other important things that are going undone. within this committee's own jurisdiction we should be addressed in the opioid epidemic. we could be working together to find a solution to our immigration and asylum challenges on our southern border. we could be protecting americans for having their intellectual property and jobs stolen by chinese companies and we could be enhancing election security just to name a few things. congress as a whole could be working on rebuilding our crumbling infrastructure. providing additional tax relief to the nation's 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. >> the gentleman yield back. >> thank you, mr. chair. i take no pleasure in the fact that we are here today. as a patriot who loves america, it pains me that the circumstances forced us to undertake this grave and solemn obligation. nonetheless, they simply -- based simply on the available evidence it appears president trump pressured a foreign government to interfere in our elections by investigating his perceived chief political opponent. we are here to uphold our oath to defend the constitution of the united states by furthering our understanding whether the president's conduct is impeachable. the framers of the constitution legitimately feared foreign interference in our nation's sovereignty and they wanted to ensure that there would be a check and balance on the executive. we sit here with a duty to the founders to fulfill their wisdom and being a check on the executive. we the people's house are that check. under our constitution, the house can impeach a president for treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanor. professor feldman, you have discussed high crimes and misdemeanors and the fact that the high refers to crimes and misdemeanors. can you give us a little bit of a summary of what high crimes and misdemeanors are and how they are distinct from what professor turley said they were? >> you sir. high crimes and misdemeanors are actions of the president in office where he uses his office to advance his personal interests 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 say the word high modifies crimes and misdemeanors. the framers knew what high crimes and high misdemeanors. i believe the definition posted earlier of misdemeanor was not the definition of high misdemeanor which is a specific term understood by the framers and discussed in the constitutional convention but only of the word misdemeanor and it's an easy mistake to make but the truth is high misdemeanors were their own category of abuses of office and those are the things that are impeachable. >> thank you, professor. professors, you have testified that the presidents conduct implicates three categories. abuse of power, betrayal of national interest and corruption of elections. is that right, professor karlan? >> yes, it is. >> professor feldman and professor get hurt, do you agree? >> yes. >> you stated the president's decision to sacrifice the national interest for his own ends. do you agree with that? >> yes, sir. >> based on the evidence you have seen, professors, has president trump sacrificed the country's interests in favor of his own? >> yes, he has. >> is there a particular piece of evidence that most illuminates that? >> what illuminates it most for me is the statement by ambassador sondland that he wanted simply the announcement of an investigation. several other people's had the same thing. there is testimony by ambassador volker to this extent that what he wants was simply public information to damage joe biden. he didn't care whether joe biden was found guilty or exonerated. >> professor feldman, do you agree? >> my emphasis would be on the fact that the president held up aid to an ally that is fighting a war in direct contravention of the unanimous recommendation of the national security community. that seems to have placed his own interests in personal advantage ahead of the interests. >> and a bill passed by congress. professor gerhart. >> i agree with what my colleagues instead and i would add that i'm concerned about the president's obstruction of congress. the structure of this inquiry, refusal to comply with the number of subpoenas ordering many high-level officials and the government not to comply with subpoenas and ordering the entire executive branch not to cooperate with congress. it's useful to remember the constitution has the house has the sole power to impeach. the constitution uses the word sole twice. it means only. it's your decision. >> let me get professor turley in. professor turley, you're a self-described, self-anointed defender of article one congress guy but you justify a position this has legally issued subpoenas by a congress enforcing its powers don't have to be complied with. it seems in this circumstance you are an article to executive guy. and you're talking about the johnson impeachment is not very useful. that was maladministration. we the people's representatives are custodians of the framers view. >> the gentleman's time has expired. >> thank you. i'm afraid this hearing is indicative of the indecency to which we have come when instead of the committee of jurisdiction bringing in facts witnesses to get the bottom of what happened and not even having time to review the report which as professor turley indicated his wafer thin when compared to the 36 boxes of documents that were delivered to the last impeachment group. but then to start the hearing with the chairman of the committee saying that the facts are undisputed, the only thing that's disputed more than the facts in the case is the statement that the facts are undisputed. they are absolutely disputed and the evidence is a bunch of hearsay on hearsay that anybody here had tried cases before of enough magnitude, you would know you can't rely on hearsay on hearsay. but we have experts who know better then 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 don't have a chance to read before the 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 council. abigail gray, sean misko. involved in u.s.-ukraine affairs. they worked with vice president biden on different matters involving ukraine. they worked with brennan and masters. they have 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 the allegations make them the most critical witnesses in this entire investigation. the records, emails and text messages, flash drives, computers have information that will bring this effort to remove the president to a screeching halt. so we have article here from october 11. pointing out that house intelligence committee chairman adam schiff recruited two former national security council aide who worked alongside the cia whistle-blower at the nsc during the obama and trump administrations. abigail grace who worked at the nsc until 2018 was hired in february well sean misko until 2017, joined schiff's committee in august, the same month the whistle-blower submitted his complaint. goes on to point out grace was employ to help schiff's committee. trump accused schiff of stealing people working at the white house. chairman schiff said if the president is worried about us hiring former administration people, he should work on being a better employee. no, he should've fired everybody, just like bill clinton did. all of the u.s. attorneys on the same day. it would have saved us a lot of what is going on here. anyway, we need those two witnesses. they are critical. we also need someone who is a cia detail to ukraine. the state department freedom of information shows there was an italy state luncheon. italy ramifications. he speaks arabic and russian, reported directly to charles corruptio.continuous contact wi, state, ukrainian officials. had a collateral duty to support vice president biden. biden was obama's point man on ukraine. associated with dnc operative alexandra chalupa. met with her in november of 2015 with the ukrainian delegation and there's all kinds of reasons we need these three witnesses. i would ask, pursuant to section four house resolution 660, ask our chairman, i mean our ranking member to submit the request for the three witnesses because we are not having a factual hearing until we have these people that are at the bottom of every fact of the investigation. thanks for bringing down the gavel hard. that was nice. >> the president has regularly and recently solicited foreign interference in our upcoming elections. professor turley warrants it's an impulse by moment and suggest the house pause. professor karlan, do you agree with professor turley? >> no, if you conclude 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, tell us why you believe the president's misconduct was an abuse of power so egregious that it merits the drastic remedy of impeachment. >> because he invited the russians who are our long-time adversaries in 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, admin randall, who at one time was mirror williamsburg virginia warned us that "the executive will have great opportunities of abusing his power. "professor feldman, people like mayor randall rebelled because of the tyranny of a king. why were the frame are so careful to avoid the potential for a president to become so tyrannical and abusive and what they do to protect against it? >> the framers believe very strongly that the people over the king. the people were sovereign. that meant the president worked for somebody. he worked with people. they knew that a president who couldn't be checked, who could not be supervised by his own justice department and who could not be supervised by congress and could not be impeached would effectively be above the law and would use his power to get himself reelected that's why the created the impeachment remedy. >> thank you, professor feldman. i want to discuss how the framers concerns about abuse of power relayed to president trump's misconduct. on july 25, president trump said to president zelensky "i would like you to do us a favor, though." professor feldman, one president trump made use of the words favor, though, do you believe the president was benignly asking for a favor? how is the answer to that question relevant to whether the president abused his power? stick to it is relevant, sir, because there's nothing wrong with someone asking for a favorn the interest of the united stat. the problem is for the president to use his office to solicit or demand a favor for his personal benefit. the evidence strongly suggests that given the power of the president and given the incentives the president created for ukraine to complied with his request the present was seeking to serve his own personal benefit and own personal interests. that is definition of corruption under the constitution. >> other witnesses have testified it was their impression when president trump said i would like you to do us a favor, though, that he was actually making a demand not request. professor feldman, how does lieutenant colonel vindman's testimony saying that the president 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 vindman's observation states very clearly that you have to understand the president of the united states has so much more power than the president of ukraine that when the president uses the word favor, the reality is he's 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 asked the president you can to do a favor, the president of the ukraine to say no. the president of the united states uses the office of the presidency to ask for a favor, there simply no way for the president ukraine to refuse. >> thank you. we've also heard testimony that the president withheld a white house meeting and military aid in order to further pressure further pressure or ukraine to announce investigations and vice president biden and the 2016 election. professor karlan, is that why you're 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. that's just -- it's not icing on the cake. it's what you would call an aggravating circumstance. >> thank you. the president holding an american ally over a barrel to extract personal favors is deeply troubling. this is not an impulse buy moment. it is a break the glass moment and impeachment is the only appropriate remedy. with that i yield back. >> mr. jordan. >> thank you. before speaker pelosi announced the impeachment inquiry, before the call between president trump and president zelensky, before the mueller hearing in front of this committee on july 24, before all of it, 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 we are talking out whether the positions they have already taken our constitutional? it seems a little backward to me. we can't get agreement. we have four people who voted for clinton and they can't agree. yet today we are talking about the constitution. professor turley, you have been great today but i think you are wrong on one thing. you said it's a fast impeachment. i would argue it's not a fast impeachment. it's a predetermined impeachment. done in the most unfair partisan fashion we've ever seen. no subpoena power for republicans. depositions done in secret in the bunker in the basement of the capital. 17 people, and for those and no one can be in there except a handful of folks adam schiff allowed. chairman schiff prevented witnesses from antirepublican questions. every democrat question got answered. not every republican question. democrats denied republicans witnesses that we wanted in the open hearings that took place three weeks ago. democrats promised us the whistle-blower would testify and then changed their mind, and they change their mind why? because the whole world discovered adam schiff's staff had talked to the whistle-blower, coordinated with the whistle-blower. the whistle-blower with no first-hand knowledge, bias against the president to work with joe biden his lawyer in january of '17 said the impeachment process starts then. that's the unfair process we have been through. the reason it's been unfair, let me cut to the chase. the reason it's been unfair is because the facts aren't on their side. the facts are on the president side. four key facts will not change, have not changed, will never change. we have the transcript. no quid pro quo. the two guys on the call both said no pressure, no pushing, no quid pro quo. the ukrainians didn't know that the aid is held up. fourth and most important, the ukrainians never started, never promised to start, never announced an investigation in the time that the aid is paused. never wants. but you know what did happen? there are five key meetings between president zelensky and senior officials in our government. five key meetings. the call on july 25. the next day we had ambassador volker, taylor, sondland made with president zelensky. ambassador bolton made with president zelensky in august. the vice president met with president zelensky on september 1 and we had two senators republican and democrat meet with president zelensky on september 5. none of those meetings, none of those five meetings was aid ever discussed in exchange for an announcement of an investigation of anybody. you would think that the last two after the ukrainians knew that the aid is being withheld, you would think it would come up then. particulate with senator murphy they're talking about it. it never came up. the facts are on the president side but we have an unfair process and they don't have the facts and we have an unfair process. this gets to something else, mr. turley. this is scary, how mad. it was so well said. it is scary. the democrats have never accepted the will of the american people. to mr. turley's point, 17 days ago, 17 days ago the speaker of the united states house of representatives called the president of the united states an imposter. the guy that 63 million americans voted for. the speaker of the house of representatives called that individual and imposter. it's not healthy for our country. this is not healthy. the facts are the facts. they are on the president side and that's whole we need to focus on, not some constitutional hearing at the end of the process when you guys have already determined where you're going to go. with that, i yield back. >> thank you, mr. chairman. we commemorate the 75th anniversary of the battle of the bulge. my late father, a staff sergeant, received a purple heart fighting. he gave blood among tens of thousands of americans who suffered casualties. they 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 interests. the evidence shows that the president broke that promise. the constitution gives the president enormous power but it also imposes a remedy, impeachment, when those powers are abused. in july, president trump said "i have an article to or have the right to do whatever i want as president." professor feldman, the president has broad powers under the constitutional, including foreign policy. do those powers mean that the president can do, as he said, whatever he wants as president? and he views the powers the constitution gives him? >> he may not. if the president uses the powers he's given for personal gain or to corrupt election or against the national security interest of the united states, he may be impeached for a high crime and misdemeanor. >> is using his power to pressure ukraine to interfere in u.s. elections and abuse of that power? >> yes her. >> professor gerhart, how would the framers have you to president asking for election interference from a foreign leader? >> it's practically impossible to know exactly what the framers would think but it's not hard to imagine how the constitution deals with it. that's their legacy to us. under the constitution it's plainly an abuse of power, or other horrifying abuse of power. >> professor karlan, we've heard witnesses testify about their concerns when the president used his foreign policy powers for political gain. lieutenant colonel vindman was shocked. he couldn't believe what he heard on the phone call. diverging from efforts to protect the national security policy. ambassador taylor thought it was crazy to withhold security assistance for help on a political campaign. professor karlan, these concerns are mere differences over policy, are they? >> no. they go to the very foundation of our democracy. >> and offering to exchange a white house meeting and hundreds of millions of dollars in security systems for help with his reelection, that can't be part of our nation's foreign policy, kennett? >> no. it is the essence of doing something for personal reasons rather than political reasons. if i could say one thing about it, maybe when he was first running for president he had never been anything other than a reality tv show, that was his public life, may be that he could think russia, if you're listening, it's an okay thing to do but by the time he asked the ukraine, ukraine, if you're listening, could you help me out with my reelection, he would have to have known it was not consistent with his oath of office. >> mr. chairman, our founders granted the president of the united states an enormous powers but at the same time but we have been reminded of, they worry that the powers could be abused by a corrupt president. the evidence of abuse of power in the sink reproved our founders were right be worried. yes, yes, the president has the power to direct america's foreign policy but no, he cannot use that power to cheat in our elections. remember, and i ask all of my colleagues to remember the constitution grants the president has 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. instead president trump looked out for himself and 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. they provided one way, one way for congress to respond. that's the power of impeachment. i yield back. >> the gentleman yields back. >> professor turley, i want to direct few questions to you. the other three witnesses have identified this amorphous standard for impeaching a president. they have said that if a president abusing his power for personal or political gain, its impeachable conduct. do you agree? >> not the way it has been stated. there are so many different standards. >> i have got a long ways to go. >> there so many different standards, one was attempting to abuse office. i'm not even sure how to recognize it let alone define it. >> let me go with a few examples and see if you agree. lyndon johnson directed the central intelligence agency to place a spy in barry goldwater's campaign. that spy got advance copies of speeches and other strategies and delivered it to the johnson campaign. is that impeachable conduct according to the other panelis panelists? >> it speaks very broadly so i assume so. >> how about when president johnson put a wiretap on goldwater's campaign plane? would that be for a political benefit? >> i can't exclude anything under that definition. >> okay, i will go with a few other presidents. cumbersome and deutsche informed us fdr put country first. frank lynn he wanted. and abuse of power, impeachable conduct? >> i think it would be subsumed into it. >> how about when president kennedy directed robert kennedy to deport one of his mistresses as an east german spy? with that qualify as impeachable conduct? >> i can't excluded. >> how about when he directed the fbi to use wiretaps on congressional staffers who opposed him politically? would that be impeachable conduct? >> it would seem to be falling within it. >> 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 9-0, ruth bader ginsburg voted against the president on this issue, would that be an abuse of power? >> i'm afraid you have to directed to others but i don't see any exclusions under your definition. >> how about when the president directed his national security advisor and secretary of state aligned 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 an abuse of power for political benefits 17 days before the next election? >> not according to my definition. the others would have to respond to their own. >> you have heard their definition. >> i have a hard time excluding anything. >> how about when abraham lincoln arrested legislators in maryland so they wouldn't convene to secede from the union? virginia had already seceded so it will washington, d.c., in the middle of the rebellion. with that have been an abuse of power for political benefit? >> it could be under that definition. bigley mentioned george washington. as you -- perhaps having met the standard of impeachment for your other panelists. let me ask you, 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? >> i would hope to god james madison would escape. otherwise a lifetime of academic work would be shredded. but once again i can't exclude many of these acts. >> isn't what you and i and many others are afraid of. the standard that your friends to the right of you and not politically but to the right of you sitting, that your friends decided that the bar is so low that when we have a democrat president in office and republican house and a republican senate, we are going to be going through this whole scenario again in a way that really puts the country at risk. >> when your graphic says on abc that b is betrayal of national interests, i would simply ask do you really want that to be your standard? >> isn't the difference, professor turley, some people live in an ivory tower and some people live in a swamp. those of us in this mob are doing our very best for the american people. it's not pretty. >> i live in an ivory tower in a swamp because i'm at gw and it's not so bad. >> i want to thank the witnesses and i don't believe the people's 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 objectives." professor gerhardt, why was it significant president nixon acts that acted for his personal political advantage and not in furtherance of any national policy objective? >> primarily because in acting 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's using the special authorities of their office for their own personal benefit and not the benefit of the country. >> can the same be said of president trump? >> it could be. >> thank you. i am struck by the parallels because one of the things nixon did was he launched 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 for his own personal gain and not for any national policy interests. president trump claims he withheld the aid because of concerns about corruption. i believe we have examples 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 he meant big stuff that benefited the president, like the biden investigation, that mr. giuliani was pushing. >> professor feldman, what with the framers have thought of president who only cares how about the "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 they designed the remedy of impeachment. >> the evidence also suggests president trump didn't care if the investigation actually happened. what he really cared about was the public announcement of the investigation. professor karlan, how do we analyze these facts in the context of abuse of power? >> i think with to have a president and ask for the investigation of his political opponents is an archetype of the abuse of power and mr. buck mentioned past examples of this. to say that those weren't impeachable, i think it's a big mistake. if a president wiretaps his opponents, that's a federal crime now. i don't know whether before the wiretap act of 1968 it was. if it president wiretapped his opponents today, it would be 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. to attend a meeting in the oval office is very significant. president zelensky is a newly elected head of state and a fledgling democracy. his country is at war with his neighbor. russia invaded and is occupying his country's 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 whenever the president demanded. many years ago i worked in the nation's largest trauma unit as a physician's assistant. i saw people at their worst. severe pain, after accidents or acts of violence. patients that i took her for desperate and afraid and had to wait to be seen. can you imagine for one minute if i had told my patients i can move you up in line and take care of your pain but i do need a favor from you. my patients were in pain and they were 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. it is 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. >> thank you, chairman. professor turley, i would like to start where you started because you said something that i think bears repeating. you said i'm not a supporter of president trump. i voted against him in 2016 and i have previously voted for presidents clinton and obama. despite your political preferences and persuasion, you reached this conclusion. the current legal case for impeachment is not just woefully inadequate but in some respects dangerous. basis for impeachment of an american president. so let me start by commending you mean the kind of example of what hopefully everyone 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 problem you have articulated is leaving you to the conclusion of calling this the shortest impeachment proceeding for the narrowest grounds is the fact that there's been an an ever changing constantly evolving moving target of the accusations, if you will. the july 25 phone call started out as an alleged quid pro quo and briefly became an extortion scheme, bribery scheme. i think it is back to quid pro quo. besides pointing out that both speaker pelosi and chairman schiff waited until almost every witness had been deposed before they even started to use the term bribery, you have clearly articulated why you think the definitions that they have used publicly are flawed if not unconstitutional. both in the 18th century or 21st century. would you agree with me then bribery under any valid definition requires that a specific quid pro quo be proven? >> more importantly the supreme court is focused on that issue as well as what is the definition of a quid pro quo. >> of military aid or security assistance as part of it, where in the july 25 transcript is president trump ever suggest that he intends to withhold military aid for any reason? >> he doesn't. that's the reason we keep on hearing the word circumstantial and inferential. that's what is so concerning. those would be appropriate terms. it's not that you can't have a circumstantial case. they would be appropriate terms that they were unknowable facts that the problem is you have so many witnesses that have not been subpoenaed, so many we have not heard from. >> so if it's not in the transcript it has to come from witness testimony and i assume you reviewed it so you know no witness has testified that that you heard president trump or were by president trump to withhold military aid for any reason, correct? >> correct. >> so let me turn to the issue of obstruction of justice weekly. i think you assumed as i did that when democrats had been talking about obstruction, it was specifically related to the ukraine issue. i know you've talked about it a lot. you've clearly stated you think president trump had no corrupt intent. page 39 of your report. he said something else i think that bears repeating. you were highlighting the fact that the democrats appear to be taking the position that if it president seeks judicial review over executive branch testimony or documents subpoenaed by congress that rather than letting the courts be the arbiter, congress can simply impeach the president for obstruction based on that. did i hear you saying that if we were to proceed on that basis that that would be an abuse of power? >> i did and let me be very clear about it. i don't disagree with my colleagues that nothing in the constitution says you have to go to a court or wait for a court. that's not what i'm saying. what i am saying is that if you want a legitimate impeachment case to set this abbreviated schedule, demand documents and then impeach because they haven't been turned over when they go to a court, i think that it was an abuse of power. it's not what happened and nixon have the ultimate decision in nixon was that rr was omitted executive privilege cases that can be raised. national security advisor, white house counsel. so the concern here is not that there is, that you can't ever impeach a president unless you go to court. that you shouldn't when you have time to do it. >> if i were to summarize your testimony, no bribery, no extortion, no obstruction of justice, no abuse of power. >> not on this record. >> the gentleman's time has expired. >> thank you. let me pick up where we left off and i'm going to start with your words and it's from october 23rd, your opinion piece in the hill. you said, as i've said before there is no question that 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 local 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 have heard today that a president abusing his power when he uses his official power for his own personal interests rather than the interests of our country. i would like to spend more time on that because i'm really struck by one of the things that was at stake here. $400 million of taxpayer dollars. president nixon leveraged the powers of his office to investigate political rivals but hear evidence shows president trump also leveraged taxpayer dollars to get ukraine to announce sham investigations of president trump's 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 the department of defense. multiple witnesses confirmed there 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 the assistance? >> no. >> i never heard anyone advocate for holding the aid. >> the interagency support of the continuation of the assistance? >> that is correct. >> i and others sat in astonishment. ukrainians were fighting russians and counted on not only the training weapons but also the assurance of u.s. support. >> professor feldman, you have stated that the president's demand to the president of ukraine constituted an abuse of power. how does the president's decision to withhold military aid affect your analysis? >> it means it wasn't just an abuse of power because the president was surfing his own personal interests but also insofar as he was putting american national security interests behind his own personal interests. it brought together two important aspects. self gain and undercutting the national security interests. >> evidence points to president trump using military aid for his personal benefit, not for the benefit of any official u.s. policy. professor karlan, how would the framers have interpreted it? >> i can't 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 couldn't have imagined we've and were giving foreign aid because we we were a tiny, r country then. what they would've said is a president who doesn't 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 appropriating money and defend the constitution of the united states. >> thank you. let's go back to a segment of mr. turley's quote that if you couldn't establish intent to use public office for personal gain, you have a viable impeachable offense. mr. feldman, do we meet that criteria? >> in my view, the evidence does meet that criteria. that's the judgment you should be making. >> ms. karlan. >> yes, and one question i would have for the minority members of the committee, if you were convinced that the president held up the aid because he thought it would help his reelection, would you vote to impeach him? that's the question everybody should be asking that if they conclude yes, they should vote to impeach. >> i agree. one thing i would add is that much talk has been made about the term bribery. it's your job, it's the house's job to define bribery. not the courts. you follow your judgment. >> i want to thank the witnesses for coming and testifying today. this is not an easy decision. it's not a comfortable decision but it's necessary. we take an oath to protect the constitution. the military men and women put their lives on the line for the constitution. we have an obligation to follow the constitution whether it's convenient or easy. thank you. >> the gentleman yields. >> very quickly, professor turley, would you like to respond? >> yes, i would. first of all, what was said in that column is exactly what i've said in my testimony. the problem is not that abuse of power can ever be an impeachable offense. you just have to prove it, and you haven't. it's not enough to say i infer this was the purpose. i infer that this is what was intended. when you are not actually subpoenaing people with direct knowledge and instead you are saying we was vote in this rocket docket of an impeachment. >> the last statement i would like to make, the united states house of representatives has initiated impeachment inquiries against the president of the united states only three times in our nations history. prior to this one. there was impeachment inquiries were done in this committee, the judiciary committee, which has jurisdiction over impeachment matters. here in 2019 and under this inquiry, fact witnesses have been called in front of the intelligence committee. we have been given no indication this committee will conduct substantive hearings with fact witnesses. as a member serving on the judiciary committee i can say the process in which we are participating is insufficient, unprecedented and grossly inadequate. setting before us is a panel of witnesses containing four distinguished law professors from some of our country's finest educational institutions. i do not doubt that each of you are extremely well-versed in the subject of constitutional law. and yet there is precedent for similar panels in the aforementioned history but only after specific charges have been made known have the underlying facts presented in full due to an exhaustive investigation. i don't understand why we are holding this hearing at this time with these witnesses. my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have admitted they don't know what articles 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 democratic colleagues have stated over and over that impeachment should be a nonpartisan process and i agree. one of my colleagues in the democratic party stated and i quote "impeachment is so divisive to the country that unless there is something so compelling and overwhelming and bipartisan, i don't look we should go down that path. it divides the country." my democratic colleagues have stated numerous times they are on a truth seeking and fact-finding michigan. another one of my democratic colleagues said "we have a responsibility to consider the facts that emerge squarely and with the best interests of our country, not our party." these historic proceedings regardless of political beliefs ought to be about fact-finding and truth seeking 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 we will have and none of them are fact witnesses. my colleagues are saying one thing and doing something completely different. no member of congress can look their constituents in the eye and say this is a comprehensive fact-finding, truth seeking mission. ranking member collins and members of the minority 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 today's impeachment proceedings since we haven't received evidence to review. the minority has yet to receive a response to these letters. right here today is another very clear example for all americans to truly understand the ongoing lack of transparency with these proceedings. the witness list for this hearing was not released until late monday afternoon, opening statements from the witnesses were not distributed until late last night and the intelligence committees finalize report has yet to be presented to this committee. you hear from those in the majority that processes republican talking point when in reality it's 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. >> mr. jeffries. >> i do not serve in the military but my 81-year-old 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 in free and fair elections. is that correct? >> it is. >> authoritarian regimes do not. is that right? >> correct. >> thomas jefferson -- john adams once wrote to thomas jefferson on december 6, 1787, and stated "you are apprehensive of foreign interference entry, influence. so am i. but as often as elections happen, the danger of foreign influence recurs." professor karlan, how important was the concept of free and fair elections to the framers of the constitution? >> honestly it was less important to them than it's become than our constitution since then if you remember the thing, one of the things that turned me into a lawyer was saint barbara jordan, first female lawyer i'd ever seen in practice saying that we the peoe didn't include people like her h process of amendment, we have done that and so elections are more important to us today is a constitutional matter than they were even to the framers. >> is it fair to say and election cannot be reasonably characterized as free and fair if it's manipulative i foreign interference? >> that's correct. >> the framers were generally and deeply concerned with the threat of foreign interference, true? >> yes. >> why were they so deeply concerned? >> because foreign nations don't have our interests at heart. they have their interests at heart. >> with 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 them, whether they put pressure on her not to break direct evidence shows, direct evidence shows that on july 25 the president uttered five words: do us a favor, though. pressure the ukrainian government to target an american citizen for political gain and at the same time simultaneously with health ringer $91 million in military aid and faster bill taylor, west point graduate, vietnam war hero, republican appointed diplomat discussed the issue of military aid. here's a clip clip of his testimony. >> again, our holding up security assistance that will go to a country that is fighting aggression from russia for no good policy reason, no good substantive reason, no good national security reason, is wrong. >> to the extent that 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 could go back to one of the words you read. when the president said do us a favor, he was using the royal we. it wasn't a favor for the united states. he should've said do me a favor because only kings say us when they mean me. >> is it correct to say and 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 of my colleagues have suggested impeachment would overturn the will of the people. the american people express 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 constitutional 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. >> the gentleman yields back. >> the will of the american people also elected donald trump to be the president. there is one part of it can't seem to get over it. we understand the fact that in 2018 you take the house of representatives and we haven't spent our time during your tenure and power trying to remove the speaker of the house. trying to delegitimize your ability to govern. would love to govern with you. we would love to pass usmca. we would love to put out a helping hand to our seniors and lower perception drug prices. it is the will of the people you ignore when you continue down this terrible road of impeachment. professor gerhardt, you give money to barack obama. >> my family did. >> four times. >> that sounds about right. >> mr. chairman i have a series of unanimous request consents. his work. >> the gentleman will suspend. we will take the time off. has the gentleman submitted, have we seen those, that material. >> weight can provided to you. >> will consider the unanimous consent request later. >> very well. thank you, mr. chairman. mr. feldman wrote articles entitled trump wiretap tweets raise risk of impeachment. he wrote mar-a-lago add belongs in impeachment file. jake flanagan wrote in courts, a harvard law professor thinks trump could be impeached over fake news accusations. since you seem to believe the basis for impeachment is even broader than the basis of my democratic colleagues have laid forward, do you believe you are outside of the political mainstream of the question of impeachment? >> i believe impeachment is warranted whenever the president abuses his power for personal benefit or to corrupt the democratic process. ed >> yes, i did write that article >> did you -- hold on. did you write since 2018 mid-term election, house democrats have made it clear that discussing impeachment is primarily or even exclusively a tool to weaken president trump's chances in 2020? did you write those words? >> until this call in july 25th, i was an impeachment skeptic. >> i appreciate your testimony. professor karlan, you gave $1,000 to elizabeth warren. >> i believe so. >> you gave $1,200 to barack obama. >> i have no reason to question that. >> you gave $2,000 to clinton? >> yes. >> why so much more for hillary than the other two? >> i've been giving a lot of money to charity because of the poor people in the united states. >> those are not the only folks. 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 -- >> on that do you remember saying the following? liberals tend to cluster more. conservatives especially very conservative people tend to spread out more. perhaps because they don't even want to be around themselves. did you say that? >> yes, i did. >> do you understand how that reflects contempt on people that are conservative? >> no. what i was talking about there was the natural tendency, if you put the quote in con tense, the natural tendency of a compactness requirement to favor a party whose voters are more spread out. i do not have contempt for -- >> i'm very limited on time, professor. so i just have to say, when you talk about how liberals want to be around each other and cluster and conservatives don't want to be around each other so they