into a law that we want to impeach on. the train is on the track. this is a calendar impeachment, not a fact impeachment. i-year-old back. the gentleman yields back. i now recognize ms. love grin for five minutes. this is the first time the committee has assumed the grave responsibility of considering impeachment. i ve been president at all three. i was staff of congressman don edwards during the nixon impeachment, the president on the committee during the clinton impeachment and here we are today. at its core, the impeachment power really is about the preservation of our democratic systems. and the question we must answer is wh tether the activity of th president threatens our constitution and our democracy and it s about mr. he s above
value in the form of investigations or announcement of investigations and he did so corruptly for personal gain, then that would constitute bribery under the meaning of the constitution. and it would not be lawless. it would be bribery under the law. so the supreme court case and mcdonald interpreting the statute would not be relevant? the constitution is the supreme law and the constitution specifies what bribery means. federal statutes can t defeat what s in the constitution. thank you. professi p propre propre professor gerhardt? it s obstruction of any lawful proceeding. so that obstruction isn t limited to whatever is happening on the courts and obviously here
their invitation. so we will now proceed to questions under the five-minute rule. i yield myself five minutes for the purpose of questioning the witnesses. professor feldman, would you respond to professor turley s comments about bribery, especially about the relevance of the elements of criminal bribery? yes. bribery had a clear meaning to the framers. it was when the president using the power of his office solicited or receives something of personal value from someone affected by his official powers. i want to be very clear. the constitution is law. the koninstitution is the supre law of the land. professor turley is right you wouldn t want to it specifies bribery. bribery had a clear meaning. if the house believes that the president solicited something of
referred to as a technical term. often when there s a debate about a technical term, people turn to dictionaries. it was first published in 1755. the founders had this book on their desks. the supreme court still cites johnson s dictionary to determine the original public understanding of the words used in the constitution. here s how the 1785 edition of johns johnson s dictionary defines it. high is opposed little as high treason. the definition of misdemeanor is defined as something less than an atrocious crime. atrocious is defined as wicked in a high degree. if you look at how these words were defined the constitution was debated and ratified a
by republicans whether they thought president trump s actions regarding the ukraine scandal have risen to the level of a high crime or misdemeanor as called for by the constitution. one thing came up a few times and i ll run sound from the hearing, the mueller report. obviously, democrats did not hold impeachment hearings over, and yet it casts a very long shadow. take a listen. the mueller report cites a number of facts that indicate the president of the united states obstructed justice, and that s an impeachable offense. i see a pattern in which the president s views about the propriety of foreign governments intervening in our election process are the antithesis of what our framers were committed to. our fraicmers were committed to the idea we as americans decide our elections. professor feldman, you were somewhat of an impeachment