 
WASHINGTON, D.C., AND AROUND THE
COUNTRY SO YOU CAN MAKE UP YOUR 
OWN MIND CREATED BY CABLE IN 
1979.
C-SPAN IS BROUGHT TO YOU BY YOUR
LOCAL SATELLITE PROVIDER.
C-SPAN, YOUR UNFILTERED VIEW OF 
GOVERNMENT.
>>> A LIVE LOOK THIS MORNING 
INSIDE ROOM 1100 ON CAPITOL HILL
WHERE TODAY'S HOUSE JUDICIARY 
COMMITTEE IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY 
HEARING WILL GET UNDER WAY IN 
ABOUT A HALF AN HOUR.
THE COMMITTEE WILL HEAR FROM 
SCHOLARS ON THE HISTORY OF 
PRESIDENTIAL IMPEACHMENT 
PROCEEDINGS.
THE DEMOCRATS HAVE INVITED THREE
WITNESSES TO TESTIFY TODAY, NOAH
FELDMAN, PAMELA KARLAN AND 
MICHAEL GERHARDT.
THE MINORITY REPUBLICANS HAVE 
ONE WITNESS AND THAT'S GEORGE 
WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY LAW 
PROFESSOR JONATHAN TURLEY WHO'S 
EXPECTED TO ARGUE AGAINST 
ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT.
THE HOUSE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE IS
COMPRISED OF 24 DEMOCRATS AND 17
REPUBLICANS.
TODAY'S HEARINGS WILL BE RUN BY 
CHAIRMAN JERROLD NADLER WHILE 
DOUG COLLINS WILL SERVE AS THE 
RANKING MEMBER.
THIS IS LIVE COVERAGE ON 
C-SPAN3.
>>> THE HOUSE JUDICIARY 
COMMITTEE WILL OPEN THE HEARING 
IN ABOUT 15 MINUTES OR SO.
THIS IS THE ONLY JUDICIARY 
HEARING COMMITTEE THAT IS 
SCHEDULED.
AS WITH PRIOR HEARINGS, WE HAVE 
SEVEN CAMERAS IN THE ROOM TO 
PROVIDE YOU WITH COVERAGE OF 
TODAY'S PROCEEDINGS.
THERE ARE AREAS OUTSIDE OF THE 
ROOM WITH MIC PHONES SET UP IN 
CASE ANYONE WANTS TO COMMENT.
IF YOU'RE AWAY FROM YOUR 
TELEVISION TODAY AND YOU WANT TO
KEEP TABS ON THE HEARINGS, YOU 
CAN WATCH IT ONLINE AT 
C-SPAN.ORG OR LISTEN LIVE WITH 
THE FREE C-SPAN RADIO APP.
>>> WE'RE MINUTES AWAY FROM THE 
START OF TODAY'S HOUSE 
IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY HEARING.
MEMBERS WILL BE HEARING FROM 
FOUR CONSTITUTIONAL SCHOLARS.
THREE FROM THE MAJORITY 
DEMOCRATS AND ONE FROM THE 
MINORITY REPUBLICANSMENT 
PRESIDENT TRUMP IS OVERSEAS.
AND IF WE HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY 
DURING OUR COVERAGE, WE'LL OPEN 
OUR PHONE LINES, GET YOUR 
REACTION.
WE DO EXPECT COMMITTEE MEMBERS 
AND WITNESSES TO BEGIN FILTERING
IN HERE IN JUST THE NEXT FEW 
MINUTES.
THIS IS LIVE COVERAGE ON CSPAN 
3.
>>> THE HOUSE COMMITTEE ON THE 
JUDICIARY WILL COME TO ORDER.
>> MR. CHAIRMAN YOU'RE UPSURPING
THE RIGHT TO OBJECT. 
>> OBJECTION IS NOTED. 
>> I REZRBRESERVE THE RIGHT TO 
OBJECT.
PEROPPORTUNITY TO CAUSE G, I'M 
FURNISHING YOU WITH A DEMAND ON 
MINORITY HEARINGS ON THIS 
SUBJECT SIGNED BY ALL THE 
REPUBLICAN -- 
>> THE GENTLEMAN WILL SUSPEND.
>> PURSUANT TO CAUSE 2 J 1 RULE 
11 I'M FURNISH YOU WITH A LETTER
SIGNED BY ALL THE REPUBLICAN 
MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE.
I REQUEST YOU SET THIS DATE 
BEFORE THE COMMITTEE VOTES ON 
ANY ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT I 
WITHDRAW MY RESERVATION.
>> WE WILL CONFER ON THIS LATER.
THE QUORUM IS PRESENT.
THIS IS THE FIRST HEARING WE'RE 
CONDUCTING PURSUANT TO THE 
RESOLUTION 660.
AND THE SPECIAL JUDICIARY 
COMMITTEE PROCEDURES THAT ARE 
DESCRIBED IN SECTION 4A OF THAT 
RESOLUTION.
HERE IS HOW THE COMMITTEE WILL 
PROVIDE FOR THIS HEARING.
I WILL MAKE AN OPENING STATEMENT
AND THEN I'LL RECOGNIZE THE 
RANKING MEMBER FOR AN OPENING 
STATEMENT.
EACH WITNESS WILL HAVE TEN 
MINUTES TO MAKE THEIR STATEMENTS
AND THEN WE'LL PROCEED TO 
QUESTIONS.
I WILL NOW RECOGNIZE MYSELF FOR 
AN OPENING STATEMENT -- 
>> MR. CHAIRMAN, PARLIAMENTARY 
INQUIRY.
>> I HAVE TIME FOR AN OPENING 
STATEMENT.
PARLIAMENTARY STATEMENT IS NOT 
IN ORDER AT THIS TIME.
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 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 
INVESTIGATION, PRESIDENT TRUMP 
TOOK EXTRAORDINARY AND 
UNPRECEDENTED STEPS TO COVER UP 
HIS EFFORTS AND 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'LL, QUOTE GO 
THROUGH SOME THINGS, CLOSED 
QUOTE.
THIS IS NOT THE FIRST TIME 
PRESIDENT TRUMP HAS ENGAGED IN 
THIS PATTERN OF CONDUCT.
IN 2:16, THE RUSSIAN GOVERNMENT 
ENGAGED IN A SWEEPING CAMPAIGN 
OF INTERFERENCE IN OUR 
ELECTIONS.
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, CLOSED QUOTE.
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 RUSSIAN 
MILITARY INTELLIGENCE UNIT 
ATTEMPTED TO HACK THAT POLITICAL
OPPONENT.
WHEN HIS OWN JUSTICE DEPARTMENT 
TRIED TO UNCOVER THE EXTENT TO 
WHICH A FOREIGN GOVERNMENT HAD 
BROKEN OUR LAWS, PRESIDENT TRUMP
TOOK EXTRAORDINARY AND 
UNPRECEDENTED STEPS TO OBSTRUCT 
THE INVESTIGATION.
INCLUDING IGNORING SUBPOENAS, 
ORDERING THE CREATION OF FALSE 
RECORDS, AND PUBLICLY ATTACKING 
AND INTIMIDATING WITNESSES.
THAT'S NOW THIS ADMINISTRATION'S
LEVEL OF OBSTRUCTION IS WITHOUT 
PRECEDENT.
NO OTHER PRESIDENT HAS VOWED TO,
QUOTE, FIGHT FOR ALL THE 
SUBPOENAS, UNQUOTE, AS PRESIDENT
TRUMP PROMISED.
IN THE 1974 IMPEACHMENT 
PROCEEDINGS, PRESIDENT NIXON 
PRODUCED DOZENS OF RECORDINGS.
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.
THE IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY HAS 
MOVED BACK TO THE HOUSE 
JUDICIARY COMMITTEE.
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.
JULY 24TH, THE SPECIAL COUNSEL 
TESTIFIED BEFORE THIS COMMITTEE.
HE IMPLORED US TO SEE THE NATURE
OF THE THREAT TO OUR COUNTRY.
QUOTE, 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.
CLOSED QUOTE.
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 EXERCISE 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 WAS 
RESIGNED.
THIS COMMITTEE HASN'T VOTED TO 
IMPEACH TWO PRESIDENTS.
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 HAS SOLICITED 
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 WHO FOUNDED OUR 
COUNTRY WERE NOT FEARFUL MEN.
THEY FOUGHT A WAR.
THEY WITNESSED TERRIBLE 
VIOLENCE.
THEY OVERTHREW A KING.
IT IS A MEANT TO FRAME OUR 
CONSTITUTION, THOSE PATRIOTS 
STILL FEARED ONE THREAT ABOVE 
ALL, FOREIGN INTERFERENCE IN OUR
ELECTIONS.
AL THEY WERE DEEPLY WORRIED WE 
WOULD LOSE OUR NEW FOUND 
LIBERTY, NOT THROUGH A WAR.
IF A FOREIGN ARMY WERE TO INVADE
WE'D SEE THAT COMING, BUT FROM 
CORRUPTION FROM WITHIN.
IN THE EARLY YEARS OF THE 
REPUBLIC THEY ASKED EACH OF US 
TO BE VIGILANT TO THAT THREAT.
WASHINGTON WARNED US QUOTE, TO 
BE CONSTANTLY AWAKE SINCE 
HISTORY HAD EXPERIENCED PROVED 
FOREIGN INFLUENCE IS ONE OF THE 
FOES OF REPUBLICAN GOVERNMENT.
AS OFTEN AS ELECTIONS HAPPEN, 
THE DANGER OF FOREIGN INFLUENCE 
RECURS.
HAMILTON'S WARNING WAS MORE 
SPECIFIC AND MORE DIRE.
IN THE FEDERALIST PAPERS HE 
WROTE THE MOST DEADLY 
ADVERSARIES OF REPUBLICAN 
GOVERNMENT, END QUOTE, WOULD 
CERTAINLY ATTEMPT TO QUOTE, 
RAISE A CREATURE OF THEIR OWN 
FOR THE CHIEF MAGESTRICY OF THE 
GOVERNMENT.
WHAT KIND OF PRESIDENT WOULD DO 
THAT?
HOW WILL WE KNOW IF THE 
PRESIDENT HAS BETRAYED HIS 
COUNTRY IN THIS MANNER?
HOW WILL WE KNOW IF HE'S 
BETRAYED HIS COUNTRY IN THIS 
MANNER FOR PETTY PERSONAL GAIN?
HAMILTON HAD A RESPONSE FOR THAT
AS WELL.
HE WROTE WHEN A MAN UNPRINCIPLED
IN PRIVATE LIFE, DESPERATE IN 
FORTUNE, BOLD IN HIS TEMPER, 
KNOWN TO HAVE SCOFFED IN PRIVATE
AT THE PRINCIPLES OF LIBERTY, 
WHEN SUCH A MAN IS SEEN TO MOUNT
THE HOBBY HORSE OF POPULARITY 
AND 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 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 TODAY
WAS SET IN MOTION BY PRESIDENT 
TRUMP.
I DO NOT WISH THIS MOMENT ON THE
COUNTRY.
IT IS NOT A PLEASANT TASK WE 
UNDERTAKE.
WE HAVE TAKEN AN OATH TO PROTECT
THE CONSTITUTION AND THE FACTS 
ARE CLEAR.
PRESIDENT TRUMP DID NOT SEEK TO 
BENEFIT FROM FOREIGN 
INTERFERENCE IN OUR ELECTIONS, 
HE DIRECTLY AND EXPLICITEDLY 
INVITED FOREIGN INTERFERENCE IN 
OUR ELECTIONS.
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 SO DESPERATELY 
NEEDED.
IT MATTERS THAT HE ENLISTED A 
FOREIGN GOVERNMENT TO INTERVENE 
IN OUR ELECTIONS TO THE FIRST 
CLASS.
IT DOES NOT MATTER THAT 
PRESIDENT TRUMP FELT THAT THESE 
INVESTIGATIONS WERE UNFAIR TO 
HIM.
IT MATTERS THAT HE USED THIS 
OFFICE NOT MERELY TO DEFEND 
HIMSELF BUT TO OBSTRUCT 
INVESTIGATORS AT EVERY TURN.
WE'RE 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 DO NOT 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 
CONSTITUTION.
WE ARE EMPOWERED TO RECOMMEND 
THE IMPEACHMENT OF PRESIDENT 
TRUMP TO THE HOUSE IF WE FIND 
THAT HE HAS COMMITTED TREASON, 
BRIBERY OR OTHER HIGH CRIMES AND
MISDEMEANORS.
OUR WITNESS PANEL WILL HELP US 
TO GUIDE THAT CONVERSATION.
IN A FEW DAYS, WE'LL RECONVENE 
AND HEAR FROM THE COMMITTEES 
THAT WORK TO UNCOVER THE FACTS 
BEFORE US.
AND WHEN WE APPLY 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.
I NOW RECOGNIZE THE RANKING 
MEMBER OF THE JUDICIAL -- 
>> MR. CHAIRMAN. 
>> MR. COLLINS FOR HIS OPENING 
STATEMENT. 
>> MR. CHAIRMAN.
MAY I MAKE A PARLIAMENTARY 
INQUIRY BEFORE YOU -- 
>> THE GENTLEMAN IS NOT IN ORDER
FOR A PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRY.
I RECOGNIZE THE RANKING MEMBER 
FOR AN OPENING STATEMENT.
>> I THANK THE CHAIRMAN, AND IT 
IS INTERESTING THAT, AGAIN, 
PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRY IS SOME OF
THE THINGS 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, IT'S A NEW ROOM, 
NEW RULES.
IT'S A NEW MONTH.
WE EVEN HAVE GOT CUTE LITTLE 
STICKERS FOR OUR STAFF SO WE CAN
COME IN BECAUSE WE WANT TO MAKE 
THIS IMPORTANT AND THIS IS 
IMPEACHMENT.
BECAUSE WE'VE DONE SUCH A 
TERRIBLE JOB OF IT IN THIS 
COMMITTEE BEFORE.
BUT WHAT'S NOT NEW IS BASICALLY 
WHAT'S JUST BEEN REITERATED BY 
THE CHAIRMAN.
WHAT'S NOT NEW IS THE FACTS.
WHAT'S NOT NEW IS IT'S THE SAME 
SAD STORY.
WHAT'S INTERESTING BEFORE I GET 
INTO MY -- PART OF MY OPENING 
STATEMENT.
WHAT WAS JUST SAID BY THE 
CHAIRMAN.
WE WENT BACK TO A REDO OF MR. 
MUELLER.
WE'RE ALSO SAYING, QUOTING HIM 
SAYING THE ATTENTION OF THE 
AMERICAN PEOPLE SHOULD BE ON 
FOREIGN INTERFERENCE.
I AGREE WITH HIM COMPLETELY, 
EXCEPT I GUESS THE AMERICAN 
PEOPLE DID NOT INCLUDE THE 
JUDICIARY COMMITTEE.
BECAUSE WE DIDN'T TAKE IT UP.
WE DIDN'T HAVE HEARINGS.
WE DIDN'T DO ANYTHING TO DELVE 
DEEPLY INTO THIS ISSUE.
WE PASSED ELECTION BILLS, BUT 
DID NOT GET INTO THE IN DEPTH 
PART OF WHAT MR. MUELLER TALKED 
ABOUT.
TAKING HIS OWN REPORT AND HAVING
HEARINGS ABOUT THAT.
WE DIDN'T DO IT.
I GUESS THE AMERICAN PEOPLE 
DOESN'T INCLUDE THE HOUSE 
JUDICIARY COMMITTEE.
YOU KNOW, WE ALSO JUST HEARD AN 
INTERESTING DECISION.
WE'RE GOING TO HAVE A LOT OF 
INTERESTING DISCUSSIONS TODAY 
ABOUT THE CONSTITUTION AND OTHER
THINGS.
BUT WE ALSO TALK ABOUT THE 
FOUNDERS.
WHAT'S INTERESTING IS THE 
CHAIRMAN TALKED A LOT ABOUT THE 
FOUNDERS FROM THE QUOTES.
THIS IS WHY WE HAVE THE HEARING.
HE DIDN'T QUOTE WAS THE FOUNDERS
BEING REALLY CONCERNED ABOUT 
POLITICAL IMPEACHMENT.
BECAUSE YOU JUST DON'T LIKE THE 
GUY.
YOU DIDN'T LIKE HIM SINCE 
NOVEMBER OF 2016.
THE CHAIRMAN HAS TALKED ABOUT 
IMPEACHMENT SINCE LAST YEAR WHEN
HE WAS ELECTED CHAIRMAN.
ON NOVEMBER 17TH BEFORE HE WAS 
SWORN IN AS CHAIRMAN.
DON'T TELL ME THIS IS ABOUT NEW 
EVIDENCE AND NEW THINGS AND NEW 
STUFF.
WE MAY HAVE A NEW HEARING ROOM.
WE MAY HAVE 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 AND WHAT IS 
INTERESTING IS THERE'S TWO 
THINGS THAT HAVE BECOME VERY 
CLEAR.
THIS IMPEACHMENT IS NOT REALLY 
ABOUT FACTS.
IF IT WAS I BELIEVE THE OTHER 
COMMITTEES WOULD HAVE SENT OVER 
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR IMPEACHMENT.
THEY'RE PUTTING IT ON THIS 
COMMITTEE BECAUSE IF IT GOES 
BADLY I GUESS THEY WANT TO BLAME
ADAM SCHIFF'S COMMITTEE AND 
OTHERS WANT TO BLAME THIS 
COMMITTEE.
THEY'RE DRAFTING ARTICLES.
DON'T BE FOOLED.
THEY'RE GETTING READY FOR THIS.
WE WENT AFTER THIS WITH UKRAINE,
MUELLER, EEMEMOLUMENTS.
THE CLOCK AND THE CALENDAR, IF 
YOU WANT TO KNOW WHAT THEY 
VALUE, YOU 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?
BECAUSE 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 GOT TO DO THIS NOW.
THE CLOCK AND THE CALENDAR ARE 
WHAT'S DRIVING IMPEACHMENT, NOT 
THE FACTS.
WHEN WE UNDERSTAND THIS, THAT'S 
WHAT THE WITNESSES WILL SAY 
TODAY.
WHAT DO WE HAVE HERE TODAY?
WHAT IS REALLY INTERESTING OVER 
THE 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 TO 
TESTIFY ON STUFF MOST OF YOU 
HAVE ALREADY WRITTEN ABOUT, ALL 
FOURS.
FOR OPINIONS WE ALREADY KNOW OUT
OF THE CLASSROOMS THAT MAYBE 
YOU'RE GETTING READY FOR FINALS 
IN TO DISCUSS THINGS YOU 
PROBABLY HAVEN'T EVEN HAD -- 
UNLESS YOU'RE REALLY GOOD ON TV 
OR WATCHING THE HEARINGS FOR THE
LAST COUPLE WEEKS, YOU COULDN'T 
POSSIBLY 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 IS
REALLY GOING TO LOOK AT THIS AND
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 AN AMBIGUOUS HEARING A
PRESENTATION FROM THE THE OTHER 
COMMITTEE THAT SENT US THE 
REPORT AND JUDICIARY COMMITTEE, 
WHICH I'M NOT STILL 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, LET'S 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 JUST SAY 
THAT DIDN'T GO WELL.
THERE'S NO WHISTLE-BLOWER.
BY THE WAY, IT WAS PROVED 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 
DISCUSSED BY ADAM SCHIFF.
WE ALSO DON'T HAVE ADAM SCHIFF 
WHO WROTE THE REPORT.
HE SAID YESTERDAY I'M NOT GOING 
TO -- I'LL SEND STAFF TO DO 
THAT.
HE'S NOT GOING TO, BUT TO ME IF 
HE WAS GOING TO HE'D COME 
BEGGING TO US.
YOU KNOW, HERE'S THE PROBLEM.
IT SUMS IT UP SIMPLY LIKE THIS.
JUST 19 MINUTES AFTER NOON ON 
INAUGURATION DAY 2017 "THE 
WASHINGTON POST" RAN THE 
HEADLINE THE CAMPAIGN TO IMPEACH
THE PRESIDENT HAS BEGUN.
A TWEET FROM JANUARY 2017, THE 
COUP HAS STARTED.
THE IMPEACHMENT WILL FOLLOW.
IN MAY OF THIS YEAR, AL GREEN 
SAID IF WE DON'T IMPEACH THE 
PRESIDENT HE'LL GET REELECTED.
DO YOU KNOW WHAT'S HAPPENING?
HERE WE GO.
WHY DID EVERYTHING I SAY ABOUT 
NO FACT WITNESSES FOR THE 
JUDICIARY COMMITTEE, WE DIDN'T 
EVEN FIND YOUR NAMES OUT UNTIL 
LESS THAN 48 HOURS AGO.
I DON'T KNOW WHAT WE'RE PLAYING 
HIDE THE BALL ON, IT'S PRETTY 
EASY WHAT YOU'RE GOING TO SAY.
WE CAN'T GET THAT STRAIGHT.
WHAT ARE WE DOING FOR THE NEXT 
TWO WEEKS?
I HAVE NO IDEA.
AN AMBIGUOUS HEARING ON THE 
REPORT.
IF WE'RE NOT GOING TO HAVE FACT 
WITNESSES THEN WE'RE THE RUBBER 
STAMP HIDING OUT BACK.
WHAT A DISGRACE TO THIS 
COMMITTEE.
TO HAVE A COMMITTEE OF 
IMPEACHMENT SIMPLY TAKE FROM 
OTHER ENTITIES AND RUBBER STAMP 
IT.
YOU SAY WHY DID THE THINGS I SAY
MATTER ABOUT FACT WITNESSES AND 
ACTUALLY 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 PROTECTION FOR THE 
PRESIDENT IN GOOD FAIRNESS 
THROUGHOUT THIS.
THIS IS THE ONLY COMMITTEE IN 
WHICH THE PRESIDENT WOULD EVEN 
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.
AND HIS ATTORNEYS HAVE NOTHING 
ELSE.
PUT WITNESSES IN HERE THAT CAN 
BE FACT WITNESSES WHO CAN BE 
CROSS-EXAMINED.
THAT'S FAIRNESS AND EVERY 
ATTORNEY ON THIS PANEL KNOWS 
THAT.
THIS IS A SHAM.
YOU KNOW, WHAT I ALSO SEE HERE 
IS QUOTES LIKE THIS.
THERE MUST NEVER BE A NARROWLY 
VOTED IMPEACHMENT OR IMPEACHMENT
SUPPORTED BY A MAJOR POLITICAL 
PARTIES OR IMPOSED BY ANOTHER.
IT WILL PRODUCE BITTERNESS IN 
POLITICS FOR YEARS TO COME AND 
WILL CALL INTO QUESTION THE VERY
LEGITIMACY OF OUR POLITICAL 
INSTITUTIONS.
AMERICAN PEOPLE ARE WATCHING, 
THEY'LL NOT FORGET.
YOU HAVE THE VOTES.
YOU MAY HAVE THE MUSCLE BUT YOU 
DO NOT HAVE LEGITIMACY OF A 
NATIONAL CONSENSUS OR 
CONSTITUTIONAL IMPAIRMENT.
THE COUP D'ETAT WILL GO DOWN IN 
INFAMY IN THE HISTORY OF THE 
NATION.
HOW ABOUT THIS ONE.
I THINK THE KEY POINT IS THE 
REPUBLICANS ARE RUNNING A 
RAILROAD JOB WITH NO ATTEMPT AT 
FAIR PROCEDURE.
TODAY WHEN THE DEMOCRATS OFFERED
AMENDMENTS, MOTIONS IN COMMITTEE
TO SAY WE SHOULD FIRST ADOPT 
STANDARDS SO WE KNOW WHAT WE'RE 
DEALING WITH, STANDARDS FOR 
IMPEACHMENT THAT WAS VOTED DOWN 
OR RULED OUT OF ORDER.
WHEN WE SAY THE IMPORTANT THING 
IS TO START LOOKING AT THE 
QUESTION BEFORE WE HAVE A VOTE 
WITH NO INQUIRY, THAT WAS VOTED 
DOWN.
THAT'S ALL WE DISCUSSED.
THE ESSENTIAL QUESTION, HERE IT 
IS, TO SET UP A FAIR PROCESS AS 
TO WHETHER THE COUNTRY PUT THIS 
COUNTRY THROUGH AN IMPEACHMENT 
PROCEEDING, THAT WAS RULED OUT 
OF ORDER.
THE REPUBLICANS 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 A ONE SIDED 
PRESENTATION OF FACTS ABOUT THIS
PRESIDENT.
TODAY WE'LL PRESENT THE OTHER 
SIDE IF WE SHOULD GET SO 
CONVENIENTLY LEFT OUT.
REMEMBER, FAIRNESS DOES DICTATE 
THAT.
MAYBE NOT HERE BECAUSE WE'RE NOT
SCHEDULING ANYTHING ELSE.
I HAVE A DEMOCRATIC MAJORITY WHO
HAS POLL TESTED WHAT THEY THINK 
THE PRESIDENT DID.
THAT'S NOT FOLLOWING THE FACTS.
WE JUST A DEEP SEATED HATRED OF 
A MAN WHO CAME TO THE WHITE 
HOUSE AND DID WHAT HE SAID HE 
WAS GOING TO DO.
THE MOST AMAZING QUESTION I GOT 
IN THE FIRST THREE MONTHS OF 
THIS GENTLEMAN'S PRESIDENCY WAS 
PUT FORWARD WAS THIS, CAN YOU 
BELIEVE HE IS PUTTING FORWARD 
THOSE IDEAS?
YES, HE TOLD YOU.
HE DID WHAT HE SAID.
THIS WILL ALSO BE ONE OF THE 
FIRST IMPEACHMENTS, THE CHAIRMAN
MENTIONED THERE WAS TWO OF THEM.
THE ONE BEFORE HE RESIGNED, HIM 
AND CLINTON.
WHICH THE FACTS EVEN BY 
DEMOCRATS AND REPUBLICANS WERE 
NOT REALLY DISPUTED.
IN THIS ONE THEIR 
COUNTERINDICATIVE OF EACH OTHER.
THERE ARE NO SET FACTS HERE.
THERE IS NOT ANYTHING THAT 
PRESENTS AN IMPEACHMENT HERE 
EXCEPT A PRESIDENT CARRYING OUT 
HIS JOB IN THE WAY THE 
CONSTITUTION SAW THAT HE SEES 
FIT TO DO IT.
THIS IS WHERE WE'RE AT TODAY.
THE INTERESTING THING I COME TO 
WITH MOST EVERYBODY HERE, IS 
THIS MAY BE A NEW TIME AND PLACE
AND WE MAY BE LOOKING PRETTY FOR
IMPEACHMENT.
THIS IS NOT AN IMPEACHMENT.
THIS IS JUST A SIMPLE RAILROAD 
JOB.
AND TODAY'S IS A WASTE OF TIME.
BECAUSE THIS IS WHERE WE'RE AT.
SO I CLOSE TODAY WITH THIS, IT 
DIDN'T START WITH MUELLER, A 
PHONE CALL.
DO YOU KNOW WHERE THIS STARTED?
IT STARTED WITH TEARS IN 
BROOKLYN IN NOVEMBER 2016.
WHEN AN ELECTION WAS LOST.
SO WE'RE HERE, NO PLAN, NO FACT 
WITNESSES, SIMPLY BEING A RUBBER
STAMP FOR WHAT WE HAVE.
HEY, WE 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 RECOGNIZED 
FOR THE PURPOSE OF AN OPENING 
STATEMENT NOT FOR THE PURPOSE OF
MAKING A MOTION. 
>> I YIELD BACK AND MAKE A 
MOTION FOR CLAUSE 2, RULE 11. 
>> THE GENTLEMAN IS RECOGNIZED. 
>> I MOVE TO REQUIRE THE 
ATTENDANTS IN TESTIMONY OF 
CHAIRMAN SCHIFF BEFORE THIS 
COMMITTEE AND TRANSMIT THIS 
LETTER ACCORDINGLY.
>> FOR PURPOSES THE GENTLE LADY 
SEEK RECOGNITION?
MOTION TO TABLE IS MADE AND NOT 
DEBATABLE.
ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE, OPPOSED?
>> RECORD THE VOTE. 
>> RECORDED VOTE IS REQUESTED.
THE CLERK -- 
>> PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRY, MR. 
CHAIRMAN. 
>> THE CLERK WILL CALL THE ROLL.
YOU'RE NOT RECOGNIZED AT THIS 
TIME, THERE'S A VOTE -- 
>> JUST TO REMIND -- YOU DON'T 
WANT CHAIRMAN SCHIFF COMING, 
CORRECT?
>> THE CLERK WILL CALL THE ROLE.
>> MR. NADLE MS. JACKSON LEE?
MR. COHEN?
MR. JOHNSON OF GEORGIA?
MR. JOHNSON OF GEORGIA VOTES 
AYE.
MR. DEUTSCHE.
MR. RICHMOND.
MR. JEFFRIES.
MR. SISOLINI?
MR. SALVO.
MR. LU?
MR. RASKIN.
MS. DEMINGS, MR. CARRERA.
MS. SCANLON.
MS. GARCIA.
MS. McBETH.
MR. STANTON.
MS. DEAN?
MS. POWELL?
MS. ESCOBAR.
MR. COLLINS.
MR. SENSESON BRENNER.
MR. GOMER, MR. JORDAN.
MR. BUCK, MR. RADCLIFF.
MR. GATES?
MR. JOHNSON OF LOUISIANA?
MR. BIGGS?
MR. McCLINTOCK.
MR. CLINE?
MR. ARMSTRONG.
MR. STUBIE?
>> HAS EVERYONE VOTED WHO WISHES
TO VOTE?
>> MS. BASS VOTES AYE. 
>> CLERK WILL REPORT.
>> 24 AYES AND 17 NOES.
THE MOTION TO TABLE IS AGREED 
TO. 
>> I HAVE A PARLIAMENTARY 
INQUIRY.
>> GENTLEMAN WILL STATE HIS 
PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRY. 
>> THE IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY 
PROCEDURES STATES THAT MEMBERS 
OF THE COMMITTEE CAN RAISE 
OBJECTIONS RELATING TO THE 
ADMISSIBILITY OF TESTIMONY IN 
EVIDENCE.
BUT IT DOESN'T SAY WHAT RULES 
APPLY TO ADMISSIBILITY.
SO I'M HOPING YOU CAN EXPLAIN TO
US WHAT OBJECTIONS MAY BE MADE 
UNDER THIS CLAUSE AND IF YOU 
INTEND TO USE THE FEDERAL RULES 
OF EVIDENCE -- 
>> THE GENTLEMAN WILL SUSPEND.
THAT'S NOT A PROPER 
PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRY. 
>> IT IS. 
>> IT IS NOT. 
>> I STATED A RULE -- 
>> STATED A RULE, YOU CAN IGNORE
IT AND NOT ANSWER IT, YOU CAN'T 
SAY -- 
>> I'M ASKING FOR THE 
APPLICATION OF THE RULE FOR AN 
EXPLANATION. 
>> YOU WILL APPLY THE RULES, 
PERIOD. 
>> YOU WON'T HELP US UNDERSTAND 
THAT?
THERE'S NO CLARITY THERE.
HOW ARE YOU DECIDING THAT?
THE IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY -- 
>> I WOULD -- 
>> HOW IS THAT UNCLEAR?
>> IT'S THE RULES OF THE HOUSE 
AND THEY'LL BE APPLIED.
PERIOD.
>> I'M ASKING HOW WILL THEY BE 
APPLIED HERE, SIR. 
>> THEY'LL BE APPLIED ACCORDING 
TO THE RULES.
>> BUT NOT ANSWERING YOUR 
QUESTION. 
>> CIRCULAR RESPONSE.
THANK YOU.
MR. CHAIRMAN, CAN YOU PLEASE 
ITERATE THE SCHEDULE GOING 
FORWARD?
IN OTHER WORDS THE ADDITIONAL 
HEARINGS -- 
>> THE GENTLEMAN WILL SUSPEND 
DE -- 
>> RELEASING. 
>> THAT'S NOT A PROPER 
PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRY.
WITHOUT OBJECTION ALL OTHER 
OPENING STATEMENTS WILL BE 
INCLUDED IN THE RECORD.
I'LL NOW -- 
>> MR. CHAIRMAN. 
>> NOAH FELDMAN -- 
>> MR. CHAIRMAN.
I SEEK RECOGNITION. 
>> GENTLEMAN IS -- I AM NOT 
GOING TO RECOGNIZE YOU NOW.
I AM INTRODUCING THE WITNESSES. 
>> MR. CHAIRMAN -- 
>> NOAH FELDMAN IS THE PROFESSOR
OF LAW AT HARVARD LAW SCHOOL.
HE'S AUTHORED SEVEN BOOKS, 
INCLUDING A BIOGRAPHY OF JAMES 
MADISON AS WELL AS MANY ESSAYS 
AND ARTICLES ON CONSTITUTIONAL 
SUBJECTS.
PROFESSOR FELDMAN RECEIVED HIS 
UNDERGRADUATE DEGREE FROM 
HARVARD COLLEGE, DOCTOR OF 
PHILOSOPHY FROM OXFORD 
UNIVERSITY AND A J.D. FROM YALE 
LAW SCHOOL.
HE ALSO SERVED AS A LAW CLERK TO
JUSTICE DAVID SUITOR OF THE 
UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT.
PAMELA CARLINE SERVES AS THE 
MONTGOMERY PROFESSOR OF PUBLIC 
INTEREST LAW AND AT STANFORD LAW
SCHOOL.
SHE'S AN AUTHOR OF KEEPING FAITH
OF THE CONSTITUTION AND DOZENS 
OF SCHOLARLY ARTICLES.
SHE SERVED AS A LAW CLERK TO 
JUSTICE HARRY BLACKBURN OF THE 
UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT AND 
AS A DEPUTY ASSISTANT ATTORNEY 
GENERAL.
SHE EARNED THREE DEGREES FROM 
YALE UNIVERSITY.
A B.A. IN HISTORY, AN M.A. IN 
HISTORY AND A J.D. FROM YALE LAW
SCHOOL.
MICHAEL GAREHART IS A PROFESSOR 
OF JURISPRUDENCE AT THE 
UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA 
SCHOOL OF LAW AND DIRECTOR OF 
UNC'S CENTER FOR LAW AND 
GOVERNMENT.
HE'S THE AUTHOR OF MANY BOOKS, 
INCLUDING FEDERAL IMPEACHMENT 
PROCESS, THE CONSTITUTIONAL AND 
HISTORICAL ANALYSIS.
AS WELL AS MORE THAN 50 LAW 
REVIEW PUBLICATIONS ON A DIVERSE
RANGE OF TOPICS IN 
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, FEDERAL 
JURISDICTION AND THE LEGISLATIVE
PROCESS.
HE RECEIVED HIS J.D. FROM THE 
UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO LAW 
SCHOOL.
HIS M.S. FROM THE LONDON SCHOOL 
OF ECONOMICS, AND HIS B.A. FROM 
YALE UNIVERSITY.
JONATHAN TURLEY IS THE MAURICE 
C. SHAPIRO CHAIR OF PUBLIC 
INTEREST LAW AT GEORGE 
WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY LAW SCHOOL
WHERE HE TEACHES TORTS, CRIMINAL
PROCEDURE AND CONSTITUTIONAL 
LAW.
AFTER A STINT AT TULANE LAW 
SCHOOL, HE JOINED THE JW LAW 
FACULTY IN 1990.
IN 1998 HE BECAME THE YOUNGEST 
CHAIRED PROFESSOR IN THE 
SCHOOL'S HISTORY.
HE'S WRITTEN OVER THREE DOZEN 
ACADEMIC ARTICLES FOR A VARIETY 
OF LEADING LAW JOURNALS AND HIS 
ARTICLES ON LEGAL ISSUES APPEAR 
FREQUENTLY IN PUBLICATIONS.
HE EARNED DEGREES FROM THE 
UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO, 
NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY SCHOOL 
OF LAW.
WE WELCOME OUR DISTINGUISHED 
WITNESSES.
WE THANK THEM FOR PARTICIPATING 
IN TODAY'S HEARING.
IF YOU WOULD PLEASE RISE I'LL 
BEGIN BY SWEARING YOU IN.
RAISE YOUR -- 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 RECORDS SHOW THE 
S
WITNESSES ANSWERED IN THE 
AFFIRMATIVE.
EACH OF YOUR WRITTEN STATEMENTS 
WILL BE ENTERED INTO THE RECORD 
IN ITS ENTIRETY.
I ASK THAT YOU SUMMARIZE YOUR 
TESTIMONY IN TEN MINUTES.
TO HELP YOU STAY WITHIN THAT 
TIME THERE'S A TIMING LIGHT ON 
YOUR TABLE.
WHEN THE LIGHT SWITCHES FROM 
GREEN TO YELLOW, YOU HAVE ONE 
MINUTE TO CONCLUDE YOUR 
TESTIMONY.
WHEN THE LIGHT TURNS RED, IT 
SIGNALS YOUR TEN MINUTES HAVE 
EXPIRED.
PROFESSOR FELDMAN, YOU MAY 
BEGIN.
>> MR. CHAIRMAN -- 
>> MR. CHAIRMAN, I HAVE A 
MOTION.
>> THE GENTLEMAN IS NOT IN ORDER
TO OFFER A MOTION -- 
>> MR. CHAIRMAN I SEE 
RECOGNITION FOR A PRIVILEGE 
MOTION.
>> MR. CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS OF 
THE COMMITTEE, THANK YOU VERY 
MUCH FOR THE OPPORTUNITY TO 
APPEAR.
MY NAME IS NOAH FELDMAN I 
SERVE -- 
>> THE WITNESS WILL PROCEED.
>> I SERVE AS THE FELIX 
FRANKFER -- 
>> I SEEK RECOGNITION FOR MY 
MOTION.
>> THE GENTLEMAN WILL SUSPEND 
THE TIME IS THE WITNESS'. 
>> PRIVILEGED MOTION NEEDS TO BE
RECOGNIZED.
YOU CAN CALL IT NOT -- 
>> IN BETWEEN THE WITNESSES IT 
MAY BE RECOGNIZED, NOT ONCE I 
RECOGNIZE THE WITNESS.
THE WITNESS WILL PROCEED, WE'LL 
ENTERTAIN THE MOTION AFTER THE 
FIRST WITNESS. 
>> MY JOB IS TO TEACH THE 
CONSTITUTION FROM ITS ORIGINS 
UNTIL THE PRESENT.
I'M HERE TO DESCRIBE THREE 
THINGS.
WHY THE FRAMERS OF OUR 
CONSTITUTION INCLUDED A 
PROVISION FOR THE IMPEACHMENT OF
THE PRESIDENT.
WHAT THAT PROVISION PROVIDING 
FOR IMPEACHMENT FOR HIGH CRIMES 
AND MISDEMEANORS MEANS.
AND 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 PROVIDED FOR THE 
IMPEACHMENT OF THE PRESIDENT 
BECAUSE THEY FEARED THAT THE 
PRESIDENT MIGHT ABUSE THE POWER 
OF HIS OFFICE FOR PERSON 
BENEFIT, TO CORRUPT THE 
ELECTORAL PROCESS AND INSURE HIS
REELECTION, OR TO SUBVERT THE 
NATIONAL SECURITY OF THE UNITED 
STATES.
HIGH CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS ARE
ABUSES OF POWER AND PUBLIC TRUST
CONNECTED TO THE OFFICE OF THE 
PRESIDENCY.
ON THE BASIS OF THE TESTIMONY 
AND THE EVIDENCE BEFORE THE 
HOUSE.
PRESIDENT TRUMP HAS COMMITTED 
IMPEACHABLE HIGH CRIMES AND 
MISDEMEANORS BY CORRUPTLY 
ABUSING THE OFFICE OF THE 
PRESIDENCY.
SPECIFICALLY, PRESIDENT TRUMP 
HAS ABUSED HIS OFFICE BY 
CORRUPTLY SOLICITING PRESIDENT 
ZELENSKY OF UKRAINE TO ANNOUNCE 
INVESTIGATIONS OF HIS POLITICAL 
RIVALS IN ORDER TO GAIN PERSONAL
ADVANTAGE, INCLUDING IN THE 2020
PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION.
LET ME BEGIN FOR WHY THE FRAMERS
PROVIDED FOR IMPEACHMENT IN THE 
FIRST PLACE.
THEY 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.
THEY COULD NOT IMPEACH THE KING 
AND IN THAT SENSE THE KING WAS 
ABOVE THE LAW.
IN STARK CONTRAST, THE FRAMERS 
FROM THE VERY OUTSET OF THE 
CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION IN 178
7 MADE IT CLEAR 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 YOU TO
THINK NOW ABOUT A SPECIFIC DATE 
IN THE CONSTITUTIONAL 
CONVENTION, JULY 20TH, 1787.
IT WAS THE MIDDLE OF A LONG HOT 
SUMMER.
ON THAT DAY, TWO MEMBERS OF THE 
CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION 
ACTUALLY MOVED TO TAKE OUT THE 
IMPEACHMENT PROVISION FROM THE 
DRAFT CONSTITUTION.
THEY HAD A REASON FOR THAT AND 
THE REASON WAS THEY SAID THE 
PRESIDENT WILL HAVE TO STAND FOR
REELECTION.
IF THE PRESIDENT HAS TO STAND 
FOR REELECTION THAT IS ENOUGH.
WE DON'T NEED A SEPARATE 
PROVISION FOR IMPEACHMENT.
WHEN THAT PROPOSAL WAS MADE, 
SIGNIFICANT DISAGREEMENT ENSUED.
THE GOVERNOR OF NORTH CAROLINA, 
A MAN CALLED WILLIAM DAVIE 
IMMEDIATELY SAID IF THE 
PRESIDENT CANNOT BE IMPEACHED HE
WILL SPARE MORE METHODS OR MEANS
WHATEVER TO GET HIMSELF 
REELECTED.
FOLLOWING DAVIE, GEORGE MASON OF
VIRGINIA, A FIERCE REPUBLICAN 
CRITIC OF EXECUTIVE POWER SAID 
NO POINT IS MORE IMPORTANT.
SHALL ANY MAN BE ABOVE JUSTICE 
HE ASKED.
THUS EXPRESSING THE CORE CONCERN
THE PRESIDENT MUST BE 
SUBORDINATE TO THE LAW.
JAMES MADISON SAID IT WAS QUOTE,
UNDISPENSABLE THAT SOME 
PROVISION BE MADE FOR 
IMPEACHMENT.
WHY?
HE SAID STANDING FOR REELECTION 
WAS NOT A SUFFICIENT SECURITY 
AGAINST PRESIDENTIAL MISCONDUCT 
OR CORRUPTION.
A PRESIDENT HE SAID MIGHT BETRAY
HIS TRUST TO FOREIGN POWERS.
A PRESIDENT IN A CORRUPT FASHION
ABUSED THE OFFICE OF THE 
PRESIDENCY SAID JAMES MADISON, 
QUOTE, MIGHT BE FATAL TO THE 
REPUBLIC, CLOSED QUOTE.
AND THEN A REMARKABLE THING 
HAPPENED IN THE CONVENTION.
MORRIS OF PENNSYLVANIA, ONE OF 
THE TWO PEOPLE WHO HAD 
INTRODUCED THE MOTION TO 
ELIMINATE IMPEACHMENT GOT UP AND
SAID I WAS WRONG.
HE TOLD THE OTHER FRAMERS 
PRESENT HE HAD CHANGED HIS MIND 
ON THE BASIS OF THE DEBATE ON 
JULY 20TH AND THAT IT WAS NOW 
HIS OPINION THAT IN ORDER TO 
AVOID CORRUPTION OF THE 
ELECTORAL PROCESS A PRESIDENT 
WOULD HAVE TO BE SUBJECT TO 
IMPEACHMENT REGARDLESS OF THE 
AVAILABILITY OF A FURTHER 
ELECTION.
THE UPSHOT OF THIS DEBATE IS 
THAT 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 THAT THEY 
CONSIDERED IMPEACHABLE.
THESE WERE NOT VAGUE OR ABSTRACT
TERMS TO THE FRAMERS.
HIGH CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS WAS
VERY -- THE WORDS HIGH CRIMES 
AND MISDEMEANORS REPRESENTED 
VERY SPECIFIC LANGUAGE THAT WAS 
WELL-UNDERSTOOD BY THE ENTIRE 
GENERATION OF THE FRAMERS.
INDEED, THEY WERE BORROWED FROM 
AN IMPEACHMENT TRIAL IN ENGLAND 
THAT WAS TAKING PLACE AS THE 
FRAMERS WERE SPEAKING, WHICH WAS
REFERRED TO, IN FACT, BY GEORGE 
MASON.
THE WORDS HIGH CRIMES AND 
MISDEMEANORS REFER TO ABUSE OF 
THE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENCY FOR
PERSONAL ADVANTAGE OR TO CORRUPT
THE ELECTORAL PROCESS OR TO 
SUBVERT THE NATIONAL SECURITY OF
THE UNITED STATES.
THERE'S NO MYSTERY ABOUT THE 
WORDS HIGH CRIMES AND 
MISDEMEANORS.
THE WORD HIGH MODIFIES BOTH 
CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS.
THEY'RE BOTH HIGH.
AND HIGH MEANS CONNECTED TO THE 
OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENCY.
CONNECTED TO OFFICE.
A CLASSIC FORM WAS ABUSE OF 
OFFICE FOR PERSONAL ADVANTAGE.
WHEN THEY SAID BRIBERY, THEY 
WERE NAMING ONE VERSION, THE 
ABUSE OF OFFICE, THE ABUSE OF 
OFFICE FOR PERSONAL OR 
INDIVIDUAL GAIN.
THE OTHER FORMS OF ABUSE OF 
OFFICE, ABUSE OF OFFICE TO 
AFFECT ELECTIONS, TO COMPROMISE 
NATIONAL SECURITY WERE ALSO 
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 
MEDICATION OF THIS COMMITTEE AND
THE OTHER MEMBERS OF THE HOUSE, 
QUOTE, SOLE POWER OF 
IMPEACHMENT.
IT'S NOT MY RESPONSIBILITY OR MY
JOB TO DETERMINE THE CREDIBILITY
OF THE WITNESSES WHO APPEAR 
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
AND EVIDENCE BEFORE THE HOUSE.
PRESIDENT TRUMP'S CONDUCT AS 
DESCRIBED IN THE TESTIMONY IN 
EVIDENCE CLEARLY CONSTITUTES 
IMPEACHABLE HIGH CRIMES AND 
MISDEMEANORS UNDER THE 
CONSTITUTION.
IN PARTICULAR, THE MEMORANDUM 
AND OTHER TESTIMONY RELATING 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, WORDS ABUSE OF OFFICE ARE
NOT MYSTICAL OR MAGICAL.
THEY'RE 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
EELECTORAL INTERESTS.
THAT'S WHAT THE EVIDENCE BEFORE 
THE HOUSE INDICATES.
FINALLY, LET ME BE CLEAR.
THAT ON ITS OWN SOLICITING THE 
LEADER OF A FOREIGN GOVERNMENT 
IN ORDER TO ANNOUNCE 
INVESTIGATIONS OF POLITICAL 
RIVALS AND PERFORM THOSE 
INVESTIGATIONS WOULD CONSTITUTE 
A HIGH CRIME AND MISDEMEANOR.
BUT THE HOUSE ALSO HAS EVIDENCE 
BEFORE IT THAT THE PRESIDENT 
COMMITTED TWO FURTHER ACTS THAT 
ALSO QUALIFY AS HIGH 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 
INVESTIGATIONS OF THE BIDENS AND
CROWDSTRIKE CONSPIRACY THEORY.
FURTHERMORE, THE HOUSE ALSO 
HEARD EVIDENCE THAT THE 
PRESIDENT CONDITIONED A WHITE 
HOUSE VISIT DESPERATELY SOUGHT 
BY THE UKRAINIAN PRESIDENT ON 
ANNOUNCEMENT OF THE 
INVESTIGATIONS.
BOTH OF THESE ACTS CONSTITUTE 
IMPEACHABLE HIGH CRIMES AND 
MISDEMEANORS UNDER THE 
CONSTITUTION.
THEY EACH INCAPSULATE THE 
FRAMERS' WORRY THAT THE 
PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES 
WOULD TAKE ANY MEANS WHATEVER TO
INSURE HIS REELECTION.
THAT'S THE REASON THE FRAMERS 
PROVIDED FOR IMPEACHMENT IN A 
CASE LIKE THIS ONE.
>> MR. CHAIRMAN -- 
>> THE GENTLEMAN'S TIME IS 
EXPIRED. 
>> MR. CHAIRMAN, I SEEK 
RECOGNITION.
>> GENTLEMAN'S 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 DEBATABLE -- 
>> MR. CHAIRMAN.
MAY WE HAVE THE MOTION READ, 
PLEASE?
>> THE MOTION WAS STATED AS TO 
ADJOURN -- 
>> MAY WE HAVE THE MOTION READ?
>> THE MOTION WILL BE READ. 
>> THE MOTION WILL BE READ TO A 
DATE CERTAIN, WEDNESDAY 
DECEMBER 11TH, 2019, SO WE CAN 
GET A RESPONSE TO THE SIX 
LETTERS -- 
>> GENTLEMAN HAS STATED HIS 
MOTION, MOTION TO TABLE IS MADE.
>> CORRECT. 
>> MOTION TO TABLE IS MADE AND 
NOT DEBATABLE.
ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE.
THE CLERK WILL CALL THE ROLL. 
>> MR. NADLER. 
>> EYE. 
>> LIS LOVE GRAN?
>> MR. COHEN. 
>> MR. COHEN. 
>> MR. JOHNSON VOTESAYE, 
MR. RICHMOND, MR. JEFFRIES VOTES
AYE, YES, MR. LEEU, MR. RASKIN, 
MISS JI PAUL, MISS DEMINGS, MISS
CORIA, MR. SCANLON, MR. NEGATIVE
OOUS, MISS McBATH, MR. STANTON, 
MR. STEEN, MISS STEEN, MISS 
McCAR SILL POWELL, MISS ESCOBAR,
NO. 
>> MR. COLLINS, MR. SENSE 
INBURNER, MR. SHABBAT, MR. GOME 
ERT, MR. GOME ERT, MR. JORDON, 
MR. BUCK, MR. BUCK, MR. RAT 
CLIFR, MISS ROBY, MR. GATES, 
MR. GATES, MR. JOHNSON OF 
LOUISIANA, MR. BIGS, MR. BIGS, 
MR. McCLINTOCK, MISS LESKO, 
MR. RUSHENTHAULER, MR. KLINE, 
MR. ARMSTRONG, MR. ARM STRONG, 
MR. STUBY.
>> HAS EVERYONE VOTED WHO WISHES
TO VOTE?
THE CLERK WILL REPORT. 
>> THERE ARE 24 AYEs AND 17 NOs.
>> THE MOIGS TO TABLE IS 
ADOPTED.
I RECOGNIZE PROFESSOR KARLAN 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 ITS LEADERSHIP IN VOTING 
RIGHTS CASES BEFORE THE SUPREME 
COURT.
ONCE WHEN IT WAS UNDER THE 
LEADERSHIP OF CHAIRMAN SENSON 
BRENNER AND IT'S GOOD TO SEE YOU
AGAIN AND WITH MR. SHABBAT AS 
ONE OF MY OTHER CLIENTS AND ONCE
UNDER THE LEADERSHIP OF CHAIRMAN
CONYERS.
IT WAS A GREAT HONOR FOR ME TO 
REPRESENT THIS COMMITTEE BECAUSE
OF THIS COMMITTEE'S KEY ROLE 
OVER THE PAST 50 YEARS IN 
ENSURING THAT AMERICAN SIT 
ZBLENDS HAVE THE RIGHT TO VOTE 
IN FREE AND FAIR ELECTIONS.
TODAY YOU'RE BEING ASKED TO 
CONSIDER WHETHER PROTECTING 
THOSE REQUIRES IMPEACHING A 
PRESIDENT.
THAT IS AN ALWAYS 
RESPONSIBILITY.
EVERYTHING I KNOW ABOUT OUR 
CONSTITUTION AND ITS VALUES AND 
MY REVIEW OF THE EVIDENTIARY 
RECORD, AND HERE MR. COLLINS I 
WOULD LIKE TO SAY TO YOU SIR, 
THAT I READ TRANS SCRIPTS OF 
EVERY ONE IN THE WITNESSES THAT 
APPEARED IN THE LIVE HEARING 
BECAUSE I WOULD NOT SPEAK ABOUT 
THESE THINGS WITHOUT REVIEWING 
THE FACTS.
SO I'M INSULTED BY THE 
SUGGESTION THAT AS A LAW PRO 
FEFRT I DON'T CARE ABOUT THOSE 
FACTS.
BUT EVERYTHING I READ ON THOSE 
OCCASIONS TELLS ME THAT WHEN 
PRESIDENT TRUMP INVITED INDEED 
DEMANDED FOREIGN INVOLVEMENT IN 
OUR UP COMING ELECTION, HE 
STRUCK AT THE VERY HEART OF WHAT
THAT MAKES THIS A EPUBLIC TO 
WHICH WE PLEDGE ALLEGIANCE.
THAT CONSTITUTED AN ABUSE OF 
POWER.
I WANT TO EXPLAIN IN MY 
TESTIMONY, DRAWING A FOREIGN 
GOVERNMENT INTO OUR ELECTIONS IS
AN ESPECIALLY SERIOUS ABUSE OF 
POWER BECAUSE IT UNDERMINES 
DEMOCRACY ITSELF.
OUR CONSTITUTION BEGINS WITH THE
WORDS WE THE PEOPLE FOR A 
REASON.
OUR GOVERNMENT IN JAMES 
MADISON'S WORDS DERIVES ALL ITS 
POWERS DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY 
FROM THE GREAT BODY OF THE 
PEOPLE.
AND THE WAY IT DERIVES THESE 
POWERS IS THROUGH ELECTIONS.
ELECTIONS MATTER, BOTH TO THE 
LEGITIMACY OF OUR GOVERNMENT AND
OUR FREEMDS.
BECAUSE AS THE SUPREME COURT 
DECLARED MORE THAN A CENTURY 
AGO, VOTING IS PRESERVATIVE OF 
ALL RIGHTS.
SO IT IS HARDLY SURPRISING THAT 
THE CONSTITUTION IS MARBLED WITH
PROVISIONS.
INDEED A MAJORITY OF THE 
AMENDMENTS TO OUR CONSTITUTIONS 
SINCE THE CIVIL WAR HAVE DEALT 
WITH VOTING OR WITH TERMS OF 
OFFICE.
AND AMONG THE MOST IMPORTANT 
PROVISIONS OF OUR ORIGINAL 
CONSTITUTION IS THE GUARANTEE OF
PERIODIC ELECTIONS FOR THE 
PRESIDENCY, ONE EVERY FOUR 
YEARS.
AMERICA HAS KEPT THAT PROMISE 
FOR MORE THAN TWO CENTURIES AND 
IT HAS DONE SO EVEN DURING 
WARTIME.
FOR EXAMPLE WE INVENTED THE IDEA
OF ABSENTEE VOTING SO THAT UNION
TROOPS WHO SUPPORTED PRESIDENT 
LYNCHON COULD STAY IN THE FIELD.
AND SINCE THEN COUNTLESS OTHER 
AMERICANS HAVE FOUGHT AND DIED 
TO PROTECT OUR RIGHT TO VOTE.
BUT THE FRAMERS REALIZED 
ELECTION ALONE COULD NOT 
GUARANTEE THAT THE UNITED STATES
WOULD REMAIN REPUBLIC.
ONE OF THE KEY REASONS FOR 
INCLUDING THE IMPEACHMENT POWER 
WAS A RISK THAT UNSCRUPLOUS 
OFFICIALS MIGHT TRY TO RIG THE 
ELECTION PROES.
YOU'VE ALREADY HEARD TWO PEOPLE 
GIVE WILLIAM DAVY HIS PROPS.
HAMILTON GOT A WHOLE MUSICAL AND
HE'S GOING TO GET JUST THIS 
COMMITTEE HEARING.
HE WARNED THAT UNLESS THE 
CONSTITUTION CONTAINED AN 
IMPEACHMENT PROVISION A 
PRESIDENT MIGHT SPARE NO MEANS 
TO GET HIMSELF RE-ELECTED.
GEORGE MASON INSISTED THAT A 
PRESIDENT WHO PROCURED THROUGH 
IMPROPER AND CORRUPT ACTS SHOULD
NOT YES SCAPE PUNISHMENT BY 
REPEATING HIS GUILT.
MAZON WAS THE PERSON RESPONSIBLE
FOR ADDING THESE TO THE LIST-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 
ITS AN UP COMING ELECTION WHERE 
HE SEEKS AN ADDITIONAL TERM.
MOREOVER, THE FOUNDING 
GENERATION LIKE EVERY GENERATION
OF AMERICANS SINCE WAS 
ESPECIALLY CONCERNED TO PROTECT 
OUR GOVERNMENT AND OUR 
DEMOCRATIC PROCESS FROM OUTSIDE 
INTERFERENCE.
FOR EXAMPLE, JOHN ADD OMZ, 
DURING THE RATIFICATION, 
EXPRESSED CONCERN WITH THE VERY 
IDEA OF HAVING AN ELECTED 
PRESIDENT, WRITING TO THOMAS 
JEFFERSON THAT YOU ARE APP 
REHENSISK OF FOREIGN 
INTERFERENCE, INTRIGUE, 
INFLUENCE.
SO AM I.
BUT AS OFTEN AS ELERGSS HAPPEN, 
THE DANGER OCCURS.
AND IN HIS FAREWELL ADDRESS, 
PRESIDENT WASHINGTON WARNED THAT
HISTORY AND EXPERIENCE PROVED 
THAT FOREIGN INFLUENCE IS ONE OF
THE MOST BANEFUL FOES OF 
REPUBLICAN GOVERNMENT.
AND HE EXPLAINED THAT THIS WAS 
IN PART BECAUSE FOREIGN 
GOVERNMENTS WOULD TRY AND FOMENT
DISAGREEMENT AMONG THE AMERICAN 
PEOPLE AND INFLUENCE WHAT WE 
THOUGHT.
THE VERY IDEA THAT A PRESIDENT 
MIGHT SEEK THE AID OF A FOREIGN 
GOVERNMENT IN HIS RE-ELECTION 
CAMPAIGN WOULD HAVE HORRIFIED 
THEM.
BUT BASED ON THE EVIDENTIARY 
RECORD, THAT IS 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 INTEREST FOR HIS OWN 
PRIVATE ENDS.
TREASON, THE FIRST THING LISTED,
LAY IN AN INDIVIDUAL'S GIVING 
AID TO A FOREIGN ENEMY.
THAT IS PUTTING A FOREIGN 
ENEMY'S ADVERSARY'S INTERESTS 
ABOVE THOSE OF THE UNITED 
STATES.
BRIBERY OCCURRED WHEN AN 
OFFICIAL SLITSED, RECEIVED OR 
OFFERED A PERSONAL FAVOR OR 
BENEFIT TO INFLUENCE OFFICIAL 
ACTION RISKING THAT HE WOULD PUT
HIS PRIVATE INTEREST.
HIGH CRIMES AND MISDEMENORS 
CAPTURED THE OTHER WAYS MIGHT 
DISREGARD PUBLIC INTERESTS IN 
THE DISCHARGE OF POLITICAL 
OFFICE.
BASED ON THE EVIDENTIARY RECORD 
BEFORE YOU, WHAT HAS HAPPENED IN
THE CASE TODAY IS SOMETHING THAT
I DO NOT THINK WE HAVE EVER SEEN
BEFORE.
A PRESIDENT WHO HAS DOUBLED DOWN
ON VIOLATING HIS OATH TO 
FAITHFULLY EXECUTE THE LAWS AND 
TO PROTECT AND DEFEND THE 
CONSTITUTION.
THE EVIDENCE REVEALS A PRESIDENT
WHO USED THE POWERS OF HIS 
OFFICE TO 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 IS WIDESPREAD AGREEMENT 
THAT RUSSIAN OPERATIVES 
INTERFOOENDEN VOOEND TO 
MANIPULATE THE PROCESS.
BUT THAT IS MAGNIFIED.
IF A SITTING PRESIDENT ABUSES 
THE POWERS OF HIS OFFICE 
ACTUALLY TO INVITE FOREIGN 
INTERVENTION.
TO 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 
PROVIDED FOR.
WHAT WOULD YOU THINK IF THAT 
PRESIDENT SAID, I WOULD LIKE TO 
DO YOU -- I WOULD LIKE YOU TO DO
US A FAVOR.
I'LL MEET WITH YOU AND I'LL SEND
THE DISASTER RELIEF ONCE YOU 
BRAND MY OPPONENT A CRIMINAL.
WOULDN'T YOU KNOW IN YOUR GUT 
THAT SUCH A PRESIDENT HAD ABUSED
HIS OFFICE?
THAT HE BETRAYED THE NATIONAL 
INTEREST AND THAT HE WAS TRYING 
TO CORRUPT THE ELECTORAL 
PROCESS?
I BELIEVE THAT THE EVIDENTIARY 
RECORD SHOWS WRONGFUL ACTS ON 
THAT SCALE HERE.
IT SHOWS A PRESIDENT WHO DELAYED
MEETING A FOREIGN LEADER AND 
PROVIDING ASSISTANCE THAT 
CONGRESS AND HIS OWN ADVISERS 
AGREED SERVICE HIS OWN -- AND IN
LIMITING RUSSIAN AGGRESSION.
SAYING RUSSIA, IF YOU'RE 
LISTENING, YOU KNOW, A PRESIDENT
WHO CARED ABOUT THE CONSTITUTION
SAY RUSSIA IF YOU'RE LISTENING 
BUTT OUT OF OUR ELECTIONS.
IT SHOWS A PRESIDENT WHO DID 
THIS TO STRONG ARM A FOREIGN 
LEADER INTO SMEARING ONE OF THE 
PRESIDENT'S OPPONENTS IN OUR 
ELECTION SEASON.
THAT'S NOT POLITICS AS USUAL AT 
LEAST NOT IN THE UNITED STATES 
OR ANY MATURE DEMOCRACY.
IS IT IS INSTEAD A CARDINAL 
REASON WHY THE CONSTITUTION 
CONTAINS AN IMPEACHMENT POWER.
PUT SIMPLY, A PRESIDENT SHOULD 
RESIST FOREIGN INTERFERENCE IN 
OUR ELECTIONS, NOT DEMAND IF AND
NOT WELCOME IT.
IF WE ARE TO KEEP FAITH WITH OUR
CONSTITUTION AND WITH OUR 
REPUBLIC, PRESIDENT TRUMP MUST 
BE HELD TO ACCOUNT.
THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU.
PROFESSOR GERHARDT. 
>> THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN, 
RANKING MEMBER, OTHER 
DISTINGUISHED MEMBERS OF THE 
COMMITTEE.
IT'S 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 IS 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 EXPLAINED IN THE REMAINDER 
AND BALANCE OF MY OPENING 
STATEMENT, THE RECORD COMPILED 
THUS FAR SHOWS THE PRESIDENT HAS
COMMITTED SEVERAL IMPEACHABLE 
OFFENSES, INCLUDING BRIBERY, 
ABUSE OF POWER AND SOLICITING OF
PERSONAL FAVOR FROM A FOREIGN 
LEADER TO BENEFIT HIMSELF 
PERSONALLY, OBSTRUCTING JUSTICE,
AND OBSTRUCTING CONGRESS.
OUR HEARING TODAY SHOULD SERVE 
AS A REMINDER OF ONE OF THE 
FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLES THAT 
DROVE THE FOUNDERS OF OUR 
CONSTITUTION TO BREAK FROM 
ENGLAND AND TO DRAFT THEIR OWN 
CONSTITUTION, THE PRINCIPLE THAT
IN THIS COUNTRY, NO ONE IS KING.
WE HAVE FOLLOWED THAT PRINCIPLE 
SINCE BEFORE THE FOUNDING OF THE
CONSTITUTION AND IT IS 
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.
HE SAID NO ONE IS ABOVE THE LAW 
AND NO MAN IS BELOW.
NOR DO WE ASK 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 
PRINCIPLE THAT NO ONE, NOT EVEN 
THE PRESIDENT, IS ABOVE THE LAW.
FIRST IN THE BRITISH SYSTEM, THE
PUBLIC HAD NO CHOICE OVER THE 
MONARCH WHO RULED THEM.
IN OURS THE FLAME FRAMERS 
ALLOWED THEM TO SERVE AS A MEANS
TO ENSURE ACCOUNTABILITY.
SECOND IN THE BRITISH SYSTEM THE
KING COULD DO NO WRONG AND NO 
OTHER PARTS OF THE GOVERNMENT 
COULD CHECK HIS MISCONDUCT.
IN OUR CONSTITUTION THE FRAMERS 
DEVELOPED SEPARATION OF POWERS 
WHICH CONSISTS OF CHECKS AND 
BALANCES DESIGNED TO PREVENT 
FROM -- EVERYONE BUT THE KING 
WAS IMPEACHABLE.
OUR FRAMERS PLEDGED THEIR LIVES 
AND FORTUNES TO REBEL AGAINST A 
MONARCH THEY SAW AS CORRUPT, 
TYRANNICAL AND ENTITLED.
OUR DECORATION OF INDEPENDENCE 
THE FRAMERS SET FORTH A SERIES 
OF OFFENSES THAT THE KING HAD 
COMMITTED DENSE THE COLONISTS.
THE FRAMERS WERE UNITED AROUND A
SIMPLE INDISPOOUTABLE PRINCIPLE 
THAT WAS A MAJOR SAFEGUARD, WE 
THE PEOPLE AGAINST TIRRANY OF 
ANY KIND, A PEOPLE WHO HAD 
OVERTHROWN A KING WERE NOT GOING
TO CREATE AN OFFICE THAT 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 OR
OTHER HIGH CRIMES AND 
MISDEMEANORS.
THE FRAMERS' CONCERN ABOUT THE 
NEED TO PROTECT AGAINST A 
CORRUPT PRESIDENT WAS EVIDENT 
THROUGHOUT THE CONVENTION.
AND HERE I MUST THANK MY PRIOR 
TWO FRIENDS WHO HAVE SPOKEN AND 
REFERRED TO A NORTH CAROLINAN, 
WILLIAM DAVY.
I WILL REFER TO ANOTHER NORTH 
CAROLINAN IN THE CONSTITUTIONAL 
CON VOENGS, JAMES IRE DEL WHOM 
PRESIDENT WASHINGTON LATER PRO 
MOSTED, THE PRESIDENT IS OF A 
VERY DIFFERENT NATURE FROM A 
MONARCH.
HE IS TO BE PERSONALLY 
RESPONSIBLE FOR ANY ABUSE OF THE
GREAT TRUST PLACED IN HIM.
UNQUOTE.
THIS BRINGS US 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 OFFICE FOR PERSONAL 
GAIN.
OR I SHOULD SAY MISUSING OFFICE 
FOR PERSONAL GAIN.
PROFESSOR FELDMAN POINTED OUT, 
THESE TERMS DERIVED FROM THE 
BRITISH WHO UNDERSTOOD THE CLASS
OF CASES TO ROVER TO POLITICAL 
CRIMES WHICH INCLUDED GREAT 
OFFENSES AGAINST THE UNITED 
STATES, ATTEMPTS TO SUBVERT THE 
CONSTITUTION, WHEN THE PRESIDENT
DEVIATES FROM HIS -- SERIOUS 
INJURIES TO THE REPUBLIC.
IN THE FEDERALIST PAPERS, 
IMPEACHABLE OFFENSES ARE THOSE 
WHICH PROCEED FROM THE 
MISCONDUCT OF PUBLIC MEN, THE 
ABUSE OR VIOLATION OF SOME 
PUBLIC TRUST AND RELATE TO 
INJURIES DONE IMMEDIATELY TO THE
SOCIETY ITSELF.
SEVERAL THEMES EMERGE FROM THE 
FRAMERS' DISCUSSION OF THE SCOPE
OF IMPEACHABLE OFFENSES AND 
PRACTICE.
WE KNOW THAT NOT ALL IMPEACHABLE
OFFENSES ARE CRIMINAL AND NOT 
ALL FELONIES ARE IMPEACHABLE 
OFFENSES.
WE KNOW WHAT MATTERS IN 
DETERMINING WHETHER PARTICULAR 
MISCONDUCT CONSTITUTES A HIGH 
DONALD TRUMP AND MISDEMEANOR IS 
THE CONTEXT AND THE GRAVITY OF 
THE MISCONDUCT IN QUESTION.
AFTER REVIEWING THE EVIDENCE 
THAT'S BEEN MADE PUBLIC, I 
CANNOT HELP BUT CONCLUDE THAT 
THIS PRESIDENT HAS ATTACKED EACH
OF THE CONSTITUTION' SAFEGUARDS 
AGAINST ESTABLISHING A MONARCHY 
IN THIS COUNTRY.
BOTH THE CONTEXT AND GRAVITY OF 
THE PRESIDENT'S MISCONDUCT ARE 
CLEAR.
THE FAVOR HE REKWEFTD WAS TO 
RECEIVE IN EXCHANGE FOR HIS USE 
OF POWER UKRAINE'S ANNOUNCEMENT 
OF A CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION OF A
POLITICAL RIFLE.
THE INVESTIGATION WAS NOT THE 
IMPORTANT ACTION FOR THE 
PRESIDENT.
THE ANNOUNCEMENT WAS.
BECAUSE IT COULD THEN BE USED IN
THIS COUNTRY TO MANIPULATE THE 
PUBLIC INTO CASTING ASIDE THE 
PRESIDENT'S POLITICAL RIVAL 
BECAUSE OF CONCERNS ABOUT HIS 
CORRUPTION.
THE GRAVITY OF THE PRESIDENT'S 
MISCONDUCT IS APPARENT WHEN WE 
COMPARE IT TO THE MISCONDUCT OF 
THE ONE PRESIDENT WHO RESIGNED 
TO AVOID IMPEACHMENT.
THE HOUSE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 
APPROVED THREE ARTICLES OF 
IMPEACHMENT AGAINST RICHARD 
NIXON WHO RESIGNED.
THE FIRST CHARGED HIM WITH 
OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE.
IF YOU READ THE MUELLER REPORT, 
IT IDENTIFIES A NUMBER OF FACTS,
I WON'T LATE THEM OUT NOW, THAT 
SUGGESTS THE PRESIDENT HIMSELF 
HAS OBSTRUCTED JUSTICE.
IF WE LOOK AT THE SECOND ARTICLE
OF IMPEACHMENT APPROVED AGAINST 
RICHARD NIXON, IT CHARGED HIM 
WITH ABUSE OF POWER FOR ORDERING
THE HEADS OF THE FBI, IRS AND 
CIA TO HARASS HIS POLITICAL 
ENEMIES.
IN THE PRESENT CIRCUMSTANCE, THE
PRESIDENT IS ENGAGED IN A 
PATTERN OF ABUSING THE POWER 
PLACED IN HIS BY THE AMERICAN 
PEOPLE BY SOLICITING FOREIGN 
COUNTRIES INCLUDING CHINA, 
RUSSIA AND UKRAINE TO 
INVESTIGATE HIS POLITICAL 
OPPONENTS AND INTERFERE ON HIS 
BEHALF.
THE THIRD ARTICLE AGAINST NIXON 
CHARGED HE HAD FAILED TO COMPLY 
WITH FOUR SUBPOENAS.
IN THE PRESENT CIRCUMSTANCE THE 
PRESIDENT HAS REFOOISED TO 
COMPLY WITH AND DIRECTED AT 
LEAST TEN OTHERS IN HIS 
ADMINISTRATION NOT TO COMPLY 
WITH LAWFUL CONGRESSIONAL 
SUBPOENAS INCLUDING SECRETARY OF
STATE MIKE POMPEO RICK PERRY AND
MICK MULVANEY.
AS SENATOR LINDSEY GRAHAM SAID 
WHEN HE WAS A MEMBER OF THE 
HOUSE ON THE VERGE OF IMPEACHING
PRESIDENT CLINTON THE DAY 
RICHARD NIXON FAILED TO ANSWER 
IS THE DAY HE WAS SUBJECT TO 
IMPEACHMENT BECAUSE HE TOOK THE 
POWER AWAY FROM CONGRESS AND 
BECAME THE JUDGE AND JURY.
THAT IS A PERFECTLY GOOD 
ARTICULATION MUCH WHY 
OBSTRUCTION OF CONGRESS IS 
IMPEACHABLE.
THE PRESIDENT'S DEFIANCE OF 
CONGRESS IS ALL THE MORE 
TROUBLING DUE TO THE RATIONALE 
HE CLAIMS FOR HIS OBSTRUCTION.
HIS ARGUMENTS AND THOSE OF HIS 
SUBORED NAUTS INCLUDING HIS 
WHITE HOUSE COUNSEL IN HIS 
OCTOBER 8TH LETTER TO THE 
SPEAKER AND CHAIRS BOILS DOWN TO
THE ASSERTION THAT HE IS ABOVE 
THE LAW.
I WON'T REREAD 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 AFFIRMED THAT THE 
HOUSE HAS THE SOLE POWER OF 
IMPEACHMENT AND LIKE THE SENATE 
THE HOUSE HAS THE POWER TO 
DETERMINE THE RULES FOR ITS 
PROCEEDINGS.
THE PRESIDENT AND HIS 
SUBORDINATES HAVE ARGUED FURTHER
THE PRESIDENT IS ENTITLED TO 
IMMUNITY FROM CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
EVEN FOR CRIMINAL WRONGDOING 
INCLUDING SHOOTING SOMEONE ON 
FIFTH AVENUE.
HE'S CLAIMED HE'S ENTITLED TO 
PRIVILEGE, NOT TO SHARE ANY 
OTHER INFORMATION HE DOESN'T 
WANT TO SHARE WITH ANOTHER 
BRANCH.
HE'S ALSO CLAIMED ENTITLEMENT TO
ORDER THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH NOT 
TO COOPERATE WITH THIS BODY WHEN
IT CONDUCTS AN INVESTIGATION OF 
THE PRESIDENT.
IF LEFT UNCHECKED, THE PRESIDENT
WILL LIKELY CONTINUE HIS PATTERN
OF SOLICITING FOREIGN 
INTERFERENCE ON BEHALF OF THE 
NEXT ELECTION AND OF COURSE HIS 
OBSTRUCTION OF CONGRESS.
THE FACT THAT WE CAN EASILY 
TRANSPOSE THE ARTICLES OF 
IMPEACHMENT AGAINST NIXON ON TO 
THE ACTION OF THIS PRESIDENT 
SPEAKS VOLUMES.
THAT DOESN'T INCLUDE THE MOST 
SERIOUS NATIONAL SECURITY 
CONCERNS AND ELECTION 
INTERFERENCE CONCERNS AT THE 
HEART.
NO MISCONDUCT IS MORE 
ANTITHETICAL TO OUR DEMOCRACY 
AND NOTHING INJURIES THE 
AMERICAN PEOPLE MORE THAN A 
PRESIDENT USES WHO POWER TO 
WEAKEN THEIR AUTHORITY UNDER THE
CONSTITUTION AS WELL AS THE 
AUTHORITY OF THE CONSTITUTION 
ITSELF.
MAY I READ ONE MORE SENTENCE 
OR -- I'M SORRY. 
>> THE WITNESS MAY HAVE ANOTHER 
SENTENCE OR TWO. 
>> THANK YOU.
IF CONGRESS FAILS TO IMPEACH 
HERE THE IMPEACHMENT PROCESS HAS
LOST ALL MEANING AND ALONG WITH 
THAT CAREFULLY CRAFTED 
SAFEGUARDS, AND THEREFORE I 
STAND WITH THE CONSTITUTION AND 
I STAND WITH THE FRAMERS WHO 
WERE COMMITTED TO ENSURE THAT NO
ONE IS ABOVE THE LAW.
>> THANK YOU PROFESSOR.
PROFESSOR TURLEY. 
>> THANK YOU, CHAIRMAN NADLER, 
RANKING MEMBER COLLINS, MEMBERS 
OF THE COMMITTEE.
IT'S AN HON ORE 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 INTENSE RANKER AND RAGE OF 
THE PUBLIC DEBATE IS THE SAME.
THE ATMOSPHERE THAT THE FRAMERS 
ANTICIPATED, THE STIEFRLG 
INTOLERANCE OF OPPOSING VIEWS IS
THE SAME.
I'D LIKE TO START, THEREFORE, 
PERHAPS INCON GROUSLY, 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, AND WHAT WE 
LEAVE IN THE WAKE OF THIS 
SCANDAL WILL SHAPE OUR DEMOCRACY
FOR GENERATIONS TO COME.
I'M CONCERNED ABOUT LOWERING 
IMPEACHMENT STANDARDS TO FIT A 
PAUCITY OF EVIDENCE AND AN 
ABUNDANCE OF ANGER.
I BELIEVE THIS IMPEACHMENT NOT 
ONLY FAILS TO SATISFY THE 
STANDARD OF PAST IMPEACHMENTS 
BUT WOULD CREATE A DANGEROUS 
PRECEDENT FOR FUTURE 
IMPEACHMENTS.
MY TESTIMONY LAYS OUT THE 
IMPEACHMENT FROM EARLIER TO 
COLONIAL TO THE PRESENT DAY.
THE EARLY WERE RAW POLITICAL 
EXERCISES USING FLUID 
DEFINITIONS OF CRIMINAL AND 
NONCRIMINAL ACTS.
WHEN THE FRAMERS MET IN 
PHILADELPHIA, THEY WERE QUITE 
FAMILIAR WITH IMPEACHMENT AND 
ABUSES INCLUDING THE HASTINGS 
CASE WHICH WAS DISCUSSED IN THE 
CONVENTION, A CASE THAT WAS 
STILL PENDING FOR TRIAL IN 
ENGLAND.
THE AMERICAN MODEL WAS MORE 
LIMITED NOT ONLY IN ITS 
APPLICATION TO JUDICIAL AND 
EXECUTIVE OFFICIALS BUT ITS 
GROUNDS.
THE FRAMERS REJECTED A PROPOSAL 
TO ADD MAIL ADMINISTRATION 
BECAUSE MADISON OBJECTED THAT A 
VAGUE TERM.
IN THE PAST STANDARDS WERE 
REJECTED, CORRUPTION, OBTAINING 
OFFICE BY IMPROPER MEANS, 
BETRAYING TRUST TO A FOREIGN 
POWER, NEJJENCE, PERFIDY OR 
LYING AND PECK EWLATION SELF 
DEALING ARE PARTICULARLY 
IRRELEVANT.
MY TESTIMONY EXPLORES 
IMPEACHMENT OF NIXON, JOHNSON 
AND CLINTON.
THE CLOSEST IS TO THE 1868 OF 
ANDREW JOHNSON.
IT IS NOT A MOD THAEL THIS 
COMMITTEE SHOULD RELISH.
IN THAT CASE, A GROUP OF 
OPPONENTS OF THE PRESIDENT 
CALLED THE RADICAL REPUBLICANS 
CREATED A TRAPDOOR CRIME IN 
ORDER TO IMPEACH THE PRESIDENT.
THEY EVEN DEFINED IT AS A HIGH 
MISDEMEANOR.
THERE WAS ANOTHER SHARED ASPECT 
BESIDES THE ATMOSPHERE OF THAT 
IMPEACHMENT AND ALSO THE 
UNCONVENTIONABLE TILE OF THE TWO
PRESIDENTS.
AND THAT SHARED ELEMENT IS 
SPEED.
THIS IMPEACHMENT WOULD RIVAL THE
JOHNSON IMPEACHMENT AS THE 
SHORTEST IN HISTORY DEMAND 
DEPENDING ON HOW ONE COUNTS THE 
RELEVANT DAYS.
THERE ARE 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 ABBREVIATED PERIOD
OF THIS INVESTIGATION, WHICH IS 
PROBABILITY AND PUZZLING.
THIS IS A FACIALLY INCOMPLETE 
AND INADEQUATE ROErd IN ORDER TO
IMPEACH A PRESIDENT.
ALLOW ME TO BE CANDID BECAUSE WE
HAVE LIMITED TIME.
WE ARE LIVING IN THE VERY PERIOD
SCRIBED BY ALEXANDER HAMILTON, A
PERIOD OF AGITATED PASSIONS.
I GET IT.
YOU'RE MAD.
THE PRESIDENT IS MAD.
MY REPUBLICAN FRIENDS ARE MAD.
MY DEMOCRATIC FRIENDS ARE MAD.
MY WIFE IS MAD.
MY KIDS ARE MAD.
EVEN MY DOG SEEMS MAD.
AND LUNA IS A GOLDEN DOODLE AND 
THEY DON'T GET MAD.
SO WE'RE ALL MAD.
WHERE HAS THAT TAKEN US?
WELL, A SLIPSHOD IMPEACHMENT 
MAKE US LESS MAD?
WILL IT ONLY INVITE THE FUTURE 
ADMINISTRATION -- THAT IS WHY 
THIS IS WRONG.
IT'S NOT WRONG BECAUSE PRESIDENT
TRUMP IS RIGHT.
HIS CALL WAS ANYTHING BUT 
PERFECT.
IT'S NOT WRONG BECAUSE THE HOUSE
HAS NO LEGITIMATE REASON TO 
INVESTIGATE UKRAINIAN 
CONTROVERSY.
POINTS NOT WRONG BECAUSE WE'RE 
IN AN ELECTION YEAR.
THERE IS 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 RECORD OF CONFLICTS, 
DEFENSES THAT HAVE NOT BEEN 
FULLY CONSIDERED, UNSUBPOENAED 
WITNESS WITH MATERIAL EVIDENCE.
TO IMPEACH A PRESIDENT ON THIS 
RECORD WOULD EXPOSE EVERY FUTURE
PRESIDENT TO THE SAME TIME OF 
INCOATE IMPEACHMENT.
PRINCIPLE OFTEN TAKES US TO A 
PLACE WE WOULD PREFER NOT TO BE.
THAT'S WHERE SEVEN FOUND 
THEMSELVES IN THE JOHNSON TRIAL.
WHEN THEY SAVED THE PRESIDENT 
FROM ACQUITTAL THAT THEY 
DESPISED.
THEY CELEBRATED AS PROFILES OF 
COURAGE.
EDMOND ROSS SAID IT WAS LIKE 
LOOKING DOWN INTO HIS OPEN 
GRAVER, THEN 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.
IT'S APPEALING TO LISTEN TO 
THOSE SAYING, FOR GET THE 
DEFINITIONS OF CRIMES.
JUST DO IT.
LIKE THIS IS SOME IMPULSE BUYING
NIKE SNEAKER.
YOU CAN CERTAINLY DO THAT.
YOU CAN DECLARE THE DEFINITIONS 
OF CRIMES ALLEGED ARE IMMATERIAL
AND JUST AN EXERCISE OF 
POLITICS.
NOT THE LAW.
HOWEVER THOSE LEGAL DEFINITIONS 
AND 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, OF A 
SCENE FROM A MAN FOR ALL 
SEASONS, BY WITH SIR THOMAS 
MOORE WHEN HIS SON-IN-LAW 
WILLIAM ROPER 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 DECLARES, YES, I'D
CUT DOWN EVERY LAW OF ENGLAND TO
DO THAT.
MOORE SPONTDS, 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.
HE SAID, THIS COUNTRY IS PLANTED
THICK WITH LAWS FROM COAST TO 
COAST, MAN'S LAWS, NOT GOD'S.
AND IF YOU CUT THEM DOWN AND 
YOU'RE JUST THE MAN TO DO IT, DO
YOU REALLY THINK YOU COULD STAND
UPRIGHT IN THE WINDS THAT WOULD 
BLOW THEN?
AND HE FINISHED BY SAYING, YES, 
I'D GIVE THE DEVIL OF THE 
BENEFIT FOR 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 AND OUR 
CONSTITUTION.
HOWEVER BEFORE WE CUT DOWN THE 
TREE SO CAREFULLY PLANTED BY THE
FRAMERS, I HOPE YOU WILL 
CONSIDER WHAT YOU WILL DO WHEN 
THE WIND BLOWS AGAIN, PERHAPS 
FOR A DEMOCRATIC PRESIDENT.
WHERE WILL YOU STAND THEN, WHEN 
ALL THE LAWS BEING FLAT?
THANK YOU AGAIN FOR THE HONOR OF
TESTIFYING TODAY.
AND I'D BE HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY 
QUESTIONS. 
>> I THANK THE WITNESSES. 
>> MR. CHAIRMAN, I SEEK 
RECOGNITION?
>> WHO?
>> ME. 
>> FOR WHAT PURPOSE?
>> MR. CHAIRMAN, I HAVE A MOTION
PURSUANT TO RULE 11 SPECIFICALLY
2 K 6.
I MOVE TO SUBPOENA THE 
INDIVIDUAL REFERRED TO AS THE 
WHISTLE-BLOWER.
I ASKED TO DO THIS IN EXECUTIVE 
SESSION?
>> GENTLEMAN HAS STATED.
DO I HAVE A MOTION TO TABLE. 
>> TABLE. 
>> ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE. 
>> NO?
THE MOTION IS APPROVED.
ROLE CALL IS REQUESTED.
>> NADLER, LOFGREN, JACKSON LEE,
MR. COHEN, MR. JOHNSON, 
MR. DEUTSCH AYE, MISS BASS AYE, 
JEFFRIES AYE, CICILLINE AYE, 
SWALWELL AYE, RASKIN AYE, JI 
PAUL AYE, DEMINGS AYE, CRAYA 
AYE, SCANLIN AYE, GARCIA AYE, 
GEG OOUS AYE, McBATH AYE, 
STANTON AYE, SCENE AYE, McCAR 
SEL POWELL AYE, ESCOBAR AYE, 
COLLINS, SENSE BURNER, SHABBAT 
NO, GOMER NO, JORDAN NO, 
MR. BUCK NO, MR. RATCLIFFE NO, 
MISS ROBY NO, MR. GATES NO, 
MR. JOHNSON OF LOUISIANA NO, 
MR. BIGS NO, MR. McCLINTOCK NO, 
MISS LESKO NO, MR. RUSHENTHAULER
NO, MR. KLINE NO, MR. ARMSTRONG 
NO, MR. STUBY NO.
>> HAS EVERYONE VOTED WHO WISHES
TO VOTE?
>> HOW AM I RECORDED. 
>> COLLINS YOU ARE NOT RECORDED.
>> NO. 
>> MR. COLLINS VOTES NO. 
>> IS THERE ANYONE ELSE. 
>> HOW AM I RECORDED. 
>> SENSEN BENNER NOT RECORDED. 
>> NO. 
>> SENSESEN BURNER NO. 
>> ANYONE ELSE?
THE EQUIVOCAL REPORT?
MR. CHAIRMAN, THERE ARE 24 AYEs 
AND 17 NOs.
>> THE MOTION TO TABLE IS 
ADOPTED APPROXIMATELY WE WILL 
NOW PROCEED TO THE FIRST ROUND 
OF QUESTIONS.
PURSUANT TO HOUSE RESOLUTION AND
ITS ACCOMPANYING PROCEDURES, 
THERE WILL BE 45 MINUTES OF 
QUESTIONS CONDUCTED BY THE 
CHAIRMAN OR MAJORITY COUNSEL 
FOLLOWED BY 45 MINUTES BY THE 
RANGU RANKING MEMBER OR MOE 
NORT.
ONLY THEM QUESTION WIT NES 
DURING THIS PEEFRD.
UNLESS I SPECIFY ADDITIONAL 
EQUAL TIME, WE WILL PROCEED 
UNDER THE FIVE-MINUTE RULE AND 
EVERY MEMBER WILL HAVE THE 
CHANCE TO ASK QUESTIONS.
I NOW RECOGNIZE MYSELF FOR THE 
FIRST ROUND.
PROFESSORS, THANK YOU FOR BEING 
HERE TODAY.
THE COMMITTEE HAS BEEN CHARGED 
WITH THE GRAVE RESPONSIBILITY OF
CONSIDERING WHETHER TO RECOMMEND
ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT.
I SPEAK FOR MY COLLEAGUES WHEN I
SAY THAT WE DO NOT TAKE THIS 
LIGHTLY.
WE ARE COMMITTED TO ENSURING 
THAT TODAY'S HEARING AS WELL AS 
THE LARGER RESPONSIBILITY BEFORE
US ARE GROUNDED IN THE 
CONSTITUTION.
INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE'S REPORT 
CON CLUTED THAT THE PRESIDENT 
PRESSURED A FOREIGN LEADER TO 
INTERFERE IN OUR ELECTIONS BY 
INITIATING AND DENOUNCING 
INVESTIGATIONS INTO TRUMP'S 
ADVER SAYER EASE.
HE SOUGHT TO PREVENT CONGRESS 
FROM INVESTIGATING HIS CONDUCT 
BY ORDERING HIS ADMINISTRATION 
AND EVERYONE INTO IT TO DEFY 
HOUSE SUBPOENAS.
PROFESSOR KARLAN, AS YOU SAID 
THE RIGHT TO VOTE IS THE MOST 
PRECIOUS.
DOES THE PRESIDENT'S CONDUCT 
ENDANGER THAT RIGHT?
>> YES, MR. CHAIRMAN, IT DOES. 
>> THANK YOU.
AND HOW DOES THIS DO SO?
>> THE WAY THAT IT DOES IT 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 
THAT INTO A RIGHT THAT FOREIGN 
GOVERNMENTS DECIDE TO INTERFERE 
FOR THEIR OWN BENEFIT.
FOREIGN GOVERNMENTS DON'T 
INTERFERE IN OUR ELECTIONS TO 
BENEFIT US, THEY INTERFERE TO 
BENEFIT THEMSELVES. 
>> THANK YOU.
PRO GEFR GERHARDT, YOU HAVE 
WRITTEN ABOUT OUR CHECKS AND 
BALANCES.
WHAT HAPPENS TO THAT WHEN A 
PRESIDENT UNDER TAIKDS A 
BLOCKADE OF IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY 
WHEN HE ORDERS ALL WITNESSES NOT
TO TESTIFY AND WHAT IS OUR 
RECOURSE?
>> WHEN A PRESIDENT DOES THAT, 
SEPARATION OF POWERS MEANS 
NOTHING.
THE SUBPOENAS THAT HAVE BEEN 
ISSUED OF COURSE ARE LAWFUL 
ORDERS.
IN OUR LAW SCHOOLS WE WOULD 
TEACH THIS IS AN EASY 
STRAIGHTFORWARD SITUATION.
YOU COMPLY WITH THE LAW.
LAWYERS ALL THE TIME HAVE TO.
BUT IN THIS SITUATION IT'S A 
FULL-SCALE OBSTRUCTION, FULL 
SKRAIL OBSTRUCTION OF THOSE 
SUBPOENAS, TORE PEDDOS 
SEPARATION OF POWERS AND 
THEREFORE YOUR ONLY RECOURSE IS 
TO PROTECT YOUR INSTITUTIONAL 
PREROGATIVES AND THAT WOULD 
INCLUDE IMPEACHMENT. 
>> AND THE SAME IS TRUE OF 
DEFYING CONGRESSIONAL SUBPOENAS 
ON A WHOLESALE BASIS WITH 
RESPECT TO OVERSIGHT, NOT JUST 
TO IMPEACHMENT?
>> ABSOLUTELY, YES, SIR. 
>> THANK YOU.
PROFESSOR FELDMAN, AS I 
UNDERSTAND IT, THE FRAMERS 
INTENDED IMPEACHMENT TO BE USED 
INFROOEKLY, NOT AS PUNISHMENT 
BUT SAVE OUR DEMOCRACY FROM 
THREATS SO SIGNIFICANT THAT WE 
CANNOT WAIT FOR THE NEXT 
ELECTION.
IN YOUR TESTIMONY YOU SUGGEST 
THAT WE FACE THAT KIND OF 
THREAT.
CAN YOU EXPLAIN WHY YOU THINK 
IMPEACHMENT IS THE APPROPRIATE 
RECOURSE HERE, WHY WE CANNOT 
WAIT FOR THE NEXT ELECTION?
THOSE ARE TWO QUESTIONS IF YOU 
WANT THEM TO BE. 
>> THE FRAMERS RESERVED 
IMPEACHMENT FOR SITUATIONS WHERE
THE PRESIDENT ABUSED HIS OFFICE,
THAT IS USED IT 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 IN FACT WHY THEY THOUGHT 
THEY NEEDED IMPEACHMENT AND 
WAITING WASN'T GOOD ENOUGH.
ON THE FACT THAT WE HAVE BEFORE 
THE HOUSE RIGHT NOW, THE 
PRESIDENT SLITSED ASSISTANCE 
FROM A FOREIGN GOVERNMENT IN 
ORDER TO ASSIST HIS OWN 
RE-ELECTION.
THAT IS, 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 PRECISELY WHAT THE 
FRAMERS ANTICIPATED. 
>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
I NOW YIELD THE REMAINDER OF MY 
TIME TO MR. EISEN. 
>> GOOD MORNING.
THANK YOU 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, AND 
OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE.
PROFESSOR FELDMAN, WHAT IS ABUSE
OF POWER?
>> ABUSE OF POWER IS WHEN THE 
PRESIDENT USES HIS OFFICE, TAKES
AN ACTION, THAT IS PART OF THE 
PRESIDENCY, NOT TO SERVE THE 
PUBLIC INTEREST BUT TO SERVE HIS
PRIVATE BENEFIT, AND IN 
PARTICULAR IT'S AN ABUSE OF 
POWER IF HE DOES IT TO 
FACILITATE HIS RE-ELECTION OR 
GAIN AN ADVANTAGE THAT IS NOT 
AVAILABLE TO ANYONE NOT THE 
PRESIDENT. 
>> SIR, WHY IS THAT IMPEACHABLE 
CONDUCT?
>> IF THE PRESIDENT USES HIS 
OFFICE FOR PERSONAL GAIN, THE 
ONLY RECOURSE AVAILABLE UNDER 
THE CONSTITUTION IS FOR HIM TO 
BE IMPEACHED BECAUSE THE 
PRESIDENT CANNOT BE AS A 
PRACTICAL MATTER CHARGED 
CRIMINALLY WHILE IN OFFICE 
BECAUSE THE DEPARTMENT OF 
JUSTICE WORKS FOR THE PRESIDENT.
THE ONLY MECHANISM AVAILABLE FOR
A PRESIDENT WHO TRIES TO DISTORT
THE PROCESS FOR PERSONAL GAIN IS
TO IMPEACH HIM.
THAT IS WHY WE HAVE IMPEACHMENT.
>> PROFESSOR KARLAN, DO SCALERS 
OF IMPEACHMENT GENERALLY AGREE 
THAT ABUSE OF POWER IS AN 
IMPEACHABLE OFFENSE?
>> YES, THEY DO. 
>> PROFESSOR GERHART, DO YOU 
AGREE THAT IT'S IMPEACHABLE?
>> WHY ERR. 
>> I'D LIKE TO FOCUS THE PANEL 
ON THE EVIDENCE THEY CONSIDERED 
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 
OFFENSE OF OFFICE. 
>> PROFESSOR KARLAN, SAME 
QUESTION. 
>> SAME ANSWER. 
>> AND PROFESSOR GERHARDT, DID 
PRESIDENT TRUMP COMMIT THE 
IMPEACHABLE HIGH CRIME AND 
DISMEANOR OF ABUSE OF POWER?
>> WE THREE ARE UNANIMOUS, YES. 
>> PROFESSOR FELDMAN, I'D LIKE 
TO QUICKLY LOOK AT THE EVIDENCE 
IN THE REPORT.
ON 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 MEMORANDUM OF THAT CALL 
RELEVANT TO YOUR OPINION THAT 
THE PRESIDENT COMMITTED ABUSE OF
POWER?
>> THE MEMORANDUM OF THAT CALL 
BETWEEN THE TWO PRESIDENTS IS 
ABSOLUTELY CRUCIAL TO MY 
DERNLNATION THAT THE PRESIDENT 
ABUSED HIS OFFICE. 
>> AND 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 CONTINUED TO
RELY ON THAT. 
>> SIR, DID YOU REVIEW THE 
FOLLOWING TESTIMONY FROM OUR 
AMBASSADOR TO UKRAINE, 
AMBASSADOR WILLIAM TAYLOR?
>> TO WITHHOLD THAT ASSISTANCE 
FOR NO GOOD REASON OTHER THAN 
HELP WITH THE POLITICAL CAMPAIGN
MADE NO SENSE.
IT WAS COUNTERPRODUCTIVE TO ALL 
OF WHAT WE HAD BEEN TRYING TO 
DO.
IT WAS ILLOGICAL, IT COULD NOT 
BE EXPLAINED, IT WAS CRAZY.
>> YES, THAT EVIDENCE 
UNDERSCORED THE WAY THAT THE 
PRESIDENT'S ACTIONS UNDERCUT 
NATIONAL SECURITY. 
>> PROFESSOR FELDMAN, 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 MATTERS FUNDAMENTALLY TO 
THE AMERICAN PEOPLE BECAUSE IF 
WE CANNOT IMPEACH A PRESIDENT 
WHO ABUSES HIS OFFICE FOR 
PERSONAL ADVANTAGE, WE NO LONGER
LIVE IN A DEMOCRACY.
WE LIVE IN A MONARCHY OR UNDER A
DICTATORSHIP.
THAT'S WHY THE FRAMERS CREATED 
THE POSSIBLY OF IMPEACHMENT. 
>> NOW PROFESSOR KARLAN, THIS 
HIGH CRIME AND MISDEMEANOR OF 
ABUSE OF POWER, WAS IT SOME KIND
OF LOOSE OR UNDEFINED CONCEPT TO
THE FOUNDERS OF OUR COUNTRY AND 
FRAMERS OF OUR CONSTITUTION?
>> NO, I DON'T THINK 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 THE KING OR THE
LIKE. 
>> AND CAN YOU SHARE A LITTLE 
BIT ABOUT THAT LINEAGE, PLEASE?
>> YEAH.
THE PARLIAMENT IN ENGLAND 
IMPEACHED OFFICERS THE CROWN 
WHEN THOSE PEOPLE ABUSED THEIR 
POWER.
IF I COULD GIVE YOU ONE EXAMPLE 
THAT MIGHT BE HELPFUL, RIGHT 
AFTER THE RESTORATION OF THE 
KINGSHIP IN ENGLAND, THERE WAS 
AN IMPEACHMENT -- AND WHEN THEY 
IMPEACHMENT THEY HAD TO SAY WHAT
FOR?
SOMETIMES FOR TREASON OR THE 
LIKE.
SOMETIMES THEY WOULD USE THE 
PHRASE HIGH CRIME OR 
MISDEMEANOR.
THERE WAS AN IMPEACHMENT OF VIE 
COUNT MORDANT, WHICH IS A GREAT 
NAME.
HE WAS IMPEACHED BECAUSE HE WAS 
THE SHERIFF OF WINDSOR.
AND AS THE PARLIAMENTARY 
ELECTION WAS COMING UP, HE 
ARRESTED WILLIAM TAYLOR, AND I 
JUST WANT TO READ TO YOU FROM 
THE ARTICLE OF IMPEACHMENT IN 
FRONT OF THE HOUSE OF COMMONS.
BECAUSE IT'S SO TELLING.
HERE'S IS WHAT ARTICLE ONE SAID.
UNDERSTANDING THAT ONE WILLIAM 
TAYLOR DID INTEND TO STAND FOR 
THE ELECTION OF ONE OF THE 
BURGESSS OF THE BURR OF WIND SOR
TO SERVE IN THIS PRESENT 
PARLIAMENT, HE WAS RUNNING AS A 
MEMBER OF PARLIAMENT, THIS IS 
WHAT VIE COUNT MORDANT DID, TO 
DISPARAGE THE FREE ELECTION 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, 
VICE OUNT MOWER DONT DID COMMAND
AND CAUSE HIM TO BE FORCIBLY, 
ILLEGALLY AND SEIZED UPON BY 
SOLDIERS AND THEN DETAINED HIM.
HE WENT AFTER A POLITICAL 
OPPONENT AND THAT WAS A HIGH 
CRIME OR MISDEMEANOR TO USE YOUR
OFFICE TO GO AFTER A POLITICAL 
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 AT THE CONTEXT AND 
GRAPHICTY 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 DOES NOT REQUIRE A 
CRIME.
>> THAT'S TRUE.
BUT I ALSO ADDED AN IMPORTANT 
CAVEAT. 
>> IT WAS A YES OR NO.
DID YOU WRITE IN THE "WALL 
STREET JOURNAL," THERE IS 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 QUOTE, SIR?
>> YOU READ IT WELL. 
>> SO PROFESSORS FELDMAN, 
KARLAN, AND GERHARDT, YOU HAVE 
IDENTIFIED THAT ON THE EVIDENCE 
THERE IS AN IMPEACHABLE ACT, A 
HIGH CRIME AND MISDEMEANOR OF 
ABUSE OF POWER, CORRECT?
>> YES. 
>> YES. 
>> CORRECT. 
>> AND PROFESSOR FELDMAN, WHAT 
DOES THE CONSTITUTION SAY IS THE
RESPONSIBILITY OF THE HOUSE OF 
REPRESENTSTIVES 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 
RESPONSIBILITY TO INVESTIGATE 
PRESIDENTIAL MISCONDUCT AND 
WHERE APPROPRIATE TO CREATE AND 
PASS ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT. 
>> AND 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 NEED TO ASK 
YOURSELVES IF YOU DON'T IMPEACH 
A PRESIDENT WHO HAS DONE WHAT 
THIS PRESIDENT HAS DONE, OR AT 
LEAST YOU DON'T INVESTIGATE AND 
THEN IMPEACH IF YOU CONCLUDE 
THAT THE HOUSE SELECT COMMITTEE 
ON INTELLIGENCE FINDINGS ARE 
CORRECT, THEN WHAT YOU'RE SAYING
IS, IT'S FINE TO GO AHEAD AND DO
THIS AGAIN.
AND I THINK THAT AS THE -- YOU 
KNOW, IN THE REPORT THAT CAME 
OUT LAST NIGHT, THE REPORT TALKS
ABOUT THE CLEAR AND PRESENT 
DANGER TO THE ELECTION SYSTEM.
AND 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.
CAN I ASK, DID THE CONSTITUTION 
SPELL OUT EVERY OTHER HIGH CRIME
AND MISDEMEANOR?
>> NO, IT DID NOT. 
>> WHY?
PLEASE. 
>> IN PART BECAUSE THEY 
RECOGNIZED 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 
HAVE IMAGINED COMPUTERS.
THEY COULDN'T NECESSARILY HAVE 
IMAGINED WIRETAPPING BECAUSE WE 
HAD NO WIRES IN 1789.
THEY PUT IN A PHRASE THE ENGLISH
HAD USED AND HAD ADAPTED OVER A 
PERIOD OF CENTURIES TO TAKE INTO
ACCOUNT THAT THE 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 INTEREST, BETRAYAL OF 
THE NATIONAL INTEREST 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 INTEREST INVOLVING 
FOREIGN POWERS AND HOW THEY'D 
COME INTO PLAY HERE?
>> SURE.
LET ME START WITH THE FRAMERS 
AND WHAT THEY WERE CONCERNED 
WITH AND BRING IT UP TO DATE, 
BECAUSE I THINK THERE'S SOME 
MODERN STUFF THAT'S IMPORTANT.
THE FRAMERS WERE VERY PORIED 
THAT ELECTIONS COULD BE 
CORRUPTED.
THEY COULD BE CORRUPTED IN A 
VARIETY OF DIFFERENT WAYS.
AND THEN SPENT A LOT OF TIME 
TRYING TO DESIGN AN ELECTION 
SYSTEM THAT WOULDN'T BE SUBJECT 
TO THAT KIND OF CORRUPTION.
AND THERE ARE A NUMBER OF 
DIFFERENT PROVISIONS IN THE 
CONSTITUTION THAT DEAL WITH THE 
KINDS OF CORRUPTION THEY WERE 
WORRIED ABOUT, TWO THAT I'D LIKE
TO HIGHLIGHT BECAUSE I THINK 
THEY GO TO THIS IDEA ABOUT THE 
NATIONAL INTEREST AND FOREIGN 
GOVERNMENTS.
ONE THAT SEEMS TODAY TO MOST 
MUCH US TO BE A REMNANT OF A 
PAST TIME.
IF YOU BECOME AN AMERICAN 
CITIZEN, ALMOST EVERYTHING IN 
THIS COUNTRY IS OPEN TO YOU.
YOU CAN BECOME CHIEF JUSTICE OF 
THE UNITED STATES.
YOU CAN BECOME SECRETARY OF 
STATE.
BUT THE ONE OFFICE THAT'S NOT 
OPEN TO YOU, EVEN THOUGH YOU'RE 
A CITIZEN JUST LIKE ALL OF THE 
REST OF US, IS THE PRESIDENCY, 
BECAUSE OF THE NATURAL BORN 
CITIZEN CLAUSE OF THE 
CONSTITUTION.
THE REASON THEY PUT THAT IN WAS 
BECAUSE THEY WERE SO WORRIED 
ABOUT FOREIGN INFLUENCE OVER A 
PRESIDENT.
THE OTHER CLAUSE PROBABLY NO ONE
HEARD OF FIVE YEARS AGO IS THE 
EMOLUMENTS CLAUSE.
THEY WERE WORRIED THAT THE 
PRESIDENT WOULD TUZE TO GET 
EVERYTHING HE COULD AND HE WOULD
TAKE GIFTS FROM FOREIGN AFFAIR 
COUNTRIES, NOT EVEN NECESSARILY 
BRIBES BUT GIFTS.
THEY WERE VERY CONCERNED ABOUT 
THOSE ELECTIONS.
IT'S NOT JUST THEM.
I WANT TO SAY SOMETHING ABOUT 
WHAT OUR NATIONAL INTEREST IS 
TODAY.
OUR NATIONAL INTEREST TOO TODAY 
IS DIFFERENT THAN 1969.
THEY WERE WORRIED WE WOULD BE A 
WEAK COUNTRY.
WE'RE A STRONG POWER NOW, THE 
STRONGEST IN THE WORLD.
WE CAN STILL BE EXPLOITED BY 
FOREIGN COUNTRIES.
BUT THE OTHER THING 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 
RONALD REAGAN SAID, WE HAVE 
BECOME THE SHINING CITY ON A 
HILL.
WE HAVE BECOME THE NATION THAT 
LEADS THE WORLD IN UNDERSTANDING
WHAT DEMOCRACY IS.
ONE OF THE THINGS WE UNDERSTAND 
MOST PRO FOUPDLY IS IT'S NOT A 
REAL DEMOCRACY, MATURE, IF THE 
PARTY IN POWER USES THE CRIMINAL
PROCESS TO GO AFTER ITS ENEMIES.
I THINK YOU HEARD TESTIMONY THAT
THE INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE HEARD
TESTIMONY ABOUT HOW IT ISN'T 
JUST OUR NATIONAL INTEREST IN 
PROTECTING OUR OWN ELECTIONS, 
NOT JUST OUR NATIONAL INTEREST 
IN -- THE UKRAINE FIGHTS THE 
RUSSIANS AND WE DON'T HAVE TO 
FIGHT THEM HERE.
BUT IT'S OUR NATIONAL INTEREST 
IN PRO MODING DEMOCRACY 
WORLDWIDE.
IF WE LOOK HYPOCRITE CAL ABOUT 
THIS, WE'RE ASKING OTHER 
COUNTRIES TO INTERFERE IN OUR 
ELECTION, LOOK LIKE WE'RE ASKING
OTHER COUNTRIES TO ENGAGE IN 
CRIMINAL INVESTIGATIONS OF OUR 
PRESIDENTS' POLITICAL OPPONENTS,
THEN WE'RE NOT DOING OUR JOB OF 
PROMOTING OUR NATIONAL INTEREST 
IN BEING THAT SHINING CITY ON A 
HILL. 
>> PROFESSOR FELDMAN, ANYTHING 
TO ADD?
>> ULTIMATELY, THE REASON THAT 
THE CONSTITUTION PROVIDED FOR 
IMPEACHMENT WAS TO ANTICIPATE A 
SITUATION LIKE THE ONE THAT IS 
BEFORE YOU TODAY.
THE FRAMERS WERE NOT PROPHETS 
BUT THEY WERE VERY MART PEOPLE 
WITH A SOPHISTICATED 
UNDERSTANDING OF HUMAN 
INCENTIVES.
AND 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, TO CORRUPT 
THE ELECTORAL PROCESS AND 
POTENTIALLY SUBVERT THE NATIONAL
INTEREST.
THE FACTS STRONGLY SUGGEST THAT 
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. 
>> AND 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 UNDERMINED 
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 INTEREST AS 
EXPRESSED, ACCORDING TO THE 
EVIDENCE BEFORE YOU, BY THE 
ENTIRETY OF A UNANIMOUS NATIONAL
SECURITY COMMUNITY. 
>> SIR, IS IT YOUR VIEW THAT THE
FRAMERS WOULD CONCLUDE THAT 
THERE WAS A BETRAYAL OF THE 
NATIONAL INTEREST OR NATIONAL 
SECURITY BY PRESIDENT TRUMP ON 
THESE FACTS?
>> IN MY VIEW, IF THE FRAMERS 
WERE AWARE THAT A PRESIDENT OF 
THE UNITED STATES HAD PUT HIS 
PERSONAL GAIN AND INTEREST AHEAD
OF THE NATIONAL SECURITY OF THE 
UNITED STATES BY CONDITIONING 
AID TO A CRUCIAL ALLY THAT'S IN 
THE MIDST OF A WAR ON 
INVESTIGATIONS AIMED AT HIS OWN 
PERSONAL GAIN, THEY WOULD 
CERTAINLY CONCLUDE THAT THIS WAS
AN ABUSE OF THE OFFICE OF THE 
PRESIDENCY AND CONCLUDE THAT 
THAT CONDUCT WAS IMPEACHABLE 
UNDER THE CONSTITUTION. 
>> PROFESSOR GERHARDT, WHAT ARE 
YOUR THOUGHTS ON THE ABUSE OF 
POWER, BETRAYAL OF NATIONAL 
SECURITY OR NATIONAL INTEREST, 
AND THE CORRUPTION OF ELECTIONS,
SIR?
>> WELL, I HAVE A LOT OF 
THOUGHTS.
ONE OF THEM IS THAT WHAT WE 
HAVEN'T MENTIONED YET OR BROUGHT
INTO THIS CONVERSATION IS THE 
FACT THAT THE IMPEACHMENT POWER 
REQUIRES THIS COMMITTEE, THIS 
HOUSE, TO BE ABLE TO INVESTIGATE
PRESIDENTIAL MISCONDUCT.
IF A PRESIDENT CAN BLOCK AN 
INVESTIGATION, UNDERMINE IT, 
STOP IT, THEN THE IMPEACHMENT 
POWER ITSELF AS A CHECK AGAINST 
MISCONDUCT IS UNDERMINED 
COMPLETELY. 
>> AND PROFESSOR KARLAN, CAN YOU
HAVE AN IMPEACHABLE OFFENSE OF 
ABUSE OF MOWER THAT IS SUPPORTED
BY CONSIDERATIONS OF 
APRESIDENT'S BETRAYAL OF THE 
NATIONAL INTEREST OR SECURITY BY
ELECTIONS?
>> YES, YOU CAN. 
>> DO WE HAVE THAT HERE, MA'AM?
>> BASED ON THE EVIDENCE WHICH 
I'VE SEEN, WHICH IS REVIEWING 
THE TRANSCRIPTS OF THE 12 
WITNESSES WHO TESTIFIED LOOKING 
AT THE CALL READOUT, 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 --
THERE ARE SOME ADDITIONAL HIGH 
CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS THAT ARE
SPECIFICALLY IDENTIFIED IN THE 
TEXT OF THE CONSTITUTION, 
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
OF BRIBERY I THINK IT'S 
IMPORTANT TO DISTINGUISH THAT 
FROM WHATEVER THE U.S. CODE 
CALLS BRIBERY TODAY.
AND THE REASON FOR THIS IN PART 
IS BECAUSE IN 1789 WHEN THE 
FRAMERS WERE WRITING THE 
CONSTITUTION, THERE WAS NO 
FEDERAL CRIMINAL CODE.
THE FIRST BRIBERY STATUTES THAT 
THE UNITED STATES CONGRESS 
PASSED WOULD NOT HAVE REACHED A 
PRESIDENT AT ALL, BECAUSE THE 
FIRST ONE WAS JUST ABOUT CUSTOMS
OFFICIALS.
AND THE SECOND ONE WAS ONLY 
ABOUT JUDGES.
SO IT WASN'T UNTIL, I DON'T 
KNOW, 60 YEARS OR SO AFTER THE 
CONSTITUTION WAS RATIFIED THAT 
WE HAD ANY FEDERAL CRIME OF 
BRIBERY.
WHEN THEY SAY THE PRESIDENT CAN 
BE IMPEACHED AND REMOVED FROM 
OFFICE FOR BRIBERY, THEY WEREN'T
REFERRING TO A STATUTE.
AND FEDERAL -- AND I WILL SAY, 
I'M NOT AN EXPERT ON FEDERAL 
SUBSTANTIVE FEDERAL CRIMINAL 
LAW.
ALL I WILL SAY HERE IS THE 
BRIBERY STATUTE IS A VERY 
COMPLICATED STATUTE.
SO WHAT THEY WERE THINKING ABOUT
WAS BRIBERY AS IT WAS UNDERSTOOD
IN THE 18th CENTURY BASED ON THE
COMMON LAW UP UNTIL THAT POINT.
AND THAT UNDERSTANDING WAS AN 
UNDERSTANDING THAT SOMEONE AND 
GENERALLY EVEN THEN IT WAS 
MOSTLY TALKING ABOUT A JUDGE, IT
WASN'T TALKING ABOUT A 
PRESIDENT, BECAUSE THERE WAS NO 
PRESIDENT BEFORE THAT.
IT WASN'T TALKING ABOUT THE KING
BECAUSE I KING COULD DO NO 
WRONG.
BUT WHAT THEY WERE UNDERSTANDING
THEN WAS THE IDEA THAT WHEN YOU 
TOOK PRIVATE BENEFITS OR WHEN 
YOU ASKED FOR PRIVATE BENEFITS, 
IN RETURN FOR AN OFFICIAL ACT, 
OR SOMEBODY GAVE THEM TO YOU TO 
INFLUENCE AN OFFICIAL ACT, THAT 
WAS BRIBERY.
>> AND SO WE HAVE CONSTITUTIONAL
BRIBERY HERE, THE HIGH CRIME AND
MISDEMEANOR OF CONSTITUTIONAL O 
TELEPHONE CALL WITH THE 
UKRAINIAN PRESIDENT, THE ONE 
WHERE PRESIDENT TRUMP ASKED, I 
WOULD LIKE YOU TO DO US A FAVOR,
THOUGH, AND ALSO ASKED ABOUT 
LOOKING INTO HIS U.S. POLITICAL 
OPPONENTS.
>> YES, I DID RELY ON THAT.
DID YOU CONSIDER THE FOLLOWING 
TESTIMONY FROM OUR AMBASSADOR TO
THE EUROPEAN UNION, AMBASSADOR 
SONDLAND?
>> WAS THERE A QUID PRO QUO?
AS I TESTIFIED PREVIOUSLY, WITH 
REGARD TO THE REQUESTED WHITE 
HOUSE CALL AND THE WHITE HOUSE 
MEETING, THE ANSWER IS YES.
EVERYONE WAS IN THE LOOP.
>> DID YOU CONSIDER THAT, 
PROFESSOR?
>> I DID CONSIDER THAT, YES.
>> AND DID YOU ALSO CONSIDER THE
FINDINGS OF FACT THAT THE 
INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE MADE, 
INCLUDING THAT, AND I QUOTE FROM
FINDING OF FACT NUMBER FIVE, THE
PRESIDENT WITHHELD OFFICIAL ACTS
OF VALUE TO UKRAINE AND 
CONDITIONED THEIR FULFILLMENT ON
ACTIONS BY UKRAINE THAT WOULD 
BENEFIT HIS PERSONAL, POLITICAL 
INTEREST?
>> I DID RELY ON THAT, IN 
ADDITION, BECAUSE AS I'VE 
ALREADY TESTIFIED, I READ THE 
WITNESSES -- THE TRANSCRIPT OF 
ALL THE WITNESSES.
I RELIED ON TESTIMONY FROM 
AMBASSADOR SONDLAND AND 
TESTIMONY FROM MR. MORRISON, 
TESTIMONY FROM LIEUTENANT 
COLONEL VINDMAN, TESTIMONY FOR 
AMBASSADOR TAYLOR.
I RELIED ON THE FACT THAT 
WHEN -- I THINK IT WAS 
AMBASSADOR TAYLOR, BUT I MAY BE 
GETTING ONE OF THESE PEOPLE 
WRONG, SENT THE CABLE THAT SAID,
YOU KNOW, IT'S CRAZY TO HOLD 
THIS UP BASED ON DOMESTIC 
POLITICAL CONCERN.
NO ONE WROTE BACK AND SAID, 
THAT'S NOT WHY WE'RE DOING IT.
I RELIED ON MR. MULVANEY SAID IN
HIS PRESS CONFERENCE.
SO, THERE -- YOU KNOW, THERE'S A
LOT TO SUGGEST HERE THAT THIS IS
ABOUT POLITICAL BENEFIT.
AND 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 JUST WANT TO POINT TO 
WHAT I CONSIDER TO BE THE MOST 
STRIKING EXAMPLE OF THIS AND THE
MOST -- YOU KNOW, I SPENT ALL OF
THANKSGIVING VACATION SITTING 
THERE, READING THESE 
TRANSCRIPTS.
I DIDN'T -- YOU KNOW, I ATE LIKE
A TURKEY THAT CAME TO US IN THE 
MAIL THAT WAS ALREADY COOKED.
BECAUSE I WAS SPENDING MY TIME 
DOING THIS.
AND THE MOST CHILLING LINE FOR 
ME OF THE ENTIRE PROCESS IS THE 
FOLLOWING.
AMBASSADOR SONDLAND SAID HE HAD 
TO ANNOUNCE THE INVESTIGATIONS, 
TALKING ABOUT PRESIDENT 
ZELENSKY.
HE HAD TO ANNOUNCE THE 
INVESTIGATIONS, HE DIDN'T 
ACTUALLY HAVE TO DO IT, AS I 
UNDERSTOOD IT.
AND HE SAID, I DIDN'T HEAR, 
MR. GOLDMAN, THE INVESTIGATIONS 
HAD TO BE STARTED OR COMPLETED.
THE ONLY THING I HEARD FROM 
MR. GIULIANI IS THEY HAD TO BE 
ANNOUNCED IN SOME FORM.
WHAT I TOOK THAT TO MEAN IS THIS
IS NOT ABOUT WHETHER VICE 
PRESIDENT BIDEN ACTUALLY 
COMMITTED CORRUPTION OR NOT.
THIS WAS ABOUT INJURING SOMEBODY
WHO THE PRESIDENT THINKS OF AS A
PARTICULARLY -- A PARTICULARLY 
HARD OPPONENT.
THAT'S FOR HIS PRIVATE -- HIS 
PRIVATE BELIEFS.
IF I CAN SAY ONE LAST THING 
ABOUT THE INTEREST OF THE UNITED
STATES.
THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED 
STATES DOES NOT CARE WHETHER THE
NEXT PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED 
STATES IS DONALD J. TRUMP OR ANY
ONE OF THE DEMOCRATS OR ANYONE 
RUNNING ON A THIRD-PARTY.
THE CONSTITUTION IS INDIFFERENT 
TO THAT.
WHAT THE CONSTITUTION CARES 
ABOUT IS THAT WE HAVE FREE 
ELECTIONS.
AND SO, IT IS ONLY IN THE 
PRESIDENT'S INTEREST.
IT'S NOT THE NATIONAL INTEREST 
THAT A PARTICULAR PRESIDENT BE 
ELECTED OR BE DEFEATED AT THE 
NEXT ELECTION.
PRESIDENT CONSTITUTION IS 
INDIFFERENT TO THAT.
>> PROFESSOR FELDMAN, ANY 
THOUGHTS ON THE SUBJECT OF HIGH 
CRIME AND MISDEMEANOR OF THE 
BRIBERY THAT PROFESSOR KARLAN 
LAID OUT?
>> THE CLEAR SENSE OF BRIBERY AT
THE TIME WHEN THE FRAMERS 
ADOPTED THIS -- 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 THAT WAS WHAT HE SOUGHT, 
THEN THIS COMMITTEE AND THIS 
HOUSE COULD SAFELY CONCLUDE THAT
THE PRESIDENT HAD COMMITTED 
BRIBERY UNDER THE CONSTITUTION.
>> PROFESSOR GERHARDT, WHAT IS 
YOUR VIEW?
>> I, OF COURSE, AGREE WITH 
PROFESSOR KARLAN AND PROFESSOR 
FELDMAN.
AND I JUST WANT TO STRESS, IF 
THIS -- IF WHAT WE'RE TALKING 
ABOUT IS NOT IMPEACHABLE, THEN 
NOTHING IS IMPEACHABLE.
THIS IS PRECISELY THE MISCONDUCT
THAT THE FRAMERS CREATED A 
CONSTITUTION, INCLUDING 
IMPEACHMENT, TO PROTECT AGAINST.
AND IF THERE'S NO ACTION, IF 
CONGRESS CONCLUDES THEY'RE GOING
TO GIVE A PASS TO THE PRESIDENT 
HERE, AS PROFESSOR KARLAN 
SUGGESTED EARLIER, 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.
AND 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.
>> AND 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 TO THE QUESTION OF 
IMPEACHMENT?
>> NO, IT DOES NOT.
IF -- 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 BE
ABLE TO PULL IT OFF DOES NOT 
UNDERCUT IN ANY WAY THE IMPEACH 
ACT OF THE ACT.
IF YOU'LL PARDON A COMPARISON, 
PRESIDENT NIXON WAS SUBJECT TO 
ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT 
PREFERRED BY THIS COMMITTEE FOR 
ATTEMPTING TO COVER-UP THE 
WATERGATE BREAK-IN.
THE FACT THAT PRESIDENT NIXON 
WAS NOT SUCCESSFUL FOR BREAKING 
UP THE BREAK-IN IT NOT 
IMPEACHABLE.
THE ATTEMPT ITSELF IS THE ITCH 
PEOPLEABLE ACT. 
>> PROFESSOR KARLAN, DOES IT 
MATTER TO IMPEACHMENT THAT THE 
UNFOUNDED INVESTIGATIONS THE 
PRESIDENT SOUGHT WERE ULTIMATELY
NEVER ANNOUNCED?
>> NO, IT DOESN'T.
AND IF I COULD GIVE AN EXAMPLE 
THAT I THINK IT SHOWS WHY 
SOLICITING IS ENOUGH.
IMAGINE YOU WERE PULLED OVER FOR
SPEEDING BY THE POLICE OFFICER 
AND THE OFFICER COMES UP TO THE 
WINDOW AND SAYS, YOU WERE 
SPEEDING, BUT IF YOU GIVE ME 20 
BUCKS I'LL DROP THE TICKET.
AND YOU LOOK IN YOUR WALLET AND 
YOU SAY TO THE OFFICER, I DON'T 
HAVE THE 20 BUCKS.
AND THE OFFICER SAYS, OKAY, 
WELL, JUST GO AHEAD, HAVE A NICE
DAY.
THE OFFICER WOULD STILL BE 
GUILTY OF SOLICITING A BRIBE 
EVEN THOUGH HE ULTIMATELY LET 
YOU OFF WITHOUT YOUR PAYING.
SOLICITING ITSELF IS THE 
IMPEACHABLE OFFENSE REGARDLESS 
WHETHER THE OTHER PERSON COMES 
UP WITH IT.
SO, IMAGINE THE -- IMAGINE THAT 
THE PRESIDENT HAD SAID, WILL YOU
DO US A FAVOR, WILL YOU 
INVESTIGATE JOE BIDEN AND THE 
PRESIDENT OF UKRAINE SAID, YOU 
KNOW WHAT, NO, I WON'T BECAUSE 
WE'VE ALREADY LOOKED INTO THIS 
AND IT'S TOTALLY BASELESS.
THE PRESIDENT WOULD STILL HAVE 
COMMITTED AN IMPEACHABLE ACT 
EVEN IF HE HAD BEEN REFUSED 
RIGHT THERE ON THE PHONE.
SO, I DON'T SEE WHY THE 
ULTIMATE -- THE ULTIMATE 
DECISION HAS ANYTHING TO DO WITH
THE PRESIDENT'S IMPEACHABLE 
CONDUCT. 
>> WHAT'S THE DANGER IF CONGRESS
DOES NOT RESPOND TO THAT 
ATTEMPTED?
>> WELL, WE'VE ALREADY SEEN A 
LITTLE BIT OF IT WHICH IS HE 
GETS OUT ON THE WHITE HOUSE 
LAWN
AND SAYS, CHINA, I THINK YOU 
SHOULD INVESTIGATE JOE BIDEN. 
>> PROFESSOR GERHARDT, YOUR 
VIEW?
>> I AGREE EVERYTHING THAT'S 
BEEN SAID.
ONE OF THE THINGS TO UNDERSTAND 
FROM THE HISTORY OF IMPEACHMENT 
IS EVERYBODY WHO HAS IMPEACHED 
HAS FAILED.
THEY FAILED TO GET WHAT THEY 
WANTED.
WHAT THEY WANTED WAS NOT JUST TO
DO WHAT THEY DID BUT TO GET AWAY
WITH IT.
AND THE POINT OF IMPEACHMENT IS,
IT'S -- AND IT'S MADE POSSIBLE 
THROUGH INVESTIGATION, IS TO 
NOT -- IS TO CATCH THAT PERSON, 
CHARGE THAT PERSON AND 
ULTIMATELY REMOVE THAT PERSON 
FROM OFFICE.
BUT IMPEACHMENTS ARE ALWAYS 
FOCUSING ON SOMEBODY WHO DIDN'T 
QUITE GET AS FAR AS THEY WANTED 
TO.
NOBODY IS BETTER THAN PROFESSOR 
KARLAN AT HYPOTHETICALS BUT I'LL
DARE TO RAISE ANOTHER ONE.
IMAGINE A BANK ROBBERY AND THE 
POLICE COME AND THE PERSON'S IN 
THE MIDDLE OF THE BANK ROBBERY 
AND THE PERSON THEN DROPS THE 
MONEY AND SAYS, I -- I'M GOING 
TO LEAVE WITHOUT THE MONEY.
EVERYBODY UNDERSTANDS THAT'S 
BURGLARY -- THAT'S ROBBERY -- I 
MEAN, THAT'S BURGLARY.
I'LL GET IT RIGHT.
AND IN THIS SITUATION, WE HAVE 
SOMEBODY REALLY CAUGHT IN THE 
MIDDLE OF IT AND THAT DOESN'T 
EXCUSE THE PERSON FROM THE 
CONSEQUENCES.
>> PROFESSORS, WE'VE TALKED 
ABOUT ABUSE OF POWER AND 
Y
BRIBERY.
WHEN WE STARTED WE SAID WE WOULD
ALSO TALK ABOUT OBSTRUCTION OF 
CONGRESS.
I'LL 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, 
JUST TO 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.
THERE ARE FAR MORE THAN FOUR 
THIS PRESIDENT HAS FAILED TO 
COMPLY WITH AND HE ORDERED THE 
EXECUTIVE BRANCH AS WELL NOT TO 
COOPERATE WITH CONGRESS.
THOSE TOGETHER WITH A LOT OF 
OTHER EVIDENCE SUGGESTS 
OBSTRUCTION OF CONGRESS. 
>> PROFESSOR KARLAN, DO YOU 
AGREE?
>> I'M A SCHOLAR OF THE LAW OF 
DEMOCRACY.
AS A CITIZEN, I AGREE WITH WHAT 
PROFESSOR GERHARDT.
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 OBSTRUCTION OF 
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 
COORDINATE BRANCH OF GOVERNMENT.
HE ROBS THE HOUSE OF 
REPRESENTATIVES IT OF ITS BASIC 
CONSTITUTIONAL POWER OF 
IMPEACHMENT.
WHEN YOU ADD TO THAT THE FACT 
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 
COOPERATE IN AN IMPEACHMENT 
INQUIRY.
I DON'T THINK IT'S POSSIBLE TO 
EMPHASIZE THIS STRONGLY ENOUGH.
A PRESIDENT WHO WILL NOT 
COOPERATE IN AN IMPEACHMENT 
INQUIRY IS PUTTING HIMSELF ABOVE
THE LAW.
NOW, PUTTING YOURSELF ABOVE THE 
LAW AS PRESIDENT IS THE CORE OF 
AN IMPEACHABLE OFFENSE BECAUSE 
IF THE PRESIDENT COULD NOT BE 
IMPEACHED FOR THAT, HE WOULD, IN
FACT, NOT BE RESPONSIBLE TO 
ANYBODY.
>> SIR, IN FORMING YOUR OPINION,
DID YOU REVIEW THESE STATEMENTS 
FROM PRESIDENT TRUMP.
>> WE'RE FIGHTING ALL THE 
SUBPOENAS.
>> THEN I HAVE AN ARTICLE 2 
WHERE I HAVE THE RIGHT TO DO 
WHATEVER I WANT AS PRESIDENT.
>> I DID.
AND AS SOMEONE WHO CARES ABOUT 
THE CONSTITUTION, THE SECOND IN 
PARTICULAR STRUCK A KIND OF 
HORROR IN ME.
>> AND, PROFESSOR GERHARDT, IN 
FORMING YOUR OPINION THAT 
PRESIDENT TRUMP HAS COMMITTED 
THE IMPEACHABLE OFFENSE OF 
OBSTRUCTION OF CONGRESS, DID YOU
CONSIDER THE INTELLIGENCE 
COMMITTEE REPORT AND ITS 
FINDINGS INCLUDING FINDING NINE 
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
AFTER I SUBMITTED MY STATEMENT, 
BUT I WATCHED AND READ ALL OF 
THE TRANSCRIPTS THAT WERE 
AVAILABLE.
.
THE REPORT THAT WAS ISSUED 
REINFORCES EVERYTHING ELSE THAT 
CAME BEFORE IT.
SO, YES.
>> SO, WE TALKED FIRST ABOUT 
ABUSE OF POWER AND BRIBERY, AND 
THEN ABOUT OBSTRUCTION OF 
CONGRESS.
PROFESSOR GERHARDT, I WOULD LIKE
TO ASK YOU QUESTIONS ABOUT A 
THIRD IMPEACHABLE OFFENSE AND 
THAT IS OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE.
SIR, HAVE YOU FORMED AN OPINION 
AS TO WHETHER PRESIDENT TRUMP 
COMMITTED THE IMPEACHABLE 
OFFENSE OF OBSTRUCTION OF 
JUSTICE?
>> YES, I HAVE.
>> AND WHAT IS YOUR OPINION, 
SIR?
>> BASED ON -- SO, I'VE COME 
HERE LIKE EVERY OTHER WITNESS, 
ASSUMING THE FACTS THAT HAVE 
BEEN PUT TOGETHER IN OFFICIAL 
REPORTS.
THE MUELLER REPORT CITES A 
NUMBER OF FACTS THAT INDICATE 
THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED 
STATES OBSTRUCTED JUSTICE, AND 
THAT'S AN IMPEACHABLE OFFENSE. 
>> IN YOUR TESTIMONY, SIR, YOU 
POINTED OUT THAT THE MUELLER 
REPORT FOUND AT LEAST FIVE 
INSTANCES OF THE PRESIDENT'S 
OBSTRUCTION OF THE JUSTICE 
DEPARTMENT'S CRIMINAL 
INVESTIGATION INTO RUSSIAN 
INTERFERENCE IN THE 2016 
ELECTION, CORRECT?
>> YES, SIR.
>> AND THE FIRST OF THOSE 
INSTANCES WAS THE PRESIDENT 
ORDERING HIS THEN WHITE HOUSE 
COUNSEL, DON McGAHN, TO FIRE THE
SPECIAL COUNSEL RATHER THAN TO 
HAVE THE SPECIAL COUNSEL FIRED 
IN ORDER TO THWART THE 
INVESTIGATION OF THE PRESIDENT, 
CORRECT?
>> THAT IS CORRECT.
>> THE SECOND WAS THE PRESIDENT 
ORDERING MR. McGAHN TO CREATE A 
FALSE WRITTEN RECORD DENYING 
THAT THE PRESIDENT HAD ORDERED 
HIM TO HAVE MR. MUELLER REMOVED.
>> THAT'S CORRECT.
>> AND YOU ALSO POINT TO THE 
MEETING OF THE PRESIDENT WITH 
HIS FORMER CAMPAIGN MANAGER, 
COREY LEWANDOWSKI, TO GET HIM TO
TAKE STEPS IN ORDER TO HAVE THE 
INVESTIGATION CURTAILED. 
>> YES, I DID. 
>> AND YOU TALK ABOUT WITNESS 
DANGLING AS PAUL MANAFORT AND 
MICHAEL COHEN, FORMER CAMPAIGN 
OFFICIAL, FORMER PERSONAL LAWYER
OF THE PRESIDENT?
>> BOTH INDIVIDUALLY AND 
COLLECTIVELY, THESE ARE EVIDENCE
OF OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE.
>> HOW SERIOUS IS THAT EVIDENCE 
OF OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE, SIR?
>> IT'S QUITE SERIOUS.
THAT'S NOT ALL OF IT, OF COURSE.
WE KNOW, AS YOU'VE MENTIONED 
BEFORE, OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE 
HAS BEEN RECOGNIZED AS AN 
IMPEACHABLE OFFENSE AGAINST 
PRESIDENT NIXON AND PRESIDENT 
CLINTON.
THIS EVIDENCE PUT FORWARD BY 
MR. MUELLER THAT'S IN THE PUBLIC
RECORD 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 
AND 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 OUR ELECTION 
PROCESS IS THE ANTITHESIS THAT 
OUR FRAMERS -- WE AMERICANS 
DECIDE THE ELECTIONS.
WE DON'T WANT FOREIGN 
INTERFERENCE IN THE ELECTIONS.
THE REASON WE DON'T WANT FOREIGN
INTERFERENCE IN THE ELECTIONS IS
BECAUSE WE'RE A SELF-DETERMINING
DEMOCRACY.
IF I COULD READ ONE QUOTATION TO
YOU THAT I THINK IS HELPFUL IN 
UNDERSTANDING THIS, SOMEBODY 
WHOSE POINTING TO WHAT HE CALLS 
A STRAIGHTFORWARD PRINCIPLE.
IT IS FUNDAMENTAL TO THE 
DEFINITION OF OUR NATIONAL 
POLITICAL COMMUNITY THAT FOREIGN
CITIZENS DO NOT HAVE A 
CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO 
PARTICIPATE IN AND THUS MAY BE 
EXCLUDED FROM ACTIVITIES OF 
DEMOCRATIC SELF-GOVERNMENT.
THE PERSON WHO WROTE THOSE WORDS
IS NOW JUSTICE BRETT KAVANAUGH 
IN UPHOLDING THE 
CONSTITUTIONALITY OF A FEDERAL 
STATUTE THAT DENIES FOREIGN 
CITIZENS THE RIGHT TO 
PARTICIPATE IN OUR ELECTIONS BY 
SPENDING MONEY ON ELECTIONERRING
OR GIVING MONEY TO PACs.
THEY'VE BEEN LONG FORBIDDEN TO 
GIVE CONTRIBUTIONS TO 
CANDIDATES.
THE REASON IS BECAUSE THAT 
DENIES US OUR RIGHT TO 
SELF-GOVERNMENT.
AND THEN JUDGE, NOW JUSTICE 
BRETT KAVANAUGH WAS SO PROTECT 
IN SEEING THIS THAT THE SUPREME 
COURT, WHICH AS YOU KNOW HAS 
TAKEN CAMPAIGN FINANCE CASE 
AFTER CAMPAIGN FINANCE CASE TO 
TALK ABOUT THE FIRST AMENDMENT.
SUMMARILY AFFIRMED.
THEY DIDN'T EVEN NEED TO AARGUE 
TO KNOW TO KEEP FOREIGNERS OUT 
OF OUR ELECTION PROCESS. 
>> PROFESSOR FELDMAN, YOU WERE 
SORT OF 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 FOR ME WAS THE 
REVELATION OF THE JULY 25th CALL
AND THE EVIDENCE THAT EMERGED 
SUBSEQUENTLY OF THE PRESIDENT OF
THE UNITED STATES IN A FORMAT 
WHERE HE WAS HEARD BY OTHERS AND
NOW KNOWN TO THE WHOLE PUBLIC, 
OPENLY ABUSED HIS OFFICE BY 
SEEKING A PERSONAL ADVANTAGE IN 
ORDER TO GET HIMSELF RE-ELECTED 
AND ACT AGAINST THE NATIONAL 
SECURITY OF THE UNITED STATES.
THAT IS PRECISELY THE SITUATION 
THAT THE FRAMERS ANTICIPATED.
IT'S VERY UNUSUAL FOR THE 
FRAMERS' PREDICTIONS TO COME 
TRUE THAT PRECISELY.
AND WHEN THEY DO, WE HAVE TO ASK
OURSELVES, SOME DAY WE WILL NO 
LONGER BE ALIVE AND WE'LL GO 
WHEREVER IT IS WE GO.
THE GOOD PLACE OR THE OTHER 
PLACE.
AND, YOU KNOW, 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?
AND 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.
>> AND MY TIME HAS EXPIRED.
I YIELD BACK.
BEFORE I RECOGNIZE THE RANKING 
MEMBER FOR HIS ROUND -- FIRST 
ROUND OF QUESTIONS, THE 
COMMITTEE WILL STAND IN A 
TEN-MINUTE HUMANITARIAN RECESS.
I ASK EVERYONE IN THE ROOM TO 
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.
AND ONCE THE WITNESSES HAVE LEFT
THE HEARING ROOM, AT THIS TIME 
THE COMMITTEE WILL STAND IN A 
SHORT RECESS.
>> HOUSE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE IS 
TAKING A SHORT TEN-MINUTE BREAK.
THEY SHOULD BE BACK BY 12:20 
EASTERN OR SO.
WE MIGHT SEE COMMENTS FROM 
MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE.
WE HAVE CAMERAS WAITING THERE TO
GET THAT IF IT HAPPENS DURING 
THIS BREAK.
THEY'VE BEEN HEARING FROM FOUR 
LEGAL SCHOLARS ON THE 
CONSTITUTION AND IMPEACHMENT.
NOAH FELDMAN FROM HARVARD LAW 
SCHOOL, PAMELA KARLAN FROM 
STANFORD, MICHAEL GERHARDT FROM 
THE UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA
AND JONATHAN TURLEY FROM GEORGE 
WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY LAW 
SCHOOL.
ALL FOUR HAD OPENING STATEMENTS.
AND THEN FOR THE PAST 40 MINUTES
OR SO, THE QUESTIONING OF THE 
MAJORITY COUNSEL, NORM EISEN, 
PRINCIPALLY WITH THREE OF THE 
LEGAL SCHOLARS AND HIS 
QUESTIONING FOCUSING ON A COUPLE
OF AREAS.
ABUSE OF POWER -- ALLEGED ABUSE 
OF POWER BY PRESIDENT TRUMP, 
BRIBERY, OBSTRUCTION OF CONGRESS
AND OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE.
WHAT HAPPENS NEXT IS 45 MINUTES 
OF QUESTIONING FROM MINORITY AND
THEN MEMBER QUESTIONS.
THERE ARE 41 MEMBERS OF THE 
HOUSE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE, 24 
DEMOCRATS AND 17 REPUBLICANS.
>> FIRST TWO HOURS OF ONE-SIDED 
INFORMATION.
WE'RE READY TO GO BACK AT IT IN 
A MOMENT.
WE'LL BE PRESENTING BOTH SIDES.
ONE THING THAT'S IMPORTANT IS SO
MUCH HAS BEEN SAID OVER THE LAST
LITTLE BIT ABOUT THE ISSUES AND 
ALL INVOLVED.
NOW TO COME TO THIS THEORETICAL 
LAW SCHOOL OF WHAT THESE THINGS 
MEAN, I THINK THE AMERICAN 
PEOPLE ARE GETTING LOST.
THAT'S ONE THING WE'LL LOOK AT.
BUT IT BRINGS ME BACK TO THE 
QUESTION FOR MY CLARM, WHY ARE 
WE DOING THIS WITH NO PLAN TO GO
FORWARD WITH ACTUAL FACT 
WITNESSES, THAT COULD BE GOOD 
FOR THEM OR BAD FOR THEM, BUT 
WE'RE NOT DOING ANY OF THAT.
WE'RE STARTING OFF WITH AN 
ESOTERIC DISCUSSION.
I RESPECT THE LAW PROFESSORS.
BUT THIS DOES NOT MOVE THE 
NEEDLE UNDERSTANDING WHY WE'RE 
IN THE PROCESS TO START WITH.
IT'S BEEN AMAZING TO ME THAT THE
MAJORITY PARTY NOW HAS ALSO 
VOTED NOT TO CALL ADAM SCHIFF, 
ALSO NOT TO CALL THE 
WHISTLE-BLOWER AND THEY'VE PUT 
ON RECORD THEY'RE NOT INTERESTED
IN FACT WITNESSES.
THIS IS AN INTERESTING TIME.
WE'RE GETTING READY TO START 45 
MINUTES FROM OUR PERSPECTIVE.
I'LL TAKE A FEW QUESTIONS. 
>> CONGRESSMAN, DID YOU FIND 
ANYTHING THE LAW PROFESSORS SAID
COMPELLING WHEN THEY ARGUED THE 
SANCTITY OF U.S. ELECTIONS IS AT
STAKE HERE?
>> SEEING EVERYTHING THEY HAVE 
COME UP WITH AS FAR AS CRIMES 
WERE NEVER BROUGHT OUT IN THE 
OPENING HEARINGS AND BROUGHT 
FORWARD IN THE DISCUSSIONS WE 
SAW IN THE INTELLIGENCE 
COMMITTEE HEARINGS.
IT'S INTERESTING THEY'RE 
SPINNING THIS TO THE ELECTION.
I KNOW WHAT THEY'RE TRYING TO 
GET AT.
IT'S FALLING FLAT, ESPECIALLY 
SOME OF THE WITNESSES WERE ASKED
WAS THERE QUID PRO QUO?
BECAUSE IF YOU BRING IT FROM 
THERE, THAT'S WHAT THEY'RE 
TRYING TO SAY, THAT WAS THE 
INFLUENCE ON ELECTIONS.
EVEN WHEN YOU HAVE SONDLAND, WHO
AFTER HIS OPENING STATEMENT, HE 
MADE ONE STATEMENT UNDER DIRECT 
CROSS-EXAMINATION, NO, THAT WAS 
JUST MY PRESUMPTION.
HE CONTRADICTED HIMSELF.
IF YOU TAKE THAT AS FAULTY, THEN
YOU TAKE THE REST AS FAULTY AS 
WELL. 
>> DO YOU THINK -- DO YOU HAVE 
ANY CONCERN WHATSOEVER OF THE 
PRESIDENT ASKING A FOREIGN 
COUNTRY TO INVEST GAISH -- 
S
SOLICITING --
>> FROM YOUR HYPOTHETICAL 
POSITION I'M NOT GOING TO TAKE 
BECAUSE THE FACTS OF THE CASE 
ARE THE PRESIDENT DIDN'T DO 
THAT.
HE ASKED FOR CORRUPTION.
THIS IS A COUNTRY -- 
>> TO INVESTIGATE JOE BIDEN --
>> THIS IS A COUNTRY THAT HAS 
68% OF ITS PEOPLE IN IN A POLL 
IN THE LAST YEAR SAY THEY BRIBED
A PUBLIC OFFICIAL.
THIS IS A COUNTRY HE HAD DEEP 
CONCERNS ABOUT FROM THE 
BEGINNING.
REMEMBER, HE HAD CONCERN ABOUT 
FOREIGN AID.
THIS IS ONE COUNTRY IN 
PARTICULAR HE HAD A LOT OF 
CONCERN ABOUT.
AS WE MOVE FORWARD, WE'LL SEE 
HOW THIS WORKS OUT. 
>> THE WITNESSES TALKED ABOUT, 
AT LEAST MOST OF THEM, THERE 
WERE CERTAIN THINGS THEY SAW 
THAT THEY THOUGHT WERE ITCH 
PEOPLEABLE OFFENSES.
THEIR INTERPRETATION, READING 
THE CONSTITUTION.
IF THIS WASN'T, NOTHING WOULD 
BE. 
>> HOW DO YOU RESPOND TO THAT?
>> JONATHAN TURLEY.
YOU'VE HAD THREE WITNESSES 
SPENDING THE VAST MAJORITY OF --
WITHOUT INTERPRETATION.
THAT'S THE WAY THESE HEARINGS 
GO.
MR. TURLEY, DID HE WRITE 
SOMETHING?
DO YOU WANT A FOLLOW-UP?
COUNSEL SAID, NO, YES OR NO.
THE NEXT 45 MINUTES WILL BE A 
BALANCE.
THANK YOU SO MUCH.
>> REPORTERS HEARING FROM 
CONGRESSMAN DOUG COLLINS, 
RANKING REPUBLICAN ON THE HOUSE 
JUDICIARY COMMITTEE.
DOUG COLLINS HAD BEEN MENTIONED 
AS A POSSIBLE REPLACEMENT AS 
GEORGIA SENATOR.
WE'LL TELL YOU THAT IN A MOMENT.
SHEILA JACKSON LEE.
>> THE OTHER MEMBERS.
>> GOOD AFTERNOON.
THESE ARE SOME OF THE MEMBERS OF
THE HOUSE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE.
ALL OF THEM WILL COMMENT.
I WILL BEGIN BY INDICATING MY 
NAME, SHEILA JACKSON LEE, I 
SERVE ON THE HOUSE JUDICIARY 
COMMITTEE.
AND I BELIEVE WE HAVE BEGUN TO 
DO WHAT WE SET OUT TO DO.
WHICH IS TO TAKE THIS PROCEEDING
IN THE SOMBER AND SOBER MANNER 
THAT IT IS TO BE TAKEN AND TO 
SPEAK TO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE 
THROUGH CONSTITUTIONAL SCHOLARS 
ABOUT THE SANCTITY OF DEMOCRACY 
THAT CAN BE ONLY UPHELD IF THE 
RULE OF LAW IS UPHELD.
THE CONSTITUTIONAL SCHOLARS HAVE
REPEATEDLY INDICATED THAT THERE 
IS A CLEAR EQUATION OF ABUSE OF 
POWER BY THE SITTING PRESIDENT 
OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.
AND THE FRAMERS OF THE 
CONSTITUTION, FEARING KINGS AND 
FEARING HAVING A PERSON THAT 
WOULD NOT BE ON BEHALF OR SPEAK 
TO THE NEEDS OF THE AMERICAN 
PEOPLE WHO COULD NOT BE REMOVED.
AND THAT THE AUTHORITY TO DO SO 
WAS GIVEN TO THE HOUSE OF 
REPRESENTATIVES.
I THINK AS WE CLOSED, ONE OF THE
MOST INDICTING OR POWERFUL 
STATEMENTS WAS PROFESSOR FELDMAN
WHO SAID, WHAT WILL THE QUESTION
BE YEARS LATER WHEN THE ACTION 
OF IMPEACHMENT WAS NOT ACTED 
UPON?
AND THE PRESIDENT, A PRESIDENT, 
THE AMERICAN PEOPLE WILL ASK, 
WHY WAS THAT ACTION NOT TAKEN 
FOR A CLEAR INDICATION OF A 
VIOLATION OF THE RULE OF LAW AND
THE ABUSE OF POWER EXERCISED BY 
THIS PRESIDENT?
FINALLY, THERE ARE A NUMBER OF 
EVIDENCES WE HAVE BEFORE US.
THE MUELLER REPORT DETAILED 
EXTENSIVE ELEMENTS OF 
OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE, BUT THE 
INTELLIGENCE REPORT THAT JUST 
CAME OUT ALSO EVIDENCED 
OBSTRUCTION OF CONGRESS, 
OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE BUT IT 
ALSO FOCUSED ON SOMETHING DEAR 
TO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE AND 
SINGULARLY A RESPONSIBILITY OF 
THIS PRESIDENT.
AND THAT IS NATIONAL SECURITY.
AND UNFETTERED ELECTIONS AND SO 
IN THIS INSTANCE THE PRESIDENT 
HAS JEOPARDIZED THE NATIONAL 
SECURITY OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE 
AND AS WELL HAS JEOPARDIZED THE 
QUESTION OF WHETHER WE'LL HAVE 
FAIR AND HONEST ELECTIONS.
>> WALK US THROUGH WHAT THIS 
NEXT, YOU KNOW, MEETING WILL BE 
LIKE.
THE CHAIRMAN TALKED ABOUT HAVING
THE INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE AND 
OTHER COMMITTEES, PRESENT WHAT 
THEIR IDEAS WERE.
WHAT ELSE DO YOU NEED THEM TO DO
AND WHAT IS THAT FORMAT -- IS 
THAT A MEETING?
IS THAT A HEARING?
WHAT IS THAT?
>> LET ME NOT PREDICT THE FORMAT
AND THE FOCUS THAT THE CHAIRMAN 
IS NOW ESTABLISHING, BUT WE KNOW
THAT A PICTURE IS WORTH A 
THOUSAND WORDS.
WORDS ARE VALUABLE.
WE WANT TO SPEAK TO THE AMERICAN
PEOPLE.
THESE HEARINGS ARE TO ALLOW THE 
REPORTERS, THE INDIVIDUALS WHO 
MADE THIS REPORT, AND 
PARTICULARLY IN THE INTELLIGENCE
AREA, TO BE ABLE TO SPEAK TO THE
AMERICAN PEOPLE, THE COMMITTEES 
THAT WERE PART OF THE 
INVESTIGATEASPECT.
>> PROFESSOR TURLEY ARGUES 
EVERYBODY IS JUST MAD, DOESN'T 
RISE TO THE LEVEL OF IMPEACHABLE
OFFENSE.
HE MADE A STATEMENT THAT IT'S 
JUST AN ANGRY TIME FOR AN ANGRY 
COUNTRY. 
>> ARE YOU SPEAKING OF PROFESSOR
TURLEY?
>> YES. 
>> LET ME SAY THAT I SAW NO 
ANGER ON THE SIDE OF DEMOCRATS.
I SEE NO ANGER AMONGST 
REPUBLICANS AND DEMOCRATS.
70% OF THEM BELIEVE WHAT THE 
PRESIDENT DID IS WRONG.
WHEN I'M IN MY DISTRICT WHICH IS
UNIQUELY DIVERSE WITH 
REPUBLICANS AND DEMOCRATS AND 
INDEPENDENTS, I HEAR FROM A 
CROSS-SECTION WHO ARE STUNNED BY
THE ACTIONS AND MANY OF THEM 
SAY, WE HAVE TO DO OUR JOB.
SO I THINK IF WE DO OUR JOB IN 
THE CALMNESS OF WHICH WE ARE NOW
SEEKING TO DO, IF WE USE THAT 
LITTLE BOOK CALLED THE 
CONSTITUTION AND METHODICALLY GO
THROUGH THE QUESTIONS OF ABUSE 
OF POWER, AMERICANS UNDERSTAND 
THAT.
AND I THINK PROFESSOR KARLAN WAS
STUPENDOUS.
SHE WAS SPEAKING FROM THE 
UNDERSTANDING OF THE FRAMERS.
THE FRAMERS DID NOT HAVE A 
STATUTE.
THEY HAD COMMON LAW.
THEY UNDERSTOOD BRIBERY IS A 
VIOLATION OF THE PUBLIC TRUST.
I THINK IF WE KEEP OUR MESSAGE 
THAT IT IS NOT ABOUT US, IT IS 
ABOUT THE AMERICAN PEOPLE, WE 
WILL EASE AND SOOTHE THE 
FEELINGS OF ANGER BECAUSE IT 
WILL BE NOT ABOUT ANY ONE OF US 
PERSONALLY, IT WILL BE CLEARLY 
ABOUT THE AMERICAN PEOPLE.
THAT IS THE TRUST WE ATTEMPT TO 
ENGAGE TODAY.
I THINK WE MADE A STUPENDOUS 
STEP FORWARD WITH THE TESTIMONY 
THAT'S ALREADY BEEN GIVEN BY 
THESE SCHOLARS.
>> CAN WE JUST -- ONE THING I 
WANT TO SAY IS THE JUDICIARY 
COMMITTEE IS NOW IN RECEIPT OF A
DETAILED REPORT FROM THE 
INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE WHICH 
SETS FORTH RELEVANT FACTS AS IT 
RELATES TO THE UKRAINE SCANDAL.
THE PURPOSE IS TO EDUCATE THE 
COMMITTEE AND ALLOW THE AMERICAN
PEOPLE HEAR FROM THE 
CONSTITUTIONAL SCHOLARS OF THE 
STANDARD, THE STANDARD FOR HIGH 
CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS FOR 
BRIBERY, FOR ABUSE OF OFFICE.
WE'VE HEARD FROM WITNESSES TODAY
WHO SAY VERY CLEARLY, THIS 
PRESIDENT HAS COMMITTED 
IMPEACHABLE OFFENSES.
MANY WAYS, OUR FOUNDERS, THE 
REASON THEY WEREN'T PROPHETS 
REALLY IMAGINED THIS COULD 
HAPPEN.
FOREIGN GOVERNMENTS WOULD 
ATTEMPT TO INTERFERE IN OUR 
DEMOCRACY AND ATTACK THE MOST 
CENTRAL PART, THEY WARNED ABOUT 
THIS WHEN THEY ADOPTED THE 
ARTICLE OF IMPEACHMENT, OF THE 
GREATEST THREAT TO THE REPUBLIC 
WAS INTERFERENCE BY FOREIGN 
POWERS.
WE'RE SEEING THAT PLAY OUT IN 
THE CONDUCT OF PRESIDENT TRUMP.
AND THIS -- I THINK THIS HEARING
CONFIRMS THAT, CONFIRMS THE 
LEGAL STANDARD AND THE JUDICIARY
COMMITTEE WILL TAKE THIS AND 
MOVE FORWARD. 
>> ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT, 
SHOULD WE TAKE FROM THAT THAT'S 
WHAT THE COMMITTEE IS FOCUSING 
ON RIGHT NOW?
>> I DON'T THINK THE COMMITTEE 
IS FOCUSING ON SPECIFIC 
ARTICLES.
I THINK HE WAS TALKING ABOUT 
STANDARDS OF PROOF AND THE 
EVIDENCE THAT SUPPORTS 
CONSIDERATION OF PARTICULAR 
AREAS.
BUT I DON'T THINK THERE HAS BEEN
ANY DETERMINATION MADE WHETHER 
WE'LL MOVE FORWARD WITH ARTICLES
OF IMPEACHMENT, LET ALONE WHAT 
THEY'LL BE.
>> I THINK WHAT WE SAW THIS 
MORNING WAS REALLY IMPORTANT 
BECAUSE IT BROUGHT HOME THE 
CONDUCT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT WITH
RESPECT TO THIS PRESIDENT IS 
EXACTLY WHAT THE FRAMERS OF OUR 
CONSTITUTION WERE WORRIED ABOUT.
THEY WERE WORRIED ABOUT AN 
EXECUTIVE WHO WOULD ABUSE HIS 
OFFICE TO TRY TO GET ELECTED OR 
TO GET RE-ELECTED.
THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT'S HAPPENED 
HERE.
SO, I THINK IT WAS REALLY 
INSTRUCTIVE.
IT PULLS TOGETHER A LOT OF 
PIECES, I WOULD URGE ANYONE WHO 
IS INTERESTED IN WHY WE'RE AT 
THIS POINT TO LOOK AT THE 
TESTIMONY WE SAW FROM THESE 
EXPERTS THIS MORNING.
>> LET US GO BACK TO ONE POINT 
ABOUT TURLEY BECAUSE I WANT TO 
BE CRYSTAL CLEAR ABOUT WHAT HE 
DID SAY.
HE DID SPEAK TO THE ANGER IN THE
COUNTRY BUT HE ALSO SAID THE 
PRESIDENT'S CALL WAS LESS THAN 
PERFECT.
HE SAID THAT ASKING FOR AN 
INVESTIGATION INTO BIDEN WAS 
HIGHLY INAPPROPRIATE.
AND HE SAID IF THE FACTS OF A 
QUID PRO QUO ARE PROVEN TO BE 
TRUE, IT IS AN IMPEACHABLE 
OFFENSE.
SO, I WANT TO BE SURE THAT WE 
UNDERSTAND WHAT EVEN THE 
REPUBLICAN WITNESS IS SAYING 
ABOUT THE CONDUCT OF THE 
PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES. 
>> I JUST WANT TO ADD TO THAT.
THAT WAS THE CRUX OF HIS 
MESSAGE.
WHAT I WOULD SAY IS AMERICANS 
HAVE BEEN ANGRY IN TIMES PAST.
WARS MAKE US ANGRY.
VERY SENSITIVE POLITICAL ISSUES 
MAKE US ANG RESPECT.
I DO WANT TO SAY WE ARE A UNIQUE
COUNTRY.
WE HAVE FAITH.
I DO THINK AS THE AMERICAN 
PEOPLE LISTEN TO THE QUIET 
PRESENTATION OF THE SCHOLARS, 
THAT THEIR FAITH WILL INCREASE 
THAT WE WILL GET THROUGH THIS 
AND THAT THIS IS NOT GOING AFTER
ANYONE.
IT IS REALLY A TASK THAT IS 
ASSIGNED TO THE UNITED STATES 
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES AND OUR
FAITH.
OUR FAITH WILL GET US THROUGH.
I THINK THAT'S GOING TO RESPOND 
TO PROFESSOR TURLEY.
>> SOME OF THE HOUSE DEMOCRATIC 
MEMBERS OF THE JUDICIARY 
COMMITTEE.
WE HEARD FROM THE MINORITY -- 
THE RANKING REPUBLICAN ON THE 
COUNTY, DOUG COLLINS, WHO WAS 
NOT NAMED AS GEORGIA'S SENATOR.
GEORGE KEMP ANNOUNCING THIS 
AFTERNOON THAT KELLY LOFLER WILL
BE THE NEXT SENATOR FROM 
GEORGIA.
THE COMMITTEE WRAPPING UP A 
BREAK HERE, A SHORT BREAK.
WE EXPECT TO RESUME TESTIMONY 
SHORTLY.
THEY WILL HEAR FROM THE HOUSE 
REPUBLICAN COUNSEL.
FOLLOWING HIS 45 MINUTES OF 
QUESTIONING, THEY'LL BEGIN THE 
ROUND OF QUESTIONING FROM ALL 41
MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE.
>>> THE HE CAN WILL COME BACK TO
ORDER AFTER THE RECESS.
THE CHAIR NOW RECOGNIZES THE 
RANKING MEMBER FOR HIS FIRST 
ROUND OF QUESTIONS PURSUANT TO 
HOUSE RESOLUTION 660 THE RANKING
MEMBER OR HIS COUNSEL HAVE 45 
MINUTES TO QUESTION THE 
WITNESSES.
THE RANKING MEMBER.
>> THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN.
BEFORE I BEGIN ON THE 
QUESTIONING, I DO WANT TO 
REVISIT A COMMENT THAT WAS MADE 
EARLIER BY YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN, 
FOR A DEMAND FOR MINORITY 
HEARING DAY.
YOU SAID YOU WOULD RULE ON IT 
LATER.
I JUST WANTED TO REMIND YOU, THE
RULES OF THE HOUSE DO NOT PERMIT
A RULING ON THIS, THEY DON'T 
PERMIT A VOTE AND YOU CANNOT 
SHUT IT DOWN.
THE MINORITY IS A RIGHT RARELY 
EXERCISED BUT REGARDS MAJORITY 
EXCLUDING.
THE FAIR AND BALANCE RULE.
IT'S NOT THE CHAIRMAN'S RIGHT TO
DETERMINE WHETHER WE DESERVE A 
HEARING OR.
IT'S WANT THE CHAIRMAN'S RIGHT 
TO DECIDE WHAT WE SAY OR THINK 
IS ACCEPTABLE.
IT IS CERTAINLY NOT THE 
CHAIRMAN'S RIGHT TO VIOLATE THE 
RULES IN ORDER TO INTERFERE WITH
OUR RIGHTS TO CONDUCT A HEARING.
I JUST COMMEND MR. SENSENBRENNER
FOR BRINGING THAT FORWARD AND 
LOOK FORWARD TO THAT SCHEDULE --
YOU GETTING THAT SCHEDULED 
EXPEDITIOUSLY.
MOVING ON, INTERESTING PART.
NOW WE HIT PHASE TWO.
YOU'VE HAD ONE SIDE, ELOQUENTLY 
ARGUE I BY NOT ONLY COUNSEL AND 
THE WITNESSES INVOLVED BUT 
THERE'S ALWAYS A FACE TWO.
THE PHASE TWO IS WHAT IS 
PROBLEMATIC HERE.
WHAT I SAID IN MY OPENING 
STATEMENT, THIS IS FOR MANY THE 
MOST DISPUTED IMPEACHMENTS ON 
JUST THE FACTS THEMSELVES.
WHAT WAS INTERESTING IS WE 
ACTUALLY SHOWED VIDEOS OF 
WITNESSES.
IN FACT, ONE OF THEM WAS AN 
OPENING STATEMENT, I BELIEVE, 
WHICH, AGAIN, THE CLOSEST THING 
TO PERFECT OUTSIDE YOUR RESUME 
THIS SIDE OF HEAVEN IS AN 
OPENING STATEMENT, BECAUSE IT'S 
UNCHALLENGED.
I AGREE WITH THAT.
IT SHOULD BE.
WE'VE HAD GREAT WITNESSES HERE 
TODAY TO TALK ABOUT THIS.
BUT WE DIDN'T TALK ABOUT KURT 
VOLCKER, WHO SAID NOTHING ABOUT 
IT.
WE SAID NOTHING ABOUT THE AID 
BEING HELD UP.
MORRISON, WHO CONTRADICTED 
VINDMAN AND OTHERS.
WE'VE NOT DONE THAT.
I DON'T EXPECT THE MAJORITY TO 
BECAUSE THAT'S NOT WHAT THEY'RE 
HERE FOR.
THEY'RE NOT HERE TO GIVE 
EXCULPATORY EVIDENCE LIKE THE 
SCHIFF GIVES NO EXCULPATORY 
EVIDENCE.
WE STILL DON'T HAVE THE 
UNDERLYING STUFF THAT CAME FROM 
THAT INVESTIGATION ACCORDING TO 
HOUSE RULE 866 WE ARE SUPPOSED 
TO GET.
ONE IMPORTANT PART IS THE 
INSPECTOR GENERAL, HIS TESTIMONY
IS STILL BEING HELD.
THERE'S A QUOTE SECRET ON IT OR 
HOLDING IT IN CLASSIFICATION.
THE LAST TIME I CHECKED, WE HAVE
PLENTY OF PLACES IN THIS 
BUILDING AND OTHER BUILDINGS TO 
HANDLE CLASSIFIED INFORMATION IF
THEY STILL WANT TO DO THAT.
IT'S WITHHELD FROM US.
I HAVE TO BELIEVE NOW THERE'S A 
REASON IT'S WITHHELD.
UNDOUBTEDLY THERE'S A PROBLEM 
WITH IT.
WE'LL HAVE TO SEE AS THAT GOES 
FORWARD.
ANYBODY IN THE MEDIA WATCHING 
TODAY HAS PAINTED AN INTERESTING
PICTURE.
PICKING AND CHOOSING THE LAST 
FEW WEEKS TO TALK ABOUT.
THAT'S OKAY.
PROFESSOR TURLEY, YOU'RE NOW 
WELL RESTED.
YOU GOT ONE QUESTION.
YOU WERE GIVEN A YES OR NO.
ELABORATE ON THAT AND IF THERE'S
ANYTHING YOU HEARD THIS MORNING 
YOU WOULD DISAGREE WITH, I WOULD
ALLOW YOU TIME TO TALK.
FOR INFORMATION, MR. CHAIRMAN, 
THIS IS THE COLDEST HEARING ROOM
IN THE WORLD.
FOR THOSE WHO ARE WORRIED I'M 
UNCOMFORTABLE, UPSET, I'M AS 
HAPPY AS A LARK BUT THIS CHAIR 
IS TERRIBLE!
I MEAN, IT IS AMAZING.
BUT MR. TURLEY, GO AHEAD.
>> THERE'S A COUPLE OF THINGS I 
WANT TO HIGHLIGHT.
I RESPECT MY COLLEAGUES.
I KNOW ALL OF THEM.
I CONSIDER THEM FRIENDS.
I CERTAINLY RESPECT WHAT THEY 
HAVE SAID TODAY.
WE HAVE FUNDAMENTAL 
DISAGREEMENTS.
AND I'D LIKE TO START WITH THE 
ISSUE OF BRIBERY.
THE STATEMENT HAS BEEN MADE, NOT
JUST BY THESE WITNESSES BUT 
CHAIRMAN SCHIFF AND OTHERS THAT 
THIS IS A CLEAR CASE OF BRIBERY.
IT'S NOT.
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 HIS SUPPORTERS
THAT HIS CAREER WILL BE A SHORT 
ONE, THAT THERE IS NOT AN 
ORIGINALIST FUTURE IN THAT 
ARGUMENT.
THE BRIBERY THEORY BEING PUT 
FORWARD IS -- IN THE 18th 
CENTURY AS THIS STATEMENT.
THE STATEMENT MADE BY ONE OF MY 
ESTEEMED COLLEAGUES IS BRIBERY 
REALLY WASN'T DEFINED UNTIL MUCH
LATER.
THERE WAS NO BRIBERY STATUTE.
THAT IS CERTAINLY TRUE.
BUT IT OBVIOUSLY HAD A MEANING, 
THAT'S WHY THEY PUT IT IN THIS 
IMPORTANT STANDARD.
BRIBERY WAS NOT THIS OVERARCHING
CONCEPT.
THE ORIGINAL STANDARD WAS 
TREASON AND BRIBERY.
THAT LED MASON TO OBJECT THAT IT
WAS TOO NARROW.
IF BRIBERY COULD INCLUDE ANY 
TIME YOU DID ANYTHING FOR 
PERSONAL INTEREST INSTEAD OF 
PUBLIC INTEREST, IF YOU HAVE 
THIS OVERARCHING DEFINITION, 
THAT EXCHANGE WOULD HAVE BEEN 
COMPLETELY USELESS.
THE FRAMERS DIDN'T DISAGREE WITH
MASON'S VIEW THAT BRIBERY WAS 
TOO NARROW.
WHAT THEY DISAGREED WITH IS WHAT
HE SUGGESTED MAL-ADMINISTRATION 
TO ADD TO THE STANDARD BECAUSE 
HE WANTED IT TO BE BROADER.
WHAT JAMES MADISON SAID IS THAT 
THAT'S TOO BROAD, THAT WOULD 
ESSENTIALLY CREATE WHAT YOU 
MIGHT CALL A VOTE OF NO 
CONFIDENCE IN ENGLAND.
IT WOULD BASICALLY ALLOW 
CONGRESS TO TOSS OUT A PRESIDENT
THEY DID NOT LIKE.
ONCE AGAIN, WE'RE CHANNELLING 
THE INTENT OF THE FRAMERS.
THAT'S ALWAYS A DANGEROUS THING 
TO DO.
THE ONLY MORE DANGEROUS SPOT TO 
STAND IN IS BETWEEN CONGRESS AND
IMPEACHMENT AS AN ACADEMIC.
I WOULD OFFER INSTEAD THE WORDS 
OF THE FRAMERS THEMSELVES.
IN THAT EXCHANGE, THEY DIDN'T 
JUST SAY BRIBERY WAS TOO NARROW,
THEY ACTUALLY GAVE AN EXAMPLE OF
BRIBERY.
AND IT WAS NOTHING LIKE WHAT WAS
DESCRIBED.
WHEN THE OBJECTION WAS MADE BY 
MASON -- I'M SORRY, BY MADISON, 
ULTIMATELY THE FRAMERS AGREED.
AND THEN MORRIS, WHO WAS 
REFERRED TO EARLIER, DID SAY, WE
NEED TO ADOPT THE STANDARD.
WHAT WAS LEFT OUT IS WHAT CAME 
AFTERWARDS.
WHAT MORRIS SAID IS THAT WE NEED
TO PROTECT AGAINST BRIBERY 
BECAUSE WE DON'T WANT ANYTHING 
LIKE WHAT HAPPENED WITH LOUIS 
XVIV AND CHARLES II.
THE BRIBERY WAS OFFERING MONEY 
AS HEAD OF STATE.
WHAT HAD HAPPENED IN THAT 
EXAMPLE MORRIS GAVE AS HIS 
EXAMPLE OF BRIBERY IS THAT LOUIS
XIV, WHO WAS A BIT OF A 
RECIDIVIST WHEN IT CAME TO 
BRIBES, GAVE CHARLES II 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.
IT ALSO WAS AN EXCHANGE FOR HIM 
CONVERTING TO CATHOLICISM.
BUT THAT WASN'T SOME BROAD 
NOTION OF BRIBERY.
IT WAS ACTUALLY QUITE NARROW.
I DON'T THINK THAT DOG WILL HUNT
IN THE 18th CENTURY AND I DON'T 
THINK IT WILL HUNT TODAY, 
BECAUSE 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 A CASE CALLED McDONALD VERSUS
THE UNITED STATES, THE SUPREME 
COURT LOOKED AT A PUBLIC 
CORRUPTION 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 A 
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.
WHAT I WOULD CAUTION THE 
COMMITTEE, THESE CRIMES HAVE 
MEANING.
IT GIVES ME NO JOY TO DISAGREE 
WITH MY COLLEAGUES HERE.
AND I REALLY DON'T HAVE A DOG IN
THIS FIGHT.
BUT YOU CAN'T ACCUSE A PRESIDENT
OF BRIBERY AND THEN WHEN SOME OF
US NOTE THAT THE SUPREME COURT 
HAS REJECTED YOUR TYPE OF 
BOUNDLESS INTERPRETATION, SAY, 
WELL, IT'S JUST IMPEACHMENT.
WE REALLY DON'T HAVE TO PROVE 
THE ELEMENTS.
THAT'S A FAVORITE MANTRA.
IT'S CLOSE ENOUGH FOR JAZZ.
WELL, THIS ISN'T IMPROVISATIONAL
JAZZ.
CLOSE ENOUGH ISN'T GOOD ENOUGH.
IF YOU'RE GOING TO 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, WELL, 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 IN THE 
PREVIOUS IMPEACHMENTS.
THOSE WERE NOT JUST PROVEN 
CRIMES, THEY WERE ACCEPTED 
CRIMES.
THAT IS EVEN THE DEMOCRATS ON 
THAT -- ON THE JUDICIARY 
COMMITTEE AGREED THAT BILL 
CLINTON HAD COMMITTED PERJURY.
THAT'S ON THE RECORD.
AND A FEDERAL JUDGE LATER SAID 
IT WAS PERJURY.
IN THE CASE OF NIXON, THE CRIMES
WERE ESTABLISHED.
NO ONE SERIOUSLY DISAGREED WITH 
THOSE CRIMES.
NOW, JOHNSON IS THE OUTLIER 
BECAUSE JOHNSON WAS A TRAP DOOR 
CRIME.
THEY BASICALLY 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.
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, 
YOU --
>> NO, YOU'RE DOING A GOOD JOB.
GO AHEAD.
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.
WHAT MY ESTEEMED COLLEAGUE SAID 
IS CERTAINLY TRUE.
IF YOU ACCEPT ALL OF THEIR 
PRESUMPTIONS, IT WOULD BE 
OBSTRUCTION.
BUT IMPEACHMENTS HAVE TO BE 
BASED ON PROOF, 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.
HERE'S MY CONCERN.
THE THEORY BEING PUT FORWARD IS 
THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP OBSTRUCTED 
CONGRESS BY NOT TURNING OVER 
MATERIAL REQUESTED BY THE 
COMMITTEE.
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 CATCHES ON FIRE EVERY 
TIME SOMEONE MENTIONS THE THIRD 
ARTICLE.
WHY?
BECAUSE YOU WOULD BE REPLICATING
ONE OF THE WORST ARTICLES 
WRITTEN ON IMPEACHMENT.
HERE'S THE REASON WHY.
PETER RADINO'S POSITION AS 
CHAIRMAN OF JUDICIARYLE IS 
CONGRESS ALONE DECIDES WHAT 
INFORMATION MAY BE GIVEN TO IT.
ALONE.
AND HIS POSITION IS THE COURTS 
HAVE NO ROLE IN THIS.
AND SO IF ANY -- BY THAT THEORY,
ANY REFUSAL BY A PRESIDENT BASED
ON EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE OR 
IMMUNITIES WOULD BE THE BASIS OF
IMPEACHMENT.
THAT IS ESSENTIALLY THE THEORY 
BEING REPLICATED TODAY.
HE'S ALLOWED TO DO THAT.
WE HAVE THREE BRANCHES, NOT TWO.
I HAPPEN TO AGREE WITH SOME OF 
YOUR CRITICISM ABOUT PRESIDENT 
TRUMP, INCLUDING THAT EARLIER 
QUOTE WHERE MY COLLEAGUES TALKED
ABOUT HIS SAYING THAT THERE'S 
THIS ARTICLE 2 AND HE GIVES THIS
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 ANOTHER 
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 TALKED ABOUT?
SO, ON OBSTRUCTION I WOULD 
ENCOURAGE YOU TO THINK ABOUT 
THIS.
IN NIXON IT DID GO TO THE COURTS
AND NIXON LOST.
AND THAT WAS THE REASON NIXON 
RESIGNED.
HE RESIGNED A FEW DAYS AFTER THE
SUPREME COURT RULED AGAINST HIM 
IN THAT CRITICAL CASE, BUT IN 
THAT CASE, THE COURT RECOGNIZED 
THERE ARE EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE 
ARGUMENTS THAT CAN BE MADE.
IT DIDN'T SAY, YOU HAD NO IDEA 
COMING TO US.
DON'T DARKEN OUR DOORSTEP AGAIN.
IT SAID, WE'VE HEARD YOUR 
ARGUMENTS.
WE'VE HEARD CONGRESS'S 
ARGUMENTS.
YOU KNOW WHAT, YOU LOSE.
TURN OVER THE MATERIAL TO 
CONGRESS.
WHAT THAT DID FOR THE JUDICIARY 
IS THAT GAVE THIS BODY 
LEGITIMACY.
IT WASN'T THE RODINO EXTREME 
POSITION THAT ONLY YOU DECIDE 
WHAT INFORMATION CAN BE 
PRODUCED.
RECENTLY THERE ARE RULINGS 
AGAINST PRESIDENT TRUMP, 
INCLUDING A RULING INVOLVING DON
McGAHN.
MR. CHAIRMAN, I TESTIFIED IN 
FRONT OF YOU A FEW MONTHS AGO 
AND 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 THIS COMMITTEE BECAUSE I
DON'T AGREE WITH PRESIDENT 
TRUMP'S ARGUMENT IN THAT CASE.
THAT'S AN EXAMPLE OF WHAT CAN 
HAPPEN IF YOU ACTUALLY SUBPOENA 
WITNESSES AND GO TO COURT.
THEN YOU HAVE AN OBSTRUCTION 
CASE BECAUSE A COURT ISSUES AN 
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 EXACTLY WHAT YOU'RE
CRITICIZING THE PRESIDENT OF 
DOING.
WE HAVE A THIRD BRANCH THAT 
DEALS WITH CONFLICTS OF THE 
OTHER TWO BRANCHES.
WHAT COMES OUT OF THERE AND WHAT
YOU DO WITH IT IS THE VERY 
DEFINITION OF LEGITIMACY.
>> LET'S CONTINUE ON.
LET'S UNPACK WHAT YOU'VE BEEN 
TALKING ABOUT.
FIRST OF ALL, THE McDONALD CASE,
HOW WAS THAT DECIDED?
WAS THAT A REALLY SPLIT COURT?
WERE THEY TORN ABOUT THAT?
THAT CASE CAME OUT HIGH?
>> YEAH, IT CAME OUT UNANIMOUS.
SO DID A COUPLE OF THE OTHER 
CASES I CITE IN MY TESTIMONY, 
WHICH ALSO REFUTE THESE CRIMINAL
THEORIES. 
>> ONE THING THAT YOU SAID ALSO,
AND I THINK IT COULD BE SUMMED 
UP, AND I USE IT SOMETIMES, 
WHAT'S THE LAYMEN'S LANGUAGE 
HERE IS FACTS DON'T MATTER.
THAT'S WHAT I HEARD A LOT IN 45 
MINUTES.
IF THIS, IF THAT, IT RISES TO AN
IMPEACHMENT LEVEL.
THAT IS SORT OF WHAT YOU'RE 
SAYING, CRIMES, I THINK YOUR 
WORD WAS, CRIMES HAVE MEANING 
AND I THINK THIS IS THE CONCERN 
THAT I HAVE.
IS THERE A CONCERN THAT WE SAY 
FACTS DON'T MATTER WE'RE ALSO, 
AS YOU SAY, ABUSING OUR POWER AS
WE GO FORWARD AND ACTUALLY 
LOOKING AT WHAT PEOPLE WOULD 
DEEM AS AN IMPEACHABLE OFFENSE?
>> I THINK SO.
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, A
RATHER THAN 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 A COURT HAD 
ABSOLUTELY NO ROLE IN 
DETERMINING WHETHER HE COULD 
WITHHOLD THE EVIDENCE.
>> YOU HAVE A QUESTION ON THAT.
YOU BROUGHT UP MR. OBAMA AND 
BROUGHT UP OTHER PRESIDENTS IN 
THIS PROCESS.
IS THERE NOT AN OBLIGATION BY 
THE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT, 
WE'LL JUST USE THAT TERM, NOT TO
BE OBAMA, TRUMP, CLINTON, 
ANYBODY.
ISN'T THERE AN OBLIGATION BY THE
PRESIDENT TO ACTUALLY ASSERT THE
CONSTITUTIONAL PRIVILEGES OR 
AUTHORITIES THAT HAVE BEEN GIVEN
OR WHEN ACCUSED OF SOMETHING, A 
CRIME OR ANYTHING ELSE?
>> YEAH.
I THINK PRESIDENT OBAMA HAS 
INVOKED TOO BROADLY.
ON THE OTHER HAND, HE HAS 
ACTUALLY RELEASED A LOT OF 
INFORMATION.
I'VE BEEN FRIENDS WITH BILL BARR
FOR A LONG TIME.
WE DISAGREE ON EXECUTIVE 
PRIVILEGE.
I'M A MADISONIAN SCHOLAR.
I TEND TO FAVOR CONGRESS IN 
DISPUTES.
AND HE IS THE INVERSE.
HIS NATURAL DEFAULT IS ARTICLE 
2.
MY NATURAL DEFAULT IS ARTICLE 1.
BUT HE ACTUALLY HAS RELEASED 
MORE PRIVILEGED INFORMATION THAN
ANY ATTORNEY GENERAL IN MY 
LIFETIME, INCLUDING THE MUELLER 
REPORT, THESE TRANSCRIPTS OF 
THESE CALLS WOULD BE CORE 
EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE MATERIAL.
THERE'S NO QUESTION ABOUT THAT.
>> THAT'S SOMETHING THAT'S NOT 
POINTED OUT WHEN YOU'RE DOING A 
BACK AND FORTH LIKE WE'RE DOING.
THE TRANSCRIPT OF THE CALL 
RELEASED, THE THINGS RELEASED 
WITH MUELLER.
THERE HAVE BEEN WORK IN PROGRESS
BY THIS ADMINISTRATION.
I THINK THE INTERESTING POINT I 
WANT TO TALK ABOUT IS TWO WHAT S
CONGRESS' OWN ABUSE OF THE POWER
HERE INTERNALLY WHERE WE HAVE 
HAD COMMITTEES NOT LETTING TO 
HAVE THE MEMBERS SEE TRANSCRIPTS
AND NOT WILLING TO GIVE THOSE UP
UNDER THE GUISE OF IMPEACHMENT 
OR YOU SHOULD NOT BE ABLE TO SEE
THEM, BUT THE RULES OF THE HOUSE
WERE NEVER INVOKED TO SEE THAT. 
AND WHAT I ALSO WANT TO TALK 
ABOUT IS THE TIMING ISSUE, AND 
WE HAVE TALKED ABOUT THIS WITH 
THE MUELLER REPORT, AND 
EVERYTHING ELSE. 
AND I SAID, THIS IS THE CLOCK 
AND THE CALENDAR ARE SEEMINGLY 
DOMINATED THIS IRREGARDLESS OF 
WHAT ANYBODY ON THIS COMMITTEE 
AND ESPECIALLY THE MEMBERS NOT 
ON THIS COMMITTEE ARE WHAT WE 
ARE SEEING OF THE FACT WITNESSES
AND PEOPLE MOVING FORWARD AND WE
DON'T HAVE THAT YET, AND THE 
QUESTION BECOMES, IS AN ELECTION
PENDING WHEN FACTS ARE IN 
DISPUTE AND YOU MADE A MENTION 
OF THIS, AND THIS IS IN ONE IN 
WHICH THE FACTS ARE NOT 
UNANIMOUS, AND THERE IS NOT 
UNIVERSAL OR BIPARTISAN 
AGREEMENT OF THE FACTS OF WHAT 
THEY LEAD TO WHEN THERE IS 
EXCULPATORY REPORTS, AND NOT IN 
THE SCHIFF REPORT, BUT IN THE 
OTHER REPORTS, AND DOES THAT 
BOTHER YOU FROM A HISTORICAL 
POINT OF VIEW?
>> YES, FAST AND NARROW IS NOT A
GOOD IDEA WITH IMPEACHMENT. 
THEY TEND NOT TO SURVIVE AND 
THEY COLLAPSE. 
THIS IS THE HIGHEST STRUCTURE 
UNDER THE CONSTITUTION, AND 
UNDER THE IMPEACHMENT, YOU HAVE 
TO HAVE A FOUNDATION BROAD 
ENOUGH TO SUPPORT IT. 
IT IS THE NARROWEST IMPEACHMENT 
IN HISTORY, AND JOHNSON MAY NOT 
HAVE THE FASTEST IMPEACHMENT, 
AND JOHNSON IS WHAT HAPPENED TO 
JOHNSON THE ACTUALLY THE FOURTH 
IMPEACHMENT ATTEMPTED AGAINST 
JOHNSON AND OBVIOUSLY, THE 
RECORD GOES BACK A YEAR BEFORE 
AND THEY LAID THE TRAP DOOR A 
YEAR BEFORE SO IT IS NOT AS FAST
AS IT MIGHT APPEAR. 
>> AND AGAIN, LET'S GO BACK TO 
SOMETHING ELSE THAT YOU TALKED 
ABOUT BRIBERY, AND I WANTED TO 
HAVE MR. TAYLOR ADDRESS A GOOD 
BIT OF THAT, BUT I WANTED TO GO 
BACK TO SOMETHING THAT IS BOTHER
THE PERCEPTION OUT OF WHAT IS 
GOING ON HERE AND THE DISPUTED 
TRANSCRIPT AND BEING THAT THE 
CALL HAS BEEN LAID OUT THERE AND
THE PRESIDENT SAID I WANT 
NOTHING OF THIS, AND ALL OF THE 
EXCULPATORY INFORMATION, AND IT 
GOES BACK TO WHAT CRIMES MATTER 
AND THE DEFINITION OF THIS, BUT 
THE HOUSE BEGAN ACCUSING THE 
PRESIDENT QUID PRO QUO, AND THEN
THEY USED A FOCUS POLL GROUP AND
THEN IT DIDN'T POLL WELL SO THEY
CHANGED IT TO BRIBERY AND SO IS 
THAT MORE OF THE CRIMES DO 
MATTER AND THE FACTS OF THE CASE
DO MATTER?
>> YES. 
THERE IS A REASON THAT EVERY 
PAST IMPEACHMENT HAS ESTABLISHED
CRIMES, AND IT IS OBVIOUS AND 
NOT THAT YOU CAN'T IMPEACH ON A 
NONCRIME, AND YOU K AND IN FACT,
NONCRIMES HAVE BEEN PART OF PAST
IMPEACHMENTS, BUT IT IS JUST 
THAT THEY HAVE NEVER GONE UP 
ALONE OR PRIMARILY AS THE BASIS 
OF IMPEACHMENT, AND THAT IS THE 
PROBLEM HERE. 
IF YOU PROVE A QUID PRO QUO, 
THAT YOU MIGHT HAVE AN 
IMPEACHABLE OFFENSE, BUT TO GO 
UP ONLY ON THE NONCRIMINAL CASE 
WOULD BE THE FIRST TIME IN 
HISTORY, AND SO WHY IS THAT THE 
CASE?
THE REASON IS THAT CRIMES HAVE 
AN ESTABLISHED DEFINITION IN 
CASE LAW, AND SO THERE IS A 
CONCRETE INDEPENDENT BODY OF LAW
THAT ASSURING THE POLITICAL THAT
THIS IS SOMETHING THEY CANNOT 
DO, AND YOU CANNOT SAY THAT THE 
PRESIDENT IS ABOVE THE LAW IF 
YOU THEY THE CRIMES THEY ACCUSE 
YOU OF DON'T HAVE TO BE 
ESTABLISHED. 
>> THAT IS THE PROBLEM RIGHT NOW
THAT MANY MEMBERS OF THE HOUSE 
AND THE BODY AND THE AMERICAN 
PUBLIC ARE LOOKING AT THAT IF 
YOU SAY HE IS ABOVE THE LAW, BUT
YOU DON'T DEFIANT OR DEFINE IF 
FACTS TO WHATEVER YOU WANT TO 
HAVE IS THE ULTIMATE RAILROAD 
THAT EVERYBODY IN THE COUNTRY 
SHOT NO BE AFFORDED. 
EVERYBODY IS AFFORDED DUE 
PROCESS AND THE RIGHT TO HAVE 
THEIR CASE HEARD, AND WE HAVE 
SEEN IT VOTED DOWN NOT TO LOOK 
AT CERTAIN FACT WITNESSES AND 
NOT PROMISED OTHER HEARINGS IN 
WHICH THIS COMMITTEE AND THE 
WORDS ECHOED ALMOST 20 YEARS AGO
THAT THE CHAIRMAN DID NOT WANT 
TO TAKE THE ADVICE OF ANY OTHER 
BODY TO GIVE US A REPORT AND ACT
AS A RUBBER STAMP IF WE DID 
AND THE ISSUE GOING FORWARD IS 
WHY THE RUSH?
WHY DO WE STILL NOT HAVE THE 
INFORMATION FROM THE 
INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE?
WHY IS THE INSPECTOR GENERAL'S 
REPORT STILL BEING WITHHELD IN A
CLASSIFIED SETTING. 
THESE ARE THE PROBLEMS THAT YOU 
HAVE HIGHLIGHT AND NEED TO BE 
AND THAT IS WHY THE NEXT 45 
MINUTES AND THE REST OF THE DAY 
IS APPLICABLE, BECAUSE BOTH 
SIDES MATTERS, AND AT THE END OF
THE DAY, THIS IS THE FASTEST 
IMPEACHMENT, AND THE FASTEST WE 
HAVE SEEN BASED ON DISPUTED 
FACT, AND WITH THAT I WANT TO 
TURN IT OVER THE MY COUNSEL MR. 
MAY OR THE. 
 -- MR. TAYLOR. 
>> PROFESSOR TURLEY, I'D LIKE TO
TURN TO THE SUBJECT OF 
PARTISANSHIP AS THE FOUNDERS 
FEARED IT AND AS IT IS TODAY.
IT IS A SITUATION THAT ALEXANDER
HAMILTON WAS CONCERNED ABOUT, 
AND HE WROTE PRESCIENT WORDS IN 
PAGE 65 IN THE RATIFICATION OF 
THE FEDERALIST PAPERS IN THE 
CONSTITUTION BEING RATIFIED THAT
PRINCIPALLY HAMILTON AND ALSO 
SAID THAT IT WILL PRE-EXIST IN 
THE FACTIONS AND ENLIST ALL OF 
THEIR ANIMOSITIES, PARTIALITIES 
AND INTERESTS ON ONE SIDE WHERE 
ON THE OTHER IN SUCHCATIONS THE 
DANGER IS RELATING TO THE 
COMPAATIVE STRENGTH OF THE 
PARTIES. 
AND SO PROFESSOR TURLEY, DO YOU 
THINK THAT HAMILTON REPRESENTED 
A HIGH PARTISAN NATURE OF 
IMPEACHMENTS?
>> THAT IS THE CASE IN THE TWO 
IMPEACHMENTS THAT WE HAVE SEEN. 
IT IS IMPORTANT TO NOTE THAT WE 
THINK THAT OUR TIMES ARE UNIQUE.
THIS PROVISION WAS NOT JUST 
WRITTEN FOR TIMES LIKE OURS, BUT
IT WAS WRITTEN IN TIMES LIKE 
OURS, AND IN THAT THESE ARE THE 
PEOPLE WHO ARE EVEN MORE SEVERE 
THAN THE RHETORIC TODAY. 
I MEAN, YOU HAVE TO KEEP IN MIND
THAT JEFFERSON REFERRED TO THE 
ADMINISTRATION OF THE FEDERALIST
AS THE REIN OF THE WITCHES, AND 
THIS IS A PERIOD WHEN THEY 
DIDN'T HAVE STRONG FEELINGS. 
AND TALKING ABOUT PEOPLE WHO 
WANTED TO KILL EACH OTHER, AND 
BACK THEN, THEY WERE TRYING TO 
KILL EACH OTHER. 
THAT IS WHAT THE SEDITION LAWS 
WERE ABOUT, PEOPLE WERE TRYING 
TO KILL YOU IF THEY DISAGREED 
WITH YOU, BUT THERE WAS NOT A 
SLEW OF IMPEACHMENTS, AND THAT 
IS A LESSON THAT CAN BE TAKEN 
FROM THAT PERIOD. 
THE FRAMERS CREATED A STANDARD 
THAT WOULD NOT BE ENDLESSLY 
FLUID AND FLEXIBLE, AND THAT 
STANDARD HAS KEPT US FROM 
IMPEACHMENTS DESPITE THE PERIODS
IN WHICH WE HAVE DESPISED EACH 
OTHER, AND THAT IS THE MOST 
DISTRESSING THING FOR MOST OF US
TODAY IS THAT THERE IS SO MUCH 
MORE RAGE THAN REASON. 
YOU CAN'T EVEN TALK ABOUT THESE 
ISSUES WITHOUT PEOPLE SAYING, 
YOU MUST BE IN FAVOR OF THE 
UKRAINIANS TAKING OVER THE 
COUNTRY. 
OR THE RUSSIANS MOVING INTO THE 
WHITE HOUSE. 
AT SOME POINT AS A PEOPLE, WE 
HAVE TO HAVE A SERIOUS 
DISCUSSION ABOUT THE GROUNDS TO 
REMOVE A DULY ELECTED PRESIDENT.
>> PROFESSOR TURLEY, YOU SAID IN
THE TESTIMONY THAT WHEN IT COMES
TO IMPEACHMENT WE DON'T NEED 
HAPPY IDEOLOGICAL WARRIORS, BUT 
CIRCUMSPECT LEGAL ANALYSIS. 
LET'S LOOK AT THE PARTISAN 
LANDSCAPE ON WHICH THIS IS 
WAGED.
THE DEMOCRATIC LEADERS PUSHING 
THE IMPEACHMENT ARE PUSHING THE 
FAR LEFT COASTAL AREAS OF THE 
COUNTRY, AND THE BAR GRAPHS ARE 
SHOWING THE TOTAL VOTES CAST, 
AND THE MARGIN OF THE WINNER THE
2016 ELECTION. 
AND YOU CAN SEE THE PARTS OF THE
COUNTRY FOR THESE IMPEACHMENT 
LEADERS VOTED OVERWHELMINGLY FOR
HILLARY CLINTON IN THE 2016 
ELECTION, AND ALSO IN THE 2016 
ELECTIONS LAWYER CONTRIBUTIONS 
WERE 10% FOR CLINTON AND 3% FOR 
TRUMP AND THE SITUATION IS 
ESSENTIALLY THE SAME AT LAW 
SCHOOLS AROUND THE COUNTRY, 
INCLUDING THOSE REPRESENTED ON 
THE PANEL HERE TODAY.
AND PROFESSOR TURLEY, I'D LIKE 
TO TURN TO THE PARTISAN PROCESS 
THAT IDENTIFIES THESE 
IMPEACHMENT PROCEEDINGS.
THIS IS HOW THE NIXON PROCEDURE 
WAS IDENTIFIED IN THE STAFF 
REPORT. 
YOU WERE TALKING ABOUT THE 
INITIATION OF THE IMPEACHMENT 
INQUIRY.
IT IS NOT PARTISAN AND SUPPORTED
BY THE OVERWHELMING MAJORITY OF 
THE POLITICAL PARTIES, AND IT 
WAS. 
REGARDING THE AUTHORIZATION OF 
THE CLINTON IMPEACHMENT, IT WAS 
SUPPORTED BY ALL REPUBLICANS AND
31 DEMOCRATS, AND FAST FORWARD 
TO THE CURRENT IMPEACHMENT. 
THE HOUSE DEMOCRAT TRUMP 
IMPEACHMENT WAS APPROVED ONLY BY
DEMOCRATS AND INDEED OVER THE 
OPPOSITION OF TWO DEMOCRATS ALL 
REPUBLICANS. 
PROFESSOR TURLEY, HOW DOES THIS 
TREND COMFORT WITH HOW THE 
FOUNDERS UNDERSTOOD HOW 
IMPEACHMENT SHOULD OPERATE?
>> I THINK THAT THE FOUNDERS HAD
ASPIRATIONS TO COME TOGETHER AS 
A PEOPLE, BUT THEY DID NOT HAVE 
DELUSIONS OR ANYTHING THAT THEY 
ACHIEVED IN THEIR LIFETIME. 
AND YOUB SURPRIS YOU WOULD BE S 
AT END OF THEIR LIVES JEFFERSON 
AND ADAMS DID RECONCILE THAT 
SOME 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, AND THEY 
WANTED TO RECONCILE BEFORE THEY 
DIED. 
THEY MET AND THEY DID. 
AND MAYBE THAT IS SOMETHING THAT
WE CAN LEARN FROM, BUT I THINK 
THAT THE GREATER THING THAT I 
WOULD POINT TO IS THE SEVEN 
REPUBLICANS IN THE JOHNSON 
IMPEACHMENT. 
IF I COULD READ ONE THING TO 
YOU. 
AND EVERYONE OFTEN TALKS ABOUT 
ONE OF THE SENATORS, BUT NOT 
THIS ONE. 
AND THAT IS LYMAN TRUMBALL WHO 
WAS A FANTASTIC SENATOR AND HE 
BECAME A GREAT ADVOCATE FOR 
CIVIL LIBERTIES AND MOST OF THE 
SENATORS WHEN IT WAS SAID THAT 
THEY JUMPED INTO THEIR POLITICAL
GRAVES, IT WAS TRUE. 
MOST OF THEIR POLITICAL CAREERS 
ENDED AND THEY KNEW THAT IT 
WOULD END BECAUSE OF THE 
ANIMOSITY OF THE PERIOD. 
TRUMBALL SAID THE FOLLOWING. 
HE SAID, ONCE THIS SET THE 
EXAMPLE OF IMPEACHING A 
PRESIDENT FOR WHAT, AND WHEN THE
EXCITEMENT OF THE HOUR SHALL 
HAVE SUBSIDED, IT IS GOING TO BE
REGARDED AS INSUFFICIENT CAUSES 
AND NO FUTURE PRESIDENT IS SAFE 
WITH THE MAJORITY OF THE HOUSE 
AND THE 2/3 OF THE SENATE. 
I TREMBLE FOR THE FUTURE OF THE 
COUNTRY AND I CANNOT BE AN 
INSTRUMENT TO PRODUCE SUCH A 
RESULT, AND THE HAZARDS OF 
AFFECTION FOR CALMER TIMES SHALL
DO JUSTICE TO MY MOTIVES, NO 
ALTERNATIVES ARE LEFT TO ME. 
HE PROCEEDED TO GIVE THE VOTE 
THAT ENDED HIS CAREER. 
YOU CAN'T WAIT FOR CALMER TIMES.
THE TIME FOR YOU IS NOW. 
AND I WOULD SAY THAT WHAT 
TRUMBALL SAID IS EVEN MORE 
BEARING TODAY, BECAUSE I BELIEVE
THAT THIS IS MUCH LIKE THE 
JOHNSON IMPEACHMENT, AND IT IS 
MANUFACTURED UNTIL YOU BUILD A 
RECORD. 
I AM NOT SAYING THAT YOU CAN'T 
BUILD A RECORD, BUT YOU CAN'T DO
IT LIKE THIS, AND YOU CAN'T 
IMPEACH A PRESIDENT LIKE THIS. 
>> PROFESSOR TURLEY, THERE IS A 
RECENT BOOK ON IMPEACHMENT BY 
HARVARD PROFESSORS WHO 
CONSIDERED A LEGITIMATE 
IMPEACHMENT PROCESS AND IT IS 
ANTI-TRUMP AND CALLED "THE END 
THE PRESIDENCY" AND THE AUTHORS 
SAY THAT WHEN IMPEACHMENT IS 
PARTISAN, IT STAYS THAT WAY. 
AND WHEN ONLY THE REPUBLICANS OR
THE DEMOCRATS JUSTIFY THE 
REMOVAL, THERE IS A STRONG RISK 
THAT PARTISAN ANIMUS HAVE 
OVERTAKEN THE PROPER MEASURE OF 
CONGRESSIONAL IMPARTIALITY, AND 
WE CAN EXPECT THAT OPPOSITION 
LEAD FORCE THE PRESIDENT WILL BE
PUSHED TO IMPEACH AND SUFFER 
INTERNAL BLOWBACK IF THEY DON'T,
AND THE KEY QUESTION IS IF THEY 
WILL CAVE TO THE PRESSURE, AND 
ONE RISK OF THE BROKEN POLL 
STICKS IS THAT THE HOUSE WILL 
UNDERTAKE MANY IMPEACHMENTS 
WHICH IS DANGEROUS TO THE HOUSE 
AS A WHOLE. 
IS THAT WHAT IS HAPPENING HERE?
>> NOT ON THIS SCHEDULE. 
AND ONE THING THAT COMES OUT OF 
THE IMPEACHMENTS IN TERMS OF 
WHAT BIPARTISAN SUPPORT OCCURRED
AND THIS IS THAT IMPEACHMENT 
REQUIRED PERIODS OF SATURATION 
AND MATURATION. 
I AM NOT PREJUDGING WHAT YOUR 
RECORD WOULD SHOW, BUT IF YOU 
RUSH THIS IMPEACHMENT, YOU ARE 
GOING TO LEAVE HALF OF THE 
COUNTRY BEHIND, AND CERTAINLY 
THAT IS NOT WHAT THE PRESIDENT, 
WHAT THE FRAMERS WANTED. 
YOU TO GIVE THE TIME TO BUILD A 
RECORD. 
THIS IS NOT AN IMPULSE BUY ITEM.
YOU ARE TRYING TO REMOVE A 
DULY-ELECTED PRESIDENT OF THE 
UNITED STATES, AND THAT TAKING 
TIME AND WORK. 
AND IF YOU ARE LOOKING AT 
RICHARD NIXON AND THAT IS A GOLD
STANDARD AND THEY DID CATCH UP, 
AND THEY ORIGINALLY DID NOT 
SUPPORT IMPEACHMENT, AND THEY 
CHANGED THEIR MINDS AND YOU 
CHANGED THEIR MIND AND SO DID 
THE COURTS BECAUSE YOU ALLOWED 
THE ISSUES TO BE HEARD IN THE 
COURTS. 
>> PROFESSOR TURLEY, THE NIXON 
AND CLINTON IMPEACHMENTS WERE 
DEBATED SOLIDLY ON THE HIGH 
CRIMES CATEGORY?
>> YES. 
>> CRIMES WERE AT ISSUE, BUT ON 
THE EVIDENCE PRESENTED SO FAR, 
IS THERE ANY CREDIBLE EVIDENCE 
THAT ANY CRIME WAS COMMITTED BY 
PRESIDENT TRUMP?
>> YES, I HAVE GONE THROUGH ALL 
OF THE CRIMES MENTIONED, AND 
THEY DO NOT MEET ANY REASONABLE 
INTERPRETATION OF THE CRIMES AND
I AM LYING ON THE EXPRESS 
SENTIMENTS OF THE COURT. 
THE STATUTES ARE BROAD, BUT IT 
IS NOT THE CONTROLLING LANGUAGE,
IT IS THE LANGUAGE OF THE 
INTERPRETATION OF THE FEDERAL 
COURTS, AND I THINK THAT ALL OF 
THE DECISIONS STAND MIGHTILY IN 
THE WAY OF THESE THEORIES. 
IF YOU CAN'T MAKE OUT THOSE 
CRIMES, THEN DON'T CALL IT THAT 
CRIME. 
IF IT DOESN'T MATTER, THEN WHAT 
IS THE POINT. 
CALL IT TREASON. 
CALL IT ENDANGERED SPECIES 
VIOLATIONS IF NONE OF THIS 
MATTERS. 
>> SO THAT WOULD PUT THE 
DEMOCRATS' MOVE TO IMPEACH 
PRESIDENT TRUMP IN HIGH 
MISDEMEANORS. 
AND IN THE DEBATES IN THIS BOOK,
THEY SAID IT EXPRESSLY A 
TECHNICAL TERM, AND NOT ANY 
MAJORITY OF PARTISAN MEMBERS 
COULD THINK IT WAS AT ANY GIVEN 
TIME. 
OFTEN WHEN THERE IS A DEBATE 
ABOUT TECHNICAL TERM, PEOPLE 
TURN TO DICTIONDICTIONARIES, AN 
FIRST COMPREHENSIVE DICTIONARY 
WAS SAMUEL JOHNSON'S FIRST 
PUBLISHED IN 1755 AND THE 
FOUNDERS AND MANY OF THE 
LIBRARIES HAVE THE BOOK ON THEIR
DESKS AND THE SUPREME COURT 
STILL CITES JOHNSON'S DICTIONARY
TO LOOK UP THE ORIGINAL MEANINGS
OF THE WORDS IN THE 
CONSTITUTION.
THIS IS HOW THE 1795 DEFINITION 
OF HIGH CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS 
AND MISDEMEANORS IS GREAT, 
LITTLE TREASON, AND MISDEMEANOR 
IS SOMETHING LESS THAN AN 
ATROCIOUS CRIME. 
AND ATROCIOUS IS DEFINED WICKED 
AND A HIGH DEGREE, AND ENORMOUS 
AND HORRIBLY CRIMINAL. 
SO IF YOU ARE LOOKING AT THE 
WORDS IN THE TIMES THAT THE 
CONSTITUTION WAS RATIFIED, 
ATROCIOUS IN A WICKED AND HIGH 
DEGREE AND RESULT A HIGH 
MISDEMEANOR MUST BE SOMETHING 
THAT IS LESS THAN SOMETHING THAT
IS WICKED AND HIGH DEGREE. 
PROFESSOR TURLEY, IS THAT 
COMFORTING WITH YOUR PHRASE OF 
MISDEMEANORS WITH THE PHRASE AND
THE PURPOSE OF NARROWING THE 
PHRASE TO PREVENT THE SORT OF 
ABUSES THAT YOU FIND?
>> YES, IT DID. 
IF YOU COMPARE IT TO THE 
EXTRADITION CLAUSE, THE FRAMING 
WAS THE SAME, AND THEY DID NOT 
WANT TO ESTABLISH THAT BROAD 
MEETING AND ACCORDING TO THE 
VIEWF OF SOME PEOPLE IN HIGH 
CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS, THOSE 
DEFINITIONS WOULD BE IDENTICAL 
AND THIS IS CLEARLY NOT WHAT 
THEY WANTED. 
>> THIS IS BASED ON HIGH CRIME 
AND NO REQUEST FOR FALSE 
INFORMATION AND UNLIKE THE NIXON
AND CLINTON IMPEACHMENTS, AND I 
WOULD LIKE TO START WITH 
BACKGROUND THAT THE AMERICAN 
MEDIA HAS BEEN ASKING ABOUT JOE 
BIDEN'S SON AND HIS PAID 
PARTICIPATION IN THE COMPANY BUR
BURISMA AND THERE IS A STILL 
CLIP OF IT HERE FROM THE BURISMA
PROMOTIONAL VIDEO, AND MANY WERE
ASKING ABOUT BURISMA TRYING TO 
GET A UKRAINIAN DIRECTOR FIRED 
AND A NEW YORK TIMES ARTICLE 
FROM 2018 REFERRING TO JOSEPH 
BIDEN SAYS THAT ONE OF HIS MOST 
BRILLIANT PERFORMANCES WHEN HE 
THREATENED TO WITHHOLD MONEY IF 
UKRAINE DID NOT DISMISS THE TOP 
PROSECUTOR. 
AMONG THOSE WHO HAD A STAKE WAS 
HUNTER BIDEN WHO IS VICE 
PRESIDENT BIDEN'S SON WHO WAS A 
BOARD MEMBER IN UKRAINE. 
AND SO IF AN INVESTIGATION LED 
TO THE BANKRUPTCY OF THE CORRUPT
COMPANY, HUNTER BIDEN'S POSITION
WOULD HAVE BEEN ELIMINATED ALONG
WITH THE $50,000 A MONTH 
PAYMENTS AND THIS IS THE STAKE 
OF THE PROPOSITION INVOLVING THE
COMPANY, AND IN FACT, EVEN NEIL 
CATYIEL, THE FORMER ACTING 
SOLICITOR GENERAL SAID IN HIS 
BOOK, IS WHAT HUNTER BIDEN DID 
WAS WRONG?
YES. 
WAS HE QUALIFIED TO SIT ON THE 
BOARD?
THE ONLY LOGICAL REASON THE 
COMPANY COULD HAVE HAD FOR 
APPOINTING HIM WAS HIS TIES TO 
VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN. 
THE KIND OF NEPOTISM ISN'T ONLY 
WRONG, IT IS THE POTENTIAL 
DANGER TO OUR COUNTRY SINCE IT 
MAKES IT EASIER FOR FOREIGN 
POWERS TO BUY INFLUENCE. 
NO POLITICIAN, FROM EITHER PARTY
SHOULD ALLOW A FOREIGN POWER TO 
CONDUCT THIS KIND OF INFLUENCE 
PEDDLING THEIR INFLUENCE. 
AND SO EVEN COLONEL VINDMAN WAS 
ABOUT HIS INVOLVEMENT WITH THE 
UKRAINIAN COMPANY, AND HE SAID 
IT WOULD BE PRUDENT. 
AND SO NOW IT IS A CRIME FOR THE
NOT LOOK INTO THIS. 
AND SO WITH THE LOOK OF 
EVIDENTIARY EVIDENCE OF CRIMINAL
ACTS AND SOUGHT TO CONCEAL THEM 
OF NIXON COVERING UP A WATERGATE
BREAKUP SHORTLY AFTER IT 
OCCURRED?
>> YES. 
AND THE HOUSE IMPEACHED CLINTON 
FOR THE CRIME OF DENYING UNDER 
OATH TO DENY A WOMAN WHO WAS 
SUING HIM FOR HARASSMENT AND A 
DEFENSE THAT SHE WAS LEGALLY 
ENTITLED TO DO?
>> THAT IS CORRECT. 
>> SO WITH THE NIXON AND CLINTON
IMPEACHMENTS, THERE WERE 
ASSOCIATES WHO DID NOT CALL WITH
FALSE INFORMATION?
>> NO. 
SO IF YOU WANT TO ESTABLISH THE 
OPPOSING VIEW, YOU HAVE TO 
INVESTIGATE THIS FURTHER. 
>> LET ME WALK THROUGH THE 
STANDARD OF EVIDENCE THAT THE 
HOUSE DEMOCRATS INSISTED UPON IN
THE CLINTON IMPEACHMENT, THE 
MINORITY VIEWS WERE SIGNED AMONG
OTHERS CURRENT HOUSE JUDICIARY 
COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN NADLER, AND 
IT SAYS THAT THEY HAVE 
METICULOUSLY AGREED THAT THE 
MINORITY AND THE MAJORITY 
COUNSEL THAT THE STANDARD OF 
PROOF IN THE HOUSE WAS CLEAR AND
CONVINCING EVIDENCE. 
PROFESSOR TURLEY, WOULD YOU SAY 
THAT THE EVIDENCE COMPILED TO 
DATE IN THESE CURRENT 
IMPEACHMENT PROCEEDINGS FAILS TO
MEET THE STANDARD OF CLEAR AND 
CONVINCING STANDARDS. 
>> I DO BY A CLEAR MEASURE. 
>> AND IN THE BOOK ABOUT THE 
PRESIDENCY, IT SAYS THAT EXCEPT 
IN THE EXTRAORDINARY 
CIRCUMSTANCES IMPEACHING WITH A 
PARTIAL OR PLAUSIBLE 
UNDERSTANDING OF THE KEY FACTS 
IS A BAD IDEA. 
PROFESSOR TURLEY, DO YOU THINK 
THAT IMPEACHING IN THIS CASE 
WOULD CONSTITUTE WITH A PARTIAL 
OR PLAUSIBLY KEY UNDERSTANDING 
OF THE KEY FACTS?
>> I THINK THAT IS CLEAR, 
BECAUSE THIS IS ONE OF THE 
THINNEST RECORDS TO EVER GO 
FORWARD ON THE IMPEACHMENT, AND 
THE JOHNSON ONES WE CAN DEBATE, 
BECAUSE IT IS THE FOURTH ATTEMPT
AT THE IMPEACHMENT, AND THIS IS 
THE THINNEST OF THE MODERN REKD.
-- RECORD, AND IF YOU ARE 
LOOKING AT THE SIZE OF THE 
RECORDS OF CLINTON AND NIXON, 
THEY WERE MASSIVE AND IT WAS 
WAFER THIN IN COMPARISON AND IT 
HAS LEFT DOUBTS AND NOT JUST 
DOUBTS IN THE MINDS OF THE 
PEOPLE SUPPORTING PRESIDENT 
TRUMP, BUT IN THE MINDS OF 
PEOPLE LIKE MYSELF ABOUT WHAT 
ACTUALLY OCCURRED, AND THERE IS 
A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN REQUESTING 
INVESTIGATIONS, AND A QUID PRO 
QUO. 
YOU NEED TO STICK THE LANDING ON
THE QUID PRO QUO. 
YOU NEED TO GET THE EVIDENCE TO 
SUPPORT IT. 
IT MIGHT BE OUT THERE, I DON'T 
KNOW. 
BUT IT IS NOT IN THIS RECORD. 
I AGREE WITH MY COLLEAGUES THAT 
WE HAVE ALL READ THE RECORD AND 
I JUST COME TO A DIFFERENT 
CONCLUSION. 
I DON'T SEE PROOF OF A QUID PRO 
QUO. 
NO MATTER WHAT MY PRESUMPTIONS 
ASSUMPTIONS OR BIAS MIGHT BE. 
>> ON THAT POINT, I'D LIKE TO 
TURN TO THE CURRENT IMPEACHMENT 
PROCEDURES. 
PROFESSOR TURLEY, WOULD YOU 
AGREE THAT A FULL AND FAIR 
ADVERSARY SYSTEM OF WHICH EACH 
SIDE CAN PRODUCE THEIR OWN 
WITNESSES AND EVIDENCE IS A 
INITIAL SEARCH FOR THE TRUTH?
>> YES, AND THE ORIGINAL 
IMPEACHMENT MODEL FROM THE 
FRAMERS THAT REJECTED THE 
ORIGINAL MODEL OF IMPEACHMENT 
EVEN FROM HASTINGS, AND IN 
ENGLAND, IT WAS A ROBUST 
ADVERSARIAL PROCESS AND IF YOU 
WANT TO SEE ADVERSARIAL WORK, 
TAKE A LOOK AT WHAT EDMUND BURKE
DID TO WARREN HASTINGS. 
I MEAN, HE WAS ON HIM LIKE UGLY 
ON MOOSE FOR THE ENTIRE TRIAL. 
>> AS YOU KNOW IN THE MINORITY 
VIEWS THE HOUSE DEMOCRATS WROTE 
THE FOLLOWING, WE BELIEVE IT IS 
INCUMBENT UPON THE COMMITTEE TO 
PROVIDE THESE BASIC OBJECTIONS 
AS BARBARA JORDAN SAID IN THE 
HEARING, BUT IT IS MANDATING DUE
PROCESS, BUT DUE PROCESS 
QUADRUPLED, AND THE SAME 
MINORITY VIEWS SUPPORT THE RIGHT
TO CROSS-EXAMINATION IN A 
VARIETY OF CONTEXTS IN THE 
CLINTON EXAMPLE. 
NOW, PROFESSOR TURLEY, YOU 
DESCRIBED HOW MONICA LEWINSKI 
WAS NOT ALLOWED TO CALL FOR THE 
CLINTON IMPEACHMENT TRIAL AND 
SHE WAS NOT ALLOWED TO REVEAL 
THE RELATIONSHIP WITH THE CLOSE 
ASSOCIATES AND IT IS THE CAUTION
TALE OF THE KEY WITNESSES. 
CAN YOU ELABORATE ON THAT?
>> YES, IT IS A PORTION OF MY 
TESTIMONY OF HOW YOU STRUCTURE 
THE IMPEACHMENTS AND WHAT 
HAPPENED IN THE CLINTON 
IMPEACHMENT, AND IT CAME UP IN 
THE HEARING THAT WE HAD 
PREVIOUSLY, IT WAS A QUESTION OF
HOW MUCH THE HOUSE HAD TO DO IN 
TERMS OF CLINTON IMPEACHMENT, 
BECAUSE YOU HAD A ROBUST RECORD 
CREATED BY THE INDEPENDENT 
COUNSEL AND THEY HAD A LOT OF 
TESTIMONY, VIDEOTAPES, ET 
CETERA, SO 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 
THAT WERE, AND THEY WERE APPLIED
IN MY VIEW WERE NOT FAIR, AND 
THEY RESTRICTED WITNESSES TO 
ONLY THREE, AND THAT IS WHY I 
BROUGHT UP THE LEWINSKI MATTER. 
ABOUT A YEAR AGO, MONICA 
LEWINSKI REVEALED THAT SHE HAD 
BEEN TOLD THAT IF SHE SIGNED 
THAT AFFIDAVIT THAT WE NOW KNOW 
IS UNTRUE THAT SHE WOULD NOT BE 
CALLED AS A WITNESS. 
IF YOU HAD ACTUALLY CALLED LIVE 
WITNESSES THAT TYPE OF 
INFORMATION WOULD HAVE BEEN PART
OF THE RECORD. 
>> I YIELD BACK. 
>> THE GENTLEMAN YIELDS BACK AND
I NOTE THAT THIS IS THE MOMENT 
IN WHICH THE WHITE HOUSE WOULD 
HAVE HAD AN OPPORTUNITY TO 
QUESTION THE WITNESSES, BUT THEY
DECLINED THE INVITATION, AND SO 
WE WILL NOW PROCEED TO QUESTIONS
UNDER THE FIVE MINUTE RULE. 
I YIELD MYSELF FIVE MINUTES FOR 
PURPOSE OF QUESTIONING THE 
WITNESSES. 
PROFESSOR FELDMAN, WOULD YOU 
RESPOND TO THE ELEMENTS OF 
CRIMINAL BRIBERY?
>> YES. 
BRIBERY HAD A CLEAR MEANING TO 
THE FRAMERS AND IT IS WHEN THE 
PRESIDENT USING THE POWER OF HIS
OFFICE SOLICITS AND RECEIVES 
SOMETHING OF PERSONAL VALUE OF 
SOMEONE AFFECTED BY THE OFFICIAL
POWERS AND I WANTED TO BE CLEAR 
THAT THE CONSTITUTION IS LAW. 
THE CONSTITUTION IS THE SUPREME 
LAW OF THE LAND, AND SO OF 
COURSE, PROFESSOR TURLEY IS 
CORRECT THAT YOU DO NOT WANT TO 
IMPEACH SOMEONE WHO DID NOT 
VIOLATE THE LAW, BUT THE SUPREME
LAW OF THE LAND SPECIFIES 
BRIBERY AS A GROUND FOR 
IMPEACHMENT, AND BRIBERY HAD A 
CLEAR MEANING. 
IF THE HOUSE BELIEVES THAT THE 
PRESIDENT SOLICITED SOMETHING OF
VALUE CORRUPTLY FOR PERSONAL 
GAIN, THEN THAT WOULD CONSTITUTE
BRIBERY UNDER THE MEANING OF THE
CONSTITUTION AND IT IS NOT 
LAWLESS, IT WOULD BE BRIBERY 
UNDER THE LAW. 
>> SO, SO THE SUPREME COURT CASE
OF McDONALD INTERPRETING THE 
FEDERAL BRIBERY STATUTE AND 
OTHER ISSUES INTERPRETING THE 
STATUTES WOULD NOT BE RELEVANT?
>> THE CONSTITUTION IS THE 
SUPREME LAW, AND THE 
CONSTITUTION SPECIFIES WHAT 
BRIBERY MEANS. 
AND FEDERAL STATUTES CAN'T TRUMP
THE CONSTITUTION. 
>> PROFESSOR GARHARDT, WOULD YOU
RESPOND TO OBSTRUCTION OF 
JUSTICE?
>> YES, OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE 
IS NOT JUST ABOUT THE 
OBSTRUCTION OF THE COURT, BUT IT
IS THE OBSTRUCTION OF ANY LAWFUL
PROCEEDING, AND THAT OBSTRUCTION
IS NOT LIMITED TO WHATEVER IS 
HAPPENING ON THE COURTS, AND 
OBVIOUSLY, HERE, THERE ARE NOT 
JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS GOING ON 
AND A CRITICAL CONGRESSIONAL 
PROCEEDING WHICH BRINGS US TO 
OBSTRUCTION OF CONGRESS WITH 
REGARD TO OBSTRUCTION OF 
CONGRESS, AND IN FACT, I CAN SAY
THAT I KNOW THAT THERE HAS NEVER
BEEN ANYTHING LIKE THE 
PRESIDENT'S REFUSAL TO COMPLY 
WITH SUBPOENAS FROM THIS BODY. 
THESE ARE LAWFUL SUBPOENAS AND 
THEY HAVE THE FORCE OF LAW TO 
THEM, AND THIS IS SOMETHING THAT
EVERY PRESIDENT HAS COMPLIED 
WITH, AND ACTED IN ALIGNMENT 
WITH EXCEPT FOR PRESIDENT NIXON 
IN A SMALL AND SPECIFIC SET OF 
MATERIALS. 
>> PROFESSOR TURLEY IMPLIED THAT
AS LONG AS THE PRESIDENT ASSERTS
A FANCIFUL ULTIMATELY 
NON-EXISTENT PRIVILEGE LIKE 
ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY, HE CANNOT BE 
CHARGED WITH OBSTRUCTION OF 
CONGRESS, BECAUSE AFTER ALL, IT 
HAS NOT GONE THROUGH THE COURTS 
YET. 
WOULD YOU COMMENT ON THAT?
>> I MISSED PART OF THE 
QUESTION. 
AM SORRY. 
>> AND PROFESSOR TURLEY IMPLIED 
THAT WE CAN'T CHARGE THE 
PRESIDENT WITH OBSTRUCTION OF 
CONGRESS FOR REFUSING ALL 
SUBPOENAS AS LONG AS HE HAS ANY 
FANCIFUL CLAIM UNTIL THE COURTS 
REJECT THOSE FANCIFUL CLAIMS?
>> I HAVE TO RESPECTFULLY 
DISAGREE. 
NO, THE REFUSAL TO COMPLY WITH 
THE SUBPOENAS IS AN INDEPENDENT 
EVENT AND APART FROM THE COURTS.
IT IS A DIRECT ASSAULT ON THE 
LEGITIMACY OF THIS INQUIRY WHICH
IS CRUCIAL TO THE EXERCISE OF 
THIS POWER. 
>> THANK YOU. 
PROFESSOR KARLIN, I WOULD LIKE 
TO GIVE YOU CHANCE TO RESPOND. 
>> I WOULD LIKE TO RESPOND TO 
BRIBERY, AND EVEN THOUGH THE 
COUNSEL READ THE SAMUEL'S 
DEFINITIONS OF HIGH AND CRIME 
AND MISDEMEANOR, HE DID NOT READ
BRIBERY. 
I HAVE THE 1792 VERSION OF 
JOHNSON'S DICTIONARY AND I DON'T
HAVE THE INITIAL ONE, AND THERE 
HE DEFINES BRIBERY AS THE CRIME 
GIVING OR TAKING REWARDS FOR BAD
PRACTICES. 
SO IF YOU THINK IT IS A BAD 
PRACTICE TO DENY MILITARY 
APPROPRIATIONS TO AN ALLY THAT 
HAVE BEEN GIVEN TO THEM, AND A 
BAD PRACTICE NOT TO BE HOLDING A
MEETING TO BUCK UP THE 
LEGITIMACY OF THE GOVERNMENT 
THAT IS ON THE FRONT LINE, AND 
YOU DO THAT IN RETURN FOR THE 
REWARD OF GETTING HELP WITH YOUR
RE-ELECTION, THAT IS SAMUEL'S 
DEFINITION OF BRIBERY. 
>> AND SO, PROFESSOR FELDMAN, IF
HE WERE JOINED BY MADISON AND 
HAMILTON AND OTHER FRAMERS, WHAT
WOULD THEY SAY ABOUT THE CONDUCT
OF PRESIDENT TRUMP?
>> I BELIEVE THEY WOULD CALL 
THIS CONDUCT AS THE ABUSE OF 
POWER TO IMPEACH. 
>> AND WOULD IT BE ABUSE OF 
POWER AND OTHER THINGS?
>> IF THAT IS WHAT THE CONGRESS 
MEANS, THEN THEY WOULD BELIEVE 
STRONGLY THAT IS WHAT CONGRESS 
OUGHT TO DO. 
>> THANK YOU. 
I YIELD BACK THE BALANCE OF MY 
TIME AND RECOGNIZE THE RANKING 
COMMITTEE MR. GEORGIA MR. 
COLLINS FOR THE FIVE MINUTES. 
>> WE PUT IN THE JURY POOL THE 
FOUNDING FATHERS. 
AND WHAT WOULD THEY THINK?
I DON'T THINK THEY WOULD KNOW 
WHAT TO THINK BECAUSE OF THE 
DIFFERENT TIMES AND THINGS THAT 
WE HAVE TALKED ABOUT AND ALSO TO
SOME WAY INSINUATE ON A LIVE MIC
THAT PEOPLE LISTENING THAT THE 
FOUNDING FATHERS WOULD HAVE 
FOUND PRESIDENT TRUMP GUILTY IS 
MALPRACTICE WITH THESE FACTS 
BEFORE US AND THAT IS SIMPLY 
PANDERING TO THE CAMERA, AND 
THAT IS SIMPLY NOT RIGHT. 
I MEAN, THIS IS AMAZING, AND WE 
CAN DISAGREE AND WHAT IS AMAZING
ON THE COMMITTEE IS THAT WE 
DON'T AGREE ON THE FACTS, AND WE
CAN'T FIND A FACT THAT IS NOT 
GOING THROUGH THE PUBLIC 
TESTIMONY AND EVEN THE 
TRANSCRIPTS AND ALL SO IT IS 
NOT, AND MR. TURLEY, ARE WE 
DEPUTIZING SOMEBODY BETWEEN NOW 
AND THE FOUNDERS OF THE JURY 
POOL HERE?
>> WELL, FIRST OF ALL, ONLY I 
WILL SPEAK FOR JAMES MADISON 
AND, SO NO, WE WILL ALL SPEAK 
WITH THE SAME AMOUNT OF ACCURACY
AND SO IT IS A FORM OF DETAILS 
THAT WE DO ALL OF THE TIME. 
BUT IT IS SURPRISING THAT YOU 
WOULD HAVE GEORGE WASHINGTON IN 
THIS JURY POOL, AND I WOULD 
STRIKE HIM FOR CAUSE. 
GEORGE WASHINGTON WAS THE FIRST 
GUY TO RAISE EXTREME EXECUTIVE 
PRIVILEGE CLAIMS, AND HE HAD A 
RATHER ROBUST VIEW OF WHAT A 
PRESIDENT COULD SAY. 
IF YOU WERE GOING TO BE MAKING A
CASE TO GEORGE WASHINGTON THAT 
HE COULD BE IMPEACHED OVER A 
CONVERSATION THAT HE HAD WITH 
ANOTHER HEAD OF STATE, HIS HAIR,
HIS POWDERED HAIR WOULD CATCH ON
FIRE. 
AND I AM IMPRESSED THAT YOU 
CARRY IT WITH YOU -- 
>> IT IS ONLINE VERSION. 
>> OKAY.
IT IS THE ONLINE VERSION. 
AS AN ACADEMIC, I WAS PRETTY 
DARN IMPRESSED. 
I JUST WANTED TO NOTE ONE THING 
WHICH MAY EXPLAIN PART OF OUR 
DIFFERENCE. 
THE STATUTES TODAY ON BRAVERY 
ARE WRITTEN BROADLY AND JUST 
LIKE THEY WERE BACK THEN AND 
THAT IS MY POINT. 
THE MEANING OF THOSE WORDS ARE 
SUBJECT TO INTERPRETATION, AND 
THEY ARE WRITTEN BROADLY, 
BECAUSE THEY DON'T WANT THEM TO 
BE TOO NARROW AND THAT IS THE 
CASE OF THE 18th CENTURY AS THEY
ARE TODAY, BUT THE IDEA THAT BAD
PRACTICES COULD BE THE 
DEFINITION OF BRIBERY.
REALLY?
IS THAT WHAT YOU GET FROM THE 
CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION THAT 
BAD PRACTICES, AND IS THAT WHY 
MASON WANTED TO PUT IN MALL 
ADMINISTRATION, BECAUSE BAD 
PRACTICES IS NOT BROAD ENOUGH?
THIS IS WHERE I DISAGREE, AND TO
THER THING THEY WANTED TO NOTE 
IS THAT, AND I HAVE SO MUCH 
RESPECT FOR NOAH AND I WANTED TO
JUST DISAGREE ON THIS POINT, 
BECAUSE I FEEL IT IS 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, BECAUSE IT 
DEFINES THE CRIME, IT DOESN'T 
DEFINE THE CRIME. 
IT REFERENCES THE CRIME. 
NOW, THE CRIME, THE EXAMPLES 
WERE GIVEN IN THE CONSTITUTIONAL
CONVENTION AND THOSE DO NOT 
COMFORT WITH BAD PRACTICES, BUT 
THEY COMFORT WITH REAL BRIBERY, 
BUT TO SAY THAT 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 
THEN WE HAVE TO DECIDE IF THAT 
CRIME HAS BEEN COMMITTED.
>> AND ONE OF THE THINGS THAT 
CAME OUT JUST A SECOND AGO WAS 
ALSO THIS DISCUSSION OF THAT WE 
HAD THIS DISCUSSION IF IT IS THE
PRESIDENTIAL PREROGATIVE AND THE
PRESIDENT'S CABINET TO ASSERT 
RIGHTS AND THE FAST AND FURIOUS 
OF PRESIDENT OBAMA THAT HE WAS 
SAYING THAT THIS IS CONTEMPT FOR
NOT SUPPLYING THE SUBPOENAS AND 
YOU CAN'T PICK AND CHOOSE IN 
HISTORY WHAT YOU WANT. 
AND YOU BROUGHT UP BAD PRACTICE,
BUT IT IS THE LAW OF THE LAND 
THAT WE ARE TO ENSURE THAT 
COUNTRIES WHO ARE GIVEN AID IS 
NOT CORRUPT. 
THAT IS ALSO MISSING FROM THE 
DISCUSSION. 
IF THE PRESIDENT HAS HAD A LONG 
SEEDED OF FOREIGN COUNTRIES 
UKRAINE AND OTHERS WITH THE 
HISTORY OF CORRUPTION AND I MADE
THE STATEMENT EARLIER AND IT IS 
FROM THE HIPSI SIDE THAT THOSE 
POLLED OVER THE PREVIOUS YEAR 
HAD BRIBED A PUBLIC OFFICIAL. 
THEY HAD CORRUPTION ISSUES 
COMING FROM THE OBAMA AND THE 
TRUMP ADMINISTRATION, AND SO HE 
HAS TO LOOK AT THE CORRUPTION 
WITHOUT GIVING TAXPAYER DOLLARS 
AND THE PRESIDENT WAS DOING 
THAT, AND IT IS BLOWN UP, AND 
THE FACTS DON'T MATTER IF WE ARE
TRYING TO FIT IT INTO BREAKING 
OF THE RULE THAT WE WANT TO 
IMPEACH ON, AND THE REASON WE 
ARE DOING THIS IS THAT IT IS THE
TRAIN ON THE TRACK AND A CLOCK 
CALENDAR IMPEACHMENT AND NOT A 
FACT IMPEACHMENT. 
I YIELD BACK. 
>> THE GENTLEMAN YIELDS BACK AND
I RECOGNIZE MS. LOFGRREN. 
>> THIS IS THE THIRD TIME THAT A
PRESIDENT HAS BEEN RECOMMENDED 
FOR IMPEACHMENT AND I HAVE BEEN 
THERE AT ALL THREE. 
I WAS ON THE STAFF OF PRESIDENT 
NIXON AND PRESIDENT COMMITTEE ON
THE CLINTON IMPEACHMENT, AND 
HERE WE ARE TODAY. 
AT THE CORE, I FEEL THAT THE 
IMPEACHMENT POWER IS REALLY 
ABOUT THE PRESERVATION OF OUR 
DEMOCRATIC SYSTEMS AND THE 
QUESTION WE MUST ANSWER IS 
WHETHER THE ACTIVITY OF THE 
PRESIDENT THREATENS OUR 
CONSTITUTION AND OUR DEMOCRACY, 
AND IT IS ABOUT WHETHER HE IS 
ABOVE THE LAW AND WHETHER HE IS 
HONORING HIS OATH OF OFFICE. 
NOW, THE HOUSE JUDICIARY 
COMMITTEE STAFF AND IT WAS NOT 
ME, BUT OTHER STAFF WROTE AN 
EXCELLENT REPORT IN 1974, AND 
THIS IS WHAT THEY SAID. 
IMPEACHMENT OF A PRESIDENT IS A 
GRAVE STEP FOR THE NATION. 
IT IS TO BE PREDICATED ONLY UPON
CONDUCT SERIOUSLY INCOMPATIBLE 
WITH THE CONSTITUTIONAL FORM IN 
PRINCIPLE OF THE GOVERNMENT OR 
THE PROPER PERFORMANCE OF 
CONSTITUTIONAL DUTIES OF THE 
PRESIDENTIAL OFFICE, AND I'D ASK
FOR UNANIMOUS CONSENT TO ENTER 
THE HOUSE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 
REPORT ON CONSTITUTIONAL GROUNDS
INTO THE RECORD. 
>> WITHOUT OBJECTION. 
>> THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN. 
LIKE PRESIDENT NIXON, THE 
ALLEGATIONS AGAINST PRESIDENT 
TRUMP ARE RELATED TO SERIOUS 
ELECTION MISCONDUCT. 
THE NIXON'S ASSOCIATES 
BURGLARIZED THE DNC 
HEADQUARTERED TO GET A LEG UP, 
AND THEN THE PRESIDENT NIXON 
TRIED TO COVER IT UP, AND THEN 
HE ABUSED THE POWERS TO TARGET 
THE POLITICAL RIVALS AND HERE, 
WE ARE CONFRONTED WITH EVIDENCE 
SUGGESTING THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP 
TRIED TO LEVERAGE APPROPRIATE 
MILITARY ASSISTANCE TO RESIST 
RUSSIA BY UKRAINE TO CONVINCE A 
FOREIGN ALLY TO ANNOUNCE AN 
INVESTIGATION OF HIS POLITICAL 
RIVAL. 
PROFESSOR KARLAN, I WOULD LIKE 
YOU TO TELL US ABOUT HOW THE 
MEETING OF A FOREIGN ALLY IN 
THIS INVESTIGATION COMPARES TO 
WHAT PRESIDENT NIXON DID?
>> NOT FAVORABLY. 
BECAUSE, AS I SUGGESTED IN MY 
OPENING TESTIMONY, IT WAS A KIND
OF THE DOUBLING DOWN. 
BECAUSE PRESIDENT NIXON ABUSED 
DOMESTIC LAW ENFORCEMENT TO GO 
AFTER HIS POLITICAL APPOINTMENTS
AND WHAT PRESIDENT TRUMP HAS 
DONE AND BASED ON THE ED THAT WE
HAVE SEEN SO FAR IS THAT HE HAS 
ASKED A FOREIGN COUNTRY TO DO 
THAT AND THAT MEANS IT IS SORT 
OF LIKE A DAILY DOUBLE IF YOU 
WILL OF PROBLEMS. 
>> PROFESSOR GEBHARDT, DO YOU 
HAVE A COMMENT?
>> I WOULD AGREE WITH PROFESSOR 
KARLAN, AND 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 ARE 
TALKING ABOUT IS AN ABUSE OF 
POWER THAT ONLY THE PRESIDENT 
CAN COMMIT. 
THERE WAS A SYSTEMIC 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, AND 
THAT PRESSURE PRODUCED, WAS 
GOING TO PRODUCE THE OUTCOME 
THAT HE WANTED UNTIL THE 
WHISTLE-BLOWER PUT A LIGHT ON 
IT. 
>> I WANTED TO GO BACK TO 
QUICKLY SOMETHING THAT PROFESSOR
TURLEY SAID AS WE SAW IN THE 
MYERS' CASE AND I WAS A MEMBER 
OF THE COMMITTEE WHEN WE TRIED 
TO GET HER TESTIMONY AS WELL AS 
THE FAST AND FURIOUS CASE WHICH 
ALSO WAS WRONGFULLY WITHHELD 
FROM THE CONGRESS. 
LITIGATION TO ENFORCE 
CONGRESSIONAL SUBPOENAS CAN 
EXTEND WELL BEYOND THE TERMS OF 
THE PRESIDENCY, ITSELF. 
THAT HAPPENED IN BOTH OF THOSE 
CASES. 
PROFESSOR FELDMAN, IS IT AS 
PROFESSOR TURLEY SEEMED TO 
SUGGEST, 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 IS THE POWER. 
IT DOES NOT HAVE TO ASK 
PERMISSION FROM ANYBODY OR GO 
THROUGH ANY JUDICIAL PROCESS OF 
THE BRANCH OGOVERNMENT.
IT IS YOUR DECISION BASED ON 
YOUR JUDGMENT. 
>> THANK YOU. 
I'D LIKE TO NOTE THAT THIS IS 
NOT A PROCEEDING THAT I LOOKED 
FORWARD TO. 
IT IS NOT AN OCCASION FOR JOY. 
IT IS 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 AND WITH 
THAT I YIELD BACK, MR. CHAIRMAN.
>> THE GENTLE LADY YIELDS BACK. 
THE GENTLE LADY YIELDS BACK. 
WE ARE EXPECTING VOTES ON THE 
HOUSE FLOOR SHORTLY AND SO WE 
WILL RECESS UNTIL IMMEDIATELY 
AFTER THE CONCLUSION OF THE 
VOTES. 
I WILL ASK EVERYONE IN THE ROOM 
TO STAY SEATED QUIETLY AND UNTIL
WE COME BACK. 
IF YOU EXIT THE HEARING ROOM, 
YOU WILL NOT BE GUARANTEED THOSE
SEATS IF YOU LEAVE THE HEARING 
ROOM AT THIS TIME. 
OKAY. 
AT THIS TIME THE COMMITTEE IS 
GOING TO STAND IN RECESS UNTIL 
IMMEDIATELY AFTER THE VOTES. 
>>> AND THE JUDICIARY 
IMPEACHMENT HEARING TODAY, AND 
THE ONLY HEARING THAT THE 
JUDICIARY COMMITTEE IS HOLDING 
IN THE IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY OF 
PRESIDENT TRUMP.
HEARD FROM DEMOCRATS AND 
REPUBLICAN COUNSEL AND THE 
RANKING CHAIR EARLIER AND 
WAITING TO HEAR FROM THE 41 
MEMBERS OF THIS COMMITTEE, THE 
JUDICIARY COMMITTEE ASKING 
QUESTIONS. 
TAKING A BREAK NOW FOR MEMBERS 
TO GO TO THE FLOOR FOR VOTES, 
AND THEY WILL BE BACK IN ABOUT 
15 MINUTES. 
AND EARLIER THE REPUBLICANS 
TRIED TO CALL FOR THE TESTIMONY 
OF ADAM SCHIFF AND ALSO TO 
POSTPONE UNTIL NEXT WEEK, AND 
ALL OF THOSE MOTIONS WERE 
DEFEATED ALONG THE PARTYLINES. 
IN THE BREAK, WE ARE LOOKING TO 
TAKE YOUR PHONE CALLS AND HEAR 
WHAT YOU HAVE THOUGHT SO FAR. 
AND FIRST, WE TAKE YOU TO THE 
STAKEOUT OF REPRESENTATIVE 
SWALWELL IS ABOUT TO SPEAK. 
>> WE ARE TAKING A BREAK FROM 
THE PANEL, BUT WE HAVE HEARD 
FROM SOME OF THE NATION'S 
HIGHEST EXPERTS AND SCHOLARS OF 
IMPEACHMENT, AND THAT THIS 
PRESIDENT USED YOUR TAXPAYER 
DOLLARS TO BENEFIT HIMSELF BY 
INVITING A FOREIGN GOVERNMENT TO
INVESTIGATE HIS POLITICAL 
OPPONENT FOR HIS SOLE BENEFIT. 
WE HAVE LOOKED AT THE ARRAY OF 
HIGH CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS AND
WE HAVE SEEN ABUSE OF POWER, AND
PARTICULARLY AS IT RELATES TO 
BRIBERY AS WELL AS OBSTRUCTION 
OF CONGRESS AND OBSTRUCTION OF 
JUSTICE, AND WITH THAT, I'D BE 
HAPPY TO TAKE QUESTIONS. 
>> WHAT DO YOU MAKE OF THE 
CRITICISM OF PROFESSOR TURLEY 
THAT THE DEMOCRATS ARE MOVING 
TOO FAST, AND THE JOHNSON 
IMPEACHMENT, AND I HAVE HEARD 
THAT YOU WANT THIS DONE BY 
CHRISTMAS AND OTHER SOURCES THAT
THEY WANT TO TAKE SOME TIME AND 
DO IT BY THE NEXT YEAR, AND WHAT
IS YOUR READ?
>> AS TO THE CRITICISM ARE YOU 
MOVING TOO QUICKLY, AND WHAT IS 
MOVING QUICKLY IS AN UPCOMING 
ELECTION, AND IN UNDER 60 DAYS 
THE FIRST VOTES WILL BE CAST IN 
A PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION WHERE 
THE PRESIDENT HAS ABUSED HIS 
OFFICE IN ASKING A FOREIGN 
GOVERNMENT TO PARTICIPATE, AND 
WHO IS NOT WORKING QUICKLY IS 71
SUBPOENA REQUESTS THAT HE HAS 
TURNED DOWN AND 12 WITNESSES 
THAT WE HAVE ASKED TO COME 
FORWARD AND HE IS MOVING SLOWLY.
WE DON'T HAVE THE BENEFIT OF THE
TIME WHEN THE PRESIDENT IS 
ASKING FOREIGN POWERS TO INVOLVE
THEMSELVES IN OUR ELECTIONS. 
>> WOULD IT CONCERN YOU IF IT 
GOES TO THE NEW YEAR?
>> THE QUESTION IS IF IT WOULD 
CONCERN ME TO GO INTO THE NEW 
YEAR, BUT WE WANT TO GET THIS 
PROCESS RIGHT AND KEEP IT FAIR 
AND MAKE SURE THAT THE UPCOMING 
ELECTION SECURE. 
>> DO YOU THINK THAT THE 
UPCOMING ARTICLES INCLUDE THE 
MUELLER REPORT?
>> THE MUELLER IS SHOWING THAT 
THE PRESIDENT HAS PRIORS AND 
THAT THE PRESIDENT'S CONDUCT IS 
CERTAINLY NO DIFFERENT NOW THAN 
WHAT HE DID WITH THE RUSSIANS 
AND RELEVANT THERE, BUT IT IS 
EARLY NOW FOR US TO DETERMINE 
WHAT FULLY IS GOING TO BE 
ARTICULATED IN THE ARTICLES, BUT
IT IS INFORMING US THAT A 
LEOPARD DOES NOT CHANGE ITS 
SPOTS. 
>> WHAT IS THE BENEFIT OF HAVING
A STAFFER PRESENT THE 
INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE OTHER 
THAN ADAM SCHIFF?
>> IT IS LIKELY A PROSECUTOR TO 
PRESENT THE EVIDENCE TO THE 
COMMITTEE, AND IT IS UP TO THE 
COMMITTEES TO DECIDE AND AGAIN, 
IT IS BETTER FOR THE PUBLIC TO 
SEE A CLEAR PRESENTATION OF THE 
EVIDENCE AND FOR US NOT TO 
ENGAGE IN, I WOULD SAY SEMANTICS
THAT THE REPUBLICANS HAVE AND 
JUST KEEP IT FOCUSED ON THE 
FACT, AND STAFFER CAN DO THAT. 
MR. SCHIFF HAS LAID OUT AS A 
MEMBER OF CONGRESS WHAT THE 
EVIDENCE IS, BUT A STAFF 
INVESTIGATOR IS BEST SUITED TO 
DO THAT 
>> THE FOCUS IS GETTING THIS 
RIGHT, WHY PUT THE ARBITRARY 
DEADLINE OF THE ELECTION ON 
THIS, AND WHY NOT TAKE THE TIME 
THAT YOU NEED TO GET THIS RIGHT?
>> THE QUESTION IS IF THE FOCUS 
IS TO GET THIS RIGHT, WHY HAVE 
AN ARBITRARY DEADLINE OF THE 
ELECTION. 
THE DEADLINE IS ANYTHING BUT 
ARBITRARY, AND FREE ELECTIONS 
DEFINES AS A DEMOCRACY AND WHY 
50 MILLION IMMIGRANTS HAVE COME 
TO OUR COUNTRY, AND IF WE LOSE 
OUR INTEGRITY FOR THOSE 
ELECTIONS, WE LOSE EVERYTHING. 
SO WE DON'T HAVE THE BENEFIT OF 
WAITING FOR THE PRESIDENT TO RUN
OUT THE CLOCK ON US. 
SO THANK YOU, GUYS. 
I WILL SEE YOU AT THE NEXT 
BREAK. 
>> GREAT. 
THANKS. 
>> CONGRESSMAN, GOOD. 
SAME QUESTIONS TO SWALWELL, AND 
DO YOU THINK THAT MUELLER REPORT
SHOULD BE INCLUDED IN THE 
IMPEACHMENT?
>> WE HAVE NOT DECIDED TO 
IMPEACH YET, SO THAT IS 
PREMATURE. 
>> AND SO SHOULD THAT BE 
INCLUDED IN ANY ARTICLE OF 
IMPEACHMENT?
>> WE HAVE NOT DECIDED WHETHER 
OR NOT TO IMPEACH. 
>> AND THE DECISION OF THE 
HEARING -- 
>> ONE THING IS FOR THE REPORTS 
PRESENTED FROM THE INTEL AND THE
MUELLER REPORT. 
>> IN THE IMPORTANCE OF WHAT WE 
HAVE HEARD THIS MORNING IS THAT 
FROM THESE PROFESSORS, THESE 
SCHOLARS, IS A EXPLANATION OF 
ALL OF THE POTENTIAL VIOLATIONS,
AND THE OBSTRUCTION OF CONGRESS 
WHICH WE SPENT IS A FAIR AMOUNT 
OF TIME TALKING ABOUT AND THAT 
INCLUDES THE OBSTRUCTION OF 
JUSTICE AND WE HAVE HEARD MORE 
OF THAT TODAY, AND AS WE GO 
THROUGH THE REST OF THE DAY 
TODAY, WE WILL HEAR MORE ABOUT 
THE POTENTIAL FOR INCLUDING 
OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE, BUT IT 
IS PREMATURE TO KNOW WHAT IS 
GOING TO BE IN THIS, BECAUSE WE 
HAVE NOT MADE A DECISION TO GO 
FORWARD. 
>> AND WHAT ABOUT THE DEMOCRATS 
ARE GOING TO IMPEACH, AND ALL 
SIGNS ARE GOING TO IMPEACH, AND 
ALL OF THE INDICATIONS ARE, AND 
SO WHAT WOULD PREVENT YOU FROM 
NOT MOVING FORWARD AT THIS 
POINT?
>> WE THINK THAT, SURE. 
WE THINK THAT WHAT IS IMPORTANT 
IS FOR US TO HAVE A FULL 
CONVERSATION, A FULL DISCUSSION 
TODAY WITH THESE WITNESSES ABOUT
THE VARIOUS WAYS THAT THE 
PRESIDENT APPEARS TO HAVE ABUSED
HIS OFFICE FOR HIS OWN PERSONAL 
GAIN, UNDERSTANDING WHAT THAT 
MEANS AND THE CONSTITUTIONAL 
CONTEXT, AND HOW THE REMEDY OF 
ABUSE OF POWER IS IMPEACHMENT 
AND ONLY AFTER EXPLORING THAT 
WILL WE MAKE A DECISION OF HOW 
TO MAKE A DECISION OF HOW TO 
PROCEED. 
>> YOU GUYS THINK THAT THIS 
SHOULD WRAP UP BY THE END OF THE
YEAR BEFORE CHRISTMAS?
>> I DON'T THINK IT IS ABOUT 
WHEN WE ACTUALLY HAVE TO WRAP 
UP. 
I THINK IT IS ABOUT HOW WE 
PROCEED SO THAT WE HAVE ALL OF 
THE FACTS IN FRONT OF US AND A 
FULL DUE PROCESS IN FRONT OF US.
I THOUGHT THAT ONE OF THE MOST 
IMPORTANT THINGS THAT WAS SAID 
TODAY AND I THINK THAT IT IS 
PROFESSOR KARLAN AND I FORGET 
WHICH ONE, BUT WHEN ONE OF THE 
WITNESSES SAID THAT CONGRESS 
OBSTRUCTED BY THE PRESIDENT FOR 
INFORMATION THAT WE NEED, AND 
THAT IS TORPEDOING THE POINT AND
WE SHOULD COME BACK TO THAT OVER
AND OVER AGAIN, BECAUSE THIS IS 
UNPRECEDENTED. 
>> IS THERE SOME CONVINCING FOR 
THE DEMOCRATIC COLLEAGUES WHO 
HAVE NOT BEEN IN THE HEARINGS 
AND RELUCTANT TO IMPEACH?
>> I THINK THAT WE ARE AT THE 
STAGE OF GETTING ALL OF THE 
FACTS IN FRONT OF US AND GETTING
THE WITNESSES TO TALK TO US 
ABOUT ALL OF THE PIECES THERE.
IS CONSTANT CONVERSATION GOING 
ON IN THE CAUCUS AND BOTH IN THE
CAUCUS ROOM AND ON THE FLOOR. 
I CAN GUARANTEE YOU THAT THE 
MAJORITY OF MY DEMOCRATIC 
COLLEAGUES IF THEY HAVE NOT BEEN
WATCHING THE HEARING WILL BE 
CAUGHT UP, AND WE WILL CONTINUE 
TO DISCUSS IT IN CAUCUS, BUT IT 
IS AN IMPORTANT TIME FOR US ALL 
TO HEAR WHERE EVERYBODY IS IN 
THE CAUCUS AND MAKE SURE THAT WE
ARE MAKING A DECISION THAT IS 
MEANINGFUL FOR THE ENTIRE 
CAUCUS. 
>> CAN I MAKE ONE OBSERVATION 
ABOUT SOMETHING THAT WE HEARD 
OVER AND OVER TODAY. 
AND THAT'S THIS ASSERTION BY THE
RANKING MEMBER THAT THERE ARE NO
FACTS THAT WE AGREE UPON. 
IT IS CLEAR THAT THE PRESIDENT 
HAD THIS PHONE CALL. 
WE KNOW IT, BECAUSE HE RELEASED 
THE TRANSCRIPT, AND IT IS CLEAR 
THAT THERE WAS A QUID PRO QUO 
AND WE KNOW IT BECAUSE MICK 
MULVANEY TOLD US THAT. 
AND THAT IS NOT IN DISPUTE. 
SO IT IS IMPORTANT AS WE GO 
THROUGH THIS PROCESS, AND THIS 
IMPORTANT CONVERSATION ABOUT 
REMEDIES FOR ABUSE OF POWER 
THAT, THAT ANALYSIS IS BEING 
DONE WITH THE CLEAR 
UNDERSTANDING OF THE FACTS, AND 
THE FACTS ARE THAT THE PRESIDENT
TRIED TO USE HIS POWER FOR 
POLITICAL GAIN PURSUANT TO THE 
CALL THAT WE KNOW TOOK PLACE, 
AND HE HAS ACKNOWLEDGED TOOK 
PLACE, AND THE ACTION THAT MICK 
MULVANEY SAYS IS A NORMAL STATE 
OF AFFAIRS. 
>> ONE THING THAT CAME OUT IS 
THAT THE FRAMERS INCLUDING 
IMPEACHMENT FOR SPECIFICALLY 
THIS SITUATION WHERE THE 
PRESIDENT USES HIS POWER TO 
UNDERMINE THE ELECTION WHICH IS 
WHY WE CANNOT WAIT FOR THE NEXT 
ELECTION AND THEY HAD THIS 
ELECTION PRECISELY IN MIND, AND 
THAT IS WHAT WE WILL HEAR 
THROUGHOUT THE HEARING AND THE 
LAW PROFESSORS ARE DOING A GREAT
JOB EXPLAINING TO THE AMERICAN 
PEOPLE THE FACTS THAT ARE GIVEN 
TO US. 
>> TO TED'S POINT, I WAS STRUCK 
BY HOW THERE WAS SO MUCH 
DISCUSSION OF THE PROCESS TODAY 
AND NOT CONTESTING AND SUCH A 
DISCUSSION OF PROCESS TODAY AND 
NOT CONTESTING THE FACTS IN 
FRONT OF US, AND THAT IS NOT 
PART OF WHAT THEY TRIED TO DO. 
THEY TRY TO TALK ABOUT THE 
PROCESS AND HOW IT IS TOO FAST 
AND THIS OR THAT, BUT IT IS, I 
THINK THAT IT IS VERY, VERY 
COMPELLING THAT THERE HAS NOT 
BEEN ANY DEFENSE PRESENTED OF 
THE ACTUAL FACTS THAT ARE ON THE
RECORD. 
>> WHAT IS YOUR UNDERSTANDING OF
THE CONCRETE NEXT STEPS IN THE 
PROCESS. 
CONGRESS COLLINS TALKING ABOUT 
SOME PRESENTATION NEXT WEEK, AND
WHAT IS THAT GOING TO LOOK LIKE 
BEST YOU KNOW IT?
>> SO WHATEVER PRESENTATION FROM
THE HOUSE MAJORITY INTEL AND THE
HOUSE MINORITY INTEL COMMITTEES,
AND WE WILL TAKE IN THE 
INFORMATION THAT THEY ARE GOING 
TO PROVIDE TO US.
THAT IS MY UNDERSTANDING OF THE 
NEXT HEARING THAT WE WILL HAVE. 
>> AND THEY WILL COME IN TO 
PRESENT?
>> YES, THEY WILL BOTH PRESENT. 
>> OPEN HEARING?
OPEN SESSION?
>> YES.
>> AND YOU ANTICIPATE GOING TO 
THE MARK-UP OR -- 
>> I DON'T KNOW. 
>> WHAT WOULD YOU PREFER?
>> I DON'T KNOW. 
BUT I WOULD SAY THAT BEFORE WE 
TALK ABOUT ANY OPPORTUNITIES TO 
DISCUSS OR TO HAVE CONVERSATIONS
WITH COUNSEL, IT IS REALLY 
IMPORTANT TO RECOGNIZE THAT 
THERE WAS AN OPPORTUNITY TODAY, 
ALREADY TODAY FOR THE PRESIDENT 
OR HIS COUNSEL TO APPEAR BEFORE 
US TO ANSWER QUESTIONS AND OFFER
EXCULPATORY EVIDENCE TO MAKE OR 
OFFER THE FACTS TO COOPERATE FOR
THE FIRST TIME IN THIS PROCESS 
AND THAT IS CONSISTENT WITH HOW 
THEY HAVE STONEWALLED 
THROUGHOUT. 
>> WE HEARD THERE FROM SOME OF 
THE LAWMAKERS EXITING THE 
JUDICIARY COMMITTEE HEARING AND 
THE IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY OF 
PRESIDENT TRUMP ON GOING TODAY, 
AND THIS IS OF COURSE COMING 
AFTER THE INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE
HEARINGS THAT WERE HELD IN WEEKS
PAST. 
WE WANT TO HEAR YOUR PHONE CALLS
AND WHAT YOU HAVE HEARD FROM THE
CONSTITUTIONAL SCHOLARS THAT ARE
BEING HEARD IN THE CONGRESSIONAL
HEARINGS. 
AND FOR REPUBLICANS AND 
DEMOCRATS AND INDEPENDENTS AND 
OTHERS AS WELL. 
WE WILL GET TO YOUR CALLS IN A 
MINUTE. 
AGAIN, THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 
IN THE BREAK. 
THEY ARE GOING TO THE FLOOR OF 
THE HOUSE FOR VOTES, THREE VOTES
OVER IN THE HOUSE. 
SO THAT MEANS THAT IT INTERRUPTS
WHAT THE COMMITTEE IS DOING, AND
SO FAR, WE HAVE HEARD THE 
OPENING STATEMENTS FROM THE 
WITNESSES AS WELL AS THE CHAIR 
AND THE RANKING MEMBER, AND WE 
HAVE HEARD THE QUESTIONING OF 
THE DEMOCRATIC AND THE 
REPUBLICAN COUNSEL, AND NOW WE 
WANT TO HEAR FROM YOU. 
BRUCE IS ON THE LINE FROM 
INDIANAPOLIS, INDIANA. 
>> Caller: HI. 
THANK YOU FOR TAKING MY CALL. 
IN REGARDS TO THE OVERALL 
HEARINGS FROM THE INTEL AND TO 
TODAY, THE REPUBLICANS HAVE NOT 
BEEN ABLE TO SHED ANY LIGHT ON 
THE PRESIDENT'S LAWFUL ACTS AS A
PRESIDENT THE D WHAT HE IS 
DOING, AND TODAY'S HEARING 
DEMONSTRATED THE KEY FACTS THAT 
ARE NOT IN DISPUTE BUT 
UNIVERSALLY IN MY OPINION 
ACCEPTED, BUT SOME PEOPLE ARE IN
THAT RIVER IN EGYPT WHICH IS 
DENIAL, AND SO UNFORTUNATELY TO 
HIDE THE FACT THAT THEY ARE 
DENYING, THEY TRIED TO DISTRACT 
AND DEFLECT FROM THE CENTRAL 
ISSUE THAT THE PRESIDENT WAS 
DULY ELECTED AND DID SOMETHING 
ILLEGAL AND IMMORAL AND 
UNETHICAL IN HIS OATH OF OFFICE,
AND THE CRIMES THAT HE HAS BEEN 
BROUGHT UPON THE OFFENSES IN 
FRONT OF THE UNITED STATES AND 
THE WORLD TODAY AND SUBSEQUENT 
DAYS WILL BE JUST THAT. 
THAT HE ABUSED HIS OFFICE. 
HE COMMITTED ACTS THAT WERE IN A
BIG WORD TREASON THAT HAS COME 
UP, AND WHICH I THINK IS REALLY 
RELEVANT TO THE OVERALL 
PRESIDENCY. 
WHEN YOU ARE COMMITTING ACTS 
AGAINST THE CONSTITUTION AND THE
UNITED STATES AND YOUR OATH OF 
OFFICE, THAT IS TREASON. 
AND I THINK THAT THE BIGGEST 
TAKE AWAY IS FROM THIS ENTIRE 
PROCESS IS THAT RULES AND LAWS 
ARE BASED ON HONESTY AND 
INTEGRITY AND SELFISHNESS AND 
GREED ARE THE EPITOME OF THIS 
PRESIDENCY, AND THE BEST WAY TO 
SUM IT UP IS BECAUSE HE IS A 
GREEDY SELFISH PERSON HE NEVER 
SHOULD HAVE BEEN ELECTED TO 
OFFICE, BECAUSE IF YOU ARE A 
PUBLIC SERVANT, YOU ARE THERE TO
SERVE, AND HE SHOULD HAVE BEEN 
THE EPITOME OF THE EXAMPLE OF 
WHAT A PUBLIC SERVANT IS. 
INSTEAD, HE HAS BROUGHT THE 
LEVEL OF THE OFFICE DOWN TO THE 
LOWEST LEVEL OF HUMANITY IN THAT
HE LIES ON A CONTINUOUS BASIS, 
AND HE IS ENCOURAGING OTHER 
PEOPLE TO LIE AS WELL. 
>> AND BRUCE, WE ARE HEARING 
FROM A NUMBER OF CONSTITUTIONAL 
SCHOLARS AS YOU HAVE BEEN 
LISTENING TO THEM TODAY, AND WE 
ARE GOING TO BE TAKING YOUR 
PHONE CALLS, AND WE JUST HEARD 
FROM BRUCE ON THE DEMOCRATS'  
BRUCE ON THE DEMOCRAT'S LINE.
LET'S GET SOMEONE ON FROM THE 
REPUBLICAN LINE.
TIM'S CALLING FROM FLORIDA.
TIM, GO AHEAD.
YOU HAVE THE FLOOR.
>> Caller: YEAH, I JUST WANTED 
TO KIND OF TALK ABOUT THIS IN 
THE TOTALITY OF -- YOU KNOW, 
HAVING THESE REPRESENTATIVES 
FROM HARVARD AND WHATNOT AND 
THEY KIND OF SEEM LIKE THEY'RE 
LECTURING AND KIND OF 
PINPOINTING CERTAIN THINGS THAT 
THEY CAN TAKE FROM THEIR 
CONVERSATION FROM THE CALL WHICH
I DON'T THINK IT WAS PERFECT.
I THINK IT WAS INAPPROPRIATE AS 
A REPUBLICAN, BUT I THINK A LOT 
OF THINGS THAT OBAMA DID, BUSH 
DID, I MEAN, EVEN, YOU KNOW SOME
OF THE TOP PRESIDENTS FROM THE 
BEGINNING OF OUR TIME DID THINGS
THAT WERE INAPPROPRIATE AND THEY
WEREN'T IMPEACHED.
I THINK MILLIONS OF AMERICANS 
WANT TO KNOW ABOUT MIFSUD AND 
HIS RELATIONSHIP WITH THE 
WHISTLE-BLOWER.
WHY IS HE A PART OF ADAM 
SCHIFF'S TEAM?
I MEAN THE TIMING IS ALL OVER --
>> WHEN YOU SAY HE'S PART OF 
ADAM SCHIFF'S TEAM, CAN YOU TELL
US WHO THIS PERSON IS YOU'RE 
TALKING ABOUT. 
>> SEAN -- THE NFC STAFFER WHO 
LEFT AND BECAME A PART OF 
SCHIFF'S STAFF.
IT HASN'T BEEN TALKED ABOUT AT 
ALL.
AS AN AMERICAN I'M WONDERING WHY
WE'RE TAKING THE INTELLIGENCE 
OFFICIALS THAT TOLD US TO BOMB 
SYRIA AND IT TURNS OUT TO BE 
WRONG AND THEN NO ONE IS HELD 
ACCOUNTABLE.
I JUST -- THERE'S SO MANY OTHER 
QUESTIONS THAT WE COULD BE 
ASKING BESIDES THIS PHONE CALL 
ABOUT HOW TO MAKE THIS COUNTRY A
BETTER PLACE BUT WE'RE GOING 
BACK AND FORTH WITH HARVARD LAW 
PROFESSORS?
DON'T THEY HAVE ANYTHING PETER 
TO DO?
>> I APPRECIATE YOU BRINGING 
THAT UP, TIM.
THAT IS ONE OF THE THINGS THAT 
HAS BEEN TALKED ABOUT TODAY IS 
THAT WE ARE HEARING FROM THE 
CONSTITUTIONAL SCHOLARS ON THE 
HISTORICAL LEGAL PRECEDENT SIDE.
THE INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY WHICH
NANCY PELOSI THE HOUSE SPEAKER 
CHOSE TO BRING OUT MORE OF THE 
EVIDENTIARY WITNESSES WAS CHOSEN
BECAUSE THIS DOES HAVE TO DO 
WITH NATIONAL SECURITY.
JUST TAKE TAKING YOUR PHONE 
CALLS AND LETTING YOU KNOW THE 
JUDICIARY HEARING IS EXPECTED TO
COME BACK IN 20 MINUTES OR SO.
THEY'RE ON THE FLOOR RIGHT NOW 
VOTING IN THE HOUSE AND I WANT 
TO GET IN ONE MORE CALL BEFORE 
WE HEAR SOME OF THE REACTION 
FROM PRESIDENT TRUMP.
LAURA'S CALLING FROM OAK ISLAND,
NORTH CAROLINA, ON OUR 
INDEPENDENTS AND OTHERS LINE.
>> Caller: HEY, I'D LIKE TO 
AGREE WITH PRETTY MUCH 
EVERYTHING THE FIRST CALLER 
SAID, IT'S ALMOST TREASONOUS 
WHAT WE'RE HEARING AND PRESIDENT
TRUMP SEEMS TO BE THE MOST 
LAWLESS PRESIDENT WE HAVE EVER 
HAD.
IT'S RIDICULOUS.
THE REPUBLICANS DON'T WANT TO 
HOLD HIM ACCOUNTABLE FOR 
ANYTHING HE DOES OR SAYS.
WE CAN'T TRUST A WORD OUT OF HIS
MOUTH AND THERE'S EVEN -- IF YOU
READ UP THERE'S TALKS ABOUT HIM 
HAVING TIES TO THE RUSSIAN MAFIA
AND I'M WONDERING WHO ELSE HAVE 
THEY BOUGHT OFF?
IS HE BOUGHT AND PAID FOR BY 
RUSSIA?
WE HAVE REPUBLICANS GOING ON TV 
PUSHING PROVEN KREMLIN TALKING 
POINTS THAT COMES STRAIGHT FROM 
RUSSIA.
IT'S JUST RIDICULOUS. 
>> LAURA, WHAT DO YOU THINK 
ABOUT HEARING TODAY FROM THE 
CONSTITUTIONAL SCHOLARS?
THERE'S THREE FROM THE DEMOCRATS
WHO WERE CALLED BY DEMOCRATS.
ONE FROM THE REPUBLICAN SIDE.
WE HEARD A LOT MORE FROM THE 
REPUBLICAN CONSTITUTIONAL 
SCHOLAR WHEN IT WAS THE 
REPUBLICAN'S TURN TO DO SOME OF 
THE QUESTIONS.
WHAT DO YOU THINK ABOUT WHAT YOU
HAVE BEEN HEARING TODAY ON THE 
CONSTITUTIONALITY?
>> Caller: WELL, I REALLY FEEL 
LIKE HE WAS JUST AGAIN PUSHING 
THE REPUBLICAN TALKING POINTS 
THAT YOU HEAR FROM FOX NEWS AND 
THINGS THAT WE HEAR ARE COMING 
STRAIGHT FROM THE KREMLIN AND I 
APPRECIATE MORE THE FIRST TWO 
THAT WE HEARD FROM.
IT SEEMED LIKE EVERYTHING WAS 
JUST MORE OPEN AND HONEST AND, 
YOU KNOW, WHAT OUR FOREFATHERS 
WHEN THEY WROTE THE CONSTITUTION
WAS TO PROTECT US FROM THIS 
EXACT TYPE OF BEHAVIOR AND IT 
ALL JUST SEEMS LIKE COMMON 
SENSE, HEARING WHAT WE HEARD 
FROM OUR FIRST TWO BEFORE THEY 
ALL -- WAS IT TURLEY THE ONE 
THAT YOU'RE QUESTIONING ABOUT?
I JUST FEEL LIKE HE'S -- HE 
AGAIN IS JUST -- WOULD ALLOW 
PRESIDENT TRUMP TO DO ANYTHING 
AND ANYTHING AND EVERYTHING 
INCLUDING NOT ALLOWING ANYONE TO
TESTIFY, TO IGNORE SUBPOENAS.
I MEAN, THERE'S NO RULE OF LAW.
IT'S -- IT'S RIDICULOUS. 
>> I APPRECIATE YOUR CALL.
WE WANT TO TAKE A LOOK AT SOME 
OF WHAT PRESIDENT TRUMP SAID.
HE WAS LEAVING THE NATO SUMMIT.
HE IS ON HIS WAY BACK TO 
WASHINGTON.
WE'LL TAKE A LOOK AT THE 
PRESIDENT'S REMARKS IN TERMS OF 
THE HEARING AND ALSO THE 
DEMOCRATIC REPORT THAT WAS 
RELEASED YESTERDAY.
>> SO YOU HAVE GOT THE LAST 
OPPORTUNITY TO ASK YOU A 
QUESTION.
DO YOU WANT TO COMMENT ON THE 
HOUSE DEMOCRAT'S IMPEACHMENT 
REPORT THAT CAME OUT LAST NIGHT?
>> I SAW IT, IT'S A JOKE.
EVERYBODY IS SAYING -- I WATCHED
REVIEWS.
I WATCHED HANNITY, SEAN HANNITY.
I WATCHED LAURA INGRAHAM, TUCKER
CARLSON.
I WATCHED A LOT OF OTHER LEGAL 
SCHOLARS, FRANKLY.
I WATCHED SOME PEOPLE WITH GREAT
LEGAL TALENT AND HIGHLY 
RESPECTED, ALAN DERSHOWITZ, AND 
MANY MORE.
MANY MORE.
I WATCHED A VERY TERRIFIC FORMER
SPECIAL PROSECUTOR, YOU KNOW 
KEN.
KEN IS A TALENTED MAN AND A 
SMART MAN AND I WILL TELL YOU IT
IS A UNIFORM STATEMENT I THINK 
PRETTY MUCH RIGHT DOWN THE ROAD 
THAT WHAT THEY'RE DOING IS A 
VERY BAD THING FOR OUR COUNTRY.
IT'S OF NO MERIT.
AND THE REPUBLICAN PARTY HAS 
NEVER BEEN MORE UNIFIED EVER.
THEY HAVE NEVER BEEN AS UNIFIED 
AS THEY ARE RIGHT NOW.
I HAVE NEVER SEEN ANYTHING LIKE 
IT.
WHERE YOU HAVE 197-0 WHERE THE 
SENATE IS VERY ANGRY ABOUT IT.
I THINK THE SENATE I CAN SAY IS 
ANGRY AND THE REPUBLICAN PARTY 
IS ANGRY.
A RECENT POLL CAME OUT 95% 
APPROVAL RATING FOR ME AND THE 
REPUBLICAN PARTY WHICH IS A 
RECORD.
RONALD REAGAN WAS AT 87%, HE WAS
THE SECOND.
SO I MEAN, IT'S GOING GOOD.
I HAVE NEVER SEEN ANYTHING LIKE 
IT WHERE THE PARTIES COME 
TOGETHER.
AND IT'S GOING TO STAY THAT WAY 
FOR A LONG TIME.
I THINK WE'LL HAVE A TREMENDOUS 
2020.
I'M SURE YOU HAVE ALL SEEN THE 
POLLS THAT HAVE COME OUT 
ESPECIALLY IN THE SWING STATES.
WE HAVE GONE WAY UP IN THE POLLS
AND I THINK IT'S -- YOU KNOW, 
IT'S A DISGRACE.
YOU HAVE A LOSER LIKE -- STONE 
COLD LOSER HAS BEEN ALL OF HIS 
LIFE, ADAM SCHIFF, THEN YOU HAVE
NANCY PELOSI WHO AGREED WITH 
WHAT HE SAID WHICH PUTS HER INTO
REAL JEOPARDY.
AGREED ON A CERTAIN SHOW, 
STEPHANOPOULOS, AND FRANKLY IT'S
A BAD THING FOR THE COUNTRY.
I'M OVER HERE WITH NATO, WE'RE 
MEETING WITH IN THIS CASE ITALY,
BUT WE'RE MEETING WITH GREAT 
COUNTRIES.
VERY IMPORTANT COUNTRIES.
WE'RE DOING A GOOD JOB.
AND THEY SCHEDULED IT -- SAME 
THING HAPPENED A NUMBER OF 
MONTHS AGO WHEN THEY PUT THE 
UNITED NATIONS -- THEY PUT THE 
UNITED NATIONS SITUATION THEY 
HAD A HEARING WITH SOMEBODY ON 
THE SAME DAY AND NOW THEY DO IT 
WITH NATO.
THESE PEOPLE YOU ALMOST QUESTION
WHETHER OR NOT THEY LOVE OUR 
COUNTRY.
AND THAT'S A VERY, VERY SERIOUS 
THING.
DO THEY IN FACT LOVE OUR 
COUNTRY.
SO THEY SCHEDULE THAT DURING THE
UNITED NATIONS.
I'LL NEVER FORGET.
I'M WALKING INTO THE UNITED 
NATIONS AND I START HEARING ALL 
OF THE THINGS THAT THEY WERE 
TALKING ABOUT.
EXACTLY AT THAT TIME.
LITERALLY I'M WALKING THROUGH 
THE FRONT DOOR.
AND YOU FOLKS START SCREAMING 
OUT TO ME ABOUT WHATEVER.
YOU KNOW WHAT YOU WERE 
SCREAMING.
AND NOW I DO NATO, THIS WAS 
SCHEDULED FOR A YEAR.
AND THE SAME THING HAPPENS.
THEY SCHEDULE A HEARING, IT'S A 
HOAX.
IT'S A TOTAL HOAX.
WE HAD A GREAT CALL WITH THE 
PRESIDENT OF UKRAINE.
IT WAS A GREAT CALL.
NOT JUST A GOOD CALL, IT WAS A 
PERFECT CALL.
IN FACT, IT WAS TWO PERFECT 
CALLS AND EVERYBODY KNOWS IT.
BY THE WAY THE PRESIDENT OF 
UKRAINE WAS 100% HONEST.
ALL YOU HAVE TO DO IS LISTEN TO 
THE CALL OR READ THE CALL.
WE HAD IT TRANSCRIBED PERFECTLY.
BUT HE WAS -- HE SAID NO 
PRESSURE, NO NOTHING.
THERE WAS NO NOTHING.
IN FACT, THEY DON'T UNDERSTAND 
WHAT YOU PEOPLE ARE TALKING 
ABOUT AND I THINK THEY PROBABLY 
CONSIDER IT DISGRACEFUL.
I THINK IT'S A DISGRACE THAT WE 
COULD BE WASTING TIME AND IN THE
MEANTIME, THE USMCA IS SITTING 
ON NANCY PELOSI'S DESK, IT'S 
DRAWING DUST.
IT HAS BEEN THERE FOR MANY, MANY
MONTHS.
AND FARMERS, MANUFACTURER, 
UNION, NONUNION, EVERYBODY WANTS
IT AND NOTHING HAPPENS.
IT'S A VERY SAD THING FOR OUR 
COUNTRY.
THE WORD IMPEACHMENT IS A DIRTY 
WORD AND IT'S A WORD THAT WAS 
ONLY SUPPOSED TO BE USED IN 
SPECIAL OCCASIONS.
HIGH CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS.
IN THIS CASE THERE WAS NO CRIME 
WHATSOEVER.
NOT EVEN A TINY CRIME.
THERE WAS NO CRIME WHATSOEVER.
THEY KNOW IT.
AND THEY GO INTO THOSE ROOMS AND
THEY CLOSE THOSE DOORS DOWN IN 
THE BASEMENT AND THEY SAY -- 
I'LL TELL YOU WHAT THEY SAY, 
THEY JUST LAUGH BECAUSE IT'S -- 
TO THEM IT'S A JOKE.
THEY THINK THEY'RE DOING WELL 
BUT THEY'RE NOT DOING WELL.
THEY'RE SAYING HOW DO WE GET OUT
OF THIS, BECAUSE THEIR POLL 
NUMBERS ARE WAY DOWN.
THEY'LL HAVE A TREMENDOUS LOSS 
IN 2020.
THAT'S WHAT'S GOING TO HAPPEN.
NO MATTER HOW YOU CUT IT, IT'S 
BEEN VERY INTERESTING BUT TO DO 
IT ON A DAY LIKE THIS WHERE 
WE'RE IN LONDON WITH SOME OF THE
MOST POWERFUL COUNTRIES IN THE 
WORLD, HAVING VERY IMPORTANT 
NATO MEETINGS, AND IT JUST 
HAPPENED TO BE SCHEDULED -- THIS
WAS SET UP A YEAR AGO, JUST 
HAPPENED TO BE SCHEDULED ON THIS
DATE.
IT'S REALLY HONESTLY IT'S A 
DISGRACE.
SO THAT'S IT.
THANK YOU.
THANK YOU. 
>> -- RUDY GIULIANI?
>> I DON'T KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT 
HIM.
HE'S A GREAT LAWYER, HE WAS THE 
BEST MAYOR IN THE HISTORY OF NEW
YORK CITY BY FAR.
HE STOPPED CRIME IN NEW YORK 
CITY.
AS A U.S. ATTORNEY, HE WAS 
INCREDIBLE.
HE'S HIGHLY RESPECTED.
SO SOMEBODY SAID HE MADE A PHONE
CALL INTO THE WHITE HOUSE, WHAT 
DIFFERENCE DOES THAT MAKE?
I DON'T KNOW.
YOU KNOW, IS THAT SUPPOSED TO BE
A BIG DEAL?
I DON'T THINK SO.
RUDY IS A GREAT GENTLEMAN AND 
THEY'RE AFTER HIM ONLY BECAUSE 
HE'S DONE SUCH A GOOD JOB.
HE WAS VERY EFFECTIVE AGAINST 
MUELLER AND THE MUELLER HOAX.
THAT WHOLE THING WAS A HOAX.
FIRST WE HAD MUELLER AND WE 
HAD -- BEFORE I EVEN GOT ELECTED
THIS WAS GOING OF ON.
NOW THE IG REPORT WILL BE VERY 
INTERESTING.
WE'LL SEE WHAT THAT'S ALL ABOUT 
AND THEN OF COURSE AS YOU KNOW 
THE BIG ONE THAT'S GOING TO COME
SOUTH THE DURHAM REPORT.
I DON'T KNOW MR. DURHAM, I HAVE 
NEVER SPOKEN TO HIM BUT HE'S ONE
OF THE MOST RESPECTED LAW 
ENFORCEMENT OR U.S. ATTORNEYS 
ANYWHERE IN THE COUNTRY.
HE'S A TOUGH GUY.
HE'S HAD AN INCREDIBLE TRACK 
RECORD.
HE'S ACTUALLY SORT OF 
NONPARTISAN I GUESS FROM WHAT I 
HEAR.
BUT THE BIG ONE THAT EVERYONE IS
WAITING FOR IS THAT AND THE IG 
REPORT.
SO THE IG REPORT THEY SAY IS 
COMING OUT ON MONDAY.
TUESDAY.
MAYBE WHATEVER.
BUT THEY SAY MONDAY.
I THINK IT'S GOING TO BE A VERY 
BIG THING AND WE'LL SEE WHAT 
HAPPENS.
BUT THIS SHOULD NEVER HAPPEN TO 
A PRESIDENT AGAIN.
FOR ME, IT'S OKAY, BUT THIS 
SHOULD NEVER HAPPEN TO A 
PRESIDENT WHAT'S HAPPENED HERE.
IT'S A DISGRACE TO OUR COUNTRY.
AN ABSOLUTE DISGRACE TO OUR 
COUNTRY.
IT'S SAD ACTUALLY.
IT'S DONE BY, YOU KNOW, FRANKLY 
BY LOSERS.
YOU LOOK AT THE PEOPLE.
LOOK AT THE CAST OF CHARACTERS 
BETWEEN NADLER AND SCHIFF AND 
PELOSI.
NERVOUS NANCY.
IT'S AN ABSOLUTE DISGRACE TO OUR
COUNTRY.
AND I THINK A LOT OF DEMOCRATS, 
BY THE WAY, ARE GOING TO VOTE 
AGAINST IT.
I THINK THAT, YOU KNOW, BECAUSE 
IF THEY DON'T, THEY'LL LOSE 
THEIR RACE.
BECAUSE PEOPLE ARE PUTTING -- 
THEY WENT BACK TO THEIR 
DISTRICTS AND THEY ARE GETTING 
HAMMERED.
BY THEIR DISTRICTS.
AND IF THEY DON'T, THEY'LL LOSE 
THEIR RACE.
SO IN IN WAYS I HOPE THEY DON'T,
OKAY.
WE'LL GET A FAIR SHAKE IN THE 
SENATE.
ASSUMING THAT WHATEVER HAPPENS 
HAPPENS WE'LL GET A VERY FAIR 
SHAKE IN THE SENATE.
BUT WE HAVE ALREADY BEEN 
GIVEN -- YOU JUST TAKE A LOOK.
TODAY I UNDERSTOOD, OBVIOUSLY I 
HAVE BEEN WITH ALL OF THESE 
WORLD LEADERS AND DONE 
CONFERENCES WITH THE WORLD 
LEADERS SO I HAVEN'T BEEN ABLE 
TO WATCH BUT THINK OF IT.
THEY GET THREE CONSTITUTIONAL 
LAWYERS AND WE GET ONE, WHAT'S 
THAT ALL ABOUT?
JUST THAT LITTLE STATEMENT.
THEY GET THREE.
WE GET ONE.
WE HAD NO REPRESENTATION.
WE COULDN'T CALL WITNESSES.
WE COULDN'T DO ANYTHING.
IT IS THE MOST UNFAIR THING THAT
ANYBODY HAS EVER SEEN.
THEY WOULD HAVE DONE MUCH BETTER
IF THEY GAVE US EQUAL 
REPRESENTATION.
BECAUSE THE PUBLIC GETS IT BUT 
LOOK AT TODAY.
I DON'T THINK TOO MANY PEOPLE 
ARE GOING TO WATCH BECAUSE IT'S 
GOING TO BE BORING.
ALL RIGHT?
IN FACT, YOU'RE HERE, I GUESS 
YOU'RE HERE, AND WE'LL SUPERSEDE
IT, BUT NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE ARE 
GOING TO BE WATCHING TODAY.
JUST THINK OF THIS.
CONSTITUTIONAL LAWYERS THEY GET 
THREE AND WE GET ONE.
WHAT KIND OF A DEAL IS THAT?
YOU DON'T NEED A CONSTITUTIONAL 
LAWYER BECAUSE NOTHING WAS DONE 
WRONG.
ZERO DONE WRONG.
I WILL SAY IT AGAIN, READ THE 
TRANSCRIPT AND THEN LISTEN TO 
WHAT THE PRESIDENT OF UKRAINE 
SAID.
HE SAID THERE WAS NO PRESSURE 
WHATSOEVER.
LISTEN TO WHAT THE FOREIGN 
MINISTER OF UKRAINE -- HIGHLY 
RESPECTED MAN, VERY BOTH VERY 
RESPECTED.
LISTEN TO WHAT THE FOREIGN 
MINISTER SAID.
HE SAID THERE WAS PRESSURE 
WHATSOEVER.
THAT'S THE ONLY ONE THAT COUNTS 
BUT THEN LISTEN TO ALL OF THEIR 
WITNESSES AND NOT ONE OF THEM 
SAID ANYTHING THAT WAS 
MEANINGFUL OTHER THAN POSITIVE 
FOR ME.
LIKE THE ONE SAID THERE WAS NO 
QUID PRO QUO.
THAT'S WHAT HE SAID.
AND HE SAID THAT I ACTUALLY TOLD
HIM THAT.
THERE WILL BE NO QUID PRO QUO.
I SAID THAT.
AND I SAID OTHER THINGS THAT 
WERE EVEN STRONGER THAN THAT.
AND, YOU KNOW, IT AS A DISGRACE 
THAT THEY ARE DOING THIS.
AND THEY'RE DOING IT BECAUSE 
THEY THINK THEY CAN'T WIN IN 
2020.
THEY'RE DOING IT BECAUSE YOU 
TAKE A LOOK AT THEIR CANDIDATES.
AND THEIR CANDIDATES ARE NOT 
DOING TOO WELL.
AND THEY THINK THIS IS THEIR 
ONLY SHOT.
IT'S A DISGRACE.
BECAUSE THIS PROCESS WAS NOT 
SUPPOSED TO BE USED THAT WAY.
>> PRESIDENT TRUMP THERE 
SPEAKING BEFORE HE LEFT LONDON 
AND THE NATO SUMMIT AND A LOOK 
AT THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE ROOM.
THE IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY HEARING 
PROCEEDING ABOUT 2:30 P.M. 
EASTERN.
MEMBERS ARE ON THE FLOOR NOW 
TAKING VOTES AND WE'RE GOING TO 
GET BACK TO YOUR CALLS.
I WANT TO HEAR WHAT YOU THINK 
ABOUT WHAT WE HAVE SEEN SO FAR 
TODAY.
KIM IN FRISCO, TEXAS, ON 
DEMOCRATS LINE.
WAITING PATIENTLY.
HI, KIM, GO AHEAD.
>> Caller: HI.
I WANTED TO EQUATE TURLEY WITH 
WILLIAM BARR BECAUSE HE'S -- HIS
DEFINITION ON WHAT THE 
CONSTITUTION SAYS ABOUT 
IMPEACHMENT IS ALONG THE LINES 
OF WILLIAM BARR REPRESENTATION 
OF THE MUELLER REPORT.
THE THREE -- THE THREE FROM 
HARVARD AND STANFORD, THOSE 
THREE CONSTITUTIONAL LAWYERS 
EXPLAINED TO US VERY CLEARLY 
THE -- HOW IT APPLIES TO 
IMPEACHMENT.
HE NEVER ADDRESSED THE REAL 
QUESTIONS OF BRIBERY.
HE NEVER ADDRESSED THE REAL 
QUESTION OF HIGH CRIMES AND 
MISDEMEANOR.
I DIDN'T EVEN UNDERSTAND HIS 
DEFINITION.
COMPARED TO WHAT I UNDERSTOOD 
THE THREE -- THE OTHER THREE TO 
SAY.
BUT THE LAWYER TAYLOR, HE SAID 
THAT PARTISANSHIP WAS ON THE 
DEMOCRATS' SIDE.
BUT IT'S NOT.
THE PARTISANSHIP IS ON THE 
REPUBLICANS' SIDE.
THEY ARE -- EVEN THOUGH THEY 
DON'T HAVE THE POWER, THEY ARE 
DUG IN TO MAKE TRUMP LOOK LIKE 
WHAT HE'S DOING WHAT HE'S 
SUPPOSE TO DO. 
>> WHAT DO YOU MAKE OF TURLEY'S 
ARGUMENT THAT IT'S WAFER THIN. 
>> Caller: I DISAGREE.
BECAUSE TRUMP SAID HE CONFESSED 
TO THE CRIME.
THE ACTING CHIEF OF STAFF 
MULVANEY CONFESSED TO THE CRIME 
SO WHAT OTHER EVIDENCE DO YOU 
NEED WHEN THEY'RE CONFESSING THE
CRIME.
I DON'T UNDERSTAND THAT.
I MEAN, I KNOW IT'S NOT IN THE 
CRIMINAL LAW BE ANY LAW WHEN YOU
CONFESS TO THE CRIME AREN'T YOU 
GUILTY?
>> ALL RIGHT.
PAULA IS CALLING FROM MOUNT 
VERNON, OHIO, ON THE 
INDEPENDENTS LINE.
>> Caller: HI, THANKS FOR TAKING
MY CALL.
I TOTALLY DISAGREE WITH YOUR 
OTHER CALLERS I DON'T SEE ANY 
EVIDENCE THAT TRUMP DID ANYTHING
WRONG.
I TOTALLY SUPPORT HIM.
I DON'T SEE ANY EVIDENCE WHERE 
BRIBERY APPLIES OR ANY OTHER 
ISSUE. 
>> OKAY.
>> Caller: I THINK HE WAS WELL 
IN HIS RIGHTS TO DO WHAT HE -- 
WHAT HE DID, THE ADMINISTRATIVE 
AND EXECUTIVE ORDERS.
I THINK HE WAS WELL IN HIS 
RIGHTS AND I APPLAUD FOR THE 
GOOD JOB HE'S BEEN DOING FOR 
AMERICA. 
>> THANKS THERE ON THE LINE FOR 
INDEPENDENTS AND OTHERS.
DEMOCRATS LINE, MICHELLE IN 
TEXAS.
>> Caller: HI, ONE THING I'M NOT
CONFIDENT ABOUT OR CONFUSED 
ABOUT IS I KNOW THAT CORRUPTION 
IN UKRAINE IS THE BASIS OF THE 
INVESTIGATE -- INVESTIGATING 
CORRUPTION IN UKRAINE IS A BIG 
BASIS OF WHY -- 
BUT I'M CONFUSED ABOUT SO RUSSIA
AND SAUDI ARABIA ARE ALSO 
EQUALLY CORRUPT?
BUT IT'S NEVER BEEN LIKE AN 
ISSUE TO -- HE NEVER DENIED 
EITHER COUNTRIES IN REGARDS TO 
THE CRIMES THEY COMMITTED.
FOR EXAMPLE, RUSSIA.
THE ELECTION INTERFERENCE.
HE SAID, YOU KNOW, OH, I BELIEVE
PUTIN, IT WASN'T AN ISSUE OR 
LIKE IT WASN'T REAL AND WITH 
KHASHOGGI, THE MURDERED SAUDI 
ARABIAN, OH, IT CAN'T BE SAUDI 
ARABIA.
SO WHY IS UKRAINE THE ULTIMATE 
LIKE PARALLEL OF INVESTIGATIONS?
>> ALL RIGHT.
CALL NOW FROM CONNECTICUT, 
WALLING FORD.
DANIEL ON THE LINE, REPUBLICAN.
>> Caller: THANK YOU VERY MUCH 
FOR HAVING ME.
A FEW THINGS I FOUND VERY 
INTERESTING ABOUT WHAT WAS GOING
ON.
SO THE FIRST ONE I DO FEEL LIKE 
BOTH PARTIES ARE REALLY 
CONTRIBUTING TO THIS POLITICAL 
CHARADE WHICH IS GOING ON.
DEMOCRATS -- DEMOCRATS WHO 
ARE -- WHO HAVE PUBLICLY STATED 
SUCH AS ADAM SCHIFF WHO PUBLICLY
STATED THEY WANTED TO HEAR FROM 
THE WHISTLE-BLOWER AND THEN WHEN
REPUBLICANS SAY WE WANT TO HEAR 
FROM THE WHISTLE-BLOWER THEY 
DENY THAT OPPORTUNITY.
ANOTHER POINT I REALLY WANT TO 
MENTION IS I FEEL LIKE WE HAVE 
TAKEN AWAY -- WE HAVE GONE AWAY 
FROM ANOTHER HUGE ISSUE WHICH IS
CORRUPTION IN UKRAINE BUT WHAT 
ABOUT THE CORRUPTION WITH HUNTER
BIDEN?
IT'S OKAY IF WE'RE GOING TO MOVE
FORWARD IN IMPEACHMENT, WE DO 
NEED TO HEAR ALL OF THE FACTS 
BUT I FEEL LIKE WE'RE ALSO 
LOSING TOUCH OF THE REASON OF 
CORRUPTION AS A WHOLE WHICH IS 
THE REPUBLICANS' ARGUMENT HERE 
THEY'VE TRYING TO FIGHT 
CORRUPTION AND NOBODY SHOULD 
WANT CORRUPTION NEVER.
YET, WHEN WE ARE TALKING ABOUT 
CORRUPTION NOW ALL WE HAVE DONE 
IS SHIFT TO IMPEACHMENT AND IT'S
LIKE WE'VE LEFT CORRUPTION -- 
WE'VE LEFT CORRUPTION BEHIND.
REGARDLESS OF IF IT'S HUNTER 
BIDEN IF IT'S HUNTER WHOEVER, 
FROM ANY POLITICAL PARTY OR ANY 
POLITICAL CANDIDATE, ANYBODY, WE
SHOULD BE INVESTIGATING 
CORRUPTION AND I DO NOT 
BELIEVE -- AND HUNTER BIDEN IS 
NOT A POLITICAL OPPONENT, JUST 
BECAUSE HIS DAD IS DOES NOT MEAN
HE IS.
THAT'S SOMETHING I ALSO WANT TO 
MAKE VERY CLEAR HERE. 
>> THANKS, DANIEL.
CALLING FROM CONNECTICUT THERE.
TWEET HERE FROM FOX NEWS, CHAD 
PER GRAM.
HE WRITES, IF THE IMPEACHMENT 
HEARING STARTS AGAIN AROUND 2:30
P.M. EASTERN, WE'LL BRING YOU 
BACK TO THE HEARING ROOM FOR 
THAT WITH WELL OVER THREE HOURS 
OF QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS 
REMAINING FROM INDIVIDUAL 
MEMBERS, PLUS CLOSING 
STATEMENTS, FOX NEWS ESTIMATES 
THE HEARING WILL END BEFORE 6:00
P.M. EASTERN TIME.
OF COURSE YOU CAN CONTINUE 
WATCHING HERE ON C-SPAN 3.
WE HAVE IT STREAMING ONLINE AS 
WELL IF YOU'RE AWAY FROM YOUR 
TV.
GO TO C-SPAN.ORG.
AND ALSO FIND ALL OF OUR 
CLEARINGHOUSE OF IMPEACHMENT 
INQUIRY INFORMATION.
C-SPAN.ORG/IMPEACHMENT.
TAKING YOUR PHONE CALLS.
WE HAVE GOT A CALLER FROM 
CAMPBELLS BURG, INDIANA, ON THE 
INDEPENDENTS AND OTHERS LINE.
HI, ANN.
>> Caller: WELL, I'M GLAD TO 
SPEAK TO YOU. 
>> US TOO.
GO ON WITH YOUR COMMENTS ABOUT 
THE HEARING.
>> Caller: OKAY.
I HAVE ONE QUESTION.
EVERYONE KEEPS SAYING THE 
PRESIDENT IS LYING.
WHAT IS HE LYING ABOUT?
I NEVER GET AN ANSWER ABOUT THAT
BECAUSE I HAVEN'T SEEN IT.
I HAVE LOOKED AND LOOKED FOR THE
LIE.
AND ALSO, HE CLEARLY SAID NO 
QUID PRO QUO.
SO IF HE SAID THAT -- IF HE SAID
HE DIDN'T WANT ANYTHING, IT 
SEEMS TO ME THEIR ARGUMENT IS 
OVER.
YOU KNOW?
SO I FEEL THAT ADAM SCHIFF HAS 
OBVIOUSLY LIED.
ANYONE THAT WATCHES AND LISTENS 
KNOWS HE HAS LIED REPEATEDLY AS 
WELL.
ONE MORE THING.
THE REASON THEY DON'T WANT TO 
COOPERATE AT THE WHITE HOUSE IS 
BECAUSE THE WHOLE THING IS 
UNFAIR.
YOU AND I BOTH SEE THAT PEOPLE 
THERE ON THIS COMMITTEE ARE NOT 
ALLOWING THE REPUBLICANS TO HAVE
WITNESSES.
ISN'T THAT IMPORTANT?
ISN'T THAT IMPORTANT ACCORDING 
TO OUR CONSTITUTION?
DUE PROCESS AND HE'S NOT GETTING
THAT.
>> ALL RIGHT, ANN, THANKS FOR 
THE CALL.
JARED IS CALLING, CALIFORNIA, 
DEMOCRATS LINE.
>> Caller: THANKS FOR HAVING ME.
>> YOU BET.
GO AHEAD WITH YOUR COMMENT.
>> Caller: I JUST WANTED TO 
STATE THAT DONALD TRUMP IS A 
BLOVIATED HUMAN PIECE OF GARBAGE
AND DEFINITELY SHOULD BE 
IMPEACHED AND NUNES AND HIS 
CRONIES AS WELL AS GIULIANI 
SHOULD BE CARTED OUT IN 
HANDCUFFS.
>> A CALLER HERE, SHEFFIELD, 
ALABAMA.
JOSEPH ON THE LINE, REPUBLICAN.
>> Caller: YES, MA'AM.
I THINK NANCY PELOSI, ADAM 
SCHIFF, HAD IT IN FOR DONALD 
TRUMP.
I DISAGREE WITH WHAT HE SAID 
LONG AGO.
HE'S DONE MORE FOR THIS COUNTRY 
THAN ANY PRESIDENT HAS.
THEY DON'T LIKE HIM.
DEMOCRATS DON'T LIKE HIM.
BECAUSE HE DON'T TAKE NO CRAP 
OFF THE OTHER COUNTRIES AND I 
DON'T THINK THEY SHOULD IMPEACH 
HIM. 
>> WHAT DO YOU THINK TODAY WHAT 
YOU SAW, HEARD FROM THE 
CONSTITUTIONAL SCHOLARS, 
FOCUSING ON THE LAW OF THE LAND?
>> Caller: WELL, THE LAW OF THE 
LAND, THAT'S A BUNCH OF 
MALARKEY.
YOU KNOW, THEY AIN'T GOT NO 
FACTS, AIN'T GOT NO PROOF.
WELL, THE PROOF SHOWS THAT HE 
DIDN'T DO NOTHING.
THEY KEEP ON AND ON.
I GUESS THAT'S BECAUSE THE 
DEMOCRATS AND DEMOCRATS IS GOING
TO ALL STICK TOGETHER ANYWAY.
AND KEEP TRYING TO GET HIM OUT 
OF THERE.
THAT'S THE WHOLE POINT.
NONE OF THEM LIKES HIM AND -- 
BECAUSE HE'S GOT THIS COUNTRY 
BETTER SHAPE THAN IT'S EVER 
BEEN. 
>> APPRECIATE THE CALL FROM 
ALABAMA.
TAKE A LOOK AT A TWEET FROM 
FRANK THORPE FROM NBC NEWS.
THE 2020 SENATE CALENDAR RIGHT 
NOW THE HEARING IS IN THE HOUSE.
THAT IS WHERE THE ARTICLES OF 
IMPEACHMENT WOULD BE BROUGHT UP 
AND IF THEY'RE WRITTEN UP AND IF
THE HOUSE VOTES ON IMPEACHMENT, 
THE ACTUAL TRIAL WOULD HAPPEN IN
THE SENATE.
SO A LOOK AT THE SENATE CALENDAR
JANUARY IS MISSING BECAUSE OF 
THE UNCERTAINTY WITH WHAT 
THEY'LL BE DOING WITH THE 
IMPEACHMENT TRIAL, HOW LONG IT 
WILL TAKE IF IT COMES OVER.
A LOT OF THINGS ON CAPITOL HILL 
IN FLUX.
WE'RE TAKING YOUR PHONE CALLS.
I WANT TO HEAR WHAT YOU THINK 
ABOUT THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 
HEARING THAT MET TODAY EARLIER 
THIS MORNING AND THEY'LL BE 
CONTINUING AS SOON AS THE 
MEMBERS COME BACK FROM VOTES.
WE HAVE BERNIE CALLING AND IT'S 
IN OHIO.
HELP ME OUT WITH THE NAME OF 
YOUR TOWN, PLEASE.
>> Caller: CHILL ACOAT. 
>> GO AHEAD WITH YOUR COMMENTS.
>> Caller: ONE THING IS I DON'T 
VOTE REPUBLICAN OR DEMOCRAT.
I VOTE THE ISSUE.
AND I VOTE THE PERSON.
BUT THE WHOLE THING JUST REMINDS
ME IN GENERAL OF WHAT MAKES 
AMERICA GREAT AND EVERYONE IS 
ENTITLED TO THEIR OPINIONS AND 
THEIR THOUGHTS AND THEIR VIEWS.
HOWEVER, THAT MAY BE BASED IN 
REALITY OR FACTS OR THEIR 
PERCEPTION.
YOU CAN PUT FIVE PEOPLE AND HAVE
THEM DIRECTLY OBSERVE A 
SITUATION IN AT LEAST -- AND AT 
LEAST THREE OF THE FIVE WILL 
TELL YOU A SLIGHTLY DIFFERENT 
VERSION OF WHAT THEY SAW.
BUT REGARDLESS, I JUST LOOK AT 
THE OVERALL TOTALITY OF THE 
SITUATION AND CAN SEE -- I CAN'T
REMEMBER, I'M LOOK 60, I CAN 
NEVER REMEMBER ANY 
ADMINISTRATION THAT HAS GONE 
THROUGH SO MANY DIFFERENT 
POLITICAL APPOINTEES DURING 
THEIR SESSION OR DURING THEIR 
TERM OR MORE PEOPLE THAT HAVE 
BEEN CONVICTED OF CRIMES AND 
IMPRISONED OF CRIMES BASED ON 
ONE PERSON'S ACTIONS OR NOT 
NECESSARILY THE PERSON, BUT 
THEIR PARTY.
LIKE HALF A DOZEN OF THE PEOPLE 
FROM THE 2016 LRL -- ALREADY 
IMPRISONED AND CONVICTED OF 
CRIMES BUT IT IS KIND OF SAD 
THAT IT'S TEARING OUR NATION 
APART. 
>> THANKS FOR THE CALL.
I APPRECIATE IT.
REPUBLICAN LINE, CALLING FROM 
PORTLAND, OREGON.
WE HAVE GOT NEIL ON THE LINE.
I'M SORRY, IS THIS -- I'M SORRY,
GOT A DEMOCRATIC CALLER, FLINT, 
MICHIGAN, LOWELL, IS THAT YOU?
>> Caller: YES, IT'S LINNAL. 
>> THANKS.
GO AHEAD WITH YOUR COMMENTS OR 
QUESTION.
>> Caller: MY COMMENT IS THIS 
HEARING TODAY IS THE SAME AS IT 
HAS BEEN SINCE TRUMP HAS BEEN IN
OFFICE AND I HAVE BEEN A LIFE 
LONG DEMOCRAT UNTIL WE START 
TRYING TO IMPEACH TRUMP, OKAY?
AND THE THING IS IS THAT 
EVERYTHING INCLUDING THE 
WITNESSES TODAY THEY'RE SUPPOSED
TO BE SCHOLARS BUT IN REALITY 
THEY'RE JUST PARTY LINE 
WITNESSES.
JUST SAYING WHAT THEY'RE LED TO 
SAY BY THE PEOPLE WHOM THEY COME
TO TESTIFY FOR.
AND THAT'S WHAT WASHINGTON HAS 
BASICALLY TURNED INTO.
ALSO, IT'S NOT ABOUT RIGHT OR 
WRONG.
BUT IT'S ACTUALLY ABOUT 
INFLUENCING THE COMMUNITIES OF 
AMERICA TO DEEM PRESIDENT DONALD
TRUMP AS BEING A CRIMINAL 
BECAUSE THEY'RE NOT DISCUSSING 
THE ACTIONABLE EVIDENCE.
THEY'RE DISCUSSING THEIR 
PERSONAL VIEWS OF WHAT HAPPENED.
AND SO I WOULD LIKE TO SEE THEM 
DISCUSS THE EVIDENCE WHICH WAS 
SAID IN THE PREVIOUS HEARINGS 
AND TO DISCUSS BOTH SIDES OF THE
WITNESSES JUST NOT ONE SIDE OF 
THE WITNESSES.
JUST TO TRY TO INFLUENCE THE 
AMERICAN PEOPLE ONE WAY OR THE 
OTHER.
SO THAT'S MY ASSESSMENT OF WHAT 
IS HAPPENING TODAY. 
>> THANKS A LOT.
NOW WE'RE GOING TO PORTLAND, 
OREGON, REPUBLICAN LINE.
NEIL, SORRY ABOUT THAT.
>> Caller: HELLO.
THIS IS A COUP ATTEMPT, IT'S SO 
CLEAR AND IT'S AMAZING HOW THEY 
KEEP GLOSSING OVER THESE WORDS 
ESPECIALLY THE MEDIA.
THE MEDIA IS CREATING THIS COUP 
ATTEMPT.
AND I'M SORRY TO STEP ON YOUR 
TOES, BUT LOOK, BIDEN IS GETTING
SHOKIN FIRED FOR REASON.
HE DIDN'T WANT THE EXPOSURE.
HE DIDN'T WANT ANY INVESTIGATION
THERE.
ON THE OTHER HAND, YOU HAVE 
TRUMP WHO IS CONSTANTLY LIVED UP
TO HIS CAMPAIGN PROMISES.
I MEAN, THE LIST IS EXTREMELY 
LONG.
AND I DON'T FEEL LIKE LISTING 
BECAUSE IT WILL TAKE UP ALL YOUR
TIME.
PELOSI, NADLER, SCHIFF AND 
SCHUMER THEY'RE ALL PUPPETS WHO 
ARE PROBABLY BEING PAID TO DO 
WHAT THEY'RE DOING.
THEIR NARRATIVE IS SO WEAK AND 
IT JUST SEEMS LIKE THEY'VE GOT 
THIS ABSOLUTE HELLBENT DESIRE TO
DETHRONE TRUMP WHO HAS DONE THE 
BEST IN THIS COUNTRY THAT ANY 
PRESIDENT HAS EVER DONE.
HE SUPERSEDES LINCOLN, LINCOLN 
ONLY FREED THE SLAVES.
YES, THAT'S A BIG THING, BUT 
WHAT TRUMP IS DOING IS FAR 
GREATER.
THE DEEP STATE EXISTS AND IF YOU
PEOPLE DON'T UNDERSTAND THIS YOU
HAVEN'T DONE YOUR HOMEWORK.
THE QUID PRO QUO HAS BEEN TURNED
INTO BRIBERY BECAUSE OF A -- 
THAT'S WHAT'S GOING ON HERE.
THEY'RE FEELING THEIR WAY TO 
APPEAL TO THE AMERICAN PUBLIC.
AND YOU PEOPLE WHO ARE STILL 
CALLING TRUMP A HORRIBLE PERSON 
AND YOU'RE STILL IN THE CAMP OF 
HATRED, LOOK, SPIRITUALITY AND 
HATRED DO NOT HOLD HANDS SO 
YOU'RE AT THE OPPOSITE END OF 
THE SPECTRUM IF YOU'RE CALLING 
IT HATE. 
>> WE'LL TAKE YOUR PHONE CALLS 
FOR ABOUT TEN MORE MINUTES.
YOU CAN SEE THE ROOM ON THE SIDE
OF THE SCREEN.
NO MEMBERS ARE IN.
THEY WERE ON THE HOUSE FLOOR 
VOTING.
TAKE A LOOK AT A TWEET THOUGH.
SOME OF WHAT'S HAPPENING BY 
HIND -- BEHIND THE SCENES 
ACCORDING TO JULIE PACE.
THE HOUSE SPEAKER NANCY PELOSI 
POSED A SIMPLE QUESTION ON 
IMPEACHMENT TO HOUSE DEMOCRATS 
BEHIND CLOSED DOORS TODAY.
SAYING ARE YOU READY?
SHE'S ASKING THE RANK AND FILE 
LAWMAKERS AND THE ANSWER SHE GOT
BACK WAS A RESOUNDING YES.
TAKING YOUR PHONE CALLS.
FLORIDA IS NEXT.
REED.
>> Caller: THANK YOU FOR GIVING 
THE PEOPLE A FORUM TO VOICE 
THEIR OPINIONS ON THIS.
THE MAIN THING I WANT TO TALK 
ABOUT IS THE LAW PROFESSORS ARE 
PEOPLE THEMSELVES AND THEY HAVE 
THEIR OWN POLITICAL OPINIONS AND
VIEW POINTS AND THAT SEEMS TO BE
ALL THAT WE HEARD TODAY FROM 
THEM WAS THEIR OPINION WHICH 
IS 
SHAPED SOMEWHAT BY THEIR OWN 
POLITICS THAT DOESN'T GIVE A 
CLEAR VIEW AND IT'S KIND OF 
DISHEARTENING THAT OUR CONGRESS 
IS CALLING WITNESSES LIKE THIS 
THAT ARE POLITICALLY 
OPINIONATED.
AND NOT ALLOWING THE OPPOSING 
VIEWPOINT TO BE HEARD.
AND THAT'S PRETTY MUCH ALL I 
WANTED TO SAY AND POINT OUT TO 
PEOPLE WHO ARE VOTING AND 
REMEMBER YOU HOLD A KEY POWER AS
PEOPLE TO VOTE NOT JUST FOR THE 
PRESIDENT, BUT FOR THOSE 
CONGRESSIONAL OFFICIALS THAT ARE
CARRYING ON THIS DOG AND PONY 
SHOW. 
>> THANKS FOR THE CALL.
MIAMI, FLORIDA, DEMOCRATS' LINE,
DERRICK.
GO AHEAD.
YOU HAVE THE FLOOR.
>> Caller: HEY, I JUST HAD A 
STATEMENT AND MAYBE A QUESTION.
SO PART OF PROVIDING -- PART OF 
OUR NATIONAL SECURITY IS 
PROVIDING AID TO UKRAINE.
RIGHT?
IT'S PART OF OUR NATIONAL 
SECURITY AGENDA.
NOW WE KNOW THERE'S AN ISSUE 
WITH CORRUPTION IN UKRAINE.
SO THERE WERE -- THERE ARE 
SEVERAL AGENCIES IN PLACE 
WORKING IN CONCERT TOGETHER TO 
ENSURE THAT UKRAINE MEETS THE 
OBLIGATIONS THAT THE U.S. SETS 
FORTH BEFORE WE APPROVE AND 
RELEASE FUNDING.
SO THE NOTION -- THE IDEA THAT 
TRUMP IS CONCERNED ABOUT 
CORRUPTION IS VOID BECAUSE THOSE
PROCESSES ARE ALREADY HANDLED.
THE SECOND POINT WAS THAT LEADS 
ME TO NO ONE IS MENTIONING THAT 
HE PRETTY MUCH VIOLATED THE 
IMPANEL CONTROL ACT WHICH 
BASICALLY STATES THE PRESIDENT 
CANNOT ARBITRARILY WITHHOLD AID 
FOR ANY REASON WITHOUT CONSENT 
OF CONGRESS.
AND NONE OF THAT WAS DONE AND 
I'M NOT UNDERSTANDING WHY THAT 
POINT IS BEING MISSED. 
>> I THINK IT HAS BEEN BROUGHT 
UP ACTUALLY, DERRICK.
I WANT TO POINT YOU BACK TO OUR 
WEBSITE, C-SPAN.ORG/IMPEACHMENT.
WE HAVE HEARD ESPECIALLY DURING 
THE QUESTIONING OF THE 
INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE HEARING 
FROM EVIDENTIARY WITNESSES THERE
TALKING ABOUT THE FACT THAT THAT
MONEY HAS BEEN APPROPRIATED BY 
CONGRESS AND HAD BEEN STOPPED 
AND YOU CAN TAKE A LOOK AT THAT.
AGAIN ON OUR WEBSITE, 
C-SPAN.ORG/IMPEACHMENT.
WE WANT TO HEAR IN YOU.
JUANITA IS ON THE LINE, LAS 
VEGAS, NEVADA, REPUBLICAN.
GO AHEAD.
>> Caller: YES, I'M CALLING FROM
LAS VEGAS.
IT SEEMS LIKE THE LEFT AND THE 
RIGHT ARE WATCHING TWO DIFFERENT
HEARINGS HERE.
BUT MY POINT IS THIS.
WHEN PRESIDENT TRUMP WAS ELECTED
AND HE TOOK THE OATH OF OFFICE I
THINK THE TIMING WAS 20 MINUTES 
AFTER THE OATH THAT THE 
DEMOCRATS STARTED TO TALK ABOUT 
IMPEACHMENT.
MAXINE WATERS ON THE TV ALL THE 
TIME, IMPEACH 45.
IMPEACH 45.
WHAT WERE THEY GOING TO IMPEACH 
HIM ON?
IF ANY OTHER PERSON IS IN THAT 
OFFICE, HOW COULD THEY PERFORM 
LIKE DONALD TRUMP HAS?
LOOKING OVER HIS SHOULDER, I 
CAN'T IMAGINE THE PRESSURE AND 
THE STRESS THAT HE'S UNDER AND 
HE STILL KEEPS FIGHTING.
I THINK THE DEMOCRATS COULD TAKE
A LESSON FROM DONALD TRUMP AND 
TRY TO BE A PERSON THAT HAS 
DIGNITY AND IS HONEST.
THE REASON HE DID NOT GIVE THE 
AID TO UKRAINE, THEY WANTED TO 
FIND OUT ABOUT THE CORRUPTION 
AND THAT WAS OUR TAX MONEY UP.
OUR MONEY HE'D BE GOING TO BE 
GIVING TO UKRAINE.
THAT'S WHAT HE DID.
HE DID NO WRONG.
BUT THEY CAN'T IMPEACH HIM 
BECAUSE THEY CAN'T.
BUT MY POINT IS THIS.
THE AMERICAN PEOPLE BETTER TAKE 
A LOOK AND SEE WHAT'S HAPPENING.
WHY ARE THEY DOING THINGS BEHIND
CLOSED DOORS?
THIS IS AMERICA.
AND THEY'RE SUPPOSED TO BE 
TRANSPARENT BUT HIDE BEHIND THE 
CLOSED DOORS THAT'S WRONG AND 
THE DEMOCRATS NEED TO SHAPE UP. 
>> I APPRECIATE IT FROM LAS 
VEGAS.
IF YOU'RE WONDERING WHERE THE 
REST OF THE COUNTRY IS.
THE WEBSITE FIVETHIRTYEIGHT, DO 
AMERICANS SUPPORT IMPEACHING 
PRESIDENT TRUMP AND A LOOK THERE
CURRENTLY, FAIRLY EVENLY DIVIDE.
48.5% SUPPORTING IT, 43.5% DO 
NOT.
LAWMAKERS SAY THEY HAVEN'T 
BROUGHT UP THE ARTICLES OF 
IMPEACHMENT YET.
DO NOT KNOW IF THAT WILL HAPPEN 
IN THE HOUSE.
BUT OF COURSE THESE HEARINGS 
MOVING IN THAT DIRECTION.
AND HEARING BEHIND CLOSED DOORS 
NANCY PELOSI ASKING HER CAUCUS 
IF THEY WERE READY AND THE 
RESOUNDING YES COMING FROM 
DEMOCRATS.
ONCE THINGS HAPPEN IN THE HOUSE 
INCLUDING THE ARTICLES OF 
IMPEACHMENT BEING DRAFTED THINGS
MOVE ON TO THE SENATE FOR THE 
ACTUAL TRIAL.
IF IT DOES COME TO THAT, WE'LL 
OF COURSE BRING YOU EVERYTHING 
HERE ON C-SPAN.
WATCHING ON C-SPAN 3 LIVE.
IF YOU'RE AWAY FROM YOUR 
TELEVISION JOIN US AT C-SPAN.ORG
AS THE VOTES WRAP UP ON THE 
HOUSE FLOOR.
WE'LL STAY HERE IN THE ROOM.
THIS IS THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 
MEETING IN THE OVERSIGHT 
COMMITTEE ROOM.
>>> RECOGNIZE GENTLEMAN -- 
LET ME REPEAT.
THE COMMITTEE WILL COME TO 
ORDER.
WHEN WE BROKE FOR RECESS, WE 
WERE UNDER THE FIVE MINUTE RULE 
AND I RECOGNIZE MR. 
SENSENBRENNER FOR FIVE MINUTES. 
>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH, MR. 
CHAIRMAN.
I'M A VETERAN OF IMPEACHMENTS.
I HAVE BEEN NAMED BY THE HOUSE 
AS AN IMPEACHMENT MANAGER IN 
FOUR IMPEACHMENTS.
CLINTON AND THREE JUDGES.
THAT'S MORE THAN ANYBODY ELSE IN
HISTORY.
AND 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 IS THAT THE DEBATE ON 
WHAT IS A HIGH CRIME AND 
MISDEMEANOR AND HOW SERIOUS DOES
THAT HAVE TO BE IN ORDER IT FOR 
IT TO RISE TO A LEVEL OF AN 
IMPEACHABLE OFFENSE.
50 YEARS AGO THEN REPUBLICAN 
LEADER GERALD FORD MADE A 
COMMENT THAT SAYING A HIGH CRIME
AND MISDEMEANOR IS ANYTHING A 
MAJORITY OF THE HOUSE OF 
REPRESENTATIVES DEEMS IT TO BE 
ON ANY GIVEN DAY.
I DON'T AGREE WITH THAT.
YOU KNOW, THAT SETS EITHER A 
VERY LOW BAR OR A NONEXISTENT 
BAR.
AND IT CERTAINLY WOULD MAKE THE 
PRESIDENT SERVE AT THE PLEASURE 
OF THE HOUSE WHICH WAS NOT WHAT 
THE FRAMERS INTENDED WHEN THEY 
REJECTED THE BRITISH FORUM OF 
PARLIAMENTARY DEMOCRACY WHERE 
THE PRIME MINISTER AND THE 
GOVERNMENT COULD BE OVERTHRONE 
BY A MERE VOTE OF NO CONFIDENCE 
IN THE HOUSE OF COMMONS.
SO I'M LOOKING AT WHAT WE'RE 
FACING HERE.
THIS WHOLE INQUIRY WAS STARTED 
OUT BY A COMMENT THAT PRESIDENT 
TRUMP MADE TO PRESIDENT ZELENSKY
IN THE JULY 25th CALL, QUOTE, DO
ME A FAVOR, UNQUOTE.
THERE ARE SOME WHO SAID IT'S A 
QUID PRO QUO, THERE ARE SOME WHO
HAVE IMPLIED THAT IT'S A QUID 
PRO QUO.
BUT BOTH TRUMP AND ZELENSKY HAVE
SAID IT WASN'T AND ZELENSKY HAS 
SAID THERE WAS NO PRESSURE ON ME
AND THE AID CAME THROUGH WITHIN 
SIX WEEKS AFTER THE PHONE CALL 
IN QUESTION WAS MADE.
NOW, YOU CAN CONTRAST THAT TO 
WHERE THERE WAS NO IMPEACHMENT 
INQUIRY TO VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN 
WHEN HE WAS GIVEN A SPEECH AND 
SAID, YOU KNOW, 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.
NOW, YOU KNOW, IT SEEMS TO ME 
THAT IF YOU'RE LOOKING FOR A 
QUID PRO QUO 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.
NOW, 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 CONTINUED ATTEMPTING TO DO 
THE PUBLIC'S BUSINESS.
THAT'S NOT WHAT'S HAPPENING 
HERE.
AND I THINK THE AMERICAN PUBLIC 
ARE GETTING A LITTLE BIT SICK 
AND TIRED OF IMPEACHMENT, 
IMPEACHMENT, IMPEACHMENT WHEN 
THEY 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.
AND 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 QUICKLY AND IT IS NOT 
WITHOUT EXAMINING ALL OF THE 
EVIDENCE WHICH IS WHAT WAS DONE 
IN THE NIXON IMPEACHMENT AND 
WHAT WAS DONE LARGELY BY KENNETH
STARR IN THE CLINTON 
IMPEACHMENT.
NOW, I'D LIKE TO ASK YOU, 
PROFESSOR TURLEY, BECAUSE YOUR 
IS ONE OF THE ONLY ONE OF THE 
FOUR UP THERE THAT DOESN'T SEEM 
TO HAVE IT MADE BEFORE YOU 
WALKED INTO THE DOOR.
ISN'T THERE A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN
SAYING QUOTE DO ME A FAVOR AND 
QUOTE, SON OF A BLEEP, THAT'S 
WHAT HAPPENED, IN SIX HOURS' 
TIME?
>> GRAMMATICALLY, YES.
CONSTITUTIONALLY IT REALLY 
DEPENDS 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 PRO 
QUO.
I GUESS THE THRESHOLD QUESTION 
IS IF THE PRESIDENT SAID IF THE
PRESIDENT SAID, I'D LIKE YOU TO 
DO THESE INVESTIGATIONS.
BY THE WAY, I DON'T GROUP THEM 
TOGETHER IN MY TESTIMONY.
I DISTINGUISH BETWEEN THE 
REQUEST FIREFIGHTER 
INVESTIGATIONS INTO 2016 FROM 
THE INVESTIGATION OF THE BIDENS.
BUT IT IS AN ISSUE OF ORDER, THE
MAGNITUDE OF ORDER 
CONSTITUTIONALLY IF YOU ASK I'D 
LIKE YOU TO SEE YOU DO THIS 
OPPOSED TO I HAVE A A QUID PRO 
QUO.
YOU EITHER DO THIS OR DON'T GET 
MILITARY AID.
>> THANK YOU.
>> THE TIME OF THE GENTLEMAN IS 
EXPIRED.
THE GENTLE LADY FROM TEXAS.
>> THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN, R 
FOR YIELDING.
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 A 
NUMBER OF FEDERAL JUDGES.
S.
I WAS GUIDED THEN 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, I'D LIKE YOU TO 
LOOK AT THE INTELLIGENCE VOLUME 
WHERE HUNDREDS OF DOCUMENTS ARE 
BEHIND THAT.
AND THE MUELLER REPORT.
YOU STUDIED THE RECORD.
TO YOU THINK IT IS, QUOTE, WAFER
THIN AND CAN YOU REMARK ON THE 
STRENGTH OF THE RECORD BEFORE 
US.
>> SO OBVIOUSLY, IT'S NOT WAFER 
THIN.
AND THE STRENGTH OF THE RECORD 
IS NOT JUST IN THE SEPTEMBER -- 
I MEAN, THE JULY 25th CALL.
I I THINK THE WIT YOU NEED TO 
ASK THIS IS HOW DOES THAT FIT 
INTO THE PATTERN OF BEHAVIOR BY 
THE PRESIDENT.
WHAT YOU'RE REALLY DOING IS 
YOU'RE DRAWING INFERENCES HERE.
THIS IS ABOUT CIRCUMSTANTIAL 
EVIDENCE AND DID THE PRESIDENT 
ASK FOR A POLITICAL FAVOR?
AND I THINK THIS RECORD SUPPORTS
THE INFERENCE THAT HE DID.
>> WHAT COMPARISONS, PROFESSOR, 
CAN WE MAKE BETWEEN THE FRAMERS 
WERE AFRAID OF.
AND THE PRESIDENT'S CONDUCT 
TODAY.
>> SO KINGS COULD DO NO WRONG 
BECAUSE THE KINGS WORD WAS LAW.
AND CONTRARY TO WHAT PRESIDENT 
TRUMP HAS SAID, ARTICLE 2 DOES 
NOT GIVE HIM THE POWER TO DO 
ANYTHING HE WANTS.
I'LL JUST GIVE YOU ONE EXAMPLE 
THAT SHOWS YOU DIFFERENCE 
BETWEEN HIM AND A KING.
WHICH IS THE CONSTITUTION SAYS 
THERE CAN BE NO TITLES OF 
NOBILITITY.
SO WHILE THE PRESIDENT CAN NAME 
HIS SON BARREN, HE CAN'T MAKE 
HIM A BARON.
>> THANK YOU.
THE FOUNDING FATHER GEORGE MASON
ANY MAN BE ABOVE JUSTICE AND 
ALEXANDER HAMILTON WROTE THAT 
HIGH CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS 
MEAN THE ABUSE OR VIOLATION OF 
PUBLIC TRUST.
AS WE MOVE FORWARD, YOU HAVE 
PREVIOUSLY TESTIFIED THAT THE 
PRESIDENT HAS ABUSED HIS POWER.
IS THAT CORRECT?
>> YES, MA'AM.
>> WHAT DO YOU THINK IS THE MOST
COMPELLING EVIDENCE IN THIS 
IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY THAT WOULD 
LEAD YOU TO THAT?
>> THE PHONE CALL ITSELF OF JULY
25th IS EXTRAORDINARILY 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 INTEREST OF THE 
NATION.
AND THEN FURTHER FROM THAT, 
FURTHER DOWN THE ROAD, WE HAVE 
MORE EVIDENCE, WHICH TENDS TO 
GIVE THE CONTEXT AND TO SUPPORT 
THE EXPLANATION OF WHAT 
HAPPENED.
>> PROFESSOR, HOW DOES SUCH 
ABUSE AFFECT OUR DEMOCRATIC 
SYSTEMS?
>> HAVING FOREIGN INTERFERENCE 
IN OUR ELECTION MEANS WE ARE 
LESS FREE.
THAT PEOPLE ARE DETERMINING ON A
FOREIGN GOVERNMENT.
IT'S FAIR TO SAY THE PRESIDENT'S
ACTIONS ARE UNPRESS DEPENDENTED.
BUT WHAT A ALSO STRIKES ME IS IS
IS HOW MANY REPUBLICANS AND 
DEMOCRATS BELIEVE THAT HIS 
CONDUCT WAS WRONG.
>> IS IT IMPROPER FOR THE 
PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES?
>> LISTEN TO THE COLONEL.
>> IT IS IMPROPER FOR THE 
PRESIDENT OF UNITED STATES TO 
DEMAND A FOREIGN GOVERNMENT TO 
INVESTIGATE THE U.S. CITIZEN AND
A POLITICAL OPPONENT.
>> IN LIGHT OF THE FACT THAT THE
PRESIDENT ASKED FOR AN 
INVESTIGATION AND THEN ONLY WHEN
HE WAS CAUGHT RELEASED THE 
MILITARY AID, IS IS THERE STILL 
A NEED FOR IMPEACHMENT?
>> YES, MA'AM.
IMPEACHMENT IS COMPLETE WHEN THE
PRESIDENT ABUSES HIS OFFICE AND 
HE ABUSES HIS OFFICE BY 
ATTEMPTING TO ABUSE HIS OFFICE.
THERE'S NO DISTINCTION THERE 
BETWEEN TRYING TO DO IT AND 
SUCCEEDING IN DOING IT AND 
THAT'S ESPECIALLY TRUE IF YOU 
ONLY STOP BECAUSE YOU GOT 
CAUGHT.
>> OVER 70% OF THE AMERICAN 
PEOPLE BELIEVE, AS US SAID, THAT
THE PRESIDENT WHAT THE 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 SERVE IN THE UNITED STATES 
MILITARY.
AND 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 A FAVOR.
WE KNOW THAT GENERAL WOULD NOT 
SAY DO ME A FAVOR.
SO IN THIS INSTANCE, THE 
AMERICAN PEOPLE DESERVE 
UNFEDDERED LEADERSHIP AND IT IS 
OUR DUTY TO FAIRLY ASSESS THE 
FACTS AND THE CONSTITUTION.
I YIELD BACK MY TIME.
>> THE GENTLE LADY YIELDS BACK.
>> THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN.
IT'S PRETTY CLEAR TO ME THAT NO 
MATTER WHAT QUESTIONS WE SEE FOR
THE WITNESSES HERE TODAY AND NO 
MATTER WHAT THEIR ANSWERS ARE, 
THAT MOST, IF NOT ALL OF 
DEMOCRATS ON THIS COMMITTEE ARE 
GOING TO VOTE TO UM PEACH 
PRESIDENT TRUMP.
THAT'S WHAT THEIR HARD CORE 
TRUMP-HATING BASE WANTS AND THEY
HAVE WANTED THAT SINCE THE 
PRESIDENT WAS ELECTED THREE 
YEARS AGO.
IN FACT, WHEN DEMOCRATS TOOK 
OVER THE HOUSE, ONEOVER THE 
FIRST THINGS THEY DID WAS 
INTRODUCE ARTICLES OF 
IMPEACHMENT AGAINST PRESIDENT 
TRUMP.
THAT WAS WAY BEFORE PRESIDENT 
TRUMP AND THE UKRAINIAN 
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 BEING 
PERMITTED TO CALL THOSE 
WITNESSES.
IT WOULD SEEM SINCE SCHIFF 
MISLED THE AMERICAN PEOPLE ON 
MULTIPLE OCCASIONS, COMMON SENSE
AND BASIC FAIRNESS WOULD CALL R 
FOR SCHIFF TO BE QUESTIONED 
ABOUT THOSE THINGS, BUT WE 
CAN'T.
MR. CHAIRMAN, BECOME 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 THE 
PRESIDENT WITHOUT AN 
OVERWHELMING CONSENSUS OF THE 
MIRN PEOPLE AND THE 
REPRESENTATIVES IN CONGRESS.
YOU ALSO SAID, QUOTE, THERE MUST
NEVER BE A NARROWLY VOTE 
IMPEACHMENT OR IMPEACHMENT 
SUBSTANTIALLY SUPPORTED BY ONE 
OF THE MAJOR POLITICAL PARTIES 
AND LARGELY OPPOSED BY THE 
OTHER.
YOU SAID SUCH AN IMPEACHMENT 
WOULD LACK LEGITIMACY, WOULD 
PRODUCE DIVISIVENESS IN OUR 
POLITICS FOR YEARS TO COME.
AND THERE'S NO DOUBT THAT IT 
WILL BE PERCEIVED BY HALF OF THE
AMERICAN PEOPLE AS UNFAIR AND 
PARTISAN EFFORT.
YOU SEEM BOUND AND DETERMINED TO
MOVE FORWARD WITH THIS 
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.
THEY DON'T LIKE HIM AS A A 
PERSON.
THEY HATE HIS TWEETS.
THEY DON'T LIKE THE FACT THAT 
THE MUELLER INVESTIGATION WAS A 
FLOP.
SO NOW YOU'RE GOING TO IMPEACH 
HIM.
I GOT NEWS FOR YOU.
YOU MAY BE ABLE TO TWIST ENOUGH 
ARMS IN THE HOUSE TO IMPEACH THE
PRESIDENT, BUT THAT EFFORT IS 
GOING TO DIE IN THE SENATE.
THE PRESIDENT IS GOING TO SERVE 
OUT HIS TERM IN OFFICE AND BE 
REELECTED TO A SECOND TERM 
PROBABLY WITH THE HELP OF THIS 
VERY IMPEACHMENT SHH RAID WE'RE 
GOING THROUGH NOW.
WHILE YOU'RE WASTING SO MUCH OF 
CONGRESS'S TIME AND THE AMERICAN
PEOPLE'S MONEY ON THIS 
IMPEACHMENT, THERE'S SO MANY 
OTHER IMPORTANT THINGS THAT ARE 
GOING UNDONE.
WITHIN THIS COMMITTEE'S OWN 
JURISDICTION, WE SHOULD BE 
ADDRESSING THE OPIOID EPIDEMIC.
WE COULD BE WORKING TOGETHER TO 
FIND A SOLUTION TO THE 
IMMIGRATION CHALLENGES ON THE 
SOUTHERN BORDER.
WE COULD BE PROTECTING AMERICANS
FROM INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY 
STOLEN BY CHINESE COMPANIES AND 
ENHANCING ELECTION SECURITY JUST
TO NAME A FEW THINGS.
AND CONGRESS AS A WHOLE COULD BE
WORKING ON REBUILDING THE 
CRUMBLING INFRASTRUCTURE, 
PROVIDING TAX RELIEF TO THE 
NATION'S MIDDLE-CLASS FAMILIES 
AND PROVIDING ADDITIONAL 
SECURITY TO 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.
I YIELD BACK.
>> THE GENTLEMAN YIELDS BACK.
>> I TAKE NO PLEASURE IN THE 
FACT THAT WE'RE HERE TODAY.
AS A PATRIOT THAT LOVES AMERICA,
IT PAINS ME THAT THE 
CIRCUMSTANCES FORCE US TO 
UNDERTAKE THIS GRAVE AND SOLEMN 
OBLIGATION.
NONETHELESS, SIMPLY ON THE 
PUBLICLY AVAILABLE EVIDENCE, IT 
APPEARS THE PRESIDENT TRUMP 
PRESSURED A A FOREIGN FWOFT TO 
INTERFERE IN OUR ELECTIONS BY 
INVESTIGATING HIS PERCEIVED 
CHIEF POLITICAL POINT.
TODAY WE'RE HERE TO UPHOLD OUR 
OATH TO DEFEND THE CONSTITUTION 
OF THE UNITED STATES FURTHERING 
OUR UNDERSTANDING WHETHER THE 
PRESIDENT'S CONDUCT IS 
IMPEACHABLE.
AS IT RELATES TO PRESIDENTIAL 
IMPEACHMENT.
THE FRAMERS OF THE CONSTITUTION 
FEARED FOR AN INTERFERENCE IN 
THE SOVEREIGNTY.
THEY WANTED TO ENSURE THERE 
WOULD BE 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 PEOPLE'S HOUSE ARE THAT 
CHECK.
UNDER OUR CONSTITUTION, THE 
HOUSE CAN IMPEACH A A PRESIDENT 
FOR TREASON, BRIBERY OR OTHER 
HIGH CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS.
YOU HAVE DISCUSSED HIGH CRIMES 
MISDEMEANORS.
IT REFERS TO CRIMES.
CAN YOU JUST GIVE US A LITTLE 
PITH OF A SUMMARY OF WHAT HIGH 
CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS ARE AND 
HOW THEY ARE DISTINCT FROM WHAT 
PROFESSOR SAID THEY WERE.
>> YES, SIR, HIGH CRIMES AND 
MISDEMEANORS ARE ACTIONS OF THE 
PRESIDENT IN OFFICE WHERE HE 
USES HIS OFFICE TO ADVANCE HIS 
PERSONAL INTERESTS, POTENTIALLY 
FOR PERSONAL GAIN, POTENTIALLY 
TO CORRUPT THE ELECTORAL PROCESS
AND POTENTIALLY AS WELL AS 
AGAINST THE NATIONAL SECURITY 
INTERESTS OF THE UNITED STATES.
I WOULD ADD THAT THE WORD HIGH 
MODIFY CRIMES AND MISDEMEANOR.
THE FRAMERS KNEW OF BOTH HIGH 
CRIMES AND HIGH MISDEMEANORS.
AND I BELIEVE THAT THE 
DEFINITION THAT WAS POSTED 
EARLIER OF MISDEMEANOR WAS NOT 
THE DEFINITION OF HIGH 
MISDEMEANOR, WHICH WAS A A 
SPECIFIC TERM UNDERSTOOD BY THE 
FRAMERS AND DISCUSSED IN THE 
CONSTITUTIONAL COB VENGS.
BUT ONLY OF THE WORD 
MISDEMEANOR.
THAT'S AN EASY MISTAKE TO MAKE, 
BUT THE TRUTH IS THE HIGH 
MISDEMEANORS WERE THEIR OWN 
CATEGORY OF ABUSES OF OFFICE.
THOSE ARE THE THINGS THAT ARE 
IMPEACHABLE.
>> THANK YOU, PROFESSOR.
YOU HAVE FOUND IT IMPLICATES 
THREE CATEGORIES OF HIGH CRIMES 
AND MISDEMEANORS.
ABUSE OF POWER, BETRAYAL OF THE 
NATIONAL INTEREST, AND 
CORRUPTION OF ELECTIONS.
IS THAT RIGHT?
>> YES, IT IS.
>> AND PROFESSOR FELDMAN?
>> YES, SIR.
>> YOU STATED THAT THE ESSENCE 
OF AN IMPEACHABLE OFFENSE IS THE
DECISION TO SACRIFICE THE 
NATIONAL INTEREST FOR HIS OWN 
PRIVATE ENDS.
DO Y'ALL AGREE WITH THAT?
>> YES, SIR.
HAS PRESIDENT TRUMP SACRIFICED 
THE INTERESTS OF HIS OWN?
>> YES, HE HAS.
>> IS THERE A PARTICULAR PIECE 
OEFD THAT ILLUMINATES THAT?
>> I THINK WHAT ILLUMINATES THAT
MOST FOR ME IS THE STATEMENT BY 
AMBASSADOR SONDLAND THAT HE 
WANTED SIMPLY THE ANNOUNCEMENT 
OF AN INVESTIGATION.
AND SEVERAL OTHER PEOPLE SAID 
EXACTLY THE SAME THING.
THERE'S TESTIMONY BY AMBASSADOR 
VOLKER AS WELL.
WHAT HE WANTED WAS SIMPLY PUBLIC
INFORMATION TO DAMAGE JOE BIDEN.
HE DIDN'T CARE WHETHER HE WAS 
FOUND GUILTY OR EXONERATED.
>> PROFESSOR FELDMAN, DO YOU 
AGREE OR DO YOU HAVE A 
DIFFERENT?
>> MY EMPHASIS WOULD BE ON THE 
FACT THAT THE PRESIDENT HELD UP 
AID TO AN ALLY THAT'S FIGHTING A
WAR IN DIRECT CONTRA VENGS OF 
THE UNANIMOUS RECOMMENDATION OF 
THE NATIONAL SECURITY COMMUNITY.
THAT HAS PLACED HIS OWN 
INTERESTS IN PERSONAL ADVANTAGE 
AHEAD OF THE INTERESTS OF THE 
NATION.
>> AND A A BILL PASS BID 
CONGRESS.
>> YES, SIR.
>> I AGREE WITH WHAT MY 
COLLEAGUES I HAVE SAID.
I WOULD ADD I'M VERY CONCERNED 
ABOUT THE PRESIDENT'S 
OBSTRUCTION OF CONGRESS.
OBSTRUCTION OF THIS INQUIRY, 
REFUSAL TO COMPLY WITH A NUMBER 
OF SUBPOENAS, ORDERING MANY HIGH
LEVEL OF OFFICIALS NOT TO COMPLY
WITH SUBPOENAS
LEVEL OF OFFICIALS NOT TO COMPLY
WITH UBPOENAS.
AND ORDERING 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.
THE CONSTITUTION ONLY USES THE 
WORD SOLE TWICE.
ONCE WITH REFERENCE TO THE HOUSE
IN THIS AREA, ONCE WITH 
REFERENCE TO THE SENATE WITH 
RESPECT TO IMPEACHMENT TRIAL.
SOLE MEANS ONLY.
THIS IS YOUR DECISION.
>> LET ME GET THE PROFESSOR INTO
THIS.
YOU'RE A SELF-ANOINTED DEFENDER 
OF ARTICLE 1 OF CONGRESS.
BUT YOU JUSTIFY A POSITION THAT 
SAYS LEGALLY ISSUED SUBPOENAS BY
CONGRESS ENFORCING ITS POWERS 
DON'T HAVE TO BE COMPLIED BY.
YOU'RE AN ARTICLE 2 EXECUTIVE 
GUY.
AND YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT THE 
JOHNSON IMPEACHMENT IS NOT VERY 
USEFUL.
THAT WAS MALL ADMINISTRATION.
THIS IS A CRIMINAL ACT.
THANK YOU, PROFESSORS, FOR EPING
US UNDERSTAND.
WE THE PEOPLE ARE CUSTODIANS OF 
THIS COUNTRY.
WE HAVE A HIGH RESPONSIBILITY TO
CONTROL CHARGES WITH THE SOLE 
POWER TO HOLD THE CONSTITUTION 
AND DEFEND OUR DEMOCRACY.
WE SHALL DO THAT.
>> THE GENTLEMAN'S TIME IS 
EXPIRED.
>> THANK YOU.
I'M AFRAID THIS HEARING IS 
INDICATIVE OF THE INDECENCY TO 
WHICH WE COME WHEN INSTEAD OF 
THE COMMITTEE OF JURISDICTION 
BRINGING IN FACT WITNESSES TO 
GET TO THE BOTTOM OF WHAT 
HAPPENED.
AND NOT EVEN HAVING TIME TO 
REVIEW THE REPORT, WHICH AS THE 
PROFESSOR INDICATED IS WAFER 
THIN WHEN COMPARED TO THE 36 
BOXES OF DOCUMENTS THAT WERE 
DELIVERED TO THE LAST 
IMPEACHMENT GROUP.
BUT THEN TO START THIS HEARING 
WITH THE CHAIRMAN OF THE 
COMMITTEE SAYING THAT THE FACTS 
ARE U.N. DISPUTED, THE ONLY 
THING THAT IT IS DISPUTED MORE 
THAN THE FACTS IN THIS CASE IS 
THE STATEMENT THAT THE FACTS ARE
UNDIES PUTED.
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 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.
THERE'S A COUPLE I COULD NAME 
THAT ARE CRITICAL TO US GETTING 
TO THE BOTTOM.
THEY WORK FOR THE NATIONAL 
SECURITY COUNCIL.
THEY WERE INVOLVED IN THE 
UKRAINE AFFAIRS AND THEY WORKED 
WITH VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN ON 
DIFFERENT MATTERS INVOLVING 
UKRAINE.
IT WAS CRITICAL INFORMATION 
ABOUT UKRAINES INVOLVEMENT IN 
OUR U.S. ELECTION.
THE RELATIONSHIPS WITH THE 
WITNESS WHO IS WENT BEFORE THE 
INTEL COMMITTEE AND OTHERS 
INVOLVED IN THESE ALLEGATIONS.
MAKES HIM THE MOST CRITICAL 
WITNESSES IN THIS ENTIRE 
INVESTIGATION.
AND THE RECORDS INCLUDING THEIR 
E-MAILS AND TEXT MESSAGES, FLASH
DRIVES OR COMPUTERS HAVE 
INFORMATION THAT WILL BRING THIS
EFFORT TO REMOVE THE PRESIDENT 
TO A SCREECHING HALT.
IT POINTS OUT THAT HOUSE 
INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN 
ADAM SCHIFF RECRUITED TWO FORMER
NATIONAL SECURITY COUNCIL AIDS 
WHO WORKED ALONGSIDE THE 
WHISTLEBLOWER AT THE NSC DURING 
THE OBAMA AND TRUMP 
ADMINISTRATIONS.
ABIGAIL GRACE, WHO WORKED UNTIL 
2018 WAS HIRED IN FEBRUARY WHILE
UNTIL 2017 JOINED SCHIFF'S 
COMMITTEE IN AUGUST.
THE SAME MONTH THE WHISTLEBLOWER
SUBMITTED HIS COMPLAINT.
AND IT GOES ON B TO POINT OUT 
THAT GRACE WAS HIRED TO HELP 
SCHIFF'S COMMITTEE INVESTIGATE 
THE TRUMP WHITE HOUSE.
THAT MONTH TRUMP ACCUSED SCHIFF 
OF STEALING PEOPLE WORKING AT 
THE WHITE HOUSE.
AND CHAIRMAN SCHIFF SAID IF THE 
THEY ARE WORRIED, HE SHOULD WORK
ON BEING A BETTER EMPLOYER.
NO, HE SHOULD HAVE FIRED 
EVERYBODY JUST LIKE BILL CLINTON
DID, ALL THE U.S. ATTORNEYS ON 
THE SAME DAY.
THAT WOULD HAVE SAVED US A LOT 
OF WHAT'S GOING ON HERE.
SO WE NEED THOSE TWO WITNESSES.
THEY ARE CRITICAL.
AND THEN WE ALSO NEED SOMEONE 
WHO WAS A CIA DETAIL TO UKRAINE.
STATE DEPARTMENT SHOWS THAT IT 
WAS A STATE LUNCHEON.
IT WAS RAMIFICATIONS IN THE LAST
ELECTIONS.
HE SPEAKS ARABIC AND RUSSIAN.
REPORTED TO A FRIEND OF THE 
CLINTON'S AIDS CHOSE TO 
CONTINUOUS CONTACT WITH THE 
FBI'S STATE UKRAINIAN B 
OFFICIALS.
AHEAD OF VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN.
HE WAS OBAMA'S POINT MAN ON 
UKRAINE.
HE WAS ASSOCIATED WITH DNC ON 
RATIVE.
MET WITH HER NOVEMBER 9th, 2015.
AND THERE'S ALL KINDS OF REASONS
WE NEED THESE THREE WITNESSES.
AND I WOULD ASK PURSUANT TO ZX 
FOUR HOUSE RESOLUTION 669 ASK 
OUR CHAIRMAN -- 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.
I YIELD BACK.
>> GENTLEMAN YIELDS BACK.
MR. JOHNSON?
>> THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN.
THE PRESIDENT HAS REGULARLY AND 
RECENTLY SOLICITED FOREIGN 
INTERFERENCE IN OUR UPCOMING 
ELECTIONS.
AND SUGGESTS THAT THE HOUSE 
SHOULD PAUSE.
PROFESSOR, DO YOU AGREE?
>> NO, IF YOU CONCLUDE THAT, 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 HAVE IN
THE PAST.
>> THANK YOU.
IN 30 SECONDS OR LESS, TELL US 
WHY YOU BELIEVE THE PRESIDENT'S 
MISCONDUCT WAS AN ABUSE OF POWER
SO EGREGIOUS THAT IT MERITS THE 
DRASTIC REMEDY OF IMPEACHMENT.
>> HE INVITED THE RUSSIANS TO 
OUR ADVERSARIES INTO THE 
PROCESS.
THE LAST TIME AROUND BECAUSE HE 
HAS INVITED THE UKRAINIANS INTO 
THE PROCESS AND HE'S SUGGESTED 
HE WOULD LIKE THE CHINESE TO 
COME TO THE PROCESS AS WELL.
>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
ONE OF THE FRAMERS OF THE 
CONSTITUTION WHO AT ONE TIME WAS
MAYOR OF WILLIAMSBURG, VIRGINIA,
WARNED US THAT, QUOTE, THE 
EXECUTIVE WILL HAVE GREAT 
OPPORTUNITY OF ABUSING HIS 
POWER.
PEOPLE LIKE THE MAYOR REBELLED 
BECAUSE OF THE TYRANNY OF A 
KING.
WHY WOULD THE FRAMERS SO CAREFUL
TO AVOID THE POTENTIAL FOR A 
PRESIDENT TO BECOME SO TIER RAN 
CALL AND ABUSIVE AND WHAT DID 
THEY DO TO PROTECT AGAINST IT?
>> THE FRAMERS BELIEVED VERY 
STRONGLY THAT THE PEOPLE WERE 
THE KING.
THE PEOPLE WERE SOVEREIGN.
THAT MEANT THE PRESIDENT WORKED 
FOR SOMEBODY.
HE WORKED FOR THE PEOPLE.
THEY KNEW THAT THE PRESIDENT WHO
COULDN'T BE CHECKED, WHO COULD 
NOT BE SUPERVISED BY HIS OWN 
JUSTICE DEPARTMENT AND WHO COULD
NOT BE SUPERVISED BY CONGRESS 
WOULD EFFECTIVELY BE ABOVE THE 
LAW AND USE HIS POWER TO GET 
HIMSELF REELECTED.
THAT'S WHY THEY CREATED THE 
IMPEACHMENT REMEDY.
>> THANK YOU.
I NOW WANT TO DISCUSS HOW THE 
FRAMERS CASE OF PUZ OF POWER 
RELATE TO PRESIDENT TRUMP'S 
MISCONDUCT.
ON JULY 259, HE SAID TO 
PRESIDENT ZELENSKY, I WOULD LIKE
YOU TO DO US A A FAVOR, THOUGH.
PROFESSOR FELDMAN, WHEN 
PRESIDENT TRUMP MADE USE OF THE 
WORDS FAVOR, DO YOU THINK HE WAS
ASKING FOR A FAVOR AND HOW IS 
THE ANSWER TO THAT QUESTION 
RELEVANT TO WHETHER THE 
PRESIDENT ABUSED HIS 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 PROBLEM IS FOR THE PRESIDENT
TO USE HIS OFFICE TO SOLICIT OR 
DEMAND FAVOR FOR HIS PERSONAL 
BENEFIT.
AND THE EVIDENCE STRONGLY 
SUGGESTS THAT GIVEN THE POWER OF
THE PRESIDENT AND GIVEN THE 
INCENTIVES CREATED FOR UKRAINE 
COMPLY WITH HIS REQUESTS, HE WAS
SEEKING TO HIS OWN PERSONAL 
BENEFIT AND INTEREST.
THAT'S THE DEFINITION OF 
INTERRUPTION UNDER THE 
CONSTITUTION.
>> ALSO WITNESSED HAVE ALSO 
TESTIFIED IT WAS THEIR 
IMPRESSION WHEN PRESIDENT TRUMP 
SAID I WOULD LIKE YOU TO DO US A
FAVOR, HE WAS MAKING A DEMAND 
AND NOT A REQUEST.
PROFESSOR, HOW VIND MINNESOTA'S 
STATEMENT WAS A TAND BECAUSE OF 
THE POWER DISPARITY BETWEEN THE 
TWO COUNTRIES RELATE BACK TO OUR
R FRAMERS CONCERNS ABOUT THE 
PRESIDENT'S POUZ OF POWER.
>> YOU HAVE TO UNDERSTAND THAT 
THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED 
STATES HAS SO MUCH MORE POWER 
THAN THE PRESIDENT OF UKRAINE.
WHEN THE PRESIDENT USES THE WORD
FAVOR, THE REALITY IS THAT HE'S 
APPLYING TREMENDOUS PRESSURE.
THE PRESSURE OF THE POWER OF THE
UNITED STATES.
AND THAT RELTS TO THE 
CONSTITUTIONAL ABUSE OF OFFICE.
IF SOMEONE OTHER THAN THE 
PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES 
ASKED THE TO DO TO DO A FAVOR.
HE COULD SAY NO.
WHEN THE PRESIDENT USES THE 
OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENCY TO ASK 
FOR A FAVOR, THERE'S SIMPLY NO 
WAY FOR UKRAINE TO REFOUZ.
SGLE WE LS HEARD HE WITHHELD 
MILITARY AID TO FURTHER PRESSURE
UKRAINE TO ANNOUNCE 
INVESTIGATIONS OF BROOIDEN AND 
THE 2016 ELECTION.
IS THAT YOUR TESTIMONY CONDITION
COLLUDED THAT THE PRESIDENT 
ABUSED HIS POWER?
>> I THOUGHT THE PRESIDENT 
ABUSED HIS POWER BY ASKING FOR A
CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION OF THE 
UNITED STATES CITIZEN FOR 
POLITICAL ENDS REGARDLESS OF 
EVERYTHING ELSE.
THAT'S AN AGGRAVATING 
CIRCUMSTANCE.
>> THANK YOU.
A PRESIDENT HOLDING AN AMERICAN 
ALLY OVER A BARREL TO EXTRACT 
PERSONAL FAVORS IS DEEPLY 
TROUBLING.
THIS IS NOT AN IMPULSE BUY 
MOMENT.
IT'S A BREAK THE GLASS MOMENT.
IMPEACHMENT IS THE ONLY 
APPROPRIATE REMEDY.
WITH THAT, I WILL YIELD BACK.
>> THE GENTLEMAN YIELDS BACK.
MR. JORDAN.
>> THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN.
BEFORE SPEAKER PELOSI ANNOUNCED 
THE IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY TEN 
WEEKS AGO ON SEPTEMBER 24th, 
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, 16 OF THEM HAD 
ALREADY VOTED TO MOVE FORWARD ON
IMPEACHMENT.
16 DEMOCRATS ON THE JUDICIARY 
HEARING COMMITTEE VOTED TO MOVE 
FORWARD ON IMPEACHMENT.
YET TODAY, WE'RE TALKING ABOUT 
WHETHER THE POSITIONS THEY HAVE 
ALREADY TAKEN A ARE 
CONSTITUTIONAL?
IT SEEMS A LITTLE BACK WARD TO 
ME.
WE GOT FOUR DEMOCRATS OR FOUR 
PEOPLE VOTED FOR CLINTON.
THEYEN CAN'T AGREE.
YET TODAY WE'RE TALKING ABOUT 
THE CONSTITUTION.
PROFESSOR, YOU HAVE BEEN GREAT 
TODAY, BUT I THINK YOU'RE WRONG 
ON ONE THING.
YOU SAID THIS IS A FAST 
IMPEACHMENT.
I WOULD ARGUE IT'S A 
PREDETERMINED IMPEACHMENT.
IT'S DONE IN THE MOST UNB FAIR 
FASHION WE HAVE EVER SEEN.
SNO SUBPOENA POWER FOR 
REPUBLICANS.
DEPOSITIONS DONE IN SECRET IN 
THE BUNKER AND BASEMENT OF THE 
CAPITAL.
17 PEOPLE COME IN FOR 
DEPOSITIONS.
NO ONE CAN BE IN THERE EXCEPT A 
HANDFUL OF FOLKS THAT ADAM 
SCHIFF ALLOWED.
IN THOSE DEPOSITIONS, THE 
CHAIRMAN PREVENTED WITNESSES 
FROM ANSWERING REPUBLICAN 
QUESTIONS.
CATS DENIED REPUBLICANS THE 
WITNESS IN THE OPEN HEARINGS 
THAT TOOK PLACE THREE WEEKS AGO.
AND DEMOCRATS PROMISED US THE 
WHISTLEBLOWER WOULD TESTIFY AND 
THEN CHANGED THEIR MIND.
THEY CHANGED THEIR MIND WHY?
BECAUSE THE WHOLE WORLD 
DISCOVERED THAT ADAM SCHIFF'S 
STAFF HAD TALKED TO THE 
WHISTLEBLOWER, COORDINATED WITH 
THE WHISTLEBLOWER.
THE WHISTLEBLOWER WOULD KNOW 
FIRSTHAND KNOWLEDGE, BIAS 
AGAINST THE PRESIDENT, WHOSE 
LAWYER IN JANUARY SAID THE 
IMPEACHMENT PROCESS STARTS THEN.
THAT'S THE UNFAIR PROCESS WE 
HAVE BEEN THROUGH.
THE REASON IT'S BEEN UNFAIR, LET
ME CUT TO THE CHASE.
THE FACTS AREN'T ON THEIR SIDE.
THE FACTS ARE ON THE PRESIDENT'S
SIDE.
IT WILL NOT CHANGE.
WILL NEVER CHANGE.
WE HAVE THE TRANSCRIPT.
THERE WAS NO QUID PRO QUO ON THE
TRANSCRIPT.
THE TWO GUYS ON THE CALL BOTH 
SAID NO PRESSURE, NO PUSHING, NO
QUID PRO QUO.
THEY DIDN'T KNOW THE AID WAS 
HELD UP AT THE TIME OF THE PHONE
CALL AND MOST IMPORTANT, 
UKRAINIANS NEVER STARTED, NEVER 
PROMISED TO START AND NEVER 
ANNOUNCED AN INVESTIGATION IN 
THE TIME THE AID WAS PAUSED.
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 AND THE CALL ON JULY 
25th.
THE VERY NEXT DAY.
WE THEN HAD BOLTON END OF AUGUST
MEET WITH PRESIDENT ZELENSKY.
REPUBLICAN AND MORE IMPORTANTLY 
DEMOCRATIC SENATOR MURPHY WITH 
REPUBLICAN SENATOR JOHNSON MEET 
WITH PRESIDENT SETH LENT B SKIT 
ON SEPTEMBER 5th.
NONE OF THOSE FIVE MEETINGS WAS 
AID EVER DISCUSSED IN EXCHANGE 
FOR AN ANNOUNCEMENT OF AN 
INVESTIGATION INTO ANYBODY.
NOT ONE OF THEM.
AND YOU'D THINK THE LAST TWO 
AFTER THE UKRAINIANS DID KNOW 
THE AID WAS BEING HELD, YOU'D 
THINK IT WOULD COME UP THEN.
PARTICULARLY THE ONE WHERE THEY 
GHOT SENATOR MURPHY TALKING 
ABOUT IT.
NEVER CAME UP.
THE FACTS ARE ON THE PRESIDENT'S
SIDE.
WE HAVE AN UNFAIR PROCESS 
BECAUSE THEY DON'T HAVE THE 
FACTS.
WE HAVE AN UNFAIR PROCESS.
THIS GETS TO SOMETHING ELSE YOU 
SAID.
HOW THAT WAS SO WELL SAID.
THIS IS SCARY.
THE DEMOCRATS HAVE NEVER 
ACCEPTED THE WILL OF THE 
AMERICAN PEOPLE.
1 DAYS AGO, 17 DAYS AGO THE 
SPEAKER OF THE UNITED STATES 
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES CALLED 
THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED 
STATES AN IMPOSTER.
63 MILLION AMERICANS VOTED FOR 
WHO WON AN ELECTORAL COLLEGE 
LANDSLIDE, THE SPEAKER OF THE 
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES CALLED 
THAT INDIVIDUAL AN IMPOSTER.
THAT'S NOT HEALTHY FOR OUR 
COUNTRY.
THIS IS NOT HEALTHY.
THE FACTS ARE THE FACTS THEY ARE
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 HAVE ALREADY TERMED WHERE 
YOU'RE GOING TO GO.
THAT, I YIELD BACK.
>> THE GENTLEMAN YIELDS BACK.
MR. DEUTSCHE.
>> THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN.
MR. CHAIRMAN, THIS MONTH WE 
COMMEMORATE THE BATTLE OF THE 
BULGE.
MY LATE FATHER AND STAFF R 
SERGEANT RECEIVED A PURPLE HEART
FIGHTING IN THE FRIGID AREA.
HE GAVE BLOOD AMONG TENS OF 
THOUSANDS OF AMERICANS.
THEY SERVED UNDER OFFICERS AND A
COMMANDER-IN-CHIEF WORP 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 INTEREST 
ABOVE THEIR OWN PERSONAL 
INTEREST.
THE EVIDENCE SHOWS THAT THE 
PRESIDENT BROKE THAT PROMISE.
THE CONSTITUTION GIVES THE 
PRESIDENT ENORMOUS POWER.
BUT IT ALSO IMPOSES A REMEDY, 
IMPEACHMENT, WHEN THOSE POWERS 
ARE ABUSED.
IN JULY PRESIDENT TRUMP SAID, 
AND I QUOTE, I HAVE AN ARTICLE 
2.
WHERE I HAVE THE RIGHT TO DO 
WHATEVER I WANT.
THAT'S THE PRESIDENT, CLOSED 
QUOTE.
THE PRESIDENT HAS BROAD POWERS 
INCLUDING FOREIGN POLICY.
ISN'T THAT RIGHT?
>> YES, SIR.
>> DO THOSE POWERS MEAN THAT THE
PRESIDENT CAN DO WHATEVER HE 
WANTS?
CAN HE ABUSE THE POWERS OF THE 
CONSTITUTION GIVES HIM?
>> HE MAY NOT.
IF THE PRESIDENT USES THE POWERS
THAT HE'S GIVEN FOR PERSONAL 
GAIN OR CORRUPT AN ELECTION OR 
AGAINST THE NATIONAL SECURITY 
INTEREST OF THE UNITED STATES, 
HE MAY BE IMPEACHED FOR A HIGH 
CRIME.
>> IS HE USING HIS POWER TO 
PRESSURE UKRAINE TO INTERFERE IN
U.S. ELECTIONS?
>> YES, SIR.
>> HOW WOULD THE FRAMERS ASK FOR
ELECTION INTERFERENCE FROM A 
FOREIGN LEADER?
>> IT'S PRACTICALLY IMPOSSIBLE 
TO KNOW EXACTLY WHAT THE FRAMERS
WOULD THINK, BUT IT'S NOT HARD 
TO IMAGINE HOW THE CONSTITUTION 
DEALS WITH IT.
THAT'S THEIR LEGACY TO US.
UNDER THE CONSTITUTION, IT'S 
PLAINLY AN ABUSE OF POWER.
SO RATHER HORRIFYING ABUSE OF 
POWER.
>> WE HAVE HEARD WITNESSES OVER 
THE PAST SEVERAL WEEKS TESTIFY 
ABOUT THEIR CONCERNS WHEN THE 
PRESIDENT USED HIS FOREIGN 
POLICY POWERS FOR POLITICAL 
GAIN.
IT'S EFFORTS TO PROTECT THE 
NATIONAL SECURITY POLICY.
AMBASSADOR TAYLOR THOUGHT IT WAS
CRAZY TO WITHHOLD SECURITY 
ASSISTANCE.
>> THE VERY FOUNDATION OF OUR 
DRAS.
>> AND OFFERING TO EXCHANGE A 
WHITE HOUSE MEETING AND HUNDREDS
OF MILLIONS OF DOLLARS IN 
SECURITY SYSTEMS CAN IT. 
>> NO, IT'S THE ESSENCE OF DOING
SOMETHING FOR PERSONAL REASONS 
RATHER THAN FOR POLITICAL 
REASONS.
AND IF I COULD JUST SAY ONE 
THING ABOUT THIS IT 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 THEN HE COULD IF YOU'RE 
LISTENING IS IS AN OKAY THING TO
DO.
BUT BY THE TIME HE ASKED THE 
UKRAINE IF YOU'RE LISTENING, 
HELP ME OUT WITH MY REELECTION, 
HE HAS TO HAVE KNOWN B THAT WAS 
NOT SOMETHING CONSISTENT WITH 
HIS OATH OF OFFICE.
>> MR. CHAIRMAN, OUR FONDERS 
GRANTED THEM ENORMOUS POWERS, 
BUT AT THE SAME TIME, WHEN WE 
HAVE BYE-BYE REMINDED OF TODAY, 
THEY WORRY THESE POWERS COULD BE
ABUSED BY A A CORRUPT PRESIDENT.
THE EVIDENCE OF ABUSE OF POWER 
IN THIS INKWIR RI PROVED THAT 
OUR FOUNDERS WERE RIGHT TO BE 
WORRIED.
YES, THE PRESIDENT HAS THE PURR 
TO DIRECT AMERICA'S FOREIGN 
POLICY.
BUT NO, HE CANNOT USE THAT POWER
REMEMBER, I ASK ALL MY 
COLLEAGUES TO REMEMBER, THE 
CONSTITUTION GRANTS THE 
PRESIDENT HIS POWER THROUGH THE 
AMERICAN PEOPLE.
THE PRESIDENT'S SOURCE OF POWER,
IT'S A DEMOCRATIC ELECTION.
IT IS THE AMERICAN PEOPLE WHO 
TRUSTED HIM TO LOOK OUT FOR 
THEM.
WE TRUSTED HIM TO LOOK OUT FOR 
THE COUNTRY.
INSTEAD, PRESIDENT TRUMP LOOKED 
OUT FOR HIMSELF.
AND HELPING HIMSELF GET 
REELECTED.
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.
PZ IT WAS ONE WAY FOR CONGRESS 
TO RESPOND.
THAT'S THE POWER OF IMPEACHMENT.
I YIELD BACK.
>> GENTLEMAN YIELDS BACK.
>> I WANT TO DIRECT YOU FIRST 
QUESTIONS TO YOU.
BY THIS STANDARD OF IMPEACHING A
PRESIDENT, THEY SAID IF A 
PRESIDENT ABUSES HIS POWER FOR 
PERSONAL OR POLITICAL GAIN, IT'S
IMPEACHABLE CONDUCT.
DO YOU AGREE?
>> NOT THE WAY IT'S BEEN STATED.
IN FACT, THERE'S SO MANY 
DIFFERENT STANDARDS.
>> I HAVE A LONG WAYS TO GO 
HERE.
>> THERE'S BEEN SO MANY 
DIFFERENT STANDARDS, ONE OF THEM
WAS ATTEMPTING TO ABUSE OFFICE.
I'M NOT SURE HOW TO RECOGNIZE 
THAT LET ALONE DEFINE IT.
>> LET ME GO WITH A FEW EXAMPLES
AND SEE IF YOU AGREE WITH ME.
LYNDON JOHNSON, DIRECTED THE 
CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY TO 
PLACE A SPY IN BARRY GOLD 
WATER'S CAMPAIGN.
THAT SPY GOT ADVANCED COPIES OF 
SPEECHES AND OTHER STRATEGY.
DELIVER THAT TO THE JOHNSON 
CAMPAIGN.
WOULD THAT IMPEACHABLE CONDUCT 
ACCORDING TO THE OTHER 
S
PANELISTS?
>> IT'S BROADLY, SO I ASSUME SO.
>> HOW ABOUT WHEN PRESIDENT 
JOHNSON B PUT A WIRETAP ON GOLD 
WATER'S CAMPAIGN.
WOULD THAT BE FOR POLITICAL 
BENEFIT?
>> I CAN'T EXCLUDE ANYTHING 
UNDER THAT DEFINITION.
>> I'M GOING GO WITH A FEW OTHER
PRESIDENTS.
WE'LL SEE WHERE WE GO.
CONGRESSMAN DEUTSCHE JUST 
INFORMED US THAT FDR PUT COUNTRY
FIRST.
NOW FDR WHEN HE WAS PRESIDENT 
DIRECTED THE IRS TO CONDUCT 
AUDITS OF HIS POLITICAL ENEMIES.
NAMELY WILLIAM PURSE, HAMILTON 
FISH, FATHER COUGHLIN.
WOULD THAT BE AN ABUSE OF POWER 
FOR POLITICAL BENEFIT ACCORDING 
TO THE OTHER PANELISTS?
>> I THINK IT ALL WOULD BE 
SUBJECT TO IT.
>> HOW ABOUT WHEN PRESIDENT 
KENNEDY DIRECTED HIS BROTHER TO 
DEPORT ONE OF HIS MISTRESSES AS 
AN EAST GERMAN SPY.
WOULD THAT QUALIFY AS 
IMPEACHABLE CONDUCT?
>> I CAN'T EXCLUDE IT.
>> HOW ABOUT WHEN HE DISTRICTED 
THE FBI TO USE WIRETAPS ON 
CONGRESSIONAL STAFFERS WHO 
OPPOSED HIM POLITICALLY.
WOULD THAT BE IMPEACHABLE 
CONDUCT?
>> IT SEEM TO BE FALLING WITHIN 
IT.
>> LET'S GO TO BARACK OBAMA.
WHEN BARACK OBAMA DIRECTED OR 
MADE A FINDING THAT THE SENATE 
WAS IN RECESS AND APPOINTED THE 
PEOPLE TO THE NATIONAL LABOR 
RELATIONS BOARD AND LOST 9-0.
WOULD THAT BE AN ABUSE OF POWER?
>> I'M US AFRAID YOU'D HAVE TO 
DIRECT IT TO OTHERS, BUT I DON'T
SEE EXCLUSIONS.
>> HOW ABOUT WHEN THE PRESIDENT 
DIRECTED HIS NATIONAL SECURITY 
ADVISER AND THE SECRETARY OF 
STATE TO LIE TO THE AMERICAN 
PEOPLE ABOUT WHETHER THE 
AMBASSADOR TO LIBYA WAS MURDERED
AS A RESULT OF A VIDEO OR WAS 
MURTDED AS A RESULT OF A 
TERRORIST ACT.
WOULD THAT BE AN ABUSE OF POWER 
FOR POLITICAL BENEFIT 17 DAYS 
BEFORE THE NEXT ELECTION?
>> NOT ACCORDING TO MY 
DEFINITION, BUT THE OTHERS WILL 
HAVE TO RESPOND TO THEIR OWN.
>> YOU HAVE HEARD THEIR 
DEFINITION.
I HAVE A HARD TIME EXCLUDEING 
ANYTHING OUT.
>> HOW ABOUT ABRAHAM LINCOLN 
ARRESTED LEGISLATORS IN MARYLAND
SO THEY WOULDN'T CONVENE TO US 
IS US IS CEDE FROM THE UNION.
IT WOULD HAVE PLACED WASHINGTON,
D.C. IN THE MIDDLE OF THE 
REBELLION.
IT'S THAT AN ABUSE OF POWER?
>> IT COULD BE UNDER THAT 
DEFINITION.
SGLZ YOU MENTIONED GEORGE 
WASHINGTON A LITTLE WHILE AGO AS
PERHAPS HAVING MET THE STANDARD 
OF IMPEACHMENT FOR YOUR OTHER 
PANELISTS.
LET ME ASK YOU SOMETHING.
CAN YOU NAME A SINGLE PRESIDENT 
IN THE HISTORY OF THE UNITED 
STATES, THAT WOULD NOT HAVE MET 
THE STANDARD OF IMPEACHMENT FOR 
OUR FRIENDS HERE.
>> I WOULD HOPE TO GOD JAMES 
MADISON WOULD ESCAPE.
OTHERWISE A LIFETIME OF ACADEMIC
WORK WOULD BE SHREDDED.
BUT ONCE AGAIN, I CAN'T EXCLUDE 
MANY OF THESE.
>> ISN'T WHAT YOU AND I AND MANY
OTHERS ARE AFRAID OF IS THAT THE
STANDARD THAT YOUR FRIENDS TO 
THE RIGHT OF YOU SO NOT 
POLITICALLY, BUT SITTING THERE, 
THAT YOUR FRIENDS HAVE DECIDED 
THAT THE BAR IS SO LOW THAT WHEN
WE HAVE A DEMOCRATIC 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 
YOUR B IS BETRAYAL OF NATIONAL 
INTEREST, I WOULD SIMPLY ASK DO 
YOU REALLY WANT THAT TO BE YOUR 
STANDARD?
>> ISN'T THE DIFFERENCE THAT 
SOME PEOPLE LIVE IN AN IVORY 
TOWER AND SOME PEOPLE LIVE IN A 
SWAMP.
THOSE OF US IN THE SWAMP ARE 
DOING OUR VERY BEST FOR THE 
AMERICAN PEOPLE.
IT'S NOT PRETTY.
>> ACTUALLY, I LIVE IN AN IVORY 
TOWER IN A SWAMP.
IT'S NOT SO BAD.
>> I YIELD BACK.
>> THE GENTLEMAN YIELDS BACK.
>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
I WANT TO THANK THE WITNESSES 
AND I DON'T BELIEVE THE PEOPLE'S
HOUSE IS A SWAMP.
PRESIDENT NIXON WAS IMPEACHED 
FOR ABUSE OF POWER BECAUSE HIS 
CONDUCT WAS, QUOTE, UNDERTAKEN 
AND NOT IN FUR RANS OF ANY 
NATIONAL POLICY OBJECTIVE.
WHY WAS IT SIGNIFICANT THAT 
PRESIDENT NIXON ACTED FOR HIS 
PERSONAL POLITICAL ADVANTAGE AND
NOT IN FURTHERANCE OF NATIONAL 
POLICY OBJECTIVE?
>> IT'S FAIRLY SIGNIFICANT 
BECAUSE ACTING ON HIS OWN 
PERSONAL BENEFIT AND NOT FOR THE
BENEFIT OF THE COUNTRY, HE HAS 
CROSSED A LINE.
THE LINE HERE IS VERY CLEAR, IT 
BECOMES ABUSE OF POWER WHEN 
SOMEONE IS USING THE SPECIAL 
AUTHORITIES FOR THEIR OWN 
PERSONAL BENEFIT AND 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 
BECAUSE 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 THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP 
DID THIS FOR HIS OWN PERSONAL 
GAIN AND NOT FOR ANY POLICY 
POLICY INTEREST.
HE CLAIMS HE WITHHELD THE AID 
BECAUSE OF CONCERNS ABOUT 
CORRUPTION, I DO BELIEVE THAT WE
HAVE EXAMPLE OF THE EVIDENCE OF 
THE TRUTH.
>> AMBASSADOR SOND LAPD STATED 
THAT THE PRESIDENT ONLY CARES 
ABOUT BIG STUFF.
I NOTED THERE WAS BIG STUFF 
GOING ON IN UKRAINE.
LIKE A WAR WITH RUSSIA.
AMBASSADOR SONDLAND REPLIED HE 
MEANT BIG STUFF THAT BENEFITS 
THE PRESIDENT LIKE THE BIDEN 
INVESTIGATION THAT RUDY GIULIANI
WAS PUSHING.
>> WHAT WOULD THE FRAMERS HAVE 
THOUGHT OF A PRESIDENT WHO ONLY 
CARES ABOUT THE BIG STUFF THAT 
BENEFITS HIM.
THE FRAMERS WERE EXTREMELY 
WORRIED ABOUT A PRESIDENT WHO 
SERVED ONLY HIS OWN INTERESTS OR
THE INTERESTS OF FOREIGN POWERS.
THAT WAS THEIR MOST SERIOUS 
CONCERN WHEN THEY DESIGNED THE 
REMEDY OF IMPEACHMENT.
>> SO THE EVIDENCE ALSO SUGGESTS
THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP DIDN'T EVEN
CARE IF THE INVESTIGATION 
ACTUALLY HAPPENED.
WHAT HE REALLY CARED ABOUT WAS 
THE PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENT OF THE 
INVESTIGATION.
SO PROFESSOR, HOW DO 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 ARC 
TYPE OF THE ABUSE OF POWER AND 
MR. BUCK MENTIONED PAST EXAMPLES
OF THIS.
AND TO SAY THAT THOSE WEREN'T 
IMPEACHABLE, I THINK IS IS A BIG
MISTAKE.
IF A PRESIDENT WIRETAPS HIS 
OPPONENTS, THAT'S A FEDERAL 
CRIME NOW.
I DON'T KNOW WHETHER BEFORE THE 
WIRETAP ACT OF 1968.
BUT IF A PRESIDENT WIRETAPPED 
HIS OPPONENTS TODAY, THAT WOULD 
BE IMPEACHABLE CONDUCT.
>> I SERVE ON THE FOREIGN 
AFFAIRS COMMITTEE.
FOR FOREIGN LEADERS TO MEET WITH
OUR PRESIDENTS TO ATTEND A MEET 
ING IN THE OVAL OFFICE IS VERY 
SIGNIFICANT.
PRESIDENT ZELENSKY IS A NEWLY 
ELECTED HEAD OF STATE IN A 
FLEDGING DEMOCRACY.
HIS COUNTRY IS AT WAR WITH HIS 
NEIGHBOR.
RUSSIA INVADED AND IS OCCUPYING 
HIS COUNTRY EASTER TOIR.
HE NEEDED THE MILL TOIR 
RESOURCES.
HE NEEDED RECOGNITION OF THE 
AMERICAN PRESIDENT.
HE WAS PREPARED TO DO WHATEVER 
THE PRESIDENT DEMANDED.
MANY YEARS AGO I WORKED IN THE 
LARGEST UNION AS A PA.
I SAW PEOPLE AT THEIR WORST 
GETTING PAIN AFTER ACCIDENTS OR 
ACTS OF VIOLENCE.
THEY WERE DESPERATE AND AFRAID 
AND HAD TO WAIT FIVE TO EIGHT 
HOURS TO BE SEEN.
CAN YOU IMAGINE FOR ONE MINUTE 
IF I HAD TOLD MY PATIENTS, LOOK,
I CAN MOVE YOU UP IN LINE AND 
TAKE CARE OF YOUR PAIN, BUT I DO
NEED A FAVOR FROM YOU, THOUGH.
MY PATIENTS WERE IN PAIN AND 
DESPERATE AND THEY WOULD HAVE 
AGREED TO DO ANYTHING I ASKED.
THIS WOULD HAVE BEEN SUCH AN 
ABUSE OF MY POSITION BECAUSE OF 
THE POWER DYNAMIC.
IN ANY CASE THAT'S ILLEGAL FOR 
US TO USE POWER TO TAKE 
ADVANTAGE OF THOSE IN CRISIS.
ESPECIALLY WITH THE PRESIDENT, 
ESPECIALLY WHEN LIVES ARE AT 
STAKE.
I YIELD BACK.
>> THE GENTLE LADY YIELDS BACK.
MR. RADCLIFFE.
>> I THANK THE CHAIRMAN.
PROFESSOR, I'D LIKE TO START 
WHERE YOU STARTED BECAUSE YOU 
SAID SOMETHING THAT I THINK 
BARES REPEATING.
YOU SAID I'M NOT A SUPPORTER OF 
PRESIDENT TRUMP.
I VOTED AGAINST HIM IN 2016.
I HAVE VOTED FOR CLINTON AND 
OBAMA.
DESPITE YOUR POLITICAL 
PREFERENCES AND PERSUASIONS, YOU
REACHED THIS CONCLUSION.
THE CURRENT LEGAL CASE FOR 
IMPEACHMENT IS NOT JUST WOEFULLY
INADEQUATE, BUT IN SOME 
RESPECTS, DANGEROUS.
IS THE BASIS OF AN AMERICAN 
PRESIDENT.
SO LET ME START BY COMMENDING 
YOU FOR BEING THE KIND OF 
EXAMPLE OF WHAT HOPEFULLY 
EVERYONE ON THIS COMMITTEE AS WE
APPROACH THE TASKS THAT WE HAVE 
OF DETERMINING WHETHER OR NOT 
THERE WERE ANY IMPEACHABLE 
OFFENSES HERE.
ONE OF THE PROBLEMS THAT YOU 
HAVE ARTICULATED AS LEADING YOU 
TO THE CONCLUSION OF CALLING 
THIS THE SHOULD HAVE PROCEED THE
SHORTEST IMPEACHMENT PROCEEDING 
WITH THE THINNEST RECORD AND 
SENATOR ROWEST GROUNDS 
ATTEMPTING TO IMPEACH A 
PRESIDENT IS THE FACT THERE'S 
BEEN THIS EVER CHANGING 
CONSTANTLY INVOLVING MOVING 
TARGET OF ACCUSATIONS, IF YOU 
WILL.
THAT THE JULY 25th PHONE CALL 
STARTED OUT AS AN ALLEGED QUID 
PRO QUO AND BRIEFLY BECAME AN 
EXTORTION SCHEME, I THINK IT'S 
BACK TO QUID PRO QUO.
NOW BESIDES POINTING OUT THAT 
BOTH SPEAKER PELOSI AND CHAIRMAN
SCHIFF WAITED UNTIL ALMOST EVERY
WITNESS HAD BEEN DEPOSED BEFORE 
THEY STARTED TO USE THE TERM 
BRIBERY, YOU ARTICULATED WHY YOU
THINK THE DEFINITIONS THAT THEY 
HAVE USED PUBLICLY ARE FLAWED IF
NOT UNCONSTITUTIONAL BOTH IN THE
18th CENTURY OR THE 21st 
CENTURY.
BUT WOULD YOU AGREE WITH ME THAT
BRIBERY UNDER ANY VALID 
DEFINITION REQUIRES THAT A 
SPECIFIC QUID PRO QUO BE PROVEN.
>> MORE IMPORTANTLY THE SUPREME 
COURT IS FOCUSED ON THAT ISSUE.
AS WELL AS WHAT IS THE 
DEFINITION OF A QUID PRO QUO.
SO IF MILITARY AID OR SECURITY 
ASSISTANCE IS PART OF THAT QUID 
PRO QUO, WHERE IN THE JULY 25th 
TRANSCRIPT DOES PRESIDENT TRUMP 
EVER SUGGEST THAT HE INTENDS TO 
WITHHOLD MILITARY AID FOR ANY 
REASON.
>> HE DOESN'T.
AND THAT'S THE REASON WE KEEP ON
HEARING THE WORDS CIRCUMSTANTIAL
AND INFERENCE SHL.
THAT'S WHAT'S SO CONCERNING.
THOSE WOULD BE APPROPRIATE 
TERMS.
IT'S NOT THAT YOU COULD HAVE A A
CIRCUMSTANTIAL CASE.
THOSE WOULD BE APPROPRIATE IF 
THEY WERE UNKNOWABLE FACTS.
THE PROBLEM IS YOU HAVE SO MANY 
WITNESSES THAT HAVE NOT BEEN 
SUBPOENAED.
SO MANY WITNESSES THAT WE HAVE 
NOT HEARD FROM.
SO IF IT'S NOT IN THE TRANSCRIPT
THEN IT'S GOT TO COME FROM 
WITNESS TESTIMONY.
I ASSUME YOU HAVE REVIEWED ALL 
THE WITNESS TESTIMONY.
SO YOU KNOW THAT NO WITNESS HAS 
TESTIFIED THAT THEY EITHER HEARD
PRESIDENT TRUMP OR WERE TOLD BY 
PRESIDENT TRUMP TO WITHHOLD 
MILITARY AID FOR ANY REASON, 
CORRECT?
>> CORRECT.
>> SO LET ME TURN TO THE ISSUE 
OF OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE.
I THINK YOU ASSUMED, AS I DID, 
THAT WHEN DEMOCRATS HAVE BEEN 
TALKING ABOUT OBSTRUCTION, IT 
WAS SPECIFICALLY RELATED TO THE 
UKRAINE ISSUE.
YOU WERE HIGH 4R50IG9ING THE 
FACT THAT THE DEMOCRATS APPEAR 
TO BE TAKING THE POSITION THAT 
IF A A PRESIDENT SEEKS JUDICIAL 
REVIEW OVER EXECUTIVE BRANCH 
TESTIMONY OR DOCUMENT SUBPOENA 
ISSED BY CONGRESS, RATHER THAN 
LETTING THE COURTS BE THE 
ARBITER, CONGRESS CAN SIMPLY 
IMPEACH THE PRESIDENT FOR 
OBSTRUCTION BASED ON THAT.
DID I HEAR YOU SAY THAT IF WE 
WERE TO PROCEED ON THAT BASIS, 
THAT WOULD BE AN ABUSE OF POWER.
>> I DID.
LET ME BE CLEAR ABOUT THIS.
I DON'T DISAGREE WITH MY 
COLLEAGUES THAT NOTHING IN THE 
CONSTITUTION SAYS YOU HAVE TO GO
TO A COURT OR WAIT FOR A COURT.
THAT'S NOT WHAT I'M SAYING.
WHAT I'M SAYING IS THAT IF YOU 
WANT A WELL-BASED LEGITIMATE 
IMPEACHMENT CASE TO SET THIS 
ABBREVIATED SCHEDULE, DEMAND 
DOCUMENTS AND THEN IMPEACH 
BECAUSE THEY HAVEN'T BEEN TURNED
OVER WHEN THEY GO TO A COURT, 
WHEN THE PRESIDENT GOES TO A 
COURT, I THINK THAT'S AN ABUSE 
OF POWER THAT'S NOT WHAT 
HAPPENED IN NIXON.
IN FACT, THE ULTIMATE DECISION 
IN NIXON IS THERE ARE LEGITIMATE
EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE CLAIMS THAT 
CAN BE RAISED.
SOME OF THEM DEAL WITH THE TYPE 
OF AIDS INVOLVED IN THIS CASE.
LIKE A NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISER
AND A WHITE HOUSE COUNSEL.
SO THE CONCERN HERE IS NOT THAT 
YOU CAN'T EVER IMPEACH A 
PRESIDENT UNLESS YOU GO TO 
COURT.
JUST BECAUSE YOU SHOULDN'T.
YOU HAVE TIME TO DO IT.
>> SO IF I WERE TO SUMMARIZE 
YOUR TESTIMONY, NO BRIBERY, NO 
EXTORTION, NO OBSTRUCTION OF 
JUSTICE, NO ABUSE OF POWER, IS 
THAT FAIR?
>> NOT ON THIS RECORD.
>> THE TIME IS EXPIRED.
>> LET ME JUST PICK UP WHERE WE 
LEFT OFF.
I'M GOING TO START WITH YOUR 
WORDS.
IT'S FROM OCTOBER 23rd.
YOUR OPINION PIECE IN THE HILL.
YOU SAID THAT AS I HAVE SAID 
BEFORE, THERE'S NO QUESTION THAT
THE USE OF PUBLIC OFFICE FOR 
PERSONAL GAIN IS AN IMPEACHABLE 
OFFENSE.
INCLUDING THE WITHHOLDING OF 
MILITARY AID IN EXCHANGE FOR THE
INVESTIGATION OF A POLITICAL 
OPPONENT.
YOU JUST PROVE IT HAPPENED.
IF YOU CAN ESTABLISH ATOTAL USE 
PUBLIC OFFICE FOR PERSONAL GAIN,
YOU HAVE A VIABLE, IMPEACHABLE 
OFFENSE.
WE HEARD A PRESIDENT ABUSES HIS 
POWER WHEN HE USES HIS OFFICIAL 
POWER FOR HIS OWN PERSONAL 
INTEREST RATHER THAN INTEREST OF
OUR COUNTRY.
I'D LIKE TO SPEND MORE TIME ON 
THAT BECAUSE I'M REALLY STRUCK 
BY ONE OF THE THINGS AT STAKE 
HERE.
$400 MILLION OF TAXPAYER 
DOLLARS.
PRESIDENT NIXON LEVERAGED THE 
POWERS OF HIDS OFFICE TO 
INVESTIGATE POLITICAL RIVALS.
BUT HERE THE EVIDENCE SHOWS THAT
PRESIDENT TRUMP ALSO LEVERAGED 
TAXPAYER DOLLARS TO GET UKRAINE 
TO NOW INVESTIGATIONS OF 
PRESIDENT TRUMP'S POLITICAL 
RIVALS.
THAT TAXPAYER MONEY WAS MEANT TO
HELP UKRAINE DEFEND ITSELF AND 
IN TURN DEFEND UNITED STATES' 
INTERESTS FROM RUSSIAN 
AGGRESSION.
THE MONEY HAD BEEN APPROPRIATED 
BY CONGRESS AND CERTIFIED BY THE
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE.
MULTIPLE WITNESSES CONFIRMED 
THAT THERE WAS UNANIMOUS SUPPORT
FOR THE MILITARY AID TO UKRAINE.
CAN WE LISTEN TO THAT, PLEASE.
>> FROM WHAT YOU 
>>> OPENING STATEMENTS FROM THE 
WITNESSES TODAY WERE NOT 
DISTRIBUTED UNTIL LATE LAST 
NIGHT.
AND THE INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE'S
FINALIZED REPORT HAS YET TO BE 
PRESENTED TO THIS COMMITTEE.
YOU HEAR FROM THOSE IN THE 
MAJORITY THAT PROCESS IS A 
REPUBLICAN TALKING POINT WHEN IN
REALITY IT'S AN AMERICAN TALKING
POINT.
PROCESS IS ESSENTIAL TO THE 
INSTITUTION.
A THOUGHTFUL, MEANINGFUL PROCESS
OF THIS MAGNITUDE WITH SUCH 
GREAT IMPLICATIONS SHOULD BE 
DEMANDED BY THE AMERICAN PEOPLE.
WITH THAT I YIELD BACK.
>> MR. JEFFREYS.
>> I DID NOT SERVE IN THE 
MILITARY BUT MY 81-YEAR-OLD 
FATHER DID.
HE WAS AN AIR FORCE VETERAN 
STATIONED IN GERMANY DURING THE 
HEIGHT OF THE COLD WAR IN THE 
LATE 1950s.
HE WAS A TEENAGER FROM INNER 
CITY NEWARK, A STRANGER IN A 
FOREIGN LAND SERVING ON THE 
WESTERN SIDE OF THE BERLIN WALL.
MY DAD PROUDLY WORE THE UNIFORM 
BECAUSE HE SWORE AN OATH TO THE 
CONSTITUTION AND BELIEVED IN 
AMERICAN DEMOCRACY.
I BELIEVE IN AMERICAN DEMOCRACY.
WE REMAIN THE LAST, BEST HOPE ON
EARTH.
IT IS IN THAT SPIRIT THAT WE 
PROCEED TODAY.
IN AMERICA, WE BELIEVE IN FREE 
AND FAIR ELECTIONS, IS THAT 
CORRECT?
>> YES IT IS. 
>> BUT AUTHORITARIAN REGIMES DO 
NOT, IS THAT RIGHT?
>> THAT'S CORRECT. 
>> THOMAS JEFFERSON ONCE WROTE, 
OR JOHN ADAMS ONCE WROTE TO 
THOMAS JEFFERSON ON DECEMBER 
6th, 1787 AND STATED YOU ARE 
APPREHENSIVE OF FOREIGN 
INTERFERENCE, INTRIGUE, 
INFLUENCE, SO AM I.
BUT AS OFTEN AS ELECTIONS 
HAPPEN, THE DANGER OF FOREIGN 
INFLUENCE RECURS.
>> IT'S LESS IMPORTANT THAN IT'S
BECOME IN OUR CONSTITUTION SINCE
THEM.
ONE OF THINGS THAT TURNED ME 
INTO A LAWYER WAS SEEING BARBARA
JORDAN SAY THAT WE THE PEOPLE 
DIDN'T INCLUDE PEOPLE LIKE HER 
IN 1789 BUT THROUGH A PROCESS OF
AMENDMENT WE HAVE DONE THAT.
SO ELECTIONS ARE MORE IMPORTANT 
TO US TODAY AS A CONSTITUTIONAL 
MATTER THAN THEY WERE TO THE 
FRAMERS. 
>> IS IT FAIR TO SAY AN ELECTION
CANNOT BE REASONABLY 
CHARACTERIZED AS FREE AND FAIR 
IF IT'S MANIPULATED BY FOREIGN 
INTERFERENCE?
>> THAT'S CORRECT. 
>> AND DEEPLY CONCERNED WITH 
THREAT OF FOREIGN INTERFERENCE 
IN THE DOMESTIC AFFAIRS OF THE 
UNITED STATES, TRUE?
>> YES. 
>> AND WHY WERE THEY SO DEEPLY 
CONCERNED?
>> BECAUSE FOREIGN NATIONS DON'T
HAVE OUR INTERESTS AT HEART.
THEY HAVE THEIR INTERESTS AT 
HEART. 
>> AND WOULD THE FRAMERS FIND IT
ACCEPTABLE TO PRESSURE A FOREIGN
GOVERNMENT TO HELP HIM WIN AN 
ELECTION?
>> I THINK THEY'D FIND IT 
UNACCEPTABLE FOR A PRESIDENT TO 
ASK A FOREIGN GOVERNMENT TO HELP
HIM WHETHER THEY PUT PRESSURE ON
HIM OR NOT. 
>> DIRECT EVIDENCE SHOWS THAT ON
JULY 25th PHONE CALL THE 
PRESIDENT UTTERED FIVE WORDS, DO
US A FAVOR THOUGH.
HE PRESSURED THE UKRAINIAN 
GOVERNMENT TO TARGET AN AMERICAN
CITIZEN FOR POLITICAL GAIN AND 
AT THE SAME TIME SIMULTANEOUSLY 
WITHHELD $391 MILLION IN 
MILITARY AID.
NOW AMBASSADOR BILL TAYLOR, 
WESTPOINT GRADUATE, VIETNAM WAR 
HERO, REPUBLICAN APPOINTED 
DIPLOMAT DISCUSSED THIS ISSUE OF
MILITARY AID.
HERE IS A CLIP OF HIS TESTIMONY.
>> AGAIN, OUR HOLDING UP OF 
SECURITY SYSTEMS THAT WOULD GO 
TO A COUNTRY THAT IS FIGHTING, 
FIGHTING AGGRESSION FROM RUSSIA 
FOR NO GOOD POLICY SEASON, NO 
GOOD SUBSTANTIVE REASON, NO GOOD
NATIONAL SECURITY REASON IS 
WRONG.
>> WAS BEING WITHHELD AS PART OF
AN EFFORT TO SOLICIT FOREIGN 
INTERFERENCE IN THE 2020 
ELECTION.
IS THAT BEHAVIOR IMPEACHABLE?
>> YES, IT IS.
AND IF I COULD GO BACK TO ONE OF
THE WORDS THAT YOU READ.
WHEN THE PRESIDENT SAID DO US A 
FAVOR HE WAS USING THE ROYAL WE 
THERE.
IT WASN'T A FAVOR FOR THE UNITED
STATES.
HE SHOULD HAVE SAID DO US A 
FAVOR BECAUSE ONLY KINGS SAY US 
WHEN THEY MEAN ME. 
>> IS IT CORRECT AN ABUSE OF 
POWER THAT STRIKES AT THE HEART 
OF OUR DEMOCRACY FALLS SQUARELY 
WITHIN THE DEFINITION OF A HIGH 
CRIME AND MISDEMEANOR. 
>> YES, IT DOES. 
>> SOME OF MY COLLEAGUES HAVE 
SUGGESTED THAT IMPEACHMENT WOULD
OVERTURN THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE.
THE AMERICAN PEOPLE EXPRESSED 
THEIR WILL IN NOVEMBER OF 2018.
THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE ELECTED A
NEW MAJORITY.
THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE ELECTED A
HOUSE THAT WOULD NOT FUNCTION AS
A WHOLLY OWNED SUBSIDIARY OF 
THIS ADMINISTRATION.
THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE ELECTED A
HOUSE THAT UNDERSTANDS WE ARE 
SEPARATE AND CO-EQUAL BRANCH OF 
GOVERNMENT.
THE WILL HAVE THE PEOPLE ELECTED
A HOUSE THAT UNDERSTANDS WE HAVE
A CONSTITUTIONAL RESPONSIBILITY 
TO SERVE AS A CHECK AND BALANCE 
ON AN OUT OF CONTROL EXECUTIVE 
BRANCH.
THE PRESIDENT ABUSED HIS POWER 
AND MUST BE HELD ACCOUNTABLE.
NO ONE IS ABOVE THE LAW.
AMERICA MUST REMAIN THE LAST, 
BEST HOPE ON EARTH.
I YIELD BACK. 
>> GENTLEMAN YIELDS BACK.
MR. YATES. 
>> THE WILL OF THE AMERICAN 
PEOPLE ALSO ELECTED DONALD TRUMP
TO BE THE PRESIDENT OF THE 
UNITED STATES IN THE 2016 
ELECTION AND THERE'S ONE PARTY 
THAT CAN'T SEEM TO GET OVER IT.
WE UNDERSTAND THE FACT THAT IN 
2018 YOU TOOK THE HOUSE OF 
REPRESENTATIVES AND WE HAVEN'T 
SPENT OUR TIME DURING YOUR 
TENURE IN POWER TRYING TO REMOVE
THE SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE AND 
DELEGITIMIZE YOUR ABILITY TO 
GOVERN.
WE'D LOVE TO PUT OUT A HELPING 
SAND, IT'S THE WILL OF THE 
PEOPLE THAT YOU IGNORE WHEN YOU 
CONTINUE DOWN THIS TERRIBLE ROAD
OF IMPEACHMENT.
YOU GAVE MONEY TO BARRACK OBAMA,
RIGHT. 
>> MY FAMILY DID, YES. 
>> FOUR TIMES. 
>> THAT SOUNDS ABOUT RIGHT, YES.
>> MR. CHAIRMAN, I HAVE A 
SERIOUS UNANIMOUS CONSENT 
REQUEST RELATING TO PROFESSOR 
FELDMAN'S WORK.
RAISE RISK OF IMPEACHMENT -- 
>> THE GENTLEMAN WILL SUSPEND.
>> WE'LL TAKE THAT TIME OFF. 
>> HAS THE GENTLEMAN 
SUBMITTED -- HAVE WE SEEN THE 
MATERIAL?
>> WE CAN PROVIDE IT TO YOU AS 
IS TYPICAL -- 
>> AND WE'LL CONSIDER THE 
UNANIMOUS CONSENT REQUEST LATER 
AFTER WE REVIEW IT. 
>> VERY WELL. 
>> THANK YOU MR. CHAIRMAN.
MR. FELDMAN WROTE ARTICLES 
ENTITLED TRUMP'S WIRETAP TWEETS 
RAISE RISK OF IMPEACHMENT.
HE THEN WROTE IMPEACHMENT FILE 
AND THEN MR. JAKE FLANAGAN WROTE
IN COURT A HARVARD LAW PROFESSOR
THINKS TRUMP COULD BE IMPEACHED 
OVER FAKE NEWS ACCUSATIONS.
MY QUESTION IS SINCE YOU SEEM TO
BELIEVE THAT THE BASIS FOR 
IMPEACHMENT IS EVEN BROADER THAN
THE BASIS THAT MY DEMOCRATIC 
COLLEAGUES LAYED FORWARD, DO YOU
BELIEVE YOU'RE OUTSIDE OF THE 
POLITICAL MAINSTREAM ON THE 
QUESTION OF IMPEACHMENT?
>> I BELIEVE THAT IMPEACHMENT IS
WARRANTED WHENEVER THE PRESIDENT
ABUSES HIS POWER FOR PERSONAL 
BENEFIT. 
>> DID YOU WRITE AN ARTICLE 
ENTITLED IT'S HARD TO TAKE 
IMPEACHMENT SERIOUSLY NOW. 
>> YES, I DID. 
>> DID YOU WRITE SINCE THEN THE 
2018 MIDTERM ELECTION HOUSE 
DEMOCRATS HAVE MADE IT PAINFULLY
CLEAR THAT DISCUSSING 
IMPEACHMENT IS PRIMARILY OR EVEN
EXCLUSIVELY A TOOL TO WEAKEN 
PRESIDENT TRUMP'S CHANCES IN 
2020. 
>> UNTIL THIS CALL ON JULY 25th 
I WAS AN IMPEACHMENT SKEPTIC.
THE CALL CHANGED MY MIND AND FOR
GOOD REASON. 
>> THANK YOU.
I APPRECIATE YOUR TESTIMONY.
YOU GAVE $1,000 TO ELIZABETH 
WARREN, RIGHT. 
>> I BELIEVE SO. 
>> YOU GAVE 1,200 BUCKS TO 
BARRACK OBAMA. 
>> I HAVE NO REASON TO QUESTION 
THAT. 
>> AND YOU GAVE $2,000 TO 
HILLARY CLINTON. 
>> THAT'S CORRECT. 
>> WHY SO MUCH MORE FOR HILLARY 
THAN THE OTHER TWO. 
>> BECAUSE I HAVE BEEN GIVING A 
LOT OF MONEY TO CHARITY RECENTLY
BECAUSE OF ALL THE POOR PEOPLE 
IN THE UNITED STATES. 
>> THOSE AREN'T THE ONLY FOLKS 
YOU HAVE BEEN GIVING TO.
HAVE YOU EVER BEEN ON A PODCAST 
CALLED VERSUS TRUMP. 
>> I THINK I WAS ON A LIVE PANEL
THAT WILL THE PEOPLE THAT RAN 
THE PODCAST CALLED VERSUS TRUMP.
>> ON THAT DO YOU REMEMBER 
SAYING THE FOLLOWING?
LIBERALS TEND TO CLUSTER MORE.
CONSERVATIVES, ESPECIALLY VERY 
CONSERVATIVE PEOPLE TEND TO 
SPREAD OUT MORE, PERHAPS BECAUSE
THEY DON'T EVEN WANT TO BE 
AROUND THEMSELVES.
DID YOU SAY THAT?
>> YES, I DID.
>> DO YOU UNDERSTAND HOW THAT 
REFLECTS CONTEMPT ON PEOPLE WHO 
ARE CONSERVATIVE?
>> NO, WHAT I WAS TALKING ABOUT 
THERE WAS THE NATURAL TENDENCY, 
IF YOU PUT THE QUOTE IN CONTEXT,
THE NATURAL TENDENCY OF A 
COMPACTNESS REQUIREMENT TO FAVOR
A PARTY WHOSE VOTERS ARE SPREAD 
OUT.
>> I HAVE LIMITED TIME PROFESSOR
SO WHEN YOU TALK ABOUT HOW 
LIBERALS WANT TO BE AROUND EACH 
OTHER AND CONSERVATIVES DON'T 
WANT TO BE AROUND EACH OTHER AND
HAVE TO SPREAD OUT, YOU MAY NOT 
SEE THIS FROM THE IVORY TOWERS 
OF YOUR LAW SCHOOL BUT IT MAKES 
PEOPLE IN THIS COUNTRY -- EXCUSE
ME, YOU DON'T GET TO INTERRUPT 
ME ON THIS TIME.
NOW LET ME ALSO SUGGEST THAT 
WHEN YOU INVOKE THE PRESIDENT'S 
SON'S NAME HERE.
WHEN YOU TRY TO MAKE A LITTLE 
JOKE OUT OF REFERENCING BARRON 
TRUMP.
THAT DOES NOT LEND CREDIBILITY 
TO YOUR ARGUMENT.
IT MAKES YOU LOOK MEAN AND LIKE 
YOU'RE ATTACKING SOMEONE'S 
FAMILY, THE MINOR CHILD OF THE 
PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES.
SO LET'S SEE IF WE CAN GET INTO 
THE FACTS TO ALL OF THE 
WITNESSES.
IF YOU HAVE PERSONAL KNOWLEDGE 
OF A SINGLE MATERIAL FACT IN THE
SCHIFF REPORT, PLEASE RAISE YOUR
HAND.
AND LET THE RECORD REFLECT NO 
PERSONAL KNOWLEDGE OF A SINGLE 
FACT AND YOU KNOW WHAT, THAT 
CONTINUES ON THE TRADITION WE 
SAW FROM ADAM SCHIFF.
MR. KENT NEVER MET WITH THE 
PRESIDENT.
FIONA HILL NEVER HEARD THE 
PRESIDENT REFERENCE ANYTHING 
REGARDING MILITARY AID.
MR. HEAL WAS UNAWARE OF ANY 
ACTIVITY WITH AID.
AND DENIED THERE WAS A 
QUID PRO QUO AND MR. MORRISON 
SAID THERE WASN'T ANYTHING ON 
THE CALL.
AND THE ONLY DIRECT EVIDENCE WAS
MR. SONDLAND THAT SAID I WANT 
NOTHING.
NO QUID PRO QUO AND IF 
WIRETAPPING A POLITICAL OPPONENT
AND MAYBE IT'S A DIFFERENT 
PRESIDENT WE SHOULD BE 
IMPEACHING. 
>> THE GENTLEMAN'S TIME AS 
EXPIRED. 
>> THANK YOU.
PROFESSOR FELDMAN, LET ME BEGIN 
BY STATING THE OBVIOUS.
IT IS NOT HEARSAY WHEN THE 
PRESIDENT TELLS THE PRESIDENT OF
UKRAINE TO INVESTIGATE HIS 
POLITICAL ADVERSARY IS IT?
>> NO. 
>> IT IS NOT HEARSAY WHEN THE 
PRESIDENT CONFESSES ON NATIONAL 
TELEVISION TO DOING THAT, IS IT?
>> IT IS NOT. 
>> IT IS NOT HEARSAY WHEN THEY 
TESTIFY THAT THEY HEAR THE 
PRESIDENT SAY HE ONLY CARES 
ABOUT THE INVESTIGATIONS OF HIS 
POLITICAL OPPONENT, IS IT?
>> NO, THAT IS NOT HEARSAY. 
>> AND THERE'S LOTS OF OTHER 
DIRECT EVIDENCE.
SO LET'S DISPENSE WITH THAT 
CLAIM BY MY REPUBLICAN 
COLLEAGUES.
AND IMPEACHMENT REQUIRING A 
CRIMINAL OFFENSE AND HE WROTE, 
AND I QUOTE, AN OFFENSE DOES NOT
HAVE TO BE INDICTABLE.
SERIOUS MISCONDUCT OR VIOLATION 
OF PUBLIC TRUST IS ENOUGH.
END QUOTE.
WAS HE RIGHT WHEN HE WROTE THAT 
IN 2014?
>> YES, I AGREE WITH THAT. 
>> OKAY.
NOW, NEXT, AT THE CONSTITUTIONAL
CONVENTION HE SAID AND I QUOTE, 
FOREIGN POWERS WILL INTERMEDDLE 
IN OUR AFFAIRS AND SPARE NO 
EXPENSE TO INFLUENCE THEM AND 
JAMES MADISON SAID IMPEACHMENT 
WAS NEEDED BECAUSE OTHERWISE A 
PRESIDENT MIGHT BETRAY HIS TRUST
TO A FOREIGN POWER.
CAN YOU ELABORATE ON WHY THE 
FRAMERS WERE SO CONCERNED ABOUT 
FOREIGN INTERFERENCE?
HOW THEY ACCOUNTED FOR THESE 
CONCERNS AND HOW THAT RELATES TO
THE FACTS BEFORE THIS COMMITTEE?
>> SO THE REASON THAT THE 
FRAMERS ARE CONCERNED ABOUT 
FOREIGN INTERFERENCE IS SLIGHTLY
DIFFERENT THAN THE REASON WE 
ARE.
THEY WERE CONCERNED ABOUT IT 
BECAUSE WE WERE SUCH A WEAK 
COUNTRY IN 1789.
WE WERE SMALL, WE WERE POOR.
WE DIDN'T HAVE AN ESTABLISHED 
NAVY.
WE DIDN'T HAVE AN ESTABLISHED 
ARMY.
TODAY THE CONCERN IS A LITTLE 
DIFFERENT SO IT WOULD INTERFERE 
WITH US MAKING IT BEST FOR US AS
AMERICANS.
>>> SECOND BASED ON THE 
PRESIDENT'S OWN SUMMARY OF HIS 
CALL WITH THE UKRAINIAN 
PRESIDENT HE USED IT AS LEVERAGE
IN HIS EFFORTS TO ACHIEVE THIS 
AND THIRD THE PRESIDENT THEN 
URGED CHINA TO BEGIN IT'S OWN 
INVESTIGATION.
PROFESSOR FELDMAN, HOW DID IT 
IMPACT OUR DEMOCRACY IF IT 
BECOME STANDARD PRACTICE FOR THE
PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES 
TO ASK A FOREIGN GOVERNMENT TO 
INTERFERE IN OUR ELECTIONS. 
>> IT WOULD BE A DISASTER FOR 
THE FUNCTIONING OF OUR DEMOCRACY
IF OUR PRESIDENT REGULARLY AS 
THIS PRESIDENT HAS DONE ASKED 
FOREIGN GOVERNMENTS TO INTERFERE
IN OUR ELECTORAL PROCESS. 
>> I'D LIKE TO END WITH A 
POWERFUL WARNING FROM GEORGE 
WASHINGTON THAT TOLD AMERICANS 
IN HIS FAIRWELL ADDRESS, AND I 
QUOTE, TO BE CONSTANTLY AWARE 
SINCE HISTORY AND EXPERIENCE 
PROVE THAT FOREIGN INFLUENCE IS 
ONE OF THE MOST VAINFUL FOES OF 
REPUBLICAN GOVERNMENT.
THE CONDUCT AT ISSUE HERE IS 
AGREGIOUS.
THE PRESIDENT HAS OPENLY AND 
REPEATEDLY DONE THAT IN OUR 
FOREIGN ELECTIONS.
OF THAT THERE'S NO DOUBT.
INVITING FOREIGN MEDDLING INTO 
OUR ELECTIONS ROBS THE AMERICAN 
PEOPLE OF THEIR SACRED RIGHT TO 
ELECTION THEIR OWN POLITICAL 
LEADERS.
AMERICANS ALL ACROSS THE COUNTRY
WAIT IN LONG LINES TO EXERCISE 
THEIR RIGHT TO VOTE AND TO 
CHOOSE THEIR OWN LEADERS.
THIS DOES NOT BELONG TO FOREIGN 
GOVERNMENTS.
WE FOUGHT AND WON A REVOLUTION 
OVER THIS.
IT'S WHAT SEPARATES US AND 
AUTHORITARIANS ALL OVER THE 
WORLD.
AS PUBLIC SERVANTS AND MEMBERS 
OF THE HOUSE WE WOULD BE 
NEGLIGENT IN OUR DUTIES UNDER 
THE CONSTITUTION IF WE LET THIS 
ABUSE OF POWER GO UNCHECKED.
WE HEARD A LOT ABOUT HATING THIS
PRESIDENT.
IT'S NOT ABOUT HATING THIS 
PRESIDENT.
IT'S ABOUT A LOVE OF COUNTRY.
IT'S ABILITY HONORING THE OATH 
THAT WE TOOK TO PROTECT AND 
DEFEND THE CONSTITUTION OF THIS 
GREAT COUNTRY.
SO MY FINAL QUESTION IS TO 
PROFESSOR FELDMAN AND CARLIN IN 
THE FACE OF THIS EVIDENCE WHAT 
ARE THE CONSEQUENCES IF THIS 
COMMITTEE AND THIS CONGRESS 
REFUSES TO MUSTER THE COURAGE TO
RESPOND TO THIS GROSS ABUSE OF 
POWER THAT UNDERMINED THE 
NATIONAL SECURITY OF THE UNITED 
STATES, THAT UNDERMINED THE 
INTEGRITY OF OUR ELECTIONS AND 
THAT UNDERMINED THE CONFIDENCE 
WE HAD TO HAVE. 
>> IF THIS COMMITTEE AND THIS 
HOUSE FAILED TO ACT THEN YOU'RE 
SENDING A MESSAGE TO THIS 
PRESIDENT AND FUTURE PRESIDENTS 
THAT IT'S NO LONGER A PROBLEM IF
THEY ABUSE THEIR POWER.
IT'S NO LONGER A PROBLEM IF THEY
INVITE OTHER COUNTRIES TO 
INTERFERE WITH OUR ELECTIONS AND
PUT THE INTEREST OF OTHER 
COUNTRIES AHEAD OF OURS. 
>> I AGREE WITH PROFESSOR 
FELDMAN AND I SHOULD SAY ONE 
THING AND I APOLOGIZE FOR 
GETTING A LITTLE OVERHEATED A 
MOMENT AGO BUT I HAVE A 
CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT UNDER THE 
FIRST AMENDMENT TO GIVE MONEY TO
CANDIDATES.
AT THE SAME TIME, WE HAVE A 
CONSTITUTIONAL DUTY TO KEEP 
FOREIGNERS FROM SPENDING MONEY 
IN OUR ELECTIONS AND THOSE TWO 
THINGS ARE TWO SIDES OF THE SAME
COIN. 
>> THANK YOU AND WITH THAT I 
YIELD BACK. 
>> THE GENTLEMAN YIELDS BACK.
MR. JOHNSON. 
>> THANK YOU.
I WAS STRUCK THIS MORNING BY THE
SAME THING AS ALL OF MY FRIENDS 
AND COLLEAGUES ON THIS SIDE OF 
THE ROAD.
CHAIRMAN NADLER BEGAN WITH THE 
OUTRAGEOUS STATEMENT THAT THE 
FACTS BEFORE US ARE UNDISPUTED.
OF COURSE EVERYONE HERE KNOWS 
THAT'S NOT TRUE.
EVERY PERSON HERE AND EVERY 
PERSON WATCHING AT HOME KNOWS 
FULL WELL THAT VIRTUALLY 
EVERYTHING HERE IS DISPUTED FROM
THE FRAUDULENT PROCESS AND THE 
BROKEN PROCEDURE TO THE 
DEMOCRATS UNFOUNDED CLAIMS AND 
THE FULL FACTS ARE OBVIOUSLY NOT
BEFORE US TODAY.
WE'VE BEEN ALLOWED NO FACT 
WITNESSES AT ALL.
FOR THE FIRST TIME EVER THIS 
COMMITTEE WHICH IS THE ONE IN 
CONGRESS THAT HAS THE 
JURISDICTION OVER IMPEACHMENT 
HAS BEEN GIVEN NO ACCESS TO THE 
UNDERLYING EVIDENCE THAT ADAM 
SCHIFF AND HIS POLITICAL 
ACCOMPLICES CLAIM SUPPORTS THIS 
WHOLE CHERADE.
UNDER NORMAL CIRCUMSTANCES I 
WOULD GREATLY ENJOY AN ACADEMIC 
DISCUSSIONS WITH YOU AND DEBATE 
BUT THAT WOULD BE AN UTTER WASTE
OF OUR TIME TODAY BECAUSE AS HAS
BEEN HIGHLIGHTED SO MANY TIMES 
THIS MORNING, THIS WHOLE 
PRODUCTION IS A SHAM AND 
RECKLESS PATH TO A PREDETERMINED
POLITICAL OUTCOME AND I WANT YOU
TO KNOW THAT IT'S AN OUTCOME 
THAT WAS PREDETERMINED BY OUR 
DEMOCRATIC COLLEAGUES A LONG 
TIME AGO.
THE TRUTH IS HOUSE DEMOCRATS 
HAVE BEEN WORKING TO IMPEACH 
PRESIDENT DONALD J. TRUMP SINCE 
THE DAY HE TOOK HIS OATH OF 
OFFICE.
THEY HAVE INTRODUCED FOUR 
DIFFERENT RESOLUTIONS SEEKING TO
IMPEACH THE PRESIDENT.
ALMOST EXACTLY TWO YEARS AGO AS 
ONE OF THE GRAPHICS UP HERE 
SHOWS, DECEMBER 6th, 2017, 58 
HOUSE DEMOCRATS VOTED TO BEGIN 
IMPEACHMENT PROCEEDINGS.
OF COURSE THAT WAS ALMOST 20 
MONTHS BEFORE THE FAMOUS JULY 
25th PHONE CALL WITH UKRAINE'S 
PRESIDENT AND THIS OTHER GRAPHIC
UP HERE IS SMALLER BUT IT'S 
INTERESTING TOO.
IT'S IMPORTANT TO REITERATE FOR 
EVERYBODY WATCHING AT HOME THAT 
OF OUR 24 DEMOCRATIC COLLEAGUES 
AND FRIENDS ON THE OTHER SIDE OF
THE ROOM TODAY 17 OUT OF 24 
ALREADY VOTED FOR IMPEACHMENT.
SO LET'S NOT PRETEND THAT 
ANYBODY CARES ANYTHING ABOUT 
WHAT'S BEING SAID HERE TODAY OR 
THE ACTUAL EVIDENCE OR THE 
FACTS.
THAT'S NOT HAPPENING HERE.
SO MUCH FOR AN IMPARTIAL JURY.
SEVERAL TIMES THIS YEAR LEADING 
DEMOCRATS FRANKLY ADMITTED IN 
VARIOUS INTERVIEWS AND 
CORRESPONDENCE THAT THEY BELIEVE
THIS ENTIRE STRATEGY IS 
NECESSARY, BECAUSE WHY?
BECAUSE THEY WANT TO STOP THE 
PRESIDENT'S RE-ELECTION.
EVEN SPEAKER PELOSI SAID 
FAMOUSLY LAST MONTH THAT, QUOTE,
IT IS DANGEROUS TO ALLOW THE 
AMERICAN PEOPLE TO EVALUATE HIS 
PERFORMANCE AT THE BALLOT BOX.
SPEAKER PELOSI HAS IT EXACTLY 
BACKWARDS.
WHAT IS DANGEROUS HERE IS THE 
PRECEDENT ALL OF THIS IS SETTING
FOR THE FUTURE OF OUR REPUBLIC.
I LOVE WHAT HE TESTIFIED TOO 
THIS MORNING.
HE SAID THIS IS SIMPLY NOT HOW 
THE IMPEACHMENT OF A PRESIDENT 
IS DONE.
HIS RHETORICAL QUESTION TO ALL 
OF THE COLLEAGUES ON THE OTHER 
SIDE IS STILL ECHOING THROUGHOUT
THIS CHAMBER.
HE ASKED YOU TO ASK YOURSELVES 
WHERE IS THIS AND WHERE WILL YOU
STAND WHEN THIS IMPEACHMENT 
PROCESS IS INITIATED AGAINST A 
PRESIDENT FROM YOUR PARTY.
THE REAL SHAME HERE TODAY IS 
THAT EVERYTHING IN WASHINGTON 
HAS BECOME BITTERLY PARTISAN AND
THIS UGLY CHAPTER ISN'T GOING TO
HELP THAT.
IT'S GOING TO MAKE THINGS THAT 
MUCH WORSE.
HE SAID EARLIER THAT WE ARE NOW 
LIVING IN THE AREA FEARED BY OUR
FOUNDERS.
WHAT HAMILTON REFERRED TO AS A 
PERIOD OF AGITATED PASSION.
THAT SAYS IT SO WELL.
THIS HAS BECOME AN AGE OF RAGE.
PRESIDENT WASHINGTON WARNED IN 
IT WOULD LEAD US TO THE RUINS OF
PUBLIC LIBERTY.
LET ME TELL YOU WHAT I HEARD 
FROM MEETINGS IN ANY DISTRICT 
TWO DAYS AGO.
THE PEOPLE OF THIS COUNTRY ARE 
SICK OF THIS.
THEY'RE SICK OF THE POLITICS OF 
PERSONAL DESTRUCTION.
THEY'RE SICK OF THIS TOXIC 
ATMOSPHERE THAT'S BEING CREATED 
HERE AND THEY'RE DEEPLY 
CONCERNED ABOUT WHERE ALL OF 
THIS WILL LEAD US IN THE YEARS 
AHEAD.
AND RIGHTFULLY SO.
DO YOU KNOW WHAT THE GREATEST 
THREAT IS?
THE RAPIDLY ERODING TRUST.
ONE OF THE FOUNDATIONS OF 
SELF-GOVERNING PEOPLE IN A 
CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC IS THEY 
WILL MAINTAIN A BASIC LEVEL OF 
TRUST IN THEIR INSTITUTIONS.
IN THE RULE OF LAW AND SYSTEM OF
JUSTICE AND THE BODY OF ELECTED 
REPRESENTATIVES.
THEY'RE CITIZEN LEGISLATORS IN 
THE CONGRESS.
THE GREATEST DANGER OF THIS IS 
NOT WHAT HAPPENS THIS AFTERNOON 
OR BY CHRISTMAS OR IN THE 
ELECTION NEXT FALL.
THE GREATEST DANGER IS WHAT THIS
WILL DO IN THE DAYS AHEAD.
OUR 243 YEAR EXPERIENCE.
WHAT EFFECT THIS WILL HAVE UPON 
OUR NATION SIX OR SEVEN YEARS 
FROM NOW.
A DECADE FROM NOW IN THE RUINS 
OF PUBLIC LIBERTY THAT ARE BEING
CREATED BY THIS TERRIBLY 
SHORTSIGHTED EXERCISE TODAY.
GOD HELP US.
I YIELD BACK. 
>> THE GENTLEMAN YIELDS BACK.
>> HE IS A FORMER PROSECUTOR AND
I RECOGNIZE THE DEFENSE ATTORNEY
TRYING TO REPRESENT THEIR 
CLIENT.
ESPECIALLY ONE WHO HAS VERY 
LITTLE TO WORK WITH IN THE WAY 
OF FACTS AND TODAY YOU'RE 
REPRESENTING THE REPUBLICANS AND
THEIR DEFENSE OF THE PRESIDENT.
PROFESSOR -- 
>> THAT'S NOT MY INTENTION, SIR.
>> YOU SAID THAT THIS CASE 
REPRESENTS A DRAMATIC TURNING 
POINT IN IMPEACHMENT PRECEDENT.
THE IMPACT OF WHICH WILL SHAPE 
AND DETERMINE FUTURE CASES.
THE HOUSE FOR THE FIRST TIME IN 
THE MODERN ERA ASKED THE SENATE 
TO REMOVE SOMEONE FOR CONDUCT 
FOR WHICH HE WAS NEVER CHARGED 
CRIMINALLY AND HAS NEVER BEEN 
TESTED IN THE COURT OF LAW BUT 
THAT'S NOT A DIRECT QUOTE FROM 
WHAT YOU SAID TODAY.
IT SOUNDS A LOT LIKE WHAT YOU 
ARGUED TODAY BUT THAT'S A QUOTE 
FROM WHAT YOU ARGUED AS A 
DEFENSE LAWYER IN A 2010 SENATE 
IMPEACHMENT TRIAL.
PROFESSOR, DID YOU REPRESENT THE
FEDERAL JUDGE. 
>> I DID. 
>> AND HE WAS TRIED ON FOUR 
ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT RANGING 
FROM ENGAGING IN A PATTERN OF 
CONDUCT INCOMPATIBLE WITH TRUST 
PLACED ON HIM AS A FEDERAL JUDGE
TO ENGAGING IN CORRUPT CONDUCT 
THAT DEMONSTRATES HIS UNFITNESS 
TO SERVE AS A UNITED STATES 
DISTRICT COURT JUDGE.
ON EACH COUNT, HE WAS CONVICTED 
BY AT LEAST 68 AND UP TO 96 
BIPARTISAN SENATORS.
BUT WE'RE HERE BECAUSE OF THIS 
PHOTO.
IT'S A PICTURE IN MAY OF THIS 
YEAR STANDING ON THE EASTERN 
FRONT OF UKRAINE AS A WAR WAS 
TAKING PLACE AND UP TO 15,000 
UKRAINIANS DIED AT THE HANDS OF 
RUSSIANS.
I'D LIKE TO FOCUS ON THE IMPACT 
OF PRESIDENT TRUMP'S CONDUCT 
PARTICULARLY WITH OUR ALLIES 
THAT ARE STANDING IN THE WORLD.
THIS ISN'T JUST A PRESIDENT AS 
PROFESSOR CARLIN POINTED OUT 
ASKING FOR ANOTHER FOREIGN 
LEADER TO INVESTIGATE A 
POLITICAL OPPONENT.
IT'S ALSO A PRESIDENT LEVERAGING
A WHITE HOUSE VISIT AS WELL AS 
FOREIGN AID.
THEY NEED OUR SUPPORT AND I HAVE
HEARD JUST HOW IMPORTANT THEY 
WERE PARTICULARLY FROM 
AMBASSADOR TAYLOR.
THIS ASSISTANCE ALLOWS THE 
UKRAINIAN MILITARY TO DETER 
FURTHER INCURSIONS BY THE 
RUSSIANS AGAINST UKRAINIAN 
TERRITORY.
AND THAT FURTHER -- 
>> FURTHER AGGRESSION WERE TO 
TAKE PLACE -- 
>> DOES THE PRESIDENT'S DECISION
TO WITH HOLD FROM UKRAINE SUCH 
IMPORTANT OFFICIAL ACTS HE 
ORDERED TO PRESSURE AND RELATE 
TO THE FRAMERS CONCERNS ABOUT 
THE ABUSE OF POWER AND 
ENTANGLEMENTS WITH FOREIGN 
NATIONS.
>>> YES, TODAY 50 MILLION 
IMMIGRANTS LIVE IN THE UNITED 
STATES.
I MOVE BY ONE WHO RECENTLY TOLD 
ME AND SAID THAT FOR THE LAST 20
YEARS HE HAD LEFT AND WHY HE HAD
COME TO THE UNITED STATES AND HE
TOLD ME THAT WHEN HE HAS GONE 
HOME RECENTLY THEY NOW WAG THEIR
FINGER AT HIM AND SAY YOU'RE 
GOING TO LECTURE US ABOUT 
CORRUPTION?
WHAT DO YOU THINK THE 
PRESIDENT'S CONDUCT SAYS TO THE 
MILLIONS OF AMERICANS THAT LEFT 
THEIR FAMILIES AND LIVELIHOODS 
THAT COME TO A COUNTRY THAT 
BELIEVES IN THE RULE OF LAW. 
>> IT SUGGESTS THAT WE DON'T 
BELIEVE IN THE RULE OF LAW AND 
IT TELLS EMERGING DEMOCRACIES 
NOT TO TAKE IT SERIOUSLY WHEN WE
TELL THEM THAT THEIR ELECTIONS 
ARE NOT LEGITIMATE BECAUSE OF 
FOREIGN INTERFERENCE OR THEIR 
ELECTIONS ARE NOT LEGITIMATE 
BECAUSE OF PERSECUTION OF THE 
OPPOSING PARTY.
AND PRESIDENT BUSH ANNOUNCED 
THAT HE DID NOT CONSIDER THE 
ELECTIONS IN 2006 TO BE 
LEGITIMATE FOR EXACTLY THAT 
REASON BECAUSE THEY WENT AFTER 
POLITICAL POENTS. 
>> AND FINALLY WE SHOULD WAIT 
AND GO TO THE COURTS BUT YOU 
WOULD ACKNOWLEDGE THAT WE HAVE 
GONE TO THE COURTS AND WE HAVE 
BEEN IN THE COURT FOR OVER SIX 
MONTHS ON MATTERS ALREADY 
SETTLED IN THE UNITED STATES 
SUPREME COURT.
PARTICULARLY NIXON WHERE THE 
PRESIDENT SEEMS TO BE RUNNING 
OUT THE CLOCK, IS THAT RIGHT.
>> I ASK EVERYONE IN THE ROOM TO
PLEASE REMAIN SEATED AND QUITE 
WHILE THE WITNESSES EXIT THE 
ROOM AND ALSO WANTED TO REMIND 
THOSE IN THE AUDIENCE THAT YOU 
MAY NOT BE GUARANTEED YOUR SEAT 
IF YOU LEAVE THE HEARING ROOM AT
THIS TIME.
AND WE ARE BRINGING YOU LIVE 
COVERAGE OF THE IMPEACHMENT 
HEARING ON THE CSPAN NETWORKS.
>>> THE COMMITTEE I'M PROCEEDING
UNDER THE RULE. 
>> I WONDER HOW THIS PANEL CAN 
OPINE AS TO WHETHER THE 
PRESIDENT COMMITTED AN 
IMPEACHMENT OFFENSE AND THE 
ANSWER QUITE FRANKLY IS BECAUSE 
YOU CAME IN WITH A PRECONCEIVED 
NOTION.
YOU ALREADY MADE THAT 
DETERMINATION AND DECISION.
I'LL GIVE YOU A FOR INSTANCE.
UNTIL THE RECENT COLLCOLLOQUY, 
SEVERAL OF YOU SAID THE 
PRESIDENT SAID I WOULD LIKE YOU 
TO DO ME A FAVOR.
BUT THAT WAS INACCURATE.
AND I'M GOING TO READ IT TO YOU.
I WOULD LIKE YOU TO DO US A 
FAVOR THOUGH BECAUSE OUR COUNTRY
HAS BEEN THROUGH A LOT.
ONE OF YOU SAID WELL THAT'S 
BECAUSE THE PRESIDENT WAS USING 
ROYAL WE.
HERE THE PRESIDENT IS TALKING 
ABOUT THE COUNTRY.
THAT'S WHAT HE'S TALKING ABOUT.
IT'S AUDACIOUS TO SAY IT'S USING
THE ROYAL WE.
THAT'S ROYAL, ALL RIGHT BUT IT 
AIN'T THE ROYAL WE.
AND I'LL JUST TELL YOU, WHEN YOU
COME IN WITH A PRECONCEIVED 
NOTION IT BECOMES OBVIOUS.
ONE OF YOU JUST SAID, MR. 
FELDMAN IT WAS YOU WHO SAID, AND
I'M GOING TO QUOTE HERE, 
ROUGHLY, I THINK THIS IS EXACTLY
WHAT YOU SAID THOUGH, UNTIL THE 
CALL ON JULY 25th, I WAS AN 
IMPEACHMENT SKEPTIC TOO.
I DON'T KNOW, I'M LOOKING AT IT 
AUGUST 23rd, 2017 PUBLICATION 
WHERE YOU SAID IF PRESIDENT 
DONALD TRUMP PARDONS JOE ARPAIO 
IT WOULD BE AN IMPEACHABLE 
OFFENSE.
HE DID.
IN 2017, THE NEW YORK BOOK 
REVIEW, MR. FELDMAN SAID 
DEFAMATION BY TWEET IS AN 
IMPEACHABLE OFFENSE.
AND I THINK OF A HISTORY OF THIS
COUNTRY AND I THINK IF 
DEFAMATION OR LIABLE OR SLANDER 
USING THE IMABLE OFFENSE, I 
CAN'T HELP BUT REFLECT ABOUT 
JOHN ADAMS OR THOMAS JEFFERSON 
THAT ROUTINELY HAD THEIR 
POLITICAL OPPONENTS.
IN FACT, AT THE TIME, THE 
FACTIONS OR PARTIES ACTUALLY 
BOUGHT NEWSPAPERS TO ATTACK 
THEIR POLITICAL OPPONENTS.
SO, THIS RATHER EXPANSIVE AND 
GENEROUS VIEW THAT YOU HAVE ON 
WHAT CONSTITUTES IMPEACHMENT IS 
A REAL PROBLEM.
THIS MORNING, ONE OF YOU 
MENTIONED THE CONSTITUTIONAL CON
 -- CONVENTION AND SEVERAL OF 
YOU TALKED ABOUT THE 
CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION.
IT'S BEEN AWHILE SINCE I READ 
THE MINUTES AND I JUST BRIEFLY 
REVIEWED BECAUSE I REMEMBERED 
THE DISCUSSION ON THE 
IMPEACHMENT AS BEING MORE 
PERSUASIVE.
AND MORE EXPANSIVE.
HE IS DISCUSSING THE IMPEACHMENT
OF A DUTCH LEADER AND HE TALKS 
SPECIFICALLY ABOUT WHAT HE WOULD
ANTICIPATE AN IMPEACHMENT TO 
LOOK LIKE.
HE SAID A REGULAR IMPEACHMENT 
INQUIRY.
IT WOULD HAVE TAKEN PLACE AND IF
ACQUITTED THEN BE RESTORED TO 
THE CONFIDENCE OF THE PUBLIC.
SO I LOOK ALSO AT A MAY 17th 
ARTICLE WHICH IS A DISCUSSION 
ABOUT IMPEACHMENT BECAUSE 
PRESIDENT TRUMP HAD FIRED JAMES 
COMEY.
HE SAID IT WAS HARD TO MAKE THE 
OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE CASE WITH
THIS ALONE.
THE PRESIDENT HAD CLEAR LEGAL 
AUTHORITY AND THERE WAS REASONS 
FOR FIRING HIM.
THAT WAS IMPEACHABLE.
REFER YOU TO IT, MAY 17th, 2017,
WHAT I'M SUGGESTING TO YOU TODAY
IS A RECKLESS BIAS COMING IN 
HERE AND NOT FACT WITNESSES.
YOU'RE SUPPOSED TO BE AND ONE 
LAST THING HERE IF I CAN FIND 
IT, AND ONE OF OUR WITNESSES 
HERE AND IT'S DEALING WITH 
SOMETHING THAT WAS SAID IN A 
MARYLAND LAW REVIEW ARTICLE IN 
1999 AND BASICALLY IF I CAN GET 
TO IT, IT'S TALKING ABOUT 
THIS -- WAS BEING CRITICAL OF 
LACK OF SELF DOUBT IN AN 
OVERWHELMING ARROGANCE ON THE 
PART OF LAW PROFESSORS THAT COME
IN AND OPINE ON IMPEACHMENT.
THAT WOULD BE YOU THAT SAID 
SOMETHING LIKE THAT.
I CAN'T FIND MY QUOTE OR ELSE I 
WOULD GIVE IT TO YOU.
SO WHAT I'M TELLING YOU IS THAT 
IS WHAT HAS BEEN ON DISPLAY IN 
THIS COMMITTEE TODAY AND WITH 
THAT I YIELD BACK.
>> A LITTLE WHILE AGO MR. GATES 
ASKED CERTAIN MATERIAL BE 
INSERTED BY UNANIMOUS CONSENT.
WE HAVE REVIEWED IT.
THE MATERIAL WILL BE INSERTED 
WITHOUT OBSTRUCTION.
MR. LOU.
>> THANK YOU.
I HAVE FIRST SWORE AN OATH TO 
THE CONSTITUTION WHEN I WAS 
COMMISSIONED AS AN OFFICER IN 
THE UNITED STATES AIR FORCE AND 
THE OATH I TOOK WAS NOT TO A 
POLITICAL PARTY OR TO A 
PRESIDENT OR TO A KING, IT WAS A
DOCUMENT THAT'S MADE AMERICA THE
GREATEST NATION ON EARTH.
I NEVER IMAGINED WE WOULD NOW BE
IN A SITUATION WHERE THE 
PRESIDENT OR COMMANDER IN CHIEF 
IS ACCUSED OF USING HIS OFFICE 
FOR PERSONAL POLITICAL GAIN THAT
BETRAYED SECURITY AND HELP FOR 
ADVERSARY RUSSIA.
NOW THE CONSTITUTION PROVIDES A 
SAFE GUARD BUT WHEN THE 
PRESIDENT'S ABUSE OF POWER AND 
BETRAYAL OF NATIONAL INTERESTS 
ARE SO EXTREME THAT IT WARRANTS 
IMPEACHMENT AND REMOVAL, IT 
SEEMS NOTABLE THAT OF ALL THE 
OFFENSES, BRIBERY IS ONE OF ONLY
TWO THAT ARE LISTED.
SO PROFESSOR, FELDMAN, WHY WOULD
THE FRAMERS CHOOSE BRIBERY OF 
ALL THE POWERFUL OFFENSES THEY 
COULD HAVE INCLUDED TO LIST?
>> IT WITH WAS THE CLASSIC 
EXAMPLE OF HIGH CRIME AND 
MISDEMEANOR OF ABUSE OF OFFICE 
FOR PERSONAL GAIN BECAUSE IF YOU
TAKE SOMETHING OF VALUE WHEN 
YOU'RE ABLE TO EFFECT AN OUTCOME
FOR SOMEBODY ELSE, YOU'RE 
SERVING YOUR OWN INTERESTS AND 
NOT THE INTEREST OF THE PEOPLE.
AND THAT WAS COMMONLY USED IN 
ENGLAND AND THAT'S ONE OF THE 
REASONS THEY SPECIFIED IT. 
>> THANK YOU.
NOW EARLY IN THIS HEARING, 
PROFESSOR CARLIN MADE THE POINT 
THAT BRIBERY AS ENVISIONED BY 
THE FRAMERS WAS MUCH BROADER 
THAN THE FEDERAL CRIMINAL 
STATUTE OF BRIBERY.
WE'RE NOT IN A CRIMINAL 
PROCEEDING.
WE'RE NOT DECIDING WHETHER TO 
SEND PRESIDENT TRUMP TO PRISON.
THIS IS A CIVIL ACTION.
IT'S AN IMPEACHMENT PROCEEDING 
TO DECIDE WHAT WHETHER OR NOT WE
REMOVE DONALD TRUMP FROM HIS 
JOB.
SO PROFESSOR, IT'S TRUE, STATE'S
EXHIBIT IT THAT, WE DON'T HAVE 
TO MEET THE STANDARDS OF A 
FEDERAL BRIBERY STATUTE IN ORDER
TO MEET THE STANDARDS FOR 
IMPEACHMENT OFFENSE. 
>> THAT'S CORRECT.
I'M SORRY.
THAT'S CORRECT. 
>> YESTERDAY, SCALIA LAW 
PROFESSOR THAT IS A LIFE LONG 
REPUBLICAN, FORMER REPUBLICAN 
STAFFER THAT ADVISED THE TRUMP 
TRANSITION TEAM MADE THE 
FOLLOWING PUBLIC STATEMENT ABOUT
DONALD TRUMP'S CONDUCT.
THE CALL WASN'T PERFECT.
HE COMMITTED IMPEACHABLE 
OFFENSES INCLUDING BRIBERY.
SO PROFESSOR, I'M NOW GOING TO 
SHOW YOU TWO VIDEO CLIPS OF THE 
WITNESS TESTIMONY AND THE 
PRESIDENT'S WITH HOLDING OF THE 
WHITE HOUSE MEETING IN EXCHANGE 
FOR THE PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENT OF 
THE INVESTIGATION INTO HIS 
POLITICAL RIVAL.
>> AS I TESTIFIED PREVIOUSLY HIS
REQUESTS FOR A QUID QUO SPR PRO 
FOR ARRANGING A VISIT.
AND ALLEGED INTERFERENCE IN THE 
2016 ELECTIONS.
>> CONGRESS IN EXCHANGE FOR 
ANNOUNCEMENT OF INVESTIGATION. 
>> IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY 
CREDIBLE EXPLANATION FOR THE 
SUSPENSION OF AID I LATER CAME 
TO BELIEVE THAT THE RESUMPTION 
OF SECURITY AID WOULD NOT OCCUR 
UNTIL COMMITTING THE 
INVESTIGATION OF THE 2016 
ELECTIONS AND MR. GIULIANI HAD 
DEMANDED.
>> I'M ALSO A FORMER PROSECUTOR.
I BELIEVE IT WOULD ALSO MEET THE
STANDARDS FOR CRIMINAL BRIBERY.
THE SUPREME COURT'S DECISION WAS
PRIMARILY ABOUT WHAT CONSTITUTES
AN OFFICIAL ACT.
AND FORMAL EXERCISE OF 
GOVERNMENTAL POWER ON SOMETHING 
BEFORE A PUBLIC OFFICIAL.
WE HAVE HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS OF 
DOLLARS OF MILITARY AID AND THE 
FREEZING AND UNFREEZING OF THAT 
AID IS A FORMAL EXERCISE OF 
GOVERNMENTAL POWER.
THERE'S ANOTHER CRIME HERE.
IT'S THE SOLICITATION OF A 
FOREIGN GOVERNMENT IN A FEDERAL 
ELECTION CAMPAIGN.
THAT STRAIGHT UP VIOLATES THE 
FEDERAL ELECTION CAMPAIGN.
AND OH BY THE WAY, THAT'S ONE 
REASON HE IS SITTING IN PRISON 
RIGHT NOW.
I YIELD BACK.
>> HOW MANY OF THE PANEL 
ACTUALLY VOTED FOR DONALD TRUMP 
FOR 2016. 
>> I DON'T GET TO SAY ANYTHING 
ABOUT IT.
>>> GENTLEMAN WILL SUSPEND.
WE'LL SUSPEND THE CLOCK TOO.
>> GENTLEMAN MAY ASK THE 
QUESTION, THE WITNESSES DON'T 
HAVE TO RESPOND.
>> HOW MANY OF YOU SUPPORTED 
DONALD TRUMP. 
>> NOT RAISING OUR HANDS IS NOT 
AN INDICATION OF AN ANSWER, SIR.
>> THIS HAS BEEN PREDICATED ON 
RATHER DISTURBING LEGAL 
DOCTRINES.
ONE DEMOCRAT ASSERTED THAT 
HEARSAY CAN BE MUCH BETTER 
EVIDENCE THAN DIRECT EVIDENCE.
SPEAKER PELOSI AND OTHERS SAID 
THAT THE PRESIDENT'S 
RESPONSIBILITY IS TO PRESENT 
EVIDENCE TO PROVE HIS INNOCENCE.
WE HEARD IF YOU INVOKE LEGAL 
RIGHTS IN DEFENSE OF CRIMINAL 
ACCUSATIONS THAT'S AN ON 
INSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE AND 
EVIDENCE OF GUILT.
MY QUESTION TO YOU IS WHAT DOES 
IT MEAN TO OUR AMERICAN JUSTICE 
SYSTEM IF THESE DOCTRINES TAKE 
ROUTE IN OUR COUNTRY. 
>> WHAT CONCERNS ME THE MOST IS 
THAT THERE'S NO LIMITING 
PRINCIPLES THAT I CAN SEE AND 
MORE IMPORTANTLY SOME OF THESE I
ONLY HEARD ABOUT TODAY.
AND THEY'RE ATTEMPTING TO USE 
AND YOU RECOGNIZE IT.
BUT I'M PRETTY CONFIDENT THAT 
NOBODY ON THIS COMMITTEE WANTS 
THE NEW STANDARD OF IMPEACHMENT 
TO BE BETRAYAL OF THE NATIONAL 
INTEREST.
THAT IS GOING TO BE THE BASIS 
FOR IMPEACHMENT.
HOW MANY REPUBLICANS DO YOU 
THINK WOULD SAY THAT BARRACK 
OBAMA VIOLATED THAT STANDARD.
THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT JAMES 
MADISON WARNED YOU AGAINST.
IS THAT YOU WOULD CREATE A VOTE 
OF NO CONFIDENCE STANDARD IN OUR
CONSTITUTION. 
>> ARE WE IN DANGER OF ABUSING 
OUR OWN POWER OF DOING ENORMOUS 
VIOLENCE TO OUR CONSTITUTION.
AND BEFORE THE PRESIDENT WAS 
SWORN IN ON THIS PANEL.
PROFESSOR CALLED IT ILLEGITIMATE
IN 2017.
SHE IMPLIED IMPEACHMENT WAS A 
REMEDY.
PROFESSOR FELDMAN ADVOCATED 
IMPEACHING THE PRESIDENT OVER A 
TWEET HE MADE IN MARCH OF 2017.
THAT'S JUST 7 WEEKS AFTER HIS 
INAUGURATION.
ARE WE IN DANGER OF SENTENCE 
FIRST AND VERDICT AFTERWARDS. 
>> WELL, THIS IS PART OF THE 
PROBLEM OF HOW YOUR VIEW OF THE 
PRESIDENT CAN EFFECT YOUR 
ASSUMPTIONS AND INFERENCES AND 
VIEW OF CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE.
I'M NOT SUGGESTING THAT THE 
EVIDENCE, IF IT WAS FULLY 
INVESTIGATED WOULD COME OUT ONE 
WAY OR THE OTHER.
WHAT I'M SAYING IS THAT WE ARE 
NOT DEALING WITH THE REALM OF 
THE UNKNOWABLE.
YOU HAVE TO ASK, WE BURNED TWO 
MONTHS IN THIS HOUSE THAT YOU 
COULD HAVE BEEN IN COURT SEEKING
A SUBPOENA FOR THESE WITNESSES.
IT DOESN'T MEAN THAT YOU HAVE TO
WAIT FOREVER.
YOU COULD HAVE GOTTEN AN ORDER 
BY NOW.
YOU COULD HAVE ALLOWED THE 
PRESIDENT TO RAISE AN EXECUTIVE 
PRIVILEGE CLAIM. 
>> I NEED TO GO ON HERE.
THE CONSTITUTION SAYS THE 
EXECUTIVE AUTHORITY SHOULD BE 
VESTED IN A PRESIDENT OF THE 
UNITED STATES.
DOES THAT MEAN SOME OF THE 
EXECUTIVE AUTHORITY OR ALL OF 
IT?
>> OBVIOUSLY THERE'S CHECKS AND 
BALANCES ON ALL OF THESE BUT THE
EXECUTIVE AUTHORITY PRIMARILY 
RESTS WITH THE PRESIDENT BUT 
THESE ARE ALL SHARED POWERS.
I DON'T BEGRUDGE THE 
INVESTIGATION OF THE UKRAINE 
CONTROVERSY.
I BEGRUDGE HOW IT HAS BEEN 
CONDUCTED. 
>> I AGREE WITH THAT.
THE CONSTITUTION COMMANDS THE 
PRESIDENT TAKE CARE THAT THE 
LAWS BE ENFORCED.
THAT DOESN'T MAKE HIM THE CHIEF 
LAW ENFORCEMENT OF THE FEDERAL 
GOVERNMENT. 
>> SO TO BELIEVE A CRIME'S BEEN 
COMMITTED DOES THE PRESIDENT HAS
THE AUTHORITY TO INQUIRE INTO 
THAT MATTER. 
>> HE HAS.
BUT THIS IS WHERE I THINK WE 
WOULD DEPART.
I HAVE BEEN CRITICAL OF THE 
PRESIDENT IN TERMS OF CROSSING 
LINES WITH THE JUSTICE 
DEPARTMENT.
THAT HAS CAUSED CONSIDERABLE 
PROBLEMS AND I DON'T BELIEVE 
IT'S APPROPRIATE BUT WE OFTEN 
CONFUSE WHAT IS INAPPROPRIATE 
WITH WHAT IS IMPEACHABLE.
MANY PEOPLE FEEL THAT WHAT THE 
PRESIDENT HAS DONE IS OBNOXIOUS,
CONTEMPTIBLE, BUT CONTEMPTIBLE 
IS NOT SYNONYMOUS WITH 
IMPEACHMENT. 
>> LET ME ASK YOU A FINAL 
QUESTION, THE NATIONAL DEFENSE 
AUTHORIZATION ACT THAT 
AUTHORIZED AID TO UKRAINE 
REQUIRES THEY CERTIFY THAT THE 
GOVERNMENT OF UKRAINE TAKE 
SUBSTANTIAL ACTIONS TO MAKE 
DEFENSE INSTITUTION REFORMS FOR 
THE PURPOSES OF DECREASING 
CORRUPTION.
IS THE PRESIDENT EXERCISING THAT
RESPONSIBILITY WHEN HE INQUIRES 
INTO A MATTER THAT COULD INVOLVE
ILLEGALITIES BETWEEN AMERICAN 
AND UKRAINIAN OFFICIALS?
PART IS YOU JUST IGNORE 
DEFENSES.
THEY'RE JUST THE OTHER SIDE'S 
ACCOUNT FOR ACTIONS.
>> THE GENTLEMAN'S TIME HAS 
EXPIRED. 
>> THANK YOU.
I WANT TO THANK THE WITNESSES 
FOR THEIR HARD WORK ON A LONG 
DAY.
I WANT TO THANK THEM ESPECIALLY 
FOR INVOKING THE AMERICAN 
REVOLUTION WHICH NOT ONLY 
OVERTHREW A KING BUT CREATED THE
WORLD'S FIRST ANTI-MONARCHICAL 
CONSTITUTION.
IT MAKES ME PROUD TO HAVE SPENT 
MY CAREER AS A FELLOW 
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW PROFESSOR 
BEFORE RUNNING IN CONGRESS.
IN THE MONARCHY THE KING IS LAW 
BUT IN THE DEMOCRACIES THE LAW 
WILL BE KING BUT TODAY THE 
PRESIDENT ADVANCES AN ARGUMENT 
AND SAYS THAT ARTICLE 2 ALLOWS 
HIM TO DO WHATEVER HE WANTS. 
WANTS.
HE NOT ONLY SAYS THAT, BUT HE 
BELIEVES IT BECAUSE HE DID 
SOMETHING NO OTHER AMERICAN 
PRESIDENT HAS DONE BEFORE.
HE USED FOREIGN MILITARY AID AS 
A LEVER TO COERCE A FOREIGN 
GOVERNMENT TO INTERFERE IN AN 
AMERICAN ELECTION TO DISCREDIT 
AN OPPONENT INTO ADVANCE HIS 
RE-ELECTION CAMPAIGN.
PROFESSOR CARLIN, WHAT IS THE 
EXISTENCE OF THE IMPEACHMENT 
POWER TELL US ABOUT THE 
PRESIDENT'S CLAIM THAT THE 
CONSTITUTION ALLOWS HIM TO DO 
WHATEVER HE WANTS?
>> IT BLOWS IT OUT OF THE WATER.
>> IF HE'S RIGHT AND WE ACCEPT 
THIS RADICAL CLAIM THAT WE CAN 
DO WHATEVER HE WANT, ALL FUTURE 
PRESIDENTS SEEKING RE-ELECTION 
WILL SEEK FOREIGN GOVERNMENTS 
INTO THEIR CAMPAIGNS TO TARGET 
THEIR ARRIVALS AND SPREAD 
PROPAGANDA.
THAT'S ASTOUNDING.
IF WE LET THE PRESIDENT GET AWAY
WITH THIS CONDUCT, EVERY 
PRESIDENT CAN GET AWAY WITH IT.
DO YOU AGREE WITH THAT, 
PROFESSOR FELDMAN?
>> I DO.
RICHARD NIXON SENT BURGLARS TO 
BREAK INTO THE DEMOCRATIC 
NATIONAL COMMITTEE HEADQUARTERS,
BUT PRESIDENT TRUMP MADE A 
DIRECT PHONE CALL TO THE 
PRESIDENT OF A FOREIGN COUNTY 
AND SOUGHT HIS INTERVENTION IN 
AN AMERICAN ELECTION. 
>> THIS IS A BIG MOMENT FOR 
AMERICA, ISN'T IT?
>> IF ELIJAH CUMMINGS WERE HERE 
HE'D SAY LISTEN UP, PEOPLE N. 
LISTEN UP!
HOW WE RESPOND WILL REPRESENT 
THE CHARACTER OF OUR DEMOCRACY 
FOR GENERATIONS.
PROFESSOR CARLIN SAID THERE WAS 
THREE DOMINANT REASONS INVOKED 
AT THE FOUNDING FOR WHY WE 
NEEDED AN IMPEACHMENT POWER.
BROADLY SPEAKING, IT WAS AN 
INSTRUMENT OF POPULAR 
SELF-DEFENSE AND TRAMPLING THE 
RULE OF LAW AND NOT JUST IN THE 
ROYAL NORMAL SENSE IN SHOWING 
CRUELTY, VANITY AND TREACHERY, 
AND GREED AND SO ON, BUT WHEN 
PRESIDENTS THREATENED THE BASIC 
CHARACTER OF OUR GOVERNMENT AND 
THE CONSTITUTION, THAT'S WHAT 
IMPEACHMENT WAS ABOUT AND THE 
FRAMERS INVOKED THREE SPECIFIC 
KINDS OF MISCONDUCT SO SERIOUS 
AND EGREGIOUS THAT THEY THOUGHT 
THEY WARRANTED IMPEACHMENT.
FIRST, THE PRESIDENT MIGHT ABUSE
HAS POWER BY CORRUPTLY USING HIS
OFFICE FOR PERSONAL, POLITICAL 
OR FINANCIAL GAIN.
PROFESSOR FELDMAN, WHAT'S SO 
WRONG WITH THAT.
IF THE PRESIDENT BELONGS TO MY 
PARTY, AND I GENERALLY LIKE HIM,
WHAT IS SO WRONG WITH HIM USING 
HIS OFFICE TO ADVANCE HIS 
POLITICAL AMBITIONS. 
>> THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED 
STATES WORKS FOR THE PEOPLE IF 
HE SERVES PERSONAL GAIN HE'S NOT
SERVING THE INTERESTS OF THE 
PEOPLE AND HE'S SERVING THE 
INTERESTS SPECIFIC TO HIM AND 
THAT MEANS HE'S ABUSING THE 
OFFICE AND HE'S DOING THINGS 
THAT HE CAN ONLY GET AWAY WITH 
BECAUSE HE IS THE PRESIDENT AND 
THAT'S NECESSARILY SUBJECT TO 
IMPEACHMENT.
>> WELL, SECOND AND THIRD, THE 
FOUNDERS EXPRESSED FEAR THAT A 
PRESIDENT COULD SUBVERT OUR 
DEMOCRACY BY BETRAYING HIS TRUST
TO FOREIGN INFLUENCE IN 
INTERFERENCE AND ALSO BY 
CORRUPTING THE ELECTION PROCESS.
PROFESSOR CARLIN, YOU'RE ONE OF 
AMERICA'S SCHOLARS AND WHAT ROLE
DOES IMPEACHMENT PLAY ESPECIALLY
IN AN INTERNATIONAL CONTEXT IN 
WHICH VLADIMIR PUTIN AND OTHER 
TYRANTS AND DESPOTS ARE 
INTERFERING TO DESTABILIZE 
ELECTIONS AROUND THE WORLD?
>> WELL, CONGRESS HAS ENACTED A 
SERIES OF LAWS TO MAKE SURE THAT
THERE ISN'T FOREIGN INFLUENCE IN
OUR ELECTIONS AND ALLOWING THE 
PRESIDENT TO CIRCUMVENT THAT 
PRINCIPLE IS A PROBLEM AND AS 
I'VE ALREADY TESTIFIED SEVERAL 
TIMES, AMERICA IS NOT JUST THE 
LAST BEST HOPE AS MR. JEFFERIES 
SAID, BUT IT'S ALSO THE SHINING 
CITY ON THE HILL.
WE CAN'T BE THE SHINING CITY ON 
THE HILL AND PROMOTE DEMOCRAT 
SEE AROUND THE WORLD IF WE'RE 
NOT PROMOTING IT HERE AT HOME. 
>> ANY ONE OF THESE ACTIONS 
ALONE WOULD BE SUFFICIENT FOR 
IMPEACHMENT ACCORDING TO THE 
FOUNDERS, BUT IS IT SUFFICIENT 
TO SAY THAT ALL THREE CAUSES -- 
YES OR NO, PROFESSOR FELDMAN?
>> PROFESSOR GERHARD?
>> YES.
>> PROFESSOR CARL IN?
>> YES.
>> YOU AGREE.
ARE ANY OF YOU AWARE THAT 
ANIMATED THE FOUNDERS?
>> NO.
>> NO.
>> NO, AS WELL.
>> MR. CHAIRMAN, IT'S HARD TO 
THINK OF A MORE MONARCHAL SEBTS 
IMENT THAN I CAN DO WHATEVER I 
WANT AS PRESIDENT, AND I YIELD 
BACK.
>> GENTLEMAN YIELDS BACK.
MISS LESKO.
>> THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR.
I ASK UNANIMOUS CONSENT A LETTER
I WROTE AND SENT TO YOU, ASKING,
CALLING ON YOU TO CANCEL ANY AND
ALL FUTURE IMPEACHMENT HEARINGS 
AND OUTLINING THE PROJECT. 
>> WITHOUT OBJECTION THE LETTER 
WILL BE ENTERED INTO THE RECORD.
>> THANK YOU.
DURING AN INTERVIEW, MR. 
CHAIRMAN ON MSNBC'S "MORNING 
JOE" ON NOVEMBER 26, 2018, 
CHAIRMAN NADLER OUTLINED A 
THREE-PRONGED TEST THAT HE SAID 
WOULD ALLOW FOR A LEGITIMATE 
IMPEACHMENT PROCEEDING.
NOW I QUOTE CHAIRMAN NADLER'S 
REMARKS.
AND THIS IS WHAT HE SAID.
THERE REALLY ARE THREE 
QUESTIONS, I THINK.
FIRST, HAS THE PRESIDENT 
COMMITTED IMPEACHABLE OFFENSES?
SECOND, DO THOSE OFFENSES RISE 
TO THE GRAVITY THAT'S WORTH 
PUTTING THE COUNTRY THROUGH THE 
DRAMA OF IMPEACHMENT?
AND NUMBER THREE, BECAUSE YOU 
DON'T WANT TO TEAR THE COUNTRY 
APART, YOU DON'T WANT HALF OF 
THE COUNTRY TO SAY TO THE OTHER 
HALF FOR THE NEXT 30 YEARS, WE 
WON THE ELECTION, YOU STOLE IT 
FROM US.
YOU HAVE TO BE ABLE TO THINK AT 
THE BEGINNING OF THE IMPEACHMENT
PROCESS THAT THE EVIDENCE IS SO 
CLEAR OF OFFENSES SO GRAVE THAT 
ONCE YOU'VE LAID OUT ALL OF THE 
EVIDENCE, A GOOD FRACTION OF THE
OPPOSITION, THE VOTERS WILL 
RELUCTANTLY ADMIT TO THEMSELVES 
THEY HAD TO DO IT.
OTHERWISE, YOU HAD A PARTISAN 
IMPEACHMENT WHICH WILL TEAR THE 
COUNTRY APART.
IF YOU MEET THESE THREE TESTS, 
THEN I THINK YOU'D DO THE 
IMPEACHMENT AND THOSE WERE THE 
WORDS OF CHAIRMAN NADLER.
NOW LET'S SEE IF CHAIRMAN 
NADLER'S THREE-PRONGED TEST HAS 
BEEN MET.
FIRST, HAS THE PRESIDENT 
COMMITTED AN IMPEACHABLE 
OFFENSE?
NO.
THE EVIDENCE AND TESTIMONY HAS 
NOT REVEALED ANY IMPEACHABLE 
OFFENSE.
SECOND, DO THOSE OFFENSES RISE 
TO THE GRAVITY THAT'S WORTH 
PUTTING THE COUNTRY THROUGH THE 
DRAMA OF IMPEACHMENT?
AGAIN, THE ANSWER IS NO.
THERE'S NOTHING HERE THAT RISES 
TO THE GRAVITY THAT'S WORTH 
PUTTING THE COUNTRY THROUGH THE 
DRAMA OF IMPEACHMENT.
AND THIRD, HAVE THE DEMOCRATS 
LAID OUT A CASE SO CLEAR THAT 
EVEN THE OPPOSITION HAS TO 
AGREE?
ABSOLUTELY NOT.
YOU AND HOUSE DEMOCRAT 
LEADERSHIP ARE TEARING APART THE
COUNTRY.
YOU SAID THE EVIDENCE NEEDS TO 
BE CLEAR.
IT IS NOT.
YOU SAID OFFENSES NEED TO BE 
GRAVE, THEY ARE NOT.
>> YOU SAID THAT ONCE THE 
EVIDENCE IS LAID OUT THAT THE 
OPPOSITION WILL ADMIT THEY HAD 
TO DO IT.
THAT HAS NOT HAPPENED.
IN FACT, POLLING AND THE FACT 
THAT NOT ONE SINGLE REPUBLICAN 
VOTED ON THE IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY
RESOLUTION OR ON THE SCHIFF 
REPORT REVEAL THE OPPOSITE IS 
TRUE.
IN FACT, WHAT YOU AND YOUR 
DEMOCRATIC COLLEAGUES HAVE DONE 
IS OPPOSITE OF WHAT YOU SAID HAD
TO BE DONE.
THIS IS A PARTISAN IMPEACHMENT, 
AND IT IS TEARING THE COUNTRY 
APART.
I TAKE THIS ALL TO MEAN THAT 
CHAIRMAN NADLER, ALONG WITH THE 
REST OF THE DEMOCRATIC CAUCUS IS
PREPARED TO CONTINUE THESE 
ENTIRELY PARTISAN, UNFAIR 
PROCEEDINGS AND TRAUMATIZE THE 
AMERICAN PEOPLE ALL FOR A 
POLITICAL PURPOSE.
I THINK THAT'S A SHAME, THAT'S 
NOT LEADERSHIP.
THAT'S A SHAM, AND SO I ASK MR. 
TURLEY, HAS CHAIRMAN NADLER 
SATISFIED HIS THREE-PRONGED TEST
FOR IMPEACHMENT?
>> WITH ALL DUE RESPECT TO THE 
CHAIRMAN, DO I NOT BELIEVE THOSE
FACTORS WERE SATISFIED.
>> THANK YOU.
AND I WANT TO CORRECT SOMETHING 
FOR THE RECORD, AS WELL.
REPEATEDLY TODAY AND OTHER DAYS,
DEMOCRATS HAVE REPEATED WHAT WAS
SAID IN THE TEXT OF THE CALL.
DO ME A FAVOR, THOUGH AND THE 
IMPLY WAS AGAINST PRESIDENT 
BIDEN.
TO IMPEACH PRESIDENT BIDEN.
IT WAS NOT.
IT WAS NOT.
LET ME READ WHAT THE TRANSCRIPT 
SAID ARE SAYS TO PRESIDENT 
TRUMP, I WOULD LIKE YOU TO DO US
A FAVOR BECAUSE OUR COUNTRY 
KNOWS A LOT AND UKRAINE KNOWS A 
LOT ABOUT IT AND I WOULD LIKE 
YOU TO FIND OUT THE WHOLE 
SITUATION WITH UKRAINE.
THEY SAY CROWD STRIKE.
I GUESS YOU HAVE ONE OF YOUR OWN
WEALTHY PEOPLE.
IT SAYS NOTHING ABOUT THE BIDENS
SO PLEASE STOP REFERENCING THOSE
TWO TOGETHER AND I YIELD BACK.
>> THE GENTLE LADY YIELDS BACK.
>> THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN.
THIS IS A DEEPLY GRAVE MOMENT 
THAT WE FIND OURSELVES IN, AND I
THOUGHT THE THREAT TO OUR NATION
WAS WELL ARTICULATED EARLIER 
TODAY BY PROFESSOR FELDMAN WHO 
YOU SAID, IF WE CANNOT IMPEACH A
PRESIDENT WHO ABUSES HIS OFFICE 
FOR PERSONAL ADVANTAGE, WE NO 
LONGER LIVE IN A DEMOCRACY.
WE LIVE IN A MONARCHY OR WE LIVE
UNDER A DICTATORSHIP.
MY VIEW IS THAT IF PEOPLE CANNOT
DEPEND ON THE FAIRNESS OF OUR 
ELECTIONS, THEN WHAT PEOPLE ARE 
CALLING DIVISIVE TODAY WILL BE 
ABSOLUTELY NOTHING COMPARED TO 
THE SHREDDING OF OUR DEMOCRACY.
AFTER THE EVENTS OF UKRAINE 
UNFOLDED, THE PRESIDENT CLAIMED 
THAT THE REASON THAT HE 
REQUESTED AN INVESTIGATION INTO 
HIS POLITICAL OPPONENTS AND 
WITHHELD DESPERATELY NEEDED AID 
TO UKRAINE WAS SUPPOSEDLY 
BECAUSE HE WAS WORRIED ABOUT 
CORRUPTION.
HOWEVER, CONTRARY TO THE 
PRESIDENT'S STATEMENTS, VARIOUS 
WITNESSES INCLUDING VICE 
PRESIDENT PENCE'S SPECIAL 
ADVISER JENNIFER WILLIAMS 
TESTIFIED THAT THE PRESIDENT'S 
REQUEST WAS POLITICAL.
TAKE A LISTEN. 
>> I FOUND THE JULY 25th PHONE 
CALL UNUSUAL BECAUSE IN CONTRAST
TO OTHER PRESIDENTIAL CALLS I 
HAD OBSERVED IT INVOLVED 
DISCUSSION OF WHAT APPEARED TO 
BE A DOMESTIC, POLITICAL MATTER.
>> FOR SOMEONE WHO GETS CAUGHT 
TO DENY THAT THEIR BEHAVIOR IS 
IMPERMISSIBLE?
>> ALMOST ALWAYS.
>> AND ONE OF THE QUESTIONS 
BEFORE US IS WHETHER THE 
PRESIDENT'S CLAIM THAT HE CARED 
ABOUT CORRUPTION IS ACTUALLY 
CREDIBLE.
YOU'VE ARGUED BEFORE THE SUPREME
COURT AND THE SUPREME COURT 
DETERMINED THAT WHEN ASSESSING 
CREDIBILITY WE SHOULD LOOK AT A 
NUMBER OF FACTORS AND INCLUDING 
IMPACT AND DEPARTURES FOR NORMAL
PROCEDURES.
>> WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO DO IS 
FIGURE OUT IF THE EXPLANATION 
FITS WITH THE FACTS AND IF IT 
DOESN'T THE EXPLANATION IS NOT 
TRUE.
UT LUTE COLONEL VINDMAN TALKED 
ABOUT HE REPAIRED FOR TRUMP'S 
CALL WITH PRESIDENT ZELENSKY.
HOWEVER, BASED ON THE 
TRANSCRIPTS RELEASED ON APRIL 
AND JULY PRESIDENT TRUMP NEVER 
MENTIONED THESE POINTS OF 
CORRUPTION.
HE ACTUALLY NEVER MENTIONED THE 
WORD CORRUPTION.
DOES THAT GO TO ANY OF THOSE 
FACTORS?
IS THAT SIGNIFICANT?
>> YES.
IT GOES TO THE ONE ABOUT 
PROCEDURAL IRREGULARITIES AND IT
GOES TO THE ONE THAT SAYS YOU 
LOOK AT THE KIND OF THINGS THAT 
LED UP TO THE DECISION THAT 
YOU'RE TRYING TO FIGURE OUT 
SOMEBODY'S MOTIVE ABOUT.
>> SO LET'S TRY ANOTHER ONE.
AMBASSADOR VOLKER TESTIFIED THAT
THE PRESIDENT NEVER EXPRESSED 
ANY CONCERNS TO HIM ABOUT 
CORRUPTION IN ANY COUNTRY OTHER 
THAN UKRAINE.
WOULD THAT BE RELEVANT TO YOUR 
ASSESSMENT?
>> YES, IT WOULD.
IT GOES TO THE FACTOR ABOUT 
SUBSTANTIVE DEPARTURES. 
>> PROFESSOR CARLIN, THERE IS, 
IN PACK, AND MY COLLEAGUE MR. 
McCLINTOCK MENTIONED THIS 
EARLIER, A PROCESS OUTLINED IN 
THE NATIONAL DEFENSE 
AUTHORIZATION ACT TO ASSESS 
WHETHER COUNTRIES THAT ARE 
RECEIVING MILITARY AID HAVE DONE
ENOUGH TO FIGHT CORRUPTION.
IN MAY OF 2019, MY REPUBLICAN 
COLLEAGUE DID NOT SAY THIS.
THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 
ACTUALLY WROTE A LETTER 
DETERMINING THAT UKRAINE PASSED 
THIS ASSESSMENT AND YET, 
PRESIDENT TRUMP SET ASIDE THAT 
ASSESSMENT AND WITHHELD THE 
CONGRESSIONALLY APPROVED AID TO 
UKRAINE ANYWAY IN DIRECT 
CONTRADICTION TO THE ESTABLISHED
PROCEDURES HE SHOULD HAVE 
FOLLOWED HAD HE CARED ABOUT 
CORRUPTION.
IS THAT RELEVANT TO YOUR 
ASSESSMENT?
>> YES.
THAT WOULD GO TO THE FACTORS THE
SUPREME COURT'S DISCUSSED.
>> AND WHAT ABOUT THE FACT, AND 
I THINK YOU MENTIONED THIS 
EARLIER AS ONE OF THE KEY THINGS
THAT YOU READ IN THE TESTIMONY 
THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP WANTED THE 
INVESTIGATIONS OF BURISMA AND 
THE BIDENS ANNOUNCED, BUT THAT 
HE ACTUALLY DIDN'T CARE WHETHER 
THEY WERE CONDUCTED.
THAT WAS IN AMBASSADOR 
SONDLAND'S TESTIMONY.
WHAT WOULD YOU SAY ABOUT THAT?
>> THAT GOES ON WHETHER THE 
CLAIM THAT THIS IS ABOUT 
POLITICS IS A PERSUASIVE CLAIM 
BECAUSE THAT GOES TO THE FACT 
THAT IT'S BEING ANNOUNCED 
PUBLICLY WHICH IS AN ODD THING, 
AND GENERALLY, YOU DON'T 
ANNOUNCE THE INVESTIGATION IN A 
CRIMINAL CASE BEFORE YOU CONDUCT
IT BECAUSE IT PUTS THE PERSON ON
NOTICE THAT THEY'RE UNDER 
INVESTIGATION.
>> AND GIVEN ALL OF THESE FACTS 
AND THERE ARE MORE THAT WE DON'T
HAVE TIME TO GET TO.
HOW WOULD YOU ASSESS THE 
CREDIBILITY OF THE PRESIDENT'S 
CLAIM THAT HE WAS WORRIED ABOUT 
CORRUPTION.
>> YOU OUGHT TO MAKE THAT 
CREDIBILITY DETERMINATION 
BECAUSE YOU HAVE THE SOLE POWER 
OF IMPEACHMENT.
IF I WERE A MEMBER OF THE HOUSE 
OF REPRESENTATIVES I WOULD INFER
THAT HE WAS DOING IT FOR 
POLITICAL REASONS.
>> IF WE DON'T STAND UP NOW TO A
PRESIDENT WHO ABUSES HIS POWER 
WE RISK SENDING A MESSAGE TO ALL
FUTURE PRESIDENTS THAT THEY CAN 
PUT THEIR OWN POLITICAL 
INTERESTS AHEAD OF THE AMERICAN 
PEOPLE, OUR NATIONAL SECURITY 
AND OUR ELECTIONS AND THAT IS 
THE GRAVEST OF THREATS TO OUR 
DEMOCRACY.
I YIELD BACK.
>> THE GENTLE LADY YIELDS BACK 
AND I RECOGNIZE MR. GOMERT.
>>. 
>> I HAVE AN ARTICLE BY DANIEL 
HUFF. 
>> WITHOUT OBJECTION THE ARTICLE
IS ADMITTED INTO THE RECORD.
>> THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN.
I'M STARTING OFF TODAY DOING 
SOMETHING THAT I DON'T NORMALLY 
DO, AND I'M GOING TO QUOTE 
SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE NANCY 
PELOSI.
IN MARCH THE SPEAKER TOLD "THE 
WASHINGTON POST" I'M GOING TO 
QUOTE THIS, IMPEACHMENT IS SO 
DIVISIVE TO THE COUNTRY THAT 
UNLESS THERE'S SOMETHING SO 
COMPELLING AND OVERWHELMING AND 
BIPARTISAN, I DON'T THINK WE 
SHOULD GO DOWN THAT PATH BECAUSE
IT DIVIDES THE COUNTRY.
ON THAT, THE SPEAKER AND I BOTH 
AGREE, AND YOU KNOW WHO ELSE 
AGREES?
THE FOUNDING FATHERS.
THE FOUNDING FATHERS WARRANT 
THEY THE IMPEACHMENT MIGHT BEY 
IS SEVERE THAT THE ACTIONS ARE 
IMPEACHABLE.
LET'S GO BACK TO SPEAKER 
PELOSI'S WORDS JUST ONE MORE 
TIME.
IT IS SPEAKER SAYS THE CASE FOR 
IMPEACHMENT MUST BE ALSO 
COMPELLING.
AFTER LAST MONTH'S SCHIFF SHOW 
THIS IS WHAT WE LEARNED.
THERE IS NO EVIDENCE THAT THE 
PRESIDENT DIRECTED ANYONE TO 
TELL THE UKRAINIANS THAT AID WAS
CONDITIONED ON INVESTIGATION 
ASIDE FROM ASSUMPTIONS BY 
AMBASSADOR SONDLAND, WAS THERE 
NOTHING THAT THERE WAS AID FOR 
THE INVESTIGATION.
NEVER IN THAT CALL WAS THE 2020 
ELECTION MENTIONED AND NEVER IN 
THAT CALL WAS MILITARY AID 
MENTIONED.
IN FACT, PRESIDENT TRUMP TOLD 
JOHNSON ON 21, AUGUST, THAT AID 
WAS NOT CONDITIONED ON 
INVESTIGATION.
RATHER, PRESIDENT TRUMP WAS 
RIGHTFULLY SKEPTICAL ABOUT THE 
UKRAINIANS AND THEIR COUNTRY HAS
A HISTORY OF CORRUPTION AND HE 
MERELY WANTED THE EUROPEANS TO 
CONTRIBUTE MORE TO THE PROBLEM 
IN THEIR OWN BACKYARD.
I THINK WE CAN ALL AGREE THAT IT
WAS APPROPRIATE FOR THE 
PRESIDENT TO ENSURE THAT OUR 
MONEY ISN'T WASTED.
I SAID I WASN'T GOING TO GO BACK
TO SPEAKER PELOSI, BUT I DO WANT
TO GO BACK.
SHE ALSO SAID THAT IMPEACHMENT 
SHOULD BE PURSUED WHEN IT'S 
QUOTE, UNQUOTE, OVERWHELMING.
IT'S PROBABLY NOT GOOD FOR THE 
DEMOCRATS THAT NONE OF THE 
WITNESSES WHO TESTIFIED BEFORE 
THE INTEL COMMITTEE WERE ABLE TO
PROVIDE FIRSTHAND EVIDENCE OF A 
QUID PRO QUO, BUT I FORGOT WE'RE
CALLING IT BRIBERY NOW AFTER THE
FOCUS GROUP LAST WEEK AND 
THERE'S NO EVIDENCE OF BRIBERY, 
EITHER.
INSTEAD THE TWO PEOPLE WHO DID 
HAVE FIRST-HAND KNOWLEDGE, THE 
PRESIDENT AND PRESIDENT ZELENSKY
BOTH SAY THERE WAS NO PRESSURE 
ON THE UKRAINIANS AND AGAIN, THE
TRANSCRIPT OF THE JULY 25th 
BACKS THIS UP AND TO GO BACK TO 
NANCY PELOSI ONE MORE TIME.
SHE SAID THAT THE MOVEMENT FOR 
IMPEACHMENT SHOULD BE, QUOTE, 
UNQUOTE, BIPARTISAN WHICH IS THE
SAME SENTIMENT ECHOED BY JERRY 
NADLER WHO IN 1998 SAID, AND I 
QUOTE, THERE MUST NEVER BE A 
NARROWLY VOTED IMPEACHMENT 
SUPPORTED BY ONE OF THE 
POLITICAL PARTIES AND IMPOSED BY
ANOTHER.
WELL, WHEN THE HOUSE VOTED ON 
THE DEMOCRATS IMPEACHMENT 
INQUIRY IT WAS JUST THAT.
IT WAS THE ONLY BIPARTISAN VOTE 
WAS THE ONE IMPOSING THE 
INQUIRY.
THE PARTISAN VOTE WAS THE ONE TO
MOVE FORWARD WITH THE INQUIRY.
SO WE'RE 0 FOR 3.
LET'S FACE IT.
THIS IS A SHAM IMPEACHMENT 
AGAINST PRESIDENT TRUMP.
IT'S WANT COMPELLING.
IT'S NOT OVERWHELMING, AND IT'S 
NOT BIPARTISAN.
SO EVEN BY THE SPEAKER'S OWN 
CRITERIA THIS HAS FAILED.
RATHER, WHAT THIS IS IS NOTHING 
MORE THAN A PARTISAN WITCH HUNT 
WHICH DENIES THE FUNDAMENTAL 
FAIRNESS OF OUR AMERICAN JUSTICE
SYSTEM AND DENIES DUE PROCESS TO
THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED 
STATES.
THE DEMOCRATS' CASE IS BASED ON 
NOTHING MORE THAN THOUGHTS, 
FEELINGS AND CONJECTURES AND THE
THOUGHTS AND FEELINGS OF A FEW, 
UNELECTED CAREER BUREAUCRATS AND
THE AMERICAN PEOPLE ARE 
ABSOLUTELY FED UP.
INSTEAD OF WASTING OUR TIME ON 
THIS, WE SHOULD BE DOING THINGS 
LIKE PASSING USMCA AND LOWERING 
THE THE COST OF PRESCRIPTION 
DRUGS AND WORKING ON THE FAILING
INFRASTRUCTURE IN THIS COUNTRY.
I'VE WATCHED AS YOUR WORDS HAVE 
BEEN TWISTED AND MANGLED ALL DAY
LONG.
IS THERE ANYTHING THAT YOU WOULD
LIKE TO CLARIFY?
>> ONLY THIS.
ONE OF THE DISAGREEMENTS THAT WE
HAVE AND I HAVE WITH MY ESTEEMED
COLLEAGUES, IS WHAT MAKES A 
LEGITIMATE IMPEACHMENT AND NOT 
TECHNICALLY WHAT SATISFIES AN 
IMPEACHMENT, THERE ARE VERY FEW,
AND THERE IS PRESUMPTION OVER 
PROOF.
THAT'S BECAUSE THIS RECORD 
HASN'T BEEN DEVELOPED AND IF 
YOU'RE GOING TO REMOVE A 
PRESIDENT AND IF YOU BELIEVE IN 
DEMOCRACY, IF YOU'RE GOING TO 
REMOVE A SITTING PRESIDENT THEN 
YOU HAVE AN OBLIGATION NOT TO 
RELY ON INFERENCE WHEN THERE'S 
STILL INFORMATION YOU CAN GATHER
AND THAT'S WHAT I'M SAYING.
IT'S NOT THAT YOU CAN'T DO THIS.
YOU JUST CAN'T DO IT THIS WAY.
>> THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN.
>> THE GENTLEMAN YIELDS BACK.
I RECOGNIZE MS. JACKSON-LEE FOR 
THE PURPOSE OF UNANIMOUS 
REQUEST. 
>> THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN.
I WOULD LIKE UNANIMOUS CONSENT 
TO PLACE IN THE RECORD A NEW 
STATEMENT FOR CHECKS AND 
BALANCES -- 
>> WITHOUT OBJECTION.
>> WITHOUT OBJECTION, I NOW 
RECOGNIZE MS. DEMINGS FOR FIVE 
MINUTES FOR QUESTIONING THE 
WITNESS. 
>> THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN.
AS A FORMER LAW ENFORCEMENT 
OFFICIAL, I KNOW FIRST HAND THAT
THE RULE OF LAW IS THE STRENGTH 
OF OUR DEMOCRACY AND NO ONE IS 
ABOVE IT.
NOT OUR NEIGHBORS AND OUR 
VARIOUS COMMUNITY, NOT OUR 
COWORKERS AND NOT THE PRESIDENT 
OF THE UNITED STATES.
YET THE PRESIDENT HAS SAID THAT 
HE CAN'T BE PROSECUTED FOR 
CRIMINAL CONDUCT, THAT HE NEED 
NOT COMPLY WITH CONGRESSIONAL 
REQUESTS AND SUBPOENAS.
MATTER OF FACT, THE PRESIDENT IS
TRYING TO ABSOLVE HIMSELF OF ANY
ACCOUNTABILITY.
SINCE THE BEGINNING OF THE 
INVESTIGATION IN EARLY SEPTEMBER
THE HOUSE SENT MULTIPLE LETTERS,
DOCUMENT REQUESTS AND SUBPOENAS 
TO THE WHITE HOUSE.
YET THE PRESIDENT HAS REFUSED TO
PRODUCE DOCUMENTS AND HAS 
DIRECTED OTHERS NOT TO PRODUCE 
DOCUMENTS.
HE HAS PREVENTED KEY WHITE HOUSE
OFFICIALS FROM TESTIFYING.
THE PRESIDENT'S OBSTRUCTION OF 
CONGRESS IS PERVASIVE.
SINCE THE HOUSE BEGAN ITS 
INVESTIGATION, THE WHITE HOUSE 
HAS PRODUCED ZERO SUBPOENA 
DOCUMENTS.
IN ADDITION, AT THE PRESIDENT'S 
DIRECTION, MORE THAN A DOZEN 
MEMBERS OF HIS ADMINISTRATION 
HAVE DEFIED CONGRESSIONAL 
SUBPOENAS.
THE FOLLOWING SLIDES SHOW THOSE 
WHO HAVE REFUSED TO COMPLY AT 
THE PRESIDENT'S DIRECTION.
WE ARE FACING A CATEGORICAL 
BLOCKADE BY A PRESIDENT WHO IS 
DESPERATE TO PREVENT ANY 
INVESTIGATION INTO HIS WRONG 
DOING.
PROFESSOR GERHART, HAS A 
PRESIDENT EVER REFUSED TO 
COOPERATE IN AN IMPEACHMENT 
INVESTIGATION?
>> NOT UNTIL NOW.
>> AND ANY PRESIDENT WHO -- I 
KNOW NIXON DELAYED OR TRY TO 
DELAY TURNING OVER INFORMATION.
WHEN THAT OCCURRED, WAS IT AT 
THE SAME LEVEL THAT WE'RE SEEING
TODAY?
>> PRESIDENT NIXON HAD ALSO 
ORDERED HIS SUBORDINATES TO 
COOPERATE AND TESTIFY AND HE 
PRODUCED DOCUMENTS AND THERE 
WERE TIMES WHEN THERE WERE 
CERTAINLY DISAGREEMENT, BUT 
THERE WAS NOT A WHOLESALE, BROAD
SCALE ACROSS THE BOARD REFUSAL 
TO EVEN RECOGNIZE THE LEGITIMACY
OF THIS HOUSE DOING AN INQUIRY. 
>> DID PRESIDENT NIXON'S 
OBSTRUCTION RESULT IN AN ARTICLE
OF IMPEACHMENT?
>> Y MA'AM.
ARTICLE 3. 
>> IS IT FAIR TO SAY THAT IF A 
PRESIDENT STONEWALLS AN 
INVESTIGATION LIKE WE ARE 
CLEARLY SEEING TODAY INTO 
WHETHER HE HAS COMMITTED AN 
IMPEACHABLE OFFENSE HE RISKS 
RENDERING THE IMPEACHMENT POWER 
MOOT?
>> YES.
AND INDEED, THAT'S THE 
INEVITABLE EFFECT OF THE 
PRESIDENT REFUSING TO 
PARTICIPATE.
HE'S DENYING THE POWER OF 
CONGRESS TO OVERSEE HIM AND TO 
REFUSE HIS CAPACITY TO IMPEACH.
[ NO AUDIO ]
>> YES, MA'AM, YOU ARE, AND I 
MIGHT JUST POINT OUT THAT ONE OF
THE DIFFICULTIES WITH ASKING FOR
A MORE THOROUGH INVESTIGATION IS
THAT'S WHAT THE HOUSE IS TRYING 
TO CONDUCT HERE AND THE 
PRESIDENT HAS REFUSED TO COMPLY 
WITH SUBPOENAS AND THAT'S WHY 
PEOPLE ARE NOT TESTIFYING AND 
THE PEOPLE HERE HAVE SAID TODAY 
THEY WANT TO HEAR FROM. 
>> IN RELATION TO WHAT YOU JUST 
SAID, AMBASSADOR SONDLAND 
TESTIFIED AND I QUOTE, EVERYBODY
WAS IN THE LOOP.
IT WAS NO SECRET.
PROFESSOR GERHART, HOW IS 
AMBASSADOR SONDLAND'S TESTIMONY 
RELEVANT HERE?
>> IT'S RELEVANT AND ALSO RATHER
CHILLING TO HEAR HIM SAY THAT 
EVERYBODY IS IN THE LOOP AND 
WHEN HE SAYS THAT HE'S TALKING 
ABOUT PEOPLE AT THE HIGHEST 
LEVELS OF OUR GOVERNMENT, ALL OF
WHOM ARE REFUSING TO TESTIFY 
UNDER OATH OR COMPLY WITH 
SUBPOENAS.
>> PROFESSORS, I WANT TO THANK 
YOU FOR YOUR TESTIMONY.
THE PRESIDENT USED THE POWER OF 
HIS OFFICE TO PRESSURE A FOREIGN
HEAD OF STATE TO INVESTIGATE AN 
AMERICAN CITIZEN IN ORDER TO 
BENEFIT HIS DOMESTIC, POLITICAL 
SITUATION, AFTER HE WAS CAUGHT, 
AND I DO KNOW SOMETHING ABOUT 
THAT.
THIS PRESIDENT PROCEEDED TO 
COVER IT UP AND REFUSED TO 
COMPLY WITH VALID, CONGRESSIONAL
SUBPOENAS.
THE FRAMERS INCLUDED IMPEACHMENT
IN THE CONSTITUTION TO ENSURE 
THAT NO ONE, NO ONE IS ABOVE THE
LAW INCLUDING AND ESPECIALLY THE
PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES.
THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR, AND I 
YIELD BACK.
>> THE GENTLE LADY YIELDS BACK.
MR. KLEIN IS RECOGNIZED.
>> THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN.
IT'S JUST PAST 5:00 AND A LOT OF
FAMILIES ARE JUST GETTING WORK 
AND THEY'RE TURNING ON THEIR TV 
AND THEY'RE ASKING THEMSELVES, 
IS THIS A RE-RUN?
BECAUSE I THOUGHT I SAW THIS A 
COUPLE OF WEEKS AGO.
NO, THIS IS NOT A RE-RUN, ACT 2 
OF THE THREE-PART TRAGEDY OF THE
IMPEACHMENT OF PRESIDENT TRUMP 
AND WHAT WE'RE SEEING HERE IS 
SEVERAL, VERY ACCOMPLISHED 
CONSTITUTIONAL SCHOLARS 
ATTEMPTING TO DIVINE THE INTENT 
WHETHER IT'S OF THE PRESIDENT OR
OF THE VARIOUS WITNESSES WHO 
APPEARED DURING THE SCHIFF 
HEARINGS AND IT'S VERY 
FRUSTRATING TO ME AS A MEMBER OF
THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE WHY WE 
ARE WHERE WE ARE TODAY.
I ASKED TO BE A MEMBER OF THIS 
COMMITTEE BECAUSE OF ITS STORED 
HISTORY AND BECAUSE IT WAS THE 
DEFENDER OF THE CONSTITUTION, 
BECAUSE IT WAS ONE OF THE OLDEST
COMMITTEES IN THE CONGRESS 
ESTABLISHED BY ANOTHER 
VIRGINIAN, JOHN GEORGE JACKSON.
IT'S BECAUSE TWO OF MY IMMEDIATE
PREDECESSORS, CONGRESSMAN BOOK 
GOODLATTE WHO CHAIRED THIS 
COMMITTEE AND CONGRESSMAN BUTLER
WHO ALSO SERVED THIS COMMITTEE, 
BUT THE COMMITTEE THEY SERVED ON
IS DEAD.
THAT COMMITTEE DOESN'T EXIST 
ANYMORE.
THAT COMMITTEE IS GONE.
APPARENTLY, NOW WE DON'T EVEN 
GET TO SIT IN THE JUDICIARY 
COMMITTEE ROOM.
WE'RE IN THE WAYS AND MEANS 
COMMITTEE ROOM.
I DON'T KNOW WHY, MAYBE BECAUSE 
THERE'S MORE ROOM, MAYBE BECAUSE
THE PORTRAITS OF THE VARIOUS 
CHAIRMEN WHO WOULD BE STARING 
DOWN AT US MIGHT JUST INTIMIDATE
THE OTHER SIDE AS THEY ATTEMPT 
WHAT IS ESSENTIALLY A SHAM 
IMPEACHMENT OF THIS PRESIDENT.
YOU KNOW, LOOKING AT WHERE WE 
ARE, THE LACK OF USE OF THE 
RULES IN THIS PROCESS IS 
SHAMEFUL.
THE FACT THAT WE GOT WITNESS 
TESTIMONY FOR THIS HEARING THIS 
MORNING IS SHAMEFUL.
THE FACT THAT WE GOT THE 
INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE REPORT 
YESTERDAY, 300 PAGES OF IT IS 
SHAMEFUL.
I WATCHED THE INTELLIGENCE 
COMMITTEE HEARINGS FROM THE 
BACK, ALTHOUGH I COULDN'T WATCH 
THEM ALL BECAUSE THE JUDICIARY 
COMMITTEE ACTUALLY SCHEDULED 
BUSINESS DURING THE INTELLIGENCE
COMMITTEE HEARINGS.
SO THIS THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 
MEMBERS WEREN'T ABLE TO WATCH 
ALL OF THE HEARINGS, BUT I 
DIDN'T GET TO -- I GET TO READ 
THE TRANSCRIPTS OF THE HEARINGS 
THAT WERE HELD IN PRIVATE, AND I
WAS NOT ABLE TO BE A PART OF THE
INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE HEARINGS 
THAT WERE IN THE SKIFF.
WE HAVEN'T SEEN THE EVIDENCE 
FROM THE INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE 
YET.
WE'VE ASKED FOR IT.
WE HAVEN'T RECEIVED IT.
WE HAVEN'T HEARD FROM ANY FACT 
WITNESSES YET BEFORE WE GET TO 
HEAR FROM THESE CONSTITUTIONAL 
SCHOLARS ABOUT WHETHER OR NOT 
THE FACTS RISE TO THE LEVEL OF 
AN IMPEACHABLE OFFENSE.
MR. TURLEY, IT'S NOT JUST YOUR 
FAMILY AND DOG WHO ARE ANGRY.
MANY OF US ON THIS COMMITTEE ARE
ANGRY.
MANY OF US WATCHING AT HOME 
ACROSS AMERICA ARE ANGRY BECAUSE
THIS SHOW HAS DEGENERATED INTO A
FARCE, AND AS I SAID, THE 
JUDICIARY COMMITTEE OF MY 
PREDECESSORS IS DEAD, AND I LOOK
TO A FORMER CHAIRMAN, DANIEL 
WEBSTER WHO SAID WE ARE ALL 
AGENTS OF THE SAME SUPREME POWER
AND IT'S THE PEOPLE WHO ELECTED 
THIS PRESIDENT IN 2016 AND IT'S 
THE PEOPLE WHO SHOULD HAVE THE 
CHOICE AS TO WHETHER OR NOT TO 
VOTE FOR THIS PRESIDENT IN 2020,
NOT THE MEMBERS OF THIS 
COMMITTEE, NOT SPEAKER NANCY 
PELOSI AND NOT THE MEMBERS OF 
THIS HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.
IT SHOULD BE THE PEOPLE OF THE 
UNITED STATES WHO GET TO DECIDE 
WHO THEIR PRESIDENT IS IN 2020.
I ASKED SEVERAL QUESTIONS ABOUT 
THE OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE FROM 
MR. MUELLER WHEN HE TESTIFIED.
MR. TURLEY, I KNOW THAT YOU 
MENTIONED OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE
SEVERAL TIMES IN YOUR TESTIMONY.
I WANT TO YIELD TO MR. RATCLIFFE
TO ASK A CONCISE QUESTION ABOUT 
THAT ISSUE.
>> I THANK THE GENTLEMAN FOR 
YIELDING.
PROFESSOR TURLEY, IN THE LAST 
FEW DAYS WE'VE BEEN HEARING THAT
DESPITE NO QUESTIONS TO ANY 
WITNESSES DURING THE FIRST TWO 
MONTH OF THE FIRST PHASE OF THIS
IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY THAT 
DEMOCRATS ARE DUSTING OFF THE 
OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE PORTION 
OF THE MUELLER REPORT.
IT SEEMS TO ME WE ALL REMEMBER 
HOW PAINFUL IT WAS TO LISTEN TO 
THE SPECIAL COUNSEL'S 
OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE PORTION.
I WOULD LIKE YOU TO ADDRESS THE 
FATAL FLAWS FROM YOUR 
PERSPECTIVE WITH REGARD TO 
THE -- 
>> THE GENTLEMAN'S TIME HAS 
EXPIRED AND THE WITNESS MAY 
ANSWER QUICKLY IMPEACH. 
>> THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN.
I'VE BEEN BEHIND THE THEORY OF 
THE RUSSIAN INVESTIGATION 
BECAUSE ONCE AGAIN, IT IT 
DOESN'T MEET WHAT I BELIEVE ARE 
THINK ARE THE CLEAR STANDARDS 
AND THERE WERE TEN ISSUES THAT 
MUELLER ADDRESSED AND THE ONLY 
ONE THAT RAISED A SERIOUS ISSUE 
WAS DON McGAHN, AND THE 
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE REJECTED 
THE OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE CLAIM
AND IT WAS NOT JUST THE ATTORNEY
GENERAL.
IT WAS ALSO THE DEPUTY ATTORNEY 
GENERAL ROD ROSENSTEIN.
>> THE GENTLEMAN'S TIME HAS WELL
EXPIRED.
MR. CORREA. 
>> THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN.
I WOULD LIKE TO THANK OUR 
WITNESSES FOR BEING HERE TODAY.
I CAN ASSURE YOU YOUR TESTIMONY 
IS NOT ONLY TO THIS BODY, BUT TO
AMERICA WHO IS LISTENING 
INTENTLY ON WHAT THE ISSUES 
BEFORE US ARE AND WHY IT IS SO 
IMPORTANT THAT WE UNDERSTAND THE
ISSUES BEFORE US.
PROFESSOR FELDMAN, AS WAS JUST 
DISCUSSED, PRESIDENT TRUMP HAS 
ORDERED THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH TO 
COMPLETELY BLOCKADE THE EFFORTS 
OF THIS HOUSE TO INVESTIGATE 
WHETHER HE COMMITTED HIGH CRIMES
AND MISDEMEANORS IN HIS DEALINGS
WITH THE UKRAINE.
IS THAT CORRECT?
>> YES, IT IS.
>> PRESIDENT TRUMP HAS ALSO 
ASSERTED THAT MANY OFFICIALS ARE
SOMEHOW ABSOLUTELY IMMUNE FROM 
TESTIFYING IN THIS IMPEACHMENT 
INQUIRY.
ON THE SCREEN BEHIND YOU, IS THE
OPINION BY JUDGE JACKSON, A 
FEDERAL JUDGE HERE IN D.C., THAT
REJECTS PRESIDENT TRUMP'S 
ASSERTION.
PROFESSOR, DO YOU AGREE WITH THE
JUDGE'S RULING THAT PRESIDENT 
TRUMP HAS INVOKED A NON-EXISTENT
LEGAL BASIS TO BLOCK WITNESSES 
FROM TESTIFYING IN THIS 
IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY. 
>> I AGREE WITH THE JUDGE'S 
OPINION.
I THINK THAT SHE CORRECTLY HELD 
THAT THERE IS NO ABSOLUTE 
IMMUNITY WHICH WOULD PROTECT A 
PRESIDENTIAL ADVISER FROM HAVING
TO APPEAR BEFORE THE HOUSE OF 
REPRESENTATIVES AND TESTIFY.
SHE DID NOT MAKE A RULING AS TO 
WHETHER IT WOULD APPLY TO ANY 
GIVEN SITUATION AND THE ISSUE 
HAD NOT YET ARISEN. 
>> LET ME QUOTE JUDGE JACKSON 
AND THE PRIMARY TAKEAWAY FROM 
THE PAST 250 YEARS OF RECORDED 
AMERICAN HISTORY IS THAT 
PRESIDENTS ARE NOT KINGS, CLOSED
QUOTE.
PROFESSOR FELDMAN, IN THE 
FRAMERS' VIEW, DOES THE 
PRESIDENT ACT MORE LIKE THE 
LEADER OF DEMOCRACY OR MORE LIKE
A MONARCH WHEN HE ORDERS 
OFFICIALS TO DEFY CONGRESS AS IT
TRIES TO INVESTIGATE ABUSE OF 
POWER AND CORRUPTION OF 
ELECTEDS.
>> SIR, I DON'T EVEN THINK THE 
FRAMERS COULD HAVE IMAGINED THAT
A PRESIDENT WOULD FLATLY REFUSE 
TO PARTICIPATE IN THE 
IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY, GIVEN THAT 
THEY GAVE THE POWER OF 
IMPEACHMENT AND ASSUMED THAT THE
STRUCTURE OF THE CONSTITUTION 
WOULD ALLOW THE HOUSE TO OVERSEE
THE PRESIDENT.
>> PROFESSOR GEAR, HART, WHERE 
DO THEY CAN APPLY FOR THE 
IMPEACHMENT INVESTIGATIONS. 
>> THE PRESIDENT ALSO TAKES AN 
OATH TO PROTECT THE CONSTITUTION
OF THE UNITED STATES AND THERE 
ARE SERB CONSTRAINTS WITH WHAT 
HE MAY DO AND THERE ARE MEASURES
FOR ACCOUNTABILITY FOR ANY 
FAILURE TO FOLLOW HIS DUTY OR 
THE CONSTITUTION.
>> THANK YOU.
>> AND THE PRESIDENT HAS SAID 
THAT HE IS ABOVE THE LAW, THAT 
ARTICLE 2 OF THE CONSTITUTION 
ALLOWS HIM TO DO WHATEVER I 
WANT.
THAT CAN'T BE TRUE, JUDGE 
JACKSON HAS SAID THAT NO ONE IS 
ABOVE THE LAW.
PERSONALLY, I GREW UP IN 
CALIFORNIA IN THE 1960s.
THERE WAS A TIME WHEN WE WERE 
GOING TO BEAT THE RUSSIANS TO 
THE MOON.
WE WERE FULL OF OPTIMISM.
WE BELIEVE IN AMERICAN 
DEMOCRACY.
WE WERE THE BEST IN THE WORLD, 
AND BACK HOME ON MAIN STREET MY 
MOM AND DAD STRUGGLED TO SURVIVE
DAY TO DAY.
MY MOM WORKED ADA MAID CLEANING 
HOTEL ROOMS FOR $1.50 AN HOUR 
AND MY DAD WORKED AT THE LOCAL 
PAPER MILL TRYING TO SURVIVE DAY
TO DAY.
WHAT GOT US UP IN THE MORNING 
WAS THE BELIEF, THE OPTIMISM 
THAT DETERMINE WAS GOING TO BE 
BETTER THAN TODAY.
WE'RE A NATION OF DEMOCRACY AND 
OPPORTUNITY AND WE ALWAYS KNOW 
THAT TOMORROW WILL BE BETTER AND
TODAY I PERSONALLY SIT AS A 
TESTAMENT TO THE GREATNESS OF 
THIS NATION.
ME OUT OF THE HOODS IN CONGRESS.
AND I SIT HERE IN THIS COMMITTEE
ROOM WITH ONE IMPORTANT MISSION 
WHICH IS TO KEEP THE AMERICAN 
DREAM ALIVE TO ENSURE THAT ALL 
OF US ARE EQUAL AND TO ENSURE 
THAT NOBODY, NOBODY IS ABOVE THE
LAW AND TO ENSURE THAT OUR 
CONSTITUTION AND OUR 
CONGRESSIONAL OVERSIGHT IS STILL
SOMETHING WITH MEANING.
THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR.
I YIELD BACK.
>> MR. ALL DAY LONG WE'VE BEEN 
SITTING HERE ACROSS THE AISLE 
AND CLAIMING THAT THE PRESIDENT 
DEMANDED UKRAINE DO US A FAVOR.
BY ASSISTING IN 2020 RE-ELECTION
CAMPAIGN BEFORE HE WOULD RELEASE
THE MILITARY AID.
THIS IS LIKE EVERYTHING ELSE IN 
THE SHAM IMPEACHMENT AND NOT BET
ARE BASED ON THE, AND IT DOES, 
HOWEVER, SHOW THAT THE 
ASSISTANCE TO THE ONGOING 
INVESTIGATION INTO THE 16 
ELECTION.
THOSE INVESTIGATIONS AND 
PARTICULARLY THE ONE BEING RUN 
AND IT SHOULD CONCERN DEMOCRATS 
AND THE PRESIDENT WAS RELATING 
TO THE 2016 ELECTION.
WE KNOW THIS, AND NOTICE I'M 
USING THE WORD NO AND NOT THE 
WORD INFER FROM READING THE 
TRANSCRIPT AND BECAUSE YOU SPOKE
ABOUT IT ENDING WITH MUELLER.
WE KNOW THIS BECAUSE HE WANTS 
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL TO GET IN 
TOUCH WITH THE UKRAINIANS ABOUT 
THE ISSUE.
AND THESE FACTS ARE INCONVENIENT
FOR DEMOCRATS AND THEY DON'T FIT
THE NARRATIVE SO THEY'RE 
MISREPRESENTED OR IGNORED AND I 
IT IS IMPORTANT TO TALK ABOUT 
THIS, BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT,
CLEAR AND CONVINCING EVIDENCE OF
A QUASI JUDICIAL HEARING AND WE 
WERE TALKING ABOUT THE ISSUES 
AND I THINK WE NEED TO START 
WITH HOW WE LOOK AT IT, AND I'M 
NOT A CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 
PROFESSOR.
I'M JUST AN OLD CRIMINAL DEFENSE
ATTORNEY AND WHEN I WALK INTO A 
COURTROOM THEY THINK OF THREE 
THINGS AND WHAT'S THE CRIME 
CHARGE.
WHAT'S THE CONDUCT AND WHO IS 
THE VICTIM?
WE MANAGED TO MAKE IT UNTIL 5:00
TODAY UNTIL WE TALK TO THE 
ALLEGED VICTIM OF THE CRIME AND 
THAT'S PRESIDENT ZELENSKY.
THREE DIFFERENT TIMES AND HE'S 
DENIED BEING PRESSURED BY THE 
PRESIDENT.
THE CALL SHOWS LAUGHTER, 
PLEASANTRIES AND CORDIALITY.
SEPTEMBER 25th, PRESIDENT 
ZELENSKY STATES WE HAD A GOOD 
PHONE CALL.
IT WAS NORMAL AND WE SPOKE ABOUT
MANY THINGS AND I THINK YOU READ
IT AND NOBODY PUSHED ME.
OCTOBER 10th, PRESIDENT ZELENSKY
HAD A PRESS CONFERENCE AND I 
ENCOURAGE EVERYONE TO WATCH IT, 
AND 90% OF THE COMMUNICATIONS IS
NON-VERBAL.
THERE WAS NO BLACKMAIL.
DECEMBER 2nd, THIS MONDAY, I 
NEVER TALKED TO THE PRESIDENT 
FROM THE POSITION OF QUID PRO 
QUO.
SO WE HAVE THE ALLEGED VICTIM OF
QUID PRO QUO, BRIBERY, EXTORTION
AND WHATEVER WE ARE DOING NOW 
TODAY REPEATEDLY AND ADAMANTLY 
SHOUTING FROM THE ROOFTOPS THAT 
HE NEVER FELT PRESSURE, THAT HE 
WAS NOT THE VICTIM OF ANYTHING.
SO IN ORDER FOR THIS WHOLE THING
TO STICK, WE HAVE TO BELIEVE 
THAT PRESIDENT ZELENSKY IS A 
PATHOLOGICAL LIAR OR THAT THE 
UKRAINIAN PRESIDENT AND THE 
COUNTRY ARE SO WEAK THAT HE HAS 
NO CHOICE, BUT TO PARADE HIMSELF
OUT THERE FOR THE GOOD OF HIS 
COUNTRY.
EITHER OF THESE WEAKENS HIS 
COUNTRIES AND HARMS OUR EFFORTS 
TO HELP THE U KRAB AND ALSO BEGS
THE QUESTION OF HOW ON EARTH DID
PRESIDENT ZELENSKY WITHSTAND 
THIS ILLEGAL AND IMPEACHABLE 
PRESSURE TO BEGIN WITH BECAUSE 
THIS FACT STILL HAS NOT CHANGED.
THE AID WAS RELEASED AND DID NOT
TAKE ACTION FOR THEM IN ORDZ 
TORE FLOW.
WITH THAT I YIELD TO MR. JORDAN.
>> I THANK THE GENTLEMAN.
>> CONTEXT IS IMPORTANT, ISN'T 
IT?
>> YES, SIR.
>> JUST A FEW MINUTES AGO WHEN 
MY COLLEAGUE FROM FLORIDA 
PRESENTED A STAPLE YOU MADE YOU 
SAID YOU HAVE TO TAKE THAT 
STATEMENT IN CONTEXT AND IT 
SEEMS TO ME YOU DON'T WANT TO 
APPLY THE SAME STANDARD TO THE 
PRESIDENT.
THE NOW FAMOUS QUOTE, I WOULD 
LIKE YOU TO DO US A FAVOR, YOU 
SAID HALF AN HOUR AGO THAT THE 
US DIDN'T MEAN US, IT MEANT THE 
PRESIDENT HIMSELF.
I WOULD LIKE YOU TO DO US A 
FAVOR THOUGH BECAUSE, YOU KNOW 
WHAT THE NEXT TWO WORDS ARE?
>> I DON'T HAVE THE DOCUMENT. 
>> I'LL TELL YOU.
BECAUSE OUR COUNTRY.
HE DIDN'T SAY I WOULD LIKE YOU 
TO DO ME A FAVOR, THOUGH, 
BECAUSE I HAVE BEEN THROUGH A 
LOT.
I WANT YOU TO DO US A FAVOR 
BECAUSE OUR COUNTRY HAS BEEN 
THROUGH A LOT.
YOU KNOW WHAT THIS CALL -- WHEN 
THIS CALL HAPPENED?
IT HAPPENED AFTER MUELLER WAS IN
FRONT OF THIS COMMITTEE.
OF COURSE OUR COUNTRY WAS PUT 
THROUGH TWO YEARS OF THIS, AND 
THE IDEA THAT YOU'RE NOW GOING 
TO SAY THIS IS THE ROYAL "WE" 
AND HE'S TALKING ABOUT HIMSELF 
AND IT IGNORES THE ENTIRE 
CONTEXT OF HIS STATEMENT AND THE
WHOLE PARAGRAPH.
YOU KNOW WHAT HE ENDED THAT 
PARAGRAPH WITH?
TALKING ABOUT BOB MULER AND THIS
IS THE BASIS OF THIS 
IMPEACHMENT?
THIS CALL.
IT COULDN'T BE FURTHER FROM THE 
TRUTH.
YOU WANT THE STANDARD TO APPLY 
WHEN REPRESENTATIVE GATES MAKES 
ONE OF YOUR STATEMENT YOU HAVE 
TO LOOK AT THE CONTEXT AND WHEN 
THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED 
STATES IS CLEAR AND WHEN THE 
CONTEXT IS CLEAR HE'S TALKING 
ABOUT THE TWO YEARS THAT THIS 
COUNTRY WENT THROUGH BECAUSE OF 
THE MUELLER REPORT AND SOMEHOW 
THAT STANDARD DOESN'T APPLY TO 
THE PRESIDENT.
THAT IS RIDICULOUS.
>> THE GENTLEMAN'S TIME HAS 
EXPIRED.
>> MISS SCANLON?
>> WANT TO THANK OUR 
CONSTITUTIONALEC PERTS FOR 
WALKING US THROUGH THE FRAMERS' 
THINKING ON IMPEACHMENT AND WHY 
THEY DECIDED IT WAS A NECESSARY 
PART OF OUR CONSTITUTION.
I'M ASKING TO ASK YOU TO HELP US
UNDERSTAND THE IMPLICATIONS OF 
THE PRESIDENT'S OBSTRUCTION OF 
CONGRESS' INVESTIGATION INTO HIS
USE OF THE OFFICE OF THE 
PRESIDENT TO SQUEEZE THE 
UKRAINIAN GOVERNMENT TO HELP THE
TRUMP RE-ELECTION CAMPAIGN AND 
THERE ARE CERTAINLY HUNDREDS OF 
PAGES ON HOW ONE REACHES THAT 
CONCLUSION.
>> HIS CONDUCT IS PART OF A 
PATTERN AND I'LL DIRECT YOUR 
ATTENTION TO THE TIME LINE ON 
THE SCREEN.
IN THE LEFT-HAND COLUMN, WE SEE 
THE PRESIDENT'S STATEMENT FROM 
HIS JULY CALLING WHICH HE 
PRESSURED UKRAINE, A FOREIGN 
GOVERNMENT TO MEDDLE IN OUR 
ELECTIONS.
THEN ONCE CONGRESS GOT WIND OF 
IT, THE PRESIDENT TRIED TO COVER
UP HIS INVOLVEMENT BY 
OBSTRUCTING THE CONGRESSIONAL 
INVESTIGATION AND REFUSING TO 
COOPERATE AND THIS ISN'T THE 
OBSTRUCTION AND WE CAN FLASHBACK
TO THE 2016 ELECTION WHEN THE 
PRESIDENT WELCOMED AND USED 
RUSSIANS' INTERFERENCE IN OUR 
ELECTION AND AGAIN WHEN THE 
SPECIAL COUNSEL AND THEN THIS 
COMMITTEE TRIED TO INVESTIGATE 
THE EXTENT OF HIS INVOLVEMENT HE
DID EVERYTHING HE COULD TO COVER
IT UP.
IT APPEARS THE PRESIDENT'S 
OBSTRUCTION OF INVESTIGATION IS 
PART OF A PATTERN.
FIRST, HE INVITES FOREIGN POWERS
TO INTERFERE IN OUR ELECTIONS 
AND THEN HE COVERS IT UP AND HE 
OBSTRUCTS LAWFUL INQUIRIES 
WHETHER BY CONGRESS AND LAW 
ENFORCEMENT AND THEN HE DOES IT 
AGAIN.
PROFESSOR GER HART, HOW DOES THE
EXISTENCE OF SUCH A PATTERN HELP
DEMONSTRATE WHETHER SUCH CONDUCT
IS IMPEACHABLE?
>> THE PATTERN GIVES US 
TREMENDOUS INSIGHT INTO THE 
CONTEXT OF HIS BEHAVIOR.
THE WAY HE'S ACTING AND HOW DO 
WE EXPLAIN THOSE ACTIONS?
BY LOOKING AT THE PATTERN.
AND WE CAN INFER AND A STRONG 
INFERENCE, IN FACT, THAT THIS IS
DEVIATING FROM THE USUAL 
PRACTICE AND AND HE'S BEEN 
ASKING THIS QUESTION, BY THE 
WAY, AFTER THE JULY, 25th CALL, 
THE COME THERE'S ONGOING 
CONVERSATION THAT ESSENTIALLY, 
THE MONEY IS WITHHELD BECAUSE 
THE PRESIDENT WANTED TO MAKE 
SURE THE DELIVERABLE.
>> THERE IS ALSO NOT THE WHITE 
HOUSE MEETING WHICH WAS SO 
IMPORTANT TO UKRAINIAN SECURITY,
RIGHT?
>> YES, MA'AM.
THAT'S RIGHT. 
>> OKAY.
PROFESSOR FELDMAN, WE NOTED 
PREVIOUSLY THAT A FEDERAL 
DISTRICT COURT REJECTED THE 
PRESIDENT'S ATTEMPT TO BLOCK 
WITNESSES FROM TESTIFYING TO 
CONGRESS SAYING THAT PRESIDENTS 
ARE NOT KINGS.
THE FOUNDERS INCLUDED, FROM 
PREVENTING OUR PRESIDENT FROM 
BECOMING A KING AND THOSE 
PROTECTIONS WERE PRESIDENTIAL 
ELECTIONS AND IMPEACHMENT, 
CORRECT?
>> CORRECT.
BASED ON THE PATTERN OF CONDUCT 
THAT WE'RE DISCUSSING TODAY AND 
THE PATTERN OF INVITING FOREIGN 
INTERFERENCE FOR OUR ELECTIONS 
FOR POLITICAL GAIN AND 
OBSTRUCTING LAWFUL 
INVESTIGATION, HAS THE PRESIDENT
UNDERMINED BOTH OF THOSE 
PROTECTIONS?
>> THE VICTIM A HIGH CRIME AND 
MISDEMEANORS, IS NOT PRESIDENT 
ZELENSKY AND IS NOT THE 
UKRAINIAN PEOPLE AND IT'S THE 
AMERICAN PEOPLE.
ALEXANDER HAMILTON SAID VERY 
CLEARLIED THAT NATURE OF A HIGH 
CRIME AND MISDEMEANOR IS THEY'RE
RELATED TO INJURIES DONE TO THE 
SOCIETY ITSELF.
WE, THE AMERICAN PEOPLE ARE THE 
VICTIMS OF THE HIGH CRIME AND 
MISDEMEANOR.
>> WHAT IS THE APPROPRIATE 
REMEDY IN SUCH A CIRCUMSTANCE?
>> THE FRAMERS CREATED ONE 
REMEDY TO RESPOND TO HIGH CRIMES
AND MISDEMEANORS AND THAT WAS 
IMPEACHMENT. 
>> THANK YOU.
I'VE SPENT OVER 30 YEARS WORKING
TO HELP CLIENTS AND 
SCHOOLCHILDREN UNDERSTAND THE 
IMPORTANCE OF OUR CONSTITUTIONAL
SYSTEM AND THE IMPORTANCE OF THE
RULE OF LAW SO THE PRESIDENT'S 
BEHAVIOR IS DEEPLY, DEEPLY 
TROUBLING.
THE PRESIDENT WELCOMED AND USED 
ELECTION INTERFERENCE BY RUSSIA.
PUBLICLY ADMITTED HE WOULD DO IT
AGAIN AND DID, IN FACT, DO IT 
AGAIN BY SOLICITING ELECTION 
INTERFERENCE FROM UKRAINE AND 
THROUGHOUT, THE PRESIDENT HAS 
TRIED TO COVER UP HIS 
MISCONDUCT.
THIS ISN'T COMPLICATED.
THE FOUNDERS WERE CLEAR AND IT 
IS NOT ACCEPTABLE.
I YIELD BACK.
>> THE GENTLE LADY YIELDS BACK, 
BUT BE RECOGNIZED FOR UNANIMOUS 
CONSENT REQUEST AND A DOCUMENT 
WHICH LISTS THE 400 PIECES BY 
THE HOUSE AND 80% BE MADE A PART
OF THE RECORD IN RESPONSE TO MR.
GATES' CLAIM.
>> WITHOUT OBJECTION, THE 
DOCUMENT WILL BE MADE PART OF 
THE RECORD AND MR. BIGGS SAYS 
RECOGNIZED FOR THE UNANIMOUS 
CONSENT REQUEST.
>> FOR A PACKET OF 54 DOCUMENTS 
AND ITEMS WHICH HAVE PREVIOUSLY 
BEEN SUBMITTED.
>> WITHOUT OBJECTION, THE 
DOCUMENTS WILL BE ENTERED INTO 
THE RECORD.
>> MR. CHAIRMAN, MAY I HAVE -- 
WHAT PURPOSE DOES THE 
GENTLEMAN -- 
>> MR. CHAIRMAN, I ASK UNANIMOUS
THIS ARCTICEL SAYS DEMOCRATS ARE
SETTING A RECORD FOR A FAST 
IMPEACHMENT AND THAT'S 
DEMONSTRABLY FALSE TO BE MADE 
PART OF THE RECORD. 
>> WITHOUT OBJECTION THE 
DOCUMENT WILL BE MADE PART OF 
THE RECORD. 
>> SEEK UNANIMOUS CONSENT THAT 
THE TWEET THAT THE FIRST LADY OF
THE UNITED STATES ISSUED WITHIN 
THE HOUR.
A MINOR CHILD DESERVES PRIVACY 
AND SHOULD BE KEPT OUT OF 
POLITICS.
PAMELA CARLIN, WITHOUT OBJECTION
THE DOCUMENT WILL BE ENTERED 
INTO THE RECORD.
>> MR. STUBY IS RECOGNIZED FOR 
THE PURPOSE OF RECOGNIZING THE 
WITNESSES.
MR. STUBY IS NOT HERE 
MOMENTARILY.
MS. GARCIA IS RECOGNIZED. 
>> THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN.
I, TOO, WANT TO THANK THE 
WITNESSES FOR THEIR TIME AND 
THEIR PATIENCE AND I KNOW IT'S 
BEEN A LONG DAY AND THE END IS 
IN SIGHT.
AS MY COLLEAGUE OBSERVED, THE 
SIMILARITIES BETWEEN THE 
PRESIDENT'S CONDUCT AND THE 
UKRAINE INVESTIGATION AND THE 
CONDUCT IN THE SPECIAL COUNSEL'S
INVESTIGATION ARE HARD TO 
IGNORE.
IN FACT, WE'RE SEEING IT AS A 
PATTERN OF A PRESIDENTIAL ABUSE 
OF POWER.
THE PRESIDENT CALLED THE 
UKRAINIAN INVESTIGATION A HOAX, 
AND THE MUELLER INVESTIGATION A 
WITCH HUNT.
HE HAS THREATENED THE 
WHISTLE-BLOWER FOR NOT 
TESTIFYING LIKE HE THREATENED TO
FIRE HIS ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR 
NOT OBSTRUCTING THE RUSSIA 
INVESTIGATION.
THE PRESIDENT FIRED AMBASSADOR 
YOVANOVITCH AND PUBLICLY 
TARNISHED HER REPUTATION MUCH IN
THE SAME WAY HE FIRED HIS WHITE 
HOUSE COUNSEL AND PUBLICLY 
ATTACKED HIS INTEGRITY AND 
FINALLY, THE PRESIDENT ATTACKED 
THE CIVIL SERVANTS WHO HAVE 
TESTIFIED ABOUT UKRAINE JUST 
LIKE HE ATTACKED CAREER 
OFFICIALS OF THE DEPARTMENT OF 
JUSTICE FOR INVESTIGATING INTO 
THE OBSTRUCTION OF THE RUSSIA 
INVESTIGATION.
UNDER ANY OTHER CIRCUMSTANCES, 
SUCH BEHAVIOR BY ANY AMERICAN 
PRESIDENT WOULD BE SHOCKING, BUT
HERE, IT IS A REPEAT OF WHAT WE 
HAVE ALREADY SEEN IN THE SPECIAL
COUNSEL'S INVESTIGATION.
I'D LIKE TO TAKE A MOMENT TO 
DISCUSS THE PRESIDENT'S EFFORTS 
TO OBSTRUCT THE SPECIAL 
COUNSEL'S INVESTIGATION.
A SUBJECT THAT THIS COMMITTEE 
HAS BEEN INVESTIGATING SINCE 
MARCH.
HERE ARE TWO SLIDES, THE FIRST 
ONE WILL SHOW, AS HE DID WITH --
AS THE PRESIDENT DID WITH 
UKRAINE, TRY TO COERCE HIS 
SUBORDINATES INTO MISCONDUCT BY 
FOREIGN, SPECIAL COUNSELOR 
MUELLER.
IN THE SECOND SLIDE SHOWS THAT 
WHEN THE NEWS BROKE OUT OF THE 
PRESIDENT'S ORDER, THE PRESIDENT
DIRECTED HIS ADVISORS TO FALSELY
DENY HE HAD MADE THE ORDER.
PROFESSOR GERHARDT, ARE YOU 
FAMILIAR WITH THE FACTS IN THIS 
EPISODE AS DESCRIBED IN THE 
MUELLER REPORT?
YES OR NO, PLEASE.
>> YES, MA'AM. 
>> ACCEPTING THE SPECIAL 
COUNSEL'S EVIDENCE AS TRUE, IS 
THIS OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE?
>> IT'S CLEARLY OBSTRUCTION OF 
JUSTICE. 
>> WHY WOULD YOU SAY SO, SIR?
>> THE OBVIOUS OBJECT OF THIS 
ACTIVITY IS TO SHUT DOWN AN 
INVESTIGATION, AND IN FACT, THE 
ACTS OF THE PRESIDENT ACCORDING 
TO THESE FACTS, EACH TIME IS TO 
USE THE POWER THAT HE HAS UNIQUE
IT ON HIS OFFICE, BUT IN A WAY 
THAT'S GOING TO HELP HIM 
FRUSTRATE THE INVESTIGATION.
>> SO DOES THIS CONDUCT FIT 
WITHIN THE FRAMER'S VIEW OF 
IMPEACHABLE OFFENSES?
>> BELIEVE IT DOES.
I MEAN, THE ENTIRE CONSTITUTION 
INCLUDING SEPARATION OF POWERS 
IS DESIGNED TO PUT LIMITS ON HOW
SOMEBODY MAY GO FRUSTRATING THE 
ACTIVITY OF ANOTHER BRANCH.
>> SO YOU WOULD SAY THAT THIS 
ALSO WOULD BE AN IMPEACHABLE 
OFFENSE?
>> YES, MA'AM.
>> THANK YOU.
I A AGREE WITH YOU.
THE PRESIDENT'S ACTIONS DO 
MATTER AND THE PRESIDENT'S 
OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE 
DEFINITELY MATTERS AND AS A 
FORMER JUDGE AND MEMBER OF 
CONGRESS I'VE RAISED MY RIGHT 
HAND AND PUT MY LEFT HAND ON A 
BIBLE MORE THAN ONCE, AND I'VE 
SWORN TO UPHOLD THE CONSTITUTION
AND LAWS OF THIS COUNTRY.
THIS HEARING IS ABOUT THAT, BUT 
IT'S ALSO ABOUT THE CORE OF THE 
HEART OF OUR AMERICAN VALUES AND
THE VALUES OF DUTY, HONOR AND 
LOYALTY.
IT'S ABOUT THE RULE OF LAW.
WOULD THE PRESIDENT ASK UKRAINE 
FOR A FAVOR, HE DID SO FOR HIS 
SOLE, POLITICAL GAIN AND NOT ON 
BEHALF OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE 
AND IF THIS IS TRUE, HE WOULD 
HAVE BETRAYED HIS OATH AND 
BETRAYED HIS LOYALTY TO THIS 
COUNTRY.
THE FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLE OVER 
DEMOCRACY IS THAT NO ONE IS 
ABOVE THE LAW, NOT ANY ONE OF 
YOU PROFESSORS AND NOT ANY ONE 
OF US UP HERE, MEMBERS OF 
CONGRESS AND NOT EVEN THE 
PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES.
THAT'S WHY WE SHOULD HOLD HIM 
ACCOUNTABLE FOR HIS ACTIONS AND 
THAT'S WHY, AGAIN, THANK YOU FOR
TESTIFYING TODAY IN HELPING US 
WALK THROUGH ALL OF THIS TO 
PREPARE FOR WHAT MAY COME.
THANK YOU, SIR.
I YIELD BACK.
>> THE GENTLE LADY YIELDS BACK.
>> THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR AND 
THANK YOU TO EACH OF THE FOUR 
WITNESSES FOR YOUR TESTIMONY 
TODAY.
I'D LIKE TO START BY TALKING 
ABOUT INTIMIDATION OF WITNESSES.
AS MY COLLEAGUE, CONGRESSMAN 
GARCIA NOTED, PRESIDENT TRUMP 
HAS TRIED TO INTERFERE IN THE 
UKRAINE INVESTIGATION AND 
SPECIAL COUNSEL MUELLER'S 
INVESTIGATION IN ORDER TO COVER 
UP HIS OWN MISCONDUCT.
AND IN BOTH THE UKRAINE 
INVESTIGATION AND SPECIAL 
COUNSEL MUELLER'S INVESTIGATION,
THE PRESIDENT DISCOURAGED 
WITNESSES FROM COOPERATING AND 
INTIMIDATED WITNESSES WHO CAME 
FORWARD AND PRAISED THOSE WHO 
REFUSED TO COOPERATE.
FOR EXAMPLE, THE PRESIDENT 
HARASSED AND INTIMIDATED THE 
BRAVE PUBLIC SERVANTS WHO CAME 
FORWARD.
HE PUBLICLY CALLED THE 
WHISTLE-BLOWER A, QUOTE, 
DISGRACE TO OUR COUNTRY AND SAID
THAT HIS IDENTITY SHOULD BE 
REVEALED.
HE SUGGESTED THAT THOSE INVOLVED
IN THE WHISTLE-BLOWER COMPLAINT 
SHOULD BE DEALT WITH IN THE WAYS
WE USED TO DO FOR SPIES AND 
TREASON.
HE CALLED AMBASSADOR TAYLOR A 
FORMER MILITARY OFFICER WITH 
MORE THAN 40 YEARS OF PUBLIC 
SERVICE A, QUOTE, NEVER TRUMPER,
END QUOTE, ON THE SAME DAY THAT 
HE CALLED NEVER TRUMPERS, QUOTE,
SCUM.
THE PRESIDENT ALSO TWEETED 
ACCUSATIONS ABOUT MANY OF THE 
OTHER PUBLIC SERVANTS WHO 
TESTIFIED INCLUDING JENNIFER 
WILLIAMS AND AMBASSADOR 
YOVANOVITCH, AND AS WE KNOW, THE
PRESIDENT'S LATTER TWEET 
HAPPENED LITERALLY DURING THE 
AMBASSADOR'S TESTIMONY IN THIS 
ROOM IN FRONT OF THE 
INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE WHICH SHE
MADE CLEAR WAS INTIMIDATING.
CONVERSELY, WE KNOW THAT THE 
PRESIDENT HAS PRAISED WITNESSES 
WHO HAVE REFUSED TO COOPERATE, 
FOR EXAMPLE, DURING THE SPECIAL 
COUNSEL'S INVESTIGATION THE 
PRESIDENT PRAISED PAUL MANAFORT,
HIS FORMER CAMPAIGN MANAGER FOR 
NOT COOPERATING.
YOU CAN SEE THE TWEET UP ON THE 
SCREEN TO MY SIDE.
>> AS ANOTHER TELLING EXAMPLE, 
THE PRESIDENT INITIALLY PRAISED 
AMBASSADOR SONDLAND FOR NOT 
COOPERATING AND CALLING HIM, 
QUOTE, A REALLY GOOD MAN AND A 
GREAT AMERICAN, BUT AFTER 
AMBASSADOR SONDLAND TESTIFIED 
AND CONFIRMED THAT THERE WAS 
INDEED A QUID PRO QUO BETWEEN 
THE WHITE HOUSE VISIT AND THE 
REQUEST FOR THE INVESTIGATIONS, 
THE PRESIDENT CLAIMED HE, QUOTE,
HARDLY KNEW THE AMBASSADOR.
PROFESSOR GERHARDT, YOU TOUCHED 
ON IT BRIEFLY, IS THE 
PRESIDENT'S INTERFERENCE IN THE 
INVESTIGATIONS BY INTIMIDATING 
WITNESSES ALSO THE KIND OF 
CONDUCT THAT THE FRAMERS WERE 
WORRIED ABOUT, AND IF SO, WHY?
>> IT'S CLEARLY CONDUCT THAT 
WORRIED THE FRAMERS AS REFLECTED
IN THE CONSTITUTION THEY'VE 
GIVEN US IN THE STRUCTURE OF THE
CONSTITUTION.
THE ACTIVITIES YOU'RE TALKING 
ABOUT HERE ARE CONSISTENT, BUT 
THE OTHER PATTERN OF ACTIVITY 
THAT I'VE SEEN WITH THE 
PRESIDENT EITHER TRYING TO STOP 
INVESTIGATIONS EITHER BY MR. 
MUELLER OR BY CONGRESS AS WELL 
AS TO ASK WITNESSES TO MAKE 
FALSE DOCUMENTS ABOUT TESTIMONY 
AND ALL THOSE DIFFERENT KINDS OF
ACTIVITIES ARE NOT THE KINDS OF 
ACTIVITIES THE FRAMERS EXPECTED 
THE PRESIDENT TO TAKE AND THEY 
EXPECTED THE PRESIDENT TO BE 
ACCOUNTABLE FOR IT AND WANT JUST
IN ELECTIONS.
?
PROFESSOR TURLEY, YOU'VE STUDIED
AN IMPEACHMENT OF PRESIDENT 
JOHNSON AND PRESIDENT NIXON.
THE WHITE HOUSE COUNSEL AND THE 
WHITE HOUSE CHIEF OF STAFF TO 
TESTIFY IN THE IMPEACHMENT 
INQUIRY?
>> YES.
>> YOU ARE AWARE THAT PRESIDENT 
TRUMP HAS REFUSED TO ALLOW HIS 
CHIEF OF STAFF OR COUNSEL TO 
COOPERATE. 
>> VARIOUS OFFICIALS DID TESTIFY
AND REMAIN IN FEDERAL 
EMPLOYMENT. 
>> THAT DOES NOT INCLUDE THE 
WHITE HOUSE COUNSEL AND CHIEF OF
STAFF, RIGHT?
>> AM I RIGHT THAT PRESIDENT 
CLINTON PROVIDED RESPONSES 
DURING THAT IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY?
>> I BELIEVE THAT'S RIGHT.
>> YOU ARE AWARE THAT PRESIDENT 
TRUMP HAS REFUSE GOOD REQUEST 
FOR INFORMATION SUBMITTED BY 
THIS COMMITTEE?
>> I HAVE, YES.
>> ARE YOU FAMILIAR WITH THE 
LETTER ISSUED BY WHITE HOUSE 
COUNSEL PAT SIPILLONE, 
INSTRUCTING BRANCH OFFICIALS NOT
TO TESTIFY IN THIS IMPEACHMENT 
INQUIRY. 
>> YES.
>> AM I CORRECT, NO PRESIDENT IN
THE HISTORY OF THE REPUBLIC 
BEFORE PRESIDENT TRUMP HAS EVER 
ISSUED A GENERAL ORDER 
INSTRUCTING EXECUTIVE BRANCH 
OFFICIALS NOT TO TESTIFY IN AN 
IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY. 
>> THAT'S NOT SURE WHERE I CAN 
ANSWER THAT AFFIRMATIVELY.
PRESIDENT NIXON, IN FACT, WENT 
TO COURT OVER ACCESS TO 
INFORMATION DOCUMENTS AND THE 
LIKE, AND HE LOST. 
>> PROFESSOR TURLEY, I WOULD 
JUST AGAIN REFER YOU BACK TO THE
HISTORY THAT'S BEEN RECOUNT ARE 
COUNTED BY EACH OF THE 
DISTINGUISHED SCHOLARS HERE 
TODAY BECAUSE WE KNOW AS WE 
RECOUNT THESE EXAMPLES THAT 
PRESIDENT NIXON DID, IN FACT, 
ALLOW HIS CHIEF OF STAFF AND HIS
CHIEF COUNSEL TO TESTIFY AND 
THIS PRESIDENT HAS NOT.
WE KNOW PRESIDENT CLINTON 
RESPONDED TO INTERROGATORIES AND
THIS PRESIDENT HAS NOT.
AT THE END OF THE DAY THIS 
CONGRESS AND THIS COMMITTEE HAS 
AN OBLIGATION TO ENSURE THAT THE
LAW IS ENFORCED AND WITH THAT, I
YIELD BACK THE BALANCE OF MY 
TEAM. 
>> THE GENTLEMAN YIELDS BACK.
MISS MACBETH.
>> THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN.
PROFESSORS, I WANT TO THANK YOU 
SO VERY MUCH FOR SPENDING THESE 
LONG, ARDUOUS HOURS WITH US 
TODAY.
THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR BEING 
HERE.
FOLLOWING UP ON MY COLLEAGUE MR.
NAGUSA'S QUESTIONS, I WOULD LIKE
TO BRIEFLY GO THROUGH ONE 
PARTICULAR EXAMPLE OF THE 
PRESIDENT'S WITNESS INTIMIDATION
THAT I FIND TRULY DISTURBING AND
VERY DEVASTATING BECAUSE I THINK
IT'S IMPORTANT THAT WE ALL TRULY
SEE WHAT'S GOING ON HERE.
AS THE SLIDE SHOWS ON HIS JULY 
25th CALL, PRESIDENT TRUMP SAID 
THAT FORMER AMBASSADOR 
YOVANOVITCH WOULD, AND I QUOTE, 
GO THROUGH SOME THINGS.
AMBASSADOR YOVANOVITCH TESTIFIED
ABOUT LEARNING ABOUT THE 
PRESIDENT'S STAPLES MADE HER 
FEEL.
>> WHAT DID YOU THINK WHEN 
PRESIDENT TRUMP TOLD PRESIDENT 
ZELENSKY THAT YOU WERE GOING TO 
GO THROUGH SOME THINGS?
>> I DIDN'T KNOW WHAT TO THINK, 
BUT I WAS VERY CONCERNED.
>> WHAT WERE YOU CONCERNED 
ABOUT?
>> SHE'S GOING TO GO THROUGH 
SOME THINGS.
IT DIDN'T SOUND GOOD.
IT SOUNDED LIKE A THREAT.
>> DID YOU FEEL THREATENED?
>> I DID.
AND AS WE ALL WITNESSED IN REAL 
TIME IN THE MIDDLE OF AMBASSADOR
YOVANOVITCH'S LIVE TESTIMONY, 
THE PRESIDENT TWEETED ABOUT THE 
AMBASSADOR, DISCREDITING HER 
SERVICE IN SOMALIA AND THE 
UKRAINE.
AMBASSADOR YOVANOVITCH TESTIFIED
THAT THE PRESIDENT'S TWEET WAS, 
AND I QUOTE, VERY INTIMIDATING.
PROFESSOR GERHARDT, THESE 
ATTACKS ON A CAREER, PUBLIC 
SERVANT ARE DEEPLY UPSETTING, 
BUT HOW DO THEY FIT INTO OUR 
UNDERSTANDING OF WHETHER THE 
PRESIDENT HAS COMMITTED HIGH 
CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS, AND HOW
DO THEY FIT INTO OUR BROADER 
PATTERN OF BEHAVIOR BY THIS 
PRESIDENT TO COVER UP AND 
OBSTRUCT HIS MISCONDUCT?
>> ONE WAY IN WHICH IT 
CONTRIBUTES TO THE OBSTRUCTION 
OF CONGRESS IS THAT IT DOESN'T 
JUST DEFAME AMBASSADOR 
YOVANOVITCH.
BY EVERY OTHER ACCOUNT SHE'S 
BEEN AN EXEMPLARY PUBLIC SERVANT
SO WHAT HE'S SUGGESTING THERE 
MAY NOT BE CONSISTENT WITH WHAT 
WE KNOW ASTHAT ALSO HAPPENS WHEN
HE CENSORED SOMETHING LIKE THIS
IS IT INTIMIDATES EVERYBODY
ELSE WHO IS THINKING ABOUT
TESTIFYING ANY OTHER PUBLIC
SERVANTS WHO THINK THEY SHOULD
COME FORWARD, THEY ARE GOING TO
WORRY THAT THEY ARE GOING TO
GET PUNISHED IN SOME WAY, THEY
WILL FACE THINGS THAT SHE HAS
FACED. BUT WHAT
>> THAT IS THE WOMAN MAN
PRESIDENT TRUMP HAS THREATENED
WELL FOR YOU AND I CAN ASSURE
YOU I CAN ASSURE YOU THAT I CAN
SAY WHAT IT'S LIKE TO BE
UNFAIRLY ATTACK PUBLICLY FOR
YOUR SENSE OF DUTY TO AMERICA.
NO MATTER YOUR PARTY WHETHER
YOU'RE DEMOCRAT OR REPUBLICAN,
I DON'T THINK ANY OF US THINKS
THAT THIS IS OKAY. IT IS
PLAINLY WRONG FOR THE PRESIDENT
OF THE UNITED STATES TO ATTACK
A CAREER PUBLIC SERVANT JUST
FOR TELLING THE TRUTH THAT SHE
KNOWS THAT. AND I YIELD BACK
THE BALANCE OF MY TIME. WELL
>> GENTLE LADY YIELDS BACK, MR.
STONE.
>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH MISTER
CHAIRMAN AND THANK YOU TO OUR
STANDING WITNESSES HERE TODAY.
PRESIDENT TRUMP HAS DECLARED
THAT HE WILL NOT COMPLY WITH
CONGRESSIONAL SUBPOENAS, HIS
BLANKET CATEGORICAL DISREGARD
OF THE LEGISLATIVE BRANCH BEGAN
WITH THE PRESIDENT'S REFUSAL TO
COOPERATE WITH REGULAR
CONGRESSIONAL OVERSIGHT AND HAS
NOW EXTENDED TO THE HOUSES
CONSTITUTIONAL DUTY ON
IMPEACHMENT, THE REASON WHY WE
ARE HERE TODAY. THIS DISREGARD
HAS BEEN ON DISPLAY FOR THE
AMERICAN PEOPLE, WHEN ASKED IF
HE WOULD COMPLY WITH THE GENRE
SUBPOENA PRESIDENT TRUMP SAID
QUOTE, WELL, WE ARE FIGHTING
ALL OF THE SUBPOENAS. UNQUOTE.
NOW WE HAVE DISCUSSED HERE
TODAY THE OBSTRUCTION OF
CONGRESS, ARTICLE IMPEACHMENT
AGAINST PRESIDENT NIXON, I
THINK I WOULD LIKE TO GO A
LITTLE BIT DEEPER INTO THAT
DISCUSSION AND JUXTAPOSE IT
WITH PRESIDENT TRUMP'S ACTIONS.
PROFESSOR GERHARDT, CAN YOU
ELABORATE ON HOW PRESIDENT
NIXON OBSTRUCTED CONGRESS AND
HOW IT COMPARES TO PRESIDENT
TRUMP'S ACTIONS?
>> AS I DISCUSSED EARLIER
INCLUDING MY WRITTEN STATEMENT,
PRESIDENT NIXON ALSO REFUSED TO
COMPLY WITH FOR LEGISLATIVE
SUBPOENAS, THESE WERE ZEROING
IN ON THE MOST INCRIMINATING
EVIDENCE HE HAD IN HIS
POSSESSION, SO HE REFUSED TO
COMPLY WITH THOSE SUBPOENAS BUT
AGAIN THE BASIS FOR THAT THIRD
ARTICLE, WHEN HE RESIGNED A FEW
DAYS LATER.
>> BUT PROFESSOR FELDMAN, WHAT
ARE THE CONSEQUENCES OF THIS
UNPRECEDENTED OBSTRUCTION OF
CONGRESS TO OUR DEMOCRACY?
>> FOR THE PRESIDENT TO REFUSE
TO PARTICIPATE IN ANY WAY IN
THE HOUSES CONSTITUTIONAL
OBLIGATION OF SUPERVISING HIM
TO IMPEACHMENT BREAKS THE
CONSTITUTION, IT BASICALLY SAYS
NOBODY CAN OVERSEE ME, NOBODY
CAN IMPEACH ME, FIRST A BLOCK
OF WITNESSES FROM APPEARING AND
THEN ALL REFUSED TO PARTICIPATE
IN ANY WAY AND THEN I WILL SAY
YOU DON'T HAVE ENOUGH EVIDENCE
TO IMPEACH ME AND ULTIMATELY
THE EFFECT OF THAT IS TO
GUARANTEE THAT THE PRESIDENT IS
ABOVE THE LAW AND CAN'T BE
CHECKED, AND SINCE WE KNOW THE
FRAMERS PUT IMPEACHMENT IN THE
CONSTITUTION TO CHECK THE
PRESIDENT, IF HE CAN'T BE
CHECKED, HE IS NO LONGER
SUBJECT TO THE LAW.
>> PROFESSOR GERHARDT WOULD YOU
AGREE THAT THE PRESIDENT'S
REFUSAL TO COMPLY WITH
CONGRESSIONAL SUBPOENAS INVOKES
THE WORST FEARS AND ENDANGERS
OUR DEMOCRACY?
>> IT DOES, AND ONE WAY WE
SHOULD UNDERSTAND THAT IS TO
PUT ALL OF HIS ARGUMENTS
TOGETHER AND SEE WHAT THE
RAMIFICATIONS ARE. HE SAYS HE
IS ENTITLED NOT TO COMPLY WITH
ALL SUBPOENAS, HE SAYS HE IS
NOT SUBJECT TO ANY KIND OF
CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION WHEN
HE'S PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED
STATES, HE'S IMMUNE TO, THAT
HE'S ENTITLED TO KEEP ALL
INFORMATION CONFIDENTIAL FROM
CONGRESS, HE DOESN'T EVEN HAVE
TO GIVE A REASON. WHEN YOU PUT
ALL OF THOSE THINGS TOGETHER,
HE HAS BLOCKED OF EVERY WAY IN
WHICH TO HOLD HIMSELF
ACCOUNTABLE EXCEPT FOR
ELECTIONS, AND THE CRITICAL
THING TO UNDERSTAND HERE IS
THAT THAT IS PRECISELY WHAT HE
WAS TRYING TO UNDERMINE IN THE
UKRAINE SITUATION.
>> MR. COHEN DO ANYTHING TO ADD
TO THAT ANALYSIS?
>> I THINK THAT'S CORRECT AND
IF I CAN JUST SAY ONE THING.
>> PLEASE.
>> I WANT TO APOLOGIZE FOR WHAT
I SAID EARLIER ABOUT THE
PRESIDENT'S SON, IT WAS WRONG
ME TO DO THAT AND I WISH THE
PRESIDENT BUT APOLOGIZE
OBVIOUSLY FOR THE THINGS THAT
HE'S DONE THAT IS WRONG BUT I
DO REGRET HAVING SAID THAT.
>> THANK YOU PROFESSOR.
>> ONE OF THE MOST IMPORTANT
QUESTIONS THAT EVERY MEMBER OF
THIS COMMITTEE MUST DECIDE IS
WHETHER WE ARE A NATION OF LAWS
AND NOT MAN, IT USED TO BE AN
EASY ANSWER, WHEN WE COULD ALL
AGREE ON, WHEN PRESIDENT NIXON
DEFIED THE LAW AND OBSTRUCTED
JUSTICE, HE WAS HELD TO ACCOUNT
BY PEOPLE ON BOTH SIDES WHO
KNEW THAT FOR A REPUBLIC TO
ENSURE, WE MUST HAVE FIDELITY
TO OUR COUNTRY RATHER THAN TO
ONE PARTY OR ONE MAN, AND THE
OBSTRUCTION WE ARE LOOKING AT
TODAY IS FAR WORSE THAN
PRESIDENT NIXON'S BEHAVIOR.
FUTURE GENERATIONS WILL MEASURE
US, EVERY SINGLE MEMBER OF THIS
COMMITTEE BY HOW WE CHOOSE TO
ANSWER THAT QUESTION. I HOPE WE
GET IT RIGHT. I YIELD BACK. ONE
>> GENTLEMAN YIELDS BACK, MEN
>> THANK YOU MISTER CHAIRMAN.
I'VE ONLY BEEN IN CONGRESS
SINCE JANUARY THIS YEAR IN ON
THE VERY FIRST DAY OF MY
SWEARING IN A DEMOCRAT IN MY
CLASS CALLED FOR THE
IMPEACHMENT OF THE PRESIDENT ON
DAY ONE. USING MUCH MORE
COLORFUL LANGUAGE THAN I EVER
USED, SINCE THEN THIS COMMITTEE
FOCUSED ON THE MUELLER REPORT
AND THE RUSSIAN COLLUSION. WE
ALL SAT AND LISTENED TO MR.
MUELLER STATE UNEQUIVOCALLY
THAT THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE,
THAT THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN
CONCLUDED WITH RUSSIA, SO THAT
AND WORK FOR THE DEMOCRATS SO
THEY THEN CHANGED THEIR TALKING
POINTS MOVE TO THE OBSTRUCTION
OF JUSTICE THEORY, THE
PRESIDENT OBSTRUCTED JUSTICE,
THEN THAT FOLD, THEN AFTER
COORDINATING WITH CHAIRMAN
SCHIFF'S STAFF, A WHISTLE
BLOWER FILED A COMPLAINT BASED
COMPLETELY ON HEARSAY AND
OVERHEARING OTHER PEOPLE THAT
WERE ON A PHONE CALL TALK ABOUT
A PHONE CALL BETWEEN TWO
LEADERS, WHICH LED TO THE INTEL
COMMITTEE, SO-CALLED
IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY, WHICH
VIOLATED ALL PASSED HISTORICAL
PRESIDENT, DEPRIVED THE
PRESIDENT BASIC DUE PROCESS
RIGHTS AND FUNDAMENTAL FAIRNESS
BY CONDUCTING THE SO-CALLED
INQUIRY IN SECRET, WITHOUT THE
MINORITIES ABILITY TO CALL
WITNESSES AND DENIED THE
PRESIDENT UP HOW HIS LAWYERS
CROSS EXAMINE WITNESSES. A
RIGHT AFFORDED TO PRESIDENT
CLINTON AND EVERY DEFENDANT IN
OUR JUSTICE SYSTEM INCLUDING
RAPISTS AND MURDERERS. THE
REPUBLICANS ON THIS COMMITTEE
HAVE REPEATEDLY REQUESTED THAT
ALL EVIDENCE COLLECTED BY THE
INTEL COMMITTEE, AS WE HAVE
HEARD TODAY WE STILL DON'T HAVE
THE UNDERLYING EVIDENCE THAT WE
HAVE BEEN REQUESTING. AGAIN, A
RIGHT AFFORDED EVERY CRIMINAL
DEFENDANT IN THE UNITED STATES.
SO INSTEAD, WE SAID HEAR,
HEARING LECTURES FROM LAW
PROFESSORS ABOUT THEIR
OPINIONS. THEIR OPINIONS, NOT
FACTS. I GUESS THE DEMOCRATS
NEED A CONSTITUTIONAL LAW
REFRESHER COURSE, REPUBLICANS
DOWN. MR. CHAIRMAN, YOU HAVE
ACKNOWLEDGED AND I QUOTE, THE
HOUSES QUOTE, POWER OF
IMPEACHMENT, DEMANDS A RIGOROUS
LEVEL OF DUE PROCESS. DUE
PROCESS MEANS THE RIGHT TO
CONFRONT WITNESSES AGAINST YOU,
TO CALL YOUR OWN WITNESSES AND
TO HAVE THE ASSISTANCE OF
COUNSEL. THOSE ARE YOUR WORDS
MISTER CHAIRMAN, NOT MINE. WHAT
ARE YOU AFRAID OF? LET THE
MINORITY CALL WITNESSES. BUT
THE PRESIDENT CALL WITNESSES.
CLINTON ALONG CALLED 14
WITNESSES TO TESTIFY. BUT THE
PRESIDENT'S COUNSEL CROSS
EXAMINE THE WHISTLEBLOWER. BUT
THE PRESIDENT'S COUNSEL CROSS
EXAMINE THE INTEL STAFF WHO
COLLUDED WITH THE
WHISTLEBLOWER. IN YOUR OWN
WORDS THOSE OF THE RIGHTS THAT
SHOULD BE AFFORDED TO THE
PRESIDENT. WRITES EVERY
CRIMINAL DEFENDANT IS AFFORDED,
EVEN TERRORISTS IN IRAQ ARE
AFFORDED MORE DUE PROCESS THEN
YOU AND THE DEMOCRATIC MAJORITY
HAVE AFFORDED THE PRESIDENT. I
KNOW BECAUSE I SERVED IN IRAQ
AND I PROSECUTED TERRORISTS IN
IRAQ AND WE PROVIDED TERRACE IN
IRAQ MORE RIGHTS AND DUE
PROCESS IN THE CENTRAL CRIMINAL
COURT OF IRAQ THAN YOU AND
CHAIRMAN SCHIFF HAVE AFFORDED
THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED
STATES. NO COLLUSION, NO
OBSTRUCTION, NO QUID PRO QUO,
NO EVIDENCE OF BRIBERY EXCEPT
OPINION, NO EVIDENCE OF TREES
AND, NO EVIDENCE OF HIGH CRIME
OR MISDEMEANORS, WE HAVE A
BUNCH OF OPINIONS FROM PARTISAN
DEMOCRATS WHO HAVE STATED FROM
DAY ONE THAT THEY WANT TO
IMPEACH THE PRESIDENT. NOT ON
THIS THEORY BUT ON MULTIPLE
OTHER DIFFERENT THEORIES. THE
AMERICAN PEOPLE ARE SMARTER
THAN YOU'RE A BASES OF
IMPEACHMENT THAT YOU HAVE HAD
ON THE SCREEN THAT WERE LAID
OUT TODAY AND IT IS EXTREMELY
DEMONSTRATIVE OF YOUR LACK OF
EVIDENCE GETTING LAW PROFESSORS
TO GIVE THEIR OPINIONS AND NOT
FACT WITNESSES TO GIVE THEIR
TESTIMONY TODAY TO BE CROSS
EXAMINED IN THE RIGHTS AFFORDED
TO THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED
STATES. MISTER CHAIRMAN, WHERE
CAN WE ANTICIPATE THAT YOU WILL
CHOOSE A DATE FOR THE MINORITY
DAY OF HEARINGS? WELL MISTER
CHAIRMAN, I'M ASKING YOUR
QUESTION. WHEN CAN WE
ANTICIPATE THAT YOU WILL CHOOSE
A DATE FOR THE MINORITY DAY OF
HEARINGS?
>> THE GENTLEMAN IS RECOGNIZED
FOR THE PURPOSE OF QUESTIONING
THE WITNESSES, NOT FOR
COLLEAGUES.
>> THEN I WILL DO THAT AFTER MY
TIME I YIELD THE REMAINDER OF
MY TIME TO MR. RATCLIFFE.
>> I THINK MY COLLEAGUE FROM
FLORIDA FOR YIELDING. PROFESSOR
TURLEY, SINCE WE LAST TALKED
BASED ON QUESTIONING FROM MY
COLLEAGUE ACROSS THE AISLE IT
DOES IN FACT APPEAR THAT
DEMOCRATS DO INTEND TO PURSUE
ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT FOR
ARTICLES OF INJUSTICE BASED ON
THE MUELLER REPORT. I ASKED YOU
QUESTION ABOUT THAT, YOU DIDN'T
REALLY GET A CHANCE TO GIVE A
COMPLETE ANSWER, IN YOUR
STATEMENT TODAY, YOU MAKE THE
STATEMENT, I BELIEVE AN
OBSTRUCTION CLAIM BASED ON THE
MUELLER REPORT WILL BE AT ODDS
WITH THE RECORD OF CONTROLLING
LAW.
 YOU SAID AN OBSTRUCTION THEORY
FROM THE MUELLER REPORT WOULD
BE AND SUPPORTED AND THE HOUSE
AND UNSUSTAINABLE IN THE
SENATE. DO YOU REMEMBER WRITING
THAT?
>> YES I DO.
>> WHY DO RIGHT? THAT
>> BECAUSE I THINK IT'S TRUE.
THE FACT IS, THIS WAS REVIEWED
BY MAIN JUSTICE AND THE SPECIAL
COUNSEL DID NOT REACH A
CONCLUSION ON OBSTRUCTION AND
THEY SHOULDN'T WITHIN THE
JUSTIFICATION QUITE FRANKLY WAS
A BIT ABSURD BY NOT REACHING A
CONCLUSION. BUT THE ATTORNEY
GENERAL DID AND THEY CAME TO
THE RIGHT CONCLUSION. I DON'T
THINK THIS IS A REAL CASE FOR
OBSTRUCTION BUT, THEN THIS BODY
WOULD BE IMPEACHING OF THE
PRESIDENT ON THE BASIS OF THE
INVERSE CONCLUSION. I DON'T
BELIEVE IT WOULD BE
APPROPRIATE. THE
>> GENTLEMAN'S TIME HAS EXPIRED,
MISTING.
>> THANK YOU MISTER CHAIRMAN.
WORDS MATTER, IN MY EARLIER
LIFE PROFESSOR I WAS A
PROFESSOR OF WRITING. I TOLD MY
STUDENTS TO BE CAREFUL AND
CLEAR ABOUT WHAT THEY PUT TO
PAPER AND THAT IS A LESSON THAT
ARE FRAMERS OF THE CONSTITUTION
NEW FAR BETTER THAN ANYONE.
THEY WERE DOING THE FOUNDATION
FOR A NEW FORM OF GOVERNMENT
AND DRAWINGS IN THE DEMOCRATIC
PRINCIPLE AND ATTACKS AGAINST
THOSE WOULD SEEK TO UNDERMINE
THEM. THE CONSTITUTION
EXPLICITLY LAYS OUT WHAT THE
PRESIDENT MAY BE IMPEACHED FOR
TREASON, BRIBERY, HIGH CRIMES
AND MISDEMEANORS. WE HEARD A
LOT OF WORDS TODAY, FOREIGN
INTERFERENCE, BRIBERY,
OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE AND I
WOULD LIKE TO GO THROUGH THE
PRESIDENTS CONDUCT. THE PUBLIC
HARMS THAT WE HAVE DISCUSSED
TODAY AND ASKED IF THEY WOULD
FIT INTO WHAT THE FOUR FATHERS
CONTEMPLATED WHEN CRAFTING
THOSE WORDS OF THE IMPEACHMENT
LAWS. PROFESSOR KARLAN, I WOULD
ASK YOU ABOUT THE ELECTIONS AS
AN AMERICAN WE CAN'T AGREE THAT
FOREIGN INTERFERENCE IS AN
INFLUENCE THAT ERODES THE
INTEGRITY OF OUR ELECTIONS. AS
YOU SAID SO PLAINLY, AND MAKES
US LESS FREE. YET, ON JULY 25TH,
2019 THE PRESIDENT COERCED
UKRAINIAN PRESIDENT ZELENSKY,
TO ANNOUNCE THE INVESTIGATION
INTO HIS POLITICAL RIVAL.
TRUMP'S POLITICAL RIVAL WHICH
WAS CORROBORATED BY MULTIPLE
WITNESSES THROUGHOUT THE
INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE
HEARINGS. PROFESSOR KARLYN, CAN
YOU EXPLAIN TO THE AMERICAN
PEOPLE, IN YOUR OPINION WHETHER
THE FRAMERS CAN CONSIDER
SOLICITATION OF FOREIGN
INTERFERENCE AND WOULD'VE A
CONSIDERED IT A HIGH CRIME OR
MISDEMEANOR? DOES THE
PRESIDENT'S CONDUCT RISE TO
THAT LEVEL?
>> THE FRAMERS OF OUR
CONSTITUTION WOULD'VE
CONSIDERED IT UP OREN IF YOU
CONSIDER THE ESSENCE OF A CRIME
OR MISDEMEANOR FOR A PRESIDENT
TO INVITE IN FOREIGN INFLUENCE
AND WHETHER HE WOULD BE
REELECTED OR DECIDED WHOM HIS
SUCCESSOR WOULD BE.
>> THANK YOU.
>> PROFESSOR, I'D LIKE TO TALK
TO YOU ABOUT BRIBERY. AND THE
INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE HEARINGS,
MULTIPLE HAD AN RIVETED
TESTIMONY THAT THE PRESIDENT
WITHHELD 400 MILLION DOLLARS
AND CONGRESSIONALLY APPROVED
AID ON THE CONDITION THAT
RUSSIA -- EXCUSE ME, THAT
UKRAINE INVESTIGATIONS INTO THE
CHIEF POLITICAL ADVERSARY.
PROFESSOR, AND YOUR OPINION,
GIVEN THOSE FACTS AND THE
FRAMERS SPECIFIC CONCERNS, WHAT
YOU DESCRIBE THE PRESIDENT'S
BEHAVIOR AND THE USE OF HIS
PUBLIC OFFICE FOR A PRIVATE
BENEFIT AS A RISING TO THOSE
LEVELS?
>> THE FRAMERS CONSIDERED AS
YOU SAID BRIBERY TO CONSIST
UNDER THE CONSTITUTION AND TO
CONSISTS OF THE PRESIDENT
ABUSING HIS OFFICE CORRUPTLY
FOR PERSONAL GAIN. IF THIS
HOUSE DETERMINES THAT THIS
COMMITTEE DETERMINES THAT THE
PRESIDENT WAS IN FACT SEEKING
PERSONAL GAIN AND SEEKING THE
INVESTIGATIONS THAT HE ASKED
FOR, THEN THAT WOULD CONSTITUTE
BRIBERY UNDER THE CONSTITUTION.
>> THANK YOU. PROFESSOR
GERHARDT WHAT I ASK YOU ABOUT
THE PRESIDENT WHO HAS
CATEGORICALLY REFUSED TO HAVE
ANY DOCUMENTS TO CONGRESSIONAL
SUBPOENAS AND ATTACK AND
INTIMIDATED AN ACTUAL WITNESS
AND INCLUDING CAREER AND
MILITARY AND CIVIL SERVANTS AS
DISCUSSED HERE LIKE AMBASSADOR
YOVANOVITCH, LIEUTENANT COLONEL
VINDMAN, TAYLOR, WILLIAMS AND
OTHERS. HE DIRECTED THE FORMER
ADMINISTRATION TO DEFY
CONGRESSIONAL SUBPOENAS.
PROFESSOR, BASED ON THAT SET OF
FACTS, DOES THIS CONDUCT MEET A
THRESHOLD FROM OBSTRUCTION OF
JUSTICE AS ENVISIONED IN THE
CONSTITUTION?
>> YES MA'AM, I BELIEVE IT
DOES. WHEN I WAS HERE 21 YEARS
AGO WHEN PROFESSOR TURLEY
TURLEY WAS TESTIFYING AND THERE
IS A SERIOUS QUESTION AND I
REMEMBER A NUMBER OF PROFESSORS
VERY ELOQUENTLY TALKING ABOUT
PRESIDENT CLINTON AND HIS
MISCONDUCT AS AN ATTACK ON THE
JUDICIAL SYSTEM, THAT'S WHAT
YOU JUST DESCRIBED TO ME.
>> THANK YOU PROFESSORS, ALL
FOUR OF YOU. WHAT YOU DID TODAY,
YOU BROUGHT A PART OF OUR
CONSTITUTION TO LIFE AND I
THANK YOU FOR THAT. YOU HAVE
SHOWN WHAT THE FRAMERS REMIND
OF WHEN THEY WROTE THE
IMPEACHMENT CLAUSE OF OUR
CONSTITUTION. THEY CHOSE THEIR
WORDS AND THEIR WORDS MATTERED.
IT WAS MY FATHER BOBBY DEAN, A
TERRIFIC DAD AND TALENTED
WRITER WHO INSTILLED IN ME AND
MY BROTHERS AND SISTER, A LOT
OF LANGUAGE.
 HE TAUGHT US OUR WORDS MATTER
AND THE TRUTH MATTERS, IT'S
THROUGH THAT LENS THAT I SEE
THE SERIOUS SOMBER THINGS ARE
TALKING ABOUT TODAY WITH
FOREIGN INTERFERENCE, BRIBERY,
OBSTRUCTION AND THE FRAMERS
COULD NOT OF IMAGINED ALL THREE
CONCERNS IN A SINGLE LEADER.
BUT THEY WERE CONCERNED ENOUGH
TO CRAFT THE IMPEACHMENT. THE
TIMES I HAVE FOUND US, I AM
PRAYER FALL FOR OUR PRESIDENT
AND FOR OUR COUNTRY OR
OURSELVES. NOW WE THE PEOPLE
ALWAYS HOLD HIGH INDECENCY AND
PROMISE AND AMBITION OF OUR
FOUNDING AND OF THE WORDS THAT
MATTERED AND OF THE TRUTH AND
WITH THAT I YIELD BACK MISTER
CHAIR.
>> MISS MIKE ARSENAL POWELL, --
>> THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME AND
IT'S BEEN A LONG DAY AND I WANT
TO TELL YOU, I DON'T HAVE THE
PRIVILEGE OF BEING BORN IN HIS
COUNTRY AS AN IMMIGRANT WHEN I
BECAME A CITIZEN TO THIS GREAT
NATION I TOOK AN OATH TO
PROTECT AND DEFEND THE
CONSTITUTION FROM ALL FOREIGN
AND DOMESTIC EMMYS AND I HAD
TAKEN THAT OATH ONCE AGAIN WHEN
I BECAME A MEMBER OF CONGRESS.
THAT INCLUDES THE
RESPONSIBILITY TO PROTECT OUR
NATION FROM CONTINUING THREATS
FROM A PRESIDENT, MANY
PRESIDENTS. YOU TESTIFIED THAT
THE PRESIDENTS ACTIONS ARE A
CONTINUING RISK TO OUR NATION
AND DEMOCRACY. MEANING THAT
THIS IS NOT A ONETIME PROBLEM
THERE, IS A PATTERN OF BEHAVIOR
BY THE PRESIDENT THAT IS
PUTTING AT RISK FAIR AND FREE
ELECTIONS AND I THINK THAT WE
ARE HERE TODAY BECAUSE THE
AMERICAN PEOPLE DESERVE TO KNOW
WHETHER WE NEED TO REMOVE THE
PRESIDENT BECAUSE OF IT. DURING
THE NIXON IMPEACHMENT, THE
COMMITTEE SAID, QUOTE THE
PERSON OF IMPEACHMENT IS NOT
PERSONAL PUNISHMENT. ITS
FUNCTION IS PRIMARILY TO
MAINTAIN CONSTITUTIONAL
GOVERNMENT. PROFESSOR KARLYN,
TO ME IT MEANS THAT IMPEACHMENT
SHOULD BE USED WHEN IT MUST TO
PROTECT OUR AMERICAN DEMOCRACY.
IT IS RESERVED FOR A IS THAT
PRESENT A CONTINUING RISK TO
OUR DEMOCRACY, IS THAT CORRECT?
>> YES IT IS.
>> THANK YOU. I WANT TO SHOW
YOU AN EXAMPLE WHAT THE
PRESIDENT SAID. JUST ONE WEEK
AFTER THE TRANSCRIPT OF THE
JULY 25TH CALL WAS RELEASED
WHEN A REPORTER ASKED THE
PRESIDENT WHAT HE WANTED FROM
PRESIDENT ZELENSKY. HE
RESPONDED WITH THIS.
>> I WOULD THINK THAT IF THEY
WERE HONEST ABOUT IT, THEY
WOULD START A MAJOR
INVESTIGATION INTO THE BIDENS.
IT'S A VERY SIMPLE ANSWER. THEY
SHOULD INVESTIGATE THE BIDENS
BECAUSE OUT AS A COMPANY THAT
IS NEWLY FORMED AND IF YOU LOOK
AT IT, BY THE WAY CHINA'S COULD
START AN INVESTIGATION INTO THE
BIDENS. BECAUSE WHAT HAPPENED
TO CHINA? IT'S JA JUST ABOUT AS
BAD WHAT HAPPENED WITH UKRAINE.
>> WE HEARD TODAY CONFLICTING
DIALOG FROM BOTH SIDES. I WANT
TO ASK MR. FELDMAN, IS CLEAR
EVIDENCE FROM A PRESIDENT
ASKING FROM A FOREIGN
GOVERNMENT TO INTERFERE IN OUR
ELECTIONS?
>> CONGRESSWOMAN, I'M HERE FOR
THE CONSTITUTION AND WE ARE
HERE FOR THE CONSTITUTION. WHEN
THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED
STATES ASKS FOR EXISTENCE FROM
A FOREIGN POWER TO DISTORT OUR
ELECTIONS AND FOR HIS PERSONAL
ADVANTAGE, THAT CONSTITUTES AN
ABUSE OF OFFICE AND ACCOUNTS OF
THE HAGUE HIGH CRIME AND
MISDEMEANOR AND THAT'S WHAT THE
CONSTITUTION IS HERE TO PROTECT
US AGAINST.
>> THANK YOU. PROFESSOR KARLYN,
ARE THE PRESIDENT'S ACTIONS A
CONTINUING RISK THAT THE
FRAMERS INTENDED IMPEACHMENT
WILL BE USED FOR?
>> THIS TAKES US BACK TO THE
QUOTATION FROM LILLIAN DAVIES
THAT WE'VE ALL USED TO SEVERAL
TIMES IS THAT A PRESIDENT
WITHOUT IMPEACHMENT, WILL DO
ANYTHING TO GET REELECTED.
>> I WANT TO SHOW YOU ONE MORE
EXAMPLE FROM THE CHIEF OF STAFF
ASKED ABOUT THE ASK OF THE
UKRAINIAN PRESIDENT.
>> LET'S BE CLEAR, WHAT YOU
DESCRIBED IT AS A QUID PRO QUO
IS UNLESS THE INVESTIGATION IS
INTO THE DEMOCRATIC SERVER
WHICH HAPPENS AS WELL.
>> WE DO THAT ALL THE TIME WITH
FOREIGN POLICY. THEY SAID
YESTERDAY, THEY WERE UPSET WITH
THE POLITICAL INFLUENCE IN
FOREIGN POLICY. THAT WAS ONE OF
THE REASONS HE WAS SO UPSET
ABOUT THIS. I HAVE NEWS FOR
EVERYBODY, GET OVER IT. THERE
IS GOING TO BE POLITICAL
INFLUENCE IN FOREIGN POLICY.
>> PROFESSOR KARLAN.?
>> I THINK MR. MULVANEY IS
CONFUSING TO DIFFERENT NOTIONS
OF POLITICS. YES, THERE IS
POLITICAL INFLUENCE ON OUR
FOREIGN AFFAIRS. BECAUSE
PRESIDENT TRUMP WON THE
ELECTION IN 2016, WITH EXITING
CLIMATE ACCORDS, TAKEN A
DIFFERENT POSITION A NATO THEN
WE WOULD'VE TAKEN HAS AN
OPPONENT ONE. BUT THAT'S
DIFFERENT THAN SAYING THAT
PARTISAN POLITICS IN THE SENSE
OF ELECTORAL MANIPULATION IS
SOMETHING THAT WE NEED TO GET
OVER OR GET USED TO.
 IF WE GET OVER THAT OR GET
USED TO THAT, WE WILL CEASE TO
BECOME THE DEMOCRACY THAT WE
ARE RIGHT NOW.
>> THANK YOU. I THINK THAT IS
OUR GREATEST FEAR AND THREAT. I
DON'T THINK THAT ANYONE IS
ABOVE THE LAW AND THE
CONSTITUTION ESTABLISHES THAT.
THIS TYPE OF BEHAVIOR COULD NOT
BE TOLERATED FROM ANY PRESIDENT,
NOT NOW AND OUT OF THE FUTURE
AND I YIELD BACK.
>> BUT GENERALLY THE LILT BACK.
I'M SORRY, MISS ESCOBAR. MISS
ESCOBAR IS RECOGNIZED.
>> THANK YOU MISTER CHAIRMAN.
PROFESSORS, THANK YOU SO MUCH
YOUR TESTIMONY IN TIME TODAY.
MANY FACTS AND HIS OWN WORDS IN
THE FAMOUS PHONE CALL HAD BEEN
LAID OUT BEFORE OUR VERY EYES
AND EARS FOR MONTHS. DESPITE
THE PRESIDENT'S EFFORTS TO
COVER UP. BUT IT APPEARS THAT
SOME OF CHOSEN TO IGNORE THOSE
FACTS. WHAT WE HAVE SEEN TODAY
FROM THOSE THAT DO WANT TO TURN
A BLIND EYE, IS NOT A DEFENSE
OF THE PRESIDENT'S ACTIONS
BECAUSE THOSE OFFENSES ARE
INDEFENSIBLE. WE HAVE SEEN THEM
ATTACK THE PROCESS AND TO
IMPUGN YOU'RE INTEGRITY. AND
FOR THAT I'M SORRY. TO MY
QUESTIONS, SOME PEOPLE FIND
THAT IN CONSIDERING IMPEACHMENT
WE SHOULD LET THIS PASS AND
ALLOW THEM TO DECIDE WHAT TO DO
NEXT OR WHAT TO DO ABOUT THE
PRESIDENT'S BEHAVIOR AND THE
NEXT ELECTION. THE FRAMERS OF
OUR CONSTITUTION SPECIFICALLY
CONSIDER WHETHER TO JUST USE
ELECTIONS AND NOT HAVE
IMPEACHMENT OR REJECT THAT
NOTION. ONE NOTE FROM THE
FRAMERS REALLY STUCK WITH ME.
GEORGE MISSION SAID THE MAN
THAT HAS PRACTICED CORRUPTION
AND THAT MEANS PROCURED HIS
APPOINTMENT IN THE FIRST
INSTANCE, HE SUFFERED TO ESCAPE
PUNISHMENT, BY REPEATING HIS
GUILT. PROFESSOR FELDMAN, I
HAVE TWO QUESTIONS FOR YOU.
BRIEFLY, CAN YOU EXPLAIN WHY
THE FRAMERS DECIDED THAT A
CORRUPT EXECUTIVE COULD NOT BE
SOLVED THROUGH ELECTIONS? AND
CAN YOU TELL US WHY IMPEACHMENT
IS THE APPROPRIATE OPTION AT
THIS POINT? CONSIDERING ALL THE
EVIDENCE AMERICANS HAVE SEEN
AND HEARD RATHER THAN LETTING
THIS BE DECIDED IN THE NEXT
ELECTION? THE
>> FRAMERS UNDERSTOOD THE HUMAN
ORDINATION VERY WELL. THEY KNEW
THE PRESIDENT WOULD HAVE A
GREAT MOTIVE TO CORRUPT THE
ELECTORAL PROCESS TO GET
REELECTED. THAT IS EXACTLY WHY
THEY THOUGHT IT WASN'T GOOD
ENOUGH TO WAIT FOR THE NEXT
ELECTION. BECAUSE THE PRESIDENT
COULD CHEAT AND MAKE THE NEXT
ELECTION ILLEGITIMATE. THAT'S
TO WHY IT REQUIRED IMPEACHMENT
AND IF THEY COULDN'T IMPEACH A
CORRUPT PRESIDENT, JAMES
MADISON SAID THAT WOULD BE
FATAL TO THE REPUBLIC. THE
REASON WHY IT'S NECESSARY TO
TAKE ACTION NOW. IS BECAUSE WE
HAVE A PRESIDENT WHO HAS IN
FACT SOUGHT TO CORRECT THE
ELECTORAL PROCESS FOR HIS
PERSONAL ADVANTAGE. IN THOSE
CIRCUMSTANCES, THE FRAMERS OF
IMPEACHMENT IS THE ONLY OPTION
AVAILABLE.
>> THANK YOU. I WANT TO PLAY TO
CLIPS, THE FIRST OF PRESIDENT
NIXON IN THE SECOND OF
PRESIDENT TRUMP.
>> WHEN THE PRESIDENT DOES IT
THAT MEANS THAT IS NOT ILLEGAL.
>> I HAVE AN ARTICLE TO WHERE I
HAVE THE RIGHT TO DO IT I
WHATEVER I WANT AS PRESIDENT.
IT
>> THEY ARE SAYING THAT THEY
ARE ABOVE THE LAW. PROFESSOR
KARLAN, WHAT HAPPENS TO OUR
REPUBLIC, TO OUR COUNTRY THAT
IF WE DO NOTHING IN THE FACE OF
THE PRESIDENT WHO SEES HIMSELF
ABOVE THE LAW AND WILL ABUSE
HIS POWER, WHO WILL ASK FOREIGN
GOVERNMENTS TO MEDDLE IN OUR
ELECTIONS AND WHO WILL ATTACK
ANY WITNESS WHO STANDS UP TO
TELL THE TRUTH. WHAT HAPPENS IF
WE DON'T FOLLOW OUR
CONSTITUTIONAL OBLIGATION OF
IMPEACHMENT TO REMOVE THAT
PRESIDENT FROM OFFICE?
>> WE WILL SEIZE TO BE A
REPUBLIC.
>> THANK YOU. I REPRESENT A
COMMUNITY A LITTLE OVER A
DECADE AGO, WAS BARRED BY
CORRUPTION AT THE LOCAL
GOVERNMENT LEVEL. THERE WAS NO
RETREAT INTO A PARTISAN CORNER
OR AN EFFORT BY ANYONE TO
EXPLAIN IT AWAY.
 WE ALSO DIDN'T WAIT FOR AN
ELECTION TO CURE THE CANCER OF
CORRUPTION THAT OCCURRED ON OUR
WATCH. WE WERE UNITED AS A
COMMUNITY IN OUR OUTRAGE OVER
IT. IT WAS INTOLERABLE TO US
BECAUSE WE KNEW THAT IT WAS A
THREAT TO OUR INSTITUTIONS,
INSTITUTIONS THAT BELONG TO US.
WHAT WE FACE TODAY IS THE SAME
KIND OF TEST, ONLY ONE FAR MORE
GRAVE AND HISTORIC. FROM THE
FOUNDING OF OUR COUNTRY TO
TODAY, ONE TRUTH REMAINS CLEAR,
THE IMPEACHMENT POWER IS
RESERVED FOR CONDUCT THAT
ENDANGERS DEMOCRACY AND
IMPERILS OUR CONSTITUTION.
TODAY'S HEARING HAS HELPED US
TO BETTER UNDERSTAND HOW WE
PRESERVE OUR REPUBLIC AND THE
TEST THAT LIES AHEAD FOR US,
THANK YOU MISTER CHAIRMAN I
YIELD BACK MY TIME.
>> GENERAL LADY YIELDS BACK,
THAT CONCLUDES THE TESTIMONY
UNDER THE FIVE MINUTE RULE. I
NOW RECOGNIZE THE RANKING
MEMBER, TO MAKE CONCLUDING
REMARKS HE MAY HAVE.
>> THANK YOU MISTER CHAIRMAN.
TODAY HAS BEEN INTERESTING, I
GUESS TO SAY THE LEAST. IT HAS
BEEN, WE HAVE FOUND MANY THINGS,
IN FACT THREE OF OUR FOUR
WITNESSES HERE TODAY ALLEGED
NUMEROUS CRIMES COMMITTED BY
THE PRESIDENT AT TIMES IT
SEEMED LIKE WE WERE EVEN TRY TO
MAKE CRIMES AS IF IT WASN'T AS
IT WAS THE INTENT TO DO IT, IT
WENT ALONG, AS INTERESTING
TODAY AS I STARTED THE STAIN
WILL COME BACK TO IT NOW, AS
MUCH AS I RESPECT THESE WHO
CAME BEFORE US TODAY, THIS IS
WAY TOO EARLY, BECAUSE WE HAVE
NOT AS A COMMITTEE DONE OUR JOB,
WE HAVE NOT AS A COMMITTEE COME
TOGETHER, LOOKED AT EVIDENCE,
TAKEN FACT WITNESSES, PUT
PEOPLE HERE IN FRONT OF US
UNDER OATH AND SAID WHAT DIDN'T
HAPPEN AND HOW DID IT HAPPEN
AND WHY DIDN'T HAPPEN? WE ARE
TAKING THE WORK OF THE INTEL
COMMITTEE AND THE OTHER
COMMITTEES, WE ARE TAKING IT
SEEMINGLY AT FACE VALUE AND I
WILL REMIND ALL THAT THE
CHAIRMAN EVEN AS THE BIGGEST
PROPONENT OF THIS NOT HAPPENING
IN HIS EARLIER STATEMENTS 20
YEARS AGO WHEN HE SAID WE
SHOULD NOT TAKE A REPORT FROM
ANOTHER ENTITY AND JUST ACCEPT
IT OTHERWISE WE ARE A RUBBER
STAMP. NOW TO MY DEMOCRATIC
MAJORITY THEY MAY NOT CARE
BECAUSE AS I'VE SAID BEFORE
THIS IS ABOUT A CLOCK AND A
CALENDAR. O'CLOCK AND A
CALENDAR. THEY ARE SO OBSESSED
WITH THE ELECTION NEXT YEAR
THAT THEY JUST GLOSS OVER
THINGS. WHAT IS INTERESTING AS
AS I SAID EARLIER THREE OF THE
FOUR WITNESSES ALLEGED MANY
CRIMES ALLEGED BY THE PRESIDENT
HOWEVER DURING THE INTEL
COMMITTEES NONE OF THE FIVE
WITNESSES IDENTIFIED A CRIME.
IF YOU ARE WRITING ABOUT THIS
THAT SHOULD ALARM YOU. SO THIS
IMPEACHMENT NARRATIVE BEING
SPUN BY THE MAJORITY IS A FAKE
ONE, IT'S MAJORITY SPINNING 3%
OF THE FACTS WHILE IGNORING 97%
OF THE OTHER, PROFESSORS HAD
EARLIER TODAY THAT IMPEACHMENT
MEANS PROOF NOT PRESUMPTIONS.
WE HAVE ONE OF THE FIVE
WITNESSES IN THE INTEL
COMMITTEE, I PRESUME THAT WAS
WHAT WAS GOING ON, MR.
SONDLAND. YOU KNOW WHAT IS
HAPPENING HERE TODAY, AS ALSO
WE FOUND OUT TODAY, I THOUGHT
THIS WAS INTERESTING, WAS THE
JUDICIARY COMMITTEE BUT WE ALSO
FOUND OUT TODAY THAT FACTS
DON'T MATTER. IN FACT FACTS
DON'T MATTER UNLESS WE CAN FIT
THOSE FACTS TO FIT THE
NARRATIVE WE WANT TO SPIN
BEFORE THIS COMMITTEE AND THE
AMERICAN PEOPLE. IF THEY DON'T
MATTER, WE ALSO HEARD ONE OF
THE WITNESSES SAY TODAY THAT IT
DOESN'T MATTER IF THEY WERE
RELEASED OR NOT, OF COURSE IT
MATTERS, BUT OF COURSE ONE OF
THE ONLY FACTS ADROIT BY THE
MAJORITY. THERE IGNORING SO
MANY FACTS, IT DOESN'T MATTER
TO THE DEMOCRATS THAT SPECIAL
ENVOY TO THE UKRAINE MADE CLEAR
IN HIS TESTIMONY THAT THERE WAS
NO BRIBERY IN THE MEETING WITH
THE U.S., THEY HAVEN'T MENTION
THAT BECAUSE IT'S UNHELPFUL TO
THEIR NARRATIVE. IT APPARENTLY
DOESN'T MATTER TO THE DEMOCRATS
WHO ARE THE MAJORITY HERE THAT
THE PRESIDENT DID NOT CAN ORDER
AN INVESTIGATION, AND FACT TO
THE CONTRARY, IT WAS RIGHT HERE
IN THIS ROOM, HE CALLED IT A
GAS, RIGHT WHERE YOU ARE
SITTING. HE CALLED IT A GAS. A
PRESUMPTION. THAT IS WHAT HE
THOUGHT. GOD FORBID IF WE WALK
INTO OUR COURTROOMS AND FIND
SOMEBODY GUILTY OF SOMETHING WE
CALL A CRIME WE WALK INTO COURT
AND ALL OF A SUDDEN SOMEONE
SAYS I THOUGHT IT WAS, THE ONE
WHO SAID I PRESUMED IT WAS, GOD
FORBID THIS IS WHERE WE ARE
RIGHT. BUT YOU KNOW WE HAVE
ALSO HEARD TODAY THAT YOU CAN
MAKE INFERENCE THOUGH, IT'S A
CAVE YOU JUST INFERRING, I
DON'T KNOW BY THE PROFESSORS
HERE ARE THOSE OF US ON COURT
ON BOTH SIDES, I'VE NEVER HEARD
ANYONE SAY AS A JUDGE JUST
UNFAIR WHAT YOU THINK YOU
MENTION THAT WILL BE ENOUGH.
NOT INFERENCE. IT PROBABLY
DOESN'T MATTER THAT THE
PRESIDENT DIDN'T CONDITION A
MEETING ON THE INVESTIGATION,
THERE WERE NO PRECONDITIONS,
ZELENSKY DIDN'T EVEN FIND OUT
ABOUT THE HOLD ON THE AID UNTIL
A MONTH AFTER THE CALL WHEN HE
WROTE IN POLITICO. THE AID WAS
RELEASED SHORTLY THEREAFTER IN
UKRAINE DON'T HAVE ANYTHING TO
DO TO GET THE AID RELEASED, NOT
ONLY WAS RELEASED BUT LEGAL AID
WAS GIVEN AS WELL, IF YOU THINK
THAT DOESN'T MATTER AS WELL,
THERE ARE FIVE MEETINGS BETWEEN
THE TIME WAS AID WAS STOPPED
AND RELEASED, AND A NONE OF
THOSE MEETINGS BETWEEN THE
AMBASSADORS, INCLUDING OTHERS
INCLUDING THE VICE PRESIDENT
AND SENATORS, NONE OF THAT WAS
EVER CONNECTED TO A PROMISE OF
ANYTHING ON THE AID, NOTHING
WAS EVER CONNECTED, FIVE TIMES,
AND TWO OF THOSE WERE AFTER
PRESIDENT ZELENSKY LEARNED THAT
AID WAS BEING HELD. TELL ME
THERE IS NOT A PROBLEM HERE
WITH THE STORY. THAT IS WHY
FIVE WITNESSES AREN'T HERE
RIGHT NOW. THE EVIDENCE AGAINST
THE PRESIDENT IS REALLY ABOUT
POLICY DIFFERENCES, AND FACTORY
OF THE DEMOCRATIC STAR
WITNESSES READ TRANSCRIPTS LIKE
EVERYBODY ELSE, ON JULY 26
ZELENSKY MET AND THEY MADE NO
REFERENCE TO QUID PRO QUO AND
MET SEVERAL MORE TIMES AND NO
REFERENCES, NONE OF THESE
INCONVENIENT FACTS OR SO MANY
INCONVENIENT FACTS MATTER TO
THE MAJORITY. WE DON'T EVEN
KNOW WHAT IF ADDITIONAL
HEARINGS WE WILL HAVE TO
ADDRESS OTHER FACTS. THIS IS
THE PART THAT BOTHERS ME
GREATLY. IT IS SOMETHING WE
HAVE SEEN FROM JANUARY OF THIS
YEAR, NO CONCERN ABOUT A
PROCESS THAT WORKS BUT SIMPLY
GETTING TO AN END THAT WE WANT.
YOU KNOW, I AGREE WITH
PROFESSOR FELDMAN, HE MAY FIND
THAT STRANGE WHAT I DO WAS
SOMETHING. IT'S NOT HIS JOB TO
ASSESS THE CREDIBILITY OF
WITNESSES, THAT'S THE
COMMITTEE'S JOB. AND I AGREE.
BUT THIS COMMITTEE CAN DO OUR
JOBS AND NONE OF THE WITNESSES
TESTIFY BEFORE COMMITTEE, EVEN
ONES THAT WE'VE TALKED ABOUT
CALLING TODAY AND THE MAJORITY
HAVE SAID WE DON'T WANT. WE
STILL DON'T HAVE A ANSWER ON
WHAT THIS COMMITTEE WILL DO
WHEN THE HEARING ENDS, FROM
CHAIRMAN SCHIFF'S REPORT
YESTERDAY WE STILL DON'T HAVE
THE UNDERLYING EVIDENCE, THE
RULES EVEN SET UP BY THIS BODY
ARE NOT BEING FOLLOWED TO THIS
DAY, BUT YET NOBODY TALKS ABOUT
THAT ON THE MAJORITY SIDE. THE
WITNESS HAS PRODUCED BY
CHAIRMAN SCHIFF AND THE
AMERICAN PEOPLE GOT TO TALK
ABOUT THEIR FEELINGS AND GUESTS
ON PRESUMPTIONS BUT EVEN THOUGH
THE FACTS MAY NOT MATTER TO THE
MAJORITY, 97% OF THE FACTS DO
MATTER TO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE.
SO MY PROBLEM IS THIS. AS THE
RANKING MEMBER OF THIS
COMMITTEE, ONE OF THE OLDEST
MOST SHOULD BE A FACT BASED
LEGAL BASE COMMITTEES WE SHOULD
HAVE HERE, WHERE IMPEACHMENT
SHOULD HAVE BEEN ALL ALONG. I
HAVE A GROUP OF MEMBERS THAT
HAVE NO IDEA WHERE WE ARE
HEADING NEXT, I BET YOU KNOW
THAT IF I ASKED THE MAJORITY
MEMBERS OUTSIDE THE CHAIRMAN,
THEY DON'T HAVE A CLUE EITHER.
BECAUSE IF THEY HAVEN'T THEY
SHOULD SHARE IT. BECAUSE THIS
IS NOT A TIME TO PLAY HIDE THE
BALL, THIS IS NOT A TIME TO SAY,
WE ARE GOING TO FIGURE IT OUT
ON THE FLY, YOU ARE TALKING
ABOUT OVERTURNING 63 MILLION
VOTES OF A PRESIDENT DULY
ELECTED WHO IS DOING HIS JOB
EVERY DAY, AND BY THE WAY WAS
OVERSEAS TODAY WHILE WE WERE
DOING THIS, WORKING WITH OUR
NATO ALLIES. SO THE QUESTION I
HAVE IS WHERE DO WE HAVE NEXT?
WE'VE HEARD THIS AMBIGUOUS
PRESENTATION, BUT HERE IS MY
CHALLENGE, BEFORE IT'S VOTED
DOWN A TABLE TODAY, MR. SCHIFF,
SHOULD, TESTIFY. CHAIRMAN
SCHIFF, NOT HIS STAFF, MUST
APPEAR BEFORE THIS COMMITTEE TO
ANSWER QUESTIONS ABOUT THE
CONTENT OF HIS REPORT, THAT'S
WHAT STARTED 20 YEARS AGO IN
HISTORY HAS DEMANDED. I TELL
THE CHAIRMAN JUST A WHILE AGO
THAT WHEN WE WERE DOING,
AMERICA I SAID THE HISTORY LIES
WERE ALL, US IT'S TIME THAT WE
TALK AND SHARE HOW WE ARE GOING
FORWARD, I'M STILL WAITING FOR
ANSWERS. SO MISTER CHAIRMAN, AS
WE LOOK AHEAD, THE DEMOCRATIC
MAJORITY PROMISED THAT THIS WAS
GOING TO BE A FAIR PROCESS WHEN
I GOT TO JUDICIARY FOR THE
PRESIDENT AND OTHERS, THE
PRESIDENT, AND YOU MAY SAY HE
COULD'VE COME TODAY, WHAT WHAT
DOES HAVE DONE? NOTHING. THERE
IS NO FACT WITNESSES HERE,
NOTHING TO REBUT, IT BE
SPENDING TIME JUST TO SEE THAT
NOTHING CAME OUT OF THE END OF
THE DAY. SO WHY SHOULD HE BE
HERE? LET'S BRING FACT
WITNESSES AND, LET'S BRING
PEOPLE IN BECAUSE YOU SAID
MISTER CHAIRMAN, YOU ARE SAYING,
YOUR WORDS, WE SHOULD NEVER ON
THIS COMMITTEE EXCEPT ENTITY
GIVING US A REPORT AND NOT
INVESTIGATED OURSELVES,
UNDOUBTEDLY WE ARE WELL ON OUR
WAY TO DOING THAT BECAUSE OF A
CALENDAR AND O'CLOCK. SO MISTER
CHAIRMAN I KNOW YOU'RE ABOUT TO
GIVE A STATEMENT AND THEY'VE
WORKED ON IT AND YOU'VE WORKED
ON A VERY HARD I'M SURE, BUT I
WANT BEFORE YOU GAVEL HIS
HEARING BEFORE YOU START A
STATEMENT, BEFORE YOU GO ANY
FURTHER, I WOULD LIKE TO KNOW
TWO THINGS, NUMBER ONE, WHEN DO
YOU PLAN ON SCHEDULING ARE A
MINORITY HEARING DAY AND NUMBER
TWO, WHY OR IF OR WHEN ARE WE
GOING TO ACTUALLY HAVE REAL
WITNESSES HERE THAT ARE FACT
WITNESSES IN THIS CASE? WHEN?
OR WHAT YOU SAID, MANY YEARS
AGO, IS FADED JUST LIKE THE
LEAVES IN FALL, I DON'T REALLY
CARE ANYMORE THAT SOMEBODY ELSE
GIVES US A REPORT, SCHIFF IS
OVER EVERYTHING FOR IMPEACHMENT
AND HE DOESN'T GET TO TESTIFY,
HE WAS ON THE STAFF MEMBER, I
DON'T KNOW IF WE WILL EVEN HAVE
A HEARING PAST THAT TO SEE WHAT
HAS BEEN GOING ON. SO MY
QUESTION THAT I STARTED OUT
TODAY, IS WHERE IS FAIRNESS? IT
WAS PROMISED, BUT IT IS NOT
BEING DELIVERED. THE FACTS
TALKED ABOUT WERE NOT FOX
DELIVERED, THIS PRESIDENT HIS
FACTS WERE GIVEN, NOTHING WRONG,
NOTHING TO BE IMPEACHED, AND
NOTHING FOR WHY WE ARE HERE, IN
THE WORDS OF ONE OF OUR
WITNESSES, IF YOU RUSHED
THROUGH THIS, AND YOU DO IT ON
FLIMSY GROUNDS, THE AMERICAN
PEOPLE WILL NOT FORGET THE
LIGHT OF HISTORY. SO TODAY,
BEFORE YOU GIVE YOUR OPENING
STATEMENT, YOU'RE CLOSING
STATEMENT, BEFORE YOU GET TO
THIS TIME, MY QUESTION IS, WILL
YOU TALK TO THIS COMMITTEE, YOU
ARE CHAIRMAN, YOU HOLD A VERY
PRESTIGIOUS ROLE, WILL YOU LET
US KNOW WHERE WE ARE GOING OR
ARE WE GOING TO ADJOURN FROM
HERE AFTER YOU SOME UP
EVERYTHING SAYING THAT THEY ALL
GET GOOD, AND GO OUT FROM HERE
WE ARE STILL WONDERING, THE
LIGHTS ARE ON IT'S TIME TO
ANSWER THE QUESTION, I YIELD
BACK.
>> THE GENTLEMAN YIELDS BACK. I
WANT TO BE FOR MY CLOSING
STATEMENT ACKNOWLEDGE THAT I
HAVE RECEIVED A LETTER TODAY
QUESTIONING THE MINORITY DAY OF
TESTIMONY ON THE 11TH, I HAVE
NOT HAD A CHANCE TO READ THE
LEVER BUT LOOK FORWARD TO
CONFERRING WITH RANKING MEMBERS
ABOUT THIS REQUEST, ONCE I HAVE
HAD A CHANCE TO REVIEW. IT
>> MISTER CHAIRMAN I HAVE A
QUESTION, YOU CAN'T REVIEW A
LETTER.
>> THE GENTLEMAN IS NOT
RECOGNIZED.
>> THERE'S NOTHING FOR YOU TO
REVIEW.
>> I NOW RECOGNIZE MYSELF FOR A
CLOSING STATEMENT. GEORGE
WASHINGTON'S FAREWELL ADDRESS
WARNINGS OF A MOMENT WHEN
CUTTING AMBITIOUS AND AN
PRINCIPLED MEN WILL BE UNABLE
TO SUBVERT THE POWER OF THE
PEOPLE, TO USURP FOR THEMSELVES
THE REINS OF GOVERNMENT.
PRESIDENT TRUMP PLACES HIS OWN
PERSONAL AND POLITICAL
INTERESTS ABOVE OUR NATIONAL
INTERESTS, ABOUT THE SECURITY
OF OUR COUNTRY, AND MOST
IMPORTANTLY ABOVE OUR MOST
PRECIOUS RIGHT, THE ABILITY OF
EACH AND EVERY ONE OF US TO
PARTICIPATE IN FAIR ELECTIONS.
FREE OF CORRUPTION. THE
CONSTITUTION HAS A SOLUTION FOR
A PRESIDENT WHO PLACES HAS
PERSONAL OR POLITICAL INTERESTS
ABOVE THOSE OF THE NATION. THE
POWER OF IMPEACHMENT. AS ONE OF
MY COLLEAGUES POINTED OUT, I
HAVE IN THE PAST ARTICULATED A
THREE PART TRACK TO IMPEACHMENT,
LET ME BE CLEAR, ALL THROUGH
PARTS OF THAT HAVE BEEN MET,
FIRST OF, ALL YES THE PRESIDENT
HAS COMMITTED AN IMPEACHABLE
OFFENSE. PRESIDENT ASKED THE
FOREIGN GOVERNMENT TO INTERVENE
IN OUR ELECTIONS. GOT CAUGHT.
THAT OBSTRUCTED THE
INVESTIGATORS. TWICE. OUR
WITNESSES TOLD US IN NO
UNCERTAIN TERMS THAT THIS
CONDUCT CONSTITUTES HIGH CRIMES
AND MISDEMEANORS, INCLUDING
ABUSE OF POWER. SECOND, YES,
THE PRESIDENT'S ALLEGED
OFFENSES REPRESENT A DIRECT
THREAT TO THE CONSTITUTIONAL
ORDER. PROFESSOR KARLYN WARNED,
DRAWING A FOREIGN GOVERNMENT
INTO OUR ELECTION PROCESS IS AN
ESPECIALLY BAD USE OF POWER
BECAUSE IT UNDERMINES DEMOCRACY
ITSELF. PROFESSOR FELDMAN
ECHOED, IF WE CANNOT IMPEACH A
PRESIDENT WHO ABUSES HIS OFFICE
FOR PERSONAL ADVANTAGE, WE NO
LONGER LIVE IN A DEMOCRACY. WE
LIVE IN A MONARCHY OR UNDER
DICTATORSHIP. PROFESSOR
GERHARDT REMINDED US, IF WHAT
WE ARE TALKING ABOUT, WHILE WE
ARE TALKING ABOUT IS NOT
IMPEACHABLE, THEN NOTHING IS
IMPEACHABLE. PRESIDENT TRUMP'S
ACTIONS REPRESENT A THREAT TO
OUR NATIONAL SECURITY, AND AN
URGENT THREAT TO THE INTEGRITY
OF THE NEXT ELECTION. THIRD,
YES, WE SHOULD NOT PROCEED
UNLESS AT LEAST SOME OF THE
CITIZENS WHO SUPPORT OF THE
PRESIDENT IN THE LAST ELECTION
ARE WILLING TO COME WITH US. A
MAJORITY OF THIS COUNTRY IS
CLEARLY PREPARED TO IMPEACH AND
REMOVE PRESIDENT TRUMP. RATHER
THAN RESPOND TO THE UNSETTLING
AND DANGEROUS EVIDENCE, MY
REPUBLICAN COLLEAGUES HAVE
CALLED THIS PROCESS UNFAIR, IT
IS NOT. YOUR ARGUMENT IS THAT
THE COLLEAGUES ON THE OTHER
SIDE OF THE AISLE, ARE UNABLE
TO DEFEND THE PRESIDENT'S
BEHAVIOR, THEY ABUSE ARGUMENT
BEFORE. FIRST, THEY SAID THAT
THESE PROCEEDINGS WERE NOT
CONSTITUTIONAL BECAUSE WE DID
NOT HAVE A FLOOR VOTE. WE THEN
HAD A FLOOR VOTE. THEN THEY
SAID THAT OUR PROCEEDINGS WERE
NOT CONSTITUTIONAL BECAUSE THEY
COULD NOT CALL WITNESSES.
REPUBLICANS CALLED THREE OF THE
WITNESSES IN THE LIVE HEARINGS,
OF THE INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY,
AND WILL HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO
REQUEST WITNESSES IN THIS
COMMITTEE AS WELL. NEXT, THEY
SAID THAT OUR PROCEEDINGS WERE
NOT CONSTITUTIONAL BECAUSE THE
PRESIDENT COULD NOT
PARTICIPATE. BUT WHEN THE
COMMITTEE INVITED THE PRESIDENT
TO PARTICIPATE IN THIS HEARING,
HE DECLINED. THE SIMPLE FACT,
IS THAT ALL OF THESE
PROCEEDINGS HAVE ALL THE
PROTECTIONS AVOIDED WANT TO
PRIOR PRESIDENTS. THIS FOLLOWS
THE CONSTITUTION AND LEGAL
PRESIDENTS.
 I AM LEFT TO CONCLUDE, THE
ONLY REASON MY COLLEAGUES RUST
FORM ONE PROCESS COMPLAIN TO
THE NEXT, IS BECAUSE THERE IS
NO FACTUAL DEFENSE FOR
PRESIDENT TRUMP. UNLIKE ANY
OTHER PRESIDENT BEFORE HIM,
PRESIDENT TRUMP IS OPENLY
REJECTED CONGRESS IS RIGHT AS A
COEQUAL BRANCH OF GOVERNMENT.
HE WOULD FIGHT ARE SUBPOENAS,
REFUSED TO PRODUCE ANY
DOCUMENTS, HE DIRECTED IS AIDS
NOT TO TESTIFY. PRESIDENT TRUMP
IS ALSO ASKED A FOREIGN
GOVERNMENT TO INTERVENE OUR
ELECTION AND HAS MADE CLEAR,
THEN AS LEFT UNCHECKED THAT HE
WILL DO IT AGAIN. WHY? BECAUSE
HE BELIEVES THAT IN HIS OWN
WORDS I CAN DO WHATEVER I WANT.
THAT IS WHY WE MUST ACT NOW. IN
THIS COUNTRY THE, PRESIDENT
CANNOT DO WHATEVER HE WANTS.
AND THIS COUNTRY, NO ONE, NOT
EVEN THE PRESIDENT IS ABOVE THE
LAW. TODAY, WE BEGIN OUR
CONVERSATION WHERE WE SHOULD
WITH THE REST OF THE
CONSTITUTION. WE HAVE HEARD
CLEARLY FROM OUR WITNESSES IN
THE CONSTITUTION PROPELS
ACTION. EVERY WITNESS INCLUDING
THE WITNESS ELECTED BY THE
REPUBLICAN SIDE AGREED THAT IF
PRESIDENT TRUMP DID WHAT THE
INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE FOUND TO
HAVE DONE, AFTER EXTENSIVE AND
COMPELLING WITNESSES THAT THE
TRUMP ADMINISTRATION OFFICIALS
HAVE COMMITTED IMPEACHABLE
OFFENSE IS. WHILE THE
REPUBLICAN WITNESS MAY NOT BE
CONVINCED THERE SUFFICIENT
EVIDENCE AGAINST THE PRESIDENT
IN THESE ACTS, THE AMERICAN
PEOPLE AND THE MAJORITY OF THIS
COMMITTEE DISAGREE. I ALSO
THINK THE REPUBLICANS WITNESS
AND PROFESSOR TURLEY, WILL HAVE
A SAGE WARNING IN 1998 WHEN HE
WAS A LEADING ADVOCATE FOR THE
IMPEACHMENT OF BILL CLINTON. HE
SAID, IF YOU DECIDE THAT
CERTAIN ACTS DO NOT RISE TO THE
IMPEACHABLE ADVANCES, YOU WILL
EXPAND THE SPACE FOR EXECUTIVE
CONDUCT. THAT WAS THE CAUTION
OF PROFESSOR TURLEY IN 1998
WITH, THE IMPEACHMENT OF
PRESIDENT CLINTON. WITH THAT
CAUTION, IT SHOULD GUIDE US ALL
TODAY. BY ANY ACCOUNTS, THAT
WARNING IS MORE APPLICABLE TO
THE POWER THAT WE ARE
CONTEMPLATING TODAY. AS WE ALL
KNOW, THESE ABUSES GO UNCHECKED
THEY WILL ONLY CONTINUE AND
ONLY GROW WORSE. EACH OF US
TOOK AN OATH TO DEFEND THE
CONSTITUTION. THE PRESIDENT IS
A CONTINUING THREAT TO THE
CONSTITUTION AND TO OUR
DEMOCRACY. I HONOR MY OATH AND
AS I SIT HERE TODAY, WE HEARD
CONSISTENT AND COMPELLING
EVIDENCE THAT THE PRESIDENT AS
ABUSED HIS POWER, TENDED TO
UNDERMINE THE UNCONDITIONAL
ROLE OF CONGRESS AND CORRUPTED
OUR ELECTIONS AND I URGE MY
COLLEAGUES TO STAND BEHIND THE
OLD YOU HAVE TAKEN AND THE
DEMOCRACY DEPENDS ON IT AND
THIS CONCLUDES TODAY'S HEARING.
>> MISTER CHAIRMAN -- WERE
PURSUING TO COMMITTEE RULE
EIGHT, I'M FILING THIS UNDER
MORAL CONSTITUTION ON THE
PRESIDENT. WE
>> NOTED. MISTER
>> CHAIRMAN --
>> THIS CONCLUDES TODAY'S
HEARING AND WE THANK ALL THEIR
WITNESSES AND WITHOUT OBJECTION,
ALL MEMBERS OF FIVE DAYS TO
SUBMIT ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS FOR
THE WITNESSES.
>> WE HAVE A REQUEST.
>> TOO LATE. WITHOUT OBJECTION
THE HEARING IS ADJOURNED
>> THAT IS JUST TYPICAL
