News & Blog

>> NO PERSON SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO JEOPARDIZE AMERICA’S SECURITY AND REPUTATION FOR SELF-SERVING POLITICAL PURPOSES. >> THESE PEOPLE ARE LOOKING FOR ANYTHING THEY CAN GET BECAUSE THEY KNOW THEY ARE GOING TO LOSE THE ELECTION. >> WHAT IS THE IMPEACHABLE OFFENSE? >> AND ALL OF THIS, WHAT IS AT STAKE IS NOTHING LESS THAN OUR DEMOCRACY. >>> THE IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY STARTS A NEW CHAPTER TODAY AS THE HOUSE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE PICKS UP THE PROCESS.THE FOCUS MOVES FROM TO THE HISTORIC NATURE OF THE MOMENT. LET’S LOOK AT LIFE PICTURES OF THE HEARING ROOM WHERE EVERYTHING WILL GET UNDERWAY IN ABOUT HALF AN HOUR. WELCOME TO LIVE COVERAGE FROM THE WASHINGTON POST, WE WILL BRING IT TO YOU LIVE IN UNINTERRUPTED. WITH ME ARE SHANE HARRIS WHO COVERS NATIONAL SECURITY AND AMBER PHILLIPS . THANK YOU SO MUCH TO BOTH OF YOU. THIS STARTS IN A LITTLE WHILE AND IT IS DIFFERENT THAN WHAT WE’VE BEEN HEARING FROM THE INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE. I WANT TO TALK ABOUT THE NEWS OF THE MOMENT. WE SAW LAST NIGHT THE HOUSE INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE REPORT COMING OUT. IT IS A 300 PAGE REPORT. AMBER, I WANT TO HEAR FROM YOU IS ALL EYES TURN TO THE HEARING THIS MORNING. WHAT WAS THE NEWS THAT CAME OUT OF THE REPORT YESTERDAY? WHAT RISES TO NATIONAL IMPORTANCE? >> FIRST, THE FACT THAT THEY PUT TOGETHER A 300 PAGE REPORT FILLED WITH ALLEGATIONS OF TRUMP’S WRONGDOING, I THINK THAT IS NEWS IN ITSELF. THE INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE SPENT TWOMONTHS INVESTIGATING AND TALKING TO ALMOST 2 DOZEN WITNESSES HAVING A DOZEN OF THEM TESTIFY PUBLICLY AND THEN LAID OUT IN CLEAR DETAIL WHY THEY THINK PRESIDENT TRUMP SHOULD BE IMPEACHED.THEN THEY HANDED OVER TO A MORE POLITICAL COMMITTEE FOR THEM TO WRITE ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT. WHAT I THOUGHT WAS MOST NOTEWORTHY FROM THE SUPPORT FROM THE STANDPOINT OF IMPEACHMENT WAS THE FACT THAT DEMOCRATS ABSOLUTELY THINK THAT TRUMP SHOULD BE IMPEACHED. WE GATHERED THAT FROM THE STATEMENT THAT THERE IS A REPORT FROM THE HISTORY BOOKS BASICALLY SAYING, WE THINK TRUMP SHOULD BE IMPEACHED. I SCANNED THE REPORT AND READ BETWEEN THE LINES OF WHY HE THOUGHT THAT HIS WRONGDOING RISES TO THE LEVEL OFIMPEACHMENT.I COULD SEE THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE COMING UP WITH ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT. IT SAID THAT TRUMP USE THE POWEROF THE OFFICE OF PRESIDENTS TO EXERCISE AUTHORITY OVER THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH TO GET UKRAINE TO CONDUCT MOTIVATED ONLY INVESTIGATIONS . PRESIDENT TRUMP ORDERED AND IMPLEMENTED A CAMPAIGN TO CONCEAL HIS CONDUCT FROM THE PUBLIC AND OBSTRUCT THE IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY. FINALLY, I COULD SEE THEM WITH SOMETHING COMPROMISING THE NATIONAL SECURITY WHICH IS IN EVERY OTHER PAGE. ALL OF US — HIM ALMOST ALL OF THIS IS ASKING A FOREIGN GOVERNMENT TO INTERFERE. >> ONE THING THAT CAME OUT OF THIS YESTERDAY WAS THERE IS NEW EVIDENCE WITH PHONE CALLS .WE HAD NOT HEARD IT BEFORE BUTIT RAISED EYEBROWS WITH WHO RUDY GIULIANI WAS TALKING TO AND ALSOWHO DEVIN NUNES WAS TALKING TO. >> WE DID NOT EXPECT TO SEE THESE RECORDS AND THESE ARE THE ACTUAL TIME STAMPS ON THEM. AS AREMINDER, CONGRESS HAS SUBPOENA POWER. WHAT THIS SHOWS IS MORE EVIDENCE LINKING RUDY GIULIANI TO THE WHITE HOUSE DIRECTLY IN THIS PRESSURE CAMPAIGN . ON APRIL 24 WHEN THERE WAS A CAMPAIGN THAT WAS ANNOUNCED TWO WEEKS AGO. GIULIANI CALLS SEVEN TIMES AND THERE IS TANTALIZING EVIDENCE IN THE PHONE LOG OF CONVERSATIONS OR CALLS WITH A NUMBER LISTED ONLY AS -1 AND THAT NUMBER MAY BE THE PRESIDENT. AND AT THE TIME THE WHITE HOUSE IS WORKING TO SET UPTHIS CAMPAIGN. AND A NEWSPAPER COLUMNIST FROM THE HILL TALKING WITH RUDY GIULIANI AROUND THE TIME THAT AN ARTICLE APPEARS IN APRILSORT OF SLAMMING JOE BIDEN RIGHT BEFORE HE IS EXPECTED TO ANNOUNCE FOR PRESIDENT AND RAISING QUESTIONS ABOUT HIS BUSINESS DEALINGS WITH UKRAINE. AND THEN RUDY GIULIANI HAS A PHONE CALL WITH -1 . YOU ARE SEEING A LINK WITH ALL OF THESE TOGETHER. WHAT IS INTERESTING IS THAT THIS INDIVIDUAL IS AN ASSOCIATE OF RUDY GIULIANI AND HE WAS HAVING CALLS WITH DEVIN NUNES WHO IS THE RANKING MEMBER OF THE HOUSE INTELLIGENCECOMMITTEE. HE HAS BEEN PUSHING COUNTER NARRATIVES AND FRANKLY CONSPIRACY THEORIES THAT HE WAS LINKING UP AND TALKING WITH AN INDIVIDUAL WHO IS MIXED UP IN THIS ENTIRE PRESSURE SUBJECT OF THE INVESTIGATION. ITRAISES A LOT OF QUESTION ABOUT CONFLICTS OF INTEREST IN WHY HE WAS NOT FORTHCOMING ABOUT THOSE CONVERSATIONS. >> I WANT TO TALK ABOUT WHAT IS HAPPENING TODAY. LET’S GO TO THECAPITOL HILL WITH RHONDA. YOU HAVE BEEN THERE FOR THE HIGH PROFILE HEARINGS IN THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE, WHERE WE ARE TODAY. WHAT YOU THINK ABOUT HOW TODAY’SHEARING MAY PLAY OUT? >> Reporter: THE SIZE OF THE COMMITTEE WILL BE DIFFERENT THAT WHAT WE SAW WITH INTELLIGENCE. JUDICIARY IS FAR LARGER WITH 41 COMPARED TO INTELLIGENCE WITH 22 . FROM WHAT I HAVE UNCOVERED FROM THIS COMMITTEE, THEY HAVE MANY VOCAL MEMBERS ON BOTH SIDESOF THE AISLE.FOR DEMOCRATS YOU HAD STEVE: WHO IS AN OUTSTANDINGCRITIC. THEN YOU HAVE REPRESENTATIVES FROM FLORIDA WHOIF YOU REMEMBER BACK IN OCTOBER LED THE EFFORT TO BREAK IN WHEN THE CLOSED-DOOR DEPOSITIONS WERE HAPPENING. JORDAN IS ALSO ON THEJUDICIARY. I WOULD EXPECT FIREWORKS AND POTENTIAL CLASSES WITH VOCAL AND ANIMATED CHARACTERS ON THIS COMMITTEE. THE OTHER THING THAT MAY CHANGE THE TONE TODAY IS THE FOUR APPLICANT MX WHO ARE PROFESSORS WHO HAVE STUDIED AND THEY WROTE ON IMPEACHMENT. THIS IS NOT UNPRECEDENTED. FOR THE CLINTON AND THE NEXT MINUTE NIXON IMPEACHMENT, EXPERTS WERE CALLED IN. HAVING FOUR ACADEMICS WAS A STICKING POINT FOR THE COMMITTEE. DOUG COLLINS WROTE A LETTER TO REPRESENTATIVE NADLER ASKING FOR MORE ACADEMICS LIKE WERE IN THE CLINTON IMPEACHMENT.I EXPECT THAT TO BE BROUGHT UP AS WELL. I MENTIONED THE SIZE AND THEY MAY FOLLOW THE HOUSE 660 RULES STATING THAT THE FIRST45 MINUTES IS GIVEN TO THE CHAIRMAN OF THE COMMITTEE AND THEN THE RANKING MEMBER WILL HAVE 45 MINUTES AND THEN EACH MEMBER WILL HAVE TIME TO ASK QUESTIONS OF THOSE WITNESSES .YES, IT WILL BE A LONG DAY BUTIT IS NO LESS CONSEQUENTIAL BECAUSE THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE IS TASKED WITH DRAFTING THE ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT AND DECIDING HOW MANY THERE WILL BE AND IF THEY HIT THE HOUSE FLOOR.I WILL BE INSIDE THE ROOM AND REPORT BACK AT THE NEXT BREAK. LIBBY. >> IT DOES PUT INTO CONTEXT HOW IMPORTANT THIS IS AS WE HEAD TO THE COMMITTEE. THERE WERE THREE HOUSE COMMITTEES MOVING TO THE JUDICIARY EVEN THOUGH IT SEEMS MORE ACADEMIC AND WE HAVE SEEN THE OPENING STATEMENTS OF THE WITNESSES WHO WILL TESTIFY. IT DOES SEEM MORE LIKE AN EXERCISE IN SORT OF HISTORY AND THE QUESTION OF WHERE THIS FALLS IN THE CONTEXT OF WHAT HAS COME BEFORE AND HOW THE TRUMP PRESIDENCY HAS PLAYED OUT.IT IS AN IMPORTANT MINUTE. >> ABSOLUTELY . WE DON’T HAVE ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT AGAINST PRESIDENT TRUMP YET. IT IS THE GOAL OF THECOMMITTEE TO WRITE THAT UP. WHAT THEY ARE TRYING TO DO WITH THIS REPORT IS THEY LOOK AT THE WRONGDOING BY TRUMP AND NOW LET’S LOOK AND SEE WHERE HE FITS IN WITH THE OTHER FOUR IMPEACHMENT INQUIRIES. I’M SORRY, THE OTHER THREE IMPEACHMENT INQUIRIES THAT HAVE BEEN IMPEACHED OVER HISTORY.WE SEE WHERE HE FALLS ON THE SCALE. DEMOCRATS HAVE CALLED ACADEMICS WHO THEY SAY SHOULD BE IMPEACHED. >> NOT JUST HISTORIANS, BUT LEGAL SCHOLARS SO WE CAN HEAR THE LEGAL CASE OF HAS THE BAR BEEN MET? DOES THIS MEET THE BAR OF IMPEACHMENT? SHOULD THERE BE SOME OTHER SORT OF REPERCUSSION FOR THE PRESIDENT, OR NOTHING AT ALL? WE DO NOT EXPECT BOMBSHELLSTODAY AND I THINK THAT IS THE IMPORTANT THING. WE DON’T EXPECTWITNESSES TO STAND UP LIKE GORDON SONDLAND AND SAY, I THINKTHERE WAS QUID PRO QUO. BUT, THIS WILL PUT THINGS INTO CONTEXT. AMBER, DEMOCRATS CHOOSE THREE WITNESSES AND REPUBLICANS GET ONE ? >> RIGHT.THE DEMOCRATS CONTROL THIS COMMITTEE AND THAT’S WHAT THEY GET TO DO. WE WERE ANALYZING BEFORE THE SHOW CAME ON WITH HOW MANY WITNESSES THE DEMOCRATS CALLED. BASICALLY THEYSAY THAT TRUMP SHOULD BE IMPEACHED. THREE OUT OF THREE SAY THAT. AND AS I WAS SCANNING AND OPENING STATEMENT FOR PAMELACARLIN WHO IS WITH THE SUPREME COURT LITIGATION WITH STANFORD LAW . SHE SAID IT IS SOMETHING WE HAVE NEVER SEEN BEFORE. A PRESIDENT WHO HAS DOUBLED DOWN ON VIOLATING HIS OATH TO FAITHFULLY PROTECT AND DEFEND THE CONSTITUTION. TO THE EXTENT THAT ACADEMICS ANDLEGAL SCHOLARS CAN BE FLAMETHROWERS . >> THEY WANT TO GIVE LEGITIMACY TO THE IDEA THE PRESIDENT SHOULDBE IMPEACHED. THE REPUBLICANS HAVE DERIVED THIS EFFORT FROM THE BEGINNING AS ILLEGITIMATE AND A SHAM AND A HOAX. WHAT THE WITNESSES CAN DO IS SAY, HERE IS HOW WE UNDERSTAND THE CONSTITUTIONAL MECHANISM OF IMPEACHMENT. HERE IS HOW IT WORKS AND HOW HIS APPLYING. I THINK YOU COULD ASSOCIATE THE THREE DEMOCRATIC LAWYERS WITH THE MORE POLITICAL END OF THE SPECTRUM WHERE REPUBLICANS COME AFTER THEM AS HAVING SORT OF MADE UP THEIR MINDS AND DISCREDITING THEM.WE WILL SEE HOW POLITICS PLAY OUT. WHILE THEY ARE NOT WITNESSES AND THEY ARE THERE TO GIVE A CIVICS EDUCATION, FOR THE PEOPLE AT HOME, THEY WILL BE TARGETING AS THREE OR FOUR ARE CALLED BY THE DEMOCRATS. >> LETS HER FROM HADDAM SHIFT OFTHE INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE AS HE DESCRIBED THE FINDINGS YESTERDAYBEFORE REPORTERS. >> WE HAVE PROVIDED OVERWHELMINGEVIDENCE IN THIS REPORT OF A SCHEME TO USHER THE CURRENT PRESIDENT OF UKRAINE TO CONDUCT POLITICAL INVESTIGATIONS. WILL IT MOVE OTHERS IF WE ARE ABLE TO SHOW THAT THIS WAS NOT THE FIRSTTIME BUT THE SECOND TIME? I THINK WHAT WE HAVE PRODUCED IN REMARKABLE SHORT ORDER IS SO OVERWHELMING THAT IT OUGHTTO BE PRESENTED TO THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE NOW, WITHOUT FURTHER DELAY. IF WE DO UNCOVER ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE AND WE DO LEARN MORE EVERY DAY, WE WILL FEEL FREE TO FILE SUPPLEMENTAL REPORTS TO THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE. I THINK THERE IS A GRAVE RISK TO THE COUNTRY WITH WAITING UNTIL WE HAVE EVERY LASTFACTS WHEN WE ALREADY KNOW ENOUGH ABOUT THE PRESIDENT’S MISCONDUCT TWO RESPONSIBLE JUDGMENT ABOUT WHETHER WE THINK THAT IS COMPATIBLE WITH THE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT.>> Reporter: HOUSE REPUBLICAN LEADERSHIP RALLIED SAYING THAT THE EVIDENCE WAS NOT SUFFICIENT FOR IMPEACHMENT. LET’S LISTEN TO THE GOP LEADERSHIP. >> DESPITE THE FACT THAT THE SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE SAID THE EVIDENCE THAT WE MOVE FORWARD ON IMPEACHMENT NEEDS TO BE CLEAR, COMPELLING, AND BIPARTISAN. THE DEMOCRATS FAIL ON EVERY ONE OF THOSE COUNTS. >> ENOUGH IS ENOUGH. LET’S GET BACK TO WORK AND CONFRONT THE PROBLEMS THAT HAVE BIPARTISAN SUPPORT THAT CONGRESS IS NOT DOING BECAUSE OF PELOSI’S ENDS OBSESSION WITH IMPEACHMENT. >> SOMETHING THAT WAS SAID THIS YEAR UNITES THE NATION AND WHAT SHE SAID, ALMOST EVERYONE AGREESWITH.IMPEACHMENT IS SO DIVISIVE TO THE COUNTRY THAT UNLESS THEREIS SOMETHING SO COMPELLING AND OVERWHELMING AND BIPARTISAN, I DO NOT INC. WE SHOULD GO DOWN THE PATH BECAUSE IT DIVIDES THE COUNTRY. >>> ALL RIGHT, LEADER McCARTHY THERE. LET’S GO TO THE HILL AND ROBERT COSTA WHO HAS BEEN FOLLOWING THE IMPEACHMENT PROCESS FROM CAPITOL HILL. YOU HAVE TO LOVE IT WHEN REPUBLICANS USE ONE OF SPEAKER PELOSI’S OWN WORDS AT A PRESS CONFERENCE. HOW DO THEY PLAN TO DEFEND THE PRESIDENT AT THIS POINT? >> Reporter: YOU SEE REPUBLICANSAT THE CAPITAL PRETTY MUCH IN LOCKSTEP. I WAS WALKING OUT OF HER BREAKFAST IN THE HOUSE DINING ROOM THIS MORNING AROUND 8:50 OR 9:00 A.M. AND WHO WAS WALKING IN BUT MIKE PINNED TO WAS GOING TO SPEAK TO THE HOUSE REPUBLICAN CONFERENCE . HE HAS BEEN HUDDLING WITH A LOT OF FORMER COLLEAGUES AT THE HOUSE AND BOOSTING THEM AND SAYING THEY ARE DOING A GOOD JOB WITH PRESIDENT TRUMP. WE THOUGHTWHAT COULD HAPPEN A FEW WEEKS AGO WITH GOP CRACKS HAS NOT HAPPENED.IF THERE ARE CRACKS, IT WILL MOSTLY BE IN THE SENATE,IT APPEARS BASED ON MY REPORTING. >> THERE HAS BEEN A QUESTION IF REPUBLICANS IN THE SENATE WOULD HAVE THE SAME TACT AS HOUSE REPUBLICANS. HOW MUCH COORDINATION OF YOU HAVE SEEN IT? THE SENATE WILL PICK THIS UP IF ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT ARE DRAFTED, COME THE NEW YEAR. THERE IS QUESTION ABOUT HOW REPUBLICANS THERE WILL DECIDE TODO THE PROCESS. >> Reporter: MOST REPUBLICAN SOURCES, INCLUDING SENATE REPUBLICANS, TELL ME THE TRIAL WILL LIKELY BE 4-5 WEEKS.IT WON’T BE A LONG GATED PROCESS — ELONGATED PROCESS. MITCH McCONNELL WANTS TO FOLLOW THROUGH AND NOT HAVE A TOTALLY ABBREVIATED TRIAL , BUT HE DOES NOT WANTED TO EXTEND FOREVER. McCONNELL WILL HAVE TO BALANCE HOW LONG IT ACTUALLY LASTS. THE ONLY VARIABLE REPUBLICANS ARE WORRIEDABOUT IN PRIVATE CONVERSATIONS ARE THE POSSIBLE WITNESSES THAT COULD BE CALLED. FOR NOW , IT DOESN’T LOOK LIKE AMBASSADOR JOHN BOLTON, THE FORMER NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISOR, WILL BE CALLED. YOU COULD SEE DEMOCRATS TRYING TO MAKE THAT HAPPEN. DEMOCRATS WILL ESSENTIALLY ACT AS THE PROSECUTORS DURING THE TRIAL SHOULD THE PRESIDENT BE IMPEACHED IN THE HOUSE. >> I WANT TO GET YOUR SENSE ON IF THERE IS CONCERN ON THE REPUBLICAN SIDE OF THE AISLE OVER THESE PHONE CALLS THAT WERE REPORTED IN THE INTELLIGENCE REPORT THAT CAME OUT YESTERDAY. CONCERNS ABOUT TIES TO RUDY GIULIANI AND ALSO DEVIN NUNES . WHETHER THE RANKING MEMBER OF THE INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE WAS INVOLVED IN THIS AND WHETHER IT MIGHT BE A CONCERN TO THE PUBLIC.>> IT IS VERY RELEVANT INFORMATION.BUT, ON A POLITICALLEVEL, MANY REPUBLICAN SOURCES SAY THEY DO NOT FEEL THE HEAT. WHEN THEY ARE IN WASHINGTON, THEY FEEL THE PRESSURE FROM MEDIA QUESTIONS AND SOME CONSTITUENTS AND LEADERSHIP ABOUT THE QUESTIONS OF IMPEACHMENT, BUT THEY ARE NOT NECESSARILY CARRYING TOO MUCH IN THEIR DISTRICTS. PART OF THIS ISBECAUSE MANY REPUBLICANS COME FROM DISTRICTS THAT YOU COULD ARGUE ARE GERRYMANDERED. THEY ARE PRETTY SAFE REPUBLICAN DISTRICTS. THEY CONSTITUTE THEIR OWN POLITICAL BASE AND COALITION. SO, THE EXPECTATION THAT REPUBLICANS LEARN NEW INFORMATION ABOUT PHONE CALL LOGS AND DEVIN NUNES, THE RANKING MEMBER ON THE INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE HAVING A CHANGE OF HEART, IT’S NOT PART OF THE POLITICAL REALITY THAT I’M UNCOVERING HERE AT THE CAPITAL. >> WHAT ABOUT TODAY’S JUDICIARY HEARING? >> I WILL WATCH FOR DOUG COLLINS, THE RANKING MEMBER ON THE JUDICIARY.HE’S A CONGRESSMAN FROM GEORGIA AND HE WILL NOT BE PICKED, BASED ON OUR REPORTING, FOR THE SENATE SAY BASED ON JOHNNY ISAKSON . HE COULD RUN AGAINST KELLY LOEFFLER, THE BUSINESSWOMAN EXPECTED TO GET THE NOMINATION TODAY FROM THE GOVERNOR IN GEORGIA . PAY ATTENTION TO DOUGCOLLINS WHO IS A CLOSE ALLY OF PRESIDENT TRUMP AND HE COULD BE A SENATE PRIMARY CANDIDATE IN 2020. TODAY IS A SHOWCASE FOR HIM ON A DAY HE IS NOT PICKS, AS EXPECTED, FOR THE U.S.SENATE. >>> THANK YOU SO MUCH FROM CAPITOL HILL . LET’S PIVOT BACK HERE TO THE STUDIO AND WHAT BOB WAS SAYING. THE PRESIDENT WANTED DOUG COLLINS PICKS FOR THE SEAT BUT THE GOVERNOR OF GEORGIA HAD HIS OWN PERSON . THERE IS CONSERVATIVE MEDIA TRYING TO PUSH FOR DOUG COLLINS TRYING TO GET THAT. THERE IS CONSERVATIVE ATTENTION ON HIM AND HE IS A VOCAL POINT. WE DID HEAR RHONDA MENTION A COUPLE OF KEY FIGURES BUT THERE ARE SO MANY . I DON’T WANT TO SCARE YOU, BUTTHE HEARING COULD GO ON QUITE A WHILE. IF EVERY MEMBER ASKS QUESTIONS WITH 40 MEMBERS HERE, THERE IS A LOT TO WATCH.>> OBVIOUSLY JERRY NADLER, THE CHAIRMAN IS TEMPERAMENTAL AND DIFFERENT THAN ADAM SCHIFF. THE RULES ARE DIFFERENT AS WELL. THIS WILL BE MORE FREEWHEELING AND THE MEMBERSHIP TAKING THE OPPORTUNITY TO GET INTO THE CULTURAL FIGHTS AND TO GET INTO SHINE THE SPOTLIGHT. REPRESENTATIVE SHEILA JACKSON LEE WILL BE CRITICAL OF THE PRESIDENT. THEY WERE EARLY CALLING FOR IMPEACHMENT OF THE PRESIDENT, SO EXPECT TO SEE A LOT FROM THEM. ON THE REPUBLICAN SIDE, IN ADDITION TO JIM COLLINS, WE WERETALKING ABOUT JORDAN AS WELL AS JOHN RADCLIFFE OF TEXAS WHO AT ONE POINT WAS NOMINATED TO BE THE DIRECTOR OF NATIONAL INTELLIGENCE BY PRESIDENT TRUMP. IMAGINE HOW HISTORY MAY HAVE WORKED IN IF HE HAD CHOSEN TO BE THERE. ALSO ONEOF THE PEOPLE PUSHING THE CONSPIRACY ALTERNATIVES IS ONE TO WATCH TOO. >> I AM GOING THROUGH THE LIST OF PARTISAN FLAME FLOOR. BASICALLY . HOWEVER, THE WILL HURD OF THISCOMMITTEE MAY BE A CONGRESSWOMAN FROM ALABAMA WHO IS RETIRING. WEKNOW FROM THE 2016 ELECTION SHE DID NOT SUPPORT PRESIDENT TRUMP AFTER THE ACCESS HOLLYWOOD TAPE CAME OUT.SHE IS A PART OF THIS GROUP OF I THINK THE NUMBER IS 30 OR SO HOUSE REPUBLICANS WHO ARE SAYING, I’M OUT FOR A VARIETY OF REASONS. SOME JUST CANNOT SUPPORT TRUMP IN THIS ENVIRONMENT ANYMORE, I JUST DON’T LIKE IT. I HAVEN’T SEEN ANY EVIDENCE OF DEFECTIONS AMONGHOUSE REPUBLICANS AT ALL. IF THERE IS GOING TO BE A MEMBEROF CONGRESS WHO IS GOING TO BE SLIGHTLY LESS PARTISAN AND TRY TO GET AT THE ACTUAL SUBSTANCE OF THE ALLEGATIONS MOVING FORWARD, IT MAY BE NOTEWORTHY. >> AND PRESIDENT TRUMP IS REACTING AS HE IS A BROAD WITH NATO. IN OUR WHITE HOUSE BUREAU CHIEF HAS BEEN TRAVELING WITH THE PRESIDENT IN THE UK ANDHE JOINS US ON THE PHONE. WELCOME AND THANK YOU FOR JOINING US. I WANT TO GET A SENSE OF HOW IMPEACHMENT IS PLAYING OUT TODAY. IS IT SOMETHING PRESIDENT TRUMP IS ADDRESSING IN TODAY’S PRESS CONFERENCES AND EVENTS? >> IT IS GOOD TO BE WITH YOU .TO COME UP BRIEFLY TODAY ON THE SIDELINES OF PRESIDENT TRUMP’S MEETINGS WITH FOREIGN LEADERS AND IT CAME UP MORE PROMINENTLY YESTERDAY AS PRESIDENT TRUMP WAS MEETING WITH THE PRESIDENT OF FRANCE AS WELL AS THE PRIME MINISTER OF CANADA AND THE SECRETARY-GENERAL OF NATO. HE WAS ASKED BY REPORTERS, INCLUDING BY ME , TO TALK ABOUT THE IMPEACHMENT PROCEEDINGS AND HE CONTINUED HIS MANTRA THAT HE SEES THIS AS A HOAX AND A WITCHHUNT AND HUGELY AN EMBARRASSMENT FOR THE DEMOCRATS. HE SAID HE THOUGHT IT WAS UNPATRIOTIC FOR CONGRESSIONAL DEMOCRATS TO PURSUE IMPEACHMENT AT A TIME WHEN HE IS OVERSEAS TRYING TO REPRESENT THE UNITED STATES. HE FEELS THAT PUTS THE COUNTRY AT A DISADVANTAGE AND IT HAS BEEN A DISSERVICE. >> THE PRESIDENT SAYS HE IS NOT GOING TO DO THIS NEWS CONFERENCE , TELL US WHY. >> THAT’S CORRECT.>> JUST TAKE US THERE AND TELL US ABOUT THE PRESIDENT’S DECISION. >> I AM TALKING TO YOU FROM THE PRESS CONFERENCE ROOM AT THE NATO SUMMIT WHERE WE EXPECTED TO SEE PRESIDENT TRUMP COME TO TAKEQUESTIONS FROM THE HUNDREDS OF INTERNATIONAL JOURNALISTS WHO ARE HERE. HE ANNOUNCED ON TWITTER A FEW MINUTES AGO THAT HE WAS ABRUPTLY CANCELING THE NEWS CONFERENCE AND HE SAYS IT’S BECAUSE HE SPENT SO MUCH TIME YESTERDAY IN ENGLAND TAKING QUESTIONS FROM REPORTERS.HE DID THAT ABOUT TWO HOURS TOTAL, YESTERDAY. IT IS HARD NOT TO THINK THAT HE IS ESCAPING QUESTIONS ON THE IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY. SHOWING PRIME MINISTER TRUDEAU AS WELL AS THE FRENCH PRESIDENT AND THE BRITISH PRIME MINISTER MOCKING AT HIM AND LAUGHING AT TRUMP DURING A RECEPTION IN LONDON. TRUMP HAS LONG CRITICIZED PREDECESSORS FOR THE WORLD LAUGHING. HE SEES IT AS A PLIGHT ON LEADERSHIP WHEN PEOPLE AROUND THE WORLD ARE LAUGHING AND HERE IS TRUMP TODAYBEING LEFT OUT ON THE WORLD’S STAGE AND THE SUBJECT OF MOCKERYBY AMERICA’S CLOSEST ALLIES. >> AND AS THE PRESIDENT SAT DOWNTODAY, HE CALLED TRUDEAU TWO-FACED. AS ONE OF OUR COLLEAGUES POINTED OUT, IT DIDN’T SEEM ENTIRELY >> HOW DOES TRUMP RESPOND TO THAT. >> HE THOUGHT TRUDEAU HAD BEEN TWO-FACED. AND THAT’S A STRONG STATEMENT TO MAKE. TRUMP WENT ON TO SAY THAT HE THINKS JUSTIN TRUDEAU IS A GOOD GUY. >> 2% OF GROSS TO MEDIC PRODUCT. >> TRUMP IN HIS VIEW THOUGHT THAT TRUMP WAS EMBARRASSED BY THE CONFRONTATION WAS THEREFORE >> CAN YOU GIVE US THE 5000 FOOTVIEW OF THIS TRIP? HOW DOES IMPEACHMENT FACTOR INTO IT ALL.>> IT IS FOR THE WESTERN ALLIES ANDIN PROTECTING THE SOVIET UNION NOW AGAINST RUSSIA. MR. TRUMP HAS BEEN CRITICAL OVERTHE YEARS AND HE CAME WITH GRIEVANCES. CHIEF AMONG THEM IS THE FACT THAT HE BELIEVES MANY MEMBER STATES OF NATO ARE NOT SPENDING ENOUGH ON THEIR OWN DEFENSES AND TAKING ADVANTAGE OFTHE UNITED STATES COMING TO THEIR AID. SURPRISINGLY, FRENCH PRESIDENT McCRONE IS THE ONE CRITICIZING TRUMP HERE. HE HAD AN INTERESTING EXCHANGE AT A MEETING IN LONDON. >> I KNOW IT GOES DIRECTLY INTO HOW THE PRESIDENT THINKS ABOUT THINGS. HE DOESN’T LIKE TO BE EMBARRASSED OR HUMILIATED AND THAT WAY. AND THE HOUSEBOAT TO IMPEACH THE PRESIDENT SEEMS TO BE A FOREGONE CONCLUSION ALTHOUGH CERTAINLY HIS CONVICTION IN THE SENATE IS YES LESS CERTAIN . IT HAS WANDERED THE PRESIDENT AND HIS STANDING ABROAD AND THAT HAS BEEN CLEAR ON THIS TRIP.>> AND PHILIP RUCKER JOINING US. SAFE TRAVELS. >> AMBER, REPUBLICANS TRY TO MAKE SOMETHING OUT OF THE NOTION THAT THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE IS MEETING WITH AMERICA AT THIS NATO GATHERING. IS THAT A CONCERN? >> TO SOME DEGREE IN THAT DEMOCRATS ON THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE INVITED TRUMP AND HIS LAWYERS. THERE WERE EVEN QUESTIONS FROM THE WITNESSES TODAY AND TRUMP SAID, I AM TRAVELING . HOWEVER, THE SCHEDULES ARE WHAT THE SCHEDULES ARE IN THERE WAS NO INDICATION FROM THE BEGINNING THAT TRUMP WILL BE IN THIS. I THINK HOUSE REPUBLICANS MIGHT HAVE A BETTER CASE TWO IF THEY STEP BACK AND SAY THAT DEMOCRATS ARE JUST RUSHING THROUGH THIS. THEY ARE TRYING TOGET AN IMPEACHMENT VOTE BY CHRISTMAS AND GET IT OFF THEIR PLATE BY 2020 AND I THINK THAT IS A DISTINCTION WITHOUT A DIFFERENCE IN A PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION RIGHT NOW EVEN THOUGH IT IS 2019. THERE ARE SOME THAT HAVE A CHANCE TO TALK TO. PARTICULARLY SOMEONE LIKE PERHAPS NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISOR JOHN BOLTON WHO MAY HAVEBEEN ONE OF THOSE PEOPLE. I HEARD PRESIDENT TRUMP SAY XYZ. THEY ARE RUSHING AND AT THEIR OWN PERIL. >> WE GO >> >> WE TALK ABOUT WHAT IS HAPPENING AND STICK WITH US.WE ARE GOING TO WASHINGTON POST.CALM. LET’S GO TO THE HEARING ROOM LIVE. YOU’RE WATCHING LIVE COVERAGE FROM THE WASHINGTON POST. >> THE HOUSE ON THE COMMITTEE WILL COME TO ORDER, AND MR. CHAIR WHEREIN, YOU ARE SERVING THE RIGHT TO OBJECT. >> I OBSERVE THE RIGHT TO OBJECT. >> AND MR. CHAIRMAN, PURSUANT TOCAUSE 2J111, I’M FURNISHING YOU WITH DEMAND FROM MINORITY DAY HEARING, SIGNED BY ALL THE REPUBLICANS. >> I COULD NOT UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU’RE SAYING. JUST REPEAT IT MORE CLEARLY. >> PURSUANT TO CLAUSE 2J1 RULE 11, I AM FURNISHING YOU WITH A DEMAND FOR MINORITY DAY HEARING ON THIS SUBJECT SIGNED BY ALL OF THE REPUBLICAN MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE, AND I WILL REQUEST THAT YOU SET THIS DAY BEFORE THECOMMITTEE BEFORE THEY VOTE ON ANY ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT I WITHDRAW MY RESERVATION. >> WE WILL CONFIRM RULE ON THIS LATER. THIS IS THE FIRST HEARING, THIS IS THE FIRST HEARING WE’RE CONDUCTING DUE TO HOUSE RULE 660, AND THE PROCEDURES THAT ARE DESCRIBED IN SECTION 4A OF THAT RESOLUTION. HERE IS HOW THE COMMITTEE WILL PROCEED FOR THIS HEARING. I WILL MAKE AN OPENING STATEMENT, AND THEN I WILL RECOGNIZE THE RANKING MEMBER FOR AN OPENING STATEMENT. EACH WITNESS WILL HAVE 10 MINUTES TO MAKE THEIR STATEMENTS, AND THEN WE WILL PROCEED TO QUESTIONS. I WILL NOW RECOGNIZE MYSELF FOR ANOPENING STATEMENT. >> MR. CHAIRMAN, INQUIRY >> I HAVE THE TIME FOR AN OPENING STATEMENT, AND I WILL READ AT THIS TIME. THE FATHS BEFORE US ARE UNDISPUTED. ON JULY 20TH, PRESIDENT TRUMP CALLED PRESIDENT ZELENSKY OF UKRAINE, AND IN PRESIDENT TRUMP’S WORDS, ASKED HIM FOR A FAVOR. THAT CALL WAS PART OF AN EFFORT BY PRESIDENT TRUMP AND HIS MEN TO SOLICIT A PERSONAL ADVANTAGE IN THE NEXT ELECTION, THIS TIME IN THE FORM OF AN INVESTIGATION BY HIS POLITICAL ADVER SAERSS BY A FORNG GOVERNMENT. TO OBTAIN THAT POLITICAL ADVANTAGE, PRESIDENT TRUMP WITHHELD A MEETING FROM A FRAGILE DEMOCRACY AND WHEREHELD VITAL MILITARY AID FROM A VULNERABLE ALLY. WHEN CONGRESS FOUND OUT ABOUT THE SCHEME AND BEGAN TO INVESTIGATE, PRESIDENT TRUMP TOOK EXTRAORDINARY STEPS TO WITHHOLD INFORMATION FROM INVESTIGATORS. AND WHEN THEY DISOBEYED HIM AND WHEN CAREER WITNESSES CAME FORWARD AND TOLD HIM THE TRUTH, HE ATTACKED THEM VICIOUSLY, CALLING THEM TRAITORSAND LIARS AND SAID THEY WILL QUOTE GO THROUGH SOME THINGS, CLOSE QUOTE. OF COURSE, THIS IS NOT THE FIRST TIME PRESIDENT TRUMP HAS ENGAGED IN THIS PATTERN OF CONDUCT. IN 2016, THE RUSSIAN GOVERNMENT ENGAGED IN A SWEEPING SYSTEMATIC CAMPAIGN IN INTERFERENCE IN OUR ELECTIONS. IN THE WORDS OF SPECIAL COUNSEL ROBERT MU, QUOTE, THE RUSSIAN GOVERNMENT WOULD PROCEED TO BENEFIT FROM A TRUMP PRESIDENCY AND WORK TO SECURE THAT OUTCOME, CLOSE QUOTE. THE PRESIDENT WELCOMED THAT INTERFERENCE. WE SAW THIS IN REAL TIME WHEN PRESIDENT TRUMP ASKED RUSSIA TO HACK ITS POLITICAL OPPONENT. THE VERY NEXT DAY, A RUSSIAN MILITARY INTELLIGENCE UNIT ATTEMPTED TO HACK THAT POLITICAL OPPONENT. WHEN HIS OWN JUSTICE DEPARTMENT TRIED TO UNCOVER THE EXTENT TO WHICH A FOREIGN GOVERNMENT HAD BROKEN OUR LAWS, PRESIDENT TRUMP TOOK EXTRAORDINARY PRESIDENTIAL STEPS TO TRUMP THE INVESTIGATION INCLUDING ORDERING SUBPOENAS ANDFALSE RECORDS AND PUBLICLY ATTACK ASKING INTIMIDATING WITNESSES. THE LEVEL OF OBSTRUCTION IS WITHOUT PRESIDENTDENSE. NO OTHER PRESIDENT HAS QUOTE VOWED TO UNQUOTE. IN THE 1974 IMPEACHMENT PROCEEDINGS, PRESIDENT NIXON PRODUCED DOZENS OF RECORDINGS. IN 1998, PRESIDENT CLINTON PHYSICALLY GAVE HIS BLOOD. PRESIDENT TRUMP BY CONTRAST HAS REFUSED TO PRODUCE A SINGLE DOCUMENT AND DIRECT ED EVERY WITNESS NOT TO TESTIFY. THOSE ARE THERE FACTS BEFORE US.THE IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY HAS MOVED BACK TO THE HOUSE JUDICIARIES. AND AS WE MOVE TO THE FACTS, HIS BEHAVIOR HAS BECOME CLEAR. HE WELCOMES IT IN THE 2016 EELECTION. HE DEMANDEDIT WITH THE 2020 ELECTION. IN BOTH CASES, HE GOT CAUGHT, AND IN BOTH CASES, HE DID EVERYTHING IN HIS POWER TO PREVENT THE AMERICAN PEOPLE FROM LEARNING THE TRUTH ABOUT HIS CONDUCT. ONJULY 24TH, THE SPECIAL COUNSEL TESTIFIED BEFORE THIS COMMITTEE.HE IMPLORED US TO SEE THE NATURE OFTHE THREAT TO OUR COUNTRY. QUOTE. OVER THE COURSE OF MY CAREER, I HAVE SEEN A NUMBER OF CHALLENGES TO OUR DEMOCRACY. THE RUSSIAN’S INTERFERENCE WITH OUR ELECTIONS IS THE MOST SERIOUS. THIS DESERVES THE ATTENTION OF EVERY AMERICAN CLOSE QUOTE. IGNORING THAT WARNING, PRESIDENT TRUMP CALLED THE UKRAINIAN PRESIDENT THE NEXT DAY TO ASK HIM TO INVESTIGATE THE PRESIDENT’S POLITICAL OPPONENT. AS WE EXERCISE OUR RESPONSIBILITY TO DETERMINE WHETHER THIS PATTERN OF BEHAVIORCONSTITUTES AN IMPEACH NL ABLE OFFENSE, IT IS IMPORTANT TO PLACE IT. AND WE HAVE ONLY IMPEACHED TWO PRESIDENT. THE THIRD WAS ON HIS WAY WHEN HE RESIGNED. THEY VOTED TO IMPEACH ONE PRESIDENT FOR OBSTRUCTING A CONGRESSIONAL INVESTIGATION TO THE EXCITANT THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP’S CONDUCT FITS THESE CATEGORIES, IT IS PRECEDENCE FORRECOMMENDING IMPEACHMENT HERE. NEVER BEFORE IN THE HISTORY OF THE PUBLIC, HAVE WE BE FORCED FOR THE CONDUCT OF A PRESIDENT WHO SOLICITED FAVORS FROM A FOREIGN GOVERNMENT. NEVER BEFORE HAS A PRESIDENT ENGAGED IN THE COURSE OF CONDUCT AND INCLUDED ALL OF THE ACTS THAT MOST CONCERNED THE FRAMERS. THEPATRIOTS WHO FOUNDED OUR COUNTRY WERE NOT FEARFUL MEN. THEY FOUGHT A WAR. THEY WITNESSED TERRIBLE VIOLENCE. THEY OVERTHREW A KING. AS THEY MEANT TO FRAME OUR CONSTITUTION, THOSEPATRIOTS STILL FEARED ONE THREAT OBSERVE ALL, FOREIGN INTERFERENCE IN OUR ELECTIONS. THEY OPPOSED A TYRANT AND DEEPLYWORRIED THAT WE WOULD LOSE OUR NEW-FOUND LIBERTY, NOT FROM A WAR, BECAUSE IF A COUNTRY INVADED, WE WOULD SEE THAT COMING, BUT CORRUPTION FROM WITHIN. AND THEY ASKED US TO BEVIGILANT TO THAT THREAT. WASHINGTON WARNED US TO BE CONSTANTLY AWAKE, AND THAT FOREIGN INFLUENCES IS ONE OF THEMOST VAINFUL FOES OF FOREIGN GOVERNMENT. ADAMS WROTE TO JEFFERSON QUOTE AS LONG AS ELECTIONS HAPPENS, THE DANGER OFFOREIGN INFLUENCE RECURS. HAMMENTEN’S WARNING WAS MORE PHESK AND MORE DIRE. IN THE PAPERS, HE WROTE THAT QUOTE THE MOST DEADLY ADVER ADVERSARIES OF THE GOVERNMENT WILL RAISE A CREATURE OF THEIR OWN TO A MANAGE AEST OF THE UNION. IN SWORT, THERE FOUNDERS WARNED US, THAT WE WILL FIND THE ADVERSARIES IF THE PRESIDENT WILLINGLY OPENS THE DOOR TO INFLUENCE. WHAT KIND OF PRESIDENT WILL DO THAT? HOW WILL WE KNOW IF THE PRESIDENT HAS BETRAYED HIS COUNTRY IN THISMANNER? HOW WILL WE KNOW IF HE HAS BETRAYED HIS COUNTRY IN THISMAN FOR PETTY, PERSONAL GAIN? HAMILTON HAD A RESPONSE FOR THATAS WELL. HE WROTE WHEN A MAN UNPRINCIPLEED IN PRIVATE LIVE, DESPERATE IN HIS FORTUNE, BOLD IN HIS TEMPER, POSSESSED OF CONSIDERABLE TALENTS, AND KNOWN FOR PRINCIPLES OF LIBERTY, JOINSTHE CRY OF DANGER TO LIBERTY, TO TAKE EVERY OPPORTUNITY TO EMBARRASS THE GENERAL GOVERNMENT AND BRING IT UNDER SUSPICION, ITMAY JUSTLY BE SUSPECTED THAT HIS OBJECT IS TO THROW THINGS INTO CONFUSION THAT HE MAY RIDE THE STORM AND DIRECT THE WHIRLWIND.LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, THE STORM IN WHICH WE FIND OURSELVES TODAYWAS SET IN MOTION BY PRESIDENT TRUMP. I DO NOT WISH TO SLOW ONTHE COUNTRY. IT IS NOT A PLEASANT TASK WE TAKE TODAY, BUTWE HAVE EACH TAKEN AN OATH TO PROTECT THE CONSTITUTION. AND THE FACTS BEFORE US ARE CLEAR. PRESIDENT TRUMP DID NOT MERELY SEEK TO BENEFIT FROM FOREIGN INTERFERENCE IN OUR ELECTIONS. HE DIRECTLY EXPLICITLY INVITED FOREIGN OFFICIALS IN OUR ELECTIONS. HE SENT OUR AGENTS TO MAKE CLEAR THIS IS WHAT HE WANTED AND DEMANDED. HE WAS WILLING TO COMPROMISE OUR SECURITY OUR SECURITY AND HIS OFFICE FOR PERSONAL, POLITICAL GAIN. IT DOES NOT MATTER THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP GOT CAUGHT AND ULTIMATELY RELEASED THE FUNDS THAT UKRAINE SO DEFINITELY NEEDED. IT MATTERS THAT HE ENLISTED A FOREIGN GOVERNMENT TOINTERVENE IN OUR ELECTIONS IN THE FIRST PLACE. IT DOES NOT MATTER THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP FELT THAT THESE INVESTIGATIONS WERE UNFAIR TO HIM. IT MATTERS THAT HE USED HIS OFFICE NOT MERELY TODEFEND HIMSELF BUT TO OBSTRUCT INVESTIGATORS AT EVERY TURN. WEARE ALL AWARE THAT THE NEXT ELECTION IS COMING, BUT WE CAN’TFOR THE NEXT ELECTION TO ADDRESS THE PRESENT CRISIS. THAT NEXT ELECTION IS ONE OF THE VERY THINGS AT STAKE. THE PRESIDENT HAS SHOWN US HIS PATTERN OF CONDUCT. IF WE DO NOT ACT TO HOLD HIM IN CHECK NOW, PRESIDENT TRUMP WILL MOST CERTAINLY TRY AGAIN TO SOLICIT INTERFERENCE IN THE ELECTION FOR HIS PERSONAL, POLITICAL GAIN. TODAY WE WILL BEGIN OUR CONVERSATION WHERE WE SHOULD WITH THE TEXT OF THE CONSTITUTION. WE ARE EMPOWERED TO RECOMMEND THE IMPEACHMENT OF PRESIDENT TRUMP TO THE HOUSE IF WE FIND THAT HE HAS COMMITTED TREASON, BRIBERY OR OTHER HIGH CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS. OUR WITNESS PANEL WILL HELP US TO GUIDE THAT CONVERSATION MANUFACTURE IN A FEW DAYS, WE WILL RECONVENE AND HEAR FROM COMMITTEES THAT WORK TO UNCOVER THE FACTS BEFORE US. AND WHEN WE APPLY THE CONSTITUTION TO THOSE FACTS, IF IT IS TRUE THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP HAS COMMITTED AN IMPEACHABLE OFFENSE OR MULTIPLE IMPEACHABLE OFFENSES, THEN WE MUST MOVE SWIFTLY TO DO OUR DUTY AND CHARGE HIM ACCORDINGLY. I THANK THE WITNESSES FOR BEING HERE AND NOW RECOGNIZE THE RANKING MEMBER OF THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE, AND HIS OPENING STATEMENT. >> MR. CHAIRMAN, MAY I MAKE A PARLIAMENTRY INQUIRY? >> THIS IS NOT IN LINE FOR A PARLIAMENTRY INQUIRY. I RECOGNIZE THE GENTLEMAN FOR AN OPENING STATEMENT. >> I THANK THE CHAIRMAN, AND AM OF SOME OF THE THINGS I WANT TO DISCUSS TODAY, WE’RE COMING BEFORE A NEW HEARING. FOR PEOPLE NOT IN THE ROOM, IT’S A NEW ROOM, NEW RULES, NEW MONTH. WE’VE EVEN GOT CUTE STICKERS FOR OUR STAFF WHEN WE COME IN. THISIS IMPORTANT. WE WANT IMPEACHMENT BECAUSE WE’VE DONE SUCH A TERRIBLE JOB OF THE COMMITTEE BEFORE. BUT WHAT’S NOT NEW IS BASICALLY WHAT’S BEEN READ BY THE CHAIRMAN. WHAT’S NOT NEW IS THE FACTS. WHAT’S NOT NEW IS THAT IT’S THE SAME, SAD STORY. WHAT’S INTERESTING, BEFORE I GET INTO MY, PART OF MYOPENING STATEMENT IS WHAT WAS JUST SAID BY THE CHAIRMAN. WE WENT BACK TO MR. MU. WE’RE ALSO QUOTING HIM AND SAYING THE ATTENTION OF AMERICAN PEOPLE SHOULD BE ON FOREIGN INTERFERENCE. I AGREE WITH HIM COMPLETELY, BUT I GUESS THE AMERICAN PEOPLE DID NOT INCLUDE THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE BECAUSE WE DIDN’T TAKE IT UP. WE DIDN’T HAVE HEARINGS. WE DIDN’T DO ANYTHING TO DELVE DEEPLY INTO THIS ISSUE. WE PASSED BILLS BUTNOT GET INTO THE PART. WE DIDN’T DO IT. I GUESS THE AMERICAN PEOPLE DOESN’T INCLUDE THE HOUSE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE. YOU KNOW, WHAT’S INTERESTING, WE ALSO JUST HEARD AN INTERESTING DISCUSSION. WE WILL HAVE A LOT OF INTERESTING DISCUSSIONS ABOUTTHE CONSTITUTION AND OTHER THINGS, BUT WE ALSO TALK ABOUT THE FOUNDERS. WHAT’S INTERESTING, THE CHAIRMEN TALKEDA LOT ABOUT THE FOUNDERS FROM THE QUOTES. AND THIS IS WHY WE HAVE HEARINGS ABOUT THE FOUNDERS. BUT HE DIDN’T QUOTE THE FOUNDERS BEING CONCERNED ABOUT POLITICAL IMPEACHMENT BECAUSE YOU JUST DON’T LIKE THE GUY. HE HASN’T LIKED HIM SINCE NOVEMBER OF 2016. THE CHAIRMAN HAS TALKED ABOUT IMPEACHMENT SINCE LAST YEAR WHEN HE WAS ELECTED CHAIRMAN, 2 YEARS ON NOVEMBER 17TH BEFORE HE WAS EVEN SWORN IN AS CHAIRMAN. SO DON’T TELL ME THIS IS ABOUT NEW EVIDENCE AND NEW THINGS AND NEW STUFF WHEN THEY HAVE A NEW HEARING ROOM. WE MAY HAVE CHAIRS THAT AREN’T COMFORTABLE AND A NEW MIKE, BUT THIS IS NOTHING NEW. THIS IS SAD. SO WHAT DO WE HAVE HERE TODAY? YOUKNOW WHAT I’M THINKING? I LOOKED AT THIS. AND WHAT IS INTERESTING IS THERE’S TWO THINGS THAT HAVE BECOME VERY CLEAR. THIS IMPEACHMENT IS REALA NOT ABOUT FACTS. IF IT WAS, I THINK THE OTHER COMMITTEES WOULD HAVE BEEN OVER RECOMMENDATIONS FOR IMPEACHMENT. THEY’RE PUTTING IT ON THIS COMMITTEE BECAUSE IF IT GOES BADLY, THEY WANT TO BLAME THIS COMMITTEE AND OTHERS BLAME THAT COMMITTEE FOR GOING BAD. THEY’RE DRAFTING ARTICLES. DON’T BE FOOLED. WE’RE GOING AFTER UKRAINE, AND THE LIST GOES ON. BUT THE AMERICAN PEOPLE AREFAILING TO SEE LEGISLATION. BUT IF YOU WANT TO KNOW WHAT’S DRIVING THIS, IT’S TWO THINGS CALLED THE CLOCK AND THE CALENDAR. THE CLOCK AND THE CALENDAR. YOU WANT TO KNOW WHATTWO PEOPLE VALUE, YOU LOOK AT THEIR CHECKBOOK AND CALENDAR. THAT’S WHAT THIS COMMITTEE VALUES, TIME. THEY WANT TO DO IT BEFORE THE END OF THE YEAR. WHY? THE CHAIRMAN SAID IT JUST A SECOND AGO. WE’RE SCARED OF THE ELECTIONS NEXT YEAR. WE’RE SCARED WE’LL LOSE AGAIN. WE GOT TO DETHIS NOW. THE CLOCK AND CALENDER IS DRIVING IT NOT THE FACTS. WE UNDERSTAND THAT’S WHAT THE WITNESSES WILL SAY HERE HERE TODAY. WHAT DO WE HAVE HERE TODAY? TODAY AND THE NEXT FEW WEEKS? AMERICANS WILE SEE WHY MOST PEOPLE DON’T GO TO LAW SCHOOL. NO OFFENSE TO OUR PROFESSORS, BUT PLEASE, REALLY? WE’RE BRINGING YOU HERE TODAY TOTESTIFY ABOUT SOMETHING MOST HAVE WRITTEN ABOUT, ALL FOUR. OUT OF THE CLASSROOM AND GETTINGREADY FOR FINALS THEN, THAT YOU HAVEN’T DISCUSSED UNLESS YOU’RE GOOD. UNLESS YOU’VE BEEN WATCHING, YOU COULDN’T DIGEST THE ADAM SHEP REPORT FROM YESTERDAY AND THEORETICAL RESPONSE IN ANY WAY. WE CAN BE THEORETICAL, BUT THE AMERICAN PEOPLE WILL LOOK AT THIS AND SAY HUH? WHAT ARE WE DOING. NO PLAN FROM THIS COMMITTEE. IT’S NO PLAN AT ALL EXCEPT A PRESENTATION FROM THE OTHER COMMITTEE, AND THE REPORT AND YOU DISHARY COMMITTEE WHICH I’M NOT SURE WHAT THEY WANT US TO PRESENT ON AND NOTHING ELSE. NO PLAN. I ASKED THE CHAIRMAN BEFORE WE LEFT FOR THANKSGIVING. STAY IN TOUCH AND TALK ABOUT WHAT WE HAVE BECAUSE HISTORY WILL SHINE A BRIGHT LIGHT ON US STARTING THIS MORNING. CRICKETS UNTIL I ASKED FOR A WITNESS THE OTHER DAY, AND LET’S JUST SAY THAT DIDN’T GO WELL. IT’S A WITNESS, AND SHE’S NOT AFFORDED THE PROTECTION OF IDENTITY. IT’S NOT IN THE STATUE OUT. WE ASKED ADAM AT THE PRESS REPORT. HE SAID I’M NOT GOING TO. I’LL SEND STAFF TO DO THAT. HE’S NOT GOING TO. HE WOULD BEGTO DO THIS. JUST 19 MINUTES AFTER THE HEADLINE, THE CAMPAIGNTO IMPEACH THE PRESIDENT HAS BEGUN. MARK THAT WHO WOULD LATER BECOME THE ATTORNEY TWEETED 2017. THE IMPEACHMENT WILL FOLLOW. HE SAID IF WE DON’T IMPEACH THE PRESIDENT, HE WILL GET REELECTED. YOU WANT TO KNOW WHAT’S HAPPENING? WHY DID AESK I SAY UP TO THIS POINT, ABOUT NO FACT WITNESSES AND JUDICIARY COMMITTEE, WE SPENT 2-WEEKS AFTER THIS WAS HELD UNDER CLINTON, TWO AND A HALF WEEKS. WE DIDN’T FIND YOUR NAMES OUT UNTIL LESS THAN 48 HOURS AGO. YES OR NO WHAT WE’REPLAYING HIDE THE BALL ON. WE KNOW WHAT YOU’RE GOING TO SAY. WE CAN’T GET THAT STRAIGHT. WHAT ARE WE DOING FOR THE NEXT 2-WEEKS? I HAVE NO IDEA. HE SAID IT ON THE REPORT BUT NOTHING ELSE. IF WE WILL NOT HAVE FACTS WHEN WE ARE THE RUBBER SFAMP HIDING OUT BACK, THE VERY RUBBER STAMP THE CHAIRMAN TALKED ABOUT 20 20 YEARS AGO. WHAT A DISGRACE FOR THIS COMMITTEE TO HAVE A COMMITTEE OF THIS IMPEACHMENT TAKE FROM OTHER ENTITIES AND RUBBER STAMP. WHY DO THINGS MATTER ABOUT FACT WITNESSES AND MATTER ABOUT DUE PROCESS? JUST A COUPLE OF MONTHS AGO, THE DEMPZ GOT DRESSED UP IF YOU WOULD AND SAY WE’RE GOING TO HAVE DUE PROCESS PROTECTION AND DUE FAIRNESS THROUGHOUT THIS. THIS IS THE COMMITTEE OF THE PRESIDENT HAVING A POSSIBILITY, BUT NO OFFENSE TO YOU, THE LAW PROFESSORS, THE PRESIDENT HAS NOTHING TO ASK YOU. YOU’RE NOT GOING TO PROVIDE ANYTHING HE CAN’T READ, AND HIS ATTORNEYS HAVE NOTHING ELSE. PUT WITNESSES IN HERE THAT CAN BE FACT WITNESSES THAT CAN ACTUALLY BE CROSS EXAMENED. THAT’S FAIRNESS, AND EVERYONE KNOWS IT’S A SHAM. YOU KNOW WHEN I SIT HERE, IT’S QUOTES LIKE THIS. IT MUST NEVER BE A NARROWLY VOTED IMPEACHMENT OR MAJOR POLITICAL PARTIES OPPOSED BY ANOTHER. SUCH IMPEACHMENT WILL PRODUCE DIVIDE AND THE AMERICAN PEOPLE WON’T FORGET. YOU HAVE THE VOTES. YOU MAY HAVE THE MUSCLE BUT NOT THE CONSTITUTION IMPAIRNESS, AND IT WILL GO DOWN IN THE HISTORY OF THE NATION. HOW ABOUT THIS ONE. I THINK THEKEY POINT IS THAT THE REPUBLICANS ARE RUNNING A RAILROAD JOB WITH FAIR PROCEDURE, AND WHEN THEY OFFEREDAMENDMENTS AND THEY SAID WE SHOULD FIRST DISCUSS AND ANNOUNCE STANDARDS, STANDARDS VOTED DOWN FOR A RULE OUT OF ORDER. WE SAID THE THING IS TO LOOK BEFORE WE HAVE A VOTE WITH NO INQUIRY. THAT WAS VOTED DOWN AND RULED OUT OF ORDER. FRANKLYWAS SECONDARY. THAT WAS DISCUSSED. THE ESSENTIAL QUESTION IS HERE IT IS. TO SET UP A PROCESS WHETHER THE COUNTRYPUTS IT THROUGH AN IMPEACHMENT PROCEEDING. THAT WAS RULED OUT OF ORDER AND REFUSED TO LET US DISCUSS IT. THAT WAS ALL BEFOREHE WAS CHAIRMAN. I GUESS 20 YEARS MAKES A DIFFERENCE. IT’S AN INTERESTING TIME. WE HAVE A FACTLESS IMPEACHMENT. TODAY WE WILL PRESENT THE OTHER SIDE WHICH WILL SO CONVENIENTLY GET LEFT OUT. REMEMBER FAIRNESS DOES DICTATE THAT BUT MAYBE NOT HERE BECAUSE WE’RE NOT SCHEDULING ANYTHING ELSE. I HAVE DAEMIC MAJORITY WHO POLL TESTED WHAT THEY MIGHT CALL THE PRESIDENT, WHAT THEY THINK HE DID. WOW. THAT’S NOT FOLLOWING THE FACTS. WE HAVE JUST A DEEP-SEEDED HATRED OF A MAN WHO CAME TO THE WHITE HOUSE AND DID WHAT HE SAID HE WAS GOING TO DO.THE MOST INTERESTING QUESTION I GOT IN THE FIRST 3 MONTHS OF PRESIDENCY IS CAN YOU BELIEVE HE IS PUTTING FORWARD THOSE IDEAS? I SAID YES. HE RAN ON THEM. HE TOLD THE TRUTH AND DID WHAT HE SAID. THE PROBLEM HERE TODAY IS THAT THIS WILL BE ONE OF THE FIRST IMPEACHMENTS THAT THE CHAIRMAN MENTIONED. IT WAS TWO OF THEM, ONE BEFORE HE RESUND, THE ONE IN CLINTON, AND THE FACTS BY WHICH DEMOCRATS AND REPUBLICANS WERE NOT REALLY DISPUTED. IN THIS ONE THEY’RE NOT ONLY DISPUTED BUT CONTRADICTIVE OF EACH OTHER. THERE ARE NO SET FACTS. IN FACT, IT’S NOT ANYTHING TO PRESENT AN IMPEACHMENT EXCEPT THE PRESIDENT CARRYING OUT HIS JOB IN THE WAY HE SAW FIT TO DO IT. THIS IS WHERE WE’RE AT. THIS IS THE MOST INTERESTING THING I COME WITH HERE. WE MAY BE ALL NICE AND SCRUBD UP AND LOOKING FOR IMPEACHMENT. BUT THIS IS NOT IMPEACHMENT BUT A SIMPLE REALROAD JOB. I CLOSE TODAY WITH THIS. IT DIDN’T START WITH MU. IT DIDN’T START WITH A PHONE QUAL. YOU KNOW WHAT IT STARTED? IT STARTED WITH TEARS IN BROOKLYN IN NOVEMBER 2016 WHEN AN ELECTION WAS LOST. SO WE’RE HERE, NO PLAN, NO FACT WITNESSES, SIMPLY BEING A RUBBER STAMP WITH WHAT WE HAVE. WE HAVE LAW PROFESSORS HERE. WHAT A START OF A PARTY. MR. CHAIRMAN, BEFORE I YIELD BACK, I HAVE A MOTION UNDER CLAUSE 2 RULE 11. >> I YIELD BACK AND ASK FOR RECOGNITION OF CLAUSE 2 RULE 11. >> IT’S RECOGNIZED. >> I RULE TO ACQUIRE THE ATTENDANCE SHEPDERED AND TRANSLIT THIS COMMITTEE ACCORDINGLY. >> THE MOTION IS MADE AND DEBATABLE. ALL IN FAVOR SAY I? >> I.>> NO? >> NO. >> RECORD THE VOTE. >> PARL IAMENTRY INQUIRY. >> YOU’RE NOT RECOGNIZED INTO PARLIAMENTRY INQUIRY. >> THE CLERK WILL CALL THE ROLE. >> I? >> I. >> MS. JACKSON LEE MISS JACKSON VOTES I. MR. COHEN VOTES I. MR. JOHNSON OF GEORGIA VOTES I. MR. DOUCHE VOTES I, MR. RICHMOND, MR. RICHMOND VOTES YES. MR. JEFFERY VOTES I, MR. SICILINY VOTES YES. ALL LOUVOTES I. MR. RAD SKIN VOTES I. >> MR. BUCKS VOTES NO. HE VOTES NO, MR. GATES VOTES NO,MR. JOHNSON OF LOUISIANA, MR. JOHNSON OF LOUISIANA VOTES NO. MR. BICK VOTES NO. HE VOTES NO. SHE VOTES NO. HE VOTES NO. MR.CLINE VOTES NO. MR. ARMSTRONG VOTES NO. MR. STEVIE VOTES NO. >> HAS EVERYONE VOTE WHOOD WISHES TO VOTE? MISS BASS? >> MISS BASS VOTES I. >> QUICK REPORT. >> MR. CHAIRMAN, IT IS 24 I’S AND 17 NO’S. >> THE MOTION TO TABLE IS AGREEDTO. >> MR. CHAIRMAN, I HAVE A PARLIAMENTRY INQUIRY. >> THE GENTLEMAN WILL STATE HIS PARLIAMENTRY INQUIRY. >> IT STATES THAT MEMBERS OF THEINQUIRY CAN RAISE OBJECTIONS RELATING TO ADMISSBILITY OF TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE, BUT IT DOESN’T SAY WHAT ADMISS BILL TAY. I’M HOPING YOU WILLISH PLAIN WHAT OBJECTIONS CAN BE MADE UNDER HIS CLAUSE AND IF YOU INTEND TO USE THE RULES OF EVIDENCE. >> THE GENTLEMEN WAIL SAY IT’S NOT A PROPER PARLIAMENTRY INQUIRY. >> IT IS. >> I STATED A RULE. >> YOU CAN IGNORE IT AND NOT ANSWER. >> I’M ASKING FOR THE APPLICATION OF THE RULE FOR EXPLANATION. >> WE WILL APPLY THE RULES PERIOD. >> THERE’S NO CLARITY. HOW AREYOU SIGNING THAT? IT’S A RULE FOR THE IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY PROCEDURE. HOW IS THAT UNCLEAR? >> IT’S THE RULES OF THE HOUSE, AND THEY WILL BE APPLIED, PERIOD. >> I’M ASKING HOW WILL THEY BE APPLIED HERE, SIR? >> THEY WILL BE APPLIED ACCORDING TO THE RULES. >> BUT NOT ANSWERING YOUR QUESTION. >> AND MR. CHAIRMAN, CAN YOU REITERATE THE SCHEDULE GOING FORWARD, IN OTHER WORDS THE JUDICIARY HEARINGS.>> THAT IS NOT A PROPER PARLIAMENTRY INQUIRY. WITHOUT OBJECTION, ALL OTHER OPENING STATEMENTS WILL BE INCLUDED INTOTHE RECORD. I WILL INTRODUCE TODAY’S WITNESS. >> MR. CHAIRMAN. >> GENTLEMEN, I AM NOT GOING TO RECOGNIZE YOU NOW. I AM INTRODUCING THE WITNESSES. >> MR. CHAIRMAN. >> NOAH FELDMAN IS THE PROFESSOROF LAW HARVARD. HE OFFERED VOTES ON THE CASE BOOKS AND HE RECEIVED HIS UNDERGRAD DEGREE FROM HARVARD COLLEGE AND GRADUATE DEGREE FROM OXFORD COLLEGE AND JD FROM YALE LAW SCHOOL. HE SERVED AS JUSTICE SUITOR OF OF THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT. HE IS THE COAUTHOR OF SEVERAL LEADING CASE BOOKINIZECLUDING A MONOGRAPH CALLED KEEPING FAITH WITH THE CONSTITUTION AND DOZENS OF LAW SCHOLARS. HE SERVED AS ASSISTANT DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL WHERE SHE WAS RESPONSIBLE AMONG OTHER THING FOR VIEWING THE WORK OF THE , AND MICHAEL IS THE IS THE AUTHOR OF MANY BOOKS INCLUDING THE FEDERAL IMPEACHMENT PROCESS AND CONSTITUTIONAL AND HISTORICAL ANALYSIS. AND DIVERSE RANGE OF TOPICS AND CONTISTUGZAL LAW, JURISDICTION.HE RECEIVED HIS JD FROM THE UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO LAW SCHOOL, HIS MS FROM THE LONDON SCHOOL OF ECONOMICS AND BA FROM YALE UNIVERSITY. JONATHAN IS CHAIR OF PUBLIC SCHOOL OF LAW WHERE HE TEACHES CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, AND AFTER EXTEND, PROFESSOR TURLEY JOINED IN 1990 AND IN 1998 BECAME THE YOUNGEST IN THE SCHOOL’S HISTORY AND WRITTEN OVER 3-DOZEN ARTICLES FOR LEADING LAW SCHOOLS, AND THEY APPEAR FREQUENTLY IN NATIONAL PUBLICATIONS, AND PROFESSOR TURLEY AROUND DEGREES FROM THE SCHOOL OF LAW. NOW, IF YOU WILL PLEASE RISE, I WILL BEGIN BY SWEARING YOU IN. DO YOU SWEAR AND AFIRM THAT THE TESTIMONY YOU’RE ABOUT TO GIVE IS TRUE TO THE BEST OF YOUR KNOWLEDGE AND BELIEF, SO HELP YOU GOD. I DIRECT THE WITNESSESANSWERED IN THE AFFIRMATIVE. THANK YOU AND PLEASE BE SEATED.PLEASE NOTE THAT EACH OF YOUR WRITTEN STATEMENTS WILL BE ENTERED INTO THE RECORD IN ITS ENTIRETY. I ASK THAT YOU SUMMARIZE YOUR TESTIMONY IN 10 MINUTEST. TO HELP YOU STAY IN THAT TIME, YOU HAVE A LIGHT ON YOUR TABLE. WHEN THE LIGHT TURNS RED, IT SIGNALS YOUR 10 MINUTES HAS EXPIRED. PROFESSOR FELDMAN, YOU MAY BEGIN. >> I I DON’T THINK YOU’RE ON THE MIKE. >> MR. CHAIRMAN–. >> I HAVE A MOTION. >> GENTLEMEN, IT IS NOT IN ORDERTO OFFER MOTION. >> I SEE A PRIVILEGE FOR A MOTION. MR. CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE, THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR THE OPPORTUNITY TO APPEAR. MY NAME IS NOAH FELDMAN. I SERVE AS THE PROFESSOR OF LAW AT HARVARD LAW SCHOOL. >> THE GENTLEMEN WILL SUSPEND. THE TIME IS FOR WITNESSES. >> THERE’S A MOTION THAT NEEDS TO BE RECOGNIZED. YOU CAN CALL IT NOT A PRIVILEGE. >> THE WITNESSES MAY BE RECOGNIZED NOT ONCE THEY RECOGNIZE THE WITNESS. THE WITNESS WILL PROCEED AND ENTERTAIN THE MOTION AFTER THE FIRST WITNESS. >> MY JOB IS TO STUDY AND TEACH THE SCON TIITUTION FROM ITS ORIGINS TO THE PRESIDENT WANT. I’M HERE TODAY TO DESCRIBE THREETHINGS, WHY THE FRAMERS OF OUR CONSTITUTION INCLUDED AN IMPEACHMENT FOR THE IMPRESIDENT, WHAT THAT PROVISION FOR HIGH CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS MEANS, AND HOW IT MEANS FOR YOU AND THEAMERICAN PEOPLE WHETHER PRESIDENT TRUMP HAS COMMITTED IMPEACHABLE OFFENSES. LET ME GIN BY STATING MY CONCLUSIONS. THE FRAMERS PROVIDED FOR IMPEACHMENT OF THE PRESIDENT BECAUSE THEY FEARED THE PRESIDENT MIGHT ABUSE THE POWER OF HIS OFFICE FOR PERSONAL BENEFITS TO CORRUPT THE ELECTORAL PROCESS AND SECURE HIS ELECTION OR ADVERT THE SECURITY OF THE UNITED STATES. HIGH CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS ARE ABUSES OF POWER AND PUBLIC TRUST CONNECTED TO THE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENCY. ON THE BASIS OF THE TESTIMONY AND THE EVIDENCE BEFORE THE HOUSE, PRESIDENT TRUMP HAS COMMITTED IMPEACHABLE HIGH CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS BY CORRUPT SQUUGBUSING THE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENCY. SPECIFICALLY, PRESIDENT TRUMP HAS ABUSED HIS OFFICE BY SOLICITING PRESIDENT ZELENSKY OFUKRAINE BY ANNOUNCING INVESTIGATIONS OF HIS RIVALED TOGAIN POLITICAL ADVANTAGE IN THE 2020 EPRESIDENTIAL ELECTION. LET ME BEGIN WITH WHY THE FRAMERS PROVIDED FOR IMPEACHMENTIN THE FIRST PLACE. THE FRAMERS BORROWED THE CONCEPT OF IMPEACHMENT FROM ENGLAND, BUT WITH ONE ENORMOUS DIFFERENCE. THE HOUSE OF COMMONS AND HOUSE OF LORDS COULD USE IMPEACHMENTS TO LIMIT THE MINISTER OF THE KING, BUT THEY COULD NOT IMPEACHTHE KING. IN THAT SENSE, THE KING WAS ABOVE THE LAW. IN STARK CONTRAST, THE VERY FRAMERS FROM THE CONVENTION IN 1877 MADEIT CLEAR THAT THE PRESIDENT WOULD BE SUBJECT TO IMPEACHMENT TO DEMONSTRATE THAT THE PRESIDENT WAS SUBORDINATE TO THELAW. IF YOU WILL, I WOULD LIKE YOU TO THINK NOW ABOUT A SPECIFIC DATE IN THE CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION, JULY 20TH, 1787. IT WAS A LONG, HOT SUMMER, AND ON THAT DAY, TWO MEMBERS OF THE CONVENTION MOVED TO TAKE OUT DRAFTING OF THE IMPEACHMENT. THEY HAD A REASON FOR THAT. THEY SAID THE PRESIDENT WILL HAVE TO STAND FOR REELECTION, AND IF HE HAS TO SETFOR REELECTION, IT’S NOT ENOUGH. WE DON’T NEED IMPEACHMENT. WHENTHAT PROPOSAL WAS MADE, SIGNIFICANT DISAGREEMENTS ENSUED. A MAN FROM NORTH CAROLINA CALLED CALLED WILLIAM DAVEY SAID IF THE PRESIDENT COULD NOT BE IMPEACHED, QUOTE, HE WILL SPARE NO EFFORTS WHATSOEVER TO GET HIMSELF REELECTED. AND A MAN IN VIRGINIA WHO WAS A FIERCE CRITIC OF EXECUTIVE POWER SAID NO ORDSER MORE IMPORTANT THAN INCLUDING IMPEACHMENT IN THE CONSTITUTION. SHALL A MAN BE ABOVE JUSTICE HE ASKED? THAT’S A CONCERN THAT THE PRESIDENT BE SUBORDINATE TO THE LAW AND NOT ABOVE THE LAW. JAMES MADISON, THE PRINCIPAL DRAFTSMAN OF THE CONSTITUTION SPOKE UP AND SAID IT WAS INDISPENSABLE THAT SOME PROVISION BE MADE FOR IMPEACHMENT. WHY? HE SAID REELECTION WAS NOT A SUSPICIOUS SECURITY, CLOSE QUOTE AGAINST PRESIDENTIAL MISCONDUCT OR CORRUPTION. A PRESIDENT MIGHT BETRAY HIS TRUST TO FOREIGN POWERS. A PRESIDENT, IN A CORRUPT FASHION ABUSED THE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENCY, SAID JAMES MADISON, QUOTE MIGHT BE FATAL TO THE REPUBLIC, CLOSED QUOTE. AND THEN, A REMARKABLE THING HAPPENED IN THE CONVENTION. MORRIS OF PENNSYLVANIA, ONE OF THE TWO PEOPLE WHO INTRODUCED THE MOTIONTO ELIMINATE IMPEACHMENT FROM THE CONSTITUTION GOT UP AND ACTUALLY SAID THE WORDS I WAS WRONG. HE TOLD THE OTHER FRAMERS PRESENT THAT HE HAD CHANGED HIS MIND ON THE BASIS OFTHE DEBATE ON JULY 20TH, AND THAT IT WAS NOW HIS OPINION THATIN ORDER TO AVOID CORRUPTION OF LECK TORAL PROCESS, A PRESIDENT WOULD HAVE TO BE SUBJECT TO IMPEACHMENT REGARDLESS OF AVAILABILITY OF A FURTHER ELECTION. THE FRAMERS KEPT IMPEACHMENT IN THE CONSTITUTION TO PROTECT AGAINST THE ABUSE OF OFFICE WITH THE CAPACITY TO CORRUPT THE ELECTORAL PROCESS ORFOR GAIN. NOW TURNING TO THE LANGUAGE OF THE CONSTITUTION, THEY USED HIGH CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS TO DESCRIBE THOSE FORMS OF ACTION THEY CONSIDERED IMPEACHABLE. THESE WERE NOT ABSTRACT FORMS TO THE FRAMERS. THE WORDS HIGH CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORERS REPRESENTED VERY SPECIFIC LANGUAGE THAT WAS WELL UNDERSTOOD BY THE ENTIRE GENERATION OF THE FRAMERS. IN DEED, THEY WERE BORROWED IN A AN IMPEACHMENT TRIAL THAT WAS REFERRED TO IN FACT, BY GEORGE MASON. THE WORDS HIGH CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORERS REFERRED TO ABUSE OF THE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENCY FOR CORRUPT ADVANTAGE OR CORRUPT THE PROCESS OR SUBVERT THE NATIONAL SECURITY OF THE UNITED STATES MANUFACTURE THERE’S NO MISUNDERSTANDING HIGH CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS. THEY BOTH REPRESENT HIGH CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS. THEY’RE BOTH HIGH, AND THE OFFICE IS THE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENCY CONNECTED TO OFFICE. AND THE CLASSIC FORM OF THE FRAMERS WOULD BE THE ABUSE OF OFFICE FOR ADVANTAGE, AND WHEN THEY NAMED BRIBERY AS A HIGH CRIME AND MISDEMEANOR, THEY WERE NAMING ONE FORM OF THIS VERSION, THE ABUSE OF OFFICE FOR PERSONAL OR INDIVIDUAL GAIN. THE OTHER FORMS OF ABUSE OF OFFICE, ABUSE TO EFFECT ELECTION OR NATIONAL SECURITY WERE FURTHER FORMS FAMILIAR TO THE FRAMERS. NOW, HOW DOES THIS LANGUAGE OF HIGH CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS APPLY TO PRESIDENT TRUMP’S ALLEGED CONDUCT? LET ME BE CLEAR. THE CONSTITUTION GIVES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, THAT IS THE MEMBERS OF THIS COMMITTEE AND OTHER MEMBERS OF THE HOUSE, SOLE POWER OF IMPEACHMENT. IT’S NOT MY JOB OR RESPONSIBILITY TO DETERMINE THE CREDIBILITY OF THE WITNESSES WHO APPEARED BEFORE THE HOUSE THUS FAR. THAT IS YOUR CONSTITUTIONAL RESPONSIBILITY. MY COMMENTS WILL THEREFORE FOLLOW MY RULE WHICH IS TO DESCRIBE AND APPLY THE MEANING OF IMPEACHMENT OFFENSES TO THE FACTS DESCRIBED BY THE TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE BEFORE THE HOUSE. PRESIDENT TRUMP’S CONDUCT AS DESCRIBED IN THE TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE CLEARLY CONSTITUTES IMPEACHABLE HIGH CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS UNDER THE CONSTITUTION. IN PARTICULAR, THE MEMORANDUM AND TESTIMONY RELATING TO THE JULY 25TH AND 19TH PHONE CALL BETWEEN THE TWO PRESIDENTS, PRESIDENT TRUMP AND PRESIDENT ZEL MORE THAN SUFFICIENTLY INDICATES THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP ABUSED HIS OFFICE BY SOLICITING THE PRESIDENT OF UKRAINE TO INVESTIGATE HIS POLITICAL RIVALSTO GAIN POLITICAL ADVANTAGE IN RELATION TO THE 2020 ELECTION. AGAIN, THE WORDS, ABUSE OF OFFICE ARE NOT MYTHICAL OR MAGICAL. THEY ARE VERY CLEAR. THE ABUSE OF OFFICE OCCURS WHEN THE PRESIDENT USES A FEATURE OF HIS POWER, THE AWESOME POWER OF HIS OFFICE, NOT TO SERVE THE INTEREST OF THE AMERICAN PUBLIC,BUT TO OBSERVE HIS PERSONAL, INDIVIDUAL, PARTISAN ELECTORAL INTEREST. THAT IS WHAT THE EVIDENCE BEFORE THE HOUSE INDICATES. FINALLY, LET ME BE CLEAR, THAT ON ITS OWN, SOLICITING THE LEADER OF A FOREIGN GOVERNMENT IN ORDER TO ANNOUNCE INVESTIGATIONS OF POLITICAL RIVALS AND PERFORM THOSE INVESTIGATIONS WOULD CONSTIITUTE A HIGH CRIME AND MISDEMEANOR. BUT THE HOUSE OFFICE HAS EVIDENCE BEFORE IT THAT THE PRESIDENT INCLUDED TWO FURTHERATHS THAT INCLUDE HIGH CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS. IN PARTICULAR, THE HOUSE HEARD EVIDENCE THAT THE PRESIDENT PLACED A HOLD ON UKRAINE’S AID AND BASED ON EVIDENCE FOR THE BIDENS. AND FURTHER MORE, THE HOUSE HEARD THE ANNOUNCEMENT OF THE INVESTIGATION. BOTH OF THESE ACTS CONSTIITUTE IMPEACHABLE HIGH CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS UNDER THE CONSTITUTION. THEY EACH ENCAPSULATE THE FRAMER’S WORRY THAT THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES WILL TAKE ANY MEANS TO REASSURE HIS REELECTION. THAT IS WHY HE PROVIDED FOR IMPEACHMENT IN A CASE LIKE THIS ONE. >> MR. CHAIRMAN, THE TIME IS EXPIRED. >> MR. CHAIRMAN. >> GENTLEMEN IS RECOGNIZED. >> I OFFER A MOTION TO POSTPONE TO A DATE UNCERTAIN. >> I MOVE TO TABLE THE MOTION. >> MOTION TO TABLE IS HEARD AND IS NOT DEBATABLE. ALL IN FAVOR OF THE MOTION, ALL IN FAVOR OF THE MOTION. >> MAY WE HAVE THE MOTION READ? >> THE MOTION WAS STATED, MAY WE HAVE THE MOTION READ PLEASE. >> THE MOTION WILL BE READ AS TO WHAT DATE? >> THE MOTION WILL BE MET FROM DECEMBER 11TH, 2019, SO WE CAN GET A RESPONSE TO THE LETTERS. THE MOTION IS DEBATABLE. THOSE IN FAVOR SAY I. MOTION TO YES IS OPPOSED. MOTION IS AGREED TO. WE WILL CALL THE ROLE. >> [ TAKING VOTES ]. >> HAS EVERYONE VOTED WHO WAS TO VOTE? >> MR. CHAIRMAN, IT IS 24 I’S AND 17 NO’S. >> THE MOTION TABLE IS ADOPTED, AND I RECOGNIZE PROFESSOR KARLAN FOR HER TESTIMONY. >> MR. CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE, THANKS SO MUCH FOR THE OPPORTUNITY TO TESTIFY. TWICE I HAVE HAD THE PRIVILEGE OF REPRESENTING THIS COMMITTEE AND ITS LEADERSHIP IN VOTING RIGHTS CASES BEFORE THE SUPREME COURT. ONCE WHEN IT WAS UNDER THE LEADERSHIP. I SPEAK TO SEE YOU AGAIN, SIR AND WITH ONE OF MY OTHER CLIENTS, AND ONCE UNDER THE LEADERSHIP OF CHAIRMAN CONYERS. IT WAS A GREAT HONOR FOR ME TO REPRESENT THIS COMMITTEE BECAUSE THIS COMMITTEE’S KEY ROLE OVER THE PAST 50 YEARS IN ENSURING THAT AMERICAN CITIZENS INTEREST THE RIGHT TO VOTE IN FREE AND FAIR ELECTIONS. TODAY YOU’RE BEING ASKED TO CONSIDER WHETHER PROTECTING THOSE ELECTIONS REQUIRES IMPEACHING A PRESIDENT. THAT IS AN AWESOME RESPONSIBILITY. EVERYTHING THAT I KNOW ABOUT OUR CONSTITUTION AND ITS VALUES AND MY REVIEW OF THE EVIDENTRY RECORD, AND HERE MR. COLLINS, I WOULD LIKE TO SAY TO YOU, I READ TRANSCRIPTS OF EVERY ONE OF THE WITNESSES WHO APPEARED IN THE LIVE HEARING BECAUSE I WOULD NOT SPEAK ABOUT THESE THINGS WITHOUT REVIEWING THE FACTS. SO I’M INSULTED BY THE SUGGESTION THAT AS A LAW PROFESSOR I DON’T CARE ABOUT THE FACTS. BUT EVERYTHING I READ ONTHOSE OCCASIONS IS THAT WHEN PRESIDENT TRUMP INVITED AND INDEED DEMANDED FOREIGN INVOLVEMENT OF THE FOREIGN ELECTION, HE STRUCK AT THE VERY HEART OF WHAT MAKES THIS A REPUBLIC TO OUR ALLEGIANCE. THAT IS HOW SHE EXPLAINED AN ABUSE OF POWER. INDEED, I WANT TO EXPLAIN THAT DRAWING A FOREIGN GOVERNMENT INTO OUR ELECTIONS IS A SPECIAL ABUSE OF POWER BECAUSE IT UNDERMINES DEMOCRACY ITSELF. OUR CONSTITUTION BEGINS WITH WE THE PEOPLE FOR A REASON. OUR WORDS IN JAMES MADISON ‘S WORDS DRAWS ALL THE POWERS DIRECTLY ORTHE DIRECTLY FROM THE GREAT BODY OF THE PEOPLE. AND THE WAY IT DERIVES THE POWERS IS THROUGH ELECTIONS. ELECTIONS MATTER. THEY GO THROUGH THE LEGITIMACY OF OUR GOVERNMENT AND ALL THE INDIVIDUAL FREEDOMS BECAUSE THE SUPREME COURT SAID MORE THAN A CENTURY AGO THAT VOTING IS MORE THAN A RIGHT. SO IT IS HARDLY SURPRISING THAT IT IS MAR VELED WITH ELECTIONS AND GOVERNMENTAL ACCOUNTABILITY. INDEED, THE CONSTITUTION SUITS TO CIVIL WAR HAVE DEALT WITH VOTING OR WITH TERMS OF OFFICE. AND AMONG THE MOST IMPORTANT PROVISIONS OF OUR ORIGINAL CONSTITUTION IS THE GUARANTEE OF PERIODICAL ELECTIONS OF THE PRESIDENCY, ONEOF EVERY 4 YEARS. AMERICANS HAVE KEPT THAT PROMISE FOR MORE THAN TWO SEN TRAYS AND EVEN DONE SO EVEN DURING WAR TIME. FOR EXAMPLE, WE INVENTED THE IDEA OF ABSENTEE VOTING, SO THAT TROOPS WHO SUPPORTED PRESIDENT LINCOLN COULD STAY IN ELECTION OF 1864. AND SINCE THEN, COUNTLESS OF OTHER AMERICANS HAVE FOUGHT AND DIED TO PROTECT OUR RIGHT TO VOTE. THEY REALIZE THE ELECTIONS ALONE COULD NOT GUARANTEE THAT THE UNITED STATES WOULD REMAIN AREPUBLIC. ONE OF THE KEY REASONS FOR INCLUDED THE IMPEACHMENT POWER WAS A RISK THAT UNSCRUPILOUS OFFICIALS MIGHT TRY TO RIG THE ELECTION PROCESS. NOW YOU ALREADY HEARD TWO PEOPLE GIVE WILLIAM DAVEY HIS PROPS. YOU KNOW, HAMILTON GOT A WHOLE MUSICAL, BUT HE WARNED THAT UNLESS THE CONSTITUTION COULD CONTAIN AN IMPEACHMENT PROVISION, A PRESIDENT MIGHT SPARE NO MEANS TO GET HIMSELF REELECTED, AND GEORGE MASON INSISTED THAT A PRESIDENT WHO PROCURED HIS APPOINTMENT IN THE FIRST INSTANCE IN IMPROPER AND CORRUPTATHS COULD NOT REPEAT IT WITH GUILT. AND MASON WAS RESPONSIBLE FOR ADDING HIGH CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS TO THE LIST OF IMPEACHABLE OFFENSES. WE KNOW FROM THAT THAT IT WAS DESIGNED TO REPEAT AN OFFENSE WHETHER THE ELECTION WAS THE ONEWHO BROUGHT HIM INTO OFFICE OR AN UPPERCOMING ELECTION THAT SEEKS AN ADDITIONAL TERM. MOREOVER, THE FOUNDING GENERATION LIKE EVERY GENERATION OF AMERICA SINCE WAS DESIGNED TOPROTECT OUR GOVERNMENT AND DEMOCRATIC PROCESS FROM OUTSIDE INTERFERENCE. FOR EXAMPLE, JOHN ADAMS DURING RATIFICATION EXPRESSED CONCERNED OF HAVING AN ELECTED PRESIDENT WRITING TO HIMTHAT YOU ARE APPREHENSIVE OF FOREIGN INFLUENCE. SO AM I. BUT AS OFTEN AS THEY HAPPEN, THE DANGER OF FOREINFLUENCE CONCERNS. AND IN PRESIDENT WASHINGTON SAYSFOREIGN SFLUNS ONE OF THE MOST VAINFUL FOES OF AMERICAN GOVERNMENT. HE SAID THEY WOULD TRY TO HAVE DISAGREEMENT AMONG THE AMERICAN PEOPLE, AND THAT THE PRESIDENT WOULD HAVE FOREIGNAID IN HIS CAMPAIGN WOULD HAVE HORRIFIED THEM. BASED ON HIS RECORD, THAT IS WHAT PRESIDENT PRESIDENT TRUMP HAS DONE. IT SHOWS THAT THE ESSENCE OF AN IMPEACHABLE OFFENSE IS TO SACRIFICES HIS NATIONAL INTEREST TO HIS OWN PRIVATE END AND GIVING AID TO A FOREIGN ENEMY. THAT IS PUTTING THE INTEREST OF THE ADVERSARY ABOVE THOSE OF THEUNITED STATES. RISKING THAT HE WOULD PUT HIS PRIVATE WELFARE ABOVE THE NATIONAL INTEREST, AND HIGH CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS JUST AS HE EXPLAINED DISREGARDS PUBLIC INTEREST IN POLITICAL OFFICE. WHAT HAPPENED IN THE CASE TODAY IS NOT SOMETHING I DO NOT THINK WE HAVE EVER SEEN BEFORE. A PRESIDENT THAT HAS DOUBLED DOWN ON VIOLATING HIS OATH TO EXECUTETHE LAWS AND PROTECT THE CONSTITUTION. THE PRESIDENT WHOUSED THE POWERS OF HIS OFFICE TO DEMAND THAT A FOREIGN GOVERNMENTPARTICIPATE IN UNDERMINING THE PRESIDENCY. AS PRESIDENT JOHN KENNEDY DECLARED, THE RIGHT TO VOTE IN A FREE AMERICAN ELECTIONIS THE MOST POWERFUL AND PRECIOUS RIGHT IN THE WORLD. BUT OUR ELECTIONS BECOME LESS FREE WHEN THEY ARE DISTORTED BY FOREIGN INTERFERENCE. WHAT HAPPENED IN 2016 IS BAD ENOUGH. THERE’S WIDESPREAD AGREEMENT THAT RUSSIA INTERVENED TO OUR POLITICAL PROCESS. IT HAS BEEN MAGNIFIED. IT IS A PRESIDENT INVITING FOREIGN INTERVENES. YOU SEE WHY. LIVING IN A PART OF LOUISIANA OR TEXAS THAT IS OPPOSED TO DEVASTATING HURRICANES AND FLOODING. WHAT WOULD YOU THINK IF YOU LIVED THERE, AND YOUR GOVERNMENT ASKED FOR A MEETING WITH THE PRESIDENTTO GET DISASTER AID THAT CONGRESS PROVIDED FOR. WHAT WOULD YOU THINK IF THE PRESIDENT SAID I WOULD LIKE YOU TO DO US AFAVOR? I’LL MEET WITH YOU AND GIVE YOU DISASTER RELIEF ONCE YOU BRAND MY OPPONENT A CRIMINAL. WOULDN’T YOU KNOW THAT PRESIDENT ABUSED HIS OFFICE AND BETRAYED THE NATIONAL INTEREST AND TRYING TO CORRUPT THE ELECTORAL PROCESS. I WANT THAT EVIDENTRY IDENCE RECORD SHOWS THAT, AND SHOWS NATIONAL INTEREST IN OPPOSING DEMOCRACY AND OPPOSING AGGRESSION. RUSSIA, IF YOU’RE LISTENING, A PRESIDENT WHO CAREDABOUT THE CONSTITUTION WOULD SAY RUSSIA, IF YOU’RE LISTENING, BUTT OUT OF OUR ELECTION. AND IT SHOWS A PRESIDENT WHO WENT INTO SMEARING THE PRESIDENT’S OPPONENT IN ELECTION SEASON. THAT’S NOT POLITICS AS USUAL. AT LEAST THE UNITED STATES IS NOT IN MATURE DEMOCRACY. IT IS A REASON WHY THE CONSTITUTION CONTAINS AN IMPEACHMENT POWER. PUT SIMPLY, A PRESIDENT SHOULD RESIST FOREIGN EXCHANGE, NOT DEMAND IT AND NOT WELCOME IT. IF WE ARE TO KEEP FAITH WITH OUR CONSTITUTION AND OUR REPUBLIC, PRESIDENT TRUMP MUST BE HELD TO AN ACCOUNT. THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU PROFESSOR GERHEARTT. >> THANK YOU CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE. IT ISAN HONOR AND PRIRFBOLOG TO PRIVILEGE TO DISCUSS GRAVE CONCERNS BECAUSE THIS HOUSE AND THE PEOPLE’S HOUSE HAS SOLE POWER OF IMPEACHMENT. IT IS NO FORM TO IT SCS IMPEACHMENT AND WHETHER THE STANDARD HAS BEEN MET TO THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES. AS I STATED IN MY OPENING STATEMENT, IT SHOWS THAT THE PRESIDENT COMMITTED SEVERAL IMPEACHABLE OFFENSES INCLUDING BRIBERY AND POWER AND IS LISITTING A FAVOR FROM A FOREIGN LEAD TO BENEFIT HIMSELF PERSONALLY AND OBSTRUCTING JUSTICE AND OBSTRUCTING CONGRESS. OUR HEARING TODAY SHOULD SERVE AS A REMINDER OF ONE OF THE FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLES THAT DROVE THE FOUNDERS OF OUR CONSTITUTION TO BREAK FROM ENGLAND AND TO DRAFT THEIR OWN CONSTITUTION. THE PRINCIPLE IN THIS COUNTRY NO ONE IS KING. WE HAVE FOLLOWED THAT PRINCIPAL SINCE BEFORE THE FOUNDING OF THE CONSTITUTION ANDRECOGNIZED AROUND THE WORLD AS A FIXED, INSPIRING, AMERICAN IDEAL. IN A MESSAGE TO CONGRESS IN 1903, PRESIDENT THEOPEN DORE ROAD THEODORE ROOD VELT SAID NO ONE IS ABOVE THE LAW AND NO ONE BENEATH IT. TO DEMAND THE LAW — NO ONE IS ABOVE THE LAW. THE BRITISH SYSTEM, NO ONE HAD A CHOICE. IN OUR CONSTITUTION, THEY ALLOWED IT TO SERVE AS A CRUCIAL MEANS TO SERVE AS ACCOUNTABILITY. SECOND IN THE BRITISH SYSTEM, THE KING COULD DMEE WRONG, AND NO OTHER PARTS OF THE GOVERNMENT COULD CHECK HIS MISCONDUCT. AND IN OUR CONSTITUTION, THEY DEVELOPEDCONSTRAINT OF POWERS WHICH CONSISTENT OF CHECKS AND BALANCES DESIGNED IN ANY BRANCH TO PREVENT THE PRESIDENT FROM BECOMING TYRANNICAL. IN THE BRITISH SYSTEM EVERYONE BUT THE KING WAS IMPEACHABLE. THEY PLEDGED THEIR LIVES AND FORTUNESWHO THEY SAW AS CORRUPT, TYRANNICAL ANDED CAN DO NO WRONG. THEY SET FOR IMPEACHABLE OFFENSES. AND WHEN THEY LATER SET FORTH IN PHILADELPHIA FOR THE CONSTITUTION, THEY WERE UNITED AND RAN DISPUTABLE PRINCIPLES THAT SAFE GUARDED THEPUBLIC WE THE PEOPLE AGAINST TYRANNY OF ANY KIND. A PEOPLE WHO HAVE OVERTHROWN THE KING ARE NOT GOING TO TURN AROUND AFTER SECURING THEIR INDEPENDENCE FROM TYRANNY FOR A KING WHO WAS ABOVETHE LAW AND COULD DO NO WRONG. THEY BROUGHT ADMINISTRATION TO THE FEDERAL LAWS BUT TO BE ACCOUNTABLE TO CONGRESS FOR TREASON, BRIBERY OR OTHER HIGH CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS. THE FRAMERS’ CONCERNS ABOUT THE NEED FOR A CORRUPT PRESIDENT WAS THROUGHOUT THE CONVENTION. HEREI MUST THANK TO MY FRIENDS AND REFERRED TO A NORTH CAROLINAN DAVEY, AND I WILL REFER TO ANOTHER. AND ENSURE THAT THE PRESIDENT QUOTE IS OF A VERY DIFFERENT NATURE. HE IS TO BE PERSONALLY RESPONSIBLE FOR ANY ABUSE OF THE GREAT TRUST PLACED IN HIM, UNQUOTE. THIS BRINGS ME OF COURSE TO THE CRUCIAL QUESTION WE’RE BROUGHT TO TALK ABOUT HERE TODAY, THE STANDARD FOR IMPEACHMENT. THEY DEFINE TREASON AND TERM BRIBERY BASICALLY MEANS USING OFFICE FOR PERSONAL GAIN, OR I SHOULD SAY MISUSING OFFICE FOR PERSONAL GAIN. THE PROFESSOR FELDMAN POINTED OUT THESE TERMS DERIVED FROM THE BRITISH FOR CASES THAT WOULD BE IMPEACHABLE AND REFER TO POLITICAL CRIMES WHICH INCLUDED GREAT OFFENSES AGAINST THE UNITED STATES AND DIVERT THECONSTITUTION AND DARE FOR THE POWER AND IMPEACHABLE TO PUBLIC TRUST. AND IN THE FEDERAL PAPERS, ALEXANDER HAMILTON DECLARED THAT THOSE OFFENSES, IN OTHER WORDS BE BOOSTED BY VIOLATION OF SOME PUBLIC TRUST AND RELATE CHEELF TO INJURIES DONE IMMEDIATELY BY SOCIETY ITSELF. THE FRAMER’S DISCUSSION OF THE SCOPE OF IMPEACHABLE OFFENSES AND IMPEACHABLE PRACTICE, WE KNOW THAT NOT ALL ARE CRIMINAL. WE KNOW THAT NOT ALL FELONIES ARE IMPEACHABLE OFFENSE S. WE KNOW FURTHER THAT WHAT MATTERS IN MISCONDUCT IS ULTIMATELY THE CONTEXT AND GRAVITY OF THE MISCONDUCT IN QUESTION. AFTER REVIEWING THE EVIDENCE THAT’S BEEN MADE PUBLIC, I CANNOT HELP BUT CONCLUDE THAT THIS PRESIDENTHAS ATTACKED EACH OF THE CONSTITUTIONS SAFE GUARDS AGAINST ESTABLISHING THE MONARCHY IN THIS COUNTRY. BOTH THE CONDUCT IS CLEAR, THE FAVOR HE REQUESTED FROM UKRAINE’S PRESIDENT IS TO RECEIVER IN EXCHANGE FOR HIS PRESIDENTIAL POWER, UKRAINE’S ANNOUNCEMENT FOR THE INVESTIGATION OF A POLITICAL RIVAL. IT WAS NOT FOR THE PRESIDENT. THE ANALYSIS WAS. IT WAS USED TO MANIPULATE THE PUBLIC AND CAST ASIDE HIS POLITICAL RIVAL AND THINGS ABOUT HIS CORRUPTION. HIS CONDUCT IS APPARENT WHEN WE COMPARE IT TO THE ONE PRESIDENT WHO RESIGNED FROM OFFICE TO AVOID IMPEACHMENT. THE HOUSE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE HAD TWO ARTICLES FOR PRESIDENT NIXON WHO RESIGNED LATER. IF YOU READ THE MU MUELLER MUELLER REPORT, YOU SEE IT AGAINST HIMSELF. AND IF YOU LOOK AT THE ONE AGAINST PRESIDENT RICHARD NUXEN, IT DEMANDS INHEADS OF THE FBI, ASK CIA AND THE PRESENT CIRCUMSTANCE, THE PRESIDENT IS ENGAGED IN A PATTERN OF ABUSING THE TRUST PLACED BY THE AMERICANPEOPLE BY SOLICITING FOREIGN COUNTRIES INCLUDING CHINA, RUSSIA AND UKRAINE TO INVESTIGATE HIS POLITICAL OPPONENT AND INTERFIRE IN ELECTIONS THAT HE HAS A POLITICAL CANDIDATE. AND HE FAILED TO COMPLY WITH FOUR SUBPOENAS, IN THE PRESENT CIRCUMSTANCES, THE PRESIDENT FAILED TO COMPLY WITH 10 OTHERS IN HIS ADMINISTRATION, NOT TO COMPLY WITH SUBPOENAS INCLUDING THE SECRETARY OF STATE MIKE POMPEO, SECRETARY OF STATE RICK PERRY, AND HEAD OF BUDGET MULVANEY, AND LINDSEY WHEN HE WAS PART OF THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE, THE DAY THAT NIXON FAILED TO ANSWER THAT SUBPOENA WAS THE DAY HE WAS FOR THE IMPEACHMENT BECAUSE IT TOOK THE POWER FROM CONGRESS AND HANDED IT OVER TOOT JUDGE AND JURY. THAT’S WHY IT IS IMPEACHABLE. IT IS ALL THE MORE TROUBLING DUE TO THE RATIONALE HE CLAIMS FOR LIZ OBSTRUCTION INCLUDING HIS WHITE HOUSE COUNSEL AND OCTOBER OCTOBER 8TH LETTER TO THE SPOKESMAN AND COMMITTEE CHAIRS SAYS THAT HE IS ABOVE THE LAW. I WON’T READ THAT LETTER HERE, BUT I WANT TO DISAGREE OF THE CHARACTERIZATION OF THE LETTERS IN THE PROCEEDINGS, AND THEN THE CONSTITUTION EXPRESSLY SAYS THATTHE SUPREME COURT HAS UNANIMOUSLY CONFIRMED THAT THE SOLE POWER OF IMPEACHMENT THAT LIKE THE SENATE, INHOUSE HAS POWER TO DETERMINE THE RULES OF HIS PROCEEDINGS. THE PRESIDENT AND HIS SUBORDINANCE HAVE ARGUED FURTHER THAT THE PRESIDENT IS ENTITLED TO CRIMINAL PROCEDURE AND ANY CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION FOR WRONGDOING INCLUDING SHOOTING SOMEONE ON FIFTH EVERY.THE PRESIDENT CLAIMED FURTHER THAT HE’S ENTITLED TO EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE NOT SHARING INFORMATION HE WANTS TO SHARE WITH ANOTHER BRANCH. HE CLAIMED INDICTMENT TO ORDER THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH AS HE’S DONE, NOT TO COOPERATE WITH THIS BODY WHEN IT CONDUCTS AN INVESTIGATION OF THE PRESIDENT. IF LEFT UNCHECKED, THE PRESIDENT WILL LIKELY CONTINUE HIS PATTERNOF SOLICITING FOREIGN INTERFERENCE ON BEHALF OF THE NEXT ELECTION AND OF COURSE HIS OBSTRUCTION OF CONGRESS. THE FACT THAT WE CAN EASILY TRANSPOSE THE ARTICLES OF PRESIDENT NIXON TO THIS PRESIDENT SPEAKS VOLUMES, AND THAT DOESN’T INCLUDE THE MOST SERIOUS NATIONAL CONCERNS OR SERIOUS CONCERNS AT THE HEART OF THIS PRESIDENT’S MISCONDUCT. NOTHING INJURIES THE AMERICAN PEOPLE MORE THAN THE PRESIDENT WHO ABUSES HIS POWER AND UNDER THE CONSTITUTION AS WELL AS THE AUTHORITY OF THE CONSTITUTION HIMSELF. MAY I READ ONE MORE SENTENCE? >> THE WITNESS MAY HAVE ANOTHER SENTENCE OR TWO. IF THEY FAIL IN IMPEACHMENT, IT LOST ALL HEARING, AND WITH THAT, THEY CRAFTED SAFE GUARDS AGAINST THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A KING ON AMERICAN SOIL. THEREFORE I STAND WITH THE CONSTITUTION AND THE FRAMERS WHO COMMITTED THAT NO ONE IS ABOVE THE LAW. >> THANK YOU, PROFESSOR. PROFESSOR TURLEY. >> THANK YOU CHAIRMAN AND RANKING MEMBER COLLINS. COMMITTEE, IT IS AN HONOR TO APPEAR BEFORE YOU TO DISCUSS ONE OF THE MOST CONSEQUENTIAL DUTIES YOU WERE GIVEN BY THE FRAMERS, AND THAT WAS 21 YEARS AGO, THAT I TESTIFIED BEFORE THE IMPEACHMENT BEFORE PRESIDENT CLINTON. I NEVER THOUGHT I WOULD HAVE TO APPEAR A SECOND TIME TO ADDRESS THE SAME QUESTION WITH ANOTHER SITTING PRESIDENT, YET, HERE WE ARE. THE ELEMENTS ARE STRIKINGLY SIMILAR. THE INTENSE RANCOR AND RAGE OF THE PUBLIC DEBATE IS THE SAME. THE STIFLING TOLERANCE OF OPPOSING VIEWS IS THE SAME. I WOULD LIKE TO START THEREFORE, PERHAPS BY STATING AN IRRELEVANT FACT. I’M NOT A SUPPORTER OF PRESIDENT TRUMP. I VOTED AGAINST HIM. MY PERSONAL VIEWS OF PRESIDENT TRUMP ARE AS IRRELEVANT TO MY IMPEACHMENT TESTIMONY AS THEY SHOULD BE TO YOUR IMPEACHMENT VOTE. PRESIDENT TRUMP WILL NOT BY OUR LAST PRESIDENT. IN WHAT WE LEAVE IN THE WAKE OF THIS SCANDAL WILL SHAPE OUR DEMOCRACYFOR GENERATIONS TO COME. I’M CONCERNED ABOUT LOWERING IMPEACHMENT STANDARDS, EVIDENCE AND AN ABUNDANCE OF ANGER. I BELIEVE THIS IMPEACHMENT NOT ONLY FAILS TO SATISFY THE STANDARD TO PASS IMPEACHMENT OR CREATE A DANGEROUS PRESIDENT FORFUTURE IMPEACHMENT. MY TESTIMONY LAYS OUT THE HISTORY OF IMPEACHMENT FROM EARLY HISTORY CASE TUESDAY COLONIAL CASES TO PRESENT DAY. THEY WERE RAW POLITICAL EXERCISES USING CRIMINAL AND NONCRIMINAL ACTS. WHEN THE FRAMERS MET IN PHILADELPHIA, THEY WERE QUITE FAMILIAR WITH IMPEACHMENT AND ABUSES INCLUDING THE HASTINGS CASE WHICH WAS DISCUSSED IN THE CONVENTION. A CASE THAT WAS STILL PENDING IN A TRIAL IN ENGLAND. UNLIKE THE ENGLISH IMPEACHMENTS, THE AMERICAN MODELWAS MORE LIMITED, NOT ONLY IMAPPLICATION AND EXECUTIVE OFFICIALS, BUT ITS GROUNDS. THE FROMERS OBJECTED A PROPOSE TOOL ADD ADMINISTRATION BECAUSE MADISON OBJECTED, AND SO VAGUE ATERM WITH THE AGREEMENT OF THE PLEASURE OF THE COMMITTEE. NEGLIGENCE, SPECULATION AND OPPRESSION, LYING AND SPECULATION, SELF STEALING ARE PARTICULARLY RELEVANT TO OUR CONTROVERSY. WE EXPLORE THE IMPEACHMENT CASES OF NIXON, JOHNSON AND CLINTON. THE CLOSEST OF THESE 3-CASES IS THE 1868 IMPEACHMENT OF ANDREW JOHNSON. IT IS NOT A MODEL THAT THEY SHOULD RELISH. IN THAT CASE, THE OPPONENTS CREATED A TRAP DOOR CRIME IN ORD TO IMPEACH THE PRESIDENT. THEY EVEN DEFINED IT AS A HIGH MISDEMEANOR. THERE WAS ANOTHER SHARED ASPECT BESIDES THE ATMOSPHERE OF THAT IMPEACHMENT AND ALSO THE UNCONVENTIONAL STYLE OF THE TWO PRESIDENTS. AND THAT SHARED ELEMENT IS SPEED THIS IMPEACHMENT WOULD RIVAL THE JOHNSON AS THE SHORTEST IN HISTORY DEPENDING ONHOW ONE COUNTS RELEVANT DAYS. NOW, IT’S THREE DISTINCTIONS WHEN YOU LOOK AT THESE, OR THREE COMMONALITIES WHEN YOU LOOK AT THE CASES. ALL INVOLVED ESTABLISHED CRIMES. THIS WOULD BE THE FIRST IMPEACHMENT IN HISTORY AND WOULD BE CONSIDERABLE DEBATE AND IN MY VIEW, NOT COMPELLABLE OF A CRIME, AND PERIOD, THIS INVESTIGATION IS PROBLEMATIC ANDPUZZLING. THIS IS INCOMPLETE AND ADEQUATE RECORD TO IMPEACH APRESIDENT. ALLOW ME TO BE CANDID IN MY CLOSING REMARKS BECAUSE WE HAVE LIMITED TIME. WE ARE LIVING IN THE PERIOD DESCRIBED OF ALEXANDER HAMILTON, A PERIOD OF AGITATED PASSION. IGET IT. YOU’RE MAD. THE PRESIDENT’S MAD. MY REPUBLICAN FRIENDS ARE MAD. MY DEMOCRATING FRIENDS ARE MAD. MY KIDS ARE MAD, AND EVEN MY DOGSEEMS MAD, AND LUNA, THEY DON’T GET MAD. WE’RE ALL MAD. WHERE HAS THAT TAKEN US. WELL, IN THE SLIP SHOT OF IMPEACHMENT, WILL IT MAKE US LESS MAD? WILL IT ONLY ALLOW US TO FOLLOW EVERYTHING FUTURE ADMINISTRATION? THAT IS WHY THIS IS WRONG. IT’S NOT WRONG BECAUSE PRESIDENT TRUMP IS RIGHT. HIS CALL WAS ANYTHING BUT PERFECT. IT’S NOT WRONG BECAUSE THE HOUSE HAS NO LEGITIMATE REASON TO INVESTIGATE THE UKRAINIAN CONTROVERSY. IT’SNOT WRONG BECAUSE WE ARE IN ELECTION YEAR. THERE IS NO GOODTIME FOR AN IMPEACHMENT. NO. IT’S WRONG BECAUSE THIS IS NOT HOW YOU IMPEACH AN AMERICAN PRESIDENT. THIS CASE IS NOT A CASE OF THE UNKNOWABLE. A CASE OF THE PERIPHERAL. WE HAVE A RECORD OF CONFLICTS, DEFENSE THAT HASN’T BEEN FULLY CONSIDERED, UNSUBPOENAED WITNESS WITH EVIDENCE. TO IMPEACH A PRESIDENT WOULD EXPOSE EVERY PRESIDENT TO THE SAME IMPEACHMENT. IT TAKES US TO A PLACE WE WOULD PREFER NOT TO BE.THAT WAS A PLACE WHERE THE REPUBLICANS FOUND THEMSELVES IN THE JOHNSON TRIAL WHEN THEY SAVED THE PRESIDENT FROM AN ACQUITTAL THAT THEY DESPIZEED. FOR GENERATIONS THEY’VE BEEN CELEBRATED AND PROFILED TO COURAGE FOR ROSS AND LOOKING DOWN INTO HIS OPEN GRAVE. AND THEN HE JUMPED. BECAUSE HE DIDN’T HAVE ANY ALTERNATIVE. IT’S EASY TO CELEBRATE THOSE PEOPLE FROM THE DISTANCE OF TIME AND CIRCUMSTANCE AND RAGE. IT’SAPPEALING TO LISTEN TO THOSE SAYING FORGET THE DEFINITIONS OFCRIMES. JUST DO IT. LIKE THIS IS SOME IMPULSE BUYING NIKE SNEAKER. YOU CAN CERTAINLY DO THAT. YOU CAN SAY THE CRIMES ARE ALLEGED OR IN MATERIAL AND POLITICS AND THOUGHT THE LAW. AND THOSE VERY THINGERIZE THE THINGS THAT DIVIDE RAGE FROM REASON. THIS ALL MEANS I WAS CONCLUDED WITH THIS FROM A SCENE OF SEASONS OF SURTHOMAS MOORE WHEN HIS SON THOMAS ROPER WHO SUGGESTED THAT MOORE WAS PUTTING THE LAW AHEAD OF MORALITY. HE SAID HE WAS GIVEN THE BENEFIT OF THE LAW. WHEN HE ASKED ROPER, WOULD HE CUT THROUGH TO GET THROUGH THEREDEVIL, HE SAID YES. I WOULD CUT DOWN EVERY LAW OF ENGLAND TO DO THAT. AND MOORE RESPOND WHD THE LAST LAW IS CUT DOWN AND THE DERVEAL CUT DOWN ON YOU, WHERE WOULD YOU HIDE WHERE ALL OF THE LAWS BEING PLANTED. HE SAID THIS COUNTRY IS CUTED COAST TO COAST, MAN’S LAWS AND NOT GOD’S. AND IF YOU’RE THE MAN TO DO IT, DO YOU THINK YOU WOULD STAND UPRIGHT IN THE WINDS THAT COULD BLOW THAT. AND HE FINISHED BY SAYING YES. I WOULD GIVE THE DEVIL THE BENEFIT OF LAW FOR MY OWN SAKE. I WILL SAY THIS. BOTH HAVE DEMONIZED THE OTHER MUCH LIKE ROPER. PERHAPS THAT’S THE SADDEST PART OF ALL OF THIS. WEHAVE FORGOTTEN THE COMMON ARTICLE OF FAITH THAT BINDS EACHOF US TO EACH OTHER IN OUR CONSTITUTION. HOWEVER, BEFORE WE CUT DOWN THE TREE SO CAREFULLY PLANTED BY THE FRAMERS, I HOPE YOU WILL CONSIDER WHAT YOU WILL DO WHEN THE WIND BLOWS AGAIN. PERHAPS FOR A DEMOCRATIC PRESIDENT. WHERE WILL YOU STAND THEN WHEN ALL THE LAWS BEING FLAT? THANK YOU AGAIN FOR THE HONOR OF TESTIFYING TODAY, AND I WOULD BEHAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS. >> I THANK THE WITNESSES. >> MR. CHAIRMAN, I SEEK RECOGNITION. >> FOR WHAT PURPOSE DOES THE GENTLEMAN SEEK RECOGNITION? >> I HAVE A MOTION FOR RULE 11 SPECIFICALLY 2K6. I MOVE TO SUBPOENA THE INDIVIDUAL COMMONLY AS THE WHISTLEBLOWER. >> THE GENTLEMAN AS A MOTION. >> MOTION IS TABLED. ALL IN FAVOR SAY I. >> OPPOSED NO. MOTION TO TABLE IS APPROVED. THE ROLE CALL IS REQUESTS. [ROLE CALL MADE]. >> HAS EVERYONE VOTED WHO WISHES TO VOTE? >> AM I RECORDED? >> MR.COLLINS, YOU ARE NOT RECORDED? >>. >> NO. . >>. >> HOW AM I RECORDED? >> YOU ARE NOT RECORDED. >> NO. >> ANYONE ELSE? >> MR. CHAIRMAN, IT IS 24 I’S AND 17 NO’S. >>> WE WILL PROCEED TO THE QUESTIONS TO RESOLUTION 660 AND PROCEDURES. IT WILL BE 45 MINUTES OF QUESTIONS CONDUCTED BY CHAIRMAN AND COUNSEL PROVIDEDBY 5 MINUTES FOR THE MINORITY OR RANKING COUNSEL. ONLY THE RANKING AND WITNESSES WILL BE QUESTIONED DURING THIS PERIOD. DURING THAT. UNLESS I SAY ADDITIONED TIME, WE WILL PROCEEDWITH THE 5-MINUTE RULE. I RECOGNIZE MYSELF FOR THE FIRST ROUND OF QUESTIONS. THANK YOU FOR BEING HERE. COMMITTEE HAS BEEN ARMED WITH A GRAVE RESPONSIBILITY I SPEAK FORMY COLLEAGUES WHEN I SAY WE DON’T TAKE THIS LIGHTLY. THE RESPONSIBILITY BEFORE US IS GROUNDED IN THE CONSTITUTION. THE INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE REPORTS SAY THAT HE PRECARD FOREIGN LEAD TO INTERFERE IN OUR ELECTS BY INITIATING AND ANNOUNCING INVESTIGATIONS INTO THE POLITICAL ADVERSARIES. AND THEN SOUGHT TO PREVENT CONGRESS TO PREVENT HIS CONDUCT AND EVERYONE IN IT TO DEFY HOUSE SUBPOENA. AND PROFESSOR KARLAN, HOW YOU SAID IT, WE HAVE THE RIGHT TO VOTE. DOES THE PRESIDENT’S CONDUCT ENDAINGE DANGER THAT RIGHT? >> YES, MR. CHAIRMAN, IT DOES. >> HOW DOES IT DO IT? >> IT DOES IT IS EXACTLY WHAT PRESIDENT WASHINGTON WARNED ABOUT IS INVITING A FOREIGN GOVERNMENT TO MOVE THE ELECTIONSAND TAKES THE RIGHT AWAY FROM AMERICAN PEOPLE AND DECIDE TO BENEFIT FROM THEIR OWN BENEFIT. THEY DON’T INTERVENE TO BENEFIT OTHERS BUT THEMSELVES. >> THANK YOU, PROFESSOR GERHARDT. YOU HAVE WRITTEN EXTENSIVELY ABOUT OUR CHECKS AND BALANCES. WHAT HAPPENS WHEN HE ORDERS ALL WITNESSES NOT TO TESTIFY, AND WHAT IS OUR RECOURSE. >> WHEN THE PRESIDENT DOES THAT, SEPARATION OF POWER MEANS NOTHING. THE SUBPOENAS THAT HAVE BEEN ISSUES ARE OF COURSE LAWFUL ORDERS. EVEN IN OUR LAW SCHOOLS, WE WOULD TEACH THE STUDENTS, IT IS AN EASY, STRAIGHTFORWARD SITUATION, THAT YOU COMPLY WITH THE LAW. BUT INTHIS SITUATION, FULL-SCALE OBSTRUCTION, FULL-SCALE OBSTRUCTION OF THOSE SUBPOENAS TORPEDOS SEPARATION OF POWERS, AND THEREFORE YOUR ONLY RECOURSE IS TO PROTECT THE CONSTITUTIONALPROCESS. AND THAT’S IMPEACHMENT. >> THE SAME IS TRUE OF DEFYING CONGRESSIONAL SUBPOENAS ON A WHOLE SCALE BASIS NOT JUST IMPEACHMENT? >> ABSOLUTELY, YES, SIR. >> THANK YOU. >>> PROFESSOR FELDMAN, AS I UNDERSTAND IT, THE FRAMERS INTENDED IMPEACHMENT TO BE USED FREAK FREQUENTLY, THAT WE WAIT FOR THENEXT ELECTION. IN YOUR TESTIMONY YOU SUGGEST THAT WE WAIT FOR THAT THREAD. CAN YOU SAY WHY IMPEACHMENT IS THE APPROPRIATE RECOURSE AND WHY NOT WAIT UNTIL THE NEXT ELECTION? >> THEY REFRAME IMPEACHMENT FOR THE SITUATIONS WHERE THE PRESIDENT ABUSED HIS OFFICE, THAT IS USED IT FOR HIS PERSONALADVANTAGE, AND IN PARTICULAR, PARTICULARLY WORRIED ABOUT A SITUATION WHERE THE PRESIDENT USED HIS OFFICE TO FACILITATE CORRUPTLY HIS OWN ELECTION. THAT’S WHY THEY THOUGHT THEY KNOWED THEIR OWN IMPEACHMENT AND WHY WAITING FOR THE FATHS WASN’TGOOD ENOUGH.THE FACTS WE HAVE IN THE HOUSE NOW, THE PRESIDENT SOLICITED ISISTENCE IN A FOREIGN GOVERNMENT FOR HIS OWN ELECTION.THAT IS HE USED THE POWER OF HIS OFFICE THAT HE COULD NOT USE TO DISTORT THE ELECTION. AND THAT’S PRECISELY WHAT THE FRAMERS ANTICIPATED. >> I YIELD FOR COUNSEL QUESTIONS. >> PROFESSORS, GOOD MORNING. THANK YOU FOR BEING HERE. I WANT TO ASK YOU SOME QUESTIONS ABOUT THEFOLLOWING HIGH CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS MENTIONED IN THE OPENING STATEMENT. ABUSE OF BRIBERY, OBSTRUCTION OF CONGRESS AND OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE. PROFESSOR FELDMAN, WHAT IS ABUSE OF POWER? >> ABUSE OF POWER IS WHEN THE PRESIDENT USES HIS OFFICE, TAKES AN ACTION THAT IS PART OF THE PRESIDENCY NOT TO SERVE THE PUBLIC INTEREST BUT TO SERVE HISPRIVATE BENEFIT AND IN PARTICULAR HIS ABUSE OF POWER TOFACILITATE HAZE REELECT OR TO GAIN ADVANTAGE TO ANYONE NOT THEPRESIDENT. >> SIR, WHY IS THAT IMPEACHMENT CONDUCT? >> IF THE PRESIDENT USES HIS OFFICE FOR PERSONAL GAIN, THE ONLY RECOURSE AVAILABLE UNDER THE CONSTITUTION IS FOR HIM TO BE IMPEACHED BECAUSE THE PRESIDENT CANNOT BE AS A PRACTICAL MATTER CHARGED CRILINALLY WHILE HE IS IN OFFICE BECAUSE THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE WORKS FOR THE PRESIDENT. SO THE ONLY METHOD FOR A PRESIDENT WHO TRIES TO DISTORT THE PROCESS FOR GAIN IS IMPEACHMENT. THAT IS WHY WE HAVE IMPEACHMENT. >> PROFESSOR COLLINS, DO SCHOLARS AGREE THAT ABUSE OF POWER IS AN IMPEACHABLE OFFENSE WE CAN YES, THEY DO. >> PROFESSOR GERHARDT, DO YOU AGREE THAT ABUSE OF POWER IS IMPEACHABLE? >> YES, SIR >> I WOULD LIKE TO SHOW THE PANEL THE EVIDENCE THEY CONSIDERED AND THE FINDINGS IN THE INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE REPORT THAT THE PRESIDENT SOLICITED THE FOREIGN GOVERNMENTUKRAINE IN THE 2020 U.S. ELECTION. PROFESSOR FELDMAN, DID PRESIDENT TRUMP COMMIT THE IMPEACHABLE HIGH CRIME AND MISDEMEANOR OF ABUSE OF POWER BASED ON THAT EVIDENCE AND THOSEFINDINGS? >> BASED ON THAT EVIDENCE AND THOSE FINDINGS, THE PRESIDENT DID COMMIT AN IMPEACHABLE ABUSE OF OFFICE. >> PROFESSOR COLLINS, SAME QUESTION. >> SAME ANSWER. >> AND PRESIDENT GERHARDT, DID PRESIDENT TRUMP COMMIT THE HIGH CRIME AND MISDEMEANOR OF ABUSE OF POWER? >> WE THREE ARE UNANIMOUS, YES. >> PROFESSOR FELDMAN, I WOULD LIKE TO QUICKLY LOOK AT THE EVIDENCE IN THE REPORT. ON JULY25TH, PRESIDENT TRUMP TOLD THE PRESIDENT OF UKRAINE, AND I QUOTE, I WOULD LIKE YOU TO DO US A FAVOR THOUGH. AND I ASKED ABOUT LOOKING INTO THE BIDENS. WAS THAT MEMORANDUM THAT HE COMMITTED ABUSE OF POWER. >> THE MEMORANDUM IS ABSOLUTELY CRUCIAL TO DETERMINATION, MY DETERMINATION THAT THE PRESIDENT ABUSED HIS USE OF OFFICE. >> AND WOULD YOU FIND THE INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE SAY THAT HE WITHHELD ACTS AND ACTION BIZE UKRAINE THAT WOULD BENEFIT HIS PERSONAL POLITICAL INTERESTING. >> YES. IN MAKING THE DETERMINATION THAT HE COMMITTED AN IMPEACHABLE OFFENSE THAT RELIED ON THE HOUSE AND WHEN THIS REPORT WAS ISSUED, I CONTINUED TO RELY ON THAT. >> SIR, DID YOU REVIEW THE FOLLOWING TESTIMONY FROM OUR AMBASSADOR TO UKRAINE, AMBASSADOR WILLIAM TAYLOR? >> TO WITHHOLD THAT ASSISTANCE FOR NO GOOD REASON OTHER THAN HELP WITH THE POLITICAL CAMPAIGN, MADE NO SENSE. IT WAS, IT WAS COUNTERPRODUCTIVE TO- OF WHAT WE HAD BEEN TRYING TO DO. IT WAS ILLOGICAL. IT COULD NOT BE EXPLAINED. IT WAS CRAZY. >> YES. THAT EVIDENCE, UNDERSCORED THE WAY THAT THE PRESIDENT’S ACTIONS UNDERCUT NATIONAL SECURITY. >> PROFESSOR FELDMAN, WOULD YOU PLEASE EXPLAIN WHY YOU CONCLUDEDTHAT THE PRESIDENT COMMITTED THE HIGH CRIME OF ABUSE OF POWER ANDWHY IT MATTERS. >> THE ABUSE OF POWER OCCURS WHEN THE PRESIDENT USES HIS OFFICE FOR PERSONAL ADVANTAGE ORGAIN. THAT MATTER IS FUNDAMENTALLY TO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE BECAUSE IF WE CANNOT IMPEACH A PRESIDENT WHO ABUSES HIS OFFICE FOR PERSONAL ADVANTAGE, WE NO LONGER LIVE IN A DEMOCRACY. WE LIVE IN MONARCHY OR DICTATORSHIP. THAT’S WHY THEY CREATED THE FRAME OF IMPEACHMENT. >> NOW, PROFESSOR COLLINS, THIS HIGH CRIME AND MISDEMEANOR OF OFFICIAL POWER, WAS IT LOOSE OR CONCEPT OF THE FRAMERS OF OUR CONSTITUTION? >> NO. I DON’T THINK IT WAS AN ABUSE. IT WAS A LOOSE CONCEPT AT ALL. IT HAD A LONG LINEAGE IN THE COMMON LAW IN ENGLAND OF PAR PARLIAMENTRY OF IMPEACHMENT, ANDTHEY TALKED ABOUT IMPEACHING OR THE KING OF THE LIKE. >> AND CAN YOU SHARE A LITTLE BIT ABOUT THAT LINEAGE, PLEASE? >> YES. THE PARLIAMENT IN ENGLAND IMPEACHED OFFICE S OF THE CROWN WHEN PEOPLE ABUSED THEIR POWER. AND IF I CAN GIVE ONE EXAMPLE THAT MIGHT BE HELPFUL, ONE AFTER THE KINGSHIP IN ENGLAND, THERE WAS AN IMPEACHMENT, AND, YOU KNOW, WHEN THEY PEACH SOMEBODY, YOU HAVE TOSAY WHAT WERE THEY IMPEACHING THEM FOR. SOMETIMES IT WOULD BEWE’RE IMPEACHING THEM FOR THE LIKE OR MISDEMEANOR OR HIGH CRIME. AND THEY USED MORGAN WHICH IS A GREAT NAME TO HAVE. BUT HE WAS IMPEACHED BECAUSE HIGH WAS THE SHERIFF OF WINDSOR, AND AS THE ELECTION CAME UP, HE IMPEACHED TAYLOR. AND I WANT TO READ FROM HOUSE OF COMMONS BECAUSE IT’S SO TELLING. HERE’S WHAT ARTICLE ONE OF IMPEACHMENT SAID, UNDERSTANDING THAT ONE WILLIAM TAYLOR DID STAND TO STAND FOR THE LECTION OF WINDSOR TO SERVE IN THE PRESENT PARLIAMENT. ON THE OTHER HAND, HE WAS RUNNING AS A MEMBER OF PARLIAMENT. THIS IS WHAT MORGAN DID. TO ALLEGE FOR WILLIAM TAYLOR ANDWILL GIVE VOICES FOR HIM AND DEPRIVE HIM OF FREEDOM OF THE VOICES FOR ELECTION. MORGAN DID DEMAND AND CAUSE TAYLOR TO BE FORCIBLY AND ARBITRARILY TO BE SEIZED PAWN BY SOLDIERS AND THENDETAINED HIM. IN OTHER WORDS,HERENT AFTER A POLITICAL OPPONENT, AND THAT WAS A HIGH CRIME OF MISDEMEANOR TO USE YOUROFFICE TO GO AFTER A POLITICAL OPPONENT. >> NOW, PROFESSOR GERHARDT, DOES THE HIGH CRIME OF MISDEMEANOR REQUIRE A STATUTORY CRIME? >> NO. IT DOES NOT. EVERYTHINGWE KNOW ABOUT THE HISTORY OF IMPEACHMENT REENFORCES THE CONCLUSION THAT IMPEACHMENT OFFENSES DON’T HAVE TO BE CRIMES, AND NOT ALL CRIMES ARE IMPEACHABLE OFFENSES. WE LOOK AT THE GRAVITY OF THE MISCONDUCT. >> AND PROFESSOR TURLEY, YOU RECENTLY WROTE IN THE WALL STREET JOURNAL, AND I QUOTE. IT IS MUCH WORTHY OF INVESTIGATION IN THE UKRAINE SCANDAL, AND IT IS TRUE THAT IMPEACHMENT DOESN’TREQUIRE A CRIME. >> THAT’S TRUE. BUT I ADDED ANIMPORTANT COPY. >> SIR, IT WAS A YES OR NO QUESTION. THERE IS MUCH WORKY OF QUESTION IN THE UKRAINE SCANDAL, AND IT IS TRUE THAT IMPEACHMENT DOES NOT REQUIRE CRIME. IS THAT THE ACCURATE QUOTE, SIR? >> YOU READ IT WELL. >> SO PROFESSOR FELDMAN, KARLAN AND GERHARDT AND TURLEY, YOU SAID IT WAS A HIGH CRIME OF MISDEMEANOR OF ABUSE OF POWER, CORRECT? >> YES. >> CORRECT. >> AND PROFESSOR FELDMAN, WHAT DOES THE CONSTITUTION SAY IS THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES IN DEALING WITH PRESIDENTIAL HIGH CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS LIKE ABUSE OF POWER? >> THE CONSTITUTION GIVEATHIZE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES THE SOLE POWER OF IMPEACHMENT. THAT MEANS THE HOUSE HAS THE RIGHT AND RESPONSIBILITY TO INVESTIGATE PRESIDENTIAL MISCONDUCT AND WHERE APPROPRIATE, TO CREATE AND PASS ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT. >> AND PROFESSOR COLLIN, WHAT DOES THAT RESPONSIBILITY MEAN FOR THIS COMMITTEE WITH RESPECT TO PRESIDENT TRUMP’S ABUSE OF POWER? >> WELL, BECAUSE THIS IS AN ABUSE THAT CUTS TO THE HEART OF DEMOCRACY, YOU NEED TO ASK YOURSELF, IF YOU DON’T IMPEACH APRESIDENT WHO HAS DONE WHAT THIS PRESIDENT HAS DONE, OR AT LEAST,YOU DON’T INVESTIGATE AND THEN IMPEACH, IF YOU CONCLUDE THAT THE HOUSE SELECT COMMITTEE ON INTELLIGENCE FINDINGS ARE CORRECT, THEN WHAT YOU’RE SAYING IS THAT IT’S FINE TO GO AHEAD AND DO THIS AGAIN, AND I THINK THAT AS THE, YOU KNOW, IN THE REPORT THAT CAME OUT LAST NIGHT, THE REPORT TALKS ABOUT THE CLEARAND PRESENT DANGER TO THE ELECTION SYSTEM. AND IT’S YOUR RESPONSIBILITY TO MAKE SURE ALL AMERICANS GET TO VOTE IN A FREE AND FAIR ELECTION NEXT NOVEMBER. >> PROFESSOR KARLAN, I WOULD LIKE TO DIRECT YOU TO THE WORDS IN THE CONSTITUTION OTHER HIGH CRIMES AND MISDEMEANOR. WE WILL STILL TALK ABOUT ABUSE OF POWER.CAN I ASK THAT DID THE CONSTITUTION SPELL OUT EVERY OTHER HIGH CRIME AND MISDEMEANOR? >> NO, IT DID NOT. >> PLEASE. >> BECAUSE THEY RECOGNIZE THAT THE INVENTIVENESS OF MAN AND THELIKELIHOOD THAT THIS CONSTITUTION WOULD ENDURE FOR GENERATIONS, THEY COULDN’T LIST ALL THE CRIMES. THEY COULDN’T IMAGINE AN ABUSE OF POWER THAT INVOLVED BURGLARIZING AND STEALING COMPUTER FILES FROM AN ADVERSARY BECAUSE THEY COULDN’T IMAGINE COMPUTER. THEY COULDN’T IMAGINE WIRE CAPPING BECAUSE WE HAD NO WIRES IN 1789. SO WHAT THEY DID WAS PUT IN A PHRASE THAT THE ENGLISH HAD USED AND ADEPENDED OVER SEN TRAYS SEN CENTURIES IS THAT THE IDEA THAT PEOPLE IN OFFICE USED IS TO STRIKE AT THE VERY HEART OF OUR DEMOCRACY. >> PROFESSOR, IN YOUR WRITTEN TESTIMONY, YOU MENTION TWO ASPECTS OF HIGH CRIME AND MISDMEERNZ MISMISMISMISDEMEANORS BESIDES ABUSE OF POWER. YOU TALK ABOUT BETRAYAL OF NATIONAL INTEREST AND CAN YOU SAY A LITTLE BIT MORE ABOUT WHAT THE FRAMERS’ CONCERNS WERE ABOUT CORRUPTION OF ELECTIONS AND BETRAYAL OF THENATIONAL INTEREST INVOLVING FOREIGN POWERS AND HOW THEY COMEINTO PLAY HERE? >> SURE. SO LET ME START WITH THE FRAMERS AND WHAT THEY WERE CONCERNED WITH AND BRING IT UP TO DATE BECAUSE I THINK THERE’S SOME MODERN STUFF AS WELL THAT’SIMPORTANT. SO THE FRAMERS WERE VERY WORRIED THAT ELECTIONS COULD BE CORRUPTED. THEY COULD BE CORRUPTED IN A VARIETY OF DIFFERENT WAYS AND SPENT A LOT OF TIME TRYING TO DESIGN AN ELECTION SYSTEM THAT WOULDN’T BE SUBJECT TO THAT KIND OF CORRUPTION. AND THERE ARE A NUMBER OF DIFFERENT PROINVESTIGATIONS IN THE CONSTITUG THAT DEAL WITH THE KINDS OF CORRUPTION THEY WERE WORRIED ABOUT. TWO I WOULD LIKETO HIGHLIGHT HERE BECAUSE I THINK THEY GO TO THE IDEA OF NATIONAL INTEREST AND FOREIGN GOVERNMENT, ONE I THINK SEEMS TOBE REMNANT OF A PAST TIME WHICH IS IF YOU BECOME AN AMERICAN CITIZEN, ALMOST EVERYTHING IN THIS COUNTRY IS OPEN TO YOU. YOU CAN BECOME CHIEF JUSTICE OF THE UNITED STATES. YOU CAN BECOME SECRETARY OF STATE. BUT THE ONE OFFICE NOT OPEN TO YOU, EVEN THOUGH YOU’RE A CITIZEN LIKE THE REST OF US IS THE PRESIDENCY BECAUSE OF THE NATURAL BORN CITIZEN CLAUSE. AND THE REASON THEY PUT THAT IN IS BECAUSE THEY WERE WORRIED ABOUT FOREIGN INFLUENCE. AND THE OTHER CLAUSE WHICH NO ONE HAD HEARD OF FIVE 5 YEARS AGO IS THE CLAUSE THAT THEY WERE WORRIED THAT THE PRESIDENT WOULD TAKE GIFTS FROM FOREIGN COUNTRIES. THEY WERE VERY CONCERNED ABOUT THE ELECTIONS. IT’S NOT JUST THEM. I WANT TO SAY MNG ABOUT WHAT OUR NATIONAL INTEREST IS TODAY BECAUSE OUR NATIONAL INTEREST IS DIFFERENT THAN WHAT IT WAS IN 1789. WHAT THE FRAMERS WERE WORRIED ABOUT IS THAT WE WOULD BE A WEAK COUNTRY AND EXPLOITED. WE ARE THE STRONGEST POWER IN THE WORLD. WE CAN STILL BE EXPLOITED. BUT THE OTHER THING WE’VE DONE, AND I THINK THIS IS 1 THING WE AS AMERICANS SHOULD BE PROUDEST OF, WE HAVE BECOME WHAT JOHN WINTHROP SAID IN HIS FINAL SPEECH IN 1640, AND WEHAVE BECOME THE SHINING CITY ON A HILL AND WHAT DEMOCRACY IS. IT’S NOT A REAL DEMOCRACY. IT’S NOT A TRUE DEMOCRACY. THEY USE POLITICAL POWER TO GO AFTER ITENEMIES. AND IN THE INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE, YOU HEARD TESTIMONY THAT IT’S NOT JUST THE NATURAL INTEREST IN PROTEGING OUR OWN ELECTIONS. IT’S NOT JUST THE NATURAL COMMISSIONS TO REMAIN STRONG ANDFIGHT THE REDUCTIONS THERE, SO WE DON’T HAVE TO FIGHT THEM HERE. BUT IT’S OUR NATIONAL INTEREST THAT WE LOOK NATIONWIDE. IF WE LOOK LIKE WE’RE ASKING OTHER COUNTRIES TO VEG IN INVESTIGATIONS OF OUR PRESIDENT’S POLITICAL OPPONENTS,THEN WE’RE NOT DOING OUR JOB IN PROMOTING THE NATIONAL INTEREST OF BEING THE SHINING CITY ON A HILL. >> PROFESSOR FELDMAN, ANYTHING TO ADD? >> ULTIMATELY, THE REASON THAT THE CONSTITUTION PROVIDED FOR IMPEACHMENT WAS THE ANTICIPATE A SWAIG THAT IS LIKE THE 1 BEFORE YOU TODAY. THE FRAMERS WERE NOT PROPHETS. THEY WERE SMART PEOPLE WITH A VERY SOPHISTICATED UNDERSTANDING. AND THEY UNDERSTOOD THAT THE PRESIDENT WOULD BE MOTIVATED NATURALLY TO TRY TO USE THE TREMENDOUS POWER OF OFFICE TO GAIN PERSONAL ADVANTAGE TO KEEP HIMSELF IN OFFICE TO CORRUPT THE PROCESSAND DIVERT NATIONAL INTEREST. THE FACTS STRONGLY SUGGEST THIS IS WHAT PRESIDENT TRUMP HAS DONE, AND UNDER THOSE CIRCUMSTANCES, THE FRAMERS WOULD EXPECT THE PRESIDENT TO TAKE IMPEACHMENT FROM THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES. >> AND DID YOU REVIEW THE INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE’S FINDINGTHAT PRESIDENT TRUMP COMMENT PROMS.ED NATIONAL SECURITY TO ADVANCE HIS POLITICAL PROCESS? >> I DID. >> AND WILL YOU EXPLAIN IN YOUR VIEW HOW THAT HAPPENED? >> THE PRESIDENT SOUGHT PERSONAL GAIN AND ADVANTAGE BY SOLICITINGTHE ANNOUNCEMENT OF INVESTIGATIONS AND PRESUMABLY INVESTIGATIONS FROM UKRAINE. AND TO DO SO, IT WITHHELD CRITICAL ASSISTANCE THAT THE GOVERNMENT OF UKRAINE NEEDED ANDBY DOING SO, HE UNDERMIND THE NATIONAL SECURITY INTEREST OF THE UNITED STATES IN HELPING UKRAINE, OUR ALLY IN A WAR THAT IT IS FIGHTING AGAINST RUSSIA. SO IN THE MOST SIMPLE, POSSIBLE TERMS, THE PRESIDENT PIT HIS PERSONAL GAIN AHEAD OF THE NATIONAL SECURITY INTEREST AS EXPRESSED BEFORE YOU BY THE ENTIRETY OF THE UNANIMOUS NATIONT SECURITY COMMITTEE.>> AND SIR, IS IT YOUR VIEW THAT THE FRAMERS WOULD CONCLUDE THAT THERE WAS A BETRAYAL OF THE NATIONAL INTEREST OR NATIONAL SECURITY BY PRESIDENT TRUMP ON THESE FACTS. IN MY VIEW IF THE FRAMERS WERE AWARE THAT THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES HAD PUT HIS PERSONAL GAIN AND INTEREST AHEAD OF THE NATIONAL SECURITY OF THE UNITED STATES BY CONDITIONAL AID TO A CRUCIAL ALLY ON INVESTIGATIONS AIMED AT HIS OWN PERSONAL GAIN, THEY WOULD CERTAINLY CONCLUSION THAT IT WAS AN ABUSE OF THE OFFICE OFTHE PRESIDENCY AND RULE THAT IT WAS IMPEACHABLE UNDER THE CONSTITUTION. >> PROFESSOR GERHARDT, WHAT ARE YOUR THOUGHTS ON THE ABUSE OF POWER, BETRAYAL OF NATIONAL SECURITY OR NATIONAL INTEREST OR CORRUPTION OF ELECTIONS, SIR? >> WELL, I HAVE A LOT OF THOUGHTS. ONE OF THEM IS THAT — WELL, WE HAVEN’T MENTIONED YET OR BROUGHT INTO THIS CONVERSATION IS THE FACT THAT THE IMPEACHMENT POWER REQUIRES THIS COMMITTEE, THIS HOUSE TO BE ABLE TO INVESTIGATE PRESIDENTAL MISCONDUCT. IF A PRESIDENT CAN BLOCK AN INVESTIGATION, UNDERMINE IT, STOP IT, THE IMPEACHMENT POWER, IS UNDERMINEDCOMPLETELY. >> AND PROFESSOR, CAN YOU HAVE AN IMPEACHABLE OFFENSE OF AN ABUSE OF POWER THAT IS SUPPORTEDBY CONSIDERATIONS OF A PRESIDENT’S BETRAYAL OF THE NATIONAL INTEREST OR NATIONAL SECURITY OR BY CORRUPTION OF ELECTS? >> YES, YOU CAN. >> AND DO WE HAVE THAT HERE, MA’AM? >> BASED ON THE EVIDENCE THAT I’VE SEEN WHICH IS REVIEWING THE12 WITNESSES, THE TRANSCRIPT OF THE 12 WITNESSES THAT WAS TESTIFIED, LOOKING AT THE CALL READOUT, LOOKING AT SOME OF THE PRESIDENT’S OTHER STATEMENTS, LOOKING AT THE STATEMENTS OF MUL. VANEY. >> AND PROFESSOR, FELDMAN, DO YOU AGREE? >> YES. >> PROFESSOR GERHARDT? >> YES, I DO. >> WE TALKED ABOUT ABUSE OF POWER, BUT THERE ARE SOME ADDITIONED, THERE ARE SOME ADDITIONAL HIGH POWERS THAT ARE IN THE TEXT OF THE CONSTITUTION, IS THAT TRUE? >> YES, THAT’S TRUE. >> WHAT ARE THEY? >> TREEZ SQUN BRIBERY. >> DOES PRESIDENT TRUMP’S DEMANDS ON UKRAINE ALSO ESTABLISH THE HIGH CRIME OF BROIBRY? >> YES, THEY DO. >> CAN YOU EXPLAIN WHY PLEASE? >> SURE. SO THE HIGH CRIME OR MISDEMEANOR BRIBERY, I THINK IT’S IMPORTANT TO DISTINGUISH THAT FROM WHATEVER THE U.S. CODE CALLS BRIBERY TODAY, AND THE REASON FOR THIS IN PART IS BECAUSE IN 1789 WHEN THE FRAMER,THE FRAME OF WRITING THE CONSTITUTION, IT WAS NO FEDERAL CRIMINAL CODE. THE STATUTE WOULD NOT HAVE REACHED THE PRESIDENT AT ALL BECAUSE THE FIST ONE WAS ABOUT CUSTOM OFFICIALS AND THE SECOND ONLY ABOUT JUDGES. IT WASN’T UNTIL 60 OR SO YEARS AFTER THE CONSTITUTION WAS RATIFIED THAT WE HAD A FEDERAL CRIME OF BRIBERY AT ALL. WHEN THEY SAY EXPLICITLY IN THE CONSTITUTION THAT THE PRESIDENT CAN BE IMPEACHED AND REMOVED FROM OFFICE FOR BRIBERY, THEY WEREN’TREFERRING TO A STATUTE, AND I WILL SAY I’M NOT EXPERT ON FEDERAL CRIMINAL LAW. ALL I WILL SAY HERE IS THAT THE BRIBERY STATUTE IS A VERY COMPLICATED STATUTE. SO WHAT THEY WERE THINKING ABOUT WAS BRIBERY AS IT WAS UNDERSTOOD IN THE 18TH CENTURY BASED ON THE COMMON LAW UNTIL THAT POINT, ANDTHAT UNDERSTANDING WAS AN UNDERSTANDING THAT SOMEONE, AND EVEN THEN IT WAS MOSTLY TALKING ABOUT A JUDGE. IT WASN’T TALKING ABOUT PRESIDENT BECAUSE IT WAS NO PRESIDENT BEFORE THAT.IT WASN’T TALKING ABOUT THE KING BECAUSE THE KING COULD DO NO WRONG. BUT WHAT THEY UNDERSTOOD IS THAT THE IDEA WHEN YOU TOOK PRIVATE BENEFITS OR WHEN YOU ASKED FOR PRIVATE BENEFITS, IN ORDER TO TURN FOR AN OFFICIAL ACT OR SOMEBODY GAVE THEM TO YOUTO INFLUENCE AN OFFICIAL ACT, THAT WAS BRIBERY. >> AND SO WE HAVE CONSTITUTIONAL BRIBERY HERE. THE HIGH CRIME OF CONSTITUTIONAL BRIBERY, AGAIN, PRESIDENT TRUMP.>> IF YOU CAN CONCLUDE THAT HE ASKED FOR THE INVESTIGATION OF VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN AND HIS SON FOR POLITICAL REASONS, THAT IS TO AID HIS REELECTION THEN YES, YOU HAVE BRIBERY HERE. >> AND IN FORMING THAT OPINION, DID YOU REVIEW THE MEMORANDUM OFTHE PRESIDENT’S TELEPHONE CALL WITH THE UKRAINIAN PRESIDENT, THE ONE WHERE PRESIDENT TRUMP ASKED I WOULD LIKE YOU TO DO US A FAVOR THOUGH AND ALSO ASKED ABOUT LOOKING INTO HIS U.S. POLITICAL OPPONENT? >> YES, I DID RELY ON THAT. >> AND DID YOU CONSIDER THE FOLLOWING TESTIMONY FROM OUR AMBASSADOR TO THE EUROPEAN UNION AMPASSDER SONDLAND? BUZZ THERE A QUID PRO QUO. WHEN I TESTIFIED PREVIOUSLY TO THE WHITE HOUSE CALL AND WHITE HOUSE MEETING, THE ANSWER IS YES, EVERYONE WAS IN THE LOOP. >> DID YOU CONSIDER THAT, PROFESSOR? >> I DID CONSIDER THAT, YES.>> AND DID YOU CONSIDER THE FINDINGS OF FACTS THAT THE INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE MADE, AND I QUOTE FROM FINDING OF FACT NO.5 THE PRESIDENT WITHHELD OFFICIAL ACTS OF VALUE TO UKRAINE AND CONDITIONED THEIR FULFILLMENT ON ACTIONS BAYOU CRANE THAT WOULD BENEFIT HIS PERSONAL, POLITICAL INTEREST? >> I DID RELY ON THAT IN ADDITION BECAUSE YAZ TESTIFIED,I READ THE TRANSCRIPTS OF THE WITNESSES AND RELIED ONTOTOMY FROM AMBASSADOR SONDLAND AND MORRISON, AND PROFESSOR VINDMAN AND AMBASSADOR TAYLOR. I THINK IT WAS AMBUSDER TAYLOR, BUT I MIGHT BE GETTING 1 OF THESE PEOPLE WRONG WHO SAID IT’S CRAZY TO HOLD THIS UP BASED ON DOMESTIC POLITICAL CONCERNS. NO ONE WROTE BACK AND SAID THAT’S NOT WHY WE’RE DOING IT. I RELIED ON WHAT MR. MULVANEY SAIDIN HIS PRESS CONFERENCE. IT IS A LOT TO SUGGEST IT IS ABOUT POLITICAL BENEFIT. I DON’T KNOW IF I CAN TALK ABOUT IT IN OUR INVESTIGATION NOW OR LATER. >> PLEASE TELL ME. >> I WANT TO TALK ABOUT WHAT I CONSIDER TO BE THE MOST STRIKINGEXAMPLE OF THIS AND THE MOST, YOU KNOW, I SPENT ALL OF THANKSGIVING VACATION SITTING THERE READING THESE TRANSCRIPTS.I DIDN’T, YOU KNOW, I ATE A TURKEY THAT CAME TO US IN THE MAIL THAT WAS ALREADY COOKED BECAUSE I WAS SPENDING MY TIME DOING THIS. AND THE MOST CHILLING LINES FOR ME OF THE ENTIRE PROCESS IS THE FOLLOWING. AMBASSADOR SONDLAND SAID HE HAD TO ANNOUNCE THE INVESTIGATIONS. HE’S TALKING ABOUT PRESIDENT ZELENSKY. HE HAD TO ANNOUNCE THE INVESTIGATIONS. HE DIDN’T ACTUALLY HAVE TO DO THEM AS I UNDERSTOOD IT. AND THEN HE SAIDI NEVER HEARD HIM SAY THE INVESTIGATES HAD TO BE START OR COMPLETED. THE ONLY THING I HEARD FROM MR. GIULIANI OR OTHERWISE IS THAT THEY HAD TO BE SOME FORM, AND WHAT I TOOK THAT TO MEAN WAS THAT THE VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN DIDN’T COMMIT CORRUPTION OR NOT, I TOOK THAT AS A PARTICULARLY HARD OPPONENT. ANDTHAT’S FOR HIS PRIVATE POLICE. BECAUSE I CAN SAY ONE LAST THINGABOUT THE INTEREST OF THE UNITED STATES. THE CONSTITUTION OF THEUNITED STATES DOES NOT CARE WHETHER THE NEXT PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES IS DONALD J. TRUMP OR ANY ONE OF THE DEMOCRATS OR ANYBODY RUNNING ON A THIRD PARTY. THE CONSTITUTIONIS INDIFFERENT TO THAT. WHAT THE CONSTITUTION CARES ABOUT IS THAT WE HAVE FREE ELECTIONS. AND IT IS ONLY IN THE PRESIDENT’S INTEREST. IT’S NOT THE NATIONAL INTEREST THAT A PARTICULAR PRESIDENT BE ELECTED OR DEFEATED AT THE NEXT ELECTION. THE CONSTITUTION IS INDIFFERENT TO THAT. >> PROFESSOR FELDMAN, ANY THOUGHTS ON THE SUBJECT OF HIGHCRIME AND MISDEMEANOR AND BRIBERY OF THE EVIDENCE THAT THEPROFESSOR LAID OUT? >> THE CLEAR SENSE OF BROIBRY ATTHE TIME WHEN THE FRAMERS ADOPTED THIS LANGUAGE IN THE CONSTITUTION IS THAT BRIBERY EXISTED UNDER THE CONSTITUTION WHEN THE PRESIDENT CORRUPTLY ASKED FOR OR RECEIVED SOMETHING OF VALUE TO HIM FROM SOMEONE WHO COULD BE AFFECTED BY HIS OFFICIAL OFFICE. SO IF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES AND MEMBERS OF THIS COMMITTEE WERE TO DETERMINE THAT GETTING THE INVESTIGATES RENOUNCED OR UNDERTAKEN WAS A THING OF VALUE TO PRESIDENT TRUMP AND THAT THAT WAS WHAT HE THOUGHT, THEN THIS COMMITTEE AND THIS HOUSE COULD SAFELY CONCLUDE THAT THE PRESIDENT HAD COMMITTED BRIBERY UNDER THE CONSTITUTION.>> PROFESSOR GERHARDT, WHAT IS YOUR VIEW? >> I HAVE OF COURSE AGREED WITH PROFESSOR COLLIN AND FELDMAN, AND I WANT TO STRESS THAT IF WHAT WE’RE TALKING ABOUT IS NOT IMPEACHABLE, THEN NOTHING IS IMPEACHABLE. THIS PRECISELY THEMISCONDUCT THAT THE FRAMERS CREATED A CONSTITUTION TO PROTECT AGAIN. THERE IS NO ACTION FOR CONGRESS TO CONCLUDE.THEY WILL GIVE A PASS TO THE PRESIDENT HERE. PROFESSOR COLLIN SUGGESTED EARLIER, EVERY OTHER PRESIDENT WILL SAY OKAY THEN I CAN DO THE SAME THING, AND THE BOUNDARIES WILL JUST EVAPORATE, AND THOSE BOUNDARIES ARE SET UP BY THE CONSTITUTION, AND WE MAY BE WITNESSING THEIR EROSION, AND THAT IS A DANGER TO ALL OF US. >> AND WHAT CAN THIS COMMITTEE AND HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES DO SIR TO DEFEND THOSE BOUNDARIES AND PROTECT AGAINST THAT EROSION? >> PRECISELY WHAT YOU’RE DOING. >> AND DOES IT MATTER — I’LL ASK ALL THE PANELISTS. DOES IT MATTER TO IMPEACHMENT THAT THE 391 MILLIONS DOLLARS, U.S. TAXPAYER DOLLARS IN MILITARY ASSISTANCE THAT THE PRESIDENT WITHHELD WAS ULTIMATELY DELIVERED? PROFESSOR FELDMAN, DOES THAT MATTER TO THE QUESTIONOF IMPEACHMENT? >> NO, IT DOES NOT. IF THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES ATTEMPTS TO ABUSE HIS OFFICE, THAT IS A COMPLETE IMPEACHABLE OFFENSE. THE POSSIBILITY THAT THE PRESIDENT MIGHT GET CAUGHT IN THE PROCESS OF ATTEMPTING TO ABUSE HIS OFFICE AND NOT BE ABLE TO PULL IT OFF DOES NOT UNDERCUTIN ANYWAY THE IMPEACHBILITY OF THE ACT. IF YOU PARDON THE COMPARISON, PRESIDENT NIXON WAS SUBJECT TO ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT BY THIS COMMITTEE FOR TRYING TO COVER UP THE WATERGATE BREAK-IN. BECAUSE HE WAS NOT SUCCESSFUL WAS NOT IMPEACHABLE. THE INTENT ITSELF WAS THE IMPEACHABLE ACT. >> PROFESSOR, DOES IT MATTER TO IMPEACHMENT THAT THE UNFOUNDED INVESTIGATES THAT THE PRESIDENT SOUGHT WERE ULTIMATELY NEVER ANNOUNCED? >> NO, IT DOESN’T. AND IF I CANGIVE AN EXAMPLE WHY SOLICITING IS ENOUGH. IMAGINE YOU WERE PULLED OVER BY A POLICE OFFICER, AND THE OFFICER SAYS YOU WERE SPEEDING, BUT IF YOU GIVE ME 20 BUCKS, I’LL DROP THE TICKET. AND YOU LOOK IN YOUR WALLET AND SAY TO THE OFFICER, I DON’T THE 20 BUCKS. THE OFFICER SAYS JUST GO AHEAD AND HAVE A NICE DAY. THE WER WOULD STILL BE GUILTY OF SOLICITING A BRIBE THERE EVEN THOUGH HE ULTIMATELY LET YOU OFF WITHOUT YOUR PAYING. SOLICITINGITSELF IS THE IMPEACHABLE OFFENSE REGARDLESS IF THE OTHER PERSON COMES UP WITH IT. IMAGINE IF THE PRESIDENT SAID YOU DO US A FAVOR. WILL YOU INVESTIGATE JOE BIDEN? AND THE PRESIDENT OF UKRAINE SAID YOU KNOW WHAT? NO, I WON’T BECAUSE WE’VE ALREADY LOOKED INTO THIS, AND IT’S TOTALLY BASELESS. THE PRESIDENT WOULD STILL HAVE COMMITTED AN IMPEACHABLE ACT EVEN IF HE WAS REFUSED RIGHT THERE ON THE PHONE. SO I DON’T SEE WHY THE ULTIMATE, THE ULTIMATE DECISION HAS ANYTHING TO DO WITH THE PRESIDENT’S IMPEACHABLE CONDUCT. >> WHAT’S THE DANGER IF CONGRESS DOES NOT RESPOND TO THAT ATTEMPT? >> WELL, WE’VE ALREADY SEEN A LITTLE BIT OF IT WHICH HE GETS ON THE WHITE HOUSE LAWN AND SAYSCHINA, I THINK YOU SHOULD INVESTIGATE JOE BIDEN. >> AND PROFESSOR GERHARDT, YOU’RE VIEW? >> I WOULD CERTAINLY AGREE WITH WHAT YOU’VE SAID. ONE OF THE THINGS TO UNDERSTAND FROM IMPEACHABLE COMMITMENT, THEY FAILED. THEY FAILED TO GET WHAT THEY WANTED. AND WHAT THEYFAILED WAS NOT TO DID WHAT THEY DID BUT TO GET AWAY WITH IT. AND IT’S MADE POSSIBLE TO INVESTIGATION TO CATCH THAT PERSON, CHARGE THAT PERSON AND ULTIMATELY REMOVE THAT PERSON FROM OFFICE. IMPEACHMENT IS ALWAYS FOCUSING ON SOMEONE WHO DEPENDENT GET QUITE AS FAR AS THAICHTED TO. NO ONE IS BETTER AT PROFESSOR KARLAN AT HYPOTHETICALS. BUT I’LL DARE TORAISE ANOTHER ONE. IMAGINE IT’S A BANK ROBBERY, AND THE POLICE COMES. AND THE BURGLAR SAYS I’M GOING TO DROP THE MONEYAND LEAVE. THAT’S STILL BURGLARY. IN THIS SITUATION, WECAUGHT SOMEONE IN THE MIDDLE OF IT, AND THAT DOESN’T EXCUSE THE PERSON FROM THE CONSEQUENCES. >> PROFESSORS, WE TALKED ABOUT ABUSE OF POWER AND BRIBERY. WHEN WE STARTED, WE SAID WE WOULD ALSO DISCUSS OBSTRUCTION OF CONGRESS. SO I WOULD LIKE TOASK YOU SOME QUESTIONS ABOUT OBSTRUCTION OF CONGRESS. PROFESSOR GERHARDT, IN YOUR VIEW, IS THERE ENOUGH EVIDENCE HERE TO CHARGE PRESIDENT TRUMP WITH THE HIGH CRIME AND MISDEMEANOR OF OBSTRUCTION OF CONGRESS? >> I THINK THERE’S MORE THAN ENOUGH. AS I MENTIONED IN MY STATEMENT, I JUST REALLY UNDERSCORED THIS. THE THIRD ARTICLE OF IMPEACHMENT APPROVED BY THE HOUSE JUDICIARY COMMITTEEAGAINST PRESIDENT NIXON CHARGED HIM WITH MISCONDUCT BECAUSE HE FAILED TO COMPLY WITH FOUR IMPEACHMENTS. THIS IS FAR MORE THAN FOUR THIS PRESIDENT FAILED TO COMPLY WITH AND FAILED TO COOPERATE WITH THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT. THOSE ARE IMPEACHABLE. >> PROFESSOR KARLAN, DO YOU AGREE? >> I AM A SCHOLAR OF DEMOCRACY.AS A CITIZEN, I AGREE. AS EXPERT, I’M A SCHOLAR OF THE LAWOF DEMOCRACY. I’M NOT A FAVOR OF THE OBSTRUCTION OF CONGRESS. >> WE WILL ACCEPT YOUR OPINION AS A CITIZEN. >> PROFESSOR FELDMAN? >> IT UNDERMINES THE CONSTITUTION. IF YOU HAVE THREE BRANCHES OF GOVERNMENT, EACH HASTO DO THEIR JOB. THE JOB OF THE HOUSE IS TO INVESTIGATE AN OFFENSE AND TO IMPEACH. AND THE PRESIDENT SAID I WILL NOT COOPERATE IN ANY WAY, SHAPE OR FORM WITH YOUR PROCESS. HE ROBBED THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES OF THE BASIC CONSTITUTIONAL POWER OF IMPEACHMENT. WHEN YOU ADADD TO THAT THE FACT THAT THE SAME PRESIDENT SAYS THAT MY DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE CANNOT CHARGE ME WITH A CRIME, THE PRESIDENT PUTS HIMSELF ABOVE THE LAW WHETHER HE SAYS HE WON’T COOPERATE WITH AN IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY. I DON’T THINK IT’S SOMETHING THAT CAN BE EXPRESSED STRONGLY ENOUGH. A PRESIDENT THAT FAILS TO COMPLY WITH AN IMPEACHMENT PROCESS IS PUTTING YOURSELF ABOVE THE LAW. BECAUSE IF THE PRESIDENT COULD NOT BE IMPEACHABLE, HE WOULD NOT BE ABLE TO ANYBODY. >> AND SIR, IN FORMING YOUR OPINION, DID YOU REVIEW THESE STATEMENTS FROM PRESIDENT TRUMP? >> I HAVE THE SUBPOENAS, AND THEN I HAVE THE ARTICLE 2 TO DO WHATEVER I WANT AS PRESIDENT. >> AND DID, AND AS SOMEONE WHO CARES ABOUT THE CONSTITUTION, THE SECOND OF THOSE IN PARTICULAR STRUCK A KIND OF HORROR IN ME. >> AND PROFESSOR GERHARDT, IN FORMING YOUR OPINION THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP HAS COMMITTED THE IMPEACHABLE OFFENSE OF OBSTRUCTION OF CONGRESS, DID YOUCONSIDER THE INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE REPORT AND ITS FINDINGS INCLUDING FINDING 9 THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP ORDERED ANDIMPLEMENTED A CAMPAIGN TO CONCEAL HIS CONDUCT FROM THE PUBLIC AND TO FRUSTRATE AND OBSTRUCT THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY. >> I READ THAT REPORT AS I SUBMITTED MY STATEMENT. BUT I WATCHED ALL OF THE STATEMENTS AVAILABLE. THE REPORT REENFORCES EVERYTHING BEFORE IT.SO YES. >> SO WE’VE TALKED FIRST ABOUT ABUSE OF POWER AND BRIBERY. AND THEN ABOUT OBSTRUCTION OF CONGRESS. I WOULD LIKE TO ASK YOU QUESTIONS ABOUT A THIRD IMPEACHABLE OFFENSE, AND THAT IS ABOUT OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE. SIR, HAVE YOU FORMED AN OPINION AS TO WHETHER PRESIDENT TRUMP COMMITD THE IMPEACHABLE OFFENSE OF OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE? >> YES, I HAVE. >> AND WHAT YOUR OPINION, SIR? >> WELL, WITH COME HERE LIKE EVERY OTHER WITNESS. ASSUMING THE FACT THAT WAS PUT TOGETHER IN THE MUELLER REPORT, IT IS THAT HE OBSTRUCTED JUSTICE, AND THAT’S AN IMPEACHABLE OFFENSE. >> AND IN YOUR TESTIMONY, YOU FOUND THAT THE MUELLER REPORT FOUND AT LEAST FIVE INSTANCES OF THE PRESIDENT’S OBSTRUCTION OF THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT’S CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION INTO THE RUSSIAN INTERFERENCE IN THE 2016 ELECTION, CORRECT? >> YES, SIR. >> AND THE FIRST OF THOSE INSTANCES WAS THE PRESIDENT’S ORDERING HIS THEN WHITE HOUSE COUNSEL DON TO FIRE THE SPECIAL COUNSEL OR RATH TO HAVE THE SPECIAL COUNSEL FIRED IN ORDER TO THWART THE INVESTIGATION OF THE PRESIDENT, IS THAT CORRECT? >> THAT’S CORRECT.>> AND THE SECOND FOR HIM TO CREATE A FALSE WRITTEN RECORD THAT THE PRESIDENT HAD ORDERED HIM TO HAVE MR. MUELLER REMOVED.>> THAT’S CORRECT. >> AND YOU ALSO POINT TO THE MEETING OF THE PRESIDENT WITH HIS FORMER CAMPAIGN MANAGER IN ORDER TO GET HIM TO TAKE STEPS TO HAVE THE INVESTIGATION CUR TAILED, RIGHT? >> YES, SIR, I DID. >> AND YOU PARTEN TO WITNESS TAMPERING AND DANGLING AS PAUL MANNEFORT. >> BOTH INDIVIDUAL AND COLLECTIVELY THESE ARE OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE. >> HOW SERIOUS IS THAT EVIDENCE OF OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE? >> IT IS QUITE SERIOUS, AND THATIS NOT ALL OF IT OF COURSE. WEAN AS YOU MENTIONED BEFORE ANDOTHERS MENTIONED, OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE IS RECOGNIZED AS AN IMPEACHABLE OFFENSE BOTH WITH PRESIDENT CLINT SQUN PRESIDENT NUXEN.THIS EVIDENCE PUT FORWARD BY MR. MUELLER THAT’S IN THE PUBLIC RECORD IS VERY STRONG EVIDENCE OF OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE. >> PROFESSOR KARL ARSH N, WHEN YOU LOOK AT THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE RUSSIA INVESTIGATION ANDHOW THE PRESIDENT RESPONDED TO THAT, AND WHEN YOU LOOK AT CONGRESS UKRAINE INVESTIGATION AND HOW THE PRESIDENT RESPONDED TO THAT, DO YOU SEE A PATTERN? >> YES, I SEE A PATTERN IN WHICHTHE PRESIDENT VIEWS THE PROPRITEY OF FOREIGN GOVERNMENT INTERFERING IN ELECTION PROCESS IS WHAT THE FRAMERS WERE COMMITTED TO. THE FRAMERS WERE COMMITTED THAT WE AS AMERICANS DECIDE OUR ELECTIONS. WE DECIDE OUR ELECTIONS. WE DON’T WANT FOREIGN INTERFERENCE IN THE ELECTIONS, AND THE REASON WE DON’T WANT FOREIGN INTERFERENCE IN THE ELECTS BECAUSE WE ARE A DEMOCRACY. AND IF I CAN READ ONE QUOTATION THAT’S HELPFUL IN UNDERSTANDING THIS, SOMEONE POINTED TO WHAT HE CALLED A STRAIGHTFORWARD PRINCIPAL. IT IS DETRIMENTAL TO OUR COMMUNITY THAT FOREIGN CITIZENS DON’T HAVE A CONSTITUTION RIGHT TO PARTICIPATE IN AND THUS EXCLUDED FROM ACTIVITIES OF DEMOCRATIC SELF GOVERNMENT. AND THE PERSON WHO WROTE THOSE WORDS IS JUSTICEBRETT KAVANAUGH, AND IT DENIES FOREIGNINSTITUTES TO PARTICIPATE BY SPENDING MONEY ON ELECTION HEARINGS AND TO PACTS AND LONG PROMIBT HIBITED HIBITED TO GIVE MONEY AND JUSTICE BRETT BRETT KAVANAUGH KAVANAUGH WAS JUSTIFIED IN SEEING THIS. THEY DIDN’T NEED TO HEAR THAT IT WAS CONSTITUTIONAL TO KEEP THEM OUT OF OUR FOREIGN PROCESS. >> YOU WERE AN IMPEACHMENT SKEPTIC AT THE TIME OF THE RELEASE OF THE MUELLER RRT, WERE YOU NOT? >> I WAS. >> WHAT HAS CHANGED FOR YOU, SIR? >> WHAT CHANGED WAS THE JULY 25TH CALL, AND THE EVIDENCE THAT EMERGED IN THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES IN A FORMAT HE WAS HEARD BY OTHERS WHERE HE ABUSED HIS OFFICE BY SEEKING A PERSONAL ADVANTAGE TO GET HIMSELF REELECTED IN AN ACT AGAINST THE UNITED STATES. AND THAT IS PRECISELY THE SITUATION THE FRAMERS ANTICIPATED. IT IS VERYUNUSUAL FOR THE FRAMERS TO COME THROUGH THAT PRECISELY. AND WHEN THEY DO, WE HAVE TO ASK OURSELVES, SOME DAY WE’LL NO LONGER BE ALIVE. WE’LL GO WHERE WE NEED TO GO, SOME PLACE OR THEUNDERPLACE. AND WE MAY MEET THERE MADISON AND HAMILTON. ANDWHEN THEY ASK US WHEN THE PRESIDENT DECIDED TO CORRUPT REPUBLIC, WHAT DID YOU DO? AND OUR ANSWER MUST BE THAT WE GUIDED THE FRAMERS AND SUPPORTED THE CONCLUSION THAT THEY IMPEACH HIM >> THANK YOU. I YIELDBACK MY TIME TO THE CHAIRMAN. >> THANK YOU. I YIELD BACK. BEFORE WE RECOGNIZE HIS ROUND OFQUESTIONS, THE COMMITTEE MAY STAND IN A 10-MINUTE HUMANITARIAN RECESS. I ASK EVERYONE IN THE ROOM TO PLEASE REMAIN QUIET WHILE THE WITNESSES EXIT THE ROOM. I WANT TO ANNOUNCE THOSE IN THE AUDIENCE. YOU MAY NOT BE GUARANTEED YOUR SEAT IF YOU LEAVE THE HEARING ROOM AT THIS TIME. ONCE THE WITNESSES HAVE LEFT THE HEARING ROOM, AT THIS TIME, THE COMMITTEE WILL STAND AT A SHORT RECESS. . >>> YOU’RE WATCHING LIVE COVERAGE. THE HOUSE WILL GET UNDERWAY. THE REPUBLICANS WILL TAKE STAGE AND ASK THEIR QUESTIONS AND RETURN TO HAVE THIS 45-MINUTE CHUNK OF TIME WITH THE WITNESSES. NOW AS YOU HEARD THE WITNESSES WITH THE DEMOCRAT SIDE OF THE AISLE GOT A LOT OF TIME JUST NOW. JONATHAN TURLEY IS A WITNESS, AND WE EXPECT HE WILL TAKE MORE QUESTIONS. LET GO BACK AND LIST TONIGHT SOME OF THE TAPE TO WHEN HE ASKED THE WITNESSES ABOUT THE BAR FOR IMPEACHMENT. >> PROFESSOR FELDMAN, WHAT IS ABUSE OF POWER? >> ABUSE OF POWER IS WHEN THE PRESIDENT ABUSES HIOFFICE AND TAKES ACTION THAT IS PART OF THEPRESIDENCY NOT TO SERVE THE PUBLIC INTEREST BUT TO SERVE HISPRIVATE BENEFIT AND ABUSE OF POWER IF HE DOES IT TO FACILITATE HIS REELECTION AND GAVE IT TO ANYONE NOT THE PRESIDENT. >> SIR, WHY IS THAT IMPEACHABLE CONDUCT? >> IF THE PRESIDENT USES HIS OFFICE FOR PERSONAL GAIN, THE ONLY RECOURSE AVAILABLE UNDER THE CONSTITUTION IS FOR HIM TO BE IMPEACHED BECAUSE THE PRESIDENT CANNOT BE AS A PRACTICAL MATTER CHARGED CRIMINALLY WHILE HE IS IN OFFICE BECAUSE THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT WORK FOR THE PRESIDENT. SO THE ONLY MECHANISM AVAILABLE FOR THEPRESIDENT WHO TRIES TO DISTORT THE PROCESS IS TO IMPEACH HIM. THAT IS WHY WE HAVE THE IMPEACHMENT. >> ALL RIGHT. I’M JOINED IN THE STUDIO BY AMBER PHILLIPS. THANKS SO MUCH AMBER FOR BEING HERE. I WANT TO TALK ABOUT THE MEAT OF WHAT WAS HEARD. AND THEN WE’LL TALK IN THE PROCEDUREAND WHAT THE REPUBLICANS ARE TRYING TO DO WITH THEIR TACTICS.WE HEARD A CLEAR MESSAGE FROM FLOO OF THE WITNESSES. THEY DO BELIEVE PRESIDENT TRUMP HAS COMMITTED IMPEACHABLE OFFENSES, AND THEN WE HEARD FROM JONATHAN TURLEY, THE WITNESS OF THE REPUBLICANS, HE DOESN’T THINK WHAT THE PRESIDENT HAS DONE HAS MET THE BAR. TALK ABOUT THE STRONGEST TESTIMONY SO FAR FROM DEMOCRATIC WITNESSES. >> YEAH. I THINK IT WAS OUR STANFORD LAW PROFESSOR PAMELA KARLAN BY SAYING LISTEN BY COMING, IT UNDERMINES DEMOCRACY AND TAKES THE RIGHT FROM THE AMERICAN PEOPLE TO HAVEOUR ELECTIONS AND CHOOSE OUR POLITICIANS AND TURNS THAT INTO RIGHTS THAT FOREIGN GOVERNMENTS DECIDE. AND SHE REMINDS THAT THEY DECIDE TO INTERFERE FOR THEIR BENEFITS AND NOT FOR OURS.THAT GOES TO THE HEART OF WHAT THEY HAVE AGAINST PRESIDENT TRUMP WHICH IS THE JULY 25TH PHONE CALL WITH UKRAINE’S PRESIDENT WHERE TRUMP IN HISOPE WORDS SAY HEY COULD YOU INVESTIGATE THE BIDENS. SO SHE AND WHAT MOST AND OTHER DEMOCRATIC WITNESSES ARE SAYING IS BASED ON TRUMP’S OWN WORDS, HE SHOULD BE IMPEACHED. AND 2 MONTHS OF YOUR IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY BOLSTERS OUR VIEW. >> DOUG COLLINS, THE RANKING REPUBLICAN STARTED OFF WITH A FIERY OPENING STATEMENT BUT ALSOGAVE THE WHO HAS TIME TO READ ALL OF THIS AND WHO HAS GONE THROUGH ALL OF THIS. WE HEARD HER PUSH BACK. LET’S LISTEN TO HOW SHE TALKS WITH A LOT OF PASSION WITH INTERFERING WITH AMERICAN ELECTIONS? >> EVERYTHING I KNOW ABOUT THE CONSTITUTION AND VALUES AND MY REVIEW OF THE EVIDENTRY RECORD, AND HERE MR. COLLIN, I WOULD LIKE TO SAY TO YOU THAT I READ TRANSCRIPTS OF EVERY ONE OF THE WITNESSES WHO APPEARED IN THE LIVE HEARING BECAUSE I WOULD NOT SPEAK ABOUT THESE THINGS WITHOUTREVIEWING THE FACTS. SO I AM INSULTED THAT I DON’T CARE ABOUTTHE FACTS. BUT EVERYTHING I READ TELLS ME THAT WHEN PRESIDENT TRUMP INVITED, INDEED DEMANDED FOREIGN INVOLVEMENT TO THE UPCOMING ELECTION, HE STRUCK AT THE VERY HEART OF WHAT MAKES THIS A REPUBLIC TO WHICH WE PLEDGE ALLEGIANCE. THAT DEMAND AS PROFESSOR FELDMAN JUST EXPLAINED CONSTITUTES AN ABUSE OF POWER. INDEED AS I WANT TO SAY IN MY TESTIMONY DRAWING TO FOREIGN AIDIN THE LECTIONS IS AN ABUSE OF POWER BECAUSE IT IS AN ABUSE OF POWER IN ITSELF. OUR CONSTITUTION AGAINST WITH WE THEPEOPLE FOR A REASON. AND IT DRAWS THE POWERS DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY FROM THE PEOPLE. AND THE WAY IT DERIVEATHIZE POWER ISTHROUGH ELECTION. >> AND THE PROFESSOR KARLAN SAIDSHE BARELYATE THANKSGIVING DINNER BECAUSE SHE WAS POURING OVER ALL OF THE TURKEY. SHE GOT LAUGHS BECAUSE SHE WAS DOING WHAT WAS EXPECTED TO DIG INTO THIS. SHE TOOK THIS JOB SERIOUSLY. BUT SHE ALSO CAME WITH SOME REALLY STRONG OPINIONS BASED ON WHAT SHE’S BEEN READING AND WITNESSES. >> LISTEN. THE DEMOCRATIC SOURCE AND LAWMAKERS ON THIS COMMITTEE WAS TEXTING ME AND SAYING THIS IS MASSIVE. WHAT WE HAVE UNTOTAL THREE PEOPLE WHO DEDICATED THEIR LIVES TO IN TOTAL THREE PEOPLE WHO DEDICATED THEIR LIVES TO STUDYING THE CONSTITUTION AND PRETTY OBVIOUS THAT THE PRESIDENT SHOULD BE IMPEACHED. I THINK THEY HAVE THEIR OPINIONS BECAUSE IMPEACH IS INHERENTLY SUBJECTIVE. THAT’S WHY THEY WILL HAVE TURLEY SAY I DON’T THINK HE SHOULD BE IMPEACHED. YOU GUYS ARE DOING SOMETHING DANGEROUS BY OVERTHROWING ELECTIONS. IT’S ALL OBJECTIVE AND OPINIONATED TODAY. >> YOU KNOW, IT’S FASCINATING. TURLEY IS NOT TO BE A FLAME FLOWER REPUBLICAN TALKING AHEAD OF SOME SORT. HE EVEN STARTED OUT HIS TESTIMONY SAYING I DIDN’T VOTE FOR PRESIDENT TRUMP BUT THAT’S NOT RELEVANT TO WHAT I HAVE TO SAY. AND IT SHOULDN’T BE RELEVANT TO YOUR POLITICAL LEANINGS AS TO HOW YOU TAKE YOUR CHARGE TODAY MEMBERS OF CONGRESS. YOU SHOULD TAKE IT SERIOUSLY. I WANT TO LISTEN TO TURLEY’S TAPE. LET’S HEAR JONATHAN TURLEY. HE ARGUED THATTHE PRESIDENT TRUMP INQUIRY DOESN’T MEET THE STANDARDS. >> ME PERSONAL VIEWS ARE AS IRRELEVANT TO MY IMPEACHMENT TESTIMONY AS THEY SHOULD BE TO OUR IMPEACHMENT VOTE. PRESIDENTTRUMP WILL NOT BE OUR LAST PRESIDENT. AND WHAT WE LEAVE INTHE WAKE OF THIS SCANDAL WILL SHAPE OUR DEMOCRACY FOR GENERATIONS TO COME. I’M CONCERNED ABOUT LOWERING IMPEACHMENT STAND TOWARD FIT EVIDENCE AND ABUNDANCE OF ANGER.I BELIEVE THIS IMPEACHMENT NOT ONLY FAILS TO SATISFY THE STANDARD TO PASS IMPEACHMENT BUT WOULD CREATE A PRECEDENCE FOR FUTURE IMPEACHMENT. >> YOU ALSO TESTIFIED FOR THE DEMOCRATS. SO IF THIS SPT IMPEACHABLE, NOTHING IS IMPEACHABLE. HE SAID THIS IS WHAT THE FRAMERS WANTED TO PROTECT AGAINST. VERY DIFFERENT PERSPECTIVES. >> TWO PERSPECTIVES JUST LIKE CONGRESS. CONGRESS GOT TO CALL THESE PEOPLE, AND THEY CAME AWAY WITH COMPLETELY BLACK AND WHITE,TOTALLY DIFFERENT VIEWS ON WHERE WE ARE AND WHETHER TRUMP SHOULD BE IMPEACHED. THE DEMOCRATS’ JOB TODAY IS CONVINCE THE TINY AMERICANS WHO ARE STILL UNDECIDED THAT EVERYTHING WE’VE LEARNED OVER THE LAST COUPLE OF WEEKS ABOUT IMPEACHMENT. AND IMPEACHMENT OBJECTIVE, IT’S A POLITICAL PROCESS AND NO CRIMINAL STATUTES. THEY ASK, YOU KNOW THE WITNESS ABOUT THIS TODAY WHERE IT COULD RISE THAT EVERYONE WILL SAY WHAT FROM DID WAS WRONG. YEP, HE’S GOT TO GO. >> YOU GAVE A GREAT WAY TO INTRODUCE OUR NEXT GUEST. SCOTT OF THE AMERICAN POST. JUST HOW IS THE AMERICANS RESPONDING TO THE IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY AND WHETHER OR NOT THIS PROCESS IS CHANGING PUBLIC OPINION IS SO FAS MATING. GIVE US THE LATEST ON WHAT YOU’VE BEEN SEEING IN TERMS OF PUBLIC OPINION AND CHANGE OVER TIME. >> SURE. SO SINCE THE IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY BEGAN, IT HAS BEEN FOR NOT JUST THE FORM BUT EVERY ASPECT OF THE ISSUE. AND WHAT THEY SHOW IS RIGHT AFTER THE IMPEACH NMENTQUIRY WAS ANNOUNCED, SUPPORT ROSE FROM 39%TO MID 40S, 46% TO NATIONAL POLLS AND REMOVING TRUMP FROM OFFICE. BUT SINCE DECEMBER, THEY’VE SHOWN STEADY SUPPORT, VERY LITTLE CHANGE IN THE PERCENTAGE OF PEOPLE WHO SUPPORTAND OPPOSE IMPEACH SQUMENT ALMOST EVEN IN OUR LATEST OF AVERAGE OF POLLS AND SUPPORT IMPEACH SQUMENT MENT AND 43% OPPOSE. AND DEMOCRATS BECAME MORE SUPPORTIVE OF IMPEACHMENT OF WHAT THEY WEREWRCH AND NOTHING HAS CHANGED. THAT INCLUDES THE IMPEACHMENT PUBLIC HEARINGS WHICH IS A REALLY IMPORTANT PERIOD WHERE PEOPLE SAW A LOT OF NEW INFORMATION, STUFF THAT’S PREVIOUSLY BEHIND CLOSED DOORS, AND STILL NOT SEEING ANY SIGNS OF OVERALL MOVEMENT. >> SOME STATES ARE MORE IMPORTANT THAN OTHERS OF POLITICAL OUTCOMES. >> NOTE THE STATES THAT ARE NOT CONSIDERED TO BE SOME OF THE SWING STATES AND REALLY IMPORTANT OF OF THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE. SO WHAT DO YOU SEE FOR SWING STATES OR STATES NEEDING A COLLEGE WIN IN 2020? >> IT’S DIFFERENT, AND WE’VE SEEN THIS IN ABOUT A DOZEN POLLS WHERE THE IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY BEGAN. 44% SUPPORT IMPEACHMENT UPON AVERAGE VERSUS 51% WHO OPPOSE IT. AND THIS SUGGEST THAT DEMOCRATS DO FACE AN UPHILLBATTLE IN DEFENDING THEIR IMPEACH FMENTQUIRY. AND IF THEY DOGO FORWARD TO REMOVE TRUMP OR HAVE THE SET TRIAL KNAN, THEY’REON SHAKIER GROUND THAN THEY WERE. IT’S A REALLY MIXED BAG FOR THEM. IF YOU LOOK TO THE SUMMER, IMPEACHMENT WAS CLEARLY UNPOPULAR. FORGET THE SWING STATE. TODAY IT’S A BIGGER DIVIDE, BUT IN THE SWING STATE, THEY’RE ON SHAKIER GROUND. >> THAT’S CRUCIAL IN THE IMPEACHMENT VOTE AND HOUSE BUT MORE IMPORTANTLY THESONT TRIAL BECAUSE THERE ARE REPUBLICAN SENATORS UP TO REELECTION IN THE SWING STATES YOU LOOK AT. I DON’T KNOW IF YOU SPECIFICALLY LOOKED AT PLACES LIKE NORTH CAROLINA OR SAIR ZONA. BUT THOSE ARE TWO STATES THAT COME TO MINDON THE TOP OF MY HEAD BR REPUBLICAN SENATORS, I COULD SEETHEM BEING SWAYED IF THEY WERE UNDER ENORMOUS PRESSURE TO CONVICT THE PRESIDENT. BUT WE DON’T SEE THAT RIGHT NOW. >> NO. WE SEE TWO POLLS CONDUCTED AND BOTH UNDER WATER. >> AS THE REPUBLICANS WERE THROWING OUT PROCEDURAL MOTIONS AND TRYING TO MAKE SURE IT’S NOTPAUSED, I PUT MYSELF IN THE SHOES OF SOMEONE WALKING BY A TVOR TUNE INTO CNN, SAW THEM BICKERING AND GOING I COULD IMAGINE JUST GOING CONGRESS, WASHINGTON, JUST PARTISAN FIGHTS, AND I THINK THAT UNDERMINES THE CASE DEMOCRATS WERE TRYING TO MAKE WHICH IS THIS IS SERIOUS. THIS IS AN ESSENTIAL THING FOR CONGRESS. WE SHOULD PUT THAT ASIDE. TODAY’S HEARING IS A WAY FOR THEM TO MAKE THAT CASE BY HAVINGCONSTITUTIONAL EXPERTS COME IN AND AGREE WITH THEM. PUT THEN YOU LOOK AT THE TV SCREEN AND YOU SEE BOTH BICKERING AND ARGUING. AND THAT UNDERMINES THE DECISION POLITICAL ON DEMOCRATS’ PART. >> IF YOU SEE ME LOOKING OVER TOTHE SIDE THE WITNESSES ARE BACK. BUT WE’RE WAITING FOR CHAIRMAN NADLER TO RETURN BACK. . >>> THE COMMITTEE WILL COME BACK TO ORDER AFTER THE RECESS. HE NOW RECOGNIZES THE RANGING MEMBER PURSUANT, AND THE RANKINGMEMBER AND HIS COUNCIL HAVE 45 MUN TOOTS QUESTION THE WISS. THE RANKING MEMBER. >> THANK YOU, CHAIRMAN. BEFORE I BEGIN, I WANT TO REVISIT A QUESTION MADE PIE YOU. A DEMANDBY HEARING DAY. AND YOU SAID YOU’LL RULE ON IT LATER. WE DON’T HAVE A RULE ON THIS. AND IT GOES AGAINST THE MAJORITY OF EXCLUDING THE VIEW AND RULES.WE CALL THE THE FAIR AND BALANCE RULES. IT’S NOT THAT WE DESIRE THE RULE OR IF IT’S SUFFICIENT OR IF WE SAY OR THINK IS ACCEPTABLE. IT IS THE CHAIRMAN’S RIGHT NOT TO VIOLATE WITH THE RIGHT TO CONDUCT A HEARING, AND I COMMEND HIM FOR BRINGING THAT FORWARD AND LOOK FORWARD TO THAT SCHEDULE AND YOUGETTING THAT SCHEDULED EXPEDITIOUSLY. MOVING ON. NOW WE HIT PHASE 2. YOU HAD ONE SIDE, AND I WILL HAVE TO SAY WASELOQUENTLY ARGUED NOT ONLY THE COUNSEL BUT WITNESSES INVOLVED. BUT IT’S ALWAYS A PHASE 2, AND THIS WOULD BE ONE OF THE MOST DISPUTED IMPEACHMENTS ON JUST THE FACTS THEMSELVES. WHAT WAS INTERESTING WE SHOWED VIDEO OF WITNESSES. ONE I BELIEVE WAS ANOPENING STATEMENT WHICH OUTSIDE OF YOUR RESUME IS AN OPENING STATEMENT BECAUSE IT’S UNCHALLENGED, AND I AGREE WITH THAT. AND WE HAD WINS TO TALK ABOUT THIS. WE DIDN’T TALK ANYTHING ABOUT KIRK DOING ANYTHING ABOUT IT AND MORRISON, AND I DON’T RESPECT THE MAJORITYBECAUSE THAT’S NOT WHAT THEY’RE HERE FOR. AND THERE’S EVIDENCE BEING WITHHELD THAT HAS NOT COME TO THIS COMMITTEE, AND WE’VE NOTGOT THE UNDERLYING STUFF COMING FROM THAT INVESTIGATION THAT WE BELIEVE WE’RE SUPPOSED TO GO. 1 BEING AN IMPORTANT PART OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL. I SEE THE INSPECTOR GENERAL, HIS TESTIMONYIS STILL BEING HELD, AND IT’S A QUOTE SECRET ON IT. AND LAST TIME I CHECKED, WE HAVE PLENTY OF PLACES IN THIS BUILD ASKING OTHER BUILDING TO HOLE PLASIFIED INFORMATION. IF IT’S BEEN HELD,AND HAVE TO BELIEVE IT’S A REASON IT’S BEING WIT HELD, SO ANYBODY IN A MEETING OR FIRST 45 MINUTES OF US GOING THROUGH HAS PAINTED AN INTERESTINGPICTURE GOING BACK THE FIRST FEW YEARS AND PICKING APART WHAT WE SAID. BUT PROFESSOR TURLEY YOU’RE WELL RESTED, AND YOU GOT ONE QUESTIONYOU WERE ASKED YES OR NO AND NOT GIVEN TEE LABORATE. BUT I WANT TO START THIS. LET JUS DO THIS. ELABORATE IF IF YOU WOULD BECAUSE YOU TRIED TO, AND THEN IF IT’S ANYTHING YOU DISAGREE WITH OR HAVE AN INTEREST ON, I WILL ALLOW YOU TIME TO TALK. BITE WAY, JUST FOR FRAIG, THIS IS THE COLDEST HEARING ROOM IN THE WORLD, AND ALSO FOR THOSE WHO IS UNCOMFORTABLE AND UP SET,I’M HAPPY AS A LOG THAT THIS CHAIR IS TERRIBLE. I MEAN, IT IS AMAZING. BUT MR. TURLEY, GO AHEAD. >> IT WAS A CHALLENGE TO THINK OF ANYTHING I WASN’T ABLE TO COVER IN MY ROBUST EXCHANGE WITH COUNSEL. BUT I WOULD LIKE TO TRY. >> GO RIGHT AHEAD.>> IT IS A COUPLE OF THINGS I WANT TO HIGHLIGHT. I WON’T TAKEA GREAT DEAL OF TIME. I RESPECT MY COLLEAGUES. I KNOW ALL OF THEM. I CONSIDER THEM FRIENDS AND CERTAINLY RESPECT WHAT THEY SAY TODAY. WE HAVE FUNDAMENTAL DISAGREEMENT. I WOULD LIKE TO START WITH THE ISSUE OF BRIBERY. THE STATEMENT HAS BEEN MADE AND NOT JUST BY THESE WITNESSES, BY CHAIRMAN AND OTHERS, THAT THIS IS A CLEAR CASE OF BRIBERY. IT’S NOT, AND THE CHAIRMAN SAID IT WOULDN’T FIT TODAY’S VIEW OF BROIBRY, BUTIT WOULD FROM THE 1THSONTRY. NOW PUTTING ASIDE ORIGINALISM, ITHINK IF I COME FROM HIS HIM, IT WOULD BE A BRIEF ONE. BRIBERY WASN’T REALLY DEFINED UNTIL MUCH LATER. IT WAS NO BRIBERY STATUTE. AND THAT IS CERTAINLY TRUE, BUT AN OBVIOUSLY HAD A MEANING. THAT’S WHY THEY PUT IT IN THIS IMPORTANT STANDARD. IT’S NOT WHAT HE INDICATED. QUITE THE CONTRARY. THE ORIGINAL STANDARD WAS TREEZRY AND BRIBERY THAT LEDMASON TO OBJECT THAT IT WAS TOO NARROW. IT BRIBERY CAN CONCLUDEIF YOU DID ANYTHING FOR PERSONAL INTEREST AND NOT PUBLIC INTERESTAND OVERAFTER DEFINITION, THAT EXCHANGE WOULD HAVE BEEN COMPLETELY USELESS. THEY DIDN’T DISAGREE WITH MASON’S VIEW THAT BRIBERY WAS TOO NARROW. WHAT THEY DISAGREED WITH IS THAT HE SUGGESTED ADMINISTRATION TO ADD TO THE STANDARD BECAUSE HE WANTED IT TO BE BROADER, AND WHAT JAMES MADISON SAID WAS THATTOO BROAD, THAT THAT WOULD ESSENTIALLY CREATE A VOTE OF NO CONFIDENCE IN ENGLAND. IT WOULD ALLOW CONGRTSS TO TOTS OUT A PRESIDENT THEY DIDN’T LIKE. ONCE AGAIN THEY’RE CHANNELING THE INTENT OF THE FRAMERS, AND THAT’S ALWAYS A DANGEROUS THING TO DO. THE ONLY MORE DANGEROUS SPOT TO STAND IN IS BETWEEN CONGRESS AND AN IMPEACHMENT AS AN ACADEMIC. BUT I WOULD OFFER INSTEAD THE WORD OF THE FRAMERS THEMSELVES. YOU SEE, IN THAT EXCHANGE, THEY DIDN’T JUST SAY BRIBERY WAS TOO NARROW. THEY ACTUALLY GAVE AN EXAMPLE OF BRIBERY. AND IT WAS NOTHING LIKE DESCRIBED. WHEN THE OBJECTION WAS MADE BY MASON, I’MSORRY BY MADISON, ULTIMATELY, THE FRAMERS AGREED. AND THEN MORRIS WHO WAS REFERRED TO EARLIER, DID SAY WE NEED TO DOPTA STANDARD, BUT WHAT WAS LEFT OUT WAS WHAT CAME AFTERWARDS. WHAT MOORE SAID WAS THAT WE NEED TO PROTECT AGAINST BRIBERY BECAUSE WE DON’T WANT ANYTHING LIKE WHAT HAPPENED WITH LOUIS THE 14TH AND CHARLES THE 2ND. HE GAVE BRIBERY AS ACCEPTING MONEY AS THE HEAD OF STATE. SO WHAT HAPPENED IN THE EXAMPLE THAT HE GAVE, AN EXAMPLE OF BRIBERY WAS THAT LOUIS THE 14TH WAS A RECIDIVOUS WHEN IT CAME TO BRIBES, AND IT INCLUDED A FRENCH MISSTRESS IN EXCHANGE FOR THE SECRET TREATY OF DOVER OF 1670 AND AN EXCHANGE FOR HIS CHANGE TO CUMP THOLISM. IF YOU TAKE A LOOK AT THE 21ST CENTURY, BRIBERY IS WELL DEFINED. YOU SHOULDN’T JUST TAKE OUR WORD FOR IT. YOU SHOULD LOOK HOW IT’S DEFINED TO THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT. IN A CASE CALLEDMCDONALD’S OF THE UNITED STATES, THEY LOOKED AT A PRODUCTION CORRUPTION BRIBERY CASE. IT WAS WHERE BENEFITS WERE RECEIVED ANDBENEFITS EXTENDED. IT WAS A COMPLETION. IT WAS NOT HYPOTHETICAL THAT WAS NOT FULFILLED OR AN ACTION NOT ACTUALLY TAKEN. THE SUPREME COURT UNANIMOUSLY OVERTURNED THAT CONVICTION, UNANIMOUSLY. AND WHAT THEY SAID WAS THAT YOU CANNOT TAKE THE BRIBERY CRIME AND USE WHAT THEY CALLED A BOUNDLESS INTERPRETATION. ALL THE JUSTICES SAID THAT IT’S A DANGEROUS THING TO TAKE A CRIME LIKE THE BRIBERY AND APPLY A BOUNDLESS INTERPRETATION. THEY REJECTED THE NOTION FOR EXAMPLE THAT BRIBERY COULD BE USED IN SETTING UP MEETINGS AND OTHER TYPES OF THINGS THAT OCCUR IN THE COURSE OF A PUBLIC SERVICE CAREER. SO WHAT I WOULD CAUTION THE COMMITTEE IS THAT THESE CRIMES HAVE MEANING. IT GIVES ME NO JOY TO DISAGREE WITH MY COLLEAGUES HERE. I REALLY DON’T HAVE A DOG IN THIS FIGHT. BUT YOU CAN’T ACCUSE A PRESIDENT OF BRIBERY, AND THEN WHEN SOME OF US NOTE THAT THE SUPREME COURT HAS REJECTED YOUR TYPE OF BOUNDLESS INTERPRETATION AND SAY WELL, IT’S JUST IMPEACHMENT, WE DON’T HAVE TO PROVE THE ELEMENTS, IT’S A FAVORITE MONTRUTHAT SERVES CLOSE ENOUGH FOR JAZZ. WELL, THIS ISN’T IMPROVIZATIONAL JAZZ. IF YOU ACCUSE A PRESIDENT OF BRIBERY, YOU HAVE TO MAKE IT STICK BECAUSE YOU’RE TRYING TO REMOVE A DULY ELECTED PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES. IT’S UP FAIR TO ACCUSE SOMEONE OF A CRIME AND OTHER SAY THOSE INTERPRETATIONS ARE USED TO DEFINE THE CRIME AND SAY THEY’RE NOT VALID AND SAY THEY DON’T HAVE TO BE VALID BECAUSE THIS IS IMPEACHMENT, THAT HAS NOT BEEN THE STANDARD HISTORICALLY. MY TESTIMONY LAYS OUT THE CRIMINAL ALLEGATIONS IN THE PREVIOUS IMPEACHMENTS. THOSE WERE NOT JUST PROVEN CRIMES. THEY WERE ACCEPTED CRIMES THAT IF EVEN THEDEMOCRATS ON THAT JUDICIARY COMMITTEE AGREED THAT BILL CLINTON HAD COMMITTED PERJURY. THAT’S ON THE RECORD, AND A FEDERAL JUDGE LATER SAID IT WAS PERJURY. IN THE CAS OF NIXON, THE CRIMES WERE ESTABLISHED. NO ONE DISAGREED WITH THOSE CRIMES. NOW JOHNSON WAS A TRAP DOOR CRIME. THEY CREATED A CRIME KNOWING THAT JOHNSON WANTED TO REPLACE IT. AND JOHNSON DID WAS BECAUSE THEY HAD SERIOUS TROUBLEIN THE CABINET. SO THEY CREATED A TRAP-DOOR CRIME, WAITED FOR HIM TO FIRE THE SANCTION OF WAR. IT’S NO QUESTION HE COMMITTED THE CRIME. IT’S JUST THE UNDERLYING STATUTE IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL. I WOULD NOT ONLY DO IT FOR CRIME. I’M SORRYRANKLE MEMBER. >> NO. YOU’RE DOING A GOOD JOB.GO AHEAD. >> AND I WOULD QUESTION MEANING.IT HAS ELEMENTS AND CONTROL UP CASE AUTHORITY. THE RECORD DOESNOT ESTABLISH ABOUT STRUCK IN THIS CASE THAT WHAT MY SAME COLLEAGUE SAID WAS CERTAINLY TRUE. IF YOU ACCEPT ALL OF THEIR PRESUMPTION, IT WOULD BE OBSTRUCTION. BUT IMPEACHMENT HAS TO BE BASED ON PROOF, NOT PRESUMPTION. THAT’S THE PROBLEM, WHEN YOU MOVE TOWARD IMPEACHMENT ON THIS ABBREVIATED SCHEDULE THAT HAS NOT BEEN EXPLAINED TO ME THAT YOU WANT TO SET THE RECORD FOR FAST IMPEACHMENT. THAT’S NOT GOOD, FAST IMPEACHMENT. NARROW, FAST IMPEACHMENT HAS BEEN SOMETHING THAT FAILED. JUST ASK JOHNSON. SO HERE’S MY CONCERN, THE THEORY PUT FORWARD IS THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP OBSTRUCTED CONGRESS BY NOT TURNING OVER MATERIAL REQUESTED BY THE COMMITTEE, AND CITATIONS HAVE BEEN MADE TO THE THIRD ARTICLE OF THE NIXON IMPEACHMENT. I WANT TO CONFESS THAT I’VE BEEN IN THE THIRD ARTICLE OF IMPEACHMENT MY WHOLE LIFE. MY HAIR CATCHES ON FIRE EVERY TIME SOMEONE MENTIONS THE THIRD ARTICLE. WHY? YOU WOULD BE REP LITHING THE ARTICLES WRITTEN ON IMPEACHMENT. HERE’S THE REASON WHY. PETER’S REASON FOR CHAIRMAN OF JUDICIARY IS THAT CONGRESS ALONE DECIDES WHAT INFORMATION MAY BE GIVEN TO HIM,ALONE. HIS POSITION WAS THAT THE COURTS HAVE NO ROLE IN THIS.AND SO IF ANY, BY THAT THEORY, ANY REFUSAL BY A PRESIDENT BASEDON EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE OR IMMUNITIES WOULD BE A BASIS OF IMPEACHMENT. THAT IS THE THEORY THEY REPLICATED TODAY. PRESIDENT TRUMP HAS GONE TO THE COURTS. HE’S ALLOWED TO DO THAT. WE HAVE THREE BRANCHES, NOT TWO. I HAPPEN TO AGREE WITHSOME OF YOUR CRITICISM ABOUT PRESIDENT TRUMP INCLUDING MY COLLEAGUES SAYING THERE’S HIS ARTICLE TOO, AND HE GIVES HIS OVERRIDING INTERPRETATION. I SHARE THAT CRITICISM. YOU’RE DOING THE SAME THING WITH ARTICLE 1. YOU’RE SAYING THAT ARTICLE 1 GIVES COMPLETE AUTHORITY THAT ITMUST BE TURNED OVER BUT WE’LL UMPEACH YOU IN RECORD TIME. BUTMAKING THAT WORSE IS THAT IT’S SUCH A SHORT INVESTIGATION. IT’S A PERFECT STORM. YOU SET AN INCREDIBLY SHORT PERIOD, DEMAND A HUGE AMOUNT OF INFORMATION, AND WHEN THE PRESIDENT GOES TO COURT, YOU THEN IMPEACH HIM. NOW, DOES THAT TRACK WITH WHAT YOU’VE HEARD ABOUT IMPEACHMENT? DOES THAT TRACK WITH THE RULE OF LAW THAT WE TALKED ABOUT? SO ON UPOBSTRUCTION I WOULD ENCOURAGE YOU TO THINK ABOUT THIS. IN NIXON, IT DID GO TO THE COURTS, AND NIXON LOST. AND THAT WAS THE REASON NIXON RESIGNED. HE RESIGNED A FEW DAYS AFTER THE SUPREME COURT RULED AGAINST HIM IN THAT CRITICAL CASE. BUT IN THAT CASE, THE COURT RECOGNIZED THAT THERE ARE EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE ARGUMENTS THAT CAN BE MADE. IT DIDN’T SAY YOU HAVE NORIGHT COMING TO US. DON’T DARKEN OUR DOORSTEP AGAIN. IT SAID WE HEARD YOUR ARGUMENTS. WE HEARD CONGRESSS ARGUMENTS, AND YOU HAPPEN WHAT? YOU LOSE. TURN OVER THE MATERIALS TO CONGRESS. WHAT IT DID FOR THE JUDICIARY IS IT GAVE THE BODY LEGITIMACY. IT WASN’T THE EXTREME POSITION THAT ONLY YOU DECIDE WHAT INFORMATION CAN BE PRODUCED. NOW RECENTLY THERE’S?RULINGS AGAINST PRESIDENT TRUMP INCLUDING A RULING INVOLVING DON. MR. CHAIRMAN I TESTIFIED IN FRONT OF YOU A FEW MONTHS AGO, AND AS YOU RECALL, WE HAD AN EXCHANGE, AND HE ENCOURAGED YOU TO BRING THE ACTIONS. I SAID I THINK YOU WOULD WIN. I THINK IT’S AN IMPORTANT WIN BECAUSE I DON’T AGREE WITH PRESIDENT TRUMP’S ARGUMENTS IN THAT CASE. BUT THAT’S AN EXAMPLE OF WHAT CAN HAPPEN IF YOU ACTUALLY SUBPOENA WITNESSES AND GO TO COURT THEN YOU HAVE AN OBSTRUCTION CASE BECAUSE THE COURT ISSUES AN ORDER, AND UNLESS THEY STATE THAT ORDER BY A HIGHER COURT, YOU UNINSTRUCTION. BUT I CAN’T EMPHASIZE THIS ENOUGH, AND I’LL SAY IT JUST 1 MORE TIME. IF YOUIMPEACH A PRESIDENT, IF YOU MAKE A HIGH CRIME AND MISDEMEANOR OUTOF GOING TO THE COURTS, IT IS AN ABUSE OF POWER. IT’S YOUR ABUSEOF POWER. YOU’RE DOING PRECISELY WHAT YOU’RE CRITICIZING THE PRESIDENT FOR DOING. WE HAVE A THIRD BRANCH THAT DEALS WITH CONFLICT OF THE OTHER TWO BRANCHES. AND WHAT COMES OUT OF THERE AND WHAT YOU DO WITH IT IS THE VERY DEFINITION OF LEGITIMACY. >> LET’S CONTINUE ON AND UNPACK WHAT YOU’VE BEEN TALKING ABOUT. FIRST THE MCDONALD’S CASE, WERE THEY TORN ABOUT THAT? THAT CASE CAME OUT HOUSE? >> IT CAME OUT UNANIMOUS AND SO DID OTHER CASES I CITED IN MY TESTIMONY THAT REFUTES THESE THEORIES. >> AND ONE THING IT CAN BE SUMMED UP, AND I USE IT IS THAT FACTS DON’T MATTER. THAT’S WHAT I HEARD IN THE 45 MINUTES. THE FACTS THIS, BUT IT RISES TO IMPEACHMENT LEVEL. I THINK YOURWORDS WERE SCRIMEZ MEANINGS. AND I THINK THIS IS THE CONCERN I HAVE. IS THERE A CONCERN THAT IF WE SAY FACTS DON’T MATTER, WEARE, AS YOU SAID, ABUSING OUR POWER AND LOOKING WHAT PEOPLE DEEM AS AN IMPEACHABLE OFFENSE? >> I THINK SO. AND PART OF THE PROBLEM IS THAT TO BRING ARTICLES, YOU HAVE TO CONTRADICTTHE POSITION OF PRESIDENT OBAMA. PRESIDENT OBAMA WITHHELD EVIDENCE FROM CONGRESS AND FAST AND FURIOUS, AN INVESTIGATION AND RATHER MORONIC PROGRAM THAT LED TO THE DEATH OF A FEDERAL AGENT. PRESIDENT OBAMA GAVE A SWEEPING ARGUMENT THAT HE WAS NOT ONLY GOING TO GIVE EVIDENCE TO THIS BODY BUT THAT A COURT HAD ABSOLUTELY NO ROLE IN DETERMINING WHETHER HE COULD WITHHOLD THE EVIDENCE. >> I HAVE A QUESTION ON THAT. SO YOU BROUGHT UP MR. OBAMA AND OTHERS IN OFFICE, WE’LL USE PRESIDENT TRUMP, CLINTON, ANYWAY, IS IT OTHERS THAT CONSTI CONSTIITUTE WHEN GIVEN OR ACCUSED OF SOMETHING ORA CRIME OR ANYTHING EL? >> YES. I THINK PRESIDENT OBAMAHAS INVOKED TOO BROADLY, BUT ON THE OTHER HAND, HE RELEASED A LOT OF INFORMATION. I’VE BEEN FRIENDS WITH BILL BARB FOR A LONG TIME. WE DISAGREE WITH EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE. I’M A MAN OF SCHOLAR. I TEND TO HAVE DISPUTES. HE’S THE OPPOSITE. MY NATURAL DEFENSE IS ARTICLE ONE AND HIS ARTICLE 2. THE TRANSCRIPT WOULD BE CORE EXECUTIVE MATERIALS. NO QUESTION ABOUT THAT.>> AND I THINK THAT’S SOMETHING NOT POINTED OUT WHEN YOU’RE DOING A BACK AND FORTH LIKE WE’RE DOING. THE TRANSCRIPT OF THE CALL RELEASE ASKED THING FROM THE MUELLER. WE GO BACK THRUG THIS, AND IT HAS BEEN WORK IN PROGRESS OF THIS ADMINISTRATION. I THINK THE INTERESTING POINT I WANT TO TALKABOUT IS TWO THINGS. CONGRESS ABUSE OF ITS OWN POWER, EVEN INTERNALLY WHERE WE HAD COMMITTEES NOT WILLING TO LET MEMBERS SEE TRANSCRIPTS, NOT WILLING TO GIVE THOSE UNDER THE GUISE OF IMPEACHMENT AND YOU SHOULDN’T BE ABLE TO SEE HIM EVEN THOUGH THE RULES OF THE HOUSE WERE NEVER INVOKED TO STOPTHAT. I WANT TO SEE SOMETHING BEFORE WE MOVE ON IS THE TIMING ISSUE. I BELIEVE WE TALKED ABOUT THIS BEFORE WE TALKED ABOUT EVERYTHING ELSE. THIS IS 1 OF THE FASTEST. I SAID THIS EARLIER. WE’RE ON A CLOCK. THE CLOCK IN THE CALENDAR IS IRREGARDLESS OF WHAT ANYBODY ON THIS COMMITTEE. AND ESPECIALLY MEMBERS ON THIS COMMITTEE SEE IN FACT WITNESSES MOVING FORWARD. WE DON’T HAVE THAT YET. SO THE QUESTION BECOMES IS AN ELECTION PENDING WHEN FACTS ARE DISPUTED. THIS IS ONE FACTS ARE NOT UNANIMOUS. IT’S NOT UNIVERSAL AND BIPARTISAN AGREEMENT ON WHATTHE FACTS LEAD TO. IT’S NOT BEEN PRESENTED, NOT IN THE SHIP REPORT BUT OTHER REPORTS. DOES IT BOTHER YOU NOT ONLY IN THE PAST BUT MOVING FORWARD AS WELL? >> YES. FAST AND NARROW IS NOT AGOOD RECIPE FOR IMPEACHMENT. THAT’S THE CASE WITH JOHNSON ANDCLINTON. THEY TEND NOT TO SURVIVE. THEY TEND TO COLLAPSE UNDER THE SENATE. IT’S LIKE BUILDINGS. AND THIS IS THE HIGHEST STRUCTURE YOU CAN BUILD UNDER THE CONSTITUTION. YOU WANT TO BUILD AN IMPEACHMENT, YOU HAVE TO HAVE A BROAD FOUNDATION TO SUPPORT IT. YOU CAN ARGUE WITH JOHNSON. JOHNSONMIGHT BE THE FASTEST IMPEACHMENT. WHAT HAPPENED JOHNSON WAS THE 4TH IMPEACHMENT ATTEMPT AGAINST CONGEN, AND ACTUALLY IT GOES BACK A YEAR BEFORE. THEY LAID THE TRAP DOORA YEAR BEFORE. IT WAS NOT THE FASTEST IT MADE IT OUT AS IT MIGHT APOOR. >> I WANT TO GO BACK TO SOMETHING ELSE. YOU TALK ABOUT BRIBERY. MS. TAYLOR WILL ADDRESS A GOOD BIT OF THAT. I WANT TO GO BACK BECAUSE IT BOTHERS THE PERCEPTION OF WHAT’S GOING ON HERE. THE CALL HAS BEEN LAID OUT THERE. THE PRESIDENT SAID I DON’T WANT NOTHING. AND IT’S NOT PRESENTED IN THE LAST 45 MINUTES. BUT IT’S ONE THING INTERESTED, AND IT’S BEEN REPORTED IN MAINSTREAMMEDIA, AND IT GOES BACK TO DECRIMES MATTER. THE MAJORITY ACCUSED THE PRESIDENT, AND THEY SAY QUIT PRO FUO, AND THEN REPORTED POLITICAL FOCUS GROUP TO DETERMINE WHETHER THE FOCUS GROUP POLL WELL. IT DIDN’T POLL WELL. THEY DETERMINED TO CHANGETHE CASE TO BRIBERY. DOES THAT NOT FIT MORE INTO HOW THE CRIME MATTERS AND FACTS DO MATTER IN A CASE OR AT LEAST SHOULD MATTER? >> IT DOES. THERE’S A REASON WHY AFTER YOU PASS IMPEACHMENT HAVE ESTABLISHED CRIMES. IT’S NOT THAT YOU CANT IMPEACH ON A NONCRIME. YOU CAN. IN FACT, NONCRIMES HAVE BEEN PART OF PASTIMPEACHMENT. IT’S JUST THAT THEY HAVEN’T GONE UP ALONE OR ASA BASIS IN IMPEACHMENT. THAT’S THE PROBLEM. IF YOU PROVE A QUID PRO QUO, YOU MIGHT HAVE AN IMPEACHMENT OFFENSE, BUT TO GO UP AGAINST A NONIMPEACHMENT OFFENSE IS THE FIRST ONE IN HISTORY. WHY IS THAT INTHEY HAVE CASE LAWS. SO THERE’S A CONCRETE INDEPENDENT BODY OF LAW THAT ASSURES THE PUBLIC THAT THIS IS NOT JUST POLITICAL. THAT THIS IS A PRESIDENT WHO DIDSOMETHING THEY COULD NOT DO. YOU KEPT A SAY THE PRESIDENT IS ABOVE THE LAW. IF YOU SAY THE CRIMES YOU ACCUSE HIM OF DON’T HAVE TO BE ESTABLISHED. >> I THINK THAT’S WHAT MEMBERS OF THE HOUSE AND BODY AND PUBLIC SAY YOU DEFINED THE FACTS TO WHAT YOU WANT TO HAVE. THAT’S THE RAILROAD EVERYONE SHOULD NOTBE AFFORDED. EVERYONE IS AFFORDED DUE PROCESS AND FOR THEIR CASE TO BE HEARD. THAT’S THE PROBLEM Y IN THE COMMITTEE. WE VOTED WE’RE NOT GOING TO LOOK AT OTHER FACT WITNESSES AND PROMISED OTHERS IN THE COMMITTEE. AND WORDS ECHOED FROM THE CHAIRMAN WHERE HE DIDN’T WANT TO TAKE THE ADVICE OF A BODY AND GIVING US A REPORT AND ACTING AS A RUBBER STAMP IF WE DIDN’T DO THIS. JUST A REMINDER. IT WAS ALMOST TWO ANDA HALF WEEKS BEFORE THIS KIND OF DISCUSSION BEFORE THE HEARING BACK THEN TOOK PLACE. THESE ARE THE KIND OF THINGS IF TIMING GOES ON, I THINK THE AVENUE ASPOINT IS THAT TIMING IS BECOMING MORE OF THE ISSUE BECAUSE OF THE CONCERN AS STATEDBF ABOUT ELECTS. THEY’RE MORE CERPD ABOUT TRYING TO FIT THE FACTS IN THAN WHAT THE PRESIDENT DID OR PRESUMABLY DID. THE PRABIS THE TIMING, THE DEFINITION OF FACTS AND DEFINE BY THE SUPREME COURT IS NOT FITTING WHAT THEY NEED TO DO. THE ISSUE WE HAVE TO DEAL WITH GOING FORWARD IS NOW THE RUSH. WHY DON’T WE HAVEINFORMATION FROM THE INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE? WHY IS THE REPORT BEING WITHHELD, EVEN IN A NONCLASS, THESE ARE THE PROBLEMS YOU NOW HIGHLIGHTED. AND THIS IS WHY THE NEXT 45 MINUTES AND THE REST OF THE DAY WILL BE APPLICABLE. BECAUSE BOTH SIDES MATTER, AND THIS IS THE FASTEST IMPEACHMENT AND FASTEST WE’VE SEEN BASED ON DISPUTED FACT WITH FACTS TO FIT EACH PART. WITH THAT, I’LL TURN IT OVER TO MY COUNSEL MR. TAYLOR. >> PROFESSOR TURLEY, I WOULD LIKE TO TURN OVER TO THE SUBJECT OF PARTISANSHIP, AND THEY WERE CONCERNED WHEN IT CAME TO IMPEACHMENT. HE WROTE IMPRESSIVE WORDS ON PAGE 65 IN RATIFICATION FOR THE CONSTITUTION, THEY LAID OUT THE REASONS MADISON AND HAMILTON THOUGHT THE IMPEACHMENT CLAUSE WAS NECESSARY, BUT HE ALSO FLAGGED CONCERNS. HE SAID IN MANY CASES OF IMPEACHMENT IT WILL CONNECT ITSELF WITH THE PREEXISTING FACTIONS, AND INTRODUCE PARTIALALITY, INFLUENCE ON ONE SIDE, AND IN SUCH CASES, IT WILL AULDS BE THE GREATER DANGER THAT THE DECISIONWILL BE REGULATED MORE BY THE COMPARATIVE STRENGTH OF PARTIES AND INNOCENCE OR GUILT. PROFESSOR TURLEY DO YOU THINK THEY PREDUCTED A REAL DANGER OF BIPARTISAN IMPEACHMENT? >> IT IS CERTAINLY TO BE THE CASE AND WHAT WE’VE SEEN. IT ISIMPORTANT TO NOTE THAT WE OFTEN THINK OUR TIME IS UNIQUE. THIS PROVISION WASN’T WRITTEN FOR TIMES LIKE OURS. IT WAS WRITTENFOR TIMES LIKE OURS. YOU HAVE TO KEEP IN MIND JEFFERSON REFERRED TO THE REIGN OF THE WITCHES. THIS WAS NOT A PERIOD WHERE PEOPLE DIDN’T HAVE A STRONG FEEL FEELINGS, AND WHEN PEOPLE TALK ABOUT THE MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE WANTING TO KILL EACH OTHER, BACK THEN THEY WERE ACTUALLY TRYING TO KILL EACH OTHER. THAT’S WHAT THE SEDITION LAW WAS, YOU WERE TRYING TO KILLPEOPLE WHO DISAGREED WITH YOU. THEY DIDN’T HAVE A WHOLE SLEW OFPEOPLE. THEY KNEW NOT TO DO IT. I THINK THAT’S A LESSON THAT CANBE TAKEN FROM THAT PERIOD. THE FRAMERS CREATED A STANDARD THAT WOULD NOT BE ENDLESSLY FLUID AND FLEXIBLE, AND THAT KEPT US FROM IMPEACHMENT DESPITE PERIODS IN WHICH WE REALLY DESPIZEED EACH OTHER. AND I THINK IT’S SO MUCH MORE RAGE THAN REASON. YOU CAN’T TALK ABOUT THE ISSUES WITHOUT PEOPLE SAYING YOU MUST BE IN FAVOR OF THE UKRAINIANS TAKING OVER THE COUNTRY OR RUSSIANS MOVING INTO THE WHITE HOUSE. AT SOME POINT AS A PEOPLE, WE HAVE TO HAVE A SERIOUS DISCUSSION ABOUT THE GROUNDS TO REMOVE A DULY ELECTEDPRESIDENT. >> PROFESSOR TURLEY, YOU SAID WHEN IT COMES TO IMPEACHMENT, WE DON’T NEED HAPPY WARRIORS BUT ANALYSIS. LET’S TAKE A LOOK ON WHICH UMPEACHMENT IS BEING WAGED. I MEAN, THE DEMOCRATS PUSHING HIS IMPEACHMENT REPRESENTS THE FAR LEFT OF THE COUNTRIES. IT SHOWS COUNTIES, AND THE COLOR OF THE BARS SHOW THE VICTORY FOR WINNER IN THE PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION IN 2016. YOU SEE THE FOR THE DEMOCRATIC LEADERS THAT VOTED OVERWHELMING FORCLIPTEN IN THE LAST PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION. ALSO DURING THE LAST PRESIDENTIAL ELECT, LAWYERED PRESIDENTIAL ELECTIONS, 3% FOR CLINTON AND 3% FOR TRUMP. NOW PROFESSOR, I WOULD LIKE TO TURN TO THE PROCESS THAT DEFINED THE IMPEACHMENT SERIES. >> THIS IS HOW IT WAS DEFINED IN THE 1974 STAFF REPORT. YOU WERETALKING ABOUT THE INITIATION OF THE IMPEACHMENT INQUERIES. IT WAS NOT PARTISON BUT SUPPORTED BY THE OVERWHELMING JOURNEY OF THE POLITICAL PARTIES, AND IT WAS. REGARDING THE CLINTON INQUIRY, IT WAS SUPPORTED BY 31 DEMOCRATS. NOW, THE DRIVE WAS SUBSEQUENTLY APPROVED BY DEMOCRATS, 2 DEMOCRATS AND ALL REPUBLICANS. HOW DOES THIS SHOWHOW THE FOUNDERS SHOWED HOW IMPEACHMENT SHOULD OPERATE? >> I THINK THE FOUNDERS HAD ASPIRATIONS THAT WE WOULD COME TOGETHER AS A PEOPLE, BUT THEY DIDN’T HAVE ANY DELUSIONS. IT CERTAINLY WAS THOUGHT SOMETHING THEY ICHIVED IN THEIR OWN LIFETIME. ALTHOUGH YOU’D BE SURPRISED THAT THE FRAMERS AT THE END OF THEIR LIFE,RICENED SIDE RECONCILEED. I THINK ONE IS RARELY DISCUSSED THAT IS MOST SIGNIFICANT. ADAMS AND JEFFERSON WANTED TO RECONCILE BEFORE THEY DIED, AND THEY MET, AND THEY DID. MAYBE THAT’S SOMETHING WE CAN LEARN FROM. BUT I THINK THE GREATER THING I WOULD POINT TO IS THE SEVEN REPSIN THE JOHNSON IMPEACHMENT. IF I COULD JUST READ ONE THING TO YOU. AND EVERYONE TALKS ABOUT THE SENATORS BUT NOT THIS ONE. HE BECAME A GREAT ADVOCATE FOR VIVLLIBERTY. YOU HAVE TO UNDERSTAND WHEN IT WAS SAID THAT THEY JUMPED INTO THEIR POLITICAL GRAVES, IT WAS TRUE. MOST OF THEIR POLITICAL CAREERSENED. THEY KNEW IT WOULD END BECAUSE OF THE ANIMOSITY OF THE PERIOD. TRUMBLE SAID THE FOLLOWING. IMPEACHING A PRESIDENT FOR WHAT WHEN THE EXCITEMENT OF THE HOUR SHALL BE SUBSIDED. NO FUTURE PRESIDENT SHALL BE SAFE S FROM THE HOUSE AND NO ALTERNATIVES ARE LEFT TO ME, AND HE PROCEEDED TO GIVE THE VOTE THAT ENDED HIS CAREER. YOUCAN’T WAIT FOR CALMER TIMES. THE TIME FOR YOU IS NOW. AND I WOULD SAY WHAT HE SAID HAS MORE BEARING TODAY BECAUSE I BELIEVE THIS IS MUCH LIKE THE JOHNSON IMPEACHMENT. IT’S MANUFACTURED UP TILL YOU BUILD A RECORD. I’M NOT SAYING YOU CANT BUILD A RECORD, BUT YOU CAN’T DO IT LIKE THIS. AND YOU KEPT AN IMPEACH APRESIDENT LIKE THIS. >> NOW, THERE’S AN IMPEACHMENT BOOK, AND THEY DISCUSS TO BE AN IMPEACHMENT PROCESS. IT’S ANTI- TRUMP. AND IT STATES THE FOLLOWING. WHEN IT IS BIPARTISAN OR APPEARS THATWAY, IT IS ILLEGITIMATE. IT IS A REASON ANALYSTS HAVE OVER TAKEN METHODS OF PARTIALTY. AND WE CAN EXPECT THE OPPOSITION LEADERS WILL BE PUSHED TO IMPEACH AND SUFFER BLOW BACK IF THEY DON’T. THE QUESTION IS WILL THEY CAVE TO THE PRESSURE. THE HOUSE WILL TAKE BIPARTISAN IMPEACHMENT, SOMETHING THAT IS DISASTROUS AS A WHOLE. IS THAT BEING FOLLOWED BY HOUSE DEMOCRATS? >> NOT ON THIS SCHEDULE. I LAIDOUT IN IMPEACHMENT, WHAT COMES OUT IN WHAT OCCURRED, IS THAT IMPEACHMENT REQUIRES CERTAIN SATURATION AND MATURATION. THATTHE PUBLIC HAS TO CATCH UP. I’M NOT SAYING WHAT YOUR RECORD WOULD SHOW. BUT IF YOU HAVE THIS IMPEACHMENT, YOU WILL LEAVEIT BEHIND. THAT’S NOT WHAT THE FRAMERS WANTED. YOU HAVE TO — YOU’RE TRYING TOREMOVE THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES. THAT TAKES TIME AND WORK. BUT IF YOU LOOK, THE PUBLIC DID CATCH UP. THEY CHANGED THEIR MY. YOU CHANGED THEIR MIND AND SO DID BY THE WAY, THE COURTS BECAUSE YOU ALLOWED THE ISSUES TO BE HEARD IN THE CURTS. >> WEREFESSOR TURLEY WERE DEBATED SOLIDLY IN THE HIGH CRIMES. IS IT YOUR VIEW THAT NO CREDIBLE EVIDENCE WAS PRESENTED BY PRESIDENT TRUMP? >> YES. I GO THROUGH ALL THE CRIMES MENTIONED. THEY DON’T MEET ANY INTERPRETATION OF THOSECRIMES. I’M RELYING ON EXPRESSED STATEMENT FROM THE FEDERAL COURTS. I UNDERSTAND THAT IT’S OFTEN BROUGHT. IT’S NOT THE CONTROLLING LANGUAGE BUT OF THE TENGEZ OF THE FEDERAL COURTS. AND I THINK ALL THOSE DECISIONS STAND MIGHTILY IN THE WAY OF THESE THEORIES. IF YOU KEPT A MAKE OUT THOSE CRIMES, THEN DON’T CALL IT THAT CRIME. IF IT DOESN’T MATTER, THEN WHAT’S THE POINT? CALL IT TREASON. CALL IT DAINGEERED SPECIES VIOLATION. >> SO THAT WOULD MOVE THEM TO HAVE HIGH MISDEMEANORS.THEY CLEARLY SHOW THAT HIGH MISDEMEANOR WAS REFERRED TO AS ATECHNICAL TERM. IT WASN’T JUST SOMETHING ANY MAJORITY OR BIPARTISAN MEMPER MIGHT THINK IT WAS AT ANY GIVEN TIME. AND THE FIRST BOOK WAS PUBLISHEDIN 1755, AND THEY STILL CITE JOHNSON’S DICTIONARY TO DETERMINE THE PUBLIC’S UNDERSTANDING OF THE CAN STIITUTION. HERE’S HOW THE 1785 DICTION DEFINES HIGH MISDEMEANOR HIGH, OPPOSED TO LITTLE AS HIGH TREASON. DEFINITION OF MISDEMEANOR, SOMETHING LESS THAN AN ATROCIOUS CRIME. AND ATROCIOUS IS WICKED IN THE HIGH DEGREE. SO IF YOU LOOK AT THE TIME IT WAS DEBATED AND RATIFIED. IT WAS LESS THAN AN ATROCIOUS CRIME. AND A HIGH MISDEMEANOR MIGHT BE SOMETHING THAN SOMETHING THAT’S WICKED IN A HIGH DEGREE. NOW, PROFESSOR TURLEY IS HIGH MISDEMEANOR WITH THE FOUNDERS AND PURPOSE OF NARROWING THAT PHRASE TO PREVENT THE SORTS OF ABUSES YOU DESCRIBED? >> IT DID. IF YOU COMPARE THE EXPEDITIOUS CLAUSE, THE WORD DIFFERENT WAS USED FOR A REASON.THEY DIDN’T WANT TO ESTABLISH THAT BROUGHT MEETING. THE PEOPLE OF HIGH CRIME AND MISDEMEANORS, THEY WOULD BE ESERCHALLY IDENTICAL. THAT CLEARLY NOT WHAT THEY WANTED. >> NEXT I WOULD LIKE TO EXPLORE HOW THIS IS BASED ON NO CRIME AND NO FALSE INFORMATION UNLIKE THE NIXON AND CLINTON IMPEACHMENT. FOR YEARS THEY ASKED ABOUT BIDEN’S SON. HE’S THE REPORT FROM JUNE 2019. IT WAS TITLED A MUSIC INVESTIGATION. JOE BIDEN’S SON PROFIT? AND MANY SAW THE VIDEO OF JOE BIDEN TALKING ABOUT GETTING THE UKRAINIAN PROSECUTOR FIRED. AND THEY SAID ONE OF HIS MOST MEMORABLE PERFORMANCES CAME WHEN HE THREATENED TO WITH HOLD BILLIONS OF DOLLARS IF UKRAINE’S TOP LEADERS DIDN’T RELEASE THE PROSECUTORS. ALONG WITH THOSE WHO HAD A STEAK WAS LUNTEN BIDEN. HE WAS ON THE UKRAINIAN OLIGARCH, HE ENGAGED IN NO CRIMES, IF IT LED TO THE INVESTIGATION , HIS POSITION WOULD HAVE BEEN ELIMINATED, AND THAT WAS HIS STAKE IN A POTENTIAL INVOLVING THE COMPANY. AND IN FACT EVEN THE ACTING ATTORNEY GENERAL IN HIS RECENT BOOK ENTITLED IMPEACHED SAYS THE FOLLOWING. IS WHAT HUNTER BIDEN DID WRONG? ABSOLUTELY. HE HAD NO EXPERIENCE IN THE SECTOR WHICH MADE HIM UNQUALIFIED TO SIT ON THE BOARD OF BARISMA. THIS ISN’T ONLY WRONG BUT A POTENTIAL DANGER TO OUR COUNTRY WHICH MAKES IT EASIER FOR THEM A BUY INFLUENCE. NO POWER SHOULD ALLOW A FOREIGN POWER TO CONDUCT THIS KIND OF INFLUENCE PEDALING WITH THEIR FOREIGN MEMBERS. AND LIEUTENANT COLONEL VIDALMAN WAS ASKED. AND HE HAD NO. AND PRESIDENT TRUMP ASKED THE SAME QUESTIONS THE MEDIA WASASKING. NOW, PROFESSOR TURLEY, IS IT YOUR UNDERSTANDING THAT THEY HELPED HIM COVER UP HIS INVOLVEMENT IN A CRIME AND THAT NIXON KNEW OF CRIMINAL ACTS AND TRIED TO CONCEAL THEM? >> IT IS. >> AND IS IT YOUR UNDERSTANDING THAT THE HOUSE IMPEACHMENT OF LYING UNDERDOGETNYING A WOMAN SOWING HIM FOR SEXUAL HARASS FRMENT EVIDENCE HE WAS INDICTED TO? >> THAT’S CORRECT.>> SO IT WAS FALSE INFORMATION IN BOTH THE CLINTON AND NIXON SCAPDLES EITHER BY THE PRESIDENT HIMSELF, CORRECT? >> YES. >> AND THERE’S NO TRANSCRIPT OF FALSE INFORMATION, ARE THERE? >> NO. THAT’S 1 OF THE REASONS IF YOU WANT TO ESTABLISH THE OPPOSING VIEW, YOU HAVE TO INVESTIGATE THIS THROUGH. >> WHEN YOU WALK THROUGH THE STANDARD OF EVIDENCE THE HOUSE QUUSTED UPON IN THE IMPEACHMENT.AND IT WAS SIGNED BY THE CHAIRMAN AND SAID ONE WHO TESTIFIED HAS BEEN PARTICULARLY DOCUMENTED THAT EVERYONE AGREES THAT THE MAJORITY, AND MINORITY AND STANDARD OF COUNTY WAS CLEAR UNCONDENSER EVIDENCE. WOULD YOUAGREE THAT IT WAS COMPILED BY HOUSE DEMOCRATS FAILS TO MEET THE STANDARD OF CLEARING, CONVINCING EVIDENCE. >> I DO. I CONSIDER MEASURE. LET ME TERM IN THAT BOOK. THEY SAID QUOTE ACCEPTING THE MOST EXTRA ORDINARY CIRCUMSTANCES, IMPEACHMENT OF KEY FACTS IS A BAD IDEA.>> Reporter: PROFESSORDURLY WOULD BE TO INCLUDE A RECORD OF FACTS? >> I THINK THAT’S CLEAR. THIS IS TO GO FORWARD. AND THE JOHNSON RECORD CAN BE DEBATED. BUT THIS IS THE MODERN RECORD. IF YOU TAKE A LOOK AT THE SIZE OF THE RECORD OF CLINTON AND NIXON, THEY WERE MASSIVE IN COMPARISON TO THIS. AND IT HAS LEFT TOUTS, NOT JUST DOUBTS IN THE MIND OF PEOPLE SUPPORTING PRESIDENT TRUMP. ALSO PEOPLE LIKE MYSELF ABOUT WHAT ACTUALLY OCCURRED. THERE’S A DIFFERENCE IN QUID PROQUO. IT’S NOT IN THIS RECORD. I COME TO A DIFFERENT CONLUTION.WE ALL READ THE RECORD. I DON’T SEE PROOF OF A QUID PRO QUO. >> I WOULD LIKE TO TURN TO PROCEDURES. DO YOU AGREE THAT EACH SIDE GETS TO PRESENT EVIDENCES? >> IT IS. AND ENGLISH IMPEACHMENT MODEL THAT WAS REJECTED BY FRAMERS. THEY TOOK THE LANGUAGE BUT REJECTED THE MODEL OF IMPEACHMENT IN PARTICULAR IN TERMS OF HASTINGS.BUT EVEN IN ENGLAND, IT WAS A ROBUST PROCESS. IF YOU WANT TO SEE ADVERSARY WORK, TAKE A LOOK AT WHAT ED-MIND DID TO HASTINGS.HE WAS ON HIM LIKE UGLY ON MOOSE FOR THE ENTIRE TRIAL. >> AND AS YOU KNOW IN THE IMPEACHMENT CLINTON REPORT, THEY WROTE THE FOLLOWING, WE BELIEVE IT IS FOR WATERGATE, AND NOT ONLY FOR PROCESS BUT DUE PROCESSQUADRUPLED, AND SAME MINORITY VIEWS SUPPORT THE RIGHT TO CROSS-EXAMINATION AND VARIETY OF CONTEXT IN THECLIPTEN EXAMPLE. NOW PROFESSOR TURLEY, YOU DESCRIBED HOW MONICA LEWINKSKY WAS NOT ALLOW ED TO BE CALLED AS WAINSS. IT’S A CAUTIONARY TALE OF KEY WITNESSES. COW ALABORATE ON THAT WE CAN YEAH. IT WAS FOR STRUCTURING IMPEACHM. WHAT HAPPENED IN THE CLINTON IMPEACHMENT AND IT COMPREVIOUSLY WAS HOW MUCH THE HOUSE HAD TO DOIN TERMS OFCLIPTEN IMPEACHMENT BECAUSE YOU HAD THIS ROBUST RECORD CREATE BY THE INDEPENDENT COUNSEL, AND THEY HAD A LOT OF TESTIMONY AND VIDEO ET CETERA. THE HOUSE INCORPORATED THAT, ANDTHE ASSUMPTION WAS THAT TH WINCEDS WOULD BE CALLED T SENATE. THE RULES THAT WERE APPLIED IN MY VIEW WERE NOT FAIR. THEY RESTRICTED WITNESSES TO OPENLY THREE. THAT’S WHY I BROUGHT UP THE LEWINKSKY MATTER. MAN CULEWINKSKY WAS TOLD IF SHE SIGNED THE OF DAVE E AFFIDAVIT WAS NOT TRUE, >> THE GENTLEMAN YIELDS BACK. THIS WOULD BE A MOMENT THAT THE HOUSE WOULD QUESTION THE WITNESS. THEY DENIED. THIS IS 5 MINUTES.I RULE MYSELF FOR QUEGING OF THE WITNESSES. WOULD YOU SAY RELEVANCE ABOUT THE ELOMENTS OF CRIMINAL BRIBERY WE CAN YES. BRIBERY HAD A CLEAR MEANING TO THE FRAMERS. IT WAS WHEN THE PRESIDENT, USING THE POWER OF HIS OFFICE SOLICITS OR RECEIVES SOMETHING OF PERSONAL VALUE OF SOMEONE AFFECTED BY HIS OFFICIALPOWERS. I WANT TO BE CLEAR THE CONSTITUTION IS LAW. IT IS THE SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND. THE PROFESSOR IS RIGHT. YOU WOULDN’T WANT TO IMPEACH SOMEONE IN THE LAND. IT SPECIFYS IT AS BRIBERY IMPEACHMENT AS IT CONSTITUTES MISDEMEANORS. BRAINRY HAS A CLEAR MEANING. IF THEY BELIEVE THE PRESIDENT SOLICITED SOMETHING OF VALUE FOR INVESTIGATIONS OR ANNOUNCEMENT OF INVESTIGATES AND DID SO CORRUPTLY FOR PERSONAL GAIN, THAT WOULD CONSTIITUTE BRIBERY UNDER THE MEANING OF THE CONSTITUTION. AND IT WOULD NOT BE LAWLESS. IT WOULD BE BRIBERYUNDER THE LAW >> IT’S BRIBERY STATUTES AND OTHER STATUTES WOULD NOT BE RELEVANT? >> THE CONSTITUTION IS SUPREME COURT AND IT CONSTITUTES WHAT BRIBERY IS. FEDERAL LAWS CAN’T TRUMP THE CONSTITUTION. >> THANK YOU. >> PROFESSOR GERHARDT, WOULD YOURESPOND TO THE OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE IS OBSTRUCTION OF CONGRESS PLEASE? >> YES. ONE SOMETHING I WANT TOEMPHASIZE IS THAT OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE IS NOT JUST ABOUT STRUCKOF THE COURT. IT’S THE OBSTRUCTION OF ANY LAWFUL PROCEEDING. SO OBSTRUCTION IS LIMITED TO WHAT IS HAPPENING ON THE COURTS. OBVIOUSLY IT IS JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS GOING ON. IT IS CONGRESSIONAL PROCEEDINGS WHICH BRINGS TO OBSTRUCTION OF CONGRESS. WITH OBSTRUCTION OF CONGRESS, I DON’T THINK, IN FACTI CAN SAY, I HAPPEN IT’S NOVEMBER BEEN ANYTHING LIKE THE PRESIDENT’S REFUSING TO COMPLY WITH SUBPOENAS FROM THIS BODY. THESE ARE LAWFUL SUBPOENAS. THESE HAVE THE FORCE OF LAW TO THEM. THESE ARE THE THINGS EVERY OTHER PRESIDENT HAS COMPILED WITH AND ACTUALLY ACTED IN ALIGNMENT WITH EXCEPT FOR PRESIDENT NIXON IN A SMALL SEGMENT. >> AND THE PROFESSOR IMPLIED THAT AS LONG AS THE PRESIDENT HAS FANCIFUL, ULTIMATELY, NONEXISTENT PRIVILEGE OF IMMUNITY, ME CAN’T BE CHARGED WITH OBSTRUCTION OF COMMENTS BECAUSE IT HASN’T GONE THROUGH THE COURTS. WOULD YOU COMMENT ON THAT WE CAN I’M SORRY. I MISSED PART OF THE QUESTION. >> PROFESSOR TURLEY SAID WE CAN’T CHARGE WITH OBSTRUCTION OFCONGRESS BECAUSE AS LONG AS HE HAS FANCIFUL CLAIM UNTIL THE COURT ABOUT KWLECKTS CLAIMS. >> Y TO RESPECTFULLY DISAGREE. TO COMPLY WITH THE SUBPOENAS IS APART FROM THE COURTS. IT’S A DIRECT ASSAULT ON THE LEGITIMACY OF THIS WHICH IS A JUDICIAL EXERCISE OF POWER. >> THANK YOU. I WILL GIVE YOU ACHANCE TO REPLY AS WELL TO THE SAME QUEG. >> I WANT TO RESPOND TO THE FIST QUESTION ABOUT BRIBERY. >> YEAH. GO AHEAD. >> EVEN THOUGH COUNSEL FOR THE READ THAT, MEITANT READ BRIBERY. I HAVE THE 72 VERSION OF JOHNSON’S DICTIONARY. HE DESCRIBES BRIBEY AS GIVING OR TALKING OF REWARDS OF BAD PRACTICE. DO YOU THINK IT’S A BAD PRAC S TO DENY MILITARY APPROPRIATIONS OF MILITARYIED. DO YOU THINK IT’S A BAD PRACTICE TO NOT HOLD A MEETING TO BUCK UPTHE LEGITIMACY OF A THAT’S ON THE LINE, AND YOU DO THAT TO GET AN AWARD. IF YOU DO THAT, THAT’S BRIBERY. >> IF MADISON WAS HEAR TODAY, WHAT DO YOU THINK THEY WOULD SAY ABOUT THE EVIDENCE PRESENTED BEFORE A? >>> I BELIEVE THEY WOULD IDENTIFY HIS CONDUCT AS EXACTLY THE KIND OF ABUSE OF OFFICE AND HIGH CRIME MISDEMEANOR THEY WERE WORRIED ABOUT, AND THEY WOULD WANT THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TO TAKE APPROPRIATE ACTION AND IMPEACH >> AND THEY WOULD FIND OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE AND CONGRESS OR OF POWER OR SOME OF THEM? >> I THINK THEY WOULD SAY IF THAT’S WHAT THE EVIDENCE MEANS, THEY BELIEVE STRONGLY THAT’S WHAT CONGRESS SHOULD DO. >> THANK YOU. I YIELD BACK THE BALANCE OF MY TIME AND NOW RECOGNIZE THE RANKING GENTLEMEN FROM THE GEORGIA, MR. COLLINS, 5 MINUTES FOR QUESTIONS WITNESSES.>> THIS JUST GET MORE AMAZING. I THINK WE PUT IN THE JURY POOL,THE FOUNDING FATHERS AND SAID WHAT DO THEY THINK. I DON’T THINK ANY IDEA WHAT THEY THINK BECAUSE OF THE DIFFERENT TIMES AND DIFFERENT THINGS WE TALKED ABOUT. AND ALSO IN SOME BAY TO INSINUATE ON LIVE FEED WITH A LOT OF PEOPLE LISTENING THAT THEFOUNDING FATHERS WOULD HAVE FOUND PRESIDENT TRUMP GUILTY IS SIMPLY MALPRACTICE. THAT IS SIMPLY PANNEDERING TO A CAMERA. THAT IS SIMPLY NOT RIGHT. I MEAN, THIS IS AMIESING. WE CAN DISAGREE. WHAT IS AMAZING IS THAT WE DON’T DISAGREE ON THE FATHS. WE CAN’T FIND A FACT THAT IS NOT GOING TO THE PUBLIC TESTIMONY AND TRANSSCRIP AT ALL. WE DON’T DEP UTIZE SOMEONE BETWEEN NOW AND THE FOUNDERS IN THE JURY POOL? >> FIRST OF ALL, ONLY I WILL SPEAK FOR JAMES MADISON. NO. WE ALL WILL SPEAK FOR JAMES MADISON WITH ABOUT THE SAME LEVEL OF ACCURACY. IT’S A NORM OF THAT THEY DO ALL THE TIME. I WANT TO NOTE A COUPLE OF THINGS. AND I FIND IT INTERESTING THAT YOU WOULD HAVE GEORGE WASHINGTON IN THIS JURY POOL. I WOULD STRIKE HIM FOR CAUSE. HE WITNESS THE FIRST TO RAISE EXECUTIVE CLAIM. HE HAD A ROBUST VIEW OF WHAT THE PRESIDENT COULD SAY. IF YOU WOULD MAKE A CASE TO GEORGE WASHINGTON THAT YOU WOULD IMPEACH ANOTHER STATE, I WOUL EXPECT HIS HAIR, POWDERED HAIR WOULD CATCH ON FIRE. AND I WANTTO NOTE ANOTHER THING. AND I AM IMPRESSED OF CARRYING PRESIDENT JOHNSON WITH YOU? >> IT’S JUST AN ONLINE VERSION. >> AS AN ACADEMIC, I WAS PRETTY DARN IMPRESSED. I WANT TO EXPLAIN PART OF OUR DIFFERENCE. THE STATUTES TODAY ON BRAVERY ARE WRITTEN BROADLY JUST LIKE THEY WERE BACK THEN. THAT WAS MY POINT. THE MEANING OF THOSE WORDS ARE SUBJECT TO INTERPRETATION. THEY’RE WRITTEN BROADLY BECAUSE THEY DON’T WANT THEM TO BE TOO NARROW. THAT WAS THE CASE TODAY IN THE 18TH CENTURY AS THEY ARE TODAY. BUT THE IDEA THAT BAD PRACTICES COULD BE THE DEFINITION OF BRIBERY? REALLY? IS THAT WHAT YOU GET FROM THE CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION IS THAT BAD PRACTICES? IS THAT WHY MASON WANTED TO PUT IN MALADMINISTRATION BECAUSE BAD PRACTICE IS NOT BROAD ENOUGH? IDISAGREE. AND THE OTHER THING I WANTED TO NOTE, AND I HAVE SO MUCH RESPECT FOR NOAH, AND I WANT TO DISAGREE ON THIS POINT, I FEEL IT IS A RATHER CIRCULAR ARGUMENT SAYING THE CONSTITUTIONIS LAW. UPON THAT, WE ARE UNAGREEMENT, BUT IT REFERS TO A CRIME. TO SAY IT TRUMPS CONSTITUTION BECAUSE IT DEFINES THE CRIME, IT DOESN’T DEFINE THE CRIME. IT REPRESENTS THE CRIME.THEY DON’T COMPORT WITH BAD PRACTICES. THEY COMPORT WITH REAL BRIBERY. BUT TO SAY WHAT CONSTITUTES BRIBERY IS SOMEHOW IRRELEVANT AND SOMEHOW ODD, IS WHAT THE CONSTITUTION SAYS IS A CRIME, AND WE HAVE TO DECIDE WHERE THAT CRIME HAS BEEN COMMITTED. >> KWEEUNG CAME A DISCUSSION OF,AND WE HAD THIS DISCUSSION, AND ALSO MEMBERS OF THE PRESIDENT’S CABINET WHO ASSERTED PRIVILEGES AND RIGHTS AND WE TALKED ABOUT THE FAST AND FURIOUS FOR PRESIDENT OBAMA, THEY HELD THEM FOR WITHHOLDING OF NAUP COMPLIANCE OF SUBPOENA. YOU KEPTA PICK AND CHOOSE WHAT HISTORY YOU HAVE. YOU MADE A STATEMENT THAT WAS BAD PRACTICE. IT IS ALSO THE LAW OF THE LAPD THAT WEENSHOE COUNTRIES GIVING AID ARE NOT CORRUPT. AND THIS IS SOMETHING MISSING FROM THIS DISCUSSION. IF THE PRESIDENT HASHAD A LONG-SEATED DISTRUST OF FOREIGN COMPANIES AND HISTORY OFCORRUPTION. I MADE THE STATEMENT EARLIER, HISTORY SIDE ON MY SIDE, 68 FIRST OF THOSE POLD IN THE UKRAINE HAD BRIBED APUBLIC OFFICIAL. UKRAINE HAD CORRUPTION ISSUES. IT CAME THROUGH THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION AND TRUMP ADMINISTRATION. AND OUR RULE IS THAT THEY ACTUALLY HAVE TO LOOK AT THE CORRUPTION TAXPAYER DOLLARS. THE PRESIDENT WAS DOING THAT, AND THOU IT’S BEING BLOWN UP BECAUSE WE FIND IN THIS HEARING THAT FACTS DON’TMATTER WHEN WE TRY TO FIT IT INTO A LAW AND RULE THAT WE WANTTO IMPEACH ON. THE REASON WE’RE DOING THIS IS THAT THE TRAIN IS ON THE TRACK, AND THIS IS NOT A FACT IMPEACHMENT. I YIELD BACK.>> THE GENTLEMAN YIELDS BACK, AND I RECOGNIZE MS. LOCKMAN FOR 5 MINUTES. >> THANK YOU MR. CHAIRMAN. THISHAS ONLY BEEN MENTIONED AS THE THIRD TIME IN MODEN HISTORY THATTHE COMMITTEE HAS CONSUMED THE GREAT RESPONSIBILITY OF CONSIDERING IMPEACHMENT. AND ODDLY. I’VE BEEN PRESIDENT WANTAT ALL THREE. I WAS THE STAFF OF CONGRESSMAN CONEDWARDS AT THENIXON IMPEACHMENT AND PRESENT ON THE IMPEACHMENT FOR CLINTON, ANDHERE WE ARE TODAY. AT ITS CORE, I HAVE SEEN IMPEACHMENT VALUES OF THE DEMOCRATIC SYSTEM AND THE QUESTION WE MUST ANSWER IS WHETHER THE ACTIVITY OF THE PRESIDENT THREATENS OUR CONSTITUTION AND OUR DEMOCRACY. AND IT’S ABOUT WHETHER HE’S ABOVE THE LAW AND WHETHER HE’S HONORING HIS OATH OF OFFICE. NOW, THE HOUSE JUDICIARY STAFF, IT WAS OTHER STAFF, NOT ME WROTEAN EXCELLENT REPORT IN 1974, AND THIS IS WHAT THEY SAID. IMPEACHMENT OF THE PRESIDENT IS A GRAVE STEP TO THE NATION. IT IS TO BE PREDICATED ONLY UPON CONDUCT SERIOUSLY INCOMPATIBLE WITH THE CONSTITUTIONAL FORM AND PRINCIPLE OF OUR GOVERNMENT OF CONSTITUTIONAL DUTIES, AND I WOULD ASK UNANIMOUS CONSENT TO ENTER THE REPORT ON CONSTITUTIONAL GROUNDS INTO THE RECORD. THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN. LIKE PRESIDENT NIXON,THE ALLEGATIONS AGAINST PRESIDENT TRUMP INVOLVES SERIOUSELECTION-RELATED MISCONDUCT. NIXON’S ASSOCIATES BURGLARIZED HEAD QUARTERS, GIVING HIM A LEGUP, AND NIXON TRIED TO COVER UP THE CRIME, AND HE ALSO ABUSED HIS POWERS TO TARG ET HIS POLITICAL RIVALS, AND HERE WE’RE DEFINED THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP TRIED TO LEVERAGE APPROPRIATED MILITARY ASSISTANCE WHO RESIST RUSSIA BAYOU CRANE TO CONVINCE A FOREIGN ALLY TO ANNOUNCE AN INVESTIGATION OF HIS POLITICAL RIVAL. PROFESSOR KARLAN, I WOULD LIKE YOU TO TELL ME YOUR VIEW ON HOW PRESIDENT TRUMP’S CONDUCT MEANING HIS REQUEST OF THE FOREIGN ALLY TO ANNOUNCE AN INVESTIGATION OF HIS ADVERSARY, HOW DOES THAT COMPARE TO WHAT PRESIDENT NIXON DID? >> NOT FAVORABLY. BECAUSE AS I SUGGESTED IN MY OPENING TESTIMONY, IT’S KIND OF DOUBLING DOWN BECAUSE PRESIDENT NIXON ABUSED DOMESTIC LAW ENFORCEMENT TO GO AFTER HIS POLITICAL OPPONENTS, AND WHAT PRESIDENT HAS DONE, BASED ON THEEVIDENCE WE’VE SEEN SO FAR IS THAT HE ASKED A FOREIGN COUNTRY TO DO THAT WHICH MEANS IT’S NOT, IT’S SORT OF LIKE A TAILY DOUBLEIF YOU WILL. >> PROFESSOR GERHARDT, DO YOU HAVE AN ADDITIONAL COMMENT ON THAT? >> I CERTAINLY WOULD AGREE. I THINK THE DIFFICULTY HERE IS THAT WE NEED TO REMEMBER THAT IMPEACHABLE OFFENSES DON’T HAVE TO BE CRIMINAL OFFENSES AS YOU WELL KNOW. AND WHAT WE’RE TALKING ABOUT IS AN ABUSE OF POWER. WE’RE TALKING ABOUT AN ABUSE OF POWER THAT ONLY THERE PRESIDENT CAN COMMIT. AND IT WAS A SYSTEMATIC CONCERTED EVIDENCE BY THE PRESIDENT TO REMOVE PEOPLE THAT WOULD SOMEHOW OBSTRUCT OR BLOCK HIS ABILITY TOPUT THAT PRESSURE ON UKRAINE TO GET AN ANNOUNCEMENT OF AN INVESTIGATION. THAT SEEMS TO BE WHAT HE CARED ABOUT, JUST THE MERE ANNOUNCEMENT. AND THAT PRESSURE PRODUCED, WAS GOING TO PRODUCE THE OUTCOME HE WANTED AND TELL THE WHISTLEBLOWER PUT ALIGHT ON IT. >> I WANT TO GO BACK QUICKLY TO SOMETHING PROFESSOR TURLEY SAID. AS WE SAW IN THE CASE TO WHICH IWAS A TESTIMONY, AND THE FAST AND FURIOUS CASE, ALSO WITHHELD FROM THE CONGRESS, LITIGATION TO FORCE CONGRESSIONAL SUBPOENAS, THAT WAS LONG BEYOND? PRESIDENT DANCE THAT HAPPENED ITSELF. IS IT AN ABUSE OF THE POWER TO NOT GO BEFORE THE? >> CERTAINLY NOT. THAT’S ITS POWER. IT DOESN’T HAVE TO ASK IMPEACHMENT FROM ANYBODY OR GO THROUGH JUDICIAL BRARCH OF GOVERNMENT. THAT IS YOUR DECISION BASED ON YOUR JUDGMENT. >> THANK YOU. I WOULD JUST LIKETO NOTE THIS IS NOT A PROCEEDING THAT I LOOKED FORWARD TO. IT’S NOT AN OCCASION OF JOY. IT’S SOLEMN OBLIGATION. I HOPE EVERY MEMBER OF THIS COMMITTEE IS LISTENING AND KEEPING AN OPEN MIND AND HOPING WE HONOR OUR OBLIGATIONS CAREFULLY. AND WITH THAT I YIELD BACK. >> THE LADY YIELDS BACK. THE GEH-LADY YIELD BAD. WE WILL RECESS UNTIL IMMEDIATELY AFTER THE CONCLUSION OF THOSE VOTES. I ASK EVERYONE IN THE ROOM TO REMAIN SEATED AND QUIET WHILE THE WITNESSES EXIT INROOM. I WANT TO REMIND MEMBERS OF THE ODYSSEY, YOU MAY NOT BE DPAIRNTED YOUR SEAT IF YOU LEAVETHE HEARING ROOM AT THIS TIME. >> AT THIS TIME, THERE COMMITTEE WILL STAND IN RECESS UNTIL IMMEDIATELY AFTER THE VOTES. >> REPS, MOSTLY FOCUSED ON THE GROUNDS FOR IMPEACHMENT AND HOW THEY DON’T THINK THIS MEETS THE STANDARD. LET’S LISTEN TO SOME STATE FROM GEORGE WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY LAW PROFESSOR JONATHAN TURLEY. HE’S THE WITNESS CALLED BY REPUBLICANS, AND HE ARGUED THAT A CONGRESSIONAL MOVE TO IMPEACH PRESIDENT TRUMP WOULD BE AN ABUSE OF POWER BY CONGRESS. >> IF YOU IMPEACH A PRESIDENT, IF YOU MAKE A HIGH CRIME AND MISDEMEANOR OUT OF GOING TO THE COURTS, IT IS AN ABUSE OF POWER. IT’S YOUR ABUSE OF POWER. >> AMBER PHILLIPS JOINS ME. AMBER, NO REAL SURPRISES I THINK IN THE REPUBLICAN QUEGING, FOCUSING ON JONATHAN TURLEY.. YOU KNOW, WHAT’S INTERESTING, ITTOOK THE RANKING MEMBER CALL TOONS GIVE A RANKING MEMBERS, SOMUCH WAS FOCUS ON THE PROCESS. >> AND THAT’S A PROBLEM FROM TRUMP’S PERSPECTIVE BECAUSE HE AROUND THEM TO FOCUS ON THE PROCESS. AND THE ARGUMENT IS THAT IT IS STRONGER. THEIR WITNESS CAME IN TODAY, TRUMP’S EXPERT AND SAID I THINK YOU GUYS ARE GOING TOO FAST. IF YOU’RE GOING TO ARGUE OBSTRUCTION OF CONCONGRESS AND BRIBERY AND HIGHCRIME, YOU HAVE TO STICK THE LANDING WERE HIS WORDS. YOU’RE MOVING THE QUICKEST IMPEACHMENT PROCESS IN HISTORY AT THE MOST BIPARTISAN TIME. THESE ARE REALLY STRONG BIPARTISAN ARGUMENT. WHEN YOU GO TO THE SUBSTANCE, YOU HAVE A LOT OF EVIDENCE THAT UNDERCUT WHAT KARLAN WAS SAYING THAT PRESIDENTTRUMP HASN’T BEEN FOCUSED ON CORRUPTION, AND PEOPLE IN HIS OWN ADMINISTRATION AND WHITE HOUSE WERE COMPLETELY PERPLEXED WHY HE WAS HOLDING THUP MILITARY AID AND HAD NO INDICTION THAT ITWAS ABOUT THE BOARD. >> IT’S INTERESTING BECAUSE PROFESSOR TURLEY TALKS ABOUT THIS. IT’S NOT LIKE IT’S DONE EVERY DAY. IT’S JUST A FEW TIME IN HISTORY. IF YOU LOOK TYCLIPTEN, IT MATCHES UP BECAUSE IT’S THE SAME CALENDER YEAR TIME. IT DOESN’T SEEM LIKE IT’S RADCALLY FAST. AM I MISSING SOMETHING? >> NO. MY COLLEAGUE SAID THAT IT CAN BEDONE RELATIVELY QUICKLY. BECAUSE WHEN IT GETS STARTED DEMOCRATS SAYING THEY WOULDN’T BE ABLE TO DO THIS IN TIME. WE’D BE STILL HERE DEBATING. JONATHAN TURLEYED YOU CAN COUNT WHEN IMPEACHMENT START ED IN A NUMBER OF WAYS BECAUSE IT’S NOT CLEAREN HISTORY THAT AN IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY BILLCLIPTEN STARTED THIS DAY WHEN THE REPORTWAS RELEASED FOR EXAMPLE. AND MEMBERS OF CONGRESS EVEN WITH THE IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY SAID THAT IN AUGUST, IT WAS ANOTHER IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY. WE DIDN’T COVER IT THAT WAY UNTIL SEPTEMBER, LATE SEPTEMBER. NANCY PELOSI SAID WE’RE UNDER IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY. OUR FACT CHECKER GOT ENCOURAGED TO READ. I’LL LOOK IT UP IN A MINUTE. BUT MY POINT IS THAT JONATHAN TURLEY MAY HAVE BEEN CALCULATING THINGS DIFFERENTLY AND SAYING DEMOCRATS WERE TOO RUSHED. AND THE DEMOCRATS PROBABLY WANT TO GET THIS OFF OF THEIR PLATE BEFORE ELECTION YEAR. >> AND THEY HAVE CHOSEN NOT TO TESTIFY, AND THAT IS WORKING ITSWAY THROUGH THE LEGAL SYSTEM WE CAN RIGHT. THE EXPERTS HAD A DEBATE. JONATHAN TURLEY SAID IF YOU WAITED FOR THE COURTS TO SAYYES, I CHOOSE MULVANEY, AND YOU HAVE TOCOMPLY WITH SUBPOENAS AND THEY DIDN’T, THEN YOU WOULD HAVE AN OBSTRUCTION OF CONGRESS CASE. THERE YOU GO, NO QUESTION, IMPEACH TRUMP. SOME OTHER CONSTITUTIONAL EXPERTS SAY, I BELIEVE IT WAS PROFESSOR GERHARDT, I BELIEVE HE SAID I THINK THOSE ARE TWO SEPARATE THINGS. I THINK THE COURT CASE IS ENTIRELY SEPARATE, AND IT’S A REACTION TO TRUMP’S ORIGINAL OBSTRUCTION OF CONGRESS BY NOT COMPLYING WITH SUBPOENAS. YOU’RE CONGRESS. YOU’RE IN EQUAL POWER HERE BUT SEPARATE. >> AND SO THE FACT HE’S IGNORING THOSE ARE GROUNDS FOR IMPEACHMENT. >> THAT’S INTERESTING TO HEAR YOU SAY BECAUSE TURLEY SAID THATSOME OF THESE ARE WHERE YOU TESTIFY AND HOLD BACK INFORMATION AND GO TO THE COURTS AND THEY RESOLVE IT. YOU MAKE IT A CRIME TO GO TO THE COUTS, THAT’S THE ABUSE OF POWER ON BEHALF OF CONGRESS, AND YOU SET A BAD PRECEDENT. BUT THE DEMOCRATS SEE IT AS ENTIRELY DIFFERENTLY. >> THE DEMOCRATS ARGUED THAT THE BAD PRESIDENT HAD BEEN SET RIGHTNOW. THIS MAY SEEM A LITTLE BIT KIND OF ARCAYIANCAYIC, BUT DEMOCRATS ARE TRYING TO MOVE FORWARD WITH IMPEACHMENT WITHOUT TALKING TO PEOPLE IN TRUMP’S INNER CIRCLE WHO MIGHT HAVE HEARD THE PRESIDENT SAY WHAT HE WANTED ON UKRAINE. REPUBLICANS ARGUE YOU HAVE NOTHING THERE. AND THEY SAY YOU WATCH THE PEOPLE AND WON’T COMPLY WITH SUBPOENAS. SO THUS HAS A REAL-WORLD IMPACT ON THE EVIDENCE ON PRESIDENT TRUMP OR NOT AGAINST PRESIDENT TRUMP. >> ONE OF THE WITNESSES CALLED AGAINST THE DEMOCRATS IS NOA FELDMAN, AND HE STARTED WITH A SEVERAL CLATSS ON HOW THE NOTIONOF AMERICAN IMPEACHMENT POWERS IS. >> LET ME BEGIN WITH WHY THE FRAMERS ARE PROVIDED FOR IMPEACHMENT IN THE FIRST PLACE. THE FRAMERS BORROWED THE CONCEPTOF IMPEACHMENT IN ENGLAND BUT WITH ONE ENORMOUS DIFFERENCE. THE HOUSE OF COMMONS AND HOUSE OF LORDS COULD USE IMPEACHMENT IN ORDER TO LIMIT THE MINISTERS OF THE KINGS. AND IN THAT SENSETHE KING WAS ABOVE THE LAW. IN STARK CONTRAST, THE FRAMERS FROMTHE VERY OUTSET OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION MADE THE CLIST S CLEAR THAT THE PRESIDENT WOULD BE SUBJECT TO UMPEACHMENT IN ORDER TO DEMONSTRATE THAT THE PRESIDENT WAS SUBORDINATE TO THE LAW. >> ALL RIGHT. WELL, I’D LIKE TOCHECK IN WITH RAPIDA COLEMAN, OUR WASHINGTON POST COLLEAGUE WHO HAS BEEN INSIDE ALL DAY. AND SO WE HEARD FROM RANGING MEMBER COLLINS THAT IT’S COLD INSIDE THE HEARING ROOM WHICH YOU KNOW BECAUSE YOU’VE BEEN IN THERE FOR DAYS ON END MV BUT I WOULD LIKE TO GET A SENSE OF THE ATMOSPHERE IS LIKE AND MOOD IS LIKE OR EVEN DIFFERENT FROM OTHERS YOU’VE BEEN TO? >> Reporter: IT A LOT DIFFERENT FROM INTELLIGENCE HEARINGS I’VE BEEN TO. AND ONE OF THE THINGS THAT STRUCK ME VERY EARLY ON IS THAT THEY CAME VERY PREPARED TO USE PROCEDURE TO THEIR ADVANTAGE. IT WAS FOUR PROCEDURAL MOTIONS, AND I KEPT TRACK OF A FEW. AND IT WAS A CALL OF A MINORITY LED HEARING WHERE THEY CAN CALL THEIR OWN WITNESSES, AND IT WAS A MOTION TO CALL ADAM SHIP TO TESTIFY AND A MOTION FOR A WHISTLE BLOWER AND POSTPONE TODAY’S PROCEEDING.THEY SAY THEY HAVEN’T HAD ENOUGHTIME TO REVIEW ADAM SHIP’S REPORT FROM LAST NIGHT. BECAUSETHEY DENIED THE MAJORITY, I THINK THEY DIDN’T GIVE A WINDOW ON HOW THEY WILL HANDLE ANY SUBSEQUENT HEARING ON IMPEOPLEMENT AND POTENTIAL HOUSE VOTE. I THINK THOSE TELL US A LOT HOW THE REPUBLICANS ARE PLANNED TODAY AND THAT’S DIFFERENCE HOW THE REPUBLICANS, THEIR HEARING, A LOT OF THEM JUST USED THEIR 5 MINUTES TO TALK ABOUT WHAT THEY THOUGHT WERE UNFAIR MOMENTS IN THE PROCEEDINGS. THE JUDICIARY IS USING TIME TO BRING UP THEIR MOTION. AND AS YOU ALL TALKED ABOUT ON SET THERE AND SPOKE TO ME IS HOW JONATHAN TURLEY IS BRINGING HOME THE POINT THAT IT’S GOING REALLY FAST. HE POINTED TO HISTORY, AND YOU’RE RIGHT, I TOTALLY AGREE WITH SENATOR COLLINS, IT IS FREEZING IN THAT ROOM. BACKU. >> I WANT TO ASK ABOUT PROFESSOR KARLAN WHEN HE SAID NOBODY READ THROUGH. SHE HAD A FIERCE PUSHBACK DIRECTLY TO THE RANKINGMEMBER AND BACKED IT UP BY TALKING ABOUT JUST HOW MUCH SHE’S INVESTED ON TRYING TO GET A HANDLE ON DHIMETSS AND REALLY LRN ABOUT THEM. YOU HAVE TO IMAGINE IT’S FOUR PEOPLE WHO WILL READ EVERYTHING, IT’S FOUR LAW SCHOLARS APPEARING BEFORE CONGRESS? WHAT WAS IT LIKE IN THE ROOM WHEN THE PROFESSOR PUSHED BACK LIKE THAT? >> Reporter: YEAH. I THINK SHE REALLY WOKE UP THE ROOM. I WAS READING HER OPENING STATEMENT. IT WAS AN UNPLANNED MOMENT. BUT IT SHOWS THEY TAKE THEIR RESEARCH VERY SERIOUSLY AND TAKE THEIR RESEARCH IN ACADEMEIA VERYSERIOUSLY AND WANTED TO BRING THAT ACROSS AND SAY YOU KNOW WHAT, I HAVE PREPARED. SHE HAD A HUMOROUS MOMENT BY SAYING SHE HAD A MAIL-IN TURKEY BECAUSE SHE SPENT SO MUCH TIME GOING OVER DOCUMENTS AND PREPARING FOR THE TESTIMONY. SO YES HER POINT RIGHT THERE TO REPRESENTATIVE COLLINS, SHE DEFINITELY WANTED TO TELL PEOPLE THEY WERE ALL PREPARED FOR THIS, AND SHE WANTED TO MAKE SURE THE RESEARCH THEY’VE ALL DONE COMES ACROSS.>> ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU SO. AMBER, WE WILL SEE MORE OF THIS Q AND A FROM MEMBERS. ARE WE GETTING A SNS OF TONE OR CONTENTOF WHERE THEY’RE ALL HOPING TO GO. >> IT’S DIFFERENT THAN WHAT I THOUGHT IT WOULD BE. THEY ARE ON THIS COMMITTEE AND 40 PLUS LAWMAKERS ON THERE, AND THEY ALLLIKE THE ATTENTION AND SPOTLIGHT. SO FAR I SHAENT SEENANYTHING THAT OVER TAKES THE NEWS AND THE CONVERSATION ABOUT WHETHER PRESIDENT TRUMP IS ACCUSED OF RISES TO THE LEVEL OFIMPEACHMENT. SO I WOULD BE WATCHING FOR THAT. WE STILL HAVE PLNY OF FOLKS ON THIS COMMITTEE LIKE JIM JORDAN WHO OFCOURSE WAS MOVED OVER TOOT INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE FOR THE PUBLIC HEARINGS BECAUSE HE’S SUCH A PROLIFIC AND LOUND DEFENDER OF PRESIDENT TRUMP. YOUR PEOPLE LIKE MATT BIGGS, THEPERSON WHO LED THE STORMING OF THE SKIP WHILE THE COMMITTEE WASHAVING CLOSED DOOR DEPOSITIONS. >> AND HAVING THAT UNINTERRUPTED QUESTION TIME, YOU GOT A SENSE OF Q AND A GOES TO BOTH SIDES OF THE AISLE AS THEY’RE TRYING TO MAKE THEIR CASE. YOU’VE BEEN LOOKING AT WHAT ARTICLES DEMOCRATS MAY DRAFT. AND IT HAS BEEN QUESTIONS ABOUT INDIVIDUAL ACTIONS LIKE OBSTRUCTION OF CONGRESS OR LIKE BRIBERY. CAN YOU TALK TO US A LITTLE BIT ABOUT HOW DEBATING A QUESTION, EVEN SOMETHING THAT THEY SEE SIMPLE AS BRIBERY? >> YEAH. NANCY PELOSI HAS THEM TALK ABOUT IT AND SAID YOU CANT HAVE THIS UNTIL YOU DO THISFOR ME. BUT THE CONSTITUTION OF SCHOLARS UNDER QUESTIONS OF BOTHSIDES STARTED ARGUING THAT BRIBERY IS A CRIMINAL STATUTE, AND REPUBLICANS WHEN JONATHAN TURLEYSTARTED ARGUING, HE DOESN’T SEE EVIDENCE THAT HE WILL BE PROSECUTED UNDER THE COURT OF LAW THAT THEY COULD BE PROSECUTED FOR, AND THEN YOU THE DEMOCRATS COUNTER AND SAY ALL THE EVIDENCE SHOWS THAT HE WAS WITHHOLDING MILITARY AID, SO UKRAINE WOULD INVESTIGATE POLITICAL OPPONENTS WHICH IS NOTONLY WRONG. WE THINK IT WAS PRETTY INDICATIVE OF BRIBERY. AND THE CONSTITUTION DOESN’T REQUIRE THAT YOUR TO MEET A CRIMINAL STATUTE TO GET IMPEACHED. OUR FRAMEWORK IS LESS THAN OPEN KNOWING THAT IT WOULD BE CRIMES THEY COULDN’T CONCEIVE OF THAT PRESIDENTS IN THE FUTURE MIGHT HAVE TO BE IMPEACHED FOR. I FEEL LIKE IT’S THEDICATIVE. QUOTE ON QUOTE, BRIPEERARY IS BEING DISSECTD FOR 10 OR 15 MINUTES AT A TIME. . >>> I WOULD POINT OUT THAT THE MILITARY AILD AID WAS CIRCULATING IN WASHINGTON. HE’S BEEN BRIEFED ON THE WHISTLE BLOWER COMPLAINT ABOUT THE PHONE CALL TO UKRAINE BEFORE HE RELEASED THE MILITARY AID. >> THE DEMOCRATS WROTE THIS REPORT, AND THEY’RE PRETTY SURE TRUMP DID WRONGDOING THAT RISES TO THE LEVEL OF IMPEACHMENT, WHEN I READ BETWEEN THE LINES OFWHAT PRESIDENT DID, I THINK THEY SEE YOU COULD WRITE IT UP FOR ABUSE OF POWER, LEVERAGING JOE BIDEN AND UKRAINE. AND I DIDN’T HEAR IT TALKED ABOUT A LOT IN THE CONGRESS HEARINGS BUT WROTE IN THIS REPORT UNDERMINING THE SECURITY BY ASKING A FOREIGN GOVERNMENT TO INTERFERE IN ELECTS. AND DEMOCRATS WANT TO DISTHIS QUICKLY. BUT HE SAID YOU NEED TO GET THISOUT. >> WE’RE REPORTING FOR THIS, ANDAS WE MENTIONED EARLIER, PRESIDENT TRUMP HAS BEEN IN THE UK AND MEETING WITH THATO LEADERS, AND IT’S A VERY HIGH PROFILE MOMENT THAT HAS NOT BEEN WITHOUT CONTROVERSY BOTH IN WHATTHE PRESIDENT SAID AND WHAT HE’S GENERATED WITH WORLD LEADERS BUTALSO TALKED A LITTLE BIT ABOUT THE IN IMPEACHMENT HEARING. LET’S LISTEN TO WHAT HE HAD TO SAY YESTERDAY IN RESPONSE TO DEMOCRATS AND THIS PROCESS SO FAR. >> I THINK IT’S UNPATRIOTIC OF THE DEMOCRATS TO PUT THAT ON AND WHAT THEY DO. I DO. I THINK IT’S A BAD THING FOR OUR COUNTRY. IMPEACHMENT WASN’T SUPPOSED TO BE USED THAT WAY. YOU CAN READ THE TRANSCRIPTS ANDTHEY HAD LEGAL SCHOLARS SAYING THIS IS ABSOLUTE LAY PERFECT. TRUMP IS RIGHT WHEN HE USED THE WORD. THOSE CALLS THAT WE MADE,TWO OF THEM WERE ABSOLUTELY PERFECT CALLS. AND I THINK OUTSA VERY BAD THING FOR OUR-COUNTRY. DOESN’T CAST A CLOUD. IF IT DOES, THEN THE DEMOCRATS HAVE DONE A GREAT DISSERVICE TO THE COUNTRY WHICH THEY HAVE. >> NOW PRESIDENT TRUMP’S COMMENT CAME BEFORE TODAY’S HEARINGS WHICH PRODUCED SOME OF ITOWN BIG MOMENT. AT LEAST IF YOU’RE A CONSTITUTIONAL SCHOLAR, LET’S LIST TONIGHT THIS. >> PROFESSOR FELDMAN, WHAT’S ABUSE OF POWER. >> ABUSE OF POWER IS WHEN THE PRESIDENT USES HIS OFFICE, TAKESAN ACTION THAT IS PART OF THE PRESIDENCY NOT TO SERVE THE PUBLIC’S INTEREST BUT TO SERVE HIS PRIVATE BENEFIT AND PARTICULARLY AN ABUSE OF POWER NOT TO FACILITATE THE REACTION OF ANYONE NOT THE PRESIDENT. >> SIR, WHY IS THAT IMPEACHABLE CONDUCT? >> IF THE PRESIDENT USES HIS OFFICE FOR PERSONAL GAIN, THE ONLY RECOURSE AVAILABLE UNDER THE CONSTITUTION IS FOR HIM TO BE IMPEACHED BECAUSE THE PRESIDENT CANNOT BE AS A PRACTICAL MATTER CHARGED CRIMINALLY IN OFFICE WHILE HE WORK FOR THE PRESIDENT. THE ONLY METHOD TO DISTORT THE PROCESS FOR PERSONAL GAIN IS TO IMPEACH HIM. THAT WHY WE HAVE IMPEACHMENT. >> ALL RIGHT. THAT IS A BIT FROM TODAY’S HEARING. AND REMINDS THAT THE DEMOCRATIC COUNSEL ASKING QUESTIONS AND ALSO HEARD THE REPUBLICAN COUPS DO THE SAME. I WOULD LIKE TO WELCOME THEM ONTO THE SAME. AARON BLAKE, SENIOR REPORTER FORTHE #, AND AIRN YOU LAUNCHED INTO THE REPORTING. WHAT ARE THEBIG TACKAWAYS FOR THE HEARING, RIGHT FROM THE GET-GO. THEY STOOD OUT BECAUSE I THINK YOU NOTICE OFF THE BAT THEY STAYED TRUE TO FORM FOR THE COUPLE OF HOURS HAVE COME SO FAR. WE WANTTO TALK YOU THROUGH OBSER VAUGZS OF WHAT WE’VE SEEN. JOHN THRN TURLEY IS THIS SOLO REPUBLICAN WITNESS AND INTERESTING CHOICE BECAUSE HE’S NOT FLAME THROWER. HE’S NOT SOMEONE WHO HAS BEEN ANAVID TRUMP SUPPORT. AND IN FACT HE TRIED TO DISTINGUISH HIMSELF AS NOT THOSE THINGS AT THE OUTSIDE OF HIS TESTIMONY. HOW EFFECTIVE DO YOU THINK IT HAS BEEN TO HEAR FROM THIS WITNESS? >> HE WAS AN OBVIOUS CHOICE BECAUSE HE LOOKS LIKE HE’S LOOKING AT THIS ON THE MERTS. HE TRIED TO PLAY THAT OUT IN HIS OPENING STATEMENTS AND DELIVEREDIT IN PERSON. AND BY THE WAY I THINK THE MAJORITY OF THOSE PAGES ARE NOTED TO FOOT NOTES. YOU CAN READ IT QUICKLY BECAUSE THE FOOT NOTES TAKE UP SO SPACE.I THINK THE OPENING STATEMENT IS ONE REPUBLICANS WERE LOOKING FOR. I THINK ONE POINT IS THAT DEMOCRATS WILL BE ABLE TO SEAT UPON, AND THAT’S ONE THE CALL WITH ZELENSKY WAS NOT PERFECT ASTHE PRESIDENT HAS BEEN SAYING. THE PRESIDENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BROUGHT THUP BIDENS ON THAT CALL. HE HAD THAT EXPLIS UTLYEN HIS WRITTEN STEEUMENT STATEMENT THOUGH HE DEPENDENT SAY IT VERBALLY AND IT BOILS DOWN TO ITHASN’T BEEN ENOUGH INVESTIGATIVE TIME. BUT WE HAVEN’T GOTTEN TO THE POINT IT’S AN IMPEACHABLE OFFENSE. AND THEY CAN SAY THAT IT’S DEFINITELY NOT IMPEACHABLE BUT SAYING WE HAVEN’T GOTTEN TO THAT POINT YET. AND SO I THINK IT WAS ALWAYS GOING TO BE TOUGH FOR REPUBLICANS TO DO THAT DEAL WITNESS. HE FITS THE BILL. >> ANDREW JOHNSON WAS IMPEACHED3-DAYS AFTER COMMITTING HIS IMPEACHABLE OFFENSE. AND THEN THE HOUSE DECIDED WHAT THE ARTICLES WOULD BE. THEY SENT ITOVER TO THE SENATE AND A PROCESS THAT LASTED OVER A TOTAL O 2-WEEKS. I’M NOT SURE WHERE HE’S GETTING THE ARGUMENT THAT IT’S THE FASTEST EVER. IT’S NOT WITH THEFACTS. >> I WANT TO SHOW THE RELEASE OFTHE DOCUMENT. IT WAS NEW INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THOSE PAGES, SPECIFICALLY RELATED TO THE PHONE CALLS BETWEEN GRRN, PRESIDENT’S GIULIANI, PRESIDENT’S PERSONAL ATTORNEY, AND HOW DOES IT RELATE TO THE FACTS? >> YEAH. IT WASN’T A REAL STATING THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP HAD ABUSED HIS OFFICE BY ENGAGING INTHIS PRESSURE CAMPAIGN AND HEAVILY FOOT NOTED, BUT THEY HAD A SURPRISE FOR US, A RABBIT FROM THE HAT IF YOU WILL, A BIT OF NEW INFORMATION WHICH WAS PHONE RECORDS. THEY WERE A LITTLE CAMEY ON WHO EXACTLY, WHOSE PHONE RECORDS THEY HAD GATHERED. YOU COULD TELL FROM THE FOOT NOTES THEY CAME FROM BOTH PRUCKS, AT & T, VERIZON. IT APPEARS AS THOUGH THEY SOUGHT FROM RUND GIULIANI, THE PRESIDENT’S PERSONAL ATTORNEY. WHAT THEY SHOWED WAS ENORMOUS CONTACT BETWEEN THE PLAYERS INCLUDING CONTACT BETWEEN GIULIANI AND THE WHITE HOUSE AT KEY MOMENT. NOW, YOU KNOW, IF YOU LIST TONIGHT WHAT GIULIANI HAD SAID OVER THE COURSE OF MONTHS, HE ALWAYS SAID THAT HE WAS WORKING AZINE ATTORNEY. HIS CLIENT WAS THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES. SO I DON’T KNOW THAT IT’S ACTUALLY TERRIBLY SURPRISING THAT HEELD BESPEAKING TO THE PRESIDENT ABOUT, ABOUT THESE MATTERS, BUT YOU SEEN IN THE LAST FEW WEEKS SOME ATTEMPT BY REPUBLICANS ON THE HILL TO FEEL OUT WHETHER THEY COULD OFFER THE SENSE THAT GIULIANI WAS FREE-LANCING AND ATHING ON HIS OWN AND THE PRESIDENT WASN’T ENGAGED IN THE ACTIVITIES THAT HE WAS UNDERTAKING. AND IT MAKES THAT HARDER. WE DON’T HAVE THE CONTPT OF THE CALLS, AND I BELIEVE I SAW A TWEET FROMGRRN, AND YOU CAPT PROVE EXACTLY WHAT HE WAS TALKING ABOUT. ALL WE KNOW IS THE DATES THAT WE CALLED. AND BECAUSE HE WAS CALLING THE WHITE HOUSE, YOU KEPT A SAY WITH CERTAINTY HE WASSPEAKING DIRECTLY TO THE PRESIDENT. ALL YOU CAN SEE IS THAT HE MADE A PHONE CALL TO THE WHITE HOUSE SWITCHBARD. >> BUT YOU CAN SEE DURATION. >> YOU CAN SEE DURATION AND WE CAN SEE CALLS AROUND THE KEY MOMENT. >> OKAY. AND THEN IT’S A CALL SPECIFICALLY TO A NUMBER DESIGNATES AS NEGATIVE 1 DASH 1. SO THERE’S QUITE A FEW CALLS FROM THIS NEGATIVE 1 NUMBER. WE DON’T KNOW FOR CERTAIN WHO THAT IS. WE AUL SEE WHAT HAPPENS IS THAT GIULIANI WAS CALLED THE WHITE HOUSE SWITCH BOARD AND THEN HE RECEIVES A NUMBER BACK. IT IS REASONABLE TO WONDER IF THAT NUMBER BELONGS TO THE PRESIDENT, PERHAPS HIS CELL PHONE. BE DON’T KNOW THAT FOR SURE. WE DO KNOW THAT I’VE SEEN COMMENTARY THAT DASH 1 NUMBER CAME UP IN THE ROGER STONE TRIAL WHICH RECENTLY CONCLUDED. IT WAS PHONE RECORDS THAT ROGER STONE SPOKE TO A NUMBER THAT WASCODED IN THAT WAY AND TESTIMONY FROM AN FBI AGENT THAT THEY WEREABLE TO DETERMINE THAT THAT WAS DONALD TRUMP’S HOME NUMBER WHICHWOULD HAVE BEEN TRUMP TOWER, SO THAT’S CONFUSING TO ME BECAUSE OBVIOUSLY DONALD TRUMP IS NOT USING HIS TRUMP TOWER NUMBER. SO THERE’S SOME QUESTIONS ABOUT THAT. BUT THE TOOMING CERTAINLYSUGGESTS THAT THAT IS THE NUMBER THAT IS LIKELY ASSOCIATED WITH DONALD TRUMP. >> WHY INCLUDE THIS INFORMATION AT THIS STAGE ERSNIN AS ROB POINTED OUT, WE DIDN’T NECESSARILY EXPECT TO SEE NEW EVIDENCE INTRODUCED IN THIS REPORT WHICH IS SAWIMATION AND CONCLUSION OF WHAT THEY FOUND? >> MAYBE FOR THE SOLE PURPOSE THAT IT WASN’T GOING TO BE A LOTOF NEW INFORMATION. PLAEB I WOULD GUESS THIS IS SOMETHING THAT ARRIVED LATE IN THE PROCESS. OTHERWISE IT WOULD HAVE BEEN SOMETHING THEY PERHAPS INTRODUCED TO THE HEARINGS AND TALKED TO THE SOME OF THE WITNESSES ABOUT. I DON’T REALLYKNOW THE ANSWER TO THAT QUESTION, BUT IT IS HELPFUL TO HAVE SOMETHING NEW TO TALK UTAND WE WERE RESPECTING IT TO BE WHICH WAS OVER THE HEARINGS. IT WASN’T A WHOLE LOT OF NEW GROUNDBEING BROKEN HERE. AT LEAST THEY ROLL THE BALL FORWARD A LITTLE BIT. YOU PUT IT IN A TOUGH SITUATION AND IT WAS CONTACT BETWEEN HIM WHICH HE OFFERED NONDENIAL OF ON FOX NEWSLAST NIGHT. SO I THINK THAT REALLY GIVES THE STORY AT LEAST A LITTLE NEW LIFE. >> ALL RIGHT. LETS TALK ABOUT NUNES AND HOW HE COMPANY UP. >> AS THEY MENTIONED, GIULIANI WHO HAS BEEN INDICTED IN NEW YORK HAS BEEN TRYING TO GET CONGRESS TO CALL HIM TO TESTIFY. AND WE CAN TALK ABOUT WHY HE WOULD BE DOING THAT. BUT HE HAS BEEN TRYING TO GET THEM TO CALL HIM. HE’S BEEN PARCELING OUT INFORMATION THAT HE COULD SHARE WHERE HE COULD BE CALLED. AND HIS LAWYER CAME OUT A COUPLE OF WEEKS AGO AND SAID HE COULD TALK ABOUT ONE OF THE WAYS NUNES’S STAFF WAS WORKING WITH GIULIANI, AND HE CLAIMED THAT NUNES HAD NET WITH ONE OF THE PROSECUTORS FROM UKRAINE, AND GIULIANI HAD MET. BASICALLY THEIDEA IS THAT HE SAT THROUGH THE HEARING AND TRYING TO DIG UP DIRT ON UKRAINE UNDERTAKEN BY GIULIANI. IT TURNED UP HE WAS PART OF THAT AND DIDN’T SAY ANYTHING ABOUT IT. WHEN THE ALLEGATIONS CAME UP, HE REACTED VERY STRONGLY. HE PROMISED TO C NRK N WHO WAS THE FIRST TO REPORT HIM. AND IN FACT FILED A LAWSUIT YESTERDAY AGAINST AGAINST CNN BUT LOW AND BEHOLD WE GET THE PHONE RECORDS, AND ITSHOWS, I BELIEVE THE NUMBER WAS FIVE, FIVE SEPARATE INSTANCES OFPHONE CONTACT BETWEEN NUNES AND THIS MAN. WE CAN’T SAY FOR SERP WHAT WAS SAID ON THE CALLS. BUT IT’S HARD TO KNOW WHAT HE WOULD HAVE HAD TO TALK TO HIM ABOUT OTHER THAN UKRAINE. AND OF COURSE BECAUSE THEY WOULD LIKE TO BE CALLED TO TESTIFY, HIS LAWYERS PROMISED VERY VOCALLY SAYING THAT THE PERSON WHO COULD TELL YOU WHAT WS ON THOSE PHONE CALLS IS LES. HE WANTS TO TESTIFY. >> WHY DOES HE HAPPEN TO TESTIFY SO BADRY? >> GOOD QUESTION. HE’S UNDER INDICTMENT IN NEW YORK. WELL, FIRST OF ALL, WHAT HIS LAWYERS SAY HE WANTS TO HELP THE AMERICAN PEOPLE. HE FEELS BURNED BY DONALD TRUMP. HE ANYHOW HIM AND MET HIM IN PREVIOUS EVENTS, AND ALSO PEOPLEAROUND HIM COUNTER TROUBLE AND HE CLAIMS HE DIDN’T KNOW HIM. HE DIDN’T KNOW WHO THAT WAS. AND HIS LAWYERS SAY HE WAS INSULTED BY THAT AND THINK HE HAS IMPORTANT INFORMATION TO SHARE.HE THINKS PEOPLE LIKE NUNES AND GLN AREN’T BEING HONEST AND WANT TO SHARE WITH THE PUBLIC. IT SO HAPPENS THEY WILL LIKE FOR HIM TO COME IN FROM CONGRESS AND TESTIFY, AND IT IS SOME HISTORY OF WITNESSES GIVEN IMMUNETY, IT IS VERY COMPARE TO BELIEVE A CRIMINAL CASE THAT IT IS SORT OF USE IT BACK, A CONTRA, TWO PEOPLE WERE BOTH CONVICTED FOR THINGS IN THINGS THEY DID, AND THEIR CONVICTIONS WERE OVERTURNED BY AN APPEALS COURT SAYING THEY HAD GIVEN UMMINETY TO TELL THEIR STORY IN CONGRESS, AND IT WAS NO WAY TO PROVE THEY DIDN’T BASE THEIR ACCOUNT SOMEWHAT OF THE IMMUNIZEDTOTOMY. AND IMMUNIZEDMUNIZED TESTIMONY, AND THEY’VE BEEN WEARY ON GIVING THAT BECAUSE THEY’RE AFRAID THEYWILL MESS UP THEIR TESTIMONY. >> HAVE YOU BEEN FOLLOWING THROUGH THE TESTIMONY AND IF IT WOULD BE VAL AYUBL TO 1 SIDE OR THE OTHER? >> I THINK THE OTHER ELEMENT IS THE KIND OF WITNESS HE WILL BE. IT WILL NOT BE ARE WE GOING TO GIVE THIS GUY IMMUNITY BUT WILL HE BE A RELIABLE WITNESS? THIS IS A GUY AN ASSOCIATE OF GIULIANI AND RUNNING WEIRD COMPANIES, ANDA FLY OF THESE OTHER PEOPLE. AND YOU WANT TO MAKE SURE IF YOUPUT SOMEONE LIKE THAT ON THE STAND IT’S NOT GOING TO BLOW UP ON YOUR FACE. YOU DON’T WANT HIM TO SHOW UP AND SAY THINGS HESHOULDN’T SAY. THE CONTACT WITH NUNEZ, THAT’S WORN OUT IN THESE PHONE RECORDS. IT SEEMS HE HAS CREDIBILITY HE CAN LEND TO THIS.AT THIS POINT I THINK DEMOCRAT ARE LOOKING AT THIS AND SAYING IS HE GOING TO CHANGE ANYTHING? IS IT WORTH THROWING THIS WILD CARD IN THE PROCESS AND NOT KNOWING HOW IT’S GOING TO GO? ITHINK IT’S A TOUGH SITUATION FOR THEM? >> AS WE HEARD THE TESTIMONY, GORDON SONDLAND IMPLICATED HAVING AT LEAST KNOWLEDGE ABOUT WHAT THE PRESIDENT WAS DOING INCLUDING SECRETARY OF STATE MIKE POMPEO. IT’S QUESTIONS OF THE CIRCLE, AND IF THE DEMOCRAT WILL TRY TO BROADEN THIS AT ALL OR IF IT’S IMPEDENSE OR INCENTIVE TO LOOK ATOSE PEOPLE INCLUDING THE VICE PRESIDENT. HOW IS THAT PLAYING INTO THE CALCULATIONS RIGHT NO? BECAUSE THE FASTER THEY MOVE ON THE ONE TRACK OF IMPEACHMENT OF THE PRESIDENT, THE LESS INFORMATION THEY CAN GATHER ABOUT OTHER PEOPLE AND PRESIDENT TRUMP COMMUNITY CABINETS ORT. >> RIGHT. AND ONCE IT MOVED MOVED ONTO THE SENATE PHASE, IT MIGHT BE MORE DIFFICULT FOR PEOPLE TO TESTIFY. I HAVEN’T SEEN MUCH DWELLING ON THE LIKES OF POMPEO OR PENCE OR RICK PERRY DID. IT HAS BEEN FOCUSED ON THEPRZ AND WHAT AN IMPEACHMENT OFFENSE IS. IT’S NOT A HUGE AMOUNT OF DISPUTING FACTS AND HOW THEY DISPUTE THEM AND HOW THEY FIT IN WHAT THE FOUNDERS EXPECT IT TO BE TALKED ABOUT. I’M NOT SURE HOW IT’S GOING TO SIT INTO THEIR ARGUMENT MOVING FORWARD ESPECIALLY THE TESTIMONY OF GORDON SONDLAND IS PROVEN TO BE UNRELIABLE EVEN AS SOON AS LAST WEEK OUR REPORTERS REPORTED THAT HIS SEPTEMBER 9TH CALL THAT HE HAD, THE PRESIDENT SAID NO QUID PRO QUO. I WANT NO QUID PRO QUO. I THAT DOESN’T APPEAR TO HAVE HAPPENED ON SEPTEMBER #TH. IT LOOKS LIKE IT HAPPENED FEW DAYS BEFORE. SO TO THE EXTENT THEY WILL MOVE FORWARD HAPPENING ON THE RECOLLECTIONS OF GORDON SOPD HAPPENED, IT’S NOT AS RISKY, BUT IT’S A RISKY STRATEGY. >> WELL, WE STILL HAVE LOTS OF PEOPLE TO ASK QUESTIONS IN THE JUDICIARY COMMISSION. RAPIDA HAS BEEN INSIDE, AND BE LISTENING FOR MORE I WOULD LIKE TO HEAR FROM YOU WHO YOU WILL BE WATCHING AS WE MOVE FORWARD AND GET THE DEMOCRATIC AND REPUBLICAN MEMBERS OF THE HOUSE ASK THEIR OWN QUESTIONS?. >> Reporter: THAT’S RIGHT. WE’RE STILL IN THAT 5-MINUTE ROUND OF QUESTIONING WHERE THEY GET 5 MINUTES TO ASK QUESTIONS. WE’RE ONLY A FEW PEOPLE IN. THEREMAINDER YOU WILL HEAR FROM REPUBLICANS WHO WILL REALLY WANTTO CHALLENGE SOME OF THE WITNESSES AND QUESTION ONE OF THEIR OWN. THAT IS JONATHAN TURLEY AND RALLY COME ACROSS WITH A LOT OF POINTS THEY THINK HAVE BEEN MISSING IN ALL OF THIS. AND THEY WANT TO KNOW WHY IS THIS GOGO FAST. SO A FEW PEOPLE I WOULD WATCH IS DEBBIE OF ARIZONA. SHE HAS BEEN VERY OUTSPOKEN SUPPORTER OF PRESIDENT TRUMP THROUGH THE MUELLER REPORTIS OTHER JUDICIARY COMMITTEES THAT HE HAS HAD AND MATT GATES HAS BEEN A VOCAL SUPPORTER OF THE PRESIDENT, AND JIM JONES OF OHIO AND BRADFORD OF TEXAS. BOTH WERE IN THE INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE, AND ON THE DEMOCRATIC SIDE, YOU HAVE THE HOUSE DEMOCRATIC LEADER, HE ON THE COMMITTEE. I MIGHT EXPECT A MOMENT WHERE HE MIGHT WANT TO BRING UP WHAT LEADERSHIP IS THINKING ABOUT IN TERMS OF IMPEACHMENT. YOU MIGHT WANT TO HEAR FROM THE MAYOR OF MARYLAND HE IS PRIOR TO BEING A MEMBER OFCONGRESS. SO HE MIGHT ASK INSIGHTFUL QUESTIONS. AND YOU WILL HAVE VOCKAL CRITICS SUCH AS STEVE WHO IS FROM TENNESSEE. HEIS OFTEN OUTSPOKENSPOKEN I WOULD WATCH WHAT THEY HAVE TO SAY. >> WE’LL BE BACK IN THAT HEARINGROOM WHEN THEY RESUME. IF YOU’RE TUNING IN, THEY ARE ON THE BREAK BECAUSE VOTES. AND YOU CAN IMAGINE THEY’RE TRYING TO GRAB LUNCH AND GET A MINI WALK-IN. THERE’S 41 MEMBERS, AND THEY GET 5 MINUTES TO ASK QUESTIONS OF THE WITNESSES AND ASK QUESTIONS OF EITHER WITNESSES, THE THREE DEMOCRATIC CALLED LAW PROFESSORS OR REPUBLICAN CALLED LAW PROFESSORS. THEY CAN MIX IT UP A LITTLE BIT. IT WAS INTERESTING TO SEE IN THE FIRST 45-MINUTE CLUNK, THE DEMOCRATS FOCUS COUNSEL ON THE WITNESSES THEY HAD CHOSE SQUN HEAR THE REPUBLICANS MAKE JOKES ABOUT THAT LATER BECAUSE JONATHAN TURLEY SAT THERE, AND HE HAD HIS TURN TO GIVE HIS ANALYSIS AT GREAT LENGTH DURING THE REPUBLICAN QUGZS.>> AND WHEN THE DEMOCRATS ASKED QUESTIONS, HE MADE CLEAR HE WANTADYES OR NO ANSWER. HE DIDN’T WANT HIM TO SPIN THE ANSWER IN HIS DIRECTION. THEY DID HAVE A LAUGH ABOUT THAT. ONCE YOU SAW REPUBLICAN COUNSEL TAKE OVER, BEFORE WE GOT TOOT THAT, DOUG CALL NDS A RANGING MEMBER SAID YOU WANT TO FROCK 20 MINUTES WITHOUT ANY QUESTIONS, AND ABOUT HALFWAY THROUGH IT, I THINK HE SAW HIM DOING SOMETHING MOTIONALLY, HE SAID DUPT TO ASK ME A QUESTION. HE HAD NO. IT WAS A SITUATION THEY LET HIM DO HIS THING. >> IF YOUR DEMOCRATS ARE YOU GOING TO RELY ON WHETHER YOU DIDN’T KNOW THE PRESIDENT WAS RELYING ON A QUID PRO QUO? WE DON’T KNOW WHEN IT WAS MILITARY AID? ARE YOU GOING TO RELY ON THAT OR MAKE A BROADER ARGUMENT ABOUT THE PRESIDENT ABOUT STRUTHING JUSTICE IN BOTH THE INVESTIGATES CL I THINK DEMOCRATS ARE LOOKING AT AS A STRONGER ARGUMENT. >> GREAT. AND I WANTED TO MENTION WHAT AARON IS TALKING ABOUT THE MUELLER REPORT ISSUES, AND I CANSAY THE SECOND TIME THIS YEAR, YOU WERE A COAUTHOR OF THE MUELLER REPORT.>> YEAH. BOB WROTE THE FIRST ONE AND THE SECOND BASED STRONGLY ON HISWORK. IT CAME OUT IN BOOK FORM AND THEN THE WEBSITE. >> I THINK YOU’RE A DOUBLE AUTHOR. PLAP >> AND SO WHAT IT IS IS THAT WE TRIED TO STAY AWAY FROM LEGAL ANALYSIS. WE FELT LIKE THE MUELLER REPORT IS JUST AN INCREDIBLE STORY ABOUT DRAUCHBLD IS LIKE IN THE WHITE HOUSE AND THE KIND YOU CAN ALMOST NEVER GET. IT WAS AN ACCOUNT TOLD BY PEOPLE WHO WORKED IN THE WHITE HOUSE AND ALL INTERVIEWED UNDER OATH BY MUELLER AND HIS INVESTIGATORS. AND YOU JUST WANT AN ANORM S AMOUNT OF WHAT PRESIDENT TRUMP IS LIKE UNDER PRESSURE AND STRESS AND FACING THESE INVESTIGATIONS. WE KIND OF TRIED TO BRING THAT TO LIFE ACCEPTABLE TO READERS THROUGH THIS GRAPHIC NOVEL WE STEERED AWAY FROM THAT BECAUSE IT’S TRUE AND NONFICTION AND STICKS VERY RIGOROUSLY TO THE FINDINGS OF THE REPORT AND DOES SIMPLIFY IT AND TELL IT IN A MORE DRAMATIC WAY. >> HOW DO YOU THINK THE MUELLER REPORT PROCESS IS INFLUENCING WHAT YOU’RE SEEING HOUSE DEMOCRAT DO OVER THESE WEEKS OF THE INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE AND MOVING INTO JUDICIARY? >> I’M NOT SURE OUTSIDE OF WHATAARON WAS JUST SAYING. WE TRY TO REMIND PEOPLE THAT THE CURRENT SITUATION WITH UKRAINE IS NOT ACTUALLY A WHOLE NEW THING FROM THE MUELLER EXPERIENCE. IT ACTUALLY GREW ORGANICALLY OUTSIDE OF MUELLER BECAUSE RUDN Y GIULIANI SAYS THEREASON WHY HE WENT TO UKRAINE TO LOOK FOR DIRT ON THE DEMOCRATS DEMOCRATS, ORIGINALLY, HE WAS LOOKING FOR A COUNTER NARRATIVE TO MUELLER. THIS BEGAN NOVEMBER 2018 AN A KEY MOMENT IN THE INVESTIGATION BEFORE WE KNUWHAT MUELLER WAS GOING TO ULT IMATELY CONCLUDED. PAUL WE KNEWAT THE TIME WAS GIVING INTERVIEWS TO THE PROSECUTORS AND BEING REALLY PRESSED TO EXPLAIN HIS INTERACTIONS WITH A RUSSIAN EMPLOYEE DURING THE ELECTION, AND SO WHAT GIULIANI HAD SAID HE WAS ESSENTIALLY LOOKING FOR WHAT EVERY DEFENSE ATTORNEY NEEDS, AN ALIBI, ALTERNATE STORY, AND THE ALTERNATE STORY HE THOUGHT HE LEARNED UKRAINE WAS A BASIS THEORY THAT IT WASN’T RUSSIA THAT INTERFERED IN THE ELECTION.IT WAS UKRAINE. AND THAT’S THE ORIGIN STORY OF THE CURRENT SITUATION. >> AND IT’S JUST FASCINATING TO SEE THIS QUESTION OF UKRAINE INTERFERENCE, AND NOW WE HEAR PEOPLE TALKING ABOUT RUSSIAN AND UKRAINIAN INTERFERENCE, AND IT’SJUST NO EVIDENCE. >> YEAH. SO THIS IS A REALLY GOOD EXAMPLE OF HOW IN POLITICS, YOU CAN USE SOMETHING TO MUDDY THE WATERS. >> THEY’RE VERY CLEARLY, AND I THINK FIONA HILL, I THINK A COUPLE OF WEEKS AGO OR LAST WEEK? TIME IS REALLY FLYING, THE WHITE HOUSE AID, THERE AID IN THE WHITE HOUSE TESTIFIED TO THIS IN THE MOST DEFINITIVE WAY.SHE SAID IT WAS UKRAINIAN WHOSE CAST THEIR LOT BECAUSE THEY LIKE EVERYONE ELSE ASSUMED HILLARYCLIPTEN WAS THE NEXT PRESIDENT. AND THEY WANTED TO BE ON HER GOOD SIDE. THEY HAD IT WAS PROBLEMATIC. AND THEY SAID IT BEARS NO RAEM COMPARISON TO WHAT RUSSIA DID. IT WAS SISM AT SYSTEM ATTIC AND TOP DOWN AND INVOLVED DISINFORMATION. SO CALLING THEM BOTH MEDDLING IN ANELECTION, SOMEBODY COULD CALL THAT TECHNICALLY ACCURATE. BUT THEY’RE ON A TOTALLY DIFFERENT LEVEL. SO THE ARGUMENT THAT IT’SA COMPARISON TO THE TWO THINGS, IT’S FARFETCHED. UKRAINE IS NOTTHE ONLY COUNTRY DOING THINGSCLIPTEN FRIENDLY. IT WAS HAPPENING IN A LOT OF OAT COUNTRIES AND PRESIDENT TRUMP HASN’T SPOTLIGHTED OTHER COUNTRIES LIKE LEE HAS UKRAINE. >> AND RUSSIA INVOLVED ILLEGAL ACTIVITIES. IT WAS CRIMINAL DIRECTED ILLEGAL ACTIVITY. THEY HACKED THE COMPUTERS OF AMERICA SIT ZEPZ. THEY STOLE PROPERTY FROM AMERICAN CITIZENS. AND EXPRESSING A POINT OF VIEW AS A FOREIGN PERSON, IT MIGHT BE UNWISE THAT YOU EXPRESS THAT POINT OF VIEW AND DOESN’T ULTIMATELY WIN. BUT IT’S NOT AN ILLEGAL ACT. BUT WHAT THE RUSSIANS DID, PEOPLE HAVE BEEN INDICTED FOR IT. IF THEY EVER TRIED TO CROSS INTO A COUNTRY WHERE WE HAVE A TREAT RF TREATY,THEY WOULD BE ARREST ASKED BROUGHT TO THE UNITED STATES. >> ALL RIGHT. THE INVESTIGATION REPORTER AIR LAKES, AND I WANT TO PLAY MORE SOUPD FROM JONATHAN TURLEY, THE GEORGE WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY LAW PROFESSOR CALLED BY TREEPZ APPEAR TODAY, AND HE ARGUED THAT THIS CURRENT TRUMP IMPEACH NMENTQUIRY DIDN’T MEET THE STANDARDS OF PASSING IMPEACHMENT >> MY PERSONAL VIEWS OF PRESIDENT TRUMP ARE AS IRRELEVANT TO MY IMPEACHMENT TESTIMONY AS THEY SHOULD BE TO YOUR IMPEACHMENT VOTE. PRESIDENT TRUMP WILL NOT BE OR OUR LAST PRESIDENT. AND WHAT WE LEAVE IN THIS SCANDAL WILL SHAPEOUR DEMOCRACY FOR GENERATION TUESDAY COME. I’M CERPD ABOUT LOWERING THE IMPEACHMENT STANDARD, EVIDENCE AND ABUNDANCE OF ANGER. I DON’T BELIEVE IT PASSES IMPEACHMENT BUT WILL CREATE A DANGER FOR FUTURE IMPEACHMENT. >> THAT’S A ROOM WHERE THE HOUSE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE IS ON A BRICK. THEIR VOTE, AND ALSO WE EXPECT THEM TO PROBABLY STRETCH THEIR LEGS AND TAKE A MOMENT BEFORE RESUMING TESTIMONY. THE WITNESSES TODAY, THREE LEGAL SCHOLARS CALLED BY DEMOCRATS. WINDUP LEGAL SCHOLAR CALLED BY THE REPUBLICANS, ALL GIVING THEIR TAKE ON IMPEACHMENT AND WHERE THE ATTEMPT TO IMPEACH PRESIDENT TRUMP FALLS IN THE SCOPE OF HISTORY AND ALSO WHETHER OR NOT WHAT HE’S BEEN ACCUSED OF MEETS THE BAR OF AN IMPEACHABLE OFFENSE. AND WE HEARD VERY DIFFERENT TAKES ON THIS FROM THE REPUBLICANS SIDE OF THE AISLE VERSUS THE DEMOCRATIC SIDE OF AISLE WHICH IS SERM TO BE EXPECTED. NOW THEMEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE GET TO HAVE THEIR 5 MINUTES OF THE Q AND A WHERE THEY CAN DES QUESTIONS. AND SO THIS HEARING WILL STRETCH ON INTO THE AFTERNOON WHERE THEYTAKE THIS INVESTIGATION PHASE THAT THE IFTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE WAS DOING 2-WEEKS AGO AND BRINGS IN QUESTIONS OF IMPEACH SQUMENT HOW TO MOVE FORWARD.I’M JOINED NOW IN THE STUDIO BY AMBER PHILLIPS AND TOM HAMBURGER. THANK YOU SO MUCH TO BOTH OF US.TOM, AMBER EARLIER LAID OUT FOR US THE DISTINCTION THAT THE INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE HAD BEEN PART OF THIS FACT-FINDING GATHERING EVIDENCE. AND NOW WE MOVE TO JUDICIARY COMMITTEE. THEY CAN DRAFT ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT BUT ALSO LAYING THE GROUDWORK. . >>> WHICH IS THE CONSTITUTION SAYS IT CAN BE NO TITLES OF NOBILITY. WHILE HE CAN NAME HIS SON BA RRK ON, HE CAN’T MAKE HIMA BARON. AND HE ASKED CAN ANYONE BE ABOVE JUSTICE, AND HE WROTE THAT HIGH CRIMES OF MISDEMEANORS MEANS THAT. WHAT DO YOU THINK IS THE MOST COMPELLING EVIDENCE IN THIS IMPEACH MENT INQUIRY THAT LEADS TO THAT? >> THE PHONE CALL OF JULY 25TH IS CLEAR TO MY MIND IN THAT WE HEAR THE PRESIDENT ASKING FOR AN A FAVOR THAT IS CLEARLY A PERSONAL BENEFIT RATHER THAN ACTING ON THE BEHALF OF THE INTEREST OF THE NATION, AND FURTHER FROM THAT, FURTHER DOWN THE ROAD, WE HAVE MORE EVIDENCE WHICH TENDS TO GIVE THE CONTEXT AND SUPPORT THE EXPLUTHAIGZ FOR WHAT HAPPENED.>> PROFESSOR KARLAN, HOW DOES SUCH ABUSE AFFECT OUR PRESIDENTIAL SYSTEM? >> IT IS WE THE PEOPLE WHO DETERMINE THE NEXT PEOPLE THAN A FOREIGN GOVERNMENT. >> I THINK THE PRESIDENT’S ACS ARE UNPRECEDENTED, BUT WHAT ALSOSTRIKES ME IS HOW MANY REPUBLICANS AND DEMOCRATS BELIEVE THAT HIS CONDUCT WAS WRONG. LET’S LISTEN TO THE TURLEY. >> IT IS IMPROPER FOR THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES TO INVESTIGATE A POLITICAL OPPONENT. >> PROFESSOR FELDMAN, IN LIGHT OF HIM ASKING FOR FEDERAL INVESTIGATION AND ONLY WHEN CAUGHT RELEASED THE AID, IS IT STILL NEED FOR IMPEACHMENT? >> YES. IT IS IMPEACHMENT WHEN HE ATTEMPTED TO ABUSE THE OFFICE. THERE’S NO DISTINCTION BETWEEN TRYING AND SUCCEEDING. IT’S ESPECIALLY TRUE IF YOU STOP ONLY BECAUSE YOU GOT CAUGHT. >> Reporter: OVER 70% OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE BELIEVE WHAT HE DID WAS WRONG. WE HAVE A SOLEMN RESPONSIBILITY TO SUGGEST THAT AND AS WELL THE FIDELITY TO OUR OATH AND DUTY REMINDED OF THE MEN AND WOMEN WHO SERVED IN THE MILITARY AND REMINDED OF MY THREE UNCLES WHO SERVED IN WORLD WAR 2. I CAN’T IMAGINE THEM BEING ON THE BATTLEFIELD NEEDING ARMS AND FOOD. AND THE GENERAL SAYS DO ME A FAVOR. WE KNOW THAT GENERAL WOULD NOT SAY DO MEA FAVOR. AND SO IN THE INSTANCE, THE AMERICAN PEOPLE DESERVE LEADERSHIP, AND IT IS OUR DUTY TO FAIRLY ASSESS THE FACTS AND THE CONSTITUTION. I YIELD BACK MY TIME. >> THE LADY YIELDS BACK. >>> IT’S PRETTY CLEAR TO ME THATNO MATTER WHAT QUESTIONS WE ASK THESE FOUR WITNESSES AND NO MATTER WHAT THEIR ANSWERS, THAT MOST IF NOT ALL THE DEMOCRATS ONTHIS COMMITTEE ARE GOING TO VOTE TO IMPEACH PRESIDENT TRUMP. THAT’S WHAT THEIR HARD CORE BASE AIDING WANTS, AND THEY WANTED ITWHEN HE WAS ELECTED 3 YEARS AGO. IN FACT WHEN DEMOCRATS TOOK OVERTHE HOUSE, ONE OF THE FIRST THINGS THEY DID WAS INTRODUCE ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT. 94 TODAY, WE ARE UNDERTAKING A LARGELY ACADEMIC EXERCISE, THIS IS ADAM SCHIFF, AND IT WOULD SEEM SCHIFF LED ON BASIC FAIRNESS AND CALLED FOR HIM TO BE QUESTIONED ABOUT THOSE THINGS. MR. CHAIRMAN, BACK IN 1998 WHEN PRESIDENT BILL CLINTON WAS BEING CONSIDERED, HE SAID WE MUST NOT OVER TURN THE ELECTION WITHOUT AN OVERWHELMING CONSENSUS WITHOUT A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS. YOU HAD QUOTE IT MUSTBE NEVER NARROWLY VOTED IMPEACHMENT OR ONE SUPPORTED BY ONE OF THE MAJOR POLITICAL PARTIES AND OPPOSED BY THE OTHERS. WHAT YOU SAID IS WHAT WE SHOULDN’T DO NOW, MOVING FORWARD WITH A CONSENSUS, AND IT WILL RESULT IN THE DIVISIVENESS AND BETTERNESS YOU WARNED US ABOUT BACK THEN. A COUPLE OF QUOTES FROM A WISE JERRY 2 DECADES AGO.THE LAST THING YOU WANT IS TO IMPEACH THE PRESIDENT. THOSE ARE WISE WORDS MR. CHAIRMAN. BUT YOU’RE NOT FOLLOWING THEM TODAY. . >>> THAT IS ENORMOUS RESPONSIBILITY AND EXTRA ORDINARY POWER. IT IS NOT ONE WE SHOULD EXERCISE LIGHTLY. IT IS NOT ONE TO BE EXERCISED IN A MANNER WHICH IS OR BE PERCEIVED BITE AMERICAN PEOPLE TO BE UNFAIR OR PARTISON. UNQUOTE. AGAIN, MR. CHAIRMAN, THOSE THINGS THAT YOU WARNED AGAINST THEN ARE EXACTLY WHAT YOU AND YOUR DEMOCRATIC COLLEAGUES ARE DOING NOW. YOU’RE ABOUT TO MOVE FORWARD WITH A TOTALLY LINED IMPEACHMENT. THAT IS NOT INCONSENSUS OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE. IT IS NO DOUBTIT WILL BE PERCEIVED AS AN UNFAIR PARTISAN EFFORT. YOU SEEM BOUND TO MOVE FORWARD AND THEY KNOW BETTER. I GET IT DEMOCRATS DON’T LIKE HIS PRESIDENT. TAY DON’T LIKE HIS POLICIES OR AS A PERSON. THEY HATE HIS TWEETS. THEY DON’T LIKETHE MUELLER INVESTIGATION IS A FLOP. SO NOW YOU’RE GOING TO IMPEACH HIM? I GOT NEWS. YOU MAY PUT ENOUGH ARMS IN THE HOUSE, BUT THAT EFFORT WILL DIE IN THE SENATE. YES, IT IS. >> PROFESSOR FELDMAN, VESTA GARRETT, DO YOU AGREE? YOU STATED THE EFFORTS OF THE IMPEACHABLE OFFENSE WAS TO SACRIFICE THE NATION’S EFFORT. PROFESSOR, DO YOU ALSO AGREE WITH THAT? >> YES, SIR. >> BASED ON THE EVIDENCE YOU HAVE SEEN, HAS PRESIDENT TRUMP SACRIFICED THE COUNTRY’S INTEREST IN FAVOR OF HIS OWN? >> YES, HE HAS. >> AND IS THERE A PARTICULAR PIECE OF EVIDENCE THAT MOST ILLUMINATES THAT? >> I THINK BUT ILLUMINATE THAT MOST FOR ME IS THAT IN STATEMENTBY AMBASSADOR SUMMERLIN, HE WANTED THE ANNOUNCEMENT OF THE INVESTIGATION, SEVERAL OTHER PEOPLE SAID THE SAME THING.WHATHE WANTED WAS SIMPLY PUBLIC INFORMATION TO DAMAGE JOE BIDEN.HE DID NOT CARE WHETHER AT THE END OF THE DAY JOE BIDEN WAS FOUND GUILTY OR EXONERATED. >> PROFESSOR FELDMAN, DO YOU AGREE, OR HAVE A DIFFERENCE OF THE SAME ILLUMINATING FACTORS? >> MY INTEREST WOULD BE THE FACTTHAT THE PRESIDENT HELD UP AID TO AN ALLY THAT IS FIGHTING A WAR IN DIRECT CONTRAVENTION OF A UNANIMOUS OF THE NATIONAL SECURITY COMMITTEE. THAT SEEMED TO REPLACE HIS OWN INTEREST IN PERSONAL ADVANTAGE AHEAD OF THE INTEREST–STATEMENT AND A BILL PASSED BY CONGRESS MAY? PROFESSOR GEARHART? >> I WOULD AGREE WITH MY COLLEAGUES, I WOULD ADD I AM VERY CONCERNED ABOUT THE PRESIDENTS OBSTRUCTION OF CONGRESS, REFUSING TO APPLY WITH A NUMBER OF SUBPOENAS, ORDERING MANY HIGH-LEVEL OFFICIALS IN THE GOVERNMENT NOT TO COMPLY WITH SUBPOENAS, IGNORING AN ENTIRE EXECUTIVE BRANCH NOT TO COOPERATE WITH CONGRESS.IT IS USEFUL TO REMEMBER THAT CONGRESSHAS THE WHOLE SOLE POWER TO IMPEACH. ONCE WITH REFERENCE TO THE HOUSE IN THIS AREA, ONCE WITH REFERENCE TO THE SCENTED WITH RESPECT TO IMPEACHMENT TRIALS. SOLD MEANS SOLD. >> LET ME GET PROFESSOR TURLEY INTO THIS. YOU ARE A SELF PRESCRIBED, SELF ANOINTED DEFENDER OF ARTICLE 1 CONGRESS GUY, BUT YOU JUSTIFY A POSITION THAT’S AS LEGALLY ISSUED SUBPOENAS BY CONGRESS ENFORCING ITS POWERS DON’T HAVE TO BE COMPLIED WITH. IT SEEMS IN THIS CIRCUMSTANCE, YOU ARE IN ARTICLE 2 EXECUTIVE GUY. YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT THE JOHNSON IMPEACHMENT IS NOT VERY USEFUL. THAT WAS MILD ADMINISTRATION. THIS IS A CRIMINAL ACT. THANK YOU PROFESSORS FOR HELPING US UNDERSTAND HIGH CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS. WE THE PEOPLE’S REPRESENTATIVES AND PEOPLE’S HEALTH ARE VERY CUSTODIANS WHERETHE PEOPLE ARE SOVEREIGN. WE HAVE A HIGHER RESPONSIBILITY TO UPHOLD OUR CONSTITUTION AND DEFEND OUR DEMOCRACY, AND WE SHALL DO THAT. >> THE GENTLEMAN’S TIME IS EXPIRED.MR. GOLDMAN. >> THANK YOU. I AM AFRAID THIS HEARING IS INDICATIVE OF THE INDECENCY IN WHICH WE HAVE COME WHEN INSTEAD OF THE COMMITTEE OF JURISDICTION BRINGING IN FACT WITNESSES TO GET TO THE BOTTOM OF WHAT HAPPENED, AND NOT EVEN HAVING TIME TO REVIEW THE REPORT , WHICH, AS PROFESSOR TURLEY INDICATED, IT IS WAFER THIN WHEN COMPARED TO THE 36 BOXES OFDOCUMENTS THAT WERE DELIVERED TO THE LAST IMPEACHMENT GROUP. BUT TO START THIS HEARING WITH THE CHAIRMAN OF THE COMMITTEE SAYING THAT THE FACTS ARE UNDISPUTED, THE ONLY THING THAT IS DISPUTED MORE THAN THE FACTS IN THIS CASE IS THE STATEMENT THAT THE FACTS ARE UNDISPUTED. THEY ARE ABSOLUTELY DISPUTED, AND THE EVIDENCE IS A BUNCH OF HEARSAY ON HEARSAY THAT IF ANYBODY HERE HAD TRIED CASES BEFORE OF ENOUGH MAGNITUDE, YOU WOULD KNOW YOU CAN’T RELY ON HEARSAY ON HEARSAY, BUT WE HAVE EXPERTS WHO KNOW BETTER THAN THEACCUMULATED EXPERIENCE OF THE AGES.SO, HERE WE ARE. I WOULD SUBMIT WE NEED FACTUAL WITNESSES. WE DO NOT NEED TO RECEIVE A REPORT THAT WE DON’T HAVE A CHANCE TO READ BEFORE THIS HEARING. WE NEED A CHANCE TO BRING IN ACTUAL FACT WITNESSES. THERE ARE A COUPLE I CAN NAME THAT ARE CRITICAL TO US GETTING TO THE BOTTOM. THEY WORKFOR THE NATIONAL SECURITY COUNCIL, ABIGAIL GRACE, THEY WERE INVOLVED IN THE U.S.-UKRAINE AFFAIRS. THEY WORKED WITH VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN ON DIFFERENT MATTERS INVOLVING UKRAINE. THEY WORKED WITH BRENDAN AND MASTERS . THEY HAVE ABSOLUTELY CRITICAL INFORMATION ABOUT CERTAIN UKRAINIANS’ INVOLVEMENT IN OUR ELECTION. THEIR RELATIONSHIPS WITH THE WITNESSES WHO WENT BEFORE THE INTEL COMMITTEE AND OTHERS INVOLVED IN THESE ALLEGATIONS MAKE THEM THE MOST CRITICAL WITNESSES IN THIS ENTIRE INVESTIGATION.THEIR RECORDS, INCLUDING EMAILS AND TEXT MESSAGES, FLASH DRIVES, COMPUTERS, HAVE INFORMATION THATWILL RING THIS EFFORT TO REMOVE THE PRESIDENT TO A SCREECHING HALT. SO, WE HAVE AN ARTICLE HERE FROM OCTOBER 11th, GARY PICKETT POINTS OUT THAT HEALTH INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE ATTORNEY ADAM SCHIFF, RECRUITED TO COUNCILS THAT WORKED ALONGSIDE THE CIA WHISTLEBLOWER AT THE NFC DURING THE OBAMA AND TRUMP ADMINISTRATIONS. ABIGAIL GRACE, WHO WORKED AT THE NFC WAS HIRED IN FEBRUARY, SEAN MISKO, AND FCA UNTIL 2017, JOINED SHIPS COMMITTEE IN AUGUST, THE SAME MONTH THE WHISTLEBLOWER SUBMITTED HIS COMPLAINT. HE GOES ON TO POINT OUT THAT GRACE WAS HIRED TO HELP THE COMMITTEE INVESTIGATE THE TRUMP WHITE HOUSE.THAT MONTH, TRUMP ACCUSED HIM OF STEALING PEOPLE WHO WERE WORKING AT THE WHITE HOUSE. CHAIRMAN SCHIFF SAID IF THE PRESIDENT WASWORRIED ABOUT HIRING OUR FORMER ADMINISTRATION, MAYBE HE SHOULD WORK ON BEING A BETTER EMPLOYER. NO, HE SHOULD HAVE FIRED EVERYBODY, JUST LIKE BILL CLINTON DID, ALL THE U.S. ATTORNEYS ON THE SAME DAY. THAT WOULD HAVE SAVED US A LOT OF WHAT IS GOING ON HERE. SO, ANYWAY, WE NEED THOSE TWO WITNESSES.THEY ARE CRITICAL. THEN, WE ALSO NEED SOMEONE WHO IS A DETAILED LATE TO THE CRANE, STATE DEPARTMENT SHOWS THAT HE WAS AT AN ITALY STATE LUNCHEON. THERE IS ITALY RAMIFICATIONS IN THE LAST ELECTIONS. HE SPEAKS ARABIC AND RUSSIAN, REPORTED DIRECTLY TO CHARLES GUPTON, WHO IS A FRIEND IN BLUMENTHAL. HE DID POLICY WORK FOR UKRAINE CORRUPTION. CLOSE CONTINUOUS CONTACT WITH THE FBI STATE UKRAINIAN OFFICIALS, HEAD OF COLLATERAL DUTY TO SUPPORT VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN .BIDEN WAS OBAMA’S POINT MAN ONUKRAINE. ASSOCIATED WITH DNC OPERATIVE ALLEN SHALL BECOME A WHICH WE ALSO NEED, MET WITH HER NOVEMBER 9th, WITH UKRAINIAN DELEGATION. THERE IS ALL KINDS OF REASONS WE NEED THESE THREE WITNESSES. I WOULD ASK PURSUANT TO SECTION 4, HOUSE OF RESOLUTION 660, ASK OUR CHAIRMAN –I MEAN OUR RANKING MEMBER, TO SUBMIT THE REQUEST FOR THE THREE WITNESSES BECAUSE WE ARE NOT HAVING A FACTUAL HEARING UNTIL WE HAVE THESE PEOPLE THAT ARE ATTHE BOTTOM OF EVERY FACT OF THIS INVESTIGATION. I YIELD BACK. THANKS FOR BRINGING DOWN THE GAVEL HEART, THAT WAS NICE. >> THE GENTLEMAN YELLS BACK, MR. JOHNSON. >> THANK YOU MR. CHAIRMAN. THE PRESIDENT HAS REGULARLY AND RECENTLY SOLICITED FOREIGN INTERFERENCE IN OUR UPCOMING ELECTION. OPPRESSOR TURLEY WARNS THIS IS AN IMPULSE BUY MOMENT AND SUGGEST THAT THE HOUSE SHOULD PAUSE. PROFESSOR KARLAN, DO YOU AGREE WITH PROFESSOR TURLEY? >> KNOW.IF YOU CONCLUDE, AS I THINK THE EVIDENCE TO THIS POINT SHOWS, THE PRESIDENT IS SOLICITING FOREIGN INVOLVEMENT IN OUR ELECTION, YOU NEED TO ACTNOW TO PREVENT FOREIGN INTERFERENCE IN THE NEXT ELECTION LIKE THE ONE WE HAD IN THE PAST. >> THANK YOU PROFESSOR KARLAN, 30 SECONDS OR LESS, TELL US WHYYOU BELIEVE THE PRESIDENT’S CONDUCT WAS AN ABUSE OF POWER SOEGREGIOUS IT MIRRORS THE DRASTIC REMEDIES OF IMPEACHMENT? >> HE INVITED THE RUSSIANS, ARE LONG-TERM ADVERSARIES INTO THE PROCESS THE LAST TIME AROUND BECAUSE HE HAS INVITED THE UKRAINIANS INTO THE PROCESS, AND BECAUSE HE SUGGESTED HE WOULD LIKE THE CHINESE TO COME INTO THE PROCESS AS WELL. >> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. ONE OF THE FRAMERS OF OUR CONSTITUTION,EDWARD RANDOLPH, WHO AT ONE TIME WAS MAYOR OF WILLIAMSBURG, VIRGINIA, WARNED US THAT QUOTE, THE EXECUTIVE WOULD HAVE GREAT OPPORTUNITIES OF ABUSING HIS POWER, AND QUOTE.PROFESSOR FELDMAN, PEOPLE LIKE RANDOLPH ROAD BELT BECAUSE OF THE TYRANNYOF THE KING. WHY WOULD THE FRAMERS SO CAREFUL TO AVOID THE POTENTIAL FOR A PRESIDENT TO BECOME SO TYRANNICAL AND ABUSIVE? WHAT DID THEY DO TO PROTECT AGAINST IT? >> THE FRAMERS BELIEVED VERY STRONGLY THAT THE PEOPLE WERE THE KING. THE PEOPLE WERE SOVEREIGNS. THATMEANS THAT THE PRESIDENT WORKED FOR SOMEBODY, HE WORKED FOR THE PEOPLE. THEY KNEW THAT A PRESIDENT WHO COULD NOT BE CHECKED, WHO COULD NOT BE SUPERVISED BY HIS OWN JUSTICE DEPARTMENT, AND WHO COULD NOT BE SUPERVISED BY CONGRESS AND COULDNOT BE IMPEACHED, WOULD EFFECTIVELY BE ABOVE THE LAW ANDWOULD USE HIS POWER TO GET HIMSELF REELECTED.THAT IS WHY THEY CREATED THE IMPEACHMENT REMEDY. >> THANK YOU PROFESSOR FELDMAN. I NOW WANT TO EXPRESS HOW THE CONCERNS ABOUT THE USE OF POWER RELATE TO PRESIDENT TRUMP’S MISCONDUCT. ON JULY 25th, PRESIDENT TRUMP SAID TO PRESIDENT ZIELINSKI QUOTE, I WOULD LIKE YOU TO DO US A FAVOR,THOUGH. PROFESSOR FELDMAN, WHEN PRESIDENT TRUMP MADE USE OF THE WORD FAVOR THOUGH, DO YOU BELIEVE THAT THE PRESIDENT WAS BENIGNLY ASKING FOR A FAVOR, AND HOW IS THE ANSWER TO THAT QUESTION RELEVANT TO WHETHER THE PRESIDENT ABUSED HIS POWER? >> IT IS RELEVANT, SIR, BECAUSE THERE IS NOTHING WRONG WITH SOMEONE ASKING FOR THE FAVOR IN THE INTEREST OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. THE PROBLEM IS, THE PRESIDENT USED HIS OFFICE TO SOLICIT OR DEMAND A FAVOR FOR HIS PERSONAL BENEFIT. THE EVIDENCE STRONGLY SUGGESTS THAT GIVEN THE POWER OFTHE PRESIDENT AND GIVEN THE INCENTIVES THE PRESIDENT CREATEDFOR UKRAINE TO COMPLY WITH HIS REQUEST, THE PRESIDENT WAS SEEKING TO SERVE HIS OWN PERSONAL BENEFIT AND OWNPERSONAL INTERESTS. THAT’S THE DEFINITION OF CORRUPTION IN THE CONSTITUTION. >> OTHER WITNESSES HAVE ALSO TESTIFIED IT WAS THEIR IMPRESSION THAT WHEN PRESIDENT TRUMP SAID I WOULD LIKE YOU TO DO US A FAVOR THOUGH, HE WAS ACTUALLY MAKING A DEMAND AND NOT A REQUEST.PROFESSOR FELDMAN, HOW DOES LIEUTENANT COLONEL DENMAN’S TESTIMONY THAT THE STATEMENT WAS A DEMAND BECAUSE OF THE POWER DISPARITY BETWEEN THE TWO COUNTRIES RELATE BACK TO OUR FRAMERS CONCERNS ABOUT THE PRESIDENTS ABUSE OF POWER? >> THE OBSERVATIONS STATE VERY CLEARLY YOU HAVE TO UNDERSTAND, THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES SO MUCH MORE POWER THAN THE PRESIDENT OF UKRAINE THAT WHEN THE PRESIDENT USES THE WORD FAVOR, THEIR REALITY IS HE IS APPLYING TREMENDOUS PRESSURE. THE PRESSURE OF THE UNITED STATES. THAT RELATES TO THE CONSTITUTIONAL ABUSE OF OFFICE. IF SOMEONE OTHER THAN THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES ASKED THE PRESIDENT OF UKRAINE TO DO A FAVOR, THE PRESIDENT OF UKRAINE CASINO. WHEN THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES USES THE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENCY FOR A FAVOR, THEY ARE SPECIFICALLY NO WAY FOR THE PRESIDENT OF UKRAINE TO REFUSE. >> THANK YOU, WE’VE ALSO HEARD TESTIMONY THAT THE PRESIDENT WITHHELD A WHITE HOUSE MEETING AND MILITARY AID IN ORDER TO FURTHER PRESSURE UKRAINE TO ANNOUNCE INVESTIGATIONS OF VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN AND THE 2016 ELECTION. PROFESSOR KARLAN, IS THAT WHY YOUR TESTIMONY CONCLUDED THAT THE PRESIDENT ABUSED HIS POWER? >> I THOUGHT THE PRESIDENT ABUSED HIS POWER BY ASKING FOR ACRIMINAL INVESTIGATION OF A UNITED STATES CITIZEN FOR POLITICAL ENDS, REGARDLESS OF EVERYTHING ELSE.IT IS NOT ICINGON THE CAKE, IT IS WHAT YOU WOULD CALL AN AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCE THAT WAS NEEDED HERE. >> THANK YOU. PRESIDENT HOLDING EIGHT AMERICAN ALLY TO EXTRACT PERSONAL FAVORS IS DEEPLY TROUBLING. THIS IS NOT AN IMPULSE BUY MOMENT, IT IS A BREAK THE GLASS MOMENT. IMPEACHMENT IS THE ONLY APPROPRIATE REMEDY. WITH THAT, IWILL YIELD BACK. >> THE CHAIRMAN YELLS BACK. MR. JORDAN POINT >> BEFORE SPEAKER PELOSI ANNOUNCED THE IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY 10 WEEKS AGO ON SEPTEMBER 24th, BEFORE THE CALL BETWEEN PRESIDENT TRUMP AND PRESIDENT ZIELINSKI ON JULY 25th, BEFORE THE MUELLER HEARINGIN FRONT OF THIS COMMITTEE ON JULY 24th, BEFORE ALL OF THAT, 16 OF THEM HAD ALREADY VOTED TO MOVE FORWARD ON IMPEACHMENT. 16 DEMOCRATS ON THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE HAD ALREADY VOTED TO MOVE FORWARD ON IMPEACHMENT, YET, TODAY, WE ARE TALKING ABOUTWHETHER THE POSITIONS THEY HAVE ALREADY TAKEN OUR CONSTITUTIONALMARK IT SEEMS A LITTLE BACKWARD TO ME.WE CAN’T GET AGREEMENT. WE HAVE GOT FOUR DEMOCRATS, FOUR PEOPLE WHO VOTED FOR CLINTON AND THEY CAN’T AGREE. YET, TODAY, WE ARE TALKING ABOUT THE CONSTITUTION. PROFESSOR SCHIFF ONE, YOU’VE BEEN GREAT TODAY. I THINK YOU WERE WRONG ON ONE THING. YOU SAID THIS IS A FAST IMPEACHMENT.I WOULD ARGUE IT IS NOT A FAST IMPEACHMENT, IT IS A PREDETERMINED IMPEACHMENT. WE DETERMINED IMPEACHMENT DONE IN THE MOST UNFAIR PARTISAN FASHION WE HAVE EVER SEEN. NO SUBPOENA POWERFUL REPUBLICANS, DEPOSITIONS DONE IN SECRET, IN THE BUNKER, THE BASEMENT OF THE CAPITOL, 17 PEOPLE WITH THOSE DEPOSITIONS, NO ONE CAN BE THERE EXCEPT A HANDFUL OF FOLKS THAT ADAM SCHIFF ALLOWED. IN THOSE DEPOSITIONS, CHAIRMAN SCHIFF PREVENTED WITNESSES FROM ANSWERING REPUBLICAN QUESTIONS. EVERY DEMOCRAT QUESTION GOT ANSWERED. NOT EVERY REPUBLICAN QUESTION. DEMOCRATS RUN NIGHT DENIED OPEN HEARING THAT TOOK PLACE THREE WEEKS AGO. OF COURSE, THE DEMOCRATS PROMISED US THAT IT WAS THE BLOWER WITH TESTIFY, THEN CHANGED THEIR MIND. THEY CHANGE THEIR MIND, WHY? BECAUSE THE WHOLE WORLD DISCOVERED THAT ADAM SCHIFF’S STAFF HAD TALKED TO THE WAS A BLOWER, COORDINATEDWITH THE WHISTLEBLOWER, WITH THE BLOWER WITH NO FIRSTHAND KNOWLEDGE WHO WORKED WITH JOE BIDEN, WHOSE LAWYER IN JANUARY OF 20 17th AT THE IMPEACHMENT PROCESS STARTS THEN, THAT IS THE UNFAIR ACCESS WE HAVE BEEN THROUGH.THE REASON IT HAS BEEN UNFAIR LET ME JUST CUT TO THE CHASE. THE REASON IT HAS BEEN UNFAIR IS BECAUSE THE FACTSAREN’T ON THEIR SIDE. THE FACTS ARE ON THE PRESIDENTS SIDE. FOURKEY FACTS WILL NOT CHANGE, HAVE NOT CHANGED, WILL NEVER CHANGE. WE HAVE THE TRANSCRIPT. THERE WAS NO QUID PRO QUO ON THE TRANSCRIPT. THE TWO GUYS ON THE CALL, PRESIDENT TRUMP AND PRESIDENT ZIELINSKI BOTH SAID NOPE PRESSURE, NO PUSHING, NO QUID PRO QUO. UKRAINIANS THIRD DID NOT KNOW THE AIDE WAS HELD UP AT THE TIMEOF THE PHONE CALL. THIRD, AND MOST IMPORTANT, THE UKRAINIANS NEVER STARTED, NEVER PROMISED TO START, AND NEVER ANNOUNCED AN INVESTIGATION IN THE TIME THE AIDE WAS HELD. NEVER ONCE. YOU KNOW WHAT WAS HAPPENED IN THE 65 DAYS THE AIDE WAS PAUSED? THERE WERE FIVE KEY MEETINGS BETWEEN PRESIDENT ZIELINSKI AND SENIOR OFFICIALS IN OUR GOVERNMENT. FIVE KEY MEETINGS. THE CALL ON JULY 25th, THE VERY NEXT DAY, JULY 26, WE HAD AMBASSADOR VOLKER, TAYLOR, AND AMBASSADOR SONDLAND ON A CALL. WE HAD THE VICE PRESIDENT MEET WITH ZELENSKY ON THE 31st, AND WE HAD TWO SENATORS, REPUBLICAN AND MORE IMPORTANTLY DEMOCRAT SENATORS MURPHY WITH REPUBLICAN SENATOR JOHNSON MEET WITH PRESIDENT ZIELINSKI ON SEPTEMBER 25th. NONE OF THOSE FIVE MEETINGS, NONE OF THOSE FIVE MEETINGS WAS A MAMA EVER DISCUSSED IN EXCHANGE FOR ANNOUNCEMENT INTO AN INVESTIGATION INTO ANYBODY. NOT ONE OF THEM. YOU WOULD THINK THE LAST TWO, AFTER THE UKRAINIANS DID NOTE THE AIDE WAS BEING HELD, YOU WOULD THINK IT WOULD COME UP THEN. PARTICULARLY, THE ONE YOU GOT SENATOR MURPHY, THE DEMOCRAT TALKING ABOUT IT.NEVER CAME UP. THE FACTS ARE ON THE PRESIDENTS SIDE. WE GOT AN UNFAIR PROCESS. THEY DON’T HAVE THE FACTS, WE’VE GOT AN UNFAIR PROCESS, MOST IMPORTANTLY. THIS GETS TO SOMETHING ELSE YOU SAID MR. TURLEY. –THAT WAS SO WELL SAID, THIS IS GARY. THE DEMOCRATS HAVENEVER ACCEPTED THE WILL OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE. TO MR. TURLEY’SPOINT, 17 DAYS AGO, 17 DAYS AGO, THE SPEAKER OF THE UNITED STATESHOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES CALLED THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES AND AN IMPOSTER. THE GUY 63 MILLION AMERICANS VOTED FOR WHO ONE AN ELECTORAL COLLEGE LANDSLIDE, THE SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES CALLED THAT INDIVIDUAL AN IMPOSTER. THAT IS NOT HEALTHY FOR OUR COUNTRY. THIS IS NOT HEALTHY. THE FACTS ARE THE FACTS. THEY ARE ON THE PRESIDENTS SIDE. THAT IS WHAT WE NEED TO FOCUS ON, NOT SOME CONSTITUTIONAL TEARING AT THE END OF THE PROCESS, WOULD YOU GUYS HAVE ALREADY DETERMINED WHERE YOU ARE GOING TO GO.THAT,I YIELD BACK. >> THE GENTLEMAN YIELDS BACK. >> THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN. MR. CHAIRMAN, THIS MONTH, WE COMMEMORATE THE 70th YEAR ANNIVERSARY OF THE BATTLE OF THEBULGE. MY LATE FATHER, THEN STOPS SERGEANT RECEIVED A PURPLEHEART FIGHTING IN THE FRIGID WEATHER’S. HE GAVE BLOOD AMONG TENS OF THOUSANDS OF AMERICANS WHO SUFFERED–WHO WERE CASUALTIES. THEY SERVED UNDER OFFICERS AND A COMMANDER IN CHIEF WHO WERE NOT FIGHTING A WAR FOR THEIR OWN PERSONAL BENEFIT. THEYPUT THE COUNTRY FIRST. THEY MAKE THE SAME SOLEMN PROMISE THAT MEMBERS OF CONGRESS AND THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES MADE TO ALWAYS PUT NATIONAL INTERESTS ABOVE THEIR OWN PERSONAL INTEREST. THE EVIDENCE SHOWS THE PRESIDENT BROKE THAT PROMISE. THE CONSTITUTION GIVES THE PRESIDENT ENORMOUS POWER. ITALSO IMPOSES A REMEDY, IMPEACHMENT WHEN THOSE POWERS ARE ABUSED.IN JULY, PRESIDENT TRUMP SAID, AND I QUOTE, I HAVE IN ARTICLE 2, WHERE I HAVE THE RIGHT TO DO WHATEVER I WANT AS PRESIDENT, CLOSE QUOTE. PROFESSOR FELDMAN, THE PRESIDENTHAS BROAD POWERS INCLUDING FOREIGN POWERS, RIGHT? DO THOSE POWERS MEAN THAT THE PRESIDENT CAN DO, AS HE SAID, WHATEVER HE WANTS AS PRESIDENT? CAN YOU ABUSE THE POWERS THAT THE CONSTITUTION GIVES HIM? >> HE MAY NOT. IF THE PRESIDENT USES THE POWERS HE IS GIVEN FOR PRESENT PERSONAL GAIN, OR TO CORRUPT AN ELECTION, IT IS AGAINST THE UNITED STATES, HE MAY BE IMPEACHED FOR A HIGH CRIME OR MISDEMEANOR. >> IS USING THE POWER TO INTERFERE WITH THE ELECTION AND ABUSE OF THAT POWER? >> YES. >> PROFESSOR GOHMERT, HOW ARE THE FRAMINGS OF THE PRESIDENT ASKING FOR IN INTERFERENCE OF THE FOREIGN LEADER? >> IT IS ALWAYS PRACTICALLY IMPOSSIBLE TO KNOW EXACTLY WHAT THE FRAMERS DID THINK.IT IS NOTHARD TO IMAGINE HOW THE CONSTITUTION DEALS WITH IT. THAT IS THEIR LEGACY TO US. UNDER THE CONSTITUTION, IT IS PLAINLY AN ABUSE OF POWER. >> PROFESSOR KARLAN, WE’VE HEARDWITNESSES OVER THE PAST SEVERAL WEEKS TESTIFIED ABOUT THEIR CONCERNS WITH THE PRESIDENT USED HIS FOREIGN-POLICY POWER FOR POLITICAL GAIN. LIEUTENANT COLONEL VINDMAN WAS SHOCKED. HE COULD NOT BELIEVE WHAT HE HEARD ON THE PHONE CALL. HE ADVISED A POLITICAL HEIR WAS DIVERSION FROM EFFORTS TO PROTECT OUR NATIONAL SECURITY POLICY. AMBASSADOR TAYLOR THOUGHT IT WASCRAZY TO WITHHOLD SECURITY ASSISTANCE FOR HELP ON A POLITICAL CAMPAIGN. PROFESSOR KARLAN, THESE CONCERNS ARE NOT MERE DIFFERENCES OVER POLICY, ARE THEY? >> NO, THEY GO TO THE VERY FOUNDATION OF OUR DEMOCRACY. >> AND OFFERING TO EXCHANGE A WHITE HOUSE MEETING AND HUNDREDSOF MILLIONS OF DOLLARS IN SECURITY ASSISTANCE FOR HELP WITH HIS REELECTION, THAT CAN’T BE PART OF OUR NATION’S FOREIGN POLICY, CAN IT? >> NO, IT IS THE ESSENCE OF DOING SOMETHING FOR PERSONAL REASONS, RATHER THAN POLITICAL REASONS.IF I CAN JUST SAY ONE THING ABOUT THIS VERY BRIEFLY, WHICH IS MAYBE WHEN HE WAS FIRST RUNNING FOR PRESIDENT, HE HAD NEVER BEEN ANYTHING OTHER THAN A REALITY TV SHOW-HAPPENED THAT WAS HIS PUBLIC LIFE, MAYBE THEN HE COULD THINK OF RUSSIA, IF YOUARE LISTENING, IS AN OKAY THING TO DO. BY THE TIME HE ASKED UKRAINE, UKRAINE IF YOU ARE LISTENING, COULD YOU HELP ME OUTWITH MY REELECTION, HE HAS TO HAVE KNOWN THAT WAS NOT SOMETHING CONSISTENT WITH HIS OATH OF OFFICE. >> MR. CHAIRMAN, OUR FOUNDERS GRANTED THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES ENORMOUS POWERS, IT IS AT THE SAME TIME, WHAT WE HAVE BEEN REMINDED OF TODAY, THEY WORRIED THESE POWERS COULD BE ABUSED BY A CORRUPT PRESIDENT. THE EVIDENCE OF A ABUSE OF POWER IN THIS INQUIRY PROVED THAT OUR FOUNDERS WERE RIGHT TO BE WORRIED. >> YES. YES. THE PRESIDENT HAS THE POWER TO DIRECT AMERICA’S FOREIGN POLICY. NO, HE CANNOT USE THAT POWER TO CHEAT IN OUR ELECTION. REMEMBER, I ASK ALL OFMY COLLEAGUES TO REMEMBER, THE CONSTITUTION GRANTS THE PRESIDENT IS POWER THROUGH THE AMERICAN PEOPLE. THE PRESIDENT’SSOURCE OF POWER IS A DEMOCRATIC ELECTION. IT IS THE AMERICAN PEOPLE, THE VOTERS WHO TRUSTED HIM TO LOOK OUT FOR THEM. WE TRUSTED HIM TO LOOK OUT FOR THE COUNTRY, BUT INSTEAD, PRESIDENT TRUMP LOOK OUT FOR HIMSELF, HELPING HIMSELF GET REELECTED. HE ABUSED THE POWER THAT WE TRUSTED HIM WITH FOR PERSONAL AND POLITICAL GAIN. THE FOUNDERS WERE WORRIED ABOUT JUST THIS TYPE OF ABUSE OF POWER AND THEY PROVIDED ONE WAY, ONE WAY FOR CONGRESS TO RESPOND, AND THAT IS THE POWER OF IMPEACHMENT. I YIELD BACK. >> THE GENTLEMAN YEARS YIELDS BACK. >> THANK YOU MR. CHAIRMAN. HER FASTER TRANSFER AND WHY, I WANT TO DIRECT THESE FIRST FEW QUESTIONS TO YOU.THE OTHER THREE WITNESSES HAVE IDENTIFIED THIS MORPHEUS STANDARD OF IMPEACHING A PRESIDENT. THEY HAVE SAID THAT IF A PRESIDENT ABUSES HIS POWER FOR PERSONAL OR POLITICAL GAIN, IT IS IMPEACHABLE CONDUCT, DO YOU AGREE WITH ME? >> NOT THE WAY IT HAS BEEN STATED. IN FACT, THERE ARE SO MANY DIFFERENT STANDARDS. >> I HAVE GOT A LONG WAYS TO GO HERE. >> ONE OF THEM IS ATTEMPTING TO ABUSE OFFICE. I’M NOT EVEN SURE HOW TO RECOGNIZE THAT, LET ALONE TO FIND IT. >> LET ME GO WITH A FEW EXAMPLES AND SEE IF YOU AGREE WITH ME. LYNDON JOHNSON DIRECTED THE CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY TO PLACE ACE I AND BARRY GOLDWATER’S CAMPAIGN. THAT’S FIVE GOT ADVANCED COPIES OF SPEECHES AND OTHER STRATEGY AND DELIVERED TO THE JOHNSON CAMPAIGN.WITH THAT BE IMPEACHABLE CONDUCT ACCORDING TO THE OTHER PANELISTS? >> IT SPEAKS VERY BROADLY, SO I ASSUME SO. >> HOW ABOUT WHEN PRESIDENT JOHNSON PUT A WIRETAP ON GOLDWATER’S CAMPAIGN PLANE? WITH THAT BEFORE POLITICAL BENEFITS? >> I CAN’T EXCLUDE ANYTHING UNDER THAT BENEFIT. >> I AM GOING TO GO WITH A FEW OTHER PRESIDENTS, WE WILL SEE WHERE WE GO. CONGRESSMAN DEUTCH JUST INFORMED US THAT FDR PUT COUNTRY FIRST.FRANKLIN DELANO ROOSEVELT, BUT HE WAS PRESIDENT, DIRECTED THE IRS TO CONDUCT AUDITS OF HIS POLITICAL ENEMIES, MAINLY HUEY LONG, WILLIAM RANDOLPH HEARST, HAMILTON FISH, FATHER COUGHLIN, WOULD THAT BE AN ABUSE OF POWER ACCORDING TO THE OTHER PANELISTS, WOULD THAT BE IMPEACHABLE CONDUCT? >> I THINK IT WOULD ALL BE ASSUMED. >> HOW ABOUT WHEN PRESIDENT KENNEDY DIRECTED HIS BROTHER, ROBERT KENNEDY, TO DEPORT ONE OF HIS MISTRESSES AS AN EAST GERMAN SPY. WITH THAT QUALIFY AS IMPEACHABLE CONDUCT? >> ONCE AGAIN, I CAN’T EXCLUDE IT. >> HOW ABOUT WHEN HE DIRECTED THE FBI, HE USED WIRETAPS ON CONGRESSIONAL STAFFERS WHO OPPOSED HIM POLITICALLY.WOULD THAT BE IMPEACHABLE CONDUCT? >> IT SEEMS TO BE FALLING WITHINIT. >> LET’S GO TO BARACK OBAMA. WHEN BARACK OBAMA DIRECTED, OR MADE A FINDING THAT THE SENATE WAS IN RECESS AND APPOINTED PEOPLE FROM EIGHT NATIONAL RELATIONS LABOR’S BOARD AND LOST 9-NUMBER ZERO, RUTH BADER GINSBURG VOTED AGAINST THE PRESIDENT ON THIS ISSUE, WOULD THAT BE AN ABUSE OF POWER? >> I’M AFRAID YOU WOULD HAVE TO DIRECT IT TO OTHERS. I DON’T SEE ANY EXCLUSIONS UNDER THEIR DEFINITION. >> HOW ABOUT WHEN THE PRESIDENT DIRECTED THE NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISOR AND THE SECRETARY OF STATE TO LIE TO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE ABOUT WHETHER THAT AMBASSADOR TO LIBYA WAS MURDERED AS A RESULT OF THE VIDEO, OR WASMURDERED AS A RESULT OF A TERRORIST ACT, WOULD THAT BE A ABUSE OF POWER FOR POLITICAL BENEFIT 17 DAYS BEFORE THE NEXT ELECTION? >> NOT ACCORDING TO MY DEFINITION. THE OTHERS WILL HAVE TO RESPOND TO THEIR OWN. >> WELL, YOU HAVE HEARD THEIR DEFINITION. >> I HAVE A HARD TIME EXCLUDING ANYTHING.>> HOW ABOUT WHEN ABRAHAM LINCOLN ARRESTED LEGISLATORS IN MARYLAND SO THAT THEY WOULD NOT CONVENE TO SUCCEED FROM THE UNION AND VIRGINIA HAD ALREADY SUCCEEDED, SO IT WOULD REPLACE WASHINGTON, D.C., THE NATION’S CAPITAL, IN THE MIDDLE OF THE REBELLION. WITH THAT HAVE BEEN AN ABUSE OF POWER FOR POLITICAL BENEFITS? >> IT COULD BE UNDER THAT DEFINITION. >> YOU MENTIONED GEORGE WASHINGTON A LITTLE WHILE AGO AS PERHAPS HAVING MET THE STANDARD OF IMPEACHMENT FOR YOUR OTHER PANELISTS. IN FACT, LET ME ASK YOU SOMETHING PROFESSOR RUDY GIULIANI, CAN YOU NAME IS THE PRESIDENT IN THE HISTORY OF THE UNITED STATES, THEY PRESIDENT HARRISON, WHO DIED 32 DAYS AFTER HIS INAUGURATION, THAT WOULD NOTHAVE MET THE STANDARD OF IMPEACHMENT FOR OUR FRIENDS HERE? >> I WOULD HOPE TO GOD JAMES MADISON WOULD ESCAPE. OTHERWISE, A LIFETIME OF ACADEMIC WORK WOULD BE SHREDDED. ONCE AGAIN, I CAN’T EXCLUDE MANY OF THESE ACTS. >> ISN’T WHAT YOU AND I AND MANYOTHERS ARE AFRAID OF IS THAT THE STANDARDS THAT YOUR FRIENDS TO THE RIGHT OF YOU, AND NOT POLITICALLY, TO THE RIGHT OF YOUSITTING THERE, THAT YOUR FRIENDS HAVE DECIDED THAT THE BAR IS SO LOW THAT WHEN WE HAVE A DEMOCRAT PRESIDENT IN OFFICE, IN A REPUBLICAN HOUSE, AND A REPUBLICAN SENATE, WE WILL BE GOING THROUGH THIS WHOLE SCENARIO AGAIN IN A WAY THAT REALLY PUTS THE COUNTRY AT RISK?>> WHEN YOUR GRAPHIC SAYS IN YOUR ABCS THAT YOUR B IS BETRAYAL OF NATIONAL INTEREST, I WAS SIMPLY ASKED DO YOU REALLY WANT THAT TO BE YOUR STANDARD? >> IS AT THE DIFFERENCE PROFESSOR TURLEY THAT SOME PEOPLE LIVE IN AN IVORY TOWER, AND SOME PEOPLE LIVE IN A SWAMP?THOSE OF US IN THE SWAMP ARE DOING OUR VERY BEST FOR THE AMERICAN PEOPLE.IT IS NOT PRETTY. >> ACTUALLY, I LIVE IN AN IVORY TOWER IN A SWAMP BECAUSE I AM A GOW, AND IT IS NOT SO BAD. >> I YIELD BACK. >> THE GENTLEMAN YIELDS BACK. >> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. I WANT TO THANK THE WITNESSES, AND I DON’T BELIEVE THE PEOPLE’S HOUSE IS A SWAMP. PRESIDENT NIXON WAS IMPEACHED FOR ABUSE OF POWER BECAUSE HIS CONDUCT WAS QUOTE, UNDERTAKEN FOR HIS PERSONAL POLITICAL ADVANTAGE, AND NOT IN FURTHERANCE OF ANY VALID NATIONAL POLICY OBJECTIVE. PRESIDENT GERHARDT, WHY WAS IT SIGNIFICANT THAT RESIDENT NIXON ACTED FOR HIS PERSONAL POLITICALADVANTAGE AND NOT IN FURTHERANCE OF ANY VALID NATIONAL POLICY OBJECTIVE? >> IT IS PRIMARILY SIGNIFICANT BECAUSE IN ACTING FOR HIS OWN PERSONAL BENEFITS, AND NOT FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE COUNTRY IS CROSS THE LINE. THE LINE HERE IS VERY CLEAR. IT BECOMES ABUSE OF POWERWHEN SOMEBODY IS USING THE SPECIAL AUTHORITIES OF THEIR OFFICE FOR THEIR OWN PERSONAL BENEFITS, AND NOT THE BENEFIT OFTHE COUNTRY. >> CAN THE SAME BE SAID OF PRESIDENT TRUMP? >> IT COULD BE, YES.YES. >> THANK YOU. I AM STRUCK BY THE PARALLELS BECAUSE ONE OF THE THINGS NIXON DID IS HE LAUNCHED TAX INVESTIGATIONS OF HIS POLITICAL OPPONENTS. HERE, THE EVIDENCE SHOWS TRUMP TRY TO LAUNCH A CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION OF HIS POLITICAL OPPONENT BY A FOREIGN GOVERNMENT. WE HAVE HEARD EVIDENCE SUGGESTING THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP DID THIS FOR HIS OWN PERSONAL GAIN AND NOT FOR ANY NATIONAL POLICY INTEREST. ALTHOUGH, PRESIDENT TRUMP CLAIMS HE WITHHELD THE AIDBECAUSE OF CONCERNS ABOUT CORRUPTION. I DO BELIEVE WE HAVEEXAMPLES OF THE EVIDENCE OF THE TRUTH. >> AMBASSADOR SOLOMON STATED THE PRESIDENT ONLY CARED ABOUT BIG STUFF. I UNDERSTOOD THAT HE MEANT BIG STUFF THAT BENEFITS THE PRESIDENT, LIKE THE BIDEN INVESTIGATION THAT MR. GIULIANI WAS PUSHING. >> PROFESSOR FELDMAN, WHAT WITH THE FRAMERS HAVE THOUGHT OF A PRESIDENT WHO ONLY CARES ABOUT THE QUOTE, BIG STUFF THAT BENEFITS HIM? >> THE FRAMERS WERE EXTREMELY WORRIED ABOUT A PRESIDENT WHO SERVED ONLY HIS OWN INTERESTS OR THE INTERESTS OF FOREIGN POWERS.THAT WAS THEIR MOST SERIOUS CONCERN WITH A RESIGNED — DESIGNED THE REMEDY OF IMPEACHMENT.>> IT ALSO SUGGESTED PRESIDENT TRUMP DID NOT EVEN CARE IF THE INVESTIGATION ACTUALLY HAPPENED. WHAT HE CARED ABOUT WAS THE PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENT OF THE INVESTIGATION. SO, PROFESSOR KARLAN, HOW WOULD WE ANALYZE THESE FACTS IN THE CONTEXT OF ABUSE OF POWER? >> WELL, I THINK THIS, TO HAVE APRESIDENT ASK FOR THE INVESTIGATION OF HIS POLITICAL OPPONENT IS AN ARCHETYPE OF THE ABUSE OF POWER. MR. BUCK MENTIONED PAST EXAMPLES OF THIS. TO SAY THAT THOSE AREN’T IMPEACHABLE, I THINK IS A BIG MISTAKE. IF A PRESIDENT WIRETAPS HIS OPPONENT, THAT IS A FEDERAL CRIME, NOW. I DON’T KNOW WHETHER BEFORE THE WIRETAP ACT OF 1968 IT WAS, IF THE PRESIDENT WIRETAPS HIS OPPONENTS TODAY, THAT WOULD BE IMPEACHABLE CONDUCT. >> I ALSO SERVE ON THE FOREIGN AFFAIRS COMMITTEE. I UNDERSTAND HOW SIGNIFICANT IT IS FOR THE FOREIGN LEADERS TO MEET WITH OUR PRESIDENT.TO ATTEND A MEETING IN THE OVAL OFFICE IS VERY SIGNIFICANT. PRESIDENT ZIELINSKIIS A NEWLY ELECTED HEAD OF STATE IN A FLEDGLING DEMOCRACY. HIS COUNTRY IS AT WAR WITH HIS NEIGHBOR. RUSSIA INVADED AND IS OCCUPYING HIS COUNTRY’S TERRITORY. HE NEEDED THE MILITARY RESOURCES TO DEFEND HIS COUNTRY. HE NEEDED THE DIPLOMATIC RECORDATION OF THE AMERICAN PRESIDENT AND HE WAS PREPARED TO DO WHATEVER THE PRESIDENT DEMANDED. MANY YEARS AGO, I WORKED IN THE NATION’S LARGESTTRAUMA UNIT AS APA, PHYSICIAN’S ASSISTANT. I SAW PEOPLE AT THEIRWORST, IN SEVERE PAIN, AFTER ACCIDENTS, OR ACTS OF VIOLENCE. THE PATIENT’S I TOOK CARE OF WERE DESPERATE, AFRAID, AND HAD TO WAIT FIVE TO EIGHT HOURS TO BE SEEN. CAN YOU IMAGINE FOR ONEMINUTE IF I HAD TOLD MY PATIENTS LOOK, I CAN MOVE YOU UP IN LINE AND TAKE CARE OF YOUR PAIN, BUT I DO NEED A FAVOR FOR YOU THOUGH? MY PATIENTS WERE IN PAIN AND WERE DESPERATE, AND THEY WOULD HAVE AGREED TO DO ANYTHING I ASKED. THIS WOULD HAVE BEEN SUCHAN ABUSE OF MY POSITION BECAUSE OF THE POWER DYNAMIC. I HAVE THEPOWER TO RELIEVE MY PATIENTS FROM EXPERIENCING PAIN.IT IS FUNDAMENTALLY WRONG, AND IN MANY CASES, ILLEGAL FOR US TO USE POWER TO TAKE ADVANTAGE OF THOSE IN CRISIS, ESPECIALLY A PRESIDENT, ESPECIALLY WHEN LIVES ARE AT STAKE. I YIELD BACK POINT>> THE GENTLE LADY YIELDS BACK. MR. RADCLIFFE? >> IN QUEUE, CHAIRMAN. PROFESSOR TURLEY, I LIKE TO START WHERE YOU STARTED. YOU SAID SOMETHING THAT BEARS REPEATING. YOU SAID I AM NOT A SUPPORTER OF PRESIDENT TRUMP, I VOTED AGAINST HIM IN 2016, AND IHAVE PREVIOUSLY VOTED FOR PRESIDENTS CLINTON AND OBAMA. DESPITE YOUR POLITICAL REFERENCES AND PERSUASIONS, YOU REACHED THIS CONCLUSION, A CURRENT LEGAL CASE FOR IMPEACHMENT IS NOT JUST WOEFULLY INADEQUATE, BUT IN SOME RESPECTSDANGEROUS, THE BASIS FOR IMPEACHMENT OF AN AMERICAN PRESIDENT. LET ME START BY COMMENDING YOU FOR BEING THE KIND OF EXAMPLE FOR WHAT HOPEFULLY , EVERYONE ON THIS COMMITTEE WILL DO AS WE APPROACH THE TASK THAT WE HAVE OF DETERMINING WHETHER OR NOT THERE WERE ANY IMPEACHABLE OFFENSES HERE.ONE OF THE PROBLEMS THAT YOU HAVE ARTICULATED AS LEADING YOU TO THE CONCLUSION OF CALLING THIS THE SHARED I PERCEIVE THE SHORTEST IMPEACHMENT WITH THE THINNEST RECORD, AND NARROWEST GROUNDS EVER TO IMPEACH A PRESIDENT, IS THE FACT THAT THERE HAS BEEN THIS EVER-CHANGING, CONSTANTLY EVOLVING, MOVING TARGETS OF ACCUSATIONS, IF YOU WILL. THE JULY 25th PHONE CALL STARTED OUTAS AN ALLEGED QUID PRO QUO, IT BRIEFLY BECAME AN EXTORTION SCHEME, BRIBERY SCHEME, I TAKE IT BACK TO QUID PRO QUO.NOW, BESIDES POINTING BACK THAT BOTH SPEAKER PELOSI AND CHAIRMAN SCHIFF WAITED UNTIL ALMOST EVERYWITNESS HAD BEEN OPPOSED BEFORE THEY STARTED TO USE THE TERM BRIBERY, YOU CLEARLY ARTICULATED WHY YOU THINK THAT DEFINITIONS THAT THEY HAVE USED PUBLICLY ARE FLAWED, IF NOT UNCONSTITUTIONAL , BOTH IN THE 18th CENTURY, OR THE 21st CENTURY. WOULD YOU AGREE WITH ME THAT BRIBERY CONDOR UNDER ANY VALID DEFINITION WOULDREQUIRE A SPECIFIC QUID PRO QUO BE PROVEN? >> MORE IMPORTANTLY, THE SUPREME COURT IS FOCUSED ON THAT ISSUE, AS WELL AS THE DEFINITION OF A QUID PRO QUO. >> IF MILITARY AID, SECURITY ASSISTANCE IS A PART OF THAT QUID PRO QUO, WHERE IN THE JULY 25th TRANSCRIPT DOES PRESIDENT TRUMP EVER SUGGEST THAT HE INTENDS TO WITHHOLD MILITARY AID FOR ANY REASON? >> HE DOESN’T. THAT IS THE REASON WE KEEP ON HEARING THE WORDS CIRCUMSTANTIAL, AND INFERENTIAL. THAT IS WHAT IS SO CONCERNING IS THAT THOSE WOULD BE APPROPRIATE TERMS. NOT THAT YOU CAN’T HAVE A CIRCUMSTANTIAL CASE.THOSE WILL BE APPROPRIATE TERMS IF THESE WERE UNKNOWABLE FACTS. THE PROBLEM IS, YOU HAVE SO MANY WITNESSES THAT HAVE NOT BEEN SUBPOENAED , SO MANY WITNESSES WE HAVE NOT HEARD FROM. >> RIGHT. SO IF IT IS NOT IN THETRANSCRIPT, IT HAS GOT TO COME FROM WITNESS TESTIMONY. I ASSUMEYOU HAVE REVIEWED ALL THE WITNESS TESTIMONY. YOU NOTE THATNO WITNESS HAS TESTIFIED THAT EITHER HEARD PRESIDENT TRUMP, ORWERE TOLD BY PRESIDENT TRUMP TO WITHHOLD MILITARY AID FOR ANY REASON, CORRECT? >> CORRECT. SO, –>> SO, LET ME TURN TO THE ISSUE OF OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE. I THINK YOU ASSUMED, AS I DID, WE DEMOCRATS HAVE BEEN TALKING ABOUT OBSTRUCTION, IT WAS SPECIFICALLY RELATED TO THE UKRAINE ISSUE. I KNOW YOU HAVE TALKED ABOUT THAT A LOT TODAY. YOU CLEARLY STATED THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP HAD NO CORRUPT INTENT ON PAGE 39 OF YOUR REPORT. YOU SAID SOMETHING ELSE I THINK BEARS REPEATING TODAY, YOU HIGHLIGHTED THE FACT THAT THE DEMOCRATS APPEAR TO BE TAKING THE POSITION THAT IF A PRESIDENT SEEKS JUDICIAL REVIEW OVER EXECUTIVE BRANCH TESTIMONY OR DOCUMENTS SUBPOENAED BY CONGRESS, THAT RATHER THAN LETTING THE COURTS BE THE ARBITER, CONGRESS CAN SIMPLY IMPEACH THE PRESIDENT FOR OBSTRUCTION BASED ON THAT.DID I HEAR YOU SAY THAT IF WE WERE TO PROCEED ON THAT BASIS, THAT WOULD BE AN ABUSE OF POWER? >> I DID. LET ME BE VERY CLEAR ABOUT THIS. I DON’T DISAGREE WITH MY COLLEAGUES THAT NOTHING IN THE CONSTITUTION SAYS YOU HAVE TWO GO TO A COURT OR WAIT FOR A COURT, THAT IS NOT WHAT I AM SAYING. WHAT I AM SAYING IS IF YOU WANT A WELL BASED, LEGITIMATE IMPEACHMENT CASE, THIS ABBREVIATED SCHEDULE, DEMAND DOCUMENT, THEN IMPEACH, BECAUSE THEY HAVE NOT BEEN TURNED OVER.WHEN THE PRESIDENT GOES TO A COURT, I THINK THAT IS AN ABUSE OF POWER. THAT IS NOT WHAT HAPPENED IN NIXON. IN FACT, THE ULTIMATE DECISION IN NIXON IS THAT THERE ARE LEGITIMATE CLAIMS THAT CAN BE RAISED. SOME OF THEM DEAL WITH THE TYPES OF AIDS INVOLVED IN THIS CASE, LIKEA NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISOR, LIKE A WHITE HOUSE COUNSEL. SO, THE CONCERN HERE IS NOT THAT YOU CAN’T EVER IMPEACH A PRESIDENT UNLESS YOU GO TO COURT, NOT THAT YOU SHOULDN’T, BUT YOU HAVE TIMETO DO IT. >> IF I WERE TO SUMMARIZE YOUR TESTIMONY, NO BRIBERY, NO OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE, NO ABUSEOF POWER, IS THAT FAIR? >> NOT ON THIS RECORD.>> THE GENTLEMAN’S TIME HAS EXPIRED. MR. RICHARDS >> THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN. LET ME JUST PICK UP WHERE WE LEFT OFF. I’M GOING TO START MR. TURLEY WITH YOUR WORDS FROM OCTOBER 23rd, YOUR OPINION PIECE IN THE HEEL. YOU SET THAT QUOTE, AS I HAVE SAID BEFORE, THERE IS NO QUESTION THAT THE USE OF PUBLIC OFFICE FOR PERSONAL GAIN IS AN IMPEACHABLE OFFENSE, INCLUDING THE WITHHOLDING OF MILITARY AID, IN EXCHANGE FOR THE INVESTIGATION OF A POLITICAL OPPONENT. YOU JUST HAVE TO PROVE IT HAPPENED.IF YOU CAN ESTABLISH INTENT TO USE PUBLIC OFFICE FOR PERSONAL GAIN, YOU HAVE A VIABLE IMPEACHABLE OFFENSE. WE HEARD TODAY THAT A PRESIDENT ABUSES HIS POWER WHEN HE USES HIS OFFICIAL POWER FOR HIS OWN PERSONAL INTERESTS, RATHER THAN THE INTEREST OF OUR COUNTRY. I WOULD LIKE TO SPEND MORE TIME OF THAT BECAUSE I REALLY STRUCK BY ONE OF THE THINGS AT STAKE HERE, $400 MILLION OF TAXPAYER DOLLARS. PRESIDENT NIXON LEVERAGED THE POWERS OF HIS OFFICE TO INVESTIGATE POLITICAL RIVALRIES.BUT HERE, THE EVIDENCE SHOWS PRESIDENT TRUMP ALSO LEVERAGED TAXPAYER DOLLARS TO GET UKRAINE TO ANNOUNCE SHAM INVESTIGATIONS OF PRESIDENT TRUMP’S POLITICAL RIVALRIES. THAT TAXPAYER MONEY WAS MEANT TO HELP UKRAINE DEFENDITSELF AND IN TURN DEFEND UNITED STATES’S INTEREST FROM RUSSIAN AGGRESSION. THE MONEY HAD BEEN APPROPRIATED BY CONGRESS, AND CERTIFIED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE. MULTIPLE WITNESSES CONFIRMED THAT THERE WAS UNANIMOUS SUPPORT FOR THE EIGHT OF UKRAINE. CAN WE LISTEN TO THAT, PLEASE? >> FROM WHAT YOU WITNESSED, THAT ANYBODY IN THE NATIONAL SECURITYCOMMUNITY SUPPORT WITHHOLDING THE ASSISTANCE? >> NO. >> I NEVER HEARD ANYONE ADVOCATEFOR HOLDING THE AID. >> THE ENTIRE AGENCY SUPPORTED THE INTEGRATION OF THE SECURITY SYSTEMS, IS THAT RIGHT? >> THAT IS CORRECT. >> I AND OTHERS SAT IN ASTONISHMENT. UKRAINIANS WERE FIGHTING RUSSIANS AND COUNTED ONNOT ONLY THE TRAINING AND WEAPONS, BUT ALSO THE ASSURANCE OF U.S. SUPPORT. >> PROFESSOR FELDMAN, YOU HAVE STATED THAT THE PRESIDENT’S DEMAND TO THE PRESIDENT OF UKRAINE CONSTITUTED AN ABUSE OF POWER, HOW DOES THE RESIDENCE DECISION TO WITHHOLD MILITARY AID AFFECT YOUR ANALYSIS? >> IT MEANS IT WAS NOT JUST AN ABUSE OF POWER BECAUSE THE PRESIDENT WAS SERVING HIS OWN PERSONAL INTEREST, ALSO AN ABUSE OF POWER AND SO FAR THE PRESIDENT WAS PUTTING AMERICAN AND NATIONAL SECURITY INTEREST BEHIND HIS OWN PERSONAL INTEREST.IT BROUGHT TOGETHER TWO IMPORTANT ASPECTS OF ABUSE OF POWER, SELF GAIN AND UNDERCUTTING OUR NATIONAL SECURITY INTEREST. >> THE EVIDENCE POINTS TO PRESIDENT TRUMP USING MILITARY AID FOR HIS PERSONAL BENEFIT, NOT FOR THE BENEFIT OF ANY OFFICIAL U.S. POLICY. PROFESSOR KARLAN, HOW WOULD THE FRAMERS HAVE INTERPRETED THAT? >> I CAN’T SPEAK FOR THE FRAMERSTHEMSELVES, OBVIOUSLY. MY VIEW IS THAT THEY WOULD SAY THAT THE PRESIDENT’S AUTHORITY TO USE FOREIGN AID, AND THEY PROBABLY CANNOT EVEN IMAGINE WE WERE GIVING FOREIGN AID BECAUSE WE WERE A TINY, POOR COUNTRY THEN. IT IS A LITTLE HARD TO TRANSLATE THAT. WHAT THEY WOULD HAVE SAID IS A PRESIDENT WHO DOES NOT THINK FIRST ABOUT THE SECURITY OF THE UNITED STATES IS NOT DOING WHAT THIS OATH REQUIRES HIM TO DO, WHICH IS SAFELY EXECUTE THE LAWS, HERE APPROPRIATING MONEY AND DEFENDING THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES. >> THANK YOU. LET’S GO BACK TO ASEGMENT OF MR. TURLEY’S QUOTE THAT IF YOU CAN ESTABLISH INTENT TO USE PUBLIC OFFICE FOR PERSONAL GAIN, YOU HAVE A VIABLE, IMPEACHABLE OFFENSE. MR. FELDMAN, DID WE MEET THAT CRITERIA HERE? >> IN MY VIEW, THE EVIDENCE DOESMEET THAT CRITERIA, THAT IS THE JUDGMENT YOU SHOULD BE MAKING. >> MISS KARLAN? >> YES, ONE QUESTION I WOULD HAVE FOR THE MINORITY MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE, IF YOU ARE DONE WITH CONVINCED THAT THE PRESIDENT HELD UP THE AID BECAUSE HE THOUGHT IT WOULD HELP HIS REELECTION, WOULD YOU VOTE TO IMPEACH HIM? I THINK THAT IS THE QUESTION THAT EVERYONE ON THIS COMMITTEE SHOULD BE ASKING.IF THEY CONCLUDE YES, THEN THEY SHOULD VOTE TO IMPEACH. >> MR. GERHARDT? >> I AGREE. ONE THING I WOULD ADD IS THAT MUCH TALK HAS BEEN MADE HERE ABOUT THE TERM BRIBERY . IN COURT DECISIONS WITH RESPECT TO BRIBERY, IT IS YOUR JOB, THE HOUSE IS JOB TO DEFINE BRIBERY, NOT THE COURTS. YOU FOLLOW YOUR JUDGMENT ON THAT. >> I WANT TO THANK THE WITNESSES, ALL OF THE WITNESSES WERE COMING IN TESTIFYING TODAY. THIS IS NOT AN EASY DECISION, IT IS NOT A COMFORTABLE DECISION, BUT IT IS ONE THAT IS NECESSARY. WE ALL TAKE AN OATH TO PROTECT THE CONSTITUTION, MILITARY MEN AND WOMEN GO AND PUT THEIR LINES –LIVES ON THE LINE FOR THE CONSTITUTION AND WE HAVE AN OBLIGATION TO FOLLOW THE CONSTITUTION WHETHER IT IS CONVENIENT OR EASY. THANK YOU, IYIELD BACK. >> VERY QUICKLY PROFESSOR TURLEY, WOULD YOU LIKE TO RESPOND TO? >> [ LAUGHTER ] YES, I WOULD. FIRST OF ALL, WHAT WAS SAID IN THAT CALL YOU IS EXACTLY WHAT I HAVE SAID IN MY TESTIMONY. THE PROBLEM IS NOT THE ABUSE OF POWER CAN NEVER BE AN IMPEACHABLE OFFENSE, YOU JUST HAVE TO PROVE IT, AND YOU HAVEN’T.IT IS NOT ENOUGH TO SAY I INFER THIS WAS THE PURPOSE, I INFER THAT THIS IS WHAT WAS INTENDED WHEN YOU ARE NOT ACTUALLY SUBPOENAING PEOPLE WITH DIRECT KNOWLEDGE. INSTEAD, YOU ARE SAYING YOU MUST VOTE IN THIS ROCKET DOCKET OF IMPEACHMENT. >> THIS LEADS TO MY STATEMENT THAT I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE. THE UNITED STATES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES HAS INITIATED IMPEACHMENT INQUIRIES AGAINST THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES ONLY THREE TIMES IN OUR NATIONS HISTORY PRIOR TO THIS ONE .THOSE IMPEACHMENT INQUIRIES WERE DONE IN THIS COMMITTEE, THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE, WHICH HAS JURISDICTION OVER IMPEACHMENT MATTERS. HERE, IN 2019, UNDER THIS INQUIRY, FACT WITNESSES HAVE BEEN CALLED AND THEY WERE IN FRONT OF THE INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE. WE HAVE BEEN GIVING NO INDICATION THIS COMMITTEE WILL CONDUCT ANY HEARINGS WITH FACT WITNESSES. ASA MEMBER SERVING ON THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE, I CAN SAY THAT THE PROCESS IN WHICH WE ARE PARTICIPATING IN IS INSUFFICIENT, UNPRECEDENTED, AND GROSSLY INADEQUATE. SITTING BEFORE US IS A PANEL OF WITNESSES CONTAINING FOUR DISTINGUISHED LAW PROFESSORS FROM SOME OF OUR COUNTRIES FINEST EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS. I DO NOT DOUBT THAT EACH OF YOU ARE EXTREMELY WELL VERSED IN THE SUBJECT OF CONSTITUTIONAL LAW. YES, THERE IS PRECEDENCE FOR SIMILAR PANELS IN THE AFOREMENTIONED HISTORY, BUT ONLY AFTER SPECIFIC CHARGES HAVE BEENMADE KNOWN IN THE UNDERLYING FACTS PRESENTED IN FULL DUE TO AN EXHAUSTIVE INVESTIGATION . HOWEVER, I DON’T UNDERSTAND WHY WE ARE HOLDING THIS HEARING AT THIS TIME WITH THESE WITNESSES. MY COLLEAGUES ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE AISLE HAVE ADMITTED THEY DON’T KNOW WHAT ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT THEY WILL CONSIDER.HOW DOES ANYONE EXPECT A PANEL OF LAW PROFESSORSTO WEIGH IN ON THE LEGAL GROUNDS FOR IMPEACHMENT CHARGES PRIOR TOEVEN KNOWING WHAT THE CHARGES BROUGHT BY THIS COMMITTEE ARE GOING TO BE? SOME OF MY DEMOCRAT COLLEAGUES HAVE STATED OVER AND OVER THAT IMPEACHMENT SHOULD BE A NONPARTISAN PROCESS, AND I AGREE. ONE OF MY COLLEAGUES IN THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY STATED, ANDI QUOTE, IMPEACHMENT IS SO DIVISIVE TO THE COUNTRY THAT UNLESS THERE IS SOMETHING SO COMPELLING AND OVERWHELMING, ANDBIPARTISAN, I DON’T THINK WE SHOULD GO DOWN THAT PATH BECAUSEIT DIVIDES THE COUNTRY.MY DEMOCRATIC COLLEAGUES HAVE STATED NUMEROUS TIMES THEY ARE ON A TRUE SPEAKING AND FACT-FINDING MISSION. ANOTHER ONE OF MY COLLEAGUES SAID AND I QUOTE, WE HAVE A RESPONSIBILITY TO CONSIDER THE FACTS THAT EMERGE SQUARELY AND WITH THE BEST INTEREST OF OUR COUNTRY, NOT OUR PARTY AND OUR HEARTS. THESE TYPES OF HISTORIC PROCEEDINGS, REGARDLESS OF POLITICAL BELIEF, OUGHT TO BE ABOUT FACT-FINDING AND TRUTH SPEAKING. THAT IS NOT WHAT THIS HAS TURNED OUT TO BE. AGAIN, NO DISRESPECT TO THESE WITNESSES, BUT FOR ALL I KNOW, THIS IS THE ONLY HEARING THAT WE WILL HAVE AND NONE OF THEM ARE FACT WITNESSES. MY COLLEAGUES ARE SAYING ONE THING AND DOING SOMETHING COMPLETELY DIFFERENT. NO MEMBER OF CONGRESS CAN LOOK THEIR CONSTITUENTS IN THE EYES AND SAY THIS IS A COMPREHENSIVE, FACT-FINDING, TRUTH SEEKING MISSION.RANKING MEMBERS OF CONGRESS AND MEMBERS OF THE MINORITY ON THIS COMMITTEE HAVE WRITTEN SIX LETTERS OVER THE PAST MONTH TO CHAIRMAN NADLER ASKING FOR PROCEDURAL FAIRNESS FOR ALL THE UNDERLYING EVIDENCE TO BE TRANSFERRED TO THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE TO EXPAND THE NUMBER OF WITNESSES, AND HAVE AN EVEN MORE BIPARTISAN PANEL HERE TODAY. AND FOR CLARITY ON TODAY’S IMPEACHMENT PROCEEDINGS SINCE WE HAVE NOT RECEIVED EVIDENCE TO REVIEW. THE MINORITY HAS YET TO RECEIVE A RESPONSE TO THESE LETTERS. RIGHT HERE TODAY IS ANOTHER, VERY CLEAR EXAMPLE FOR ALL AMERICANS TO TRULY UNDERSTAND THE ONGOING LACK OF TRANSPARENCY AND OPENNESS WITH THESE PROCEEDINGS.THE WITNESS LIST FOR THIS HEARING WAS NOT RELEASED UNTIL LATE MONDAY AFTERNOON. OPENING STATEMENTS FROM THE WITNESSES TODAY WERE NOT DISTRIBUTED UNTIL LATE LAST NIGHT. AT THE INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE’S FINALIZED REPORT HASYET TO BE PRESENTED TO THIS COMMITTEE. YOU HEAR FROM THOSE IN THE MAJORITY THAT PROCESS THE REPUBLICAN TALKING POINT, WHEN IN REALITY, IT IS AN AMERICAN TALKING POINT. PROCESS IS ESSENTIAL TO THE INSTITUTION, A THOUGHTFUL, MEANINGFUL ASSETS OF THIS MAGNITUDE WITH SUCH GREAT IMPLICATIONS SHOULD BE DEMANDED BY THE AMERICAN PEOPLE.WITH THAT, I YIELD BACK POINT >> THE GENTLE LADY YIELDS BACK. MR. JEFFRIES? >> I DID NOT SERVE IN THE MILITARY, BUT MY 81-YEAR-OLD FATHER DID. HE WAS AN AIR FORCE VETERAN STATIONED IN GERMANY DURING THE HEIGHT OF THE COLD WAR IN THE LATE 1950s. HE WAS A TEENAGER FROM INNER-CITY NEWARK,A STRANGER IN A FOREIGN LAND SERVING ON THE WESTERN SIDE OF THE BERLIN WALL. MY DAD PROUDLY WORE THE UNIFORM BECAUSE HE SWORE IN OATH TO THE CONSTITUTION AND BELIEVED IN AMERICAN DEMOCRACY. I BELIEVE IN AMERICAN DEMOCRACY. WE REMAIN THE LAST BEST OATH ON EARTH. IT IS IN THAT SPIRIT THAT WE PROCEED TODAY. PROFESSOR KARLAN, IN AMERICA, WEBELIEVE IN FREE AND FAIR ELECTIONS, IS THAT CORRECT? >> YES, IT IS. >> BUT AUTHORITARIAN REGIMES DO NOT? >> YES. >> JOHN ADAMS ONCE WROTE TO THOMAS JEFFERSON ON DECEMBER 6, 1787 AND STATED, YOU ARE APPREHENSIVE OF FOREIGN INTERFERENCE, INJURY, INFLUENCE, SO AM I. AS OFTEN AS ELECTIONS HAPPEN, THE DANGER OF FOREIGN INFLUENCE REOCCURS. PROFESSOR KARLAN, HOW IMPORTANT WAS THE CONCEPT OF FREE AND FAIR ELECTIONS TO THE FRAMERS OF THECONSTITUTION? >> HONESTLY, IT WAS LESS IMPORTANT TO THEM THAT IT HAS BECOME IN OUR CONSTITUTION SINCE THEN.IF YOU WILL REMEMBER, ONE OF THE THINGS THAT TURNED INTO A LAWYER WAS SEEING BARBARA JORDAN, WHO WAS THE FIRST FEMALE LAWYER I HAD SEEN IN PRACTICE, SAY ON THECOMMITTEE WE THE PEOPLE DID NOT INCLUDE PEOPLE LIKE HER IN 1789,BUT THROUGH A PROCESS OF AMENDMENT, WE HAVE DONE THAT. ELECTIONS ARE MORE IMPORTANT TO US TODAY AS A CONSTITUTIONAL MATTER THAN THEY WERE TO THE FRAMERS. >> IS IT FAIR TO SAY AN ELECTION CANNOT BE REASONABLY CHARACTERIZED AS FREE AND FAIR IF IT IS MANIPULATED BY FOREIGN INTERFERENCE? >> THAT IS CORRECT. >> AND THE FRIENDS OF THE CONSTITUTION, THEY WERE DEEPLY CONCERNED WITH FOREIGN INTERFERENCE IN THE DEMENTING AFFAIRS OF THE UNITED STATES, TRUE? >> YES. >> WHY WERE THEY SO DEEPLY CONCERNED? >> BECAUSE, FOREIGN NATIONS DON’T HAVE OUR INTEREST AT HEART. THEY HAVE THEIR INTERESTSAT HEART. >> AND WITH THE FRAMERS FIND IT ACCEPTABLE FOR AN AMERICAN PRESIDENT TO PRESSURE A FOREIGN GOVERNMENT TO HELP HIM WIN AN ELECTION? >> I THINK THEY WOULD FIND IT UNACCEPTABLE FOR A PRESIDENT TO ASK A FOREIGN GOVERNMENT, WHETHER THEY PUT PRESSURE ON HIMOR NOT. >> DIRECT EVIDENCE SHOWS THAT ONJULY 25th THE PHONE CALL, THE PRESIDENT ORDERED FIVE WORDS, DOUS A FAVOR THOUGH, HE PRESSURED THE UKRAINIAN GOVERNMENT TO TARGET AN AMERICAN CITIZEN FOR POLITICAL GAIN, AND AT THE SAME TIME, SIMULTANEOUSLY WITH HILL $391 MILLION IN MILITARY AID. NOW, AMBASSADOR BILL TAYLOR, WEST POINT GRADUATE, VIETNAM WAR HERO, REPUBLICAN APPOINTED DIPLOMAT, DISCUSSED THIS ISSUE OF MILITARYAID. HERE IS A CLIP OF HIS TESTIMONY. >> AGAIN, OUR HOLDING UP OF SECURITY SYSTEMS THAT WOULD GO TO A COUNTRY THAT IS FIGHTING AGGRESSION FROM RUSSIA FOR NO GOOD POLICY REASON, NO GOOD SUBSTANCE REASON, NO GOOD FOR NATIONAL SECURITY REASON IS WRONG. >> TO THE EXTENT THE MILITARY AID WAS BEING WITHHELD AS PART OF AN EFFORT TO SOLICIT FOREIGN INTERFERENCE IN THE 2020 ELECTION, IS THAT BEHAVIOR IMPEACHABLE? >> YES, IT IS. IF I COULD GO BACK TO ONE OF THE WORDS YOU READ. WHEN THE PRESIDENT SAID DO US A FAVOR, HE WAS USING THE ROYAL WE THERE. IT WAS NOT AFAVOR FOR THE UNITED STATES, HE SHOULD HAVE SAID DO ME A FAVOR BECAUSE ONLY KINGS SAY US WHEN THEY MEAN ME.>> IS A CORRECT WHEN THE ABUSE OF POWER STRIKES AT THE HEART OFDEMOCRACY FALLS SQUARELY WITHIN THE DEFINITION OF A HIGH CRIME AND MISDEMEANOR? >> YES, IT DOES. >> SOME OF MY COLLEAGUES HAS ADJUSTED AND IMPEACHMENT WOULD OVERTURN THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE. THE AMERICAN PEOPLE EXPRESSED THEIR WILL IN NOVEMBER 2018. THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE ELECTED A NEW MAJORITY. THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE ELECTED A HOUSE THAT WOULD NOT FUNCTION AS A WHOLLY-OWNED SUBSIDIARY OF THIS ADMINISTRATION. THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE ELECTED A HOUSE THAT UNDERSTANDS WE ARE SEPARATE AND COEQUAL BRANCH OF GOVERNMENT. THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE ELECTED A HOUSE THAT UNDERSTANDS WE HAVEA CONSTITUTIONAL RESPONSIBILITY TO SERVE AS A CHECK AND BALANCE ON AN OUT-OF-CONTROL EXECUTIVE BRANCH. THE PRESIDENT ABUSED HISPOWER AND MUST BE HELD ACCOUNTABLE. NO ONE IS ABOVE THELAW. AMERICA MUST REMAIN THE LAST BEST HOPE ON EARTH. I YIELD BACK. >> THE GENTLEMAN YIELDS BACK. MR. GATES? >> THE WILL OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE ALSO ELECT THE DONALD TRUMP TO BE THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES IN THE 2015 ELECTION, AND THERE IS ONE PARTY THAT CAN’T SEEM TO GET OVER IT.WE UNDERSTAND THE FACT THAT IN 2018, YOU TOOK THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES. WE HAVE NOT SPENT OUR TIME DURING YOUR TENDER IN POWER TRYING TO REMOVETHE SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE, TRYING TO DELEGITIMIZE YOUR ABILITY TO GOVERN. FRANKLY, WE WOULD LOVE TO GOVERN WITH YOU. WE WOULD LOVE TO PASS U.S. McA. WE WOULD LOVE TO PUT OUT A HELPING HAND FOR SENIORS TO LOWER PRESCRIPTION DRUG PRICES. IT IS THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE YOU IGNORE WHEN YOU CONTINUE DOWN THIS TERRIBLE ROAD OF IMPEACHMENT. PROFESSOR GERHARDT,YOU GAVE MONEY TO BARACK OBAMA, RIGHT? >> MY FAMILY DID, YES. >> FOUR TIMES? >> THAT SOUNDS ABOUT RIGHT, YES. >> MR. CHAIRMAN, WITH REQUEST RELATED TO PROFESSOR FELDMAN’S WORK, –>> THE GENTLEMAN WILL SUSPENDED. WE WILL TAKE THAT TIME OFF. AS THE GENTLEMAN SUBMITTED, HAVE WE SEEN THAT MATERIAL? >> WE CAN PROVIDE IT TO YOU. >> WE WILL CONSIDER THE SENT REQUEST LETTER POINT >> VERY WELL. >> THE GENTLEMAN MAY CONTINUE. >> MR. FELDMAN WROTE ARTICLES ENTITLED TRUMPS WIRETAP TWEETS RAYS OF IMPEACHMENT, HE THEN WROTE, MAR-A-LAGO BLOCKS THE IMPEACHMENT FILE. THEN, MR. JAKEFLANAGAN WROTE IN COURT , A HARVARD LAW PROFESSOR THINKSTRUMP CAN BE IMPEACHED OVER FAKE NEWS ACCUSATIONS. MY QUESTION PROFESSOR FELDMAN, SINCE YOU SEEM TO BELIEVE THE BASIS FOR IMPEACHMENT IS EVEN BROADER THAN THE BASIS MY DEMOCRATIC COLLEAGUES HAVE PLAYED FORWARD, DO YOU BELIEVE YOU ARE OUTSIDE OF THE POLITICAL MAINSTREAM ON THE QUESTION OF IMPEACHMENT? >> I BELIEVE IMPEACHMENT IS WARRANTED WHENEVER THE PRESIDENTABUSES HIS POWER FOR PERSONAL BENEFIT OR TO CORRUPTED THE BENEFIT PROCESS. >> DID YOU WRITE AN ARTICLE IT IS HARD TO TAKE IMPEACHMENT SERIOUSLY NOW? >> YES I DID. >> DID YOU WRITE SINCE THE MIDTERM ELECTION, HOUSE DEMOCRATS HAVE MADE IT PAINFULLYCLEAR THAT DISCUSSION IMPEACHMENT IS PRIMARILY, OR EVEN EXCLUSIVELY A TOOL TO WEAKEN PRESIDENT TRUMP’S CHANCES IN 2020, DID YOU WRITE THOSE WORDS? >> UNTIL THIS CALL JULY 25th, I WAS AN IMPEACHMENT SKEPTIC. I HAVE CHANGED MY MIND, SIR. >> IN QUEUE, I APPRECIATE YOUR TESTIMONY. >> PROFESSOR KARLAN, YOU GAVE $1000 TO WARREN? YOU GAVE $1200 TO BARACK OBAMA? >> I HAVE NO REASON TO QUESTION THAT. >> UK $2000 TO HILLARY CLINTON? >> WHY SO MUCH MORE FOR HILLARY CLINTON? >> I’VE BEEN GIVING A LOT MORE MONEY TO CHARITY RECENTLY BECAUSE OF THE POOR PEOPLE IN THE UNITED STATES. >> HAVE YOU EVER BEEN ON A PODCAST CALLED VERSUS TRUMP? >> I THINK I WAS ON A LIVE PANELTHAT THE PEOPLE WHO RAN THE PODCAST CALLED VERSUS TRUMP. >> ON THAT, DO YOU REMEMBER SAYING THE FOLLOWING? ” LIBERALSTEND TO CLUSTER MORE, CONSERVATIVES, ESPECIALLY VERY CONSERVATIVE PEOPLE TEND TO SPREAD OUT MORE, PERHAPS BECAUSETHEY DON’T EVEN WANT TO BE AROUND THEMSELVES.” DID YOU SAY THAT? >> YES, I DID.>> DO YOU UNDERSTAND HOW THAT REFLECTS CONTEMPT ON PEOPLE WHO ARE CONSERVATIVE? >> NO, WHAT I WAS TALKING ABOUT THERE IS THE NATURAL TENDENCY, IF YOU PUT THE QUOTE IN CONTEXT, THE NATURAL TENDENCY OF A COMPACTION IS REQUIREMENT TO FAVOR A PARTY WHOSE VOTERS ARE MORE SPREAD OUT. >> AGAIN, I AM VERY LIMITED ON TIME, PROFESSOR. I JUST HAVE TO SAY, WHEN YOU TALK ABOUT HOW LIBERALS WANT TO BE AROUND EACH OTHER IN CLUSTER AND CONSERVATIVES DON’T WANT TO BE AROUND EACH OTHER, SOTHEY HAVE TO SPREAD OUT. YOU MAY NOT SEE THIS FROM THE IVORY TOWERS OF YOUR LAW SCHOOL, IT MAKES THE ACTUAL PEOPLE IN THIS COUNTRY– >> WHEN THE PRESIDENT CALLS–>> YOU DON’T GET TO INTERRUPT ME OR THIS TIME. MAY I ALSO SUGGESTWHEN YOU INVOKED THE PRESIDENT’S SON’S NAME HERE,WE TRY TO MAKE A LITTLE JOKE OUT OF REFERENCING BARON TRUMP, THATIS NOT LEND CREDIBILITY TO YOUR ARGUMENT, IT MAKES YOU LOOK ME, LIKE YOU ARE ATTACKING SOMEONE’S FAMILY, THE MINOR CHILD OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES. TO ALL OF THE WITNESSES, IF YOU HAVE PERSONAL KNOWLEDGE OF A SINGLE MATERIAL FACT IN THE ADAMSCHIFF’S REPORT, PLEASE RAISE YOUR HAND. LET THE RECORD REFLECT NO PERSONAL KNOWLEDGE OF A SINGLE FACT. YOU KNOW WHAT, THAT CONTINUES ON THE TRADITION WE SAW FROM ADAM SHIFT WHERE AMBASSADOR TAYLOR COULD NOT IDENTIFY AN IMPEACHABLE OFFENSE,MR. KENT, NEVER MET WITH THE PRESIDENT, FIONA HILL, NEVER HEARD THE PRESIDENT REFERENCE ANYTHING REGARDING MILITARY AID.MR. HALE WAS UNAWARE OF ANY NEFARIOUS ACTIVITY WITH AID.COLONEL VINDMAN, EVEN REJECTED THE DEMOCRATIC TALKING POINT THAT BRIBERY WAS REVOKED HERE. AMBASSADOR DENIED THERE WAS A QUID PRO QUO. MR. MORRISON SAID THERE WAS NOTHING WRONG ON THE CALL. THE ONLY 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. SENSENBRENNER >>> INTO THOUSAND 14 IN A PIECE,ABOUT IMPEACHMENT ONE THING YOU REJECT IT WAS IMPEACHMENT REQUIRED A CRIMINAL OFFENSE. HE SAID “AN OFFENSE DOES NOT HAVE TO BE INDICTABLE. SERIOUS MISCONDUCT OR VIOLATION OF TRUST IS ENOUGH. “WAS PROFESSOR TURLEY RIGHT WHEN HE WROTE THAT? >> I AGREE WITH THAT.>> NEXT UP, PROFESSOR KARLAN, AT THE CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION “FOREIGN POWERS WILL METAL IN OUR APPEARS, SPARE NO EXPENSE.” THE RESPONSE JAMES MADISON SAID IMPEACHMENT WAS NEEDED BECAUSE OTHERWISE A PRESIDENT “MIGHT BETRAY HIS TRUST TO A FOREIGN POWER.” CAN YOU ELABORATE ON WHY THE FRAMERS WERE SO CONCERNED ABOUT FOREIGN INTERFERENCE? HOW THAT RELATES TO THE FACTS BEFORE THIS COMMITTEE. >> THE REASON THE FRAMERS WERE CONCERNED IS SLIGHTLY DIFFERENT THAN THE REASON WE ARE. THEY WERE CONCERNED BECAUSE WE WERE SUCH AWEAK COUNTRY IN 1789. WE WERE SMALL, WE WERE POOR, WE DID NOT HAVE AN ESTABLISHED ARMY. TODAY THE CONCERN IS DIFFERENT. IT WILL INTERFERE WITH US MAKING THE DECISIONS THAT ARE BEST FOR US AS AMERICANS.>> THERE ARE THREE KNOWN INSTANCES THAT THE PRESIDENT PUBLICLY ASKING A FOREIGN COUNTRY TO INTERFERE. FIRST THE PRESIDENT HOPED THAT RUSSIA WOULD HACK INTO THE E-MAIL OF A POLITICAL OPPONENT. SECOND, THE CALL WITH THE PRESIDENT OF UKRAINE, WE KNOW HE ASKED UKRAINE TO INVESTIGATE HIS RIVAL. THIRD THE PRESIDENT URGED CHINA TO BEGIN ITS OWN INVESTIGATION. PROFESSOR FELDMAN HOW WOULD IT IMPACT OUR OUR DEMOCRACY IT. BECAME STANDARD PRACTICE FOR THE PRESIDENT TO ASK A FOREIGN GOVERNMENT TO INTERFERE? >> IT WOULD BE A DISASTER FOR DEMOCRACY IF THE PRESIDENT, AS THIS PRESIDENT HAS DONE, ASKED FOR GOVERNMENTS TO INTERFERE. >> I WOULD LIKE TO END WITH A WARNING FROM GEORGE WASHINGTON WHO TOLD AMERICANS, “TO BE CONSTANTLY AWAKE, EXPERIENCE PROVE THAT FOREIGN INFLUENCE IS ONE OF THE MOST PAINFUL FLOWS OFREPUBLICAN GOVERNMENT.” CONDUCT AT ISSUE IS EGREGIOUS, IT WARRANTS A RESPONSE. THE PRESIDENT HAS SOLICITED FOR INTERFERENCE. OF THAT THEREIS NO DOUBT. THIS MATTERS BECAUSE INVITING FOREIGNMEDDLING INTO OUR ELECTION ROBS THE AMERICAN PEOPLE OF THEIR RIGHT TO ELECT THEIR OWN LEADERS. AMERICANS ACROSS THE COUNTRY WAIT IN LONG LINES TO EXERCISE THEIR RIGHT TO VOTE, TO CHOOSE THEIR OWN LEADERS. THIS RIGHT DOES NOT BELONG TO FOREIGN GOVERNMENTS. WE WON A REVOLUTION OVER THIS. FREE ELECTIONS ARE WHAT SEPARATE US. THIS PUBLIC SERVANT AND MEMBERS OF THE HOUSE WE WOULD BE NEGLIGENT IF WE LET THIS BLATANT ABUSE OF POWER GO UNCHECKED. WEHAVE HEARD ABOUT HATING THIS PRESIDENT, IT IS NOTABOUT HATING THE PRESIDENT, IT IS ABOUT A LOVE OFCOUNTRY. HONORING THE OATH WE TOOK TO DEFEND THE CONSTITUTION. MY FINAL QUESTION IS TO PROFESSOR FELDMAN, PROFESSOR KARLAN, IN THE FACE OF THIS EVIDENCE WHAT ARE THE CONSEQUENCES IF THIS CONGRESS REFUSES TO MUSTER THE COURAGE TO RESPOND TO THIS GROSS ABUSE OF POWER THAT UNDERMINES THE SECURITY OF THE UNITED STATES? >> IF THIS COMMITTEE FAILED TO ACT YOU ARE SENDING A MESSAGE TO THIS PRESIDENT AND FUTURE PRESIDENTS THAT IT IS NO LONGER A PROBLEM IF THEY ABUSE THEIR POWER. IF THEY INVITE OTHER COUNTRIES TO INTERFERE IN OUR ELECTIONS OR PUT THE INTEREST OFOTHER COUNTRIES AHEAD OF HOURS. >> I AGREE WITH PROFESSOR FELDMAN. I SHOULD SAY ONE THING, I APOLOGIZE FOR GETTING 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 DUTY TO KEEP FOREIGNERS FROM SPENDING MONEY IN OUR ELECTIONS. THOSE TWO THINGS ARE TWO SIDES OF THE SAME COIN. >> THANK YOU. >> MR. JOHNSON. >> I WAS STRUCK BY THE SAME THING AS ALL MY COLLEAGUES, CHAIRMAN AGAIN THIS MORNING WITHTHE OUTRAGEOUS STATEMENT THAT THE FACTS BEFORE US ARE UNDISPUTED. OF COURSE EVERYONE KNOWS THAT IS NOT TRUE. EVERY PERSON HERE, EVERY PERSON WATCHING, KNOWS EVERYTHING HERE IS DISPUTED. FROM THE FRAUDULENT PROCESS, TO THE DEMOCRATS UNFOUNDED CLAIMS. THE FULL FACTS ARE OBVIOUSLY NOT BEFORE US TODAY. WE HAVE BEEN ALLOWED NO WITNESSES AT ALL. FOR THE FIRST TIME EVER THIS COMMITTEE IS BEEN GIVEN NO ACCESS TO THE UNDERLYING EVIDENCE THAT ADAM SCHIFF AND HIS ACCOMPLICES CLAIM SUPPORTS THIS CHARADE. THIS IS A SHOCKING DENIAL OF DUE PROCESS. I WANT TO SAY I AM A CONSTITUTIONAL LAW ATTORNEY, I REALLY WOULD ENJOY A ACADEMIC DEBATE WITH YOU ABOUTTHE CONTOURS OF ARTICLE 2. THAT WOULD BE A WASTE OF TIME TODAY BECAUSE AS HAS BEEN HIGHLIGHTED SO MANY TIMES THIS PRODUCTION IS A SHAM, A RECKLESS PATH TO A PREDETERMINED POLITICAL OUTCOME. IT IS AN OUTCOME THAT WAS PREDETERMINED BY OUR DEMOCRATIC COLLEAGUES A LONG TIME AGO. THE TRUTH IS DEMOCRATS HAVE BEEN WORKING TO IMPEACH THE PRESIDENTSINCE THE DAY HE TOOK HIS OATH OF OFFICE. OVER THE YEARS THEY HAVE INTRODUCED FOUR DIFFERENT RESOLUTIONS SEEKING TO IMPEACH THE PRESIDENT. TWO YEARS AGO 58 DEMOCRATS VOTED TO BEGIN IMPEACHMENT PROCEEDINGS. THAT WAS ALMOST 20 MONTHS BEFORE THE FAMOUS JULY 25TH PHONE CALL WITH THE PRESIDENT OF UKRAINE. THIS OTHER GRAPHIC IS INTERESTING, IT IS IMPORTANT TO REITERATE, OF OUR 24 DEMOCRATIC COLLEAGUES, 17 OUT OF 24 HAVE ALREADY VOTED FOR IMPEACHMENT. LET’S BE HONEST, LET’S NOT PRETEND ANYONE CARES ABOUT WHAT IS BEING SAID HERE TODAY. WE COME WITH OPEN MINDS, THAT IS NOT HAPPENING HERE. SO MUCH FOR AN IMPARTIAL JURY. SEVERAL TIMES THIS YEAR DEMOCRATS HAVE ADMITTED IN INTERVIEWS THATTHEY REALLY BELIEVE THIS STRATEGY IS NECESSARY BECAUSE THEY WANT TO STOP THE PRESIDENT’S REELECTION. EVEN THE SPEAKERS SAID LAST MONTH THAT “IT IS DANGEROUS TO ALLOW THE AMERICAN PEOPLE TO EVALUATE HIS PERFORMANCE AT THE BALLOT BOX.” THE SPEAKER HAS ITBACKWARDS, WHAT IS DANGEROUS IS THE PRESIDENT ALL THIS IS SETTING FOR THE FUTURE. PROFESSOR TURLEY SAID THIS IS NOT HOW IT IS DONE. HIS RHETORICAL QUESTION IS STILL ECHOING THROUGHOUT THIS CHAMBER.HE ASKED YOU TO ASK YOURSELVES WHERE WILL THIS, WILL WILL YOU STAND NEXT THE TIME WHEN THE SAME KINDOF SHARE IMPEACHMENT PROCESS IS INITIATEDAGAINST A PRESIDENT FROM YOUR PARTY? EVERYTHING IN WASHINGTON HAS BECOME PARTISAN. THIS UGLY CHAPTER WILL NOT HELP BUT, IT WILL MAKE THINGS WORSE. PROFESSOR TURLEY SAID WE ARE LIVING IN A TIME THAT WAS FEARED BY FOUNDERS, WHAT HAMILTON REFERRED TO AS AGITATED PASSION. THIS HAS INDEED BECOME A AGE OF RAGE. PRESIDENT WASHINGTON WARNED IN 1796 THAT EXTREME PARTISANSHIP WOULD LEAD US TO THE RUINS OF PUBLIC LIBERTY. THIS IMPEACHMENT IS ONE OF THE MOST DIVISIVE, DESTRUCTIVE THINGS WE COULD POSSIBLY DO. LET ME TELL YOU WHAT I HEARD FROM MY CONSTITUENTS, THE PEOPLE OF THE COUNTRY ARE SICK OF THIS. THEY ARE SICK OF THE POLITICS, THEY ARE SICK OF THIS TOXIC ATMOSPHERE BEING CREATED, THEY ARE CONCERNED ABOUT WHERE ALL THIS WILL LEAD US IN THE YEARS AHEAD. THE GREATEST THREAT, THE THING THAT OUGHT TO KEEP US UP AT NIGHT, IT IS RAPIDLY ERODING TRUST OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE. ONE OF THE CRITICAL FOUNDATIONS OF A SELF-GOVERNING PEOPLE IS A WILL MAINTAIN A LEVEL OF TRUST IN THEIR INSTITUTION, IN THE RULE OF LAW, IN THE SYSTEM OF JUSTICE. IN THE BODY OF ELECTED REPRESENTATIVES. THE GREATEST DANGER OF THIS IMPEACHMENT IS NOT WHAT HAPPENED THIS AFTERNOON OR CHRISTMAS OR ANY ELECTION, THE GREATEST DANGER IS WHAT THIS WILL DO IN THE DAYS AHEAD TO OUR EXPERIMENT IN SELF-GOVERNANCE. WHAT THIS PANDORA’S BOX WILL HAVE UPON OUR NATION SIX OR SEVEN YEARS FROM NOW, A DECADE FROM NOW. GOD HELP US. I YIELD BACK. >> PROFESSOR TURLEY AS A FORMER PROSECUTOR I RECOGNIZE A DEFENSE ATTORNEY TRYING TO REPRESENT THEIR CLIENT, ESPECIALLY ONE WHO HAS VERY LITTLE TO WORK WITH THE WAY EQUIFAX. TODAY YOU ARE REPRESENTING THE REPUBLICANS IN THE DEFENSE OF THE PRESIDENT. >> THAT IS NOT MY INTENTION. >> YOU SAID THIS CASE REPRESENTS A IMPEACHMENT PRECEDENT WHICH WILL SHAPE CERTAIN CASES. THE HOUSE THE FIRST TIME ASKED THE SENATE TO REMOVE SOMEONE FOR CONDUCT FOR WHICH HE WAS NEVER CHARGED, WHICH HAS NEVER BEEN TESTED IN THE COURT OF LAW. THAT IS NOT ACTUALLY A DIRECT QUOTE. IT SOUNDS A LOT LIKE WHAT YOU ARGUE TODAY GO THAT IS WHAT A QUOTE YOU ARGUED IN A SENATE IMPEACHMENT TRIAL. PROFESSOR DID YOU REPRESENT A FEDERAL JUDGE? >> I DID. >> THE JUDGE WAS TRIED ON FOUR ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT. ON EACH COUNT THE JUDGE WAS CONVICTED BY AT LEAST 68, UP TO 96 BIPARTISAN SENATORS. THANKFULLY THAT SENATE DID NOT BUY YOUR ARGUMENT THAT IT OFFICIALS SHOULD NOT BE REMOVED IF HE IS NOT CHARGED CRIMINALLY. RESPECTFULLY, PROFESSOR, WE DON’T BUY IT EITHER. BUT WE AREHERE BECAUSE OF THIS PHOTO. A PICTURE OF PRESIDENT ZELINSKI STANDING ON THE EASTERN FRONT OFUKRAINE AS A WAR WAS TAKING PLACE, UP TO 15,000 DIED AT THE HANDS OF RUSSIANS. I WOULD LOVE TO FOCUSON THE IMPACT OF PRESIDENT TRUMP CONTACT WITH OURALLIES. THIS ISN’T JUST A PRESIDENT AS A PROFESSOR KARLAN HAS POINTED OUT, ASKING FOR ANOTHER FOREIGN LEADER TO INVESTIGATE A OPPONENT. IT ALSOIS A PRESIDENT LEVERAGING A WHITE HOUSE VISIT AS WELL AS FOREIGN AID. THE WITNESSES HAVE TESTIFIED UKRAINE NEEDS ARE FOR SUPPORT TO DEFEND ITSELF AGAINST RUSSIA. I HEARD DIRECTLY FROM WITNESSES HOW IMPORTANT THE AIDE WAS, PARTICULARLY FROM AMBASSADOR TAYLOR. >> THESE WEAPONS, THIS ASSISTANCE, ALLOWS THE UKRAINIAN MILITARY TO DETER FURTHER INCURSIONS BY THE RUSSIANS AGAINST UKRAINIAN TERRITORY. IF THAT FURTHER INCURSIONS, FURTHER AGGRESSION, WERE TO TAKE PLACE MORE UKRAINIANS WOULD DIE.>> PROFESSOR KARLAN DID THE DECISION TO WITHHOLD MILITARY AID IN ORDER TO PRESSURE THE PRESIDENT RELATE TO THE ABUSE OF POWER IN ENTANGLEMENTS WITH FOREIGN NATIONS? SPIRIT IT RELATES TO THE ABUSE OF POWER. THE ENTANGLEMENT WITH FOREIGN NATIONS IS MORE COMPLICATED. >> PROFESSOR KARLAN WE ARE A NATION OF IMMIGRANTS?>> YES. >> TODAY 50 MILLION IMMIGRANTS LIVE IN THE U.S. I WAS MOVED BY ONE WHO TOLD ME ABOUT HIS ROMANIAN FAMILY, THEY CAME HERE FROM ROMANIA, HE SAID EVERY TIME HE HAD GONE HOME FOR THE LAST 20 YEARS HE WOULD TELL HIS FAMILY MEMBERS HOW CORRUPT HIS COUNTRY WAS, THAT HE HAD LEFT, WHY HE HAD COME TO THE UNITED STATES. HE TOLD ME THAT WHEN HEHAS GONE HOME RECENTLY THEY NOW WAG THEIR FINGER AT HIM IT MAKES A YOU ARE GOING TO LECTURE US ABOUT CORRUPTION? WHAT DO YOU THINK PROFESSOR TURLEY DOES THE PRESIDENT’S CONTACTED SAY TO THE MILLIONS OFAMERICANS WHO LEFT THEIR FAMILIES TO COME TO A COUNTRY THAT REPRESENTS THE RULE OF LAW? >> I THINK IT SUGGESTS WE DON’T BELIEVE IN THE RULE OF LAW. IT TELLS DEMOCRACIES AROUND THE WORLD NOT TO TAKE IT SERIOUSLY WHEN WE TELL THEM THAT THEIR OWN ELECTIONS ARE NOT LEGITIMATE BECAUSE OF FOREIGN INTERFERENCE OR THEIR ELECTIONS ARE NOT LEGITIMATE BECAUSE OF PERSECUTION OF THE OPPOSING PARTY. I MEAN PRESIDENT BUSH ANNOUNCED HE DID NOT CONSIDER THE ELECTIONS IN BELARUS IN TO BE LEGITIMATE FOR EXACTLY THAT REASON, BECAUSE THEY WENT AFTER POLITICAL OPPONENTS. >> PROFESSOR FELDMAN PROFESSOR TURLEY POINTED OUT WE SHOULD WAIT, GO TO THE COURTS BUT YOU WOULD ACKNOWLEDGE WE HAVE GONE TO THE COURTS FOR OVER SIX MONTHS. >> YES. >> THANK YOU, I YIELD BACK. >> IN A MOMENT WE WILL RESURFACEFOR 5 MINUTES. FIRST I ASKED EVERYONE TO PLEASEREMAIN SEATED WHILE THE WITNESSES EXIT THE ROOM. I ALSO WANT TO REMIND THOSE IN THE AUDIENCE THAT YOU MAY NOT BE GUARANTEED RECEIPT IF YOU LEAVE THE HEARINGROOM AT THIS TIME.>>> WE STILL HAVE A MORE MEMBERS TO ASK QUESTIONS, BY MY COUNT WE HAVE MORE THAN 22 GO SO STAY TUNED FOR MORE QUESTIONS. WE WILL SEE MORE DEMOCRAT ASK QUESTIONS THEN REPUBLICANS BECAUSE THEY DO HAVE MORE MEMBERS ON THE COMMITTEE. STILL, I BELIEVE SEVEN REPUBLICANS YET TO GO. ABOUT 13 OR 14 DEMOCRATS YET TO GO. THANK YOU FOR WATCHING OUR COVERAGE. WE HAVE SEEN SOME FIREWORKS FROM THE MEMBERS, SUCH AS MATT GAETZ ON THE REPUBLICAN SIDE OF THE AISLE. WE HEARD DEMOCRATS CONTINUE TO USE WITNESSES TO MAKE THE CASE THAT THEY BELIEVE IMPEACHMENT IS THE DIRECTION TO GO AT THIS TIME. IN AN EXCHANGE WITH SHEILA JACKSON LEE PROFESSOR KARLAN BROUGHT PRESIDENT TRUMP’S SON INTO THE DEBATE OVER THE CONSTITUTION. THIS IS GETTING CONCERN ON SOCIAL MEDIA. LET’S LISTEN. >> WHAT COMPARISONS CAN WE MAKE BETWEEN KINGS THAT THE FRAMERS WERE AFRAID OF AND THE PRESIDENT’S CONDUCT TODAY. >> KINGS COULD DO NO WRONG BECAUSE THEIR WORD WAS LAW. CONTRARY TO WHAT PRESIDENTTRUMP HAS SAID ARTICLE 2 DOES NOT GIVE HIM THE POWER TO DO ANYTHING HE WANTS. ONE EXAMPLE, THE CONSTITUTION SAYS THERE CAN BE NO TITLES OF NOBILITY. WHILE THE PRESIDENT CAN NAME HIS SON BARRON HE CAN’TMAKE HIM A BARREN. >> YOU HEARD THAT MOMENT YOU WILL LIKELY HEREIT AGAIN BECAUSE REPUBLICANS ARE ALREADY PUSHING THAT AT THAT USE OF INVOKING THE PRESIDENT’S SON. CONGRESSMAN MATT GAETZ, A REPUBLICAN, CRITICIZED THAT. HE SAID PROFESSOR KARLAN CROSSED A LINE, HE USED HER WORDS AS HE ATTEMPTED TO UNDERCUT THE WITNESSES. >> WHEN YOU INVOKE THE PRESIDENT’S SON NAME, WHEN YOU TRY TO MAKE A LITTLE JOKE THAT DOES NOT LEND CREDIBILITY TO YOUR ARGUMENT, ITMAKES YOU LOOK MEAN, IT MAKES YOU LOOK LIKE YOUARE ATTACKING SOMEONE’S FAMILY. TO ALL OF THEWITNESSES IF YOU HAVE PERSONAL KNOWLEDGE OF A SINGLE MATERIAL FACT IN THIS REPORT PLEASE RAISE YOUR HAND.>> MATT GAETZ ALSO DRILLED INTO THEWITNESSES INCLUDING PROFESSOR KARLAN, ASKING HER ABOUT CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTIONS SHE HAD MADE. THESE WITNESSES, BY NO MEANS ARE DISALLOWED FOR MAKING DONATIONS, BUT, MATT GAETZ HAVING A LINE OF QUESTIONING TRYING TO SHOW A PARTISANSHIP AT PLAY. MATT GAETZ IS SOMEONE PEOPLE WATCH BECAUSE HE IS CONSIDERED TO BE A FLAMETHROWER HE WAS THE ONE WHO TRIED TO STORM THE SKIFF. HE HAS HAD ONE OF THE MOST SUCCESSFUL LINES OF QUERY HERE ON THE REPUBLICAN SIDE OF THE AISLE. SPIRIT IT IS INTERESTING, I EXPECTED IT TO BE MORE CONTENTIOUS COMING FROM THE REPUBLICAN SIDE. YET, THERE HAVE NOT BEEN NEARLY REPUBLICANS WHO HAVE ATTACKED THE WITNESSES AS WELL AS MATT GAETZ DID. >> GOING TO THE IDEA OF POLITICAL BIAS, THEY CAN SEE THE ISSUE CLEARLY, WHO DON’T SEE IT THE WAY THE AMERICAN PEOPLE SEE IT. WE KNOW THOSE ARE CLIPS THAT WILL BE SUCCESSFUL. THEY WILL BE ON FOX NEWS TONIGHT, WHICH IS EXACTLY WHAT MATT GAETZ WANTS. >> WE ARE WAITING TO HEAR FROM SOME, ANYTHING THEY CAN LEARN FROM WHAT THEY HAVE DONE SO FAR? IT IS INTERESTING TO SEE HOW WELL MEMBERS COORDINATE OR DON’T COORDINATE. IT DOES SEEM LIKE THEY GO FOR THEIR OWN AGENDA. I DO WONDER IF THERE IS SOME COORDINATION AT PLAY, A GOAL SEPARATELY TO WALK AWAY FROM THIS HEARING FEELING LIKE THEY HAVE ACCOMPLISHED SOMETHING. >> I THINK THIS WILL BE A LEARNING EXPERIENCE FROM THEM. WE ARE EXPECTING MORE HEARINGS. THIS TIME I AM NOT SURE YOU WILL SEE MUCH COORDINATION EMERGE. IT IS A HUGE COMMITTEE. IT IS BIGGER THAN INTELLIGENCE. A VARIETY OF MEMBERS, PERSONALITIES, BUT IT IS POSSIBLE THAT AS WE GET INTO HEARINGS THAT HAVE TO DO WITH THE FACTS OF THEUKRAINE SAGA THEY MIGHT BE ABLE TO COORDINATE BETTER. >> I THINK FIVE MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE SERVED ON THIS COMMITTEE DURING THE CLINTON IMPEACHMENT TRIAL. SO INTERESTING TO GET A SENSE FROM THEIR PERSPECTIVE. HOW DIFFERENT OR SIMILAR THIS IS, WHO IS CHOOSING TO INVOKE IT, WHO IS CHOOSING TO NOT TALK ABOUT IT. >> I HAVE BEEN WAITING TO SEE IFANYONE WILL BRING UP THE IDEA THAT PROFESSOR TURLEY WAS INVOLVED IN THE CLINTON IMPEACHMENT AS A WITNESS. HE ACTUALLY TOOK A BIT OF A DIFFERENT STANCEAT THAT POINT. HE TALKED ABOUT HOW IT WAS IMPORTANT TO IMPEACH CLINTON BECAUSE OTHERWISE THE KIND OF BOUNDARIES ON EXECUTIVE POWER WOULD FALL, AGAIN, THAT IS QUITE DIFFERENT FROM THE CASE HE IS MAKING TODAY. >> AS WE WATCH THIS PROCESS PLAYOUT SIGNIFICANT BECAUSE IT MOVES INTO THE PHASE OF THE COMMITTEE TAKING THE FACT GATHERING WORK THAT THE INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE DID BEHIND THE SCENES. MOVING FORWARD, A BIG PART OF THIS WEEK IS YESTERDAY’S REPORT, WHICH IS SORT OF A SEPARATE PART OF THE PROCESS. CAN YOU TAKE A THROUGH WHAT YOU ARE SEEING AS THE BIG NEWS OF THE WEEK SO FAR? IS IT REALLY THE REPORT? WHAT ARE YOU SEEING RISE TO THE SURFACE?>> I THINK WE ARE SEEING DEMOCRATS SHOW THEIR CARDS A LITTLE BIT TODAY IN TERMS OF WHAT COULD BE IN ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT. SEEING THE DEMOCRATIC ATTORNEY WHO WORKS ON THE COMMITTEE, QUESTION THE WITNESSES, I THINK IT IS ILLUMINATING BECAUSE WE HEARD HIM ASK ABOUT BRIBERY, OBSTRUCTION OF CONGRESS, OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE. IN THAT SENSE WE ARE GOING TO SEE DEMOCRATS HOME IN ON THOSE ISSUES. WE HAVE BEEN HEARD AS MANY QUESTIONS ABOUT ROBERT MUELLER AS I THOUGHT WE MIGHT. THERE IS A POSSIBILITY THEY MIGHT STEP OUTSIDE OF THE IMPEACHMENT. I THINK COMING OUT OF THESE THEORIES THAT QUESTION IS A GOOD ONE ABOUT WHAT THE STRATEGY WILL BE. REPUBLICANS HAVE NOT BEEN AS FEISTY WITH THE EXCEPTION OF MATT GATES, IS IT POSSIBLE GOING INTO FUTURE HEARINGS THEY WILL TURN UP THE HEAT A BIT. WE MAY SEE ADAM SCHIFF TESTIFY WHICH WOULD RAISE THOSE PARTISAN FIREWORKS A BIT. I THINK PROFESSOR TURLEY MADE A GOOD POINT WHEN IT COMES TO THE PUBLIC’S ABILITY TO TRACK ALL THE INFORMATION. HE SAID THE COMMITTEE IS RISKING LOSING SOME MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC AS THEY MOVED THROUGH THE INQUIRY. WE SHOULD NOTE COMPARED TO THE CLINTON INQUIRY THEY ARE ABOUT ON TRACK SO IT IS NOT REALLY TRUE THAT THEY ARE MOVING MORE QUICKLY. I DO THINK WITH EVERYTHING THAT CAME OUT IN THE REPORT WE DID NOT HAVE TIME TO PROCESS IT. IT JUST CAME OUT YESTERDAY. IT IS HUGE, IT IS KIND OF A MOMENTOUS THING TO PROCESS. >> A COLLEAGUE REPORTED THAT DEMOCRATS ARE DEBATING WHETHER TO EXPAND THE ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT, WHETHER OR NOT TO BRING OTHER ELEMENTS INTO IT. I WAS EXPECTING TO HEAR DEMOCRATS BRING UP OTHER THINGS OUTSIDE OF THE BOUNDARIES BUT THEY DO SEEM TO BE STICKING TO THE CONTOURS OF UKRAINE AND THE WORK OF THE INTEL COMMITTEE. ARE WE LEARNING ANYTHING FROM THAT? ANYTHING FROM THE QUESTIONS THAT HAVE BEEN ASKED? >> I THINK IT IS POSSIBLE IT IS JUST A MATTER OF WITNESSES BEING RECRUITED TO SPEAK SPECIFICALLY TO UKRAINE. BUT IT IS POSSIBLE THAT DEMOCRATS WILL BRING IN MORE ISSUES. IN FUTURE HEARINGS I THINK WE WILL HEAR BOARD DISCUSSION. I WOULD BE CURIOUS TO HEAR WHAT ADAM SCHIFF HAS TO SAY ABOUT THAT. WE DID HEAR A COUPLE OF REFERENCES TO ROBERT MUELLER. I THINK THAT IT IS CLEARLY AN ISSUE THAT DEMOCRATS ARE INTERESTED IN. >> THE QUESTION OF THE REPORT, THESE PHONE CALLS THAT HAVE BEEN A FOCUS BECAUSE THEY WERE NOT KNOWN TO THE PUBLIC, THEY WERE NEW INFORMATION, RAISED MORE QUESTIONS THAN THEY PROVIDEANSWERS. WHERE DOES THAT ENTER THE PROCESS? >> IT IS TRICKY BECAUSE NOT ALL THE PHONE NUMBERS HAVE BEEN IDENTIFIED. IT IS PART OF THIS WEB OF CONTEXT THAT WE ARE TRYING TO UNDERSTAND WHO IS DEVIN NUNES CALLING, WHO IS RUDYGIULIANI CALLING, WHICH NUMBER IS PRESIDENT TRUMP.SO I THINK THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE IS NOT THE PANEL THAT IS BEST EQUIPPED TO ANSWER SOME OF THOSE QUESTIONS. IT IS SOMETHING WE MIGHT SEE INTELLIGENCE APPROACH A BIT MORE. I WILL BE CURIOUS TO SEE IF THAT FACT-FINDING FUNCTION OF THAT COMMITTEE WILL COME BACK AROUND AS MORE DOCUMENTATION COMES IN.>> GOING BACK TO THE PROCEEDINGS TODAY, YOU QUOTE IN THE BASE OF ARIZONA DESCRIBING THIS COMMITTEE AS A BUNCH OF BRAWLERS. TELL US WHY ARE THEY SORT OF SEEING IT THAT WAY? >> I THINK YOU COULD NOT REALLY HAVE PICKED A MORE AGGRESSIVE CONFRONTATIONAL GROUP OF LAWMAKERS THEN YOU SEE ON THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE. YOU HAVE PEOPLE LIKE MATT GAETZ, YOU HAVE SOMEONE LIKE THE REPUBLICAN FROM TEXAS WHO IS KNOWN FOR HIS I A LONG DIATRIBE ON THE HOUSE FLOORS, YOU HAVE SHEILA JACKSON LEE, A DEMOCRAT WHO IS ALSO KNOWN FOR HAVE A DIED FOR CONFRONTATION. I THINK THE COMMITTEE IS INTERESTING, IT IS LESS SOBER, LESS POWERFUL THAN THE INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE, WHICH WAS THE ONE THAT SPEAKER NANCY PELOSI HANDPICKED TO DO THE HEAVY LIFTING. IT IS A COMMITTEE THAT TENDS TO ATTRACT A TYPE OF LAWMAKER WHO IS LOOKING FOR A PUBLIC PLATFORM TO ADVOCATE ON ISSUES OF INTEREST TO THEM. THESE ARE THE BOMB THROWERS, THESE ARE THE FIGHTERS, SO THAT IS IN A WAY WHY I WAS SURPRISED TODAY COMPARED TO WHAT WE PREDICT IT IN OUR PRESET REPUBLICANS WERE NOT QUITE AS AGGRESSIVE AS I EXPECTED. >> WHERE DO THINGS GO FROM HERE? >> TOMORROW NANCY PELOSI WILL HOLD A TOWN HALL IN THE EVENING, WE ARE INTERESTED TO HEAR FROM HER ABOUT THE STATUS OF THE INQUIRY.WHERE DOES SHE THINK IT IS GOING? HOW FAR DOESSHE GO IN HER LANGUAGE TOWARDS PROMISING AN IMPEACHMENT VOTE. SHE HAS BEEN VERY CAREFUL ABOUT THAT. WE ARE EXPECTING MORE HEARINGS NEXT WEEK. HEARINGS THAT WOULD GO MORE TO THAT REPORT THAT WAS RELEASED BY ADAM SCHIFF’S COMMITTEE. REPUBLICANSREALLY WANT ADAM SCHIFF TO TESTIFY. WE COULD SEEHEARING CYCLE MORE TO THE FACTS. AFTER THAT THERE ARE BOTH EXPECTED, THE COMMITTEE WILL VOTE ON GROUNDS FOR IMPEACHMENT, DRAFT ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT, THEN MAYBE WE MIGHT GO TO THE HOUSE FLOOR.>> WE ARE LOOKING TO A TIMELINE RIGHT BEFORE THE CHRISTMAS HOLIDAYS. >> WE KNOW THAT THEY LOVE THEIR CHRISTMAS HOLIDAYS SO THEY WILL GET OUT OF WASHINGTON AT A CERTAIN POINT. BUT THEY ARE UNDER TIME PRESSURE AT THIS POINT. WHICH IS CONTROVERSIAL PARTICULARLY AMONG THE LIBERAL BASE WHO WISHES, SOME REPUBLICANS, PROFESSOR TURLEY HAS ARGUED THAT THERE SHOULD BE MORE TIME TAKING THAT WE NEED TO INVESTIGATE MORE THAT WE NEED TO HEAR FROM WILL WITNESSES. SO IT IS SELF-IMPOSED. WE WILL SEE IF THEY MEET THE DEADLINE. I KNOW WE ARE CERTAINLY HOPING TO GET OUT OF THE CAPITAL BY THE 20TH OR 21ST. >> THE CHAIRMAN IS SEATED AGAIN, WE ARE WATCHING TO SEE WHEN HE RESUMES. WE WILL STAY WITH IT UNTIL THE END. STAY WITH US. ALMOST 20 MORE MEMBERSWILL GET A CHANCE TO ASK QUESTIONS. WE WILL BE BACK TO WRAP THINGS UP AFTER THAT. IN THE MEANTIME YOU CAN SUBSCRIBE TO US ON YOUTUBE FOR FUTURE UPDATES. >>> THE MEETING WILL COME TO ORDER. >> ONE OF MY COLLEAGUES WONDEREDHOW THIS PANEL CAN OPINE AS TO WHETHER THE PRESIDENT COMMITTED IMPEACHABLE OFFENSE. THE ANSWER IS BECAUSE HE CAME IN WITH A PRECONCEIVED NOTION, IF YOU ALREADY MADE THAT DECISION. FOR INSTANCE, UNTIL A RECENT COLLOQUY SEVERAL OF YOU CONSISTENTLY SAID THAT THE PRESIDENT SAID DURING THAT CONVERSATION WITH THE PRESIDENT HE SAID, THE PRESIDENT SAID I WOULD LIKE YOU TO DO ME A FAVOR. THAT IS NOT RIGHT. IT WAS FINALLY CLEARED UP, I WOULD LIKE YOU TO DO AS A FAVOR THOUGH BECAUSE OUR COUNTRY HAS BEEN THROUGH LOT. HERE THE PRESIDENT IS TALKING ABOUT THE COUNTRY. THAT IS WHAT HE IS TALKING ABOUT. IT IS AUDACIOUS TO SAY, THAT IS OIL ALL RIGHT. I WILL TELL YOU WHEN YOU COME IN WITH APRECONCEIVED NOTION IT BECOMES OBVIOUS. ONE OF YOU JUST SAID, FELDMAN SAID, “UNTIL THE CALL ON JULY 25TH I WAS AN IMPEACHMENT SKEPTIC TOO.” I DON’T KNOW I AM LOOKING AT A PUBLICATION WHERE YOU SAID “IF PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP PARDONS JOE ARPAIO IT WILL BE IN IMPEACHABLE OFFENSE. HE DID ULTIMATELY PARDON HIM. IN 2017 THE NEW YORK REVIEW, PROFESSOR FELDMAN SAID “DEFAMATION BY TWEET IS IN IMPEACHABLE OFFENSE.” I THINK ABOUT THE HISTORY OF THIS COUNTRY, I THINK IF DEFAMATION OR LIBEL OR SLANDER IS IN IMPEACHABLE OFFENSE I CAN’T HELP BUT REFLECT ABOUT JOHN ADAMS, THOMAS JEFFERSON, WHO ROUTINELY WILL READ THEIR POLITICAL OPPONENTS, IN FACT, AT THE TIME, THE PARTIES ACTUALLY BOUGHT NEWSPAPERS TO ATTACK THEIR POLITICAL OPPONENTSS. SO THIS EXPANSIVE VIEW YOU HAVE ON WHAT CONSTITUTES IMPEACHMENT IS A REAL PROBLEM. THIS MORNING ONE OF YOU MENTIONED THE CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION, SEVERAL MENTIONED THE CONSTITUTIONAL COMMISSION, IT HAS BEEN A WHILE SINCE I READ THE MINUTES. I REMEMBERED THE DISCUSSION ON IMPEACHMENT AS BEING MORE PERVASIVE. A LITTLE BIT MORE EXPANDED. ON JULY 20TH, IT WAS NOT 1789, IT WAS 1787, BENJAMIN FRANKLIN IS DISCUSSING IMPEACHMENT OF A DUTCH LEADER. HE TALKED SPECIFICALLY ABOUT WHAT HE WOULD ANTICIPATE AN IMPEACHMENT TO LOOK LIKE. HE SAID IT WOULD BE A REGULAR INQUIRY. IT WOULD HAVE TAKEN PLACE, IF GUILTY THERE WOULD BE A PUNISHMENT, IF ACQUITTED THE INNOCENT WOULD BE RESTORED TO THE CONFIDENCE OF THE PUBLIC. THAT NEEDS TO BE TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT AS WELL. I ALSO LOOK, ON MAY 17TH 2017, A DISCUSSION ABOUT IMPEACHMENT, BECAUSE PRESIDENT TRUMP HAD FIRE JAMES COMEY. ALEX WHITING OF HARVARD SAID IT WAS HARD TO MAKE THE OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE CASE ALONE, THE PRESIDENT HAD LEGAL AUTHORITY, THERE WAS PROPER OR AT LEAST OF THE REASONS PUT FORWARD FOR FIRING HIM. YET, WHAT WE HAVE HERE IS THIS INSISTENCE BY PROFESSOR GERHARDT THAT THAT WAS IMPEACHABLE. THATWAS IN THAT ARTICLE. WHAT I AM SUGGESTING TO YOU TODAY IS A RECKLESS, BIAS COMING IN HERE, YOU ARE NOT FACT WITNESSES, YOU ARE SUPPOSED TO BE TALKING ABOUT THE LAW BUT SHE CAME IN WITH A PRECONCEIVED NOTION. I WANT TO READ ONE LAST THING IF I CAN FIND IT. THIS IS FROM ONE OF OUR WITNESSES, IT IS DEALING WITH SOMETHING THAT WAS SAID IN A MARYLAND LAW REVIEW ARTICLE IN 1999. TALKING ABOUT, BEING CRITICAL ABOUT LACK OF SELF-DOUBT, OVERWHELMING ARROGANCE ON THE PART OF LAW PROFESSORS WHO OPINE ON IMPEACHMENT. THAT WOULD BE YOU PROFESSOR GERHARDT. THAT IS WHAT YOU SAID. SO WHAT I AM TELLING YOU IS THAT HAS WHAT HAS BEEN ON DISPLAY TODAY. WITHTHAT I YIELD BACK. >> A WHILE AGO MATT GAETZ ASKED A MATERIAL BE INSERTED INTO THE RECORD, WE HAVE REVIEWED IT, THE MATERIAL WILL BE INSERTED WITHOUT OBJECTION. >> THANK YOU. I FIRST SWORE AN OATH TO THE CONSTITUTION WHEN I WAS COMMISSIONED AS AN OFFICER IN THE AIR FORCE. A OATH I TOOKWAS NOT TO A POLITICAL PARTY OR TO A PRESIDENT OR TO A KING, IT WAS A OATH TO A DOCUMENT THAT HAS MADE AMERICA THE GREATEST ON EARTH. I NEVER IMAGINED I WOULD BE IN A SITUATION WHERE THE PRESIDENT ISACCUSED OF USING HIS OFFICE FOR PERSONAL POLITICAL GAIN THAT BETRAYED U.S. NATIONAL SECURITY, HEARD UKRAINE AND HELPED RUSSIA. THE CONSTITUTION PROVIDES A SAFEGUARD FOR WHEN THE PRESIDENT’S ABUSE OF POWER BACK BETRAYAL OF NATURAL ARE SO EXTREME THAT IT WARRANTS IMPEACHMENT. IT SEEMS NOTABLE THAT OF ALL THOSE OFFENSES THEY COULD HAVE INCLUDED IN THE CONSTITUTION, BRIBERY IS ONE OF ONLY TWO THAT ARE LISTED.PROFESSOR FELDMAN WHY WOULD THE FRAMERS INCLUDE BRIBERY?>> BRIBERY WAS A CLASSIC EXAMPLE, FOR THEM, OF THE HIGH CRIME OF ABUSE OF OFFICE FOR PERSONAL GAIN. BECAUSE IF YOU TAKE SOMETHING OF VALUE WHILE YOU ARE ABLE TO AFFECT AN OUTCOME FOR SOMEONE ELSE YOU ARE SERVING YOUR OWN INTEREST, NOT THE INTEREST OF THE PEOPLE. THAT WAS COMMONLY USED IN IMPEACHMENT OFFENSES. >> EARLIER PROFESSOR KARLAN MADETHE POINT THAT BRIBERY AS ENVISIONED BY THE FRAMERS WAS MUCH BROADER. I THINK THE REASON FOR THAT IS ALWAYS, WE ARE NOT IN A CRIMINAL PROCEEDING, WE ARE NOT DECIDING WHETHER TO SEND THE PRESIDENT TO PRISON. THIS IS A CIVIL ACTION. SO PROFESSOR KARLAN, IT IS TRUE THAT WE DON’T HAVE TO MEET THE STANDARDS OF A FEDERAL BRIBERY STATUTE? >> THAT IS CORRECT. >> THANK YOU. YESTERDAY A LOT PROCESSOR A LIFELONG REPUBLICAN, WHO ADVISED THE TRANSITION TEAM MADE THE FOLLOWING STATEMENT ABOUT DONALD TRUMP’S CONDUCT. “THE CALL WAS IN PERFECT, HE COMMITTED IMPEACHMENT OFFENSES.” I WILL SHOW YOU TWO VIDEO CLIPS OF THE WITNESS TESTIMONY RELATING TO THE PRESIDENT’S WITHHOLDING OF A MEETING IN EXCHANGE FOR THE PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENT OF AN INVESTIGATIONINTO HIS POLITICAL RIVAL. >> AS I TESTIFIED PREVIOUSLY RUDY GIULIANI’S REQUEST WERE A QUID PRO QUO FOR ARRANGING A WHITE HOUSE VISIT FOR PRESIDENT ZELINSKI.>> IT WAS CLEAR TO ME THE MEETING THE PRESIDENT WANTED WAS CONDITIONED ON THE INVESTIGATIONS OF UKRAINIAN INTERFERENCE IN THE U.S. ELECTIONS. >> ONE MORE VIDEO CLIP RELATING TO THE DECISION TO WITHHOLD SECURITY ASSISTANCE.>> IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY CREDIBLE EXPLANATION FOR THE SUSPENSION OF AID I LATER CAME TO BELIEVE THAT THE RESUMPTION OF SECURITY A WOULD NOT HAPPEN UNTIL THERE WAS A PUBLIC STATEMENT FROM UKRAINE COMMITTING TO THE INVESTIGATIONS OF THE ELECTIONS AND AS MR. GIULIANI HAD DEMANDED. >> PROFESSOR KARLAN DOES THAT EVIDENCE SHOW THAT THE PRESIDENT MET THE STANDARDS FOR BRIBERY AS ENVISIONED IN THE CONSTITUTION? >> YES, IT DOES. >> I BELIEVE THE RECORD WOULD ALSO MEET THE STANDARDS FOR CRIMINAL BRIBERY. THE SUPREME COURT’S DECISION WAS ABOUT WHAT CONSTITUTES AN OFFICIAL ACT. THE KEY FINDING WAS AN OFFICIAL ACT MUST INVOLVE A GOVERNMENTAL POWER ON SOMETHING SPECIFIC PENDING BEFORE A PUBLIC OFFICIAL. IT IS PRETTY CLEAR WE HAVE THAT HERE. WE HAVE HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS OF DOLLARS OF AID THAT CONGRESS APPROPRIATED, THE FREEZING OF THAT IT IS A EXERCISE OF GOVERNMENTAL POWER. WE DON’T EVEN HAVE TO TALK ABOUT THE CRIME OF BRIBERY, THERE IS ANOTHER CRIME, THE SOLICITATION OF FEDERAL, OF A FOREIGN GOVERNMENT IT A FEDERAL ELECTION CAMPAIGN. THAT VIOLATES THE CAMPAIGN ACT. BY THE WAY IT IS ALSO ONE REASON MICHAEL COHEN IS SITTING IN PRISON RIGHT NOW. I YIELD BACK. >> WITH A SHOW OF HANDS HOW MANY ON THE. ACTUALLY VOTED FOR DONALD TRUMP IN 2016? >> I DON’T THINK WE ARE OBLIGATED TO SAY HOW WE CAST A BALLOT.>> JUST A SHOW OF HANDS. >> I WILL NOT. >> I THINK YOU MAJOR POSITION PROFESSOR KARLAN.>> HOW MANY OF YOU — THE GREAT GENTLEMEN MAY ASK THE QUESTION THE WITNESS DOES NOT HAVE TO RESPOND. >> HOW MANY OF YOU SUPPORTED DONALD TRUMP IN 2016? SHOW OF HANDS.>> NOT RAISING MY HAND IS NOT AN INDICATION OF AN ANSWER. >> PROFESSOR TRANSFER, ONE DEMOCRAT ASSERTED THAT HEARSAY CAN BE MUCH BETTER EVIDENCE THAN DIRECT EVIDENCE. SPEAKER PELOSI HAS SAID THE PRESIDENT’S RESPONSIBILITY IS TO PRESENT EVIDENCE TO PROVE HIS INNOCENCE. ADAM SCHIFF HAS SAID IF YOU INVOKE LEGAL RIGHTS IN DEFENSE OF CRIMINAL ACCUSATIONS, IF SO THAT IS AN OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE. MY QUESTION IS WHAT DOES IT MEAN TO THE JUSTICESYSTEM IF THESE DOCTRINES TAKE ROUTE IN OUR COUNTRY. >> WHAT CONCERNS ME THE MOST IS THAT THERE ARE NO LIMITING PRINCIPLES THAT I CAN SEE IN SOME OF THE DEFINITIONS MY COLLEAGUES HAVE PUT FORWARD. MORE IMPORTANTLY SOME OF THESE OFFENSES I ONLY HEARD ABOUT TODAY. I AM NOT TRUE TO SHOW WHAT ATTEMPTING TO ABUSE OFFICE MEANS OR HOW WE RECOGNIZE IT. 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 WILL BE THE BASIS FOR IMPEACHMENT. HOW MANYREPUBLICANS WOULD SAY THAT BARACK OBAMA VIOLATED THE STANDARD? THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT JAMES MADISON WARNED YOU AGAINST. THAT YOU WOULD CREATE A VOTE OF NO-CONFIDENCE STANDARD IN OUR. >> ARE WE IN DANGER OF ABUSING ARE OWN POWER? MY DEMOCRATIC COLLEAGUES HAVE BEEN SEARCHING FOR IMPEACHMENT SINCE BEFORE THE PRESIDENT WAS SWORN IN. PROFESSOR KARLAN CALLED THE ELECTION ILLEGITIMATE. SHE IMPLIED IMPEACHMENT WAS A REMEDY. PROFESSOR FELDMAN ADVOCATED IMPEACHMENT THE PRESIDENT OVER A TWEET THAT HE MADE. ARE WE IN DANGER OF SUCCUMBING TO THE RED QUEEN.>> THIS IS PART OF THE PROBLEM OF HOW YOUR VIEW OF THE PRESIDENT CAN AFFECT YOUR ASSUMPTIONS CAREER INFERENCES, YOUR VIEW OF CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE. I AM NOT SUGGESTING THAT THE EVIDENCE WOULD COME OUT ONE WAY OR THE OTHER WHAT I AM SAYING IS WE ARE NOT DEALING WITH THE REALM OF THE UNKNOWABLE, YOU HAVE TO ASK, WE BURNED TWO HOUSE IN THE SMALLHOUSE, YOU COULD HAVE BEEN IN COURT TAKING A SUBPOENA FOR THESE WITNESSES. IT DOES NOT MEAN YOUHAVE TO WAIT FOREVER BUT YOU COULD HAVE GOTTEN IN ORDER BY NOW. YOU COULD HAVE ALLOWED THE PRESIDENT TO RAISE AN EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE. >> THE CONSTITUTION SAID THE AUTHORITY SHOULD BE VESTED IN THE PRESIDENT, DOES THAT MEAN SOME OF THE AUTHORITY OR ALL OF IT? >> ALL OF THE CITY THERE ARE CHECKS IT BACK BALANCES. THESE ARE ALL SHARED POWERS. I DON’T BEGRUDGE THE INVESTIGATION OF THE CONTROVERSY. WHAT I BEGRUDGE IT HOW IS HAS BEEN CONDUCTED. >> I TEND TO AGREE WITH THAT.>> IF PROBABLE CAUSE EXISTS TO BELIEVE A CRIME HAS BEEN COMMITTED DOES THE PRESIDENT HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO INQUIRE INTO THAT MATTER? >> YES, BUT THIS IS WHERE WE WOULD DEPART. I HAVE BEEN CRITICAL OF THE PRESIDENT IN TERMS OF CROSSING LINES. I THINK THAT HAS CAUSED PROBLEMS, I DON’T BELIEVE IT IS APPROPRIATE. WE OFTEN CONFUSE WHAT IS INAPPROPRIATE WITH WHAT IS IMPEACHABLE. MANY PEOPLE FEEL WHAT THE PRESIDENT HAS DONE IS OBNOXIOUS, CONTEMPTIBLE, BUT THAT IS NOT IMPEACHABLE. >> THE DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT THAT AUTHORIZES AID TO UKRAINE REQUIRE THE SECRETARYOF DEFENSE CERTIFIED THE GOVERNMENT IS TAKING ACTIONS TO MAKE 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? >> PART OF THE BIAS IS YOU JUST IGNORED DEFENSES, YOU SAY THOSE ARE JUST INVALID BUT THERE IS A DEFENSE, THERE IS THE OTHER SIDETO COUNTER ACTIONS. >> I WANT TO THANK THE WITNESSES FOR THEIRHARD WORK ON A LONG DAY. I WANT TO THANK THEM FOR INVOKING THE AMERICAN REVOLUTION WHICH NOT ONLY OVERTHREW A KING BUT CREATED THE FIRST ANTI-CONSTITUTION. I AM PROUD TO HAVE SPENT MY CAREER ASA FELLOW CONSTITUTIONAL LAW PROFESSOR. TOM PAYNE SAID THE MONARCHIES THE KING IS LAW BUT IN A DEMOCRACY THE LAW WILL BE KING. TODAY THE PRESIDENT ADVANCES AN ARGUMENT SAYING ARTICLE 2 ALLOWSHIM TO DO WHATEVER HE WANTS, HE NOT ONLY SAYS IT BUT HE BELIEVES IT BECAUSE HE DID SOMETHING NO OTHER PRESIDENT HAS EVER DONE. HE USED FOREIGN AID AS A LEVER TO COERCE A FOREIGN GOVERNMENT TO INTERFERE IN AN AMERICAN ELECTION TO DISCREDIT AN OPPONENT INTO ADVANCE HIS REELECTION 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 IS RIGHT, IF WE ACCEPT THIS RADICAL CLAIM, ALL FUTURE PRESIDENT SEEKING REELECTION WILL BE ABLE TO BRING FOREIGN GOVERNMENTS INTO OUR CAMPAIGNS TO TARGET THEIR RIVALS. THAT IS ASTOUNDING. IF WE LET THE PRESIDENT GET AWAY WITH THIS EVERY PRESIDENT CAN GET AWAY WITH IT, DO YOU AGREE? >> I DO. RICHARD NIXON SENT BURGLARS TO BREAK INTO THE DEMOCRATIC NATIONAL COMMITTEE HEADQUARTERS BUT PRESIDENT TRUMP MADE A DIRECT PHONE CALL TO THE PRESIDENT OF A FOREIGN COUNTRY. >> THIS IS A BIG MOMENT FOR AMERICA. IF ELIJAH CUMMINGS WAS HERE HE WOULD SAY, LISTEN UP, LISTEN UP. HOW WE RESPOND WILL DETERMINE THE CHARACTER OF OUR DEMOCRACY. PROFESSORS YOU TOLD US THERE WERE THREE REASONS INVOKED AT THE FOUNDING FOR WHY WE NEEDED IN IMPEACHMENT POWER. IT WAS AN INSTRUMENT OF POPULAR SELF-DEFENSE AGAINST A PRESIDENT BEHAVING LIKE A KING. NOT JUST IN THE NORMAL ROYAL SENSE OF SHOWING CRUELTY, VANITY OR TREACHERY, BUT, WHEN PRESIDENTS DIRECTING THE BASIC CHARACTER OF OUR GOVERNMENT, THAT IS WHEN IMPEACHMENT WAS ABOUT. THE FRAMERS INVOKED THREE SPECIFIC KIND OF MISCONDUCT SO SERIOUS THAT THEY THOUGHT THEY WARRANTED IMPEACHMENT. FIRST, THE PRESIDENT MIGHT ABUSE HIS POWER BY CORRUPTLY USING HIS OFFICE FOR PERSONAL GAIN, WELL, PROFESSOR FELDMAN, IF THE PRESIDENT BELONGS TO MY PARTY, WHAT IS SO WRONG WITH HIM USING HIS OFFICE TO ADVANCE HIS OWN POLITICAL AMBITIONS? >> BECAUSE THE PRESIDENT WORKS FOR THE PEOPLE. IF HE SEEKS PERSONAL GAIN NOT SERVING THE INTEREST OF THE PEOPLE. HE IS SERVING THE INTEREST THAT ARE SPECIFIC TO HIM. THAT MEANS HE IS ABUSING THE OFFICE. >> SECOND, THIRD, FEAR THAT THE PRESIDENT COULD SUBVERT OUR DEMOCRACY BY BETRAYING HIS TRUST TO FOREIGN INFLUENCE, ALSO, BY CORRUPTING THE ELECTION PROCESS, PROFESSOR KARLAN YOU ARE A SCHOLAR, WHAT RULE DOES IMPEACHMENT PLAY IN PROTECT THE INTEGRITY OF ELECTIONS, ESPECIALLY IN AN INTERNATIONAL CONTEXT IN WHICH VLADIMIR PUTIN AND OTHER TYRANTS ARE INTERFERING TO THE STABILIZED ELECTIONS AROUND THE WORLD? >> CONGRESS HAS ENACTED A SERIESOF LAWS TO MAKE SURE THERE IS NOT FOREIGN INFLUENCE IN OUR ELECTIONS. ALLOWING THE PRESIDENT TO CIRCUMVENT THAT PRINCIPLE IS A PROBLEM. ASI HAVE TESTIFIED AMERICA IS NOT JUST THE LAST BEST HOPE, BUTIT IS ALSO THE SHINING CITY ON A HILL.WE CAN’T BE THAT AND PROMOTES DEMOCRACY AROUND THE WORLD IF WE ARE PROMOTING IT AT HOME. >> ANY ONE OF THESE ACTIONS ALONE WOULD BE SUFFICIENT TO IMPEACH THE PRESIDENT. IS IT FAIR TO SAY ALL THREE WERE CONTEMPLATED BY THE FOUNDERS ABUSE OF POWER, PRETRIAL OF SECURITY, CORRUPTION OF OUR ELECTIONS, THEY ARE PRESENT IN THIS PRESIDENT’S CONDUCT. >> YES. >> YES. >> YES. >> YOU ALL AGREE. ARE ANY OF YOU ARE AWARE OF ANY OTHER PRESIDENT WHO HAS TRIGGERED ALL THREE CONCERNSTHAT ANIMATED THE FOUNDERS? >> NO.>> NO. >> NO AS WELL.>> IT IS HARD TO THINK OF A MORE SENTIMENT THAN I CAN DO WHATEVER I WANT AS PRESIDENT. I YIELD BACK. >> THANK YOU. I ASK UNANIMOUS CONSENT TO INSERT INTO THE RECORD A LETTER I WROTEASKING, CALLING ON YOU, TO CANCEL ANY OR ALL FUTUREIMPEACHMENT HEARINGS OUTLINING HOW THE PROCESS. >> THE LETTER WILL BE ENTERED. >> THANK YOU. DURING AN INTERVIEW MR. CHAIRMAN ON NOVEMBER 26TH OF 2018 CHAIRMAN NADLER OUTLINED A THREE-PRONGED TEST THAT HE SAID WOULD ALLOW FOR ILLEGITIMATE IMPEACHMENT PROCEEDING. NOW, I QUOTE THE CHAIRMAN, “THERE REALLY ARE THREE QUESTIONS I THINK, FIRST, HAS THE PRESIDENT COMMITTED IMPEACHABLE OFFENSES? SECOND, THERE THOSE OFFENSES RISE TO THE GRAVITY THAT IS WHERE PUTTING THE COUNTRY THROUGH THE DRAMA OF IMPEACHMENT? NUMBER THREE, BECAUSE YOU DON’T WANT TO TEAR THE COUNTRY APART, YOU DON’T WANT HALF OF THE COUNTRY TO SAY TO THE OTHER HALF FOR THE NEXT 30 YEARS WE WON THE ELECTIONS, YOU STOLE IT FROM US.YOU HAVE TO BE ABLE TO THINK OF THE BEGINNING OF THE PROCESS. THAT THE EVIDENCE IS SO CLEAR OF OFFENSES SO GRAYS, THAT WANTS TO LEAD OUT ALL OF THE EVIDENCE THE GOOD FRACTION OF THE OPPOSITION, THE VOTERS WILL RELUCTANTLY ADMIT TO THEMSELVES THEY HAD TO DO IT.” IF YOU MEET THESE THREE TESTS THEN YOU DO THE IMPEACHMENT. THOSE WERE THE WORDS OF THE CHAIRMAN. NOW, LET’S SEE IF THE CHAIRMAN’STEST HAS BEEN MET. FIRST, HAS THE PRESIDENT COMMITTED IN IMPEACHABLE OFFENSE? NO. THE EVIDENCE AND TESTIMONY HAS NOT REVEALED ANY IMPEACHABLE OFFENSE. SECOND, TO THOSE OFFENSES RISE TO THE GRAVITY THAT IS WORTH PUTTING THE COUNTRY THROUGH THE DRAMA OF IMPEACHMENT? AGAIN, THE ANSWER IS NO. THERE IS NOTHING HERE THAT RISES TO THE GRAVITY THAT IS WHERE PUTTING THE COUNTRY THROUGH THE DRAMA OF IMPEACHMENT. THIRD, HAVE THE DEMOCRATS LATE OUT A CASE SO CLEAR THAT EVEN THE OPPOSITION HAS TO AGREE ABSOLUTELY NOT. YOU 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, THE FACT THAT NOT ONE SINGLE REPUBLICAN VOTED ON THE IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY RESOLUTION FOR ON THE ADAM SCHIFF REPORT REVEALS 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. IT IS TEARING THE COUNTRY APART. I TAKE THIS ALL TO MEAN THAT THE CHAIRMAN ALONG WITH THE REST OF THE DEMOCRATIC CAUCUS IS PREPARED TO CONTINUE THESE PARTISAN UNFAIR PROCEEDINGS AND TRAUMATIZE THE AMERICAN PEOPLE ALL FOR POLITICAL PURPOSES. I THINK THAT IS A SHAME. THAT IS NOT LEADERSHIP. THAT IS A SHAM. SO I ASKED MR. TURLEY, DOES THE CHAIRMAN SATISFY HIS THREE-PRONGED TEST FOR IMPEACHMENT? >> WITH ALL DUE RESPECT I DO NOTBELIEVE THOSE FACTORS WERE SATISFIED. >> THANK YOU. I WANT TO CORRECT SOMETHING AS WELL. REPEATEDLY TODAY, OTHER DAYS, DEMOCRATS HAVE REPEATED WHAT WAS SAID IN THE TEXT OF THE CALL, DO ME A FAVOR THOUGH, THEY IMPLY IT WAS AGAINST PRESIDENT, IT WAS NOT, IT WAS NOT. IN FACT LET ME READ ABOUT THE TRANSCRIPT SAYS. IT SAYS, “I WOULD LIKE YOU TO DO AS A FAVOR THOUGH, BECAUSE OUR COUNTRY HAS BEEN A LOT. UKRAINE KNOWS LOT ABOUT IT. I WOULD LIKE TO FIND OUT WHAT HAPPENED WITH THE SITUATION WITH UKRAINE, THEY SAY CROWD STRIKE, I GUESS YOU HAVE ONE OF YOUR OWN WEALTHY PEOPLE.” IT SAYS NOTHING ABOUT JOE BIDEN. PLEASE STOP PREFACING THOSE TWO TOGETHER. I YIELD BACK.>> >>> THANK THIS YOU. IS A THIS DEEPLY IS GRAVE A MOMENT DEEPLY THAT GREAT WE MOMENT FIND THAT OURSELVES WE IN. FIND AND I THOUGHT THE THREAT TOOUR OURSELVES IN. I FELT THE THREAT NATION TO WAS THE WELL NATION ARTICULATED WAS WELL ARTICULATED EARLIER TODAY BY PROFESSOR FELDMAN WHEN EARLIER YOU TODAYSAID IF WE CANNOT IMPEACH A PRESIDENT WHO ABUSES HIS OFFICE FOR PERSONAL ADVANTAGE WE NO LONGER LIVE IN ADEMOCRACY, WE LIVE IN A MONARCHY OR WE LIVE UNDER ADICTATORSHIP. MY VIEW IS THAT IF PEOPLE CANNOT DEPEND ON THE FAIRNESS OF OUR ELECTIONS, WHAT PEOPLE ARE CALLING DIVISIVE TODAY WILL BE ABSOLUTELY NOTHING AFTER COMPARED THE TO EVENTS THE SHREDDING OF OF UKRAINE UNFOLDED THE PRESIDENT CLAIMED THAT THE OUR DEMOCRACY.REASON HE REQUESTED AN INVESTIGATION INTO HIS POLITICAL OPPONENTS AND WELD 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. >> IT INVOLVED DISCUSSION OF WHAT APPEARED TO BE A POLITICAL MATTER. >> IS IT COMMON FOR SOMEONE WHO GETS CAUGHT TO DENY THAT THEIR BEHAVIOR IS INPERMISSIBLE? >> ALMOST ALWAYS. >> AND ONE OF THE QUESTIONS BEFORE US IS WHETHER THE PRESIDENT’S CLAIM THAT HE CARED ABOUT CORRUPTION IS ACTUALLY CREDIBLE. YOU’VE ARGUED BEFORE THE SUPREME COURT AND THE SUPREME COURT SAYS WE SHOULD LOOK AT A NUMBER OF FACTORS INCLUDING IMPACT, HISTORICAL BACKGROUND AND WHETHER THERE AREDEPARTURES FROM NORMAL PROCEDURES, CORRECT? >> THAT’S CORRECT. >> WHAT WE’RE ULTIMATELY TRYING TO DO IS FIND IF SOMEONE’S INFORMATION FITS WITH THE FACTS.AND IF IT DOESN’T, THE INFORMATION MAY NOT BE TRUE. LIEUTENANT COLONEL VINMAN TESTIFIED HE PREPARED TALKING POINTS ON ANTI-CORRUPTION REFORM FOR PRESIDENT TRUMP’S CALL WITH UKRAINIAN PRESIDENT ZELENSKY. 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 FANG OR THES, IS THAT SIGNIFICANT? >> YES, IT GOES TO THE ONE ABOUT IRREGULARITIES. >> 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 REL VENT TO YOUR ASSESSMENTS? >> YES, IT WOULD.>> THERE IS, IN FACT, AND MY COLLEAGUE MR. McCLINTOCK MENTIONED THIS EARLIER, A PROCESS OUTLINED IN THE NATIONALDEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT TO ASSESS WHETHER COUNTRIES THAT ARE RECEIVING MILITARY AID HAVE DONE ENOUGH TO FIGHT CORRUPTION.IN MAY OF 2019, MY REPUBLICAN COLLEAGUE DID NOT SAY THIS. THEDEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE ACTUALLY WROTE A LETTER DETERMINING THAT UKRAINE PASSED THIS ASSESSMENT. AND YES, PRESIDENT TRUMP SET ASIDE THAT ASSESSMENT AND WITHHELD THE AID TO UKRAINE ANYWAY, IN DIRECT CONTRADICTION TO THE ESTABLISHED PROCEDURES HE SHOULD HAVE FOLLOWED HAD HE CARED ABOUT CORRUPTION. IS THAT RELEVANT TO YOUR ASSESSMENT? >> YES, THAT WOULD ALSO GO TO THE FACTORS THE SUPREME COURT’S DISCUSSED. >> AND WHAT ABOUT THE FACT, AND I THINK YOU MENTIONED THIS EARLIER, AS ONE OF THE KEY THINGS YOU READ IN THE TESTIMONY THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP WANTED THE INVESTIGATIONS OF 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 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 AN ODD THING. MAYBE MR. SWALWELL CAN 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 ITPUTS THE PERSON ON NOTICE THAT THEY ARE UNDER INVESTIGATION. >> AND GIVEN ALL OF THESE FACTS, AND THERE ARE MORE THAT WE DON’THAVE 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 SEOUL POWER OF IMPEACHMENT.IF I WAS A MEMBER OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, I WOULD INFER HE WAS DOING IT FOR POLITICAL REASONS. >> IF WE DON’T STAND UP NOW TO A PRESIDENT WHO ABUSES HIS POWER, WE RISK SUNDAYING A MESSAGE TO ALL FUTURE PRESIDENTS THAT THEY CAN PUT THEIR OWN PERSONAL 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, I RECOGNIZE MR. GOMAN. >> YES, MR. CHAIRMAN. I WOULD ASK UNANIMOUS CONSENT TO OFFER ARTICLE BY DANIEL HUFF. >> WITHOUT OBJECTION THE ARTICLEWILL BE ENTERED INTO THE RECORD. MR. RESHENTHAT WILLER CAN QUESTION THE WITNESSES. >> I’M STARTING OFF DOING SOMETHING 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. YOU KNOW WHO ELSE AGREES? THE FOUNDING FATHERS. THE FOUNDING FATHERS RECOGNIZED THAT CRIMES WARRANTING IMPEACHMENT MUST BE SO SEVERE, REGARDLESS OF POLITICAL PARTY, THAT THERE IS AN AGREEMENT THE ACTIONS ARE IMPEACHABLE. WELL, LET’S GO BACK TO SPEAKER PELOSI’S WORDS JUST ONE MORE TIME. THE SPEAKER SAYS THE CASE FOR IMPEACHMENT MUST BE ALSO COMPELLING. WELL, AFTER LAST MONTH’S SHOW, THIS IS WHAT WE LEARNED. THERE IS NO EVIDENCE THAT THE PRESIDENT DIRECTED ANYONE TO TELL THE UKRAINIANS THAT AID WAS CONDITIONED ON AN 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, GO BACK TO THE ACTUAL TRANSCRIPT. BECAUSE NEVER IN THAT CALL WAS THE 2020 ELECTION MENTIONED. AND NEFRN IN THAT CALL WAS MILITARY AID MENTIONED.IN FACT, PRESIDENT TRUMP TOLD SENATE OR THE JOHNSON ON 341 AUGUST THAT AID WAS NOT CONDITIONED ON INVESTIGATION. RATHER, PRESIDENT TRUMP WAS RIGHTFULLY SKEPTICAL ABOUT THE UKRAINIANS. THEIR COUNTRY HAS AHISTORY OF CORRUPTION AND HE MERELY WANTED THE EUROPEANS TO CONTRIBUTE MORE TO A PROBLEM IN THEIR OWN BACKYARD. I THINK WE CAN ALL AGREE THAT IT’S APPROPRIATE FOR THE PRESIDENT ASA STEWARD OF TAXPAYER DOLLARS TO ENSURE THAT OUR MONEY ISN’T WASTED. I SAID I WASN’T GOING TO GO BACK TO SPEAKER PELOSI BUTI DO WANT TO GO BACK BECAUSE I FORGOT SHE ALSO SAY 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 PROQUO. I FORGOT WE’RE CALLING IT BLIEBRY NOW. THERE’S NO EVIDENCE OF BRIBERY EITHER. INSTEAD, THE TWO PEOPLE WHO DID HAVE FIRSTHAND KNOWLEDGE, THE PRESIDENT AND PRESIDENT SE LINSKY SAY THERE WAS NO PRESSURE ON THE UKRAINIANS.AND AGAIN, THE TRANSCRIPT OF JULY 25th BACKS THIS UP. 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 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 DEMOCRAT’S IMPREACHMENT INQUIRY, IT WAS JUST THAT. THE ONLY BIPARTISAN VOTE WAS THE ONE IMPOSING THE INQUIRY. THE PARTISAN VOTE WAS THE ONE TO MOVE FORWARD WITH THE INQUIRY. WE’RE 0 FOR 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 BY THE SPEAKER’S CRITERIA THIS HAS FAILED. THIS IS A PARTISAN WITCH HUNT WHICH DENIES DUE PROCESS TO THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES. THE DEMOCRATS’ CASE IS BASED ON NOTHING MORE THAN THOUGHTS, FEELINGS AND CONJECTURES AND THE THOUGHTS ANDFEELINGS OF FEW UNELECTED CAREER BUREAUCRATS. . AND THE AMERICAN PEOPLE ARE FED UP. INSTEAD OF WASTING OUR TIME ON THIS, WE SHOULD BE PASSINGS USMCA, LOW HERBING THE COST OF PRESCRIPTION DRUGS AND WORKING ON A FAILING INFRASTRUCTURE. WITH THAT SAID, MR. SURLY, I’VE WATCHED AS YOUR WORDS HAVE BEEN TWIST DPD MANGLED ALL DAY LONG, IS THERE ANYTHING YOU WOULD LIKETO CLARIFY. >> ONLY THIS. I THINK ONE OF THE DISAGREEMENTS THAT WE HAVE, AND I HAVE WITH MY ESTEEMED COLLEAGUES, IS WHAT MAKES A LEGITIMATE IMPEACHMENT. NOT WHAT TECHNICALLY SATS ANIES AN IMPEACHMENT, THERE’S FOR 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. ANDTHAT’S WHAT I’M SAYING. IT’S NOT THAT YOU CAN’T DO THIS. YOUJUST CAN’T DO IT THIS WAY. >> THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN. >> THE GENTLEMAN YIELDS BACK. I RECOGNIZE MISS JACKSON LEE FOR THE PURPOSE OF THE UNANIMOUS CONSENT REQUEST. >> THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN. I’D LIKE UNANIMOUS CONSENT TO INTRODUCE A NEW — >> OBJECTION. >> REPUBLICAN AND DEMOCRATIC ATTORNEY GENERALS. >> THAT OBJECTION. AND I RECOGNIZE MISS DEMMINGS.>> 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 ANDOUR VARIOUS COMMUNITIES, NOT OUR COWORKERS AND NOT PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES. YET, THE PRESIDENT HAS 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 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 HOUSEOFFICIALS 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 THANA DOZEN MEMBERS OF HIS ADMINISTRATION HAVE DEFIED CONGRESSIONAL SUBPOENAS. THE FOLLOWING SLIDES SHOW THOSE WHO HAVE REFUSED TO COMPLY AT THE PRESIDENT’S DIRECTION. WE ARE FACING A CAS GOR CAL BLOCKADE BY A PRESIDENT WHO’S DESPERATE TO PREVENT ANY INVESTIGATION INTO HIS WRONG DOING. PROFESSOR GEAR HEART, HAS THE PRESIDENT EVER REFUSED TO COOPERATE IN AN IMPEACHMENT INVESTIGATION? >> NOT UNTIL NOW. >> AND ANY PRESIDENT WHO, I KNOWNIXON DELAYED OR TRIED TO DELAY TURNING OVER INFORMATION. WHEN THAT OCCURRED, WAS THIS AT THE SAME LEVEL THAT WE’RE SEEING TODAY? >> PRESIDENT NIXON ALSO HAD ORDERED HIS SUB OORD NATS TO TESTIFY AND COOPERATE. HE DIDN’T SHUT DOWN ANY OF THAT. HE PRODUCED DOCUMENTS AND THERE WERE TIMES, THERE WERE CERTAINLY DISAGREEMENTS, BUT THERE WAS NOTA WHOLE SALE BROAD SCALE ACROSS THE BOARD REFUSAL TO EVEN RECOGNIZE THE LEGITIMACY OF THIS HOUSE DOING AN INQUIRY. >> PRESIDENT NIXON’S OBSTRUCTION RESULT IN AN ARTICLE OF IMPEACHMENT? >> YES, HAM. ARTICLE THREE. >> PROFESSOR FELLMAN, IS IT FAIRTO SAY IF A PRESIDENT STONE WALLS AN INVESTIGATION LIKE WE ARE CLEARLY SEEING TODAY INTO WHETHER HE HAS COMMITTED AN IMPEACHABLE OFFENSE, HE RISKS RENDERING THE IMPEACHMENT POWER MOOT.>> INDEED, THAT’S THE INEVITABLE EFFECT OF A PRESIDENT REFUSING TO PARTICIPATE. HE’S DENYING CONGRESS THE CAPACITY TO IMPEACH. >> WHEN A PRESIDENT PREVENTS PEOPLE FROM TESTIFYING, ARE WE ENTITLED TO MAKE PRESUMPTIONS ABOUT WHAT THEY WOULD SAY IF THEY TESTIFY? >> YOU ARE. I MIGHT POINT OUT ONE OF THE DIFFICULTIES OF ASKING FOR A MORE THOROUGH INVESTIGATION IS THAT’S WHAT THEHOUSE HAS TRIED TO CONDUCT HERE. THE PRESIDENT HAS REFUSED TO COMPLY WITH REQUESTS FOR INFORMATION. THAT’S WHY THEY ARE DOCUMENTS NOT PRODUCED AND PEOPLE NOT TESTIFYING THAT PEOPLE HERE HAVE SAID TODAY 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 GAERHART HOW IS HIS TESTIMONY REL HAVEN’T HERE? >> IT’S REL HAVEN’T, IT’S ALSO RATHER CHILLING TO HEAR HIM SAY EVERYBODY’S IN THE LOOP. HE’S TALKING ABOUT THE PEOPLE AT THE HIGHEST LEVEL 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’S USE OF POWER OF HIS OFFICE, THE PRESSURE OF FOREIGN HEAD OF STATE TO INVESTIGATE AN AMERICAN CITIZEN, IN ORDER TO BENEFIT HIS DOMESTICPOLITICAL SITUATION AN AFTER HE WAS CAUGHT. AND I DO KNOW SOMETHING ABOUT THAT. THIS PRESIDENT PROCEEDED TO COVER IT UP AND REFUSED TO COMPLY WITH VALID CONGRESSIONAL SUBPOENAS. THE FRAMERS INCLUDED IMPEACHMENT IN THE CONSTITUTION TO ENSURE THAT NO ONE, NO ONE, IS ABOVE THE LAW, INCLUDING AND ESPECIALLY THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR, AND I YIELD BACK. >> 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 WONDERING WHAT THEY’RE WATCHING ON TV. THEY’RE ASKING THEMSELVES IS THIS A RERUN? BECAUSE I THOUGHTI SAW THIS A COUPLE WEEKS AGO. BUT NO, THIS IS NOT A RERUN, UNFORTUNATELY. THIS IS ACT TWO OF THE THREE-PART TRAGEDY 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 OROF THE VARIOUS WITNESSES WHO APPEARED DURING THE SCHIFF HEARINGS. AND IT’S VERY FRUSTRATING TO ME AS A MEMBER OFTHE JUDICIARY COMMIT TEE WHY WE ARE WHERE WE ARE TODAY. I ASKEDTO 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 MYIMMEDIATE PREDECESSORS, CONGRESSMAN BOB GOODLAD WHO CHAIRED THIS COMMITTEE AND CONGRESSMAN CALDWELL BUTLER ALSOSERVED ON THIS MITT TEE. BUT THE COMMITTEE THAT THEY SERVED UNDER, SERVED ON, IS DEAD. THAT COMMITTEE DOESN’T EXIST ANYMORE.THAT COMMITTEE IS GONE. APPARENTLY NOW WE DON’T EVEN GETTO SIT IN THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE ROOM. NEAR THE WAYS AND MEANS COMMITTEE ROOM. I DON’T KNOW WHY. MAYBE BECAUSE THERE’S MORE ROOM. HAB BECAUSE THE PORTRAITS OF THE VARIOUS CHAIRMAN WHO WOULD BE STARING DOWN AT US MIGHT JUST INTIMIDATETHE 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 RADINO 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 WATCH 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 THEINTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE HEARINGS THAT WERE IN THE SKIFF. WE HAVEN’T SEEN THE EVIDENCE FROM THE INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE YET. WE’VE ASKED FOR IT. WE HAVEN’T RECEIVED IT. WE HAVEN’T HEARD FROM ANY FACT WITNESSES YET. BEFORE WE GET TO HEAR FROM THESECONSTITUTIONAL SCHOLARS ABOUT WHETHER OR NOT THE FACTS RISE TOTHE LEVEL OF AN IMPEACHMENT, 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 BECAUSETHIS SHOW HAS DEGENERATED INTO A FARCE. AND AS I SAID, THE JUDICIARY COMMIT FEE OF MY PREDECESSORS IS DEAD. AND I LOOK TO A FORMER CHAIRMAN, DANIEL WEBSTER, WHO SAID WE ARE ALL AGENTS OF THE SAME SUPREME POWER, 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 QUESTION ABOUT THAT ISSUE. >> I THANK THE GENTLEMAN FOR YIELDING. PROFESSOR, TURLEY, IN THE LAST FEW DAYS WE’VE BEEN HEARING DESPITE NO QUESTIONS 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 REMEMBERHOW 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 WITHREGARD TO THE OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE PORTION OF THAT. >> THE GENTLEMAN’S TIME IS EXPIRED. THE WITNESS MAY ANSWERTHE QUESTION, BRIEFLY. >> THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN. I HAVE BEEN A CRITIC OF THE ON INSTRUCTION THERE OBSTRUCTION INVESTIGATION. THERE WERE ISSUES MUELLER ADDRESSED. THE ONLY ONE THAT RAISED A SERIOUS ISSUE, QUITE FRANKLY, WAS THE MAT WE ARE 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. MR. COR YA? >> THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN. I’D LIKE TO THANK OUR WITNESSES FOR BEING HERE TODAY AND ENSURE YOUR TESTIMONY IS IMPORTANT NOT ONLY TO THIS BODY BUT TO AMERICA THAT’S LISTENING INTENTLY TO WHAT THE ISSUES 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 BLOCK AID TO INVESTIGATE WHETHER HE COMMITTED HIGH CRIMES ON MISDEMEANORS IS THAT CORRECT? >> YES, IT IS. >> PRESIDENT TRUMP HAS ASSERTED 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 NONXIS TANT LEAGUE BASIS TO BLOCK WITNESSES FROM TESTIFYING IN THIS IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY. >> I AGREE WITH THE THRUST OF HER OPINION. — FROM THE PAST 250 YEARS OF RECORDED AMERICAN HISTORY IS THAT PRESIDENTS ARE NOT KINGS. CLOSE QUOTE. PROFESSOR FELDMAN, IN THE FRAMER’S VIEW DOES THE 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 ELECTEDS. >> SIR, I DON’T EVEN THINK THE FRAMERS COULD HAVE IMAGINED THATA PRESIDENT WOULD FLATLY REFUSE TO PARTICIPATE IN AN IMPEACHMENTINQUIRY, 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 GEARHART, WHERE CAN WE LOOK IN THE CONSTITUTION TO UNDERSTAND WHETHER THE PRESIDENT MUST COME PLY 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. TO SUPPORT AND DEFEND THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES. THAT MEANS THAT HE’S ASSUMING OFFICE WITH CERTAIN CONSTRAINTS. AND THAT THERE AREMEASURES FOR ACCOUNTABILITY FOR ANY FAILURE TO FOLLOW HIS DUTY OR FOLLOW THE CONSTITUTION. >> THANK YOU. AND THE PRESIDENTHAS SAID THAT HE IS ABOVE THE LAW. IN 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 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 BRUK 50 AN HOUR. MY DAD WORKED AT A LOCAL PAPER MILL. AND WHAT GOT US UP IN THE MORNING WAS THE BELIEF, THE OPTIMISM THAT TOMORROW WAS GOING 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 SAID AS A TESTAMENT TO THE GREATNESS OF THIS NATION. AND I SIT HERE IN THIS COMMITTEEROOM 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 THATOUR CONSTITUTION AND THAT OUR CONGRESSIONAL OVERSIGHT OF THE PRESIDENCY IS STILL SOMETHING WITH MEANING. THANK YOU. I YIELD BACK. >> THE GENTLEMAN YIELDS BACK, MR. ARMSTRONG? >> ALL DAY LONG WE’VE BEEN SITTING SCOMEER LISTENING TO MY FRIENDS ACROSS THE AISLE AND THEIR WITNESSES CLAIM THAT THE PRESIDENT DEMANDED UKRAINE DO USA FAVOR BY ASSISTING IN 2020 RE-ELECTION CAMPAIGN BEFORE WE WOULD RELEASE THE MILITARY AID. THIS IS LIKE EVERYTHING ELSE IN THIS SHAM IMPEACHMENT PURPOSEFULLY MISLEADING AND NOT BASED ON THE FACTS. LET’S REVIEW THE ACTUAL TRANSCRIPT OF THE CALL. THEY NEVER MENTIONED THE 2020 ELECTION. THEY NEVER MNGSED 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 SHOW THAT IS 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 ENING WITH MUELLER. WE KNOW IN BECAUSE HE WANTS THE ATTORNEY GENERAL TO GET IN TOUCH WITH THE UKRAINIANS ABOUT THE ISSUE. WE HAVE A TRADE DEAL WITH UKRAINE GOVERNING THESE INTERNATIONAL INVESTIGATIONS. BUT LIKE SO MANY OTHER THINGS, THESE FACTS ARE INCONVENIENT FOR DEMOCRATS. THEY DON’T FIT THE IMPEACHMENT NARRATIVE. THEY’RE MISREMITTED OR IGNORED. I THINK IT’S IMPORTANT WHEN WE TALK ABOUT THIS, WHATEVER THE BURR DEN OF PROOF, BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT, WHETHER IT’S A JUDICIAL HEARING OR A CONGRESSIONAL HEARING, I THINK WE NEED TO START WITH HOW WE LOOK AT IT. AND I’M NOT A CONSTITUTIONAL LAWPROFESSOR. I’M JUST AN OLD CRIMINAL DEFENSE ATTORNEY. WHENI WALK INTO A COURTROOM I THINK OF THREE THINGS — WHAT’S THE CRIME CHARGED, WHAT’S THE CONDUCT AND WHO’S THE VICTIM? EMADE IT TO 5:00 TODAY BEFORE WE TALKED ABOUT THE ALJED VICTIM OFTHE CRIME — PRESIDENT ZELENSKY. AT LEAST THREE DIFFERENT TIMES HE’S DENIED BEING PRESSURED BY THE PRESIDENT. THE CALL SHOWS LAUGHTER, PLEASANTRIES, CORDIALITY. ON SEPTEMBER 25th, PRESIDENT ZELENSKY STATES NO, YOU HEARD WE HAD A GOOD PHONE CALL. IT WAS NORMAL. WE SPOKE ABOUT MANY THINGS. I THINK YOU READ IT ANDNOBODY PUSHED ME. OCTOBER 10th, PRESIDENT ZELENSKY HAD A PRESS CONFERENCE. I ENCOURAGE EVERYBODY TO WATCH IT. EVEN IF YOU DON’T UNDERSTAND IT, 90% OF COMMUNICATION’S NONVERBAL. TELLME IF YOU THINK HE’S LYING. DECEMBER 2nd, THIS MONDAY, I NEVER TALKED TO THE PRESIDENT FROM THE POSITION OF QUID PRO QUO. WE HAVE THE ALLEGED VICTIM OF QUID PRO QUO, BRIBERY, EXTORTION, WHATEVER WE’RE DEALING WITH NOW TODAY, REPEATEDLY AND ADAMANTLY SHOUTING FROM THE ROOFTOP THAT IS HE NEVER FELT PRESSURE THAT HE WAS NOT THE VICTIM OF ANYTHING. SO IN ORDER FOR THIS WHOLE THING TO STICK, WE HAVE TOBELIEVE THAT PRESIDENT ZELENSKY IS A PATHOLOGICAL LIAR. OR THATTHE 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 FROMTHEM IN ORDER FOR IT TO >> FLOW. I I THINKYIELD TO MY FRIEND MR. JORDAN. YOU FOR >> I THEY’RE BUILDING.THANK THE GENTLEMAN FOR YIELDING. A FEW MINUTES AGO WHEN MY COLLEAGUE FROM FLORIDA PRESENTED A STATEMENT YOU CONTEXT MADE IS YOU IMPORTANT SAID, ISN’T WELL, IT? YOU >> GOT YES TO OR.TAKE >> THAT JUST STATEMENT A IN FEW CONTEXT. MINUTES AGO WHEN OUR CALLING FROM IT FLORIDA SEEMS PRESENTED A STATEMENT TO YOU ME SAIDYOU DON’T WANT YOU TO HAVE TO APPLY TAKE THE THAT SAME STATEMENT STANDARD IN TO CONTEXT. THE IT PRESIDENT. SEEMS THAT YOU DON’T THE WANT NOW TO FAMOUS APPLY QUOTE, THE SAME I STANDARDS WOULD TO LIKE THE YOU TO PRESIDENT.DO THERE’S US A A NOW FAVOR FAMOUS YOU QUOTE, SAIDI WOULD LIKEABOUT AN HOUR AND A HALF AGO THAT YOU US TO DIDN’T DO MEAN US US A IT FAVOR. MEANT YOU THE SAID PRESIDENT ABOUT HIMSELF. AN HOUR AND BUT HALF THE AGO CLEAR AS READING DIDN’T OF MEAN THIS, US, I IT MEANT THE PRESIDENT WOULD HIMSELF. LIKE THAT YOU IS TO THE DO CLEAR US A MEANING FAVOR OF THOUGH THIS, BECAUSE I — WOULD YOU LIKE KNOW YOU WHAT TO THE DO NEXT US FEW AWORDS FAVORARE? >> I DON’T HAVE THE DOCUMENT. , >> THOUGH, I’LL BECAUSE.TELL DO YOU, YOU BECAUSE KNOW OUR THE COUNTRY. NEXT FEW HE WORDS? >> I DIDN’T DON’T SAY HAVE I THEWOULD DOCUMENT. LIKE >> YOU BECAUSE OUR COUNTRY, TO HE DO DIDN’T ME SAY A I FAVOR, WOULD LIKE THOUGH, YOU BECAUSE TO I DO HAVE ME BEEN A THROUGH FAVOR A BECAUSE LOT. I HAVE HE BEENSAID I THROUGH WANT A YOU LOT, TO HE DO SAID US I A WANT FAVOR YOU THOUGH TO BECAUSE DO OUR US COUNTRY A HAS FAVOR BEEN BECAUSE THROUGH OUR A COUNTRY LOT. HAS BEEN THROUGH YOU A KNOW LOT.WHEN THIS DO CALLED YOU HATCHED? KNOW WHAT THIS, WHEN THE THIS DAY CALL AFTER HAPPENED?MUELLER WAS THE DAY INAFTER MUELLER WAS IN FRONT FRONT OF OF THIS THISCOMMITTEE. OUR COUNTRY WAS PUT THROUGH TWO MANY. YEARS OUR OF COUNTRY THIS.WAS THE PUT IDEA THROUGH THAT TWO YOU’RE YEARS GOING OF TO THIS. SAY THE THIS IDEA IS YOU NOT A GOING ROYAL TO WE SAY AND THIS HE’S IS TALKING THE ABOUT ROYAL HIMSELF WE, IGNORES HE’S TALKING ABOUT HIMSELF, THE IT CONTEXT IS OF ENTIRE HIS STATEMENT.CONTEXT OF HIS STATEMENT. YOU DO KNOW YOU WHAT KNOW HE WHAT ENDED HE THAT IS PARAGRAPH WITH? TALKING ABOUT BOB MUELLER. AND THIS THAT IS PARAGRAPH THE WITH? BASIS TALKING FOR ABOUT THIS POPULAR. IMPEACHMENT, THIS THIS IS CALL. THE BASIS FOR THIS IMPEACHMENT. IT COULDN’T BE IT FURTHER COULDN’T FROM BE THE FURTHER TRUTH. FROM YOU THE WANT THE STANDARDS TO APPLY WHEN REPRESENTATIVETRUTH CASE MAKES ONE OF YOUR STATEMENTS, OH, YOU HAVE TO LOOK AT THE CONTEXT.WHEN THE PRESIDENT OF THE NIGHT STATES IS CLEAR YOU TRY TO CHANGE HIS WORDAND WHEN THE CONTEXT IS CLEAR, HE’S TALKING ABOUT THE TWO YEARSTHIS COUNTRY WENT THROUGH BECAUSE OF THE MUELLER REPORT, SOMEHOW THAT CENTER DOESN’T APPLY TO THE PRESIDENT. THAT IS RIDICULOUS. >> TIME HAS EXPIRED.>> I WANT TO THANK OUR CONSTITUTIONAL EXPERTS FOR WALKING US THROUGH >> — WHY THEY THE DECIDED FRAMERS IT THINKING WAS ON A IMPEACHMENT NECESSARY AND PART WHY OF THEY OUR HAVE CONSTITUTION. DECIDED IT I’M WAS A GOING NECESSARY TO PART CAN OF ASK OUR YOU CONSTITUTION.TO I’M HELP GOING TO ASK US YOU UNDERSTAND TO THE HELP IMPLICATIONS US UNDERSTAND THE IMPLICATIONS OF THE PRESIDENTS OBSTRUCTION OF CONGRESSES INVESTIGATIONOF THE PRESIDENT’SINTO OBSTRUCTIONTHE USE OF THE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT TO SQUEEZE THE UKRAINIAN GOVERNMENT TO HELP THE TRUMP REELECTION — CAMPAIGN.HELP THE TRUMP RE-ELECTION THERE CAMPAIGN IS AND EARLY THERE’S HUNDREDS CERTAINLY OF PHASESHUNDREDS OF PAGES ON ON HOW HOW ONE ONE REACHES THAT CONCLUSION.REACHES THAT CONCLUSION. WE KNOW WE THE KNOW PRESIDENT’S THEPRESIDENTS OBSTRUCTION DID NOT OBSTRUCTION BEGIN DID WITHNOT BEGIN WITH UKRAINE INVESTIGATION THE UKRAINE INVESTIGATION INSTEAD . INSTEAD, HIS HIS CONDUCT CONDUCT IS IS PART PART OF OF A A PATTERNPATTERN AND I’LL DIRECT YOUR AND I WILL DIRECT ATTENTION YOUR TO ATTENTION THE TO TIMELINE THE ONTIMELINE THE ON SCREEN. THE SCREEN. IN THE LEFT-HAND COLUMNIN THE LEFTHAND COLUMN WE SEE THE PRESIDENT’S STATEMENT FROM HIS JULY WE CALL SEE IN THE WHICH PRESIDENTS HE STATEMENT FROM PRESSURED HIS YOU JULY CRANE, CALL A IN FOREIGN WHICH HE PRESSURED UKRAINE, A GOVERNMENT FOREIGN TO GOVERNMENT, TO MEDDLE MEDDLE IN IN OUR OUR ELECTION.ELECTION . ONCE CONGRESS THEN GOT ONCE WIND CONGRESS OF GOT ITWIND OF THE PRESIDENT TRIED TO COVER UPIT, THE PRESIDENT HIS TRIED INVOLVEMENT TO COVER BY OBSTRUCTING UP HIS THE INVOLVEMENT CONGRESSIONALBY OBSTRUCTING THE CONGRESSIONAL INVESTIGATION AND REFUSING TO COOPERATE. BUT THIS ISN’T THE FIRST TIME WE’VE SEEN THIS KIND OF OBSTRUCTION. INVESTIGATION AND REFUSING TO COOPERATE. THIS IN IS THE THE RIGHTHAND FIRST COLUMN TIME WE WE CAN HAVE SEEN THIS KIND FLASH OF BACK OBSTRUCTION. TO IN THE THE 2016 RIGHT-HAND ELECTION COLUMN WE CAN FLASH BACK TO THE 2016 WHEN ELECTION THE WHEN PRESIDENT THE PRESIDENT WELCOMED WELCOMED AND AND USED RUSSIANS INTERFERENCE USED IN RUSSIANS OUR AND ELECTIONINTERFERENCE IN OUR ELECTION. . AGAIN, AND WHEN AGAIN THE WHEN SPECIAL THE COUNSELSPECIAL AND COUNSEL THEN AND THIS THEN COMMITTEE THIS TRIED COMMITTEE TO INVESTIGATE THE TRIED EXTENT TO OF INVESTIGATE THE HIS EXTENT INVOLVEMENTOF HIS VOOVMENT HE DID HE DID EVERYTHING HE COULD EVERYTHING TO HE COVER IT COULD UP.TO COVER IT UP. SO IT APPEARS THE PRESIDENT’S ON IT APPEARS THE PRESIDENTS OBSTRUCTION OF INVESTIGATIONS ISPART OF A PATTERN. FIRST, HE ON INDICTS FOREIGN INSTRUCTIONS POWERS OF TO INVESTIGATIONS INTERFERE IN OURIS PART OF A PATTERN. HE ELECTIONS. INTERFERES AND AND HE THEN COVERS COVERS IT IT UP. FINALLY, HE OBSTRUCTS LAWFUL UP INQUIRIESAND INTO THEN HIS HE BEHAVIOR. OBSTRUCTS LAWFUL WHETHER BY INQUIRIES CONGRESS INTO OR HIS BEHAVIOR LAW ENFORCEMENTWHETHER BY . CONGRESS AND OR THEN LAW HE ENFORCEMENT. DOES IT AGAIN.AND THEN HE DOES IT AGAIN. PROFESSOR GERHARD, HOW DOES THE EXISTENCE OF SUCH A PATTERN PROFESSOR GEARHART, HELP DETERMINE HOW WHETHER DOES THE THE PRESIDENTS CONDUCT EXISTENCEIS OF IMPEACHABLE? >>SUCH A PATTERN HELP DETERMINE WHETHER THE PRESIDENT’S CONDUCT IS IMPEACHABLE. >> THE PATTERN GIVES US HE GIVES US TREMENDOUS INSIGHT INTOTREMENDOUS THE INSIGHT CONTEXT INTO OF THE HIS BEHAVIOR. CONTEXT WHEN OF HE HIS IS BEHAVIOR. ACTING AND HOW DO WE EXPLAIN THOSE ACTIONS, BY HOW LOOKING DO AT WE THE EXPLAIN PATTERN. THOSE WE ACTIONS? CAN INFER, A BY VERY LOOKING STRONG AT INFERENCETHE , PATTERN. IS THAT THISWE CAN IS INFER DEVIATING A FROM STRONG THE INFERENCE USUAL PRACTICEIS THIS IS DOOEF AND YALTING HE FROM HAS BEEN SYSTEMATICALLY THE HEADING USUAL TOWARDSPRACTICE AND HE’S BEEN SYSTEMATICALLY HEADING TOWARDS A CULMINATION WHERE A HE CULMINATION CAN WHEREASK HE CAN ASK THIS THIS QUESTION, QUESTION, BY BY THE THE WAY, WAY, AFTER AFTER THE JULY 25 THE CALLJULY 25th CALL, THE MONEY’S NOT YET RELEASED. THE MONEY IS NOT YET RELEASED. WE AND LEARNEDTHERE’S ONGOING CONVERSATIONS THAT ESSENTIALLY ,THE ESSENTIALLY, MONEY’S THE BEING MONEY WITHHELD HAS BEEN WITHHELD BECAUSE THE PRESENT BECAUSE WANTED THE TO PRESIDENT MAKE WANTED SURE THE TO DELIVERABLE WAS MAKE GOING SURE TO THE HAPPEN.DELIVERABLE WAS GOING TO HAPPEN, THE ANNOUNCEMENT OF AN INVESTIGATION. >> AND IN ADDITION TO THE MONEY AND NOT BEING RELEASED, ITS THERE THE ALSO ANNOUNCEMENT UNDER INVESTIGATION. WAS >> NOT THERE THE WAS WHITE ALSO HOUSE NOT MEETING THE WHITE HOUSEWHICH WAS SO IMPORTANT TO YOU CRANE YAN MEETING, SECURITY, WHICH RIGHT? WAS IMPORTANT TO UKRAINIAN SECURITY.RIGHT? >> THAT’S RIGHT>> >> YES, PROFESSOR MA’AM, FELDMAN, THAT’S RIGHT.YOU NOTED PREVIOUSLY THAT A FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT . RECENTLY REJECTED THE PRESIDENTS ATTEMPT TO BLOCK WITNESSES FROM TESTIFYING TO CONGRESS, SAYING THAT >> — SAYING THAT PRESIDENTS ARENOT PRESIDENTS KINGS. ARE NOT KINGS. THE FOUNDERS INCLUDEDTHE FOUNDERS INCLUDED TWO CRITICAL PROVISIONS IN OUR CONSTITUTION TO PREVENT TWO OUR CRITICAL PROVISIONS IN PRESIDENT OUR FROMCONSTITUTION BECOMING TO A KING PREVENT OUR PRESIDENT FROM AND BECOMING OUR A DEMOCRACY KING FROM .BECOMING AND A OUR MONARCHY. DEMOCRACY FROM BECOMING A MONARCHY. THOSE PROTECTIONSAND THOSE PROTECTIONS WERE ARE PRESIDENTIAL ELECTIONS PRESIDENTIAL ELECTIONS AND AND IMPEACHMENTIMPEACHMENT, CORRECT?>> CORRECT. >> BASED ON THE PATTERN OF CONDUCT WE’RE DISCUSSING TODAY, THE PATTERN OF INVITING FOREIGN INTERFERENCE IN OUR ELECTION FOR CORRECT? >> CORRECT >> BASED ON POLITICAL THE GAIN PATTERN AND OF THEN CONDUCT THAT OBSTRUCTING WE LAWFUL ARE INVESTIGATION DISCUSSING TODAY, THE PATTERN OF HAS INVITING THE FOREIGN PRESIDENT INTERFERENCE UNDERMINED IN OUR ELECTIONS FOR POLITICAL BOTH GAIN OF AND THOSE THEN PROTECTIONS? OBSTRUCTING >> LAWFUL HE INVESTIGATIONS,HAS. AND IT’S CRUCIAL TO NOTE THAT HAS A PRESENT UNDERMINED THE BOTH VICTIM OF THOSE OF PROTECTIONS? A >> HIGH HE CRIME HAS IN PICKED IS CRUCIAL TO NOTE THAT THE VICTIM OF A HIGH CRIME THIS AND DEMEANOR MISDEMEANOR, IS SUCH NOT ASPRESIDENT ZELENSKY AND IS NOT THE UKRAINIAN PEOPLE. THE PRESENT IS ALLEGED TO HAVE COMMITTED IS THE NOT VICTIM PRESENT IS ZELENSKY. THE NOT AMERICAN THE PEOPLE. UKRAINIAN PEOPLE. THE VICTIM OF THE ALEXANDER HIGH CRIMES HAMILTON AND SAID MISDEMEANOR CLEARLY IS THE AMERICAN PEOPLETHAT THE NATURE . OF ALEXANDER A HAMILTONHIGH SAID CRIME VERY CLEARLY THE NATURE OF IN A THIS HIGH DEMEANOR CRIME ARE AND IS MISDEMEANOR THAT IS THEY THAT ARE THEY RELATED ARE TO RELATED THE TO JURIS INJURIES DONE DONE TO TO THE THE SOCIETY SOCIETY IRTS. ITSELF WE, THE AMERICAN PEOPLE, ARE THE VICTIM OF THE HIGH CRIME IN THIS DEMEANOR.>> WHAT IS THE APPROPRIATE REMEDY IN SUCH A . CIRCUMSTANCE?WE, THE AMERICAN PEOPLE, ARE THE VICTIMS OF THE >> HIGH THE CRIME FRAMERS AND COMMITTED MISDEMEANOR. ONE >> WHAT IS THE REMEDY APPROPRIATE TO REMEDY RESPOND INTO SUCH HIGH A CRIMES CIRCUMSTANCE? AND >> THAT THE WAS FRAMERS IMPEACHMENT. CREATED >> ONE THANK REMEDYYOU. RESPOND HIGH CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS YOU AND KNOW, THAT I’VE WAS SPENT IMPEACHMENT. OVER>> 30 THANK YOU. YEARS WORKING I TO HAVE HELP SPENT CLIENTS OVER 30 YEARS WORKING TO AND HELP SCHOOL CLIENTSCHILDREN UNDERSTAND THE AND IMPORTANCE SCHOOLCHILDREN OF UNDERSTAND OURTHE IMPORTANCE CONSTITUTIONAL OF SYSTEM OUR AND CONSTITUTIONAL THE SYSTEM AND THE IMPORTANCE OF THE RULE OF LAWIMPORTANCE OF , THE SO RULE THE OF LAW SO PRESIDENTS BEHAVIORTHE PRESIDENT’S BEHAVIOR IS IS DEEPLY, DEEPLY DEEPLY, DEEPLY TROUBLINGTROUBLING. . THE PRESIDENT WELCOMES AND USEDTHE PRESIDENT WELCOMED AND ELECTION USED INTERFERENCE BY RUSSIA, PUBLICLY ADMITTEDELECTION INTERFERENCE BY RUSSIA, PUBLICLYADMITTED HE WOULD DO IT HE WOULD DO IT AGAIN AGAIN, AND ANDDID DID, IN IN FACT FACT, DO DO IT IT AGAIN BY SOLICITING ELECTION AGAIN INTERFERENCE BY FROM SOLICITING UKRAINE INTERFERENCE AND THROUGHOUTIN THE THE UKRAINE. PRESIDENT HAS TRIEDAND THROUGHOUT TO THE COVER PRESIDENT UP HAS HIS MISCONDUCTTRIED TO COVER UP . HIS THIS MISCONDUCT. THIS ISN’TISN’T COMPLICATED.COMPLICATED. THE FOUNDERS WERE CLEARTHE .FOUNDERS WERE WE CLEAR MUST AND BE WE TO. MUST BE TOO. SUCH BEHAVIORSUCH BEHAVIOR IN THIS A A PRESIDENT PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATESOF THE IS UNITED STATES NOT IS ACCEPTABLE.NOT ACCEPTABLE. I YIELD BACK.I YIELD BACK. >> DENTAL LADY YIELDS BACK. >> GENTLE LADY YIELDS BACK. UNANIMOUS CONSENT REQUEST? >> MR. CHAIRMAN,>> MR. CHAIRMAN, I ASK UNANIMOUS I HAVE CONSENT CONSENTTHAT THAT A A DOCUMENT DOCUMENT WHICH WHICH LISTSLISTS THE 400 THE PIECES 400 OF PIECES OF LEGISLATION PASSED BY THE HOUSE,LEGISLATION PASSED BY THE HOUSE 235 SQUANDERED BIPARTISAN IN 35 BILLS, BIPARTISAN 80% WHICH BILLS, 80% WHICH REMAIN LANGUISHING IN RESPONSE LINKAGE TO TO MR. BECOME GATES PART CLAIM.OF >> THE OBJECTION. RECORD. >> OBJECTION.THE DOCUMENT WILL BE MADE THE PART DOCUMENT OF WILL THE BECOME RECORD. PART OF THE RECORD.MR. BIG >> SAYS YES, HE’S RECOGNIZED MR. FOR CHAIRMAN.UNANIMOUS CONSENT REQUEST. THERE WERE >> A UNANIMOUS PACKET CONSENT OFFOR A 54 DOCUMENTS.PACKET >>OF 54 DOCUMENTS AND ITEMS. >> THAT WITHOUT OBJECTION OBJECTION THE THE DOCUMENTS DOCUMENTS WILL WILL BE ENTERED BEINTO THE RECORD. ENTERED INTOTHE RECORD. >>>> MR. CHAIRMAN, MAY I HAVE ANOTHER? >> >> WHAT MR. PURPOSE? CHAIRMAN, >> AT I THE ASK ANNOUNCEMENT UNANIMOUS CONSENT SAID THAT THIS, WAS JUST PUBLISHED ABOUT 15 THIS MINUTES ARTICLE AGOWAS JUSTPUBLISHED , DEMOCRATSABOUT 15 MINUTES AGO. ARE SETTING A RECORD FOR A FAST IMPEACHMENT. THAT IS DEMONSTRABLY FALSE. >> WITHOUT OBJECTION >> WITHOUT OBJECTION, THE DOCUMENT MR. WILL CHAIRMAN? BE MADE PART OF THE RECORD.>> WHO SEEKS THE RECOGNITION? >> CHAIRMAN. WHAT PURPOSE DOES ACINNAMON >> WHAT PURPOSE DOES THE GENTLEMAN SEEK RECOGNITION? >> UNANIMOUS CONSENT TO RECOGNIZE A TWEET THAT THE FIRST LADY OF THE SEEK UNITED RECOGNITION.STATES >> ISSUED TO ENTER INTO WITHIN RECORD THE A HOUR TWEET THAT THAT SAYS THE QUOTE FIRST LADY OF THE MESSAGE JUST ISSUED A WITHIN MINOR THE CHILD HOUR DESERVES THAT PRIVACY SAYS, QUOTE, A AND MINOR SHOULD CHILD BE DESERVES KEPT PRIVACY OUT AND OF SHOULD BE POLITICS, KEPT PAMELA OUT OF CARLIN POLITICS. YOU PAMELA CARLY, YOU SHOULD SHOULD BE BE ASHAMED ASHAMED OF IN YOUR USING PUBLIC A PANDERINGCHILD AND TO USING DO A IT. CHILD UNQUOTE. TO DO IT. >> WITHOUT OBJECTION THE DOCUMENT WILL BE ENTERED INTO THE RECORD. >> IT WILL BE ENTERED MISTRESS INTOTO BE THE IS RECORD. RECOGNIZED FOR THE PURPOSE OF QUESTIONING WITNESS. >> I’M SORRY. >> MR. SOUS VIDE IS NOT HERE MOMENTARILY >> THANK YOU MR. CHAIRMAN. . >> I THANK YOU, MR. TOO CHAIRMAN.WANT I WANT TO TO THANK THANK ALL ALL THE THE WITNESSES WITNESSES FOR FOR THEIR THEIR TIMETIME AND YOUR PATIENCE TODAY. AND I YOUR KNOW PATIENCE IT’S TODAY. BEEN I A KNOW LONG IT DAY. HAS BEEN A LONG DAY. THE END IS BUT IN THE SIGHT.END IS IF IN MY SIGHT. COLLEAGUE AS MY COLLEAGUE OBSERVES, SIMILARITIES BETWEEN THE MRS. SCANLON OBSERVES, THE PRESIDENT’S SIMILARITIES CONDUCTBETWEEN AND THE THE PRESIDENTS CONDUCT UKRAINE AND INVESTIGATION UKRAINE AND INVESTIGATIONTHIS CONDUCT INTO THE SPECIAL COUNSEL’S AND INVESTIGATION HIS ARE CONDUCT HARD INTO TO SPECIAL IGNORE. COUNCILS INVESTIGATION ARE HARDTO IGNORE. IN IN FACT, FACT, WE’RE WE SEEING ARE IT SEEING ASITA PATTERN AS O A OF PATTERN A OF PRESIDENTIAL A ABUSE PRESIDENTIAL OF ABUSE POWER. OF POWER. THE PRESIDENT THE CALLED THE PRESIDENT UKRAINIAN CALLED INVESTIGATION THE A HOAXUKRAINIAN INVESTIGATION A HOAX AND THE MUELLER INVESTIGATION A WITCHHUNTAND THE . MUELLER INVESTIGATION HE A WITCH HUNT. HAS THREATENED UKRAINE WHISTLEBLOWER FOR HE NOT HAS TESTIFYINGTHREATENED THE UKRAINE LIKE WHISTLEBLOWER FOR NOT HE TESTIFYING THREATENED TO FIRE HIS ATTORNEY GENERALLIKE HE FOR THREATENED TO FIRE NOT HIS OBSTRUCTINGATTORNEY GENERAL FOR NOT THE OBSTRUCTING THE RUSH INVESTIGATION.RUSSIA INVESTIGATION. THE PRESIDENT FIRED AND VASSAR YOVANOVITCHTHE PRESIDENT FIRED AMBASSADOR AND PUBLICLY TARNISHED HER REPUTATIONYOVANOVITCH AND PUBLICLY TARNISHED HER REPUTATION MUCH IN , MUCH IN THE THE SAME SAME WAY WAY HE HE FIRED FIRED HIS HIS WHITE WHITE HOUSE COUNSELHOUSE COUNSEL AND PUBLICLY AND PUBLICLY ATTACKED HIS ATTACKED INTEGRITY.HIS INTEGRITY. AND, FINALLY, THE AND PRESIDENT FINALLY ATTACKEDTHE PRESIDENT THE CIVIL ATTACKED CIVIL SERVANTS SERVANTSWHO WHO HAVE HAVE TESTIFIED TESTIFIED ABOUT ABOUT UKRAINEUKRAINE JUST JUST LIKE HE LIKE ATTACKED HE ATTACKED CAREER OFFICIALSCAREER OF THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE OFFICIALS OF THE FOR DEPARTMENT INVESTIGATINGOF JUSTICE FOR INVESTIGATING HIS HIS OBSTRUCTION OF OBSTRUCTION THE OF THE RUSH RUSSIA INVESTIGATION.INVESTIGATION. UNDER ANY OTHER CIRCUMSTANCES SUCH UNDER BEHAVIORANY OTHER CIRCUMSTANCES, BY ANY AMERICAN SUCH PRESIDENT BEHAVIOR WOULD BYANY BE AMERICAN SHOCKING PRESIDENT WOULD BE . SHOCKING. HERE IT IS A REPEAT BUT HERE OF WHAT WE HAVE IT IS ALREADY A SEENREPEAT OF WHAT WE HAVE ALREADY SEEN, THE SPECIAL COUNSEL’S INVESTIGATION. IN THIS I’D SPECIAL LIKE COUNCILS TO INVESTIGATION. TAKE I A WOULD MOMENT LIKE TO TO TAKE DISCUSS ATHE MOMENT PRESIDENT’S TO EFFORTS DISCUSS THE PRESIDENTS EFFORTS TO OBSTRUCTTO OBSTRUCT THE SPECIAL COUNSEL’S INVESTIGATION. THE SPECIAL COUNCILS A INVESTIGATION. SUBJECT THAT A THIS SUBJECT COMMITTEE THAT THIS HAS COMMITTEE BEEN HAS INVESTIGATING BEEN SINCE INVESTIGATING MARCH.THIS MARCH. HERE ARE TWO SLIDES. THE FIRST ONEHERE ARE TWO SLIDES, WILL THE SHOWFIRST AS HE DID WITHONE , WILL AS SHOWAS HE THE DID PRESIDENTWITH — DID WITH UKRAINEAS THE , PRESENTTRY AS TO HE DID COURSE WITH HIS SUBORDINATES TO STOP AN INVESTIGATION INTO HIS MISCONDUCT YOU BYCRANE FOREIGN SPECIAL COUNSEL MUELLER. THE UKRAINE. SECOND SLIDETHE SECONDSLIDE THAT THIS SHOWS THAT WHEN THE SHOWS NEWS THAT BROKE WHEN OUT THE OF NEWS BROKE OUT THE OF PRESIDENT’S THE ORDER, PRESIDENTS THE ORDER THE PRESIDENT DIRECTED HIS ADVISORSPRESIDENT DIRECTED TO HIS ADVISORS FALSELY DENY HE HAD MADE THE ORDERTO . FALSELY DENY HE HAD PROFESSOR MADE GERHARTTHEORDER. PROFESSOR, ARE , YOU FAMILIAR ARE WITH YOU FAMILIAR WITH THE FACTS LEADING TO THE THESE FACTS THREE RELATING TO EPISODESTHESE AS DESCRIBED IN THREE THE EPISODES MUELLER AS REPORTDESCRIBED ? IN YES OR NO THE MUELLER REPORT, YES . OR >> NO, PLEASE? YES >> MA’AM. >>YES, MA’AM. >> SO ACCEPTING THE SPECIAL COUNSEL’S EVIDENCE AS ACCEPTING TRUE, THE IS SPECIAL COUNCILS EVIDENCE AS TRUE IS THIS THIS PATTERN PATTERN OF OF CONDUCT CONDUCTOBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE. >> IT’S CLEARLY OBSTRUCTION OBSTRUCTION OF OF JUSTICE. JUSTICE? >> IT IS CLEARLY OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE >> WHY >> WOULD YOU WHAT SAY WHY SO, WOULD SIR? >>YOU SAY SO, SIR? THE OBVIOUS OBJECT OF THIS ACTIVITY >> THE OBVIOUS IS OBJECT TO TO SHUT THIS ACTIVITY DOWN IS INVESTIGATIONTO . SHUT DOWN AN INVESTIGATION. IN FACT,AND IN FACT, THE ACTS OF THE THE ACTS PRESIDENT, OF ACCORDING THE TO PRESIDENT THESE ACCORDING TO THESE FACTSFACTS, EACH TIME IS EACH TO TIME USE IS THE TO USE THE POWER POWER THAT THAT HE HE HAS HAS UNIQUE UNIQUE TO TO HIS HIS OFFICEOFFICE BUT IN A WAY THAT’S , GOING BUT IN TO A HELP WAY HIM THAT’S FRUSTRATE GOING THE TO INVESTIGATION. HELP HIM FRUSTRATE THE INVESTIGATION. >> DOES >> THIS SO CONDUCT DOES FITTHIS CONDUCT IN FIT THE FRAMERS WITHIN YOU THE OFFRAMER’S VIEW OF IMPEACHABLE OFFENSES? >> I BELIEVE IMPEACHABLE IT OFFENSES? DOES.>> I BELIEVE IT DOES. THE ENTIRE CONSTITUTIONI MEAN, THE ENTIRE CONSTITUTION PUTTING SEPARATION OF POWERS IS SEPARATION OF POWERS IS DESIGNED TO PUT LIMITS ON DESIGNED HOW TOSOMEBODYPUT LIMITS MAY ON GO HOW ABOUT FRUSTRATING SOMEBODY THE MAY ACTIVITY GO OF ABOUT ANOTHER BRANCHFRUSTRATING ACTIVITY OF ANOTHER BRANCH. . >> SO, >> YOU DID WOULD SAY YOU THAT SAY THIS THIS ALSO WOULD WOULD BE BE AN AN IMPEACHABLE IMPEACHABLE OFFENSE? OFFENSE>> YES, MA’AM. >> THANK YOU, I AGREE BECAUSE WITH >> YOU. YES MA’AM. >> THE THANK PRESIDENT’S YOU. ACTIONS I AND AGREE WITH BEHAVIOR YOU. DO THE MATTER. PRESIDENTS ACTIONS AND BEHAVIORDO MATTER.THE PRESIDENT’S OBSTRUCTION THE OF PRESIDENTS OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE DEFINITELY JUSTICE DEFINITELY MATTERS.MATTERS. AS AS A FORMER JUDGE AND AS A A FORMER MEMBER JUDGE OF AND CONGRESSAS A I RAISE MY MEMBER RIGHT OF HANDCONGRESS I’VE RAISED MY AND PUT RIGHT HAND MY AND LEFT PUT HAND MY ON LEFT A BIBLE HAND MORE ON THAN A ONCEBIBLE MORE THAN ONCE. I HAVE SWORN TO AND UPHOLD I’VE THE SWORN CONSTITUTIONTO UPHOLD THE AND LAWS OF THIS CONSTITUTION COUNTRY. AND LAWS OF THIS THIS YEARCOUNTRY. , THIS HEARING HEARING IS IS ABOUT ABOUT THAT, THAT BUT BUT ALSO IT’S ABOUTALSOABOUT THE CORE OF THE HEART OF THE OUR HEART AMERICAN OF VALUES.OUR AMERICAN VALUES. THE VALUESTHE VALUES OF DUTY, HONOR AND LOYALTY. OF DUTY, HONOR, AND LOYALTY. IT IT’S IS ABOUT ABOUT THE THE RULE RULE OF OF LAW. LAW. WHEN THE PRESIDENTWHEN ASKED THE UKRAINE PRESIDENT FORASKED UKRAINE PAPERS HE DID SOFOR A FOR HIS FAVOR, PERSONAL HE DID POLITICAL SO GAINFOR HIS PERSONAL POLICE DEPARTMENT CAL AND GAIN NOT AND ON NOT BEHALF ON OF BEHALF THE OF AMERICAN THE PEOPLE.AMERICAN PEOPLE. IF THIS IS TRUEAND IF THIS IS TRUE, HE WOULD HAVE HE BETRAYED WOULDHIS HAVE OATH BETRAYED AND HIS OATH AND BETRAYED HIS LOYALTY TOTHIS COUNTRY.BETRAYED HIS LOYALTY TO A THIS FUNDAMENTALCOUNTRY. A FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLE PRINCIPLE OF OF OUR OUR DEMOCRACY IS THAT NO ONE IS DEMOCRACY, ABOVE IS THE THAT LAW.NO ONE NOT IS ANYONE ABOVE OF THE YOU LAW. STRESSORS , NOT ANYONE OF US NOT UPANY ONE OF YOU PROFESSOR, NOT ANY OF US UP HERE, MEMBERS OF CONGRESS, HERE, NOT MEMBERS EVEN OF THE CONGRESS. NOT PRESIDENT EVEN OF THE THE PRESIDENT UNITED OF STATES. THE UNITED STATES THAT IS WHY WE THAT’S SHOULD WHY HOLDHIM WE ACCOUNTABLESHOULD HOLD FOR HIM HIS ACTIONS AND THAT’S WHYACCOUNTABLE FOR HIS ACTIONS AND THAT’S I, WHY AGAIN, I THANK YOU AGAIN FOR THANK TESTIFYING YOU TODAYFOR TESTIFYING TODAY AND HELPING AND US HELPING US WALK THROUGH ALL WALK OF THROUGH THIS ALL TO THIS PREPARE TO FOR PREPARE WHATFOR MAY WHAT COME.MAY COME. THANK THANK YOU, YOU, SIR.SIRS. I YIELD BACK. I YIELD BACK. >> DENTAL LADY YIELDS BACK>> GENTLE LADY YIELDS BACK, MR. NAGOOSE. >> THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR AND THANK . YOU >> TO THANK EACH YOU, OF MR. THE CHAIR. FOUR THANK WITNESSES YOU FOR TO YOUR EACH TESTIMONY OF TODAY. THE FOUR WITNESSES FOR I’D YOUR LIKE TESTIMONY TO TODAY. STARTBLY I TAKING WOULD LIKE TO START BY ABOUT TALKING INTIMIDATION ABOUT OF INTIMIDATIONWITNESSES. OF WITNESSES. AS MY COLLEAGUEAS MY COLLEAGUE, CONGRESSWOMAN GARCIA , NOTED. CONGRESSWOMAN GARCIA, NOTED PRESIDENT TRUMP HAS TRIED PRESIDENT TO TRUMP INTERFERE IN HAS BOTHTRIED TO UKRAINE INTERFERE INVESTIGATION IN AND THE UKRAINE A INVESTIGATION SPECIAL AND COUNSELSPECIAL MUELLER’S COUNSEL INVESTIGATION MUELLER’S INVESTIGATION IN ORDERTO TRY TO COVER UP HIS OWN MISCONDUCT. IN ORDER TO TRY TOCOVER UP HIS IN OWN BOTH MISCONDUCT. THE IN UKRAINE BOTH INVESTIGATION UKRAINE AND INVESTIGATIONSPECIAL AND SPECIAL COUNSEL MUELLER’S COUNSEL INVESTIGATIONMUELLER’S INVESTIGATION, THE THE PRESIDENT ACTIVELY PRESIDENT ACTIVELY DISCOURAGED WITNESSES DISCOURAGED WITNESSES FROM COOPERATING, INTIMIDATED FROM COOPERATING, INTIMIDATED WITNESSES WHO CAME WITNESSES FORWARD,WHO CAME FORWARD AND AND PRAISE TO THOSE PRAISED WHO THOSE REFUSED WHO TO REFUSED COOPERATE.TO FOR EXAMPLE, RATE. IN UKRAINE INVESTIGATION THE PRESIDENT HARASSED AND INTIMIDATED THE BRAVE PUBLIC SERVANTS WHO CAME FORWARD. HE PUBLICLY CALLED THE WHISTLEBLOWER A, QUOTE, DISGRACE TO OUR COUNTRY. AND SAID THAT HIS IDENTITY SHOULD BE REVEALED. HE SUGGESTED THAT THOSE INVOLVEDIN THE WHISTLEBLOWER COMPLAINT SHOULD BE DEALT HE WITH SAID IN THOSE THE INVOLVED WAY WITH THAT THE WE, WHISTLEBLOWER QUOTE, COMPLAINT USED SHOULD TO BE DO,” DEALT WITH IN THE WAY THAT WE , FOR USED SPIES TO AND DO TREASON. END HE QUOTE CALLED FORSPIES AND AMBASSADOR TREASON. TAYLOR HE CALLED AMBASSADOR TAYLOR, A , A FORMER FORMER MILITARY MILITARY OFFICER OFFICER WITH WITH MORE THAN 40 YEARSMORE THAN OF 40 PUBLIC YEARS SERVICE OF A, PUBLIC QUOTE, NEVER TRUMP HERSERVICE A,QUOTE, NEVER TRUMPER, END ON QUOTE.THE SAME DAY THAT HE CALLEDON NEVER THE SAME DAY TRUMP THAT YOURSHE CALLED QUOTE, GOINGNEVER TRUMP PERS QUOTE SCUM. THE PRESIDENT TWEETED . AXSATIONS THE PRESIDENT ALSO TWEETED ACCUSATIONS ABOUT MANY OF ABOUT THE MANY OTHER OF PUBLIC THE SERVANTSOTHER PUBLIC WHO TESTIFIED, INCLUDING JENNIFER WILLIAMSSERVANTS WHO TESTIFIED AND INCLUDING AMBASSADOR YOVANOVITCH. AS WE KNOW,JENNIFER WILLIAMS THE AND PRESIDENT’S AMBASSADOR YOVANOVITCH. LATTER TWEET HAPPENED THE PRESIDENT’S LITERALLYLATTER TWEET HAPPENED LITERALLY DURING DURING THE THE INVESTORS TESTIMONY AMBASSADOR’S IN TESTIMONY IN THIS THIS ROOM IN FRONT OF ROOM THE IN FRONT INTELLIGENCE OF COMMITTEETHE , WHICH SHE INTELLIGENCE MADE COMMITTEE CLEARWHICH SHE WAS INTIMIDATING.MADE CLEAR WAS INTIMIDATING. CONVERSELY WE KNOW THAT INVERSELY, THE WE KNOW THE PRESIDENT HAS PRAISED WITNESSES WHO HAVE REFUSED TO COOPERATE. PRESIDENT HAS PRAISEDWITNESS FOR EXAMPLE,S DURING THE SPECIAL COUNCILS INVESTIGATION THE PRESIDENT PRAISED PAUL MANAFORT, HIS FORMER CAMPAIGN MANAGER, FOR NOT COOPERATING. YOU CAN SEE THE TWEET UP ON THE SCREEN ON MY SIDE. AS ANOTHER TELLING EXAMPLE THE WITNESSES PRESIDENT PRAISED AMBASSADOR SOLOMON — FOR INITIALLY CALLINGPRAISED AMBASSADOR IT ASONDLAND FOR NOT COOPERATING, REALLY GOOD MAN CALLING AND HIM A A GREAT GREAT AMERICAN.MAN AND A GREAT AMERICAN. AFTER AMBASSADOR SALMOND TESTIFIED BUTAFTER AMBASSADOR AND CONFIRMED SONDLAND THAT THERE TESTIFIED AND CONFIRMED WAS THAT INDEED A QUID PRO QUO BETWEENTHERE WAS, INDEED, A QUID PRO QUID PRO WHITE HOUSE VISIT AND THE REQUEST FOR INVESTIGATIONS THE PRESIDENT QUO CLAIMED AND THAT REQUEST HE, FOR QUOTE, INVESTIGATIONS HARDLY THE KNEW PRESIDENT THE AMBASSADOR. PROFESSOR GERHART, YOU HAVE TOUCHED CLAIMED ON THAT IT HE PREVIOUSLY, HARDLY BUT KNEW I THE WOULD AMBASSADOR. LIKE YOU TO EXPLAIN, IF THE PRESIDENTS INTERFERENCE BY INTIMIDATING WITNESSES IT’S ALSO THE KIND OF CONDUCT THE FRAMERS WERE WORRIED ABOUT. IF SO, WHY? >> IT IS THE CONDUCT THAT WORRIED THE FRAMERS IN THE STRUCTURE OF THE CONSTITUTION. THE ACTIVITIESTHE ACTIVITIES YOU’RE WE TALKING ARE ABOUT WORRIED HERE ABOUT ARE CONSISTENT. HERE IS CONSISTENT WITH THE THE OTHER OTHERPATTERN OF ACTIVITY WE’VE SEEN THE ACTIVITIESPRESIDENT EITHER TRYING TO STOP WE INVESTIGATIONS HAVE SEEN BY THE PRESENT EITHER STOPPINGEITHER BY BY MR. MUELLER MUELLER OR BY OR CONGRESS OR TO CONGRESS ASK AS WITNESSESWELL AS TO ASK TO MAKE WITNESSES TO FALSE MAKE ADJUSTMENTSFALSE DOCUMENTS ABOUTTESTIMONY. IN AND ALL ALL THOSE HIS DIFFERENT ACTIVITIESKINDS OF ARE NOT THE ACTIVITIES KIND ARE OF NOT ACTIVITIESTHE KINDS OF ACTIVITIES THE FRAMER’S FRAMERS EXPECTED EXPECTED THE PRESIDENT THE TO PRESIDENT BE TO ABLE BE TO ABLE TAKETO TAKE. THEY EXPECTED THE PRESIDENT TO BE HELD . ACCOUNTABLE EXPECTED FOR THE IT PRESIDENT AND TO NOT BE JUST HELD IN ACCOUNTABLE ELECTIONS. FOR, NOT JUST IN ELECTIONS.>> YOU >> HAVE PROFESSOR, STUDIEDTURLEY, YOU’VE STUDIED IMPEACHMENTS OF PRESIDENT JOHNSON, PRESIDENT THE IMPEACHMENT OF PRESIDENT JOHNSON, PRESIDENT NIXON, PRESIDENT CLINTON. MI NIXON, RIGHT THE PRESIDENT CLINTON, AM I PRESENT NIXON RIGHT ALLOWED THAT PRESIDENT SENIOR NIXON HOUSEALLOWED SENIOR WHITE HOUSE OFFICIALS TO TESTIFY IN THE SENIORS TO TESTIFY IN HOUSE IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY?HOUSE IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY? >> >> YES.>>YES. AND YOU ARE AWARE THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP HAS REFUSED TO ALLOW HIS CHIEF OF STAFF OR WHITE HOUSE COUNSEL TO TESTIFY IN THIS STORY. CORRECT? >> YES. THERE IS OFFICIALS DID TESTIFY IN THERE REMAINING IN FEDERAL EMPLOYMENT. >> AND THAT DOES NOT INCLUDE WHITE HOUSE COUNSEL OR CHIEF OF STAFF >> THAT’S RIGHT. BACK IN MY RIGHT THAT PRESIDENT CLINTON PROVIDED WRITTEN RESPONSES TO 81 INTERROGATORIES DURING THAT IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY? >> I BELIEVE THAT’S WHY.>> AND YOU ARE WHERE THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP HAS FUSED REQUEST FOR INFORMATION SO MANY BY THE INTELLIGENT COMMITTEE IN THIS? >> I HAVE. YES. >> ARE YOU FAMILIAR WITH THE LETTER ON OCTOBER WRITTEN OF PRESIDENT TRUMP AND IN EFFECT INSTRUCTING EXECUTIVES OFFICIALSNOT TO TESTIFY THAT IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY? >> YES, I AM. >> AM I CORRECT THAT NO PRESIDENT IN HISTORY OF THE REPUBLIC, BEFORE PRESIDENT TRUMP, HAS EVER ISSUED A GENERAL ORDER INSTRUCTING EXECUTIVE BRANCH OFFICIALS NOT TO TESTIFY IN AND IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY.>> THAT IS WHERE I’M NOT SURE I CAN ANSWER THAT AFFIRMATIVELY. PRESENT NIXON, IN FACT, WENT TO COURT OVER ACCESS TO INFORMATIONDOCUMENTS AND THE LIKE AND HE LOST. >> PROFESSOR TURLEY, I WOULD JUST, AGAIN, REFER YOU BACK TO THE HISTORY THAT HAS BEEN RECOUNTED BY EACH OF THE DISTINGUISHED SCHOLARS HERE TODAY.WE KNOW, AS WE COUNTIES EXAMPLES, PRESENT NIXON DID ALLOW HIS CHIEF OF STAFF AND HISCHIEF COUNSEL TO TESTIFY IN THIS PRESIDENT HAS NOT. WE KNOW THAT PRESIDENT CLINTON RESPONDED TO INTERROGATORIES PROPOUNDED BY THE 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 WITH AND I YIELDBACK. >> THE SENATOR YIELDS BACK.>> THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN. INVESTORS, I WANT TO THANK YOU SO VERY MUCH FOR SPENDING THESE LONG ARDUOUS HOURS WITH US. THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR BEING HERE. FOLLOWING UP ON MY COLLEAGUE QUESTIONS I WOULD LIKE TO BRIEFLY GO THROUGH ONE PARTICULAR EXAMPLE OF THE PRESIDENTS WITNESS INTIMIDATION.I FIND IT TRULY DISTURBING.IT IS VERY DEVASTATING. I THINK IT IS IMPORTANT THAT WE ALL TRULY SEE WHAT IS GOING ON HERE. IN THE MIDDLE OF AMBASSADOR YOVANOVITCH IS LIVE TESTIMONY THE PRESIDENT TWEETED ABOUT THE AMBASSADOR. DISCREDITING HER SERVICE IN SOMALIA AND THE UKRAINE. AMBASSADOR YOVANOVITCH TESTIFIED AS THE PRESIDENTS TWEET WAS, I QUOTE, VERY INTIMIDATING. PROFESSOR GERHART,THESE ATTACKS ON A CAREER PUBLIC SERVANT ARE DEEPLY UPSETTING. HOW DO THEY FIT INTO OUR UNDERSTANDING OF WHETHER THE PRESIDENT HAS COMMITTED HIGH CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS? HOW DO THEY FIT INTO OUR BROADER PATTERN OF BEHAVIOR BY THIS PRESIDENT TO COVER UP AND OBSTRUCT HIS MISCONDUCT?>> ONE WAY THAT ATTORNEYS TO THE OBSTRUCTION IS IT DOESN’T JUST THE PAIN AMBASSADOR YOVANOVITCH.BY EVERY OTHER ACCOUNT SHE HAS BEEN AN EXEMPLARY PUBLIC SERVANT . WHAT HE IS SUGGESTING THERE MAY NOT BE CONSISTENT WITH WHAT WE KNOW IS THE FACT. ONE OF THE THINGS THAT ALSO HAPPENS WHEN HE SENDS OUT SOMETHING LIKE THIS, IT INTIMIDATES EVERYBODY ELSE WHO IS THINKING ABOUT TESTIFYING. ANY OTHER PUBLIC SERVANT THAT THINKS THEY SHOULD COME FORWARD.THEY ARE GOING TO WORRY THAT THEY ARE GOING TO GET PUNISHED IN SOME WAY. THEY ARE GOING TO FACE THINGS SHE HAS FACED. >> THAT IS THE WOMAN PRESIDENT TRUMP HAS THREATENED. BEFORE YOU.I CAN ASSURE YOU, I PERSONALLY KNOW WHAT IT’S LIKE TO BE UNFAIRLY ATTACKED PUBLICLYFOR YOUR SENSE OF DUTY TO AMERICA. AMBASSADOR YOVANOVITCH DESERVES BETTER. NO MATTER YOUR PARTY, WHETHER YOU ARE A DEMOCRAT OR REPUBLICAN, I DON’T THINK ANY OF US THINKS THAT THISIS OKAY. IT IS PLAINLY WRONG FOR THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES TO ATTACK A CAREER PUBLIC SERVANTS JUST FOR TELLING THE TRUTH AS SHE KNOWS IT. I YELLED BACK THE BALANCE OF MY TIME.>> GENTLE LADY YIELDS BACK MR. STANTON. >> THANK YOU VERY MUCH, MR. CHAIRMAN. 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 PRESIDENTS REFUSAL TO COOPERATE WITH REGULAR CONGRESSIONAL OVERSIGHT AND HAS NOW EXTENDED TO THE HOUSE 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 AGAIN SUBPOENA PRESIDENT TRUMP SAID, QUOTE, WELL, WE ARE FIGHTING ALL THE SUBPOENAS.”.WE HAVE DISCUSSED HERE TODAY THE OBSTRUCTION OF CONGRESS ARTICLE IMPEACHMENT AGAINST PRESIDENT NIXON. I THINK I WOULDLIKE TO GO A LITTLE BIT DEEPER INTO THAT DISCUSSION AND JUST OPPOSE IT WITH PRESIDENT TRUMP’S ACTIONS. PROFESSOR GERHART, CAN YOU ELABORATE ON HOW PRESENT NIXON OBSTRUCTED CONGRESS AND HOW IT COMPARES TO PRESIDENT TRUMP’S ACTIONS?>> AS I WAS DISCUSSING EARLIER , INCLUDING IN MY WRITTEN STATEMENT, PRESENT NIXON ULTIMATELY REFUSED TO COMPLY WITH FOUR LEGISLATIVE SUBPOENAS. THESE WERE ZEROING IN ON THE MOST INCRIMINATING EVIDENCE HE HAD IN HIS POSSESSION. HE REFUSED TO COMPLY WITH THE SUBPOENAS AND IT BECAME THE BASIS FOR THE THIRD ARTICLE. 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 THEHOUSE CONSTITUTIONAL OBLIGATION OF SUPERVISING HIM TO IMPEACH HIM BREAKS THE CONSTITUTION . IT, BASICALLY, SAYS NOBODY CANOVERSEE ME.NOBODY CAN IMPEACH ME. FIRST, I WILL BLOCK WITNESSES FROM APPEARING AND THEN I WILL REFUSE TO PARTICIPATE IN ANY WAY. AND THEN I WILL SAY YOU DON’T HAVE ENOUGHEVIDENCE TO IMPEACH ME. ULTIMATELY, THE EFFECT OF THAT IS TO GUARANTEE THAT THE PRESIDENT IS ABOVE THE LAW AND CAN’T BE CHECKED SINCE WE KNOW THE FRAMERS PUT IMPEACHMENT IN THE CONSTITUTION TO CHECK THE PRESIDENT IF THE PRESIDENT CAN’T BE CHECKED HE IS NO LONGER SUBJECT TO THE LAW. >> MR. GERHART, WOULD YOU AGREE THE PRESIDENTS REFUSAL TO COMPLYWITH CONGRESSIONAL SUBPOENAS INVOKES THE FRAMERS WORST FEARS AND ENDANGERS OUR DEMOCRACY? >> IT DOES. ONE WAY WHICH I UNDERSTAND THAT IS TO PUT ALL OF HIS ARGUMENTS TOGETHER AND SEE WHAT RAMIFICATIONS ARE. HE SAYS HE IS ENTITLED NOT TO COMPLY WITH ALL SUBPOENAS. HE SAYS HE IS NOT SUBJECT TO ANY KIND OF CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION WHILE HE IS PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES. HE ISN’T COMING TO THAT. HE IS ENTITLED TO KEEP ALL INFORMATION FROM CONGRESS.DOESN’T HAVE TO GIVE A REASON. WHEN YOU PUT IT ALL TOGETHER HAS BLOCKED OFF EVERY WEEK IN WHICH TO HOLD HIMSELF ACCOUNTABLE EXCEPT FOR ELECTIONS. CRITICAL THING TO UNDERSTAND HERE IS THAT IS PRECISELY WHAT HE WAS TRYING TO UNDERMINED IN THE UKRAINE SITUATION. >> MR. CARLIN, DO YOU HAVE ANYTHING TO ADD TO THAT ANALYSIS?>> LET ME THINK. I THINK THAT IS CORRECT. IF I CAN JUST SAY ONE THING. I WANT TO APOLOGIZE FOR WHAT I SAID EARLIER ABOUT THE PRESIDENTS SON. IT WAS WRONG OF ME TO DO THAT. I WISH THE PRESIDENT WOULD APOLOGIZE FOR THE THINGS HE HAS DONE THAT IS WRONG.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. USED TO BE AN EASY ANSWER. ONE THAT WE COULD ALL AGREE. WHEN PRESIDENT NIXON DIVIDE THE LAND OBSTRUCTED JUSTICE HE WAS HELD TO ACCOUNT PEOPLE ON BOTH SIDES WHO KNEW THAT FOR A REPUBLIC TO ENDURE WEMUST HAVE FIDELITY TO OUR COUNTRY RATHER THAN ONE PARTY ORONE MAN. AND THE OBSTRUCTION WE ARE LOOKING AT TODAY IS FAR WORSE THAN PRESIDENT NIXON’S BEHAVIOR. FUTURE GENERATIONS WILL MEASURE US, EVERY SINGLE MEMBER OF THIS COMMITTEE, BY HOWWE CHOOSE TO ANSWER THAT QUESTION. I HOPE WE GET IT RIGHT. I YIELD BACK. >> THE GENTLEMAN YIELDS BACK. MISTRESS TO BE. >> THANK YOU, MR.CHAIRMAN. I HAVE ONLY BEEN IN CONGRESS SINCE JANUARY OF THIS YEAR. 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 MUCHMORE COLORFUL LANGUAGE THAN I WOULD EVER USE. SINCE THEN THIS COMMITTEE FOCUSED ON THE MUELLER REPORT IN THE RUSSIA COLLUSION THEORY. WE ALL SAT AND LISTENED TO MR. MILLER’S STATEMENT UNEQUIVOCALLY THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN INCLUDED WITH RUSSIA. THAT DIDN’T WORK FOR THE DEMOCRATS. THEY THEN CHANGED THEIR TALKING POINTS MOVED TO THE OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE THEORY. THE PRESENT OBSTRUCTED JUSTICE.THAT FIZZLED. AFTER COURT NEEDED WITH CHAIRMANSHIPS STAFF A WHISTLEBLOWER FILED A COMPLAINT BASED COMPLETELY ON HEARSAY AND OVERHEARING OF THE PEOPLE THAT WEREN’T ON THE PHONE CALL TALK ABOUT A PHONE CALL BETWEEN TWO WORLD LEADERS. WHICH LED TO THE INTEL COMMUNITY SO-CALLED IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY WHICH VIOLATED ALL PAST HISTORICAL PRECEDENTS, DENIED THE PRESIDENT BASIC DUE PROCESS RIGHTS AND FUNDAMENTAL FAIRNESS BY CONDUCTING THIS SO-CALLED INQUIRY IN SECRET WITHOUT THE MINORITIES ABILITY TO CALL WITNESSES AND TONIGHT THE PRESIDENT THE ABILITY TO HAVE HIS LAWYERS CROSS-EXAMINE WITNESSES. A RIGHT AFFORDED TO PRESIDENT CLINTON AND EVERY DEFENDANT IN OUR JUSTICE SYSTEM,INCLUDINGAND MURDERERS. ALL EVIDENCE COLLECTED BY THE INTEL COMMITTEE AS WE SIT HERE TODAY WE STILL DON’T HAVE THE UNDERLYING EVIDENCE. WE HAVE BEEN REQUESTING IT. 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 THEDEMOCRATS NEEDED A CONSTITUTIONAL LAW REFRESHER COURSE. REPUBLICANS DON’T. MR. CHAIRMAN, YOU HAVEN’T KNOWLEDGEDAND I QUOTE, THE HOUSE 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 HAVE THE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL. THOSEARE YOUR WORDS, MR. CHAIRMAN, NOT MINE. WHAT ARE YOU AFRAID OF? LET THE MINORITY CALL WITNESSES LET THE PRESIDENT CALLWITNESSES. CLINTON ALONE CALLED 14 WITNESSES TO TESTIFY. AT THE PRESIDENTS COUNCIL CROSS EXAMINE THE WHISTLEBLOWER. LET THE PRESIDENTS COUNCIL CROSS-EXAMINE THE INTEL STAFF COLLUDED WITH THE WHISTLEBLOWER. IN YOUR OWN WORDS, THOSE ARE THE RIGHTS THATSHOULD BE AFFORDED TO THE PRESIDENT. WRITES EVERY CRIMINALDEFENDANT IS AFFORDED. EVEN TERRORISTS IN IRAQ WERE AFFORDEDMORE 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 IN IRAQ THEN YOU AND CHAIRMANSHIPS HAVE AFFORDED THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES.NO COLLUSION TO OBSTRUCTION NO QUID PRO QUO. NO EVIDENCE OF BRIBERY, MAKES OPINION . NO EVIDENCE OF TREASON. NO EVIDENCE OF HIGH CRIME OR MISDEMEANORS. WE HAVE A BUNCH OFOPINIONS FROM PARTISAN DEMOCRATS WHO HAVE STATED FROM DAY ONE THEY WANT TO IMPEACH THE PRESIDENT. NOT ON THIS THEORY, BUT ALSO OTHER DIFFERENT THEORIES. THE AMERICAN PEOPLE ARE SMARTER THAN YOUR ABCS OF IMPEACHMENT THAT YOU HAVE ON THESCREEN. THAT WERE LAID OUT TODAY. IT IS EXTREMELY DEMONSTRATIVE OF YOUR LACK OF EVIDENCE GIVING YOU, YOU CALLED LAW PROFESSORS TO GIVE THEIR OPINIONS AND NOT FACT WITNESSES TO GIVE THEIR TESTIMONY TODAY TO BE CROSS-EXAMINED IN THE RIGHTS AFFORDED TO THE PRESIDENT OF THE NIGHT STATES.MR. TAMMY, WHEN WECAN ANTICIPATE THAT YOU WILL CHOOSE THE DATE FOR THE MINORITYDAY OF HEARING? >> MR. CHAIRMAN, I’M ASKING YOU A QUESTION. WHEN CAN WE ANTICIPATE YOU WILL CHOOSE A DATE FOR THE MINORITY DAY OF HEARINGS?>> THE GENTLEMAN IS RECOGNIZED FOR THE PURPOSE OF WITNESSING THE WITNESSES, NOT YOUR COLLEAGUES. >> I WILL DO THAT AFTER MY TIME.I YIELD THE REMAINDER OF MY TIME TO MR. RADCLIFFE. >> I THINK MY COLLEAGUE FROM FLORIDA FOR YIELDING. PROFESSOR TURLEY, SINCE WE LAST TALKED BASED ON QUESTION FOR MY COLLEAGUES ACROSS THE AISLE IT DOES APPEAR THAT THE DEMOCRATS DO INTEND TO PURSUE ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT FOR OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE BASED ON THE MUELLER REPORT. I ASK YOUA QUESTION ABOUT THAT AND YOU DIDN’T REALLY GET A CHANCE TO GIVE A COMPLETE ANSWER. IN YOUR STATEMENT TODAY YOU MAKE THIS STATEMENT, I BELIEVE IN OBSTRUCTION BASED ON THE MUELLERREPORT WOULD BE AT ODDS WITH THE RECORD AND THE CONTROLLING LAW. THE USE OF IN OBSTRUCTION FROM THE MUELLER REPORT WOULD BE UNSUPPORTED, UNSUPPORTABLE IN THE HOUSE AND UNSUSTAINABLE IN THE SENATE BUT 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 THE MAIN JUSTICE. THE SPECIAL COUNSEL DID NOT REACH A CONCLUSION OF OBSTRUCTION. HE SHOULD HAVE. I THINK IS JUSTIFICATION, QUITE FRANKLY, WAS A BIT ABSURD IN NOTREACHING A CONCLUSION. THE DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL DID. THEY CAME TO THE RIGHT CONCLUSION. I DON’T THINK THIS IS A REAL CASE FOR OBSTRUCTION. BUT THEN, THIS BODY WOULD BE IMPEACHING A PRESENT ON THE BASIS OF THE INVERSE CONCLUSION.I DON’T BELIEVE IT WOULD BE APPROPRIATE. >> THE GENTLEMAN TIME HAS EXPIRED. MS. DEAN? >> THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN. WORDS MATTER.IN MY EARLIER LIFE I WAS A PROFESSOR OF WRITING. I TAUGHT MY STUDENTS TO BE CAREFUL AND CLEAR ABOUT WHAT THEY PUT TOPAPER. THAT IS A LESSON THE FRAMERS OF OUR CONSTITUTION UNDERSTOOD FAR BETTER THAN ANYONE. THEY WERE LAYING THE FOUNDATION FOR A NEW FORM OF GOVERNMENT. ONE THAT ENSHRINES GOT DEMOCRATIC PRINCIPLES AND PROTECTS AGAINST THOSE WHO WOULD SEEK TO UNDERMINE TO THEM. THE CONSTITUTION EXPLICITLY LEAVES OUT THAT A PRESIDENT MAY BE IMPEACHED FOR TREASON, BRIBERY, HIGH CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS. WE HAVE HEARD A LOT OF WORDS TODAY , FOREIGN INTERFERENCE, BRIBERY,OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE PROFESSORS, I LIKE TO GO THROUGHTHE PRESIDENTS CONDUCT AND THE PUBLIC HARMS WE HAVE DISCUSSED TODAY AND ASK IF THEY WOULD FIT INTO WHAT THE FOREFATHERS CONTEMPLATED WHEN CRAFTING THOSE WORDS OF THE IMPEACHMENT .PROFESSOR CARLY, I WOULD LIKE TO ASK YOU ABOUT THE FOREIGN INTERFERENCE IN ELECTIONS AS AMERICANS WE CAN AGREE FOREIGN INTERFERENCE, FOREIGN INFLUENCE ERODES THE INTEGRITY OF OUR ELECTIONS AS YOU SAID SO PLAINLY, IT MAKES US LESS FREE. YET, ON JULY 25 2019 THE PRESIDENT COERCED THE UKRAINIAN PRESIDENT ZELENSKY TO ANNOUNCE AN INVESTIGATION INTO HIS ARRIVAL. TRUMPS POLITICAL RIVAL. WHICH WAS CORROBORATED BY MULTIPLE WITNESSES THROUGHOUT THE INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE HEARINGS. PROFESSOR CARLIN, CAN YOU EXPLAIN TO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE IN YOUR OPINION WHETHER THE FRAMERS CONSIDERED SOLICITATION OF A FOREIGN INTERFERENCE , WITH A HAVE CONSIDERED IT A HIGH CRIME OR MISDEMEANOR? AND IS THE PRESIDENTS CONDUCT RISE TO THAT LEVEL? >> THE FRAMERS OF OUR CONSTITUTION WOULD HAVE CONSIDERED IT ABHORRENT.WOULD HAVE CONSIDERED IT THE HIGH CRIME OR MISDEMEANOR FOR A PRESIDENT TO INVITE IN FOREIGN INFLUENCE EITHER IN DECIDING WHETHER HE WILL BE REELECTED OR DECIDING WHO IS HIS SUCCESSOR. >> THANK YOU . >> PROFESSOR FELDMAN, I WOULD LIKE TO TALK TO YOU ABOUT BRIBERY. DURING THE COURSE OF THE INTELLIGENCE RECOMMITTING USMULTIPLE WITNESSES GAVE SWORN TESTIMONY THAT THE PRESIDENT HELD NEARLY $400 MILLION AND CONGRESSIONALLY APPROVED DATED ON THE CONDITION THAT RUSSIA, EXCUSE ME, THAT UKRAINE ANNOUNCED THE INVESTIGATIONS INTO HIS CHIEF POLITICAL ADVERSARY.PROFESSOR, IN YOUR OPINION GIVEN THOSE FACTS IN THE FRAMERS SPECIFIC CONCERNSWOULD YOU DESCRIBE THE PRESIDENTS BEHAVIOR HERE AND THEUSE OF HIS PUBLIC OFFICE FOR PRIVATE BENEFIT AS RISING TO THOSE LEVELS? >> THE FRAMERS CONSIDERED, AS YOU SAID, BRIBERY TO CONSIST, BRIBERY UNDER THE CONSTITUTION, TO CONSIST OF THE PRESIDENT ABUSING HIS OFFICE CORRUPTLY FORPERSONAL GAIN. IF THIS HOUSE DETERMINES AND IF THIS COMMITTEEDETERMINES THAT THE PRESIDENT WAS, IN FACT, SPEAKING , SEEKING PERSONAL GAIN IN SEEKING THE INVESTIGATIONS THAT HE ASKED FOR THAT WOULD CONSTITUTE BRIBERY UNDER THE CONSTITUTION.>> THANK YOU. VISSER GERHART, I WOULD LIKE TO ASK YOU ABOUT OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE FOR THE PRESIDENT HAS CATEGORICALLY REFUSED TO PRODUCE ANY DOCUMENTS RESPONSIVE TO CONGRESSIONAL SUBPOENAS, ATTACKED AND INTIMIDATED PERSPECTIVES AND ACTUAL WITNESSES, INCLUDING CAREER AND CIVIL MILITARY, EXCUSE ME, MILITARY AND CIVIL SERVANTS AS DISCUSSED HERE LIKE AND BETTER YOVANOVITCH, AND THAT’S OR TELL YOUR TAYLOR, JENNIFER WILLIAMS, AND OTHERS. HE ENCOURAGED WITNESSES TO DEFY CONGRESSIONAL SUBPOENAS. BASED ON THAT DOES THIS MEET THE THRESHOLD FOR OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE AS ENVISIONED IN THE CONSTITUTION? >> YES, MA’AM. I BELIEVE IT DOES. I REMEMBER WHEN I WAS HERE 21 YEARS AGO ALONG WITH PROFESSOR TURLEY TESTIFYING BEFORE A DIFFERENT COMMITTEE ON A SERIOUS QUESTION REGARDING IMPEACHMENT I REMEMBER A NUMBER OF LAW PROFESSORS TALK ABOUT PRESIDENTS CLINTON AND HIS MISCONDUCT AS AN ATTACK ON THE JUDICIAL SYSTEM. THAT’S WHAT YOU JUST DESCRIBED TO ME. >> THANK YOU.THANK YOU, PROFESSORS, ALL FOUR OF YOU. WHAT YOU DID TODAY YOU BROUGHT PART OF OUR CONSTITUTION TO LIFE. I THANK YOU FOR THAT. YOU HAVE SHOWN WITH THE FRAMERS WEREMINDFUL OF WHEN THEY WROTE THE IMPEACHMENT CLAUSE OF OUR CONSTITUTION. THEY CHOSE THEIR WORDS AND THEIR WORDS MATTER. ITWAS MY FATHER, BOB DEAN, A TERRIFIC DAD AND A TALENTED WRITER, WHO INSTILLED IN ME AND MY BROTHERS AND SISTER A LOVE OFLANGUAGE. HE TAUGHT US OUR WORDS MATTER. THE TRUTH MATTERS. IT ISTHROUGH THAT LENS WHICH I SEE ALL OF THE SERIOUS AND SOMBER THINGS WE ARE SPEAKING ABOUT TODAY. FOREIGN INTERFERENCE, INSTRUCTION. THE FRAMERS LIKELY COULD NOT HAVE IMAGINED ALL THREE CONCERNS EMBODIED IN A SINGLE LEADER THEYWERE CONCERNED ENOUGH TO CRAFT THE REMEDY OF IMPEACHMENT. THE TIMES HAVE YOU FOUND US. I AM PRAYERFUL FOR OUR PRESIDENT, FOROUR COUNTRY, FOR OURSELVES. THEY WE THE PEOPLE ALWAYS HOLD HIGH THE DECENCY AND PROMISE AND AMBITION OF OUR FOUNDING AND OF THE WORDS THAT MATTER AND OF THE TRUTH.WITH THAT I YELLED BACK, MR. CHAIRMAN. >> DENTAL LADY YIELDS BACK. >> THANK YOU, PROFESSORS FOR YOUR TIME TODAY. IT HAS BEEN A LONG DAY. I WANT TO TELL YOU, I DID NOT HAVE THE PRIVILEGE OF BEING BORN INTO THIS COUNTRY. AS AN IMMIGRANT WHEN I BECAME A CITIZEN TO THIS GREAT NATION I TOOK AN OATH TO PROTECT AND DEFEND THE CONSTITUTION FROM ALL FOREIGN AND DOMESTIC ENEMIES I HAD THE FORTUNE OF TAKING THAT OATH ONCE AGAIN WHEN I BECAME A MEMBER OF CONGRESS.THAT INCLUDES THE RESPONSIBILITY TO PROTECT OUR NATION FROM CONTINUING THREATS FROM A PRESIDENT ANY PRESIDENT. YOU TESTIFIED THAT THE PRESIDENTS ACTIONS ARE A CONTINUING RISK TO OUR NATION AND DEMOCRACY. MEANING THIS IS NOT A ONE-TIME PROBLEM. THERE IS A PATTERN OF BEHAVIOR BY THE PRESIDENT THAT IS PUTTING AT RISK FAIR AND FREE ELECTIONS. I THINK THAT WE ARE HERE TODAY BECAUSE THE AMERICAN PEOPLE DESERVE TO KNOW WHETHER WE NEED TO REMOVE THE PRESIDENT BECAUSE OF IT DURING THE NIXON IMPEACHMENT THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE SAID, QUOTE, THE PURPOSE OF IMPEACHMENT IS NOT PERSONAL PUNISHMENT. ITS FUNCTION IS PRIMARILY TO MAINTAIN CONSTITUTIONAL GOVERNMENT. PROFESSOR CARLIN, TO ME THAT MEANS THAT IMPEACHMENT SHOULD BE USED WHEN WE MUST PROTECT OUR AMERICAN DEMOCRACY IT IS RESERVED FOR OFFENSES:PRESENT A CONTINUING RISK FOR OUR DEMOCRACY. IS THAT CORRECT? >> YES IT IS. >> THANK YOU. I WANT TO SHOW YOUAN EXAMPLE OF WHAT THE PRESIDENT SAID JUST ONE WEEK AFTER THE TRANSCRIPT OF THE JULY 25 CALL WAS RELEASED WHEN A REPORTER ASKED THE PRESIDENT WHAT HE WANTED FROM PRESIDENT ZELENSKY.HE RESPONDED WITH THIS, >> I WOULD THINK THAT IF THEY WERE HONEST ABOUT IT THEY WOULD START A MAJOR INVESTIGATION INTOTHE BIDENS. IT IS A VERY SIMPLE ANSWER. THEY SHOULD INVESTIGATE THE BIDENS. HOW DOES A COMPANY THAT IS DULY FORMED, ALL THESE COMPANIES THAT, BY THE WAY, LIKEWISE, CHINA JUST STARTED AN INVESTIGATION INTO THE BIDENS. BECAUSE WHAT HAPPENED IN CHINA IS JUST ABOUT AS BAD AS WHAT HAPPENED WITH UKRAINE.>> WE HAVE HEARD TODAY CONFLICTING DIALOGUE FROM BOTH SIDES I JUST WANT TO ASK, MR. FELDMAN, IS THIS CLEAR EVIDENCE FROM A PRESIDENT ASKING FOR A FOREIGN GOVERNMENT TO INTERFERE IN OUR ELECTIONS? >> CONGRESSWOMAN, I’M HERE FOR THE CONSTITUTION. WE ARE HERE FOR THE CONSTITUTION. AND WHEN THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES ASKS FOR ASSISTANCE FROM A FOREIGN POWER TO DISTORT OUR ELECTIONS FOR HIS PERSONAL ADVANTAGE THAT CONSTITUTES AN ABUSE OF OFFICE AND IT COUNTS ASA HIGH CRIME AND MISDEMEANOR. THAT IS WHAT THE CONSTITUTION ISHERE TO PROTECT US AGAINST. >> THANK YOU. PROFESSOR CARLIN, ARE THE PRESIDENTS ACTIONS A CONTINUING RISK THAT THE FRAMERSINTENDED IMPEACHMENT TO BE USED FOR?>> YES. THIS TAKES US BACK TO THE QUOTATIONS FROM WILLIAM DAVEY THAT WE HAVE ALL USED SEVERAL TIMES IN OUR TESTIMONY, WHICH IS THE PRESIDENT WITHOUT IMPEACHMENT, A PRESIDENT WILL DO ANYTHING TO GET REELECTED . >> THANK YOU. I WANT TO SHOW YOU ONE MORE SAMPLE FROM THE PRESIDENTS CHIEF OF STAFF WHEN ASKED ABOUT THE PRESIDENTS EVENTS OF THE UKRAINE PRESENT. >> WHAT YOU JUST DESCRIBED IS A QUID PRO QUO. MONEY WILL NOT FLOW UNLESS AN INVESTIGATION HAPPENS. >> WE DO THAT ALL THE TIME WITH FOREIGN-POLICY. McKINNEY SAID YESTERDAY HE WAS REALLY UPSET POLITICAL INFLUENCE IN FOREIGN-POLICY. THAT WAS ONE OF THE REASONS HE WAS SO UPSET ABOUT THIS. I HAVE NEWS FOR EVERYBODY, GET OVER IT. THERE’S GOING TO BE POLITICAL INFLUENCE IN FOREIGN-POLICY.>> PROFESSOR CARLIN, I THINK THAT MR.MULVANEY IS CONFLATING OR CONFUSING TWO DIFFERENT NOTIONS OF POLITICS. YES, THERE IS POLITICAL INFLUENCE IN OUR FOREIGN AFFAIRS. BECAUSE PRESIDENT TRUMP WON THE ELECTION IN 2016 WE HAVE EXITED CLIMATE ACCORDS. WE HAVE TAKEN A DIFFERENT POSITION ON NATO THEN WE WOULD HAVE TAKEN HAS HIS OPPONENT ONE. THAT’S DIFFERENT THAN SAYING THAT PARTISAN POLITICS IN THE SENSE OF ELECTORAL MANIPULATION IS SOMETHING THAT WE NEED TO GET OVER OR GET USED TO. IF WE GET OVER THAT OR WE GET USED TO THAT WE WILL CEASE TO BECOME THE DEMOCRACY THAT WE ARE RIGHT NOW. THANK YOU. I THINK THAT IS OUR GREATEST FEAR AND THREAT. I DON’T THINK THAT ANYONE IS ABOVETHE LAW, THE CONSTITUTION ESTABLISHES THAT.THIS TYPE OF BEHAVIOR CANNOT BE TOLERATED FROM ANY PRESIDENT. NOT NOW, NOTIN THE FUTURE. I YIELD BACK. >> I’M SORRY, MISS ESCOBAR.>> THANK YOU, CHAIRMAN. PROFESSORS, THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR YOUR TESTIMONY AND TIME TODAY. MANY THANKS, INCLUDING THE PRESIDENT OWN WORDS IN THAT FAMOUS PHONE CALL HAVE BEEN LAID OUT BEFORE OUR VERY EYES AND EARS FOR MONTHS. DESPITE THE PRESIDENTS REPEATED EFFORTS AT A COVER. IT APPEARS THAT SOME HAVE CHOSEN TO IGNORE THOSE FACTS WHAT WE HAVE SEEN TODAY FROM THOSE WHO CHOOSE TO TURN A BLIND EYE IS NOT A DEFENSE OF THE PRESIDENTS ACTIONS, BECAUSE, FRANKLY, THOSE OFFENSES ARE INDEFENSIBLE.INSTEAD, WE HAVE SEEN THEM ATTACK THE PROCESS ANDATTEMPT TO IMPUGN YOUR INTEGRITY. FOR THAT I’M SORRY. NOW TO MY QUESTIONS. SOME HAVE THEM FIND THAT INSTEAD OF CONSIDERING IMPEACHMENT WE SHOULD JUST LET THIS PASS AND ALLOW THE PEOPLE TO DECIDE WHAT TO DO NEXT OR WHAT TO DO ABOUT THE PRESIDENTS BEHAVIOR IN THE NEXT ELECTION. THE FRAMERS OF OUR CONSTITUTION SPECIFICALLY CONSIDERED WHETHER TO JUST USE ELECTIONS AND NOT HAVE IMPEACHMENT AND REJECTED THAT NOTION. ONE STATEMENT FROM THE FRAMERS REALLY STUCK WITH ME AND IT’S ON THE SCREEN. GEORGE MASONASKED, SHALL THE MAN WHO HAS PRACTICED CORRUPTION, BY THAT TEENS PROCURED HIS APPOINTMENT IN THE FIRST INSTANCE COPY SUFFERED TO ESCAPE PUNISHMENT BY REPEATING HIS GUILT? PROFESSOR FELDMAN, I HAVETWO QUESTIONS FOR YOU.BRIEFLY, CAN YOU PLEASE EXPLAIN WHY THE FRAMERS DECIDED THAT A CORRUPT EXECUTIVE COULD NOT BE SOLVED THROUGH ELECTIONS AND CAN ALLOW US WHY IMPEACHMENT IS THE APPROPRIATE OPTION AT THIS POINT? CONSIDERING ALL THE EVIDENCE AMERICANS HAVE SEEN AND HEARD RATHER THAN JUST LETTING THIS BE DECIDED IN THE NEXT ELECTION?>> THE FRAMERS UNDERSTOOD HUMAN MOTIVATION EXTREMELY WELL. THEY KNEW THAT A PRESIDENT WOULD HAVE A GREAT MOTIVE TO CORRUPT THE ELECTORAL PROCESS TO GET REELECTED. THAT IS EXACTLY WHY THEY THOUGHT IT WASN’T GOOD ENOUGH TO WAIT FOR THE NEXT ELECTION. THE PRESIDENT COULD CHEAT AND COULD MAKE THE NEXT ELECTION ILLEGITIMATE. THAT’S WHY THEY REQUIRED IMPEACHMENT. IF THEY COULDN’T IMPEACH A CORRUPT PRESIDENT JAMES MADISON SAID, THAT COULD BE FATAL TO THEREPUBLIC.THE REASON IT IS NECESSARY TO TAKE ACTION NOW IS THAT WE HAVE A PRESIDENT HAS, IN FACT, THOUGHT TO CORRUPTTHE ELECTORAL PROCESS FOR PERSONAL ADVANTAGE. UNDER THOSE CIRCUMSTANCES FRAMERS REMEDY OF IMPEACHMENT ISTHE ONLY OPTION AVAILABLE. >> THANK YOU. I WANT TO PLAY TWOCLIPS THE FIRST OF PRESIDENT NIXON AND THE SECOND OF PRESIDENT TRUMP. >> WHEN THE PRESIDENT DOES IT THAT MEANS IT IS NOT ILLEGAL. >> I HAVE AN ARTICLE 2 WHERE I HAVE THE RIGHT TO DO WHATEVER I WANT AS PRESIDENT.>> TWO PRESIDENTS OPENLY STATING THAT THEY ARE ABOVE THE LAW. PROFESSOR CARLIN, WHAT HAPPENS TO OUR REPUBLIC, TO OUR COUNTRY IF WE DO NOTHING IN THE FACE OF THE PRESIDENT WHO SEES HIMSELF ABOVE THE LAW? WHO WILL ABUSE HIS POWER, WHO WILL ASK FOREIGN GOVERNMENTS TO MEDDLE IN OUR ELECTION , AND WHO WILL ATTACK ANY WITNESS WHO STANDS UP TO TELL THE TRUTH? WHAT HAPPENS IF WE DON’T FOLLOW OUR CONSTITUTIONAL OBLIGATION OF IMPEACHMENT TO REMOVE THAT PRESIDENT FROM OFFICE?>> WE WILL CEASE TO BE A REPUBLIC.>> THANK YOU.I REPRESENT A COMMUNITY THAT A LITTLE OVER A DECADE AGO WAS MARRED BY CORRUPTION AT THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT LEVEL. THERE WAS NO RETREAT INTO A PARTISAN CORNER OR AN EFFORT BY ANYONE TO EXPLAIN IT AWAY. WE ALSO DIDN’T WAIT FOR AN ELECTION TO CURE THE CANCER OF CORRUPTION THAT OCCURRED ON OUR WATCH. WE WERE UNITED AS A COMMUNITY IN OUR OUTRAGE OVER IT. IT WAS INTOLERABLE TO US, BECAUSE WE KNEW IT WAS A THREAT TO OUR INSTITUTION. INSTITUTIONS THAT BELONGED TO US WHAT WE FACE TODAY IS THE SAME KIND OF TEST, ONLY ONE FAR MORE GREAT AND HISTORIC. FROM THE FOUNDING OF OUR COUNTRY TO TODAY ONE TRUTH REMAINS CLEAR, THE IMPEACHMENT POWER IS RESERVED FOR CONDUCT THAT IS A DANGER TO IT DEMOCRACYAND IMPERILS OUR CONSTITUTION. TODAY’S HEARING HAS HELPED US TOBETTER UNDERSTAND HOW WE PRESERVE OUR REPUBLIC AND THE TEST THAT LIES AHEAD FOR US THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN. I YIELDBACK MY TIME. >> THE GENTLE LADY YIELDS BACK. THAT CONCLUDES THE TESTIMONY UNDER THE FIVE MINUTE RULE. I NOW RECOGNIZE THE RANKING MEMBER FOR ANY CONCLUDING REMARKS HE MAY HAVE. >> THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN. TODAY HAS BEEN INTERESTING, I GUESS, TO SAY THELEAST. IT HAS BEEN, WE HAVE FOUND MANY THINGS IN FACT, THREEOF OUR FOUR WITNESSES HERE TODAY ALLEGED NUMEROUS CRIMES COMMITTED BY THE PRESIDENT BUT AT TIMES IT SEEMED LIKE WE WERE EVEN TRYING TO MAKE UP CRIMES. IF IT WASN’T THIS, IT WAS THE INTENT TO DO IT. IT WENT ALONG, I’M GOING TO COME BACK TO IT NOW, AS MUCH AS I RESPECT THESE WHO CAME BEFORE US TODAY THIS ISWAY TOO EARLY. BECAUSE WE HAVE NOT AS A COMMITTEE DONE OUR JOB.WE HAVE NOT AS A COMMITTEE COME TOGETHER AND LOOKED AT EVIDENCE,TAKEN FACT WITNESSES IN FRONT OF US UNDER OATH TO SAYWHAT HAPPENED, HOW DID IT HAPPEN, AND WHY DID IT HAPPEN WEARE TAKING THE WORK OF THE INTEL COMMITTEE AND THE OTHER COMMITTEES, WE ARE TAKING IT SEEMINGLY AT FACE VALUE.I WILL REMIND ALL THAT THE CHAIRMAN IS EVEN THE BIGGEST PROPONENT OF THIS NOT HAPPENING IN HIS EARLIER STATEMENT THAT WAS 20 YEARS AGO WHEN HE SAID WE SHOULD NOT TAKE A REPORT FROM ANOTHER ENTITY AND JUST ACCEPT IT. OTHERWISE, WE ARE A RUBBER STAMP. FOR MY DEMOCRATIC MAJORITY THEY MAY NOT CARE. AS IHAVE SAID BEFORE, THIS IS ABOUT A CLOCK AND A CALENDAR.:00 AND ACALENDAR. THEY ARE SO OBSESSED WITH THE ELECTION NEXT YEAR THATTHEY JUST GLOSS OVER THINGS IN FACT, WHAT IS INTERESTING IS AS I SAID EARLIER THREE OF THE FOUR WITNESSES ALLEGED MULTIPLE CRIMES COMMITTED. DURING THE INTEL HEARINGS NOT THE WITNESSESIDENTIFIED A CRIME. IF YOU’RE WRITING ABOUT THIS IT SHOULD ALARM YOU. THIS IMPEACHMENT NARRATIVE BEING SPUN BY THE MAJORITY IS A FAKE ONE.IT IS MAJORITY BEING 3% OF THE FACTS AND 90% OF THE OTHER. PROFESSOR TURLEY EARLIER SAID THE IMPEACHMENT NEEDS PROOF, NOT PRESUMPTIONS. WE HAVE ONE OF THEFACT WITNESSES IN THE INTEL COMMITTEE, I PRESUME THAT WAS WHAT WAS GOING ON. MR. SUNDERLAND. YOU KNOW WHAT IS HAPPENING HERE TODAY? WE FOUND OUT TODAY, I THOUGHT WAS INTERESTING, THIS IS A JUDICIARY COMMITTEE BUT WE ALSO FOUND OUT THE FACTS DON’T MATTER. FACTS DON’T MATTER UNLESS WE CAN FIT THOSE FACTS TO FIT THE NARRATIVE WE WANT TO SPEND BEFORE THIS COMMITTEE AND THE AMERICAN PEOPLE. IF THEY DON’T MATTER WE ALSO HEARD ONE OF THE WITNESSES STATE TODAY THAT IT DOESN’T MATTER IF AID WAS RELEASED OR NOT OF COURSE IT MATTERS. UNFORTUNATELY, THE ONLY ONES OF THE MANY FACTS IGNORED BY THE MAJORITY. THEY ARE IGNORING A TON OF FACTS THAT MATTER. APPARENTLY DOESN’T MATTER THAT IN INVESTOR VOLKER MAKE CLEAR INHIS TESTIMONY THERE WAS NO CONDITIONALITY ON THE WHITE HOUSE MEETING WITH THE AID.THE DEMOCRATS AND WITNESSES HAVEN’T MENTIONED THAT. BECAUSE IT’S UNHELPFUL TO THE NARRATIVE THEY ARE SPINNING.IT APPARENTLY DOESN’T MATTER THAT DEMOCRATS, THE DEMOCRATS INTHE MAJORITY HERE, THAT THE PRESENT DID NOT CONDITION HIS AIDE ON INVESTIGATION. MR. SALMOND’S STATEMENT TO THE CONTRARY WAS PRESUMPTION AND IT WAS RIGHT HERE IN THIS ROOM. HE CALLED IT A GUESS. RIGHT WHERE YOU ARE SITTING. ONLY A GUESS. PRESUMPTION. IT’S WHAT HE THOUGHT. GOD FOR BID, IF WE WALK INTO OUR COURTROOMS AND FIND SOME GUILTY OF SOMETHING WE ARE CALLING A CRIME AND WE WALK INTO COURT NOW AND ALL THE SUDDEN,, I THOUGHT IT WAS.WITNESSES SAID I PRESUMED IT WAS GOD FOR BID THIS IS WHERE WE ARE AT WE ALSO HEARD THAT YOUCAN MAKE INFERENCE. IT’S OKAY IF YOU ARE JUST INFERRING. I DON’T KNOW ABOUT THE PROFESSORS HERE, BUT FOR THOSE OF US IN COURT ON BOTH SIDES OF THE AISLE HAVE NEVER HEARD A JUDGE SAY JUSTIN FOR WHAT YOU THINK THEY MEANT AND THAT WILL BE ENOUGH. NOT INFERENCE. IT PROBABLY DOESN’T MATTER THAT THE PRESIDENT CONDITIONED A MEETING ON THE INVESTIGATION. MET WITH ZELENSKY WITH NO CONDITIONS. ZELENSKY DIDN’T EVENFIND OUT ABOUT THE AID UNTIL ABOUT A MONTH AFTER THE CALL WHEN HE READ IT IN POLITICAL. THE AID WAS RELEASED SHORTLY THEREAFTER AND UKRAINE DIDN’T HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH GETTINGTHE AID RELEASED. IF YOU THINK THAT DOESN’T MATTER THERE WERE FIVE MEETINGS WITH THE TIME THE AID WAS STOPPED AND THETIME IT WAS RELEASED AND IN NONE OF THOSE MEETINGS BETWEEN AMBASSADORS AND OTHERS INCLUDING THE VICE PRESIDENT SENATORS, NONE OF THAT WAS EVER CONNECTED TO A PROMISE OF ANYTHING ON THE AID. NOTHING WAS EVER CONNECTED. FIVE TIMES. TWO OF THOSE AFTER PRESIDENT ZELENSKY LEARNED THAT AID WAS BEING HELD.TELL ME THERE IS NOT A PROBLEM HERE WITH TORI. THAT’S WHY FACT WITNESSES AREN’T HERE RIGHT NOW.AGAINST THE PRESIDENT IS REALLY ABOUT POLICY DIFFERENCES. IN FACT, THREE OF THE DEMOCRATIC STAR WITNESSES WEREN’T EVEN ON THE CALL. THEY READ TRANSCRIPT LIKE EVERYBODY ELSE ON JULY 26 AND THE MADE NO RED REFERENCE TO QUID PRO QUO OR HOLDING IT. NONEOF THOSE IN COMMITTEE FAX OR SO MANY MANY FACTS MATTER TO THE MAJORITY. WE DON’T EVEN KNOW WHAT IF ADDITIONAL HEARINGS WE WILL HAVE TO ADDRESS OTHER BACK. THIS IS THE PART THAT BOTHERS ME GREATLY. IT IS SOMETHING WE HAVE SEEN FROM JANUARY OF THIS YEAR.KNOW CONCERNED ABOUT A PROCESS THAT WORKS, BUT SIMPLY A GETTINGTO AN END THAT WE WANT. I AGREE WITH PROFESSOR FELDMAN. HE MAY FIND THAT STRANGE. I DO AGREE WITH YOU ON SOMETHING. IT’S NOT HIS JOB TO ASSESS THE CREDIBILITY OF THE WITNESSES, THAT THIS COMMITTEES JOB. I AGREE. THIS COMMITTEE CAN DO OUR JOBS IF NONE OF THE WITNESSES TESTIFY BEFORE OUR COMMITTEE. EVEN ONCE WE HAVE TALKED ABOUT CALLING TODAY. THE MAJORITY HAS THAT WE DON’T WANT. THROUGH THAT WE STILL DON’T HAVEAN ANSWER AND WITH THIS COMMITTEE WILL DO ONCE THIS HEARING ENDS. THE COMMITTEE RECEIVED MR. CHAIRMANSHIPS REPORT YESTERDAY, BUT WE STILL HAVE THE UNDERLYING EVIDENCE. THE RULES EVEN SET UP BY THIS BODY ARE NOT BEING FOLLOWED TO THIS DAY, BUT YET, NOBODY TALKS ABOUT IT ON THE MAJORITY SIDE.THE WITNESSES PRODUCED BY CHAIRMANSHIPS AND THE MARKET PEOPLE TALKED ABOUT THEIR FEELINGS, MY GUESS IS, PRESUMPTIONS EVEN THOUGH THE FACTS MAY NOT MATTER TO THE MAJORITY 97% OF THE OTHER FAX DO MATTER TO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE. MY PROBLEM IS THIS, AS A RANKING MEMBER OF THIS COMMITTEE, ONE OFTHE OLDEST, MOST SHOULD BE FACT-BASED, LEGAL BASED COMMITTEES WE HAVE HERE IMPEACHMENT SHOULD’VE BEEN THERE ALL ALONG.I HAVE GROUP OF MEMBERS WHO HAVE NO IDEA WHERE WE ARE HEADED NEXT. I BET YOU IF I ASKED THE MAJORITY MEMBERS OUTSIDE THE CHAIRMAN THEY DON’T HAVE A CLUE EITHER. IF THEY HAVEN’T THEY SHOULD SHARE IT . THIS IS NOT THE TIME TO PLAY HIDE THE BALL. IS NOT A TIME TO SAY WE ARE GOING TO FIGURE IT OUT ON THE FLY. YOU’RE TALKING ABOUT OVERTURNING THE 3 MILLION VOTES OF THE PRESIDENT DULY ELECTED WHO IS DOING HIS JOB EVERY DAY. BY THE WAY, WAS OVERSEAS TODAY WHILE WE WERE DOING THIS. WORKING WITH OUR NATO ALLIES. THE QUESTION I HAVE IS WHERE WE HAD NEXT? WE HAVE HEARD THIS AMBIGUOUS PRESENTATION. HERE IS MY CHALLENGE. IT HAS ALREADY BEEN VOTED DOWN AND TABLED TODAY. MR.SCHIFF SHOULD TESTIFY. CHAIRMANSHIPS , NOT HIS STAFF, MUST APPEAR BEFORE THIS COMMITTEE TO ANSWER QUESTIONS ABOUT THE CONTENT OF HIS REPORT THAT’S WHAT STARTED 20 YEARS AGO IN HISTORY DEMAND.I TOLD THE CHAIRMAN A WHILE AGO AND A COUPLE OF WEEKS AGO WHEN WE WERE DOING MARKUP, MR. CHAIRMAN, HISTORY LIES ON US. IT’S TIME WE TALK AND SHARE HOW WE ARE GOING FORWARD. I’M STILL WAITING FOR THE ANSWER. MR. CHAIRMAN, AS WE LOOK AHEAD, AS THE DEMOCRATIC MAJORITY PROMISEDTHAT THIS WAS GOING TO BE A FAIR PROCESS WHEN HE GOT TO JUDICIARYWITH THE PRESIDENT AND OTHERS PRESENT, AND YOU MAY SAY HE COULD HAVE COME TODAY, WHAT WOULD THIS HAVE DONE? NOTHING. THERE IS NO FAT, BUT IT’S BEEN A GOOD TIME TO SEE THAT NOTHING CAME OF IT AT THE END OF THE DAY. WHY SHOULD HE BEHERE? LET’S BRING FACT WITNESSES IN. LET’S BRING PEOPLE IN. AS YOU SAID, MR. CHAIRMAN, YOU SAID IT, YOUR WORDS, WE SHOULD NEVER ON THIS COMMITTEE EXCEPT IN A REPORT AND NOT INVESTIGATING IT OURSELVES. WE ARE WELL ON OUR WE HAVE DOING THAT BECAUSE OF THE CALENDAR AND THE CLOCK. MR. CHAIRMAN, I KNOW YOU ARE ABOUT TO GIVE A STATEMENT AND YOU HAVE WORKED ONA VERY HARD, I’M SURE. BEFORE YOU GET TO SIRI, BEFORE YOU START YOUR STATEMENT, BEFORE YOU GO ANY FURTHER I WOULD LIKE TO KNOW TWO THINGS.NUMBER ONE, WHEN DO YOU PLAN ON SCHEDULING OUR MINORITY HEARING DATE? TWO, WHY ARE WE, WHEN ARE WE ACTUALLYGOING TO HAVE REAL WITNESSES HERE THAT ARE FACT WITNESSES IN THIS CASE? WHEN? OR WHAT YOU SAID MANY YEARS AGO IT IS FATED JUST LIKE THE LEAVESAND FALL. I DON’T CARE ANYMORE THAT OTHERS GIVE US A REPORT. NOW CHAIRMANSHIPS DOESN’T GET TO TESTIFY. HE IS GOING TO SEND A STAFF MEMBER. I DON’T EVEN KNOW IF WE ARE GOING TO HAVE A HEARING PAST THAT TO FIGURE OUT ANYTHING THAT HAS BEEN GOING ON.MY QUESTION THAT I STARTED OUT TODAY IS WHERE IS FAIRNESS? IT WAS PROMISED IT’S NOT BEEN DELIVERED. THE FACT TALKED ABOUTARE NOT FAX DELIVERED. THIS PRESIDENTS DID NOTHING WRONG. THING TO BE IMPEACHED AND NOTHING FOR WHY WE ARE HERE.IN THE WORDS OF ONE OF OUR WITNESSES, MR. TURLEY, IF YOU RUSH THROUGH THIS YOU DO IT ON FLIMSY GROUND AND THE AMERICAN PEOPLE WILL NOT FOR THE LIGHT OF HISTORY.TODAY BEFORE YOU GIVE YOUR CLOSING STATEMENT, BEFORE YOU GET TO THIS TIME MY QUESTIONIS WILL HE TALKED THIS COMMITTEE, YOU ARE A CHAIRMAN. YOU HOLD A VERY PRESTIGIOUS ROLE. WILL YOU LET US KNOW WHEREWE ARE GOING OR ARE WE GOING TO ADJOURN THEM HERE AT THE SUM OF EVERYTHING SAYING ALL DID GOOD AND GO UP FROM HERE STILL WONDERING? THE LIGHTS ARE ON. IT’S TIME TO ANSWER THE QUESTION. I YIELD BACK. >> THE GENTLEMAN YIELDS BACK. I WANT TO, BEFORE MY CLOSING STATEMENT ACKNOWLEDGED THAT I RECEIVED A LETTER TODAY REQUESTING A MINORITY DAY OF TESTIMONY UNDER RULE 11. I HAVE NOT HAD A CHANCE TO READ THE LETTER. I LOOK FORWARD TO CONFIRMING WITH THE RANKING MEMBERS ABOUT THIS REQUEST AFTER I HAVE HAD A CHANCE TO REVIEW IT.>> YOU CAN’T REVIEW A LETTER.>> THE GENTLEMAN IS NOT RECOGNIZED. >> THERE’S NOTHING FOR YOU TO REVIEW.>> AND I RECOGNIZE MYSELF OR CLOSING STATEMENT GEORGE WASHINGTON’S FAREWELL ADDRESS WARNS OF A MOMENT WHEN CUNNING AMBITIOUS AND UNPRINCIPLED MEN WOULD BE UNABLE TO SUBVERT THE POWER OF THE PEOPLE AND TO USURP FOR THEMSELVES THE REINS OF GOVERNMENT. PRESIDENT TRUMP PLACED HIS OWN PERSONAL AND POLITICAL INTERESTS ABOVE OUR NATIONAL INTEREST, ABOVE THE SECURITY OF OUR COUNTRY, AND MOST IMPORTANTLY, ABOVE THE MOSTPRECIOUS RIGHT , THE ABILITY OF EACH AND EVERY ONE OF US TO PARTICIPATE IN FAIR ELECTIONS.FREE OF CORRUPTION. THE CONSTITUTION HAS A SOLUTION FOR A PRESIDENT WHO PLACES HIS PERSONAL OR POLITICAL INTEREST ABOVE THOSE OF THE NATION. THE POWER OF IMPEACHMENT. WHETHER MY COLLEAGUES POINTED OUT, IN THE PAST I HAVE ARTICULATED A THREE-POINT TEST FOR IMPEACHMENT. ALL THREE PARTS OF THAT TEST HAVE BEEN AT FIRST, YES, THE PRESIDENT HAS COMMITTEDAND IMPEACHABLE OFFENSE. THE PRESIDENT ASKED IF FOR GOVERNMENT TO INTERVENE AND THEN GOT CAUGHT AND THEN OBSTRUCTED THE INVESTIGATORS. TWICE. THE WITNESSES TOLD US IN NO UNCERTAIN TERMS THIS CONDUCT CONSTITUTES HIGH CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS, INCLUDING ABUSE OF POWER. SECOND, YES, THE PRESIDENT ALLEGED OFFENSES REPRESENT A DIRECT THREAT TO THECONSTITUTIONAL ORDER. PROFESSOR CARLIN WARNED DRAWING A FOREIGN GOVERNMENT INTO OUR ELECTION PROCESS IS AN ESPECIALLY SERIOUSABUSE OF POWER BECAUSE IT UNDERMINES DEMOCRACY ITSELF. PROFESSOR FELDMAN ECHOED IF WE CANNOT IMPEACH A PRESIDENT TO ABUSES HIS OFFICE FOR PERSONAL ADVANTAGE WE NO LONGER LIVE IN ADEMOCRACY.WE LIVE IN A MONARCHY OR UNDER A DICTATORSHIP. PROFESSOR GERHART REMINDS US IF WHAT WE ARE TALKING ABOUT, IF WHAT WE’RE TALKING ABOUT IS NOT IMPEACHABLE THEN NOTHING IS IMPEACHABLE. PRESIDENT TRUMP ACTIONS REPRESENT THE THREAT TO OUR NATIONAL SECURITY AND THE URGENTTHREAT TO THE INTEGRITY OF THE NEXT ELECTION. THIRD, YES, WE SHOULD NOT PROCEED UNLESS AT LEAST SOME OF THE CITIZENS WHO SUPPORTED THE PRESIDENT IN THE LAST ELECTION ARE WILLING TO COME WITH US. A MAJORITY OF THIS COUNTRY IS CLEARLY PREPARED TO IMPEACH AND REMOVE PRESIDENT TRUMP. RATHER THAN RESPOND TO THE UNSETTLING AND DANGEROUS EVIDENCE MY REPUBLICAN COLLEAGUES HAVE CALLED THIS PROCESS UNFAIR. IT IS NOT. NOR IS HIS ARGUMENT NEW. MY COLLEAGUES ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE AISLE ARE UNABLE TO DEFEND THE BEHAVIOR OF THE PRESIDENT HAVE USED THIS ARGUMENT BEFORE. FIRST, THEY SAID THAT THESE PROCEEDINGS WERE NOT CONSTITUTIONAL, BECAUSEWE DID NOT HAVE A FLOOR VOTE. WE THEN HAD A FLOOR VOTE. THEN THEYSAID OUR PROCEEDINGS WERE NOT CONSTITUTIONAL, BECAUSE THEY DIDNOT CALL WITNESSES. THE REPUBLICANS CALLED THREE OF THE WITNESSES IN THE LIVE HEARINGS OF INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE AND WILL HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO REQUEST WITNESSES IN THIS COMMITTEE AS WELL.NEXT, THEY SAID OUR PROCEEDINGS WERE NOT CONSTITUTIONAL, BECAUSE THE PRESIDENT COULD NOT PARTICIPATE.WHEN THE COMMITTEE INVITED THE PRESIDENT TO PARTICIPATE IN THISHEARING HE DECLINED. THE SIMPLE FACT IS THAT ALL THESE PROCEEDINGS HAVE ALL THE PROTECTIONS AFFORDED PRIOR PRESIDENTS. THIS PROCESS FOLLOWS THE CONSTITUTIONAL AND LEGAL PRECEDENTS. I AM LEFT TO CONCLUDE THAT THE ONLY REASON MYCOLLEAGUES RUSHED FROM ONE PROCESS COMPLAINT TO THE NEXT ISBECAUSE THERE IS NO FACTUAL DEFENSE FOR PRESIDENT TRUMP. UNLIKE ANY OTHER PRESIDENT BEFORE HIM, PRESIDENT TRUMP HAS OPENLY REJECTED THE CONGRESS RIGHT IS A COEQUAL BRANCH OF GOVERNMENT. HE HAS DEFIED OUR SUBPOENAS. HE HAS REFUSED TO PRODUCE ANY DOCUMENTS AND HE DIRECTED HIS AIDES NOT TO TESTIFY. PRESIDENT TRUMP HAS ALSO ASKED AFOREIGN GOVERNMENT TO INTERVENE IN OUR ELECTIONS.HE HAS MADE CLEAR THAT IF LEFT UNCHECKED HE WILL DO IT AGAIN. WHY? BECAUSE HE BELIEVES THAT IN HIS OWN WORDS, QUOTE, I CAN DO WHATEVER I WANT. THAT IS WHY WE MUST ACT NOW. IN THIS COUNTRY THE PRESIDENT CANNOT DO WHATEVERHE WANTS. IN THIS COUNTRY NO ONE, NOT EVEN THE PRESIDENT, IS ABOVE THE LAW. TODAY WE BEGAN OUR CONVERSATION WHERE WE SHOULD, WITH A TEXT OF THE CONSTITUTION. WE EFFORT CLEARLY FROM OUR WITNESSES THAT THE CONSTITUTION COMPELS ACTION. INDEED, EVERY WITNESS, INCLUDING THE WITNESSESELECTED BY THE REPUBLICAN SIDE AGREED THAT IF PRESIDENT TRUMP DID WHAT THE INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE FOUND TO HIM HAVE DONEAFTER EXTENSIVE AND COMPELLING WITNESSES FROM THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION OFFICIALS HE COMMITTED IMPEACHABLE OFFENSES.WHILE THE REPUBLICAN WITNESS MAY NOT BE CONVINCED THERE IS SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE THAT THE PRESENT ENGAGED IN THESE ACTS THE AMERICAN PEOPLE AND THE MAJORITY OF THIS COMMITTEE DISAGREE. I ALSO THINK THE REPUBLICAN WITNESS, PROFESSOR TURLEY, ISSUED A STAGE WARNING IN 1998 WHEN HE WAS THE LEADING ADVOCATE FOR THE IMPEACHMENT OF BILL CLINTON. HE SAID, QUOTE, IFYOU DECIDE THAT CERTAIN ACTS DO NOT RISE IMPEACHABLE OFFENSES YOU WILL EXPAND THE SPACE FOR EXECUTIVE CONDUCT. THAT WAS THE CAUTION OF PROFESSOR TURLEY IN 1998 IN THE IMPEACHMENT OF PRESIDENT CLINTON. THAT CAUTION SHOULD GUIDE US ALL TODAY. BY ANY COUNT, THAT WARNING IS MORE APPLICABLE TO THE ABUSES OF POWER WE ARE CONTEMPLATING TODAY.BECAUSE AS WE ALL KNOW, IF THESE ABUSES GO UNCHECKED THEY WILL ONLY CONTINUE AND ONLYGROW WORSE EACH OF US TOOK AN OATH TO DEFEND THE CONSTITUTION.THE PRESIDENT IS A CONTINUING THREAT TO THAT CONSTITUTION AND TO OUR DEMOCRACY. I WILL UPHOLD MY HEALTH. AS I SIT HERE TODAY HAVING VERY CONSISTENT, CLEAR, AND COMPELLING EVIDENCE THE PRESIDENT HAS ABUSED HIS POWER, ATTENDED TO UNDERMINE THE CONSTITUTIONAL ROLE OF CONGRESS AND CORRUPTED OUR ELECTIONS I URGE MY COLLEAGUES TO STAND BEHIND BEHIND THE OATH YOU HAVE TAKEN. DEMOCRACY DEPENDS ON IT. THIS CONCLUDES TODAY’S HEARING. >> MR. CHAIRMAN. CAN I HAVE ONE THING. >> PURSUANT COMMITTEE RELATE I’M GIVING NOTICE OF INTENT TO SENDING RULES. >> NOTED. >> THIS CONCLUDES TODAY’S HEARING .>> MR. CHAIRMAN.:WE THINK ALL OF OUR WITNESSES FOR PARTICIPATING.>> MR. CHAIRMAN. >> LEGISLATORS WILL HAVE FIVE ADDITIONAL DAYS TO SUBMIT QUESTIONS. TOO LATE.>> TOO LATE FOR A CONSENT REQUEST? >> WITHOUT OBJECTION THE HEARING IS ADJOURNED. >> JUST TYPICAL, ISN’T IT? JUST TYPICAL. >> AARON, THE HEARING ENDED WITHSOME LAST-MINUTE FIREWORKS FROM REPUBLICANS WHO TRIED TO THROW IN SOME PROCEDURAL ELEMENTS. >> WHAT YOU MAKE OF THAT? >> THAT IS A CALL BACK TO THE BEGINNING OF HEARING WHEN WE SAWTHEM TRIED TO MAKE A SERIES OF MOTIONS, TRY TO GET THE CHAIRMANTO COMMIT TO RULES OF EVIDENCE AND THINGS LIKE THAT. ? THEY DESERTED THAT STRATEGY FOR A LITTLE WHILE. I THINK THEY WERE BACK AT IT AT THE END. IT IS PRETTY CLEAR THAT THEY SEE ADLER IS NOT A TERRIBLY COMPETENT LEADER OF THIS COMMITTEE. THEY WANTED TO TRIP HIM UP. OF COURSE, AND OTHERS COMMITTEE HAS BEEN SIDELINED TO SOME DEGREE IN THIS PROCESS. THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEEIS GENERALLY ONE THAT HANDLES IMPEACHMENT, YET WE SAW THE INQUIRY BEING HANDLED BY THE HOUSE INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE..>> I THINK AT THE END WHERE HE BASICALLY SAID IT’S TOO LATE FORTHIS MOTION I’M NOT GOING TO ENTERTAIN IT, I’M GOING TO GALLUP DISCLOSED I WILL BE SURPRISED IF REPUBLICANS DIDN’T IMMEDIATELY SAY THAT WAS EVIDENCE HE WAS NOT BEING A GOODFAITH OPERATOR. >> AND RUSHING THINGS AHEAD. >> THAT’S A CRITICISM THEY HAD ALL DAY LONG>> YEAH. >> I THINK GENERALLY SPEAKING NADLER AVOIDED A MOMENT. THAT WAS ONE WHERE HE SEEMED TO BE KIND OF DONE WITH THE WHOLE THING AND WANTED TO MOVE ON WITHTHE PROCESS HERE. >> IT HAS BEEN A LONG DAY. THE HEARING STARTED AT 10:00 THIS MORNING. EACH MEMBER GOT AN OPPORTUNITY TO ASKQUESTIONS. THAT’S ON TOP OF THE 45 MINUTES AT THE BEGINNING WEREBOTH SIDES HAD AN UNINTERRUPTED STRETCH TO ASK QUESTIONS THAT’S ON TOP OF THE OPENING STATEMENTS IN EVERY THING ELSE.AFTER ALL THIS TODAY, A DAY THAT WAS LARGELY ABOUT LEGAL ISSUES, PROCESS, HISTORY, THE CONSTITUTION , IT WAS VERY SCHOLARLY. I THINKWELL IF YOU ARE WATCHING AND PAYING ATTENTION. DID IT CHANGE THE DYNAMIC AT ALL? WHAT ARE YOUR BIG TAKEAWAYS HERE? >> ONE THING WE HAVE TO REMEMBER IS THAT IN THE EARLIER HEARINGS WHERE WE ACTUALLY HAD THE FACT WITNESSES WHO WERE REVEALING THINGS AND TELLING US THINGS WE MAY BE DIDN’T KNOW BEFORE, AT THE END OF THAT ENTIRE PROCESS THE POLL DIDN’T MOVE AT ALL. EVERYBODY WAS IS WHERE THEY WEREBEFORE THOSE HEARINGS EVEN STARTED. THE IDEA OF THAT FOUR LAW PROFESSORS ARE GOING TO COME IN TODAY AND MAKE THESE NUANCED ARGUMENT ABOUT WHAT THE IMPEACHMENT CLAUSE OF THE CONSTITUTION MEANS AND WHETHER THE PRESIDENT HAS DONE SATISFIESIT , I DOUBT THAT IS GOING TO CHANGE MUCH FOR ANYBODY THE SAME TIME, THIS IS A THAT’S WORTHWHILE, BECAUSE IT IS AN OPEN QUESTION AS TO HOW PEOPLE INTERPRET THE IMPEACHMENT CLAUSE.THERE ARE SOME QUESTIONSABOUT HOW CERTAIN FACTS ARE UNDERSTOOD BY EACH SIDE AND HOW THEY MIGHT APPLY TO THE IMPEACHMENT STANDARD. THIS IS KIND OF CHECKING A BOX IN CERTAIN WAYS THAT WE HAVE SEEN IN PREVIOUS IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY >> BACK IN THE CLINTON IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY THIS HEARING OR THE HEARINGS LIKE THIS INVOLVED 19 WITNESSES. THE FACT THAT WE ONLY SAW FOUR TODAY WAS ACTUALLY KIND OF A TRIMMED DOWN VERSION OF THAT I THINK THAT THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE RECOGNIZED THIS IS SOMETHING THEY HAVE TO DO IN ORDER TO PROGRESS TO THE NEXT PHASE. >> REPUBLICANS AND DEMOCRATS AREEACH PUSHING WHAT THEY SEE AS. MOMENTS FROM THE HEARING ON MEDIA AND ON TELEVISION. I WANT TO PLAY ONE EXCHANGE FOR YOU THAT REPUBLICANS HAVE MADE A LOT OF. THIS IS CONGRESSMAN SHEILA JACKSON LEE. SHE WAS TALKING WITH PROFESSOR PAMELA CARLIN. WHEN PROFESSOR CARLIN RESPONDED SHE BROUGHT UP PRESIDENT TRUMP SON TO MAKE A POINT, SORT OF A RHETORICAL FLORIST. IT REALLY BOTHERED A LOT OF REPUBLICANS. >> WHAT CAN APPEARANCES CAN WE MAKE BETWEEN KINGS THAT THE FRAMERS WERE AFRAID OF? AND THE PRESIDENT CONDUCT TODAY? >> KINGS COULD DO NO WRONG, BECAUSE THE KINGS WORD WAS LAW. CONTRARY TO WHAT PRESIDENT TRUMP HAS SAID ARTICLE2 DOES NOT GIVE HIM THE POWER TO DO ANYTHING HE WANTS. I WILL GIVE YOU ONE EXAMPLE THAT SHOWS YOU THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN HIM AND A KING. THE CONSTITUTION SAYS THERE CAN BE NO TITLES OF NOBILITY. WHILE THE PRESIDENT CAN NAME HIS SON BARON HE CAN’T MAKE HIM A BARREN. >> THAT INVOKING OF THE PRESIDENTS SON, THE MINOR SON OF PRESIDENT TRUMP, GOT SO MUCH PUSHBACK ONLINE, INCLUDING FROM THE FIRST LADY. MALANIA TRUMP WITHOUT A TREE, A MINOR CHILD DESERVES PRIVACY AND SHOULD BE KEPT OUT OF POLITICS. PAMELA CARLIN, YOU SHOULD BE ASHAMED OF YOUR OBVIOUSLY BIASED PUBLIC PANDERING AND USING A CHILD TO DO IT. PROFESSOR CARLIN LATER APOLOGIZED FOR MENTIONING BARON TRUMP. REPUBLICANS HAVE PUSHED HARD ON THIS. THAT SOMETHING THEY DID NOT FEEL WAS APPROPRIATE. . >> SCHMOOEY THAT STRONG STATEMENT RIGHT AWAY ADDRESSING THE RANKING OVER THE COMMITTEE DIRECTLY IN SAYING I DON’T LIKE THE WAY THAT YOU CHARACTERIZED WHAT KIND OF WITNESSES WE ARE AND HOW MUCH WE KNOW ABOUT THE UNDERLYING FACTS HERE.I READ ALL THE TRANSCRIPTS, SHOWS THEY SHOULD SHE WAS INSULTED BY WHAT SHE HAD SAID. SHE IS ALSO, SHE HAS ALWAYS THE BEEN A VERY OPINIONATED PERSON. I WAS LOOKING BAD A PODCAST THAT WAS REFERENCED WHERE SHE OFFERED SOME PRETTY UNFURNISHED COMMENTSABOUT CONSERVATIVE PEOPLE AND HOW THEY SPREAD OUT SHE SAID EVEN THEY DON’T WANT TO BE AROUND THEMSELVES >> THEY THOUGHT SHE WOULD SAY SOMETHING UNHELPFUL. SHE WALKED INTO THIS ONE A LITTLE BIT. I THINK A LOT OF DEMOCRATS ARE LITTLE BIT CURIOUS ABOUT WHY SHEIS APOLOGIZING PICTURE WASN’T ACTUALLY DRESSING ANYTHING ABOUTTHE PRESIDENTS SON AND SAID SHE WAS JUST USING A PLAY ON WORDS ABOUT HIS NAME. SHE CLEARLY DECIDED THE BEST WAY TO HANDLE THIS WAS TO COME OUT AND APOLOGIZE FOR EVEN INVOKING HIM IN THE FIRST PLACE. >> IF YOU ARE JUST READING THE REACTION ON SOCIAL MEDIA YOU WOULD THINK SHE HAD CONDEMNED BARON TRUMP OR MADE A SLIGHT AGAINST HIM THE WAY CONSERVATIVES ARE REACTING TO THIS. BUT, SOME ARE SAYING EVEN USING HIS NAME IS NOT APPROPRIATE. >> IT IS ALWAYS A SENSITIVE ISSUE WHEN YOU’RE TALKING ABOUT THE PRESIDENTS MINOR CHILDREN WHO MAY OR MAY NOT WANT TO BE INVOLVED IN POLITICS AT ALL. EVEN IF YOU’RE NOT ADDRESSING THE SUBSTANCE OF ANYTHING ABOUT THAT. >> WE WILL SEE HOW THAT CONTINUES. YOU MENTIONED THIS MOMENT THAT WE ARE GOING TO PLAY NOW STOOD OUT TO YOU. THIS IS A WITNESS CALLED BY REPUBLICANS. LET’S HEAR THIS EXCHANGE. >> THERE’S A REASON WHY EVERY , HAS ESTABLISHED CRIMES.YOU CANNOT IMPEACH ON A NON-CRIME. YOU CAN. THEY HAVE NEVER GONE UPALONE OR PRIMARILY AS THE BASIS OF IMPEACHMENT. THAT IS THE PROBLEM HERE. IF YOU PROVE A QUID PRO QUO YOU MIGHT HAVE IN IMPEACHABLE OFFENSE. TO GO UP ONLY ON A NONCRIMINAL CASE WOULD BE THE FIRST TIME IN HISTORY. .>> WHAT IS PROFESSOR TURLEY SAYING THERE? >> IT’S INTERESTING BECAUSE HE ALLOWS FOR THE IDEA OF WHAT HAPPENED HERE BEING AN IMPEACHABLE OFFENSE. HE IS BASICALLY SAYING HE DOESN’T SEE ENOUGH EVIDENCE OF IT YET. HE SAYS IF THIS IS IN FACT PROVEN THE PRESIDENT WAS INVOLVED IN A QUID PRO QUO RIGHT NOW WE HAVE THAT QUID PRO QUO BASICALLY ATTACHING ITSELF TO THE ACTING CHIEF OF STAFF, HIS EUROPEAN UNION AMBASSADOR, SOME PRETTY HIGH RANKING PEOPLE. IT HASN’T BEEN ESTABLISHED THAT THE PRESIDENT EXPLICITLY SAID I WANT THIS PROGRAM WILL . IT IS NOT ALL THAT FAR OFF. WEARE STILL GETTING NEW EVIDENCE HERE. TO THE EXTENT THAT TURLEY IS TALKING ABOUT THE IDEA THAT COULD BE AN IMPEACHABLE OFFENSE , THAT MAY NOT BE THE BEST THINGFOR REPUBLICANS GIVEN THAT THIS IS A WITNESS THEY HAD CALLED.>> WHAT IS THE TAKE AWAY FROM TODAY’S HEARING? IT’S IMPORTANT PART OF THE PROCESS AND WE CAN’T OVERLOOK THAT. I THINK THERE’S A BAR TO REACH ABOUT BREAKING NEWS AND FIREWORKS AND ALL THESE THINGS, BUT THE PROCESS IS STILL VERY IMPORTANT. IT’S WHAT THEY STORYBOOKS WILL INCLUDE. WHAT WERE YOUR TAKEAWAYS FROM TODAY? >> I THINK TODAY IS AS MUCH ABOUT THE MEMBERS INTERNAL DIALOGUE AS IT IS ABOUT PUBLIC CONSUMPTION. DEMOCRATS HAVE A VERY REAL QUESTION HERE ABOUT WHAT THEY ARE GOING TO IMPEACH THE PRESIDENT FOR. ARE THEY GOING TO INCLUDE THE STUFF FROM THE MUELLER’S INVESTIGATION OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE? WHAT SPECIFICALLY ARE THEY GOING TO ACCUSE HIM OF WITH REGARDS TO UKRAINE? ARE THEY GOING TO SAY THIS IS BRIBERY? EXTORTION? OR THE MORE GENERAL HIGH CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS? HEARING ARGUMENTS FROM LAW PROFESSORS WHO HAVE STUDIED THESE ISSUES MUCH MORE CLOSELY THAN THE MEMBERS THEMSELVES HAVEMAYBE GIVE THEM A LITTLE CLARITY ABOUT WHAT EXACTLY APPLIES HERE.OF COURSE, THEY WILL ALWAYS GO BACK TO PROBABLY WHAT IS THE MOST POLITICALLY USEFUL ARTICLE OF IMPEACHMENT OF A PRESENT.ALSO, I THINK THEY NEED TO CONSIDER WHAT IS PROVABLE, WHAT MIGHT PASS MUSTER WITH PEOPLE WHO UNDERSTAND THE CONSTITUTION, BECAUSE THERE WILL BE SOME DEBATES HAPPENING AND HOW APPROPRIATE THEY ARE. >> THIS WILL HELP THEM FRAME THEIR LANGUAGE AND PERIMETERS. THEY ARE PUTTING FORTH, IT’S WORTH NOTING THAT THREE OF THE WITNESSES , IT WAS NO SURPRISE, THEY WERE CALLED BY DEMOCRATS, THEY SAY THEY BELIEVE PRESIDENT TRUMP HASCOMMITTED IMPEACHMENT WORTHY OFFENSES. WE SAW ONE OF THEM SAY IF THIS ISN’T IMPEACHABLE NOTHING IS IMPEACHABLE. THAT’S EXACTLY WHAT THE FRAMERS WANTED TO GUARD AGAINST. >> THAT SUMMARIZES THE WAY DEMOCRATS FEEL ABOUT THIS. BASICALLY, THIS IS THE PRESENT ASKING A FOREIGN GOVERNMENT TO DO SOMETHING FOR HIM AND ALLEGEDLY HOLDING OFFICIAL GOVERNMENT FAVORS FOR HIS OWN PERSONAL GAINTO HELP HIM WIN REELECTION. TO THE EXTENT THAT YOU CAN CONNECT THOSE DOTS REPUBLICANS DON’T >>> ALL THE DOTS ARE CONNECTED, THE ARGUMENT IS BASICALLY HOW ISTHAT NOT AN ABUSE OF POWER? HOW IS THIS NOT EXACTLY WHAT THE FOUNDERS HAD IN MIND WHEN THEY CRAFTED THE IMPEACHMENT CLAUSE? IF YOU LOOK BACK AT THE DEBATE AROUND THE IMPEACHMENT CLAUSE AND THINGS THAT WERE SET AROUND THE TIME OF THE DRAFTING OF THE CONSTITUTION THE INFLUENCE OF FOREIGN INFLUENCE ON AMERICAN POLITICIANS WAS SOMETHING THAT WAS A HUGE CONCERN FOR THE FOUNDERS. SO, BASICALLY, TO DEMOCRATS THIS COMBINED A WHOLE BUNCH OF THINGS THAT WERE REALLY AT THE HEART OF WHAT WAS ENVISIONED WITH THE IMPEACHMENT CLAUSE >> WHERE DOES IT GO FROM HERE? WE WILL BE WATCHING THIS NEW CYCLE TO SEE HOW EVERYONE TALKS ABOUT IT. AS YOU DO ANALYSIS THAT’S AN IMPORTANT PART OF YOUR WRITING.ALSO, WHERE DO WE GO FROM HERE IN TERMS OF THE NEXT BATCH? >> I THOUGHT IT WAS INTERESTING RANKING MEMBER ASKED JARON THAT THERE ARE GOING TO HAVE A HEARING THAT IS ALL MINORITY WITNESSES OR MAYBE MORE DOMINATED BY MINORITY WITNESSES? I WOULD HAVE BEEN KIND OF SURPRISED TO SEE THAT HAPPEN. THE FACT THAT THEY ALLOWED REPUBLICANS TO HAVE ONE WITNESS IN THIS HEARING. THAT WAS KIND OF THE SAME BALANCE WE SAW IN EARLIER HEARINGS.IT WAS 75% DEMOCRATIC WITNESSES, 25% REPUBLICAN. THAT TO ME SUGGESTEDTHEY WEREN’T PLANNING ON HAVING A MINORITY HEARING. ANOTHER SUGGESTED THAT WAS A POSSIBILITY . IT IS ALSO POSSIBLE WE COULD SEE OTHER HEARINGS WITH WITNESSES THAT ARE TO BE DETERMINED AT THAT MAY NOT BE ACADEMICS THEY MAY BE FACT WITNESSES WHO CAN SHED LIGHT ON SOMETHING NEW. PERHAPS PHONE CALLS BETWEEN LEV PARNAS AND RUDY GIULIANI AND DEVIN NUNES. REPUBLICANS WANT ADAM SCHIFF, THE CHAIRMAN OF THE HOUSE INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE, TO TESTIFY. I DOUBT THAT’S GOING TO HAPPEN. ONCE THE HEARINGS WRAP UP AND WE HAD FOR WHAT IS KNOWN AS MARKUP THIS IS WHERE THEY BASICALLY HAVE A PUBLIC DEBATE ABOUT WHAT IS GOING TO BE IN THEARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT. THAT CAN BE A VERY INTENSE AND LENGTHY PROCESS WITH NIXON THIS WAS A SIX-DAY PROCESS. WITHBILL CLINTON IT WAS A THREE-DAY PROCESS. I THINK DEMOCRATS ARE HOPING TO HAVE THAT NEXT WEEK OR THE WEEK AFTER.HOPEFULLY NEXT WEEK SO THEY CAN GET THE BOAT THE WEEK AFTER. THAT IS REALLY THE NEXT BIG STEP HERE. FOR NOW WE ARE WAITING TO SEE WHETHER WEHAVE SOME MORE UNDETERMINED HEARINGS IN THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE. >> THERE ARE NO RULES SAYING THAT THE HOUSE INTEL COMMITTEE HAS WRAPPED UP ITS WORK. THEY COULD STILL ADVANCE MORE WORK. NO RULES SAYING THE JUDICIARY CAN’TCALL WITNESSES WE HAVE ALREADY HEARD FROM OR HAVEN’T HEARD FROMTHE GUIDELINES HAVE BEEN SET UP BY THE SPEAKER AND BY THE DEMOCRATS. THEY ARE WELL TO CHANGE THINGS AND MOVE THINGS AROUND AS THEY NEED TO PICK THEY’RE VERY COGNIZANT OF THE TIMELINE.THEY WANT TO GET A BOAT IN HOUSE, AN ARTICLE OF IMPEACHMENT, BEFORE THE WINTER RECESS AND THEN TO COME BACK ANDLET THE SENATE DEAL WITH IT IN JANUARY. >> YEAH. I THINK IT WILL MAKE EVERY EFFORT TO STICK TO THAT. AT THE SAME TIME, IF THEY START TO GET A BUNCH OF EVIDENCE THAT IS REALLY COMPELLING IN THE WANT TO KEEP THIS INVESTIGATION IN THEIR HANDS OR MEMBER, ONCE THIS GOES TO THE SENATE REPUBLICANS ARE THE MAJORITY AND ARE NOT IN CONTROL AS MUCH THEY WON’T HAVE MUCH TIME TO INVESTIGATE IF THEY SEE COMPELLING REASONS TO LET THIS DRY OUT FURTHER THAT MIGHT BE A COMPELLING THING FOR THEM TO DO.>> THANKS TO YOU FOR WATCHING THIS LIVE COVERAGE FROM THE NEWSROOM OF THE WASHINGTON POST.PLEASE TAKE A MOMENT TO SUBSCRIBE TO THE POST SO YOU DON’T MISS ANY UPDATES TO THIS IMPORTANT STORY. WE CANNOT DO WHAT WE DO WITHOUT YOUR SUPPORT. THANK YOU..