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 enshrines democratic principles and protects against those who would seek to undermine them. The constitution explicitly lays out a president may be impeached for treason, bribery, High Crimes And Misdemeanors. We heard a lot of words today, foreign interference, bribery, Obstruction Of Justice. Professors, id like to go through the president s conduct and the public harms we have discussed today and ask if they would fit into what the forefathers contemplated when crafting those words of the impeachment clause. Professor karlan, id like to ask you about the foreign inference in elections. As americans we cant agree foreign influence arose in the integrity of our elections. As you said clearly, it makes us less free. On july 15th, 2003, the president coerced president zelensky into investigating into his political rival with multiple witnesses throughout the hearings. Can you explain to the American People in your opinion whether the framers considered solicitation of foreign inference, if they would have considered it a high crime or misdemeanor and does the president s conduct rise to that level . The framers of our constitution would have considered it a high crimes or misdemeanor for a president to invite in foreign influence either deciding he will be reelected or who his successor will be. Professor feldman, id like to talk to you about bribery. During the course of the intelligence hearing, numerous witnesses gave testimony the president withheld nearly 400
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, id 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 clintons misconduct as an attack on the judicial system. Thats 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
mindful of when you wrote the constitution. They chose the words and the words matter. It was my dad, bob dean, a talented writer who instilled in me and my brothers and sisters a love of language. He taught us our words matter, the truth matters. Its through that lens i see all the serious and somber things were speaking about today, foreign interference, bribery, obstruction. The framers likely could not have mnlgd all three in a single leader but concerned enough to craft the remedy, impeachment. The times have found us. I Ham Prayerful for our president , our country, ourselves. May we the people always hold high the decency and promise and ambition of our founding and of the words that matter and of the truth. With that, i yield back, mr. Chairman. Gentle lady yields back. Miss powell. Thank you for your time today. Its been a long day. I want to tell you did not have the privilege of being born into this country. As an immigrant i became a citizen of this nation i took an oath to defend the constitution of foreign and domestic enemies. I had the fortune of taking that oath when i became a member of congress and that includes the responsibility of protecting our nation from continuing threats from a president , any president. You testified that the president s actions are a continuing risk to our nation and democracy, meaning this is not a one time problem. There is a pattern of behavior by the president putting at risk fair and free elections and i think we are here today because the americans need to know whether we need to remove the president. During the Nixon Committee the Judiciary Committee said quote the purpose of impeachment is not personal punishment. Its function is primarily to maintain constitutional government. Professor karlan, to me, that means impeachment should be used when we must protect our american democracy. It is reserved for offenses that present a continuing risk to our democracy, is that correct . Yes, it is. Thank you. I want to show you an example of the script from july 25 when the president said what he wanted from president zelensky and he responded with this. Well, i would think that if they were honest about it, theyd start a Major Investigation into the bidens. Its a very simple answer. They should investigate the bidens, because how does a company dully formy formed. Likewise, china should start an investigation. What happened in china is just about as bad as what happened with ukraine. Conflicting dialogue from both sides. I just want to ask, mr. Feldman, is this clear evidence from a president asking from for a Foreign Government to interfere in our elections . Congressman, im here for the constitution. We are here for the constitution. And when the president of the United States asks for assistance from a foreign power to distort our elections for his personal advantage, that constitutes an abuse of office and counts as a high crime misdemeanor and thats what the constitution is here to protect us against. Thank you. Professor karlan, are the president s actions a continuing risk that the framers intended impeachment to be used for . Yes. This takes us back to the
quotation from william davy weve all used several times in our testimony, a president without impeachment, a president will do anything to get reelected. Thank you. I want to know you one more example proposof the president f of staff. Lets be clear its not quid pro quo . It is funding will not flow unless the investigation into the democratic server happened as well. We do that all the time with foreign policy. Mckinney said yesterday he was very upset with the political influence in foreign policy. That was one of the reasons he was so upset about that. I have news for everybody. Get over it. There will be political influence in foreign policy. Professor karlan. I think mr. Mulvaney is inflating or confusing two different notions of politics. There is political influence in foreign affairs. Because President Trump won in 2016 We Exited Climate Accords and took a position in nato than we would have taken had his opponent won. Thats different than saying partisan politics in the sense of electoral manipulation is something we need to get over or get used to. If we get over that or get used to that we will cease to become the democracy we are right now. Thank you. I think that is our greatest threat. I dont think anyone is above the law. The constitution establishes that. This type of behavior cannot be tolerated from any president , not now, not in the future. I yield back. Im sorry, miss escobar is recognized. Thank you, chairman. Professors, thank you so much for your testimony and time
today. Many facts, including the president s own words in that famous phone call have been laid out before our very eyes and ears for months. Despite the president s repeated efforts at a coverup some have chosen to ignore those facts. What we have seen from those who chose to turn a blind eye is not a defense of the president s actions, because frankly, those defenses are indefensible. We have seen them attack the process and impugn your integrity. For that, im sorry. Some opined instead of considering impeachment just let this pass and allow the people to decide what to do next or what to do about the president s behavior in the next election. The framers of our constitution specifically considered whether to just use elections and not have impeachment and rejected that notion. One statement of the framers really stuck with me, up on the screen, george mason asked, should the man who has practiced corruption and by that, means procured his appointment in the first instance, be suffered to escape punishment by repeating his guilt . Professor feldman, i have two questions for you. Briefly, can you explain why the framers decided a corrupt executive could not be solved through elections, and can you tell us why impeachment is the appropriate option at this point . Considering all the evidence americans have seen and herd rather than letting it be decided in this next election. They knew the president would have a great motive to corrupt the Electoral Process to get reelected. Thats why they thought it wasnt good enough to wait for the next election because the president could cheat and make the next election illegitimate. Thats why they required impeachment. If they couldnt impeach the next president James Madison said that would be fatal to the public. The reason its necessary to take action now, we have a president who has in fact sought to corrupt the Electoral Process for personal advantage. Under those circumstances, the framers Remedy Impeachment is the only option available. Thank you. I want to play two clips, the first of President Nixon and second, President Trump. When the president does it, that means it is not illegal. I have an article too, where i have the right to do whatever i want as president. President s openly stating they are above the law. Professor karlan, what happens to our republic, our country, if we do nothing in this face of a president who sees himself above the law, who will abuse his power, who will ask Foreign Governments to meddle in our
election and attack any witness who stands up to tell the truth . What happens if we dont follow our constitutional obligation of impeachment to remove that president from office . We will cease to be a republic. Thank you. I represent a community that a little over a decade ago was marred by corruption at the local government level. There was no retreat into a partisan corner or effort by anyone to explain it away. We also didnt wait for an election to cure the cancer of corruption that occurred on our watch. We were united as a community in our outrage over it. It was intolerable to us because it was a threat to our institution, institutions that belong to us. What we face today is the same kind of test, only one far more grave and historic. From the sounding of our country
today, one truth remains clear, the Impeachment Power is reserve for conduct that endangers democracy and imperils our constitution. Todays hearing has helped us to better understand how we preserve our republic and the test that lies ahead for us. Thaurng thanks, mr. Chairman, i yield back my time. The gentle lady yields back. Th that concludes the testimony under the five minute rule. I will recognize the Ranking Member and remarks he has. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Today has its beening, i guess, to say the least. We have found many things, in fact, three of our four witnesses here today, allege numerous crimes by the president and at times it sounded like we were trying to make up crimes, if it wasnt this, it was the intent to do it. It went along interesting and i
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 . Were taking the work of the Intel Committee and the other committees, were 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. Theyre so obsessed with the election next year, they just
gloss over things. In fact, what is interesting as i said earlier, three of four alleged crimes of the president yet in the impact hearings none identified a crime. If youre writing about this, that should alarm you. This Impeachment Narrative being spun by the majority is a fake one. Its Majority Spinning 3 of the facts and ignoring 97 of the other. In fact, Professor Turley said earlier, impeachment needs proof not presumption. We have one of the Fact Witnesses in the Intel Committee, i presumed that was what was going on, mr. Sondland. What is happening today, i thought was interesting this is the Judiciary Committee, we also found out today, Facts Dont Matter. In fact, Facts Dont Matter unless we can fit those facts to fit the narrative we want to spin before this committee and the American People. If they dont matter, we also
heard one of the witnesses state today it doesnt matter if aid was released or not. Of course it matters. But unfortunately, only one of the many facts ignored by the majority. Theyre ignoring a ton of facts that matter. It apparently doesnt matter to the democrats that ambassador volker, Special Envoy to ukraine, made clear in his testimony there was no conditionality by the white house or his aide. The democrats havent mentioned that because its unhelpful to the narrative theyre spinning. It apparently doesnt matter to the democrats or majority here the president did not condition his aid on the investigation. Mr. Sondlands statement to the contrary was presumption. It was right here in this room, he called it a guess, right where youre sitting, called it a guess, presumption what he thought. God forbid we walk into our courtrooms and find somebody guilty of something were calling a crime and walked into
court, i thought it was, the witness said, i presumed it was, god forbid, this is where were at. Weve also heard today you can make interference, though, its okay if youre just inferring. I dont know about the professor heres or both of us in court on both sides of the aisle, i never heard going in to the judge, just infer what you want. Its inference. He met with zelensky with no preconditions. Zelensky didnt find out about the hold on his aid until a month after the call and read it in politico. He didnt have to do anything to get the aid released and not only aid was released, you think that doesnt matter there were five meetings from the time the aid was stopped and in none of those meetings, between the ambassadors and Vice President and senators none of that was connected on the promise to
anything between the aid, none of that was ever connected, five times and two after Press Conferen Conference after president zelensky learned the aid was being held. They werent even on the call, the witnesses, read transcripts like everyone else. On the 26th, zelensky met with sondland and no references to the hold. None of these inconvenient facts or so many other inconvenient facts matter to the majority. Moreover we dont know what additional hearings we have to address other facts. This is the part that bothers me greatly. It is something we have seen from january of this year, no concern about a process at work but a simply getting to an end that we want. I agree with professor feldman, he may find that strange, but i
do agree with you on something. Its not his job to address the credibility of witnesses, its this committees job. I agree but this committee cant do our job if none of the witnesses testify before our committee, even ones we talked about Calling Today and the majority has said, we dont want. We still dont have an answer what this committee will do once this hearing ends. The Committee Received mr. Schiffs report yesterday but we still dont have the underlying evidence. The rules set up by this body are not being set up to this day yet nobody talks about it on the majority side. The people talked about their feelings and guesses and presumptions. The facts may not matter to the majority but 97 of the other facts do matter to the American People. My problem is this, as the Ranking Member of this committee, one of the oldest, most should be factbased, legalbased committees we have
here, where impeachment should be all along, i have a group of members who have no idea where we are headed next. I bet if i asked the majority members outside the chairman they dont have a clue either, very much one. If they have, they should share it. This is not a time to play hide the ball, this is noa time to say we will figure it out on the fly. Youre talking about overturning 63 million votes on a president dully elected doing this is job everyday, by the way, overseas today while were doing this, working with our nato allies. The question i have is where do we head next . We heard this ambiguous presentation. Here is my challenge already voted down and tabled today. Mr. Schiff should testify. Chairman schiff, not his staff, must appear before this committee, about the contents of this report. Thats what was started 25 years ago and commanded. I said a couple weeks ago, mr. Chairman, the history is on us. It is time we talk and share how were Going Forward. Im still waiting for answers. Mr. Chairman, as we look ahead, as the democratic majority promised this would be a fair process when it got to the judiciary for the president and others. The president , you may say he could have come today, what would this have done . Nothing. Theres no Fact Witnesses, nothing to rebut. A good time to see really nothing came of it the end of the day. Why should he be here . Lets bring Fact Witnesses in and bring people in because as you said, mr. Chairman, you said, your words, we should never on this committee accept an entity giving us a report and not investigate it ourselves. Undoubtedly were well on our way to doing that because of a calendar and a clock. Mr. Chairman, i know youre about to give a statement you worked on and they worked on hard. Before you gavel and start your statement and before you go any further, i would like to know two things. When do you plan on scheduling our minority hearing today and number two when are we actually going to have real witnesses here that are Fact Witnesses in this case . When . Or what you said many years ago, has faded, just like the leaves in fall. I dont really care inform that somebody else gives us a report. Undoubtly chairmanship is dhairm over everything with impeachment and he doesnt get to testify, he will send a staff member. I dont even know if we will have a hearing past that to figure out anything thats been going on. My question as i started out today is where is fairness . It was promised. Its not being delivered. The facts talked about were not facts delivered. This president as facts given, did nothing wrong, nothing to be
impeached and nothing for why were here. In the words of one of our witnesses, mr. Turlly, if you rush through this, you do it on flimsy ground the American People will not forget the light of history. Today, before you give your Opening Statement closing statement, before you get to this time, my question is, will you talk to this committee, your chairman . You hold a very prestigious role. Will you let us know where were going . Are we going to adjourn from here after you sum up everything saying that they all did good and go out from here . Were still wondering. The lights are on. Its time to answer the question. I yield back. The gentleman yields back. Before my closing statement, i want to acknowledge i received a letter today requesting minority day of testimony under rule 11. I have not had a chance to read the letter and look forward to conferring with the Ranking Member about this request after i have a chance to review it. I have a question. You cant review a letter. Theres no demand. The gentleman is not recognized. Theres nothing for you to review. I recognize myself for a closing statement. George washingtons farewell address warns of a moment when cunning, ambitious and unprincipled men will be unable to subvert the power of the people and subvert for themselves the reins of the government. President trump placed his own personal and political interests above our national interests, above the security of our country, and most importantly above our most precious right, the ability of each and every one of us to participate in fair elections, free of corruption. The constitution has a solution for a president who places his personal or political interests above those in the nation, the power of impeachment. As one of my colleagues pointed out, i have in the past articulated a threepart test for impeachment. Let me be clear, all three parts
of that test have been met. First, yes, the president has committed and Impeachable Offense. The president asked the Foreign Government to intervene in our elections, then got caught, then obstructed the investigators twice. Our witnesses told us in no Uncertain Terms this conduct constitutes High Crimes And Misdemeanors including abuse of power. Second, yes, the president s alleged offense represent a direct threat to the constitutional order. Professor karlan warned, joining a Foreign Government into our election process is an especially serious abuse of power because it undermines democracy itself. Professor feldman echoed, if we cannot impeach a president who abuses his office for personal advantage, we no longer live in a democracy, we live in a monarchy or under a dictatorship. Professor gerhardt reminded us
if what were talking about is not impeachable, then nothing is impeachable. President trumps actions represent the threat to our National Security and an urgent threat to the integrity of the next election. Third, yes, we should not proceed unless at least some of the citizens who supported the president in the last election are willing to come with us. A majority of this country is clearly prepared to impeach and remove President Trump. Rather than respond to the unsettling and dangerous evidence my republican colleagues have called this process unfair. It is not, nor is this argument new. My colleagues on the other side of the aisle, unable to defend the behavior of the president , have used this argument before. First, they said that these proceedings were not constitutional because we did not have a floor vote. We then had a floor vote. Then, they said our proceedings
were not constitutional because they could not call witnesses. Republicans called three of the witnesses in the hearings of the Intelligence Committee and will have an opportunity to request witnesses in this committee as well. Next, they said our proceedings were not constitutional because the president could not participate. When the committee invited the president to participate in this hearing he declined. The simple fact is that all these proceedings have all the protections provided prior president s. This process follows the constitutional and legal precedents. I am left to conclude the only reason my colleagues rush from one process complaint to the next because there is no factual defense for President Trump. Unlike any other president before him, President Trump has openly rejected congresss right as a coequal branch of government. He has defied our subpoenas,
refused to produce any documents and directed his aides not to testify. President trump has also asked a Foreign Government to intervene in our elections and he has made clear if left unchecked he will do it again. Why . He believes, in his own words quote, i can do whatever i want unquote. That is why we must act now. In this country, the president cannot do whatever he wants. In this country, no one, not even the president , is above the law. Today, we begin our conversation where we should with the text of the constitution. We have clearly from our witnesses the constitution compels action. Indeed, every witness including the witness selected by the republican side, agreed that if President Trump did what the Intelligence Committee found him to have done, after extensive and compelling witnesses from the Trump Administration officials, he committed
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
to our democracy. I will honor my oath. As i sit here today, having heard consistent, clear and compelling evidence, that the president has abused his power, attempted to undermine the constitutional role of congress, and corrupted our elections, i urge my colleagues, stand behind the oath you have taken. Our democracy depends on it. This concludes the hearing. The gentleman can have recognition. Pursuant the rule i am giving notice for unconstitutional grounds for president ial impeachment. Noted. This concludes todays hearing. We thank all our witnesses pore participating. Without objection, they will have we ask the to the witnesses its too late
without objection, that harg is adjourned. Give me a break. Just typical, isnt it . Just typical. A rather acrimonious ending 8 1 2 hours of testimony, started at 10 00 eastern earlier today, now just after 6 30 p. M. On the east coast. We want to welcome our viewers in the United States and around the world. Im wolf blitzer, in the situation room, a hearing, an historic event just concluded, House Democrats laying the legal groundwork for impeaching the president of the United States as the Committee Moves towards drafting charges of articles of impeachment, three constitutional experts called by the democrats testifying the president did commit impeachable acts with ukraine, one saying the conduct is worse than the actions of any previous president. A legal scholar invited by
republicans strongly argued impeachment isnt warranted and the process is moving too fast. Lets get analysis from jeffrey toobin. You were watching and all of us were watching since tuesday morning. You remember they said it was a circus, it wasnt a circus. It was good discussions about constitutional issues and both sides got to make their points. Good for them. That was the purpose of this hearing. I thought it was all appropriate. Three points i thought came through here. One, it is clear under the constitution that an Impeachable Offense does not have to be a crime, does not have to be a violation of federal or any kind of law. I think everybody all four agreed about that. The other point, the idea that the president withholding evidence the way he has issued a complete wholesale refusal to
allow witnesses, to have produced documents, emails, texts, that is a very serious part of this investigation. In many ways paralyzes the impeachment Power Congress possesses under the constitution. The third point both sides i thought made very important points on, whether theres enough evidence here. The pro Impeachment Lawyers made the point that the fact that the president is withholding all this evidence entitles the members of congress to draw an interference against the president , this is further evidence the president deserves to be impeached. Jonathan turley, for the defense as it will, says, no, the process should slow down and impeachment should not proceed. That was my take, but i thought it was a good day for the
congress and for the constitution. Jim schiutto. Jonathan turllys point was interesting because the effective argument was you havent proven the case yet. If you prove a quid pro quo, you might have an Impeachable Offense. He was in effect saying, take more time, democrats, if you are serious about this process, go to the courts, if necessary, to compel Witnesses Essential to establish the president s direction for withholding the aid for political favor. Thats one thing. I would say on the facts here, there are a lot of things the republicans in their defense use as facts, since been belied by sworn testimony in these probations. We heard it at the end from doug collins, the ukraines didnt even know the aid was delayed until after the ukraine phone call. We know thats not true. Laura cooper in a phone call talked about it in july. It still has life even though it has been disproven. President zelensky said repeatedly, no pressure. That is true. You might understand the circumstances why a smaller ally might not call out the president for squeezing him here. And saying the following in this interview, the republican congressman did not complete the rest of the quote. Were at war. If youre a Strategic Partner you cant go blocking anything from us, about fairness, saying what the core of this process is about here. Ally at war, crucial aid was blocked. Its up to sitting Congress Men And Women and the American People whether thats impeachable. On that issue, the ukrainian president confirmed that in his public statement. He will meet with putin next week for the first time to talk about potential peace. Hes going in with a weak hand because putin knows he doesnt have the full backing of the United States and speaks not only to pressure internally but
externally. I thought dean said she thought it brought the constitution to life. I thought so, too, very much a crash course of the constitution and put us in the mind of the framers. They were flawed men for all sorts of reasons but very concerned about foreign influence in elections. I think the democrats failed to make that over and over again. This is about the president trying to disrupt an american election. We talk about ukraine, which is important but doesnt necessarily connect with the average american viewer. Grounding it in the constitution, obviously making the case, this is the first time we heard from witnesses that impeachment is the remedy founders envisioned because they were so worried about this and this idea republicans saying, you should wait until the election. Theyre saying, no, you
shouldnt wait until the election if this is an american president that wants to interfere in this election, there is a Clear And Present Danger and this remedy is important to do now. Thats important. Susan, what did you think . It made me feel old, deja vu all over again, you watched the Clinton Hearings and people switching seats, Jonathan Turley and nadlers words calling it a partis Partisan Coup came back and the one participating in every single one had an extensive argument what is an Impeachable Offense and in the end, a constitution is a Living Document and members of congress get to decide what is an Impeachable Offense. To the success of President Trumps strategy of stone walling congress, i found that was really the theme that ran
through todays hearing, how should we think about that in terms of is it, by its very nature disrupting the constitutional Balance Of Power to refuse evidence and have the main republican witnesses say, therefore theres not enough evidence to prove an Impeachable Offense. I thought that got to the heart of it. I was worried it would be a circus and we got through it and there didnt seem to be. It was pretty substantive, the whole 8 1 2 hours. No kidding. A lot of details came out. This is what i didnt understand about Congressman Collins objection at the end there, how it was waste of time to listen to these constitutional scholars. I found it very illuminating. At the beginning of the judiciary process, that was a great way to open it up and explain What The Constitution Means And Doesnt Mean and get
conflicting opinion. I thought it was a terrific scene setter. People all over the world are watching, the president returning from this Nato Summit In London right now, where he was meeting with world leaders. Clearly, this is having an impact. It is. Any time youre having nuanced thoughtful discussions on national television, im all for it. Its a good display of exactly what the issues are at stake. I thought all four witnesses were quite effective. I thought Jonathan Turley was a very effective witness for the republicans because it was not, as we heard in the Intelligence Committee hearings, everyone dismissing the president s behavior, this isnt bad, no proof, whats so bad about what he did. He conceded the point this is not normal behavior necessarily befitting a president but making an argument about the process. Thats pretty decent ground for them to be arguing on Going Forward rather than this was a perfect call. Did you hear one republican agree with him . No. That it wasnt a perfect call. Nothats whats so amazing. The degree to which we no longer have a Republican Party as john boehner has said, we have a trump party, not one of them even granted this was a less than perfect phone call. Tu turley, to his credit acknowledged this was a problem, although not grounds for impeachment. And not one single republican in that Big Cast Of Characters out there, acknowledged the less than perfect nature. Do you think attitudes were changed among democrats and republicans . People came with strongly held views. It looks to me like theyre leaving with those strongly held views. The people on that committee,
i think they came in with those strongly held views and left with those strongly held views. This is a process that will take a while. Likely go to the senate and more information comes out. To the turley point, turley is essentially arguing for a longer process and more information. That doesnt seem to be what the gop actually wants. The question about what that process is, the republicans demanded, and chairman nadler did not answer, they seemed to suggest this morning in the questioning, they were considering an Obstruction Of Justice article of impeachment that would incorporate elements of the Mueller Report that has to do with the president s obstruction, however, it was pointed out there were no Fact Witnesses around this, as Congressman Collins said. Im left wondering whats next. Hopefully we will find out fairly soon. I want to speak to one of the
impeachment witnesses who testified, from the North Carolina school of law, michael, i know its been a long day. Take us inside the room. What was it like for you . Theres a lot happening for you. You have to focus and ignore the cameras and those behind you and listen to the questions and thats all happening at once. I think it helps that ive been there before. At the same time, this is a moment that is very where theres a lot at stake. A lot at stake on both sides and i think all of us felt that. What messages do you think congress will send if congress doesnt followthrough with impeachment . Its a great question. Thats one of my single biggest concerns. If congress doesnt followthrough with impeachment my concern is whatever this
conduct is, its okay. The president will likely repeat it and every other president will say, i can do it. It may be an impact but not enduring impact. A professor for the Washington School of law, Professor Turley, you may have disagreed with him on certain points, does he have a good point democrats could build a stronger case by slowing the process down . Hes got a point there. Democrats could try and do that. The difficulty is they already asked all the witnesses that mr. Turley was referring to, to testify. Theyre all under subpoena, and the president has said and directed those people not to testify. Theyve been trying behind the scenes to get those people to testify. Its not clear waiting will get those people to testify. The democrats have tried that and failed. Unfortunately, Professor Turley didnt give us any other strategy how the democrats could be successful getting these witnesses to testify. Go ahead, jeffrey. No one knows more about impeachment than you do. You literally wrote the book on it. What about the facts needs to be explored in these hearings . Should there be witnesses who testify about what they saw, as we saw in the Intelligence Committee, or should this be just lawyers and other people who conducted the investigation . Jeff, youre right to ask that question. Fact witnesses are clearly the most important. People there, witness to it, what they heard and saw and read, thats the most important thing. I would agree with everybody who talked about the importance of Fact Witnesses. Our advice is helpful, but were not the central part of this story. The important part of the story is all about the facts. Its the houses job to apply
the law to those facts. Are you saying the Intelligence Committee hearing and the report filed yesterday is not enough for a legitimate basis for impeachment . I think it is. I think to focus on the Fact Witnesses critical. They have the foundation and record to support the Intelligence Committees findings and that comes through the Judiciary Committee. I think on the record we have enough evidence for impeachable witnesses but im all for Fact Witnesses. Another question as well. I wonder as you listen to Professor Turley questioned, he made the point the white house has not allowed key opinionswit close to the president to testify and no key documents to congress there. Based on history, was the congressman right there, that if you look at previous
impeachments, that was the standard and is trump in effect setting a new standard here for lack of cooperation . That was one of the things said in my testimony and kept repeating throughout the day. I think its a critical problem. Every other president facing impeachment inquiry, and not talking about many, they cooperated with it and acknowledged it was legitimate. To revs to recognize its legitimize and refuse to recognize any inquiry to go on, thats the problem here. I think the president , if he were more cooperative actually might find this to be less of a problem for himself. You got questions about political donations and political affiliations. Do you worry the partisanship of Witnesses Today distracted from the testimony and overall performance . Di worry about that. One of the things that struck me when i was there, you asked about this initially, the
importance for the house to recognize impeachment will test everyone. Its a test for the house. How will they handle this in a civil responsible way. A test for witnesses to be treated seriously and test for the American People as well. I worry when it become as pe personal attack, personal attacks have no place in our system of government and Dont Have Standing On Whats Going on. You explained in your statement not all Impeachable Offenses are not actually crimes and not all crimes are Impeachable Offenses. Tell us why thats important in your view . Its very important and fundamental to the Impeachment Process. Therefore, what the Impeachment Process is set up to do, insure were not focused on the statute, i think that was a mistake to become so focused what criminal statutes are, historically, impeachment is not
whats in the statute and impeachment offenses are not necessarily criminal offenses and abuses of power not outlawed but abuses of power of the constitution and thats what theyre to look into and necessarily the sanctions. What do you expect articles of impeachment to look like . I think theyre going to probably look rather familiar, based on the discussion today. I think the discussion was focused on figuring out what are the likely Impeachable Offenses that can be based on the records set by the house Intelligence Committee and otherwise other evidence otherwise available to the committee, so therefore i think bribery is i think Obstruction Of Justice sounds like it may be another, obstruction may be a third and i cant speak to that because that was the focus of our discussion. While you were testifying, the New York Times reported that Rudy Giuliani has traveled to ukraine to meet with the same officials who were pushing some of the president s conspiracy theories. Whats your reaction to that . I dont think that can be good. I i think that mr. Giuliani presumably is doing that at the direction of the president. I presume hes not doing that because its just his own idea. If he is doing it at the direction of the president then it sounds like the misconduct that has been of concern today is ongoing, and that is a real concern for the country. You know, its its an important moment right now. Step back for a moment and hold on for one moment, michael. Jerry nadler, the Committee Chairman is meeting with reporters. Are we ready . Were ready. Good evening. The facts presented at the
hearing today were overwhelming and compelling. They were overwhelming as to the president s abuses of power, the president s abuse of congress the president s betrayal of oath under the constitution. They were overwhelming and they were overwhelming in that they clearly show and the witnesses testified that they meet all of the requirements for impeachment, that they meet all of the requirements envisioned by the framers for impeachment and that impeachment, in fact, was put in the constitution to protect against the president as this one has. The evidence is obvious, so overwhelming, that the republicans did not really present or try to present a
factual defense. All they kept talking about was process, and they pointed out that i have propounded in the past and i talked in the past about a threepart test of impeachability and as you heard in my closing statement, this situation meets all three tests. The president committed Impeachable Offenses. They were important Impeachable Offenses and they go to the heart of the Constitutional Republic and they threaten the survival of the democracy and free elections and the majority of the people and of the house, i believe, understand that. Those are the three tests. The committee will take the information we receive today and we will proceed pursuant to House Resolution 660 and the
procedures contained within it and we will receive evidence, more evidence and we will conduct the proper hearings and period. Thank you very much. When will you have the hearing . There is the chairman of the Judiciary Committee jerry nadler making a statement and refusing to answer questions from reporters and lots of questions need to be answered and specifically What Happens Next . What does jeffrey toobin, we dont know What Happens Next. We dont know. It is remarkably fluid, this situation. Will there be more Fact Witnesses . Will they try to get don mcgahn in . It seems unlikely that he will because that case is now caught up in the court, but if there are you know, eyewitnesses, Fact Witnesses who would they be . It seems unlikely any of them would turn up. Will they try to have some sort of hearing where they introduce the Mueller Report where they
sort of talk about the Obstruction Of Justice and the obstruction of congress that Director Mueller disclosed in his report and will they figure out a way to make Nancy Pelosis selfimposed deadline through the entire house of representatives by the end of the year . Its a lot and there is no clear road map ahead, at least none that they have disclosed publicly. If i can add one more if to that and michael teed this up, he has license to seek foreign help in this election and right now his personal attorney is in kiev meeting with prosecutors for a documentary, i guess, kind of a political film digging up still dirt on the bidens. This is the essential issue here. Did the president seek foreign help in the election and were 11 months into that election and it doesnt seem like the president and the team believe they will face hard consequences from continuing that and thats
a disturbing thing. Hold that thought for a moment. Congressman ted lu serves on the Judiciary Committee and took part in todays historic meeting and thanks so much for joining us. Based on what you heard today how strong of a legal and historical standing do you and your fellow democrats have, Those Who Support Impeaching the president . I thank you, wolf, for your question. I think there is a strong case to be made. The witnesses testified very clearly that the Framers Of The Constitution Put in the Impeachment Provisions specifically to deal with the situation where the president engaged in an abuse of power or bribe sxree that looks like what we have here. We have donald trump who is basically withholding military aid in exchange for having ukrainians launch a bogus investigation into his political rival that looks just like bribery. If the vote were held today,
congressman, would you vote to impeach the president . No decision has been made as to whether or not we will go forward for impeachment and it looks very bad for the president and the law looks even worse for the president. Like most member, you focused your questions on the witnesses. Did democrats miss the opportunity to the invited Professor Turley . Some of the members did question Professor Turley, as well. There was so much information that we wanted to ask that it was simply a matter of making sure that we get the information out there to educate the American People in the first place. Professor turley said impeaching a president of the United States is one of the most serious things the house of representatives can do. He says why are you guys rushing this . Why not build a stronger case . Let things, for example, play out in the courts as far as getting subpoenas answered and witnesses from the white house, from elsewhere in the executive
branch to actually show up . Actually, were not rushing it. The Clinton Impeachment was approximately 72 days and were at day 71 and weve had extensive hearings and extensive witness transcripts and the most damning evidence came out first, and it was the white house call robert showing donald trump solicited the dnc server and theres no reason for the american president to solicit foreign interference for his personal benefit . Do you know when the next hearing will take place . What happens now . We will have a hearing next week with the house Intel Majority and the house intel minority will present their reports to the Judiciary Committee. What day is that . I dont know the exact date. It will be next week. What follows after that . That is beyond my pay grade, wolf. You will leave it to the chairman it make those decisions. Thanks very much. Thats actually important
news he just disclosed. Well see what happens. Thats been the big, you know, mystery here. Republicans are complaining that theyve been in the dark and theyre not necessarily in the dark. They can bring witnesses here and ted lieu kind of playing coy here and he hasnt made up his mind on impeachment and were hearing that from a lot of democrats and even though they clearly have made up their mind on impeachment. Its a big question as to whether nancy pelosi also senses what they accomplished here and did not yet accomplish, right . And did she make a political calculation, they need more and maybe the time line they discussed if this vote before christmas was too aggressive . Well see. Theyre trying to resolve this and get these articles of impeachment voted on by christmas. Nancy pelosi met with the caucus today and there were calls from the caucus saying yes, were ready and shell be giving her town hall tomorrow, but i think shell stick with her plan. . Shes under a lot of pressure and theyre all under a lot of