robbery -- that's burglary, i'll get it right. and in this situation you've got somebody really caught in the middle of it, and that doesn't excuse the person from the consequences. >> professors, we've talked about abuse of power and bribery. when we started we said we would also discuss obstruction of congress. so i would like to ask you some questions about obstruction of congress. professor gerhardt, in your view, is there enough evidence here to charge president trump with the high crime and misdemeanor of obstruction of congress? >> i think there's more than enough. as i mentioned in my statement, just to really underscore this, the third article of impeachment approved by the house judiciary committee against president nixon charged him with misconduct because he had failed to comply with four legislative subpoenas. here it is far more than four that this president has failed to comply with. and he has ordered the executive branch as well not to cooperate with congress. those together with a lot of other evidence suggests obstruction of congress. >> professor karlan, do you agree? >> i'm a scholar of the law of democracy. so as a citizen i agree with what professor gerhardt said. as as an expert, my limitation is that i'm a scholar of the law of democracy, i'm not a scholar of obstruction of justice or obstruction of congress. >> we will accept your opinion as a citizen. professor feldman. >> the obstruction of congress is a problem because it undermines the basic principle of the constitution. if you're going to have three branches of government, each of the branches has to be able to do its job. the job of the house is to investigate impeachment and to impeach. a president who says, as this president did say, i will not cooperate in any way, shape, or form, with your process, robs a coordinate branch of government, it robs the house of representatives, with its basic constitutional power of impeachment. when you add to that the fact that the same president says, my department of justice cannot charge me with a crime, the president puts himself above the law when he says he will not cooperate in an impeachment inquiry. i don't think it's possible to emphasize this strongly enough. a president who will not cooperate in an impeachment inquiry is putting himself above the law. putting yourself above the law as president is the core of an impeachable offense because if the president could not be impeached for that, he would in fact not be responsible to anybody. >> and sir, in forming your opinion, did you review these statements from president trump? >> we're fighting all the subpoenas. then i have an article ii where i have the right to do whatever i want as president. >> i did. and as someone who cares about the constitution, the second of those in particular struck a kind of horror in me. >> and professor gerhardt, in forming your opinion that president trump has committed the impeachable offense of obstruction of congress, did you consider the intelligence committee report and its findings including finding 9, that president trump ordered and implemented a campaign to conceal his conduct from the public and to frustrate and obstruct the house of representatives' impeachment inquiry? >> i read that report last night after i had submitted my statement. but i watched and read all the other transcripts that were available. the report that was issued reinforces everything else that came before it. so, yes. >> so we've talked first about abuse of power and bribery. and then about obstruction of congress. professor gerhardt, i would like to now ask you some questions about a third impeachable offense, and that is obstruction of justice. sir, have you formed an opinion as to whether president trump committed the impeachable offense of obstruction of justice? >> yes, i have. >> and what is your opinion, sir? >> so i've come here like every other witness assuming the facts that have been put together in official reports. the mueller report cites a number of facts that indicate the president of the united states obstructed justice. that's an impeachable offense. >> in your testimony, sir, you pointed out that the mueller report found at least five instances of the president's obstruction of the justice department's criminal investigation into russian interference in the 2016 election, correct? >> yes, sir. >> and the first of those instances was the president's ordering his then d-white-house counsel don mcgahn to fire the special counsel, or rather to have the special counsel fired, in order to thwart the investigation of the president, correct? >> that is correct. >> and the second was the president ordering mr. mcgahn to create a false written record denying that the president had ordered him to have mr. mueller removed. >> that's correct. >> and you also point to the meeting of the president with his former campaign manager, corey lewandowski, in order to get him to take steps to have the investigation curtailed, right? >> yes, sir, i did. >> and you also point to pardon-dangling and witness-tampering as the paul manafort and michael cohen, former campaign official, former personal lawyer of the president. >> both individually and collectively, these are evidence of obstruction of justice. >> how serious is that evidence of obstruction of justice? >> it is quite serious. and that's not all of it, of course. and we know, as you've mentioned before and others have mentioned, obstruction of justice, as we recognize an impeachable offense both against president clinton and president nixon, this evidence that's been put forward by mr. mueller that's in the public record is very strong evidence of obstruction of justice. >> professor karlan, when you look at the department of justice's russia investigation and how the president responded to that, and when you look at congress' ukraine investigation and how the president responded to that, do you see a pattern? >> yes. i see a pattern in which the president's views about the propriety of foreign governments intervening in our election process are the antithesis of what our framers were committed to. our framers were committed to the idea that we as americans, we as americans decide our elections. we don't want foreign interference in those elections. and the reason we don't want foreign interference in those elections is because we're a self-determining democracy. and if i could just read one quotation to you that i think is helpful in understanding this, it's someone pointing to what he calls a straightforward principle. it is fundamental to the definition of our national political community that foreign citizens did a not have a constitutional right to participate in and thus may be excluded from activities of democratic self-government. and the person who wrote those words is now justice brett kavanaugh in upholding the constitutionality of a federal statute that denies foreign citizens the right to participate in our elections by spending money on electioneering or by giving money to pacs. they have long been forbidden from giving donations to candidates. because that denies us our right to self-government. then-justice brett kavanaugh was correct in saying this because the supreme court has taken campaign finance case after campaign finance case to talk about the first amendment. summarily affirmed here, they didn't even need to hear argument to know it's constitutional to keep foreigners out of our election process. >> professor feldman, you were somewhat of an impeachment skeptic at the time of the release of the mueller report, were you not? >> i was. >> what's changed for you, sir? >> what changed for me was the revelation of the july 25th call and then the evidence that emerged subsequently of the president of the united states in a format where he was heard by others and now known by the whole public, openly abused his open by seeking a personal advantage in order to get himself reelected and act against the national security of the united states. that is precisely the situation that the framers anticipated. it's very unusual for the framers' predictions to come true that precisely. and when they do, we have to ask ourselves, some day, we will no longer be alive and we'll go wherever it is we go, the good place or the other place. and we may meet there madison and hamilton. and they will ask us, when the president of the united states acted to corrupt the structure of the republic, what did you do? and our answer to that question must be that we followed the guidance of the framers and it must be that if the evidence supports that conclusion, that the house of representatives moves to impeach him. >> thank you. i yield my time back to the chairman. >> and my time has expired. i yield back. before i recognize the ranking member for his first round of questions, the committee will stand in a ten-minute humanitarian recess. i ask everybody in the room to please remain seated and quiet while the witnesses exit the room. i also want to announce to those in the audience that you may not be guaranteed your seat if you leave the hearing room at this time. once the witnesses have left the hearing room, at this time the committee will stand in a short recess. >> okay. you heard the chairman. we're in a short recess. a lot to review from the opening statements of the four legal experts. and the back and forth with members of the committee. and norm eisen, acting as the lead counsel for the democrats. a lot of the attention, deservedly so, went to professor karlan, who in addition to her exchange with mr. collins, said the following. the essence of an impeachable offense is a president's decision to sacrifice the national interest for his own private ends. and she said about donald trump, based on the evidentiary record, what has happened in this case before you is something i do not think we have ever seen before, a president who has doubled down on violating his oath to faithfully execute the laws and protect and defend the constitution. andrew weissmann is here with us in the studio, maya wiley is here with us in the studio, and ari melber, as good a law firm as we could assemble anywhere. your assessment of what we have just witnessed. >> two things, to follow up on professor karlan, i think she basically said that for a president who is interested in putting america first by soliciting foreign interference, it is the antithesis of putting america first. and she went on and on about, this is undermining the american right to vote. and the importance of that is i think what professor feldman said, which is a key issue here for i think americans is, why impeachment, why do we need to do this when mr. there is an election coming up. and professor feldman was poignant in saying that exact debate was the debate had in deciding what to put into the constitution, that if you have a president who is actually going to undermine the upcoming election, you have nothing to do but impeach him and you need to have a way of preventing the person who is in office from corrupting the office. those were the two most powerful points from the hearing today. >> maya wily. >> i completely agree with andrew. i would add, to the point about obstructi obstruction, to the debate with professor turley who is saying in a very emotional way, we're so divided as a country and it's critically important that impeachment doesn't become a tool in a divided society to undermine elections, and that's clearly true, and it's one of the reasons we've only had two impeachment trials in the history of our nation, is because it's so hard to actually get an impeachment, for all the right reasons. here, though, he doesn't address the fundamental constitutional arguments that the other scholars laid out, particularly professor gerhardt, which is, if this is not impeachable, then there is no longer an impeachment power. that whole clause in the constitution is gone. and the reason for that goes to andrew's point about obstruction. if the president, which is its own article of impeachment, can literally prevent the evidence that would allow him to be impeached, then say he's not impeachable because the evidence doesn't exist, then there is no more impeachment clause. but the other thing that concerns me is not on the substance. it's the audience. the audience here really is the american public who hasn't been following us the way we are, and who aren't lawyers. and as a trial lawyer, what i wanted to hear, given the richness and the depth and the overwhelming evidence that was in the intelligence committee report, is, i wanted the public to hear, it's impeachable because on august 9th, donald trump had a conversation with mr. sondland who then says the president wants the announcement. in other words, the direct evidence that puts donald trump right in the middle of doing the very acts that the scholars have said is impeachable. because that's what the public has to understand. >> ari melber? >> i think that they were very effective in taking portions of all of those hearings that america has lived look through, million people watched all or part of them. in a conversation that everyone can remember from their own textbooks, from their own civics, what is this constitution about and what does it mean today? i think that part, although at times dry, was well-handled by these experts, who as maya mentioned, were impassioned on both sides. this is an election. so that is no longer an appropriate check if we're dealing with alleged cheating in an election. >> mr. collins, the ranking republican, indicated that starting with law processors, there would be something lacking in today's testimony. >> here, mr. collins, i would like to say to you, sir, that i read transcripts of every one of the witnesses who appeared in the live hearing because i would not speak about these things without reviewing the facts. so i'm insulted by the suggestion that as a law processor i don't care about those facts. but everything i read on those occasions tells me that when president trump invited, indeed demanded foreign involvement in our upcoming election, he struck at the very heart of what makes this a republic to which we pledge allegiance. that demand, as professor feldman just explained, constituted an abuse of power. >> andrew weissmann, i think professor karlan will be remembered long after today for her performance today. >> she was terrific. i think one of the things she mentioned in keeping with that quote is, she said, look, at thanksgiving i had a mail order turkey because i do my homework. one issue you really do not want to take up with law professors, admittedly i am a law professor, is they do their homework, they read. so i don't think that was a fair criticism of any of the four, to say they weren't going to do their homework. >> and brian, a fact check on it. while the republicans certainly make a fair point that fact witnesses are useful, we saw a lot of them in the intelligence committee hearings, they are wrong on the precedent about what type of witnesses appear in these proceedings. i have with us, because we do our homework, a list of every single witness that the republicans called when they controlled this same committee for the clinton impeachment hearings. and on this list of 18 people there are no fact witnesses, zero. so yes, fact witnesses are useful, that's why they were heard from earlier. it's a hollow criticism from the republicans on the committee given the record. >> let me ask you, i heard an attorney last night during prime time coverage on, as they say, another network, say that this 300-page report put out by house intel is way more serious, way more harsh, and way more detailed than anything in the three previous cases we've witnessed as a country. andrew johnson, richard nixon, bi bill clinton, all of which came to different stages of completion. >> it's really striking, i'm curious to see what my colleagues say, when you talk about this report, you see the thickness, the fact that this was assembled this quickly with this much evidence is striking, especially given the defiance. part of the answer is just simply how much this administration and its agents like rudy giuliani spoke in public and were sloppy and released things that helped build the case. as to the comparison you drew, i will say this, the johnson impeachment was famously thin because while there were many things to dislike about him including his embrace of the losing south, the tenure of office act case was thin. the nixon case was different because it operated in parallel with an independent criminal investigation like the kind that andrew knows so much about. and the clinton case also offered a parallel with that but most of those criminal leads turned up empty so you ended up with some narrow things like perjury which most people including senate republicans at the time didn't think was an impeachable matter. i'm not prepared to say this is better than everything. i am prepared to say it is an incredibly thorough report. >> you were invoked. >> so i would say, i wouldn't say this is more detailed and more thorough than the watergate evidence, because that -- let's remember, that took place over two years. >> right. >> this is in lightning speed. and as ari said, it's also without the benefit of probably 98% of the documents, because you have a flat-out refusal from the white house to provide anything. i think what's interesting is that in a short amount of time, although it's incredibly detailed, as was the watergate hearing, what you have here is actually something far more serious. both watergate and what we have here is an effort to obstruct the upcoming election. it's just that what president nixon was involved in, and he actually wasn't involved in the actually break-in, the burglary. here what you have is an undermining of our national security policies and trying to bribe a foreign government to interfere in our election. so the lengths to which the president is stooping is tar more serious than watergate. >> to say that in a sentence and go to maya, the value of what trump was pursuing from ukraine far exceeds everything inside the watergate hotel. >> i want to take a slightly different view on this. and maybe because my father was on richard nixon's blacklist. what richard nixon was doing was fundamentally undermining the constitution of the united states. i think all the points that have been made are right. i just don't think we want to ignore that there was a significant erosion of what the power of the office was, including richard nixon, remember what ultimately got him in the obstruction was that he was going to use the cia to block an fbi investigation, which is -- so i think what is fair to say is, nixon was bad, that impeachment process was very bad, and that's why he had to resign. i think the issue here is that if we were in the early 1970s, probably donald trump would have been forced to resign by his own party. and what has changed is we have a party that has allowed the violation of our norms to the extent where the house intelligence committee had to do such rapid, fast, detailed, careful work and put together a 300-page report in order to convince the public to not pay attention to the republicans saying nothing to see here. and whatever was wrong with this, despite the fact it was endangering our elections, despite the fact that it was endangering peace in europe, despite the fact that every expert, even those that donald trump had himself appointed, were telling him what he was doing was not good for the country, he did it anyway. that is astounding. and that should give us pause. >> it's an argument i'll call contemporary standards, for lack of anything better. jason johnson, politics editor at "the root" and among our contributors has also been watching and listening with us. jason, your assessment thus far. >> this is where i stand up for fellow professors like myself. there is a difference in what you get when professors are speaking versus long term sort of bureaucrats and staffers. and that's what i've noticed in particular about just this morning's testimony. these are all individuals whose job it is, in their daily work, to explain things to people, to make difficult concepts appear clear to classrooms and students and in testimony and witness and expert situations. and i think they've done a wonderful job. we've gotten anecdotes, if there was an emergency in louisiana and the governor had to ask the president. we've seen anecdotes and examples that the american public needs, not congress because they've already decided, but that the american public needs to understand why this is all problematic. the history will be great for us analysts, for the political and history nerds out there, but i think the case has been very well made. i have to say this about turley. in addition to the fact that he went through his resume and said i'm a never trumper and everything like that, his argument essentially that we can't use impeachment because if we do then the next impeachment might happen, that is an ahistorical argument. we haven't had that many impeachments in history. he hasn't been able to counter, nor can republicans come up with an example to say, if we do this impeachment it opens up the process for other things. the republicans have really had a wasted opportunity this morning with their witness and we'll see how they try and recover after this break. >> jason, thank you for that. andrea mitchell, whose hour is normally is, our nbc news chief foreign affairs correspondent, obviously the host of "andrea mitchell reports", is along with us. andrea, i imagine, knowing you as i do, that your attention has been drawn overseas with the president's hasty departure from what is supposed to be a gathering of members of the alliance. >> having just boarded air force one, in fact. i'm torn between this split screen moment, we've had many of these that we've shared, brian, over the years. here you have this impeachment hearing which the president is clearly focused on, repeatedly mentioning it, including not only on the flight over but during lengthy press conferences that have been photo opportunities expanded, canceling the press conference, then having another bilateral meeting today and again calling adam schiff deranged and a maniac, insulting nancy pelosi, and saying that nothing has been presented, the fact is the president has had this very disruptive meeting where he was put off by emmanuel macron's comments even before the nato meeting, got into an argument with him, blasted macron, they went back and forth. there were the open mic moments where we can't absolutely prove were the other leaders talking about the president but from my reporting in the past at the g20 in osaka, there were similar moments where they were gathered and we saw pictures and in fact they were talking about the president who has usually been prompt to things at the white house but seems to be coming to these grand summits always late and maybe showing his dominance of the events by keeping everyone waiting. but also, this impeachment hearing. the fascinating testimony to my mind, to hear these law professors, professor feldman and karlan and gerhardt in particular talking about why they think this is, if gerhardt said, if this is not impeachable, nothing else, explaining that high crimes and misdemeanors as defined by our founders and bribery, for instance, is not bribery as you would conventionally think of it, and the fact that the aid eventually got to ukraine doesn't matter because it is bribery nonetheless, the solicitation is by definition a bribe that was solicited. they seem to be not only agreeing but really explaining it as professor johnson was saying, really explaining it the way american people could understand if they were paying attention to this, as i think the 300-page report was done very simply, in a really easy to understand way. i think they're about to gavel down, but i've just been spellbound by all of this. >> andrea mitchell, indeed, and thank you. we're keeping a very close eye on the committee room. the travels of the chairman, jerry nadler. it was nadler's in effect majority counsel, norm eisen, who led the questioning of the last round. we're going to see the other side now, a 45-minute time limit, followed by, let's not forget, five-minute rounds of members themselves being able to question the witnesses. they're under no obligation, of course, they can yield their time, waive their to ime. the republicans are putting up what appear to be new visual aids on easels over their side. and the four witnesses, the four professors, are back. it bears repeating that it was professor karlan who probably, rightfully, stole most of the thunder and attention during her prepared statement and during her very thorough answers to those questions. andrew noted that she said she had studied through the thanksgiving vacation to the point where she ate mail order turkey. you found that very familiar because of adherence to the law and scholarship. >> you do your homework. there's no way anybody, whether it's professor turley or professor karlan, are going to show up and testify under oath without doing their homework. that's not the issue. so i just think that was foolhardy. >> these are not amateur of that threw something together in slapdash fashion. >> they never will, because they got to the positions they hold because they did their homework. that's something everybody should understand about being a university professor, you're held by a high standard by your institution. >> including your students. >> including your students. >> if nothing else, because of all the cameras aimed at you. chairman jerry nadler is taking his place again to gavel us back into order. and norm eisen will follow. let's listen in. we believe we heard the gavel there. the photographers will be cleared out of the shot. just a program note, at the next break, nicolle wallace will take our coverage the next bit of the way. >> the committee will come back to order after the recess. the chair now recognizes the ranking member for his first round of confession. pursuant to house resolution 660, the ranking member or his counsel have 45 minutes to question the witnesses. ranking member. >> thank you, mr. chairman. before i begin with the questioning, i want to revisit a comment made by you, mr. chairman, you said you would rule on our demand later. the rules of the house do not permit a ruling on this, they do not permit a vote and you cannot shut it down. according to your own words, the minority's entitlement is rarely exercised but it guards again against -- wall it tcall it the balanced rule. it's not the chairman's right to decide whether what we say or think is acceptable. it is certainly not the chairman's right to violate the rules to interfere with our right to conduct a hearing. i commend mr. sensenbrenner for bringing that forward and looking forward to you getting that scheduled expeditiously. moving on. interesting part, now we hit phase ii. you've had one side and i have to say it was eloquently argued by not only the counsel and by the witnesses involved but there is always a phase ii. a phase ii is what is problematic here. because as i said in my opening statement, this would be for many one of the most disputed impeachments on just the facts themselves. what was interesting is we actually showed videos of witnesses, one was an opening statement, again, i believe, again, the closest thing to perfect outside of heaven is an opening statement because it's unchallenged, and i agree with that, and it should be, and we've have great witnesses to talk about this. we didn't talk about anything about kurt volker who said nothing about it. we said nothing about the aid being held up. morrison, who contradicted vindman and others. i don't expect the majority too because that's not what they're here for, they're not here to give exculpatory evidence just like the schiff report gives nothing of exculpatory evidence and also there's still evidence being withheld by adam schiff that's not come to this committee is and we haven't gotten any of the underlying stuff, that according to house rule 660 we're supposed to get, one that the inspector general, his testimony is still being withheld. and there is a, quote, secret on it or they're holding it in classification. last time i checked we have plenty of places in this building and other buildings to handle classified information. it's being withheld from us, i have to believe now there is a reason because undoubtedly there's a problem with it. we'll have to see as this goes forward. anybody in the media, anybody watching today, the first 45 minutes, and we went through, have painted a very interesting picture. it's painted an interesting picture that goes back many, many years. it paints an interesting picture of picking and choosing which part of the last few weeks we want to talk about and that's fine because we'll have the rest of the day to go about this. but professor turley, you're now well-rested. and you got one question, you were asked a yes/no, only not given to elaborate. but i want to start here. let's just do this. elaborate, if you would, because you tried to when the question was asked to you, then if there's anything else you heard this morning that you would disagree with, i will go ahead and allow you some time to talk. just for the information, mr. chairman, this is the coldest hearing room in the world and also for those of you worried about i'm uncomfortable and upset, i'm happy as a lark but this chair is terrible. i mean, it is amazing. but mr. turley, go ahead. >> well, it's a challenge to think of anything i was not able to cover in my robust exchange with majority counsel but i would like to try. >> go right ahead. >> there is a couple of things i want to highlight. i'm going to take a great deal of time. i respect my colleagues. i know all of them. and i consider them friends. and i certainly respect what they have said today. we have fundamental disagreements. and i would like to start with the issue of bribery. the statement has been made not just by these witnesses but chairman schiff and others, that this is a clear case of bribery. it's not. and chairman schiff said that it might not fit today's definition of bribery but it would fit the definition in the 18th century. putting aside mr. schiff's turn towards originalism, i think it might come is a relief to him and his supporters that his career will be a short one, that there is not an originalist future in that argument. the bribery theory being put forward is as flawed in the 18th century as it is in this century. the statement that is made by one of my esteemed colleagues is that bribery wasn't really defined until much later. there was no bribery statute. and that is certainly true. but it obviously had a meaning. that's why they put it in this important standard. bribery was not this overarching concept that chairman schiff indicated. quite to the contrary, the original standard was treason and bribery. that led mason to object that it was too narrow. if bribery could include any time you did anything for personal interest instead of public interest, if you have this overarching definition, that exchange would have been completely useless. the framers didn't disagree with mason's view that bribery was too narrow. what they disagreed with was when he suggested maladministration to add to the standard, because he wanted it to be broader. and what james madison said is that that's too broad, that that would essentially create what you might call a vote of no confidence in england. it would basically allow congress to toss out a president that they did not like. once again, we're all channeling the intent of the framers. and that's always a dangerous, uh, thing to do. the only more dangerous spot to stand in is between congress and an impeachment as a academic. but i would offer instead the words of the framers themselves. you see, in that exchange, they didn't just say bribery was too narrow. they actually gave an example of bribery. and it was nothing like what was described. when the objection was made by mason -- i'm sorry, by madison, ultimately the framers agreed. and then morris who was referred to earlier, did say we need to adopt the standard. but what was left out was what came afterwards. what morris said is that we need to protect against bribery because we don't want anything like what happened with louie xiv and charles ii. the example he gave of bribery was accepting actually money as the head of state. so what had happened in that example that morris gave, his example of bribery, was that louis xiv, who was a bit of a recidivist when it came to bribes, gave charles ii a huge amount of money as well as other benefits including apparently a french mistress, in exchange for the secret treaty of dover of 1670. it also was an exchange for his converting to catholicism. but that isn't some broad notion of bribery. it was actually quite narrow. so i don't think that dog will hunt in the 18th century and i don't think it will hunt today because if you take a look at the 21st century, bribery is well-defined. and you shouldn't just take our word for it. you should look to how it's defined by the united states supreme court. in a case called mcdonald versus the united states, the supreme court looked at a public corruption bribery case. this was a case where gifts were actually received, benefits were actually extended. there was completion. this was not some hypothetical of a crime that was not fulfilled or an action that's not actually taken. the supreme court unanimously overturned that conviction, unanimously. and what they said was that you cannot take the bribery crime and use what they called a boundless interpretation. all the justices said it's a dangerous thing to take a crime like bribery and apply a boundless interpretation. they rejected the notion, for example, that bribery could be used in terms of setting up meetings and other types of things that occur in the course of a public service career. so what i would caution the committee is that these crimes have meaning. it gives me no joy to disagree with my colleagues here and i really don't have a dog in this fight. but you can't accuse a president of bribery and then when some of us note that the supreme court has rejected your type of boundless interpretation say, well, it's just impeachment, we really don't have to prove the elements. that's a favorite mantra. that's sort of close enough for jazz. well, this isn't improvzational jazz. close enough isn't good enough. if you're going to accuse a president of bribery, you need to make it stick, because you're trying to remove a duly elected president of the united states. now, it's unfair to accuse someone of a crime and when others say, well, those interpretations used to define the crime aren't valid, to say they don't have to be valid because this is impeachment, that has not been the standard historically. if you -- my testimony lays out the criminal allegations in the previous impeachments. those were not just proven crimes. they were accepted crimes. that is, even the democrats on that judiciary committee agreed that bill clinton had committed perjury. that's on the record. and a federal judge later said it was perjury. in the case of nixon, the crimes were established. no one seriously disagreed with those crimes. now, johnson's the outlier because johnson w's was a trap door crime. they basically created a crime knowing that johnson wanted to replace secretary of war stanton and johnson did, because they had serious trouble in the cabinet. so they created a trap door crime, waited for him to fire the secretary of war, and then they impeached him. but there's no question he committed the crime. it's just the underlying statute was unconstitutional. so i would caution you not only about bribery but also obstruction. i'm sorry, ranking member. >> you're doing a good job. >> okay. i would also caution you about obstruction. obstruction is a crime also with meaning. it has elements. it has controlling case authority. the record does not establish obstruction in this case. that is, what my esteemed colleagues said was certainly true, if you accept all of their presumptions, it would be obstruction. but impeachments have to be based on proof, not presumptions. that's the problem when you move towards impeachment on this abbreviated schedule that has not been explained to me, why you want to set the record for the fastest impeachment. fast is not good for impeachment. narrow, fast impeachments have failed. just ask johnson. so the obstruction issue is an example of this problem. and here is my concern. the theory being put forward is that president trump obstructed congress by not turning over material requested by the committee. and citations have been made to the third article of the nixon impeachment. first of all, i want to confess, i've been a critic of the third article of the nixon impeachment my whole life. my hair catches on fire every time someone mentions the third article. why? because you would be replicating one of the worst articles written on impeachment. here's the reason why. peter rodino's position as chairman of judiciary was that congress alone decides what information may be given to it, alone. his position was that the courts have no role in this. and so if any -- by that theory, any refusal by a president based on executive privilege or immunities would be the basis of impeachment. that is essentially the theory that's being replicated today. president trump has gone to congress -- to the courts. he's allowed to do that. we have three branches, not two. i happen to agree with some of your criticism about president trump, including that earlier quote where my colleagues talked about his saying there is this article 2 and he gives his overriding interpretation. i share that criticism. you're doing the same thing with article 1. you're saying, article 1 gives us complete authority that when we demand information from another branch it must be turned over or we'll impeach you in record time. now, making that worse is that you have such a short investigation. it's a perfect storm. you set an incredibly short period, demand a huge amount of information, and when the president goes to court, you then impeach him. now, does that track with what you've heard about impeachment? does that track with the rule of law that we talk about? so on obstruction i would encourage you to think about this. in nixon, it did go to the courts and nixon lost. and that was the reason nixon resigned. he resigned a few days after the supreme court ruled against him in that critical case. but in that case, the court recognized there are executive privilege arguments that can be made. it didn't say you had no right coming to us, don't darken our doorstep again. it said we've heard your arguments, we've heard congress' arguments, and you know what, you lose, turn over the material to congress. what that did for the judiciary is it gave this body legitimacy. it wasn't the rodino extreme position that only you decide what information can be produced. now, recently there are some rulings against president trump, including a ruling involving don mcgahn. mr. chairman, i testified in front of you a few months ago, and if you recall, we had an exchange, and i encouraged you to bring those actions. and i said i thought you would win and i did. and i think it was an important win for this committee because i don't agree with president trump's argument in that case. but that's an example of what can happen if you actually subpoena witnesses and go to court. then you have an obstruction case, because a court issues an order. and unless they stay that order by a higher court, you have obstruction. but i can't emphasize this enough. and i'll say it just one more time. if you impeach a president, if you make a high crime and misdemeanor out of going to the courts, it is an abuse of power. it's your abuse of power. you are doing precisely what you're criticizing the president for doing. we have a third branch that deals with conflicts of the other two branches. and what comes out of there and what you do with it is the very definition of legitimacy. >> let's continue, the impact of what you're talking about. the mcdonald case, was that a split court? were they really torn about that? that case came out how? >> conveyeah, it came out unani so do cases i cite in my testimony that also refute these criminal theories. >> one of the things you said also and i think it could be summed up, i use it sometimes, the layman's language here, is facts don't matter. that's what i heard a lot of in the 45 minutes. well, the facts said this, but if this, if that, if this, it rises to an impeachment level, and that was sort of what you're saying, that crimes, i think your word was, crimes have meaning. this is the concern that i have. is there a concern that if we just say the facts don't matter, that we're also, as you've said, abusing our power as we go forward here in actually looking at what people would actually deem as an impeachable offense? >> i think so, and part of the problem is to bring a couple of these articles, you have to contradict the position of president obama. president obama withheld evidence from congress in fast and furious, an investigation, a rather moronic program that led to the death of a federal agent. president obama gave a sweeping argument that not only was he not going to give evidence to this body but that a court had absolutely no role in determining whether he could withhold the evidence. >> i have a question on that. you brought up mr. obama. you brought up other presidents in this process. is there not an obligation by the office of the president, we'll just use that term, not to be obama or trump, clinton, anybody, isn't there an obligation by the president to actually assert the constitutional privileges or authorities that have been given when accused of something, a crime or anything else? >> yes, i think that president obama is invoked too broadly. but on the other hand, he has actually released a lot of information. you know i've been friends with bill barr for a long time. we disagree on executive privilege. i'm i madisonian scholar, i tend to favor congress in disputes. my natural default is article 1, his natural default is article 2. evaluated released more privileged information than any in my lifetime, including the mueller report. these transcripts would be core executive privileged material. >> that's not pointed out when we're doing a back and forth like we're doing, the transcript of the call released, when we go back through this, there has been work in progress by this administration. the interesting point is two things. number one, congress's abuse of its own power which has not been discussed here even internally where we've had committees not willing to let members see transcripts, not being willing to give those up under the guise of impeachment although the rules of the house were not invoked to stop that. before we move on to something else, the timing issue you talked about here, i believe we tabb talked about this with the mueller report, we talked about this with everything else. we're on a clock. the clock and the calendar are seemingly dominating this. irregardless of what anybody on this committee and especially members not of this committee to think about what we're actually seeing, fact witnesses and is r irregardless in this committee. the question becomes is an election pending when facts are indices pursu indisputing. there is evidence that's presented not in the schiff's report but other report. does that timing bother you in a histor historic? >> they tend not to survive and collapse from the senate. impeachments are like buildings. there is a ratio between your foundation and hiets. you want to build an impeachment, you need foundation to support it. johnson may be the fastest impeachment. what happens to johnson was the fourth impeachment. and actually -- they lay the track doors a year before. >> i want to go back to something else when you talk about bribery. it bothers the perception out there of what's going on here in the disputed, the call has been laid out and the president said i wanted nothing for this. there is all that's not presented in the last 45 minutes. one thing is interesting and reported in the mainstream media, it goes back to your issue does crimes matter or what the definition is. we still hear it as we go through. as reported, they use a political focus group to determine whether the phrase polls well so they changed the case to bribery. >> it does. it is obvious and it is not that you can't impeach a non crime, you can. in fact non-crimes have never gone up alone or primarily as the bases of impeachmentme. that's the problem here. if you prove a quid pro quo, you may have an impeachable offense. to go up on a non criminal case, why is that the case? the reason is that crimes have established definition in case laws so there is a concrete independent body of law that assures the public that this is not just political that this is a president who did something they could not do. you can't say the president is above the law if you then say the crimes you accuse him of don't have to be established. >> that's the problem right now. many members of this house and the american public are looking at this, if you say he's above the law but if you don't define it, that's the ultimate railroad. everyone is afforded of their own process, that's the concern i have in this committee right now. we are not going to look at certain facts and witnesses and not promised of other hearings and words of the concerns and from the chairman where he did not want to take the advise of other bodies or entities a report and acting a rubber stamp that we did not do this. it was two and a half weeks before the discussion of this kind of a hearing back then before the hearings took place. the obvious point here is timing is becoming more the issue because the concerns have been stated before, they're more concerned of trying to fit the facts into what the president supposedly did, presumably did and make those hypotheticals stick to the american public. the definition of crime and robbery defined by the supreme court is not making their case or fitting what they need to do. the issue we have to deal with going forward is why the rush? why do we not have information from the intelligence committee. why is the inspector general report being held? these are the problems you highlighted and i think it needs to be. this is why the rest of the day is going to be applicable. both sides matter. at the end of the day, this is a fast impeachment, the fastest we are seeing based on disputed facts on crimes or disservices made up with the facts to fit each part. with that, i am going to turn it over to mr. taylor. professor turley. the subject alexander hamilton was concerned out when it comes to impeachment. advocating for the constitution federal statements laid out the reasons madison and hamilton thought impeachable clauses was necessary, he also flagged concerns. in many cases of impeachment, it will connect itself and enlist all their animosities, partialities and influence ans interests on one side. in such cases, there will always be the greater danger that the decision will be regulated more by the comparative strength of parties than by the real demonstrations of innocence or guilt. professor turley, do you think hamilton predicted a real danger of hyper party and impeachmentmeimpeachments? >> that's proven to be the case. the two impeachments we have seen. it is important to note that we often think our times are unique. this provision was not just written for times like ours. it was written in times like ours. these are people that even more severe than the rhetoric today. jefferson referred to the administration of the federalists, the reigning of the witches. this is not a period where people did not have a strong feeling or even when people talk about members of this committee acting like they want to kill each other. back then they're trying to kill each other. that's what this edition law was. you are trying to kill people to disagree with you. what's notable is they did not have a whole slew of impeachment. they knew not to do it. i think that's a lesson that could be taken. framers created a standard that would not be fluid and flexible. that standard have kept us from impeachments and we have really decemb despise each other. there is so much more rage than reasons. you can't talk about these issues with people saying you must be in favor of ukrainians taken over the country or the russians moving into the white house. at some point as people, we have to have a serious discussion about the grounds to remove a dually elected president. >> professor turley, your testimony, you said when it comes to impeachment. we need circumspect animalysis. let's take a quebec look at this partisan is being waived. the bar graphs show counties and the height of the bars show the total of the cast. you can see the parts of the country represented by democratic impeachment leaders voted overwhelmingly during the last presidential election for hillary clinton. also, the 2016 elections, lawyer campaign contributions tilted 90% for clinton and 3% for trump. i would like to turn to the partisan process that defines these proceedings. this is how the nixon impeachment effort was described. you are talking about the impeachmentment inquiry. this action was not patterson. it was supported by the overwhelming majority of both political parties and it was.