Transcripts For KPIX CBS This Morning 20240713

Jonathan turley, George Washington university, who usually sits with us at the table who is a cbs news analyst but testifying in congress today. This hearing follows a Party Line Vote yesterday where the House Intelligence Committee approved its final report on impeachment, and that report is really a sweeping indictment of the president. Concluding the president s efforts to investigate ukraine for political rivals sought to undermine the integrity of the u. S. President ial election process and endangered u. S. National security. Bottom line, abuse of power is what theyre saying. Republicans on the Committee Say the president did nothing impeachable. This could be fiery because of the republicans and democrats who sit on the Judiciary Committee, so somewhat of a circus this morning and a little bit of a constitutional cram session. If you love the law, if you Love Learning about impeachment, this is the place to be because well be talking about it. We have a team of correspondents, nancy cordes is outside the room, of course, and went through every detail of that 300page report yesterday by the house democrats. What have we learned . Reporter well, norah, weve learned, according to house democrats, that based on all of those hearings and depositions, that they believe that the president did place pressure on the president of ukraine this summer in order to try to get him to investigate mr. Trumps campaign rival, joe biden. He did that in a couple of ways. First, by withholding military aid to ukraine and then by withholding a coveted white house meeting between the two president s. Beyond that the report lays out the case for obstrtruction of justice, which we know is one of the main articles of impeachment that democrats are considering. It goes through all the ways a president defied subpoenas, intimidated witnesses and the like, and youre likely to hear some of the witnesses called by democrats today talk about that as well. According to their Opening Statements, they argue the president abused power, undermined democracy itself, and they say there is a clearcut case for impeachment while the witness called by the republicans, jonathan turley, as you mentioned, is going to argue the opposite. Theres a very thin case for impeachment here. Nancy, stand by. I want to bring in paula reed because President Trump is just outside london finishing talks at a nato summit where he continues to denounce the impeachment inquiry as a hoax and unpatriotic. Paula, extraordinary to have this going on at home while the president is overseas talking to our allies. What has the president said this morning . Norah, whats so unusual is what the president wont say. Hes decided not to have the last word, as he has canceled a press conference that would have happened about the same time democrats were hearing from some of these witnesses today. But during this trip, the president has rarely missed an opportunity to blast his democratic rivals, calls them unpatriotic and singling out chairman adam schiff as a, quote, deranged human being. Now, the president says he will not allow any white house officials to participate in this process as he believes it is unfair. But, norah, he has left open the possibility of allowing some officials to participate if this moves to the republicanled senate. Paula, tell us quickly just about that dustup and whats creating quite a lot of tongues wagging over the gossip that was occurring between the leaders about the president himself. Reporter thats right. This has been a very unusual trip for many reasons, but president woke up to news that other World Leaders appear to be gossiping about him and mocking him at a party at buckingham palace. Today the president responded to remarks made by canadian Prime Minister justin trudeau, subscribing him as twofaced and suggested trudeau was only upset because President Trump jabbed him over canadas contributions to nato. The president has remained on message. He has attacked the impeachment inquiry and then pivoted most conversations to taking credit for other nato members increasing their contribution to the alliance. Paula there as the president is set to return to the United States tonight. Want to bring in chief washington correspondent Major Garrett with us here. What we learned yesterday in this 300page report from the House Intelligence Committee, its a road map, right . Thats the road map, thats the investigation. The Judiciary Committee, and today well hear about whether that meets the standard for impeaching the president of the United States. Yesterday, though, there were some new details in that report, too, about these numerous phone calls and logs we didnt know about before. Yes. Rudy giuliani was phone calling lots of people within the administration that when republicans said, well, giuliani was working for the president but when he said meeting the president , talk to rudy, that wasnt an order, that wasnt empowering Rudy Giuliani in any way. These logs certainly buttress the democratic case, yes, giuliani was not only working at the president s behest but was empowered to talk to anyone within the white house, to the republican members on this side of the committee and gather as much information as he could, much of it incorrect about either the existing u. S. Ambassador in ukraine, ambassador yovanovitch who was fired by the president or recalled, much of those have much more evidentiary weight hyped it, that giuliani was running this side for the president. It looked to be at the nebet. Giuliani was empowered to do that. One quick thing, norah, white house advisers tell me one reason the president canceled the press conference, he did not want to take any questions about what these other foreign leaders gossiped about him and did not want to get into that pesky he said he said thing and deal with it that way. He just wanted to deal with the press conference deal with his trip as he had and not have to deal with tough questions. This is chairman jerry nadler of new york, who was involved on the committee when bill clinton was impeached by the house of representatives, so this is not his first rodeo with an impeachment hearing. As were going to hear from four legal scholars this morning, three of which are called by the democrats and say that the standard has been met, that the president abused his power for personal reasons and should be impeached, and one, jonathan turley, a cbs news legal anal t analyst, who says its not clear that the evidence is just there. Kim wehle is with us as well. Shes a law professor. Whats the argument there that jonathan is going to make essentially . Hes going to make the argument that bribery requires more than what weve seen. There has to be an actual quid pro quo and we havent gotten there. Lets listen be in. Declare recess of the committee at any time. Mr. Chairman, were reserving the right to object. Objection noted. I reserve the right to object. Pursuant to rule 2j i demand minority hearing signed by all the republican the gentleman will suspend. I could not understand what youre saying. Pursuant to clause 2j1 rule 11 im furnishing you for demand for minority day hearings on this subject signed by all the republican members of the committee, and i would request that you set is this date before the Committee Votes on any articles of impeachment. I withdraw my reservation. We will confer and rule on this later. A quorum is present. This is the first hearing this is the first hearing we are conducting pursuant to House Resolution 660 and special Judiciary Committee procedures that are described in section 4a of that resolution. Here is how the committee will proceed for this hearing. I will make an Opening Statement and then i will 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, inquiry . Mr. Chairman i have the time for an Opening Statement. Parliamentary inquiry is not in order at this time. The facts before us are undisputed. On july 25th President Trump called president zelensky of ukraine and in President Trumps words, asked him for a favor. That call was part of a concerted effort by the president and his men to solicit a personal advantage in the next election. This time in the form of an investigation of his political adversaries by a Foreign Government. To obtain that private political advantage, President Trump withheld both 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 withhold evidence from the investigators. And when witnesses disobeyed him, when career professionals came forward and told us the truth, he attacked them viciously, calling them traitors and liars, promising they will, quote, go through some things, close 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 proceed to benefit from a Trump Presidency and worked to get that outcome, close quote. The president welcomed that interference. We saw this in real time when President Trump asked russia to hack his political opponent. The very 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 had broken our laws, President Trump took extraordinary and unprecedented steps to obstruct the investigation. Including ignoring subpoenas, ordering the creation of false records and publicly attacking and intimidating witnesses. Then as now this administrations level of obstruction is without precedent. No other president has vowed to, quote, fight all of 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 has moved back to the house Judiciary Committee. As we begin a review of these facts, the president s pattern of behavior becomes clear. President trump welcomed foreign interference in the 2016 election. He demanded it for the 2020 election. In both cases, he got caught. And in both cases, he did everything in his power to prevent the American People from learning the truth about his conduct. On july 24th, the special counsel testified before this committee. He implored us to see the nature of the threatuntry. Quote, over the course of my career, i have seen a number of challenges to our democracy. The russian governments effort 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 very next day to ask him to investigate the president s political opponent. As we exercise our responsibility to determine whether this pattern of behavior constitutes an Impeachable Offense, it is 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 has voted to impeach two president s for obstruction of justice. We voted to impeach one president for obstructing a congressional investigation. To the extent President Trumps conduct fits these categories, theres precedent for recommending impeachment here. Never before in the history of the republic have we been forced to consider the conduct of a president who appears to have solicited personal political favors from a Foreign Government. Never before has a president engaged in a course of conduct that included all of the acts that most concerned the framers. The patriots who founded our country were not fearful men. They fought a war. They witnessed terrible violence. They overthrew a king. As they met to frame our constitution, those patriots still feared one threat above all, foreign interference in our elections. They just opposed a tyrant. They were deeply worried we would lose our newfound liberty, not through war. But through corruption from within. And in the early years of the republic they asked us, each of us, to be vigilant to that threat. Washington warned us, quote, to be constantly awake since history and experience prove that foreign influence is one of the most baneful foes of republican government. Adams wrote to jefferson, quote, as often as elections happen, the danger of foreign influence recurs. Hamiltons warning was more specific and more dire. In the federalist papers he wrote that the, quote, most deadly adversaries of republican government, unquote, would almost certainly attempt to, quote, raise a creature of their own to the chief majesty of the union. In short, the founders warned us with we should expect foreign adversaries to target our elections and we will find ourselves in grave danger if the president willingly opens the door to their influence. What kind of president would do that . How will we know if the president has betrayed his country in this manner. How will we know if he has betrayed his country in this manner for petty personal gain . Hamilton had a response for that as well. He wrote, when a man unprincipled in private life, desperate in his fortune, bold in his temper, possessed of considerable talents, known to have scoffed in private at the principles of liberty, when such a man is seen to mount the hobby horse of popularity to join the cry of danger to liberty, to take every opportunity of embarrassing the general government and bringing it under suspicion, it may justly be suspected 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 today was set in motion by President Trump. I do not wish this moment on the country. It is not a pleasant task we undertake today. But we have each taken an oath to protect the constitution and the facts before us are clear. President trump did not merely seek to benefit from foreign interference in our elections. He directly and explicitly invited foreign interference in our elections. He used the powers of his office to try to make it happen. He sent his agents to make clear that this is what he wanted and demanded. He was willing to compromise our security and his office for personal political gain. It does not matter that President Trump got caught and ultimately released the funds that ukraine so desperately needed. It matters that he enlisted a Foreign Government to intervene in our elections 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 merely to defend himself but to obstruct investigators at every turn. We are all aware that the next election is looming, but we cannot wait for the election to address the present crisis. The integrity of that election is one of the very things at stake. The president has shown us his pattern of conduct. If we do not act to hold him in check now, President Trump will almost certainly try again to solicit interference in the election for his personal political gain. Today we will begin our conversation where we should with the text of the constitution. We empowered to recommend the impeachment of President Trump to the house if we find he has committed treason, bribery or other high crimes and misdemeanors. Our Witness Panel will help us to guide that conversation. In a few days well reconvene and hear from the committee that worked to uncover the facts before us. And when we apply the constitution to those facts, if it is true that President Trump has committed an Impeachable Offense or multiple impeachable. I thank the witnesses for being here today. I now recognize the Ranking Member of the Judiciary Committee mr. Chairman. Gentleman from colorado, mr. Collins. May i make a parliamentary inquiry the gentleman, no parliamentary inquiry. I recognize the Ranking Member for Opening Statement. I thank the chairman. It is interesting that parliamentary inquiries, and i believe some of the things im going to discuss today because were sort of coming here today in a different arena. For everybody whos not been here before, this is a new room, new rules, a new month. We even have cute little stickers for our staff so we can come in because we want to make this is important, its impeachment because weve done such a terrible job of it in this committee before. But whats not new is basically whats been reiterated by the chairman. Whats not new is the facts. Whats not new is its the same, sad story. Whats interesting, even before i get into my part of my Opening Statement is, what was just said by the chairman. We went back to a redo of mrelwerelso saying quoting m saying the attention of the American People should be on foreign interference. I agree with him completely, except i guess the American People did not include the Judiciary Committee. Because we didnt take it up. We didnt have hearings. We didnt do anything to delve deeply into this issue. We passed election bills but did not get into the indepth part of what mr. Mueller talked about, taking his own report and having hearings about that. We didnt do it. So, i guess the American People doesnt include the house Judiciary Committee. The 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 talked about the founders. Whats interesting is the chairman talked a lot about the founders from the quotes. This is why we have the hearings, the founders being worried about foreign interference but what he didnt quote is founders being concerned about political impeachment because you dont like the guy. You didnt like it since november of 2016. The chairman has abo impeachment since last year when he wased chairman,efore he was chairmt me this is about new evidence and new things and new stuff. We may have a new hearing room. We may have new mics and chairs that arent comfortable, but this is nothing new, folks. This is sad. So, what do we have here today . You know what im thinking . I looked at this and what is interesting is theres two things that have become very clear. This impeachment is not really about facts. If it was i believe the other committees would have sent over recommendations for impeachment. Now theyre putting it on this committee because if it goes badly they want to blame adam schiffs committee and this committee for going bad. But theyre already drafting articles. Dont be fooled. Theyre already getting ready for this. We went after ukraine after numerous failings of mueller and emoluments, the list goes on. If you want to know ws really driving this, there are 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, time. They want to do it before the end of the year. Why . Because the chairman said it just a second ago, because were scared of the elections next year. Were scared of the elections, that well lose again. So, weve got to do this now. The clock and the calendar are whats driving impeachment, not the facts. When we understand this, thats what the witnesses here today will say. What do we have here today . What is interesting over 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 most of you have already written about, all four, for the opinions we already know, out of the classrooms that maybe youre getting ready for finals in, to discuss things that you probably havent even had a chance unless youre really good on tv of watching the hearings 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 could be theatrical all we want, but the American People is going to look at this and say, huh . What are we doing . Because theres no fact witnesses planned for this committee. Thats an interesting thing. Frankly, theres no plan at all except next week an ambiguous hearing on the presentation from the other committee that sent us the report and Judiciary Committee, which im still not sure what they want us to present on, and nothing else. No plan. I asked the chairman before we left for thanksgiving to stay in touch, lets talk about what we have 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. Theres no whistleblower. By the way, it was proved today that hes not or shes not afforded the protection of identity. Its not in the statute. Its just something that was discussed by adam schiff. We also dont have adam schiff who wrote the report. He said yesterday in a press conference, im not going to. Ill send if he wanted to, hed come begging to us. Heres the problem. It sums it up simply like this. Just 19 minutes afternoon on Inauguration Day the Washington Post wrote the headline, the campaign to impeach the president has begun. The attorney for the whistleblower tweeted in 2017, the coup has started. The impeachment will follow shortly. Al green says, if we dont impeach the president , hell get reelected. You want to know whats happening . Here we go. Why did everything i say up to this point, no fact witnesses, no nothing, Judiciary Committee, we spent two weeks before this hearing was even held with clinton, 2 1 2 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 to understand what youre going to say. We cant even get that straight. What are we doing for the next two weeks . I have no idea. The chairman said an ambiguous report. If we dont have the fact witnesses, when were the rubber stamp hiding out back, the very rubber stamp the chairman talked about 20 minutes ago. What a disgrace to this committee, to have the committee of impeachment simply take from other inentities and rubber sta. Why did what i say about fact witnesses and due process because just a couple months ago the democrats got dressed up and said, were going to have due process protection for the president and good fairness throughout this. This is the only committee in which the president would even have a possibility, but no offense to you, the law professors. The president has nothing to ask you. Youre not going to provide anything he cant read. And his attorneys have nothing else. Put witnesses in here that can be fact witnesses, who can be actually crossexamined. Thats fairness. 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 supporteded by Major Political party. Such an impeachment will provide divisiveness, bitterness for years to come and call into question the very legitimacy of our political institutions. The American People are watching. They will not forget. You have the votes. You may have the muscle. But you do not have legitimacy of a National Consensus or constitutional imperative. The partisan coup detat will go down in the history of the nation. How about this one. I think the key point is that the republicans are still running a railroad job with no attempt at fair procedure. Today when the democrats offered amends, offers motions in committee to say we should first adopt standards so we know what were dealing with, standards of impeachment that was voted down or ruled out of order. When we say the important thing is to look at the question before we have a vote with no inquiry first, that was voted down and ruled out of order. Frankly, the whole question of what material should be released and whats secondary but thats all we discussed. The to set up a fair process whether to put this country through an impeachment proceeding was ruled out of order. Refused to let us discuss it. That was chairman nadler, before he was nadler. This is an interesting time. Today well present the other side, which gets so conveniently left out. Remember, fairness does dictate that. Maybe not here. Because were not scheduling anything else. I have a democratic majority who has poll tested what they think they ought to call the president they think he did. Wow. Thats not following the facts. We have a just a deepseated hatred of a man who came to the white house and did what he said he was going to do. The most amazing question i got in the first three months of this gentlemans presidency from reporters was this, be 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. One before he resigned before and clinton in which the facts, even by democrats and republicans, were not really disputed. In this one theyre not only disputed, theyre contradictive of each other. There are no set facts. Theres nothing to present an impeachment here except a president carrying out his job in the way the constitution saw that he sees fit to do it. This is where were at today. So, the interesting thing i come to with most everybody here is this may be a new time, a new place and we may all be scrubbed up and looking pretty for impeachment, but this is not an impeachment. This is just a Simple Railroad job. And today is a waste of time. Because this is where were at. So, i close today with this. It didnt start with mueller. It didnt start with a phone call. You know where this started . It started with tears in brooklyn in november, re here, fact witnesses. Simply being a rubber stamp for what we have are. But, hey, we got law professors here. What a start of a party. Mr. Chairman, before i yield back, i have a motion. Under clause 2, rule 11. The gentleman is recognized for the purpose of an Opening Statement, not for the purpose of making a motion. I yield back and now i ask. Recognized. Pursuant to clause 2, rule 11 i require testimony of chairman schiff before this committee and translate this letter accordingly. What purposes does the gentle lady . To favor the motion. Ecdedvote. The voted vote is requested. Parliamentary inquiry. The clerk will call the roll. Parliamentary inquiry. Youre not recognized for parliamentary requirement there you dont want chairman schiff coming, correct . The clerk will call the roll. Mr. Nadler. Aye. Ms. Lofgren. Aye. Miss jackson lee. Aye. Mr. Johnson of georgia. Aye. Mr. Deutch. Aye. Ms. Bass. Yes. Mr. Richmond. Aye. Mr. Cicilline. Aye. Mr. Swalwell. Aye. Mr. Lieu. Aye. Ms. Raskin. Aye. Mr. Jayapal. Aye. Ms. Demings. Aye. Mr. Correa. Aye. Mr. Scanlon. Aye. Ms. Garcia. Aye. Mr. Neguse. Aye. Mr. Mcbath. Aye. Mr. Stanton. Aye. Ms. Dean. Aye. Mr. Chap bot. No. Mr. Gohmert. No. Mr. Jordan. No. Mr. Buck. No. Mr. Ratcliffe. No. Ms. Roby. No. Mr. Gaetz. No. Mr. Johnson. No. Mr. Biggs. No. Mr. Mcclintock. No. Mr. Lesko. No. Mr. Reschenthaler. No. Mr. Cline. No. Mr. Armstrong. No. Mr. Steube. No. Has everyone voted that wishes to a the cle will report. Mr. Chairman, there are 24 ayes and 17 the motion to table is agreed to. Mr. Chairman, i have a parliamentary inquiry. The gentleman will state his parliamentary inquiry. Clause c2 states members of the committee can raise objections relating to the admissibility of testimony and evidence but it doesnt say what rules apply to admissibility. Im hoping you can explain what objections may be made under this clause and if you intend to use the federal rules of evidence. Yeah, mr. The gentleman will suspend. That is not a proper parliamentary inquirinquiry. It is. Hes stating a rule, mr. Chairman. You can ignore it and not answer but you cant say im asking for the application of the rule for an explanation. I dont know how its we will apply the rules. Er ed. You wont help us understand that . Clarity . Theres no clarity. Which rule are you citing . How are you citing that . Rule c2 of the Judiciary Committee impeachment procedures. How is that unclear . Its the rules of the house and they will be applied, period. Thats the im asking, how will they be applied here, sir . They will be applied according to the rules. But not answering your question. Circular response, thank you. Can you do you plan to hold additional hearings the gentleman will suspend. That is not a proper parliamentary inquiry without objection all other Opening Statements will be included in the record. I will now introduce todays witnesses. Mr. Chairman noah feldman is i seek recognition . I am not going to recognize you now. I am introducing the witnesses. Mr. Chairman noah feldman is the Felix Frankfurter professor of law at harvard law school. Authored seven books including a biography of James Madison and the constitutional law case book, as well as many essays and articles on undergraduate degree from harvard college, doctor of philosophy from Oxford University where hes a Rhodes Scholar and j. D. From Yale Law School and served as law clerk to Justice David souter of the United States Supreme Court. Pamela karlan serves as kenneth and Harle Montgomery professor of law and codirector of Supreme Court litigation clinic at stanford. Shes the author of several books including keeping faith with the constitution and dozens of scholarly articles. She served as a law clerk to Justice Harry blackburn of the United States Supreme Court and is a Deputy Assistant attorney general in the Civil Rights Division of the United States department of justice where she was responsible, among other f of the departments voting section. Professor karlan received three degrees from yale si law school. J. D. Michael gerhardt is the Burton Craige distinguished professor of Juris Prudence at university of North Carolina school on law. Professor gerhardt is the author of many books including the federal impeachment process, a constitutional and historical analysis. As well as more than 50 lawreviewed publications on diverse range of topics in constitutional law, federal jurisdiction and the legislative process. He received his j. D. From the university of chicago law school, his m. S. From London School of economics and b. A. From yale university. Jonathan turley is the j. B. And maurice c. Shapiro chair of Public Interest law at George Washington University Law school. Where he teaches torts, criminal procedure and constitutional law. After a stint at tulane law school, professor turley joined the g. W. Law faculty in 1990 and 1998 became the youngest chaired professor in the schools academicic leading lawleg law ja his articles on legal appear frequently in national publications. Chicago native, earning degrees from the university of chicago and Northwestern University school of law. We welcome all of our distinguished witnesses. We thank them for participating in todays hearing. Now, if you would please rise, i will begin by swearing you in. Do you swear or affirm under penalty of perjury that the testimony youre about to give is true and correct to the best of your knowledge, information and belief, so help you god . Let the record show the witnesses answered in the affirmative. Thank you and pl please note that each of your written statements will be entered into the record in its entirety. Accordingly, i ask 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 whhe red, it signals your ten minutes have expired. Professor feldman, you may begin. Mr. Chairman i dont think youre on the mic. Mr. Chairman, before we mr. Chairman and members of the committee mr. Chairman, i have a motion. The gentleman is not in order to offer a motion. Mr. Chairman, i seek recognition for privilege motion. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, thank you very much for the opportunity to appear. My name is noah feldman. I serve the witness will proceed. I serve as the Felix Frankfurter professor of law at harvard law school. I seek recognition for motion. The gentleman will suspend. The time is the witnesss. Privilege motion needs to be recognized. Privilege can you can call it not a privilege in between witnesses it can be recognized. Not once i recognize the witness. The witness will proceed. Well entertain the motion after the first witness. He started before my job is to study the constitution from its origins until the present. Im here today to describe three things. Why the framers of our constitution included a provision for the impeachment of the president , what that provision providing for impeachment for high crimes and misdemeanors means, and last, how it applies to the question before you and for the American People whether President Trump has committed Impeachable Offenses under the constitution. Let me begin by stating my conclusions. The framers provided for the impeachment of the president because they feared that the president might abuse the power of his office for personal benefit, to corrupt the electoral process and ensure his reelection or to subvert the National Security of the United States. High crimes and misdemeanors are abuses of power and of public trust connected to the office of the presidency. On the basis of the testimony and the evidence before the house, President Trump has committed impeachable high crimes and misdemeanors by corruptly abusing the office of the presidency. Specifically, President Trump has abused his office by corruptly soliciting president Volodymyr Zelensky 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 the 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 of the king, 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 in 1787 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 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 disagreement ensued. The governor of North Carolina, a man called William Davey, immediately said, if the president cannot be impeached, quote, he will spare no efforts or means whatever to get himself reelected. Following davey, george mason of virginia, a fierce republican critic of executive power, said, no point is more important than that impeachment be included in the constitution. Shall any man be above justice, he asked. Thus expressing the core concern that the president must be subordinate to the law and not above the law. James madison, the principal 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, standing for reelection was, quote, not a sufficient security, close quote, 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, close quote. And then a remarkable thing happened in the convention. Morris of pennsylvania, one of the two people who had introduced the motion to eliminate impeachment from the constitution, 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 the 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 impeachable. These were not vague or abst terms to the framers. High crimes and misdemeanors was very the words high crimes and misdemeanors represented very specific language that was well understood by the entire generation of the framers. Indeed, they were borrowed from an impeachment trial in england that was taking place as the framers were speaking, which was referred to, in fact, by george mason. The words 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. Theres no mystery about the words high crimes and misdemeanors. The word high modifies both crimes and misdemeanors, so theyre both high. And high means connected to the office of the presidency. Connected to office. The classic form that was familiar to 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 affect 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 other members of the house, quote, sole power of impeachment. Its not my responsibility or my job to determine the credibility of the witnesses who 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 Impeachable Offenses to the facts described by the testimony and evidence before the house. President trumps conduct, as described in the testimony and evidence, clearly constitutes impeachable high crimes and misdemeanors under the constitution. In particular, the memorandum and other testimony relating to the july 25, 2019 phone call between the two president s, President Trump and president zelensky, more than sufficiently indicates that President Trump abused his office by soliciting the president of ukraine to investigate his political rivals in order to gain personal political advantage, including in relation to the 2020 election. Again, the words abuse of office are not mystical or magical. They are 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 investigations of political rivals and perform those investigations, would constitute a high crime and misdemeanor, but the house also has evidence before it that the president committed two further acts that also qualify as high crimes and misdemeanors. In particular, the house heard evidence that the president placed a hold on critical u. S. Aid to ukraine and conditioned its release on announcement of the investigations of the bidens and of the discredited crowdstrike conspiracy theory. Furthermore, the house also heard evidence the president conditioned a white house visit desperately sought by the ukrainian president on announcement of the investigations. Both of these acts constitute impeachable high crimes and misdemeanors under the constitution. They each encapsulate the framers worry that the president of the United States would take any means whatever to ensure his reelection. And that is the reason that thet in a case like this one. Mr. Chairman, i the gentlemans time has expired. Mr. Chairman, i seek recognition. The gentleman 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 may we have the motion read, please . The motion was stated as to may we have the motion read, please . The motion will be read as to what date. Motion read to date certain, wednesday december, 11, 2019, so we can actually get a response to the six letters the gentleman has stated his motion. Motion to table is made. Correct. Motion to table is made and not debatable. All in favor say aye. Opposed. The motion to table is agreed to. Roll call. Roll call is requested. Mr. Nadler. Aye. Mr. Nadler votes aye. Ms. Lofgren. Aye. Ms. Jackson lee. Aye. Mr. Cohen. Aye. Mr. Johnson. Aye. Mr. Deutch. Aye. Ms. Bass. Yes. Mr. Richmond. Aye. Mr. Jeffries. Aye. Mr. Cicilline. Swalwell. Aye. Mr. Lieu. Yes. Ms. Ris kin. Aye. Mr. Jayapal. Aye. Ms. Demings. Aye. Mr. Correa. Aye. Ms. Scanlon. Aye. Ms. Garcia. Aye. Mr. Neguse. Aye. Ms. Mcbath. Aye. Mr. Stanton. Aye. Mr. Sensenbrenner. No. Mr. Chabot. No. Mr. Gohmert. No. Mr. Jordan. No. Mr. Buck. No. Mr. Ratcliffe. No. Ms. Roby. No we told you you would get a constitutional crash course in impeachment law. Major garrett, who has covered congress, this is houma joew ma rules. Majority rules but minority cant slow down. When roll call is asked for, you go through it. Theres no way around it. You try to do it as possible to regain momentum. The republicans are trying to chop it up. The political evidence is noah feldman, Rhodes Scholar, harvard law professor, about what the president has been aus coulded of doing and why it may constitute Impeachable Offenses. In his mind, its unambiguous, its clear. Republicans will say hes a democrat a democrat law professor and theyll try to undercut him. Once under the leadership of chairman conyers. It was a great honor for me to represent this committee because of this committees key role over the past 50 years in ensuring that american 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 evidentiary record, and mr. Collins, i would like to say to you, sir, 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 insulted that as a law professor i dont care about those facts. But everything i read on those occasions tells me that when we t very htes 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. Our constitution begins with the words, we the people, for a reason. Our government in James Madisons words derives all its powers directly or indirectly from the great body of the people, and the way it derives these powers is through elections. Elections matter. Both to the legitimacy of our government and to all of our individual freedoms because as the Supreme Court declared more than a century ago, voting is preservative of all rights. So, it is hardly surprising that the constitution is marvelled with provisions governing elections. Indeed, a majority of the amendments to our constitution since the civil war have dealt with voting or with terms of office. And among the most important provisions of our original constitution is the guarantee of periodic elections for the presidency. One every four years. America has kept that promise for more than two centuries and it has done so even during wartime. For example, we invented the idea of absentee voting so that union troops who supported president 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 consecons alone could not guarantee that the United States would remain republic. One of the key reasons for including the impeachment power was a risk that unup louse official might try to rig the process. You heard two people give William Davey his props. Hamilton got a whole musical and William Davey is only going to get this hearing. But he warned that unless the constitution contained an impeachment provision, the president would spare no means to get himself reelected. George mason insisted that a president who procured his appointment through 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 who acts to subvert an election. Whether that election is the one that brought him into office or its an upcoming election where he seeks an additional term. Moreover, the founding generation, like every generation of america since, was especially concerned 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 farewell address, president washington warned that history and experience prove foreign influence is one of the most baneful foes of the republican government. He explained, in part, because Foreign Governments would try to disagreement among the American People and influence what we thought. The very idea that a president might seek the aid of a Foreign Government in his Reelection Campaign would have horrified them. But based on the evidentiary record, that is what President Trump has done. The list of Impeachable Offenses that the framers included in the constitution shows that the essence of an Impeachable Offense is a president s decision to sacrifice the National Interest for his own private ends. Treason, the first thing listed, an individual giving aid to a foreign enemy. That is putting an foreign enemy adversaries above the interests 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 justice storey explained, discharge the abilities of the political office. Based on the evidentiary record before you, what has happened in the case today is something i do not think we have ever seen before. A president who has doubled down on violating his oath to faithfully execute the laws and to protect and defend the constitution. The evidence reveals a president who used the powers of his office to demand that a Foreign Government participate in undermining a competing candidate for the presidency. As president john kennedy declared, the right to vote in a free American Election is the most powerful and precious right in the world. But our elections become less free when they are distorted by foreign interference. What happened in 2016 was bad enough. There is widespread agreement that russian operatives intervened to manipulate our political process but that distortion is magnified if a sitting president uses his Office Actually to invite foreign intervention. Imagine living in a part of louisiana or texas thats prone to devastating hurricanes and flooding. What would you think if you lived there and your governor asked for a meeting with the president to discuss getting disaster aid that congress has provided for, what would you think if that president said, i would like to do i would like you to do us a favor. Ill meet with you and ill send the Disaster Relief once you brand my opponent a criminal. Wouldnt you know in your gut that such a president had abused his office, that he betrayed the National Interests and that he was trying to corrupt the electoral process . I believe that the evidentiary record shows wrongful acts on that scale here. It shows a president who delayed meeting a foreign leader and providing assistance that congress and his own advisers agreed serves our National Interest in promoting democracy and in limiting russian saying russia if youre listening, a president who carried about the constitution would say butt out of our elections. Smearing one of the president s opponents in our ongoing election season. Thats not politics as usual. Not in the United States or in any mature democracy. It is, instead, a cardinal reason why the constitution contains an impeachment power. Put simply, a president should resist foreign interference in our elections, not demand 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, professor gerhardt. Thank you, mr. Chairman, Ranking Member, other distinguished members of the committee, its an honor and a privilege to join the other distinguished witnesses to discuss a matter of grave concern to our country and to our constitution. Because this house, the peoples house, has the sole power of impeachment there is no better forum to discuss the constitutional standard for impeachment and whether that standard has been met in the case of the current president of the United States. As i explained in the remainder and balance of my Opening Statement, the record compiled thus far shows the president has committed several Impeachable Offenses, including bribery, abuse of power and soliciting a favor from a personal leader to benefit himself personally, obstructing justice and obstructing congress. Our hearing today should serve as a reminder of one of the fundamental principles that drove the founders of our constitution to break from england and to draft their own constitution. The principle that in this country no one is king. We have followed that principle since before the founding of the constitution and it is recognized around the world as a fixed, inspiring, american ideal. In his third message to congress in 1903 president roosevelt delivered one of the finest articulation of this principle, he said, no one is above the law and no man is below, nor do we ask any mans permission when we require him to obey it. Obedience to the law is demanded as a right, not asked for as a favor. Three features of our constitution protect the fundamental principle, no one, not even the president , is above the law. First in the british system, the public had no choice over the monarch who ruled them and in our constitution the framers allowed elections to serve as a crucial means for ensuring president ial accountability. Second, in the british system, the king could do no wrong. No other parts of the government could check his misconduct. In our constitution the framers developed the separation of powers, designed to prevent any branch, including the presidency, from becoming tyrannicle. Third in the british system, everyone but the king was impeachable. Our framers generation pledged their lives and fortunes to rebel against a monarch they saw as corrupt, and to do no wrong. Our declaration of independence the framers set forth a series of Impeachable Offenses that king committed against the american colonies. When the framers convened in philadelphia to draft our constitution they were united around a simple indisputable principle that was a major safeguard for the public, we the people, against tyranny of any kind. A people who had overthrown a king were not going to turn around just after securing their independence from corrupt tyranny and create an office like the king was above the law and could do no wrong. The framers created a chief executive to bring energy to the administration of federal laws, but to be accountable to congress for treason, bribery or other high crimes and misdemeanors. The framers concern about the need to protect against a corrupt president was evident throughout the convention. Here, i must thank my prior two friends who have spoken and referred to a north carolinian William Davey. I will refer to another north carolinian in the Constitutional Convention, james iredale, whom president washington later appointed to the Supreme Court, assured his fellow delegates that the president , quote, is of a very different nature from a monarch. He is to be personally responsible for any abuse of the great trust placed in him. Unquote. This brings us, of course, 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. I should say misusing office for personal gain. Professor feldman pointed out these terms derive from the british who understood the class of cases that would be impeachable to refer to political crimes which included great offenses against the United States, attempts to subvert the constitution, when the president deviates from his duty or dares to abuse the powers invested in him by the people, breaches of the public trust and serious injuries to the republic. In the essay Alexander Hamilton declared Impeachable Offenses are those which proceed from the misconduct of public men or the abuse or violation of some public trust and relate chiefly to injuries done immediately to a society itself. Several themes emerge from the framers discussion of the scope of Impeachable Offenses and impeachment practice. We know that not all Impeachable Offenses are criminal and we know that not all felonies are Impeachable Offenses. We know further that what matters in determining whether particular misconduct constitutes a high crime and misdemeanor is ultimately the context and the gravity of the misconduct in question. After reviewing the evidence thats been made public, i cannot help but conclude that this president has attacked each of the constitutions safeguards against establishing a monarchy in this country. Both the content and gravity of the president s misconduct are clear, the favor he requested from ukraines president was to receive in exchange for his use of president ial power, ukraines announcement of a criminal investigation of a political rival. The investigation was not the important action for the president. The announcement was. Because it could then be used in this country to manipulate the public into casting aside the president s political rival because of concerns about his corruption. Gravity of the president s misconduct is apparent when wee the one president who resigned from office to avoid impeachment, conviction and removal, the house Judiciary Committee in 1974 approved three articles of impeachment against Richard Nixon who resigned a few days later. 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 himself has obstructed justice. You look at the second article of impeachment approved against Richard Nixon, it charged him with abuse of power for ordering the heads of the fbi, irs, and cia to harass his political enemies. The president s circumstance, the president is engaged in a pattern of abusing the trust placed in him by the American People by soliciting foreign countries, including china, russia, and ukraine, to investigate his political opponents and interfere on his behalf in elections in which he is a candidate. The third article approved against president nixon charged that he had failed to comply with four legislative subpoenas. The present circumstance, the president has refused to comply with and directed at least ten others in his administration not to comply with lawful congressional subpoenas, including secretary of state mike pompeo, Energy Secretary rick perry, acting chief of staff and head of the office of management and budget, mick mulvaney. As senator Lindsey Graham now chair of the senate Judiciary Committee said, when he was a member of the house on the verge of impeaching president clinton the day Richard Nixon failed to answer that subpoena is the day that he was subject to impeachment because he took the power from congress over the impeachment process away from congress and he became the judge and jury. That is a perfectly good articulation of why obstruction of congress is impeachable. The president s defiance of congress is all the more troubling due to the rationale he claims for his obstruction. His arguments and those of his 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. I wont reread that letter here but i do want to disagree that with the characterization in the letter of these protest since the constitution expressly says and the Supreme Court has unanimously affirmed that the house is the sole power of impeachment and like the senate, the house has the power to determine the rules for its proceedings. The president and his subordinates have argued further that the president is entitled to absolute immunity from criminal procedure, including criminal wrongdoing, including shooting someone on fifth avenue. He claims hes entitled to executive privilege not to share any information he doesnt want to share with another branch. Hes also claimed the entitlement to order the executive branch as hes done, not to cooperate with this body when it conducts an investigation of the president. If left unchecked, the president will likely continue his pattern of soliciting foreign interference on behalf of the next election and, of course, his obstruction of congress. The fact that we can easily transpose the articles of impeachment against president nixon on to the actions 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. No misconduct is more to our democracy and nothing injures the American People more than a president uses his power to weaken their authority understand the constitution as well as the authority of the constitution itself. May i read one more sentence . Im sorry. The witness may have another sentence or two. Thank you. If Congress Fails to impeach here, then the impeachment process is lost all meaning and along with that our constitutions carefully crafted safeguards against the establishment of a king, on american soil, therefore i stand with the constitution and i stand with the framers who were committed to ensure that no one is above the law. Thank you, professor. Professor turley. Thank you. Chairman nadler, Ranking Member collins, members of the Judiciary Committee, its an honor to appear before you today to discuss one of the most consequential functions you were given by the framers and that is the impeachment of the president of the United States. 21 years ago i sat before you, chairman nadler, and vis committee, to testify at the impeachment of president william jeff serson clinton. I never thought that i would have to appear a second time too address the same question with regard to another sitting president. Yet, here we are. The elements are strikingly similar. The intense ranker and rage of the public debate is the same. The atmosphere that the framers anticipated, the stifling intolerance of opposing views is the same. I would like to start, therefore, perhaps by stating a 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. What we leave in the wake of this scandal will shape our democracy for generations to come. Im concerned about lowering impeachment standards to fit a paucity of evidence and an abundance of anger. I believe this impeachment not only fails to satisfy the standard of past impeachments, but would create a dangerous precedent for future impeachments. My testimony lays out the 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 maladministration because madison objected 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, obtaining office by improper means, betraying the trust of a foreign to a foreign power, negligence, perfity, oppression. Perfity are lying and selfdealing are particularly relevant to our current controversy. My testimony explores the impeachment cases of nixon, johnson, and clinton. The closest of these three cases is to the 1868 impeachment of andrew johnston. It is not a model or an 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. They 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. That shared element is speed. This impeachment what rival the johnson impeachment as the shortest in history depending on how one counts the relevant days. Now there are three distinctions when you look at these or three commonalties when you look at these past cases. All involve 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 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 described by Alexander Hamill t hamillton, 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 is a Golden Doodle an they dont get mad. So were all mad. Where has that taken us . Well, in a slip shot impeachment make us less mad . Will it only invite an invitation for the madness to follow every future administration . That is why this is wrong. Its not wrong because President Trump is right. His call was anything but perfect. Its not wrong because the house has no legitimate reason to investigate the ukrainian controversy. Its not wrong because were in an election year. There is no good time for an impeachment. No. Its wrong because this is not how you impeach an american president. This case is not a case of the unknowable. Its a case of the peripheral. We have a record of conflicts, defenses that have not been fully considered, unsubpoenaed witness with material evidence. To impeach a president on this record, principle takes us to a place we would prefer not to be. That was the place seven republicans found themselves in the johnson trial when they saved the president from acquittal that they des dispiesed. For generations they celebrated as profiles of courage. Senator raw said it was like looking down into his own grave and then he jumped because he didnt have any alternative. Its easy to celebrate those people from the distance of time and circumstance and age of rage. Its appealing to listen to hose saying, forget the definitions of crimes, just do it. Like this is some impulse buying nike sneaker. You can certainly do that and declare the definitions of crimes alleged are imteefrl and exercise politics, not the law. However, those legal definitions and standards which i have addressed in my testimony are the very thing that divide rage from reason. This all brings up to me and i will conclude with this of a scene from a man for all seasons with sir thomas moore, when his soninlaw, william roper, put the law suggested that moore was putting the law ahead of morality. He said, moore would give the devil the benefit of the law. When moore asks roper, would he instead cut a great road through the law to get after the devil, roper proudly declares, yes. I would 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. He said this country is planted thick with laws coast to coast, mans laws, not gods, and if you cut them down and youre just the man to do it, do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then . He finished by saying yes, i would give the devil the benefit of the law for my own sake. So i will conclude with this. Have demonized the other to justify any measure in their defense, much like roper. Perhaps thats the saddest part of all of this. We have forgotten the common article of faith that binds each of us to each other 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. I would be happy to answer any questions. I thank the witnesses. Mr. Chairman, i seek recognition. Who seeks recognition is this. Me, mr. Chairman. For what purpose does the gentleman seek recognition . I have a motion pursuant to rule 11, i move to subpoena the individual commonly referred to as the whistleblower. I ask to do this in the gentleman has stated his motion. Do i hear a motion to table. I move to table the motion. Motion to table. All in favor say aye. Oppose no. The motion roll call. Motion to table is approved. The roll call is requested. The clerk will call the roll. Mr. Nadler. Aye. Mr. Nadler votes aye. Miss lofgren. Aye. Miss jackson lee. E. Votes aye. Mr. Cohen. Votes aye. Mr. Johnson of georgia. Aye. Mr. Deutsch. Aye. Miss pass. Mr. Richmond. Aye. Mr. Jeffreys votes aye. Mr. Sis linley aye. Mr. Ras kin. Aye. Miss jayapal. Aye. Mr. Core ray ya. Aye. Miss can lin. During this roll call vote, we will just update everyone on what we have heard. Four constitutional law scholars and professors, three of which were brought to the committee by the democrats, said that there was overwhelming evidence that the president should be impeached. Jonathan turley saying that there was an inadequate record at this point to impeach the president , more needs to be done. He was not excusing the president s behavior but said there are still a lot of material evidence that could be found out. All four witnesses said theres a danger afoot. Three said if this is not impeachable we are undermining the entire concept of what is acceptable in the american presidency as informed by the constitution, as informed by the underlying debate that put impeachment in the constitution. Jonathan turley said thats not the danger. The danger if we go forward on this thin bit of evidence, his words, not mine, we will radically define what impeachment is imperilling any future occupant of the office on a thin basis, rushed investigation and will create a greater danger. Interesting difference, a sharp difference, of opinion on whats at stake here. And that roll call vote came quickly. Professor gerhardt said if you compare it to nixon, the crimes are worse or the alleged crimes. Right. One of the other things that professor turley mentioned was that this is just abuse of power. But professor gerhardt makes clear that nixon was impeached or potentially impeached on obstructi obstruction four subpoenas defied, we have multiple more than that, and i agree with professor turley, optimally we would hear from these witnesses. The democrats would be moving to compel them to actually comply with the subpoenasp we also heard that he compared it to obstruction of justice under nixon, obstruction of justice here, pulled in the mueller report. The idea that theres a volume of evidence suggesting that this president interfered with the Mueller Investigation by, for example, directing mcgahn to fire mueller and directing him to also cover up with some falsehoods that turn of events, and then lastly, of course, he mentions nixon, directing the fbi, the cia, to come down on political opponents and here we have the president asking a Foreign Government to come down on political opponents. Something really critical that came out was how this is all about the election at the end of the day. That if we dont impeach were in trouble. Lets listen in now to chairman nadler. Considering whether to recommend articles of pooechts against the president. I speak for my colleagues when i say that we do not take this lightly. We are committed to ensure that todays hearing as well as the larger responsibility before us are grounded in the constitution. Intelligence committees report concluded that the president pressured a foreign leader to interfere in our electionings by initiating and denouncing into his adversaries. He sought to prevent congress from investigating his congress by ordering his administration and everyone in it to defy house subpoenas. Professor karlan 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 it turns that into a right that Foreign Governments decide to interfere for their own benefit. Foreign governments dont interfere in our elections to benefit us, they intervene to benefit themselves. Thank you. Professor gerhardt, you have written extensively about our system of checks and balances. What happens to that system when the president undertakes a blockade of Congress Impeachment inquiry, he orders all witnesses not to testify, and what is our recourse . When a president does that, separation of powers means nothing. The subpoenas that have been issued, of course, are lawful orders. In our law schools we would teach our students this is an easy, straightforward situation. You comply with the law. Lawyers all the time have to comply with subpoenas. In this situation the full scale obstruction, fullscale obstruction of the subpoenas i think torpedos separation of powers and therefore your only recourse is to in a sense protect your institutional prerogatives that would include impeachment. The same is true of defying congressional subpoenas on a wholesale basis with respect to oversight not just to impeachment . Absolutely, yes, sir. Thank you. Professor feldman, as i understand it, the framers intended impeachment to be used infrequently, not as punishment but save our democracy from threats so significant we wait for the next election. In your testimony you suggest that we face that kind of threat. Can you explain why you think impeachment is the appropriate recourse here, why we cannot wait for the next election . Those are two questions if you want them to be. The framers reserved impeachment for situations where the president abused his office, that is, used it for his personal advantage, and in particular, they were specifically worried about a situation where the president used his office to facilitate corruptly his own reelection. Thats, in fact, why they thought they needed impeachment and why waiting for the next election wasnt good enough. On the facts that we have before the house right now, the president solicited assistance from a Foreign Government in order to assist his own reelection. That is, he used the power of his office that no one else could possibly have used in order to gain personal advantage for himself distorting the election and thats precisely what the framers anticipated. Thank you very much. And i now yield the remainder of my time to mr. Eisen for questions. Good morning. Thank you for being here. I want to ask you some questions about the following high crimes and misdemeanors 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 hs 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 to anyone who is not the president. Sir, why is that impeachable conduct . If the president uses his office for personal gain, the only recourse available under the constitution is for him to be impeached because the president cannot be, as a practical matter, charged criminally while he is in office because the department of Justice Works for the president. So the only mechanism available for a president who tries to distort the electoral process for personal gain is to impeach him. That is why we have impeachment. Professor karlan, do scholars of impeachment generally agree that abuse of power is an Impeachable Offense . Yes, they do. Professor gerhardt, do you agree that abuse of power is impeachable . Yes, sir. I would like to focus the panel on the evidence they considered and the findings in th i solicited the interference of a Foreign Government,020. Pde election. Professor feldman, did President Trump commit the impeachable high crime and misdemeanor of abuse of power based on that evidence and those findings . Based on that evidence and those findings the president did commit an impeachable abuse of office. Professor karlan, same question. Same answer. And professor gerhardt, did President Trump commit the impeachable high crime and misdemeanor of abuse of power . We three are unanimous. Yes. Professor feldman, i would like to quickly look at the evidence in the report. On july 25th, President Trump told the president of ukraine and i quote, i would like you to do us a favor, though. And he asked about looking into the bidens. Was the memorandum of that call relevant to your opinion that president committed abuse of power . The memorandum of that call between the two president s is absolutely crucial to the determination to my determination that the president abused his did you consider the findings of fact that the Intelligence Committee made, including that, and again i quote, the president withheld official acts of value to ukraine and conditioned their fulfillment on actions by ukraine that would benefit his personal political interests . Yes. In making the determination that the president committed an Impeachable Offense i relied on the evidence that was before the house and the testimony and then when this report was issued, i continued to rely on that. Sir, did you review the following testimony from our ambassador to ukraine, Ambassador William Taylor . To withhold that assistance for no good reason other than help with a political campaign, made no sense. It was it was counter productive it all of what we had been trying to do. It was illogical, it explained. It was crazy. Yes. That evidence underscored the way that the president s please explain why you concluded that the president committed the high crime of abuse of power and why it matters . The abuse of power occurs when the president uses his office for personal advantage or gain. That matters fundamentally to the American People because if we cannot impeach a president , who abuses his office for personal advantage, we no longer live in a democracy. We live in a monarchy or we live understand a dictatorship. Thats why the framers created the possibility of impeachment. Now, professor karlan, this high crime and misdemeanor of abuse of power, was it some kind of loose or undefined concept to the founders of our country and the framers off our constitution . No. I dont think it was an abuse it was a loose concept at all. It had a long linage in the common law in england of parliamentary impeachments of lower level officers. Obviously they had not talked about impeaching as youve heard earlier the king or the like. And can you share a little bit about that linage, please . Yes. So the you know, the parliament in england impeached officers of the crown when those people abused their power and if i could give you one example that might be a little helpful here, right after the restoration of the kingship in england, there was an impeachment and, you know, when they impeach somebody to say what they were impeaching them for . Sometimes were impeaching him for treason or the like and uses the phrase high crime or misdemeanor. There was an impeachment of vie counted moren, a great name to have, but the viecount, he was impeached because he was the sheriff of windsor and as the parliamentary election was coming up, he arrested William Taylor and i just want to read to you from the article of impeachment in front of the house of commons because its so telling. Heres what article one of the impeachment said. It said understanding that one William Taylor did intend to stand for the election of one of the burguesses of the borough of windsor to serve in this present parliament, running as a member of parliament, this is what the viecount did, to disparage and prevent the free election of the said William Taylor and strike terror into those of the said borough which should give their voices for him and deprive them of the freedom oheir voices at the election, viecount did command and cause the said William Taylor 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 gerhardt, does a high crime and misdemeanor require an actual statutory crime . No. It plainly does not. Everything we know about the history of impeachment reinforces the conclusion that Impeachable Offenses do not have to be crimes and again not all crimes are Impeachable Offenses. We look at again the context and gravity of the misconduct. And professor turley, you recently wrote in the wall street journal and i quote, there is much that is worthy of investigation in the ukraine scandal and it is true that impeachment doesnt require a crime. Thats true, but i also added an important caveat. Sir, it was a yes or no question, did you write in the wall street journal there is much that is worthy of investigation in the ukraine scandal and it is true that impeachment does not require a crime, is that an accurate quote, sir . Youve read it well. So professors feldman, karlan, and gerhardt, you have identified that on the evidence here, there is an impeachable act, a high crime and misdemeanor of abuse of power. Correct . Correct. Yes. Yes. And professor feldman, what does the constitution say is the possibility of the house of representatives in dealing with president ial high crimes and misdemeanors like abuse of power. The constitution gives the house of representatives the sole power of impeachment. That means the house has the right and responsibility to investigate president ial misconduct and where appropriate to create and pass articles of impeachment. And professor karlan, what does that responsibility mean for this committee with respect to President Trumps abuse of power . Well, because this is an abuse that cuts to the heart of democracy you need to ask yourselves if you dont impeach a president who has done what this president has done, or at least you dont investigate and then impeach if you conclude that the House Select Committee on intelligence findings are correct, then what youre saying is, its fine to go ahead and do this again. And i think that asthe,ou know, i last night, the report s about the clear and present danger to the election system and its your responsibility to make sure that all americans get to vote in a free and Fair Election next november. Professor karlan, i would like to direct you to the words in the constitution, other high crimes and misdemeanors. Were still going to talk about abuse of power. Can i ask, did the constitution spell out every other high crime and misdemeanor . No, it did not. Why . Please. In part because they recognized that the inventiveness of man and the likelihood that this constitution would endure for generations meant they couldnt list all of the crimes that might be committed. They couldnt imagine an abuse of power, for example, that involved burarizing and stealing computer files from an adversary because they couldnt have imagined computers. They couldnt necessarily have imagined wire tapping because we had no wires in 1789. What they did is put in a phrase that english hadd and adapted over a period of centuries to take into account that the idea of high crimes and misdemeanors is to get at things that people in office use to strike at the very heart of our democracy. And professor, in your written testimony, you mentioned two additional aspects of high crimes and misdemeanors, besides abuse of power. You talked about betrayal of the National Interests, betrayal of the National Interests and corruption of the electoral process and can you say a little bit more about what the framers concerns were about corruption of elections and betrayal of the National Interest involving foreign powers and how they come into play here . Sure. So let me start with the framers and what they were concerned with and then bring it up to date because i think theres some modern stuff as well thats important. So the framers were very worried that elections could be corrupted, they could be corrupted in a variety of different ways, and they spent a lot of time trying to design an election system that wouldnt be subject to that kind of corruption. And there are a number of different provisions in the constitution that deal with the kinds of corruption they were worried about, two i would like to highlight because i think they go to this idea about the National Interest and Foreign Governments, are one that seems today i think to most of us to be really a kind of remnant of a pasttime which is if you become an american citizen, almost everything in this country is open to you. You can become chief justice of the United States, you can become secretary of state, but the one office thats not open to you, even though youre a citizen like all the rest of us is the presidency because of the natural born citizen clause of the constitution. The reason they put that in, they were so worried about foreign influence over a president. The other clause which, you know, probably no one had heard of, you know, five years ago but now everybody talks about is the emoluments clause. They were really worried that the president , because he was only going to be in office for a little while, would use it to get everything he could and he would take gifts from foreign countries, not even necessarily bribes, but gifts and they were worried about that as well. They were concerned about those elections. Its not just them. I want to Say Something about what our National Interest is today because our National Interest today is different in some important ways than it was in 1789. What the framers were worried about was that we would be a weak country and weekend 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 wave done and this is one of the things that i think we as americans should be proudest of, is we have become what John Winthrop said in his sermon in 1640 and what ronald alreo couns left office, we have becomes 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 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. And i think you heard testimony that the Intelligence Committee heard testimony about how it isnt just our National Interest in protecting our own elections, not just our National Interest in making sure that the ukraine remains strong and on the front lines so they fight the russianss 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 were not doing our job of promoting our National Interest in being that shining city on a hill. Professor feldman, anything to add . Ultimately, the reason that the constitution provided for impeachment was to anticipate a situation like the one that is before you today. The framers were not prophets, but they were very smart people with a very sophisticated understanding of human incentives. They understood that a president would be motivated naturally to try to use the tremendous power of office to gain personal advantage, to keep himself in office, to corrupt the electoral process and potentially subvert the National Interest. The facts strongly suggest this is what President Trump has done and under those circumstances the framers would expect the house of representatives to take action in the form of impeachment. And professor feldman, did you review the Intelligence Committee report finding that President Trump compromised National Security to advance his personal political interests . I did. And will you explain in your view how that happened . The president sought personal gain and advantage by soliciting the announcement of investigations and presumably the investigations from ukraine and to do so, he withheld critical assistance that the government of ukraine needed and by doing so, he undermined the National Security interest of the United States in helping ukraine, our ally, in a war that it is fighting against russia. In the simplest possible terms, the president put his personal gain ahead of the National Security interest as expressed according to the evidence before you, by the entirety of the unanimous National Security community. Sir, is it your view that the framers would conclude that there was a betrayal of the National Interest or National Security by President Trump on these facts . In my view if the framers were aware that a president of the United States had put his person 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 conduct was impeachable under the constitution. Professor gerhardt, what are your thoughts on the National Security or National Interests, and the corruption of elections havent mentioned yet or brought into this conversation is the fact that the impeachment power requires this committee, this house, to be able to investigate president ial misconduct. If a president can block an investigation, undermine it, stop it, then the impeachment power itself as a check against misconduct is undermined completely. And professor karlan, can you have an Impeachable Offense of abuse of power that is supported by considerations of a president s betrayal of the National Interest or National Security and by corruption of elections . Yes, you can. And do we have that here, maam . Based on the evidence that ive seen, which is the reviewing the 12 the transcripts of the 12 witnesses who testified, looking at the call read out, looking at some of the president s other statements, looking at the statement by mr. Mulvaney and the like, yes, we do. And professor feldman, do you agree . Yes. Professor gerhardt . Yes, i do. Professor karlan, weve been talking about the category of other high crimes and misdemeanors, like abuse of power, but there are some additional high crimes and misdemeanors that are specifically identified in the text of the constitution. Correct . Yes, thats true. What are they . Treason and bribery. Do President Trumps demands ls esh the high crime of bribery . Yes, they do. Can you explain why, please . Sure. So the high crime or misdemeanor of bribery, i think its important to distinguish that from whatever the u. S. Code calls bribery today and the reason for this in part is because in 1789 when the framers were writing the constitution, there was no federal criminal code. The first bribery statutes that the United States Congress Pass wood not have reached a president at all because the first one was just about Customs Officials and the second one was only about judges. It wasnt until, i dont know, 60 years or so after the constitution was ratified that we had any federal crime of bribery at all. So when they say explicitly in the constitution that the president can be impeached and removed from office for bribery, they werefero a statute. And i will say, im not an expert on federal substantive federal criminal law, all i will say here is the bribery statute is a very complicated statute. So what they were thinking about is 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, mostly talking about a judge, it wasnt talking about a president because there was no president before that and it wasnt talking about the king because the king could do no wrong, but what they were understanding then was the idea that when you took private benefits or when you asked for private benefits, in return for an official act, or somebody gave them to you to influence an official act, that was bribery. And so we have constitutional bribery here, the high crime and misdemeanor of constitutional bribery 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. And in forming that opinion did you review the memorandum of the president s telephone call with the ukrainian president , the one where President Trump asked, i would like you to do us a favor, though, and also asked about looking into his u. S. Political opponents . Yes, i did rely on that. And did you consider the following testimony from our ambassador to the European Union ambassador sondland . Was there a quid pro quo . As i testified previously, with regard to the requested white house call and the white house meeting, the answer is yes. Everyone was in the loop. Did you consider that professor . I did consider that, yes. And did you also consider the findings of fact that the Intelligence Committee made, including that and i quote from finding of fact number five, the president withheld official acts of value to ukraine and conditioned their fulfillment on actions by ukraine that would benefit his personal political interest . I did rely on that in addition, because as ive already testified, i read the witnesses the transcripts of the witnesses and the like and relied on testimony from ambassador sondland, testimony from mr. Morrison, testimony from Lieutenant Colonel vindman, testimony for ambassador taylor, i relied on the fact that when i think it was ambassador taylor, but i may be getting which one of these people wrong, sent the cable that said, you know, its crazy to hold this up based on domestic political concern, no one wrote back and said thats not why were doing it. I relied on what mr. Mulvaney said in his press conference. You know, theres a lot to suggest here that this is about political benefit and if i dont know if i can talk about another piece of ambassador sondlands testimony now or i should wait. Tell me. Please talk about it. So i want to just point to what i considerriking example oe most you know, i spent all of thanksgiving vacation sitting there reading these transcripts. I didnt you know, i ate like a turkey that came to us in the mail that was already cooked because i was spending my time doing this. 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 president zelensky, he had to announce the investigations. He didnt actually have to do them as i understood it and then he said, i never heard mr. Goldman, anyone say the investigations had to start or be completed. The only thing i heard from mr. Giuliani or otherwise, they had to be announced in some form. What i took that to mean this was not about whether Vice President biden actually committed corruption or not, this was about injuring somebody who the president thinks of as a particularly hard opponent. Thats for his private his private beliefs. 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 on a third party. The constitution is indifferent to that. What the constitution cares about is that we have free elections and so it is only in the president s interest, its not the National Interest, that a particular president be elected or be defeated at the next election. The constitution is indifferent to that. Professor feldman, any thoughts on the subject of the high crime and misdemeanor of bribery and the evidence that professor karlan laid out . The clear sense of bribery at the time when the framers adopted this language in the constitution was that bribery existed under the constitution when the president corruptly asked for or received something of value to him from someone who could be affected by his official office. So if the house of representatives and the members of this committee were to determine that getting the investigations either announced or undertaken was a thing of value to President Trump, and that that was what he sought, then this committee and this house could safely conclude that the president had committed bribery under the constitution. Professor gerhardt, what is your view . I, of course, agree with professor karlan and professor feldman. And i just want to stress that if this if what were talking about is not impeachable, then nothing is impeachable. This is precisely the misconduct that the framers created a constitution, including impeachment, to protect against. If theres no action, if congress concludes theyre going to give a pass to the president here, as professor karlan suggested earlier, every other president will say okay, then i can do the same thing and the boundaries will just evaporate. Those boundaries are set up by the constitution and we may be witnessing, unfortunately, their erosion. That is a u and wan this committee and the house of representatives do, sir, to defend those boundaries and to protect against that erosio selyhat youre doing. Does it matter, ill ask all the panelists, does it matter to impeachment that the 391 million, u. S. Taxpayer dollars, in military assistance that the president withheld, was ultimately delivered . Professor feldman, does that matter to the question of impeachment . No, it does not. If the president of the United States attempts to abuse his office, that is a complete Impeachable Offense. The possibility that the president might get caught in the process of attempting to abuse his office and not being able to pull it off does not undercut in any way the impeachability of the act. Pard an comparison, president nixon was subject to articles of impeachment preferred by this committee for attempting to cover up the watergate breakin. The fact that president nixon was not successful in covering up the breakin was not grounds for not impeaching him. The attempt itself is the impeachable act. Professor karlan, does it matter to impeachment that the unfounded investigations that the president sought were ultimately never announced . No, it doesnt, and if i could give an example that i think shows why soliciting is enough. Imagine you were pulled over for speeding by a Police Officer and the officer comes up to the window and says you were speeding but if you give me 20 bucks ill drop the ticket and you look in your wallet and say to the officer, i dont have the 20 bucks. 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 whether the other person comes up with it. Imagine that president had said, will you do us a favor, will you investigate joe biden, and the president of ukraine said, you know what, no, i wont, because weve already looked into this, and its totally baseless. The president would still have committed an impeachable act, even if he had been refused right there on the phone. I dont see why the ultimate decision has anything to do with the president s impeachable conduct. Whats the danger if congress does not respond to that attempt . Well, weve already seen a little bit of it which he gets out on the white house lawn and says, china, i think you should investigate joe biden. And professor gerhardt, your view . I certainly 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. What they wanted was not just to do what they did, but to get away with it. And the point of impeachment is, and its made possible through investigation, is to catch that person, charge that person and ultimately remove that person from office. But impeachments are always focusing on somebody who didnt quite get as far as they wanted to. Its nobody is better than profess profess karlan at hypotheticals but imagine a bank robbery and the police come and the person is in the middle of the bank robbery and the person then drops the money and says, im going to leave without the money. Everybody understands thats robbery. Thats burglary. Ill get it right. And in this situation, weve got somebody caught in the middle of it and that doesnt excuse the person from the consequences. Professors, weve talked professors we have talked about abuse of power and po bribery, when we started we said we would also discuss obstruction of congress. So i would like to ask you some questions about obstruction of congress. Professor gerhardt, in your view is there enough evidence here to charge President Trump with the high crime and misdemeanor of obstruction of congress . I think there is more than tough. As i mentioned in my statement, just to really underscore this, the third article of impeachment approved by the house Judiciary Committee against president nixon charged him with misconduct because he filed comply with four legislative subpoenas. Here there is far more than four this president has failed to comply with and he has ordered the executive branch as well not to cooperate