And the controlling law. Use of an obstruction theory from the Mueller Report would be unsupported, unsupportable in the house and unsustainable in the senate. Do you remember writing that . Yes, i do. Why did you write that . Because i think its true. The fact is that this was reviewed by main justice. The special counsel did not reach a conclusion on obstruction. He should have. I think his justification quite frankly was a bit absurd on not reaching a conclusion. But the attorney general, Deputy Attorney general, did and they came to the right conclusion. I dont think this is a real case for obstruction. But then this body would be impeaching the president on the basis of the inverse conclusion. I dont believe it would be appropriate. The gentlemans time has expired. Ms. Dean. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Words matter. In my earlier life, professors, i was a professor of writing. I taught my students to be
careful and clear about what they put to paper. That is a lesson that the framers of our constitution understood far better than anyone. They were laying the foundation for a new form of government, one that enshrines democratic principles and protects against those who would seek to undermine them. The constitution explicitly lays out that a president may be impeached for treason, bribery, High Crimes And Misdemeanors. Weve heard a lot of words today. Foreign interference, bribery, Obstruction Of Justice. Professors, id like to go through the president s conduct and the public harms we have discussed today and ask if they would fit into what the forefathers contemplated when crafting those words of the Impeachment Clause. Professor karlan, id like to ask you about the foreign interference in elections. As americans we can agree foreign interference, foreign influence erodes the integrity of our elections. And as you said so plainly, it makes us less free. Yet on july 25th, 2019 the president coerced ukrainian president zelensky to announce an investigation into his political rival, trumps political rival, which was corroborated by multiple witnesses throughout the Intelligence Committee hearings. Professor karlan, can you explain for the American People in your opinion whether the framers considered solicitation of foreign interference and would they have considered it a high crime or misdemeanor and does the president s conduct rise to that level . The framers of our constitution would have considered it abhorrent, would have considered it the essence of a high crime or misdemeanor for a president to invite in foreign influence either in deciding whether he will be reelected or deciding who his successor would be. Thank you. Professor feldman, id like to talk to you about bribery. During the course of the Intelligence Committee hearings multiple witnesses gave sworn unrebutted testimony that the president withheld nearly 400
million in congressionally approved aid on the condition that russia excuse me, that ukraine announce investigations into his chief political adversa adversary. Professor, in your opinion, given those facts, and the framers specific concerns, would you describe the president s behavior here and the use of his Public Office for a private benefit as rising to those levels . The framers considered, as you said, bribery to consist bribery under the constitution to consist of the president abusing his Office Corruptly for personal gain. If this house determines and if this committee determines that the president was in fact seeking personal gain in seeking the investigations that he asked for, then that would constitute bribery under the constitution. Thank you. Professor gerhardt, id like to ask you about Obstruction Of Justice. The president has categorically refused to produce any documents responsive to congressional subpoenas, attacked and
intimidated prospective and actual witnesses including career and Civil Military excuse me, military and civil servants, as discussed here, like ambassador yovanovitch, Lieutenant Colonel vindman, ambassador taylor, jennifer williams, and others. And he directed all current and former administration witnesses to defy congressional subpoenas. Professor, based on that set of facts, does this conduct meet the threshold for Obstruction Of Justice as envisioned in the constitution . Yes, maam, i believe it does. I remember when i was here 21 years ago along with Professor Turley testifying before a differently constituted committee on a very serious question regarding impeachment, and i remember a number of Law Professors very eloquently talking about president s clinton president clintons misconduct as an attack on the judicial system. And thats what you just described to me. Thank you. And thank you, professors, all of you, all four of you. What you did today is you brought part of our constitution to life. And i thank you for that. Youve shown what the framers
were mindful of when they wrote the Impeachment Clause of our constitution. They chose their words, and their words matter. You know, it was my father, bob dean, a terrific dad and a talented writer, who instilled in Me And My Brothers and sister a love of language. He taught us our words matter, the truth matters. Its through that lens which i see all of the serious and somber things were speaking about today for an interference, bribery, obstruction. The framers likely could not have imagined all three concerns embodied in a single leader. But they were concerned enough to craft the remedy, impeachment. The times have found us. I am prayerful for our president , for our country, for ourselves. May we the people always hold high the decency and promise and ambition of our founding and of the words that matter and of the truth. With that i yield back, mr. Chairman. The gentlelady yields back. Ms. Mccarselpowell. I did not have the privilege of being morn into this country. As an immigrant when i became a citizen to this great nation i took an oath to protect and defend the constitution from all foreign and domestic enemies. And i had the fortunate of taking that oath once again when i became a member of congress. And that includes the responsibility to protect our nation from continuing threats from a president , any president. You testified that the president s actions are a continuing risk to our nation and democracy. Meaning that this is not a onetime problem. There is a pattern of behavior by the president that is putting at risk fair and free elections. And i think that we are here today because the American People deserve to know whether we need to remove the president because of it. During the nixon impeachment the Judiciary Committee said, the purpose of impeachment is not
personal punishment. Its function is primarily to maintain constitutional government. Professor karlan, to me that means that impeachment should be used when we must protect our american democracy. It is reserved for offenses that present a continuing risk to our democracy, is that correct . Yes, it is. Thank you. And i want to show you an example of what the president said just one week after the transcript of the July 25th Call was released when a reporter asked the president what he wanted from president zelensky. And he responded with this. Well, i would think that if they were honest about it theyd start a Major Investigation into the bidens. Its a very simple answer. They should investigate the bidens because how does a company thats newly formed and all these companies by the way, likewise, china should
start an investigation into the bidens because what happened to china just about as bad as what happened with with ukraine. So weve heard today conflicting dialogue from both sides. And i just want to ask, mr. Feldman, is this clear evidence from a president asking from for a Foreign Government to interfere in our elections . Congresswoman, im here for the constitution. Were here for the constitution. And when the president of the United States asks for assistance from a foreign power to distort our elections for his personal advantage, that constitutes an abuse of office and it counts as a high crime and misdemeanor. And thats what the constitution is here to protect us against. Thank you. And professor karlan, are the president s actions a continuing risk that the framers intended
impeachment to be used for . Yes. This takes us back to the quotation from William Davie weve all used several times in our testimony, which is a president without impeachment, a president will do anything to get reelected. Thank you. And i want to show you one more example from the president s Chief Of Staff when asked about the president s demands of the ukrainian president. Lets be clear. What you just described is a quid pro quo. It is funding will not flow unless the investigation into the democratic server happened as well. We do we do that all the time with Foreign Policy. When mckinney said yesterday he was really upset with the political influence in Foreign Policy, that was one of the reasons he was so upset about this. And i have news for everybody. Get over it. Theres going to be political influence in Foreign Policy. Professor karlan, i think that mr. Mulvaney is conflating or kufrzing two different
notions of politics. Yes, there is political influence in our foreign affairs. Because President Trump won the election in 2016 weve exited climate accords, weve taken a different position on nato than we would have taken had his opponent won. But thats different than saying that partisan politics in the sense of electoral manipulation is something that we need to get over or get used to. If we get over that or we get used to that, we will cease to become the democracy that we are right now. Thank you. And i think that that is our greatest fear and threat. And i dont think that anyone is above the law. The constitution establishes that. This type of behavior cannot be tolerated from any president , not now, not in the future. And i yield back. The gentlelady yields back. Im sorry. Miss escobar. I had it checked off miss
escobar is recognized. Thank you, chairman. Professors, thank you so much for your testimony and time today. Many facts including the president s own words in that famous phone call have been laid out before our very eyes and ears for months. Despite the president s repeated efforts at a coverup. But it appears that some have chosen to ignore those facts. What weve seen today from those who choose to turn a blind eye is not a defense of the president s actions because frankly those offenses are indefensible. Instead weve seen them attack the process and attempt to impugn your integrity. For that im sorry. Now to my questions. Some have opined that instead of considering impeachment we should just let this pass is allow the people to decide what to do next or what to do about the president s behavior in the next election. The framers of our constitution specifically considered whether to just use elections and not have impeachment and rejected
that notion. One statement from the framers really stuck with me, and its up on the screen. George mason asked, shall the man who has practiced corruption and by that means procured his appointment in the first instance be suffered to escape punishment by repeating his guilt . Professor feldman, i have two questions for you. Briefly, can you please explain why the framers decided that a corrupt executive could not be solved through elections, and can you tell us why impeachment is the appropriate option at this point considering all the evidence americans have seen and heard rather than just letting this be decided in the next election . The framers understood Human Motivation extremely well, and they knew that a president would have a great motive to corrupt the Electoral Process to get reelected. And thats exactly why they thought that it wasnt good enough to wait for the next election, because the president could cheat and could make the next election illegitimate. Thats why they required impeachment. And if they couldnt impeach a corrupt president , James Madison said, that could be fatal to the republic. The reason that its necessary to take action now is that we have a president who has in fact so the to corrupt the Electoral Process for personal advantage. Under those circumstances the framers remedy of impeachment is the only option available. Thank you. I want to play two clips. The first of president nixon and the second of President Trump. Well, when the president does it, that means that it is not illegal. What i have in article 2, where i have the right to do whatever i want as president. Two president s openly stating that they are above the law. Professor karlan, what happens to our republic, to our country if we do nothing in the face of a president who sees himself above the law, who will abuse his power, who will ask foreign
governments to meddle in our elections and who will attack any witness who stands up to tell the truth . What happens if we dont follow our constitutional obligation of impeachment to remove that president from office . We will cease to be a republic. Thank you. I represent a community that a little over a decade ago was marred by corruption at the local government level. There was no retreat into a partisan corner or an effort by anyone to explain it away. We also didnt wait for an election to cure the cancer of corruption that occurred on our watch. We were united as a community in our outrage over it. It was intolerable to us because we knew that it was a threat to our institutions. Institutions that belong to us. What we face today is the same kind of test, only one far more grave and historic. From the founding of our country to today one truth remains clear, the Impeachment Power is reserved for conduct that endangers democracy and imperils our constitution. Todays hearing has helped us to better understand how we preserve our republic and the test that lies ahead for us. Thank you, mr. Chairman. I yield back my time. The gentlelady yields back. That concludes the testimony under the fiveminute rule. I now recognize the Ranking Member for any concluding remarks he may have. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Well, today has been interesting, i guess, to say the least. It has been we have found many things. In fact, three of our four witnesses here today allege numerous crimes committed by the president. At times it seemed like we were even trying to make up crimes well, if it wasnt this it was the intent to do it. It went along that is
interesting today as i started this day and im going to come back to it now. As much as i respect these who came before us today, this is way too early. Because weve not as a committee done our job. Weve not as a committee come together, looked at evidence, taken Fact Witnesses, put people here in front of us under oath to say what happens, how did it happen and why did it happen. Were taking the work of the Intel Committee and the other committees, were taking it seemingly at face value. And i will remind all that the chairman even is the biggest proponent of this not happening in his earlier statements almost 20 years ago when he said we should not take a report from another entity and just accept it. Otherwise, we are a rubber stamp. To our democratic majority they may not care because as ive said before, this is about a clock and a calendar. A clock and a calendar. Theyre so obsessed with the
election next year that they just gloss over things. Nchkt, what is interesting is as i said earlier three of the four witnesses allege numerous crimes committed by the president. However, during the intel Committee Hearings none of the Fact Witnesses identified a crime. If youre writing about this, that should alarm you. So this impeachment narrative being spun by the majority is a fake one. Its the Majority Spinning 3 of the facts and ignoring 90 97 of the other. In fact, Professor Turley earlier said today impeachment needs proof not presumptions. We have one of the Fact Witnesses in the Intel Committee, i presumed that was what was going on. Mr. Sonderland. You know what is happening here today is also we found out today i thought it was really interesting. This is the Judiciary Committee but we also found out something today, that facts dont matter. In fact, facts dont matter unless we can fit those facts to fit the narrative we want to spin before this committee and the American People. If they dont matter, we also heard one of the witnesses state today, that it doesnt matter if aid was released or not. Of course it matters. But unfortunately, only one of the many facts ignored by the majority. Theyre ignoring a ton of facts that matter. Apparently doesnt matter to the democrats that ambassador volker the former Special Envoy to the ukraine made clear in his testimony there was no conditionality on the white house meeting or the aid. The democrats and their witnesses havent mentioned that because its unhelpful to the narrative theyre spinning. It apparently doesnt matter that democrats to the democrats in the majority here that the president did not condition his aid on an investigation. In fact, mr. Sondlands statement to the contrary was presumption. It was right here in this room he called it a guess. Right where youre sitting. Called it a guess. A presumption. Thats what he thought. God forbid if we walk into our courtrooms or our proceedings
now and find somebody guilty of something were calling a crime and we walk into court now and all of a sudden i thought it s was, the witness said i presume it was. God forbid this is where were at. But weve also heard today that you can make inference. Its okay if youre just inferring. I dont know if the professors here, and for those of us in court on both sides, ive never heard anyone go to a judge and say just infer what you think they meant and thatll be enough. Its not inference. It probably doesnt matter that the president didnt condition a meeting on an investigation. He met with zelensky with no preconditions. Zelensky didnt even find out about the hold on the aid until a month after the call when he read it in politico. The aid was released shortly thereafter and the ukraine didnt have anything to do to get the aid released. Not only was the aid released but lethal aid was given as well. And if you think that doesnt matter there were five meetings between the time the aid was stopped and the time the aid was released and in none of these meetings between ambassadors and others including the Vice President and senators, none of that was ever connected to a
promise of anything on the aid. Nothing was ever connected. Five times. And two of those were after president zelensky learned that aid was being held. Tell me theres not a problem here with the story. Thats why Fact Witnesses arent here right now. The evidence against the president is really about policy differences. In fact, three of the democratic star witnesses, hill, taylor, and kent, werent even on the call. They read transcripts like everyone else on july 26th. Zelensky met with volker and sondland and made no reference to quid pro quo or hold on aid. They met several more times. No references. But none of those are none of these inconvenient facts or so many other inconvenient facts matter to the majority. We dont even know what additional hearings we will have to address other facts. This is the part that bothers me greatly. It is something we have seen from january of this year. No concern about a process that works but simply a getting to an end that we want. You know, i agree with professor
feldman. He may find that strange but i do agree with you on something. Its not his job to assess the credibility of the witnesses. Its this committees job. And i agree. But this committee cant do our jobs if none of the witnesses testify before our committee, even ones that we have talked about Calling Today and the majority has said we dont want. We still dont have an answer on what this committee will do once this hearing ends. The Committee Received mr. Chairman schiffs report yesterday but we still dont have the underlying evidence. The rule was even set up by this body are not being followed to this day but yet nobody talks about on the majority side. The witnesses produced by Chairman Schiff and the American People talk about their feelings, their guesses, their presumptions. But even though the facts may not matter to the majority 97 of the other facts do matter to the American People. So my problem is this. As the Ranking Member of this committee, one of the oldest, most should be factbased,
legalbased committees we have here, where impeachment should have been all along, i have a group of members who have no idea where were headed next. I bet you, though, if i ask the majority members outside the chairman they dont have a clue either. Very much one. Because if they have it they should share it. Because this is not a time to play hide the ball. Thns a time to say were going to figure it out on the fly. Youre talking about overturning 63 million votes of a president duly elected who is doing his job every day. And by the way, was overseas today while were doing this. Working with our nato allies. So the question i have is where do we head next . Weve heard this ambiguous presentation. But heres my challenge. Its already been voted down and tabled today. Mr. Schiff should testify. Chairman schiff, not his staff, must appear before this committee to answer questions about the content of his report. Thats what ken starr did 20 years ago and history demands it. Ive told the chairman just a
while ago and a couple of weeks ago when we were doing the markup, mr. Chairman the History Lights are on us. It is time to talk and share how we are going forward. Im still waiting for answers. So mr. Chairman, as we look ahead, as the democratic majority promised that this was going to be a fair process when it got to judiciary for the president and others, the president and you may say he could have come today. What would have this done . Nothing. Theres no Fact Witnesses here, nothing to rebut. In fact, its been a good time just to see that nothing came of it at the end of the day. So why should he be here . Lets bring Fact Witnesses in. Lets bring people in because as you said, mr. Chairman, you said, your words, we should never on this committee accept an entity giving us a report and not investigate it ourselves. Undoubtedly were well on our way to doing that because of a calendar and a clock. So mr. Chairman, i know youre about to give a statement and theyve worked on it and youve worked on it very hard im sure. But before you gavel this hearing, before you start your statement, before you go any further, i would like to know two things. Number one, when do you plan on scheduling our minority hearing day . Number two, why or are when are we actually going to have real witnesses here that are Fact Witnesses in this case . When . Or what you said many years ago has faded just like the leaves in fall. I dont really care anymore that somebody else gives us a report. Undoubtedly Chairman Schiff is chairman over everything with impeachment and he doesnt get to testify. Hes going to send a staff member. But i dont even know if were going to have a hearing past that to figure out anything thats been going on. So my question as i started out today is where is fairness . It was promised. Its not being delivered. The facts talked about were not facts delivered. This president as facts were given did nothing wrong, nothing to be impeached and nothing for why were here. And in the words of one of our witnesses mr. Turley, if you rush through this you do it on flimsy grounds. The American People will not forget the light of history. So today before you give your opening statement, your Closing Statement, before you get to this time my question is will you talk to this committee, your chairman . You hold a very prestigious role. Will you let us know where were going . Are we going to adjourn from here after you sum up everything saying that they all did good and go out from here were still wondering . The lights are on. Its time to answer the question. I yield back. The gentleman yields back. And i want to before my Closing Statement acknowledge that i received a letter today wearing a minority day of testimony under rule 11. I have not had a chance to read the letter but look forward to conferring with the Ranking Member about this request after i have had a chance to review
it. Mr. Chairman, i have a question. You cant review a letter that is a demand the gentleman is not recognized. Theres nothing for you to review. I now recognize myself for Closing Statement. George washingtons farewell address warns of a moment when cunning, ambitious, and unprincipled men will be enabled to subvert the power of the people and to usurp for themselves the reins of government. President trump placed his own personal and political interests above our national interests, above the security of our country, and most importantly above our most precious right, the ability of each and every one of us to participate in Fair Elections free of corruption. The constitution has a solution for a president who places his personal or political interests above those of the nation. The power of impeachment. As one of my colleagues pointed out, i have in the past articulated a threepart test
for impeachment. Let me be clear. All three parts of that test have been met. First, yes, the president has committed an impeachable offense. The president asked a Foreign Government to intervene in our elections, then got caught, then obstructed the investigators. Twice. Our witnesses told us in no Uncertain Terms that this conduct constitutes High Crimes And Misdemeanors including abuse of power. Second, yes, the president s alleged offenses represent a direct threat to the constitutional order. Professor karlan warned drawing a Foreign Government into our election process is an especially serious abuse of power because it undermines democracy itself. Professor feldman echoed, if we cannot impeach a president who abuses his office for personal advantage, we no longer live in a democracy. We live in a monarchy or under a
dictatorship. And Professor Gerhardt reminded us if what were talking about is not impeachable then nothing is impeachable. President trumps actions represent a threat to our National Security and an urgent threat to the integrity of the next election. Third, yes, we should not proceed unless at least some of the citizens who supported the president in the last election are willing to come with us. A majority of this country is clearly prepared to impeach and remove President Trump. Rather than respond to the unsettling and dangerous evidence my republican colleagues have called this process unfair. It is not. Nor is this argument new. My colleagues on the other side of the aisle, unable to defend the behavior of the president , have used this argument before. First they said that these proceedings were not constitutional because we did not have a floor vote. We then had a floor vote. Then they said that our proceedings were not constitutional because they could not call witnesses. Republicans called three of the witnesses in the live hearings of the Intelligence Committee and will have an opportunity to request witnesses in this committee as well. Next they said that our proceedings were not constitutional because the president could not participate. But when the committee invited the president to participate in this hearing he declined. The simple fact is that all these proceedings have all the protections afforded prior president s. This process follows the constitutional and legal precedents. So i am left to conclude that the only reason my colleagues rushed from one process complaint to the next is because there is no factual defense for President Trump. Unlike any other president before them President Trump has openly rejected congresss right
as a coequal branch of government. He has defied our subpoenas. He has refused to produce any documents. And he directed his aides not to testify. President trump has also asked a Foreign Government to intervene in our elections and he has made clear that if left unchecked he will do it again. Why . Because he believes that in his own words, i can do whatever i want. That is why we must act now. In this country the president cannot do whatever he wants. In this country no one, not even the president , is above the law. Today we began our conversation where we should, with the text of the constitution. We have heard clearly from our witnesses that the constitution compels action. Indeed, every witness including the witness selected by the republican side agreed that if President Trump did what the Intelligence Committee found him to have done after extensive and compelling witnesses from the
trump Administration Officials he committed impeachable offenses. While the republican witness may not be convinced that theres sufficient evidence that the president engaged in these acts, the American People and the majority of this committee disagree. I also think that the republican witness, Professor Turley, issued a sage warning in 1998 when he was a leading advocate for the impeachment of bill clinton. He said, if you decide that certain acts do not rise to impeachable offenses, you will expand the space for executive conduct. That was a question of Professor Turley in 1998 in the impeachment of president clinton. That question should guide us all today. And by any account that warning is infinitely more applicable to the abuses of power we are contemplating today because as we all know if these abuses go unchecked they will only continue and only grow worse. Each of us took an oath to defend the constitution. The president is a continuing threat to that constitution and to our democracy. I will honor my oath. And as i sit here today, having heard consistent, clear, and compelling evidence that the president has abused his power, attempted to undermine the constitutional role of congress, and corrupted our elections, i urge my colleagues to stand behind the oath you have taken. Our democracy depends on it. This concludes todays hearing mr. Chairman, i have one thing. The gentleman is seeking recognition . Pursuant to Committee Rule 8 im giving notice to Intoent File Dissenting Views On Constitutional Grounds for president ial impeachment. Noted. This concludes mr. Chairman. This concludes todays hearing. We thank all of our witnesses for participating. Without objection all members will have five legislative days to submit additional written questions for the witnesses or additional we have a unanimous consent request. For the witnesses
additional consent request. Without objection the hearing is adjourned. Just typical, isnt it . Just typical. You are listening to the end of what has been 8 1 2 hours of marathon hearings before the house Judiciary Committee. One of the congresss largest committees. And as we saw, one that pingponged between the lofty and the acerbic today. Chairman nadler, who we see there surrounded by the still cameras on what is by far the biggest day of his Government Career overseeing the beginning of what increasingly looks like the road to the impeachment of president donald trump. Chairman nadler ending the hearing there, exchanging some words with the republican Ranking Member as well as congressman gohmert. What we saw in these hearings, and if youre joining us here 6 30 p. M. On the east coast, im ari melber, continuing our special coverage. What we saw in these hearings today was the outgrowth of all the facts that the Intelligence Committee says it found presented with legal analysis by
experts, defining what it means that all of this plotting, that all of this basic chicanery, scheming, and other work was done to try to go after the president s rival, joe biden, and what if Anything Congress is going to do about it. We are right in the strike zone of a major moment. Let me tell you what were going to do. Number one, were keeping an eye on that room as we see members of the Judiciary Committee are still filing out of it. And if the chairman or anyone else of a senior level steps to the cameras, we will bring that to you live. We also have a lot planned to tell you exactly whats most important out of what we just saw and to try to give you context as we do around here. For Immediate Reaction i want to turn right now to former federal prosecutor john flannery, who has advised several congressional investigations as counsel. John, big picture. The whole day including the ending we just saw. Explain. Well, i think the democrats dominated from the very beginning. The chairman saying that not only was he concerned about what the Select Committee On Intelligence had found and
therefore the report as well im sure but also that he was going to look back at the Mueller Investigation and the Obstruction Charges there because it was similar to this offense in the sense that both had to do with interference in an election, the first by russian and the second interference in the ukraine for purposes of our domestic election again. It was interesting that the only witness that the republicans had really was turley and turley was discredited not so much by his light jokes about how mad his dog was but by the fact that in an earlier appearance before the Clinton Impeachment he had spoken about not withholding judgment on those articles of impeachment that could be said because then they would invite a Chief Executive to do more. And hes taken a very different view at this hearing that seems to contradict not only how he looks at the facts but also the positions that he took on the law from time to time were more
like a word salad than they were like a legal opinion. The other experts on the panel were quite persuasive. As you mentioned, john, just to walk those through who may not have followed every single witness, the one youre speaking about was interesting in that this is who the republicans put forward as their big star Legal Defense witness. All of this coming as we are getting new reports late in the day into the evening tonight about the secret preparations on the senate side for a potential trial of the president. Momentous stuff. So john, i want you to stay with me. I want to share with viewers that we have a full panel of experts to get to, all of this live tonight. But i want to begin by telling you everything you actually need to know, a few highlights from this momentous day. First, as these Judiciary Hearings were unfolding there were more ominous developments for President Trump behind the scenes. Senators in both parties beginning preparations for his potential trial. That includes republican senators, were told, huddling privately with the white house
counsel at this private senatorsonly lunch today including a Draft Calendar that was distributed that showed january wide open for a potential trial of the president. Meanwhile, new reports tonight that democratic leader Chuck Schumer presented on, quote, the mechanics of this potential senate trial to democrats, including featuring video from the 1999 trial of then president clinton as washington as weighing the president s fate he was faltering on Foreign Policy abroad today, abruptly bailing on a nato press conference after what many described as a kind of global humiliation after several leaders of Allied Nations appeared to mock him directly on video. As sort of a triple splitscreen moment. Because that was a backdrop for what was this First Ukraine hearing. In this committee that actually drafts potential articles of impeachment. And im going to show you briefly an important moment when we saw these experts answering very straightforward questions about Donald Trumps potential high crimes. Do President Trumps demands on ukraine also establish the
high crime of bribery . Yes, they do. Yes, they do. There were many moments like that today. And as the committee was assessing this evidence that trump and giuliani pushed ukraine for potentially illegal election help news was breaking in the New York Times that Rudy Giuliani is in ukraine today, again pushing to meet with ukrainian prosecutors, apparently, allegedly to continue aspects of this plot. He was spotted leaving for europe sunday night. A Huffington Post reporter catching this photograph. Today some republicans were arguing that impeachment is moving too fast. Let me put this in a little bit of perspective. Giulianis apparently brazen actions now have democrats arguing maybe they cant move fast enough. If theyre trying to deter further actions in what they call a Campaign Conspiracy unfolding now in plain sight. Theyve also been invoking those newly released call logs of Rudy Giuliani that people are still making sense of with regard to the money in this plot. You see there calls to the Office Of Management And Budget. You also have contacts with a
cryptic negative 1 number. At key Inflection Points in this plot. Thats part of the fact pattern congress is reviewing in these new hearings. The bottom line tonight i can tell you is it appears that the majority of Congress Backed by a private meeting with Speaker Pelosi as well thinks they may be on the way to grounds for impeachment very soon. Now, as promised i bring in more of our experts. New york times columnist michelle goldberg. Deana gibbs lajay of the center for American Progress and john flannery, prosecutor back with us. Your view on what we learned today and where were headed. I should mention were keeping a close eye on the cameras, so we will cut in and out if we get news. Yeah, i think todays hearings for folks who wanted pizzazz, you definitely got a lot of that today. I think the three witnesses from the democratic side were very compelling in making the case that the president has indeed committed impeachable offenses. And i think they reiterated that over and over again. And what you saw from the republican questioning was a lot of flailing, a lot of going back
to debunked theories about what is happening. And i think it was really overall a positive day for democrats. Like i said, they made a good case for why the president should be impeached let me jump in and ask you. You said going back to theories, conspiracy theories. But also literally going back to ukraine today. You couldnt script this in a movie. I dont understand, what is wrong with Rudy Giuliani . How is he actually in ukraine possibly doing the criming that were discussing at this very moment . This is a guy where people might say okay, is that old news . Are you referencing no, this is new news. This is new action. We showed the photo of him on the way there. New york times here, Giuliani Facing Scrutiny travels to europe to interview ukrainians meeting in budapest tuesday as the report came out with this former ukrainian prosecutor lutsenko. Daniella. Yeah. It is again these folks are so brazen about what theyre doing
they dont even feel like they have to hide it at all. And that emanates from the top. I think what you also heard today was we are at a very important inflection point. And if this Behavior Isnt Impeachable what is and what message would you send so the next president , be it a democrat or republican, if you dont impeach this president over what he has done. Michelle . So i thought one of jonathan turley, the republican witness, his bad faith was absolutely staggering. The difference between what he said during the Clinton Impeachment and what hes saying now. The piece that he wrote in 2014 saying you dont actually need a crime for impeachment. Now hes saying that this that trumps actions dont meet the federal statutes for bribery. That said, he kept saying over and over again that he thought there was more facts to be developed and theres more of a case to be made. Again, i think this is a bad faith argument given that these people have refused their subpoenas and theyve obstructed
this investigation. But i also sort of think that democrats should continue taking them up on their offer. Right . You want more witnesses . You want more investigation . I think there are more witnesses and more investigation that they could credibly do. Particularly since the senate under Mitch Mcconnell is not going to run a fair trial. I think they could take a little more time before they turn this over to him. You know, say you want more witnesses . Lets call lev parnas, who apparently is eager to testify and who was at the middle who was in the middle of this whole plot. To your point you could take this New York Times report on giuliani pushing the plot this week and staple it to the back of the intelligence report. Yeah, absolutely. Find out again, the sdny investigation into giulianis two henchmen, theyve accumulated a lot of information, a lot of recordings, data that theres currently wrangling over when this is when and if this will be turned over to impeachment
investigators. I would like to know a lot more about those giuliani calls to the Office Of Management And Budget because there is no earthly reason that the president s private lawyer has to be speaking to the Office Of Management And Budget. And so i actually think that, you know, if democrats wanted to kind of pull back a little and draw this out now they have a perfect excuse to because it was the republican witness who was making the case that thats what they should do. Right. An excuse or maybe of them would argue a rationale given what weve seen. John, i want to play for you another exchange today because obviously were not going to try to do everything that happened. But in high points, there were clear exchanges where you saw something that i think americans could benefit from, whether theyre convinced or not. 70 Million People watched part of the fact hearings. Now youre in the law hearings. So you have the facts and the evidence as presented applied by experts. Many of these people with tremendous credentials and saying their view of what the law dictates. Take a look. When you ask for private
benefits in return for an official act or somebody gave them to you to influence an official act, that was bribery. And so we have constitutional bribery here. The high crime and misdemeanor of constitutional bribery against President Trump. If you conclude that he asked for the investigation of Vice President biden and his son for political reasons, that is, to aid his reelection, then yes, you have bribery here. What did you think of both that exchange specifically, john, and any others that you would point to for viewers, especially at the end of the day People Living their lives who didnt see every moments that important . Did you agree with the bulk of the analysis . My ear as i was covering this as an expert guest as well as an anchor around here with Everybody Else and our team, my ear i heard at three cases for three articles of impeachment or more. Yes. I thought they talked about
abuse of power. They talked about bribery. They talked about obstruction. But the thing i thought about that exchange that the questioner missed was that she was giving credence to a statutory bribery charge. She wasnt asking for any leeway on a description of bribery in some constitutional sense. She spoke about official acts, which is one of the elements in bribery the Supreme Court was concerned with. And the official acts that were spelled out during the Intelligence Committee hearings were one, you want a meeting. Two, youd like this 391 million to defend your nation against putin, my friend in russia. And i think trump had hoped hed never have to give them any money at all but finally because the whistle was blown on him literally it was forced by congress that the funds should go for the country. Now, the questions i thought sometimes drifted, but the professors were amazing, i
thought. Who did you think was the strongest . Well, i liked feldman particularly. And i think it was because he was the first to speak as i remember. And i thought he was so clear. In other words, for the public he was giving the Building Blocks in a way that was undeniable. And i thought that was powerful. I thought the references to the 1787 meetings of our Founding Fathers as to why impeachment and what it meant and what the debate was and why they decided they couldnt do without it, particularly within the shadow of why they had declared their independence from a kingridden country. I want to bring daniella in on that because it was the lofty part. I mentioned in our open here there was all the partisan brawling, there was plenty of doublespeak as people have seen in these hearings before. But i would argue as an observer it was loftier at times than a lot of other congressional hearings. The founders got a lot of things wrong. They were cabined and blinkered by their times. They made many mistakes. I wondered what you thought, daniella, of the loftier part where the founders they did know something that remains so true today. Everythings changed, technologys changed, our minds have changed, but absolute power abused within a democracy to hold on to more power unchecked can endanger democracy itself. Yeah. Some things will stand the test of time. And abuse of power and not acting like a king or a monarch no matter what century youre in, i think it all plays out the same way. And i agree. I think laying that out at the beginning really set a good grounding for what these hearings are about. Because at the end of the day this is not a happy process, this is not a good thing that this country is going through. It is a sad, sad moment for us that we are actually possibly on the verge of impeaching another president for asking a Foreign Government to interfere in our elections. And i just have to say i dont know which congresswoman played the tape of President Trump
actually saying that he did the thing that were accusing him of doing. But im glad that they did that because its almost as if the republicans up there on that stage forgot that President Trump did this and that we heard him say these things. That was powerful evidence like some of the other evidence presented. Its come from the president and his own people in public statements, on fox news and elsewhere. Ive had very thoughtful conservative Federalist Society experts, michelle, on who make the argument that if the president was pursuing a legitimate investigation that would be a good defense. And i say to them legally thats true. But the problem is he already admitted that what he wanted was to go after his rivals. Right. He already admitted that. And i cant remember who it was that made the point that if you really want to pursue a legitimate investigation you Dont Go On Cnn and announce it. Right . Thats the opposite of what you do when you want to pursue a
legitimate investigation. You know, and then of course there are actual avenues that you use when you want another country to pursue an investigation. So they could make that argument, but youre right. Both trump and mulvaney have already basically told us exactly what happened here. Speaking of the Federalist Society, i do think there was a missed opportunity on the part of the democrats. These three witnesses were fantastic, but i think they could have had there are plenty of Federalist Society Law Professors who also think that donald trump deserves to be impeached. Right . Sure. They could have had a very conservative Federalist Society Law Professor making the case in conservative terms. And i think that i dont know that its going to convince anyone out there, but i think it might have been a useful foil to some of the republican insistence that this is a purely partisan process. Thats a great point. And one rejoinder is they may say well, they have some additional potential hearings coming. But i do think also it was heavy on lawyers. We all get that. They could have had someone whos steeped in government, might not technically be a Law Professor but knows about National Security. Because one of the things that really did nixon in was the abuse of the fbi and cia powers. Those are tremendous and secret powers, wielded in secret. If you can get away with that, game on, game off. The question of that, and also weve heard from some of those people as Fact Witnesses in terms of what happened in Congress Today at this first judicial hearing on impeachment. Heres one everyone can understand lawyer or not. This was a nationally televised 8 1 2hour dry run of the case against trump at any future senate trial. That alone is very rare. The trifle that when you think about it, if you take a step back, donald trump has actually
ducked that exact accountability moment in so many ways. When hes about to go to court in civil trials like with trump university, he has settled. When hes dealt with times where his aides or associates have been indicted or cooperated hes ultimately evaded prosecutors and stiff Armed Mueller from even doing an interview. But if democrats do impeachment this month, it will tee up a trial. Todays Hearing Shows what that case looks like with the facts, with the reports, with the experts informing how you write an article of impeachment, which is a president ial indictment. And today the experts were sounding an alarm. They write if this stuff isnt impeachable, nothing is. And with our democracy at stake they also tackled tough questions on what is impeachable. Professor feldman, did President Trump commit the impeachable high crime and misdemeanor of abuse of power based on that evidence and those
findings . Based on that evidence and those findings the president did commit an impeachable abuse of office. Professor, same question. Same answer. And professor garhart, did President Trump commit the high crime and misdemeanor of abuse of power . If were talking about is not impeachable, then nothing is impeachable. That was strong expert testimony. What does Chairman Nadler make of all of it . Well, he just stepped to the cameras. Lets go to him live. And they were overwhelming in they clearly show well, the witnesses testified that they meet all the requirements for impeachment, that they meet all the requirements envisioned by the framers for impeachment and that impeachment in fact was put in the constitution to protect against a president who would act as this one has. The evidence is so so
obvious, so overwhelming that the republicans did not really present or try to present a factual defense. All they kept talking about was process. They pointed out that i have talked in the past about a three part test of impeachability. And you heard in my Closing Statement this situation meet all three tests. The president committed impeachable offenses, they were important impeachable offenses. They go to the heart of our constitutional republic. They threaten the survival of democracy itself and integrity of free elections and a majority of the people and of the house i believe understand that. Those are the three tests. The committee will take the information we received today, and we will proceed pursuant to House Resolution 660 and the impeachment procedures contained within it. We will receive evidence, more evidence and we will conduct the proper hearings and period. Thank you very much. We have been watching there Chairman Nadler making i would call that uncharacteristically brief remarks but he of course has had a long day. And you heard him lay it out there. Bottom line he says the invocation of his past standards is fine with him because he thinks this meet the standards for impeachable conduct. With my experts waiting i want to show you a bit more of the highlights we were walking throyou, using this new 300page report. While the republicans called the
witness we were just discussing, he actually trended all the way number one on twitter on some sweeping claims that donald trump should definitely not be impeached. This would be the first impeachment in history where there would be considerable debate and in my view not excelling evidence of the commission of a crime. This is facially incomplete and inadequate record in order to impeach a president. Fact check, the constitution does not require a crime for impeachment, quite the opposite. And that is a point thats clear in the constitution. And if you want its a point tirly himself acknowledged in 2014. Serious misconduct or violation of public trust is enough. That claim, though, is a little odd given the evidence suggests there is a potential plot here, and theres also a criminal investigation in new york, and its all about alleged quid pro quo Campaign Bribery and advances the case like professor
tirly himself backed before the dime started dropping on the president. They are going to have to try to separate that quid pro the pro quo. The biggest corpedo in the water is that somebody comes forward and makes that connection, and said the president made it clear this moneys not getting to the ukraine until i get this. Now about that big torpedo. Was there a quid pro quo . As i testified previously with regard to the white house call and white house meeting, the answer is yes. The answer is yes. That is part of the living testimony under oath by someone still employed by the president that these experts were applying. I want to bring back in our panel as promised starting with john briefly. Your big takeaways tonight as we near the end of this 7 00
hour here. Well, the big take away i think its very interesting in the report that maybe not everybody has digested has Rudy Giuliani playing a new prominent role because of Telephone Records and text message records from verizon and at t. And he appears to be the crazy glue that connects other members of this syndicate who sought to bribe and to force the very deal he wanted counselor, are you saying this is getting sticky or are you calling him crazy . Hes a little bit of both, actually. Youll notice the conversations and if you go into the footnotes, they have a sequence of the phone call and to whom. And the footnotes in this thing is incredible. Were going to be on this for days. Theyre amazing. And what they show, they show rudy having connections to the white house and at several critical times. When you von vch is going to get fired, they talk about what the statement will say and change it between august with two different dates, the connection with omb at a time omb is taking care of the funds instead of what normally happens the State Department and defense department. Thats all significant material. And that comes in at a time when we have the republicans saying theres no there there. And in fact were having an accumulation of evidence. We dont have less, we have more. Let me do this because its part of my job with 80 seconds we have left. In a final sentence or two, the most important thing that you learned that was advanced today starting with michelle. I dont know if i learned this but i guess i learned it anew. I found a lot of the republican questioning although i know i found it really hard to watch
and it really made me profoundly sad, just the constant denial of the factual record from the Intelligence Committee hearings. The constant insistence that there were no firsthand witnesses to any of this conduct when we all heard from them. Im going to piggyback and they want us to not believe the things we see in front of our faces, the things we hear with our own ears. And its like at what point will they ever put this democracy ahead of their party and their own political personal benefit . You think based on what you saw today the president will be impeached by the end of the year . Absolutely. And im hoping theyll have the Obstruction Charges by the Mueller Report as suggested at the outset by the chair. That also is something clearly being worked out. A lot of this is happening in realtime. Its being tested in public, some of it under oath, and a lot of it for the Civic Education of
comparemela.com © 2020. All Rights Reserved.