPENDENCE THE FRAMERS SET FORTH A SERIES OF OFFENSES THAT THE KING HAD COMMITTED DENSE THE COLONISTS. THE FRAMERS WERE UNITED AROUND A SIMPLE INDISPOOUTABLE PRINCIPLE THAT WAS A MAJOR SAFEGUARD, WE THE PEOPLE AGAINST TIRRANY OF ANY KIND, A PEOPLE WHO HAD OVERTHROWN A KING WERE NOT GOING TO CREATE AN OFFICE THAT WAS ABOVE THE LAW AND COULD DO NO WRONG. THE FRAMERS CREATED A CHIEF EXECUTIVE TO BRING ENERGY TO THE ADMINISTRATION OF FEDERAL LAWS BUT TO BE ACCOUNTABLE TO CONGRESS FOR TREASON, BRIBERY OR OTHER HIGH CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS. THE FRAMERS' CONCERN ABOUT THE NEED TO PROTECT AGAINST A CORRUPT PRESIDENT WAS EVIDENT THROUGHOUT THE CONVENTION. AND HERE I MUST THANK MY PRIOR TWO FRIENDS WHO HAVE SPOKEN AND REFERRED TO A NORTH CAROLINAN, WILLIAM DAVY. I WILL REFER TO ANOTHER NORTH CAROLINAN IN THE CONSTITUTIONAL CON VOENGS, JAMES IRE DEL WHOM PRESIDENT WASHINGTON LATER PRO MOSTED, THE PRESIDENT IS OF A VERY DIFFERENT NATURE FROM A MONARCH. HE IS TO BE PERSONALLY RESPONSIBLE FOR ANY ABUSE OF THE GREAT TRUST PLACED IN HIM. UNQUOTE. THIS BRINGS US TO THE CRUCIAL QUESTION WE'RE HERE TO TALK ABOUT TODAY, THE STANDARD FOR IMPEACHMENT. THE CONSTITUTION DEFINES TREASON AND THE TERM BRIBERY BASICALLY MEANS USING OFFICE FOR PERSONAL GAIN. OR I SHOULD SAY MISUSING OFFICE FOR PERSONAL GAIN. PROFESSOR FELDMAN POINTED OUT, THESE TERMS DERIVED FROM THE BRITISH WHO UNDERSTOOD THE CLASS OF CASES TO ROVER TO POLITICAL CRIMES WHICH INCLUDED GREAT OFFENSES AGAINST THE UNITED STATES, ATTEMPTS TO SUBVERT THE CONSTITUTION, WHEN THE PRESIDENT DEVIATES FROM HIS -- SERIOUS INJURIES TO THE REPUBLIC. IN THE FEDERALIST PAPERS, IMPEACHABLE OFFENSES ARE THOSE WHICH PROCEED FROM THE MISCONDUCT OF PUBLIC MEN, THE ABUSE OR VIOLATION OF SOME PUBLIC TRUST AND RELATE TO INJURIES DONE IMMEDIATELY TO THE SOCIETY ITSELF. SEVERAL THEMES EMERGE FROM THE FRAMERS' DISCUSSION OF THE SCOPE OF IMPEACHABLE OFFENSES AND PRACTICE. WE KNOW THAT NOT ALL IMPEACHABLE OFFENSES ARE CRIMINAL AND NOT ALL FELONIES ARE IMPEACHABLE OFFENSES. WE KNOW WHAT MATTERS IN DETERMINING WHETHER PARTICULAR MISCONDUCT CONSTITUTES A HIGH DONALD TRUMP AND MISDEMEANOR IS THE CONTEXT AND THE GRAVITY OF THE MISCONDUCT IN QUESTION. AFTER REVIEWING THE EVIDENCE THAT'S BEEN MADE PUBLIC, I CANNOT HELP BUT CONCLUDE THAT THIS PRESIDENT HAS ATTACKED EACH OF THE CONSTITUTION' SAFEGUARDS AGAINST ESTABLISHING A MONARCHY IN THIS COUNTRY. BOTH THE CONTEXT AND GRAVITY OF THE PRESIDENT'S MISCONDUCT ARE CLEAR. THE FAVOR HE REKWEFTD WAS TO RECEIVE IN EXCHANGE FOR HIS USE OF POWER UKRAINE'S ANNOUNCEMENT OF A CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION OF A POLITICAL RIFLE. THE INVESTIGATION WAS NOT THE IMPORTANT ACTION FOR THE PRESIDENT. THE ANNOUNCEMENT WAS. BECAUSE IT COULD THEN BE USED IN THIS COUNTRY TO MANIPULATE THE PUBLIC INTO CASTING ASIDE THE PRESIDENT'S POLITICAL RIVAL BECAUSE OF CONCERNS ABOUT HIS CORRUPTION. THE GRAVITY OF THE PRESIDENT'S MISCONDUCT IS APPARENT WHEN WE COMPARE IT TO THE MISCONDUCT OF THE ONE PRESIDENT WHO RESIGNED TO AVOID IMPEACHMENT. THE HOUSE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE APPROVED THREE ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT AGAINST RICHARD NIXON WHO RESIGNED. THE FIRST CHARGED HIM WITH OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE. IF YOU READ THE MUELLER REPORT, IT IDENTIFIES A NUMBER OF FACTS, I WON'T LATE THEM OUT NOW, THAT SUGGESTS THE PRESIDENT HIMSELF HAS OBSTRUCTED JUSTICE. IF WE LOOK AT THE SECOND ARTICLE OF IMPEACHMENT APPROVED AGAINST RICHARD NIXON, IT CHARGED HIM WITH ABUSE OF POWER FOR ORDERING THE HEADS OF THE FBI, IRS AND CIA TO HARASS HIS POLITICAL ENEMIES. IN THE PRESENT CIRCUMSTANCE, THE PRESIDENT IS ENGAGED IN A PATTERN OF ABUSING THE POWER PLACED IN HIS BY THE AMERICAN PEOPLE BY SOLICITING FOREIGN COUNTRIES INCLUDING CHINA, RUSSIA AND UKRAINE TO INVESTIGATE HIS POLITICAL OPPONENTS AND INTERFERE ON HIS BEHALF. THE THIRD ARTICLE AGAINST NIXON CHARGED HE HAD FAILED TO COMPLY WITH FOUR SUBPOENAS. IN THE PRESENT CIRCUMSTANCE THE PRESIDENT HAS REFOOISED TO COMPLY WITH AND DIRECTED AT LEAST TEN OTHERS IN HIS ADMINISTRATION NOT TO COMPLY WITH LAWFUL CONGRESSIONAL SUBPOENAS INCLUDING SECRETARY OF STATE MIKE POMPEO RICK PERRY AND MICK MULVANEY. AS SENATOR LINDSEY GRAHAM SAID WHEN HE WAS A MEMBER OF THE HOUSE ON THE VERGE OF IMPEACHING PRESIDENT CLINTON THE DAY RICHARD NIXON FAILED TO ANSWER IS THE DAY HE WAS SUBJECT TO IMPEACHMENT BECAUSE HE TOOK THE POWER AWAY FROM CONGRESS AND BECAME THE JUDGE AND JURY. THAT IS A PERFECTLY GOOD ARTICULATION MUCH WHY OBSTRUCTION OF CONGRESS IS IMPEACHABLE. THE PRESIDENT'S DEFIANCE OF CONGRESS IS ALL THE MORE TROUBLING DUE TO THE RATIONALE HE CLAIMS FOR HIS OBSTRUCTION. HIS ARGUMENTS AND THOSE OF HIS SUBORED NAUTS INCLUDING HIS WHITE HOUSE COUNSEL IN HIS OCTOBER 8TH LETTER TO THE SPEAKER AND CHAIRS BOILS DOWN TO THE ASSERTION THAT HE IS ABOVE THE LAW. I WON'T REREAD THAT LETTER HERE, BUT I DO WANT TO DISAGREE WITH THE CHARACTERIZATION IN THE LETTER OF THESE PROCEEDINGS. SINCE THE CONSTITUTION EXPRESSLY SAYS AND THE SUPREME COURT HAS UNANIMOUSLY AFFIRMED THAT THE HOUSE HAS THE SOLE POWER OF IMPEACHMENT AND LIKE THE SENATE THE HOUSE HAS THE POWER TO DETERMINE THE RULES FOR ITS PROCEEDINGS. THE PRESIDENT AND HIS SUBORDINATES HAVE ARGUED FURTHER THE PRESIDENT IS ENTITLED TO IMMUNITY FROM CRIMINAL PROCEDURE EVEN FOR CRIMINAL WRONGDOING INCLUDING SHOOTING SOMEONE ON FIFTH AVENUE. HE'S CLAIMED HE'S ENTITLED TO PRIVILEGE, NOT TO SHARE ANY OTHER INFORMATION HE DOESN'T WANT TO SHARE WITH ANOTHER BRANCH. HE'S ALSO CLAIMED ENTITLEMENT TO ORDER THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH NOT TO COOPERATE WITH THIS BODY WHEN IT CONDUCTS AN INVESTIGATION OF THE PRESIDENT. IF LEFT UNCHECKED, THE PRESIDENT WILL LIKELY CONTINUE HIS PATTERN OF SOLICITING FOREIGN INTERFERENCE ON BEHALF OF THE NEXT ELECTION AND OF COURSE HIS OBSTRUCTION OF CONGRESS. THE FACT THAT WE CAN EASILY TRANSPOSE THE ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT AGAINST NIXON ON TO THE ACTION OF THIS PRESIDENT SPEAKS VOLUMES. THAT DOESN'T INCLUDE THE MOST SERIOUS NATIONAL SECURITY CONCERNS AND ELECTION INTERFERENCE CONCERNS AT THE HEART. NO MISCONDUCT IS MORE ANTITHETICAL TO OUR DEMOCRACY AND NOTHING INJURIES THE AMERICAN PEOPLE MORE THAN A PRESIDENT USES WHO POWER TO WEAKEN THEIR AUTHORITY UNDER THE CONSTITUTION AS WELL AS THE AUTHORITY OF THE CONSTITUTION ITSELF. MAY I READ ONE MORE SENTENCE OR -- I'M SORRY. >> THE WITNESS MAY HAVE ANOTHER SENTENCE OR TWO. >> THANK YOU. IF CONGRESS FAILS TO IMPEACH HERE THE IMPEACHMENT PROCESS HAS LOST ALL MEANING AND ALONG WITH THAT CAREFULLY CRAFTED SAFEGUARDS, AND THEREFORE I STAND WITH THE CONSTITUTION AND I STAND WITH THE FRAMERS WHO WERE COMMITTED TO ENSURE THAT NO ONE IS ABOVE THE LAW. >> THANK YOU PROFESSOR. PROFESSOR TURLEY. >> THANK YOU, CHAIRMAN NADLER, RANKING MEMBER COLLINS, MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE. IT'S AN HON ORE TO APPEAR BEFORE YOU TODAY TO DISCUSS ONE OF THE MOST CONSEQUENTIAL FUNCTIONS YOU WERE GIVEN BY THE FRAMERS AND THAT IS THE IMPEACHMENT OF A PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES. 21 YEARS AGO I SAT BEFORE YOU, CHAIRMAN NADLER, AND THIS COMMITTEE, TO TESTIFY AT THE IMPEACHMENT OF PRESIDENT WILLIAM JEFFERSON CLINTON. I NEVER THOUGHT THAT I WOULD HAVE TO APPEAR A SECOND TIME TO ADDRESS THE SAME QUESTION WITH REGARD TO ANOTHER SITTING PRESIDENT, YET HERE WE ARE. THE ELEMENTS ARE STRIKINGLY SIMILAR. THE INTENSE RANKER AND RAGE OF THE PUBLIC DEBATE IS THE SAME. THE ATMOSPHERE THAT THE FRAMERS ANTICIPATED, THE STIEFRLG INTOLERANCE OF OPPOSING VIEWS IS THE SAME. I'D LIKE TO START, THEREFORE, PERHAPS INCON GROUSLY, BY STATING AN IRRELEVANT FACT. I'M NOT A SUPPORTER OF PRESIDENT TRUMP. I VOTED AGAINST HIM. MY PERSONAL VIEWS OF PRESIDENT TRUMP ARE AS IRRELEVANT TO MY IMPEACHMENT TESTIMONY AS THEY SHOULD BE TO YOUR IMPEACHMENT VOTE. PRESIDENT TRUMP WILL NOT BE OUR LAST PRESIDENT, AND WHAT WE LEAVE IN THE WAKE OF THIS SCANDAL WILL SHAPE OUR DEMOCRACY FOR GENERATIONS TO COME. I'M CONCERNED ABOUT LOWERING IMPEACHMENT STANDARDS TO FIT A PAUCITY OF EVIDENCE AND AN ABUNDANCE OF ANGER. I BELIEVE THIS IMPEACHMENT NOT ONLY FAILS TO SATISFY THE STANDARD OF PAST IMPEACHMENTS BUT WOULD CREATE A DANGEROUS PRECEDENT FOR FUTURE IMPEACHMENTS. MY TESTIMONY LAYS OUT THE IMPEACHMENT FROM EARLIER TO COLONIAL TO THE PRESENT DAY. THE EARLY WERE RAW POLITICAL EXERCISES USING FLUID DEFINITIONS OF CRIMINAL AND NONCRIMINAL ACTS. WHEN THE FRAMERS MET IN PHILADELPHIA, THEY WERE QUITE FAMILIAR WITH IMPEACHMENT AND ABUSES INCLUDING THE HASTINGS CASE WHICH WAS DISCUSSED IN THE CONVENTION, A CASE THAT WAS STILL PENDING FOR TRIAL IN ENGLAND. THE AMERICAN MODEL WAS MORE LIMITED NOT ONLY IN ITS APPLICATION TO JUDICIAL AND EXECUTIVE OFFICIALS BUT ITS GROUNDS. THE FRAMERS REJECTED A PROPOSAL TO ADD MAIL ADMINISTRATION BECAUSE MADISON OBJECTED THAT A VAGUE TERM. IN THE PAST STANDARDS WERE REJECTED, CORRUPTION, OBTAINING OFFICE BY IMPROPER MEANS, BETRAYING TRUST TO A FOREIGN POWER, NEJJENCE, PERFIDY OR LYING AND PECK EWLATION SELF DEALING ARE PARTICULARLY IRRELEVANT. MY TESTIMONY EXPLORES IMPEACHMENT OF NIXON, JOHNSON AND CLINTON. THE CLOSEST IS TO THE 1868 OF ANDREW JOHNSON. IT IS NOT A MOD THAEL THIS COMMITTEE SHOULD RELISH. IN THAT CASE, A GROUP OF OPPONENTS OF THE PRESIDENT CALLED THE RADICAL REPUBLICANS CREATED A TRAPDOOR CRIME IN ORDER TO IMPEACH THE PRESIDENT. THEY EVEN DEFINED IT AS A HIGH MISDEMEANOR. THERE WAS ANOTHER SHARED ASPECT BESIDES THE ATMOSPHERE OF THAT IMPEACHMENT AND ALSO THE UNCONVENTIONABLE TILE OF THE TWO PRESIDENTS. AND THAT SHARED ELEMENT IS SPEED. THIS IMPEACHMENT WOULD RIVAL THE JOHNSON IMPEACHMENT AS THE SHORTEST IN HISTORY DEMAND DEPENDING ON HOW ONE COUNTS THE RELEVANT DAYS. THERE ARE THREE COMMONALITIES WHEN YOU LOOK AT THESE PAST CASES. ALL INVOLVED ESTABLISHED CRIMES. THIS WOULD BE THE FIRST IMPEACHMENT IN HISTORY WHERE THERE WOULD BE CONSIDERABLE DEBATE AND IN MY VIEW NOT COMPELLING EVIDENCE OF THE COMMISSION OF A CRIME. SECOND IS THE ABBREVIATED PERIOD OF THIS INVESTIGATION, WHICH IS PROBABILITY AND PUZZLING. THIS IS A FACIALLY INCOMPLETE AND INADEQUATE ROErd IN ORDER TO IMPEACH A PRESIDENT. ALLOW ME TO BE CANDID BECAUSE WE HAVE LIMITED TIME. WE ARE LIVING IN THE VERY PERIOD SCRIBED BY ALEXANDER HAMILTON, A PERIOD OF AGITATED PASSIONS. I GET IT. YOU'RE MAD. THE PRESIDENT IS MAD. MY REPUBLICAN FRIENDS ARE MAD. MY DEMOCRATIC FRIENDS ARE MAD. MY WIFE IS MAD. MY KIDS ARE MAD. EVEN MY DOG SEEMS MAD. AND LUNA IS A GOLDEN DOODLE AND THEY DON'T GET MAD. SO WE'RE ALL MAD. WHERE HAS THAT TAKEN US? WELL, A SLIPSHOD IMPEACHMENT MAKE US LESS MAD? WILL IT ONLY INVITE THE FUTURE ADMINISTRATION -- THAT IS WHY THIS IS WRONG. IT'S NOT WRONG BECAUSE PRESIDENT TRUMP IS RIGHT. HIS CALL WAS ANYTHING BUT PERFECT. IT'S NOT WRONG BECAUSE THE HOUSE HAS NO LEGITIMATE REASON TO INVESTIGATE UKRAINIAN CONTROVERSY. POINTS NOT WRONG BECAUSE WE'RE IN AN ELECTION YEAR. THERE IS NO GOOD TIME FOR AN IMPEACHMENT. NO, IT'S WRONG BECAUSE THIS IS NOT HOW YOU IMPEACH AN AMERICAN PRESIDENT. THIS CASE IS NOT A CASE OF THE UNKNOWABLE. IT'S A CASE OF THE PERIPHERAL. WE HAVE A RECORD OF CONFLICTS, DEFENSES THAT HAVE NOT BEEN FULLY CONSIDERED, UNSUBPOENAED WITNESS WITH MATERIAL EVIDENCE. TO IMPEACH A PRESIDENT ON THIS RECORD WOULD EXPOSE EVERY FUTURE PRESIDENT TO THE SAME TIME OF INCOATE IMPEACHMENT. PRINCIPLE OFTEN TAKES US TO A PLACE WE WOULD PREFER NOT TO BE. THAT'S WHERE SEVEN FOUND THEMSELVES IN THE JOHNSON TRIAL. WHEN THEY SAVED THE PRESIDENT FROM ACQUITTAL THAT THEY DESPISED. THEY CELEBRATED AS PROFILES OF COURAGE. EDMOND ROSS SAID IT WAS LIKE LOOKING DOWN INTO HIS OPEN GRAVER, THEN HE JUMPED BECAUSE HE DIDN'T HAVE ANY ALTERNATIVE. IT'S EASY TO CELEBRATE THOSE PEOPLE FROM THE DISTANCE OF TIME AND CIRCUMSTANCE IN AN AGE OF RAGE. IT'S APPEALING TO LISTEN TO THOSE SAYING, FOR GET THE DEFINITIONS OF CRIMES. JUST DO IT. LIKE THIS IS SOME IMPULSE BUYING NIKE SNEAKER. YOU CAN CERTAINLY DO THAT. YOU CAN DECLARE THE DEFINITIONS OF CRIMES ALLEGED ARE IMMATERIAL AND JUST AN EXERCISE OF POLITICS. NOT THE LAW. HOWEVER THOSE LEGAL DEFINITIONS AND STANDARDS WHICH I'VE ADDRESSED IN MY TESTIMONY ARE THE VERY THING THAT DIVIDE RAGE FROM REASON. THIS ALL BRINGS UP TO ME, AND I WILL CONCLUDE WITH THIS, OF A SCENE FROM A MAN FOR ALL SEASONS, BY WITH SIR THOMAS MOORE WHEN HIS SON-IN-LAW WILLIAM ROPER PUT THE LAW, SUGGESTED THAT MOORE WAS PUTTING THE LAW AHEAD OF MORALITY. HE SAID MOORE WOULD GIVE THE DEVIL THE BENEFIT OF THE LAW. WHEN MOORE ASKS ROPER, WOULD HE INSTEAD CUT A GREAT ROAD THROUGH THE LAW TO GET AFTER THE DEVIL, ROPER PROUDLY DECLARES, YES, I'D CUT DOWN EVERY LAW OF ENGLAND TO DO THAT. MOORE SPONTDS, AND WHEN THE LAST LAW IS CUT DOWN, AND THE DEVIL TURNED AROUND ON YOU, WHERE WOULD YOU HIDE, ROPER? ALL THE LAWS BEING FLAT. HE SAID, THIS COUNTRY IS PLANTED THICK WITH LAWS FROM COAST TO COAST, MAN'S LAWS, NOT GOD'S. AND IF YOU CUT THEM DOWN AND YOU'RE JUST THE MAN TO DO IT, DO YOU REALLY THINK YOU COULD STAND UPRIGHT IN THE WINDS THAT WOULD BLOW THEN? AND HE FINISHED BY SAYING, YES, I'D GIVE THE DEVIL OF THE BENEFIT FOR THE LAW FOR MY OWN SAKE. SO I WILL CONCLUDE WITH THIS. BOTH SIDES OF THIS CONTROVERSY HAVE DEMONIZED THE OTHER TO JUSTIFY ANY MEASURE IN THEIR DEFENSE, MUCH LIKE ROPER. PERHAPS THAT'S THE SADDEST PART OF ALL OF THIS. WE HAVE FORGOTTEN THE COMMON ARTICLE OF FAITH THAT BINDS EACH OF US TO EACH OTHER AND OUR CONSTITUTION. HOWEVER BEFORE WE CUT DOWN THE TREE SO CAREFULLY PLANTED BY THE FRAMERS, I HOPE YOU WILL CONSIDER WHAT YOU WILL DO WHEN THE WIND BLOWS AGAIN, PERHAPS FOR A DEMOCRATIC PRESIDENT. WHERE WILL YOU STAND THEN, WHEN ALL THE LAWS BEING FLAT? THANK YOU AGAIN FOR THE HONOR OF TESTIFYING TODAY. AND I'D BE HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS. >> I THANK THE WITNESSES. >> MR. CHAIRMAN, I SEEK RECOGNITION? >> WHO? >> ME. >> FOR WHAT PURPOSE? >> MR. CHAIRMAN, I HAVE A MOTION PURSUANT TO RULE 11 SPECIFICALLY 2 K 6. I MOVE TO SUBPOENA THE INDIVIDUAL REFERRED TO AS THE WHISTLE-BLOWER. I ASKED TO DO THIS IN EXECUTIVE SESSION? >> GENTLEMAN HAS STATED. DO I HAVE A MOTION TO TABLE. >> TABLE. >> ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE. >> NO? THE MOTION IS APPROVED. ROLE CALL IS REQUESTED. >> NADLER, LOFGREN, JACKSON LEE, MR. COHEN, MR. JOHNSON, MR. DEUTSCH AYE, MISS BASS AYE, JEFFRIES AYE, CICILLINE AYE, SWALWELL AYE, RASKIN AYE, JI PAUL AYE, DEMINGS AYE, CRAYA AYE, SCANLIN AYE, GARCIA AYE, GEG OOUS AYE, McBATH AYE, STANTON AYE, SCENE AYE, McCAR SEL POWELL AYE, ESCOBAR AYE, COLLINS, SENSE BURNER, SHABBAT NO, GOMER NO, JORDAN NO, MR. BUCK NO, MR. RATCLIFFE NO, MISS ROBY NO, MR. GATES NO, MR. JOHNSON OF LOUISIANA NO, MR. BIGS NO, MR. McCLINTOCK NO, MISS LESKO NO, MR. RUSHENTHAULER NO, MR. KLINE NO, MR. ARMSTRONG NO, MR. STUBY NO. >> HAS EVERYONE VOTED WHO WISHES TO VOTE? >> HOW AM I RECORDED. >> COLLINS YOU ARE NOT RECORDED. >> NO. >> MR. COLLINS VOTES NO. >> IS THERE ANYONE ELSE. >> HOW AM I RECORDED. >> SENSEN BENNER NOT RECORDED. >> NO. >> SENSESEN BURNER NO. >> ANYONE ELSE? THE EQUIVOCAL REPORT? MR. CHAIRMAN, THERE ARE 24 AYEs AND 17 NOs. >> THE MOTION TO TABLE IS ADOPTED APPROXIMATELY WE WILL NOW PROCEED TO THE FIRST ROUND OF QUESTIONS. PURSUANT TO HOUSE RESOLUTION AND ITS ACCOMPANYING PROCEDURES, THERE WILL BE 45 MINUTES OF QUESTIONS CONDUCTED BY THE CHAIRMAN OR MAJORITY COUNSEL FOLLOWED BY 45 MINUTES BY THE RANGU RANKING MEMBER OR MOE NORT. ONLY THEM QUESTION WIT NES DURING THIS PEEFRD. UNLESS I SPECIFY ADDITIONAL EQUAL TIME, WE WILL PROCEED UNDER THE FIVE-MINUTE RULE AND EVERY MEMBER WILL HAVE THE CHANCE TO ASK QUESTIONS. I NOW RECOGNIZE MYSELF FOR THE FIRST ROUND. PROFESSORS, THANK YOU FOR BEING HERE TODAY. THE COMMITTEE HAS BEEN CHARGED WITH THE GRAVE RESPONSIBILITY OF CONSIDERING WHETHER TO RECOMMEND ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT. I SPEAK FOR MY COLLEAGUES WHEN I SAY THAT WE DO NOT TAKE THIS LIGHTLY. WE ARE COMMITTED TO ENSURING THAT TODAY'S HEARING AS WELL AS THE LARGER RESPONSIBILITY BEFORE US ARE GROUNDED IN THE CONSTITUTION. INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE'S REPORT CON CLUTED THAT THE PRESIDENT PRESSURED A FOREIGN LEADER TO INTERFERE IN OUR ELECTIONS BY INITIATING AND DENOUNCING INVESTIGATIONS INTO TRUMP'S ADVER SAYER EASE. HE SOUGHT TO PREVENT CONGRESS FROM INVESTIGATING HIS CONDUCT BY ORDERING HIS ADMINISTRATION AND EVERYONE INTO IT TO DEFY HOUSE SUBPOENAS. PROFESSOR KARLAN, AS YOU SAID THE RIGHT TO VOTE IS THE MOST PRECIOUS. DOES THE PRESIDENT'S CONDUCT ENDANGER THAT RIGHT? >> YES, MR. CHAIRMAN, IT DOES. >> THANK YOU. AND HOW DOES THIS DO SO? >> THE WAY THAT IT DOES IT IS EXACTLY WHAT PRESIDENT WASHINGTON WARNED ABOUT, BY INVITING A FOREIGN GOVERNMENT TO INFLUENCE OUR ELECTIONS. IT TAKES THE RIGHT AWAY FROM THE AMERICAN PEOPLE, AND IT TURNS THAT INTO A RIGHT THAT FOREIGN GOVERNMENTS DECIDE TO INTERFERE FOR THEIR OWN BENEFIT. FOREIGN GOVERNMENTS DON'T INTERFERE IN OUR ELECTIONS TO BENEFIT US, THEY INTERFERE TO BENEFIT THEMSELVES. >> THANK YOU. PRO GEFR GERHARDT, YOU HAVE WRITTEN ABOUT OUR CHECKS AND BALANCES. WHAT HAPPENS TO THAT WHEN A PRESIDENT UNDER TAIKDS A BLOCKADE OF IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY WHEN HE ORDERS ALL WITNESSES NOT TO TESTIFY AND WHAT IS OUR RECOURSE? >> WHEN A PRESIDENT DOES THAT, SEPARATION OF POWERS MEANS NOTHING. THE SUBPOENAS THAT HAVE BEEN ISSUED OF COURSE ARE LAWFUL ORDERS. IN OUR LAW SCHOOLS WE WOULD TEACH THIS IS AN EASY STRAIGHTFORWARD SITUATION. YOU COMPLY WITH THE LAW. LAWYERS ALL THE TIME HAVE TO. BUT IN THIS SITUATION IT'S A FULL-SCALE OBSTRUCTION, FULL SKRAIL OBSTRUCTION OF THOSE SUBPOENAS, TORE PEDDOS SEPARATION OF POWERS AND THEREFORE YOUR ONLY RECOURSE IS TO PROTECT YOUR INSTITUTIONAL PREROGATIVES AND THAT WOULD INCLUDE IMPEACHMENT. >> AND THE SAME IS TRUE OF DEFYING CONGRESSIONAL SUBPOENAS ON A WHOLESALE BASIS WITH RESPECT TO OVERSIGHT, NOT JUST TO IMPEACHMENT? >> ABSOLUTELY, YES, SIR. >> THANK YOU. PROFESSOR FELDMAN, AS I UNDERSTAND IT, THE FRAMERS INTENDED IMPEACHMENT TO BE USED INFROOEKLY, NOT AS PUNISHMENT BUT SAVE OUR DEMOCRACY FROM THREATS SO SIGNIFICANT THAT WE CANNOT WAIT FOR THE NEXT ELECTION. IN YOUR TESTIMONY YOU SUGGEST THAT WE FACE THAT KIND OF THREAT. CAN YOU EXPLAIN WHY YOU THINK IMPEACHMENT IS THE APPROPRIATE RECOURSE HERE, WHY WE CANNOT WAIT FOR THE NEXT ELECTION? THOSE ARE TWO QUESTIONS IF YOU WANT THEM TO BE. >> THE FRAMERS RESERVED IMPEACHMENT FOR SITUATIONS WHERE THE PRESIDENT ABUSED HIS OFFICE, THAT IS USED IT FOR HIS PERSONAL ADVANTAGE AND IN PARTICULAR THEY WERE SPECIFICALLY WORRIED ABOUT A SITUATION WHERE THE PRESIDENT USED HIS OFFICE TO FACILITATE CORRUPTLY HIS OWN RE-ELECTION. THAT'S IN FACT WHY THEY THOUGHT THEY NEEDED IMPEACHMENT AND WAITING WASN'T GOOD ENOUGH. ON THE FACT THAT WE HAVE BEFORE THE HOUSE RIGHT NOW, THE PRESIDENT SLITSED ASSISTANCE FROM A FOREIGN GOVERNMENT IN ORDER TO ASSIST HIS OWN RE-ELECTION. THAT IS, HE USED THE POWER OF HIS OFFICE THAT NO ONE ELSE COULD POSSIBLY HAVE USED IN ORDER TO GAIN PERSONAL ADVANTAGE FOR HIMSELF DISTORTING THE ELECTION. THAT'S PRECISELY WHAT THE FRAMERS ANTICIPATED. >> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. I NOW YIELD THE REMAINDER OF MY TIME TO MR. EISEN. >> GOOD MORNING. THANK YOU FOR BEING HERE. I WANT TO ASK YOU SOME QUESTIONS ABOUT THE FOLLOWING HIGH CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS THAT WERE MENTIONED IN THE OPENING STATEMENTS. ABUSE OF POWER AND BRIBERY, OBSTRUCTION OF CONGRESS, AND OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE. PROFESSOR FELDMAN, WHAT IS ABUSE OF POWER? >> ABUSE OF POWER IS WHEN THE PRESIDENT USES HIS OFFICE, TAKES AN ACTION, THAT IS PART OF THE PRESIDENCY, NOT TO SERVE THE PUBLIC INTEREST BUT TO SERVE HIS PRIVATE BENEFIT, AND IN PARTICULAR IT'S AN ABUSE OF POWER IF HE DOES IT TO FACILITATE HIS RE-ELECTION OR GAIN AN ADVANTAGE THAT IS NOT AVAILABLE TO ANYONE NOT THE PRESIDENT. >> SIR, WHY IS THAT IMPEACHABLE CONDUCT? >> IF THE PRESIDENT USES HIS OFFICE FOR PERSONAL GAIN, THE ONLY RECOURSE AVAILABLE UNDER THE CONSTITUTION IS FOR HIM TO BE IMPEACHED BECAUSE THE PRESIDENT CANNOT BE AS A PRACTICAL MATTER CHARGED CRIMINALLY WHILE IN OFFICE BECAUSE THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE WORKS FOR THE PRESIDENT. THE ONLY MECHANISM AVAILABLE FOR A PRESIDENT WHO TRIES TO DISTORT THE PROCESS FOR PERSONAL GAIN IS TO IMPEACH HIM. THAT IS WHY WE HAVE IMPEACHMENT. >> PROFESSOR KARLAN, DO SCALERS OF IMPEACHMENT GENERALLY AGREE THAT ABUSE OF POWER IS AN IMPEACHABLE OFFENSE? >> YES, THEY DO. >> PROFESSOR GERHART, DO YOU AGREE THAT IT'S IMPEACHABLE? >> WHY ERR. >> I'D LIKE TO FOCUS THE PANEL ON THE EVIDENCE THEY CONSIDERED AND THE FINDINGS IN THE INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE REPORT THAT THE PRESIDENT SOLICITED THE INTERFERENCE OF A FOREIGN GOVERNMENT, UKRAINE, IN THE 2020 U.S. PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION. PROFESSOR FELDMAN, DID PRESIDENT TRUMP COMMIT THE IMPEACHABLE HIGH CRIME AND MISDEMEANOR OF ABUSE OF POWER BASED ON THAT EVIDENCE AND THOSE FINDINGS? >> BASED ON THAT EVIDENCE AND THOSE FINDINGS, THE PRESIDENT DID COMMIT AN IMPEACHABLE OFFENSE OF OFFICE. >> PROFESSOR KARLAN, SAME QUESTION. >> SAME ANSWER. >> AND PROFESSOR GERHARDT, DID PRESIDENT TRUMP COMMIT THE IMPEACHABLE HIGH CRIME AND DISMEANOR OF ABUSE OF POWER? >> WE THREE ARE UNANIMOUS, YES. >> PROFESSOR FELDMAN, I'D LIKE TO QUICKLY LOOK AT THE EVIDENCE IN THE REPORT. ON JULY 25th, PRESIDENT TRUMP TOLD THE PRESIDENT OF UKRAINE, AND I QUOTE, I WOULD LIKE YOU TO DO US A FAVOR, THOUGH. AND HE ASKED ABOUT LOOKING INTO THE BIDENS. WAS THE MEMORANDUM OF THAT CALL RELEVANT TO YOUR OPINION THAT THE PRESIDENT COMMITTED ABUSE OF POWER? >> THE MEMORANDUM OF THAT CALL BETWEEN THE TWO PRESIDENTS IS ABSOLUTELY CRUCIAL TO MY DERNLNATION THAT THE PRESIDENT ABUSED HIS OFFICE. >> AND DID YOU CONSIDER THE FINDINGS OF FACT THAT THE INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE MADE INCLUDING THAT AND AGAIN I QUOTE, THE PRESIDENT WITHHELD OFFICIAL ACTS OF VALUE TO UKRAINE AND CONDITIONED THEIR FULFILLMENT ON ACTIONS BY UKRAINE THAT WOULD BENEFIT HIS PERSONAL, POLITICAL INTERESTS? >> YES. IN MAKING THE DETERMINATION THAT THE PRESIDENT COMMITTED AN IMPEACHABLE OFFENSE I RELIED ON THE EVIDENCE BEFORE THE HOUSE AND THE TESTIMONY, AND WHEN THIS REPORT WAS ISSUED I CONTINUED TO RELY ON THAT. >> SIR, DID YOU REVIEW THE FOLLOWING TESTIMONY FROM OUR AMBASSADOR TO UKRAINE, AMBASSADOR WILLIAM TAYLOR? >> TO WITHHOLD THAT ASSISTANCE FOR NO GOOD REASON OTHER THAN HELP WITH THE POLITICAL CAMPAIGN MADE NO SENSE. IT WAS COUNTERPRODUCTIVE TO ALL OF WHAT WE HAD BEEN TRYING TO DO. IT WAS ILLOGICAL, IT COULD NOT BE EXPLAINED, IT WAS CRAZY. >> YES, THAT EVIDENCE UNDERSCORED THE WAY THAT THE PRESIDENT'S ACTIONS UNDERCUT NATIONAL SECURITY. >> PROFESSOR FELDMAN, WILL YOU PLEASE EXPLAIN WHY YOU CONCLUDED THAT THE PRESIDENT COMMITTED THE HIGH CRIME OF ABUSE OF POWER AND WHY IT MATTERS? >> THE ABUSE OF POWER OCCURS WHEN THE PRESIDENT USES HIS OFFICE FOR PERSONAL ADVANTAGE OR GAIN. THAT MATTERS FUNDAMENTALLY TO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE BECAUSE IF WE CANNOT IMPEACH A PRESIDENT WHO ABUSES HIS OFFICE FOR PERSONAL ADVANTAGE, WE NO LONGER LIVE IN A DEMOCRACY. WE LIVE IN A MONARCHY OR UNDER A DICTATORSHIP. THAT'S WHY THE FRAMERS CREATED THE POSSIBLY OF IMPEACHMENT. >> NOW PROFESSOR KARLAN, THIS HIGH CRIME AND MISDEMEANOR OF ABUSE OF POWER, WAS IT SOME KIND OF LOOSE OR UNDEFINED CONCEPT TO THE FOUNDERS OF OUR COUNTRY AND FRAMERS OF OUR CONSTITUTION? >> NO, I DON'T THINK IT WAS A LOOSE CONCEPT AT ALL. IT HAD A LONG LINEAGE IN THE COMMON LAW IN ENGLAND OF PARLIAMENTARY IMPEACHMENTS OF LOWER LEVEL OFFICERS. OBVIOUSLY THEY HAD NOT TALKED ABOUT IMPEACHING THE KING OR THE LIKE. >> AND CAN YOU SHARE A LITTLE BIT ABOUT THAT LINEAGE, PLEASE? >> YEAH. THE PARLIAMENT IN ENGLAND IMPEACHED OFFICERS THE CROWN WHEN THOSE PEOPLE ABUSED THEIR POWER. IF I COULD GIVE YOU ONE EXAMPLE THAT MIGHT BE HELPFUL, RIGHT AFTER THE RESTORATION OF THE KINGSHIP IN ENGLAND, THERE WAS AN IMPEACHMENT -- AND WHEN THEY IMPEACHMENT THEY HAD TO SAY WHAT FOR? SOMETIMES FOR TREASON OR THE LIKE. SOMETIMES THEY WOULD USE THE PHRASE HIGH CRIME OR MISDEMEANOR. THERE WAS AN IMPEACHMENT OF VIE COUNT MORDANT, WHICH IS A GREAT NAME. HE WAS IMPEACHED BECAUSE HE WAS THE SHERIFF OF WINDSOR. AND AS THE PARLIAMENTARY ELECTION WAS COMING UP, HE ARRESTED WILLIAM TAYLOR, AND I JUST WANT TO READ TO YOU FROM THE ARTICLE OF IMPEACHMENT IN FRONT OF THE HOUSE OF COMMONS. BECAUSE IT'S SO TELLING. HERE'S IS WHAT ARTICLE ONE SAID. UNDERSTANDING THAT ONE WILLIAM TAYLOR DID INTEND TO STAND FOR THE ELECTION OF ONE OF THE BURGESSS OF THE BURR OF WIND SOR TO SERVE IN THIS PRESENT PARLIAMENT, HE WAS RUNNING AS A MEMBER OF PARLIAMENT, THIS IS WHAT VIE COUNT MORDANT DID, TO DISPARAGE THE FREE ELECTION AND STRIKE A TERROR INTO THOSE OF THE SAID BOROUGH WHICH SHOULD GIVE THEIR VOICES FOR HIM AND DEPRIVE THEM OF THE FREEDOM OF THEIR VOICES AT THE ELECTION, VICE OUNT MOWER DONT DID COMMAND AND CAUSE HIM TO BE FORCIBLY, ILLEGALLY AND SEIZED UPON BY SOLDIERS AND THEN DETAINED HIM. HE WENT AFTER A POLITICAL OPPONENT AND THAT WAS A HIGH CRIME OR MISDEMEANOR TO USE YOUR OFFICE TO GO AFTER A POLITICAL OPPONENT. >> NOW, PROFESSOR GERHARDT, DOES A HIGH CRIME AND MISDEMEANOR REQUIRE AN ACTUAL STATUTORY CRIME? >> NO. IT PLAINLY DOES NOT. EVERYTHING WE KNOW ABOUT THE HISTORY OF IMPEACHMENT REINFORCES THE CONCLUSION THAT IMPEACHABLE OFFENSES DO NOT HAVE TO BE CRIMES. AND AGAIN NOT ALL CRIMES ARE IMPEACHABLE OFFENSES. WE LOOK AT THE CONTEXT AND GRAPHICTY OF THE MISCONDUCT. >> AND PROFESSOR TURLEY, YOU RECENTLY WROTE IN THE "WALL STREET JOURNAL," AND I QUOTE, THERE IS MUCH THAT IS WORTHY OF INVESTIGATION IN THE UKRAINE SCANDAL AND IT IS TRUE THAT IMPEACHMENT DOES NOT REQUIRE A CRIME. >> THAT'S TRUE. BUT I ALSO ADDED AN IMPORTANT CAVEAT. >> IT WAS A YES OR NO. DID YOU WRITE IN THE "WALL STREET JOURNAL," THERE IS MUCH THAT IS WORTHY OF INVESTIGATION IN THE UKRAINE SCANDAL AND IT IS TRUE THAT IMPEACHMENT DOES NOT REQUIRE A CRIME? IS THAT AN ACCURATE QUOTE, SIR? >> YOU READ IT WELL. >> SO PROFESSORS FELDMAN, KARLAN, AND GERHARDT, YOU HAVE IDENTIFIED THAT ON THE EVIDENCE THERE IS AN IMPEACHABLE ACT, A HIGH CRIME AND MISDEMEANOR OF ABUSE OF POWER, CORRECT? >> YES. >> YES. >> CORRECT. >> AND PROFESSOR FELDMAN, WHAT DOES THE CONSTITUTION SAY IS THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTSTIVES IN DEALING WITH PRESIDENTIAL HIGH CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS LIKE ABUSE OF POWER? >> THE CONSTITUTION GIVES THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES THE SOLE POWER OF IMPEACHMENT. THE HOUSE HAS THE RIGHT AND RESPONSIBILITY TO INVESTIGATE PRESIDENTIAL MISCONDUCT AND WHERE APPROPRIATE TO CREATE AND PASS ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT. >> AND PROFESSOR KARLAN, WHAT DOES THAT RESPONSIBILITY MEAN FOR THIS COMMITTEE WITH RESPECT TO PRESIDENT TRUMP'S ABUSE OF POWER? >> WELL, BECAUSE THIS IS AN ABUSE THAT CUTS TO THE HEART OF DEMOCRACY, YOU NEED TO ASK YOURSELVES IF YOU DON'T IMPEACH A PRESIDENT WHO HAS DONE WHAT THIS PRESIDENT HAS DONE, OR AT LEAST YOU DON'T INVESTIGATE AND THEN IMPEACH IF YOU CONCLUDE THAT THE HOUSE SELECT COMMITTEE ON INTELLIGENCE FINDINGS ARE CORRECT, THEN WHAT YOU'RE SAYING IS, IT'S FINE TO GO AHEAD AND DO THIS AGAIN. AND I THINK THAT AS THE -- YOU KNOW, IN THE REPORT THAT CAME OUT LAST NIGHT, THE REPORT TALKS ABOUT THE CLEAR AND PRESENT DANGER TO THE ELECTION SYSTEM. AND IT'S YOUR RESPONSIBILITY TO MAKE SURE THAT ALL AMERICANS GET TO VOTE IN A FREE AND FAIR ELECTION NEXT NOVEMBER. >> PROFESSOR KARLAN, I'D LIKE TO DIRECT YOU TO THE WORDS IN THE CONSTITUTION, OTHER HIGH CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS. WE'RE STILL GOING TO TALK ABOUT ABUSE OF POWER. CAN I ASK, DID THE CONSTITUTION SPELL OUT EVERY OTHER HIGH CRIME AND MISDEMEANOR? >> NO, IT DID NOT. >> WHY? PLEASE. >> IN PART BECAUSE THEY RECOGNIZED THAT THE INVENTIVENESS OF MAN AND THE LIKELIHOOD THAT THIS CONSTITUTION WOULD ENDURE FOR GENERATIONS MEANT THEY COULDN'T LIST ALL OF THE CRIMES THAT MIGHT BE COMMITTED. THEY COULDN'T IMAGINE AN ABUSE OF POWER FOR EXAMPLE THAT INVOLVED BURGLARIZING AND STEALING COMPUTER FILES FROM AN ADVERSARY BECAUSE THEY COULDN'T HAVE IMAGINED COMPUTERS. THEY COULDN'T NECESSARILY HAVE IMAGINED WIRETAPPING BECAUSE WE HAD NO WIRES IN 1789. THEY PUT IN A PHRASE THE ENGLISH HAD USED AND HAD ADAPTED OVER A PERIOD OF CENTURIES TO TAKE INTO ACCOUNT THAT THE IDEA OF HIGH CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS IS TO GET AT THINGS THAT PEOPLE IN OFFICE USE TO STRIKE AT THE VERY HEART OF OUR DEMOCRACY. >> AND PROFESSOR, IN YOUR WRITTEN TESTIMONY, YOU MENTIONED TWO ADDITIONAL ASPECTS OF HIGH CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS BESIDES ABUSE OF POWER. YOU TALKED ABOUT BETRAYAL OF THE NATIONAL INTEREST, BETRAYAL OF THE NATIONAL INTEREST AND CORRUPTION OF THE ELECTORAL PROCESS. AND CAN YOU SAY A LITTLE BIT MORE ABOUT WHAT THE FRAMERS' CONCERNS WERE ABOUT CORRUPTION OF ELECTIONS AND BETRAYAL OF THE NATIONAL INTEREST INVOLVING FOREIGN POWERS AND HOW THEY'D COME INTO PLAY HERE? >> SURE. LET ME START WITH THE FRAMERS AND WHAT THEY WERE CONCERNED WITH AND BRING IT UP TO DATE, BECAUSE I THINK THERE'S SOME MODERN STUFF THAT'S IMPORTANT. THE FRAMERS WERE VERY PORIED THAT ELECTIONS COULD BE CORRUPTED. THEY COULD BE CORRUPTED IN A VARIETY OF DIFFERENT WAYS. AND THEN SPENT A LOT OF TIME TRYING TO DESIGN AN ELECTION SYSTEM THAT WOULDN'T BE SUBJECT TO THAT KIND OF CORRUPTION. AND THERE ARE A NUMBER OF DIFFERENT PROVISIONS IN THE CONSTITUTION THAT DEAL WITH THE KINDS OF CORRUPTION THEY WERE WORRIED ABOUT, TWO THAT I'D LIKE TO HIGHLIGHT BECAUSE I THINK THEY GO TO THIS IDEA ABOUT THE NATIONAL INTEREST AND FOREIGN GOVERNMENTS. ONE THAT SEEMS TODAY TO MOST MUCH US TO BE A REMNANT OF A PAST TIME. IF YOU BECOME AN AMERICAN CITIZEN, ALMOST EVERYTHING IN THIS COUNTRY IS OPEN TO YOU. YOU CAN BECOME CHIEF JUSTICE OF THE UNITED STATES. YOU CAN BECOME SECRETARY OF STATE. BUT THE ONE OFFICE THAT'S NOT OPEN TO YOU, EVEN THOUGH YOU'RE A CITIZEN JUST LIKE ALL OF THE REST OF US, IS THE PRESIDENCY, BECAUSE OF THE NATURAL BORN CITIZEN CLAUSE OF THE CONSTITUTION. THE REASON THEY PUT THAT IN WAS BECAUSE THEY WERE SO WORRIED ABOUT FOREIGN INFLUENCE OVER A PRESIDENT. THE OTHER CLAUSE PROBABLY NO ONE HEARD OF FIVE YEARS AGO IS THE EMOLUMENTS CLAUSE. THEY WERE WORRIED THAT THE PRESIDENT WOULD TUZE TO GET EVERYTHING HE COULD AND HE WOULD TAKE GIFTS FROM FOREIGN AFFAIR COUNTRIES, NOT EVEN NECESSARILY BRIBES BUT GIFTS. THEY WERE VERY CONCERNED ABOUT THOSE ELECTIONS. IT'S NOT JUST THEM. I WANT TO SAY SOMETHING ABOUT WHAT OUR NATIONAL INTEREST IS TODAY. OUR NATIONAL INTEREST TOO TODAY IS DIFFERENT THAN 1969. THEY WERE WORRIED WE WOULD BE A WEAK COUNTRY. WE'RE A STRONG POWER NOW, THE STRONGEST IN THE WORLD. WE CAN STILL BE EXPLOITED BY FOREIGN COUNTRIES. BUT THE OTHER THING WE'VE DONE, AND THIS IS ONE OF THE THINGS THAT I THINK WE AS AMERICANS SHOULD BE PROUDEST OF, IS WE HAVE BECOME WHAT JOHN WINTHROP SAID IN HIS SERMON IN 1640 AND RONALD REAGAN SAID, WE HAVE BECOME THE SHINING CITY ON A HILL. WE HAVE BECOME THE NATION THAT LEADS THE WORLD IN UNDERSTANDING WHAT DEMOCRACY IS. ONE OF THE THINGS WE UNDERSTAND MOST PRO FOUPDLY IS IT'S NOT A REAL DEMOCRACY, MATURE, IF THE PARTY IN POWER USES THE CRIMINAL PROCESS TO GO AFTER ITS ENEMIES. I THINK YOU HEARD TESTIMONY THAT THE INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE HEARD TESTIMONY ABOUT HOW IT ISN'T JUST OUR NATIONAL INTEREST IN PROTECTING OUR OWN ELECTIONS, NOT JUST OUR NATIONAL INTEREST IN -- THE UKRAINE FIGHTS THE RUSSIANS AND WE DON'T HAVE TO FIGHT THEM HERE. BUT IT'S OUR NATIONAL INTEREST IN PRO MODING DEMOCRACY WORLDWIDE. IF WE LOOK HYPOCRITE CAL ABOUT THIS, WE'RE ASKING OTHER COUNTRIES TO INTERFERE IN OUR ELECTION, LOOK LIKE WE'RE ASKING OTHER COUNTRIES TO ENGAGE IN CRIMINAL INVESTIGATIONS OF OUR PRESIDENTS' POLITICAL OPPONENTS, THEN WE'RE NOT DOING OUR JOB OF PROMOTING OUR NATIONAL INTEREST IN BEING THAT SHINING CITY ON A HILL. >> PROFESSOR FELDMAN, ANYTHING TO ADD? >> ULTIMATELY, THE REASON THAT THE CONSTITUTION PROVIDED FOR IMPEACHMENT WAS TO ANTICIPATE A SITUATION LIKE THE ONE THAT IS BEFORE YOU TODAY. THE FRAMERS WERE NOT PROPHETS BUT THEY WERE VERY MART PEOPLE WITH A SOPHISTICATED UNDERSTANDING OF HUMAN INCENTIVES. AND THEY UNDERSTOOD THAT A PRESIDENT WOULD BE MOTIVATED NATURALLY TO TRY TO USE THE TREMENDOUS POWER OF OFFICE TO GAIN PERSONAL ADVANTAGE TO KEEP HIMSELF IN OFFICE, TO CORRUPT THE ELECTORAL PROCESS AND POTENTIALLY SUBVERT THE NATIONAL INTEREST. THE FACTS STRONGLY SUGGEST THAT THIS IS WHAT PRESIDENT TRUMP HAS DONE, AND UNDER THOSE CIRCUMSTANCES THE FRAMERS WOULD EXPECT THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TO TAKE ACTION IN THE FORM OF IMPEACHMENT. >> AND PROFESSOR FELDMAN, DID YOU REVIEW THE INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE REPORT FINDING THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP COMPROMISED NATIONAL SECURITY TO ADVANCE HIS PERSONAL, POLITICAL INTERESTS? >> I DID. >> AND WILL YOU EXPLAIN IN YOUR VIEW HOW THAT HAPPENED? >> THE PRESIDENT SOUGHT PERSONAL GAIN AND ADVANTAGE BY SOLICITING THE ANNOUNCEMENT OF INVESTIGATIONS AND PRESUMABLY INVESTIGATIONS, FROM UKRAINE, AND TO DO SO, HE WITHHELD CRITICAL ASSISTANCE THAT THE GOVERNMENT OF UKRAINE NEEDED, AND BY DOING SO, HE UNDERMINED THE NATIONAL SECURITY INTERESTS OF THE UNITED STATES IN HELPING UKRAINE, OUR ALLY, IN A WAR THAT IT IS FIGHTING AGAINST RUSSIA. SO IN THE SIMPLEST POSSIBLE TERMS, THE PRESIDENT PUT HIS PERSONAL GAIN AHEAD OF THE NATIONAL SECURITY INTEREST AS EXPRESSED, ACCORDING TO THE EVIDENCE BEFORE YOU, BY THE ENTIRETY OF A UNANIMOUS NATIONAL SECURITY COMMUNITY. >> SIR, IS IT YOUR VIEW THAT THE FRAMERS WOULD CONCLUDE THAT THERE WAS A BETRAYAL OF THE NATIONAL INTEREST OR NATIONAL SECURITY BY PRESIDENT TRUMP ON THESE FACTS? >> IN MY VIEW, IF THE FRAMERS WERE AWARE THAT A PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES HAD PUT HIS PERSONAL GAIN AND INTEREST AHEAD OF THE NATIONAL SECURITY OF THE UNITED STATES BY CONDITIONING AID TO A CRUCIAL ALLY THAT'S IN THE MIDST OF A WAR ON INVESTIGATIONS AIMED AT HIS OWN PERSONAL GAIN, THEY WOULD CERTAINLY CONCLUDE THAT THIS WAS AN ABUSE OF THE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENCY AND CONCLUDE THAT THAT CONDUCT WAS IMPEACHABLE UNDER THE CONSTITUTION. >> PROFESSOR GERHARDT, WHAT ARE YOUR THOUGHTS ON THE ABUSE OF POWER, BETRAYAL OF NATIONAL SECURITY OR NATIONAL INTEREST, AND THE CORRUPTION OF ELECTIONS, SIR? >> WELL, I HAVE A LOT OF THOUGHTS. ONE OF THEM IS THAT WHAT WE HAVEN'T MENTIONED YET OR BROUGHT INTO THIS CONVERSATION IS THE FACT THAT THE IMPEACHMENT POWER REQUIRES THIS COMMITTEE, THIS HOUSE, TO BE ABLE TO INVESTIGATE PRESIDENTIAL MISCONDUCT. IF A PRESIDENT CAN BLOCK AN INVESTIGATION, UNDERMINE IT, STOP IT, THEN THE IMPEACHMENT POWER ITSELF AS A CHECK AGAINST MISCONDUCT IS UNDERMINED COMPLETELY. >> AND PROFESSOR KARLAN, CAN YOU HAVE AN IMPEACHABLE OFFENSE OF ABUSE OF MOWER THAT IS SUPPORTED BY CONSIDERATIONS OF APRESIDENT'S BETRAYAL OF THE NATIONAL INTEREST OR SECURITY BY ELECTIONS? >> YES, YOU CAN. >> DO WE HAVE THAT HERE, MA'AM? >> BASED ON THE EVIDENCE WHICH I'VE SEEN, WHICH IS REVIEWING THE TRANSCRIPTS OF THE 12 WITNESSES WHO TESTIFIED LOOKING AT THE CALL READOUT, LOOKING AT SOME OF THE PRESIDENT'S OTHER STATEMENTS, LOOKING AT THE STATEMENT BY MR. MULVANEY AND THE LIKE, YES, WE DO. >> AND PROFESSOR FELDMAN, DO YOU AGREE? >> YES. >> PROFESSOR GERHARDT? >> YES, I DO. >> PROFESSOR KARLAN, WE'VE BEEN TALKING ABOUT THE CATEGORY OF OTHER HIGH CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS LIKE ABUSE OF POWER. BUT THERE ARE SOME ADDITIONAL -- THERE ARE SOME ADDITIONAL HIGH CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS THAT ARE SPECIFICALLY IDENTIFIED IN THE TEXT OF THE CONSTITUTION, CORRECT? >> YES, THAT'S TRUE. >> WHAT ARE THEY? >> TREASON AND BRIBERY. >> DO PRESIDENT TRUMP'S DEMANDS ON UKRAINE ALSO ESTABLISH THE HIGH CRIME OF BRIBERY? >> YES, THEY DO. >> CAN YOU EXPLAIN WHY, PLEASE? >> SURE. SO THE HIGH CRIME OR MISDEMEANOR OF BRIBERY I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT TO DISTINGUISH THAT FROM WHATEVER THE U.S. CODE CALLS BRIBERY TODAY. AND THE REASON FOR THIS IN PART IS BECAUSE IN 1789 WHEN THE FRAMERS WERE WRITING THE CONSTITUTION, THERE WAS NO FEDERAL CRIMINAL CODE. THE FIRST BRIBERY STATUTES THAT THE UNITED STATES CONGRESS PASSED WOULD NOT HAVE REACHED A PRESIDENT AT ALL, BECAUSE THE FIRST ONE WAS JUST ABOUT CUSTOMS OFFICIALS. AND THE SECOND ONE WAS ONLY ABOUT JUDGES. SO IT WASN'T UNTIL, I DON'T KNOW, 60 YEARS OR SO AFTER THE CONSTITUTION WAS RATIFIED THAT WE HAD ANY FEDERAL CRIME OF BRIBERY. WHEN THEY SAY THE PRESIDENT CAN BE IMPEACHED AND REMOVED FROM OFFICE FOR BRIBERY, THEY WEREN'T REFERRING TO A STATUTE. AND FEDERAL -- AND I WILL SAY, I'M NOT AN EXPERT ON FEDERAL SUBSTANTIVE FEDERAL CRIMINAL LAW. ALL I WILL SAY HERE IS THE BRIBERY STATUTE IS A VERY COMPLICATED STATUTE. SO WHAT THEY WERE THINKING ABOUT WAS BRIBERY AS IT WAS UNDERSTOOD IN THE 18th CENTURY BASED ON THE COMMON LAW UP UNTIL THAT POINT. AND THAT UNDERSTANDING WAS AN UNDERSTANDING THAT SOMEONE AND GENERALLY EVEN THEN IT WAS MOSTLY TALKING ABOUT A JUDGE, IT WASN'T TALKING ABOUT A PRESIDENT, BECAUSE THERE WAS NO PRESIDENT BEFORE THAT. IT WASN'T TALKING ABOUT THE KING BECAUSE I KING COULD DO NO WRONG. BUT WHAT THEY WERE UNDERSTANDING THEN WAS THE IDEA THAT WHEN YOU TOOK PRIVATE BENEFITS OR WHEN YOU ASKED FOR PRIVATE BENEFITS, IN RETURN FOR AN OFFICIAL ACT, OR SOMEBODY GAVE THEM TO YOU TO INFLUENCE AN OFFICIAL ACT, THAT WAS BRIBERY. >> AND SO WE HAVE CONSTITUTIONAL BRIBERY HERE, THE HIGH CRIME AND MISDEMEANOR OF CONSTITUTIONAL O TELEPHONE CALL WITH THE UKRAINIAN PRESIDENT, THE ONE WHERE PRESIDENT TRUMP ASKED, I WOULD LIKE YOU TO DO US A FAVOR, THOUGH, AND ALSO ASKED ABOUT LOOKING INTO HIS U.S. POLITICAL OPPONENTS. >> YES, I DID RELY ON THAT. DID YOU CONSIDER THE FOLLOWING TESTIMONY FROM OUR AMBASSADOR TO THE EUROPEAN UNION, AMBASSADOR SONDLAND? >> WAS THERE A QUID PRO QUO? AS I TESTIFIED PREVIOUSLY, WITH REGARD TO THE REQUESTED WHITE HOUSE CALL AND THE WHITE HOUSE MEETING, THE ANSWER IS YES. EVERYONE WAS IN THE LOOP. >> DID YOU CONSIDER THAT, PROFESSOR? >> I DID CONSIDER THAT, YES. >> AND DID YOU ALSO CONSIDER THE FINDINGS OF FACT THAT THE INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE MADE, INCLUDING THAT, AND I QUOTE FROM FINDING OF FACT NUMBER FIVE, THE PRESIDENT WITHHELD OFFICIAL ACTS OF VALUE TO UKRAINE AND CONDITIONED THEIR FULFILLMENT ON ACTIONS BY UKRAINE THAT WOULD BENEFIT HIS PERSONAL, POLITICAL INTEREST? >> I DID RELY ON THAT, IN ADDITION, BECAUSE AS I'VE ALREADY TESTIFIED, I READ THE WITNESSES -- THE TRANSCRIPT OF ALL THE WITNESSES. I RELIED ON TESTIMONY FROM AMBASSADOR SONDLAND AND TESTIMONY FROM MR. MORRISON, TESTIMONY FROM LIEUTENANT COLONEL VINDMAN, TESTIMONY FOR AMBASSADOR TAYLOR. I RELIED ON THE FACT THAT WHEN -- I THINK IT WAS AMBASSADOR TAYLOR, BUT I MAY BE GETTING ONE OF THESE PEOPLE WRONG, SENT THE CABLE THAT SAID, YOU KNOW, IT'S CRAZY TO HOLD THIS UP BASED ON DOMESTIC POLITICAL CONCERN. NO ONE WROTE BACK AND SAID, THAT'S NOT WHY WE'RE DOING IT. I RELIED ON MR. MULVANEY SAID IN HIS PRESS CONFERENCE. SO, THERE -- YOU KNOW, THERE'S A LOT TO SUGGEST HERE THAT THIS IS ABOUT POLITICAL BENEFIT. AND I DON'T KNOW IF I CAN TALK ABOUT ANOTHER PIECE OF AMBASSADOR SONDLAND'S TESTIMONY NOW OR I SHOULD WAIT. TELL ME. >> PLEASE, TALK ABOUT IT. >> SO, I JUST WANT TO POINT TO WHAT I CONSIDER TO BE THE MOST STRIKING EXAMPLE OF THIS AND THE MOST -- YOU KNOW, I SPENT ALL OF THANKSGIVING VACATION SITTING THERE, READING THESE TRANSCRIPTS. I DIDN'T -- YOU KNOW, I ATE LIKE A TURKEY THAT CAME TO US IN THE MAIL THAT WAS ALREADY COOKED. BECAUSE I WAS SPENDING MY TIME DOING THIS. AND THE MOST CHILLING LINE FOR ME OF THE ENTIRE PROCESS IS THE FOLLOWING. AMBASSADOR SONDLAND SAID HE HAD TO ANNOUNCE THE INVESTIGATIONS, TALKING ABOUT PRESIDENT ZELENSKY. HE HAD TO ANNOUNCE THE INVESTIGATIONS, HE DIDN'T ACTUALLY HAVE TO DO IT, AS I UNDERSTOOD IT. AND HE SAID, I DIDN'T HEAR, MR. GOLDMAN, THE INVESTIGATIONS HAD TO BE STARTED OR COMPLETED. THE ONLY THING I HEARD FROM MR. GIULIANI IS THEY HAD TO BE ANNOUNCED IN SOME FORM. WHAT I TOOK THAT TO MEAN IS THIS IS NOT ABOUT WHETHER VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN ACTUALLY COMMITTED CORRUPTION OR NOT. THIS WAS ABOUT INJURING SOMEBODY WHO THE PRESIDENT THINKS OF AS A PARTICULARLY -- A PARTICULARLY HARD OPPONENT. THAT'S FOR HIS PRIVATE -- HIS PRIVATE BELIEFS. IF I CAN SAY ONE LAST THING ABOUT THE INTEREST OF THE UNITED STATES. THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES DOES NOT CARE WHETHER THE NEXT PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES IS DONALD J. TRUMP OR ANY ONE OF THE DEMOCRATS OR ANYONE RUNNING ON A THIRD-PARTY. THE CONSTITUTION IS INDIFFERENT TO THAT. WHAT THE CONSTITUTION CARES ABOUT IS THAT WE HAVE FREE ELECTIONS. AND SO, IT IS ONLY IN THE PRESIDENT'S INTEREST. IT'S NOT THE NATIONAL INTEREST THAT A PARTICULAR PRESIDENT BE ELECTED OR BE DEFEATED AT THE NEXT ELECTION. PRESIDENT CONSTITUTION IS INDIFFERENT TO THAT. >> PROFESSOR FELDMAN, ANY THOUGHTS ON THE SUBJECT OF HIGH CRIME AND MISDEMEANOR OF THE BRIBERY THAT PROFESSOR KARLAN LAID OUT? >> THE CLEAR SENSE OF BRIBERY AT THE TIME WHEN THE FRAMERS ADOPTED THIS -- THIS LANGUAGE IN THE CONSTITUTION WAS THAT BRIBERY EXISTED UNDER THE CONSTITUTION WHEN THE PRESIDENT CORRUPTLY ASKED FOR OR RECEIVED SOMETHING OF VALUE TO HIM FROM SOMEONE WHO COULD BE AFFECTED BY HIS OFFICIAL OFFICE. SO, IF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES AND THE MEMBERS OF THIS COMMITTEE WERE TO DETERMINE THAT GETTING THE INVESTIGATIONS EITHER ANNOUNCED OR UNDERTAKEN WAS A THING OF VALUE TO PRESIDENT TRUMP AND THAT THAT WAS WHAT HE SOUGHT, THEN THIS COMMITTEE AND THIS HOUSE COULD SAFELY CONCLUDE THAT THE PRESIDENT HAD COMMITTED BRIBERY UNDER THE CONSTITUTION. >> PROFESSOR GERHARDT, WHAT IS YOUR VIEW? >> I, OF COURSE, AGREE WITH PROFESSOR KARLAN AND PROFESSOR FELDMAN. AND I JUST WANT TO STRESS, IF THIS -- IF WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT IS NOT IMPEACHABLE, THEN NOTHING IS IMPEACHABLE. THIS IS PRECISELY THE MISCONDUCT THAT THE FRAMERS CREATED A CONSTITUTION, INCLUDING IMPEACHMENT, TO PROTECT AGAINST. AND IF THERE'S NO ACTION, IF CONGRESS CONCLUDES THEY'RE GOING TO GIVE A PASS TO THE PRESIDENT HERE, AS PROFESSOR KARLAN SUGGESTED EARLIER, EVERY OTHER PRESIDENT WILL SAY, OKAY, THEN I CAN DO THE SAME THING AND THE BOUNDARIES WILL JUST EVAPORATE. THOSE BOUNDARIES ARE SET UP BY THE CONSTITUTION AND WE MAY BE WITNESSING, UNFORTUNATELY, THEIR EROSION. AND THAT IS A DANGER TO ALL OF US. >> AND WHAT CAN THIS COMMITTEE AND THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES DO, SIR, TO DEFEND THOSE BOUNDARIES AND TO PROTECT AGAINST THAT EROSION? >> PRECISELY WHAT YOU'RE DOING. >> AND DOES IT MATTER -- I'LL ASK ALL THE PANELISTS. DOES IT MATTER TO IMPEACHMENT THAT THE $391 MILLION, U.S. TAXPAYER DOLLARS, IN MILITARY ASSISTANCE THAT THE PRESIDENT WITHHELD, WAS ULTIMATELY DELIVERED? PROFESSOR FELDMAN, DOES THAT MATTER TO THE QUESTION OF IMPEACHMENT? >> NO, IT DOES NOT. IF -- IF THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES ATTEMPTS TO ABUSE HIS OFFICE, THAT IS A COMPLETE IMPEACHABLE OFFENSE. THE POSSIBILITY THAT THE PRESIDENT MIGHT GET CAUGHT IN THE PROCESS OF ATTEMPTING TO ABUSE HIS OFFICE AND THEN NOT BE ABLE TO PULL IT OFF DOES NOT UNDERCUT IN ANY WAY THE IMPEACH ACT OF THE ACT. IF YOU'LL PARDON A COMPARISON, PRESIDENT NIXON WAS SUBJECT TO ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT PREFERRED BY THIS COMMITTEE FOR ATTEMPTING TO COVER-UP THE WATERGATE BREAK-IN. THE FACT THAT PRESIDENT NIXON WAS NOT SUCCESSFUL FOR BREAKING UP THE BREAK-IN IT NOT IMPEACHABLE. THE ATTEMPT ITSELF IS THE ITCH PEOPLEABLE ACT. >> PROFESSOR KARLAN, DOES IT MATTER TO IMPEACHMENT THAT THE UNFOUNDED INVESTIGATIONS THE PRESIDENT SOUGHT WERE ULTIMATELY NEVER ANNOUNCED? >> NO, IT DOESN'T. AND IF I COULD GIVE AN EXAMPLE THAT I THINK IT SHOWS WHY SOLICITING IS ENOUGH. IMAGINE YOU WERE PULLED OVER FOR SPEEDING BY THE POLICE OFFICER AND THE OFFICER COMES UP TO THE WINDOW AND SAYS, YOU WERE SPEEDING, BUT IF YOU GIVE ME 20 BUCKS I'LL DROP THE TICKET. AND YOU LOOK IN YOUR WALLET AND YOU SAY TO THE OFFICER, I DON'T HAVE THE 20 BUCKS. AND THE OFFICER SAYS, OKAY, WELL, JUST GO AHEAD, HAVE A NICE DAY. THE OFFICER WOULD STILL BE GUILTY OF SOLICITING A BRIBE EVEN THOUGH HE ULTIMATELY LET YOU OFF WITHOUT YOUR PAYING. SOLICITING ITSELF IS THE IMPEACHABLE OFFENSE REGARDLESS WHETHER THE OTHER PERSON COMES UP WITH IT. SO, IMAGINE THE -- IMAGINE THAT THE PRESIDENT HAD SAID, WILL YOU DO US A FAVOR, WILL YOU INVESTIGATE JOE BIDEN AND THE PRESIDENT OF UKRAINE SAID, YOU KNOW WHAT, NO, I WON'T BECAUSE WE'VE ALREADY LOOKED INTO THIS AND IT'S TOTALLY BASELESS. THE PRESIDENT WOULD STILL HAVE COMMITTED AN IMPEACHABLE ACT EVEN IF HE HAD BEEN REFUSED RIGHT THERE ON THE PHONE. SO, I DON'T SEE WHY THE ULTIMATE -- THE ULTIMATE DECISION HAS ANYTHING TO DO WITH THE PRESIDENT'S IMPEACHABLE CONDUCT. >> WHAT'S THE DANGER IF CONGRESS DOES NOT RESPOND TO THAT ATTEMPTED? >> WELL, WE'VE ALREADY SEEN A LITTLE BIT OF IT WHICH IS HE GETS OUT ON THE WHITE HOUSE LAWN AND SAYS, CHINA, I THINK YOU SHOULD INVESTIGATE JOE BIDEN. >> PROFESSOR GERHARDT, YOUR VIEW? >> I AGREE EVERYTHING THAT'S BEEN SAID. ONE OF THE THINGS TO UNDERSTAND FROM THE HISTORY OF IMPEACHMENT IS EVERYBODY WHO HAS IMPEACHED HAS FAILED. THEY FAILED TO GET WHAT THEY WANTED. WHAT THEY WANTED WAS NOT JUST TO DO WHAT THEY DID BUT TO GET AWAY WITH IT. AND THE POINT OF IMPEACHMENT IS, IT'S -- AND IT'S MADE POSSIBLE THROUGH INVESTIGATION, IS TO NOT -- IS TO CATCH THAT PERSON, CHARGE THAT PERSON AND ULTIMATELY REMOVE THAT PERSON FROM OFFICE. BUT IMPEACHMENTS ARE ALWAYS FOCUSING ON SOMEBODY WHO DIDN'T QUITE GET AS FAR AS THEY WANTED TO. NOBODY IS BETTER THAN PROFESSOR KARLAN AT HYPOTHETICALS BUT I'LL DARE TO RAISE ANOTHER ONE. IMAGINE A BANK ROBBERY AND THE POLICE COME AND THE PERSON'S IN THE MIDDLE OF THE BANK ROBBERY AND THE PERSON THEN DROPS THE MONEY AND SAYS, I -- I'M GOING TO LEAVE WITHOUT THE MONEY. EVERYBODY UNDERSTANDS THAT'S BURGLARY -- THAT'S ROBBERY -- I MEAN, THAT'S BURGLARY. I'LL GET IT RIGHT. AND IN THIS SITUATION, WE HAVE SOMEBODY REALLY CAUGHT IN THE MIDDLE OF IT AND THAT DOESN'T EXCUSE THE PERSON FROM THE CONSEQUENCES. >> PROFESSORS, WE'VE TALKED ABOUT ABUSE OF POWER AND BRIBERY. WHEN WE STARTED WE SAID WE WOULD ALSO TALK ABOUT OBSTRUCTION OF CONGRESS. I'LL ASK YOU SOME QUESTIONS ABOUT OBSTRUCTION OF CONGRESS. PROFESSOR GERHARDT, IN YOUR VIEW, IS THERE ENOUGH EVIDENCE HERE TO CHARGE PRESIDENT TRUMP WITH THE HIGH CRIME AND MISDEMEANOR OF OBSTRUCTION OF CONGRESS? >> I THINK THERE'S MORE THAN ENOUGH. AS I MENTIONED IN MY STATEMENT, JUST TO REALLY UNDERSCORE THIS, THE THIRD ARTICLE OF IMPEACHMENT APPROVED BY THE HOUSE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE AGAINST PRESIDENT NIXON CHARGED HIM WITH MISCONDUCT BECAUSE HE FAILED TO COMPLY WITH FOUR LEGISLATIVE SUBPOENAS. THERE ARE FAR MORE THAN FOUR THIS PRESIDENT HAS FAILED TO COMPLY WITH AND HE ORDERED THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH AS WELL NOT TO COOPERATE WITH CONGRESS. THOSE TOGETHER WITH A LOT OF OTHER EVIDENCE SUGGESTS OBSTRUCTION OF CONGRESS. >> PROFESSOR KARLAN, DO YOU AGREE? >> I'M A SCHOLAR OF THE LAW OF DEMOCRACY. AS A CITIZEN, I AGREE WITH WHAT PROFESSOR GERHARDT. AS AN EXPERT, MY LIMITATION IS THAT I'M A SCHOLAR OF THE LAW OF DEMOCRACY. I'M NOT A SCHOLAR OF OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE OR OBSTRUCTION OF CONGRESS. >> WE WILL ACCEPT YOUR OPINION AS A CITIZEN. PROFESSOR FELDMAN? >> THE OBSTRUCTION OF CONGRESS IS A PROBLEM BECAUSE IT UNDERMINES THE BASIC PRINCIPLE OF THE CONSTITUTION. IF YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE THREE BRANCHES OF GOVERNMENT, EACH OF THE BRANCHES HAS TO BE ABLE TO DO ITS JOB. THE JOB OF THE HOUSE IS TO INVESTIGATE IMPEACHMENT AND TO IMPEACH. A PRESIDENT WHO SAYS, AS THIS PRESIDENT DID SAY, I WILL NOT COOPERATE IN ANY WAY, SHAPE OR FORM WITH YOUR PROCESS, ROBS A COORDINATE BRANCH OF GOVERNMENT. HE ROBS THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES IT OF ITS BASIC CONSTITUTIONAL POWER OF IMPEACHMENT. WHEN YOU ADD TO THAT THE FACT THAT THE SAME PRESIDENT SAYS, MY DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE CANNOT CHARGE ME WITH A CRIME, THE PRESIDENT PUTS HIMSELF ABOVE THE LAW WHEN HE SAYS HE WILL NOT COOPERATE IN AN IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY. I DON'T THINK IT'S POSSIBLE TO EMPHASIZE THIS STRONGLY ENOUGH. A PRESIDENT WHO WILL NOT COOPERATE IN AN IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY IS PUTTING HIMSELF ABOVE THE LAW. NOW, PUTTING YOURSELF ABOVE THE LAW AS PRESIDENT IS THE CORE OF AN IMPEACHABLE OFFENSE BECAUSE IF THE PRESIDENT COULD NOT BE IMPEACHED FOR THAT, HE WOULD, IN FACT, NOT BE RESPONSIBLE TO ANYBODY. >> SIR, IN FORMING YOUR OPINION, DID YOU REVIEW THESE STATEMENTS FROM PRESIDENT TRUMP. >> WE'RE FIGHTING ALL THE SUBPOENAS. >> THEN I HAVE AN ARTICLE 2 WHERE I HAVE THE RIGHT TO DO WHATEVER I WANT AS PRESIDENT. >> I DID. AND AS SOMEONE WHO CARES ABOUT THE CONSTITUTION, THE SECOND IN PARTICULAR STRUCK A KIND OF HORROR IN ME. >> AND, PROFESSOR GERHARDT, IN FORMING YOUR OPINION THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP HAS COMMITTED THE IMPEACHABLE OFFENSE OF OBSTRUCTION OF CONGRESS, DID YOU CONSIDER THE INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE REPORT AND ITS FINDINGS INCLUDING FINDING NINE THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP ORDERED AND IMPLEMENTED A CAMPAIGN TO CONCEAL HIS CONDUCT FROM THE PUBLIC AND TO FRUSTRATE AND OBSTRUCT THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES' IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY? >> I READ THAT REPORT LAST NIGHT AFTER I SUBMITTED MY STATEMENT, BUT I WATCHED AND READ ALL OF THE TRANSCRIPTS THAT WERE AVAILABLE. . THE REPORT THAT WAS ISSUED REINFORCES EVERYTHING ELSE THAT CAME BEFORE IT. SO, YES. >> SO, WE TALKED FIRST ABOUT ABUSE OF POWER AND BRIBERY, AND THEN ABOUT OBSTRUCTION OF CONGRESS. PROFESSOR GERHARDT, I WOULD LIKE TO ASK YOU QUESTIONS ABOUT A THIRD IMPEACHABLE OFFENSE AND THAT IS OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE. SIR, HAVE YOU FORMED AN OPINION AS TO WHETHER PRESIDENT TRUMP COMMITTED THE IMPEACHABLE OFFENSE OF OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE? >> YES, I HAVE. >> AND WHAT IS YOUR OPINION, SIR? >> BASED ON -- SO, I'VE COME HERE LIKE EVERY OTHER WITNESS, ASSUMING THE FACTS THAT HAVE BEEN PUT TOGETHER IN OFFICIAL REPORTS. THE MUELLER REPORT CITES A NUMBER OF FACTS THAT INDICATE THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OBSTRUCTED JUSTICE, AND THAT'S AN IMPEACHABLE OFFENSE. >> IN YOUR TESTIMONY, SIR, YOU POINTED OUT THAT THE MUELLER REPORT FOUND AT LEAST FIVE INSTANCES OF THE PRESIDENT'S OBSTRUCTION OF THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT'S CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION INTO RUSSIAN INTERFERENCE IN THE 2016 ELECTION, CORRECT? >> YES, SIR. >> AND THE FIRST OF THOSE INSTANCES WAS THE PRESIDENT ORDERING HIS THEN WHITE HOUSE COUNSEL, DON McGAHN, TO FIRE THE SPECIAL COUNSEL RATHER THAN TO HAVE THE SPECIAL COUNSEL FIRED IN ORDER TO THWART THE INVESTIGATION OF THE PRESIDENT, CORRECT? >> THAT IS CORRECT. >> THE SECOND WAS THE PRESIDENT ORDERING MR. McGAHN TO CREATE A FALSE WRITTEN RECORD DENYING THAT THE PRESIDENT HAD ORDERED HIM TO HAVE MR. MUELLER REMOVED. >> THAT'S CORRECT. >> AND YOU ALSO POINT TO THE MEETING OF THE PRESIDENT WITH HIS FORMER CAMPAIGN MANAGER, COREY LEWANDOWSKI, TO GET HIM TO TAKE STEPS IN ORDER TO HAVE THE INVESTIGATION CURTAILED. >> YES, I DID. >> AND YOU TALK ABOUT WITNESS DANGLING AS PAUL MANAFORT AND MICHAEL COHEN, FORMER CAMPAIGN OFFICIAL, FORMER PERSONAL LAWYER OF THE PRESIDENT? >> BOTH INDIVIDUALLY AND COLLECTIVELY, THESE ARE EVIDENCE OF OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE. >> HOW SERIOUS IS THAT EVIDENCE OF OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE, SIR? >> IT'S QUITE SERIOUS. THAT'S NOT ALL OF IT, OF COURSE. WE KNOW, AS YOU'VE MENTIONED BEFORE, OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE HAS BEEN RECOGNIZED AS AN IMPEACHABLE OFFENSE AGAINST PRESIDENT NIXON AND PRESIDENT CLINTON. THIS EVIDENCE PUT FORWARD BY MR. MUELLER THAT'S IN THE PUBLIC RECORD IS VERY STRONG EVIDENCE OF OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE. >> PROFESSOR KARLAN, WHEN YOU LOOK AT THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE RUSSIA INVESTIGATION AND HOW THE PRESIDENT RESPONDED TO THAT, AND WHEN YOU LOOK AT CONGRESS' UKRAINE INVESTIGATION AND HOW THE PRESIDENT RESPONDED TO THAT, DO YOU SEE A PATTERN? >> YES, I SEE A PATTERN IN WHICH THE PRESIDENT'S VIEWS ABOUT THE PROPRIETY OF FOREIGN GOVERNMENTS INTERVENING IN OUR ELECTION PROCESS IS THE ANTITHESIS THAT OUR FRAMERS -- WE AMERICANS DECIDE THE ELECTIONS. WE DON'T WANT FOREIGN INTERFERENCE IN THE ELECTIONS. THE REASON WE DON'T WANT FOREIGN INTERFERENCE IN THE ELECTIONS IS BECAUSE WE'RE A SELF-DETERMINING DEMOCRACY. IF I COULD READ ONE QUOTATION TO YOU THAT I THINK IS HELPFUL IN UNDERSTANDING THIS, SOMEBODY WHOSE POINTING TO WHAT HE CALLS A STRAIGHTFORWARD PRINCIPLE. IT IS FUNDAMENTAL TO THE DEFINITION OF OUR NATIONAL POLITICAL COMMUNITY THAT FOREIGN CITIZENS DO NOT HAVE A CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO PARTICIPATE IN AND THUS MAY BE EXCLUDED FROM ACTIVITIES OF DEMOCRATIC SELF-GOVERNMENT. THE PERSON WHO WROTE THOSE WORDS IS NOW JUSTICE BRETT KAVANAUGH IN UPHOLDING THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF A FEDERAL STATUTE THAT DENIES FOREIGN CITIZENS THE RIGHT TO PARTICIPATE IN OUR ELECTIONS BY SPENDING MONEY ON ELECTIONERRING OR GIVING MONEY TO PACs. THEY'VE BEEN LONG FORBIDDEN TO GIVE CONTRIBUTIONS TO CANDIDATES. THE REASON IS BECAUSE THAT DENIES US OUR RIGHT TO SELF-GOVERNMENT. AND THEN JUDGE, NOW JUSTICE BRETT KAVANAUGH WAS SO PROTECT IN SEEING THIS THAT THE SUPREME COURT, WHICH AS YOU KNOW HAS TAKEN CAMPAIGN FINANCE CASE AFTER CAMPAIGN FINANCE CASE TO TALK ABOUT THE FIRST AMENDMENT. SUMMARILY AFFIRMED. THEY DIDN'T EVEN NEED TO AARGUE TO KNOW TO KEEP FOREIGNERS OUT OF OUR ELECTION PROCESS. >> PROFESSOR FELDMAN, YOU WERE SORT OF AN IMPEACHMENT SKEPTIC AT THE TIME OF THE RELEASE OF THE MUELLER REPORT, WERE YOU NOT? >> I WAS. >> WHAT'S CHANGED FOR YOU, SIR? >> WHAT CHANGED FOR ME WAS THE REVELATION OF THE JULY 25th CALL AND THE EVIDENCE THAT EMERGED SUBSEQUENTLY OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES IN A FORMAT WHERE HE WAS HEARD BY OTHERS AND NOW KNOWN TO THE WHOLE PUBLIC, OPENLY ABUSED HIS OFFICE BY SEEKING A PERSONAL ADVANTAGE IN ORDER TO GET HIMSELF RE-ELECTED AND ACT AGAINST THE NATIONAL SECURITY OF THE UNITED STATES. THAT IS PRECISELY THE SITUATION THAT THE FRAMERS ANTICIPATED. IT'S VERY UNUSUAL FOR THE FRAMERS' PREDICTIONS TO COME TRUE THAT PRECISELY. AND WHEN THEY DO, WE HAVE TO ASK OURSELVES, SOME DAY WE WILL NO LONGER BE ALIVE AND WE'LL GO WHEREVER IT IS WE GO. THE GOOD PLACE OR THE OTHER PLACE. AND, YOU KNOW, WE MAY MEET THERE, MADISON AND HAMILTON, AND THEY WILL ASK US WHEN THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES ACTED TO CORRUPT THE STRUCTURE OF THE REPUBLIC, WHAT DID YOU DO? AND OUR ANSWER TO THAT QUESTION MUST BE THAT WE FOLLOWED THE GUIDANCE OF THE FRAMERS AND IT MUST BE THAT IF THE EVIDENCE SUPPORTS THAT CONCLUSION THAT THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES MOVES TO IMPEACH HIM. >> THANK YOU. I YIELD MY TIME BACK TO THE CHAIRMAN. >> AND MY TIME HAS EXPIRED. I YIELD BACK. BEFORE I RECOGNIZE THE RANKING MEMBER FOR HIS ROUND -- FIRST ROUND OF QUESTIONS, THE COMMITTEE WILL STAND IN A TEN-MINUTE HUMANITARIAN RECESS. I ASK EVERYONE IN THE ROOM TO REMAIN SEATED AND QUIET WHILE THE WITNESSES EXIT THE ROOM. I ALSO WANT TO ANNOUNCE TO THOSE IN THE AUDIENCE THAT YOU MAY NOT BE GUARANTEED YOUR SEAT IF YOU LEAVE THE HEARING ROOM AT THIS TIME. AND ONCE THE WITNESSES HAVE LEFT THE HEARING ROOM, AT THIS TIME THE COMMITTEE WILL STAND IN A SHORT RECESS. >> HOUSE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE IS TAKING A SHORT TEN-MINUTE BREAK. THEY SHOULD BE BACK BY 12:20 EASTERN OR SO. WE MIGHT SEE COMMENTS FROM MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE. WE HAVE CAMERAS WAITING THERE TO GET THAT IF IT HAPPENS DURING THIS BREAK. THEY'VE BEEN HEARING FROM FOUR LEGAL SCHOLARS ON THE CONSTITUTION AND IMPEACHMENT. NOAH FELDMAN FROM HARVARD LAW SCHOOL, PAMELA KARLAN FROM STANFORD, MICHAEL GERHARDT FROM THE UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA AND JONATHAN TURLEY FROM GEORGE WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY LAW SCHOOL. ALL FOUR HAD OPENING STATEMENTS. AND THEN FOR THE PAST 40 MINUTES OR SO, THE QUESTIONING OF THE MAJORITY COUNSEL, NORM EISEN, PRINCIPALLY WITH THREE OF THE LEGAL SCHOLARS AND HIS QUESTIONING FOCUSING ON A COUPLE OF AREAS. ABUSE OF POWER -- ALLEGED ABUSE OF POWER BY PRESIDENT TRUMP, BRIBERY, OBSTRUCTION OF CONGRESS AND OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE. WHAT HAPPENS NEXT IS 45 MINUTES OF QUESTIONING FROM MINORITY AND THEN MEMBER QUESTIONS. THERE ARE 41 MEMBERS OF THE HOUSE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE, 24 DEMOCRATS AND 17 REPUBLICANS. >> FIRST TWO HOURS OF ONE-SIDED INFORMATION. WE'RE READY TO GO BACK AT IT IN A MOMENT. WE'LL BE PRESENTING BOTH SIDES. ONE THING THAT'S IMPORTANT IS SO MUCH HAS BEEN SAID OVER THE LAST LITTLE BIT ABOUT THE ISSUES AND ALL INVOLVED. NOW TO COME TO THIS THEORETICAL LAW SCHOOL OF WHAT THESE THINGS MEAN, I THINK THE AMERICAN PEOPLE ARE GETTING LOST. THAT'S ONE THING WE'LL LOOK AT. BUT IT BRINGS ME BACK TO THE QUESTION FOR MY CLARM, WHY ARE WE DOING THIS WITH NO PLAN TO GO FORWARD WITH ACTUAL FACT WITNESSES, THAT COULD BE GOOD FOR THEM OR BAD FOR THEM, BUT WE'RE NOT DOING ANY OF THAT. WE'RE STARTING OFF WITH AN ESOTERIC DISCUSSION. I RESPECT THE LAW PROFESSORS. BUT THIS DOES NOT MOVE THE NEEDLE UNDERSTANDING WHY WE'RE IN THE PROCESS TO START WITH. IT'S BEEN AMAZING TO ME THAT THE MAJORITY PARTY NOW HAS ALSO VOTED NOT TO CALL ADAM SCHIFF, ALSO NOT TO CALL THE WHISTLE-BLOWER AND THEY'VE PUT ON RECORD THEY'RE NOT INTERESTED IN FACT WITNESSES. THIS IS AN INTERESTING TIME. WE'RE GETTING READY TO START 45 MINUTES FROM OUR PERSPECTIVE. I'LL TAKE A FEW QUESTIONS. >> CONGRESSMAN, DID YOU FIND ANYTHING THE LAW PROFESSORS SAID COMPELLING WHEN THEY ARGUED THE SANCTITY OF U.S. ELECTIONS IS AT STAKE HERE? >> SEEING EVERYTHING THEY HAVE COME UP WITH AS FAR AS CRIMES WERE NEVER BROUGHT OUT IN THE OPENING HEARINGS AND BROUGHT FORWARD IN THE DISCUSSIONS WE SAW IN THE INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE HEARINGS. IT'S INTERESTING THEY'RE SPINNING THIS TO THE ELECTION. I KNOW WHAT THEY'RE TRYING TO GET AT. IT'S FALLING FLAT, ESPECIALLY SOME OF THE WITNESSES WERE ASKED WAS THERE QUID PRO QUO? BECAUSE IF YOU BRING IT FROM THERE, THAT'S WHAT THEY'RE TRYING TO SAY, THAT WAS THE INFLUENCE ON ELECTIONS. EVEN WHEN YOU HAVE SONDLAND, WHO AFTER HIS OPENING STATEMENT, HE MADE ONE STATEMENT UNDER DIRECT CROSS-EXAMINATION, NO, THAT WAS JUST MY PRESUMPTION. HE CONTRADICTED HIMSELF. IF YOU TAKE THAT AS FAULTY, THEN YOU TAKE THE REST AS FAULTY AS WELL. >> DO YOU THINK -- DO YOU HAVE ANY CONCERN WHATSOEVER OF THE PRESIDENT ASKING A FOREIGN COUNTRY TO INVEST GAISH -- SOLICITING -- >> FROM YOUR HYPOTHETICAL POSITION I'M NOT GOING TO TAKE BECAUSE THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THE PRESIDENT DIDN'T DO THAT. HE ASKED FOR CORRUPTION. THIS IS A COUNTRY -- >> TO INVESTIGATE JOE BIDEN -- >> THIS IS A COUNTRY THAT HAS 68% OF ITS PEOPLE IN IN A POLL IN THE LAST YEAR SAY THEY BRIBED A PUBLIC OFFICIAL. THIS IS A COUNTRY HE HAD DEEP CONCERNS ABOUT FROM THE BEGINNING. REMEMBER, HE HAD CONCERN ABOUT FOREIGN AID. THIS IS ONE COUNTRY IN PARTICULAR HE HAD A LOT OF CONCERN ABOUT. AS WE MOVE FORWARD, WE'LL SEE HOW THIS WORKS OUT. >> THE WITNESSES TALKED ABOUT, AT LEAST MOST OF THEM, THERE WERE CERTAIN THINGS THEY SAW THAT THEY THOUGHT WERE ITCH PEOPLEABLE OFFENSES. THEIR INTERPRETATION, READING THE CONSTITUTION. IF THIS WASN'T, NOTHING WOULD BE. >> HOW DO YOU RESPOND TO THAT? >> JONATHAN TURLEY. YOU'VE HAD THREE WITNESSES SPENDING THE VAST MAJORITY OF -- WITHOUT INTERPRETATION. THAT'S THE WAY THESE HEARINGS GO. MR. TURLEY, DID HE WRITE SOMETHING? DO YOU WANT A FOLLOW-UP? COUNSEL SAID, NO, YES OR NO. THE NEXT 45 MINUTES WILL BE A BALANCE. THANK YOU SO MUCH. >> REPORTERS HEARING FROM CONGRESSMAN DOUG COLLINS, RANKING REPUBLICAN ON THE HOUSE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE. DOUG COLLINS HAD BEEN MENTIONED AS A POSSIBLE REPLACEMENT AS GEORGIA SENATOR. WE'LL TELL YOU THAT IN A MOMENT. SHEILA JACKSON LEE. >> THE OTHER MEMBERS. >> GOOD AFTERNOON. THESE ARE SOME OF THE MEMBERS OF THE HOUSE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE. ALL OF THEM WILL COMMENT. I WILL BEGIN BY INDICATING MY NAME, SHEILA JACKSON LEE, I SERVE ON THE HOUSE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE. AND I BELIEVE WE HAVE BEGUN TO DO WHAT WE SET OUT TO DO. WHICH IS TO TAKE THIS PROCEEDING IN THE SOMBER AND SOBER MANNER THAT IT IS TO BE TAKEN AND TO SPEAK TO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE THROUGH CONSTITUTIONAL SCHOLARS ABOUT THE SANCTITY OF DEMOCRACY THAT CAN BE ONLY UPHELD IF THE RULE OF LAW IS UPHELD. THE CONSTITUTIONAL SCHOLARS HAVE REPEATEDLY INDICATED THAT THERE IS A CLEAR EQUATION OF ABUSE OF POWER BY THE SITTING PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. AND THE FRAMERS OF THE CONSTITUTION, FEARING KINGS AND FEARING HAVING A PERSON THAT WOULD NOT BE ON BEHALF OR SPEAK TO THE NEEDS OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE WHO COULD NOT BE REMOVED. AND THAT THE AUTHORITY TO DO SO WAS GIVEN TO THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES. I THINK AS WE CLOSED, ONE OF THE MOST INDICTING OR POWERFUL STATEMENTS WAS PROFESSOR FELDMAN WHO SAID, WHAT WILL THE QUESTION BE YEARS LATER WHEN THE ACTION OF IMPEACHMENT WAS NOT ACTED UPON? AND THE PRESIDENT, A PRESIDENT, THE AMERICAN PEOPLE WILL ASK, WHY WAS THAT ACTION NOT TAKEN FOR A CLEAR INDICATION OF A VIOLATION OF THE RULE OF LAW AND THE ABUSE OF POWER EXERCISED BY THIS PRESIDENT? FINALLY, THERE ARE A NUMBER OF EVIDENCES WE HAVE BEFORE US. THE MUELLER REPORT DETAILED EXTENSIVE ELEMENTS OF OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE, BUT THE INTELLIGENCE REPORT THAT JUST CAME OUT ALSO EVIDENCED OBSTRUCTION OF CONGRESS, OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE BUT IT ALSO FOCUSED ON SOMETHING DEAR TO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE AND SINGULARLY A RESPONSIBILITY OF THIS PRESIDENT. AND THAT IS NATIONAL SECURITY. AND UNFETTERED ELECTIONS AND SO IN THIS INSTANCE THE PRESIDENT HAS JEOPARDIZED THE NATIONAL SECURITY OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE AND AS WELL HAS JEOPARDIZED THE QUESTION OF WHETHER WE'LL HAVE FAIR AND HONEST ELECTIONS. >> WALK US THROUGH WHAT THIS NEXT, YOU KNOW, MEETING WILL BE LIKE. THE CHAIRMAN TALKED ABOUT HAVING THE INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE AND OTHER COMMITTEES, PRESENT WHAT THEIR IDEAS WERE. WHAT ELSE DO YOU NEED THEM TO DO AND WHAT IS THAT FORMAT -- IS THAT A MEETING? IS THAT A HEARING? WHAT IS THAT? >> LET ME NOT PREDICT THE FORMAT AND THE FOCUS THAT THE CHAIRMAN IS NOW ESTABLISHING, BUT WE KNOW THAT A PICTURE IS WORTH A THOUSAND WORDS. WORDS ARE VALUABLE. WE WANT TO SPEAK TO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE. THESE HEARINGS ARE TO ALLOW THE REPORTERS, THE INDIVIDUALS WHO MADE THIS REPORT, AND PARTICULARLY IN THE INTELLIGENCE AREA, TO BE ABLE TO SPEAK TO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE, THE COMMITTEES THAT WERE PART OF THE INVESTIGATEASPECT. >> PROFESSOR TURLEY ARGUES EVERYBODY IS JUST MAD, DOESN'T RISE TO THE LEVEL OF IMPEACHABLE OFFENSE. HE MADE A STATEMENT THAT IT'S JUST AN ANGRY TIME FOR AN ANGRY COUNTRY. >> ARE YOU SPEAKING OF PROFESSOR TURLEY? >> YES. >> LET ME SAY THAT I SAW NO ANGER ON THE SIDE OF DEMOCRATS. I SEE NO ANGER AMONGST REPUBLICANS AND DEMOCRATS. 70% OF THEM BELIEVE WHAT THE PRESIDENT DID IS WRONG. WHEN I'M IN MY DISTRICT WHICH IS UNIQUELY DIVERSE WITH REPUBLICANS AND DEMOCRATS AND INDEPENDENTS, I HEAR FROM A CROSS-SECTION WHO ARE STUNNED BY THE ACTIONS AND MANY OF THEM SAY, WE HAVE TO DO OUR JOB. SO I THINK IF WE DO OUR JOB IN THE CALMNESS OF WHICH WE ARE NOW SEEKING TO DO, IF WE USE THAT LITTLE BOOK CALLED THE CONSTITUTION AND METHODICALLY GO THROUGH THE QUESTIONS OF ABUSE OF POWER, AMERICANS UNDERSTAND THAT. AND I THINK PROFESSOR KARLAN WAS STUPENDOUS. SHE WAS SPEAKING FROM THE UNDERSTANDING OF THE FRAMERS. THE FRAMERS DID NOT HAVE A STATUTE. THEY HAD COMMON LAW. THEY UNDERSTOOD BRIBERY IS A VIOLATION OF THE PUBLIC TRUST. I THINK IF WE KEEP OUR MESSAGE THAT IT IS NOT ABOUT US, IT IS ABOUT THE AMERICAN PEOPLE, WE WILL EASE AND SOOTHE THE FEELINGS OF ANGER BECAUSE IT WILL BE NOT ABOUT ANY ONE OF US PERSONALLY, IT WILL BE CLEARLY ABOUT THE AMERICAN PEOPLE. THAT IS THE TRUST WE ATTEMPT TO ENGAGE TODAY. I THINK WE MADE A STUPENDOUS STEP FORWARD WITH THE TESTIMONY THAT'S ALREADY BEEN GIVEN BY THESE SCHOLARS. >> CAN WE JUST -- ONE THING I WANT TO SAY IS THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE IS NOW IN RECEIPT OF A DETAILED REPORT FROM THE INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE WHICH SETS FORTH RELEVANT FACTS AS IT RELATES TO THE UKRAINE SCANDAL. THE PURPOSE IS TO EDUCATE THE COMMITTEE AND ALLOW THE AMERICAN PEOPLE HEAR FROM THE CONSTITUTIONAL SCHOLARS OF THE STANDARD, THE STANDARD FOR HIGH CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS FOR BRIBERY, FOR ABUSE OF OFFICE. WE'VE HEARD FROM WITNESSES TODAY WHO SAY VERY CLEARLY, THIS PRESIDENT HAS COMMITTED IMPEACHABLE OFFENSES. MANY WAYS, OUR FOUNDERS, THE REASON THEY WEREN'T PROPHETS REALLY IMAGINED THIS COULD HAPPEN. FOREIGN GOVERNMENTS WOULD ATTEMPT TO INTERFERE IN OUR DEMOCRACY AND ATTACK THE MOST CENTRAL PART, THEY WARNED ABOUT THIS WHEN THEY ADOPTED THE ARTICLE OF IMPEACHMENT, OF THE GREATEST THREAT TO THE REPUBLIC WAS INTERFERENCE BY FOREIGN POWERS. WE'RE SEEING THAT PLAY OUT IN THE CONDUCT OF PRESIDENT TRUMP. AND THIS -- I THINK THIS HEARING CONFIRMS THAT, CONFIRMS THE LEGAL STANDARD AND THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE WILL TAKE THIS AND MOVE FORWARD. >> ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT, SHOULD WE TAKE FROM THAT THAT'S WHAT THE COMMITTEE IS FOCUSING ON RIGHT NOW? >> I DON'T THINK THE COMMITTEE IS FOCUSING ON SPECIFIC ARTICLES. I THINK HE WAS TALKING ABOUT STANDARDS OF PROOF AND THE EVIDENCE THAT SUPPORTS CONSIDERATION OF PARTICULAR AREAS. BUT I DON'T THINK THERE HAS BEEN ANY DETERMINATION MADE WHETHER WE'LL MOVE FORWARD WITH ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT, LET ALONE WHAT THEY'LL BE. >> I THINK WHAT WE SAW THIS MORNING WAS REALLY IMPORTANT BECAUSE IT BROUGHT HOME THE CONDUCT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT WITH RESPECT TO THIS PRESIDENT IS EXACTLY WHAT THE FRAMERS OF OUR CONSTITUTION WERE WORRIED ABOUT. THEY WERE WORRIED ABOUT AN EXECUTIVE WHO WOULD ABUSE HIS OFFICE TO TRY TO GET ELECTED OR TO GET RE-ELECTED. THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT'S HAPPENED HERE. SO, I THINK IT WAS REALLY INSTRUCTIVE. IT PULLS TOGETHER A LOT OF PIECES, I WOULD URGE ANYONE WHO IS INTERESTED IN WHY WE'RE AT THIS POINT TO LOOK AT THE TESTIMONY WE SAW FROM THESE EXPERTS THIS MORNING. >> LET US GO BACK TO ONE POINT ABOUT TURLEY BECAUSE I WANT TO BE CRYSTAL CLEAR ABOUT WHAT HE DID SAY. HE DID SPEAK TO THE ANGER IN THE COUNTRY BUT HE ALSO SAID THE PRESIDENT'S CALL WAS LESS THAN PERFECT. HE SAID THAT ASKING FOR AN INVESTIGATION INTO BIDEN WAS HIGHLY INAPPROPRIATE. AND HE SAID IF THE FACTS OF A QUID PRO QUO ARE PROVEN TO BE TRUE, IT IS AN IMPEACHABLE OFFENSE. SO, I WANT TO BE SURE THAT WE UNDERSTAND WHAT EVEN THE REPUBLICAN WITNESS IS SAYING ABOUT THE CONDUCT OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES. >> I JUST WANT TO ADD TO THAT. THAT WAS THE CRUX OF HIS MESSAGE. WHAT I WOULD SAY IS AMERICANS HAVE BEEN ANGRY IN TIMES PAST. WARS MAKE US ANGRY. VERY SENSITIVE POLITICAL ISSUES MAKE US ANG RESPECT. I DO WANT TO SAY WE ARE A UNIQUE COUNTRY. WE HAVE FAITH. I DO THINK AS THE AMERICAN PEOPLE LISTEN TO THE QUIET PRESENTATION OF THE SCHOLARS, THAT THEIR FAITH WILL INCREASE THAT WE WILL GET THROUGH THIS AND THAT THIS IS NOT GOING AFTER ANYONE. IT IS REALLY A TASK THAT IS ASSIGNED TO THE UNITED STATES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES AND OUR FAITH. OUR FAITH WILL GET US THROUGH. I THINK THAT'S GOING TO RESPOND TO PROFESSOR TURLEY. >> SOME OF THE HOUSE DEMOCRATIC MEMBERS OF THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE. WE HEARD FROM THE MINORITY -- THE RANKING REPUBLICAN ON THE COUNTY, DOUG COLLINS, WHO WAS NOT NAMED AS GEORGIA'S SENATOR. GEORGE KEMP ANNOUNCING THIS AFTERNOON THAT KELLY LOFLER WILL BE THE NEXT SENATOR FROM GEORGIA. THE COMMITTEE WRAPPING UP A BREAK HERE, A SHORT BREAK. WE EXPECT TO RESUME TESTIMONY SHORTLY. THEY WILL HEAR FROM THE HOUSE REPUBLICAN COUNSEL. FOLLOWING HIS 45 MINUTES OF QUESTIONING, THEY'LL BEGIN THE ROUND OF QUESTIONING FROM ALL 41 MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE. >>> THE HE CAN WILL COME BACK TO ORDER AFTER THE RECESS. THE CHAIR NOW RECOGNIZES THE RANKING MEMBER FOR HIS FIRST ROUND OF QUESTIONS PURSUANT TO HOUSE RESOLUTION 660 THE RANKING MEMBER OR HIS COUNSEL HAVE 45 MINUTES TO QUESTION THE WITNESSES. THE RANKING MEMBER. >> THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN. BEFORE I BEGIN ON THE QUESTIONING, I DO WANT TO REVISIT A COMMENT THAT WAS MADE EARLIER BY YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN, FOR A DEMAND FOR MINORITY HEARING DAY. YOU SAID YOU WOULD RULE ON IT LATER. I JUST WANTED TO REMIND YOU, THE RULES OF THE HOUSE DO NOT PERMIT A RULING ON THIS, THEY DON'T PERMIT A VOTE AND YOU CANNOT SHUT IT DOWN. THE MINORITY IS A RIGHT RARELY EXERCISED BUT REGARDS MAJORITY EXCLUDING. THE FAIR AND BALANCE RULE. IT'S NOT THE CHAIRMAN'S RIGHT TO DETERMINE WHETHER WE DESERVE A HEARING OR. IT'S WANT THE CHAIRMAN'S RIGHT TO DECIDE WHAT WE SAY OR THINK IS ACCEPTABLE. IT IS CERTAINLY NOT THE CHAIRMAN'S RIGHT TO VIOLATE THE RULES IN ORDER TO INTERFERE WITH OUR RIGHTS TO CONDUCT A HEARING. I JUST COMMEND MR. SENSENBRENNER FOR BRINGING THAT FORWARD AND LOOK FORWARD TO THAT SCHEDULE -- YOU GETTING THAT SCHEDULED EXPEDITIOUSLY. MOVING ON, INTERESTING PART. NOW WE HIT PHASE TWO. YOU'VE HAD ONE SIDE, ELOQUENTLY ARGUE I BY NOT ONLY COUNSEL AND THE WITNESSES INVOLVED BUT THERE'S ALWAYS A FACE TWO. THE PHASE TWO IS WHAT IS PROBLEMATIC HERE. WHAT I SAID IN MY OPENING STATEMENT, THIS IS FOR MANY THE MOST DISPUTED IMPEACHMENTS ON JUST THE FACTS THEMSELVES. WHAT WAS INTERESTING IS WE ACTUALLY SHOWED VIDEOS OF WITNESSES. IN FACT, ONE OF THEM WAS AN OPENING STATEMENT, I BELIEVE, WHICH, AGAIN, THE CLOSEST THING TO PERFECT OUTSIDE YOUR RESUME THIS SIDE OF HEAVEN IS AN OPENING STATEMENT, BECAUSE IT'S UNCHALLENGED. I AGREE WITH THAT. IT SHOULD BE. WE'VE HAD GREAT WITNESSES HERE TODAY TO TALK ABOUT THIS. BUT WE DIDN'T TALK ABOUT KURT VOLCKER, WHO SAID NOTHING ABOUT IT. WE SAID NOTHING ABOUT THE AID BEING HELD UP. MORRISON, WHO CONTRADICTED VINDMAN AND OTHERS. WE'VE NOT DONE THAT. I DON'T EXPECT THE MAJORITY TO BECAUSE THAT'S NOT WHAT THEY'RE HERE FOR. THEY'RE NOT HERE TO GIVE EXCULPATORY EVIDENCE LIKE THE SCHIFF GIVES NO EXCULPATORY EVIDENCE. WE STILL DON'T HAVE THE UNDERLYING STUFF THAT CAME FROM THAT INVESTIGATION ACCORDING TO HOUSE RULE 866 WE ARE SUPPOSED TO GET. ONE IMPORTANT PART IS THE INSPECTOR GENERAL, HIS TESTIMONY IS STILL BEING HELD. THERE'S A QUOTE SECRET ON IT OR HOLDING IT IN CLASSIFICATION. THE LAST TIME I CHECKED, WE HAVE PLENTY OF PLACES IN THIS BUILDING AND OTHER BUILDINGS TO HANDLE CLASSIFIED INFORMATION IF THEY STILL WANT TO DO THAT. IT'S WITHHELD FROM US. I HAVE TO BELIEVE NOW THERE'S A REASON IT'S WITHHELD. UNDOUBTEDLY THERE'S A PROBLEM WITH IT. WE'LL HAVE TO SEE AS THAT GOES FORWARD. ANYBODY IN THE MEDIA WATCHING TODAY HAS PAINTED AN INTERESTING PICTURE. PICKING AND CHOOSING THE LAST FEW WEEKS TO TALK ABOUT. THAT'S OKAY. PROFESSOR TURLEY, YOU'RE NOW WELL RESTED. YOU GOT ONE QUESTION. YOU WERE GIVEN A YES OR NO. ELABORATE ON THAT AND IF THERE'S ANYTHING YOU HEARD THIS MORNING YOU WOULD DISAGREE WITH, I WOULD ALLOW YOU TIME TO TALK. FOR INFORMATION, MR. CHAIRMAN, THIS IS THE COLDEST HEARING ROOM IN THE WORLD. FOR THOSE WHO ARE WORRIED I'M UNCOMFORTABLE, UPSET, I'M AS HAPPY AS A LARK BUT THIS CHAIR IS TERRIBLE! I MEAN, IT IS AMAZING. BUT MR. TURLEY, GO AHEAD. >> THERE'S A COUPLE OF THINGS I WANT TO HIGHLIGHT. I RESPECT MY COLLEAGUES. I KNOW ALL OF THEM. I CONSIDER THEM FRIENDS. I CERTAINLY RESPECT WHAT THEY HAVE SAID TODAY. WE HAVE FUNDAMENTAL DISAGREEMENTS. AND I'D LIKE TO START WITH THE ISSUE OF BRIBERY. THE STATEMENT HAS BEEN MADE, NOT JUST BY THESE WITNESSES BUT CHAIRMAN SCHIFF AND OTHERS THAT THIS IS A CLEAR CASE OF BRIBERY. IT'S NOT. CHAIRMAN SCHIFF SAID THAT IT MIGHT NOT FIT TODAY'S DEFINITION OF BRIBERY, BUT IT WOULD FIT THE DEFINITION BACK IN THE 18th CENTURY. NOW, PUTTING ASIDE MR. SCHIFF'S TURN TOWARDS ORIGINALISM, I THINK THAT IT MIGHT COME AS A RELIEF TO HIM AND HIS SUPPORTERS THAT HIS CAREER WILL BE A SHORT ONE, THAT THERE IS NOT AN ORIGINALIST FUTURE IN THAT ARGUMENT. THE BRIBERY THEORY BEING PUT FORWARD IS -- IN THE 18th CENTURY AS THIS STATEMENT. THE STATEMENT MADE BY ONE OF MY ESTEEMED COLLEAGUES IS BRIBERY REALLY WASN'T DEFINED UNTIL MUCH LATER. THERE WAS NO BRIBERY STATUTE. THAT IS CERTAINLY TRUE. BUT IT OBVIOUSLY HAD A MEANING, THAT'S WHY THEY PUT IT IN THIS IMPORTANT STANDARD. BRIBERY WAS NOT THIS OVERARCHING CONCEPT. THE ORIGINAL STANDARD WAS TREASON AND BRIBERY. THAT LED MASON TO OBJECT THAT IT WAS TOO NARROW. IF BRIBERY COULD INCLUDE ANY TIME YOU DID ANYTHING FOR PERSONAL INTEREST INSTEAD OF PUBLIC INTEREST, IF YOU HAVE THIS OVERARCHING DEFINITION, THAT EXCHANGE WOULD HAVE BEEN COMPLETELY USELESS. THE FRAMERS DIDN'T DISAGREE WITH MASON'S VIEW THAT BRIBERY WAS TOO NARROW. WHAT THEY DISAGREED WITH IS WHAT HE SUGGESTED MAL-ADMINISTRATION TO ADD TO THE STANDARD BECAUSE HE WANTED IT TO BE BROADER. WHAT JAMES MADISON SAID IS THAT THAT'S TOO BROAD, THAT WOULD ESSENTIALLY CREATE WHAT YOU MIGHT CALL A VOTE OF NO CONFIDENCE IN ENGLAND. IT WOULD BASICALLY ALLOW CONGRESS TO TOSS OUT A PRESIDENT THEY DID NOT LIKE. ONCE AGAIN, WE'RE CHANNELLING THE INTENT OF THE FRAMERS. THAT'S ALWAYS A DANGEROUS THING TO DO. THE ONLY MORE DANGEROUS SPOT TO STAND IN IS BETWEEN CONGRESS AND IMPEACHMENT AS AN ACADEMIC. I WOULD OFFER INSTEAD THE WORDS OF THE FRAMERS THEMSELVES. IN THAT EXCHANGE, THEY DIDN'T JUST SAY BRIBERY WAS TOO NARROW, THEY ACTUALLY GAVE AN EXAMPLE OF BRIBERY. AND IT WAS NOTHING LIKE WHAT WAS DESCRIBED. WHEN THE OBJECTION WAS MADE BY MASON -- I'M SORRY, BY MADISON, ULTIMATELY THE FRAMERS AGREED. AND THEN MORRIS, WHO WAS REFERRED TO EARLIER, DID SAY, WE NEED TO ADOPT THE STANDARD. WHAT WAS LEFT OUT IS WHAT CAME AFTERWARDS. WHAT MORRIS SAID IS THAT WE NEED TO PROTECT AGAINST BRIBERY BECAUSE WE DON'T WANT ANYTHING LIKE WHAT HAPPENED WITH LOUIS XVIV AND CHARLES II. THE BRIBERY WAS OFFERING MONEY AS HEAD OF STATE. WHAT HAD HAPPENED IN THAT EXAMPLE MORRIS GAVE AS HIS EXAMPLE OF BRIBERY IS THAT LOUIS XIV, WHO WAS A BIT OF A RECIDIVIST WHEN IT CAME TO BRIBES, GAVE CHARLES II A HUGE AMOUNT OF MONEY AS WELL AS OTHER BENEFITS INCLUDING, APPARENTLY, A FRENCH MISTRESS IN EXCHANGE FOR THE SECRET TREATY OF DOVER OF 1670. IT ALSO WAS AN EXCHANGE FOR HIM CONVERTING TO CATHOLICISM. BUT THAT WASN'T SOME BROAD NOTION OF BRIBERY. IT WAS ACTUALLY QUITE NARROW. I DON'T THINK THAT DOG WILL HUNT IN THE 18th CENTURY AND I DON'T THINK IT WILL HUNT TODAY, BECAUSE IF YOU TAKE A LOOK AT THE 21st CENTURY, BRIBERY IS WELL DEFINED. YOU SHOULDN'T JUST TAKE OUR WORD FOR IT. YOU SHOULD LOOK TO HOW IT'S DEFINED BY THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT. IN A CASE CALLED McDONALD VERSUS THE UNITED STATES, THE SUPREME COURT LOOKED AT A PUBLIC CORRUPTION BRIBERY CASE. THIS WAS A CASE WHERE GIFTS WERE ACTUALLY RECEIVED, BENEFITS WERE ACTUALLY EXTENDED. THERE WAS COMPLETION. THIS WAS NOT SOME HYPOTHETICAL OF A CRIME THAT WAS NOT FULFILLED OR AN ACTION THAT WAS NOT ACTUALLY TAKEN. THE SUPREME COURT UNANIMOUSLY OVERTURNED THAT CONVICTION. UNANIMOUSLY. AND WHAT THEY SAID WAS THAT YOU CANNOT TAKE THE BRIBERY CRIME AND USE WHAT THEY CALLED A BOUNDLESS INTERPRETATION. ALL THE JUSTICES SAID THAT IT'S A DANGEROUS THING TO TAKE A CRIME LIKE BRIBERY AND APPLY A BOUNDLESS INTERPRETATION. THEY REJECTED THE NOTION, FOR EXAMPLE, THAT BRIBERY COULD BE USED IN TERMS OF SETTING UP MEETINGS AND OTHER TYPES OF THINGS THAT OCCUR IN THE COURSE OF A PUBLIC SERVICE CAREER. WHAT I WOULD CAUTION THE COMMITTEE, THESE CRIMES HAVE MEANING. IT GIVES ME NO JOY TO DISAGREE WITH MY COLLEAGUES HERE. AND I REALLY DON'T HAVE A DOG IN THIS FIGHT. BUT YOU CAN'T ACCUSE A PRESIDENT OF BRIBERY AND THEN WHEN SOME OF US NOTE THAT THE SUPREME COURT HAS REJECTED YOUR TYPE OF BOUNDLESS INTERPRETATION, SAY, WELL, IT'S JUST IMPEACHMENT. WE REALLY DON'T HAVE TO PROVE THE ELEMENTS. THAT'S A FAVORITE MANTRA. IT'S CLOSE ENOUGH FOR JAZZ. WELL, THIS ISN'T IMPROVISATIONAL JAZZ. CLOSE ENOUGH ISN'T GOOD ENOUGH. IF YOU'RE GOING TO ACCUSE A PRESIDENT OF BRIBERY, YOU NEED TO MAKE IT STICK BECAUSE YOU'RE TRYING TO REMOVE A DULY ELECTED PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES. NOW, IT'S UNFAIR TO ACCUSE SOMEONE OF A CRIME, AND WHEN OTHERS SAY, WELL, THOSE INTERPRETATIONS YOU'RE USING TO DEFINE THE CRIME ARE NOT VALID AND TO SAY THEY DON'T HAVE TO BE VALID. BECAUSE THIS IS IMPEACHMENT. THAT HAS NOT BEEN THE STANDARD HISTORICALLY. MY TESTIMONY LAYS OUT THE CRIMINAL ALLEGATIONS IN THE PREVIOUS IMPEACHMENTS. THOSE WERE NOT JUST PROVEN CRIMES, THEY WERE ACCEPTED CRIMES. THAT IS EVEN THE DEMOCRATS ON THAT -- ON THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE AGREED THAT BILL CLINTON HAD COMMITTED PERJURY. THAT'S ON THE RECORD. AND A FEDERAL JUDGE LATER SAID IT WAS PERJURY. IN THE CASE OF NIXON, THE CRIMES WERE ESTABLISHED. NO ONE SERIOUSLY DISAGREED WITH THOSE CRIMES. NOW, JOHNSON IS THE OUTLIER BECAUSE JOHNSON WAS A TRAP DOOR CRIME. THEY BASICALLY CREATED A CRIME KNOWING THAT JOHNSON WANTED TO REPLACE SECRETARY OF WAR STANTON. AND JOHNSON DID, BECAUSE THEY HAD SERIOUS TROUBLE IN THE CABINET. SO, THEY CREATED A TRAP DOOR CRIME, WAITED FOR HIM TO FIRE THE SECRETARY OF WAR AND THEN THEY IMPEACHED HIM. THERE'S NO QUESTION HE COMMITTED THE CRIME. IT'S JUST THE UNDERLYING STATUTE WAS UNCONSTITUTIONAL. SO, I WOULD CAUTION YOU NOT ONLY ABOUT BRIBERY BUT ALSO OBSTRUCTION. I'M SORRY, RANKING MEMBER, YOU -- >> NO, YOU'RE DOING A GOOD JOB. GO AHEAD. I'D ALSO CAUTION YOU ABOUT OBSTRUCTION. OBSTRUCTION IS A CRIME ALSO WITH MEANING. IT HAS ELEMENTS, IT HAS CONTROLLING CASE AUTHORITY. THE RECORD DOES NOT ESTABLISH OBSTRUCTION IN THIS CASE. WHAT MY ESTEEMED COLLEAGUE SAID IS CERTAINLY TRUE. IF YOU ACCEPT ALL OF THEIR PRESUMPTIONS, IT WOULD BE OBSTRUCTION. BUT IMPEACHMENTS HAVE TO BE BASED ON PROOF, NOT PRESUMPTIONS. THAT'S THE PROBLEM WHEN YOU MOVE TOWARDS IMPEACHMENT ON THIS ABBREVIATED SCHEDULE THAT HAS NOT BEEN EXPLAINED TO ME WHY YOU WANT TO SET THE RECORD FOR THE FASTEST IMPEACHMENT. FAST IS NOT GOOD FOR IMPEACHMENT. NARROW, FAST IMPEACHMENTS HAVE FAILED. JUST ASK JOHNSON SO, THE OBSTRUCTION ISSUE IS AN EXAMPLE OF THIS PROBLEM. HERE'S MY CONCERN. THE THEORY BEING PUT FORWARD IS THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP OBSTRUCTED CONGRESS BY NOT TURNING OVER MATERIAL REQUESTED BY THE COMMITTEE. CITATIONS HAVE BEEN MADE TO THE THIRD ARTICLE OF THE NIXON IMPEACHMENT. FIRST OF ALL, I WANT TO CONFESS. I'VE BEEN A CRITIC OF THE THIRD ARTICLE OF THE NIXON IMPEACHMENT MY WHOLE LIFE. MY HAIR CATCHES ON FIRE EVERY TIME SOMEONE MENTIONS THE THIRD ARTICLE. WHY? BECAUSE YOU WOULD BE REPLICATING ONE OF THE WORST ARTICLES WRITTEN ON IMPEACHMENT. HERE'S THE REASON WHY. PETER RADINO'S POSITION AS CHAIRMAN OF JUDICIARYLE IS CONGRESS ALONE DECIDES WHAT INFORMATION MAY BE GIVEN TO IT. ALONE. AND HIS POSITION IS THE COURTS HAVE NO ROLE IN THIS. AND SO IF ANY -- BY THAT THEORY, ANY REFUSAL BY A PRESIDENT BASED ON EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE OR IMMUNITIES WOULD BE THE BASIS OF IMPEACHMENT. THAT IS ESSENTIALLY THE THEORY BEING REPLICATED TODAY. HE'S ALLOWED TO DO THAT. WE HAVE THREE BRANCHES, NOT TWO. I HAPPEN TO AGREE WITH SOME OF YOUR CRITICISM ABOUT PRESIDENT TRUMP, INCLUDING THAT EARLIER QUOTE WHERE MY COLLEAGUES TALKED ABOUT HIS SAYING THAT THERE'S THIS ARTICLE 2 AND HE GIVES THIS OVERRIDING INTERPRETATION. I SHARE THAT CRITICISM. YOU'RE DOING THE SAME THING WITH ARTICLE 1. YOU'RE SAYING, ARTICLE 1 GIVES US COMPLETE AUTHORITY WHEN WE DEMAND INFORMATION FROM ANOTHER BRANCH, IT MUST BE TURNED OVER OR WE'LL IMPEACH YOU IN RECORD TIME. NOW, MAKING THAT WORSE IS THAT YOU HAVE SUCH A SHORT INVESTIGATION, IT'S A PERFECT STORM. YOU SET AN INCREDIBLY SHORT PERIOD, DEMAND A HUGE AMOUNT OF INFORMATION AND WHEN THE PRESIDENT GOES TO COURT, YOU THEN IMPEACH HIM. NOW, DOES THAT TRACK WITH WHAT YOU'VE HEARD ABOUT IMPEACHMENT? DOES THAT TRACK WITH THE RULE OF LAW THAT WE TALKED ABOUT? SO, ON OBSTRUCTION I WOULD ENCOURAGE YOU TO THINK ABOUT THIS. IN NIXON IT DID GO TO THE COURTS AND NIXON LOST. AND THAT WAS THE REASON NIXON RESIGNED. HE RESIGNED A FEW DAYS AFTER THE SUPREME COURT RULED AGAINST HIM IN THAT CRITICAL CASE, BUT IN THAT CASE, THE COURT RECOGNIZED THERE ARE EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE ARGUMENTS THAT CAN BE MADE. IT DIDN'T SAY, YOU HAD NO IDEA COMING TO US. DON'T DARKEN OUR DOORSTEP AGAIN. IT SAID, WE'VE HEARD YOUR ARGUMENTS. WE'VE HEARD CONGRESS'S ARGUMENTS. YOU KNOW WHAT, YOU LOSE. TURN OVER THE MATERIAL TO CONGRESS. WHAT THAT DID FOR THE JUDICIARY IS THAT GAVE THIS BODY LEGITIMACY. IT WASN'T THE RODINO EXTREME POSITION THAT ONLY YOU DECIDE WHAT INFORMATION CAN BE PRODUCED. RECENTLY THERE ARE RULINGS AGAINST PRESIDENT TRUMP, INCLUDING A RULING INVOLVING DON McGAHN. MR. CHAIRMAN, I TESTIFIED IN FRONT OF YOU A FEW MONTHS AGO AND IF YOU RECALL, WE HAD AN EXCHANGE AND I ENCOURAGED YOU TO BRING THOSE ACTIONS AND I SAID I THOUGHT YOU WOULD WIN AND YOU DID. AND I THINK IT WAS AN IMPORTANT WIN FOR THIS COMMITTEE BECAUSE I DON'T AGREE WITH PRESIDENT TRUMP'S ARGUMENT IN THAT CASE. THAT'S AN EXAMPLE OF WHAT CAN HAPPEN IF YOU ACTUALLY SUBPOENA WITNESSES AND GO TO COURT. THEN YOU HAVE AN OBSTRUCTION CASE BECAUSE A COURT ISSUES AN ORDER. UNLESS THEY STAY THAT ORDER BY A HIGHER COURT, YOU HAVE OBSTRUCTION. I CAN'T EMPHASIZE THIS ENOUGH AND I'LL SAY IT ONE MORE TIME IF YOU IMPEACH A PRESIDENT IF YOU MAKE A HIGH CRIME AND MISDEMEANOR OUT OF GOING TO THE COURTS, IT IS AN ABUSE OF POWER. IT'S YOUR ABUSE OF POWER. YOU'RE DOING EXACTLY WHAT YOU'RE CRITICIZING THE PRESIDENT OF DOING. WE HAVE A THIRD BRANCH THAT DEALS WITH CONFLICTS OF THE OTHER TWO BRANCHES. WHAT COMES OUT OF THERE AND WHAT YOU DO WITH IT IS THE VERY DEFINITION OF LEGITIMACY. >> LET'S CONTINUE ON. LET'S UNPACK WHAT YOU'VE BEEN TALKING ABOUT. FIRST OF ALL, THE McDONALD CASE, HOW WAS THAT DECIDED? WAS THAT A REALLY SPLIT COURT? WERE THEY TORN ABOUT THAT? THAT CASE CAME OUT HIGH? >> YEAH, IT CAME OUT UNANIMOUS. SO DID A COUPLE OF THE OTHER CASES I CITE IN MY TESTIMONY, WHICH ALSO REFUTE THESE CRIMINAL THEORIES. >> ONE THING THAT YOU SAID ALSO, AND I THINK IT COULD BE SUMMED UP, AND I USE IT SOMETIMES, WHAT'S THE LAYMEN'S LANGUAGE HERE IS FACTS DON'T MATTER. THAT'S WHAT I HEARD A LOT IN 45 MINUTES. IF THIS, IF THAT, IT RISES TO AN IMPEACHMENT LEVEL. THAT IS SORT OF WHAT YOU'RE SAYING, CRIMES, I THINK YOUR WORD WAS, CRIMES HAVE MEANING AND I THINK THIS IS THE CONCERN THAT I HAVE. IS THERE A CONCERN THAT WE SAY FACTS DON'T MATTER WE'RE ALSO, AS YOU SAY, ABUSING OUR POWER AS WE GO FORWARD AND ACTUALLY LOOKING AT WHAT PEOPLE WOULD DEEM AS AN IMPEACHABLE OFFENSE? >> I THINK SO. PART OF THE PROBLEM IS TO BRING A COUPLE OF THESE ARTICLES, YOU HAVE TO CONTRADICT THE POSITION OF PRESIDENT OBAMA. PRESIDENT OBAMA WITHHELD EVIDENCE FROM CONGRESS IN FAST AND FURIOUS, AN INVESTIGATION, A RATHER THAN MORONIC PROGRAM, THAT LED TO THE DEATH OF A FEDERAL AGENT. PRESIDENT OBAMA GAVE A SWEEPING ARGUMENT THAT HE WAS NOT ONLY NOT GOING TO GIVE EVIDENCE TO THIS BODY, BUT THAT A COURT HAD ABSOLUTELY NO ROLE IN DETERMINING WHETHER HE COULD WITHHOLD THE EVIDENCE. >> YOU HAVE A QUESTION ON THAT. YOU BROUGHT UP MR. OBAMA AND BROUGHT UP OTHER PRESIDENTS IN THIS PROCESS. IS THERE NOT AN OBLIGATION BY THE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT, WE'LL JUST USE THAT TERM, NOT TO BE OBAMA, TRUMP, CLINTON, ANYBODY. ISN'T THERE AN OBLIGATION BY THE PRESIDENT TO ACTUALLY ASSERT THE CONSTITUTIONAL PRIVILEGES OR AUTHORITIES THAT HAVE BEEN GIVEN OR WHEN ACCUSED OF SOMETHING, A CRIME OR ANYTHING ELSE? >> YEAH. I THINK PRESIDENT OBAMA HAS INVOKED TOO BROADLY. ON THE OTHER HAND, HE HAS ACTUALLY RELEASED A LOT OF INFORMATION. I'VE BEEN FRIENDS WITH BILL BARR FOR A LONG TIME. WE DISAGREE ON EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE. I'M A MADISONIAN SCHOLAR. I TEND TO FAVOR CONGRESS IN DISPUTES. AND HE IS THE INVERSE. HIS NATURAL DEFAULT IS ARTICLE 2. MY NATURAL DEFAULT IS ARTICLE 1. BUT HE ACTUALLY HAS RELEASED MORE PRIVILEGED INFORMATION THAN ANY ATTORNEY GENERAL IN MY LIFETIME, INCLUDING THE MUELLER REPORT, THESE TRANSCRIPTS OF THESE CALLS WOULD BE CORE EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE MATERIAL. THERE'S NO QUESTION ABOUT THAT. >> THAT'S SOMETHING THAT'S NOT POINTED OUT WHEN YOU'RE DOING A BACK AND FORTH LIKE WE'RE DOING. THE TRANSCRIPT OF THE CALL RELEASED, THE THINGS RELEASED WITH MUELLER. THERE HAVE BEEN WORK IN PROGRESS BY THIS ADMINISTRATION. I THINK THE INTERESTING POINT I WANT TO TALK ABOUT IS TWO WHAT S CONGRESS' OWN ABUSE OF THE POWER HERE INTERNALLY WHERE WE HAVE HAD COMMITTEES NOT LETTING TO HAVE THE MEMBERS SEE TRANSCRIPTS AND NOT WILLING TO GIVE THOSE UP UNDER THE GUISE OF IMPEACHMENT OR YOU SHOULD NOT BE ABLE TO SEE THEM, BUT THE RULES OF THE HOUSE WERE NEVER INVOKED TO SEE THAT. AND WHAT I ALSO WANT TO TALK ABOUT IS THE TIMING ISSUE, AND WE HAVE TALKED ABOUT THIS WITH THE MUELLER REPORT, AND EVERYTHING ELSE. AND I SAID, THIS IS THE CLOCK AND THE CALENDAR ARE SEEMINGLY DOMINATED THIS IRREGARDLESS OF WHAT ANYBODY ON THIS COMMITTEE AND ESPECIALLY THE MEMBERS NOT ON THIS COMMITTEE ARE WHAT WE ARE SEEING OF THE FACT WITNESSES AND PEOPLE MOVING FORWARD AND WE DON'T HAVE THAT YET, AND THE QUESTION BECOMES, IS AN ELECTION PENDING WHEN FACTS ARE IN DISPUTE AND YOU MADE A MENTION OF THIS, AND THIS IS IN ONE IN WHICH THE FACTS ARE NOT UNANIMOUS, AND THERE IS NOT UNIVERSAL OR BIPARTISAN AGREEMENT OF THE FACTS OF WHAT THEY LEAD TO WHEN THERE IS EXCULPATORY REPORTS, AND NOT IN THE SCHIFF REPORT, BUT IN THE OTHER REPORTS, AND DOES THAT BOTHER YOU FROM A HISTORICAL POINT OF VIEW? >> YES, FAST AND NARROW IS NOT A GOOD IDEA WITH IMPEACHMENT. THEY TEND NOT TO SURVIVE AND THEY COLLAPSE. THIS IS THE HIGHEST STRUCTURE UNDER THE CONSTITUTION, AND UNDER THE IMPEACHMENT, YOU HAVE TO HAVE A FOUNDATION BROAD ENOUGH TO SUPPORT IT. IT IS THE NARROWEST IMPEACHMENT IN HISTORY, AND JOHNSON MAY NOT HAVE THE FASTEST IMPEACHMENT, AND JOHNSON IS WHAT HAPPENED TO JOHNSON THE ACTUALLY THE FOURTH IMPEACHMENT ATTEMPTED AGAINST JOHNSON AND OBVIOUSLY, THE RECORD GOES BACK A YEAR BEFORE AND THEY LAID THE TRAP DOOR A YEAR BEFORE SO IT IS NOT AS FAST AS IT MIGHT APPEAR. >> AND AGAIN, LET'S GO BACK TO SOMETHING ELSE THAT YOU TALKED ABOUT BRIBERY, AND I WANTED TO HAVE MR. TAYLOR ADDRESS A GOOD BIT OF THAT, BUT I WANTED TO GO BACK TO SOMETHING THAT IS BOTHER THE PERCEPTION OUT OF WHAT IS GOING ON HERE AND THE DISPUTED TRANSCRIPT AND BEING THAT THE CALL HAS BEEN LAID OUT THERE AND THE PRESIDENT SAID I WANT NOTHING OF THIS, AND ALL OF THE EXCULPATORY INFORMATION, AND IT GOES BACK TO WHAT CRIMES MATTER AND THE DEFINITION OF THIS, BUT THE HOUSE BEGAN ACCUSING THE PRESIDENT QUID PRO QUO, AND THEN THEY USED A FOCUS POLL GROUP AND THEN IT DIDN'T POLL WELL SO THEY CHANGED IT TO BRIBERY AND SO IS THAT MORE OF THE CRIMES DO MATTER AND THE FACTS OF THE CASE DO MATTER? >> YES. THERE IS A REASON THAT EVERY PAST IMPEACHMENT HAS ESTABLISHED CRIMES, AND IT IS OBVIOUS AND NOT THAT YOU CAN'T IMPEACH ON A NONCRIME, AND YOU K AND IN FACT, NONCRIMES HAVE BEEN PART OF PAST IMPEACHMENTS, BUT IT IS JUST THAT THEY HAVE NEVER GONE UP ALONE OR PRIMARILY AS THE BASIS OF IMPEACHMENT, AND THAT IS THE PROBLEM HERE. IF YOU PROVE A QUID PRO QUO, THAT YOU MIGHT HAVE AN IMPEACHABLE OFFENSE, BUT TO GO UP ONLY ON THE NONCRIMINAL CASE WOULD BE THE FIRST TIME IN HISTORY, AND SO WHY IS THAT THE CASE? THE REASON IS THAT CRIMES HAVE AN ESTABLISHED DEFINITION IN CASE LAW, AND SO THERE IS A CONCRETE INDEPENDENT BODY OF LAW THAT ASSURING THE POLITICAL THAT THIS IS SOMETHING THEY CANNOT DO, AND YOU CANNOT SAY THAT THE PRESIDENT IS ABOVE THE LAW IF YOU THEY THE CRIMES THEY ACCUSE YOU OF DON'T HAVE TO BE ESTABLISHED. >> THAT IS THE PROBLEM RIGHT NOW THAT MANY MEMBERS OF THE HOUSE AND THE BODY AND THE AMERICAN PUBLIC ARE LOOKING AT THAT IF YOU SAY HE IS ABOVE THE LAW, BUT YOU DON'T DEFIANT OR DEFINE IF FACTS TO WHATEVER YOU WANT TO HAVE IS THE ULTIMATE RAILROAD THAT EVERYBODY IN THE COUNTRY SHOT NO BE AFFORDED. EVERYBODY IS AFFORDED DUE PROCESS AND THE RIGHT TO HAVE THEIR CASE HEARD, AND WE HAVE SEEN IT VOTED DOWN NOT TO LOOK AT CERTAIN FACT WITNESSES AND NOT PROMISED OTHER HEARINGS IN WHICH THIS COMMITTEE AND THE WORDS ECHOED ALMOST 20 YEARS AGO THAT THE CHAIRMAN DID NOT WANT TO TAKE THE ADVICE OF ANY OTHER BODY TO GIVE US A REPORT AND ACT AS A RUBBER STAMP IF WE DID AND THE ISSUE GOING FORWARD IS WHY THE RUSH? WHY DO WE STILL NOT HAVE THE INFORMATION FROM THE INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE? WHY IS THE INSPECTOR GENERAL'S REPORT STILL BEING WITHHELD IN A CLASSIFIED SETTING. THESE ARE THE PROBLEMS THAT YOU HAVE HIGHLIGHT AND NEED TO BE AND THAT IS WHY THE NEXT 45 MINUTES AND THE REST OF THE DAY IS APPLICABLE, BECAUSE BOTH SIDES MATTERS, AND AT THE END OF THE DAY, THIS IS THE FASTEST IMPEACHMENT, AND THE FASTEST WE HAVE SEEN BASED ON DISPUTED FACT, AND WITH THAT I WANT TO TURN IT OVER THE MY COUNSEL MR. MAY OR THE. -- MR. TAYLOR. >> PROFESSOR TURLEY, I'D LIKE TO TURN TO THE SUBJECT OF PARTISANSHIP AS THE FOUNDERS FEARED IT AND AS IT IS TODAY. IT IS A SITUATION THAT ALEXANDER HAMILTON WAS CONCERNED ABOUT, AND HE WROTE PRESCIENT WORDS IN PAGE 65 IN THE RATIFICATION OF THE FEDERALIST PAPERS IN THE CONSTITUTION BEING RATIFIED THAT PRINCIPALLY HAMILTON AND ALSO SAID THAT IT WILL PRE-EXIST IN THE FACTIONS AND ENLIST ALL OF THEIR ANIMOSITIES, PARTIALITIES AND INTERESTS ON ONE SIDE WHERE ON THE OTHER IN SUCHCATIONS THE DANGER IS RELATING TO THE COMPAATIVE STRENGTH OF THE PARTIES. AND SO PROFESSOR TURLEY, DO YOU THINK THAT HAMILTON REPRESENTED A HIGH PARTISAN NATURE OF IMPEACHMENTS? >> THAT IS THE CASE IN THE TWO IMPEACHMENTS THAT WE HAVE SEEN. IT IS IMPORTANT TO NOTE THAT WE THINK THAT OUR TIMES ARE UNIQUE. THIS PROVISION WAS NOT JUST WRITTEN FOR TIMES LIKE OURS, BUT IT WAS WRITTEN IN TIMES LIKE OURS, AND IN THAT THESE ARE THE PEOPLE WHO ARE EVEN MORE SEVERE THAN THE RHETORIC TODAY. I MEAN, YOU HAVE TO KEEP IN MIND THAT JEFFERSON REFERRED TO THE ADMINISTRATION OF THE FEDERALIST AS THE REIN OF THE WITCHES, AND THIS IS A PERIOD WHEN THEY DIDN'T HAVE STRONG FEELINGS. AND TALKING ABOUT PEOPLE WHO WANTED TO KILL EACH OTHER, AND BACK THEN, THEY WERE TRYING TO KILL EACH OTHER. THAT IS WHAT THE SEDITION LAWS WERE ABOUT, PEOPLE WERE TRYING TO KILL YOU IF THEY DISAGREED WITH YOU, BUT THERE WAS NOT A SLEW OF IMPEACHMENTS, AND THAT IS A LESSON THAT CAN BE TAKEN FROM THAT PERIOD. THE FRAMERS CREATED A STANDARD THAT WOULD NOT BE ENDLESSLY FLUID AND FLEXIBLE, AND THAT STANDARD HAS KEPT US FROM IMPEACHMENTS DESPITE THE PERIODS IN WHICH WE HAVE DESPISED EACH OTHER, AND THAT IS THE MOST DISTRESSING THING FOR MOST OF US TODAY IS THAT THERE IS SO MUCH MORE RAGE THAN REASON. YOU CAN'T EVEN TALK ABOUT THESE ISSUES WITHOUT PEOPLE SAYING, YOU MUST BE IN FAVOR OF THE UKRAINIANS TAKING OVER THE COUNTRY. OR THE RUSSIANS MOVING INTO THE WHITE HOUSE. AT SOME POINT AS A PEOPLE, WE HAVE TO HAVE A SERIOUS DISCUSSION ABOUT THE GROUNDS TO REMOVE A DULY ELECTED PRESIDENT. >> PROFESSOR TURLEY, YOU SAID IN THE TESTIMONY THAT WHEN IT COMES TO IMPEACHMENT WE DON'T NEED HAPPY IDEOLOGICAL WARRIORS, BUT CIRCUMSPECT LEGAL ANALYSIS. LET'S LOOK AT THE PARTISAN LANDSCAPE ON WHICH THIS IS WAGED. THE DEMOCRATIC LEADERS PUSHING THE IMPEACHMENT ARE PUSHING THE FAR LEFT COASTAL AREAS OF THE COUNTRY, AND THE BAR GRAPHS ARE SHOWING THE TOTAL VOTES CAST, AND THE MARGIN OF THE WINNER THE 2016 ELECTION. AND YOU CAN SEE THE PARTS OF THE COUNTRY FOR THESE IMPEACHMENT LEADERS VOTED OVERWHELMINGLY FOR HILLARY CLINTON IN THE 2016 ELECTION, AND ALSO IN THE 2016 ELECTIONS LAWYER CONTRIBUTIONS WERE 10% FOR CLINTON AND 3% FOR TRUMP AND THE SITUATION IS ESSENTIALLY THE SAME AT LAW SCHOOLS AROUND THE COUNTRY, INCLUDING THOSE REPRESENTED ON THE PANEL HERE TODAY. AND PROFESSOR TURLEY, I'D LIKE TO TURN TO THE PARTISAN PROCESS THAT IDENTIFIES THESE IMPEACHMENT PROCEEDINGS. THIS IS HOW THE NIXON PROCEDURE WAS IDENTIFIED IN THE STAFF REPORT. YOU WERE TALKING ABOUT THE INITIATION OF THE IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY. IT IS NOT PARTISAN AND SUPPORTED BY THE OVERWHELMING MAJORITY OF THE POLITICAL PARTIES, AND IT WAS. REGARDING THE AUTHORIZATION OF THE CLINTON IMPEACHMENT, IT WAS SUPPORTED BY ALL REPUBLICANS AND 31 DEMOCRATS, AND FAST FORWARD TO THE CURRENT IMPEACHMENT. THE HOUSE DEMOCRAT TRUMP IMPEACHMENT WAS APPROVED ONLY BY DEMOCRATS AND INDEED OVER THE OPPOSITION OF TWO DEMOCRATS ALL REPUBLICANS. PROFESSOR TURLEY, HOW DOES THIS TREND COMFORT WITH HOW THE FOUNDERS UNDERSTOOD HOW IMPEACHMENT SHOULD OPERATE? >> I THINK THAT THE FOUNDERS HAD ASPIRATIONS TO COME TOGETHER AS A PEOPLE, BUT THEY DID NOT HAVE DELUSIONS OR ANYTHING THAT THEY ACHIEVED IN THEIR LIFETIME. AND YOUB SURPRIS YOU WOULD BE S AT END OF THEIR LIVES JEFFERSON AND ADAMS DID RECONCILE THAT SOME OF THE MOST WEIGHTY AND SIGNIFICANT MOMENTS IN CONSTITUTIONAL HISTORY IS THE ONE THAT IS RARELY DISCUSSED THAT ADAMS AND JEFFERSON REACHED OUT TO EACH OTHER, AND THEY WANTED TO RECONCILE BEFORE THEY DIED. THEY MET AND THEY DID. AND MAYBE THAT IS SOMETHING THAT WE CAN LEARN FROM, BUT I THINK THAT THE GREATER THING THAT I WOULD POINT TO IS THE SEVEN REPUBLICANS IN THE JOHNSON IMPEACHMENT. IF I COULD READ ONE THING TO YOU. AND EVERYONE OFTEN TALKS ABOUT ONE OF THE SENATORS, BUT NOT THIS ONE. AND THAT IS LYMAN TRUMBALL WHO WAS A FANTASTIC SENATOR AND HE BECAME A GREAT ADVOCATE FOR CIVIL LIBERTIES AND MOST OF THE SENATORS WHEN IT WAS SAID THAT THEY JUMPED INTO THEIR POLITICAL GRAVES, IT WAS TRUE. MOST OF THEIR POLITICAL CAREERS ENDED AND THEY KNEW THAT IT WOULD END BECAUSE OF THE ANIMOSITY OF THE PERIOD. TRUMBALL SAID THE FOLLOWING. HE SAID, ONCE THIS SET THE EXAMPLE OF IMPEACHING A PRESIDENT FOR WHAT, AND WHEN THE EXCITEMENT OF THE HOUR SHALL HAVE SUBSIDED, IT IS GOING TO BE REGARDED AS INSUFFICIENT CAUSES AND NO FUTURE PRESIDENT IS SAFE WITH THE MAJORITY OF THE HOUSE AND THE 2/3 OF THE SENATE. I TREMBLE FOR THE FUTURE OF THE COUNTRY AND I CANNOT BE AN INSTRUMENT TO PRODUCE SUCH A RESULT, AND THE HAZARDS OF AFFECTION FOR CALMER TIMES SHALL DO JUSTICE TO MY MOTIVES, NO ALTERNATIVES ARE LEFT TO ME. HE PROCEEDED TO GIVE THE VOTE THAT ENDED HIS CAREER. YOU CAN'T WAIT FOR CALMER TIMES. THE TIME FOR YOU IS NOW. AND I WOULD SAY THAT WHAT TRUMBALL SAID IS EVEN MORE BEARING TODAY, BECAUSE I BELIEVE THAT THIS IS MUCH LIKE THE JOHNSON IMPEACHMENT, AND IT IS MANUFACTURED UNTIL YOU BUILD A RECORD. I AM NOT SAYING THAT YOU CAN'T BUILD A RECORD, BUT YOU CAN'T DO IT LIKE THIS, AND YOU CAN'T IMPEACH A PRESIDENT LIKE THIS. >> PROFESSOR TURLEY, THERE IS A RECENT BOOK ON IMPEACHMENT BY HARVARD PROFESSORS WHO CONSIDERED A LEGITIMATE IMPEACHMENT PROCESS AND IT IS ANTI-TRUMP AND CALLED "THE END THE PRESIDENCY" AND THE AUTHORS SAY THAT WHEN IMPEACHMENT IS PARTISAN, IT STAYS THAT WAY. AND WHEN ONLY THE REPUBLICANS OR THE DEMOCRATS JUSTIFY THE REMOVAL, THERE IS A STRONG RISK THAT PARTISAN ANIMUS HAVE OVERTAKEN THE PROPER MEASURE OF CONGRESSIONAL IMPARTIALITY, AND WE CAN EXPECT THAT OPPOSITION LEAD FORCE THE PRESIDENT WILL BE PUSHED TO IMPEACH AND SUFFER INTERNAL BLOWBACK IF THEY DON'T, AND THE KEY QUESTION IS IF THEY WILL CAVE TO THE PRESSURE, AND ONE RISK OF THE BROKEN POLL STICKS IS THAT THE HOUSE WILL UNDERTAKE MANY IMPEACHMENTS WHICH IS DANGEROUS TO THE HOUSE AS A WHOLE. IS THAT WHAT IS HAPPENING HERE? >> NOT ON THIS SCHEDULE. AND ONE THING THAT COMES OUT OF THE IMPEACHMENTS IN TERMS OF WHAT BIPARTISAN SUPPORT OCCURRED AND THIS IS THAT IMPEACHMENT REQUIRED PERIODS OF SATURATION AND MATURATION. I AM NOT PREJUDGING WHAT YOUR RECORD WOULD SHOW, BUT IF YOU RUSH THIS IMPEACHMENT, YOU ARE GOING TO LEAVE HALF OF THE COUNTRY BEHIND, AND CERTAINLY THAT IS NOT WHAT THE PRESIDENT, WHAT THE FRAMERS WANTED. YOU TO GIVE THE TIME TO BUILD A RECORD. THIS IS NOT AN IMPULSE BUY ITEM. YOU ARE TRYING TO REMOVE A DULY-ELECTED PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, AND THAT TAKING TIME AND WORK. AND IF YOU ARE LOOKING AT RICHARD NIXON AND THAT IS A GOLD STANDARD AND THEY DID CATCH UP, AND THEY ORIGINALLY DID NOT SUPPORT IMPEACHMENT, AND THEY CHANGED THEIR MINDS AND YOU CHANGED THEIR MIND AND SO DID THE COURTS BECAUSE YOU ALLOWED THE ISSUES TO BE HEARD IN THE COURTS. >> PROFESSOR TURLEY, THE NIXON AND CLINTON IMPEACHMENTS WERE DEBATED SOLIDLY ON THE HIGH CRIMES CATEGORY? >> YES. >> CRIMES WERE AT ISSUE, BUT ON THE EVIDENCE PRESENTED SO FAR, IS THERE ANY CREDIBLE EVIDENCE THAT ANY CRIME WAS COMMITTED BY PRESIDENT TRUMP? >> YES, I HAVE GONE THROUGH ALL OF THE CRIMES MENTIONED, AND THEY DO NOT MEET ANY REASONABLE INTERPRETATION OF THE CRIMES AND I AM LYING ON THE EXPRESS SENTIMENTS OF THE COURT. THE STATUTES ARE BROAD, BUT IT IS NOT THE CONTROLLING LANGUAGE, IT IS THE LANGUAGE OF THE INTERPRETATION OF THE FEDERAL COURTS, AND I THINK THAT ALL OF THE DECISIONS STAND MIGHTILY IN THE WAY OF THESE THEORIES. IF YOU CAN'T MAKE OUT THOSE CRIMES, THEN DON'T CALL IT THAT CRIME. IF IT DOESN'T MATTER, THEN WHAT IS THE POINT. CALL IT TREASON. CALL IT ENDANGERED SPECIES VIOLATIONS IF NONE OF THIS MATTERS. >> SO THAT WOULD PUT THE DEMOCRATS' MOVE TO IMPEACH PRESIDENT TRUMP IN HIGH MISDEMEANORS. AND IN THE DEBATES IN THIS BOOK, THEY SAID IT EXPRESSLY A TECHNICAL TERM, AND NOT ANY MAJORITY OF PARTISAN MEMBERS COULD THINK IT WAS AT ANY GIVEN TIME. OFTEN WHEN THERE IS A DEBATE ABOUT TECHNICAL TERM, PEOPLE TURN TO DICTIONDICTIONARIES, AN FIRST COMPREHENSIVE DICTIONARY WAS SAMUEL JOHNSON'S FIRST PUBLISHED IN 1755 AND THE FOUNDERS AND MANY OF THE LIBRARIES HAVE THE BOOK ON THEIR DESKS AND THE SUPREME COURT STILL CITES JOHNSON'S DICTIONARY TO LOOK UP THE ORIGINAL MEANINGS OF THE WORDS IN THE CONSTITUTION. THIS IS HOW THE 1795 DEFINITION OF HIGH CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS AND MISDEMEANORS IS GREAT, LITTLE TREASON, AND MISDEMEANOR IS SOMETHING LESS THAN AN ATROCIOUS CRIME. AND ATROCIOUS IS DEFINED WICKED AND A HIGH DEGREE, AND ENORMOUS AND HORRIBLY CRIMINAL. SO IF YOU ARE LOOKING AT THE WORDS IN THE TIMES THAT THE CONSTITUTION WAS RATIFIED, ATROCIOUS IN A WICKED AND HIGH DEGREE AND RESULT A HIGH MISDEMEANOR MUST BE SOMETHING THAT IS LESS THAN SOMETHING THAT IS WICKED AND HIGH DEGREE. PROFESSOR TURLEY, IS THAT COMFORTING WITH YOUR PHRASE OF MISDEMEANORS WITH THE PHRASE AND THE PURPOSE OF NARROWING THE PHRASE TO PREVENT THE SORT OF ABUSES THAT YOU FIND? >> YES, IT DID. IF YOU COMPARE IT TO THE EXTRADITION CLAUSE, THE FRAMING WAS THE SAME, AND THEY DID NOT WANT TO ESTABLISH THAT BROAD MEETING AND ACCORDING TO THE VIEWF OF SOME PEOPLE IN HIGH CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS, THOSE DEFINITIONS WOULD BE IDENTICAL AND THIS IS CLEARLY NOT WHAT THEY WANTED. >> THIS IS BASED ON HIGH CRIME AND NO REQUEST FOR FALSE INFORMATION AND UNLIKE THE NIXON AND CLINTON IMPEACHMENTS, AND I WOULD LIKE TO START WITH BACKGROUND THAT THE AMERICAN MEDIA HAS BEEN ASKING ABOUT JOE BIDEN'S SON AND HIS PAID PARTICIPATION IN THE COMPANY BUR BURISMA AND THERE IS A STILL CLIP OF IT HERE FROM THE BURISMA PROMOTIONAL VIDEO, AND MANY WERE ASKING ABOUT BURISMA TRYING TO GET A UKRAINIAN DIRECTOR FIRED AND A NEW YORK TIMES ARTICLE FROM 2018 REFERRING TO JOSEPH BIDEN SAYS THAT ONE OF HIS MOST BRILLIANT PERFORMANCES WHEN HE THREATENED TO WITHHOLD MONEY IF UKRAINE DID NOT DISMISS THE TOP PROSECUTOR. AMONG THOSE WHO HAD A STAKE WAS HUNTER BIDEN WHO IS VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN'S SON WHO WAS A BOARD MEMBER IN UKRAINE. AND SO IF AN INVESTIGATION LED TO THE BANKRUPTCY OF THE CORRUPT COMPANY, HUNTER BIDEN'S POSITION WOULD HAVE BEEN ELIMINATED ALONG WITH THE $50,000 A MONTH PAYMENTS AND THIS IS THE STAKE OF THE PROPOSITION INVOLVING THE COMPANY, AND IN FACT, EVEN NEIL CATYIEL, THE FORMER ACTING SOLICITOR GENERAL SAID IN HIS BOOK, IS WHAT HUNTER BIDEN DID WAS WRONG? YES. WAS HE QUALIFIED TO SIT ON THE BOARD? THE ONLY LOGICAL REASON THE COMPANY COULD HAVE HAD FOR APPOINTING HIM WAS HIS TIES TO VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN. THE KIND OF NEPOTISM ISN'T ONLY WRONG, IT IS THE POTENTIAL DANGER TO OUR COUNTRY SINCE IT MAKES IT EASIER FOR FOREIGN POWERS TO BUY INFLUENCE. NO POLITICIAN, FROM EITHER PARTY SHOULD ALLOW A FOREIGN POWER TO CONDUCT THIS KIND OF INFLUENCE PEDDLING THEIR INFLUENCE. AND SO EVEN COLONEL VINDMAN WAS ABOUT HIS INVOLVEMENT WITH THE UKRAINIAN COMPANY, AND HE SAID IT WOULD BE PRUDENT. AND SO NOW IT IS A CRIME FOR THE NOT LOOK INTO THIS. AND SO WITH THE LOOK OF EVIDENTIARY EVIDENCE OF CRIMINAL ACTS AND SOUGHT TO CONCEAL THEM OF NIXON COVERING UP A WATERGATE BREAKUP SHORTLY AFTER IT OCCURRED? >> YES. AND THE HOUSE IMPEACHED CLINTON FOR THE CRIME OF DENYING UNDER OATH TO DENY A WOMAN WHO WAS SUING HIM FOR HARASSMENT AND A DEFENSE THAT SHE WAS LEGALLY ENTITLED TO DO? >> THAT IS CORRECT. >> SO WITH THE NIXON AND CLINTON IMPEACHMENTS, THERE WERE ASSOCIATES WHO DID NOT CALL WITH FALSE INFORMATION? >> NO. SO IF YOU WANT TO ESTABLISH THE OPPOSING VIEW, YOU HAVE TO INVESTIGATE THIS FURTHER. >> LET ME WALK THROUGH THE STANDARD OF EVIDENCE THAT THE HOUSE DEMOCRATS INSISTED UPON IN THE CLINTON IMPEACHMENT, THE MINORITY VIEWS WERE SIGNED AMONG OTHERS CURRENT HOUSE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN NADLER, AND IT SAYS THAT THEY HAVE METICULOUSLY AGREED THAT THE MINORITY AND THE MAJORITY COUNSEL THAT THE STANDARD OF PROOF IN THE HOUSE WAS CLEAR AND CONVINCING EVIDENCE. PROFESSOR TURLEY, WOULD YOU SAY THAT THE EVIDENCE COMPILED TO DATE IN THESE CURRENT IMPEACHMENT PROCEEDINGS FAILS TO MEET THE STANDARD OF CLEAR AND CONVINCING STANDARDS. >> I DO BY A CLEAR MEASURE. >> AND IN THE BOOK ABOUT THE PRESIDENCY, IT SAYS THAT EXCEPT IN THE EXTRAORDINARY CIRCUMSTANCES IMPEACHING WITH A PARTIAL OR PLAUSIBLE UNDERSTANDING OF THE KEY FACTS IS A BAD IDEA. PROFESSOR TURLEY, DO YOU THINK THAT IMPEACHING IN THIS CASE WOULD CONSTITUTE WITH A PARTIAL OR PLAUSIBLY KEY UNDERSTANDING OF THE KEY FACTS? >> I THINK THAT IS CLEAR, BECAUSE THIS IS ONE OF THE THINNEST RECORDS TO EVER GO FORWARD ON THE IMPEACHMENT, AND THE JOHNSON ONES WE CAN DEBATE, BECAUSE IT IS THE FOURTH ATTEMPT AT THE IMPEACHMENT, AND THIS IS THE THINNEST OF THE MODERN REKD. -- RECORD, AND IF YOU ARE LOOKING AT THE SIZE OF THE RECORDS OF CLINTON AND NIXON, THEY WERE MASSIVE AND IT WAS WAFER THIN IN COMPARISON AND IT HAS LEFT DOUBTS AND NOT JUST DOUBTS IN THE MINDS OF THE PEOPLE SUPPORTING PRESIDENT TRUMP, BUT IN THE MINDS OF PEOPLE LIKE MYSELF ABOUT WHAT ACTUALLY OCCURRED, AND THERE IS A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN REQUESTING INVESTIGATIONS, AND A QUID PRO QUO. YOU NEED TO STICK THE LANDING ON THE QUID PRO QUO. YOU NEED TO GET THE EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT IT. IT MIGHT BE OUT THERE, I DON'T KNOW. BUT IT IS NOT IN THIS RECORD. I AGREE WITH MY COLLEAGUES THAT WE HAVE ALL READ THE RECORD AND I JUST COME TO A DIFFERENT CONCLUSION. I DON'T SEE PROOF OF A QUID PRO QUO. NO MATTER WHAT MY PRESUMPTIONS ASSUMPTIONS OR BIAS MIGHT BE. >> ON THAT POINT, I'D LIKE TO TURN TO THE CURRENT IMPEACHMENT PROCEDURES. PROFESSOR TURLEY, WOULD YOU AGREE THAT A FULL AND FAIR ADVERSARY SYSTEM OF WHICH EACH SIDE CAN PRODUCE THEIR OWN WITNESSES AND EVIDENCE IS A INITIAL SEARCH FOR THE TRUTH? >> YES, AND THE ORIGINAL IMPEACHMENT MODEL FROM THE FRAMERS THAT REJECTED THE ORIGINAL MODEL OF IMPEACHMENT EVEN FROM HASTINGS, AND IN ENGLAND, IT WAS A ROBUST ADVERSARIAL PROCESS AND IF YOU WANT TO SEE ADVERSARIAL WORK, TAKE A LOOK AT WHAT EDMUND BURKE DID TO WARREN HASTINGS. I MEAN, HE WAS ON HIM LIKE UGLY ON MOOSE FOR THE ENTIRE TRIAL. >> AS YOU KNOW IN THE MINORITY VIEWS THE HOUSE DEMOCRATS WROTE THE FOLLOWING, WE BELIEVE IT IS INCUMBENT UPON THE COMMITTEE TO PROVIDE THESE BASIC OBJECTIONS AS BARBARA JORDAN SAID IN THE HEARING, BUT IT IS MANDATING DUE PROCESS, BUT DUE PROCESS QUADRUPLED, AND THE SAME MINORITY VIEWS SUPPORT THE RIGHT TO CROSS-EXAMINATION IN A VARIETY OF CONTEXTS IN THE CLINTON EXAMPLE. NOW, PROFESSOR TURLEY, YOU DESCRIBED HOW MONICA LEWINSKI WAS NOT ALLOWED TO CALL FOR THE CLINTON IMPEACHMENT TRIAL AND SHE WAS NOT ALLOWED TO REVEAL THE RELATIONSHIP WITH THE CLOSE ASSOCIATES AND IT IS THE CAUTION TALE OF THE KEY WITNESSES. CAN YOU ELABORATE ON THAT? >> YES, IT IS A PORTION OF MY TESTIMONY OF HOW YOU STRUCTURE THE IMPEACHMENTS AND WHAT HAPPENED IN THE CLINTON IMPEACHMENT, AND IT CAME UP IN THE HEARING THAT WE HAD PREVIOUSLY, IT WAS A QUESTION OF HOW MUCH THE HOUSE HAD TO DO IN TERMS OF CLINTON IMPEACHMENT, BECAUSE YOU HAD A ROBUST RECORD CREATED BY THE INDEPENDENT COUNSEL AND THEY HAD A LOT OF TESTIMONY, VIDEOTAPES, ET CETERA, SO THE HOUSE BASICALLY INCORPORATED THAT, AND THE ASSUMPTION WAS THAT THOSE WITNESSES WOULD BE CALLED AT THE SENATE, BUT THERE WAS A FAILURE AT THE SENATE, AND THE RULES THAT WERE, AND THEY WERE APPLIED IN MY VIEW WERE NOT FAIR, AND THEY RESTRICTED WITNESSES TO ONLY THREE, AND THAT IS WHY I BROUGHT UP THE LEWINSKI MATTER. ABOUT A YEAR AGO, MONICA LEWINSKI REVEALED THAT SHE HAD BEEN TOLD THAT IF SHE SIGNED THAT AFFIDAVIT THAT WE NOW KNOW IS UNTRUE THAT SHE WOULD NOT BE CALLED AS A WITNESS. IF YOU HAD ACTUALLY CALLED LIVE WITNESSES THAT TYPE OF INFORMATION WOULD HAVE BEEN PART OF THE RECORD. >> I YIELD BACK. >> THE GENTLEMAN YIELDS BACK AND I NOTE THAT THIS IS THE MOMENT IN WHICH THE WHITE HOUSE WOULD HAVE HAD AN OPPORTUNITY TO QUESTION THE WITNESSES, BUT THEY DECLINED THE INVITATION, AND SO WE WILL NOW PROCEED TO QUESTIONS UNDER THE FIVE MINUTE RULE. I YIELD MYSELF FIVE MINUTES FOR PURPOSE OF QUESTIONING THE WITNESSES. PROFESSOR FELDMAN, WOULD YOU RESPOND TO THE ELEMENTS OF CRIMINAL BRIBERY? >> YES. BRIBERY HAD A CLEAR MEANING TO THE FRAMERS AND IT IS WHEN THE PRESIDENT USING THE POWER OF HIS OFFICE SOLICITS AND RECEIVES SOMETHING OF PERSONAL VALUE OF SOMEONE AFFECTED BY THE OFFICIAL POWERS AND I WANTED TO BE CLEAR THAT THE CONSTITUTION IS LAW. THE CONSTITUTION IS THE SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND, AND SO OF COURSE, PROFESSOR TURLEY IS CORRECT THAT YOU DO NOT WANT TO IMPEACH SOMEONE WHO DID NOT VIOLATE THE LAW, BUT THE SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND SPECIFIES BRIBERY AS A GROUND FOR IMPEACHMENT, AND BRIBERY HAD A CLEAR MEANING. IF THE HOUSE BELIEVES THAT THE PRESIDENT SOLICITED SOMETHING OF VALUE CORRUPTLY FOR PERSONAL GAIN, THEN THAT WOULD CONSTITUTE BRIBERY UNDER THE MEANING OF THE CONSTITUTION AND IT IS NOT LAWLESS, IT WOULD BE BRIBERY UNDER THE LAW. >> SO, SO THE SUPREME COURT CASE OF McDONALD INTERPRETING THE FEDERAL BRIBERY STATUTE AND OTHER ISSUES INTERPRETING THE STATUTES WOULD NOT BE RELEVANT? >> THE CONSTITUTION IS THE SUPREME LAW, AND THE CONSTITUTION SPECIFIES WHAT BRIBERY MEANS. AND FEDERAL STATUTES CAN'T TRUMP THE CONSTITUTION. >> PROFESSOR GARHARDT, WOULD YOU RESPOND TO OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE? >> YES, OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE IS NOT JUST ABOUT THE OBSTRUCTION OF THE COURT, BUT IT IS THE OBSTRUCTION OF ANY LAWFUL PROCEEDING, AND THAT OBSTRUCTION IS NOT LIMITED TO WHATEVER IS HAPPENING ON THE COURTS, AND OBVIOUSLY, HERE, THERE ARE NOT JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS GOING ON AND A CRITICAL CONGRESSIONAL PROCEEDING WHICH BRINGS US TO OBSTRUCTION OF CONGRESS WITH REGARD TO OBSTRUCTION OF CONGRESS, AND IN FACT, I CAN SAY THAT I KNOW THAT THERE HAS NEVER BEEN ANYTHING LIKE THE PRESIDENT'S REFUSAL TO COMPLY WITH SUBPOENAS FROM THIS BODY. THESE ARE LAWFUL SUBPOENAS AND THEY HAVE THE FORCE OF LAW TO THEM, AND THIS IS SOMETHING THAT EVERY PRESIDENT HAS COMPLIED WITH, AND ACTED IN ALIGNMENT WITH EXCEPT FOR PRESIDENT NIXON IN A SMALL AND SPECIFIC SET OF MATERIALS. >> PROFESSOR TURLEY IMPLIED THAT AS LONG AS THE PRESIDENT ASSERTS A FANCIFUL ULTIMATELY NON-EXISTENT PRIVILEGE LIKE ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY, HE CANNOT BE CHARGED WITH OBSTRUCTION OF CONGRESS, BECAUSE AFTER ALL, IT HAS NOT GONE THROUGH THE COURTS YET. WOULD YOU COMMENT ON THAT? >> I MISSED PART OF THE QUESTION. AM SORRY. >> AND PROFESSOR TURLEY IMPLIED THAT WE CAN'T CHARGE THE PRESIDENT WITH OBSTRUCTION OF CONGRESS FOR REFUSING ALL SUBPOENAS AS LONG AS HE HAS ANY FANCIFUL CLAIM UNTIL THE COURTS REJECT THOSE FANCIFUL CLAIMS? >> I HAVE TO RESPECTFULLY DISAGREE. NO, THE REFUSAL TO COMPLY WITH THE SUBPOENAS IS AN INDEPENDENT EVENT AND APART FROM THE COURTS. IT IS A DIRECT ASSAULT ON THE LEGITIMACY OF THIS INQUIRY WHICH IS CRUCIAL TO THE EXERCISE OF THIS POWER. >> THANK YOU. PROFESSOR KARLIN, I WOULD LIKE TO GIVE YOU CHANCE TO RESPOND. >> I WOULD LIKE TO RESPOND TO BRIBERY, AND EVEN THOUGH THE COUNSEL READ THE SAMUEL'S DEFINITIONS OF HIGH AND CRIME AND MISDEMEANOR, HE DID NOT READ BRIBERY. I HAVE THE 1792 VERSION OF JOHNSON'S DICTIONARY AND I DON'T HAVE THE INITIAL ONE, AND THERE HE DEFINES BRIBERY AS THE CRIME GIVING OR TAKING REWARDS FOR BAD PRACTICES. SO IF YOU THINK IT IS A BAD PRACTICE TO DENY MILITARY APPROPRIATIONS TO AN ALLY THAT HAVE BEEN GIVEN TO THEM, AND A BAD PRACTICE NOT TO BE HOLDING A MEETING TO BUCK UP THE LEGITIMACY OF THE GOVERNMENT THAT IS ON THE FRONT LINE, AND YOU DO THAT IN RETURN FOR THE REWARD OF GETTING HELP WITH YOUR RE-ELECTION, THAT IS SAMUEL'S DEFINITION OF BRIBERY. >> AND SO, PROFESSOR FELDMAN, IF HE WERE JOINED BY MADISON AND HAMILTON AND OTHER FRAMERS, WHAT WOULD THEY SAY ABOUT THE CONDUCT OF PRESIDENT TRUMP? >> I BELIEVE THEY WOULD CALL THIS CONDUCT AS THE ABUSE OF POWER TO IMPEACH. >> AND WOULD IT BE ABUSE OF POWER AND OTHER THINGS? >> IF THAT IS WHAT THE CONGRESS MEANS, THEN THEY WOULD BELIEVE STRONGLY THAT IS WHAT CONGRESS OUGHT TO DO. >> THANK YOU. I YIELD BACK THE BALANCE OF MY TIME AND RECOGNIZE THE RANKING COMMITTEE MR. GEORGIA MR. COLLINS FOR THE FIVE MINUTES. >> WE PUT IN THE JURY POOL THE FOUNDING FATHERS. AND WHAT WOULD THEY THINK? I DON'T THINK THEY WOULD KNOW WHAT TO THINK BECAUSE OF THE DIFFERENT TIMES AND THINGS THAT WE HAVE TALKED ABOUT AND ALSO TO SOME WAY INSINUATE ON A LIVE MIC THAT PEOPLE LISTENING THAT THE FOUNDING FATHERS WOULD HAVE FOUND PRESIDENT TRUMP GUILTY IS MALPRACTICE WITH THESE FACTS BEFORE US AND THAT IS SIMPLY PANDERING TO THE CAMERA, AND THAT IS SIMPLY NOT RIGHT. I MEAN, THIS IS AMAZING, AND WE CAN DISAGREE AND WHAT IS AMAZING ON THE COMMITTEE IS THAT WE DON'T AGREE ON THE FACTS, AND WE CAN'T FIND A FACT THAT IS NOT GOING THROUGH THE PUBLIC TESTIMONY AND EVEN THE TRANSCRIPTS AND ALL SO IT IS NOT, AND MR. TURLEY, ARE WE DEPUTIZING SOMEBODY BETWEEN NOW AND THE FOUNDERS OF THE JURY POOL HERE? >> WELL, FIRST OF ALL, ONLY I WILL SPEAK FOR JAMES MADISON AND, SO NO, WE WILL ALL SPEAK WITH THE SAME AMOUNT OF ACCURACY AND SO IT IS A FORM OF DETAILS THAT WE DO ALL OF THE TIME. BUT IT IS SURPRISING THAT YOU WOULD HAVE GEORGE WASHINGTON IN THIS JURY POOL, AND I WOULD STRIKE HIM FOR CAUSE. GEORGE WASHINGTON WAS THE FIRST GUY TO RAISE EXTREME EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE CLAIMS, AND HE HAD A RATHER ROBUST VIEW OF WHAT A PRESIDENT COULD SAY. IF YOU WERE GOING TO BE MAKING A CASE TO GEORGE WASHINGTON THAT HE COULD BE IMPEACHED OVER A CONVERSATION THAT HE HAD WITH ANOTHER HEAD OF STATE, HIS HAIR, HIS POWDERED HAIR WOULD CATCH ON FIRE. AND I AM IMPRESSED THAT YOU CARRY IT WITH YOU -- >> IT IS ONLINE VERSION. >> OKAY. IT IS THE ONLINE VERSION. AS AN ACADEMIC, I WAS PRETTY DARN IMPRESSED. I JUST WANTED TO NOTE ONE THING WHICH MAY EXPLAIN PART OF OUR DIFFERENCE. THE STATUTES TODAY ON BRAVERY ARE WRITTEN BROADLY AND JUST LIKE THEY WERE BACK THEN AND THAT IS MY POINT. THE MEANING OF THOSE WORDS ARE SUBJECT TO INTERPRETATION, AND THEY ARE WRITTEN BROADLY, BECAUSE THEY DON'T WANT THEM TO BE TOO NARROW AND THAT IS THE CASE OF THE 18th CENTURY AS THEY ARE TODAY, BUT THE IDEA THAT BAD PRACTICES COULD BE THE DEFINITION OF BRIBERY. REALLY? IS THAT WHAT YOU GET FROM THE CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION THAT BAD PRACTICES, AND IS THAT WHY MASON WANTED TO PUT IN MALL ADMINISTRATION, BECAUSE BAD PRACTICES IS NOT BROAD ENOUGH? THIS IS WHERE I DISAGREE, AND TO THER THING THEY WANTED TO NOTE IS THAT, AND I HAVE SO MUCH RESPECT FOR NOAH AND I WANTED TO JUST DISAGREE ON THIS POINT, BECAUSE I FEEL IT IS A CIRCULAR ARGUMENT TO SAY, WELL, THE CONSTITUTION IS LAW. UPON THAT, WE ARE IN AGREEMENT, BUT THE CONSTITUTION REFERS TO A CRIME. TO SAY, WELL, YOU CAN'T TRUMP THE CONSTITUTION, BECAUSE IT DEFINES THE CRIME, IT DOESN'T DEFINE THE CRIME. IT REFERENCES THE CRIME. NOW, THE CRIME, THE EXAMPLES WERE GIVEN IN THE CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION AND THOSE DO NOT COMFORT WITH BAD PRACTICES, BUT THEY COMFORT WITH REAL BRIBERY, BUT TO SAY THAT THE SUPREME COURT'S DECISION ON WHAT CONSTITUTES BRIBERY IS SOMEHOW IRRELEVANT IS RATHER ODD. WHAT THE CONSTITUTION CONTAINS IS A REFERENCE TO A CRIME, AND THEN WE HAVE TO DECIDE IF THAT CRIME HAS BEEN COMMITTED. >> AND ONE OF THE THINGS THAT CAME OUT JUST A SECOND AGO WAS ALSO THIS DISCUSSION OF THAT WE HAD THIS DISCUSSION IF IT IS THE PRESIDENTIAL PREROGATIVE AND THE PRESIDENT'S CABINET TO ASSERT RIGHTS AND THE FAST AND FURIOUS OF PRESIDENT OBAMA THAT HE WAS SAYING THAT THIS IS CONTEMPT FOR NOT SUPPLYING THE SUBPOENAS AND YOU CAN'T PICK AND CHOOSE IN HISTORY WHAT YOU WANT. AND YOU BROUGHT UP BAD PRACTICE, BUT IT IS THE LAW OF THE LAND THAT WE ARE TO ENSURE THAT COUNTRIES WHO ARE GIVEN AID IS NOT CORRUPT. THAT IS ALSO MISSING FROM THE DISCUSSION. IF THE PRESIDENT HAS HAD A LONG SEEDED OF FOREIGN COUNTRIES UKRAINE AND OTHERS WITH THE HISTORY OF CORRUPTION AND I MADE THE STATEMENT EARLIER AND IT IS FROM THE HIPSI SIDE THAT THOSE POLLED OVER THE PREVIOUS YEAR HAD BRIBED A PUBLIC OFFICIAL. THEY HAD CORRUPTION ISSUES COMING FROM THE OBAMA AND THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION, AND SO HE HAS TO LOOK AT THE CORRUPTION WITHOUT GIVING TAXPAYER DOLLARS AND THE PRESIDENT WAS DOING THAT, AND IT IS BLOWN UP, AND THE FACTS DON'T MATTER IF WE ARE TRYING TO FIT IT INTO BREAKING OF THE RULE THAT WE WANT TO IMPEACH ON, AND THE REASON WE ARE DOING THIS IS THAT IT IS THE TRAIN ON THE TRACK AND A CLOCK CALENDAR IMPEACHMENT AND NOT A FACT IMPEACHMENT. I YIELD BACK. >> THE GENTLEMAN YIELDS BACK AND I RECOGNIZE MS. LOFGRREN. >> THIS IS THE THIRD TIME THAT A PRESIDENT HAS BEEN RECOMMENDED FOR IMPEACHMENT AND I HAVE BEEN THERE AT ALL THREE. I WAS ON THE STAFF OF PRESIDENT NIXON AND PRESIDENT COMMITTEE ON THE CLINTON IMPEACHMENT, AND HERE WE ARE TODAY. AT THE CORE, I FEEL THAT THE IMPEACHMENT POWER IS REALLY ABOUT THE PRESERVATION OF OUR DEMOCRATIC SYSTEMS AND THE QUESTION WE MUST ANSWER IS WHETHER THE ACTIVITY OF THE PRESIDENT THREATENS OUR CONSTITUTION AND OUR DEMOCRACY, AND IT IS ABOUT WHETHER HE IS ABOVE THE LAW AND WHETHER HE IS HONORING HIS OATH OF OFFICE. NOW, THE HOUSE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE STAFF AND IT WAS NOT ME, BUT OTHER STAFF WROTE AN EXCELLENT REPORT IN 1974, AND THIS IS WHAT THEY SAID. IMPEACHMENT OF A PRESIDENT IS A GRAVE STEP FOR THE NATION. IT IS TO BE PREDICATED ONLY UPON CONDUCT SERIOUSLY INCOMPATIBLE WITH THE CONSTITUTIONAL FORM IN PRINCIPLE OF THE GOVERNMENT OR THE PROPER PERFORMANCE OF CONSTITUTIONAL DUTIES OF THE PRESIDENTIAL OFFICE, AND I'D ASK FOR UNANIMOUS CONSENT TO ENTER THE HOUSE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE REPORT ON CONSTITUTIONAL GROUNDS INTO THE RECORD. >> WITHOUT OBJECTION. >> THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN. LIKE PRESIDENT NIXON, THE ALLEGATIONS AGAINST PRESIDENT TRUMP ARE RELATED TO SERIOUS ELECTION MISCONDUCT. THE NIXON'S ASSOCIATES BURGLARIZED THE DNC HEADQUARTERED TO GET A LEG UP, AND THEN THE PRESIDENT NIXON TRIED TO COVER IT UP, AND THEN HE ABUSED THE POWERS TO TARGET THE POLITICAL RIVALS AND HERE, WE ARE CONFRONTED WITH EVIDENCE SUGGESTING THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP TRIED TO LEVERAGE APPROPRIATE MILITARY ASSISTANCE TO RESIST RUSSIA BY UKRAINE TO CONVINCE A FOREIGN ALLY TO ANNOUNCE AN INVESTIGATION OF HIS POLITICAL RIVAL. PROFESSOR KARLAN, I WOULD LIKE YOU TO TELL US ABOUT HOW THE MEETING OF A FOREIGN ALLY IN THIS INVESTIGATION COMPARES TO WHAT PRESIDENT NIXON DID? >> NOT FAVORABLY. BECAUSE, AS I SUGGESTED IN MY OPENING TESTIMONY, IT WAS A KIND OF THE DOUBLING DOWN. BECAUSE PRESIDENT NIXON ABUSED DOMESTIC LAW ENFORCEMENT TO GO AFTER HIS POLITICAL APPOINTMENTS AND WHAT PRESIDENT TRUMP HAS DONE AND BASED ON THE ED THAT WE HAVE SEEN SO FAR IS THAT HE HAS ASKED A FOREIGN COUNTRY TO DO THAT AND THAT MEANS IT IS SORT OF LIKE A DAILY DOUBLE IF YOU WILL OF PROBLEMS. >> PROFESSOR GEBHARDT, DO YOU HAVE A COMMENT? >> I WOULD AGREE WITH PROFESSOR KARLAN, AND THE DIFFICULTY HERE IS THAT WE NEED TO REMEMBER THAT IMPEACHABLE OFFENSES DON'T HAVE TO BE CRIMINAL OFFENSES AS YOU WELL KNOW, SO WHAT WE ARE TALKING ABOUT IS AN ABUSE OF POWER THAT ONLY THE PRESIDENT CAN COMMIT. THERE WAS A SYSTEMIC CONCERTED EFFORT BY THE PRESIDENT TO REMOVE PEOPLE THAT WOULD SOMEHOW OBSTRUCT OR BLOCK HIS ABILITY TO PUT THAT PRESSURE ON UKRAINE TO GET AN ANNOUNCEMENT OF AN INVESTIGATION. THAT SEEMS TO BE WHAT HE CARED ABOUT. JUST THE MERE ANNOUNCEMENT, AND THAT PRESSURE PRODUCED, WAS GOING TO PRODUCE THE OUTCOME THAT HE WANTED UNTIL THE WHISTLE-BLOWER PUT A LIGHT ON IT. >> I WANTED TO GO BACK TO QUICKLY SOMETHING THAT PROFESSOR TURLEY SAID AS WE SAW IN THE MYERS' CASE AND I WAS A MEMBER OF THE COMMITTEE WHEN WE TRIED TO GET HER TESTIMONY AS WELL AS THE FAST AND FURIOUS CASE WHICH ALSO WAS WRONGFULLY WITHHELD FROM THE CONGRESS. LITIGATION TO ENFORCE CONGRESSIONAL SUBPOENAS CAN EXTEND WELL BEYOND THE TERMS OF THE PRESIDENCY, ITSELF. THAT HAPPENED IN BOTH OF THOSE CASES. PROFESSOR FELDMAN, IS IT AS PROFESSOR TURLEY SEEMED TO SUGGEST, AN ABUSE OF OUR POWER NOT TO GO TO THE COURTS BEFORE USING OUR SOLE POWER OF IMPEACHMENT IN YOUR JUDGMENT? >> CERTAINLY NOT. UNDER THE CONSTITUTION, THE HOUSE IS ENTITLED TO IMPEACH. THAT IS THE POWER. IT DOES NOT HAVE TO ASK PERMISSION FROM ANYBODY OR GO THROUGH ANY JUDICIAL PROCESS OF THE BRANCH OGOVERNMENT. IT IS YOUR DECISION BASED ON YOUR JUDGMENT. >> THANK YOU. I'D LIKE TO NOTE THAT THIS IS NOT A PROCEEDING THAT I LOOKED FORWARD TO. IT IS NOT AN OCCASION FOR JOY. IT IS ONE OF SOLEMN OBLIGATION. I HOPE AND BELIEVE THAT EVERY MEMBER OF THIS COMMITTEE IS LISTENING. KEEPING AN OPEN MIND, AND HOPING THAT WE HONOR OUR OBLIGATIONS CAREFULLY AND HONESTLY AND WITH THAT I YIELD BACK, MR. CHAIRMAN. >> THE GENTLE LADY YIELDS BACK. THE GENTLE LADY YIELDS BACK. WE ARE EXPECTING VOTES ON THE HOUSE FLOOR SHORTLY AND SO WE WILL RECESS UNTIL IMMEDIATELY AFTER THE CONCLUSION OF THE VOTES. I WILL ASK EVERYONE IN THE ROOM TO STAY SEATED QUIETLY AND UNTIL WE COME BACK. IF YOU EXIT THE HEARING ROOM, YOU WILL NOT BE GUARANTEED THOSE SEATS IF YOU LEAVE THE HEARING ROOM AT THIS TIME. OKAY. AT THIS TIME THE COMMITTEE IS GOING TO STAND IN RECESS UNTIL IMMEDIATELY AFTER THE VOTES. >>> AND THE JUDICIARY IMPEACHMENT HEARING TODAY, AND THE ONLY HEARING THAT THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE IS HOLDING IN THE IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY OF PRESIDENT TRUMP. HEARD FROM DEMOCRATS AND REPUBLICAN COUNSEL AND THE RANKING CHAIR EARLIER AND WAITING TO HEAR FROM THE 41 MEMBERS OF THIS COMMITTEE, THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE ASKING QUESTIONS. TAKING A BREAK NOW FOR MEMBERS TO GO TO THE FLOOR FOR VOTES, AND THEY WILL BE BACK IN ABOUT 15 MINUTES. AND EARLIER THE REPUBLICANS TRIED TO CALL FOR THE TESTIMONY OF ADAM SCHIFF AND ALSO TO POSTPONE UNTIL NEXT WEEK, AND ALL OF THOSE MOTIONS WERE DEFEATED ALONG THE PARTYLINES. IN THE BREAK, WE ARE LOOKING TO TAKE YOUR PHONE CALLS AND HEAR WHAT YOU HAVE THOUGHT SO FAR. AND FIRST, WE TAKE YOU TO THE STAKEOUT OF REPRESENTATIVE SWALWELL IS ABOUT TO SPEAK. >> WE ARE TAKING A BREAK FROM THE PANEL, BUT WE HAVE HEARD FROM SOME OF THE NATION'S HIGHEST EXPERTS AND SCHOLARS OF IMPEACHMENT, AND THAT THIS PRESIDENT USED YOUR TAXPAYER DOLLARS TO BENEFIT HIMSELF BY INVITING A FOREIGN GOVERNMENT TO INVESTIGATE HIS POLITICAL OPPONENT FOR HIS SOLE BENEFIT. WE HAVE LOOKED AT THE ARRAY OF HIGH CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS AND WE HAVE SEEN ABUSE OF POWER, AND PARTICULARLY AS IT RELATES TO BRIBERY AS WELL AS OBSTRUCTION OF CONGRESS AND OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE, AND WITH THAT, I'D BE HAPPY TO TAKE QUESTIONS. >> WHAT DO YOU MAKE OF THE CRITICISM OF PROFESSOR TURLEY THAT THE DEMOCRATS ARE MOVING TOO FAST, AND THE JOHNSON IMPEACHMENT, AND I HAVE HEARD THAT YOU WANT THIS DONE BY CHRISTMAS AND OTHER SOURCES THAT THEY WANT TO TAKE SOME TIME AND DO IT BY THE NEXT YEAR, AND WHAT IS YOUR READ? >> AS TO THE CRITICISM ARE YOU MOVING TOO QUICKLY, AND WHAT IS MOVING QUICKLY IS AN UPCOMING ELECTION, AND IN UNDER 60 DAYS THE FIRST VOTES WILL BE CAST IN A PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION WHERE THE PRESIDENT HAS ABUSED HIS OFFICE IN ASKING A FOREIGN GOVERNMENT TO PARTICIPATE, AND WHO IS NOT WORKING QUICKLY IS 71 SUBPOENA REQUESTS THAT HE HAS TURNED DOWN AND 12 WITNESSES THAT WE HAVE ASKED TO COME FORWARD AND HE IS MOVING SLOWLY. WE DON'T HAVE THE BENEFIT OF THE TIME WHEN THE PRESIDENT IS ASKING FOREIGN POWERS TO INVOLVE THEMSELVES IN OUR ELECTIONS. >> WOULD IT CONCERN YOU IF IT GOES TO THE NEW YEAR? >> THE QUESTION IS IF IT WOULD CONCERN ME TO GO INTO THE NEW YEAR, BUT WE WANT TO GET THIS PROCESS RIGHT AND KEEP IT FAIR AND MAKE SURE THAT THE UPCOMING ELECTION SECURE. >> DO YOU THINK THAT THE UPCOMING ARTICLES INCLUDE THE MUELLER REPORT? >> THE MUELLER IS SHOWING THAT THE PRESIDENT HAS PRIORS AND THAT THE PRESIDENT'S CONDUCT IS CERTAINLY NO DIFFERENT NOW THAN WHAT HE DID WITH THE RUSSIANS AND RELEVANT THERE, BUT IT IS EARLY NOW FOR US TO DETERMINE WHAT FULLY IS GOING TO BE ARTICULATED IN THE ARTICLES, BUT IT IS INFORMING US THAT A LEOPARD DOES NOT CHANGE ITS SPOTS. >> WHAT IS THE BENEFIT OF HAVING A STAFFER PRESENT THE INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE OTHER THAN ADAM SCHIFF? >> IT IS LIKELY A PROSECUTOR TO PRESENT THE EVIDENCE TO THE COMMITTEE, AND IT IS UP TO THE COMMITTEES TO DECIDE AND AGAIN, IT IS BETTER FOR THE PUBLIC TO SEE A CLEAR PRESENTATION OF THE EVIDENCE AND FOR US NOT TO ENGAGE IN, I WOULD SAY SEMANTICS THAT THE REPUBLICANS HAVE AND JUST KEEP IT FOCUSED ON THE FACT, AND STAFFER CAN DO THAT. MR. SCHIFF HAS LAID OUT AS A MEMBER OF CONGRESS WHAT THE EVIDENCE IS, BUT A STAFF INVESTIGATOR IS BEST SUITED TO DO THAT >> THE FOCUS IS GETTING THIS RIGHT, WHY PUT THE ARBITRARY DEADLINE OF THE ELECTION ON THIS, AND WHY NOT TAKE THE TIME THAT YOU NEED TO GET THIS RIGHT? >> THE QUESTION IS IF THE FOCUS IS TO GET THIS RIGHT, WHY HAVE AN ARBITRARY DEADLINE OF THE ELECTION. THE DEADLINE IS ANYTHING BUT ARBITRARY, AND FREE ELECTIONS DEFINES AS A DEMOCRACY AND WHY 50 MILLION IMMIGRANTS HAVE COME TO OUR COUNTRY, AND IF WE LOSE OUR INTEGRITY FOR THOSE ELECTIONS, WE LOSE EVERYTHING. SO WE DON'T HAVE THE BENEFIT OF WAITING FOR THE PRESIDENT TO RUN OUT THE CLOCK ON US. SO THANK YOU, GUYS. I WILL SEE YOU AT THE NEXT BREAK. >> GREAT. THANKS. >> CONGRESSMAN, GOOD. SAME QUESTIONS TO SWALWELL, AND DO YOU THINK THAT MUELLER REPORT SHOULD BE INCLUDED IN THE IMPEACHMENT? >> WE HAVE NOT DECIDED TO IMPEACH YET, SO THAT IS PREMATURE. >> AND SO SHOULD THAT BE INCLUDED IN ANY ARTICLE OF IMPEACHMENT? >> WE HAVE NOT DECIDED WHETHER OR NOT TO IMPEACH. >> AND THE DECISION OF THE HEARING -- >> ONE THING IS FOR THE REPORTS PRESENTED FROM THE INTEL AND THE MUELLER REPORT. >> IN THE IMPORTANCE OF WHAT WE HAVE HEARD THIS MORNING IS THAT FROM THESE PROFESSORS, THESE SCHOLARS, IS A EXPLANATION OF ALL OF THE POTENTIAL VIOLATIONS, AND THE OBSTRUCTION OF CONGRESS WHICH WE SPENT IS A FAIR AMOUNT OF TIME TALKING ABOUT AND THAT INCLUDES THE OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE AND WE HAVE HEARD MORE OF THAT TODAY, AND AS WE GO THROUGH THE REST OF THE DAY TODAY, WE WILL HEAR MORE ABOUT THE POTENTIAL FOR INCLUDING OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE, BUT IT IS PREMATURE TO KNOW WHAT IS GOING TO BE IN THIS, BECAUSE WE HAVE NOT MADE A DECISION TO GO FORWARD. >> AND WHAT ABOUT THE DEMOCRATS ARE GOING TO IMPEACH, AND ALL SIGNS ARE GOING TO IMPEACH, AND ALL OF THE INDICATIONS ARE, AND SO WHAT WOULD PREVENT YOU FROM NOT MOVING FORWARD AT THIS POINT? >> WE THINK THAT, SURE. WE THINK THAT WHAT IS IMPORTANT IS FOR US TO HAVE A FULL CONVERSATION, A FULL DISCUSSION TODAY WITH THESE WITNESSES ABOUT THE VARIOUS WAYS THAT THE PRESIDENT APPEARS TO HAVE ABUSED HIS OFFICE FOR HIS OWN PERSONAL GAIN, UNDERSTANDING WHAT THAT MEANS AND THE CONSTITUTIONAL CONTEXT, AND HOW THE REMEDY OF ABUSE OF POWER IS IMPEACHMENT AND ONLY AFTER EXPLORING THAT WILL WE MAKE A DECISION OF HOW TO MAKE A DECISION OF HOW TO PROCEED. >> YOU GUYS THINK THAT THIS SHOULD WRAP UP BY THE END OF THE YEAR BEFORE CHRISTMAS? >> I DON'T THINK IT IS ABOUT WHEN WE ACTUALLY HAVE TO WRAP UP. I THINK IT IS ABOUT HOW WE PROCEED SO THAT WE HAVE ALL OF THE FACTS IN FRONT OF US AND A FULL DUE PROCESS IN FRONT OF US. I THOUGHT THAT ONE OF THE MOST IMPORTANT THINGS THAT WAS SAID TODAY AND I THINK THAT IT IS PROFESSOR KARLAN AND I FORGET WHICH ONE, BUT WHEN ONE OF THE WITNESSES SAID THAT CONGRESS OBSTRUCTED BY THE PRESIDENT FOR INFORMATION THAT WE NEED, AND THAT IS TORPEDOING THE POINT AND WE SHOULD COME BACK TO THAT OVER AND OVER AGAIN, BECAUSE THIS IS UNPRECEDENTED. >> IS THERE SOME CONVINCING FOR THE DEMOCRATIC COLLEAGUES WHO HAVE NOT BEEN IN THE HEARINGS AND RELUCTANT TO IMPEACH? >> I THINK THAT WE ARE AT THE STAGE OF GETTING ALL OF THE FACTS IN FRONT OF US AND GETTING THE WITNESSES TO TALK TO US ABOUT ALL OF THE PIECES THERE. IS CONSTANT CONVERSATION GOING ON IN THE CAUCUS AND BOTH IN THE CAUCUS ROOM AND ON THE FLOOR. I CAN GUARANTEE YOU THAT THE MAJORITY OF MY DEMOCRATIC COLLEAGUES IF THEY HAVE NOT BEEN WATCHING THE HEARING WILL BE CAUGHT UP, AND WE WILL CONTINUE TO DISCUSS IT IN CAUCUS, BUT IT IS AN IMPORTANT TIME FOR US ALL TO HEAR WHERE EVERYBODY IS IN THE CAUCUS AND MAKE SURE THAT WE ARE MAKING A DECISION THAT IS MEANINGFUL FOR THE ENTIRE CAUCUS. >> CAN I MAKE ONE OBSERVATION ABOUT SOMETHING THAT WE HEARD OVER AND OVER TODAY. AND THAT'S THIS ASSERTION BY THE RANKING MEMBER THAT THERE ARE NO FACTS THAT WE AGREE UPON. IT IS CLEAR THAT THE PRESIDENT HAD THIS PHONE CALL. WE KNOW IT, BECAUSE HE RELEASED THE TRANSCRIPT, AND IT IS CLEAR THAT THERE WAS A QUID PRO QUO AND WE KNOW IT BECAUSE MICK MULVANEY TOLD US THAT. AND THAT IS NOT IN DISPUTE. SO IT IS IMPORTANT AS WE GO THROUGH THIS PROCESS, AND THIS IMPORTANT CONVERSATION ABOUT REMEDIES FOR ABUSE OF POWER THAT, THAT ANALYSIS IS BEING DONE WITH THE CLEAR UNDERSTANDING OF THE FACTS, AND THE FACTS ARE THAT THE PRESIDENT TRIED TO USE HIS POWER FOR POLITICAL GAIN PURSUANT TO THE CALL THAT WE KNOW TOOK PLACE, AND HE HAS ACKNOWLEDGED TOOK PLACE, AND THE ACTION THAT MICK MULVANEY SAYS IS A NORMAL STATE OF AFFAIRS. >> ONE THING THAT CAME OUT IS THAT THE FRAMERS INCLUDING IMPEACHMENT FOR SPECIFICALLY THIS SITUATION WHERE THE PRESIDENT USES HIS POWER TO UNDERMINE THE ELECTION WHICH IS WHY WE CANNOT WAIT FOR THE NEXT ELECTION AND THEY HAD THIS ELECTION PRECISELY IN MIND, AND THAT IS WHAT WE WILL HEAR THROUGHOUT THE HEARING AND THE LAW PROFESSORS ARE DOING A GREAT JOB EXPLAINING TO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE THE FACTS THAT ARE GIVEN TO US. >> TO TED'S POINT, I WAS STRUCK BY HOW THERE WAS SO MUCH DISCUSSION OF THE PROCESS TODAY AND NOT CONTESTING AND SUCH A DISCUSSION OF PROCESS TODAY AND NOT CONTESTING THE FACTS IN FRONT OF US, AND THAT IS NOT PART OF WHAT THEY TRIED TO DO. THEY TRY TO TALK ABOUT THE PROCESS AND HOW IT IS TOO FAST AND THIS OR THAT, BUT IT IS, I THINK THAT IT IS VERY, VERY COMPELLING THAT THERE HAS NOT BEEN ANY DEFENSE PRESENTED OF THE ACTUAL FACTS THAT ARE ON THE RECORD. >> WHAT IS YOUR UNDERSTANDING OF THE CONCRETE NEXT STEPS IN THE PROCESS. CONGRESS COLLINS TALKING ABOUT SOME PRESENTATION NEXT WEEK, AND WHAT IS THAT GOING TO LOOK LIKE BEST YOU KNOW IT? >> SO WHATEVER PRESENTATION FROM THE HOUSE MAJORITY INTEL AND THE HOUSE MINORITY INTEL COMMITTEES, AND WE WILL TAKE IN THE INFORMATION THAT THEY ARE GOING TO PROVIDE TO US. THAT IS MY UNDERSTANDING OF THE NEXT HEARING THAT WE WILL HAVE. >> AND THEY WILL COME IN TO PRESENT? >> YES, THEY WILL BOTH PRESENT. >> OPEN HEARING? OPEN SESSION? >> YES. >> AND YOU ANTICIPATE GOING TO THE MARK-UP OR -- >> I DON'T KNOW. >> WHAT WOULD YOU PREFER? >> I DON'T KNOW. BUT I WOULD SAY THAT BEFORE WE TALK ABOUT ANY OPPORTUNITIES TO DISCUSS OR TO HAVE CONVERSATIONS WITH COUNSEL, IT IS REALLY IMPORTANT TO RECOGNIZE THAT THERE WAS AN OPPORTUNITY TODAY, ALREADY TODAY FOR THE PRESIDENT OR HIS COUNSEL TO APPEAR BEFORE US TO ANSWER QUESTIONS AND OFFER EXCULPATORY EVIDENCE TO MAKE OR OFFER THE FACTS TO COOPERATE FOR THE FIRST TIME IN THIS PROCESS AND THAT IS CONSISTENT WITH HOW THEY HAVE STONEWALLED THROUGHOUT. >> WE HEARD THERE FROM SOME OF THE LAWMAKERS EXITING THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE HEARING AND THE IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY OF PRESIDENT TRUMP ON GOING TODAY, AND THIS IS OF COURSE COMING AFTER THE INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE HEARINGS THAT WERE HELD IN WEEKS PAST. WE WANT TO HEAR YOUR PHONE CALLS AND WHAT YOU HAVE HEARD FROM THE CONSTITUTIONAL SCHOLARS THAT ARE BEING HEARD IN THE CONGRESSIONAL HEARINGS. AND FOR REPUBLICANS AND DEMOCRATS AND INDEPENDENTS AND OTHERS AS WELL. WE WILL GET TO YOUR CALLS IN A MINUTE. AGAIN, THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE IN THE BREAK. THEY ARE GOING TO THE FLOOR OF THE HOUSE FOR VOTES, THREE VOTES OVER IN THE HOUSE. SO THAT MEANS THAT IT INTERRUPTS WHAT THE COMMITTEE IS DOING, AND SO FAR, WE HAVE HEARD THE OPENING STATEMENTS FROM THE WITNESSES AS WELL AS THE CHAIR AND THE RANKING MEMBER, AND WE HAVE HEARD THE QUESTIONING OF THE DEMOCRATIC AND THE REPUBLICAN COUNSEL, AND NOW WE WANT TO HEAR FROM YOU. BRUCE IS ON THE LINE FROM INDIANAPOLIS, INDIANA. >> Caller: HI. THANK YOU FOR TAKING MY CALL. IN REGARDS TO THE OVERALL HEARINGS FROM THE INTEL AND TO TODAY, THE REPUBLICANS HAVE NOT BEEN ABLE TO SHED ANY LIGHT ON THE PRESIDENT'S LAWFUL ACTS AS A PRESIDENT THE D WHAT HE IS DOING, AND TODAY'S HEARING DEMONSTRATED THE KEY FACTS THAT ARE NOT IN DISPUTE BUT UNIVERSALLY IN MY OPINION ACCEPTED, BUT SOME PEOPLE ARE IN THAT RIVER IN EGYPT WHICH IS DENIAL, AND SO UNFORTUNATELY TO HIDE THE FACT THAT THEY ARE DENYING, THEY TRIED TO DISTRACT AND DEFLECT FROM THE CENTRAL ISSUE THAT THE PRESIDENT WAS DULY ELECTED AND DID SOMETHING ILLEGAL AND IMMORAL AND UNETHICAL IN HIS OATH OF OFFICE, AND THE CRIMES THAT HE HAS BEEN BROUGHT UPON THE OFFENSES IN FRONT OF THE UNITED STATES AND THE WORLD TODAY AND SUBSEQUENT DAYS WILL BE JUST THAT. THAT HE ABUSED HIS OFFICE. HE COMMITTED ACTS THAT WERE IN A BIG WORD TREASON THAT HAS COME UP, AND WHICH I THINK IS REALLY RELEVANT TO THE OVERALL PRESIDENCY. WHEN YOU ARE COMMITTING ACTS AGAINST THE CONSTITUTION AND THE UNITED STATES AND YOUR OATH OF OFFICE, THAT IS TREASON. AND I THINK THAT THE BIGGEST TAKE AWAY IS FROM THIS ENTIRE PROCESS IS THAT RULES AND LAWS ARE BASED ON HONESTY AND INTEGRITY AND SELFISHNESS AND GREED ARE THE EPITOME OF THIS PRESIDENCY, AND THE BEST WAY TO SUM IT UP IS BECAUSE HE IS A GREEDY SELFISH PERSON HE NEVER SHOULD HAVE BEEN ELECTED TO OFFICE, BECAUSE IF YOU ARE A PUBLIC SERVANT, YOU ARE THERE TO SERVE, AND HE SHOULD HAVE BEEN THE EPITOME OF THE EXAMPLE OF WHAT A PUBLIC SERVANT IS. INSTEAD, HE HAS BROUGHT THE LEVEL OF THE OFFICE DOWN TO THE LOWEST LEVEL OF HUMANITY IN THAT HE LIES ON A CONTINUOUS BASIS, AND HE IS ENCOURAGING OTHER PEOPLE TO LIE AS WELL. >> AND BRUCE, WE ARE HEARING FROM A NUMBER OF CONSTITUTIONAL SCHOLARS AS YOU HAVE BEEN LISTENING TO THEM TODAY, AND WE ARE GOING TO BE TAKING YOUR PHONE CALLS, AND WE JUST HEARD FROM BRUCE ON THE DEMOCRATS' BRUCE ON THE DEMOCRAT'S LINE. LET'S GET SOMEONE ON FROM THE REPUBLICAN LINE. TIM'S CALLING FROM FLORIDA. TIM, GO AHEAD. YOU HAVE THE FLOOR. >> Caller: YEAH, I JUST WANTED TO KIND OF TALK ABOUT THIS IN THE TOTALITY OF -- YOU KNOW, HAVING THESE REPRESENTATIVES FROM HARVARD AND WHATNOT AND THEY KIND OF SEEM LIKE THEY'RE LECTURING AND KIND OF PINPOINTING CERTAIN THINGS THAT THEY CAN TAKE FROM THEIR CONVERSATION FROM THE CALL WHICH I DON'T THINK IT WAS PERFECT. I THINK IT WAS INAPPROPRIATE AS A REPUBLICAN, BUT I THINK A LOT OF THINGS THAT OBAMA DID, BUSH DID, I MEAN, EVEN, YOU KNOW SOME OF THE TOP PRESIDENTS FROM THE BEGINNING OF OUR TIME DID THINGS THAT WERE INAPPROPRIATE AND THEY WEREN'T IMPEACHED. I THINK MILLIONS OF AMERICANS WANT TO KNOW ABOUT MIFSUD AND HIS RELATIONSHIP WITH THE WHISTLE-BLOWER. WHY IS HE A PART OF ADAM SCHIFF'S TEAM? I MEAN THE TIMING IS ALL OVER -- >> WHEN YOU SAY HE'S PART OF ADAM SCHIFF'S TEAM, CAN YOU TELL US WHO THIS PERSON IS YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT. >> SEAN -- THE NFC STAFFER WHO LEFT AND BECAME A PART OF SCHIFF'S STAFF. IT HASN'T BEEN TALKED ABOUT AT ALL. AS AN AMERICAN I'M WONDERING WHY WE'RE TAKING THE INTELLIGENCE OFFICIALS THAT TOLD US TO BOMB SYRIA AND IT TURNS OUT TO BE WRONG AND THEN NO ONE IS HELD ACCOUNTABLE. I JUST -- THERE'S SO MANY OTHER QUESTIONS THAT WE COULD BE ASKING BESIDES THIS PHONE CALL ABOUT HOW TO MAKE THIS COUNTRY A BETTER PLACE BUT WE'RE GOING BACK AND FORTH WITH HARVARD LAW PROFESSORS? DON'T THEY HAVE ANYTHING PETER TO DO? >> I APPRECIATE YOU BRINGING THAT UP, TIM. THAT IS ONE OF THE THINGS THAT HAS BEEN TALKED ABOUT TODAY IS THAT WE ARE HEARING FROM THE CONSTITUTIONAL SCHOLARS ON THE HISTORICAL LEGAL PRECEDENT SIDE. THE INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY WHICH NANCY PELOSI THE HOUSE SPEAKER CHOSE TO BRING OUT MORE OF THE EVIDENTIARY WITNESSES WAS CHOSEN BECAUSE THIS DOES HAVE TO DO WITH NATIONAL SECURITY. JUST TAKE TAKING YOUR PHONE CALLS AND LETTING YOU KNOW THE JUDICIARY HEARING IS EXPECTED TO COME BACK IN 20 MINUTES OR SO. THEY'RE ON THE FLOOR RIGHT NOW VOTING IN THE HOUSE AND I WANT TO GET IN ONE MORE CALL BEFORE WE HEAR SOME OF THE REACTION FROM PRESIDENT TRUMP. LAURA'S CALLING FROM OAK ISLAND, NORTH CAROLINA, ON OUR INDEPENDENTS AND OTHERS LINE. >> Caller: HEY, I'D LIKE TO AGREE WITH PRETTY MUCH EVERYTHING THE FIRST CALLER SAID, IT'S ALMOST TREASONOUS WHAT WE'RE HEARING AND PRESIDENT TRUMP SEEMS TO BE THE MOST LAWLESS PRESIDENT WE HAVE EVER HAD. IT'S RIDICULOUS. THE REPUBLICANS DON'T WANT TO HOLD HIM ACCOUNTABLE FOR ANYTHING HE DOES OR SAYS. WE CAN'T TRUST A WORD OUT OF HIS MOUTH AND THERE'S EVEN -- IF YOU READ UP THERE'S TALKS ABOUT HIM HAVING TIES TO THE RUSSIAN MAFIA AND I'M WONDERING WHO ELSE HAVE THEY BOUGHT OFF? IS HE BOUGHT AND PAID FOR BY RUSSIA? WE HAVE REPUBLICANS GOING ON TV PUSHING PROVEN KREMLIN TALKING POINTS THAT COMES STRAIGHT FROM RUSSIA. IT'S JUST RIDICULOUS. >> LAURA, WHAT DO YOU THINK ABOUT HEARING TODAY FROM THE CONSTITUTIONAL SCHOLARS? THERE'S THREE FROM THE DEMOCRATS WHO WERE CALLED BY DEMOCRATS. ONE FROM THE REPUBLICAN SIDE. WE HEARD A LOT MORE FROM THE REPUBLICAN CONSTITUTIONAL SCHOLAR WHEN IT WAS THE REPUBLICAN'S TURN TO DO SOME OF THE QUESTIONS. WHAT DO YOU THINK ABOUT WHAT YOU HAVE BEEN HEARING TODAY ON THE CONSTITUTIONALITY? >> Caller: WELL, I REALLY FEEL LIKE HE WAS JUST AGAIN PUSHING THE REPUBLICAN TALKING POINTS THAT YOU HEAR FROM FOX NEWS AND THINGS THAT WE HEAR ARE COMING STRAIGHT FROM THE KREMLIN AND I APPRECIATE MORE THE FIRST TWO THAT WE HEARD FROM. IT SEEMED LIKE EVERYTHING WAS JUST MORE OPEN AND HONEST AND, YOU KNOW, WHAT OUR FOREFATHERS WHEN THEY WROTE THE CONSTITUTION WAS TO PROTECT US FROM THIS EXACT TYPE OF BEHAVIOR AND IT ALL JUST SEEMS LIKE COMMON SENSE, HEARING WHAT WE HEARD FROM OUR FIRST TWO BEFORE THEY ALL -- WAS IT TURLEY THE ONE THAT YOU'RE QUESTIONING ABOUT? I JUST FEEL LIKE HE'S -- HE AGAIN IS JUST -- WOULD ALLOW PRESIDENT TRUMP TO DO ANYTHING AND ANYTHING AND EVERYTHING INCLUDING NOT ALLOWING ANYONE TO TESTIFY, TO IGNORE SUBPOENAS. I MEAN, THERE'S NO RULE OF LAW. IT'S -- IT'S RIDICULOUS. >> I APPRECIATE YOUR CALL. WE WANT TO TAKE A LOOK AT SOME OF WHAT PRESIDENT TRUMP SAID. HE WAS LEAVING THE NATO SUMMIT. HE IS ON HIS WAY BACK TO WASHINGTON. WE'LL TAKE A LOOK AT THE PRESIDENT'S REMARKS IN TERMS OF THE HEARING AND ALSO THE DEMOCRATIC REPORT THAT WAS RELEASED YESTERDAY. >> SO YOU HAVE GOT THE LAST OPPORTUNITY TO ASK YOU A QUESTION. DO YOU WANT TO COMMENT ON THE HOUSE DEMOCRAT'S IMPEACHMENT REPORT THAT CAME OUT LAST NIGHT? >> I SAW IT, IT'S A JOKE. EVERYBODY IS SAYING -- I WATCHED REVIEWS. I WATCHED HANNITY, SEAN HANNITY. I WATCHED LAURA INGRAHAM, TUCKER CARLSON. I WATCHED A LOT OF OTHER LEGAL SCHOLARS, FRANKLY. I WATCHED SOME PEOPLE WITH GREAT LEGAL TALENT AND HIGHLY RESPECTED, ALAN DERSHOWITZ, AND MANY MORE. MANY MORE. I WATCHED A VERY TERRIFIC FORMER SPECIAL PROSECUTOR, YOU KNOW KEN. KEN IS A TALENTED MAN AND A SMART MAN AND I WILL TELL YOU IT IS A UNIFORM STATEMENT I THINK PRETTY MUCH RIGHT DOWN THE ROAD THAT WHAT THEY'RE DOING IS A VERY BAD THING FOR OUR COUNTRY. IT'S OF NO MERIT. AND THE REPUBLICAN PARTY HAS NEVER BEEN MORE UNIFIED EVER. THEY HAVE NEVER BEEN AS UNIFIED AS THEY ARE RIGHT NOW. I HAVE NEVER SEEN ANYTHING LIKE IT. WHERE YOU HAVE 197-0 WHERE THE SENATE IS VERY ANGRY ABOUT IT. I THINK THE SENATE I CAN SAY IS ANGRY AND THE REPUBLICAN PARTY IS ANGRY. A RECENT POLL CAME OUT 95% APPROVAL RATING FOR ME AND THE REPUBLICAN PARTY WHICH IS A RECORD. RONALD REAGAN WAS AT 87%, HE WAS THE SECOND. SO I MEAN, IT'S GOING GOOD. I HAVE NEVER SEEN ANYTHING LIKE IT WHERE THE PARTIES COME TOGETHER. AND IT'S GOING TO STAY THAT WAY FOR A LONG TIME. I THINK WE'LL HAVE A TREMENDOUS 2020. I'M SURE YOU HAVE ALL SEEN THE POLLS THAT HAVE COME OUT ESPECIALLY IN THE SWING STATES. WE HAVE GONE WAY UP IN THE POLLS AND I THINK IT'S -- YOU KNOW, IT'S A DISGRACE. YOU HAVE A LOSER LIKE -- STONE COLD LOSER HAS BEEN ALL OF HIS LIFE, ADAM SCHIFF, THEN YOU HAVE NANCY PELOSI WHO AGREED WITH WHAT HE SAID WHICH PUTS HER INTO REAL JEOPARDY. AGREED ON A CERTAIN SHOW, STEPHANOPOULOS, AND FRANKLY IT'S A BAD THING FOR THE COUNTRY. I'M OVER HERE WITH NATO, WE'RE MEETING WITH IN THIS CASE ITALY, BUT WE'RE MEETING WITH GREAT COUNTRIES. VERY IMPORTANT COUNTRIES. WE'RE DOING A GOOD JOB. AND THEY SCHEDULED IT -- SAME THING HAPPENED A NUMBER OF MONTHS AGO WHEN THEY PUT THE UNITED NATIONS -- THEY PUT THE UNITED NATIONS SITUATION THEY HAD A HEARING WITH SOMEBODY ON THE SAME DAY AND NOW THEY DO IT WITH NATO. THESE PEOPLE YOU ALMOST QUESTION WHETHER OR NOT THEY LOVE OUR COUNTRY. AND THAT'S A VERY, VERY SERIOUS THING. DO THEY IN FACT LOVE OUR COUNTRY. SO THEY SCHEDULE THAT DURING THE UNITED NATIONS. I'LL NEVER FORGET. I'M WALKING INTO THE UNITED NATIONS AND I START HEARING ALL OF THE THINGS THAT THEY WERE TALKING ABOUT. EXACTLY AT THAT TIME. LITERALLY I'M WALKING THROUGH THE FRONT DOOR. AND YOU FOLKS START SCREAMING OUT TO ME ABOUT WHATEVER. YOU KNOW WHAT YOU WERE SCREAMING. AND NOW I DO NATO, THIS WAS SCHEDULED FOR A YEAR. AND THE SAME THING HAPPENS. THEY SCHEDULE A HEARING, IT'S A HOAX. IT'S A TOTAL HOAX. WE HAD A GREAT CALL WITH THE PRESIDENT OF UKRAINE. IT WAS A GREAT CALL. NOT JUST A GOOD CALL, IT WAS A PERFECT CALL. IN FACT, IT WAS TWO PERFECT CALLS AND EVERYBODY KNOWS IT. BY THE WAY THE PRESIDENT OF UKRAINE WAS 100% HONEST. ALL YOU HAVE TO DO IS LISTEN TO THE CALL OR READ THE CALL. WE HAD IT TRANSCRIBED PERFECTLY. BUT HE WAS -- HE SAID NO PRESSURE, NO NOTHING. THERE WAS NO NOTHING. IN FACT, THEY DON'T UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU PEOPLE ARE TALKING ABOUT AND I THINK THEY PROBABLY CONSIDER IT DISGRACEFUL. I THINK IT'S A DISGRACE THAT WE COULD BE WASTING TIME AND IN THE MEANTIME, THE USMCA IS SITTING ON NANCY PELOSI'S DESK, IT'S DRAWING DUST. IT HAS BEEN THERE FOR MANY, MANY MONTHS. AND FARMERS, MANUFACTURER, UNION, NONUNION, EVERYBODY WANTS IT AND NOTHING HAPPENS. IT'S A VERY SAD THING FOR OUR COUNTRY. THE WORD IMPEACHMENT IS A DIRTY WORD AND IT'S A WORD THAT WAS ONLY SUPPOSED TO BE USED IN SPECIAL OCCASIONS. HIGH CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS. IN THIS CASE THERE WAS NO CRIME WHATSOEVER. NOT EVEN A TINY CRIME. THERE WAS NO CRIME WHATSOEVER. THEY KNOW IT. AND THEY GO INTO THOSE ROOMS AND THEY CLOSE THOSE DOORS DOWN IN THE BASEMENT AND THEY SAY -- I'LL TELL YOU WHAT THEY SAY, THEY JUST LAUGH BECAUSE IT'S -- TO THEM IT'S A JOKE. THEY THINK THEY'RE DOING WELL BUT THEY'RE NOT DOING WELL. THEY'RE SAYING HOW DO WE GET OUT OF THIS, BECAUSE THEIR POLL NUMBERS ARE WAY DOWN. THEY'LL HAVE A TREMENDOUS LOSS IN 2020. THAT'S WHAT'S GOING TO HAPPEN. NO MATTER HOW YOU CUT IT, IT'S BEEN VERY INTERESTING BUT TO DO IT ON A DAY LIKE THIS WHERE WE'RE IN LONDON WITH SOME OF THE MOST POWERFUL COUNTRIES IN THE WORLD, HAVING VERY IMPORTANT NATO MEETINGS, AND IT JUST HAPPENED TO BE SCHEDULED -- THIS WAS SET UP A YEAR AGO, JUST HAPPENED TO BE SCHEDULED ON THIS DATE. IT'S REALLY HONESTLY IT'S A DISGRACE. SO THAT'S IT. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. >> -- RUDY GIULIANI? >> I DON'T KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT HIM. HE'S A GREAT LAWYER, HE WAS THE BEST MAYOR IN THE HISTORY OF NEW YORK CITY BY FAR. HE STOPPED CRIME IN NEW YORK CITY. AS A U.S. ATTORNEY, HE WAS INCREDIBLE. HE'S HIGHLY RESPECTED. SO SOMEBODY SAID HE MADE A PHONE CALL INTO THE WHITE HOUSE, WHAT DIFFERENCE DOES THAT MAKE? I DON'T KNOW. YOU KNOW, IS THAT SUPPOSED TO BE A BIG DEAL? I DON'T THINK SO. RUDY IS A GREAT GENTLEMAN AND THEY'RE AFTER HIM ONLY BECAUSE HE'S DONE SUCH A GOOD JOB. HE WAS VERY EFFECTIVE AGAINST MUELLER AND THE MUELLER HOAX. THAT WHOLE THING WAS A HOAX. FIRST WE HAD MUELLER AND WE HAD -- BEFORE I EVEN GOT ELECTED THIS WAS GOING OF ON. NOW THE IG REPORT WILL BE VERY INTERESTING. WE'LL SEE WHAT THAT'S ALL ABOUT AND THEN OF COURSE AS YOU KNOW THE BIG ONE THAT'S GOING TO COME SOUTH THE DURHAM REPORT. I DON'T KNOW MR. DURHAM, I HAVE NEVER SPOKEN TO HIM BUT HE'S ONE OF THE MOST RESPECTED LAW ENFORCEMENT OR U.S. ATTORNEYS ANYWHERE IN THE COUNTRY. HE'S A TOUGH GUY. HE'S HAD AN INCREDIBLE TRACK RECORD. HE'S ACTUALLY SORT OF NONPARTISAN I GUESS FROM WHAT I HEAR. BUT THE BIG ONE THAT EVERYONE IS WAITING FOR IS THAT AND THE IG REPORT. SO THE IG REPORT THEY SAY IS COMING OUT ON MONDAY. TUESDAY. MAYBE WHATEVER. BUT THEY SAY MONDAY. I THINK IT'S GOING TO BE A VERY BIG THING AND WE'LL SEE WHAT HAPPENS. BUT THIS SHOULD NEVER HAPPEN TO A PRESIDENT AGAIN. FOR ME, IT'S OKAY, BUT THIS SHOULD NEVER HAPPEN TO A PRESIDENT WHAT'S HAPPENED HERE. IT'S A DISGRACE TO OUR COUNTRY. AN ABSOLUTE DISGRACE TO OUR COUNTRY. IT'S SAD ACTUALLY. IT'S DONE BY, YOU KNOW, FRANKLY BY LOSERS. YOU LOOK AT THE PEOPLE. LOOK AT THE CAST OF CHARACTERS BETWEEN NADLER AND SCHIFF AND PELOSI. NERVOUS NANCY. IT'S AN ABSOLUTE DISGRACE TO OUR COUNTRY. AND I THINK A LOT OF DEMOCRATS, BY THE WAY, ARE GOING TO VOTE AGAINST IT. I THINK THAT, YOU KNOW, BECAUSE IF THEY DON'T, THEY'LL LOSE THEIR RACE. BECAUSE PEOPLE ARE PUTTING -- THEY WENT BACK TO THEIR DISTRICTS AND THEY ARE GETTING HAMMERED. BY THEIR DISTRICTS. AND IF THEY DON'T, THEY'LL LOSE THEIR RACE. SO IN IN WAYS I HOPE THEY DON'T, OKAY. WE'LL GET A FAIR SHAKE IN THE SENATE. ASSUMING THAT WHATEVER HAPPENS HAPPENS WE'LL GET A VERY FAIR SHAKE IN THE SENATE. BUT WE HAVE ALREADY BEEN GIVEN -- YOU JUST TAKE A LOOK. TODAY I UNDERSTOOD, OBVIOUSLY I HAVE BEEN WITH ALL OF THESE WORLD LEADERS AND DONE CONFERENCES WITH THE WORLD LEADERS SO I HAVEN'T BEEN ABLE TO WATCH BUT THINK OF IT. THEY GET THREE CONSTITUTIONAL LAWYERS AND WE GET ONE, WHAT'S THAT ALL ABOUT? JUST THAT LITTLE STATEMENT. THEY GET THREE. WE GET ONE. WE HAD NO REPRESENTATION. WE COULDN'T CALL WITNESSES. WE COULDN'T DO ANYTHING. IT IS THE MOST UNFAIR THING THAT ANYBODY HAS EVER SEEN. THEY WOULD HAVE DONE MUCH BETTER IF THEY GAVE US EQUAL REPRESENTATION. BECAUSE THE PUBLIC GETS IT BUT LOOK AT TODAY. I DON'T THINK TOO MANY PEOPLE ARE GOING TO WATCH BECAUSE IT'S GOING TO BE BORING. ALL RIGHT? IN FACT, YOU'RE HERE, I GUESS YOU'RE HERE, AND WE'LL SUPERSEDE IT, BUT NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE ARE GOING TO BE WATCHING TODAY. JUST THINK OF THIS. CONSTITUTIONAL LAWYERS THEY GET THREE AND WE GET ONE. WHAT KIND OF A DEAL IS THAT? YOU DON'T NEED A CONSTITUTIONAL LAWYER BECAUSE NOTHING WAS DONE WRONG. ZERO DONE WRONG. I WILL SAY IT AGAIN, READ THE TRANSCRIPT AND THEN LISTEN TO WHAT THE PRESIDENT OF UKRAINE SAID. HE SAID THERE WAS NO PRESSURE WHATSOEVER. LISTEN TO WHAT THE FOREIGN MINISTER OF UKRAINE -- HIGHLY RESPECTED MAN, VERY BOTH VERY RESPECTED. LISTEN TO WHAT THE FOREIGN MINISTER SAID. HE SAID THERE WAS PRESSURE WHATSOEVER. THAT'S THE ONLY ONE THAT COUNTS BUT THEN LISTEN TO ALL OF THEIR WITNESSES AND NOT ONE OF THEM SAID ANYTHING THAT WAS MEANINGFUL OTHER THAN POSITIVE FOR ME. LIKE THE ONE SAID THERE WAS NO QUID PRO QUO. THAT'S WHAT HE SAID. AND HE SAID THAT I ACTUALLY TOLD HIM THAT. THERE WILL BE NO QUID PRO QUO. I SAID THAT. AND I SAID OTHER THINGS THAT WERE EVEN STRONGER THAN THAT. AND, YOU KNOW, IT AS A DISGRACE THAT THEY ARE DOING THIS. AND THEY'RE DOING IT BECAUSE THEY THINK THEY CAN'T WIN IN 2020. THEY'RE DOING IT BECAUSE YOU TAKE A LOOK AT THEIR CANDIDATES. AND THEIR CANDIDATES ARE NOT DOING TOO WELL. AND THEY THINK THIS IS THEIR ONLY SHOT. IT'S A DISGRACE. BECAUSE THIS PROCESS WAS NOT SUPPOSED TO BE USED THAT WAY. >> PRESIDENT TRUMP THERE SPEAKING BEFORE HE LEFT LONDON AND THE NATO SUMMIT AND A LOOK AT THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE ROOM. THE IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY HEARING PROCEEDING ABOUT 2:30 P.M. EASTERN. MEMBERS ARE ON THE FLOOR NOW TAKING VOTES AND WE'RE GOING TO GET BACK TO YOUR CALLS. I WANT TO HEAR WHAT YOU THINK ABOUT WHAT WE HAVE SEEN SO FAR TODAY. KIM IN FRISCO, TEXAS, ON DEMOCRATS LINE. WAITING PATIENTLY. HI, KIM, GO AHEAD. >> Caller: HI. I WANTED TO EQUATE TURLEY WITH WILLIAM BARR BECAUSE HE'S -- HIS DEFINITION ON WHAT THE CONSTITUTION SAYS ABOUT IMPEACHMENT IS ALONG THE LINES OF WILLIAM BARR REPRESENTATION OF THE MUELLER REPORT. THE THREE -- THE THREE FROM HARVARD AND STANFORD, THOSE THREE CONSTITUTIONAL LAWYERS EXPLAINED TO US VERY CLEARLY THE -- HOW IT APPLIES TO IMPEACHMENT. HE NEVER ADDRESSED THE REAL QUESTIONS OF BRIBERY. HE NEVER ADDRESSED THE REAL QUESTION OF HIGH CRIMES AND MISDEMEANOR. I DIDN'T EVEN UNDERSTAND HIS DEFINITION. COMPARED TO WHAT I UNDERSTOOD THE THREE -- THE OTHER THREE TO SAY. BUT THE LAWYER TAYLOR, HE SAID THAT PARTISANSHIP WAS ON THE DEMOCRATS' SIDE. BUT IT'S NOT. THE PARTISANSHIP IS ON THE REPUBLICANS' SIDE. THEY ARE -- EVEN THOUGH THEY DON'T HAVE THE POWER, THEY ARE DUG IN TO MAKE TRUMP LOOK LIKE WHAT HE'S DOING WHAT HE'S SUPPOSE TO DO. >> WHAT DO YOU MAKE OF TURLEY'S ARGUMENT THAT IT'S WAFER THIN. >> Caller: I DISAGREE. BECAUSE TRUMP SAID HE CONFESSED TO THE CRIME. THE ACTING CHIEF OF STAFF MULVANEY CONFESSED TO THE CRIME SO WHAT OTHER EVIDENCE DO YOU NEED WHEN THEY'RE CONFESSING THE CRIME. I DON'T UNDERSTAND THAT. I MEAN, I KNOW IT'S NOT IN THE CRIMINAL LAW BE ANY LAW WHEN YOU CONFESS TO THE CRIME AREN'T YOU GUILTY? >> ALL RIGHT. PAULA IS CALLING FROM MOUNT VERNON, OHIO, ON THE INDEPENDENTS LINE. >> Caller: HI, THANKS FOR TAKING MY CALL. I TOTALLY DISAGREE WITH YOUR OTHER CALLERS I DON'T SEE ANY EVIDENCE THAT TRUMP DID ANYTHING WRONG. I TOTALLY SUPPORT HIM. I DON'T SEE ANY EVIDENCE WHERE BRIBERY APPLIES OR ANY OTHER ISSUE. >> OKAY. >> Caller: I THINK HE WAS WELL IN HIS RIGHTS TO DO WHAT HE -- WHAT HE DID, THE ADMINISTRATIVE AND EXECUTIVE ORDERS. I THINK HE WAS WELL IN HIS RIGHTS AND I APPLAUD FOR THE GOOD JOB HE'S BEEN DOING FOR AMERICA. >> THANKS THERE ON THE LINE FOR INDEPENDENTS AND OTHERS. DEMOCRATS LINE, MICHELLE IN TEXAS. >> Caller: HI, ONE THING I'M NOT CONFIDENT ABOUT OR CONFUSED ABOUT IS I KNOW THAT CORRUPTION IN UKRAINE IS THE BASIS OF THE INVESTIGATE -- INVESTIGATING CORRUPTION IN UKRAINE IS A BIG BASIS OF WHY -- BUT I'M CONFUSED ABOUT SO RUSSIA AND SAUDI ARABIA ARE ALSO EQUALLY CORRUPT? BUT IT'S NEVER BEEN LIKE AN ISSUE TO -- HE NEVER DENIED EITHER COUNTRIES IN REGARDS TO THE CRIMES THEY COMMITTED. FOR EXAMPLE, RUSSIA. THE ELECTION INTERFERENCE. HE SAID, YOU KNOW, OH, I BELIEVE PUTIN, IT WASN'T AN ISSUE OR LIKE IT WASN'T REAL AND WITH KHASHOGGI, THE MURDERED SAUDI ARABIAN, OH, IT CAN'T BE SAUDI ARABIA. SO WHY IS UKRAINE THE ULTIMATE LIKE PARALLEL OF INVESTIGATIONS? >> ALL RIGHT. CALL NOW FROM CONNECTICUT, WALLING FORD. DANIEL ON THE LINE, REPUBLICAN. >> Caller: THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR HAVING ME. A FEW THINGS I FOUND VERY INTERESTING ABOUT WHAT WAS GOING ON. SO THE FIRST ONE I DO FEEL LIKE BOTH PARTIES ARE REALLY CONTRIBUTING TO THIS POLITICAL CHARADE WHICH IS GOING ON. DEMOCRATS -- DEMOCRATS WHO ARE -- WHO HAVE PUBLICLY STATED SUCH AS ADAM SCHIFF WHO PUBLICLY STATED THEY WANTED TO HEAR FROM THE WHISTLE-BLOWER AND THEN WHEN REPUBLICANS SAY WE WANT TO HEAR FROM THE WHISTLE-BLOWER THEY DENY THAT OPPORTUNITY. ANOTHER POINT I REALLY WANT TO MENTION IS I FEEL LIKE WE HAVE TAKEN AWAY -- WE HAVE GONE AWAY FROM ANOTHER HUGE ISSUE WHICH IS CORRUPTION IN UKRAINE BUT WHAT ABOUT THE CORRUPTION WITH HUNTER BIDEN? IT'S OKAY IF WE'RE GOING TO MOVE FORWARD IN IMPEACHMENT, WE DO NEED TO HEAR ALL OF THE FACTS BUT I FEEL LIKE WE'RE ALSO LOSING TOUCH OF THE REASON OF CORRUPTION AS A WHOLE WHICH IS THE REPUBLICANS' ARGUMENT HERE THEY'VE TRYING TO FIGHT CORRUPTION AND NOBODY SHOULD WANT CORRUPTION NEVER. YET, WHEN WE ARE TALKING ABOUT CORRUPTION NOW ALL WE HAVE DONE IS SHIFT TO IMPEACHMENT AND IT'S LIKE WE'VE LEFT CORRUPTION -- WE'VE LEFT CORRUPTION BEHIND. REGARDLESS OF IF IT'S HUNTER BIDEN IF IT'S HUNTER WHOEVER, FROM ANY POLITICAL PARTY OR ANY POLITICAL CANDIDATE, ANYBODY, WE SHOULD BE INVESTIGATING CORRUPTION AND I DO NOT BELIEVE -- AND HUNTER BIDEN IS NOT A POLITICAL OPPONENT, JUST BECAUSE HIS DAD IS DOES NOT MEAN HE IS. THAT'S SOMETHING I ALSO WANT TO MAKE VERY CLEAR HERE. >> THANKS, DANIEL. CALLING FROM CONNECTICUT THERE. TWEET HERE FROM FOX NEWS, CHAD PER GRAM. HE WRITES, IF THE IMPEACHMENT HEARING STARTS AGAIN AROUND 2:30 P.M. EASTERN, WE'LL BRING YOU BACK TO THE HEARING ROOM FOR THAT WITH WELL OVER THREE HOURS OF QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS REMAINING FROM INDIVIDUAL MEMBERS, PLUS CLOSING STATEMENTS, FOX NEWS ESTIMATES THE HEARING WILL END BEFORE 6:00 P.M. EASTERN TIME. OF COURSE YOU CAN CONTINUE WATCHING HERE ON C-SPAN 3. WE HAVE IT STREAMING ONLINE AS WELL IF YOU'RE AWAY FROM YOUR TV. GO TO C-SPAN.ORG. AND ALSO FIND ALL OF OUR CLEARINGHOUSE OF IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY INFORMATION. C-SPAN.ORG/IMPEACHMENT. TAKING YOUR PHONE CALLS. WE HAVE GOT A CALLER FROM CAMPBELLS BURG, INDIANA, ON THE INDEPENDENTS AND OTHERS LINE. HI, ANN. >> Caller: WELL, I'M GLAD TO SPEAK TO YOU. >> US TOO. GO ON WITH YOUR COMMENTS ABOUT THE HEARING. >> Caller: OKAY. I HAVE ONE QUESTION. EVERYONE KEEPS SAYING THE PRESIDENT IS LYING. WHAT IS HE LYING ABOUT? I NEVER GET AN ANSWER ABOUT THAT BECAUSE I HAVEN'T SEEN IT. I HAVE LOOKED AND LOOKED FOR THE LIE. AND ALSO, HE CLEARLY SAID NO QUID PRO QUO. SO IF HE SAID THAT -- IF HE SAID HE DIDN'T WANT ANYTHING, IT SEEMS TO ME THEIR ARGUMENT IS OVER. YOU KNOW? SO I FEEL THAT ADAM SCHIFF HAS OBVIOUSLY LIED. ANYONE THAT WATCHES AND LISTENS KNOWS HE HAS LIED REPEATEDLY AS WELL. ONE MORE THING. THE REASON THEY DON'T WANT TO COOPERATE AT THE WHITE HOUSE IS BECAUSE THE WHOLE THING IS UNFAIR. YOU AND I BOTH SEE THAT PEOPLE THERE ON THIS COMMITTEE ARE NOT ALLOWING THE REPUBLICANS TO HAVE WITNESSES. ISN'T THAT IMPORTANT? ISN'T THAT IMPORTANT ACCORDING TO OUR CONSTITUTION? DUE PROCESS AND HE'S NOT GETTING THAT. >> ALL RIGHT, ANN, THANKS FOR THE CALL. JARED IS CALLING, CALIFORNIA, DEMOCRATS LINE. >> Caller: THANKS FOR HAVING ME. >> YOU BET. GO AHEAD WITH YOUR COMMENT. >> Caller: I JUST WANTED TO STATE THAT DONALD TRUMP IS A BLOVIATED HUMAN PIECE OF GARBAGE AND DEFINITELY SHOULD BE IMPEACHED AND NUNES AND HIS CRONIES AS WELL AS GIULIANI SHOULD BE CARTED OUT IN HANDCUFFS. >> A CALLER HERE, SHEFFIELD, ALABAMA. JOSEPH ON THE LINE, REPUBLICAN. >> Caller: YES, MA'AM. I THINK NANCY PELOSI, ADAM SCHIFF, HAD IT IN FOR DONALD TRUMP. I DISAGREE WITH WHAT HE SAID LONG AGO. HE'S DONE MORE FOR THIS COUNTRY THAN ANY PRESIDENT HAS. THEY DON'T LIKE HIM. DEMOCRATS DON'T LIKE HIM. BECAUSE HE DON'T TAKE NO CRAP OFF THE OTHER COUNTRIES AND I DON'T THINK THEY SHOULD IMPEACH HIM. >> WHAT DO YOU THINK TODAY WHAT YOU SAW, HEARD FROM THE CONSTITUTIONAL SCHOLARS, FOCUSING ON THE LAW OF THE LAND? >> Caller: WELL, THE LAW OF THE LAND, THAT'S A BUNCH OF MALARKEY. YOU KNOW, THEY AIN'T GOT NO FACTS, AIN'T GOT NO PROOF. WELL, THE PROOF SHOWS THAT HE DIDN'T DO NOTHING. THEY KEEP ON AND ON. I GUESS THAT'S BECAUSE THE DEMOCRATS AND DEMOCRATS IS GOING TO ALL STICK TOGETHER ANYWAY. AND KEEP TRYING TO GET HIM OUT OF THERE. THAT'S THE WHOLE POINT. NONE OF THEM LIKES HIM AND -- BECAUSE HE'S GOT THIS COUNTRY BETTER SHAPE THAN IT'S EVER BEEN. >> APPRECIATE THE CALL FROM ALABAMA. TAKE A LOOK AT A TWEET FROM FRANK THORPE FROM NBC NEWS. THE 2020 SENATE CALENDAR RIGHT NOW THE HEARING IS IN THE HOUSE. THAT IS WHERE THE ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT WOULD BE BROUGHT UP AND IF THEY'RE WRITTEN UP AND IF THE HOUSE VOTES ON IMPEACHMENT, THE ACTUAL TRIAL WOULD HAPPEN IN THE SENATE. SO A LOOK AT THE SENATE CALENDAR JANUARY IS MISSING BECAUSE OF THE UNCERTAINTY WITH WHAT THEY'LL BE DOING WITH THE IMPEACHMENT TRIAL, HOW LONG IT WILL TAKE IF IT COMES OVER. A LOT OF THINGS ON CAPITOL HILL IN FLUX. WE'RE TAKING YOUR PHONE CALLS. I WANT TO HEAR WHAT YOU THINK ABOUT THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE HEARING THAT MET TODAY EARLIER THIS MORNING AND THEY'LL BE CONTINUING AS SOON AS THE MEMBERS COME BACK FROM VOTES. WE HAVE BERNIE CALLING AND IT'S IN OHIO. HELP ME OUT WITH THE NAME OF YOUR TOWN, PLEASE. >> Caller: CHILL ACOAT. >> GO AHEAD WITH YOUR COMMENTS. >> Caller: ONE THING IS I DON'T VOTE REPUBLICAN OR DEMOCRAT. I VOTE THE ISSUE. AND I VOTE THE PERSON. BUT THE WHOLE THING JUST REMINDS ME IN GENERAL OF WHAT MAKES AMERICA GREAT AND EVERYONE IS ENTITLED TO THEIR OPINIONS AND THEIR THOUGHTS AND THEIR VIEWS. HOWEVER, THAT MAY BE BASED IN REALITY OR FACTS OR THEIR PERCEPTION. YOU CAN PUT FIVE PEOPLE AND HAVE THEM DIRECTLY OBSERVE A SITUATION IN AT LEAST -- AND AT LEAST THREE OF THE FIVE WILL TELL YOU A SLIGHTLY DIFFERENT VERSION OF WHAT THEY SAW. BUT REGARDLESS, I JUST LOOK AT THE OVERALL TOTALITY OF THE SITUATION AND CAN SEE -- I CAN'T REMEMBER, I'M LOOK 60, I CAN NEVER REMEMBER ANY ADMINISTRATION THAT HAS GONE THROUGH SO MANY DIFFERENT POLITICAL APPOINTEES DURING THEIR SESSION OR DURING THEIR TERM OR MORE PEOPLE THAT HAVE BEEN CONVICTED OF CRIMES AND IMPRISONED OF CRIMES BASED ON ONE PERSON'S ACTIONS OR NOT NECESSARILY THE PERSON, BUT THEIR PARTY. LIKE HALF A DOZEN OF THE PEOPLE FROM THE 2016 LRL -- ALREADY IMPRISONED AND CONVICTED OF CRIMES BUT IT IS KIND OF SAD THAT IT'S TEARING OUR NATION APART. >> THANKS FOR THE CALL. I APPRECIATE IT. REPUBLICAN LINE, CALLING FROM PORTLAND, OREGON. WE HAVE GOT NEIL ON THE LINE. I'M SORRY, IS THIS -- I'M SORRY, GOT A DEMOCRATIC CALLER, FLINT, MICHIGAN, LOWELL, IS THAT YOU? >> Caller: YES, IT'S LINNAL. >> THANKS. GO AHEAD WITH YOUR COMMENTS OR QUESTION. >> Caller: MY COMMENT IS THIS HEARING TODAY IS THE SAME AS IT HAS BEEN SINCE TRUMP HAS BEEN IN OFFICE AND I HAVE BEEN A LIFE LONG DEMOCRAT UNTIL WE START TRYING TO IMPEACH TRUMP, OKAY? AND THE THING IS IS THAT EVERYTHING INCLUDING THE WITNESSES TODAY THEY'RE SUPPOSED TO BE SCHOLARS BUT IN REALITY THEY'RE JUST PARTY LINE WITNESSES. JUST SAYING WHAT THEY'RE LED TO SAY BY THE PEOPLE WHOM THEY COME TO TESTIFY FOR. AND THAT'S WHAT WASHINGTON HAS BASICALLY TURNED INTO. ALSO, IT'S NOT ABOUT RIGHT OR WRONG. BUT IT'S ACTUALLY ABOUT INFLUENCING THE COMMUNITIES OF AMERICA TO DEEM PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP AS BEING A CRIMINAL BECAUSE THEY'RE NOT DISCUSSING THE ACTIONABLE EVIDENCE. THEY'RE DISCUSSING THEIR PERSONAL VIEWS OF WHAT HAPPENED. AND SO I WOULD LIKE TO SEE THEM DISCUSS THE EVIDENCE WHICH WAS SAID IN THE PREVIOUS HEARINGS AND TO DISCUSS BOTH SIDES OF THE WITNESSES JUST NOT ONE SIDE OF THE WITNESSES. JUST TO TRY TO INFLUENCE THE AMERICAN PEOPLE ONE WAY OR THE OTHER. SO THAT'S MY ASSESSMENT OF WHAT IS HAPPENING TODAY. >> THANKS A LOT. NOW WE'RE GOING TO PORTLAND, OREGON, REPUBLICAN LINE. NEIL, SORRY ABOUT THAT. >> Caller: HELLO. THIS IS A COUP ATTEMPT, IT'S SO CLEAR AND IT'S AMAZING HOW THEY KEEP GLOSSING OVER THESE WORDS ESPECIALLY THE MEDIA. THE MEDIA IS CREATING THIS COUP ATTEMPT. AND I'M SORRY TO STEP ON YOUR TOES, BUT LOOK, BIDEN IS GETTING SHOKIN FIRED FOR REASON. HE DIDN'T WANT THE EXPOSURE. HE DIDN'T WANT ANY INVESTIGATION THERE. ON THE OTHER HAND, YOU HAVE TRUMP WHO IS CONSTANTLY LIVED UP TO HIS CAMPAIGN PROMISES. I MEAN, THE LIST IS EXTREMELY LONG. AND I DON'T FEEL LIKE LISTING BECAUSE IT WILL TAKE UP ALL YOUR TIME. PELOSI, NADLER, SCHIFF AND SCHUMER THEY'RE ALL PUPPETS WHO ARE PROBABLY BEING PAID TO DO WHAT THEY'RE DOING. THEIR NARRATIVE IS SO WEAK AND IT JUST SEEMS LIKE THEY'VE GOT THIS ABSOLUTE HELLBENT DESIRE TO DETHRONE TRUMP WHO HAS DONE THE BEST IN THIS COUNTRY THAT ANY PRESIDENT HAS EVER DONE. HE SUPERSEDES LINCOLN, LINCOLN ONLY FREED THE SLAVES. YES, THAT'S A BIG THING, BUT WHAT TRUMP IS DOING IS FAR GREATER. THE DEEP STATE EXISTS AND IF YOU PEOPLE DON'T UNDERSTAND THIS YOU HAVEN'T DONE YOUR HOMEWORK. THE QUID PRO QUO HAS BEEN TURNED INTO BRIBERY BECAUSE OF A -- THAT'S WHAT'S GOING ON HERE. THEY'RE FEELING THEIR WAY TO APPEAL TO THE AMERICAN PUBLIC. AND YOU PEOPLE WHO ARE STILL CALLING TRUMP A HORRIBLE PERSON AND YOU'RE STILL IN THE CAMP OF HATRED, LOOK, SPIRITUALITY AND HATRED DO NOT HOLD HANDS SO YOU'RE AT THE OPPOSITE END OF THE SPECTRUM IF YOU'RE CALLING IT HATE. >> WE'LL TAKE YOUR PHONE CALLS FOR ABOUT TEN MORE MINUTES. YOU CAN SEE THE ROOM ON THE SIDE OF THE SCREEN. NO MEMBERS ARE IN. THEY WERE ON THE HOUSE FLOOR VOTING. TAKE A LOOK AT A TWEET THOUGH. SOME OF WHAT'S HAPPENING BY HIND -- BEHIND THE SCENES ACCORDING TO JULIE PACE. THE HOUSE SPEAKER NANCY PELOSI POSED A SIMPLE QUESTION ON IMPEACHMENT TO HOUSE DEMOCRATS BEHIND CLOSED DOORS TODAY. SAYING ARE YOU READY? SHE'S ASKING THE RANK AND FILE LAWMAKERS AND THE ANSWER SHE GOT BACK WAS A RESOUNDING YES. TAKING YOUR PHONE CALLS. FLORIDA IS NEXT. REED. >> Caller: THANK YOU FOR GIVING THE PEOPLE A FORUM TO VOICE THEIR OPINIONS ON THIS. THE MAIN THING I WANT TO TALK ABOUT IS THE LAW PROFESSORS ARE PEOPLE THEMSELVES AND THEY HAVE THEIR OWN POLITICAL OPINIONS AND VIEW POINTS AND THAT SEEMS TO BE ALL THAT WE HEARD TODAY FROM THEM WAS THEIR OPINION WHICH IS SHAPED SOMEWHAT BY THEIR OWN POLITICS THAT DOESN'T GIVE A CLEAR VIEW AND IT'S KIND OF DISHEARTENING THAT OUR CONGRESS IS CALLING WITNESSES LIKE THIS THAT ARE POLITICALLY OPINIONATED. AND NOT ALLOWING THE OPPOSING VIEWPOINT TO BE HEARD. AND THAT'S PRETTY MUCH ALL I WANTED TO SAY AND POINT OUT TO PEOPLE WHO ARE VOTING AND REMEMBER YOU HOLD A KEY POWER AS PEOPLE TO VOTE NOT JUST FOR THE PRESIDENT, BUT FOR THOSE CONGRESSIONAL OFFICIALS THAT ARE CARRYING ON THIS DOG AND PONY SHOW. >> THANKS FOR THE CALL. MIAMI, FLORIDA, DEMOCRATS' LINE, DERRICK. GO AHEAD. YOU HAVE THE FLOOR. >> Caller: HEY, I JUST HAD A STATEMENT AND MAYBE A QUESTION. SO PART OF PROVIDING -- PART OF OUR NATIONAL SECURITY IS PROVIDING AID TO UKRAINE. RIGHT? IT'S PART OF OUR NATIONAL SECURITY AGENDA. NOW WE KNOW THERE'S AN ISSUE WITH CORRUPTION IN UKRAINE. SO THERE WERE -- THERE ARE SEVERAL AGENCIES IN PLACE WORKING IN CONCERT TOGETHER TO ENSURE THAT UKRAINE MEETS THE OBLIGATIONS THAT THE U.S. SETS FORTH BEFORE WE APPROVE AND RELEASE FUNDING. SO THE NOTION -- THE IDEA THAT TRUMP IS CONCERNED ABOUT CORRUPTION IS VOID BECAUSE THOSE PROCESSES ARE ALREADY HANDLED. THE SECOND POINT WAS THAT LEADS ME TO NO ONE IS MENTIONING THAT HE PRETTY MUCH VIOLATED THE IMPANEL CONTROL ACT WHICH BASICALLY STATES THE PRESIDENT CANNOT ARBITRARILY WITHHOLD AID FOR ANY REASON WITHOUT CONSENT OF CONGRESS. AND NONE OF THAT WAS DONE AND I'M NOT UNDERSTANDING WHY THAT POINT IS BEING MISSED. >> I THINK IT HAS BEEN BROUGHT UP ACTUALLY, DERRICK. I WANT TO POINT YOU BACK TO OUR WEBSITE, C-SPAN.ORG/IMPEACHMENT. WE HAVE HEARD ESPECIALLY DURING THE QUESTIONING OF THE INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE HEARING FROM EVIDENTIARY WITNESSES THERE TALKING ABOUT THE FACT THAT THAT MONEY HAS BEEN APPROPRIATED BY CONGRESS AND HAD BEEN STOPPED AND YOU CAN TAKE A LOOK AT THAT. AGAIN ON OUR WEBSITE, C-SPAN.ORG/IMPEACHMENT. WE WANT TO HEAR IN YOU. JUANITA IS ON THE LINE, LAS VEGAS, NEVADA, REPUBLICAN. GO AHEAD. >> Caller: YES, I'M CALLING FROM LAS VEGAS. IT SEEMS LIKE THE LEFT AND THE RIGHT ARE WATCHING TWO DIFFERENT HEARINGS HERE. BUT MY POINT IS THIS. WHEN PRESIDENT TRUMP WAS ELECTED AND HE TOOK THE OATH OF OFFICE I THINK THE TIMING WAS 20 MINUTES AFTER THE OATH THAT THE DEMOCRATS STARTED TO TALK ABOUT IMPEACHMENT. MAXINE WATERS ON THE TV ALL THE TIME, IMPEACH 45. IMPEACH 45. WHAT WERE THEY GOING TO IMPEACH HIM ON? IF ANY OTHER PERSON IS IN THAT OFFICE, HOW COULD THEY PERFORM LIKE DONALD TRUMP HAS? LOOKING OVER HIS SHOULDER, I CAN'T IMAGINE THE PRESSURE AND THE STRESS THAT HE'S UNDER AND HE STILL KEEPS FIGHTING. I THINK THE DEMOCRATS COULD TAKE A LESSON FROM DONALD TRUMP AND TRY TO BE A PERSON THAT HAS DIGNITY AND IS HONEST. THE REASON HE DID NOT GIVE THE AID TO UKRAINE, THEY WANTED TO FIND OUT ABOUT THE CORRUPTION AND THAT WAS OUR TAX MONEY UP. OUR MONEY HE'D BE GOING TO BE GIVING TO UKRAINE. THAT'S WHAT HE DID. HE DID NO WRONG. BUT THEY CAN'T IMPEACH HIM BECAUSE THEY CAN'T. BUT MY POINT IS THIS. THE AMERICAN PEOPLE BETTER TAKE A LOOK AND SEE WHAT'S HAPPENING. WHY ARE THEY DOING THINGS BEHIND CLOSED DOORS? THIS IS AMERICA. AND THEY'RE SUPPOSED TO BE TRANSPARENT BUT HIDE BEHIND THE CLOSED DOORS THAT'S WRONG AND THE DEMOCRATS NEED TO SHAPE UP. >> I APPRECIATE IT FROM LAS VEGAS. IF YOU'RE WONDERING WHERE THE REST OF THE COUNTRY IS. THE WEBSITE FIVETHIRTYEIGHT, DO AMERICANS SUPPORT IMPEACHING PRESIDENT TRUMP AND A LOOK THERE CURRENTLY, FAIRLY EVENLY DIVIDE. 48.5% SUPPORTING IT, 43.5% DO NOT. LAWMAKERS SAY THEY HAVEN'T BROUGHT UP THE ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT YET. DO NOT KNOW IF THAT WILL HAPPEN IN THE HOUSE. BUT OF COURSE THESE HEARINGS MOVING IN THAT DIRECTION. AND HEARING BEHIND CLOSED DOORS NANCY PELOSI ASKING HER CAUCUS IF THEY WERE READY AND THE RESOUNDING YES COMING FROM DEMOCRATS. ONCE THINGS HAPPEN IN THE HOUSE INCLUDING THE ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT BEING DRAFTED THINGS MOVE ON TO THE SENATE FOR THE ACTUAL TRIAL. IF IT DOES COME TO THAT, WE'LL OF COURSE BRING YOU EVERYTHING HERE ON C-SPAN. WATCHING ON C-SPAN 3 LIVE. IF YOU'RE AWAY FROM YOUR TELEVISION JOIN US AT C-SPAN.ORG AS THE VOTES WRAP UP ON THE HOUSE FLOOR. WE'LL STAY HERE IN THE ROOM. THIS IS THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE MEETING IN THE OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE ROOM. >>> RECOGNIZE GENTLEMAN -- LET ME REPEAT. THE COMMITTEE WILL COME TO ORDER. WHEN WE BROKE FOR RECESS, WE WERE UNDER THE FIVE MINUTE RULE AND I RECOGNIZE MR. SENSENBRENNER FOR FIVE MINUTES. >> THANK YOU VERY MUCH, MR. CHAIRMAN. I'M A VETERAN OF IMPEACHMENTS. I HAVE BEEN NAMED BY THE HOUSE AS AN IMPEACHMENT MANAGER IN FOUR IMPEACHMENTS. CLINTON AND THREE JUDGES. THAT'S MORE THAN ANYBODY ELSE IN HISTORY. AND ONE OF THE THINGS IN EVERY IMPEACHMENT WHETHER IT'S THE ONES THAT I WAS INVOLVED IN OR OTHERS THAT HAVE COME BEFORE THE COMMITTEE WHERE I WAS NOT A MANAGER IS THAT THE DEBATE ON WHAT IS A HIGH CRIME AND MISDEMEANOR AND HOW SERIOUS DOES THAT HAVE TO BE IN ORDER IT FOR IT TO RISE TO A LEVEL OF AN IMPEACHABLE OFFENSE. 50 YEARS AGO THEN REPUBLICAN LEADER GERALD FORD MADE A COMMENT THAT SAYING A HIGH CRIME AND MISDEMEANOR IS ANYTHING A MAJORITY OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES DEEMS IT TO BE ON ANY GIVEN DAY. I DON'T AGREE WITH THAT. YOU KNOW, THAT SETS EITHER A VERY LOW BAR OR A NONEXISTENT BAR. AND IT CERTAINLY WOULD MAKE THE PRESIDENT SERVE AT THE PLEASURE OF THE HOUSE WHICH WAS NOT WHAT THE FRAMERS INTENDED WHEN THEY REJECTED THE BRITISH FORUM OF PARLIAMENTARY DEMOCRACY WHERE THE PRIME MINISTER AND THE GOVERNMENT COULD BE OVERTHRONE BY A MERE VOTE OF NO CONFIDENCE IN THE HOUSE OF COMMONS. SO I'M LOOKING AT WHAT WE'RE FACING HERE. THIS WHOLE INQUIRY WAS STARTED OUT BY A COMMENT THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP MADE TO PRESIDENT ZELENSKY IN THE JULY 25th CALL, QUOTE, DO ME A FAVOR, UNQUOTE. THERE ARE SOME WHO SAID IT'S A QUID PRO QUO, THERE ARE SOME WHO HAVE IMPLIED THAT IT'S A QUID PRO QUO. BUT BOTH TRUMP AND ZELENSKY HAVE SAID IT WASN'T AND ZELENSKY HAS SAID THERE WAS NO PRESSURE ON ME AND THE AID CAME THROUGH WITHIN SIX WEEKS AFTER THE PHONE CALL IN QUESTION WAS MADE. NOW, YOU CAN CONTRAST THAT TO WHERE THERE WAS NO IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY TO VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN WHEN HE WAS GIVEN A SPEECH AND SAID, YOU KNOW, I HELD UP A BILLION DOLLARS WORTH OF AID UNLESS THE PROSECUTOR WAS FIRED WITHIN SIX HOURS. AND SON OF A BLEEP THAT'S WHAT HAPPENED. NOW, YOU KNOW, IT SEEMS TO ME THAT IF YOU'RE LOOKING FOR A QUID PRO QUO AND LOOKING FOR SOMETHING THAT WAS REALLY OVER THE TOP, IT WAS NOT SAYING DO ME A FAVOR. IT WAS SAYING SON OF A BLEEP THAT'S WHAT HAPPENED IN SIX HOURS. NOW, YOU KNOW, THE REPUBLICANS WHO ARE IN CHARGE OF CONGRESS AT THE TIME BIDEN MADE THAT COMMENT, WE DID NOT TIE THE COUNTRY UP FOR THREE MONTHS AND GOING ON FOUR NOW, WRAPPING EVERYBODY IN THIS TOWN AROUND THE AXELROD. WE CONTINUED ATTEMPTING TO DO THE PUBLIC'S BUSINESS. THAT'S NOT WHAT'S HAPPENING HERE. AND I THINK THE AMERICAN PUBLIC ARE GETTING A LITTLE BIT SICK AND TIRED OF IMPEACHMENT, IMPEACHMENT, IMPEACHMENT WHEN THEY KNOW THAT LESS THAN A YEAR FROM NOW THEY WILL BE ABLE TO DETERMINE WHETHER DONALD TRUMP STAYS IN OFFICE OR SOMEBODY ELSE WILL BE ELECTED. AND I TAKE THIS RESPONSIBILITY EXTREMELY SERIOUSLY. YOU KNOW, IT IS AN AWESOME AND VERY GRAVE RESPONSIBILITY. AND IT IS NOT ONE THAT SHOULD BE DONE LIGHTLY. IT IS NOT ONE THAT SHOULD BE DONE QUICKLY AND IT IS NOT WITHOUT EXAMINING ALL OF THE EVIDENCE WHICH IS WHAT WAS DONE IN THE NIXON IMPEACHMENT AND WHAT WAS DONE LARGELY BY KENNETH STARR IN THE CLINTON IMPEACHMENT. NOW, I'D LIKE TO ASK YOU, PROFESSOR TURLEY, BECAUSE YOUR IS ONE OF THE ONLY ONE OF THE FOUR UP THERE THAT DOESN'T SEEM TO HAVE IT MADE BEFORE YOU WALKED INTO THE DOOR. ISN'T THERE A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN SAYING QUOTE DO ME A FAVOR AND QUOTE, SON OF A BLEEP, THAT'S WHAT HAPPENED, IN SIX HOURS' TIME? >> GRAMMATICALLY, YES. CONSTITUTIONALLY IT REALLY DEPENDS ON THE CONTEXT. I THINK YOUR POINT IS A GOOD ONE IN THE SENSE THAT WE HAVE TO DETERMINE FROM THE TRANSCRIPT AND HOPEFULLY FROM OTHER WITNESSES WHETHER THIS STATEMENT WAS PART OF AN ACTUAL QUID PRO QUO. I GUESS THE THRESHOLD QUESTION IS IF THE PRESIDENT SAID IF THE PRESIDENT SAID, I'D LIKE YOU TO DO THESE INVESTIGATIONS. BY THE WAY, I DON'T GROUP THEM TOGETHER IN MY TESTIMONY. I DISTINGUISH BETWEEN THE REQUEST FIREFIGHTER INVESTIGATIONS INTO 2016 FROM THE INVESTIGATION OF THE BIDENS. BUT IT IS AN ISSUE OF ORDER, THE MAGNITUDE OF ORDER CONSTITUTIONALLY IF YOU ASK I'D LIKE YOU TO SEE YOU DO THIS OPPOSED TO I HAVE A A QUID PRO QUO. YOU EITHER DO THIS OR DON'T GET MILITARY AID. >> THANK YOU. >> THE TIME OF THE GENTLEMAN IS EXPIRED. THE GENTLE LADY FROM TEXAS. >> THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN, R FOR YIELDING. IF WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT TODAY IS NOT IMPEACHABLE, THEN NOTHING IS IMPEACHABLE. I'M REMINDED OF MY TIME ON THE HOUSE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE DURING THE 1990s IMPEACHMENT AND A A NUMBER OF FEDERAL JUDGES. S. I WAS GUIDED THEN NOT ONLY BY THE FACTS, BUT BY THE CONSTITUTION AND THE DUTY TO SERVE THIS NATION. I BELIEVE, AS WE GREET YOU TODAY, THAT WE ARE CHARGED WITH A SOBER AND SOMBER RESPONSIBILITY. SO PROFESSOR, I'D LIKE YOU TO LOOK AT THE INTELLIGENCE VOLUME WHERE HUNDREDS OF DOCUMENTS ARE BEHIND THAT. AND THE MUELLER REPORT. YOU STUDIED THE RECORD. TO YOU THINK IT IS, QUOTE, WAFER THIN AND CAN YOU REMARK ON THE STRENGTH OF THE RECORD BEFORE US. >> SO OBVIOUSLY, IT'S NOT WAFER THIN. AND THE STRENGTH OF THE RECORD IS NOT JUST IN THE SEPTEMBER -- I MEAN, THE JULY 25th CALL. I I THINK THE WIT YOU NEED TO ASK THIS IS HOW DOES THAT FIT INTO THE PATTERN OF BEHAVIOR BY THE PRESIDENT. WHAT YOU'RE REALLY DOING IS YOU'RE DRAWING INFERENCES HERE. THIS IS ABOUT CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE AND DID THE PRESIDENT ASK FOR A POLITICAL FAVOR? AND I THINK THIS RECORD SUPPORTS THE INFERENCE THAT HE DID. >> WHAT COMPARISONS, PROFESSOR, CAN WE MAKE BETWEEN THE FRAMERS WERE AFRAID OF. AND THE PRESIDENT'S CONDUCT TODAY. >> SO KINGS COULD DO NO WRONG BECAUSE THE KINGS WORD WAS LAW. AND CONTRARY TO WHAT PRESIDENT TRUMP HAS SAID, ARTICLE 2 DOES NOT GIVE HIM THE POWER TO DO ANYTHING HE WANTS. I'LL JUST GIVE YOU ONE EXAMPLE THAT SHOWS YOU DIFFERENCE BETWEEN HIM AND A KING. WHICH IS THE CONSTITUTION SAYS THERE CAN BE NO TITLES OF NOBILITITY. SO WHILE THE PRESIDENT CAN NAME HIS SON BARREN, HE CAN'T MAKE HIM A BARON. >> THANK YOU. THE FOUNDING FATHER GEORGE MASON ANY MAN BE ABOVE JUSTICE AND ALEXANDER HAMILTON WROTE THAT HIGH CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS MEAN THE ABUSE OR VIOLATION OF PUBLIC TRUST. AS WE MOVE FORWARD, YOU HAVE PREVIOUSLY TESTIFIED THAT THE PRESIDENT HAS ABUSED HIS POWER. IS THAT CORRECT? >> YES, MA'AM. >> WHAT DO YOU THINK IS THE MOST COMPELLING EVIDENCE IN THIS IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY THAT WOULD LEAD YOU TO THAT? >> THE PHONE CALL ITSELF OF JULY 25th IS EXTRAORDINARILY CLEAR TO MY MIND IN THAT WE HEAR THE PRESIDENT ASKING FOR A FAVOR THAT'S CLEARLY OF PERSONAL BENEFIT RATHER THAN ACTING ON BEHALF OF THE INTEREST OF THE NATION. AND THEN FURTHER FROM THAT, FURTHER DOWN THE ROAD, WE HAVE MORE EVIDENCE, WHICH TENDS TO GIVE THE CONTEXT AND TO SUPPORT THE EXPLANATION OF WHAT HAPPENED. >> PROFESSOR, HOW DOES SUCH ABUSE AFFECT OUR DEMOCRATIC SYSTEMS? >> HAVING FOREIGN INTERFERENCE IN OUR ELECTION MEANS WE ARE LESS FREE. THAT PEOPLE ARE DETERMINING ON A FOREIGN GOVERNMENT. IT'S FAIR TO SAY THE PRESIDENT'S ACTIONS ARE UNPRESS DEPENDENTED. BUT WHAT A ALSO STRIKES ME IS IS IS HOW MANY REPUBLICANS AND DEMOCRATS BELIEVE THAT HIS CONDUCT WAS WRONG. >> IS IT IMPROPER FOR THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES? >> LISTEN TO THE COLONEL. >> IT IS IMPROPER FOR THE PRESIDENT OF UNITED STATES TO DEMAND A FOREIGN GOVERNMENT TO INVESTIGATE THE U.S. CITIZEN AND A POLITICAL OPPONENT. >> IN LIGHT OF THE FACT THAT THE PRESIDENT ASKED FOR AN INVESTIGATION AND THEN ONLY WHEN HE WAS CAUGHT RELEASED THE MILITARY AID, IS IS THERE STILL A NEED FOR IMPEACHMENT? >> YES, MA'AM. IMPEACHMENT IS COMPLETE WHEN THE PRESIDENT ABUSES HIS OFFICE AND HE ABUSES HIS OFFICE BY ATTEMPTING TO ABUSE HIS OFFICE. THERE'S NO DISTINCTION THERE BETWEEN TRYING TO DO IT AND SUCCEEDING IN DOING IT AND THAT'S ESPECIALLY TRUE IF YOU ONLY STOP BECAUSE YOU GOT CAUGHT. >> OVER 70% OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE BELIEVE, AS US SAID, THAT THE PRESIDENT WHAT THE DID WAS WRONG. WE HAVE A SOLEMN RESPONSIBILITY TO ADDRESS THAT. AND AS WELL OUR FIDELITY TO OUR OATH AND OUR DUTY. REMINDED OF THE MEN AND WOMEN WHO SERVE IN THE UNITED STATES MILITARY. AND I'M REMINDED OF MY THREE UNCLES WHO SERVED IN WORLD WAR II. I CAN'T IMAGINE THEM BEING ON THE BATTLEFIELD, NEEDING ARMS AND FOOD, AND THE GENERAL SAYS, DO ME A A FAVOR. WE KNOW THAT GENERAL WOULD NOT SAY DO ME A FAVOR. SO IN THIS INSTANCE, THE AMERICAN PEOPLE DESERVE UNFEDDERED LEADERSHIP AND IT IS OUR DUTY TO FAIRLY ASSESS THE FACTS AND THE CONSTITUTION. I YIELD BACK MY TIME. >> THE GENTLE LADY YIELDS BACK. >> THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN. IT'S PRETTY CLEAR TO ME THAT NO MATTER WHAT QUESTIONS WE SEE FOR THE WITNESSES HERE TODAY AND NO MATTER WHAT THEIR ANSWERS ARE, THAT MOST, IF NOT ALL OF DEMOCRATS ON THIS COMMITTEE ARE GOING TO VOTE TO UM PEACH PRESIDENT TRUMP. THAT'S WHAT THEIR HARD CORE TRUMP-HATING BASE WANTS AND THEY HAVE WANTED THAT SINCE THE PRESIDENT WAS ELECTED THREE YEARS AGO. IN FACT, WHEN DEMOCRATS TOOK OVER THE HOUSE, ONEOVER THE FIRST THINGS THEY DID WAS INTRODUCE ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT AGAINST PRESIDENT TRUMP. THAT WAS WAY BEFORE PRESIDENT TRUMP AND THE UKRAINIAN PRESIDENT ZELENSKY EVER HAD THEIR FAMOUS PHONE CALL. WHETHER IT WAS PERFECT OR NOT. NOW TODAY WE'RE UNDERTAKING A LARGELY ACADEMIC EXERCISE INSTEAD OF HEARING FROM FACT WITNESSES LIKE ADAM SCHIFF OR HUNTER BIDEN, WE'RE NOT BEING PERMITTED TO CALL THOSE WITNESSES. IT WOULD SEEM SINCE SCHIFF MISLED THE AMERICAN PEOPLE ON MULTIPLE OCCASIONS, COMMON SENSE AND BASIC FAIRNESS WOULD CALL R FOR SCHIFF TO BE QUESTIONED ABOUT THOSE THINGS, BUT WE CAN'T. MR. CHAIRMAN, BECOME IN 1998, WHEN ANOTHER PRESIDENT, BILL CLINTON, WAS BEING CONSIDERED FOR IMPEACHMENT, YOU SAID, AND I QUOTE, WE MUST NOT OVERTURN AN ELECTION AND IMPEACH A THE PRESIDENT WITHOUT AN OVERWHELMING CONSENSUS OF THE MIRN PEOPLE AND THE REPRESENTATIVES IN CONGRESS. YOU ALSO SAID, QUOTE, THERE MUST NEVER BE A NARROWLY VOTE IMPEACHMENT OR IMPEACHMENT SUBSTANTIALLY SUPPORTED BY ONE OF THE MAJOR POLITICAL PARTIES AND LARGELY OPPOSED BY THE OTHER. YOU SAID SUCH AN IMPEACHMENT WOULD LACK LEGITIMACY, WOULD PRODUCE DIVISIVENESS IN OUR POLITICS FOR YEARS TO COME. AND THERE'S NO DOUBT THAT IT WILL BE PERCEIVED BY HALF OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE AS UNFAIR AND PARTISAN EFFORT. YOU SEEM BOUND AND DETERMINED TO MOVE FORWARD WITH THIS IMPEACHMENT AND THE AMERICAN PEOPLE DESERVE BETTER. I GET IT. DEMOCRATS ON THIS COMMITTEE DON'T LIKE THIS PRESIDENT. THEY DON'T LIKE HIS POLICIES. THEY DON'T LIKE HIM AS A A PERSON. THEY HATE HIS TWEETS. THEY DON'T LIKE THE FACT THAT THE MUELLER INVESTIGATION WAS A FLOP. SO NOW YOU'RE GOING TO IMPEACH HIM. I GOT NEWS FOR YOU. YOU MAY BE ABLE TO TWIST ENOUGH ARMS IN THE HOUSE TO IMPEACH THE PRESIDENT, BUT THAT EFFORT IS GOING TO DIE IN THE SENATE. THE PRESIDENT IS GOING TO SERVE OUT HIS TERM IN OFFICE AND BE REELECTED TO A SECOND TERM PROBABLY WITH THE HELP OF THIS VERY IMPEACHMENT SHH RAID WE'RE GOING THROUGH NOW. WHILE YOU'RE WASTING SO MUCH OF CONGRESS'S TIME AND THE AMERICAN PEOPLE'S MONEY ON THIS IMPEACHMENT, THERE'S SO MANY OTHER IMPORTANT THINGS THAT ARE GOING UNDONE. WITHIN THIS COMMITTEE'S OWN JURISDICTION, WE SHOULD BE ADDRESSING THE OPIOID EPIDEMIC. WE COULD BE WORKING TOGETHER TO FIND A SOLUTION TO THE IMMIGRATION CHALLENGES ON THE SOUTHERN BORDER. WE COULD BE PROTECTING AMERICANS FROM INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY STOLEN BY CHINESE COMPANIES AND ENHANCING ELECTION SECURITY JUST TO NAME A FEW THINGS. AND CONGRESS AS A WHOLE COULD BE WORKING ON REBUILDING THE CRUMBLING INFRASTRUCTURE, PROVIDING TAX RELIEF TO THE NATION'S MIDDLE-CLASS FAMILIES AND PROVIDING ADDITIONAL SECURITY TO PEOPLE HERE AT HOME AND ABROAD. INSTEAD, HERE WE ARE SPINNING OUR WHEELS, ONCE AGAIN, ON IMPEACHMENT. WHAT A WASTE. THE AMERICAN PEOPLE DESERVE SO MUCH BETTER. I YIELD BACK. >> THE GENTLEMAN YIELDS BACK. >> I TAKE NO PLEASURE IN THE FACT THAT WE'RE HERE TODAY. AS A PATRIOT THAT LOVES AMERICA, IT PAINS ME THAT THE CIRCUMSTANCES FORCE US TO UNDERTAKE THIS GRAVE AND SOLEMN OBLIGATION. NONETHELESS, SIMPLY ON THE PUBLICLY AVAILABLE EVIDENCE, IT APPEARS THE PRESIDENT TRUMP PRESSURED A A FOREIGN FWOFT TO INTERFERE IN OUR ELECTIONS BY INVESTIGATING HIS PERCEIVED CHIEF POLITICAL POINT. TODAY WE'RE HERE TO UPHOLD OUR OATH TO DEFEND THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES FURTHERING OUR UNDERSTANDING WHETHER THE PRESIDENT'S CONDUCT IS IMPEACHABLE. AS IT RELATES TO PRESIDENTIAL IMPEACHMENT. THE FRAMERS OF THE CONSTITUTION FEARED FOR AN INTERFERENCE IN THE SOVEREIGNTY. THEY WANTED TO ENSURE THERE WOULD BE A CHECK AND BALANCE ON THE EXECUTIVE. WE SIT HERE WITH A DUTY TO THE FOUNDERS TO FULFILL THEIR WISDOM AND BE A CHECK ON THE EXECUTIVE. WE THE PEOPLE'S HOUSE ARE THAT CHECK. UNDER OUR CONSTITUTION, THE HOUSE CAN IMPEACH A A PRESIDENT FOR TREASON, BRIBERY OR OTHER HIGH CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS. YOU HAVE DISCUSSED HIGH CRIMES MISDEMEANORS. IT REFERS TO CRIMES. CAN YOU JUST GIVE US A LITTLE PITH OF A SUMMARY OF WHAT HIGH CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS ARE AND HOW THEY ARE DISTINCT FROM WHAT PROFESSOR SAID THEY WERE. >> YES, SIR, HIGH CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS ARE ACTIONS OF THE PRESIDENT IN OFFICE WHERE HE USES HIS OFFICE TO ADVANCE HIS PERSONAL INTERESTS, POTENTIALLY FOR PERSONAL GAIN, POTENTIALLY TO CORRUPT THE ELECTORAL PROCESS AND POTENTIALLY AS WELL AS AGAINST THE NATIONAL SECURITY INTERESTS OF THE UNITED STATES. I WOULD ADD THAT THE WORD HIGH MODIFY CRIMES AND MISDEMEANOR. THE FRAMERS KNEW OF BOTH HIGH CRIMES AND HIGH MISDEMEANORS. AND I BELIEVE THAT THE DEFINITION THAT WAS POSTED EARLIER OF MISDEMEANOR WAS NOT THE DEFINITION OF HIGH MISDEMEANOR, WHICH WAS A A SPECIFIC TERM UNDERSTOOD BY THE FRAMERS AND DISCUSSED IN THE CONSTITUTIONAL COB VENGS. BUT ONLY OF THE WORD MISDEMEANOR. THAT'S AN EASY MISTAKE TO MAKE, BUT THE TRUTH IS THE HIGH MISDEMEANORS WERE THEIR OWN CATEGORY OF ABUSES OF OFFICE. THOSE ARE THE THINGS THAT ARE IMPEACHABLE. >> THANK YOU, PROFESSOR. YOU HAVE FOUND IT IMPLICATES THREE CATEGORIES OF HIGH CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS. ABUSE OF POWER, BETRAYAL OF THE NATIONAL INTEREST, AND CORRUPTION OF ELECTIONS. IS THAT RIGHT? >> YES, IT IS. >> AND PROFESSOR FELDMAN? >> YES, SIR. >> YOU STATED THAT THE ESSENCE OF AN IMPEACHABLE OFFENSE IS THE DECISION TO SACRIFICE THE NATIONAL INTEREST FOR HIS OWN PRIVATE ENDS. DO Y'ALL AGREE WITH THAT? >> YES, SIR. HAS PRESIDENT TRUMP SACRIFICED THE INTERESTS OF HIS OWN? >> YES, HE HAS. >> IS THERE A PARTICULAR PIECE OEFD THAT ILLUMINATES THAT? >> I THINK WHAT ILLUMINATES THAT MOST FOR ME IS THE STATEMENT BY AMBASSADOR SONDLAND THAT HE WANTED SIMPLY THE ANNOUNCEMENT OF AN INVESTIGATION. AND SEVERAL OTHER PEOPLE SAID EXACTLY THE SAME THING. THERE'S TESTIMONY BY AMBASSADOR VOLKER AS WELL. WHAT HE WANTED WAS SIMPLY PUBLIC INFORMATION TO DAMAGE JOE BIDEN. HE DIDN'T CARE WHETHER HE WAS FOUND GUILTY OR EXONERATED. >> PROFESSOR FELDMAN, DO YOU AGREE OR DO YOU HAVE A DIFFERENT? >> MY EMPHASIS WOULD BE ON THE FACT THAT THE PRESIDENT HELD UP AID TO AN ALLY THAT'S FIGHTING A WAR IN DIRECT CONTRA VENGS OF THE UNANIMOUS RECOMMENDATION OF THE NATIONAL SECURITY COMMUNITY. THAT HAS PLACED HIS OWN INTERESTS IN PERSONAL ADVANTAGE AHEAD OF THE INTERESTS OF THE NATION. >> AND A A BILL PASS BID CONGRESS. >> YES, SIR. >> I AGREE WITH WHAT MY COLLEAGUES I HAVE SAID. I WOULD ADD I'M VERY CONCERNED ABOUT THE PRESIDENT'S OBSTRUCTION OF CONGRESS. OBSTRUCTION OF THIS INQUIRY, REFUSAL TO COMPLY WITH A NUMBER OF SUBPOENAS, ORDERING MANY HIGH LEVEL OF OFFICIALS NOT TO COMPLY WITH SUBPOENAS LEVEL OF OFFICIALS NOT TO COMPLY WITH UBPOENAS. AND ORDERING THE ENTIRE EXECUTIVE BRANCH NOT TO COOPERATE WITH CONGRESS. IT'S USEFUL TO REMEMBER THE CONSTITUTION SAYS THE HOUSE HAS THE SOLE POWER TO IMPEACH. THE CONSTITUTION ONLY USES THE WORD SOLE TWICE. ONCE WITH REFERENCE TO THE HOUSE IN THIS AREA, ONCE WITH REFERENCE TO THE SENATE WITH RESPECT TO IMPEACHMENT TRIAL. SOLE MEANS ONLY. THIS IS YOUR DECISION. >> LET ME GET THE PROFESSOR INTO THIS. YOU'RE A SELF-ANOINTED DEFENDER OF ARTICLE 1 OF CONGRESS. BUT YOU JUSTIFY A POSITION THAT SAYS LEGALLY ISSUED SUBPOENAS BY CONGRESS ENFORCING ITS POWERS DON'T HAVE TO BE COMPLIED BY. YOU'RE AN ARTICLE 2 EXECUTIVE GUY. AND YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT THE JOHNSON IMPEACHMENT IS NOT VERY USEFUL. THAT WAS MALL ADMINISTRATION. THIS IS A CRIMINAL ACT. THANK YOU, PROFESSORS, FOR EPING US UNDERSTAND. WE THE PEOPLE ARE CUSTODIANS OF THIS COUNTRY. WE HAVE A HIGH RESPONSIBILITY TO CONTROL CHARGES WITH THE SOLE POWER TO HOLD THE CONSTITUTION AND DEFEND OUR DEMOCRACY. WE SHALL DO THAT. >> THE GENTLEMAN'S TIME IS EXPIRED. >> THANK YOU. I'M AFRAID THIS HEARING IS INDICATIVE OF THE INDECENCY TO WHICH WE COME WHEN INSTEAD OF THE COMMITTEE OF JURISDICTION BRINGING IN FACT WITNESSES TO GET TO THE BOTTOM OF WHAT HAPPENED. AND NOT EVEN HAVING TIME TO REVIEW THE REPORT, WHICH AS THE PROFESSOR INDICATED IS WAFER THIN WHEN COMPARED TO THE 36 BOXES OF DOCUMENTS THAT WERE DELIVERED TO THE LAST IMPEACHMENT GROUP. BUT THEN TO START THIS HEARING WITH THE CHAIRMAN OF THE COMMITTEE SAYING THAT THE FACTS ARE U.N. DISPUTED, THE ONLY THING THAT IT IS DISPUTED MORE THAN THE FACTS IN THIS CASE IS THE STATEMENT THAT THE FACTS ARE UNDIES PUTED. THEY ARE ABSOLUTELY DISPUTED AND THE EVIDENCE IS A BUNCH OF HEARSAY ON HEARSAY THAT IF ANYBODY HERE HAD TRIED CASES BEFORE OF ENOUGH MAGNITUDE, YOU WOULD KNOW YOU CAN'T RELY ON HEARSAY ON HEARSAY, BUT WE HAVE EXPERTS WHO KNOW BETTER THAN THE ACCUMULATED EXPERIENCE OF THE AGES. SO HERE WE ARE. I WOULD SUBMIT WE NEED SOME FACTUAL WITNESSES. WE DO NOT NEED TO RECEIVE A REPORT THAT WE DON'T HAVE A CHANCE TO READ BEFORE THIS HEARING. WE NEED A CHANCE TO BRING IN ACTUAL FACT WITNESSES. THERE'S A COUPLE I COULD NAME THAT ARE CRITICAL TO US GETTING TO THE BOTTOM. THEY WORK FOR THE NATIONAL SECURITY COUNCIL. THEY WERE INVOLVED IN THE UKRAINE AFFAIRS AND THEY WORKED WITH VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN ON DIFFERENT MATTERS INVOLVING UKRAINE. IT WAS CRITICAL INFORMATION ABOUT UKRAINES INVOLVEMENT IN OUR U.S. ELECTION. THE RELATIONSHIPS WITH THE WITNESS WHO IS WENT BEFORE THE INTEL COMMITTEE AND OTHERS INVOLVED IN THESE ALLEGATIONS. MAKES HIM THE MOST CRITICAL WITNESSES IN THIS ENTIRE INVESTIGATION. AND THE RECORDS INCLUDING THEIR E-MAILS AND TEXT MESSAGES, FLASH DRIVES OR COMPUTERS HAVE INFORMATION THAT WILL BRING THIS EFFORT TO REMOVE THE PRESIDENT TO A SCREECHING HALT. IT POINTS OUT THAT HOUSE INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN ADAM SCHIFF RECRUITED TWO FORMER NATIONAL SECURITY COUNCIL AIDS WHO WORKED ALONGSIDE THE WHISTLEBLOWER AT THE NSC DURING THE OBAMA AND TRUMP ADMINISTRATIONS. ABIGAIL GRACE, WHO WORKED UNTIL 2018 WAS HIRED IN FEBRUARY WHILE UNTIL 2017 JOINED SCHIFF'S COMMITTEE IN AUGUST. THE SAME MONTH THE WHISTLEBLOWER SUBMITTED HIS COMPLAINT. AND IT GOES ON B TO POINT OUT THAT GRACE WAS HIRED TO HELP SCHIFF'S COMMITTEE INVESTIGATE THE TRUMP WHITE HOUSE. THAT MONTH TRUMP ACCUSED SCHIFF OF STEALING PEOPLE WORKING AT THE WHITE HOUSE. AND CHAIRMAN SCHIFF SAID IF THE THEY ARE WORRIED, HE SHOULD WORK ON BEING A BETTER EMPLOYER. NO, HE SHOULD HAVE FIRED EVERYBODY JUST LIKE BILL CLINTON DID, ALL THE U.S. ATTORNEYS ON THE SAME DAY. THAT WOULD HAVE SAVED US A LOT OF WHAT'S GOING ON HERE. SO WE NEED THOSE TWO WITNESSES. THEY ARE CRITICAL. AND THEN WE ALSO NEED SOMEONE WHO WAS A CIA DETAIL TO UKRAINE. STATE DEPARTMENT SHOWS THAT IT WAS A STATE LUNCHEON. IT WAS RAMIFICATIONS IN THE LAST ELECTIONS. HE SPEAKS ARABIC AND RUSSIAN. REPORTED TO A FRIEND OF THE CLINTON'S AIDS CHOSE TO CONTINUOUS CONTACT WITH THE FBI'S STATE UKRAINIAN B OFFICIALS. AHEAD OF VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN. HE WAS OBAMA'S POINT MAN ON UKRAINE. HE WAS ASSOCIATED WITH DNC ON RATIVE. MET WITH HER NOVEMBER 9th, 2015. AND THERE'S ALL KINDS OF REASONS WE NEED THESE THREE WITNESSES. AND I WOULD ASK PURSUANT TO ZX FOUR HOUSE RESOLUTION 669 ASK OUR CHAIRMAN -- OUR RANKING MEMBER TO SUBMIT THE REQUEST FOR THESE THREE WITNESSES BECAUSE WE'RE NOT HAVING A FACTUAL HEARING UNTIL WE HAVE THESE PEOPLE THAT ARE AT THE BOTTOM OF EVERY FACT OF THIS INVESTIGATION. I YIELD BACK. >> GENTLEMAN YIELDS BACK. MR. JOHNSON? >> THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN. THE PRESIDENT HAS REGULARLY AND RECENTLY SOLICITED FOREIGN INTERFERENCE IN OUR UPCOMING ELECTIONS. AND SUGGESTS THAT THE HOUSE SHOULD PAUSE. PROFESSOR, DO YOU AGREE? >> NO, IF YOU CONCLUDE THAT, AS I THINK THE EVIDENCE TO THIS POINT SHOWS, THAT THE PRESIDENT IS SOLICITING FOREIGN INVOLVEMENT IN OUR ELECTION, YOU NEED TO ACT NOW TO PREVENT FOREIGN INTERFERENCE IN THE NEXT ELECTION LIKE THE ONE WE HAVE IN THE PAST. >> THANK YOU. IN 30 SECONDS OR LESS, TELL US WHY YOU BELIEVE THE PRESIDENT'S MISCONDUCT WAS AN ABUSE OF POWER SO EGREGIOUS THAT IT MERITS THE DRASTIC REMEDY OF IMPEACHMENT. >> HE INVITED THE RUSSIANS TO OUR ADVERSARIES INTO THE PROCESS. THE LAST TIME AROUND BECAUSE HE HAS INVITED THE UKRAINIANS INTO THE PROCESS AND HE'S SUGGESTED HE WOULD LIKE THE CHINESE TO COME TO THE PROCESS AS WELL. >> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. ONE OF THE FRAMERS OF THE CONSTITUTION WHO AT ONE TIME WAS MAYOR OF WILLIAMSBURG, VIRGINIA, WARNED US THAT, QUOTE, THE EXECUTIVE WILL HAVE GREAT OPPORTUNITY OF ABUSING HIS POWER. PEOPLE LIKE THE MAYOR REBELLED BECAUSE OF THE TYRANNY OF A KING. WHY WOULD THE FRAMERS SO CAREFUL TO AVOID THE POTENTIAL FOR A PRESIDENT TO BECOME SO TIER RAN CALL AND ABUSIVE AND WHAT DID THEY DO TO PROTECT AGAINST IT? >> THE FRAMERS BELIEVED VERY STRONGLY THAT THE PEOPLE WERE THE KING. THE PEOPLE WERE SOVEREIGN. THAT MEANT THE PRESIDENT WORKED FOR SOMEBODY. HE WORKED FOR THE PEOPLE. THEY KNEW THAT THE PRESIDENT WHO COULDN'T BE CHECKED, WHO COULD NOT BE SUPERVISED BY HIS OWN JUSTICE DEPARTMENT AND WHO COULD NOT BE SUPERVISED BY CONGRESS WOULD EFFECTIVELY BE ABOVE THE LAW AND USE HIS POWER TO GET HIMSELF REELECTED. THAT'S WHY THEY CREATED THE IMPEACHMENT REMEDY. >> THANK YOU. I NOW WANT TO DISCUSS HOW THE FRAMERS CASE OF PUZ OF POWER RELATE TO PRESIDENT TRUMP'S MISCONDUCT. ON JULY 259, HE SAID TO PRESIDENT ZELENSKY, I WOULD LIKE YOU TO DO US A A FAVOR, THOUGH. PROFESSOR FELDMAN, WHEN PRESIDENT TRUMP MADE USE OF THE WORDS FAVOR, DO YOU THINK HE WAS ASKING FOR A FAVOR AND HOW IS THE ANSWER TO THAT QUESTION RELEVANT TO WHETHER THE PRESIDENT ABUSED HIS POWER. >> IT'S RELEVANT BECAUSE THERE'S NOTHING WRONG WITH SOMEONE ASKING FOR A FAVOR IN THE INTEREST OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. THE PROBLEM IS FOR THE PRESIDENT TO USE HIS OFFICE TO SOLICIT OR DEMAND FAVOR FOR HIS PERSONAL BENEFIT. AND THE EVIDENCE STRONGLY SUGGESTS THAT GIVEN THE POWER OF THE PRESIDENT AND GIVEN THE INCENTIVES CREATED FOR UKRAINE COMPLY WITH HIS REQUESTS, HE WAS SEEKING TO HIS OWN PERSONAL BENEFIT AND INTEREST. THAT'S THE DEFINITION OF INTERRUPTION UNDER THE CONSTITUTION. >> ALSO WITNESSED HAVE ALSO TESTIFIED IT WAS THEIR IMPRESSION WHEN PRESIDENT TRUMP SAID I WOULD LIKE YOU TO DO US A FAVOR, HE WAS MAKING A DEMAND AND NOT A REQUEST. PROFESSOR, HOW VIND MINNESOTA'S STATEMENT WAS A TAND BECAUSE OF THE POWER DISPARITY BETWEEN THE TWO COUNTRIES RELATE BACK TO OUR R FRAMERS CONCERNS ABOUT THE PRESIDENT'S POUZ OF POWER. >> YOU HAVE TO UNDERSTAND THAT THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES HAS SO MUCH MORE POWER THAN THE PRESIDENT OF UKRAINE. WHEN THE PRESIDENT USES THE WORD FAVOR, THE REALITY IS THAT HE'S APPLYING TREMENDOUS PRESSURE. THE PRESSURE OF THE POWER OF THE UNITED STATES. AND THAT RELTS TO THE CONSTITUTIONAL ABUSE OF OFFICE. IF SOMEONE OTHER THAN THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES ASKED THE TO DO TO DO A FAVOR. HE COULD SAY NO. WHEN THE PRESIDENT USES THE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENCY TO ASK FOR A FAVOR, THERE'S SIMPLY NO WAY FOR UKRAINE TO REFOUZ. SGLE WE LS HEARD HE WITHHELD MILITARY AID TO FURTHER PRESSURE UKRAINE TO ANNOUNCE INVESTIGATIONS OF BROOIDEN AND THE 2016 ELECTION. IS THAT YOUR TESTIMONY CONDITION COLLUDED THAT THE PRESIDENT ABUSED HIS POWER? >> I THOUGHT THE PRESIDENT ABUSED HIS POWER BY ASKING FOR A CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION OF THE UNITED STATES CITIZEN FOR POLITICAL ENDS REGARDLESS OF EVERYTHING ELSE. THAT'S AN AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCE. >> THANK YOU. A PRESIDENT HOLDING AN AMERICAN ALLY OVER A BARREL TO EXTRACT PERSONAL FAVORS IS DEEPLY TROUBLING. THIS IS NOT AN IMPULSE BUY MOMENT. IT'S A BREAK THE GLASS MOMENT. IMPEACHMENT IS THE ONLY APPROPRIATE REMEDY. WITH THAT, I WILL YIELD BACK. >> THE GENTLEMAN YIELDS BACK. MR. JORDAN. >> THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN. BEFORE SPEAKER PELOSI ANNOUNCED THE IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY TEN WEEKS AGO ON SEPTEMBER 24th, BEFORE THE CALL BETWEEN PRESIDENT TRUMP AND PRESIDENT ZELENSKY ON JULY 25th, BEFORE THE MUELLER HEARING IN FRONT OF THIS COMMITTEE ON JULY 24th. BEFORE ALL THAT, 16 OF THEM HAD ALREADY VOTED TO MOVE FORWARD ON IMPEACHMENT. 16 DEMOCRATS ON THE JUDICIARY HEARING COMMITTEE VOTED TO MOVE FORWARD ON IMPEACHMENT. YET TODAY, WE'RE TALKING ABOUT WHETHER THE POSITIONS THEY HAVE ALREADY TAKEN A ARE CONSTITUTIONAL? IT SEEMS A LITTLE BACK WARD TO ME. WE GOT FOUR DEMOCRATS OR FOUR PEOPLE VOTED FOR CLINTON. THEYEN CAN'T AGREE. YET TODAY WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THE CONSTITUTION. PROFESSOR, YOU HAVE BEEN GREAT TODAY, BUT I THINK YOU'RE WRONG ON ONE THING. YOU SAID THIS IS A FAST IMPEACHMENT. I WOULD ARGUE IT'S A PREDETERMINED IMPEACHMENT. IT'S DONE IN THE MOST UNB FAIR FASHION WE HAVE EVER SEEN. SNO SUBPOENA POWER FOR REPUBLICANS. DEPOSITIONS DONE IN SECRET IN THE BUNKER AND BASEMENT OF THE CAPITAL. 17 PEOPLE COME IN FOR DEPOSITIONS. NO ONE CAN BE IN THERE EXCEPT A HANDFUL OF FOLKS THAT ADAM SCHIFF ALLOWED. IN THOSE DEPOSITIONS, THE CHAIRMAN PREVENTED WITNESSES FROM ANSWERING REPUBLICAN QUESTIONS. CATS DENIED REPUBLICANS THE WITNESS IN THE OPEN HEARINGS THAT TOOK PLACE THREE WEEKS AGO. AND DEMOCRATS PROMISED US THE WHISTLEBLOWER WOULD TESTIFY AND THEN CHANGED THEIR MIND. THEY CHANGED THEIR MIND WHY? BECAUSE THE WHOLE WORLD DISCOVERED THAT ADAM SCHIFF'S STAFF HAD TALKED TO THE WHISTLEBLOWER, COORDINATED WITH THE WHISTLEBLOWER. THE WHISTLEBLOWER WOULD KNOW FIRSTHAND KNOWLEDGE, BIAS AGAINST THE PRESIDENT, WHOSE LAWYER IN JANUARY SAID THE IMPEACHMENT PROCESS STARTS THEN. THAT'S THE UNFAIR PROCESS WE HAVE BEEN THROUGH. THE REASON IT'S BEEN UNFAIR, LET ME CUT TO THE CHASE. THE FACTS AREN'T ON THEIR SIDE. THE FACTS ARE ON THE PRESIDENT'S SIDE. IT WILL NOT CHANGE. WILL NEVER CHANGE. WE HAVE THE TRANSCRIPT. THERE WAS NO QUID PRO QUO ON THE TRANSCRIPT. THE TWO GUYS ON THE CALL BOTH SAID NO PRESSURE, NO PUSHING, NO QUID PRO QUO. THEY DIDN'T KNOW THE AID WAS HELD UP AT THE TIME OF THE PHONE CALL AND MOST IMPORTANT, UKRAINIANS NEVER STARTED, NEVER PROMISED TO START AND NEVER ANNOUNCED AN INVESTIGATION IN THE TIME THE AID WAS PAUSED. YOU KNOW WHAT DID HAPPEN IN THOSE 55 DAYS THAT THE AID WAS PAUSED? THERE WERE FIVE KEY MEETINGS BETWEEN PRESIDENT ZELENSKY AND SENIOR OFFICIALS IN OUR GOVERNMENT AND THE CALL ON JULY 25th. THE VERY NEXT DAY. WE THEN HAD BOLTON END OF AUGUST MEET WITH PRESIDENT ZELENSKY. REPUBLICAN AND MORE IMPORTANTLY DEMOCRATIC SENATOR MURPHY WITH REPUBLICAN SENATOR JOHNSON MEET WITH PRESIDENT SETH LENT B SKIT ON SEPTEMBER 5th. NONE OF THOSE FIVE MEETINGS WAS AID EVER DISCUSSED IN EXCHANGE FOR AN ANNOUNCEMENT OF AN INVESTIGATION INTO ANYBODY. NOT ONE OF THEM. AND YOU'D THINK THE LAST TWO AFTER THE UKRAINIANS DID KNOW THE AID WAS BEING HELD, YOU'D THINK IT WOULD COME UP THEN. PARTICULARLY THE ONE WHERE THEY GHOT SENATOR MURPHY TALKING ABOUT IT. NEVER CAME UP. THE FACTS ARE ON THE PRESIDENT'S SIDE. WE HAVE AN UNFAIR PROCESS BECAUSE THEY DON'T HAVE THE FACTS. WE HAVE AN UNFAIR PROCESS. THIS GETS TO SOMETHING ELSE YOU SAID. HOW THAT WAS SO WELL SAID. THIS IS SCARY. THE DEMOCRATS HAVE NEVER ACCEPTED THE WILL OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE. 1 DAYS AGO, 17 DAYS AGO THE SPEAKER OF THE UNITED STATES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES CALLED THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES AN IMPOSTER. 63 MILLION AMERICANS VOTED FOR WHO WON AN ELECTORAL COLLEGE LANDSLIDE, THE SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES CALLED THAT INDIVIDUAL AN IMPOSTER. THAT'S NOT HEALTHY FOR OUR COUNTRY. THIS IS NOT HEALTHY. THE FACTS ARE THE FACTS THEY ARE ON THE PRESIDENT'S SIDE. THAT'S WHAT WE NEED TO FOCUS ON. NOT SOME CONSTITUTIONAL HEARING AT THE END OF THE PROCESS WHEN YOU HAVE ALREADY TERMED WHERE YOU'RE GOING TO GO. THAT, I YIELD BACK. >> THE GENTLEMAN YIELDS BACK. MR. DEUTSCHE. >> THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN. MR. CHAIRMAN, THIS MONTH WE COMMEMORATE THE BATTLE OF THE BULGE. MY LATE FATHER AND STAFF R SERGEANT RECEIVED A PURPLE HEART FIGHTING IN THE FRIGID AREA. HE GAVE BLOOD AMONG TENS OF THOUSANDS OF AMERICANS. THEY SERVED UNDER OFFICERS AND A COMMANDER-IN-CHIEF WORP NOT FIGHTING A WAR FOR THEIR OWN PERSONAL BENEFIT. THEY PUT COUNTRY FIRST. THEY MADE THE SAME SOLEMN PROMISE THAT MEMBERS OF CONGRESS AND THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES MAKE. TO ALWAYS PUT NATIONAL INTEREST ABOVE THEIR OWN PERSONAL INTEREST. THE EVIDENCE SHOWS THAT THE PRESIDENT BROKE THAT PROMISE. THE CONSTITUTION GIVES THE PRESIDENT ENORMOUS POWER. BUT IT ALSO IMPOSES A REMEDY, IMPEACHMENT, WHEN THOSE POWERS ARE ABUSED. IN JULY PRESIDENT TRUMP SAID, AND I QUOTE, I HAVE AN ARTICLE 2. WHERE I HAVE THE RIGHT TO DO WHATEVER I WANT. THAT'S THE PRESIDENT, CLOSED QUOTE. THE PRESIDENT HAS BROAD POWERS INCLUDING FOREIGN POLICY. ISN'T THAT RIGHT? >> YES, SIR. >> DO THOSE POWERS MEAN THAT THE PRESIDENT CAN DO WHATEVER HE WANTS? CAN HE ABUSE THE POWERS OF THE CONSTITUTION GIVES HIM? >> HE MAY NOT. IF THE PRESIDENT USES THE POWERS THAT HE'S GIVEN FOR PERSONAL GAIN OR CORRUPT AN ELECTION OR AGAINST THE NATIONAL SECURITY INTEREST OF THE UNITED STATES, HE MAY BE IMPEACHED FOR A HIGH CRIME. >> IS HE USING HIS POWER TO PRESSURE UKRAINE TO INTERFERE IN U.S. ELECTIONS? >> YES, SIR. >> HOW WOULD THE FRAMERS ASK FOR ELECTION INTERFERENCE FROM A FOREIGN LEADER? >> IT'S PRACTICALLY IMPOSSIBLE TO KNOW EXACTLY WHAT THE FRAMERS WOULD THINK, BUT IT'S NOT HARD TO IMAGINE HOW THE CONSTITUTION DEALS WITH IT. THAT'S THEIR LEGACY TO US. UNDER THE CONSTITUTION, IT'S PLAINLY AN ABUSE OF POWER. SO RATHER HORRIFYING ABUSE OF POWER. >> WE HAVE HEARD WITNESSES OVER THE PAST SEVERAL WEEKS TESTIFY ABOUT THEIR CONCERNS WHEN THE PRESIDENT USED HIS FOREIGN POLICY POWERS FOR POLITICAL GAIN. IT'S EFFORTS TO PROTECT THE NATIONAL SECURITY POLICY. AMBASSADOR TAYLOR THOUGHT IT WAS CRAZY TO WITHHOLD SECURITY ASSISTANCE. >> THE VERY FOUNDATION OF OUR DRAS. >> AND OFFERING TO EXCHANGE A WHITE HOUSE MEETING AND HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS OF DOLLARS IN SECURITY SYSTEMS CAN IT. >> NO, IT'S THE ESSENCE OF DOING SOMETHING FOR PERSONAL REASONS RATHER THAN FOR POLITICAL REASONS. AND IF I COULD JUST SAY ONE THING ABOUT THIS IT BRIEFLY. MAYBE WHEN HE WAS FIRST RUNNING FOR PRESIDENT, HE HAD NEVER BEEN ANYTHING OTHER THAN A REALITY TV SHOW. THAT WAS HIS PUBLIC LIFE. MAYBE THEN HE COULD IF YOU'RE LISTENING IS IS AN OKAY THING TO DO. BUT BY THE TIME HE ASKED THE UKRAINE IF YOU'RE LISTENING, HELP ME OUT WITH MY REELECTION, HE HAS TO HAVE KNOWN B THAT WAS NOT SOMETHING CONSISTENT WITH HIS OATH OF OFFICE. >> MR. CHAIRMAN, OUR FONDERS GRANTED THEM ENORMOUS POWERS, BUT AT THE SAME TIME, WHEN WE HAVE BYE-BYE REMINDED OF TODAY, THEY WORRY THESE POWERS COULD BE ABUSED BY A A CORRUPT PRESIDENT. THE EVIDENCE OF ABUSE OF POWER IN THIS INKWIR RI PROVED THAT OUR FOUNDERS WERE RIGHT TO BE WORRIED. YES, THE PRESIDENT HAS THE PURR TO DIRECT AMERICA'S FOREIGN POLICY. BUT NO, HE CANNOT USE THAT POWER REMEMBER, I ASK ALL MY COLLEAGUES TO REMEMBER, THE CONSTITUTION GRANTS THE PRESIDENT HIS POWER THROUGH THE AMERICAN PEOPLE. THE PRESIDENT'S SOURCE OF POWER, IT'S A DEMOCRATIC ELECTION. IT IS THE AMERICAN PEOPLE WHO TRUSTED HIM TO LOOK OUT FOR THEM. WE TRUSTED HIM TO LOOK OUT FOR THE COUNTRY. INSTEAD, PRESIDENT TRUMP LOOKED OUT FOR HIMSELF. AND HELPING HIMSELF GET REELECTED. HE ABUSED THE POWER THAT WE TRUSTED HIM WITH FOR PERSONAL AND POLITICAL GAIN. THE FOUNDERS WORRIED ABOUT JUST THIS TYPE OF ABUSE OF POWER. PZ IT WAS ONE WAY FOR CONGRESS TO RESPOND. THAT'S THE POWER OF IMPEACHMENT. I YIELD BACK. >> GENTLEMAN YIELDS BACK. >> I WANT TO DIRECT YOU FIRST QUESTIONS TO YOU. BY THIS STANDARD OF IMPEACHING A PRESIDENT, THEY SAID IF A PRESIDENT ABUSES HIS POWER FOR PERSONAL OR POLITICAL GAIN, IT'S IMPEACHABLE CONDUCT. DO YOU AGREE? >> NOT THE WAY IT'S BEEN STATED. IN FACT, THERE'S SO MANY DIFFERENT STANDARDS. >> I HAVE A LONG WAYS TO GO HERE. >> THERE'S BEEN SO MANY DIFFERENT STANDARDS, ONE OF THEM WAS ATTEMPTING TO ABUSE OFFICE. I'M NOT SURE HOW TO RECOGNIZE THAT LET ALONE DEFINE IT. >> LET ME GO WITH A FEW EXAMPLES AND SEE IF YOU AGREE WITH ME. LYNDON JOHNSON, DIRECTED THE CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY TO PLACE A SPY IN BARRY GOLD WATER'S CAMPAIGN. THAT SPY GOT ADVANCED COPIES OF SPEECHES AND OTHER STRATEGY. DELIVER THAT TO THE JOHNSON CAMPAIGN. WOULD THAT IMPEACHABLE CONDUCT ACCORDING TO THE OTHER PANELISTS? >> IT'S BROADLY, SO I ASSUME SO. >> HOW ABOUT WHEN PRESIDENT JOHNSON B PUT A WIRETAP ON GOLD WATER'S CAMPAIGN. WOULD THAT BE FOR POLITICAL BENEFIT? >> I CAN'T EXCLUDE ANYTHING UNDER THAT DEFINITION. >> I'M GOING GO WITH A FEW OTHER PRESIDENTS. WE'LL SEE WHERE WE GO. CONGRESSMAN DEUTSCHE JUST INFORMED US THAT FDR PUT COUNTRY FIRST. NOW FDR WHEN HE WAS PRESIDENT DIRECTED THE IRS TO CONDUCT AUDITS OF HIS POLITICAL ENEMIES. NAMELY WILLIAM PURSE, HAMILTON FISH, FATHER COUGHLIN. WOULD THAT BE AN ABUSE OF POWER FOR POLITICAL BENEFIT ACCORDING TO THE OTHER PANELISTS? >> I THINK IT ALL WOULD BE SUBJECT TO IT. >> HOW ABOUT WHEN PRESIDENT KENNEDY DIRECTED HIS BROTHER TO DEPORT ONE OF HIS MISTRESSES AS AN EAST GERMAN SPY. WOULD THAT QUALIFY AS IMPEACHABLE CONDUCT? >> I CAN'T EXCLUDE IT. >> HOW ABOUT WHEN HE DISTRICTED THE FBI TO USE WIRETAPS ON CONGRESSIONAL STAFFERS WHO OPPOSED HIM POLITICALLY. WOULD THAT BE IMPEACHABLE CONDUCT? >> IT SEEM TO BE FALLING WITHIN IT. >> LET'S GO TO BARACK OBAMA. WHEN BARACK OBAMA DIRECTED OR MADE A FINDING THAT THE SENATE WAS IN RECESS AND APPOINTED THE PEOPLE TO THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD AND LOST 9-0. WOULD THAT BE AN ABUSE OF POWER? >> I'M US AFRAID YOU'D HAVE TO DIRECT IT TO OTHERS, BUT I DON'T SEE EXCLUSIONS. >> HOW ABOUT WHEN THE PRESIDENT DIRECTED HIS NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISER AND THE SECRETARY OF STATE TO LIE TO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE ABOUT WHETHER THE AMBASSADOR TO LIBYA WAS MURDERED AS A RESULT OF A VIDEO OR WAS MURTDED AS A RESULT OF A TERRORIST ACT. WOULD THAT BE AN ABUSE OF POWER FOR POLITICAL BENEFIT 17 DAYS BEFORE THE NEXT ELECTION? >> NOT ACCORDING TO MY DEFINITION, BUT THE OTHERS WILL HAVE TO RESPOND TO THEIR OWN. >> YOU HAVE HEARD THEIR DEFINITION. I HAVE A HARD TIME EXCLUDEING ANYTHING OUT. >> HOW ABOUT ABRAHAM LINCOLN ARRESTED LEGISLATORS IN MARYLAND SO THEY WOULDN'T CONVENE TO US IS US IS CEDE FROM THE UNION. IT WOULD HAVE PLACED WASHINGTON, D.C. IN THE MIDDLE OF THE REBELLION. IT'S THAT AN ABUSE OF POWER? >> IT COULD BE UNDER THAT DEFINITION. SGLZ YOU MENTIONED GEORGE WASHINGTON A LITTLE WHILE AGO AS PERHAPS HAVING MET THE STANDARD OF IMPEACHMENT FOR YOUR OTHER PANELISTS. LET ME ASK YOU SOMETHING. CAN YOU NAME A SINGLE PRESIDENT IN THE HISTORY OF THE UNITED STATES, THAT WOULD NOT HAVE MET THE STANDARD OF IMPEACHMENT FOR OUR FRIENDS HERE. >> I WOULD HOPE TO GOD JAMES MADISON WOULD ESCAPE. OTHERWISE A LIFETIME OF ACADEMIC WORK WOULD BE SHREDDED. BUT ONCE AGAIN, I CAN'T EXCLUDE MANY OF THESE. >> ISN'T WHAT YOU AND I AND MANY OTHERS ARE AFRAID OF IS THAT THE STANDARD THAT YOUR FRIENDS TO THE RIGHT OF YOU SO NOT POLITICALLY, BUT SITTING THERE, THAT YOUR FRIENDS HAVE DECIDED THAT THE BAR IS SO LOW THAT WHEN WE HAVE A DEMOCRATIC PRESIDENT IN OFFICE AND A REPUBLICAN HOUSE AND A REPUBLICAN SENATE, WE'RE GOING TO BE GOING THROUGH THIS WHOLE SCENARIO AGAIN IN A WAY THAT REALLY PUTS THE COUNTRY AT RISK. >> WHEN YOUR GRAPHIC SAYS THAT YOUR B IS BETRAYAL OF NATIONAL INTEREST, I WOULD SIMPLY ASK DO YOU REALLY WANT THAT TO BE YOUR STANDARD? >> ISN'T THE DIFFERENCE THAT SOME PEOPLE LIVE IN AN IVORY TOWER AND SOME PEOPLE LIVE IN A SWAMP. THOSE OF US IN THE SWAMP ARE DOING OUR VERY BEST FOR THE AMERICAN PEOPLE. IT'S NOT PRETTY. >> ACTUALLY, I LIVE IN AN IVORY TOWER IN A SWAMP. IT'S NOT SO BAD. >> I YIELD BACK. >> THE GENTLEMAN YIELDS BACK. >> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. I WANT TO THANK THE WITNESSES AND I DON'T BELIEVE THE PEOPLE'S HOUSE IS A SWAMP. PRESIDENT NIXON WAS IMPEACHED FOR ABUSE OF POWER BECAUSE HIS CONDUCT WAS, QUOTE, UNDERTAKEN AND NOT IN FUR RANS OF ANY NATIONAL POLICY OBJECTIVE. WHY WAS IT SIGNIFICANT THAT PRESIDENT NIXON ACTED FOR HIS PERSONAL POLITICAL ADVANTAGE AND NOT IN FURTHERANCE OF NATIONAL POLICY OBJECTIVE? >> IT'S FAIRLY SIGNIFICANT BECAUSE ACTING ON HIS OWN PERSONAL BENEFIT AND NOT FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE COUNTRY, HE HAS CROSSED A LINE. THE LINE HERE IS VERY CLEAR, IT BECOMES ABUSE OF POWER WHEN SOMEONE IS USING THE SPECIAL AUTHORITIES FOR THEIR OWN PERSONAL BENEFIT AND NOT THE BENEFIT OF THE COUNTRY. >> CAN THE SAME BE SAID OF PRESIDENT TRUMP? >> IT COULD BE, YES. >> THANK YOU. I'M STRUCK BY THE PARALLELS BECAUSE ONE OF THE THINGS THAT NIXON DID WAS HE LAUNCHED TAX INVESTIGATIONS OF HIS POLITICAL OPPONENTS. HERE THE EVIDENCE SHOWS TRUMP TRIED TO LAUNCH A CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION OF HIS POLITICAL OPPONENT BY A FOREIGN GOVERNMENT. WE HAVE HEARD EVIDENCE SUGGESTING THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP DID THIS FOR HIS OWN PERSONAL GAIN AND NOT FOR ANY POLICY POLICY INTEREST. HE CLAIMS HE WITHHELD THE AID BECAUSE OF CONCERNS ABOUT CORRUPTION, I DO BELIEVE THAT WE HAVE EXAMPLE OF THE EVIDENCE OF THE TRUTH. >> AMBASSADOR SOND LAPD STATED THAT THE PRESIDENT ONLY CARES ABOUT BIG STUFF. I NOTED THERE WAS BIG STUFF GOING ON IN UKRAINE. LIKE A WAR WITH RUSSIA. AMBASSADOR SONDLAND REPLIED HE MEANT BIG STUFF THAT BENEFITS THE PRESIDENT LIKE THE BIDEN INVESTIGATION THAT RUDY GIULIANI WAS PUSHING. >> WHAT WOULD THE FRAMERS HAVE THOUGHT OF A PRESIDENT WHO ONLY CARES ABOUT THE BIG STUFF THAT BENEFITS HIM. THE FRAMERS WERE EXTREMELY WORRIED ABOUT A PRESIDENT WHO SERVED ONLY HIS OWN INTERESTS OR THE INTERESTS OF FOREIGN POWERS. THAT WAS THEIR MOST SERIOUS CONCERN WHEN THEY DESIGNED THE REMEDY OF IMPEACHMENT. >> SO THE EVIDENCE ALSO SUGGESTS THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP DIDN'T EVEN CARE IF THE INVESTIGATION ACTUALLY HAPPENED. WHAT HE REALLY CARED ABOUT WAS THE PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENT OF THE INVESTIGATION. SO PROFESSOR, HOW DO WE ANALYZE THESE FACTS IN THE CONTEXT OF ABUSE OF POWER. >> I THINK TO HAVE A PRESIDENT ASK FOR THE INVESTIGATION OF HIS POLITICAL OPPONENTS IS AN ARC TYPE OF THE ABUSE OF POWER AND MR. BUCK MENTIONED PAST EXAMPLES OF THIS. AND TO SAY THAT THOSE WEREN'T IMPEACHABLE, I THINK IS IS A BIG MISTAKE. IF A PRESIDENT WIRETAPS HIS OPPONENTS, THAT'S A FEDERAL CRIME NOW. I DON'T KNOW WHETHER BEFORE THE WIRETAP ACT OF 1968. BUT IF A PRESIDENT WIRETAPPED HIS OPPONENTS TODAY, THAT WOULD BE IMPEACHABLE CONDUCT. >> I SERVE ON THE FOREIGN AFFAIRS COMMITTEE. FOR FOREIGN LEADERS TO MEET WITH OUR PRESIDENTS TO ATTEND A MEET ING IN THE OVAL OFFICE IS VERY SIGNIFICANT. PRESIDENT ZELENSKY IS A NEWLY ELECTED HEAD OF STATE IN A FLEDGING DEMOCRACY. HIS COUNTRY IS AT WAR WITH HIS NEIGHBOR. RUSSIA INVADED AND IS OCCUPYING HIS COUNTRY EASTER TOIR. HE NEEDED THE MILL TOIR RESOURCES. HE NEEDED RECOGNITION OF THE AMERICAN PRESIDENT. HE WAS PREPARED TO DO WHATEVER THE PRESIDENT DEMANDED. MANY YEARS AGO I WORKED IN THE LARGEST UNION AS A PA. I SAW PEOPLE AT THEIR WORST GETTING PAIN AFTER ACCIDENTS OR ACTS OF VIOLENCE. THEY WERE DESPERATE AND AFRAID AND HAD TO WAIT FIVE TO EIGHT HOURS TO BE SEEN. CAN YOU IMAGINE FOR ONE MINUTE IF I HAD TOLD MY PATIENTS, LOOK, I CAN MOVE YOU UP IN LINE AND TAKE CARE OF YOUR PAIN, BUT I DO NEED A FAVOR FROM YOU, THOUGH. MY PATIENTS WERE IN PAIN AND DESPERATE AND THEY WOULD HAVE AGREED TO DO ANYTHING I ASKED. THIS WOULD HAVE BEEN SUCH AN ABUSE OF MY POSITION BECAUSE OF THE POWER DYNAMIC. IN ANY CASE THAT'S ILLEGAL FOR US TO USE POWER TO TAKE ADVANTAGE OF THOSE IN CRISIS. ESPECIALLY WITH THE PRESIDENT, ESPECIALLY WHEN LIVES ARE AT STAKE. I YIELD BACK. >> THE GENTLE LADY YIELDS BACK. MR. RADCLIFFE. >> I THANK THE CHAIRMAN. PROFESSOR, I'D LIKE TO START WHERE YOU STARTED BECAUSE YOU SAID SOMETHING THAT I THINK BARES REPEATING. YOU SAID I'M NOT A SUPPORTER OF PRESIDENT TRUMP. I VOTED AGAINST HIM IN 2016. I HAVE VOTED FOR CLINTON AND OBAMA. DESPITE YOUR POLITICAL PREFERENCES AND PERSUASIONS, YOU REACHED THIS CONCLUSION. THE CURRENT LEGAL CASE FOR IMPEACHMENT IS NOT JUST WOEFULLY INADEQUATE, BUT IN SOME RESPECTS, DANGEROUS. IS THE BASIS OF AN AMERICAN PRESIDENT. SO LET ME START BY COMMENDING YOU FOR BEING THE KIND OF EXAMPLE OF WHAT HOPEFULLY EVERYONE ON THIS COMMITTEE AS WE APPROACH THE TASKS THAT WE HAVE OF DETERMINING WHETHER OR NOT THERE WERE ANY IMPEACHABLE OFFENSES HERE. ONE OF THE PROBLEMS THAT YOU HAVE ARTICULATED AS LEADING YOU TO THE CONCLUSION OF CALLING THIS THE SHOULD HAVE PROCEED THE SHORTEST IMPEACHMENT PROCEEDING WITH THE THINNEST RECORD AND SENATOR ROWEST GROUNDS ATTEMPTING TO IMPEACH A PRESIDENT IS THE FACT THERE'S BEEN THIS EVER CHANGING CONSTANTLY INVOLVING MOVING TARGET OF ACCUSATIONS, IF YOU WILL. THAT THE JULY 25th PHONE CALL STARTED OUT AS AN ALLEGED QUID PRO QUO AND BRIEFLY BECAME AN EXTORTION SCHEME, I THINK IT'S BACK TO QUID PRO QUO. NOW BESIDES POINTING OUT THAT BOTH SPEAKER PELOSI AND CHAIRMAN SCHIFF WAITED UNTIL ALMOST EVERY WITNESS HAD BEEN DEPOSED BEFORE THEY STARTED TO USE THE TERM BRIBERY, YOU ARTICULATED WHY YOU THINK THE DEFINITIONS THAT THEY HAVE USED PUBLICLY ARE FLAWED IF NOT UNCONSTITUTIONAL BOTH IN THE 18th CENTURY OR THE 21st CENTURY. BUT WOULD YOU AGREE WITH ME THAT BRIBERY UNDER ANY VALID DEFINITION REQUIRES THAT A SPECIFIC QUID PRO QUO BE PROVEN. >> MORE IMPORTANTLY THE SUPREME COURT IS FOCUSED ON THAT ISSUE. AS WELL AS WHAT IS THE DEFINITION OF A QUID PRO QUO. SO IF MILITARY AID OR SECURITY ASSISTANCE IS PART OF THAT QUID PRO QUO, WHERE IN THE JULY 25th TRANSCRIPT DOES PRESIDENT TRUMP EVER SUGGEST THAT HE INTENDS TO WITHHOLD MILITARY AID FOR ANY REASON. >> HE DOESN'T. AND THAT'S THE REASON WE KEEP ON HEARING THE WORDS CIRCUMSTANTIAL AND INFERENCE SHL. THAT'S WHAT'S SO CONCERNING. THOSE WOULD BE APPROPRIATE TERMS. IT'S NOT THAT YOU COULD HAVE A A CIRCUMSTANTIAL CASE. THOSE WOULD BE APPROPRIATE IF THEY WERE UNKNOWABLE FACTS. THE PROBLEM IS YOU HAVE SO MANY WITNESSES THAT HAVE NOT BEEN SUBPOENAED. SO MANY WITNESSES THAT WE HAVE NOT HEARD FROM. SO IF IT'S NOT IN THE TRANSCRIPT THEN IT'S GOT TO COME FROM WITNESS TESTIMONY. I ASSUME YOU HAVE REVIEWED ALL THE WITNESS TESTIMONY. SO YOU KNOW THAT NO WITNESS HAS TESTIFIED THAT THEY EITHER HEARD PRESIDENT TRUMP OR WERE TOLD BY PRESIDENT TRUMP TO WITHHOLD MILITARY AID FOR ANY REASON, CORRECT? >> CORRECT. >> SO LET ME TURN TO THE ISSUE OF OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE. I THINK YOU ASSUMED, AS I DID, THAT WHEN DEMOCRATS HAVE BEEN TALKING ABOUT OBSTRUCTION, IT WAS SPECIFICALLY RELATED TO THE UKRAINE ISSUE. YOU WERE HIGH 4R50IG9ING THE FACT THAT THE DEMOCRATS APPEAR TO BE TAKING THE POSITION THAT IF A A PRESIDENT SEEKS JUDICIAL REVIEW OVER EXECUTIVE BRANCH TESTIMONY OR DOCUMENT SUBPOENA ISSED BY CONGRESS, RATHER THAN LETTING THE COURTS BE THE ARBITER, CONGRESS CAN SIMPLY IMPEACH THE PRESIDENT FOR OBSTRUCTION BASED ON THAT. DID I HEAR YOU SAY THAT IF WE WERE TO PROCEED ON THAT BASIS, THAT WOULD BE AN ABUSE OF POWER. >> I DID. LET ME BE CLEAR ABOUT THIS. I DON'T DISAGREE WITH MY COLLEAGUES THAT NOTHING IN THE CONSTITUTION SAYS YOU HAVE TO GO TO A COURT OR WAIT FOR A COURT. THAT'S NOT WHAT I'M SAYING. WHAT I'M SAYING IS THAT IF YOU WANT A WELL-BASED LEGITIMATE IMPEACHMENT CASE TO SET THIS ABBREVIATED SCHEDULE, DEMAND DOCUMENTS AND THEN IMPEACH BECAUSE THEY HAVEN'T BEEN TURNED OVER WHEN THEY GO TO A COURT, WHEN THE PRESIDENT GOES TO A COURT, I THINK THAT'S AN ABUSE OF POWER THAT'S NOT WHAT HAPPENED IN NIXON. IN FACT, THE ULTIMATE DECISION IN NIXON IS THERE ARE LEGITIMATE EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE CLAIMS THAT CAN BE RAISED. SOME OF THEM DEAL WITH THE TYPE OF AIDS INVOLVED IN THIS CASE. LIKE A NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISER AND A WHITE HOUSE COUNSEL. SO THE CONCERN HERE IS NOT THAT YOU CAN'T EVER IMPEACH A PRESIDENT UNLESS YOU GO TO COURT. JUST BECAUSE YOU SHOULDN'T. YOU HAVE TIME TO DO IT. >> SO IF I WERE TO SUMMARIZE YOUR TESTIMONY, NO BRIBERY, NO EXTORTION, NO OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE, NO ABUSE OF POWER, IS THAT FAIR? >> NOT ON THIS RECORD. >> THE TIME IS EXPIRED. >> LET ME JUST PICK UP WHERE WE LEFT OFF. I'M GOING TO START WITH YOUR WORDS. IT'S FROM OCTOBER 23rd. YOUR OPINION PIECE IN THE HILL. YOU SAID THAT AS I HAVE SAID BEFORE, THERE'S NO QUESTION THAT THE USE OF PUBLIC OFFICE FOR PERSONAL GAIN IS AN IMPEACHABLE OFFENSE. INCLUDING THE WITHHOLDING OF MILITARY AID IN EXCHANGE FOR THE INVESTIGATION OF A POLITICAL OPPONENT. YOU JUST PROVE IT HAPPENED. IF YOU CAN ESTABLISH ATOTAL USE PUBLIC OFFICE FOR PERSONAL GAIN, YOU HAVE A VIABLE, IMPEACHABLE OFFENSE. WE HEARD A PRESIDENT ABUSES HIS POWER WHEN HE USES HIS OFFICIAL POWER FOR HIS OWN PERSONAL INTEREST RATHER THAN INTEREST OF OUR COUNTRY. I'D LIKE TO SPEND MORE TIME ON THAT BECAUSE I'M REALLY STRUCK BY ONE OF THE THINGS AT STAKE HERE. $400 MILLION OF TAXPAYER DOLLARS. PRESIDENT NIXON LEVERAGED THE POWERS OF HIDS OFFICE TO INVESTIGATE POLITICAL RIVALS. BUT HERE THE EVIDENCE SHOWS THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP ALSO LEVERAGED TAXPAYER DOLLARS TO GET UKRAINE TO NOW INVESTIGATIONS OF PRESIDENT TRUMP'S POLITICAL RIVALS. THAT TAXPAYER MONEY WAS MEANT TO HELP UKRAINE DEFEND ITSELF AND IN TURN DEFEND UNITED STATES' INTERESTS FROM RUSSIAN AGGRESSION. THE MONEY HAD BEEN APPROPRIATED BY CONGRESS AND CERTIFIED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE. MULTIPLE WITNESSES CONFIRMED THAT THERE WAS UNANIMOUS SUPPORT FOR THE MILITARY AID TO UKRAINE. CAN WE LISTEN TO THAT, PLEASE. >> FROM WHAT YOU >>> OPENING STATEMENTS FROM THE WITNESSES TODAY WERE NOT DISTRIBUTED UNTIL LATE LAST NIGHT. AND THE INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE'S FINALIZED REPORT HAS YET TO BE PRESENTED TO THIS COMMITTEE. YOU HEAR FROM THOSE IN THE MAJORITY THAT PROCESS IS A REPUBLICAN TALKING POINT WHEN IN REALITY IT'S AN AMERICAN TALKING POINT. PROCESS IS ESSENTIAL TO THE INSTITUTION. A THOUGHTFUL, MEANINGFUL PROCESS OF THIS MAGNITUDE WITH SUCH GREAT IMPLICATIONS SHOULD BE DEMANDED BY THE AMERICAN PEOPLE. WITH THAT I YIELD BACK. >> MR. JEFFREYS. >> I DID NOT SERVE IN THE MILITARY BUT MY 81-YEAR-OLD FATHER DID. HE WAS AN AIR FORCE VETERAN STATIONED IN GERMANY DURING THE HEIGHT OF THE COLD WAR IN THE LATE 1950s. HE WAS A TEENAGER FROM INNER CITY NEWARK, A STRANGER IN A FOREIGN LAND SERVING ON THE WESTERN SIDE OF THE BERLIN WALL. MY DAD PROUDLY WORE THE UNIFORM BECAUSE HE SWORE AN OATH TO THE CONSTITUTION AND BELIEVED IN AMERICAN DEMOCRACY. I BELIEVE IN AMERICAN DEMOCRACY. WE REMAIN THE LAST, BEST HOPE ON EARTH. IT IS IN THAT SPIRIT THAT WE PROCEED TODAY. IN AMERICA, WE BELIEVE IN FREE AND FAIR ELECTIONS, IS THAT CORRECT? >> YES IT IS. >> BUT AUTHORITARIAN REGIMES DO NOT, IS THAT RIGHT? >> THAT'S CORRECT. >> THOMAS JEFFERSON ONCE WROTE, OR JOHN ADAMS ONCE WROTE TO THOMAS JEFFERSON ON DECEMBER 6th, 1787 AND STATED YOU ARE APPREHENSIVE OF FOREIGN INTERFERENCE, INTRIGUE, INFLUENCE, SO AM I. BUT AS OFTEN AS ELECTIONS HAPPEN, THE DANGER OF FOREIGN INFLUENCE RECURS. >> IT'S LESS IMPORTANT THAN IT'S BECOME IN OUR CONSTITUTION SINCE THEM. ONE OF THINGS THAT TURNED ME INTO A LAWYER WAS SEEING BARBARA JORDAN SAY THAT WE THE PEOPLE DIDN'T INCLUDE PEOPLE LIKE HER IN 1789 BUT THROUGH A PROCESS OF AMENDMENT WE HAVE DONE THAT. SO ELECTIONS ARE MORE IMPORTANT TO US TODAY AS A CONSTITUTIONAL MATTER THAN THEY WERE TO THE FRAMERS. >> IS IT FAIR TO SAY AN ELECTION CANNOT BE REASONABLY CHARACTERIZED AS FREE AND FAIR IF IT'S MANIPULATED BY FOREIGN INTERFERENCE? >> THAT'S CORRECT. >> AND DEEPLY CONCERNED WITH THREAT OF FOREIGN INTERFERENCE IN THE DOMESTIC AFFAIRS OF THE UNITED STATES, TRUE? >> YES. >> AND WHY WERE THEY SO DEEPLY CONCERNED? >> BECAUSE FOREIGN NATIONS DON'T HAVE OUR INTERESTS AT HEART. THEY HAVE THEIR INTERESTS AT HEART. >> AND WOULD THE FRAMERS FIND IT ACCEPTABLE TO PRESSURE A FOREIGN GOVERNMENT TO HELP HIM WIN AN ELECTION? >> I THINK THEY'D FIND IT UNACCEPTABLE FOR A PRESIDENT TO ASK A FOREIGN GOVERNMENT TO HELP HIM WHETHER THEY PUT PRESSURE ON HIM OR NOT. >> DIRECT EVIDENCE SHOWS THAT ON JULY 25th PHONE CALL THE PRESIDENT UTTERED FIVE WORDS, DO US A FAVOR THOUGH. HE PRESSURED THE UKRAINIAN GOVERNMENT TO TARGET AN AMERICAN CITIZEN FOR POLITICAL GAIN AND AT THE SAME TIME SIMULTANEOUSLY WITHHELD $391 MILLION IN MILITARY AID. NOW AMBASSADOR BILL TAYLOR, WESTPOINT GRADUATE, VIETNAM WAR HERO, REPUBLICAN APPOINTED DIPLOMAT DISCUSSED THIS ISSUE OF MILITARY AID. HERE IS A CLIP OF HIS TESTIMONY. >> AGAIN, OUR HOLDING UP OF SECURITY SYSTEMS THAT WOULD GO TO A COUNTRY THAT IS FIGHTING, FIGHTING AGGRESSION FROM RUSSIA FOR NO GOOD POLICY SEASON, NO GOOD SUBSTANTIVE REASON, NO GOOD NATIONAL SECURITY REASON IS WRONG. >> WAS BEING WITHHELD AS PART OF AN EFFORT TO SOLICIT FOREIGN INTERFERENCE IN THE 2020 ELECTION. IS THAT BEHAVIOR IMPEACHABLE? >> YES, IT IS. AND IF I COULD GO BACK TO ONE OF THE WORDS THAT YOU READ. WHEN THE PRESIDENT SAID DO US A FAVOR HE WAS USING THE ROYAL WE THERE. IT WASN'T A FAVOR FOR THE UNITED STATES. HE SHOULD HAVE SAID DO US A FAVOR BECAUSE ONLY KINGS SAY US WHEN THEY MEAN ME. >> IS IT CORRECT AN ABUSE OF POWER THAT STRIKES AT THE HEART OF OUR DEMOCRACY FALLS SQUARELY WITHIN THE DEFINITION OF A HIGH CRIME AND MISDEMEANOR. >> YES, IT DOES. >> SOME OF MY COLLEAGUES HAVE SUGGESTED THAT IMPEACHMENT WOULD OVERTURN THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE. THE AMERICAN PEOPLE EXPRESSED THEIR WILL IN NOVEMBER OF 2018. THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE ELECTED A NEW MAJORITY. THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE ELECTED A HOUSE THAT WOULD NOT FUNCTION AS A WHOLLY OWNED SUBSIDIARY OF THIS ADMINISTRATION. THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE ELECTED A HOUSE THAT UNDERSTANDS WE ARE SEPARATE AND CO-EQUAL BRANCH OF GOVERNMENT. THE WILL HAVE THE PEOPLE ELECTED A HOUSE THAT UNDERSTANDS WE HAVE A CONSTITUTIONAL RESPONSIBILITY TO SERVE AS A CHECK AND BALANCE ON AN OUT OF CONTROL EXECUTIVE BRANCH. THE PRESIDENT ABUSED HIS POWER AND MUST BE HELD ACCOUNTABLE. NO ONE IS ABOVE THE LAW. AMERICA MUST REMAIN THE LAST, BEST HOPE ON EARTH. I YIELD BACK. >> GENTLEMAN YIELDS BACK. MR. YATES. >> THE WILL OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE ALSO ELECTED DONALD TRUMP TO BE THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES IN THE 2016 ELECTION AND THERE'S ONE PARTY THAT CAN'T SEEM TO GET OVER IT. WE UNDERSTAND THE FACT THAT IN 2018 YOU TOOK THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES AND WE HAVEN'T SPENT OUR TIME DURING YOUR TENURE IN POWER TRYING TO REMOVE THE SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE AND DELEGITIMIZE YOUR ABILITY TO GOVERN. WE'D LOVE TO PUT OUT A HELPING SAND, IT'S THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE THAT YOU IGNORE WHEN YOU CONTINUE DOWN THIS TERRIBLE ROAD OF IMPEACHMENT. YOU GAVE MONEY TO BARRACK OBAMA, RIGHT. >> MY FAMILY DID, YES. >> FOUR TIMES. >> THAT SOUNDS ABOUT RIGHT, YES. >> MR. CHAIRMAN, I HAVE A SERIOUS UNANIMOUS CONSENT REQUEST RELATING TO PROFESSOR FELDMAN'S WORK. RAISE RISK OF IMPEACHMENT -- >> THE GENTLEMAN WILL SUSPEND. >> WE'LL TAKE THAT TIME OFF. >> HAS THE GENTLEMAN SUBMITTED -- HAVE WE SEEN THE MATERIAL? >> WE CAN PROVIDE IT TO YOU AS IS TYPICAL -- >> AND WE'LL CONSIDER THE UNANIMOUS CONSENT REQUEST LATER AFTER WE REVIEW IT. >> VERY WELL. >> THANK YOU MR. CHAIRMAN. MR. FELDMAN WROTE ARTICLES ENTITLED TRUMP'S WIRETAP TWEETS RAISE RISK OF IMPEACHMENT. HE THEN WROTE IMPEACHMENT FILE AND THEN MR. JAKE FLANAGAN WROTE IN COURT A HARVARD LAW PROFESSOR THINKS TRUMP COULD BE IMPEACHED OVER FAKE NEWS ACCUSATIONS. MY QUESTION IS SINCE YOU SEEM TO BELIEVE THAT THE BASIS FOR IMPEACHMENT IS EVEN BROADER THAN THE BASIS THAT MY DEMOCRATIC COLLEAGUES LAYED FORWARD, DO YOU BELIEVE YOU'RE OUTSIDE OF THE POLITICAL MAINSTREAM ON THE QUESTION OF IMPEACHMENT? >> I BELIEVE THAT IMPEACHMENT IS WARRANTED WHENEVER THE PRESIDENT ABUSES HIS POWER FOR PERSONAL BENEFIT. >> DID YOU WRITE AN ARTICLE ENTITLED IT'S HARD TO TAKE IMPEACHMENT SERIOUSLY NOW. >> YES, I DID. >> DID YOU WRITE SINCE THEN THE 2018 MIDTERM ELECTION HOUSE DEMOCRATS HAVE MADE IT PAINFULLY CLEAR THAT DISCUSSING IMPEACHMENT IS PRIMARILY OR EVEN EXCLUSIVELY A TOOL TO WEAKEN PRESIDENT TRUMP'S CHANCES IN 2020. >> UNTIL THIS CALL ON JULY 25th I WAS AN IMPEACHMENT SKEPTIC. THE CALL CHANGED MY MIND AND FOR GOOD REASON. >> THANK YOU. I APPRECIATE YOUR TESTIMONY. YOU GAVE $1,000 TO ELIZABETH WARREN, RIGHT. >> I BELIEVE SO. >> YOU GAVE 1,200 BUCKS TO BARRACK OBAMA. >> I HAVE NO REASON TO QUESTION THAT. >> AND YOU GAVE $2,000 TO HILLARY CLINTON. >> THAT'S CORRECT. >> WHY SO MUCH MORE FOR HILLARY THAN THE OTHER TWO. >> BECAUSE I HAVE BEEN GIVING A LOT OF MONEY TO CHARITY RECENTLY BECAUSE OF ALL THE POOR PEOPLE IN THE UNITED STATES. >> THOSE AREN'T THE ONLY FOLKS YOU HAVE BEEN GIVING TO. HAVE YOU EVER BEEN ON A PODCAST CALLED VERSUS TRUMP. >> I THINK I WAS ON A LIVE PANEL THAT WILL THE PEOPLE THAT RAN THE PODCAST CALLED VERSUS TRUMP. >> ON THAT DO YOU REMEMBER SAYING THE FOLLOWING? LIBERALS TEND TO CLUSTER MORE. CONSERVATIVES, ESPECIALLY VERY CONSERVATIVE PEOPLE TEND TO SPREAD OUT MORE, PERHAPS BECAUSE THEY DON'T EVEN WANT TO BE AROUND THEMSELVES. DID YOU SAY THAT? >> YES, I DID. >> DO YOU UNDERSTAND HOW THAT REFLECTS CONTEMPT ON PEOPLE WHO ARE CONSERVATIVE? >> NO, WHAT I WAS TALKING ABOUT THERE WAS THE NATURAL TENDENCY, IF YOU PUT THE QUOTE IN CONTEXT, THE NATURAL TENDENCY OF A COMPACTNESS REQUIREMENT TO FAVOR A PARTY WHOSE VOTERS ARE SPREAD OUT. >> I HAVE LIMITED TIME PROFESSOR SO WHEN YOU TALK ABOUT HOW LIBERALS WANT TO BE AROUND EACH OTHER AND CONSERVATIVES DON'T WANT TO BE AROUND EACH OTHER AND HAVE TO SPREAD OUT, YOU MAY NOT SEE THIS FROM THE IVORY TOWERS OF YOUR LAW SCHOOL BUT IT MAKES PEOPLE IN THIS COUNTRY -- EXCUSE ME, YOU DON'T GET TO INTERRUPT ME ON THIS TIME. NOW LET ME ALSO SUGGEST THAT WHEN YOU INVOKE THE PRESIDENT'S SON'S NAME HERE. WHEN YOU TRY TO MAKE A LITTLE JOKE OUT OF REFERENCING BARRON TRUMP. THAT DOES NOT LEND CREDIBILITY TO YOUR ARGUMENT. IT MAKES YOU LOOK MEAN AND LIKE YOU'RE ATTACKING SOMEONE'S FAMILY, THE MINOR CHILD OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES. SO LET'S SEE IF WE CAN GET INTO THE FACTS TO ALL OF THE WITNESSES. IF YOU HAVE PERSONAL KNOWLEDGE OF A SINGLE MATERIAL FACT IN THE SCHIFF REPORT, PLEASE RAISE YOUR HAND. AND LET THE RECORD REFLECT NO PERSONAL KNOWLEDGE OF A SINGLE FACT AND YOU KNOW WHAT, THAT CONTINUES ON THE TRADITION WE SAW FROM ADAM SCHIFF. MR. KENT NEVER MET WITH THE PRESIDENT. FIONA HILL NEVER HEARD THE PRESIDENT REFERENCE ANYTHING REGARDING MILITARY AID. MR. HEAL WAS UNAWARE OF ANY ACTIVITY WITH AID. AND DENIED THERE WAS A QUID PRO QUO AND MR. MORRISON SAID THERE WASN'T ANYTHING ON THE CALL. AND THE ONLY DIRECT EVIDENCE WAS MR. SONDLAND THAT SAID I WANT NOTHING. NO QUID PRO QUO AND IF WIRETAPPING A POLITICAL OPPONENT AND MAYBE IT'S A DIFFERENT PRESIDENT WE SHOULD BE IMPEACHING. >> THE GENTLEMAN'S TIME AS EXPIRED. >> THANK YOU. PROFESSOR FELDMAN, LET ME BEGIN BY STATING THE OBVIOUS. IT IS NOT HEARSAY WHEN THE PRESIDENT TELLS THE PRESIDENT OF UKRAINE TO INVESTIGATE HIS POLITICAL ADVERSARY IS IT? >> NO. >> IT IS NOT HEARSAY WHEN THE PRESIDENT CONFESSES ON NATIONAL TELEVISION TO DOING THAT, IS IT? >> IT IS NOT. >> IT IS NOT HEARSAY WHEN THEY TESTIFY THAT THEY HEAR THE PRESIDENT SAY HE ONLY CARES ABOUT THE INVESTIGATIONS OF HIS POLITICAL OPPONENT, IS IT? >> NO, THAT IS NOT HEARSAY. >> AND THERE'S LOTS OF OTHER DIRECT EVIDENCE. SO LET'S DISPENSE WITH THAT CLAIM BY MY REPUBLICAN COLLEAGUES. AND IMPEACHMENT REQUIRING A CRIMINAL OFFENSE AND HE WROTE, AND I QUOTE, AN OFFENSE DOES NOT HAVE TO BE INDICTABLE. SERIOUS MISCONDUCT OR VIOLATION OF PUBLIC TRUST IS ENOUGH. END QUOTE. WAS HE RIGHT WHEN HE WROTE THAT IN 2014? >> YES, I AGREE WITH THAT. >> OKAY. NOW, NEXT, AT THE CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION HE SAID AND I QUOTE, FOREIGN POWERS WILL INTERMEDDLE IN OUR AFFAIRS AND SPARE NO EXPENSE TO INFLUENCE THEM AND JAMES MADISON SAID IMPEACHMENT WAS NEEDED BECAUSE OTHERWISE A PRESIDENT MIGHT BETRAY HIS TRUST TO A FOREIGN POWER. CAN YOU ELABORATE ON WHY THE FRAMERS WERE SO CONCERNED ABOUT FOREIGN INTERFERENCE? HOW THEY ACCOUNTED FOR THESE CONCERNS AND HOW THAT RELATES TO THE FACTS BEFORE THIS COMMITTEE? >> SO THE REASON THAT THE FRAMERS ARE CONCERNED ABOUT FOREIGN INTERFERENCE IS SLIGHTLY DIFFERENT THAN THE REASON WE ARE. THEY WERE CONCERNED ABOUT IT BECAUSE WE WERE SUCH A WEAK COUNTRY IN 1789. WE WERE SMALL, WE WERE POOR. WE DIDN'T HAVE AN ESTABLISHED NAVY. WE DIDN'T HAVE AN ESTABLISHED ARMY. TODAY THE CONCERN IS A LITTLE DIFFERENT SO IT WOULD INTERFERE WITH US MAKING IT BEST FOR US AS AMERICANS. >>> SECOND BASED ON THE PRESIDENT'S OWN SUMMARY OF HIS CALL WITH THE UKRAINIAN PRESIDENT HE USED IT AS LEVERAGE IN HIS EFFORTS TO ACHIEVE THIS AND THIRD THE PRESIDENT THEN URGED CHINA TO BEGIN IT'S OWN INVESTIGATION. PROFESSOR FELDMAN, HOW DID IT IMPACT OUR DEMOCRACY IF IT BECOME STANDARD PRACTICE FOR THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES TO ASK A FOREIGN GOVERNMENT TO INTERFERE IN OUR ELECTIONS. >> IT WOULD BE A DISASTER FOR THE FUNCTIONING OF OUR DEMOCRACY IF OUR PRESIDENT REGULARLY AS THIS PRESIDENT HAS DONE ASKED FOREIGN GOVERNMENTS TO INTERFERE IN OUR ELECTORAL PROCESS. >> I'D LIKE TO END WITH A POWERFUL WARNING FROM GEORGE WASHINGTON THAT TOLD AMERICANS IN HIS FAIRWELL ADDRESS, AND I QUOTE, TO BE CONSTANTLY AWARE SINCE HISTORY AND EXPERIENCE PROVE THAT FOREIGN INFLUENCE IS ONE OF THE MOST VAINFUL FOES OF REPUBLICAN GOVERNMENT. THE CONDUCT AT ISSUE HERE IS AGREGIOUS. THE PRESIDENT HAS OPENLY AND REPEATEDLY DONE THAT IN OUR FOREIGN ELECTIONS. OF THAT THERE'S NO DOUBT. INVITING FOREIGN MEDDLING INTO OUR ELECTIONS ROBS THE AMERICAN PEOPLE OF THEIR SACRED RIGHT TO ELECTION THEIR OWN POLITICAL LEADERS. AMERICANS ALL ACROSS THE COUNTRY WAIT IN LONG LINES TO EXERCISE THEIR RIGHT TO VOTE AND TO CHOOSE THEIR OWN LEADERS. THIS DOES NOT BELONG TO FOREIGN GOVERNMENTS. WE FOUGHT AND WON A REVOLUTION OVER THIS. IT'S WHAT SEPARATES US AND AUTHORITARIANS ALL OVER THE WORLD. AS PUBLIC SERVANTS AND MEMBERS OF THE HOUSE WE WOULD BE NEGLIGENT IN OUR DUTIES UNDER THE CONSTITUTION IF WE LET THIS ABUSE OF POWER GO UNCHECKED. WE HEARD A LOT ABOUT HATING THIS PRESIDENT. IT'S NOT ABOUT HATING THIS PRESIDENT. IT'S ABOUT A LOVE OF COUNTRY. IT'S ABILITY HONORING THE OATH THAT WE TOOK TO PROTECT AND DEFEND THE CONSTITUTION OF THIS GREAT COUNTRY. SO MY FINAL QUESTION IS TO PROFESSOR FELDMAN AND CARLIN IN THE FACE OF THIS EVIDENCE WHAT ARE THE CONSEQUENCES IF THIS COMMITTEE AND THIS CONGRESS REFUSES TO MUSTER THE COURAGE TO RESPOND TO THIS GROSS ABUSE OF POWER THAT UNDERMINED THE NATIONAL SECURITY OF THE UNITED STATES, THAT UNDERMINED THE INTEGRITY OF OUR ELECTIONS AND THAT UNDERMINED THE CONFIDENCE WE HAD TO HAVE. >> IF THIS COMMITTEE AND THIS HOUSE FAILED TO ACT THEN YOU'RE SENDING A MESSAGE TO THIS PRESIDENT AND FUTURE PRESIDENTS THAT IT'S NO LONGER A PROBLEM IF THEY ABUSE THEIR POWER. IT'S NO LONGER A PROBLEM IF THEY INVITE OTHER COUNTRIES TO INTERFERE WITH OUR ELECTIONS AND PUT THE INTEREST OF OTHER COUNTRIES AHEAD OF OURS. >> I AGREE WITH PROFESSOR FELDMAN AND I SHOULD SAY ONE THING AND I APOLOGIZE FOR GETTING A LITTLE OVERHEATED A MOMENT AGO BUT I HAVE A CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT UNDER THE FIRST AMENDMENT TO GIVE MONEY TO CANDIDATES. AT THE SAME TIME, WE HAVE A CONSTITUTIONAL DUTY TO KEEP FOREIGNERS FROM SPENDING MONEY IN OUR ELECTIONS AND THOSE TWO THINGS ARE TWO SIDES OF THE SAME COIN. >> THANK YOU AND WITH THAT I YIELD BACK. >> THE GENTLEMAN YIELDS BACK. MR. JOHNSON. >> THANK YOU. I WAS STRUCK THIS MORNING BY THE SAME THING AS ALL OF MY FRIENDS AND COLLEAGUES ON THIS SIDE OF THE ROAD. CHAIRMAN NADLER BEGAN WITH THE OUTRAGEOUS STATEMENT THAT THE FACTS BEFORE US ARE UNDISPUTED. OF COURSE EVERYONE HERE KNOWS THAT'S NOT TRUE. EVERY PERSON HERE AND EVERY PERSON WATCHING AT HOME KNOWS FULL WELL THAT VIRTUALLY EVERYTHING HERE IS DISPUTED FROM THE FRAUDULENT PROCESS AND THE BROKEN PROCEDURE TO THE DEMOCRATS UNFOUNDED CLAIMS AND THE FULL FACTS ARE OBVIOUSLY NOT BEFORE US TODAY. WE'VE BEEN ALLOWED NO FACT WITNESSES AT ALL. FOR THE FIRST TIME EVER THIS COMMITTEE WHICH IS THE ONE IN CONGRESS THAT HAS THE JURISDICTION OVER IMPEACHMENT HAS BEEN GIVEN NO ACCESS TO THE UNDERLYING EVIDENCE THAT ADAM SCHIFF AND HIS POLITICAL ACCOMPLICES CLAIM SUPPORTS THIS WHOLE CHERADE. UNDER NORMAL CIRCUMSTANCES I WOULD GREATLY ENJOY AN ACADEMIC DISCUSSIONS WITH YOU AND DEBATE BUT THAT WOULD BE AN UTTER WASTE OF OUR TIME TODAY BECAUSE AS HAS BEEN HIGHLIGHTED SO MANY TIMES THIS MORNING, THIS WHOLE PRODUCTION IS A SHAM AND RECKLESS PATH TO A PREDETERMINED POLITICAL OUTCOME AND I WANT YOU TO KNOW THAT IT'S AN OUTCOME THAT WAS PREDETERMINED BY OUR DEMOCRATIC COLLEAGUES A LONG TIME AGO. THE TRUTH IS HOUSE DEMOCRATS HAVE BEEN WORKING TO IMPEACH PRESIDENT DONALD J. TRUMP SINCE THE DAY HE TOOK HIS OATH OF OFFICE. THEY HAVE INTRODUCED FOUR DIFFERENT RESOLUTIONS SEEKING TO IMPEACH THE PRESIDENT. ALMOST EXACTLY TWO YEARS AGO AS ONE OF THE GRAPHICS UP HERE SHOWS, DECEMBER 6th, 2017, 58 HOUSE DEMOCRATS VOTED TO BEGIN IMPEACHMENT PROCEEDINGS. OF COURSE THAT WAS ALMOST 20 MONTHS BEFORE THE FAMOUS JULY 25th PHONE CALL WITH UKRAINE'S PRESIDENT AND THIS OTHER GRAPHIC UP HERE IS SMALLER BUT IT'S INTERESTING TOO. IT'S IMPORTANT TO REITERATE FOR EVERYBODY WATCHING AT HOME THAT OF OUR 24 DEMOCRATIC COLLEAGUES AND FRIENDS ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE ROOM TODAY 17 OUT OF 24 ALREADY VOTED FOR IMPEACHMENT. SO LET'S NOT PRETEND THAT ANYBODY CARES ANYTHING ABOUT WHAT'S BEING SAID HERE TODAY OR THE ACTUAL EVIDENCE OR THE FACTS. THAT'S NOT HAPPENING HERE. SO MUCH FOR AN IMPARTIAL JURY. SEVERAL TIMES THIS YEAR LEADING DEMOCRATS FRANKLY ADMITTED IN VARIOUS INTERVIEWS AND CORRESPONDENCE THAT THEY BELIEVE THIS ENTIRE STRATEGY IS NECESSARY, BECAUSE WHY? BECAUSE THEY WANT TO STOP THE PRESIDENT'S RE-ELECTION. EVEN SPEAKER PELOSI SAID FAMOUSLY LAST MONTH THAT, QUOTE, IT IS DANGEROUS TO ALLOW THE AMERICAN PEOPLE TO EVALUATE HIS PERFORMANCE AT THE BALLOT BOX. SPEAKER PELOSI HAS IT EXACTLY BACKWARDS. WHAT IS DANGEROUS HERE IS THE PRECEDENT ALL OF THIS IS SETTING FOR THE FUTURE OF OUR REPUBLIC. I LOVE WHAT HE TESTIFIED TOO THIS MORNING. HE SAID THIS IS SIMPLY NOT HOW THE IMPEACHMENT OF A PRESIDENT IS DONE. HIS RHETORICAL QUESTION TO ALL OF THE COLLEAGUES ON THE OTHER SIDE IS STILL ECHOING THROUGHOUT THIS CHAMBER. HE ASKED YOU TO ASK YOURSELVES WHERE IS THIS AND WHERE WILL YOU STAND WHEN THIS IMPEACHMENT PROCESS IS INITIATED AGAINST A PRESIDENT FROM YOUR PARTY. THE REAL SHAME HERE TODAY IS THAT EVERYTHING IN WASHINGTON HAS BECOME BITTERLY PARTISAN AND THIS UGLY CHAPTER ISN'T GOING TO HELP THAT. IT'S GOING TO MAKE THINGS THAT MUCH WORSE. HE SAID EARLIER THAT WE ARE NOW LIVING IN THE AREA FEARED BY OUR FOUNDERS. WHAT HAMILTON REFERRED TO AS A PERIOD OF AGITATED PASSION. THAT SAYS IT SO WELL. THIS HAS BECOME AN AGE OF RAGE. PRESIDENT WASHINGTON WARNED IN IT WOULD LEAD US TO THE RUINS OF PUBLIC LIBERTY. LET ME TELL YOU WHAT I HEARD FROM MEETINGS IN ANY DISTRICT TWO DAYS AGO. THE PEOPLE OF THIS COUNTRY ARE SICK OF THIS. THEY'RE SICK OF THE POLITICS OF PERSONAL DESTRUCTION. THEY'RE SICK OF THIS TOXIC ATMOSPHERE THAT'S BEING CREATED HERE AND THEY'RE DEEPLY CONCERNED ABOUT WHERE ALL OF THIS WILL LEAD US IN THE YEARS AHEAD. AND RIGHTFULLY SO. DO YOU KNOW WHAT THE GREATEST THREAT IS? THE RAPIDLY ERODING TRUST. ONE OF THE FOUNDATIONS OF SELF-GOVERNING PEOPLE IN A CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC IS THEY WILL MAINTAIN A BASIC LEVEL OF TRUST IN THEIR INSTITUTIONS. IN THE RULE OF LAW AND SYSTEM OF JUSTICE AND THE BODY OF ELECTED REPRESENTATIVES. THEY'RE CITIZEN LEGISLATORS IN THE CONGRESS. THE GREATEST DANGER OF THIS IS NOT WHAT HAPPENS THIS AFTERNOON OR BY CHRISTMAS OR IN THE ELECTION NEXT FALL. THE GREATEST DANGER IS WHAT THIS WILL DO IN THE DAYS AHEAD. OUR 243 YEAR EXPERIENCE. WHAT EFFECT THIS WILL HAVE UPON OUR NATION SIX OR SEVEN YEARS FROM NOW. A DECADE FROM NOW IN THE RUINS OF PUBLIC LIBERTY THAT ARE BEING CREATED BY THIS TERRIBLY SHORTSIGHTED EXERCISE TODAY. GOD HELP US. I YIELD BACK. >> THE GENTLEMAN YIELDS BACK. >> HE IS A FORMER PROSECUTOR AND I RECOGNIZE THE DEFENSE ATTORNEY TRYING TO REPRESENT THEIR CLIENT. ESPECIALLY ONE WHO HAS VERY LITTLE TO WORK WITH IN THE WAY OF FACTS AND TODAY YOU'RE REPRESENTING THE REPUBLICANS AND THEIR DEFENSE OF THE PRESIDENT. PROFESSOR -- >> THAT'S NOT MY INTENTION, SIR. >> YOU SAID THAT THIS CASE REPRESENTS A DRAMATIC TURNING POINT IN IMPEACHMENT PRECEDENT. THE IMPACT OF WHICH WILL SHAPE AND DETERMINE FUTURE CASES. THE HOUSE FOR THE FIRST TIME IN THE MODERN ERA ASKED THE SENATE TO REMOVE SOMEONE FOR CONDUCT FOR WHICH HE WAS NEVER CHARGED CRIMINALLY AND HAS NEVER BEEN TESTED IN THE COURT OF LAW BUT THAT'S NOT A DIRECT QUOTE FROM WHAT YOU SAID TODAY. IT SOUNDS A LOT LIKE WHAT YOU ARGUED TODAY BUT THAT'S A QUOTE FROM WHAT YOU ARGUED AS A DEFENSE LAWYER IN A 2010 SENATE IMPEACHMENT TRIAL. PROFESSOR, DID YOU REPRESENT THE FEDERAL JUDGE. >> I DID. >> AND HE WAS TRIED ON FOUR ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT RANGING FROM ENGAGING IN A PATTERN OF CONDUCT INCOMPATIBLE WITH TRUST PLACED ON HIM AS A FEDERAL JUDGE TO ENGAGING IN CORRUPT CONDUCT THAT DEMONSTRATES HIS UNFITNESS TO SERVE AS A UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE. ON EACH COUNT, HE WAS CONVICTED BY AT LEAST 68 AND UP TO 96 BIPARTISAN SENATORS. BUT WE'RE HERE BECAUSE OF THIS PHOTO. IT'S A PICTURE IN MAY OF THIS YEAR STANDING ON THE EASTERN FRONT OF UKRAINE AS A WAR WAS TAKING PLACE AND UP TO 15,000 UKRAINIANS DIED AT THE HANDS OF RUSSIANS. I'D LIKE TO FOCUS ON THE IMPACT OF PRESIDENT TRUMP'S CONDUCT PARTICULARLY WITH OUR ALLIES THAT ARE STANDING IN THE WORLD. THIS ISN'T JUST A PRESIDENT AS PROFESSOR CARLIN POINTED OUT ASKING FOR ANOTHER FOREIGN LEADER TO INVESTIGATE A POLITICAL OPPONENT. IT'S ALSO A PRESIDENT LEVERAGING A WHITE HOUSE VISIT AS WELL AS FOREIGN AID. THEY NEED OUR SUPPORT AND I HAVE HEARD JUST HOW IMPORTANT THEY WERE PARTICULARLY FROM AMBASSADOR TAYLOR. THIS ASSISTANCE ALLOWS THE UKRAINIAN MILITARY TO DETER FURTHER INCURSIONS BY THE RUSSIANS AGAINST UKRAINIAN TERRITORY. AND THAT FURTHER -- >> FURTHER AGGRESSION WERE TO TAKE PLACE -- >> DOES THE PRESIDENT'S DECISION TO WITH HOLD FROM UKRAINE SUCH IMPORTANT OFFICIAL ACTS HE ORDERED TO PRESSURE AND RELATE TO THE FRAMERS CONCERNS ABOUT THE ABUSE OF POWER AND ENTANGLEMENTS WITH FOREIGN NATIONS. >>> YES, TODAY 50 MILLION IMMIGRANTS LIVE IN THE UNITED STATES. I MOVE BY ONE WHO RECENTLY TOLD ME AND SAID THAT FOR THE LAST 20 YEARS HE HAD LEFT AND WHY HE HAD COME TO THE UNITED STATES AND HE TOLD ME THAT WHEN HE HAS GONE HOME RECENTLY THEY NOW WAG THEIR FINGER AT HIM AND SAY YOU'RE GOING TO LECTURE US ABOUT CORRUPTION? WHAT DO YOU THINK THE PRESIDENT'S CONDUCT SAYS TO THE MILLIONS OF AMERICANS THAT LEFT THEIR FAMILIES AND LIVELIHOODS THAT COME TO A COUNTRY THAT BELIEVES IN THE RULE OF LAW. >> IT SUGGESTS THAT WE DON'T BELIEVE IN THE RULE OF LAW AND IT TELLS EMERGING DEMOCRACIES NOT TO TAKE IT SERIOUSLY WHEN WE TELL THEM THAT THEIR ELECTIONS ARE NOT LEGITIMATE BECAUSE OF FOREIGN INTERFERENCE OR THEIR ELECTIONS ARE NOT LEGITIMATE BECAUSE OF PERSECUTION OF THE OPPOSING PARTY. AND PRESIDENT BUSH ANNOUNCED THAT HE DID NOT CONSIDER THE ELECTIONS IN 2006 TO BE LEGITIMATE FOR EXACTLY THAT REASON BECAUSE THEY WENT AFTER POLITICAL POENTS. >> AND FINALLY WE SHOULD WAIT AND GO TO THE COURTS BUT YOU WOULD ACKNOWLEDGE THAT WE HAVE GONE TO THE COURTS AND WE HAVE BEEN IN THE COURT FOR OVER SIX MONTHS ON MATTERS ALREADY SETTLED IN THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT. PARTICULARLY NIXON WHERE THE PRESIDENT SEEMS TO BE RUNNING OUT THE CLOCK, IS THAT RIGHT. >> I ASK EVERYONE IN THE ROOM TO PLEASE REMAIN SEATED AND QUITE WHILE THE WITNESSES EXIT THE ROOM AND ALSO WANTED TO REMIND THOSE IN THE AUDIENCE THAT YOU MAY NOT BE GUARANTEED YOUR SEAT IF YOU LEAVE THE HEARING ROOM AT THIS TIME. AND WE ARE BRINGING YOU LIVE COVERAGE OF THE IMPEACHMENT HEARING ON THE CSPAN NETWORKS. >>> THE COMMITTEE I'M PROCEEDING UNDER THE RULE. >> I WONDER HOW THIS PANEL CAN OPINE AS TO WHETHER THE PRESIDENT COMMITTED AN IMPEACHMENT OFFENSE AND THE ANSWER QUITE FRANKLY IS BECAUSE YOU CAME IN WITH A PRECONCEIVED NOTION. YOU ALREADY MADE THAT DETERMINATION AND DECISION. I'LL GIVE YOU A FOR INSTANCE. UNTIL THE RECENT COLLCOLLOQUY, SEVERAL OF YOU SAID THE PRESIDENT SAID I WOULD LIKE YOU TO DO ME A FAVOR. BUT THAT WAS INACCURATE. AND I'M GOING TO READ IT TO YOU. I WOULD LIKE YOU TO DO US A FAVOR THOUGH BECAUSE OUR COUNTRY HAS BEEN THROUGH A LOT. ONE OF YOU SAID WELL THAT'S BECAUSE THE PRESIDENT WAS USING ROYAL WE. HERE THE PRESIDENT IS TALKING ABOUT THE COUNTRY. THAT'S WHAT HE'S TALKING ABOUT. IT'S AUDACIOUS TO SAY IT'S USING THE ROYAL WE. THAT'S ROYAL, ALL RIGHT BUT IT AIN'T THE ROYAL WE. AND I'LL JUST TELL YOU, WHEN YOU COME IN WITH A PRECONCEIVED NOTION IT BECOMES OBVIOUS. ONE OF YOU JUST SAID, MR. FELDMAN IT WAS YOU WHO SAID, AND I'M GOING TO QUOTE HERE, ROUGHLY, I THINK THIS IS EXACTLY WHAT YOU SAID THOUGH, UNTIL THE CALL ON JULY 25th, I WAS AN IMPEACHMENT SKEPTIC TOO. I DON'T KNOW, I'M LOOKING AT IT AUGUST 23rd, 2017 PUBLICATION WHERE YOU SAID IF PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP PARDONS JOE ARPAIO IT WOULD BE AN IMPEACHABLE OFFENSE. HE DID. IN 2017, THE NEW YORK BOOK REVIEW, MR. FELDMAN SAID DEFAMATION BY TWEET IS AN IMPEACHABLE OFFENSE. AND I THINK OF A HISTORY OF THIS COUNTRY AND I THINK IF DEFAMATION OR LIABLE OR SLANDER USING THE IMABLE OFFENSE, I CAN'T HELP BUT REFLECT ABOUT JOHN ADAMS OR THOMAS JEFFERSON THAT ROUTINELY HAD THEIR POLITICAL OPPONENTS. IN FACT, AT THE TIME, THE FACTIONS OR PARTIES ACTUALLY BOUGHT NEWSPAPERS TO ATTACK THEIR POLITICAL OPPONENTS. SO, THIS RATHER EXPANSIVE AND GENEROUS VIEW THAT YOU HAVE ON WHAT CONSTITUTES IMPEACHMENT IS A REAL PROBLEM. THIS MORNING, ONE OF YOU MENTIONED THE CONSTITUTIONAL CON -- CONVENTION AND SEVERAL OF YOU TALKED ABOUT THE CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. IT'S BEEN AWHILE SINCE I READ THE MINUTES AND I JUST BRIEFLY REVIEWED BECAUSE I REMEMBERED THE DISCUSSION ON THE IMPEACHMENT AS BEING MORE PERSUASIVE. AND MORE EXPANSIVE. HE IS DISCUSSING THE IMPEACHMENT OF A DUTCH LEADER AND HE TALKS SPECIFICALLY ABOUT WHAT HE WOULD ANTICIPATE AN IMPEACHMENT TO LOOK LIKE. HE SAID A REGULAR IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY. IT WOULD HAVE TAKEN PLACE AND IF ACQUITTED THEN BE RESTORED TO THE CONFIDENCE OF THE PUBLIC. SO I LOOK ALSO AT A MAY 17th ARTICLE WHICH IS A DISCUSSION ABOUT IMPEACHMENT BECAUSE PRESIDENT TRUMP HAD FIRED JAMES COMEY. HE SAID IT WAS HARD TO MAKE THE OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE CASE WITH THIS ALONE. THE PRESIDENT HAD CLEAR LEGAL AUTHORITY AND THERE WAS REASONS FOR FIRING HIM. THAT WAS IMPEACHABLE. REFER YOU TO IT, MAY 17th, 2017, WHAT I'M SUGGESTING TO YOU TODAY IS A RECKLESS BIAS COMING IN HERE AND NOT FACT WITNESSES. YOU'RE SUPPOSED TO BE AND ONE LAST THING HERE IF I CAN FIND IT, AND ONE OF OUR WITNESSES HERE AND IT'S DEALING WITH SOMETHING THAT WAS SAID IN A MARYLAND LAW REVIEW ARTICLE IN 1999 AND BASICALLY IF I CAN GET TO IT, IT'S TALKING ABOUT THIS -- WAS BEING CRITICAL OF LACK OF SELF DOUBT IN AN OVERWHELMING ARROGANCE ON THE PART OF LAW PROFESSORS THAT COME IN AND OPINE ON IMPEACHMENT. THAT WOULD BE YOU THAT SAID SOMETHING LIKE THAT. I CAN'T FIND MY QUOTE OR ELSE I WOULD GIVE IT TO YOU. SO WHAT I'M TELLING YOU IS THAT IS WHAT HAS BEEN ON DISPLAY IN THIS COMMITTEE TODAY AND WITH THAT I YIELD BACK. >> A LITTLE WHILE AGO MR. GATES ASKED CERTAIN MATERIAL BE INSERTED BY UNANIMOUS CONSENT. WE HAVE REVIEWED IT. THE MATERIAL WILL BE INSERTED WITHOUT OBSTRUCTION. MR. LOU. >> THANK YOU. I HAVE FIRST SWORE AN OATH TO THE CONSTITUTION WHEN I WAS COMMISSIONED AS AN OFFICER IN THE UNITED STATES AIR FORCE AND THE OATH I TOOK WAS NOT TO A POLITICAL PARTY OR TO A PRESIDENT OR TO A KING, IT WAS A DOCUMENT THAT'S MADE AMERICA THE GREATEST NATION ON EARTH. I NEVER IMAGINED WE WOULD NOW BE IN A SITUATION WHERE THE PRESIDENT OR COMMANDER IN CHIEF IS ACCUSED OF USING HIS OFFICE FOR PERSONAL POLITICAL GAIN THAT BETRAYED SECURITY AND HELP FOR ADVERSARY RUSSIA. NOW THE CONSTITUTION PROVIDES A SAFE GUARD BUT WHEN THE PRESIDENT'S ABUSE OF POWER AND BETRAYAL OF NATIONAL INTERESTS ARE SO EXTREME THAT IT WARRANTS IMPEACHMENT AND REMOVAL, IT SEEMS NOTABLE THAT OF ALL THE OFFENSES, BRIBERY IS ONE OF ONLY TWO THAT ARE LISTED. SO PROFESSOR, FELDMAN, WHY WOULD THE FRAMERS CHOOSE BRIBERY OF ALL THE POWERFUL OFFENSES THEY COULD HAVE INCLUDED TO LIST? >> IT WITH WAS THE CLASSIC EXAMPLE OF HIGH CRIME AND MISDEMEANOR OF ABUSE OF OFFICE FOR PERSONAL GAIN BECAUSE IF YOU TAKE SOMETHING OF VALUE WHEN YOU'RE ABLE TO EFFECT AN OUTCOME FOR SOMEBODY ELSE, YOU'RE SERVING YOUR OWN INTERESTS AND NOT THE INTEREST OF THE PEOPLE. AND THAT WAS COMMONLY USED IN ENGLAND AND THAT'S ONE OF THE REASONS THEY SPECIFIED IT. >> THANK YOU. NOW EARLY IN THIS HEARING, PROFESSOR CARLIN MADE THE POINT THAT BRIBERY AS ENVISIONED BY THE FRAMERS WAS MUCH BROADER THAN THE FEDERAL CRIMINAL STATUTE OF BRIBERY. WE'RE NOT IN A CRIMINAL PROCEEDING. WE'RE NOT DECIDING WHETHER TO SEND PRESIDENT TRUMP TO PRISON. THIS IS A CIVIL ACTION. IT'S AN IMPEACHMENT PROCEEDING TO DECIDE WHAT WHETHER OR NOT WE REMOVE DONALD TRUMP FROM HIS JOB. SO PROFESSOR, IT'S TRUE, STATE'S EXHIBIT IT THAT, WE DON'T HAVE TO MEET THE STANDARDS OF A FEDERAL BRIBERY STATUTE IN ORDER TO MEET THE STANDARDS FOR IMPEACHMENT OFFENSE. >> THAT'S CORRECT. I'M SORRY. THAT'S CORRECT. >> YESTERDAY, SCALIA LAW PROFESSOR THAT IS A LIFE LONG REPUBLICAN, FORMER REPUBLICAN STAFFER THAT ADVISED THE TRUMP TRANSITION TEAM MADE THE FOLLOWING PUBLIC STATEMENT ABOUT DONALD TRUMP'S CONDUCT. THE CALL WASN'T PERFECT. HE COMMITTED IMPEACHABLE OFFENSES INCLUDING BRIBERY. SO PROFESSOR, I'M NOW GOING TO SHOW YOU TWO VIDEO CLIPS OF THE WITNESS TESTIMONY AND THE PRESIDENT'S WITH HOLDING OF THE WHITE HOUSE MEETING IN EXCHANGE FOR THE PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENT OF THE INVESTIGATION INTO HIS POLITICAL RIVAL. >> AS I TESTIFIED PREVIOUSLY HIS REQUESTS FOR A QUID QUO SPR PRO FOR ARRANGING A VISIT. AND ALLEGED INTERFERENCE IN THE 2016 ELECTIONS. >> CONGRESS IN EXCHANGE FOR ANNOUNCEMENT OF INVESTIGATION. >> IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY CREDIBLE EXPLANATION FOR THE SUSPENSION OF AID I LATER CAME TO BELIEVE THAT THE RESUMPTION OF SECURITY AID WOULD NOT OCCUR UNTIL COMMITTING THE INVESTIGATION OF THE 2016 ELECTIONS AND MR. GIULIANI HAD DEMANDED. >> I'M ALSO A FORMER PROSECUTOR. I BELIEVE IT WOULD ALSO MEET THE STANDARDS FOR CRIMINAL BRIBERY. THE SUPREME COURT'S DECISION WAS PRIMARILY ABOUT WHAT CONSTITUTES AN OFFICIAL ACT. AND FORMAL EXERCISE OF GOVERNMENTAL POWER ON SOMETHING BEFORE A PUBLIC OFFICIAL. WE HAVE HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS OF DOLLARS OF MILITARY AID AND THE FREEZING AND UNFREEZING OF THAT AID IS A FORMAL EXERCISE OF GOVERNMENTAL POWER. THERE'S ANOTHER CRIME HERE. IT'S THE SOLICITATION OF A FOREIGN GOVERNMENT IN A FEDERAL ELECTION CAMPAIGN. THAT STRAIGHT UP VIOLATES THE FEDERAL ELECTION CAMPAIGN. AND OH BY THE WAY, THAT'S ONE REASON HE IS SITTING IN PRISON RIGHT NOW. I YIELD BACK. >> HOW MANY OF THE PANEL ACTUALLY VOTED FOR DONALD TRUMP FOR 2016. >> I DON'T GET TO SAY ANYTHING ABOUT IT. >>> GENTLEMAN WILL SUSPEND. WE'LL SUSPEND THE CLOCK TOO. >> GENTLEMAN MAY ASK THE QUESTION, THE WITNESSES DON'T HAVE TO RESPOND. >> HOW MANY OF YOU SUPPORTED DONALD TRUMP. >> NOT RAISING OUR HANDS IS NOT AN INDICATION OF AN ANSWER, SIR. >> THIS HAS BEEN PREDICATED ON RATHER DISTURBING LEGAL DOCTRINES. ONE DEMOCRAT ASSERTED THAT HEARSAY CAN BE MUCH BETTER EVIDENCE THAN DIRECT EVIDENCE. SPEAKER PELOSI AND OTHERS SAID THAT THE PRESIDENT'S RESPONSIBILITY IS TO PRESENT EVIDENCE TO PROVE HIS INNOCENCE. WE HEARD IF YOU INVOKE LEGAL RIGHTS IN DEFENSE OF CRIMINAL ACCUSATIONS THAT'S AN ON INSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE AND EVIDENCE OF GUILT. MY QUESTION TO YOU IS WHAT DOES IT MEAN TO OUR AMERICAN JUSTICE SYSTEM IF THESE DOCTRINES TAKE ROUTE IN OUR COUNTRY. >> WHAT CONCERNS ME THE MOST IS THAT THERE'S NO LIMITING PRINCIPLES THAT I CAN SEE AND MORE IMPORTANTLY SOME OF THESE I ONLY HEARD ABOUT TODAY. AND THEY'RE ATTEMPTING TO USE AND YOU RECOGNIZE IT. BUT I'M PRETTY CONFIDENT THAT NOBODY ON THIS COMMITTEE WANTS THE NEW STANDARD OF IMPEACHMENT TO BE BETRAYAL OF THE NATIONAL INTEREST. THAT IS GOING TO BE THE BASIS FOR IMPEACHMENT. HOW MANY REPUBLICANS DO YOU THINK WOULD SAY THAT BARRACK OBAMA VIOLATED THAT STANDARD. THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT JAMES MADISON WARNED YOU AGAINST. IS THAT YOU WOULD CREATE A VOTE OF NO CONFIDENCE STANDARD IN OUR CONSTITUTION. >> ARE WE IN DANGER OF ABUSING OUR OWN POWER OF DOING ENORMOUS VIOLENCE TO OUR CONSTITUTION. AND BEFORE THE PRESIDENT WAS SWORN IN ON THIS PANEL. PROFESSOR CALLED IT ILLEGITIMATE IN 2017. SHE IMPLIED IMPEACHMENT WAS A REMEDY. PROFESSOR FELDMAN ADVOCATED IMPEACHING THE PRESIDENT OVER A TWEET HE MADE IN MARCH OF 2017. THAT'S JUST 7 WEEKS AFTER HIS INAUGURATION. ARE WE IN DANGER OF SENTENCE FIRST AND VERDICT AFTERWARDS. >> WELL, THIS IS PART OF THE PROBLEM OF HOW YOUR VIEW OF THE PRESIDENT CAN EFFECT YOUR ASSUMPTIONS AND INFERENCES AND VIEW OF CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE. I'M NOT SUGGESTING THAT THE EVIDENCE, IF IT WAS FULLY INVESTIGATED WOULD COME OUT ONE WAY OR THE OTHER. WHAT I'M SAYING IS THAT WE ARE NOT DEALING WITH THE REALM OF THE UNKNOWABLE. YOU HAVE TO ASK, WE BURNED TWO MONTHS IN THIS HOUSE THAT YOU COULD HAVE BEEN IN COURT SEEKING A SUBPOENA FOR THESE WITNESSES. IT DOESN'T MEAN THAT YOU HAVE TO WAIT FOREVER. YOU COULD HAVE GOTTEN AN ORDER BY NOW. YOU COULD HAVE ALLOWED THE PRESIDENT TO RAISE AN EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE CLAIM. >> I NEED TO GO ON HERE. THE CONSTITUTION SAYS THE EXECUTIVE AUTHORITY SHOULD BE VESTED IN A PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES. DOES THAT MEAN SOME OF THE EXECUTIVE AUTHORITY OR ALL OF IT? >> OBVIOUSLY THERE'S CHECKS AND BALANCES ON ALL OF THESE BUT THE EXECUTIVE AUTHORITY PRIMARILY RESTS WITH THE PRESIDENT BUT THESE ARE ALL SHARED POWERS. I DON'T BEGRUDGE THE INVESTIGATION OF THE UKRAINE CONTROVERSY. I BEGRUDGE HOW IT HAS BEEN CONDUCTED. >> I AGREE WITH THAT. THE CONSTITUTION COMMANDS THE PRESIDENT TAKE CARE THAT THE LAWS BE ENFORCED. THAT DOESN'T MAKE HIM THE CHIEF LAW ENFORCEMENT OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT. >> SO TO BELIEVE A CRIME'S BEEN COMMITTED DOES THE PRESIDENT HAS THE AUTHORITY TO INQUIRE INTO THAT MATTER. >> HE HAS. BUT THIS IS WHERE I THINK WE WOULD DEPART. I HAVE BEEN CRITICAL OF THE PRESIDENT IN TERMS OF CROSSING LINES WITH THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT. THAT HAS CAUSED CONSIDERABLE PROBLEMS AND I DON'T BELIEVE IT'S APPROPRIATE BUT WE OFTEN CONFUSE WHAT IS INAPPROPRIATE WITH WHAT IS IMPEACHABLE. MANY PEOPLE FEEL THAT WHAT THE PRESIDENT HAS DONE IS OBNOXIOUS, CONTEMPTIBLE, BUT CONTEMPTIBLE IS NOT SYNONYMOUS WITH IMPEACHMENT. >> LET ME ASK YOU A FINAL QUESTION, THE NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT THAT AUTHORIZED AID TO UKRAINE REQUIRES THEY CERTIFY THAT THE GOVERNMENT OF UKRAINE TAKE SUBSTANTIAL ACTIONS TO MAKE DEFENSE INSTITUTION REFORMS FOR THE PURPOSES OF DECREASING CORRUPTION. IS THE PRESIDENT EXERCISING THAT RESPONSIBILITY WHEN HE INQUIRES INTO A MATTER THAT COULD INVOLVE ILLEGALITIES BETWEEN AMERICAN AND UKRAINIAN OFFICIALS? PART IS YOU JUST IGNORE DEFENSES. THEY'RE JUST THE OTHER SIDE'S ACCOUNT FOR ACTIONS. >> THE GENTLEMAN'S TIME HAS EXPIRED. >> THANK YOU. I WANT TO THANK THE WITNESSES FOR THEIR HARD WORK ON A LONG DAY. I WANT TO THANK THEM ESPECIALLY FOR INVOKING THE AMERICAN REVOLUTION WHICH NOT ONLY OVERTHREW A KING BUT CREATED THE WORLD'S FIRST ANTI-MONARCHICAL CONSTITUTION. IT MAKES ME PROUD TO HAVE SPENT MY CAREER AS A FELLOW CONSTITUTIONAL LAW PROFESSOR BEFORE RUNNING IN CONGRESS. IN THE MONARCHY THE KING IS LAW BUT IN THE DEMOCRACIES THE LAW WILL BE KING BUT TODAY THE PRESIDENT ADVANCES AN ARGUMENT AND SAYS THAT ARTICLE 2 ALLOWS HIM TO DO WHATEVER HE WANTS. WANTS. HE NOT ONLY SAYS THAT, BUT HE BELIEVES IT BECAUSE HE DID SOMETHING NO OTHER AMERICAN PRESIDENT HAS DONE BEFORE. HE USED FOREIGN MILITARY AID AS A LEVER TO COERCE A FOREIGN GOVERNMENT TO INTERFERE IN AN AMERICAN ELECTION TO DISCREDIT AN OPPONENT INTO ADVANCE HIS RE-ELECTION CAMPAIGN. PROFESSOR CARLIN, WHAT IS THE EXISTENCE OF THE IMPEACHMENT POWER TELL US ABOUT THE PRESIDENT'S CLAIM THAT THE CONSTITUTION ALLOWS HIM TO DO WHATEVER HE WANTS? >> IT BLOWS IT OUT OF THE WATER. >> IF HE'S RIGHT AND WE ACCEPT THIS RADICAL CLAIM THAT WE CAN DO WHATEVER HE WANT, ALL FUTURE PRESIDENTS SEEKING RE-ELECTION WILL SEEK FOREIGN GOVERNMENTS INTO THEIR CAMPAIGNS TO TARGET THEIR ARRIVALS AND SPREAD PROPAGANDA. THAT'S ASTOUNDING. IF WE LET THE PRESIDENT GET AWAY WITH THIS CONDUCT, EVERY PRESIDENT CAN GET AWAY WITH IT. DO YOU AGREE WITH THAT, PROFESSOR FELDMAN? >> I DO. RICHARD NIXON SENT BURGLARS TO BREAK INTO THE DEMOCRATIC NATIONAL COMMITTEE HEADQUARTERS, BUT PRESIDENT TRUMP MADE A DIRECT PHONE CALL TO THE PRESIDENT OF A FOREIGN COUNTY AND SOUGHT HIS INTERVENTION IN AN AMERICAN ELECTION. >> THIS IS A BIG MOMENT FOR AMERICA, ISN'T IT? >> IF ELIJAH CUMMINGS WERE HERE HE'D SAY LISTEN UP, PEOPLE N. LISTEN UP! HOW WE RESPOND WILL REPRESENT THE CHARACTER OF OUR DEMOCRACY FOR GENERATIONS. PROFESSOR CARLIN SAID THERE WAS THREE DOMINANT REASONS INVOKED AT THE FOUNDING FOR WHY WE NEEDED AN IMPEACHMENT POWER. BROADLY SPEAKING, IT WAS AN INSTRUMENT OF POPULAR SELF-DEFENSE AND TRAMPLING THE RULE OF LAW AND NOT JUST IN THE ROYAL NORMAL SENSE IN SHOWING CRUELTY, VANITY AND TREACHERY, AND GREED AND SO ON, BUT WHEN PRESIDENTS THREATENED THE BASIC CHARACTER OF OUR GOVERNMENT AND THE CONSTITUTION, THAT'S WHAT IMPEACHMENT WAS ABOUT AND THE FRAMERS INVOKED THREE SPECIFIC KINDS OF MISCONDUCT SO SERIOUS AND EGREGIOUS THAT THEY THOUGHT THEY WARRANTED IMPEACHMENT. FIRST, THE PRESIDENT MIGHT ABUSE HAS POWER BY CORRUPTLY USING HIS OFFICE FOR PERSONAL, POLITICAL OR FINANCIAL GAIN. PROFESSOR FELDMAN, WHAT'S SO WRONG WITH THAT. IF THE PRESIDENT BELONGS TO MY PARTY, AND I GENERALLY LIKE HIM, WHAT IS SO WRONG WITH HIM USING HIS OFFICE TO ADVANCE HIS POLITICAL AMBITIONS. >> THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES WORKS FOR THE PEOPLE IF HE SERVES PERSONAL GAIN HE'S NOT SERVING THE INTERESTS OF THE PEOPLE AND HE'S SERVING THE INTERESTS SPECIFIC TO HIM AND THAT MEANS HE'S ABUSING THE OFFICE AND HE'S DOING THINGS THAT HE CAN ONLY GET AWAY WITH BECAUSE HE IS THE PRESIDENT AND THAT'S NECESSARILY SUBJECT TO IMPEACHMENT. >> WELL, SECOND AND THIRD, THE FOUNDERS EXPRESSED FEAR THAT A PRESIDENT COULD SUBVERT OUR DEMOCRACY BY BETRAYING HIS TRUST TO FOREIGN INFLUENCE IN INTERFERENCE AND ALSO BY CORRUPTING THE ELECTION PROCESS. PROFESSOR CARLIN, YOU'RE ONE OF AMERICA'S SCHOLARS AND WHAT ROLE DOES IMPEACHMENT PLAY ESPECIALLY IN AN INTERNATIONAL CONTEXT IN WHICH VLADIMIR PUTIN AND OTHER TYRANTS AND DESPOTS ARE INTERFERING TO DESTABILIZE ELECTIONS AROUND THE WORLD? >> WELL, CONGRESS HAS ENACTED A SERIES OF LAWS TO MAKE SURE THAT THERE ISN'T FOREIGN INFLUENCE IN OUR ELECTIONS AND ALLOWING THE PRESIDENT TO CIRCUMVENT THAT PRINCIPLE IS A PROBLEM AND AS I'VE ALREADY TESTIFIED SEVERAL TIMES, AMERICA IS NOT JUST THE LAST BEST HOPE AS MR. JEFFERIES SAID, BUT IT'S ALSO THE SHINING CITY ON THE HILL. WE CAN'T BE THE SHINING CITY ON THE HILL AND PROMOTE DEMOCRAT SEE AROUND THE WORLD IF WE'RE NOT PROMOTING IT HERE AT HOME. >> ANY ONE OF THESE ACTIONS ALONE WOULD BE SUFFICIENT FOR IMPEACHMENT ACCORDING TO THE FOUNDERS, BUT IS IT SUFFICIENT TO SAY THAT ALL THREE CAUSES -- YES OR NO, PROFESSOR FELDMAN? >> PROFESSOR GERHARD? >> YES. >> PROFESSOR CARL IN? >> YES. >> YOU AGREE. ARE ANY OF YOU AWARE THAT ANIMATED THE FOUNDERS? >> NO. >> NO. >> NO, AS WELL. >> MR. CHAIRMAN, IT'S HARD TO THINK OF A MORE MONARCHAL SEBTS IMENT THAN I CAN DO WHATEVER I WANT AS PRESIDENT, AND I YIELD BACK. >> GENTLEMAN YIELDS BACK. MISS LESKO. >> THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR. I ASK UNANIMOUS CONSENT A LETTER I WROTE AND SENT TO YOU, ASKING, CALLING ON YOU TO CANCEL ANY AND ALL FUTURE IMPEACHMENT HEARINGS AND OUTLINING THE PROJECT. >> WITHOUT OBJECTION THE LETTER WILL BE ENTERED INTO THE RECORD. >> THANK YOU. DURING AN INTERVIEW, MR. CHAIRMAN ON MSNBC'S "MORNING JOE" ON NOVEMBER 26, 2018, CHAIRMAN NADLER OUTLINED A THREE-PRONGED TEST THAT HE SAID WOULD ALLOW FOR A LEGITIMATE IMPEACHMENT PROCEEDING. NOW I QUOTE CHAIRMAN NADLER'S REMARKS. AND THIS IS WHAT HE SAID. THERE REALLY ARE THREE QUESTIONS, I THINK. FIRST, HAS THE PRESIDENT COMMITTED IMPEACHABLE OFFENSES? SECOND, DO THOSE OFFENSES RISE TO THE GRAVITY THAT'S WORTH PUTTING THE COUNTRY THROUGH THE DRAMA OF IMPEACHMENT? AND NUMBER THREE, BECAUSE YOU DON'T WANT TO TEAR THE COUNTRY APART, YOU DON'T WANT HALF OF THE COUNTRY TO SAY TO THE OTHER HALF FOR THE NEXT 30 YEARS, WE WON THE ELECTION, YOU STOLE IT FROM US. YOU HAVE TO BE ABLE TO THINK AT THE BEGINNING OF THE IMPEACHMENT PROCESS THAT THE EVIDENCE IS SO CLEAR OF OFFENSES SO GRAVE THAT ONCE YOU'VE LAID OUT ALL OF THE EVIDENCE, A GOOD FRACTION OF THE OPPOSITION, THE VOTERS WILL RELUCTANTLY ADMIT TO THEMSELVES THEY HAD TO DO IT. OTHERWISE, YOU HAD A PARTISAN IMPEACHMENT WHICH WILL TEAR THE COUNTRY APART. IF YOU MEET THESE THREE TESTS, THEN I THINK YOU'D DO THE IMPEACHMENT AND THOSE WERE THE WORDS OF CHAIRMAN NADLER. NOW LET'S SEE IF CHAIRMAN NADLER'S THREE-PRONGED TEST HAS BEEN MET. FIRST, HAS THE PRESIDENT COMMITTED AN IMPEACHABLE OFFENSE? NO. THE EVIDENCE AND TESTIMONY HAS NOT REVEALED ANY IMPEACHABLE OFFENSE. SECOND, DO THOSE OFFENSES RISE TO THE GRAVITY THAT'S WORTH PUTTING THE COUNTRY THROUGH THE DRAMA OF IMPEACHMENT? AGAIN, THE ANSWER IS NO. THERE'S NOTHING HERE THAT RISES TO THE GRAVITY THAT'S WORTH PUTTING THE COUNTRY THROUGH THE DRAMA OF IMPEACHMENT. AND THIRD, HAVE THE DEMOCRATS LAID OUT A CASE SO CLEAR THAT EVEN THE OPPOSITION HAS TO AGREE? ABSOLUTELY NOT. YOU AND HOUSE DEMOCRAT LEADERSHIP ARE TEARING APART THE COUNTRY. YOU SAID THE EVIDENCE NEEDS TO BE CLEAR. IT IS NOT. YOU SAID OFFENSES NEED TO BE GRAVE, THEY ARE NOT. >> YOU SAID THAT ONCE THE EVIDENCE IS LAID OUT THAT THE OPPOSITION WILL ADMIT THEY HAD TO DO IT. THAT HAS NOT HAPPENED. IN FACT, POLLING AND THE FACT THAT NOT ONE SINGLE REPUBLICAN VOTED ON THE IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY RESOLUTION OR ON THE SCHIFF REPORT REVEAL THE OPPOSITE IS TRUE. IN FACT, WHAT YOU AND YOUR DEMOCRATIC COLLEAGUES HAVE DONE IS OPPOSITE OF WHAT YOU SAID HAD TO BE DONE. THIS IS A PARTISAN IMPEACHMENT, AND IT IS TEARING THE COUNTRY APART. I TAKE THIS ALL TO MEAN THAT CHAIRMAN NADLER, ALONG WITH THE REST OF THE DEMOCRATIC CAUCUS IS PREPARED TO CONTINUE THESE ENTIRELY PARTISAN, UNFAIR PROCEEDINGS AND TRAUMATIZE THE AMERICAN PEOPLE ALL FOR A POLITICAL PURPOSE. I THINK THAT'S A SHAME, THAT'S NOT LEADERSHIP. THAT'S A SHAM, AND SO I ASK MR. TURLEY, HAS CHAIRMAN NADLER SATISFIED HIS THREE-PRONGED TEST FOR IMPEACHMENT? >> WITH ALL DUE RESPECT TO THE CHAIRMAN, DO I NOT BELIEVE THOSE FACTORS WERE SATISFIED. >> THANK YOU. AND I WANT TO CORRECT SOMETHING FOR THE RECORD, AS WELL. REPEATEDLY TODAY AND OTHER DAYS, DEMOCRATS HAVE REPEATED WHAT WAS SAID IN THE TEXT OF THE CALL. DO ME A FAVOR, THOUGH AND THE IMPLY WAS AGAINST PRESIDENT BIDEN. TO IMPEACH PRESIDENT BIDEN. IT WAS NOT. IT WAS NOT. LET ME READ WHAT THE TRANSCRIPT SAID ARE SAYS TO PRESIDENT TRUMP, I WOULD LIKE YOU TO DO US A FAVOR BECAUSE OUR COUNTRY KNOWS A LOT AND UKRAINE KNOWS A LOT ABOUT IT AND I WOULD LIKE YOU TO FIND OUT THE WHOLE SITUATION WITH UKRAINE. THEY SAY CROWD STRIKE. I GUESS YOU HAVE ONE OF YOUR OWN WEALTHY PEOPLE. IT SAYS NOTHING ABOUT THE BIDENS SO PLEASE STOP REFERENCING THOSE TWO TOGETHER AND I YIELD BACK. >> THE GENTLE LADY YIELDS BACK. >> THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN. THIS IS A DEEPLY GRAVE MOMENT THAT WE FIND OURSELVES IN, AND I THOUGHT THE THREAT TO OUR NATION WAS WELL ARTICULATED EARLIER TODAY BY PROFESSOR FELDMAN WHO YOU SAID, IF WE CANNOT IMPEACH A PRESIDENT WHO ABUSES HIS OFFICE FOR PERSONAL ADVANTAGE, WE NO LONGER LIVE IN A DEMOCRACY. WE LIVE IN A MONARCHY OR WE LIVE UNDER A DICTATORSHIP. MY VIEW IS THAT IF PEOPLE CANNOT DEPEND ON THE FAIRNESS OF OUR ELECTIONS, THEN WHAT PEOPLE ARE CALLING DIVISIVE TODAY WILL BE ABSOLUTELY NOTHING COMPARED TO THE SHREDDING OF OUR DEMOCRACY. AFTER THE EVENTS OF UKRAINE UNFOLDED, THE PRESIDENT CLAIMED THAT THE REASON THAT HE REQUESTED AN INVESTIGATION INTO HIS POLITICAL OPPONENTS AND WITHHELD DESPERATELY NEEDED AID TO UKRAINE WAS SUPPOSEDLY BECAUSE HE WAS WORRIED ABOUT CORRUPTION. HOWEVER, CONTRARY TO THE PRESIDENT'S STATEMENTS, VARIOUS WITNESSES INCLUDING VICE PRESIDENT PENCE'S SPECIAL ADVISER JENNIFER WILLIAMS TESTIFIED THAT THE PRESIDENT'S REQUEST WAS POLITICAL. TAKE A LISTEN. >> I FOUND THE JULY 25th PHONE CALL UNUSUAL BECAUSE IN CONTRAST TO OTHER PRESIDENTIAL CALLS I HAD OBSERVED IT INVOLVED DISCUSSION OF WHAT APPEARED TO BE A DOMESTIC, POLITICAL MATTER. >> FOR SOMEONE WHO GETS CAUGHT TO DENY THAT THEIR BEHAVIOR IS IMPERMISSIBLE? >> ALMOST ALWAYS. >> AND ONE OF THE QUESTIONS BEFORE US IS WHETHER THE PRESIDENT'S CLAIM THAT HE CARED ABOUT CORRUPTION IS ACTUALLY CREDIBLE. YOU'VE ARGUED BEFORE THE SUPREME COURT AND THE SUPREME COURT DETERMINED THAT WHEN ASSESSING CREDIBILITY WE SHOULD LOOK AT A NUMBER OF FACTORS AND INCLUDING IMPACT AND DEPARTURES FOR NORMAL PROCEDURES. >> WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO DO IS FIGURE OUT IF THE EXPLANATION FITS WITH THE FACTS AND IF IT DOESN'T THE EXPLANATION IS NOT TRUE. UT LUTE COLONEL VINDMAN TALKED ABOUT HE REPAIRED FOR TRUMP'S CALL WITH PRESIDENT ZELENSKY. HOWEVER, BASED ON THE TRANSCRIPTS RELEASED ON APRIL AND JULY PRESIDENT TRUMP NEVER MENTIONED THESE POINTS OF CORRUPTION. HE ACTUALLY NEVER MENTIONED THE WORD CORRUPTION. DOES THAT GO TO ANY OF THOSE FACTORS? IS THAT SIGNIFICANT? >> YES. IT GOES TO THE ONE ABOUT PROCEDURAL IRREGULARITIES AND IT GOES TO THE ONE THAT SAYS YOU LOOK AT THE KIND OF THINGS THAT LED UP TO THE DECISION THAT YOU'RE TRYING TO FIGURE OUT SOMEBODY'S MOTIVE ABOUT. >> SO LET'S TRY ANOTHER ONE. AMBASSADOR VOLKER TESTIFIED THAT THE PRESIDENT NEVER EXPRESSED ANY CONCERNS TO HIM ABOUT CORRUPTION IN ANY COUNTRY OTHER THAN UKRAINE. WOULD THAT BE RELEVANT TO YOUR ASSESSMENT? >> YES, IT WOULD. IT GOES TO THE FACTOR ABOUT SUBSTANTIVE DEPARTURES. >> PROFESSOR CARLIN, THERE IS, IN PACK, AND MY COLLEAGUE MR. McCLINTOCK MENTIONED THIS EARLIER, A PROCESS OUTLINED IN THE NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT TO ASSESS WHETHER COUNTRIES THAT ARE RECEIVING MILITARY AID HAVE DONE ENOUGH TO FIGHT CORRUPTION. IN MAY OF 2019, MY REPUBLICAN COLLEAGUE DID NOT SAY THIS. THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE ACTUALLY WROTE A LETTER DETERMINING THAT UKRAINE PASSED THIS ASSESSMENT AND YET, PRESIDENT TRUMP SET ASIDE THAT ASSESSMENT AND WITHHELD THE CONGRESSIONALLY APPROVED AID TO UKRAINE ANYWAY IN DIRECT CONTRADICTION TO THE ESTABLISHED PROCEDURES HE SHOULD HAVE FOLLOWED HAD HE CARED ABOUT CORRUPTION. IS THAT RELEVANT TO YOUR ASSESSMENT? >> YES. THAT WOULD GO TO THE FACTORS THE SUPREME COURT'S DISCUSSED. >> AND WHAT ABOUT THE FACT, AND I THINK YOU MENTIONED THIS EARLIER AS ONE OF THE KEY THINGS THAT YOU READ IN THE TESTIMONY THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP WANTED THE INVESTIGATIONS OF BURISMA AND THE BIDENS ANNOUNCED, BUT THAT HE ACTUALLY DIDN'T CARE WHETHER THEY WERE CONDUCTED. THAT WAS IN AMBASSADOR SONDLAND'S TESTIMONY. WHAT WOULD YOU SAY ABOUT THAT? >> THAT GOES ON WHETHER THE CLAIM THAT THIS IS ABOUT POLITICS IS A PERSUASIVE CLAIM BECAUSE THAT GOES TO THE FACT THAT IT'S BEING ANNOUNCED PUBLICLY WHICH IS AN ODD THING, AND GENERALLY, YOU DON'T ANNOUNCE THE INVESTIGATION IN A CRIMINAL CASE BEFORE YOU CONDUCT IT BECAUSE IT PUTS THE PERSON ON NOTICE THAT THEY'RE UNDER INVESTIGATION. >> AND GIVEN ALL OF THESE FACTS AND THERE ARE MORE THAT WE DON'T HAVE TIME TO GET TO. HOW WOULD YOU ASSESS THE CREDIBILITY OF THE PRESIDENT'S CLAIM THAT HE WAS WORRIED ABOUT CORRUPTION. >> YOU OUGHT TO MAKE THAT CREDIBILITY DETERMINATION BECAUSE YOU HAVE THE SOLE POWER OF IMPEACHMENT. IF I WERE A MEMBER OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES I WOULD INFER THAT HE WAS DOING IT FOR POLITICAL REASONS. >> IF WE DON'T STAND UP NOW TO A PRESIDENT WHO ABUSES HIS POWER WE RISK SENDING A MESSAGE TO ALL FUTURE PRESIDENTS THAT THEY CAN PUT THEIR OWN POLITICAL INTERESTS AHEAD OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE, OUR NATIONAL SECURITY AND OUR ELECTIONS AND THAT IS THE GRAVEST OF THREATS TO OUR DEMOCRACY. I YIELD BACK. >> THE GENTLE LADY YIELDS BACK AND I RECOGNIZE MR. GOMERT. >>. >> I HAVE AN ARTICLE BY DANIEL HUFF. >> WITHOUT OBJECTION THE ARTICLE IS ADMITTED INTO THE RECORD. >> THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN. I'M STARTING OFF TODAY DOING SOMETHING THAT I DON'T NORMALLY DO, AND I'M GOING TO QUOTE SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE NANCY PELOSI. IN MARCH THE SPEAKER TOLD "THE WASHINGTON POST" I'M GOING TO QUOTE THIS, IMPEACHMENT IS SO DIVISIVE TO THE COUNTRY THAT UNLESS THERE'S SOMETHING SO COMPELLING AND OVERWHELMING AND BIPARTISAN, I DON'T THINK WE SHOULD GO DOWN THAT PATH BECAUSE IT DIVIDES THE COUNTRY. ON THAT, THE SPEAKER AND I BOTH AGREE, AND YOU KNOW WHO ELSE AGREES? THE FOUNDING FATHERS. THE FOUNDING FATHERS WARRANT THEY THE IMPEACHMENT MIGHT BEY IS SEVERE THAT THE ACTIONS ARE IMPEACHABLE. LET'S GO BACK TO SPEAKER PELOSI'S WORDS JUST ONE MORE TIME. IT IS SPEAKER SAYS THE CASE FOR IMPEACHMENT MUST BE ALSO COMPELLING. AFTER LAST MONTH'S SCHIFF SHOW THIS IS WHAT WE LEARNED. THERE IS NO EVIDENCE THAT THE PRESIDENT DIRECTED ANYONE TO TELL THE UKRAINIANS THAT AID WAS CONDITIONED ON INVESTIGATION ASIDE FROM ASSUMPTIONS BY AMBASSADOR SONDLAND, WAS THERE NOTHING THAT THERE WAS AID FOR THE INVESTIGATION. NEVER IN THAT CALL WAS THE 2020 ELECTION MENTIONED AND NEVER IN THAT CALL WAS MILITARY AID MENTIONED. IN FACT, PRESIDENT TRUMP TOLD JOHNSON ON 21, AUGUST, THAT AID WAS NOT CONDITIONED ON INVESTIGATION. RATHER, PRESIDENT TRUMP WAS RIGHTFULLY SKEPTICAL ABOUT THE UKRAINIANS AND THEIR COUNTRY HAS A HISTORY OF CORRUPTION AND HE MERELY WANTED THE EUROPEANS TO CONTRIBUTE MORE TO THE PROBLEM IN THEIR OWN BACKYARD. I THINK WE CAN ALL AGREE THAT IT WAS APPROPRIATE FOR THE PRESIDENT TO ENSURE THAT OUR MONEY ISN'T WASTED. I SAID I WASN'T GOING TO GO BACK TO SPEAKER PELOSI, BUT I DO WANT TO GO BACK. SHE ALSO SAID THAT IMPEACHMENT SHOULD BE PURSUED WHEN IT'S QUOTE, UNQUOTE, OVERWHELMING. IT'S PROBABLY NOT GOOD FOR THE DEMOCRATS THAT NONE OF THE WITNESSES WHO TESTIFIED BEFORE THE INTEL COMMITTEE WERE ABLE TO PROVIDE FIRSTHAND EVIDENCE OF A QUID PRO QUO, BUT I FORGOT WE'RE CALLING IT BRIBERY NOW AFTER THE FOCUS GROUP LAST WEEK AND THERE'S NO EVIDENCE OF BRIBERY, EITHER. INSTEAD THE TWO PEOPLE WHO DID HAVE FIRST-HAND KNOWLEDGE, THE PRESIDENT AND PRESIDENT ZELENSKY BOTH SAY THERE WAS NO PRESSURE ON THE UKRAINIANS AND AGAIN, THE TRANSCRIPT OF THE JULY 25th BACKS THIS UP AND TO GO BACK TO NANCY PELOSI ONE MORE TIME. SHE SAID THAT THE MOVEMENT FOR IMPEACHMENT SHOULD BE, QUOTE, UNQUOTE, BIPARTISAN WHICH IS THE SAME SENTIMENT ECHOED BY JERRY NADLER WHO IN 1998 SAID, AND I QUOTE, THERE MUST NEVER BE A NARROWLY VOTED IMPEACHMENT SUPPORTED BY ONE OF THE POLITICAL PARTIES AND IMPOSED BY ANOTHER. WELL, WHEN THE HOUSE VOTED ON THE DEMOCRATS IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY IT WAS JUST THAT. IT WAS THE ONLY BIPARTISAN VOTE WAS THE ONE IMPOSING THE INQUIRY. THE PARTISAN VOTE WAS THE ONE TO MOVE FORWARD WITH THE INQUIRY. SO WE'RE 0 FOR 3. LET'S FACE IT. THIS IS A SHAM IMPEACHMENT AGAINST PRESIDENT TRUMP. IT'S WANT COMPELLING. IT'S NOT OVERWHELMING, AND IT'S NOT BIPARTISAN. SO EVEN BY THE SPEAKER'S OWN CRITERIA THIS HAS FAILED. RATHER, WHAT THIS IS IS NOTHING MORE THAN A PARTISAN WITCH HUNT WHICH DENIES THE FUNDAMENTAL FAIRNESS OF OUR AMERICAN JUSTICE SYSTEM AND DENIES DUE PROCESS TO THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES. THE DEMOCRATS' CASE IS BASED ON NOTHING MORE THAN THOUGHTS, FEELINGS AND CONJECTURES AND THE THOUGHTS AND FEELINGS OF A FEW, UNELECTED CAREER BUREAUCRATS AND THE AMERICAN PEOPLE ARE ABSOLUTELY FED UP. INSTEAD OF WASTING OUR TIME ON THIS, WE SHOULD BE DOING THINGS LIKE PASSING USMCA AND LOWERING THE THE COST OF PRESCRIPTION DRUGS AND WORKING ON THE FAILING INFRASTRUCTURE IN THIS COUNTRY. I'VE WATCHED AS YOUR WORDS HAVE BEEN TWISTED AND MANGLED ALL DAY LONG. IS THERE ANYTHING THAT YOU WOULD LIKE TO CLARIFY? >> ONLY THIS. ONE OF THE DISAGREEMENTS THAT WE HAVE AND I HAVE WITH MY ESTEEMED COLLEAGUES, IS WHAT MAKES A LEGITIMATE IMPEACHMENT AND NOT TECHNICALLY WHAT SATISFIES AN IMPEACHMENT, THERE ARE VERY FEW, AND THERE IS PRESUMPTION OVER PROOF. THAT'S BECAUSE THIS RECORD HASN'T BEEN DEVELOPED AND IF YOU'RE GOING TO REMOVE A PRESIDENT AND IF YOU BELIEVE IN DEMOCRACY, IF YOU'RE GOING TO REMOVE A SITTING PRESIDENT THEN YOU HAVE AN OBLIGATION NOT TO RELY ON INFERENCE WHEN THERE'S STILL INFORMATION YOU CAN GATHER AND THAT'S WHAT I'M SAYING. IT'S NOT THAT YOU CAN'T DO THIS. YOU JUST CAN'T DO IT THIS WAY. >> THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN. >> THE GENTLEMAN YIELDS BACK. I RECOGNIZE MS. JACKSON-LEE FOR THE PURPOSE OF UNANIMOUS REQUEST. >> THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN. I WOULD LIKE UNANIMOUS CONSENT TO PLACE IN THE RECORD A NEW STATEMENT FOR CHECKS AND BALANCES -- >> WITHOUT OBJECTION. >> WITHOUT OBJECTION, I NOW RECOGNIZE MS. DEMINGS FOR FIVE MINUTES FOR QUESTIONING THE WITNESS. >> THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN. AS A FORMER LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL, I KNOW FIRST HAND THAT THE RULE OF LAW IS THE STRENGTH OF OUR DEMOCRACY AND NO ONE IS ABOVE IT. NOT OUR NEIGHBORS AND OUR VARIOUS COMMUNITY, NOT OUR COWORKERS AND NOT THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES. YET THE PRESIDENT HAS SAID THAT HE CAN'T BE PROSECUTED FOR CRIMINAL CONDUCT, THAT HE NEED NOT COMPLY WITH CONGRESSIONAL REQUESTS AND SUBPOENAS. MATTER OF FACT, THE PRESIDENT IS TRYING TO ABSOLVE HIMSELF OF ANY ACCOUNTABILITY. SINCE THE BEGINNING OF THE INVESTIGATION IN EARLY SEPTEMBER THE HOUSE SENT MULTIPLE LETTERS, DOCUMENT REQUESTS AND SUBPOENAS TO THE WHITE HOUSE. YET THE PRESIDENT HAS REFUSED TO PRODUCE DOCUMENTS AND HAS DIRECTED OTHERS NOT TO PRODUCE DOCUMENTS. HE HAS PREVENTED KEY WHITE HOUSE OFFICIALS FROM TESTIFYING. THE PRESIDENT'S OBSTRUCTION OF CONGRESS IS PERVASIVE. SINCE THE HOUSE BEGAN ITS INVESTIGATION, THE WHITE HOUSE HAS PRODUCED ZERO SUBPOENA DOCUMENTS. IN ADDITION, AT THE PRESIDENT'S DIRECTION, MORE THAN A DOZEN MEMBERS OF HIS ADMINISTRATION HAVE DEFIED CONGRESSIONAL SUBPOENAS. THE FOLLOWING SLIDES SHOW THOSE WHO HAVE REFUSED TO COMPLY AT THE PRESIDENT'S DIRECTION. WE ARE FACING A CATEGORICAL BLOCKADE BY A PRESIDENT WHO IS DESPERATE TO PREVENT ANY INVESTIGATION INTO HIS WRONG DOING. PROFESSOR GERHART, HAS A PRESIDENT EVER REFUSED TO COOPERATE IN AN IMPEACHMENT INVESTIGATION? >> NOT UNTIL NOW. >> AND ANY PRESIDENT WHO -- I KNOW NIXON DELAYED OR TRY TO DELAY TURNING OVER INFORMATION. WHEN THAT OCCURRED, WAS IT AT THE SAME LEVEL THAT WE'RE SEEING TODAY? >> PRESIDENT NIXON HAD ALSO ORDERED HIS SUBORDINATES TO COOPERATE AND TESTIFY AND HE PRODUCED DOCUMENTS AND THERE WERE TIMES WHEN THERE WERE CERTAINLY DISAGREEMENT, BUT THERE WAS NOT A WHOLESALE, BROAD SCALE ACROSS THE BOARD REFUSAL TO EVEN RECOGNIZE THE LEGITIMACY OF THIS HOUSE DOING AN INQUIRY. >> DID PRESIDENT NIXON'S OBSTRUCTION RESULT IN AN ARTICLE OF IMPEACHMENT? >> Y MA'AM. ARTICLE 3. >> IS IT FAIR TO SAY THAT IF A PRESIDENT STONEWALLS AN INVESTIGATION LIKE WE ARE CLEARLY SEEING TODAY INTO WHETHER HE HAS COMMITTED AN IMPEACHABLE OFFENSE HE RISKS RENDERING THE IMPEACHMENT POWER MOOT? >> YES. AND INDEED, THAT'S THE INEVITABLE EFFECT OF THE PRESIDENT REFUSING TO PARTICIPATE. HE'S DENYING THE POWER OF CONGRESS TO OVERSEE HIM AND TO REFUSE HIS CAPACITY TO IMPEACH. [ NO AUDIO ] >> YES, MA'AM, YOU ARE, AND I MIGHT JUST POINT OUT THAT ONE OF THE DIFFICULTIES WITH ASKING FOR A MORE THOROUGH INVESTIGATION IS THAT'S WHAT THE HOUSE IS TRYING TO CONDUCT HERE AND THE PRESIDENT HAS REFUSED TO COMPLY WITH SUBPOENAS AND THAT'S WHY PEOPLE ARE NOT TESTIFYING AND THE PEOPLE HERE HAVE SAID TODAY THEY WANT TO HEAR FROM. >> IN RELATION TO WHAT YOU JUST SAID, AMBASSADOR SONDLAND TESTIFIED AND I QUOTE, EVERYBODY WAS IN THE LOOP. IT WAS NO SECRET. PROFESSOR GERHART, HOW IS AMBASSADOR SONDLAND'S TESTIMONY RELEVANT HERE? >> IT'S RELEVANT AND ALSO RATHER CHILLING TO HEAR HIM SAY THAT EVERYBODY IS IN THE LOOP AND WHEN HE SAYS THAT HE'S TALKING ABOUT PEOPLE AT THE HIGHEST LEVELS OF OUR GOVERNMENT, ALL OF WHOM ARE REFUSING TO TESTIFY UNDER OATH OR COMPLY WITH SUBPOENAS. >> PROFESSORS, I WANT TO THANK YOU FOR YOUR TESTIMONY. THE PRESIDENT USED THE POWER OF HIS OFFICE TO PRESSURE A FOREIGN HEAD OF STATE TO INVESTIGATE AN AMERICAN CITIZEN IN ORDER TO BENEFIT HIS DOMESTIC, POLITICAL SITUATION, AFTER HE WAS CAUGHT, AND I DO KNOW SOMETHING ABOUT THAT. THIS PRESIDENT PROCEEDED TO COVER IT UP AND REFUSED TO COMPLY WITH VALID, CONGRESSIONAL SUBPOENAS. THE FRAMERS INCLUDED IMPEACHMENT IN THE CONSTITUTION TO ENSURE THAT NO ONE, NO ONE IS ABOVE THE LAW INCLUDING AND ESPECIALLY THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES. THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR, AND I YIELD BACK. >> THE GENTLE LADY YIELDS BACK. MR. KLEIN IS RECOGNIZED. >> THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN. IT'S JUST PAST 5:00 AND A LOT OF FAMILIES ARE JUST GETTING WORK AND THEY'RE TURNING ON THEIR TV AND THEY'RE ASKING THEMSELVES, IS THIS A RE-RUN? BECAUSE I THOUGHT I SAW THIS A COUPLE OF WEEKS AGO. NO, THIS IS NOT A RE-RUN, ACT 2 OF THE THREE-PART TRAGEDY OF THE IMPEACHMENT OF PRESIDENT TRUMP AND WHAT WE'RE SEEING HERE IS SEVERAL, VERY ACCOMPLISHED CONSTITUTIONAL SCHOLARS ATTEMPTING TO DIVINE THE INTENT WHETHER IT'S OF THE PRESIDENT OR OF THE VARIOUS WITNESSES WHO APPEARED DURING THE SCHIFF HEARINGS AND IT'S VERY FRUSTRATING TO ME AS A MEMBER OF THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE WHY WE ARE WHERE WE ARE TODAY. I ASKED TO BE A MEMBER OF THIS COMMITTEE BECAUSE OF ITS STORED HISTORY AND BECAUSE IT WAS THE DEFENDER OF THE CONSTITUTION, BECAUSE IT WAS ONE OF THE OLDEST COMMITTEES IN THE CONGRESS ESTABLISHED BY ANOTHER VIRGINIAN, JOHN GEORGE JACKSON. IT'S BECAUSE TWO OF MY IMMEDIATE PREDECESSORS, CONGRESSMAN BOOK GOODLATTE WHO CHAIRED THIS COMMITTEE AND CONGRESSMAN BUTLER WHO ALSO SERVED THIS COMMITTEE, BUT THE COMMITTEE THEY SERVED ON IS DEAD. THAT COMMITTEE DOESN'T EXIST ANYMORE. THAT COMMITTEE IS GONE. APPARENTLY, NOW WE DON'T EVEN GET TO SIT IN THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE ROOM. WE'RE IN THE WAYS AND MEANS COMMITTEE ROOM. I DON'T KNOW WHY, MAYBE BECAUSE THERE'S MORE ROOM, MAYBE BECAUSE THE PORTRAITS OF THE VARIOUS CHAIRMEN WHO WOULD BE STARING DOWN AT US MIGHT JUST INTIMIDATE THE OTHER SIDE AS THEY ATTEMPT WHAT IS ESSENTIALLY A SHAM IMPEACHMENT OF THIS PRESIDENT. YOU KNOW, LOOKING AT WHERE WE ARE, THE LACK OF USE OF THE RULES IN THIS PROCESS IS SHAMEFUL. THE FACT THAT WE GOT WITNESS TESTIMONY FOR THIS HEARING THIS MORNING IS SHAMEFUL. THE FACT THAT WE GOT THE INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE REPORT YESTERDAY, 300 PAGES OF IT IS SHAMEFUL. I WATCHED THE INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE HEARINGS FROM THE BACK, ALTHOUGH I COULDN'T WATCH THEM ALL BECAUSE THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE ACTUALLY SCHEDULED BUSINESS DURING THE INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE HEARINGS. SO THIS THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE MEMBERS WEREN'T ABLE TO WATCH ALL OF THE HEARINGS, BUT I DIDN'T GET TO -- I GET TO READ THE TRANSCRIPTS OF THE HEARINGS THAT WERE HELD IN PRIVATE, AND I WAS NOT ABLE TO BE A PART OF THE INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE HEARINGS THAT WERE IN THE SKIFF. WE HAVEN'T SEEN THE EVIDENCE FROM THE INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE YET. WE'VE ASKED FOR IT. WE HAVEN'T RECEIVED IT. WE HAVEN'T HEARD FROM ANY FACT WITNESSES YET BEFORE WE GET TO HEAR FROM THESE CONSTITUTIONAL SCHOLARS ABOUT WHETHER OR NOT THE FACTS RISE TO THE LEVEL OF AN IMPEACHABLE OFFENSE. MR. TURLEY, IT'S NOT JUST YOUR FAMILY AND DOG WHO ARE ANGRY. MANY OF US ON THIS COMMITTEE ARE ANGRY. MANY OF US WATCHING AT HOME ACROSS AMERICA ARE ANGRY BECAUSE THIS SHOW HAS DEGENERATED INTO A FARCE, AND AS I SAID, THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE OF MY PREDECESSORS IS DEAD, AND I LOOK TO A FORMER CHAIRMAN, DANIEL WEBSTER WHO SAID WE ARE ALL AGENTS OF THE SAME SUPREME POWER AND IT'S THE PEOPLE WHO ELECTED THIS PRESIDENT IN 2016 AND IT'S THE PEOPLE WHO SHOULD HAVE THE CHOICE AS TO WHETHER OR NOT TO VOTE FOR THIS PRESIDENT IN 2020, NOT THE MEMBERS OF THIS COMMITTEE, NOT SPEAKER NANCY PELOSI AND NOT THE MEMBERS OF THIS HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES. IT SHOULD BE THE PEOPLE OF THE UNITED STATES WHO GET TO DECIDE WHO THEIR PRESIDENT IS IN 2020. I ASKED SEVERAL QUESTIONS ABOUT THE OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE FROM MR. MUELLER WHEN HE TESTIFIED. MR. TURLEY, I KNOW THAT YOU MENTIONED OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE SEVERAL TIMES IN YOUR TESTIMONY. I WANT TO YIELD TO MR. RATCLIFFE TO ASK A CONCISE QUESTION ABOUT THAT ISSUE. >> I THANK THE GENTLEMAN FOR YIELDING. PROFESSOR TURLEY, IN THE LAST FEW DAYS WE'VE BEEN HEARING THAT DESPITE NO QUESTIONS TO ANY WITNESSES DURING THE FIRST TWO MONTH OF THE FIRST PHASE OF THIS IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY THAT DEMOCRATS ARE DUSTING OFF THE OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE PORTION OF THE MUELLER REPORT. IT SEEMS TO ME WE ALL REMEMBER HOW PAINFUL IT WAS TO LISTEN TO THE SPECIAL COUNSEL'S OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE PORTION. I WOULD LIKE YOU TO ADDRESS THE FATAL FLAWS FROM YOUR PERSPECTIVE WITH REGARD TO THE -- >> THE GENTLEMAN'S TIME HAS EXPIRED AND THE WITNESS MAY ANSWER QUICKLY IMPEACH. >> THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN. I'VE BEEN BEHIND THE THEORY OF THE RUSSIAN INVESTIGATION BECAUSE ONCE AGAIN, IT IT DOESN'T MEET WHAT I BELIEVE ARE THINK ARE THE CLEAR STANDARDS AND THERE WERE TEN ISSUES THAT MUELLER ADDRESSED AND THE ONLY ONE THAT RAISED A SERIOUS ISSUE WAS DON McGAHN, AND THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE REJECTED THE OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE CLAIM AND IT WAS NOT JUST THE ATTORNEY GENERAL. IT WAS ALSO THE DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL ROD ROSENSTEIN. >> THE GENTLEMAN'S TIME HAS WELL EXPIRED. MR. CORREA. >> THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN. I WOULD LIKE TO THANK OUR WITNESSES FOR BEING HERE TODAY. I CAN ASSURE YOU YOUR TESTIMONY IS NOT ONLY TO THIS BODY, BUT TO AMERICA WHO IS LISTENING INTENTLY ON WHAT THE ISSUES BEFORE US ARE AND WHY IT IS SO IMPORTANT THAT WE UNDERSTAND THE ISSUES BEFORE US. PROFESSOR FELDMAN, AS WAS JUST DISCUSSED, PRESIDENT TRUMP HAS ORDERED THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH TO COMPLETELY BLOCKADE THE EFFORTS OF THIS HOUSE TO INVESTIGATE WHETHER HE COMMITTED HIGH CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS IN HIS DEALINGS WITH THE UKRAINE. IS THAT CORRECT? >> YES, IT IS. >> PRESIDENT TRUMP HAS ALSO ASSERTED THAT MANY OFFICIALS ARE SOMEHOW ABSOLUTELY IMMUNE FROM TESTIFYING IN THIS IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY. ON THE SCREEN BEHIND YOU, IS THE OPINION BY JUDGE JACKSON, A FEDERAL JUDGE HERE IN D.C., THAT REJECTS PRESIDENT TRUMP'S ASSERTION. PROFESSOR, DO YOU AGREE WITH THE JUDGE'S RULING THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP HAS INVOKED A NON-EXISTENT LEGAL BASIS TO BLOCK WITNESSES FROM TESTIFYING IN THIS IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY. >> I AGREE WITH THE JUDGE'S OPINION. I THINK THAT SHE CORRECTLY HELD THAT THERE IS NO ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY WHICH WOULD PROTECT A PRESIDENTIAL ADVISER FROM HAVING TO APPEAR BEFORE THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES AND TESTIFY. SHE DID NOT MAKE A RULING AS TO WHETHER IT WOULD APPLY TO ANY GIVEN SITUATION AND THE ISSUE HAD NOT YET ARISEN. >> LET ME QUOTE JUDGE JACKSON AND THE PRIMARY TAKEAWAY FROM THE PAST 250 YEARS OF RECORDED AMERICAN HISTORY IS THAT PRESIDENTS ARE NOT KINGS, CLOSED QUOTE. PROFESSOR FELDMAN, IN THE FRAMERS' VIEW, DOES THE PRESIDENT ACT MORE LIKE THE LEADER OF DEMOCRACY OR MORE LIKE A MONARCH WHEN HE ORDERS OFFICIALS TO DEFY CONGRESS AS IT TRIES TO INVESTIGATE ABUSE OF POWER AND CORRUPTION OF ELECTEDS. >> SIR, I DON'T EVEN THINK THE FRAMERS COULD HAVE IMAGINED THAT A PRESIDENT WOULD FLATLY REFUSE TO PARTICIPATE IN THE IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY, GIVEN THAT THEY GAVE THE POWER OF IMPEACHMENT AND ASSUMED THAT THE STRUCTURE OF THE CONSTITUTION WOULD ALLOW THE HOUSE TO OVERSEE THE PRESIDENT. >> PROFESSOR GEAR, HART, WHERE DO THEY CAN APPLY FOR THE IMPEACHMENT INVESTIGATIONS. >> THE PRESIDENT ALSO TAKES AN OATH TO PROTECT THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES AND THERE ARE SERB CONSTRAINTS WITH WHAT HE MAY DO AND THERE ARE MEASURES FOR ACCOUNTABILITY FOR ANY FAILURE TO FOLLOW HIS DUTY OR THE CONSTITUTION. >> THANK YOU. >> AND THE PRESIDENT HAS SAID THAT HE IS ABOVE THE LAW, THAT ARTICLE 2 OF THE CONSTITUTION ALLOWS HIM TO DO WHATEVER I WANT. THAT CAN'T BE TRUE, JUDGE JACKSON HAS SAID THAT NO ONE IS ABOVE THE LAW. PERSONALLY, I GREW UP IN CALIFORNIA IN THE 1960s. THERE WAS A TIME WHEN WE WERE GOING TO BEAT THE RUSSIANS TO THE MOON. WE WERE FULL OF OPTIMISM. WE BELIEVE IN AMERICAN DEMOCRACY. WE WERE THE BEST IN THE WORLD, AND BACK HOME ON MAIN STREET MY MOM AND DAD STRUGGLED TO SURVIVE DAY TO DAY. MY MOM WORKED ADA MAID CLEANING HOTEL ROOMS FOR $1.50 AN HOUR AND MY DAD WORKED AT THE LOCAL PAPER MILL TRYING TO SURVIVE DAY TO DAY. WHAT GOT US UP IN THE MORNING WAS THE BELIEF, THE OPTIMISM THAT DETERMINE WAS GOING TO BE BETTER THAN TODAY. WE'RE A NATION OF DEMOCRACY AND OPPORTUNITY AND WE ALWAYS KNOW THAT TOMORROW WILL BE BETTER AND TODAY I PERSONALLY SIT AS A TESTAMENT TO THE GREATNESS OF THIS NATION. ME OUT OF THE HOODS IN CONGRESS. AND I SIT HERE IN THIS COMMITTEE ROOM WITH ONE IMPORTANT MISSION WHICH IS TO KEEP THE AMERICAN DREAM ALIVE TO ENSURE THAT ALL OF US ARE EQUAL AND TO ENSURE THAT NOBODY, NOBODY IS ABOVE THE LAW AND TO ENSURE THAT OUR CONSTITUTION AND OUR CONGRESSIONAL OVERSIGHT IS STILL SOMETHING WITH MEANING. THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR. I YIELD BACK. >> MR. ALL DAY LONG WE'VE BEEN SITTING HERE ACROSS THE AISLE AND CLAIMING THAT THE PRESIDENT DEMANDED UKRAINE DO US A FAVOR. BY ASSISTING IN 2020 RE-ELECTION CAMPAIGN BEFORE HE WOULD RELEASE THE MILITARY AID. THIS IS LIKE EVERYTHING ELSE IN THE SHAM IMPEACHMENT AND NOT BET ARE BASED ON THE, AND IT DOES, HOWEVER, SHOW THAT THE ASSISTANCE TO THE ONGOING INVESTIGATION INTO THE 16 ELECTION. THOSE INVESTIGATIONS AND PARTICULARLY THE ONE BEING RUN AND IT SHOULD CONCERN DEMOCRATS AND THE PRESIDENT WAS RELATING TO THE 2016 ELECTION. WE KNOW THIS, AND NOTICE I'M USING THE WORD NO AND NOT THE WORD INFER FROM READING THE TRANSCRIPT AND BECAUSE YOU SPOKE ABOUT IT ENDING WITH MUELLER. WE KNOW THIS BECAUSE HE WANTS THE ATTORNEY GENERAL TO GET IN TOUCH WITH THE UKRAINIANS ABOUT THE ISSUE. AND THESE FACTS ARE INCONVENIENT FOR DEMOCRATS AND THEY DON'T FIT THE NARRATIVE SO THEY'RE MISREPRESENTED OR IGNORED AND I IT IS IMPORTANT TO TALK ABOUT THIS, BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT, CLEAR AND CONVINCING EVIDENCE OF A QUASI JUDICIAL HEARING AND WE WERE TALKING ABOUT THE ISSUES AND I THINK WE NEED TO START WITH HOW WE LOOK AT IT, AND I'M NOT A CONSTITUTIONAL LAW PROFESSOR. I'M JUST AN OLD CRIMINAL DEFENSE ATTORNEY AND WHEN I WALK INTO A COURTROOM THEY THINK OF THREE THINGS AND WHAT'S THE CRIME CHARGE. WHAT'S THE CONDUCT AND WHO IS THE VICTIM? WE MANAGED TO MAKE IT UNTIL 5:00 TODAY UNTIL WE TALK TO THE ALLEGED VICTIM OF THE CRIME AND THAT'S PRESIDENT ZELENSKY. THREE DIFFERENT TIMES AND HE'S DENIED BEING PRESSURED BY THE PRESIDENT. THE CALL SHOWS LAUGHTER, PLEASANTRIES AND CORDIALITY. SEPTEMBER 25th, PRESIDENT ZELENSKY STATES WE HAD A GOOD PHONE CALL. IT WAS NORMAL AND WE SPOKE ABOUT MANY THINGS AND I THINK YOU READ IT AND NOBODY PUSHED ME. OCTOBER 10th, PRESIDENT ZELENSKY HAD A PRESS CONFERENCE AND I ENCOURAGE EVERYONE TO WATCH IT, AND 90% OF THE COMMUNICATIONS IS NON-VERBAL. THERE WAS NO BLACKMAIL. DECEMBER 2nd, THIS MONDAY, I NEVER TALKED TO THE PRESIDENT FROM THE POSITION OF QUID PRO QUO. SO WE HAVE THE ALLEGED VICTIM OF QUID PRO QUO, BRIBERY, EXTORTION AND WHATEVER WE ARE DOING NOW TODAY REPEATEDLY AND ADAMANTLY SHOUTING FROM THE ROOFTOPS THAT HE NEVER FELT PRESSURE, THAT HE WAS NOT THE VICTIM OF ANYTHING. SO IN ORDER FOR THIS WHOLE THING TO STICK, WE HAVE TO BELIEVE THAT PRESIDENT ZELENSKY IS A PATHOLOGICAL LIAR OR THAT THE UKRAINIAN PRESIDENT AND THE COUNTRY ARE SO WEAK THAT HE HAS NO CHOICE, BUT TO PARADE HIMSELF OUT THERE FOR THE GOOD OF HIS COUNTRY. EITHER OF THESE WEAKENS HIS COUNTRIES AND HARMS OUR EFFORTS TO HELP THE U KRAB AND ALSO BEGS THE QUESTION OF HOW ON EARTH DID PRESIDENT ZELENSKY WITHSTAND THIS ILLEGAL AND IMPEACHABLE PRESSURE TO BEGIN WITH BECAUSE THIS FACT STILL HAS NOT CHANGED. THE AID WAS RELEASED AND DID NOT TAKE ACTION FOR THEM IN ORDZ TORE FLOW. WITH THAT I YIELD TO MR. JORDAN. >> I THANK THE GENTLEMAN. >> CONTEXT IS IMPORTANT, ISN'T IT? >> YES, SIR. >> JUST A FEW MINUTES AGO WHEN MY COLLEAGUE FROM FLORIDA PRESENTED A STAPLE YOU MADE YOU SAID YOU HAVE TO TAKE THAT STATEMENT IN CONTEXT AND IT SEEMS TO ME YOU DON'T WANT TO APPLY THE SAME STANDARD TO THE PRESIDENT. THE NOW FAMOUS QUOTE, I WOULD LIKE YOU TO DO US A FAVOR, YOU SAID HALF AN HOUR AGO THAT THE US DIDN'T MEAN US, IT MEANT THE PRESIDENT HIMSELF. I WOULD LIKE YOU TO DO US A FAVOR THOUGH BECAUSE, YOU KNOW WHAT THE NEXT TWO WORDS ARE? >> I DON'T HAVE THE DOCUMENT. >> I'LL TELL YOU. BECAUSE OUR COUNTRY. HE DIDN'T SAY I WOULD LIKE YOU TO DO ME A FAVOR, THOUGH, BECAUSE I HAVE BEEN THROUGH A LOT. I WANT YOU TO DO US A FAVOR BECAUSE OUR COUNTRY HAS BEEN THROUGH A LOT. YOU KNOW WHAT THIS CALL -- WHEN THIS CALL HAPPENED? IT HAPPENED AFTER MUELLER WAS IN FRONT OF THIS COMMITTEE. OF COURSE OUR COUNTRY WAS PUT THROUGH TWO YEARS OF THIS, AND THE IDEA THAT YOU'RE NOW GOING TO SAY THIS IS THE ROYAL "WE" AND HE'S TALKING ABOUT HIMSELF AND IT IGNORES THE ENTIRE CONTEXT OF HIS STATEMENT AND THE WHOLE PARAGRAPH. YOU KNOW WHAT HE ENDED THAT PARAGRAPH WITH? TALKING ABOUT BOB MULER AND THIS IS THE BASIS OF THIS IMPEACHMENT? THIS CALL. IT COULDN'T BE FURTHER FROM THE TRUTH. YOU WANT THE STANDARD TO APPLY WHEN REPRESENTATIVE GATES MAKES ONE OF YOUR STATEMENT YOU HAVE TO LOOK AT THE CONTEXT AND WHEN THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES IS CLEAR AND WHEN THE CONTEXT IS CLEAR HE'S TALKING ABOUT THE TWO YEARS THAT THIS COUNTRY WENT THROUGH BECAUSE OF THE MUELLER REPORT AND SOMEHOW THAT STANDARD DOESN'T APPLY TO THE PRESIDENT. THAT IS RIDICULOUS. >> THE GENTLEMAN'S TIME HAS EXPIRED. >> MISS SCANLON? >> WANT TO THANK OUR CONSTITUTIONALEC PERTS FOR WALKING US THROUGH THE FRAMERS' THINKING ON IMPEACHMENT AND WHY THEY DECIDED IT WAS A NECESSARY PART OF OUR CONSTITUTION. I'M ASKING TO ASK YOU TO HELP US UNDERSTAND THE IMPLICATIONS OF THE PRESIDENT'S OBSTRUCTION OF CONGRESS' INVESTIGATION INTO HIS USE OF THE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT TO SQUEEZE THE UKRAINIAN GOVERNMENT TO HELP THE TRUMP RE-ELECTION CAMPAIGN AND THERE ARE CERTAINLY HUNDREDS OF PAGES ON HOW ONE REACHES THAT CONCLUSION. >> HIS CONDUCT IS PART OF A PATTERN AND I'LL DIRECT YOUR ATTENTION TO THE TIME LINE ON THE SCREEN. IN THE LEFT-HAND COLUMN, WE SEE THE PRESIDENT'S STATEMENT FROM HIS JULY CALLING WHICH HE PRESSURED UKRAINE, A FOREIGN GOVERNMENT TO MEDDLE IN OUR ELECTIONS. THEN ONCE CONGRESS GOT WIND OF IT, THE PRESIDENT TRIED TO COVER UP HIS INVOLVEMENT BY OBSTRUCTING THE CONGRESSIONAL INVESTIGATION AND REFUSING TO COOPERATE AND THIS ISN'T THE OBSTRUCTION AND WE CAN FLASHBACK TO THE 2016 ELECTION WHEN THE PRESIDENT WELCOMED AND USED RUSSIANS' INTERFERENCE IN OUR ELECTION AND AGAIN WHEN THE SPECIAL COUNSEL AND THEN THIS COMMITTEE TRIED TO INVESTIGATE THE EXTENT OF HIS INVOLVEMENT HE DID EVERYTHING HE COULD TO COVER IT UP. IT APPEARS THE PRESIDENT'S OBSTRUCTION OF INVESTIGATION IS PART OF A PATTERN. FIRST, HE INVITES FOREIGN POWERS TO INTERFERE IN OUR ELECTIONS AND THEN HE COVERS IT UP AND HE OBSTRUCTS LAWFUL INQUIRIES WHETHER BY CONGRESS AND LAW ENFORCEMENT AND THEN HE DOES IT AGAIN. PROFESSOR GER HART, HOW DOES THE EXISTENCE OF SUCH A PATTERN HELP DEMONSTRATE WHETHER SUCH CONDUCT IS IMPEACHABLE? >> THE PATTERN GIVES US TREMENDOUS INSIGHT INTO THE CONTEXT OF HIS BEHAVIOR. THE WAY HE'S ACTING AND HOW DO WE EXPLAIN THOSE ACTIONS? BY LOOKING AT THE PATTERN. AND WE CAN INFER AND A STRONG INFERENCE, IN FACT, THAT THIS IS DEVIATING FROM THE USUAL PRACTICE AND AND HE'S BEEN ASKING THIS QUESTION, BY THE WAY, AFTER THE JULY, 25th CALL, THE COME THERE'S ONGOING CONVERSATION THAT ESSENTIALLY, THE MONEY IS WITHHELD BECAUSE THE PRESIDENT WANTED TO MAKE SURE THE DELIVERABLE. >> THERE IS ALSO NOT THE WHITE HOUSE MEETING WHICH WAS SO IMPORTANT TO UKRAINIAN SECURITY, RIGHT? >> YES, MA'AM. THAT'S RIGHT. >> OKAY. PROFESSOR FELDMAN, WE NOTED PREVIOUSLY THAT A FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT REJECTED THE PRESIDENT'S ATTEMPT TO BLOCK WITNESSES FROM TESTIFYING TO CONGRESS SAYING THAT PRESIDENTS ARE NOT KINGS. THE FOUNDERS INCLUDED, FROM PREVENTING OUR PRESIDENT FROM BECOMING A KING AND THOSE PROTECTIONS WERE PRESIDENTIAL ELECTIONS AND IMPEACHMENT, CORRECT? >> CORRECT. BASED ON THE PATTERN OF CONDUCT THAT WE'RE DISCUSSING TODAY AND THE PATTERN OF INVITING FOREIGN INTERFERENCE FOR OUR ELECTIONS FOR POLITICAL GAIN AND OBSTRUCTING LAWFUL INVESTIGATION, HAS THE PRESIDENT UNDERMINED BOTH OF THOSE PROTECTIONS? >> THE VICTIM A HIGH CRIME AND MISDEMEANORS, IS NOT PRESIDENT ZELENSKY AND IS NOT THE UKRAINIAN PEOPLE AND IT'S THE AMERICAN PEOPLE. ALEXANDER HAMILTON SAID VERY CLEARLIED THAT NATURE OF A HIGH CRIME AND MISDEMEANOR IS THEY'RE RELATED TO INJURIES DONE TO THE SOCIETY ITSELF. WE, THE AMERICAN PEOPLE ARE THE VICTIMS OF THE HIGH CRIME AND MISDEMEANOR. >> WHAT IS THE APPROPRIATE REMEDY IN SUCH A CIRCUMSTANCE? >> THE FRAMERS CREATED ONE REMEDY TO RESPOND TO HIGH CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS AND THAT WAS IMPEACHMENT. >> THANK YOU. I'VE SPENT OVER 30 YEARS WORKING TO HELP CLIENTS AND SCHOOLCHILDREN UNDERSTAND THE IMPORTANCE OF OUR CONSTITUTIONAL SYSTEM AND THE IMPORTANCE OF THE RULE OF LAW SO THE PRESIDENT'S BEHAVIOR IS DEEPLY, DEEPLY TROUBLING. THE PRESIDENT WELCOMED AND USED ELECTION INTERFERENCE BY RUSSIA. PUBLICLY ADMITTED HE WOULD DO IT AGAIN AND DID, IN FACT, DO IT AGAIN BY SOLICITING ELECTION INTERFERENCE FROM UKRAINE AND THROUGHOUT, THE PRESIDENT HAS TRIED TO COVER UP HIS MISCONDUCT. THIS ISN'T COMPLICATED. THE FOUNDERS WERE CLEAR AND IT IS NOT ACCEPTABLE. I YIELD BACK. >> THE GENTLE LADY YIELDS BACK, BUT BE RECOGNIZED FOR UNANIMOUS CONSENT REQUEST AND A DOCUMENT WHICH LISTS THE 400 PIECES BY THE HOUSE AND 80% BE MADE A PART OF THE RECORD IN RESPONSE TO MR. GATES' CLAIM. >> WITHOUT OBJECTION, THE DOCUMENT WILL BE MADE PART OF THE RECORD AND MR. BIGGS SAYS RECOGNIZED FOR THE UNANIMOUS CONSENT REQUEST. >> FOR A PACKET OF 54 DOCUMENTS AND ITEMS WHICH HAVE PREVIOUSLY BEEN SUBMITTED. >> WITHOUT OBJECTION, THE DOCUMENTS WILL BE ENTERED INTO THE RECORD. >> MR. CHAIRMAN, MAY I HAVE -- WHAT PURPOSE DOES THE GENTLEMAN -- >> MR. CHAIRMAN, I ASK UNANIMOUS THIS ARCTICEL SAYS DEMOCRATS ARE SETTING A RECORD FOR A FAST IMPEACHMENT AND THAT'S DEMONSTRABLY FALSE TO BE MADE PART OF THE RECORD. >> WITHOUT OBJECTION THE DOCUMENT WILL BE MADE PART OF THE RECORD. >> SEEK UNANIMOUS CONSENT THAT THE TWEET THAT THE FIRST LADY OF THE UNITED STATES ISSUED WITHIN THE HOUR. A MINOR CHILD DESERVES PRIVACY AND SHOULD BE KEPT OUT OF POLITICS. PAMELA CARLIN, WITHOUT OBJECTION THE DOCUMENT WILL BE ENTERED INTO THE RECORD. >> MR. STUBY IS RECOGNIZED FOR THE PURPOSE OF RECOGNIZING THE WITNESSES. MR. STUBY IS NOT HERE MOMENTARILY. MS. GARCIA IS RECOGNIZED. >> THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN. I, TOO, WANT TO THANK THE WITNESSES FOR THEIR TIME AND THEIR PATIENCE AND I KNOW IT'S BEEN A LONG DAY AND THE END IS IN SIGHT. AS MY COLLEAGUE OBSERVED, THE SIMILARITIES BETWEEN THE PRESIDENT'S CONDUCT AND THE UKRAINE INVESTIGATION AND THE CONDUCT IN THE SPECIAL COUNSEL'S INVESTIGATION ARE HARD TO IGNORE. IN FACT, WE'RE SEEING IT AS A PATTERN OF A PRESIDENTIAL ABUSE OF POWER. THE PRESIDENT CALLED THE UKRAINIAN INVESTIGATION A HOAX, AND THE MUELLER INVESTIGATION A WITCH HUNT. HE HAS THREATENED THE WHISTLE-BLOWER FOR NOT TESTIFYING LIKE HE THREATENED TO FIRE HIS ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR NOT OBSTRUCTING THE RUSSIA INVESTIGATION. THE PRESIDENT FIRED AMBASSADOR YOVANOVITCH AND PUBLICLY TARNISHED HER REPUTATION MUCH IN THE SAME WAY HE FIRED HIS WHITE HOUSE COUNSEL AND PUBLICLY ATTACKED HIS INTEGRITY AND FINALLY, THE PRESIDENT ATTACKED THE CIVIL SERVANTS WHO HAVE TESTIFIED ABOUT UKRAINE JUST LIKE HE ATTACKED CAREER OFFICIALS OF THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE FOR INVESTIGATING INTO THE OBSTRUCTION OF THE RUSSIA INVESTIGATION. UNDER ANY OTHER CIRCUMSTANCES, SUCH BEHAVIOR BY ANY AMERICAN PRESIDENT WOULD BE SHOCKING, BUT HERE, IT IS A REPEAT OF WHAT WE HAVE ALREADY SEEN IN THE SPECIAL COUNSEL'S INVESTIGATION. I'D LIKE TO TAKE A MOMENT TO DISCUSS THE PRESIDENT'S EFFORTS TO OBSTRUCT THE SPECIAL COUNSEL'S INVESTIGATION. A SUBJECT THAT THIS COMMITTEE HAS BEEN INVESTIGATING SINCE MARCH. HERE ARE TWO SLIDES, THE FIRST ONE WILL SHOW, AS HE DID WITH -- AS THE PRESIDENT DID WITH UKRAINE, TRY TO COERCE HIS SUBORDINATES INTO MISCONDUCT BY FOREIGN, SPECIAL COUNSELOR MUELLER. IN THE SECOND SLIDE SHOWS THAT WHEN THE NEWS BROKE OUT OF THE PRESIDENT'S ORDER, THE PRESIDENT DIRECTED HIS ADVISORS TO FALSELY DENY HE HAD MADE THE ORDER. PROFESSOR GERHARDT, ARE YOU FAMILIAR WITH THE FACTS IN THIS EPISODE AS DESCRIBED IN THE MUELLER REPORT? YES OR NO, PLEASE. >> YES, MA'AM. >> ACCEPTING THE SPECIAL COUNSEL'S EVIDENCE AS TRUE, IS THIS OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE? >> IT'S CLEARLY OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE. >> WHY WOULD YOU SAY SO, SIR? >> THE OBVIOUS OBJECT OF THIS ACTIVITY IS TO SHUT DOWN AN INVESTIGATION, AND IN FACT, THE ACTS OF THE PRESIDENT ACCORDING TO THESE FACTS, EACH TIME IS TO USE THE POWER THAT HE HAS UNIQUE IT ON HIS OFFICE, BUT IN A WAY THAT'S GOING TO HELP HIM FRUSTRATE THE INVESTIGATION. >> SO DOES THIS CONDUCT FIT WITHIN THE FRAMER'S VIEW OF IMPEACHABLE OFFENSES? >> BELIEVE IT DOES. I MEAN, THE ENTIRE CONSTITUTION INCLUDING SEPARATION OF POWERS IS DESIGNED TO PUT LIMITS ON HOW SOMEBODY MAY GO FRUSTRATING THE ACTIVITY OF ANOTHER BRANCH. >> SO YOU WOULD SAY THAT THIS ALSO WOULD BE AN IMPEACHABLE OFFENSE? >> YES, MA'AM. >> THANK YOU. I A AGREE WITH YOU. THE PRESIDENT'S ACTIONS DO MATTER AND THE PRESIDENT'S OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE DEFINITELY MATTERS AND AS A FORMER JUDGE AND MEMBER OF CONGRESS I'VE RAISED MY RIGHT HAND AND PUT MY LEFT HAND ON A BIBLE MORE THAN ONCE, AND I'VE SWORN TO UPHOLD THE CONSTITUTION AND LAWS OF THIS COUNTRY. THIS HEARING IS ABOUT THAT, BUT IT'S ALSO ABOUT THE CORE OF THE HEART OF OUR AMERICAN VALUES AND THE VALUES OF DUTY, HONOR AND LOYALTY. IT'S ABOUT THE RULE OF LAW. WOULD THE PRESIDENT ASK UKRAINE FOR A FAVOR, HE DID SO FOR HIS SOLE, POLITICAL GAIN AND NOT ON BEHALF OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE AND IF THIS IS TRUE, HE WOULD HAVE BETRAYED HIS OATH AND BETRAYED HIS LOYALTY TO THIS COUNTRY. THE FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLE OVER DEMOCRACY IS THAT NO ONE IS ABOVE THE LAW, NOT ANY ONE OF YOU PROFESSORS AND NOT ANY ONE OF US UP HERE, MEMBERS OF CONGRESS AND NOT EVEN THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES. THAT'S WHY WE SHOULD HOLD HIM ACCOUNTABLE FOR HIS ACTIONS AND THAT'S WHY, AGAIN, THANK YOU FOR TESTIFYING TODAY IN HELPING US WALK THROUGH ALL OF THIS TO PREPARE FOR WHAT MAY COME. THANK YOU, SIR. I YIELD BACK. >> THE GENTLE LADY YIELDS BACK. >> THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR AND THANK YOU TO EACH OF THE FOUR WITNESSES FOR YOUR TESTIMONY TODAY. I'D LIKE TO START BY TALKING ABOUT INTIMIDATION OF WITNESSES. AS MY COLLEAGUE, CONGRESSMAN GARCIA NOTED, PRESIDENT TRUMP HAS TRIED TO INTERFERE IN THE UKRAINE INVESTIGATION AND SPECIAL COUNSEL MUELLER'S INVESTIGATION IN ORDER TO COVER UP HIS OWN MISCONDUCT. AND IN BOTH THE UKRAINE INVESTIGATION AND SPECIAL COUNSEL MUELLER'S INVESTIGATION, THE PRESIDENT DISCOURAGED WITNESSES FROM COOPERATING AND INTIMIDATED WITNESSES WHO CAME FORWARD AND PRAISED THOSE WHO REFUSED TO COOPERATE. FOR EXAMPLE, THE PRESIDENT HARASSED AND INTIMIDATED THE BRAVE PUBLIC SERVANTS WHO CAME FORWARD. HE PUBLICLY CALLED THE WHISTLE-BLOWER A, QUOTE, DISGRACE TO OUR COUNTRY AND SAID THAT HIS IDENTITY SHOULD BE REVEALED. HE SUGGESTED THAT THOSE INVOLVED IN THE WHISTLE-BLOWER COMPLAINT SHOULD BE DEALT WITH IN THE WAYS WE USED TO DO FOR SPIES AND TREASON. HE CALLED AMBASSADOR TAYLOR A FORMER MILITARY OFFICER WITH MORE THAN 40 YEARS OF PUBLIC SERVICE A, QUOTE, NEVER TRUMPER, END QUOTE, ON THE SAME DAY THAT HE CALLED NEVER TRUMPERS, QUOTE, SCUM. THE PRESIDENT ALSO TWEETED ACCUSATIONS ABOUT MANY OF THE OTHER PUBLIC SERVANTS WHO TESTIFIED INCLUDING JENNIFER WILLIAMS AND AMBASSADOR YOVANOVITCH, AND AS WE KNOW, THE PRESIDENT'S LATTER TWEET HAPPENED LITERALLY DURING THE AMBASSADOR'S TESTIMONY IN THIS ROOM IN FRONT OF THE INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE WHICH SHE MADE CLEAR WAS INTIMIDATING. CONVERSELY, WE KNOW THAT THE PRESIDENT HAS PRAISED WITNESSES WHO HAVE REFUSED TO COOPERATE, FOR EXAMPLE, DURING THE SPECIAL COUNSEL'S INVESTIGATION THE PRESIDENT PRAISED PAUL MANAFORT, HIS FORMER CAMPAIGN MANAGER FOR NOT COOPERATING. YOU CAN SEE THE TWEET UP ON THE SCREEN TO MY SIDE. >> AS ANOTHER TELLING EXAMPLE, THE PRESIDENT INITIALLY PRAISED AMBASSADOR SONDLAND FOR NOT COOPERATING AND CALLING HIM, QUOTE, A REALLY GOOD MAN AND A GREAT AMERICAN, BUT AFTER AMBASSADOR SONDLAND TESTIFIED AND CONFIRMED THAT THERE WAS INDEED A QUID PRO QUO BETWEEN THE WHITE HOUSE VISIT AND THE REQUEST FOR THE INVESTIGATIONS, THE PRESIDENT CLAIMED HE, QUOTE, HARDLY KNEW THE AMBASSADOR. PROFESSOR GERHARDT, YOU TOUCHED ON IT BRIEFLY, IS THE PRESIDENT'S INTERFERENCE IN THE INVESTIGATIONS BY INTIMIDATING WITNESSES ALSO THE KIND OF CONDUCT THAT THE FRAMERS WERE WORRIED ABOUT, AND IF SO, WHY? >> IT'S CLEARLY CONDUCT THAT WORRIED THE FRAMERS AS REFLECTED IN THE CONSTITUTION THEY'VE GIVEN US IN THE STRUCTURE OF THE CONSTITUTION. THE ACTIVITIES YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT HERE ARE CONSISTENT, BUT THE OTHER PATTERN OF ACTIVITY THAT I'VE SEEN WITH THE PRESIDENT EITHER TRYING TO STOP INVESTIGATIONS EITHER BY MR. MUELLER OR BY CONGRESS AS WELL AS TO ASK WITNESSES TO MAKE FALSE DOCUMENTS ABOUT TESTIMONY AND ALL THOSE DIFFERENT KINDS OF ACTIVITIES ARE NOT THE KINDS OF ACTIVITIES THE FRAMERS EXPECTED THE PRESIDENT TO TAKE AND THEY EXPECTED THE PRESIDENT TO BE ACCOUNTABLE FOR IT AND WANT JUST IN ELECTIONS. ? PROFESSOR TURLEY, YOU'VE STUDIED AN IMPEACHMENT OF PRESIDENT JOHNSON AND PRESIDENT NIXON. THE WHITE HOUSE COUNSEL AND THE WHITE HOUSE CHIEF OF STAFF TO TESTIFY IN THE IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY? >> YES. >> YOU ARE AWARE THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP HAS REFUSED TO ALLOW HIS CHIEF OF STAFF OR COUNSEL TO COOPERATE. >> VARIOUS OFFICIALS DID TESTIFY AND REMAIN IN FEDERAL EMPLOYMENT. >> THAT DOES NOT INCLUDE THE WHITE HOUSE COUNSEL AND CHIEF OF STAFF, RIGHT? >> AM I RIGHT THAT PRESIDENT CLINTON PROVIDED RESPONSES DURING THAT IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY? >> I BELIEVE THAT'S RIGHT. >> YOU ARE AWARE THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP HAS REFUSE GOOD REQUEST FOR INFORMATION SUBMITTED BY THIS COMMITTEE? >> I HAVE, YES. >> ARE YOU FAMILIAR WITH THE LETTER ISSUED BY WHITE HOUSE COUNSEL PAT SIPILLONE, INSTRUCTING BRANCH OFFICIALS NOT TO TESTIFY IN THIS IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY. >> YES. >> AM I CORRECT, NO PRESIDENT IN THE HISTORY OF THE REPUBLIC BEFORE PRESIDENT TRUMP HAS EVER ISSUED A GENERAL ORDER INSTRUCTING EXECUTIVE BRANCH OFFICIALS NOT TO TESTIFY IN AN IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY. >> THAT'S NOT SURE WHERE I CAN ANSWER THAT AFFIRMATIVELY. PRESIDENT NIXON, IN FACT, WENT TO COURT OVER ACCESS TO INFORMATION DOCUMENTS AND THE LIKE, AND HE LOST. >> PROFESSOR TURLEY, I WOULD JUST AGAIN REFER YOU BACK TO THE HISTORY THAT'S BEEN RECOUNT ARE COUNTED BY EACH OF THE DISTINGUISHED SCHOLARS HERE TODAY BECAUSE WE KNOW AS WE RECOUNT THESE EXAMPLES THAT PRESIDENT NIXON DID, IN FACT, ALLOW HIS CHIEF OF STAFF AND HIS CHIEF COUNSEL TO TESTIFY AND THIS PRESIDENT HAS NOT. WE KNOW PRESIDENT CLINTON RESPONDED TO INTERROGATORIES AND THIS PRESIDENT HAS NOT. AT THE END OF THE DAY THIS CONGRESS AND THIS COMMITTEE HAS AN OBLIGATION TO ENSURE THAT THE LAW IS ENFORCED AND WITH THAT, I YIELD BACK THE BALANCE OF MY TEAM. >> THE GENTLEMAN YIELDS BACK. MISS MACBETH. >> THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN. PROFESSORS, I WANT TO THANK YOU SO VERY MUCH FOR SPENDING THESE LONG, ARDUOUS HOURS WITH US TODAY. THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR BEING HERE. FOLLOWING UP ON MY COLLEAGUE MR. NAGUSA'S QUESTIONS, I WOULD LIKE TO BRIEFLY GO THROUGH ONE PARTICULAR EXAMPLE OF THE PRESIDENT'S WITNESS INTIMIDATION THAT I FIND TRULY DISTURBING AND VERY DEVASTATING BECAUSE I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT THAT WE ALL TRULY SEE WHAT'S GOING ON HERE. AS THE SLIDE SHOWS ON HIS JULY 25th CALL, PRESIDENT TRUMP SAID THAT FORMER AMBASSADOR YOVANOVITCH WOULD, AND I QUOTE, GO THROUGH SOME THINGS. AMBASSADOR YOVANOVITCH TESTIFIED ABOUT LEARNING ABOUT THE PRESIDENT'S STAPLES MADE HER FEEL. >> WHAT DID YOU THINK WHEN PRESIDENT TRUMP TOLD PRESIDENT ZELENSKY THAT YOU WERE GOING TO GO THROUGH SOME THINGS? >> I DIDN'T KNOW WHAT TO THINK, BUT I WAS VERY CONCERNED. >> WHAT WERE YOU CONCERNED ABOUT? >> SHE'S GOING TO GO THROUGH SOME THINGS. IT DIDN'T SOUND GOOD. IT SOUNDED LIKE A THREAT. >> DID YOU FEEL THREATENED? >> I DID. AND AS WE ALL WITNESSED IN REAL TIME IN THE MIDDLE OF AMBASSADOR YOVANOVITCH'S LIVE TESTIMONY, THE PRESIDENT TWEETED ABOUT THE AMBASSADOR, DISCREDITING HER SERVICE IN SOMALIA AND THE UKRAINE. AMBASSADOR YOVANOVITCH TESTIFIED THAT THE PRESIDENT'S TWEET WAS, AND I QUOTE, VERY INTIMIDATING. PROFESSOR GERHARDT, THESE ATTACKS ON A CAREER, PUBLIC SERVANT ARE DEEPLY UPSETTING, BUT HOW DO THEY FIT INTO OUR UNDERSTANDING OF WHETHER THE PRESIDENT HAS COMMITTED HIGH CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS, AND HOW DO THEY FIT INTO OUR BROADER PATTERN OF BEHAVIOR BY THIS PRESIDENT TO COVER UP AND OBSTRUCT HIS MISCONDUCT? >> ONE WAY IN WHICH IT CONTRIBUTES TO THE OBSTRUCTION OF CONGRESS IS THAT IT DOESN'T JUST DEFAME AMBASSADOR YOVANOVITCH. BY EVERY OTHER ACCOUNT SHE'S BEEN AN EXEMPLARY PUBLIC SERVANT SO WHAT HE'S SUGGESTING THERE MAY NOT BE CONSISTENT WITH WHAT WE KNOW ASTHAT ALSO HAPPENS WHEN HE CENSORED SOMETHING LIKE THIS IS IT INTIMIDATES EVERYBODY ELSE WHO IS THINKING ABOUT TESTIFYING ANY OTHER PUBLIC SERVANTS WHO THINK THEY SHOULD COME FORWARD, THEY ARE GOING TO WORRY THAT THEY ARE GOING TO GET PUNISHED IN SOME WAY, THEY WILL FACE THINGS THAT SHE HAS FACED. BUT WHAT >> THAT IS THE WOMAN MAN PRESIDENT TRUMP HAS THREATENED WELL FOR YOU AND I CAN ASSURE YOU I CAN ASSURE YOU THAT I CAN SAY WHAT IT'S LIKE TO BE UNFAIRLY ATTACK PUBLICLY FOR YOUR SENSE OF DUTY TO AMERICA. NO MATTER YOUR PARTY WHETHER YOU'RE DEMOCRAT OR REPUBLICAN, I DON'T THINK ANY OF US THINKS THAT THIS IS OKAY. IT IS PLAINLY WRONG FOR THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES TO ATTACK A CAREER PUBLIC SERVANT JUST FOR TELLING THE TRUTH THAT SHE KNOWS THAT. AND I YIELD BACK THE BALANCE OF MY TIME. WELL >> GENTLE LADY YIELDS BACK, MR. STONE. >> THANK YOU VERY MUCH MISTER CHAIRMAN AND THANK YOU TO OUR STANDING WITNESSES HERE TODAY. PRESIDENT TRUMP HAS DECLARED THAT HE WILL NOT COMPLY WITH CONGRESSIONAL SUBPOENAS, HIS BLANKET CATEGORICAL DISREGARD OF THE LEGISLATIVE BRANCH BEGAN WITH THE PRESIDENT'S REFUSAL TO COOPERATE WITH REGULAR CONGRESSIONAL OVERSIGHT AND HAS NOW EXTENDED TO THE HOUSES CONSTITUTIONAL DUTY ON IMPEACHMENT, THE REASON WHY WE ARE HERE TODAY. THIS DISREGARD HAS BEEN ON DISPLAY FOR THE AMERICAN PEOPLE, WHEN ASKED IF HE WOULD COMPLY WITH THE GENRE SUBPOENA PRESIDENT TRUMP SAID QUOTE, WELL, WE ARE FIGHTING ALL OF THE SUBPOENAS. UNQUOTE. NOW WE HAVE DISCUSSED HERE TODAY THE OBSTRUCTION OF CONGRESS, ARTICLE IMPEACHMENT AGAINST PRESIDENT NIXON, I THINK I WOULD LIKE TO GO A LITTLE BIT DEEPER INTO THAT DISCUSSION AND JUXTAPOSE IT WITH PRESIDENT TRUMP'S ACTIONS. PROFESSOR GERHARDT, CAN YOU ELABORATE ON HOW PRESIDENT NIXON OBSTRUCTED CONGRESS AND HOW IT COMPARES TO PRESIDENT TRUMP'S ACTIONS? >> AS I DISCUSSED EARLIER INCLUDING MY WRITTEN STATEMENT, PRESIDENT NIXON ALSO REFUSED TO COMPLY WITH FOR LEGISLATIVE SUBPOENAS, THESE WERE ZEROING IN ON THE MOST INCRIMINATING EVIDENCE HE HAD IN HIS POSSESSION, SO HE REFUSED TO COMPLY WITH THOSE SUBPOENAS BUT AGAIN THE BASIS FOR THAT THIRD ARTICLE, WHEN HE RESIGNED A FEW DAYS LATER. >> BUT PROFESSOR FELDMAN, WHAT ARE THE CONSEQUENCES OF THIS UNPRECEDENTED OBSTRUCTION OF CONGRESS TO OUR DEMOCRACY? >> FOR THE PRESIDENT TO REFUSE TO PARTICIPATE IN ANY WAY IN THE HOUSES CONSTITUTIONAL OBLIGATION OF SUPERVISING HIM TO IMPEACHMENT BREAKS THE CONSTITUTION, IT BASICALLY SAYS NOBODY CAN OVERSEE ME, NOBODY CAN IMPEACH ME, FIRST A BLOCK OF WITNESSES FROM APPEARING AND THEN ALL REFUSED TO PARTICIPATE IN ANY WAY AND THEN I WILL SAY YOU DON'T HAVE ENOUGH EVIDENCE TO IMPEACH ME AND ULTIMATELY THE EFFECT OF THAT IS TO GUARANTEE THAT THE PRESIDENT IS ABOVE THE LAW AND CAN'T BE CHECKED, AND SINCE WE KNOW THE FRAMERS PUT IMPEACHMENT IN THE CONSTITUTION TO CHECK THE PRESIDENT, IF HE CAN'T BE CHECKED, HE IS NO LONGER SUBJECT TO THE LAW. >> PROFESSOR GERHARDT WOULD YOU AGREE THAT THE PRESIDENT'S REFUSAL TO COMPLY WITH CONGRESSIONAL SUBPOENAS INVOKES THE WORST FEARS AND ENDANGERS OUR DEMOCRACY? >> IT DOES, AND ONE WAY WE SHOULD UNDERSTAND THAT IS TO PUT ALL OF HIS ARGUMENTS TOGETHER AND SEE WHAT THE RAMIFICATIONS ARE. HE SAYS HE IS ENTITLED NOT TO COMPLY WITH ALL SUBPOENAS, HE SAYS HE IS NOT SUBJECT TO ANY KIND OF CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION WHEN HE'S PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, HE'S IMMUNE TO, THAT HE'S ENTITLED TO KEEP ALL INFORMATION CONFIDENTIAL FROM CONGRESS, HE DOESN'T EVEN HAVE TO GIVE A REASON. WHEN YOU PUT ALL OF THOSE THINGS TOGETHER, HE HAS BLOCKED OF EVERY WAY IN WHICH TO HOLD HIMSELF ACCOUNTABLE EXCEPT FOR ELECTIONS, AND THE CRITICAL THING TO UNDERSTAND HERE IS THAT THAT IS PRECISELY WHAT HE WAS TRYING TO UNDERMINE IN THE UKRAINE SITUATION. >> MR. COHEN DO ANYTHING TO ADD TO THAT ANALYSIS? >> I THINK THAT'S CORRECT AND IF I CAN JUST SAY ONE THING. >> PLEASE. >> I WANT TO APOLOGIZE FOR WHAT I SAID EARLIER ABOUT THE PRESIDENT'S SON, IT WAS WRONG ME TO DO THAT AND I WISH THE PRESIDENT BUT APOLOGIZE OBVIOUSLY FOR THE THINGS THAT HE'S DONE THAT IS WRONG BUT I DO REGRET HAVING SAID THAT. >> THANK YOU PROFESSOR. >> ONE OF THE MOST IMPORTANT QUESTIONS THAT EVERY MEMBER OF THIS COMMITTEE MUST DECIDE IS WHETHER WE ARE A NATION OF LAWS AND NOT MAN, IT USED TO BE AN EASY ANSWER, WHEN WE COULD ALL AGREE ON, WHEN PRESIDENT NIXON DEFIED THE LAW AND OBSTRUCTED JUSTICE, HE WAS HELD TO ACCOUNT BY PEOPLE ON BOTH SIDES WHO KNEW THAT FOR A REPUBLIC TO ENSURE, WE MUST HAVE FIDELITY TO OUR COUNTRY RATHER THAN TO ONE PARTY OR ONE MAN, AND THE OBSTRUCTION WE ARE LOOKING AT TODAY IS FAR WORSE THAN PRESIDENT NIXON'S BEHAVIOR. FUTURE GENERATIONS WILL MEASURE US, EVERY SINGLE MEMBER OF THIS COMMITTEE BY HOW WE CHOOSE TO ANSWER THAT QUESTION. I HOPE WE GET IT RIGHT. I YIELD BACK. ONE >> GENTLEMAN YIELDS BACK, MEN >> THANK YOU MISTER CHAIRMAN. I'VE ONLY BEEN IN CONGRESS SINCE JANUARY THIS YEAR IN ON THE VERY FIRST DAY OF MY SWEARING IN A DEMOCRAT IN MY CLASS CALLED FOR THE IMPEACHMENT OF THE PRESIDENT ON DAY ONE. USING MUCH MORE COLORFUL LANGUAGE THAN I EVER USED, SINCE THEN THIS COMMITTEE FOCUSED ON THE MUELLER REPORT AND THE RUSSIAN COLLUSION. WE ALL SAT AND LISTENED TO MR. MUELLER STATE UNEQUIVOCALLY THAT THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE, THAT THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN CONCLUDED WITH RUSSIA, SO THAT AND WORK FOR THE DEMOCRATS SO THEY THEN CHANGED THEIR TALKING POINTS MOVE TO THE OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE THEORY, THE PRESIDENT OBSTRUCTED JUSTICE, THEN THAT FOLD, THEN AFTER COORDINATING WITH CHAIRMAN SCHIFF'S STAFF, A WHISTLE BLOWER FILED A COMPLAINT BASED COMPLETELY ON HEARSAY AND OVERHEARING OTHER PEOPLE THAT WERE ON A PHONE CALL TALK ABOUT A PHONE CALL BETWEEN TWO LEADERS, WHICH LED TO THE INTEL COMMITTEE, SO-CALLED IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY, WHICH VIOLATED ALL PASSED HISTORICAL PRESIDENT, DEPRIVED THE PRESIDENT BASIC DUE PROCESS RIGHTS AND FUNDAMENTAL FAIRNESS BY CONDUCTING THE SO-CALLED INQUIRY IN SECRET, WITHOUT THE MINORITIES ABILITY TO CALL WITNESSES AND DENIED THE PRESIDENT UP HOW HIS LAWYERS CROSS EXAMINE WITNESSES. A RIGHT AFFORDED TO PRESIDENT CLINTON AND EVERY DEFENDANT IN OUR JUSTICE SYSTEM INCLUDING RAPISTS AND MURDERERS. THE REPUBLICANS ON THIS COMMITTEE HAVE REPEATEDLY REQUESTED THAT ALL EVIDENCE COLLECTED BY THE INTEL COMMITTEE, AS WE HAVE HEARD TODAY WE STILL DON'T HAVE THE UNDERLYING EVIDENCE THAT WE HAVE BEEN REQUESTING. AGAIN, A RIGHT AFFORDED EVERY CRIMINAL DEFENDANT IN THE UNITED STATES. SO INSTEAD, WE SAID HEAR, HEARING LECTURES FROM LAW PROFESSORS ABOUT THEIR OPINIONS. THEIR OPINIONS, NOT FACTS. I GUESS THE DEMOCRATS NEED A CONSTITUTIONAL LAW REFRESHER COURSE, REPUBLICANS DOWN. MR. CHAIRMAN, YOU HAVE ACKNOWLEDGED AND I QUOTE, THE HOUSES QUOTE, POWER OF IMPEACHMENT, DEMANDS A RIGOROUS LEVEL OF DUE PROCESS. DUE PROCESS MEANS THE RIGHT TO CONFRONT WITNESSES AGAINST YOU, TO CALL YOUR OWN WITNESSES AND TO HAVE THE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL. THOSE ARE YOUR WORDS MISTER CHAIRMAN, NOT MINE. WHAT ARE YOU AFRAID OF? LET THE MINORITY CALL WITNESSES. BUT THE PRESIDENT CALL WITNESSES. CLINTON ALONG CALLED 14 WITNESSES TO TESTIFY. BUT THE PRESIDENT'S COUNSEL CROSS EXAMINE THE WHISTLEBLOWER. BUT THE PRESIDENT'S COUNSEL CROSS EXAMINE THE INTEL STAFF WHO COLLUDED WITH THE WHISTLEBLOWER. IN YOUR OWN WORDS THOSE OF THE RIGHTS THAT SHOULD BE AFFORDED TO THE PRESIDENT. WRITES EVERY CRIMINAL DEFENDANT IS AFFORDED, EVEN TERRORISTS IN IRAQ ARE AFFORDED MORE DUE PROCESS THEN YOU AND THE DEMOCRATIC MAJORITY HAVE AFFORDED THE PRESIDENT. I KNOW BECAUSE I SERVED IN IRAQ AND I PROSECUTED TERRORISTS IN IRAQ AND WE PROVIDED TERRACE IN IRAQ MORE RIGHTS AND DUE PROCESS IN THE CENTRAL CRIMINAL COURT OF IRAQ THAN YOU AND CHAIRMAN SCHIFF HAVE AFFORDED THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES. NO COLLUSION, NO OBSTRUCTION, NO QUID PRO QUO, NO EVIDENCE OF BRIBERY EXCEPT OPINION, NO EVIDENCE OF TREES AND, NO EVIDENCE OF HIGH CRIME OR MISDEMEANORS, WE HAVE A BUNCH OF OPINIONS FROM PARTISAN DEMOCRATS WHO HAVE STATED FROM DAY ONE THAT THEY WANT TO IMPEACH THE PRESIDENT. NOT ON THIS THEORY BUT ON MULTIPLE OTHER DIFFERENT THEORIES. THE AMERICAN PEOPLE ARE SMARTER THAN YOU'RE A BASES OF IMPEACHMENT THAT YOU HAVE HAD ON THE SCREEN THAT WERE LAID OUT TODAY AND IT IS EXTREMELY DEMONSTRATIVE OF YOUR LACK OF EVIDENCE GETTING LAW PROFESSORS TO GIVE THEIR OPINIONS AND NOT FACT WITNESSES TO GIVE THEIR TESTIMONY TODAY TO BE CROSS EXAMINED IN THE RIGHTS AFFORDED TO THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES. MISTER CHAIRMAN, WHERE CAN WE ANTICIPATE THAT YOU WILL CHOOSE A DATE FOR THE MINORITY DAY OF HEARINGS? WELL MISTER CHAIRMAN, I'M ASKING YOUR QUESTION. WHEN CAN WE ANTICIPATE THAT YOU WILL CHOOSE A DATE FOR THE MINORITY DAY OF HEARINGS? >> THE GENTLEMAN IS RECOGNIZED FOR THE PURPOSE OF QUESTIONING THE WITNESSES, NOT FOR COLLEAGUES. >> THEN I WILL DO THAT AFTER MY TIME I YIELD THE REMAINDER OF MY TIME TO MR. RATCLIFFE. >> I THINK MY COLLEAGUE FROM FLORIDA FOR YIELDING. PROFESSOR TURLEY, SINCE WE LAST TALKED BASED ON QUESTIONING FROM MY COLLEAGUE ACROSS THE AISLE IT DOES IN FACT APPEAR THAT DEMOCRATS DO INTEND TO PURSUE ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT FOR ARTICLES OF INJUSTICE BASED ON THE MUELLER REPORT. I ASKED YOU QUESTION ABOUT THAT, YOU DIDN'T REALLY GET A CHANCE TO GIVE A COMPLETE ANSWER, IN YOUR STATEMENT TODAY, YOU MAKE THE STATEMENT, I BELIEVE AN OBSTRUCTION CLAIM BASED ON THE MUELLER REPORT WILL BE AT ODDS WITH THE RECORD OF CONTROLLING LAW. YOU SAID AN OBSTRUCTION THEORY FROM THE MUELLER REPORT WOULD BE AND SUPPORTED AND THE HOUSE AND UNSUSTAINABLE IN THE SENATE. DO YOU REMEMBER WRITING THAT? >> YES I DO. >> WHY DO RIGHT? THAT >> BECAUSE I THINK IT'S TRUE. THE FACT IS, THIS WAS REVIEWED BY MAIN JUSTICE AND THE SPECIAL COUNSEL DID NOT REACH A CONCLUSION ON OBSTRUCTION AND THEY SHOULDN'T WITHIN THE JUSTIFICATION QUITE FRANKLY WAS A BIT ABSURD BY NOT REACHING A CONCLUSION. BUT THE ATTORNEY GENERAL DID AND THEY CAME TO THE RIGHT CONCLUSION. I DON'T THINK THIS IS A REAL CASE FOR OBSTRUCTION BUT, THEN THIS BODY WOULD BE IMPEACHING OF THE PRESIDENT ON THE BASIS OF THE INVERSE CONCLUSION. I DON'T BELIEVE IT WOULD BE APPROPRIATE. THE >> GENTLEMAN'S TIME HAS EXPIRED, MISTING. >> THANK YOU MISTER CHAIRMAN. WORDS MATTER, IN MY EARLIER LIFE PROFESSOR I WAS A PROFESSOR OF WRITING. I TOLD MY STUDENTS TO BE CAREFUL AND CLEAR ABOUT WHAT THEY PUT TO PAPER AND THAT IS A LESSON THAT ARE FRAMERS OF THE CONSTITUTION NEW FAR BETTER THAN ANYONE. THEY WERE DOING THE FOUNDATION FOR A NEW FORM OF GOVERNMENT AND DRAWINGS IN THE DEMOCRATIC PRINCIPLE AND ATTACKS AGAINST THOSE WOULD SEEK TO UNDERMINE THEM. THE CONSTITUTION EXPLICITLY LAYS OUT WHAT THE PRESIDENT MAY BE IMPEACHED FOR TREASON, BRIBERY, HIGH CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS. WE HEARD A LOT OF WORDS TODAY, FOREIGN INTERFERENCE, BRIBERY, OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE AND I WOULD LIKE TO GO THROUGH THE PRESIDENTS CONDUCT. THE PUBLIC HARMS THAT WE HAVE DISCUSSED TODAY AND ASKED IF THEY WOULD FIT INTO WHAT THE FOUR FATHERS CONTEMPLATED WHEN CRAFTING THOSE WORDS OF THE IMPEACHMENT LAWS. PROFESSOR KARLAN, I WOULD ASK YOU ABOUT THE ELECTIONS AS AN AMERICAN WE CAN'T AGREE THAT FOREIGN INTERFERENCE IS AN INFLUENCE THAT ERODES THE INTEGRITY OF OUR ELECTIONS. AS YOU SAID SO PLAINLY, AND MAKES US LESS FREE. YET, ON JULY 25TH, 2019 THE PRESIDENT COERCED UKRAINIAN PRESIDENT ZELENSKY, TO ANNOUNCE THE INVESTIGATION INTO HIS POLITICAL RIVAL. TRUMP'S POLITICAL RIVAL WHICH WAS CORROBORATED BY MULTIPLE WITNESSES THROUGHOUT THE INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE HEARINGS. PROFESSOR KARLYN, CAN YOU EXPLAIN TO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE, IN YOUR OPINION WHETHER THE FRAMERS CAN CONSIDER SOLICITATION OF FOREIGN INTERFERENCE AND WOULD'VE A CONSIDERED IT A HIGH CRIME OR MISDEMEANOR? DOES THE PRESIDENT'S CONDUCT RISE TO THAT LEVEL? >> THE FRAMERS OF OUR CONSTITUTION WOULD'VE CONSIDERED IT UP OREN IF YOU CONSIDER THE ESSENCE OF A CRIME OR MISDEMEANOR FOR A PRESIDENT TO INVITE IN FOREIGN INFLUENCE AND WHETHER HE WOULD BE REELECTED OR DECIDED WHOM HIS SUCCESSOR WOULD BE. >> THANK YOU. >> PROFESSOR, I'D LIKE TO TALK TO YOU ABOUT BRIBERY. AND THE INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE HEARINGS, MULTIPLE HAD AN RIVETED TESTIMONY THAT THE PRESIDENT WITHHELD 400 MILLION DOLLARS AND CONGRESSIONALLY APPROVED AID ON THE CONDITION THAT RUSSIA -- EXCUSE ME, THAT UKRAINE INVESTIGATIONS INTO THE CHIEF POLITICAL ADVERSARY. PROFESSOR, AND YOUR OPINION, GIVEN THOSE FACTS AND THE FRAMERS SPECIFIC CONCERNS, WHAT YOU DESCRIBE THE PRESIDENT'S BEHAVIOR AND THE USE OF HIS PUBLIC OFFICE FOR A PRIVATE BENEFIT AS A RISING TO THOSE LEVELS? >> THE FRAMERS CONSIDERED AS YOU SAID BRIBERY TO CONSIST UNDER THE CONSTITUTION AND TO CONSISTS OF THE PRESIDENT ABUSING HIS OFFICE CORRUPTLY FOR PERSONAL GAIN. IF THIS HOUSE DETERMINES THAT THIS COMMITTEE DETERMINES THAT THE PRESIDENT WAS IN FACT SEEKING PERSONAL GAIN AND SEEKING THE INVESTIGATIONS THAT HE ASKED FOR, THEN THAT WOULD CONSTITUTE BRIBERY UNDER THE CONSTITUTION. >> THANK YOU. PROFESSOR GERHARDT WHAT I ASK YOU ABOUT THE PRESIDENT WHO HAS CATEGORICALLY REFUSED TO HAVE ANY DOCUMENTS TO CONGRESSIONAL SUBPOENAS AND ATTACK AND INTIMIDATED AN ACTUAL WITNESS AND INCLUDING CAREER AND MILITARY AND CIVIL SERVANTS AS DISCUSSED HERE LIKE AMBASSADOR YOVANOVITCH, LIEUTENANT COLONEL VINDMAN, TAYLOR, WILLIAMS AND OTHERS. HE DIRECTED THE FORMER ADMINISTRATION TO DEFY CONGRESSIONAL SUBPOENAS. PROFESSOR, BASED ON THAT SET OF FACTS, DOES THIS CONDUCT MEET A THRESHOLD FROM OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE AS ENVISIONED IN THE CONSTITUTION? >> YES MA'AM, I BELIEVE IT DOES. WHEN I WAS HERE 21 YEARS AGO WHEN PROFESSOR TURLEY TURLEY WAS TESTIFYING AND THERE IS A SERIOUS QUESTION AND I REMEMBER A NUMBER OF PROFESSORS VERY ELOQUENTLY TALKING ABOUT PRESIDENT CLINTON AND HIS MISCONDUCT AS AN ATTACK ON THE JUDICIAL SYSTEM, THAT'S WHAT YOU JUST DESCRIBED TO ME. >> THANK YOU PROFESSORS, ALL FOUR OF YOU. WHAT YOU DID TODAY, YOU BROUGHT A PART OF OUR CONSTITUTION TO LIFE AND I THANK YOU FOR THAT. YOU HAVE SHOWN WHAT THE FRAMERS REMIND OF WHEN THEY WROTE THE IMPEACHMENT CLAUSE OF OUR CONSTITUTION. THEY CHOSE THEIR WORDS AND THEIR WORDS MATTERED. IT WAS MY FATHER BOBBY DEAN, A TERRIFIC DAD AND TALENTED WRITER WHO INSTILLED IN ME AND MY BROTHERS AND SISTER, A LOT OF LANGUAGE. HE TAUGHT US OUR WORDS MATTER AND THE TRUTH MATTERS, IT'S THROUGH THAT LENS THAT I SEE THE SERIOUS SOMBER THINGS ARE TALKING ABOUT TODAY WITH FOREIGN INTERFERENCE, BRIBERY, OBSTRUCTION AND THE FRAMERS COULD NOT OF IMAGINED ALL THREE CONCERNS IN A SINGLE LEADER. BUT THEY WERE CONCERNED ENOUGH TO CRAFT THE IMPEACHMENT. THE TIMES I HAVE FOUND US, I AM PRAYER FALL FOR OUR PRESIDENT AND FOR OUR COUNTRY OR OURSELVES. NOW WE THE PEOPLE ALWAYS HOLD HIGH INDECENCY AND PROMISE AND AMBITION OF OUR FOUNDING AND OF THE WORDS THAT MATTERED AND OF THE TRUTH AND WITH THAT I YIELD BACK MISTER CHAIR. >> MISS MIKE ARSENAL POWELL, -- >> THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME AND IT'S BEEN A LONG DAY AND I WANT TO TELL YOU, I DON'T HAVE THE PRIVILEGE OF BEING BORN IN HIS COUNTRY AS AN IMMIGRANT WHEN I BECAME A CITIZEN TO THIS GREAT NATION I TOOK AN OATH TO PROTECT AND DEFEND THE CONSTITUTION FROM ALL FOREIGN AND DOMESTIC EMMYS AND I HAD TAKEN THAT OATH ONCE AGAIN WHEN I BECAME A MEMBER OF CONGRESS. THAT INCLUDES THE RESPONSIBILITY TO PROTECT OUR NATION FROM CONTINUING THREATS FROM A PRESIDENT, MANY PRESIDENTS. YOU TESTIFIED THAT THE PRESIDENTS ACTIONS ARE A CONTINUING RISK TO OUR NATION AND DEMOCRACY. MEANING THAT THIS IS NOT A ONETIME PROBLEM THERE, IS A PATTERN OF BEHAVIOR BY THE PRESIDENT THAT IS PUTTING AT RISK FAIR AND FREE ELECTIONS AND I THINK THAT WE ARE HERE TODAY BECAUSE THE AMERICAN PEOPLE DESERVE TO KNOW WHETHER WE NEED TO REMOVE THE PRESIDENT BECAUSE OF IT. DURING THE NIXON IMPEACHMENT, THE COMMITTEE SAID, QUOTE THE PERSON OF IMPEACHMENT IS NOT PERSONAL PUNISHMENT. ITS FUNCTION IS PRIMARILY TO MAINTAIN CONSTITUTIONAL GOVERNMENT. PROFESSOR KARLYN, TO ME IT MEANS THAT IMPEACHMENT SHOULD BE USED WHEN IT MUST TO PROTECT OUR AMERICAN DEMOCRACY. IT IS RESERVED FOR A IS THAT PRESENT A CONTINUING RISK TO OUR DEMOCRACY, IS THAT CORRECT? >> YES IT IS. >> THANK YOU. I WANT TO SHOW YOU AN EXAMPLE WHAT THE PRESIDENT SAID. JUST ONE WEEK AFTER THE TRANSCRIPT OF THE JULY 25TH CALL WAS RELEASED WHEN A REPORTER ASKED THE PRESIDENT WHAT HE WANTED FROM PRESIDENT ZELENSKY. HE RESPONDED WITH THIS. >> I WOULD THINK THAT IF THEY WERE HONEST ABOUT IT, THEY WOULD START A MAJOR INVESTIGATION INTO THE BIDENS. IT'S A VERY SIMPLE ANSWER. THEY SHOULD INVESTIGATE THE BIDENS BECAUSE OUT AS A COMPANY THAT IS NEWLY FORMED AND IF YOU LOOK AT IT, BY THE WAY CHINA'S COULD START AN INVESTIGATION INTO THE BIDENS. BECAUSE WHAT HAPPENED TO CHINA? IT'S JA JUST ABOUT AS BAD WHAT HAPPENED WITH UKRAINE. >> WE HEARD TODAY CONFLICTING DIALOG FROM BOTH SIDES. I WANT TO ASK MR. FELDMAN, IS CLEAR EVIDENCE FROM A PRESIDENT ASKING FROM A FOREIGN GOVERNMENT TO INTERFERE IN OUR ELECTIONS? >> CONGRESSWOMAN, I'M HERE FOR THE CONSTITUTION AND WE ARE HERE FOR THE CONSTITUTION. WHEN THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES ASKS FOR EXISTENCE FROM A FOREIGN POWER TO DISTORT OUR ELECTIONS AND FOR HIS PERSONAL ADVANTAGE, THAT CONSTITUTES AN ABUSE OF OFFICE AND ACCOUNTS OF THE HAGUE HIGH CRIME AND MISDEMEANOR AND THAT'S WHAT THE CONSTITUTION IS HERE TO PROTECT US AGAINST. >> THANK YOU. PROFESSOR KARLYN, ARE THE PRESIDENT'S ACTIONS A CONTINUING RISK THAT THE FRAMERS INTENDED IMPEACHMENT WILL BE USED FOR? >> THIS TAKES US BACK TO THE QUOTATION FROM LILLIAN DAVIES THAT WE'VE ALL USED TO SEVERAL TIMES IS THAT A PRESIDENT WITHOUT IMPEACHMENT, WILL DO ANYTHING TO GET REELECTED. >> I WANT TO SHOW YOU ONE MORE EXAMPLE FROM THE CHIEF OF STAFF ASKED ABOUT THE ASK OF THE UKRAINIAN PRESIDENT. >> LET'S BE CLEAR, WHAT YOU DESCRIBED IT AS A QUID PRO QUO IS UNLESS THE INVESTIGATION IS INTO THE DEMOCRATIC SERVER WHICH HAPPENS AS WELL. >> WE DO THAT ALL THE TIME WITH FOREIGN POLICY. THEY SAID YESTERDAY, THEY WERE UPSET WITH THE POLITICAL INFLUENCE IN FOREIGN POLICY. THAT WAS ONE OF THE REASONS HE WAS SO UPSET ABOUT THIS. I HAVE NEWS FOR EVERYBODY, GET OVER IT. THERE IS GOING TO BE POLITICAL INFLUENCE IN FOREIGN POLICY. >> PROFESSOR KARLAN.? >> I THINK MR. MULVANEY IS CONFUSING TO DIFFERENT NOTIONS OF POLITICS. YES, THERE IS POLITICAL INFLUENCE ON OUR FOREIGN AFFAIRS. BECAUSE PRESIDENT TRUMP WON THE ELECTION IN 2016, WITH EXITING CLIMATE ACCORDS, TAKEN A DIFFERENT POSITION A NATO THEN WE WOULD'VE TAKEN HAS AN OPPONENT ONE. BUT THAT'S DIFFERENT THAN SAYING THAT PARTISAN POLITICS IN THE SENSE OF ELECTORAL MANIPULATION IS SOMETHING THAT WE NEED TO GET OVER OR GET USED TO. IF WE GET OVER THAT OR GET USED TO THAT, WE WILL CEASE TO BECOME THE DEMOCRACY THAT WE ARE RIGHT NOW. >> THANK YOU. I THINK THAT IS OUR GREATEST FEAR AND THREAT. I DON'T THINK THAT ANYONE IS ABOVE THE LAW AND THE CONSTITUTION ESTABLISHES THAT. THIS TYPE OF BEHAVIOR COULD NOT BE TOLERATED FROM ANY PRESIDENT, NOT NOW AND OUT OF THE FUTURE AND I YIELD BACK. >> BUT GENERALLY THE LILT BACK. I'M SORRY, MISS ESCOBAR. MISS ESCOBAR IS RECOGNIZED. >> THANK YOU MISTER CHAIRMAN. PROFESSORS, THANK YOU SO MUCH YOUR TESTIMONY IN TIME TODAY. MANY FACTS AND HIS OWN WORDS IN THE FAMOUS PHONE CALL HAD BEEN LAID OUT BEFORE OUR VERY EYES AND EARS FOR MONTHS. DESPITE THE PRESIDENT'S EFFORTS TO COVER UP. BUT IT APPEARS THAT SOME OF CHOSEN TO IGNORE THOSE FACTS. WHAT WE HAVE SEEN TODAY FROM THOSE THAT DO WANT TO TURN A BLIND EYE, IS NOT A DEFENSE OF THE PRESIDENT'S ACTIONS BECAUSE THOSE OFFENSES ARE INDEFENSIBLE. WE HAVE SEEN THEM ATTACK THE PROCESS AND TO IMPUGN YOU'RE INTEGRITY. AND FOR THAT I'M SORRY. TO MY QUESTIONS, SOME PEOPLE FIND THAT IN CONSIDERING IMPEACHMENT WE SHOULD LET THIS PASS AND ALLOW THEM TO DECIDE WHAT TO DO NEXT OR WHAT TO DO ABOUT THE PRESIDENT'S BEHAVIOR AND THE NEXT ELECTION. THE FRAMERS OF OUR CONSTITUTION SPECIFICALLY CONSIDER WHETHER TO JUST USE ELECTIONS AND NOT HAVE IMPEACHMENT OR REJECT THAT NOTION. ONE NOTE FROM THE FRAMERS REALLY STUCK WITH ME. GEORGE MISSION SAID THE MAN THAT HAS PRACTICED CORRUPTION AND THAT MEANS PROCURED HIS APPOINTMENT IN THE FIRST INSTANCE, HE SUFFERED TO ESCAPE PUNISHMENT, BY REPEATING HIS GUILT. PROFESSOR FELDMAN, I HAVE TWO QUESTIONS FOR YOU. BRIEFLY, CAN YOU EXPLAIN WHY THE FRAMERS DECIDED THAT A CORRUPT EXECUTIVE COULD NOT BE SOLVED THROUGH ELECTIONS? AND CAN YOU TELL US WHY IMPEACHMENT IS THE APPROPRIATE OPTION AT THIS POINT? CONSIDERING ALL THE EVIDENCE AMERICANS HAVE SEEN AND HEARD RATHER THAN LETTING THIS BE DECIDED IN THE NEXT ELECTION? THE >> FRAMERS UNDERSTOOD THE HUMAN ORDINATION VERY WELL. THEY KNEW THE PRESIDENT WOULD HAVE A GREAT MOTIVE TO CORRUPT THE ELECTORAL PROCESS TO GET REELECTED. THAT IS EXACTLY WHY THEY THOUGHT IT WASN'T GOOD ENOUGH TO WAIT FOR THE NEXT ELECTION. BECAUSE THE PRESIDENT COULD CHEAT AND MAKE THE NEXT ELECTION ILLEGITIMATE. THAT'S TO WHY IT REQUIRED IMPEACHMENT AND IF THEY COULDN'T IMPEACH A CORRUPT PRESIDENT, JAMES MADISON SAID THAT WOULD BE FATAL TO THE REPUBLIC. THE REASON WHY IT'S NECESSARY TO TAKE ACTION NOW. IS BECAUSE WE HAVE A PRESIDENT WHO HAS IN FACT SOUGHT TO CORRECT THE ELECTORAL PROCESS FOR HIS PERSONAL ADVANTAGE. IN THOSE CIRCUMSTANCES, THE FRAMERS OF IMPEACHMENT IS THE ONLY OPTION AVAILABLE. >> THANK YOU. I WANT TO PLAY TO CLIPS, THE FIRST OF PRESIDENT NIXON IN THE SECOND OF PRESIDENT TRUMP. >> WHEN THE PRESIDENT DOES IT THAT MEANS THAT IS NOT ILLEGAL. >> I HAVE AN ARTICLE TO WHERE I HAVE THE RIGHT TO DO IT I WHATEVER I WANT AS PRESIDENT. IT >> THEY ARE SAYING THAT THEY ARE ABOVE THE LAW. PROFESSOR KARLAN, WHAT HAPPENS TO OUR REPUBLIC, TO OUR COUNTRY THAT IF WE DO NOTHING IN THE FACE OF THE PRESIDENT WHO SEES HIMSELF ABOVE THE LAW AND WILL ABUSE HIS POWER, WHO WILL ASK FOREIGN GOVERNMENTS TO MEDDLE IN OUR ELECTIONS AND WHO WILL ATTACK ANY WITNESS WHO STANDS UP TO TELL THE TRUTH. WHAT HAPPENS IF WE DON'T FOLLOW OUR CONSTITUTIONAL OBLIGATION OF IMPEACHMENT TO REMOVE THAT PRESIDENT FROM OFFICE? >> WE WILL SEIZE TO BE A REPUBLIC. >> THANK YOU. I REPRESENT A COMMUNITY A LITTLE OVER A DECADE AGO, WAS BARRED BY CORRUPTION AT THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT LEVEL. THERE WAS NO RETREAT INTO A PARTISAN CORNER OR AN EFFORT BY ANYONE TO EXPLAIN IT AWAY. WE ALSO DIDN'T WAIT FOR AN ELECTION TO CURE THE CANCER OF CORRUPTION THAT OCCURRED ON OUR WATCH. WE WERE UNITED AS A COMMUNITY IN OUR OUTRAGE OVER IT. IT WAS INTOLERABLE TO US BECAUSE WE KNEW THAT IT WAS A THREAT TO OUR INSTITUTIONS, INSTITUTIONS THAT BELONG TO US. WHAT WE FACE TODAY IS THE SAME KIND OF TEST, ONLY ONE FAR MORE GRAVE AND HISTORIC. FROM THE FOUNDING OF OUR COUNTRY TO TODAY, ONE TRUTH REMAINS CLEAR, THE IMPEACHMENT POWER IS RESERVED FOR CONDUCT THAT ENDANGERS DEMOCRACY AND IMPERILS OUR CONSTITUTION. TODAY'S HEARING HAS HELPED US TO BETTER UNDERSTAND HOW WE PRESERVE OUR REPUBLIC AND THE TEST THAT LIES AHEAD FOR US, THANK YOU MISTER CHAIRMAN I YIELD BACK MY TIME. >> GENERAL LADY YIELDS BACK, THAT CONCLUDES THE TESTIMONY UNDER THE FIVE MINUTE RULE. I NOW RECOGNIZE THE RANKING MEMBER, TO MAKE CONCLUDING REMARKS HE MAY HAVE. >> THANK YOU MISTER CHAIRMAN. 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 AT TIMES IT SEEMED LIKE WE WERE EVEN TRY TO MAKE CRIMES AS IF IT WASN'T AS IT WAS THE INTENT TO DO IT, IT WENT ALONG, AS INTERESTING TODAY AS I STARTED THE STAIN WILL COME BACK TO IT NOW, AS MUCH AS I RESPECT THESE WHO CAME BEFORE US TODAY, THIS IS WAY TOO EARLY, BECAUSE WE HAVE NOT AS A COMMITTEE DONE OUR JOB, WE HAVE NOT AS A COMMITTEE COME TOGETHER, LOOKED AT EVIDENCE, TAKEN FACT WITNESSES, PUT PEOPLE HERE IN FRONT OF US UNDER OATH AND SAID WHAT DIDN'T HAPPEN AND HOW DID IT HAPPEN AND WHY DIDN'T HAPPEN? WE ARE TAKING THE WORK OF THE INTEL COMMITTEE AND THE OTHER COMMITTEES, WE ARE TAKING IT SEEMINGLY AT FACE VALUE AND I WILL REMIND ALL THAT THE CHAIRMAN EVEN AS THE BIGGEST PROPONENT OF THIS NOT HAPPENING IN HIS EARLIER STATEMENTS 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 AND A CALENDAR. O'CLOCK AND A CALENDAR. THEY ARE SO OBSESSED WITH THE ELECTION NEXT YEAR THAT THEY JUST GLOSS OVER THINGS. WHAT IS INTERESTING AS AS I SAID EARLIER THREE OF THE FOUR WITNESSES ALLEGED MANY CRIMES ALLEGED BY THE PRESIDENT HOWEVER DURING THE INTEL COMMITTEES NONE OF THE FIVE WITNESSES IDENTIFIED A CRIME. IF YOU ARE WRITING ABOUT THIS THAT SHOULD ALARM YOU. SO THIS IMPEACHMENT NARRATIVE BEING SPUN BY THE MAJORITY IS A FAKE ONE, IT'S MAJORITY SPINNING 3% OF THE FACTS WHILE IGNORING 97% OF THE OTHER, PROFESSORS HAD EARLIER TODAY THAT IMPEACHMENT MEANS PROOF NOT PRESUMPTIONS. WE HAVE ONE OF THE FIVE WITNESSES IN THE INTEL COMMITTEE, I PRESUME THAT WAS WHAT WAS GOING ON, MR. SONDLAND. YOU KNOW WHAT IS HAPPENING HERE TODAY, AS ALSO WE FOUND OUT TODAY, I THOUGHT THIS WAS INTERESTING, WAS THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE BUT WE ALSO FOUND OUT TODAY THAT FACTS DON'T MATTER. IN FACT FACTS DON'T MATTER UNLESS WE CAN FIT THOSE FACTS TO FIT THE NARRATIVE WE WANT TO SPIN BEFORE THIS COMMITTEE AND THE AMERICAN PEOPLE. IF THEY DON'T MATTER, WE ALSO HEARD ONE OF THE WITNESSES SAY TODAY THAT IT DOESN'T MATTER IF THEY WERE RELEASED OR NOT, OF COURSE IT MATTERS, BUT OF COURSE ONE OF THE ONLY FACTS ADROIT BY THE MAJORITY. THERE IGNORING SO MANY FACTS, IT DOESN'T MATTER TO THE DEMOCRATS THAT SPECIAL ENVOY TO THE UKRAINE MADE CLEAR IN HIS TESTIMONY THAT THERE WAS NO BRIBERY IN THE MEETING WITH THE U.S., THEY HAVEN'T MENTION THAT BECAUSE IT'S UNHELPFUL TO THEIR NARRATIVE. IT APPARENTLY DOESN'T MATTER TO THE DEMOCRATS WHO ARE THE MAJORITY HERE THAT THE PRESIDENT DID NOT CAN ORDER AN INVESTIGATION, AND FACT TO THE CONTRARY, IT WAS RIGHT HERE IN THIS ROOM, HE CALLED IT A GAS, RIGHT WHERE YOU ARE SITTING. HE CALLED IT A GAS. A PRESUMPTION. THAT IS WHAT HE THOUGHT. GOD FORBID IF WE WALK INTO OUR COURTROOMS AND FIND SOMEBODY GUILTY OF SOMETHING WE CALL A CRIME WE WALK INTO COURT AND ALL OF A SUDDEN SOMEONE SAYS I THOUGHT IT WAS, THE ONE WHO SAID I PRESUMED IT WAS, GOD FORBID THIS IS WHERE WE ARE RIGHT. BUT YOU KNOW WE HAVE ALSO HEARD TODAY THAT YOU CAN MAKE INFERENCE THOUGH, IT'S A CAVE YOU JUST INFERRING, I DON'T KNOW BY THE PROFESSORS HERE ARE THOSE OF US ON COURT ON BOTH SIDES, I'VE NEVER HEARD ANYONE SAY AS A JUDGE JUST UNFAIR WHAT YOU THINK YOU MENTION THAT WILL BE ENOUGH. NOT INFERENCE. IT PROBABLY DOESN'T MATTER THAT THE PRESIDENT DIDN'T CONDITION A MEETING ON THE INVESTIGATION, THERE WERE NO PRECONDITIONS, ZELENSKY DIDN'T EVEN FIND OUT ABOUT THE HOLD ON THE AID UNTIL A MONTH AFTER THE CALL WHEN HE WROTE IN POLITICO. THE AID WAS RELEASED SHORTLY THEREAFTER IN UKRAINE DON'T HAVE ANYTHING TO DO TO GET THE AID RELEASED, NOT ONLY WAS RELEASED BUT LEGAL AID WAS GIVEN AS WELL, IF YOU THINK THAT DOESN'T MATTER AS WELL, THERE ARE FIVE MEETINGS BETWEEN THE TIME WAS AID WAS STOPPED AND RELEASED, AND A NONE OF THOSE MEETINGS BETWEEN THE AMBASSADORS, INCLUDING OTHERS INCLUDING THE VICE PRESIDENT AND SENATORS, NONE OF THAT WAS EVER CONNECTED TO A PROMISE OF ANYTHING ON THE AID, NOTHING WAS EVER CONNECTED, FIVE TIMES, AND TWO OF THOSE WERE AFTER PRESIDENT ZELENSKY LEARNED THAT AID WAS BEING HELD. TELL ME THERE IS NOT A PROBLEM HERE WITH THE STORY. THAT IS WHY FIVE WITNESSES AREN'T HERE RIGHT NOW. THE EVIDENCE AGAINST THE PRESIDENT IS REALLY ABOUT POLICY DIFFERENCES, AND FACTORY OF THE DEMOCRATIC STAR WITNESSES READ TRANSCRIPTS LIKE EVERYBODY ELSE, ON JULY 26 ZELENSKY MET AND THEY MADE NO REFERENCE TO QUID PRO QUO AND MET SEVERAL MORE TIMES AND NO REFERENCES, NONE OF THESE INCONVENIENT FACTS OR SO MANY INCONVENIENT FACTS MATTER TO THE MAJORITY. WE DON'T EVEN KNOW WHAT IF ADDITIONAL HEARINGS WE WILL HAVE TO ADDRESS OTHER FACTS. 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 GETTING TO AN END THAT WE WANT. YOU KNOW, I AGREE WITH PROFESSOR FELDMAN, HE MAY FIND THAT STRANGE WHAT I DO WAS SOMETHING. IT'S NOT HIS JOB TO ASSESS THE CREDIBILITY OF WITNESSES, THAT'S THE COMMITTEE'S JOB. AND I AGREE. BUT THIS COMMITTEE CAN DO OUR JOBS AND NONE OF THE WITNESSES TESTIFY BEFORE COMMITTEE, EVEN ONES THAT WE'VE TALKED ABOUT CALLING TODAY AND THE MAJORITY HAVE SAID WE DON'T WANT. WE STILL DON'T HAVE A ANSWER ON WHAT THIS COMMITTEE WILL DO WHEN THE HEARING ENDS, FROM CHAIRMAN SCHIFF'S REPORT YESTERDAY 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 THAT ON THE MAJORITY SIDE. THE WITNESS HAS PRODUCED BY CHAIRMAN SCHIFF AND THE AMERICAN PEOPLE GOT TO TALK ABOUT THEIR FEELINGS AND GUESTS ON PRESUMPTIONS BUT EVEN THOUGH THE FACTS MAY NOT MATTER TO THE MAJORITY, 97% OF THE 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 A FACT BASED LEGAL BASE COMMITTEES WE SHOULD HAVE HERE, WHERE IMPEACHMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN ALL ALONG. I HAVE A GROUP OF MEMBERS THAT HAVE NO IDEA WHERE WE ARE HEADING NEXT, I BET YOU KNOW THAT IF I ASKED THE MAJORITY MEMBERS OUTSIDE THE CHAIRMAN, THEY DON'T HAVE A CLUE EITHER. 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 ARE GOING TO FIGURE IT OUT ON THE FLY, YOU ARE 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 WERE DOING THIS, WORKING WITH OUR NATO ALLIES. SO THE QUESTION I HAVE IS WHERE DO WE HAVE NEXT? WE'VE HEARD THIS AMBIGUOUS PRESENTATION, BUT HERE IS MY CHALLENGE, BEFORE IT'S VOTED DOWN A TABLE TODAY, MR. SCHIFF, SHOULD, TESTIFY. CHAIRMAN SCHIFF, NOT HIS STAFF, MUST APPEAR BEFORE THIS COMMITTEE TO ANSWER QUESTIONS ABOUT THE CONTENT OF HIS REPORT, THAT'S WHAT STARTED 20 YEARS AGO IN HISTORY HAS DEMANDED. I TELL THE CHAIRMAN JUST A WHILE AGO THAT WHEN WE WERE DOING, AMERICA I SAID THE HISTORY LIES WERE ALL, US IT'S TIME THAT WE TALK AND SHARE HOW WE ARE GOING FORWARD, I'M STILL WAITING FOR ANSWERS. SO MISTER CHAIRMAN, AS WE LOOK AHEAD, THE DEMOCRATIC MAJORITY PROMISED THAT THIS WAS GOING TO BE A FAIR PROCESS WHEN I GOT TO JUDICIARY FOR THE PRESIDENT AND OTHERS, THE PRESIDENT, AND YOU MAY SAY HE COULD'VE COME TODAY, WHAT WHAT DOES HAVE DONE? NOTHING. THERE IS NO FACT WITNESSES HERE, NOTHING TO REBUT, IT BE SPENDING TIME JUST TO SEE THAT NOTHING CAME OUT OF THE END OF THE DAY. SO WHY SHOULD HE BE HERE? LET'S BRING FACT WITNESSES AND, LET'S BRING PEOPLE IN BECAUSE YOU SAID MISTER CHAIRMAN, YOU ARE SAYING, YOUR WORDS, WE SHOULD NEVER ON THIS COMMITTEE EXCEPT ENTITY GIVING US A REPORT AND NOT INVESTIGATED OURSELVES, UNDOUBTEDLY WE ARE WELL ON OUR WAY TO DOING THAT BECAUSE OF A CALENDAR AND O'CLOCK. SO MISTER CHAIRMAN I KNOW YOU'RE ABOUT TO GIVE A STATEMENT AND THEY'VE WORKED ON IT AND YOU'VE WORKED ON A VERY HARD I'M SURE, BUT I WANT BEFORE YOU GAVEL HIS HEARING BEFORE YOU START A STATEMENT, BEFORE YOU GO ANY FURTHER, I WOULD LIKE TO KNOW TWO THINGS, NUMBER ONE, WHEN DO YOU PLAN ON SCHEDULING ARE A MINORITY HEARING DAY AND NUMBER TWO, WHY OR IF OR WHEN ARE WE GOING TO ACTUALLY 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 IN FALL, I DON'T REALLY CARE ANYMORE THAT SOMEBODY ELSE GIVES US A REPORT, SCHIFF IS OVER EVERYTHING FOR IMPEACHMENT AND HE DOESN'T GET TO TESTIFY, HE WAS ON THE STAFF MEMBER, I DON'T KNOW IF WE WILL EVEN HAVE A HEARING PAST THAT TO SEE WHAT HAS BEEN GOING ON. SO MY QUESTION THAT I STARTED OUT TODAY, IS WHERE IS FAIRNESS? IT WAS PROMISED, BUT IT IS NOT BEING DELIVERED. THE FACTS TALKED ABOUT WERE NOT FOX DELIVERED, THIS PRESIDENT HIS FACTS WERE GIVEN, NOTHING WRONG, NOTHING TO BE IMPEACHED, AND NOTHING FOR WHY WE ARE HERE, IN THE WORDS OF ONE OF OUR WITNESSES, IF YOU RUSHED THROUGH THIS, AND YOU DO IT ON FLIMSY GROUNDS, THE AMERICAN PEOPLE WILL NOT FORGET THE LIGHT OF HISTORY. SO TODAY, BEFORE YOU GIVE YOUR OPENING STATEMENT, YOU'RE CLOSING STATEMENT, BEFORE YOU GET TO THIS TIME, MY QUESTION IS, WILL YOU TALK TO THIS COMMITTEE, YOU ARE CHAIRMAN, YOU HOLD A VERY PRESTIGIOUS ROLE, WILL YOU LET US KNOW WHERE WE ARE GOING OR ARE WE GOING TO ADJOURN FROM HERE AFTER YOU SOME UP EVERYTHING SAYING THAT THEY ALL GET GOOD, AND GO OUT FROM HERE WE ARE STILL WONDERING, THE LIGHTS ARE ON IT'S TIME TO ANSWER THE QUESTION, I YIELD BACK. >> THE GENTLEMAN YIELDS BACK. I WANT TO BE FOR MY CLOSING STATEMENT ACKNOWLEDGE THAT I HAVE RECEIVED A LETTER TODAY QUESTIONING THE MINORITY DAY OF TESTIMONY ON THE 11TH, I HAVE NOT HAD A CHANCE TO READ THE LEVER BUT LOOK FORWARD TO CONFERRING WITH RANKING MEMBERS ABOUT THIS REQUEST, ONCE I HAVE HAD A CHANCE TO REVIEW. IT >> MISTER CHAIRMAN I HAVE A QUESTION, YOU CAN'T REVIEW A LETTER. >> THE GENTLEMAN IS NOT RECOGNIZED. >> THERE'S NOTHING FOR YOU TO REVIEW. >> I NOW RECOGNIZE MYSELF FOR A CLOSING STATEMENT. GEORGE WASHINGTON'S FAREWELL ADDRESS WARNINGS OF A MOMENT WHEN CUTTING AMBITIOUS AND AN PRINCIPLED MEN WILL BE UNABLE TO SUBVERT THE POWER OF THE PEOPLE, TO USURP FOR THEMSELVES THE REINS OF GOVERNMENT. PRESIDENT TRUMP PLACES HIS OWN PERSONAL AND POLITICAL INTERESTS ABOVE OUR NATIONAL INTERESTS, ABOUT THE SECURITY OF OUR COUNTRY, AND MOST IMPORTANTLY ABOVE OUR MOST PRECIOUS RIGHT, THE ABILITY OF EACH AND EVERY ONE OF US TO PARTICIPATE IN FAIR ELECTIONS. FREE OF CORRUPTION. THE CONSTITUTION HAS A SOLUTION FOR A PRESIDENT WHO PLACES HAS PERSONAL OR POLITICAL INTERESTS ABOVE THOSE OF THE NATION. THE POWER OF IMPEACHMENT. AS ONE OF MY COLLEAGUES POINTED OUT, I HAVE IN THE PAST ARTICULATED A THREE PART TRACK TO IMPEACHMENT, LET ME BE CLEAR, ALL THROUGH PARTS OF THAT HAVE BEEN MET, FIRST OF, ALL YES THE PRESIDENT HAS COMMITTED AN IMPEACHABLE OFFENSE. PRESIDENT ASKED THE FOREIGN GOVERNMENT TO INTERVENE IN OUR ELECTIONS. GOT CAUGHT. THAT OBSTRUCTED THE INVESTIGATORS. TWICE. OUR WITNESSES TOLD US IN NO UNCERTAIN TERMS THAT THIS CONDUCT CONSTITUTES HIGH CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS, INCLUDING ABUSE OF POWER. SECOND, YES, THE PRESIDENT'S ALLEGED OFFENSES REPRESENT A DIRECT THREAT TO THE CONSTITUTIONAL ORDER. PROFESSOR KARLYN WARNED, DRAWING A FOREIGN GOVERNMENT INTO OUR ELECTION PROCESS IS AN ESPECIALLY BAD USE OF POWER BECAUSE IT UNDERMINES DEMOCRACY ITSELF. PROFESSOR FELDMAN ECHOED, IF WE CANNOT IMPEACH A PRESIDENT WHO ABUSES HIS OFFICE FOR PERSONAL ADVANTAGE, WE NO LONGER LIVE IN A DEMOCRACY. WE LIVE IN A MONARCHY OR UNDER DICTATORSHIP. PROFESSOR GERHARDT REMINDED US, IF WHAT WE ARE TALKING ABOUT, WHILE WE ARE TALKING ABOUT IS NOT IMPEACHABLE, THEN NOTHING IS IMPEACHABLE. PRESIDENT TRUMP'S ACTIONS REPRESENT A THREAT TO OUR NATIONAL SECURITY, AND AN URGENT THREAT TO THE INTEGRITY OF THE NEXT ELECTION. THIRD, YES, WE SHOULD NOT PROCEED UNLESS AT LEAST SOME OF THE CITIZENS WHO SUPPORT OF THE PRESIDENT IN THE LAST ELECTION ARE WILLING TO COME WITH US. A MAJORITY OF THIS COUNTRY IS CLEARLY PREPARED TO IMPEACH AND REMOVE PRESIDENT TRUMP. RATHER THAN RESPOND TO THE UNSETTLING AND DANGEROUS EVIDENCE, MY REPUBLICAN COLLEAGUES HAVE CALLED THIS PROCESS UNFAIR, IT IS NOT. YOUR ARGUMENT IS THAT THE COLLEAGUES ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE AISLE, ARE UNABLE TO DEFEND THE PRESIDENT'S BEHAVIOR, THEY ABUSE ARGUMENT BEFORE. FIRST, THEY SAID THAT THESE PROCEEDINGS WERE NOT CONSTITUTIONAL BECAUSE WE DID NOT HAVE A FLOOR VOTE. WE THEN HAD A FLOOR VOTE. THEN THEY SAID THAT OUR PROCEEDINGS WERE NOT CONSTITUTIONAL BECAUSE THEY COULD NOT CALL WITNESSES. REPUBLICANS CALLED THREE OF THE WITNESSES IN THE LIVE HEARINGS, OF THE INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY, AND WILL HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO REQUEST WITNESSES IN THIS COMMITTEE AS WELL. NEXT, THEY SAID THAT OUR PROCEEDINGS WERE NOT CONSTITUTIONAL BECAUSE THE PRESIDENT COULD NOT PARTICIPATE. BUT WHEN THE COMMITTEE INVITED THE PRESIDENT TO PARTICIPATE IN THIS HEARING, HE DECLINED. THE SIMPLE FACT, IS THAT ALL OF THESE PROCEEDINGS HAVE ALL THE PROTECTIONS AVOIDED WANT TO PRIOR PRESIDENTS. THIS FOLLOWS THE CONSTITUTION AND LEGAL PRESIDENTS. I AM LEFT TO CONCLUDE, THE ONLY REASON MY COLLEAGUES RUST FORM ONE PROCESS COMPLAIN TO THE NEXT, IS BECAUSE THERE IS NO FACTUAL DEFENSE FOR PRESIDENT TRUMP. UNLIKE ANY OTHER PRESIDENT BEFORE HIM, PRESIDENT TRUMP IS OPENLY REJECTED CONGRESS IS RIGHT AS A COEQUAL BRANCH OF GOVERNMENT. HE WOULD FIGHT ARE SUBPOENAS, REFUSED TO PRODUCE ANY DOCUMENTS, HE DIRECTED IS AIDS NOT TO TESTIFY. PRESIDENT TRUMP IS ALSO ASKED A FOREIGN GOVERNMENT TO INTERVENE OUR ELECTION AND HAS MADE CLEAR, THEN AS LEFT UNCHECKED THAT HE WILL DO IT AGAIN. WHY? BECAUSE HE BELIEVES THAT IN HIS OWN WORDS I CAN DO WHATEVER I WANT. THAT IS WHY WE MUST ACT NOW. IN THIS COUNTRY THE, PRESIDENT CANNOT DO WHATEVER HE WANTS. AND THIS COUNTRY, NO ONE, NOT EVEN THE PRESIDENT IS ABOVE THE LAW. TODAY, WE BEGIN OUR CONVERSATION WHERE WE SHOULD WITH THE REST OF THE CONSTITUTION. WE HAVE HEARD CLEARLY FROM OUR WITNESSES IN THE CONSTITUTION PROPELS ACTION. EVERY WITNESS INCLUDING THE WITNESS ELECTED BY THE REPUBLICAN SIDE AGREED THAT IF PRESIDENT TRUMP DID WHAT THE INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE FOUND TO HAVE DONE, AFTER EXTENSIVE AND COMPELLING WITNESSES THAT THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION OFFICIALS HAVE COMMITTED IMPEACHABLE OFFENSE IS. WHILE THE REPUBLICAN WITNESS MAY NOT BE CONVINCED THERE SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE AGAINST THE PRESIDENT IN THESE ACTS, THE AMERICAN PEOPLE AND THE MAJORITY OF THIS COMMITTEE DISAGREE. I ALSO THINK THE REPUBLICANS WITNESS AND PROFESSOR TURLEY, WILL HAVE A SAGE WARNING IN 1998 WHEN HE WAS A LEADING ADVOCATE FOR THE IMPEACHMENT OF BILL CLINTON. HE SAID, IF YOU DECIDE THAT CERTAIN ACTS DO NOT RISE TO THE IMPEACHABLE ADVANCES, YOU WILL EXPAND THE SPACE FOR EXECUTIVE CONDUCT. THAT WAS THE CAUTION OF PROFESSOR TURLEY IN 1998 WITH, THE IMPEACHMENT OF PRESIDENT CLINTON. WITH THAT CAUTION, IT SHOULD GUIDE US ALL TODAY. BY ANY ACCOUNTS, THAT WARNING IS MORE APPLICABLE TO THE POWER THAT WE ARE CONTEMPLATING TODAY. AS WE ALL KNOW, THESE ABUSES GO UNCHECKED THEY WILL ONLY CONTINUE AND ONLY GROW WORSE. EACH OF US TOOK AN OATH TO DEFEND THE CONSTITUTION. THE PRESIDENT IS A CONTINUING THREAT TO THE CONSTITUTION AND TO OUR DEMOCRACY. I HONOR MY OATH AND AS I SIT HERE TODAY, WE HEARD CONSISTENT AND COMPELLING EVIDENCE THAT THE PRESIDENT AS ABUSED HIS POWER, TENDED TO UNDERMINE THE UNCONDITIONAL ROLE OF CONGRESS AND CORRUPTED OUR ELECTIONS AND I URGE MY COLLEAGUES TO STAND BEHIND THE OLD YOU HAVE TAKEN AND THE DEMOCRACY DEPENDS ON IT AND THIS CONCLUDES TODAY'S HEARING. >> MISTER CHAIRMAN -- WERE PURSUING TO COMMITTEE RULE EIGHT, I'M FILING THIS UNDER MORAL CONSTITUTION ON THE PRESIDENT. WE >> NOTED. MISTER >> CHAIRMAN -- >> THIS CONCLUDES TODAY'S HEARING AND WE THANK ALL THEIR WITNESSES AND WITHOUT OBJECTION, ALL MEMBERS OF FIVE DAYS TO SUBMIT ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS FOR THE WITNESSES. >> WE HAVE A REQUEST. >> TOO LATE. WITHOUT OBJECTION THE HEARING IS ADJOURNED >> THAT IS JUST TYPICAL.

Channel: C-SPAN

Views: 1,011,095

Keywords: Nadler, Collins, Impeachment, Impeach, Impeachment Inquiry, Noah Feldman, Pamela S. Karlan, Michael Gerhardt, Jonathan Turley

Id: MUSQaYHJAiI

Length: 543min 29sec (32609 seconds)

Published: Thu Dec 05 2019