before. so it was not as fast as he made it out, or might appear. you talk about bribery, and i want to, let s try to go through, but i want to go back to something that you talk about. it bothers the perception out there of what is going on here, the disputed transcript, the calls are laid out there, the president said i wanted nothing for this. all of the exculpatory evidence that was not presented in the last 45 minutes. but it has been reported in the mainstream media, goes back to your issue of do crimes matter, or what the definition is, the house majority initially accused the president and they said quid pro quo, and we hear it as we go through. but then reported the focus group to determine whether the phrase pulled well. and they changed it to bribery, does that not feed into more of what you re saying about how we were in crime matters and that facts do matter in a case like this? or at least should matter? it does. there is a reason why every past
denies us our right to self govern. and then judge justice brett kavanaugh was so correct in seeing this at the supreme court, which as you know has taking campaign finance after case to talk about the first amendment. it is constitutional, and part of the election process. professor feldman, you were an impeachment skeptic at the time of the release of the mueller report, were you? i was. what has changed for you, sir? what changed was the revelation of the july 25th call and the evidence that emerged subsequently of the president of the united states in a format where he was heard by others and now known to a whole public, openly abused his office by seeking a personal advantage in order to get himself reelected at the national security of the
are not unanimous. there is not universal or bipartisan agreement on the facts and what they lead to. especially when there is exculpatory evidence that has been presented not in the schiff report, but in other reports, does that timing bother you from a historical s perspective, not only in the past, but moving forward as well? fast and narrow is not a good recipe for impeachment. that was the case with johnson, nero was the case with clinton. they do not survive and they collapse in front of the senate. there is a ratio between your foundation and your height. this is the highest structure you can build under the constitution. want to build an impeachment, you have to have a foundation broad enough to support it. this is the narrowest impeachment in history. you can argue with johnson, johnson it might be the fastest impeachment. johnson actually what happened to him was the fourth impeachment attempt against johnson. and actually the record goes back a year before. they laid that
produced. now recently there are some rulings against president trump, including a ruling involving don mcgann. mr. chairman, i testified in front of you a few months ago. if you recall, we had an exchange, and i encouraged you to bring those actions. i said that i thought you would win. and you did. and i think it was an important win for this committee. because i do not agree with president trump s argument in that case. but that is an example of what can happen if you actually subpoena witnesses and go to court. then you have an obstruction case. because the court issues an order. and unless they stay that order by a higher court, you have obstruction. but i can t emphasize this enough. i will say it just one more time. if you impeach a president, if you make a high crime and misdemeanor out of going to the
does that track the rule of law that we have talked about? and i would encourage you to think about this, in the next day to go to the courts. in nixon he lost. and that was the reason that he resigned. he resigned a few days after the supreme court ruled against him. in that critical case. but in that case the court recognized that there was executive privilege arguments that can be made. it did not say, you had no right coming to us, don t darken our doorstep again. it said we have heard your arguments. we have heard congress arguments. and you know it, you lose. turn over the material to congress. what that date for the judiciary is it gave this body legitimacy. it was not the rodino extreme position that only you decide what information can be produc