From the Mueller Report would be 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 this was reviewed by main justice. The special counsel did not reach a conclusion and he should have. I think his justification quite frankly was a bit absurd not reaching a conclusion. The 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 in verse conclusion. I dont believe it would be appropriate. The gentlemans time is expired. Miss dean. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Words matter. In my earlier life 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 the framers of our constitution understood far better than anyone. They were laying the foundation for a new form of government, one that
impeachable offenses. while the republican witnesses may not be convinced there is sufficient evidence the president engaged in these acts, the american people and the majority of this committee disagree. i also think 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, quote, if you decide certain acts do not rise to impeachable offenses you will expand the space for executive conduct, close quote. that was the question of professor turley in 1998, in the impeachment of president clinton. that question should guide us all today. 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
will come back to it now. as much as i respect those who came before today, this is way too early. we have not as a knee done our job. we have not as a committee, come together, looked at evidence, taken witnesses under oath to say what happened, how did it happy and why did it happen? we re taking the work of the intel committee and the other committees, we re taking it as seemingly at face value and i will remind all the chairman this is biggest proponent of this not happening in his statements 20 years ago saying we should not take a report from another entity and just accept it, otherwise we are a rubber stamp. now, to my democratic majority, they may not care, because i said before, this is about a clock and a calendar, a clock and a calendar. they re so obsessed with the election next year, they just
million of congressionally approved aid on the account russia excuse me, ukraine and his chief political adversary. 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 under the constitution to consist of the president abusing his office corruptly for personal gain. if this house determines and 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, i d like to ask you about obstruction of justice. the president categorically refused to introduce congressional subpoenas and
actual witnesses including career and military and civil servants as discussed here like ambassador yovanovitch, lieutenant colonel and others and he instructed all current and previous officials to deny congressional subpoenas. based on this set of facts, does this conduct meet the definition of obstruction of justice in the constitution? it does. i remember being here 21 years ago with professor turley testifying before a different constituted committee on an issue of impeachment i remember them talking about president clinton s misconduct as an attack on the judicial system. that s what you described to me. thank you, professors, all of you, all four of you. what oyou did today is you brought part of our constitutions to life and you showed that. you showed what the framers were