This from like the ivory towers of your law school but it makes actual people in this country when the president calls you dont get to interrupt me on this time. And when you suggest that you invoke the president s son name here and try to make a joke at referencing baron trump that does not lend credibility to your argument, it makes you look mean and attacking someones family. The minor child of the president of the United States. So lets see if we could get into the facts. To all of the witnesses. If you have personal knowledge of a single Material Fact in the schiff report, please raise your hand. And let the record reflect no personal knowledge of a single fact. And you know what, that continues on the tradition we saw from adam schiff where ambassador taylor could not identify an Impeachment Offense and mr. Kent never met with the president and fiona hill never mentioned military aid and mr. Hill was not aware of any
nefarious aid and Colonel Vindman said that bribery was invoked here. And ambassador volker denied there was a quid pro quo and mr. Morrison said there was nothing wrong on the call. The only direct evidence came from Gordon Sondland who spoke to the president of the United States and the president said i want nothing. No quid pro quo. And you know what, if wiretapping the political points the gentlemans time is expired maybe it is a different president we should be impeaching. Gentlemans time is expired. Mr. Cicilini. Let me state the obvious. It is not hearsay when the president tells the president of ukraine to investigate his political adversary, is it. It is not. It is not here say when the president confesses on National Television to do thatting. It is not. It is not hearsay when administration testify they hear the president say he only cares about the investigations of his political opponent, is it. No, that is not here say. And there are other direct
evidence in the 300page report from the Intelligence Community so lets dispense by that clim by my republican colleagues. Professor turley wrote on august 1st, 2014 in a piece called five myths about impeachment, one of the myths he was rejected was that impeachment required a criminal offense and he wrote, and i quote, an offense does not have to be indictable. Serious misconduct or violation of public trust is enough. End quote. Was Professor Turley right when he wrote that back in december of 2014. Yes, i agree with that. To professor karlan. At the Constitutional ConventionEldridge Jerry said foreign powers will meddle in our affairs and spare to expense to spare them and a president might be tray his trust to a foreign power. Professor carlin can you explain
why the framers accounted for those concerns and how that related to the facts before this committee. So the reason that the framers were concerned about foreign interference i think is slightly different than the reason we are. They were concerned about it because we were such a weak country in 1789. We were small. We were poor. We didnt have an established navy. We didnt have an established army. Today the concern is a little different which is that it will interfere with us making the decisions that are best for us as americans. Thank you, professor. There are three known instances of the president publicly asking a foreign country to interfere in our elections. First in 2016, the president publicly hoped that russia would hack into the email of a political opponent which they subsequently did. Second based on the president s summary of the call with president zelensky we know he asked ukraine to announce an investigation into his chief political rival and used aid apropt appropriated by congress and urged china to begin its own
investigation. Professor feldman, how would it impact our democracy if it became Standard Practice for the president of the United States to ask a Foreign Government to interfere in our elections. It would be a disaster for the functioning of our democracy if our president s regularly as this president has done ask Foreign Governments to interfere in our electoral process. And i what like to end with George Washington who told americans in his Farewell Address that to be constantly awake because foreign influence is one of the baneful foes of the Foreign Government. The conduct at issue here is egregious and warrants a commensurate response and the of that there is no doubt because inviting foreign meddling robs American People of the sacred right to elect their own political leaders. Americans across this country
wait in long lines to exercise the right to vote and choose their own leaders. This right does not belong to Foreign Governments. We not and won a revolution over this. Free and Fair Elections are what separate us from authoritarians all over the world. As Public Servants and member of the house we would be negligent in our duties under the constitution if we let this blatant abuse of power go unchecked. Weve heard about hating this president. It is not about hating this president. It is about a love of country. It is about arming the oath that we took to protect and defend the constitution of this great country. And so my final question is to Professor Feldman and to professor karlan, in the face of this evidence, what are the consequences if this committee and this congress refuses to muster the courage to respond to this gross abuse of power that undermined the integrity of our elections and undermined the confidence we have to have in the president to not abuse the power of his office. If this committee and this house fail to act, then youre sending a message to this president and to future president s that it is no longer a problem if they abuse their power. It is no longer a problem if they invite other countries to interfere in our elections and no longer a probe if they put the interest of other countries ahead of ours. Professor karlan. I agree with Professor Feldman and i apologize for getting over heated over a moment ago but i have a constitutional right under the First Amendment to give money to candidates and we have a constitutional duty from foreigners spending money in our elections and these are two sides of the same coin. Thank you. And with that i yield back. The gentleman yields back. Mr. Johnson. Thank you. I was struck this morning by the same thing as all of my friends and colleagues on this side of the room. Chairman nadler actually began this morning with the outrageous statement that the facts before us are undisputed. Of course, everyone here knows that thats simply not true. Every person here and every person watching at home knows full well that virtually everything here is disputed. From the fraudulent process and the broken procedure to the democrats unfounded claims. And the full facts are obviously not before us today. Weve been allow nod fact witnesses here at all. For the First Time Ever this committee, which is the one in congress that has the actual jurisdiction over impeachment is being given no access to the underlying evidence that adam schiff and his political accomplices say support this charade. This is a shocking denial of constitutional process and im also a constitutional attorney and under normal circumstances i would enjoy a debate about the contours of article two section four but that is an utter waste of the time because as highlighted this morning this whole production is a sham and a reckless path to a predetermined political out come and it is an outcome that
was predetermined by our democrat colleagues a long time ago. The truth is House Democrats have been working to impeach President Trump since the day he took his oath of office. Over the past three years theyve introduced four resolutions seeking to impeach the president. Two years ago as one of the graphics show december 26th, 2018, 50 House Democrats voted to begin Impeachment Proceedings and that is 20 months before the famous july 25th phone call with ukraine president zelensky. And this other graphic up here is smaller but it is interesting too. I think it is important to reiterate for everybody watching at home that of our 24 democratic colleagues and Friends On The Other Side of the room today, 17 out of 24 have already voted for impeachment. So i mean lets be honest. Lets not pretend that anybody cares about what is being said here today or the actual evidence or the facts. As Congresswoman Lofgren said we come with open minds. That is not happening here. So much for an impartial jury. Several Times Leading democrats have admitted in various interviews and correspondence they believe this strategy is necessary, because why . Because they want to stop the president s reelection. Even Speaker Pelosi said last month that, quote, it is dangerous to allow the American People to evaluate his performance at the ballot box. Speaker pelosi has it exactly backwards. What is dangerous is the precedent all of this is setting for the future of our republic. I love what Professor Turley testified to, this is not how impeachment of a president is done and his Rhetorical Question is he asked you to ask yourselves, where will you stand next time when this same kind of Sham Impeachment Process Is Innish Ated against a president from your party. The real shame here today is everything in washington has become bitterly partisan and this ugly chapter is not going
to help that. It is going to make things really that much worse. President turley said we are living in the era fears from our founders and what hamilton referred to as a period of agitated passions. I think that said if t so well. This is an age of rage. President washington warned in his Farewell Address in 1796 that extreme partisanship would lead us to the ruins of public liberty. Those were his words. This hyper partisan impeachment is probably one of the most divisive and destructive things that we could possibly do to our american family. Let me tell you what i heard from my constituents in multiple town halls and meetings back in my district just two days ago. The people of the country are sick of this. Theyre sick of the politics of personal destruction, theyre sick of the toxic atmosphere that is being created here and theyre deeply concerned about where all this will lead us in the years ahead. Rightfully so. You know what the greatest threat is, the thing that ought to keep every single one of us up at night is the rapidly
eroding trust of the American People in their institutions. One of the critical presuppositions and foundations of a selfgoverning people in a Constitutional Republic is they retain a basis level of trust in institutions and rule of law and system of justice and the body of elected representatives and Citizen Legislators in congress. The greatest danger of this fraudulent impeachment production is not what happens this afternoon or by christmas or in the election next fall. The greatest danger is what this will do in the days ahead to our 243 year experiment in selfgovernance and what effect this new president or pandoras box will have upon our nation six or seven years from now, a decade now from the ruins of public liberty created by this shortsighted exercise today. God help us. I yield back. Gentleman yields back. Mr. Swalwell. Professor turley, as a former prosecutor, i recognize a Defense Attorney trying to represent their clients. Especially one who has very
little to work with in the way of facts and today you represent the republicans in their defense of the president. Professor that is not my intention, sir. Youve said that this case represents a dramatic Turning Point in federal impeachment precedent. The impact of which will shape and determine future cases. The house for the first time in the modern era asked the senate to remove someone for conduct for which he was never charged criminally and the impropriety of which has never been tested in a court of law but that is not a direct quote from what you said today. It sounds a lot like what youve argued today but that is a quote from what you argued as a Defense Lawyer in a 2010 Senate Impeachment trial. Professor, did you represent federal judge thomas portus. I did, indeed. And judge was tried on four articles of impeachment ranging from engaged in a pattern of conduct that is incompatible with the trust and confidence placed in him as a federal judge engaging in a long standing pattern of corrupt conduct that
demonstrates his unfitness to serve as a United StatesDistrict Court judge. On each count judge portus was convicted by at least 68 and up to 96 bipartisan senators. Thankfully that senate did not buy your argument that a federal official should not be removed if he is not charged criminally and respecialfully, professor, we dont buy it either. But were here because of this photo. It is a picture of of president zelensky in may of this year standing on the Eastern Front of ukraine as a hot war was taking place and up to 15,000 ukrainians have died at hands of russians. I would like to focus on the impact of President Trumps conduct particularly with our allies and our standing in the world. This isnt just a president , as professor karlan has pointed out, asking for another foreign leader to investigate a political opponent, it is a president leveraging a white house visit as well as foreign
aid. As the witnesses have testified, ukraine needs our support to defend itself against russia. I heard directly from witnesses who important the visit and aid were, particularly from ambassador taylor. These weapons and this assistance allows the Ukrainian Military to deter further incursions by the russians against ukrainian territory. If that further incursion, further aggression, were to take blase, more ukrainians would die. Professor karlan, does the president s decision to withhold from ukraine such important official acts, a white house visit and military aid in order to pressure president zelensky relate to the framers concerns about abuse of power and entanglements with foreign nations. It relates to the abuse of power. The entanglements with foreign
nations is a more complicated concept for the framers than for us. Professor karlan, i think you would agree we are a nation of immigrants. Yes. Today 50 Million Immigrants live in the United States. I moved by one who recently told me i was checking into a hotel about his romanian family. He came here from romania and said that every time he had gone home for the last 20 years he would always tell his Family Members how corrupt his country was, that he had left and why he had come to the United States. And he told me in such humiliated fashion that when he is gone home recently, they now wag their finger at him and say youre going to lecture us about corruption. What do you think professor karlan, does the president s conduct say to the millions of americans who left their family and livelihood to come to a country that represents the rule of law. I think it suggests that we dont believe in the rule of law. And i think it tells emerging democracies around the world not to take it seriously when we tell them that their elections are not legitimate because of foreign interference or their elections are not legitimate because of persecution of the opposing party. President bush announced that he did not consider the elections in belarus in 2006 to be legitimate because they went after political opponents. Professor turley pointed out that we should wait and go to the courts but you would acknowledge that weve gone to the courts. Weve been in the courts for over six months. Many times on matters that are already settled in the United StatesSupreme Court particularly u. S. V nixon where the president seems to be running out the clock. Is that right. Yes. Thank you and i yield back. Gentleman yields back. We will in a moment we will recess for a brief five minutes. First i ask everybody in the
room to remain seated and quiet while the witnesses exit the room. I also want to remind those in the audience that you may not be guaranteed your seat if you leave the hearing room at this time. At this time the committee will start in a short recess. You have been watching the first public hearing of the House Judiciary Committee. Welcome to the lead. Im jake tapper. This hearing which first started at 10 00 a. M. Eastern, getting a little contentious at times, Three Constitutional Law Experts called by democrats made their case to impeach President Trump. The lone republican called expert, Jonathan Turley, argued that the evidence to impeach is, quote, wafer thin. And lets talk about this. Laura, i want to play some sound from Congressman Radcliff and Jonathan Turley that has been retweeted by President Trump as a game set match. Lets listen to that sound. So if i were to summarize your testimony, no bribery, no extortion, no obstruction of justice, no abuse of power, is that fair . Not on this record. That is a pretty assertive statement by Jonathan Turley to say no extortion, no bribery, no obstruction of justice, no abuse of power. It is odd because his 53page Opening Statement and much of the testimony has not been that particularly assertive on that point. It is essentially hedging up until that moment in time saying it is not that its not there, it is that it is insufficient evidence to prove it at this point and there is ample time for you to develop a sufficient record and go to court to get the order from the court to say that somebody, in fact, is Obstructing Justice or stonewalling officially and now he has the perfect sound bite
which is why it is retweeted that said his whole argument is that you got nothing here. It is a big nothing burger. But he goes to Great Lengths over 50 pages to explain that he feels because bribery and the words quid pro quo were often used, that it is about whether or not there was a sufficient official act. If the president of the United States had an official act and that is what hes being pinged on. Now hes saying no, no, no there is nothing to see here folks and that is a bit disingenuous and it belied the record to say there is nothing there. He could argue sufficiently. But then you have to be real about this point. The reason there is a record that may be as he called it wafer thin is because people have been stonewalling and not providing evidence not only from testimony, bolton, pompeo and the like, trump and also emails and also paperwork and documents. So to say it is insufficient, but i wont actually give credit to why it is insufficient is preposterous. Do you think, tim, that democrats should almost call
republicans on the bluff and in the sense they should say, okay, you think the case hasnt been proven but your witness Jonathan Turley said we should call more witnesses well do this and extend two more weeks but we have to agree to subpoena mulvaney, pompeo, et cetera . Absolutely. This is a great missed opportunity for democrats. And for all americans. What the argument should be that impeachment is such a serious matter, that you want as much evidence as possible. And then it is not up to Law Professors, by the way, all four of them, they did really well. But it is not up to them. It is up to the members of congress. This should be a deliberative process. What is striking about what weve seen today is that this seems to be a repeat in spirit of the clinton impeachment more than the nixon impeachment. And that is because there is i dont think there is anybody
there who has any experience with the nixon impeachment whereas in the clinton era some of them remembered the nixon impeachment which is far more serious. And it should be more deliberate. So what ambassador icen, the democratic majority counsel should have done is ask Professor Turley, what do you want to know and whom should we ask and let me give you a reason why. The schiff report is magnificent. But there are gaps. Theyre not gaps that are helpful to the president. Theyre just gaps. It would be nice to have someone on the record say they know for sure the president s mind when the suspension of aid happened. What they can prove is that there is a quid pro quo regarding a meeting in the white house. Not quite as easy to prove that there was a quid pro quo about the security. Now, i can tell you that having studied president s, im pretty convinced that it was. But you know what . The American People dont spend time studying president s. Theyre not professors of public policy. Give them more data and when bolton says no and when omb doesnt hand over the documents then at least the democrats could say we tried to connect the dots but those are troubling dots as is. And moving on with that, building on that, what tim just said, jen psaki, in the house Impeachment Report that the Intelligence Committee put out, democrats on the committee, there is page after page, it starts on page 216 if you want to read it, page after page of documents that they tried to get that President Trump, Vice President pence, Secretary Of State pompeo, secretary of defense, the omb director, et cetera, et cetera, refused to turn over. Just dozens of the documents. And they could say would you want to see this, Jonathan Turley. The republican witness says yes. And then the republicans are in a tough spot. They certainly could. And there is there was a huge opportunity that this report was put out yesterday. And that was a gift to jerry nadler, congressman or Chairman Nadler. Obviously it is a different focus of the hearing but there is a lot to work from there and i think he missed some opportunities to really hold Jonathan Turleys feet to the fire to push on some of the questions, to hold some of his fellow republicans to account on what you exactly just said. There are the reason we havent had these high level officials appear is because the white house has been obstructing them from appearing. They havent been providing documents and they havent let me just interrupt you for one second because i want to bring our viewers attention to the substantial list. Democrats have asked for documents related to that infamous July 25th Call, the Briefing Materials prepared for President Trump by vindman and notes related to the call from key players the white house is refusing to turn over the president ial decision memo prepared by vindman conveying
that the aid be released and the nfc staff conclusions related to ukraine and white house Records Review of the hold on the ukraine aid which according to the Washington Post reveal extensive efforts to deal an after the fact justification and Gordon Sondland the administration wont turn over call records or emails and messages between sondland and Mick Mulvaney or john bolton. And they want to see related to the July 25th Call with mr. Pence and the details prepared with the meeting and the memo of the conversation from the pence call with zelensky on september 18th. This is a small list. A small excerpt. They didnt talk about that at all at this hearing and this is just i got from the report that they issued yesterday. There was a ton of new information this that report. And they could have discussed that. There was no limitations on what they brought up during questioning or Public Statements and they didnt take the opportunity to do that. Now adam schiff and most democrats feel there is a
preponderance of the evidence as written in the report to impeach the president but it doesnt mean they cant question why republicans are obstructing documents and witnesses and other people. But this isnt just about convincing House Democrats to vote this is about convincing the country. Do you think this would have been more effective if one of the three experts were a conservative Constitutional Law Expert who supported impeachment because theyre out there. Weve had them on my show. Obviously, look, that was the line of tactic of the questions, that these experts are all incredibly liberal. If you see what has been what theyve written and what they made Public Statements about in the past, theyre all not theyre not centrist by any stretch of the imagination. Feldman and karlan but they didnt say anything from gerhardt. From where i sit, they are extremely liberal. So they didnt help their case by picking people who are on the other team. It doesnt make the case any
stronger and as tim pointed out before, were talking about comedy and separation of powers, some of the documents that you referenced, there are legitimate concerns, legitimate claims of Executive Privilege. Sure, but the white house said were not giving you anything. Right. And so you have to go document by document and there is a process by which that takes place and it cant be done in a week and a half in time to get the hearing done. The white house has said let us look at these things and we cant provide anything. This is like any big major litigation case you have boxes and tons of files and paralegals going through things. But they wont cooperate. But this is sorry. Go ahead. The big thing that that is the ranking minority members real point. There was the calendar and the clock. And that was the real reason why this is so urgent but lets go back to the whistleblower complaint and no one wants to bring it up but what did the Inspector General for the Intelligence Community find . It was a credible and urgent
threat. What have these constitutionally people talking about you need not wait until either an election and it is the prerogative to impeach or remove a president and do you have an urgency when the Subject Matter is about an upcoming election. And so you have that all right here. But i do totally agree there are missed opportunities and when you when each member of the House Judiciary Committee could have pointed out the notion of there is an urgency and also a reason we cant wait for the courts. Because it will be the result of long, protected and there is an urgent matter going on here. They didnt address it or hammer it home but they could do so more and the American People are well aware, if it is credible and urgent you dont wait. I dont think the American People there have been 71 requests. Jake just gave us a short list. 71. This is unprecedented in u. S. Constitutional history. Let me interrupt. You see noah feldman and Jonathan Turley all taking there, even though they have different views on impeachment. They are they have at the table treated each other with respect and even deference at times, more so than the members of congress treat each other. Im sorry, tim. And the reason the 71 matters is that 71 requests. Requests by the house for documents. The president has turned over not a single document. Richard nixon, what he did is he played Fast And Loose and he wanted the apparent compliance. But at least he understood that he to comply constitutionally. You had to give something. He had to give something. This president doesnt believe he has to give anything and that is a major challenge for our system but i dont think the American People understand it because frankly theyre busy and have other things on thur mind and this is where the democrats and centrist republicans if they exist should say these are the holes. It is not a phishing expedition
and these are the holes. And exactly what you were saying earlier, jake, and say to the American People this is what were looking for and to President Trump, we want you to have your chance to defend yourself. These are really key holes. He will say no, i suspect, but you at least make this clear. What is problematic now is there is the impression that it is the election that is rushing the democrats and not the issue of how long we have to wait for the courts. That i understand. Who knows how long they could take. But the point is if the American People think that the rush is all about the New Hampshire primary and not about the problems of getting documents from the white house, theyre not going to understand the seriousness of this. Theyll see it like a game. This isnt a game. It is supposed to be a serious deliberate process that isnt supposed to happen very often in our history and the democrats have to show the seriousness and sadness that the democrats showed in 1973 and 74. Look, they didnt like nixon
either but this is tough and sometimes you need to. Im not hearing that from the democrats. Im hearing a little bit of glee from some and that the not helpful. To tims point, it is reflected in polling now that shows that slipping sh the numbers have slipped and moving in one direction. And schiff and the democrats, threw the best they had at the president and this administration, it didnt make a dent. Jen, it didnt. That is not accurate. It still said more than 50 for impeachment and removal. Independence independents. It still slipped where it mattered. It is jumped by 20 points since the summer. Since the summer. Since the summer. And democrats are look at a couple things on the political front, the democrats have coalesced around the 90 supporting that and independents have moved to support impeachment and it is still
hovering around 50 . Well watch and see how Many Democrats vote when it comes to voting time. It is 90 . And i think somebody on the table who feels odd about the idea, i know we have to show the deference, this being a difficult time in the country, but it is a constitutional obligation that members of congress have. So i understand wanting to convey the gravitious but they should not have to be apologetic about fulfilling a constitutional opportunity any more than the president slud feel and the Impeachment Process is about president ial impotence and it is you have titans and i talk about during the break, [ inaudible ] have an issue with the leadoff question from the scholars was about what their Campaign Donations were about and who they gave to. As if these were fact witnesses whose narrative and lent to be
judged by who they voted for. And tim, let me ask you a question, this is what the fourth Impeachment Proceeding for a u. S. President in the history of the United States. Yes. Do you think that as a historian, comparing it to the other three, do you think that the case has been made . Or is that outside your wheelhouse . You can say it is outside what ive learned from studying these cases is that you have to think in terms of an elected official to answer that question. Law professors will have one standard and elected officials will have another. I can tell you that the kind of impeachment i ever want to see is one that brings the country together. And that heals wounds. That may sound ridiculous but it happened. It happened in the nixon case. And it happened in the nixon case despite a lot of passion. People forget how hard it was for republicans to vote against nixon. It was very tough. And the Republican Leadership only went against nixon when the
smoking gun trans crypt transcript came out. But they realized the American People expected them to be constitutional jurors and so they didnt say what they thought or say im proimpeachment before the material was in front of them and they made it clear there was a deliberate process. I didnt mean they were apologetic. But in any case im not sure im hearing that. All right. Lets listen in. Thank you. One of my colleagues wondered how this panel could opine as to the whether the president committed an Impeachable Offense and the answer, quite frankly, is because you came in with a preconceived notion and already made that determination and decision and ill give you aer for instance. Until the recent colloquy, several of you consistently said that the president said during that July 25th Conversation with president zelensky, you said the president said i would like to you do me a favor. But that is inaccurate. It was finally clear in the
colloquy and ill read it to you. I would like you to do us a favor though because our country has been through a lot. One of you said because the president was using royal we and here is the president is talking about the country. That is what hes talking about. It is audacious to say it is using the royal we. That is royal all right. But it aint the royal we. And ill tell you. When you come in with a preconceived notion it is obviously. One said, mr. Feldman, who said and ill quote here, roughly, i think it is exactly what you said though, until the call of july 25th i was an Impeachment Skeptic too. I looked at an August 3rd 2017 publication where you said if President Trump pardoned joe arpaio it would be an Impeachable Offense. He did ultimately pardon him. In 2017 the new york book review
of review of books feldman said defamation by tweet is an Impeachable Offense and i think the history of this country and i think if defamation or libel or slander is impeachable but i cant help but reflect about tom adams and Thomas Jefferson who pillered their political opponents. In fact, at the time the factions or parties actually bought newspapers to attack their political opponents. So this rather expansive and generous view you have on what constitutes impeachment is a real problem. This morning one of you mentioned the Constitutional Convention and several of you mentioned, mr. Davies and talked about the Constitutional Convention and it is a while since i read the minutes because i briefly reviewed because i remembered the discussion on the impeachment as being more
pervasive. A little bit more expanded. And on july 20th, 1787, it wasnt 1789, it was in 1787, july toth, Benjamin Franklin is discussing impeachment of a dutch leader and he talked specifically about what he would anticipate an impeachment to look like. He said it would be a regular and peaceable inquiry and weve taken place and if guilty then there is say punishment if acquitted then the innocent would be restored to the confidence of the public. That needs to be taken into account as well. So i look also and on may 17th, 2017, bbc article a discussion about impeachment, because President Trump had fired james comey. Alex whiting of harvard said it was hard to make the obstruction
of justice case with the sacking alone. The president has clear Legal Authority and it was proper or at least other reasons put forward for firing him and yet what we have here is this insistence by mr. Gerhardt that this that was impeachable. That is that article ill refer to you, may 17, 2017, bbc. What im suggesting to you today is a reckless bias coming in here. Youre not fact witnesses. Youre supposed to be talking about what the law is. But you came in with a preconceived notion and bias and i want to read one last thing here if i can find it. From one of our witnesses here. And its dealing with something that was said in a maryland Law Review Article in 1999. And basically, if i could get to it, hes talking about this being critical of lack of self doubt and overwhelming arrogance on the part of Law Professors who come in and opine on impeachment. That would be you, mr. Gerhardt, Something Like that. I cant find my quote or else i would give it to you. So what im telling you is that is what is on display in this committee today and with that i yield back. The gentleman yields back. A little while ago mr. Gaetz skaed that certain material be inserted into the record by unanimous consent and i ask the opportunity to review it and we have reviewed it and the material will be inserted without objection. Mr. Lieu. Thank you, Chairman Nadler. I first swore an oath to the constitution when i was commissioned as an officer in the United States air force. And the oath i took was not to a
political party, or to a president or to a king. It was an oath to a document that has made america the greatest nation on earth. I never imagined we would now be in a situation where the president or commanderinchief is accused of using his office for personal political gain that detrayed National Security and hurt ukraine and helped our adversary russia. Now the constitution provides a safeguard for when the president s abuse of power and betrayal of National Interest are so extreme that it warrants impeachment and removal. It seems notable that of all of the offenses they could have included in the constitution, bribery is one of only two that are listed. So Professor Feldman, why were the framers choose bribery of all of the offenses they could have included in the list. Bribery was the classic example for them of the high crime and misdemeanor of abuse of office for personal gain. Because if you take something of value while when youre able to effect an outcome for somebody else, youre serving your own interests and not the interests of the people. And that was commonly used in Impeachment Offenses in england and that is one of the reasons that they specified it. Thank you. Now earlier in this hearing, professor karlan made the point that bribery as envisioned by the framers was much broader than the narrow federal criminal statute of bribery and the reason is obvious. Were not in a criminal proceeding. Were not deciding whether to send President Trump to prison. This is a civil action. It is an Impeachment Proceeding to decide whether or not we remove donald trump from his job. And so professor karlan, it is true, isnt it, that we dont have to meet the standards of a federal bribery statute in order to meet the standards for Impeachment Offense. That is correct. Im sorry, that is correct. Thank you. Yesterday law professor j. W. Barrett who is a life long republican, former republican hill staffer and who advised a Trump Pretransition Team made the following Public Statement about Donald Trumps conduct. The call wasnt perfect. He committed Impeachable Offenses including bribery. So professor karlan ill show you two video clips of the witness testimony related to the president s with holding of the white house meeting and exchange for the public announcement of an investigation into his political rival. As i testified previously, mr. Giulianis requests were a quid pro quo for arranging a white house visit for president zelensky. By midjuly it is clear to me that the meeting president Zelensky Wanted was conditioned on the investigations of burisma and alleged ukrainian
interference in the 2016 u. S. Elections. One more video clip related to the president s decision to withhold Security Assistance that congress had appropriated to ukraine and exchange for announcement of public investigation of his political rival. In the absence of any credible explanation for this suspension of aid, i later came to believe that the resumption of security aid would not occur until there was a Public Statement from ukraine committing to the investigations of the 2016 elections and burisma as mr. Giuliani had demanded. Professor karlan, does that evidence and the evidence of record tend to show that the president met the standards for bribery as envisioned in the constitution . Yes, it does. Im also a former prosecutor. I believe that the the record and that event would meet the standards for criminal bribery. The Supreme Courts decision in
mcdonnell was primarily about what constitutes an official act. The key finding was an official act must involve a formal exercise of governmental power on something specific pending before a public official. Pretty clear we got that here. We have hundreds of millions of dollars of military aid that congress appropriated, the freezing and unfreezing of that aid is a formal exercise of governmental power. But we dont even have to talk about the crime of bribery. There is another crime here. Which is the solicitation of federal of assistance of a Foreign Government in a federal Election Campaign that straight up violates the federal campaign act at 52 usc 530 is sand the reason Michael Cohen is sitting in prison right now. I yield back. The gentleman yields back. Mr. Mcclinton. Thank you, mr. Chairman. With a show of hands, how many on the panel voted for donald
trump in 2016 . I dont think were obligated to say anything about how we cast our ballot. Just show of hands. I will not i think you made your positions, professor karlan the gentleman will suspend and suspend the clock too. I have a right to cast you may ask the question let me reask the question. The clock is stopped for the moment. The gentleman may ask the question. The witnesses dont have to respond. How many of you the gentlemans time is restored. How many of you voted for donald trump in to 16. Show of hands . Not raising our hands is not an indication of a cancanswer s this is predicated on rather disturbing legal doctrines. One democrat asserted that hearsay could be much better evidence than direct evidence. Speaker pelosi said that the president s responsibility is to present evidence to prove his innocence. Chairman schiff asserted and we heard a discussion from some of
your colleagues today that if you invoke legal rights in defense of criminal accusations ip so facto that is evidence of guilt and what does that mean to our american Justice System if these doctrines take root in our country. What concerns me the most is that there are no limiting principles that i could see in some of the definitions my colleagues have put forward and more importantly some of the Impeachable Offenses i only heard about today. Im not sure what attempted to abuse office means. Or how you recognize it. But im pretty confident that nobody on this committee truly wants the new standard of impeachment to be betrayal of the National Interest. If that is going to be the basis for impeachment how many republicans do you think would say that barack obama violated that standard. That is exactly what James Madison warned against. That you could create a vote of no confidence standard in our constitution. Well then are we in danger of abusing our own power of doing enormous violence to our constitution by proceeding in this matter. My democratic colleagues are searching for pretempt for impeachment since before the president was sworn in on this Panel Professor Karlan called the election illegitimate and implied impeachment was a remedy. Professorfeldman said over a tweet he made in March Of 2017 and with succumbing to the red queen, sentence first, verdict afterwards. This is part of the probe of how your view of the president can affect your assumptions, your assumptions and view of the
circumstantial evidence. Im not saying that the evidence if it was fully investigated would come out one way or the other. What im saying is were not dealing with the realm of the unknowable. You have to ask. Weve burned two months in this house, two months, that you could have been in court seeking a subpoena for these witnesses. It doesnt mean you have to wait forever. But you could have gotten an order by now. You could have allowed the president to raise an Executive Privilege let me i need to go on here. The constitution says that the Executive Authority should be vested in a president of the United States. Does that mean some of the Executive Authority or all of it . Well, obviously there are kweks and balances on all of these but the Executive Authority obviously rests with the president. But these are all shares powers. And i Dont Begrudge the investigation of the ukraine controversy. I think it was a legitimate investigation. What i begrudge is how it has been conducted. I tend to agree with that. The constitution commands the president take care that the
laws be faithfully enforced and that does in effect make him the chief Law Enforcement officer in the federal government, does it not. It is commonly expressed that way. So if probable cause exists to believe a crime has been committed does the president have the authority to incline into that matter. Ive been critical with the president in terms of Crossing Lines with the Justice Department and i think it has caused problem and it is not appropriate but we confuse what is inappropriate with what is impeachable. Many people feel what the president has done is obnoxious, contemptible but it is not synonymous with impeachment. Let me ask a final question. The National Defense authorization act that authorized aid to ukraine requires Secretary Of State of defense and certify the government is taking actions to make Defense Institution reforms for purposes of decreasing corruption. Is the president exercising that
responsibility when he inquires into a matter that could involve illegalities between american and ukraine officials. That is what im referring to as unexplored defenses. Part of the bias when you look at the facts is you ignore defenses. You say those are just invalid but they are the defenses, the other sides account for actions and that hasnt been explored. The gentlemans time is expired. Mr. Raskin. Thank you, mr. Chairman. I want to thank the witnesses for their hard work on a long day. I want to thank them especially for invoking the American Revolution which not only overthrew a king, but created the worlds first antimonarchal constitution and it makes me proud to spend a quarter century of my career before running for congress. And tom payne said in the monarchy the king is law. But in the democracies, the law will be king. But today the president advances
an argument saying that article two allows him to do whatever he wants. He not only said that but he believes that because he did something no other american president has ever done before. He used Foreign Military aid as a lever to coerce a Foreign Government to interfere in an American Election to discredit an opponent into advanced his reElection Campaign. Professor karlan, what does the existence of the Impeachment Power tell us about the president s claim that the constitution allows him to do whatever he wants. It blows it out of the water. If hes right, and we accept this radical claim that he could do whatever he wants, all future president s seeking reelection will be able to bring Foreign Governments into our campaigns to target their rivals and to spread propaganda. That is astounding. If we let the president get away with this conduct, every president can get away with it. Do you agree with that Professor Feldman. I do. Richard nixon sent burglars to break into the Democratic NationalCommittee Headquarters but President Trump just made a direct phone call to the president of a foreign country and sought his intervention in American Election. So this is a big moment for america, isnt it . If Elijah Cummings were here, he would say listen up people. Listen up. How we respond will determine the character of our democracy for generations. Now Professors Feldman and karlan and gerhardt said there were three reasons in the founding for why we needed an Impeachment Power and broadly speaking it was an instrument of popular selfdefense against a president behaving like a king and trampling the rule of law. But not just in the normal royal sense of showing cruelty and vanity and treachery and greed and afterer is and so on. But when president s threaten the
basic character of our government in the constitution, that is what impeachment was about. And the framers invoked three specific kinds of misconduct so serious and egregious that they thought they warranted impeachment. First the president might abuse his power by corruptly using the office for personal, political or financial gain. Professor feldman what is so wrong with that. If the president belongs to my party and i generally like him, what is so wrong with him using his office to advance his own political ambitions . Because the president of the United States works for the people. And so if he seeks personal gain, hes not serving the interests of the people. Hes rather serving the interests that are specific to him and that means hes abusing the office and doing things that he can only get away with because hes the president and that is necessarily subject to impeachment. Well, second and third, the founders expressed fear that a president could sub vert our democracy by betraying his trust to foreign influence and
interference and also by corrupting the election process. Professor karlan, youre one of the leading election law scholars, what role does impeachment play in protecting the integrity of our elections especially in an International Context in which Vladimir Putin and other tyrants and despots are inter fearing to destabilize elections around the world. Well, congress has enacted a series of laws to make sure that there isnt foreign influence in our elections. And allowing the president to circumvent that principle is a problem. And as ive already testified several times, america is not just the last best hope as mr. Jefferys said but also the shining city on a hill and we cant be the shining city on a hill and promote democracy around the world if were not promoting it here at home. Now any one of these actions alone would be sufficient to impeach the president according to the founders. But is it fair to say that all three causes for impeachment explicitly contemplated by the
founders abuse of power, betrayal of our National Security and corruption of aur our elections are present in this president s conduct. Yes or no Professor Feldman. Yes. And professor gerhardt. Yes. And professor karlan. Yes. And you all agree. And are you aware of any other president who has essentially triggered all three concerns that animated the founders . No. No. No as well. Mr. Chairman, it is hard to think of a more mon arcy sentiment that i can do whatever i want as president and i yield back. Gentleman yields back. Mrs. Lesko. I ask consent to insert into the letter i wrote and sent to you asking, calling on you to cancel any and all future impeachment hearings and outlining how the process with that objection, the
letter will be entered into the record. Thank you. During an interview on msnbc morning joe on november 26th, 2018, Chairman Nadler outlined a threeprong test that he said would allow for a legitimate Impeachment Proceeding. Now i quote Chairman Nadlers remarks, and this is what he said, there really are there really are three questions i think. First, has the president committed Impeachable Offenses . Second, do those feenss rise to the Gravity Worth putting the country through the drama of impeachment and number three, because you dont want to tear the country apart, you dont want half of the country to say to the other half for the next 30 years we won the election, you stole it from us. You have to be able to think at the beginning of the Impeachment Process. That the evidence is so clear of offenses so grave that once youve laid out all of the evidence a good fraction of the opposition, the voters, will will reluctantly add commit to themselves they had to do it. Otherwise have a partisan impeachment which will tear the country apart. If you meet these three tasks then i think you do the impeachment and those were the words of Chairman Nadler. Now lets see if Chairman Nadlers threepronged test has been met. First, has the president committed an Impeachable Offense . No. The evidence and testimony has not revealed any Impeachable Offense. Second, do those offenses rise to the gravity that is worth putting the country through the
drama of impeachment . Again, the answer is no. There is nothing here that rises to the gravity that is worth putting the country through the drama of impeachment. And third, have the democrats laid out a case so clear that even the opposition has to agree absolutely not. You and House Democrat leadership are tearing apart the country. You said the evidence needs to be clear. It is not. You said offenses need to be grave, they are not. You said that once the evidence is laid out that the opposition will admit they had to do it, that has not happened. In fact, polling and the fact that not one single republican voted on the Impeachment Inquiry Resolution or on the schiff
report reveals the opposite is true. In fact, what you and your democratic colleagues have done is opposite of what you said had to be done. This is a partisan impeachment. And it is tearing the country apart. I take this all to mean that Chairman Nadler, along with the rest of the democratic caucus, is prepared to continue these entirely partisan, unfair proceedings and traumatize the American People all for political purpose. I think thats a shame. That is not leadership. That is a sham. And so i ask mr. Turley, has Chairman Nadler satisfied his threeprong test for impeachment . Well all due respect to the chairman, i do not believe those factors were satisfied. Thank you. And i want to correct something for the record as well. Repeatedly today and other days democrats have repeated what was said in the text of the call. Do me a favor, though, in the implying it was against President Biden to investigate President Biden, it was not. It was not. In fact, let me read what the transcript says. It says President Trump, i would like to do us a favor though because our country has been through a lot and ukraine knows a lot about it. I would like you to find out what happened with this whole situation with ukraine. They say crowdstrike, i guess you have one of your own wealthy people. It says nothing about the bidens. So please stop referencing those two together and i yield back. Gentle lady yields back. Thank you, mr. Chairman. This is a deeply grave moment that we find ourselves in. And i thought the threat to our