Other important things that are going undone. Within this committees own jurisdiction we should address the Opioid Epidemic and could be working together to find solutions to the challenges on our southern border. Protecting americans from jobs stolen by Chinese Companies and enhancing Election Security to name a few things. Congress as a whole could be working on rebuilding our crumbling infrastructure, providing additional tax relief to the nations middle class families and providing additional security to our people here at home and abroad. Instead here we are spinning our wheels once again on impeachment. What a waste. The American People deserve so much better. I yield back. Gentleman yields back. Thank you, mr. Chair. I take no pleasure in the fatha were here today. As a patriot who loves america,
it pain meese ths me the circum force us to undertake this solemn obligation. Nonetheless on the public evidence it appears President Trump pressured a Foreign Government to interfere in our elections investigating a perceived chief political opponent. Were here to uphold our oath and further understanding that the president s conduct is impeachable. Entirely appropriate we examine the nations history relating to this. Framers of the constitution legitimately feared for interference in our National Sovereignty and wanted to ensure a check and balance on the executive. We sit here as a duty to fulfill theyre constitution. Impeach a president for treason, bribery or other high crimes and misdemean misdemeanor. High refers to both Crimes And Misdemeanors. Can you give a little summary of
what high Crimes And Misdemeanors are and how theyre distinct from what Professor Turley said they were. Yes, sir. They are actions of the president in office where he uses his office to advance his personal interesting, potentially for personal gain, potentially to corrupt the Electoral Process and potentially as well against the National Security interests of the United States. I would add, sir, that the word high modifies both Crimes And Misdemeanors. The framers world knew of both high crimes and highs did me meaners and i believe the definition posted earlier of misdemeanor was not the definition of high misdemeanor a specific term understood by the founding fathers. Its easy mistake to make but high misdemeanors their own category of abuses of office and those are the things that are impeachable. Thank you, professor. Professors feldman, gerhardt and
karlan, Abuse Of Power, betrayal of National Interest ares and corruption of elections. Is that right, professor karlan. Yes, it is. And professor feldman and professor gerhardt, do you agree. Yes, sir. Professor karlan you stated essence of impeachmentable the president s decision to sacrifice the National Interests for his own end. Do you agree with that, all of you . Yes, sir. Yes, sir. Based on the evidence youve seen, professors feldman, karlan and gerhardt, has President Trump sacrificed the countrys interests in favor of his own . Professor karlan . Yes, he has. Is there a particular piece of evidence that most illuminating that. What illuminates that most for me is the statement by ambassador sondland that he wanted simply the announcement of an investigation and several other people said exactly the same thing. Theres testimony by ambassador
volker to this extent as well. What he wanted, simply Public Information to damage joe biden. He didnt care whether end of the day joe biden was found guilty or exonerated. And professor feldman, do you agree or a difference . My emphasis is on the fact the president held up aid to an ally fighting a war in direct contravention of the unanimous recommendation of the National Security community. That to me seems to have placed his own interests in personal advantage ahead of the interests of the nation. And a bill passed by congress, bipartisan . Yes, sir. Professor gerhardt . I agree with what my colleagues have said and add im very concerneden a the president s obstruction of congress. Obstruction of this inquiry, refusal to comply with a number of subpoenas ordering many high level officials in the government not to comply with the subpoenas and in ordering the entire Executive Branch not to cooperate with congress. Its useful to remember the constitution says the house has
the sole power to impeach. The constitution only uses the word sole. Once with reference to the house in this area and once with reference to the senate with respect to Impeachment Trials. Sole means sole. Means only. This is your decision. Let me get Professor Turley into this. Professor turley, youre a selfdescribed, selfanointed defender of article 1 congress guy. But of you justify a position that says legally issued subpoenas by congress enforcing its powers dont have to be complied with. Seems in this circumstance youre an article 2 executive guy. And your Talking Ak The Johnson impeachment is not useful. Maladministration. This is a criminal act. Thank you, professors for helping us understand high Crimes And Misdemeanors. We the peoples representatives in the peoples house have a high responsibility charged with the sole power to uphold our constitution and defend other democracy and we sha do that. Gentlemans time expired. Mr. Gomez . Thank you. Im afraid this hearing is indicative of the indecency to which weve come when instead of the committee of jurisdiction bringing in facts witnesses to get to the bottom of what happened, and not even having time to review the report, which as Professor Turley indicated is wafer thin when compared to the 36 boxes of documents that were delivered to the last impeachment group, but then to start this hearing with the chairman of the committee saying that the facts are undisputed. The only thing that is disputed more than the facts in this case is the statement that the facts are undisputed. They are absolutely disputed, and the evidence is a bunch of
hearsay on hearsay that if anybody here had tried cases before of enough magnitude you would know you cant rely on hearsay on hearsay but we have experts who know better than the accumulated experience of the ages. So here we are and i would submit, we need some factual witnesses. We do not need to receive a report that we dont have a chance to read before this hearing. We need a chance to bring in actual fact witnesses, and there are a couple i can name that are critical to us getting to the bottom. They work for the National Security security council. Abigail grace, shawn misco worked with Vice President biden on different matters involving ukraine. Worked with brennan and mcmasters. They have absolutely critical
information about certain ukrainians involvement in our u. S. Election. Their relationships with the witnesses who went before the Intel Committee and others involved in these allegations make them the most critical witnesses in this entire investigation. And the records including their emails or text messages, the flash drives or computers have information that will bring this effort to remove the president to a screeching halt. So we have an article here from october 11, Gary Pickett Points Out that House Intelligence Committee chairman adam schiff recruited to former National Security aides who worked alongside the whistleblower at the nsc during the obama and trump administrations, Abigail Grace worked at the nsc until 2018, hired in february while shawn misco, nsc aide until 2017 join schiffs committee in
august. The same month the whistleblower submitted his complaint. And it goes on to point out that grace was hired to Help Schiffs Committee Investigate The Trump white house. That month trump Accused Schiff of stealing people who were working at the white house. And chairman schiff said, if the president s worried ak hour hires former administration maybe he should work on being a better employer. No. He should have fired everybody just like bill clinton did all the u. S. Attorneys on the same day. That would have saved us a lot of whats going on here. So, anyway, we need those two witnesses. Theyre critical, and then we also need someone who is a cia detailee to the ukraine nsc desk, State Department Voyeur Shows Italy implications in the last elections. He speaking arabic and russian,
reported directly to charles kupchan, a friend of the clintons aide, blumenthal, policy work for ukraine corruption. Close continuous contact with the fbi state ukrainian officials. A Collateral Duty to support Vice President biden and biden was obamas point man on ukraine. Associated with dnc operative ally chalupa who we also need. Met with her november 9, 2015 with ukrainian delegation, and theres all kinds of reasons we need these three witnesses, and i would ask pursuant to section 4 House Resolution 660, ask our chairman to, i mean our ranking member, to submit the requests for these three witnesses, because were not having a factual hearing until we have these people that are at the
bottom of every fact of this investigation. Gentlemans time thanks for bringing down the gavel hard. That was nice. Gentleman yields back. In johnson. Thank you, there chairman. The president has regularly and recent recently interfered in our elections. Professor turley says its an impulse by moments and suggests the house should pause. Professor karlan, do you agree with Professor Turley . No. If you conclude as i think the evidence to this point shows that the president is soliciting foreign involvement in our election you need to act now to prevent foreign interference in the next election like the one we had in the past. Thank you, professor karlan. In 30 seconds or less, why was the president conduct so egregious it merits drastic
remedy of impeachment. He invited the russians longtime adversaries into the process. The last time around. Because he has invited the ukrainians into the process and because he suggested he would like the chinese to come into the process as well. Thank you very much. One of the framers Of Our Constitution Ed Mcrandolph Who at one time was mayor of williamsburg, virginia, warned us that the executive will have great opportunities of abusing his power. Professor feldman, people like mayor randolph rebelled, because of the tyranny of a king. Wipe would tere the framers so l for a president to become so tyrannical and abusive and what did they do to protect against it . The framers believed strongly the people were the king. The people were sovereign meaning the president worked to are somebody. He worked for the people. They how thatofknew thknew a not be checked, supervised by his own party and by congress and be impeached would effectively be above the law and use his power to get reelected and why they created the impeachment remedy. Thank you. How the framers concerns about Abuse Of Power relate to President Trumps misconduct. On july 25th, President Trump said to president zelensky, i would like you to do us a favor, though. Professor feldman, when President Trump made use of the words favor, though, do you believe that the president was benignly asking for a favor, and how it the answer to that question relevant to whether the president abused his power . Its relevant, sir, because theres nothing wrong with someone asking for a favor in the interests of the United States of america. The problem is, for the president to use his office to solicit or demaund a fand a fav
personal benefit. Given the incentives the president created for ukraine to comply for his request the president was seeking to serve his own personal benefit and interest. Thats the definition of corruption under the constitution. Other witnesses have also testified that it was their impression that when President Trump said i would like you to do us a favor, though, that he was actually making a demand and not a request. Professor feldman, how does Lieutenant Colonel vindmans testimony that the president s statement was a demand because of the power disparity between the two countries relate back to our framers concerns about the president s Abuse Of Power . Lieutenant colonel vindmans observation states clearly you have to understand the president of the United States has so much more power than the president of ukraine. When the president uses the word favor the reality, hes
applying tremendous pressure. The pressure of the power of the United States. That relates to the constitutional abuse of office. If someone other than the president of the United States asks the president of ukraine to do a favor the president of ukraine could say no. When the president of the United States uses the office of the presidency to ask for a favor, theres simply no way for the president of ukraine to refuse. Thank you. We have also heard testimony the president withheld a white house meeting, and military aid, to further pressure ukraine to announce investigations of Vice President biden and the 2016 election. Professor karlan, is that why your testimony concluded that the president abused his power . I thought the president abused his power by asking for a criminal investigation of the United States citizen for political ends regardless of everything else. Thats just its not icing on the cake. You call an aggravating circumstance there was need here. All right. Thank you. A president holding an american ally over a barrel to extract personal favors is deeply troubling. This is not a impulse by moment. Its a great lake the glass moment and impeachment is the only appropriate remedy and with that i will yield back. Gentleman yields back. There jordan. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Before Speaker Pelosi announced the impeachment inquiry ten weeks ago september 24th, before the call between President Trump and president zelensky on july 25th, before the mueller hearing in front of this committee on july 24th, before all of that, 16 of them had already voted to move forward on impeachment. 16 democrats on the Judiciary Committee had already voted to move forward on impeachment yet today were talking whether the positions theyve already taken are constitutional . Seems a little backward to me. I mean, we cant get agreement. I think four deaths what . Four people voted for clinton and they cant agree. Yet today we talk about the constitution. Professor turley, youve been great today, but i think you were wrong on one thing. You said this is a fast impeachment. I would argue its not a fast impeachment. Its a predetermined impeachment. Predetermined impeachment done in the most unfair partisan fashion we have ever seen. No Subpoena Power for republicans. Deaf zi depositions done in secret in the bunker of the capitol, 17 people come in, no one in there except a handful of folks adam schiff alloweds. Chairman schiff prevented witnesses from testifying. Democrats denies witnesses we wanted in the open hearing that took place three weeks ago and of course democrats promiseded whistleblower would testify and then changed their mind. When they changed their mind, why . Because the whole world discovered adam schiffs staff had talked to the whistleblower
coordinated with the whistleblower. The whistleblower with no firsthand knowledge biased against the president who worked with joe biden whose lawyer in January Of 17 said the Impeachment Process starts then. Thats the unfair process weve been through. The reason its unfair, cut to the chase. The reason its been unfair is because the facts arent on their side. The facts are on the president s side. Four key facts have not changed will never change. The transcript, no quid pro quo in the transcript. Two guys on the call, President Trump and zelensky, no pressure, no quid pro quo. Ukrainians third been know aid was held up at time of the phone call, fourth, most important, ukrainians never promised never promised to start and never announced investigation at the time the aid was paused. Never once. What did happens in those 55 days the aid was paused . There were five key meetings between president zelensky and senior officials in our government. Five key meetings, at the call on july 25th. Very next day. July 26th, ambassador volker, taylor and sondland met with president zelensky in kyiv. Then ambassador bolton end of august meet with president zelensky and then the Vice President met with president Zelensky September 1 and two senators republican and more importantly democrat senator murphy with republican senator johnson meet with president zelensky on september 5ths none of those five meeting, none of those, was aid ever discussed for exchange of investigation into anybody. Not one. You would think the last two after the ukrainians did know aid was being withheld, you think it could come up then. Particularly senator murphy was talking about it. The facts are on the president s side. We got an unfair process,
because they dont have the facts. An unfair process, most importantly. This is Something Else you said, mr. Turley. This is scary. How mad the country that was so well said. This is scary. The democrats have never accepted the will of the American People. Top mr. Turleys point. 17 days ago, 17 days ago, the speaker of the United States house of representatives calmed the president of the United States an impostor. The guy 63 million american voted for, won a landslide electoral and called him impostor. Thats not healthy for our country. This is not healthy. The facts are the facts they are on the president s side. Thats what we need to focus on not some constitutional hearing at the end of the process when you guys have already determined where youre going to go. With that i yield back. Gentleman yields. Mr. Deutsche . Thank you, mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, this month we commemorate the 75th Anniversary of battle of the bulge. My late father then Staff Sergeant deutsche received a purple heart fighting in the frigid ardens. He gave blood among tens of thousands of americans who suffered war casualties. Served under officers and a Commander In Chief who were not fighting a war for their own personal benefit. They put country first. They made the same solemn promise that members of congress and the president of the United States make. To always put National Interests above their own personal interest. The evidence shows that the president broke that promise. Constitutional gives the president enormous power and imposes a remedy, impeachment when the powers are abused. . July President Trump said i
quote, i have an article 2. I have the right to do whatever i want as president. Quote unquote. Prompt feldman, the president has broad powers under the Constitution Including in Foreign Policy. Right . Yes, sir. To those powers, does that mean the president can do as se head, whatever he wants as president . Can he abuse the powers that the constitution gives him . He may not. If the president uses the powers hes given for personal gain or corrupt an election, or against the National Security interests of the United States, he may be impeached for a high crime and misdemeanor. Is using his power to pressure ukraine interfering in u. S. Elections abuse of that power . Yes, sir. Professor gerhardt, how would the Framers Of The Constitution have viewed a president asking for election interference from a foreign leader . Its always its, you know, practically possible to know exactly what they would think but nod hard how the Constitution Deals with it. Legacy to us. A Roar Phorrifying abuse of pow professor karlan, witnesses testified about their concerns when the president used his Foreign Policy powers for political gain. Ltd colonel vindman was shocked. Couldnt believe what he heard on the phone call. Nsc adviser hill realized a political error was verging to protects our National Security policy. And ambassador taylor thought it was crazy to withhold Security Assistance for help on a political campaign. Professor karlan, these concerns arent mere differences over policy. Are they . No. They go to the foundation, the very foundation of our democracy. And offering to exchange a white house meeting and hundreds of millions of dollars in Security Assistance for help with his reelection that cant be part of our nations Foreign Policy. Can it . No. Its the essence of doing something for personal reasons
rather than for political reasons, and if i could say one thing about this briefly. Which is, maybe when he was first running for president he had never been anything other than a Reality Tv Show you know, his public his public life. Maybe then could think, russia if youre listening, thats an okay thing to do. But by the time he asked ukraine, ukraine if yourive willing help me in mip election he has to have known that wasnt kivt with lis oath of office. Are founders granted the president of the United States enormous powers, but at the same time weve been reminded of today, they worry that these powers could be abused by a corrupt president. The evidence of Abuse Of Power in this inquiry proved that our founders were right to the worried. Yes, yes, the president has the power to direct americas Foreign Policy, but, no, he cannot use that power to cheat
in our elections. Remember, i asked all of my colleagues to remember, the constitution grants the president his power through the American People. The president s source of power is a democratic election. It is the American People, the voters, who trusted him to look out for them. We trusted him to look out for the country. But instead, President Trump looked out for himself. In helping himself get reelected. He abused the power that we trusted him with for personal and political gain. The founders worried about just this type of Abuse Of Power. And they provided one way, one way for congress to respond. And thats the power of impeachment. I yield back. Jap yields back. Mr. Buck. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Professor turley i want to direct these first few questions to you. The other three witnesses have identified this Amorphous Standard For Impeaching A president. Theyve said if a president abuse s his power for personal r political gain its impeachable conduct. Do you agree . Not the way its been stated. In fact, theres so many different standards i got a long ways to go here. Well, so many different standards, one was attempting to abuse office. Okay. Not sure how to recognize that let alone define it. Let me go with a few examples and see if you agree with me. Lyndon johnson. Directed the Central Intelligence agency to place is a pie in Barry Goldwaters campaign. That spy got advance copies of speeches and other strategy. Is that impeachable conduct according to the other panelists . Broadly. I assume so. How about when president johnson put a wiretap on goldwaters Campaign Plane . Would that be for political benefit . Well, i cant exclude anything under that definition. A few other president s see where we go. Congressman deutch informed us fdr put country first. Now, Franklin Delaware Roosevelt directed the Internal Revenue service to conduct audits of his political enemies. Namely huey long, William Randolph hurst, hamilton fish, father coughlin. Would that be Abuse Of Power for political benefit according to the other panelists . Impeachable conduct . All subsouped into it. Highway about when President Kennedy directed his Brother Robert kennedy to deport one of his mistresses as an east german spy . Would that qualify as impeachable conduct . Once again i cant exclude it. How about when he directed
the fbi to use wiretaps on congressional staffers who opposed him politically . Is that impeachable conduct . Seem to be falling within it. And lets go to barack obama. When barack obama directed, or made a finding that the senate was in recess and appointed people to the National Labor Relations Board and lost 90, Ruth Bader Ginsburg voted against the president on this issue, would that be Abuse Of Power . Afraid yes. Directed to others, but i dont see exclusions under their definition. Okay. How about when the president directed his National Security adviser and the Secretary Of State to lie to the American People about whether the ambassador to libya was murdered as a result of a video or was murdered as a result of a Terrorist Act . Would that be Abuse Of Power for a political benefit . 17 days before the next election . Well, not according to my
definition. The others have to respond to their own. Youve heard their definition. I cant add those i have a hard time excluding anything how about when Abraham Lincoln arrested legislators in maryland so they wouldnt convene to secede from the union . And virginia already had seceded placing washington, d. C. The Nations Capital in the middle of the rebellion. Would that have been an Abuse Of Power forepolitical benefit . Could be under that definition. And you mentioned George Washington a little while ago. As perhaps having met the standard of impeachment for your other panelists. In fact, let me ask you something, Professor Turley. Can you name a single president in the history of the United States, save President Harrison who died 32 days after his inauguration that would not have met the standard of impeachment for our friends here . I would hope to god James Madison would escape. Otherwise, a lifetime of Academic Work would be shredded but once again i cant exclude many of these. Isnt what you and i and many others are afraid of the standard your friends to the right of you and not politically but to the right of you sitting there, that your friends have decided that the bar is so low that when we have a democrat president in office and a Republican House and a republican senate, were going to be going through this whole scenario again in a way that really puts the country at risk . Well, when your graphic says and your abcs your b is betrayal of National Interests i would simply ask, do you really want that to be your standard . Isnt the difference, Professor Turley, that some people live in an ivory tower and some people live in a swamp . And those of us in the swamp are doing our very best for the American People. Actually its not pretty. I live in an ivory tower in a swamp because im a gw and its not so bad. I yield back. Gentleman yields back. Thank you very much. I want to thank the witnesses and i dont believe the peoples house is a swamp. President nixon was impeached for Abuse Of Power because his conduct was undertaken for his personal political advantage and not in furtherance of any Valid National policy objective. President gerhardt, why was it significant that president nixon acted for his personal political advantage and not in furtherance of any Valid National policy objective . Its primarily significant, because in acting on, for his own personal benefit and not for the benefit of the country, he has crossed a line. The line here is very clear. It becomes Abuse Of Power when somebody is using special authorities of their office for their own personal benefit and not the benefit of country. Can the same be said of
President Trump . Thats it could be, yes, yes. Thank you. You know, im trustruck by the parallels. One of the things nixon did, Launch Tax Investigations of his political opponents. Here the evidence shows trump tried to launch a criminal investigation of his political opponent by a Foreign Government. We have heard evidence suggesting that President Trump did this mofor his own personal gain. Although President Trump claims he withheld the aid because of concerns about corruption. I believe we have example of the evidence of the truth. Ambassador sondland stated the president only cares about big stuff. I noted there was big stuff going on in ukraine. Like a war with russia. Ambassador sondland replied he meant big stuff that benefits the president. Like the biden investigation. That mr. Giuliani was pushing. Professor feldman, what would
the framers have thought of a president who only cares about the quote big stuff that benefits him . The framers were extremely worried about a president who served only his own interests or the interests of foreign powers. That was their most serious concern when designing the remedy of impeachment. The evidence also suggests President Trump didnt even care if the investigation actually happened. What he really cared about was the public announcement of the investigation. So professor karlan, how do we analyze these facts in the context of Abuse Of Power . Well, i think that to have a president ask for the investigation of his political opponents is an arctype 6 abof Abuse Of Power. There were past examples and to say those Werent Impeachable is a big mistake. If a President Wiretaps his opponents thats a federal crime
now. If a President Wiretapped Opponents that is impeachable conduct. I also serve on the Foreign Affairs committee and i understand how significant it is to foreign leaders to meet with our president s. To attend a meeting in the oval office is very significant. President zelensky is a newly elected Head Of State in a fledgling democracy. His country is at war with his neighbor. Russia invaded and is occupying his countrys territory. He needed the Military Resources to defend his country. He needed the diplomatic recognition of the american president and he was prepared to do whatever the president demanded. Many years ago i worked in the nations largest trauma unit as a p. A. A physician assistant. I saw people at their worst, severe pain after accidents or acts of violence. Patients i took care of were desperate, afraid had to wait
five to eight hours to be seen. Can you imagine for one minute if i had told my patients, look i can move you up in line and take care of your pain, but i do need a favor from you, though. My patients were in pain and desperate and they would have agreed to do anything i asked. This would have been such an abuse of my position, because of the power dynamic. I had the power to relieve my patients from experiencing pain. Its fundamentally wrong and in many cases illegal for us to use power to take advantage of those in crisis. Especially a president. Especially when lives are at stake. I yield back. The gentle lady yields back. Mr. Ratcliffe . I thank the chairman. Professor turley start where you started because you said something i think bears repeating. You said im not a supporter of President Trump. I voted against him in 2016. And i previously voted for
president s clinton and obama. But despite your political preferences and persuasions you reached this conclusion. The current legal case for impeachment is not just woefully inadequate but in some respects dangerous, the basis for impeachment of an american president. Let me start by commending you for being the kind of example of what hopefully everyone on this committee will do as we approach the task we have of determining whether or not there were any impeachable offenses here. One of the problems that youve articulated as leading you to the conclusion of calling this the shortest impeachment proceeding with the thinnest evidentiary record and narrowest grounds ever to impeach a president , is the fact that there has been this everchanging constantly evolving moving target of accusations, if you will. The july 25th phone call started out as an alleged quid pro quo. Briefly became an extortion scheme. A bribery scheme. I think its back to quid pro quo. Now, besides pointing out Speaker Pelosi, chairman schiff waited until every witness had been deposed before using the word bribery. Youve articulated why you think the definitions used publicly are flawed if not unconstitutional. Both in the 18th century or in the 21st century, but would you agree with me that bribery under any valid definition requires that a specific quid pro quo be proven . More importantly the Supreme Court has focused on that issue as well as what is the definition of a quid pro quo. So if military aid or Security Assistance is part of that quid pro quo, where in the
july 25th transcript does President Trump ever suggest that he intends to withhold military aid for any reason . He doesnt. And thats the reason we keep on hearing the word circumstantial and inferential and thats whats so concerning. Those would be appropriate terms. Its not that you cant have a circumstantial case, those are appropriate terms if these are unknowable facts. The problem is you have so many witnesses not subpoenaed, witnesses weve not heard from. Right. So if its not in the transcript its got to come from witness tem and i assume youve reviewed all the Witness Testimony so you know no witness testified they either heard President Trump or were told by President Trump to withhold military aid for any reason. Correct . Krects. Correct. So let me turn to the issue of obstruction of justice quickly. I think you assumed and did i
when democrats talked about corruption it was specifically recommended to the ukraine issue and i know youve talked about that a lot today. Youve clearly stated you think President Trump had no corrupt intent on page 39 of your report. You said Something Else that i think bears repeating today. You were highlighting the fact that the democrats appear to be taking the position that if a president seeks Judicial Review over executive Branch Testimony or document subpoenaed by Congress Rather than letting the courts be the arbiter, congress can simply impeach the president for obstruction based on that. Did i hear you say that if we were to proceed on that basis that that would be an Abuse Of Power . I did, and let me be clear about this. I dont disagree with my colleagues that nothing in the constitution says you have to go to a court or wait for a court. Thats not what im saying. What im saying is that if you want a wellbased, a legitimate impeachment case to set this
abbreviated schedule, Demand Documents and then impeach, because they havent been turned over when they go to a court, when the president goes to a court, i think that is an Abuse Of Power thats not what happened in nixon. And in fact the ultimate decision in nixon was there are legitimate Executive Privilege claims that could be raised. Some of them deal with the type of aids involved in this case like a National Security adviser. Like a white house counsel. So with the concern here, its not that there is, that you cant ever impeach a president unless you go into court. Its just if you shouldnt, when you have time to do it. So if i were to summarize your testimony. No bribery, no extortion, no Abuse Of Power . Is that fair . Not on this record. Gentleman, the time expired. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Pick up where we left off, and im going to start with mr. Turley with your words, and its from october 23rd onopinion
piece in the hill. As i said said before there is no question the use of Public Office for personal gain is an impeachable offense. Including the withholding of military aid in exchange for the investigation of a political ohs poent opponent. You just have to prove it happened. If you can establish intent to use Public Office for personal gain, you have a viable impeachable offense. We heard today that a president abuses his power when he uses his official power for his own personal interests rather than the interests of our country. Id like to spend more time on that because im struck by one of the things at stake here. 400 million of taxpayers dollars. President nixon leveraged powers of his ochs to investigate political rivals but here, evidence shows that President Trump also leveraged taxpayer
dollars to get ukraine to announce sham investigations of President Trumps political rivals. That Taxpayer Money was meant to help ukraine defend itself and in turn defend United States interests. From russian aggression. The money had been appropriated by congress and certified by department of defense. Multiple witnesses confirmed inofthere was unanimous support for the military aid to ukraine. Can we listen to that, please . From what you witnessed, did anybody in the National Security Community Support withholding assistance . No. I never heard anyone advocate for holding the aid. And the entire agency supported conation of the Security Assistance. Isnt that right . That is correct. I and others sat in astonishment. Ukrainians were fighting russians and counted not only on the training and weapons, but
also assurance of u. S. Support. Professor feldman, youve stated that the president s demand to the president of ukraine constituted an Abuse Of Powers how does the president s decision to withhold military aid affect your analysis . It means it wasnt just an Abuse Of Power, because the president was serving his own personal interests but also an Abuse Of Power insofar as the president was putting american National Security interests behind his own personal interests. It brought together two important aspects of the Abuse Of Power. Selfgain and undercutting our National Security interests. Theest points to President Trump using military aid for his personal benefit, not for the benefit of any official u. S. Policy. Prompt karlan, how would the framers have interpreted that . Well, i cant speak for the framers themselves, obviously. My view is that they would say that the president s authority
to use foreign aid, and they probably couldnt have imagined we even were giving foreign aid because we were a tiny, poor country then. Hard to translate that. A president who doesnt think first about the security of the United States is not doing what his oath requires him to do, which was faithfully execute the laws here, a Law Appropriating Money and defend the constitution of the United States. Thank you. Lets go back to a segment of mr. Turleys quote. That if you can establish intent to use Public Office for personal gain you have a viable impeachable offense. Mr. Feldman, do we meet that criteria here . In my view, the evidence does meet that criteria. Thats the judgment you should be making. Ms. Karlan . Yes. One question i just have for minority members of the committee, if you were convinced the president held up the aid
because he thought it would help his reelection, would you vote to impeach him . Thats the question everyone on this committee should be asking, and if they conclude, yes, then they should vote to impeach. Mr. Gerhardt . Yes, i would agree and i would add much talk has been made here about the term bribery, in Court Decisions with respect to bribery. Its your job, the houses job, to define bribery. Not the courts. You follow your judgment on that. I want to thank the witnesses. All of the witnesses, for coming and testifying today. This is not an easy decision, its not a comfortable decision, but its one thats necessary. We all take an oath to protect the constitution, Military Men And Women Go and put their lives on the line for the constitution and we have an obligation to follow the constitution whether its convenient or easy. Thank you and i yield back the balance. Mr. Roby . Quickly, professor, would you
like to respond, Professor Turley . Yes. I would. First of all, what was said in that column is exactly what ive said in my testimony. The problem is not that Abuse Of Power can never be an impeachable offense. You have to prove it. You havent. Its not enough to say, i infer this was the purpose. I infer that this is what was intended when youre not chumley subpoe actual subpoenaing people with direct knowledge and instead saying we must vote in this Rocket Docket of an impeachments. Leads to my statement that id like to make. Of course, the United States house of representatives has initiated impeachment ineyeof t president of the United States only three times in our history prior to this. Those done in this committee. The Judiciary Committee. Which has jurisdiction over impeachment matters. Here in 2019 under this inquiry, facts witnesses have been called. Fact witnesses that have been called were in front of the Intelligence Committee. We have been given no indication that this committee will conduct substantive hearings with fact witnesses. As a Member Serving on the Judiciary Committee i can say that the process in which we are participated is insufficient, unprecedented and grossly inadequate. Sitting before us is a panel of witnesses containing four distinguished Law Professors from some of our countrys finest educational institutions. I do not doubt that each of you are extremely well versed in the subject of constitutional law. And yes, there is precedent for similar panels in the aforementioned history but only after specific charges have been made known and the underlying facts presented in full due to an exhaustive investigation. However, i dont understand why
we are holding this hearing at this time with these witnesses. My colleagues on the other side of the aisle admit dont know what arms of impeachment they will consider. How does anyone expect a panel of Law Professors to weigh in on the legal grounds for Impeachment Charges prior to even knowing what the charges brought by this committee are going to be . Some of my democrat colleagues have stated over and over that impeach mrcment should are nonpartisan. I agree. One 67 my colleagues in the Democratic Party i stated, impeachment is so divisive to the country that unless there is something so compelling and overwhelming and bipartisan i dont think we should go down that path. Because it divides the country. My democratic colleagues have stated numerous times that they are on a truthseeking and factfinding mission. Another one of my democratic colleagues said and i quote, we have a responsibility to consider the facts that emerge squarely and with the best interests of our country, not
our party, in our hearts. These type of historic proceedings regardless of political beliefs ought to be about factfinding and truthseeking but that is not what this has turned out to be. Again, no disrespect to these witnesses. But for all i know this is the only hearing that we will have and none of them are fact witnesses. My colleagues saying, one thing and do something completely different. No member of congress can look their constituents in the eye and say this is a comprehensive factfinding truthseeking mission. Ranking member collins and members of the minority on this committee have written six letters over the past month to chairman nadler asking for procedural fairness for all the underlying evidence to be transmitted to the Judiciary Committee. To expand the number of witnesses and have an even more Bipartisan Panel here today. And for clarity on todays
impeachment proceedings since we havent received evidence to review. The minority has yet to receive a response to these letters. Right here today for all americans to truly understand the ongoing lack of transparency and openness with these proceedings. The witness list for this hearing was not released until late monday afternoon. Opening statements from the Witnesses Today were not distributed until late last night. And the Intelligence Committee finalized report has yet to be presented to this committee. You hear from those in the majority that process is a republican talking point, when in reality it is an american talking point. Process is essential to the institution. A thoughtful, meaningful process of this magnitude with such great implications should be demanded by the American People. With that i yield back. Gentle lady yields back. Mr. Jeffries. I did not serve in the military but my 81yearold father did. He was an air force veteran stationed in germany during the height of the cold war in the late 1950s. He was a teenager from inner city newark. A stranger in a foreign land. Serving on the western side of the berlin wall. My dad proudly wore the uniform because he swore an oath to the constitution. And believed in american democracy. I believe in american democracy. We remain the last best hope on earth. It is in that spirit that we proceed today. Professor karlan, in america we believe if free and Fair Elections, that correct. It is yes. But authoritarian regimes do not. That is correct. And john adams once wrote to Thomas Jefferson on december 6th, 1887 and stated you are apprehensive of foreign interference, intrigue, influence, so am i. But as often as elections happen, the danger of foreign influence reoccurs. Professor karlan how important was the concept of the free and Fair Elections to the Framers Of The Constitution. It was less important to them than it has become in our constitution since then. And one thing that turned me into a lawyer seeing barbara jordan, the first female lawyer id seen in practice say on the committee we the people didnt include people like her in 1787. But through a process of amendment we have done that so elections wither more important to us today as a constitutional matter than even to the framers. And . Fair to say an election could not be characterized as free and
fair if it is manipulated by foreign interference. That is correct. And the framers were deeply concerned with the threat of of foreign interference in the Domestic Affairs of the United States, true. Yes. And why were they so deeply concerned . Because foreign nations dont have our interest at heart. They have their interests at heart. And would the framers find it acceptable for an american president to pressure a Foreign Government to help him win an election. I think they would find it unacceptable for a president to ask a Foreign Government to help him whether they put pressure or not. On the july 25th phone call the president uttered five words, do us a favor though. He pressured the Ukrainian Government to target a american citizen for political gain and
simultaneously withheld 391 million in military aid. Now ambassador bill taylor, west point graduate and Vietnam War Hero and republican appointed diplomat discussed this issue of military aid. Here is a clip of his testimony. Again, our holding up of Security Assistance that would go to a country that is fighting aggression from russia for no good policy reason, no good substantive reason, no National Security reason is wrong. To the extent the military aid was being withheld as part of an effort to solicit foreign interference in the 2020 election, is that behavior impeachable . Yes, it is. And if i go back to one of the words you said. When the president said use us a we a favor. It is a royal we. He should have said do me a favor because only kings say
us when they mean me. Is it correct that an Abuse Of Power that strikes at the heart of our democracy falls squarely within the definition of a high crime and misdemeanor. Yes, it does. Some colleagues have subjected that this will overturn the will of the people and the American People expressed their will in november of 2018, the will of the people elected a new majority. The will of the people elected a house that would not function as a wholly owned subsidiary of this administration. The will of the people elected a house that understands we are separate and coequal branch of government. The will of the people elected a house that understands we have a congressional responsibility to serve as a check and balance on an out of control Executive Branch. The president abused his power and must be held accountable. No one is above the law. America must remain the last
best hope on earth. I yield back. Gentleman yields back. Mr. Yates. The will of the American People elected donald trump to the president of the United States in the 2016 and one party cant get over it. And we understand in 2018 you took the house of representatives and we havent spent our time during your tenure in power trying to remove the speaker of the house and trying to delegitimate and frankly we would love to governor with you and pass mscsa and lower Prescription Drug prices it is the will of the people you ignore when you continue down this terrible road of impeachment. Professor gerhardt you gave money to barack obama. My family did. Four times. That sounds about right, yes. Mr. Chairman i have a consent request related to professor feldmans work and the wire
trap the gentlemen will suspend. My time well take that time off. Has the gentleman submitted have we seen that material . We can provide it to you as is typical and consider the consent request later after we very well. The gentleman may continue. Thank you mr. Chairman. Mr. Feldman wrote articles entitled Trump Wiretaps risk impeachment and maralago ad belongs in Impeachment Trial and flanagan wrote in courts a Harvard Law Professor believes trump could be impeached over fake news and since you seem to believe that the basis for impeachment is even broughter than the basis that my democrat colleagues have laid forward do you believe you are outside of the political mainstream on the question of impeachment . I believe that impeachment is warranted whenever the president abuses his power for personal
benefit or to corrupt the democratic process. Did you write an article entitled it is hard to take impeachment seriously now. I did back in may i wrote that article. Would you like me to answer the question. House democrats have made it clear that discussing impeachment is primarily or exclusively a tool to weaken President Trumps chancing in 2020. I was an Impeachment Skeptic but changed my mind and for good reason. Thank you. I appreciate your testimony. Professor karlan you gave 1,000 to elizabeth warren, right . I believe so. You gave 1,200 to barack obama . I have no reason to question that. And you gave 2,000 to Hillary Clinton . That is correct. Why so much more for hillary than the other two . Because ive been giving a lot of money to charity recently because of all of the poor people in the United States. Those arent the only folks youve been given to. Now have you ever been on a
podcast called versus trump . I think i was on a live panel that the people who ran the podcast called versus trump do you remember saying the following, liberals tends to cluster more. Conservatives, very conservative people tend to spread out more. Perhaps because they dont even want to be around themselves. Did you say that . Yes, i did. Do you understand how that reflects contempt on people who are conservative . No. What i was talking about there was the natural tendency, if you put the quote in context, the natural tendency of a compactness requirement to favor a party whose voters are more spread out. And i do not have contempt for conservatives and i do not im limited on time professor. When you say how liberals want to be around each other in
cluster and conservatives have to spread out, you may not see this from like the ivory towers of your law school but it makes actual people in this country when the President Calls you dont get to interrupt me on this time. And when you suggest that you invoke the president s son name here and try to make a joke at referencing baron trump that does not lend credibility to your argument, it makes you look mean and attacking someones family. The minor child of the president of the United States. So lets see if we could get into the facts. To all of the witnesses. If you have personal knowledge of a single Material Fact in the schiff report, please raise your hand. And let the record reflect no personal knowledge of a single fact. And you know what, that continues on the tradition we saw from adam schiff where ambassador taylor could not identify an Impeachment Offense and mr. Kent never met with the president and fiona hill never mentioned military aid and mr
comparemela.com © 2020. All Rights Reserved.