Whether you think thats good or bad and matches the abuse of powers is an open question. And then he goes through and argues he doesnt see what he calls a statutory crime. And well see that debate as well. There are people youre going to hear from who are going to say its got to be an actual felony and then there are going to be other people pointing out the constitution doesnt require that. It has words like treason, bribery and high crimes. So were going to get into the weeds here, but the big picture is keep your eye on which witnesses and exchanges are talking about the serious question of whats impeachable. The other noise you can try and tune out as with any hearing. Mr. Wiesman, your last words of advice as we settle in to watch the legal experts. I think its very important to keep your eye on the facts and the law. And i think one of the things that the public is rightly upset about is the rule of law not being applied. And so i think the quote you read is fun, its sort of catchy. But thats argument by adjective. What people should look is, is anyone challenging the facts and what is the law that should be applied. I think thats what people should keep their sort of attention focused on. Because theres going to be a lot of distractions. Garrett haake in the hallway outside this hearing. Garrett, what can you add from your Vantage Point . Reporter brian, i was just in the hearing room kind of poking around as folks were getting set up. And the republican posters that they have put up behind the dias which i think you can see on your screens, tell me that theyre going to make a lot of use of near and not so near history. Theyre going to point out the comments of Chairman Nadler back in the 90s when he was a defender of president clinton, arguing that an impeachment that is narrow and partisan cannot and should not succeed. And theyll even point out the comments from speaker pelosi when she was fending off elements of her caucus late last year, early this year on the questions of impeachment related to the Mueller Report that impeachment has to be a bipartisan process to be successful. And up until this point, it hasnt been. Now, you can argue the reasons for that. Republicans digging in in support of the president and essentially not willing to listen to the evidence thats being presented. But republicans will make a historically argument that a lot of the same players, including jerry nadler when he was a congressman in the late 90s as a defender of bill clinton, made the argument that you can not impeach on a purely partisan vote or a purely partisan basis. And republicans are prepared to dig in and make that a core element of their defense of the president today once things get underway here in just a few minutes. That is true, theres no changing whats on the videotape and there is so much videotape from the last time around. Folks like lindsay graham, and as you correctly point out, folks like the man who is now the chairman of this committee. And this is a very vocal republican minority on this committee. Reporter yeah, thats absolutely right. Youve got some of the president s biggest defenders here. Doug collins, who a lot of people thought might be appointed to the soon to be open senate seat in georgia as the Ranking Member here. Hes somebody who really knows how to use the parliamentary tools that are available to him to slow things down, gum up the works here. But youve also got matt gates, some of the president s more hard core defenders. These are folks who have been on the trump train for as long as that has been a thing. Not to mention jim jordan, who people got a thorough taste of when he was substituted into the intel panel. Hes back now on the Judiciary Panel and hes a regular member of that body. Youre going to have some of these much louder and perhaps more comfortable Being Bomb Thrower Defenders of the president here on this committee. Likewise for democrats. Theyve got some of their more partisan, more progressive, more Activist Members on this committee, too. There will be no shortage of fireworks here. This is such a Different Group than the intel committee, which is much more tight knit, in many cases hand picked by leadership to sit on that committee. This is a fighters committee, so expect to see a much different atmosphere, despite the more academic nature of the witnesses today. Garrett haake, thank you for that from the hallway. We apologize to our viewers for the Satellite Delay because its because of the confines that our Electronics Get compressed and delayed. Our four experts, as youve been watching, have been seated and they have unloaded their documents and are ready to go. This is the period where both television and still photographers are allowed to come and take pictures while the witnesses have no choice but to sit there kind of uncomfortably aware of this period where they just have to sit mr. Uncomfortably. And what this hearing is going to do today is its going to try to take the facts and apply the law. But i look at turleys Opening Statement and he wants to talk about how mad we are. Frankly, thats irrelevant, who is mad and who isnt mad. Whats only relevant here is do these facts rise to the level of impeachment. Now, the republicans have been saying he did nothing wrong. Some would argue they should have been saying he did lots wrong, but not impeachable. But thats not what trump wants him to say. The question is, is this really normal, like turley tries to say . Is this normal behavior or is this a whole nother kettle of fish . I would argue that it is a whole nother kettle of fish because we have never before in my knowledge in history had a president leveraging military assistance to our allies for political help in his campaign. Totally different. Just to our viewers, youre seeing obviously the chairman, jerry nadler, democrat of new york, and also next to him, norm eisen. Norm eisen is a lot of things. Hes a longtime washington lawyer and former ambassador under the obama administration. And we are told that he will be the counsel on the Committee Staff participating in todays questioning for the democratic side. In just a moment, we are anticipating the photographers being cleared from the shot. Do we have any audio available to us from the hearing room as yet . Well bring you that. Its just kind of ambient sound. And then presumably were going to hear a gavel here in just a moment from the chairman when were under way. Committee running six, seven minutes late thus far use its taken a while to filter into the hearing room. Lets hear what we can. The House Committee on the judiciary will come to order. The chairman is able to declare recesses. Were reserving the right to object. Noted. The gentleman is reserved. Mr. Chairman, pursuant to cause 2 j 1 of rule 11, i am funnishing you with a command for delay of hearings on the subject signed by all of the republican members. The gentleman will suspend. I could not understand what youre saying. Repeat it clearly. Pursuant to clause 2j sls 1, i am furnishing you with a signed by all the republicans of the committee and i would request that you set the date before the Committee Votes on any articles of impeachment. I withdraw my reservation. We will confer and rule on this later. The quorum is present. This is the first hearing this is the first hearing we are conducting pursuant to House Resolution 660 and the special Judiciary Committee procedures that are described in section 4 a of that resolution. Here is how the committee will proceed for this hearing. I will make an Opening Statement and then i will recognize the Ranking Member for an Opening Statement. Each witness will have ten minutes to make their statements and then we will proceed to questions. I will now recognize myself for an Opening Statement. Mr. Chairman, parliamentary inquiry. I have the time for an Opening Statement, the parliamentary inquiry is not in order at this time. The facts before us are undisputed. On july 25th, President Trump called president Zelensky Of Ukraine and in President Trumps words, asked him for a favor. That call was part of a concerted effort by the president and his men to solicit a personal advantage in the next election. This time, in the form of an investigation of his political adversaries by a Foreign Government. To obtain that private political advantage, President Trump withheld both an official white house meeting from the newly elect elected president of a fragile democracy and withheld vital military aid from a vulnerable ally. When Congress Found out about this scheme and began to investigate, President Trump took extraordinary and unprecedented steps to cover up his efforts and to withhold evidence from the investigators. And when witnesses disobeyed him, when Career Professionals came forward and told us the truth, he attacked them viciously, calling them traitors and liars, promising that they will, quote, go through some things, closed quote. Of course, this is not the first time that President Trump has engaged in this pattern of conduct. In 2016, the Russian Government engaged in a sweeping and Systematic Campaign of interference in our elections. In the words of special counsel robert mueller, quote, the Russian Government perceived it would benefit from a President Trump presidency and worked to secure that outcome, closed quote. The president welcomed that interference. We saw this in real time when President Trump asked russia to hack his political opponent. The very next day, a Russian Military Intelligence Unit attempted to hack that political opponent. When his own Justice Department tried to uncover the extent to which a Foreign Government had broken our laws, President Trump took extraordinary and unprecedented steps to obstruct the investigation, including ignoring subpoenas, ordering the creation of false records, and publicly attacking and intimidating witnesses. Then as now this administrations level of obstruction is without precedent. No other president has vowed to, quote, fight all of the subpoenas, unquote, as President Trump promised. In the 1974 impeachment proceedings, President Nixon produced dozens of recordings. In 1998, president clinton physically gave his blood. President trump, by contrast, has refused to produce a single document and directed every witness not to testify. Those are the facts before us. The Impeachment Inquiry has moved back to the house Judiciary Committee. And as we begin a review of these facts, the president s pattern of behavior becomes clear. President trump welcomed foreign interference in the 2016 election. He demanded it for the 2020 election. In both cases, he got caught. In both cases, he did everything in his power to prevent the American People from learning the truth about his conduct. On july 24th, the special counsel testified before this committee. He implored us to see the nature of the threat to our country. Quote, over the course of my career, i have seen a number of challenges to our democracy. The Russian Governments effort to interfere in our elections is among the most serious. This deserves attention of every american, closed quote. Ignoring that warning, President Trump called the ukrainian president the very next day to ask him to investigate the president s political opponent. As we exercise our responsibility to determine whether this pattern of behavior constitutes an Impeachable Offense, it is important to place President Trumps conduct into historical context. Since the founding of our country, the House Of Representatives has impeached only two president s. A third was on his way to impeachment when he resigned. This committee has voted to impeach two president s for obstructing justice. We have voted to impeach one president for obstructing a congressional investigation. To the extent that President Trumps conduct fits these categories, there is precedent for recommending impeachment here. But never before in the history of the republic have we been forced to consider the conduct of a president who appears to have solicited personal political favors from a Foreign Government. Never before as a president engaged in the course of conduct that included all of the acts that most concerned the framers. The patriots who founded our country were not fearful men. They fought a war, they witnessed terrible violence, they overthrew a king. But as they met to frame our constitution, those patriots still feared one threat above all, foreign interference in our elections. They had just opposed a tyrant and they were worried that we would lose our newfound liberty, not from a war, but through corruption from within. In the early years of the public they asked each of us to be vigilant to that threat. Washington warned us, quote, to be constantly awake, since history and experience prove that foreign influence is one of the most baneful foes of republican government. Adams wrote to jefferson, quote, as often as elections happen, the danger of foreign influence recurs. Hamiltons warning was more specific and more dire. In the federalist papers he wrote that the most deadly adversaries of republican government, unquote, would almost certainly attempt to, quote, raise a creature of their own to the chief of the union. The short, the founders warned us that we should expect our foreign adversaries to target our elections and we will find ourselves in grave danger if the president willingly opens the door to their influence. What kind of president would do that . How will we know if the president has betrayed his country in this manner . How will we know if he has betrayed his country in this manner for petty personal gain . Hamilton had a response for that as well. He wrote, when a man unprincipled in private life, desperate in his fortune, bold in his temper, possessed of considerable talents, known to have scoffed in private at the principles of liberty, when such a man is seen to mount the hobby horse of popularity, to cry the danger to liberty and take every opportunity of embarrassing the general government and bringing it under suspicion, it may justly be suspected that his object is to throw things into confusion, that he may ride the storm and direct the whirl wind. Ladies and gentlemen, the storm in which we find ourselves today was set in motion by President Trump. I do not wish this moment on the country. It is not a pleasant task that we undertake today. But we have each taken an oath to protect the constitution, and the facts before us are clear. President trump did not merely seek to benefit from foreign interference in our elections, he directly and explicitly invited foreign interference in our elections. He used the powers of his office to try to make it happen. He sent his agents to make clear that this is what he wanted and demanded. He was willing to compromise our security and his office for personal, political gain. It does not matter that President Trump got caught and ultimately released the funds that ukraine so desperately needed. It matters that he enlisted a Foreign Government to intervene in our elections in the first place. It does not matter that President Trump felt that these investigations were unfair to him. It matters that he used his office, not merely to defend himself, but to obstruct investigators at every turn. We are all aware that the next election is looming, but we cannot wait for the election to address the present crisis. The integrity of that election is one of the very things at stake. The president has shown us his pattern of conduct. If we do not act to hold him in check now, President Trump will almost certainly try again to solicit interference in the election for his personal, political gain. Today we will begin our conversation where we should, with the text of the constitution. We are em powered to recommend the impeachment of President Trump to the house if we find that he has committed treason, bribery or other high crimes and misdemeanors. Our Witness Panel will help us to guide that conversation. In a few days, we will reconvene and hear from the committees that worked to uncover the facts before us. And when we apply the constitution to those facts, if it is true that President Trump has committed an Impeachable Offense, or multiple Impeachable Offenses, then we must move swiftly to do our duty and charge him accordingly. I thank the witnesses for being here today. I now recognize the Ranking Member chairman. The gentleman from georgia, mr. Collins, his Opening Statement. Mr. Chairman, may i make a parliamentary inquiry . It is not in order for parliamentary inquiry. I recognize the rarcnking membe for an Opening Statement. I thank the chairman. And it is interesting that parliamentary inquiries are not in because some of the things were discussing today are in a different arena, this is a new room, new rules, its a new month. Weve even got cute little stickers for our staff so we can come in because we want to make this important and it is impeachment. Because weve done such a terrible job of it in this committee before, but whats not new is basically whats just been reiterated by the chairman. Whats not new is the facts. Whats not new is its the same sad story. Whats interesting, before i get into my part of my open statement, what was just said by the chairman. We went back to a redo of mr. Mueller. Were also quoting him saying the attention of the American People should be on foreign interference. I agree with him completely. Except i guess the American People did not include the Judiciary Committee. Because we didnt take it up. We didnt have hearings. We didnt do anything to delve deeply into this issue. We passed election bills, but did not get into the indepth part of what mr. Mueller talked about, taking his own report and having hearings about that. We didnt do it. So i guess the American People doesnt include the house Judiciary Committee. You know, interesting, we just heard a discussion and were going to have a lot of interesting discussion today about the constitution and other things, but we also talked about the founders. Whats interesting is that the chairman talked a lot about the founders from the quotes, and again this is why we have the hearing, about the founders being concerned about foreign influence. What He Didnt Quote was the founders being really concerned about political impeachment. Because you just dont like the guy. You havent liked him since november of 2016. The chairman has talked about impeachment since last year when he was elected chairman, two years ago, On November 17th before he was even sworn in as chairman. So dont tell me this is about new evidence and new things and new stuff. We may have a new hearing room and chairs that arent comfortable, but this is nothing new, folks. This is sad. So what do we have here today . You know what im thinking . I looked at this, and what is interesting is theres two things that have become very clear. This impeachment is not really about facts. If it was, i believe the other committees would have sent over recommendations for impeachment and now theyre putting it on this committee because if it goes badly i guess they want to blame adam schiffs committee for it doing bad. But theyre already drafting articles. Theyre already getting ready for this. We already went after this with the ukraine after numerous failings, mueller and cohen, the list goes on. But the if you want to know whats driving this . Its called the clock and the calendar. Most people in life if you want to know what they truly value, you look at their checkbook and calendar. Thats what this committee values. Time. They want to do it before the end of the year. Why . Because the chairman said were scared of the elections next year. Were scared of the elections that well lose again. So weve got to do this now. The clock and the calendar are whats driving impeachment, not the facts. When we understand this, thats what the witnesses here will say today. What do we have here today . What is really interesting over today and for the next few weeks, is america will see why most people dont go to law school. No offense to our professors. But please, really . Were bringing you in here today to testify on something most of you have already written about, all four, for the opinions that we already know out of the classrooms that youre getting ready for finals in, to discuss things that you probably havent even had a chance, unless youre good on tv or have been watching the hearings for the last couple of weeks, you couldnt have digested the adam schiff report from yesterday or the republican response in any real way. They can be theoretical all we want, but the American People is going to look at this and say, huh . What are we doing . Because theres no fact witnesses planned for this committee. Thats an interesting thing. Frankly, theres no plan at all except next week an ambiguous hearing on the presentation from the other committee that sent us the record and Judiciary Committee, which im not still sure what they want us to present on, and nothing else. No plan. I asked the chairman before we left for thanksgiving to stay in touch, lets talk about what we have because history will shine a bright light on us starting this morning. Crickets until i asked for a witness the other day, and lets just say that didnt go well. Theres no whistleblower, and it was proved today that hes not or shes not afforded the protection of identity. Its not in the statute, its just something that was told to us by adam schiff. We also dont have adam schiff who wrote the report. He said yesterday in a press conference, im not going, ill send shaft to do that. To me, he would come begging to us. But you know, heres the problem. It sums it up very simply like this. Just 19 minutes after noon on inauguration today 2017, the Washington Post wrote the campaign to impeach the president has begun. The attorney for the whistleblower tweeted the coup has started, the impeachment will follow short. And al green said if we dont impeach the president , hell get reelected. Why did everything that i say up to this point about no fact witnesses, nothing for the Judiciary Committee, weve spent two and a half weeks before this meeting was even held under clinton. Two and a half weeks. We didnt find your names out until less than 48 hours ago. I dont know what were playing hide the ball on. Its pretty easy what youre going to say. We cant even get that straight. So what are we doing for the next two weeks . I have no idea. The chairman just said an ambiguous hearing on the report but nothing else. If were going to simply not have fact witnesses and we are the rubber stamp hiding out back, the very rubber stamp the chairman talked about 20 years ago. What a disgrace to this committee. To have the committee of impeachment simply take from other entities and rubber stamp it. You see, why do the things that i say matter about fact witnesses and actually have a due process . Because, by the way, just a couple of months ago the democrats got all sort of dressed up, and says were going to have due process, protection for the president and good fairness throughout this. This is the only committee in which the president would even have a possibility, but no offense to you, the Law Professors. The president has nothing to ask you. Youre not going to provide anything he cant read. And his attorneys have nothing else. Put witnesses in here that they can be fact witnesses who can be cross examined. Thats fairness. And every attorney on this panel knows that. This is a sham. But you know what i also see here . Is quotes like this, there must never be a narrowly voted impeachment or an impeachment supported by one of our Major Political parties or opposed by another. It will produce divisiveness and bitterness in politics to come and will call into question the legitimacy of our institutions. The American People are watching. You may have the vote and muscle but you do not have legitimacy of a national consensus. This will go down to infamy in the history of the nation. How about this one . I think the key point is that the republicans are still running a railroad job with no attempt at fair procedure. And today when the democrats offered amendments and motions in committee to say we should first discuss and adopt standards, standards for impeachment that was voted down or ruled out of order, when we say the important thing is to look at the question when we simply have a vote, that was voted down and ruled out of order. So frankly the whole question of what materials should be released and what is secondary, thats all we discussed. The essential question, which is to set up a fair process as to whether the country put this country through an impeachment proceeding, that was ruled out of order. The republicans refused to let us discuss it. Those are all Chairman Nadler before he was chairman. I guess 20 years makes a difference. Its an interesting time. Were having a factless impeachment. You just heard a onesided presentation of facts about this president. Today we will present the other side, which gets so conveniently left out. Remember, fairness does dictate that. But maybe not here, because were not scheduling anything else. I have a democratic majority who has poll tested what they think they ought to call what the president they think he did. Wow, thats not following the facts. We have just a deepseated hatred of a man who came to the white house and did what he said he was going to do. The most amazing question i got in the first three months of this gentlemans presidency from reporters was this, can you believe hes putting forward those ideas . I said yes, he ran on them. He told the truth and he did what he said. The problem here today is this will also be one of the first impeachments the chairman mentioned there was two of them, one before he resigned, the one in clinton, in which the facts even by democrats and republicans, were not really disputed. In this one theyre not only disputed, theyre counter of each other. Theyre not anything that presents an impeachment here, except a president carrying out his job in the way the Constitution Saw that he sees fit to do it. This is where were at today. So the interesting thing that i come to with most everybody here, is this may be a new time, a new place and we may be all scrubbed up and looking pretty for impeachment. But this is not an impeachment. This is just a Simple Railroad job. And today is a waste of time. Because this is where were at. So i close today with this. It didnt start with mueller or a phone call. You know where this started . It started with tiers in brooklyn in november of 2016. When an election was lost. So we are here, no plan, no fact witnesses, simply being a rubber stamp for what we have. But hey, weve got Law Professors here. What a start of a party. Mr. Chairman, before i yield back, i have a motion. Under clause 2, rule 11. The gentleman was recognized for the purpose of an Opening Statement, not for the purpose of making a motion. I yield back and now i ask for recognition of a motion. The gentleman is recognized. Mr. Chairman, pursuant to cause 2 rule 11, i move to require the attendance of adam schiff before this committee and transmit this letter accordingly. For what purposes does the gentle lady seek recognition . The motion is tabled and not debatable. All in favor, say aye, and no. The clerk will call the role. Parliamentary inquiry, mr. Chairman . Theres a note in process. Just a reminder, you dont want chairman schiff coming, correct . The clerk will call the role. Mr. Nadler. Mr. Nadler votes aye. Ness lofgren votes aye. Ms. Jacksonlee votes aye. Mr. Johnson of georgia votes aye. Mr. Deutsche votes aye. Ms. Bass. Mr. Richmond. Mr. Richmond votes yes. Mr. Jeffries votes aye. Mr. Cicilline votes aye. Mr. Swalwell votes yes. Mr. Lui votes aye. Ms. Demmings votes aye. Mr. Correa votes aye. Ms. Scanlon votes aye. Ms. Mcbath votes aye. Mr. Stanton votes aye. Ms. Dean votes aye. Mrs. Es cobar notes aye. Mr. Collins notes no. Mr. Sensen burner notes no. Mr. Jordan notes no. Mr. Buck votes no. Mr. Ratcliffe notes no. Ms. Roby votes no. Mr. Gates notes no. Mr. Johnson votes no. Mr. Biggs votes no. Mr. Mcclint okay votes no. Mr. Cline votes no. Mr. Armstrong votes no. Mr. Stuby notes no. Has everyone voted who wishes to vote . Ms. Bass . Ms. Bass votes aye. The clerk will report. Mr. Chairman, there are 24 ayes and 17 nos. The motion to table is agreed to. Mr. Chairman, i have a p parliamentary inquiry. Clause kr 2 of the Judiciary Committees Impeachment Inquiry procedures states that member of the committee can raise objections relating to the admissibility of testimony and evidence, but it doesnt say what rules apply to admissibility. So im hoping you can explain to us what the objections may be made under this clause and if you intend to use the federal rules of evidence . The gentleman will suspend. That is not a proper parliamentary inquiry. It is. It is not. I stated the rule. You stated a rule. You cannic nor it and not answer it but you cant say its not proper. Im asking for the application of the rule and an explanation. We will apply the rules, period. You wont help us understand that . Theres no clarity there. Which rule are you citing . How are you citing . Clause c 2 of the Judiciary Committees Impeachment Inquiry procedures. How is that unclear . Its the rules of the house and they will be applied, period. Im asking how will they be applied here, sir . They will be applied according to the rules. But not answer your question . Mr. Chairman, can you please also reiterate the schedule Going Forward . Do you plan to hold additional hearings. The gentleman will suspend, that is not proper. Without objection, all other Opening Statements will be included in the record. I will introduce todays witnesses. Mr. Chairman, i seek recognition. The gentleman, i am not going to recognize you now. I am introducing the witnesses. Mr. Chairman noah feldman is a professor at harvard law school. Hes authored seven books, including a buyiiography on jam madison. Profess Profess Feldman received his Undergraduate Degree from harvard and a j. D. From jail law school. He also served as a law clerk for Justice David suitor of the United States Supreme Court. Pame pamela car len serves as the codirector of the preem sourt litigation clinic at stanford law school. She is the ko author of several case books and dozens of scholarly articles. She deserved as a law clerk to justice Harry Blackburn of the United States Supreme Court and is a Deputy Assistant attorney general of the civil rights decision in the United States department of justice where she was responsible, among other things, for reviewing the work of the departments voting. She earned three degrees from yale university, a b. A. In history, an m. A. In history and a j. D. From jail law school. Michael gerhardt is the distinguished professor of jury is prudence on the center of law and government. Professor gerhardt is the author of many books, including constitutional and historical analysis, as well as more than 50 Law Review Publications on a diverse range of topics of law, federal jurisdiction and the legislative process. He received his j. D. From the university of chicago law school, his m. S. From the London School of economics and his b. A. From jail university. Jonathan turley is the jb and maur is sha peer oh chair of Public Interest law at George Washington University Law school where he teaches torts, criminal procedure and constitutional law. After a stint at tu lain, he joined the law faculty in 1990, in 1998 he became the youngest chaired professor in the schools history. He has written over three dozen economic law schools for a variety of leading law journals and his articles on legal and policy issues appear frequently in national publications. A chicago native, Professor Turley earned degrees from the university of chicago and northern Western University school of law. We become all our distinguished witnesses. We thank them for participating in todays hearing. Now if you would please rise, i will begin by swearing you in. Do you swear or affirm under penalty of perjury that the testimony you are about to give is true and correct to the best of your knowledge, information and belief, so help you god . Let the record show the witnesses answered in the affirmative. Thank you and please be seated. Please dont that each of your written statements will be entered into the record in its entirety. Accordingly, i ask that you summarize your testimony in ten minutes. To help you stay within that time, there is a timing light on your table. When the light switches from green to yellow, you have one minute to conclude your testimony. When the light turns red, it signals your ten minutes have expired. Professor feldman, you may began. Mr. Chairman, before we begin mr. Chairman and members of the committee, may i have a motion. The gentleman is not in order to offer a motion at this time. Mr. Chairman, i seek recognition for a Privilege Motion. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, thank you very much for the opportunity to appear. My name is noah feldman. The witness will proceed. I serve as the Felix Frankfurt Professor Of Law at the harvard law school. I seek recognition. The gentleman will suspend. The time is the witnesss. The Privilege Motion needs to be recognized. You can call it not a privilege. In between witnesses it may be recognized. Not once i recognize the witness. The witness will proceed. We will entertain the motion after the first witness. My job is to study and teach the constitution from its origins until the present. I am here today to describe three things, why the framers of our constitution included a provision for the impeachment of the president. What that provision providing for impeachment for high crimes and misdemeanors means. And last, how it applies to the question before you and for the American People, whether President Trump has committed Impeachable Offenses under the constitution. Let me begin by stating my conclusions. The framers provided for the impeachment of the president because they feared that the president might abuse the power of his office for personal benefit, to corrupt the Electoral Process and ensure his reelection, or to subvert the National Security of the United States. High crimes and misdemeanors are abuses of power and of public trust, connected to the office of the presidency. On the basis of the testimony and the evidence before the house, President Trump has committed Impeachable High Crimes And Misdemeanors by Corruptly Abusing the office of the presidency. Specifically, President Trump has abused his office by Corruptly Soliciting president Zelensky Of Ukraine to announce investigations of his political rivals in order to gain personal advantage, including in the 2020 president ial election. Let me begin now with the question of why the framers provided for impeachment in the first place. The framers borrowed the concept of impeachment from england, but with one enormous difference. The House Of Commons and the house of records could use impeachment in order to limit the ministers of the king, but they could not impeach the king, and in that sense the king was above the law. In stark contrast, the framers from the very outset of the Constitutional Convention in 1787 made it Crystal Clear that the president would be subject to impeachment in order to demonstrate that the president was subordinate to the law. If you will, i would like you to think now about a specific date in the Constitutional Convention, july 20th, 1787. It was the middle of a long, hot summer, and on that day two members of the Constitutional Convention actually moved to take out the Impeachment Provision from the draft constitution. And they had a reason for that, and the reason was they said well, the president will have to stand for reelection. And if the president has to stand for reelection, that is enough. We dont need a separate provision for impeachment. When that proposal was made, significant disagreement ensued. The governor of north carolina, a man called william davy, immediately said if the president cannot be impeached, quote, he will spare no effort or means whatever to get himself reelected. A fierce republican critic of republican power said no point is no more important than that impeachment be included in the constitution. Shall any man be above justice, he asked. Thus expressing the core con concern that the president subordinate to the law and not above the law. James madison, the principal draftsman then spoke up. He said it was, quote, indispensable that some pro vig vision be made for impeachment. He said standing for reelection was, quote, not a sufficient security, closed quote, against president ial misconduct or corruption. A president he said might betray his trust to foreign powers. A president who in a corrupt fashion abused the office of the presidency, said james madison, quote, might be fatal to the republic, closed quote. And then a remarkable thing happened in the convention. Governor morris of pennsylvania, one of the two people who had introduced the motion to eliminate the impeachment from the constitution, got up and said the words i was wrong. He told the other framers present that he had changed his mind on the basis of the debate on july 20th, and that it was now his opinion that in order to avoid corruption of the Electoral Process, a president would have to be subject to impeachment, regardless of the availability of a further election. The upshot of this debate is that the framers kept impeachment in the constitution, specifically in order to protect against the abuse of office with the capacity to corrupt the Electoral Process or lead to personal gain. Now, turning to the language of the constitution, the framers used the words high crimes and misdemeanors to describe those forms of action that they considered impeachable. These were not vague or abstract terms to the framers. High crimes and misdemeanors the words high crimes and misdemeanors represented very specific language that was well understood by the entire generation of the framers. Indeed, they were borrowed from an Impeachment Trial in england that was taking place as the framers were speaking, which was referred to, in fact, by george mason. The words high crimes and misdemeanors referred to abuse of the office of the presidency for personal advantage or to corrupt the Electoral Process, or to subvert the National Security of the United States. Theres no mystery about the words high crimes and misdemeanors. The word high modifies both crimes and misdemeanors, so theyre both high. And high means connected to the office of the presidency. Connected to office. The classic form that was familiar to the framers was the abuse of office for personal gain or advantage. And when the framers specifically named bribery as a high crime and misdemeanor, they were naming one particular version of this abuse of office, the abuse of office for personal or individual gain. The other forms of abuse of office, abuse of office to affect elections and abuse of office to compromise National Security, were further forms that were familiar to the framers. Now, how does this language of high crimes examine misdemeanors apply to President Trumps alleged conduct . Let me be clear. The constitution gives the House Of Representatives, that is the members of this committee and the other members of the house, quote, sole power of impeachment. Its not my responsibility or my job to determine the credibility of the witnesses who appeared before the house thus far. That is your constitutional responsibility. My comments will, therefore, follow my ruole, which is to describe and apply the meaning of Impeachable Offenses to the fact described by the testimony and evidence before the house. President trumps conduct as described in the testimony and evidence, clearly constitutes Impeachable High Crimes And Misdemeanors under the constitution. In particular, the memorandum and other testimony relating to the july 25th, 2019 phone call, between the two president s, President Trump and president zelensky, more than sufficiently indicates that President Trump abused his office by soliciting the president of ukraine to investigate his political rivals in order to gain personal political advantage, including in relation to the 2020 election. Again, the words abuse of office are not magical. The abuse of office occurs when the president uses a feature of his power, the awesome power of his office, not to serve the interests of the american public, but to serve his personal individual partisan electoral interests. That is what the evidence before the house indicates. Finally, let me be clear that on its own, soliciting the leader of a Foreign Government in order to announce investigations of political rivals and perform those investigations, would constitute a high crime and misdemeanor. But the house also has evidence before it that the president committed two further acts that also qualify as high crimes and misdemeanors. In particular, the house heard evidence that the president placed a hold on critical u. S. Aid to ukraine and conditioned its release on announcement of the investigations of the bidens and of the discredited crowdstrike conspiracy theory. Further more, the house also heard evidence that the president conditioned a white house visit desperately sought by the ukrainian president on announcement of the investigations. Both of these acts constitute Impeachable High Crimes And Misdemeanors under the constitution and they each encapsulate the framers worry that the president of the United States would take any means whatever to ensure his reelection. And that is the reason that the framers provided for impeachment in a case like this one. Mr. Chairman, i seek recognition. The gentlemans time is expired. I seek recognition. The gentleman is recognized. I offer a motion to postpone to a date certain. I move to table the motion. The motion to table is heard and is not debatable. All in favor of the motion of the motion mr. Chairman, may we have the motion read, please . The motion was stated. May we have the motion read, please . The motion will be read as to what date. The motion will be read to a date certain wednesday, december 11th, 2019, so we can actually get a response to the six letters. The gentleman has stated his motion and a motion to table is made and not debatable. All in favor say aye. Opposed. The motion to table is agreed to. Roll call. Roll call is requested. Mr. Nadler votes aye. Ms. Jackson lee votes aye. Mr. Johnson of georgia votes aye. Mr. Deutsche votes aye. Ms. Bass votes aye. Mr. Richmond votes aye. Mr. Cicilline votes aye. Mr. Swalwell votes yes. Mr. Dem, votes aye. Mr. Correa votes aye. Ms. Garcia. Eye. Eye zbl aye. Ms. Esq escobar aye. Mr. Collins notes no. Mr. Gohmert. Mr. Jordan . Mr. Jordan votes no. Mr. Buck. Mr. Radcliffe votes no. Ms. Robey votes no. Mr. Gates votes no of louisiana. Mr. Bigs votes no. Mr. Mcclintock votes no. Ms. Lesko votes no. Mr. Klein. No. Mr. Armstrong votes no. Has everyone voted who wishes to vote . Mr. Chairman, there are 24 ayes and 17 nos. The motion to the motion to table is adopted. I recognize professor karlan for her testimony. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee. Thank you so much for the opportunity to testify. Twice i have had the privilege of representing this committee and its leadership in Voting Rights cases before the Supreme Court, once when it was under the leadership of chairman sense brenner. Good to see you again and with mr. Shava and once under the leadership of chairman conyers. It was a great honor for me to represent this committee, because of this committees key roll over the past 50 years in ensuring that american citizens have the right to vote in free and fair elections. Today youre being asked to whether protecting that means impeaching a president. Everything i know about our constitution and its values and my evidencery record and here mr. Collins, i would like to say to you, sir, i read transcripts of every one of the witnesses who appeared in the live hearing because i would not speak about these things without reviewing the facts. Ill insulted by the suggestion that as a Law Professor i dont care about those facts. But everything i read on those occasions tells me that when President Trump invited, indeed demanded foreign involvement in our upcoming election, he struck at the very heart of what makes this a republic to which we pledge allegiance. That demand, as professor feldman just explained, constituted an abuse of power. Indeed, as i want to explain in my testimony, drawing a Foreign Government into our elections is an especially serious abuse of power because it undermining democracy itself. Our constitution begins with the words We The People for a reason. Our government in James Madisons words derives all its powers directly or indirectly from the great body of the people. The way it derives these powers is through elections. Elections matter. Both to the legitimacy of our government and all of our individual freedoms because as the Supreme Court declared more than a century ago, voting is preservative of all rights. So it is hardly surprising that the constitution is marvelled with provisions governing elections and guaranteeing governmental accountability. Indeed, a majority of the amendments to our constitution since The Civil War Have dealt with voting or with terms of office. Among the most important provisions of our original constitution is the guarantee of periodic elections for the presidency, one every four years. America has kept that promise for more than two centuries and has done so even during wartime. For example, we invented the idea of Absentee Voting so union troops who supported president lincoln could stay in the field during the election of 1864. Since then, countless other americans have fought and died to protect our right to vote. But the framers of our constitution realized that elections alone could not guarantee that the United States would remain a republic. One of the key reasons for including the Impeachment Power was a risk that unscrupulous officials might try to rig the election process. Youve already heard two people give William Davie his problems. Hamilton got a whole musical and davey will just get this committee hearing. He warned that unless the constitution contained an Impeachment Provision, ament might spare no efforts or means whatsoever to get himself reelected. George mason insisted that a prpt who procured his appointment in the first instance through improper and corrupt acts should not escape punishment by repeating his guilt. Mason was the person responsible for adding high crimes and misdemeanors to the list of Impeachable Offenses. So we know from that that the list was designed to reach a president who acts to subvert an election, whether that election is the one that brought him into office or its an upcoming wleks where he seeks an additional term. Moreover, the founding generation, like every generation of americans since was especially concerned to protect our government and our democratic process from outside interference. For example, john adams during the rad case expressed concern with the very concern of having an elected President Writing to Thomas Jefferson that you were apprehensive of foreign interference, intrigue, influence. So am i. But as often as elections happen, the danger of foreign influence recurs. In his Farewell Address president washington warned that is history and experience prove that foreign influence is one of the most baneful foes of republican government. He explained that Foreign Governments would try to foment disagreement between the American People and influence what we thought. The very idea that a president might seek the aid of a Foreign Government in his Reelection Campaign would have horrified them, but based on the evidentiary record, that is what President Trump has done. The list of Impeachable Offenses that the framers included in the constitution shows that the essence of an Impeachable Offense is that a president s decision to satisfy the National Interest for his own private ends. Treason, the first thing listed, lay in an individuals giving aid to a foreign enemy, that is putting a foreign enemys adversarys interests above the Interest Rates of the United States. Bribery occurred when an official solicited, received or offered a personal favor or benefit to influence official action, risking he would put his private welfare above the National Interest. High crimes an misdemeanors captured the other ways in which a high official might as Justice Joseph story explained, disregard Public Interests in the discharge of the duties of political offense. Based on the evidentiary record before you, what has happened in the case today is something that i do not think we have ever seen before, a president who has doubled down on violating his oath to faithfully execute the laws and to protect and defend the constitution. The evidence reveals a president who used the powers of his office to demand that a Foreign Government participate in undermining a competing candidate for the presidency. As president john kennedy declared, the right to vote in a free American Election is the most powerful and precious right in the world. But our elections become less free when they are distorted by foreign interference. What happened in 2016 was bad enough. There is widespread agreement that russia operatives intervened to manipulate our political process. But that distortion is magnified. If a sitting president abuses the powers of his Office Actually to invite foreign intervention. To see why, imagine living in a part of louisiana or texas thats prone to devastating hurricanes and flooding. What would you think if you lived there and your governor asked for a meeting with the president to discuss getting disaster aid that congress has provided for, what would you think if that president said, i would like you to do us a favor. Ill meet with you and ill send the Disaster Relief once you brand my opponent a criminal . Wouldnt you know in your gut that such a president had abused his office, that he betrayed the National Interest and he was trying to corrupt the Electoral Process . I believe that the evidentiary