wouldn't she know in your gut that such a president had abused his office that he betrayed the national interest and that he was trying to corrupt the elektra process i believe that the evidence the record shows wrongful acts on that scale here it shows a president who delayed meeting a foreign leader and providing assistance that congress and his own advisors agreed serves are you know watching al-jazeera at 1600 hours g.m.t. 11 am in washington d.c. where the next phase of impeachment proceedings against president donald trump is underway in the u.s. house of representatives the judiciary committee is weighing up evidence gathered by democrats who accuse tromp of abuse of power and obstruction constitutional scholars are testifying today to establish the gravity of president comes an edge crimes the panel includes 3 witnesses called by democrats and one by republicans the 1st to speak was the constitutional law expert noah feldman from harvard

university who said that he believes trump has committed impeachable offenses and speaking now is a professor from stanford a new law pamela karlan things are witness was also called by the democrats now the president commenting before leaving london after the nato summit there said that the peace from an effort against him is a cold joke and a basically criticize the proceedings underway in washington d.c. today let's go back to listening to what's happening there is no better forum to discuss the constitutional standard for impeachment and whether that standard has been met in the case of the current president of the united states as i explain in the remainder and balance of my opening statement the record compiled thus far shows the president has committed several impeachable offenses including bribery abuse of power and soliciting

a personal favor reform leader to benefit himself personally obstructing justice and obstructing congress. our hearing today should serve as a reminder one of the fundamental principles that drove the founders or its founders of our cause of our constitution to break from england and to draft their own constitution the principle that in this country no one is king we have followed the principle since before the founding of the constitution and it is recognized around the world as a fixed inspiring american ideal and his 3rd message to congress in 100003 president theodore roosevelt delivered one of the finest articulations of this principle he said no one is above the law and no man is below nor do we ask any man's permission we require him to obey it obedience to the law is demanded as a right not asked for as

a favor 3 features of our constitution protect the fundamental principle that no one not even the president is above the law 1st in the british system the public had no choice over the monarch or rule them in our constitution the framers allowed elections to serve as a crucial means for ensuring presidential accountability 2nd in the british system the king could do no wrong. and no other parts of the government could check his misconduct and our constitution the framers developed the concept of separation of powers which consists of checks and balances designed to prevent any branch including the presidency from becoming tyrannical 3rd in the british system everyone but the king was impeachable our framers generation pledged their lives and fortunes to rebel against a monarch whom they saw as corrupt tyrannical and intitled to do no wrong and our declaration of independence the framers set forth a series of impeachable offenses at the king and committed against the american

colonists and the framers later convene in philadelphia to draft our constitution they were united around a simple indisputable principle it was a major safeguard for the public we the people against tyranny of any kind of people who had overthrown a king are not going to turn around just after securing their independence from corrupt monarchial tyranny and create an office that like the king was above the law 'd and could do no wrong the framers created a chief executive to bring energy to the administration federal laws but to be accountable to congress for treason bribery or other high crimes and misdemeanors the framers concerned about the need to protect against a corrupt president was evident throughout the convention and here i must thank my prior to friends who have spoken and referred to a north carolinian william davy i will refer to another north carolinian in the

consul convention james iron will and president washington later appointed to the supreme court should his fellow delegates the president quote is of a very different nature from a monarch is to be personally responsible for any abuse of the great trust placed in him unquote this brings us of course of the crucial question we're here to talk about today the standard for impeachment. the constitution defines treason and the term bribery basically means using office for personal gain or i should say misusing office or ms for personal game and as professor of feldman pointed out these terms derive from the british understood the class of cases that would be impeachable to refer to political crimes which included great offenses against the united states' attempts to it's a virtue the constitution when the president deviates from his duty or dares to abuse the power invested in him by the people reaches the public trust is serious

injuries to the republic and is influential say in the federalist papers alexander hamilton declared that impeachable offenses are those offenses which proceed from the misconduct of public men or in other words the abuse or violation of some public trust and relate chiefly to injuries done immediately this is a society itself several themes emerge from the framers discussion of the scope of them peaceful offenses and impeachable and impeachment practice we know the not all impeachable offenses are criminal and we know that not all felonies are impeachable offenses we know further that what matters in determining whether particular misconduct concerts a high crime and misdemeanor is ultimately the context and the gravity of the misconduct in question. after reviewing the evidence that's been made public i cannot help but conclude that this president has attacked each of the constitution's safeguards against establishing

a monarchy in this country both the context and gravity of the president's misconduct are clear the favor he requested from ukraine's president was to receive in exchange for his use of presidential power ukraine's announcement of a criminal investigation of a political rival investigation was not the important action for the president. the announcement was because of good then be used in this country manipulate the public into casting aside the president's political rival because of concerns about his corruption the gravity of the president's misconduct is apparent when compared to the misconduct of the one president resign from office to avoid impeachment conviction and removal the house judiciary committee in 1904 approved 3 articles of impeachment again against richard nixon who resigned a few days later the 1st article charged him with obstruction of justice if you read the mahler report it identifies a number of facts i won't lay them out here right now that suggest the president

himself has obstructed justice look at the 2nd article of impeachment to prove against richard nixon it charged him with abuse of power for ordering the heads of the f.b.i. . i arrests and cia hereat to harass his political enemies in the present circumstance the president is engaged in a pattern of abusing the trust placing them american people by soliciting foreign countries including china russia and ukraine to investigate his political opponents and interfere in his behalf and elections in which he is a candidate the 3rd article a prove against president nixon charges of you've failed to comply with 4 legislative subpoenas in the present circumstance the president has refused to comply with and directed at least 10 others and it is a been straight not to comply with lawful congressional subpoenas including secretary of state might pay 0 energy secretary rick perry and acting chief of staff and head of the office of management and budget budget macmillan mulvaney

a senator lindsey graham now chair of the senate judiciary committee said when he was a member of the house on the verge of impeaching president clinton the day richard nixon failed to answer that subpoena is the day he was subject to impeachment because he took the power from congress over the impeachment process away from congress and he became a judge and jury that is a perfectly good articulation of wide struction of congress is impeachable the president's defiance of congress is all the more troubling due to the record troubling due to the rationale he claims for his obstruction his arguments and those of his subordinates including his white house counsel and his october 8th letter to the speaker and 3 committee chairs oiled sounds of the assertion that he is above the law i won't read that letter here but i do want to disagree that with the characterization in the letter of these proceedings sense the constitution expressly says and the spring and the supreme court has unanimously affirm but the

house is the sole power of impeachment and night that like the senate the house has the power to determine the rules for its proceedings. the president and his absurd supporters have argued further that the president is entitled to absolute immunity from criminal procedure even investigation for any criminal wrongdoing including shooting someone on 5th avenue present his claim further isn't titled an absolute executive privilege not to share any information he doesn't want to share with another branch he's also claimed the entitlement to be able to order the executive branches as he's done not to cooperate with this body when it conducts an investigation of the president if left unchecked the president will likely continue his pattern of soliciting for interference on behalf of the next election and of course his obstruction of congress the fact that we can easily transpose the articles of impeachment against president nixon to the actions of this president

speaks volumes and that does not even include the most serious national security concerns and election interference concerns at the heart of this president's misconduct noma misconduct it's more and the federal to our democracy and nothing injures the american people more than a president uses his power to weaken their authority under the constitution as well as the authority of the constitution itself and read one more sentence or i'm sorry who it is man to the sentence or to the thank thank you. if congress fails to impeach here then the impeachment process has lost all meaning and along with that our constitution is carefully crafted safeguards against establishment of a king on american soil and therefore i stand with the constitution and i stand with the framers were committed to ensure that no one is above the law thank you professor professor turley. thank you chairman now adler ranking member collins i mean this is the judiciary committee so now we've heard from the 3rd witness called

by the democrats my holger had their professor of law at the university of north carolina who went even further than his 2 colleagues and where called by the democrats saying that president thomas misconduct is worse than any prior prior presidents misconduct speaking now is the 4th constitutional law professor one how about hauled by the republicans he's donovan tenured professor of law at george washington university president yet here we are the elements are strikingly similar the intense rancor and rage of the public debate is the same as the atmosphere that they framers it says a paid the stifling intolerance of opposing views is the same i'd like to start there for perhaps in congress lee by stating irrelevant facts i'm

not a supporter of president trump i voted against him my personal views of president trump are is irrelevant to my impeachment testimony is they should be to your impeachment vote prison trump will not be our last president and what we leave in the wake of this scandal will shape our democracy for generations to come i'm concerned about lowering impeachment standards to fit a paucity of evidence and an abundance of anger i believe this impeachment not only fails to satisfy the standard of past impeachments it would create a dangerous precedent for future impeachments. my testimony lays out the history of impeachment from early english cases to colonial cases to the present day the early impeachment for rock political exercises using fluid definitions of criminal and non criminal acts when the framers met in philadelphia they were quite familiar

with impeachment and its abuses including the hastings case which was discussed in the convention a case that was still pending for trial in england unlike the english impeachments the american model was more limited not only in its application to judicial and executive officials but its grounds the framers rejected a proposal to add mellowed ministration because madison objected that so vague a term would be equivalent to a 10 year during the pleasure of the senate in the end various standards that had been used in the past were rejected corruption obtaining office by improper means betraying the trust of a foreign to a foreign power negligence perfidy lation and oppression perfidy or lying and peculation self dealing are particularly relevant to our current controversy my testimony explores the impeachment cases of nixon johnson and clinton the closeness

of these 3 cases is to the 868 impeachment of andrew johnson it is not a model or an association that this committee should relish in that case a group of opponents of the president's called the radical republicans created a trapdoor crime in order to impeach the president they even find it is a high misdemeanor there was another shared aspect besides the atmosphere of that impeachment and also the unconventional style of the 2 presidents and that shared element of speed. this impeachment would rival the johnson impeachment as the shortest in history depending on how one counts the relevant days now there are 3 distinctions when you look at these are 3 commonalities when you look at these past cases all involved established crimes

this would be the 1st impeachment in history where there would be considerable debate in my view not compelling evidence of the commission of a crime 2nd is the abbreviated period of this investigation which is problematic and puzzling this is a facially incomplete in an adequate record in order to impeach a president allow me to be candid in my closing remarks because we have limited time we are living in the very period described by alexander hamilton a period of agitated passions i get it you are mad the president's mad my republican friends are mad my democratic friends are mad my wife is mad my kids are mad even my dog seems mad and loon as a goldendoodle and they don't get mad so we're all mad

where's that taken us will and the slipshod impeachment make us less mad. will it only invite an invitation for the madness to follow every future administration and is why this is wrong it's not wrong because president trump is right is call is anything but perfect it's not wrong because the house has no legitimate reason to investigate the ukrainian controversy it's not wrong because we're in an election year there is no good time for an impeachment you know it's wrong because this is not how you impeach an american prison this case is. not a case of the unknowable it's a case of the peripheral we have a record of conflicts defenses that have not been fully considered and subpoenaed witness with material evidence to impeach a president on this record would expose every future president to the same type of

in coate impeachment principle often takes us to a place we would prefer not to be it was the place 7 republicans found themselves in the johnson trial when they saved a president from acquittal that they despised for generations even celebrated as profiles of courage senator edmund ross said it was like looking down into his open grave then he jumped because he didn't have any alternative it's easy to celebrate those people from the distance of time and circumstance and age of rage it's appealing to listen to those saying forget the definitions of crimes just do it like this is some impulse buy a nike snick sneaker you could certainly do that you can declare the definitions of crimes alleged are immaterial and just an exercise of politics not the law however

those legal definitions and standards which i've addressed in my testimony are the very thing that divides rage from reason this all brings up to me and i will conclude with this of a scene from a man for all seasons i with search time is more when his son in law william roper put the law suggested that more was putting the law ahead of morality he said more would give the devil the benefit of the law when more asks roper would he instead cut a great road through the law to get after the devil roper probably declares yes i cut down every law of england to do that more responds and when the last laws cut down. and the devil turned around on you where would you hide roper all the laws being flat he said this country is planted thick with laws from coast

to coast man's laws not god's and if you cut them down and you're just the man to do it do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then and he finished by saying yes i'd give the devil the benefit of law for my own sake so i will conclude with this both sides of this controversy have demonized the other to justify any measure in their defense much like rope or perhaps that's the saddest part of all of this we have forgotten the common article of faith that binds each of us to each other in our constitution however before we cut down the trees so carefully planted by the framers i hope you will consider what you will do when the wind blows again perhaps

for a democratic president where will you stand then when all the laws being flat. thank you again for the honor of testifying today and i'd be happy to answer any questions the witnesses. researcher i heard from the 4th constitutional law professor this one called by the republicans jonathan turley professor of law at george washington university who began his opening statement by saying that is not a supporter of president trump he say they voted against him in fact but said that bin peach meant off president trump is wrong because this is not how you american president his own words we've heard also from 3 other costs who express those once called by the democrats who all said that the evidence and testimony that has been presented is proof that the president has committed committed impeachable offenses let's speak to melanie sloan about this his she's a former federal prosecutor joins us live from washington d.c.

so give us a house impeachment hearing under way we've heard opening statements. this is the last step of course in the process before lawmakers would vote on impeaching president trump have you heard anything so far melanie that might move the needle beyond partisan lines. no i don't think anything move the needle a bunch of constitutional law professors are not going to be the people who are going to convince the american public to change their position i do think it was interesting to listen to them though professor pam carland was particularly a vibrant in her testimony and moving eloquent and i think she made a great case professor jonathan turley these arguments seem to be. somewhat lackluster and he basically said this is just moving too fast and we haven't heard from all the witnesses ignoring the fact that president trump has instructed the administration to obstruct the proceedings and they've been in court voiding

subpoenas so there's been a lot of delay and obstruction they're waiting longer wouldn't really make a difference here and he didn't go through as the other law professors did all of the president's conduct and analyze it in the same way so i thought that was interesting we'll see what kind of questions that we hear from the committee members but i think you can just expect that each committee member will ask questions that really just solidifies the positions they've already taken michael gurr had who was also called by the democrats a professor of law at the university of north carolina i think went even further than everyone else saying that what president did his misconduct in fact is worth in any prior president's misconduct what do you make of that. he did it was also notable that he talked about president trump as a monarch he said that this was an effort to make a monarchy and so that too was pretty extreme language from you know for a country that was founded to escape the monarchy of king george so yes he

definitely took a strong position there. meant to be you talked about this a little bit there's been criticism of the democrats that they are moving too fast with this they officially announce their impeachment inquiry into president trump a little over 2 months ago and now they sound like they want to be done with this what do you make of the process so far. briefly melanie and then we'll go back to the questioning i think the democrats have been trying to be fair the president hasn't wanted to participate he was invited and his counsel was invited to participate in these hearings and they've declined so the republicans are defending the president but they are also at the same time refusing to allow witnesses to come forward and subpoenas many subpoenas are being thought about in court still today all right thank you so much melanie for speaking to us let's go back now to the chair of the u.s. house judiciary committee jerry nadler who's beginning the question session on its ability if you sitting whether to recommend articles of impeachment against the

president or speak for my colleagues when i say that i do that we do not take this lightly we are committed to ensuring that today's hearing as well as the larger sponsibility before us are grounded in the constitution. intelligence committee's report concluded that the president pressured a foreign leader to interfere in our elections by initiating and announcing investigations into president trump's political adversaries he then sought to prevent congress from investigating his conduct by ordering his administration and every one aide to defy house subpoenas professor karlan as you said the right to vote is the most precious legal right we have in this country is the president's conduct in danger that right yes mr chairman it does thank you and how does it do so. the way that it does it is exactly what president washington warned about by inviting

a foreign government to influence our elections it takes the right away from the american people and it turns that into a right that foreign governments decide to interfere for their own benefit foreign governments don't interfere in our elections to benefit us they intervene to benefit themselves thank you professor gary hart you have written extensively about our system of checks and balances what happens to that system when a president undertakes a bucket of congress's impeachment inquiry when your days or witnesses not to testify and what is our records. when a president does that separation of powers means nothing. the subpoenas that have been issued of course are lawful orders in our law schools we would teach our students this is an easy straightforward situation you comply with the law lords all the time have to comply with subpoenas but in this situation the full scale of obstruction or scale obstruction of those subpoenas i think torpedos separation of

powers and therefore your only recourse is to protect your institutional profiteers and that would include impeachment and the same is true of a of a of defying congressional subpoenas on a wholesale basis with respect to oversight not just who vehemently absolutely yes or thank you. professor feldman xi'an distended the framers intended impeachment to be used infrequently not as punishment but to save our democracy from threats so significant that we cannot wait for the next election and your testimony you suggest that we face that kind of threat can you explain why you think impeachment is the appropriate recourse here why we cannot wait for the next election those are 2 questions if you want to be the framers reserved impeachment for situations where the president abused his office that is used for his personal advantage and in particular they were specifically worried about

a situation where the president used his office to facilitate corruptly his own reelection that's in fact why they thought they needed impeachment and why waiting for the next election wasn't good enough on the facts that we have before the house right now the president solicited assistance from a foreign government in order to assist his own reelection that is he used the power of his office that no one else could possibly have used in order to gain personal advantage for himself distorting the election and that's precisely what the framers anticipated. thank you very much and i know you'll do remainder of my time to mr eisenberg counsel questions answers good morning thank you for being here i want to ask you some questions about the following high crimes and misdemeanors that were mentioned in the opening statements abuse of power and bribery obstruction of congress and obstruction of justice

professor feldman what is abuse of power abuse of power is when the president uses his office takes an action that is part of the presidency not to serve the public interest but to serve his private benefit and in particular it's an abuse of power if he does it to facilitate his reelection or to gain an advantage that is not available to anyone who is not the president. why is that impeachable conduct if the president uses his office for personal gain the only recourse available under the constitution is for him to be impeached because the president cannot be as a practical matter charged criminally while he is in office because the department of justice works for the president so the only mechanism available for a president who tries to distort the electoral process for personal gain is to impeach him that is why we have impeachment professor karlan do scholars of impeachment generally agree that abuse of power is an impeachable offense yes they

do professor gary hart do you agree that abuse of power is impeachable you know sir i'd like to focus the panel on the evidence they considered and the findings in the intelligence committee report that the president solicited the interference of a foreign government ukraine in the 2020 us presidential election. press professor feldman did president trump commit impeachable high crime and misdemeanor of abuse of power based on that evidence and those findings on that evidence and those findings the president did commit an impeachable abuse of office professor karlan same question same answer and professor gary hart did president trump commit the impeachable high crime and misdemeanor of abuse of

power we 3 are unanimous. professor feldman i'd like to quickly look at the evidence and the report on july 25th president trump told the president of ukraine and i quote i would like you to do us a favor though and he asked about looking into the bidens was the memorandum of that call it relevant to your opinion that the president committed abuse of power a memorandum of that call between the 2 presidents is absolutely crucial to the determination to my determination that the president abused his office and did you consider the findings of fact that the intelligence committee made including that and again i quote the president with held official acts of value to ukraine and condition therefore film and on actions by ukraine that would benefit his personal political interests yes in making the determination that the president committed an impeachable offense i relied on the evidence that was before the house and the

testimony and then when this report was issued i continue to rely on that sir did you review the following testimony from our ambassador to ukraine ambassador william taylor to withhold that systems for no good reason other than help with the political campaign made no sense it was it was counterproductive to all of what we had been trying to do. it was illogical it could not be explained it was crazy. yes that evidence underscored the way that the president's actions undercut national security professor feldman will you please explain why you concluded that the president committed the high crime of abuse of power and why it matters the abuse of power occurs when the president uses his office for personal advantage or game that matters fundamentally to the american people

because if we cannot impeach a president who abuses his office for personal advantage we no longer live in a democracy we live in a monarchy or we live under a dictatorship that's why the framers created the possibility of impeachment now professor karlan this high crime and misdemeanor of abuse of power was it some kind of loose or undefined concept to the founders of our country and the framers of our constitution no i don't think it was an abuse it was a loose concept at all it had a long lineage in the common law in england of parliamentary impeachments of lower level officers obviously they had not talked about impeaching as you've heard earlier the king or the like and can you share a little bit about that lineage please yes so.