Transcripts For CSPAN Impeachment Inquiry House Hearings Part 1 Judiciary Hearing On... 20240713

Potentially drawing up our articles drying up articles of impeachment against donald trump. They invited three scholars to testify. A law school professor, a stanford loss will professor, professor, andol in North Carolina lost go professor. The republicans invited Jonathan George Washington Law School professor. The House Committee will come to order. We are reserving the right to object. The objection is noted. I amrsuant to clause 2j1, furnishing you with demand of a majority day of hearings on this subject. I withdraw my reservation. The quorum is present. We are the first hearing conducting pursuant down to resolution 660. The special Judiciary Committee procedures described in section 4a. Here is how the committee will proceed. I will make an Opening Statement and then i will recognize the Ranking Member for an Opening Statement. Each witness will have 10 minutes to make their statements and then we will proceed to questions. I will now recognize myself. Mr. Chairman, parliamentary inquiry. I have the time for an Opening Statement. The facts before us are undisputed. President trump called president zelensky of ukraine and, in President Trumps words amassed him for a favor. This 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 investigation of his political adversaries pay for government. To gain that advantage, President Trump withheld a white house meeting from the newly elected president of a fragile democracy and withheld vital military aid from a vulnerable ally. Democracy, and withheld vital military aid from a vulnerable ally. When Congress Found out about this scheme and began to when Congress Found out about this scheme and began to investigate, President Trump took extraordinary and unprecedented steps to cover up his efforts and withhold evidence from the investigators. Him, when career professionals came forward and told us the truth, he attacked them vicio viciously. Calling them traitors and liars, promising theyll, 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. Thats now this administrations 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 governments 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, its important to place President Trumps conduct into historical context. Since the founding of our country, the house of representatives has impeached only two president s. A third was on his way to impeachment when he was resigned. This committee hasnt voted to impeach two president s. We have voted to impeach one president for ubstrukobstructin congressional investigation. To the extent that President Trumps conduct fits these categories, theres 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 wed 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. Hamiltons 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 hes 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 fo 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. Were 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 misdemean misdemeanors. Our Witness Panel will help us to guide that conversation. In a few days, well 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 were sort of coming here today in a different arena. For everybody who has not been here before, its a new room, new rules. Its 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 weve done such a terrible job of it in this committee before. But whats not new is basically whats just been reiterated by the chairman. Whats not new is the facts. Whats not new is its the same sad story. Whats 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. Were 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 didnt take it up. We didnt have hearings. We didnt 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 didnt do it. I guess the American People doesnt include the house Judiciary Committee. You know, we also just heard an interesting decision. Were going to have a lot of interesting discussions today about the constitution and other things. But we also talk about the founders. Whats interesting is the chairman talked a lot about the founders from the quotes. This is why we have the hearing. He didnt quote was the founders being really concerned about political impeachment. Because you just dont like the guy. You didnt 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. Dont 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 arent comfortable, but this is nothing new, folks. This is sad. So what do we have here today . You know what im thinking . I looked at this and what is interesting is theres 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. Theyre putting it on this committee because if it goes badly i guess they want to blame adam schiffs committee and others want to blame this committee. Theyre drafting articles. Dont be fooled. Theyre getting ready for this. We went after this with ukraine, mueller, emaememoluments. 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. Thats 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. Were scared of the elections next year. Were scared of the elections that well lose again. So we got to do this now. The clock and the calendar are whats driving impeachment, not the facts. When we understand this, thats 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 dont go to law school. No offense to our professors. But, please, really . Were 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 youre getting ready for finals in to discuss things you probably havent even had unless youre really good on tv or watching the hearings for the last couple weeks, you couldnt 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 . Theres no fact witnesses planned for this committee. Thats an interesting thing. Theres 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 im 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, lets 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 lets just say that didnt go well. Theres no whistleblower. By the way, it was proved today that hes not or shes not afforded the protection of identity. Its not in the statute. Its something that was discussed by adam schiff. We also dont have adam schiff who wrote the report. He said yesterday im not going to ill send staff to do that. Hes not going to, but to me if he was going to hed come begging to us. You know, heres 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 dont impeach the president hell get reelected. Do you know whats happening . Here we go. Whi why did everything i say about no fact witnesses for the Judiciary Committee, we didnt even find your names out until less than 48 hours ago. I dont know what were playing hide the ball on, its pretty easy what youre going to say. We cant get that straight. What are we doing for the next two weeks . I have no idea. An ambiguous hearing on the report. If were not going to have fact witnesses then were 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 were 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. Youre not going to provide anything he cant read. And his attorneys have nothing else. Put witnesses in here that can be fact witnesses who can be crossexamined. Thats 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, theyll 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 detat 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 were 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. Thats 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. Its an interesting time. Were having a factless impeachment. You heard a one sided presentation of facts about this president. Today well present the other side if we should get so conveniently left out. Remember, fairness does dictate that. Maybe not here because were not scheduling anything else. I have a democratic majority who has poll tested what they think the president did. Thats 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 gentlemans 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 were 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 todays is a waste of time. Because this is where were at. So i close today with this, it didnt 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 were 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. Youre not recognized at this time, theres a vote just to remind you dont want chairman schiff coming, correct . The clerk will call the role. Mr. Nadler 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. M ms. Scanlon. Ms. Garcia. M 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 doesnt say what rules apply to admissibility. So im 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. Thats 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 cant say im asking for the application of the rule for an explanation. You will apply the rules, period. You wont help us understand that . Theres no clarity there. How are you deciding that . The impeachment inquiry i would how is that unclear . Its the rules of the house and theyll be applied. Period. Im asking how will they be applied here, sir. Theyll 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. Thats not a proper parliamentary inquiry. Without objection all other Opening Statements will be included in the record. Ill 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. Hes 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 tat stanford lw school. Shes 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 gener 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 uncs center for law and government. Hes 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 schools history. Hes 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 todays hearing. If you would please rise ill begin by swearing you in. Raise your do you swear or affirm under penalty of perjury that the testimony youre 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 witn s 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 theres 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, well entertain the motion after the first witness. My job is to teach the constitution from its origins until the present. Im 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. Specifical 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 president ial election. Le 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 dont 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 president ial 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 wellunderstood 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. Theres no mystery about the words high crimes and misdemeanors. The word high modifies both crimes and misdemeanors. Theyre both high. And high means connected to the office of the presidency. Connected to office. A 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 Trumps 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. Its 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 trumps 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 president s, 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. Theyre 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. Thats 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. Thats the reason the framers provided for impeachment in a case like this one. Mr. Chairman the gentlemans time is expired. Mr. Chairman, i seek recognition. Gentlemans 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 its 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 committees key role over the past 50 years in ensuring that american sit zblends have the right to vote in free and Fair Elections. Today youre 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 im insulted by the suggestion that as a law pro fefrt i dont 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 Madisons 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. Youve already heard two people give william davy his props. Hamilton got a whole musical and hes 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 reelected. 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 listwe 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 Reelection 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 individuals giving aid to a foreign enemy. That is putting a foreign enemys adversarys 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 thats 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. Ill meet with you and ill send the Disaster Relief once you brand my opponent a criminal. Wouldnt 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 youre listening, you know, a president who cared about the constitution say russia if youre 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. Thats 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. Its 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 peoples 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 mans 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 privaevent 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 overthousand a ki overthousa 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 were 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 duti seriou 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 thats 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 ukraines 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 wont 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, pi rick perrd 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 wont 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. Hes claimed hes entitled to privilege, not to share any other information he doesnt want to share with another branch. Hes 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 doesnt 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 im 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. Its 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. Id like to start, therefore, perhaps incon grously, by stating an irrelevant fact. Im 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. Im 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 wou. 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 president s. 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. Youre 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 dont get mad. So were 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. Its not wrong because President Trump is right. His call was anything but perfect. Its not wrong because the house has no legitimate reason to investigate ukrainian controversy. Points not wrong because were in an election year. There is no good time for an impeachment. No, its wrong because this is not how you impeach an american president. This case is not a case of the unknowable. Its 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. Thats 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 didnt have any alternative. Its easy to celebrate those people from the distance of time and circumstance in an age of rage. Its 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 ive 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 soninlaw 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, id 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, mans laws, not gods. And if you cut them down and youre 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, id 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 thats 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 id 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 whistleblower. 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 fiveminute 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 roamecomd articles of impeachment. I speak for my colleagues when i say that we do not take this lightly. We are committed to ensuring that todays hearing as well as the larger responsibility before us are grounded in the constitution. Intelligence committees report con cluted that the president pressured a foreign leader to interfere in our elections by initiating and denouncing investigations into trumps 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 dont 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 its a fullscale 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 reelection. Thats in fact why they thought they needed impeachment and waiting wasnt 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 reelection. 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. Thats 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 its an abuse of power if he does it to facilitate his reelection 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 its impeachable . Why err. Id 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. President ial 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, id 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 president s 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. Thats 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 dont 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 lin yaeage, plea . 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 its so telling. Heres 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. Thats 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 represen representstives in dealing with president ial 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 president ial 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 Trumps abuse of power . Well, because this is an abuse that cuts to the heart of democracy, you need to ask yourselves if you dont impeach a president who has done what this president has done, or at least you dont investigate and then impeach if you conclude that the House Select Committee on intelligence findings are correct, then what youre saying is, its 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 its your responsibility to make sure that all americans get to vote in a free and Fair Election next november. Professor karlan, id like to direct you to the words in the constitution, other high crimes and misdemeanors. Were 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 couldnt list all of the crimes that might be committed. They couldnt imagine an abuse of power for example that involved burglarizing and stealing computer files from an adversary because they couldnt have imagined computers. They couldnt 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 theyd 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 theres some modern stuff thats 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 wouldnt 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 id 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 thats not open to you, even though youre 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. Its 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. Were a strong power now, the strongest in the world. We can still be exploited by Foreign Countries. But the other thing weve 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 its 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 isnt just our National Interest in protecting our own elections, not just our National Interest in the ukraine fights the russians and we dont have to fight them here. But its our National Interest in pro moding democracy worldwide. If we look hypocrite cal about this, were asking other countries to interfere in our election, look like were asking other countries to engage in criminal investigations of our president s political opponents, then were 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 thats 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 havent mentioned yet or brought into this conversation is the fact that the impeachment power requires this committee, this house, to be able to investigate president ial 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, maam . Based on the evidence which ive 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, weve 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, thats true. What are they . Treason and bribery. Do President Trumps 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 its 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 wasnt until, i dont 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 werent referring to a statute. And federal and i will say, im 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 wasnt talking about a president , because there was no president before that. It wasnt 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 ive 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, its crazy to hold this up based on domestic political concern. No one wrote back and said, thats not why were doing it. I relied on mr. Mulvaney said in his press conference. So, there you know, theres a lot to suggest here that this is about political benefit. And i dont know if i can talk about another piece of ambassador sondlands 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 didnt 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 didnt actually have to do it, as i understood it. And he said, i didnt 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. Thats 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 thirdparty. 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. Its 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 gear hearhardt, wh your view . I, of course, agree with professor karlan and professor feldman. And i just want to stress, if this if what were 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 theres no action, if congress concludes theyre 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 youre doing. And does it matter ill 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 youll pardon a comparison, president nixon was subject to articles of impeachment preferred by this committee for attempting to coverup the watergate breakin. The fact that president nixon was not successful for breaking up the breakin 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 doesnt. 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 ill drop the ticket. And you look in your wallet and you say to the officer, i dont 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 wont because weve already looked into this and its totally baseless. The president would still have committed an impeachable act even if he had been refused right there on the phone. So, i dont see why the ultimate the ultimate decision has anything to do with the president s impeachable conduct. Whats the danger if congress does not respond to that attempted . Well, weve already seen a little bit of it which is he gets out on the white house sxlalawn and says, china, i think you should investigate joe biden. Professor gerhardt, your view . I agree everything thats 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, its and its 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 didnt quite get as far as they wanted to. Nobody is better than professor karlan at hypotheticals but ill dare to raise another one. Imagine a bank robbery and the police come and the persons in the middle of the bank robbery and the person then drops the money and says, i im going to leave without the money. Everybody understands thats burglary thats robbery i mean, thats burglary. Ill get it right. And in this situation, we have somebody really caught in the middle of it and that doesnt excuse the person from the consequences. Professors, weve talked about abuse of power and brib y bribery. When we started we said we would also talk about obstruction of congress. Ill 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 theres 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 . Im a scholar of the law of democracy. As a citizen, i agree with what professor gerhardt. As an expert, my limitation is that im a scholar of the law of democracy. Im 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 youre 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 dont think its 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. Were 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, ive 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 thats 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 Departments 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. Thats 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 . Its quite serious. Thats not all of it, of course. We know, as youve 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 thats 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 dont want foreign interference in the elections. The reason we dont want foreign interference in the elections is because were a selfdetermining 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 selfgovernment. 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. Theyve been long forbidden to give contributions to candidates. The reason is because that denies us our right to selfgovernment. 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 didnt 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. Whats 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 reelected and act against the National Security of the United States. That is precisely the situation that the framers anticipated. Its 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 well 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 tenminute 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. Hearing committee discussing the constitutional