And i thought the threat to our nation was well articulated earlier today by Professor Feldman when you said, if we cannot impeach a president who abuses his office for personal advantage, we no longer live in a democracy, we live in a monarchy or we live under a districtatorship. My view is if people cannot depend on the fairness of our elections, then what people are calling divisive today will be absolutely nothing compared to the shredding of our democracy. After the events of ukraine unfolded, the president claimed that the reason he requested an investigation into his political opponents and withheld desperately needed military aid for ukraine was supposedly because he was worried about corruption. However, contrary to president s statements, various witnesses, including Vice President pences special adviser jennifer williams, testified that the president s request was political. Take a listen. I found the july 25th phone call unusual because in contrast to other president ial calls i had observed, it involved discussion of what appeared to be a domestic political matter. For someone who gets caught to deny that their behavior is impermissible, almost always. And one of the question before us is whether the president s claim that he cared about corruption is actually credible. Now youve argued before the Supreme Court and the Supreme Court determined that when assessing credibility, we should look at a number of factors. Including impact, historical background and whether there are departure from normal procedures, correct. That is correct. And were trying to figure out if someones explanation fits with the facts and if it doesnt then the explanation may not be true so lets explore that. Lieutenant colonel vindman prepared talking points on anticorruption reform for President Trumps call with ukraine president zelensky. However based on the transcripts released of those calls in april and july, President Trump never mentioned these points of corruption. He actually never mentioned the word corruption. Does is that go to any of those factors . Is that significant . Yes. It goes to the one about Procedure Irregularities and said that you look at the kind of things that led up to the decision that youre trying to figure out somebodys motive about. So lets try another one. Ambassador volker testified that the president never expressed any concerns to him about corruption in any country other than ukraine. Would that be relevant to your assessment . Yes, it would. It goes to the factor about substantive departures. And professor karlan there is, in fact, and my colleague mr. Mcclinton mentioned this, a process lined out to assess whether countries that are receiving military aid have done enough to fight corruption. In may of 2019 my republican
colleague did not say this, the Department Of Defense actually wrote a letter determining that ukraine passed the assessment and yet President Trump set aside that assessment and withheld the congressionally approved aid to ukraine anyway in Direction Contradiction to the established procedures he should have followed had he cared about corruption. Is that assess is that relevant to your assessment. Yes. That would go to the factors the Supreme Courts discussed. And what about the fact and i think you mentioned this earlier as one of the key things that you read in the testimony, that President Trump wanted the investigations of burisma and the bidens announced but that he actually didnt care whether they were conducted. That is in ambassador sondlands testimony, what would you say about that. That goes to whether the claim that this is about politics is a persuasive claim because that goes to the fact
that it is being announced publicly which is an odd thing. I mean maybe mr. Swalwell could answer this better than i because he was a prosecutor. But generally you dont announce the investigation in a criminal case before you conduct it because it puts the person on notice that theyre under investigation. And given all of these facts and there are more that we dont have time to get to, how would you assess the credibility of the president s claim that he was worried about corruption some. Well, i think you ought to make that credibility determination because you have the sole power of impeachment. If i were a member of the House Of Representatives, i would infer from this that he was doing it for political reasons. If we dont stand up now to a president who abuses his power, we risk sebdsing a message to all future president s that they could put their own personal political interest ahead of the American People, our National Security and our elections and that is is the gravest of threats to our democracy. I yield back. Gentle lady yields back. I noup recognize mr. Gom ert for the purpose of unanimous consent request. Yes. Mr. Chairman, i would ask consent to offer article by daniel huff without objection. The article will be entered into the record. And i recognize mr. Resh enthraller to question the witnesses. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Im starting off today doing something that i dont normally do and im going to quote speaker of the house nancy pelosi. In March The Speaker told the Washington Post im going to quote this, impeachment is so divisive to the country that unless there is something so compelling and overwhelming and bipartisan i dont think we should go down that path because it divides the country. Well on that the speaker and i both agree. And you know who else agrees . The Founding Fathers. The Founding Fathers recognize that crimes warranting impeachment must be so severe regardless of Political Party that there is an agreement the
actions are impeachable. But go back to Speaker Pelosis words One More Time and the case for impeachment must also be compelling. Well after last months schiff show this is what we learned. There is no evidence that the president directed anyone to tell the ukrainians that aid was conditioned on investigation. Aside from the Mere Presumptions by ambassador sondland there is no evidence that trump was convinced on and if you doubt go back to the transcript because never in the call was the 2020 election mentioned and never in the call was military aid mentioned. In fact, President Trump told senator johnson on 31 august that aid was not conditioned on investigation. Rather President Trump was rightfully skepts cal about the ukrainians, the country has a history of corruption and he merely wanted the europeans to
contribute more to a problem in their own backyard. But i think we can all agree it is appropriate for the president as a steward of taxpayer dollars to ensure our money isnt wasted. I said i Wouldnt Go Back to Speaker Pelosi but i do want to go back because i forgot she also said that impeachment should only be pursued when it is quote, unquote, overwhelming. So it is prblly not good for the democrats that none of the witnesses that testified before the Intel Committee were able to provide firsthand evidence of a quid pro quo. But i forgot we are calling it bribery now after the focus group last week. And there is no evidence of bribery either. Instead, the two people who did have first hands knowledge, the president and president zelensky, both say there was no pressure on the ukrainians. And again the transcript of july 25th backs this up. And to go back to nancy pelosi One More Time, she said that the movement for impeachment should be, quote unquote, bipartisan. Which is sully the same
sentiment echoed by jerry nadler who in 1998 said, and i quote, there must never be a narrowly voted impeachment supported by one of the Major Political parties and opposed by another. Well, when the house voted on the democrats Impeachment Inquiry it was just that. The only bipartisan vote was the one imposing the inquiry. The partisan vote was the one to move forward with the inquiry. So were 0 for 3. Lets face it. This is a Sham Impeachment against President Trump. Its not compelling, its not overwhelming and it is not bipartisan. So even by the speakers own criteria, this is failed. Rather what this is is nothing more than a bipartisan witch hunt which denies the fundamental fairness for american Justice System and denies due process to the president of the United States. The democrats case is based on nothing more than thoughts, feelings and conjectures and a
few and thoughts and feelings of few unelected bureaucrats and the American People are absolutely fed up. Instead of wasting our time on this we should be passing usmca and lowering the cost of Prescription Drugs with that said, mr. Turley, i watched as your words have been twisted and mangled all day long. Is there anything you would like to clarify . Only this. I think one of the disagreements that we have and i have with my esteemed colleagues is what makes a a legitimate impeachment, not what technically satisfies an impeachment, there are very few technical requirements of impeachment but the question is what is expected of you and my objection is that there is a constant preference for inference over information. For presumptions over proof. That is because this record hasnt been developed. And if youre going to remove a president , if you believe in
democracy, if you remove a sitting president then you have an obligation not to rely on inference when there is still information you can gather. And that is what im saying. It is not that you cant do this. You just cant do it this way. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Gentleman yields back. Ip recognize mostly sunny jackson lee for the purpose of unanimous consent request. Thank you, mr. Chairman. I would like unanimous consent to place in the record a statement a new statement from checks and balances on President Trumps abuse of Office Without objection republican and democratic Attorney General. Without objection. I now recognize miss demings, five minutes for questioning the witnesses. Thank you mr. Chairman. As a former Law Enforcement official, i know firsthand that the rule of law is the strength of our zks. And no one is above it. Not our neighbors, and in our
various communities, not our coworkers and not the president of the United States. Yet the president has said that he cannot be prosecuted for criminal conduct. That he need not comply with congressional requests and subpoenas. Matter of fact, the president is trying to absorb himself of any accountability. Since the beginning of the investigation in early september, the house sent multiple letters, Document Requests and subpoenas to the white house. Yet the president has refused to produce documents and has directed others not to produce documents. He has prevented key white house officials from testifying. The president s obstruction of congress is pervasive. Since the house began its investigation, the white house has produced zero subpoenaed
documents. In addition, at the president s direction, more than a dozen members of his administration have defied congressional subpoenas. The following slides shows those who have refused to comply at the president s direction. We are facing a categorically blockade by a president who is desperate to prevent any investigation into his wrongdoing. Professor gerhardt, has a president ever refused to cooperate in an Impeachment Investigation . Not until now. And any president who i know i know nixon delayed or tried to delay turning over information. When that occurred, was it at the same level that were seeing
today . President trump nixon also had orders his subordinates to cooperate and testify. He didnt shut down any of that. He produced documents and there were times of disagreements but there was not a wholesale broad scale refusal to recognize the legitimacy of this house doing an inquiry. The president nixons Obstruction Result in an Articles Of Impeachment. Yes, maam. Article three. Professor feldman is it fair to say if a president stonewalls an investigation like were clearing seeing today in whether he has committed an Impeachable Offense he fears rendering the impeachment power moot. And that is the effect of a president refusing to participate. Hes denying the power of congress under the constitution to oversee him and to exercise its capacity to impeach. Professor gerhardt when a
president stopped those from complying to subpoenas are we entitled to make any resumptions about what they would say if you testify. Yes, maam, you are. And i point out that one of the difficulties of asking for a more thorough investigation is what the houses that tried to conduct and the president has refused to comply, that is where the blockage occurs and that is why there are documents not produced and people not testifying that people today said they want to hear from. In relation to what you just said ambassador sondland testified and i quote, everyone was in the loop. It was to secret. Professor gerhardt how is ambassador sondlands testimony relevant here . His testimony is relevant and also rather chilling to hear him say that everybody is in the loop and when he says that hes talking about the people at the high elf levels of our government. All of whom are refusing to testify under oath or comply with subpoenas. Professors, thank you for your testimony. The president used the power of his office to pressure a foreign Head Of State to investigate an american citizen in order to benefit his domestic political situation after he was caught. And i do know something about that. This president proceeded to cover it up and refused to comply with valid congressional subpoenas. The framers included impeachment in the constitution to ensure that no one no one is Above The Law. Including and especially the president of the United States. Thank you mr. Clair. And i yield back. Gentle lady yields back. Mr. Klein is recognized. Thank you mr. Chairman. It is just past 5 00 and a lot of families are just getting home from work right now. Theyre turning on the tv and theyre wondering what theyre watching on tv. Theyre asking themselves, is this a rerun because i thought i
saw this a couple of weeks ago. But no, this is not a rerun, this is act two of the three part tragedy, the impeachment of President Trump and what were seeing here is several very accomplished constitutional scholars attempting to devine the intent, whether it is of the president or of the various witnesses who appeared during the schiff hearings and it is very frustrating to me as a member of the Judiciary Committee why we are where we are today. I asked to be a member of this committee because of its storied history because it was the defender of the constitution, because it was one of the oldest committees in the congress established by another Verge Virginan John Float and
congressman blat and congressman butler also served on this committee. But the committee that they served under on is dead. That committee doesnt exist any more. That committee is gone. Apparently now we dont even get to sit in the Judiciary Committee room. Were in the ways and Means Committee room. I dont know why. Maybe because there is more room. Maybe because the portraits of the various chairman whose would be staring down at us might just intimidate the other side as they attempt what is essentially a Sham Impeachment of this president. You know, looking at where we are, the lack of the use of the redino rules, in this process, is shameful. The fact that we got Witness Testimony for this hearing this morning is shameful. The fact that we got the Intelligence Committee report
yesterday, 300 pages of it, is shameful. I watched the Intelligence Committee hearings from the back. Although i couldnt watch them all because the Judiciary Committee actually scheduled business during the Intelligence Committee hearings so the Judiciary Committee members werent able to watch all of the hearings. But i didnt get to i get to read the transcripts of the hearings that were held in private. I was not able to be a part of the Intelligence Committee hearings that were in the scif. We havent seen the evidence from the Intelligence Committee yet. Weve asked for it. We havent received it. We havent heard from any fact witnesses yet before we get to hear from the constitutional scholars about whether or not the facts rise to the level of an impeachment of Impeachable Offense. Mr. Turley, it is not just your
family and dog who are angry. Many of us on this committee are angry. Many of us watching at home, across america, are angry because this show has degenerated into a farce. And as i said, the Judiciary Committee of my predecessors is dead. And i look to a former chairman Daniel Webster who said we are all agents of the same supreme power, the people, and its the people who elected this president in 2016, and its the people who should have the choice as to whether or not to vote for this president in 2020, not the members of the committee, not Speaker Nancy Pelosi and not the members of this House Of Representatives. It should be the people of the United States who get to decide who their president is in 2020. I asked several questions about Obstruction Of Justice to mr. Mueller when he testified. Mr. Turley, i know that you mentioned Obstruction Of Justice several times in your testimony. I want to yield to mr. Ratcliff to ask a concise question about that issue. Thank you for yielding. Professor turley in the last few days weve heard that despite no questions to any witnesses during the first two months of the first phase of this pea Impeachment Inquiry that the democrats may be dusting off the Obstruction Of Justice portion of the Mueller Report. Seems to me that we all remember how painful it was to listen to Special Counsels analysis of the Obstruction Of Justice portion of that report. I would like you to address the fatal flaws from your perspective with regard to the Obstruction Of Justice portion of that. The gentlemans time is expired. The witz may answer the question briefly. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Ive been a critic of the Obstruction Theory behind the Russia Investigation because once again it doesnt meet what i think are the clear standards for obstruction. There were ten issues that mueller addressed and the only thing that raised a serious issue quite frankly was the matter with don mcgahn. There is a disagreement about that. But also the Department Of Justice rejected the Obstruction Of Justice claim and it was not just the Attorney General, it was also the Deputy Attorney rod rosenstein. The gentlemans time is well expired. Mr. Correia. Thank you. And i thank our witnesses for being here today. I can assure your testimony is important not only to this body but to america that is listening very intently on what the issues before us are and why is it so important that all of us understand the issues before us. Professor feldman, as was just
discussed, President Trump has ordered the Executive Branch to completely blockade the efforts of this house to investigate whether he committed High Crimes And Misdemeanors in his dealings with the ukraine. Is that correct. Yes, it is. President trump has also asserted that many officials are somehow absolutely immune from testifying in this Impeachment Inquiry. On the screen behind you is the opinion by judge jackson, a federal judge here in d. C. , that rejects President Trumps assertion. Professor feldman, do agree with judge jacksons ruling that President Trump has invoked a nonexistent legal basis to block witnesses from testifying in this Impeachment Inquiry . I agree with the thrust of the judges opinion. I think that she correctly held that there is no absolute immunity to protect a president ial adviser from having
to appear before the House Of Representatives and testify. She did not make a ruling as to whether Executive Privilege would apply in any given situation. I think that was also appropriate because the issue had not yet arisen. And let me quote judge jackson, open quote, the primary takeaway from the past 250 years of recorded American History is that president s are not kings, closed quote. Professorfeldman, in the famers view does the president act for like a leader of democracy or a monarch when he orders officials to Zeefy Congress as they try to investigate abuse of power and corruption of elected. Sir, i dont think the framers would think the president would refuse to participate in a Impeachment Inquiry given they gave the power of impeachment to the House Of Representatives and assumes the structure of the constitution would allow the congress to oversee the
president. Professor gerhardt must we understand whether the president must comply with the Impeachment Investigation. You could look throughout the entire constitution and the Supremacy Clause and the president takes an oath. He takes an oath to support and defend the constitution of the United States. That means that hes assuming office with certain constraints on what he may do and there are measures for accountability for any failure to follow his duty or follow the constitution. Thank you. And the president has said that he is Above The Law. That article two of the constitution allows him to, and i quote, do whatever i want. That cant be true. Judge jackson said that no one is Above The Law. Personally, i grew up in california in the 1960s. It was a time when were going to beat the russians to the moon. We were full of optimism. We believed in american democracy. We were the best in the world. And back home on main street my mom and dad struggled to survive daytoday. My mom worked as a Maid Cleaning Hotel Rooms for 1. 50 an hour and my dad worked at a local paper mill trying to survive daytoday and what got us up in the morning was the belief and the optimism that tomorrow would be better than today. Were a nation of freedom, democracy, economic opportunity, and we always know that tomorrow is going to be better. And today i personally sit as a testament to the greatness of this nation, me, and others in congress. And i sit here in this Committee Room also with one very Important Mission which its to keep the American Dream alive. To ensure that all of us are
equal. To ensure that nobody, nobody is Above The Law and to ensure that our constitution and that our congressional oversight of the presidency is still something with meaning. Thank you. Mr. Chair, i yield back. The gentleman yields back. Mr. Armstrong. Thank you mr. Chairman. You know, all day long weve been sitting here and listening to my friends across the aisle and their witnesses claim that the president demanded ukraine do us a favor. By assisting in 2020 reelection campaign, before he would release the military aid. This is like Everything Else in the Sham Impeachment, purposely misleading and not based on the facts. So lets review the actual transcript of the call. They never mentioned the 2020 election and never mentioned military aid. It does, however, clearly show that the favor the president requested was assistance with the Ongoing Investigation into
the 2016 election. Those investigations particularly the one done being run by jeff durham should concern democrats. And the transcript of this call shows that the president was worried about the efforts of ukrainian related to the 2016 election. We know this. And notice im using the word know and not the word infer from reading the transcript and he spoke about it ending with mueller. We know this because he wants the toerj Attorney General to get in touch about the issue. We have a trade with ukraine governing these investigations and like so many other things these facts are inconvenient for democrats and they dont fit the Impeachment Narrative so they are misrepresented or ignored and i think it is important when we talk about this and whatever the burden of proof, beyond a reasonable doubt, clear and convincing evidence or a judicial or quasijudicial hearing i think we need to start with how we look at it and im not a constitutional law
professor, im just an old criminal defense attorney. But when i walk into a courtroom i think of three things. What is the crime charged, what is the con duck and who is the victim. And we manage to make it until 5 00 before weve talked about the alleged victim of the crime. And that is president zelensky. And three different times president zelensky at least three different times has denied being pressured by the president. The call shows laughter, pleasantries, cordiality. September 25th president zelensky states, no, you heard that we had a good phone call. It was normal. We spoke about many things. I think you read it and nobody pushed me. October 10th president zelensky had Say Press Conference and i encourage everybody to watch it, even if you dont understand it, 90 of communications nonverbal, you tell me if you think hes lying. There was no blackmail. December 2nd, this monday, i never talked to the president from the position of quid pro quo. So we have the alleged victim of quid pro quo, bribery, extortion, whatever we are dealing with today, repeatedly and adamantly shouting from the rooftops that he never felt pressure and he was not the victim of anything. So in order for this whole thing to stick we have to believe that president zelensky is a pathological liar or that the ukrainian president and the country are so weak that he has no choice but to parade himself out there demoralize himself for the good of his country. Either of these two assertions weakened their countries and harms our efforts to help the ukrainian. And also begs the question of how on earth did President Trump zelz with stand this illegal and impeachable pressure to begin with because this fact still has not changed. The aid was released to ukrainian and did not take any action from them in order for it to flow and with that i yield to my friend mr. Jordan. I thank the gentleman for
yielding. Context is important isnt it. Yes, sir. A few minutes ago when our colleague from florida presented a statement you made, you said well you have to take that statement in context but it seems you dont want to extend the same standard to the president. Because the now famous quote, i would like you to do us a favor you said about an hour and a half ago that didnt marine us didnt mean us, it meant the president himself. But that is the clear reading of this i would like you to do us a favor though because you know what the next two words are . I dont have the document. Because the country he didnt say i would like you to do me a favor, because our country has been through a lot. You know what this call happened the day after mueller was in front of the committee. Of course our country was put through two years of this. And the idea that youre go fog say this is the royal we and talking about himself ignores the entire context of his statement. That whole paragraph and you
know what ends with, talking about bob mueller. And this is the basis for this impeachment, this call. It couldnt be further from the truth. You want the standard to apply when representative gaetz makes one of your statements, you have to look at the context but when the president of the United States is clear you try to change his word and when the context is clear hes talking about the two years that this country went through because of the Mueller Report gentlemans tigentlema gentlemans time is expired. Miss scanlon. I want to thank our constitutional experts for walking us through the framers thinking on impeachment and why they decided it was a necessary part of our constitution. Im going to ask you to help us understand the implications of the president s obstruction of congresss investigation into the use of the office of the president to squeeze the Ukrainian Government to help the Trump Reelection Campaign and there are certainly hundreds of pages on how one reaches that
conclusion. We know the president s obstruction did not begin with the Ukraine Investigation. Instead his conduct is part of a pattern and ill direct your attention to the timeline on the screen. In the lefthand column we see the president s statement from the july call in which he pressured ukraine, a foreign government, to meddle in our elections. Then once congress got wind of it, the president tried to cover up his involvement by obstructing the congressional investigation and refusing to cooperate. But this Isnt The First Time weve seen this kind of obstruction. In the righthand column we could flash back to the 2016 election when the president welcomed and used russians interference in our election and again when the Special Counsel and then this committee tried to investigate the extent of his involvement, he did everything he could to cover it up. So it appears the president s obstruction of investigations is part of a pattern. First he invited foreign powers
to ints fear in our elections and then covered it up and finally he obstructed lawful inquiry into his behavior whether by congress or Law Enforcement and then he does it again. So professor gerhardt, how does the existence of such a pattern help determine whether the president s conduct is impeachable. The pattern, of course, gives us a tremendous insight into the context of his behavior. When hes acting and how do we explain the actions by looking at patern and we can infer i think a very strong inference in fact is that this is deviated from the usual practice and hes been systematically heading towards a culmination where he could ask this question, by the way, after the july 25th call, the money is not yet released. And there is ongoing conversations from other testimony that essentially the money is being withheld because the president wanted to make sure the deliverable was going to happen. That is the announcement of investigation. And in addition to the money not being released there was also not the white house meeting which was so important to ukrainian security. Yes, maam, that is right. Professor feldman we noted that a forward District Court rejected the president s attempt to block witnesses from testifying to congress saying that president s are not kings. The founders included two critical provisions in our constitution to prevent our president from becoming a king and our democracy from becoming a monarchy and those protections were president ial elections and impeachment, correct . Correct. Based on the pattern of conduct that were discussing today, the pattern of inviting foreign interference in our elections for political gain, and then obstructing lawful investigation, has the president undermined both of those protections . He has. And it is crucial to note that the victim of a high crime and misdemeanor such as the president is alleged to have committed is not president zelensky and it is not the ukrainian people. The victim of the high crime and
misdemeanor is the American People. Alexander hamilton said clearly that the nature of a high crime and misdemeanor is they are related to injures to the society itself and we the American People are the victims of the high crime and mirds. And what is the appropriate remedy in such a circumstance. The framers created one remedy and that was impeachment. Thank you. Ive spent over 30 years working to help clients and School Children understand the importance of our constitutional system and the importance of the rule of law so the president s behavior is deeply, deeply troubling. The president welcomed and used Election Interference by russia publicly admitted he would do it again and did, in fact, do it again by soliciting Election Interference from ukraine and throughout the president has tried to cover up his misconduct. This isnt complicated. The founders were clear and we must be too, such behavior in a
president of the United States is not acceptable. I yield back. The gentle lady yields back. Miss cicilini will be recognized for a unanimous consent request. I ask consent that a document that lists the had 400 pieces of legislation and 80 languishing in the senate in response to mr. Gaetzs claim. No objection. The document will be made part of the recognize. Mr. Biggs is recognized yeah, i consider a pact of 54 documents and items which have previously been submitted. Without objection. The documents will be admitted into the record. I ask unanimous consent that this article just published 15 minutes ago provided Jonathan Turley said democrats are setting a record for impeachment
and that is demonstrably false and that is false. Who seeks recognition. Mr. Kachairman. For what purpose. A tweet that the first lady of the United States just issued within the hour. It said, quote, a minor child deserves privacy and should be kept out of politics. Pamela carlin you should be ashamed of using a child to do it, unquote. Without objection, the document will be entered into the record. Mr. Stuby is recognized for purpose of questioning the witnesses. Im sorry. Oh, not here momentarily. Mrs. Garcia is recognized. Thank you. And i want to thank all of the witnesses for the time and patience today. I know it has been a long day but the end is in sight. As my colleague miss scanlon observed, the similarities between the president s conduct in the Ukraine Investigation and
this conduct in the Special Counsel investigation are hard to ignore. In fact, were seeing it as a pattern of a president ial abuse of power. The president called the Ukraine Investigation a hoax. And the Mueller Investigation a witch hunt. He has threatened the ukraine whistleblower for not testifying like he threatened to fire his Attorney General for not obstructing the Russia Investigation. The president fired ambassador yovanovitch and publicly tarnished her reputation much in the same way he fired his white House Counsel and publicly attacked his integrity. And finally the president attacked a Civil Servants who have testified about ukraine just like he attacked Career Officials of the Department Of Justice for investigating his obstruction of the Russia Investigation. Under any other circumstances, such behavior byfully american
president would be shocking but here it is a repeat of what we have already seen, the Special Counsel investigation. Id like to take a moment to discuss the president s efforts to obstruct Special Counsels investigation. A subject that this committee has been investigating since march. Here are two slides, the first one will show as he did with as the president as he did with ukraine tried to coerce his subordinates to stop an investigation into his misconduct by Foreign Special counsel mueller. And the second slideshows that when the news broke out of the president s order, the president directed his advisers to falsely deny he had made the order. Professor gerhardt, are you familiar with the facts related to the three episodes as described in the Mueller Report, yes or no, please. Yes, maam. So accepting the special
counsel evidence as true, is this paltern of conduct Obstruction Of Justice. It is clearly Obstruction Of Justice. And why would you say so, sir . The obvious object is to shut down an investigation and the acts of the president according to the facts each time is to use the power that has unique to his office but in a way that will help him frustrate the investigation. So does this conduct fit within the framers view of Impeachable Offenses. I believe it does. The entire constitution including separation of powers is designed to put limits on how somebody may go about frustrating the activity of for forge branch. So you would say this is an Impeachable Offense. Yes, maam. Thank you. Because i agree with you. The president s actions and behavior do matter. The Obstruction Of Justice definitely matters. As a former judge and member of
congress, ive raised my right hand and put my left hand on a bible more than once and ive sworn to uphold the constitution and laws of this country. This hearing is about that but it is also about the core of the heart of our american values. The values of duty, honor, and loyalty. It is about the rule of law. When the president asked ukraine for a favor, he did so for his personal political gain and not on behalf of the American People. And if this is true, he would have betrayed his oath and betrayed his loyalty to this country. Fundamental principle of our democracy is that no one is Above The Law. Not any one of you professors, not any of us up here, Members Of Congress and not even the president of the United States that is why we should hold him accountable for his actions and that is why i again thank you
for testifying today and helping us walk through all of this to prepare for what may come. Thank you, sir. I yield back. Gentle lady yields back. Mr. Nag use. Thank you, mr. Chair and thank you to each of the four witnesses for your testimony today. I would like to start by talking about intimidation of witnesses. As my colleague Congresswoman Garcia noted, President Trump has tried to interfere in both the Ukraine Investigation and Special CounselMueller Investigation in order to try to cover up his own misconduct and in both the Ukraine Investigation and Special CounselMueller Investigation, the president actively discouraged witnesses from cooperating, intimidated witnesses who came forward, and praised those who refused to cooperate. For example, in the ukrainian investigation, the president harassed and intimidated the brave Public Servants who came forward. He publicly called the whistleblower a, quote,
disgrace to our country. And said that his identity should be revealed. He suggested that those involved in the whistleblower complaint should be dealt with in the way that we, quote, used to do, end quote, for spies and treason. He called ambassador taylor a former Military Officer with more than 40 years of Public Service a quote, nevertrumper, end quote, on the same day that he called nevertrumpers, quote, scum. The president also tweeted accusations about many of the other Public Servants who testified including jennifer williams, and ambassador yovanovitch and as we know the president s latter tweet happened literally during the ambassadors testimony in this room in front of the Intelligence Committee which she made clear was intimidating. Conversely, we know that the president has praised witnesses who have refused to cooperate. For example, during the Special Counsel investigation the president praised paul manafort. His former Campaign Manager for not cooperating. You could see the tweet up on the screen to my side. As another telling example, the president initially praised ambassador sondland for not cooperating. Calling him, quote, a really good man and a great american. But after ambassador sondland testified and confirmed that there was indeed a quid pro quo between the white house visit and the request for investigations, the president claimed that he, quote, hardly knew the ambassador. Professor gerhardt, you touched on it previously but i would like you to just explain, is the president s interference in these investigations by intimidating witnesses also the kind of conduct that the framers were worried about and if so why. It is clearly conduct that i think worried the framers reflected in the constitution theyve given us in the structure of the constitution. The activities were talking about here are consistent with
the other pattern of activity weve seen with the president either trying to stop investigations, either by mr. Mueller or by congress, as well as to ask witnesses to make false documents about testimony and all of those different kinds of activities are not the kinds of activities the framers expected the president to be able to take. They expect a president to be held accountable for it and not just in elections. Prefer turley, youve studied ooirm of president johnson, president clinton and am i right that nixon allowed senior white house officials including the white House Counsel and Chief Of Staff to testify in the house Impeachment Inquiry. Yes. And youre aware that President Trump has prefused to allow his white House Counsel to testify. Yes. But various officials did testify and they are remaining in federal employment. And that does not include the white House Counsel or the Chief Of Staff. Correct. That is correct. And
during that Impeachment Inquiry . I believe thats sounds about right . Youre aware the president refuses to answer any questions in this Impeachment Inquiry . Are you aware of the letter by white House Counsel written on behalf of President Trump in Effect InstructingBranch Officials not to testify in this Impeachment Inquiry . Yes. Aim correct no president in the history of the republic, before President Trump, has ever issued a general order instructed executive Branch Officials not to testify in an Impeachment Inquiry . Thats where im not sure president nixon went to court offer access of documents and like and he lost. Professor turley, i would in
court. I would refer you to each scholar today because president nixon did allow the Chief Of Staff to testify and this president has not. At the end of the day, this congress and this committee has an obligation to insure that the law is enforced. With that, i yield back the balance of my time. The chair yields back. Thank you for spending long arduous hours with us. Thank you so much for being here. Following up on my colleague, mr. Neguses questions, i want to go through one particular example, the president s Witness Intimidation i find truly disturbing and very devastating, because i think its important that we all truly see whats
going on here. As the slide shows, on his july 25th call, President Trump said former ambassador yovanovitch would, and i quote, go through some things. Ambassador yovanovitch testified about how learning about the president s statements made her feel. What did you think when President Trump told president zelensky you were going to go through some things . I didnt know what you think but i was very concerned. What were you concerned about . Shes going to go through some things didnt sound good. It sounded like a threat. Did you feel threatened . I did. And as we all witnessed in
realtime, in the middle of ambassador yovanovitchs live testimony the president tweeted about the ambassador discrediting her service in somalia and the ukraine. Ambassador yovanovitch testified that the president s tweet was, and i quote, very intimidating. Professor gerhart, these attacks on a career Public Servant are deeply upsetting, but how do they fit into our understanding whether the president has committed high crimes and misdemeanor and how do they fit into our broader pattern of behavior by this president to cover up and obstruct his misconduct . One way in which it contributes to the obstruction of congress is it doesnt just defame ambassador yovanovitch, by every other account, shes been an exemplary Public Servant. What hes suggesting there may
not be consistent with what we know as facts. One of the things that also happens when he sends Something Like this, it intimidates everybody else thinking about testifying, every other Public Servant that thinks they should come forward, they will worry they will get punished in some way and face things like shes faced. That is the woman President Trump has threatened before you. I can assure you i personally know what its like to be publicly attacked personally for your duty to america. Ambassador yovanovitch deserves better. No matter your party, whether youre a democrat or republican, i dont think any of us thinks that this is okay. It is plainly wrong for the
president of the United States to attack the career Public Servant just for telling the truth as she knows it. I yield back the balance of my time. Gentle lady yields back. Mr. Stanton. Thank you very much, mr. Chairman and thank you for the outstanding witnesses today. President trump has declared he will not comply with these subpoenas. This part of the branch began with the president s refusal to cooperate with regular oversight and now extended to the constitutional duty on impeachment, the loans the reason we are here today. When asked if he would comply with the don mcgahn subpoena, President Trump said quote well were fighting all the subpoenas
unquote. We discussed here today the obstruction of Congress Articles of impeachment against president nixon. I think id like go a little bit deeper into that discussion and juxtapose it with President Trumps actions. Professor gerhart, can you elaborate how president nixon obstructed congress and how it compares to President Trumps actions . I was discussing earlier including in my written statement, president nixon ultimately refused to comply with four legislative subpoenas. These were zeroing in on the evidence in his possession. The basis for that third article and he resigned a few days later. Professor feldman, what are the consequences of this unprecedented obstruction of congress to our democracy . For the president to refuse to participate in any way in the houses constitutional
obligation of supervising him to impeach him, breaks the constitution. It basically says, nobody can oversee me and nobody can impeach me. First, ill block witnesses from appearing and then refuse to testify in any way and you dont have enough evidence to impeach me. Ultimately it is to guarantee the president cant be checked. Since we know the framers put in the constitution to check the president , if the president cant be checked he is no longer subject to the law. Professor gerhardt, would you agree it invokes the president s worst fears and endangers our democracy . It does. One which way to understand that is put all his arguments together and see what the ramifications are. He says hes entitled to not comply with all subpoenas not subject to investigation while
immune to that. Immune from investigation from congress. Hes blocked off all ways to hold himself accountable except for elections. The critical thing to understand is that is precisely what he was trying to undermine in the ukraine situation. Anything to add to that analysis . I think thats correct. If i can say one thing, i want to apologizing for what i said earlier about the president s son. It was wrong of me to do that. I wish the president would apologize for the things hes said wrong but i do regret having said that. One more question every member of this committee must decide is whether we are a nation of laws and not men. It used to be an easy answer, one we can all agree on. When president nixon defied the law and obstructed justice he was held to account by both sides who knew for a public to endure we must have fidelity to our country and one party or one man. The obstruction we are looking at today is far worse than president nixons behavior. Future generations will measure us. Every Single Member of this committee by how we choose to answer that question. I hope we get it right. I yield back. The gentleman yields back. Mr. Stube. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Ive om been in Congress Since the first of this year. On my first day the president of my class called for impeachment on day one using much more colorful language than i would ever use. Since then they called on the
Mueller Report. And we sat there as they said there was no evidence the Trump Campaign colluded with russia. That didnt work for the democrats and they then changed their Talking Poichbts Ants and to Obstruction Of Justice theory and that fizzled and then the whistleblower based completely on hearsay and overhearing people on a Phone Call Talk about a phone call between two World Leaders and led to the Impeachment Committee citing all past historical president s and basically denied Due Process Rights by conducting this socalled inquiry and denying the ability to Call Witnesses and denied the president his ability to have his lawyers cross examine all witnesses a right afforded to president clinton including rapists and murders. The republicans have repeatedly requested all evidence. As we sit here today we still dont have the underlying evidence we requested, again, a right afforded every criminal defendant in the United States. Instead, we sit here getting lectures from Law Professors about their opinions, their opinions, not facts. I guess the democrats needed a constitutional law refresher course. The republicans dont. Mr. Chairman, you acknowledged and i quote the houses power of impeachment demands a rigorous power of due process, due process means the right to confront witnesses against you and call your own witnesses and have the assistance of counsel. Those are your words, mr. Chairman, not mine. What are you afraid of . Let the minority Call Witnesses. Let the president Call Witnesses. Clinton alone called 14 witnesses to testify. Let the president s counsel question the whistleblower and the intel staff who colluded with the whistleblower, rights that should be afforded to the president , rights every criminal
defendant was afforded. Even terrorists in iraq have been afforded more due process than you and the democrats have afforded the president. I know because i served in iraq and i prosecuted in iraq and we provided terrorists in iraq more due process than you and chairman schiff have afforded the president of the United States, no collusion, no obstruction, no quid pro quo, no evidence of bribery, except opinion, no evidence of treason, no evidence of high crime or misdemeanors. We have a bunch of opinions from partisan democrats who have stated from day one they want to impeach the president. Not on this theory but a multiple other different theories. The American People are smarter than your abcs of impeachment you have on the screen laid out today. Its extremely demonstrative of your lack of evidence giving, you called Law Professors to give their opinions and not fact witnesses to give their testimony today to be crossexamined and the rights afforded to the president of the United States. Mr. Chairman, when can we anticipate you will choose a date for the minority day of hearing . Mr. Chairman, im asking you a question. When can we anticipate you will choose a date for the minority day of hearing. The gentleman is recognized for the purpose of questioning the witnesses, not for colloquy with colleagues. Well, then i will do that after my time. I yield the remainder of my time to mr. Ratcliffe. Thank you to my colleague from florida for yielding. Professor turley, from my questioning across the aisle it does in fact appear democrats do intend to pursue Articles Of Impeachment for Obstruction Of Justice based on the Mueller Report. I asked you a question about that. You didnt really get a chance to give a complete answer. In your statement today, you make this statement. I believe an Obstruction Claim based on the Mueller Report would be at odds with the record and the controlling law. Use of an Obstruction Theory