Transcripts For CSPAN3 Impeachment Inquiry House Hearings Judiciary Hearing On Constitutional... 20240713

I dont think too many people are going to watch because its going to be boring. All right . In fact, youre here, i guess youre here, and well supersede it, but not a lot of people are going to be watching today. Just think of this. Constitutional lawyers they get three and we get one. What kind of a deal is that . You dont need a constitutional lawyer because nothing was done wrong. Zero done wrong. I will say it again, read the transcript and then listen to what the president of ukraine said. He said there was no pressure whatsoever. Listen to what the foreign minister of ukraine highly respected man, very both very respected. Listen to what the foreign minister said. He said there was pressure whatsoever. Thats the only one that counts but then listen to all of their witnesses and not one of them said anything that was meaningful other than positive for me. Like the one said there was no quid pro quo. Thats what he said. And he said that i actually told him that. There will be no quid pro quo. I said that. And i said other things that were Even Stronger than that. And, you know, it as a disgrace that they are doing this. And theyre doing it because they think they cant win in 2020. Theyre doing it because you take a look at their candidates. And their candidates are not doing too well. And they think this is their only shot. Its a disgrace. Because this process was not supposed to be used that way. President trump there speaking before he left london and the nato summit and a look at the Judiciary Committee room. The impeachment inquiry hearing proceeding about 2 30 p. M. Eastern. Members are on the floor now taking votes and were going to get back to your calls. I want to hear what you think about what we have seen so far today. Kim in frisco, texas, on democrats line. Waiting patiently. Hi, kim, go ahead. Caller hi. I wanted to equate turley with william barr because hes his definition on what the constitution says about impeachment is along the lines of william barr representation of the mueller report. The three the three from harvard and stanford, those three constitutional lawyers explained to us very clearly the how it applies to impeachment. He never addressed the real questions of bribery. He never addressed the real question of high crimes and misdemeanor. I didnt even understand his definition. Compared to what i understood the three the other three to say. But the lawyer taylor, he said that partisanship was on the democrats side. But its not. The partisanship is on the republicans side. They are even though they dont have the power, they are dug in to make trump look like what hes doing what hes suppose to do. What do you make of turleys argument that its wafer thin. Caller i disagree. Because trump said he confessed to the crime. The acting chief of staff mulvaney confessed to the crime so what other evidence do you need when theyre confessing the crime. I dont understand that. I mean, i know its not in the criminal law be any law when you confess to the crime arent you guilty . All right. Paula is calling from mount vernon, ohio, on the independents line. Caller hi, thanks for taking my call. I totally disagree with your other callers i dont see any evidence that trump did anything wrong. I totally support him. I dont see any evidence where bribery applies or any other issue. Okay. Caller i think he was well in his rights to do what he what he did, the administrative and executive orders. I think he was well in his rights and i applaud for the good job hes been doing for america. Thanks there on the line for independents and others. Democrats line, michelle in texas. Caller hi, one thing im not confident about or confused about is i know that corruption in ukraine is the basis of the investigate investigating corruption in ukraine is a big basis of why but im confused about so russia and saudi arabia are also equally corrupt . But its never been like an issue to he never denied either countries in regards to the crimes they committed. For example, russia. The election interference. He said, you know, oh, i believe putin, it wasnt an issue or like it wasnt real and with khashoggi, the murdered saudi arabian, oh, it cant be saudi arabia. So why is ukraine the ultimate like parallel of investigations . All right. Call now from connecticut, walling ford. Daniel on the line, republican. Caller thank you very much for having me. A few things i found very interesting about what was going on. So the first one i do feel like both parties are really contributing to this political charade which is going on. Democrats democrats who a are who have publicly stated such as adam schiff who publicly stated they wanted to hear from the whistleblower and then when republicans say we want to hear from the whistleblower they deny that opportunity. Another point i really want to mention is i feel like we have taken away we have gone away from another huge issue which is corruption in ukraine but what about the corruption with hunter biden . Its okay if were going to move forward in impeachment, we do need to hear all of the facts but i feel like were also losing touch of the reason of corruption as a whole which is the republicans argument here theyve trying to fight corruption and nobody should want corruption never. Yet, when we are talking about corruption now all we have done is shift to impeachment and its like weve left corruption weve left corruption behind. Regardless of if its hunter biden if its hunter whoever, from any Political Party or any political candidate, anybody, we should be investigating corruption and i do not belie believe and hunter biden is not a political opponent, just because his dad is does not mean he is. Thats something i also want to make very clear here. Thanks, daniel. Calling from connecticut there. Tweet here from fox news, chad per gram. He writes, if the impeachment hearing starts again around 2 30 p. M. Eastern, well bring you back to the hearing room for that with well over three hours of questions and answers remaining from individual members, plus closing statements, fox news estimates the hearing will end before 6 00 p. M. Eastern time. Of course you can continue watching here on cspan 3. We have it streaming online as well if youre away from your tv. Go to cspan. Org. And also find all of our clearinghouse of impeachment inquiry information. Cspan. Org impeachment. Taking your phone calls. We have got a caller from campbells burg, indiana, on the independents and others line. Hi, ann. Caller well, im glad to speak to you. Us too. Go on with your comments about the hearing. Caller okay. I have one question. Everyone keeps saying the president is lying. What is he lying about . I never get an answer about that because i havent seen it. I have looked and looked for the lie. And also, he clearly said no quid pro quo. So if he said that if he said he didnt want anything, it seems to me their argument is over. You know . So i feel that adam schiff has obviously lied. Anyone that watches and listens knows he has lied repeatedly as well. One more thing. The reason they dont want to cooperate at the white house is because the whole thing is unfair. You and i both see that people there on this committee are not allowing the republicans to have witnesses. Isnt that important . Isnt that important according to our constitution . Due process and hes not getting that. All right, ann, thanks for the call. Jared is calling, california, democrats line. Caller thanks for having me. You bet. Go ahead with your comment. Caller i just wanted to state that donald trump is a bloviated human piece of garbage and definitely should be impeached and nunes and his cronies as well as giuliani should be carted out in handcuffs. A caller here, sheffield, alabama. Joseph on the line, republican. Caller yes, maam. I think nancy pelosi, adam schiff, had it in for donald trump. I disagree with what he said long ago. Hes done more for this country than any president has. They dont like him. Democrats dont like him. Because he dont take no crap off the other countries and i dont think they should impeach him. What do you think today what you saw, heard from the constitutional scholars, focusing on the law of the land . Caller well, the law of the land, thats a bunch of malarkey. You know, they aint got no facts, aint got no proof. Well, the proof shows that he didnt do nothing. They keep on and on. I guess thats because the democrats and democrats is going to all stick together anyway. And keep trying to get him out of there. Thats the whole point. None of them likes him and because hes got this country better shape than its ever been. Appreciate the call from alabama. Take a look at a tweet from frank thorpe from nbc news. The 2020 Senate Calendar right now the hearing is in the house. That is where the articles of impeachment would be brought up and if theyre written up and if the house votes on impeachment, the actual trial would happen in the senate. So a look at the Senate Calendar january is missing because of the uncertainty with what theyll be doing with the impeachment trial, how long it will take if it comes over. A lot of things on capitol hill in flux. Were taking your phone calls. I want to hear what you think about the Judiciary Committee hearing that met today earlier this morning and theyll be continuing as soon as the members come back from votes. We have bernie calling and its in ohio. Help me out with the name of your town, please. Caller chill acoat. Go ahead with your comments. Caller one thing is i dont vote republican or democrat. I vote the issue. And i vote the person. But the whole thing just reminds me in general of what makes America Great and everyone is entitled to their opinions and their thoughts and their views. However, that may be based in reality or facts or their perception. You can put five people and have them directly observe a situation in at least and at least three of the five will tell you a slightly different version of what they saw. But regardless, i just look at the overall totality of the situation and can see i cant remember, im look 60, i can never remember any administration that has gone through so many different political appointees during their session or during their term or more people that have been convicted of crimes and imprisoned of crimes based on one persons actions or not necessarily the person, but their party. Like half a dozen of the people from the 2016 lrl already imprisoned and convicted of crimes but it is kind of sad that its tearing our nation apart. Thanks for the call. I appreciate it. Republican line, calling from portland, oregon. We have got neil on the line. Im sorry, is this im sorry, got a democratic caller, flint, michigan, lowell, is that you . Caller yes, its linnal. Thanks. Go ahead with your comments or question. Caller my comment is this hearing today is the same as it has been since trump has been in office and i have been a life long democrat until we start trying to impeach trump, okay . And the thing is is that everything including the Witnesses Today theyre supposed to be scholars but in reality theyre just party line witnesses. Just saying what theyre led to say by the people whom they come to testify for. And thats what washington has basically turned into. Also, its not about right or wrong. But its actually about influencing the communities of america to deem President Donald Trump as being a criminal because theyre not discussing the actionable evidence. Theyre discussing their personal views of what happened. And so i would like to see them discuss the evidence which was said in the previous hearings and to discuss both sides of the witnesses just not one side of the witnesses. Just to try to influence the American People one way or the other. So thats my assessment of what is happening today. Thanks a lot. Now were going to portland, oregon, republican line. Neil, sorry about that. Caller hello. This is a coup attempt, its so clear and its amazing how they keep glossing over these words especially the media. The media is creating this coup attempt. And im sorry to step on your toes, but look, biden is getting shokin fired for reason. He didnt want the exposure. He didnt want any investigation there. On the other hand, you have trump who is constantly lived up to his campaign promises. I mean, the list is extremely long. And i dont feel like listing because it will take up all your time. Pelosi, nadler, schiff and schumer theyre all puppets who are probably being paid to do what theyre doing. Their narrative is so weak and it just seems like theyve got this absolute hellbent desire to dethrone trump who has done the best in this country that any president has ever done. He supersedes lincoln, lincoln only freed the slaves. Yes, thats a big thing, but what trump is doing is far greater. The deep state exists and if you people dont understand this you havent done your homework. The quid pro quo has been turned into bribery because of a thats whats going on here. Theyre feeling their way to appeal to the American Public. And you people who are still calling trump a horrible person and youre still in the camp of hatred, look, spirituality and hatred do not hold hands so youre at the opposite end of the spectrum if youre calling it hate. Well take your phone calls for about ten more minutes. You can see the room on the side of the screen. No members are in. They were on the house floor voting. Take a look at a tweet though. Some of whats happening by hind behind the scenes according to julie pace. The House Speaker nancy pelosi posed a simple question on impeachment to House Democrats behind closed doors today. Saying are you ready . Shes asking the rank and file lawmakers and the answer she got back was a resounding yes. Taking your phone calls. Florida is next. Reed. Caller thank you for giving the people a forum to voice their opinions on this. The main thing i want to talk about is the law professors are people themselves and they have their own political opinions and view points and that seems to be all that we heard today from them was their opinion which is shaped somewhat by their own politics that doesnt give a clear view and its kind of disheartening that our congress is calling witnesses like this that are politically opinionated. And not allowing the opposing viewpoint to be heard. And thats pretty much all i wanted to say and point out to people who are voting and remember you hold a key power as people to vote not just for the president , but for those congressional officials that are carrying on this dog and pony show. Thanks for the call. Miami, florida, democrats line, derrick. Go ahead. You have the floor. Caller hey, i just had a statement and maybe a question. So part of providing part of our National Security is providing aid to ukraine. Right . Its part of our National Security agenda. Now we know theres an issue with corruption in ukraine. So there were there are several agencies in place working in concert together to ensure that ukraine meets the obligations that the u. S. Sets forth before we approve and release funding. So the notion the idea that trump is concerned about corruption is void because those processes are already handled. The second point was that leads me to no one is mentioning that he pretty much violated the impanel control act which basically states the president cannot arbitrarily withhold aid for any reason without consent of congress. And none of that was done and im not understanding why that point is being missed. I think it has been brought up actually, derrick. I want to point you back to our website, cspan. Org impeachment. We have heard especially during the questioning of the intelligence Committee Hearing from evidentiary witnesses there talking about the fact that that money has been appropriated by congress and had been stopped and you can take a look at that. Again on our website, cspan. Org impeachment. We want to hear in you. Juanita is on the line, las vegas, nevada, republican. Go ahead. Caller yes, im calling from las vegas. It seems like the left and the right are watching two different hearings here. But my point is this. When President Trump was elected and he took the oath of office i think the timing was 20 minutes after the oath that the democrats started to talk about impeachment. Maxine waters on the tv all the time, impeach 45. Impeach 45. What were they going to impeach him on . If any other person is in that office, how could they perform like donald trump has . Looking over his shoulder, i cant imagine the pressure and the stress that hes under and he still keeps fighting. I think the democrats could take a lesson from donald trump and try to be a person that has dignity and is honest. The reason he did not give the aid to ukraine, they wanted to find out about the corruption and that was our tax money up. Our money hed be going to be giving to ukraine. Thats what he did. He did no wrong. But they cant impeach him because they cant. But my point is this. The American People better take a look and see whats happening. Why are they doing things behind closed doors . This is america. And theyre supposed to be transparent but hide behind the closed doors thats wrong and the democrats need to shape up. I appreciate it from las vegas. If youre wondering where the rest of the country is. The website fivethirtyeight, do americans support impeaching President Trump and a look there currently, fairly evenly divide. 48. 5 supporting it, 43. 5 do not. Lawmakers say they havent brought up the articles of impeachment yet. Do not know if that will happen in the house. But of course these hearings moving in that direction. And hearing behind closed doors nancy pelosi asking her caucus if they were ready and the resounding yes coming from democrats. Once things happen in the house including the articles of impeachment being drafted things move on to the senate for the actual trial. If it does come to that, well of course bring you everything here on cspan. Watching on cspan 3 live. If youre away from your Television Join us at cspan. Org as the votes wrap up on the house floor. Well stay here in the room. This is the Judiciary Committee meeting in the Oversight Committee room. Recognize gentleman let me repeat. The committee will come to order. When we broke for recess, we were under the five minute rule and i recognize mr. Sensenbrenner for five minutes. Thank you very much, mr. Chairman. Im a veteran of impeachments. I have been named by the house as an impeachment manager in four impeachments. Clinton and three judges. Thats more than anybody else in history. And one of the things in every impeachment whether its the ones that i was involved in or others that have come before the committee where i was not a manager is that the debate on what is a high crime and misdemeanor and how serious does that have to be in order it for it to rise to a level of an Impeachable Offense. 50 years ago then republican leader gerald ford made a comment that saying a high crime and misdemeanor is anything a majority of the house of representatives deems it to be on any given day. I dont agree with that. You know, that sets either a very low bar or a nonexistent bar. And it certainly would make the president serve at the pleasure of the house which was not what the framers intended when they rejected the British Forum of parliamentary democracy where the Prime Minister and the government could be overthrone by a mere vote of no confidence in the house of commons. So im looking at what were facing here. This whole inquiry was started out by a comment that President Trump made to president zelensky in the july 25th call, quote, do me a favor, unquote. There are some who said its a quid pro quo, there are some who have implied that its a quid pro quo. But both trump and zelensky have said it wasnt and zelensky has said there was no pressure on me and the aid came through within six weeks after the phone call in question was made. Now, you can contrast that to where there was no impeachment inquiry to Vice President biden when he was given a speech and said, you know, i held up a billion dollars worth of aid unless the prosecutor was fired within six hours. And son of a bleep thats what happened. Now, you know, it seems to me that if youre looking for a quid pro quo and looking for something that was really over the top, it was not saying do me a favor. It was saying son of a bleep thats what happened in six hours. Now, you know, the republicans who are in charge of congress at the time biden made that comment, we did not tie the country up for three months and going on four now, wrapping everybody in this town around the axelrod. We continued attempting to do the publics business. Thats not whats happening here. And i think the American Public are getting a little bit sick and tired of impeachment, impeachment, impeachment when they know that less than a year from now they will be able to determine whether donald trump stays in office or somebody else will be elected. And i take this responsibility extremely seriously. You know, it is an awesome and very grave responsibility. And it is not one that should be done lightly. It is not one that should be done quickly and it is not without examining all of the evidence which is what was done in the nixon impeachment and what was done largely by Kenneth Starr in the clinton impeachment. Now, id like to ask you, professor turley, because your is one of the only one of the four up there that doesnt seem to have it made before you walked into the door. Isnt there a difference between saying quote do me a favor and quote, son of a bleep, thats what happened, in six hours time . Grammatically, yes. Constitutionally it really depends on the context. I think your point is a good one in the sense that we have to determine from the transcript and hopefully from other witnesses whether this statement was part of an actual quid pro quo. I guess the threshold question is if the president said if the president said, id like you to do these investigations. By the way, i dont group them together in my testimony. I distinguish between the request firefighter investigations into 2016 from the investigation of the bidens. But it is an issue of order, the magnitude of order constitutionally if you ask id like you to see you do this opposed to i have a a quid pro quo. You either do this or dont get military aid. Thank you. The time of the gentleman is expired. The gentle lady from texas. Thank you, mr. Chairman, r for yielding. If what were talking about today is not impeachable, then nothing is impeachable. Im reminded of my time on the house Judiciary Committee during the 1990s impeachment and a a number of federal judges. S. I was guided then not only by the facts, but by the constitution and the duty to serve this nation. I believe, as we greet you today, that we are charged with a sober and somber responsibility. So professor, id like you to look at the intelligence volume where hundreds of documents are behind that. And the mooueller report. You studied the record. To you think it is, quote, wafer thin and can you remark on the strength of the record before us. So obviously, its not wafer thin. And the strength of the record is not just in the september i mean, the july 25th call. I i think the wit you need to ask this is how does that fit into the pattern of behavior by the president. What youre really doing is youre drawing inferences here. This is about circumstanctial evidence and did the president ask for a political favor . And i think this record supports the inference that he did. What comparisons, professor, can we make between the framers were afraid of. And the president s conduct today. So kings could do no wrong because the kings word was law. And contrary to what President Trump has said, article 2 does not give him the power to do anything he wants. Ill just give you one example that shows you difference between him and a king. Which is the constitution says there can be no titles of nobilitity. So while the president can name his son barren, he cant make him a baron. Thank you. The founding father george mason any man be above justice and Alexander Hamilton wrote that high crimes and misdemeanors mean the abuse or violation of public trust. As we move forward, you have previously testified that the president has abused his power. Is that correct . Yes, maam. What do you think is the most compelling evidence in this impeachment inquiry that would lead you to that . The phone call itself of july 25th is extraordinarily clear to my mind in that we hear the president asking for a favor thats clearly of personal benefit rather than acting on behalf of the interest of the nation. And then further from that, further down the road, we have more evidence, which tends to give the context and to support the explanation of what happened. Professor, how does such abuse affect our democratic systems . Having foreign interference in our election means we are less free. That people are determining on a Foreign Government. Its fair to say the president s actions are unpress dependented. But what a also strikes me is is is how many republicans and democrats believe that his conduct was wrong. Is it improper for the president of the United States . Listen to the colonel. It is improper for the president of United States to demand a Foreign Government to investigate the u. S. Citizen and a political opponent. In light of the fact that the president asked for an investigation and then only when he was caught released the military aid, is is there still a need for impeachment . Yes, maam. Impeachment is complete when the president abuses his office and he abuses his office by attempting to abuse his office. Theres no distinction there between trying to do it and succeeding in doing it and thats especially true if you only stop because you got caught. Over 70 of the American People believe, as us said, that the president what the did was wrong. We have a solemn responsibility to address that. And as well our fidelity to our oath and our duty. Reminded of the men and women who serve in the United States military. And im reminded of my three uncles who served in world war ii. I cant imagine them being on the battlefield, needing arms and food, and the general says, do me a a favor. We know that general would not say do me a favor. So in this instance, the American People deserve unfeddered leadership and it is our duty to fairly assess the facts and the constitution. I yield back my time. The gentle lady yields back. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Its pretty clear to me that no matter what questions we see for the witnesses here today and no matter what their answers are, that most, if not all of democrats on this committee are going to vote to um peach President Trump. Thats what their hard core trumphating base wants and they have wanted that since the president was elected three years ago. In fact, when democrats took over the house, oneover the first things they did was introduce articles of impeachment against President Trump. That was way before President Trump and the ukrainian president zelensky ever had their famous phone call. Whether it was perfect or not. Now today were undertaking a largely academic exercise instead of hearing from fact witnesses like adam schiff or hunter biden, were not being permitted to call those witnesses. It would seem since schiff misled the American People on multiple occasions, common sense and basic fairness would call r for schiff to be questioned about those things, but we cant. Mr. Chairman, become in 1998, when another president , bill clinton, was being considered for impeachment, you said, and i quote, we must not overturn an election and impeach a the president without an overwhelming consensus of the mirn people and the representatives in congress. You also said, quote, there must never be a narrowly vote impeachment or impeachment substantially supported by one of the Major Political parties and largely opposed by the other. You said such an impeachment would lack legitimacy, would produce divisiveness in our politics for years to come. And theres no doubt that it will be perceived by half of the American People as unfair and partisan effort. You seem bound and determined to move forward with this impeachment and the American People deserve better. I get it. Democrats on this committee dont like this president. They dont like his policies. They dont like him as a a person. They hate his tweets. They dont like the fact that the Mueller Investigation was a flop. So now youre going to impeach him. I got news for you. You may be able to twist enough arms in the house to impeach the president , but that effort is going to die in the senate. The president is going to serve out his term in office and be reelected to a second term probably with the help of this very impeachment shh raid were going through now. While youre wasting so much of congresss time and the American Peoples money on this impeachment, theres so many other important things that are going undone. Within this committees own jurisdiction, we should be addressing the opioid epidemic. We could be working together to find a solution to the immigration challenges on the southern border. We could be protecting americans from intellectual property stolen by Chinese Companies and enhancing Election Security just to name a few things. And congress as a whole could be working on rebuilding the crumbling infrastructure, providing tax relief to the nations middleclass families and providing additional security to people here at home and abroad. Instead, here we are spinning our wheels, once again, on impeachment. What a waste. The American People deserve so much better. I yield back. The gentleman yields back. I take no pleasure in the fact that were here today. As a patriot that loves america, it pains me that the circumstances force us to undertake this grave and solemn obligation. Nonetheless, simply on the publicly available evidence, it appears the President Trump pressured a a foreign fwoft to interfere in our elections by investigating his perceived chief political point. Today were here to uphold our oath to defend the constitution of the United States furthering our understanding whether the president s conduct is impeachable. As it relates to president ial impeachment. The framers of the constitution feared for an interference in the sovereignty. They wanted to ensure there could would be a check and balance on the executive. We sit here with a duty to the founders to fulfill their wisdom and be a check on the executive. We the peoples house are that check. Under our constitution, the house can impeach a a president for treason, bribery or other high crimes and misdemeanors. You have discussed high crimes a misdemeanors. It refers to crimes. Can you just give us a little pith of a summary of what high crimes and misdemeanors are and how they are distinct from what professor said they were. Yes, sir, high crimes and misdemeanors are actions of the president in office where he uses his office to advance his personal interests, potentially for personal gain, potentially to corrupt the electoral process and potentially as well as against the National Security interests of the United States. I would add that the word high modify crimes and misdemeanor. The framers knew of both high crimes and high misdemeanors. And i believe that the definition that was posted earlier of misdemeanor was not the definition of high misdemeanor, which was a a specific term understood by the framers and discuss ed in the constitutional cob vengs. But only of the word misdemeanor. Thats an easy mistake to make, but the truth is the high misdemeanors were their own category of abuses of office. Those are the things that are impeachable. Thank you, professor. You have found it implicates three categories of high crimes and misdemeanors. Abuse of power, betrayal of the National Interest, and corruption of elections. Is that right . Yes, it is. And professor feldman . Yes, sir. You state d that the essence of an Impeachable Offense is the decision to sacrifice the National Interest for his own private ends. Do yall agree with that . Yes, sir. Has President Trump sacrificed the interests of his own . Yes, he has. Is there a particular piece oefd that illuminates that . I think what illuminates that most for me is the statement by ambassador sondland that he wanted simply the announcement of an investigation. And several other people said exactly the same thing. Theres testimony by ambassador volker as well. What he wanted was simply Public Information to damage joe biden. He didnt care whether he was found guilty or exonerated. Professor feldman, do you agree or do you have a different . My emphasis would be on the fact that the president held up aid to an ally thats fighting a war in direct contra vengs of the unanimous recommendation of the National Security community. That has placed his own interests in personal advantage ahead of the interests of the nation. And a a bill pass bid congress. Yes, sir. I agree with what my colleagues i have said. I would add im very concerned about the president s obstruction of congress. Obstruction of this inquiry, refusal to comply with a number of subpoenas, ordering many high level of officials not to comply with subpoena s level of officials not to comply with subpoena ubpoenas. And order iing the entire executive branch not to cooperate with congress. Its useful to remember the constitution constitution says the house has the sole power to impeach. The constitution only uses the word sole twice. Once with reference to the house in this area, once with reference to the senate with respect to impeachment trial. Sole means only. This is your decision. Let me get the professor into this. Youre a selfanointed defender of article 1 of congress. But you justify a position that says legally issued subpoenas by congress enforcing its powers dont have to be complied by. Youre an article 2 executive guy. And youre talking about the johnson impeachment is not very useful. That was mall administration. This is a criminal act. Thank you, professors, for eping us understand. We the people are custodians of this country. We have a high responsibility to control charges with the sole power to hold the constitution and defend our democracy. We shall do that. The gentlemans time is expired. Thank you. Im afraid this hearing is indicative of the indecency to which we come when instead of the committee of jurisdiction bringing in fact witnesses to get to the bottom of what happened. And not even having time to review the report, which as the professor indicated is wafer thin when compared to the 36 boxes of documents that were delivered to the last impeachment group. But then to start this hearing with the chairman of the committee saying that the facts are u. N. Disputed, the only thing that it is disputed more than the facts in this case is the statement that the facts are undies put ed. They are absolutely disputed and the evidence is a bunch of hearsay on hearsay that if anybody here had tried cases before of enough magnitude, you would know you cant rely on hearsay on hearsay, but we have experts who know better than the accumulated experience of the ages. So here we are. I would submit we need some factual witnesses. We do not need to receive a report that we dont have a chance to read before this hearing. We need a chance to bring in actual fact witnesses. Theres a couple i could name that are critical to us getting to the bottom. They work for the National Security council. They were involved in the Ukraine Affairs and they worked with Vice President biden on different matters involving ukraine. It was critical information about ukraines involvement in our u. S. Election. The relationships with the witness who is went before the Intel Committee and others involved in these allegations. Makes him the most critical witnesses in this entire investigation. And the records including their emails and text messages, flash drives or computers have information that will bring this effort to remove the president to a screeching halt. It points out that house Intelligence Committee chairman adam schiff recruited two former National Security council aids who worked alongside the whistleblower at the nsc during the obama and trump administrations. Abigail grace, who worked until 2018 was hired in february while until 2017 joined schiffs committee in august. The same month the whistleblower submitted his complaint. And it goes on b to point out that grace was hired to help schiffs committee investigate the trump white house. That month trump accused schiff of stealing people working at the white house. And chairman schiff said if the they are worried, he should work on being a better employer. No, he should have fired everybody just like bill clinton did, all the u. S. Attorneys on the same day. That would have saved us a lot of whats going on here. So we need those two witnesses. They are critical. And then we also need someone who was a cia detail to ukraine. State department shows that it was a state luncheon. It was ramifications in the last elections. He speaks arabic and russian. Reported to a friend of the clintons aids chose to continuous contact with the fbis state ukrainian b officials. Ahead of Vice President biden. He was obamas point man on ukraine. He was associated with dnc on rative. Met with her november 9th, 2015. And theres all kinds of reasons we need these three witnesses. And i would ask pursuant to zx four House Resolution 669 ask our chairman our Ranking Member to submit the request for these three witnesses because were not having a factual hearing until we have these people that are at the bottom of every fact of this investigation. I yield back. Gentleman yields back. Mr. Johnson . Thank you, mr. Chairman. The president has regularly and recently solicited foreign interference in our upcoming elections. And suggests that the house should pause. Professor, do you agree . No, if you conclude that, as i think the evidence to this point shows, that the president is soliciting foreign involvement in our election, you need to act now to prevent foreign interference in the next election like the one we have in the past. Thank you. In 30 seconds or less, tell us why you believe the president s misconduct was an abuse of power so egregious that it merits the drastic remedy of impeachment. He invited the russians to our adversaries into the process. The last time around because he has invited the ukrainians into the process and hes suggested he would like the chinese to come to the process as well. Thank you very much. One of the framers of the constitution who at one time was mayor of williamsburg, virginia, warned us that, quote, the executive will have great opportunity of abusing his power. People like the mayor rebelled because of the tyranny of a king. Why would the framers so careful to avoid the potential for a president to become so tier ran call and abusive and what did they do to protect against it . The framers believed very strongly that the people were the king. The people were sovereign. That meant the president worked for somebody. He worked for the people. They knew that the president who couldnt be checked, who could not be supervised by his own Justice Department and who could not be supervised by congress would effectively be above the law and use his power to get himself reelected. Thats why they created the impeachment remedy. Thank you. I now want to discuss how the framers case of puz of power relate to President Trumps misconduct. On july 259, he said to president zelensky, i would like you to do us a a favor, though. Professor feldman, when President Trump made use of the words favor, do you think he was asking for a favor and how is the answer to that question relevant to whether the president abused his power. Its relevant because theres nothing wrong with someone asking for a favor in the interest of the United States of america. The problem is for the president to use his office to solicit or demand favor for his personal benefit. And the evidence strongly suggests that given the power of the president and given the incentives created for ukraine comply with his requests, he was seeking to his own personal benefit and interest. Thats the definition of interruption under the constitution. Also witnessed have also testified it was their impression when President Trump said i would like you to do us a favor, he was making a demand and not a request. Professor, how vind minnesotas statement was a tand because of the power disparity between the two countries relate back to our r framers concerns about the president s pouz of power. You have to understand that the president of the United States has so much more power than the president of ukraine. When the president uses the word favor, the reality is that hes applying tremendous pressure. The pressure of the power of the United States. And that relts to the constitutional abuse of office. If someone other than the president of the United States asked the to do to do a favor. He could say no. When the president uses the office of the presidency to ask for a favor, theres simply no way for ukraine to refouz. Sgle we ls heard he withheld military aid to further pressure ukraine to announce investigations of brooiden and the 2016 election. Is that your testimony condition colluded that the president abused his power . I thought the president abused his power by asking for a criminal investigation of the United States citizen for political ends regardless of everything else. Thats an aggravating circumstance. Thank you. A president holding an american ally over a barrel to extract personal favors is deeply troubling. This is not an impulse buy moment. Its a break the glass moment. Impeachment is the only appropriate remedy. With that, i will yield back. The gentleman yields back. Mr. Jordan. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Before Speaker Pelosi announced the impeachment inquiry ten weeks ago on september 24th, before the call between President Trump and president zelensky on july 25th, before the mueller hearing in front of this committee on july 24th. Before all that, 16 of them had already voted to move forward on impeachment. 16 democrats on the Judiciary Hearing Committee voted to move forward on impeachment. Yet today, were talking about whether the positions they have already taken a are constitutional . It seems a little back ward to me. We got four democrats or four people voted for clinton. Theyen cant agree. Yet today were talking about the constitution. Professor, you have been great today, but i think youre wrong on one thing. You said this is a fast impeachment. I would argue its a predetermined impeachment. Its done in the most unb fair fashion we have ever seen. Sno subpoena power for republicans. Depositions done in secret in the bunker and basement of the capital. 17 people come in for depositions. No one can be in there except a handful of folks that adam schiff allowed. In those depositions, the chairman prevented witnesses from answering republican questio questions. Cats denied republicans the witness in the open hearings that took place three weeks ago. And democrats promised us the whistleblower would testify and then changed their mind. They changed their mind why . Because the whole world discovered that adam schiffs staff had talked to the whistleblower, coordinated with the whistleblower. The whistleblower would know firsthand knowledge, bias against the president , whose lawyer in january said the impeachment process starts then. Thats the unfair process we have been through. The reason its been unfair, let me cut to the chase. The facts arent on their side. The facts are on the president s side. It will not change. Will never change. We have the transcript. There was no quid pro quo on the transcript. The two guys on the call both said no pressure, no pushing, no quid pro quo. They didnt know the aid was held up at the time of the phone call and most important, ukrainians never started, never promised to start and never announced an investigation in the time the aid was paused. You know what did happen in those 55 days that the aid was paused . There were five key meetings between president zelensky and senior officials in our government and the call on july 25th. The very next day. We then had bolton end of august meet with president zelensky. Republican and more importantly democratic senator murphy with republican senator johnson meet with president seth lent b skit on september 5th. None of those five meetings was aid ever discussed in exchange for an announcement of an investigation into anybody. Not one of them. And youd think the last two after the ukrainians did know the aid was being held, youd think it would come up withen. Particularly the one where they ghot senator murphy talking about it. Never came up. The facts are on the president s side. We have an unfair process because they dont have the facts. We have an unfair process. This gets to Something Else you said. How that was so well said. This is scary. The democrats have never accepted the will of the American People. 1 days ago, 17 days ago the speaker of the United States house of representatives called the president of the United States an imposter. 63 million americans voted for who won an Electoral College landslide, the speaker of the house of representatives called that individual an imposter. Thats not healthy for our country. This is not healthy. The facts are the facts they are on the president s side. Thats what we need to focus on. Not some constitutional hearing at the end of the process when you have already termed where youre going to go. That, i yield back. The gentleman yields back. Mr. Deutsche. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, this month we commemorate the battle of the bu bulge. My late father and staff r sergeant received a purple heart fighting in the frigid area. He gave blood among tens of thousands of americans. They served under officers and a commanderinchief worp not fighting a war for their own personal benefit. They put country first. They made the same solemn promise that members of congress and the president of the United States make. To always put National Interest above their own personal interest. The evidence shows that the president broke that promise. The constitution gives the president enormous power. But it also imposes a remedy, impeachment, when those powers are abused. In july President Trump said, and i quote, i have an article 2. Where i have the right to do whatever i want. Thats the president , closed quote. The president has broad powers including Foreign Policy. Isnt that right . Yes, sir. Do those powers mean that the president can do whatever he wants . Can he abuse the powers of the constitution gives him . He may not. If the president uses the powers that hes given for personal gain or corrupt an election or against the National Security interest of the United States, he may be impeached for a high crime. Is he using his power to pressure ukraine to interfere in u. S. Elections . Yes, sir. How would the framers ask for election interference from a foreign leader . Its practically impossible to know exactly what the framers would think, but its not hard to imagine how the constitution deals with it. Thats their legacy to us. Under the constitution, its plainly an abuse of power. So rather horrifying abuse of power. We have heard witnesses over the past several weeks testify about their concerns when the president used his Foreign Policy powers for political gain. Its efforts to protect the National Security policy. Ambassador taylor thought it was crazy to withhold Security Assistance. The very foundation of our dras. And offering to exchange a white house meeting and hundreds of millions of dollars in Security Systems can it. No, its the essence of doing something for personal reasons rather than for plolitical reasons. And if i could just say one thing about this it briefly. Maybe when he was first running for president , he had never been anything other than a reality tv show. That was his public life. Maybe then he could if youre listening is is an okay thing to do. But by the time he asked the ukraine if youre listening, help me out with my reelection, he has to have known b that was not something consistent with his oath of office. Mr. Chairman, our fonders granted them enormous powers, but at the same time, when we have byebye reminded of today, they worry these powers could be abuse abused by a a corrupt president. The evidence of abuse of power in this inkwir ri proved that our founders were right to be worried. Yes, the president has the purr to direct americas Foreign Policy. But no, he cannot use that power remember, i ask all my colleagues to remember, the constitution grants the president his power through the American People. The president s source of power, its a democratic election. It is the American People who trusted him to look out for them. We trusted him to look out for the country. Instead, President Trump looked out for himself. And helping himself get reelected. He abused the power that we trusted him with for personal and political gain. The founders worried about just this type of abuse of power. Pz it was one way for congress to respond. Thats the power of impeachment. I yield back. Jgentleman yields back. I want to direct you first questions to you. By this standard of impeaching a preside president , they said if a president abuses his power for personal or political gain, its impeachable conduct. Do you agree . Not the way its been stated. In fact, theres so many different standards. I have a long ways to go here. Theres been so many different standards, one of them was attempting to abuse office. Im not sure how to recognize that let alone define it. Let me go with a few examples and see if you agree with me. Lyndon johnson, directed the Central Intelligence agency to place a spy in barry gold waters campaign. That spy got advanced copies of speeches and other strategy. Deliver that to the johnson campaign. Would that impeachable conduct according to the other paneli s panelists . Its broadly, so i assume so. How about when president johnson b put a wiretap on gold waters campaign. Would that be for political benefit . I cant exclude anything under that definition. Im going go with a few other president s. Well see where we go. Congressman deutsche just informed us that fdr put country first. Now fdr when he was president directed the irs to conduct audits of his political enemies. Name namely william purse, hamilton fish, father coughlin. Would that be an abuse of power for political benefit according to the other panelists . I think it all would be subject to it. How about when president kennedy directed his brother to deport one of his mistresses as an east german spy. Would that qualify as impeachable conduct . I cant exclude it. How about when he districted the fbi to use wiretaps on congressional staffers who oppo opposed him politically. Would that be impeachable conduct . It seem to be falling within it. Lets go to barack obama. When barack obama directed or made a finding that the senate was in recess and appointed the people to the National Labor Relations Board and lost 90. Would that be an abuse of power . Im us afraid youd have to direct it to others, but i dont see exclusions. How about when the president directed his National Security adviser and the secretary of state to lie to the American People about whether the ambassador to libya was murdered as a result of a video or was murtded as a result of a terrorist act. Would that be an abuse of power for political benefit 17 days before the next election . Not according to my definition, but the others will have to respond to their own. You have heard their definition. I have a hard time excludeing anything out. How about Abraham Lincoln arrested legislators in maryland so they wouldnt convene to us is ceus is cede from the union. It would have placed washington, d. C. In the middle of the rebellion. Its that an abuse of power . It could be under that definition. Sglz you mentioned George Washington a little while ago as perhaps having met the standard of impeachment for your other panelists. Let me ask you something. Can you name a single president in the history of the United States, that would not have met the standard of impeachment for our friends here. I would hope to god James Madison would escape. Otherwise a lifetime of Academic Work would be shredded. But once again, i cant exclude many of these. Isnt what you and i and many others are afraid of is that the standard that your friends to the right of you so not politically, but sitting there, that your friends have decided that the bar is so low that when we have a democratic president in office and a Republican House and a republican senate, were going to be going through this whole scenario again in a way that really puts the country at risk. When your graphic says that your b is betrayal of National Interest, i would simply ask do you really want that to be your standard . Isnt the difference that some people live in an ivory tower and some people live in a swamp. Those of us in the swamp are doing our very best for the American People. Its not pretty. Actually, i live in an ivory tower in a swamp. Its not so bad. I yield back. The gentleman yields back. Thank you very much. I want to thank the witnesses and i dont believe the peoples house is a swamp. President nixon was impeached for abuse of power because his conduct was, quote, undertaken and not in fur rans of any National Policy objective. Why was it significant that president nixon acted for his personal political advantage and not in furtherance of National Policy objective . Its fairly significant because acting on his own personal benefit and not for the benefit of the country, he has crossed a line. The line here is very clear, it becomes abuse of power when someone is using the special authorities for their own personal benefit and not the benefit of the country. Can the same be said of President Trump . It could be, yes. Thank you. Im struck by the parallels because one of the things that nixon did was he launched tax investigations of his political opponents. Here the evidence shows trump tried to launch a criminal investigation of his political opponent by a Foreign Government. We have heard evidence suggesting that President Trump did this for his own personal gain and not for any policy policy interest. He claims he withheld the aid because of concerns about corruption, i do believe that we have example of the evidence of the truth. Ambassador sond lapd stated that the president only cares about big stuff. I noted there was big stuff going on in ukraine. Like a war with russia. Ambassador sondland replied he meant big stuff that benefits the president like the biden investigation that Rudy Giuliani was pushing. What would the framers have thought of a president who only cares about the big stuff that benefits him. The framers were extremely worried about a president who served only his own interests or the interests of foreign powers. That was their most serious concern when they designed the remedy of impeachment. So the evidence also suggests that President Trump didnt even care if the investigation actually happened. What he really cared about was the public announcement of the investigation. So professor, how do we analyze these facts in the context of abuse of power. I think to have a president ask for the investigation of his political opponents is an arc type of the abuse of power and mr. Buck mentioned past examples of this. And to say that those werent impeachable, i think is is a big mistake. If a president wiretaps his opponents, thats a federal crime now. I dont know whether before the wiretap act of 1968. But if a president wiretapped his opponents today, that would be impeachable conduct. I serve on the Foreign Affairs committee. For foreign leaders to meet with our president s to attend a meet ing in the oval office is very significant. President zelensky is a newly elected head of state in a fledging democracy. His country is at war with his neighbor. Russia invaded and is occupying his country easter toir. He needed the mill toir resources. He needed recognition of the american president. He was prepared to do whatever the president demanded. Many years ago i worked in the Largest Union as a pa. I saw people at their worst getting pain after accidents or acts of violence. They were desperate and afraid and had to wait five to eight hours to be seen. Can you imagine for one minute if i had told my patients, look, i can move you up in line and take care of your pain, but i do need a favor from you, though. My patients were in pain and desperate and they would have agreed to do anything i asked. This would have been such an abuse of my position because of the power dynamic. In any case thats illegal for us to use power to take advantage of those in crisis. Especially with the president , especially when lives are at stake. I yield back. The gentle lady yields back. Mr. Radcliffe. I thank the chairman. Professor, id like to start where you started because you said something that i think bares repeating. You said im not a supporter of President Trump. I voted against him in 2016. I have voted for clinton and obama. Despite your political preferences and persuasions, you reached this conclusion. The current legal case for impeachment is not just woefully inadequate, but in some respects, dangerous. Is the basis of an american president. So let me start by commending you for being the kind of example of what hopefully everyone on this committee as we approach the tasks that we have of determining whether or not there were any Impeachable Offenses here. One of the problems that you have articulated as leading you to the conclusion of calling this the should have proceed the shortest impeachment proceeding with the thinnest record and senator rowest grounds attempting to impeach a president is the fact theres been this ever changing constantly involving moving target of accusations, if you will. That the july 25th phone call started out as an alleged quid pro quo and briefly became an extortion scheme, i think its back to quid pro quo. Now besides pointing out that both Speaker Pelosi and chairman schiff waited until almost every witness had been deposed before they started to use the term bribery, you articulated why you think the definitions that they have used publicly are flawed if not unconstitutional both in the 18th century or the 21st century. But would you agree with me that bribery under any valid definition requires that a specific quid pro quo be proven. More importantly the Supreme Court is focused on that issue. As well as what is the definition of a quid pro quo. So if military aid or Security Assistance is part of that quid pro quo, where in the july 25th transcript does President Trump ever suggest that he intends to withhold military aid for any reason. He doesnt. And thats the reason we keep on hearing the words circumstantial and inference shl. Thats whats so concerning. Those would be appropriate terms. Its not that you could have a a circumstantial case. Those would be appropriate if they were unknowable facts. The problem is you have so many witnesses that have not been subpoenaed. So many witnesses that we have not heard from. So if its not in the transcript then its got to come from witness testimony. I assume you have reviewed all the witness testimony. So you know that no witness has testified that they either heard President Trump or were told by President Trump to withhold military aid for any reason, correct . Correct. So let me turn to the issue of obstruction of justice. I think you assumed, as i did, that when democrats have been talking about obstruction, it was specifically related to the ukraine issue. You were high 4r50ig9ing the fact that the democrats appear to be taking the position that if a a president seeks judicial review over executive Branch Testimony or document subpoena issed by congress, rather than letting the courts be the arbiter, congress can simply impeach the president for obstruction based on that. Did i hear you say that if we were to proceed on that basis, that would be an abuse of power. I did. Let me be clear about this. I dont disagree with my colleagues that nothing in the constitution says you have to go to a court or wait for a court. Thats not what im saying. What im saying is that if you want a wellbased legitimate impeachment case to set this abbreviated schedule, demand documents and then impeach because they havent been turned over when they go to a court, when the president goes to a court, i think thats an abuse of power thats not what happened in nixon. In fact, the ultimate decision in nixon is there are legitimate executive privilege claims that can be raised. Some of them deal with the type of aids involved in this case. Like a National Security adviser and a white house counsel. So the concern here is not that you cant ever impeach a president unless you go to court. Just because you shouldnt. You have time to do it. So if i were to summarize your testimony, no bribery, no extortion, no obstruction of justice, no abuse of power, is that fair . Not on this record. The time is expired. Let me just pick up where we left off. Im going to start with your words. Its from october 23rd. Your opinion piece in the hill. You said that as i have said before, theres no question that the use of Public Office for personal gain is an Impeachable Offense. Including the withholding of military aid in exchange for the investigation of a political opponent. You just prove it happened. If you can establish atotal use Public Office for personal gain, you have a viable, Impeachable Offense. We heard a president abuses his power when he uses his official power for his own personal interest rather than interest of our country. Id like to spend more time on that because im really struck by one of the things at stake here. 400 million of taxpayer dollars. President knicnixon leveraged t powers of hids office to investigate plolitical rivals. But here the evidence shows that President Trump also leveraged taxpayer dollars to get ukraine to now investigations of President Trumps political rivals. That taxpayer money was meant to help ukraine defend itself and in turn defend United States interests from russian aggression. The money had been appropriated by congress and certified by the department of defense. Multiple witnesses confirmed that there was unanimous support for the military aid to ukraine. Can we listen to that, please. From what you Opening Statements from the Witnesses Today were not distributed until late last night. And the Intelligence Committees finalized report has yet to be presented to this committee. You hear from those in the majority that process is a republican talking point when in reality its an american talking point. Process is essential to the institution. A thoughtful, meaningful process of this magnitude with such great implications should be demanded by the American People. With that i yield back. Mr. Jeffreys. I did not serve in the military but my 81yearold father did. He was an air force veteran stationed in germany during the height of the cold war in the late 1950s. He was a teenager from inner city newark, a stranger in a foreign land serving on the western side of the berlin wall. My dad proudly wore the uniform because he swore an oath to the constitution and believed in american democracy. I believe in american democracy. We remain the last, best hope on earth. It is in that spirit that we proceed today. In america, we believe in free and fair elections, is that correct . Yes it is. But authoritarian regimes do not, is that right . Thats correct. Thomas jefferson once wrote, or john adams once wrote to Thomas Jefferson on december 6th, 1787 and stated you are apprehensive of foreign interference, intrigue, influence, so am i. But as often as elections happen, the danger of foreign influence recurs. Its less important than its become in our constitution since them. One of things that turned me into a lawyer was seeing Barbara Jordan say that we the people didnt include people like her in 1789 but through a process of amendment we have done that. So elections are more important to us today as a constitutional matter than they were to the framers. Is it fair to say an election cannot be reasonably characterized as free and fair if its manipulated by foreign interference . Thats correct. And deeply concerned with threat of foreign interference in the Domestic Affairs of the United States, true . Yes. And why were they so deeply concerned . Because foreign nations dont have our interests at heart. They have their interests at heart. And would the framers find it acceptable to pressure a Foreign Government to help him win an election . I think theyd find it unacceptable for a president to ask a Foreign Government to help him whether they put pressure on him or not. Direct evidence shows that on july 25th phone call the president uttered five words, do us a favor though. He pressured the Ukrainian Government to target an american citizen for political gain and at the same time simultaneously withheld 391 million in military aid. Now ambassador bill taylor, westpoint graduate, vietnam war hero, republican appointed diplomat discussed this issue of military aid. Here is a clip of his testimony. Again, our holding up of Security Systems that would go to a country that is fighting, fighting aggression from russia for no good policy season, no good substantive reason, no good National Security reason is wrong. Was being withheld as part of an effort to solicit foreign interference in the 2020 election. Is that behavior impeachable . Yes, it is. And if i could go back to one of the words that you read. When the president said do us a favor he was using the royal we there. It wasnt a favor for the United States. He should have said do us a favor because only kings say us when they mean me. Is it correct an abuse of power that strikes at the heart of our democracy falls squarely within the definition of a high crime and misdemeanor. Yes, it does. Some of my colleagues have suggested that impeachment would overturn the will of the people. The American People expressed their will in november of 2018. The will of the people elected a new majority. The will of the people elected a house that would not function as a wholly owned subsidiary of this administration. The will of the people elected a house that understands we are separate and coequal branch of government. The will have the people elected a house that understands we have a constitutional responsibility to serve as a check and balance on an out of control executive branch. The president abused his power and must be held accountable. No one is above the law. America must remain the last, best hope on earth. I yield back. Gentleman yields back. Mr. Yates. The will of the American People also elected donald trump to be the president of the United States in the 2016 election and theres one party that cant seem to get over it. We understand the fact that in 2018 you took the house of representatives and we havent spent our time during your tenure in power trying to remove the speaker of the house and de delegitimize your ability to govern. Wed love to put out a helping sand, its the will of the people that you ignore when you continue down this terrible road of impeachment. You gave money to barrack obama, right. My family did, yes. Four times. That sounds about right, yes. Mr. Chairman, i have a serious unanimous consent request relating to professor feldmans work. Raise risk of impeachment the gentleman will suspend. Well take that time off. Has the gentleman submitted have we seen the material . We can provide it to you as is typical and well consider the unanimous consent request later after we review it. Very well. Thank you mr. Chairman. Mr. Feldman wrote articles entitled trumps wiretap tweets raise risk of impeachment. He then wrote impeachment file and then mr. Jake flanagan wrote in court a harvard law professor thinks trump could be impeached over fake news accusations. My question is since you seem to believe that the basis for impeachment is even broader than the basis that my democratic colleagues layed forward, do you believe youre outside of the political mainstream on the question of impeachment . I believe that impeachment is warranted whenever the president abuses his power for personal benefit. Did you write an article entitled its hard to take impeachment seriously now. Yes, i did. Did you write since then the 2018 Midterm Election House Democrats have made it painfully clear that discussing impeachment is primarily or even exclusively a tool to weaken President Trumps kanschances i 2020. Until this call on july 25th i was an impeachment skeptic. The call changed my mind and for good reason. Thank you. I appreciate your testimony. You gave 1,000 to elizabeth warren, right. I believe so. You gave 1,200 bucks to barrack obama. I have no reason to question that. And you gave 2,000 to hillary clinton. Thats correct. Why so much more for hillary than the other two. Because i have been giving a lot of money to charity recently because of all the poor people in the United States. Those arent the only folks you have been giving to. Have you ever been on a podcast called versus trump. I think i was on a live panel that will the people that ran the podcast called versus trump. On that do you remember saying the following . Liberals tend to cluster more. Conservatives, especially very conservative people tend to spread out more, perhaps because they dont even want to be around themselves. Did you say that . Yes, i did. Do you understand how that reflects contempt on people who are conservative . No, what i was talking about there was the natural tendency, if you put the quote in context, the natural tendency of a compactness requirement to favor a party whose voters are spread out. I have limited time professor so when you talk about how liberals want to be around each other and conservatives dont want to be around each other and have to spread out, you may not see this from the ivory towers of your law school but it makes people in this country excuse me, you dont get to interrupt me on this time. Now let me also suggest that when you invoke the president s sons name here. When you try to make a little joke out of referencing barron trump. That does not lend credibility to your argument. It makes you look mean and like youre attacking someones family, the minor child of the president of the United States. So lets see if we can get into the facts to all of the witnesses. If you have personal knowledge of a single material fact in the schiff report, please raise your hand. And let the record reflect no personal knowledge of a single fact and you know what, that continues on the tradition we saw from adam schi iff. Mr. Kent never met with the president. Fiona hill never heard the president reference anything regarding military aid. Mr. Heal was unaware of any activity with aid. And denied there was a qu quid pro quo and mr. Morrison said there wasnt anything on the call. And the only direct evidence was mr. Sondland that said i want nothing. No quid pro quo and if wiretapping a political opponent and maybe its a different president we should be impeaching. The gentlemans time as expired. Thank you. Professor feldman, let me begin by stating the obvious. It is not hearsay when the president tells the president of ukraine to investigate his political adversary is it . No. It is not hearsay when the president confesses on National Television to doing that, is it . It is not. It is not hearsay when they testify that they hear the president say he only cares about the investigations of his political opponent, is it . No, that is not hearsay. And theres lots of other direct evidence. So lets dispense with that claim by my republican colleagues. And impeachment requiring a criminal offense and he wrote, and i quote, an offense does not have to be indictable. Serious misconduct or violation of public trust is enough. End quote. Was he right when he wrote that in 2014 . Yes, i agree with that. Okay. Now, next, at the Constitutional Convention he said and i quote, foer foreign powers will intermeddle in our affairs and spare no expense to influence them and James Madison said imp