Transcripts For KNTV Today 20240713

London and she can walk us through what transpired here in the last several hours. Its just been a remarkable turn of event. As you say President Trump cancelling a planned press conference. Hes going to hold a few more meetings and then head home early. He wanted this nato trip to be a chance for him to show leadership on the world stage to try to turn the page at least temporarily from the impeachment hearings back at home and yet he has been beset by new controversies. Let me read you the tweet and then give you the broader context. The president tweeted when todays meetings are over, i will be heading back to washington. I wont be doing a press conference at the close of nato because we did so many over the past two days. Safe travels to all. Now this comes after a stunning piece of video emerged overnight showing some of the president s closest allies. The Prime Minister of canada, justin trudeax, the Prime Minister of the u. K. , Boris Johnson appearing to mock President Trump although they didnt mention him by name. But they talked about the fact that he took so many questions during their bilateral meetings with him that he essentially held up the day. They mocked him in other ways. President trump responded calling him two faced. Take a look at those pieces of video. Well, hes two faced. And honestly, hes a nice guy. I find him to be a very nice guy. So President Trump calling him two faced and it comes amid tensions with other World Leaders over a range of different issues here. But the big take away is that President Trump was going to use this press conference to try to Counter Program what is happening in washington. This impeachment hearing that is about to get underway. Theres the hearing room. Keep in mind, no fact witnesses today. This will be a chance for the members of the committee to hear from constitutional scholars to talk about the meaning of impeachment. What rises to the level of impeachment. So it will still be a spirited discussion because this is a fairly partisan committee here. They now have that scathing impeachment report. What is next in all of this. Well, with this hearing today, the trump impeachment inquiry enters a new chapter. One way to think about it is the House Intelligence Committee layed out all of the evidence. Now the House Judiciary Committee will layout the law. Now theyre set to hear from four witnesses and four constitutional scholars that will help explain the constitutional basis for impeachment and whether he conducts his interaction with his ukrainian counter part meets the bar for removal from office. Theyre using the same format for interviewing witnesses but thats where the similarities end because to your point, this committee is just as large, in fact, its twice as large and has a well earned reputation for being more partisan, you might say a more rowdy bunch. They use this to sharpen the case for impeachment and you can bet House Republicans are going to do what they can to undermine it. Thank you, joining us this morning is chuck todd and Andrea Mitchell and with me here in the studio Justice Department veteran and legal analyst chuck rosenberg. Jeff layed out the environment of this particular committee. These constitutional scholars, do they come in they come in obviously picked by one side or the other but do we view them through a partisan lenses or a factbased lenses . That was one of the questions that i had. I started reading their Opening Statements, at least the first two. Noah feldman from harvard and pamela are taking a position that the president ought to be impeached for his conduct. I didnt know if they were just going to drive down the middle of the road and analyze that the impeachment clauses of the constitution mean or try to apply the facts we have deduced to the law as we know it. They seem to be taking a position. So im very curious to see how that plays out in front of the members of the house judiciary committ committee. I dont think a lot of it is going to come out of it but discussions about how much do you include in it . What is the definition of an impeachment offense. Youre going to see some on the democratic side look for the ability to expand the definition of what fits into what should be considered impeachment but you get to something that i think is a bit of a conundrum is their report revealed they have more leads to follow up. Now they cant follow up some of them because the white house and Rudy Giuliani and various players arent cooperating so theyre at a stand still and yet they did say one of the associates of Rudy Giuliani is starting to deliver some or respond to the subpoena for documents that they were asking for. Why stop this investigation. . And i dont know how much we hear about that today but i think it is a conundrum the House Democrats have where they look at the political calendar and the political situation and the road block on the republican side and yet they follow these leads. You heard the gavel fall. The chairman Gerald Nadler and youll also hear from the Ranking Member doug collins. Lets take you to the hearing room now as this hearing begins. Well, the mics are open. They seem to be in place but the hearing has not begun. How important is it the House Committee on the judiciary will come to order. Mr. Chairman, you are reserving the right to object. Objection is noted. I reserve the right to object. Pursuant to clause rule 11 minority day of hearings on this subject signed by all the mem r republican members. I could not understand what you were saying. Pursuant to clause 2j1 of rule 11 im furnishing you with demand for minority day of hearings on this subject signed by all the republican members of the committee and i would request that you set this date before the Committee Votes on any articles of impeachment. I with draw my reservation. We will rule on this later. De de decorum is present. This is the first hearing pursuant to House Resolution 660 and the special procedures that are described in section 4a of that resolution. Heres how the committee will proceed for this hearing. I will make an Opening Statement and recognize the Ranking Member for an Opening Statement. Each witness will have ten minutes to make their statements and then we will proceed to questions. I will now recognize myself for an Opening Statement. Mr. Chairman, parliamentary inquiry. I have the time for an Opening Statement. The facts before us are undisputed. On july 25th, President Trump called president zalenski of ukraine and in President Trumps words asked him for a favor. That was part of a concerted effort by the president and his men to solicit a personal advantage in the next election. This time in the form of an investigation of his political adver adverse te adversaries by a government. He withheld an official white house meeting from the newly elected president of a fragile democracy and withheld vital military aid from a vulnerable ally. When Congress Found out about this scheme and began to investigate, President Trump took extraordinary and unprecedented steps to cover up his efforts and to with hold evidence from the investigators. And when witnesses disobeyed him, when career professionals came forward and told us the truth, he attacked them vicio viciously calling them traitors and liars and promising they would go through some things, closed quote. Of course this is not the first time that President Trump has engaged in this pattern of conduct. In 2016, the russian government engaged in a sweeping and Systematic Campaign of interference in our elections. In the words of special counsel robert mueller, quote, the russian government perceived it would benefit from a Trump Presidency and worked to secure that outcome. The president welcomed that interference. We saw this in real time when President Trump asked russia to hack his political opponents. The next day a 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 uncovered our laws, President Trump took extraordinary and unprecedented steps to order subpoenas and order the creations of false records and publicly attacking and intimidating witnesses. Then now this administrations level of obstruction Southern Land without precedent. No other president vowed to quote fight all the subpoenas, unquote, as President Trump promised. In the 1974 impeachment proceedings president nixon produced dozens of recordings. In 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 moved back to the House Judiciary Committee and as we begin a review of the facts, the president s pattern of behavior becomes clear. President trump welcomed foreign interference in the 2016 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. The special counsel testified before this committee. He emplored us to see the threat to this country. Over the course of my career i have seen a number of challenges to our democracy. The efforts to interfere in our elections is among the most serious. This deserves the attention of every american, close quote. Ignoring that warning President Trump called the ukrainian president the next day to ask him to investigate the president s political opponents. As we exercise our responsibility to determine whether this pattern of behavior constitutes an impeachment 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 resigned. This committee voted to impeach two president s for obstructing justice. We voted to impeach one president from obstructing a congressional investigation. To the extent it fits these categories theres precedent for recommending impeachment here. But never before have we been forced to consider the conduct of a president that appears to have solicited personal political 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 that founded our country were not fearful men. Before the war they witnessed terrible violence. They overthrew a king. As they met the frame work of the constitution, those patriots still fearing one threat above all. Barring interference in our elections. They just opposed the tyrant. They were deeply worried that we would lose our newfound liberty not through a foreign war but through corruption from within and in the early years of the republic they asked each of us to be vigilant to that threat. Washington warned us to be constantly awake since history and experience prove that foreign influence is one of the most vainful foes of republican government. Hamiltons warning was more specific and more dier. In the federalist papers he wrote that the most deadly adver adversaries of republican government would almost certainly attempt to raise a creature of their own to the chief magistry of the union. We should expect our foreign adversaries to target our elections and find ourselves in great danger if the president willingly opens the door to their influence. What kind of president would do that. How would we know if the president betrayed his country in this manner . How will we know if he betrayed his country in this manner for personal gain. Hamilton had a response to that as well. He wrote when a man on principled and private life desperate in his fortune and bold in his temper possess the considerable talents, when such a man mount the hobby horse of popularity to join the cry to take every opportunity of embarrassing the general government and bringing it under suspicion, it may justly be expected that 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 in today was set in motion by President Trump. I do not wish this moment on the country. It is not a pleasant task that ween undertake today. He invited foreign interference in our elections. He used the powers of his office to try to make it happen. He sent him to make sure that this is what he wanted and definded. 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 in the first place. It does not matter that President Trump felt that these investigations were unfair to him. It matters that he used his office not nearly to defend himself but to instruct investigators at every turn. We are all aware that the next election is looming but we cant wait for the election to address the present crisis. The integrity of the election is one of the very things at stake. He 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. Our Witness Panel will help us to guide that conversation. In a few days we will reconvene and hear from committees that work to uncover the facts before us and when we apply the constitution to the facts. If its true that President Trump committed an impeachment offense or multiple impeachment offenses we must move swiftly to do our duty and charge him accordingly. I thank the witnesses from being there today. The gentleman from georgia with his Opening Statement. Mr. Chairman, may i make a parliamentary inquiry. I recognize the Ranking Member for an Opening Statement. I believe some of the things that im going to discuss today because were coming here today in a different arena. For everybody who has not been here before its a new room, its new rules. Its a new month. We even have cute stickers so we can come in and make this important and this is impeachment because we have done such a terrible job of it in this committee before but what is not new is basically what has been reiterated by the chairman. Whats not new is the facts. Whats not new is its the same sad story. Were also saying the attention to the American People should be on foreign interference. I agree with him completely except 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 into this issue. We had election builds but did not get into the indepth part of what mr. Mueller talked about taking his own report and having hearings about that. So i guess that doesnt include the House Judiciary Committee. Interesting we also just heard an interesting discussion, were going to have a lot of interesting discussion today about the constitution and other things but we also talk about the founders. The chairman talked about the hearing and what he also didnt quote was the founders being really, really concerned about political impeachment. Because you just dont like the guy. You havent liked him since november of 2016. The chairman has talked about impeachment since last year when he was elected chairman. Two years before he was even sworn in as chairman. So dont tell me this is about new evidence and you things and new stuff. We may have a new hearing room and chairs that arent comfortable but this is nothing new folks. This is sad. So what do we have here today . Do you know what . Im thinking i looked at this two things have become clear. This impeachment is not really about facts. If it was they would have sent over recommendations about impeachment. If it goes badly they want to blame adam schiffs committee but theyre already drafting articles. Dont be fooled. Theyre already getting ready for this. We already went after this after numerous failings with mueller and the list goes on. But the American People, if you want to know what is really driving this, theres two things. Its called the clock and the calendar. The clock and the calendar. Most people in life if you want to know what they truly value, you look at their checkbook and their calendar. Thats what they value. Thats what this committee values. Time. They want do it before the end of the year. So we have to do this now. The clock and the calendar is whats driving impeachment and not the facts. When we understand this, thats what the witnesses say today. What is really interesting today and for the next few weeks is america will see why most people dont go to law school. No offense to our professors, but please, really, were bringing you in here today to testify on stuff that most of you have already written about for the opinions that we already know out of the classrooms that youre getting ready for finals in. Unless youre really good on watching the hears for the last couple of weeks you couldnt have 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 are 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. Im still not sure what they want us to present on and nothing else. No plan. I asked the chairman to stay in touch, lets talk about what we have because 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. Shes not afforded the protection of identity. Its not in the statute. Its just something by adam schiff. He said yesterday in a press conference. Im not going to ill send staff to do that. Hes not going to but to me, if hes going to hed come begging to us. If we dont impeach the president hell get reelected. If you want to know whats happening, here we go. Why did everything i say up to this point about no fact witnesses, nothing for this Judiciary Committee which spent 2. 5 weeks before this hearing was even held under clinton. 2. 5 weeks. 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 but we cant get that straight. So what are we doing for the next two weeks . I have no idea. The chairman set an ambiguous hearing on the report. If were not going to have fact witnesses when we are hiding out back, the very rubber stamp the chairman talked about 20 years ago. What a disgrace to this committee. To have the committee of impeachment simply take from other entities and rubber stamp it. Why does the things i say matter about fact witnesses and hearings and due process because by the way, a couple of months ago the democrats got all sort of dressed up if you would and were going to have due process protection for the president and good fairness throughout this. This is the only committee that 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 that can be actually cross examined. Thats fairness and every attorney on this panel knows that. This is a sham. But, you know, what i also see here is quotes like this, there must never be a narrowly voted impeachment or impeachment supported by one of our Major Political parties or imposed by another. It will produce divisively and bitter ps and politics for years to m coand call into question the very legitimacy of our political institutions. The American People are watching. They will not forget. You have the vote. You may have the muscle but you do not have a National Consensus or constitutional imperative. It will go down in infamy in the history of the nation. How about when the democrats offed amendmenteds to say we should first discuss and adopt standards for impeachment voted down or ruled out of order. When we say the important thing is to start looking at the question before we simply have a vote with no real inquiry first that was voted down and ruled out of order and the whole question of what materials should be released and secondary but thats all we discussed. The essential question which is to set up a fair process is 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 were all chairman nadler before he was chairman. I guess 20 years makes a difference. Its an interesting time. Were having a factless impeachment. You just heard a one sided presentation of facts about this president. Today we will present the other side which gets so conveniently left out. Remember fairness does dictate that but maybe not here. I have a democratic majority thats poll tested what they think the president did. Wow, thats not following the facts. We have just a deep seeded hatred of a man that 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 from reporters was this, can you believe hes putting forward those ideas . I said yes, he ran on them. He told the truth and he did what he said. The problem here today is this will also be one of the first impeachments. The chairman mentioned there were two of them in which the facts, even by democrats and republicans were not really disputed and this one, theyre not only disputed, theyre counter kick tcoun countdictive of each other. This is where were at today. So the interesting thing that i have come to with most everybody here is this may be a new time and new place and we may be looking pretty for impeachment. This is not impeachment. This is a Simple Railroad job and today is a waste of time. This is where were at. It started in brooklyn in november 2017 when an election was lost. Were here, no plan, no fact witnesses, simply being a rubber stamp for what we have, but we have law professors here, mr. Chairman, before i yield back, i have a motion. Under rule 11. The gentleman was recognized for the purpose of his Opening Statement and not purpose of making statement. A yield back and recognize. Gentleman is recognized. I move to require the aen e attendants of chairman schiff before this committee and transmit this letter accordingly. Seek recognition. Motion is made and debatable. All in favor say aye. Opposed. No. The motion to table is agreed to. Recorded vote is requested. Parliamentary inquirement. Just a reminder any no is you dont want him coming. The clerk will call the role. Mr. Nadler. Aye. Aye. Aye. Mr. Johnson of georgia votes aye. Mr. Richmond. Mr. Richmond votes yes. Mr. Jeffreys votes aye. Votes aye. Yes. Mr. Lou. Votes aye. Mr. Scanlin votes aye. Plisz ga miss garcia votes aye. Aye. Lets go very quickly to explain whats happening here. As expected, you have a republican try to offer up a motion that would bring forward adam schiff the House Intelligence Committee chairman to come testify before this committee so what theyre voting on right now is a motion to table or basically kill this whole effort and because democrats control the Committee Democrats we expect fully will be successful in killing this motion. And republicans wanted this on the record with the roll call which were seeing right now. Well take you back into the area. Has everyone voted that wishes to vote . The clerk will report. Mr. Chairman, there are 21 is and 17 noes. The motion to table is agreed to. I have a parliamentary inquiry. States that members of the committee can raise objections relating to the admissibility of testimony and evidence but it doesnt say what rules apply to admissibility. So im hoping that you can explain to us what objections maybe 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. I stated a rule mr. Chairman. You can ignore it and not answer it but you cant say its not a proper inquiry. Im asking for the application of the rule and application. We will apply the rules, period. You wont help us understand that . Theres no clarity there. How are you citing that. And they would be applied according to the rules. And if so when gentleman will suspend. That is not a proper parliamentary inquiry. With that objection, all other Opening Statements will be included in the record. I will now introduce todays witnesses. Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, i seek recognition. I am not going to recognize you now. I am introducing the witnesses. Mr. Chairman i just have noah feldman is professor at Harvard Law School. He authored 7 books including a biography of James Madison and constitutional law book as well as many on constitutional subjects. He received his undergraduate degree from Harvard College and d doctor of philosophy. And the United States Supreme Court. Pamela serves as the professor of Public Interest law and the codirector of the Supreme Court litigation clinic at stanford law school. She is the coauthor of several leading case books including a monograph entitled keeping faith with the constitution and dozens of articles. She served as a law clerk and is a Deputy Assistant attorney general in the civil rights division. And professor carlin earned three degrees in yale university. Michael is the distinguished professor of Juris Prudence and director of uncs center on law and government. Hes the author of many books including the federal impeachment process, a constitutional and historical analysis as well as more than 50 publications on a diverse range of topics in constitutional law and the legislative process. He received it from the university of chicago law school. His ms from the London School of economics and his b. A. From yale university. Jonathan is the j, b and mauricec. Shapiro at the law school. After a stint at Tulane Law School he joined the g. W. Law faculty in 1990 and in 1998 became the youngest chaired professor in the schools history. He has written over three dozen academic articles for a variety of leading law schools of leading law journals and his articles on legal and policy issues appear frequently in national publications. A chicago native, he earned degrees from the university of chicago and Northwestern University school of law. We welcome all of our distinguished witnesses. We thank them for participated in todays hearing. If you will please rise, ill begin by swearing you in. Let the record show the witnesses answered in the affirmative. Thank you and please be seated. Please note that each of your written statements will be entered into the record in its entirety. Accordingly i asked that you summarize your testimony in ten minutes. To help you stay within that time, there is 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. I dont think youre in the mic. Mr. Chairman mr. Chairman and members of the committee. Mr. Chairman, i have a motion. Mr. Chairman i seek recognition for privilege motion. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to appear. My name is noah feldman witness will proceed. I serve as the professor of law at the Harvard Law School i seek recognition my job the gentleman will suspend. The time is the witnesses. A privileged motion needs to be recognized. You can call it not a privileged but it needs to be recognized. In between the witnesses it may be recognized. The witness will proceed. Well entertain the motion after the first witness. My job is to study and teach the constitution from its origins until the present. I am here today to describe three things. Why the framers of our constitution included the 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 committed impeachment 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 babuse the powe of his office from personal benefits to corrupt the electoral process and reelection or to subvert the national of the United States. On the basis of the testimony and the evidence before the house, President Trump has committed impeachment high crimes and misdemeanors by corruptly abusing the office of the presidency. Specifically, President Trump has abused his office by corruptly soliciting the president of ukraine to announce investigations of his political rivals in order to gain personal advantage including in the 2020 president ial election. Let me begin now with a question of why the framers provided for impeachment in the first place. The framers 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 but 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 made it Crystal Clear that 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 for you to think now about a specific date in the Constitutional Convention. July 20th, 1787. It was the middle of a long, hot summer and on that day, two members of the Constitutional Convention actually moved to take out the impeachment provision from the draft constitution. And they had a reason for that and the reason was they said, well, the president will have to stand for reelection and 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 disagreements ensued. The governor of north carolina, a man called william davy immediately said if the president cannot be impeached he will spare no efforts or means whatever to get himself reelected. George mason of virginia said no point was more important was included in the constitution. Shall any man be above justice he asked. James madison, the principle draftsman of the u. S. Constitution then spoke up. He said it was quote, indispensable that some provision be made for impeachment. Why . Because he explained it was quote not a sufficient security against president ial misconduct or corruption. A president he said might betray his trust to foreign powers. A president who 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. He got up and actually said the words i was wrong. He told the other framers present that 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 a capacity to corrupt the electoral process or lead to personal gain. Now, 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 impeachment. These were not vague or abstract terms. High crimes and misdemeanors represents very specific language that was well understood by the entire generation of the framers. Indeed, they were borrowed from an impeachment trial in england that was taking place as the framers were speaking which was referred to, in fact, by george mason. The words high crimes and misdemeanors referred 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. And that means connected to the office of the presidency. Connected to office. The classic forum that was for the framers was the abuse of office for personal gain or advantage and when the framers specifically named bribery as a high crime and misdemeanor they were naming one particular version of this abuse of office, the abuse of office for personal or individual gain. The other forms of abuse of office, abuse of office to effect elections and abuse of office to compromise National Security were further forms that were 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 members of this committee and the other members of the house, quote, sole power of impeachment. Its not my responsibility or job to determine the credibility of the witnesses that appeared 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 impeachment offenses to the facts described by the testimony and evidence before the house. In particular, the memorandum and other testimony relating to the phone call between the two president s 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 the words abuse of office are not mythical 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 electoral interests. That is 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 the investigations of political rivals and perform those investigations, would constitution 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 of the investigations of the bidens and of the discredited crowd strike conspiracy theory. The president of the United States would take any means whatever so ensure his reelection and that is the reason that the framers provided for impeachment in a case like this one. The gentleman is 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. All in favor of the motion all in favor of the motion may we have the motion read please . The motion was stated. May we have the motion read, please . The motion will be read as to what date. The motion will be read to a date certain wednesday december 11th, 2019 so we can actually get a response to the 6 letters. The gentleman stated his motion, the motion to table is made. Motion to table is made and not debatable all in favor . Motion to table say aye. Opposed. No. The motion to table is agreed to. Roll call. Roll call is requested. Well, once again, the partisanship that we told you would be on strong display in this committee is on case as we take up another issue. Ill go back to jeff on the hill that reads this stuff. Explain whats happening this time. I suspect well see this happen at least a few more times as this hearing progresses. What theyre doing here is theyre trying to add delays and obstacle to this hearing that they clearly object to as a way to undermine it and as a result of that really testing chairman nadlers grip on this overall proceeding. So the latest motion was one to basically put this entire thing off to a later date. So now theyre taking a roll call vote and we expect that this vote is going to go the way the last one did. Its going to be a Party Line Vote 2417, democrats will prevail and theyll table this and the next witness will have the chance to speak. We had expected theatrics from both sides but this is going to blunt the testimony. We heard some very strong legal opinion there on impeachment. Is the goal of some of this to blunt testimony that were going to hear. The goal is to i think get all of us in the press corps to write about the process and disruptions and sort of to try to dismiss what youre hearing. I found the first witness very compelli compelling. I think he did a good job telling an oral history of sorts of explaining the debate about whether to put impeachment in the constitution or not. Its called call a motion i guess. So here we go. Thank you for the opportunity to testify. Twice i 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 the chairman, its good to see you again sir and with one of my other clients and once under the leadership of chairman conyers. It was a great honor to represent this committee because of the key role in ensuring that american citizens have the right to vote in free and Fair Elections. Today youre being asked to consider whether protecting those elections requires impeaching a president. That is an awesome responsibility. That everything i know about our constitution and its values and my review of the record and here mr. Foreman collins i would like to say to you, sir, that i read transcripts of every one of the witnesses who appeared in the live hearing because i would not speak about these things without reviewing the facts so im insulting by the suggestion that as a law professor 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 upcoming election he struck at the very heart of what makes this a republic to which we pledge allegiance. That demand as professor feldman just explained constituted an abuse of power. Indeed, as 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. And the legitimacy of our government and voting is preservative of all rights. So it is hardly surprising that the constitution is marvelled with provisions governing elections and guaranteeing governmental accountability. Indeed, a majority of amendments to our constitutions since the civil war 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. America kept that promise for two centuries and has done so even during wartimes. For example we have invented the idea of absentee voting so that union troops that supported president lincoln could stay in the field during the election of 1864 and since then countless other americans have fought and died to protect our right to vote. But the framers of our constitution realize that elections alone could not guarantee that the United States would remain a republic. Now you already heard two people give William Davey his props. Hamilton got a whole musical and William Davey is only going to get the committee hearing. He warned that a president might spare no efforts or means whatsoever to get himself reelected and george mason insisted that a president that procured his appointment in the first instance through improper and corrupt acts should not escape punishment by repeating his guilt and mason was the person responsible for adding high crimes and misdemeanors to the list of Impeachable Offenses. So we know from that that the list was designed to reach a president that acts to subvert an election. To protect our government and our democratic process from outside interference. For example, john adams during the ratification expressed concern with the very idea of having an elected president writing to Thomas Jefferson that you are apprehensive of foreign interference, intrigue, influence, so am i but as often as elections happen the danger of foreign influence recurs. And in his fairwell address, president washington warned the history and experience proved that foreign influence is one of the most vainful foes of republican government. They would try to foam at disagreement among the American People and influence what we fought. The very idea that a president might seek the aid of a Foreign Government in his Reelection Campaign should have horrified them. But based on the record, that is what President Trump has done. The list of impeachment offenses that the framers included in the constitution shows that the essence of an impeachment offense is a president s decision to sacrifice the National Interest for his own private ends. Treason, the first thing listed, individuals giving aid to a foreign enemy. Thats putting a foreign enemys interests above the interest of the United States. Bribery, occurred when an official solicited, received or offered a personal favor or benefit to influence official action risking that he would put his private welfare above the National Interest and high crimes and misdemeanors captured the other ways in which a high official might as the story explained disregard Public Interest in the discharge of the duties of political office. Based on the record before you, what has happened in the case today is something that i do not think that 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 the 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. Theres widespread agreement that russian operatives intervene to manipulate our process. But that is magnified. If a sitting president abuses the powers of his Office Actually to invite foreign intervention. You can see why. Imagine living in a part of louisiana or texas that is 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 says i would like to do you i would like you to do us a favor, ill meet with you and ill send a Disaster Relief once you brand my opponent a criminal. Wouldnt you know in your gut that such a president had abused his office . Afrtd are and that he was trying to corrupt the electoral process . I believe that record shows wrongful acts on that scale here. It shows a president that delayed meeting a foreign leader and provided assistance that congress and his own advisers believed showed our National Interest in limiting russian aggression. Saying russia, if youre listening . You know, a president that cared about the constitution would say russia, if youre listening, butt out of our elections and it shows a president that did this to strong arm a foreign leader into smearing one of the president s opponents in our on going election season. Thats not politics as usual. At least not in the United States or not in any mature democracy. It is instead why the constitution obtained an impeachment power. A president should resist foreign interference in our elections. Not demand it 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. Profess professor. Thank you. Its an honor and a privilege to join the other witnesses to discuss a matter of grave concern to our country and to our constitution because this house has the sole power of 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 the Opening Statement, the record compiled shows the president has committed several impeachment offenses including bribery, abuse of power and benefit himself personally objecting justice and objecting 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. Its recognized around the world as a fixed inspiring american ideal. In his third message to congress in 1903, president roosevelt delivered one of the finest articulations of this president. 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 as a favor. No one, not even the president is above the law. First in the british system, they have no choice and in our constitution the framers allowed elections to serve as a crucial means for insuring president ial accountability. Second in the british system the king could do no wrong. And no other parts of the government could check him. In the british system everyone but the king was impeachment. They rebel against the monarch they saw as corrupt and entitled to do no long. In our declaration of independence they set forth those and when they later convened to draft our constitution they were united around a simple indisputable principle that was a major safe guard for the public. We the people against tyranny of any kind. A people that had overthrown a king were not going to turn around and create an office that like the king was above the law and could do no wrong. The framers created a chief executive to bring it to the administration of federal laws but to be accountable to congress for treason, bribery or other high crimes and misdemeanors. The framers concern was evidence about the convention. Here i must thank my friends that referred to william davy. I will talk about james that was appointed to the Supreme Court and assured 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. End quote. 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. And attempts to subvert the constitution when the president dares to use the power and breaches public trust and serious injuries to the republic and the federalist papers Alexander Hamilton declared they are those defenses that proceed the violation of some public trust. And relayed to injuries done immediate immediately of society itself. Several themes emerge. From the framers discussion of the scope of impeachment offenses and impeachment practice. We know that not all Impeachable Offenses are criminal and we know that not all felonies are impeachment offenses. We know further that what matters in determining whether particular misconduct constitutes as a high crime and misdemeanor is the context and the gravity of the misconduct in question. I cannot help but conclude this president attacked each safe guard against establishing a monarchy in this country. The favor he requested from ukraines president was to receive in exchange for his use of president ial power, his announcement of a political rival. It was not the important action of the president. The gravity of the president s misconduct is apparent when compared to the misconduct of the one president that resigned from office to avoid impeachment, conviction and removal. They improved three articles of impeachment. The first article charged him with obstruction of justice. If you read the Mueller Report it identifies a number of facts. I wont lay them out here right now that suggest the president hi himself has obstructed justice. If you read the second article, and charged him with abuse of power for ordering the heads of the fbi. And soliciting Foreign Countries including china, russia and ukraine to investigate his political opponents and interfere in elections in which he was the candidate. And the president has refused to comply with against ten others and not to comply with lawful congressional subpoenas including the secretary of state, Energy Secretary rick perry and acting chief of staff and head of the office of management and budget. And when he was a member of the house on the verge of impeachment president clinton, it was the day he was subject to impeachment. And why obstruction of congress is impeachable. Its all the more troubling due to the rational he claims for his obstruction. His arguments and those of his subordinates including his white House Counsel in his october 8th letter to the speaker and three Committee Chairs boils down to the assertion that he is above the law. Since the constitution expressly says and the Supreme Court has unanimously affirmed that the house is the seoole power of impeachment and like the senate the house has the power to determine rules for its proceedings. The president and his subordinates have argued further that the president is entitled to immunity from criminal procedure and investigation from any criminal wrong doing. Including shooting someone on fifth avenue. The president claimed further he is entitled to executive privilege not to share any information he doesnt want to share with another branch. Hes also claimed the entitlement to be able to order the executive branch, as he has done, not to cooperate. If left unchecked he will likely 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 president nixon on to the action of this president speaks volumes and that does not even include the most serious National Security concerns and election interference concerns at the heart of this president s misconduct. And to weaken their authority under the constitution as well as the constitution itself. May i read one more sentence. Im sorry. The witness may have another sentence or two. If Congress Fails to impeach here then the impeachment process has lost all meaning and along with that our constitutions carefully crafted safe guards and therefore i stand with the constitution and i stand with the framers who are committed to ensure that no one is above the law. Thank you professor. Thank you chairman nadler, Ranking Member collins, members of the Judiciary Committee. Its an honor to appear before you today to discuss one of the most consequential functions you were given by the framers. 21 years ago i sat before you chairman nadler and this committee to testify at the impeachment of William Jefferson clinton. I never thought 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 rage of the debate is the same. The atmosphere that the framers anticipated. The intolerance of opposing views are the same. Id like to start with 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 im concerned about lowering impeachment standards to fit evidence and an abundance of anger. It not only fails to satisfy danger impeachments. My testimony lays out the history of impeachment from Early English cases to colonial cases to the present day. The early impeachments 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 its abuses including the hastings case which was discussed in the convention, a case that was still pending for trial in england. Unlike the english impeachments 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 administration because madison objected that so vague a term would be equivalent to a tenure during the pleasure of the senate. In the end, various standards that had been used in the past were rejected. Corruption, by improper means, betraying the trust to a foreign power. And speculation and oppression. My testimony explores nixon and johnson and clinton. The closest was to the 1868 impeachment of andrew johnson. Its not a model or association that this committee should relish. In that case, a group of opponents of the president s called the radical republicans created a trap door crime in order to impeach the president. He even defined it as a high misdemeanor. There was another shared aspect besides the atmosphere of that impeachment and also the unconventional style of the two president s. And shah shared element is speed. Now there are three distinctions when you look at these or 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 problematic and puzzling. This is a facially incomplete and inadequate record in order to impeach a president. Allow me to be candid in my Closing Remarks because we have limited time. We are living in the very period descri described by Alexander Hamilton. A period of agitated passions. I get it. Youre mad. The president s 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 the golden doodle, they dont get mad. So were all mad. Where has that taken us . Will an impeachment make us less mad . Or will it only invite an invitation for the madness to follow every administration. This is why its wrong. Its not wrong because President Trump was right. His call was anything but perfect. Its not wrong because the house has no legitimate reason to investigate the ukrainian controversy. Its not wrong because were in an election year. Theres 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 the case of the peripheral. We have a record of conflicts, offenses 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 type of impeachment. Principle takes us to a place we would prefer not to be. That was a place 7 republicans found themselves in the johnson trial. When they saved a president from ainqui aquittal and they celebrated his profiles of courage. Senator ross said it was like looking down into his open grave and then he jumped because he didnt have any alternative. Its easy to celebrate those people from the distance of time and circumstance. Its appealing to those saying forget the definition of crimes. Just do it like this is some impulse buy nike sneaker. You can do that. You can declare the definitions of crimes alleged are immaterial and just an exercise of politics and not the law. However those legal definitions and standards which i have addressed in my standard are the very thing that divide rage from reason. I will conclude from this of a scene when his soninlaw William Roper put the law suggesting he would put the law ahead of mortality. When he asked would he instead cut a great road through to get after the devil, he proudly declares yes. I cut down every law of england to do that. Moore responds 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. This country is planted thick with laws from coasttocoast. 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 wind that would blow then . So i will conclude with this. Both sides of this controversy 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 in our constitution. However before we cut down the tree so carefully planted by the framers, i hope you will consider what you will do when the wind blows again. Perhaps for a democratic president. Where will you stand then . When all the laws being flat. Thank you again for the honor of testifying today and i would be happy to answer any questions. Thank the witnesses. Mr. Chairman, i seek recognition. Who seeks recognition . Me mr. Chairman. For what purposes . I have a motion pursuant to rule 11, specifically 2k6. I move to subpoena the individual commonly referred to as the whistleblower. I ask to do this in the gentleman stated his motion do i hear motion to table. I move to table the motion. Motion is tabled. All in favor say aye. Opposed no. Roll call. The motion to table is approved. The role call is requested. The clerk will call the role. All right. Republicans making their bid to hear from the whistleblower. Given the break down of this committee thats not going to happen. Were going to go through the procedure again of these roll call votes. Is this going to be the way its going to go. . It looks like it. You got that motion but look, adam schiff already made clear that any testimony from the whistleblower he says is unnecessary because you had a dozen witnesses from varying degrees corroborate the report. We do expect the democrats will be successful in tabling or killing this motion but this is one way for republicans to delay todays hearing. What should be happening shortly is around a 45 minute questioning from the republican and democratic side. The democratic and then republican side from staff attorneys but let me go to Andrea Mitchell. Four constitutional scholars, three of them laying out what they think is a case for impeachment. The fourth is clearly not a fan of the president or his behavior but says it isnt there. Exactly. You had one republican witness here who is they are all constitutional law professors. And they agreed categorically that the president was guilty of high crimes and misdemeanors. They ran through what happened at the Constitutional Convention. It was a fascinating History Lesson for those of us that love history but are not lawyers and i guess some of us were probably wishing we had gone to law School Following the logic of all four of these witnesses. But the facts are the legal interpretations. With differing interpretations of the evidence and testimony presented during the two weeks of open hearings by the intel committee. What youre seeing is a very strong argument by House Democrats that they should proceed with articles of impeachment and with chairman nadler presented indicated in his Opening Statement that theyre going to go throughel several articles including obstruction of congress and obstruction of justice. It seems like theyre going back to the Mueller Report as well. Followed by 45 minutes to the Ranking Member or minority counsel. Only they may question witnesses during this period. Following that unless i specify additional equal time for extended questioning, he will proceed under the 5 minute rule and every member will have the chance to ask questions. I now recognize myself for the first round of questions. Thank you for being here today. The committee has been charged with the grave responsibility of considering whether to recommend articles of impeachment against the president. I speak to 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. The report concluded that the president pressured a foreign leader to interfere in our elections by initiating and denouncing investigations into President Trumps political adversaries. He then sought to prevent congress from investigating his conduct by ordering his administration and everyone in it to defy house subpoenas. As you said, the right to vote is the most precious legal right we have in this country. Does the president s conduct endanger that right . Yes, mr. Chairman, it does. Thank you. And how does it 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 turns that into a right that Foreign Governments decide to interfere for their own benefit. They interfere to benefit themselves. Thank you. What is our resource . When the president does that, separation of powers means nothing. The subpoenas are lawful orders. You comply with the law. Rd lawyers all the time have to comply with subpoenas but in this situation, full scale obstruction, full scale obstruction of subpoenas torpedos separation of powers and your only resource is to in a sense protect your institutional prerogatives and that would include impeachment. The same is true with respect to oversight and not just impeachment. Yes, sir. Mr. Feldman, as i understand it, the framers intended impeachment to be used infrequently. Not as punishment but to savor democracy from threats so significant that we cannot wait until the next election. Can you explain why you think impeachment is the appropriate resource there. 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. He used the power of his office in order to gain personal advantage for himself distorting the election. Thats precisely what the framers anticipated. Thank you very much. I now yield to mr. Isen for questions. 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 thats not the president. Is is that impeachment conduct . If the president uses his office for personal gain the only resource available is for him to be impeached because the president cannot be as a practical matter charged criminally while he is in office. Do scholars of impeachment usually agree abuse of power is an Impeachable Offense. Do you agree . Yes, sir. 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 in the 2020 election. 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 abuse of office. Same question. Same answer. And professor, did President Trump commit the impeachable high crime and misdemeanor of abuse of power. We three are unanimous. On july 25th he told the president of ukraine, and i quote, i would like for you to do us a favor though and asked about looking into the bidens. Was the memorandum of that call relevant to our opinion that the president committed abuse of power. Its crucial to my determination that the president committed it. And that 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. I relied on the evidence and when this report was issued i continued to rely on that. Did you review the following testimony from our ambassador to ukraine . Ambassador William Taylor. To with hold that assistance for no good reason other than help with a political campaign, make no sense. It was counter productive to all of what we had been trying to do. It was illogical. It was crazy. That underscored the way the 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 matter is 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 monarch or under a dictatorship. Thats why they created the possibility of impeachment. Now, professor, this high crime and misdemeanor of abuse of power was it some kind of 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 parliamentary impeachment of lower level officers. They have not talked about impeaching the king or the like. And can you share a little bit about that please . Yeah. So right after the restoration of the kingship in england there was an impeachment. You have to say what were they impeaching them for. Sometimes its treason or the like and sometimes its the phrase high count or misdemeanor. And there was an impeachment of vicount and 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. It said understanding that William Taylor did intend to stand for the election of one of them to serve in this parliament. In other words he was running as a member of parliament. This is what he did. To disparage and prevent the free election of William Taylor and strike a terror into those of that would give their voices for him and deprive them of the freedom of their voices at at the election. He did command and cause him to be forcibly illegally and arbitrarily seized upon by soldiers and then detained him. In other words 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, does a high crime and misdemeanor require an actual statutory crime . No. It plainly does not. Everything that we know about the history of impeachment reinforces the conclusion that Impeachable Offenses do not have to be crime and not all crimes are Impeachable Offenses. We look at the context and gravity of the misconduct. 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 doesnt require a crime. That was true but i also added a caveat. Its yes or no. Did you say theres much worthy of investigation in the ukraine scandal and its true that impeachment does not require a crime. Is that an accurate quote, sir. You read it well. So, professors feldman, carlin and geirhardt, you have identified theres an impeachment act, a high crime and misdemeanor of abuse of power, correct . And what is the responsibility of the house of representatives in dealing with high crimes and misdemeanors like abuse of power . The constitution gives the house of representatives the sole power of impeachment. They have the right and responsibility to investigate president ial misconduct and where appropriate to create and pass articles of impeachment. And professor, what does that mean to this commitment as far as the abuse of power. Because this cuts to the heart of democracy you need to ask yourself if you dont impeach a president thats 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 sits fine to go ahead and do this again and i think that as t you know, in the report that came out last night it talked about the clear and present danger for the election system and its your responsibility to make sure that all americans get to vote in a free and Fair Election next november. Id like to direct you to the words in the constitution. Were still going to talk about abuse of power. Did it spell out every other high crime and misdemeanor. No it did not. Why. 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 that was stealing computer files because they couldnt have imagined computers. They couldnt have necessarily imagined wiretapping because we had no wires in 1789. So they put in a phrase that the english used and adapted over a period of centuries to take into account that the idea of high crimes and misdemeanors is to get things that people in office used to strike at the very heart of our democracy. And in your written testimony you mention two additional aspects of high crimes and misdemeanors besides abuse of power. You talked about betrayal of the National Interests and corruption of the electoral process. Can you say a little bit more about what the framers concerns were about corruption of elections and betrayal of the National Interest involving foreign powers. And how they come into play here. Let me bring it up to date. Theres modern stuff as well thats important. They were worried they could be corrupted in a variety of different ways and spent time trying to design an election system that wouldnt be subject to that corruption and theres a number of different provisions in the constitution that deal with the corruption they were worried about. Two id like to highlight here because they go to one i think seems to be a remnant of a past time which is if you become an american citizen, almost everything in this country is open to you. You can become chief justice or secretary but the one office not open to you is presidency because of the natural born citizen clause of the constitution and the reason they put that in is because they were so worried about foreign influence over a president. The other clause that probably no one heard of five years ago but now everyone talks about is the amoluments clause. They thought he would use it to get everything he could and he would take gifts from Foreign Countries. And they were very concerned about those elections. But its not just them and i want to Say Something about what our National Interest is today because our National Interest today is different in important ways than it was in 1789. What the framers were worried about is that we would be a weak country and we could be exploited by Foreign Countries. Now were a strong power now. The strongest power in the world. We can still be exploited by Foreign Countries. But the other thing that we have 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 1640 and what Ronald Reagan said in his final address to the country as we left office. We have become the shining city on a hill. We have become the nation that leads the world in understanding what democracy is and one of the things that we understand most profoundly is its not a real democracy. Its not a mature democracy if the party in power uses the criminal process to go after its enemies. The Intelligence Committee heard testimony about it isnt our National Interest in protecting our own elections and making sure that the ukraine remains strong and on the front lines so they fight the russians there and we dont have to fight them here but its also our National Interest in promoting Democracy Worldwide and if we look hypocritical about this, if we look like were asking other countries to interfere in our election, if we look like were asking other countries to engage in criminal investigations of our president s political opponents, then we are not doing our job of promoting our National Interest of being the shining city on the hill. Professor feldman, anything to add . Ultimately the reason the th constitution provided for impeachment is to anticipate a situation like the one before you today. The framers were not profiphets but they were smart 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 power and 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. Will you explain in your view how that happened . The president sought personal gain and advantage by soliciting the announcement of investigations from ukraine and to do so, he withheld critical assistance that the government of ukraine needed so he put it ahead of, as expressed the entirety of the National Security community. 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 the president of the United States 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 that was an abuse of the office of the presidency and they would conclude that that conduct was impeachable under the constitution. Professor, what are your thoughts on the abuse of power, betrayal of National Security or National Interests. And the corruption of elections. Well, i have a lot of thoughts. One of them is what we havent mentioned or brought into this conversation is the fact that it requires this committee, this house to be able to investigate conduct. If a president can block an investigation and undermine it and stop it then the impeachment power itself is undermined completely. And can you have an impeachment offense of abuse of power thats supported by considerations of a president s betrayal of the National Interest or National Security . And by corruption of elections . Yes, you can. Do we have that here, maam . Based on the evidence i have seen, the transcripts of the 12 witnesses that testified, looking at the call read out and looking at the president s other statements and looking at the statement by mr. Mulvaney and the like, yes we do. Do you agree . Yes. Yes i do. We have been talking about the category of other high crimes and misdemeanors like abuse of power but theres some additional high crimes and misdemeanors that are specifically identified in the text of the constitution, correct . What are they . Treason and bribery. Does it also establish the high crime of bribery. Yes, they do. Can you explain why, please . Sure. Its important to distinguish that from whatever the u. S. Code calls bribery today. 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 about Customs Officials and the second one was only about judges. So it wasnt until 60 years or so after it was ratified that we had it at all. So when they say that the con president can be impeached and removed from office for bribery, they werent referring to a statute. All i will say here is its a very complicated statute. So they were thinking about 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 the king could do no wrong but one thing that 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. So we have constitutional bribery here against President Trump. If you conclude that he asked for the investigation of Vice President biden and his son for political reasons, that is to aid his reelection then yes. You have bribery here. Did you review the memorandum of the president s telephone call with the ukrainian president . The one where President Trump asks 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. And did you consider the following testimony from our ambassador to the European Union . 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. And did you also consider the findings of fact that the Intelligence Committee made including that and i quote, from finding the fact number five that the president withheld official acts of value to ukraine and conditioned their fulfillment on actions by ukraine that would benefit his personal political interests. I did rely on that, in addition, because as i have already testified, i read the witnesses transcripts. I relied on testimony and testimony for ambassador taylor. I relied on the facts that when i think it was ambassador taylor but i may be getting the people wrong, sent the cable and says its crazy to hold this up based on domestic political concerns. No one wrote back and said thats not why were doing it. I relied on what mr. Mulvaney said in his press conference. Theres a lot to suggest this is about political benefit and i dont know if i can talk about another piece of ambassadors testimony now or i should wait. Tell me. Please talk about it. So i want to just point to what i consider to be the most striking example of this and you know, i spent all of thanksgiving vacation sitting there reading these transcripts. I didnt 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 was the following, ambassador sondland said he had to announce the investigations, hes talking about him, he had to announce the investigations. He didnt actually have to do them as i understood it. I never heard anyone say that the investigations had to start or had to be completed. The only thing i heard from mr. Giuliani or otherwise was they had to be announced in some form. What i took that to mean was this was not about whether Vice President biden committed corruption or not. This was about injuring somebody who the president thinks of as a particularly hard opponent. And that is for his private believes, because if i can say one last thing about the interests 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 anybody running from a third party. The constitution is indifferent to that. What the constitution cares about is that we have free elections and so it is only in the president s interest. Its not the National Interest that a particular president be elected or be defeated at the next election. The constitution is indifferent to that. The clear sense of bribery 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 effected by his official office. So if the house of representatives and the members of this committee were to determine that getting the investigation either announced or undertaken was a thing of value to President Trump and that that was what he thought, then this committee and this house could safely conclude that the president had committed bribery under the constitution. Professor, what is your view. This is precisely the misconduct that the framers created a constitution including impeachment to protect against. And every other president will say okay. Then i can do the same thing and the boundaries will just evaporate. And 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 house of representatives do to protect against the erosion. Precisely what youre doing. And does it matter ill ask all the panelists, does it matter to impeachment that the 391 Million Dollars 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 the president of the United States attempts to abuse his office, that is a complete impeachment 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 anyway the impeachability of the act. If youll pardon a comparison, president nixon was subject to articles of impeachment preferred by this committee for attempting to cover up the watergate break in. The fact that president nixon was not ultimately successful in covering up the break in was not grounds for not impeaching him. The attempt itself is the impeachable act. Professor, does it matter to impeachment that the unfounded investigations the president sought were ultimately never announced . No, it doesnt and if i can give an example that i think shows why soliciting is enough, imagine that you were pulled over for speeding by a Police Officer and the officer says you were speeding but, you know, 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. And the officer says okay, well, just go ahead, have a nice day. The officer would still be guilty of soliciting a bribe there even though he ultimately let you off without your paying. Soliciting itself is the Impeachable Offense regardless of whether the other person comes up with it. So imagine that the president had said will you do us a favor, will you investigate joe bide period and the president of ukraine said, you know what, no i wont. We have 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 decision has anything to do with the president s impeachable conduct. What is the danger if congress does not respond to that attempt . He gets out on the white house lawn and says china, i think you should investigate joe biden. And your view . I would agree with whats been said. One of the things to understand from the history of impeachment is everybody who is impeached has failed. They failed to get what they wanted and what they wanted was not just to do what they did but to get away with it and the point of impeachment is 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 focussing on somebody who didnt quite get as far as they wanted to. Its nobody is better than profess her at hypotheticals but ill raise another one. Imagine a bank robbery and the police come and the person is in the middle of bank robbery and the person then drops the money and says i am going to leave without the money. Everybody understands thats robbery. Thats burglary. Ill get it right. And in this situation, we have got somebody really caught in the middle of it. And that doesnt excuse the person from the constitution. Questions about obstruction of congress. Professor, in your view, is there enough evidence here to charge President Trump with th high crime and misdemeanor of obstruction of congress . I think theres more than enough. As i mentioned in my statement, to really underscore this, the third article of impeachment approved by the House Judiciary Committee against president nixon charged him with misconduct that he failed to