The committee im proceeding under the rule. I wonder how this panel can opine as to whether the president committed an impeachment offense and the answer quite frankly is because you came in with a preconceived notion. You already made that determination and decision. Ill give you a for instance. Until the recent collocolloquy, several of you said the president said i would like you to do me a favor. But that was inaccurate. And im going to read it to you. I would like you to do us a favor though because our country has been through a lot. One of you said well thats because the president was using royal we. Here the president is talking about the country. Thats what hes talking about. Its audacious to say its using the royal we. Thats royal, all right but it aint the royal we. And ill just tell you, when you come in with a preconceived notion it becomes obvious. One of you just said, mr. Feldman it was you who said, and im going to quote here, roughly, i think this is exactly what you said though, until the call on july 25th, i was an impeachment skeptic too. I dont know, im looking at it august 23rd, 2017 publication where you said if President Donald Trump pardons joe arpaio it would be an Impeachable Offense. He did. In 2017, the new york book review, mr. Feldman said defamation by tweet is an Impeachable Offense. And i think of a history of this country and i think if defamation or liable or slander using the imable offense, i cant help but reflect about john adams or Thomas Jefferson that routinely had their political opponents. In fact, at the time, the factions or parties actually bought newspapers to attack their political opponents. So, this rather expansive and generous view that you have on what constitutes impeachment is a real problem. This morning, one of you mentioned the constitutional con vep convention and several of you talked about the constitutional convention. Its been awhile since i read the minutes and i just briefly reviewed because i remembered the discussion on the impeachment as being more persuasive. And more expansive. He is discussing the impeachment of a dutch leader and he talks specifically about what he would anticipate an impeachment to look like. He said a regular impeachment inquiry. It would have taken place and if acquitted then be restored to the confidence of the public. So i look also at a may 17th article which is a discussion about impeachment because President Trump had fired james comey. He said it was hard to make the obstruction of justice case with this alone. The president had clear Legal Authority and there was reasons for firing him. That was impeachable. Refer you to it, may 17th, 2017, what im suggesting to you today is a reckless bias coming in here and not fact witnesses. Youre supposed to be and one last thing here if i can find it, and one of our witnesses here and its dealing with something that was said in a maryland law review article in 1999 and basically if i can get to it, its talking about this was being critical of lack of self doubt in an overwhelming arrogance on the part of law professors that come in and piopine on impeachment. That would be you that said Something Like that. I cant find my quote or else i would give it to you. So what im telling you is that is what has been on display in this committee today and with that i yield back. A little while ago mr. Gates asked certain material be inserted by unanimous consent. We have reviewed it. The material will be inserted without obstruction. Mr. Lou. Thank you. I have first swore an oath to the constitution when i was commissioned as an officer in the United States air force and the oath i took was not to a Political Party or to a president or to a king, it was a document thats made america the greatest nation on earth. I never imagined we would now be in a situation where the president or commander in chief is accused of using his office for personal political gain that betrayed security and help for adversary russia. Now the constitution provides a safe guard but when the president s abuse of power and betrayal of National Interests are so extreme that it warrants impeachment and removal, it seems notable that of all the offenses, bribery is one of only two that are listed. So professor, feldman, why would the framers choose bribery of all the powerful offenses they could have included to list . It with was the classic example of high crime and misdemeanor of abuse of office for personal gain because if you take something of value when youre able to effect an outcome for somebody else, youre serving your own interests and not the interest of the people. And that was commonly used in england and thats one of the reasons they specified it. Thank you. Now early in this hearing, professor carlin made the point that bribery as envisioned by the framers was much broader than the federal criminal statute of bribery. Were not in a criminal proceeding. Were not deciding whether to send President Trump to prison. This is a civil action. Its an impeachment proceeding to decide what whether or not we remove donald trump from his job. So professor, its true, states exhibit it that, we dont have to meet the standards of a federal bribery statute in order to meet the standards for impeachment offense. Thats correct. Im sorry. Thats correct. Yesterday, scalia law professor that is a life long republican, former republican staffer that advised the Trump Transition Team made the following Public Statement about Donald Trumps conduct. The call wasnt perfect. He committed Impeachable Offenses including bribery. So professor, im now going to show you two video clips of the witness testimony and the president s with holding of the white house meeting in exchange for the public announcement of the investigation into his political rival. As i testified previously his requests for a quid quo spr pro for arranging a visit. And alleged interference in the 2016 elections. Congress in exchange for announcement of investigation. In the absence of any credible explanation for the suspension of aid i later came to believe that the resumption of security aid would not occur until committing the investigation of the 2016 elections and mr. Giuliani had demanded. Im also a former prosecutor. I believe it would also meet the standards for criminal bribery. The Supreme Courts decision was primarily about what constitutes an official act. And formal exercise of governmental power on something before a public official. We have hundreds of millions of dollars of military aid and the freezing and unfreezing of that aid is a formal exercise of governmental power. Theres another crime here. Its the solicitation of a Foreign Government in a federal election campaign. That straight up violates the federal election campaign. And oh by the way, thats one reason he is sitting in prison right now. I yield back. How many of the panel actually voted for donald trump for 2016. I dont get to say anything about it. Gentleman will suspend. Well suspend the clock too. Gentleman may ask the question, the witnesses dont have to respond. How many of you supported donald trump. Not raising our hands is not an indication of an answer, sir. This has been predicated on rather disturbing legal doctrines. One democrat asserted that hearsay can be much better evidence than direct evidence. Speaker pelosi and others said that the president s responsibility is to present evidence to prove his innocence. We heard if you invoke legal rights in defense of criminal accusations thats an on instruction of justice and evidence of guilt. My question to you is what does it mean to our american Justice System if these doctrines take route in our country. What concerns me the most is that theres no limiting principles that i can see and more importantly some of these i only heard about today. And theyre attempting to use and you recognize it. But im pretty confident that nobody on this committee wants the new standard of impeachment to be betrayal of the national interest. That is going to be the basis for impeachment. How many republicans do you think would say that Barrack Obama violated that standard. Thats exactly what James Madison warned you against. Is that you would create a vote of no confidence standard in our constitution. Are we in danger of abusing our own power of doing enormous violence to our constitution. And before the president was sworn in on this panel. Professor called it illegitimate in 2017. She implied impeachment was a remedy. Professor feldman advocated impeaching the president over a tweet he made in march of 2017. Thats just 7 weeks after his inauguration. Are we in danger of sentence first and verdict afterwards. Well, this is part of the problem of how your view of the president can effect your assumptions and inferences and view of circumstantial evidence. Im not suggesting that the evidence, if it was fully investigated would come out one way or the other. What im saying is that we are not dealing with the realm of the unknowable. You have to ask, we burned two months in this house that you could have been in court seeking a subpoena for these witnesses. It doesnt mean that you have to wait forever. You could have gotten an order by now. You could have allowed the president to raise an executive privilege claim. I need to go on here. The constitution says the executive authority should be vested in a president of the United States. Does that mean some of the executive authority or all of it . Obviously theres checks and balances on all of these but the executive authority primarily rests with the president but these are all shared powers. I dont begrudge the investigation of the ukraine controversy. I begrudge how it has been conducted. I agree with that. The constitution commands the president take care that the laws be enforced. That doesnt make him the chief Law Enforcement of the federal government. So to believe a crimes been committed does the president has the authority to inquire into that matter. He has. But this is where i think we would depart. I have been critical of the president in terms of crossing lines with the justice department. That has caused considerable problems and i dont believe its appropriate but we often confuse what is inappropriate with what is impeachable. Many people feel that what the president has done is obnoxious, contemptible, but contemptible is not synonymous with impeachment. Let me ask you a final question, the National Defense authorization act that authorized aid to ukraine requires they certify that the government of ukraine take substantial actions to make Defense Institution reforms for the purposes of decreasing corruption. Is the president exercising that responsibility when he inquires into a matter that could involve illegalities between american and ukrainian officials . Part is you just ignore defenses. Theyre just the other sides account for actions. The gentlemans time has expired. Thank you. I want to thank the witnesses for their hard work on a long day. I want to thank them especially for invoking the American Revolution which not only overthrew a king but created the worlds first antimonarchical constitution. It makes me proud to have spent my career as a fellow constitutional law professor before running in congress. In the monarchy the king is law but in the democracies the law will be king but today the president advances an argument and says that article 2 allows him to do whatever he wants. Wants. He not only says that, but he believes it because he did something no other american president has done before. He used Foreign Military aid as a lever to coerce a Foreign Government to interfere in an American Election to discredit an opponent into advance his Reelection Campaign. Professor carlin, what is the existence of the impeachment power tell us about the president s claim that the constitution allows him to do whatever he wants . It blows it out of the water. If hes right and we accept this radical claim that we can do whatever he want, all future president s seeking reelection will seek Foreign Governments into their campaigns to target their arrivals and spread propaganda. Thats astounding. If we let the president get away with this conduct, every president can get away with it. Do you agree with that, professor feldman . I do. Richard nixon sent burglars to break into the Democratic National committee headquarters, but President Trump made a direct phone call to the president of a foreign county and sought his intervention in an American Election. This is a big moment for america, isnt it . If Elijah Cummings were here hed say listen up, people n. Listen up how we respond will represent the character of our democracy for generations. Professor carlin said there was three dominant reasons invoked at the founding for why we needed an impeachment power. Broadly speaking, it was an instrument of popular selfdefense and trampling the rule of law and not just in the royal normal sense in showing cruelty, vanity and treachery, and greed and so on, but when president s threatened the basic character of our government and the constitution, thats what impeachment was about and the framers invoked three specific kinds of misconduct so serious and egregious that they thought they warranted impeachment. First, the president might abuse has power by corruptly using his office for personal, political or financial gain. Professorfeld midc feldman, wh wrong with that. If the president belongs to my party, and i generally like him, what is so wrong with him using his office to advance his political ambitions. The president of the United States works for the people if he serves personal gain hes not serving the interests of the people and hes serving the interests specific to him and that means hes abusing the office and hes doing things that he can only get away with because he is the president and thats necessarily subject to impeachment. Well, second and third, the founders expressed fear that a president could subvert our democracy by betraying his trust to foreign influence in interference and also by corrupting the election process. Professor carlin, youre one of americas scholars and what role does impeachment play especially in an International Context in which Vladimir Putin and other tyrants and despots are interfering to destabilize elections around the world . Well, congress has enacted a series of laws to make sure that there isnt foreign influence in our elections and allowing the president to circumvent that principle is a problem and as ive already testified several times, america is not just the last best hope as mr. Jefferies said, but its also the shining city on the hill. We cant be the shining city on the hill and promote democrat see around the world if were not promoting it here at home. Any one of these actions alone would be sufficient for impeachment according to the founders, but is it sufficient to say that all three causes yes or no, professor feldman . Professor gerhard . Yes. Professor carl in . Yes. You agree. Are any of you aware that animated the founders . No. No. No, as well. Mr. Chairman, its hard to think of a more monarchal sebts ime iment than i can do whatever i want as president , and i yield back. Gentleman yields back. Miss lesko. Thank you, mr. Chair. I ask unanimous consent a letter i wrote and sent to you, asking, calling on you to cancel any and all future impeachment hearings and outlining the project. Without objection the letter will be entered into the record. Thank you. During an interview, mr. Chairman on msnbcs morning joe on november 26, 2018, chairman nadler outlined a threepronged test that he said would allow for a legitimate impeachment proceeding. Now i quote chairman nadlers remarks. And this is what he said. There really are three questions, i think. First, has the president committed Impeachable Offenses . Second, do those offenses rise to the gravity thats worth putting the country through the drama of impeachment . And number three, because you dont want to tear the country apart, you dont want half of the country to say to the other half for the next 30 years, we won the election, you stole it from us. You have to be able to think at the beginning of the impeachment process that the evidence is so clear of offenses so grave that once youve laid out all of the evidence, a good fraction of the opposition, the voters will reluctantly admit to themselves they had to do it. Otherwise, you had a partisan impeachment which will tear the country apart. If you meet these three tests, then i think youd do the impeachment and those were the words of chairman nadler. Now lets see if chairman nadlers threepronged test has been met. First, has the president committed an Impeachable Offense . No. The evidence and testimony has not revealed any Impeachable Offense. Second, do those offenses rise to the gravity thats worth putting the country through the drama of impeachment . Again, the answer is no. Theres nothing here that rises to the gravity thats worth putting the country through the drama of impeachment. And third, have the democrats laid out a case so clear that even the opposition has to agree . Absolutely not. You and House Democrat leadership are tearing apart the country. You said the evidence needs to be clear. It is not. You said offenses need to be grave, they are not. You said that once the ev