and conservatives don't want to be around each other and so they have to spread out, you may not see this from like the ivory towers of your law school, but it makes the actual people in this country -- >> when the president calls -- >> you don't get to interrupt me on this time. 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 trump, that does not lend credibility to your argument. it makes you look mean. it makes you look 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 that we saw from adam schiff where ambassador taylor could not identify an impeachable offense. mr. kent never met with the

president. fiona hill never referenced anything regarding military aid. mr. hill was never aware of any nefarious activity. colonel vindman rejected that bribery was involved here. mr. morrison said there was nothing wrong on the call. the only direct evidence came from gordon sondland who spoke to the president of the united states and the president said i want nothing, no quid pro quo. and you know what? if wire tapping the political opponent's an impeachable offense -- >> gentleman's time is expired. >> 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? >> it is not. >> it is not hearsay when the president then confesses on national television to doing it, is it? >> it is not. >> -- thaef 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 in this 300-page report by the intelligence committee. professor, wrote on august 1st, 2014 in a piece called five myths about impeachment. one of the myths he was rejecting was that impeachment required a criminal offense. he wrote, and i quote, an offense does not have to be indictable. serious misconduct or a violation of public trust is enough, end quote. was professor turley right when he wrote that back in 2014? >> yes, i agree with that. >> now, next i'd move to professor karlan. at the constitutional convention, l. bridge jerry said foreign powers will meddle in our affairs and spare no expense to influence them. james madison said that impeachment was needed because 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 the facts before this committee? >> so the reason that the framers were concerned about foreign interference i think is slightly different than the reason they 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, which is that it will interfere with us making the decisions that are best for us as americans. >> thank you, professor. there are three known instances of the president publicly asking a foreign country to interfere in our election. first in 2016 the president publicly hoped that russia would hack into the email of a political opponent, which they subsequently did. second, based on the call with president zelensky, we know he asked ukraine to investigate

against his chief political rival. and third the president then publicly urged china to begin its own investigation. professor feldman, how would it impact our democracy if it became 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 presidents regularly, as this president has done, asked foreign governments to interfere in our electoral process. >> i'd like to end from a powerful warning from george washington, to be constantly awake since history and experience prove that foreign influence is one of the most baneful foes. the conduct at issue is egregious and warrants a commensurate response. the president has only and repeatedly solicited foreign interference in our election. of that there is no doubt. this matters because inviting foreign meddling into our elections robs the american

people of their sacred right to elect their own political leaders. americans wait in long lines to exercise their right to vote and to choose their own leaders. this right does not belong to foreign governments. we fought and won a revolution over this. free and fair elections are what separate us from authoritarians all over the world as public servants and members of the house, we would be negligent in our duties if we let this blatant abuse of power go unchecked. we've heard a lot about hating this president. it's not about hating this president. it's about our love of country. it's about honoring the oath that we took to protect the constitution of this great country. so my final question is to professor feldman and to professor karlan, 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 undermine the national security of the united states, that undermine the integrity of our elections, and that undermine

the confidence that we have to have in the president to not abuse the power of his office? >> if this committee and this house fail to act, then you are sending a message to this president and to 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 in our elections. it's no longer a problem if they put the interest of other countries ahead of ours. >> i agree with professorfeld man. i should say just 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. >> mr. johnson. >> thank you. i was struck this morning by the same thing as all my friends and colleagues on this side of the room. chairman nadler actually began this morning with the outrageous statement that the facts before us are undisputed.

of course, everyone here knows that that's simply not true. every person here, 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 have been allowed no fact witnesses here at all. for the first time ever this committee, whistle the one in congress that has the actual jurisdiction over impeachment, is being given no access to the underlying evidence that adam schiff and his political accomplices claims supports this whole charade. this is just a shocking denial of due process. i want to say to our witnesses i am also a constitutional law attorney, and under normal circumstances i really would greatly enjoy an academic discussion with you about the contours of article 2 section 4. but that would be an utter waste of our time today. this whole production is a sham and a reckless path to a

predetermined political outcome. and i want you to know it's an outcome that was predetermined by our democrat 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 resolutions seeking to impeach the president. 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 zelensky. and this other graphic up here is smaller, but it's interesting too. i think it's important to reiterate for everybody watching at home that of our 24 democrat colleagues and friends on the other side of the room today, 17 out of 24 have already voted for impeachment. so, i mean, let's be honest. let's not pretend that anybody cares anything about what's being said here today or the actual evidence or the facts as

congresswoman lofgren said we come with open minds. that's not happening here. so much for an impartial jury. several times this year leading democrats have frankly admitted in various interviews and correspondence that they really 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 this is setting for the future of our republic. i love what professor turley testified to this morning. he said this is simply not how the impeachment of a president is done. his rhetorical question for all of our colleagues on the other side is still echoing throughout this chamber. he asked you to ask yourselves where will this and where will you stand next time when this same kind of sham 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 is not going to help that, it's going to make things really that much worse. president turley said earlier that we are now living in theira that was feared by our founders, what hamilton referred to as a period of agitated passions. i think that says it so well. this has indeed become an age of rage. president washington warned in his farewell address in 1796 that extreme partisanship would lead us to the ruins of public liberty. those were his words. this hyperpartisan impeachment is probably one of the most divisive and instructive things that we could possibly do to our american family. let me tell you what i heard from my constituents in multiple townhalls just two days ago. the people of this country are sick of this. they are sick of the politics of personal destruction. they are sick of this toxic atmosphere that is being created here. and they are deeply concerned about where all this will lead us in the years ahead. rightfully so. you know what the greatest

threat is? the thing that ought to keep every single one of us up at night? is the rapidly eroding trust of the american people in their institutions. one of the critical presuppositions and foundations of a self-governing people in a constitutional republic is they will maintain a basic level of trust in their institutions in the rule of law, in the system of justice, in the body of elected representatives, their citizen legislators in the congress. the greatest danger of this fraudulent impeachment production 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 of head to our 243-year experiment in self-govern, this pandora's box will have upon our nation six or seven years from now, a decadade from now and the ruins of public liberty that are being created by this terribly short-sighted exercise today. god help us. i field back. >> mr. swalwell. >> professor turley is a former

prosecutor. 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 are representing republicans and the president. >> that's not my intention, sir. >> you have said that this case represents a dramatic turning point in federal impeachment precedent, the impact of which will shape and determine future cases. the house for the first time in the modern era asks the senate to remove someone for conduct for which he was never charged criminally and the impropriety of which has never been tested in a court of law. but that's actually not a direct quote from what you said today. it sounds a lot like what you've 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 federal judge thomas porteous? >> i did, indeed. and he was tried engaging in ranging in a pattern of conduct that is incompatible with the trust and confidence placed in

him as a federal judge to engaging in a long-standing pattern of corrupt conduct that demonstrates his unfitness to serve as the united states district court judge. on each count the judge was convicted by at least 68 and up to 96 bipartisan senators. thankfully that senate did not buy your argument that a federal official should not be removed if he is not charged criminally. and respectfully, professor, we don't buy it either. but we are here because of this photo. it's a picture of president zelensky in may of this year standing on the eastern front of ukraine as a hot war was taking place and up to 15,000 ukrainians have died at the hands of russians. i'd like to focus on the impact of president trump's conduct, particularly with our allies and our standing in the world. this isn't just a president, as professor karlan has pointed out, asking for another foreign leader to investigate a political opponent.

it also is a president leveraging a white house visit as well as foreign aid. as the witnesses have testified, ukraine needs our support to defend itself against russia. i heard directly from witnesses how important the visit and aid were, particularly from ambassador taylor. >> these weapons and this assistance allows the ukrainian military to deter further incursions by the russians against ukrainian territory. if that further aggression were to take place, more ukrainians would die. >> professor karlan, does the president's decision to withhold from ukraine such important official acts, a white house visit and military aid, in order to pressure president zelensky relate to the framers' concerns about abuse of power and

entanglements with foreign nations? >> it relates to the abuse of power. the entanglements with foreign nations is a more complicated concept for the framers than for us. >> professor karlan, i think you'd agree we are a nation of immigrants? >> yes. >> today 50 million immigrants live in the united states. i am moved by one who recently told me as i was checking into a hotel about his romanian family. he came here from romania and said that every time he had gone home for the last 20 years he would always tell his family members how corrupt his country was that he had left and why he had come to the united states. he told me in such humiliating fashion that when he has gone home recently they now wag their finger at him and say you are going to lecture us about corruption? what do you think, professor karlan, does the president's conduct say to the millions of americans who left their families and livelihoods to come to a country that represents the

rule of law? >> i think it suggests that we don't believe in the rule of law. and i think it tells emerging democracies around the world 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. president bush announced that he did not consider the elections in belarus in 2006 to be legitimate for exactly that reason because they went after political opponents. >> thank you. and finally, professor feldman, professor turley has pointed out that we should go to the courts. but you would acknowledged that we have been in the courts for over six months, many times on matters that are already settled in the united states supreme court, particularly u.s. v nixon where the president seems to be running up the clock. that is right? >> yes, sir. >> thank you. and i yield back. >> the gentleman yields back. in a moment we will recess for a

brief five minutes. first i ask everyone in the room to please remain seated and quiet while the witnesses exit the room. i also want to remind those in the audience that you may not be guaranteed your seat if you leave the hearing room at this time. at this time the committee will stand in a short recess. we have been watching as the questioning has become a little more fiery, a little more intense. each side using their side's witnesses to bolster their arguments. obviously the republicans a lot less to work with. congresswoman swalwell there just before this break undermining professor turley's

standard for that which was impeachable with a case that he was all too familiar with. people in the community were waiting for this moment. you predicted it a couple hours ago. >> yeah. you know, turley is in a very difficult position. he's been all over the map on this issue. and that's been pointed out now i think pretty effectively. there is still more that he has said that they can feedback to him, especially his position he took on impeachment with clinton. >> bill clinton. >> and some of the language he used around the impeachment trial that i was involved in where he represented a federal judge. and it's interesting that he is really saying there is not enough evidence when we all understand that the reason there is not enough evidence is another impeachable offense, which is obstruction of justice. >> yeah. >> obstruction of the ability of congress who has the sole power of the house to impeach that,

you know, that's the irony of this is his defense is the president has succeeded in avoiding impeachment by blocking your ability to get documents and witnesses. >> and we are lucky. we have been joined by andrew weissmann, former senior fbi official. we have made a list of the people who are so far refusing subpoenas or refusing to go and testify. they include mulvaney, the act s white house chief of staff, robert blair, senior adviser to the chief of staff. ambassador bolton has not been subpoenaed but he's waiting for a lawsuit of his deputy charles kupperman. john eisenberg, the person in the counsel's office who shoved this questionable sketchy dodgey transcript into a server where another witness testified. there are a dozen witnesses who, as you said, are possibly committing the additional impeachable offense of obstruction who could answer a lot of these concerns that republicans have. andrew?

>> for one, professor turley just got it wrong when he said they just didn't issue subpoenas. there were subpoenas that have been issued both for witnesses and for documents. so he's just wrong on that. it's not like the democrats didn't try. but this comes up at trials all the time as we were talking about on the break where the defense lawyer doesn't have a lot to work with and said they should've called more witnesses. well, that actually is the last thing they would want. this is the case where really do the republicans really want mike pompeo on the stand? i don't think so. and this is the kind of thing where you can be sure if he had something positive that he could say for the president, the president would be the first one to say hop on over and take the stand. >> that is -- there is no legal principle that the president understands enough to fight for that would keep him from sending someone to capitol hill who would make a good tv moment for him. i mean, to me, for a republican party that likes to talk about a lack of smoking guns, this is a list of 13 of them.

because these bodies would be sitting there if they could say anything good about donald trump. >> of course. >> why is it an argument that they are even making? >> because when you don't have a lot to argue, you say, well, let's see if there could be more evidence. but it's actually not logical. but it's because, one, that way you can kind af void talking about the evidence that is in the record because it's overwhelming to just say, gee, i wonder if there is more out there. well, you know what? the republicans could actually say, fine, come on in and testify. and it really is the case if there was anything useful, the republicans would have them there. >> i wish one of the members of the committee would take that list and say, you know, professor turley, are you aware we have subpoenaed mulvaney? professor turley, are you aware that we have subpoenaed, and are you aware the president has instructed them to ignore that lawful subpoena? in your experience in looking at impeachment, wouldn't that, in fact, be an impeachable offense?

i think that would be a really effective cross of turley reading this long list of subpoenaed witnesses that have just said forget it, we won't be involved. >> and the importance of these people. they answer all of the republican complaints. these are the first hand witnesses of what the president has admitted to doing, which is conditioning military aid in a meeting on investigations into biden. and i read some of them. it's mulvaney, john bolton, john eisenberg, michael ellis, preston wells griffith, charles kupperman, russell voigt, brian mccormack and a couple of other advisers to mike pompeo. do you think there is any chance that we will see these people? if donald trump is watching, he says, oh, yeah, get them there to defend me. >> the only way we will see any of these people is if they decide to do the right thing. and i don't see that happening. if you peel back what professor turley is actually arguing here since there is a ton of

evidence, to andrew's point, including direct evidence. he keeps talking circumstantial evidence is powerful evidence, but there's also direct evidence, as andrew said. so what he's really saying is unless you have a sitting president on tape or video saying the words i'm committing a crime now, then you don't have sufficient evidence for impeachment. and that would mean all of the things that lawyers do every day in court. they would never ever, no prosecutor would win a case. >> chuck, we have talked about this countless times that there are plenty of criminal cases and other kinds of cases brought with circumstantial evidence. it's a bogus standard and one that even the evidence doesn't support. >> in fact, the judge at the end of the trial will instruct the jury that you hear all kinds of evidence. sometimes it's circumstantial, sometimes it's direct evidence. >> sorry for that high-pitched buzz if that made your golden doodle wince. >> it wasn't me.

[ laughter ] i don't believe i'm responsible for that. but the judge will tell the jury you will hear two kinds of evidence, circumstantial, direct evidence. they are entitled to equal weight. the law makes no distinction. and you, ladies and gentlemen of the jury, use your common sense. you don't have to suspend common sense when you walk into a courtroom. if things sound wrong, then they probably are wrong. common sense still matters. to maya's point, there's nothing wrong or bad or ill about circumstantial evidence. i think the analogy we used on your show once was that if you walk outside and see snow in your front lawn, it's pretty good evidence that it snowed. it's not direct evidence that it snowed because you didn't stay up all night to watch it. but it's circumstantial evidence, and it's compelling circumstantial evidence. >> but, andrew, i think where we are is you've got a republican party that would go on their favorite network and say nah-ah. not only does that not smell, but saying it snowed means you

hate america. the attacks on law professors were really stunning. >> look, what's disspiriting is that you look at what's going on and you sort of say to yourself i wonder if we are in a world where facts don't matter and the law doesn't matter. there is a responsible position that republicans could take that this doesn't rise to the level that he should be removed, given that there is an election coming up. i disagree with that. but that's a responsible position. but i think that professor karlan asked exactly the right question, which is if you think that he held up your congressionally approved military aid in order to have a political favor, which was having a bogus investigation on vice president biden, would you find that to be impeachable? i think if they can't answer that question, then we really are in a sort of post fact post law world. >> jason johnson, i love this point because what professor

karlan did is she is telling them to look in the mirror. you decide if you want to pull on your big boy, big girl pants and be congress. do you want your authority? do you want the money that you appropriate to go where it's legally obligated to go or don't you? and i think what she is saying is, yeah, i donated to democrats, i exercised my first amendment rights. by the way, your guy does that all day every day on twitter so i'm not sure why you are looking at me. but i think she made a strong argument that, don't look at me, look at yourselves. >> well, and, nicole, she not only made that argument. but she also said by the way your implication is you already decided too. because, remember, you shifted from first saying there was no quid pro quo quid pro quo to now saying well there was quid pro quo but we don't necessarily think that's impeachable. congressman buck was probably the only person. he's the only person who actually made a decent coherent functional point that i have seen so far from the republicans. when he went for a list of behaviors from nixon to kennedy

to obama, of all sorts of shady things that presidents do to influence elections. that actually is a compelling argument. if the republicans want to say, yeah, trump did this, but it falls in line with things that presidents have done in the past in order to sort of tip the scale in their favor, that is a much stronger or more reasonable and sort of ethical argument to make than claiming the president hasn't done anything. and that's not something that kennedy or obama or bush or anybody else could ever be accused of doing. but at least it was a substantive argument. i wish they had spent more time on that than the ridiculous antics of jim jordan and meat gaetz. >> i rarely get to disagree with you. but i was watching that and thinking so all they've got is oppo on mostly deceased american presidents, not so great. i think i would push back in a serious manner by saying that the witnesses held their ground on that question by saying absolutely that would have in

the definition we are applying today to trump's conduct, that would have justified looking at all of that conduct. >> well, yeah. and here's the thing. just because someone wasn't accused of robbing banks five times in the past doesn't mean they didn't rob a bank today. just because previous congresses did not take these crimes, did not take this behavior as seriously, doesn't mean that what donald trump is doing today is as much of a problem. and i also think this is really compelling and certain members have said this effectively. we now, unlike the past, have very clear evidence. we have the mueller report. we have investigations that foreign entities are trying to influence elections. so if you have a president who actively encourages china and russia and other countries to get involved in our elections and then uses its influence to get other countries involved in our elections, we can now say that this is an impeachable offense, where in the past it could've been something considered just oppo or dirty tricks. >> we are lucky to be joined now by garrett haake, our man in the room. garrett, can you take me inside the room? this does look like, as a former

staffer, i am noticing some of the staff work that's gone into the production. the audio/visual is all there. the testimony that underscores some of the arguments they are making is there. and to jason's point, the republicans that are sort of landing some blows seem prepared with arguments that whether they are good or bad, have at least been thought through. >> reporter: yeah. look, i mean, i think from the moment we got past the opening statements in the several parliamentary efforts that republicans made to slow down these proceedings, you saw that this is a choreographed production, the audio/visual elements, which, to the embarrassment of a lot of people, didn't work very well in the intel committee hearings when the fact witnesses were here. were all smooth today going back to some of those more powerful moments with bill taylor's testimony, the testimony of other witnesses. we were seen that all played out on video, the democrats in particular have been quite coordinated in their line of

questioning, as have republicans, at least coming with their research, given the fact especially that these witnesses, the names were not known of these witnesses until shortly before the hearing. everybody has done their homework here. and i think you can give credit a little bit to both sides that this has been a much more professionally run endeavor from doug collins compared to devin nunes staying focused on the topic at hand here and going through these questions engaging with at least their one witness here. i think the one thing that threw the hearing off the rails here a little bit was the one professor's joke about president trump's son was obviously something you saw matt gaetz seize on, come at her very hard for and almost immediately send a fundraising email to point out that he was out defending president trump and his family. republicans i think are going to try to make that a viral moment from this hearing to have something else to talk about coming out of this here. and, nicole, i will tell you that while this is going on in the house side, there's a lot of other impeachment related

activity happening across campus here, both senate republicans and senate democrats had impeachment trial-themed lunches today. the republicans had white house counsel pat cipollone in the room for their lunch. democrats got a briefing from chuck schumer and aides about how an impeachment trial would go. there is only a handful of senators left on the democratic side from the clinton trial. so, while this hearing is happening, the wheels are turning all over this complex getting ready for the next phase of this thing. i think it's very easy to see both from members that i have talked to on the house side and these factors happening on the senate side that this train is definitely moving, and i think moving again at a very quick pace. >> garrett, is there any sense that on the fact pattern, which it's just remarkable, we are in hour eight of testimony, as you said both sides came prepared, both sides called witnesses that showed up and are taking questions from democratic and republican members of the

committee. nobody has said that there is any sort of chink in the case laid out by the witnesses or even the case in the intel report last night. you were on air for hours like a news bombshell. is there any consternation that on the facts there is no defense for this president? >> reporter: well, look. republicans have continued to hit a couple of points on this. you heard it from some of their members here today that only gordon sondland of all the witnesses who were called during the fact-finding part of this had spoken directly with donald trump and sondland's point was that the president told him he didn't want anything from ukraine. republicans are going to go back to that again and again. one of the things that i'd be interesting to see, turley in his opening statement said he didn't find that call by president trump to be perfect. he said far from it. republicans have been very united since the minute really before this but especially since their minority report on the intel committee came out that they are going to stand with the

president on this. they are going to back up the idea that the president says this was a perfect call. the republican witness in front of them today does not agree that it's a perfect call. right. >> and it might be interesting to see if anyone tries to, you know, get into that space between the republican witness here and the republican talking points here. but, now, i mean, republicans have seized on i think what may be a better argument for them, which is the question of do you want to go down this road constitutionally? do you want to have impeachment based on this kind of information as opposed to what we saw with richard nixon or even andrew johnson, bill clinton? i am hearing jerry nadler in my ear. you better get back in there. garrett haake, thank you for spending time with us. we are going to listen in as this hearing gets underway. >> you already made that determination decision. and i will give you, for instance, until a recent colloquy, several of you consistently said that the president said during that july 25th conversation with president zelensky you said the president

said i would like you to do me a favor. but that is inaccurate. it was finally clear in that colloquy. 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's 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 sceptic too. i don't know, i'm looking at an august 23rd, 2017 publication where you said if president donald trump pardons joe arpaio, it would be an impeachable

offense. he did ultimately pardon him. in 2017 the new york book review, review of books professor feldman said defamation by tweet is an impeachable offense. and i think of the history of this country. and i think if defamation or lible or slander were an impeachable offense, who routinely pilaried their political opponents. at the time the factions or parties actually bought newspapers to attack their political opponents. so this rather expansive and generous view you have on what constitutes impeachment is a real problem. this morning one of you mentioned the constitutional convention. and several of you mentioned mr. davies and you talked about the constitutional commission. it's been a while since i read the minutes so i just briefly

reviewed because i remembered the discussion on the impeachment as being more pervasive, a little bit more expanded. and on july 20th, 1787, it wasn't 1789 by the way. it was in 1787, july 20th, benjamin franklin is discussing impeachment of a dutch leader. and he talks specifically about what he would anticipate an impeachment to look like. he said it would be a regular impeachable inquiry. it would've taken place, and if guilty, then there'd be a punishment, if acquitted, then the innocent would be restored to the confidence of the public. that needs to be taken to account as well. so, i look also, and on may 17th, 2017, bbc article, which is a discussion about impeachment, because president trump had fired james comey.

alex whiting of harvard said it was hard to make the obstruction of justice case with this sacking alone. the president had clear legal authority and there was arguably proper or at least other reasons put forward for firing him. and yet what we have here is this insistence by ms. gerhart that that was impeachable. may 17th, 2017, bbc article. what i'm suggesting to you today is a reckless bias coming in here. you are not fact witnesses. you are supposed to be talking about what the law is, but you came in with a preconceived notion and bias. and i want to read one last thing here, if i can find it, from 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, he is talking about this being critical of lack of self-doubt and an overwhelming arrogance on the part of law professors who come in and opine on impeachment. that would be you, mr. gerhart who said something like that. i can't find my quote or else i'd give it to you. and so what i am telling you is, is that has what's been on display and with that i yield back. >> the gentleman yields back. a little while ago mr. gaetz asked that certain material be inserted into the record by unanimous consent. i ask for an opportunity to review it. we have reviewed it. the material will be inserted without objection. mr. wilieu.

>> i 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 an oath for a document that has 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 u.s. national security, hurt our ally ukraine and helped our adversary russia. now the constitution provides a safeguard for 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 they could have included and enumerated in the constitution, bribery is one of only two that are listed. so, professor feldman, why would the framers choose bribery of all of the powerful offenses they could have included to list? >> bribery was the classic

example for them of the 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 are serving your own interests and not the interests of the people. and that was commonly used in impeachment offenses in england, and that's one of the reasons that they specified it. >> thank you. now earlier in this hearing, professor karlan made the point that bribery, asned by the framers, was much broader than the narrow federalot in a proceeding. we are not deciding whether to send president trump to prison. this is a civil action. it's an impeachment proceeding to decide whether or not we remove donald trump from his job. and so, professor karlan, it's true, isn't it, that we don't have to meet the standards of a federal bribery statute in order

to meet the standards for an impeachable offense? >> that's correct. i'm sorry. that's correct. >> thank you. yesterday scalia law professor j.w. verret who is a lifelong republican, who advised the trump pre-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 karlan, i am now going to show you two video clips of the witness testimony related to the president's withholding of the white house meeting in exchange for the public announcement of an investigation into his political rival. >> as i testified previously, mr. giuliani's requests were a quid pro quo for arranging a white house visit for president zelensky. by mid-july it was becoming clear to me that the meeting president zelensky wanted was conditioned on the

investigations of burisma, an alleged ukrainian interference in the u.s. 2016 elections. >> and i'll show you one more video clip relating to the president's decision to withhold security assistance that congress had appropriated to ukraine in exchange for announcement of public investigation of his political rival. >> 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 there was a public statement from ukraine committing to the investigations of the 2016 elections and burisma as mr. giuliani had demanded. >> mr. karlan, does that evidence as well as the evidence in the record tend to show that the president met the standards for bribery as envisioned in the constitution? >> yes, it does. >> i'm also a former prosecutor. i believe the record and the

evidence would also meet the standards for criminal bribery. the supreme court's decision was primarily about what constitutes an official act. their key find wag it must exercise a formal governmental power before a public official. pretty clearly got that here. we have hundreds of millions of dollars of military aid that congress specifically appropriated. the freezing and unfreezing of that aid is a formal exercise of governmental power. but we don't even have to talk about the crime of bribery. there's another crime here, which is the solicitation of federal -- assistance of a government -- at 52 usc 3101. and, oh, by the way that also gives one reason why michael cohen is sitting in prison right now. i yield back. >> mr. mcclintock.

>> thank you, mr. chairman. could i be, just with a show of hands, how many on the panel actually voted for donald trump in 2016? >> i don't think we are obligated to say anything about how we cast our ballots. >> just show of hands. >> i will not -- >> i think you have made your positions, professor karlan. >> we will suspend the clock too. >> i have a right to cast a ballot. >> let me rephrase the question. how many of you support it? >> the gentleman may ask the question. the witnesses don't have to respond. >> how many of you supported donald trump in 2016? show of hands. >> not raising our hands is not an indication of an answer, sir. >> professor turley, this impeachment inquiry has been predicated on some rather disturbing legal doctrines. one democrat asserted that hearsay can be much better evidence than direct evidence. speaker pelosi and others who have said that the president's responsibility is to present evidence to prove his innocence.

chairman schiff, we heard a discussion from some of your colleagues today, that if you invoke legal rights in defense of criminal accusations ipso facto, that's an obstruction of justice and innocence of guilt. what does it mean to our american justice system if these doctrines take root in our country? >> well, what concerns me the most is that there are no limiting principles that i can see in some of the definitions that my colleagues have put forward. and more importantly some of these impeachable offenses i only heard about today. i'm not too sure what attempting to abuse office means or how you recognize it. but i am pretty confident that nobody on this committee truly wants the new standard of impeachment to be betrayal of the national interest. that that is going to be the basis for impeachment. how many republicans do you

think would say that barack obama violated that standard? >> that's exactly what james madison warned you against is that you would create effectively a vote of no confidence standard in our constitution. >> well, then are we in danger of abusing our own power of doing enormous violence? my democratic colleagues have been searching for a pretext for impeachment since before the president was sworn in on this panel, professor karlan called president trump's election illegitimate in 2017. she implied impeachment was a remedy. professor feldman advocated impeaching the president over a tweet that he made in march of 2017. that's just seven weeks after his inauguration. are we in danger of succumbing to the maxima of lewis carol's red queen, sentence first, verdict afterwards? >> this is part of the problem of how your view of the president can affect your assumptions, your inferences,

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

been conducted. >> well, i tend to agree with that. the constitution commands the president take care that the laws be faithfully enforced. that does in effect make him the chief law enforcement officer in the federal government, does it not? >> that's commonly expressed. >> so if probable cause exists to believe a crime's been committed, does the president have 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. i think that has caused considerable problems. i also don't believe it's appropriate. but we often confuse what is inappropriate with what's impeachable. many people feel that what the president has done is obnoxious, contemptible. >> contemptible's not synonymous with impeachment. >> the national defense authorization act that authorized aid to the ukraine requires the secretary of defense that the government of ukraine has taken substantial actions to make defense

institutional reforms, among other things, for 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? >> that's what i'm referring to as unexplored defenses. part of the bias when you look at these facts is you just ignore defenses. you say well those are just invalid. but they are the defenses. they are the other sides' accounts for actions and that's what hasn't been explored. >> the gentleman's time has expired. mr. raskin? >> 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. tom payne said that in the

monarchies the king is law. but in the democracies the law will be king. but today the president advances. he says that article 2 allows him to do whatever he wants. he not only says that but he believes it because he did something no other american president has ever 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 relaction campaign. professor karlan, what does 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 he can do whatever he wants, all future presidents seeking re-election will be able to bring foreign governments into our campaigns to target their rivals. and to 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 just made a direct phone call to the president of a foreign country and sought his intervention in an american election. >> so this is a big moment for america, isn't it? if elijah cummings were here, he would say, listen up, people. listen up! how we respond will determine the character of our democracy for generations. now, professors feldman, karlan, and gerhardt tell us there were three dominant reasons invoked at the founding for why we needed an impeachment power. broadly speaking, it was an instrument of popular self-defense against a president behaving like a king and trampling the rule of law. but not just in the normal royal sense of showing cruelty and vanity and treachery and greed and avarice and so on.

but when presidents threaten the basic character of our government and the constitution, that's wh 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 his power by corruptly using his office for personal, political, or financial gain. well, professor feldman, what's so wrong with that? if the president belongs to my party and i generally like him, what's so wrong with him using his office to advance his own political ambitions? >> because the president of the united states works for the people. and so if he seeks personal gain, he's not serving the interests of the people. he's rather serving the interests that are 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's the president. and that is necessarily subject to impeachment. >> well, second and third. the founders express fear that a president could subvert our

democracy by betraying his trust to foreign influence and interference. and also, by corrupting the election process. professor karlan, you're one of america's leading election law scholars. what role does impeachment play in protecting the integrity of our elections, especially in an international context? in which vladimir putin and other tyrants and des pits are interfering to destabilize around the world. >> enacted a series of laws to make sure there isn't interference in our elections and allowing 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. jeffries said. but it's also the shining city on the hill. and we can't be a shining city on the hill and promote democracy around the world if we're not promoting it here at home. >> any one of these actions alone would be sufficient to impeach the president according

to the founders. but is it fair to say that all three causes for impeachment explicitly contemplated by the founders. abuse of power, betrayal of our national security, and corruption of our elections. are present in this president's conduct? yes or no, professor feldman? >> yes. >> and professor gerhardt? >> yes, sir. >> and professor karlan? >> yes. >> you all agree. okay. and are any of you aware of any other president who has essentially triggered all three concerns that animated the founders? >> no. >> no. >> no, as well. >> mr. chairman, it's hard to think of a more monarchical sentiment than i can do whatever i want as president. and i yield back. >> gentleman yields back. ms. lesko. >> thank you, mr. chair. mr. chair, i ask unanimous consent to insert into the record a letter i wrote and sent to you asking, calling on you, to cancel any and all future impeachment hearings.

and outlining how the process -- >> the letter will be entered into the record. >> thank you. during an interview, mr. chairman, on msnbc's "morning joe," on november 26th, 2018, chairman nadler outlined a three-prong 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 -- 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, he

won -- 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 have a partisan impeachment, which will tear the country apart. if you meet these three tests, then i think you 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 is 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 apar 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 chairman, i do not believe that those -- 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 they imply it was against president biden to -- to investigate president biden. it was not. it was not. in fact, let me read what the transcript says. it says president trump, i would like you to do as a favor though because our country has been through a lot and ukraine knows a lot about it. i would like you to find out what happened with this whole situation with ukraine. they say crowdstrike. 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. >> 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. when 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 he requested an investigation into his political opponents and withheld desperately needed military aid for ukraine was supposedly because he was worried about corruption. however, contrary to the president's statements, various witnesses, including vice president pence's special advisor