they started to use the term bribery, you articulated why you think the definitions that they have used publicly are flawed if not unconstitutional both in the 18th century or the 21st century. but would you agree with me that bribery under any valid definition requires that a specific quid pro quo be proven. >> more importantly the supreme court is focused on that issue. as well as what is the definition of a quid pro quo. so if military aid or security assistance is part of that quid pro quo, where in the july 25th transcript does president trump ever suggest that he intends to withhold military aid for any reason. >> he doesn't. and that's the reason we keep on

hearing the words circumstantial and inference shl. that's what's so concerning. those would be appropriate terms. it's not that you could have a a circumstantial case. those would be appropriate if they were unknowable facts. the problem is you have so many witnesses that have not been subpoenaed. so many witnesses that we have not heard from. so if it's not in the transcript then it's got to come from witness testimony. i assume you have reviewed all the witness testimony. so you know that no witness has testified that they either heard president trump or were told by president trump to withhold military aid for any reason, correct? >> correct. >> so let me turn to the issue of obstruction of justice. i think you assumed, as i did, that when democrats have been talking about obstruction, it

was specifically related to the ukraine issue. you were high 4r50ig9ing the fact that the democrats appear to be taking the position that if a a president seeks judicial review over executive branch testimony or document subpoena issed by congress, rather than letting the courts be the arbiter, congress can simply impeach the president for obstruction based on that. did i hear you say that if we were to proceed on that basis, that would be an abuse of power. >> i did. let me be clear about this. 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'm saying is that if you

want a well-based 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, when the president goes to a court, i think that's an abuse of power that's not what happened in nixon. in fact, the ultimate decision in nixon is there are legitimate executive privilege claims that can be raised. some of them deal with the type of aids involved in this case. like a national security adviser and a white house counsel. so the concern here is not that you can't ever impeach a president unless you go to court. just because you shouldn't. you have time to do it. >> so if i were to summarize your testimony, no bribery, no extortion, no obstruction of

justice, no abuse of power, is that fair? >> not on this record. >> the time is expired. >> let me just pick up where we left off. i'm going to start with your words. it's from october 23rd. your opinion piece in the hill. you said that as i have said before, there's 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 political opponent. you just prove it happened. if you can establish atotal use public office for personal gain, you have a viable, impeachable offense. we heard a president abuses his

power when he uses his official power for his own personal interest rather than interest of our country. i'd like to spend more time on that because i'm really struck by one of the things at stake here. $400 million of taxpayer dollars. president knicnixon leveraged t powers of hids office to investigate plolitical rivals. but here the evidence shows that president trump also leveraged taxpayer dollars to get ukraine to now 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 that there was unanimous support

for the military aid to ukraine. can we listen to that, please. >> from what you opening statements from the witnesses today were not distributed until late last night. and the intelligence committee's finalized report has yet to be presented to this committee. you hear from those in the majority that process is a republican talking point when in reality it'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. jeffreys. >> i did 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. in america, we believe in free and fair elections, is that correct? >> yes it is. >> but authoritarian regimes do

not, is that right? >> that's correct. >> thomas jefferson once wrote, or john adams once wrote to thomas jefferson on december 6th, 1787 and stated you are apprehensive of foreign interference, intrigue, influence, so am i. but as often as elections happen, the danger of foreign influence recurs. >> it's less important than it's become in our constitution since them. one of things that turned me into a lawyer was seeing barbara jordan say that we the people didn't include people like her in 1789 but through a process of amendment we have done that. so elections are more important to us today as a constitutional matter than they were to the

framers. >> is it fair to say an election cannot be reasonably characterized as free and fair if it's manipulated by foreign interference? >> that's correct. >> and deeply concerned with threat of foreign interference in the domestic affairs of the united states, true? >> yes. >> and why were they so deeply concerned? >> because foreign nations don't have our interests at heart. they have their interests at heart. >> and would the framers find it acceptable to pressure a foreign government to help him win an election? >> i think they'd find it unacceptable for a president to ask a foreign government to help him whether they put pressure on him or not. >> direct evidence shows that on july 25th phone call the president uttered five words, do us a favor though. he pressured the ukrainian government to target an american citizen for political gain and at the same time simultaneously

withheld $391 million in military aid. now ambassador bill taylor, westpoint graduate, vietnam war hero, republican appointed diplomat discussed this issue of military aid. here is a clip of his testimony. >> again, our holding up of security systems that would go to a country that is fighting, fighting aggression from russia for no good policy season, no good substantive reason, no good national security reason is wrong. >> 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 that you read. when the president said do us a favor he was using the royal we there. it wasn't a favor for the united

states. he should have said do us a favor because only kings say us when they mean me. >> is it correct an abuse of power that strikes at the heart of our democracy falls squarely within the definition of a high crime and misdemeanor. >> yes, it does. >> some of my colleagues have suggested that impeachment would overturn the will of the people. the american people expressed their will in november of 2018. the will of the people elected a new majority. the will of the people elected a house that would not function as a wholly owned subsidiary of this administration. the will of the people elected a house that understands we are separate and co-equal branch of government. the will have 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. >> gentleman yields back. mr. yates. >> the will of the american people also elected donald trump to be the president of the united states in the 2016 election and there's one party that can't seem to get over it. we understand the fact that in 2018 you took the house of representatives and we haven't spent our time during your tenure in power trying to remove the speaker of the house and de delegitimize your ability to govern. we'd love to put out a helping sand, it's the will of the people that you ignore when you continue down this terrible road of impeachment. you gave money to barrack obama, right. >> my family did, yes. >> four times. >> that sounds about right, yes. >> mr. chairman, i have a serious unanimous consent request relating to professor

feldman's work. raise risk of impeachment -- >> the gentleman will suspend. >> we'll take that time off. >> has the gentleman submitted -- have we seen the material? >> we can provide it to you as is typical -- >> and we'll consider the unanimous consent request later after we review it. >> very well. >> thank you mr. chairman. mr. feldman wrote articles entitled trump's wiretap tweets raise risk of impeachment. he then wrote impeachment file and then mr. jake flanagan wrote in court a harvard law professor thinks trump could be impeached over fake news accusations. my question is since you seem to believe that the basis for impeachment is even broader than the basis that my democratic colleagues layed forward, do you believe you're outside of the political mainstream on the question of impeachment?

>> i believe that impeachment is warranted whenever the president abuses his power for personal benefit. >> did you write an article entitled it's hard to take impeachment seriously now. >> yes, i did. >> did you write since then the 2018 midterm election house democrats have made it painfully clear that discussing impeachment is primarily or even exclusively a tool to weaken president trump's kanschances i 2020. >> until this call on july 25th i was an impeachment skeptic. the call changed my mind and for good reason. >> thank you. i appreciate your testimony. you gave $1,000 to elizabeth warren, right. >> i believe so. >> you gave 1,200 bucks to barrack obama. >> i have no reason to question that. >> and you gave $2,000 to hillary clinton. >> that's correct. >> why so much more for hillary than the other two. >> because i have been giving a lot of money to charity recently because of all the poor people

in the united states. >> those aren't the only folks you have been giving to. have you ever been on a podcast called versus trump. >> i think i was on a live panel that will the people that 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 who are conservative? >> no, what i was talking about there was the natural tendency, if you put the quote in context, the natural tendency of a compactness requirement to favor a party whose voters are spread out. >> i have limited time professor so when you talk about how

liberals want to be around each other and conservatives don't want to be around each other and have to spread out, you may not see this from the ivory towers of your law school but it makes people in this country -- excuse me, you don't get to interrupt me on this time. now let me also suggest that when you invoke the president's son's name here. when you try to make a little joke out of referencing barron trump. that does not lend credibility to your argument. it makes you look mean and like you're attacking someone's family, the minor child of the president of the united states. so let's see if we can get into the facts to all of the witnesses. if you have personal knowledge of a single material fact in the schiff report, please raise your hand. and let the record reflect no personal knowledge of a single fact and you know what, that continues on the tradition we saw from adam schi iff. mr. kent never met with the president. fiona hill never heard the

president reference anything regarding military aid. mr. heal was unaware of any activity with aid. and denied there was a qu quid pro quo and mr. morrison said there wasn't anything on the call. and the only direct evidence was mr. sondland that said i want nothing. no quid pro quo and if wiretapping a political opponent and maybe it's a different president we should be impeaching. >> the gentleman's time as expired. >> thank you. professor feldman, let me begin by stating the obvious. it is not hearsay when the president tells the president of ukraine to investigate his political adversary is it? >> no. >> it is not hearsay when the president confesses on national television to doing that, is it? >> it is not. >> it is not hearsay when they testify that they hear the

president say he only cares about the investigations of his political opponent, is it? >> no, that is not hearsay. >> and there's lots of other direct evidence. so let's dispense with that claim by my republican colleagues. and impeachment requiring a criminal offense and he wrote, and i quote, an offense does not have to be indictable. serious misconduct or violation of public trust is enough. end quote. was he right when he wrote that in 2014? >> yes, i agree with that. >> okay. now, next, at the constitutional convention he said and i quote, foer foreign powers will intermeddle in our affairs and spare no expense to influence them and james madison said impeachment was needed because otherwise a president might betray his trust

to a foreign power. can you elaborate on why the framers were so concerned about foreign interference? how they accounted for these concerns and how that relates to the facts before this committee? >> so the reason that the framers are concerned about foreign interference is slightly different than the reason we are. they were concerned about it because we were such a weak country in 1789. we were small, we were poor. we didn't have an established navy. we didn't have an established army. today the concern is a little different so it would interfere with us making it best for us as americans. second based on the president's own summary of his call with the you yukrainian

president he used it as leverage in his efforts to achieve this and third the president then urged china to begin it's own investigation. professor feldman, how did it impact our democracy if it become standard practice for the president of the united states to ask a foreign government to interfere in our elections. >> it would be a disaster for the functioning of our democracy if our president regularly as this president has done asked foreign governments to interfere in our electoral process. >> i'd like to end with a powerful warning from george washington that told americans in his fairwell address, and i quote, to be constantly aware since history and experience prove that foreign influence is one of the most vainful foes of republican government. the conduct at issue here is agregious. the president has openly and repeatedly done that in our foreign elections. of that there's no doubt. inviting foreign meddling into our elections robs the american

people of their sacred right to election their own political leaders. americans all across the country wait in long lines to exercise their right to vote and to choose their own leaders. this does not belong to foreign governments. we fought and won a revolution over this. it's what separates us and authoritarians all over the world. as public servants and members of the house we would be negligent in our duties under the constitution if we let this abuse of power go unchecked. we heard a lot about hating this president. it's not about hating this president. it's about a love of country. it's ability honoring the oath that we took to protect and defend the constitution of this great country. so my final question is to professor feldman and carlin in the face of this evidence what are the consequences if this committee and this congress refuses to muster the courage to respond to this gross abuse of power that undermined the national security of the united states, that undermined the

integrity of our elections and that undermined the confidence we had to have. >> if this committee and this house failed to act then you're sending a message to this president and future presidents that it's no longer a problem if they abuse their power. it's no longer a problem if they invite other countries to interfere with our elections and put the interest of other countries ahead of ours. >> i agree with professor feldman and i should say one thing and i apologize for getting a little overheated a moment ago but i have a constitutional right under the first amendment to give money to candidates. at the same time, we have a constitutional duty to keep foreigners from spending money in our elections and those two things are two sides of the same coin. >> thank you and with that i yield back. >> the gentleman yields back. mr. johnson. >> thank you. i was struck this morning by the same thing as all of my friends and colleagues on this side of the road. chairman nadler began with the

outrageous statement that the facts before us are undisputed. of course everyone here knows that's not true. every person here and every person watching at home knows full well that virtually everything here is disputed from the fraudulent process and the broken procedure to the democrats unfounded claims and the full facts are obviously not before us today. we've been allowed no fact witnesses at all. for the first time ever this committee which is the one in congress that has the jurisdiction over impeachment has been given no access to the underlying evidence that adam schiff and his political accomplices claim supports this whole hcherade. under normal circumstances i would greatly enjoy an academic discussions with you and debate but that would be an utter waste of our time today because as has been highlighted so many times this morning, this whole production is a sham and

reckless path to a predetermined political outcome and i want you to know that it's an outcome that was predetermined by our democratic colleagues a long time ago. the truth is house democrats have been working to impeach president donald j. trump since the day he took his oath of office. they have introduced four different resolutions seeking to impeach the president. almost exactly two years ago as one of the graphics up here shows, december 6th, 2017, 58 house democrats voted to begin impeachment proceedings. of course that was almost 20 months before the famous july 25th phone call with ukraine's president and this other graphic up here is smaller but it's interesting too. it's important to reiterate for everybody watching at home that of our 24 democratic colleagues and friends on the other side of the room today 17 out of 24 already voted for impeachment. so let's not pretend that anybody cares anything about what's being said here today or

the actual evidence or the facts. that's not happening here. so much for an impartial jury. several times this year leading democrats frankly admitted in various interviews and correspondence that they believe this entire strategy is necessary, because why? because they want to stop the president's re-election. even speaker pelosi said famously last month that, quote, it is dangerous to allow the american people to evaluate his performance at the ballot box. speaker pelosi has it exactly backwards. what is dangerous here is the precedent all of this is setting for the future of our republic. i love what he testified too this morning. he said this is simply not how the impeachment of a president is done. his rhetorical question to all of theel colleagues on the oth side is still echoing throughout this chamber. he asked you to ask yourselves where is this and where will you stand when this impeachment process is initiated against a

president from your party. the real shame here today is that everything in washington has become bitterly partisan and this ugly chapter isn't going to help that. it's going to make things that much worse. he said earlier that we are now living in the area feared by our founders. what hamilton referred to as a period of agitated passion. that says it so well. this has become an age of rage. president washington warned in it would lead us to the ruins of public liberty. let me tell you what i heard from meetings in any district two days ago. the people of this country are sick of this. they're sick of the politics of personal destruction. they're sick of this toxic atmosphere that's being created here and they're deeply concerned about where all of this will lead us in the years

ahead. and rightfully so. do you know what the greatest threat is? the rapidly eroding trust. one of the foundations of self-governing people in a constitutional republic is they will maintain a basic level of trust in their institutions. in the rule of law and system of justice and the body of elected representatives. they're citizen legislators in the congress. the greatest danger of this is not what happens this afternoon or by christmas or in the election next fall. the greatest danger is what this will do in the days ahead. our 243 year experience. what effect this will have upon our nation six or seven years from now. a decade from now in the ruins of public liberty that are being created by this terribly shortsighted exercise today. god help us. i yield back. >> the gentleman yields back. >> he is a former prosecutor and

i recognize the defense attorney trying to represent their client. especially one who has very little to work with in the way of facts and today you're representing the republicans and their defense of the president. professor -- >> that's not my intention, sir. >> you said that this case represents a dramatic turning point in impeachment precedent. the impact of which will shape and determine future cases. the house for the first time in the modern era asked the senate to remove someone for conduct for which he was never charged criminally and has never been tested in the court of law but that's not a direct quote from what you said today. it sounds a lot like what you argued today but that's a quote from what you argued as a defense lawyer in a 2010 senate impeachment trial. professor, did you represent the federal judge. >> i did. >> and he was tried on four articles of impeachment ranging from engaging in a pattern of conduct incompatible with trust

placed on him as a federal judge to engaging in corrupt conduct that demonstrates his unfitness to serve as a united states district court judge. on each count, he was convicted by at least 68 and up to 96 bipartisan senators. but we're here because of this photo. it's a picture in may of this year standing on the eastern front of ukraine as a war was taking place and up to 15,000 ukrainians died at the hands of russians. i'd like to focus on the impact of president trump's conduct particularly with our allies that are standing in the world. this isn't just a president as professor carlin pointed out asking for another foreign leader to investigate a

political opponent. it's also a president leveraging a white house visit as well as foreign aid. they need our support and i have heard just how important they were particularly from ambassador taylor. this assistance allows the ukrainian military to deter further incursions by the russians against ukrainian territory. and that further -- >> further aggression were to take place -- >> does the president's decision to with hold from ukraine such important official acts he ordered to pressure and relate to the framers concerns about the abuse of power and

entanglements with foreign nations. yes, today 50 million immigrants live in the united states. i move by one who recently told me and said that for the last 20 years he had left and why he had come to the united states and he told me that when he has gone home recently they now wag their finger at him and say you're going to lecture us about corruption? what do you think the president's conduct says to the millions of americans that left

their families and livelihoods that come to a country that believes in the rule of law. >> it suggests that we don't believe in the rule of law and it tells emerging democracies not to take it seriously when we tell them that their elections are not legitimate because of foreign interference or their elections are not legitimate because of persecution of the opposing party. and president bush announced that he did not consider the elections in 2006 to be legitimate for exactly that reason because they went after political poents. >> and finally we should wait and go to the courts but you would acknowledge that we have gone to the courts and we have been in the court for over six months on matters already settled in the united states supreme court. particularly nixon where the president seems to be running out the clock, is that right.

>> i ask everyone in the room to please remain seated and quite while the witnesses exit the room and also wanted to remind those in the audience that you may not be guaranteed your seat if you leave the hearing room at this time.

[captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2019]

>> hearing with the judiciary committee beginning at 10:00 a.m. eastern time.

more than a dozen lawmakers still to ask questioning of the constitutional scholars appearing as witnesses here today. and we are bringing you live coverage of the impeachment inquiry hearing on the c-span networks. and we are bringing you live coverage of the impeachment hearing on the cspan networks.

the committee i'm proceeding under the rule. >> i wonder how this panel can opine as to whether the president committed an impeachment offense and the answer quite frankly is because you came in with a preconceived notion. you already made that determination and decision. i'll give you a for instance. until the recent collocolloquy,

several of you said the president said i would like you to do me a favor. but that was inaccurate. and i'm going to read it to you. i would like you to do us a favor though because our country has been through a lot. one of you said well that's because the president was using royal we. here the president is talking about the country. that's what he's talking about. it's audacious to say it's using the royal we. that's royal, all right but it ain't the royal we. and i'll just tell you, when you come in with a preconceived notion it becomes obvious. one of you just said, mr. feldman it was you who said, and i'm going to quote here, roughly, i think this is exactly what you said though, until the call on july 25th, i was an impeachment skeptic too. i don't know, i'm looking at it august 23rd, 2017 publication where you said if president donald trump pardons joe arpaio

it would be an impeachable offense. he did. in 2017, the new york book review, mr. feldman said defamation by tweet is an impeachable offense. and i think of a history of this country and i think if defamation or liable or slander using the imable offense, i can't help but reflect about john adams or thomas jefferson that routinely had their political opponents. in fact, at the time, the factions or parties actually bought newspapers to attack their political opponents. so, this rather expansive and generous view that you have on what constitutes impeachment is a real problem. this morning, one of you mentioned the constitutional con vep -- convention and several of you talked about the constitutional convention.

it's been awhile since i read the minutes and i just briefly reviewed because i remembered the discussion on the impeachment as being more persuasive. and more expansive. he is discussing the impeachment of a dutch leader and he talks specifically about what he would anticipate an impeachment to look like. he said a regular impeachment inquiry. it would have taken place and if acquitted then be restored to the confidence of the public. so i look also at a may 17th article which is a discussion about impeachment because president trump had fired james

comey. he said it was hard to make the obstruction of justice case with this alone. the president had clear legal authority and there was reasons for firing him. that was impeachable. refer you to it, may 17th, 2017, what i'm suggesting to you today is a reckless bias coming in here and not fact witnesses. you're supposed to be and one last thing here if i can find it, and one of our witnesses here and it's dealing with

something that was said in a maryland law review article in 1999 and basically if i can get to it, it's talking about this -- was being critical of lack of self doubt in an overwhelming arrogance on the part of law professors that come in and piopine on impeachment. that would be you that said something like that. i can't find my quote or else i would give it to you. so what i'm telling you is that is what has been on display in this committee today and with that i yield back. >> a little while ago mr. gates asked certain material be inserted by unanimous consent. we have reviewed it. the material will be inserted without obstruction. mr. lou. >> thank you. i have first swore an oath to

the constitution when i was commissioned as an officer in the united states air force and the oath i took was not to a political party or to a president or to a king, it was a document that's made america the greatest nation on earth. i never imagined we would now be in a situation where the president or commander in chief is accused of using his office for personal political gain that betrayed security and help for adversary russia. now the constitution provides a safe guard but when the president's abuse of power and betrayal of national interests are so extreme that it warrants impeachment and removal, it seems notable that of all the offenses, bribery is one of only two that are listed. so professor, feldman, why would the framers choose bribery of all the powerful offenses they

could have included to list? >> it with was the classic example of high crime and misdemeanor of abuse of office for personal gain because if you take something of value when you're able to effect an outcome for somebody else, you're serving your own interests and not the interest of the people. and that was commonly used in england and that's one of the reasons they specified it. >> thank you. now early in this hearing, professor carlin made the point that bribery as envisioned by the framers was much broader than the federal criminal statute of bribery. we're not in a criminal proceeding. we're not deciding whether to send president trump to prison. this is a civil action. it's an impeachment proceeding to decide what whether or not we remove donald trump from his job. so professor, it's true, state's exhibit it that, we don't have to meet the standards of a federal bribery statute in order

to meet the standards for impeachment offense. >> that's correct. i'm sorry. that's correct. >> yesterday, scalia law professor that is a life long republican, former republican staffer that advised the trump transition team made the following public statement about donald trump's conduct. the call wasn't perfect. he committed impeachable offenses including bribery. so professor, i'm now going to show you two video clips of the witness testimony and the president's with holding of the white house meeting in exchange for the public announcement of the investigation into his political rival. >> as i testified previously his requests for a quid quo spr pro for arranging a visit.

and alleged interference in the 2016 elections. >> congress in exchange for announcement of investigation. >> in the absence of any credible explanation for the suspension of aid i later came to believe that the resumption of security aid would not occur until committing the investigation of the 2016 elections and mr. giuliani had demanded. >> i'm also a former prosecutor.

i believe it would also meet the standards for criminal bribery. the supreme court's decision was primarily about what constitutes an official act. and formal exercise of governmental power on something before a public official. we have hundreds of millions of dollars of military aid and the freezing and unfreezing of that aid is a formal exercise of governmental power. there's another crime here. it's the solicitation of a foreign government in a federal election campaign. that straight up violates the federal election campaign. and oh by the way, that's one reason he is sitting in prison right now. i yield back.

>> how many of the panel actually voted for donald trump for 2016. >> i don't get to say anything about it. gentleman will suspend. we'll suspend the clock too. >> gentleman may ask the question, the witnesses don't have to respond. >> how many of you supported donald trump. >> not raising our hands is not an indication of an answer, sir. >> this has been predicated on rather disturbing legal doctrines. one democrat asserted that hearsay can be much better evidence than direct evidence. speaker pelosi and others said that the president's responsibility is to present

evidence to prove his innocence. we heard if you invoke legal rights in defense of criminal accusations that's an on instruction of justice and evidence of guilt. my question to you is what does it mean to our american justice system if these doctrines take route in our country. >> what concerns me the most is that there's no limiting principles that i can see and more importantly some of these i only heard about today. and they're attempting to use and you recognize it. but i'm pretty confident that nobody on this committee wants the new standard of impeachment to be betrayal of the national interest. that is going to be the basis for impeachment. how many republicans do you

think would say that barrack obama violated that standard. that's exactly what james madison warned you against. is that you would create a vote of no confidence standard in our constitution. >> are we in danger of abusing our own power of doing enormous violence to our constitution. and before the president was sworn in on this panel. professor called it illegitimate in 2017. she implied impeachment was a remedy. professor feldman advocated impeaching the president over a tweet he made in march of 2017. that's just 7 weeks after his inauguration. are we in danger of sentence first and verdict afterwards. >> well, this is part of the problem of how your view of the

president can effect your assumptions and inferences and view of circumstantial evidence. i'm not suggesting that the evidence, if it was fully investigated would come out one way or the other. what i'm saying is that we are not dealing with the realm of the unknowable. you have to ask, we burned two months in this house that you could have been in court seeking a subpoena for these witnesses. it doesn't mean that you have to wait forever. you could have gotten an order by now. you could have allowed the president to raise an executive privilege claim. >> i need to go on here. the constitution says the executive authority should be vested in a president of the united states. does that mean some of the executive authority or all of it? >> obviously there's checks and balances on all of these but the executive authority primarily rests with the president but these are all shared powers. i don't begrudge the investigation of the ukraine

controversy. i begrudge how it has been conducted. >> i agree with that. the constitution commands the president take care that the laws be enforced. that doesn't make him the chief law enforcement of the federal government. >> so to believe a crime's been committed does the president has the authority to inquire into that matter. >> he has. but this is where i think we would depart. i have been critical of the president in terms of crossing lines with the justice department. that has caused considerable problems and i don't believe it's appropriate but we often confuse what is inappropriate with what is impeachable. many people feel that what the president has done is obnoxious, contemptible, but contemptible is not synonymous with impeachment. >> let me ask you a final question, the national defense authorization act that authorized aid to ukraine requires they certify that the government of ukraine take substantial actions to make

defense institution reforms for the purposes of decreasing corruption. is the president exercising that responsibility when he inquires into a matter that could involve illegalities between american and ukrainian officials? part is you just ignore defenses. they're just the other side's account for actions. >> the gentleman's time has expired. >> thank you. i want to thank the witnesses for their hard work on a long day. i want to thank them especially for invoking the american revolution which not only overthrew a king but created the world's first anti-monarchical constitution. it makes me proud to have spent my career as a fellow constitutional law professor before running in congress. in the monarchy the king is law

but in the democracies the law will be king but today the president advances an argument and says that article 2 allows him to do whatever he wants. wants. he not only says that, but he believes it because he did something no other american president has done before. he used foreign military aid as a lever to coerce a foreign government to interfere in an american election to discredit an opponent into advance his re-election campaign. professor carlin, what is the existence of the impeachment power tell us about the president's claim that the constitution allows him to do whatever he wants? >> it blows it out of the water. >> if he's right and we accept this radical claim that we can do whatever he want, all future presidents seeking re-election will seek foreign governments into their campaigns to target their arrivals and spread

propaganda. that's astounding. if we let the president get away with this conduct, every president can get away with it. do you agree with that, professor feldman? >> i do. richard nixon sent burglars to break into the democratic national committee headquarters, but president trump made a direct phone call to the president of a foreign county and sought his intervention in an american election. >> this is a big moment for america, isn't it? >> if elijah cummings were here he'd say listen up, people n. listen up! how we respond will represent the character of our democracy for generations. professor carlin said there was three dominant reasons invoked at the founding for why we needed an impeachment power. broadly speaking, it was an instrument of popular self-defense and trampling the rule of law and not just in the royal normal sense in showing cruelty, vanity and treachery, and greed and so on, but when

presidents threatened the basic character of our government and the constitution, that's what impeachment was about and the framers invoked three specific kinds of misconduct so serious and egregious that they thought they warranted impeachment. first, the president might abuse has power by corruptly using his office for personal, political or financial gain. professorfeld mid-c feldman, wh wrong with that. if the president belongs to my party, and i generally like him, what is so wrong with him using his office to advance his political ambitions. >> the president of the united states works for the people if he serves personal gain he's not serving the interests of the people and he's serving the interests specific to him and that means he's abusing the office and he's doing things that he can only get away with because he is the president and that's necessarily subject to impeachment. >> well, second and third, the founders expressed fear that a

president could subvert our democracy by betraying his trust to foreign influence in interference and also by corrupting the election process. professor carlin, you're one of america's scholars and what role does impeachment play especially in an international context in which vladimir putin and other tyrants and despots are interfering to destabilize elections around the world? >> well, congress has enacted a series of laws to make sure that there isn't foreign influence in our elections and allowing the president to circumvent that principle is a problem and as i've already testified several times, america is not just the last best hope as mr. jefferies said, but it's also the shining city on the hill. we can't be the shining city on the hill and promote democrat see around the wor

alone would be sufficient for impeachment according to the founders, but is it sufficient to say that all three causes -- yes or no, professor feldman? >> professor gerhard? >> yes. >> professor carl in? >> yes. >> you agree. are any of you aware that animated the founders? >> no. >> no. >> no, as well. >> mr. chairman, it's hard to think of a more monarchal sebts ime iment than i can do whatever i want as president, and i yield back. >> gentleman yields back. miss lesko. >> thank you, mr. chair. i ask unanimous consent a letter i wrote and sent to you, asking, calling on you to cancel any and all future impeachment hearings

and outlining the project. >> without objection the letter will be entered into the record. >> thank you. during an interview, mr. chairman on msnbc's "morning joe" on november 26, 2018, chairman nadler outlined a three-pronged test that he said would allow for a legitimate impeachment proceeding. now i quote chairman nadler's remarks. and this is what he said. there really are three questions, i think. first, has the president committed impeachable offenses? second, do those offenses rise to the gravity that's worth putting the country through the drama of impeachment? and number three, because you don't want to tear the country apart, you don't want half of the country to say to the other

half for the next 30 years, we won the election, you stole it from us. you have to be able to think at the beginning of the impeachment process that the evidence is so clear of offenses so grave that once you've laid out all of the evidence, a good fraction of the opposition, the voters will reluctantly admit to themselves they had to do it. otherwise, you had a partisan impeachment which will tear the country apart. if you meet these three tests, then i think you'd do the impeachment and those were the words of chairman nadler. now let's see if chairman nadler's three-pronged test has been met. first, has the president committed an impeachable offense? no. the evidence and testimony has not revealed any impeachable

offense. second, do those offenses rise to the gravity that's worth putting the country through the drama of impeachment? again, the answer is no. there's nothing here that rises to the gravity that's worth putting the country through the drama of impeachment. and third, have the democrats laid out a case so clear that even the opposition has to agree? absolutely not. you and house democrat leadership are tearing apart the country. you said the evidence needs to be clear. it is not. you said offenses need to be grave, they are not. >> you said that once the evidence is laid out that the opposition will admit they had to do it. that has not happened. in fact, polling and the fact that not one single republican

voted on the impeachment inquiry resolution or on the schiff report reveal the opposite is true. in fact, what you and your democratic colleagues have done is opposite of what you said had to be done. this is a partisan impeachment, and it is tearing the country apart. i take this all to mean that chairman nadler, along with the rest of the democratic caucus is prepared to continue these entirely partisan, unfair proceedings and traumatize the american people all for a political purpose. i think that's a shame, that's not leadership. that's a sham, and so i ask mr. turley, has chairman nadler satisfied his three-pronged test

for impeachment? >> with all due respect to the chairman, do i not believe those factors were satisfied. >> thank you. and i want to correct something for the record, as well. repeatedly today and other days, democrats have repeated what was said in the text of the call. do me a favor, though and the imply was against president biden. to impeach president biden. it was not. it was not. let me read what the transcript said are says to president trump, i would like you to do us a favor because our country knows a lot and ukraine knows a lot about it and i would like you to find out the whole situation with ukraine. they say crowd strike. i guess you have one of your own wealthy people. it says nothing about the bidens so please stop referencing those two together and i yield back. >> the gentle lady yields back.

>> thank you, mr. chairman. this is a deeply grave moment that we find ourselves in, and i thought the threat to our nation was well articulated earlier today by professor feldman who you said, 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. my view is that if people cannot depend on the fairness of our elections, then what people are calling divisive today will be absolutely nothing compared to the shredding of our democracy. after the events of ukraine unfolded, the president claimed that the reason that he requested an investigation into his political opponents and withheld desperately needed aid to ukraine was supposedly because he was worried about corruption. however, contrary to the president's statements, various witnesses including vice

president pence's special adviser jennifer williams testified that the president's request was political. take a listen. >> i found the july 25th phone call unusual because in contrast to other presidential calls i had observed it involved discussion of what appeared to be a domestic, political matter. >> for someone who gets caught to deny that their behavior is impermissible? >> almost always. >> and one of the questions before us is whether the president's claim that he cared about corruption is actually credible. you've argued before the supreme court and the supreme court determined that when assessing credibility we should look at a number of factors and including impact and departures for normal procedures. >> what we're trying to do is figure out if the explanation fits with the facts and if it doesn't the explanation is not true. ut lute colonel vindman talked

about he repaired for trump's call with president zelensky. however, based on the transcripts released on april and july president trump never mentioned these points of corruption. he actually never mentioned the word corruption. does that go to any of those factors? is that significant? >> yes. it goes to the one about procedural irregularities and it goes to the one that says you look at the kind of things that led up to the decision that you're trying to figure out somebody's motive about. >> so let's try another one. ambassador volker testified that the president never expressed any concerns to him about corruption in any country other than ukraine. would that be relevant to your assessment? >> yes, it would. it goes to the factor about substantive departures. >> professor carlin, there is, in pack, and my colleague mr. mcclintock mentioned this earlier, a process outlined in the national defense

authorization act to assess whether countries that are receiving military aid have done enough to fight corruption. in may of 2019, my republican colleague did not say this. the department of defense actually wrote a letter determining that ukraine passed this assessment and yet, president trump set aside that assessment and withheld the congressionally approved aid to ukraine anyway in direct contradiction to the established procedures he should have followed had he cared about corruption. is that relevant to your assessment? >> yes. that would go to the factors the supreme court's discussed. >> and what about the fact, and i think you mentioned this earlier as one of the key things that you read in the testimony that president trump wanted the investigations of burisma and the bidens announced, but that he actually didn't care whether they were conducted. that was in ambassador sondland's testimony. what would you say about that? >> that goes on whether the

claim that this is about politics is a persuasive claim because that goes to the fact that it's being announced publicly which is an odd thing, and generally, you don't announce the investigation in a criminal case before you conduct it because it puts the person on notice that they're under investigation. >> and given all of these facts and there are more that we don't have time to get to. how would you assess the credibility of the president's claim that he was worried about corruption. >> you ought to make that credibility determination because you have the sole power of impeachment. if i were a member of the house of representatives i would infer that he was doing it for political reasons. >> if we don't stand up now to a president who abuses his power we risk sendziing a message to l future presidents that they can put their own political interests ahead of the american people, our national security

and our elections and that is the gravest of threats to our democracy. i yield back. >> the gentle lady yields back and i recognize mr. gomert. >>. >> i have an article by daniel huff. >> without objection the article is admitted into the record. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i'm starting off today doing something that i don't normally do, and i'm going to quote speaker of the house nancy pelosi. in march the speaker told "the washington post" i'm going to quote this, impeachment is so divisive to the country that unless there's something so compelling and overwhelming and bipartisan, i don't think we should go down that path because it divides the country. on that, the speaker and i both agree, and you know who else agrees? the founding fathers.

the founding fathers warrant they the impeachment might bey is severe that the actions are impeachable. let's go back to speaker pelosi's words just one more time. it is speaker says the case for impeachment must be also compelling. after last month's schiff show this is what we learned. there is no evidence that the president directed anyone to tell the ukrainians that aid was conditioned on investigation aside from assumptions by ambassador sondland, was there nothing that there was aid for the investigation. never in that call was the 2020 election mentioned and never in that call was military aid mentioned. in fact, president trump told johnson on 21, august, that aid was not conditioned on investigation. rather, president trump was

rightfully skeptical about the ukrainians and their country has a history of corruption and he merely wanted the europeans to contribute more to the problem in their own backyard. i think we can all agree that it was appropriate for the president to ensure that our money isn't wasted. i said i wasn't going to go back to speaker pelosi, but i do want to go back. she also said that impeachment should be pursued when it's quote, unquote, overwhelming. it's probably not good for the democrats that none of the witnesses who testified before the intel committee were able to provide firsthand evidence of a quid pro quo, but i forgot we're calling it bribery now after the focus group last week and there's no evidence of bribery, either. instead the two people who did have first-hand knowledge, the president and president zelensky both say there was no pressure on the ukrainians and again, the transcript of the july 25th backs this up and to go back to nancy pelosi one more time. she said that the movement for

impeachment should be, quote, unquote, bipartisan which is the same sentiment echoed by jerry nadler who in 1998 said, and i quote, there must never be a narrowly voted impeachment supported by one of the political parties and imposed by another. well, when the house voted on the democrats impeachment inquiry it was just that. it was the only bipartisan vote was the one imposing the inquiry. the partisan vote was the one to move forward with the inquiry. so we're 0 for 3. let's face it. this is a sham impeachment against president trump. it's want compelling. it's not overwhelming, and it's not bipartisan. so even by the speaker's own criteria this has failed. rather, what this is is nothing more than a partisan witch hunt which denies the fundamental fairness of our american justice system and denies due process to

the president of the united states. the democrats' case is based on nothing more than thoughts, feelings and conjectures and the thoughts and feelings of a few, unelected career bureaucrats and the american people are absolutely fed up. instead of wasting our time on this, we should be doing things like passing usmca and lowering the the cost of prescription drugs and working on the failing infrastructure in this country. i've watched as your words have been twisted and mangled all day long. is there anything that you would like to clarify? >> only this. one of the disagreements that we have and i have with my esteemed colleagues, is what makes a legitimate impeachment and not technically what satisfies an impeachment, there are very few, and there is presumption over

proof. that's because this record hasn't been developed and if you're going to remove a president and if you believe in democracy, if you're going to remove a sitting president then you have an obligation not to rely on inference when there's still information you can gather and that's what i'm saying. it's not that you can't do this. you just can't do it this way. >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> the gentleman yields back. i recognize ms. jackson-lee for the purpose of unanimous request. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i would like unanimous consent to place in the record a new statement for checks and balances -- >> without objection. >> without objection, i now recognize ms. demings for five minutes for questioning the witness. >> thank you, mr. chairman. as a former law enforcement official, i know first hand that the rule of law is the strength

of our democracy and no one is above it. not our neighbors and our various community, not our coworkers and not the president of the united states. yet the president has said that he can't be prosecuted for criminal conduct, that he need not comply with congressional requests and subpoenas. matter of fact, the president is trying to absolve himself of any accountability. since the beginning of the investigation in early september the house sent multiple letters, document requests and subpoenas to the white house. yet the president has refused to produce documents and has directed others not to produce documents. he has prevented key white house officials from testifying. the president's obstruction of congress is pervasive.

since the house began its investigation, the white house has produced zero subpoena documents. in addition, at the president's direction, more than a dozen members of his administration have defied congressional subpoenas. the following slides show those who have refused to comply at the president's direction. we are facing a categorical blockade by a president who is desperate to prevent any investigation into his wrong doing. professor gerhart, has a president ever refused to cooperate in an impeachment investigation? >> not until now. >> and any president who -- i know nixon delayed or try to

delay turning over information. when that occurred, was it at the same level that we're seeing today? >> president nixon had also ordered his subordinates to cooperate and testify and he produced documents and there were times when there were certainly disagreement, but there was not a wholesale, broad scale across the board refusal to even recognize the legitimacy of this house doing an inquiry. >> did president nixon's obstruction result in an article of impeachment? >> y ma'am. article 3. >> is it fair to say that if a president stonewalls an investigation like we are clearly seeing today into whether he has committed an impeachable offense he risks rendering the impeachment power moot? >> yes. and indeed, that's the

congress to oversee him and to refuse his capacity to impeach. [ no audio ] >> yes, ma'am, you are, and i might just point out that one of the difficulties with asking for a more thorough investigation is that's what the house is trying to conduct here and the president has refused to comply with subpoenas and that's why people are not testifying and the people here have said today they want to hear from. >> in relation to what you just said, ambassador sondland testified and i quote, everybody was in the loop. it was no secret. professor gerhart, how is ambassador sondland's testimony relevant here? >> it's relevant and also rather chilling to hear him say that everybody is in the loop and when he says that he's talking about people at the highest levels of our government, all of whom are refusing to testify

under oath or comply with subpoenas. >> professors, i want to thank you for your testimony. the president used the power of his office to pressure a foreign head of state to investigate an american citizen in order to benefit his domestic, political situation, after he was caught, and i do know something about that. this president proceeded to cover it up and refused to comply with valid, congressional subpoenas. the framers included impeachment in the constitution to ensure that no one, no one is above the law including and especially the president of the united states. thank you, mr. chair, and i yield back. >> the gentle lady yields back. mr. klein is recognized. >> thank you, mr. chairman. it's just past 5:00 and a lot of families are just getting work

and they're turning on their tv and they're asking themselves, is this a re-run? because i thought i saw this a couple of weeks ago. no, this is not a re-run, act 2 of the three-part tragedy of the impeachment of president trump and what we're seeing here is several, very accomplished constitutional scholars attempting to divine the intent whether it's of the president or of the various witnesses who appeared during the schiff hearings and it's very frustrating to me as a member of the judiciary committee why we are where we are today. i asked to be a member of this committee because of its stored history and because it was the defender of the constitution, because it was one of the oldest committees in the congress established by another virginian, john george jackson.

it's because two of my immediate predecessors, congressman book goodlatte who chaired this committee and congressman butler who also served this committee, but the committee they served on is dead. that committee doesn't exist anymore. that committee is gone. apparently, now we don't even get to sit in the judiciary committee room. we're in the ways and means committee room. i don't know why, maybe because there's more room, maybe because the portraits of the various chairmen who would be staring down at us might just intimidate the other side as they attempt what is essentially a sham impeachment of this president. you know, looking at where we are, the lack of use of the rules in this process is shameful. the fact that we got witness

testimony for this hearing this morning is shameful. the fact that we got the intelligence committee report yesterday, 300 pages of it is shameful. i watched the intelligence committee hearings from the back, although i couldn't watch them all because the judiciary committee actually scheduled business during the intelligence committee hearings. so this the judiciary committee members weren't able to watch all of the hearings, but i didn't get to -- i get to read the transcripts of the hearings that were held in private, and i was not able to be a part of the intelligence committee hearings that were in the skiff. we haven't seen the evidence from the intelligence committee yet. we've asked for it. we haven't received it. we haven't heard from any fact witnesses yet before we get to hear from these constitutional scholars about whether or not the facts rise to the level of

an impeachable offense. mr. turley, it's not just your family and dog who are angry. many of us on this committee are angry. many of us watching at home across america are angry because this show has degenerated into a farce, and as i said, the judiciary committee of my predecessors is dead, and i look to a former chairman, daniel webster who said we are all agents of the same supreme power and it's the people who elected this president in 2016 and it's the people who should have the choice as to whether or not to vote for this president in 2020, not the members of this committee, not speaker nancy pelosi and not the members of this house of representatives. it should be the people of the

united states who get to decide who their president is in 2020. i asked several questions about the obstruction of justice from mr. mueller when he testified. mr. turley, i know that you mentioned obstruction of justice several times in your testimony. i want to yield to mr. ratcliffe to ask a concise question about that issue. >> i thank the gentleman for yielding. professor turley, in the last few days we've been hearing that despite no questions to any witnesses during the first two month of the first phase of this impeachment inquiry that democrats are dusting off the obstruction of justice portion of the mueller report. it seems to me we all remember how painful it was to listen to the special counsel's obstruction of justice portion. i would like you to address the fatal flaws from your

perspective with regard to the -- >> the gentleman's time has expired and the witness may answer quickly impeach. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i've been behind the theory of the russian investigation because once again, it it doesn't meet what i believe are think are the clear standards and there were ten issues that mueller addressed and the only one that raised a serious issue was don mcgahn, and the department of justice rejected the obstruction of justice claim and it was not just the attorney general. it was also the deputy attorney general rod rosenstein. >> the gavm's time hentleman's l expired. mr. correa. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i would like to thank our witnesses for being here today. i can assure you your testimony is not only to this body, but to america who is listening intentsly on what tintent intently on what the issues before us are and why it is so

important that we understand the issues before us. professor feldman, as was just discussed, president trump has ordered the executive branch to completely blockade the efforts of this house to investigate whether he committed high crimes and misdemeanors in his dealings with the ukraine. is that correct? >> yes, it is. >> president trump has also asserted that many officials are somehow absolutely immune from testifying in this impeachment inquiry. on the screen behind you, is the opinion by judge jackson, a federal judge here in d.c., that rejects president trump's assertion. professor, do you agree with the judge's ruling that president trump has invoked a non-existent legal basis to block witnesses from testifying in this impeachment inquiry. >> i agree with the judge's opinion. i think that she correctly held

that there is no absolute immunity which would protect a presidential adviser from having to appear before the house of representatives and testify. she did not make a ruling as to whether it would apply to any given situation and the issue had not yet arisen. >> let me quote judge jackson and the primary takeaway from the past 250 years of recorded american history is that presidents are not kings, closed quote. professor feldman, in the framers' view, does the president act more like the leader of democracy or more like a monarch when he orders officials to defy congress as it tries to investigate abuse of power and corruption of electeds. >> sir, i don't even think the framers could have imagined that a president would flatly refuse to participate in the impeachment inquiry, given that they gave the power of impeachment and assumed that the

structure of the constitution would allow the house to oversee the president. >> professor gear, hart, where do they can apply for the impeachment investigations. >> the president also takes an oath to protect the constitution of the united states and there are serb constraints with what he may do and there are measures for accountagibility for any failure to follow his duty or the constitution. >> thank you. >> and the president has said that he is above the law, that a article 2 of the constitution allows him to do whatever i want. that can't be true, judge jackson has said that no one is above the law. personally, i grew up in

california in the 1960s. there was a time when we were going to beat the russians to the moon. we were full of optimism. we believe in american democracy. we were the best in the world, and back home on main street my mom and dad struggled to survive day to day. my mom worked ada maid cleaning hotel rooms for $1.50 an hour and my dad worked at the local paper mill trying to survive day to day. what got us up in the morning was the belief, the optimism that determine was going to be better than today. we're a nation of democracy and opportunity and we always know that tomorrow will be better and today i personally sit as a testament to the greatness of this nation. me out of the hoods in congress.

and i sit here in this committee room with one important mission which is to keep the american dream alive to ensure that all of us are equal and to ensure that nobody, nobody is above the law and to ensure that our constitution and our ca congressional oversight is still something with meaning. thank you, mr. chair. i yield back. >> mr. all day long we've been sitting here across the aisle and claiming that the president demanded ukraine do us a favor. by assisting in 2020 re-election campaign before he would release the military aid. this is like everything else in the sham impeachment and not bet are based on the, and it does,

however, show that the assistance to the ongoing investigation into the 16 election. those investigations and particularly the one being run and it should concern democrats and the president was relating to the 2016 election. we know this, and notice i'm using the word no and not the word infer from reading the transcript and because you spoke about it ending with mueller. we know this because he wants the attorney general to get in touch with the ukrainians about the issue. and these facts are inconvenient for democrats and they don't fit the narrative so they're misrepresented or ignored and i it is important to talk about this, beyond a reasonable doubt, clear and convincing evidence of

a quasi judicial hearing and we were talking about the issues and i think we need to start with how we look at it, and i'm not a constitutional law professor. i'm just an old criminal defense attorney and when i walk into a courtroom they think of three things and what's the crime charge. what's the conduct and who is the victim? we managed to make it until 5:00 today until we talk to the alleged victim of the crime and that's president zelensky. three different times and he's denied being pressured by the president. the call shows laughter, pleasantries and cordiality. september 25th, president zelensky states we had a good phone call. it was normal and we spoke about many things and i think you read it and nobody pushed me. october 10th, president zelensky had a press conference and i encourage everyone to watch it, and 90% of the communications is non-verbal. there was no blackmail. december 2nd, this monday, i

never talked to the president from the position of quid pro quo. so we have the alleged victim of quid pro quo, bribery, extortion and whatever we are doing now today repeatedly and adamantly shouting from the rooftops that he never felt pressure, that he was not the victim of anything. so in order for this whole thing to stick, we have to believe that president zelensky is a pathological liar or that the ukrainian president and the country are so weak that he has no choice, but to parade himself out there for the good of his country. either of these weakens his countries and harms our efforts to help the u krab and also begs the question of how on earth did president zelensky withstand this illegal and impeachable pressure to begin with because this fact still has not changed.

the aid was released and did not take action for them in ordz tore flow. with that i yield to mr. jordan. >> i thank the gentleman. >> context is important, isn't it? >> yes, sir. >> just a few minutes ago when my colleague from florida presented a staple you made you said you have to take that statement in context and it seems to me you don't want to apply the same standard to the president. the now famous quote, i would like you to do us a favor, you said half an hour ago that the us didn't mean us, it meant the president himself. i would like you to do us a favor though because, you know what the next two words are? >> i don't have the document. >> i'll tell you. because our country. he didn't say i would like you to do me a favor, though, because i have been through a lot. i want you to do us a favor because our country has been through a lot. you know what this call -- when this call happened? it happened after mueller was in front of this committee. of course our country was put through two years of this, and the idea that you're now going to say this is the royal "we"

and he's talking about himself and it ignores the entire context of his statement and the whole paragraph. you know what he ended that paragraph with? talking about bob muler and this is the basis of this impeachment? this call. it couldn't be further from the truth. you want the standard to apply when representative gates makes one of your statement you have to look at the context and when the president of the united states is clear and when the context is clear he's talking about the two years that this country went through because of the mueller report and somehow that standard doesn't apply to the president. that is ridiculous. >> the gentleman's time has expired. >> miss scanlon? >> want to thank our constitutionalec perts for walking us through the framers' thinking on impeach chment and they decided it was a necessary part of our constitution. i'm asking to ask you to help us understand the implications of the president's obstruction of congress' investigation into his use of the office of the president to squeeze the ukrainian government to help the

trump re-election campaign and there are certainly hundreds of pages on how one reaches that conclusion. >> his conduct is part of a pattern and i'll direct your attention to the time line on the screen. in the left-hand column, we see the president's statement from his july calling which he pressured ukraine, a foreign government to meddle in our elections. then once congress got wind of it, the president tried to cover up his involvement by obstructing the congressional investigation and refusing to cooperate and this isn't the obstruction and we can flashback to the 2016 election when the president welcomed and used russians' interference in our election and again when the special counsel and then this committee tried to investigate the extent of his involvement he did everything he could to cover

it up. it appears the president's obstruction of investigation is part of a pattern. first, he invites foreign powers to interfere in our elections and then he covers it up and he obstructs lawful inquiries whether by congress and law enforcement and then he does it again. professor ger hart, how does the existence of such a pattern help demonstrate whether such conduct is impeachable? >> the pattern gives us tremendous insight into the context of his behavior. the way he's acting and how do we explain those actions? by looking at the pattern. and we can infer and a strong inference, in fact, that this is deviating from the usual practice and and he's been asking this question, by the way, after the july, 25th call, the come there's ongoing conversation that essentially, the money is withheld because

the president of theed wanted t sure the deliverable. >> there is also not the white house meeting which was so important to ukrainian security, right? >> yes, ma'am. that's right. >> okay. professor feldman, we noted previously that a federal district court rejected the president's attempt to block witnesses from testifying to congress saying that presidents are not kings. the founders included, from preventing our president from becoming a king and those protections were presidential elections and impeachment, correct? >> correct. based on the pattern of conduct that we're discussing today and the pattern of inviting foreign interference for our elections for political gain and obstructing lawful investigation, has the president undermined both of those protections? >> the victim a high crime and

misdemeanors, is not president zelensky and is sht tnot the ukrainian people and it's the american people. alexander hamilton said very clearlied that nature of a high crime and misdemeanor is they're related to injuries done to the society itself. we, the american people are the victims of the high crime and misdemeanor. >> what is the appropriate remedy in such a circumstance? >> the framers created one remedy to respond to high crimes and misdemeanors and that was impeachment. >> thank you. i've spent over 30 years working to help clients and schoolchildren understand the importance of our constitutional system and the importance of the rule of law so the president's behavior is deeply, deeply troubling. the president welcomed and used election interference by russia. publicly admitted he would do it again and did, in fact, do it again by soliciting election interference from ukraine and throughout, the president has tried to cover up his

misconduct. this isn't complicated. the founders were clear and it is not acceptable. i yield back. >> the gentle lady yields back, but be recognized for unanimous consent request and a document which lists the 4 hu00 pieces b the house and 80% be made a part of the record in response to mr. gates' claim. >> without objection, the document will be made part of the record and mr. biggs says recognized for the unanimous consent request. >> for a packet of 54 documents and items which have previously been submitted. >> without objection, the documents will be entered into the record. >> mr. chairman, may i have -- what purpose does the gentleman -- >> mr. chairman, i ask unanimous

this arkecticel says democrats e setting a record for a fast impeachment and that's demonstrably false to be made part of the record. >> without objection the document will be made part of the record. >> seek unanimous consent that the tweet that the first lady of the united states issued within the hour. a minor child deserves privacy and should be kept out of politics. pamela carl in, without objectin the document will be entered into the record. >> mr. stuby is recognized for the purpose of recognizing the witnesses. mr. stuby is not here momentarily. ms. garcia is recognized. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i, too, want to thank the witnesses for their time and their patience and i know it's been a long day and the end is

in sight. as my colleague observed, the similarities between the president's conduct and the ukraine investigation and the conduct in the special counsel's investigation are hard to ignore. in fact, we're seeing it as a pattern of a presidential abuse of power. the president called the ukrainian investigation a hoax, and the mueller investigation a witch hunt. he has threatened the whistle-blower for not testifying like he threatened to fire his attorney general for not obstructing the russia investigation. the president fired ambassador yovanovitch and publicly tarnished her reputation much in the same way he fired his white house counsel and publicly attacked his integrity and finally, the president attacked the civil servants who have testified about ukraine just like he attacked career officials of the department of justice for investigating into the obstruction of the russia

investigation. under any other circumstances, such behavior by any american president would be shocking, but here, it is a repeat of what we have already seen in the special counsel's investigation. i'd like to take a moment to discuss the president's efforts to obstruct the special counsel's investigation. a subject that this committee has been investigating since march. here are two slides, the first one will show, as he did with -- as the president did with ukraine, try to coerce his subordinates into misconduct by foreign, special counselor mueller. in the second slide shows that when the news broke out of the president's order, the president directed his advisors to falsely deny he had made the order. professor gerhardt, are you

familiar with the facts in this episode as described in the mueller report? yes or no, please. >> yes, ma'am. >> accepting the special counsel's evidence as true, is this obstruction of justice? >> it's clearly obstruction of justice. >> why would you say so, sir? >> the obvious object of this activity is to shut down an investigation, and in fact, the acts of the president according to these facts, each time is to use the power that he has unique it on his office, but in a way that's going to help him frustrate the investigation. >> so does this conduct fit within the framer's view of impeachable offenses? >> believe it does. i mean, the entire constitution including separation of powers is designed to put limits on how somebody may go frustrating the activity of another branch. >> so you would say that this also would be an impeachable offense? >> yes, ma'am. >> thank you.

i a agree with you. the president's actions do matter and the president's obstruction of justice definitely matters and as a former judge and member of congress i've raised my right hand and put my left hand on a bible more than once, and i've sworn to uphold the constitution and laws of this country. this hearing is about that, but it's also about the core of the heart of our american values and the values of duty, honor and loyalty. it's about the rule of law. would the president ask ukraine for a favor, he did so for his sole, political gain and not on behalf of the american people and if this is true, he would have betrayed his oath and betrayed his loyalty to this country. the fundamental principle over democracy is that no one is above the law, not any one of you professors and not any one of us up here, members of congress and not even the president of the united states. that's why we should hold him

accountable for his actions and that's why, again, thank you for testifying today in helping us walk through all of this to prepare for what may come. thank you, sir. i yield back. >> the gentle lady yields back. >> thank you, mr. chair and thank you to each of the four witnesses for your testimony today. i'd like to start by talking about intimidation of witnesses. as my colleague, congressman garcia noted, president trump has tried to interfere in the ukraine investigation and special counsel mueller's investigation in order to cover up his own misconduct. and in both the ukraine investigation and special counsel mueller's investigation, the president discouraged witnesses from cooperating and intimidated witnesses who came forward and praised those who refused to cooperate. for example, the president harassed and intimidated the brave public servants who came

forward. he publicly called the whistle-blower a, quote, disgrace to our country and said that his identity should be revealed. he suggested that those involved in the whistle-blower complaint should be dealt with in the ways we used to do for spies and treason. he called ambassador taylor a former military officer with more than 40 years of public service a, quote, never trumper, end quote, on the same day that he called never trumpers, quote, scum. the president also tweeted accusations about many of the other public servants who testified including jennifer williams and ambassador yovanovitch, and as we know, the president's latter tweet happened literally during the ambassador's testimony in this room in front of the intelligence committee which she made clear was intimidating. conversely, we know that the

president has praised witnesses who have refused to cooperate, for example, during the special counsel's investigation the president praised paul manafort, his former campaign manager for not cooperating. you can see the tweet up on the screen to my side. >> as another telling example, the president initially praised ambassador sondland for not cooperating and calling him, quote, a really good man and a great american, but after ambassador sondland testified and confirmed that there was indeed a quid pro quo between the white house visit and the request for the investigations, the president claimed he, quote, hardly knew the ambassador. professor gerhardt, you touched on it briefly, is the president's interference in the investigations by intimidating witnesses also the kind of conduct that the framers were worried about, and if so, why? >> it's clearly conduct that worried the framers as reflected

in the constitution they've given us in the structure of the constitution. the activities you're talking about here are consistent, but the other pattern of activity that i've seen with the president either trying to stop investigations either by mr. mueller or by congress as well as to ask witnesses to make false documents about testimony and all those different kinds of activities are not the kinds of activities the frahmemers expec the president to take and they expected the president to be accountable for it and want just in elections. ? professor turley, you've studied an impeachment of president johnson and president nixon. the white house counsel and the white house chief of staff to testify in the impeachment inquiry? >> yes. >> you are aware that president trump has refused to allow his chief of staff or counsel to cooperate. >> various officials did testify and remain in federal

employment. >> that does not include the white house counsel and chief of staff, right? >> am i right that president clinton provided responses during that impeachment inquiry? >> i believe that's right. >> you are aware that president trump has refuse good request for information submitted by this committee? >> i have, yes. >> are you familiar with the letter issued by white house counsel pat sipillone, instructing branch officials not to testify in this impeachment inquiry. >> yes. >> am i correct, no president in the history of the republic before president trump has ever issued a general order instructing executive branch officials not to testify in an impeachment inquiry. >> that's not sure where i can answer that affirmatively. president nixon, in fact, went to court over access to information documents and the like, and he lost. >> professor turley, i would

just again refer you back to the history that's been recount are counted by each of the distinguished scholars here today because we know as we recount these examples that president nixon did, in fact, allow his chief of staff and his chief counsel to testify and this president has not. we know president clinton responded to interrogatories and this president has not. at the end of the day this congress and this committee has an obligation to ensure that the law is enforced and with that, i yield back the balance of my team. >> the gentleman yields back. miss macbeth. >> thank you, mr. chairman. professors, i want to thank you so very much for spending these long, arduous hours with us today. thank you so much for being here. following up on my colleague mr. nagusa's questions, i would like to briefly go through one particular example of the president's witness intimidation that i find truly disturbing and very devastating because i think

it's important that we all truly see what's going on here. as the slide shows on his july 25th call, president trump said that former ambassador yovanovitch would, and i quote, go through some things. ambassador yovanovitch testified about learning about the president's staples made her feel. >> what did you think when president trump told president zelensky that you were going to go through some things? >> i didn't know what to think, but i was very concerned. >> what were you concerned about? >> she's going to go through some things. it didn't sound good. it sounded like a threat. >> did you feel threatened? >> i did.

and as we all witnessed in real time in the middle of ambassador yovanovitch's live testimony, the president tweeted about the ambassador, discrediting her service in somalia and the ukraine. ambassador yovanovitch testified that the president's tweet was, and i quote, very intimidating. professor gerhardt, these attacks on a career, public servant are deeply upsetting, but how do they fit into our understanding of whether the president has committed high crimes and misdemeanors, and how do they fit into our broader pattern of behavior by this president to cover up and obstruct his misconduct? >> one way in which it contributes to the obstruction of congress is that it doesn't just defame ambassador yovanovitch.

by every other account she's been an exemplary public servant so what he's suggesting there may not be consistent with what we know asthat also happens when he censored something like this is it intimidates everybody else who is thinking about testifying any other public servants who think they should come forward, they are going to worry that they are going to get punished in some way, they will face things that she has faced. but what >> that is the woman man president trump has threatened well for you and i can assure you i can assure you that i can say what it's like to be unfairly attack publicly for your sense of duty to america. no matter your party whether you're democrat or republican, i don't think any of us thinks

that this is okay. it is plainly wrong for the president of the united states to attack a career public servant just for telling the truth that she knows that. and i yield back the balance of my time. well >> gentle lady yields back, mr. stone. >> thank you very much mister chairman and thank you to our standing witnesses here today. president trump has declared that he will not comply with congressional subpoenas, his blanket categorical disregard of the legislative branch began with the president's refusal to cooperate with regular congressional oversight and has now extended to the houses constitutional duty on impeachment, the reason why we are here today. this disregard has been on display for the american people, when asked if he would comply with the genre

subpoena president trump said quote, well, we are fighting all of the subpoenas. unquote. now we have discussed here today the obstruction of congress, article impeachment against president nixon, i think i would like to go a little bit deeper into that discussion and juxtapose it with president trump's actions. professor gerhardt, can you elaborate on how president nixon obstructed congress and how it compares to president trump's actions? >> as i discussed earlier including my written statement, president nixon also refused to comply with for legislative subpoenas, these were zeroing in on the most incriminating evidence he had in his possession, so he refused to comply with those subpoenas but again the basis for that third article, when he resigned a few days later. >> but professor feldman, what are the consequences of this unprecedented obstruction of congress to our democracy? >> for the president to refuse to participate in any way in

the houses constitutional obligation of supervising him to impeachment breaks the constitution, it basically says nobody can oversee me, nobody can impeach me, first a block of witnesses from appearing and then all refused to participate in any way and then i will say you don't have enough evidence to impeach me and ultimately the effect of that is to guarantee that the president is above the law and can't be checked, and since we know the framers put impeachment in the constitution to check the president, if he can't be checked, he is no longer subject to the law. >> professor gerhardt would you agree that the president's refusal to comply with congressional subpoenas invokes the worst fears and endangers our democracy? >> it does, and one way we should understand that is to put all of his arguments together and see what the ramifications are. he says he is entitled not to comply with all subpoenas, he says he is

not subject to any kind of criminal investigation when he's president of the united states, he's immune to, that he's entitled to keep all information confidential from congress, he doesn't even have to give a reason. when you put all of those things together, he has blocked of every way in which to hold himself accountable except for elections, and the critical thing to understand here is that that is precisely what he was trying to undermine in the ukraine situation. >> mr. cohen do anything to add to that analysis? >> i think that's correct and if i can just say one thing. >> please. >> i want to apologize for what i said earlier about the president's son, it was wrong me to do that and i wish the president but apologize obviously for the things that he's done that is wrong but i do regret having said that. >> thank you professor. >> one of the most important questions that every member of this committee must decide is whether we are a nation of laws and not man, it used to be an

easy answer, when we could all agree on, when president nixon defied the law and obstructed justice, he was held to account by people on both sides who knew that for a republic to ensure, we must have fidelity to our country rather than to one party or one man, and the obstruction we are looking at today is far worse than president nixon's behavior. future generations will measure us, every single member of this committee by how we choose to answer that question. i hope we get it right. i yield back. one >> gentleman yields back, men >> thank you mister chairman. i've only been in congress since january this year in on the very first day of my swearing in a democrat in my class called for the impeachment of the president on day one. using much more colorful language than i ever

used, since then this committee focused on the mueller report and the russian collusion. we all sat and listened to mr. mueller state unequivocally that there was no evidence, that the trump campaign concluded with russia, so that and work for the democrats so they then changed their talking points move to the obstruction of justice theory, the president obstructed justice, then that fold, then after coordinating with chairman schiff's staff, a whistle blower filed a complaint based completely on hearsay and overhearing other people that were on a phone call talk about a phone call between two leaders, which led to the intel committee, so-called impeachment inquiry, which violated all passed historical president, deprived the president basic due process rights and fundamental fairness by conducting the so-called inquiry in secret, without the minorities ability to call witnesses and denied the president up how his lawyers cross examine witnesses. a right afforded to president clinton and every defendant in our justice system including rapists and murderers. the republicans on this committee have repeatedly requested that

all evidence collected by the intel committee, as we have heard today we still don't have the underlying evidence that we have been requesting. again, a right afforded every criminal defendant in the united states. so instead, we said hear, hearing lectures from law professors about their opinions. their opinions, not facts. i guess the democrats need a constitutional law refresher course, republicans down. mr. chairman, you have acknowledged and i quote, the houses quote, power of impeachment, demands a rigorous level of due process. due process means the right to confront witnesses against you, to call your own witnesses and to have the assistance of counsel. those are your words mister chairman, not mine. what are you afraid of? let the minority call witnesses. but the president call witnesses. clinton along called 14 witnesses to testify. but the president's counsel cross examine the whistleblower. but the president's counsel cross examine the intel staff who colluded with the whistleblower. in your own words those of the rights that should be afforded to the

president. writes every criminal defendant is afforded, even terrorists in iraq are afforded more due process then you and the democratic majority have afforded the president. i know because i served in iraq and i prosecuted terrorists in iraq and we provided terrace in iraq more rights and due process in the central criminal court of iraq than you and chairman schiff have afforded the president of the united states. no collusion, no obstruction, no quid pro quo, no evidence of bribery except opinion, no evidence of trees and, no evidence of high crime or misdemeanors, we have a bunch of opinions from partisan democrats who have stated from day one that they want to impeach the president. not on this theory but on multiple other different theories. the american people are smarter than you're a bases of impeachment that you have had on the screen that were laid out today and it is extremely demonstrative of your lack of evidence getting law professors to give their opinions and not fact witnesses to give their testimony today to be cross

examined in the rights afforded to the president of the united states. mister chairman, where can we anticipate that you will choose a date for the minority day of hearings? well mister chairman, i'm asking your question. when can we anticipate that you will choose a date for the minority day of hearings? >> the gentleman is recognized for the purpose of questioning the witnesses, not for colleagues. >> then i will do that after my time i yield the remainder of my time to mr. ratcliffe. >> i think my colleague from florida for yielding. professor turley, since we last talked based on questioning from my colleague across the aisle it does in fact appear that democrats do intend to pursue articles of impeachment for articles of injustice based on the mueller report. i asked you question about that, you didn't really get a chance to give a complete answer, in your statement today, you make the statement, i believe an obstruction claim based on the

mueller report will be at odds with the record of controlling law. you said an obstruction theory from the mueller report would be and supported and the house and unsustainable in the senate. do you remember writing that? >> yes i do. >> why do right? that >> because i think it's true. the fact is, this was reviewed by main justice and the special counsel did not reach a conclusion on obstruction and they shouldn't within the justification quite frankly was a bit absurd by not reaching a conclusion. but the attorney general did and they came to the right conclusion. i don't think this is a real case for obstruction but, then this body would be impeaching of the president on the basis of the inverse conclusion. i don't believe it would be appropriate. the >> gentleman's time has expired, misting. >> thank you mister chairman. words matter, in my earlier life professor i was a professor of writing. i told my

students to be careful and clear about what they put to paper and that is a lesson that are framers of the constitution new far better than anyone. they were doing the foundation for a new form of government and drawings in the democratic principle and attacks against those would seek to undermine them. the constitution explicitly lays out what the president may be impeached for treason, bribery, high crimes and misdemeanors. we heard a lot of words today, foreign interference, bribery, obstruction of justice and i would like to go through the presidents conduct. the public harms that we have discussed today and asked if they would fit into what the four fathers contemplated when crafting those words of the impeachment laws. professor karlan, i would ask you about the elections as an american we can't agree that foreign interference is an influence that erodes the integrity of our elections. as you said so plainly, and makes

us less free. yet, on july 25th, 2019 the president coerced ukrainian president zelensky, to announce the investigation into his political rival. trump's political rival which was corroborated by multiple witnesses throughout the intelligence committee hearings. professor karlyn, can you explain to the american people, in your opinion whether the framers can consider solicitation of foreign interference and would've a considered it a high crime or misdemeanor? does the president's conduct rise to that level? >> the framers of our constitution would've considered it up oren if you consider the essence of a crime or misdemeanor for a president to invite in foreign influence and whether he would be reelected or decided whom his successor would be. >> thank you. >> professor, i'd like to talk to you about bribery. and the intelligence committee hearings, multiple had an riveted testimony that the president

withheld 400 million dollars and congressionally approved aid on the condition that russia -- excuse me, that ukraine investigations into the chief political adversary. professor, and your opinion, given those facts and the framers specific concerns, what you describe the president's behavior and the use of his public office for a private benefit as a rising to those levels? >> the framers considered as you said bribery to consist under the constitution and to consists of the president abusing his office corruptly for personal gain. if this house determines that this committee determines that the president was in fact seeking personal gain and seeking the investigations that he asked for, then that would constitute bribery under the constitution. >> thank you. professor gerhardt what i ask you about the president who has categorically refused to have any documents to congressional

subpoenas and attack and intimidated an actual witness and including career and military and civil servants as discussed here like ambassador yovanovitch, lieutenant colonel vindman, taylor, williams and others. he directed the former administration to defy congressional subpoenas. professor, based on that set of facts, does this conduct meet a threshold from obstruction of justice as envisioned in the constitution? >> yes ma'am, i believe it does. when i was here 21 years ago when professor turley turley was testifying and there is a serious question and i remember a number of professors very eloquently talking about president clinton and his misconduct as an attack on the judicial system, that's what you just described to me. >> thank you professors, all four of you. what you did today, you brought a part of our constitution to life and i thank you for that. you have

shown what the framers remind of when they wrote the impeachment clause of our constitution. they chose their words and their words mattered. it was my father bobby dean, a terrific dad and talented writer who instilled in me and my brothers and sister, a lot of language. he taught us our words matter and the truth matters, it's through that lens that i see the serious somber things are talking about today with foreign interference, bribery, obstruction and the framers could not of imagined all three concerns in a single leader. but they were concerned enough to craft the impeachment. the times i have found us, i am prayer fall for our president and for our country or ourselves. now we the people always hold high indecency and promise and ambition of our founding and of the words that mattered and of the truth and with that i yield back mister chair. >> miss mike arsenal powell, --

>> thank you for your time and it's been a long day and i want to tell you, i don't have the privilege of being born in his country as an immigrant when i became a citizen to this great nation i took an oath to protect and defend the constitution from all foreign and domestic emmys and i had taken that oath once again when i became a member of congress. that includes the responsibility to protect our nation from continuing threats from a president, many presidents. you testified that the presidents actions are a continuing risk to our nation and democracy. meaning that this is not a onetime problem there, is a pattern of behavior by the president that is putting at risk fair and free elections and i think that we are here today because the american people deserve to know whether we need to remove the president because of it. during the nixon impeachment, the committee said, quote the

person of impeachment is not personal punishment. its function is primarily to maintain constitutional government. professor karlyn, to me it means that impeachment should be used when it must to protect our american democracy. it is reserved for a is that present a continuing risk to our democracy, is that correct? >> yes it is. >> thank you. i want to show you an example what the president said. just one week after the transcript of the july 25th call was released when a reporter asked the president what he wanted from president zelensky. he responded with this. >> i would think that if they were honest about it, they would start a major investigation into the bidens. it's a very simple answer. they should investigate the bidens because out as a company that is newly formed and if you look at it, by the way china's could

start an investigation into the bidens. because what happened to china? it's ja just about as bad what happened with ukraine. >> we heard today conflicting dialog from both sides. i want to ask mr. feldman, is clear evidence from a president asking from a foreign government to interfere in our elections? >> congresswoman, i'm here for the constitution and we are here for the constitution. when the president of the united states asks for existence from a foreign power to distort our elections and for his personal advantage, that constitutes an abuse of office and accounts of the hague high crime and misdemeanor and that's what the constitution is here to protect us against. >> thank you. professor karlyn, are the president's actions a continuing risk that the

framers intended impeachment will be used for? >> this takes us back to the quotation from lillian davies that we've all used to several times is that a president without impeachment, will do anything to get reelected. >> i want to show you one more example from the chief of staff asked about the ask of the ukrainian president. >> let's be clear, what you described it as a quid pro quo is unless the investigation is into the democratic server which happens as well. >> we do that all the time with foreign policy. they said yesterday, they were upset with the political influence in foreign policy. that was one of the reasons he was so upset about this. i have news for everybody, get over it. there is going to be political influence in foreign policy. >> professor karlan.? >> i think mr. mulvaney is confusing to different notions

of politics. yes, there is political influence on our foreign affairs. because president trump won the election in 2016, with exiting climate accords, taken a different position a nato then we would've taken has an opponent one. but that's different than saying that partisan politics in the sense of electoral manipulation is something that we need to get over or get used to. if we get over that or get used to that, we will cease to become the democracy that we are right now. >> thank you. i think that is our greatest fear and threat. i don't think that anyone is above the law and the constitution establishes that. this type of behavior could not be tolerated from any president, not now and out of the future and i yield back. >> but generally the lilt back. i'm sorry, miss escobar. miss

escobar is recognized. >> thank you mister chairman. professors, thank you so much your testimony in time today. many facts and his own words in the famous phone call had been laid out before our very eyes and ears for months. despite the president's efforts to cover up. but it appears that some of chosen to ignore those facts. what we have seen today from those that do want to turn a blind eye, is not a defense of the president's actions because those offenses are indefensible. we have seen them attack the process and to impugn you're integrity. and for that i'm sorry. to my questions, some people find that in considering impeachment we should let this pass and allow them to decide what to do next or what to do about the president's behavior and the next election. the framers of our constitution specifically consider whether to just use elections and not have

impeachment or reject that notion. one note from the framers really stuck with me. george mission said the man that has practiced corruption and that means procured his appointment in the first instance, he suffered to escape punishment, by repeating his guilt. professor feldman, i have two questions for you. briefly, can you explain why the framers decided that a corrupt executive could not be solved through elections? and can you tell us why impeachment is the appropriate option at this point? considering all the evidence americans have seen and heard rather than letting this be decided in the next election? the >> framers understood the human ordination very well. they knew the president would have a great motive to corrupt the electoral process to get reelected. that is exactly why they thought it wasn't good enough to wait for the next election. because the president could cheat and make the next

election illegitimate. that's to why it required impeachment and if they couldn't impeach a corrupt president, james madison said that would be fatal to the republic. the reason why it's necessary to take action now. is because we have a president who has in fact sought to correct the electoral process for his personal advantage. in those circumstances, the framers of impeachment is the only option available. >> thank you. i want to play to clips, the first of president nixon in the second of president trump. >> when the president does it that means that is not illegal. >> i have an article to where i have the right to do it i whatever i want as president. it >> they are saying that they are above the law. professor karlan, what happens to our republic, to our country that if we do nothing in the face of the president who sees himself above the law and will abuse

his power, who will ask foreign governments to meddle in our elections and who will attack any witness who stands up to tell the truth. what happens if we don't follow our constitutional obligation of impeachment to remove that president from office? >> we will seize to be a republic. >> thank you. i represent a community a little over a decade ago, was barred by corruption at the local government level. there was no retreat into a partisan corner or an effort by anyone to explain it away. we also didn't wait for an election to cure the cancer of corruption that occurred on our watch. we were united as a community in our outrage over it. it was intolerable to us because we knew that it was a threat to our institutions, institutions that belong to us. what we face today is the same kind of test, only one far more

grave and historic. from the founding of our country to today, one truth remains clear, the impeachment power is reserved for conduct that endangers democracy and imperils our constitution. today's hearing has helped us to better understand how we preserve our republic and the test that lies ahead for us, thank you mister chairman i yield back my time. >> general lady yields back, that concludes the testimony under the five minute rule. i now recognize the ranking member, to make concluding remarks he may have. >> thank you mister chairman. today has been interesting, i guess to say the least. it has been, we have found many things, in fact three of our four witnesses here today alleged numerous crimes committed by the president at times it seemed like we were even try to make crimes as if it wasn't as it was the intent to do it, it

went along, as interesting today as i started the stain will come back to it now, as much as i respect these who came before us today, this is way too early, because we have not as a committee done our job, we have not as a committee come together, looked at evidence, taken fact witnesses, put people here in front of us under oath and said what didn't happen and how did it happen and why didn't happen? we are taking the work of the intel committee and the other committees, we are taking it seemingly at face value and i will remind all that the chairman even as the biggest proponent of this not happening in his earlier statements 20 years ago when he said we should not take a report from another entity and just accept it otherwise we are a rubber stamp. now to my democratic majority they may not care because as i've said before this is about a clock and a calendar. o'clock and a calendar. they are so obsessed

with the election next year that they just gloss over things. what is interesting as as i said earlier three of the four witnesses alleged many crimes alleged by the president however during the intel committees none of the five witnesses identified a crime. if you are writing about this that should alarm you. so this impeachment narrative being spun by the majority is a fake one, it's majority spinning 3% of the facts while ignoring 97% of the other, professors had earlier today that impeachment means proof not presumptions. we have one of the five witnesses in the intel committee, i presume that was what was going on, mr. sondland. you know what is happening here today, as also we found out today, i thought this was interesting, was the judiciary committee but we also found out today that facts don't matter. in fact facts don't matter unless we can fit those facts to fit the narrative we want to spin before this committee and the

american people. if they don't matter, we also heard one of the witnesses say today that it doesn't matter if they were released or not, of course it matters, but of course one of the only facts adroit by the majority. there ignoring so many facts, it doesn't matter to the democrats that special envoy to the ukraine made clear in his testimony that there was no bribery in the meeting with the u.s., they haven't mention that because it's unhelpful to their narrative. it apparently doesn't matter to the democrats who are the majority here that the president did not can order an investigation, and fact to the contrary, it was right here in this room, he called it a gas, right where you are sitting. he called it a gas. a presumption. that is what he thought. god forbid if we walk into our courtrooms and find

somebody guilty of something we call a crime we walk into court and all of a sudden someone says i thought it was, the one who said i presumed it was, god forbid this is where we are right. but you know we have also heard today that you can make inference though, it's a cave you just inferring, i don't know by the professors here are those of us on court on both sides, i've never heard anyone say as a judge just unfair what you think you mention that will be enough. not inference. it probably doesn't matter that the president didn't condition a meeting on the investigation, there were no preconditions, zelensky didn't even find out about the hold on the aid until a month after the call when he wrote in politico. the aid was released shortly thereafter in ukraine don't have anything to do to get the aid released, not only was released but legal aid was given as well, if you think that doesn't matter as well, there are five meetings between the time was aid was stopped and released, and a none of those meetings between the ambassadors, including others including the vice president and senators, none of that was

ever connected to a promise of anything on the aid, nothing was ever connected, five times, and two of those were after president zelensky learned that aid was being held. tell me there is not a problem here with the story. that is why five witnesses aren't here right now. the evidence against the president is really about policy differences, and factory of the democratic star witnesses read transcripts like everybody else, on july 26 zelensky met and they made no reference to quid pro quo and met several more times and no references, none of these inconvenient facts or so many inconvenient facts matter to the majority. we don't even know what if additional hearings we will have to address other facts. this is the part that bothers me greatly. it is something we have seen from january of this year, no concern about a process that works but simply getting to an end that we want.

you know, i agree with professor feldman, he may find that strange what i do was something. it's not his job to assess the credibility of witnesses, that's the committee's job. and i agree. but this committee can do our jobs and none of the witnesses testify before committee, even ones that we've talked about calling today and the majority have said we don't want. we still don't have a answer on what this committee will do when the hearing ends, from chairman schiff's report yesterday we still don't have the underlying evidence, the rules even set up by this body are not being followed to this day, but yet nobody talks about that on the majority side. the witness has produced by chairman schiff and the american people got to talk about their feelings and guests on presumptions but even though the facts may not matter to the majority, 97% of the facts do matter to the american people. so my problem is this. as the ranking member of this committee, one of the oldest

most should be a fact based legal base committees we should have here, where impeachment should have been all along. i have a group of members that have no idea where we are heading next, i bet you know that if i asked the majority members outside the chairman, they don't have a clue either. because if they haven't they should share it. because this is not a time to play hide the ball, this is not a time to say, we are going to figure it out on the fly, you are talking about overturning 63 million votes of a president duly elected who is doing his job every day, and by the way was overseas today while we were doing this, working with our nato allies. so the question i have is where do we have next? we've heard this ambiguous presentation, but here is my challenge, before it's voted down a table today, mr. schiff, should, testify. chairman schiff, not his staff, must appear before this committee to answer questions about the content of his report, that's what started 20 years ago in

history has demanded. i tell the chairman just a while ago that when we were doing, america i said the history lies were all, us it's time that we talk and share how we are going forward, i'm still waiting for answers. so mister chairman, as we look ahead, the democratic majority promised that this was going to be a fair process when i got to judiciary for the president and others, the president, and you may say he could've come today, what what does have done? nothing. there is no fact witnesses here, nothing to rebut, it be spending time just to see that nothing came out of the end of the day. so why should he be here? let's bring fact witnesses and, let's bring people in because you said mister chairman, you are saying, your words, we should never on this committee except entity giving us a report and not investigated ourselves, undoubtedly we are well on our way to doing that because of a calendar and o'clock. so mister chairman i know you're about to give a statement and they've worked on it and you've worked

on a very hard i'm sure, but i want before you gavel his hearing before you start a statement, before you go any further, i would like to know two things, number one, when do you plan on scheduling are a minority hearing day and number two, why or if or when are we going to actually have real witnesses here that are fact witnesses in this case? when? or what you said, many years ago, is faded just like the leaves in fall, i don't really care anymore that somebody else gives us a report, schiff is over everything for impeachment and he doesn't get to testify, he was on the staff member, i don't know if we will even have a hearing past that to see what has been going on. so my question that i started out today, is where is fairness? it was promised, but it is not being delivered. the facts talked about were not fox delivered, this president his

facts were given, nothing wrong, nothing to be impeached, and nothing for why we are here, in the words of one of our witnesses, if you rushed through this, and you do it on flimsy grounds, the american people will not forget the light of history. so today, before you give your opening statement, you're closing statement, before you get to this time, my question is, will you talk to this committee, you are chairman, you hold a very prestigious role, will you let us know where we are going or are we going to adjourn from here after you some up everything saying that they all get good, and go out from here we are still wondering, the lights are on it's time to answer the question, i yield back. >> the gentleman yields back. i want to be for my closing statement acknowledge that i have received a letter today questioning the minority day of testimony on the 11th, i have not had a chance to read the lever but look forward to conferring with ranking members

about this request, once i have had a chance to review. it >> mister chairman i have a question, you can't review a letter. >> the gentleman is not recognized. >> there's nothing for you to review. >> i now recognize myself for a closing statement. george washington's farewell address warnings of a moment when cutting ambitious and an principled men will be unable to subvert the power of the people, to usurp for themselves the reins of government. president trump places his own personal and political interests above our national interests, about the security of our country, and most importantly above our most precious right, the ability of each and every one of us to participate in fair elections. free of corruption. the constitution has a solution for a president who places has personal or political interests above those of the nation. the power of impeachment. as one of my colleagues pointed out, i have in the past articulated a

three part track to impeachment, let me be clear, all through parts of that have been met, first of, all yes the president has committed an impeachable offense. president asked the foreign government to intervene in our elections. got caught. that obstructed the investigators. twice. our witnesses told us in no uncertain terms that this conduct constitutes high crimes and misdemeanors, including abuse of power. second, yes, the president's alleged offenses represent a direct threat to the constitutional order. professor karlyn warned, drawing a foreign government into our election process is an especially bad use of power because it undermines democracy itself. professor feldman echoed, if we cannot impeach a president who abuses his office for personal advantage, we no longer live in a democracy. we live in a monarchy or under

dictatorship. professor gerhardt reminded us, if what we are talking about, while we are talking about is not impeachable, then nothing is impeachable. president trump's actions represent a threat to our national security, and an urgent threat to the integrity of the next election. third, yes, we should not proceed unless at least some of the citizens who support of the president in the last election are willing to come with us. a majority of this country is clearly prepared to impeach and remove president trump. rather than respond to the unsettling and dangerous evidence, my republican colleagues have called this process unfair, it is not. your argument is that the colleagues on the other side of the aisle, are unable to defend the president's behavior, they abuse argument before. first, they said that these proceedings were not constitutional because we did

not have a floor vote. we then had a floor vote. then they said that our proceedings were not constitutional because they could not call witnesses. republicans called three of the witnesses in the live hearings, of the intelligence community, and will have an opportunity to request witnesses in this committee as well. next, they said that our proceedings were not constitutional because the president could not participate. but when the committee invited the president to participate in this hearing, he declined. the simple fact, is that all of these proceedings have all the protections avoided want to prior presidents. this follows the constitution and legal presidents. i am left to conclude, the only reason my colleagues rust form one process complain to the next, is because there is no factual defense for president trump. unlike any other president before him, president trump is openly rejected congress is right as a

coequal branch of government. he would fight are subpoenas, refused to produce any documents, he directed is aids not to testify. president trump is also asked a foreign government to intervene our election and has made clear, then as left unchecked that he will do it again. why? because he believes that in his own words i can do whatever i want. that is why we must act now. in this country the, president cannot do whatever he wants. and this country, no one, not even the president is above the law. today, we begin our conversation where we should with the rest of the constitution. we have heard clearly from our witnesses in the constitution propels action. every witness including the witness elected by the republican side agreed that if president trump did what the intelligence committee found to have done, after extensive and compelling witnesses that the

trump administration officials have committed impeachable offense is. while the republican witness may not be convinced there sufficient evidence against the president in these acts, the american people and the majority of this committee disagree. i also think the republicans witness and professor turley, will have a sage warning in 1998 when he was a leading advocate for the impeachment of bill clinton. he said, if you decide that certain acts do not rise to the impeachable advances, you will expand the space for executive conduct. that was the caution of professor turley in 1998 with, the impeachment of president clinton. with that caution, it should guide us all today. by any accounts, that warning is more applicable to the power that we are contemplating today. as we all know, these abuses go unchecked they will only continue and only grow worse. each of us took an oath to defend the

constitution. the president is a continuing threat to the constitution and to our democracy. i honor my oath and as i sit here today, we heard consistent and compelling evidence that the president as abused his power, tended to undermine the unconditional role of congress and corrupted our elections and i urge my colleagues to stand behind the old you have taken and the democracy depends on it and this concludes today's hearing. >> mister chairman -- were pursuing to committee rule eight, i'm filing this under moral constitution on the president. we >> noted. mister >> chairman -- >> this concludes today's hearing and we thank all their witnesses and without objection, all members of five days to submit additional questions for the witnesses. >> we have a request.

>> too late. without objection the hearing is adjourned >> that is just typical.

the >> judiciary impeachment hearing is wrapping up as members of audience leave the room and it began at about 10 am this morning. who will taking your calls and we see the numbers on your screen for republicans -- democrats as to zero to seven for a nine to zero and others to zero to 89 to two and as lawmakers leave the room there are areas set out outside where lawmakers can speak if they so choose and we are going to be looking out for those comments to see if anyone comes and steps up to the

podium it.

>> while we wait to watch to see if any of the lawmakers are others committed to the podium to make remarks with a lot from democrats, republicans who spent several hours today in

the judiciary committee, hearing from witnesses on constitutional scholars and one called democrats and one republicans. we'll start taking your phone calls, we have a full few people waiting on the line. our first caller is john in wisconsin, republican line, hi john you've got the floor. why did you think about today's testimony? >> to be perfectly honest with you, i thought it was totally one-sided. the constitutional scholars is fine but it seemed very obvious and i'm sure the country also but those three had political hatred. one of that bullied a 13 year old. this sham was again of a hearing and called a circus and it was proven the reason why we

hired trump to become our president was to drain the swamp and get rid of corruption. as turley said, i do believe congress will take a deep look at what they're doing because, they say trump is above the law or that anyone is above the law, they are neither and they are proving right here that this sham of a circus court. >> we apologize we have someone coming up to the microphone and let's listen in. >> everybody gather around. all right, i'll give a quick statement and others will give a statement and i'll come back with questions all go from there. what we have seen today, it's