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 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. >> professor karlan, is it common for someone who gets caught to deny that their behave 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. now, you've argued before the supreme court and the supreme court determined that when assessing credibility, we should look at a number of factors. including impact, hiss torector background, and whether there are departures from normal procedures, correct? >> that's correct. >> so what we are trying to do is figure out if someone's explanation fits with the facts. and if it doesn't, then the explanation may not be true. so let's explore that. lieutenant colonel vindman testified that he prepared talking points on anti-corruption reform for president trump's call with

ukrainian president zelensky. however, based on the transcripts released of those calls in 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 also 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. >> and, professor karlan, there is, in fact, and my colleague mr. mclintock outlined this earlier. 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 assessment -- is that relevant to your assessment? >> yes, that would also go to the factors the supreme courts 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 to 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 on oan odd thing. maybe mr. swalwell could probably answer this better than i because he was a prosecutor. but 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? >> well, i think 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 from this that he was doing it for political reasons. >> if we don't stand up now to a president who abuses his power, we risk sending a message to all future presidents that they can put their own personal, 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.

>> gentle lady yields back. i now recognize mr. gohmert for the purpose of unanimous consent request. >> yes. mr. chairman, i would ask th unanimous consent to offer article. >> without objection. the article will be entered into the record. and i recognize -- to question the witnesses. >> 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. well, on that, the speaker and i both agree. and you know who else agrees? the founding fathers. the founding fathers recognize that crimes warranting impeachment must be so severe,

regardless of political party, that there is an agreement the actions are impeachable. but let's go back to speaker pelosi -- pelosi's words just one more time. the speaker says the case for impeachment must be also compelling. well, 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 the mere presumptions by ambassador sondland, there is no evidence that trump was conditioning aid on investigation. and if you doubt me, just go back to the actual transcript because never in that call was the 2020 election mentioned. and never in that call was military aid mentioned. in fact, president trump told senator johnson on 31 august that aid was not conditioned on investigation. rather, president trump was rightfully skeptical about the ukrainians. their country has a history of

corruption and he merely wanted the europeans to contribute more to a problem in their own backyard. but i think we can all agree that it's appropriate for the president as a steward of taxpayer dollars to ensure that our money isn't wasted. i said i wasn't gonna go back to speaker pelosi but i do want to go back because i forgot she also said that impeachment should be only pursued when it's quote/unquote overwhelming. so 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 firsthand knowledge, the president and president zelensky, both say there was no pressure on the ukrainians. and, again, the transcript of 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 actually the same sentiment echoed by our chairman jerry nadler, who in 1998 said, and i quote, there must never be a narrowly voted impeachment supported by one of the major political parties and opposed 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 0-3. let's face it. this is a sham impeachment against president trump. it's not compelling. it's not overwhelming. and it's not bipartisan. so even by the speaker's own criteria, this is 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 a few -- 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, lowering the cost of prescription drugs, and working on a failing infrastructure in this country. with that said, mr. turley, i've watched as your words have been twisted and mangled all day long. is there anything you would like to clarify? >> only this. i think one of the disagreements that we have, and i have with my esteemed colleagues, is what makes a -- a legitimate impeachment. not what technically satisfies an impeachment. there's very few technical requirements of an impeachment. the question is what is expected of you? and my objection is that there is a constant preference for inference over information. for presumptions over proof. that's because this record hasn't been developed.

and if you're going to remove a president, 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. >> gentleman yields back. i now recognize ms. jackson lee for the purpose of unanimous consent request. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i'd like unanimous consent to place on the record a new statement from checks and balances on president trump's abuse of office. >> without objection. >> republican and democratic attorney generals. i ask unanimous consent. >> without objection, i now recognize ms. demings. five minutes for questioning the witnesses. >> thank you, mr. chairman. as a former law enforcement official, i know firsthand that the rule of law is the strength of our democracy. and no one is above it.

not our neighbors in our various communities. not our co-workers. and not the president of the united states. yet, the president have said that he cannot be prosecuted for criminal conduct. that he need not comply with congressional requests and subpoenas. matter of fact, the president is trying to absorb 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 subpoenaed documents. in addition, at the president's direction, more than a dozen members of his administration have defied congressional subpoenas. the following slide shows those who have refused to comply at the president's direction. we are facing a categorical blockade by a president who's desperate to prevent any investigation into his wrongdoing. professor gerhardt, has a president ever refused to cooperate in an impeachment investigation? >> not until now. >> and any president who -- i know nixon delayed or tried to delay turning over information. when that occurred, was it at

the same level that we're seeing today? >> president nixon also had ordered his subordinates to cooperate and testify. he didn't shut down any of that. he produced documents. and there were times -- there were certainly disagreements. 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? >> yes, ma'am, article three. >> professor feldman, is it fair to say that if a president st e 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 inevitable effect of a president refusing to participate. he's denying the power of congress under the constitution to oversee him and to exercise its capacity to impeach.

>> professor gerhardt, when a president prevents witnesses from complying with congressional subpoenas, are we entitled to make any presumptions about what they would say if they testified? >> 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 exactly what the house has tried to conduct here. and the president has refused to comply with subpoenas and other requests for information. that's where the blockage occurs. that's why there are documents not produced and people not testifying that people have said they want to hear from. >> in relation to what you just said, ambassador sondland testified, and i quote, everyone was in the loop. it was no secret. professor gerhardt, how is ambassador sondland's testimony relevant here? >> his testimony's relevant. it's also rather chilling to hear him say that everybody's in the loop. and when he says that, he's talking about the 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 refuse to comply with valid congressional subpoenas. the framers included impeachment in their -- 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. >> 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 home from work right now. they're turning on the tv and they're wondering what they're

watching on tv. they're asking themselves, is this a rerun? because i thought i saw this a couple of weeks ago. but, no, this is not a rerun. unfortunately, this is act two 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 storied history. 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 who chaired this committee, and congressman caldwell butler also served on this committee. but the committee they served under, 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 -- the portraits of the various chairmen whose -- 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 the 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 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. i was not able to be a part of the intelligence committee hearings that were in the scif. 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 like to a former chairman, daniel webster, who said, we are all agents of the same supreme power, the people. 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 obstruction of justice to 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 months of the first phase of this impeachment inquiry. that the democrats may be dusting off the obstruction of justice portion of the mueller report. seems to me that we all remember how painful it was to listen to special counsel's analysis of the obstruction of justice portion of that report. i'd like you to address the fatal flaws from your perspective with regard to the obstruction of justice portion of that. >> the gentleman's time is expired. the witness may answer the

question briefly. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i -- i've been a critic of -- of the obstruction theory behind the russia investigation because, once again, it doesn't meet what i think are the clear standards for obstruction. there were issues that mueller addressed. the only one that i think was -- that raised a serious issue quite frankly was the matter with don mcgahn. there's a disagreement about that. but also, 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 gentleman's time is well-expired. >> thank you, mr. chairman. and i'd like to thank our witnesses for being here today. i can assure your testimony is important, not only to this body, but to america that's listening very intently on what the issues before us are. and why is it so important that all of us 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 feldman, do you agree with judge jackson's ruling that president trump has invoked a nonexistent legal basis to block witnesses from testifying in this impeachment inquiry? >> i agree with the thrust of judge jackson's opinion. i think that she correctly held that there is no absolute

immunity which would protect a presidential advisor from having to appear before the house of representatives and testify. she did not make a ruling as to whether executive privilege would apply in any given situation. i think that was also appropriate because the issue had not yet arisen. >> and let me quote judge jackson. open quote, the primary takeaway from the past 250 years of recorded american history is that presidents are not kings. close quote. professor feldman, in the framers' view, does a president act more like a 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 elected? >> sir, i don't even think the framers could have imagined that a president would flatly refuse to participate in an impeachment inquiry. given that they gave the power of impeachment to the house of representatives. and assumed that the structure of the constitution would allow

the house to oversee the president. >> thank you. professor gerhardt. >> yes. >> where can we look in the constitution to understand whether the president must comply with the impeachment investigations? >> i think you can look throughout the entire constitution. a good place, of course, includes the supremacy clause. the president also takes an oath. he takes an oath to support and defend the constitution of the united states. that comes -- that means that he's assuming office with certain constraints on what he may do. and that there are measures for accountability for any failure to follow his duty. or follow the constitution. >> thank you. and the president has said that he is above the law. that article two of the constitution allows him to, and i quote, 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. it was a time when we were going

to beat the russians to the moon. we were full of optimism. we believed in america -- 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 as a maid cleaning hotel rooms for a buck 50 an hour. and my dad worked at a local paper mill. trying to survive day to day. and what got us up in the morning was the belief, the optimism, that tomorrow was gonna be better than today. we're a nation of freedom, democracy, economic opportunity. and we always know that tomorrow's going to 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 also with one very important mission, which is to keep the american dream alive.

to ensure that all of us are equal. to ensure that nobody, nobody, is above the law. and to ensure that our constitution and that our congressional oversight of the presidency is still something with meaning. thank you. mr. chair, i yield back. >> gentleman yields back. mr. armstrong. >> thank you, mr. chairman. all day long, we've been sitting here and listening to my friends across the aisle and their witnesses claim 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 this sham impeachment, purposely misleading and not based on the facts. so let's review the actual transcript of the call. they never mention the 2020 election. they never mentioned military aid. it does, however, clearly show that the favor the president

requested was assistance with the ongoing investigation into the 2016 election. those investigations, particularly the one done -- being run by u.s. attorney jeff durham, should concern democrats. and the transcript of this call shows that the president was worried about the efforts of ukraine relating to the 2016 election. we know this and notice i'm using the word know and not the word infer. from reading the transcript and because he 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. we have a treaty with ukraine governing these sorts of international investigations. but like so many other things, these facts are inconvenient for democrats. they don't fit the impeachment narrative. so they're misrepresented or ignored. and i think it's important when we talk about this, whatever the burden of proof, beyond a reasonable doubt, clear and convincing evidence, when we are

talking about these issues, 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. but when i walk into a courtroom, i think of three things. what's the crime charged? what's the conduct? and who's the victim? and we've managed to make it till 5:00 today before we've talked about the alleged victim of the crime and that's president zelensky. and three different times, president zelensky -- at least three different times -- has denied being pressured by the president. the call shows laughter, pleasantries, cordiality. september 25th, president zelensky states, no, you heard that we had a good phone call. it was normal. we spoke about many things. i think you read it and nobody pushed me. october -- october 10th, president zelensky had a press conference. and i encourage everybody to watch it. even if you don't understand it, 90% of communication's nonverbal. you tell me if you think he's lying. 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, whatever we're dealing with 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, demoralize himself for the good of his country. either of these two assertions weakens their countries and harms our efforts to help the ukraine. 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 to ukraine and did not take any action from them in order for it to flow.

and with that, i yield to my friend. >> i thank the gentleman for yielding. professor karlan, context is important, isn't it? >> yes, sir. >> yeah because just a few minutes ago, when our colleague from florida presented a statement you made. you said, well, you got to take that statement in context. but it seems to me you don't want to extend or apply the same standard to the president. because the now-famous quote i would like you to do us a favor you said about an hour and a half ago that didn't -- us didn't mean us. it meant the president himself. but that's -- that -- the clear reading of this. 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. he said i want you to do us a favor, though, because our country has been through a lot. you know what this -- this call -- when this call happened? it happened the day 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, oh, this is the royal we and he's talking about himself ignores the entire

context of his statement. that whole paragraph. you know what he ends the paragraph with? talking about bob mueller. and this is -- this is the basis for this impeachment, this call? it couldn't be further from the truth. you want the -- you want the standard to apply when -- when representative gates makes one of your statements. oh you got to look at the context. but when the president of the united states is clear, you try to change his word. and when the context is clear, he's talking about the two years that this country went through because of this mueller report. somehow that standard doesn't apply to the president. that is ridiculous. >> the gentleman's time is expired. >> i want to thank our constitutional experts for walking us through the framers' thinking on impeachment and why they decided it was a necessary part of our constitution. i'm gonna ask you to help us understand the implications of the president's obstruction of congress's investigation into his use of the office of the president to squeeze the ukrainian government to help the trump re-election campaign.

and there's certainly hundreds of pages on how one reaches that conclusion. we know the president's obstruction did not begin with the ukraine investigation. instead, his conduct is part of a pattern and i'll direct your attention to the timeline on the screen. in the left-hand column, we see the president's statement from his july call in 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. but this isn't the first time we've seen this kind of obstruction. in the right-hand column, we can flash back to the 2016 election when the president welcomed and used russian's 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. so it appears the president's obstruction of investigations is part of a pattern.

first, he invites foreign powers to interfere in our elections. then he covers it up. and finally, he obstructs lawful inquiries into his behavior. whether by congress or law enforcement. and then he does it again. so, professor gerhardt, how does the existence of such a pattern help determine whether the president's conduct is impeachable? >> the pattern, of course, gives us a tremendous insight into the context of his behavior. when he's acting and how do we explain those actions? by looking at the pattern. and we can infer i think a very strong inference, in fact, is that this is deviating from the usual practice. and he's been systematically heading towards a culmination where he can ask this question. by the way, after the july 25th call, the money's not yet released. it's -- and -- and there's ongoing conversations we learned from other testimony that essentially the money's being withheld because the president wanted to make sure the deliverable was going to happen.

that is, the announcement of an investigation. >> and in addition to the money not being released, there also was 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 recently rejected the president's attempt to block witnesses from testifying to congress. saying that presidents are not kings. the founders included two critical provisions in our constitution to prevent our president from becoming a king. and our democracy from becoming a monarchy. and those protections were presidential elections and impeachment. correct? >> correct. >> based on the pattern of conduct that we're discussing today, the pattern of inviting foreign interference in our elections for political gain. and then obstructing lawful investigation. has the president undermined both of those protections? >> he has. and it's crucial to note that the victim of a high crime and misdemeanor, such as the president's alleged to have committed, is not president

zelensky and is not the ukrainian people. the victim of the high crime and misdemeanor is the american people. alexander hamilton said very clearly that the nature of a high crime and misdemeanor is that they are related to injuries done to the society itself. we, the american people, are the victims of the high crime and misdemeanor. >> and 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. you know, i've spent over 30 years working to help clients and school children 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 we must be, too. such behavior in a president of the united states is not acceptable. i yield back. >> the gentle lady yields back. mrs. cissolini. we recognize a unanimous consent request. >> i ask unanimous consent that a document that lists the 400 pieces of legislation passed by the house. 275 bipartisan bills. 80% which remain languishing in the senate in response to mr. gates' claim that we're not getting the work done. >> without objection. >> mr. chairman, i seek unanimous consent for a packet of 54 documents and items which have previously been submitted. >> without bjobjection, the documents will be entered into the record. >> mr. chairman. >> what purpose? >> mr. chairman, i ask unanimous consent that this article that was just published about 15 minutes ago entitled "law professor jonathan turley said

democrats are setting a record for fast impeachment." that's demonstrably false. >> without objection, the document will be made part of the record. who seeks recognition? what purpose? >> seek unanimous consent to enter into record a tweet that the first lady just issued. it says quote a minor child deserves privacy and should be kept out of politics. pamela karlan, you should be ashamed of your very angry and obviously bias public pandering and using a child to do it. >> without objection, the document will be entered into the record. mr. stubes is recognized for the purpose of questioning the witnesses. sorry. who did i skip past? oh. not here momentarily. ms. garcia's recognized. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i, too, want to thank all the witnesses for their time and their patience today. i know it's been a long day. but the end is in sight. as my colleague observed, the

similarities between the president's conduct in the ukraine investigation and his 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 ukraine investigation a hoax. and the mueller investigation a witch hunt. he has threatened the ukraine 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 his 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 -- as -- as the president, as he did with ukraine, try to coerce his subordinates to stop an investigation into his misconduct by foreign special counsel mueller. in the second slide, that will -- this 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 relating to these three episodes, as described in the mueller report? yes or no, please?

>> yes, ma'am. >> so accepting the special counsel's evidence as true, is this pattern of conduct obstruction of justice? >> it's clearly obstruction of justice. >> and why would you say so, sir? >> the -- 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 to his office. but in a way that's going to help him frustrate the investigation. >> so does this conduct fit within the framers' view of impeachable offenses? >> i believe it does. i mean, the entire constitution, including separation of powers, is designed to put limits on how somebody may go -- go about frustrating the activity of another branch. >> so you would say that -- that this also would be an impeachable offense. >> yes, ma'am. >> well, thank you, because i agree with you. the president's actions and behavior do matter. the president's obstruction of justice definitely matters.

as a former judge and as a 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. the values of duty, honor, and loyalty. it's about the rule of law. when the president asks ukraine for favor, he did so for his personal, 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. a fundamental principle of our democracy is that no one is above the law. not any one of you professors. not any one of us up here, members of congress. not even the president of the united states. that's why we should hold him accountable for his actions.

and that's why i, again, thank you for testifying today and helping us walk through all this to prepare for what may come. thank you, sir. i yield back. >> 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, congresswoman garcia, noted, president trump has tried to interfere in both the ukraine investigation and special counsel mueller's investigation. in order to try to cover up his own misconduct. and in both the ukraine investigation and special counsel mueller's investigation, the president actively discouraged witnesses from cooperating. intimidated witnesses who came forward. and praised those who refused to cooperate. for example, in the ukraine investigation, 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 way that we quote used to do end quote. 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. 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 investigations. the president claimed that he, quote, hardly knew the ambassador. professor gerhardt, you've touched on it previously. but i'd like you to just explain. is the president's interference in these investigations by intimidating witnesses also the kind of conduct that the framers were worried about? and if so, why? >> it's clearly conduct i think that worried the framers as reflected in the constitution they've given us. in the structure of that

constitution. the -- the activities you're talking about here are consiste consistent with the other pattern of activity we'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 framers expected the president to be able to take. they expect the president to be held accountable for it and not just in elections. >> professor turley, you've studied impeachments of president johnson, president nixon, president clinton. am i right that president nixon allowed senior white house officials, including the white house counsel and the white house chief of staff, to testify in the house impeachment inquiry? >> yes. >> and you're aware that president trump has refused to allow his chief of staff or white house counsel to testify in this inquiry, correct? >> yes, but various officials did testify. and they are remaining in federal employment. >> and that does not include the white house counsel nor the white house chief of staff,

correct? >> that's correct. >> and am i right that president clinton provided written responses to 81 interrogatories from the house judiciary committee during that impeachment committee? >> i believe. >> and you're aware president trump has refused any requests for information submitted by the intelligence committee in this impeachment inquiry? >> i have, yes. >> are you familiar with the letter issued by white house counsel pat cipollone on october 8th written on behalf of president trump. in effect, instructing executive branch officials not to testify in this impeachment inquiry? >> yes, i am. >> and am i correct that 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 where i'm not sure i can answer that affirmatively. i mean, president nixon, in fact, went to court over access to information, documents, and the like. and he lost. >> well, professor turley, i would just, again, refer you back to the history that's been

recounted 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 that president clinton responded to interrogatories propounded by that impeachment inquiry 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. >> gentleman yields back. ms. mcbeth. >> 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. nagoose's questions, i'd like to briefly go through one particular example of president -- 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 how learning about the president's statements made her feel. >> what did you think when president trump told president zelensky and you read 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 gonna 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

realtime, 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 as -- as facts. but -- but one of the things that also happens when he sends out something like this, it intimidates everybody else who's thinking about testifying. any other public servants that think they should come forward. they're going to -- they're going to worry that they're going to get punished in some way. they're going to face things like she's faced. >> that is the woman president trump has threatened. before you. and i can assure you i personally know what it's like to be unfairly attacked, publicly, for your sense of duty to america. ambassador yovanovitch deserves better. no matter your party. whether you're a democrat no matter your party whether you're a democrat or republican, i don't think any of us thinks

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 as she knows it. and i yield back the balance of my time. >> the gentlelady yields back. mr. stanton. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. and thank you to our outstanding witnesses here today. president trump has declared that he will not comply with congressional subpoenas. this 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 house's 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 don mcgahn subpoena president trump said, "well, we're fighting all the

subpoenas." now, we've discussed here today the obstruction of congress article of impeachment against president nixon. but i think i'd 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 was discussing earlier and included in my written statement, president nixon ultimately refused to comply with four legislative subpoenas. these were zeroing in on the most incriminating evidence he had in his possession. so he refused to comply with those subpoenas. became the basis for that third article, and he resigned a few days later. >> 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

house's constitutional obligation of supervising him to impeach him breaks the constitution. it basically says nobody can oversee me, nobody can impeach me. first i'll block witnesses from appearing, then i'll refuse to participate in any way, and then i'll 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 the president can't be checked he's no longer subject to the law. >> professor gerhardt, would you agree that the president's refusal to comply with congressional subpoenas invokes the framers' worst fears and endangers our democracy? >> it does. and i have one way in which to understand that, is to put all of his arguments together and then see what the ramifications are. he says he's entitled not to comply with all subpoenas. he says he's not subject to any kind of criminal investigation while he's president of the

united states, he's immune to that. he's entitled to keep all information confidential from congress. doesn't even have to give a reason. well, when you put all those things together, he's blocked off every way in which to hold himself accountable except for elections. and the critical thing to understand here is that is precisely what he was trying to undermine in the ukraine situation. >> miss karlan, do you have 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 of me to do that. i wish the president would apologize obviously for the things he's done that's 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 men. it used to be an easy answer.

one that 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 our republic to endure we must have fidelity to our country rather than one party or one man. and the obstruction we're 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. >> the gentleman yields back. mr. stubee. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i've only been in congress since january of this year and 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 would ever use. since then this committee focused on the mueller report

and the russia collusion theory. we all sat and listened to mr. mueller state unequivocally there was no evidence that the trump campaign colluded with russia. so that didn't work for the democrats. so they then changed their talking points and moved to the obstruction of justice theory, that the president obstructed justice. then that fizzled. then after coordinating with chairman schiff's staff a whistle-blower filed a complaint based completely on hear sxai overhearing other people that were on the phone call talk about a phone call between two world leaders. which led to the intel committee, so-called impeachment inquiry which violated all past historical precedent, denied the president basic due process rights and fundamental fairness by conducting this so-called inquiry in secret without the minority's ability to call witnesses and denied the president the ability to have 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 all evidence collected by the intel committee.

as we sit here today, we still don't have the underlying evidence that we've been requesting. again, a right afforded every criminal defendant in the united states. so instead we sit here getting lectures from law professors about their opinions. their opinions, not facts. i guess the democrats needed a constitutional law refresher course. the republicans don't. mr. chairman, you have acknowledg acknowledged, and i quote, the house's "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, mr. chairman, not mine. what are you afraid of? let the minority call witnesses. let the president call witnesses. clinton alone called 14 witnesses to testify. let the president's counsel cross-examine the whistle-blower. let the president's counsel cross-examine the intel staff who colluded with the whistle-blower. in your own words those are the rights that should be afforded to the president.

rights every criminal defendant is afforded. even terrorists in iraq were afforded more due process than 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 terrorists 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. >> wow. >> no collusion. no obstruction. no quid pro quo. no evidence of bribery. except opinion. no evidence of treason. 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. and not on this theory but on multiple other different theories. the american people are smarter -- smarter than your abcs of impeachment you have on your screen that were laid out today. and it's extremely demonstrative of your lack of evidence giving you called law professors to give their opinions and not fact witnesses to give their testimony today to be cross-examined and the rights

afforded to the president of the united states. mr. chairman, when can we anticipate that you will choose a date for the minority day of hearings? mr. chairman, i'm asking you a 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 colloquy with colleagues. >> then i'll do that after my time. i yield the remainder of my time to mr. ratcliffe. >> i thank my colleague from florida for yielding. professor turley, since we last talked based on questioning from my colleagues across the aisle it does in fact appear that the democrats do intend to pursue articles of impeachment for obstruction of justice based on the mueller report. i asked you a question about that. you didn't really give a chance to give a give a complete answer. in your statement today you make this statement. "i believe an obstruction claim based on the mueller report would be at odds with the record

and the controlling law. use of an obstruction theory from the mueller report would be unsupported, unsupportable in the house and unsustainable in the senate." do you remember writing that? >> yes, i do. >> why did you write that? >> because i think it's true. the fact is that this was reviewed by main justice. the special counsel did not reach a conclusion on obstruction. he should have. i think his justification quite frankly was a bit absurd on not reaching a conclusion. but the attorney general, deputy 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 the president on the basis of the inverse conclusion. i don't believe it would be appropriate. >> the gentleman's time has expired. ms. dean. >> thank you, mr. chairman. words matter. in my earlier life, professors, i was a professor of writing. i taughty