We dont know how they were using this money is not factually true. You heard mcclk chin tok saying he had the mcclintock saying that he had the prosecutor fired. Yet those talking points are respited despite the fact theyre not based on fact. Its an important moment. I want to get your sense of the history of what were about to see. You see the members showing up, the staff, theyre showing up. The witnesses will be there. Theyll be sworn in as well. Its a moment that doesnt happen very often if american history. It doesnt and it shouldnt. Because its so important you think about the the way constitution set up our democratic structure here and were looking back right now to say what did the founded fathers envision about the country that we are now in . What did the separation of powers mean . Are there truly three coequal
branches of government or can one thumb their nose that leads to an authoritarian regime . We are looking at a very historic moment. Looking at what the power of congress. Remember, everyone, just in 2016 and beyond, in 2018, democrats ran on the notion that they felt slighted because there was not enough power conveyed to congress. George washington university, one of the warnings he was invited by the republican minority. I think he will be one of the most important figures of today, wolf. Primarily, his argument is twofochld number one, why are we wasting through this . Why not get that third branch of judiciary to get rulings . Why waste through to figure out if the other witnesses will be testifying to figure out if there was construction. He concludes his statement, all three pages of it, essentially saying i know everyone is mad. My dog is mad, im mad. But thats not a reason to
impeach a president. It has to be more it to. That just tell us you how significant today is. Sit about partisanship or undermining democracy . The president keeps making the point, too, this is an unfair process. You got Three Witnesses On Constitutional Law invited by the democrats and only one invited by the republican, to which you say thats how congress works. In the days when the republicans ran the House Of Representatives, they got the lions share of witnesses. Thats how congress owe snow what you are saying is elections matter . Elections matter. You know what . If whole process is an this whole process is an election matters. You know the Impeachment Procedure would be on the identical behavior with the republicans were in control of the House Of Representatives. Zero. Zero chance of this Going Forward so, yes, the number of
witnesses and who called them is certainly an element of an example of how elections matter. But much more significantly, the fact that this proceeding is going on at all is evidence of how much the democratic control of the representatives matter. You see Michael Gerhardt there from the university of North Carolina. Hes a constitutional legal scholar as well and also happens to be a cnn contributor. Because we only hire the best. A very smart guy and Professor Carlin of stamford, she will be testifying as well. Its going to be and im anxious, you know, ross, for your thoughts, it going to be very, very academic . At least the opening session . I think the thing to look for right out of the gate is whether the republicans try to score some points. By the way, thats noah feldman from law school, the fourth witness. On the point that laura and
david were making about sort of what this means about the power of the presidency, you know, when we actually do get down to the substance, i think thats one of the things we will hear is that the framers were actually concerned about an executive that would be too powerful. Also, at the same time, having an executive who is powerful enough and fought having a congress that was too powerful, it is about this balance. And one of the things the framers debated at the beginning was included now administration as a ground for impeachment. That was included in a lot of State Constitutions at the time. The framers debated it and they decide no now with the administration being a bad president , even an intentionally bad president isnt enough for impeachment. That would make congress, the president s boss, which they didnt want. I dont think thats an argument the republicans wanted. From misjudgment, making bad decisions. That is not enough. Thats one of the things we know from those early debates is now
the administration not enough. I did speak to nancy pelosi about this impeachment. One of the things she says when bush was president , george w. Bush, i had members of my caucus, democrats when she was speaker of the house who said we have to impeach the president over the iraq war. Its such a disaster. She said, no, this is not how impeachment works. You cant just impeach a president because you dont like them or disagree with his policies. Now, the ukraines and she was basically continuing that view through the publication of the mueller report. But when the ukraine story broke, she flipped and she became basically a supporter of impeachment. But i think that idea heres the chairman, jerry nadler, hes walking in, he will bring this session to order momentarily. Go ahead. You know, i think the stakes for the democrats are very high here on how they conduct this hearing and how jerry nadler conducts this hearing around how
he rules in this hearing and for the republicans as well. Because there is a risk i believe as the American Public watches this as this devolves into some kind of theatric cal experience rather than a serious discussion about the constitution of the United States and about what constitutes a high crime and misdemeanor. This is an ethic constitutional argument that we are having in this country right now. And that will continue in the house and perhaps in the senate. But, it is a serious moment and to turn it into just an argument over procedure that most of the American Public, lets face it, doesnt really understand what the procedures of the house are about, neither do i in this minute detail, sort of undermines the seriousness of the discussion that theyre about to have right now in the house. A and the questions owe tower is kwus questions that should be
asked of these clear, Studying The Constitution and studying impeachment, itself. You know what, it all began he just banged the gavel. Yeah. All right. Lets listen in. This is the grand room. I was wondering whether this was created all right. So that was a sort of a false gavel. We thought he was starting. Hell be starting momentarily. This is hes going to make an Opening Statement, then the rank
member will make an Opening Statement. Lets listen in. Recessses of the committee at any time or you are observing the right to objection. The objection is noted. I have reserved the right to object. Gentleman is heard. Mr. Chairman pursuant to cause 2j 1 of rule 11 i am furnishing you a demand of minority hearings on this subject signed by all the republican the Gentleman Will suspend. I could not understand what you were saying. Repeat it more clearly. Pursuant to cause 2j1 of rule 11 i am furnishing you a demand of minority natives on this subject signed by all of the republican members of the committee and i would request that you set this date before the Committee Votes on any articles of impeachment. I withdraw my reservation. We will confirm ruling on
this later. The quorum is present. This is the first hearing. This is the first hearing we are conducting pursuant to House Resolution 660 and the special Judiciary Committee procedures that are described in sex 4a of that resolution. Here is how the committee will proceed for this hearing. I will make an Opening Statement and then i will recognize the Ranking Member for an Opening Statement. Each witness will have ten minutes to make their statements and then we will proceed to questions. I will now recognize myself for an Opening Statement. Mr. Chairman, parliamentary inquiry. Mr. Chairman . I have the time for an Opening Statement, the parliamentary inquiry is not in order at this time. The facts before us are undisputed. On july 25th, President Trump called president Zelensky Of Ukraine and in President Trumps words asked him for a favor. That call was part of the concerted effort by the
president and his men to solicit a personal advantage in the next eselection election. This time by his political adversaries by a Foreign Government to obtain that private political advantage, President Trump withheld both an official white house meeting from the newly elected president of a fragile democracy and withheld vital military aid from a vulnerable ally. When Congress Found out about this scheme and began to investigate, President Trump took extraordinary and unprecedented steps to cover up his efforts and to withhold evidence from the investigators. And when witnesses disobeyed him, when Career Professionals came forward and told us the truth, he attacked them viciously, calling them traitors and liars, promising that they will quote go through some things, closed quote. Okay, this is not the first time
that President Trump has engaged in this pattern of conduct. In 2016, the Russian Government engaged in a sweeping and Systematic Campaign of interference in our elections. In the words of special counsel, robert mueller, quote, the Russian Government perceived it would benefit from a Trump Presidency and worked to secure that outcome. Closed quote. The president welcomed that interference. We saw this in real time. When President Trump asked russia to hack his political opponent the very next day, the Russian Military Intelligence Unit attempted to hack that political opponent when his own justice the department tried to uncover the extent to which a Foreign Government had broken our laws, President Trump took extraordinary and unprecedented steps to obstruct the investigation, including ignoring subpoenas, ordering the creation of false records and publicly attacking and
intimidating witnesses. Then as now this administrations level of Obstruction Without precedence. No other president has vowed to Quote Fight All Of The Suspense Unquote as President Trump promised. In the 1974 impeachment proceedings, President Nixon produced dozens of recordings. In 1998, president clinton physically gave his blood. President trump by contrast has refused to produce a single document and directed every witness not to testify. Those are the facts before us. The Impeachment Inquiry has moved back to the house Judiciary Committee and as we begin a review of these facts, the president s pattern of behavior becomes clear. President trump welcomed foreign interference in the 2016 election. He demanded it for the 2020 election. In both case, he got caught. And in both case, he did everything in his power to prevent the American People from learning the truth about his conduct. On july 24th, the special council testified before this committee. He impolice department us to see the nature of the threat to our country. Quote, over the course of my career, i have seen a number of challenges to our democracy. The Russian Governments effort to interfere in our elections is among the most serious. This deserves the attention of every american. Closed ignoring that warning, president called the ukrainian president the very next day to ask him to investigate his political opponent to determine this pattern of behavior constitutes an Impeachable Offense, it is important to place President Trumps conduct into historical context. Since the founding of our country, the House Of Representatives has impeached
only two president s. A third was on his way to impeachment when he resigned. This committee has voted to impeach two president s for obstructing justice. We have voted to impeach one president for obstructing a congressional investigation. To the extent that President Trumps conduct fits these categories, there is precedent for recommending impeachment here. But never before in the history of the republic have we been forced to consider the conduct of a president who appears to have solicited personal political favors from a Foreign Government. Never before has a president engaged in a course of duct that included all of the acts that most concerned the framers. The patriots who founded our country were not fearful men. They fought a war. They witnessed terrible violence. They overthrew a king. But as they met to frame our constitution, those patriots still feared one threat above
all, foreign interference in our elections. They juxtopposed a tyrant. They were deeply worried we would lose our newfound liberty, not through a war, if a foreign army were to invade, we would see that coming, but from corruption from within. Within the early years they asked us, each of us, to be vigilant to that theft. Washington warned us. Quote, to be constantly awake, since history and experience prove that foreign influence is one of the most bainful foes of the government. Adam wrote toeverson, as often as elections happen, the danger occurs. Hamiltons warning was more specific and more dire. In the federalist papers he wrote that quote the most deadly adversaries of the republican government unquote will almost certainly attempt to quote raise a creature of their own to the Chief Magistracy of the union. In short, the founders warned us we should expect our foreign adversaries to target our elections, that we will find ourselves in grave dang fer if president willingly opens that door to their influence. What kind of president would do that . How will we know if the president has betrayed his country in this manner . How will we know if he has betrayed his country in this manner for petty personal gain . Hamilton had a response for that as well. He wrote, when the a man unprincipled in private life, desperate in his fortune, bold in his temper, possessed a considerable talents known to have scoffed and pride and principles of liberty, when such a man is steamed mount the hobby horse of popularity, to take the every opportunity of embarrassing the general government and bringing it under suspicion. It may justly be suspected that his object is to throw things into confusion that he may radio id the storm and direct the whirlwind. Ladies and gentlemen, the storm in which we find ourselves today was set in motion by President Trump. I do not wish this moment on the country. It is not a pleasant task that we undertake today. But we have each taken an oath to protect the constitution. And the facts before us are clear. President trump did not merely seek to benefit from foreign interference from our elections. He directly is and explicitly invited foreign interference in our elections. He used the powers of his office to try to make it happen. He sent his agents to make clear that this is what he wanted and demanded. He was willing to compromise our security at his office for personal, political gain. It does not matter that President Trump got caught and
ultimately released the funds that ukraine so desperately needed. It matters that he enlisted a foreperson government to intervene in our elections in the first place. It does not matter that President Trump felt that these investigations were unfair to him. It matters that he used his office not merely to defend himself but to obstruct investigators at every turn. We are all aware that the next election is looming. But we cannot wait for the election to address the present crisis. The integrity of that election the one of the very things at stake. The president has shown us his pattern of conduct. If we do not act to hold him in check now, President Trump will almost certainly try again, to solicit interference in the election for his personal political gain. Today we will begin our conversation where we should, with a text of the constitution. We are empowered to recommend the impeachment to the house f. We find he has committed treason, bribery or other High Crimes And Misdemeanors. Our Witness Panel will help us to guide that conversation. In a few day, we will reconvene and hear from the committees that worked to uncover the facts before us. And when we apply the constitution to those facts, if it is true President Trump has committed an Impeachable Offense or multiple Impeachable Offense, then we must move swiftly to do our duty and charge him accordingly. I thank the witnesses for being here today. I now recognize the Ranking Member of the Judiciary Committee. Mr. Chairman. Gentleman from georgia, mr. Collins, his Opening Statement. Mr. Chairman, may i make a parliamentary inquiry . Gentleman, this is not in order for the parliamentary inquiry. I recognize the member for Opening Statement. I thank the chairman and it is interesting that again parliamentary inquiry and some of the things i will discuss today because we are sort of coming here today in a different arena. For everybody whos not been here before, this is a new room, its new rules, its a new month. We even got cute little stickers for our staff so we can come in, because we want to make this important and this is impeachment. Because weve done such a terrible job of it in this committee before, but whats not you . Basically whats replicated by the chairman. What itself not new is the facts. Whats not new is its the same, sad story. Whats interesting before i get into my, part of my Opening Statement is what was just said by the chairman. We went back to a redo of mr. Mueller. Were also quoting him saying the attention of the American People should be on foreign interference. I agree with him except i. Es the American People didnt
include the Judiciary Committee. We didnt take it up. We didnt have hearings to delve deeply into this issue. We passed election bills, but did not get into the end up part of what mr. Mueller talked about taking his own report and having hearings about that we didnt do it. I go es the American People doesnt include the house Judiciary Committee. Its interesting we heard an interesting discussion. We will have a lot of interesting discussions today about the constitution and other things. We also talked about the founders. Whats interesting is the chairman talked about the founders in the quotes. This is why 23 have the hearing about the founders being concerned about foreperson influence. What He Didnt Quote Is Founders being really concerned about political impeachment. Because you just dont like the guy. You never liked him since November Of 2016. The chairman has talked about impeachment since last year when he was elected chairman. Two years on November 17th before he is sworn in as chairman. So dont tell me this is about
new evidence and new things and new stuff. We might have a new hearing room and mix that arent comfortable. This is nothing new, folks. This is sad. So what do we have here today . You know what im thinking . I looked at this, and what is interesting is theres two things that have come very clear. This impeachment is not really about facts. If it was, i believe other committees would have sent over recommendations for impeachment. Now theyre picture it on this committee because if it goes badly i think they want to blame adam schiffs committee and cnn for this going bad. Theyre already drafting articles, dont be fooled. They went after numerous failures, mueller, emollients. The American People are failing to see legislative. You know whats driving this . Two things, its called the clock and the calendar, the clock and the calendar, most people in life what they truly
value you look at their checkbook and their calendar, you know what they value. Thats what this committee values. Time. They want to do it before the end of the year. Why . Because the chairman said it a few seconds ago, because were scared of the elections last year that well lose again. So we got to do this now. The clock and the calendar are whats driving impeachment. Not the facts. When we understand this, thats what the witnesses here will say today. What do we have here today . What is really interesting over today and for the next few weeks is america will see why most people dont go to law school. No offense to our professors. But please, really, were brigg you in here today to testify on stuff most of you have already written about, all four, for the opinions that we already know out of the classrooms that maybe you are getting ready for finals in, to discuss things that you probably havent had a chance, unless are you good on tv of watching the hear over the last couple weeks, you couldnt
possibly actually digested the adam schiff report from yesterday or the republican response in any real way. We can be their ret cal all we want. But the American People is going to look at this and say, huh . What are we doing . Because there is no fact witnesses planned for this hearing. Thats an interesting thing. Next week an ambiguous hearing on the presentation of the other committee that sent us the report and Judiciary Committee which im not sure what they want us to present on and nothing else. No plan. I asked the chairman before we left for thanksgiving, to stay in touch, lets talk about what we have, history will shine a bright light on us, starting this morning. Crickets. Until i asked for a witness the other day and lets saw say that didnt go well. There was no whistleblower. By the way it was proved that he is not or she is not afforded the protection of identity. Its not in the statute. Its something that was discussed by adam schiff. We also dont have adam schiff that wrote the report. He said yesterday at the press conference, im not going to ill send staff to do that. Hes not going to, but you know to me if he was wanting to, hed come begging to us. You know, heres the problem. It sums it up very simply like this, just 19 minutes afternoon on Inauguration Day 2017 the Washington Post ran the headline to campaign to impeach the president has begun. Who later become the infamous Whistle Blower attorney. The coup has started. Impeachment will start immediately. Al green said if he doesnt get rejected he will be elected. Nothing for the Judiciary Committee which spent twoandahalf weeks before this hearing was held under clinton, twoandahalf weeks. We didnt find your names out until less than 48 hours ago. I dont know what were playing hide the ball on, its pretty easy what you are going to say. We cant even get that straight. So what are we doing for the
next two weeks . I have no idea, the chairman just said an ambiguous hearing on the report. But nothing else. If were simply not going to have fact witnesses when we are the rubber stamp hiding out back, the rubber stamp the chairman talked about 20 years ago. What a disgrace to this committee. To have the committee of impeachment simply take from other entities and rubber stamp it. You see one of the things that i say matter about fact witnesses in actual hearings and having due process is by the way, just a couple of months ago, the democrats got all sort of dressed up if you would and said wear going to have Due Process Protection for the president and good fairness throughout this. This is the only committee which the president would have a possibility, but offense to you, the Law Professors. The president has nothing to ask you. Youre not going to to provide anything he cant read and his attorney versus nothing else. Put witnesses in here that can be fact witnesses who can be actually crossexamined. Thats fairness and every
attorney on this panel knows that. This is a sham. But you know what i also see here, is quotes like this, there must never be a narrowly voted impeachment or impeachment supported by one of you Major Political parties or opposed by another, such impeachment will provide bitterness in politics for years to come and call into question the legitimacy of our stugs. The American People are watching. They will not forget. You have the votes. You may have the muscle. But you do not have legitimacy of a national consensus. The partisan coup detat will go down in infamy in the history of the nation. How about this one . I think the key point is that the republicans are still running a railroad job with no attempt at fair procedure and today when the democrats offered amendments, offered motions in committee to say we should first discuss and adopt standards so we know what were dealing with, standards for impeachment voted down or ruled out of order. When we say the important thing is to start looking at the question before we simply have a
vote with no inquiry first. That was voted down and ruled out of order. So frankly, the whole question of what material should be released is secondary. Thats all we discussed. The essential question, here it is, to set up a country put this country through impeachment proceeding, that was ruled out of order. The republicans refused to let us discuss it. Those were all chairman nadler before he was chairman. I guess 20 years makes a difference. You heard a onesided presentation of facts about this president. Today we will present the other side which gets so conveniently left out. Remember, fairness does dictate that. Maybe not here, because were not scheduling anything else. I have a democrat makejority who poll tested what they think they ought to call what the president they think he did, wow, thats not following the facts. We have a just a deepseeded hatred of a man who came to the white house and did what he said he was going to do, the most amazing question i got in the
first three months of this gentlemans presidency from reporters was this, can you believe hes putting forward those ideas . I said, yes, he ran on them. He told the truth and he did what he said. The problem here today is, this will also be one of the first impeachments the chairman mentioned. There was two of them. One that before he resigned, before clinton, before the facts by democrats or republicans were fought really disputed and this one not only disputed. Theyre contradictive of each other. There are no set facts here. In fact, theyre not anything that is an impeachment here except a president carrying out his job in the what i the Constitution Saw that he sees fit to do it. This is where were at today. So the interesting thing that i come to with most everybody here, is this may be a new time, a new place and we may be all scrubbed up and looking pretty for impeachment. This is not an impeachment. This is simply a railroad job and todays is a waste of time. Because this is where were at. So i close today with this it doesnt start with mueller, it didnt start with a phone call. You know where this started . It started with tears in brooklyn in November Of 2016 when an election was lost. So we are here, no plan, no fact witness, simply being rubber stamped for what we have. But, hay, we got Law Professors here. What a start of a party. Mr. Chairman, before i yield back, i have a motion. Under clause 2 rule 11. The gentleman was recognized for the purpose of an Opening Statement. Not for the purpose of making a motion. I yield back and ask for recognition under clause 2 rule 11. The gentleman is recognized. Mr. Chairman, pursuant to clause 2 of rule 11 i move to require the attendance of chairman schiff before this committee and translate this letter accordingly. For what purposes . Motion at table is made and
not debatable. All in favor of the motion at the table say aye. Opposed, no, the motion at the table is agreed to. Record the vote. Recorded vote is requested. The clerk will call the roll. You are not recognized for parliamentary inquiry at this time. Its a vote in the process. Just a reminder that no votes is chairman schiff coming, correct . The clerk will call the rule. Mr. Nadler. Aye. Mr. Nadler votes aye. Miss jackson lee. Vaets e votes yeah. Mr. Cohen votes aye. Mr. Johnson of georgia votes aye. Mr. Deutsche votes aye, miss best. Mr. Richmond. Iia. Jeffrey, aye. Jeffreys votes aye. Mr. Cicilline votes aye. Mr. Swalwell votes yes. Aye. Mr. Ras ken. Aye. Mr. Raskin votes aye. Mr. Demings votes aye. Mr. Consider rhea. Miss scan lohn. Aye. Miss garcia. Aye. Mr. Nagoose vaets aye. Miss macbeth votes aye. Mr. Stantop. Miss dean votes aye. Miss Mccar Sill Powell votes aye. Mr. Collins no mr. Sensenbrenner votes no mr. Shab bought votes no mr. Gomer. Mr. Gometro no mr. Jrn votes no mr. Buck votes no mr. Radcliffe, no miss roby votes no mr. Gates, mr. Gates votes no mr. Johnson of louisiana. No. Mr. Johnson votes no mr. Bigs votes no mr. Mcclintock, to. Miss lesco. No. Miss lesco votes no mr. Rushen all thater votes no mr. Klein. Many klein no mr. Armstrong votes no mr. Steube votes no. Everyone voted. Has everyone voted who wishes to vote . Miss bass. Misbass votes aye. The clerk will report. Mr. Chairman, there are 24 aye, 17 nos. The motion to table is agreed to. Mr. Chairman, i have a parliamentary inquiry. The Gentleman Will state his parliamentary inquiry. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Clause c 2 of the judiciary Impeachment Inquiry procedures states that members of the committee can raise objections relating to the admissibility of testimony and evidence, but it doesnt say what rules apply to admissibility. So im hoping you can explain to us what objections may be made under this clause and if you intend to use the federal rules of evidence the Gentleman Will suspend, that is not a proper parliamentary inquiry. It is. It is not. I stated the rule. You stated a rule, mr. Chairman. You can ignore it and not answer it. You cant say its not aim asking for the rule of we will apply the rules, period. You wont help us understand that . There is no clarity there. How are you siding that . Clause c 2 of the judiciary impeachment of procedures. I would how is that unclear . Its the rules of house and they will be applied. Period. Im asking how will they applied here, sir . They will be applied according to rules. But not answering your question. A circular response. Thank you. Platform, can you please it ra it the schedule Going Forward, in other words are you planning to hold additional hearings . Gentleman will suspend. That is not a proper parliamentary inquiry, without objection, all other parliamentary statements will be included in the record. I introduce noah feldman. Mr. Mr. Chairman i seek
recognition. The gentleman is, i am not going to recognize you now, i am introducing the witnesses. Mr. Chairman. The noah feldman The Professor Of Law at Harvard Law School. Professor feldman has authored seven books, including the constitutional law casebook as well as many articles on constitutional subjects. Professor feldman received he is under Graduate Degree from harvard and Oxford University and also a Rhodes Scholar and jz from Harvard Law School and served as a law clerk for major suter. Pamela carlin serves as the montgomery professor of Public Interest law and the codirector of the Supreme Court information clinic at stamford law school. The coauthor of leading books including a Monograph Keeping Faith with the constitution and dozens of scholarly articles. She served as a law clerk to
harry blackburn of the United States Supreme Court and is a Deputy Assistant attorney general in the Civil Rights Department of justice, she was responsible for among other things for viewing the work of the voting sections. Professor carlin earned three degrees and ma in history and jd from yale law school. Michael gerhardt is the burden cray distinguished professor of jurisprudence at the university of North Carolina law and director of uc law and government. Professor gerhardt is the author of many books, including the federal impeachment process, the constitutional and historic am analysis as well as 50 Law View Publications on a diverse range of topics and constitutional law, federal jurisdiction and the legislative process. He received his jd from the law school and ms from the London School of economics and ba from yale university. Jonathan turley is the jd and
maurice c. Spa shapiro chair of law school. Where he teaches torts, criminal procedure and constitutional law. After a stint at tulane law school, Professor Turley joined the Gw Law Faculty in 1990 and in 1998 became the youngest chaired professor in the schools history. He has written over three dozen academic articles for a variety of leading law schools, leading law journals, im sorry, his articles on legal and policy issues appear frequently if national publications. A chicago native, Professor Turley earned degrees from the university of chicago, Northwestern University school of law. Now we welcome all our distinguished witnesses, we thank them for participating in todays hearing. If you will please rise, i will begin by swearing you in. Raise your do you swear or affirm under penalty of perjury that the testimony are you about to give is true and correct to
the best of your knowledge, information and belief, so help you god . Let the record show the witnesses answered in the affirmative. Thank you and please be seated. Please note that each of your written statements will be entered into the record in its entirety. Accordingly, i ask that you summarize your testimony in ten minutes. To help you stay within that time, there is a timing light on your table. When the light switches from green to yellow, you have one minute to conclude your testimony. When the light turns red, it signals your ten minutes have expired. Professor feldman, you may begin. Mr. Chairman mr. Chairman i dont think you have a mic. Mr. Chairman, before we get mr. Chairman and members of the committee, mr. Chairman, i have a motion. The gentleman is not in order to offer a motion at this time. Plp, i seek recognition for a Privilege Motion. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, thank you very much
for the opportunity to appear. My name is noah feldman, i serve as the the witness will proceed. I serve as the Felix Frankforter Professor Of Law at the Harvard Law School. I seek recognition. My job is to study the Gentleman Will suspend, the time is the witnesses. The Privilege Motion needs to be recognized. You can call it not a privilege. In between the witnesses, it may be recognized, not once i recognize the witness. The witness will proceed. Well entertain the motion after the first witness. He started before. My job is to study and to teach the constitution from its origins until the present. I am here today to describe three things, why the framers of our constitution included a provision for the impeachment of the president. What that provision providing for impeachment for High Crimes And Misdemeanors mean. Last, how it applies for you and the American People. Whether President Trump has committed Impeachable Offenses under the constitution. Let me begin by stating my
conclusions. The framers provided for the impeachment of the president , because they feared that the president might abuse the power of his office for personal benefit, to corrupt the Electoral Process and ensure his reelection or to subvert the National Security of the United States. High crimes and misdemeanors are abuses of power and of public trust connected to the office of the presidency. On the basis of the testimony and the evidence before the house, President Trump has committed impeachable High Crimes And Misdemeanors by Corruptly Abusing the office of the presidency. Specifically, President Trump has abused his office by Corruptly Solicited president Zelensky Of Ukraine to announce investigations of his political rivals in order to gain personal advantage, including in the 2020
president ial election. Let me begin now with the question of why the framers provided for impeachment in the first place. The framers borrowed the concept of impeachment from glaengland. The house of common sense and House Hoff Lords could use impeachment in order to lure the minsters of the king, but they could not impeach the king and in that sense the king was above the law. In stark contrast, the framers from the very outset of the Constitutional Convention in 1787 made it Crystal Clear that the president would be subject to impeachment in order to demonstrate that the president was subordinate to the law. If you will, i would like to think now about a specific date in the Constitutional Convention, july 20th, 1787. It was the middle of a long, hot summer, and on that day, two members of the constitutional
convention actually moved to take out the Impeachment Provision from the draft constitution. They had a reason for that. The reason was, they said, well, the president will have to stand for reelection. If the president has to stand for reelection, that is enough. We dont need a separate provision for impeachment. When that proposal was made, significant disagreement ensued. The governor of North Carolina, a man called William Davie, immediately said, if the president cannot be impeached, quote, he will spare no efforts or means whatever to get himself reelected. Following davie, gorge mason of virginia, a fierce republican critic of Executive Power said, no point is more important than that impeachment be included in the constitution. Shall any man be above justice, he asked . Thus expressing the core concern, that the president must
be subordinate to the law and not above the law. James madison, the principle draftsman of the u. S. Constitution then spoke up. He said, it was quote, indispensable that some provision be made for impeachment. Why . Because he explained standing for reelection was quote not a sufficient security, closed quote, against president ial misconduct or corruption. A president he said might betray his trusts to foreign powers. A president who in a corrupt fashion abused the office of the presidency, said james madison, quote, might be fatal to the republic. Closed quote. And then, a remarkable thing happened in the convention. Gordon morris of pennsylvania, one of the two people who would introduce the motion to eliminate impeachment got up and actually instead the words, i was wrong. He told the other framers present that he had changed his
mind on the basis of the debate on july 20th and that it was now his opinion that in order to avoid corruption of the Electoral Process, a president would have to be subject to impeachment regardless of the availability of a further election. The upshot of this debate is that the framers kept impeachment in the constitution, specifically in order to protect against the abuse of office with the capacity to corrupt the Electoral Process or lead to personal gain. Now, turning to the language of the constitution, the framers used the words High Crimes And Misdemeanors, to describe those forms of action that they considered impeachable. These were not vague or abstract terms to the framers. High crimes and misdemeanors, the words High Crimes And Misdemeanors represented very specific language that was well understood by the entire generation of the framers. Indeed, they were borrowed from
an Impeachment Trial in england that was taking place as the framers were speaking, which was referred to, in fact, by george mason. The words High Crimes And Misdemeanors refer to abuse of the office of the presidency, for personal advantage or to corrupt the Electoral Process or to subvert the National Security of the United States. There is no mystery about the words High Crimes And Misdemeanors. The word high modifies both crimes and misdemeanors, theyre both high. And high means connected to the office of the presidency. Connected to office. The classic form that was familiar to the framers was the abuse of office for personal gain or advantage. And when the framers specifically named bribery as a high crime and misdemeanor, they were naming one particular version of this abuse of office, the abuse of office for personal or individual gain. The other forms of abuse of office, abuse of office to effect elections and abuse of office to compromise National Security were further forms that were familiar to the framers. Now, how does this language of High Crimes And Misdemeanors apply to President Trumps alleged conduct . Let me be clear. The constitution gives the House Of Representatives, that is, the members of this committee and the other members of the house, quote, sole power of impeachment. Its not my responsibility or my job to determine the credibility of the witnesses who appeared before the house thus far. That is your constitutional responsibility. My comments will, therefore, follow my rule, which is to describe and apply the meaning of Impeachable Offenses to the facts described by the testimony in evidence before the house. President trumps conduct as described in a testimony if evidence clearly constitutes
impeachable High Crimes And Misdemeanors up to date the constitution. In particular, the memorandum and other testimony relateing to the July 25th 2019 phone call between the two president s, President Trump and president zelensky, more than sufficiently indicates that President Trump abused his office by soliciting the president of ukraine to investigate his political rivals in order to gain personal, political advantage, including in relation to the 2020 election. Again, the words abuse of office are not mystical or magical. They are very clear. The abuse of office occurs when the president uses a feature of his power, the awesome power of his office, not to sink terve t interests of the American Public but to serve his personal, individual, partisan electoral interests. That is what the evidence before the house indicates. Finally, let me be clear that on its own, soliciting the leader of a Foreign Government in order to announce investigations of political rivals and perform those investigations would constitute a high crime and misdemeanor. But the house also has evidence before it that the president committed two further acts that also qualify as High Crimes And Misdemeanors, in particular, the house heard evidence that the president placed a hold on critical u. S. Aid to ukraine and conditioned its release on announcement of the investigations of the bidens and of the discredited crowd strike conspiracy theory. Furthermore, the house also heard everyday that the president conditioned a white house visit desperately sought by a ukrainian president on announcement of the investigations. Both of these acts constitute impeachable high crimes and
misdemeanors under the constitution. They each incapsulate the framers worry that the president of the United States would take any means whatever to ensure his reelection and that is the reason that the framers provided for impeachment in a case like this one. Mr. Chairman, i the gentlemans time is expired. Mr. Chairman, i seek recognition. The Gentleman Will is recognized. I offer a motion to postpone to a date certain. I mof to table the motion. Motion to table is heard and is not debatable. All in favor of the motion. Mr. Chairman. May we have the motion read, please . The motion was stated as to adjourn may we have the motion read, please . The motion will be read as to what date . The motion to be read to a date certain, wednesday, december 11th, 2019 so we can actually get a response to the six letters. The gentleman stated his motion. The motion to table is made. Correct. Motion to table is made and not debatable. All in favor. The motion to table say aye. Opposed . No. The motion to table is agreed to. Role call. Mr. Nadler. Aye. Miss lofgren votes aye. Jackson lee aye. Mr. Cohen aye. Mr. Johnson georgia, aye. Mr. Deutsche, aye. Mr. Deutsche votes aye. Miss bass votes aye. Mr. Richmond. Yes. Mr. Richard votes yes. Mr. Jeffreys votes aye. Cicilline votes aye. Mr. Wal well ye, n mr. Liu. Aye. Mr. Raskin. Eye. Miss demings votes aye. Mr. Consider rhea votes aye. Miss scan lohn. Aye. Miss garcia. Aye. Miss garcia votes aye. Mr. Na . Goose. As the democrats and republicans fend off over these procedural motions, were just going to check in quickly with
jeffrey toobin and other members of our pane em. It seems this is the second time that republicans have forced a procedural vote and chairman nadler the democrat is moving to table it. It will no doubt be successful. What itself the purpose of this other than to kind of gum up the works . Jeffrey. I think you summed it up very quite. We i dont think there is a purpose besides that whats significant about the rules of this committee is that the republicans even when they make frivolous motions like that one to delay this hearing to, is that they can get a role call vote, which as we are watching here, and there are more than 40 members of this committee, it just takes a long time. So, anyway, i dont want to interrupt. Mr. Chairman, there are 24 ayes, 17 nos. The motion to table is adopted and i recognize Professor Carlin for her
testimony. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, thank you so much for the opportunity to testify. Twice i have had the privilege of representing this committee and its leadership in Voting Rights cases before the Supreme Court. Once when it was under the leadership of the chairman sensenbrenner and its good to see you again, sir, and with mr. Shabba as one of my other clients and once under the leader scholarship of chairman conyers. It was a great honor for me to represent this committee. Because of this committees key role over the past 50 years in ensuring that american citizen versus the right to vote in free and fair elections. Today you are being asked to consider whether protecting those elections requires impeaching a president. That is an awesome responsibility. That everything i know about our constitution and its values and my review of the evidentiary record and here, mr. Collins, i would like to say to you, sir, that i read transcripts of every
one of the witnesses who appeared in the live hearing because i would not speak about these things without reviewing the facts, so im insulted by the suggestion that as a Law Professor i dont care about those facts. But everything i read on those occasions tells me that when President Trump invited, indeed, demanded, foreign involvement in our upcoming election, he struck at the very heart of what makes this a republic to which which pledge allegiance. That demand as Professor Feldman just explained constituted and an abuse of power, indeed as i want to explain in my testimony, drawing a Foreign Government into our elections is an especially serious abuse of power because it undermines democracy, itself. Our constitution begins with the words we, the people, for a reason. Our government in James Madisons words derives all its powers directly or indirectly from the great body of the people. And the way it derives these powers is through elections. Elections matter. Both to the legitimacy of our government and to all of our individual freedoms, because if the Supreme Court declared more than a century ago, voting is preservable of all rights, it is hardly surprising the cons tuesday is marvelled with provisions governing elections and guaranteeing government accountability. Indeed, a majority of the amendments to our constitution since The Civil War Have dealt with voting or with terms of office and among the most important provisions of our original constitution is the guarantee of periodic elections for the presidency. One every four years. America has kept that promise for more than two centuries and it has done so even during war time. For example, we invented the idea of Absentee Voting so that union troops who supported president lincoln could stay in the field during the election of 1864. And since then, countless other
americans have fought and died to protect our right to vote. But the framers of our constitution realize that elections alone could not guarantee that the United States would remain republic. One of the key reasons for including the Impeachment Power was a risk that unskrup lus officials might try to rig the election process. Youve already heard two people give William Davie his props. You know, hamilton got a whole musical and William Davie will get this committee hearing. He warned unless the constitution contained an Impeachment Provision, the president may spare no means to get himself reelected and george mason insisted a president who pro cured his appointment in the first instance through improper and corrupt acts should not escape punishment by repeating his guilt and mason was the person responsible for adding High Crimes And Misdemeanors to the list of Impooem Peachab
Impeachable Offenses so we know from that the list was designed to subvert an election. Whether that election is one that brought him into office or an upcoming election where he seeks an additional term. Moreover, the founding generation like every generation of americans since was especially concerned to protect our government and our democratic process from outside interference. For example, john adams during the ratification expressed concern with the very idea of having an elected president , writing to Thomas Jefferson that you are apprehensive of foreign interference, intrigue, influence, so am i. But as often as elections happen, the danger of foreign influence recurs. And in his farewell address, president washington warned that history and experience proved that fine experience is one of the feigned knows of foreign
government. He said they would influence what we thought. The very idea that a president might seek the aid of a Foreign Government in his Reelection Campaign would have harified them. Based on the evidentially record, that is what President Trump has done. The list of Impeachable Offenses that the framers included in the constitution shows that the essence of an Impeachable Offense is a president s decision to sacrifice the National Interests for his own private ends. Treason, the first thing listed, laying an individuals giving aid to a foreign enemy, that is putting a foreign Enemy Adversa adversarys interests above the interests of the United States. Bribery occurred when an official solicited or received or benefit influential action, ricking he would put his private welfare above the National Interests and high crimes and
misdemeanors captured the other ways in which a high official might as Justice Joseph story explained disregard Public Interests in the discharge of the duties of political office. Based on the evidentiary record before you, what has happened in the case today is something i do not think we have ever seen before, a president who has doubled down on violating his oath to faithfully execute the laws and to protect and defend the constitution. The evidence reveals a president who used the powers of his office to demand a Foreign Government participate in undermining a competing candidate for the presidency. As president john kennedy declared, the right to vote in a free American Election is the most powerful and precious right up in the world. But our elections become less free when they are distorted by foreign interference. What happened in 2016 was bad enough. There is widespread agreement
that russian operatives intervened to manipulate our political process. But that distortion is magnified if the sitting president abuses the powers of his Office Actually to invite foreign intervention. To see why, imagine living in a part of louisiana or texas thats prone to devastating hurricanes and flooding. What would you think if you lived there and your governor asked for a meeting with the president to discuss getting disaster aid that congress has provided for . What would you think if that president said, i would like to do i would like to you do us a favor . Ill meet with you and ill send the Disaster Relief once you brand my opponent a criminal. Wouldnt you know in your gut that such a president had abused his office, that he betrayed the National Interests . And that he was trying to corrupt the Electoral Process . I believe that that ev
comparemela.com © 2020. All Rights Reserved.