>> GOOD MORNING, I'M JUDY
WOODRUFF, AND WELCOME TO OUR
SPECIAL LIVE COVERAGE OF THE
IMPEACHMENT HEARINGS.
TODAY MARKS A NEW PHASE.
THE FIRST HEARING FROM THE
HOUSE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE, THE
BODY THAT CAN BRING FORMAL
ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT
AGAINST THE PRESIDENT.
IT COMES ON THE HEELS OF THE
FINAL REPORT FROM THE
INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE.
AFTER MORE THAN 100 HOURS OF
TESTIMONY FROM 17 WCHXS THEY
CONCLUDE THAT MR. TRUMP
ORCHESTRATED A SCHEME TO FOR
POLICY TOWARD UKRAINE TO
UNDERMINE NATIONAL SECURITY OF
THE UNITED STATES AND TO AID
HIS PERSONAL POLITICAL
AMBITIONS.
THE COMMITTEE FOUND IT WAS
UNDERTAKEN WITH THE KNOWLEDGE
AND APPROVAL OF THE VICE
PRESIDENT, THE SECRETARY OF
STATE, THE ACTING CHIEF OF
STAFF OF THE WHITE HOUSE AND
THE SECRETARY OF ENERGY AMONG
OTHERS.
AND THAT MR. TRUMP HAS ALSO
OBSTRUCTED THE IMPEACHMENT
PROCESS.
TODAY WE WILL HEAR FROM
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW SCHOLARS ON
WHAT CONSTITUTES A HIGH CRIME
AND MISDEMEANOR IN ORDER THAT
WOULD BE REQUIRED TO REMOVE A
PRESIDENT FROM OFFICE.
THERE IS A LOT TO ABSORB, AND
LISA DESIARDINS IS IN THE
CAPITAL, AND JOINING ME HERE
IN THE STUDIO TO SAL.
HE WAS DEPUTY WHITE HOUSE
COUNSEL DURING PRESIDENT
CLINTON'S TERM WHEN HE
PERSONALLY WAS PART OF THE
QUESTIONING.
AND FRANK SUBMITTED TESTIMONY
ON THE DEFINITION OF HIGH
CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS TO THE
HOUSE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE
DURING THE CLINTON
IMPEACHMENT.
FRANK BOWMAN TEACHES LAW AT
GOERGETOWN SCHOOL OF LAW.
HE IS THE AUTHOR OF HIGH
CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS, THE
HISTORY OF IMPEACHMENT FOR THE
AGE OF TRUMP.
WE WELCOME ALL OF YOU TO THE
NEWS HOUR AND SPECIAL
COVERAGE.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
I'M GOING TO GO FIRST TO OUR
CORRESPONDENT AT THE CAPITOL,
LISA DESIARDINS.
LISA, IT'S A DIFFERENT
COMMITTEE.
THAT WAS THE INTELLIGENCE
COMMITTEE TWO WEEKS AGO AND
LAST WEEK, AND NOW THE
JUDICIARY COMMITTEE.
IT'S A DIFFERENT PROCESS.
TELL US WHAT THE COMMITTEE'S
GOAL IS.
>> THAT'S RIGHT.
AND SHARP EYED VIEWERS WILL
NOTICE A DIFFERENT LAYOUT IN
THE COMMITTEE ROOM.
MORE MEMBERS OF THE
COMMITTEE'S STAFF.
THERE ARE 41 MEMBERS OF THE
JUDICIARY COMMITTEE.
EACH ONE WILL HAVE FIVE
MINUTES TO QUESTION THE
WITNESSES.
AND IN ADDITION THERE WILL BE
AN HOUR AND A HALF FOR
QUESTIONS LED BY DIFFERENT
COUNSEL.
AND THEY'LL TALK 45 MINUTES
FOR EACH SIDE.
WE EXPECT THE HEARING TO LAST
AT LEAST SIX HOURS AND BREAK
FOR VOTES LATER ON.
ONE OF THE THINGS, JUDY,
THERE'S SHORTER LINES FOR THIS
HARING THAN WHEN WE HAD THE
FACT WITNESSES FOR THE HOUSE
INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE.
THIS IS AN ACADEMIC PANEL.
I THINK GOING BACK TO THE
CLINTON IMPEACHMENT, I WILL
SAY THIS KIND OF PANEL CAN BE
VERY FASCINATING.
I'M EAGER TO WATCH IT.
>> AND TO YAMICHE AT THE WHITE
HOUSE.
AS WE SAW DURING THE
IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY, THE
PRESIDENT WAS WATCHING VERY
CLOSELY.
WE KNOW THAT RIGHT NOW HE'S
OVERSEAS.
WHAT DO WE KNOW HOW HE'S
PAYING ATTENTION?
>> THE PRESIDENT AND THE WHITE
HOUSE WILL BE FOCUSED CLOSELY
ON THIS PUBLIC HEARING IN THE
HOUSE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE.
THE WHITE HOUSE HAS QUICK TO
RESPOND TO THIS IN REAL TIME.
THE PRESIDENT WAS SUPPOSEED TO
HAVE A PRESS CONFERENCE AT
10:30 A.M. EASTERN TIME, AND
COMPETING, COUNTERPROGRAMMING
WITH THE JUDICIARY HEARING.
BUT THE PRESIDENT CANCELED
THAT.
AND SAID HE TOOK ENOUGH
QUESTIONS IN LONDON, AND JUST
WANTS TO GET HOME.
THE PRESIDENT MIGHT BE ABLE TO
WATCH SOME OF THE HEARING ON
HIS WAY BACK TO THE UNITED
STATES.
THE WHITE HOUSE WAS INVITEED
TO HAVE LAWYERS COME TO THE
HEARING.
THIS IS A PHASE WHEN THE
DEMOCRATS SAID TAY COULD CALL
THEIR OWN WITNESSES, AND THE
WHITE HOUSE DECIDED NOT TO
SEND ANYONE.
THEY SAID IT'S BECAUSE IT'S A
SHAM AND A HOAX, AND THE
PRESIDENT THINKS IT'S ALL
UNFAIR, BUT THE WHITE HOUSE
SAID THERE IS GOING TO BE
COUNSEL QUESTIONING WITNESSES.
THERE'S ALSO GOING TO BE A
DEMOCRATIC COUNSEL.
WE'VE ALREADY SEEN SOME OF THE
OPENING STATEMENTS.
DEMOCRATS WILL ESSENTIALLY
MAKE THE CASE THAT THE HE DID
COMMIT AN IMPEACHABLE OFFENSE.
AND THEY SAY IT'S THE WORST
THEY'VE SEEN IN PRESIDENTIAL
CONDUCT, AND THE WORST THAN
ANY OTHER IMPEACHMENT
PROCEEDINGS IN THE PAST, BUT
THE REPUBLICANS ARE GOING TO
SAY THIS IS AN IMPEACHMENT
INQUIRY THAT'S TOO QUICK, AND
THERE'S BEEN EVIDENCE AGAINST
THE PRESIDENT.
SO WE'RE GOING TO LOOK FOR THE
REPUBLICANS TO DEFEND THE
PRESIDENT.
>> GOOD POINT.
WE'VE SEEN THE WHITE HOUSE
PUSH BACK THROUGHOUT THE
PROCESS, AND THAT CONTINUES
THROUGH THE INTELLIGENCE
COMMITTEE HEARINGS, AND WE
EXPECT IT TO CONTINUE TODAY.
WE'RE LOOKING AT LIVE PICTURES
AS THE HOUSE JUDICIARY
COMMITTEE PREPARES FOR THE
HEARINGS.
THE DEMOCRATS ARE ALLOWED TO
CALL THREE WITNESSES,
CONSTITUTIONAL SCHOLARS,
PROFESSORS OF THE LAW, AND THE
REPUBLICANS ONE.
WE'RE SEEING A BIT OF WHAT
THEY'LL SAY.
I WANT TO TURN TO FRANK
BOWMAN, AND SAL WISEENBERG.
SAL, THIS IS A WAY FOR THE
AMERICAN PEOPLE TO UNDERSTAND
WHAT THE CONSTITUTION SAYS
ABOUT IMPEACHMENT, ISN'T IT?
>> IT IS.
THERE ARE A LOT OF DIFFERENT
VIEWS WHAT THE CONSTITUTION
SAYS.
THE PROBLEM WITH IT IS THAT WE
DON'T EVEN KNOW WHAT THE
ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT ARE
GOING TO BE, AND IT'S HARD TO
TALK ABOUT IMPEACHMENT WITHOUT
PUTTING IT INTO THE CONTEXT OF
PARTICULAR ARTICLES.
SO THAT'S THE PROBLEM HERE.
>> WHAT ABOUT THAT.
THERE'S A LOT WE DON'T KNOW AT
THIS POINT.
IN FACT, JUST THE IDEA OF
HAVING FOUR LAW PROFESSORS,
CONSTITUTIONAL SCHOLARS BEING
INTERROGATED, QUESTIONED BY
MEMBERS OF THE JUDICIARY
COMMITTEE IS UNUSUAL.
BUT HOW MUCH DO YOU THINK WE
ARE GOING TO HEAR ABOUT THE
DEFINITION OF WHAT CONSTITUTES
IMPEACHABLE OFFENSES.
I THINK THAT'S LIKELY TO BE
MUCH OF WHAT WE SEE TODAY.
NOW, IN TERMS OF WHETHER OR
NOT THIS IS PARTICULAR OR
UNPRECEDENTED IN THE PRESENT
MATTER THERE ARE ACTUALLY 19
CONSTITUTIONAL HISTORIANS ON A
SERIOUS OF PANELS IN WHICH
THEY TALKED AT GREAT LENGTH
ABOUT THESE MATTERS.
THE DIFFERENCE, I THINK
BETWEEN THE CLINTON CASE AND
THE PRESENT ONE IS THAT IN THE
CLINTON CASE, THE FACTS ARE
UNDISPUTED.
PRESIDENT CLINTON COMMITTED
PERJURY, AND MAY HAVE
OBSTRUCTED JUSTICE.
>> HOUSE COMMITTEE WILL COME
TO ORDER.
>> WE WH INTERRUPT YOU.
JERRY NADLER IS CALLING THE
PROCEEDINGS TO ORDER.
>> OBJECTIONS NOTED.
I HAVE RESERVED THE RIGHT TO
OBJECT.
PURSUANT TO RULE 111, I'M
FURNISHING YOU THE DEMAND FOR
THE HEARINGS ON THE SUBJECT
SIGNED BY ALL REPUBLICANS U.
>> GENTLEMAN WILL DISPENSE.
I COULDN'T UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU
SAID.
>> PURSUANT TO CLAUSE 2 J 1,
OF 111 I'M FURNISHING YOU THE
DEMAND FOR THE SUBJECT SIGNED
BY ALL COMMITTEE MEMBERS OF
THE REPUBLICAN COMMITTEE, AND
I REQUEST YOU SET THIS DATE
BEFORE THE COMMITTEE VOTES ON
ANY ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT.
>> I WITHDRAW MY RESERVATION.
>> WE WILL CONFER AND RULE ON
THIS LATER.
>> THE QUORUM IS PROHIBIT.
THIS IS THE FIRST HEARING WE
ARE CONDUCTING PURSUANT TO
HOUSE RESOLUTION 660.
AND THE SPECIAL PROERPS THAT
ARE SDIEBED IN SECTION 4-AN OF
THAT RESOLUTION.
HERE'S HOW THE COMMITTEE WILL
PROCEED FOR THIS HEARING.
I WILL MAKE AN OPENING
STATEMENT, AND THEN I WILL
RECOGNIZE RANKING MEMBER FOR
AN OPENING STATEMENT.
EACH WITNESS WILL HAVE 10
MINUTES TO MAKE STATEMENTS AND
THEN WE WILL PROCEED TO
QUESTIONS.
I WILL NOW RECOGNIZE MYSELF.
>> MR. CHAIRMAN, INQUIRY.
>> I HAVE THE TIME FOR
OPENING STATEMENT.
THE FACTS BEFORE US ARE
UNDISPUTED ON JULY 25th,
PRESIDENT TRUMP CALLED
PRESIDENT ZELENSKY OF UKRAINE,
AND IN PRESIDENT TRUMP'S WORDS
ASKED HIM FOR A FAVOR.
THAT CALL WAS PART OF A
CONCERTED EFFORT BY THE
PRESIDENT AND HIS MEN TO
SOLICIT A PERSONAL ADVANTAGE
IN THE NEXT ELECTION.
THIS TIME IN THE FORM OF AN
INVESTIGATION OF HIS POLITICAL
ADVERSARIES BY A FOREIGN
GOVERNMENT.
TO OBTAIN THAT PRIVATE
POLITICAL ADVANTAGE, PRESIDENT
TRUMP WITHHELD BOTH AN
OFFICIAL WHITE HOUSE MEETING
FROM THE NEWLY ELECTED
PRESIDENT OF A FRAGILE
DEMOCRACY, AND WITHHELD VITAL
MILITARY AID FROM A VULNERABLE
ALLY.
WHEN CONGRESS FOUND OUT ABOUT
THIS SCHEME AND BEGAN TO
INVESTIGATE, PRESIDENT TRUMP
TOOK EXTRAORDINARY AND
UNPRECEDENTED STEPS TO COVER
UP HIS EFFORTS AND TO WITHHOLD
EVIDENCE FROM THE
INVESTIGATORS.
AND WHEN WITNESSES DISOBEYED
HIM, WHEN CAREER PROFESSIONALS
CAME FORWARD AND TOLD US THE
TRUTH, HE ATTACKED THEM
VICIOUSLY, CALLING THEM
TRAITORS AND LIARS PROMISING
THEY WILL GO THROUGH
SOMETHING.
OF COURSE, THIS IS NOT THE
FIRST TIME THAT PRESIDENT
TRUMP HAS ENGAGED IN THIS
PATTERN OF CONDUCT.
IN 2016, THE RUSSIAN
GOVERNMENT ENGAGED IN A
SWEEPING AND SYSTEMATIC
CAMPAIGN OF INTERFERENCE IN
OUR ELECTIONS.
IN THE WORDS OF SPECIAL
COUNSEL, ROBERT MUELLER, THE
RUEGZ GOVERNMENT PERCEIVED IT
WOULD BENEFIT FROM A TRUMP
PRESIDENCY AND WORKED TO
SECURE THAT OUTCOME.
THE PRESIDENT WELCOMED THAT
INTERFERENCE.
WE SAW THIS IN REAL TIME WHEN
PRESIDENT TRUMP ASKED RUSSIA
TO HACK HIS POLITICAL
OPPONENTS.
THE VERY NEXT DAY, THE RUSSIA
MILITARY INTELLIGENCE
COMMUNITY 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 UNPRECEDENTED
STEPS TO OBSTRUCT THE
INVESTIGATION, INCLUDING
IGNORING SUBPOENAS, ORDERING
THE CREATION OF FALSE RECORDS,
AND PUBLICLY ATTACKING AND
INTIMIDATING WITNESSES.
THEN AS NOW, THIS
ADMINISTRATION'S LEVEL OF
OBSTRUCTION IS WITHOUT
PRECEDENCE.
NO OTHER PRESIDENT HAS VOWED
TO FIGHT ALL THE SUBPOENAS AS
PRESIDENT TRUMP PROMISED.
IN THE 1974 PROCEEDINGS,
PRESIDENT NIXON PRODUCED
DOZENS OF RECORDINGS.
IN 1998, PRESIDENT CLINTON
GAVE HIS BLOOD.
PRESIDENT TRUMP, BY CONTRAST
HAS RECH FUSED TO PRODUCE A
SINGLE DOCUMENT, AND DIRECTED
EVERY WITNESS NOT TO TESTIFY.
THOSE ARE THE FACTS BEFORE US.
THE IMPEACHMENT INQUIRE
SEMOVED BACK TO THE HOUSE
JUDICIARY COMMITTEE, AND AS WE
BEGIN A REVIEW OF THESE FACTS,
THE PRESIDENT'S PATTERN OF
BEHAVIOR BECOMES CLEAR.
PRESIDENT TRUMP WELCOMED
FOREIGN INTERFERENCE IN THE
2016 ELECTION.
HE DEMANDED IT FOR 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.
ON JULY 24, THE SPECIAL
COUNSEL TESTIFIED BEFORE THIS
COMMITTEE.
HE IMPLOREED US TO SEE THE
NATURE OF THE THREAT TO OUR
COUNTRY.
"OVER THE COURSE OF MY CAREER,
I HAVE SEEN A NUMBER OF
CHALLENGES TO OUR DEMOCRACY.
THE RUSSIAN GOVERNMENT'S
EFFORTS TO INTERFERE IN
EFFORTS IS AMONG THE MOST
SERIOUS.
THIS DESERVING THE ATTENTION
OF EVERY AMERICAN."
IGNORING THAT WARNING,
PRESIDENT TRUMP CALLED THE
UKRANIAN PRESIDENT THE VERY
NEXT DAY TO ASK HIM TO
INVESTIGATE THE PRESIDENT'S
POLITICAL OPPONENT.
WE EMPHASIZE RESPONSIBILITY TO
DETERMINE WHETHER THIS PATTERN
OF BEHAVIOR CNSTITUTES AN
IMPEACHABLE OFFENSE, IT IS
IMPORTANT TO POLICE PRESIDENT
TRUMP'S CONDUCT INTO
HISTORICAL CONTEXT.
SINCE THE FOUNDING OF OUR
COUNTRY, THE HOUSE OF
REPRESENTATIVES HAS ONLY
IMPEACHED TWO PRESIDENTS.
A THIRD WAS ON THE WAY TO
IMPEACHMENT WHEN HE RESIGNED.
THE COMMITTEE HAS VOTEED TO
IMPEACH TWO PRESIDENTS FOR
OBSTRUCTING JUSTICE.
WE VOTEED TO IMPEACH ONE
PRESIDENT FOR OBSTRUCTING A
CONGRESSIONAL INVESTIGATION.
TO THE EXTENT PRESIDENT
TRUMP'S CONDUCT FITS THESE
CATEGORIES WE CAN RECOMMEND
IMPEACHMENT HERE.
NEVER BEFORE IN THE HISTORY OF
THE REPUBLIC HAVE WE BEEN
FORCED TO LOOK AT THE CUTH OF
A PRESIDENT WHO SOLICITED
FAVORS FROM A FOREIGN
GOVERNMENT.
NEVER BEFORE HAS A PRESIDENT
ENGAGED IN A COURSE OF CONDUCT
THAT INCLUDED ALL OF THE ACTS
THAT MOST CONCERNED THE
FRAMERS.
THE PATRIOTS 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, THOSE PATRIOTS
STILL FEARED ONE THREAT ABOVE
ALL.
FOREIGN INTERFERENCE IN OUR
ELECTIONS.
THEY JUXTAPOSEED TYRANTS.
THEY WERE WORRIED WE WOULD
LOSE LIBERTY, NOT TO A WAR,
BUT THROUGH CORRUPTION FROM
WITHIN.
AND IN THE EARLY YEARS OF THE
REPUBLIC THEY ASKED US, EACH
OF US TO BE VIGILANT TO THAT
THREAT.
WASHINGTON WARNED US "TO BE
CONSTANTLY AWAKE, EXPERIENCE
PROVED THAT FOREIGN INFLUENCE
IS ONE OF THE MOST PAINFUL
FOES OF AMERICAN GOVERNMENT."
ADAMS WROTE, AS OFTEN AS
ELECTIONS HAPPEN, THE DANGER
OF FOREIGN INFLUENCE RECURS."
HAMILTON'S WARNING WAS MORE
SPECIFIC AND DIRE.
IN THE FEDERALIST PAPERS HE
WROTE "THE MOST DEADLY
ADVERSARIES OF A GOVERNMENT
WOULD ATTEMPT TO RAISE A
CREATURE OF THEIR OWN TO THE
CHIEF MAJESTRY OF THE UNION."
IN SHORT, THE FOUNDERS
WONDERED WE SHOULD EXPECT OUR
FOREIGN ADVERSARIES TO TARGET
OUR ELECTION AND FIND
OURSELVES IN GRAVE DANGER IF
THE PRESIDENT WILLINGLY OPENS
THE DOOR TO THEIR INFLUENCE.
WHAT KIND OF PRESIDENT WOULD
DO THAT?
HOW WOULD WE KNOW IF THE
PRESIDENT BETRAYED HIS COUNTRY
IN THIS MANNER.
HOW WILL WE KNOW IF HE
BETRAYED THE COUNTRY IN THIS
MANNER FOR PETTY PERSONAL
GAINS?
HAMILTON HAD A RESPONSE TO
THAT AS WELL.
WE WROTE "WHEN THEY MAN IN
LIFE, DESPERATE, AND BOLD IN
TEMPER POSSESSED
CONSIDERABLE TALENTS, THOSE
WHO SCOFFED AT THE PRINCIPLES
OF LIBERTY, WITH SUCH A MAN IT
SEEMED TO MOUNT THE
POPULARITY, TO JOIN THE CRY OF
DANGER TO LIBERTY, TO TAKE
EVERY OPPORTUNITY OF
EMBARRASSING THE GENERAL
GOVERNMENT, AND BRINGING IT
UNDER SUSPICION.
IT MAY JUSTLY BE SUSPECTED
THAT HIS OBJECT IS TO THROW
THINGS TO CONFUSION THAT HE
MAY RIDE THE STORM AND DIRECT
THE WHIRLWIND."
LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, THE
STORM IN WHICH WE FIND
OURSELVES TODAY WAS SET IN
MOTION BY PRESIDENT TRUMP.
I DO NOT WISH THIS MOMENT ON
THE COUNTRY.
IT IS NOT A PLEASANT TASK THAT
WE UNDERTAKE TODAY.
WE 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 THE ELECTIONS.
HE DIRECTLY INVITED FOREIGN
INTERFERENCE IN THE ELECTION.
HE USED THE POWERS OF HIS
OFFICE TO TRY TO MAKE IT
HAPPEN.
HE SENT HIS AGENTS TO MAKE
CLEAR THAT THIS IS WHAT HE
WANTED AND DEMANDED.
HE WAS WILLING TO COMPROMISE
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 DESPERATELY
NEEDED.
IT MATTERS THAT HE ENLISTED A
FOREIGN GOVERNMENT TO
INTERVENE IN OUR ELECTIONS IN
THE FIRST PLACE.
IT DOES W NOT MATTER THAT
PRESIDENT TRUMP FELT THESE
INVESTIGATIONS WERE UNFAIR TO
HIM.
IT MATTERS THAT HE USED HIS
OFFICE, NOT MERELY TO DEFEND
HIMSELF BUT TO OBSTRUCT
INVESTIGATORS AT EVERY TURN.
WE ARE ALL AWARE THAT THE NEXT
ELECTION IS LOOMING.
BUT WE CANNOT WAIT FOR THE
ELECTION TO ADDRESS THE
PRESENT CRISIS.
THE INTEGRITY OF THAT ELECTION
IS ONE OF THE VERY THINGS AT
STAKE.
THE PRESIDENT HAS SHOWN US HIS
PATTERN OF CONDUCT.
IF WE DON'T ACT TO HOLD HIM IN
CHECK NOW PRESIDENT TRUMP WILL
CERTAINLY TRY AGAIN TO SOLICIT
INTERFERENCE IN THE ELECTION
FOR HIS PERSONAL POLITICAL
GAIN.
TODAY WE WILL BEGIN THE
CONVERSATION WITH THE TEXT OF
THE CONSTITUTION.
WE ARE EMPOWERED TO RECOMMEND
THE IMPEACHMENT OF PRESIDENT
TRUMP TO THE HOUSE IF WE FIND
HE COMMITTED TREASON, BRIBERY
OR OTHER HIGH CRIMES AND
MISDEMEANORS.
OUR WITNESS PANEL WILL HELP US
TO GUIDE THAT CONVERSATION.
IN A FEW DAYS, WE WILL
RECONVENE AND HEAR FROM THE
COMMITTEES THAT WORK TO
UNCOVER THE FACTS BEFORE US.
WHEN WE APPLY THE CONSTITUTION
TO THOSE FACTS, IF IT IS TRUE
THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP HAS
COMMITED 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 TODAY.
I NOW RECOGNIZE THE RANKING
MEMBER OF THE JUDICIARY
COMMITTEE, THE GENTLEMAN FROM
GEORGIA, MR. COLLINS FOR HIS
OPENING STATEMENT.
>> MR. CHAIRMAN, MAY I MAKE A
PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRY?
>> I RECOGNIZE THE RANKING
MEMBER'S OPENING STATEMENT.
>> THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN,
AND AGAIN, I WANT TO DISCUSS
TODAY, BECAUSE WE'RE SORT OF
COMING HERE TODAY IN A
DIFFERENT ARENA.
FOR EVERYBODY WHO HAS NOT BEEN
HERE BEFORE, THIS IS A NEW
ROOM, NEW RULES, IT'S A NEW
MONTH.
WE'VE EVEN GOT CUTE STICKERS
FOR OUR STAFF TO COME IN,
BECAUSE THIS IS IMPEACHMENT,
AND BECAUSE WE'VE DONE SUCH A
TERRIBLE JOB OF IT IN THIS
COMMITTEE BEFORE.
WHAT'S NOT NEW IN THE FACE OF
WHAT'S REITERATED BY THE
CHAIRMAN, IS THE FACT.
IT'S THE SAME SAD STORY.
BEFORE I GET INTO MY OPENING
STATEMENT, WHAT WAS JUST SAID
BY THE CHAIRMAN.
WE WENT BACK TO A REDO OF MR.
MUELLER.
'RE ALSO QUOTING HIM SAYING
THE ATTENTION OF THE AMERICAN
PEOPLE SHOULD BE ON FOREIGN
INTERFERENCE.
I AGREE, 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 DEAL DEEPLY INTO
THIS ISSUE.
WE PASSED ELECTION BILLS, BUT
DID NOT GET INTO THE INDEPTH
PART OF MR. MUELLER'S REPORT.
WE DIDN'T DO IT.
SO I GUESS THE AMERICAN PEOPLE
DOESN'T INCLUDE THE HOUSE
JUDICIARY COMMITTEE.
YOU KNOW, INTERESTING WE JUST
HEARD AN INTERESTING
DISCUSSION.
WE'RE GOING TO HAVE A LOT OF
INTERESTING DISCUSSIONS ABOUT
THE CONSTITUTION AND OTHER
THINGS.
WE ALSO TALK ABOUT THE
FOUNDERS.
WHAT'S INTERESTING IS THE
CHAIRMAN TALKED ABOUT IT IS
FOUNDERS AND THE QUOTES, AND
THIS IS WHY WE HAVE THE
HEARINGS ABOUT THE FOUNDERS
INTERESTED IN FOREIGN
INFLUENCE.
BUT THE FOUNDERS CONCERNED
ABOUT POLITICAL IMPEACHMENT.
BECAUSE YOU JUST DON'T LIKE
THE GUY.
YOU DIDN'T LIKE HIM SINCE
NOVEMBER 2016.
THE CHAIRMAN HAS TALKED ABOUT
IMPEACHMENT SINCE LAST YEAR
WHEN HE WAS ELECTED CHAIRMAN
BEFORE HE WAS EVEN SWORN IN AS
CHAIRMAN.
DON'T TELL ME THIS IS ABOUT
NEW EVIDENCE AND NEW STUFF.
WE MAY HAVE A NEW HEARING
ROOM, AND CHAIRS THAT ARE
COMFORTABLE.
BUT THIS IS SAD.
SO WHAT DO WE HAVE HERE TODAY?
YOU KNOW 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 NOT REALLY
ABOUT FACTS.
IF IT WAS THE OTHER COMMITTEES
WOULD HAVE SENT OVER
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR
IMPEACHMENT.
NOW THEY SENT IT OVER HERE, SO
THEY CAN BLAME ADAM SCHIFF'S
COMMITTEE IF IT GOES BAD.
THEY'RE DRAFTING ARTICLES.
THEY'RE GETTING READY.
WE'VE WE HAD MUELLER, AND
EMBOLIAMENTS.
BUT THE AMERICAN PEOPLE CAN
SEE THIS.
YOU WANT TO KNOW WHAT'S
DRIVING THIS.
THE CLOCK AND THE CALENDAR.
THE CLOCK AND THE CALENDAR.
MOST PEOPLE IN LIFE YOU KNOW
WHAT THEY VALUE -- THEIR CHECK
BOOK AND CALENDAR YOU KNOW
WHAT THEY VALUE.
THE COMMITTEE VALUES TIME.
THEY WANT TO DO IT BEFORE THE
END OF THE YEAR.
WHY?
BECAUSE WE'RE SCARED OF THE
ELECTIONS NEXT YEAR.
WE'RE SCARED OF THE ELECTIONS
THAT WE'LL LOSE AGAIN.
SO WE'VE GOT TO DO THIS NOW.
THE CLOCK AND THE CALENDAR ARE
DRIVING THE IMPEACHMENT, NOT
THE FACTS.
WHEN WE UNDERSTAND, THAT'S
WHAT THE WITNESSES WILL SAY
TODAY.
WHAT DO WE HAVE HERE TODAY.
WHAT'S INTERESTING FOR TODAY
AND THE NEXT FEW WEEKS IS
AMERICA WILL SEE WHY MOST
PEOPLE DON'T GO TO LAW SCHOOL.
NO OFFENSE TO OUR PROFESSORS.
BUT PLEASE, REALLY?
WE'RE BRINGING YOU IN TO
TESTIFY ABOUT STUFF YOU'VE
ALREADY WRITTEN ABOUT, ALL
FOUR, WITH OPINIONS WE ALREADY
KNOW OUT OF THE CLASSROOMS
THAT YOU'RE GETTING READY FOR
FINALS IN, TO DISCUSS THINGS
YOU HAVEN'T HAD A CHANCE --
UNLESS YOU'RE GOOD ON TV AND
WATCHING THE HEARINGS, YOU
COULDN'T HAVE POSSIBLY
DIGESTED THE SCHIFF REPORT
FROM YESTERDAY OR THE
REPUBLICAN RESPONSE IN ANY
WAY.
WE CAN BE THEOR RETETICAL, BUT
AMERICAN PEOPLE ARE GOING TO
SAY, WHAT ARE WE DOING.
THERE'S NO FACTS LAID BEFORE
THE COMMITTEE.
THAT'S AN INTERESTING THING.
THERE'S NO PLAN EXCEPT AN
AMBIGUOUS HEARING ON THE
PRESENTATION FROM THE OTHER
COMMITTEES TO SEND US THIS
REPORT, AND THE JUDICIARY
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 TO STAY
IN TOUCH AND TALK ABOUT WHAT
WE HAVE, BECAUSE HISTORY WILL
SHINE A LIGHT ON US STARTING
THIS MORNING.
CRICKETS.
I ASKED, AND LET'S SAY THAT
DIDN'T GO WELL.
THERE'S NO WHISTLEBLOWER.
AND WE'LL PROVE HE OR SHE IS
NOT AFFORDED THE PROTECTION OF
IDENTITY.
THAT'S NOT IN THE STATUTE.
IT'S JUST SOMETHING FROM ADAM
SCHIFF.
WE ALSO DON'T HAVE ADAM SCHIFF
WHO WROTE THE REPORT.
HE SAID I'M NOT GOING.
HE SAID I'LL SEND FACTS TO DO
THAT.
IF HE WANTED TO, HE'D COME
BEGGING TO US.
BUT HERE'S THE PROBLEM.
SUMMED UP SIMPLY LIKE THIS.
JUST 19 MINUTES AFTER NOON
FROM THE INAUGURATION THEY
BEGAN THE IMPEACHMENT.
THE ATTORNEY TWEETED IN
JANUARY 2017, THE QUEUE
STARTED AND IMPEACHMENT WILL
START IMMEDIATELY.
AND AL GREEN SAYS IF WE DON'T
START THE IMPEACHMENT, HE WILL
GET RE-ELECTED.
WHY DID EVERYTHING I SAY UP TO
THIS POINT ABOUT NO FACT
WITNESSES AND THE JUDICIARY
COMMITTEE COMMENT TWO AND A
HALF WEEKS BEFORE THIS HEARING
WAS HELD UNDER CLINTON.
TWO AND A HALF WEEKS WE DIDN'T
FIND OUT YOUR NAMES UNTIL LESS
THAN 48 HOURS AGO.
I DON'T KNOW WHY WE'RE PLAYING
HIDE THE BALL ON THIS.
WE CAN'T EVEN GET THAT
STRAIGHT.
WHAT ARE WE DOING FOR TWO
WEEKS?
I HAVE NO IDEA, THE CHAIRMAN
JUST STADE SOMETHING ABOUT AN
AMBIGUOUS REPORT.
WE ARE THE RUBBER STAMP HIDING
OUT BACK.
THE RUBBER STAMP THE CHAIRMAN
TALKED ABOUT 20 YEARS AGO.
WHAT A DISGRACE TO THIS
COMMITTEE, TO HAVE THE
COMMITTEE OF IMPEACHMENT TAKE
FROM OTHER ENTITIES AND RUBBER
STAMP IT.
YOU SAY WHY DO THE THINGS I
SAY MATTER ABOUT FACT
WITNESSES AND DOING DUE
PROCESS, BECAUSE BIECH THE
WAY, A COUPLE MONTHS AGO THE
DEMOCRATS GOT DRESSED UP, AND
SAID WE'RE GOING TO HAVE
FAIRNESS THROUGHOUT THIS.
THIS IS THE ONLY COMMITTEE THE
PRESIDENT WOULD HAVE A
POSSIBILITY, AND NO OFFENSE TO
THE LAW PROFESSORS.
THE PRESIDENT HAS NOTHING TO
ASK YOU.
YOU'RE NOT GOING TO PROVIDE
ANYTHING HE CAN'T READ.
HIS ATTORNEYS HAVE NOTHING
ELSE.
PUT WITNESSES IN HERE THAT CAN
BE FACT WITNESSES AND ACTUALLY
COxá*LS EXAMINED.
THAT'S FAIRNESS.
AND EVERY ATTORNEY ON THIS
PANEL KNOWS THIS.
S THIS A SHAM.
AND ALSO WHAT I SEE HERE IS
LIKE THIS.
THERE MUST NEVER BE AN
IMPEACHMENT SUPPORTED BY ONE
MAJOR POLITICAL PARTY, , AND
SUCH AN IMPEACHMENT WILL
PRODUCE DEVICEIVENESS, FOR
YEARS TO COME, AND CALL INTO
QUESTION THE LEGITIMACY OF THE
INSTITUTION.
THE AMERICAN PEOPLE ARE
ASKING.
AND YOU DON'T HAVE THE
LEGITIMACY OF A CONSTITUTIONAL
IMPERATIVE.
THE PARTISAN COUP WILL GO
DOWN.
THE NO FAIR PROCEDURE, TODAY
WHEN THE DEMOCRATS OFFERED
AMENDMENTS THEY OFFERED
MOTIONS TO SAY WE SHOULD FIRST
ADOPT STANDARDS TO KNOW WHAT
WE'RE DEALING WITH.
THE STANDARD OF IMPEACHMENT
WAS RULED OUT OF ORDER.
WHEN WE SAY THE IMPORTANT
THING IS TO LOOK AT THE
QUESTION BEFORE A VOTE THAT
WAS VOTED DOWN AND RULED OUT
OF ORDER.
THE WHOLE QUESTION OF WHAT
MATERIALS SHOULD BE RELEASED
IS SECONDARY.
THAT'S ALL WE DISCUSSED.
THE QUESTION IS TO SET UP A
FAIR PROCESS AS TO WHETHER TO
PUT THE COUNTRY THROUGH AN
IMPEACHMENT PROCEEDING.
THE REPUBLICANS REFUSEED TO
LET US DISCUSS IT.
THAT WAS CHAIRMAN NADLER 20
YEARS AGO.
WE'RE HAVING A FACTLESS
IMPEACHMENT.
TODAY WE WILL PRESENT THE
OTHER SIDE, WHICH HE
CONVENIENTLY LEFT OUT.
REMEMBER FAIRNESS DOES DICTATE
THAT, BUT MAYBE NOT HERE,
BECAUSE WE'RE NOT SCHEDULING
ANYTHING ELSE.
I HAVE A DEMOCRATIC MAJORITY
WHO HAS POLL TESTED WHAT THEY
THINK THEY SHOULD CALL WHAT
THE PRESIDENT DID.
THAT'S NOT FOLLOWING THE
FACTS.
WE HAVE JUST A DEEP SEATED
HATRED OF A MAN WHO CAME TO
THE WHITE HOUSE AND DID WHAT
HE SAID WE HE WOULD DO.
THE MOST AMAZING QUESTION I
GOT IN THE FIRST THREE MONTHS
OF THE PRESIDENCY FROM
REPORTERS IS CAN YOU BELIEVE
HE'S 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 THIS
WILL ALSO BE ONE OF THE FIRST
IMPEACHMENTS -- THE CHAIRMAN
MECHXZED TWO OF AM THIS.
ONE BEFORE HE RESIGNED, AND
ONE WITH CLINTON, AND THE
FACTS THAT DEMOCRATS AND
REPUBLICANS THE FACTS AREN'T
DISPUTED.
IN THIS THEY'RE DISPUTED.
THERE ARE NO SET FACTS HERE.
IN FACT, THERE'S NOT ANYTHING
THAT PRESENTS AN IMPEACHMENT
HERE EXCEPT A PRESIDENT
CARRYING OUT HIS JOB IN THE
WAY THE CONSTITUTION SEES FIT
HE SEES TO DO IT.
THIS IS WHERE WE ARE AT TODAY.
THE INTERESTING THING WITH
MOST EVERYBODY HERE IS THIS
MAY BE A NEW TIME AND PLACE
AND WE MAY BE SCRUBBED UP AND
LOOKING GOOD FOR IMPEACHMENT.
THIS IS OBJECT AN IMPEACHMENT.
THIS IS A RAILROAD JOB.
AND TODAY IT'S A WASTE OF
TIME, BECAUSE THIS IS WHERE
WE'RE AT.
SO I CLOSE WITH THIS.
IT DIDN'T START WITH A PHONE
CALL.
YOU KNOW WHERE THIS STARTED.
IT STARTED IN NOVEMBER 2016,
WITH THE ELECTION.
WE'RE HERE, NO PLANS, NO FACT
WITNESSES.
SIMPLY RUBBER STAMPED FOR WHAT
WE HAVE.
HEY, WE'VE GOT LAW PROFESSORS
HERE.
WHAT A START OF A PARTY.
MR. CHAIRMAN, BEFORE I YIELD
BACK.
I HAVE A MOTION UNDER CLAUSE 2
RULE 11.
>> THE GENTLEMAN WAS ROITZED
FOR THE PURPOSE OF OPENING
STATEMENT, NOT FOR THE PURPOSE
OF MAKING A MOTION.
I YIELD BACK AND ASK FOR BE
RECOGNIZED FOR A MOTION.
>> THE GENTLEMAN IS
RECOGNIZED.
>> I MOVE TO REQUIRE THE
ATTENDANCE AND TESTIMONY OF
CHAIRMAN SCHIFF BEFORE THIS
COMMITTEE AND TRANSMIT THIS
LETTER ACCORDINGLY.
>> FOR WHAT PURPOSES DOES THE
LADY SEEK RECOGNITION.
MOTION IS TABLED AND NOT
DEBATEABLE.
ALL IN FAVOR OF THE MOTION SAY
AYE.
>> THE MOTION'S TABLE IS
AGREED TO.
THE CLERK WILL CALL.
>> PARLIAMENTARY REQUIREMENT.
>> YOU'RE NOT RECOGNIZED AT
THIS TIME.
A VOTE IS IN PROCESS.
>> JUST TO REMIND -- CHAIRMAN
SCHIFF IS COMING, CORRECT?
>> THE ROLL.
>> MR. NADLER.
AYE.
>> MISS JACKSON VOTES AYE.
>> MR. COHEN VOTES AYE.
MR. JOHNSON.
GEORGIA VOTES AYE.
>> MR. DEUTSCH SAITZ AYE.
MR. RICHMOND VOTES YES.
MR. JEFFERIES VOTES AYE.
MISS SIS LEANY VOTES AYE.
>> MR. LOU.
>> MR. LOU VOTES EYE.
>> MR. RASKIN VOTES AYE.
>> MISS CORREA VOTES AYE.
>> MISS GARCIA VOTES AYE.
>> MR. STANTON VOTES AYE.
>> VOTING AYE.
>> MR. ESCOBAR VOTES AYE.
>> MR. COLLINS.
>> NO.
>> MR. COLLINS NO.
MR. SENSENBRENNER VOTES NO.
>> MR. CHAVEZ VOTES NO.
>> MR. GOMER VOTES NO.
>> MR. BUCK VOTES NO.
>> MR. GATES VOTES NO.
MR. JOHNSON OF LOUISIANA VOTES
NO.
>> MR. BIGGS VOTES NO.
>> MR. MACLINTON.
NO.
>> MR. RESTENTHALER VOTES NO.
>> MR. ARMSTRONG VOTES NO.
>> MR. STUBEY VOTES NO.
>> EVERYONE VOTE.
HAS EVERYONE VOTED WHO WISHED
TO VOTE.
>> MISS BASS SAYS AYE.
>> CLERK WILL REPORT.
>> MR. CHAIRMAN, THERE ARE 24
AYES AND 17 NOS.
>> THE MOTION TO TABLE IS
AGREED TO.
>> MR. CHAIRMAN I HAVE A
PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRY.
>> GENTLEMAN WILL STATE HIS
PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRY.
>> THANK YOU.
>> CLAUSE C 2 OF THE
IMPEACHMENT PROCEEDINGS STATES
MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE CAN
RAISE OBJECTIONS RELATED TO
THE ADMISSIBILITY OF TESTIMONY
IN EVIDENCE.
IT DOESN'T SAY WHAT RULES
APPLY TO ADMISSIBILITY.
CAN YOU EXPLAIN THE OBJECTIONS
WHICH CAN BE MADE UNDER THE
CLAUSE, AND IF YOU INTEND TO
USE THE FEDERAL RULES OF
EVIDENCE.
>> THE GENTLEMAN -- THIS IS
NOT A PROPER INQUIRY.
>> IT IS PROPER.
I STATED THE RULE, MR.
CHAIRMAN.
YOU CAN IGNORE IT, BUT YOU
CAN'T SAY IT'S WANT PROPER.
>> WE WILL APPLY THE RULES,
PERIOD.
>> YOU WON'T HELP US
UNDERSTAND THEM?
>> THERE'S NO CLARITY HERE.
NOW ARE YOU
>> CLAUSE 2 OF THE IMPEACHMENT
INQUIRY PROCEEDINGS.
>> I WOULD --
>> 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.
>> APPLIED ACCORDING TO THE
RULES.
>> BUT NOT ANSWERING THE
QUESTION.
>> MR. CHAIRMAN, CAN YOU
PLEASE ALSO REITERATE THE
SCHEDULE GOING FORWARD FOR
ADDITIONAL HEARINGS.
>> THE GENTLEMAN WILL SUSPEND.
THAT IS NOT A PROPER
PARLIAMENTLY INQUIRY.
>> ALL OPENINGS STATEMENTS
WILL BE INCLUDED IN THE
RECORD.
>> MR. CHAIRMAN, I SEEK
RECOGNITION.
>> THE GENTLEMAN -- I AM NOT
GOING TO RECOGNIZE YOU NOW.
I AM INTRODUCING THE
WITNESSES.
NOAH FELDMAN IS A PROFESSOR AT
HARVARD LAW SCHOOL.
MR. FELDMAN HAS AUTHORED SEVEN
BOOKS INCLUDING A BIOGRAPHY OF
JAMES MADISON AND A
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW CASE BOOK,
AS WELL AS MANY ARTICLES ON
CONSTITUTIONAL SUBJECTS.
PROFESSOR FELDMAN HAS A
DOCTORATE DEGREE FROM OXFORD,
AND IS A RHODES SCHOLAR AND A
JD FROM YALE LAW SCHOOL.
AND ALMS SERVED AS A CLERK TO
JUSTICE SUTER.
> PAMELA CARLIN SERVED AS A
MONTGOMERY PROFESSOR OF LAW,
AND THE CODE DIRECTOR OF THE
THE SUPREME AT STANFORD.
THE CO-AUTHOR OF SEVERAL BOOKS
INCLUDING A BOOK ENTITLED
KEEPING FAITH WITH THE
CONSTITUTION, AND DOZENS OF
SCHOLARLY ARTICLES.
SHE SERVED AS A LAW CLERK TO
JUSTICE BLACKBURN OF THE
UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT
AND IS A DEPUTY ASSISTANT
ATTORNEY GENERAL IN A CIVIL
RIGHTS DIVISION OF THE UNITED
STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
WHERE SHE WAS RESPONSIBLE
AMONG OTHER THINGS, FOR
REVIEWING THE WORK OF THE
DEPARTMENT VOTING SEBLGTOR.
THREE DEGREES FROM VEIL.
A B.A. IS HISTORY, AND A JD
FROM YALE LAW SCHOOL.
MICHAEL GERHARD IS A
DISTINGUISHED PROFESSOR AT THE
UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA
LAW SCHOOL, AND LAW AND
GOVERNMENT.
PROFESSOR GARHART IS THE
AUTHOR OF SEVERAL BOOKS
INCLUDING IMPEACHMENT PROCESS
AND CONSTITUTIONAL HISTORICAL
ANALYSIS, FEDERAL
JURISDICTION, AND THE
LEGISLATIVE PROCESS.
HE RECEIVED A J.D. FROM THE
LAW SCHOOL, AND M.S. FROM THE
LONDON SCHOOL OF ECONOMICS AND
THE B.A. FROM YAxá*IL
UNIVERSITY.
JONATHAN TURLEY IS A CHAIRMAN
OF LAW AT GOERGETOWN.
AND TEACHES PROCEDURES AND
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW.
PROFESSOR TURLEY JOINED THE
LAW FACULTY IN 1990, AND 1998
BECAME THE YOUNGEST PROFESSOR
IN THE SCHOOL'S HISTORY.
HE HAS WRITTEN THREE DOZEN
ACADEMIC ARTICLES FOR A
VARIETY OF LAW SCHOOLS, LAW
JOURNALS, AND LEGAL AND POLICY
ISSUES APPEAR FREQUENTLY IN
NATIONAL PUBLICATIONS.
PFS TURLEY EARNED DEGREES FROM
THE UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO AND
NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY SCHOOL
OF LAW.
WE WELCOME ALL THE
DISTINGUISHED WITNESSES AND
THANK THEM FOR PARTICIPATING
IN TODAY'S HEARING.
NOW IF YOU WOULD PLEASE RISE,
I WILL BEGIN BY SWEARING YOU
IN.
>> DO YOU SWEAR OR AFFIRM
UNDER PENALTY OF PERJURY THAT
THE TESTIMONY YOU'RE ABOUT TO
GIVE IS TRUE AND CORRECT TO
THE BEST OF YOUR KNOWLEDGE,
INFORMATION AND BELIEF SO HELP
YOU GOD?
LET THE RECORD SHOW THE
WITNESSES ANSWERED IN THE
ATIRMATIVE.
PLEASE BEET ZOOED.
EACH OF YOUR WRITTEN
STATEMENTS WILL BE ENTERED
INTO THE RECORD IN ENTIRETY.
I ASK YOU SUMMARIZE YOUR
TESTIMONY IN 10 MINUTES.
TO HELP YOU STAY WITHIN THAT
TIME THERE'S A TIMING LIGHT ON
THE TABLE.
WHEN IT SWITCHES FROM GREEN
TO YELLOW YOU HAVE ONE MINUTE
TO CONCLUDE.
WHEN IT'S RED, IT SIGNALS 10
MINUTES EXPIRED.
PROFESSOR FELDMAN, YOU MAY
BEGIN.
>> MR. CHAIRMAN, BEFORE WE
GET --
>> MR. CHAIRMAN, AND MEMBERS
OF THE COMMITTEE, I HAVE A
MOTION.
>> THE GENTLEMAN IS NOT IN
ORDER TO OFFER A MOTION.
>> MR. CHAIRMAN I SEEK
RECOGNITION FOR A PRIVILEGE
MOTION.
MR. CHAIRMAN, AND MEMBERS OF
THE COMMITTEE, THANK YOU FOR
THE OPPORTUNITY TO APPEAR.
I'M NOAH FELDMAN.
>> THE WITNESS WILL PROCEED.
>> I SERVE AS A PROFESSOR OF
LAW AT THE HARVARD LAW SCHOOL.
>> I SEEK RECOGNITION.
>> THE GENTLEMAN WILL SUSPEND.
THE TIME IS THE WITNESS'S.
>> PRIVILEGE MOTION NEEDS TO
BE RECOGNIZED.
>> IN BETWEEN WITNESSES.
NOT ONCE A RECOGNIZE A
WITNESS.
WE'LL ENTERTAIN THE MOTION
AFTER THE FIRST WITNESS.
>> MY JOB IS TO STUDY AND
TEACH CONSTITUTION FROM THE
ORIGINS TO THE PRESENT.
I'M HERE TO DESCRIBE THREE
THINGS.
WHY THE FRAMERS OF THE
CONSTITUTION INCLUDED AN
IMPEACHMENT OF THE PRESIDENT.
WHAT THAT PROVISION FOR HIGH
CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS MEANS.
LAST, HOW IT APPLIES TO THE
QUESTION BEFORE YOU AND BEFORE
THE AMERICAN PEOPLE, WHETHER
PRESIDENT TRUMP HAS COMMITTED
IMPEACHABLE OFFENSES UNDER THE
CONSTITUTION.
LET ME BEGIN BY STATING MY
CONCLUSIONS.
THE FRAMERS PROVIDEED FOR THE
IMPEACHMENT OF THE PRESIDENT
BECAUSE THEY FEARED THAT THE
PRESIDENT MIGHT ABUSE THE
POWER OF HIS OFFICE FOR
PERSONAL BENEFIT, TO CORRUPT
THE ELECTORAL PROCESS AND
ENSURE HIS RE-ELECTION OR
SUBVERT THE NATIONAL SECURITY
OF THE UNITED STATES.
HIGH CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS
ARE ABUSES OF POWER AND OF
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
CORRUPTLY ABUSING THE OFFICE
OF THE PRESIDENCY.
SPECIFICALLY, PRESIDENT TRUMP
HAS ABUSED HIS OFFICE BY
CORRUPTLY SOLICITING THE
PRESIDENT OF UKRAINE TO
ANNOUNCE INVESTIGATIONS OF HIS
POLITICAL RIVALS TO ORDER IN
TO GAIN PERSONAL ADVANTAGE,
INCLUDING IN THE 2020
PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION.
LET ME BEGIN NOW WITH THE
QUESTION OF WHY THE FRAMERS
PROVIDEED FOR IMPEACHMENT IN
THE FIRST PLACE.
THE FRAMERS BORROWED THE
CONCEPT OF IMPEACHMENT FROM
ENGLAND, BUT WITH ONE ENORMOUS
DIFFERENCE.
THE HOUSE OF COMMONS AND THE
HOUSE OF LORDS COULD USE
IMPEACHMENT IN ORDER TO LIMIT
THE MINISTERS OF THE KING.
BUT THEY COULD NOT IMPEACH THE
KING.
IN THAT SENSE THE KING WAS
ABOVE THE LAW.
IN STARK CONTRAST, THE FRAMERS
FROM THE OUTSET OF THE
CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION IN
1787 MADE IT CRYSTAL CLEAR
THAT THE PRESIDENT WOULD BE
SUBJECT TO IMPEACHMENT IN
ORDER TO DEMONSTRATE THAT THE
PRESIDENT WAS SUBORDINATE TO
THE LAW.
IF YOU WILL, I WOULD LIKE TO
THINK NOW ABOUT A SPECIFIC
DATE IN THE CONSTITUTIONAL
CONVENTION.
JULY 20th, 1787.
IT WAS THE MIDDLE OF A LONG
HOT SUMMER, AND ON THAT DAY,
TWO MEMBERS OF OF THE
CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION
ACTUALLY MOVEED TO TAKE OUT
THE IMPEACHMENT PROVISION FROM
THE DRAFT CONSTITUTION.
THEY HAD A REASON.
THE REASON THEY SAID IS THE
PRESIDENT WILL HAVE TO STAND
FOR RE-ELECTION.
AND IF THE PRESIDENT HAS TO
STAND FOR RE-ELECTION, THAT'S
ENOUGH.
WE DON'T NEED A SEPARATE
PROVISION FOR IMPEACHMENT.
WHEN THAT PROPOSAL WAS MADE,
SIGNIFICANT DISAGREEMENTS
ENSUED.
THE GOVERNOR OF NORTH
CAROLINA, A MAN CALLED WILLIAM
DAVEY IMMEDIATELY SAID, IF THE
PRESIDENT CAN BE THE BE
IMPEACHED, "HE WILL SPARE NO
EFFORTS OR MEANS WHATEVER TO
GET HIMSELF RE-ELECTED."
FOLLOWING DAVIES, GEORGE MASON
OF VIRGINIA, A FIERCE
REPUBLICAN CRITIC OF EXECUTIVE
POWER SAID, "NO POINT IS MORE
IMPORTANT THAN IMPEACHMENT BE
INCLUDED IN THE CONSTITUTION.
SHALL ANY MAN BE XWOOF
JUSTICE," HE ASKED.
THUS EXPRESSING PERSON THAT
THE PRESIDENT MUSN'T BE ABOVE
THE LAW.
JAMES MADISON, THE PRINCE
APPROXIMATELY DRA DRAFTSMAN OF
U.S. STUEG SAID IT WAS
INDISPENSABLE A PROVISION BE
MADE FOR IMPEACHMENT.
HE EXPLAINED STANDING FOR
RE-ELECTION WAS NOT A
SUFFICIENT SECURITY AGAINST
PRESIDENTIAL MISCONDUCT OR
CORRUPTION.
A PRESIDENT, HE SAID MIGHT
BETRAY HIS TRUST TO FOREIGN
POWERS.
A PRESIDENT WHO ABUSED THE
OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENCY MIGHT
BE FATAL TO THE REPUBLIC,
CLOSE QUOTES.
AND THEN A REMARKABLE THING
HAPPENED IN THE CONVENTION.
GOVERNOR MORRIS OF
PENNSYLVANIA ONE OF THE TWO
PEOPLE WHO INTRODUCED THE
MOTION TO ELIMINATE THE
IMPEACHMENT FROM THE
CONSTITUTION GOT UP AND SAID
THE WORDS, I WAS WRONG.
HE TOLD THE OTHER FRAMERS HE
CHANGED HIS MIND AND THAT HE
WAS NOW HIS OPINION THAT IN
ORDER TO AVOID CORRUPTION OF
ELECTORAL PROCESS, A PRESIDENT
WOULD HAVE TO BE SUBJECT TO
IMPEACHMENT REGARDLESS OF THE
AVAILABILITY OF A FURTHER
ELECTION.
THE UPSHOT OF THE DEBATE IS
THE FRAMERS KEPT IMPEACHMENT
IN THE CONSTITUTION,
SPECIFICALLY IN ORDER TO
PROTECT AGAINST THE ABUSE OF
OFFICE WITH THE CAPACITY TO
CORRUPT THE ELECTORAL PROCESS
OR LEAD TO PERSONAL GAIN.
TURNING TO THE LANGUAGE OF THE
CONSTITUTION, THE FRAMERS USED
THE WORDS.
HIGH CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS
TO DESCRIBE THOSE FORMS OF
ACTION THEY CONSIDERED
IMPEACHABLE.
THESE WERE NOT VAGUE OR
ABSTRACT TERMS.
HIGH CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS
-- THE WORDS HIGH CRIMES AND
MISDEMEANOR MISS REPRESENTED
SPECIFIC LANGUAGE THAT WAS
WELL UNDERSTOOD BY THE ENTIRE
GENERATION OF THE FRAMERS.
INDEED, THEY WERE BORROWED
FROM AN IMPEACHMENT TRIAL IN
ENGLAND TAKING PLACE AS THE
FRAMERS WERE SPEAKING WHICH
WAS REFERRED TO BY GEORGE MACE
AN.
THE WORDS HIGH CRIMES AND
MISDEMEANORS REFERRED TO ABUSE
OF THE OFFICE OF THE
PRESIDENCY FOR PERSONAL
ADVANTAGE OR TO CORRUPT THE
ELECTORAL PROCESS OR TO
SUBVERT A NATIONAL SECURITY OF
THE UNITED STATES.
THERE'S NO MYSTERY ABOUT THE
WORDS HIGH CRIMES AND
MISDEMEANORS.
HIGH MODIFIES CRIMES AND
MISDEMEANORS.
THEY'RE BOTH HIGH.
AND A HIGH MEANS CONNECTED TO
THE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENCY,
CONNECTED TO OFFICE.
THE CLASSIC FORM THAT WAS
FAMILIAR TO THE FRAMERS WAS
THE ABUSE OF OFFICE FOR
PERSONAL GAIN OR ADVANTAGE.
WHEN THE FRAMERS SPECIFICALLY
NAMED BRIBERY A A HIGH CRIME
AND MISDEMEANOR, THEY WERE
NAMING ONE PARTICULAR VERSION
OF THIS ABUSE OF OFFICE, THE
ABUSE OF OFFICE FOR PERSONAL
OR INDIVIDUAL GAIN.
THE OTHER FORMS OF ABUSE OF
OFFICE, ABUSE TO AFFECT
ELECTIONS AND COMPROMISE
NATIONAL SECURITY WERE FURTHER
FORMS THAT WERE 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 THE
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES --
THAT IS THE MEMBERS OF THIS
COMMITTEE AND OTHER MEMBERS OF
THE HOUSE SOLE POWER OF
IMPEACHMENT.
IT'S NOT MY RESPONSIBILITY OR
MY JOB 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 ROLE WHICH IS TO
DESCRIBE AND APPLY THE MEANING
OF IMPEACHABLE OFFENSES TO THE
FACTS DESCRIBED BY THE
TESTIMONY IN EVIDENCE BEFORE
THE HOUSE.
PRESIDENT TRUMP'S CONDUCT AS
DESCRIBED BY THE TESTIMONY IN
EVIDENCE CLEARLY CONSTITUTES
IMPEACHABLE HIGH CRIMES AND
MISDEMEANORS UNDER THE
CONSTITUTION.
IN PARTICULAR, THE MEMORANDUM
AND OTHER TESTIMONY RELATED TO
THE JULY 25th, 2019 PHONE CALL
BETWEEN THE TWO PRESIDENTS,
PRESIDENT TRUMP, AND PRESIDENT
ZELENSKY MORE THAN
SUFFICIENTLY INDICATES THAT
PRESIDENT TRUMP ABUSED HIS
OFFICE BY SOLICITING THE
PRESIDENT OF UKRAINE TO
INVESTIGATE HIS POLITICAL
RIVALS IN ORDER TO GAIN
PERSONAL POLITICAL ADVANTAGE
INCLUDING IN RELATION TO THE
2020 ELECTION.
AGAIN, THE WORDS ABUSE OF
OFFICE ARE NOT MYSTICAL 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 INTERESTS OF
THE AMERICAN PUBLIC, BUT TO
SERVE HIS PERSONAL INDIVIDUAL
PARTISAN ELECTORAL INTERESTS.
THAT IS WHAT THE EVIDENCE
BEFORE THE HOUSE INDICATES.
FINALLY, LLET ME BE CLEAR, ON
ITS OWN, SOLICITING THE LEADER
OF A FOREIGN GOVERNMENT IN
ORDER TO ANNOUNCE
INVESTIGATIONS OF POLITICAL
RIVALS AND PERFORM THOSE
INVESTIGATIONS WOULD
CONSTITUTE A HIGH CRIME AND
MISDEMEANOR.
BUT THE HOUSE ALSO HAS
EVIDENCE BEFORE IT THAT THE
PRESIDENT COMMITTED TWO
FURTHER ACTS THAT ALSO QUALIFY
HAS EYE CRIMES AND
MISDEMEANORS.
IN PARTICULAR THE HOUSE HEARD
EVIDENCE THAT THE PRESIDENT
PLACED A HOLD ON CRITICAL U.S.
AID TO UKRAINE AND CONDITIONED
ITS RELEASE ON ANNOUNCEMENT OF
THE INVESTIGATIONS OF THE
BIDENS AND OF THE DISCREDITED
CROWDSTRIKE CONSPIRACY THEORY.
FURTHERMORE, THE CONDITIONED A
WHITE HOUSE VISIT ON THE
ANNOUNCEMENT OF THE
INVESTIGATION.
BOTH OF THESE ACTS CONSTITUTE
IMPEACHABLE HIGH CRIMES AND
MISDEMEANORS UNDER THE
CONSTITUTION.
THEY EACH ENCANSULATE THE
FRAMERS WORRY THAT THE
PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES
WOULD TAKE ANY MEANS WHATEVER
TO ENSURE HIS RE-ELECTION.
THAT'S THE REASON THAT THE
FRAMERS PROVIDEED FOR
IMPEACHMENT IN A CASE LIKE
THIS ONE.
>> MR. CHAIRMAN --
>> THE GENTLEMAN'S TIME
EXPIRED.
>> I SEEK RECOGNITION.
>> GENTLEMAN RECOGNIZED.
>> I OFFER A MOTION TO
POSTPONE TO A DATE CERTAIN.
>> I MOVE TO TABLE THE MOTION.
>> MOTION TO TABLE IS HEARD
AND IS NOT DEBATEABLE.
>> MR. CHAIRMAN --
>> ALL IN FAVOR?
>> MAY WE HAVE THE MOTION
READ.
>> THE MOTION WAS STATED TO
ADJOURN.
>> MAY WE READ THE MOTION.
>> MOTION WILL BE READ TO A
DATE CERTAIN, WEDNESDAY,
DCEMBER 19 TO ACTUALLY GET A
RESPONSE TO THE SIX LETTERS.
>> MOTION TO TABLE IS MADE.
MOTION TO TABLE IS MADE AND
NOT DEBATEABLE.
>> ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE.
THE MOTION TO TABLE IS
RECALLED.
>> ROLE CALL REQUESTED.
>> MR. NADLER.
AYE.
>> MISS LOFTON.
MISS JACKSON LEE VOTES AYE.
MR. COHEN VOTES EYE.
MR. JOHNSON OF GEORGIA VOTES
AYE.
>> MR. RICHMOND VOTES YES.
>> MR. JEFFERIES VOTES YES.
>> MR. SISILINY VOTES AYE.
>> MR. RASKIN VOTES EYE.
>> MISS JENNINGS VOTES AYE.
>> MISS SCANLIN VOTES AYE.
MISS GARS RA.
VOTES EYE.
>> MR. STANTON VOTES AYE.
>> MISS POWELL?
>> VOTES EYE.
>> MISS ESCOBAR VOTES EYE.
>> MR. COLLINS VOTES NO.
>> MR. SENSENBRENNER VOTES NO.
>> MR. CHAVEZ VOTES NO.
>> MR. GOMERT VOTES NO.
>> MR. JORDAN VOTES NO.
>> MR. BUCK VOTES NO.
>> MR. RADCLIFFE VOTES NO.
>> MR. GOATS VOTES NO.
MR. JOHNSON OF LOUISIANA VOTES
NO.
MR. BIGGS VOTES NO.
MR. MACLINTON VOTES NO.
>> MR. RESTENTHALER VOTES NO.
>> MR. CLINE VOTES NO.
>> MR. ARMSTRONG VOTES NO.
>> MR. STEVIE VOTES NO.
>> HAS EVERYONE VOTED?
>> MR. CHAIRMAN, 24 AYES AND
17 NOS.
>> THE MOTION TO TABLE IS
ADOPTED, AND I NOW RECOGNIZE
PROFESSOR CARLIN FOR HER
TESTIMONY.
>> MR. CHAIRMAN, AND MEMBERS
OF THE COMMITTEE.
THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR THE
OPPORTUNITY TO TESTIFY.
TWICE I HAVE HAD THE PRIVILEGE
OF REPRESENTING THIS COMMITTEE
AND LEADERSHIP IN VOTING
RIGHTS CASES BEFORE THE
SUPREME COURT.
ONCE UNDER THE LEADERSHIP OF
CHAIRMAN SENSENBRENNER, AND
IT'S GOOD TO SEE YOU AGAIN
SIR.
AND ONE OF MY OTHER CLIENTS.
AND ONCE UNDER THE LEADERSHIP
OF CHAIRMAN CONIERS.
IT WAS A GREAT HONOR BECAUSE
OF THIS COMMITTEE'S KEY ROLE
OVER THE PAST 50 YEARS IN
ENSURING THAT EVERYONE
CITIZENS HAVE IS THE RIGHT TO
VOTE IN FREE AND FAIR
ELECTIONS.
TODAY YOUR ASKED TO CONSIDER
WHETHER PROTECTING THOSE IS
IMPEACHING A PRESIDENT.
EVERYTHING I KNOW ABOUT THE
CONSTITUTION AND VALUES AND MY
REVIEW OF THE EVIDENTITARY
RECORD, I READ TRANSCRIPTS OF
EVERY ONE OF THE WITNESSES WHO
APPEARED IN THE LIVE HEARINGS,
BECAUSE I WOULD NOT SPEAK
ABOUT THESE THINGS WITHOUT
REVIEWING THE FACTS.
I'M INSULTED BY THE SUGGESTION
THAT AS A LAW PROFESSOR I
DON'T CARE ABOUT THE FACTS.
EVERYTHING I READ ON THOSE
OCCASIONS TELLS ME WHEN
PRESIDENT TRUMP DEMANDED
FOREIGN INVOLVEMENT IN THE
UPCOMING ELECTION, HE STRUCK
AT THE VERY HEART OF WHAT
MAKES THIS A REPUBLIC TO WHICH
WE PLEDGE ALEECHBLGANCE.
THAT DEMANLD HAS PROFESSOR
FELDMAN EXPLAINED CONSTITUTED
AN ABUSE OF POWER.
INDEED AS I EXPLAIN IN MY
TESTIMONY, DRAWING A FOREIGN
GOVERNMENT INTO OUR ELECTION
I ESPECIALLY SERIOUS ABUSE OF
POWER BECAUSE IT UNDERMINES
DEMOCRACY ITSELF.
THE CONSTITUTION BEGINS WITH
WE THE PEOPLE FOR A REASON.
JAMES MADISON'S WORDS DERIVES
POWER DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY
FROM THE GREAT BODY OF THE
PEOPLE, AND THE WAY IT DERIVES
THESE POWERS IS THROUGH
ELECTIONS.
ELECTIONS MATTER.
THE LEGITIMACY OF OUR
GOVERNMENT AND ALL OF OUR
INDIVIDUAL FREEDOMS BECAUSE OF
THE SUPREME COURT DECLARED
MORE THAN A CENTURY AGO VOTING
IS PRESERVATIVE OF ALL RIGHTS.
IT'S NOT SURPRISING THAT THE
CONSTITUTION IS MARVELED WITH
PROVISIONS GOVERNING ELECTIONS
AND GUARANTEEING GOVERNMENTAL
ACCOUNTABILITY.
INDEED, A MAJORITY OF THE
AMENDMENTS TO THE CONSTITUTION
SINCE THE CIVIL WAR HAVE DEALT
WITH VOTING OR WITH TERMS OF
OFFICE.
AND AMONG THE MOST IMPORTANT
PROVISIONS OF THE ORIGINAL
CONSTITUTION IS THE GUARANTEE
OF PERIODIC ELECTIONS TO THE
PRESIDENCY.
ONE EVERY FOUR YEARS.
AMERICANS HAVE KEPT THAT
PROMISE FOR TWO CENTURIES AND
DONE SO EVEN IN WAR TIME.
WE INVENTED THE IDEA OF
ABSENTEE VOTING SO UNION
TROOPS WHO SUPPORTED PRESIDENT
LINCOLN COULD STAY NTD FIELD
DURING THE ELECTION OF 1864.
SINCE THEN, COUNTLESS OTHER
AMERICANS HAVE FOUGHT AND DIED
TO PROTECT OUR RIGHT TO VOTE.
THE FRAMERS OF OUR
CONSTITUTION REALIZED THAT
ELECTIONS ALONE COULD NOT
GUARANTEE THAT THE UNITED
STATES WOULD REMAIN A
REPUBLIC.
ONE OF THE KEY REASONS FOR
INCLUDING THE IMPEACHMENT
POWER WAS THE RISK THAT
UNSCRUPULOUS OFFICIALS RIGHT
TRY TO RIG THE ELECTION
PROCESS.
YOU'VE ALREADY HEARD TWO
PEOPLE GIVE WILLIAM DAVEY
PROPS.
HAMILTON GOT A MUSICAL, AND
DAVEY GETS THIS HEARING.
HE WARNED UNLESS THE
CONSTITUTION CONTAINED AN
IMPEACHMENT PROVISION A
PRESIDENT MIGHT SPARE NO MEANS
TO GET REELECTED AND GEORGE
MASON SAID A PRESIDENT WHO
SECURED THROUGH AN CORRUPT ACT
BY REPEATING HIS GUILT.
AND MASON WAS THE PERSON
RESPONSIBLE FOR ADDING HIGH
CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS TO THE
LIST OF IMPEACHABLE OFFENSES.
SO WE KNOW FROM THAT, THAT THE
LIST WAS DESIGNED TO REACH A
PRESIDENT WHO ACTS TO SUBVERT
AN ELECTION, WHETHER THAT
ELECTION IS THE ONE THAT
BROUGHT HIM INTO OFFICE OR
IT'S AN UPCOMING ELECTION
WHERE HE SEEKS AN ADDITIONAL
TERM.
MOREOVER, THE FOUNDING
GENERATION LIKE EVERY
GENERATION SINCE WAS CONCERNED
TO PROTECT OUR GOVERNMENT AND
OUR DEMOCRATIC PROCESS FROM
OUTSIDE INTERFERENCE.
FOR EXAMPLE, JOHN ADAMS DURING
THE RATIFICATION EXPRESSED
CONCERN WITH THE VERY IDEA OF
HAVING AN ELECTED PRESIDENT
WRITING TO THOMAS JEFFERSON
THAT YOU ARE APPREHENSIVE OF
FOREIGN INTERFERENCE,
INFLUENCE.
SO AM I, BUT AS OFTEN AS
ELECTIONS HAPPEN, THE DANGER
OF FOREIGN INFLUENCE RECURS.
AND IN THE STAIRWELL ADDRESS,
PRESIDENT WASHINGTON WARNED
HISTORY AND EXPERIENCE PROVED
FOREIGN INFLUENCE IS ONE OF
THE MOST PAINFUL FOES OF
REPUBLICAN GOVERNMENT, AND
EXPLAINED IT WAS IMPERFECT AS
FOREIGN GOVERNMENT WOULD HAVE
TRY TO FOEMENT DISAGREEMENTS
WITH AMERICAN PEOPLE.
THE VERY IDEA THAT A PRESIDENT
MIGHT SEEK THE AID OF A
FOREIGN GOVERNMENT IN
RE-ELECTION CAMPAIGN WOULD
HAVE HORRIFIED THEM.
BASED ON THE EVIDENTITARY
RECORD THAT'S WHAT PRESIDENT
TRUMP HAS DONE.
THE LIST OF IMPEACHABLE
OFFENSES THAT THE FRAMERS
INCLUDED IN THE CONSTITUTION
SHOWS THAT THE ESSENCE OF AN
IMPEACHABLE OFFENSE IS A
PRESIDENT'S DECISION TO
SACRIFICE THE NATIONAL
INTERESTS FOR HIS OWN PRIVATE
END.
TREASON, WEIGH AN INDIVIDUAL'S
AID TO A FOREIGN ENEMY.
PUTTING A FOREIGN ENEMY'S'S
ADVERSARY ABOVE THE E ABOVE THE
UNITED STATES.
BRIBERY, SOLICED, RECEIVED OR
OFFERED FAVOR OR BENEFIT TO
INFLUENCE OFFICIAL ACTIONS
RISKING HE WOULD PUT HIS
PRIVATE WELFARE ABOVE THE
NATIONAL INTEREST.
AND HIGH CRIMES AND
MISDEMEANORS CAPTURED THE
OTHER WAY IN WHICH A HIGH
OFFICIAL MIGHT DISREGARD
PUBLIC INTEREST OF THE DUTIES
OF PUBLIC OFFICE.
BASED ON THE EVIDENTITARY
RECORD BEFORE YOU, WHAT
HAPPENED IN THE CASE TODAY IS
SOMETHING I DO NOT EVER SEEN
BEFORE.
A PRESIDENT WHO DOUBLED DOWN
ON VIOLATING HIS OATH TO
FAITHFULLY EXECUTE THE LAWS
AND PROTECT AND DEFEND THE
CONSTITUTION.
THE EVIDENCE REVEALED THE
PRESIDENT WHO USED POWERS OF
OFFICE IS DEMAND THAT A
FOREIGN GOVERNMENT PARTICIPATE
IN UNDERMINING A COMPETING
CANDIDATE FOR THE PRESIDENCY.
AS PRESIDENT JOHN KENNEDY
DECLARED, THE RIGHT TO VOTE IN
A FREE AMERICAN ELECTION IS
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 WAS BAD
ENOUGH.
THERE'S WIDESPREAD AGREEMENT
THAT RUSSIAN OPERATIVE
MANIPULATED OUR POLITICAL
PROCESS.
BUT THAT DISTORTION IS
MAGNIFIED, THAT THE SITTING
PRESIDENT ABUSES POWER OF
OFFICE ACTUALLY TO INVITE
FOREIGN INTERVENTION.
SEE WHY.
IMAGINE LIVING IN A PART OF
LOUISIANA OR TEXAS, THAT'S
PRONE TO DEVASTATING
HURRICANES AND FLOODING.
WHAT WOULD YOU THINK IF YOU
LIVED THERE, AND YOUR GOVERNOR
ASKED FOR A MEETING WITH THE
PRESIDENT TO DISCUSS GETTING
DISASTER AID THAT CONGRESS HAS
PROVIDEED FOR?
WHAT WOULD YOU THINK IF THAT
PRESIDENT SAID I WOULD LIKE
YOU TO DO US A FAVOR?
I'LL MEET WITH YOU.
ONCE YOU BRAND MY OPPONENT A
CRIMINAL.
WOULDN'T YOU KNOW IN YOUR GUT
THAT THE PRESIDENT ABUSED
OFFICE AND BETRAYED THE
NATIONAL INTEREST, AND WAS
TRYING TO CORRUPT AN ELECTORAL
PROCESS?
I BELIEVE THAT THIS
EVIDENCEITARY RECORD SHOWS
THAT HERE.
IT SHOWS THE PRESIDENT DELAYED
MEETING A FOREIGN LEADER AND
PROVIDING ASSISTANCE THAT
CONGRESS AND HIS ADVISERS
AGREED SERVES OUR NATION
INTEREST IN PROMOTING
DEMOCRACY AND LIMITING RUSSIAN
AGGRESSION.
SAYING RUSSIA, IF YOU'RE
LISTENING -- YOU KNOW, A
PRESIDENT WHO CARES ABOUT CONST
RUSSIA, IF YOU'RE LISTENING,
BUTT OUT OF OUR ELECTIONS.
SHOWS A PRESIDENT THAT DID THIS
TO STRONG ARM A FOREIGN LEADER
TO SMEARING ONE OF OUR OPPONENTS
IN AN ELECTION SEASON.
THAT IS NOT POLITICS AS USUAL AT
LEAST NOT IN THE UNITED STATES
OR ANY MATURE DEMOCRACY.
IT IS INSTEAD A CARDINAL REASON
WHY THE CONSTITUTION CONTAINS AN
IMPEACHMENT POWER.
PUT SIMPLY, A PRESIDENT SHOULD
RESIST FOREIGN INTERFERENCE.
NOT DEMAND IT OR WELCOME IT.
IF WE'RE TO KEEP SAFE WITH OUR
REPUBLIC, PRESIDENT TRUMP MUST
BE HELD ACCOUNT.
THANK YOU
>> THANK YOU, PROFESSOR
GERHARDT.
>> THANK YOU, CHAIRMAN, OTHER
RANKING MEMBERS.
ITS AN HONOR AND A PRIVILEGE TO
JOIN THE OTHER DISTINGUISHED
WITNESSES TO DISCUSS A MATTER OF
GRAVE CONCERN TO OUR COUNTRY AND
TO OUR CONSTITUTION.
BECAUSE THIS HOUSE, THE PEOPLE'S
HOUSE, HAS THE SOLE POWER OF
IMPEACHMENT.
THERE'S NO BETTER FORUM TO
DISCUSS THE CONSTITUTIONAL
STANDARD FOR IMPEACHMENT AND
WHETHER THAT STANDARD HAS BEEN
MET IN THE CASE OF THE CURRENT
PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES.
AS I EXPLAIN IN THE BALANCE OF
MY OPENING STATEMENT, TH RECORD
COMPILED THUS FAR SHOWS THE
PRESIDENT HAS COMMITTED SEVERAL
IMPEACHABLE OFFENSES.
INCLUDING BRIBERY, ABUSE OF
POWER AND SOLICITING PERSONAL
FAVOR FROM A FOREIGN LEADER,
OBSTRUCTING JUSTICE AND
OBSTRUCTING CONGRESS.
OUR HEARING SHOULD RESERVE 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 THAT IN THIS
COUNTRY THAT NO ONE IS KING.
WE HAVE FOLLOWED THAT PRINCIPLE
SINCE BEFORE THE FOUNDING OF THE
CONSTITUTION AND RECOGNIZED
AROUND THE WORLD AS A FIXED
INSPIRING AMERICAN IDEAL.
IN HIS THIRD MESSAGE TO CONGRESS
IN 1903.
ROOSEVELT DELIVERED ONE OF THE
FINEST ARTICULATIONS OF THIS
PRINCIPLE.
HE SAID, NO ONE IS ABOVE THE LAW
AND NO MAN IS BELOW, NOR DO WE
HAVE ANY MAN'S PERMISSION WHEN
WE REQUIRE HIM TO OBEY IT.
OBEDIENCE TO THE LAW IS DEMANDED
AS A RIGHT.
NOT ASKED FOR AS A FAVOR.
THREE FEATURES OF OUR
CONSTITUTION PROTECT THE
FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLE THAT NO
ONE IS ABOVE THE LAW.
FIRST IN THE BRITISH SYSTEM,
THERE WAS NO CONTROL OVER THE
MONARCH.
AND THEN THE FRAMERS ALLOWED THE
CONSTITUTION FOR ASSURING
PRESIDENTIAL ACCOUNTABILITY.
SECOND, THE KING COULD DO NO
WRONG AND NO PARTS OF THE
GOVERNMENT COULD CHECK HIS
MISCONDUCT.
IN OUR CONSTITUTION, THE FRAMERS
DEVELOP A SEPARATION OF POWERS
WHICH CONSIST OF CHECKS AND
BALANCES DESIGNED TO PREVENT ANY
BRANCH, INCLUDING PRESIDENCY
FROM BEFORING TYRANNYCAL.
IN OUR DECLARATION OF
INDEPENDENCE, THE FRAMERS SET
FORTH A SERIES OF INPEACHABLE
OFFENSES.
WHEN THE FRAMERS CONVENED IN
PHILADELPHIA TO DRAFT OUR
CONSTITUTION, THEY WERE UNITED
AROUND A SIMPLY PRINCIPLE THAT
WAS A MAJOR SAFEGUARD FOR THE
PUBLIC.
WE THE PEOPLE AGAINST TYRANNY OF
ANY KIND.
THE PEOPLE THAT OVERTHROWN A
KING ARE NOT GOING TO TURN
AROUND JUST AFTER SECURING THEIR
INDEPENDENCE FROM CORRUPT
TYRANNY AND CREATING AN OFFICE
THAT LIKE THE KING WAS ABOVE THE
LAW AND COULD DO NO WRONG.
THE FRAMERS CREATED A CHIEF
EXECUTIVE TO BRING ENERGY TO THE
ADMINISTRATION OF FEDERAL LAWS
BUT TO BE ACCOUNTABLE TO
CONGRESS FOR TREASON, BRIBERY,
OTHER HIGH CRIMES AND
MISDEMEANORS.
THE FRAMER'S CONCERN ABOUT THE
NEED TO PROTECT AGAINST A
CORRUPT PRESIDENT WAS EVIDENT
THROUGHOUT THE CORRUPTION.
I HAVE TO THANK MY PRIOR TWO
FRIENDS THAT HAVE SPOKEN AND
SPOKEN TO A NORTH CAROLINIAN,
WILLIAM DAVEY.
I WILL REFER TO ANOTHER
NORTH CAROLINIAN IN THE
CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION.
JAMES IREDELL AND PRESIDENT
WASHINGTON APPOINTED TO THE
SUPREME COURT ASSURED THE
DELEGATES THAT THE PRESIDENT IS
OF A DIFFERENT NATURE FROM A
MONARCH.
HE IS TO BE SPECIALLY
RESPONSIBLE FOR THE GREAT TRUST
PLACED IN HIM.
THIS BRINGS US OF COURSE TO THE
CRUCIAL QUESTION WE'RE HERE TO
TALK ABOUT TODAY.
THE STANDARD FOR IMPEACHMENT.
THE CONSTITUTION DEFINES TREASON
AND THE TERM BRIBERY BASICALLY
MEANS USING THE OFFICE FOR
PERSONAL GAIN.
OR SHOULD SAY MISUSING THE
OFFICE FOR PERSONAL GAIN.
AS PROFESSOR FELDMAN POINTED
OUT, THESE TERM DERIVE FROM THE
BRITISH THAT UNDERSTOOD THE
CLASS OF CASES TO BE IMPEACHABLE
TO BE REFERRED TO POLITICAL
CRIMES WHICH REFERRED TO CASES
AGAINST THE UNITED STATES, WHEN
THE PRESIDENT DEVIATES FROM HIS
DUTY OR DARES TO ABUSE THE POWER
INVESTED TO HIM BY THE PEACH IN
SERIOUS INJURIES TO THE
REPUBLIC.
IN THE FEDERALIST PAPERS,
ALEXANDER HAMILTON SAID
IMPEACHABLE OFFENSES WHICH COME
FROM THE ABUSE OR VIOLATION OF
SOME PUBLIC TRUST AND RELAY
CHIEFLY TO INJURIES DONE
IMMEDIATELY IN A SOCIETY ITSELF.
SEVERAL THEMES EMERGE FROM THE
FRAMER'S DISCUSSION OF THE SCOPE
OF IMPEACHABLE OFFENSES.
WE KNOW NOT ABLE IMPEACHABLE ARE
CRIMINAL AND NOT ALL FELONIES
ARE IMPEACHABLE OFFENSES.
WE KNOW WHAT CONSTITUTES A HIGH
CRIME AND MISDEMEANOR IS
ULTIMATELY THE CONTEXT AND THE
GRAVITY OF THE MISCONDUCT IN
QUESTION.
AFTER REVIEWING THE EVIDENCE
THAT'S BEEN MADE PUBLIC, I
CANNOT HELP BUT CONCLUDE THIS
PRESIDENT HAS ATTACKED EACH OF
THE CONSTITUTIONS SAFEGUARDS
AGAINST ESTABLISHING A MONARCHY
IN THIS COUNTRY.
BOTH THE CONTEXT AND GRAVITY OF
THE PRESIDENT'S CONDUCT ARE
CLEAR.
THE FAVOR HE REQUESTED FROM
UKRAINE'S PRESIDENT WAS TO
RECEIVE FOR HIS USE OF
PRESIDENTIAL POWER UKRAINE'S
ANNOUNCEMENT OF A POLITICAL
RIVAL.
THE INVESTIGATION WAS NOT THE
IMPORTANT ACTION FOR THE
PRESIDENT, THE ANNOUNCEMENT WAS
BECAUSE IT COULD BE USED IN THIS
COUNTRY TO MANIPULATE THE PUBLIC
TO CASTING ASIDE THE PRESIDENT'S
POLITICAL RIVAL BECAUSE OF
CONCERNS ABOUT HIS CORRUPTION.
THE GRAVITY OF THE PRESIDENT'S
MISCONDUCT IS APPARENT WHEN YOU
COMPARE IT TO THE ONE PRESIDENT
THAT WAS IMPEACHED IN 1974.
THREE ARTICLES WERE APPROVED
AGAINST RICHARD NIXON.
THE FIRST ARTICLE CHARGED HIM
WITH OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE.
IF YOU READ THE MUELLER REPORT,
IT LAYS OUT A NUMBER OF FACTS
THAT SUGGESTS THE PRESIDENT
OBSTRUCTED JUSTICE.
THE SECOND ARTICLE OF
IMPEACHMENT APPROVED AGAINST
RICHARD NIXON, CHARGED HIM WITH
ABUSE OF POWER FOR ORDERING THE
HEADS OF THE IRS, CIA TO HARASS
HIS POLITICAL ENEMIES.
THE PRESENT CIRCUMSTANCES THE
PRESIDENT HAS ENGAGED IN THE
PATTERN OF ABUSING THE TRUST BY
SOLICITING FOREIGN COUNTRIES,
INCLUDING CHINA, RUSSIA AND
UKRAINE TO INVESTIGATE HIS
POLITICAL OPPONENTS AND
INTERFERE IN ELECTIONS IN WHICH
HE'S A CANDIDATE.
THE THIRD ARTICLE AGAINST NIXON
IS THAT HE FAILED TO COMPLY WITH
FOUR LEGISLATIVE SUBPOENAS.
THE PRESIDENT'S CIRCUMSTANCE,
THE PRESIDENT HAS REFUSED TO
COMPLY WITH AT LEAST TEN OTHERS
IN HIS ADMINISTRATION NOT TO
COMPLY WITH LAWFUL CONGRESSIONAL
SUBPOENAS INCLUDING SECRETARY
STATE MIKE POMPEO, RICK PERRY
AND ACTING CHIEF OF STAFF AND
HEAD OF THE OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT
AND BUDGET, MICK MULVANEY.
AS SENATOR LINDSEY GRAHAM SAID
WHEN HE WAS A MEMBER OF THE
HOUSE ON THE VERGE OF IMPEACHING
PRESIDENT CLINTON, THE DAY THAT
NIXON FAILED TO ANSWER THAT
SUBPOENA IS THE DAY HE WAS
IMPEACHABLE BECAUSE HE TOOK THE
POWER AWAY FROM CONGRESS AND HE
BECAME THE JUDGE AND THE JURY.
THAT IS A PERFECTLY GOOD
ARTICULATION WHY OBSTRUCTION OF
CONGRESS IS IMPEACHABLE.
THE PRESIDENT'S DEFIANCE OF
CONGRESS IS TROUBLING DUE TO THE
RATIONALE THAT HE CLAIMS FOR HIS
OBSTRUCTION.
HIS ARGUMENTS INCLUDING HIS
WHITE HOUSE COUNSEL IN HIS
OCTOBER LETTER TO THE SPEAKER
BOILS DOWN TO THE ASSERTION THAT
HE'S ABOVE THE LAW.
I WON'T REVIEW THAT LETTER HERE
BUT I DO WANT TO DISAGREE WITH
THE CHARACTERIZATION IN THE
LETTER OF THESE PROCEEDINGS.
SINCE THE CONSTITUTION EXPRESSLY
SAYS AND THE SUPREME COURT HAS
UNANIMOUSLY A FIRMED THAT THE
HOUSE HAS THE SOLE POWER OF
IMPEACHMENT.
LIKE THE SENATE, THE HOUSE HAS
THE POWER TO DETERMINE THE RULES
FOR ITS PROCEEDINGS.
THE PRESIDENT AND HIS
SUBORDINATES HAVE ARGUMENTS THAT
THE PRESIDENT IS ENTITLED TO
INVESTIGATION FOR ANY CRIMINAL
WRONG DOING, INCLUDING SHOOTING
SOMEONE ON FIFTH AVENUE.
THE PRESIDENT HAS CLAIMED THAT
HE'S ENTITLED TO EXECUTIVE
PRIVILEGE, NOT TO SHARE ANY
INFORMATION HE DOESN'T WANT TO
SHARE.
HE'S ALSO CLAIMED THE
ENTITLEMENT TO BE ABLE 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, HE WILL
OBSTRUCT CONGRESS.
THE FACT THAT WE CAN TRANSPOSE
THE ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT
AGAINST PRESIDENT NIXON ON TO
THE ACTIONS OF THIS PRESIDENT
SPEAKS VOLUMES.
THAT DOES NOT ININCLUDE THE MOST
SERIOUS NATIONAL SECURITY
CONCERNS AND ELECTION
INTERFERENCE CONCERNS AT THE
HEART OF THIS PRESIDENT'S
MISCONDUCT.
NO MISCONDUCT IS MORE
ANTITHETICAL TO OUR ECONOMY.
NOTHING UNJURIES THE PEOPLE MORE
THAN THE PRESIDENT THAT USES HIS
POWER TO WEAKEN THE AUTHORITY
UNDER THE CONSTITUTION AS WELT
AS THE AUTHORITIES OF THE
CONSTITUTION ITSELF.
MAY I READ ONE MORE SENTENCE?
>> THE WITNESS MAY HAVE ANOTHER
SENTENCE.
>> IF CONGRESS FAILS TO IMPEACH
HERE, THE IMPEACHMENT PROCESS IS
LOST ALL MEANING.
ALONG WITH THAT, I STAND WITH
THE CONSTITUTION AND I STAND
WITH THE FRAMERS THAT WERE
COMMITTED TO ENSURE THAT NO ONE
IS ABOVE THE LAW.
>> THANK YOU.
PROFESSOR TURLEY.
>> THANK YOU, CHAIRMAN NADLER.
RANKING MEMBER COLLINS, MEMBERS
OF THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE.
IT'S AN HONOR TO APPEAR BEFORE
YOU TODAY TO DISCUSS ONE OF THE
MOST CONSEQUENTIAL FUNCTIONS YOU
WERE GIVEN BY THE FRAMERS AND
THAT IS THE IMPEACHMENT OF A
PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES.
21 YEARS AGO, I SAT BEFORE YOU,
CHAIRMAN NADLER AND THIS
COMMITTEE TO TESTIFY AT THE
IMPEACHMENT OF PRESIDENT WILLIAM
JEFFERSON CLINTON.
I NEVER THOUGHT THAT I WOULD
HAVE TO APPEAR A SECOND TIME TO
ADDRESS THE SAME QUESTION WITH
REGARD TO ANOTHER SITTING
PRESIDENT.
YET HERE WE ARE.
THE ELEMENTS ARE STRIKINGLY
SIMILAR.
THE INTENTS, RANKER AND RANGE
ARE THE SAME.
THE ATMOSPHERE, THE TOLERANCE OF
OPPOSING VIEWS IS THE SAME.
I'D 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 BE OUR
LAST PRESIDENT.
WHAT WE LEAVE IN THE WAKE OF
THIS SCANDAL WILL SHAPE HOUR
DEMOCRACY FOR GENERATIONS TO
COME.
I'M CONCERNED ABOUT LOWERING
IMPEACHMENT STANDARDS TO FIT
EVIDENCE AND AN ABUNDANCE OF
ANGER.
I BELIEVE THIS IMPEACHMENT NOT
ONLY FAILS TO SATISFY THE
STANDARD OF PAST IMPEACHMENTS,
BUT IT WOULD CREATE A DANGEROUS
PRECEDENT FOR FUTURE
IMPEACHMENTS.
MY TESTIMONY LAYS OUT THE
IMPEACHMENT FROM EARLY CASES TO
THE EARLY DAY.
THE EARLY IMPEACHMENTS USED
FLUID EXERCISE OF CRIMINAL AND
NONCRIMINAL ACTS.
WHEN THE FRAMERS MET IN
PHILADELPHIA, THEY WERE FAMILIAR
WITH IMPEACHMENT AND ITS ABUSES
INCLUDING HASTINGS CASE, WHICH
WAS DISCUSSED IN THE CONVENTION.
A CASE THAT WAS STILL PENDING
FOR TRIAL IN ENGLAND.
UNLIKE THE ENGLISH IMPEACHMENTS,
THE AMERICAN MODEL IS MORE
LIMITED NOT ONLY IN ITS
APPLICATION TO JUDICIAL AND
EXECUTIVE OFFICIALS BUT ITS
GROUNDS.
THE FRAMERS REJECTED A PROPOSAL
TO ADD MALE ADMINISTRATION
BECAUSE MADISON OBJECTED THAT SO
VAGUE A TERM WOULD BE EQUIVALENT
TO A TENURE DURING THE PLEASURE
OF THE STATE.
IN THE END, VARIOUS THINGS WERE
OBJECTED.
CORRUPTION, OBTAINING OFFICE BY
IMPROPER MEANS, NEGLIGENCE,
SPECULATION AND OPPRESSION.
PERFORTY AND LYING ARE RELEVANT
HERE.
MY TESTIMONY EXPLORES NIXON,
JOHNSON AND CLINTON'S
IMPEACHMENTS.
THE CLOSEST OF THE THREE CASES
IS TO 1868 IMPEACHMENT OF ANDREW
JOHNSON.
IT'S NOT A MODEL OR AN
ASSOCIATION THAT THIS COMMITTEE
SHOULD RELISH.
IN THAT CASE, A GROUP OF
OPPONENTS OF THE PRESIDENT
CALLED THE RADICAL REPUBLICANS
CREATED A TRAP DOOR CRIME IN
ORDER TO IMPEACH THE PRESIDENT.
THEY DEFINED IT AS A HIGH
MISDEMEANOR.
IT WAS ANOTHER SHARED ASPECT
BESIDES THE ATMOSPHERE OF THAT
IMPEACHMENT AND ALSO THE
UNCONVENTIONAL STYLE OF THE TWO
PRESIDENTS.
THAT SHARED ELEMENT IS SPEED.
THIS IMPEACHMENT WOULD RIVAL THE
JOHNSON IMPEACHMENT AS THE
SHORTEST IN HISTORY DEPENDING ON
HOW ONE COUNTS THE RELEVANT
DAYS.
NOW, THERE'S THREE DISTINCTIONS
WHEN YOU LOOK AT THESE OR THREE
COMMONALITIES WHEN YOU LOOK AT
THESE PAST CASES.
ALL INVOLVED ESTABLISHED CRIMES.
THIS WOULD BE THE FIRST
IMPEACHMENT IN HISTORY WHERE
THERE WOULD BE CONSIDERABLE
DEBATE AND IN MY VIEW NOT
COMPELLING EVIDENCE OF THE
COMMISSION OF A CRIME.
SECOND IS THE APPRECIATED PERIOD
OF THIS INVESTIGATION, WHICH IS
PROBLEMATIC AND PUZZLING.
THIS IS A FACIALLY INCOMPLETE
AND INADEQUATE RECORD IN ORDER
TO IMPEACH A PRESIDENT.
ALLOW ME TO BE CANDID MANY MY
CLOSING REMARKS BECAUSE WE HAVE
LIMITED TIME.
WE ARE LIVING IN THE VERY PERIOD
DESCRIBED BY ALEXANDER HAMILTON.
A PERIOD OF AGITATED PASSIONS.
I GET IT.
YOU'RE MAD.
THE PRESIDENT IS MAD.
MY REPUBLICAN FRIENDS ARE MAN.
MY DEMOCRATIC FRIENDS ARE MAD.
MY WIFE IS MAD.
MY KIDS ARE MAD.
EVEN MY DOG SEEMS MAD.
WE'RE ALL MAD.
WHERE IS THAT TAKING US?
IN THE SLIP SHOP OF IMPEACHMENT
MADE US LESS MAD?
WILL IT ONLY INVITE AN
INVITATION FOR THE MADNESS TO
FOLLOW EVERY FUTURE
ADMINISTRATION?
THAT'S 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
INVESTIGATION THE UKRAINIAN
CONTROVERSY.
IT'S NOT WRONG BECAUSE WE'RE IN
AN ELECTION YEAR.
THERE'S NO GOOD TIME 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.
IT'S A CASE OF THE PERIPHERAL.
WE HAVE A REGARD OF CONFLICTS,
DEFENSES A HAVE NOT BEEN
CONSIDERED, UNSUBPOENAED
WITNESSES WITH MATERIAL
EVIDENCE.
TO IMPEACH A PRESIDENT ON THIS
RECORD WOULD EXPOSE EVERY FUTURE
PRESIDENT TO THE SAME
IMPEACHMENT.
PRINCIPLE TAKES US TO A PLACE WE
PREFER NOT TO BE.
THAT WAS A PLACE SEVEN
REPUBLICANS FOUND THEMSELVES IN
THE JOHNSON TRIAL WHEN THEY
SAVED A PRESIDENT FROM ACQUITTAL
THAT THEY DESPISED.
FOR GENERATIONS, THEY CELEBRATED
AS PROFILES OF COURAGE.
SENATOR ROSS SAID IT WAS LIKE
LOOKING DOWN IN HIS OPEN GRAVE.
HE JUMPED.
BECAUSE HE DIDN'T HAVE ANY
ALTERNATIVE.
IT'S EASY TO CELEBRATE THOSE
PEOPLE FROM THE DISTANCE OF TIME
AND CIRCUMSTANCE IN AN AGE OF
RAGE THAT IS APPEALING TO LISTEN
TO THOSE SAYING FORGET THE
DEFINITIONS OF CRIMES.
JUST DO IT.
LIKE THIS IS SOME IMPULSE BUY
NIKE SNEAKER.
YOU CERTAINLY WOULD DO THAT.
YOU CAN DECLARE THE DEFINITIONS
OF CRIMES ALLEGED OR IMMATERIAL
AND AN EXERCISE OF POLITICS, NOT
THE LAW.
HOWEVER, THOSE LEGAL DEFINITIONS
AN STANDARDS, WHICH I'VE
ADDRESSED IN MY TESTIMONY ARE
THE VERY THING THAT DIVIDE RAGE
FROM REASON.
THIS ALL BRINGS UP TO ME, AND I
WILL CONCLUDE WITH THIS, A SCENE
FROM "A MAN FOR ALL SEASONS" BY
SIR THOMAS MOORE WHEN HIS
SON-IN-LAW PUT THE LAW --
SUGGESTED THAT MOORE WAS PUTTING
THE LAW AHEAD OF MORALITY.
HE SAID MOORE WOULD GIVE THE
DEVIL THE BENEFIT OF THE LAW.
WHEN MOORE ASKS ROPER, WOULD HE
INSTEAD CUT A GREAT ROAD THROUGH
THE LAW TO GET AFTER THE DEVIL?
ROPER PROUDLY DECLARED YES.
I'D DOWN EVERY LAW OF ENGLAND TO
DO THAT.
MOORE RESPONDS, AND WHEN THE
LAST LAW IS CUT DOWN AND THE
DEVIL TURNED AROUND ON YOU,
WHERE WOULD YOU HIDE, ROPER, ALL
THE LAWS BEING FLAT IN HE SAID
THIS COUNTRY IS PLANTED WITH
THICK LAWS COAST TO COAST.
MAN'S LAWS, NOT GODS.
IF YOU CULT THEM DOWN AND YOU'RE
JUST THE MAN TO DO IT, DO YOU
REALLY THINK YOU CAN STAND
UPRIGHT IN THE WINDS THAT WOULD
BLOW THEN?
HE FINISHED BY SAYING YES, I'D
GIVE THE DEVIL THE BENEFIT OF
THE LAW FOR MY OWN SAKE.
SO I WILL CONCLUDE WITH THIS.
BOTH SIDES OF THIS CONTROVERSY
HAVE DEMONIZED THE OTHER TO
JUSTIFY ANY MEASURE IN THEIR
DEFENSE MUCH LIKE ROPER.
PERHAPS THAT'S THE SADDEST PART
OF ALL OF THIS.
WE HAVE FORGOTTEN THE COMMON
ARTICLE OF FAITH THAT BINDS EACH
OF US TO EACH OTHER IN OUR
CONSTITUTION.
HOWEVER, BEFORE WE CUT DOWN THE
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.
I'D BE HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY
QUESTIONS.
>> I THANK THE WITNESSES.
>> MR. CHAIRMAN, I SEEK
RECOGNITION.
>> FOR WHAT PURPOSE?
>> MR. CHAIRMAN, I HAVE A MOTION
PURSUANT TO RULE 11 SPECIFICALLY
2 K 6.
I MOVE TO SUBPOENA THE
INDIVIDUAL COMMONLY REFERRED TO
AS THE WHISTLE-BLOWER.
I ASK --
>> THE GENTLEMEN STATED HIS
MOTION.
MOVE TO TABLE?
>> I MOVE TO
>> MOVE TO TABLE.
ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE.
ALL OPPOSED SAY NEY.
MOTION TO TABLE IS APPROVED.
THE ROLL CALL IS REQUESTED.
THE CLERK WILL CALL THE ROLL.
[ROLL CALL].
[ROLL CALL].
[ROLL CALL].
[ROLL CALL].
>> HAS EVERYONE VOTED THAT
WISHES TO VOTE?
>> MR. CHAIRMAN, I WAS NOT
RECORDED.
>> NO.
>> ANYONE ELSE WISH TO VOTE?
>> HOW AM I RECORDED?
>> MR. SENSENBRENNER, YOU'RE NOT
RECORDED.
>> NO.
>> MR. SENSENBRENNER VOTES NO.
>> MR. CHAIRMAN, THERE'S 24 AYES
AND 17 NOS.
>> PURSUANT TO H RESOLUTION 660
AND THE JUDICIARY PROCEDURES,
THERE'S 45 MINUTES OF QUESTIONS
CONDUCTED BY THE CHAIRMAN OR
MAJORITY COUNSEL FOLLOWED BY 45
MINUTES FOR THE RANKING MEMBER
OR MINORITY COUNSEL.
ONLY THE CHAIR AND THE COUNSELS
MAY QUESTION WITNESSES.
FOLLOWING THAT, UNLESS I SPECIFY
MORE TIME, WE WILL PROCEED UNDER
THE FIVE MINUTE RULES.
I RECOGNIZE MYSELF FOR THE FIRST
ROUND OF QUESTIONS.
PROFESSORS, THANKS FOR BEING
HERE TODAY.
THE COMMITTEE HAS BEEN CHARGED
WITH THE GRAVE RESPONSIBILITY OF
CONSIDERING WHETHER TO RECOMMEND
ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT AGAINST
THE PRESIDENT.
I SPOKE FOR MY COLLEAGUES WHEN I
SAY THAT WE DO NOT TAKE THIS
LIGHTLY.
WE'RE COMMITTED TO ENSURING THAT
TODAY'S HEARING AS WELL AS THE
LARGER RESPONSIBILITY BEFORE US
ARE GROUNDED IN THE
CONSTITUTION.
INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE'S REPORT
CONCLUDED THAT THE PRESIDENT
PRESSURED A FOREIGN LEADER TO
INTERFERE IN OUR ELECTIONS.
HE THEN SOUGHT TO PREVENT
CONGRESS FROM INVESTIGATING HIS
CONDUCT BY ORDERING HIS
ADMINISTRATION AND EVERYONE IN
IT TO DEFY HOUSE SUBPOENAS.
PROFESSOR KARLAN, AS YOU SAID,
THE RIGHT TO VOTE IS THE MOST
PRECIOUS RIGHT IN THIS COUNTRY.
DOES THE PRESIDENT'S CONDUCT
ENDANGER THAT RIGHT?
>> YES, MR. CHAIRMAN, IT DOES.
>> THANK YOU.
HOW DOES IT DO SO?
>> THE WAY IS EXACTLY WHAT
PRESIDENT WASHINGTON WARNED
ABOUT.
BY INVITING A FOREIGN GOVERNMENT
TO INFLUENCE OUR ELECTIONS, IT
TAKES THE RIGHT AWAY FROM THE
AMERICAN PEOPLE AND IT TURNS IT
TO A RIGHT THAT FOREIGN
GOVERNMENTS DECIDE TO INTERFERE
FOR THEIR OWN BENEFITS.
FOREIGN GOVERNMENTS DON'T
BENEFIT US, THEY INTERVENE TO
BENEFIT THEMSELVES.
>> THANK YOU.
PROFESSOR GERHARDT, YOU HAVE
WRITTEN EXTENSIVELY ABOUT OUR
SYSTEM OF CHECKS AND BALANCES.
WHAT HAPPENED TO THAT SYSTEM
WHEN THE PRESIDENT UNDERTAKES A
BLOCKADE OF CONGRESS'S
IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY?
HE ORDERS ALL WITNESSES NOT TO
TESTIFY?
WHAT IS OUR RECOURSE?
>> WHEN THE PRESIDENT DOES THAT,
SEPARATION OF POWERS MEANS
NOTHING.
THE SUBPOENAS THAT HAVE BEEN
ISSUED ARE LAWFUL ORDERS.
IN OUR LAW SCHOOLS, WE TEACH OUR
STUDENTS, THIS IS EASY
STRAIGHTFORWARD SITUATION.
YOU COMPLY WITH THE LAW.
LAWYERS HAVE TO COMPLY WITH
SUBPOENAS.
IN THIS SITUATION, THE FULL
SCALE OBSTRUCTION AND SUBPOENAS
TORPEDOS SEPARATION OF POWERS
AND THEREFORE YOU'RE ONLY
RECOURSE IS TO IN A SENSE
PROTECT YOUR CONSTITUTIONAL
PREROGATIVES.
>> THE SAME IS TRUE OF DEFYING
CONGRESSIONAL SUBPOENAS ON A
WHOLESALE BASIS WITH RESPECT TO
OVERSIGHT, NOT JUST IMPEACHMENT?
>> ABSOLUTELY.
YES, SIR.
>> THANK YOU.
PROFESSOR FELDMAN.
AS I UNDERSTAND IT, THE FRAMERS
INTENDED IMPEACHMENT TO BE USED
INFREQUENTLY.
NOT AS PUNISHMENT.
TO SAFE OUR DEMOCRACY FROM
THREATS SO SIGNIFICANT WE CANNOT
WAIT TILL THE NEXT ELECTION.
DO WE FACE THAT THREAT?
IS IMPEACHMENT THE APPROPRIATE
RECOURSE HERE?
THOSE ARE TWO QUESTIONS.
>> THE FRAMERS RESERVED
IMPEACHMENT FOR SITUATIONS WHERE
THE PRESIDENT ABUSED HIS OFFICE,
THAT IS USED IT'S FOR HIS
PERSONAL ADVANTAGE AND IN
PARTICULAR THEY WERE
SPECIFICALLY WORRIED ABOUT A
SITUATION WHERE THE PRESIDENT
USED HIS OFFICE TO FACILITATE
CORRUPTLY HIS OWN RE-ELECTION.
THAT'S WHY THEY THOUGHT THEY
NEEDED IMPEACHMENT AND WHY
WAITING FOR THE NEXT ELECTION
WASN'T GOOD ENOUGH.
ON THE FACTS THAT WE HAVE BEFORE
THE HOUSE RIGHT NOW, THE
PRESIDENT SOLICITED ASSISTANCE
FROM A FOREIGN GOVERNMENT IN
ORDER TO ASSIST HIS OWN
RE-ELECTION.
THAT HE USED THE POWER OF HIS
OFFICE THAT NO ONE ELSE COULD
POSSIBLY HAVE USED IN ORDER TO
GAIN PERSONAL ADVANTAGE FOR
HIMSELF, DISTORTING THE
ELECTION.
THAT'S WHAT THE FRAMERS
ANTICIPATED.
>> THANK YOU.
I NOW YIELD THE REMAINDER OF
MR. TIME FOR MR. EISEN FOR
COUNSEL QUESTIONS.
>> GOOD MORNING, PROFESSORS.
THANKS FOR BEING HERE.
I WANT TO ASK YOU SOME QUESTIONS
ABOUT THE FOLLOWING HIGH CRIMES
AND MISDEMEANORS THAT WERE
MENTIONED IN THE OPENING
STATEMENTS.
ABUSE OF POWER AND BRIBERY.
OBSTRUCTION OF CONGRESS.
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 INTERESTS BUT TO SERVE
HIS PRIVATE BENEFIT AND IN
PARTICULAR AN ABUSE OF POWER IF
HE DOES TO IT FACILITATE HIS
RE-ELECTION OR GAIN AN ADVANTAGE
NOT AVAILABLE TO ANYONE THAT IS
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 IMPEACH.
THE PRESIDENT CANNOT BE AS A
PRACTICAL MATTER CHARGED
CRIMINALLY WHILE HE WAS IN
OFFICE BECAUSE THE DEPARTMENT OF
JUSTICE WORKS FOR THE PRESIDENT.
SO THE ONLY MECHANISM AVAILABLE
IS TO IMPEACH HIM.
THAT'S WHY WE HAVE IMPEACHMENT.
>> PROFESSOR KARLAN, DO SCHOLARS
OF IMPEACHMENT GENERALLY AGREE
THAT ABUSE OF POWER IS AN
IMPEACHABLE OFFENSE?
>> YES.
>> PROFESSOR GERHARDT, DO YOU
BELIEVE THAT IT IS IMPEACHABLE?
>> YES.
>> I'D LIKE TO FOCUS ON THE
PANEL AND THE FINDINGS IN THE
INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE REPORT
THAT THE PRESIDENT SOLICITED THE
INTERFERENCE OF A FOREIGN
GOVERNMENT, UKRAINE, IN THE 2020
U.S. PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION.
PROFESSOR FELDMAN, DID PRESIDENT
TRUMP COMMIT THE IMPEACHABLE
HIGH CRIME AND MISDEMEANOR OF
ABUSE OF POWER BASED ON THAT
EVIDENCE AND THOSE FINDINGS?
>> BASED ON THAT EVIDENCE AND
THOSE FINDINGS, THE PRESIDENT
DID COMMIT AN IMPEACHABLE ABUSE
OF OFFICE.
>> PROFESSOR KARLAN, SAME
QUESTION.
>> SAME ANSWER.
>> AND PROFESSOR GERHARDT, DID
PRESIDENT TRUMP COMMIT THE
IMPEACHABLE HIGH CRIME AND
MISDEMEANOR OF ABUSE OF POWER?
>> WE THREE ARE UNANIMOUS.
YES.
>> PROFESSOR FELDMAN, I'D LIKE
TO QUICKLY LOOK AT THE EVIDENCE
AND IN THE REPORT.
JULY 25th, PRESIDENT TRUMP TOLD
THE PRESIDENT OF UKRAINE AND I
QUOTE "I WOULD LIKE YOU TO DO US
A FAVOR THOUGH."
AND HE ASKED ABOUT LOOKING INTO
THE BIDENS.
WAS THE MEN RANDOM OF THAT CALL
RELEVANT TO YOUR OPINIONS THAT
THE PRESIDENT COMMITTED ABUSE OF
POWER?
>> THE MEN RANDOM IS CRUCIAL TO
THE DETERMINATION THAT THE
PRESIDENT ABUSED HIS OFFICE.
>> DID YOU CONSIDER THE FINDINGS
OF FACT THAT THE INTELLIGENCE
COMMITTEE MADE INCLUDING THAT
AND AGAIN, I QUOTE, THE
PRESIDENT WITHHELD OFFICIAL ACTS
OF VALUE TO UKRAINE AND
CONDITIONED THEIR FULFILLMENT ON
ACTIONS BY UKRAINE THAT WOULD
BENEFIT HIS PERSONAL, POLITICAL
INTERESTS?
>> YES.
IN MAKING THE DETERMINATION THAT
THE PRESIDENT COMMITTED AN
IMPEACHABLE OFFENSE, I RELIED ON
THE EVIDENCE BEFORE THE HOUSE
AND THE TESTIMONY AND WHEN THIS
REPORT WAS ISSUED, I CONTINUE TO
RELY ON THAT.
>> SIR, DID YOU REVIEW THE
FOLLOWING TESTIMONY FROM OUR
AMBASSADOR TO UKRAINE,
AMBASSADOR WILLIAM TAYLOR?
>> TO WITHHOLD THAT ASSISTANCE,
FOR NO GOOD REASON OTHER THAN
HELP WITH THE POLITICAL
CAMPAIGN, MADE NO SENSE.
IT WAS COUNTER PRODUCTIVE TO ALL
OF WHAT WE HAD BEEN TRYING TO
DO.
IT WAS ILLOGICAL, COULD NOT BE
EXPLAINED.
IT WAS CRAZY.
>> YES.
THAT EVIDENCE UNDERSCORED THE
WAY THAT THE PRESIDENT'S ACTIONS
UNDERCUT NATIONAL SECURITY.
>> PROFESSOR FELDMAN, WILL YOU
PLEASE EXPLAIN WHY YOU CONCLUDED
THAT THE PRESIDENT COMMITTED THE
HIGH CRIME OF ABUSE OF POWER AND
WHY IT MATTERS.
>> THE ABUSE OF POWER OCCURS
WHEN THE PRESIDENT USES HIS
OFFICE FOR PERSONAL ADVANTAGE OR
GAIN.
THAT MATTER IS FUNDAMENTAL TO
THE AMERICAN PEOPLE BECAUSE IF
WE CANNOT IMPEACH A PRESIDENT
WHO ABUSES HIS OFFICE FOR
PERSONAL ADVANTAGE, WE NO LONGER
LIVE IN A DEMOCRACY.
WE LIVE IN A MONARCHY OR WE LOVE
UNDER A DICTATOR SHIP.
THAT'S WHY THE FRAMERS CREATED
THE POSSIBILITY OF IMPEACHMENT.
>> PROFESSOR KARLAN, THIS HIGHS
CRIME AND ABUSE OF POWER, WAS IT
SOME KIND OF LOOSE OR UNDEFINED
CONCEPT TO THE FOUNDERS OF OUR
COUNTRY AND THE FRAMERS OF OUR
CONSTITUTION?
>> NO, I DON'T THINK IT WAS AN
A -- IT WAS A LOOSE CONCEPT AT
ALL.
IT HAD A LONG LINEAGE IN THE
COMMON LAW IN ENGLAND, OF
PARLIAMENTARY IMPEACHMENTS OF
LOWER LEVEL OFFICERS.
OBVIOUSLY THEY HAD NOT TALKED
ABOUT IMPEACHING AS YOU HEARD
EARLIER, THE KING OR THE LIKE.
>> CAN YOU SHARE A LITTLE BIT
ABOUT THAT LINEAGE, PLEASE?
>> YES.
SO THE -- THE PARLIAMENT IN
ENGLAND IMPEACHED POWER WHEN
THEY ABUSED THEIR POWER.
RIGHT AFTER THE RESTORATION OF
THE KINGSHIP IN ENGLAND, THERE
WAS AN IMPEACHMENT.
YOU KNOW, WHEN THEY IMPEACH
SOMEBODY, YOU HAVE TO SAY WHAT
WERE THEY IMPEACHING THEM FOR.
SOMETIMES FOR TREASON OR THE
LIKE AND SOMETIMES THEY WOULD
USE THE PHRASE HIGH CRIME OR
MISDEMEANOR.
THERE WAS AN IMPEACHMENT OF
VICOUNT MORETENS.
HE WAS THE SHERIFF OF WINDSOR.
AS THE ELECTION WAS COMING UP,
HE ARRESTED WILLIAM TAYLOR.
I WANT TO READ TO YOU FROM THE
ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT IN FRONT
OF THE HOUSE OF COMMONS.
BECAUSE IT IS SO TELLING.
HERE'S WHAT ARTICLE ONE SAID.
UNDERSTANDING THAT ONE WILLIAM
TAYLOR DID INTEND TO STAND FOR
THE ELECTION TO SERVE IN THE
PRESENT PARLIAMENT.
THIS IS WHAT HE DID.
TO DISPARAGE AND PREVENT THE
ELECTION OF WILLIAM TAYLOR AND
STRIKE A TERROR INTO THOSE OF
THE SAID BOROUGH WHICH SHOULD
GIVE THEIR VOICES FOR HIM AND
DEPRIVE THEM OF THE FREEDOM OF
THEIR VOICES AT THE ELECTION.
HE DID COMMAND AND CARVE WILLIAM
TAYLOR TO BE ILLEGALLY AND
ARBITRARILY SEIZED UPON BY
SOLDIERS AND HE DETAINED HIM.
IN OTHER WORDS, HE WENT AFTER A
POLITICAL OPPONENT AND THAT WAS
A HIGH CRIME OR MISDEMEANOR TO
USE YOUR OFFICE TO GO AFTER A
POLICE CALL OPPONENT.
>> NOW, PROFESSOR GERHARDT, DOES
A HIGH CRIME AND MISDEMEANOR
REQUIRE AN ACTUAL STATUTORY
CRIME?
>> NO.
IT PLAINLY DOES NOT.
EVERYTHING WE KNOW ABOUT THE
HISTORY OF IMPEACHMENT
REINFORCES THE CONCLUSION THAT
IMPEACHABLE OFFENSES DO NOT HAVE
TO BE CRIMES AND AGAIN NOT ALL
CRIMES ARE IMPEACHABLE OFFENSES.
WE LOOK AGAIN AT THE CONTEXT AND
GRAVITY OF THE MISCONDUCT.
>> AND PROFESSOR TURLEY, YOU
RECENTLY WROTE IN THE "WALL
STREET JOURNAL" AND I QUOTE
"THERE IS MUCH THAT IS WORTHY OF
INVESTIGATION IN THE UKRAINE
SCANDAL AND IT IS TRUE THAT
IMPEACHMENT DOESN'T REQUIRE A
CRIME."
>> THAT'S TRUE.
BUT I ALSO ADD AN IMPORTANT
CAVEAT --
>> A YES OR NO QUESTION.
DID YOU WROTE IN THE "WALL
STREET JOURNAL" THERE'S MUCH
THAT IS WORTHY OF INVESTIGATION
IN THE UKRAINE SCANDAL AND IT IS
TRUE THAT IMPEACHMENT DOES NOT
REQUIRE A CRIME.
IS THAT AN ACCURATE QUESTION?
>> YOU READ IT WELL.
>> SO PROFESSORS FELDMAN, KARLAN
AND GERHARDT, YOU HAVE
IDENTIFIED ON THE EVIDENCE HERE
THERE'S AN IMPEACHABLE ACT.
A HIGH CRIME AND MISDEMEANOR OF
ABUSE OF
>>
>> YES.
>> YES.
>> 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 GIVES THE
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES THE
SOLE POWER OF IMPEACHMENT.
THE HOUSE HAS THE RIGHT AND THE
RESPONSIBILITY TO INVESTIGATE
PRESIDENTIAL MISCONDUCT AND
WHERE APPROPRIATE TO CREATE AND
PASS ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT.
>> PROFESSOR KARLAN, 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 HAVE TO ASK
YOURSELF IF YOU DON'T IMPEACH
THIS PRESIDENT AFTER WHAT HE'S
DONE, OR AT LEAST DON'T
INVESTIGATE AND IMPEACH THAT THE
HOUSE SELECT COMMITTEE ON
INTELLIGENCE FINDINGS ARE
CORRECT, THEN WHAT YOU'RE SAYING
IS IT'S FINE TO GO AHEAD AND DO
THIS AGAIN.
AND I THINK THAT AS THE -- IN
THE REPORT THAT CAME OUT LAST
NIGHT, THE REPORT -- THE REPORT
TALKS ABOUT THE CLEAR AND
PRESENT DANGER TO THE ELECTION
SYSTEM.
IT'S YOUR RESPONSIBILITY TO MAKE
SURE THAT ALL AMERICANS GET TO
VOTE IN A FREE AND FAIR ELECTION
NEXT NOVEMBER.
>> PROFESSOR KARLAN, I'D LIKE TO
DIRECT YOU TO THE WORDS IN THE
CONSTITUTION, "OTHER HIGH CRIMES
AND MISDEMEANORS."
WE'RE STILL GOING TO TALK ABOUT
ABUSE OF POWER.
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 THE
LIKELIHOOD THAT THIS
CONSTITUTION WOULD ENDURE FOR
GENERATIONS MEANT THEY COULDN'T
LIST ALL OF THE CRIMES THAT
MIGHT BE COMMITTED.
THEY COULDN'T IMAGINE AN ABUSE
OF POWER, FOR EXAMPLE, THAT
INVOLVED BURGLARIZING AND
STEALING COMPUTER FILES FROM AN
ADVERSARY BECAUSE THEY COULDN'T
IMAGINE COMPUTERS.
THEY COULDN'T NECESSARILY HAVE
IMAGINED WIRETAPPING BECAUSE WE
HAD NO WIRES IN 1789.
SO WHAT THEY DID, THAT I PUT IN
A PHRASE THAT THE ENGLISH HAD
USED AND THAT HAD ADAPTED OVER A
PERIOD OF CENTURIES TO TAKE INTO
ACCOUNT THAT THIS IDEA OF HIGH
CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS IS TO
GET AT THINGS THAT PEOPLE IN
OFFICE USE TO STRIKE AT THE VERY
HEART OF OUR DEMOCRACY.
>> AND PROFESSOR, IN YOUR
WRITTEN TESTIMONY, YOU MENTIONED
TWO ADDITIONAL ASPECTS OF HIGH
CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS BESIDES
ABUSE OF POWER.
YOU TALKED ABOUT BETRAYAL OF THE
NATIONAL INTERESTS, BETRAYAL OF
THE NATIONAL INTERESTS AND
CORRUPTION OF THE ELECTORAL
PROCESS.
AND CAN YOU SAY A LITTLE BIT
MORE ABOUT WHAT THE FRAMERS
CONCERNS WERE ABOUT CORRUPTION
OF ELECTIONS AND BETRAYAL OF THE
NATIONAL INTERESTS INVOLVING
FOREIGN POWERS AND HOW THEY COME
IN TO PLAY HERE?
>> SURE.
LET ME START WITH THE FRAMERS
AND WHAT THEY WERE CONCERNED
WITH AND BRING IT UP TO DATE
BECAUSE I THINK THEY'RE SOME
MODERN STUFF AS WELL THAT IS
IMPORTANT.
THE FRAMERS WERE VERY WORRIED
THAT ELECTIONS COULD BE
CORRUPTED.
CORRUPTED IN A VARIETY OF
DIFFERENT WAYS.
THEY SPENT A LOT OF TIME TRYING
TO DESIGN A SYSTEM THAT WOULDN'T
BE SUBJECT TO THAT KIND OF
CORRUPTION.
A NUMBER OF DIFFERENT PROVISIONS
IN THE CONSTITUTION THAT DEAL
WITH THE KINDS OF CORRUPTION
THAT THEY WERE WORRIED ABOUT.
TWO THAT I LIKE TO HIGHLIGHT
HERE BECAUSE THEY GO TO THIS
IDEA OF THE NATIONAL INTERESTS
AND FOREIGN GOVERNMENTS.
ONE THAT SEEMS TODAY TO MOST OF
US TO BE REALLY A KIND OF
REMNANT OF A PAST TIME.
IF YOU BECOME AN AMERICAN
CITIZEN, ALMOST EVERYTHING IS
OPEN TO YOU.
YOU CAN BE CHIEF JUSTICE OF THE
UNITED STATES, SECRETARY STATE.
THE ONE OATH THAT IS NOT OPEN TO
YOU EVEN THOUGH YOU'RE A CITIZEN
IS THE PRESIDENCY.
THEY REASON THEY DID THAT IS
BECAUSE OF FOREIGN INFLUENCE
OVER A PRESIDENT.
THE OTHER CLAUSE THAT NOBODY
HEARD OF FIVE YEARS AGO BUT NOW
EVERYBODY TALKS ABOUT IS THE
EMOLUMENTS CLAUSE.
THEY WERE WORRIED THAT THE
PRESIDENT BECAUSE HE WAS ONLY
GOING TO BE IN OFFICE A LITTLE
WHILE WOULD USE IT TO GET
EVERYTHING HE COULD AND TAKE
GIFTS FROM FOREIGN COUNTRIES.
NOT BRIBES BUT GIFTS.
THEY WERE WORRIED ABOUT THAT AS
WELL.
THEY WERE VERY CONCERNED ABOUT
THOSE ELECTIONS.
IT'S NOT JUST THEM.
I WANT TO SAY SOMETHING ABOUT
WHAT OUR NATIONAL INTEREST IS
TODAY.
BECAUSE OUR NATIONAL INTEREST
TODAY IS DIFFERENT IN SOME
IMPORTANT WAYS THAN IT WAS IN
1789.
WHAT THE FRAMERS WERE WORRIED
ABOUT IS THAT WE WOULD BE A WEAK
COUNTRY AND WE COULD BE
EXPLOITED BY FOREIGN COUNTRIES.
WE'RE A STRONG POWER NOW.
THE STRONGEST POWER IN THE
WORLD.
WE CAN STILL BE EXPLOITED BY FOR
WREN COUNTRIES.
THE OTHER THANK THAT WE'VE DONE
AND THIS IS ONE OF THE THINGS
THAT I THINK WE AS AMERICANS
SHOULD BE PROUDEST OF IS WE HAVE
BECOME WHAT JOHN WINTHROP SAID
IN HIS SERMON IN 1640 AND WHAT
RONALD REAGAN SAID IN HIS FINAL
ADDRESS TO THE COUNTRY AS HE
LEFT OFFICE.
WATER THE SHINING CITY ON A
HILL.
WE'RE A NATION THAT LEADS THE
WORLD IN UNDERSTANDING WHAT
DEMOCRACY IS.
AND ONE OF THE THINGS WE
UNDERSTAND MOST PROFOUNDLY IS,
IT'S NOT A REAL DEMOCRACY.
IT'S NOT A MATURE DEMOCRACY IF
THE PART IN POWER USES THE
CRIMINAL PROCESS TO GO AFTER ITS
ENEMIES.
AND I THINK YOU HEARD TESTIMONY
THE INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE, HOW
IT ISN'T JUST OUR NATIONAL
INTEREST IN PROTECTING OUR OWN
ELECTIONS.
IT'S NOT JUST OUR NATIONAL
INTEREST IN MAKING SURE THE
UKRAINE IS STRONG AND ON THE
FRONT LINE SO THEY FIGHT THE
RUSSIANS THERE AND WE DON'T
FIGHT THEM HERE.
IT OUR NATIONAL INTEREST IN
PROMOTING DEMOCRACY WORLDWIDE.
IF WE LOOK HYPOCRITICAL ABOUT
THIS, IF WE LOOK LIKE WE'RE
ASKING OTHER COUNTRIES TO
INTERFERE, IF WE LOOK LIKE WE'RE
ASKING OTHER COUNTRIES TO ENGAGE
IN CRIMINAL INVESTIGATIONS OF
OUR PRESIDENT'S POLITICAL
OPPONENTS, THEN WE'RE NOT DOING
OUR JOB OF PROMOTING OUR
NATIONAL INTEREST IN BEING THAT
SHINING CITY ON THE HILL.
>> PROFESSOR FELDMAN, ANYTHING
TO ADD?
>> THE REASON THE CONSTITUTION
PROVIDED FOR IMPEACHMENT IS TO
ANTICIPATE A SITUATION LIKE THE
ONE BEFORE YOU TODAY.
THE FRAMERS WERE NOT PROPHETS.
THEY WERE VERY SMART PEOPLE.
A VERY SOPHISTICATED
UNDERSTANDING OF HUMAN
INCENTIVES.
THEY UNDERSTOOD THAT A PRESIDENT
WOULD BE MOTIVATED NATURALLY TO
TRY TO USE THE TREMENDOUS POWER
OF OFFICE TO GAIN PERSONAL
ADVANTAGE, TO KEEP HIMSELF IN
OFFICE, THE CORRUPT THE
ELECTORAL PROCESS AND
POTENTIALLY SUBVERT THE NATIONAL
INTERESTS.
THE FACTS STRONGLY SUGGEST THIS
IS WHAT PRESIDENT TRUMP HAS DONE
AND UNDER THOSE CIRCUMSTANCES
THE FRAMERS WOULD EXPECT THE
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TO TAKE
ACTION IN THE FORM OF
IMPEACHMENT.
>> AND PROFESSOR FELDMAN, DID
YOU REVIEW THE INTELLIGENCE
COMMITTEE REPORT FINDING THAT
PRESIDENT TRUMP COMPROMISED
NATIONAL SECURITY TO ADVANCE HIS
PERSONAL POLITICAL INTERESTS?
>> I DID.
>> WILL YOU EXPLAIN IN YOUR VIEW
HOW THAT HAPPENED?
>> THE PRESIDENT SOUGHT PERSONAL
GAIN AND ADVANTAGE BY SOLICITING
THE ANNOUNCEMENT OF
INVESTIGATIONS AND PRESUMABLY
INVESTIGATIONS FROM UKRAINE AND
TO DO SO HE WITHHELD CRITICAL
ASSISTANCE THAT THE GOVERNMENT
OF UKRAINE NEEDED AND BY DOING
SO, HE UNDERMINES THE NATIONAL
SECURITY INTERESTS OF THE UNITED
STATES IN HELPING UKRAINE, OUR
ALLY, IN A WAR THAT IT IS
FIGHTING AGAINST RUSSIA.
SO IN THE SIMPLEST POSSIBLE
TERMS, THE PRESIDENT PUT HIS
PERSONAL GAIN AHEAD OF THE
NATIONAL SECURITY INTERESTS AS
EXPRESSED ACCORDING TO THE
EVIDENCE BEFORE YOU BY THE
ENTIRETY OF THE A UNANIMOUS
NATIONAL SECURITY COMMUNITY.
>> SIR, IS IT YOUR VIEW THAT THE
FRAMERS WOULD CONCLUDE THAT
THERE WAS A BETRAYAL OF THE
NATIONAL INTERESTS OR NATIONAL
SECURITY BY PRESIDENT TRUMP ON
THESE FACTS?
>> IN MY VIEW, IF THE FRAMERS
WERE AWARE THAT A PRESIDENT OF
THE UNITED STATES HAD PUT HIS
PERSONAL GAIN AND INTERESTS
AHEAD OF THE NATIONAL SECURITY
OF THE UNITED STATES BY
CONDITIONING AID TO A CRUCIAL
ALLY THAT IS IN THE MIDST OF A
WAR ON INVESTIGATIONS AIMED AT
HIS OWN PERSONAL GAIN, THEY
WOULD CONCLUDE THAT IS AN ABUSE
OF THE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENCY
AND CONCLUDE THAT CONDUCT WAS
IMPEACHABLE.
>> PROFESSOR GERHARDT, WHAT ARE
YOUR THOUGHTS ON THE ABUSE OF
POWER AND THE CORRUPTION OF
ELECTIONS, SIR?
>> I HAVE A LOT OF THOUGHTS.
ONE OF THEM IS THAT WHAT WE
HAVEN'T MENTIONED YET, BROUGHT
INTO THIS CONVERSATION IS THE
FACT THAT THE IMPEACHMENT POWER
REQUIRES THIS COMMITTEE, THIS
HOUSE TO INVESTIGATE
PRESIDENTIAL CONDUCT.
IF THE PRESIDENT CAN BLOCK AN
INVESTIGATION, UNDERMINE IT, THE
IMPEACHMENT POWER AS A CHECK
AGAINST MISCONDUCT IS UNDERMINED
COMPLETELY.
>> PROFESSOR KARLAN, CAN YOU
HAVE AN IMPEACHABLE OFFENSE OF
ABUSE OF POWER THAT IS SUPPORTED
BY CONSIDERATIONS OF A
PRESIDENT'S BETRAYAL, OF THE
NATIONAL INTERESTS OR NATIONAL
SECURITY AND BY CORRUPTION OF
ELECTIONS?
>> YES, YOU CAN.
>> DO WE HAVE THAT HERE, MA'AM?
>> BASED ON THE EVIDENCE THAT
I'VE SEEN, WHICH IS REVIEWING
THE TRANSCRIPTS OF THE 12
WITNESSES THAT TESTIFIED,
LOOKING AT THE CALL READ-OUT,
LOOKING AT SOME OF THE
PRESIDENT'S OTHER STATEMENTS,
LOOKING AT THE STATEMENT BY
MR. MULVANEY AND THE LIKE, YES,
WE DO.
>> AND PROFESSOR FELDMAN, DO YOU
AGREE?
>> YES.
>> PROFESSOR GERHARDT?
>> YES, I DO.
>> PROFESSOR KARLAN, WE'VE BEEN
TALKING ABOUT THE CATEGORY OF
OTHER HIGH CRIMES AND
MISDEMEANORS LIKE ABUSE OF
POWER.
BUT THERE ARE SOME ADDITIONAL
HIGH CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS
THAT ARE SPECIFICALLY IDENTIFIED
IN THE TEXT OF THE CONTUSION.
CORRECT?
>> YES, THAT'S TRUE.
>> WHAT ARE THEY?
>> TREASON AND BRIBERY.
>> DO PRESIDENT TRUMP'S DEMANDS
ON UKRAINE ALSO ESTABLISH THE
HIGH CRIME OF BRIBERY?
>> YES, THEY DO.
>> CAN YOU EXPLAIN WHY, PLEASE?
>> SURE.
SO THE HIGH CRIME OR MISDEMEANOR
BRIBERY, IT'S IMPORTANT TO
DISTINGUISH THAT FROM WHATEVER
THE U.S. CODE CALLS BRIBERY
TODAY.
THE REASON FOR THIS IN PART IS
BECAUSE IN 1789 WHEN THE FRAMERS
WERE WRITING THE CONSTITUTION,
THERE WAS NO FEDERAL CRIMINAL
CODE.
THE FIRST BRIBERY STATUTES THAT
THE UNITED STATES CONGRESS WOULD
HAVE PASSED WOULDN'T HAVE
REACHED A PRESIDENT AT ALL.
THE FIRST WAS ABOUT CUSTOMS
OFFICIALS.
THE SECOND WAS ABOUT JUDGES.
SO 60 YEARS OR SO AFTER THE
CONSTITUTION WAS RATIFIED THAT
WE HAD ANY FEDERAL CRIME OF
BRIBERY AT ALL.
SO WHEN THEY SAY EXPLICITLY IN
THE CONSTITUTION THAT THIS
PRESIDENT CAN BE IMPEACH AND
REMOVED FROM OFFICE FOR BRIBERY,
THEY WEREN'T REFERRING TO A
STATUTE.
I WILL SAY, I'M NOT AN EXPERT ON
FEDERAL SUBSTANTIVE CRIMINAL
LAW.
ALL I WILL SAY HERE, THE BRIBERY
STATUTE IS A COMPLICATED STATUE.
SO WHAT THEY WERE THINKING ABOUT
IS BRIBERY AS IT WAS UNDERSTOOD
IN THE 18th CENTURY BASED ON THE
COMMON LAW UP UNTIL THAT POINT.
AND THAT UNDERSTANDING WAS AN
UNDERSTANDING THAT SOMEONE AND
GENERALLY EVEN THEN IT WAS
MOSTLY TALKING ABOUT A JUDGE,
NOT TALKING ABOUT A PRESIDENT
BECAUSE THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE
BEFORE THAT.
IT WASN'T TALKING ABOUT THE KING
BECAUSE THE KING COULD DO NO
WRONG.
WHAT THEY WERE UNDERSTANDING
THEN, THE IDEA THAT WHEN YOU
TOOK PRIVATE BENEFITS OR ASKED
FOR PRIVATE BENEFITS, IN TURN
FOR AN OFFICIAL ACT OR SOMEBODY
GAVE THEM TO YOU TO INFLUENCE AN
OFFICIAL ACT, THAT WAS BRIBERY.
>> SO WE HAVE CONSTITUTIONAL
BRIBERY HERE.
THE HIGH CRIME AND MISDEMEANOR
OF CONSTITUTIONAL BRIBERY
AGAINST PRESIDENT TRUMP.
>> IF YOU CONCLUDE THAT HE ASKED
FOR THE INVESTIGATION OF VICE
PRESIDENT BIDEN AND HIS SON FOR
POLITICAL REASONS, THAT IS TO
AID HIS RE-ELECTION, THEN YES,
YOU HAVE BRIBERY HERE.
>> IN FORMING THAT OPINION, DID
YOU REVIEW THE MEN RANDOM OF THE
PRESIDENT'S TELEPHONE CALL WITH
THE UKRAINIAN PRESIDENT, THE ONE
WHERE PRESIDENT TRUMP ASKED I
WOULD LIKE YOU TO DO US A FAVOR
AND LOOKING INTO HIS POLITICAL
OPPONENT?
>> YES.
>> DID YOU CONSIDER IF FOLLOWING
TESTIMONY FROM OUR AMBASSADOR TO
THE EUROPEAN UNION, AMBASSADOR
SONDLAND?
WAS THERE A QUID PRO QUO?
AS I TESTIFIED WITH REGARDS TO
THE REQUESTED WHITE HOUSE
MEETING, THE ANSWER IS YES.
EVERYONE WAS IN THE LOOP.
>> DID YOU CONSIDER THAT,
PROFESSOR?
>> I DID CONSIDER THAT, YES.
>> DID YOU ALSO CONSIDER THE
FINDINGS OF FACT THAT THE
INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE MADE
INCLUDING THAT AND I QUOTE FROM
FINDING OF FACT NUMBER 5, THE
PRESIDENT WITHHELD OFFICIAL ACTS
OF VALUE TO UKRAINE AND
CONDITIONED THEIR FULFILLMENT ON
ACTIONS BY UKRAINE THAT WOULD
BENEFIT HIS PERSONAL POLITICAL
INTERESTS?
>> I DID RELY ON THAT.
IN ADDITION BECAUSE AS I HAVE
TESTIFIED, I READ THE
WITNESSES -- THE TRANSCRIPTS OF
ALL OF THE WITNESSES.
I RELIED ON TESTIMONY FROM
AMBASSADOR SONDLAND,
MR. MORRISON, LIEUTENANT COLONEL
VINDMAN, FROM AMBASSADOR TAYLOR.
I RELIED ON -- I THINK
AMBASSADOR TAYLOR SENT THE CABLE
THAT SAID IT'S CRAZY TO HOLD
THIS UP BASED ON DOMESTIC
POLITICAL CONCERN.
NOBODY SAID THAT'S NOT WHY WE'RE
DOING IT.
RELIED ON WHAT MR. MULVANEY SAID
IN HIS PRESS CONFERENCE.
SO THERE WAS -- THERE'S A LOT TO
SUGGEST HERE THAT THIS IS ABOUT
POLITICAL BENEFIT.
I DON'T KNOW IF I CAN TALK ABOUT
ANOTHER PIECE OF AMBASSADOR
SONDLAND'S TESTIMONY NOW OR I
SHOULD WAIT.
TELL ME.
>> PLEASE TALK ABOUT IT.
>> SO I WANT TO JUST POINT TO
WHAT I CONSIDER TO BE THE MOST
STRIKING EXAMPLE OF THIS.
THE MOST -- I SPENT ALL OF
THANKSGIVING VACATION SITTING
THERE READING THESE TRANSCRIPTS.
YOU KNOW, I AID LIKE A TURKEY
THAT CAME TO US IN THE MAIL THAT
WAS ALREADY COOKED BECAUSE I WAS
SPENDING MY TIME DOING THIS.
THE MOST CHILLING LINE FOR ME OF
THE ENTIRE PROCESS IS THE
FOLLOWING.
AMBASSADOR SONDLAND HAD TO
ANNOUNCE THE INVESTIGATIONS.
HE DIDN'T HAVE TO DO THEM AS I
UNDERSTOOD IT.
HE SAID I NEVER HEARD
MR. GOLDMAN SAY THAT THE
INVESTIGATIONS HAD TO START OR
BE COMPLETED.
THE ONLY THING I HEARD FROM MANY
GULIANI OR OTHERWISE IS THAT
THEY HAD TO BE ANNOUNCED IN SOME
FORM.
WHAT I TOOK THAT TO MEAN, THIS
IS NOT ABOUT WHETHER VICE
PRESIDENT BIDEN COMMITTED C
CORRUPTION OR NOT.
THIS IS ABOUT IB JURYING
SOMEBODY THATTED THE PRESIDENT
THINKS IS A PARTICULARLY HARD
OPPONENT.
THAT'S FROM HIS PRIVATE BELIEFS.
IF I CAN SAY ONE LAST THING
ABOUT THE INTERESTS OF THE
UNITED STATES.
THE CONTUSION OF THE UNITED
STATES DOES NOT CARE WHETHER THE
NEXT PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED
STATES THE DONALD TRUMP OR ANY
ONE OF THE DEMOCRATS OR ANYBODY
RUNNING ON A THIRD PARTY.
THE CONSTITUTION IS INDIFFERENT
TO THAT.
WHAT THE CONSTITUTION CARES
ABOUT IS THAT WE HAVE FREE
ELECTIONS.
SO IT'S ONLY IN THE PRESIDENT'S
INTEREST, NOT THE NATIONAL
INTERESTS THAT A PARTICULAR
PRESIDENT BE ELECTED OR BE
DEFEATED AT THE NEXT ELECTION.
THE CONSTITUTION IS INDIFFERENT
TO THAT.
>> PROFESSOR FELDMAN, ANY
THOUGHTS ON THE SUBJECT OF THE
HIGH CRIME AND MISDEMEANOR OF
BRIBERY AND THE EVIDENCE THAT
PROFESSOR KARLAN LAID OUT.
>> THE CLEAR SENSE OF BRIBERY AT
THE TIME WHEN THE FRAMERS
ADOPTED THIS LANGUAGE IN THE
CONSTITUTION WAS 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 THE MEMBERS
OF THIS COMMITTEE WERE TO
DETERMINE THAT GETTING THE
INVESTIGATIONS EITHER ANNOUNCED
OR UNDERTAKEN WAS A THING OF
VALUE TO PRESIDENT TRUMP AND
THAT'S WHAT HE SOUGHT, THEN THIS
COMMITTEE AND THIS HOUSE COULD
SAFETY CONCLUDE THAT THE
PRESIDENT HAD COMMITTED BRIBERY
UNDER THE CONSTITUTION.
>> PROFESSOR GERHARDT, WHAT IS
YOUR VIEW?
>> I OF COURSE AGREE WITH
PROFESSOR KARLAN AND PROFESSOR
FELDMAN.
AND I JUST WANT TO STRESS THAT
IF THIS -- IF WHAT WE'RE TALKING
ABOUT IS NOT IMPEACHABLE, THEN
NOTHING IS IMPEACHABLE.
THIS IS PRECISELY THE MISCONDUCT
THAT THE FRAMES CREATED A
CONSTITUTION TO PROTECT AGAINST.
IF THERE'S NO ACTION, IF
CONGRESS CONCLUDES THEY'RE GOING
TO GIVE A PASS TO THE PRESIDENT
HERE, AS PROFESSOR KARLAN
SUGGESTED, EVERY OTHER PRESIDENT
WILL SAY, OKAY, THEN I CAN DO
THE SAME THING AND THE
BOUNDARIES WILL JUST EVAPORATE.
THOSE BOUNDARIES ARE SET UP BY
THE CONSTITUTION AND WE MAY BE
WITNESSING UNFORTUNATELY THEIR
EROSION.
THAT IS A DANGER TO ALL OF US.
>> AND WHAT CAN THIS COMMITTEE
AND THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
DO, SIR, TO DEFEND THOSE
BOUNDARIES AND TO PROTECT
AGAINST THAT EROSION?
>> PRECISELY WHAT YOU'RE DOING.
>> DOES IT MATTER -- I'LL ASK
ALL THE PANELISTS.
DOES IT MATTER TO IMPEACHMENT
THAT THE $391 MILLION U.S.
TAXPAYER DOLLARS IN MILITARY
ASSISTANCE THAT THE PRESIDENT
WITHHELD WAS ULTIMATELY
DELIVERED?
PROFESSOR FELDMAN, DOES THAT
MATTER?
>> 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 THEN NOT
BEING ABLE TO PULL IT OFF DOES
NOT UNDERCUT IN ANY WAY THE
IMPEACHABILITY OF THE ACT.
IF YOU'LL PARDON A COMPARISON,
PRESIDENT NIXON WAS SUBJECT TO
ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT
PREFERRED BY IN COMMITTEE FOR
ATTEMPTING TO COVER UP THE
WATERGATE BREAK-IN.
THE FACT THAT PRESIDENT NIXON
WAS NOT SUCCESSFUL IN COVERING
UP THE BREAK IN WAS NOT GROUND
FOR NOT IMPEACHING HIM.
THE ATTEMPT ITSELF IS THE
IMPEACHABLE ACT.
>> PROFESSOR KARLAN, DOES IT
MATTER TO IMPEACHMENT THAT THE
UNFOUNDED INVESTIGATIONS THE
PRESIDENT SOUGHT WERE ULTIMATELY
NEVER ANNOUNCED?
>> NO, IT DOESN'T.
IF I CAN GIVE AN EXAMPLE THAT
SHOWS WHY SOLICITING IS NOT --
IMAGINE THAT YOU WERE PULLED
OVER FOR SPEEDING BY A POLICE
OFFICER.
THE OFFICER SAYS YOU WERE
SPEEDING.
IF YOU GIVE ME $20, I'LL DROP
THE TICKET.
YOU LOOK IN YOUR WALLET AND SAY,
I DON'T HAVE THE $20.
THE OFFICER SAYS OKAY.
JUST GO AHEAD.
HAVE A NICE DAY.
THE OFFICER WOULD STILL BE
GUILTY OF SOLICIT AGO BRIBE
THERE EVEN THOUGH HE LET YOU OFF
WITHOUT YOUR PAYING.
SOLICITING ITSELF IS THE
IMPEACHABLE OFFENSE REGARDLESS
WHETHER THE OTHER PERSON COMES
UP WITH IT.
IMAGINE THE PRESIDENT HAD SAID
WILL YOU DO US A FAVOR,
INVESTIGATE JOE BIDEN.
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 HAD BEEN REFUSED
RIGHT THERE ON THE PHONE.
SO I DON'T SEE WHY THE ULTIMATE
DECISION HAS ANYTHING TO DO WITH
THE PRESIDENT'S IMPEACHABLE
CONDUCT.
>> WHAT IS THE DANGER IF
CONGRESS DOES NOT RESPOND TO
THAT ATTEMPT?
>> WE'VE ALREADY SEEN A LITTLE
BIT OF IT IS HE GETS OUT ON THE
WHITE HOUSE LAWN AND SAYS CHINA,
YOU SHOULD INVESTIGATE JOE
BIDEN.
>> PROFESSOR GERHARDT, YOUR
VIEW?
>> I CERTAINLY WOULD AGREE WITH
WHAT HAS BEEN SIDE.
ONE OF THE THINGS TO UNDERSTAND
FROM THE HISTORY OF IMPEACHMENT,
EVERYBODY THAT IS IMPEACHED HAS
FAILED.
THEY FAIL TO GET WHAT THEY
WANTED.
WHAT THEY WANTED WAS NOT JUST TO
DO WHAT THEY DID BUT TO GET AWAY
WITH IT.
THE POINT OF IMPEACHMENT IS AND
ITS MADE POSSIBLE THROUGH
INVESTIGATION IS TO NOT -- IS TO
CATCH THAT PERSON, CHARGE THAT
PERSON AND ULTIMATELY REMOVE
THEM FROM OFFICE.
IMPEACHMENTS ARE ALWAYS FOCUSING
ON SOMEBODY THAT DIDN'T QUITE
GET AS FAR AS THEY WANTED TO.
IT'S AS IF -- NOBODY IS BETTER
THAN PROFESSOR KARLAN AT
HYPOTHETICALS BUT I'LL RAISE
ANOTHER ONE.
IMAGINE A BANK ROBBERY.
THE POLICE COME.
THE PERSON IS IN THE MIDDLE OF
THE ROBBERY AND THE PERSON DROPS
THE MONEY AND SAYS, I'M GOING TO
LEAF WITHOUT THE MONEY.
EVERYBODY UNDERSTANDS THAT'S
BURGLARY.
THEY'RE RIGHT.
IN THIS SITUATION WE'VE GOT
SOMEBODY REALLY CAUGHT IN THE
MIDDLE OF IT AND THAT DOESN'T
EXCUSE THE PERSON THE
CONSEQUENCE.
>> PROFESSORS, WE'VE TALKED
ABOUT ABUSE OF POWER AND
BRAIBRY.
WHEN WE STARTED WE SAID WE
WOULD ALSO DISCUSS OBSTRUCTION
OF CONGRESS.
SO I'D LIKE TO ASK 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
UNDERSCORE THIS -- THE THIRD
ARTICLE OF IMPEACHMENT
APPROVED BY THE HOUSE
JUDICIARY COMMITTEE AGAINST
PRESIDENT NIXON CHARGED HIM
WITH MISCONDUCT BECAUSE HE
FAILED TO COMPLY WITH FOUR
LEGISLATIVE SUBPOENAS.
THIS IS FAR MORE THAN FOUR THE
PRESIDENT HAS FAILED TO COMPLY
WITH, AND HE ORDERED THE
EXECUTEDIVE BRANCH AS WELL,
NOT TO COOPERATE WITH
CONGRESS.
THOSE TOGETHER WITH A LOT OF
OTHER EVIDENCE SUGGEST
OBSTRUCTION OF CONGRESS.
>> PROFESSOR KARLAN, DO YOU
AGREE?
>> I'M A SCHOLAR OF THE LAW OF
DEMOCRACY.
SO AS A CITIZEN, I AGREE WITH
WHAT PROFESSOR GERHARDT SAID.
AS AN EXPERT, MY LIMITATION IS
THAT I'M A SCHOLAR OF THE LAW
OF DEMOCRACY, I'M NOT A
SCHOLAR OF OBSTRUCTION OF
JUSTICE OR CONGRESS.
>> WE WILL ACCEPT YOUR OPINION
AS A CITIZEN.
>> PROFESSOR FELDMAN, THE
OBSTRUCTION OF CONGRESS IS A
PROBLEM BECAUSE IT UNDERMINES
THE BASIC PRINCIPLE OF THE
CONSTITUTION.
IF YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE THREE
BRANCHES OF GOVERNMENT, EACH
OF THE BRANCHES HAS TO BE ABLE
TO DO ITS JOB.
THE JOB OF THE HOUSE IS TO
INVESTIGATE IMPEACHMENT AND TO
IMPEACH.
A PRESIDENT WHO SAYS, AS THIS
PRESIDENT DID SAY, I WILL NOT
COOPERATE IN ANY WAY SHAPE OR
FORM WITH YOUR PROCESS ROBS A
BRANCH OF GOVERNMENT, IF YOU
ROB THE HOUSE OF
REPRESENTATIVES OF ITS
CONSTITUTIONAL IMPEACHMENT.
WHEN YOU ADD TO THAT THE SAME
PRESIDENT SAYS MY DEPARTMENT
OF JUSTICE CANNOT CHARGE ME
WITH A CRIME, THE PRESIDENT
PUTS HIMSELF ABOVE THE LAW
WHEN HE SAYS HE WILL NOT WITH
AN IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY.
IT'S NOT POSSIBLE TO EMPHASIZE
THIS STRONG ENOUGH.
A PRESIDENT WHO WILL NOT
COOPERATE WITH IMPEACHMENT
INQUIRIES IS PUTTING HIMSELF
ABOVE THE LAW.
PUTTING YOURSELF ABOVE THE LAW
AS PRESIDENT IS THE CORE OF
IMPEACHABLE OFFENSE BECAUSE IF
HE CAN'T BE IMPEACHED FOR
THAT, HE WOULD NOT BE
RESPONSIBLE TO ANYBODY.
>> AND SIR, IN FOIN FORMING YOU
OPINION, DID YOU REVIEW THESE
STATEMENTS FROM THE PRESIDENT.
>> WE'RE FIGHTING ALL OF THEM.
ARTICLE TWO, I HAVE THE RIGHT
TO DO WHATEVER I WANT TO DO.
>> AND THEN AS SOMEONE WHO
CARES ABOUT THE CONSTITUTION,
THE SECOND OF THOSE IN
PARTICULAR, STRUCK A KIND OF
HORROR IN ME.
PROFESSOR GERHARDT, IN
FOERNLING YOUR OPINION THAT
PRESIDENT TRUMP COMMITTED
IMPEACHABLE OFFENSE OF
OBSTRUCTING CONGRESS, DID YOU
CONSIDER THE INTELLIGENCE
COMMITTEE REPORT AND ITS
FINDING INCLUDING FINDING THAT
PRESIDENT TRUMP ORDERED AND
IMPLEMENTED A CAMPAIGN TO
CONCEAL HIS CONDUCT FROM THE
PUBLIC AND TO FRUSTRATE AND
OBSTRUCT THE HOUSE OF
REPRESENTATIVES IMPEACHMENT
INQUIRY.
>> I READ THAT REPORT LAST
NIGHT.
I WATCHED AND READ ALL THE
TRANSCRIPTS THAT WERE
AVAILABLE.
THE REPORT THAT WAS ISSUED
REINFORCES EVERYTHING ELSE.
>> WE TALKED ABOUT, A BUSE OF
POWER AND BRIBERY, AND THEN
ABOUT OBSTRUCTION OF CONGRESS.
PROFESSOR GERHARDT, I'D LIKE
TO ASK YOU QUESTIONS ABOUT A
THIRD IMPEACHABLE OFFENSE, AND
THAT IS OBSTRUCTION OF
JUSTICE.
HAVE YOU FORMED AN OPINION
WHETHER PRESIDENT TRUMP
COMMITTED OBSTRUCTION OF
JUSTICE?
>> YES, I V.
>> AND WHAT IS YOUR OPINION,
SIR?
>> BASED -- I'VE COME HERE
LIKE EVERY WITNESS.
ASSUMING THE FACTS PUT
TOGETHER, THE MU MUELLER REPORT
STATES FACTS THAT THE
PRESIDENT COMMITTED
OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE AND
THAT'S AN IMPEACHABLE OFFENSE.
>> AND IN YOUR TESTIMONY, YOU
POINTED OUT THAT THE Mxá*UL ERR
REPORT FOUND FIVE INSTANCES OF
THE PRESIDENT'S OBSTRUCTION OF
THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT'S
CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION INTO
RUSSIAN INTERFERENCE INTO THE
2016 ELECTION, CORRECT?
>> YES, SIR.
>> AND THE FIRST OF THOSE
INSTANCES WAS THE PRESIDENT
ORDERING WHITE HOUSE COUNSEL,
DON MAGAN TO FIRE THE SPECIAL
COUNSEL, RATHER TO HAVE THE
SPECIAL COUNSEL FIRED IN ORDER
TO THWART THE INVESTIGATION OF
THE PRESIDENT, CORRECT?
>> THAT IS CORRECT.
>> AND THE SECOND THE
PRESIDENT ORDERED MR. MAGAN TO
CREATE A FALSE WRITTEN RECORD
DENYING THAT THE PRESIDENT
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,
CORY LIEUEENDOWSE KEY.
>> YES, SIR.
>> AND WITNESS TAMPERING AS
FAR AS MICHAEL COHEN AND
FORMER PERSONAL LAWYER TO THE
PRESIDENT?
>> INDIVIDUALLY AND
COLLECTIVELY THESE ARE
EVIDENCE OF OBSTRUCTION OF
JUSTICE.
>> HOW SERIOUS IS THAT
OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE?
>> IT'S QUITE SERIOUS.
AND THAT'S NOT ALL OF IT, OF
COURSE, AND WE KNOW AS YOU'VE
MENTIONED BEFORE, OBSTRUCTION
OF JUSTICE IS RECOGNIZED AS AN
IMPEACHABLE OFFENSE AGAINST
PRESIDENT CLINTON AND
PRESIDENT NIXON.
THIS EVIDENCE PUT FORWARD BY
MR.búM MUELLER IS IN THE PUBLIC
RECORD, AND IS VERY STRONG
EVIDENCE OF OBSTRUCTION OF
JUSTICE.
>> PROFESSOR KARLAN, WHEN YOU
LOOK AT THE DEPARTMENT OF
JUSTICE RUSSIA INVESTIGATION,
AND HOW THE PRESIDENT
RESPONDED TO THAT, AND WHEN
YOU LOOK AT CONGRESS UKRAINE
INVESTIGATION, HOW THE
PRESIDENT RESPONDED TO THAT,
DO YOU SEE A PATTERN?
>> YES.
I SEE A PATTERN IN WHICH THE
PRESIDENT'S VIEWS ABOUT THE
PROPRIETY OF FOREIGN
GOVERNMENTS INTERVENING IN THE
ELECTION PROCESS ARE THE
ANTITHESIS OF THE FRAMERS.
WE AS AMERICANS DECIDE OUR
ELECTIONS.
WE DON'T WANT FOREIGN
INTERFERENCE IN THOSE
ELECTIONS.
THE REASON WE DON'T WANT
FOREIGN INTERFERENCE IN THE
ELECTIONS IS BECAUSE WE ARE
SELF-DETERMINING DEMOCRACY,
AND IF I COULD JUST READ ONE
QUOTATION TO YOU WHICH I THINK
IS HELPFUL IN UNDERSTANDING
THIS, SOMEBODY WHO IS POINTING
TO WHAT HE CALLS A STRAIGHT
FORWARD PRINCIPLE.
IT'S FUNDAMENTAL TO THE
COMMUNITY THAT FOREIGN
CITIZENS DO NOT HAVE A
CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO
PARTICIPATE IN AND THUS
EXCLUDED FROM ACTIVITIES OF
DEMOCRATIC SELF-GOVERNMENT.
AND THE PERSON WHO WROTE THOSE
WORD SIZE NOW JUSTICE BRET
CAVENAUGH IN UPHOLDING THE
CONSTITUTIONALITY OF A STATUTE
WHICH DENIES FOREIGN CITIZENS
THE RIGHT TO PARTICIPATE IN
ELECTIONS BY SPENDING MONEY ON
ELECTIONEERING OR GIVING MONEY
TO PACS.
THEY'RE FORBIDDEN TO GIVE
MONEY TO CANDIDATES BECAUSE
THEY DENIES US THE RIGHT TO
SELF-GOVERNMENT, AND JFTD
CAVE
JUSTICE
CAVENAUGH WAS CORRECT IN
SAYING THIS.
TALKING ABOUT THE FIRST
AMENDMENT.
SUMMARILY AFFIRMED.
THEY DBT NEED TO HEAR ARGUMENT
TO KNOW IT'S NOT
CONSTITUTIONAL TO KEEP
FOREIGNERS OUT OF THE ELECTION
PROCESS.
>> PROFESSOR FELDMAN YOU WERE
AN IMPEACHMENT SKEPTIC AT THE
TIME OF THE RELEASE OF THE
MUELLER REPORT, WERE YOU NOT?
>> I WAS.
>> WHAT'S CHANGED FOR YOU,
SIR?
>> WHAT CHANGED WAS THE
REVELATION OF THE JULY 25th
CALL, AND THEN THE EVIDENCE
THAT EMERGED OF THE PRESIDENT
OF THE UNITED STATES IN A
FORMAT WHERE HE WAS HURT BY
OTHERS AND NOW KNOWING TO THE
PUBLIC, OPENLY ABUSED HIS
OFFICE BY SEEKING A PERSONAL
ADVANTAGE IN ORDER TO GET
HIMSELF RE-ELECTED AN ACT
AGAINST THE SECURITY OF THE
UNITED STATES.
THAT IS PRECISELY THE
SITUATION THAT THE FRAMERS
ANTICIPATED.
WHEN THEY DO COME TO THAT, WE
HAVE TO ASK OURSELVES, SOME
DAY WE WILL NO LONGER BE ALIVE
AND GO WHEREVER IT IS WE GO.
THE GOOD PLACE OR THE OTHER
PLACE, AND WE MAY MEET THERE,
MADISON AND HAMILTON, AND THEY
WILL ASK US, WHEN THE
PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES
ACTED TO CORRUPT THE STRUCTURE
OF THE REPUBLIC, WHAT DID YOU
DO?
OUR ANSWER TO THAT QUESTION
MUST BE THAT WE FOLLOWED THE
GUIDANCE OF THE FRAMERS, AND
IT MUST BE THAT IF THE
EVIDENCE SUPPORTS THAT
CONCLUSION THAT THE HOUSE OF
REPRESENTATIVES MOVES TO
IMPEACH HIM.
>> THANK YOU.
I YIELD MY TIME BACK TO THE
CHAIRMAN.
>> MY TIME HAS EXPIRED.
I YIELD BACK.
BEFORE I RECOGNIZE THE RANKING
MEMBERS, THE FIRST ROUND OF
QUESTIONS, THE COMMITTEE WILL
STAND IN A 10 MINUTE
HUMANITARIAN RECESS.
I ASK EVERYONE IN THE ROOM TO
PLEASE REMAIN SEATED AND QUIET
WHILE THE WITNESSES EXIT THE
ROOM.
I ALSO WANT TO ANNOUNCE TO
THOSE IN THE AUDIENCE THAT 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 IN A
SHORT RECESS.
>> AND CHAIRMAN JERRY NADLER
CALLED A RECESS.
THE LIVE IMPEACHMENT HEARING
TAKING PLACE TODAY IN
WASHINGTON.
FOUR WITNESSES, ALL FOUR
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW COLORS.
LAW PROFESSORS.
THREE OF THEM CHOSEN BY THE
DEMOCRATS, ONE BY THE
REPUBLICANS.
I'M JUDY WOODRUFF AT PBS
STUDIOS IN WASHINGTON JOINED
BY OUR CORRESPONDENTS, WHO ARE
WITH US ON THE HILL.
ALCINDOR.
SOL WEISENBERG WITH ME HERE AT
THE TABLE.
FRANK BOWMAN, BOTH OF YOU
ATTORNEYS.
BOTH OF YOU HAVE LOOKED AT THE
ISSUE OF IMPEACHMENT.
FRANK BOWMAN, WE'VE BEEN
LISTENING TO A SERIES OF
QUESTIONS POSED BY NORM
WISEMAN, ASKING THEM TO GO
BACK AND EXPLAIN WHY THEY
BELIEVE THREE OF THE FOUR
BELIEVE THE PRESIDENT HAS
DEFINITELY COMMITTED
IMPEACHABLE OFFENSES WHAT HAVE
WE HEARD THAT BOLSTERS THE
CASE OF THE DEMOCRATS THIS
HAPPENED?
>> I THINK WHAT WE'VE HEARD IS
A COGENT EXPLANATION OF WHAT
THE CONSTITUTION SAYS ABOUT
IMPEACHMENT.
A COGENT EXPLANATION OF WHAT
HIGH CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS,
AND INDEED THE ENTIRE PHRASE,
TREASON, BRIBERY OR HIGH
CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS MAEBT
TO THE FRAMERS.
WHERE THE PHRASE CAME FROM,
AND PARTICULARLY, I THINK ALL
THREE OF THEM CRITICAL TO THE
WHOLE NOTION OF THE
CONSTITUTION IS THE IDEA THAT
ABUSE OF POWER IS ONE OF THE
CORE IMPEACHABLE OFFENSES.
THAT IS CERTAINLY TRUE.
THAT'S AN IDEA THAT PRE-DATES
OUR CONSTITUTION.
IT GOES ALL THE WAY BACK INTO
BRITISH HISTORY AS SOME OF THE
WITNESSES HAVE EMPHASIZED.
I THINK PERSONALLY THAT IT IS
WISE OF THE COMMITTEE AND ALSO
NOT SURPRISING, BUT ALSO WISE
THAT THE WITNESSES FOCUS VERY
MUCH ON THE ABUSE OF POWER AS
OPPOSED TO PERHAPS GETTING
INTO THE PARTICULARS OF
BRIBERY.
>> WELL, THEY HAVE BEEN.
SOL WEISENBERG, BRIBERY HAS
COME UP, AND WE HEAR
OBSTRUCTION OF CONGRESS,
OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE.
WHAT IS IT ABOUT ABUSE OF
POWER, ABUSE OF THE OFFICE
THAT MAY BE CENTRAL TO THIS.
HOW DUE SEE THAT?
>> IF YOU GET TOO MUCH INTO
BRIBERY, FOR EXAMPLE, THEN YOU
GET INTO VERY PARTICULAR
QUESTIONS LIKE ONE OF THE
PROFESSORS GOT INTO.
IS THIS THE CRIME OF BRIBERY.
DO WE LOOK AT THE CODE NOW,
AND LOOK AT THE TIME OF THE
FOUNDING?
IF YOU CAN GROUP IS UNDER
ABUSE OF POWER, WHICH CLEARLY
THE FRAMERS WERE CONCERNED
ABOUT, IT MAKES IT A LOT
CLEANER, AND YOU -- YOU GET TO
IGNORE, FOR EXAMPLE, THAT IN
THE THREE CASES THAT WE HAVE
HISTORICALLY OF PRESIDENTS
BEING IMPEACHED OR ABOUT TO BE
IMPEACHED, JOHNSON, NIXON, AND
CLINTON, EVEN THOUGH THEY
WEREN'T NECESSARILY-AUTO
ALLEGATIONS WEREN'T
NECESSARILY FRAMED AS CRIMES,
CONDUCT WAS ALLEGED AGAINST
EACH ONE OF THEM WHICH WAS
CLEARLY WITHOUT QUESTION
CRIMINAL.
YOU DON'T NECESSARILY HAVE
THAT HERE.
>> WHAT DO YOU MEAN YOU DON'T
HAVE THAT HERE?
>> I DON'T THINK IT'S CLEAR
THAT THERE WAS A CRIME
COMMITTED ON THE RECORD THAT
WE HAVE.
AND ONE OF THE THINGS THAT WAS
NOT DEALT WITH, AND PARTLY
BECAUSE THEY INTENTIONALLY
DIDN'T WANT JONATHAN TURLEY TO
TALK NOW --
>> THE LAW PROFESSOR INVITED
BY THE REPUBLICANS?
>> I THOUGHT IT WAS SILLY NOT
TO INCLUDE HIM IN A FEW
QUESTIONS.
THREE WERE CHOSEN BY THE
DEMOCRATS AND ONE BY THE
REPUBLICANS.
I DIDN'T THINK NORMAN'S
QUESTIONS WERE PRESENTED
FAIRLY.
HERE'S THE QUESTION.
NOT WHETHER WHAT THE PRESIDENT
DID IS IN THE CATEGORY OF THE
KIND OF THINGS THE FRAMERS
THOUGHT COULD BE IMPEACHABLE,
BUT WHETHER ON THIS RECORD,
WHAT THE PRESIDENT DID IN THIS
ONE INSTANCE, EVEN IF YOU
ASSUME THE RECORD IS CLEAR ON
THIS IS THIS ALONE ENOUGH TO
IMPEACH AND REMOVE HIM?
THAT'S WHAT I'D LIKE TO HEAR
ABOUT.
>> AND BACK TO YOU, FRANK
BOWMAN, QUICKLY, THE OTHER
THREE LAW PROFESSORS WERE
EMPHATIC THAT IT IS ENOUGH TO
FIND THE PRESIDENT GUILTY
>> THE REASON I AGREE IS THAT
THE THING THAT THEY SAID
MULTIPLE TIMES, THE THING THE
FRAMERS AND THE PARLIAMENT
WERE CONCERNED ABOUT WHEN IT
INVENTED THE IDEA OF
IMPEACHMENT IN 1776 WAS THE
NOTION THAT PARTICULARLY HIGH
OFFICIALS, NOW THE PRESIDENT
WOULD MISUSE THEIR AUTHORITY
IN WAYS THAT BENEFITTED THEM
PRESIDENT TRUMP EXERTED POWERS
TO BENEFIT HIM, BUT
TREMENDOUSLY DAMAGING TO
FOREIGN POLICY INTERESTS.
AND THE FRAMERS AND THE
PARLIAMENT WERE CONCERNED
ABOUT THAT WHEN THEY CREATED
IMPEACHMENT POWER.
THEIR CONDUCT ESSENTIALLY
UNDERCUT THE CRITICAL FOREIGN
POLICY INTERESTS OF THE
COUNTRY WITH WHICH THEY WERE
SWORN TO SERVE.
>> AND THAT QUESTION, AS YOU
SUGGEST HAS COME UP TIME AND
AGAIN, AND I DO WANT TO COME
BACK AT THAT.
RIGHT NOW I WANT TO GO TO
LISA DESIARDINS WHO HAS BEEN
IN THE HEARING ROOM AT THE
CAPITAL.
>> AND YAMICHE ALCINDOR.
LISA, ARE REPUBLICANS CLEARLY
IN THE MINORITY HERE.
17 OF THEM, AND 24 DEMOCRATS.
THEY'RE NOT ABLE TO CONTROL
THESE PROCEEDINGS, BUT THEY'VE
TRIED ON SEVERAL OCCASIONS.
>> THAT'S CORRECT.
WE HAVE THREE ROLL CALL VOTES,
AND THERE WILL BE MORE.
ADAM SCHIFF BE CALLED TO
TESTIFY.
AND THEY ASKED FOR AN ONE WEEK
DELAY IN THIS HEARING, AND
THEN THEY ASKED THAT THE
WHISTLEBLOWER BE SUBPOENAED TO
TESTIFY.
THE COMPLAINT THAT STARTED
THIS INVESTIGATION INTO
UKRAINE.
THE DEMOCRATS TABLED ALL OF
THOSE MOTIONS.
THIS IS NOT JUST REPUBLICANS
EXPRESSING OBJECTIONS, AND
ALSO WHAT THEY WANT TO SEE
HAPPEN.
IT'S A TACTIC TO ADD TIME,
FRANKLY, AND TO GO OFF THE
WORKS OF THIS HEARING THAT
THEY OBJECT TO IN GENERAL.
JUDY, I HAVE TO SAY THIS
HEARING FELT DIFFERENT INSIDE
THE ROOM THAN THE HOUSE
INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE
HEARINGS.
WHEN YOU LOOK AT THE MEMBERS,
THERE'S ALMOST TWICE AS MANY
MEMBERS AS WE SAW WITH HOUSE
INTELLIGENCE.
THEY WERE NOT ON THE ENL OF
THEIR SEATS.
THERE WAS NOTHING FOR THEM
UNEXPECTED IN THE TESTIMONY.
THIS IS ALL PRE-PLANNED.
IT FELT LIKE A FAIT ACCOMPLI.
MEMBERS WERE DOING WORK,
LOOKING DOWN.
PAYING ATTENTION, BUT NOT THE
GRIPPING SORT OF HEARING THAT
WE'VE SEEN IN THE PAST WITH
HOUSE INTELLIGENCE.
>> IS IT YOUR SENSE, LISA,
KNOWING WHAT THE HEARING WAS
GOING TO BE, THAT WOULD BE
ASKING PROFESSORS OF LAW, WHO
KNOW CONSTITUTIONAL HISTORY
AND LOOK AT THE ISSUE OF
IMPEACHMENT, DO YOU GET THE
SENSE THAT DEMOCRATS FEEL, AND
I REALIZE WE'VE ONLY HEARD
FROM THE CHAIRMAN, JERRY
NADLER BRIEFLY, AND THE
COUNSEL THEY SELECTED, NORM
EISEN, DO YOU GET THE SENSE
THEY'RE GETTING WHAT THEY WANT
FROM THE WITNESSS?
>> ABSOLUTELY.
I THAPTED TO MAKE A FEW CLEAR
POINTS AND MOST OF ALL THE
WITNESSES TESTIFY THAT THESE
ARE IMPEACHABLE OFFENSES.
JUDY WHAT CAUGHT MY ATTENTION
WAS THE LAST LINE OF
QUESTIONING ABOUT THE
IMPEACHABLE OFFENSES.
OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE RELATED
TO THE MUELLER REPORT.
THE FIRST TWO KIND OF
IMPEACHABLE OFFENSES WE TALKED
TO WITH THE EXPERTS RELATED TO
UKRAINE.
THAT TELLS ME AS REPORTING,
THAT DEMOCRATS ARE STILL
SERIOUSLY CONSIDERING ADDING
ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT
RELATED TO THE MUELLER REPORT.
THIS IS THE MOST EVIDENCE
WE'VE SEEN OF THAT.
THEY GOT WHAT THEY WANTED IN
TERMS OF MAKING THEIR CASE.
I WONDER HOW IT'S PLAYING WITH
THE PUBLIC.
IT FELT LIKE A LEGAL HEARING.
I'M NOT SURE IF THEY'RE TRYING
TO CHANGE PUBLIC OPINION.
IT DIDN'T FEEL LIKE IT HAD THE
GRAPVITY AS THE INTELLIGENCE
HEARINGS.
WE'LL WAIT AND SEE WHAT THE
PUBLIC RESPONSE IS.
YOU'RE RIGHT ABOUT EXPANDING
THE FOCUS FROM UKRAINE TO
RUSSIAN INTERFERENCE WITH THE
2016 ELECTION.
WE HEARD CHAIRMAN NADLER SAY
AT THE OUTSET, SAY THAT
PRESIDENT TRUMP INVITED THAT
INTERFERENCE, AND WENT ON TO
SAY THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP HAD
OBSTRUCTED CONGRESS, AND
OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE IN NOT
COOPERATING IN THAT
INVESTIGATION, CITING FROM THE
MUELLER REPORT.
YAMICHE ALCINDOR FOLLOWING ALL
OF THIS AT THE WHITE HOUSE,
ARE YOU GETTING ANY SORT OF
RESPONSE, REACTION AT THIS
POINT FROM FOLKS YOU'RE
TALKING TO THERE?
>> WHITE HOUSE OFFICIALS ARE
ESSENTIALLY SAYING THAT THIS
IS A SHAM, AND A CONTINUATION
OF DEMOCRAT KS ATTACKING THE
PRESIDENT.
THE PRESIDENT IS JUST
LEAVING NATO WHERE HE MET WITH
WORLD LEADERS AND CANCELED A
PRESS CONFERENCE.
WHAT WE HEAR FROM WHITE HOUSE
OFFICIALS IS ANGER AND A SENSE
OF FEELING LIKE THIS IS ALL
PARTISAN POLITICS.
THE OTHER THING WE'RE SEEING
IS REPUBLICANS ARE CARRYING
THE FLAG FOR THE WHITE HOUSE
HERE AND TRYING TO INTERRUPT
AT TIMES WITH POINT OF ORDERS
TALKING ABOUT CHAIRMAN SCHIFF
NEEDING TO TESTIFY, AND THE
WHISTLEBLOWER SHOULD BE HERE,
AND POINTS THE WHITE HOUSE HAS
BEEN MAKING FOR WEEKS.
EVEN THOUGH THERE'S NOT A
WHITE HOUSE OFFICIAL IN THE
ROOM, -- ALSO A COMMENT FROM
THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION AND
THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN.
THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN IS SAYING
THIS IS ALL A SHAM AND THEY'RE
READY TO RESPOND IN REAL-TIME
AS PART OF A RESPECTED
RESPONSE TEAM USUALLY USED FOR
DEBATES.
WE SEE THE WHITE HOUSE AND THE
TRUMP CAMPAIGN WORKING
REAL-TIME TO PUT THIS DOWN.
EVEN THOUGH IT'S NOT CHANGING
ANYTHING, THE PRESIDENT AND THM
VERY FOCUSED ON MAKING SURE
THAT REPUBLICANS ARE MAKING
THEIR POINTS TO THE AMERICAN
PEOPLE, AND DEMOCRATS ARE
ARGUING WHAT THE PRESIDENT DID
IS IMPEACHABLE AND ESSENTIALLY
SAYING IF THE PRESIDENT IS
ALLOWED TO DO THIS IS SETS A
DANGEROUS PRECEDENT FOR FUTURE
PRESIDENTS, AND IF IT'S NOT
IMPEACHABLE, WHAT IS
IMPEACHABLE?
THAT'S A CLEAR THING THE WHITE
HOUSE PUSHES BACK ON.
>> AND THE WHITE HOUSE IS
TAKING THIS SERIOUSLY, THEY'RE
PAYING ATTENTION?
>> THE WHITE HOUSE IS TAKING
THIS VERY SERIOUSLY.
AS PRESIDENT TRUMP'S CAMPAIGN
IS ALSO TAKING IN SERIOUSLY.
AND THE POLITICAL ARM, AND ALL
ABOUT SOME WAYS WHETHER
PRESIDENT TRUMP IS TRYING TO
GET PRESIDENT TRUMP TO HELP IN
THE ELECTION.
THEY'RE WORKING TO RE-ELECT
PRESIDENT TRUMP, AND AND I
WANT TO COME BACK TO YAMICHE,
AND WE'RE IN A BREAK, FOR WHAT
CHAIRMAN JERRY NADLER WOULD
SAY WOULD BE 10 MINUTES.
WE'LL SEE -- AND COME
>> AND THE FOUR LAW
PROFESSORS.
BACK TO THE GUESTS.
SOL WEISENBERG AND FRANK
BOWMAN, SOL WEISENBERG, TRUTH
OF POINT, YOU WERE SAYING A
MINUTE AGO, IN YOUR VIEW THE
EVIDENCE IS NOT THERE TO
CONSTITUTE ABUSE OF POWER TO
THE PRESIDENT'S OFFICE.
TO GET TO SPECIFICS, WHEN
DEMOCRATS AND THE LAW
PROFESSORS SAY THE PRESIDENT
IN THAT SERIES OF PHONE
CONVERSATIONS WITH THE
PRESIDENT OF UKRAINE SAID IF
YOU DO THESE INVESTIGATIONS
SUGGESTED, WE WILL THINK ABOUT
GIVING YOU THE AID YOU WANT,
AND I'M COMPRESSING A LOT OF
INFORMATION INTO THAT
SENTENCE.
WHY IS THAT NOT ABUSING THE
POWER OF THE OFFICE,
ATTEMPTING TO GET SOMETHING
PERSONAL FOR POLITICAL GAIN IN
RETURN FOR AN OFFICIAL ACT.
IT VERY WELL MAY BE ABUSE OF
THE POWER.
I THINK IT IS ABUSE OF THE
POWER.
THE QUESTION AGAIN IS, IS THIS
ONE INCIDENT IN ITSELF ENOUGH
BASED ON THE RECORD WE HAVE
ALONE ENOUGH TO WARRANT
IMPEACHMENT AND REMOVAL.
I MUST SAY THE REPUBLICANS
HAVE A HUGE PROBLEM.
THE PRESIDENT WHO THEY WANT TO
DEFEND HAS BEEN SAYING
PATENTLY RIDICULOUS THINGS.
HE'S BEEN SAYING IT WAS A
PERFECT CALL.
IT WAS NOT A PERFECT CALL.
IT WAS A SLEAZY CALL.
HE HAS BEEN SAYING READ THE
TRANSCRIPT.
THAT'S NOT GOOD FOR HIM.
READING THE TRANSCRIPT SENT
GOOD FOR HIM AT ALL.
>> DO ME A FAVOR.
>> IT'S WORSE THAN THAT, AND
THEY'VE BEEN HANDICAPPED BY
THAT, AND THEY'VE BEEN
HANDICAPPED BY THE KIND OF
OBSTRUCTIONIST DEFENSE THEY'VE
BEEN PUTTING ON.
NOT SAYING THE PROCESS HAS
BEEN FAIR, BUT THAT'S A
PROBLEM, AND IT DOESN'T HELP
TO DO THESE DLAIG TACTICS.
>> WHY NOT?
>> IT'S A DLAIG FACTOR.
I THINK THEY SHOULD HAVE BEEN
FOCUSING ON WHAT KIND OF
DEFENSE DO WE HAVE TO WHAT THE
PRESIDENT DID, AND NOT SAYING
I WANT TO CALL HUNTER BIDEN.
>> AND FRANK BOWMAN, THEY'VE
DELAYED BY ASKING FOR CHAIRMAN
ADAM SCHIFF, CHAIRMAN OF THE
HOUSE INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE
TO BE A WITNESS, THAT WAS
VOTED DOWN.
AND CALLING FOR THE
WHISTLEBLOWER TO BE CALLED AS
A WITNESS.
THAT WAS TABLED.
AND THEN ASKED FOR THE ENTIRE
PROCEEDING TO BE DELAYED.
WHAT WOULD THE REPUBLICAN
DEFENSE BE?
WHAT WOULD THEIR LINE OF
QUESTIONING BE IF THEY WERE
GOING FORWARD WITH THE NEXT
SET OF QUESTIONS FROM THEIR
COUNSEL.
WHAT WOULD THEIR ARGUMENT BE.
WHAT WOULD THE LINE OF
QUESTIONS BE TO UNDERMINE WHAT
WE'RE HEARING FROM THE
PROFESSORS, THREE OF THE FOUR?
>> THAT'S A DARN GOOD
QUESTION.
I'VE TRIED TO PUT MYSELF IN
THE SHOES OF SOMEONE TASKED
WITH DEFENDING PRESIDENT
TRUMP.
I THINK WHAT I MIGHT TRY TO
SUGGEST IS THAT REGARDLESS OF
HOW BAD, UNFORTUNATE WHATEVER
HE DID WITH RESPECT TO UKRAINE
IS, IT'S AN ISOLATED EVENT,
AND WE DEPLORE WHAT HE DID,
BAD JUDGMENT, BUT NOT
SUFFICIENT TO IMPEACH HIM ON
THAT ALONE.
THE PROBLEM, OF COURSE, IS
THAT IT'S NOT -- FOR EXAMPLE,
YOU TALKED ABOUT THE CALL, AND
TALKED ABOUT THE CALL.
BUT OF COURSE THE CALL WAS, AS
WE ARE LEARNING JUST ONE
INCIDENT IN A LONG SCHEME THAT
WENT FOR MONTHS WHERE IT HAS
BECOME ABSOLUTELY CLEAR THAT
MR. TRUMP, AND A CLOSE CIRCLE
OF THOSE AROUND HIM
ESSENTIALLY HIJACKED THE
FOREIGN POLICY OF THE UNITED
SATES IN A CRITICAL AREA OF
THE WORLD IN ORDER TO OBTAIN
PERSONAL POLITICAL BENEFIT.
THAT THEREFORE MAKES IT REALLY
HARD TO SAY THAT EVEN THAT ONE
THING IS NOT ENOUGH.
THAT'S A PROBLEM.
WHAT I DO THINK YOU'RE GOING
TO HEAR FROM REPUBLICANS S
LARGELY A LOT OF QUESTIONS
DESIGNED TO THROW DOUBT ON
WHAT -- ON FACTS THAT
ESSENTIALLY THE DEMOCRATS ARE
ASSUMING TO HAVE BEEN PROVEN,
AND OF COURSE, WE'RE CERTAINLY
GOING TO HEAR THE CLAIM THAT
ALL OF THIS RESTS ON HEARSAY
WHICH I CAN TELL YOU AS A
TRIAL LAWYER, AND PROFESSOR OF
EVIDENCE IS UTTER NONSENSE.
MOST OF THE WITNESSES ARE WHAT
WE CALL PRECIPIENT WITNESSES
WHO PERCEIVE THINGS.
WHAT THEY'RE REALLY GOING TO
TRY AND SHOW WITH THAT IS
HEARSAY LINE, IS THAT SOMEHOW
OR OTHER, ALL THE TRAILS
AREN'T QUITE CONNECTED ALL THE
WAY BACK TO TRUMP.
THAT WE DON'T ACTUALLY HAVE A
RECORDING OF DONALD TRUMP
SAYING I WANT YOU TO GO COMMIT
BRIBERY WITH THE PRESIDENT OF
UKRAINE.
THEN, OF COURSE, IN NO CASE OR
VERY FEW CASES WHETHER IT'S AN
IMPEACHMENT CASE OR A CRIMINAL
CASE DO WE HAVE THAT
EXTRAORDINARY CLEAR ADMISSION
OF GUILT.
WHAT WE HAVE HERE AS WE HAVE
IN MOST OTHER CASES, CIVIL OR
CRIMINAL IS A WHOLE LOT OF
EVIDENCE WHICH PROVES DIRECTLY
AND CIRCUMSTANTIALLY THERE WAS
A SCHEME HERE, AND PRESIDENT
TRUMP WAS AT THE CENTER OF IT.
AND THE REPUBLICANS ARE GOING
TO THROW DUST AND SAND IN THE
AIR TO OBSCURE THAT POINT.
THE FINAL RESPONSE TO THE IT'S
HEARSAY IS, OF COURSE, THAT TO
THE EXTENT THAT THERE IS ANY
LINK MISSING BETWEEN PEOPLE
LIKE SONDLAND OR AMBASSADORS
AND TRUMP IS THE LINK WITH
MICK MULVANEY AND THE OTHER
PEOPLE ADHERING TO TRUMP'S
ORDERS NOT TO SHOW.
>> NOT TO TESTIFY.
WE KEEP COMING BACK TO THERE,
SOL WEISENBERG.
THE PEOPLE WHO COULD FILL IN
THE BLANKS, SO TO SPEAK, WHO
COULD MAKE THAT DIRECT
CONNECTION TO THE EXTENT
THAT'S NEEDED BETWEEN WHAT
HAPPENED, AND THE PRESIDENT
HIMSELF, THOSE INDIVIDUALS
WON'T BE PERMITTED TO TESTIFY,
AT LEAST NOT YET.
NOT UNLESS THEY GET A COURT
RULING.
EVEN SOME OF THEM MIGHT WANT
TO TESTIFY, YOU'RE NOW
FOCUSING ON SOMETHING THAT
HASN'T BEEN COMMENTED ON
ENOUGH.
WE'VE BEEN GIVEN INCREDIBLE
POWER TO THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH
OVER THE LAST 200 YEARS AND TO
THE PRESIDENT, AND THE
PRESIDENT THINKING HE HAS ALL
KINDS OF PRIVILEGES, AND
NORMALLY, IMPLICATION OF THOSE
PRIVILEGES BOTTLES THINGS UP,
IT SLOWS DOWN CRIMINAL
INVESTIGATIONS, IT SLOWS DOWN
CONGRESSIONAL INVESTIGATIONS.
HERE THE DEMOCRATS HAVE DONE
SOMETHING INTELLIGENT.
THEY JUST SAID WE'RE DOING
IMPEACHMENT NOW, AND GUESS
WHAT.
YOU FOLKS DO WHAT YOU WANT.
CLAIM ANY PRIVILEGE YOU WANT,
IF YOU DON'T COME TESTIFY
WE'RE GOING TO HOLD IT AGAINST
YOU.
WE'RE MOVING FORWARD.
THAT'S ONE THING THE PRESIDENT
CAN'T DO ANYTHING ABOUT.
AS THE PROFESSORS SAID THE
SOLE IMPEACHMENT POWER IS IN
THE HOUSE, AND THEY'RE MOVING
FORWARD AND IT'S THEIR
RESPONSIBILITY AND RULES.
SO IT'S AN INTERESTING EPISODE
IN THE CHECKS AND BALANCES.
>> AND WHAT ABOUT -- BACK TO
YOU FRANK BOWMAN -- AT THE
OUTSET OF THE HEARING AFTER WE
HEARD FROM JERRY NADLER, AND
I'M LOOKING TO SEE IF THE
COMMITTEE IS ABOUT TO
RECONVENE, AND IT LOOKS LIKE
IT IS.
I'LL COME BACK TO YOU LATER
ON, BUT I WAS GOING TO ASK
ABOUT ONE OF THE APPROACHES
USED BY THE REPUBLICANS.
I BELIEVE WE'RE NOW GOING TO
HEAR CHAIRMAN JERRY NADLER
ABOUT TO RECONVENE THE
COMMITTEE.
WE'RE HEAR TO HEAR HIM TURN
THE QUESTION ORDER NOW.
>> COUNCIL HAVE 45 MINUTES TO
QUESTION THE WITNESSES.
RANKING MEMBER.
>> THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN.
BEFORE I BEGIN ON THE
QUESTIONING.
I WANT TO REVISIT A COMMENT
MADE EARLIER BY MR. YOU MR.
CHAIRMAN.
OUR DEMANLDS FOR A HEARING
DAY.
AND YOU STATED YOU WOULD RULE
ON IT LATER.
THE RULES DO NOT PERMIT A
VOTE, AND YOU CANNOT SHUT IT
DOWN, AND ACCORDING TO YOUR
WORDS THE MINORITY IS ENTITLED
TO HEARINGS, AND IT'S POWER TO
EXCLUDE OTHER VIEWS.
IT'S NOT THE CHAIRMAN'S VIEW
TO DETERMINE IF WE DESERVE A
HEARING OR WHETHER PRIOR
HEARINGS WERE SUFFICIENT OR
WHETHER WHAT WE SAY OR THINK
IS ACCEPTABLE.
IT IS CERTAINLY NOT THE
CHAIRMAN'S RIGHT TO INTERFERE
WITH OUR RIGHT TO CONDUCT A
HEARING, AND I JUST COMMEND
MR. SENSENBRENNER FOR BRINGING
THAT FORWARD, AND LOOK FORWARD
TO YOU GETTING THAT SCHEDULED
EXPEDITIOUSLY.
MOVING ON.
NOW WE HIT PHASE TWO.
YOU'VE HAD ONE SIDE, AND I'LL
HAVE TO SAY IT WAS ELOQUENTLY
ARGUED BY THE COUNSEL AND BY
THE WITNESSES INVOLVED, BUT
THERE'S ALWAYS A PHASE TWO.
A PHASE TWO IS WHAT'S
PROBLEMATIC HERE.
AS I SAID IN OPENING
STATEMENT, THIS IS ONE THAT
WOULD BE FOR MANY, THE MOST
DISPUTED IMPEACHMENTS ON JUST
THE FACTS THEMSELVES.
WHAT WAS INTERESTING IS THAT
WE ACTUALLY SHOWED VIDEOS OF
WITNESSES.
IN FACT ONE OF THEM WAS AN
OPENING STATEMENT, I BELIEVE
WHICH IS THE CLOSELY THING IS
AN OPENING STATEMENT, BECAUSE
IT'S UNCHALLENGED, AND IT
SHOULD BE.
AND WE'VE HAD GREAT WITNESSES
HERE TO TALK ABOUT THIS, BUT
IT DIDN'T TELL US ABOUT KURT
VOLKER WHO SAID SOMETHING
ABOUT IT OR NOTHING ABOUT THE
AID HELD UP, AND MORRISON
CONTRADICTED THEM AND OTHER,
AND THE MAJORITY IS NOT HERE
TO GIVE EXCULPATORY EVIDENCE.
AND THE SCHIFF REPORT DOESN'T
GIVE THE EVIDENCE, AND
EVIDENCE IS HELD BY ADAM
SCHIFF THAT HASN'T COME TO THE
COMMITTEE, AND WE STILL
HAVEN'T GOTTEN THINGS WE'RE
SUPPOSEED TO GET.
ONE IS THE IMPORTANT PART OF
THE IG INSPECTOR GENERAL.
HIS TESTIMONY IS WITHHELD.
AND THERE'S A SECRET ON, IT OR
HOLDING IT IN CLASSIFICATION.
LAST TIME I CHECKED WE HAVE
PLACES IN THE BUILDING AND
OTHER BUILDINGS TO HANDLE
CLASSIFIED INFORMATION.
IT'S WITHHELD FROM US.
AND I BELIEVE THERE'S A REASON
IT'S WITHHELD.
WE'LL SEE IF THAT GOES
FORWARD.
SO ANYBODY IN THE MEDIA OR
WATCHING THE FIRST 45 MINUTES
WE WENT THROUGH HAVE PAINTED A
VERY INTERESTING PICTURE.
IT PAINTED AN INTERESTING
PICTURE THAT GOES BACK MANY,
MANY YEARS.
IT PAINTS AN INTERESTING
PICTURE OF PICKING AND
CHOOSING WHICH PART OF THE
LAST FEW WEEKS WE WANT TO TALK
ABOUT, AND THAT'S FINE BECAUSE
WE'LL HAVE THE REST OF THE DAY
TO GO ABOUT THIS.
PROFESSOR TURLEY, YOU'RE NOW
WELL RESTED.
YOU WERE ASKED ONE QUESTION.
I WANT TO START HERE.
LET'S DO THIS.
ELABORATE, IF YOU WOULD,
BECAUSE YOU TRIED TO WHEN THE
QUESTION WAS ASKED, AND IF
THERE'S ANYTHING ELSE YOU
HEARD THIS MORNING THAT YOU
WOULD DISAGREE WITH, OR
ANSWER.
I WILL ALLOW YOU SOME TIME TO
TALK.
JUST FOR INFORMATION MR.
CHAIRMAN, THIS IS THE COLDEST
HEARING ROOM IN THE WORLD.
AND FOR THOSE OF YOU WORRIED,
I'M HAPPY AS A LARK, BUT THIS
CHAIR IS TERRIBLE IT'S
AMAZING.
MR. TURLEY, GO AHEAD.
>> IT'S A CHALLENGE TO THINK
OF ANYTHING I WAS NOT ABLE TO
RECOVER IN MY ROBUST EXCHANGE
WITH MAJORITY COUNSEL.
I'D LIKE TO TRY.
>> GO RIGHT AHEAD.
>> THERE'S A COUPLE OF THINGS
I WANTED TO HIGHLIGHT, AND I'M
NOT GOING TO TAKE A GREAT DEAL
OF TIME.
I RESPECT MY COLLEAGUES.
I KNOW ALL OF THEM, AND I
CONSIDER THEM FRIENDS.
I CERTAINLY RESPECT WHAT THEY
HAVE SAID TODAY.
WE HAVE FUNDAMENTAL
DISAGREEMENTS.
I'D LIKE TO START WITH THE
ISSUE OF BRIBERY.
THE STATEMENT HAS BEEN MADE,
NOT JUST BY THESE WITNESSES
BUT BY CHAIRMAN SCHIFF AND
OTHERS THAT THIS IS A CLEAR
CASE OF BRIBERY.
IT IS NOT.
AND CHAIRMAN SCHIFF SAID THAT
IT MIGHT NOT FIT TODAY'S
DEFINITION OF BRIBERY, BUT IT
WOULD FIT THE DEFINITION BACK
IN THE 18th CENTURY.
NOW PUTTING ASIDE MR. SCHIFF'S
TURN TOWARDS ORIGINALISM, I
THINK THAT IT MIGHT COME AS A
RELIEF TO HIM AND SUPPORTERS
THAT HIS CAREER WILL BE A
SHORT ONE, THAT THERE'S NOT AN
ORIGINALIST FUTURE IN THAT
ARGUMENT.
THE BRIBERY THEORY PUT FORWARD
IS A FLAWED IN THE 18th
CENTURY AS IT IS IN THIS
CENTURY.
THE STATEMENT MADE BY ONE OF
MY ESTEEMED COLLEAGUES IS THAL
IF BRIBERY WASN'T DEFINED
UNTIL MUCH LATER.
THERE WAS NO BRIBERY STATUTE.
>> THE ORIGINAL STANDARD WAS
TREASON AND BRIBERY.
THAT LED MASON TO OBJECT THAT
IT WAS TOO NARROW.
IF BRIBERY INCLUDED ANYTHING
YOU DID FOR PERSONAL INTEREST
INSTEAD OF PUBLIC INTEREST,
AND YOU HAD AN OVERARCHING
DEFINITION.
THAT DEFINITION WOULD HAVE
BEEN USELESS.
THEY DIDN'T AGREE THAT IT WAS
TOO NARROW.
WHAT THEY DISAGREED WITH WAS
WHAT THEY SUGGESTED THE
ADMINISTRATION TO ADD TO THE
STANDARD BECAUSE HE WANTED IT
TO BE BROADER, AND WHAT JAMES
MADISON SAID IS THAT IS TOO
BROAD AND WOULD ESSENTIALLY
CREATE A VOTE OF NO EVIDENCE
IN ENGLAND.
IT WOULD BASICALLY ALLOW
CONGRESS TO TOSS[A A
PRESIDENT THEY DID NOT LIKE.
WE'RE ALL CHANNELING THE
INTENT OF THE FRAMERS.
THEY DIDN'T SAY BRIBERY WAS
TOO NARROW.
IT WAS NOTHING LIKE DESCRIBED.
WHEN THE OBJECTION WAS MADE BY
MASON -- BY MADISON,
ULTIMATELY THE FRAMERS AGREED,
AND THEN MORRIS WHO WAS
REFERRED TO EARLIER DID SAY WE
NEED TO ADOPT THIS STANDARD.
WHAT WAS LEFT OUT WAS WHAT
CAME AFTERWARDS.
WHAT MORRIS SAID IS WE NEED TO
PROTECT AGAINST BRIBERY
BECAUSE WE DON'T WANT ANYTHING
LIKE WHAT HAPPENED WITH LOUIE
THE 14th AND CHARLES THE 2nd.
THE EXAMPLE THEY GAVE OF
BRIBERY WAS ACCEPTING ACTUAL
MONEY AS THE HEAD OF STATE.
WHAT HAPPENED IN THAT EXAMPLE
THAT MORRIS GAVE AS THE
EXAMPLE OF BRIBERY WAS THAT
LOUIE THE 14th WHO WAS A
RECIDIVIST WHEN IT CAME TO
BRIBES GAVE CHARLES THE 2nd A
HUGE AMOUNT OF MONEY AS WELL
AS OTHER BENEFITS, INCLUDING
APPARENTLY A FRENCH MISTRESS
IN EXCHANGE FOR THE SECRET
TREATY OF DOVER OF 1670.
I IT WAS ALSO AN EXCHANGE TO
CONVERTING TO CATHOLICISM.
BUT THAT WASN'T THE BROAD
NOTION OF BRIBERY.
IT WAS ACTUALLY NARROW.
I DON'T THINK THAT DOG WILL
HUNT IN THE 18th CENTURY, AND
I DON'T THINK IT WILL HUNT
TODAY.
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 TO HOW IT'S
DEFINED BY THE UNITED STATES
SUPREME COURT.
IN THE CASE CALLED MACDONALD
VERSUS THE UNITED STATES, THE
SUPREME COURT LOOKED AT A
PUBLIC CORRUPTIONS BRIBERY
CASE.
THIS WAS A CASE WHERE GIFTS
WERE ACTUALLY RECEIVED,
BENEFITS WERE ACTUALLY
EXTENDED.
THERE WAS COMPLETION.
THIS WAS NOT SOME HYPOTHETICAL
OF A CRIME THAT WAS NOT
FULFILLED OR AN ACTION THAT
WAS 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 BRIBERY, AND
APPLY IT WITH BOUNDLESS
INTERPRETATION.
THEY REJECTED THE NOTION, FOR
EXAMPLE, THAT BRIBERY COULD BE
USED IN TERMS OF 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.
IREALLY DON'T HAVE A DOG IN
THIS FIGHT.
BUT YOU CAN'T ACCUSE A
PRESIDENT OF BRIBERY, AND THEN
WHEN SOME OF YOU NOTE THAT THE
SUPREME COURT HAS REJECTED
YOUR TYPE OF BOUNDLESS
INTERPRETATION -- SAY IT'S
JUST IMPEACHMENT.
WE REALLY DON'T HAVE TO PROVE
THE ELEMENTS.
THAT'S A FAVORITE MANTRA.
WELL, THIS ISN'T
IMPROVIZATIONAL JAZZ.
CLOSE IS GOOD ENOUGH.
IF YOU ACCUSE A PRESIDENT OF
BRIBERY, YOU NEED TO MAKE IT
STICK, BECAUSE YOU'RE TRYING
TO REMOVE A DULY ELECTED
PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED
STATES.
NOW IT'S UNFAIR TO ACCUSE
SOMEONE OF A CRIME, AND WHEN
OTHERS SAY THOSE
INTERPRETATIONS YOU'RE USING
TO DEFINE THE CRIME ARE NOT
VALID, AND TO 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 OF THE
PREVIOUS IMPEACHMENT.
THOSE WERE NOT JUST PROVEN
CRIMES, THEY WERE ACCEPTED
CRIMES.
THAT IS EVEN THE DEMOCRATS ARE
ON JUDICIARY COMMITTEE AGREES
THAT BILL CLINTON COMMITTED
PERJURY.
THAT'S ON THE RECORD, AND THE
FEDERAL JUDGE SAID IT WAS
PERJURY.
IN THE CASE OF NIXON, THE
CRIMES WERE ESTABLISHED.
NO ONE SERIOUSLY DISAGREED
WITH THOSE CRIMES.
JOHNSON IS THE OUTLIEER
BECAUSE JOHNSON WAS A TRAP
DOOR.
THEY CREATED A CRIME KNOWING
THAT JOHNSON WANTED TO REPLACE
SECRETARY OF WAR STANTON.
AND JOHNSON DID, BECAUSE THEY
HAD SERIOUS TROUBLE IN THE
CABINET.
SO THEY CREATED A TRAP DOOR
CRIME, WAITED FOR HIM TO FIRE
THE SECRETARY OF WAR, AND THEN
THEY IMPEACHED HIM.
BUT THERE'S NO QUESTION HE
COMMITTED THE CRIME, IT'S JUST
THE UNDERLYING STATUTE WAS
UNCONSTITUTIONAL.
SO I WOULD CAUTION YOU NOT
ONLY ABOUT BRIBERY, BUT ALSO
OBSTRUCTION.
I'M SORRY RANKING MEMBER --
>> NO, YOU'RE DOING A GOOD
JOB.
>> I'D ALSO CAUTION YOU ABOUT
OBSTRUCTION.
OBSTRUCTION IS A CRIME ALSO
WITH MEANING.
IT HAS ELEMENTS -- IT HAS
CONTROLLING CASE AUTHORITY.
THE RECORD DOES NOT ESTABLISH
OBSTRUCTION IN THIS CASE.
THAT IS, WHAT MY ESTEEM KLEEPG
SAID WAS TRUE, IF YOU ACCEPT
ALL OF THEIR PRESUMPTIONS, IT
WOULD BE OBSTRUCTION.
BUT IMPEACHMENTS HAVE TO BE
BASEED ON TRUTH, NOT
PRESUMPTIONS.
THAT'S THE PROBLEM WHEN YOU
MOVE TOWARDS IMPEACHMENT ON
THIS ABBREVIATED SCHEDULE THAT
HAS NOT BEEN EXPLAINED TO ME
WHY YOU WANT TO SET THE RECORD
FOR THE FASTEST IMPEACHMENT.
FAST IS NOT GOOD FOR
IMPEACHMENT.
NARROW FAST IMPEACHMENTS HAVE
FAILED.
JUST ASK JOHNSON.
SO THE OBSTRUCTION ISSUE IS AN
EXAMPLE OF THIS PROBLEM.
AND HERE'S MY CONCERN.
THE THEORY BEING PUT FORWARD
IS THE THE PRESIDENT
OBSTRUCTED CONGRESS BY NOT
TURNING OVER MATERIAL
REQUESTED BY THE COMMITTEE.
AND CITATIONS HAVE BEEN MADE
TO THE THIRD ARTICLE OF THE
NIXON IMPEACHMENT.
FIRST OF ALL, I WANT TO
CONFESS, I'VE BEEN A CRITIC OF
THE THIRD ARTICLE OF THE NIXON
IMPEACHMENT MY WHOLE LIFE.
MY HAIR CATCHS ON FIRE EVERY
TIME SOMEONE MENTIONED THE
THIRD ARTICLE.
WHY?
BECAUSE YOU WOULD BE
REPLICATEING ONCE OF THE WORST
ARTICLES WRITTEN ON
IMPEACHMENT.
HERE'S THE REASON WHY.
PETER RODINO'S POSITION AS
CHAIRMAN OF JUDICIARY WAS THAT
CONGRESS ALONE DECIDES WHAT
INFORMATION MAY BE GIVEN
ALONE.
HIS POSITION WAS THAT THE
COURTS HAVE NO ROLE IN THIS.
AND SO, IF ANY -- IF I USE
THAT THEORY, ANY REFUSAL BY A
PRESIDENT BASED ON EXECUTIVE
PRIVILEGE OR IMMUENLT WOULD BE
A BASIS FOR IMPEACHMENT.
THAT'S THE THEORY BEING
IMPLICATED TODAY.
PRESIDENT TRUMP HAS GONE TO
THE COURT.
HE'S ALLOWED TO DO THAT.
WE HAVE THREE BRANCHES, NOT
TWO.
I HAPPEN TO AGREE WITH SOME OF
YOUR CRITICISM OF PRESIDENT
TRUMP INCLUDING THE EARLIER
QUOTE WHERE THE COLLEAGUES
TALKED ABOUT SAYING THERE'S AN
ARTICLE 2, AND GIVES US
OVERRIDING INTERPRETATION.
I SHARE THAT CRITICISM.
YOU'RE DOING THE SAME THING
WITH ARTICLE 1.
YOU'RE SAYING ARTICLE 1 GIVES
US COMPLETE AUTHORITY WHEN WE
DEMAND INFORMATION FROM A
BRANCH IT MUST BE TURNED OVER
OR WE'LL IMPEACH YOU IN RECORD
TIME.
NOW MAKING THAT WORSE IS THAT
YOU HAVE 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'VE TALKED
ABOUT?
SO, ON OBSTRUCTION, I
ENCOURAGE YOU TO THINK ABOUT
THIS.
IF NIXON 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 THERE ARE
EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE ARGUMENTS
THAT CAN'T BE MADE.
IT DIDN'T SAY YOU HAD NO RIGHT
COMING TO US TO EMBARK ON OUR
DOORSTEP AGAIN.
IT SAID WE'VE HEARD YOUR
ARGUMENT, WE'VE HEARD CONGRESS
ARGUMENTS, AND YOU KNOW WHAT?
YOU LOSE.
TURN OVER THE MATERIAL OF
CONGRESS.
WHAT THAT DID WITH THE
JUDICIARY IS GIVE THIS BODY
LEGITIMACY.
IT WASN'T THE RODINO EXTREME
POSITION.
THAT ONLY YOU DECIDE WHAT
INFORMATION CAN BE PRODUCED.
MR. CHAIRMAN, I TESTIFIED IN
FRONT OF YOU A FEW MONTHS AGO.
IF YOU RECALL, WE HAD AN
EXCHANGE, AND I ENCOURAGED YOU
TO BRING THOSE ACTIONS AND I
SAID I THOUGHT YOU WOULD WIN,
AND YOU DID.
AND I THINK IT WAS AN
IMPORTANT WIN FOR THE
COMMITTEE BECAUSE I DON'T
AGREE WITH PRESIDENT TRUMP'S
ARGUMENT 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.
THE CORE ISSUES AND ORDER.
UNLESS THEY STAY THAT ORDER BY
A HIGHER COURT, YOU HAVE
OBSTRUCTION.
I CAN'T EMPHASIZE THIS ENOUGH,
AND I'LL SAY IT ONE MORE TIME.
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.
YOU'RE DOING PRECISELY WHAT
YOU'RE CRITICIZING THE
PRESIDENT OF DOING.
WE HAVE A THIRD BRANCH THAT
DEALS WITH THE CONFLICTS OF
THE OTHER TWO BRANCHES.
AND WHAT COMES OUT OF THERE
AND WHAT YOU DO WITH IT IS THE
DEFINITION OF LEGITIMACY.
>> LET'S CONTINUE ON WHAT
YOU'VE BEEN TALKING ABOUT.
THE MACDONALD CASE, HOW WAS
THAT DECIDED?
WAS THAT A SPLIT COURT?
WERE THEY TORN ABOUT THAT WHEN
THE CASE CAME OUT?
>> IT CAME OUT UNANIMOUS, SO
DID A COUPLE OTHER KAILSS I
CITE IN TESTIMONY.
>> ONE OF THE THINGS YOU SAID
ALSO, AND I THINK IT COULD BE
SUMMED UP, AND I USE IT IS THE
LAYMAN'S LANGUAGE IS THAT
FACTS DON'T MATTER.
THAT'S WHAT I HEARD A LOT OF.
THE FACTS DISPUTED THIS, BUT
IF THIS, IF THAT, IT RISES TO
IMPEACHMENT LEVEL.
AND THAT'S WHAT I THINK YOU
SAID, CRIMES C MEANING, AND
THIS IS THE CONCERN THAT I
HAVE.
IS THERE A CONCERN THAT IF WE
JUST SAY THE FACTS DON'T
MATTER THAT WE'RE ALSO, AS YOU
SAID, ABUSING OUR POWER AS WE
GO FORWARD IN LOOKING AT WHAT
PEOPLE WOULD SEE AS AN
IMPEACHABLE OFFENSE?
>> I THINK SO, AND PART OF THE
PROBLEM IS TO BRING A COUPLE
OF THESE ARTICLES, YOU HAVE TO
CONTRADICT THE POSITION OF
PRESIDENT OBAMA.
PRESIDENT OBAMA WITHHELD
EVIDENCE FROM CONGRESS IN FAST
AND FURIOUS, AN INVESTIGATION
ZOO-A RATHER MORONIC PROGRAM
THAT LED TO THE DEATH OF A
FEDERAL AGENT.
PRESIDENT OBAMA GAVE A
SWEEPING ARGUMENT THAT HE WAS
NOT ONLY NOT GOING TO GIVE
EVIDENCE TO THIS BODY, BUT
THAT THE COURTS HAD ABSOLUTELY
NO ROLE IN DETERMINING WHETHER
HE COULD WITHHOLD THE
EVIDENCE.
>> I HAVE A QUESTION.
>> YOU BROUGHT UP MR. OBAMA
AND OTHER PRESIDENTS IN THIS
PROCESS.
IS THERE NOT AN OBLIGATION BY
THE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT --
WE'LL USE THAT TERM -- NOT TO
BE OBAMA, TRUMP, CLINTON,
ANYBODY -- ISN'T THERE AN
OBLIGATION BY THE PRESIDENT TO
ASSERT CONSTITUTIONAL
PRIVILEGES AND AUTHORITIES
THAT HAVE BEEN GIVEN WHEN
ACCUSED OF SOMETHING, A CRIME
OR ANYTHING ELSE?
>> I THINK THAT PRESIDENT
OBAMA HAS INVOKEED TOO
BROADLY, BUT ON THE OTHER
HAND, HE HAS RELEASED A LOT OF
INFORMATION.
I'VE BEEN FRIENDS WITH BILL
BARR FOR A LONG TIME.
WE DISAGREE ON EXECUTIVE
PRIVILEGE.
I'M A SCHOLAR, I TEND TO FAVOR
CONGRESS IN DISPUTES.
AND HE IS THE INVERSE.
HIS NATURAL DEFAULT IS ARTICLE
2.
MINE IS MATERIAL 1.
BUT HE'S RELEASED MORE
PRIVILEGED INFORMATION THAN
ANY ATTORNEY GENERAL IN MY
LIFETIME, INCLUDING THE
MUELLER REPORT.
THESE TRANSCRIPTS OF THE CALLS
ARE CORE EXECUTIVE MATERIAL.
NO QUESTION ABOUT IT.
>> AND IN ESSENCE, THAT'S NOT
POINTED OUT WHEN YOU DO BACK
AND FORTH WHAT WE'RE DOING.
THE TRANSCRIPT OF THE CALL
RELEASED, AND THE THINGS
RELEASED BY MUELLER.
IT'S A WORK IN PROGRESS BY
THIS ADMINISTRATION.
THE INTERESTING POINT I WANT
TO TALK ABOUT IS TWO THINGS.
CONGRESS ABUSES ITS OWN POWER
EVEN INTERNALLY WHERE WE HAVE
BEEN COMMITTEES NOT WILLING TO
LET MEMBERS SEE TRANSCRIPTS,
NOT BEING WILLING TO GIVE
THOSE UP UNDER THE GUISE OF
IMPEACHMENT OR YOU SHOULDN'T
BE ABLE TO SEE THEM, EVEN
THOUGH THE RULES OF THE HOUSE
WERE NEVER INVOKEED TO STOP
THAT.
>> AND BEFORE WE MOVE TO
SOMETHING ELSE, THE TIMING
ISSUE THAT YOU TALK ABOUT
HERE.
AGAIN, I BELIEVE WE TALKED
ABOUT THIS WITH THE Mxá*UL ERR
RE
MUELLER
REPORT.
THIS IS THE FASTEST.
THE CLOCK AND THE CALENDAR ARE
DOMINATING.
IT'S REGARDLESS OF WHAT
ANYBODY IN THE COMMITTEE, AND
ESPECIALLY MEMBERS NOT OF THIS
COMMITTEE TO THINK OF WHAT
WE'RE ACTUALLY SEEING MOVING
FORWARD.
WE DON'T HAVE THAT YET.
SO THE QUESTION BECOMES IS AN
ELECTION PENDING WHEN FACTS
ARE IN DISPUTE.
THE FACTS ARE NOT UNANIMOUS.
THERE'S NOT BIPARTISAN
AGREEMENT ON THE FACTS AND
WHAT THEY LEAD TOO THAT'S BEEN
PRESENTED, NOT IN THE SCHIFF
REPORT, BUT IN OTHER REPORTS.
DOES THAT TIMING BOTHER YOU
FROM A HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE,
NOT IN THE PAST, BUT MOVING
FORWARD
>> FAST AND NARROW@ IS OBJECT A
GOOD RECIPE FOR IMPEACHMENT.
THAT'S THE CASE WITH JOHNSON.
NARROW WAS THE CASE WITH
CLINTON.
THEY TEND NOT TO SURVIVE.
THEY TEND TO COLLAPSE IN THE
SENATE.
IMPEACHMENTS ARE LIKE
BUILDINGS.
THERE'S A RATIO BETWEEN THE
FOUNDATION AND HEIGHT.
S THIS THE HIGHEST STRUCT YOU
CAN BUILD UNDER THE
CONSTITUTION.
YOU WANT TO BUILD IMPEACHMENT.
YOU HAVE TO HAVE A FOUNDATION
TO SUPPORT IT.
THIS IS THE NARROWEST
IMPEACHMENT IN HISTORY.
YOU CAN ARGUE WITH JOHNSON.
JOHNSON MIGHT BE THE FASTEST
IMPEACHMENT.
JOHNSON ACTUALLY -- WHAT
HAPPENED TO JOHNSON WAS
ACTUALLY THE FOURTH
IMPEACHMENT ATTEMPT AGAINST
JOHNSON.
AND ACTUALLY THE RECORD GO
BACK A YEAR BEFORE.
THEY LAID THE TRAP DOOR A YEAR
BEFORE.
IT'S NOT AS FAST AS IT MIGHT
APPEAR.
>> AND AGAIN, I WANT TO GO
BACK TO SOMETHING ELSE.
YOU TALKED ABOUT BRIEBLRY.
I WANT TO GO BACK TO SOMETHING
YOU TALKED ABOUT.
IT BROTHERS ME, THE PERCEPTION
OUT THERE OF WHAT'S GOING ON,
AND THE DISPUTED TRANSCRIPT,
AND THE CALL, AND THE
PRESIDENT SAID I WANTED
NOTHING FOR THIS.
THERE'S EXCULPATORY EVIDENCE
NOT PRESENTED.
AND IT'S REPORTED IN THE
MAINSTREAM MEDIA, AND BACK TO
WHAT THE DEFINITION IS --
REGARDING THE HOUSE ACCUSED
THE PRESIDENT OF QUID QUO PRO,
AND WE HEAR IT AS WE GO
THROUGH, AND THEN USED THE
POLITICAL FOCUS GROUP TO
DETERMINE WHETHER THE PHRASE
POLLED L AND APPARENTLY DIDN'T
POLL L SO THEY CHANGED THE
THEORY OF THE CASE TO BRIBERY.
DOES THAT FEED INTO FACTS DO
MATTER IN A CASE LIKE THIS OR
SOME MATTER?
>> IT DOES.
THERE'S A REASON YLT FAST
IMPEACHMENT HAS ESTABLISHED
CRIME.
IT'S OBVIOUS.
IT'S NOT THAT YOU CAN'T
IMPEACH ON A NON-CRIME.
YOU CAN.
IN FACT, NON-CRIMES HAVE BEEN
PART OF PAST IMPEACHMENTS, BUT
THEY'VE NEVER GONE UP ALONE
PRIMARILY AS A BASIS OF
IMPEACHMENT.
THAT'S THE PROBLEM HERE.
IF YOU PROVE A QUID QUO PRO,
YOU MIGHT HAVE AN IMPEACHABLE
OFFENSE, BUT TO GO UP ONLY ON
A NON-CRIMINAL CASE WOULD BE
THE FIRST TIME IN HISTORY.
WHY IS THAT THE CASE?
THE REASON IS THAT CRIMES HAVE
AN ESTABLISHED DEFINITION IN
CASE LAW.
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
DID SOMETHING THEY CAN'T DO.
YOU CAN'T SAY THE PRESIDENT IS
ABOVE THE LAW IF YOU THEN CASE
THE CRIMES YOU ACCUSE HIM OF
DON'T HAVE TO BE ESTABLISHED.
I THINK THAT'S THE PROBLEM
RIGHT NOW.
THAT'S THE PROBLEM MEMBERS OF
THE HOUSE AND THE PUBLIC ARE
LOOKING AT, IF YOU SAY IT'S
ABOVE THE LAW BUT YOU DON'T
DEFINE THE FACTS TO WHAT YOU
HAVE, THAT'S THE ULTIMATE
RAILROAD THAT EVERYBODY IN THE
COUNTRY SHOULD NOT BE
AFFORDED.
EVERYONE IS AFFORD THE THE
PROCESS TO MAKE THEIR CASE
HEARD.
THAT'S THE CONCERN I HAVE IN
THE COMMITTEE, AND WE'VE SEEN
IT VOTED DOWN WE'RE NOT GOING
TO LOOK AT FACT WITNESSES AND
NOT PROMISED OTHER HEARINGS --
AND THE WORDS CONCERNED AND
ECHOED BY THE CHAIRMAN WHERE
HE DID NOT WANT TO TAKE THE
ADVICE OF OTHER BODY OR ENTITY
GIVING THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE
A REPORT AND ACTING AS A
RUBBER STAMP IF WE DIDN'T DO
THIS.
IT WAS TWO AND A HALF WEEKS
BEFORE THE DISCUSSION OF THIS
KIND OF A HEARING BACK THEN,
BEFORE THE HEARING ACTUALLY
TOOK PLACE.
THESE ARE THE KIND OF THINGS
AS TIMING GOES.
THE OBVIOUS POINT IS THAT
TIMING IS BECOMING MANUFACTURE
OF THE ISSUE, BECAUSE OF THE
CONCERN AS STATED BEFORE ABOUT
ELECTIONS.
THEY'RE MORE CONCERNED ABOUT
FITTING THE FACTS IN TO WHAT
THE PRESIDENT SUPPOSEDLY
PRESUMABLY D AND MAKE THOSE
HYPOTHETICALS STICK TO THE
AMERICAN PUBLIC.
THE PROBLEM IS THE TIMING AND
THE DEFINITION OF CRIMES.
>> WHY IS IT WITHHELD EVEN IN
A NON-CLASSIFIED SETTING.
THESE ARE THE PROBLEMS YOU
HIGHLIGHTED, AND I THINK THAT
NEED TO BE -- AND WHY THE NEXT
45 MINUTES IS APPLICABLE,
BECAUSE BOTH SIDES MATTER.
AND AT THE END OF THE DAY THIS
IS A FAST IMPEACHMENT BASED ON
DISPUTED FACTS ON CRIMES OR
DISSERVICES THAT ARE MADE UP
WITH THE FACTS.
I WANT TO TURN IT OVER TO MY
COUNSEL.
>> PROFESSIONALS TURLEY, I'D
LIKE TO TURN TO THE SUBJECT OF
PARTISANSHIP AS THE FOUNDERS
MADE IT, AND HAMILTON WAS
CONCERNED WHEN IT CAME TO THE
SUBJECT OF IMPEACHMENT.
HE WROTE WORDS IN A FEDERAL
PAPER FOR RATICTION OF THE
CONSTITUTION.
THE FEDERALIST PAPERS LAID OUT
THE REASONS MADISON AND
HAMILTON THOUGHT THE
IMPEACHMENT CLAUSE WAS
NECESSARY, AND ALSO FLAGGED
CONCERNS.
HE SAID IN MANY CASES OF
IMPEACHMENT, IT WILL CONNECT
ITSELF WITH THE PRE-EXISTING
FACTIONS AND WILL ENLIST ALL
THE ANIMOSITYS, PARTIALITIES,
INFLUENCE AND INTERESTS ON ONE
SIDE, OR ON THE OTHER AND IN
TOUCH CASES.
>> AND THE BY THE REAL
DEMONSTRATIONS OF INNOCENCE OR
GUILT.
>> IT'S ALSO IMPORTANT TO NOTE
BY THE WAY, THAT WE OFTEN
THINK OUR TIMES ARE UNIQUE.
THIS PROVISION WAS WRITTEN FOR
TIMES NOT JUST LIKE OURS BUT
FOR TIMES LIKE OURS.
THESE ARE THE PEOPLE THAT ARE
EVEN MORE SEVERE THAN THE
RHETORIC TODAY.
>> THEY WERE ACTUALLY TRYING
TO KILL EACH OTHER.
THAT'S WHAT THE SEDITION LAW
WAS.
YOU WERE TRYING TO KILL PEOPLE
THAT DISAGREED WITH YOU.
WHAT'S NOTABLE IS THEY DIDN'T
HAVE A SLEW OF IMPEACHMENTS.
THEY KNEW NOT TO DO IT.
AND I THINK THAT THAT'S A
LESSON THAT CAN BE TAKEN FROM
THAT PERIOD.
THE FRAMERS CREATED A STANDARD
THAT WOULD NOT BE FLUID AND
FLEXIBLE, AND THAT STANDARD
HAS KEPT US FROM IMPEACHMENTS
DESPITE THE PERIOD THAT WE
REALLY DESPISED EACH OTHER.
THAT'S DISTRESSING FOR MOST OF
US TODAY.
THERE'S SO MUCH MORE RAGE THAN
REASON.
YOU CAN'T EVEN TALK ABOUT
THESE ISSUES WITHOUT PEOPLE
SAYING YOU MUST BE IN FAVOR OF
THE UKRANIANS TAKING OVER THE
COUNTRY OR THE RUSSIANS MOVING
INTO THE WHITE HOUSE.
AT SOME POINT, AS PEOPLE, YOU
HAVE TO HAVE A SERIOUS
DISCUSSION ABOUT THE GROUNDS
TO REMOVE A DULY ELECTED
PRESIDENT.
PROFESSOR TURLEY, YOU SAID
WHEN IT COMES TO IMPEACHMENT,
YOU DON'T NEED HALF THE
IDEOLOGICAL WARRIORS WE NEED
CIRCUMSPECT ANALYSIS.
LOOK AT THE DEEPLY PARTISAN
LANDSCAPE ON THIS IMPEACHMENT.
TE DEMOCRATIC LEADERS PUSHING
IMPEACHMENT REPRESENT THE MOST
FAR LEFT COASTAL AREAS OF THE
COUNTRY.
THE BARS ARE THE TOTAL OF THE
VOTES CASTS, AND THE MARGIN OF
THE WINNER FOR THE 2016
ELECTION.
AS YOU SEE THE PARTS VOTED
OVERWHELMINGLY FOR HILLARY
CLINTON DURING THE LAST
PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION.
DURING THE 2016 PRESIDENTIAL
ELECTION.
LAWYER CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTIONS
TILTED 97% FOR CLINTON, AND 3%
FOR TRUMP.
AND THAT INCLUDES THOSE ON THE
PANEL HERE TODAY.
PROFESSOR TURLEY, I'D LIKE TO
TURN TO THE PARTISAN PROCESS
THAT DEFINES THESE IMPEACHMENT
PROCEEDINGS.
THIS IS HOW THE NIXON
IMPEACHMENT EFFORT WAS
DESCRIBED IN THE BIPARTISAN
STAFF REPORT.
YOU TALKED ABOUT THE
INITIATION OF THE IMPEACHMENT
INQUIRY.
IT WAS NOT PARTISAN, AND
SUPPORTS IN BOTH POLITICAL
PARTIES.
>> HOW SHOULD IMPEACHMENT
OPERATE?
>> I BELIEVE THE FOUNDERS
CERTAINLY HAD ASPIRATIONS THAT
WE WOULD COME TOGETHER AS A
PEOPLE, BUT THEY DIDN'T HAVE
DELUSIONS, AND IT CERTAINLY
WAS NOT SOMETHING THEY
AREEVEED IN THEIR OWN
LIFETIME.
ALTHOUGH, YOU'D BE SURPRISED
THAT SOME OF THESE FRAMERS
ACTUALLY DID AT THE ENDS OF
THEIR LIFE, INCLUDING
JEFFERSON AND ADAM RECONCILE.
INDEED, I THINK ONE OF THE
MOST WEIGHTY AND SIGNIFICANT
MOMENTS IN CONSTITUTIONAL
HISTORY IS THE ONE THAT IS
RARELY DISCUSSED, THAT ADAMS
AND JEFFERSON REACHED OUT TO
EACH OTHER.
THAT THEY WANTED TO RECONCILE
BEFORE THEY DIED.
THEY MET AND THEY DID.
AND MAYBE THAT IS SOMETHING
THAT WE CAN LEARN FROM.
THE GREATER THING I WOULD
POINT TO IS THE 7 REPUBLICANS
IN THE JOHNSON IMPEACHMENT.
I CAN READ ONE THING TO YOU.
EVERYONE TALKS AND TALKS ABOUT
ONE OF THE SENATORS -- BUT NOT
THIS ONE, AND THAT'S TRUMBLE.
HE WAS A FANTASTIC SENATOR AND
BECAME AN ADVOCATE FOR CIVIL
LIBERTIES.
YOU HAVE TO UNDERSTAND THAT
MOST OF THESE SENATORS WHEN IT
WAS SAID THAT THEY JUMPED INTO
THEIR POLITICAL GRAVES IT WAS
TRUE.
MOST OF THEIR POLITICAL
CAREERS ENDED.
THEY KNEW IT WOULD END BECAUSE
OF THE ANIMOSITY OF THE
PERIOD.
TRUMBLE SAID THE FOLLOWING:
HE SAID "ONCE YOU SET THE
EXAMPLE OF IMPEACHING A
PRESIDENT FOR WHAT, WHEN THE
EXCITEMENT OF THE HOUR SHALL
HAVE SUBSIDED AND BE REGARDED
AS INSUFFICIENT CAUSES, NO
FUTURE PRESIDENT WILL BE SAFE
WHO HAPPENS TO DIFFER FROM THE
MAJORITY OF THE HOUSE AND TWO
THIRDSF THE SENATE."
HE SAID, "I TREMBLE FOR THE
FUTURE OF THE COUNTRY."
I CAN'T BE AN TRUEMENT TO
PRODUCE SUCH A RESULT, AND THE
HAZARD OF THE FRIENDSHIPS AND
AFFECTIONS, THERE WILL COME A
TIME TO DO JUSTICE TO THE
MOTIVES."
.
HE PRECEDEED TO GIVE THE VOTE
THAT ENDED HIS CAREER.
YOU CAN'T WAIT.
THE TIME FOR YOU IS NOW.
AND I WOULD SAY THAT WHAT
TRUMBLE SAID HAS MORE BEARING
TODAY.
I BELIEVE THAT THIS IS MUCH
LIKE THE JOHNSON IMPEACHMENT.
IT'S MANUFACTURED UNTIL YOU
BUILD A RECORD.
I'M NOT SAYING YOU CAN'T BUILD
A RECORD, BUT NOT LIKE THIS.
>> THE LEGITIMATE IMPEACHMENT
PROCESS, THE BOOK IS PRETTY
ANTI-TRUMP.
IT'S CALL KD END OF
PRESIDENCY.
IN THAT BOOK THE AUTHOR STATES
THE FOLLOWING.
WHEN AN IMPEACHMENT IS PURELY
PARTISAN OR APPEARS THAT WAY.
WHEN ONLY REPUBLICANS OR
DEMOCRATS VIEW THE PRESIDENT'S
CONTACT AS JUSTIFYING REMOVAL,
THERE'S A RISK THAT PARTISAN
ANIMUS HAVE OVERTAKEN THE
IMPARTIALITY.
ANOTHER QUOTE IS WE CAN EXPECT
OPPOSITION LEADERS TO THE
PRESIDENT WILL BE PUSHED TO
IMPEACH, AND WILL SUFFER
INTERNAL BLOWBACK IF THEY
DON'T.
>> THE ONE THING THAT COMES
OUT OF THESE IMPEACHMENTS IN
TERMS OF WHAT BIPARTISAN
SUPPORT OCCURRED IS
IMPEACHMENTS REQUIREMENT
PERIODS OF SATURATION AND
MATURATION.
THE PUBLIC HAS TO KEEP UP.
I'M NOT PRE-JUDGING WHAT YOUR
RECORD WOULD SHOW, BUT IF YOU
RUSH THE IMPEACHMENT, YOU'RE
GOING TO LEAVE HALF THE
COUNTRY BEHIND.
IT'S CERTAINLY NOT WHAT THE
FRAMERS WANTED.
YOU HAVE TO GIVE TIME TO BUILD
A RECORD.
THIS ISN'T AN IMPULSE BY ITEM.
YOU'RE TRYING TO REMOVE A
PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED
STATES.
THAT TAKES TIME AND WORK.
IN THE END, IF YOU LOOK AT
NIXON WHICH WAS THE GOLD
STANDARD IN THIS RESPECT, THE
PUBLIC DID CATCH UP, AND
ORIGINALLY DID NOT SUPPORT
IMPEACHMENT, BECAUSE THEY
CHANGED THEIR MIND.
YOU CHANGED THEIR MIND.
AND SO DID, BY THE WAY, THE
COURTS, BECAUSE YOU ALLOWED
THE ISSUES TO BE HEARD IN THE
COURT.
>> PROFESSOR TURLEY, NIXON AND
CLINTON WERE DEBATED ON THE
HIGH CRIMES.
CRIMES WERE AT ISSUE?
BUT IN THE ISSUES PRESENTED IS
IT YOUR VIEW ANY CRIME WAS
COMMITTED BY PRESIDENT TRUMP?
>> YES.
I'VE BEEN THROUGH THE CRIMES
MENTIONED AND DO NOT MEET
REASONABLE INTERPRETATION OF
THOSE CRIMES, AND I'M RELYING
ON EXPRESS STATEMENTS FROM THE
FEDERAL COURTS.
IT'S THE LANGUAGE OF THE
INTERPRETATION OF FEDERAL
COURTS.
I THINK ALL OF THOSE DECISIONS
STAND MIGHTILY IN THE WAY OF
THESE THEORIES.
IF YOU CAN'T MAKE OUT THE
CRIME, WHAT'S THE POINT.
CALL IT TREASON OR ENDANGERED
SPECIES VIOLATION IF NONE OF
THIS MATTERS.
THAT WOULD PUT IT IN THE
SUGGEST OF HIGH MISDEMEANORS.
IN MADISON'S NOTES OF THE
IMPEACHMENT DEBATES IT SHOWS
HIGH MISDEMEANOR WAS A
TECHNICAL TERM, NOT JUST
SOMETHING THAT ANY MAJORITY OF
PARTISAN MEMBERS WOULD THINK
IT WAS AT ANY GIVEN TIME, AND
OFTEN WHEN THERE'S A DEBATED
ABOUT A TECHNICAL TERM, PEOPLE
TURN TO DICTIONARIES.
AND THE FIRST WAS SAMIUM
JOHNSON, FIRST PUBLISHED IN
1755, AND THE FOUNDERS IN MANY
LIBRARIES8j AT THIS.
THE PUBLIC USE OF THE BDING OF
THE USE OF THE CONSTITUTION.
HERE'S HOW THE 1785 DICTIONARY
DEFINES HIGH CRIMES AND
MISDEMEANORS.
THE SUBDEFINITION IS CAPITAL
GREAT, OPPOSED LITTLE.
DEFINITION OF MISDEMEANOR
DEFINED AS SOMETHING LESS THAN
AN ATROCIOUS CRIME.
ATROCIOUS IS DEFINED AS WICKED
IN A HIGH DEGREE.
ENORMOUS, HORRIBLY CRIMINAL.
IF YOU LOOK AT HOW THE WORDS
WERE DEFINED AT THE TIME OF
CONSTITUTION WAS RATIFIED,
ATROCIOUS IS WICKED IN A HIGH
DEGREE, AND AS A RESULT A
HINEOUS MISDEMEANOR IS
SOMETHING WICKED IN A HIGH
DEGREE.
DOES THAT COMPORT WITH YOUR
UNDERSTANDING BY THE FOUNDERS,
AND THE PURPOSE OF NARROWING
THAT PHRASE.
TO PREVENT THE ABUSES YOU
DESCRIBED?
>> IT DID, IF YOU COMPARE IT
TO THE EXTRADITION CLAUSE, THE
LANGUAGE USED WAS DIFFERENT.
>> THAT'S CLEARLY NOT WHAT
THEY WANT.
>> I WANTED TO EXPLORE HOW THE
IMPEACHMENT IS, IS THE HIGH
CRIME, AND NO REQUEST FOR
FALSE INFORMATION UNLIKE THE
NIXON IMPEACHMENT.
START TO BACKGROUND.
THE AMERICAN MEDIA HAS BEEN
ASKING FOR QUESTIONS ABOUT
BIDEN'S SON, AND THE CORRUPT
COMPANY, BURISMA.
IS ONE OF THOSE EXAMPLES FROM
JUNE 2019, ABC NEWS
INVESTIGATION TITLED HUNTER
BIDEN'S FOREIGN DEALS.
DID JOE BIDEN'S SON PROFIT OFF
HIS FATHER'S VPTSZ.
A
VICE PRESIDENT.
>> AND MANY HAVE SEEN JOE
BIDEN TALKING ABOUT GETTING
THE PROSECUTOR OF BURISMA
FIRED.
AND A "NEW YORK TIMES" ARTICLE
REFERRING TO JOSEPH BIDEN, ONE
OF HIS MOST MEMORABLE
PERFORMANCES CAME TO KIEV WHEN
HE THREATENED TO WITHHOLD A
BILLION DOLLARS IN LOAN
GUARANTEES IF UKRAINE LEADERS
DID NOT DISMISS THE TOP
PROSECUTORS.
AMONG THOSE WHO HAD A STAKE IN
THE OUTCOME WAS MR. BIDEN.
MR. BIDEN'S SON WAS ON THE
BOARD OFAL OLIGARCH.
EVEN IF HE DIDN'T PARTICIPATE
TO CRIMES IF INVESTIGATION LED
TO THE BANKRUPTCY OF THE
CORRUPT COMPANY, HUNTER
BIDEN'S POSITION WOULD HAVE
BEEN ELIMINATED ALONG WITH HIS
$50,000 A MONTH PAYMENT.
THAT WAS HIS STAKE IN THE
PROSECUTION OF THE COMPANY.
IN FACT, EVEN THE FORMER
ACTING SLILS TORE GENERAL
UNDER PRESIDENT OBAMA IN A
RECENT BOOK SAYS THE
FOLLOWING.
"IS WHAT HUNTER BIDEN WRONG?
ABSOLUTELY.
IT MADE HIM WHOLLY UNQUALIFYED
TO SIT ON THE BOARD OF
BURISMA.
THE ONLY REASONABLE LOGICAL
REASON WAS HIS TIE TO VICE
PRESIDENT BIDEN.
THIS IS WRONG AND A POTENTIAL
DANGER TO OUR COUNTRY SINCE IT
MAKES IT EASIER FOR FOREIGN
POWERS TO BUY INFLUENCE.
YOU SHOULDN'T ALLOW A FOREIGN
POWER TO CONDUCT THIS PEDDLING
WITH FAMILY MEMBERS."
AND LT. COLONEL VINDMAN WAS
ASKED WOULD IT BE FOREIGN
POLICY TO ASK A FOREIGN LEADER
TO OPEN A POLITICAL
INVESTIGATION.
HE REPLIED CERTAINLY THE
PRESIDENT IS WELL WITHIN HIS
RIGHT TO DO THAT.
>> TO THE AMERICAN MEDIA AND
OTHERS ASKING QUESTIONS ABOUT
HUNTER BIDEN AND HIS
INVOLVEMENT IN UKRAINE.
PRESIDENT TRUMP WITH HIS
CALL SIMPLY ASKED THE SAME
QUESTIONS THE MEDIA WAS
ASKING.
NOW PROFESSOR TURLEY, IS IT
YOUR HUNDREDING THAT
IMPEACHING NIXON AND COVERING
UP A CRIME, AND THAT THE
EVIDENTITARY CRIME SHOWS HE
KNEW OF AN ACT ACCORDING TAPES
OF NIXON ORDERING THE
WATERGATE BREAK-IN?
>> IT IS.
>> AND IS IT YOUR UNDERSTAND
THINK THAT THE HOUSES
IMPEACHED NIXON FOR THE CRIME
OF LYING UNDER OATH, AND
SEXUAL HARASSMENT?
>> THAT'S RIGHT.
>> THE REQUEST FOR FALSE
INFORMATION IN BOTH THE NIXON
AND CLINTON SCANDAL CAME FROM
THE PRESIDENT HIMSELF,
AGREE THE IFDS COMPILED TODAY
BY HOUSE DEMOCRATS FAILS TO
MEET THE STANDARD OF CLEAR AND
CONVINCEING OEFDS?
>> I DO BY A CONSIDERABLE
MEASURE.
>> AND LET ME TURN TO THE BOOK
IN THE PRESIDENCY.
THE AUTHOR STATES THE
FACILITATING: " THE
EXTRAORDINARY CIRCUMSTANCES,
IMPEACHING WITH A PARTIAL OR
PLAUSIBLEY CONTESTED
UNDERSTANDING OF THE FACTS IS
A BAD IDEA."
WILL DO YOU THINK IMPEACHING
WITH A PARTIAL UNDERSTANDING
OF THE FACTS?
>> I THINK THAT'S CLEAR,
BECAUSE THIS IS KNOW WO OF THE
THINNEST RECORDS EVER TO GO
FORWARD ON IMPEACHMENT.
THE JOHNSON RECORD WE CAN
DEBATE BECAUSE OF THE FOURTH
ATTEMPT AT IMPEACHMENT.
BUT THIS IS THE THINNEST OF A
MODERN RECORD.
IF YOU LOOK AT THE SIZE OF THE
RECORD OF CLINTON AND NIXON
THEY WERE MASSIVE COMPARED TO
THIS WHICH IS WAFER THIN.
AND LEFT DOUBTS.
NOT JUST IN THE MINDS OF THOSE
SUPPORTING TRUMP, BUT THOSE
LIKE MYSELF ABOUT WHAT
ACTUALLY OCCURRED.
THERE'S A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN
REQUESTING AN INVESTIGATION
AND A QUID QUO PRO.
YOU NEED TO STICK THE LANDING
ON THE QUID QUO PRO.
YOU NEED TO GET THE EVIDENCE
TO SUPPORT IT.
IT MIGHT BE OUT THERE, I DON'T
KNOW.
BUT IT'S NOT IN THAT RECORD.
I AGREE WITH THE COLLEAGUES,
WE'VE ALL READ THE RECORD, AND
I JUST COME TO A DIFFERENT
CONCLUSION.
I DON'T SEE PROOF OF A QUID
QUO PRO.
NO MATTER WHAT MY ASSUMPTIONS
OR BIAS MIGHT BE.
>> ON THAT POINT, I'D LIKE TO
TURN TO THE CURRENT
PROCEDURES.
PROFESSIONALS TURLEY, DUE
AGREE THAT A FULL ADVERSARY
SYSTEM IN WHICH EACH SIDE GETS
A CHANCE TO PRESENT EVIDENCE
FOR TRUTH?
>> YES.
WITH THE ENGLISH IMPEACHMENT
MODEL REJECTED BY THE FRAMERS,
THEY TOOK THE LANGUAGE BUT
REJECTED THE MODEL OF
IMPEACHMENT FROM ENGLAND
PARTICULARLY HASTINGS.
BUT EVEN IN ENGLAND IT WAS A
ROBUST PROCESS.
IF YOU WANT TO SEE ADVERSARIAL
WORK LOOK AT WHAT BURKE DID TO
WARREN HASTINGS.
HE WAS ON HIM LIKE UGLY ON
MOOSE THE ENTIRE TRIAL.
>> AND AS YOU KNOW, IN THE
MINORITY VIEWS IN THE CLINTON
IMPEACHMENT REPORT, THE HOUSE
DEMOCRATS WROTE THE FOLLOWING.
WE BELIEVE IT'S INCUMBENT TO
PROVIDE BASIC PROTECTIONS AS
OF BARBARA JORDAN DURING THE
WATERGATE HRLING.
IT MANDATES DUE PROCESS
QUADRUPLED.
>> AND THE SAME MINORITY VIEW
SUPPORTS THE RIGHT TO
CROSS-EXAMINATION IN A VARIETY
OF CONTEXT IN THE CLINTON
EXAMPLE.
NOW PROFESSOR TURLEY, YOU
DESCRIBED HOW MONICA LEWINSKY
WASN'T ALLOWED TO BE CALLED IN
THE IMPEACHMENT HEARING, AND
REVEALED HOW SHE HAD BEEN TOLD
TO LIE ABOUT HER RELATIONSHIP
WITH PRESIDENT CLINTON.
AS A CAUTIONARY TALE ABOUT THE
DANGERS OF DENYING KEY
WITNESSES.
CAN ELABORATE ON TA?
>> THAT WAS A PORTION OF MY
TESTIMONY DEALING WITH HOW YOU
STRUCTURE THESE IMPEACHMENTS.
WHAT HAPPENED DURING THE
CLINTON IMPEACHMENT, AND IT
CAME UP DURING THE HEARING
THAT WE HAD PREVIOUSLY, WAS A
QUESTION OF HOW MUCH THE HOUSE
HAD TO DO IN TERMS OF THE
ROBUST RECORD CREATED BY THE
INDEPENDENT COUNCIL.
THEY HAD A LOT OF TESTIMONY,
VIDEOTAPES, ET CETERA.
THE HOUSE BASICALLY
INCORPORATED THAT, AND THE
ASSUMPTION WAS THAT THOSE
WITNESSES WOULD BE CALLED AT
THE SENATE, BUT THERE WAS A
FAILURE AT THE SENATE, AND THE
RULES WERE APPLIED, AND IN MY
VIEW WERE NOT FAIR.
THEY RESTRICTED WITNESSES TO
ONLY THREE.
THAT'S WHAT I BROUGHT UP THE
LEWINSKY MATTER.
MONICA WAS TOLD IF HE SIGNED
THE AFFIDAVIT THAT WAS UNTRUE,
THAT SHE WOULD NOT BE CALLED
AS A WITNESS.
IF YOU ACTUALLY CALLED LIVE
WITNESSES THAT INFORMATION
WOULD HAVE BEEN PART OF THE
RECORD.
>> GENTLEMAN YIELDS BACK.
I NOTE THIS IS A MOMENT IN
WHICH THE WHITE HOUSE WOULD
HAVE HAD AN OPPORTUNITY TO
QUESTION THE WITNESSES.
THEY DECLINED THEIR
INVITATION.
WE WILL NOT PROCEED TO
QUESTIONS UNDER THE 5 MINUTE
RULE.
I YIELD MYSELF FIVE MINUTES
FOR THE PURPOSE OF QUESTIONING
THE WITNESSES.
>> MR. FELDMAN, WOULD YOU SND
TO PROFESSOR TURLEY'S COMMENTS
ABOUT BRIBERY, ESPECIALLY THE
RELEVANCE OF THE ELEMENTS OF
CRIMINAL BRIBERY?
>> YES.
BRIBERY HAD A CLEAR MEANING TO
THE FRAMERS.
IT WAS WHEN THE PRESIDENT,
USING THE POWER OF HIS OFFICE
SOLICITS OR RECEIVE THE
SOMETHING OF PERSONAL VALUE
FROM SOMEONE IN POWER.
I WANT TO BE CLEAR, THE
CONSTITUTION IS LAW.
THE CONSTITUTION IS THE
SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND.
OF COURSE, PROFESSOR TURLEY IS
RIGHT, YOU WOULDN'T WANT TO
IMPEACH SOMEBODY WHO DIDN'T
VIOLATE THE LAW.
BUT IT SPECIFIES OTHER HIGH
CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS.
BRIBERY HAD A CLEAR MEANING.
IF THE HOUSE BELIEVES THAT THE
PRESIDENT SOLICITED SOMETHING
OF VALUE IN THE FORM OF
INVESTIGATIONS OR ANNOUNCEMENT
OF INVESTIGATIONS, AND DID SO
CORRUPTLY FOR PERSONAL GAIN,
THAT WOULD CONSTITUTE BRIBERY
UNDER THE MEANING OF THE
CONSTITUTION, AND IT WOULDN'T
BE LAWLESS.
IT WOULD BELIEVE BRIBERY UNDER
THE LAW.
SO THE -- SO THE SUPREME COURT
CASE IN MACDONALD INTERPRETING
THE FEDERAL BRIBERY STATUTE
AND OTHER DECISIONS
INTERPRETING THE STATUTE
WOULDN'T BE RELEVANT?
>> THE CONSTITUTION IS THE
SUPREME LAW, AND THE
CONSTITUTION SPECIFIES WHAT
BRIBERY MEANS.
FEDERAL STATUTES CAN'T TRUMP
THE CONSTITUTION.
THEY CAN'T BE IN THE
CONSTITUTION.
>> PROFESSOR GERHARDT WOULD
YOU RESPOND TO THE OBSTRUCTION
OF JUSTICE OR OBSTRUCTION OF
JUSTICE, PLEASE?
>> ON OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE,
ONE THING I WANT TO EMPHASIZE
IS OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE IS
NOT JUST ABOUT OBSTRUCTION OF
A COURT.
IT'S OBSTRUCTION OF ANY LAWFUL
PROCEEDING.
SO THAT OBSTRUCTION ISN'T
LIMITING TO WHATEVER IS
HAPPENING ON THE COURTS, AND
OBVIOUSLY HERE, THERE ARE
JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS, AND ALSO
A CRITICAL CONGRESSIONAL
PROCEEDING BRINGING US TO
OBSTRUCTION OF CONGRESS.
WITH OBSTRUCTION OF CONGRESS,
I DON'T THINK -- IN FACT, I
CAN SAY, THERE'S NEVER BEEN
ANYTHING LIKE THE PRESIDENT'S
REFUSAL TO COMPLY WITH
SUBPOENAS FROM THIS BODY.
THESE ARE LAWFUL SUBPOENAS.
THESE ARE THE FORCE OF LAW TO
THEM.
THESE ARE THE THINGS THAT
EVERY OTHER PRESIDENT HAS
COMPLIED WITH, AND ACTUALLY
ACTED AND REACTED IN ALIGNMENT
EXCEPT FOR PRESIDENT NIXON IN
A SMALL SET OF MATERIALS.
>> PROFESSOR TURLEY IMPLIED IF
THE PRESIDENT ASSERTS
ULTMALTDLY NON-EXISTENT PROOF
LIKE ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY, HE
CAN'T BE CHARGED WITH
OBSTRUCTION OF CONGRESS
BECAUSE AFTERALL, IT HASN'T
BEEN THROUGH THE COURTS YET.
WOULD YOU COMMENT ON THAT MR.
GERHARDT?
>> I MISSED PART OF THE
QUESTION.
>> PROFESSOR TURLEY IMPLIED WE
CAN'T CHARGE THE PRESIDENT
WITH OBSTRUCTION OF CONGRESS
FOR REFUSING ALL SUBPOENAS AS
LONG AS HE HAS ANY FANCYFUL
CLAIM THIS WILL THE COURTS
REJECT THE CLAIMS.
>> HIS REFUSAL TO COMPLY IS AN
INDEPENDENT EVEN EVENT APART FR
THE COURTS AND AN ASSAULT ON
THE LEGITIMATE INQUIRY.
ISM THANK YOU.
>> PROFESSIONALS KARLAN, I'LL
GIVE YOU A CHANCE TO RESPOND
TO THE SAME QUESTION.
>> I WANTED TO RESPOND TO THE
FIRST QUESTION OF BRIBERY.
ALTHOUGH COUNSEL FOR THE
MINORITY READ SAMUEL JOHNSON'S
DEFINITIONS HE DIDN'T READ THE
DEFINITION OF BRIBERY.
I HAVE THE 1792 VERSION OF
JOHNSON'S DICTIONARY.
I DON'T HAVE THE INITIAL ONE.
AND THERE HE DEFINES BRIBERY
AS THE CRIME OF GIVING OR
TAKING REWARDS FOR BAD
PRACTICES.
>> DO YOU THINK IT'S A BAD
PRACTICE TO DENY MILITARY
APPROPRIATIONS TO AN ALLY THAT
HAS BEEN GIVEN TO?
IF YOU CAN GET THE BAD
PRACTICE NOT TO HOLD A MEETING
TO BUCK UP THE LEGITIMACY OF
THE GOVERNMENT ON THE FRONT
LINE, AND YOU DO THAT IN
RETURN FOR THE REWARD OF
GETTING HELP WITH YOUR
RE-ELECTION.
THAT'S SAMUEL JOHNSON'S
DEFINITION OF BRIBERY.
>> THANK YOU.
IF WASHINGTON WERE HERE TODAY
AND JOINED BY MADISON AND
HAMILTON AND OTHER FRAMERS,
WHAT DO YOU BELIEVE THEY WOULD
SAY TO THE EVIDENCE PRESENTED
BEFORE US ABOUT PRESIDENT
TRUMP'S CONDUCT?
>> I BELIEVE THEY WOULD SAY
PRESIDENT TRUMP'S CONDUCT IS A
HIGH CRIME AND MISDEMEANOR
THEY WERE WORRIED ABOUT, AND
WANT THE HOUSE OF
REPRESENTATIVES TO TAKE ACTION
AND TO IMPEACH.
>> AND THEY WOULD FIND
OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE,
OBSTRUCTION OF CONGRESSOR ONE
OF THEM?
>> IF CONGRESS DETERMINES
THAT'S WHAT THE EVIDENCE MEANS
THEY WOULD BELIEVE THAT'S WHAT
CONGRESS OUGHT TO DO.
>> THANK YOU.
I YIELD BACK THE BALANCE OF MY
TIME AND EVIDENCE THE
GENTLEMAN FROM GEORGIA, MR.
COLLINS FOR FIVE MINUTES OF
QUESTIONING.
>> THIS JUST KEEPS GETTING
MORE AMAZING.
WE JUST PUT IN THE JURY POOL
THE FOUNDING FATHERS.
INSTEAD WHAT WOULD THEY THINK.
WE DON'T HAVE ANY IDEA WHAT
THEY WOULD THINKh#iM ALL DUE
RESPECT WITH THIS -- BECAUSE
OF THE DIFFERENT TIMES AND
THINGS WE TALK ABOUT.
IN SOME WAY INSINUATE WITH A
LOT OF PEOPLE LISTENING THAT
THE FOUNDING FATHERS WOULD
HAVE FOUND PRESIDENT TRUMP
GUILTY IS SIMPLY MALPRACTICE
WITH THE FACTS BEFORE US.
THAT IS SIMPLY PAPDERING TO A
CAMERA AND NOT RIGHT.
THIS IS AMAZING.
WE CAN DISAGREE.
WHAT'S AMAZING ON THE
COMMITTEE IS WE DON'T EVEN
DISAGREE ON THE FACTS.
WE CAN'T FIND A FACT RIGHT NOW
WHETHER GOING TO THE PUBLIC
TESTIMONY, AND EVEN THE
TRANSCRIPT.
IT IS NOT.
MR. TURLEY, ARE WE GOING TO
DEPUTIZE SOMEONE IN THE JURY
POOL HERE.
>> FIRST OF ALL, ONLY I WILL
SPEAK FOR JAMES MADISON.
NO.
WE WILL ALL SPEAK FOR MADISON
WITH THE SAME LEVEL OF
ACCURACY.
IT'S SOMETHING ACADEMICS DO
ALL THE TIME.
THAT'S WHAT WE GET PAID FOR.
FIRST OF ALL, I FIND IT
SURPRISING YOU WOULD HAVE
GEORGE WASHINGTON IN THE JURY
POOL.
I WOULD STRIKE HIM FOR CAUSE.
GEORGE WASHINGTON WAS THE
FIRST GUY TO RAISE EXTREME
EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE CLAIMS.
HE HAD A ROBUST VIEW OF WHAT A
PRESIDENT COULD SAY.
IF YOU WERE GOING TO MAKE A
CASE TO GEORGE WASHINGTON THAT
YOU COULD IMPEACH OVER A
CONVERSATION HE HAD WITH
ANOTHER HEAD OF STATE, I
EXPECT HIS POWDERED HAIR WOULD
CATCH ON FIRE.
ALSO I I NOTE ONE OTHER THING.
I AM IMPRESSED WITH AN 18th
CENTURY COPY OF SAMUEL JOHNSON
WITH YOU.
>> IT'S JUST THE ONLINE
VERSION.
>> AND AS AN ACADEMIC, I WAS
IMPRESSED.
I JUST WANT TO NOTE ONE THING
WHICH MAY EXPLAIN PART OF OUR
DIFFERENCE.
THE STATUTES TODAY ON BROADLY.
THAT'S THE 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 IN THE 18TH
ANC AS OF TODAY.
BUT THE IDEA THAT BAD
PRACTICES COULD BE THE
DEFINITION OF BRIBERY?
REALLY?
IS THAT WHAT YOU GET FROM THE
CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION,
THAT BAD PRACTICES -- IS THAT
WHY MASON WANTED TO PUT IN
MALADMINISTRATION, BECAUSE BAD
PRACTICES IS NOT BROAD ENOUGH.
THIS IS WHERE I DISAGREE.
NOW THE OTHER THING I JUST
WANTED TO NOTE, AND IT'S -- I
HAVE SO MUCH RESPECT FOR NOAH,
AND I DISAGREE WITH ON THIS
POINT.
I FEEL IT'S A CIRCULAR
ARGUMENT TO SAY WELL, THE
CONSTITUTION IS LAW.
UPON THAT, WE ARE IN
AGREEMENT.
BUT THE CONSTITUTION REFERS TO
A CRIME.
TO SAY WELL, YOU CAN'T TRUMP
THE CONSTITUTION BAUTZ IT
DEFINES THE CRIME.
IT DOESN'T DEFINE THE CRIME,
IT REFERENCES THE CRIME.
THE CRIME EXAMPLES WERE GIVEN
DURING THE CONSTITUTIONAL
CONVENTION AND THEY DON'T
COMPORT WITH BAD PRACTICE.
THEY COMPORT WITH REAL
BRIBERY.
BUT TO SAY THE SUPREME COURT'S
DECISION ON WHAT CONSTITUTES
BRIBERY IS SOMEHOW IRRELEVANT
IS RATHER ODD.
WHAT THE CONSTITUTION CONTAINS
IS A REFERENCE TO A CRIME AND
WE HAVE TO DECIDE IF THE CRIME
IS COMMITTED.
>> ONE OF THE THINGS THAT CAME
OUT A SECOND AGO WAS THE
DISCUSSION OF -- WE HAD THE
DISCUSSION EARLIER ABOUT IS
THE PRESIDENTIAL, AND MEMBERS
OF THE PRESIDENT'S CABINET TO
ASSERT PRIVILEGES AND RIGHTS.
WE TALKED ABOUT THE FAST AND
FURIOUS OBAMA.
AND HELD IN CONTEMPT BY THIS
BODY FOR NOT COMPLYING WITH
SUBPOENAS.
YOU DON'T PICK AND CHOOSE
HISTORY.
YOU ALSO MADE A STATEMENT, AND
BAD PRACTICE.
IT'S ALSO THE LAW OF THE LAND
THAT WE ARE SUPPOSEED TO
ENSURE THAT COUNTRY'S GIVEN
AID ARE NOT CORRUPT.
I THINK THIS IS ALSO SOMETHING
MISSING FROM THIS DISCUSSION.
WELL, IF THE PRESIDENT HAS HAD
A LONG SEATED DISTRUST OF
FOREIGN COUNTRY, , UKRAINE AND
OTHERS WITH A HISTORY OF
CORRUPTION.
I MADE THE STATEMENT EARLIER
AND IT'S IN THE REPORT, 68% OF
THOSE POLLED IN THE UKRAINE
OVER THE PREVIOUS YEAR HAD
BRIBED A PUBLIC OFFICIAL.
UKRAINE HAD CORRUPTION ISSUES.
IT CAME OUT FROM THE OBAMA
ADMINISTRATION AND THE TRUMP
ADMINISTRATION AND OUR RULE IS
THAT THEY HAVE TO ACTUALLY
LOOK AT THE CORRUPTION BEFORE
GIVING TAXPAYER DOLLARS.
THE PRESIDENT WAS DOING THAT,
AD NOW IT'S BLOWN UP.
WE FOUND OUT IN THE HEARING
FACTS REALLY DON'T MATTER IF
WE'RE TRYING TO FIT IT INTO A
BREAKING OF LAW OR A RULE TO
IMPEACH ON.
THE REASON WE'RE DOING THIS IS
THE TRAIN IS ON THE TRACK,
THIS IS A CLOCK CALENDAR
IMPEACHMENT, NOT A FACT
IMPEACHMENT.
I YIELD BACK.
>> GENTLEMAN YIELDS BACK AND I
RECOGNIZE MISS LOFGREN FOR
FIVE MINUTES.
>> THANK YOU
THIS IS ONLY THE THIRD TIME IN
MODERN HISTORY THAT THE
COMMITTEE HAS ASSUMED THE
GRAVE RESPONSIBILITY OF
CONSIDERING IMPEACHMENT, AND
ODDLY ENOUGH, I'VE BEEN
PRESENT AT ALL THREE.
I WAS THE STAFF OF CONGRESSMAN
JOHN EDWARDS DURING THE NIXON
IMPEACHMENT.
PRESENT ON THE COMMITTEE
DURING THE CLINTON
IMPEACHMENT, AND HERE WE ARE
TODAY.
ALT ITS CORE, I SEE
IMPEACHMENT POWER REALLY ABOUT
THE PRESERVATION OF OUR
DEMOCRATIC SYSTEM.
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
COMMITTEE STAFF, WROTE AN
EXCELLENT REPORT IN 1974.
THIS IS WHAT THEY SAID.
"IMPEACHMENT OF A PRESIDENT IS
A GRAVE STEP FOR THE NATION.
IT'S PREDICATED ONLY UPON
CONDUCT SERIOUSLY
INCOMPATSIBLE WITH THE
CONSTITUTIONAL FORM AND
PRINCIPLE OF OUR GOVERNMENT
WHERE THE PROPER PERFORMANCE
OF CONSTITUTIONAL DUTIES OF
THE PRESIDENT."
AND I'D ASK CONSENT TO ENTER
THE REPORT ON GROUNDS TO THE
REPORT.
>> WITH NIXON, THE ALLEGATIONS
AGAINST PRESIDENT TRUMP
INVOLVED ELECTION RELATED
MISCONDUCT.
NIXON'S ASSOCIATES BURGLARIZED
THE DNC HEADQUARTERS TO GIVE
HIM A LEG UP IN THE ELECTION.
NIXON TRIED TO COVER UP THE
CRIME BY OBSTRUCTING FEDERAL
INVESTIGATIONS.
HE ALSO ABUSED POWERS TO
TARGET HIS POLITICAL RIVALS,
AND HERE WE'RE CONFRONTED WITH
EVIDENCE SUGGESTING THAT
PRESIDENT TRUMP TRIED TO
LEVERAGE APPROPRIATED MILITARY
ASSISTANCE TO RESIST RUSSIA BY
UKRAINE, TO CONVINCE A FOREIGN
ALLY TO ANNOUNCE AN
INVESTIGATION OF HIS POLITICAL
RIVAL.
>> PROFESSOR KARLAN, I'D LIKE
YOU TO TELL ME YOUR VIEW ON
HOW PRESIDENT TRUMP'S
CONDUCTED WITH A REQUEST TO
THE FOREIGN ALLY TO ANNOUNCE
AN INVESTIGATION OF A
POLITICAL ALLY, HOW DOES THAT
COMPARE TO WHAT PRESIDENT
NIXON DID?
>> NOT FAVORABLY.
AS I SUGGESTED IN MY OPENING
TESTIMONY, IT WAS A KIND OF
DOUBLING DOWN, BECAUSE
PRESIDENT NIXON ABUSED
DOMESTIC LAW ENFORCEMENT TO GO
AFTER HIS POLITICAL OPPONENTS.
WHAT PRESIDENT TRUMP HAS DONE
BASED ON THE EVIDENCE THAT
WE'VE SEEN SO FAR IS ASKED A
FOREIGN COUNTRY TO DO THAT,
WHICH MEANS IT'S SORT OF LIKE
A DAILY DOUBLE, IF YOU WILL
THE.
>> PRESIDENT GERHARDT YOU
AGREE ON THAT?
>> YES.
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.
SO WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT
ISN'T ABUSE OF POWER.
WE'RE TALKING ABOUT ABUSE OF
POWER THAT ONLY THE PRESIDENT
CAN COMMIT.
THERE WAS A SYSTEMATIC
CONCERTED EFFORT BY THE
PRESIDENT TO REMOVE PEOPLE
THAT WOULD SOMEHOW OBSTRUCT OR
BLOCK HIS ABILITY TO PUT THAT
PRESSURE ON UKRAINE TO GET AN
ANNOUNCEMENT OF AN
INVESTIGATION.
THAT SEEMS TO BE WHAT HE CARED
ABOUT.
JUST THE MERE ANNOUNCEMENT.
THAT PRESSURE HE WAS GOING TO
PRODUCE THE OUTCOME HE WANTED
UNTIL THE WHISTLEBLOWER PUT A
LIGHT ON IT.
>> I WANT TO GO BACK QUICKLY
TO SOMETHING PROFESSOR TURLEY
SAID.
AS WE SAW IN THE MYERS CASE,
AND I WAS A MEMBER OF THE
COMMITTEE WHEN WE TRIED TO GET
THAT TESTIMONY, AS WELL AS THE
FAST
AND FURIOUS CASE THAT WAS
LONGFULLY WITHHELD FROM THE
CONGRESS, LITIGATION TO ENFORCE
CONGRESSIONAL SUBPOENAS CAN
EXTEND BEYOND THE TERMS OF THE
PRESIDENCY ITSELF.
THAT HAPPENED IN BOTH OF THOSE
CASES.
PROFESSOR FELDMAN, IS IT AN
ABUSE OF OUR POWER NOT TO GO TO
THE COURTS BEFORE USING OUR SOLE
POWER OF IMPEACHMENT IN YOUR
JUDGMENT?
>> CERTAINLY NOT.
UNDER THE CONSTITUTION THE HOUSE
IS ENTITLED TO IMPEACH.
THAT'S IT'S POWER.
THEY DON'T HAVE TO GO THROUGH
THE JUDICIAL BRANCH OF
GOVERNMENT.
THAT'S YOUR DECISION BASED ON
YOUR JUDGMENT.
>> THANK YOU.
I'D LIKE TO NOTE THIS IS NOT A
PROCEEDING THAT I LOOKED FORWARD
TO.
IT'S NOT AN OCCASION FOR JOY.
IT'S ONE OF SOLEMN OBLIGATION.
I HOPE AND BELIEVE THAT EVERY
MEMBER OF THIS COMMITTEE IS
LISTENING, KEEPING AN OPEN MIND
AND HOPING THAT WE HONOR OUR
OBLIGATIONS CAREFULLY AND
HONESTLY.
WITH THAT, I YIELD BACK,
MR. CHAIRMAN.
>> GENTLE LADY YIELDS BACK.
THE GENTLE LADY YIELDS BACK.
WE'RE EXPECTING VOTES ON THE
HOUSE FLOOR SHORTLY.
WE WILL RECESS UNTIL AFTER THE
CONCLUSION OF THOSE VOTES.
I ASK EVERYBODY TO REMAIN SEATED
AND QUIET WHILE THE WITNESSES
EXIT THE ROOM.
REMIND AUDIENCES THAT YOU MAY
NOT BE GUARANTEED YOUR SEAT IF
YOU LEAVE THE HEARING RIM AT
THIS TIME.
>> WITH THAT, THE HOUSE
JUDICIARY COMMITTEE CHAIR, JERRY
NADLER --
>> AT THIS TIME THE COMMITTEE
WILL STAND IN RECESS UNTIL
IMMEDIATELY AFTER THE VOTES.
>> JERRY NADLER CALLING THE
HOUSE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE TO A
BREAK, A RECESS.
WHILE AS YOU JUST HEARD, MEMBERS
WILL GO TO THE FLOOR FOR VOTE.
WE DON'T KNOW HOW LONG IT WILL
BE.
WE'VE WATCHED THIS COMMITTEE IN
SESSION FOR THE BETTER PART OF
FOUR HOURS.
3 1/2 HOURS, I SHOULD SAY.
THEY CAME IN TO SESSION THIS
MORNING AT 10:00 A.M. EASTERN.
I'M 1:30 ON THE EAST COAST.
WE'RE JUST BEGINNING THE PROCESS
OF HAVING JUDICIARY COMMITTEE
MEMBERS POSE QUESTIONS.
MUCH OF THE TIME HAS BAN TAKEN
UP WITH OPENING STATEMENTS AND
QUESTIONS POSED BY LEGAL
COUNSEL.
APPOINTED BY THE DEMOCRATS AND
THEN APPOINTED BY THE
REPUBLICANS.
I'M JUDY WOODRUFF HERE AT THE
PBS NEWS HOUR STUDIO IN
WASHINGTON.
FOLLOWING THE LIVE HEARINGS ON
THE HILL, COVERING FOR US, LISA
DESJARDINS, YAMICHE ALCINDOR AND
HERE WE MANY IN THE STUDIO,
FRANK BOWMAN, SOL WISENBERG,
BOTH HAVE EXPERIENCE NOT ONLY IN
THE LEGAL PROFESSION BUT WITH
IMPEACHMENT.
I WANT TO COME TO YOU, FRANK.
SEEMS TO ME WHAT WE HAVE WITH
THE DEMOCRATS ONLY CALLING ON
THE THREE DEMOCRATIC WITNESSES
OR AT LEAST THE SCHOLARS THAT
SUPPORT THE DEMOCRATIC POINT OF
VIEW AND THE REPUBLICANS ONLY
CALLING ON THE SCHOLAR WHO
SUPPORTS THE REPUBLICAN POINT OF
VIEW, IT'S A LITTLE BIT LIKE
WATCHING A PING-PONG MATCH HERE.
WE'RE NOT SEEING AS MUCH OF THE
ENGAGEMENT THAT I THINK PEOPLE
WOULD FIND MORE SATISFYING.
>> I THINK THAT'S REGRETTABLE.
I THINK THE CHOICE, FOR EXAMPLE,
THE INITIAL CHOICE OF COUNSEL
ESSENTIALLY TO ONLY ASK ONE VERY
SHORT QUESTION --
>> THE DEMOCRATS.
>> YEAH, TO ASK ONE VERY SHORT
QUESTION OF TURLEY AND CUT HIM
OFF WITH A YES NO SEEMS SMALL.
ALSO, I THINK IT DOES PREVENT
THE KIND OF INTERCHANGE THAT YOU
AND I THINK THE AMERICAN PUBLIC
WOULD LIKE TO SEE.
I THINK THAT'S REGRETTABLE.
>> SOL WISENBERG, I GUESS MAYBE
WE SHOULD EXPECT IT GIVEN THE
PARTISAN REALITY OF HOW THE
CONGRESS OPERATES RIGHT NOW.
>> WE CAN EXPECT IT.
I WOULD HAVE HOPED FOR BETTER
GIVEN THESE ARE LAW PROFESSORS
THAT HAVE SOME KIND OF AN
OBLIGATION TO BE OBJECTIVE,
REASONABLE PEOPLE.
REASONABLE PEOPLE CAN HAVE
REASONABLE DISAGREEMENTS.
I AGREE WITH PROFESSOR BOWMAN, I
WOULD HAVE LIKED TO SEE MORE OF
THAT HERE.
>> WE ARE HEARING TO THE BOTH OF
YOU, FRANK BOWMAN, SOL
WISENBERG, WE'RE HEARING
DISCUSSIONS OF ARGUMENTS FOR
IMPEACHMENT THAT THE DEMOCRATS
HAVE MADE.
THE HEARINGS STARTED OUT WITH
PROFESSOR MICHAEL GERHARDT
SAYING THAT HE ALREADY SEES FOUR
IMPEACHABLE OFFENSES BY THE
PRESIDENT.
BRIBERY A BECAUSE OF OFFICE,
OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE AND
OBSTRUCTION OF THE CONGRESS.
I WANT TO COME QUICKLY TO
BRIBERY, FRANK.
WE'VE BEEN DISCUSSING THAT HERE
AT THE TABLE.
IT'S COME UP IN THE HEARING.
THE DISCUSSION OF WHETHER THE
DEFINITION OF BRIBERY GOES BACK
TO ENGLAND AND THE 1600s AND
BEFORE THAT OR WHETHER IT'S A
MORE MODERN DEFINITION IN
AMERICAN LEGAL CODE IS RELEVANT
TO WHAT THEY'RE TALKING ABOUT
TODAY.
>> LET ME PREFACE MY REMARKS BY
THAT BY SAYING I'M NOT A FAN OF
THE IDEA OF TRYING TO FRAME THE
CASE INVOLVING MR. TRUMP AS
BRIBERY.
THE REASON THAT I HAVE NOT BEEN
A FAN IS PLAYING OUT IN FRONT OF
US RIGHT NOW.
THE REASON THE DEMOCRATS WANTED
TO DESCRIBE THIS AS BRIBERY IS
BECAUSE BRIBERY IS A SEPARATE
GROUND OF IMPEACHMENT, TREASON
BRIBERY, HIGH CRIMES AND
MISDEMEANORS.
HIGH CRIMES IS THIS CONCEPT IS
THOUGHT OF TO HAVE A LOT OF
EXPLANATION.
THE DEMOCRATS THOUGHT IF WE CAN
CALL THIS BRIBELY, IT'S SIMPLER.
PEOPLE WILL UNDERSTAND IT BETTER
AND THEREFORE WE CAN PERHAPS
AVOID THE NECESSITY OF DELVING
INTO HIGH CRIMES AND
MISDEMEANORS.
THE PROBLEM IS THAT AS WE'VE
SEEN, THERE ARE TWO SETS OF
INTERPRETIVE ISSUES WITH
BRIBERY.
THE FIRST IS WHICH BRIBERY ARE
WE TALKING ABOUT?
ARE WE TALKING ABOUT THE BRIBERY
THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN FAMILIAR TO
THE FRAMERS IN 1787?
WHICH IS AS WE HAVE SEEN IS A
GOOD DEAL OF DISAGREEMENT ABOUT
AND MUCH HARDER TO PIN DOWN.
OR ON THE OTHER HAND, IS IT
APPROPRIATE TO TALK ABOUT MODERN
BRIBERY.
MY OWN VIEW IS THAT SINCE WE'RE
TALKING ABOUT THE INTERPRETATION
OF THE CONSTITUTION WRITTEN IN
1787, ON THIS POINT I THINK WHAT
BRIBERY WAS BACK THEN IS
PROBABLY A BETTER INDICATOR OF
WHAT THE CONSTITUTION MEANS.
BUT THE --
>> THERE'S A BROADER DEFINITION.
>> I'M NOT SURE THAT IT IS.
DEPENDS ON WHICH DEFINITION THAT
YOU PICK OUT.
S
SAMUEL JOHNSON'S DICTIONARY OR
OTHER CONTEMPORARY SOURCES.
THERE'S IMMENSE DISAGREEMENT
ABOUT WHAT COMMON LAW BRIBERY
WOULD HAVE MEANT.
SOME OF THE WITNESSES SAY IT
REFERRED TO JUDGES.
THERE'S SOME EVIDENCE THAT THERE
WASN'T ANY INCLUSION OF
ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICIALS IN
BRIBERY UNTIL PERHAPS AS LATE AS
THE 1800s.
THERE'S ALSO THE VIEW THAT
PERHAPS THE THING THAT PEOPLE AT
THE TIME WOULD HAVE DESCRIBED
THIS CONDUCT AS EXTORTION, NOT
BRIBERY.
THE POINT IS, WHY GET INTO ALL
OF THIS FALLEDERAL?
IT DISTRACT FROM THE MAIN POINT.
THE COMPLAINT POINT IS THAT HE
ABUSED HIS POWER.
JUST TALK ABOUT THAT.
>> AND SOL WISENBERG, WE DON'T
KNOW WHAT THE DEMOCRATIC
ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT,
ASSUMING THEY'RE WRITTEN -- WE
ASSUME THEY WILL BE, BUT WE
DON'T KNOW, WHAT THEY WILL FOCUS
ON.
THESE ARE THE RECOMMENDATIONS,
THE OPINIONS OF THESE LAW
PROFESSORS LAYING OUT THE
VARIOUS GROUNDS FOR IMPEACHMENT.
WHAT IS YOUR VIEW IN TERMS OF
WHETHER IT'S BRIBERY, ABUSE OF
POWER OR ONE OF THE OBSTRUCTIONS
THAT THEY DESCRIBED THIS
MORNING?
>> I AGREE WITH FRANK.
I THINK GIVEN THE STATE OF THE
RECORD HERE, IT'S BETTER TO
FOCUS ON GENERAL CONCEPTS LIKE
ABUSE OF POWER OR PUBLIC
CORRU
CORRUPTION.
YOU GET INTO PROBLEMS WHEN YOU
TALK ABOUT BRIBERY.
AS TURLEY POINTED OUT, MASON --
GEORGE MASON, ONE OF THE
FOUNDERS THOUGHT THAT HE
VOTED -- HE DIDN'T VOTE TO
APPROVE THE CONSTITUTION.
HE VOTED OR ARGUED AGAINST
RATIFICATION.
HE THOUGHT BRIBERY WAS TOO
NARROW.
THAT'S WHY HE SUGGESTED
MALADMINISTRATION.
JEFFERSON THOUGHT
MALADMINISTRATION WAS TOO BROAD.
LIKE I SAID BEFORE, IF YOU WANT
TO FOCUS ON WHAT THE
INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE HAS
FOCUSED ON, THE UKRAINE INCIDENT
AND I AGREE WITH FRANK THAT IT'S
NOT CONFINED TO THAT ONE
TELEPHONE CALL, I BELIEVE THAT
ON THIS RECORD, THIS INCIDENT
ALONE IN AND OF ITSELF IS NOT
SUFFICIENT BASED ON WHAT WE KNOW
NOW TO SUPPORT IMPEACHMENT AND
REMOVAL.
THAT'S NOT SAYING THAT PRESIDENT
TRUMP WON'T TWEET HIMSELF INTO A
BROADER IMPEACHMENT CASE.
I ABSOLUTELY AGREE IF YOU'RE
GOING TO DO THAT AS A MATTER OF
TACTICS AND STRATEGY, I THINK IT
WILL BE WISE FOR THE DEMOCRATS
TO INCLUDE THE ALLEGED
OBSTRUCTIVE ACTS THAT WERE
MENTIONED IN THE SECOND SECTION
OF THE MUELLER REPORT.
BECAUSE WHETHER OR NOT YOU
BELIEVE THAT IS CRIMINAL
OBSTRUCTION, IT WAS CLEARLY
REPREHENSIBLE CONDUCT ON THE
PART OF THE PRESIDENT.
YOU HAD THE PRESIDENT SUGGESTING
TO OUR ASKING DON McGANN TO
CREATE A FALSE RECORD OF WHAT
THE PRESIDENT HAD ASKED HIM TO
DO.
VERY POWERFUL STUFF.
>> NO QUESTION ABOUT IT.
YAMICHE ALCINDOR, WE'RE STILL
WANTING FOR LISA AT THE CAPITOL.
BUT YAMICHE, I WANT TO COME TO
YOU.
WE JUST HEARD DON McGANN'S NAME
RAISED.
HE'S A FORMER WHITE HOUSE
COUNSEL WHO LEFT SOME MONTHS
AGO.
HE IS NOW BEEN SUBPOENAED TO
APPEAR.
SO FAR HE'S CHALLENGING THAT IN
THE COURTS.
WE'LL WAIT AND SEE WHETHER OR
NOT HE DOES.
SO MUCH OF THE DISCUSSION RIGHT
NOW ABOUT WHETHER THE PRESIDENT
DID OR DIDN'T DO SOMETHING THAT
CONSTITUTES AN INPEACHABLE
OFFENSE MAY HINGE, THE FACTS OF
IT, MAY HINGE IN PART ON WHETHER
CONGRESS IS ABLE TO HEAR FROM
THE PEOPLE LIKE DON McGANN AND
OTHERS WHO CURRENTLY SERVE IN
THE ADMINISTRATION WHO THE
PRESIDENT SAID HE DOESN'T WANT
TO TESTIFY.
>> THAT'S RIGHT, JUDY.
A NEWS OF WHITE HOUSE OFFICIALS
CURRENT AND FORMER THAT THE
PRESIDENT HAS DECIDED NOT TO
MAKE AVAILABLE TO CONGRESS.
THOSE INDIVIDUALS COULD STILL
COME BEFORE CONGRESS IF THEY
FELT LIKE THEY NEEDED TO DO
THAT.
THERE'S PEOPLE WORKING AT THE
WHITE HOUSE LIKE LIEUTENANT
COLONEL VINDMAN WHO HAS SAID
LOOK, IT WAS MY DUTY TO COME
BEFORE CONGRESS.
PEOPLE LIKE JOHN BOLTON, PEOPLE
LIKE DON McGANN, THE FORMER
WHITE HOUSE COUNSEL, THE ACTING
CHIEF OF STAFF, MICK MULVANEY,
WHO IS STILL WORKING AT THE
WHITE HOUSE, NONE OF THEM HAVE
SHOWN UP TO THIS IMPEACHMENT
INQUIRY.
DEMOCRATS ARE SAYING THAT'S PART
OF PRESIDENT TRUMP'S OBSTRUCTING
JUSTICE.
HIM NOT ALLOWING OFFICIALS TO
COME BEFORE CONGRESS IS PART OF
WHAT COULD BE IMPEACHABLE.
BUT THE REPUBLICANS WITNESSES
HAVE SAID THAT REALLY HE THINKS
THAT DEMOCRATS ARE THE ONES THAT
MIGHT BE ABUSING POWER BECAUSE
HE SAID SOMETHING CRITICAL.
HE SAID IF YOU THINK THAT NOT
ALLOWING WITNESSES AND ALLOWING
THE COURTS TO THINK THROUGH
WHETHER OR NOT THESE WITNESSES
CAN BE COMPELLED TO COME TO
CONGRESS, IF THAT IS
IMPEACHABLE, IT'S ON THE SIDE OF
THE DEMOCRATS.
SO YOU HAD A POWERFUL STATEMENT
FROM THE REPUBLICAN WITNESS
SAYING DEMOCRATS, YOU'RE DOING
WHAT YOU THINK PRESIDENT TRUMP
IS DOING HERE.
I SHOULD ALSO NOTE THE WHITE
HOUSE IS RESPONDING IN REAL
TIME.
STEPHANIE GRISHAM SAID THREE OF
THE FOUR WITNESSES TALKING ABOUT
THE DEMOCRAT WITNESSES, THEY
DIDN'T HAVE ANY WITNESSES.
THEY WERE AIRING THEIR
FRUSTRATION AND STILL DIDN'T
HAVE ANY DIRECT EVIDENCE TYING
TO PRESIDENT TRUMP WHAT
DEMOCRATS SAY IS A SCHEME TO
PRESSURE UKRAINE TO INVESTIGATE
JOE BIDEN AND HUNTER BIDEN.
>> AND YAMICHE, INTERESTING WHAT
SHE SAID ABOUT PROFESSOR
JONATHAN TURLEY, THE ONE WITNESS
CALLED BY REPUBLICANS AND WHAT
HE HAD TO SAY ABOUT IMPEACHMENT
AND WHETHER THE PRESIDENT'S
COOPERATION OR LACK OF
COOPERATION, BECAUSE ANOTHER ONE
OF THESE LEGAL SCHOLARS WAS
SAYING THAT THERE'S ABUNDANT
EVIDENCE.
WORDS TO THE EFFECT, NO
PRESIDENT HAS EVER REFUSED AS
MUCH AS THIS PRESIDENT HAS
REFUSED TO TURN OVER EVIDENCE TO
PROVIDE WITNESSES --
>> CAN I SPEAK TO THAT
>> SURE.
SOL?
>> BOTH SIDES MADE GOOD POINTS.
BOTH POINTS.
AND TURLEY SAID THAT CUPPERMAN
WENT TO A COURT AND HE SAID
CONGRESS WANTS ME TO DO THIS.
THE PRESIDENT HAS INSTRUCTED ME
TO DO THIS.
I NEED THE GUIDANCE OF THE
COURT.
AGREE.
YOU CAN'T DO SOMETHING TO
SOMEBODY LIKE THAT.
IT'S PROFESSOR GERHARDT THAT
SAYS THERE'S BEEN NO PRESIDENT
WHO HAS CLAIMED SUCH A BROAD
OBSTRUCTION.
HE'S TELLING NOT JUST WHITE
HOUSE OFFICIALS, ALL THE
PRESIDENTS HAVE TAKEN THAT
POSITION.
HE'S TELLING EVERYBODY IN THE
EXECUTIVE BRANCH YOU CANNOT
APPEAR AND YOU CANNOT GIVE ANY
DOCUMENTS.
THAT I BELIEVE IS TRULY
UNPRECEDENTED.
>> AND FORMER OFFICIALS AS WELL.
I MEAN, THEY FALL UNDER THIS
UMBRELLA.
>> RIGHT.
AGAIN, IF THEY'RE FORMER WHITE
HOUSE OFFICIALS, EVERYBODY
PRESIDENT SINCE AT LEAST CLINTON
HAS TAKEN THIS EXTREME POSITION
THAT THEY'RE IMMUNE FROM EVEN
SHOWING UP.
AS WE'VE SEEN IN THE COURTS, TWO
COURTS HAVE CONSIDERED THIS NOW
AND BOTH HAVE REJECTED THAT.
>> LISA DESJARDINS AT THE
CAPITOL.
THERE YOU ARE.
ANY OPPORTUNITY TO TALK TO
MEMBERS, TALK TO MEMBERS ON THE
COMMITTEE ABOUT HOW THEY THINK
THIS HEARING IS GOING SO FAR
TODAY?
>> I DID HAVE SOME OPPORTUNITY
TO TALK TO MEMBERS.
ONLY ABLE TO CATCH ONE.
THEY WERE ON THEIR WAY TO VOTE.
OUR PRODUCER IS DOWNSTAIRS HERE
IN THE CAPITOL.
YOU KNOW, HONESTLY, IT WAS JUST
TALKING POINTS.
HANK JOHNSON, DEMOCRAT, TALKING
TO ME ABOUT SAYING HE FELT LIKE
THE DEMOCRATIC WITNESSES
COMPLETELY CONVICTED THEIR CASE.
THINK FELT LIKE THAT IT WAS
CLEAR AND CONVINCING EVIDENCE.
YOU KNOW, I THINK SITTING IN THE
ROOM, ONE THOUGHT THAT INSTRUCT
ME, DEMOCRATS MADE AN EARLY
DECISION AND HOW TO STRUCTURE
THIS HEARING IN THAT THEY WOULD
HAVE THREE WITNESSES, SOMETHING
YOUR GUESTS HAVE TALKED ABOUT
AND THERE WOULD BE ONE
REPUBLICAN WITNESS.
I WONDER IF THEY DIDN'T CONSIDER
THAT SINGLE REPUBLICAN WITNESS
WOULD HAVE KIND OF AN ADVANTAGE
IN HE COULD TAKE AS MUCH TIME AS
HE WANTED AND PRESENT ONE LONG
FLOWING ARGUMENT VERSUS THE
THREE WITNESSES ON THE
DEMOCRATIC SIDE THAT YOU WERE
HEARING FROM THEM POPCORN LIKE
ONE AFTER THE OTHER.
DEMOCRATS SAID THEY WANTED THE
LONG STAFF QUESTIONING, 45
MINUTES BECAUSE THEY WANTED THE
CHANCE TO LAY OUT ONE LOGICAL
FLOW OF AN ARGUMENT.
I WONDER IF THEY ENDED UP GIVING
REPUBLICANS AN EVEN BETTER
OPPORTUNITY BY LIMITING THEM TO
ONE WITNESS.
REPUBLICANS HAVE TOLD ME THEY
DID ASK FOR MORE WITNESSES.
THEY GAVE SEVERAL NAMES FOR
POSSIBLE CONSTITUTIONAL SCHOLARS
FOR THIS HEARING.
DEMOCRATS SELECTED FROM THAT
REPUBLICAN LIST MR. TURLEY.
I'M INTERESTED TO SEE WHAT THEIR
THOUGHTS ARE LATER ABOUT THAT
SELECTION.
>> IT WILL BE VERY INTERESTING
TO SEE AS WE HAVE NOTED TIME AND
AGAIN.
IT'S THE DEMOCRATS THAT ARE IN
THE MAJORITY.
THEY MAKE THESE JUDGMENT CALLS
AND WE'LL SEE WHETHER OR NOT --
HOW THIS PANS OUT.
IT IS STRIKING THOUGH AS YOU
SAID THE DEMOCRATS --
DEMOCRATIC -- RATHER THE
WITNESSES CALLED BY THE
DEMOCRATS, THE CONSTITUTIONAL
SCHOLARS, LAW PROFESSORS HAVE
MADE SOME I THINK POINTS THAT
ARE SALIENT, THAT COME ACROSS,
SEEM TO BE STRONG POINTS.
BUT THEN AS YOU SAID, THEY MIX
IT UP AMONG THEMSELVES AND
MR. TURLEY CALLED BY THE
REPUBLICANS HAS HIS OWN 45
MINUTES ALL PRETTY MUCH TO
HIMSELF.
>> ONE OTHER THING ABOUT THAT,
SOMETHING ABOUT I THINK
MR. TURLEY'S DEMEANOR IN THE
ROOM.
MEMBERS WERE PAYING CLOSER
ATTENTION TO HIM.
HE HAS A WAY OF MAKING EYE
CONTACT WITH THE MEMBERS.
HE'S RELATING PERSONAL STORIES.
HE SMOKE ABOUT HIS WIFE.
HE'S GOT A MORE LAID BACK
DEMEANOR AND MAKING EYE CONTACT.
BOTH SIDES PAY MORE ATTENTION TO
HIM THAN TO THE DEMOCRATIC
WITNESSES.
I THINK IN PART, THEY WERE MORE
PREDICTABLE.
HIS ANSWERS ARE LESS PREDICTABLE
AND HE WOULD GET A LITTLE MORE
ATTENTION FROM THE DAIS OVER THE
RESULT.
>> WHEN HE SPOKE ABOUT HIS MAD,
HE TALKED ABOUT HIS DOG.
LISA, WE'RE GOING TO LET YOU
WATCH WHAT'S GOING ON AND MAYBE
COME BACK.
LISA REPORTING FROM THE CAPITOL
AS THE HOUSE JUDICIARY TAKES A
BREAK FROM THE IMPEACHMENT
HEARING IN ORDER TO TAKE SOME
VOTES ON THE HOUSE FLOOR.
SOL, I WANT TO COME BACK TO YOU
ON THIS DECISION BY THE
DEMOCRATS TO NOT -- WE KNEW THEY
WOULD HAVE MORE WITNESSES.
THAT IS THEIR RIGHT TO DO THAT.
BUT TO STRUCTURE THIS IN THE WAY
THAT THEY HAVE IS -- IN ESSENCE
THESE THREE PROFESSORS THAT THE
DEMOCRATS CALLED ARE REPEATING
EACH OTHER'S ARGUMENTS, AREN'T
THEY?
>> IT'S AMAZING TO FIND OUT THAT
THE DEMOCRATS ACTUALLY PICKED
TURLEY FROM THE REPUBLICAN LIST
BECAUSE HE'S VERY ELOQUENT.
HE'S DONE THIS -- HE'S ON TV
CONSTANTLY AND HE'S TESTIFIED
CONSTANTLY.
HE HAS PERSONAL EXPERIENCE AS
COUNSEL IN IMPEACHMENT CASES.
SO I CERTAINLY THINK AGAIN FROM
A TACTICAL PERSPECTIVE, THAT'S A
BIG MISTAKE.
>> WE ARE -- WE RIGHT NOW ARE
WAITING FOR THE COMMITTEE TO
COME BACK FROM ITS BREAK.
WE WOULD LIKE TO REPLAY FOR YOU
AND MAYBE WE'LL HAVE TIME TO DO
THIS IN ITS ENTIRETY, THE
OPENING STATEMENT BY THE
DEMOCRATIC CHAIRMAN OF THE HOUSE
JUDICIARY COMMITTEE JERRY NADLER
AND FOLLOWED BY THE OPENING
STATEMENT BY THE RANKING
REPUBLICAN CONGRESSMAN DOUG
COLLINS OF GEORGIA.
LET'S START BY AIRING CHAIRMAN
NADLER'S STATEMENT.
>> THE FACTS BEFORE US ARE
UNDISPUTED.
ON JULY 25, PRESIDENT TRUMP
CALLED PRESIDENT ZELENSKY OF
UKRAINE AND PRESIDENT TRUMP'S
WORDS ASKED HIM FOR A FAVOR.
THAT CALL WAS PART OF A
CONCERTED EFFORT BY THE
PRESIDENT AND HIS MEN TO SOLICIT
A PERSONAL ADVANTAGE IN THE NEXT
ELECTION.
THIS TIME IN THE FORM OF AN
INVESTIGATION OF HIS POLITICAL
ADVERSARIES BY A FOREIGN
GOVERNMENT.
TO OBTAIN THAT PRIVATE POLITICAL
ADVANTAGE, PRESIDENT TRUMP
WITHHELD BOTH AN OFFICIAL WHITE
HOUSE MEETING FROM THE
NEWLY-ELECTED PRESIDENT OF THE
FRAGILE DEMOCRACY AND WITHHELD
VITAL MILITARY AID FROM A
VULNERABLE ALLY.
WHEN CONGRESS FOUND OUT ABOUT
THIS SCHEME AND BEGAN TO
INVESTIGATE, PRESIDENT TRUMP
TOOK EXTRAORDINARY AND UNPRESHE
DEBTED STEPS TO COVER UP HIS
EFFORTS AND TO WITHHOLD EVIDENCE
FROM THE INVESTIGATORS.
WHEN WITNESSES DISOBEYED HIM,
WHEN CAREER PROFESSIONALS CAME
FORWARD AND TOLD US THE TRUTH,
HE ATTACKED THEM VICIOUSLY.
CALLING THEM TRAITORS AND LIE I
DON'T REMEMBERS, PROMISES THAT
THEY WILL GO THROUGH SOME
THINGS.
OF COURSE THIS IS NOT THE FIRST
TIME THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP HAS
ENGAGED IN THIS PATTERN OF
CONDUCT.
IN 2016, THE RUSSIAN GOVERNMENT
ENGAGED IN A SWEEPING AND
SYSTEMATIC CAMPAIGN OF
INTERFERENCE IN THEIR ELECTIONS.
IN THE WORDS OF SPECIAL COUNSEL
ROBERT MUELLER "THE RUSSIAN
GOVERNMENT PERCEIVED IT WOULD
BENEFIT FROM A TRUMP PRESIDENCY
AND WORK TO SECURITY THAT
OUTCOME."
THE PRESIDENT WELCOMED THAT
INTERFERENCE.
WE SAW THIS IN REAL TIME WHEN
PRESIDENT TRUMP ASKED RUSSIA TO
HACK HIS 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 BROKE
OUR LAWS, THE PRESIDENT TOOK
UNPRECEDENTED STEPS TO OBSTRUCT
THE INVESTIGATION, INCLUDING
IGNORING SUBPOENAS AND PUBLICLY
ATTACKING AND INTIMIDATING
WITNESSES.
THIS IS THE ADMINISTRATION'S
LEVEL OF OBSTRUCTION IS WITHOUT
PRECEDENT.
NO OTHER PRESIDENT HAS VOWED TO
"FIGHT ALL OF THE SUBPOENAS" AS
PRESIDENT TRUMP PROMISED.
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 DIRECTED EVERY
WITNESS NOT TO TESTIFY.
THOSE ARE THE FACTS BEFORE US.
IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY HAS MOVED
BACK TO THE HOUSE JUDICIARY
COMMITTEE.
AS WE BEGIN A REVIEW, THE
PRESIDENT'S PATTERN OF BEHAVIOR
IS CLEAR.
PRESIDENT TRUMP WELCOMED FOREIGN
INTERFERENCE IN THE 2016
ELECTION.
HE DEMANDED IT FOR THE 2020
ELECTION.
IN BOTH CASES, HE GOT CAUGHT.
IN BOTH CASES HE DID EVERYTHING
IN HIS POWER TO PREVENT THE
AMERICAN PEOPLE FROM LEARNING
THE TRUTH ABOUT HIS CONDUCT.
JULY 24th, THE SPECIAL COUNSEL
TESTIFIED BEFORE THIS COMMITTEE.
HE IMPLORED US TO SEE THE NATURE
OF THE THREATS TO OUR COUNTRY.
"OVER THE COURSE OF MY CAREER, I
HAVE SEEN A NUMBER OF CHALLENGES
TO OUR DEMOCRACY.
THE RUSSIAN GOVERNMENT'S EFFORTS
TO INTERFERE IN OUR ELECTIONS IS
AMONG THE MOST SERIOUS.
THIS DESERVES THE ATTENTION OF
EVERY AMERICAN."
IGNORING THAT WARNING, PRESIDENT
TRUMP CALLED THE UKRAINIAN
PRESIDENT THE VERY NEXT DAY TO
ASK HIM TO INVESTIGATE THE
PRESIDENT'S POLITICAL OPPONENT.
AS WE EXERCISED OUR
RESPONSIBILITY TO DETERMINE
WHETHER THIS PATTERN OF BEHAVIOR
CONSTITUTES AN IMPEACHABLE
OFFENSE, IT'S IMPORTANT TO PLACE
PRESIDENT TRUMP'S CONDUCT INTO
HISTORICAL CONTEXT.
SINCE THE FOUNDING OF OUR
COUNTRY, THE HOUSE OF
REPRESENTATIVES HAS IMPEACHED
ONLY TWO PRESIDENTS.
A THIRD WAS ON HIS WAY TO
IMPEACHMENT WHEN HE RESIGNED.
THIS COMMITTEE HAS VOTED TO
IMPEACH TWO PRESIDENTS FOR
OBSTRUCTING JUSTICE.
WE HAVE VOTED TO IMPEACH ONE
PRESIDENT FOR OBSTRUCTING A
CONGRESSIONAL INVESTIGATION.
TO THE EXTENT THAT PRESIDENT
TRUMP'S CONDUCT FITS THESE
CATEGORIES, THERE'S PRECEDENT
FOR RECOMMENDING IMPEACHMENT
HERE.
NEVER BEFORE IN THE HISTORY OF
THE REPUBLIC HAVE WE BEEN FORCED
TO CONSIDER THE CONDUCT OF A
PRESIDENT WHO APPEARS TO HAVE
SOLICITED PERSONAL POLITICAL
FAVORS FROM A FOREIGN
GOVERNMENT.
NEVER BEFORE HAS A PRESIDENT
ENGAGED IN THE COURSE OF CONDUCT
THAT INCLUDED ALL OF THE ACTS
THAT MOST CONCERNED THE FRAMERS.
THE PATRIOTS THAT FOUNDED OUR
COUNTRY WERE NOT FEARFUL MEN.
THEY FOUGHT A WAR.
THEY WITNESSED TERRIBLE
VIOLENCE.
THEY OVERTHREW A KING.
AS THEY MET TO FRAME OUR
CONSTITUTION, THOSE PATRIOTS
STILL FEARED ONE THREAT ABOVE
ALL.
FOREIGN INTERFERENCE IN OUR
ELECTIONS.
THEY JUXTAPOSED A TYRANT.
IN THE EARLY YEARS OF THE
REPUBLIC, THEY ASKED US TO BE
VIGILANT TO THAT THREAT.
WASHINGTON WARNED US "TO BE
CONSTANTLY AWAKE SINCE HISTORY
AND EXPERIENCE PROVED THAT
FOREIGN INFLUENCES IS ONE OF THE
MOST BAINFUL FOES OF REPUBLICAN
GOVERNMENTS."
ADAMS WROTE, THE DANGER OF
FOREIGN INFLUENCE RECURS.
HAMILTON'S WARNING WAS MORE
DIRE.
HE SAID ADVERSARIES WOULD
ATTEMPT TO RAISE A CREATURE OF
THEIR OWN TO THE UNION.
IN SHORT, THE FOUNDERS WARNED US
THAT WE SHOULD EXPECT OUR
FOREIGN ADVERSARIES TO TARGET
OUR ELECTIONS AND WE WILL FIND
OURSELVES IN GREATER DANGER IF
THEOPENS THE DOOR TO THEIR
WILLINGNESS.
HOW WILL WE KNOW IN THE
PRESIDENT HAS BETRAYED HIS
COUNTRY IN THIS MANNER?
HOW WILL WE KNOW IF HE BETRAYS
IT FOR PETTY PERSONAL GAIN?
HAMILTON HAD A RESPONSE AS WELL.
HE WROTE "WHEN A MAN
UNPRINCIPLED IN PRIVATE LIFE,
BOLD IN HIS TEMPER, POSSESSES OF
CONSIDERABLE TALENTS, KNOWN TO
HAVE SCOFFED AT THE PRINCIPLES
OF LIBERTY, WHEN A MAN MOUNTS
THE HOBBY HORSE OF POPULARITY,
TO TAKE EVERY OPPORTUNITY OF
EMBARRASSING THE GENERAL
GOVERNMENT AND BRINGING IT UNDER
SUSPICION, IT MAY JUSTLY BE
SUSPECTED 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 IN
TODAY WAS SET IN MOTION BY
PRESIDENT TRUMP.
I DO NOT WISH THIS MOMENT ON THE
COUNTRY.
IT'S NOT A PLEASANT TASK THAT WE
UNDERTAKE TODAY.
WE 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 AND INVITED FOREIGN
INTERFERENCE IN OUR ELECTIONS.
HE USED THE POWERS OF HIS OFFICE
TO TRY TO MAKE IT HAPPEN.
HE SENT HIS AGENTS TO MAY CLEAR
THAT THIS IS WHAT HE WANTED AND
DEMANDED.
HE WAS WILLING TO COMPROMISE OUR
SECURITY AND HIS OFFICE FOR
PERSONAL POLITICAL GAIN.
IT DOES NOT MATTER THAT
PRESIDENT TRUMP GOT CAUGHT AND
ULTIMATELY RELEASED THE FUNDS
THAT THE UKRAINE SO DESPERATELY
NEEDED.
IT MATTERS THAT HE ENLISTED A
FOREIGN GOVERNMENT TO INTERVENE
IN THE FIRST PLACE.
DOES NOT MATTER THAT PRESIDENT
TRUMP FELT THAT THESE
INVESTIGATIONS WERE UNFAIR TO
HIM.
IT MATTERS THAT HE USED HIS
OFFICE NOT MERELY TO DEFEND
HIMSELF BUT TO OBSTRUCT
INVESTIGATORS AT EVERY TURN.
WE'RE ALL AWARE THE NEXT
ELECTION IS LOOMING.
WE CANNOT WAIT FOR THE ELECTION
TO ADDRESS THE PRESENT CRISIS.
THE INTEGRITY OF THAT ELECTION
IS ONE OF THE VERY THINGS AT
STAKE.
THE PRESIDENT HAS SHOWN US HIS
PATTERN OF CONDUCT.
IF WE DON'T ACT TO HOLD HIM IN
CHECK NOW, PRESIDENT TRUMP WILL
ALMOST 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 CONTEXT.
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.
IN A FEW DAYS, WE WILL RECONVENE
AND HEAR FROM THE COMMITTEES AT
WORK TO UNCOVER THE FACTS BEFORE
US.
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 TODAY.
>> FOR EVERYBODY WHO HAS NOT
BEEN HERE BEFORE, THIS IS A NEW
ROOM, NEW RULES.
IT'S A NEW MONTH.
WE HAVE EVEN GOT CUTE LITTLE
STICKERS 4 OR STAFF SO WE CAN
COME.
IN THIS IS IMPORTANT.
IT'S IMPEACHMENT.
WE'VE DONE A TERRIBLE JOB OF IT
BEFORE.
WHAT IS NOT NEW IS BASICALLY
WHAT HAS JUST BEEN REITERATED BY
THE CHAIRMAN WHAT IS NOT NEW IS
THE FACTS.
WHAT IS NOT NEW IS THIS IS THE
SAME SAD STORY.
WHAT IS INTERESTING BEFORE I GET
INTO MY -- PART OF MY OPENING
STATEMENT, WHAT WAS JUST SAID BY
THE CHAIRMAN.
WE WEREN'T -- WE BACK TO A REDO
OF MR. MUELLER.
HE SAID THE ATTENTION OF THE
AMERICAN PEOPLE SHOULD BE ON
FOREIGN INTERFERENCE.
I AGREE.
I GUESS THE AMERICAN PEOPLE DID
NOT INCLUDE THE JUDICIARY
COMMITTEE.
WE DIDN'T TAKE IT UP.
WE DIDN'T HAVE HEARINGS.
WE DIDN'T DO ANYTHING TO DELVE
DEEPLY INTO THIS ISSUE.
WE PASSED ELECTION BILLS BUT DID
NOT GET INTO WHAT MR. MUELLER
TALKED ABOUT.
TAKING HIS OWN REPORT AND HAVING
HEARINGS ABOUT THAT.
WE DIDN'T DO IT.
SO I GUESS THE AMERICAN PEOPLE
DOESN'T INCLUDE THE HOUSE
JUDICIARY COMMITTEE.
THE INTERESTING THING WE JUST
HEARD, WE'RE GOING TO HAVE A LOT
OF DISCUSSIONS ABOUT THE
CONSTITUTION AND THE FOUNDERS
WHAT IS INTERESTING, THE
CHAIRMAN TALKED ABOUT THE
FOUNDERS FROM THE QUOTES AND
BEING CONCERNED ABOUT FOREIGN
INFLUENCE.
WHAT HE ALSO DIDN'T QUOTE IS THE
FOUNDERS BEING REALLY CONCERNED
ABOUT POLITICAL IMPEACHMENT.
YOU JUST DON'T LIKE THE GUY.
YOU NEVER LOOKED HIM SINCE
NOVEMBER OF 2016.
THE CHAIRMAN HAS TALKED ABOUT
IMPEACHMENT SINCE LAST YEAR WHEN
HE WAS ELECTED CHAIRMAN.
TWO YEARS ON NOVEMBER 17, BEFORE
HE WAS SWORN IN AS CHAIRMAN.
SO DON'T TELL ME THIS IS ABOUT
NEW EVIDENCE AND NEW THINGS AND
NEW STUFF.
WE MAY HAVE A NEW HEARING ROOM,
MAY HAVE NEW MICS AND CHAIRS
THAT AREN'T COMFORTABLE BUT THIS
IS NOTHING NEW, FOLKS.
THIS IS SAD.
SO WHAT DO WE HAVE HERE TODAY?
YOU KNOW WHAT I'M THINKING?
I LOOKED AT THIS.
WHAT IS INTERESTING IS THERE'S
TWO THINGS THAT HAVE COME VERY
CLEAR.
THIS IMPEACHMENT IS NOT ABOUT
FACTS.
IF IT WAS, THE OTHER COMMITTEES
WOULD HAVE SENT OVER
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR IMPEACHMENT.
IF IT GOES BADLY, THEY WANT TO
BLAME ADAM SCHIFF'S COMMITTEE
AND THEY WANT TO BLAME THIS ONE
FOR IT GOING BAD.
BUT THEY'RE ALREADY DRAFTING
ARTICLES.
WE WENT IN WITH THIS MUELLER
COHEN, THE EMOLUMENTS, THE LIST
GOES ON.
IF YOU WANT TO KNOW WHAT IS
DRIVING THIS?
THE CLOCK AND THE CALENDAR.
THAT'S IT.
MOST PEOPLE IN LIFE, IF YOU WANT
TO KNOW WHAT THEY VALUE, LOOK AT
THEIR CHECKBOOK AND THEIR
CALENDAR.
YOU KNOW WHAT THEY VALUE.
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 OF THE ELECTIONS,
THAT WE'LL LOSE AGAIN.
SO WE HAVE TO DO THIS NOW.
THE CLOCK AND THE CALENDAR IS
WHAT IS DRIVING IMPEACHMENT, NOT
THE FACTS.
THAT'S WHAT THE WITNESSES WILL
SAY TODAY.
WHAT DO WE HAVE HERE TODAY?
WHAT IS REALLY INTERESTING TODAY
AND FOR THE NEXT FEW WEEKS,
AMERICA WILL SEE WHY MOST PEOPLE
DON'T GO TO LAW SCHOOL.
NO OFFENSE TO OUR PROFESSORS.
BUT PLEASE, REALLY?
WE'RE BRINGING YOU IN HERE TODAY
TO TESTIFY SOMETHING ON MOST OF
YOU HAVE ALREADY WRITTEN ABOUT,
ALL FOUR, THE OPINIONS WE
ALREADY KNOW OUT OF THE
CLASSROOMS THAT MAYBE YOU'RE
GETTING READY FOR FINALS IN TO
DISCUSS THINGS THAT YOU PROBABLY
HAVEN'T HAD A CHANCE -- UNLESS
YOU'RE GOOD ON TV WATCHING THE
HEARINGS THE LAST COUPLE WEEKS,
YOU COULDN'T HAVE ACTUALLY
DIGESTED THE ADAM SCHIFF REPORT
FROM YESTERDAY OR THE REPUBLICAN
RESPONSE IN ANY REAL WAY.
WE CAN BE THEORETICAL ALL WE
WANT BUT THE AMERICAN PEOPLE ARE
GOING TO SAY HUH?
WHAT ARE WE DOING?
THERE'S NO FACT WITNESSES
PLANNED FOR THIS COMMITTEE.
THAT'S AN INTERESTING THING.
THERE'S NO PLAN AT ALL EXCEPT
NEXT WEEK A HEARING ON THE
PRECIPITATION FROM THE OTHER
COMMITTEE TO SEND US A REPORT
AND THE JUDICIALRY COMMITTEE
WHICH I'M NOT SURE WHAT THEY
WANT TOP SEND US A REPORT ON, NO
PLAN.
NOTHING ELSE.
I ASKED THE CHAIRMAN BEFORE WE
FT FOR THANKS GIVING TO STAY
IN TOUCH, TALK ABOUT WHAT WE
HAVE.
HISTORY WILL SHINE A BRIGHT
LIGHT ON US STARTING THIS
MORNING.
CRICKETS.
UNTIL I ASKED FOR A WITNESS THE
OTHER DAY AND LET'S SAY THAT
DIDN'T GO WELL.
THERE'S NO WHISTLE-BLOWER.
BY THE WAY, WE'LL PROVE TODAY
THAT HE'S NOT OR SHE'S NOT
AFFORDED THE PROTECTION OF
IDENTITY.
IT'S NOT IN THE STATUTE.
IT'S SOMETHING THAT WAS MADE UP
BY ADAM SCHIFF.
WE ALSO DON'T HAVE ADAM SCHIFF
WHO WROTE THE REPORT.
HE SAID I'M NOT GOING TO.
I'LL SEND STAFF TO DO THAT.
HE'S NOT GOING TO.
YOU KNOW, TO ME, IF HE WAS
WANTING TO, HE WOULD COME
BEGGING TO US.
HERE'S THE PROBLEM.
HE SUMS IT UP SIMPLY LIKE THIS.
JUST 19 MINUTES AFTERNOON ON
INAUGURATION DAY, THE CAMPAIGN
TO IMPEACH THE PRESIDENT HAS
BEGUN.
THAT'S "THE WASHINGTON POST."
ANOTHER TWEET, THE COUP IS
STARTED.
THE IMPEACHMENT WILL FOLLOW.
AL GREEN SAYS IF WE DON'T
IMPEACH THE PRESIDENT, HE WILL
GET RE-ELECTED.
YOU WANT TO KNOW WHAT IS HAPPEN
SOMETHING HERE WE GO.
WHY DID EVERYTHING I SAY UP TO
THIS POINT ABOUT NO FACT
WITNESSES, NOTHING FOR THE
JUDICIARY COMMITTEE WHICH SPEND
2 1/2 WEEKS BEFORE THIS HEARING
WAS HELD, WE DIDN'T FIND YOUR
NAMES OUT UNTIL LESS THAN 48
HOURS AGO.
I DON'T KNOW WHAT WE'RE PLAYING
HIDE THE BAN ON.
IT'S EASY WHAT YOU'RE GOING TO
SAY.
SO WHAT ARE WE DOING THE NEXT
TWO WEEKS?
THE I HAVE NO HIDE.
THE CHAIR SAID A HEARING ON THE
REPORT.
IF WE'RE NOT GOING TO HAVE FACT
WITNESSES, WE'RE THE RUBBER
STAMP HIDING OUT BACK, THE VERY
RUBBER STAMP THE CHAIRMAN TALKS
ABOUT 20 YEARS AGO.
WHAT A DISGRACE TO THIS
COMMITTEE.
TO HAVE THIS COMMITTEE OF
IMPEACHMENT SIMPLY TAKE FROM
OTHER ENTITY AND RUBBER STAMP
IT.
YOU SEE WHY DOES DO THE THINGS I
SAY MATTER ABOUT FACT WITNESSES
AND HEARINGS AND HAVING A DUE
PROCESS?
BY THE WAY, JUST A COUPLE MONTHS
AGO, THE DEMOCRATS GOT ALL SORT
OF DRESSED UP, IF YOU WOULD AND
SAID WE'RE GOING TO HAVE DUE
PROCESS AND GOOD FAIRNESS.
THIS IS THE ONLY COMMITTEE IN
THE PRESIDENT WOULD HAVE 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.
HIS ATTORNEYS HAVE NOTHING ELSE.
PUT WITNESSES IN THEY'RE THAT
CAN BE FACT WITNESSES THAT CAN
BE ACTUALLY CROSS EXAMINED.
THAT'S FAIRNESS.
EVERY ATTORNEY KNOWS THAT.
THIS IS A SHAM.
BUT YOU KNOW WHAT I ALSO SEE
HERE, QUOTES LIKE THIS.
THERE MUST NEVER BE A NARROW LE
VOTED IMPEACHMENT OR IMPEACHMENT
SUPPORTED BY A POLITICAL PARTY.
SUCH AN IMPEACHMENT WILL PRODUCE
DEVICIVE AND BITTERNESS FOR
YEARS TO COME AND CALL INTO THE
QUESTION THE LEGITIMATE SEE OF
OUR POLITICAL INSTITUTIONS.
THE AMERICAN PEOPLE WILL
WATCHING.
THEY WON'T FORGET.
YOU MAY HAVE THE VOTES, YOU MAY
HAVE THE MUSCLE BUT YOU DON'T
HAVE A NATIONAL CONSENSUS OR A
CONSTITUTIONAL IMPAIR TENT.
THE COUP WILL GO DOWN IN INFAMY
IN THE HISTORY OF THE NEIGHBORS.
HOW ABOUT THIS ONE?
I THINK THE KEY POINT IS THAT
THE REPUBLICANS ARE STILL
RUNNING A RAILROAD JOB WITH NO
ATTEMPT AT FAIR PROCEDURE.
TODAY WHEN THE DEMOCRATS OFFERED
AMENDMENTS, SAID WE SHOULD FIRST
DISCUSS AND ADOPT STANDARDS FOR
IMPEACHMENT VOTED DOWN OR RULED
OUT OF ORDER.
WHEN THE PORT THING IS TO LOOK
AT THE QUESTION BEFORE WE HAVE A
VOTE WITH NO INQUIRY FIRST, THAT
WAS VOTED DOWN AND RULED OUT OF
ORD.
THE ESSENTIAL QUESTION IS HERE.
SET UP A FAIR PROCESS WHETHER TO
PUT THIS COUNTRY THROUGH AN
IMPEACHMENT PROCEEDING WAS RULED
OUT OF ORDER.
THEY REFUSED TO LET US DISCUSS
IT.
THOSE ARE ALL CHAIRMAN NADLER
BEFORE HE WAS CHAIRMAN.
I GUESS 20 YEARS MAKES A
DIFFERENCE.
IT'S AN INTERESTING TIME.
WE'RE HAVING A FACTLESS
IMPEACHMENT.
YOU HEARD ONE SIDE OF FACTS
ABOUT THIS PRESIDENT.
TODAY WE'LL PRESENT THE OTHER
SIDE WILL GET SO CONVENIENTLY
LEFT OUT.
FAIRNESS DOES DICTATE THAT.
MAYBE NOT HERE.
BECAUSE WE'RE NOT SCHEDULING
ANYTHING ELSE.
I HAVE A DEMOCRATIC MAJORITY
THINKS THEY OUGHT TO POLE TEST
WHAT THEN'T DID.
THAT'S NOT FOLLOWING THE FACTS
WITH HAVE A DEEP-SEEDED HATRED
OF A MAN THAT CAME TO THE WHITE
HOUSE AND DID WHAT HE SAID HE
WAS GOING TO DO.
THE MOST AMAZING QUESTION THAT I
GOT IN THE FIRST THREE MONTHS OF
THIS FROM REPORTERS, CAN YOU
BELIEVE HE'S PUTTING FORTH THOSE
IDEAS?
YES, HE RAN ON THEM.
HE TOLD THE TRUTH AND DID WHAT
HE SAID.
THE PROBLEM HERE TODAY IS THIS
WILL ALSO BE ONE OF THE FIRST
IMPEACHMENTS THE CHAIRMAN
MENTIONED THERE WAS TWO OF THEM,
ONE THAT BEFORE HE RESIGNED
BEFORE AND ONE IN CLINTON IN
WHICH THE FACTS EVEN BY
DEMOCRATS AND REPUBLICANS WERE
NOT REALLY DISPUTED.
IN THIS ONE THEY'RE NOT ONLY
DISPUTED, THEY'RE COUNTER
DICKIVE OF EACH OTHER.
THERE'S NOTHING TO PRESENT AN
IMPEACHMENT HERE EXCEPT A
PRESIDENT CARRYING OUT HIS JOB
IN THE WAY HE SAW FIT TO DO IT.
THIS IS WHERE WE'RE ADD TODAY.
THE MOST SPRINGING THING HERE,
THIS MAY BE A NEW TIME AND PLACE
AND WE MAY BE SCRUBBED UP AND
LOOKING PRETTY FOR IMPEACHMENT.
THIS IS NOT AN IMPEACHMENT.
THIS IS A SIMPLE RAILROAD JOB.
TONIGHT IS A WASTE OF TIME.
BECAUSE THIS IS WHERE WE'RE AT.
SO I CLOSE TODAY WITH THIS.
DIDN'T START WITH MUELLER,
DIDN'T START WITH A PHONE CALL.
YOU KNOW WHERE THIS STARTED?
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 FOR WHAT WE HAVE.
BY HEY, WE GOT LAW PROFESSORS
HERE.
WHAT A START OF A PARTY.
>> YOU JUST HEARD FROM THE
RANKING REPUBLICAN ON THE HOUSE
JUDICIARY COMMITTEE, CONGRESSMAN
DOUG COLLINS OF GEORGIA.
ESSENTIALLY MAKING THE ARGUMENT
THAT HIS PARTY HAS BEEN MAKING
THROUGHOUT THIS IMPEACHMENT
PROCESS, THIS IS ALL PART OF
A -- A WASTE OF TIME, THAT IT'S
AN EFFORT BY THE DEMOCRATS YET
AGAIN TO TRY TO TAKE DOWN A
PRESIDENT WHO THEY NEVER THOUGHT
SHOULD HAVE BEEN ELECTED IN THE
FIRST PLACE.
WHEN HE SAID TEARS IN BROOKLYN,
HE'S REFERRING TO HILLARY
CLINTON'S CAMPAIGN HEAD QUARTERS
IN NEW YORK CITY.
I'M HERE JUDY WOODRUFF KEEPING
AN EYE WITH MY COLLEAGUES ON THE
HOUSE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE
HEARING ROOM.
AS YOU CAN SEE, PRETTY MUCH
EVERY MEMBER IS GONE AS THEY GO
TO TAKE VOTES ON THE FLOOR OF
THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.
WE EXPECT THEM BACK IN MINUTES.
WE'RE WATCHING THE ROOM AND
WE'LL GO BACK TO THE HEARING
ROOM AS SOON AS THEY RECONVENE.
MY COLLEAGUE, LISA DESJARDINS IS
AT THE CAPITOL AND YAMICHE
ALCINDOR AT THE CAPITOL.
YAMICHE, YOU'VE HAD A CHANCE TO
TALK TO SOME COMMITTEE MEMBERS
COMING AND GOING.
WHAT ARE THEY SAYING ABOUT WHAT
THEY'RE HEARING SO FAR?
>> I'M ONE FLOOR ABOVE THE HOUSE
CHAMBER FLOOR.
LOOKS LIKE WE HAVE TEN MINUTES
LEFT OF VOTING.
SPEAKING TO HOUSE MEMBERS, I
WANTED TO SEEK OUT DEMOCRATS AND
GET THEIR RESPONSE TO PROFESSOR
TURLEY'S ARGUMENTS.
I SPOKE TO VAL DEMING.
SHE'S ON THE HOUSE JUDICIARY AND
ALSO IN THE HOUSE TELL COMMITTEE
HEARINGS.
SHE'S A FORMER POLICE CHIEF, SHE
HAS A LAW ENFORCEMENT
BACKGROUND.
I ASKED HER WHAT DO YOU MAKE OF
THE PROFESSOR'S ARGUMENT THAT
THE DEFINITION OF BRIBERY
REQUIRES THAT SOMEONE GET THE
BRIBE, THAT THAT ACTUALLY BE
GIVEN ACCORDING TO MR. TURLEY.
HE REPRESENTED SUPREME COURT LAW
AND RULINGS.
HE SAID NO, IT'S THE ACT OF
COERCING THE BRIBE THAT CREATES
BRIBE.
SHE FELT STRONGLY ABOUT THAT.
I ALSO ASKED HER ABOUT PROFESSOR
TURLEY'S ASSERTION THAT IF
DEMOCRATS MOVE FORWARD WITH A
RUSH, THAT THEY WILL LOST HALF
OF THE COUNTRY IN THIS
IMPEACHMENT PROCESS.
SHE RESPONDED IN A STEM WINDER
OF A RESPONSE VERY STRONGLY, NO,
I SEE AN ABUSE OF POWER
HAPPENING.
IF YOU SEE THAT HAPPENING, YOU
NEED TO ACT TO STOP IT, NEED TO
ACT TO PREVENT IT AS SOON AS
YOU'RE AWARE OF IT OR WE COULD
HAVE A PRESIDENT THAT CONTINUES
TO DO THIS.
WE NEED TO ACT AS SOON AS WE
BELIEVE THERE'S AN ABUSE OF
POWER.
>> SO LISA, AT LEAST BY -- A FEW
DEMOCRATS THAT YOU'VE BEEN ABLE
TO TALK TO, THEY'RE STICKING
TOGETHER IN THEIR BELIEF THAT
SHE IS -- THEY'RE PROCEEDING THE
RIGHT WAY.
>> THAT'S RIGHT.
IN CHANGE IN TIMELINE.
SHE BASICALLY SAID YES, WE ARE
MOVING TO ARTICLES OF
IMPEACHMENT.
THERE'S NO SENSE THEY'RE
DELAYING.
THEY SEEM TO BE ON TRACK FOR A
COMMITTEE VOTE NEXT WEEK AND A
HOUSE VOTED TWO WEEKS FROM NOW.
>> AND DOUG COLLINS SAID IT'S
UNCLEAR WHAT IS NEXT.
THAT'S BECAUSE THEY HAVEN'T
ANNOUNCED SPECIFIC DATES FOR A
VOTE.
IS THAT RIGHT?
>> THAT'S CORRECT.
NOR TO THEY ANNOUNCE FUTURE
HEARINGS.
WE'RE WAITING TO HEAR FROM THE
PRESIDENT IF HE WILL
PARTICIPATE, IF HE WANTS TO CALL
HIS OWN WITNESSES OR NOT.
WE HAVE HEARD FROM ADAM SCHIFF,
HE TOLD ME YESTERDAY THAT HE
DOES PLAN FOR HIS STAFF COUNSEL,
WHO WE SAW DOING THE QUESTIONING
LAST WEEK TO GIVE A PRESENTATION
THROUGH HOUSE JUDICIARY.
THAT MENS THERE WILL BE AT LEAST
ONE MORE HEARING.
IT WILL BE CONTENTIOUS.
SO THIS IS ALL UP IN THE AIR.
>> WE'LL LET YOU CONTINUE TO
REPORT.
I'M GOING TO COME BACK TO THE
"NEWSHOUR" STUDIO WITH FRANK
BOWMAN AND SOL WISENBERG TO TALK
ABOUT THE PRESENTATION THAT WE
HEARD FROM BOTH SIDES THIS
MORNING.
THE THREE REPUBLICAN OR I'M
SORRY, THE THREE CONSTITUTIONAL
SCHOLARS, LAW PROFESSORS CALLED
BY THE DEMOCRATS.
THE ONE WHO WAS CALLED BY
REPUBLICANS.
FRANK BOWMAN, HOW IS IT THAT YOU
CAN HAVE TWO COMPLETELY
DIFFERENT MIRROR IMAGE
INTERPRETATIONS OF WHETHER THE
PRESIDENT HAS COMMITTED
IMPEACHABLE OFFENSES OR NOT?
>> THERE'S ALL THE ROOM NOR
ARGUMENT ON BOTH SIDES OF THE
QUESTION.
ALTHOUGH WE LAW PROFESSORS LIKE
TO INDULGE THE CON SEAT THAT WE
ARE ALWAYS ABOVE THE FREEWAY AND
RIGOROUSLY NEUTRAL, THAT'S NOT
ALWAYS THE CASE.
I THINK THERE'S SOME PARTISAN OR
PARTY GUIDANCE TO SOME EXTENT.
IT WOULD BE SILLY TO DENY THAT.
IT'S ALSO CONSIDERING TO
CONSIDER THE FRAME WORK OF
PROFESSOR TURLEY'S ARGUMENT.
HELPS EXPLAIN THIS.
ON THE ONE HAND, WHAT HE'S
REALLY SAYING, NOT JUST HIS ORAL
STATEMENT BUT WRITTEN STATEMENT
IF YOU LOOK AT IT, HE SAYS I
CONCEDE THAT YOU CAN BE
IMPEACHED FOR SOMETHING THAT IS
NOT A CRIME.
BUT ON THE OTHER HAND, IN THE
THREE PREVIOUS IMPEACHMENTS
WE'VE HAD, THERE'S BEEN SOME
KIND OF CRIMINAL ACTIVITY.
THEREFORE HE INTIMATES THAT TO
IMPEACH A PRESIDENT FOR ANYTHING
OTHER THAN CRIMINAL ACTIVITY
WOULD BE OVERTLY IN THE
CONSTITUTION OUR I'LL LEGITIMATE
OR UNPRECEDENTED.
THEN HE THROWS ALL OF IT'S
WEIGHT ARGUING ABOUT THE DETAILS
OF BRIBERY.
AT THE END, HE CONCEDES YES,
ABUSE OF POWER IS IMPEACHABLE
BUT YOU SHOULDN'T IMPEACH HIM
NOW BECAUSE YOU NEED MORE
PROCEEDINGS.
BUT THE TRAP THERE IS THAT IF
YOU TAKE THAT SERIOUSLY AND IF
YOU SAY YOU NEED MORE
PROCEEDINGS AND B, THE
PRECONDITION OF THE PROCEEDINGS
IS THAT YOU HAVE TO TAKE ANY
OBJECTION THE PRESIDENT MAY
MAKE, PRECONDITIONED IS YOU MUST
LITIGATE THOSE CONTENTIONS
HOWEVER FRIVOLOUS THEY MAY BE,
ALL THE WAY TO THE UNITED STATES
SUPREME COURT, WHICH WOULD
PLAINLY TAKE A YEAR AND MORE.
WHAT MR. TURLEY IS REALLY
SAYING, WELL, DEMOCRATS, IF YOU
WANT TO DO IT THE WAY I THINK
YOU SHOULD DO IT, YOU CAN'T DO
IT UNTIL THE NEXT ELECTION.
I DON'T KNOW THAT HE'S ARGUING
STRENUOUSLY THAT THE FACTS DON'T
SHOW ABUSE OF POWER.
HE'S SAYING WELL, WE NEED MORE
TIME.
NEED TO LITIGATE.
>> MORE PROCESS ARGUMENT THAN
THE FACTS.
SOL, YOU WERE JUST DISCUSSING
THIS A MINUTE AGO.
IN WHAT WE HAVE BEFORE US, IT'S
DIFFICULT, EVEN CONGRESSMAN
COLLINS WAS SAYING, YOU DON'T
DISPUTE THE FACTS, WHAT IS AT
ISSUE IS IT CONSTITUTES
SOMETHING THAT A PRESIDENT
SHOULD BE REMOVED FROM OFFICE
OVER.
>> PRIMARILY THE FACTS ARE NOT
DISPUTED.
I'M A GLASS HALFFUL KIND OF GUY.
THESE GUYS ARE ALL ARGUING FROM
A ORIGINALIST POSITION.
WHEN I WAS IN LAW SCHOOL, YOU
WOULD BE LAUGHED OUT OF THE
CLASSROOM.
I SEE THAT AS A REAL PROGRESS
JUSTICE SCALIA WOULD BE HAPPY.
I ALSO THINK BOTH SIDES AGREE
THAT YOU DON'T -- YOU DON'T HAVE
TO HAVE A CRIME FOR THEIR TO BE
AN IMPEACHABLE OFFENSE.
THERE'S A COMMON LAW OF
IMPEACHMENT THROUGH CONGRESS
THAT HAS DEVELOPED THROUGH A
COUPLE OF CENTURIES AND VERY
CLEAR THAT TURLEY HAS A MUCH
NARROWER VIEW OF HIGH CRIMES AND
MISDEMEANORS THAN THE OTHER
PROFESSORS TESTIFYING.
>> I WANT TO STOP YOU THERE.
WHEN THEY'RE ARGUING DOESN'T
HAVE TO BE A CRIME, THE
DEFINITION OF HIGH CRIMES AND
MISDEMEANORS, SO THERE'S CRIMES
AND CRIMES.
YOU KNOW, WHAT IS BEING MORE
SPECIFIC?
>> DOES NOT -- THERE'S NEARLY
UNIVERSAL AGREEMENT AMONG
SCHOLARS THAT IT DOESN'T HAVE TO
BE A CRIME IN THE SENSE OF A
CURRENT CRIMINAL LAW CRIME.
THOSE ARE TERMS OF ART.
HIGH CRIMES AND MISDEMEANOR IS A
TERM OF ART THAT'S BEEN AROUND
PROFESSOR BOWMAN CAN CORRECT ME
SINCE AT LEAST THE 1300s.
SO NOT EVERYBODY AGREES ON
EXACTLY WHAT IT MEANT.
BUT CLEARLY IF YOU LOOK AT THE
HISTORY OF IMPEACHMENTS AND LOOK
AT WHAT THE FRAMERS WROTE, IT'S
NOT CONFINEDED TO AN ACTUAL
CRIMINAL CODE OR EVEN A COMMON
LAW DEFINITION OF CRIME.
>> SEEMS TO BE AGREEMENT ON
THAT, DOESN'T THERE, FRANK?
>> THERE IS.
THERE HAS TO BE.
THE FIRST THING THAT VIEWERS
SHOULD REMEMBER IS THAT IT'S
EASY TO GET TRICKED BID HIGH
CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS.
IT DOESN'T MEAN WHAT IT SOUNDS
LIKE IT MEANS.
IT IS AS SEVERALITNESSES
TESTIFIED, IT'S A TERM OF ART
AND INCLUDES A VARIETY OF
THINGS.
MANY HAVING TO DO WITH ABUSE OF
POWER, ABUSE OF OFFICE.
LET ME GIVE YOU AN ILLUSTRATION
OF THE KINDS OF THINGS THAT
WOULD CERTAINLY BE AN
IMPEACHABLE OFFENSE.
SUPPOSE TOMORROW THE PRESIDENT
WERE TO WAKE UP AND SAY, I DON'T
LIKE BEING PRESIDENT.
I WANT TO TAKE A SIX MONTH
VACATION.
I'M GOING TO BARBADOS.
SEE YOU IN SIX MONTHS.
THAT'S NOT A CRIME.
IT'S BY NO MEANS A CRIME IN ANY
WAY.
WOULD IT BE AN IMPEACHABLE HIGH
CRIME AND MISDEMEANOR?
IT'S A DERILICTION OF DUTY.
WHEN JOHNSON LAWYERS WERE TRYING
TO CLAIM THAT CRIMES REQUIRE, HE
SAID IMAGINE IN 1861 WHEN THE
SOUTH SECEDED.
HE HAD AS PRESIDENT NOT ABRAHAM
LINCOLN BUT A MAN THAT THOUGHT
FOR REASONS OF MISGUIDED IDEA ON
OR COWARDESS, THAT HE COULDN'T
GET THE SOUTH BACK.
THAT HE FELT FOR WHATEVER REASON
THAT HE SHOULD LET THE COUNTRY
DIVIDE.
BEN BUTLER ASKS, CAN IT BE TRUE
THAT WE WOULDN'T BE ABLE TO
IMPEACH THAT MAN, THAT WE WOULD
HAVE TO ALLOW THE DESTRUCTION OF
THE COUNTRY AND THAT KIND OF
DERILICTION OF DUTY?
>> YAMICHE ALCINDOR IS STANDING
BY NOT FAR FROM THE WHITE HOUSE.
YAMICHE, IT'S THE CASE THAT THE
WHITE HOUSE HAS HAD, SHALL WE
SAY, EVOLVING POSITION ON WHAT
THE PRESIDENT HAS BEEN ACCUSED
OF.
ORIGINALLY SAYING IT WASN'T
TRUE, THAT THE ELEMENTS OF THE
PHONE CALL INTERACTION WITH THE
UKRAINIANS AND ACKNOWLEDGING
PARTS WERE TRUE AND COMING
AROUND TO SAY SURE, A LOT OF
THIS HAPPENED, BUT WHAT OF IT?
IT'S NOT AS IF WE'RE DENYING THE
FACTS OF THIS, IS IT?
>> THEY'RE NOT DENYING THE FACTS
OF MOST OF THIS.
REPUBLICANS WILL HAVE BEEN, TO
PUT IT LIGHTLY, NIMBLE IN THEIR
DEFENSE OF THE PRESIDENT.
THE WHITE HOUSE HAS BEEN
CONSTANTLY ADJUSTING THE MESS
SINK AND DEFENDING THE
PRESIDENT.
I'VE COUNTED 16 AND 17 DEFENSES
AND INCLUDING LINDSEY GRAHAM
SAYING THE PRESIDENT'S POLICIES
WERE TOO INCOHERENT TO EVER PULL
OFF A QUID PRO QUO.
THE WAY THE PRESIDENT GOVERNS,
EVEN IF HE TRIED HE COULDN'T
PULL OFF A QUID PRO QUO.
IT'S INTERESTING.
THE WHITE HOUSE IS MAKING A
SIMILAR ARGUMENT WHEN IT COMES
TO THE MUELLER INVESTIGATION
SAYING THE PRESIDENT'S CAMPAIGN
WAS TO FREE WHEELING TO EVER
HAVE A CONSPIRACY WITH RUSSIA.
TO PUT IT PLAINLY, THE WHITE
HOUSE HAS GONE BACK TO
REPRESENTATIVE DOUG COLLINS'
POINT WHICH IS THE TEARS IN
BROOKLYN, THIS IDEA THAT
DEMOCRATS ARE MAD THAT THE
PRESIDENT WAS ELECTED IN THE
FIRST PLACE AND AS A RESULT
THEY'VE BEEN TRYING TO TAKE HIM
DOWN.
DEMOCRATS HAVE SAID THIS IS NOT
PART OF THE MUELLER
INVESTIGATION, THIS IS SOMETHING
NEW, A WHISTLE-BLOWER COMPLAINT
THAT CAME TO US WITH THIS
PERSON, THIS GOVERNMENT OFFICIAL
SEEMS WHO WAS VERY ANXIOUS AND
CONCERNED ABOUT THE FACT THAT
THE PRESIDENT MIGHT BE USING HIS
POWERS AND HIS SWAY OVER A
FOREIGN COUNTRY TO IMPACT THE
2020 ELECTION IN HIS FAVOR.
WHAT WE HEAR IS THE WHITE HOUSE
MAKING THE CLAIMS THAT THE
PRESIDENT DID NOTHING WRONG AND
THIS IS ALL PARTISAN.
REPUBLICANS HAVE HAD TO BACK
THIS PRESIDENT AND HAVE HAD TO
STICK WITH HIM ADD HE ADJUSTED
HIS MESSAGE TIME AND TIME AGAIN.
>> YAMICHE, ESSENTIALLY WHAT
YOU'RE SAYING, THE WHITE HOUSE
BELIEVES THEIR STRONGEST DEFENSE
IS TO MAKE THIS POLITICAL.
IS TO SAY HEY, THIS IS ALL ABOUT
THE DEMOCRATS TRYING TO GET ME
OUT OF OFFICE, PERIOD.
>> THAT'S RIGHT, JUDY.
THAT IS THE DEFENSE THAT THE
WHITE HOUSE AND THE PRESIDENT
THINK IS WORKING FOR THEM.
ESPECIALLY BECAUSE WE'RE ALMOST
IN AN ELECTION YEAR.
IT'S 2020.
I WAS JUST TEXTING WITH A MEMBER
OF THE PRESIDENT'S CAMPAIGN.
THAT SAID THIS IS GREAT FOR OUR
PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGN.
WE'RE SEEING MORE DONORS, MORE
VOLUNTEERS, VOTERS BEING
ENERGIZED BPCAUSE NOW THEY SEE
THE PRESIDENT ATTACKED ON
NATIONAL TELEVISION IN THESE
HEARINGS SO THE PRESIDENT'S
CAMPAIGN ON THE SURFACE IS
SAYING ALL OF THIS IS HELPING
THE PRESIDENT IN HIS BID TO BE
RE-ELECTED IN 2020.
DEMOCRATS WILL SAY THE PRESIDENT
IS BOTHERED BY THIS.
THIS HAS BEEN SOMETHING THAT HAS
STUCK ON HIM LIKE NOTHING ELSE.
THE PRESIDENT HAS HAD ALL SORTS
OF CONTROVERSIES, THIS
WHISTLE-BLOWER COMPLAINT AND THE
ISLAND THAT DEMOCRATS CAN SAY
THAT THIS PRESIDENT WAS TRYING
TO USE HIS PRESIDENTIAL POWERS
TO INFLUENCE A FOREIGN
GOVERNMENT, THAT HE WAS REALLY
TRYING TO USE HIS POLITICAL --
REALLY TRYING TO HAVE A
POLITICAL GAIN HERE, A POLITICAL
BENEFIT IN LOU OF NATIONAL
SECURITY, THAT ARGUMENT HA
STUCK TO PRESIDENT TRUMP.
THAT'S WHY WE SEE THE PRESIDENT
ANGRY AND LASHING OUT.
I CAN'T SAY IT ENOUGH.
THIS WAS A PRESIDENT THAT WAS
SUPPOSED TO HAVE A PRESS
CONFERENCE.
EVERYBODY WAS WAITING ON HIM TO
BASH THE DEMOCRATS AND TALK
ABOUT IT'S AN IMPEACHMENT
INQUIRY AND HE DIDN'T DO IT.
THIS TELLS YOU THAT THIS IS A
PRESIDENT TAKING THIS SERIOUSLY
AND SOMEONE WHO IS REALLY TRYING
TO COME UP WITH A DEFENSE FOR
HIMSELF WHEN IT COMES TO THIS
IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY.
>> YAMICHE, AS WE SAID,
REPORTING FROM THE WHITE
HOUSEKEEPING TRACK OF WHAT THE
PRESIDENT IS DOING EVEN THOUGH
HE'S IN LONDON RIGHT NOW AS THE
HEARINGS PROCEED.
LISA DESJARDINS, YOU'RE STILL
THERE AT THE CAPITOL WHILE WE
WAIT FOR THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE
TO COME BACK AND RECONVENE.
THEY'RE TAKING VOTES ON THE
FLOOR OF THE HOUSE.
COME BACK TO THIS POINT THAT WAS
JUST DISCUSSING WITH YAMICHE.
SHE SAID THE WHITE HOUSE OR
FOLKS WITH THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN
ARE SAYING THIS IS GOOD FOR
THEM.
THEY'RE RAISING MORE MONEY.
PEOPLE ARE MORE ENERGIZED.
HOW CONCERNS ARE DEMOCRATS ABOUT
THAT OR DO THEY BELIEVE THAT
THEY CAN ENERGIZE DEMOCRATS WITH
THESE HEARINGS?
WHAT ARE THEY TELLING YOU?
>> I'M SURE THERE'S MORE THAN A
DOZEN DEMOCRATS THAT ARE RUNNING
FOR PRESIDENT THAT ARE CONCERNED
ABOUT THAT.
I'LL TELL YOU AS FAR AS THE
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVE GOES,
THE DEMOCRATS HERE, THEY DON'T
SEEM THAT CONCERNED BY IT.
THESE TWO REASONS.
ONE, THE DEMOCRATS WHO ARE --
WHO NOW SEEM TO BE UNITED IN
THIS IMPEACHMENT ARE TWO KINDS.
ONE, THEY FEEL MORALLY,
ETHICALLY AND GIVEN THE
CONSTITUTION, THEY HAVE TO
PURSUE THIS.
SOME FEEL IN SUBSTANCE IS
SOMETHING THAT THEY MUST DO
REGARDLESS OF WHETHER THE IT?
CONVICTS THE PRESIDENT OR NOT.
THEN THERE'S ANOTHER GROUP THAT
FRANKLY FEELS THAT THIS COULD
DAMAGE THE PRESIDENT FOR NEXT
YEAR'S ELECTION REGARDLESS OF
HIS FUND-RAISING.
THEY FEEL THIS WILL EXPOSE WHAT
THEY SEE AS A DANGEROUS
PRESIDENT.
WHAT WILL THE PUBLIC DECIDE?
IT'S UNCLEAR.
DEMOCRATS WHO I'M SURE AS
RECENTLY AS THREE MONTHS AGO
ABOUT WHETHER THIS WAS A GOOD
IDEA NOW SEEM TO BE CO LESING ON
THE IDEA IT'S GOOD POLICY AND
GOOD POLITICS.
I HAVEN'T SPOKEN TO DEMOCRATS
THAT ARE IN A TOP TIER RUNNING
FOR PRESIDENT.
WE HAVE JUST BEEN REPORTING,
THEY'RE NOT TALKING ABOUT THIS
ON THE TRAIL.
IT'S SOMETHING THOSE DEMOCRATS
RUNNING FOR PRESIDENT DON'T SEEM
TO THINK ADVANTAGES THEM AN'T
THIS POINT, TO REALLY RAIL
AGAINST THE PRESIDENT.
THEY MENTION IT.
IT'S THE PRESIDENTS AND
REPUBLICANS THAT BRING IT MORE
ON THIS TOPIC.
>> LISA, WHEN YOU SPEAK OF THAT
CHANGE, SHIFT IN VIEW ON THE
PART OF THE DEMOCRATS, THE THING
THAT CHANGED IS UKRAINE.
THE INFORMATION ABOUT THE
EXCHANGES BETWEEN THE PRESIDENT,
THE WHITE HOUSE, UKRAINIAN
LEADERS OVER MILITARY AID.
THE REQUEST THAT THEY
INVESTIGATE JOE BIDEN.
THAT IS REALLY WHAT HAS SHIFTED
THIS.
BEFORE NOW, AS WE KNOW, HOUSE
SPEAKER, THE LEADERSHIP OF THE
HOUSE, NANCY PELOSI IN
PARTICULAR, WAS AGAINST GOING
AHEAD WITH ANY IMPEACHMENT
PROCEEDING BASED ON THE MUELLER
REPORT BECAUSE THEY FELT IT
WASN'T ENOUGH TO MOVE FORWARD
WITH.
>> THAT'S RIGHT.
IT WAS AROUND SEPTEMBER 24 THAT
PELOSI ANNOUNCED THAT SHE WAS
MOVING FORWARD WITH AN
IMPEACHMENT POLICY.
IT WAS A COMPLETE DEPARTURE.
THEY FELT THE EVIDENCE, WHAT
THEY HAVE, THE READ-OUT OF THE
PHONE CALL WAS ENOUGH TO SAY
THAT THIS PRESIDENT HAD ABUSED
POWER.
IT'S SO INTERESTING.
I HEAR THIS FROM YOUR GUESTS AS
WELL.
LOOKING AT WHAT IS HAPPENING
HERE VERSUS CLINTON, THEY'RE
ALMOST EXACT OPPOSITES.
CLINTON, EVERYBODY AGREED THAT
HE LIED.
HE DIDN'T AGREE ON WHETHER THAT
WAS IMPEACHABLE.
HERE, IT SEEMS ALMOST EVERYONE
AGREED THAT IF THERE WAS A
QUID PRO QUO, IF THE PRESIDENT
DID WITHHOLD AID IN ORDER TO
FORCE INVESTIGATIONS, IF THERE
WAS -- IF WE KNOW THAT FACT,
THAT IS PROBABLY IMPEACHABLE.
EVEN REPUBLICANS WILL TELL ME
THAT.
REPUBLICANS WILL SAY WE TONIGHT
KNOW THAT.
THE PROOF DOESN'T GO FAR ENOUGH.
TURLEY SAID IT'S TOO THIN
COMPARED TO THE CLINTON PROOF.
DEMOCRATS DISAGREE.
NEY SAY LISTEN TO THE CALL.
THAT'S THE QUESTION HERE.
YOU KNOW, WHAT EXACTLY DID THE
PRESIDENT DO, WHAT DO WE KNOW.
YOU SPEAK TO ONE OFFICER AND
SHELY SAY THIS IS A CLASSIC CASE
OF SOMEONE TRYING TO COOERS
SOMEBODY ELSE.
THAT'S WHERE THE DOUBT IS IN
THIS HEARING.
>> LISA DESJARDINS FOLLOWING THE
HEARINGS ON CAN TOLL HILL.
WITH ME, SOL WISENBERG, FRANK
BOWMAN.
SOL, HOW MUCH DOES IT MATTER
THAT THE PUBLIC SEE WHAT'S IS
GOING ON AS A LEGITIMATE
PROCESS?
THE FACT THAT THE HOUSE
JUDICIARY COMMITTEE HAVING THE
HEARINGS TODAY, HEARING FROM
FOUR LEGAL SCHOLARS, LAW
PROFESSORS, TO BOLSTER THE CASE
AT LEAST THREE OUT OF THE FOUR
AGREE WITH THE DEMOCRATS.
HOW IMPORTANT IS IT DO YOU THINK
THAT THE AMERICAN PEOPLE SEE
THIS AS A PROCESS THAT HAS SOME
GROUNDING IN THE CONSTITUTION?
>> I THINK IT'S CRITICALLY
IMPORTANT.
NOT ONLY THAT IT HAS A GROUNDING
IN THE CONSTITUTION, WHICH OF
COURSE IT DOES, BUT THAT THEY
SEE IT AS FAIR.
THAT'S ONE REASON THE
REPUBLICANS FOR QUITE A WHILE
HAVE BEEN POUNDING ON FAIRNESS
ISSUE.
WHETHER OR NOT THEY'RE RIGHT OR
WRONG, THEY REALIZE THAT'S
IMPORTANT.
YOU KNOW, AS I LISTEN TO THE
TESTIMONY AND AS I THINK ABOUT
WHAT HAS HAPPENED THE LAST FEW
WEEKS, ONE OF THE THINGS THAT IS
STRIKING TO ME, THE PRESIDENT IS
A GIFT THAT KEEPS GIVING.
IF YOU INVESTIGATE HIM LONG
ENOUGH, HE'S GOING TO TWEET AND
HE'S GOING TO GIVE HIMSELF MORE
PROBLEMS.
THE PERFECT EXAMPLE OF THAT IS
WHEN FORMER AMBASSADOR WAS
TESTIFYING.
IN THE MIDDLE OF HER TESTIMONY,
HE STARTS TWEETING ABOUT HER.
GUESS WHAT?
THAT HURTS.
THAT WILL BE MENTIONED IN SOME
WAY IN THE ULTIMATE ARTICLES OF
IMPEACHMENT.
ANOTHER FASCINATING THING TO ME
IS VOLUME 2 OF THE MUELLER
REPORT ABOUT OBSTRUCTION.
THE STRIKING THING TO ME, THE
PRESIDENT ASKED HIS STAFFERS TO
DO SOME HIGHLY INAPPROPRIATE
THINGS.
THEY REFUSED OR IGNORED HIM AND
SAY THEY WON'T DO THAT.
McGANN --
>> INCLUDING FIRING THE FBI.
SO THEY BASICALLY SAVED HIM FROM
HIMSELF.
IN THIS PARTICULAR EVENT, THE
UKRAINE INCIDENT, THERE SEEMS TO
HAVE BEEN NOBODY CLOSE TO HIM IN
THE INNER CIRCLE THAT SAID YOU
CAN'T DO THAT.
YOU SHOULDN'T BE DOING THAT.
>> INTERESTING.
FRANK BOWMAN ON THIS QUESTION OF
WHETHER -- TO WHAT EXTENT THE
PUBLIC SEES THIS AS A PROCESS
THAT ISN'T JUST ABOUT POLITICS.
THAT IT HAS A GROUNDING IN THE
VERY SOUNDING OF OUR COUNTRY AND
HOW THE FOUNDERS SAW WHAT THE
REPUBLIC SHOULD BE, WHAT SORT OF
LAWS WE SHOULD HONOR ON WHAT
GROUNDS WE SHOULD BASE THE
REMOVAL OF THE HIGHEST OFFICER
IN THE GOVERNMENT, THE PRESIDENT
OF THE UNITED STATES.
THAT MATTERS.
>> OF COURSE IT DOES.
BUT OF COURSE TO RESPOND TO YOUR
QUESTION, YOU SAY IT'S IMPORTANT
THAT THE PUBLIC PERCEIVED IT'S
NOT PURELY ABOUT POLITICS.
OF COURSE, POLITICS MEANS LOTS
OF THINGS.
IT HAS TWO MEANINGS, I SUPPOSE.
ONE WHEN WE USE THE WORD
"POLITICS", WE THINK OF PARTISAN
BICKERING BACK AND FORTH, VYING
FOR ADVANTAGE.
POLITICS IN THE LARGE SENSE IS
WHAT THIS IS ABOUT AND WHAT IT'S
ALWAYS INTENDED TO BE ABOUT.
IMPEACHMENT IS A POLITICAL
PROCESS IN THE LARGE SENSE.
IT WAS INSERTED IN THE UNITED
STATES CONSTITUTION AS A MEANS
OF PRESERVING OUR POLITICS, OUR
CONSTITUTIONAL STRUCTURE.
IT WAS INSERTED TO MAKE SURE IN
PARTICULAR THAT THE PRESIDENT
NOT DESTROY THAT STRUCTURE THAT
HE NOT THROUGH THE FORCE OF HIS
PERSONALITY OR CORRUPTION
OVERWHELM THE OTHER COMPONENTS
OF THE AMERICAN GOVERNMENT, THE
CONGRESS, THE COURTS AND ALL THE
OTHER CONSTRAINTS THAT SHOULD
KEEP A PRESIDENT IN CHECK.
PRESUMABLY -- WHAT THE PERSON
PUBLIC WOULD NEED TO CONCLUDE
FOR THIS TO ACTUALLY SUCCEED IN
REMOVING HIM IS THAT INDEED HE
BEHAVED IN A WAY THAT REPRESENTS
A DANGER TO AMERICAN
CONSTITUTIONALISM.
THAT'S THE CASE THE DEMOCRATS
ARE MAKING.
I THINK IT'S FAIRLY CLEAR THAT
TRUMP'S MOST LOYAL BASE, 30 OR
40% OF THE COUNTRY MAY NEVER BE
CONVINCED OF THAT REGARDLESS OF
WHAT IS SAID IN THESE HEARINGS.
>> WE DON'T KNOW.
YOU'RE RIGHT ABOUT THERE CLEARLY
IS A POLITICAL ELEMENT AND
YOU'RE RIGHT.
I MEAN THAT SEPARATELY FROM THE
PURELY PARTISAN DEFINITION THAT
WE HAVE COME TO THINK ABOUT
POLITICS TODAY.
JUST THE RELENTLESS INCESSANT
DISAGREEMENT.
>> YOU KNOW, NIXON.
PEOPLE WERE VERY PARTISAN BACK
IN THAT PERIOD.
HERE'S A GUY THAT WON THE
ELECTION IN 72 IN A LANDSLIDE.
60% OF THE POPULAR VOTE, I
THINK.
THE PUBLIC WAS VERY MUCH AGAINST
IMPEACHMENT IN THE BEGINNING.
BUT THE EVIDENCE KEPT COMING OUT
AND THE PRESIDENT KEPT LYING.
SO WE DON'T HAVE THAT YET HERE.
WE DON'T HAVE THE KIND OF SHIFTS
THAT YOU HAD IN THE CASE OF
NIXON.
PARTLY THAT IS BECAUSE OF THE
ELECTION.
>> THE OTHER ELEPHANT IN THIS
ROOM IS THAT -- THE REASON WHY
I'M SOMEWHAT PESSIMISTIC ABOUT
THE FUTURE OF THIS PARTICULAR
PROCESS AND SADLY A LITTLE
PESSIMISTIC ABOUT THE NEAR TERM
FUTURE OF OUR POLITICS IS THAT
THE THING THAT MADE THE SHIFT OF
OPINION POSSIBLE WITH NIXON WAS
A DRAMATICALLY DIFFERENT SET OF
POLITICAL ALIGNMENTS IN TERMS OF
THE PARTIES AND A DRAMATICALLY
DIFFERENT MEDIA ENVIRONMENT.
WHEN FACTS CAME OUT ABOUT NIXON,
THEY WERE NOT ONLY BEING
PRESENTED ON LIVE TV BUT THROUGH
WERE NEUTRAL ARBITERS IN THE
MEDIA.
THE MEDIA WAS RIGOROUS IN
TESTING THE FACTUAL VALIDITY OF
WHAT WAS SAID.
IN THE END, IN NIXON, THERE WAS
A GENERAL NATIONAL CONSENSUS.
A ABOUT WHAT HAD HAPPENED AND
THAT IT WAS BAD.
THE PROBLEM HERE AND I DON'T
MEAN TO PICK ON THE REPUBLICANS
BUT SEEMS TO ME THIS IS WHERE
THE PROBLEM LIES, AT LEAST IN
PAST HEARINGS, YOU HAD
REPUBLICAN REPRESENTATIVES
TAKING POSITIONS AND MAKING AER
IS -- ASSERTIONS THAT WERE
COUNTER FACTUAL AND THEY SUFFER
NO PENALTY FOR THAT BECAUSE
THERE'S A COMPONENT OF THE MEDIA
IN TO WHICH THEY CAN RETREAT
LIKE A NICE WARM BATH.
THAT COMPONENT OF THE MEDIA IS
NOT GOING TO QUESTION THEIR
COUNTER FACTUAL ASSERTIONS.
NOT TO SAY THAT LIBERALS ARE
MORE LIBERAL LEANING MEDIA ARE
ALWAYS INNOCENT IN THIS REGARD.
BUT I THINK IT'S THE LARGER
ENVIRONMENT IN WHICH THIS IS
OPERATING THAT IS SO DIFFERENT.
>> WE'RE CLEARLY IN A DIFFERENT
MEDIA ENVIRONMENT TIED.
>> THAT'S WHAT I HEAR A LOT.
WHERE THE REPUBLICANS LIKE
HOWARD BAKER AND HUGH SCOTT.
BUT I THINK SOME REPUBLICANS
TODAY ARE CONSERVATIVES TODAY
WOULD SAY THERE WAS THE
APPEARANCE OF NEUTRALITY OR
OBJECTIVITY BACK THEN.
BUT IT'S ALWAYS -- WHY IS IT
ALWAYS THE REPUBLICANS THAT HAVE
TO BE THE PEOPLE THAT
COMPROMISE?
IF YOU LOOK AT MOST OF
DEMOCRATIC SCANDALS IN THE LAST
20 YEARS, THE DEMOCRATS ARE IN
THE HOUSE ARE IN ABSOLUTE LOCK
STEP IN SUPPORTING THE
PRESIDENT.
BOTH SIDES DO IT.
BOTH SIDES HAVE THEIR NETWORK --
>> THERE WERE DEMOCRATS THAT
VOTED AGAINST BILL CLINTON IN
THE IMPEACHMENT.
>> IN THE HOUSE THERE WERE.
THAT'S TRUE.
NONE IN THE SENATE.
SO IT IS WHAT IT IS.
BUT CERTAINLY I AGREE WITH
FRANK.
THAT YOU DON'T -- THERE'S NO
ROOM ANYMORE FOR THE -- THAT
KIND OF REPUBLICAN.
THEY DON'T REALLY EXIST ANYMORE.
>> TO ME, ONE QUESTION IN MY
MIND IS WE HAVE GONE BACK AND
FORTH REFLECTING ON THE NIXON
IMPEACHMENT AND ON THE CLINTON
IMPEACHMENT.
THE OTHER TWO IN OUR MODERN ERA.
SEEMS TO ME IN SOME WAYS THIS IS
MORE AKIN TO THE NIXON
IMPEACHMENT IN THE WAY THAT THE
FACTS HAVE BUILT UP.
IT'S NOT THAT -- YOU DON'T HAVE
SOME SIMILARITIES.
WITH CLINTON, IT WAS ABOUT HIS
NOT TELLING THE TRUTH ABOUT
HAVING HAD AN EXTRAMARITAL
AFFAIR.
>> RIGHT.
ONE INTERESTING COMPARISON
BECAUSE WE'RE TALKING ABOUT
PROCESS HERE.
>> AND I SHOULD SAY
OBSTRUCTION --
>> ONE CRITICAL POINT HERE THAT
PEOPLE HAVE TO UNDERSTAND WHEN
THEY THINK ABOUT THE WAY IN
WHICH THIS PROCEED IS PERCEIVED,
ALSO, SOME REPUBLICAN COMPLAINTS
ABOUT PROCESS AND SOME OF WHICH
I THINK ARE LEGITIMATE, NOT ALL
BUT SOME, IS THAT THIS
IMPEACHMENT IS UNIQUE IN THIS
RESPECT.
IN BOTH NIXON WHERE -- AND IN
CLINTON, WHEN THE HOUSE
JUDICIARY COMMITTEE CAME TO
CONSIDER IMPEACHMENT, IT DID IT
ON A LARGE BODY OF MATERIAL THAT
WAS COLLECTED BY OTHER ENTITIES.
NIXON, THERE WAS A SPECIAL
PROSECUTOR INVESTIGATION THAT
PRODUCED GRAND JURY MATERIAL AND
HAD A LONG INVESTIGATION BY THE
WATERGATE SENATE COMMITTEE.
ALL THAT MATERIAL AND
NEWSPAPERS.
THEY BASICALLY DELIVERED THAT TO
THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE AND THEY
DIDN'T HAVE TO DO MUCH FACTUAL
INVESTIGATION.
LIKEWISE WITH RESPECT TO
CLINTON, KEN STARR JUMPED THIS
STUFF, DROVE THE VAN UP TO THE
HOUSE STEPS AND DUMPED THIS ON
THE HOUSE AND SAID DO SOMETHING
WITH IT.
HERE UNIQUELY, THE ONLY TEAM IN
AMERICAN HISTORY WE HAD THE
HOUSE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE ON ITS
OWN HAVING TO INVESTIGATE ON ITS
OWN THE FACTS OF AN ENTIRELY NEW
MATTER.
ENTIRELY NEW.
>> WHICH IS UKRAINE.
>> RIGHT.
>> YOU DON'T HAVE A PROSECUTOR.
YOU HAD A SPECIAL COUNSEL IN --
WITH REGARD TO THE RUSSIA
INVESTIGATION AND ROBERT
MUELLER.
YOU'RE RIGHT.
NOT WITH REGARD TO UKRAINE,
WHICH IS THE PRINCIPLE FOCUS.
THAT DOES MAKE THIS DIFFERENT.
>> IT DOES.
THIS IS UNIQUE BECAUSE I GET
UPSET WHEN I HEAR SOME OF THE
DEMOCRATIC CONGRESS PEOPLE
SAYING THAT THIS IS WORSE THAN
WATERGATE.
IN NO WAY IS THIS WORSE THAN
WATERGATE.
NOTHING IS LIKE WATERGATE.
THE FELONIOUS OBSTRUCTION OF
JUSTICE, GROSS VIOLATION OF
CIVIL LIBERTIES.
THE PROBLEM HERE, THEIR PROBLEM
IS THAT THEY'RE GOING TO HAVE TO
PUT MORE INTO IT THAN THIS ONE
EVENT.
YOU ASKED EARLIER ABOUT HOW
SHOULD THE REPUBLICANS HANDLE
THIS.
I THINK THE WAY THEY SHOULD HAVE
HANDLED IT FROM THE BEGINNING,
THE PRESIDENT SHOULD HAVE SAID
DID I SCREW UP.
I SHOULDN'T HAVE DONE THAT.
THAT WAS A TERRIBLE THING TO DO.
>> OR MAYBE THAT WOULD HAVE GONE
AWAY.
WE'RE KEEPING AN EYE ON THE
HOUSE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE
HEARING ROM.
A NUMBER OF THE MEMBERS HAVE
COME BACK, NOT ALL OF THEM.
WE'RE LIKING FOR CHAIRMAN JERRY
NADLER BECAUSE THEY WILL BEGIN
TO GO TO OTHER MEMBERS.
THEY STARTED THE MEMBERS
QUESTIONING BUT THEY HAVE A LONG
WAY TO GO.
THERE'S 24 DEMOCRATS, 17
REPUBLICANS.
IT'S ALREADY 2:40 P.M. IN THE
AFTERNOON IN THE EAST.
SO WE'RE LOOKING AT A LONG
AFTERNOON EVEN THOUGH IT'S FIVE
MINUTES A MEMBER, WE'RE LOOKING
AT AT LEAST A COUPLE HOURS MORE
OF TESTIMONY.
AGAIN, JUDY WOODRUFF HERE WITH
SOL WISENBERG AND FRANK BOWMAN.
IT DOES IN SO MANY WAYS COME
DOWN TO THE -- NOT JUST THE
FACTS OF THE CASE BUT US A WE'RE
HEARING FROM THE LEGAL EXPERTS
WHAT THE CONSTITUTION SAYS AND
WHETHER WHAT PRESIDENT TRUMP IS
ACCUSED OF DOING FITS THE
DEFINITION AS THE FOUNDING
FATHERS DEFINED IT, DESCRIBED IT
WHICH CONSTITUTES AN IMPEACHABLE
OFFENSE.
>> I MIGHT RECHARACTERIZE IT A
LITTLE BIT.
IT'S A MISTAKE TO THINK THAT THE
FOUNDING FATHERS DEFINED THE
SCOPE OF IMPEACHABLE CONDUCT.
THEY DIDN'T, NOT REALLY.
THEY PUT A PHRASE IN THE
CONTUSION.
TREASON, BRIBERY OR OTHER HIGH
CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS.
ALTHOUGH WHEN THEY PUT IN HIGH
CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS, THEY
KNEW THAT WAS IN A SENSE A TERM
OF ART THAT INCLUDED ESSENTIALLY
ALL THE THINGS FOR WHICH
PARLIAMENT HAD IMPEACHED PEOPLE
FOR IN THE PAST AND EARLY
AMERICAN IMPEACHMENTS HAD USED
THAT PHRASE.
WHAT THEY WERE REALLY DOING WHEN
THEY PUT HIGH CRIMES AND
MISDEMEANORS IN THE CONSTITUTION
IS THEY WERE SAYING AND I THINK
PAM KARLAN MAY HAVE MENTIONED
THIS, THEY WERE RECOGNIZING THAT
THEY COULDN'T PREDICT IN THE
VARIETIES OF EVIL INGENUITY OR
THE VARIOUS WAYS IN WHICH FUTURE
OFFICE HOLDERS MIGHT MISBEHAVE.
THEY UNINCLUDED THIS PHRASE
BECAUSE THEY RECOGNIZED WHILE IT
GAVE IT SOME SENSE OF WHAT HAD
BEEN DONE IN THE PAST, IT ALSO
GAVE CONGRESS THE PERMISSION TO
MAKE WHAT ARE IN THE END
ULTIMATELY POLITICAL JUDGMENTS
ABOUT THE NATURE OF THE
CONSTITUTIONAL ORDER.
SOME PEOPLE DON'T LIKE THAT.
THEY FEEL UNCOMFORTABLE WITH THE
NOTION THAT THIS IS OPEN ENDED,
GIVES CONGRESS THIS KIND OF
AUTHORITIES.
THIS IS PLAIN A THROUGH OF
MR. TURLEY.
HE WANTS TO MAKE THIS A
LEGALISTIC PROCESS.
TO BE ABLE TO PROVE EACH AND
EVERY ELEMENT BEYOND A
REASONABLE DOUBT IF THIS WAS A
CRIMINAL TRIAL.
THAT'S NOT WHAT IMPEACHMENT IS.
IT'S ABOUT THE CONSTITUTIONAL
BALANCE.
>> THAT'S SOMETHING THAT WE'RE
STILL DEBATING.
>> AND ALWAYS DEBATE.
IN SOME SENSE THE CHALLENGE AND
THE BEAUTY OF IMPEACHMENT.
I TEACH THIS IMPEACHMENT CLASS
AT GEORGETOWN.
I SAY TO MY STUDENTS, IN SOME
WAYS IMPEACHMENT IS THIS NARROW
LITTLE NEVER USED EVENT.
THE TRUTH IS, IF YOU LOOK BACK
TO 1376, IF YOU UNDERSTAND
IMPEACHMENT, YOU HAVE TO
UNDERSTAND WHAT HAS HAPPENED
BECAUSE IT TOUCHES EVERYTHING.
>> YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT THE
UNITED STATES AND ENGLAND FROM
WHICH THE UNITED STATES REBELLED
AND SEPARATED.
I'M KEEPING AN EYE ON
CONGRESSMAN JERRY NADLER.
HE JUST GAVELLED THE COMMITTEE
BACK INTO SESSION.
LET'S LISTEN.
SOUNDS LIKE THEY'RE ABOUT TO GET
UNDERWAY AGAIN.
MAYBE NOT.
THIS IS ONLY THE FOURTH TIME IN
AMERICAN HISTORY THAT
IMPEACHMENT PROCEEDINGS HAVE
BEEN INSTITUTED IN THE CONGRESS.
SO WHAT YOU'RE JUST SAYING ABOUT
HOW RARELY IT'S TAKEN PLACE IN
THE 250 YEARS, 240-YEAR HISTORY
OF THIS COUNTRY TELLS YOU
SOMETHING ABOUT WHAT A SPECIAL
AND UNUSUAL THING IT IS.
>> IF I COULD BRIEFLY RESPOND --
>> AS WE CONGRESSMAN NADLER.
>> HOWEVER BROAD IT IS, IT CAN'T
BE THAT WHATEVER A MAJORITY OF
THE HOUSE DECIDES TO IMPEACH,
THAT THE PRESIDENT KIND OF
SERVES AT THEIR PLEASURE.
THAT'S WHAT MADISON WAS TALKING
ABOUT WHEN HE SAID THE
ADMINISTRATION IS TOO BROAD
BECAUSE THE PRESIDENT WOULD BE
SUBJECT TO THE WINDS OF
MAJORITY.
WE ALL AGREE THAT IS TOO BROAD.
THE QUESTION IS, WHERE DOES THE
LINE FALL.
IT'S VERY CLEAR THAT TURLEY HAS
A NARROWER VIEW THAN THE THREE
OTHER PROFESSORS.
>> WHICH BRINGS US BACK TO WHO
THE WITNESSES ARE TODAY.
IT'S PROFESSOR JONATHAN TURLEY
THERE TESTIFYING ON THE RIGHT.
LOOKS LIKE HE'S TAKING HIS SEAT
RIGHT NOW.
HE'S THE WITNESS CALLED GEORGE
WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY, THE
WITNESS CALLED BY THE
REPUBLICANS.
THE OTHER THREE ON HIS RIGHT,
YOUR LEFT AREMELA KARLAN,
AND NOAH FELDMAN.
THEY WERE CALLED BY THE
DEMOCRATS.
LET'S LISTEN NOW.
>> LET ME REPEAT.
THE COMMITTEE WILL COME TO
ORDER.
WHEN WE BROKE FOR RECESS, WE
WERE ON THE FIVE MINUTE RULE,
AND I RECOGNIZE MR.
SENSENBRENNER FOR FIVE
MINUTES.
>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH, MR.
CHAIRMAN.
I'M A VETERAN TO IMPEACHMENTS.
I'VE BEEN NAMED BY THE HOUSE
AS AN IMPEACHMENT MANAGER IN
FOUR IMPEACHMENTS.
CLINTON AND THREE JUDGES.
THAT'S MORE THAN ANYBODY ELSE
IN HISTORY.
ONE OF THE THINGS IN EVERY
IMPEACHMENT, WHETHER IT'S THE
ONES THAT I WAS INVOLVED IN OR
OTHERS THAT HAVE COME BEFORE
THE COMMITTEE WHERE I WAS NOT
A MANAGER THE DEBATE.
WHAT IS A HIGH CRIME AND
MISDEMEANOR, AND HOW SERIOUS
DOES THAT HAVE TO BE IN ORDER
FOR IT TO RISE TO THE LEVEL OF
AN IMPEACHABLE OFFENSE.
50 YEARS AGO, GERALD FORD MADE
A COMMENT SAYING A HIGH CRIME
AND MISDEMEANOR IS ANYTHING
THE MAJORITY OF THE HOUSE OF
REPRESENTATIVES DEEMS IT TO BE
ON ANY GIVEN DAY.
I DON'T AGREE WITH THAT.
YOU KNOW, THAT SETS A LOW BAR
OR A NON-EXISTENT BAR, AND IT
CERTAINLY WOULD BE THE
PRESIDENT SERVES AT THE
PLEASURE OF THE HOUSE WHICH IS
NOT WHAT THE FRAMERS INTENDED
WHEN THEY REJECTED THE BRITISH
FORM OF PARLIAMENTARY
DEMOCRACY WHERE THE PRIME
MINISTER IS THE GOVERNMENT
COULD BE OVERTHROWN BY A MERE
VOTE OF NO CONFIDENCE IN THE
HOUSE OF COMMONS.
SO I'M LOOKING AT WHAT WE'RE
FACING HERE.
THIS INQUIRY WAS STARTED OUT
BY A COMMENT THAT PRESIDENT
TRUMP MADE TO PRESIDENT
ZELENSKY IN THE JULY 25th CALL
OF QUOTE DO ME A FAVOR."
THERE ARE SOME WHO SAID IT'S A
QUID QUO PRO.
OTHERS IMPLIED IT WAS A QUID
QUO PRO.
BOTH TRUMP AND ZELENSKY SAID
IT WASN'T, AND ZELENSKY SAID
THERE WAS NO PRESSURE ON ME,
AND THE AID WENT THROUGH
WITHIN SIX WEEKS AFTER THE
PHONE CALL WAS MADE.
CONTRAST THAT TO WHERE THERE
WAS NO IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY TO
VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN WHEN HE
SAID I HELD UP A BILLION
DOLLARS WORTH OF AID UNLESS
THE PROSECUTOR WAS FIRED
WITHIN SIX HOURS, AND SON OF A
BLEEP, THAT'S WHAT HAPPENED.
SEEMS TO ME IF YOU'RE LOOKING
FOR A QUID QUO PRO AND LOOKING
FOR SOMETHING THAT WAS REALLY
OVER THE TOP, IT WAS NOT
SAYING DO ME A FAVOR.
IT WAS SAYING SON OF A BLEEP,
THAT'S WHAT HAPPENED IN SIX
HOURS.
YOU KNOW, THE REPUBLICANS WHO
ARE IN CHARGE OF CONGRESS AT
THE TIME BIDEN MADE THAT
COMMENT, WE DID NOT TIE THE
COUNTRY UP FOR THREE MONTHS,
AND GOING ON FOUR NOW,
WRAPPING EVERYBODY IN THIS
TOWN AROUND THE AXELROD.
WE ATTEMPTED TO DO THE
PUBLIC'S BUSINESS.
THAT'S NOT WHAT'S HAPPENING
HERE.
I THINK THE AMERICAN PUBLIC
ARE GETTING A LITTLE BIT SICK
AND TIRED OF IMPEACHMENT,
IMPEACHMENT, IMPEACHMENT, WHEN
NAY KNOW THAT LESS THAN A YEAR
FROM NOW, THEY WILL BE ABLE TO
DETERMINE WHETHER DONALD TRUMP
STAYS IN OFFICE OR SOMEBODY
ELSE WILL BE ELECTED.
I TAKE THIS RESPONSIBILITY
EXTREMELY SERIOUSLY.
YOU KNOW, IT IS AN AWESOME AND
VERY GRAVE RESPONSIBILITY, AND
IT IS NOT ONE THAT SHOULD BE
DONE LIGHTLY.
IT IS NOT ONE THAT SHOULD BE
DONE WHICH SHOULD BE DONE
QUICKLY WITHOUT EXAMINING ALL
THE EVIDENCE WHICH WAS DONE IN
THE NIXON IMPEACHMENT, AND
WHAT WAS DONE LARGELY BY
KENNETH STAR IN THE CLINTON
IMPEACHMENT.
I'D LIKE TO ASK YOU, PROFESSOR
TURLEY BECAUSE YOU'RE THE ONLY
ONE OF THE FOUR UP THERE THAT
DOESN'T SEEM TO HAVE IT MADE
UP BEFORE YOU WALK INTO THE
DOOR.
ISN'T THERE A DIFFERENCE
BETWEEN "DO ME A FAVOR" AND
"SON OF A BLEEP, THAT'S WHAT
HAPPENED."
IN SIX HOURS TIME.
>> GRAMMATICALLY, YES.
CONSTITUTIONALLY, IT REALLY
DEPENLDS ON THE CONTEXT.
I THINK YOUR POINT IS A GOOD
ONE IN THE SENSE THAT WE HAVE
TO DETERMINE FROM THE
TRANSCRIPT, AND HOPEFULLY FROM
OTHER WITNESSES WHETHER THIS
STATEMENT WAS PART OF AN
ACTUAL QUID QUO PRO.
I GUESS THE THRESHOLD QUESTION
IS, IF THE PRESIDENT SAID I'D
LIKE YOU TO DO THESE
INVESTIGATIONS.
I DON'T GROUP THEM TOGETHER.
I DISTINGUISH BETWEEN THE
REQUEST FOR INVESTIGATION INTO
2016, FROM THE INVESTIGATION
INTO BIDEN.
BUT IT IS AN ISSUE OF ORDER.
THE MAGNITUDE OF ORDER
CONSTITUTIONALLY IF YOU ASK,
I'D LIKE TO SEE YOU DO THIS,
AS OPPOSED TO I HAVE A QUID
QUO PRO.
YOU EITHER DO THIS OR YOU
DON'T GET MILITARY AID.
>> THE TIME FOR THE GENTLEMAN
EXPIRED.
LADY FROM TEXAS.
>> THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN,
FOR YIELDING.
>> PROFESSOR GERHARDT SAID IF
WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT TODAY
IS NOT IMPEACHABLE, THEN
NOTHING IS IMPEACHABLE.
I'M REMINDED OF MY TIME ON THE
HOUSE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE
DURING THE 1990s IMPEACHMENT,
AND A NUMBER OF FEDERAL
JUDGES.
I WAS GUIDED NOT ONLY BY THE
FACTS, BUT BY THE CONSTITUTION
AND THE DUTY TO SERVE THIS
NATION.
I BELIEVE, AS WE GREET YOU
TODAY THAT WE ARE CHARGED WITH
A SOBER AND SOMBER
RESPONSIBILITY.
SO PROFESSOR KARLAN, I'D LIKE
YOU TO LOOK AT THE
INTELLIGENCE VOLUME WHERE
HUNDREDS OF DOCUMENTS ARE
BEHIND THAT, AND THE MUELLER
REPORT.
PROFESSOR KARLAN, YOU STUDIED
THE RECORD.
DO YOU THINK IT IS "WAFER
THEN" AND CAN YOU REMARK ON
THE STRENGTH OF THE RECORD
BEFORE US?
>> OBVIOUSLY, IT'S NOT WAFER
THIN.
THE STRENGTH OF THE RECORD IS
NOT JUST IN THE SEPTEMBER -- I
MEAN THE JULY 25th CALL.
I THINK THE WAY YOU NEED TO
ASK ABOUT THIS IS HOW DOES IT
FIT INTO THE PATTERN OF
BEHAVIOR BY THE PRESIDENT.
WHAT YOU'RE DOING IS DRAWING
INFERENCES HERE.
THIS IS ABOUT CIRCUMSTANTIAL
EVIDENCE AS WELL AS DIRECT
EVIDENCE.
YOU'RE TRYING TO INFER DID THE
PRESIDENT ASK FOR A POLITICAL
FAVOR, AND I THINK THIS RECORD
SUPPORTS THE INFERENCE THAT HE
DID.
>> WHAT COMPARISONS, PROFESSOR
KARLAN, CAN WE MAKE BETWEEN
KINGS THAT THE FRAMERS WERE
AFRAID OF, AND THE PRESIDENT'S
CONDUCT TODAY?
>> SO KINGS COULD DO NO WRONG,
BECAUSE THE KING'S WORD WAS
LAW.
CONTRARY TO WHAT PRESIDENT
TRUMP HAS SAID, ARTICLE 2 DOES
NOT GIVE HIM THE POWER TO TWO
ANYTHING HE WANTS.
I'LL GIVE YOU ONE EXAMPLE THAT
SHOWS 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 AIL BARON.
>> THE FOUNDING FATHER STEWART
MASON ASKED, SHALL ANY MAN BE
ABOVE JUSTICE, AND ALEXANDER
HAMILTON WROTE HIGH CRIMES AND
MISDEMEANORS MEAN THE ABUSE OF
VIOLATION OF SOME PUBLIC
TRUST.
AS WE MOVE QUICKLY, PROFESSOR
FELDMAN, YOU PREVIOUSLY
TESTIFIED THAT THE PRESIDENT
HAS ABUSED HIS POWER, IS THAT
CORRECT?
>> YES, MA'AM.
>> WHAT IS THE MOST COMPELLING
EVIDENCE IN THIS IMPEACHMENT
INQUIRY THAT WOULD LEAD YOU TO
THAT?
>> THE PHONE CALL OF JULY 25th
IS EXTRAORDNIARILY CLEAR TO MY
MIND IN THAT WE HEAR THE
PRESIDENT ASKING FOR A FAVOR
THAT'S CLEARLY OF PERSONAL
BENEFIT, RATHER THAN ACTING ON
BEHALF OF THE INTERESTS OF THE
NATION.
AND FURTHER FROM THAT --
FURTHER DOWN THE ROAD, MORE
EVIDENCE THAT TENDS TO GIVE
THE CONTEXT, AND SUPPORT FOR
THE EXPLANATION OF WHAT
HAPPENED.
>> PROFESSOR KARLAN HOW DOES
THE ABUSE AFFECT THE
DEMOCRATIC SYSTEM.
>> HAVING FOREIGN INTERFERENCE
IN OUR ELECTION MEANS THAT WE
ARE LESS FREE.
IT IS LESS OF WE THE PEOPLE
DETERMINING THE ELECTION THAN
A FOREIGN GOVERNMENT.
>> I THINK IT'S FAIR TO SAY
THAT THE PRESIDENT'S ACTIONS
ARE UNPRECEDENTED.
WHAT ALSO STRIKES ME IS HOW
MANY REPUBLICANS AND DEMOCRATS
BELIEVE THAT HIS CONDUCT WAS
WRONG.
>> LISTEN TO THE COLONEL.
>> IT'S IMPROPER FOR THE
PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES
TO DEMAND A FOREIGN GOVERNMENT
INVESTIGATE AN U.S. CITIZEN
AND POLITICAL APPOINTMENT.
>> PROFESSOR FELDMAN IN LIGHT
OF THE FACT THAT THE PRESIDENT
ASKED FOR AN INVESTIGATION,
AND THEN ONLY WHEN HE WAS
CAUGHT RELEASED THE MILITARY
AID, IS THERE STILL A NEED FOR
IMPEACHMENT?
>> YES, MA'AM.
IMPEACHMENT IS COMPLETE WHEN
THE PRESIDENT ABUSED HIS
OFFICE, AND HE ABUSED OFFICE
BY ATTEMPTING TO ABUSE.
THERE'S NO DISTINCTION BETWEEN
TRYING TO DO IT AND SUCCEEDING
IN DOING IT, AND ESPECIALLY
TRUE IF YOU ONLY STOPPED WHEN
YOU GET CAUGHT.
>> ONLY 70% OF THE AMERICAN
PEOPLE BELIEVE WHAT THE
PRESIDENT DID WAS WRONG.
WE HAVE A SOLEMN
RESPONSIBILITY TO ADDRESS
THAT, AND AS WELL, OUR
FIDELITY TO OUR OATH AND OUR
DUTY, REMINDED OF THE MEN AND
WOMEN WHO SERVED IN THE UNITED
STATES MILITARY.
I'M REMINDED OF MY THREE
UNCLES WHO SERVED IN WORLD WAR
II.
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 ME A FAVOR.
AND SO IN THIS INSTANCE, THE
AMERICAN PEOPLE DESERVE
UNFETTERED LEADERSHIP, AND
IT'S OUR DUTY TO FAIRLY ASSESS
THE FACTS AND THE
CONSTITUTION.
I YIELD BACK MY TIME.
>> GENTLELADY YIELDS BACK.
>> THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN.
IT'S CLEAR TO ME NO MATTER
WHAT QUESTIONS WE ASK THE FOUR
WITNESSES TODAY, AND NO MATTER
WHAT THEIR ANSWERS ARE, THAT
MOST IF NOT ALL OF THE
DEMOCRATS ON THE COMMITTEE ARE
GOING TO VOTE TO IMPEACH
PRESIDENT TRUMP.
THAT'S WHAT THEIR HARDCORE
TRUMP HATING BASE WANTS AND
HAVE WANTED THAT SINCE THE
PRESIDENT WAS ELECTED THREE
YEARS AGO.
IN FACT, WHEN DEMOCRATS TOOK
OVER THE HOUSE, ONE OF THE
FIRST THINGS THAT THEY DID WAS
INTRODUCE ARTICLES OF
IMPEACHMENT AGAINST PRESIDENT
TRUMP, AND THAT WAS WAY BEFORE
PRESIDENT TRUMP AND PRESIDENT
ZELENSKY EVER HAD THEIR FAMOUS
PHONE CALL, WHETHER IT WAS
PERFECT OR NOT.
NOW TODAY WE'RE UNDERTAKING A
LARGELY ACADEMIC EXERCISE,
INSTEAD OF HEARING FROM FACT
WITNESSES LIKE ADAM SCHIFF OR
HUNTER BIDEN.
WE'RE NOT PERMED TO CALL THEM.
IT SEEMS ADAM SCHIFF MISLED
THE AMERICAN PEOPLE.
COMMON SENSE WOULD CALL FOR
SCHIFF TO BE QUESTIONED ABOUT
THOSE THINGS.
BUT WE CAN'T.
MR. CHAIRMAN, BACK IN 1998
WHEN ANOTHER PRESIDENT, BILL
CLINTON WAS BEING CONSIDERED
FOR IMPEACHMENT, YOU SAID, AND
I QUOTE, "WE MUST NOT OVERTURN
AN ELECTION AND IMPEACH A
PRESIDENT WITHOUT AN
OVERWHELMING CONSENSUS OF THE
AMERICAN PEOPLE, AND THE
REPRESENTATIVES IN CONGRESS"
YOU ALSO SAID, THERE SHOULDN'T
BE AN IMPEACHMENT BY ONE SIDE,
AND OPPOSED BY THE OTHER.
YOU SHOULD IT WOULD CALL INTO
QUESTION THE VERY LEGITIMACY
OF OUR POLITICAL INSTITUTIONS.
THAT'S WHAT YOU SAID BACK
THEN, MR. CHAIRMAN.
WELL, WHAT YOU SAID SHOULD
NEVER HAPPEN, WHAT WE SHOULD
NEVER DO IS WHAT YOU'RE DOING
NOW, MOVING FORWARD WITHOUT A
CONSENSUS, AND IMPEACHMENT BY
ONE MAJOR PARTY THAT'S OPPOSED
BY THE OTHER.
AND IT'S ALMOST CERTAIN THAT
IT'S GOING TO RESULT IN THE
VERY DEVICEIVENESS AND
BITTERNESS THAT YOU SO
ACCURATELY WARNED US ABOUT
BACK THEN.
A COUPLE MORE QUOTES FROM A
WISE JERRY NADLER TWO DECADES
AGO.
"THE LAST THING YOU WANT IS TO
HAVE A PARTY LINE IMPEACHMENT.
YOU SHOULDN'T IMPEACH THE
PRESIDENT UNLESS IT'S A BROAD
CONSENSUS OF THE AMERICAN
PEOPLE."
THOSE WERE WISE WORDS, MR.
CHAIRMAN, BUT YOU'RE NOT
FOLLOWING THEM TODAY.
AND FINALLY AGAIN YOUR WORDS.
"THE ISSUE IN A POTERNAL
IMPE
POTENTIAL
IMPEACHMENT IS WHETHER TO
OVERTURN AN ELECTION, THE FREE
EXPRESSION OF THE AMERICAN
PEOPLE.
THAT'S AN EXTRAORDINARY POWER,
AND IT IS NOT ONE THAT WE
SHOULD EXERCISE LIGHTLY.
IT IS CERTAINLY NOT ONE WHICH
SHOULD BE EXERCISED IN A
MANNER WHICH EITHER IS OR
WOULD BE PERCEIVED BY THE
AMERICAN PEOPLE TO BE UNFAIR
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 PARTY LINE
IMPEACHMENT.
THAT IS NOT A BROAD CONSENSUS.
YOU'RE OVERTURNING THE RESULT
OF A NATIONAL ELECTION, AND
THERE'S NO DOUBTS IT WILL BE
PERCEIVED BY AT LEAST HALF OF
THE AMERICAN PEOPLE AS AN
UNFAIR PARTISAN EFFORT.
YOU ARE BOUND AND DETERMINEED
TO MOVE FORWARD WITH THE
IMPEACHMENT, AND THE AMERICAN
PEOPLE DESERVE BETTER.
I GET IT.
DEMOCRATS ON THIS COMMITTEE
DON'T LIKE THIS PRESIDENT.
THEY DON'T LIKE HIS POLICIES
AND AS A PERSON.
THEY HATE HIS TWEETS.
THEY DON'T LIKE THE MUELLER
INVESTIGATION WAS A FLOP.
SO NOW YOU'RE GOING TO IMPEACH
HIM.
I'VE GOT NEWS FOR YOU, YOU MAY
TWIST ENOUGH ARMS IN THE HOUSE
TO IMPEACH THE PRESIDENT, BUT
THAT'S DIES.
AND THE PRESIDENT WILL LIKELY
BE RE-ELECTED TO A SECOND TERM
WITH THE HELP OF THIS
IMPEACHMENT CHARADE WE'RE
GOING THROUGH NOW, AND WHILE
WASTING THE AMERICAN TIME, AND
MONOTHIS IMPEACHMENT, THERE'S
OTHER PERSONALITY THINGS GOING
UNDONE.
WITHIN THE COMMITTEE'S
JURISDICTION, WE SHOULD BE
WORKING ON THE OPOIDS, AND
ASYLUM AT THE BORDER.
AND PROTECTING AMERICANS FROM
HAVING INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY
BY CHINESE COMPANIESS AND
ENHANCING ELECTION SECURITY,
JUST TO NAME A FEW THINGS.
AND CONGRESS OOZE A WHOLE
COULD BE WORKING ON REBUILDING
OUR CRUMBLING INFRASTRUCTURE,
AND PROVIDING TAX RELIEF TO
THE MIDDLE CLASS AND
ADDITIONAL SECURITY TO OUR
PEOPLE HERE AT HOME AND
ABROAD.
INSTEAD, HERE WE ARE SPINNING
OUR WHEELS ONCE AGAIN ON
IMPEACHMENT.
WHAT A WASTE.
THE AMERICAN PEOPLE DESERVE SO
MUCH BETTER.
YIELD BACK.
>> GENTLEMAN YIELDS BACK.
MR. COLLINS.
>> THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR.
I TAKE NO PLEASURE IN THE FACT
WE'RE HERE.
AS A PATRIOT WHO LOVES
AMERICA, IT PAINS ME THAT THE
CIRCUMSTANCES FORCED US TO
UNDERTAKE THIS GRAVE AND
SOLEMN OBLIGATION.
NONETHELESS IS APPEARS
PRESIDENT TRUMP PRESSUREDu A
FOREIGN GOVERNMENT WILL IN THE
ELECTION BY PRESSURING A
POLITICAL OPPONENT.
WE'RE HERE TO PROTECT THE
CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED
STATES, AND UNDERSTANDING
WHETHER THE PRESIDENT'S
CONDUCT IS IMPEACHABLE.
IT'S ENTIRELY APPROPRIATE THAT
WE'RE EXAMINING OUR NATION'S
HISTORY AS IT RELATES TO
IMPEACHMENT.
THE FRAMERS OF THE
CONSTITUTION FEARED FOR
INTERFERENCE IN THE NATION'S
SOVEREIGNTY AND WANTED TO
ENSURE A CHECK AND BALANCE ON
THE EXECUTIVE.
WE SIT HERE WITH A DUTY TO THE
FOUNDERS, TO FULFILL THEIR
WISDOM AND BE A CHECK ON THE
EXECUTIVE.
WE THE PEOPLES HOUSE ARE THAT
CHECK.
UNDER THE CONSTITUTION THE HOW
ELSE CAN IMPEACH A PRESIDENT
FOR TREASON, BRIBERY AND OTHER
HIGH CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS.
PROFESSOR FELDMAN YOU
DISCUSSED HIGH CRIMES AND
MISDEMEANORS AND THE FACT THAT
HIGH REFERS TO CRIMES AND
MISDEMEANORS.
CAN YOU GIVE US A SUMMARY OF
WHAT HIGH CRIMES AND
MISDEMEANORS ARE, AND HOW
THEY'RE SDIRNGT FROM WHAT
PROFESSOR TURLEY SAID THEY
WERE?
>> YES.
ACTIONS OF THE PRESIDENT IN
OFFICE WHERE HE USESS HAD
OFFICE TO ADVANCE HIS PERSONAL
INTERESTS, POTENTIALLY FOR
PERSONAL GAIN, POTENTIALLY TO
CORRUPT THE ELECTORAL PROCESS,
AND POTENTIALLY AS WELL,
AGAINST THE NATIONAL SECURITY
INTEREST OF THE UNITED STATES.
I WOULD ADD THAT THE WORD HIGH
IS FOR CRIMES AND
MISDEMEANORS.
HIGH CRIMES AND HIGH
MISDEMEANORS, AND I BELIEVE
THE DEFINITION THAT WAS POSTED
EARLIER OF MISDEMEANOR WAS NOT
THE DEFINITION OF HIGH
MISDEMEANOR WHICH WAS A
SPECIFIC TERM BY THE FRAMERS,
AND DISCUSSED IN THE
CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION, BUT
ONLY THE WORD MISDEMEANOR.
THAT'S AN EASY MISTAKE TO
MAKE, BUT HIGH MISDEMEANORS
WERE THEIR OWN CATEGORY OF
ABUSES OF OFFICE AND THOSE
THINGS ARE IMPEACHABLE.
>> THANK YOU, PROFESSOR.
>> PROFESSIONALS FELDMAN AND
GERHARDT YOU INDICATED THREE
CATEGORY OF HIGH CRIMES AND
MISDEMEANORS.
ABUSE OF POWER, BETRAYAL OF
NATIONAL INTEREST, AND
CORRUPTION CORRUPTION.
IS THAT RIGHT?
>> YES, IT IS, AND PRESIDENT
FELDMAN AND GERHARDT, DO YOU
AGREE?
>> YES.
PROFESSOR GERHARDT, YOU SAID
IMPEACHABLE OFFENSE IS
SACRIFICING NATIONAL INTEREST
FOR HIS OWN PRIVATE END.
DO YOU ALL AGREE WITH THAT?
>> YES, SIR.
>> YES.
>> BASED ON THE EVIDENCE THAT
YOU'VE SEEN PROFESSOR FELDMAN,
KARLAN AND GERHARDT, HAS
PRESIDENT TRUMP SACRIFICED THE
COUNTRY'S INTEREST FOR HIS
OWN?
>> YES.
>> AND IS THERE A PARTICULAR
PIECE OF EVIDENCE THAT ILLUMN
NAIFTS THAT?
>> WHAT ILLUMINATES THAT MOST
FOR ME IS THE STATEMENT BY
AMBASSADOR SONDLAND THAT HE
WANTED SIMPLY THE ANNOUNCEMENT
OF AN INVESTIGATION, AND
SEVERAL PEOPLE SAID THE SAME
THING.
TESTIMONY BY AMBASSADOR VOLKER
TO THIS AS WELL.
WHAT HE WANTED WAS JUST
PUBLIC INFORMATION TO DAMAGE
JOE BIDEN.
HE DIDN'T CARE WHETHER JOE
BIDEN WAS FOUND GUILTY OR
EXONERATED
>> PROFESSIONALS FELDMAN, DO
YOU AGREE?
>> MY EMPHASIS WOULD BE THE
FACT THAT THE PRESIDENT HELD
UP AID TO AN ALLY FIGHTING A
WAR IN CONTRAVENTION OF THE
NATIONAL SECURITY COMMITTEE.
THAT SEEMS TO HAVE PLACED HIS
OWN INTERESTS IN PERSONAL
ADVANTAGE AHEAD OF THE --
>> AND BIPARTISAN?
>> YES.
>> PROFESSOR GERHARDT?
>> I AGREE WITH MY COLLEAGUES.
I'M CONCERNED ABOUT THE
PRESIDENT'S OBSTRUCTION OF
CONGRESS, REFUSAL TO COMPLY
WITH A NUMBER OF SUBPOENAS
ORDERING MANY HIGH LEVEL
OFFICIALS IN THE GOVERNMENT
NOT TO COMPLY WITH SUBPOENAS
AND ASKING AND RTDING THE
ENTIRE EXECUTIVE BRANCH NOT TO
COOPERATE WITH CONGRESS.
IT'S USEFUL TO REMEMBER THE
CONSTITUTION SAYS THE HOUSE
HAS THE SOLE POWER TO IMPEACH.
THEY USE THE WORD SOLE TWICE
WITH REFERENCE TO THE HOUSE,
AND ONE WITH REFERENCE TO THE
SENATE WITH RESPECT TO
IMPEACHMENT TRIALS.
SOLE MEANS SOLE ONLY.
>> AND PROFESSOR TURLEY,
YOU'RE A SELF-DESCRIBED
SELF-ANNOINTED DEFENDER OF
ARTICLE 1 CONGRESS GUY.
BUT YOU JUSTIFY THE POSITION
THAT SAYS LEGALLY ISSUED
SUBPOENAS BY CONGRESS
ENFORCING ITS POWERS DON'T
HAVE TO BE COMPLIED WITH.
IT SEEMS YOU'RE AN ARTICLE 2
EXECUTIVE GUY.
YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT THE
JOHNSON IMPEACHMENT IS NOT
USESFUL.
THAT WAS MALADMINISTRATION.
THIS IS A CRIMINAL ACT.
THANK YOU PROFESSORS FOR
HELPING US UNDERSTAND HIGH
CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS.
WE THE PEOPLES REPRESENTATIVES
IN THE PEOPLES HOUSE HAVE A
HIGH RESPONSIBILITY, AND SOLE
POWER TO DEFEND THE
CONSTITUTION AND DEFEND THE
DEMOCRACY, AND WE SHOULD
>> GENTLEMAN'S TIME EXPIRED.
>> THANK YOU.
>> I'M AFRAID THIS HEARING IS
INDICATIVE OF THE INDECENCY TO
WHICH WE'VE COME WHEN INSTEAD
OF COMMITTEE OF JURISDICTION
BRINGING IN FACTS WITH
WITNESSS TO GET TO THE BOTTOM
OF WHAT HAPPENED -- AND NOT
EVEN HAVING TIME TO REVIEW THE
REPORT, BUT TO START THE
HEARING WITH THE CHAIRMAN OF
THE COMMITTEE SAYING THAT THE
FACTS ARE UNDISPUTED.
THE ONLY THING THAT IS
DISPUTED MORE THAN THE FACTS
IN THE 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 THE ACCUMULATED
EXPERIENCE OF THE AGES.
SO HERE WE ARE.
I WOULD SUBMIT THAT WE NEED
SOME 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, AND A
COUPLE NAMED ARE CRITICAL OF
GETING TO THE BOTTOM.
THEY WORK FOR THE NATIONAL
SECURITY COUNCIL.
ABIGAIL GRAY, THEY WERE
INVOLVED IN THE U.S. UKRAINE
AFFAIRS.
THEY WORKED WITH VICE
PRESIDENT BIDEN ON DIFFERENT
MATTERS INVOLVING UKRAINE.
THEY WORKED WITH BRENNAN AND
MASTERS.
THEY HAVE CRITICAL INFORMATION
ABOUT CERTAIN UKRANIANS
INVOLVEMENT IN OUR U.S.
ELECTION.
THEIR RELATIONSHIPS WITH THE
WITNESSES WHO WENT BEFORE THE
INTEL COMMITTEE AND OTHERS
INVOLVED IN THE ALLEGATIONS,
MAKE THEM THE MOST CRITICAL
WITNESSES IN THIS ENTIRE
INVESTIGATION.
AND THE RECORDS, INCLUDING
THEIR E-MAILS AND TEXT
MESSAGES AND FLASH DRIVES AND
COMPUTERS HAVE INFORMATION
THAT WILL BRING THIS EFFORT TO
REMOVE THE PRESIDENT TO A
SCREECHING HALT.
SO WE HAVE ARTICLES HERE FROM
OCTOBER 11th, GARY PICKET --
POINTS OUT THAT HOUSE
INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE
CHAIRMAN, ADAM SCHIFF
RECRUITED AIDES WHO WORKED
ALONGSIDE THE CIA
WHISTLEBLOWER DURING THE OBAMA
ADMINISTRATION.
ABIGAIL GRACE WAS HIREED IN
FEBRUARY WHILE SHAWN MISCO,
AND THE NSCA JOINED SCHIFF'S
COMMITTEE IN AUGUST, THE SAME
MONTH THE WHISTLEBLOWER
SUBMITTED HIS COMPLAINT.
IT GOES ON TO POINT OUT THAT
GRAILS WAS HIREED TO HELP
SCHIFF'S COMMITTEE TO
INVESTIGATE THE TRUMP WHITE
HOUSE.
THAT MONTH TRUMP ACCUSED
SCHIFF OF STEALING PEOPLE WHO
WERE WORKING AT THE WHITE
HOUSE, AND CHAIRMAN SCHIFF
SAID IF THE PRESIDENT IS
WORRIED ABOUT US HIRING FORMER
ADMINISTRATION PEOPLE HEESHLD
WORK ON BEING A BETTER
EMPLOYER.
NO, HE SHOULD HAVE FIRED
EVERYBODY LIKE BILL CLINTON D
ALL THE U.S. ATTORNEYS ON THE
SAME DAY.
THAT WOULD HAVE SAVED US A LOT
OF WHAT'S GOING ON HERE.
ANYWAY, WE NEED THOSE TWO
WITNESSES.
THEY'RE CRITICAL.
AND THEN WE ALSO NEED SOMEONE
WHO WAS A CIA DETAILEE TO THE
UKRAINE, AND THE STATE
DEPARTMENT SHOWS THAT HE WAS
WAS IN THE LAST ELECTIONS, AND
HE SPEAKS ARABIC AND RUSSIAN,
REPORTED DIRECTLY TO CHARLES,
A FRIEND OF THE CLINTON'S
AIDE, BLUMENTHAL, AND DID WORK
FOR THE POLICY OF CORRUPTION,
AND CLOSE TO CONTACT WITH THE
FBI STATE UKRANIAN OFFICIALS.
HAD A COLLATERAL DUTY TO
SUPPORT VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN.
IT WAS BIDEN WHO WAS OBAMA'S
POINT MAN ON UKRAINE.
ASSOCIATED WITH DNC OPERATIVE,
CHALUPA.
MET WITH HER, AND UKRANIAN
DELEGATION.
AND THERE IS ALL KINDS OF
REASONS WE NEED THESE THREE
WITNESSES.
I WOULD ASK PURSUANT TO
SECTION 4, HOUSE RESOLUTION
660, ASK OUR CHAIRMAN TO -- I
MEAN OUR RANKING MEMBER TO
SUBMIT THE REQUEST FOR THESE
THREE WITNESSES, BECAUSE WE'RE
NOT HAVING A FACTUAL HEARING
UNTIL WE HAVE THESE PEOPLE
THAT ARE AT THE BOTTOM OF
EVERY FACT OF THIS
INVESTIGATION.
>> GENTLEMAN --
>> I YIELD BACK.
>> THANKS FOR BRINGING DOWN
THE GAVEL HARD.
>> GENTLEMAN YIELDS BACK.
MR. JOHNSON.
>> THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN,
THE PRESIDENT HAS REGULARLY
AND RECENTLY SOLICITED FOREIGN
INTERFERENCE IN OUR UPCOMING
ELECTION.
PROFESSOR TURLEY WARNS THIS IS
AN IMPULSE MOMENT, AND
SUGGESTS THE HOUSE SHOULD
PAUSE.
PROFESSOR KARLAN, DO YOU AGREE
WITH PROFESSOR TURLEY?
>> NO.
IF YOU CONCLUDE, AS I THINK
THE EVIDENCE TO THIS POINT
SHOWS, THAT THE PRESIDENT IS
SOLICITING FOREIGN INVOLVEMENT
IN OUR ELECTION, YOU NEED TO
ACT NOW TO PREVENT FOREIGN
INTERFERENCE IN THE NEXT
ELECTION LIKE THE ONE WE HAD
IN THE PAST.
>> THANK YOU, PROFESSOR
KARLAN.
IN 30 SECONDS OR LESS TELL US
WHY YOU BELIEVE THE
PRESIDENT'S CONDUCT WAS SO
EGREGIOUS IT MERITS THE
DRASTIC REMEDY OF IMPEACHMENT.
>> BECAUSE HE INVITED THE
RUSSIANS INTO THE PROCESS THE
LAST TIME, AND HE INVITED
UKRANIANS INTO THE PROCESS,
AND SUGGESTED HE WOULD LIKE
THE CHINESE TO COME INTO THE
PROCESS
>> THANK YOU.
ONE OF THE FRAMERS OF OUR
CONSTITUTION, EDMUND RANDALL
WHO AT ONE TIME WAS MAYOR OF
WILLIAMSBURG, VIRGINIA WARNED
US THAT "THE EXECUTIVE WILL
HAVE GREAT OPPORTUNITIES OF
ABUSING HIS POWER."
PROFESSOR FELDMAN, PEOPLE LIKE
MAYOR RANDOLPH REBELLED
BECAUSE OF THE TYRANNY OF THE
KING.
WHY WERE THE FRAMERS 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
STRONGLY THAT THE PEOPLE WERE
KING AND SOVEREIGN.
THAT MEANS THE PRESIDENT
WORKED FOR THE PEOPLE.
THEY KNEW THAT A PRESIDENT WHO
COULDN'T BE CHECKED, WHO COULD
NOT BE SUPERVISESED BY HIS OWN
JUSTICE DEPARTMENT, AND WHO
COULD NOT BE SUPERVISED BY
CONGRESS AND COULD NOT BE
IMPEACHED WOULD EFFECTIVELY BE
ABOVE THE LAW AND USE HIS
POWER TO GET HIMSELF
RE-ELECTED.
>> THANK YOU, PROFESSOR
FELDMAN.
I WANT TO DISCUSS THE FRAMERS
CONCERN ABOUT HOW ABUSE OF
POWER RELATES TO PRESIDENT
TRUMP'S CONDUCT.
ON JULY 25th PRESIDENT TRUMP
SAID TO PRESIDENT ZELENSKY, "I
WOULD LIKE YOU TO DO US A
FAVOR, THOUGH."
PROFESSOR FELDMAN WHO TRUMP
USED USE OF THE WORLD FAVOR
THOUGH, DUENGT HE WAS BENIGNLY
ASKING FOR A FAVOR, AND HOW IS
THE ANSWER TO THAT QUESTION
RELEVANT TO WHETHER THE
PRESIDENT ABUSED POWER?
>> IT'S RELEVANT BECAUSE
THERE'S NOTHING WRONG WITH
SOMEONE ASKING FOR A FAVOR IN
THE INTEREST OF THE UNITED
STATES OF AMERICA.
THE PRESIDENT IS FOR THE
PRESIDENT TO USE HIS OFFICE TO
SOLICIT OR DEMAND A FAVOR FOR
PERSONAL BENEFIT.
THE EVIDENCE STRONGLY SUGGESTS
THAT GIVEN THE POWER OF THE
PRESIDENT, AND GIVEN THE
INCENTIVES THAT THE PRESIDENT
CREATED FOR UKRAINE TO COMPLY
WITH THE REQUEST, THAT THE
PRESIDENT WAS SEEKING TO SERVE
HIS OWN PERSONAL BENEFIT AND
INTEREST.
THAT'S THE DEFINITION OF
CORRUPTION UNDER THE
CONSTITUTION.
>> OTHER WITNESSES HAVE ALSO
TESTIFIED THAT IT WAS THEIR
IMPRESSION THAT WHEN PRESIDENT
TRUMP SAID I WOULD LIKE YOU TO
DO US A FAVOR, THOUGH, THAT HE
WAS ACTUALLY MAKING A DEMANLD
AND NOT A Q. PROFESSOR FELDMAN
HOW DOES LT. COLONEL'S VINLD
MAN'S TESTIMONY THAT IT WAS A
DEMAND BECAUSE OF THE POWER
DESPAIRITY BETWEEN THE TWO
COUNTRIES RELATE BACK TO OUR
FRAMER'S CONCERNS ABOUT ABUSE
OF POWER.
>> HE STATES CLEARLY THAT THE
PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES
HAS SO MUCH MORE POWER THAN
THE PRESIDENT OF UKRAINE THAT
WHEN THE PRESIDENT USES THE
WORD FAVOR, THE REALITY IS
HE'S APPLYING TREMENDOUS
PRESSURE.
THE PRESSURE OF THE POWER 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 COULD SAY KNOW.
WHEN THE PRESIDENT OF THE
UNITED STATES USES THE OFFICE
OF THE PRESIDENT TO ASK FOR A
FAVOR THERE'S NO WAY FOR THE
PRESIDENT OF UKRAINE TO
REFUSE.
>> WE'VE 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.
PRESIDENT KARLAN IS THAT WHY
YOUR TESTIMONY CONCLUDED THAT
THE PRESIDENT ABUSED HIS
POWER?
>> I THOUGHT THE PRESIDENT
ABUSED HIS POWER, BY ASKING
FOR A CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION
OF AN UNITED STATES CITIZEN
FOR POLITICAL ENDS REGARDLESS
OF EVERYTHING ELSE.
THAT'S NOT ICING ON THE CAKE.
IT'S AN AGGRAVATING
CIRCUMSTANCE THAT WAS HERE.
>> THE PRESIDENT HOLDING AN
AMERICAN ALLY OVER A BARREL TO
EXTRACT PERSONAL FAVORS IS
DEEPLY TROUBLING.
THIS IS NOT AN IMPULSE BY
MOMENT.
IT'S A BREAK THE GLASS MOMENT,
AND IMPEACHMENT IS IS THE ONLY
APPROPRIATE REMEDY.
WITH THAT I YIELD BACK.
>> GENTLEMAN YIELDS BACK.
MR. JORDAN.
>> THANK YOU, MR. SPEAKER.
>> BEFORE SPEAKER PELOSI
ANNOUNCED IMPEACHMENT, BEFORE
THE CALL BETWEEN PRESIDENT
TRUMP AND PRESIDENT ZELENSKY
ON JULY 25th.
BEFORE THE MUELLER HEARING IN
FRONT OF THIS COMMITTEE ON
JULY 24th, BEFORE ALL THAT,
THEY HAD ALREADY VOTEED TO
MOVE FORWARD ON IMPEACHMENT.
16 DEMOCRATS ON THE JUDICIARY
MMITTEE VOTEED TO MOVE
FORWARD ON THE IMPEACHMENT
INQUIRY TODAY.
WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THE
POSITIONS THEY'VE TAKEN ARE
CONSTITUTIONAL.
SEEMS A LITTLE BACKWARD TO ME.
WE CAN'T GET AGREEMENT.
WE HAVE FOUR DEMOCRATS, FOUR
PEOPLE WHO VOTED FOR CLINTON,
AND THEY CAN'T AGREE.
TODAY WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THE
CONSTITUTION.
PROFESSOR TURLEY, YOU'VE BEEN
GREAT TODAY, BUT I THINK YOU
WERE WRONG ON ONE THING.
YOU SAID THAT THIS IS A FAST
IMPEACHMENT.
I WOULD ARGUE IT'S NOT FAST.
IT'S A PREDETERMINED
IMPEACHMENT.
PREDETERMINED IMPEACHMENT DONE
IN THE MOST UNFAIR PART SAN
FASHION WE HAVE EVER SEEN.
NO SUBPOENA POWER FOR
REPUBLICANS.
DEPOSITIONS IN SECRET IN THE
BUNKER OF THE CAPITOL.
17 PEOPLE COMING IN, AND NO
ONE ALLOWED IN EXCEPT WHO ADAM
SCHIFF ALLOWED.
CHAIRMAN SCHIFF PREVENTED
REPUBLICANS FROM ANSWERING
QUESTIONS.
EVERY DEMOCRAT QUESTION GOT
ANSWERED.
>> THEY WOULDN'T ALLOW THE
WITNESSES WE WANTED THREE
WEEKS AGO.
DEMOCRATS PROMISED US THE
WHISTLEBLOWER WOULD TESTIFY,
AND THEN CHANGED THEIR MIND.
AND THEY CHANGED THEIR MIND
WHY?
BECAUSE THE WHOLE WORLD
DISCOVERED THAT ADAM SCHIFF'S
STAFF HAD COORDINATED WITH THE
WHISTLEBLOWER.
THE WHISTLEBLOWER WITH NO
FIRSTHAND KNOWLEDGE, AND
BIASED AGAINST THE PRESIDENT
AND WORKED WITH JOE BIDEN,
WHOSE LAWYER IN JANUARY OF '17
SAID THE IMPEACHMENT PROCESS
STARTS THEN.
THAT'S THE UNFAIR PROCESS
WE'VE BEEN THROUGH.
THE REASON IT'S UNFAIR, CUT TO
THE CHASE.
THE REASON IT'S UNFAIR IS
BECAUSE THE FACTS AREN'T ON
THEIR SIDE.
THE FACTS ARE ON THE
PRESIDENT'S SIDE.
FOUR KEY FACTS WILL NEVER
CHANGE.
WE HAVE THE TRANSCRIPT.
THERE'S NO QUID QUO PRO IN THE
TRANSCRIPT.
THE TWO GUYS ON THE CALLER,
PRESIDENT TRUMP AND PRESIDENT
ZELENSKY BOTH SAID NO PRESSURE
OR PUSHING.
UKRANIANS DIDN'T KNOW THE AID
WAS HELD UP AT THE TIME OF THE
PHONE CALL, AND MOST
IMPORTANT, UKRANIANS NEVER
PROMISED TO START, AND NEVER
ANNOUNCED AN INVESTIGATION IN
THE TIME THAT THE AID WAS
PAUSED.
NEVER ONCE.
YOU KNOW WHAT DID HAPPEN IN
THOSE 55 DAYS THAT THE AID WAS
PAUSED.
THERE WERE FIVE KEY MEETINGS
BETWEEN PRESIDENT ZELENSKY AND
SENIOR OFFICIALS IN OUR
GOVERNMENT.
FIVE KEY MEETINGS.
JULY 26, AMBASSADOR VOLKER,
TAYLOR, AND SONDLAND MEET WITH
ZELENSKY.
WE THEN HAD AMBASSADOR VOLKER
END OF AUGUST METEOROLOGIST
WITH PRESIDENT ZELENSKY.
AND THE VICE PRESIDENT MET
WITH ZELENSKY ON SEPTEMBER
1st, AND THEN MORE
IMPORTANTLY, DEMOCRATIC
SENATOR MURPHY, WITH
REPUBLICAN SENATOR JOHNSON MET
WITH PRESIDENT ZELENSKY ON
SEPTEMBER 5th.
NONE OF THESE FIVE MEETINGS
WAS AID SDULSED IN EXCHANGE
FOR SAN ANNOUNCEMENT OF
INVESTIGATION.
>> AND YOU WOULD THINK AFTER
THE UKRANIANS KNEW THE AID WAS
WITHHELD IT WOULD COME UP WITH
THEN, ESPECIALLY WHEN DEMOCRAT
MURPHY WAS TALK K ABOUT IT.
THE FACTS ARE ON THE
PRESIDENT'S SIDE.
WE HAVE AN UNFAIR PROCESS, AND
THEY DON'T HAVE THE FACTS.
WE HAVE AN UNFAIR PROCESS, AND
THIS GETS TO SOMETHING ELSE
YOU SAID, MR. TURLEY.
THIS IS SCARY.
HOW MAD THE KOUBTDRY IS.
THE DEMOCRATS HAVE NEVER
ACCEPTED THE WILL OF THE
AMERICAN PEOPLE.
TO MR. TURLEY'S POINT, 17 DAYS
AGO, THE SPEAKER OF THE UNITED
STATES HOUSE OF
REPRESENTATIVES CALLED THE
PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES
AN IMPOSTOR.
THE GUY 63 MILLION AMERICANS
VOTED FOR, AND WON AN
ELECTORAL LANDSLIDE, THE
SPEAKER CALLED THAT INDIVIDUAL
AN IMPOSTOR.
>> THE FACTS ARE THE FACTS ON
THE PRESIDENT'S SIDE.
THAT'S WHAT WE NEED TO FOCUS
ON.
NOT SOME CONSTITUTIONAL
HEARING.
AT THE END OF THE PROCESS WHEN
YOU'VE ALREADY DETERMINED
WHERE YOU'RE GOING TO GO.
I YIELD BACK.
>> THE GENTLEMAN YIELDS BACK.
>> THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN.
MR. CHAIRMAN, THIS MONTH, WE
COMMEMORATE THE 75th
ANNIVERSARY OF THE BATTLE OF
THE BULGE.
MY LATE FURTHER, STAFF
SERGEANT BERNARD DEUTSCH HE
GAVE BLOOD AMONG TENS OF
THOUSANDS OF AMERICANS WHO
SERVED UNDER OFFICERS AND A
COMMANDER IN CHIEF WHO WERE
NOT FIGHTING A WAR FOR THEIR
OWN PERSONAL BENEFIT.
THEY PUT COUNTRY FIRST.
THEY MADE THE SAME SOLEMN
PROMISE THAT MEMBERS OF
CONGRESS AND THE PRESIDENT OF
THE UNITED STATES MAKE, TO
ALWAYS PUT NATIONAL INTERESTS
ABOVE THEIR OWN PERSONAL
INTERESTS.
IT IS EVIDENCE SHOWS THE
PRESIDENT BROKE THAT PROMISE.
STUEG GIVES THE PRESIDENT
ENORMOUS POWER.
IT ALSO IMPOSES A REMEDY,
IMPEACHMENT, WHEN THOSE POWERS
ARE ABUSED.
IN JULY, PRESIDENT TRUMP SAYS,
AND I QUOTE, I HAVE AN ARTICLE
2, THE RIGHT TO DO WHATEVER I
WANT AS PRESIDENT,".
>> PROFESSIONALS FELDMAN THE
PRESIDENT HAS BROAD POWER,
RIGHT?
>> YES, SIR.
>> DO THOSE POWERS MEAN THAT
THE PRESIDENT CAN DO AS HE
SAID, WHATEVER HE WANTS AS
PRESIDENT?
CAN HE ABUSE THE POWERS THAT
THE CONSTITUTION GIVES HIM?
>> HE MAY NOT.
IF THE PRESIDENT USES POWERS
FOR PERSONAL GAIN OR CORRUPT
AN ELECTION OR AGAINST THE
NATIONAL SECURITY INTERESTS OF
THE UNITED STATES, HE MAY BE
IMPEACHED FOR HIGH CRIME AND
MISDEMEANOR.
>> IF USING HIS POWER TO
INTERFERE IN U.S. ELECTIONS AN
ABUSE OF THAT POWER?
>> YES, SIR.
>> PROFESSIONALS GERHARDT HOW
WOULD THE FRAMERS OF THE
CONSTITUTION VIEWED THE
PRESIDENT ASKING FOR ELECTION
INTERFERENCE OF A FOREIGN
LEADER?
>> IT'S ALWAYS PRACTICALLY
IMPOSSIBLE TO KNOW EXACTLY
WHAT THE FRAMERS WOULD THINK,
BUT NOT HOW THE CONSTITUTION
DEALS WITH IT.
AND UNDER THE CONSTITUTION
IT'S PLAINLY AN ABUELS OF
POWER.
IT'S HORRIFYING ABUSE OF
POWER.
>> WE'VE HEARD WITNESSES
TESTIFY ABOUT CONCERNS WHEN
THE PRESIDENT USED FOREIGN
POLICY FSH POLITICAL GAIN.
LT. COLONEL VINDMAN WAS
SHOCKED AND COULDN'T BELIEVE
WHAT HE HEARD ON THE PHONE
CALL, DIVERGING FROM EFFORTS
TO PROTECT THE NATIONAL
SECURITY POLICY.
AND AMBASSADOR TAYLOR THOUGHT
IT WAS CRAZY TO WITHHOLD
SECURITY ASSISTANCE FOR HELP
ON A POLITICAL CAMPAIGN.
PROFESSOR KARLAN, THESE
CONCERNS AREN'T 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
HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS OF
DOLLARS IN SECURITY ASSISTANCE
FOR HELP WITH HIS RE-ELECTION,
THAT CAN'T BE PART OF OUR
NATION'S FOREIGN POLICY, CAN
IT?
>> NO.
IT'S THE ESSENCE OF DOING
SOMETHING FOR PERSONAL REASONS
RATHER THAN FOR POLITICAL
REASONS.
IF I COULD JUST SAY ONE THING
ABOUT THIS BRIEFLY, MAYBE WHEN
HE WAS FIRST RUNNING FOR
PRESIDENT HE HAD NEVER BEEN
ANYTHING OTHER THAN A REALITY
TV SHOW -- THAT WAS HIS PUBLIC
LIFE -- MAYBE HE COULD SAY
RUSSIA IF YOU'RE LISTENING
IT'S OKAY.
BUT BY THE TIME HE SAID
UKRAINE HELP ME WITH THE
RE-ELECTION, HE HAD TO KNOW
THAT WAS NOT CONSISTENT WITH
OATH OF OFFICE.
>> ARE FOUNDERS GRANTING THE
PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES
ENORMOUS POWERS.
BUT AT THE SAME TIME, WHAT
WE'VE BEEN REMINDED OF TODAY,
THEY WORRIED THE POWERS COULD
BE ABUSED BY A CORRUPT
PRESIDENT.
THE EVIDENCE OF ABUSE OF POWER
IN THIS INQUIRY PROVED OUR
FOUNDERS WERE RIGHT TO BE
WORRIED.
YES, YES.
THE PRESIDENT HAS THE POWER TO
DIRECT AMERICA'S FOREIGN
POLICY.
BUT NO, HE CANNOT USE THAT
POWER TO CHEAT IN OUR
ELECTIONS.
REMEMBER, I ASK ALL OF MY
COLLEAGUES TO REMEMBER, THE
CONSTITUTION GRANTS THE
PRESIDENT HIS POWER THROUGH
THE AMERICAN PEOPLE.
THE PRESIDENT'S SOURCE OF
POWER IS A DEMOCRATIC
ELECTION.
IT IS THE AMERICAN PEOPLE, THE
VOTERS WHO TRUSTED HIM TO LOOK
OUT FOR THEM.
LOOKING OUT FOR THE COUNTRY.
BUT INSTEAD, PRESIDENT TRUMP
LOOKED OUT FOR HIMSELF, AND
HELPING HIMSELF TO GET
RE-ELECTED.
HE ABUSED THE POWER THAT WE
TRUSTED HIM WITH FOR PERSONAL
AND POLITICAL GAIN.
THE FOUNDERS WORRIED ABOUT
JUST THIS TYPE OF ABUSE OF
POWER, AND THEY PROVIDEED ONE
WAY.
ONE WAY FOR CONGRESS TO
RESPOND, AND THAT'S THE POWER
OF IMPEACHMENT.
I YIELD BACK.
>> GENTLEMAN YIELDS BALK.
MR. BUCK.
>> THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN.
PROFESSIONALS TURLEY, I WANT
TO ASK A QUESTION TO YOU.
THE OTHER THREE WITNESSES HAVE
IDENTIFIED STANDARD FOR
IMPEACHING A PRESIDENT.
THEY HAVE SAID THAT IF A
PRESIDENT ABUSES HAD POWER FOR
PERSONAL OR POLITICAL GAIN,
IT'S IMPEACHABLE CONDUCT.
DO YOU AGREE WITH ME?
>> NOT THE SAY IT'S STATED.
>> I'VE GOT A LONG WAYS TO GO
HERE?
>> THERE'S NO MANY STANDARDS.
ONE WAS ATTEMPTING TO ABUSE
OFFICE.
I'M NOT SURE HOW TO RECOGNIZE
THAT OR DEFINE IT.
>> LET ME GO WITH A FEW
EXAMPLES AND SEE IF YOU AGREE.
LYNDON JAUNSOG DIRECTED THE
CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY TO
PLACE A SPY IN BARRY
GOLDWATER'S CAMPAIGN.
THAT SPY GOT ADVANCE COPIES OF
SPEECHES AND DELIVERED THAT TO
THE JOHNSON CAMPAIGN.
WOULD THAT BE IMPEACHABLE
CONDUCT ACCORDING TO THE OTHER
PANELISTS?
>> IT SPEAKS BROADLY, SO I
THINK SO.
>> HOW ABOUT WHEN PRESIDENT
JOHNSON PUT A WIRE TAP ON
GOLDWATER'S CAMPAIGN PLANE?
WOULD THAT BE FOR POLITICAL
BENEFIT?
>> I CAN'T EXCLUDE ANYTHING
UNDER THAT ISSUE.
>> I'LL GO WITH A FEW OTHERS.
CONGRESSMAN DEUTSCH INFORMED
US THAT F.D.R. PUT COUNTRY
FIRST.
FRANKLIN ROOSEVELT DIRECTED
THE IRS TO CONDUCT AUDITS ON
HIS POLITICAL ENEMIES.
NAMELY, HUEY LONG, WILLIAM
HEARST.
HAMILTON PHISH.
FATHER COUGHLIN.
WOULD THAT BE ABUSE OF
POLITICAL POWER ACCORDING TO
THE OTHER PANELISTS.
>> I THINK
>> HOW ABOUT WHEN PRESIDENT
KENNEDY DIRECTEDS HAD BROTHER
ROBERT KENNEDY TO DEPORT ONE
OF HIS MISTRESSES AS AN
EASTERN GERMAN SPY.
WOULD THAT QUALIFY AS
IMPEACHABLE CONDUCT?
>> I CAN'T EXCLUDE IT.
>> AND WHEN HE DIRECTED THE
FBI TO USE WIRE TAPS ON
CONGRESSIONAL STAFFERS WHO
EXPOSED HIM?
WOULD THAT BE IMPEACHABLE
CONDUCT?
>> IT SEEMS TO BE FALLING
WITHIN IT.
AND LET'S GO TO BARACK OBAMA.
WHEN BARACK OBAMA DIRECTED --
OR MADE A FINDING THAT THE
SENATE WAS IN RECESS AND
APPOINTED PEOPLE TO THE
NATIONAL RELATIONS BOARD AND
LOST 9-0, RUTH BADER GINSBERG
VOTED AGAINST THE PRESIDENT ON
THIS ISSUE -- WOULD THAT BE
ABUSE OF POWER?
>> YOU'D HAVE TO DIRECT IT TO
OTHERS.
I DON'T SEE EXCLUSIONS UNDER
THEIR DEFINITION.
>> AND HOW ABOUT WHEN THE
PRESIDENT DIRECTED HIS
NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISER TO
LIE TO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE
ABOUT WHETHER THE AMBASSADOR
TO LIBYA WAS MURDERED AS A
RESULT OF A VIDEO OR WAS
MURDERED AS A RESULT OF A
TERRORIST ACT?
WOULD THAT BE ABUSE OF POWER
17 DAYS BEFORE THE NEXT
ELECTION?
>> NOT ACCORDING TO MY
DEFINITION, BUT THEY HAVE TO
RESPOND ON THEIR OWN.
>> YOU'VE HEARD THEIR
DEFINITION.
>> I HAVE A HARD TIME
EXCLUDING ANYTHING.
>> HOW ABOUT WHEN ABRAHAM
LINCOLN ARRESTED LEGISLATORS
IN MARYLAND SO THAT THEY
WOULDN'T CONVENE TO SECEDE
FROM THE UNION.
VIRGINIA SECEDEED, AND IT
WOULD HAVE PLACED WASHINGTON,
D.C. IN THE MIDDLE OF THE
REBEBLION.
THAT WOULD BE ABUSE OF POWER?
>> IT COULD BE.
>> AND YOU MENTIONED GEORGE
WASHINGTON A LITTLE WHILE AGO
AS PERHAPS HAVING MET THE
STANDARD OF IMPEACHMENT TO
YOUR OTHER PANELISTS.
>> IN FACT, PROFESSOR TURLEY,
CAN YOU NAME A SINGLE
PRESIDENT IN THE HISTORY OF
THES, SAVE PRESIDENT HARRISON
WHO DIED 32 DAYS AFTER
INAUGURATION THAT WOULDN'T
HAVE MET THE IMPEACHMENT
STANDARD BY THE FRIEND HERE.
>> I HOPE TO GOD JAMES MADISON
WOULD HAVE ESCAPED, OTHERWISE
A LIFETIME OF ACADEMIC WORK
WOULD BE SHREDDED.
BUT ONCE AGAIN I CAN'T EXCLUDE
MANY OF THESE ACTS.
>> IT'S OBJECT WHAT AND IRE
AFRAID OF.
IT'S THE STANDARD THAT YOUR
FRIENDS TO THE RIGHT OF YOU,
AND NOT POLITICALLY, BUT TO
THE RIGHT OF YOU -- THAT YOUR
FRIENDS HAVE DECIDED THAT THE
BAR IS SO LOW THAT WHEN WE
HAVE A DEMOCRAT PRESIDENT IN
OFFICE, AND A REPUBLICAN
HOUSE, AND A REPUBLICAN
SENATE, WE'RE GOING TO BE
GOING THROUGH THIS WHOLE
SCENARIO AGAIN IN A WAY THAT
REALLY PUTS THE COUNTRY AT
RISK.
>> WHEN YOUR GRAPHIC SAYS THAT
IT'S A BETRAYAL OF NATIONAL
INTERESTS, I WOULD SIMPLY ASK,
DO YOU REALLY WANT THAT TO BE
YOUR STANDARD.
>> ISN'T THE DIFFERENCE,
PROFESSOR TURLEY THAT SOME
PEOPLE LIVE IN AN IVORY TOWER,
AND SOME PEOPLE LIVE IN A
SWAMP.
THOSE IN THE SWAMP ARE DOING
OUR BEST FOR THE AMERICAN PEEP
PEOPLE.
>> I LIVE IN AN IVORY POWER IN
A SWAMP, AND IT'S NOT SO BAD.
>> I FIELD BACK.
>> GENTLEMAN YIELDS BACK.
>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH, AND I
WANT TO THANK THE WITNESSES.
I DON'T BELIEVE THE PEOPLE'S
HOUSE IS A SWAMP.
>> PRESIDENT NIXON WAS
IMPEACHED FOR ABUSE OF POWER
BECAUSE HIS CONDUCT WAS
UNDERTAKEN FOR HAD PERSONAL
POLITICAL ADVANTAGE AND NOT IN
FURTHERANCE OF NATIONAL POLICY
OBJECTIVE.
PROFESSIONALS GERHARDT, WHY
WAS IT SIGNIFICANT THAT
PRESIDENT NIXON ACTED FOR
PERSONAL POLITICAL ADVANTAGE
AND NOT IN FURTHERANCE OF
NATIONAL POLICY OBJECTIVE?
>> IT'S PRIMARILY SIGNIFICANT
BECAUSE IN ACTING FOR HIS OWN
PERSONAL BENEFIT, AND NOT FOR
THE BENEFIT OF THE COUNTRY, HE
CROSSED THE LINE.
THE LINE HERE IS VERY CLEAR.
IT BECOMES ABUSE OF POWER WHEN
SOMEBODY IS USING SPECIAL
AUTHORITIES OF THEIR OFFICE
FOR THEIR OWN PERSONAL
BENEFIT, NOT THE BENEFIT OF
THE COUNTRY.
>> CAN THE SAME BE SAID OF
PRESIDENT TRUMP?
>> IT COULD BE, YES.
>> THANK YOU.
I'M STRUCK BY THE PARALLELS.
ONE OF THE THINGS THAT NIXON
DID WAS HE LAUNCHED TAX
INVESTIGATIONS OF HIS
POLITICAL OPPONENTS.
HERE THE EVIDENCE SHOWS TRUMP
TRIED TO LAUNCH A CRIMINAL
INVESTIGATION OF HIS POLITICAL
OPPONENT BY A FOREIGN
GOVERNMENT.
WE HAVE HEARD EVIDENCE
SUGGESTING PRESIDENT TRUMP DID
THIS FOR HIS OWN PERSONAL
GAIN, AND OPERATING NATIONAL
POLICY INTERESTS.
PRESIDENT TRUMP SAID HE
WITHHELD THE AID BECAUSE OF
CORRUPTION.
I DO BELIEVE WE HAVE EXAMPLES
OF THE EVIDENCE OF THE TRUTH.
>> AMBASSADOR SONLD LAND
STATED THAT THE PRESIDENT ONLY
CARES ABOUT BIG STUFF.
I NOTICED BIG STUFF GOING ON
IN UKRAINE LIKE A WAR WITH
RUSSIA.
AMBASSADOR SONDLAND REPLIED HE
MEANT BIG STUFF TO BENEFIT THE
PRESIDENT LIKE THE BIDEN
INVESTIGATION THAT GIULIANI
WAS PUSHING.
>> PROFESSOR FELDMAN, WHAT
WOULD THE FRAMERS HAVE THOUGHT
OF A PRESIDENT WHO ONLY CARES
ABOUT "BIG STUFF THAT BENEFITS
HIM."
THE FRAMERS WERE EXTREMELY
WORRIED BR A PRESIDENT WHO
ONLY SERVED HIS OWN INTEREST
OR THE INTEREST OF FOREIGN
POWER.
THAT WAS A SERIOUS CONCERN
WHEN THEY DESIGNED THE REMEDY
OF IMPEACHMENT.
THE EVIDENCE ALSO SUGGEST THAD
PRESIDENT TRUMP DIDN'T CARE IF
THE INVESTIGATION HAPPENED.
WHEN WHAT HE CARED ABOUT WAS
THE PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENT OF THE
INVESTIGATION.
PROFESSOR KARLAN, HOW WOULD WE
ANALYZE THESE FACTS IN THE
CONTEXT OF ABUSE OF POWER?
>> I THINK TO HAVE A PRESIDENT
ASK FOR THE INVESTIGATION OF
HIS POLITICAL OPPONENTS IS AN
ART TYPE OF THE ABUSE OF
POWER.
MR. BUCK MENTIONED PAST
EXAMPLES OF THIS.
AND TO SAY THAT THOSE WEREN'T
IMPEACHABLE IS A BIG MISTAKE.
IF A PRESIDENT WIRE TAPS
OPPONENTS, THAT'S A FEDERAL
CRIME NOW.
I DON'T KNOW IF 1968 IT WAS.
IF THE PRESIDENT WIRE TAPPED
OPPONENTS TODAY, THAT WOULD BE
IMPEACHABLE CONDUCT.
>> I ALSO SERVE ON THE FOREIGN
AFFAIRS COMMITTEE, AND
SIUNDERSTAND HOW SIGNIFICANT
IT IS TO FOREIGN LEADERS TO
MEET WITH OUR PRESIDENT, TO
ATTEND A MEETING IN THE OVAL
OFFICE.
IT'S VERY SIGNIFICANT.
PRESIDENT ZELENSKY IS A NEWLY
ELECTED HEAD OF STATE IN A
FLEDGLING DEMOCRACY.
HIS COUNTRY IS AT WAR WITH ITS
NEIGHBOR.
RUSSIA INVADED AND IT
OCCUPYING HIS COUNTRY'S
TERRITORY.
HE NEEDED THE MILITARY
RESOURCES TO DEFEND HIS
COUNTRY.
HE NEEDED DIPLOMATIC
RECOGNITION OF THE AMERICAN
PRESIDENT, AND HE WAS PREPARED
TO DO WHATEVER THE PRESIDENT
DEMANDED.
MANY YEARS AGO I WORKED IN THE
NATION'S LARGE TRAUMA UNIT AS
A PHYSICIANS ASSISTANT.
I SAW PEOPLE IN SEVERE PAIN
AFTER ACTS OF VIOLENCE.
PATIENTS WERE AFRAID, AND HAD
TO WAIT 5 TO 8 HOURS TO BE
SEEN.
CAN YOU IMAGINE FOR ONE MINUTE
IF I HAD TOLD MY PATIENTS, I
CAN MOVE YOU UP IN LINE AND
TAKE CARE OF YOUR PAIN, BUT I
NEED A FAVOR FROM YOU.
MY PATIENTS WERE IN PAIN AND
NEED WERE DESPERATE AND WOULD
HAVE AGREED TO ANYTHING I
ASKED.
THIS WOULD HAVE BEEN AN ABUSE
OF MY POSITION BECAUSE OF THE
POWER DYNAMIC.
I HAD THE POWER TO RELIEVE MY
PATIENTS FROM EXPERIENCING
PAIN.
IT'S WRONG, AND IN MANY CASES
ILLEGAL FOR US TO USE POWER TO
TAKE ADVANTAGE OF THOSE IN
CRISIS, ESPECIALLY A
PRESIDENT,SPECIALLY WHEN
LIVES ARE AT STAKE.
I YIELD BACK.
>> THE GENTLELADY YIELDS BACK.
MR. RADCLIFFE?
>> THANK YOU, PROFESSOR
TURLEY, YOU SAID SOMETHING
THEY THINK BEARS REPEATING.
YOU SAID I'M NOT A SUPPORTER
OF PRESIDENT TRUMP.
I VOTED AGAINST HIM IN 2016,
AND I HAVE PREVIOUSLY VOTED
FOR PRESIDENTS CLINTON AND
OBAMA.
>> DESPITE POLITICAL
PERSUASIONS YOU REACHED THIS
CONCLUSION.
THE CURRENT LEGAL CASE FOR
IMPEACHMENT IS NOT JUST
WOEFULLY INADEQUATE, BUT IN
SOME RESPECTS DANGEROUS.
THE BASIS ARE IF IMPEACHMENT
OF AN AMERICAN PRESIDENT.
LET ME START BY COMMENDING YOU
FOR BEING THE KIND OF EXAMPLE
OF WHAT HOPEFULLY EVERYONE ON
THIS COMMITTEE WILL DO AS WE
APPROACH THE TASK THAT WE HAVE
OF DETERMINING WHETHER OR NOT
THERE WERE IMPEACHABLE
OFFENSES HERE.
ONE OF THE PROBLEMS THAT
YOU'VE ARTICULATED AS LEAVING
YOU TO THE CONCLUSION OF
CALLING THIS THE SHOULD BE THE
THINNEST RECORD AND NARROWEST
GROUNDS EVER ATTEMPTED TO
IMPEACH A PRESIDENT IS THE
IMPACT THERE'S AN EVER
CHANGING CONSTANTLY EVOLVING
MOVING TARTIONET OF
ACCUSATIONS, IF YOU WILL.
THE JULY 25th PHONE CALL
STARTED OUT AS AN ALLEGED QUID
QUO PRO, AND BRIEFLY BECAME AN
EXTORTION SCHEME, A BRIBERY
SCHEME, I THINK BACK TO QUID
QUO PRO.
NOW BESIDES POINTING OUT THAT
BOTH SPEAKER PELOSI AND
CHAIRMAN SCHIFF WAITED UNTIL
ALMOST EVERY WITNESS HAD BEEN
DEPOSED BEFORE THEY USED THE
TERM BRIBERY.
YOU CLEARLY ARTICULATED WHY
YOU THINK THE DEFINITIONS THEY
USED PUBLICLY ARE FLAWED, IF
NOT UNCONSTITUTIONAL IN THE
18th OR THE 21st CENTURY.
BUT WOULDUL AGREE WITH ME THAT
BRIBERY UNDER ANY VALID
DEFINITION REQUIRES A SPECIFIC
QUID QUO PRO BE PROVEN?
>> MORE IMPORTANTLY, THE
SUPREME COURT HAS FOCUSED ON
THAT ISSUE, AS WELL AS THE
DEFINITION OF A QUID QUO PRO.
IF MILITARY AID OR ASSISTANCE
IS PART OF THAT QUID QUO PRO
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'S THE REASON WE KEEP
HEARING THE WORD CIRC STASHLT
AND INFERENTIAL.
THAT'S CONCERNING.
THOSE ARE APPROPRIATE TERMS.
IT'S NOT THAT YOU CAN'T HAVE A
CASE.
THEY'RE APPROPRIATE TERMS IF
THEY WERE KNOWABLE FACTS.
BUT SO MANY WITNESSES HAVE NOT
BEEN SUBPOENAED OR HEARD FROM.
>> RIGHT.
SO IF IT'S NOT IN THE
TRANSCRIPT, IT HAS TO COME
FROM WITNESS TESTIMONY, AND I
ASSUME YOU REVIEWED THE
WITNESS TESTIMONY.
SO YOU KNOW THAT NO WITNESS
TESTIFIED THAT THEY EITHER
HEARD PRESIDENT TRUMP OR WERE
TOLD BY PRESIDENT TRUMP TO
WITHHOLD MILITARY AID,
CORRECT?
>> CORRECT.
SO LET ME TURN TO THE ISSUE OF
OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE
QUICKLY.
I THINK YOU ASSUMED, AS I DID,
THAT WHEN DEMOCRATS HAVE BEEN
TALKING ABOUT OBSTRUCTION, IT
WAS SPECIFICALLY RELATED TO
THE UKRAINE ISSUE.
I KNOW YOU TALKED ABOUT THAT A
LOT TODAY.
YOU CLEARLY STATED YOU THINK
THE PRESIDENT HAD NO CORRUPT
INTENT.
ON PAGE 39 OF YOUR REPORT YOU
SAID SOMETHING ELSE.
I THINK IT BEARS REPEATING
TODAY.
YOU WERE HIGHLIGHTING THE FACT
THAT THE DEMOCRATS APPEAR TO
TAKE THE POSITION THAT IF A
PRESIDENT SEEKS JUDICIAL
REVIEW OVER EXECUTIVE BRANCH
TESTIMONY OR DOCUMENTS
SUBPOENAED BY CONGRESS, THAT
RATHER THAN LET K THE COURTS
BE THE ARBITER, CONGRESS
CAN SIMPLY IMPEACH THE
PRESIDENT FOR OBSTRUCTION
BASEED ON THAT.
DID I HEAR YOU SAY THAT IF WE
WERE TO PROCEED ON THAT BASIS
THAT WOULD BE ABUSE OF POWER?
>> I DID.
LET ME BE CLEAR ABOUT THIS.
I DON'T DISAGREE WITH MY
COLLEAGUES THAT NOTHING IN THE
CONSTITUTION SAYS YOU HAVE TO
GO TO A COURT OR WAIT FOR A
COURT.
THAT'S NOT WHAT I'M SAYING.
WHAT I'M SAYING IS THAT WHEN
YOU WANT A WELL BASED
LEGITIMATE IMPEACHMENT CASE,
TO SET THIS ABBREVIATED
SCHEDULE, DEMAND DOCUMENTS AND
THEN IMPEACH BECAUSE THEY
HAVEN'T BEEN TURNED OVER WHEN
THEY GO TO A COURT -- THE
PRESIDENT GOES TO COURT -- I
THINK THAT IS ABUSE OF POWER.
THAT'S NOT WHAT HAPPENED IN
NIXON.
IN FACT, THE ULTIMATE DECISION
IN NIXON IS THERE ARE
LEGITIMATE EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE
CLAIMS TO BE RAISED.
SOME OF THEM DEAL WITH THIS
CASE.
LIKE A NATIONAL SECURITY
ADVISER.
LIKE A WHITE HOUSE COUNSEL.
SO THE CONCERN HERE IS NOT
THAT THERE IS -- THAT YOU
CAN'T EVER IMPEACH A PRESIDENT
UNLESS YOU GO TO COURT.
IT'S JUST THAT YOU SHOULDN'T
WHEN HAVE TIME TO DO IT.
>> SO IF I WERE TO SUMMARIZE
YOUR TESTIMONY, NO BRIBERY,
EXTORTION, NO ABUSE OF POWER,
IS THAT FAIR?
>> NOT ON THIS RECORD.
>> THE GENTLEMAN'S TIME
EXPIRED.
>> MR. RICHMOND?
>> THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN.
LET ME PICK UP WHERE WE LEFT
OFF.
I'M GOING TO START, MR. TURLEY
WITH YOUR WORDS.
YOUR OPINION PIECE ON THE
HILL.
YOU SAID "AS I HAVE SAID
BEFORE, THERE'S NO QUESTION
THAT THE USE OF PUBLIC OFFICE
FOR PERSONAL GAIN IS AN
IMPEACHABLE OCHBLS, 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 J OFFICE FOR PERSONAL
GAIN, YOU HAVE A VIABLE
IMPEACHABLE OFFENSE."
WE HEARD THE PRESIDENT ABUSES
POWER WHEN HE USES IT FOR HIS
OWN INTEREST RATHER THAN THE
COUNTRY.
I'D LIKE TO SPEEND MORE TIME
ON THAT.
I'M STRUCK BY ONE OF THE
THINGS AT STAKE HERE.
$400 MILLION TAXPAYER DOLLARS.
PRESIDENT NIXON LEVERAGED THE
POWER OF HIS OFFICE TO
INVESTIGATE POLITICAL RIVALS,
BUT HERE, EVIDENCE SHOWS
PRESIDENT TRUMP LEVERAGED
TAXPAYER DOLLARS TO GET
UKRAINE TO ANNOUNCE AN
INVESTIGATION OF PRESIDENT
TRUMP'S POLITICAL RIVALS.
THAT TAXPAYER MONEY WAS MEANT
FOR UKRAINE TO DEFEND ITSELF
AND DEFEND UTZ INTERESTS FROM
RUSSIAN AGGRESSION.
THE MONEY HAD BEEN
APPROPRIATED BY CONGRESS AND
CERTIFIED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF
DEFENSE.
MULTIPLE WITNESSES CONFIRMED
THERE WAS UNANIMOUS SUPPORT
FOR THE MILITARY AID TO
UKRAINE.
CAN WE LISTEN TO THAT, PLEASE.
>> FROM WHAT YOU WITNESSED,
DID ANYBODY IN THE NATIONAL
SECURITY COMMUNITY SUPPORT
WITHHOLDING THE ASSISTANCE?
>> N
>> I NEVER HEARD ANYONE
ADVOCATE FOR WITHHOLDING THE
AID.
>> AND THE THEY SUPPORTED THE
CONTINUATION OF THE SECURITY
ASSISTANCE, IS THAT RIGHT?
>> THAT IS CORRECT.
>> I AND OTHERS SAT IN
ASTONISHMENT, UKRANIANS WERE
FIGHTING RUSSIANS, AND COUNTED
ON NOT ONLY THE TRAINING AND
WEAPONS, BUT ALSO THE
ASSURANCE OF U.S. SUPPORT.
>> PROFESSOR FELDMAN, YOU
STATED THAT THE PRESIDENT'S
DEMANDS TO THE PRESIDENT OF
UKRAINE CONSTITUTED AN ABUSE
OF POWER.
HOW DOES THE PRESIDENT'S
DECISION TO WITHHOLD MILITARY
AID AFFECT YOUR ANALYSIS?
>>
>> IT MEANS IT WASN'T JUST AN
ABUSE OF POWER BECAUSE THE
PRESIDENT WAS SERVING HIS
PERSONAL INTERESTS, BUT ALSO
ABUSE OF POWER PUTTING THE
AMERICAN NATIONAL SECURITY
INTEREST BEHIND HIS OWN
PERSONAL INTERESTS.
IT BROUGHT TOGETHER TWO
IMPORTANT ASPECTS.
SELF-GAIN, AND UNDERCUTTING
NATIONAL SECURITY INTERESTS.
>> DOES EVIDENCE POINT TO
PRESIDENT TRUMP USING MILITARY
AID FOR HIS PERSONAL BENEFIT
NOT FOR THE BENEFIT OF
OFFICIAL U.S. POLICY.
PROFESSOR KARLAN,]uoïju WOULD
THE FRAMERS HAVE INTERPRETED
THAT?
>> WELL, I CAN'T SPEAK FOR THE
FRAMERS THEMSELVES, OBVIOUSLY.
MY VIEWIS THAT THEY WOULD SAY
THAT THE PRESIDENT'S AUTHORITY
TO USE FOREIGN AID -- AND THEY
COULDN'T HAVE IMAGINED WE WERE
EVEN GIVING FOREIGN AID
BECAUSE WE WERE A TINY POOR
COUNTRY THEN -- IT'S HARD TO
TRANSLATE THAT.
BUT THEY WOULD HAVE SAID A
PRESIDENT WHO DOESN'T THINK
FIRST THAT THE SECURITY OF THE
UNITED STATES IS NOT DOING
WHAT HIS OATH REQUIRES HIM TO
DO, AND FAITHFULLY EXECUTE THE
LAWS APPROPRIATING MONY AND
DEFEND THE CONSTITUTION OF THE
UNITED STATES.
>> THANK YOU.
LET'S GO BACK TO A SEGMENT OF
MR. TURLEY'S QUOTE, THAT IF
YOU CAN ESTABLISH TO USE
PUBLIC OFFICE FOR PERSONAL
GAIN, YOU HAVE A VIABLE
IMPEACHABLE OFFENSE.
MR. FELDMAN, DO WE MEET THAT
CRITERIA HERE?
>> IN MY VIEW THE EVIDENCE
DOES MEET THAT CRITERIA, AND
THAT'S THE JUDGMENT YOU SHOULD
BE MAKING.
>> MISS KARLAN?
>> YES.
ONE QUESTION I WOULD HAVE FOR
THE MINORITY MEMBERS OF THE
COMMITEE, IF YOU WERE
CONVINCEID THAT THE PRESIDENT
HELD UP THE AID BECAUSE HE
THOUGHT IT WOULD HELP
RE-ELECTION, WOULD YOU VOTE TO
IMPEACH HIM?
THAT'S THE QUESTION THAT
EVERYONE SHOULD BE ASKING.
IF THEY CONCLUDE YES, 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.
IT'S YOUR JOB, IT'S THE
HOUSE'S JOOB TO DEFINE
BRIBERY, NOT THE COURTS.
YOU FOLLOW YOUR JUDGMENT ON
IT.
>> I WANT TO THANK ALL THE
WITNESSES TO COMING IN AND
TESTIFYING TODAY.
THIS IS NOT AN EASY DECISION.
IT'S NOT A COMFORTABLE
DECISION, BUT IT'S ONE THAT'S
NECESSARY.
WE ALL TAKE AN OATH TO PROTECT
THE CONSTITUTION, OUR
MILITARY, OUR MEN AND WOMEN
WHO PUT THEIR LIVES ON THE
LINE FOR THE CONSTITUTION, AND
WE HAVE WE HAVEAN OBLIGATION TOE
CONSTITUTION WHETHER IT IS EASY
OR NOT.
I YIELD BACK.
>> VERY QUICKLY PROFESSOR
CHARLIE, WOULD YOU LIKE TO
RESPOND?
>> YES, I WOULD.
FIRST OF ALL, WHAT WAS SAID IN
THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT I SAID IN
MY TESTIMONY.
THE PROBLEM IS NOT ABUSE OF
POWER CAN NEVER BE AN
IMPEACHABLE OFFENSE YOU JUST
HAVE TO PROVE IT AND YOU
HAVEN'T.
IT'S NOT ENOUGH TO SAY I INFER
THIS WAS THE PURPOSE.
I N INFER THAT THIS IS WHAT WAS
INTENDED WHEN YOU'RE NOT
ACTUALLY SUBPOENAING PEOPLE WITH
DIRECT KNOWLEDGE.
INSTEAD YOU'RE SAYING WE MUST
VOTE IN THIS ROCKET DOCKET OF
IMPEACHMENT.
>> THIS LEADS TO A MASS
STATEMENT I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE.
OF COURSE THE UNITED STATES
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES HAS
INITIATED IMPEACHMENT INQUIRIES
AGAINST THE PRESIDENT OF THE
UNITED STATES ONLY THREE TIMES
IN OUR NATION'S 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 FALL,
FACT WITNESSES THAT HAVE BEEN
CALLED WERE IN FRONT OF THE
INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE.
WE HAVE GIVEN NO CASE THIS
COMMITTEE WILL HAVE SUBSEQUENT
HEARINGS WITH FACT WITNESSES.
AS A MEMBER SERVING ON THE
JUDICIARY COMMITTEE I CAN SAY
THAT THE PROCESS IN WHICH WE ARE
PARTICIPATING IS INSUFFICIENT,
UNPRECEDENTED AND GROSSLY
INADEQUATE.
SITTING BEFORE US IS A PANEL OF
WITNESSES CONTAINING FOUR
DISTINGUISHED LAW PROFESSORS
FROM SOME OF OUR COUNTRY'S
FINEST EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS.
I DO NOT DOUBT THAT EACH OF YOU
ARE EXTREMELY WELL VERSED IN THE
SUBJECT OF CONSTITUTIONAL LAW,
AND YES THERE IS PRECEDENT FOR
SIMILAR PANELS IN THE
AFOREMENTIONED HISTORY BUT ONLY
AFTER SPECIFIC CHARGES HAVE BEEN
MADE KNOWN AND 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 HAD
HE DON'T KNOW WHAT ARTICLES OF
IMPEACHMENT THEY WILL CONSIDER.
HOW DOES ANYONE EXPECT A PANEL
OF LAW PROFESSORS TO WEIGH IN ON
THE LEGAL GROUNDS FOR
IMPEACHMENT CHARGES PRIOR TO
EVEN 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
NON-PARTISAN PROCESS AND I
AGREE.
ONE OF MY COLLEAGUES IN THE
DEMOCRATIC PARTY STATED AND I
QUOTE IMPEACHMENT IS SO DIVISIVE
TO THE COUNTRY THAT UNLESS THERE
IS SOMETHING SO COMPELLING AND
OVER WHELMING AND BIPARTISAN, I
DON'T THINK WE SHOULD GO DOWN
THAT PATH BECAUSE IT DIVIDES THE
COUNTRY.
MY DEMOCRATIC COLLEAGUES HAVE
STATED NUMEROUS TIMES THAT THEY
ARE ON A TRUTH-SEEKING AND FACT
FINDING MISSION.
ANOTHER ONE OF MY DEMOCRATIC
COLLEAGUES SAID AND I QUOTE, WE
HAVE A RESPONSIBILITY TO
CONSIDER THE FACTS THAT EMERGE
SQUARELY AND WITH THE BEST
INTERESTS OF OUR COUNTRY, NOT
OUR PARTY IN OUR HEARTS.
THESE TYPE OF HISTORIC
PROCEEDINGS REGARDLESS OF
POLITICAL BELIEFS OUGHT TO BE
ABOUT FACT FINDING AND TRUTH
SEEKING BUT 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
FACTS WITNESSES.
MY COLLEAGUES ARE SAYING ONE
THING AND DOING SOMETHING
COMPLETELY DIFFERENT.
NO MEMBER OF CONGRESS CAN LOOK
THEIR CONSTITUENTS IN THE EYE
AND SAY THIS IS A COMPREHENSIVE
FACT FINDING TRUTH SEEKING
MISSION.
RANKING MEMBER COLLINS AND
MEMBERS OF THE MINORITY IN THIS
COMMITTEE HAVE WRITTEN SIX
LEADERS OVER THE PAST MONTH TO
CHAIRMAN NADLER ASKING FOR
PROCEDURAL FAIRNESS FOR ALL THE
UNDERLYING EVIDENCE TO BE
TRANSMITTED 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
HAVEN'T RECEIVED EVIDENCE TO
REVIEW.
THE MINORITY HAS YET TO RECEIVE
A RESPONSE TO THESE LETTERS.
RIGHT HERE TODAY IS ANOTHER VERY
CLEAR EXAMPLE OF ALL AMERICANS
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.
OWNING STATEMENTS FROM THE
WITNESSES TODAY WERE NOT
DISTRIBUTING UNTIL LATE LAST
NIGHT AND THE INTELLIGENCE
COMMITTEE'S FINALIZED REPORT HAS
YET TO BE PRESENTED TO THIS
COMMITTEE.
YOU HEAR FROM THOSE IN THE
MAJORITY THAT IS A REPUBLICAN
TALKING POINT WHEN IN REALTY IT
IS AN AMERICAN TALKING POINT.
PROCESS IS ESSENTIAL TO THE
INSTITUTION.
A THOUGHTFUL MEANINGFUL PROCESS
OF THIS MAGNITUDE WITH SUCH
GREAT IMPLICATIONS SHOULD BE
DEMANDED BY THE AMERICAN PEOPLE.
WITH THAT I YIELD BACK.
>> GENTLELADY YIELDS BACK.
MR. JEFFRIES.
>> I DID NOT SERVE IN THE
MILITARY BUT MY 81 YEAR OLD
FATHER DID.
WITH AN AIR FORCE VETERAN
STATIONED IN GERMANY DURING T
HEIGHT OF THE COLD WAR IN THE
LATE 1950 'S.
HE WAS A DEAN AGER FROM INNER
CITY NEWARK, A STRANGER IN A
FOREIGN LAND, SERVING ON THE
WESTERN SIDE OF THE BERLIN WALL.
MY DAD PROUDLY WORE THE UNIFORM
BECAUSE HE SWORE AN OATH TO THE
CONSTITUTION AND BELIEVED IN
AMERICAN DEMOCRACY.
I BELIEVE IN AMERICAN DEMOCRACY.
WE REMAIN THE LAST BEST HOPE ON
EARTH.
IT IS IN THAT SPIRIT THAT WE
PROCEED TODAY.
MR. COLLINS IN AMERICA WE
BELIEVE IN FREE AND FAIR
ELECTIONS, IS THAT CORRECT.
>> YES, IT IS.
>> BUT AUTHORITARIAN REGIMES DO
NOT, IS THAT RIGHT.
>> THAT'S CORRECT.
>> THOMAS JEFFERSON ONCE WROTE,
WELL JOHN ADAMS ONCE WROTE TO
THOMAS JEFER SAW ON DECEMBER 6,
1787 AND STATED YOU ARE
APPREHENSIVE OF FOREIGN
INTERFERENCE INTRIGUE,
INFLUENCE, SO AM I.
BUT AS OFTEN AS ELECTIONS
HAPPEN, THE DANGER OF FOREIGN
INFLUENCE RECURS.
HOW IMPORTANT WAS THE CONCEPT OF
FREE AND FAIR LOOKIONS TO THE
FRAMERS OF THE CONSTITUTION?
>> HONESTLY IT WAS LESS
IMPORTANT TO THEM THAN IT'S
BECOME IN OUR CONSTITUTION SINCE
THEN AND IF YOU REMEMBER ONE OF
THE THING THAT TURNED ME INTO A
LAWYER WAS SEEING BARBARA JORDAN
WHO WAS THE FIRST FEMALE LAWYER
I HAD EVER SEEN IN PRACTICE SAY
THAT WE THE PEOPLE DIDN'T
INCLUDE PEOPLE LIKE HER IN 1789
BUT THROUGH A PROGRESSION OF
AMENDMENTS WE HAVE DONE THAT.
ELECTIONS ARE MORE IMPORTANT TO
US THAN IT WAS TO THE FRAMERS.
>> TO NOT BE REASONABLY
CHARACTERIZED AS FREE AND FAIR
IF MANIPULATED BY FOREIGN
INTERFERENCE.
>> THAT'S CORRECT.
>> THE FRAMERS OF THE
CONSTITUTION WERE CONCERNED
ABOUT THE THREAT OF FOREIGN
INTERFERENCE INTO DOSTIC
AFFAIRS OF THE UNITED STATES,
TRUE.
>> YES.
>> WHY WERE THEY SO DEEPLY
CONCERNED?
>> BECAUSE FOREIGN NATIONS DON'T
HAVE OUR INTERESTS AT HEART.
THEY HAVE THEIR INTERESTS AT
HEART.
>> WOULD THE FRAMERS FIND IT
ACCEPTABLE WHEN AMERICAN
PRESIDENT TO PRESSURE A FOREIGN
GOVERNMENT TO HELP HIM WIN AN
SELECTION.
>> I THINK THEY WOULD FIND IT
UNACCEPTABLE FOR A PRESIDENT TO
ASK A FOREIGN GOVERNMENT TO HELP
THEM WHETHER THEY PUT PRESSURE
ON THEM OR NOT.
>> DIRECT EVIDENCE SHOWS, DIRECT
EVIDENCE SHOWS THAT ON JULY 25TH
PHONE CALL, THE PRESIDENT
UTTERED FIVE WORDS.
DO US A FAVOR, THOUGH.
THE PRESIDENT OF THE UKRAINIAN
GOVERNMENT TO TARGET AN AMERICAN
CITIZEN FOR POLITICAL GAIN AND
AT THE SAME TIME SIMULTANEOUSLY
WITHHELD $391 MILLION IN
MILITARY AID.
NOW AMBASSADOR BILL TAYLOR WEST
POINT GRADUATE VIETNAM WAR
HEROUX, HOW CAN APPOINTED
DIPLOMAT DISCUSSED THIS ISSUE OF
MILITARY AID.
HERE IS A CLIP OF HIS TESTIMONY.
>> AGAIN, OUR HOLDING UP OF
SECURITY SYSTEMS THAT WOULD GO
TO A COUNTRY THAT IS FIGHTING
AGGRESSION FROM RUSSIA FOR NO
GOOD POLICY REASON, NO GOOD
SUBSTANTIVE REASON, NO GOOD
NATIONAL SECURITY REASON WAS
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.
AND 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 WASN'T A FAVOR FOR THE UNITED
STATES, HE SHOULD HAVE SAID DO
ME A FAVOR.
BECAUSE ONLY KINGS SAY US WHEN
THEY MEAN ME.
>> IS IT CORRECT THAT AN ABUSE
OF POWER THAT STRIKES AT THE
HEART OF OUR DEMOCRACY FALLS
SQUARELY WITHIN THE DEFINITION
OF A HIGH CRIME AND MISDEMEANOR.
>> YES, IT DOES.
>> SOME OF MY COLLEAGUES HAVE
SUGGESTED THAT IMPEACHMENT WOULD
OVERTURN THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE.
THE AMERICAN PEOPLE EXPRESSED
THEIR WILL IN NOVEMBER OF 2018.
THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE ELECTED A
NEW MAJORITY.
THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE ELECTED A
HOUSE THAT WOULD NOT FUNCTION AS
A WHOLLY OWNED SUBSIDIARY OF
THIS ADMINISTRATION.
THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE ELECTED A
HOUSE THAT UNDERSTANDS WE ARE
SEPARATE AND CO-EQUAL BRANCH OF
GOVERNMENT.
THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE ELECTED A
HOUSE THAT UNDERSTANDS WE HAVE A
CONSTITUTIONAL RESPONSIBILITY TO
SERVE AS A CHECK AND BALANCE ON
AN OUT OF CONTROL EXECUTIVE
BRANCH.
THE PRESIDENT ABUSED HIS POWER
AND MUST BE HELD ACCOUNTABLE.
NO ONE IS ABOVE THE LAW.
AMERICA MUST REMAIN THE LAST
BEST HOPE ON EARTH.
I YIELD BACK.
>> GENTLEMAN YIELDS BACK.
MR. GAETZ.
>> AMERICAN PEOPLE ELECTED
DONALD TRUMP AND THEY CAN'T GET
OVER THE FACT.
WE HAVEN'T SPENT OUR TIME DURING
YOUR TENURE PROCEDURE TRYING TO
REMOVE THE SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE
TRYING TO DELEGITIMIZE ABILITY
TO GOVERN.
WE WOULD LOVE TO GOVERN WITH YOU
AND PASS UMSCA PUT OUT HELPING
HANDS TO SENIORS FOR DRUG
PRICES.
IT'S THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE YOU
IGNORE WHEN YOU CONTINUE DOWN
THIS TERRIBLE ROAD OF
IMPEACHMENT.
PROFESSOR GEA GEAR HARD YOU GAVE
MONEY TO PRESIDENT OBAMA.
>> YES.
>> I ASK THAT PROFESSOR
FELDMAN'S WORK TRUMP WIRE TAP
TWEETS REACHES IMPEACHMENT --
>> GENTLEMAN WILL SUSPEND.
>> TAKE THAT TIME OFF.
AS THE GENTLEMAN SUBMITTED, WE
SEE THAT MATERIAL.
>> WE CAN PROVIDE IT TO YOU AS
IS TYPICAL.
>> CONSIDER THE REQUEST LATER
AFTER WE REVIEW IT.
>> VERY WELL.
>> THE GENTLEMAN MAY CONTINUE.
>> THANK YOU MR. CHAIRMAN.
MR. FELDMAN WROTE ARTICLES
ENTITLED TRUMP'S WIRE TAP TWEETS
RAISE RISK OF IMPEACHMENT.
HE THEN WROTE MAR-A-LAGO AD
BELONGS ANYMORE PEACHABLE
FILE.
JAY FLANNIGAN WROTE IN COURTS A
HARVARD LAW PROFESSOR THINKS
TRUMP COULD BE IMPEACH OVER FAKE
NEWS ACCUSATIONS.
MY QUESTION PROFESSOR FELDMAN IS
SINCE YOU SEEM TO BELIEVE THAT
THE BASIS FOR IMPEACHMENT IS
EVEN BROUGHT THAN THE BASIS THAT
MY DEMOCRATIC COLLEAGUES HAVE
LAID FORWARD, DO YOU BELIEVE
YOU'RE OUTSIDE OF THE POLITICAL
MAINSTREAM ON THE QUESTION OF
IMPEACHMENT.
>> I BELIEVE THAT IMPEACHMENT IS
WARRANTED WHENEVER THE PRESIDENT
ABUSES HIS POWER FOR PERSONAL
BENEFIT DURING THE DEMOCRATIC
PROCESS.
>> DID YOU WRITE AN ARTICLE
SAYING IT'S HARD TO TAKE --
>> YES --
>> DID YOU --
>> ONE AT A TIME.
>> -- HOUSE DEMOCRATS HAVE MADE
IT PAINFULLY CLEAR THAT
DISCUSSING IMPEACHMENT IS
PRIMARILY OR EVEN EXCLUSIVELY A
TOOL TO WEAKEN PRESIDENT TRUMP'S
CHANCES IN 2020.
DID YOU WRITE THOSE WORDS.
>> UNTIL THIS CALL IN JULY 25TH
I WAS AN IMPEACHMENT SKEPTIC.
THE CALL CHANGED MY MIND SIR.
>> THANK YOU I APPRECIATE YOUR
TESTIMONY.
PROFESSOR C KARLAN, YOU GAVE A
THOUSAND BUCKS TO ELIZABETH
WARREN, RIGHT.
>> I BELIEVE SO.
>> YOU GAVE 1200 BUCKS TO BARACK
OBAMA, I HAVE NO REASON TO
QUESTION THAT.
>> AND YOU GAVE 2,000 BUCKS TO
HILLARY CLINTON.
>> YES.
>> WHY SO MUCH MORE TO CLINTON
THAN THE OTHER TWO.
>> BECAUSE I'VE BEEN GIVING
MONEY TO CHARITY COY.
>> THOSE AREN'T THE ONLY FOLKS
YOU'VE BEEN GIVEN TO.
HAVE YOU EVER BEEN ON A PODCAST
CALLED VERSUS TRUMP.
>> I THINK I WAS ON A LIVE PANEL
THAT THE PEOPLE WHO RAN THE
PODCAST CALLED VERSUS TRUMP.
>> ON THAT DO YOU REMEMBER
SAYING THE FOLLOWING?
LIBERALS TEND TO CLUSTER MORE.
CONSERVATIVES ESPECIALLY VERY
CONSERVATIVE PEOPLE TEND TO
SPREAD OUT MORE.
PERHAPS BECAUSE THEY DON'T EVEN
WANT TO BE AROUND THEMSELVES.
DID YOU SAY THAT.
>> YES, I DID.
>> DO YOU UNDERSTAND HOW THAT
REFLECTS CONTENT ON PEOPLE WHO
ARE CONSERVATIVE.
>> NO.
WHAT I WAS TALKING ABOUT THERE
WAS THE NATURAL TENDENCY TO PUT
THE QUOTE IN CONTEXT, THE
NATURAL TENDENCY OF A
COMPACTNESS REQUIREMENT TO FAVOR
A PARTY WHOSE VOTERS ARE MORE
SPREAD OUT.
AND I DO NOT HAVE --
>> I'M VERY LIMITED ON TIME --
>> I HAVE --
>> WHEN YOU TALK ABOUT HOW
LIBERALS WANT TO BE AROUND EACH
OTHER AND CLUSTER AND
CONSERVATIVES DON'T WANT TO BE
AROUND EACH OTHER SO THEY HAVE
TO SPREAD OUT.
YOU MAY SEE THIS FROM THE IVORY
TOWERS OF YOUR HUH SCHOOL BUT IT
MAKES ACTUAL PEOPLE IN THIS
COUNTRY --
>> WHEN THE PRESIDENT YOUR.
>> YOU DON'T GET TO INTERRUPT ME
ON THIS TIME.
LET ME ALSO SUGGEST WHEN YOU
INVEHICLE THE PRESIDENT'S SON'S
NAME HERE WHEN YOU TRY TO MAKE A
LITTLE JOKE OUT OF REFERENCING
BARON TRUMP THAT DOES NOT LEND
CREDIBILITY TO YOUR ARGUMENT, IT
MAKES YOU LOOK MEAN AND MAKES
YOU LOOK LIKE YOU'RE ATTACKING
SOMEONE'S FAMILY THE MINOR CHILD
OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED
STATES.
SO LET'S SEE IF WE CAN GET INTO
THE FACTS.
TO ALL OF THE WITNESSES, IF YOU
HAVE PERSONAL KNOWLEDGE OF A
SINGLE MATERIAL FACT IN THE
SCHIFF REPORT PLEASE RAISE YOUR
HAND.
LET THE RECORD REFLECT NO
PERSONAL KNOWLEDGE OF A SINGLE
FACT AND DO YOU KNOW WHAT, THAT
CONTINUES ON THE TRADITION THAT
WE SAW FROM ADAM SCHIFF WHERE
AMBASSADOR TAYLOR COULD NOT
IDENTIFY AN IMPEACHABLE OFFENSE,
PMR. KENT NEVER REFERENCED THE
PRESIDENT, FIONA HILL DIDN'T
MENTION -- COLONEL VINMAN EVEN
REJECTED THE NEW DEMOCRAT
TALKING POINT THAT BRIBERY WAS
INVEHICLED HERE.
AMBASSADOR VOLKER DENIED THERE
WAS A QUID PRO QUO AND
MR. MORRISON SAID THERE WAS
NOTHING WRONG ON THE CALL.
THE ONLY DIRECT EVIDENCE CAME
FROM GORDON SONDLAND WHO CAME
FROM THE UNITED STATES WHO SAID
I WANT NOTHING, NO QUID PRO QUO.
AND DO YOU KNOW WHAT, IF
WIRETAPPING AND POLITICAL
APPOINT --
>> TIME IS EXPIRED --
>> MAYBE IT'S A DIFFERENT
PRESIDENT WE SHOULD BE
IMPEACHING.
>> YOUR TIME IS EXPIRED.
>> PROFESSOR FELDMAN LET ME
STATE THE OBVIOUS.
IT IS NOT HEARSAY WHEN THE
PRESIDENT TELLS THE PRESIDENT OF
UKRAINE TO INVESTIGATE HIS
POLITICAL ADVERSARY E IS IT.
>> IT IS NOT.
>> IT IS NOT HEARSAY WHEN THE
PRESIDENT CONFESSES ON NATIONAL
TELEVISION TO DOING IT.
>> IT IS NOT.
>> WHEN THEY HEAR THE PRESIDENT
SAY HE ONLY CARES ABOUT THE
INVESTIGATIONS OF HIS POLITICAL
OPPONENTS, IS IT.
>> NO, THAT IS NOT HEARSAY.
>> THERE'S LOTS OF OTHER DIRECT
EVIDENCE IN THIS 300 PAYMENT
REPORT FROM THE INTELLIGENCE
COMMITTEE SO LET'S DISPENSE WITH
THAT CLAIM BY MY REPUBLICAN
COLLEAGUES.
PROFESSOR, NOTWITHSTANDING WHAT
YOU SAID TODAY YOU WROTE A PIECE
CALLED FIFTH MYTHS ABOUT
IMPEACHMENT.
ONE OF THE MYTHS HE WAS
REJECTING WAS THAT IMPEACHMENT
REQUIRED A CRIMINAL OFFENSE AND
HE WROTE AND I QUOTE AN OFFENSE
DOES NOT HAVE TUNE DID ITABLE.
SERIOUS MISCONDUCT OR VIOLATION
OF PUBLIC TRUST IS ENOUGH END
QUOTE.
WAS PROFESSOR RIGHT WHEN HE
WROTE THAT BACK IN 2014.
>> YES, I AGREE WITH THAT.
>> OKAY.
NOW NEXT I MOVE TO PROFESSOR
KARLAN.
AT THE CONSTITUTIONAL
CONVENTION, ELDRIDGE JERRY SAID
AND I QUOTE FOREIGN POWERS
IMPLEMENTAL IN OUR AFFAIRS AND
SPARES NO INFLUENCING THEM.
IMPEACHMENT WAS NEEDED BECAUSE
OTHERWISE A PRESIDENT AND I
QUOTE MIGHT BETRAY HIS TRUST TO
A FOREIGN POWER.
CAN YOU ELABORATE WHY THE
FRAMERS WERE SO CONCERNED ABOUT
FOREIGN INTERFERENCE HOW THEY
ACCOUNTED FOR THESE CONCERNS AND
HOW THAT RELATES TO THE FACTS
BEFORE THIS COMMITTEE.
>> THE REASON THAT THE FRAMERS
WERE CONCERNED ABOUT FOREIGN
INTERFERENCE I THINK IS SLIGHTLY
DIFFERENT THAN THE REASON WE
ARE.
THEY WERE CONCERNED ABOUT IT
BECAUSE WE WERE SUCH A WEAK
COUNTRY IN 1789.
WE WERE SMALL, WE WERE POOR, WE
DIDN'T HAVE AN ESTABLISHED NAVY,
WE DIDN'T HAVE AN ESTABLISHED
ARMY.
TODAY THE CONCERN IS A LITTLE
DIFFERENT WHICH IS THAT IT WILL
INTERFERE WITH US MAKING THE
DECISIONS THAT ARE BEST FOR US
AS AMERICANS.
>> THANK YOU, PROFESSOR.
THERE ARE THREE KNOWN INSTANCES
OF THE PRESIDENT PUBLICLY ASKING
A FOREIGN COUNTRY TO INTERFERE
IN OUR ELECTIONS.
FIRST IN 2016, THE PRESIDENT
PUBLICLY HOPED THAT RUSSIA WOULD
HACK INTO THE E-MAIL OF A
POLITICAL OPPONENT WHICH THEY
SUBSEQUENTLY DID.
SECONDLY BASED ON THE PRESIDENT
WITH PRESIDENT ZELENSKY HE ASKED
THEM TO INVESTIGATION HIS CHIEF
POLITICAL RIVAL AND THIRD THE
PRESIDENT PUBLICLY URGED CHINA
TO BEGIN ITS OWN INVESTIGATION.
PROFESSOR FELDMAN HOW WOULD IT
IMPACT OUR DEMOCRACY IF IT
BECAME STANDARD PRACTICE FOR THE
PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES
TO ASK A FOREIGN GOVERNMENT TO
INTERFERE IN OUR ELECTION.
>> IT WOULD BE A DISASTER FOR
THE FUNCTIONING OF OUR DEMOCRACY
IF OUR PRESIDENT REGULARLY AS
THIS PRESIDENT HAS DONE ASKED
FOREIGN GOVERNMENTS TO INTERFERE
IN OUR ELECTORAL PROCESS.
>> I WOULD LIKE TO END WITH A
POWERFUL WARNING FROM GEORGE
WASHINGTON WHO TOLD AMERICANS IN
HIS FAIR WELL ADDRESS AND I
QUOTE TO BE CONSTANTLY AWAKE IN
HISTORY AND EXPERIENCE PROVE
THAT FOREIGN INFLUENCE IS ONE OF
THE MOST BAINFUL FOES OF
REPUBLICAN GOVERNMENT END QUOTE.
THE CONDUCT AT ISSUE HERE IS
EGREGIOUS AND WARMS THE
COMMENSURATE RESPONSE.
THE PRESIDENT HAS OPENLY AND
REPEATEDLY SOLICITED FOREIGN
INTERFERENCE IN OUR ELECTION.
OF THAT THERE IS NO DOUBT.
THIS MATTER OF INVITING FOREIGN
MEDDLING INTO OUR ELECTION ROBS
THE AMERICAN PEOPLE OF THEIR
SACRED RIGHT TO ELECT THEIR OWN
POLITICAL LEADERS.
AMERICANS ALL ACROSS THIS
COUNTRY WAIT IN LONG LINES TO
EXERCISE THEIR RIGHT TO VOTE AND
TO CHOOSE THEIR OWN LEADERS.
THIS RIGHT DOES NOT BELONG TO
FOREIGN GOVERNMENTS.
WE FOUGHT AND WON A REVOLUTION
OVER THIS.
FREE AND FAIR ELECTIONS ARE WHAT
SEPARATE US AND AUTHORITY
SERINES ALL OVER THE --
AUTHORITARIANS ALL OVER THE
WORLD.
WE WOULD BE NEGLIGENT IN OUR
DUTIES UNDER THE CONSTITUTION IF
WE LET THIS BLATANT ABUSE OF
POWER GO UNCHECKED.
WE'VE HEARD A LOT ABOUT HATING
THIS PRESIDENT.
IT'S NOT ABOUT HATING THIS
PRESIDENT IT'S ABOUT OUR LOVE OF
COUNTRY, IT IS ABOUT HONORING
THE OATH WE TOOK TO PROTECT AND
DEFEND THE CONSTITUTION OF THIS
GREAT COUNTRY.
AND SO MY FINAL QUESTION IS TO
PROFESSOR FELDMAN AND TO
PROFESSOR KARLAN, IN THE FACE OF
THIS EVIDENCE, WHAT ARE THE
CONSEQUENCES IF THIS COMMITTEE
AND THIS CONGRESS REFUSES TO
MUSTER THE COURAGE TO RESPOND TO
THIS GROSS ABUSE OF POWER THAT
UNDER MINES THE NATIONAL
SECURITY OF THE UNITED STATES,
THAT UNDERMIND THE INTEGRITY OF
OUR ELECTION AND UNDERMIND THE
COMPETENCE WE HAVE TO HAVE IN
THE PRESIDENT TO NOT ABUSE THE
POWER OF HIS OFFICE.
>> IF THIS COMMITTEE AND THIS
HOUSE FAILED TO ACT THEN YOU'RE
SENDING A MESSAGE TO THIS
PRESIDENT AND TO FUTURE
PRESIDENTS THAT IT'S NO LONGER A
PROBLEM IF THEY ABUSE THEIR
POWER, IT'S NO LONGER A PROBLEM
IF THEY INVITE FOREIGN COUNTRIES
TO INTERFERE IN OUR ELECTION OR
PUT COUNTRIES AHEAD OF OURS.
>> I AGREE WITH PROFESSOR
FELDMAN AND I SHOULD SAY ONE
THING AND I APOLOGIZE FOR
GETTING A LITTLE OVER HEATED A
MOMENT AGO.
I HAVE A CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT
UNDER THE FIRST AMENDMENT TO
GIVE MONEY TO CANDIDATES.
AT THE SAME TIME WE HAVE A
CONSTITUTIONAL DUTY TO KEEP
FOREIGNERS FROM SPENDING MONEY
IN OUR ELECTIONS AND THOSE TWO
THINGS ARE TWO SIDES OF THE SAME
COIN.
>> THANK YOU.
>> GENTLEMAN YIELDS BACK.
MR. JOHNSON.
>> THANK YOU.
I WAS STRUCK THIS MORNING BY THE
SAME THING AS ALL MY FRIENDS AND
COLLEAGUES ON THIS SIDE OF THE
ROOM.
CHAIRMAN NADLER ACTUALLY BEGAN
THIS MORNING WITH THE OUTRAGES
STATEMENT THAT THE FACTS BEFORE
US ARE UNDISPUTED.
OF COURSE EVERYONE HERE KNOWS
THAT THAT'S SIMPLY NOT TRUE.
EVERY PERSON HERE, EVERY PERSON
WATCHING AT HOME KNOWS FULL WELL
THAT VIRTUALLY EVERYTHING HERE
IS DISPUTED FROM THE FRAUDULENT
PROCESS AND THE BROKEN PROCEDURE
TO THE DEMOCRATS UNFOUNDED
CLAIMS.
AND THE FULL FACTS ARE OBVIOUSLY
NOT BEFORE US TODAY.
WE'VE BEEN ALLOWED NO FACT
WITNESSES HERE AT ALL.
FOR THE FIRST TIME EVER THIS
COMMITTEE WHICH IS THE ONE IN
CONGRESS THAT HAS THE ACTUAL
JURISDICTION OVER IMPEACHMENT IS
BEING GIVEN NO ACCESS TO THE
UNDERLYING EVIDENCE THAT ADAM
SCHIFF AND HIS POLITICAL
ACCOMPLICES CLAIMS SUPPORTS THIS
WHOLE CHARADE.
THIS IS JUST A SHOCKING DENIAL
OF DUE PROCESS AND I WANT TO SAY
TO OUR WITNESSES I'M ALSO A
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW ATTORNEY AND
UNDER NORMAL CIRCUMSTANCES I
REALLY WOULD GREATLY ENJOYED AN
ACADEMIC DISCUSSION WITH YOU, A
DEBATE ABOUT THE CONTOURS OF
ARTICLE 2, SECTION 4.
THAT WOULD BE AN UTTER WASTE OF
OUR TIME TODAY BECAUSE AS HAS
BEEN HIGHLIGHTED SO MANY TIMES
THIS MORE THAN THIS WHOLE
PRODUCTION IS A SHAM AND
RECKLESS PATH TO A PREDETERMINED
POLITICAL OUTCOME.
I WANT YOU TO KNOW IT'S AN
OUTCOME THAT WAS PREDETERMINED
BY OUR DEMOCRAT LEAGUES A LONG
TIME AWE GOES.
THE TRUTH IS HOUSE DEMOCRATS
HAVE BEEN WORKING TO IMPEACHMENT
DONALD TRUMP SINCE THE DAY TOOK
HIS OATH OF OFFICE.
OVER THE PAST THREE YEARS
THEY'VE INTRODUCED FOUR
RESOLUTIONS SEEKING TO
IMPEACHMENT THE PRESIDENT.
ALMOST TWO YEARS AGO AS THE
GRAPHICS UP HERE SHOWS DECEMBER
201658 DEMOCRATS VOTED TO START
IMPEACHMENT PROCEEDINGS.
THAT WAS 20 MONTHS BEFORE THE
JULY 25TH PHONE CALL WITH
UKRAINE'S PRESIDENT ZELENSKY.
AND THIS OTHER GRAPHIC UP HERE
IS SMALLER BUT IT'S INTERESTING
TOO.
I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT TO
REITERATE FOR EVERYBODY WATCHING
AT HOME THAT OF OUR 24 DEMOCRAT
COLLEAGUES AND FRIENDS ON THE
OTHER SIDE OF THE ROOM TODAY, 17
OUT OF 24 HAVE ALREADY VOTED TO
IMPEACHMENT.
SO I MEAN, LET'S BE HONEST.
LET'S NOT PRE TEND ANYBODY CARES
ABOUT WHAT'S BEING SAID HERE
TODAY OR ACTUAL EVIDENCE OR
CONGRESSMAN WOMAN SAID WE COME
WITH OPEN MINDS.
THAT'S NOT HAPPENING HERE.
SO MUCH FOR AN IMPARTIAL JURY.
SEVERAL TIMES THIS YEAR LEADING
DEMOCRATS TO ADMIT IN VARIES
INTERVIEWS AND CORRESPOND ISENCE
THEY REALLY BELIEVE THIS ENTIRE
STRATEGY IS NECESSARY BECAUSE
WHY?
BECAUSE THEY WANT TO STOP THE
PRESIDENT'S RE-ELECTION.
EVEN SPEAKER PELOSI SAID
FAMOUSLY LAST MONTH THAT QUOTE
IT IS DANGEROUS TO ALLOW THE
AMERICAN PEOPLE TO EVALUATE HIS
PERFORMANCE AT THE BALLOT BOX.
SPEAKER PELOSI HAS IT EXACTLY
BACKWARDS.
WHAT IS DANGEROUS HERE IS THE
PRECEDENT ALL THIS IS SETTING
FOR THE FUTURE OF OUR REPUBLIC.
I LOVED WHAT PROFESSOR TURLEY
TESTIFIED TO THIS MORE THAN.
THIS IS NOT HOW THE IMPEACHMENT
OF A PRESIDENT IS DONE.
HIS HUH TORQUAL QUESTION TO OUR
COLLEAGUES ON THE OTHER SIDE IS
STILL ECHOING THROUGHOUT THIS
CHAMBER.
HE ASKED YOU TO ASK YOURSELF
WHERE WILL THIS AND WHERE WILL
YOU STAND NEXT TIME WHEN THIS
SAME KIND OF SHAM IMPEACH
PROCESS IS INITIATED AGAINST A
PRESIDENT FROM YOUR PARTY.
THE REAL SHAME HERE TODAY IS
THAT EVERYTHING IN WASHINGTON
HAS BECOME BITTERLY PARTISAN AND
THIS UGLY CHAPTER IS NOT GOING
TO HELP THAT IT'S GOING TO MAKE
THINGS REALLY THAT MUCH WORSE.
PREDATORILY SAID EARLIER WE ARE
NOW LIVING -- PREDATORILY SAID
TURLEY SAYS -- THIS HAS INDEED
BECOME AN AGE OF RAGE.
PRESIDENT WASHINGTON WARNED IN
HIS FAREWELL ADDRESS IN 1796
THAT EXTREME PARTISANSHIP WILL
LEAD US TO THE RUIN OF PUBLIC
LIBERTY.
THOSE WERE HIS WORDS.
THIS IMPEACHMENT IS ONE OF THE
MOST DEVICE RE AND DESTRUCTIVE
THING WE COULD POSSIBLY DO TO
OUR AMERICAN FAMILY.
LET ME TELL YOU WHAT I HEARD
FROM MY CONSTITUENTS IN TOWNHALL
MEETINGS IN MY DISTRICT TWO DAYS
AGO.
THE PEOPLE IN OUR COUNTRY IS
SICK OF THIS, SICK OF THE
POLITICS OF PERSONAL DESTRUCTION
THEY ARE SICK OF THIS TOXIC A 59
MUST FEAR BEING CREATED HERE AND
THEY ARE DEEPLY CONCERNED WHERE
ALL THIS JOY TOXIC ATMOSPHERE
BEING CREATED HERE AND THEY ARE
DEEPLY CONCERNED WHERE THIS ALL
GOES.
WHAT KEEPS US UP AT NIGHT IS THE
RAPIDLY ERODING TRUST OF THE
MESH PEOPLE IN THEIR
INSTITUTIONS.
ONE OF THE CRITICAL FOUNDATIONS
OF SELF GOVERNING PEOPLE IS THEY
WILL MAINTAIN A BASIC LEVEL OF
TRUST IN THEIR INSTITUTION IN
THE RULE OF LAW IN THE SYSTEM OF
JUSTICE, IN THE BY OF ELECTED
REPRESENTATIVES.
THEIR CITIZEN LEGISLATORS IN THE
CONGRESS.
THE GREATER DANGER OF THIS
FRAUDULENT IMPEACHMENT
PRODUCTION IS NOT WHAT HAPPENS
THIS AFTERNOON OR BY CHRISTMAS
OR THE ELECTION NEXT FALL THE
GREATEST DANGER IS WHAT THIS
WILL DO AHEAD IF OUR SO MANY
YEARS OF OUR FEDERAL GOVERNMENT
WHAT WILL HAPPEN IN OUR
BELEAGUERED NATIONS DECADES FROM
NOW IN THE RUINS OF PUBLIC
LIBERTY BEING CREATED BY THIS
TERRIBLY SHORTSIGHTED EXERCISE
TODAY.
GOD HEN US.
I YIELD BACK.
>> YIELDS BACK.
MR. SWALWELL.
>> PROFESSOR TURLEY IS A FORMER
PROSECUTOR.
I RECOGNIZE THE DEFENSE ATTORNEY
TRYING TO REPRESENT THEIR
CLIENT.
ESPECIALLY ONE WHO HAS VERY
LITTLE TO WORK WITH IN THE WAY
OF FACTS AND TODAY YOU'RE
REPRESENTING THE PRODUCTS IN
THEIR DEFENSE OF PRESIDENT.
PROFESSOR YOU --
>> THAT'S NOT MY INTENTION.
>> YOU'VE SAID THAT THIS CASE
REPRESENTS A DRAMATIC TURNING
POINT IN FEDERAL IMPEACHMENT
PRECEDENT, THE IMPEACH WHICH
WILL SHAPE AND DETERMINE FUTURE
CASES.
THE HOUSE FOR THE FIRST TIME IN
THE MODERN ERA ASKS THE SENATE
TO REMOVE SOMEONE FOR CONDUCT
FOR WHICH HE WAS NEVER CHARGED
CRIMINALLY AND IMPROPRIETY OF
WHICH HAS NEVER BEEN TESTED IN A
COURT OF LAW.
BUT THAT'S ACTUALLY NOT A DIRECT
QUOTE FROM WHAT YOU SAID TODAY.
IT SOUNDS A LOT LIKE WHAT YOU
ARGUED TOE THAT'S A QUOTE WHAT
YOU ARGUED AS A DEFENSE LAWYER
IN A 2010 SENATE IMPEACHMENT
TRIAL.
PROFESSOR, DID YOU REPRESENT
FEDERAL JUDGE THOMAS PORTEOUS.
>> I DID INDEED.
>> AND HE WAS CHARGED IN
ENGAGING IN A PATTERN OF CONDUCT
INCOMPATIBLE WITH THE TRUST
PLACED ON HIM TO ENGAGE IN A
LONG STANDING PATTERN OF CORRUPT
CONDUCT THAT DEMONSTRATES HIS
UNFITNESS TO SERVE AS THE UNITED
STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE.
ON EACH COUNT JUDGE PORTEOUS WAS
CONVICTED BY AT LEAST 68 AND UP
TO THE 6 BIPARTISAN SENATORS.
THANKFULLY THAT SENATE DID NOT
BUY YOUR ARGUMENT THAT A FEDERAL
OFFICIAL SHOULD NOT BE REMOVED
IF HE IS NOT CHARGED CRIMINALLY.
AND RESPECTFULLY PROFESSOR, WE
DON'T BUY IT EITHER.
WE'RE HERE BECAUSE OF THIS
PHOTO.
IT'S A PICTURE OF PRESIDENT
ZELENSKY IN MAY OF THIS YEAR
STANDING ON THE EASTERN FRONT OF
UKRAINE AS A HOT WAR WAS TAKING
PLACE AND UP TO 15,000
UKRAINIANS HAVE DIED AT THE
HANDS OF RUSSIANS.
I WOULD LIKE TO FOCUS ON THE
IMPACT OF PRESIDENT TRUMP'S
CONDUCT, PARTICULARLY WITH OUR
ALLIES AND OUR STANDING IN THE
WORLD.
THIS ISN'T JUST A PRESIDENT AS
PROFESSOR KARLAN HAS POINTED OUT
ASKING FOR ANOTHER FOREIGN
LEADER TO INVESTIGATE A
POLITICAL OPPONENT.
IT ALSO IS A PRESIDENT
LEVERAGING A WHITE HOUSE VISIT
AS WELL AS FOREIGN AID.
AS THE WITNESSES HAVE TESTIFIED
UKRAINE NEEDS OUR SUPPORT TO
DEFEND ITSELF AGAINST RUSSIA.
I HEARD DIRECTLY FROM WITNESSES
HOW IMPORTANT THE VISIT WERE
PARTICULARLY FROM AMBASSADOR
TAYLOR.
>> THESE WEAPONS AND THIS
ASSISTANCE IS, ALLOWS THE
UKRAINIAN MILITARY TO DETER
FURTHER INSURGENCENTS BY THE
RUSSIANS AGAINST UKRAINIAN
TERRITORY.
IF THAT FURTHER ENCOURAGES THEM,
FURTHER AGGRESSION WERE TO TAKE
PLACE MORE UKRAINIANS WOULD DO.
>> PROFESSOR KARLAN, DOES THE
PRESIDENT'S DECISION TO WITHHOLD
FROM UKRAINE SUCH IMPORTANT
OFFICIAL ACTS THE WHITE HOUSE
VISIT AND MILITARY AID IN ORDER
TO PRESSURE PRESIDENT ZELENSKY
RELATE TO THE FAMOUS CONCERNS
ABOUT ABUSE OF POWER AND
ENTANGLEMENTS WITH FOREIGN
NATIONS.
>> IT RELATES TO THE ABUSE OF
POWER.
THE ENTANGLEMENTS WITH FOREIGN
NATIONS IS A MORE COMPLICATED,
IS A MORE COMPLICATED CONCEPT
FOR THE FRAMERS THAN FOR US.
>> PROFESSOR KARLAN, I THINK
YOU'D AGREE WE ARE A NATION OF
IMMIGRANTS.
>> YES.
>> TODAY 50 MILLION IMMIGRANTS
LIVE IN THE UNITED STATES.
I MOVED BY ONE WHO RECENTLY TOLD
ME AS I WAS CHECKING INTO A
HOTEL ABOUT HIS ROMANIAN FAMILY.
HE CAME HERE FROM ROMANIA AND
SAID THAT EVERY TIME HE HAD GONE
HOME HE WOULD ALWAYS TELL HIS
FAMILY MEMBERS HOW CORRUPT HIS
COUNTRY WAS THAT HE HAD LEFT AND
WHY HE HAD COME TO THE UNITED
STATES AND HE TOLD ME IN SUCH
HUMILIATING FASHION THAT WHEN HE
IS GONE HOME RECENTLY.
THEY NOW WAG THEIR FINGER AT HIM
AND SAY YOU'RE GOING TO LECTURE
US ABOUT CORRUPTION.
WHAT DO YOU THINK PROFESSOR
KARLAN, DOES THE PRESIDENT'S
CONDUCT SAY TO THE MILLIONS OF
AMERICANS WHO LEFT THEIR
FAMILIES AND LIVELIHOODS TO COME
TO A COUNTRY THAT REPRESENTS THE
RULE OF LAW?
>> I THINK IT SUGGESTS THAT WE
DON'T BELIEVE IN THE RULE OF
LAW.
AND I THINK IT TELLS EMERGING
TRACK SEES AROUND THE WORLD NOT
TO TAKE IT SERIOUSLY WHEN WE
TELL THEM THAT THEIR ELECTIONS
ARE NOT LEGITIMATE BECAUSE OF
FOREIGN INTERFERENCE OR THEIR
ELECTIONS ARE NOT LEGITIMATE
BECAUSE OF PERSECUTION OF THE
OPPOSING PARTY.
I MEAN PRESIDENT BUSH ANNOUNCED
HE DID NOT CONSIDER THE
ELECTIONS IN BELLSRUSE TO BE
VALID FOR THAT REASON BECAUSE
THEY WENT AFTER POLITICAL
OPPONENTS.
>> PROFESSOR TURLEY POINTED OUT
WE SHOULD WAIT AND GO TO THE
COURTS BUT YOU WOULD ACKNOWLEDGE
WE'VE GONE TO THE COURTS AND
HAVE BEEN IN THE COURSE OVER SIX
MONTHS MANY TIMES ON MATTERS
THAT ARE ALREADY SETTLED IN THE
UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT
PARTICULARLY U.S. V NIXON WHERE
THE PRESIDENT SEEMS TO BE
RUNNING OUT THE CLOCK, IS THAT
RIGHT?
>> YES, SIR.
>> I YIELD BACK.
>> GENTLEMAN YIELDS BACK.
WE WILL, IN A MOMENT WE WILL
REALS FOR A BRIEF FIVE MINUTES.
FIRST I ASK EVERYONE IN THE ROOM
TO PLEASE REMAIN SEATED AND
QUIET WHILE THE WITNESSES EXIT
THE ROOM.
I ALSO WANT TO REMIND THOSE IN
THE AUDIENCE THAT YOU MAY NOT BE
GUARANTEED YOUR SEAT IF YOU
LEAVE THE HEARING ROOM AT THIS
TIME.
FLOWER.
>> AT THIS TIME THE COMMITTEE
WILL STAND IN A SHORT RECESS.
>> AND AS WE JUST HEARD THE
COMMITTEE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE
GASTGAVELED TO WHAT WE'RE TOLD S
GOING TO BE A SHORT RECESS OR
SHORT BREAK FROM HEARINGS THAT
STARTED AT 10:00 EASTERN THIS
MORNING HERE AT THE U.S. CAPITOL
THEY ARE CONTINUING.
THERE WAS ONE BREAK THAT LASTED
ABOUT AN HOUR AND IT LOOKS LIKE
WITH AT LEAST A DOZEN OR SO
COMMITTEE MEMBERS TO GO, THIS
COMMITTEE IS GOING TO BE MOVING
WELL INTO THE AFTERNOON.
I'M JUDY WOODRUFF, PBS NEWSHOUR
HERE IN OUR NEWSHOUR STUDIOS AS
WE WATCH THIS HEARING, AS WE
SAID, TAKE A BREAK FOLLOWING IT
ALL FROM THE CAPITOL.
LISA DESJARDINS FROM THE WHITE
HOUSE YAMICHE ALCINDRO HERE WITH
ME IN THE STUDIO, SOL WISENBERG
FRANK BOWMAN BOTH ARE ATTORNEYS
WHO HAVE LOOKED AT THE ISSUE OF
IMPEACHMENT FROM YOUR DIFFERENT
PERSPECTIVES, WROTE BOOKS ABOUT
IT IN THE CASE OF TERRY FRANCONA
BOWMAN.
I'M GOING TO COME TO YOU FRANK
FIRST.
WE ARE GOING DOWN THE LINE.
REPUBLICAN DEMOCRAT, REPUBLICAN
DEMOCRAT, 24 DEMOCRATS, 17
REPUBLICANS ON THE JUDICIARY
COMMITTEE AT THIS POINT.
ARE WE LEARNING MORE ABOUT THE
STRENGTH OF THE CASE AGAINST THE
PRESIDENT?
HOW DO YOU SEE EACH SIDE, EACH
PARTY USING THIS PART OF THE
IMPEACHMENT PROCESS.
>> BY THIS POINT IN THE DAY, I
THINK WE REACHED THE POINT THAT
WE'RE NOT GAINING VERY MUCH WITH
EACH ADDITIONAL ROUND.
OCCASIONALLY SOME INTERESTING
POINTS AND GOT YOU MOMENTS WHERE
ONE PARTY WILL COME UP WITH A
POLITICAL CONTRIBUTION OR A
FORMER QUOTE OF ONE OF THE
WITNESSES TO ILLUSTRATE SOME
INCONSISTENCY OR POTENTIAL BIAS.
I'M NOT SURE WE'RE MAKING MUCH
MORE PROGRESS HERE BECAUSE AFTER
ALL THE FUNDAMENTAL POINT IS
PRETTY CLEAR.
AND I THINK THAT THE LAW
PROFESSORS HAVE LAID OUT FAIRLY
CLEARLY WHAT THE PARAMETERS OF
IMPEACHABLE CONDUCT ARE IN THE
CONSTITUTION.
OF COURSE THE PANEL MEMBERS WERE
SELECTED BY THE DEMOCRATS ARE
VERY MUCH IN UNISON ON THAT
POINT BUT EVEN AS I SAID BEFORE
TODAY EVEN PROFESSOR TURLEY
DOESN'T BASICALLY DISAGREE WITH
THEIR ANALYSIS, HE IS SIMPLY
ARGUING NOW ABOUT THE
PARTICULARS OF SMALL ITEMS LIKE
WHETHER BRIBERY ACTUALLY FITS OR
DOESN'T AND ULTIMATELY HE'S
MAKING A PROCESS ARGUMENT THAT
THIS PROCEEDING SHOULD BE LONGER
AND MORE THOROUGH BEFORE THE
DEMOCRATS PROCEED.
CERTAINLY THAT'S A POINT ON
WHICH I THINK THE REPUBLICANS
ARE PICKING UP.
THERE'S SOME JUSTICE IN THAT.
THEY WOULD HAVE A GREAT DEEM
MORE JUSTICE OF COURSE -- DEAL
MORE JUSTICE OF COURSE IF IT NOT
WERE THE FACT THE WITNESSES
REALLY MISSING HERE RIGHT AROUND
THE PRESIDENT HAVE NOT COME DOWN
BECAUSE THE PRESIDENT'S
PROHIBITED THEM FROM DOING THAT.
AND IT IS AT LEAST A LITTLE
DISAPPOINTING THAT THE
REPUBLICANS KEEP POUNDING ON THE
IDEA THAT THE EVIDENCE IS
WANTING WITHOUT ACKNOWLEDGING
THE REASON WHY IT'S WANTING AND
WOULD GIVE IT SOME CREDIBILITY.
>> PERHAPS SO AND THE FACT
GATHERING PHASE OF THIS WAS IN
THE INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE.
WE TALKED ABOUT IT EARLIER THIS
AFTERNOON THERE WAS A SPECIAL
PROSECUTOR SPECIAL COUNSEL OUT
THERE CONDUCTING THE
INVESTIGATION.
THE INVESTIGATION FELL MAINLY TO
THE STAFF TO THE HOUSE
INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE.
THEY PRESENTED THEIR FACTS BY
CALLING WITNESSES AND BY GOING
OVER DOCUMENTS BY PRESENTING A
RAPPORT WHICH WE JUST HAD
DELIVERED TO US SEVERAL HUNDRED
PAGES JUST LAST NIGHT.
BUT TODAY WHAT WE HAVE ARE FOUR
LAW PROFESSORS WHO WERE BEING
ASKED TO TALK ABOUT THE PROCESS
OF IMPEACHMENT.
WHAT IMPEACHMENT LOOKS LIKE IN
AMERICAN GOVERNMENT AND AMERICAN
HISTORY AND WHETHER WHAT WE HAVE
WITH PRESIDENT TRUMP CONSTITUTES
SOMETHING THAT'S AN IMPEACHABLE
OFFENSE.
>> YES.
AND AT SOME POINT YOU REACH THAT
LAW OF DIMINISHING RETURNS,
SCJUDYAND THAT'S WHAT PROFESSORS
TALKING ABOUT THE EYES START TO
GLAZE OVER IN A WHILE AND THE
FOLKS IN EACH PARTY ARE GIVING
SET SPEECHES AND THEY ARE
ATTACKING IN SOME INSTANCES THE
WITNESSES OR THEIR PAST
POSITIONS BUT THEN SAYING SORRY
YOU DON'T, I'M NOT GOING TO LIT
YOU RESPOND.
-- LET YOU RESPOND SO IT BECOMES
KIND OF RIDICULOUS.
ONE THING TO KEEP IN MIND ALSO
IS THE REASON WHY I THINK THE
REASON WHY THE JUDICIARY
COMMITTEE IS NOT THE MAIN FACT
FINDING BODY IS THAT THERE WAS A
DECISION MADE THAT CONGRESSMAN
SCHIFF IS GOING TO BE MUCH MORE
EFFECTIVE AS A TV PERSONALITY
THAN CONGRESSMAN NADLER.
AND I WONDER IF THAT DECISION
WAS MADE AFTER THE LEWENDOSKY
THAT WASN'T HANDLED VERY WELL.
>> ADAM SCHIFF OF COURSE BEING
CHAIRMAN OF THE HOUSE
INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE WHICH
HELD THIS HEARINGS A COUPLE
WEEKS AGO OVER THE FORCE OF A
NUMBER OF DAYS AND NOW IT'S
MOVED TO JUDICIARY.
YAMICHE ALCINDRO HAS BEEN
FOLLOWING ALL THIS FROM THE
WHITE HOUSE.
YAMICHE, THE PRESIDENT IS OUT OF
THE COUNTRY BUT THE PEOPLE WHO
WORK FOR THE PRESIDENT, THE
PEOPLE WHO ARE PURSUING HIS
CAMPAIGN FOR RE-ELECTION
FOLLOWING IT VERY CLOSELY.
>> WE'RE FOLLOWING IT VERY
CLOSELY AND RESPONDING IN REAL
TIME AND WHAT WE SEE NOW ARE
REPUBLICANS SEIZING ON A KEY
MOMENT, WHEN PAMELA KARLAN A
PROFESSOR WHO IS TESTIFYING AND
DEMOCRATIC WITNESS SHE SAID THAT
PRESIDENT TRUMP COULD NAME HIS
SON BARON BUT COULD NOT MAKE HIM
A BARON.
SHE WAS REFERRING TO THE FACT
SHE THINKS PRESIDENT TRUMP AT
TIMES CAN ACT LIKE A KING
BECAUSE HE'S ABUSING POWER BUT
MAKING A JOKE ABOUT THE FACT
THAT TRUMP'S 13 YEAR OLD SON IS
NAMED BARON AND THAT IS A NOBLE
TITLE AND SHE WAS SAYING HE
CAN'T INHERIT THE PRESIDENCY.
REPUBLICANS ARE SEIZING ON THAT
SAYING SHE WAS COMPLETELY OUT OF
LINE AND MATT GAETZ AN ALLY OF
THE PRESIDENT SAYING SHE WAS
MEAN AND THIS HIT HER
CREDIBILITY AND MADE HER NOT
CREDIBLE.
WE SAW THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN
QUICKLY COME OUT WITH A
STATEMENT AND THAT STATEMENT
SAID IN PART HUNTER BIDEN VICE
PRESIDENT JOE BIDEN'S SON IS OFF
LIMITS BUT A 13 YEAR OLD ISN'T.
THEY'RE CULLING ON DEMOCRATS TO
CRITICIZE THIS PROFESSOR AND SAY
WHAT SHE WAS DOING WAS WRONG.
THEY ARE ALSO NOW ASKING FOR AN
APOLOGY.
WE'RE SEEING FIREWORKS FOR THE
REPUBLICANS SEIZING ON THIS
WITNESS SAYING SHE'S OUT OF
BOUNDS AND THAT DEMOCRATS ARE
ESSENTIALLY SHOWING NO
BOUNDARIES BECAUSE THEY ARE
STILL BATTLING HER AT THIS
POINT.
>> CONGRESS ATT GAETZ WHO IS
KNOWN FOR BEING ONE OF THE MORE
OUTSPOKEN MEMBERS OF THE
REPUBLICAN CAUCUS IN THE HOUSE.
YAMICHE IN FACT HE WENT FURTHER
AND LOOKED INTO PAM KARLAN'S
STATEMENTS I GUESS INTERVIEWS
EARLIER THIS YEAR WHERE AT ONE
POINT SHE TALKED ABOUT DEMOCRATS
LIKE TO BE WITH OTHER PEOPLE.
REPUBLICANS PREFER TO BE BY
THEMSELVES AND HE ASKED WHAT SHE
MEANT AND SHE SAID GEOGRAPHY AND
WHERE DEMOCRATS AND REPUBLICANS
LIVE.
YOU CAN SEE THAT MAY WELL BECOME
AND IS BECOMING A TALKING POINT
FOR REPUBLICANS.
LISA DESJARDINS FOLLOWING THE
HEARING AT THE CAPITOL.
REPUBLICAN DEMOCRAT REPUBLICAN
DEMOCRAT TAKING COMPLETELY
VIRTUALLY OPPOSITE TAKES OF
VIEWS OF WHAT'S GOING ON AS THEY
MAKE THEIR FIVE MINUTE STATEMENT
AND FRANKLY DON'T ASK MANY
QUESTIONS.
>> THAT'S RIGHT.
THERE ARE SOME 20 MEMBERS LEFT
TO GO IN THIS HEARING BUT I
THINK AS YAMICHE TALKED ABOUT
AND YOU ALSO, THIS TOOK A VERY
PERSONAL TURN IN THIS LAST BIT.
BOTH FOR SOME OF THE WITNESSES
LIKE PROFESSOR KARLAN, ALSO FOR
THE PRESIDENT WITH HIS SON BEING
INVOKED.
YOU COULD FEEL IT IN THE ROOM,
IT WAS MORE POLITICAL AND
UNSEEMLY.
IN THE END WE HAVEN'T SEEN THE
BALL MOVE.
THESE ARE WITNESSES CONTINUING
TO MAKE THE SAME ARGUMENTS.
I WILL SAY WE HAVE A WHAT'S
NEXT, SPEAKING TO MEMBERS
OUTSIDE OF THE VOTE THAT
HAPPENED EARLIER AND TED DEUTCH
AND OTHERS TOLD HER THERE WILL
BE HEARINGS NEXT WEEK AND
WHETHER OR NOT TO INCLUDE
MUELLER RELATED ITEMS LIKE
OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE IN THE
MUELLER REPORT IS PART OF IT.
HE'S NOT DECIDED BUT IT'S
SOMETHING THEY ARE DISCUSSING.
REALLY THIS IS KIND OF AN
OPENING HEARING BUT WE DON'T
KNOW HOW MANY MORE HEARINGS
AFTER THIS WILL BE BUT THERE'S
REPORTING THAT THERE WILL BE
MORE WE JUST DON'T KNOW EXACTLY
WHAT THOSE WILL INCLUDE.
WE ALSO DON'T KNOW IF THEY WILL
INCLUDE THE PRESIDENT JUDICIAL
IT'S INTERESTING YOU SAY THAT.
I'M LOOKING BACK AT WHAT
CHAIRMAN JERRY NADLER SAID IN
HIS OPENING STATEMENT THIS
MORNING WHICH KICKED OFF THE
HEARING.
HE SAID OF COURSE THIS ISN'T THE
FIRST TIME PRESIDENT TRUMP HAS
ENGAGED IN THIS PATTERN OF
CONDUCT.
HE WENT ON TO SAY IN 2016 THE
RUSSIAN GOVERNMENT ENGAGED IN A
SWEEPING AND SYSTEMATIC CAMPAIGN
OF INTERFERENCE IN OUR
ELECTIONS.
HE SAYS IN THE WORDS OF SPECIAL
COUNSEL ROBERT MUELLER, THE
RUSSIAN GOVERNMENT PERCEIVED IT
WOULD BENEFIT FROM A TRUMP
PRESIDENCY AND WORKED TO SECURE
THAT OUTCOME.
THE PRESIDENT WELL COME THAT
INTERFERENCE.
SO THERE IS A HINT OR A
SUGGESTION, WHATEVER YOU WANT TO
CALL IT THEN THAT THIS IS A
COMMITTEE OR AT LEAST A
COMMITTEE LEADERSHIP THAT IS
LOOKING BACK AT WHAT ROBERT
MUELLER FOUND.
>> THAT'S RIGHT.
AND THIS IS SOMEWHAT OF AN OPEN
INTERNAL BATTLE FOR DEMOCRATS
AND IT HAS TO DO NOT JUST WITH
PHILOSOPHY AND HOW YOU LOOK AT
THE MUELLER REPORT BUT ALSO SOME
DEGREE TURF.
THE MUELLER REPORT WAS LED BY
THIS COMMITTEE, THE JUDICIARY
COMMITTEE.
THEY WERE THE LEADING COMMITTEE
ON IMPEACHMENT FOR SO LONG WHEN
IT WAS ABOUT THE MUELLER REPORT.
ALL OF THESE MEMBERS KNOW THAT
REPORT VERY WELL.
THEY QUESTIONED ROBERT MUELLER.
BUT THEN THE UKRAINE ITEM CAME
UP AND ALL OF A SUDDEN THE
ENTIRE QUESTION OF IMPEACHMENT
MOVED AWAY FROM THIS COMMITTEE
BECAME THE PURVIEW OF HOUSE
INTELLIGENCE.
SO THIS IS A COMMITTEE THAT SORT
OF KNOWS THIS TERRITORY OF THE
MUELLER REPORT WELL AND THERE'S
A LOT OF SENTIMENT THAT THEY
NEED TO PURSUE IT.
OTHER DEMOCRATS THINK THAT'S A
MISTAKE POLITICALLY.
THEY ARE CAREFULLY WOIPG THAT
OUT.
>> IT SOUNDS LIKE THAT LISA THEY
HAVEN'T MAID A FINAL DECISION ON
WHETHER TO EXPAND.
>> THAT'S WHAT WE'VE BEEN TOLD.
BUT THEY'RE KEEPING THAT OPTION
ON THE TABLE RIGHT NOW.
>> I WANT TO QUICKLY TURN TO SOL
AND FRANK.
DOES IT STRENGTHEN THE CASE IF
THEY TRY TO GO BACK AND PULL IN
THE MUELLER INVESTIGATION OR THE
MUELLER REPORT, WHETHER IT'S
INVITING INTERFERENCE AS
CHAIRMAN NADLER SAID OR
OBSTRUCTING WHICH IS PART OF THE
MUELLER REPORT.
>> WELL, I THINK YOU HAVE TO
GISH DISTINGUISH BETWEEN THE FIT
PART OF THE MUELLER REPORT AND
THE SECOND PART.
BECAUSE THEY WOULD BE VERY
FOOLISH TO INCLUDE ANYTHING FROM
THE FIRST SECTION BECAUSE I
CONSIDER IT TO BE AS A WHITE
COLLAR CRIMINAL DEFENSE ATTORNEY
WHEN THE PROSECUTOR CANNOT EVEN
FIND PROBABLE CAUSE FOR A CRIME
THAT IS ESSENTIALLY WHAT THE
STANDARD WAS.
I CONSIDER IT A TOTAL
EXONERATION IN TERMS OF CRIMINAL
MISCONDUCT FOR PRESIDENT TRUMP.
I THINK IT WOULD BE A BIG
MISTAKE.
WITH RESPECT TO OBSTRUCTION, IF
YOU BELIEVE THAT THERE IS
IMPEACHABLE BEHAVIOR IN THE
SECOND PART OF THE MUELLER
REPORT, THE OBSTRUCTION PART,
THERE CERTAINLY IS AS I'VE SAID
MANY TIMES BEFORE REPREHENSIBLE
BEHAVIOR BY THE PRESIDENT.
I THINK IT WOULD BE FOOLISH NOT
TO INCLUDE IT.
JUST AS A MATTER OF TACTICS
BECAUSE IF YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT
WHAT'S THE RIGHT THING TO DO,
THAT WOULD BE THE RIGHT THING TO
DO.
KKEEP IN MIND, THE PRESIDENT TOD
DON MCGAHN ESSENTIALLY --
>> HIS LAWYER, HIS WHITE HOUSE
LAWYER.
>> HIS WHITE HOUSE COUNSEL, NOT
HIS PERSONAL LAWYER TO TAKE
ACTIONS THAT WOULD RESULT IN THE
FIRING OF MUELLER AND THEN LATER
HE WANT, WHEN HE FOUND OUT, WHEN
HE SAW A NEWSPAPER STORY ABOUT
THAT STATING THAT FACT, HE ASKED
MCGAHN TO ISSUE A WRITTEN
STATEMENT FOR OUR FILES DENYING
THAT IT HAPPENED.
THAT'S VERY SERIOUS CONDUCT.
>> AND KNOWING THAT, HOW DO YOU
SEE IT, INF FRANK BE HANNAH.
IS EXPANDING THIS MOMENT AFTER
THE HOUSE DECLINED TO PURSUE
THAT AS GROUNDS FOR IMPEACHMENT,
BELIEVES THERE ARE GROUNDS BASED
ON WHAT HAPPENED WITH UKRAINE TO
NOW GO BACK AND REACH BACK TO
THE MUELLER REPORT.
DOES THAT STRENGTHEN THEIR CASE
OR NOT?
>> WELL, I AGREE I THINK WITH
SOL ON THE SUBSTANCE WHAT I
WOULD SAY AND IT'S A CONCERN
I'VE HAD ABOUT THIS PARTICULAR
HEARING SINCE IT WAS FIRST
ANNOUNCED.
I THINK THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE
IS PROCEEDING BACKWARDS HERE.
IN THIS RESPECT I THINK SOME OF
THE REPUBLICAN COMPLAINTS ARE
ENTIRELY JUSTIFIED.
I DON'T THINK YOU HAVE THIS
HEARING WITH THESE EXPERTS OR
ANYONE LIKE THEM UNTIL YOU AS
THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE HAVE
DECIDED WHAT'S THE SCOPE OF YOUR
LIKELY IMPEACHABLE OFFENSES.
WHAT ARE THE THEORIES ON WHICH
YOU'RE GOING TO PROCEED.
YOU DECIDE THAT INTERNALLY, I
THINK.
I THINK YOU DON'T JUST ROLL THE
BALL OUT IN THE MIDDLE OF THE
HEARING ROOM AND ASK A SET OF
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW PROFESSORS
WHAT THEY THINK ABOUTT.
THIS SHOULD I THINK THE
REPUBLICANS ARE RIGHT THAT THIS
IS A HEARING IF IT'S GOING TO
HAPPEN, IT SHOULD HAVE HAPPENED
LATER ONCE THE COMMITTEE HAD
MADE UP ITS DARNED MIND.
AND THEN YOU WOULD HAVE
ELIMINATED A LOT OF THIS
DISTRACTING, IF IT'S NOT THIS,
IT'S THAT.
AND SO FORTH AND SO ON.
TO ANSWER YOUR SORT OF TACTICAL
QUESTION, THE THING ABOUT ANY
IMPEACHMENT AND CERTAINLY ABOUT
THIS ONE IS ULTIMATELY IT'S A
PERSUASIVE EXERCISE.
BECAUSE AS WE TALKED ABOUT
EARLIER, IT'S POLITICAL IN THE
SENSE THAT IT RESTS IN THE
POLITICAL BRANCHES AND THEY
THEMSELVES ARE ALWAYS GOING TO
BE LOOKING TO THEIR VOTERS.
AND THAT MEANS IF AN IMPEACHMENT
IS TO HAPPEN, THIS PROCESS MUST
CONVINCE THE VOTERS AND THE WAY
TO DO THAT IS NOT I THINK TO
HAVE AN ACADEMIC EXCHANGE BEFORE
YOU MADE UP YOUR MIND ABOUT WHAT
YOU'RE DOING.
>> YOU SEE CHAIRMAN JERRY NADLER
COMING BACK TO HIS SEAT IN THE
HOUSE JE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE.
HE ASKED FOR A SHORT BREAK AND
IT LOOKS LIKE HE MEANT IT.
OUR TELEVISION COVERAGE OF THESE
HEARINGS IS GOING TO CONTINUE
FOR A FEW MORE MINUTES AND THEN
WE'RE GOING TO SWITCH OVER TO
DIGITAL COVERAGE BUT WE'RE NOT
READY TO DO THAT YET.
WE'RE STAYING WITH TELEVISION
FOR RIGHT NOW.
BUT I'M LISTENING TO THE GAVEL
AND I THINK I HEARD IT JUST
THEN.
DID I?
NOT YET.
SOL WISENBERG, IT IS QUITE
SOMETHING TO SEE A COMMITTEE
THAT'S STILL ACCORDING TO LISA
DESJARDINS REPORTING, STILL
UNDECIDED ABOUT HOW TO MOVE
AHEAD ON THIS.
>> YES.
NOT A GOOD SIGN.
YOU KNOW, IN TERMS OF SHOWING
THAT YOU'RE IN CONTROL AND
YOU'VE GOT A PLAN.
JUST THE WHOLE WAY IT'S BEEN
PLIGHT UP.
>> MEETING WILL COME TO ORDER.
>> WE ARE MOVING NOW BACK TO THE
HEARING.
OUR LIVE TELEVISION COVERAGE
WILL CONTINUE.
WE'RE GOING TO BE CARRYING THE
HEARINGS LIVE.
WE'RE ALSO GOING TO BE
CONTINUING TO CARRY THEM
DIGITALLY.
IN THE MEANTIME WE'RE GOING TO
TAKE A BREAK GET READY FOR
TONIGHT'S NEWSHOUR BUT PLEASE DO
KEEP WATCHING OUR SPECIAL LIVE
COVERAGE RIGHT HERE.
TUNE IN TONIGHT AT YOUR REGULAR
TIME FOR FULL ANALYSIS ON THE
PBS NEWSHOUR.
I'M JUDY WOODRUFF.
THANK YOU FOR STAYING WITH US.
>> THE PRESIDENT SAID I WOULD
LIKE YOU TO DO ME, THE PRESIDENT
SAID I WOULD LIKE YOU TO DO ME A
FAVOR.
THAT IS INACCURATE.
IT WAS FINALLY CLEAR IN THAT
COLLOQUY AND I'M GOING TO READ
IT TO YOU I'M GOING TO DO US A
FAVOR THOUGH BECAUSE OUR COUNTRY
HAS BEEN THROUGH A LOT.
ONE OF YOU SAID BECAUSE THE
PRESIDENT WAS USING THE ROYAL
WE.
HERE THE PRESIDENT'S TALKING
ABOUT THE COUNTRY.
THAT'S WHAT HE'S TALKING ABOUT.
IT'S AUDACIOUS TO SAY HE'S USING
THE ROYAL WE.
THAT'S ROYAL ALL RIGHT BUT IT
AIN'T THE ROYAL WE.
AND I'LL JUST TELL YOU, WHEN YOU
COME IN WITH A PRECONCEIVED
NOTION, IT BECOMES OBVIOUS.
ONE OF YOU JUST SAID,
MR. FELDMAN AND I'M GOING TO
QUOTE HERE ROUGHLY I THINK THIS
IS EXACTLY WHAT YOU SAID THOUGH.
UNTIL THE CALL ON JULY 25TH, I
WAS AN IMPEACHMENT SCHEDULE
PART --SKEPTIC TOO.
I WAS LOOKING AT A PUBLICATION
WHERE YOU SAID IF PRESIDENT
DONALD TRUMP PARDONS JOE ARPAIO
IS AN IM35E67ABLE OFFENSE.
HE DID PARDON HIM.
IN 2017 THE NEW YORK BOOK
REVIEW, REVIEW OF BOOKS,
MR. FELDMAN, PROFESSOR FELDMAN
SAID DEFAMATION BY TWEET IS AN
IMPEACHABLE OFFENSE.
AND I THINK OF THE HISTORY OF
THIS COUNTRY AND I THINK IF
DEFAMATION ORB LIABLE OR SLARNLD
IS AN IMPEACHABLE OFFENSE I
CAN'T HELP BUT REFLECT ABOUT
JOHN ADAMS AND THOMAS JEFFERSON
WHO RUE TANLY PILLOW REED THEIR
POLITICAL OPPONENTS.
TED THEIR PARTIES ACTUALLY
BOUGHT NEWALS TO ATTACK THEIR
POLITICAL OPPONENTS.
THIS RATHER GENEROUS VIEW YOU
HAVE ON WHAT CONSTITUTES
IMPEACHMENT IS A REAL PROBLEM.
THIS MORNING ONE OF YOU
MENTIONED THE CONSTITUTIONAL,
ONE OF YOU MENTIONED MR. DAVIES
AND MENTIONED THE CONSTITUTION
AL COMMISSION.
IT'S BEEN A WHILE SINCE I READ
THE MINUTES.
I JUST BRIEFLY REVIEWED BECAUSE
I REMEMBER THE DISCUSSION ON THE
IMPEACHMENT AS BEING MORE
PERVASIVE.
A LITTLE BIT MORE EXPANDED.
AND ON JULY 20TH, 1787, IT
WASN'T 1798, IT WAS 1787, JULY
20TH, ABOUT EX MINUTE IS
DISCUSSING IMPEACHMENT OF A
DUTCH LEADER.
ASK AND HE TALKS SPECIFICALLY
ABOUT WHAT HE WOULD ANTICIPATES
AN IMPEACHMENT TO LOOK LIKE.
HE SAID IT WOULD BE A REGULAR
AND PEACEFUL INQUIRY.
THERE WOULD BE A PUNISHMENT IF
ACQUITTED AND WOULD BE RESTORED
TO THE CONFIDENCE OF THE PUBLIC.
THAT NEEDS TO BE TAKEN INTO
ACCOUNT AS WELL.
ON MAY 20, 2017 ARTICLE A
DISCUSSION ABOUT I PEACHMENT,
BECAUSE PRESIDENT TRUMP HAD
FIRED JAMES COMEY.
IT WAS HARD TO MAKE THE
OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE CASE WITH
THE SACKING AWK LOAN.
THE PRESIDENT HAD CLEAR LEGAL
AUTHORITY AND WAS PROPER AND
OTHER REASONS PUT FORTH FOR
FIRING HIM.
YET WHAT WE HAVE HERE IS THIS
INSISTENCE BY MI MS. GU GEAR HET
THAT WAS IMPEACHMENT.
MAY 20, 2017,BBC.
WHAT I'M SUGGESTING TO YOU TODAY
IS A RECKLESS BIAS COMING IN
HERE.
YOU'RE NOT FACT WITNESSES.
YOU'RE SUPPOSED TO BE TALKING
ABOUT WHAT THE LAW IS BUT YOU
CAME IN WITH A PRECONCEIVED
NOTION OF BIAS.
I WANT TO READ ONE LAST THING
HERE IF I CAN FIND IT FROM ONE
OF OUR WITNESSES HERE AND IT'S
DEALING WITH SOMETHING THAT WAS
SAID IN MARYLAND LAW REVIEW
ARTICLE IN 1999.
HE'S TALKING ABOUT BEING
CRITICAL OF LACK OF SELF DOUBT
AND AN OVERWHELMING ARROGANCE ON
THE PART OF LAW PROFESSORS WHO
COME IN AND OPINE ON
IMPEACHMENT.
THAT WOULD BE YOU MR. GEAR
HELAWRT --GEAR HEARTED.
THAT'S BEEN ON DISPLAY WITH THIS
COMMITTEE TODAY AND WITH THAT I
YIELD BACK.
>> THE GENTLEMAN YIELDS BACK.
A LITTLE WHILE AGO MR. GAETZ
ASKED THAT CERTAIN MATERIAL BE
INCERTAIN INTO THE RECORD BY
UNANIMOUS CONTENT.
I HAD AN OPPORTUNITY TO REVIEW
IT, MATERIAL WILL BE INCERTAIN
WITH THAT OBJECTION.
MR. LIEU.
>> THANK YOU MR. CHAIRMAN.
I WAS SWORN OATH TO THE
CONSTITUTION WHEN I WAS
COMMISSIONED AS AN OFFICER IN
THE UNITED STATES AIR FORCE.
THE OATH I TOOK WAS NOT TO A
POLITICAL PARTY OR TO A
PRESIDENT OR TO A KING.
IT WAS A DOCUMENT THAT MADE
AMERICA THE GREATEST NATION ON
EARTH.
I NEVER IMAGINED WE WOULD NOW BE
IN A SITUATION WHERE THE
PRESIDENT OR COMMANDER IN CHIEF
IS ACCUSED OF USING HIS OFFICE
FOR PERSONAL PLIGHT CAN CULL
GAIN THAT BETRAYED U.S. NATIONAL
SECURITY HURT OUR ALLY UKRAINE
AND HELPED OUR ADVERSARY,
RUSSIA.
WITH THE PRESIDENT'S ABUSE OF
POWER AND BETRAYAL OF OUR
NATIONAL INTEREST IS SO EXTREME
IT WARRANTS IMPEACHMENT AND
REMOVAL.
IT SEEMS REASONABLE WITH ALL
THOSE OFFENSES THEY DO HAVE
ENUMERATED BRIBERY IS ONE OF
TWO.
PROFESSOR FELDMAN WHY WOULD THE
FRAMERS SHOULD BRIBERY OF ALL OF
THE OFFENSES.
>> BRIBERY WAS THE CLASSIC
EXAMPLE FOR THEM OF HIGH CRIME
AND MISDEMEANOR FOR ABUSE OF
OFFICE FOR PERSONAL GAIN BECAUSE
IF YOU TAKE SOMETHING OF VALUE
WHILE, WHEN YOU'RE ABLE TO
EFFECT AN OUTCOME FOR SOMEBODY
ELSE, YOU'RE SERVING YOUR OWN
INTERESTS AND NOT THE INTERESTS
OF THE PEOPLE.
THAT WAS COMMONLY USED IN
IMPEACHMENT OFFENSES IN ENGLAND
AND THAT'S ONE OF THE REASONS
THAT THEY SPECIFIED IT.
>> THANK YOU.
NOW EARLIER IN THIS HEARING,
PROFESSOR KARLAN MADE A POINT
THAT BRIBERY IS ENFIGURED BY THE
FRAMERS WITH A -- ENVISIONED BY
THE FRAMERS IS MUCH BROADER THAN
THE FEDERAL CRIMINAL STATUTE OF
BRIBE REEF.
I THINK THE REASON FOR THAT IS
OBVIOUS.
WE'RE NOT IN A CRIMINAL
PROCEEDING.
WE'RE NOT DECIDING WHETHER TO
SEND PRESIDENT TRUMP TO PRISON.
THIS IS A CIVIL ACTION AN
IMPEACHMENT PROCEEDINGS WHETHER
OR NOT WE REMOVE DONALD TRUMP
FROM HIS JOB.
SO PROFESSOR KARLAN, IT'S TRUE,
ISN'T IT, WE DON'T HAVE TO MEET
THE STANDARDS OF A FEDERAL
BRIBERY STATUTE IN ORDER TO MEET
THE STANDARDS FOR IMPEACHABLE
OFFENSE.
>> THAT'S CORRECT.
>> THANK YOU.
YESTERDAY, SCALIA LAW PROFESSOR
J.W. BARRETT WAS A LIFE LONG
REPUBLICAN FORMER REPUBLICAN
STAFF WHO ADD RISED THE TRUMP --
ADVISED THE TRUMP TRANSITION
TEAM MADE THE FOLLOWING PUBLIC
STATEMENT ABOUT DONALD TRUMP'S
CONDUCT.
THE CALL WASN'T PERFECT.
HE COMMITTED IMPEACHABLE
OFFENSES INCLUDING BRIBERY.
PROFESSOR KARLAN, I'M NOW GOING
TO SHOW YOU TWO VIDEO CLIPS OF
THE WITNESS TESTIMONY ABOUT THE
PRESIDENT'S WITHHOLDING OF THE
WHITE HOUSE MEETING IN EXCHANGE
FOR THE PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENT OF
INVESTIGATION INTO HIS POLITICAL
RIVAL.
>> AS I TESTIFIED PREVIOUSLY,
MR. GIULIANI REQUESTS FOR A QUID
PRO QUO FOR ARRANGING A WHITE
HOUSE VISIT FOR PRESIDENT
ZELENSKY.
>> BY MID JULY IT WAS BECOMING
CLEAR THAT THE MEETING PRESIDENT
ZELENSKY WANT WAS CONYOU HAD
OFFED ON BURISMA AND THE ALLEGED
INTERFERENCE OF THE 2016
ELECTIONS.
>> I WANT TO SHOW YOU ONE MORE
VIDEO CLIP REGARDING TO THE
PRESIDENT'S DECISION TO WITHHOLD
ASSISTANCE CONGRESS HAD
APPROPRIATED AND GAIN FOR HIS
POLITICAL RIVAL.
>> IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY
CREDIBLE EXPLANATION FOR
SUSPENSION OF AID I LATER CAME
TO BELIEVE THAT THE RESUMPTION
OF SECURITY AID WOULD NOT E CUR
UNTIL THERE WAS A PUBLIC
STATEMENT FROM UKRAINE
COMMITTING TO THE INVESTIGATIONS
OF THE 2016 ELECTIONS AND
BURISMA AS MR. GIULIANI HAD
DEMANDED.
>> PROFESSOR KARLAN, DOES THAT
EVIDENCE AS WELL AS THE EVIDENCE
IN THE RECORD TEND TO SHOW THAT
THE PRESIDENT MET THE STANDARDS
FOR BRIBERY AS ENVISIONED IN THE
CONSTITUTION?
>> YES, IT DOES.
>> I'M ALSO A FORMER PROSECUTOR.
I BELIEVE THE RECORD WOULD ALSO
MEET THE STANDARDS FOR CRIMINAL
BRIBERY.
THE SUPREME COURT'S DECISION IN
MCDONALD WAS PRIMELY ABOUT WHAT
CONSTITUTES AN OFFICIAL ACT.
THE KEY FINDING WAS AN OFFICIAL
MUST INVOLVE A FORMAL EXERCISE
OF GOVERNMENTAL POWER ON
SOMETHING SPECIFIC PENDING
BEFORE A PUBLIC OFFICIAL.
PRETTY CLEAR WE GOT THAT HERE.
WE HAVE HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS OF
DOLLARS OF MILITARY AID THAT
CONGRESS SPECIFICALLY
APPROPRIATED.
THE FREEZING AND UNFREEZING OF
THAT AID IS A FORMAL EXERCISE OF
GOVERNMENTAL POWER.
BUT WE DON'T EVEN HAVE TO TALK
ABOUT THE CRIME OF BRIBERY.
THERE'S ANOTHER CRIME HERE WHICH
IS THE SOLICITATION OF FEDERAL,
ASSISTANCE OF A FOREIGN
GOVERNMENT IN A FEDERAL ELECTION
CAMPAIGN THAT'S STRAIGHT UP
VIOLATES THE FEDERAL ELECTION
CAMPAIGN AT 52USC3031 AND BY THE
WAY THAT'S ONE REASON MICHAEL
COHEN IS SITTING IN PRISON RIGHT
NOW.
I YIELD BACK.
>> THE GENTLEMAN YIELDS BACK.
MR. MCCLINTOCK.
>> THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN.
COULD I WITH A SHOW OF HANDS HOW
MANY ON THE PANEL ACTUALLY VOTED
FOR DONALD TRUMP IN 2016?
>> I DON'T THINK WE'RE ABLE
GATED TO SAY ANYTHING ABOUT HOW
WE CAST OUR BLAST.
BALLOTS.
>> JUST SHOW OF HAND.
>> I THINK YOU MADE YOUR
POSITION --
>> I WILL SUSPEND THE CLOCK TOO.
>> EXCUSE ME YOU MAY ASK --
>> STOP FOR THE MOMENT.
THE GENTLEMAN MAY ASK THE
QUESTION.
THE WITNESSES DON'T HAVE TO
RESPOND.
>> -- DONALD TRUMP IN 2016.
SHOW OF HANDS.
THANK YOU.
>> NOT RAISING OUR HANDS IS NOT
AN INDICATION OF ANN SIR.
>> THIS HAS BEEN PRESIDENT
INDICATED ON SOME RATHER
DISTURBING LEGAL DRAWING
TERRAIN.
ONE DEMOCRAT ASSERTED HEARSAY
CAN BE BETTER EVIDENCE THAN
DIRECT EVIDENCE.
SPEAKER PELOSI AND OTHERS HAVE
SAID THAT THE PRESIDENT'S
RESPONSIBILITY IS TO PRESENT
EVIDENCE TO PROVE HIS INNOCENCE.
CHAIRMAN SCHIFF ASSERTED AND WE
HEARD A DISCUSSION FROM SOME OF
YOUR COLLEAGUES TODAY THAT IF
YOU INVOKE LEGAL RIGHTS IN
DEFENSE OF CRIMINAL ACCUSATIONS,
IPSO FACTO THAT'S AN OBSTRUCTION
OF JUSTICE AND EVIDENCE OF
GUILT.
MY QUESTION TO YOU WHAT DOES IT
MEAN TO OUR AMERICAN JUSTICE
SYSTEM IF THESE DOCTRINES TAKE
ROOT 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
IMPEACHABLE OFFENSES I ONLY
HEARD ABOUT TODAY.
I'M NOT TOO SURE WHAT ATTEMPTING
TO ABUSE OFFICE MEANS OR HOW YOU
RECOGNIZE IT.
BUT I'M PRETTY CONFIDENT THAT
NOBODY ON THIS COMMITTEE TRULY
WANTS THE NEW STANDARD OF
IMPEACHMENT TO BE BET BETRAYAL F
THE NATIONAL INTEREST.
THAT IS GOING TO BE THE BASIS
FOR IMPEACHMENT --
>> HOW MANY REPUBLICANS DO YOU
THINK WOULD SAY THAT BARACK
OBAMA VIOLATED THAT STANDARD.
THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT JAMES
MADISON WARNED YOU AGAINST IS
THAT YOU WOULD CREATE
EFFECTIVELY A VOTE OF NO
CONFIDENCE STANDARD IN OUR
CONSTITUTION.
>> ARE WE IN DANGER OF ABUSING
OUR OWN POWER OF DOING ENORMOUS
VIOLENCE TO OUR CONSTITUTION?
MY COLLEAGUES ARE SEARCHING FOR
A PRETEXT FOR IMPEACHMENT SINCE
BEFORE THE PRESIDENT WAS SWORN
IN ON THIS PANEL.
PROFESSOR KARLAN CALLED
PRESIDENT TRUMP'S ELECTION
ILLEGITIMATE IN 2017.
SHE IMPLIED EMME.
WAS A REMEDY.
PROFESSOR FELDMAN ADVOCATING
IMPEACHING THE PRESIDENT OVER A
TWEET IN MARCH OF 2017.
THAT'S 7 YEARS AFTER HIS
INAUGURATION.
ARE WE IN DANGER OF COMING TO
THE MAXIMUM OF LEWIS CARROLL'S
RED QUEEN SENTENCE FIRST BURIED
AFTERWARDS.
>> THIS IS PART OF THE PROBLEM
HOW YOUR VIEW OF THE PRESIDENT
CAN AFFECT YOUR ASSUMPTIONS,
YOUR INFERENCES, YOUR VIEW OF
CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE.
I'M NOT SUGGESTING THAT THE
EVIDENCE IF IT WAS FULLY
INVESTIGATED IF IT WOULD COME
OUT ONE WAY OR THE OTHER.
WHAT I'M SAYING IS WE'RE NOT
DEALING WITH THE REALM OF THE
UNKNOWABLE.
WE HAVE TO ASK.
WE BURNED TWO MONTHS IN THIS
HOUSE, TWO MONTHS YOU COULD HAVE
BEEN IN COURT SEEKING A SUBPOENA
FOR THESE WITNESSES.
IT DOESN'T MEAN YOU HAVE TO WAIT
FOREVER BUT YOU COULD HAVE
GOTTEN AN ORDER BY NOW.
YOU COULD HAVE ALLOWED THE
PRESIDENT TO RAISE AN EXECUTIVE
PREVIOUS.
>> THE CONSTITUTION SAYS THE
EXECUTIVE AUTHORITY SHALL BE
VESTED IN THE PRESIDENT OF THE
UNITED STATES.
DOES THAT MEAN SOME EXECUTIVE
AUTHORITY OR ALL OF IT.
>> THERE ARE CHECKS AND BALANCES
BUT THE AUTHORITY OBVIOUSLY
RESTS WITH THE PRESIDENT BUT
THESE ARE ALL SHARED POWERS.
AND I DON'T BEGRUDGE THE
INVESTIGATION OF THE UKRAINE
CONTROVERSY.
I THINK IT WAS A LEGITIMATE
INVESTIGATION.
WHAT I BEGRUDGE IS HOW IT WAS
CONDUCTED.
>> THE CONSTITUTION DEMANDS THE
PRESIDENT TAKES CARE THAT THE
LAWS BE ENFORCED.
THAT DOES IN EFFECT MAKE HIM THE
CHIEF LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER IN
THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT DOES IT
NOT.
>> THAT'S COMMONLY EXPRESSED
THAT WAY, YES.
>> IF PROBABLE CAUSE EXISTS THAT
A CRIME WAS COMMITTED
POWER TELL US ABOUT THE
PRESIDENT'S CLAIM THAT THE
CONSTITUTION ALLOWS HIM TO DO
WHATEVER HE WANTS.
>> IT PLO BLOWS IT OUT OF THE W.
>> IF HE'S RIGHT AND WE ACCEPT
THIS RADICAL CLAIM THAT HE CAN
DO WHATEVER HE WANTS, ALL FUTURE
PRESIDENTS SEEKING RE-ELECTION
WILL BE ABLE TO BRING FOREIGN
GOVERNMENTS INTO OUR CAMPAIGNS
TO TARGET THEIR RIVALS AND TO
SPREAD PRAW PROPAGANDA.
THAT'S A ASTOUNDING.
IF WE LET THE PRESIDENT GET AWAY
WITH THIS CONDUCT EVERY
PRESIDENT CAN GET AWAY WITH
THAT.
DO YOU AGREE WITH THAT PROFESSOR
FELDMAN.
>> I DO.
RICHARD NIXON SENT BURGLARS TO
SEND PEOPLE TO BREAK INTO THE
HEADQUARTERS BUT PRESIDENT TRUMP
JUST MADE A PHONE CALL AND
SOUGHT INTERVENTION IN AMERICAN
ELECTIONS.
>> THIS IS A BIG MOMENT FOR
AMERICA ISN'T IT?
IF ELIJAH CUMMINGS WERE HERE HE
WOULD SAY LISTEN UP PEOPLE
LISTEN UP.
HOW WE RESPOND WILL DETERMINE
THE CHARACTER OF OUR DEMOCRACY
FOR GENERATIONS.
NOW, PROFESSORS FELDMAN, KARLAN
AND GERHARDT TOLD US THREE
REASONS FOR WHY WE NEEDED AN
IMPEACHMENT POWER.
BROADLY SPEAKING, IT WAS AN
INSTRUMENT OF POPULAR
SELF-DEFENSE AGAINST THE
PRESIDENT BEHAVING LIKE A KING
AND TRAMPLING THE RULE OF LAW
BUT NOT JUST IN THE NORMAL ROYAL
SISENSE OF SHOWING CRUELTY AND
VANITY AND TREACHERY AND GREED
AND AVARICE AND SO ON BUT WHEN
PRESIDENTS THREATENED THE BASIC
CHARACTER OF OUR GOVERNMENT IN
THE CONSTITUTION, THAT'S WHAT
IMPEACHMENT WAS ABOUT.
THE FRAMERS INVOKED THREE
SPECIFIC KINDS OF MISCONDUCT SO
SERIOUS AND EGREGIOUS THAT THEY
THOUGHT THEY WARRANTED
IMPEACHMENT.
FIRST THE PRESIDENT MIGHT HAVE
USED HIS POWER BY CORRUPTLY
USING HIS OFFICE FOR PERSONAL
POLITICAL OR FINANCIAL GAIN.
WELL PROFESSOR FELDMAN, WHAT'S
SO WRONG WITH THAT?
IF THE PRESIDENT BELONGS TO MY
PARTY AND I GENERALLY LIKE HIM
WHAT'S SO WRONG WITH HIM USING
HIS OFFICE TO ADVANCE HIS OWN
POLITICAL AMBITIONS.
>> BECAUSE THE PRESIDENT OF THE
UNITED STATES WORKS FOR THE
PEOPLE AND SO IF HE SEEKS
PERSONAL GAIN, HE'S NOT SERVING
THE INTERESTS OF THE PEOPLE,
HE'S RATHER SERVING THE
INTERESTS THAT ARE SPECIFIC TO
HIM AND THAT MEANS HE'S ABUSING
THE OFFICE AND HE'S DOING THINGS
THEY CAN ONLY GET AWAY WITH
BECAUSE HE'S THE PRESIDENT AND
THAT IS NECESSARILY SUBJECT TO
IMPEACHMENT.
>> SECOND AND THIRD THE FOUNDERS
EXPRESSED FEAR THE PRESIDENT
COULD SUBVERT OUR DEMOCRACY BY
BETRAYING HIS TRUST TO OWNER
INFLUENCE IN INTERFERENCE AND
ALSOY CORRUPTING THE ELECTION
PROCESS.
PROFESSOR KARLAN YOU'RE ONE OF
AMERICA'S LADLING ELECTION LAW
SCHOLARS.
WHAT ROLE DOES IMPEACHMENT PLAY
IN PROTECTING THE INTEGRITY OF
OUR ELECTIONS ESPECIALLY IN THE
INTERNATIONAL CONTEXT IN WHICH
VLADIMIR PUTIN AND OTHER TYRANTS
AND DECEMBER PUDDLE ARE
INTERFERE -- DECEMBER PUTTS
DESHYPOTHESES INTERFERENCE IN --
>> SO THERE ISN'T INFLUENCE IN
OUR ELECTION AND ALLOWING THE
PRESIDENT TO CIRCUMVENT THAT
PRINCIPLE IS A PROBLEM AND AS
I'VE ALREADY TESTIFIED SEFLT
TIMES, AMERICA IS NOT JUST THE
LAST BEST HOPE AS MR. JEFFRIES
SAYS IT'S THE SHINING CITY ON
THE HILL AND WE CAN'T BE THE
SHINING CITY ON THE HILL AND
PROMOTE DEMOCRACY AROUND THE
WORLD AND WE'RE NOT PROMOTING IT
HERE AT HOME.
>> ANY ONE OF THESE ACTIONS
ALONE WOULD BE SUFFICIENT TO
IMPEACH THE PRESIDENT ACCORDING
TO THE FOUNDERS BUT IS IT FAIR
TO SAY ALL THREE CAUSES FOR
IMPEACHMENT EXPLUS ULY CONTELL
PLAIFTD BY THE FOUNDERS, ABUSIVE
POWER BETRAYAL OF OUR NATIONAL
SECURITY OF OUR ELECTION IS
PRESENT IN THIS PRESIDENT'S
CONDUCT.
YES OR NO, PROFESSOR FELDMAN.
>> YES.
>> PROFESSOR GERHARDT.
>> YES SIR.
>> PROFESSOR KARLAN.
>> YES.
>> YOU ALL AGREE.
ARE ANY OF YOU AWARE OF ANY
OTHER PRESIDENT WHO HAS
ESSENTIALLY TRIGGERED ALL THREE
CONCERNS THAT ANIMATED THE
FOUNDERS.
>> NO.
>> NO.
>> NO AS WELL.
>> MR. CHAIRMAN IT'S HARD TO
THINK OF A MORE MAMAN CULL
ISN'TMENT TO DO WHATEVER I WANT
AS PRESIDENT AND I YIELD BACK.
>> GENTLEMAN YIELDS BACK.
MS. LESKO.
>> THANK YOU MR. CHAIR.
MR. CHAIR I ASK UNANIMOUS
CONSENT TO INSERT INTO THE
RECORD A LETTER I WROTE AND SENT
TO YOU ASKING, CALLING ON YOU TO
CANCEL ANY AND ALL FUTURE
IMPEACHMENT HEARINGS AND
OUTLINING HOW THE PROCESS --
>> WITHOUT OBJECTION THE LETTER
WILL BE ENTERED INTO THE RECORD.
>> THANK YOU.
>> DURING AN INTERVIEW
MR. CHAIRMAN ON MSNBC MORNING
JOE.
ON NOVEMBER 26, 2018, CHAIRMAN
NADLER OUTLINED A THREE-PRONGED
TEST THAT HE SAID WOULD ALLOW
FOR A LEGITIMATE IMPEACHMENT
PROCEEDING.
NOW I QUOTE CHAIRMAN NADLER'S
REMARKS.
THIS WAS WHAT HE SAID.
THERE REALLY ARE THREE
QUESTIONS, I THINK.
FIRST HAS THE PRESIDENT
COMMITTED IMPEACHABLE OFFENSES?
SECOND.
DO THOSE OFFENSES RISE TO THE
GRAVITY THAT'S WORTH PUTTING THE
COUNTRY THROUGH THE DRAMA OF
IMPEACHMENT.
AND NUMBER THREE, BECAUSE YOU
DON'T WANT TO TEAR THE COUNTRY
APART, YOU DON'T WANT HALF OF
THE COUNTRY TO SAY TO THE OTHER
HALF FOR THE NEXT 30 YEARS.
WE WON THE ELECTION, YOU STOLE
IT FROM US.
YOU HAVE TO BE ABLE TO THINK AT
THE BEGINNING OF THE IMPEACHMENT
PROCESS THAT THE EVIDENCE IS SO
CLEAR OF OFFENSES SO GRAVE THAT
ONCE YOU'VE LAID OUT ALL OF THE
EVIDENCE, A GOOD FRACTION OF THE
OPPOSITION, THE VOTERS WILL
RELUCTANTLY ADMIT TO THEMSELVES
THEY HAD TO DO IT.
OTHERWISE, YOU HAVE A PARTISAN
IMPEACHMENT WHICH WILL TEAR THE
COUNTRY APART.
IF YOU MEET THESE THREE TESTS,
THEN I THINK YOU DO THE
IMPEACHMENT AND THOSE WERE THE
WORDS OF CHAIRMAN NADLER.
NOW, LET'S SEE IF CHAIRMAN
NADLER'S THREE-PRONGED TEST HAS
BEEN MET.
FIRST HAS THE PRESIDENT
COMMITTED AN IMPEACHABLE
OFFENSE?
NO.
THE EVIDENCE AND TESTIMONY HAS
NOT REVEALED ANY IMPEACHABLE
OFFENSE.
SECOND, DO THOSE OFFENSES RISE
TO THE GRAVITY THAT'S WORTH
PUTTING THE COUNTRY THROUGH THE
DRAMA OF IMPEACHMENT?
AGAIN THE ANSWER IS NO.
THERE'S NOTHING HERE THAT RISES
TO THE GRAVITY THAT'S WORTH
PUTTING THE COUNTRY THROUGH THE
DRAMA OF IMPEACHMENT AND THIRD
HAVE THE DEMOCRATS LAID OUT A
CASE SO CLEAR THAT EVEN THE
OPPOSITION HAS TO AGREE.
ABSOLUTELY NOT.
YOU AND HOUSE DEMOCRAT
LEADERSHIP ARE TEARING APART THE
COUNTRY.
YOU SAID THE EVIDENCE NIETZSCHE
TO BE CLEAR IT IS NOT.
YOU SAID OFFENSES NEED TO BE
GRAVE.
THEY ARE NOT.
YOU SAID ONCE THE EVIDENCE IS
LAID OUT THAT THE OPPOSITION
WILL ADMIT THEY HAD TO DO IT.
THAT HAS NOT HAPPENED.
IN FACT POLLING AND THE FACT
THAT NOT ONE SINGLE REPUBLICAN
VOTED ON THE IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY
RESOLUTION OR ON THE SCHIFF
REPORT REVEAL THE OPPOSITE IS
TRUE.
IN FACT WHAT YOU AND YOUR
DEMOCRATIC COLLEAGUES HAVE DONE
IS OPPOSITE OF WHAT YOU SAID HAD
TO BE DONE.
THIS IS A PARTISAN IMPEACHMENT
AND IT IS TEARING THE COUNTRY
APART.
I TAKE THIS ALL TO MEAN THAT
CHAIRMAN NADLER ALONG WITH THE
REST OF THE DEMOCRATIC CAUCUS IS
PREPARED TO CONTINUE THESE
ENTIRELY PARTISAN UNFAIR
PROCEEDINGS AND TRAUMATIZE THE
AMERICAN PEOPLE ALL FOR
POLITICAL PURPOSE.
I THINK THAT'S A SHAME.
THAT'S NOT LEADERSHIP THAT'S A
SHAM.
SO I ASKED MR. TURLEY, HAS
MR. CHAIRMAN SATISFIED HIS
THREE-PRONGED TEST FOR
IMPEACHMENT.
>> WH ALL DIE RESPECT TO THE
CHAIRMAN I DO NOT BELIEVE THOSE
FACTORS WERE SATISFIED.
>> THANK YOU.
AND I WANT TO CORRECT SOMETHING
ARE TO THE RECORD AS WELL.
REPEATEDLY TODAY AND OTHER DAYS
DEMOCRATS HAVE REPEATED WHAT WAS
SAID IN THE TEXT OF THE CALL.
DO ME A FAVOR AND THEY IMPLIED
IT WAS AGAINST PRESIDENT BIDEN
TO INVESTIGATE PRESIDENT BIDEN.
IT WAS NOT, IN FACT LET ME READ
WHAT THE TRANSCRIPT SAYS.
IT SAYS TO PRESIDENT TRUMP I
WOULD LIKE YOU TO DO US A FAVOR
THOUGH BECAUSE OUR COUNTRY HAS
BEEN THROUGH A LOT AND UKRAINE
KNOWS A LOT ABOUT IT.
I WOULD LIKE YOU TO FIND OUT
WHAT HAPPENED WITH THIS WHOLE
SITUATION WITH UKRAINE.
THEY SAY CROWDSTRIKE.
I GUESS YOU HAVE ONE OF YOUR OWN
WEALTHY PEOPLE.
IT SAYS NOTHING ABOUT THE BIDENS
SO PLEASE STOP RIRCHESSING THOSE
TWO TOGETHER AND I YIELD BACK.
>> GENTLELADY YIELDS BACK.
>> THANK YOU MR. CHAIRMAN.
THIS IS A DEEPLY GRAVE MOMENT
THAT WE FIND OURSELVES IN AND I
THOUGHT THE THREAT TO OUR
NARRATION WAS WELL ARTICULATED
EARLIER TODAY BY PROFESSOR
FELDMAN WHEN YOU SAID IF WE
CANNOT IMPEACH A PRESIDENT WHO
ABUSES HIS OFFICE FOR PERSONAL
ADVANTAGE, WE NO LONGER LIVE IN
A DEMOCRACY, WE LIVE IN A
MONARCHY OR WE LIVE UNDER A
DICTATORSHIP.
MY VIEW IS THAT IF PEOPLE CANNOT
DEPEND ON THE FAIRNESS OF OUR
ELECTIONS, THEN WHAT PEOPLE ARE
CALLING DIVISIVE TODAY WILL BE
ABSOLUTELY NOTHING COMPARED TO
THE SHREDDING OF OUR DEMOCRACY.
AFTERNOON THE EVENTS OF UKRAINE
UNFOLDED THE PRESIDENT SAID THE
REASON HE REQUESTED AN
INVESTIGATION INTO HIS POLITICAL
AWE TONIGHT AND WITHHELD
DESPERATELY NEEDED MILITARY AID
FOR UKRAINE WAS SUPPOSED BECAUSE
HE WAS WORRIED ABOUT CUPPION.
HOWEVER, CONTRARY TO PRESIDENT'S
STATEMENTS, VARIOUS WITNESSES
INCLUDING VICE PRESIDENT PENCE'S
SPECIAL ADVISOR JENNIFER
WILLIAMS TESTIFIED THAT THE
PRESIDENT'S REQUEST WAS
POLITICAL.
TAKE A LISTEN.
>> I FOUND THE JULY 25TH PHONE
CALL UNUSUAL BECAUSE IN CONTRAST
TO OTHER PRESIDENTIAL CALLS I
HAD OBSERVED, IT INVOLVED
DISCUSSIONS OF MATTER.
PROFESSOR KARLAN IS IT COMMON
FOR SOMEONE WHO GETS CAUGHT TO
DENY THEIR BEHAVIOR IS
IMPERMISSIBLE?
>> ALMOST ALWAYS.
>> AND ONE OF THE QUESTIONS
BEFORE US IS WHETHER THE
PRESIDENT'S CLAIM THAT HE CARED
ABOUT CORRUPTION IS ACTUALLY
CREDIBLE.
NOW YOU HAVE ARGUED BEFORE THE
SUPREME COURT AND THE SUPREME
COURT DETERMINED THAT WHEN
ASSESSING CREDIBILITY WE SHOULD
LOOK AT A NUMBER OF FACTORS
INCLUDING IMPACT, HISTORICAL
BACKGROUND AND WHETHER THERE ARE
DEPARTURES FROM NORMAL PRAWRS.
CORRECT.
>> THAT IS CORRECT.
>> SO WHAT WE ARE ULTIMATELY
TRYING TO DO IS FIGURE OUT IF
SOMEONE'S EXPLANATION FITS WITH
THE FACTS AND IF IT DOESN'T THEN
THE EXPLANATION MAY NOT BE TRUE.
SO LET'S EXPLORE THAT.
LIEUTENANT COLONEL VINDMAN
TESTIFIED THAT HE PREPARED
TALKING POINTS ON
ANTI-CORRUPTION REFORM FOR
PRESIDENT TRUMP'S CALL WITH
UKRAINIAN PRESIDENT ZELENSKY,
HOWEVER BASED ON THE TRANSCRIPTS
RELEASED OF THOSE CALLS THIS
APRIL AND JULY PRESIDENT TRUMP
NEVER MENTIONED THESE POINTS OF
CORRUPTION.
HE ACTUALLY NEVER MENTIONED THE
WORD CORRUPTION.
DOES THAT GO TO ANY OF THOSE
FACTORS?
IS THAT SIGNIFICANT?
>> YES, IT GOES TO THE ONE ABOUT
PROCEDURAL IRREGULARITIES AND
ALSO GOES TO THE ONE THAT SAYS
YOU LOOK AT THE KIND OF THINGS
THAT LED UP TO THE DECISION THAT
YOU ARE TRYING TO FIGURE OUT
SOME OF THESE MOTIVES ABOUT.
>> LET'S TRY ANOTHER ONE,
AMBASSADOR VOLKER TESTIFIED THE
PRESIDENT NEVER EXPRESSED MY
CONCERNS TO HIM ABOUT CORRUPTION
IN ANY COUNTRY OTHER THAN
UKRAINE.
WOULD THAT BE RELEVANT TO YOUR
ASSESSMENT?
>> YES, IT WOULD.
IT GOES TO THE FACTOR ABOUT
SUBSTANTIVE DEPARTURES.
>> AND PROFESSOR KARLAN, THERE
IS, IN FACT, AND MY COLLEAGUE,
MR. MCCLINTOCK MENTIONED THIS
EARLIER, PROCESS OUTLINED IN THE
NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION
ACT TO ASSESS WHETHER COUNTRIES
THAT ARE RECEIVING MILITARY AID
HAVE DONE ENOUGH TO FIGHT
CORRUPTION.
IN MAY OF 2019, MY REPUBLICAN
COLLEAGUE DID NOT SAY THIS, THE
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE ACTUALLY
WROTE A LETTER DETERMINING THAT
UKRAINE PASSED THIS ASSESSMENT
AND YET PRESIDENT TRUMP SET
ASIDE THAT ASSESSMENT AND
WITHHELD THE CONGRESSIONALLY
APPROVED AID TO UKRAINE ANYWAY
IN DIRECT CONTRADICTION TO THE
ESTABLISHED PROCEDURES HE SHOULD
HAVE FOLLOWED HAD HE CARED ABOUT
CORRUPTION.
IS THAT ASSESSMENT -- IS THAT
RELEVANT TO YOUR ASSESSMENT?
>> YES, THAT WOULD ALSO GO TO
THE FACTORS THE SUPREME COURT
DISCUSSED.
>> AND WHAT ABOUT THE FACT AND I
THINK YOU MENTIONED THIS EARLIER
AS ONE OF THE KEY THINGS THAT
YOU READ IN THE TESTIMONY THAT
PRESIDENT TRUMP WANTED THE
INVESTIGATIONS OF BURISMA AND
THE BIDE DENSE, BIDENS ANNOUNCED
BUT ACTUALLY DIDN'T CARE WHETHER
THEY WERE CONNECTED.
THAT WAS AMBASSADOR SONDLAND'S
TESTIMONY, WHAT WOULD YOU SAY
ABOUT THAT?
>> THAT GOES TO WHETHER THE
CLAIM THAT THIS IS ABOUT
POLITICS IS A PERSUASIVE CLAIM
BECAUSE THAT GOES TO THE FACT
THAT IT IS BEING ANNOUNCED
PUBLICLY WHICH IS AN ODD THING.
I MEAN, MAYBE MR. SWALWELL CAN
PROBABLY ANSWER THIS BETTER THAN
I BECAUSE HE WAS A PROSECUTOR
BUT GENERALLY YOU DON'T ANNOUNCE
THE INVESTIGATION IN A CRIMINAL
CASE BEFORE YOU CONDUCT IT
BECAUSE IT PUTS THE PERSON ON
NOTICE.
, THAT THEY ARE UNDER
INVESTIGATION.
>> AND GIVEN ALL OF THESE FACTS
AND THERE ARE MORE WE DON'T HAVE
TIME TO GET TO, HOW WOULD YOU
ASSESS THE CREDIBILITY OF THE
PRESIDENT'S CLAIM THAT HE WAS
WORRIED ABOUT CORRUPTION?
>> WELL I THINK YOU OUGHT TO
MAKE THAT CREDIBILITY
DETERMINATION BECAUSE YOU HAVE
THE SOLE POWER OF IMPEACHMENT.
IF I WERE A MEMBER OF THE HOUSE
OF REPRESENTATIVES, I WOULD WITH
INFER FROM THIS THAT HE WAS
DOING IT FOR POLITICAL REASONS.
IF WE DON'T STAND UP NOW TO A
PRESIDENT WHO ABUSES HIS POWER,
WE RISK SENDING A MENTAL TO ALL
FUTURE PRESIDENTS THAT THEY CAN
PUT THEIR OWN PERSONAL POLITICAL
INTERESTS AHEAD OF THE AMERICAN
PEOPLE, OUR NATIONAL SECURITY
AND OUR ELECTIONS AND THAT IS
THE GRAVEST OF THREATS TO OUR
DEMOCRACY, I YIELD BACK.
>> GENTLELADY YIELDS BACK.
I NOW RECORD MR. GO METERS.
>> GOMER.
>> I WOULD ASK UNANIMOUS CONSENT
TO DA OFFER AN ARTICLE BY DANIEL
HUFF.
>> WITHOUT OBJECTION THE ARTICLE
WILL BE ENTERED INTO THE RECORD.
>> THANK YOU.
THE CHAIR RECOGNIZES MR. GRESH
THAT WILLER, TO QUESTION THE
WITNESSES.
THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN.
STARTING OFF TODAY I AM DOING
SOMETHING THAT WROTE NORMALLY DO
AND I AM GOING TO QUOTE SPEAKER
OF THE HOUSE NANCY PELOSI.
IN MARCH THE SPEAKER TOLD THE
"WASHINGTON POST" I AM GOING TO
QUOTE THIS.
IMPEACHMENT IS SO DIVISIVE TO
THE COUNTRY THAT UNLESS THERE IS
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 RECOGNIZES
THAT CRIMES WORTHY OF
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.
SPEAKER SAYS THE CASE FOR
IMPEACHMENT MUST BE ALSO
COMPELLING.
WELL AFTER LAST MONTH'S SHIVER
SHOW THIS IS WHAT WE LEARNED.
THERE IS NO EVIDENCE THAT THE
PRESIDENT DIRECTED ANYONE TO
TELL THE UKRAINIANS THAT AID WAS
CONDITIONED ON INVESTIGATION.
ASIDE FROM THE MERE PRESUMPTIONS
BY BALANCES DO SONDLAND THERE IS
NO EVIDENCE THAT TRUMP WAS
CONDITIONING AID ON
INVESTIGATION AND IF YOU DOUBT
ME JUST GO BACK TO THE ACTUAL
TRANSCRIPT BECAUSE NEVER IN THAT
CALL WAS THE 2020 ELECTION
MENTIONED.
NEVER IN THAT CALL WAS MILITARY
AID MENTIONED.
IN FACT, PRESIDENT TRUMP TOLD
SENATOR JOHNSON ON 31 AUGUST
THAT AID WAS NOT CONDITIONED ON
INVESTIGATION.
RATHER, PRESIDENT TRUMP WAS
RIGHTFULLY SKEPTICAL ABOUT THE
UKRAINIANS, THEIR COUNTRY HAS A
HISTORY OF CORRUPTION AND MERELY
WANTED THE EUROPEANS TO
CONTRIBUTE MORE TO A PROBLEM IN
THEIR OWN BACKYARD.
I THINK WE CAN ALL AGREE IT IS
APPROPRIATE FOR THE PRESIDENT AS
STEWARD OF TAXPAYER DOLLARS TO
ENSURE THAT OUR MONEY ISN'T
WASTED.
II SAY I WASN'T GOING TO GO BACK
TO SPEAKER PELOSI BUT I DO WANT
TO GO BACK BECAUSE I FORGOT SHE
ALSO SAID IMPEACHMENT SHOULD
ONLY BE PURSUED WHEN IT IS QUOTE
UNQUOTE OVERWHELMING SO IT IS
PROBABLY NOT GOOD FOR THE
DEMOCRATS THAT NONE OF THE
WITNESSES WHO TESTIFIED BEFORE
THE INTEL COMMITTEE WERE ABLE TO
PROVIDE FIRSTHAND EVIDENCE OF A
QUID PRO QUO.
THEY ARE CALLING IT BRIBERY
AFTER THE FOCUS GROUP LAST A
WEEK AND THERE IS NO EVIDENCE OF
BRIBERY EITHER.
INSTEAD, THE TWO PEOPLE DID HAVE
FIRSTHAND KNOWLEDGE, THE
PRESIDENT, AND PRESIDENT
ZELENSKY BOTH SAY THERE WAS NO
PRESSURE ON THE UKRAINIANS.
AND AGAIN, THE TRANSCRIPT, THE
JULY 25TH BACKS THIS UP.
AND TO GO BACK TO NANCY PELOSI
ONE MORE TIME, SHE SAID THAT THE
MOVEMENT FOR IMPEACHMENT SHOULD
BE QUOTE UNQUOTE BIPARTISAN.
WHICH IS ACTUALLY THE SAME
SENTIMENT ECHOED BY OUR CHAIRMAN
JERRY NADLER WHO IN 1998 SAID
AND I QUOTE THERE MUST NEVER BE
A NARROWLY VOTED IMPEACHMENT
SUPPORTED BY ONE OF THE MAJOR
POLITICAL PARTIES AND OPPOSED BY
ANOTHER.
WELL, WHEN THE HOUSE VOTED ON
THE DEMOCRATS IMPEACHMENT
INQUIRY THERE WAS JUST THAT, IT
WAS ONLY BIPARTISAN VOTE WAS THE
ONE IMPOSING THE INQUIRY.
THE PARTISAN VOTE WAS THE ONE TO
MOVE FORWARD WITH THE INQUIRY.
SO WE ARE 0 FOR 3.
LET'S FACE IT, THIS IS A SHAM
IMPEACHMENT AGAINST PRESIDENT
TRUMP.
IT IS NOT COMPELLING.
IT IS NOT OVERWHELMING AND IT IS
NOT BIPARTISAN.
SO EVEN BY THE SPEAKER'S OWN
CRITERIA THIS HAS FAILED.
RATHER WHAT THIS IS IS NOTHING
MORE THAN A PARTISAN WITCH-HUNT
THAT DENIES FUNDAMENTAL FAIRNESS
OF OUR AMERICAN JUSTICE SYSTEM
AND DENIES DUE PROCESS TO THE
PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES.
THE DEMOCRATS CASE IS BASED ON
NOTHING MORE THAN THOUGHTS,
FEELINGS AND CONJECTURES AND A
FEW THOUGHTS AND FEELINGS OF A
FEW UNELECTED CAREER BUREAUCRATS
BUREAUCRATS.
AND THE AMERICAN PEOPLE ARE
ABSOLUTELY FED UP.
INSTEAD OF WASTING OUR TIME ON
THIS WE SHOULD BE DOING THINGS
LIKE PASS THE USMCA, LOWERING
THE COST OF PRESCRIPTION DRUGS
AND WORKING ON A FAILING
INFRASTRUCTURE IN THIS COUNTRY.
WITH WITH THAT MR. TURLEY I
WATCH HOW YOUR WORDS HAVE BEEN
TWISTED AND MANGLED ALL
YEARLONG.
IS THERE, ALL DAY LONG IS THERE
ANYTHING YOU WOULD LIKE TO
CLARIFY?
>> ONLY THIS, I THINK ONE OF THE
DISAGREEMENTS WE HAD OR I HAD
WITH MY ESTEEMED COLLEAGUES IS
WHAT MAKES A LEGITIMATE
IMPEACHMENT, NOT WHAT
TECHNICALLY SATISFIES
IMPEACHMENT, THERE ARE VERY FEW
TECHNICAL REQUIREMENTS OF AN
IMPEACHMENT.
THE QUESTION IS WHAT IS EXPECTED
OF YOU AND MY OBJECTION IS THAT
THERE IS A CONSTANT PREFERENCE
FOR INFERENCE OVER INFORMATION
OR PRESUMPTIONS OVER PROOF.
THAT'S BECAUSE THIS RECORD
HASN'T BEEN DEVELOPED AND IF YOU
ARE GOING TO REMOVE A PRESIDENT,
IF YOU BELIEVE IN DEMOCRACY, IF
YOU ARE GOING TO REMOVE A
SITTING PRESIDENT THEN YOU HAVE
AN OBLIGATION NOT TO RELY ON
INFERENCE WHEN THERE IS STILL
INFORMATION YOU CAN GATHER.
AND THAT'S WHAT I AM SAYING, IT
IS POT THAT YOU CAN'T DO THIS.
YOU JUST CAN'T DO IT THIS WAY.
THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN.
>> THE GENTLEMAN YIELDS BACK.
I NOW RECOGNIZE JACKSON LEE FOR
THE PURPOSE OF A UNANIMOUS
CONSENT REQUEST.
THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN I WOULD
LIKE UNANIMOUS CONSENT TO PLACE
IN A RECORD, A NEW STATEMENT
FROM CHECKS AND BALANCES ON
PRESIDENT TRUMP'S ABUSE OF
OFFICE --
>> WITHOUT OBJECTION --
THE REPUBLICAN AND DEMOCRATIC
ATTORNEY GENERAL --
>> ASK UNANIMOUS CONSENT.
>> WITHOUT OBJECTION, I NOW
RECOGNIZE MS. DEMOCRAT MENTION
FIVE QUESTIONS FOR, DEMINGS,
THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMANS AS
FORMER LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL
I KNOW FIRSTHAND THAT THE RULE
OF LAW IS THE STRENGTH OF OUR
DEMOCRACY.
AND NO ONE IS ABOVE IT.
NOT OUR NEIGHBORS IN OUR VARIOUS
COMMUNITIES, NOT OUR COWORKERS
AND NOT THE PRESIDENT OF THE
UNITED STATES.
YET THE PRESIDENT HAS SAID HE
CANNOT BE PROSECUTED FOR
CRIMINAL CONDUCT THAT HE NEED
NOT COMPLY WITH CONGRESSIONAL
REQUESTS AND SUBPOENAS.
AS A MATTER OF FACT, THE
PRESIDENT IS TRYING TO ABSORB
HIMSELF, ABSOLVE HIMSELF OF ANY
ACCOUNTABILITY.
SINCE THE BEGINNING OF THE
INVESTIGATION IN EARLY
SEPTEMBER.
THE HOUSE SENT MULTIPLE LETTERS,
DOCUMENT REQUESTS AND SUBPOENAS
TO THE WHITE HOUSE.
YET THE PRESIDENT HAS REFUSED TO
PRODUCE DOCUMENTS AND HAS
DIRECTED OTHERS NOT TO PRODUCE
DOCUMENTS.
HE HAS PREVENTED, HE, WHITE
HOUSE OFFICIALS KEY WHITE HOUSE
OFFICIALS FROM TESTIFYING.
THE PRESIDENT'S 0 OBSTRUCTION OF
CONGRESS IS PERVASIVE.
SINCE HOUSE BEGAN ITS
INVESTIGATION, THE WHITE HOUSE
HAS PRODUCED ZERO SUBPOENAED
DOCUMENTS.
IN ADDITION, AT THE PRESIDENT'S
DIRECTION MORE THAN A DOZEN
MEMBERS OF HIS ADMINISTRATION
HAVE DEFIED CONGRESSIONAL
SUBPOENAS.
THE FOLLOWING SLIDES SHOWS THOSE
WHO HAVE REFUSED TO COMPLY AT
THE PRESIDENT'S DIRECTION.
WE ARE FACING A CATEGORICAL
BLOCKADE BAY PRESIDENT WHO IS
DESPERATE TO PREVENT ANY
INVESTIGATION INTO HIS
WRONGDOING.
PROFESSOR GERHARDT, HAS A
PRESIDENT EVER REFUSED TO
COOPERATE IN AN IMPEACHMENT
INVESTIGATION?
>> NONE UNTIL NOW.
>> AND ANY PRESIDENT WHO -- I
KNOW NIXON DELAYED OR TRIED TO
DELAY A TURNING OVER
INFORMATION.
WHEN THAT OCCURRED, WAS IT AT
THE SAME LEVEL THAT WE ARE
SEEING TODAY?
>> DASH COOPERATE AND TESTIFY,
DIDN'T SHUT DOWN IN ANY EVENT.
HE PRODUCED DOCUMENTS AND THERE
WERE TIMES, THERE WERE CERTAINLY
DISAGREEMENTS BUT THERE WAS NOT
A WHOLESALE, BROAD SCALE ACROSS
THE BOARD REFUSAL TO EVEN
RECOGNIZE THE LEGITIMACY OF THIS
HOUSE DOING AN INQUIRY.
>> PRESIDENT NIXON'S OBSTRUCTION
RESULT IN AN ARTICLE OF
IMPEACHMENT?
>> YES, MA'AM.
ARTICLE 3.
>> PROFESSOR FELDMAN, IS IT FAIR
TO SAY THAT IF A PRESIDENT
STONEWALLS AN INVESTIGATION LIKE
WE ARE CLEARLY SEEING TODAY AND
TO WHETHER HE HAS COMMITTED AN
IMPEACHABLE OFFENSE HE RISKS
RENDERING THE IMPEACHMENT POWER
MOOT?
>> YES.
AND INDEED THAT'S THE INEVITABLE
EFFECT OF A PRESIDENT REFUSING
TO PARTICIPATE.
HE IS DENYING THE POWER OF
CONGRESS UNDER THE CONSTITUTION
TO OVERSEE HIM AS TO EXERCISE
ITS CAPACITY TO IMPEACH.
>> PROFESSOR GERHARDT, WHEN A
PRESIDENT PREVENTS WITNESSES
FROM COMPLYING WITH
CONGRESSIONAL SUBPOENAS, ARE WE
ENTITLED TO MAKE ANY
PRESUMPTIONS ABOUT WHAT THEY
WOULD SAY IF THEY TESTIFIED?
>> YES, MA'AM.
YOU ARE.
AND I MIGHT JUST POINT OUT THAT
ONE OF THE DIFFICULTIES WITH
ASKING FOR MORE THOROUGH
INVESTIGATION IS THAT'S EXACTLY
WHAT THE HOUSE HAS TRIED TO
CONDUCT HERE AND THE PRESIDENT
HAS REFUSED TO COMPLY WITH
SUBPOENAS AND OTHER REQUESTS FOR
INFORMATION.
THAT IS WHERE THE BLOCKAGE
OCCURS.
THAT'S WHY THERE ARE DOCUMENTS
NOT PRODUCED AND WHILE THERE ARE
PEOPLE NOT TESTIFYING AND PEOPLE
HAVE SAID HERE TODAY THEY WANT
TO HEAR FROM.
IN RELATION TO WHAT YOU JUST
SAID, AMBASSADOR SO SONDLAND
TESTIFIED EVERYONE WAS IN THE
LOOP.
IT WAS NO SEEBT.
PROFESSOR GERHARDT, HOW IS
AMBASSADOR SONDLAND'S TESTIMONY
RELEVANT HERE?
>> HIS TESTIMONY IS RELEVANT, IT
IS ALSO RATHER CHILLING TO HEAR
HIM SAY THAT EVERYBO IS IN THE
LOOP AND WHEN HE SAYS THAT HE IS
TALKING ABOUT THE PEP AT THE
HIGHEST LEVELS OF OUR GOVERNMENT
ALL OF WHOM ARE REFUSING TO
TESTIFY UNDER OATH OR COMPLY
WITH SUBPOENAS.
>> PROFESSORS I WANT TO THANK
YOU FOR YOUR TESTIMONY.
THE PRESIDENT USED THE POWER OF
HIS OFFICE TO PRESSURE A FOREIGN
HEAD OF STATE TO INVESTIGATE AN
AMERICAN CITIZEN IN ORDER TO
BENEFIT HIS DOMESTIC POLITICAL
SITUATION.
AFTER HE WAS CAUGHT AND I DO
KNOW SOMETHING ABOUT THAT, THIS
PRESIDENT PROCEEDED TO COVER IT
UP AND REFUSED TO COMPLY WITH
VALID CONGRESSIONAL SUBPOENAS.
THE FRAMERS INCLUDED IMPEACHMENT
IN THE CONSTITUTION TO ENSURE
THAT NO ONE, NO ONE IS ABOVE THE
LAW, INCLUDING AND ESPECIALLY
THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED
STATES.
THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR.
AND I YIELD BACK.
>> GENTLELADY YIELDS BACK.
MR. KLEIN IS RECOGNIZED.
THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN, IT IS
JUST PAST 5:00 O'CLOCK AND A LOT
OF FAMILIES ARE JUST GETTING
HOME FROM WORK RIGHNOW AND
DURING ON THE TV AND THEY ARE
WONDERING WHAT THEY ARE WATCHING
ON TV.
THEY ARE ASKING THEMSELVES, IS
THIS A RERUN?
BECAUSE I THOUGHT I SHAW A
COUNSEL OF WEEKS AGO, BUT NO
THIS IS NOT A RERUN,
UNFORTUNATELY THIS IS ACT 2 OF
THE THREE PART TRAGEDY OF THE
IMPEACHMENT OF PRESIDENT TRUMP.
AND WHAT WE ARE SEEING HERE IS
SEVERAL VERY ACCOMPLISHED
CONSTITUTIONAL SCHOLARS
ATTEMPTING TO DIVINE THE INTENT,
WHETHER IT IS OF THE PRESIDENT
OR OF THE VARIOUS WITNESSES WHO
APPEARED DURING THE SCHIFF
HEARINGS AND IT IS VERY
FRUSTRATING TO ME AS A MEMBER OF
THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE WHY WE
ARE WHERE WE ARE TODAY.
I ASKED TO BE A MEMBER OF THIS
COMMITTEE BECAUSE OF ITS STORIED
HISTORY, BECAUSE IT WAS THE
DEFENDER OF THE CONSTITUTION.
BECAUSE IT WAS ONE OF THE OLDEST
COMMITTEES IN CONGRESS IN THE
CONGRESS ESTABLISHED BY ANOTHER
VIRGINIAN JEAN-GEORGE JACKSON.
IT IS BECAUSE TWO OF MY
IMMEDIATE PREDECESSORS,
CONGRESSMAN BOB GOOD LAD, WHO
CHAIRED THIS COMMITTEE, AND
CONGRESSMAN CALDWELL BUTLER ALSO
SERVED ON THIS COMMITTEE.
THE COMMITTEE THEY SERVED UNDER,
SERVED ON IS DEAD.
THAT COMMITTEE DOESN'T EXIST
ANYMORE.
THAT COMMITTEE IS GONE.
APPARENTLY NOW WE DON'T EVEN GET
TO SIT IN THE JUDICIARY
COMMITTEE ROOM.
WE ARE IN THE WAYS AND MEANS
COMMITTEE ROOM.
I DON'T KNOW WHY, MAYBE BECAUSE
THERE IS MORE ROOM.
MAYBE BECAUSE THE PORTRAITS OF
THE VARIOUS CHAIR -- CHAIRMEN
WHO WOULD BE STARING DOWN AT US
MIGHT JUST INTIMIDATE THE OTHER
SIDE AS THEY ATTEMPT WHAT IS
ESSENTIALLY A SHAM IMPEACHMENT
OF THIS PRESIDENT.
YOU KNOW, LOOKING AT WHERE WE
ARE, THE LACK OF THE USE OF THE
RODINO RULES IN THIS PROCESS IS
SHAMEFUL.
THE FACT THAT WE GOT WITNESS
TESTIMONY FOR THIS HEARING THIS
MORNING IS SHAMEFUL.
THE FACT THAT WE GOT THE
INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE REPORT
YESTERDAY, 300 PAGES OF IT IS
SHAMEFUL.
I WATCHED THE INTELLIGENCE
COMMITTEE HEARINGS FROM THE
BACK, ALTHOUGH I COULDN'T WATCH
THEM ALL BECAUSE THE JUDICIARY
COMMITTEE ACTUALLY SCHEDULED
BUSINESS DURING THE INTELLIGENCE
COMMITTEE HEARINGS, SO THE
JUDICIARY COMMITTEE MEMBERS WITH
RESPECT ABLE TO WATCH ALL OF
AT &F &C1 &D0 &Q6 S37=5 N0 &K0AD
THIS PRESIDENT IN 2016 AND IT IS
THE PEOPLE WHO SHOULD HAVE THE
CHOICE AS TO WHETHER OR NOT TO
VOTE FOR THIS PRESIDENT IN 2020,
NOT THE MEMBERS OF THIS
COMMITTEE, NOT SPEAKER NANCY
PELOSI AND NOT THE MEMBERS OF
THIS HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.
IT SHOULD BE THE PEOPLE OF THE
UNITED STATES WHO GET TO DECIDE
WHO THEIR PRESIDENT IS IN 2020.
I ASKED SEVERAL QUESTIONS ABOUT
OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE TO
MR. MUELLER WHEN HE TESTIFIED.
MR. TURLEY, I KNOW THAT YOU
MENTIONED OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE
SEVERAL TIMES IN YOUR TESTIMONY.
I WANT TO YIELD TO MR. RATCLIFFE
TO ASK A CONCISE QUESTION ABOUT
THAT ISSUE.
>> I TAKE, I THANK THE GENTLEMAN
FOR YIELDING.
PROFESSOR TURLEY DESPITE NO
QUESTIONS TO ANY WITNESSES
DURING THE FIRST TWO MONTHS OF
THE FIRST PHASE OF THIS
IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY THAT THE
DEMOCRATS MAY BE DUSTING OFF THE
OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE PORTION
OF THE MUELLER REPORT.
IT SEEMS TO ME WE ALL REMEMBER
HOW PAINFUL IT WAS TO LISTEN TO
SPECIAL COUNSEL'S ANALYSIS OF
THE OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE
PORTION OF THAT REPORT.
I WOULD LIKE YOU TO ADDRESS THE
FATAL FLAWS FROM YOUR
PERSPECTIVE WITH REGARD TO THE
OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE PORTION
OF THAT --
>> THE GENTLEMAN'S TIME HAS
EXPIRED THE WITNESS MAY ANSWER
THE QUESTION BRIEFLY.
>> THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN.
I HAVE BEEN A CRITIC OF THE
OBSTRUCTION THEORY BEHIND THE
RUSSIAN -- RUSSIA INVESTIGATION
BECAUSE ONCE AGAIN IT DOESN'T
MEET WHAT I THINK ARE THE CLEAR
STANDARDS FOR OBSTRUCTION.
WORDS THE MUELLER ADDRESSED THE
ONLY ONE THAT RAISED A SERIOUS
ISSUE QUITE FRANKLY WAS THE
MATTER WITH DON MCBEGAN.
THERE IS 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, ROB ROSE ROSENSTEIN.
>> THE GENTLEMAN IS WELL
EXPIRED, THE GENTLEMAN'S TIME IS
WELL EXPIRED.
MR. CORREA.
>> THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN AND I
WOULD LIKE TO THANK OUR
WITNESSES FOR BEING HERE TODAY.
I CAN ASSURE YOUR TESTIMONY IS
IMPORTANT NOT ONLY TO THIS
TO AMERICA THAT IS LISTENING
VERY INTENTLY ON WHAT THE ISSUES
BEFORE US ARE AND WHY IT IS SO
IMPORTANT THAT ALL OF US
UNDERSTAND THE ISSUES BEFORE US.
PROFESSOR FELDMAN, IT WAS JUST
DISCUSSED THANK PRESIDENT TRUMPS
ORDERED THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH TO
COMPLETELY BLOCKADE THE EFFORTS
OF THIS HOUSE TO INVESTIGATE
WHETHER HE COMMITTED HIGH CRIMES
AND MISDEMEANORS.
IN HIS DEALINGS WITH THE
UKRAINE; IS THAT CORRECT?
>> YES, IT IS.
>> PRESIDENT TRUMP HAS ALSO
ASSERTED THAT MANY OFFICIALS ARE
SOMEHOW ABSOLUTELY IMMUNE FROM
TESTIFYING IN THIS IMPEACHMENT
INQUIRY.
ON THE SCREEN BEHIND YOU, IS THE
OPINION BY JUDGE JACKSON, A
FEDERAL JUDGE HERE IN DC THAT
REJECT'S PRESIDENT TRUMP'S
ASSERTION.
PROFESSOR FELDMAN, DO YOU AGREE
WITH JUDGE JACKSON'S RULING THAT
PRESIDENT TRUMP HAS INVOKED A
NONEXISTENCE LEGAL BASIS TO
BLOCK WITNESSES FROM TESTIFYING
IN THIS IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY?
>> I AGREE WITH THE THRUST OF
JUDGE JACKSON'S OPINION, I THINK
SHE CORRECTLY HELD THERE IS NO
ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY WHICH WOULD
PROTECT A PRESIDENTIAL ADVISOR
FROM HAVING TO APPEAR BEFORE THE
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES AND
TESTIFY.
SHE DID NOT MAKE A RULING AS TO
WHETHER EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE
WOULD APPLY TO ANY GIVEN
SITUATION, AND I THINK THAT WAS
ALSO APPROPRIATE BECAUSE THE
ISSUE HAD NOT YET ARISEN.
LET ME QUOTE JUDGE JACKSON, THE
PRIMARY TAKE AWAY FROM THE PAST
250 YEARS OF RECORDED AMERICAN
HISTORY IS THAT PRESIDENTS ARE
NOT KINGS." PROFESSOR FELDMAN,
IN THE FRAMERS' VIEW DOES THE
PRESIDENT ACT MORE LIKE A LEADER
OF DEMOCRACY OR MORE LIKE A
MONARCH WHEN HE ORDERS OFFICIALS
TO DENY CONGRESS AS IT TRIES
INVESTIGATE ABUSE OF POWER AND
CORRUPTION OF ELECTED?
>> SIR, I DON'T EVEN THINK THE
REMAINERS COULD HAVE IMAGINED
THAT A PRESIDENT WOULD FLATLY
REFUSE TO PARTICIPATE IN AN
IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY, GIVEN THAT
THEY GAVE THE POWER OF
IMPEACHMENT TO THE HOUSE OF
REPRESENTATIVES AND ASSUMED THAT
STRUCTURE OF THE CONSTITUTION
WOULD ALLOW THE HOUSE TO OVERSEE
THE PRESIDENT.
THANK YOU.
PROFESSOR GERHARDT --
>> YES.
>> -- WHERE CAN WE LOOK IN THE
CONSTITUTION TO UNDERSTAND
WHETHER THE PRESIDENT MUST
COMPLY WITH THE IMPEACHMENT
INVESTIGATIONS?
>> I THINK YOU CAN LOOK
THROUGHOUT THE ENTIRE
CONSTITUTION.
AA GOOD PLACE INCLUDES THE
SUPREMACY 0 CLAUSE THE PRESIDENT
TAKES AN OATH, TAKES AN OATH TO
SUPPORT AND DEFEND THE
CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED
STATES.
THAT MEANS THAT HE IS ASSUMING
OFFICE WITH CERTAIN CONSTRAINTS
ON WHAT HE MAY DO AND THAT THERE
ARE MEASURES FOR ACCOUNTABILITY
FOR ANY FAILURE TO OL' HIS DUTY
OR FOLLOW THE CONSTITUTION.
>> THANK YOU.
AND THE PRESIDENT HAS SAID HE IS
ABOVE THE LAW, THAT ARTICLE 2 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 THE AMERICAN
DEMOCRACY.
WE WERE THE BEST IN THE WORLD.
AND BACK HOME ON MAIN STREET, MY
MOM AND DAD STRUGGLED TO SURVIVE
DAY TO DAY.
MY MOM WORKED AS A MAID CLEANING
HOTEL ROOMS FOR A BUCK-50 AN
HOUR AND MY DAD WORKED AT A
LOCAL PAPER MILL TRYING TO
SURVIVE DAY TO DAY AND WHAT GOT
US UP IN THE MORNING WAS THE
BELIEF, THE OPTIMISM THAT
TOMORROW WAS GOING TO BE BETTER
THAN TODAY.
WE ARE A NATION OF PREMIUM,
DEMOCRACY, ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY
AND WE ALWAYS KNOW THAT TOMORROW
IS GOING TO BE BETTER AND TODAY
I PERSONALLY SENSE AS A
TESTAMENT FOR GREATNESS OF THIS
NATION.
AND I SIT HERE IN THIS COMMITTEE
ROOM ALSO WITH ONE VERY
IMPORTANT MISSION, WHICH IS TO
KEEP THE AMERICAN DREAM ALIVE,
TO ENSURE THAT ALL OF US ARE
EQUAL, TO ENSURE THAT NOBODY,
NOBODY IS ABOVE THE LAW AND TO
ENSURE THAT OUR CONSTITUTION AND
THAT OUR CONGRESSIONAL OVERSIGHT
OF THE PRESIDENCY IS STILL
SOMETHING WITH MEANING.
THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR.
I YIELD BACK.
>> THE GENTLEMAN YIELDS BACK.
MR. ARMSTRONG.
>> THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN.
YOU KNOW, ALL DAY LONG WE HAVE
BEEN SITTING HERE AND LISTENING
TO MY FRIENDS INTRODUCES AISLE
AND THEIR WITNESSES CLAIM THAT
PRESIDENT DEMANDED UKRAINE DO US
A FAVOR.
BY ASSISTING IN 2020 REELECTION
CAMPAIGN BEFORE HE WOULD RELEASE
THE MILITARY AID.
THIS IS LIKE EVERYTHING ELSE IN
THIS SHAM IMPEACHMENT
PURPOSEFULLY MISLEADING AND NOT
BASED ON THE FACTS.
SO LET'S REVIEW THE ACTUAL
TRANSCRIPT OF THE CALL.
NEVER MENTIONED THE 2020
ELECTION.
HE NEVER MENTIONED MILITARY AID.
IT DOES, HOWEVER, CLEARLY SHOW
THAT THE FAVOR THE PRESIDENT
REQUESTED WAS SISTER STANCE WITH
THE ONGOING INVESTIGATION INTO
THE 2016 ELECTION.
THOSE INVESTIGATIONS
PARTICULARLY THE ONE DONE, BEING
RUN BY U.S. ATTORNEY JEFF --
SHOULD CONCERN DEMOCRATS.
AND THE TRANSCRIPT OF THIS CALL
SHOWS THAT THE PRESIDENT WAS
WORRIED ABOUT THE EFFORTS OF THE
UKRAINE RELATING TO THE 2016
ELECTION.
WE KNOW THIS AND NOTICE I AM
USING THE WORD KNOW, AND NOT THE
WORD INFER.
FROM READING THE READING THE TRD
BECAUSE HE SPOKE ABOUT IT ENDING
WITH MUELLER.
WE KNOW THIS BECAUSE HE WANT IT
IS ATTORNEY GENERAL TO GET IN
TOUCH WITH UKRAINIANS ABOUT THE
ISSUE.
WE HAVE A TRADE DEAL WITH
UKRAINE GOVERNING THESE SORT OF
INTERNATIONAL INVESTIGATIONS BUT
LIKE SO MANY OTHER THINGS THESE
FACTS ARE INCONVENIENT FOR
DEMOCRATS, THEY DON'T FIT THE
IMPEACHMENT NARRATIVE SO THEY
ARE MISREPRESENTED OR IGNORED.
AND I THINK IT IS IMPORTANT WHEN
WE TALK ABOUT THIS, AND WHATEVER
THE BURDEN OF PROOF, BEYOND A
REASONABLE DOUBT, CLEAR AND
CONVINCING EVIDENCE, WHETHER IT
IS A JUDICIAL HEARING, A QUASI
JUDICIAL HEARING OR
CONGRESSIONAL HEARING, AND WE
ARE TALKING ABOUT THESE ISSUES I
THINK WE NEED TO START WITH HOW
WE LOOK AT IT AND I AM NOT A
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW PROFESSOR, I
AM JUST AN OLD CRIMINAL DEFENSE
ATTORNEY BUT WHEN I WALKED INTO
A COURTROOM I THINK OF THREE
THINGS WHAT IS THE CRIME
CHARGED, WHAT THE CONDUCT AND
WHO IS VICTIM?
AND WE HAVE MANAGED TO MAKE IT
UNTIL 5:00 O'CLOCK TODAY BEFORE
WE HAVE TALKED ABOUT THE ALLEGED
VICTIM OF THE CRIME AND THAT ARE
A IS PRESIDENT ZELENSKY, AT
THREE DIFFERENT TIMES PRESIDENT
ZELENSKY AT LEAST THREE
DIFFERENT TIMES HAS DENIED BEING
PRESSURED BY THE REAL ESTATE,
PRESIDENT.
THE CALL SHOWS LAUGHTER,
PLEASANTRIES, CORDIALITY,
SEPTEMBER 25TH, PRESIDENT
ZELENSKY STATES, NO, YOU HEARD
THAT WE HAD A GOOD PHONE CALL.
IT WAS NORMAL, WE SPOKE ABOUT
MANY THINGS, I THINK YOU READ IT
AND NOBODY PUSHED ME.
OCTOBER -- OCTOBER 10TH
PRESIDENT ZELENSKY HAD A YES,
SIR CONFERENCE AND I ENCOURAGE
EVERYBODY TO WATCH IT EVEN IF
YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND IT,
90 PERCENT OF COMMUNICATION IS
NONVERBAL YOU TELL ME IF YOU
THINK SHE LYING.
THERE WAS NO BLACKMAIL.
DECEMBER 2ND, THIS MONDAY, I
NEVER TALKED TO THE PRESIDENT
FROM THE POSITION OF QUID PRO
QUO.
SO WE HAVE THE ALLEGED VICTIM OF
QUID PRO QUO, BRIBERY, EX-, TO,
WHATEVER WE ARE DEALING WITH NOW
REPEATEDLY AND ADAMANTLY
SHOUTING FROM THE ROOFTOPS THAT
HE NEVER FELT PRESSURE, THAT HE
WAS NOT THE VICTIM OF ANYTHING.
SO IN ORDER FOR THIS WHOLE THING
TO STICK WE HAVE TO BELIEVE THAT
PRESIDENT ZELENSKY IS A
PATHOLOGICAL LIAR OR THAT THE
UKRAINIAN PRESIDENT AND THE
COUNTRY ARE SO WEAK THAT HE HAS
NO CHOICE BUT TO PARADE HIMSELF
OUT THERE, DEMORAL LIES HIMSELF
FOR THE GOOD OF HIS COUNTRY.
EITHER OF THESE TWO ASSERTIONS
WEAKENS THEIR COUNTRIES AND
HARMS OUR EFFORTS TO HELP
UKRAINE.
AND ALSO BEGS THE QUESTION OF
HOW ON EARTH DID PRESIDENT
ZELENSKY WITHSTAND THIS ILLEGAL
AND IMPEACHABLE PRESSURE TO
BEGIN WITH BECAUSE THIS FACT
STILL HAS NOT CHANGED.
THE AID WAS RELEASED TO UKRAINE
AND DID NOT TAKE ANY ACTION FROM
THEM IN ORDER FOR IT TO FLOW AND
WITH THAT I YIELD TO MY FRIEND,
MR. JORDAN.
>> I THANK THE GENTLEMAN FOR
YIELDING.
PROFESSOR KARLAN CONTEXT IS
IMPORTANT, ISN'T IT?
>> YES, SIR.
>> YES BECAUSE JUST A FEW
MINUTES AGO WHEN OUR COLLEAGUE
FROM FLORIDA PRESENTED A
STATEMENT YOU MADE, YOU SAID
WELL YOU HAVE GOT TO TAKE THAT
STATEMENT IN CONTEXT BUT IT
SEEMS TO ME YOU DON'T WANT TO
EXTEND THE SAME OR APPLY THE
SAME STANDARD TO THE PRESIDENT
BECAUSE THE NOW FAMOUS QUOTE I
WOULD LIKE YOU TO DO US A FAVOR
YOU SAID ABOUT AN HOUR AND A
HALF AGO THAT DIDN'T MEAN, IT
DIDN'T MEAN US, IT MEANT THE
PRESIDENT HIMSELF.
BUT THAT IS THE CLEAR READING OF
THIS, I WOULD LIKE YOU TO DO US
A FAVOR, THOUGH -- YOU KNOW WHAT
THE NEXT TWO WORDS ARE?
>> I DON'T HAVE THE DOCUMENT.
>> I WILL TELL YOU BECAUSE OUR
COUNTRY, HE DIDN'T SAY I WOULD
LIKE YOU TO DO ME A FAVOR THOUGH
BECAUSE I HAVE BEEN THROUGH A
LOT, HE SAID I WANT YOU TO DO US
A FAVOR THOUGH BECAUSE OUR
COUNTRY HAS BEEN THROUGH A LOT.
YOU KNOW WHAT THIS HAPPENED?
IT HAPPENED THE DAY AFTER
MUELLER WAS IN FRONT OF IN
COMMITTEE, OF COURSE OUR COUNTRY
WAS PUT THROUGH TWO YEARS OF
THIS AND THE IDEA YOU ARE NOT
GOING TO SAY OH THIS IS THE
ROYAL WE AND HE IS TALKING ABOUT
HIMSELF IGNORES THE ENTIRE
CONTEXT OF HIS STATEMENT, THAT
WHOLE PARAGRAPH YOU KNOW WHAT HE
ENDS THAT PARAGRAPH WITH TALKING
ABOUT BOB MUELLER AND THIS IS
THE BASIS FOR THIS IMPEACHMENT?
THIS CALL?
IT COULDN'T BE FURTHER FROM THE
TRUTH YOU WANT THE STANDARD TO
APPLY WHEN REPRESENTATIVE GATES
MAKES ONE OF YOUR STATEMENTS OH
YOU HAVE TO LOOK AT THE CONTEXT
BUT WHEN THE PRESIDENT OF THE
UNITED STATES IS CLEAR YOU TRY
TO CHANGE HIS WORDING WHEN THE
CON NEXT IS CLEAR HE IS TALKING
ABOUT THE TWO YEARS THAT THIS
COUNTRY WENT THROUGH BECAUSE OF
THIS MUELLER REPORT SOMEHOW THAT
STANDARD DOESN'T APPLY TO THE
PRESIDENT.
THAT IS RIDICULOUS.
>> THE GENTLEMAN'S TIME IS
EXPIRED.
MS. SCANLON.
I WANT TO THANK OUR
CONSTITUTIONAL EXPERTS FOR
WALKING US THROUGH THE FRAMER'S
THINKING ON IMPEACHMENT AND WHY
THEY DECIDED IT WAS A NECESSARY
PART OF OUR CONSTITUTION.
I AM GOING TO ASK YOU TO HELP US
UNDERSTAND THE IMPLICATIONS OF
THE PRESIDENT'S OBSTRUCTION OF
CONGRESS'S INVESTIGATION INTO
THE USE OF THE OFFICE OF THE
PRESIDENT TO SQUEEZE THE
UKRAINIAN GOVERNMENT TO HELP THE
TRUMP REELECTION CAMPAIGN AND
THERE IS CERTAINLY HUNDREDS OF
PAGES ON HOW ONE REACHES THAT
CONCLUSION.
WITH, WE KNOW THE PRESIDENT'S
OBSTRUCTION DID NOT BEGIN WITH
THE UKRAINE INVESTIGATION.
INSTEAD HIS CONDUCT IS PART OF A
PATTERN AND I WILL DIRECT YOUR
ATTENTION TO THE TIMELINE ON THE
SCREEN.
IN THE LEFT-HAND COLUMN WE SEE
THE PRESIDENT'S STATEMENT FROM
HIS JULY COLUMN WHICH HE
PRESSURED UKRAINE, A FOREIGN
GOVERNMENT, TO MEDDLE IN OUR
ELECTIONS.
ANDAND THEN ONCE CONGRESS GOT WD
OF IT THE PRESIDENT TRIED TO
COVER UP HIS INVOLVEMENT BY
OBSTRUCTING THE CONGRESSIONAL
INVESTIGATION A IN RE, AND
REFUSING TO COOPERATE BUT THIS
ISN'T THE FIRST TIME WE HAVE
SEEN THIS KIND OF OBSTRUCTION.
IN THE RIGHT HAND COLUMN WE CAN
FLASHBACK TO THE 2016 ELECTION
WHEN THE PRESIDENT WELCOMED AND
USED RUSSIANS AND INTERFERENCE
IN OUR ELECTION AND 15 WHEN THE
SPECIAL COUNSEL AND THEN THIS
COMMITTEE TRIED TO INVESTIGATE
THE EXTENT OF HIS INVOLVEMENT HE
DID EVERYTHING HE COULD TO COVER
IT UP SO IT APPEARS THE
PRESIDENT'S OBSTRUCTION OF
INVESTIGATIONS IS PART OF A
PATTERN.
FIRST HE INVITES, INVITES
FOREIGN POWERS TO INTERFERE IN
OUR ELECTIONS AND THEN HE COVERS
IT UP AND FINALLY HE OBSTRUCTS
LAWFUL INQUIRIES INTO HIS
BEHAVIOR WHETHER BY CONGRESS OR
LAW ENFORCEMENT.
AND THEN HE DOES IT AGAIN.
SO PROFESSOR GERHARDT, HOW DOES
THE EXISTENCE OF SUCH A PATTERN
HELP DETERMINE WHETHER THE
PRESIDENT'S CONDUCT IS
IMPEACHABLE?
>> THE PATTERN OF COURSE GIVES
US A TREMENDOUS INSIGHT INTO THE
CONTEXT OF HIS BEHAVIOR.
WHEN HE IS ACTING AND HOW DO WE
EXPLAIN THOSE ACTIONS BY LOOKING
AT THE PATTERN AND WE CAN INFER
VERY -- I THINK A VERY STRONG
INFERENCE OF FACT IS THAT THIS
IS DEVIATING FROM THE USUAL
PRACTICE AND HE HAS BEEN
SYSTEMATICALLY HEADING TOWARDS A
CULMINATION WHERE HE CAN ASK
THIS QUESTION, BY THE WAY --
JULY 25TH CALL THE MONEY IS NOT
YET RELEASED.
AND THERE IS ON GOING
CONVERSATIONS WE LEARNED FROM
OTHER TESTIMONY THAT ESSENTIALLY
THE MONEY IS BEING WITHHELD
BECAUSE THE PRESIDENT WANTED TO
MAKE SURE THE DELIVERABLE WAS
GOING TO HAPPEN, THAT IS, THE
ANNOUNCEMENT OF THE
INVESTIGATION.
>> AND IN ADDITION TO THE MONEY
NOT BEING RELEASED THERE ALSO
WAS NOT THE WHITE HOUSE MEETING
WHICH WAS SO IMPORTANT TO
UKRAINIAN SECURITY, RIGHT?
>> THAT'S RIGHT.
>> OKAY.
PROFESSOR FELDMAN, WE NOTED
PREVIOUSLY THAT FEDERAL DISTRICT
COURT RECENTLY REJECTED THE
PRESIDENT'S ATTEMPT TO BLOCK
WITNESSES FROM TESTIFYING TO
CONGRESS SAYING THAT PRESIDENTS
ARE NOT KINGS.
THE FOUNDERS INCLUDED TWO
CRITICAL PROVISIONS IN OUR
CONSTITUTION TO PREVENT OUR
PRESIDENT FROM BECOMING A KING
AND OUR DEMOCRACY FROM BECOMING
A MONARCHY.
AND THOSE PROTECTIONS WERE
PRESIDENTIAL ELECTIONS AND
IMPEACHMENT, CORRECT?
>> CORRECT.
>> BASED ON THE PATTERN OF
CONDUCT WE ARE DISCUSSING TODAY,
THE PATTERN OF INVITING FOREIGN
INTERFERENCE IN OUR ELECTIONS
FOR POLITICAL GAIN AND THEN
OBSTRUCTING LAWFUL
INVESTIGATION, THAT PRESIDENT
UNDERMINED BOTH OF THOSE
PROTECTIONS?
>> HE HAS.
AND IT IS CRUCIAL TO NOTE THAT
THE VICTIM OF A HIGH CRIME AND
HIS FOR SUCH AS THE PRESIDENT IS
ALLEGED TO HAVE COMMITTED IS NOT
PRESIDENT ZELENSKY AND IS NOT
THE UKRAINIAN PEOPLE.
THE VICTIM OF THE HIGH CRIME AND
MISDEMEANOR IS THE AMERICAN
PEOPLE.
AND ALEXANDER HAMILTON SAID VERY
CLEARLY THE NATURE OF A HIGH
CRIME AND MISDEMEANOR IS THAT
THEY ARE RELATED TO INJURIES
DONE TO THE SOCIETY ITSELF.
WE THE MEASURE PEOPLE ARE THE
VICTIMS OF THE HIGH CRIME AND
MISS FOR.
AND WHAT IS THE REMEDY IN SUCH A
CIRCUMSTANCE?
>> THE FRAMERS CREATED ONE REN
RECOMMEND DIFFICULT TO RESPOND
TO HIGH CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS
AND THAT WAS IMPEACHMENT.
>> THANK YOU.
YOU KNOW, I HAVE SPENT OVER 30
YEARS WORKING TO HELP CLIENTS
AND .. SCHOOL CHILDREN
UNDERSTAND THE IMPORTANCE OF OUR
CONSTITUTIONAL SYSTEM, AND THE
IMPORTANT OF THE RULE OF LAW, SO
THE PRESIDENT'S BEHAVIOR IS
DEEPLY, DEEPLY TROUBLING.
THE PRESIDENT WELCOMED AND USED
ELECTION INTERFERENCE BY RUSSIA,
PUBLICLY ADMITTED HE WOULD DO IT
AGAIN AND DID, IN FACT, DO IT
AGAIN BY SOLICITING ELECTION
INTERFERING FROM UKRAINE AND
THROUGHOUT THE PRESIDENT HAS
TRIED TO COVER UP HIS
MISCONDUCT.
THIS ISN'T COMPLICATED.
THE FOUNDERS WERE CLEAR AND WE
MUST BE TOO, SUCH BEHAVIOR IN A
PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES
IS NOT ACCEPTABLE.
I YIELD BACK.
>> THE GENTLELADY YIELDS BACK.
MS. CITIES CICILLINE WE RECOGNIR
UNANIMOUS CONSENT REQUEST.
>> I ASK UNANIMOUS CONSENT A
DOCUMENT WHICH LISTS THE 400
PIECES OF LEGISLATION PASSED BY
THE HOUSE, 275 BIPARTISAN BILLS,
80 PERCENT WHICH REMAIN
LANGUISHING IN THE SAT BE MADE A
PART OF THE RECORD IN RESPONSE
TO MR. GATES CLAIM WE ARE NOT
MAKING THE.
>> THE DOCUMENT WILL BE MADE A
PART OF THE RECORD.
MS. BIGS IS RECOGNIZED.
>> MR. CHAIRMAN, I SEEK AN
EMPTY.
THE DOCUMENTS AND ITEMS WHICH
PREVIOUSLY HAVE BEEN SUBMITTED.
>> WITHOUT OBJECTION THE
DOCUMENTS WILL BE ENTERED INTO
THE RECORD.
MR. CHAIRMAN, MAY I HAVE --
>> WHAT PURPOSE DOES THE
GENTLEMAN --
>> MR. CHAIRMAN I ASK UNANIMOUS
CONSENT THIS ARTICLE THAT US WAS
JUST PUBLISHED ABOUT 15 MINUTES
AGO ENTITLED LAW PROFESSOR
JONATHAN TURLEY SAYS DEMOCRATS
ARE SETTING A RECORD FOR A FAST
IMPEACHMENT, THAT IS
DEMONSTRABLY FALSE.
BE MADE A PART OF THE RECORD.
>> WITHOUT OBJECTION,
MR. CHAIRMAN.
>> WITHOUT OBJECTION THE
DOCUMENT WILL BE MADE A PART OF
THE RECORD.
>> MR. CHAIRMAN, FOR WHAT
PURPOSE DOES THE GENTLEMAN SEEK
RECOGNITION.
>> TO PUT INTO THE RECORD A
TWEET THAT FIRST LADY OF THE USE
JUST ISSUED WITHIN THE HOUR THAT
SAYS, QUOTE, A MINOR CHILD
DESERVES PRIVACY AND SHOULD BE
KEPT OUT OF POLITICS, PAMELA
KARLAN YOU SHOULD BE ASHAMED OF
YOUR VERY ANGRY AND OBVIOUSLY
BYPASSED PANDERING AND USING A
CHILD TO DO IT, WITHOUT
OBJECTION THE DOCUMENT WILL BE
ENTERED INTO THE RECORD.
>> MR. STOOB BY IS RECOGNIZED
FOR THE PURPOSE OF QUESTIONING
THE WITNESSES.
>> I AM SORRY -- NOT HERE
MOMENTARILY.
MS. GARCIA IS RECOGNIZED.
>> THANK YOU MR. CHAIRMAN AND I
TOO WANT TO THANK A ALL OF THE
WITNESSES FOR THEIR TIME AND
YOUR PATIENCE TODAY.
I KNOW IT HAS BEEN A LONG DAY,
BUT THE END IS IN SIGHT.
AS MY COLLEAGUE MS. KARLAN
RECOGNIZED, HIS CONDUCT IN THE
SPECIAL COUNSEL INVESTIGATION
ARE HARD TO IGNORE.
IN FACT, WE ARE SEEING IT AS A
PATTERN OF PRESIDENTIAL ABUSE OF
POWER.
THE PRESIDENT CALLED THE UKRAINE
JAB INVESTIGATION, UKRAINIAN
INVESTIGATION A HOAX AND THE
MUELLER INVESTIGATION A WITCH
HUNT, HE HAS THREATENED THE
UKRAINE WHISTLEBLOWER FOR NOT
TESTIFYING, LIKE HE THREATENED
TO FIRE HIS ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR
NOT OBSTRUCTING THE RUSSIA
INVESTIGATION.
THE PRESIDENT FIRED AMBASSADOR
YOVANOVITCH MUCH IN THE SAME WAY
HE FIRED HIS WHITE HOUSE COUNSEL
AND PUBLICLY ATTACKED HIS
INTEGRITY.
AND FINALLY THE PRESIDENT
ATTACKED THE CIVIL SERVANTS WHO
TESTIFIED ABOUT UKRAINE JUST
LIKE HE ATTACKED CAREER
OFFICIALS OF THE DEPARTMENT OF
JUSTICE FOR INVESTIGATING HIS
OBSTRUCTION OF THE RUSSIA
INVESTIGATION.
UNDER ANY OTHER CIRCUMSTANCES
SUCH BEHAVIOR BY ANY AMERICAN
PRESIDENT WOULD BE SHOCKING, BUT
HERE IT IS A REPEAT OF WHAT WE E
HAVE ALREADY SEEN IN THE SPECIAL
COUNSEL'S INVESTIGATION.
I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A MOMENT TO
DISCUSS THE PRESIDENT'S EFFORTS
TO OBSTRUCT THE SPECIAL
COUNSEL'S INVESTIGATION A
SUBJECT THIS COMMITTEE HAS BEEN
INVESTIGATING SINCE MARCH.
HERE ARE TWO SLIDES, THE FIRST
ONE WILL SHOW AS HE DID WITH --
AS THE PRESIDENTS HE DID WITH
UKRAINE, TRIED TO COVE HIS,
COERCE HIS -- BY FOREIGN SPECIAL
COUNSEL MUELLER.
THE SECOND SLIDE THIS SHOWS WHEN
THE NEWS BROKE OUT OF THE
PRESIDENT'S ORDER, THE PRESIDENT
DIRECTED HIS ADVISORS TO FALSELY
DENY HE HAD MADE THE ORDER
PROFESSOR GERHARDT ARE YOU
FAMILIAR WITH THE FACTS RELATING
TO THESE THREE EPISODES AS
DESCRIBED IN THE MUELLER REPORT,
YES OR NO, PLEASE?
>> YES, MA'AM.
>> SO ACCEPTING THE SPECIAL
COUNSEL'S EVIDENCE AS TRUE, IS
THIS PATTERN OF CONDUCT
OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE?
>> IT IS CLEARLY OBSTRUCTION OF
JUSTICE.
>> AND WHY WOULD YOU SAY SO, SIR
SIR?
>> THE OBVIOUS OBJECT OF THIS
ACTIVITY IS TO SHUT DOWN AN
INVESTIGATION, IN FACT, THE ACTS
OF THE PRESIDENT, ACCORDING TO
THESE FACTS, EACH TIME IS TO USE
THE POWER THAT HE HAS UNIQUE TO
HIS OFFICE, BUT IN A WAY THAT IS
GOING TO HELP HIM FRUSTRATE THE
INVESTIGATION.
>> SO DOES THIS CONDUCT FIT
WITHIN THE FRAMERRERS' VIEW OF
IMPEACHABLE OFFENSES?
>> I BELIEVE IT DOES.
I DON'T -- I MEAN THE ENTIRE
CONSTITUTION, INCLUDING
SEPARATION OF POWERS, IS
DESIGNED TO PUT LIMITS ON HOW
SOMEBODY MAY GO ABOUT
FRUSTRATING THE ACTIVITY OF
ANOTHER BRANCH.
>> SO YOU WOULD SAY THAT THIS
ALSO WOULD BE AN IMPEACHABLE
OFFENSE?
>> YES, MA'AM.
>> THANK YOU.
BECAUSE I AGREE WITH YOU.
THE PRESIDENT'S ACTIONS AND
BEHAVIOR DO MATTER.
THE PRESIDENT'S OBSTRUCTION OF
JUSTICE DEFINITELY MATTERS, AS A
FORMER JUNE AND AS A MEMBER OF
CONGRESS, I RAISE MY RIGHT HAND
AND PUT MY LEFT HAND ON A BIBLE
MORE THAN ONCE AND I HAVE SWORN
TO UPHOLD THE CONSTITUTION AND
LAWS OF THIS COUNTRY.
THIS HEARING IS ABOUT THAT, BUT
IT IS ALSO ABOUT DECOR OF THE,
THE CORE OF OUR AMERICAN VALUES,
THE VALUES OF DUTY, HONOR, AND
LOYALTY.
IT IS ABOUT THE RULE OF LAW.
WHEN THE PRESIDENT ASKS UKRAINE
FOR A FAVOR, HE DID SO FOR HIS
PERSONAL POLITICAL GAIN AND NOT
ON BEHALF OF THE AMERICAN
PEOPLE, AND IF THIS IS TRUE, HE
WOULD HAVE BETRAYED HIS OATH AND
BETRAYED HIS LOYALTY TO THIS
COUNTRY.
AND A FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLE OF
OUR DEMOCRACY IS THAT MOBILE IS
ABOVE THE LAW, AND NOT ANY ONE
OF YOU PROFESSORS NOT ANY ONE OF
US MEMBER APPEAR, MEMBERS OF
CONGRESS, NOT EVEN THE PRESIDENT
OF THE UNITED STATES, THAT IS
HIGH WE SHOULD HOLD HIM
ACCOUNTABLE FOR HIS ACTIONS AND
THAT IS WHY I AGAIN THANK YOU
FOR TESTIFYING TODAY IN HELPING
US WALK THROUGH ALL OF THIS TO
PREPARE FOR WHAT MAY COME.
THANK YOU, SIR.
>> I YIELD BACK.
>> GENTLELADY YIELDS BACK.
MR. NAGUS.
THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR, AND THANK
YOU TO EACH OF THE FOUR
WITNESSES FOR YOUR TESTIMONY
TODAY.
I WOULD LIKE TO START BY TALKING
ABOUT INTIMIDATION OF WITNESSES.
AS MY COLLEAGUE CONGRESSWOMAN
GARCIA NOTED, PRESIDENT TRUMP
HAS TRIED TO INTERFERE IN BOTH
THE UKRAINE INVESTIGATION AND
SPECIAL COUNSEL MUELLER'S
INVESTIGATION IN ORDER TO TRY TO
COVER UP HIS OWN MISCONDUCT.
AND IN BOTH THE UKRAINE
INVESTIGATION AND SPECIAL
COUNSEL MUELLER'S INVESTIGATION
THE PRESIDENT ACTIVELY
DISCOURAGED WITNESSES FROM
COOPERATING, INTIMIDATED WITNESS
WHOSE CAME FORWARD AND PRAISED
THOSE WHO REFUSED TO COOPERATE.
FOR AN EXAMPLE IN THE 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 INVOLVED
IN THE WHISTLEBLOWER COMPLAINT
SHOULD BE DEALT WITH IN THE WAY
THAT WE QUOTE USED TO DO END
QUOTE FOR SPIES AND TREASON.
HE CALLED AMBASSADOR TAYLOR A
FORMER MILITARY OFFICER WITH
MORE THAN 40 YEARS OF PUBLIC
SERVICE A QUOTE NEVER TRUMPER
END, NEVER TRUMPER ON THE SAME
DAY HE CALLED NEVER TRUMPERS
QUOTE SCUM.
THE PRESIDENT ALSO TWEETED
ACCUSATIONS ABOUT MANY OF THE
OTHER PUBLIC SERVANTS WHO
TESTIFIED, INCLUDING JENNIFER
WILLIAMS AND AMBASSADOR
YOVANOVITCH, AND AS WE KNOW, THE
PRESIDENT'S LATTER TWEET
HAPPENED LITERALLY DURING THE
AMBASSADOR'S TESTIMONY IN THIS
ROOM, IN FRONT OF THE
INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE WHICH SHE
MADE CLEAR WAS INTIMIDATING.
CONVERSECONVERSELY WE KNOW THATE
PRESIDENT HAS PRAISED WITNESSES
WHO HAVE REFUSED TO COOPERATE.
FOR EXAMPLE, DURING THE SPECIAL
COUNSEL'S INVESTIGATION THE
PRESIDENT PRAISED PAUL MANAFORT,
HIS FORMER CAMPAIGN MANAGER, FOR
NOT COOPERATING.
YOU CAN SEE THE TWEET UP ON THE
SCREEN TO MY SIDE.
AS ANOTHER TELLING EXAMPLE THE
PRESIDENT INITIALLY PRAISED
AMBASSADOR SONDLAND FOR NOT
COOPERATING, CALLING HIM QUOTE A
REALLY GOOD MAN AND A GREAT
AMERICAN BUT AFTER AMBASSADOR
SONDLAND TESTIFIED AND CONFIRMED
THAT THERE WAS INDEED A QUID PRO
QUO BETWEEN THE WHITE HOUSE
VISIT AND THE REQUEST FOR
INVESTIGATIONS .. THE PRESIDENT
CLAIMED THAT HE QUOTE HARDLY
KNEW THE AMBASSADOR.
PROFESSOR GERHARDT, YOU HAVE
TOUCHED ON IT PREVIOUSLY BUT I
WOULD LIKE YOU TO JUST EXPLAIN,
IS THE PRESIDENT'S INTERFERENCE
IN THESE INVESTIGATIONS BY
INTIMIDATING WITNESSES ALSO THE
KIND OF CONDUCT THAT THE FRAMERS
WERE WORRIED ABOUT?
AND IF SO, WHY?
>> IT IS CLEARLY CONDUCT THAT I
THINK THAT WORRIED THE FRAMERS
AS REFLECTED IN THE CONSTITUTION
THEY HAVE GIVEN US AND THE
STRUCTURE OF THAT CONSTITUTION.
THE ACTIVITIES YOU ARE TALKING
ABOUT HERE ARE CONSISTENT WITH
THE, BUT THE OTHER ACTIVITY WE
HAVE SEEN THE PRESIDENT TRYING
TO STOP INVESTIGATIONS BY EITHER
MR. MUELLER OR BY CONGRESS AS
WELL AS TO ASK WITNESSES TO MAKE
FALSE DOCUMENTS ABOUT TESTIMONY
AND ALL OF THOSE DIFFERENT KINDS
OF ACTIVITIES ARE NOT THE KINDS
OF ACTIVITIES THE FRAMERS
EXPECTED THE PRESIDENT TO BE
ABLE TO TAKE.
THEY EXPECTED THE PRESIDENT TO
BE HELD ACCOUNTABLE FOR IT AND
NOT JUST IN ELECTIONS.
>> PROFESSOR TURLEY, YOU HAVE
STUDIED THE IMPEACHMENTS OF
PRESIDENT JOHNSON, PRESIDENT
NIXON, PRESIDENT CLINTON, AM I
RIGHT THAT PRESIDENT NIXON
ALLOWED SENIOR WHITE HOUSE
OFFICIALS INCLUDING THE WHITE
HOUSE COUNSEL AND THE WHITE
HOUSE CHIEF OF STAFF TO TESTIFY
IN HOUSE IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY?
>> YES.
>> AND YOU ARE AWARE THAT
PRESIDENT TRUMP HAS REFUSED TO
ALLOW HIS CHIEF OF STAFF OR
WHITE HOUSE COUNSEL TO TESTIFY
IN THIS INQUIRY, CORRECT?
HE.
>> YES.
BUT VARIOUS OFFICIALS DID
TESTIFY AND THEY ARE REMAINING
IN FEDERAL EMPLOYMENT.
>> AND THAT DOES NOT INCLUDE THE
WHITE HOUSE COUNSEL NOR THE
WHITE COUNSEL CHIEF OF STAFF.
>> THAT'S RIGHT.
>> AND PRESIDENT CLINTON
PROVIDED RESPONSES TO THE
IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY.
>> I BELIEVE THAT IS
CREDIBILITY.
>> SOUNDS ABOUT RIGHT AND YOU
ARE AWARE PRESIDENT TRUMP
REFUSED ANY REQUEST FOR
INFORMATION SUBMIT BID THE
INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE IN IN
IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY?
>> I HAVE, YES.
>> ARE YOU FAMILIAR WITH THE
LETTER ISSUED BY WHITE HOUSE
COUNSEL SIX LOAN WRITTEN ON
BEHALF OF PRESIDENT TRUMP AND IN
EFFECT INSTRUCTING EXECUTIVE
BRANCH OFFICIALS NOT TO TESTIFY
IN THIS IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY.
>> --
A.
>> AM I CORRECT NO PRESIDENT IN
THE HISTORY OF THE HISTORY OF
THE REPUBLIC BEFORE PRESIDENT
TRUMP INSTRUCTED THE EXECUTIVE
BRANCH OFFICIALS NOT TO TESTIFY
IN AN IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY?
>> THAT'S WHERE I AM NOT SURE I
CAN ANSWER THAT AFFIRMATIVELY.
PRESIDENT MIXON IN FACT WENT TO
COURT OVER ACCESS TO
INFORMATION, DOCUMENTS AND THE
LIKE AND HE LOST.
>> WELL, PROFESSOR TURLEY, I
WOULD JUST AGAIN REFER YOU BACK
TO THE HISTORY THAT HAS BEEN
RECOUNTED BY EACH OF THE
DISTINGUISHED SCHOLARS HERE
TODAY BECAUSE WE KNOW AS WE HAVE
THESE EXAMPLES THAT PRESIDENT
NIXON DID IN FACT ALLOW HIS
CHIEF OF STAFF AND HIS CHIEF
COUNSEL TO TESTIFY AND THIS
PRESIDENT HAS NOT.
WE KNOW THAT PRESIDENT CLINTON
RESPONDED TO INTERROGATORIES
PROPOUNDED BY THAT IMPEACHMENT
INQUIRY AND THIS PRESIDENT HAS
NOT.
AT THE END OF THE DAY, THIS
CONGRESS AND THIS COMMITTEE HAS
AN OBLIGATION TO ENSURE THAT LAW
IS ENFORCED AND WITH THAT I WILL
YIELD BACK THE BALANCE OF MY
TIME.
>> THE GENTLEMAN YIELDS BACK.
MS. MACBETH.
>> THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN.
AND PROFESSORS I WANT TO THANK
YOU SO VERY MUCH FOR SPENDING
THIS ARDUOUS HOURS WITH US
TODAY.
THANK YOU SO MUCH OR BEING HERE.
FOLLOWING UP ON MY COLLEAGUE,
MR. NAGUS'S QUESTIONS I WOULD
LIKE TO BRIEFLY GO THROUGH ONE
PARTICULAR EXAMPLE OF PRESIDENT
-- THE PRESIDENT'S WITNESS
INTIMIDATION, THAT I FIND TRULY
DISTURBING AND VERY DEVASTATING
BECAUSE I THINK IT IS IMPORTANT
THAT WE ALL TRULY SEE WHAT IS
GOING ON HERE.
AS THE SLIDE SHOWS ON HIS
JULY 25TH CALL, PRESIDENT TRUMP
SAID THAT FORMER AMBASSADOR
YOVANOVITCH WOULD AND I QUOTE,
GO THROUGH SOME THINGS.
AMBASSADOR YOVANOVITCH TESTIFIED
ABOUT HOW LEARNING ABOUT THE
PRESIDENT'S STATEMENTS MADE HER
FEEL.
WHAT DID YOU THINK WHEN
PRESIDENT TRUMP TOLD PRESIDENT
ZELENSKY AND YOU READ THAT YOU
WERE GOING TO GO THROUGH SOME
THINGS?
>> I DIDN'T KNOW WHAT TO THINK.
BUT I WAS VERY CONCERNED.
>> WHAT WERE YOU CONCERNED ABOUT
ABOUT?
>> SHE IS GOING TO GO THROUGH
SOME THINGS IT DIDN'T SOUND
GOOD.
IT SOUNDED LIKE A THREAT.
>> DID YOU FEEL THREATENED?
>> I DID.
>>
>> AND AS WE ALL WITNESSED IN
REAL-TIME IN THE MIDDLE OF
AMBASSADOR YOVANOVITCH'S LIVE
TESTIMONY THE PRESIDENT TWEETED
ABOUT THE BALANCE DOOR,
AMBASSADORDISCREDITING HER
SERVICE IN SOMALIA AND THE
UKRAINE.
AMBASSADOR YOVANOVITCH TESTIFIED
THAT PRESIDENT'S TWEET WAS, AND
I QUOTE, VERY INTIMIDATING.
PROFESSOR GERHARDT, THESE
ATTACKS ON A CAREER PUBLIC
SERVANT ARE DEEPLY UPSETTING,
BUT HOW DO THEY FIT INTO OUR
UNDERSTANDING OF WHETHER THE
PRESIDENT HAS COMMITTED HIGH
CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS?
AND HOW DO THEY FIT INTO OUR
BROADER PATTERN OF BEHAVIOR BY
THIS PRESIDENT TO COVER UP AND
OBSTRUCT HIS MISCONDUCT?
>> ONE WAY IN WHICH IT
CONTRIBUTES TO THE OBSTRUCTION
OF CONGRESS IS THAT IT DOESN'T
JUST DEGAME AMBASSADOR
YOVANOVITCH.
BY EVERY OTHER ACCOUNT SHE HAS
BEEN AN EXEMPLARY PUBLIC SERVANT
SO WHAT HE IS SUGGESTING THERE
MAY NOT BE CONSISTENT WITH WHAT
WE KNOW AS FACTS.
BUT 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 SERVANTS WHO
THINK 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 THAT SHE HAS FACED.
THAT IS THE WOMAN PRESIDENT
TRUMP HAS THREATENED BEFORE YOU.
AND I CAN ASSURE YOU I
PERSONALLY KNOW WHAT IT IS LIKE
TO BE UNFAIRLY ATTACKED.
PUBLICLY FOR 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 THIS IS OKAY.
IT IS PLAINLY WRONG FOR THE
PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES
TO ATTACK A CAREER PUBLIC
SERVANT JUST FOR TELLING THE
TRUTH AS SHE KNOWS IT.
AND I YIELD BACK THE BALANCE OF
MY TIME.
>> GENTLELADY YIELDS BACK.
MR. STANTON.
>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH,
MR. CHAIRMAN AND THANK YOU TO
OUR OUTSTANDING WITNESSES HERE
TODAY.
PRESIDENT TRUMP HAS -- WITH
CONGRESSIONAL SUBPOENAS.
THIS BLANKET CATEGORICAL
DISREGARD OF THE LEGISLATIVE
BRANCH BEGAN WITH THE
PRESIDENT'S REFUSAL TO COOPERATE
WITH REGULAR CONGRESSIONAL
OVERSIGHT AND HAS NOW EXTENDED
TO THE HOUSE'S CONSTITUTIONAL
DUTY ON IMPEACHMENT, THE REASON
WHY WE ARE HERE TODAY.
THIS DISREGARD HAS BEEN ON
DISPLAY FOR THE AMERICAN PEOPLE.
WHEN ASKED IF HE WOULD COMPLY
WITH THE DON MCGAHN SUBPOENA
PRESIDENT TRUMP SAID, QUOTE,
WELL, WE ARE FIGHTING ALL THE
SUBPOENAS UNQUOTE.
NOW WE HAVE DISCUSSED HERE TODAY
THE OBSTRUCTION OF CONGRESS,
ARTICLE OF IMPEACHMENT AGAINST
PRESIDENT NIXON.
I THINK I WOULD LIKE TO GO A
LITTLE BIT DEEPER INTO THAT
DISCUSSION AND JUXTAPOSE IT WITH
WITH PRESIDENT TRUMP'S ACTIONS.
PROFESSOR GERHARDT, CAN YOU
ELABORATE ON HOW PROFESSOR NIXON
OBSTRUCTED CONGRESS AND HOW IT
COMPARES TO PRESIDENT TRUMP'S
ACTIONS?
>> AS WE WERE DISCUSSING
EARLIER, AND I AM INCLUDING MY
WRITTEN STATEMENT, PRESIDENT
NIXON ULTIMATELY REFUSED TO
COMPLY WITH FOUR LEGISLATIVE
SUBPOENAS. THESE WERE SEARCH ZG
IN ON THE MOST INCRIMINATING
EVIDENCE HE HAD IN HIS
POSSESSION SO HE REFUSED TO
COMPLY WITH THOSE SUBPOENAS AND
BECAME THE BASIS FOR THE THIRD
ARTICLE AND HE RESIGNED A FEW
DAYS LATER.
PROFESSOR FELDMAN, WHAT ARE THE
CONSEQUENCES OF THIS
UNPRECEDENTED OBSTRUCTION OF
CONGRESS TO OUR DEMOCRACY?
>> FOR THE PRESIDENT TO REFUSE
TO PARTICIPATE IN ANYWAY IN THE
HOUSE'S CONSTITUTIONAL
OBLIGATION OF SUPERVISING HIM,
TO IMPEACH HIM BREAKS THE
CONSTITUTION, IT BASICALLY SAYS,
NOBODY CAN OVERSEE ME, NOBODY
CAN IMPEACH ME.
FIRST I WILL BLOCK WITNESSES
FROM APPEARING, THEN I WILL
REFUSE TO PARTICIPATE IN ANYWAY
AND THEN I WILL SAY YOU DON'T
HAVE ENOUGH EVIDENCE TO IMPEACH
ME.
AND ULTIMATELY THE EFFECT OF
THAT IS TO GUARANTEE THAT THE
PRESIDENT IS ABOVE THE LAW AND
CAN'T BE CHECKED AND SINCE WE
KNOW THE TRAILERS PUT
IMPEACHMENT IN THE CONSTITUTION
TO CHECK THE PRESIDENT, IF THE
PRESIDENT CAN'T BE CHECKED, HE
IS NO LONGER SUBJECT TO THE LAW.
>> PROFESSOR GERHARDT WOULD YOU
AGREE THAT THE PRESIDENT'S
REFUSAL TO COMPLY WITH
CONGRESSIONAL SUBPOENAS INVOKES
THE FRAMERS' WORST FEARS AND
ENDANGERS OUR DEMOCRACY?
>> DOES.
AND ONE WAY TO UNDERSTAND THAT
IS TO PUT ALL OF HIS ARGUMENTS
TOGETHER AND THEN SEE WHAT THE
RAMIFICATIONS ARE.
HE SAYS HE IS ENTITLED NOT TO
COMPLY WITH ALL SUBPOENAS.
HE SAYS SHE NOT SUBJECT TO ANY
KIND OF CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION
WHY HE IS PRESIDENT OF THE
UNITED STATES.
HE IS IMMUNE TO THAT AND
ENTITLED TO KEEP ALL INFORMATION
CONFIDENTIAL FROM CONGRESS.
DOESN'T EVEN HAVE TO GIVE A
REASON.
WHEN YOU PUT ALL OF THOSE THINGS
TOGETHER .. HE BLOCKED OFF EVERY
WAY TO HOLD HIMSELF ACCOUNTABLE
EXCEPT FOR ELECTIONS AND THE
CRITICAL THING TO UNDERSTAND
HERE IS THAT IS PRECISELY WHAT
HE WAS TRYING TO UNDERMINE IN
THE UKRAINE SITUATION.
>> MR. KARLAN, DO YOU HAVE
ANYTHING TO ADD TO THAT ANALYSIS
ANALYSIS?
>> I THINK THAT IS CORRECT, AND
IF I CAN JUST SAY ONE THING.
>> PLEASE.
>> I WANT TO APOLOGIZE FOR WHAT
I SAID EARLIER ABOUT THE
PRESIDENT'S SON, IT WAS WRONG OF
ME TO DO THAT.
I WISH THE PRESIDENT WOULD
APOLOGIZE OBVIOUSLY FOR THE
THINGS HE THAT HE HAS DONE IS
WRONG BUT I DO REGRET HAVING
SAID THAT.
>> THANK YOU, PROFESSOR.
>> ONE OF THE MOST IMPORTANT
QUESTIONS THAT EVERY MEMBER OF
THIS COMMITTEE MUST DECIDE IS
WHETHER WE ARE A NATION OF LAWS
AND NOT MEN.
IT USED TO BE AN EASY ANSWER.
ONE, WE COULD ALL AGREE ON.
WHEN PRESIDENT NIXON DEFIES THE
LAW AND OBSTRUCTED JUSTICE HE
WAS HELD TO ACCOUNT BY PEOPLE ON
BOTH SIDES WHO KNEW THAT FOR A
REPUBLIC TO ENDURE WE MUST HAVE
FIDEL THE TOY OUR COUNTRY,
RATHER THAN ONE PARTY OR ONE MAN
AND THE OBSTRUCTION WE ARE
LOOKING AT TODAY IS FAR WORSE
THAN PRESIDENT NIXON'S BEHAVIOR.
FUTURE GENERATIONS WILL MEASURE
US EVERY SINGLE MEMBER OF THIS
COMMITTEE BY HOW WE CHOOSE TO
ANSWER THAT QUESTION.
I HOPE WE GET IT RIGHT.
I YIELD BACK.
>> THE GENTLEMAN YIELDS BACK.
MR. STOOB BY.
>> THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN, I
ONLY HAVE BEEN IN CONGRESS SINCE
JANUARY OF THIS YEAR AND ON THE
VERY FIRST DAY OF MY SWEARING IN
A EM IN MY CLASS CALLED FOR
IMPEACHMENT OF THE REAL ESTATE
ON DAY ONE.
USING MUCH MORE COLORFUL
LANGUAGE THAN I WOULD EVER USE.
SINCE THEN THIS COMMITTEE
FOCUSED ON THE MUELLER REPORT IN
THE RUSSIA COLLUSION THEORY AND
LISTENED TO MR. MUELLER UNIF, HE
GIVECALLY STATE THERE WAS NO,
PRESIDENT TRUMP DIDN'T COLLUDE
AND CHANGED THEIR TALKING POINTS
AND MOVED TO THE OBSTRUCTION OF
JUSTICE THEORY, THE PRESIDENT
OBSTRUCTED JUSTICE AND THAT
FIZZLED AND AFTER COORDINATING
WITH CHAIRMAN STIFF'S STAFF THE
WHISTLEBLOWER FILED A REPORT
BASED COMPLETELY ON HEARSAY AND
HEARD THEM TALK ABOUT A PHONE
CALL BETWEEN TWO WORLD LEADERS
WHICH LED TO THE INTEL COMMITTEE
SO-CALLED IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY
THAT VIOLATED ALL PAST
HISTORICAL PRECEDENT, DENIED
PRESIDENT BASIC DUE PROCESS
RIGHTS AND FUNDAMENTAL FAIRNESS
BY CONDUCTING THIS SO-CALLED
INQUIRY IN SECRET WITHOUT THE
MINORITY'S ABILITY TO CALL
WITNESSES AND DENIED THE
PRESIDENT THE ABILITY TO HAVE
HIS LAWYERS CROSS-EXAMINE
WITNESSES, A RIGHT AFFORDED TO
PRESIDENT CLINTON AND EVERY
DEFENDANT IN OUR JUSTICE SYSTEM,
INCLUDING RAPISTS AND MURDERERS.
THE REPUBLICANS ON THIS
COMMITTEE HAVE REPEATEDLY
REQUESTED ALL EVIDENCE COLLECTED
BY THE INTEL COMMITTEE AS WE SIT
HERE TODAY, WE STILL DON'T HAVE
THE UNDERLYING EVIDENCE THAT WE
HAVE BEEN REQUESTING.
AGAIN A RIGHT AFFORDED EVERY
CRIMINAL DEFENDANT IN THE UNITED
STATES.
SO INSTEAD, WE SIT HERE GETTING
LECTURES FROM LAW PROFESSORS
ABOUT THEIR OPINIONS, THEIR
OPINIONS, NOT FACTS, I GUESS THE
DEMOCRATS NEEDED A
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW REFRESHER
COURSE.
THE REPUBLICANS DON'T.
MR. CHAIRMAN YOU HAVE
ACKNOWLEDGED AND I QUOTE, THE
HOUSE QUOTE POWER OF IMPEACHMENT
DEMANDS A RIGOROUS LEVEL OF DUE
PROCESS.
DUE PROCESS MEANS THE RIGHT TO
CONFRONT WITNESSES AGAINST YOU.
TO CALL YOUR OWN WITNESSES AND
TO HAVE THE ASSISTANCE OF
COUNSEL.
THOSE ARE YOUR WORDS,
MR. CHAIRMAN, NOT MINE.
WHAT ARE YOU AFRAID OF?
LET THE MINORITY CALL WITNESSES.
LET THE PRESIDENT CALL
WITNESSES.
CLINTON ALONE CALLED 14
WITNESSES TO TESTIFY.
LET THE PRESIDENT'S COUNSEL
CROSS-EXAMINE THE WHISTLEBLOWER
LET THE PRESIDENT'S COUNSEL
CROSS-EXAMINE THE INTEL STAFF,
INCLUDING THE WHISTLEBLOWER, IN
YOUR OWN WORDS THOSE ARE THE
RIGHT THAT SHOULD BE AFFORDED TO
THE PRESIDENT.
RIGHTS EVERY CRIMINAL DEFENDANT
IS AFFORDED, EVEN TERRORISTS IN
IRAQ WERE AFFORDED MORE DUE
PROCESS THAN YOU AND THE
DEMOCRATIC MAJORITY HAVE
AFFORDED THE PRESIDENT.
I KNOW BECAUSE I SERVED IN IRAQ
AND I PROSECUTED TERRORISTS IN
IRAQ AND WE PROVIDED TERRORISTS
IN IRAQ MORE RIGHTS AND DUE
PROCESS IN THE CENTRAL CRIMINAL
COURT OF IRAQ THAN YOU AND
CHAIRMAN SHIVER HAVE AFFORDED
THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED
STATES.
NO COLLUSION, NO OBSTRUCTION, NO
QUID PRO QUO, NO EVIDENCE OF
BRIBERY, EXCEPT OPINION, NO
EVIDENCE OF TREASON, NO EVIDENCE
OF HIGH CRIME OR MISDEMEANORS,
WE HAVE A BUNCH OF OPINIONS FROM
PARTISAN DEMOCRATS WHO HAVE
STATED FROM DAY ONE THAT THEY
WANT TO IMPEACH THE REAL ESTATE.
AND NOT ONLY THIS THEORY BUT ON
MULTIPLE OTHER THEORIES.
THE AMERICAN PEOPLE ARE SMARTER
THAN YOUR ABC'S OF IMPEACHMENT
YOU HAVE HAD ON THE SCREEN.
THAT WERE LAID OUT TODAY AND IT
IS EXTREMELY DEMONSTRATIVE OF
YOUR LACK OF EVIDENCE GIVING,
YOU CALLED LAW PROFESSORS TO
GIVE THEIR OPINIONS AND NOT FACT
WITNESSES TO GIVE THEIR
TESTIMONY TODAY TO BE
CROSS-EXAMINED AND THE RIGHTS
AFFORDED TO THE PRESIDENT OF THE
UNITED STATES.
MR. CHAIRMAN, WHEN CAN WE
ANTICIPATE THAT YOU WILL CHOOSE
A DATE FOR THE MINORITY DAY OF
HEARINGS?
MR. CHAIRMAN I AM ASKING YOU A
QUESTION.
>> WHEN CAN WE ANTICIPATE THAT
YOU WILL CHOOSE A DATE FOR THE
MINORITY DAY OF HEARINGS A?
>> THE GENTLEMAN IS RECOGNIZED
FOR THE PURPOSE OF QUESTIONING
THE WITNESSES NOT FOR COLLOQUY
WITH COLLEAGUES.
WELL THEN I WILL DO HEREINAFTER
MY TIME.
I YIELD THE REMAINDER OF MY TIME
TO MR. RATCLIFFE.
>> I THANK MY COLLEAGUE FROM
FLORIDA FOR YIELDING.
PROFESSOR TURLEY, SINCE WE LAST
TALKED, BASED ON TEN QUESTIONING
FROM MY COLLEAGUES ACROSS THE
AISLE IT DOES IN FACT APPEAR
THAT THE DEMOCRATS DO INTEND TO
PURSUE ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT
OR OBSTRUCTION OF JUST BASED ON
THE MUELLER REPORT.
I ASKED YOU A QUESTION ABOUT
THAT AND YOU DIDN'T REALLY GIVE
A CHANCE TO GIVE A COMPLETE
ANSWER AND IN YOUR STATEMENT
TODAY YOU MAYBE THIS STATEMENT.
I BELIEVE AN OBSTRUCTION CLAIM
BASED ON THE MUELLER REPORT
WOULD BE AT ODDS WITH THE RECORD
AND THE CONTROLLING LAW.
USE OF AN OBSTRUCTION THEORY
FROM THE MUELLER REPORT WOULD BE
UNSUPPORTABLE IN THE HOUSE AND
UNSUSTAINABLE IN THE SENATE.
DO YOU REMEMBER WRITING THAT?
>> YES, I DO.
>> WHY DID YOU WRITE THAT?
>> BECAUSE I THINK IT IS TRUE.
THE FACT IS THAT THIS WAS
REVIEWED BY JUSTICE, THE SPECIAL
COUNSEL DID NOT REACH A
CONCLUSION OF OBSTRUCTION AND
SHOULD HAVE THE -- THE ABSURD IN
NOT REACHING AN CONCLUSION, BUT
THE.
>> ATTORNEY:, ATTORNEY,
ATTORNEY GENERAL DID AND THIS IS
THE RIGHT CONCLUSION.
THIS IS NOT A RIPE CAPE FOR
OBSTRUCTION BUT THIS BODY WOULD
IMFEATURE PRESIDENT BASED ON THE
INVERSE CONCLUSION.
I DON'T BELIEVE IT WOULD BE
APPROPRIATE.
>> THE GENTLEMAN'S TIME IS
EXPIRED.
MS. DEAN.
>> I, MR. THANK YOU,
MR. CHAIRMAN, WORDS MATTER, IN
MY EARLIER LIFE, PROFESSORS, I
WAS A PROFESSOR OF WRITING, I
TAUGHT MY STUDENTS TO BE CAREFUL
AND CLEAR ABOUT WHAT THEY PUT TO
PAPER.
THAT IS A LESSON THAT THE
FRAMERS OF OUR CONSTITUTION
UNDERSTOOD FAR BETTER THAN
ANYONE.
THEY WERE LAYING THE FOUNDATION
FOR A NEW FORM OF GOVERNMENT,
ONE THAT ENSHRINES DEPENDENT
PRINCIPLES AND PROTECTS AGAINST
THOSE WHO WOULD SEEK TO
UNDERMINE THEM.
THE CONSTITUTION EXPLICITLY LAYS
OUT THAT A PRESIDENT MAY BE
IMPEACHED FOR TREASON, BRIBERY,
HIGH CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS.
WE HEARD A LOT OF WORDS TODAY,
FOREIGN INTERFERENCE, BRIBERY,
OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE, A
PROFESSORS I WOULD LIKE TO GO
THROUGH THE PRESIDENT'S 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 CLAUSE.
PROFESSOR KARLAN, 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 AND AS YOU SAID SO
PLAINLY, IT MAKES US LESS FREE.
YET ON JULY 25TH, 2019 THE
PRESIDENT COERCED UKRAINIAN
PRESIDENT ZELENSKY TO ANNOUNCE
AN INVESTIGATION INTO HIS
POLITICAL RIVAL, TRUMP'S
POLITICAL RIVAL.
WHICH WAS CORROBORATED BY
MULTIPLE WITNESSES THROUGHOUT
THE INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE
HEARINGS.
PROFESSOR KARLAN CAN YOU EXPLAIN
FOR THE AMERICAN PEOPLE IN YOUR
OPINION WHETHER THE FRAMERS
CONSIDERED SOLICITATION OF
FOREIGN INTERFERENCE, WOULD THEY
HAVE CONSIDERED IT A HIGH CRIME
OR MISDEMEANOR?
>> AND THE DOES THE PRESIDENT'S
CONDUCT RISE TO THAT LEVEL?
>> THE FRAMERS OF OUR
CONSTITUTION WOULD HAVE
CONSIDERED IT ABHORRENT AND
CONSIDERED IT THE ESSENCE OF A
HIGH CRIME OR MISDEMEANOR FOR A
PRESIDENT TO INVITE IN FOREIGN
INFLUENCE EITHER IN DECIDING
WHETHER HE WILL BE REELECTED OR
DECIDING WHO HIS SUCCESSOR WOULD
BE.
>> THANK YOU.
>> PROFESSOR FELDMAN I WOULD
LIKE TO TALK TO YOU ABOUT
BRIBERY.
DURING THE COURSE OF THE
INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE HEARINGS,
MULTIPLE WITNESSES GAVE SWORN
UNREBUTTED TESTIMONY THAT THE
PRESIDENT WITHHELD NEARLY
$400 MILLION IN CONGRESSIONALLY
APPROVED AID ON THE CONDITION
THAT RUSSIA -- EXCUSE ME -- THAT
ARE
UKRAINE ANNOUNCE INVESTIGATIONS
INTO HIS CHIEF POLITICAL
ADVERSARY.
PROFESSOR IN YOUR OPINION, GIVEN
THOSE FACTS AND THE FRAMERS
SPECIFIC CONCERNS, WOULD YOU
DESCRIBE THE PRESIDENT'S
BEHAVIOR HERE AND THE USE OF HIS
PUBLIC OFFICE FOR A PRIVATE
POSSESS 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 FOR
PERSONAL GAIN.
IF THIS HOUSE DETERMINES AND IF
THIS COMMITTEE DETERMINES THAT
THE REAL ESTATE WAS IN FACT
SEEKING PERSONAL THE PRESIDENT
WAS IN FACT SEEKING PERSONAL
GAME IN THE THINGS HE ASKED FOR
THEN THAT WOULD CONSTITUTE
BRIBERY UNDER THE CONSTITUTION.
>> THANK YOU.
PROFESSOR GERHARDT I WOULD LIKE
TO ASK YOU QUNL ABOUT .. ASK YOU
ABOUT THE OBSTRUCTION OF
JUSTICE.
THE PRESIDENT CATEGORICALLY
REFUSED TO 0 PRODUCE ANY
DOCUMENTS PURSUANT TO SUBPOENAS,
ATTACKED ACTUALLY WITNESSES
INCLUDING CAREER CIVIL AND
MILITARY SERVANTS AS DISCUSSED
HERE LIKE AMBASSADOR
YOVANOVITCH, LIEUTENANT COLONEL
VINDMAN, AMBASSADOR TAYLOR,
JENNIFER WILLIAMS AND OTHERS AND
HE DIRECTED ALL CURRENT AND
FORMER ADMINISTRATION WITNESSES
TO DEFY CONGRESSIONAL SUBPOENAS.
PROFESSOR, BASED ON THAT SET OF
FACTS, DOES THIS CONDUCT 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
DIFFERENTLY CONSTITUTED
COMMITTEE ON A VERY SERIOUS
QUESTION REGARDING IMPEACHMENT
AND I REMEMBER A NUMBER OF LAW
PROFESSORS VERY ELOQUENTLY
TALKING ABOUT PRESIDENT
CLINTON'S MISCONDUCT AS AN
ATTACK ON THE JUDICIAL SYSTEM.
AND THAT'S WHAT YOU JUST
DESCRIBED TO ME.
>> THANK YOU.
AND THANK YOU, PROFESSORS, ALL
OF YOU, ALL FOUR OF YOU, WHAT
YOU DID TODAY IS YOU BROUGHT
PART OF OUR CONSTITUTION TO LIFE
AND I THANK YOU FOR THAT.
YOU HAVE SHOWN WHAT THE FRAMERS
WERE MINDFUL OF WHEN THEY WROTE
THE IMPEACHMENT CLAUSE OF OUR
CONSTITUTION.
THEY CHOSE THEIR WORDS AND THEIR
WORDS MATTER.
YOU KNOW, IT WAS MY FATHER BOB
DEAN, A TERRIFIC DAD AND A
TALENTED WRITER WHO INSTILLED IN
ME AND MY BROTHERS AND SISTER A
LOVE OF LANGUAGE.
HE TAUGHT US OUR WORDS MATTER,
THE TRUTH MATTERS.
IT IS THROUGH THAT LENS WHICH I
SEE ALL OF THE SERIOUS AND
SOMBER THINGS WE ARE SPEAKING
ABOUT TODAY, FOREIGN
INTERFERENCE, BRIBERY,
OBSTRUCTION, THE FRAMERS LIKELY
COULD NOT HAVE IMAGINED ALL
THREE CONCERNS EMBODIED IN A
SINGLE LEADER, BUT THEY WERE
CONCERNED ENOUGH TO CRAFT THE
REMEDY.
IMPEACHMENT.
THE TIMES HAVE FOUND US.
I AM PRAYERFUL FOR OUR
PRESIDENT, FOR OUR COUNTRY, FOR
OURSELVES.
THAT 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 YIELD BACK,
MR. CHAIRMAN.
>> THE GENTLELADY YIELDS BACK.
MS. POWELL.
>> THANK YOU, AND 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,
AND I HAD THE FORTUNE OF TAKING
THAT OATH ONCE AGAIN WHEN I
BECAME A MEMBER OF CONGRESS AND
THAT INCLUDES THE RESPONSIBILITY
TO PROTECT OUR NATION FROM
CONTINUING THREATS FROM A
PRESIDENT, ANY PRESIDENT.
YOU TESTIFIED THAT THE
PRESIDENT'S ACTIONS ARE A
CONTINUING RISK TO OUR NATION
AND DEMOCRACY.
MEANING THAT THIS IS NOT A
ONE-TIME PROBLEM.
THERE IS A PATTERN OF BEHAVIOR
BY THE REAL ESTATE THAT IS
PUTTING AT RISK FAIR AND FREE
ELECTIONS AND I THINK THAT WE
ARE HERE TODAY BECAUSE THE
AMERICAN PEOPLE DESERVE TO KNOW
WHETHER WE NEED TO REMOVE THE
PRESIDENT BECAUSE OF IT.
DURING THE NIXON IMPEACHMENT THE
JUDICIARY COMMITTEE SAID, QUOTE,
THE PURPOSE OF IMPEACHMENT IS
NOT PERSONAL PUNISHMENT.
ITITS FUNCTION IS PRIMARILY TO
MAINTAIN CONSTITUTIONAL
GOVERNMENT.
PROFESSOR KARLAN, TO ME THAT
MEANS THAT IMPEACHMENT SHOULD BE
USED WHEN WE MUST PROTECT OUR
AMERICAN DEMOCRACY.
IT IS RESERVED FOR OFFENSES THAT
PRESENT A CONTINUING RISK TO OUR
DEMOCRACY; IS THAT CORRECT?
>> YES IT IS.
THANK YOU AND I WANT TO SHOW YOU
AN EXAMPLE OF WHAT THE PRESIDENT
SAID JUST ONE WEEK AFTER THE
TRANSCRIPT OF THE JULY 25TH CALL
WAS RELEASED WHEN A REPORTER
ASKED THE PRESIDENT WHAT HE
WANTED FROM PRESIDENT AND HE LEN
SKI, AND HE RESPONDED WITH THIS.
>> FROM PRESIDENT ZELENSKY.
>> I WOULD THINK IF THEY WERE
HONEST ABOUT IT THEY WOULD START
A MAJOR INVESTIGATION INTO THE
BIDENS IT IS A VERY SIMPLE
ANSWER .. THEY SHOULD
INVESTIGATE THE BIDENS BECAUSE
HOW DOES A COMPANY THAT IS NEWLY
FORMED AND ALL OF THESE
COMPANIES, AND BY THE WAY,
LIKEWISE, CHINA SHOULD START AN
INVESTIGATION INTO THE BIDENS,
BECAUSE WHAT HAPPENED TO CHINA
IS JUST ABOUT AS BAD AS WHAT
HAPPENED WITH UKRAINE.
>> SO WE HAVE HEARD TODAY
CONFLICTING DIALOGUE FROM BOTH
SIDES AND I JUST WANT TO ASK,
MR. FELDMAN, IS THIS CLEAR
EVIDENCE FROM A PRESIDENT ASKING
FROM -- FOR A FOREIGN GOVERNMENT
TO INTERFERE IN OUR ELECTIONS?
>> CONGRESSWOMAN, I AM 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 THAT
CONSTITUTES AN ABUSE OF OFFICE
AND COUNTS AS A HIGH CRIME AND
MISDEMEANOR AND THAT'S WHAT THE
CONSTITUTION IS HERE TO PROTECT
US AGAINST.
>> THANK YOU AND PROFESSOR
KARLAN, ARE THE PRESIDENT'S
ACTIONS A CONTINUING RISK THAT
THE FRAMERS INTENDED IMPEACHMENT
TO BE USED FOR?
>> YES.
THIS TAKES US BACK TO THE
QUOTATION FROM WILLIAM DAVY WE
ALL USED SEVERAL TIMES IN OUR
TESTIMONY WHICH IS A PRESIDENT
WITHOUT IMPEACHMENT, A PRESIDENT
WILL DO ANYTHING TO GET
REELECTED.
>> THANK YOU AND I WANT TO SHOW
YOU ONE MORE EXAMPLE FROM THE
PRESIDENT'S CHIEF OF STAFF WHEN
ASKED ABOUT THE PRESIDENT -- THE
EVENTS WITH THE UKRAINIAN
PRESIDENT.
>> CLEARLY DESCRIBED AS A QUID
PRO QUO.
IT IS FUNDING WILL NOT FLOW
UNLESS THE INVESTIGATION INTO
THE DEMOCRAT SERVER HAPPENED AS
WELL.
>> WE DO -- WE DO THAT ALL THE
TIME WITH FOREIGN POLICY.
MCKINNEY SAID YESTERDAY HE WAS
REALLY UPSET WITH THE POLITICAL
INFLUENCE IN FOREIGN POLICY.
THAT WAS ONE OF THE REASONS HE
WAS SO UPSET ABOUT THIS.
AND I HAVE NEWS FOR EVERYBODY,
GET OVER IT.
THERE IS GOING TO BE A POLITICAL
INFLUENCE IN FOREIGN POLICY.
>> PROFESSOR KARLAN, I THINK
THAT MR. MULVANEY IS CONFLATING
OR CONFUSING TWO DIFFERENT
NOTIONS OF POLITICS.
YES, THERE IS POLITICAL
INFLUENCE ON OUR FOREIGN AFFAIRS
BECAUSE PRESIDENT TRUMP WON THE
ELECTION IN 2016 WE HAVE EXITED
CLIMATE ACCORDS, WE HAVE TAKEN A
DIFFERENT POSITION ON NATO THAN
WE WOULD HAVE TAKEN HAD HIS
OPPONENT WON BUT THAT IS
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 AND I THINK THAT
THAT IS OUR GREATEST FEAR AND
THREAT.
AND I DON'T THINK THAT ANYONE IS
ABOVE THE LAW, THE CONSTITUTION
ESTABLISHES THAT.
THIS TYPE OF BEHAVIOR CANNOT BE
TOLERATED FROM ANY PRESIDENT,
NOT NOW, NOT IN THE FUTURE AND I
YIELD BACK.
>> THE GENTLELADY YIELDS BACK --
I AM SORRY.
MS. ESCOBAR.
I HAD HER CHECKED OFF --
>> MS. ESCOBAR IS RECOGNIZED.
>> THANK YOU, CHAIRMAN.
PROFESSORS THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR
YOUR TESTIMONY AND TIME TODAY.
MANY FACTS INCLUDING THE
PRESIDENT'S OWN WORDS IN THAT
FAMOUS PHONE CALL HAVE BEEN LAID
OUT BEFORE OUR VERY EYES AND
EARS FOR MONTHS, DESPITE THE
PRESIDENT'S REPEATED EFFORTS AT
A COVER UP BUT IT APPEARS 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
PRESIDENT'S ACTIONS úECAUSE
FRANKLY THOSE OFFENSES ARE
INDEFENSIBLE.
INSTEAD WE SEE THEM ATTACK THE
PROCESS AND ATTEMPT TO IMPUGN
YOUR INTEGRITY, FOR THAT I AM
SORRY.
NOW TO MY QUESTIONS.
SOME HAVE OPINED 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 PRESIDENT'S 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 IS
UP ON THE SCREEN.
GEORGE MASON ASKED SHALL THE MAN
WHO HAS PRACTICED CORRUPTION AND
BY THAT MEANS PROCURED HIS
APPOINTMENT IN THE FIRST
INSTANCE BE SUFFERED TO ESCAPE
PUNISHMENT BY REPEATING HIS
GUILT?
PROFESSOR FELDMAN, I HAVE TWO
QUESTIONS FOR YOU.
BRIEFLY CAN YOU PLEASE EXPLAIN
WHY THE FRAMERS DECIDED THAT A
CORRUPT EXECUTIVE COULD NOT BE
SOLVED THROUGH ELECTIONS AND CAN
YOU TELL US WHY IMPEACHMENT IS
THE APPROPRIATE OPTION AT THIS
POINT?
CONSIDERING ALL OF 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, AND
THEY KNEW THAT A PRESIDENT WOULD
HAVE A GREAT MOTIVE TO CORRUPT
THE ELECTORAL PROCESS TO GET
REELECTED AND THAT'S EXACTLY WHY
THEY THOUGHT THAT IT WASN'T GOOD
ENOUGH TO WAIT FOR THE NEXT
ELECTION BECAUSE THE PRESIDENT
COULD CHEAT AND COULD MAKE THE
NEXT ELECTION ILLEGITIMATE,
THAT'S WHY THEY REQUIRED
IMPEACHMENT AND IF THEY COULDN'T
IMPEACH, IMPOO ETCH A CORRUPT
PRESIDENT JAMES MADISON SAID
THAT COULD BE FATAL TO THE
REPUBLIC.
>> THE REASON THAT IT IS
NECESSARY TO TAKE ACTION NOW ASK
THAT WE HAVE A PRESIDENT WHO HAS
IN FACT SOUGHT TO CORRUPT THE
ELECTORAL PROCESS FOR PERSONAL
ADVANTAGE.
UNDER THOSE CIRCUMSTANCES THE
FRAMERS REMEDY OF IMPEACHMENT IS
THE ONLY OPTION AVAILABLE.
>> THANK YOU.
I WANT TO PLAY TWO CLIPS, THE
FIRST TO PRESIDENT NIXON AND THE
SECOND OF PRESIDENT TRUMP.
>> WHEN THE PRESIDENT DOES IT
THAT MEAN IT IS NOT ILLEGAL.
>> THERE WE HAVE AN ARTICLE.
>> DO WHAT I WANT THIS
PRESIDENT, TWO PRESIDENTS OPENLY
STATING THAT THEY ARE ABOVE THE
LAW.
PROFESSOR KARLAN, 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
ELECTIONS AND WHO WILL ATTACK
ANY WITNESS WHO STANDS UP TO
TELL THE TRUTH?
WHAT HAPPENS IF WE DON'T FOLLOW
OUR CONSTITUTIONAL OBLIGATION OF
IMPEACHMENT TO REMOVE THAT
PRESIDENT FROM OFFICE?
>> WE WILL 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 LEGAL THERE WAS
NO RETREAT INTO A PARTISAN
CORNER OR AN EFFORT BY ANYONE TO
EXPLAIN IT AWAY.
WE ALSO DIDN'T WAIT FOR AN
ELECTION TO CURE THE CANCER OF
CORRUPTION THAT OCCURRED ON OUR
WATCH.
WE WERE UNITED AS A COMMUNITY IN
OUR OUTRAGE OVER IT.
IT WAS INTOLERABLE TO US BECAUSE
WE KNEW THAT IT WAS A THREAT TO
OUR INSTITUTIONS, INSTITUTIONS
THAT BELONG TO US.
WHAT WE FACE TODAY IS THE SAME
KIND OF TEST, ONLY ONE FAR MORE
GRAVE AND HISTORIC.
FROM THE FOUNDING OF OUR COUNTRY
TO TODAY ONE TRUTH REMAINS
CLEAR, THE IMPEACHMENT POWER IS
RESERVED FOR CONDUCT THAT ENDANG
VS. DEMOCRACY AND IMPERIALS OUR
CONSTITUTION.
TODAY'S HEARING HAS HELPED US TO
BETTER UNDERSTAND HOW WE
PRESERVE PUBLIC AND THE TEST
THAT LIES AHEAD FOR US.
THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN, I YIELD
BACK MY TIME.
>> THE GENTLELADY 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.
WELL TODAY HAS BEEN INTERESTING,
I GUESS, TO SAY THE LEAST.
IT HAS BEEN -- WE HAVE FOUND
MANY THINGS, IN FACT, THREE OF
OUR FOUR WITNESSES HERE TODAY
ALLEGED NUMEROUS CRIMES
COMMITTED BY THE REAL ESTATE AND
AT TIMES IT SEEMS LIKE WE WERE
EVEN TRYING TO MAKE UP CRIMES,
WELL IF IT WASN'T THIS IT WAS
THE INTENT TO DO IT.
IT WENT ALONG THAT IT IS
INTERESTING TODAY AS I STARTED
THIS DAY AND COME BACK TO IT NOW
AS MUCH AS I RESPECT THESE WHO
CAME BEFORE US TODAY THIS IS WAY
TOO EARLY.
BECAUSE WE HAVE NOT AS A
COMMITTEE DONE OUR JOB.
WE HAVE NOT AS A COMMITTEE COME
TOGETHER LOOKED AT EVIDENCE,
TAKEN FACT WITNESSES, PUT THEM
IN FRONT OF US UNDER OATH TO SAY
WHAT HAPPENED AND HOW DID IT
HAPPEN AND WHY DID IT HAPPEN?
WE ARE TAKING THE WORK OF THE
INTEL COMMIT FEE AND THE OTHER
COMMITTEES, WE ARE TAKING IT AS
SEEM MY AT FACE VALUE AND I WILL
REMIND ALL THAT THE CHAIRMAN
EVEN IS THE BIGGEST PROPONENT OF
THIS NOT HAPPENING IN HIS
EARLIER STATEMENTS ALMOST 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.
NO TO MY DEMOCRATIC MAJORITY
THEY MAY NOT CARE AS I SAID
BEFORE THIS IS ABOUT A CLOCK AND
A CALENDAR.
THE CLOCK AND A CALENDAR, THEY
ARE SO OBSESSED WITH THE
ELECTION NEXT YEAR THAT THEY
JUST GLOSS OVER THINGS.
IN FACT, WHAT IS INTERESTING AS
I SAID EARLIER, THREE OF THE
FOUR WITNESSES ALLEGE NUMEROUS
CRIMES COMMITTED BY THE
PRESIDENT, HOWEVER DURING THE
INTEL COMMITTEE HEARINGS NONE OF
THE FACT WITNESSES IDENTIFIED A
CRIME.
IF YOU ARE WRITING ABOUT THIS,
THAT SHOULD ALARM YOU.
SO THIS IMPEACHMENT NARRATIVE
BEING SPUN BY THE MAJORITY IS A
FAKE ONE.
IT IS MAJORITY THREE PERCENT,
SPINNING THREE PERCENT OF THE
FACTS WHILE IGNORING 90 PERCENT
OF THE OTHER, IN FACT PROFESSOR
TURLEY SAID PREEVMENT NEEDS
PROOF NOT PRESUMPTION WE HAVE
ONE OF THE FACT WITNESSES IN THE
INTEL COMMITTEE, I PRESUME THAT
WAS WHAT WAS GOING ON.
MR. SONDLAND.
YOU KNOW, WHAT IS HAPPENING HERE
TODAY ALSO WE FOUND OUT TODAY
THIS IS INTERESTING THE
JUDICIARY COMMITTEE AND FOUND
OUT SOMETHING TODAY THAT FACTS
DON'T MATTER IN FACT, FACTS
DON'T MATTER ALSO THIS WE CAN
FIT THOSE FACTS TO FIT THE
NARRATIVE WE WANT TO SPIN BEFORE
THIS COMMITTEE AND THE AMERICAN
PEOPLE.
IF THEY DON'T MATTER, WE ALSO
HEARD ONE OF THE WITNESSES STATE
TODAY IT DOESN'T MATTER IF AID
WAS RELEASED OR NOT.
OF COURSE IT MATTERS.
BUT UNFORTUNATELY THE ONLY ONE
OF THE MANY FACTS IGNORED BY THE
MAJORITY.
THEY ARE IGNORING A TON OF FACTS
THAT MATTER, IT APPARENTLY
DOESN'T MATTER TO THE DEMOCRATS
THAT AMBASSADOR VOLKER MADE
CLEAR IN HIS TESTIMONY THERE WAS
NO CONDITIONALITY ON THE WHITE
HOUSE MEETING OR THE AID.
THE DEMOCRATS AND THEIR
WITNESSES HAVEN'T MENTIONED THAT
BECAUSE IT IS UNHELPFUL TO THE
NARRATIVE THEY ARE SPINNING.
IT APPARENTLY DOESN'T MATTER TO
DEMOCRATS, TO THE DEMOCRATS AND
THE MAJORITY HERE THAT THE
PRESIDENT DID NOT CONDITION HIS
AID ON AN INVESTIGATION IN FACT,
MR. SONDLAND'S STATEMENT TO THE
CONTRARY WAS PRESUMPTION, IT WAS
RIGHT HERE IN THIS ROOM HE
CALLED IT A GUESS, RIGHT WHERE
YOU ARE SITTING.
HE CALLED IT A GUESS.
A PRESUMPTION, THAT'S WHAT HE
THOUGHT.
GOD FORBID IF WE WALK INTO OUR
COURTROOMS OR OUR PROCEEDINGS TO
FIND SOMEBODY GUILTY OF
SOMETHING WE ARE CALLING A CRIME
AND WALK INTO COURT AND ALL OF A
SUDDEN WELL I THOUGHT IT WAS,
THE WITNESS SAID I PRESUMED IT
WAS, GOD FORBID THIS IS WHERE WE
ARE AT.
BUT YOU KNOW WE ALSO HEARD TODAY
THAT YOU MAKE INFERENCE, THOUGH,
IT IS OKAY IF YOU ARE JUST
INFERRING.
I DON'T KNOW ABOUT THE
PROFESSORS HERE FOR OF THOSE OFS
ON COURT ON BOTH SIDES OF A
AISLE, I SAID JUST INFER WHAT
YOU THINK THEY MEANT AND THAT
WILL BE ENOUGH.
IT IS NOT INFERENCE.
YOU KNOW, PROBABLY DOESN'T
MATTER, THE PRESIDENT DIDN'T
CONDITION A MEETING ON AN
INVESTIGATION.
HE NET WITH ZELENSKY WITH NO
PRECONDITIONS, ZELENSKY DIDN'T
FIND OUT ABOUT THE HOLD OF AID
UNTIL A MONTH AFTER THE CALL
WHEN HE READ IT IN POLITICO, THE
AID WAS RELEASED SHORTLY
THEREAFTER AND UKRAINE DIDN'T DO
ANYTHING TO GET THE AID
RELEASED.
LETHAL AID WAS GIVEN AS WELL, IF
YOU THINK THAT DIDN'T MATTER,
THERE WAS FIVE MEETING BETWEEN
THE AID WAS STOPPED AND RELEASED
AND IN NONE OF THOSE MEETINGS
BETWEEN BASS DORS AND OTHERS,
INCLUDING THE VICE PRESIDENT AND
SENATORS, NONE OF THAT WAS EVER
CONNECTED TO A PROMISE OF
ANYTHING ON THE AID, NOTHING WAS
EVER CONNECTED, FIVE TIMES, AND
TWO OF THOSE WERE AFTER
PRESIDENT ZELENSKY LEARNED THAT
AID WAS BEING HELD.
TELL ME THERE IS NOT A PROBLEM
HERE WITH THE STORY.
THAT'S WHY FACT WITNESSES AREN'T
HERE RIGHT NOW.
THE EVIDENCE AGAINST THE
PRESIDENT IS REALLY ABOUT POLICY
DIFFERENCES, IN FACT, THREE OF
THE DEMOCRATIC STAR WITNESSES,
HILL, TAYLOR AND KENT WERE,
WEREN'T EVEN ON THE THE CALL
THEY READ TRANSCRIPTS LIKE
EVERYBODY ELSE.
ZELENSKY MET WITH VOLKER AND --
SON LAN MET SEVERAL MORE TIMES,
NO REFERENCES BUT NONE OF THOSE
-- NONE OF THESE INCONVENIENT
FACTS OR SO MANY OTHER
INCONVENIENT FACTS MATTER TO THE
MAJORITY.
WE DON'T EVEN KNOW WHAT IF
ADDITIONAL HEARINGS WE WILL HAVE
TO ADDRESS OTHER FACTS.
THIS IS THE PART THAT BOTHERS ME
GREATLY.
IT IS SOMETHING WE HAVE SEEN
FROM JANUARY OF THIS REAR.
NO CONCERN ABOUT A PROCESS THAT
WORKS BUT SIMPLY GETTING TO AN
END WE WANT.
YOU KNOW, I AGREE WITH PROFESSOR
FELDMAN, HE MAY FIND THAT
STRANGE BUT I DO AGREE WITH YOU
ON SOMETHING.
IT IS NOT HIS JOB TO ASSESS THE
CREDIBILITY OF THE WITNESSES, IT
IS THIS COMMITTEE'S JOB AND I
AGREE.
BUT THIS COMMITTEE CAN'T DO OUR
JOBS IF NONE OF THE WITNESSES
TESTIFY BEFORE OUR COMMITTEE
EVEN ONES WE HAVE TALKED ABOUT
CALLING TODAY AND THE MAJORITY
HAVE SAID WE DON'T WANT.
THROUGH THAT WE STILL DON'T HAVE
AN ANSWER ON WHAT THE COMMITTEE
WILL DO ONCE THIS END.
THE COMMITTEE RECEIVED CHAIRMAN
SCHIFF'S REPORT YESTERDAY BUT WE
STILL DON'T HAVE THE UNDERLYING
EVIDENCE.
THE RULES EVEN SET UP BY THIS
BODY ARE NOT BEING FOLLOWED TO O
THIS DAY BUT YET NOBODY TALKS
ABOUT IT ON THE MAJORITY SIDE.
THE WITNESSES PRODUCED BY
CHAIRMAN SCHIFF AND THE AMERICAN
PEOPLE TALK ABOUT THEIR A
FEELINGS, THEIR GUESSES THEIR
PRESUMPTIONS BUT EVEN THOUGH THE
FACTS MAY NOT MATTER TO THE
MAJORITY, 97 PERCENT OF THE
OTHER FACTS DO MATTER TO THE
AMERICAN PEOPLE.
SO MY PROBLEM IS THIS.
AS THE RANKING MEMBER OF THIS
COMMITTEE, ONE OF THE OLDEST
MOST SHOULD BE FACT BASED LEGAL
BASED COMMITTEES WE HAVE HERE,
WHERE IMPEACHMENT SHOULD HAVE
BEEN ALL ALONG, I HAVE A GROUP
OF MEMBERS WHO HAVE NO IDEA
WHERE WE ARE HEADED NEXT I BET
YOU THOUGH IF I ASKED THE
MAJORITY MEMBERS OUTSIDE OF THE
CHAIRMAN THEY DON'T HAVE A CLUE
EITHER.
VERY MUCH ONE.
SO IF THEY HAVE IT THEY SHOULD
SHARE IT BECAUSE THERE IS NOT A
TIME TO PLAY HIDE THE BALL.
THIS IS NOT A TIME TO SAY, WE
ARE GOING FIGURE IT OUT ON THE
FLY.
YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT
OVERTURNING 63 MILLION VOTES OF
A PRESIDENT DULY ELECTED WHO IS
DOING HIS JOB EVERY DAY.
AND BY THE WAY WAS OVERSEAS
TODAY WHILE WE ARE DOING THIS.
WORKING WITH OUR NATO ALLIES.
SO THE QUESTION I HAVE IS WHERE
DO WE HEAD NEXT?
WE HEARD THIS AMBIGUOUS
PRESENTATION BUT HERE IS MY
CHALLENGE, I ALREADY HAVE BEEN
VOTED DOWN IN TABLE TODAY.
MR. SCHIFF SHOULD TESTIFY.
CHAIRMAN SCHIFF NOT HIS STAFF
MUST APPEAR BEFORE THIS
COMMITTEE TO ANSWER QUESTIONS
ABOUT THE CONTEXT OF HIS REPORT,
THAT IS WHAT KEN STARR DID 20
YEARS AGO AN HISTORY DEMANDED
IT.
I TOLD THE CHAIRMAN JUST A WHILE
AGO AND A COUPLE OF WEEKS AGO
WHEN DOING A MARKUP,
MR. CHAIRMAN THE HISTORY LIGHTS
ARE ON US, US, IT IS TIME WE
TALK AND SHARE HOW WE ARE GOING
FORWARD.
I AM STILL WAITING FOR THEIR
ANSWERS.
SO MR. CHAIRMAN, AS WE LOOK
AHEAD, AS THE DEMOCRATIC
MAJORITY PROMISED THAT IN WAS
GOING TO BE A FAIR PROCESS WHEN
IT GOT TO JUDICIARY FOR THE
PRESIDENT AND OTHERS, THE
PRESIDENT AM YOU MAY SAY HE
COULD HAVE COME TODAY, WHAT
WOULD THIS HAVE DONE?
NOTHING.
THERE IS NO FACT WITNESSES HERE,
NOTHING TO REBUT IN FACT IT HAS
BEEN A GOOD TIME JUST TO SEE
THAT REALLY NOTHING CAME OF IT
AT THE END OF THE DAY.
SO WHY SHOULD HE BE HERE?
LET'S BRING FACT WITNESSES IN.
LET'S BRING PEOPLE IN BECAUSE AS
YOU SAID, MR. CHAIRMAN, YOU
SAID, YOUR WORDS, WE SHOULD
NEVER ON THIS COMMITTEE ACCEPT
AN ENTITY GIVING US A REPORT AND
NOT INVESTIGATING IT OURSELVES,
UNDOUBT THINK WE ARE WELL ON OUR
WAY OF DOING THAT BECAUSE OF A
CALENDAR AND A CLOCK.
SO MR. CHAIRMAN I KNOW YOU ARE
ABOUT TO GIVE A STATEMENT AND
THEY WORKED ON IT AND YOU WORKED
ON IT VERY HARD I AM SURE BUT I
WANT TO, BEFORE YOU BAFFLE THIS
HEARING, 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 DAY AND NUMBER
2, WHY ARE WE -- WHEN ARE WE
ACTUALLY GOING TO HAVE REAL
WITNESSES HERE THAT ARE FACT
WITNESSES IN THIS CASE?
WHEN?
OR WHAT YOU SAID MANY YEARS AGO
HAS FADED JUST LIKE THE LEAVES
IN FALL, I DON'T REALLY CARE
ANYMORE THAT SOMEBODY ELSE GIVES
US A REPORT, UNDOUBTEDLY
CHAIRMAN SCHIFF IS CHAIRMAN OVER
EVERYTHING WITH IMPEACHMENT, AND
HE DOESN'T GET TO TESTIFY. HE
IS GOING TO SEND A STAFF MEMBER.
BUT I NEED THOUGH IF WE ARE
GOING TO HAVE A HEARING PAST
THAT TO FIGURE OUT ANYTHING THAT
HAS BEEN GOING ON.
SO MY QUESTION THAT I STARTED
OUT TODAY IS WHERE IS FAIRNESS?
IT WAS PROMISED, IT IS NOT BEING
DELIVERED.
THE FACTS TAWT TALKED ABOUT ARE
NOT FACTS DELIVERED.
THIS PRESIDENT, DID NOTHING
WRONG, NOTHING TO BE IMMELMAN
IMPEACH AND NOTHING FOR WHY WE
ARE HERE AND IN THE WORDS OF ONE
OF OUR WITNESS MRS. TURLEY, IF
YOU RUSH THROUGH THIS, YOU DO IT
ON FLIMSY GROUNDS, THE AMERICAN
PEOPLE WILL NOT FORGET THE LIGHT
OF HISTORY.
SO TODAY, BEFORE YOU GIVE YOUR
OPENING STATEMENT, YOUR CLOSING
STATEMENT, BEFORE YOU GIVE THIS
TIME MY QUESTION IS, WILL YOU
TALK TO THIS COMMITTEE A?
YOU ARE CHAIRMAN, YOU HOLD A
VERY PRESTIGIOUS ROLE, WILL YOU
LET US KNOW WHERE WE ARE GOING?
ARE WE GOING TO ADJOURN FROM
HEREAFTER YOU SUM UP EVERYTHING
SAYING THEY ALL DID GOOD AND GO
OUT FROM HERE, WE ARE STILL
WONDERING.
THE LIGHTS ARE ON.
IT IS TIME TO ANSWER THE
QUESTION.
I YIELD BACK.
>> THE GENTLEMAN YIELDS BACK.
I WANT TO, BEFORE MY CLOSING
STATEMENT, ACKNOWLEDGE 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
CONFERRING WITH THE RANKING
MEMBER ABOUT THIS REQUEST AFTER
I HAVE HAD A CHANCE TO REVIEW
IT.
MR. CHAIRMAN I HAVE A QUESTION
-- YOU CAN'T REVIEW A LETTER, IT
IS A DEMAND THAT WE HAVE.
>> THE GENTLEMAN IS NOT
RECOGNIZED.
THERE IS NOTHING FOR YOU TO
REVIEW.
AND I NOW RECOGNIZE MYSELF FOR
CLOSING STATEMENT.
GEORGE WASHINGTON'S FAREWELL
ADDRESS WARNS OF A MOMENT WHEN
CUNNING AMBITIOUS AND
UNPRINCIPLED MEN WILL BE ENABLED
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 INTERESTS,
ABOVE THE SECURITY OF OUR
COUNTRY AND MOST IMPORTANTLY
ABOVE OUR MOST PRECIOUS RIGHT,
THE ABILITY OF EACH AND EVERY
ONE OF US TO PARTICIPATE IN FAIR
ELECTIONS, FREE OF CORRUPTION.
THE CONSTITUTION HAS A SOLUTION
FOR A PRESIDENT WHO PLACES HIS
PERSONAL OR POLITICAL INTERESTS
OF THOSE ABOVE THE NATION, THE
POWER OF IMPEACHMENT.
AS ONE OF MY COLLEAGUES POINTED
OUT I HAVE IN THE PAST
ARTICULATED A THREE PART TEST
FOR IMPEACHMENT, LET ME BE CLEAR
ARE ALL THREE PARTS OF THAT TEST
HAVE BEEN MET.
FIRST, YES, THE PRESIDENT HAS
COMMITTED AN IMPEACHABLE
OFFENSE.
THE PRESIDENT ASKED THE FOREIGN
GOVERNMENT TO INTERVENE IN OUR
ELECTIONS, THEN GOT CAUGHT, THEN
OBSTRUCTED THE INVESTIGATORS.
TWICE.
OUR WITNESSES TOLD US IN NO
UNCERTAIN TERMS THIS CONDUCT
CONSTITUTED, CONSTITUTES HIGH
CRIMES AND MISS AUTHORIZE,
INCLUDING ABUSE OF POWER.
SECOND.
YES, THE PRESIDENT'S ALLEGED
OFFENSES PRESENT A DIRECT THREAT
TO THE CONSTITUTIONAL ORDER.
PROFESSOR KARLAN WARNED, DRAWING
A FOREIGN GOVERNMENT INTO OUR
ELECTION PROCESS IS AN
ESPECIALLY SERIOUS ABUSE OF
POWER BECAUSE IT UNDERMINES
DEMOCRACY ITSELF.
PROFESSOR FELDMAN ECHOED IF WE
CANNOT IMPEACH A PRESIDENT WHO
ABUSES HIS OFFICE FOR PERSONAL
ADVANTAGE, WE NO LONGER LIVE IN
A DEMOCRACY.
WE LIVE IN A MONARCHY OR UNDER A
DICTATOR SHIP.
PROFESSOR GERHARDT REMINDS US US
IF WHAT WE ARE TALKING ABOUT IS
NOT IMPEACHABLE THEN NOTHING IS
IMPEACHABLE.
PRESIDENT TRUMP'S ACTS REPRESENT
A THREAT TO OUR NATIONAL
SECURITY AND URGENT THREAT 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 IN ARGUMENT NEW.
MY COLLEAGUES ON THE OTHER SIDE
OF THE AISLE UNABLE TO DEFEND
THE BEHAVIOR OF THE PRESIDENT
HAVE USED THIS ARGUMENT BEFORE.
FIRST THEY SAID THAT THESE
PROCEEDINGS WERE NOT
CONSTITUTIONAL BECAUSE WE DID
NOT HAVE A FLOOR VOTE, WE THEN
HAD A FLOOR VOTE.
THEN THEY SAID THAT OUR
PROCEEDINGS WERE NOT
CONSTITUTIONAL BECAUSE THEY
COULD NOT CALL WITNESSES.
REPUBLICANS CALLED THREE OF THE
WITNESSES IN THE LIVE HEARINGS
OF THE INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE,
AND
AND WILL HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO
REQUEST WITNESSES IN THIS
COMMITTEE AS WELL.
NEXT, THEY SAID THAT OUR REGION
WERE NOT CONSTITUTIONAL BECAUSE
THE PRESIDENT COULD NOT
PARTICIPATE.
WHEN THE COMMITTEE INVITED THE
PRESIDENT TO PARTICIPATE IN THIS
HEARING HE DECLINED.
THE SIMPLE FACT IS THAT ALL OF
THESE PROCEEDINGS HAVE ALL THE
PROTECTIONS AFFORDED PRIOR
PRESIDENTS.
THIS PROCESS FOLLOWS THE
CONSTITUTIONAL AND LEGAL
PRECEDENTS.
SO I AM LEFT TO CONCLUDE THAT
THE ONLY REASON THAT MY
COLLEAGUES RUSH FROM ONE PROCESS
COMPLAINT TO THE NEXT IS BECAUSE
THERE IS NO FACTUAL DEFENSE FOR
PRESIDENT TRUMP.
UP LIKE ANY OTHER PRESIDENT
BEFORE HIM, PRESIDENT TRUMP
OPENLY HAS REJECTED COMING'S
RIGHT AS A COEQUAL BRANCH OF
GOVERNMENT.
HE HAS DEFIED OUR SUBPOENAS. HE
HAS REFUSED TO PRODUCE ANY
DOCUMENTS AND HE DIRECTED HIS
AIDS NOT TO TESTIFY.
PRESIDENTPRESIDENT TRUMP ALSO AE
FOREIGN GOVERNMENTTESTIFY.
PRESIDENT TRUMP ALSO ASKED A
FOREIGN GOVERNMENT TO INTERVENE
IN OUR ELECTIONS AND 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, UNQUOTE.
THAT IS WHY WE MUST ACT NOW.
IN THIS COUNTRY, THE PRESIDENT
CANNOT DO WHATEVER HE WANTS.
IN THIS COUNTRY, NO ONE, NOT
EVEN THE PRESIDENT IS ABOVE THE
LAW.
TODAY WE BEGAN OUR CONVERSATION
WHERE WE SHOULD, WITH THE TECT
OF THE CONSTITUTION -- TEXT OF
THE CONSTITUTION.
WE HAVE HEARD CLEARLY FROM OUR
WITNESSES THAT THE CONSTITUTION
COMPELS ACTION.
INDEED EVERY WITNESS INCLUDING
THE WITNESS SELECTED BY
REPUBLICAN SIDE AGREED IF THE
PRESIDENT TRUMP DID WHAT THE
INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE FOUND HIM
TO HAVE DONE AFTER 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
PRESIDENT ENGAGED IN THESE ACTS,
THE AMERICAN PEOPLE AND THE
MAJORITY OF THIS COMMITTEE
DISAGREE.
I ALSO THINK THAT THE REPUBLICAN
WITNESS, PROFESSOR TURLEY,
ISSUED A SAGE WARNING IN 1998
THAT HE WAS A LEADING ADVOCATE
FOR THE IMPEACHMENT OF BILL
CLINTON.
HE SAID, QUOTE, IF YOU DECIDE
THAT CERTAIN ACTS DO NOT RISE TO
IMPEACIMPEACHABLE OFFENSES YOU L
EXPAND THE SPACE FOR EXECUTIVE
CONDUCT, CLOSE QUOTE.
THAT WAS THE PROFESSION OF
PROFESSOR TURLEY IN 198 IN THE
IMPEACHMENT OF PRESIDENT
CLINTON.
THAT QUESTION SHOULD GUIDE US
ALL TODAY.
BUT ANY ACCOUNT 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 ONLY GROW
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 HONOR MY OATH, AND AS I
SIT HERE TODAY, HAVING HEARD
CONSISTENT CLEAR AND COMPELLING
EVIDENCE THAT THE PRESIDENT HAS
ABUSED HIS POWER, ATTEMPTED TO
UNDERMIND THE CONSTITUTIONAL
ROLE OF CONGRESS AND CORRUPTED
OUR ELECTIONS, I URGE MY
COLLEAGUES STAND BEHIND THE OATH
YOU HAVE TAKEN.
OUR DEMOCRACY DEPENDS ON IT.
THIS CONCLUDES TODAY'S HEARING.
>> MR. CHAIRMAN, I HAVE ONE
THING.
>> FOR WHAT PURPOSES DOES THE
GENTLEMAN SEEK RECOGNITION.
>> PURSUANT TO COMMITTEE RULE
I'M GIVING NOTICE OF INTEND TO
FILE THE SAME THING OF
COMMITTEE'S REPORT FOR
CONSTITUTIONAL GROUNDS OF
PRESIDENTIAL IMPEACHMENT.
>> NOTED.
>> THIS CONCLUDES TODAY'S
HEARING.
WE THANK ALL OF OUR WITNESSES
FOR PARTICIPATING.
>> MR. CHAIRMAN --
>> WITHOUT OBJECTION ALL MEMBERS
WILL HAVE FIVE LEGISLATIVE DAYS
TO SUBMIT ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS
FOR WITNESSES OR ADDITIONAL --
>> I HAVE A QUESTION.
>> THE WITNESSES ARE
ADDITIONAL --
>> WITHOUT OBJECTION THE HEARING
IS ADJOURNED.
>> JUST TYPICAL, ISN'T IT, JUST
TYPICAL.