And Speer no expense to influence them and their response James Madison said that impeachment was needed because otherwise a president I quote might betrays trust to a foreign power press corps and can you elaborate on why the framers were so concerned about foreign interference how they accounted for these concerns and how that relates 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. We were small we were poor we didn't have an established Navy we didn't 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 for there are 3 known instances of the president publicly asking a foreign country to interfere in our elections 1st in 2016 the president publicly hoped that Russia would hack into the email of a political opponent which they subsequently did 2nd based on the president's own summary of his call with Ukrainian president we know he asked Ukraine to announce an investigation of his chief political rival and used aid appropriate by Congress as leverage in his efforts to achieve this and 3rd the president publicly urged China to begin its own investigation Professor Feldman 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 presidents regularly as this president has done asked foreign governments to interfere in our electoral process like to end with a powerful warning from George Washington who told Americans in his farewell address and I quote to be constantly awake since history and experience prove that foreign influence is one of the most painful foes of republican government and the conduct at issue here is a grievous and warrants a commensurate response the president has openly and repeatedly solicited for him into. In our elections of that there is no doubt this matters because inviting foreign meddling in our lections robs the American people of their sacred right to elect their own political leaders Americans all across this country wait in long lines to exercise their right to vote and to choose their own leaders this right does not belong to foreign governments we fought and won a revolution over this free and fair elections are what separate us more authoritarians all over the world as public servants and members of the house we would be negligent in our duties under the constitution if we let this blatant abuse of power go unchecked we've heard a lot about hating this president it's not about hating this president it's about our love of country is about honoring 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 Professor Karlan in the face of this evidence what are the consequences if this committee in this Congress refuses to muster the courage to respond to this gross abuse of power that undermined the national security of the United States that undermined the integrity of our elections and that undermined the confidence that we have to have in the president to not abuse the power of his office. If this committee in this house failed to act then you're sending a message to this president and to future presidents that it's no longer a problem if they abuse their power it's no longer a problem if they invite other countries to interfere in our elections and it's no longer a problem if they put the interests of other countries of ours. I agree with Professor with Professor Feldman and I should say just one thing and I apologize for getting a little overheated a moment ago but I have a constitutional right under the 1st Amendment to give money to candidates at the same time we have a constitutional duty to keep foreigners from spending money in our elections and those 2 things are 2 sides of the same coin I deal with gentlemen back Mr Johnson my. Public and I consider using and all my friends and colleagues on this side of the room chairman Adler actually began this morning with the outrageous statement that the facts before us are undisputed of course everyone here knows that that's simply not true every person here every person watching at home knows full well that virtually everything here is disputed from the fraudulent process in the broken procedure to the Democrats unfounded claims and the full facts are obviously not before us today we've been allowed no fact witnesses here is at all for the 1st 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 claim supports this whole charade this is just a shocking denial of due process and I want to say to our witnesses I'm also a constitutional law attorney and under normal circumstances I really would greatly enjoy and I can Demick discussion with you a debate about the contours of Article 2 Section 4 but that would be an utter waste of our time today because as has been highlighted so many times this morning this whole production is a sham and a reckless path to a pre-determined political outcome and I want you to know it's an outcome that was . Pre-determined by our Democrat colleagues a long time ago the truth is House Democrats have been working to impeach President Donald j. Trump since the day he took his oath of office over the past 3 years they've introduced 4 different resolutions seeking to impeach the president almost exactly 2 years ago as one of the graphics up here shows December 6th 2758 House Democrats voted to begin impeachment proceedings of course that was almost 20 months before the famous July 25th phone call with Ukraine's president so when ski and this other graphic up here is smaller but it's interesting to I think it's important to reiterate for everybody watching at home that of our $24.00 Democrat colleagues and friends on the other side of the room today 17 out of $24.00 have already voted for impeachment So I mean let's be honest let's not pretend that anybody cares anything about what's been said here today or the actual evidence or the facts is in Lawford said We come with open minds that's not happening here so much for an impartial jury several times this year leading Democrats who frankly admitted in various interviews and correspondence that they really believe this entire strategy is necessary because why because they want to stop the president's reelection even Speaker Pelosi said famously last month that quote It is dangerous to allow the American people to evaluate his performance of the ballot box Speaker Pelosi has it exactly backwards what is dangerous here is the precedent all this is setting for the future of our republic I love what Professor Turley testified to this morning he said this is simply not how the impeachment of a president is done his rhetorical question to all of our colleagues on the other side is still echoing throughout this chamber he asked you to ask yourselves where will this and where were you standing next time when this same kind of sham impeachment process is initiated against a president from your party. The real shame here today is that everything in Washington has become bitterly partisan and this ugly chapter is not going to help that it's going to make things really that much worse president Turley said earlier that we are now living in the era that was feared by our founders what Hamilton referred to as a period of agitated passions I think that says it so well this has indeed become an age of rage President Washington warned in his farewell address in 796 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 in destructive things that we could possibly do to our American family let me let me tell you what I heard from my constituents in multiple town halls in meetings back in my district just 2 days ago the people of this country are sick of this they're sick of the politics of personal destruction they're sick of this toxic atmosphere that is being created here and they're deeply concerned about where all this will lead us in the years ahead 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 pre-suppositions in foundations of a self-governing people in a Constitutional Republic is they will maintain a basic level of trust in their institutions and the rule of law and the system of justice and the body of elected representatives there says citizen legislators in the 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 of head to our 243 year experiment in self governance what effect this foolish new president this Pandora's Box will have upon our beleaguered nation 6 or 7 years from now a decade from now in the ruins of public liberty that are being created by this terribly short sighted exercise today God help us or yield back gentlemen you know the back and to swallow. That's a Democrat from California I recognize a defense attorney to represent their client specially one who has very little to work with in the way of facts today you're representing the Republicans in their defense of the president Professor. You've said that this case represents a dramatic turning point in federal impeachment president the impact of which will shape and determine future cases the house for the 1st time in the modern area 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's actually not a direct quote from what you said today it sounds a lot like what you've argued today but that's a quote from what you argued as a defense lawyer in a 2010 Senate impeachment trial professor did you represent federal judge Thomas Porteous I didn't d.d. And Judge Porteous was tried on 4 articles of impeachment ranging from engaging in a pattern of conduct that is incompatible with the trust and confidence placed in him as a federal judge to engaging in a long standing pattern of corrupt conduct that demonstrates his unfitness to serve as a United States district court judge on each count judge Porteous 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 respectfully professor we don't buy it either but we're here because of this photo it's a picture of presidents Alinsky in May of this year standing on the eastern front of Ukraine as a hot war was taking place and up to $15000.00 Ukrainians have died at the hands of Russians I like to focus on the impact of President Trump's conduct particularly with our allies and our standing in the world this isn't just a president as Professor Karlan has pointed out asking for. Another foreign leader to investigate a political opponent and also 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 where this is how important the visit and the aid were particularly from Ambassador Taylor. These weapons and this is assistant is allows the Ukrainian military to deter further incursions by the Russians against their own against Ukrainian territory. If that further incursion further aggression were to take place more Ukrainians would die. Professor Karlan does the president's decision to withhold from Ukraine such important official acts of White House visit the military a in order to pressure President Zelinsky relate to the framers concerns about abuse of power and entanglements with foreign nations it relates to the abuse of power the entanglement with foreign nations is a more complicated is a more complicated concept for the for the framers than for us Professor Karlan I think you'd agree we are a nation of immigrants yes today 50000000 immigrants live in the United States I'm moved by one who recently told me as 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 humiliating fashion that when he has gone home recently they now wag their finger at him and say you're 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 families and livelihoods to come to a country that represents the rule of law I think it suggests that we don't 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 I mean President Bush announced that he did not consider the elections in dollar roosts in 2006 to be legitimate for exactly that reason because they went after political opponents and clean finally for us or Feldman for us are truly has pointed out that we should wait and that we should go to the courts but you would acknowledge that we've gone to the courts we've been in the courts for over 6 months many times on matters that are already settled in the United States Supreme Court particularly us Phoenix and where the president seems to be running out the clock is that right yes or thank you. General years back there was a California for 5 minutes you're listening to k.p. a Phase live coverage of proceedings in the House Judiciary Committee this is the 1st open proceeding in that party in the impeachment inquiry into Donald j. Trump this committee will be charged with drafting articles of impeachment for consideration by the full House of Representatives My name is Brian. Hosting this broadcast from the studios of k p f a with Mitch deserts we're going to use this brief and unexpected break to ask for your help with the coverage that we've been putting together for you. Has taken on the challenge of producing this coverage often sharing it with the entire Pacific Radio Network at our own expense outside of our budget and at the cost of days that we were planning to spend in the midst of our 2019 holiday. Dr what we used to balance our budget at the end of the year today was to be the 1st day of that drive management the station was counting on us raising about $35000.00 today. Obviously we have not spent the last 6 hours and 20 minutes fundraising because we have been bringing you by for seedings from Capitol Hill we think this is incredibly important to do everybody working on this broadcast made a strong case for it in the decisions where the station decided to air this coverage and one of the reasons we think it's important to do is because we think a p.f.a. Is able to bring a different kind of analysis to these proceedings than you'll get from almost any other broadcast media outlet in this country this is history unfolding and can't think of a more important time for an alternative institution like this to play a meaningful role. The problem is we were already financially in the hall when we decided to start doing these broadcasts we're spending extra money to do them and we're giving up the opportunity to make money because of the air time we're devoting to them so if you've been tuned in for much of the day particularly if you appreciate the guests that we brought on during the major midday recess we're asking you to stand up and pledge what ever you can to help us pay the bills and to send a signal to the powers that be there that that this is worth investing k.p.s. Phase resources in k.p.n. Phase airtime in the phone number is 180-439-5732 extension 1800 Hey Kate b.f.a. Are online at w w w dot k p f and dot org We don't know how long this recess is going to be it was unexpected that chairman Jerry Nadler Democrat from New York just gaveled it in fact my colleague Mr Rich was on his way to tell my aunt I think on my way to my own break he didn't hear it he said it was a 10 minutes he didn't hear anything I saw his head I heard the gavel and I turned around immediately back Point being we don't know how long we have to get you to the phones the number is 180-439-5732 extension 1800 hake a p.f.a. Or online a w w w dot a dot org I have just been handed a note from our pledge room that says 2 of our listeners have expressed in interest in convincing more of you to join them in supporting this coverage. Jack and Valerie in Mindanao. Have offered to double $1000.00 if we can raise $1000.00 to match them I can't dangle any of our typical fundraising fare in front of us we're not playing you a speech or a documentary and then offering you a chance to pledge for a copy of it we're just bringing your coverage of the day's events a historic moment in American politics but what I can tell you is that if you pledge right now the pledge will go further it would be like you're giving more to k. P.f.a. Than you can dig out of your own wallet so we give thanks to Jack and Valerie for giving us that $1000.00 challenge and that opportunity and we'll put it to you the $1000.00 count down starts now 180-439-5732 extension 1800 k. P.f.a. Or online at w w w dot k p f a dot org. I do want to weigh in on trying to encourage people to make a financial contribution today take a p.s.a. As today was our scheduled 1st day of our short end of the year fund drive an extremely important fund drive for us that we rely on in order to keep us on the air and to the new year and right now New You were not you were not downplaying the hit we are taking right now at this point we have like to have raised close to $20000.00 for the day and at this very moment we've raised $1500.00 now we're very thankful to all the individuals we've had I counted more than 70 people donate so far for this type of coverage on k. P.f.a. Today so we're very thankful to those people who have made their contribution but this is a short end of the Year fun drive it will and by the end of next week that means we can't waste a day and at this very moment we're taking a hit We're taking a hit because we had decided it was important to bring this cure. And we had a lot a long conversation about do we bring traditional fund raising shows and programs today to the air or do we bring this hearing it's just constitutional scholars is just a bunch of academics who cares about that and I know it was important to I care about that and I expressed that at the time because today is really the 1st hearing that's about impeachment we had before in the House Intelligence Committee and yes it was under the umbrella of the impeachment inquiry but it was really an investigation into this. Pressure campaign against Ukraine and what we are having today is a hearing about impeachment itself what it is what its history what the framers meant when they were debating it during the Constitutional Convention and 787 and how these things from you know more than 200 Varr more than 200 years ago are still relevant and interpreted today this is a profound issue this is not just about impeachment but this is about the Constitution itself and in a extremely polarized environment that we live in Oddly it might be the Constitution itself that keeps the country together we may have different interpretations of what the Constitution uses but most sides still look to the common constitution as the foundational document that we live by in a constitutional republic and impeachment peach once an important aspect of the Constitution it's not used very often I see it as the constitutional safety valve that you have to use an order to save a concert in order to save a republic is what Benjamin Franklin said or maybe the story's apocryphal but it's one we're hearing again frequently when he came out of the Constitutional Convention and somebody asked him Mr Franklin Do we have a republic or do we have a monarchy and he said we have a republic if you can keep it that it would take an active role in order to keep a Republican a republic which is a republic Meanwhile in large part what it means is you don't concentrate power in one body of government or in one person like a monarch in fact Republican you can trace the term itself back to ancient Rome was about was to be counter of a monarchical system and so this is really what we are talking about right now is the Constitution. And the country and the republic that we live in and to hear these scholars talking about these issues learning about where it came from learning about what high crimes and misdemeanors and all of these things mean I think is a profoundly educational moment that we are going through together as a as as a listener Shapira k p f a but also as a country so we have 11 person calling in right now and a time when we're trying to do the right thing in a day though where there's pros to be fundraising if you want this radio station to continue to be able to do this type of coverage over the next couple of weeks while we are also one fund drive we cannot come up short like this so I want to ask you to go to your phones give us a call donate what you can but donate also as generously as you can 18043957321804395732 and online at k.p. F.a. Dot au Archie. And again there's a lot riding on your decision to call. Not just whether we have a constitutional republic not just whether you have a listener supported radio station in the future to cover that constitutional republic but specifically to listeners Jack and Valerie and men Bill who have offered to double $1000.00 and it will take your contributions to hit the $1000.00 we need to double 818-043-9573 extension 2 our 1st $100.00 has just come in towards that $1000.00 challenge $1800.00 Hey k. P.f.a. Now we're at $115.00 towards that $1000.00 challenge 180-439-5732. And we do have one thank you gift I think we should mention as the committee appears to be in recess for at least a couple minutes longer. And this is something very special this is something we have so far only offered once a year we put together a special event. A few of us here at k p a fake it together to put on an event that consists of a tour of k.p. a Phase gorgeous purpose built studios in downtown Berkeley home to the world's 1st listener supported radio station followed by a dinner with many of the people who make the station happen now the more people who pledge for this gift it's called Dinner and a tour the more people we can take out right now Mitch and I are in and already normally go out to dinner alone by ourselves anyways in order to justify the price of the meal and the drinks we have to convince at least $3.00 people to take us up on this. If we're able to get up to 5 people will be able to take out our friend and colleague Kat Brooks who is normally the co-host of these impeachment broadcasts this will take place Thursday January 17th starting at 5 30 pm right here at k. P.f.a. We have a limited number of seats and you can get 2 of them for a $500.00 pledge or by becoming to keep your face estate or at the rate of $50.00 a month Thursday January 17th I lead the tour of k. P.f.a. We have quizzes we play archival audio clips and then we go out. To toast the station and to take out some of your favorite programmers that $500.00 would also get us how 4 way towards that $1000.00 challenge the 2 of our listeners have put up 180-439-5732 extension 1800 k. P.f.a. Or on line a w w w dot k p f a or so Ron you said there will be food and drinks the food and so there will be drinking if you're there wow. I think and he just said oh be there then you just committed me to be in there so all right good and look we don't joke around about our were drinking we get together you know we have we have a great time you know now look you can do the $2000.00 with Amy Goodman And you know you could break bread and become old friends fast and you'll have a really good and wholesome time or you can just go drink it with us we cuss a lot we talk a lot of smack and we can get into the impeachment we get into all kinds of things and we're cheap we're bargain where we compared to Amy Well you don't even have to get a plane ticket like the Kmart blue light special of fund raising events $500.00 for 2 people for dinner and a tour Thursday January 17th starting at 5 30 pm and we have a $1000.00 challenge on the line we're not sure how long we have until we have to go back to the proceedings but grab that I. Opportunity 180-439-5732 extension 1800 headache a p.f.a. Or online at w w w dot k p a dot org Right now it's 130 in the afternoon I were induced take a quick news breaks finally now from Terry can recap the the morning's developments for those of you who are just joining this radio station if that debate a break extends much past that we may bring on some more guests for analysis the most important thing that you can do to keep this coverage going is to pledge whatever you can in support of it 1804395732504 dollars for dinner and a tour just become a basic a p.f.a. Membership for $25.00 it all tells us that you care about the work and you want to do your part to keep it going 180-439-5732 we'll be right back after these news headlines I'm Eileen out in Derry with cake if a news headlines the country getting a lesson in constitutional history today as the House Judiciary Committee opened its face of the impeachment process with 4 law school professors they discussed the origins of the article 2 impeachment provision of the u.s. Constitution and its application to President Trump the 3 law professors chosen by Democrats all said Trump's attempt to pressure Ukraine's president to investigate his political rivals and his obstruction of the inquiry into his actions are impeachable offenses the one witness called by Republicans George Washington University law professor Jonathan Turley said the evidence was too thin Charlie also said Trump's actions don't conform with the accusation that his action with regard to Ukraine amounted to bribery which is outlined in the Constitution as an impeachable offense you can't accuse a president of bribery and then when some of us know that the Supreme Court has rejected your type of boundless interpretation say well it's just impeachment. We really don't have to prove the elements that's a favorite mantra that is sort of close enough for jazz Well this is an improv propositional chance close enough is not good enough if you're going to accuse a president of bribery you need to make it stick because you're trying to remove a duly elected president of the United States stand for a law professor Pamela Karlan argue transactions do amount to bribery trumped told reporters in London where he was attending a NATO meeting that he doubted many people would watch the live hearing because he said it's going to be boring President Trump today dismissed the significance of repeated contacts between his personal attorney Rudy Giuliani and phone numbers linked to the White House budget office the contacts were revealed in the House Intelligence Committees impeachment report the implication is that Giuliani was discussing with Office of Management and Budget officials the ultimate decision to withhold Congressionally approved military aid to Ukraine. I'm Eileen out in Derry for Kate. And I'm Brian Edwards Tikker this is k.p. Of his live coverage of the House Judiciary Committee's 1st open impeachment hearing into impeachment against President Donald j. Trump we've committed to bring you these proceedings from opening gavel to closing gavel right now we're on a brief recess and we're trying to use this time to make up some of the ground we have sacrificed by doing this coverage this was scheduled to be this was budgeted to be the 1st day of case here phase and if your holiday fun drive right now we have a $1000.00 challenge on the line $18439.00 to $57321803.00 quote Hey k.p.s. They are on line a k p f a dot org We now return to the hearing this is Republican n.d. Beings. Until the Reese a recent call a query several of you consistently said that the president said during the July 25th conversation with presidents Alinsky you said the president said I would like you to do me a favor but that is inaccurate it was finally cleared. And I'm going to read to you I would like you to do us a favor though because our country has been through a lot one of you said well that's because presidents use a royal we Here's the president talking about the country that's what he's talking about it's not day she has to say it's using the royal we that's royal all right but it ain't the royal we and I'll just tell you when you come in with a preconceived notion it's becomes obvious one of you just said Mr Felder knew it was you who said no I'm going to quote here roughly I think this is exactly what you said them until the call in July 25th I was in impeachment skeptic 2. I don't know I'm looking at an August 23rd 2017 publication where you said if President Donald Trump pardons Giora Pio it would be an impeachable offense. He did and ultimately. Pardoned him in 2017 The New York. Book's book review review of books Mr Feldman Professor Feldman said defamation by tweet is an impeachable offense and I think of the his history of this country and I think if defamation or libel or slander is an impeachable offense I can't help but reflect about John Adams about Thomas Jefferson who routinely pilloried 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 because to tional convention you and several of you mentioned Mr Davies And you talked about the constitutional commission I was going to while since I read the minutes so I just briefly reviewed because I remembered the discussion on the impeachment. As being more pervasive a little bit more expanded and I'm still I 2787 it wasn't 709 but by the way when he says 5 something that it was in 787 July 20th binge of infrequent is discussing impeachment of a Dutch leader and he talked specifically about what he would anticipate an impeachment to look like he said would be a regular and peaceable inquiry it would have taken place and if guilty then there be a punishment if acquitted then the innocent would be restored to the confidence of the public that needs to be taken to account as well. So I I look Also I may 17th 2017 b.b.c. Article which is a discussion about impeachment. Because President trumpet fire James Komi Alex Whiting of Harvard said it was hard to make the obstruction of justice case with this sacking alone the president had clear legal authority and there was arguably proper or at least other reasons put forward for firing him and yet what we have here is this insistence by Ms Gerhard that this should be that was impeachable that is that's it contained in that article refer you to it mate May 17th 2017 b b c. What I'm suggesting to you today is a reckless bias coming in here you're not fact witnesses you're 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 our witnesses here. And it's dealing with something that was said in a Maryland law review article in 1909 and basically if I can get to it he's talking about this where we were being critical of lack of self doubt and an overwhelming arrogance on the part of law professors who come in and opine on not impeachment that would be you Mr Gephardt said something like that I can't quote from a chorus I'll give it to you and so what I'm telling you is that is what has been on display in this committee today and with that you're back. The gentleman yields back. A little while ago Mr Gates as that certain material be inserted into into the record by unanimous consent yes the opportunity to review it we have reviewed it and material will be inserted with it without objection. Mr Loop. Thank you. Officer in the United States Air Force and the. Human. Chief is accused of using his office for. Russia. Remove all. It seems notable although they could have included. In the constitution bribery is one of only 2. So why would the framers of all the powerful offenses they could have included to list bribery was the classic example for them of the high crime and of abuse of office for personal gain because if you take something of value. Able to affect an outcome for somebody else you're serving your own interests and not the interests of the people and that was commonly used in impeachment offenses. And that's one of the reasons. Thank you now earlier professor Karl and made the point. Broader. Bribery I think obviously. We're not deciding whether President Trump to prison this is a civil action it's an impeachment proceeding to. Move on from his job and so Professor Karl and. It's true that we don't have to. Statute in order to meet the standards for impeachable offense. That's correct thank you. Professor. Who is a lifelong Republican former Republican. And. Following public statement about the conduct of the car wasn't perfect he. Bribery. I'm not going to show you video clips of. The president's withholding of the White House meeting and exchange for the public. And to his political rival. As I testified previously Mr Giuliani's requests a quid pro quo for arranging a White House visit for President. Becoming clear to me that the meeting. Was condition. To. Secure. The congress. For a. Political rival. In the absence of any credible explanation for the. I believe that the resumption of security aid would not occur until there was a public statement from Ukraine. To the investigations of the 2016 elections. As. A demand. For. The constitution. I believe. The Supreme Court's decision. Was primarily about what constitutes a. Formal. Official pretty clear we got that here we have hundreds. Of. Aid as a formal and. How. But we don't even have to talk about bribery there's another crime here which is. A federal. And government in a federal election campaign that straight up violates the Federal Election Campaign Act 52 u.s.c. 310105 the way that ad is also one reason Michael Cohen is sitting in prison right now I yield back. The gentleman years back Mr McClintock thank you Mr Chairman could be good just with hands how many on the panel actually voted for Donald Trump and 2016 I don't think you are obligated to say anything about how we can. Just show of hands I will not I think you've made your positions Professor Carl very gentle suspending will suspend the clock to. I have already cast as you may you may want let me rephrase that you should how many of you are not for the moment you generally may ask the question witnesses don't have to respond how many of you voted Trump in 2016 show of hands not not raising your hand has not been answered 1st or Turley this impeachment inquiry has been predicated. Public one Democrat asserted that hearsay can be much better evidence than direct evidence Speaker Pelosi and over those who said that the president's responsibility is to present evidence to prove his innocence. Chairmanships a certain we heard a discussion from some of your colleagues today that if you invoke legal rights in defense of criminal accusations if so facto that's an obstruction of justice an evidence of guilt. My question of you is what does it mean to our American justice system of these doctrines take root in our country. Well what concerns me the most is that. There are no limiting principles that I can see and some of the definitions of my colleagues have put forward. More importantly some of these impeachable offenses I've only heard about today I'm not too sure what attempting to abuse of office means or how you recognize it but I'm 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 then many Republicans do you think would say that Barack Obama violated that standard that's exactly what James Madison Ward you again is that you would create affectively a vote of no confidence standard in our consul then are we in danger of abusing our own power of doing enormous violence to our Constitution by proceeding this man my Democratic colleagues and searching for a pretext for impeachment since before the president was was sworn in on this panel Professor Karlan called President Trump selection illegitimate and 2017 she implied impeachment was a remedy Professor Feldman advocated impatient president over a tweet that he made in March 2017 that's just 7 weeks after his inauguration are we in danger of succumbing to the maxim of Lewis Carroll's Red Queen sentence 1st verdict afterwards Well this is part of the problem of how your view of the president can affect your assumptions your inferences your view of circumstantial evidence I'm not suggesting that the evidence if it was fully investigated would come out one way or the other what I'm saying is that we are not dealing with the realm of the unknowable you have to ask we've burned 2 months in this house 2 months that you could have been in court seeking a. Teena for these witnesses it does 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 and you 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's checks and balances on all of these I think secular authorities primarily obviously rests with the president but these are all shared powers and I don't begrudge the investigation of the Ukraine controversy I think it was a legitimate investigation what I begrudge is how it has been conducted well I'm going to agree with that I mean that the Constitution commands the president take care that the laws be faithfully enforced that doesn't affect make him the chief law enforcement officer in the federal government does it not that's commonly expressed so if they have probable cause exists to believe a crime has been committed does the president have the authority to inquire into that matter. He has but I have to with this is where I think we would depart I've been critical of the president in terms of crossing lines with the Justice Department I think that has caused considerable problems I also don't believe it's appropriate that we often confuse what is inappropriate with what's in impeachable you know many people feel that what the president has done is obnoxious contemptible of limitations on people is not synonymous with a piece of me is going to question. The National Defense Authorization Act that authorized agent Ukraine requires the secretary of defense and state certify that the government of Ukraine is taking substantial actions to make defense institutional reforms or among other things for purposes of decreasing corruption. Is the president exercising that responsibility when when he inquires into a matter that could involve illegalities between American and Ukrainian officials and that's what I'm referring to is unexplored defenses part of the bias when you look at these facts is you just ignore defenses you say well those are just invalid but they're the defenses they're the other side's account for actions and that's what hasn't been explored gentleman's time has expired Mr Rascon. Thank you Mr Chairman I want to thank the way this is a clear. Democrat long day Jamie when I thank him especially Marilou King American professor of constitutional law overthrew a king but created the world's 1st anti-monarchy call constitution your area edition makes me proud to spend a quarter century of my career as a fellow conservation law professor before running for Congress and Tom Paine said that in the monarchies the king is law but in the democracies the law will be king but today the president advances in essentially Minorca Corrigan he says that Article 2 allows him to do whatever he wants you know only says that but he believes it because he did something no other American president has ever done before he used foreign military aid is a lever to coerce a foreign government. To interfere in an American election to discredit an opponent and to advance his reelection campaign professor Karl and 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 he's right and we accept this radical claim that he can do whatever he wants all future presidents seeking reelection will be able to bring foreign governments into our campaigns to target their rivals and to spread propaganda that's astounding if we let the president get away with this conduct every president can get away with it do you agree with that Professor Volman I do Richard Nixon sent burglars to break into the Democratic National Committee 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 isn't it if the logic 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 Fellman Carlin Garo toes there were 3 dominant reasons invoked at the founding for why we needed an impeachment power broadly speaking it was an instrument of popular self-defense against a president behaving like a king in trampling the rule of law it but not just in the normal royal sense of showing cruelty in vanity and treachery and greed and avarice and so on but. When presidents threaten the basic character of our government and the Constitution that's what impeachment was about and the framers invoked 3 specific kinds of misconduct so serious and egregious that they thought they warranted impeachment 1st the president might abuse his power by corruptly using his office for personal political or financial gain Well Professor Feldman what's so wrong with that if the president belongs to my party and I generally like him what's so wrong with him using his office to advance his own political ambitions because the president United States works for the people and so if he seeks personal gain he's not serving the interests of the people he's rather serving the interests that are specific to him and that means he's abusing the office and he's doing things they can only get away with because he's the president and that is necessarily subject to impeachment will 2nd and 3rd the founders expressed fear their president could subvert our democracy by betraying his trust to foreign influence and interference and also by corrupting the election process Professor Karlan you one of America's leading Alexion lost scholars What role does impeachment play in protecting the integrity of our elections especially in an international context in which of Lattimer Putin and other tyrants and despots are interfering to destabilise elections around the world well you know Congress says enact a series of laws to make sure that there isn't foreign influence in our elections and allowing the president to circumvent that principle is a problem and as I've already testified several times America is not just the last best hope as Mr Jeffrey said but it's also the shining city on a hill and we can't be the shining city on a hill and promote democracy around the world if we're 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 3 causes for impeachment explicitly contemplated by the founders abuse of power the trade over national security and corruption of one of our elections are present in this president's conduct yes or no Professor Feldman Yes and prosecute her yes or Professor Garland Yes you all agree Ok and do are any of you aware of any other president who has essentially triggered all 3 concerns that animated the founders No no no as well. Mr Chairman it's hard to think of a Mormon Arkell sentiment then I can do whatever I want as president and I yield back gentleman years back I was asking of Maryland Democrats to care next down to the last go Republican from Arizona record a letter I wrote to him sente you asking calling on you to cancel any and all future impeachment hearings and outlining how the process and objection the letter will be entered into the record Thank you. During an interview Mr Chairman on m s n b C's Morning Joe I November 26th 2018 chairman now or outlined a 3 pronged tast that he said would allow for a legitimate impeachment proceeding now I quote chairman now there's remarks. And this is what he said. There really are 3 there really are 3 questions I think 1st has the president committed impeachable offenses 2nd Do those offenses rise to the gravity that's worth putting the country through the drama of impeachment and number 3 because you don't want to tear the country apart you don't want half of the country to say to the other half for the next 30 years he won 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 you've laid out all of the evidence a good fraction of the opposition the voters will reluctant really admit to themselves they had to do it otherwise you have a purpose in the impeachment which will tear the country apart if you meet these 3 tasks then I think you do the impeachment and those were the words of Chairman Now now let's see if chairman now there's 3 prong test has been met. First has the president committed an impeachable offense now the evidence and testimony has not revealed any impeachable offense 2nd Do those offenses rise to the gravity that's worth putting the country through the drama of impeachment again the answer is no there is nothing here that rises to the gravity that's worth putting the country through the drama of impeachment and 3rd 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 and 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 no one single Republican voted on the impeachment inquiry resolution or on the shift report reveal the office it 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 outlier or along with the rest of the Democratic caucus is prepared to continue these entirely partisan unfair proceedings and traumatize the American people all for a political purpose I think that's a shame that's not leadership that's a sham and so I asked Mr Turley his chairman now others that it satisfied his 3 pronged terrorist for him preach impeachment with all due respect your chairman I do not believe that those those factors were satisfied thank you and I want to correct something for the record of those well repeatedly today and other days Democrats have repeated what was said in the text of the called Do me a favor though and they imply it was against President Biden to impeach to investigate President Biden it was not it was not in fact let me read what the transcript sends it says. The president tramp I would like you to do as a favor though because our country has been through Mark in Ukraine knows a lot about it I would like you to find out what happened with this whole situation with record Ukraine they say Crowd Strike I guess you have one of your own wealthy people it says nothing about the buy them so please stop referencing those 2 together and I yield back generally back and. This is. Yourselves in and I thought the threat. From an Arizona this is k.b.r. Take a p.s.p. In Berkeley K.F.C.'s here point one f.m. In Fresno key to 4 a.p.r. 97.5 f.m. In Santa Cruz online around the world and keep dot org live coverage of the House Judiciary Committee's 1st impeachment proceeding in the inquiry into impeachment against President Donald j. . Our next stop is privileged Jaya Paul from Washington state she is co-chair progressive Democratic caucus so 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 the president's statements various witnesses including Vice President Pence's special advisor 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 presidential calls I had observed it involved disk.
Related Keywords
Radio Program , American Planters , American Political Philosophers , American Lawyers , Member States Of The United Nations , Political Terminology , Constitutional Law , Law , Political Science , Federal Architecture In Washington Dc , Virginia Democratic Republicans , Judges , Federalism , University Of Chicago Alumni , Heads Of State , Elections , Chief Executive Officers , Academic Publishing , Constitutions , Countries In Europe , Accountability , Nationality , Human Rights Organizations , Positions Of Authority , Causality , Slavic Countries And Territories , Structural System , Radio Kpfa 94 1 Fm , Stream Only , Radio , Radioprograms ,
comparemela.com © 2020. All Rights Reserved.