
Spanish: 
>>> ESTE ES UN INFORME ESPECIAL
LAS AUDIENCIAS DEL JUICIO PO
I
POLÍTICO CON LESTER HOLT
ESTAMOS EN VIVO CON LAS 
AUDIENCIAS SIGUE LA 
INVESTIGACIÓN MIENTRAS EL PR
D
PRESIDENTE SE REÚNE CON SUS 

English: 
>>> THIS IS AN NBC NEWS SPECIAL 
REPORT.
THE IMPEACHMENT HEARINGS.
HERE'S LESTER HOLT. 
>> WE'RE COMING ON TO BRING YOU 
LIVE COVERAGE OF THE HOUSE 
JUDICIARY COMMITTEE.
A IMPORTANT NEW PHASE IN THIS 
INQUIRY IS UNFOLDING JUST AS THE
PRESIDENT HIMSELF IS MEETING 
WITH ALLIED LEADERS IN LONDON TO
MARK THE 70th ANNIVERSARY OF 
NATO AND WHERE IN A SURPRISE 

Spanish: 
ALIADOS EN LONDRES POR EL 
ANIVERSARIO DE LA OTAN, HACE 
UNOS MOMENTOS CANCELÓ UNA 
CONFERENCIA DE PRENSA
VAMOS CON KRISTEN WELKER QUE 
ACOMPAÑA AL PRESIDENTE Y NOS 
CONTARÁ MÁS
>>> LESTER ESTO ES IMPRE
IMPRESIONANTE, EL PRESIDENTE 
CANCELÓ LA CONFERENCIA DE PRENSA
Y SE FUE ANTES. EL QUERÍA QUE 
ESTA REUNIÓN FUERA UNA 
OPORTUNIDAD PARA DEMOSTRAR SU 
LIDERAZGO.SE HA VISTO ENVUELTO 
EN MÁS POLÉMICA, ESTE TUIT 
AVANZA EN LA CANCELACIÓN DE LA 
CONFERENCIA, ESCRIBIÓ QUE 
VOLVERÍA A WASHINGTON PERO QUE 

English: 
DEVELOPMENT HE CANCELLED A NEWS 
CONFERENCE THAT HAD BEEN 
SCHEDULED TO END WITHIN THE 
HOUR.
LET'S GO RIGHT TO CHRISTIAN 
WELKER COVERING THE PRESIDENT IN
LONDON AND SHE CAN WALK US 
THROUGH WHAT TRANSPIRED HERE IN 
THE LAST SEVERAL HOURS. 
>> IT'S JUST BEEN A REMARKABLE 
TURN OF EVENT.
AS YOU SAY PRESIDENT TRUMP 
CANCELLING A PLANNED PRESS 
CONFERENCE.
HE'S GOING TO HOLD A FEW MORE 
MEETINGS AND THEN HEAD HOME 
EARLY.
HE WANTED THIS NATO TRIP TO BE A
CHANCE FOR HIM TO SHOW 
LEADERSHIP ON THE WORLD STAGE TO
TRY TO TURN THE PAGE AT LEAST 
TEMPORARILY FROM THE IMPEACHMENT
HEARINGS BACK AT HOME AND YET HE
HAS BEEN BESET BY NEW 
CONTROVERSIES.
LET ME READ YOU THE TWEET AND 
THEN GIVE YOU THE BROADER 
CONTEXT.
THE PRESIDENT TWEETED WHEN 
TODAY'S MEETINGS ARE OVER, I 
WILL BE HEADING BACK TO 
WASHINGTON.
I WON'T BE DOING A PRESS 
CONFERENCE AT THE CLOSE OF NATO 
BECAUSE WE DID SO MANY OVER THE 
PAST TWO DAYS.
SAFE TRAVELS TO ALL.
NOW THIS COMES AFTER A STUNNING 
PIECE OF VIDEO EMERGED OVERNIGHT

Spanish: 
NO HARÍA OTRA CONFERENCIA PORQUE
HUBO MUCHAS. BUEN VIAJE A TODOS
ESTO, LUEGO DE QUE EN UN VÍDEO 
SE VIERA AL PRIMER MINISTRO DE 
CANADÁ, AL FRANCÉS, Y AL 
BRITÁNICO QUE PARECEN BURLARSE 
DE TRUMP, AUNQUE NO LO MENC
N
MENCIONAN. HABLAN DE QUE DEMORÓ 
LAS REUNIONES, HACEN OTRAS 
BURLAS. EL PRESIDENTE TRUMP 
RESPONDIÓ, VEAMOS LOS VÍDEOS.
SON FALSOS. PERO ES UNA BUENA 
PERSONA.

English: 
SHOWING SOME OF THE PRESIDENT'S 
CLOSEST ALLIES.
THE PRIME MINISTER OF CANADA, 
JUSTIN TRUDEAX, THE PRIME 
MINISTER OF THE U.K., BORIS 
JOHNSON APPEARING TO MOCK 
PRESIDENT TRUMP ALTHOUGH THEY 
DIDN'T MENTION HIM BY NAME.
BUT THEY TALKED ABOUT THE FACT 
THAT HE TOOK SO MANY QUESTIONS 
DURING THEIR BILATERAL MEETINGS 
WITH HIM THAT HE ESSENTIALLY 
HELD UP THE DAY.
THEY MOCKED HIM IN OTHER WAYS.
PRESIDENT TRUMP RESPONDED 
CALLING HIM TWO FACED.
TAKE A LOOK AT THOSE PIECES OF 
VIDEO.
>> WELL, HE'S TWO FACED.
AND HONESTLY, HE'S A NICE GUY.
I FIND HIM TO BE A VERY NICE 
GUY. 
>> SO PRESIDENT TRUMP CALLING 
HIM TWO FACED AND IT COMES AMID 
TENSIONS WITH OTHER WORLD 
LEADERS OVER A RANGE OF 
DIFFERENT ISSUES HERE.
BUT THE BIG TAKE AWAY IS THAT 

English: 
PRESIDENT TRUMP WAS GOING TO USE
THIS PRESS CONFERENCE TO TRY TO 
COUNTER PROGRAM WHAT IS 
HAPPENING IN WASHINGTON.
THIS IMPEACHMENT HEARING THAT IS
ABOUT TO GET UNDERWAY. 
>> THERE'S THE HEARING ROOM.
KEEP IN MIND, NO FACT WITNESSES 
TODAY.
THIS WILL BE A CHANCE FOR THE 
MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE TO HEAR
FROM CONSTITUTIONAL SCHOLARS TO 
TALK ABOUT THE MEANING OF 
IMPEACHMENT.
WHAT RISES TO THE LEVEL OF 
IMPEACHMENT.
SO IT WILL STILL BE A SPIRITED 
DISCUSSION BECAUSE THIS IS A 
FAIRLY PARTISAN COMMITTEE HERE.
THEY NOW HAVE THAT SCATHING 
IMPEACHMENT REPORT.
WHAT IS NEXT IN ALL OF THIS. 
>> WELL, WITH THIS HEARING 

Spanish: 
EL PRESIDENTE TRUMP DIJO QUE 
TRUDEAU ERA HIPOCRÁTICA, EN 
RESUMEN EN LA CONFERENCIA EL 
PRESIDENTE INTENTARÍA CON
CONTRARRESTAR LA AUDIENCIA QUE 
VA A COMENZAR EN WASHINGTON, 
PERO DECIDIÓ IRSE ANTES POR LAS 
TENSIONES
>>> GRACIAS KRISTEN, ESA ES LA 
SALA, NO HABRÁ TESTIGOS HOY SINO
EXPERTOS CONSTITUCIONALES PARA 
HABLAR DEL SIGNIFICADO DEL 
PROCESO. SERÁ UNA DISCUSIÓN 
ACALORADA PORQUE ESTE COMITÉ ES 
MUY PARTIDARIO. VAMOS CON 
NUESTRO CORRESPONSAL EN EL 
CAPITOLIO.
SE ENTREGÓ EL INFORME, QUE SI
E

Spanish: 
SIGUE?
>>> INICIA UN NUEVO CAPÍTULO, A 
LA ETAPA DE JUICIO. EL COMITÉ DE
INTELIGENCIA HIZO CINCO DÍAS DE 
AUDIENCIA DONDE MOSTRÓ LA 
EVIDENCIA, A HORAS ANALIZARÁ LOS
ARGUMENTOS LEGALES. HOY SE 
ESCUCHARÁ CUATRO EXPERTOS QUE 
EXPLICARÁN LAS BASES PARA EL 
JUICIO POLÍTICO, Y LA ACTUACIÓN 
DEL PRESIDENTE SI ES SUFICIENTE 
PARA QUE SE LO RETIRE DE SU 
CARGO. SE USARÁ EL MISMO FORMATO
ANTERIOR.
ESTE COMITÉ TIENE EL DOBLE DE 
TAMAÑO Y TIENE LA REPUTACIÓN DE 
SER MÁS PARTIDARIO.
ESTA SECCIÓN SERÁ USADA POR LOS 

English: 
TODAY, THE TRUMP IMPEACHMENT 
INQUIRY ENTERS A NEW CHAPTER.
ONE WAY TO THINK ABOUT IT IS THE
HOUSE INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE 
LAYED OUT ALL OF THE EVIDENCE.
NOW THE HOUSE JUDICIARY 
COMMITTEE WILL LAYOUT THE LAW.
NOW THEY'RE SET TO HEAR FROM 
FOUR WITNESSES AND FOUR 
CONSTITUTIONAL SCHOLARS THAT 
WILL HELP EXPLAIN THE 
CONSTITUTIONAL BASIS FOR 
IMPEACHMENT AND WHETHER HE 
CONDUCTS HIS INTERACTION WITH 
HIS UKRAINIAN COUNTER PART MEETS
THE BAR FOR REMOVAL FROM OFFICE.
THEY'RE USING THE SAME FORMAT 
FOR INTERVIEWING WITNESSES BUT 
THAT'S WHERE THE SIMILARITIES 
END BECAUSE TO YOUR POINT, THIS 
COMMITTEE IS JUST AS LARGE, IN 
FACT, IT'S TWICE AS LARGE AND 
HAS A WELL EARNED REPUTATION FOR
BEING MORE PARTISAN, YOU MIGHT 
SAY A MORE ROWDY BUNCH.
THEY USE THIS TO SHARPEN THE 
CASE FOR IMPEACHMENT AND YOU CAN
BET HOUSE REPUBLICANS ARE GOING 
TO DO WHAT THEY CAN TO UNDERMINE

English: 
IT.
>> THANK YOU, JOINING US THIS 
MORNING IS CHUCK TODD AND ANDREA
MITCHELL AND WITH ME HERE IN THE
STUDIO JUSTICE DEPARTMENT 
VETERAN AND LEGAL ANALYST CHUCK 
ROSENBERG.
JEFF LAYED OUT THE ENVIRONMENT 
OF THIS PARTICULAR COMMITTEE.
THESE CONSTITUTIONAL SCHOLARS, 
DO THEY COME IN -- THEY COME IN 
OBVIOUSLY PICKED BY ONE SIDE OR 
THE OTHER BUT DO WE VIEW THEM 
THROUGH A PARTISAN LENSES OR A 
FACT-BASED LENSES?
>> THAT WAS ONE OF THE QUESTIONS
THAT I HAD.
I STARTED READING THEIR OPENING 
STATEMENTS, AT LEAST THE FIRST 
TWO.
NOAH FELDMAN FROM HARVARD AND 
PAMELA ARE TAKING A POSITION 
THAT THE PRESIDENT OUGHT TO BE 
IMPEACHED FOR HIS CONDUCT.
I DIDN'T KNOW IF THEY WERE JUST 
GOING TO DRIVE DOWN THE MIDDLE 
OF THE ROAD AND ANALYZE THAT THE
IMPEACHMENT CLAUSES OF THE 
CONSTITUTION MEAN OR TRY TO 
APPLY THE FACTS WE HAVE DEDUCED 
TO THE LAW AS WE KNOW IT.
THEY SEEM TO BE TAKING A 
POSITION.
SO I'M VERY CURIOUS TO SEE HOW 

Spanish: 
DEMÓCRATAS PARA INSISTIR EN QUE 
EL JUICIO POLÍTICO ES NECESARIO,
LOS REPUBLICANOS HARÁ LO OPUESTO
>>> GGRACIAS, VAMOS CON NUESTROS
EXPERTOS  EN EL LA CAPITAL, 
LONDRES Y EN EL ESTUDIO.
CHUCK,, YA VIMOS EL AMBIENTE, 
ESTOS EXPERTOS SON ELEGIDOS POR 
AMBOS  PARTIDOS, DEBEMOS 
CONSIDERARLOS ASÍ?
>>> EN SUS DECLARACIONES 
INICIALES, AL MENOS LOS DOS 
PRIMEROS DIRÁN QUE EL PRESIDENTE
DEBE SER SOMETIDO A JUICIO 
POLÍTICO POR SU CONDUCTA. NO SE 
SI SE ANALIZARÁN LAS CLÁUSULAS 
DE LA CONSTITUCIÓN EN EL CASO DE

English: 
THAT PLAYS OUT IN FRONT OF THE 
MEMBERS OF THE HOUSE JUDICIARY 
COMMITTEE. 
>> I DON'T THINK A LOT OF IT IS 
GOING TO COME OUT OF IT BUT 
DISCUSSIONS ABOUT HOW MUCH DO 
YOU INCLUDE IN IT?
WHAT IS THE DEFINITION OF AN 
IMPEACHMENT OFFENSE.
YOU'RE GOING TO SEE SOME ON THE 
DEMOCRATIC SIDE LOOK FOR THE 
ABILITY TO EXPAND THE DEFINITION
OF WHAT FITS INTO WHAT SHOULD BE
CONSIDERED IMPEACHMENT BUT YOU 
GET TO SOMETHING THAT I THINK IS
A BIT OF A CONUNDRUM IS THEIR 
REPORT REVEALED THEY HAVE MORE 
LEADS TO FOLLOW UP.
NOW THEY CAN'T FOLLOW UP SOME OF
THEM BECAUSE THE WHITE HOUSE AND
RUDY GIULIANI AND VARIOUS 
PLAYERS AREN'T COOPERATING SO 
THEY'RE AT A STAND STILL AND YET
THEY DID SAY ONE OF THE 
ASSOCIATES OF RUDY GIULIANI IS 

Spanish: 
LOS OTROS DOS. CREO QUE TOMARÁN 
UNA POSICIÓN Y YA VEREMOS COMO 
SE DA LA SITUACIÓN.
>>> CHUCK,  VIMOS NUEVA 
EVIDENCIA, LOS REGISTRO 
TELEFÓNICOS QUE DICEN QUE ESTO 
VA MÁS ALLÁ DEL PRESIDENTE,, 
CUANDO SE MENCIONARÁ AQUÍ?
>>> NO CREO QUE MUCHO, SINO QUE 
CONSTITUYE UNA OFENSA QUE J
JUSTIFIQUE UN JUICIO POLÍTICO.
L
LOS DEMÓCRATAS TRATARÁN DE 
AMPLIAR ESTA DEFINICIÓN MIENTRAS
ANALIZAN INCLUIR MÁS 
ANTECEDENTES. PERO ELLOS 
ENFRENTAN UNA COMPLICACIÓN, NO 
PUEDEN SEGUIR ALGUNAS PISTAS 
PORQUE LA CASA BLANCA, RUDY 

Spanish: 
GIULIANI Y OTROS NO COOPERAN, SI
DIJERON QUE UN CERCANO DE RUDY 
GIULIANI HA RESPONDIDO A LOS 
DOCUMENTOS SOLICITADOS. NO SE 
CUANTO IREMOS SOBRE ESO HOY, P
R
PERO ES UNA DECISIÓN DIFÍCIL 
PARA LOS DEMÓCRATAS CONSIDERANDO
LOS PLAZOS Y LA OPCIÓN DE LOS 
REPUBLICANOS.
>>> ESCUCHAMOS EL MARTILLO, 
VAMOS A LA AUDIENCIA QUE YA 

English: 
STARTING TO DELIVER SOME -- OR 
RESPOND TO THE SUBPOENA FOR 
DOCUMENTS THAT THEY WERE ASKING 
FOR.
WHY STOP THIS INVESTIGATION.
?
AND I DON'T KNOW HOW MUCH WE 
HEAR ABOUT THAT TODAY BUT I 
THINK IT IS A CONUNDRUM THE 
HOUSE DEMOCRATS HAVE WHERE THEY 
LOOK AT THE POLITICAL CALENDAR 
AND THE POLITICAL SITUATION AND 
THE ROAD BLOCK ON THE REPUBLICAN
SIDE AND YET THEY FOLLOW THESE 
LEADS. 
>> YOU HEARD THE GAVEL FALL.
THE CHAIRMAN GERALD NADLER AND 
YOU'LL ALSO HEAR FROM THE 
RANKING MEMBER DOUG COLLINS.
LET'S TAKE YOU TO THE HEARING 

English: 
ROOM NOW AS THIS HEARING BEGINS.
>>> WELL, THE MICS ARE OPEN.
THEY SEEM TO BE IN PLACE BUT THE
HEARING HAS NOT BEGUN.
HOW IMPORTANT IS IT -- 
>> THE HOUSE COMMITTEE ON THE 
JUDICIARY WILL COME TO ORDER.
MR. CHAIRMAN, YOU ARE RESERVING 
THE RIGHT TO OBJECT. 
>> OBJECTION IS NOTED.
I RESERVE THE RIGHT TO OBJECT.
>>. 
>> PURSUANT TO CLAUSE RULE 11 
MINORITY DAY OF HEARINGS ON THIS
SUBJECT SIGNED BY ALL THE 
R
REPUBLICAN MEMBERS. 
>> I COULD NOT UNDERSTAND WHAT 
YOU WERE SAYING. 
>> PURSUANT TO CLAUSE 2-J-1 OF 
RULE 11 I'M FURNISHING YOU WITH 
DEMAND FOR MINORITY DAY OF 
HEARINGS ON THIS SUBJECT SIGNED 
BY ALL THE REPUBLICAN MEMBERS OF
THE COMMITTEE AND I WOULD 

Spanish: 
COMIENZA.
>>> BUENO, LOS MICRÓFONOS ESTÁN 
ABIERTOS,, QUIZÁ FUE UN ERROR YA
QUE LA AUDIENCIA NO HA COME
O
COMENZADO. NO PREGUNTAMOS CUÁL 
ES LA IMPORTANCIA
>>> EL COMITÉ PIDE ORDEN. SE P
E
PUEDE HACER UN RECESO EN 
CUALQUIER MOMENTO. HAY DERECHO 
OBJETAR.
SEÑOR PRESIDENTE, PIDO LA 
SUSPENSIÓN. A PARTIR DE LA NORMA
11 PIDO AUDIENCIAS DE MINORÍA, 

English: 
REQUEST THAT YOU SET THIS DATE 
BEFORE THE COMMITTEE VOTES ON 
ANY ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT.
>> I WITH DRAW MY RESERVATION.
>> WE WILL RULE ON THIS LATER.
DECORUM IS PRESENT.
THIS IS THE FIRST HEARING 
PURSUANT TO HOUSE RESOLUTION 660
AND THE SPECIAL PROCEDURES THAT 
ARE DESCRIBED IN SECTION 4-A OF 
THAT RESOLUTION.
HERE'S HOW THE COMMITTEE WILL 
PROCEED FOR THIS HEARING.
I WILL MAKE AN OPENING STATEMENT
AND RECOGNIZE THE RANKING MEMBER
FOR AN OPENING STATEMENT.
EACH WITNESS WILL HAVE TEN 
MINUTES TO MAKE THEIR STATEMENTS
AND THEN WE WILL PROCEED TO 
QUESTIONS.
I WILL NOW RECOGNIZE MYSELF FOR 
AN OPENING STATEMENT. 
>> MR. CHAIRMAN, PARLIAMENTARY 
INQUIRY.
>> I HAVE THE TIME FOR AN 
OPENING STATEMENT.

Spanish: 
SOLICITÓ  FIRMADA POR TODOS LOS 
MIEMBROS REPUBLICANOS DEL CO
E
COMITÉ.
>>> RETIRÓ MI RESERVA. VAMOS A 
CONFIRMAR ESTO MÁS TARDE. ESTA
E
ES LA PRIMERA AUDIENCIA QUE 
REALIZAMOS EN BASE A LA 
RESOLUCIÓN 66, EEN BASE A LOS 
PROCEDIMIENTOS DESCRITOS EN LA 
MISMA. ASÍ PROCEDER AL COMITÉ,  
HARÉ UNA DECLARACIÓN INICIAL 
LUEGO LO HARÁ EL MICRO DE MAYOR 
RANGO. CADA TESTIGO TENDRÁ 10 
MINUTOS Y LUEGO PASAREMOS A LAS 
PREGUNTAS. AGUA HORA MI DEC
C
DECLARACIÓN INICIAL
>>> SEÑOR PRESIDENTE

Spanish: 
>>> TENGO TIEMPO PARA UNA 
DECLARACIÓN NO PARA UNA 
INTERVENCIÓN PARLAMENTARIA. NO 
HAY DUDA DE QUE EL 25 DE JULIO
E
EL PRESIDENTE TRUMP LLAMÓ A SU 
PAR DE UCRANIA Y LE PIDIÓ UN 
FAVOR.
EL PRESIDENTE Y SUS HOMBRES 
QUERÍAN VENTAJA EN LA PRÓXIMA 
ELECCIÓN, COMO UNA INVESTIGACIÓN
A SUS ADVERSARIOS POLÍTICOS. 
PARA OBTENER ESA VENTAJA 
POLÍTICA, EL PRESIDENTE RETUVO Y
DEMORÓ UNA REUNIÓN SOLICITADA LA
CASA BLANCA Y ASISTENCIA MILITAR
CLAVE PARA UN ALIADO VULNERABLE.
CUANDO EL CONGRESO SE ENTERÓ Y 
COMENZÓ A INVESTIGAR, EL 
PRESIDENTE TRUMP  HIZO LO 
IMPOSIBLE PARA CUBRIR LAS 
RASTROS DE LO QUE HABÍA HECHO. 

English: 
THE FACTS BEFORE US ARE 
UNDISPUTED.
ON JULY 25th, PRESIDENT TRUMP 
CALLED PRESIDENT ZALENSKI OF 
UKRAINE AND IN PRESIDENT TRUMP'S
WORDS ASKED HIM FOR A FAVOR.
THAT 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 GOVERNMENT.
HE 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 
INVESTIGATE, PRESIDENT TRUMP 
TOOK EXTRAORDINARY AND 
UNPRECEDENTED STEPS TO COVER UP 
HIS EFFORTS AND TO WITH HOLD 
EVIDENCE FROM THE INVESTIGATORS.
AND WHEN WITNESSES DISOBEYED 

English: 
HIM, WHEN CAREER PROFESSIONALS 
CAME FORWARD AND TOLD US THE 
TRUTH, HE ATTACKED THEM 
VICIOUSLY CALLING THEM TRAITORS 
AND LIARS AND PROMISING THEY 
WOULD GO THROUGH SOME THINGS, 
CLOSED QUOTE.
OF COURSE THIS IS NOT THE FIRST 
TIME THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP HAS 
ENGAGED IN THIS PATTERN OF 
CONDUCT.
IN 2016, THE RUSSIAN GOVERNMENT 
ENGAGED IN A SWEEPING AND 
SYSTEMATIC CAMPAIGN OF 
INTERFERENCE IN OUR ELECTIONS.
IN THE WORDS OF SPECIAL COUNSEL 
ROBERT MUELLER, QUOTE, THE 
RUSSIAN GOVERNMENT PERCEIVED IT 
WOULD BENEFIT FROM A TRUMP 
PRESIDENCY AND WORKED TO SECURE 
THAT OUTCOME.
THE PRESIDENT WELCOMED THAT 
INTERFERENCE.
WE SAW THIS IN REAL TIME WHEN 
PRESIDENT TRUMP ASKED RUSSIA TO 
HACK HIS POLITICAL OPPONENTS.
THE NEXT DAY A RUSSIAN MILITARY 
INTELLIGENCE UNIT ATTEMPTED TO 
HACK THAT POLITICAL OPPONENT.
WHEN HIS OWN JUSTICE DEPARTMENT 
TRIED TO UNCOVER THE EXTENT TO 

Spanish: 
CUANDO LOS TESTIGOS LO DESOVE 10
DESOBEDECIERON Y CONTARON LA 
VERDAD, FUERON ATACADOS 
DURAMENTE,, LLAMADOS TRAIDORES Y
MENTIROSOS.
ESTA NO ES LA PRIMERA VEZ  EN 
QUE EL PRESIDENTE HA SEGUIDO 
ESTE PATRÓN DE CONDUCTA. EN 
2016, EL GOBIERNO RUSO REALIZÓ 
UNA CAMPAÑA DE INTERFERENCIA  EN
NUESTRA REUNIÓN. EL INFORME  DE 
ROBERT MUELLER DICE "QUE EL 
GOBIERNO RUSO TRABAJÓ EN PRO DEL
RESULTADO FAVORABLE PARA TRUMP".
VIMOS ESTO EN VIVO CUANDO EL 
PRESIDENTE PIDIÓ A RUSIA JA QUE 
HARÁ SU OPONENTE, COSA QUE 
INTENTE TO HACER  AL DÍA 

English: 
WHICH A FOREIGN GOVERNMENT 
UNCOVERED OUR LAWS, PRESIDENT 
TRUMP TOOK EXTRAORDINARY AND 
UNPRECEDENTED STEPS TO ORDER 
SUBPOENAS AND ORDER THE 
CREATIONS OF FALSE RECORDS AND 
PUBLICLY ATTACKING AND 
INTIMIDATING WITNESSES.
THEN NOW THIS ADMINISTRATION'S 
LEVEL OF OBSTRUCTION SOUTHERN 
LAND WITHOUT PRECEDENT.
NO OTHER PRESIDENT VOWED TO 
QUOTE FIGHT ALL THE SUBPOENAS, 
UNQUOTE, AS PRESIDENT TRUMP 
PROMISED.
IN THE 1974 IMPEACHMENT 
PROCEEDINGS PRESIDENT NIXON 
PRODUCED DOZENS OF RECORDINGS.
IN 1998, PRESIDENT CLINTON 
PHYSICALLY GAVE HIS BLOOD.
PRESIDENT TRUMP BY CONTRAST HAS 
REFUSED TO PRODUCE A SINGLE 
DOCUMENT AND DIRECTED EVERY 
WITNESS NOT TO TESTIFY.
THOSE ARE THE FACTS BEFORE US.
THE IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY MOVED 
BACK TO THE HOUSE JUDICIARY 
COMMITTEE AND AS WE BEGIN A 
REVIEW OF THE FACTS, THE 

Spanish: 
SIGUIENTE. CUANDO EL 
DEPARTAMENTO DE JUSTICIA TRATÓ 
DE DAR A CONOCER LA AMPLITUD DE 
ESTA INTROMISIÓN, EL PRESIDENTE 
OBSTRUYÓ LA INVESTIGACIÓN, 
IGNORÓ CITACIONES, SOLICITUDES 
DE DOCUMENTOS Y ATACÓ E INTIMIÓO
A TESTIGOS. EL NIVEL DE 
OBSTRUCCIÓN DE ESTE GOBIERNO NO 
TIENE PRECEDENTES. NINGÚN 
PRESIDENTE HA PROMETIDO LUCHAR 
CONTRA LA CITACIONES COMO LO HA 
HECHO EL. EN 1974, EL PRESIDENTE
NIXON ENTREGÓ LOS ANTECEDENTES 
SOLICITADOS, EL PRESIDENTE 
CLINTON SE HIZO UN EXAMEN DE 
SANGRE. EL PRESIDENTE TRUMP SOLO
ENTREGÓ UN DOCUMENTO  Y PIDIÓ A 
LOS TESTIGOS NO HABLAR. ESOS SON
LOS HECHOS.

Spanish: 
LA INVESTIGACIÓN REGRESA A 
NUESTRO COMITÉ PARA REVISAR LOS 
HECHOS QUE DEJAN CLARO EL 
COMPORTAMIENTO DEL PRESIDENTE 
QUE AGRADECIÓ ESTA INTROMISIÓN 
EXTRANJERA EN LA ELECCIÓN DE 
2016 Y LA EXIGIÓ  PARA 2020. EN 
AMBAS OPORTUNIDADES FUE 
DESCUBIERTO Y EN AMBAS HIZO LO 
POSIBLE POR EVITAR QUE EL PUEBLO
SE ENTERARA DE LO QUE HABÍA 
HECHO.
EL 24 DE JULIO UN TESTIGO HABLÓ 
ANTE NOSOTROS, NOS PIDIÓ SER 
CONSCIENTES DEL RIESGO PARA EL 
PAÍS. DIJO,  HE VISTO A NUESTRA 
DEMOCRACIA EN RIESGO,, LA 
INTROMISIÓN RUSA  ES DE LOS MÁS 
GRAVES Y TODOS LOS ES
ESTADOUNIDENSES DEBERÍAN 
PREOCUPARSE.
EL PRESIDENTE TRUMP LLAMÓ A SU 

English: 
PRESIDENT'S PATTERN OF BEHAVIOR 
BECOMES CLEAR.
PRESIDENT TRUMP WELCOMED FOREIGN
INTERFERENCE IN THE 2016 
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.
THE SPECIAL COUNSEL TESTIFIED 
BEFORE THIS COMMITTEE.
HE EMPLORED US TO SEE THE THREAT
TO THIS COUNTRY.
OVER THE COURSE OF MY CAREER I 
HAVE SEEN A NUMBER OF CHALLENGES
TO OUR DEMOCRACY.
THE EFFORTS TO INTERFERE IN OUR 
ELECTIONS IS AMONG THE MOST 
SERIOUS.
THIS DESERVES THE ATTENTION OF 
EVERY AMERICAN, CLOSE QUOTE.
IGNORING THAT WARNING PRESIDENT 
TRUMP CALLED THE UKRAINIAN 
PRESIDENT THE NEXT DAY TO ASK 
HIM TO INVESTIGATE THE 
PRESIDENT'S POLITICAL OPPONENTS.

English: 
AS WE EXERCISE OUR 
RESPONSIBILITY TO DETERMINE 
WHETHER THIS PATTERN OF BEHAVIOR
CONSTITUTES AN IMPEACHMENT 
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 RE-SIGNED.
THIS COMMITTEE VOTED TO IMPEACH 
TWO PRESIDENTS FOR OBSTRUCTING 
JUSTICE.
WE VOTED TO IMPEACH ONE 
PRESIDENT FROM OBSTRUCTING A 
CONGRESSIONAL INVESTIGATION.
TO THE EXTENT IT FITS THESE 
CATEGORIES THERE'S PRECEDENT FOR
RECOMMENDING IMPEACHMENT HERE.
BUT NEVER BEFORE HAVE WE BEEN 
FORCED TO CONSIDER THE CONDUCT 
OF A PRESIDENT THAT APPEARS TO 
HAVE SOLICITED PERSONAL 
POLITICAL FAVORS FROM A FOREIGN 
GOVERNMENT.
NEVER BEFORE HAS A PRESIDENT 
ENGAGED IN THE COURSE OF CONDUCT
THAT INCLUDED ALL OF THE ACTS 

Spanish: 
PAR UCRANIANO AL DÍA SIGUIENTE Y
LE PIDIÓ INVESTIGAR A SU 
OPONENTE POLÍTICO, ANALIZAMOS SI
ESTE COMPORTAMIENTO  JUSTIFICA 
UN JUICIO POLÍTICO. BUSCA PONER 
EN CONTEXTO LA ACCIÓN DEL 
PRESIDENTE. DESDE SUS INICIOS,  
ESTE COMITÉ HA HECHO JUICIO 
POLÍTICO  SOLO A DOS PRESI
S
PRESIDENTES, EL TERCERO RENUNCÓO
EN PLENA INVESTIGACIÓN. SE HA 
VOTADO A FAVOR DE UNA IN
INVESTIGACIÓN DE UN PRESIDENTE 
POR OBSTRUCCIÓN. EN ESTE CASO  
TAMBIÉN SE RECOMIENDA. NUNCA 
ANTES EN NUESTRA HISTORIA 
HABÍAMOS DEBIDO ANALIZAR EL 
COMPORTAMIENTO UN PRESIDENTE QUE
PARECE HABER PEDIDO FAVORES 
POLÍTICOS A UN GOBIERNO 

Spanish: 
EXTRANJERO. NUNCA UN PRESIDENTE 
HABÍA REALIZADO UNA CONDUCTA 
COMO ESTA. LOS PATRIOTAS QUE 
FUNDARON NUESTRO PAÍS NO ERAN 
TEMEROSOS, FUERON A LA GUERRA, 
VIVIERON LA VIOLENCIA, 
DERRIBARON A UN REY, PERO AÚN 
TEMÍAN UNA GRAN AMENAZA, LA 
INTERVENCIÓN EXTRANJERA EN 
NUESTRAS ELECCIONES. LES 
PREOCUPABA QUE NUESTRA LIBERTAD 
SE VEÍA AMENAZADA POR CORRUPCIÓN
INTERNA.
EN LOS PRIMEROS AÑOS DE NUESTRA 
REPÚBLICA NOS PIDIERON ESTAR 
ATENTOS. WASHINGTON PIDIÓ ESTAR 
CONSCIENTES Y ATENTOS A LA 
INFLUENCIA EXTRANJERA.
ADAMS ESCRIBIÓ, "MIENTRAS HAYA 

English: 
THAT MOST CONCERNED THE FRAMERS.
THE PATRIOTS THAT FOUNDED OUR 
COUNTRY WERE NOT FEARFUL MEN.
BEFORE THE WAR THEY WITNESSED 
TERRIBLE VIOLENCE.
THEY OVERTHREW A KING.
AS THEY MET THE FRAME WORK OF 
THE CONSTITUTION, THOSE PATRIOTS
STILL FEARING ONE THREAT ABOVE 
ALL.
BARRING INTERFERENCE IN OUR 
ELECTIONS.
THEY JUST OPPOSED THE TYRANT.
THEY WERE DEEPLY WORRIED THAT WE
WOULD LOSE OUR NEWFOUND LIBERTY 
NOT THROUGH A FOREIGN WAR BUT 
THROUGH CORRUPTION FROM WITHIN 
AND IN THE EARLY YEARS OF THE 
REPUBLIC THEY ASKED EACH OF US 
TO BE VIGILANT TO THAT THREAT.
WASHINGTON WARNED US TO BE 
CONSTANTLY AWAKE SINCE HISTORY 
AND EXPERIENCE PROVE THAT 
FOREIGN INFLUENCE IS ONE OF THE 
MOST VAINFUL FOES OF REPUBLICAN 
GOVERNMENT.
HAMILTON'S WARNING WAS MORE 
SPECIFIC AND MORE DIER.

Spanish: 
ELECCIONES, PERSISTE EL RIESGO  
DE INJERENCIA EXTRANJERA".
HAMILTON EESCRIBIÓ QUE EL PEOR 
ADVERSARIO PARA LA REPÚBLICA  
SERÍA CREAR UNA CRIATURA QUE 
AMENAZARA LA UNIÓN.
NOS PODRÍAMOS ENCONTRAR EN 
PELIGRO SI EL PRESIDENTE ABRE LA
PUERTA A ESTA INJERENCIA. QUE 
CLASE DE PRESIDENTE HARÍA ESO?
COMO SABER SI EL PRESIDENTE HA 
TRAICIONADO A SU PAÍS?
COMO SABER SI LO HA HECHO POR UN
BENEFICIO PERSONAL?
ESO QUEREMOS RESPONDER COMO LO 
HIZO HAMILTON "UN HOMBRE 

English: 
IN THE FEDERALIST PAPERS HE 
WROTE THAT THE MOST DEADLY 
ADVERSARIES OF REPUBLICAN 
GOVERNMENT WOULD ALMOST 
CERTAINLY ATTEMPT TO RAISE A 
CREATURE OF THEIR OWN TO THE 
CHIEF MAGISTRY OF THE UNION.
WE SHOULD EXPECT OUR FOREIGN 
ADVERSARIES TO TARGET OUR 
ELECTIONS AND FIND OURSELVES IN 
GREAT DANGER IF THE PRESIDENT 
WILLINGLY OPENS THE DOOR TO 
THEIR INFLUENCE.
WHAT KIND OF PRESIDENT WOULD DO 
THAT.
HOW WOULD WE KNOW IF THE 
PRESIDENT BETRAYED HIS COUNTRY 
IN THIS MANNER?
HOW WILL WE KNOW IF HE BETRAYED 
HIS COUNTRY IN THIS MANNER FOR 
PERSONAL GAIN.
HAMILTON HAD A RESPONSE TO THAT 
AS WELL.
HE WROTE WHEN A MAN ON 
PRINCIPLED AND PRIVATE LIFE 
DESPERATE IN HIS FORTUNE AND 

Spanish: 
DESESPERADO, CONOCIDO POR EN 
CONTRA DE LOS PRINCIPIOS DE LA 
LIBERTAD, TAL HOMBRE PODRÍA SER 
POPULAR, APROVECHAR CUALQUIER 
OPORTUNIDAD PARA VEN CURSAR EL 
GOBIERNO Y HACERLO VÍCTIMA DE 
SOSPECHA. SU OBJETIVO SERÍA 
CAUSAR CONFUSIÓN  Y APROVECHAR 
DE DIRIGIR.
SEÑORAS Y SEÑORES,  LA TORMENTA 
QUE ENFRENTAMOS  FUE INICIADA 
POR EL PRESIDENTE TRUMP, NO LE 
DESEO ESTO AL PAÍS,  NO ES UNA 
TAREA PLACENTERA, PERO JURAMOS 
PROTEGER LA CONSTITUCIÓN Y LOS 
HECHOS SON CLAROS. EL PRESIDENTE
NO SOLO BUSCÓ BENEFICIARSE DE LA
INTERVENCIÓN DE TERCEROS SINO 

English: 
BOLD IN HIS TEMPER POSSESS THE 
CONSIDERABLE TALENTS, WHEN SUCH 
A MAN MOUNT THE HOBBY HORSE OF 
POPULARITY TO JOIN THE CRY TO 
TAKE EVERY OPPORTUNITY OF 
EMBARRASSING THE GENERAL 
GOVERNMENT AND BRINGING IT UNDER
SUSPICION, IT MAY JUSTLY BE 
EXPECTED THAT HIS OBJECT IS TO 
THROW THINGS INTO CONFUSION THAT
HE MAY RIDE THE STORM AND DIRECT
THE WHIRLWIND.
LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, THE STORM 
IN WHICH WE FIND OURSELVES IN 
TODAY WAS SET IN MOTION BY 
PRESIDENT TRUMP.
I DO NOT WISH THIS MOMENT ON THE
COUNTRY.
IT IS NOT A PLEASANT TASK THAT 
WEEN UNDERTAKE TODAY.
HE INVITED FOREIGN INTERFERENCE 
IN OUR ELECTIONS.
HE USED THE POWERS OF HIS OFFICE

English: 
TO TRY TO MAKE IT HAPPEN.
HE SENT HIM TO MAKE SURE THAT 
THIS IS WHAT HE WANTED AND 
DEFINDED.
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 IN THE FIRST 
PLACE.
IT DOES NOT MATTER THAT 
PRESIDENT TRUMP FELT THAT THESE 
INVESTIGATIONS WERE UNFAIR TO 
HIM.
IT MATTERS THAT HE USED HIS 
OFFICE NOT NEARLY TO DEFEND 
HIMSELF BUT TO INSTRUCT 
INVESTIGATORS AT EVERY TURN.
WE ARE ALL AWARE THAT THE NEXT 
ELECTION IS LOOMING BUT WE CAN'T
WAIT FOR THE ELECTION TO ADDRESS
THE PRESENT CRISIS.
THE INTEGRITY OF THE ELECTION IS
ONE OF THE VERY THINGS AT STAKE.
HE HAS SHOWN US HIS PATTERN OF 
CONDUCT.
IF WE DO NOT ACT TO HOLD HIM IN 

Spanish: 
QUE LA PIDIÓ EXPLÍCITAMENTE, UÓO
SU PODER PARA TRATAR DE HACERLO,
ACLARÓ A SUS AGENCIAS QUE ESTO 
QUERÍA, ESTUVO DISPUESTO A PONER
EN RIEGO NUESTRA SEGURIDAD  POR 
SU BENEFICIO.
NO IMPORTA QUE FINALMENTE HAYA 
ENTREGADO LOS FONDOS, IMPORTA 
QUE HAYA PEDIDO OTRO GOBIERNO 
INTERFERIR. NO IMPORTA QUE EL 
CREA QUE ESTAS INVESTIGACIONES 
SON INJUSTAS, IMPORTA QUE USE SU
CARGO PARA DEFENDERSE Y PARA 
OBSTRUIR LAS INVESTIGACIONES.
ESTAMOS CONSCIENTES DE QUE SE 
ACERCA LA PRÓXIMA ELECCIÓN  PERO
NO PODEMOS ESPERAR PARA 
ENFRENTAR ESTA CRISIS. LA 
INTEGRIDAD DE ESA ELECCIÓN  ESÁA
EN JUEGO.

English: 
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.
>> OUR WITNESS PANEL WILL HELP 
US TO GUIDE THAT CONVERSATION.
IN A FEW DAYS WE WILL RECONVENE 
AND HEAR FROM COMMITTEES THAT 
WORK TO UNCOVER THE FACTS BEFORE
US AND WHEN WE APPLY THE 
CONSTITUTION TO THE FACTS.
IF IT'S TRUE THAT PRESIDENT 
TRUMP COMMITTED AN IMPEACHMENT 
OFFENSE OR MULTIPLE IMPEACHMENT 
OFFENSES WE MUST MOVE SWIFTLY TO
DO OUR DUTY AND CHARGE HIM 
ACCORDINGLY.
I THANK THE WITNESSES FROM BEING
THERE TODAY.

Spanish: 
EL PRESIDENTE  NOS HA MOSTRADO 
UN PATRÓN DE CONDUCTA, SI NO 
ACTUAMOS AHORA, DE SEGURO HARÁ 
OTRO INTENTO PORQUE HAYA 
INTERFERENCIA EXTRANJERA QUE LO 
FAVOREZCA EN LA ELECCIÓN. HOY 
COMENZAMOS LA CONVERSACIÓN 
BASADOS EN LA CONSTITUCIÓN. 
PROPONDREMOS EL JUICIO POLÍTICO 
SI SE CONCLUYE QUE COMETIÓ 
TRAICIÓN, SOBORNO U OTRO CRIMEN.
EN LOS PRÓXIMOS DÍAS, E
ESCUCHAREMOS A LOS COMITÉS QUE 
HAN ESTUDIADO ESTO. APLICAREMOS 
LA CONSTITUCIÓN A LOS HECHOS 
PARA DEFINIR SI ES VERDAD QUE EL
PRESIDENTE DEBERÍA ENFRENTAR EL 
JUICIO POLÍTICO. SI ES ASÍ,,  
DEBEREMOS CUMPLIR CON NUESTRO 

Spanish: 
DEBER. AGRADEZCO SU PRESENCIA A 
LOS TESTIGOS Y LE DOY LA PALABRA
HORA AL REPRESENTANTE.
>>> PUEDO HACER UNA SOLICITUD 
PARLAMENTARIA PRIMERO
>>> NNO ES EL MOMENTO, VAMOS A 
LA DECLARACIÓN INICIAL
>>> GGRACIAS PRESIDENTE, ESTAMOS
AQUÍ HOY EN UNA ARENA DISTINTA. 
PARA LOS QUE NO LE ESTADO AQUÍ, 
ES UNA NUEVA SALA, NUEVAS NO
S
NORMAS, QQUEREMOS DARLE LA 
IMPORTANCIA EL PROCESO PORQUE 
ESTE COMITÉ NO HIZO BIEN SU 
TRABAJO ANTES. NO ES NOVEDAD LO 
QUE DICHO EL PRESIDENTE, LOS 
HECHOS NO SON NUEVOS, EN LA 

English: 
THE GENTLEMAN FROM GEORGIA WITH 
HIS OPENING STATEMENT. 
>> MR. CHAIRMAN, MAY I MAKE A 
PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRY. 
>> I RECOGNIZE THE RANKING 
MEMBER FOR AN OPENING STATEMENT.
>> I BELIEVE SOME OF THE THINGS 
THAT I'M GOING TO DISCUSS TODAY 
BECAUSE WE'RE COMING HERE TODAY 
IN A DIFFERENT ARENA.
FOR EVERYBODY WHO HAS NOT BEEN 
HERE BEFORE IT'S A NEW ROOM, 
IT'S NEW RULES.
IT'S A NEW MONTH.
WE EVEN HAVE CUTE STICKERS SO WE
CAN COME IN AND MAKE THIS 
IMPORTANT AND THIS IS 
IMPEACHMENT BECAUSE WE HAVE DONE
SUCH A TERRIBLE JOB OF IT IN 
THIS COMMITTEE BEFORE BUT WHAT 
IS NOT NEW IS BASICALLY WHAT HAS
BEEN REITERATED BY THE CHAIRMAN.

Spanish: 
MISMA TRISTE HISTORIA. VOY A P
R
PARTIR CON LO QUE DIJO EL 
PRESIDENTE, VOLVIMOS AL INFORME 
DE ROBERT MUELLER QUE HABLA DE 
LA INJERENCIA EXTRANJERA, ESTOY 
DE ACUERDO, PERO A QUIEN EL 
COMITÉ NO HICIMOS NINGUNA 
AUDIENCIA PARA ENFRENTAR ESE 
PROBLEMA, HICIMOS PROYECTO DE 
LEY QUE NO APUNTAN AL CENTRO DE 
LO QUE DICE EL INFORME. ALGO 
INTERESANTE QUE ESCUCHAMOS, UNA 
DISCUSIÓN COMO ESCUCHAREMOS 
MUCHAS RESPECTO A LA 
CONSTITUCIÓN. PERO SI HABLAMOS 
DE LOS PADRES FUNDADORES A LOS 
QUE MENCIONÓ EL PRESIDENTE, A LO

English: 
WHAT'S NOT NEW IS THE FACTS.
WHAT'S NOT NEW IS ITS THE SAME 
SAD STORY.
WE'RE ALSO SAYING THE ATTENTION 
TO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE SHOULD BE
ON FOREIGN INTERFERENCE.
I AGREE WITH HIM COMPLETELY 
EXCEPT 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 
INTO THIS ISSUE.
WE HAD ELECTION BUILDS BUT DID 
NOT GET INTO THE INDEPTH PART OF
WHAT MR. MUELLER TALKED ABOUT 
TAKING HIS OWN REPORT AND HAVING
HEARINGS ABOUT THAT.
SO I GUESS THAT DOESN'T INCLUDE 
THE HOUSE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE.
INTERESTING WE ALSO JUST HEARD 
AN INTERESTING DISCUSSION, WE'RE
GOING TO HAVE A LOT OF 
INTERESTING DISCUSSION TODAY 
ABOUT THE CONSTITUTION AND OTHER
THINGS BUT WE ALSO TALK ABOUT 
THE FOUNDERS.
THE CHAIRMAN TALKED ABOUT THE 
HEARING AND WHAT HE ALSO DIDN'T 
QUOTE WAS THE FOUNDERS BEING 
REALLY, REALLY CONCERNED ABOUT 
POLITICAL IMPEACHMENT.
BECAUSE YOU JUST DON'T LIKE THE 
GUY.

Spanish: 
QUE LE PREOCUPABA LA INJERENCIA 
EXTRANJERA. PERO REALIDAD LE 
PREOCUPABA EL JUICIO POLÍTICO, Y
ESO PORQUE ELLOS NO LE GUSTA QUE
ESTÁ EN EL CARGO. EL PRESIDENTE 
HABLÓ HACE UN AÑO  DE UN JUICIO 
POLÍTICO, MUCHO ANTES DE ESTO. 
ASÍ QUE NO ME DIGA  QUE ESTO SE 
TRATA DE NUEVA EVIDENCIA, PORQUE
PODEMOS TENER UNA NUEVA SALA, MS
CÓMODA,, PERO ESTO NO ES NOV
D
NOVEDAD. ESTO ES TRISTE. QUE LO 
QUE VEMOS HOY?
HAY DOS COSAS MUY CLARAS,  ESTE 
JUICIO POLÍTICO  NO SE TRATA DE 
HECHOS, LA RECOMENDACIÓN PASA  A
NUESTRO COMITÉ PORQUE SEGURO 
QUIEREN ECHARNOS LA CULPA 

English: 
YOU HAVEN'T LIKED HIM SINCE 
NOVEMBER OF 2016.
THE CHAIRMAN HAS TALKED ABOUT 
IMPEACHMENT SINCE LAST YEAR WHEN
HE WAS ELECTED CHAIRMAN.
TWO YEARS BEFORE HE WAS EVEN 
SWORN IN AS CHAIRMAN.
SO DON'T TELL ME THIS IS ABOUT 
NEW EVIDENCE AND YOU THINGS AND 
NEW STUFF.
WE MAY HAVE A NEW HEARING ROOM 
AND CHAIRS THAT AREN'T 
COMFORTABLE BUT THIS IS NOTHING 
NEW FOLKS.
THIS IS SAD.
SO WHAT DO WE HAVE HERE TODAY?
DO YOU KNOW WHAT?
I'M THINKING -- I LOOKED AT THIS
TWO THINGS HAVE BECOME CLEAR.
THIS IMPEACHMENT IS NOT REALLY 
ABOUT FACTS.
IF IT WAS THEY WOULD HAVE SENT 
OVER RECOMMENDATIONS ABOUT 
IMPEACHMENT.
IF IT GOES BADLY THEY WANT TO 
BLAME ADAM SCHIFF'S COMMITTEE 
BUT THEY'RE ALREADY DRAFTING 
ARTICLES.
DON'T BE FOOLED.
THEY'RE ALREADY GETTING READY 
FOR THIS.
WE ALREADY WENT AFTER THIS AFTER

Spanish: 
NOSOTROS. PERO NO SE ENGAÑEN, 
TODO SE POR PARABAN PARA ESTO 
HACE MUCHO TIEMPO. PERO EL P
PUEBLO NO NOS VE LEGISLAR, 
DETRÁS DE ESTO HAY DOS COSAS: EL
RELOJ Y EL CALENDARIO. ELLOS 
QUIEREN TIEMPO, QUIEREN HACERLO 
ESTE AÑO  PORQUE LES PREOCUPA LA
ELECCIÓN DEL PRÓXIMO AÑO. LES 
PREOCUPA VOLVER A PERDER. 
TENEMOS QUE HACER ESTO AHORA, 
PENSARON Y ESO LES PREOCUPA Y NO
LOS HECHOS. QUE TENEMOS AQUÍ 
HOY?
QUE SERÁ LO IMPORTANTE, MUCHOS 
NO ESTUDIAN DERECHO SIN ÁNIMO DE

English: 
NUMEROUS FAILINGS WITH MUELLER 
AND THE LIST GOES ON.
BUT THE AMERICAN PEOPLE, IF YOU 
WANT TO KNOW WHAT IS REALLY 
DRIVING THIS, THERE'S TWO 
THINGS.
IT'S CALLED THE CLOCK AND THE 
CALENDAR.
THE CLOCK AND THE CALENDAR.
MOST PEOPLE IN LIFE IF YOU WANT 
TO KNOW WHAT THEY TRULY VALUE, 
YOU LOOK AT THEIR CHECKBOOK AND 
THEIR CALENDAR.
THAT'S WHAT THEY VALUE.
THAT'S WHAT THIS COMMITTEE 
VALUES.
TIME.
THEY WANT DO IT BEFORE THE END 
OF THE YEAR.
SO WE HAVE TO DO THIS NOW.
THE CLOCK AND THE CALENDAR IS 
WHAT'S DRIVING IMPEACHMENT AND 
NOT THE FACTS.
WHEN WE UNDERSTAND THIS, THAT'S 
WHAT THE WITNESSES SAY TODAY.
WHAT IS REALLY INTERESTING TODAY
AND FOR THE NEXT FEW WEEKS IS 
AMERICA WILL SEE WHY MOST PEOPLE
DON'T GO TO LAW SCHOOL.
NO OFFENSE TO OUR PROFESSORS, 
BUT PLEASE, REALLY, WE'RE 
BRINGING YOU IN HERE TODAY TO 

English: 
TESTIFY ON STUFF THAT MOST OF 
YOU HAVE ALREADY WRITTEN ABOUT 
FOR THE OPINIONS THAT WE ALREADY
KNOW OUT OF THE CLASSROOMS THAT 
YOU'RE GETTING READY FOR FINALS 
IN.
UNLESS YOU'RE REALLY GOOD ON 
WATCHING THE HEARS FOR THE LAST 
COUPLE OF WEEKS YOU COULDN'T 
HAVE 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 ARE
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.
I'M STILL NOT SURE WHAT THEY 
WANT US TO PRESENT ON AND 
NOTHING ELSE.
NO PLAN.
I ASKED THE CHAIRMAN TO STAY IN 
TOUCH, LET'S TALK ABOUT WHAT WE 
HAVE BECAUSE HISTORY WILL SHINE 
A BRIGHT LIGHT ON US STARTING 
THIS MORNING.
CRICKETS.

Spanish: 
OFENDER  A LOS EXPERTOS. PERO 
LOS TRAEMOS AQUÍ  PARA QUE LEAN 
SOBRE ALGO QUE YA LEYERON, CUYAS
OPINIONES YA SE COMENTARON, PARA
HABLAR DE TEMAS QUE 
PROBABLEMENTE  NO HAN PODIDO 
DIGERIR A UN JACK EL INFORME SE 
PUBLICÓ AYER. INDEPENDIENTE DE 
NUESTRA OPINIÓN, EL PUEBLO NO VA
ENTENDER QUE PASA AQUÍ.
FRANCAMENTE, NO HAY UN PLAN C
CLARO, EXCEPTO LA CESIÓN DE UN 
COMITÉ LA PRÓXIMA SEMANA EN LA 
QUE NO ENTIENDO QUE QUIEREN QUE 
PRESENTEMOS PARA SER HONESTO. NO
HAY MÁS PLANES, LE PEDÍ AL 
PRESIDENTE ANTES DEL FERIADO  

Spanish: 
QUE MÁS TUVIÉRAMOS EL CONTACTO. 
NO HUBO RESPUESTA, HASTA QUE 
PEDÍ UN TESTIGO  QUE SE ME NEGÓ.
EL DENUNCIANTE NO ESTÁ AQUÍ,  SE
ALUDE  A LA PROTECCIÓN DE SU 
IDENTIDAD. TAMPOCO TENEMOS A 
ADAM SCHIFF,  QUE ENVIÓ SU 
INFORME.
PERO EL PROBLEMA ES ESTE,  ES 
ALGO SENCILLO. MINUTOS DESPUÉS 
DE QUE EL PRESIDENTE TRUMP 
ASUMIRÁ EL CARGO UN PERIÓDICO 
PUBLICÓ  QUE COMENZABA EL 
PROCESO DE JUICIO POLÍTICO. SE
P
PUBLICÓ QUE EMPEZABA EL GOLPE.

English: 
UNTIL I ASKED FOR A WITNESS THE 
OTHER DAY AND LET'S JUST SAY 
THAT DIDN'T GO WELL.
SHE'S NOT AFFORDED THE 
PROTECTION OF IDENTITY.
IT'S NOT IN THE STATUTE.
IT'S JUST SOMETHING BY ADAM 
SCHIFF.
HE SAID YESTERDAY IN A PRESS 
CONFERENCE.
I'M NOT GOING TO I'LL SEND STAFF
TO DO THAT.
HE'S NOT GOING TO BUT TO ME, IF 
HE'S GOING TO HE'D COME BEGGING 
TO US.
IF WE DON'T IMPEACH THE 
PRESIDENT HE'LL GET REELECTED.
IF YOU WANT TO KNOW WHAT'S 
HAPPENING, HERE WE GO.
WHY DID EVERYTHING I SAY UP TO 
THIS POINT ABOUT NO FACT 
WITNESSES, NOTHING FOR THIS 
JUDICIARY COMMITTEE WHICH SPENT 
2.5 WEEKS BEFORE THIS HEARING 

English: 
WAS EVEN HELD UNDER CLINTON.
2.5 WEEKS.
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 BUT WE CAN'T GET 
THAT STRAIGHT.
SO WHAT ARE WE DOING FOR THE 
NEXT TWO WEEKS?
I HAVE NO IDEA.
THE CHAIRMAN SET AN AMBIGUOUS 
HEARING ON THE REPORT.
IF WE'RE NOT GOING TO HAVE FACT 
WITNESSES WHEN WE ARE HIDING OUT
BACK, THE VERY RUBBER STAMP THE 
CHAIRMAN TALKED ABOUT 20 YEARS 
AGO.
WHAT A DISGRACE TO THIS 
COMMITTEE.
TO HAVE THE COMMITTEE OF 
IMPEACHMENT SIMPLY TAKE FROM 
OTHER ENTITIES AND RUBBER STAMP 
IT.
WHY DOES THE THINGS I SAY MATTER
ABOUT FACT WITNESSES AND 
HEARINGS AND DUE PROCESS BECAUSE
BY THE WAY, A COUPLE OF MONTHS 
AGO THE DEMOCRATS GOT ALL SORT 
OF DRESSED UP IF YOU WOULD AND 
WE'RE GOING TO HAVE DUE PROCESS 
PROTECTION FOR THE PRESIDENT AND
GOOD FAIRNESS THROUGHOUT THIS.
THIS IS THE ONLY COMMITTEE THAT 
THE PRESIDENT WOULD EVEN HAVE A 
POSSIBILITY BUT NO OFFENSE TO 
YOU, THE LAW PROFESSORS, THE 

Spanish: 
Y ESTO ES LO QUE PASA. INSISTO 
EN QUE NO HAY HECHOS  PARA QUE 
EL COMITÉ JUDICIAL ANALIZARA. NO
HABÍA LISTAS NI DETALLES COMO EN
OTRAS OPORTUNIDADES.
NO NOS HAN PODIDO ACLARAR NADA, 
ENTONCES QUE VAMOS HACER NO 
TENGO IDEA.
QUE VERGÜENZA PARA ESTE COMITÉ 
QUE SIMPLEMENTE TOME LO QUE HAN 
DICHO OTROS Y LO CONFIRME ASÍ 
NADA MÁS.
SE HABLA DEL DEBIDO PROCESO, 

Spanish: 
HACE MESES QUE LOS DEMÓCRATAS 
DIJERON QUE HABRÍA UN DEBIDO 
PROCESO, PERO EL PRESIDENTE NO 
TIENE NADA QUE PREGUNTARLES, CON
TODO RESPETO, NO DIRÁN NADA QUE 
NO PUEDA LEER.
ESO LO SABE TODO ABOGADO.
PERO AQUÍ TAMBIÉN VEO OTRA COSA.
NUNCA DEBE IMPONERSE UN JUICIO 
POLÍTICO A UN PARTIDO. ESTO 
CUESTIONA LA LEGITIMIDAD DE 
NUESTRAS INSTITUCIONES. EL 
PUEBLO ESTÁ ATENTO Y NO OLV
A
OLVIDARÁ, NO TIENEN LA 
LEGITIMIDAD DE UN CONSENSO 
NACIONAL.ESTO PASARÁ A LA 

English: 
PRESIDENT HAS NOTHING TO ASK 
YOU.
YOU'RE NOT GOING TO PROVIDE 
ANYTHING HE CAN'T READ AND HIS 
ATTORNEYS HAVE NOTHING ELSE.
PUT WITNESSES IN HERE THAT CAN 
BE FACT WITNESSES THAT CAN BE 
ACTUALLY CROSS EXAMINED.
THAT'S FAIRNESS AND EVERY 
ATTORNEY ON THIS PANEL KNOWS 
THAT.
THIS IS A SHAM.
BUT, YOU KNOW, WHAT I ALSO SEE 
HERE IS QUOTES LIKE THIS, THERE 
MUST NEVER BE A NARROWLY VOTED 
IMPEACHMENT OR IMPEACHMENT 
SUPPORTED BY ONE OF OUR MAJOR 
POLITICAL PARTIES OR IMPOSED BY 
ANOTHER.
IT WILL PRODUCE DIVISIVELY AND 
BITTER PS AND POLITICS FOR YEARS
TO M COAND CALL INTO QUESTION 
THE VERY LEGITIMACY OF OUR 
POLITICAL INSTITUTIONS.
THE AMERICAN PEOPLE ARE 
WATCHING.
THEY WILL NOT FORGET.
YOU HAVE THE VOTE.
YOU MAY HAVE THE MUSCLE BUT YOU 
DO NOT HAVE A NATIONAL CONSENSUS
OR CONSTITUTIONAL IMPERATIVE.
IT WILL GO DOWN IN INFAMY IN THE

English: 
HISTORY OF THE NATION.
HOW ABOUT WHEN THE DEMOCRATS 
OFFED AMENDMENTEDS TO SAY WE 
SHOULD FIRST DISCUSS AND ADOPT 
STANDARDS FOR IMPEACHMENT VOTED 
DOWN OR RULED OUT OF ORDER.
WHEN WE SAY THE IMPORTANT THING 
IS TO START LOOKING AT THE 
QUESTION BEFORE WE SIMPLY HAVE A
VOTE WITH NO REAL INQUIRY FIRST 
THAT WAS VOTED DOWN AND RULED 
OUT OF ORDER AND THE WHOLE 
QUESTION OF WHAT MATERIALS 
SHOULD BE RELEASED AND SECONDARY
BUT THAT'S ALL WE DISCUSSED.
THE ESSENTIAL QUESTION WHICH IS 
TO SET UP A FAIR PROCESS IS 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 WERE 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 JUST HEARD A ONE SIDED 
PRESENTATION OF FACTS ABOUT THIS
PRESIDENT.
TODAY WE WILL PRESENT THE OTHER 
SIDE WHICH GETS SO CONVENIENTLY 
LEFT OUT.
REMEMBER FAIRNESS DOES DICTATE 
THAT BUT MAYBE NOT HERE.
I HAVE A DEMOCRATIC MAJORITY 

Spanish: 
HISTORIA  COMO UNA INFAMIA.
Y QUE TAL ESTO?
EL PUNTO CLAVE ES QUE LOS 
DEMÓCRATAS DICEN QUE DEBEMOS 
DISCUTIR LAS NORMAS DEL JUICIO 
POLÍTICO, NOSOTROS DECIMOS QUE 
HAY QUE ANALIZAR LOS TEMAS ANTES
DE VOTAR, LO QUE SE DESCARTÓ.
LA PREGUNTA CLAVE ES SI A VALÍA 
LA PENA SOMETER AL PAÍS A ESTE 
PROCESO, COSA QUE SE NOS NEGÓ. Y
LO QUE ELLOS MISMOS ARGUMENTABAN
HACE 20 AÑOS, SUPONGO QUE LAS 
COSAS HAN CAMBIADO.

Spanish: 
HOY PRESENTAMOS LOS ARGUMENTOS 
DE AMBOS LADOS.
HAY UNA MAYORÍA DEMÓCRATA  QUE 
INSISTE EN LO QUE CREEN QUE HIZO
EL PRESIDENTE, ESO NO SIGNIFICA 
BASARSE EN HECHOS. AQUÍ VEMOS EL
ODIO A UN HOMBRE QUE LLEGÓ A LA 
CASA BLANCA A HACER LO QUE DIJO 
QUE IBA SER.
EL HA SEGUIDO ADELANTE CON SUS 
IDEAS, LAS QUE PROPUSO LA 
CAMPAÑA.
EL VERDADERO PROBLEMA O HOY,  
ESTE ES EL PRIMER JUICIO 
POLÍTICO EN QUE LOS HECHOS  NO 
SOLO SON DISPUTADOS SINO QUE SE 
CONTRADICEN. AQUÍ NO HAY HECHOS,

English: 
THAT'S POLL TESTED WHAT THEY 
THINK THE PRESIDENT DID.
WOW, THAT'S NOT FOLLOWING THE 
FACTS.
WE HAVE JUST A DEEP SEEDED 
HATRED OF A MAN THAT CAME TO THE
WHITE HOUSE AND DID WHAT HE SAID
HE WAS GOING TO DO.
THE MOST AMAZING QUESTION I GOT 
IN THE FIRST THREE MONTHS FROM 
REPORTERS WAS THIS, CAN YOU 
BELIEVE HE'S PUTTING FORWARD 
THOSE IDEAS?
I SAID YES, HE RAN ON THEM.
HE TOLD THE TRUTH AND HE DID 
WHAT HE SAID.
THE PROBLEM HERE TODAY IS THIS 
WILL ALSO BE ONE OF THE FIRST 
IMPEACHMENTS.
THE CHAIRMAN MENTIONED THERE 
WERE TWO OF THEM IN WHICH THE 
FACTS, EVEN BY DEMOCRATS AND 
REPUBLICANS WERE NOT REALLY 
DISPUTED AND THIS ONE, THEY'RE 
NOT ONLY DISPUTED, THEY'RE 
COUNTDICTIVE OF EACH OTHER.

English: 
THIS IS WHERE WE'RE AT TODAY.
SO THE INTERESTING THING THAT I 
HAVE COME TO WITH MOST EVERYBODY
HERE IS THIS MAY BE A NEW TIME 
AND NEW PLACE AND WE MAY BE 
LOOKING PRETTY FOR IMPEACHMENT.
THIS IS NOT IMPEACHMENT.
THIS IS A SIMPLE RAILROAD JOB 
AND TODAY IS A WASTE OF TIME.
THIS IS WHERE WE'RE AT.
IT STARTED IN BROOKLYN IN 
NOVEMBER 2017 WHEN AN ELECTION 
WAS LOST.
WE'RE HERE, NO PLAN, NO FACT 
WITNESSES, SIMPLY BEING A RUBBER
STAMP FOR WHAT WE HAVE, BUT WE 
HAVE LAW PROFESSORS HERE, MR. 
CHAIRMAN, BEFORE I YIELD BACK, I
HAVE A MOTION.
UNDER RULE 11.
>> THE GENTLEMAN WAS RECOGNIZED 
FOR THE PURPOSE OF HIS OPENING 
STATEMENT AND NOT PURPOSE OF 
MAKING STATEMENT. 

Spanish: 
NINGUNO  MÁS ALLÁ DEL PRESIDENTE
HACIENDO SU TRABAJO COMO LO 
EXIGE LA CONSTITUCIÓN.
LO INTERESANTE ES QUE QUIZÁ ESTE
ES UN MOMENTO NUEVO?
PPERO ESTO NO ES UN JUICIO 
POLÍTICO Y LO DE HOY ES UNA 
PÉRDIDA DE TIEMPO YA QUE NOS 
ENCONTRAMOS Y CON ESTO CIERRO. 
ESTO NO EMPEZÓ CON LA LLAMADA  
NI EL INFORME DE ROBERT MUELLER 
SINO LOS HECHOS DE 2016.
AQUÍ NO HAY TESTIGOS, 
SIMPLEMENTE SE ESPERA QUE A
ACEPTEMOS LO QUE YA SE HA DICHO 
Y CON CUATRO EXPERTOS.
TENGO UNA MOCIÓN, SEÑOR 
PRESIDENTE
>>> SSE RECONOCE EL DERECHO DE 
LA DECLARACIÓN NO DE LA MOCIÓN

Spanish: 
>>> PIDO LA MOCIÓN
>>> SE ESCUCHA
>>> PPIDO QUE SE TRAMITA ESTA 
CARTA AL COMITÉ.
>>> SE DEBATE LA MOCIÓN QUIENES 
ESTÉN A FAVOR DIGAN SI LOS DEMÁS
NO,, SE  ACEPTA LA MOCIÓN.
>>> NO PUEDE HACER UNA SOLICITUD
PARLAMENTARIA EN ESTE MOMENTO.
>>> EL ENCARGADO CONTARALOS 
VOTOS.
>>> VOTA ASÍ

English: 
>> A YIELD BACK AND RECOGNIZE. 
>> GENTLEMAN IS RECOGNIZED. 
>> I MOVE TO REQUIRE THE 
E
ATTENDANTS OF CHAIRMAN SCHIFF 
BEFORE THIS COMMITTEE AND 
TRANSMIT THIS LETTER 
ACCORDINGLY. 
>> SEEK RECOGNITION.
MOTION IS MADE AND DEBATABLE.
ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE. 
>> OPPOSED. 
>> NO. 
>> THE MOTION TO TABLE IS AGREED
TO. 
>> RECORDED VOTE IS REQUESTED.
>> PARLIAMENTARY INQUIREMENT. 
>> JUST A REMINDER ANY NO IS YOU
DON'T WANT HIM COMING. 
>> THE CLERK WILL CALL THE ROLE.
>> MR. NADLER. 
>> AYE.
AYE.
AYE.
MR. JOHNSON OF GEORGIA VOTES 
AYE.
MR. RICHMOND.

Spanish: 
>>> VOTA ASÍ
>>> RICHMOND
SI
>>> SEÑOR
>>> SÍ
>>> SEÑOR
>>> SÍ
>>> SEÑORA
>>> SSÍ
>>> SEÑORA GARCÍA
>>> SÍ
>>> SSEÑORA
>>> SÍ
>>> SEÑORA
>>> SÍ
>>> SEÑORA
>>> SÍ
>>> VAMOS RÁPIDAMENTE CON EL 
EXPERTO EXPLICAR LO QUE SUCEDE. 
LOS REPUBLICANOS EN EL PANEL 
HACE LO POSIBLE POR INTERRUMPIR 
EL PROCEDIMIENTO, SE PRESENTÓ 

English: 
MR. RICHMOND VOTES YES.
MR. JEFFREYS VOTES AYE.
VOTES AYE.
YES.
MR. LOU.
VOTES AYE.
MR. SCANLIN VOTES AYE.
MISS GARCIA VOTES AYE.
AYE.
>> LET'S GO VERY QUICKLY TO 
EXPLAIN WHAT'S HAPPENING HERE.
>> AS EXPECTED, YOU HAVE A 
REPUBLICAN TRY TO OFFER UP A 
MOTION THAT WOULD BRING FORWARD 
ADAM SCHIFF THE HOUSE 
INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN 
TO COME TESTIFY BEFORE THIS 

Spanish: 
UNA MOCIÓN REPUBLICANA PARA QUE 
ADAM SCHIFF  EDIFIQUE ANTE EL 
COMITÉ, AHORA ESTÁN VOTANDO UNA 
MOCIÓN PARA ACABAR CON ESTE 
ESFUERZO, PERO COMO HAY MAYORÍA 
DEMÓCRATA DEBERÍA RECHAZARSE LA 
MOCIÓN.
Y SE ESTÁ DEJANDO REGISTRO DE LA
VOTACIÓN AHORA VOLVEMOS A LA 
AUDIENCIA.
>>> VOTARON TODOS?
>>> SEÑORA
>>> LA ASISTENTE INFORMARÁ
>>> HAY MAYORÍA DE SI
>>> SE RECHAZA LA MOCIÓN
>>> SEÑOR PRESIDENTE PUEDE HACER
UNA SOLICITUD
>>> ADELANTE
>>> SSEGÚN EL REGLAMENTO SE 

English: 
COMMITTEE SO WHAT THEY'RE VOTING
ON RIGHT NOW IS A MOTION TO 
TABLE OR BASICALLY KILL THIS 
WHOLE EFFORT AND BECAUSE 
DEMOCRATS CONTROL THE COMMITTEE 
DEMOCRATS WE EXPECT FULLY WILL 
BE SUCCESSFUL IN KILLING THIS 
MOTION. 
>> AND REPUBLICANS WANTED THIS 
ON THE RECORD WITH THE ROLL CALL
WHICH WE'RE SEEING RIGHT NOW.
WE'LL TAKE YOU BACK INTO THE 
AREA.
>> HAS EVERYONE VOTED THAT 
WISHES TO VOTE?
>>> THE CLERK WILL REPORT. 
>> MR. CHAIRMAN, THERE ARE 21 
I'S AND 17 NOES. 
>> THE MOTION TO TABLE IS AGREED
TO. 
>> I HAVE A PARLIAMENTARY 
INQUIRY. 
>> STATES THAT MEMBERS OF THE 
COMMITTEE CAN RAISE OBJECTIONS 
RELATING TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF
TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE BUT IT 
DOESN'T SAY WHAT RULES APPLY TO 
ADMISSIBILITY.
SO I'M HOPING THAT YOU CAN 
EXPLAIN TO US WHAT OBJECTIONS 

Spanish: 
PUEDEN PRESENTAR OBJECIONES PERO
NO DICE NADA CON RESPECTO A 
ADMISIBILIDAD, ME GUSTARÍA SABER
QUÉ CRITERIO SE APLICARÁ EN ESE 
SENTIDO.
>>> ESA NO ES UNA CONSULTA 
PARLAMENTARIA APROPIADA
>>> PERO LE LEÍ LA NORMA, USTED 
LA ESTÁ IGNORANDO. PIDO UNA 
EXPLICACIÓN SOBRE LA APLICACIÓN 
DE LA NORMA
>>> SE APLICARÁ LAS NORMAS
>>> POR EXPLICARNOS COMO?
>>> PORQUE CITA ESO?
>>> PORQUE SE CITÓ ESTE 
PROCEDIMIENTO EN EL COMITÉ
>>> LAS NORMAS DE LA CÁMARA SE 
APLICARÁN Y PUNTO
>>> PERO PREGUNTO COMO
>>> DE ACUERDO A LAS NORMAS
>>> NNO CONTESTA MI PREGUNTA

English: 
MAYBE 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.
I STATED A RULE MR. CHAIRMAN.
YOU CAN IGNORE IT AND NOT ANSWER
IT BUT YOU CAN'T SAY IT'S NOT A 
PROPER INQUIRY. 
>> I'M ASKING FOR THE 
APPLICATION OF THE RULE AND 
APPLICATION. 
>> WE WILL APPLY THE RULES, 
PERIOD. 
>> YOU WON'T HELP US UNDERSTAND 
THAT?
>> THERE'S NO CLARITY THERE. 
>> HOW ARE YOU CITING THAT. 
>> AND THEY WOULD BE APPLIED 
ACCORDING TO THE RULES.
>> AND IF SO WHEN -- 
>> GENTLEMAN WILL SUSPEND.

Spanish: 
>>> PODRÍA LEERNOS LA AGENDA  
SOBRE ESTAS AUDIENCIAS
>>> ESA NO ES UNA CONSULTA P
PARLAMENTARIA PERTINENTE.
VOY A PRESENTAR AHORA LOS 
TESTIGOS
>>> SEÑOR PRESIDENTE
>>> NNO VOY A RECONOCER SU 
SOLICITUD PORQUE ESTOY 
PRESENTANDO A LOS TESTIGOS
TTENEMOS A UN PROFESOR DE 
HARVARD QUE HA ESCRITO SIETE 
LIBROS, ADEMÁS DE VARIOS ENSAYOS
SOBRE TEMAS CONSTITUCIONALES. EL
SE GRADUÓ EN HARVARD, SE DOCTOÓO
EN OXFORD Y TAMBIÉN TIENE OTROS 
ESTUDIOS DE DERECHO.TRABAJA PARA

English: 
THAT IS NOT A PROPER 
PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRY.
WITH THAT OBJECTION, ALL OTHER 
OPENING STATEMENTS WILL BE 
INCLUDED IN THE RECORD.
I WILL NOW INTRODUCE TODAY'S 
WITNESSES. 
>> MR. CHAIRMAN. 
>> MR. CHAIRMAN, I SEEK 
RECOGNITION. 
>> I AM NOT GOING TO RECOGNIZE 
YOU NOW.
I AM INTRODUCING THE WITNESSES. 
>> MR. CHAIRMAN I JUST HAVE -- 
>> NOAH FELDMAN IS PROFESSOR AT 
HARVARD LAW SCHOOL.
HE AUTHORED 7 BOOKS INCLUDING A 
BIOGRAPHY OF JAMES MADISON AND 
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW BOOK AS WELL 
AS MANY ON CONSTITUTIONAL 
SUBJECTS.
HE RECEIVED HIS UNDERGRADUATE 
DEGREE FROM HARVARD COLLEGE AND 
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY.
AND THE UNITED STATES SUPREME 
COURT.
PAMELA SERVES AS THE PROFESSOR 
OF PUBLIC INTEREST LAW AND THE 
CO-DIRECTOR OF THE SUPREME COURT

English: 
LITIGATION CLINIC AT STANFORD 
LAW SCHOOL.
SHE IS THE CO-AUTHOR OF SEVERAL 
LEADING CASE BOOKS INCLUDING A 
MONOGRAPH ENTITLED KEEPING FAITH
WITH THE CONSTITUTION AND DOZENS
OF ARTICLES.
SHE SERVED AS A LAW CLERK AND IS
A DEPUTY ASSISTANT ATTORNEY 
GENERAL IN THE CIVIL RIGHTS 
DIVISION.
AND PROFESSOR CARLIN EARNED 
THREE DEGREES IN YALE 
UNIVERSITY.
MICHAEL IS THE DISTINGUISHED 
PROFESSOR OF JURIS PRUDENCE AND 
DIRECTOR OF UNC'S CENTER ON LAW 
AND GOVERNMENT.
HE'S THE AUTHOR OF MANY BOOKS 
INCLUDING THE FEDERAL 
IMPEACHMENT PROCESS, A 
CONSTITUTIONAL AND HISTORICAL 
ANALYSIS AS WELL AS MORE THAN 50
PUBLICATIONS ON A DIVERSE RANGE 

Spanish: 
LA CORTE SUPREMA
LA EXPERTA HA SIDO PROFESORA Y 
CODIRECTORA DE LA CLÍNICA LEGAL 
DE STANFORD, HA ESCRITO VARIOS 
LIBROS Y ARTÍCULOS SOBRE LA 
CONSTITUCIÓN. FUE ASISTENTE DE 
UN JUEZ DE LA SUPREMA Y TAMBIÉN 
TRABAJÓ EN EL DEPARTAMENTO DE 
JUSTICIA EN LA DIVISIÓN DE 
DERECHOS CIVILES DONDE ESTUVO A 
CARGO DE SUPERVISAR LAS 
VOTACIONES. SE GRADUÓ EN YALE,  
LUEGO ESTUDIO TAMBIÉN HISTORIA.
TENEMOS TAMBIÉN A UN DESTACADO 
PROFESOR EN JURISPRUDENCIA DE 
CALIFORNIA, A CARGO DE UN CENTRO
SOBRE GOBIERNO Y QUE HA ESCRITO 
VARIOS LIBROS SOBRE EL PROCESO
D
DE JUICIO POLÍTICO Y LA 

English: 
OF TOPICS IN CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 
AND THE LEGISLATIVE PROCESS.
HE RECEIVED IT FROM THE 
UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO LAW 
SCHOOL.
HIS MS FROM THE LONDON SCHOOL OF
ECONOMICS AND HIS B.A. FROM YALE
UNIVERSITY.
JONATHAN IS THE J, B AND 
MAURICEC.SHAPIRO AT THE LAW 
SCHOOL.
AFTER A STINT AT TULANE LAW 
SCHOOL HE JOINED THE G.W. LAW 
FACULTY IN 1990 AND IN 1998 
BECAME THE YOUNGEST CHAIRED 
PROFESSOR IN THE SCHOOL'S 
HISTORY.
HE HAS WRITTEN OVER THREE DOZEN 
ACADEMIC ARTICLES FOR A VARIETY 
OF LEADING LAW SCHOOLS -- OF 
LEADING LAW JOURNALS AND HIS 
ARTICLES ON LEGAL AND POLICY 
ISSUES APPEAR FREQUENTLY IN 
NATIONAL PUBLICATIONS.
A CHICAGO NATIVE, HE EARNED 
DEGREES FROM THE UNIVERSITY OF 
CHICAGO AND NORTHWESTERN 
UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW.
WE WELCOME ALL OF OUR 
DISTINGUISHED WITNESSES.

Spanish: 
CONSTITUCIÓN.TIENE MÁS DE 50 P
B
PUBLICACIONES SOBRE VARIADOS 
TEMAS CONSTITUCIONALES.
SE GRADUÓ EN LA ESCUELA DE 
DERECHO DE CHICAGO, LUEGO Y SU 
MASTER EN LA ESCUELA DE NEGOCIOS
DE LONDRES Y LUEGO ESTUDIO SU 
DOCTORADO.
EL CUARTO EXPERTO ES ENCARGADO 
DE EL TEMAS CONDICIONALES EN LA 
UNIVERSIDAD DE WASHINGTON. 
ESTUDIO DERECHO Y LUEGO ENTRÓ A 
LA FACULTAD. OCHO AÑOS DESPUÉS 
FUE PROFESOR MÁS JOVEN  EN LA 
HISTORIA DE LA ESCUELA. HA ES
I
ESCRITO MÁS DE 30 ARTÍCULOS EN 
IMPORTANTES REVISTA 
ESPECIALIZADA. NACIDO EN CHI
O
CHICAGO, TIENE TÍTULOS DE LA 

Spanish: 
UNIVERSIDAD DE CHICAGO  Y DE 
NORTHWESTERN, AGRADEZCO A LOS 
TESTIGOS SU PRESENCIA. SI SE 
PONEN DE PIE, COMENZAREMOS CON 
EL JURAMENTO.
LEVANTE SU MANO DERECHA. JURAN 
BAJO O RIESGO DE  PERJURIO DECIR
LA VERDAD
>>> QQUE QUEDE CONSTANCIA DE QUE
LO HICIERON. POR FAVOR RECUERDEN
QUE SUS DECLARACIONES ESCRITAS 
SERÁN PARTE DEL REGISTRO. SE LE 
PIDIÓ RESUMIR SU TESTIMONIO 10 
MINUTOS,  HAY UNA LUZ EN SUS 
MESAS  QUE LES INDICA.CUANDO SE 
LE ESTÁ ACABANDO EL TIEMPO 
SI SE PONE AMARILLO LES QUEDA 
UNO SI SE PONE ROJO, SE ACABÓ.
PROFESOR

English: 
WE THANK THEM FOR PARTICIPATED 
IN TODAY'S HEARING.
IF YOU WILL PLEASE RISE, I'LL 
BEGIN BY SWEARING YOU IN.
LET THE RECORD SHOW THE 
WITNESSES ANSWERED IN THE 
AFFIRMATIVE.
THANK YOU AND PLEASE BE SEATED.
PLEASE NOTE THAT EACH OF YOUR 
WRITTEN STATEMENTS WILL BE 
ENTERED INTO THE RECORD IN IT'S 
ENTIRETY.
ACCORDINGLY I ASKED THAT YOU 
SUMMARIZE YOUR TESTIMONY IN TEN 
MINUTES.
TO HELP YOU STAY WITHIN THAT 
TIME, THERE IS 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.
>> I DON'T THINK YOU'RE IN THE 
MIC.
>> MR. CHAIRMAN -- 

Spanish: 
>>> SEÑOR PRESIDENTE Y MIEBROS 
DEL COMITE
>>> TENGO UNA MOCIÓN
>>> NO ES EL MOMENTO
>>> PIDO UNA MOCIÓN DE PRI
PRIVILEGIO. 
>>> SEÑOR PRESIDENTE NEGRO DEL
C
COMITÉ SOY PROFESOR DE DERECHO 
EN HARVARD.
>>> ESTE ES EL MOMENTO DE LOS 
TESTIGOS, DIPUTADO POR FAVOR
>>> ES EL PRIVILEGIO
>>> PRIMERO CONTAREMOS A LOS 
TESTIGOS
>>> LO ESCUCHAREMOS DE PODER 
PRIMER TESTIGO
>>> YO ESTUDIO Y ENSEÑO LA 
CONSTITUCIÓN DESDE SU INICIO. 
ESTOY AQUÍ PARA DESCRIBIR POR 

English: 
>> MR. CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS OF 
THE COMMITTEE. 
>> MR. CHAIRMAN, I HAVE A 
MOTION. 
>> MR. CHAIRMAN I SEEK 
RECOGNITION FOR PRIVILEGE 
MOTION.
MR. CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS OF THE 
COMMITTEE, THANK YOU FOR THE 
OPPORTUNITY TO APPEAR.
MY NAME IS NOAH FELDMAN -- 
>> WITNESS WILL PROCEED. 
>> I SERVE AS THE PROFESSOR OF 
LAW AT THE HARVARD LAW SCHOOL --
>> I SEEK RECOGNITION -- 
>> MY JOB -- 
>> THE GENTLEMAN WILL SUSPEND.
THE TIME IS THE WITNESSES. 
>> A PRIVILEGED MOTION NEEDS TO 
BE RECOGNIZED.
YOU CAN CALL IT NOT A PRIVILEGED
BUT IT NEEDS TO BE RECOGNIZED. 
>> IN BETWEEN THE WITNESSES IT 
MAY BE RECOGNIZED. 
>> THE WITNESS WILL PROCEED.
WE'LL ENTERTAIN THE MOTION AFTER
THE FIRST WITNESS. 
>> MY JOB IS TO STUDY AND TEACH 
THE CONSTITUTION FROM ITS 
ORIGINS UNTIL THE PRESENT.
I AM HERE TODAY TO DESCRIBE 
THREE THINGS.
WHY THE FRAMERS OF OUR 
CONSTITUTION INCLUDED THE 
PROVISION FOR THE IMPEACHMENT OF
THE PRESIDENT.
WHAT THAT PROVISION PROVIDING 

Spanish: 
QUÉ HAY UNA PROVISIÓN QUE 
PERMITE HACER JUICIO POLÍTICO AL
PRESIDENTE, QUE SIGNIFICA  ESA 
NORMA Y COMO SE APLICA A LA 
PREGUNTA QUE SE PLANTEA AHORA AL
PUEBLO ESTADOUNIDENSE,  SI EL 
PRESIENTE ACOMETIDO OFENSAS QUE 
JUSTIFIQUEN UN JUICIO POLÍTICO 
EN BASE A LA CONTUSIÓN.
COMIENZO POR MI CONCLUSIÓN, SE 
TEME QUE EL PRESIDENTE HAYA 
ABUSADO DE SU CARGO PARA B
BENEFICIO PERSONAL, PARA 
CORROMPER EL PROCESO ELECTORAL Y
GARANTIZAR SU REELECCIÓN. 
CRÍMENES Y COMPORTAMIENTOS 
MENORES SON UN ABUSO LA 
CONFIANZA PÚBLICA EN BASE AL 
CARGO. EN BASE A LOS TESTIMONIOS
PRESENTADOS A LA CÁMARA,, EL 
PRESIDENTE HA COMETIDO ESTOS 

English: 
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 COMMITTED 
IMPEACHMENT 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 FROM PERSONAL 
BENEFITS TO CORRUPT THE 
ELECTORAL PROCESS AND 
RE-ELECTION OR TO SUBVERT THE 
NATIONAL OF THE UNITED STATES.
ON THE BASIS OF THE TESTIMONY 
AND THE EVIDENCE BEFORE THE 
HOUSE, PRESIDENT TRUMP HAS 
COMMITTED IMPEACHMENT HIGH 
CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS BY 
CORRUPTLY ABUSING THE OFFICE OF 
THE PRESIDENCY.
SPECIFICALLY, PRESIDENT TRUMP 

Spanish: 
CRÍMENES ABUSANDO CORRECTAMENTE 
SU CARGO. EN ESPECÍFICO,  HA 
ABUSADO AL PEDIR AL PRESIDENTE 
DE UCRANIA  QUE ANUNCIA 
INVESTIGACIONES SOBRE SU RIVAL 
POLÍTICO PARA LOGRAR UN B
BENEFICIO PERSONAL EN LA 
ELECCIÓN DE 2020.
COMENZARÉ CON LA PREGUNTA  DE 
POR QUÉ EXISTE LA POSIBILIDAD DE
HACER JUICIO POLÍTICO,  ESTE 
CONCEPTO LLEGA DE INGLATERRA  
O
CON UNA ENORME DIFERENCIA. LA 
CÁMARA DE LOS COMUNES Y DE LOS 
LORES  PUEDEN USARLO PARA 
LIMITAR LOS MINISTROS DEL REY, 
PERO EL REY ESTABA SOBRE LA LEY.
EN CONTRASTE, DESDE LA 
CONVENCIÓN CONSTITUCIONAL 
INICIAL QUEDÓ CLARO QUE EL 
PRESIDENTE ESTARÍA SUJETO AL 

English: 
HAS ABUSED HIS OFFICE BY 
CORRUPTLY SOLICITING THE 
PRESIDENT OF UKRAINE TO ANNOUNCE
INVESTIGATIONS OF HIS POLITICAL 
RIVALS IN ORDER TO GAIN PERSONAL
ADVANTAGE INCLUDING IN THE 2020 
PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION.
LET ME BEGIN NOW WITH A QUESTION
OF WHY THE FRAMERS PROVIDED FOR 
IMPEACHMENT IN THE FIRST PLACE.
THE FRAMERS BORROWED THE CONCEPT
OF IMPEACHMENT FROM ENGLAND BUT 
WITH ONE ENORMOUS DIFFERENCE, 
THE HOUSE OF COMMONS AND THE 
HOUSE OF LORDS COULD USE 
IMPEACHMENT IN ORDER TO LIMIT 
THE MINISTERS BUT 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 MADE 
IT CRYSTAL CLEAR THAT THE 
PRESIDENT WOULD BE SUBJECT TO 
IMPEACHMENT IN ORDER TO 

English: 
DEMONSTRATE THAT THE PRESIDENT 
WAS SUBORDINATE TO THE LAW.
IF YOU WILL, I WOULD LIKE FOR 
YOU TO THINK NOW ABOUT A 
SPECIFIC DATE IN THE 
CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION.
JULY 20th, 1787.
IT WAS THE MIDDLE OF A LONG, HOT
SUMMER AND ON THAT DAY, TWO 
MEMBERS OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL 
CONVENTION ACTUALLY MOVED TO 
TAKE OUT THE IMPEACHMENT 
PROVISION FROM THE DRAFT 
CONSTITUTION.
AND THEY HAD A REASON FOR THAT 
AND THE REASON WAS THEY SAID, 
WELL, THE PRESIDENT WILL HAVE TO
STAND FOR RE-ELECTION AND IF THE
PRESIDENT HAS TO STAND FOR 
RE-ELECTION, THAT IS ENOUGH.
WE DON'T NEED A SEPARATE 
PROVISION FOR IMPEACHMENT.
WHEN THAT PROPOSAL WAS MADE, 
SIGNIFICANT DISAGREEMENTS 
ENSUED.
THE GOVERNOR OF NORTH CAROLINA, 
A MAN CALLED WILLIAM DAVY 
IMMEDIATELY SAID IF THE 
PRESIDENT CANNOT BE IMPEACHED HE
WILL SPARE NO EFFORTS OR MEANS 

Spanish: 
JUICIO POLÍTICO PARA DEMOSTRAR 
QUE ESTABA SUBORDINADO A LA LEY.
SI SE QUIERE,  PODRÍAMOS PENSAR 
EN UNA FECHA ESPECÍFICA DE LA 
CONVENCIÓN CONSTITUCIONAL. EN UN
CALUROSO VERANO DE 18780 LOS 
TESTIGOS PIDIERON SACAR ESTA P
S
POSIBILIDAD DE LA CONSTITUCIÓN. 
DECÍAN QUE ERA SUFICIENTE QUE EL
PRESIDENTE FUERA LA REELECCIÓN, 
PERO ENTONCES HUBO UNA PROFUNDA 
DISCUSIÓN. EL REPRESENTANTE DE 
CAROLINA DEL NORTE DIJO QUE SI 
NO PODÍA ENFRENTAR EL JUICIO 

English: 
WHATEVER TO GET HIMSELF 
REELECTED.
GEORGE MASON OF VIRGINIA SAID NO
POINT WAS MORE IMPORTANT WAS 
INCLUDED IN THE CONSTITUTION.
SHALL ANY MAN BE ABOVE JUSTICE 
HE ASKED.
JAMES MADISON, THE PRINCIPLE 
DRAFTSMAN OF THE U.S. 
CONSTITUTION THEN SPOKE UP.
HE SAID IT WAS QUOTE, 
INDISPENSABLE THAT SOME 
PROVISION BE MADE FOR 
IMPEACHMENT.
WHY?
BECAUSE HE EXPLAINED IT WAS 
QUOTE NOT A SUFFICIENT SECURITY 
AGAINST PRESIDENTIAL MISCONDUCT 
OR CORRUPTION.
A PRESIDENT HE SAID MIGHT BETRAY
HIS TRUST TO FOREIGN POWERS.
A PRESIDENT WHO IN A CORRUPT 
FASHION ABUSED THE OFFICE OF THE
PRESIDENCY SAID JAMES MADISON, 
QUOTE, MIGHT BE FATAL TO THE 

Spanish: 
POLÍTICO EL PRESIDENTE HARÍA 
TODOS LOS ESFUERZOS PARA SER R
E
REELEGIDO.
OTRO REPRESENTANTE DIJO NADA ES 
MÁS IMPORTANTE QUE INCLUIR EL 
JUICIO POLÍTICO. SE PREGUNTÓ, 
DEBE ESTAR UN HOMBRE POR SOBRE 
LA LEY? LA RESPUESTA ES QUE EL 
PRESIDENTE DEBE SOMETERSE A LA 
LEY.
MADISON, UNO DE LOS PRINCIPALES 
REDACTORES DIJO QUE ERA 
INDISPENSABLE QUE HUBIESE JUICIO
POLÍTICO PORQUE SEGÚN EXPLICÓ, 
EL QUE UN PRESIDENTE FUERA 
ELEGIDO NO ERA SUFICIENTE 
GARANTÍA.DIJO QUE UN PRESIDENTE 
QUE ABUSARÁ DEL CARGO PODRÍA SER

English: 
REPUBLIC, CLOSED QUOTE.
AND THEN, A REMARKABLE THING 
HAPPENED IN THE CONVENTION.
HE GOT UP AND ACTUALLY SAID THE 
WORDS I WAS WRONG.
HE TOLD THE OTHER FRAMERS 
PRESENT THAT HE HAD CHANGED HIS 
MIND ON THE BASIS 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
A CAPACITY TO CORRUPT THE 
ELECTORAL PROCESS OR LEAD TO 
PERSONAL GAIN.
NOW, 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 IMPEACHMENT.

Spanish: 
FATAL PARA LA REPÚBLICA.
LUEGO, SUCEDIÓ ALGO 
IMPRESIONANTE.EL REPRESENTANTE 
DE PENSILVANIA, QUE HABÍA PEDIDO
RETIRAR EL JUICIO POLÍTICO, SE 
PUSO DE PIE  Y RECONOCIÓ SU E
O
ERROR. DIJO QUE HABÍA CAMBIADO 
DE OPINIÓN EN BASE AL DEBATE DEL
20 DE JULIO  Y QUE CREÍA QUE 
PARA EVITAR LA CORRUPCIÓN DEL 
PROCESO ELECTORAL, EL PRESIDENTE
DEBÍA SOMETERSE AL JUICIO 
POLÍTICO INDEPENDIENTE DE LA 
POSIBLE HA DE SER REELECTO. EL 
RESUMEN DE ESTE DEBATE ES QUE SE
MANTUVO EL JUICIO POLÍTICO HARÁ 
PROTEGERSE DEL ABUSO DEL CARGO 
QUE PUDIESE CORROMPER EL PROCESO
ELECTORAL O POR UN BENEFICIO 
PERSONAL.
CON RESPECTO AL LENGUAJE DE LA 
CONSTITUCIÓN, SE USA ALTOS 

English: 
THESE WERE NOT VAGUE OR ABSTRACT
TERMS.
HIGH CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS 
REPRESENTS 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 REFERRED 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.
AND THAT MEANS CONNECTED TO THE 
OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENCY.
CONNECTED TO OFFICE.
THE CLASSIC FORUM THAT WAS FOR 
THE FRAMERS WAS THE ABUSE OF 
OFFICE FOR PERSONAL GAIN OR 
ADVANTAGE AND WHEN THE FRAMERS 

Spanish: 
CRÍMENES Y COMPORTAMIENTO 
INADECUADOS, ESTOS NO ERAN 
TÉRMINOS ABSTRACTOS SON PALABRAS
MUY ESPECÍFICAS QUE ERA 
COMPRENDIDO POR TODOS. SE 
TOMARON PRESTADOS DE UN JUICIO 
QUE SUCEDÍA EN EL REINO UNIDO AL
QUE SE HIZO REFERENCIA TAMBIÉN. 
ALTOS CRÍMENES Y DELITOS MENORES
TIENEN QUE VER CON UN ABUSO DEL 
CARGO  DE LA PRESIDENCIA PARA 
VENTAJA PERSONAL, PARA CORROMPER
EL PROCESO ELECTORAL O SUBSUMIR 
LA SEGURIDAD NACIONAL DEL PAÍS.
ALTO SIGNIFICA QUE ESTÁ 
CONECTADO AL CARGO DE PRES
E
PRESIDENTE. LA FORMA CLÁSICA A 

Spanish: 
LA QUE SE REFERÍAN  ERA EL ABUSO
DE PODER PARA BENEFICIO PER
L
PERSONAL. SE NOMBRA POR EJEMPLO 
EL SOBORNO EN UNA VERSIÓN MUY 
PARTICULAR, EL ABUSO DEL CARGO 
PARA UN BENEFICIO PERSONAL. 
TAMBIÉN SE PODÍA ABUSAR DEL 
CARGO PARA PONER EN JUEGO LA 
SEGURIDAD NACIONAL.O EL PROCESO 
ELECTORAL.
AHORA, COMO SE APLICA ESTE 
LENGUAJE A LA PRESUNTA CONDUCTA 
DEL PRESIDENTE TRUMP. LA 
CONSTITUCIÓN  LE DA LA CÁMARA EL
PODER COMPLETO PARA INICIAR UN 
JUICIO POLÍTICO. NO ES MI 
RESPONSABILIDAD DETERMINAR LA 
CREDIBILIDAD DE LOS TESTIGOS QUE
LA CÁMARA ESCUCHÓ, ESA ES SU 

English: 
SPECIFICALLY NAMED BRIBERY AS A 
HIGH CRIME AND MISDEMEANOR THEY 
WERE NAMING ONE PARTICULAR 
VERSION OF THIS ABUSE OF OFFICE,
THE ABUSE OF OFFICE FOR PERSONAL
OR INDIVIDUAL GAIN.
THE OTHER FORMS OF ABUSE OF 
OFFICE, ABUSE OF OFFICE TO 
EFFECT ELECTIONS AND ABUSE OF 
OFFICE TO COMPROMISE NATIONAL 
SECURITY WERE FURTHER FORMS THAT
WERE FAMILIAR TO THE FRAMERS.
NOW, HOW DOES THIS LANGUAGE OF 
HIGH CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS 
APPLY TO PRESIDENT TRUMP'S 
ALLEGED CONDUCT.
LET ME BE CLEAR, THE 
CONSTITUTION GIVES THE HOUSE OF 
REPRESENTATIVES THAT IS THE 
MEMBERS OF THIS COMMITTEE AND 
THE OTHER MEMBERS OF THE HOUSE, 
QUOTE, SOLE POWER OF 
IMPEACHMENT.
IT'S NOT MY RESPONSIBILITY OR 
JOB TO DETERMINE THE CREDIBILITY
OF THE WITNESSES THAT APPEARED 
BEFORE THE HOUSE THUS FAR.
THAT IS YOUR CONSTITUTIONAL 
RESPONSIBILITY.
MY COMMENTS WILL THEREFORE 
FOLLOW MY ROLE WHICH IS TO 

Spanish: 
RESPONSABILIDAD CONSTITUCIONAL. 
POR LO TANTO, MIS COMENTARIOS SE
AJUSTAN A MI ROL  DE DESCRIBIR  
ESTOS ALTOS CRÍMENES Y LOS DE
T
DELITOS MENORES. LO QUE HIZO EL 
PRESIDENTE TRUMP CALIFICA SEGÚN 
LOS TÉRMINOS DE LA CONST
CONSTITUCIÓN,,  EN PARTICULAR EL
MEMO Y LOS TESTIMONIOS 
VINCULADOS A SU CONVERSACIÓN 
TELEFÓNICA CON EL PRESIDENTE 
ZELENSKI. ESTOS INDICAN QUE EL 
PRESIDENTE ABUSO DE SU CARGO AL 
PEDIRLE AL PRESIDENTE DE UCRANIA
QUE INVESTIGARA SUS RIVALES 
POLÍTICOS PARA OBTENER UNA V
VENTAJA POLÍTICA PERSONAL, EN LA
ELECCIÓN DE 2020.

English: 
DESCRIBE AND APPLY THE MEANING 
OF IMPEACHMENT OFFENSES TO THE 
FACTS DESCRIBED BY THE TESTIMONY
AND EVIDENCE BEFORE THE HOUSE.
IN PARTICULAR, THE MEMORANDUM 
AND OTHER TESTIMONY RELATING TO 
THE PHONE CALL BETWEEN THE TWO 
PRESIDENTS MORE THAN 
SUFFICIENTLY INDICATES THAT 
PRESIDENT TRUMP ABUSED HIS 
OFFICE BY SOLICITING THE 
PRESIDENT OF UKRAINE TO 
INVESTIGATE HIS POLITICAL RIVALS
IN ORDER TO GAIN PERSONAL 
POLITICAL ADVANTAGE INCLUDING IN
RELATION TO THE 2020 ELECTION.
AGAIN THE WORDS ABUSE OF OFFICE 
ARE NOT MYTHICAL OR MAGICAL.
THEY'RE VERY CLEAR.
THE ABUSE OF OFFICE OCCURS WHEN 
THE PRESIDENT USES A FEATURE OF 

Spanish: 
ESTA PALABRAS  ABUSO DEL CARGO 
NO SON MÍSTICAS NI MÁGICAS, SON 
CLARAS, ÉSTAS SE DAN CUANDO EL 
PRESIDENTE USA EL PODER DEL 
CARGO NO PARA SERVIR AL INTERÉS 
DEL PUEBLO SI NO A SU PROPIO 
INTERÉS PERSONAL, PARTIDARIO, 
ELECTORAL. ESO ES LO QUE INDICAN
LOS ANTECEDENTES.
PARA TERMINAR,  QUIERO DEJAR 
CLARO QUE PEDIRLE AL LÍDER DE 
OTRO PAÍS QUE ANUNCIA 
INVESTIGACIONES SOBRE RIVALES 
POLÍTICOS. ESTO SERÍA UN DELITO,
PERO ADEMÁS EL PRESIDENTE 
COMETIÓ TRANSACCIONES QUE 
CALIFICAN, EN PARTICULAR LA 
EVIDENCIA QUE APUNTA A QUE EL 
PRESIDENTE SUSPENDIÓ ASISTENCIA 

English: 
HIS POWER, THE AWESOME POWER OF 
HIS OFFICE NOT TO SERVE THE 
INTERESTS OF THE AMERICAN PUBLIC
BUT TO SERVE HIS PERSONAL, 
INDIVIDUAL PARTISAN ELECTORAL 
INTERESTS.
THAT IS WHAT THE EVIDENCE BEFORE
THE HOUSE INDICATES.
FINALLY, LET ME BE CLEAR THAT ON
ITS OWN, SOLICITING THE LEADER 
OF A FOREIGN GOVERNMENT, IN 
ORDER TO ANNOUNCE THE 
INVESTIGATIONS OF POLITICAL 
RIVALS AND PERFORM THOSE 
INVESTIGATIONS, WOULD 
CONSTITUTION 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 IT'S RELEASE ON 
ANNOUNCEMENT OF THE 

English: 
INVESTIGATIONS OF THE BIDENS AND
OF THE DISCREDITED CROWD STRIKE 
CONSPIRACY THEORY.
THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED 
STATES WOULD TAKE ANY MEANS 
WHATEVER SO ENSURE HIS 
RE-ELECTION AND THAT IS THE 
REASON THAT THE FRAMERS PROVIDED
FOR IMPEACHMENT IN A CASE LIKE 
THIS ONE.
>> THE GENTLEMAN IS 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.
ALL IN FAVOR OF THE MOTION -- 
ALL IN FAVOR OF THE MOTION -- 
>> MAY WE HAVE THE MOTION READ 
PLEASE?
THE MOTION WAS STATED. 
>> MAY WE HAVE THE MOTION READ, 
PLEASE?

Spanish: 
CLAVE PARA UCRANIA HASTA QUE NO 
SE ANUNCIARA LA INVESTIGACIÓN  
SOBRE LOS BIDEN. ADEMÁS,  SE 
ESCUCHÓ EVIDENCIA DE QUE EL 
PRESIDENTE CONDICIONÓ UNA VISITA
A LA CASA BLANCA AL ANUNCIO DE 
ESTA INVESTIGACIÓN. AMBAS 
ACCIONES ALTOS CRÍMENES Y 
DELITOS MENORES  SEGÚN LOS 
DESCRIBE LA CONSTITUCIÓN. ESTO 
APUNTA  A QUE EL PRESIDENTE 
ESTABA DISPUESTO A HACER 
CUALQUIER COSA POR ASEGURAR SU
R
REELECCIÓN  Y POR ESO SE 
JUSTIFICA EL JUICIO POLÍTICO.
>>> SE ACABÓ EL TIEMPO
>>> PIDO LA PALABRA
>>> SSE LE DA
>>> VI UNA MOCIÓN PARA POSPONER
>>> SE PRESENTA LA MOCIÓN A LA 
MESA Y NO ES DEBATIBLE

English: 
>> THE MOTION WILL BE READ AS TO
WHAT DATE. 
>> THE MOTION WILL BE READ TO A 
DATE CERTAIN WEDNESDAY DECEMBER 
11th, 2019 SO WE CAN ACTUALLY 
GET A RESPONSE TO THE 6 LETTERS.
>> THE GENTLEMAN STATED HIS 
MOTION, THE MOTION TO TABLE IS 
MADE. 
>> MOTION TO TABLE IS MADE AND 
NOT DEBATABLE ALL IN FAVOR?
MOTION TO TABLE SAY AYE. 
>> OPPOSED. 
>> NO. 
>> THE MOTION TO TABLE IS AGREED
TO. 
>> ROLL CALL. 
>> ROLL CALL IS REQUESTED.
>> WELL, ONCE AGAIN, THE 
PARTISANSHIP THAT WE TOLD YOU 
WOULD BE ON STRONG DISPLAY IN 
THIS COMMITTEE IS ON CASE AS WE 
TAKE UP ANOTHER ISSUE.
I'LL GO BACK TO JEFF ON THE HILL
THAT READS THIS STUFF.
EXPLAIN WHAT'S HAPPENING THIS 
TIME. 
>> I SUSPECT WE'LL SEE THIS 
HAPPEN AT LEAST A FEW MORE TIMES
AS THIS HEARING PROGRESSES.
WHAT THEY'RE DOING HERE IS 
THEY'RE TRYING TO ADD DELAYS AND
OBSTACLE TO THIS HEARING THAT 
THEY CLEARLY OBJECT TO AS A WAY 

Spanish: 
>>> QUIENES ESTÉN A FAVOR
>>> PUEDO LEER LA MOCIÓN?
>>> SE LEERÁ LA MOCIÓN EL 11 DE 
DICIEMBRE
>>> SE VOTA LA MOCIÓN QUE NO 
ESTÁN A FAVOR DIGAN YO LOS OTROS
DIGAN O. SE APRUEBA, Y AHORA SE 
CONFIRMA
>>> NUEVAMENTE, COMO LES A
ANUNCIAMOS SE VE LA DIVISIÓN 
ENTRE AMBOS PARTIDOS, VUELVO CON
JESSE BENNETT PARA QUE NOS 
CUENTE LO QUE SUCEDE. ESTO VA A 
PASAR ÁREAS VECES MÁS EN LA A
AUDIENCIA. LOS REPUBLICANOS 
INTENTAN OBSTACULIZAR  LA 

Spanish: 
AUDIENCIA YA QUE ESTÁN EN CO
A
CONTRA, ES UNA FORMA DE 
AFECTARLA.
QUIEREN QUITAR EL CONTROL A LOS 
DEMÓCRATAS, QUIEREN POSPONER LA 
AUDIENCIA  Y SE ESPERA QUE EL 
RESULTADO SEA EL MISMO, QUE VOTE
LOS PARTIDOS DIVIDIDOS Y QUE 
GANE LOS DEMÓCRATAS 24 17 POR LO
QUE NO ESCUCHAREMOS EL PRÓXIMO 
TESTIGO
>>> CHUCK TODD ESCUCHAMOS UNA 
OPINIÓN LEGAL BASTANTE CLARA ES 
ES EL OBJETIVO
>>> CREO QUE EL OBJETIVO ES QUE 
LA PRENSA ESCRIBA SOBRE EL 
PROCESO  Y LAS INTERRUPCIONES,  
ESO LO QUE PERA LOS REPUB
S
REPUBLICANOS. CREO QUE EL PRIMER

English: 
TO UNDERMINE IT AND AS A RESULT 
OF THAT REALLY TESTING CHAIRMAN 
NADLER'S GRIP ON THIS OVERALL 
PROCEEDING.
SO THE LATEST MOTION WAS ONE TO 
BASICALLY PUT THIS ENTIRE THING 
OFF TO A LATER DATE.
SO NOW THEY'RE TAKING A ROLL 
CALL VOTE AND WE EXPECT THAT 
THIS VOTE IS GOING TO GO THE WAY
THE LAST ONE DID.
IT'S GOING TO BE A PARTY LINE 
VOTE 24-17, DEMOCRATS WILL 
PREVAIL AND THEY'LL TABLE THIS 
AND THE NEXT WITNESS WILL HAVE 
THE CHANCE TO SPEAK. 
>> WE HAD EXPECTED THEATRICS 
FROM BOTH SIDES BUT THIS IS 
GOING TO BLUNT THE TESTIMONY.
WE HEARD SOME VERY STRONG LEGAL 
OPINION THERE ON IMPEACHMENT.
IS THE GOAL OF SOME OF THIS TO 
BLUNT TESTIMONY THAT WE'RE GOING
TO HEAR. 
>> THE GOAL IS TO I THINK GET 
ALL OF US IN THE PRESS CORPS TO 
WRITE ABOUT THE PROCESS AND 
DISRUPTIONS AND SORT OF TO TRY 
TO DISMISS WHAT YOU'RE HEARING.
I FOUND THE FIRST WITNESS VERY 
COMPELLING.
I THINK HE DID A GOOD JOB 
TELLING AN ORAL HISTORY OF SORTS

Spanish: 
TESTIGO FUE MUY CLARO A MI ME 
GUSTA LA HISTORIA PERO CREO QUE 
LE EXPLICO MUY BIEN EL DEBATE 
SOBRE SI INCLUIR O NO EL JUICIO 
POLÍTICO LA CONSTITUCIÓN. CREO 
QUE ESO LO DISFRUTARÁN LOS 
TELEVIDENTES, Y ES CLARO TAMBIÉN
LO QUE ESTÁN HACIENDO LOS 
REPUBLICANOS, ESTÁN PROPONIENDO 
MOCIONES  ESO ES LO QUE PASA
>>> VAMOS AL SIGUIENTE TE
TESTIMONIO
>>> SEÑOR PRESIDENTE,  AGRADEZCO
HABER PODIDO COLABORAR ANTES CON
ESTE COMITÉ. LO HICE BAJO 
DISTINTAS PRESIDENCIAS, EL PAPEL
DE ESTE COMITÉ HA SIDO CLAVE  
PARA DEFENDER EL DERECHO DE LOS 
ESTADOUNIDENSES A VOTAR EN 

English: 
OF EXPLAINING THE DEBATE ABOUT 
WHETHER TO PUT IMPEACHMENT IN 
THE CONSTITUTION OR NOT.
IT'S CALLED CALL A MOTION I 
GUESS.
SO HERE WE GO. 
>> THANK YOU FOR THE OPPORTUNITY
TO TESTIFY. 
>> TWICE I HAD THE PRIVILEGE OF 
REPRESENTING THIS COMMITTEE AND 
IT'S LEADERSHIP IN VOTING RIGHTS
CASES BEFORE THE SUPREME COURT.
ONCE WHEN IT WAS UNDER THE 
LEADERSHIP OF THE CHAIRMAN, IT'S
GOOD TO SEE YOU AGAIN SIR AND 
WITH ONE OF MY OTHER CLIENTS AND
ONCE UNDER THE LEADERSHIP OF 
CHAIRMAN CONYERS.
IT WAS A GREAT HONOR TO 
REPRESENT THIS COMMITTEE BECAUSE
OF THE KEY ROLE IN ENSURING THAT
AMERICAN CITIZENS HAVE THE RIGHT
TO VOTE IN FREE AND FAIR 
ELECTIONS.
TODAY YOU'RE BEING ASKED TO 
CONSIDER WHETHER PROTECTING 
THOSE ELECTIONS REQUIRES 
IMPEACHING A PRESIDENT.

English: 
THAT IS AN AWESOME 
RESPONSIBILITY.
THAT EVERYTHING I KNOW ABOUT OUR
CONSTITUTION AND IT'S VALUES AND
MY REVIEW OF THE RECORD AND HERE
MR. FOREMAN COLLINS I WOULD LIKE
TO SAY TO YOU, SIR, THAT I READ 
TRANSCRIPTS OF EVERY ONE OF THE 
WITNESSES WHO APPEARED IN THE 
LIVE HEARING BECAUSE I WOULD NOT
SPEAK ABOUT THESE THINGS WITHOUT
REVIEWING THE FACTS SO I'M 
INSULTING BY THE SUGGESTION THAT
AS A LAW PROFESSOR 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 UPCOMING ELECTION HE STRUCK 
AT THE VERY HEART OF WHAT MAKES 
THIS A REPUBLIC TO WHICH WE 
PLEDGE ALLEGIANCE.
THAT DEMAND AS PROFESSOR FELDMAN
JUST EXPLAINED CONSTITUTED AN 
ABUSE OF POWER.
INDEED, AS I WANT TO EXPLAIN IN 
MY TESTIMONY, DRAWING A FOREIGN 
GOVERNMENT INTO OUR ELECTIONS IS

Spanish: 
ELECCIONES LIBRES Y JUSTAS. LA 
PREGUNTA ES SI ESA PROTECCIÓN 
INCLUYE  HACER UN JUICIO P
POLÍTICO CON PRESIDENTE. ESA ES 
UNA GRAN RESPONSABILIDAD Y EN 
BASE A LO QUE DICE LA CO
CONSTITUCIÓN Y LAS TRA
TRANSCRIPCIONES DE LO QUE 
DIJERON LOS TESTIGOS, PORQUE YO 
NO HABLARÍA AQUÍ SIN REVISAR LOS
HECHOS POR LO QUE ME OFENDE LO 
QUE USTED INSINUÓ. TODO LO QUE 
LEÍ ME DICE QUE CUANDO EL 
PRESIDENTE TRUMP EXIGIÓ EL 
INVOLUCRAMIENTO DE UN GOBIERNO 
EXTRANJERO EN NUESTRA ELECCIÓN 
ATACÓ EL CORAZÓN DE LA REPÚBLICA
QUE DEFENDEMOS. COMO SE EXPLICÓ,
ESTO UN ABUSO DE PODER. COMO 
QUIERO DEJAR CLARO,  ATRAER A UN
GOBIERNO EXTRANJERO A NUESTRA 

Spanish: 
ELECCIÓN  ES UN GRAVE ABUSO DE 
PODER PORQUE VA CONTRA LA 
DEMOCRACIA EN SÍ. NUESTRA 
CONSTITUCIÓN DICE NOSOTROS EL 
PUEBLO, EL UNA RAZÓN. LOS 
PODERES DE LAS AUTORIDADES 
PROVIENEN DEL PUEBLO Y ESO SE 
E
REFLEJA A TRAVÉS DE LAS 
ELECCIONES, HABLAN DE NUESTRA 
LEGITIMIDAD, LA DE NUESTROS G
I
GOBIERNOS Y NUESTRAS LIBERTADES.
ME PARECE MUY SORPRENDENTE  QUE 
LA CONSTITUCIÓN TENGA NORMAS  
SOBRE LAS ELECCIONES Y LA 
RESPONSABILIDAD DE LAS 
AUTORIDADES, DE HECHO, MUCHAS 
N
ENMIENDAS DESDE LA GUERRA CIVIL 

English: 
AN ESPECIALLY SERIOUS ABUSE OF 
POWER BECAUSE IT UNDERMINES 
DEMOCRACY ITSELF.
AND THE LEGITIMACY OF OUR 
GOVERNMENT AND VOTING IS 
PRESERVATIVE OF ALL RIGHTS.
SO IT IS HARDLY SURPRISING THAT 
THE CONSTITUTION IS MARVELLED 
WITH PROVISIONS GOVERNING 
ELECTIONS AND GUARANTEEING 
GOVERNMENTAL ACCOUNTABILITY.
INDEED, A MAJORITY OF AMENDMENTS
TO OUR CONSTITUTIONS SINCE THE 
CIVIL WAR 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.
AMERICA KEPT THAT PROMISE FOR 

English: 
TWO CENTURIES AND HAS DONE SO 
EVEN DURING WARTIMES.
FOR EXAMPLE WE HAVE INVENTED THE
IDEA OF ABSENTEE VOTING SO THAT 
UNION TROOPS THAT SUPPORTED 
PRESIDENT LINCOLN COULD STAY IN 
THE FIELD DURING THE ELECTION OF
1864 AND SINCE THEN COUNTLESS 
OTHER AMERICANS HAVE FOUGHT AND 
DIED TO PROTECT OUR RIGHT TO 
VOTE. 
>> BUT THE FRAMERS OF OUR 
CONSTITUTION REALIZE THAT 
ELECTIONS ALONE COULD NOT 
GUARANTEE THAT THE UNITED STATES
WOULD REMAIN A REPUBLIC.
NOW YOU ALREADY HEARD TWO PEOPLE
GIVE WILLIAM DAVEY HIS PROPS.
HAMILTON GOT A WHOLE MUSICAL AND
WILLIAM DAVEY IS ONLY GOING TO 
GET THE COMMITTEE HEARING.
HE WARNED THAT A PRESIDENT MIGHT
SPARE NO EFFORTS OR MEANS 
WHATSOEVER TO GET HIMSELF 
REELECTED AND GEORGE MASON 
INSISTED THAT A PRESIDENT THAT 
PROCURED HIS APPOINTMENT IN THE 

Spanish: 
HABLAN DE ESTOS TEMAS,, QUE SON 
DE LO MÁS IMPORTANTE. HEMOS 
MANTENIDO ESTÁ PROCESADO  DU
DURANTE MÁS DE DOS SIGLOS. POR 
EJEMPLO, EL VOTO NAU CIENCIA 
PARA QUE LOS MILITARES PUDIESEN 
VOTAR EN EL FRENTE. DESDE 
ENTONCES MUCHOS ESTADOUNIDENSES 
HAN MUERTO POR PROTEGER NUESTRO 
DERECHO.
NO ESTABA GARANTIZADO  QUE 
ESTADOS UNIDOS SIGUIESE SIENDO 
UNA REPÚBLICA  COMO EXISTÍA EL 
RIESGO DE QUE EL QUE SE DE 
INTERVENIR EN EL PROCESO 
ELECTORAL. DOS PERSONAS YA 
HABLARON DE ESTO, SE CITÓ A 
PERSONAJES PÚBLICOS QUE 
ADVIRTIERON QUE SIN LA P

English: 
FIRST INSTANCE THROUGH IMPROPER 
AND CORRUPT ACTS SHOULD NOT 
ESCAPE PUNISHMENT BY REPEATING 
HIS GUILT AND MASON WAS THE 
PERSON RESPONSIBLE FOR ADDING 
HIGH CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS TO 
THE LIST OF IMPEACHABLE 
OFFENSES.
SO WE KNOW FROM THAT THAT THE 
LIST WAS DESIGNED TO REACH A 
PRESIDENT THAT ACTS TO SUBVERT 
AN ELECTION.
TO PROTECT OUR GOVERNMENT AND 
OUR DEMOCRATIC PROCESS FROM 
OUTSIDE INTERFERENCE.
FOR EXAMPLE, JOHN ADAMS DURING 
THE RATIFICATION EXPRESSED 
CONCERN WITH THE VERY IDEA OF 
HAVING AN ELECTED PRESIDENT 
WRITING TO THOMAS JEFFERSON THAT
YOU ARE APPREHENSIVE OF FOREIGN 
INTERFERENCE, INTRIGUE, 
INFLUENCE, SO AM I BUT AS OFTEN 
AS ELECTIONS HAPPEN THE DANGER 

Spanish: 
POSIBILIDAD DEL JUICIO POLÍTICO 
LOS PRESIDENTES HARÍAN LO 
POSIBLE POR SER REELEGIDOS. SE 
DIJO QUE UN PRESIDENTE NO DEBÍA 
ESCAPAR DEL CASTIGO, MASON 
AGREGÓ LA LISTA DE OFENSAS QUE 
JUSTIFICAN UN JUICIO POLÍTICO. 
SE TRATA DE UN PRESIDENTE QUE 
INTENTA INFLUIR UNA ELECCIÓN, LA
QUE LE PERMITE LLEGAR AL CARGO O
SE REELEGIDO.
ADEMÁS,  A NUESTROS FUNDADORES 
LE PREOCUPABA DEFENDER NUESTRA 
DEMOCRACIA Y NUESTRO PROCESO DE 
LA INTERFERENCIA EXTRANJERA. 
JOHN ADAMS  PLANTÓ SU 
PREOCUPACIÓN DE QUE SE ELIGIERON
PRESIDENTE. DIJO QUE LE 

English: 
OF FOREIGN INFLUENCE RECURS.
AND IN HIS FAIRWELL ADDRESS, 
PRESIDENT WASHINGTON WARNED THE 
HISTORY AND EXPERIENCE PROVED 
THAT FOREIGN INFLUENCE IS ONE OF
THE MOST VAINFUL FOES OF 
REPUBLICAN GOVERNMENT.
THEY WOULD TRY TO FOAM AT 
DISAGREEMENT AMONG THE AMERICAN 
PEOPLE AND INFLUENCE WHAT WE 
FOUGHT.
THE VERY IDEA THAT A PRESIDENT 
MIGHT SEEK THE AID OF A FOREIGN 
GOVERNMENT IN HIS RE-ELECTION 
CAMPAIGN SHOULD HAVE HORRIFIED 
THEM.
BUT BASED ON THE RECORD, THAT IS
WHAT PRESIDENT TRUMP HAS DONE.
THE LIST OF IMPEACHMENT OFFENSES
THAT THE FRAMERS INCLUDED IN THE
CONSTITUTION SHOWS THAT THE 
ESSENCE OF AN IMPEACHMENT 
OFFENSE IS A PRESIDENT'S 
DECISION TO SACRIFICE THE 
NATIONAL INTEREST FOR HIS OWN 
PRIVATE ENDS.
TREASON, THE FIRST THING LISTED,
INDIVIDUALS GIVING AID TO A 
FOREIGN ENEMY.
THAT'S PUTTING A FOREIGN ENEMY'S
INTERESTS ABOVE THE INTEREST OF 
THE UNITED STATES.

Spanish: 
PREOCUPABA LA INJERENCIA 
EXTRANJERA, QUE ESTABA SIEMPRE 
PRESENTE LAS ELECCIONES. EL 
PRESIDENTE WASHINGTON  ADVIRTIÓ 
QUE LA EXPERIENCIA DEMOSTRABA 
QUE LA INJERENCIA EXTRANJERA ERA
UN PELIGRO CLARO.
EN LA IDEA DE QUE UN PRESIDENTE 
PIDA AYUDA OTRO GOBIERNO EN SU 
REELECCIÓN LOS HABRÍA 
HORRORIZADO.Y ESO LO QUE HA 
HECHO EL PRESIDENTE TRUMP. LA 
LISTA DE OFENSAS QUE JUSTIFICAN 
UN JUICIO POLÍTICO ESTÁN EN EL 
CORAZÓN DE LA DEFINICIÓN DE E
ESTÁS OFENSAS EN QUE UN PRE
PRESIDENTE SACRIFICA EL INTERÉS 

Spanish: 
NACIONAL POR EL SUYO PROPIO.
SUSPENDER LA ASISTENCIA A UN 
PAÍS AMIGO, EL SOBORNO SUCEDE  
CUANDO SE PIDE UN FAVOR PERSONAL
DEMOSTRANDO QUE PONE SU PROPIO 
INTERÉS POR SOBRE DEL PAÍS. SIN 
PONER ATENCIÓN AL INTERÉS 
PÚBLICO.
LO QUE HA PASADO EN ESTE CASO ES
ALGO QUE CREO NUNCA HABÍAMOS 
VISTO, UN PRESIDENTE QUE HA 
INSISTIDO EN NO CUMPLIR SU 
PROMESA Y QUE NO HA DEFENDIDO LA
CONSTITUCIÓN. UN PRESIDENTE QUE 
USÓ SU CARGO  PARA EXIGIR QUE UN
GOBIERNO EXTRANJERO PERJUDICADA 

English: 
BRIBERY, OCCURRED WHEN AN 
OFFICIAL SOLICITED, RECEIVED OR 
OFFERED A PERSONAL FAVOR OR 
BENEFIT TO INFLUENCE OFFICIAL 
ACTION RISKING THAT HE WOULD PUT
HIS PRIVATE WELFARE ABOVE THE 
NATIONAL INTEREST AND HIGH 
CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS CAPTURED
THE OTHER WAYS IN WHICH A HIGH 
OFFICIAL MIGHT AS THE STORY 
EXPLAINED DISREGARD PUBLIC 
INTEREST IN THE DISCHARGE OF THE
DUTIES OF POLITICAL OFFICE.
BASED ON THE RECORD BEFORE YOU, 
WHAT HAS HAPPENED IN THE CASE 
TODAY IS SOMETHING THAT I DO NOT
THINK THAT 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 THE 
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 

Spanish: 
A UN COMPETIDOR. COMO DIJO JOHN 
KENNEDY, EL DERECHO VOTAR EN UNA
ELECCIÓN LIBRE ES EL DERECHO MÁS
VALIOSO. PERO NUESTRAS 
ELECCIONES SON MENOS LIBRES 
CUANDO HAY INTERFERENCIA EXT
J
EXTRANJERA. LO DE 2016 YA FUE 
MALO, QUEDÓ CLARO QUE RUSIA 
INTERVINO, ESA DISTORSIÓN SE 
MAGNIFICA SI EL PRESIDENTE  
ABUSA DE SU CARGO PARA PEDIR 
INTERVENCIÓN EXTRANJERA. 
IMAGÍNENSE VIVIR EN 1 A DE 
LUISIANA  O TEXAS  QUE SUFRE LOS
EFECTOS DE INUNDACIONES, QUE LE 
PARECERÍA QUE EL GOBERNADOR 
PIDIERA UNA REUNIÓN CON EL 
PRESIDENTE PARA PEDIR ASISTENCIA
CONTRA DESASTRE, QUE PENSARÍAN 
SI EL PRESIDENTE DIJERA PRIMERO 
QUIERO QUE ME HAGA UN FAVOR, ME 

English: 
MOST POWERFUL AND PRECIOUS RIGHT
IN THE WORLD.
BUT OUR ELECTIONS BECOME LESS 
FREE WHEN THEY ARE DISTORTED BY 
FOREIGN INTERFERENCE.
THERE'S WIDESPREAD AGREEMENT 
THAT RUSSIAN OPERATIVES 
INTERVENE TO MANIPULATE OUR 
PROCESS.
BUT THAT IS MAGNIFIED.
IF A SITTING PRESIDENT ABUSES 
THE POWERS OF HIS OFFICE 
ACTUALLY TO INVITE FOREIGN 
INTERVENTION.
YOU CAN SEE WHY.
IMAGINE LIVING IN A PART OF 
LOUISIANA OR TEXAS THAT IS 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 SAYS I 
WOULD LIKE TO DO YOU -- I WOULD 
LIKE YOU TO DO US A FAVOR, I'LL 
MEET WITH YOU AND I'LL SEND A 
DISASTER RELIEF ONCE YOU BRAND 
MY OPPONENT A CRIMINAL.

English: 
WOULDN'T YOU KNOW IN YOUR GUT 
THAT SUCH A PRESIDENT HAD ABUSED
HIS OFFICE?
AFRTD ARE AND THAT HE WAS TRYING
TO CORRUPT THE ELECTORAL 
PROCESS?
I BELIEVE THAT RECORD SHOWS 
WRONGFUL ACTS ON THAT SCALE 
HERE.
IT SHOWS A PRESIDENT THAT 
DELAYED MEETING A FOREIGN LEADER
AND PROVIDED ASSISTANCE THAT 
CONGRESS AND HIS OWN ADVISERS 
BELIEVED SHOWED OUR NATIONAL 
INTEREST IN LIMITING RUSSIAN 
AGGRESSION.
SAYING RUSSIA, IF YOU'RE 
LISTENING?
YOU KNOW, A PRESIDENT THAT CARED
ABOUT THE CONSTITUTION WOULD SAY
RUSSIA, IF YOU'RE LISTENING, 
BUTT OUT OF OUR ELECTIONS AND IT
SHOWS A PRESIDENT THAT DID THIS 
TO STRONG ARM A FOREIGN LEADER 
INTO SMEARING ONE OF THE 
PRESIDENT'S OPPONENTS IN OUR ON 
GOING ELECTION SEASON.
THAT'S NOT POLITICS AS USUAL.
AT LEAST NOT IN THE UNITED 
STATES OR NOT IN ANY MATURE 
DEMOCRACY.
IT IS INSTEAD WHY THE 
CONSTITUTION OBTAINED AN 
IMPEACHMENT POWER.

Spanish: 
REUNIRÉ CON USTED Y LE DARÉ EL 
DINERO SI USTED INVESTIGA MI 
OPONENTE. DUDARÍAN ACASO DE QUE 
ESO FUE UN ABUSO DEL CARGO,  QUE
SE TRAICIONÓ EL INTERÉS DEL PAÍS
Y QUE SE INTENTÓ CORROMPER A UNA
AUTORIDAD?
CREO QUE ESO ESTÁ CLARO EN ESTE 
CASO, SE VE QUE UN PRESIDENTE 
SUSPENDIÓ UNA REUNIÓN  Y UNA 
ASISTENCIA QUE SIRVE A NUESTRA 
INTERÉS NACIONAL AL PROMOVER LA 
DEMOCRACIA Y LIMITAR LA AGRESIÓN
RUSA. UN PRESIDENTE R KELLY 
IMPORTA LA CONSTITUCIÓN DI
DIRÍA,"RUSIA SI ME ESCUCHAS, 
ALÉJATE DE NUESTRA ELECCIÓN".NO 
ES ASÍ COMO FUNCIONA LA POL
A
POLÍTICA, AL MENOS NO EN NUESTRO
PAÍS. ESTA ES UNA RAZÓN 

English: 
A PRESIDENT SHOULD RESIST 
FOREIGN INTERFERENCE IN OUR 
ELECTIONS.
NOT DEMAND IT 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. 
>> THANK YOU.
IT'S AN HONOR AND A PRIVILEGE TO
JOIN THE OTHER WITNESSES TO 
DISCUSS A MATTER OF GRAVE 
CONCERN TO OUR COUNTRY AND TO 
OUR CONSTITUTION BECAUSE THIS 
HOUSE HAS THE SOLE POWER OF 
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 THE OPENING 
STATEMENT, THE RECORD COMPILED 
SHOWS THE PRESIDENT HAS 

Spanish: 
FUNDAMENTAL POR LA QUE EXISTE EL
PODER DE INICIAR UN JUICIO 
POLÍTICO LA CONSTITUCIÓN. UN 
PRESIDENTE DEBE  EVITAR LA 
INTERVENCIÓN EXTRANJERA Y NO 
EXIGIRLA. POR ESO EL PRESIDENTE 
TRUMP  DEBE HACERSE RESPONSABLE 
PUNTO GRACIAS
>>> GRACIAS PROFESORA
>>> SEÑOR PRESIDENTE MUCHAS 
GRACIAS. ES UN HONOR UNIRME A 
LOS TESTIGOS QUE HAN HABLADO DE 
UN TEMA MUY IMPORTANTE PARA 
NUESTRO PAÍS Y NO ESTÁ 
CONSTITUCIÓN. PORQUE TE LA 
CÁMARA QUE REPRESENTA EL PUEBLO 
Y ES LA ÚNICA QUE TIENE EL PODER
DE INICIAR UN JUICIO POLÍTICO Y 
PUEDE DEFINIR SI SE CUMPLIÓ CON 
EL ESTÁNDAR MÍNIMO PARA HAC
.
HACERLO.COMO EXPLICARÉ EN MI 
DECLARACIÓN, LA EVIDENCIA 
DEMUESTRA QUE EL PRESIDENTE HA 

English: 
COMMITTED SEVERAL IMPEACHMENT 
OFFENSES INCLUDING BRIBERY, 
ABUSE OF POWER AND BENEFIT 
HIMSELF PERSONALLY OBJECTING 
JUSTICE AND OBJECTING 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.
IT'S RECOGNIZED AROUND THE WORLD
AS A FIXED INSPIRING AMERICAN 
IDEAL.
IN HIS THIRD MESSAGE TO CONGRESS
IN 1903, PRESIDENT ROOSEVELT 
DELIVERED ONE OF THE FINEST 
ARTICULATIONS OF THIS PRESIDENT.
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.

Spanish: 
COMETIDO VARIAS ACCIONES  QUE 
JUSTIFICAN EL JUICIO POLÍTICO, 
INCLUIDO EL SOBORNO, PEDIR UN 
FAVOR QUE LO BENEFICIA 
PERSONALMENTE, OBSTRUCCIÓN A LA 
JUSTICIA  Y A LA LABOR DEL 
CONGRESO. ESTA AUDIENCIA DEBE 
RECORDARNOS UNO DE LOS 
PRINCIPIOS CLAVE QUE GUIÓ  A 
QUIENES REDACTARON NUESTRA 
CONSTITUCIÓN, QUE LO LLEVÓ A
ALEJARSE DE INGLATERRA Y E
ESCRIBIR SUPO QUE CONSTITUCIÓN. 
EL PRINCIPIO DE QUE EN ESTE PAÍS
NADIE REY. ESTOS PRINCIPIOS  SE 
RECONOCEN EN TODO EL MUNDO Y HAN
INSPIRADO EL IDEAL E
ESTADOUNIDENSE.
EN 1903 EL PRESIDENTE ROOSEVELT 
EXPLICÓ ESTE PRINCIPIO DICIENDO:
"NADIE ESTÁ POR SOBRE LA LEY NI 

Spanish: 
POR DEBAJO. LA OBEDIENCIA A LA 
LEY  SE EXIGE COMO UN DERECHO NO
COMO UN FAVOR".HAY TRES PR
PRINCIPIO LA CONSTITUCIÓN QUE 
DEFIENDEN ESTE PRINCIPIO DE QUE 
NO HAY NADIE POR SOBRE LA LEY, 
INCLUIDO EL PRESIDENTE. EN 
INGLATERRA, EL REY ESTABA POR 
ENCIMA,, PERO NO ESTÁ 
CONSTITUCIÓN  GARANTIZA QUE EL 
PRESIDENTE SE HARÁ RESPONSABLE. 
HAYA SE DICE QUE EL REINO PUEDE 
COMETER ERRORES. NUESTRA 
CONSTITUCIÓN DICE Y CONSAGRA LA 
SEPARACIÓN DE PODERES, EN LA 
FISCALIZACIÓN QUE EVITA QUE UN 
PRESIDENTE SE CONVIERTE EN UN 
TIRANO.
EL SISTEMA BRITÁNICO DICE QUE SE
PUEDE HACER UN JUICIO POLÍTICO A

English: 
OBEDIENCE TO THE LAW IS DEMANDED
AS A RIGHT.
NOT AS A FAVOR.
NO ONE, NOT EVEN THE PRESIDENT 
IS ABOVE THE LAW.
FIRST IN THE BRITISH SYSTEM, 
THEY HAVE NO CHOICE AND IN OUR 
CONSTITUTION THE FRAMERS ALLOWED
ELECTIONS TO SERVE AS A CRUCIAL 
MEANS FOR INSURING PRESIDENTIAL 
ACCOUNTABILITY.
SECOND IN THE BRITISH SYSTEM THE
KING COULD DO NO WRONG.
AND NO OTHER PARTS OF THE 
GOVERNMENT COULD CHECK HIM.
IN THE BRITISH SYSTEM EVERYONE 
BUT THE KING WAS IMPEACHMENT.
THEY REBEL AGAINST THE MONARCH 
THEY SAW AS CORRUPT AND ENTITLED
TO DO NO LONG.
IN OUR DECLARATION OF 

English: 
INDEPENDENCE THEY SET FORTH 
THOSE AND WHEN THEY LATER 
CONVENED TO DRAFT OUR 
CONSTITUTION THEY WERE UNITED 
AROUND A SIMPLE INDISPUTABLE 
PRINCIPLE THAT WAS A MAJOR SAFE 
GUARD FOR THE PUBLIC.
WE THE PEOPLE AGAINST TYRANNY OF
ANY KIND.
A PEOPLE THAT HAD OVERTHROWN A 
KING WERE NOT GOING TO TURN 
AROUND AND CREATE AN OFFICE THAT
LIKE THE KING WAS ABOVE THE LAW 
AND COULD DO NO WRONG.
THE FRAMERS CREATED A CHIEF 
EXECUTIVE TO BRING IT TO THE 
ADMINISTRATION OF FEDERAL LAWS 
BUT TO BE ACCOUNTABLE TO 
CONGRESS FOR TREASON, BRIBERY OR
OTHER HIGH CRIMES AND 
MISDEMEANORS.
THE FRAMERS CONCERN WAS EVIDENCE
ABOUT THE CONVENTION.

Spanish: 
TODOS MENOS AL REY. EN NUESTRA 
DECLARACIÓN DE INDEPENDENCIA, SE
LISTAN VARIAS OFENSAS QUE EL REY
COMETIÓ CONTRA ESTADOS UNIDOS, Y
AL ESCRIBIR LA CONSTITUCIÓN SE 
UNIERON BAJO EL PRINCIPIO QUE ES
UNA SALVAGUARDA PARA EL PÚBLICO.
HABLAN DE NOSOTROS EL PUEBLO, UN
PUEBLO QUE HABÍA DERRIBADO AL 
REY QUE NO IBA A PERMITIR 
NINGUNA TIRANÍA. NO SE 
PERMITIRÍA QUE NADIE ESTUVIESE 
POR SOBRE LA LEY. EL PRESIDENTE 
DEBE SER RESPONSABLE DEL 
CONGRESO POR TRAICIÓN,  SOBORNO 
Y OTROS ALTOS CRÍMENES Y DELITOS
MENORES. ESTO QUEDA CLARO EN LA 
CONVENCIÓN. VOY HABLAR TAMBIÉN 

English: 
HERE I MUST THANK MY FRIENDS 
THAT REFERRED TO WILLIAM DAVY.
I WILL TALK ABOUT JAMES THAT WAS
APPOINTED TO THE SUPREME COURT 
AND ASSURED 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.
END QUOTE.
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.
AND ATTEMPTS TO SUBVERT THE 
CONSTITUTION WHEN THE PRESIDENT 

Spanish: 
DE OTRO REPRESENTANTE QUE 
PARTICIPÓ  DE LA CONVENCIÓN 
CONSTITUYENTE, TAMBIÉN DE KARINA
DEL NORTE Y QUE LUEGO FUE JUEZ 
DE LA SUPREMA. DICE QUE UN 
PRESIDENTE DISTINTO MONARCA, QUE
RESPONSABLE PERSONALMENTE POR 
CUALQUIER ABUSO.
ESTO NO LLEVA LA PREGUNTA CLAVE 
QUE VINIMOS A DISCUTIR, CUÁL ES 
EL ESTÁNDAR PARA PODER INICIAR 
UN JUICIO POLÍTICO. LA CON
CONSTITUCIÓN DEFINE EL SOBORNO, 
COMO EL USO DEL CARGO PARA UN 
BENEFICIO PERSONAL. COMO YA DIJO
MI COLEGA, ESTOS TÉRMINOS 
DERIVAN DE LA DEFINICIÓN 
BRITÁNICA DE ESTÁS OFENSAS 
CONTRA LOS ESTADOS UNIDOS Y LA 

English: 
DARES TO USE THE POWER AND 
BREACHES PUBLIC TRUST AND 
SERIOUS INJURIES TO THE REPUBLIC
AND THE FEDERALIST PAPERS 
ALEXANDER HAMILTON DECLARED THEY
ARE THOSE DEFENSES THAT PROCEED 
THE VIOLATION OF SOME PUBLIC 
TRUST.
AND RELAYED TO INJURIES DONE 
IMMEDIATELY OF SOCIETY ITSELF.
SEVERAL THEMES EMERGE.
FROM THE FRAMERS DISCUSSION OF 
THE SCOPE OF IMPEACHMENT 
OFFENSES AND IMPEACHMENT 
PRACTICE.
WE KNOW THAT NOT ALL IMPEACHABLE
OFFENSES ARE CRIMINAL AND WE 
KNOW THAT NOT ALL FELONIES ARE 
IMPEACHMENT OFFENSES.
WE KNOW FURTHER THAT WHAT 
MATTERS IN DETERMINING WHETHER 
PARTICULAR MISCONDUCT 
CONSTITUTES AS A HIGH CRIME AND 
MISDEMEANOR IS THE CONTEXT AND 
THE GRAVITY OF THE MISCONDUCT IN
QUESTION.

Spanish: 
CONSTITUCIÓN, CUANDO UN 
PRESIDENTE NO SIGA LAS NORMAS Y 
ABUSE DE SU CARGO PARA SOMETE EL
LA E INCUMPLA LA CONFIANZA DEL 
PÚBLICO DAÑANDO SERIAMENTE LA 
REPÚBLICA.
HAY VARIOS PUNTOS QUE SURGEN A
P
PARTIR DE ESTA DISCUSIÓN SOBRE
A
ACCIONES SOMETIDAS  A JUICIO 
POLÍTICO, SABEMOS QUE NO TODAS 
ESTAS ACCIONES SON CRIMINALES, 
TAMPOCO SIGNIFICA ESTO QUE TODO 
CRIMEN JUSTIFIQUE UN JUICIO 
POLÍTICO. LA DEFINICIÓN TIENE 
QUE VER CON EL CONTEXTO Y LA 
GRAVEDAD DEL DELITO MENOR, POR 

English: 
I CANNOT HELP BUT CONCLUDE THIS 
PRESIDENT ATTACKED EACH SAFE 
GUARD AGAINST ESTABLISHING A 
MONARCHY IN THIS COUNTRY.
THE FAVOR HE REQUESTED FROM 
UKRAINE'S PRESIDENT WAS TO 
RECEIVE IN EXCHANGE FOR HIS USE 
OF PRESIDENTIAL POWER, HIS 
ANNOUNCEMENT OF A POLITICAL 
RIVAL.
IT WAS NOT THE IMPORTANT ACTION 
OF THE PRESIDENT.
THE GRAVITY OF THE PRESIDENT'S 
MISCONDUCT IS APPARENT WHEN 
COMPARED TO THE MISCONDUCT OF 
THE ONE PRESIDENT THAT RE-SIGNED
FROM OFFICE TO AVOID 
IMPEACHMENT, CONVICTION AND 
REMOVAL.
THEY IMPROVED THREE ARTICLES OF 
IMPEACHMENT.
THE FIRST ARTICLE CHARGED HIM 
WITH OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE.
IF YOU READ THE MUELLER REPORT 
IT IDENTIFIES A NUMBER OF FACTS.
I WON'T LAY THEM OUT HERE RIGHT 
NOW THAT SUGGEST THE PRESIDENT 

Spanish: 
EJEMPLO.AL LEER LAS D
DECLARACIONES, CONCLUYO QUE EL 
PRESIDENTE FUE CONTRA TODO ESTO.
ES CLARA LA GRAVEDAD DE LO QUE 
HIZO, EL FAVOR QUE LE PIDIÓ AL 
PRESIDENTE UCRANIANO, SOMETIENDO
LA AYUDA A QUE LO APOYARA 
ANUNCIANDO UNA INVESTIGACIÓN 
SOBRE SU RIVAL POLÍTICO. LA 
GRAVEDAD DE LA CONDUCTA DEL 
PRESIDENTE QUEDA CLARO AL 
COMPARARLO AL ÚNICO PRESIDENTE 
QUE RENUNCIÓ PARA EVITAR EL 
JUICIO POLÍTICO. EN 1974 ESTE 
COMITÉ APROBÓ TRES CARGOS DE 
JUICIO POLÍTICO CONTRA EL 
PRESIDENTE NIXON, UNO TENÍA QUE 
VER CON LA OBSTRUCCIÓN A LA 
JUSTICIA.

Spanish: 
EN EL INFORME DE ROBERT MUELLER 
SE HACE REFERENCIA A ESTA 
PRESUNTA OBSTRUCCIÓN A LA 
JUSTICIA. DE PARTE DEL 
PRESIDENTE
EL SEGUNDO ARTÍCULO CONTRA NIXON
LO ACUSABA DE ABUSO DE PODER POR
PEDIR A LAS AGENCIAS POLICIALES 
QUE ACOSAR A SU ENEMIGO 
POLÍTICOS. EL PRESIDENTE  HA 
ABUSADO DE LA CONFIANZA QUE LE 
DIO EL PUEBLO  AL PEDIR A PAÍSES
COMO RUSIA, CHINA Y RUSIA 
INVESTIGAR A SU OPONENTE 
POLÍTICOS E INTERFERIR EN LAS 
ELECCIONES DE LA QUE LE 
CANDIDATO. NIXON ADEMÁS NO 
CUMPLIÓ CON CUATRO CITACIONES.EL
PRESIDENTE TRUMP HA PEDIDO A 

English: 
HIMSELF HAS OBSTRUCTED JUSTICE.
IF YOU READ THE SECOND ARTICLE, 
AND CHARGED HIM WITH ABUSE OF 
POWER FOR ORDERING THE HEADS OF 
THE FBI.
AND SOLICITING FOREIGN COUNTRIES
INCLUDING CHINA, RUSSIA AND 
UKRAINE TO INVESTIGATE HIS 
POLITICAL OPPONENTS AND 
INTERFERE IN ELECTIONS IN WHICH 
HE WAS THE CANDIDATE.
AND THE PRESIDENT HAS REFUSED TO
COMPLY WITH AGAINST TEN OTHERS 
AND NOT TO COMPLY WITH LAWFUL 
CONGRESSIONAL SUBPOENAS 
INCLUDING THE SECRETARY OF 
STATE, ENERGY SECRETARY RICK 
PERRY AND ACTING CHIEF OF STAFF 

English: 
AND HEAD OF THE OFFICE OF 
MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET.
AND WHEN HE WAS A MEMBER OF THE 
HOUSE ON THE VERGE OF 
IMPEACHMENT PRESIDENT CLINTON, 
IT WAS THE DAY HE WAS SUBJECT TO
IMPEACHMENT.
AND WHY OBSTRUCTION OF CONGRESS 
IS IMPEACHABLE.
IT'S ALL THE MORE TROUBLING DUE 
TO THE RATIONAL HE CLAIMS FOR 
HIS OBSTRUCTION.
HIS ARGUMENTS AND THOSE OF HIS 
SUBORDINATES INCLUDING HIS WHITE
HOUSE COUNSEL IN HIS OCTOBER 8th
LETTER TO THE SPEAKER AND THREE 
COMMITTEE CHAIRS BOILS DOWN TO 
THE ASSERTION THAT HE IS ABOVE 
THE LAW.
SINCE THE CONSTITUTION EXPRESSLY
SAYS AND THE SUPREME COURT HAS 

Spanish: 
MIEMBROS DE SU GOBIERNO QUE NO 
TESTIFICAN ANTE EL CONGRESO. EL 
SENADOR LINDSEY GRAHAM QUE 
ENCABEZA EL COMITÉ JUDICIAL DEL 
SENADO DIJO DURANTE EL JUICIO DE
CLINTON QUE SI NO CUMPLÍA, LE 
QUITABA EL PODER AL CONGRESO Y 
SE CONVERTÍA EN JUEZ Y PARTE. 
ESO DEJA MUY CLARO POR QUÉ LA 
OBSTRUCCIÓN AL CONGRESO 
CONSTITUYE ARGUMENTO PARA UN J
I
JUICIO POLÍTICO.
LA ACCIONES DEL PRESIDENTE SON 
MÁS PREOCUPANTE CUANDO EL 
EXPLICA SUS ARGUMENTOS. EN LA 
CARTA DE SU JEFE DE GABINETE DEL
8 DE OCTUBRE, QUE NO VOY A L
LEER,, PERO SI DIRÉ QUE S

English: 
UNANIMOUSLY AFFIRMED THAT THE 
HOUSE IS THE SOLE POWER OF 
IMPEACHMENT AND LIKE THE SENATE 
THE HOUSE HAS THE POWER TO 
DETERMINE RULES FOR ITS 
PROCEEDINGS.
THE PRESIDENT AND HIS 
SUBORDINATES HAVE ARGUED FURTHER
THAT THE PRESIDENT IS ENTITLED 
TO IMMUNITY FROM CRIMINAL 
PROCEDURE AND INVESTIGATION FROM
ANY CRIMINAL WRONG DOING.
INCLUDING SHOOTING SOMEONE ON 
FIFTH AVENUE.
THE PRESIDENT CLAIMED FURTHER HE
IS ENTITLED TO EXECUTIVE 
PRIVILEGE NOT TO SHARE ANY 
INFORMATION HE DOESN'T WANT TO 
SHARE WITH ANOTHER BRANCH.
HE'S ALSO CLAIMED THE 
ENTITLEMENT TO BE ABLE TO ORDER 
THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH, AS HE HAS 
DONE, NOT TO COOPERATE.
IF LEFT UNCHECKED HE WILL LIKELY
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 PRESIDENT 

Spanish: 
SECUESTRAN ESTOS PROCEDIMIENTOS 
AUNQUE LA CONSTITUCIÓN DICE 
CLARAMENTE QUE LA CÁMARA ES EL 
ÚNICO PODER QUE TIENE PODER PARA
INICIAR UN JUICIO POLÍTICO. Y ES
EL SENADO EL QUE FIJA LAS NORMAS
PARA ESTOS PROCEDIMIENTOS.
EL PRESIDENTE Y SUS SUBORDINADOS
HAN DICHO QUE ÉL TIENE DERECHO A
INMUNIDAD Y QUE TIENE EL PR
PRIVILEGIO DE NO COMPARTIR 
INFORMACIÓN  CON OTROS PODERES 
DEL ESTADO.TAMBIÉN HA DICHO QUE 
PUEDE ORDENAR A SU FUNCIONARIOS 
A NO COLABORAR CON ESTE CUERPO 
QUE LO INVESTIGA.ES PROBABLE QUE
EL PRESIDENTE CONTINÚE CON ESTE 
PATRÓN DE PEDIR INTERFERENCIA AL

Spanish: 
EXTRANJERO EN LA PRÓXIMA 
ELECCIÓN  Y DE OBSTRUIR EL 
CONGRESO. EL HECHO DE QUE LOS 
ARTÍCULOS QUE SE APLICARON AL 
PRESIDENTE NIXON APLIQUEN AQUÍ
H
HABLA POR SÍ MISMO. ESTA 
INTERFERENCIA EXTRANJERA LAS 
ELECCIONES ES LO MÁS CLARO.
NADA HACE MÁS DAÑO AL PUEBLO 
ESTADOUNIDENSE QUE EL ABUSO DEL 
PRESIDENTE DE SU CARGO  PARA 
DEBILITAR SU AUTORIDAD Y LA DE 
LA PROPIA CONSTITUCIÓN. PUEDO 
AGREGAR UNA ÚLTIMA FRASE
>>> UNA MÁS
>>> GRACIAS SI EL CONGRESO  NO 
INICIA EL JUICIO POLÍTICO, ESTE 
PROCEDIMIENTO HABRÁ PERDIDO EL 
SENTIDO.POR ESO YO DEFIENDO LA 
CONSTITUCIÓN Y EL EN ESTÁN 
COMPROMETIDOS PARA ASEGURAR QUE 
NADIE ESTÁ POR SOBRE LA LEY
>>> GRACIAS PROFESOR

English: 
NIXON ON TO THE ACTION OF THIS 
PRESIDENT SPEAKS VOLUMES AND 
THAT DOES NOT EVEN INCLUDE THE 
MOST SERIOUS NATIONAL SECURITY 
CONCERNS AND ELECTION 
INTERFERENCE CONCERNS AT THE 
HEART OF THIS PRESIDENT'S 
MISCONDUCT.
AND TO WEAKEN THEIR AUTHORITY 
UNDER THE CONSTITUTION AS WELL 
AS THE CONSTITUTION ITSELF.
MAY I READ ONE MORE SENTENCE.
I'M SORRY. 
>> THE WITNESS MAY HAVE ANOTHER 
SENTENCE OR TWO. 
>> IF CONGRESS FAILS TO IMPEACH 
HERE THEN THE IMPEACHMENT 
PROCESS HAS LOST ALL MEANING AND
ALONG WITH THAT OUR 
CONSTITUTIONS CAREFULLY CRAFTED 
SAFE GUARDS AND THEREFORE I 
STAND WITH THE CONSTITUTION AND 
I STAND WITH THE FRAMERS WHO ARE
COMMITTED TO ENSURE THAT NO ONE 
IS ABOVE THE LAW.
>> THANK YOU PROFESSOR.
>> THANK YOU CHAIRMAN NADLER, 
RANKING MEMBER COLLINS, MEMBERS 

English: 
OF THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE.
IT'S AN HONOR TO APPEAR BEFORE 
YOU TODAY TO DISCUSS ONE OF THE 
MOST CONSEQUENTIAL FUNCTIONS YOU
WERE GIVEN BY THE FRAMERS.
 21 YEARS AGO I SAT BEFORE YOU 
CHAIRMAN NADLER AND THIS 
COMMITTEE TO TESTIFY AT THE 
IMPEACHMENT OF WILLIAM JEFFERSON
CLINTON.
I NEVER THOUGHT 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 RAGE OF THE DEBATE 
IS THE SAME.
THE ATMOSPHERE THAT THE FRAMERS 
ANTICIPATED.
THE INTOLERANCE OF OPPOSING 
VIEWS ARE THE SAME.
I'D LIKE TO START WITH AN 
IRRELEVANT FACT.

Spanish: 
>>> GRACIAS PRESIDENTE Y NEGRO 
DEL COMITÉ
>>> ES UN HONOR PRESENTARME AQÍI
HOY PARA HABLAR DE UNA DE LAS 
FUNCIONES MÁS IMPORTANTES QUE SE
LES HA DADO, ESTA ES EL JUICIO 
POLÍTICO AL PRESIDENTE. HACE 21 
AÑOS TESTIFICA QUE EN EL JUICIO 
POLÍTICO DEL PRESIDENTE CLINTON,
NUNCA PENSÉ QUE TENDRÍA QUE 
VOLVER PARA RESPONDER LA MISMA 
PREGUNTA  EN RELACIÓN A OTRO 
PRESIDENTE EN EJERCICIO,, PERO 
AQUÍ ESTAMOS.LOS ELEMENTOS SON 
MUY SIMILARES.
EL NIVEL DEL DEBATE PÚBLICO ES 
SIMILAR.
LA INTOLERANCIA ENTRE POSTURAS 
OPUESTAS EN LA MISMA.
POR ESO QUIERO COMENZAR AL 

English: 
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 I'M 
CONCERNED ABOUT LOWERING 
IMPEACHMENT STANDARDS TO FIT 
EVIDENCE AND AN ABUNDANCE OF 
ANGER.
IT NOT ONLY FAILS TO SATISFY 
DANGER IMPEACHMENTS.
MY TESTIMONY LAYS OUT THE 
HISTORY OF IMPEACHMENT FROM 
EARLY ENGLISH CASES TO COLONIAL 
CASES TO THE PRESENT DAY.
THE EARLY IMPEACHMENTS WERE RAW 
POLITICAL EXERCISES USING FLUID 
DEFINITIONS OF CRIMINAL AND 
NON-CRIMINAL ACTS.
WHEN THE FRAMERS MET IN 
PHILADELPHIA THEY WERE QUITE 

Spanish: 
DECLARAR UN HECHO RELEVANTE. YO 
NO SOY UN PARTIDARIO  DEL 
PRESIDENTE TRUMP, NO VOTÉ POR 
L
EL, MI OPINIÓN PERSONAL DEL 
PRESIDENTE NO TIENEN QUE VER CON
MI ANÁLISIS Y ESE DEBERÍA SER EL
CASO PARA USTEDES. ESTE 
PRESIDENTE NO SERÁ EL ÚLTIMO 
PERO LA DECISIÓN QUE SE TOME LE 
DARÁ FORMA A NUESTRA DEMOCRACIA 
FUTURA. ME PREOCUPA QUE SE 
DISMINUYEN LOS ESTÁNDARES DE LA 
EVIDENCIA NECESARIA PARA ESTE 
PROCESO. ESTE JUICIO POLÍTICO NO
SOLO NO CUMPLE CON LOS 
ESTÁNDARES MÍNIMOS  SINO QUE 
SIENTA UN PRECEDENTE PREOC
E
PREOCUPANTE.
MI ANÁLISIS VA DESDE LA COLONIA 
HASTA HOY. SOLÍAN SER EJERCICIOS

Spanish: 
POLÍTICOS EN QUE TAMBIÉN ESTABAN
ACCIONES CRIMINALES Y NO 
CRIMINALES. HUBO UN CASO CLAVE 
QUE SE ANALIZÓ LA CONVENCIÓN, UN
JUICIO PENDIENTE DE JUICIO EN 
INGLATERRA. EL MODELO EST
ESTADOUNIDENSE MÁS LIMITADO EN 
SU APLICACIÓN Y EN SUS BASES. SE
RECHAZÓ UNA MOCIÓN DE INCLUIR UN
TÉRMINO MUY VAGO QUE PODRÍA SER 
UN RIESGO. VARIAS NORMAS QUE SE 
HABÍAN UTILIZADO SE ELIMINARON, 
CORRUPCIÓN, ROMPER LA CONFIANZA,

English: 
FAMILIAR WITH IMPEACHMENT AND 
IT'S ABUSES INCLUDING THE 
HASTINGS CASE WHICH WAS 
DISCUSSED IN THE CONVENTION, A 
CASE THAT WAS STILL PENDING FOR 
TRIAL IN ENGLAND.
UNLIKE THE ENGLISH IMPEACHMENTS 
THE AMERICAN MODEL WAS MORE 
LIMITED.
NOT ONLY IN IT'S APPLICATION TO 
JUDICIAL AND EXECUTIVE OFFICIALS
BUT IT'S GROUNDS.
THE FRAMERS REJECTED A PROPOSAL 
TO ADD ADMINISTRATION BECAUSE 
MADISON OBJECTED THAT SO VAGUE A
TERM WOULD BE EQUIVALENT TO A 
TENURE DURING THE PLEASURE OF 
THE SENATE.
IN THE END, VARIOUS STANDARDS 
THAT HAD BEEN USED IN THE PAST 
WERE REJECTED.
CORRUPTION, BY IMPROPER MEANS, 
BETRAYING THE TRUST TO A FOREIGN
POWER.
AND SPECULATION AND OPPRESSION.

Spanish: 
ESPECULACIÓN.
MI TESTIMONIO EXPLORA LOS CASOS 
DE NIXON,, JOHNSON  Y CLINTON. 
EL JUICIO DE JOHNSON NO ES UN 
MODELO QUE ESTÉ COMITÉ  DEBA 
SEGUIR. EN ESE CASO, UN GRUPO DE
OPONENTE AL PRESIDENTE 
INVENTARON UN CRIMEN PARA PODER 
HACERLE JUICIO POLÍTICO, Y LO 
DEFINIERON COMO UN DELITO MENOR.
ESTO TENÍA QUE VER CON SU ESTILO
POCO TRADICIONAL, COMO ES EL 
CASO DE ESTE PRESIDENTE. ESTE 
PROCESO PODRÍA SER EL MÁS CORTO 
DETENIENDO LA CANTIDAD DE CA
S
CARGOS.

English: 
MY TESTIMONY EXPLORES NIXON AND 
JOHNSON AND CLINTON.
THE CLOSEST WAS TO THE 1868 
IMPEACHMENT OF ANDREW JOHNSON.
IT'S NOT A MODEL OR ASSOCIATION 
THAT THIS COMMITTEE SHOULD 
RELISH.
IN THAT CASE, A GROUP OF 
OPPONENTS OF THE PRESIDENTS 
CALLED THE RADICAL REPUBLICANS 
CREATED A TRAP DOOR CRIME IN 
ORDER TO IMPEACH THE PRESIDENT.
HE EVEN DEFINED IT AS A HIGH 
MISDEMEANOR.
THERE WAS ANOTHER SHARED ASPECT 
BESIDES THE ATMOSPHERE OF THAT 
IMPEACHMENT AND ALSO THE 
UNCONVENTIONAL STYLE OF THE TWO 
PRESIDENTS.
AND SHAH SHARED ELEMENT IS 
SPEED.
NOW THERE ARE THREE DISTINCTIONS
WHEN YOU LOOK AT THESE OR THREE 
COMMONALITIES WHEN YOU LOOK AT 
THESE PAST CASES.
ALL INVOLVED ESTABLISHED CRIMES.
THIS WOULD BE THE FIRST 

Spanish: 
HAY UNA DISTINCIÓN  AL ANALIZAR 
ESTAS SIMILITUDES,, TODAS 
INVOLUCRAN CRÍMENES DEFINIDOS, 
ESTE SERÍA EL PRIMER JUICIO 
POLÍTICO EN QUE HABRÍA DEBATE 
PERO NO SUFICIENTE EVIDENCIA DE 
QUE SE COMETIÓ UN CRIMEN. 
SEGUNDO, EN LO CORTA CASI LA I
V
INVESTIGACIÓN, ALGO PROBL
O
PROBLEMÁTICO. NO HAY UN REGISTRO
SUFICIENTE PARA HACER JUICIO 
POLÍTICO CON PRESIDENTE. QUIERO 
SER HONESTO PORQUE TENEMOS POCO 
TIEMPO, VIVIMOS  EN LOS TIEMPOS 
QUE DESCRIBIÓHAM HAMILTON, EN Q 
HAY MUCHAS PASIONES. YO ENTIENDO
QUE ESTÉ MOLESTOS, EL PRESIDENTE
TAMBIÉN, MIS AMIGOS DEMÓCRATAS Y
REPUBLICANOS LO ESTÁN. MI ESPOSA
ESTÁ ENOJADA Y MIS HIJOS. 

English: 
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 
PROBLEMATIC AND PUZZLING.
THIS IS A FACIALLY INCOMPLETE 
AND INADEQUATE RECORD IN ORDER 
TO IMPEACH A PRESIDENT.
ALLOW ME TO BE CANDID IN MY 
CLOSING REMARKS BECAUSE WE HAVE 
LIMITED TIME.
WE ARE LIVING IN THE VERY PERIOD
DESCRIBED BY ALEXANDER HAMILTON.
A PERIOD OF AGITATED PASSIONS.
I GET IT.
YOU'RE MAD.
THE PRESIDENT'S 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 THE GOLDEN DOODLE, THEY

English: 
DON'T GET MAD.
SO WE'RE ALL MAD.
WHERE HAS THAT TAKEN US?
WILL AN IMPEACHMENT MAKE US LESS
MAD?
OR WILL IT ONLY INVITE AN 
INVITATION FOR THE MADNESS TO 
FOLLOW EVERY ADMINISTRATION.
THIS IS WHY IT'S WRONG.
IT'S NOT WRONG BECAUSE PRESIDENT
TRUMP WAS RIGHT.
HIS CALL WAS ANYTHING BUT 
PERFECT.
IT'S NOT WRONG BECAUSE THE HOUSE
HAS NO LEGITIMATE REASON TO 
INVESTIGATE THE UKRAINIAN 
CONTROVERSY.
IT'S NOT WRONG BECAUSE WE'RE IN 
AN ELECTION YEAR.
THERE'S NO GOOD TIME FOR AN 
IMPEACHMENT.
NO, IT'S WRONG BECAUSE THIS IS 
NOT HOW YOU IMPEACH AN AMERICAN 
PRESIDENT.
THIS CASE IS NOT A CASE OF THE 
UNKNOWABLE, IT'S THE CASE OF THE
PERIPHERAL.
WE HAVE A RECORD OF CONFLICTS, 
OFFENSES THAT HAVE NOT BEEN 
FULLY CONSIDERED.
UNSUBPOENAED WITNESS WITH 
MATERIAL EVIDENCE.

Spanish: 
INCLUSO MI PERRO PARECE ENOJADO,
Y EL DE UNA RAZA QUE NUNCA SE 
ENOJA. TODOS ESTAMOS ENOJADOS, 
PERO DONDE NO LLEVA ESO. ESTE 
JUICIO HARÁ QUE SE NOS PASE EL 
ENOJO O SOLO ERA QUE EL ENOJO 
SIGA A TODOS LOS GOBIERNO 
FUTUROS. POR ESO EL ESTO ESTÁ 
MAL,, NO CON QUE EL PRESIDENTE 
TENGA LA RAZÓN, SU LLAMADA NO 
FUE PERFECTA, NO ESTÁ MAL  P
PORQUE SE UN AÑO ELECTORAL O 
PORQUE NO HAYA RAZONES LEGÍTIMAS
PARA INVESTIGAR LA POLÉMICA 
UCRANIANA, ES PORQUE ESTA NO ES 
LA FORMA DE HACERLO.
NO SE TRATA DE LO QUE NO PODEMOS
SABER, DE LO ACCESORIO. HAY T
T

English: 
TO IMPEACH A PRESIDENT ON THIS 
RECORD WOULD EXPOSE EVERY FUTURE
PRESIDENT TO THE SAME TYPE OF 
IMPEACHMENT.
PRINCIPLE TAKES US TO A PLACE WE
WOULD PREFER NOT TO BE.
THAT WAS A PLACE 7 REPUBLICANS 
FOUND THEMSELVES IN THE JOHNSON 
TRIAL.
WHEN THEY SAVED A PRESIDENT FROM
AQUITTAL AND THEY CELEBRATED HIS
PROFILES OF COURAGE.
SENATOR ROSS SAID IT WAS LIKE 
LOOKING DOWN INTO HIS OPEN GRAVE
AND THEN HE JUMPED BECAUSE HE 
DIDN'T HAVE ANY ALTERNATIVE.
IT'S EASY TO CELEBRATE THOSE 
PEOPLE FROM THE DISTANCE OF TIME
AND CIRCUMSTANCE.
IT'S APPEALING TO THOSE SAYING 
FORGET THE DEFINITION OF CRIMES.
JUST DO IT LIKE THIS IS SOME 
IMPULSE BUY NIKE SNEAKER.
YOU CAN DO THAT.
YOU CAN DECLARE THE DEFINITIONS 
OF CRIMES ALLEGED ARE IMMATERIAL
AND JUST AN EXERCISE OF POLITICS
AND NOT THE LAW.

Spanish: 
TESTIGOS QUE NO HAN SIDO CITADOS
Y QUE TIENEN EVIDENCIA MATERIAL.
INICIAR EL JUICIO POLÍTICO ASÍ 
PONDRÁ EN RIESGO ESTE PRINCIPIO 
PARA EL FUTURO.
LO MISMO PASÓ EN EL JUICIO DE 
JOHNSON, LOS REPUBLICANOS S
SALVARON  A UN PRESIDENTE QUE 
DESPRECIABAN. FUERON CELEBRADO 
POR SU VALOR, UN SENADOR DIJO 
QUE ERA COMO VER  SU TUMBA  Y 
SALTARA ELLA. ES FÁCIL 
CELEBRARLOS  CON LA DISTANCIA,, 
Y ATRACTIVO ESCUCHAR A LO QUE 
I
DICEN IGNORA LA DEFINICIÓN DE 
CRIMEN, SOLO HAZLO. COMO CIERTO 

Spanish: 
LO FINANCIARA UNA MARCA DE 
ZAPATILLAS. NO SE PUEDE EJERCER 
SOBRE LA POLÍTICA Y NO LA LEY. 
ESAS DEFINICIONES Y NORMAS 
POLÍTICASA LA QUE ME REFIERO SE 
BASAN EN LA RAZÓN.
Y TERMINO DICIENDO, QUE ESTO 
PARECE LA ESCENA DE UNA OBRA DE 
FICCIÓN  EN QUE SE SUGIERE PONER
LA LEY SOBRE LA MORALIDAD. EL 
MEJOR DEL DIABLO EL BENEFICIO DE
LA LEY.
EL PERSONAJE DICE QUE PONDRÁ LA 
LEY  POR SOBRE LA MORTALIDAD. EL
DICE, CCUANDO EL DIABLO SE 

English: 
HOWEVER THOSE LEGAL DEFINITIONS 
AND STANDARDS WHICH I HAVE 
ADDRESSED IN MY STANDARD ARE THE
VERY THING THAT DIVIDE RAGE FROM
REASON.
I WILL CONCLUDE FROM THIS OF A 
SCENE WHEN HIS SON-IN-LAW 
WILLIAM ROPER PUT THE LAW 
SUGGESTING HE WOULD PUT THE LAW 
AHEAD OF MORTALITY.
WHEN HE ASKED WOULD HE INSTEAD 
CUT A GREAT ROAD THROUGH TO GET 
AFTER THE DEVIL, HE PROUDLY 
DECLARES YES.
I CUT DOWN EVERY LAW OF ENGLAND 
TO DO THAT.
MOORE RESPONDS AND WHEN THE LAST
LAW IS CUT DOWN AND THE DEVIL 
TURNED AROUND ON YOU, WHERE 
WOULD YOU HIDE ROPER?
ALL THE LAWS BEING FLAT.

Spanish: 
VUELVA SOBRE USTED DONDE SE 
CONDENA, CUANDO YA NO QUEDE 
NINGUNA LEY.
EL PERSONAJE DICE ESTAS SON LAS 
LEYES DE DIOS Y SUS TELAS 
ELIMINA CREE QUE PODRÁ 
MANTENERSE EN PIE ANTE LOS 
VIENTOS QUE VOLARÁN.
EL DICE LE DOY AL DIABLO EL 
BENEFICIO DE LA LEY POR MI 
PROPIO BIEN. ASÍ QUE TERMINÓ 
DICIENDO, AMBAS PARTES SEAN D
O
DEMON IZADO MUTUAMENTE PARA 
JUSTIFICAR CUALQUIER MEDIDA EN 
SU DEFENSA, COMO ESTE HOMBRE.
QUIZÁS PARTE DE TODOS. HEMOS 
OLVIDADO EL ARTÍCULO SOBRE LA FE

English: 
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 WIND THAT WOULD 
BLOW THEN?
SO I WILL CONCLUDE WITH THIS.
BOTH SIDES OF THIS CONTROVERSY 
DEMONIZED THE OTHER TO JUSTIFY 
ANY MEASURE IN THEIR DEFENSE.
MUCH LIKE ROPER.
PERHAPS THAT'S THE SADDEST PART 
OF ALL OF THIS.
WE HAVE FORGOTTEN THE COMMON 
ARTICLE OF FAITH THAT BINDS EACH
OF US TO EACH OTHER IN OUR 
CONSTITUTION.
HOWEVER BEFORE WE CUT DOWN THE 
TREE SO CAREFULLY PLANTED BY THE
FRAMERS, I HOPE YOU WILL 
CONSIDER WHAT YOU WILL DO WHEN 
THE WIND BLOWS AGAIN.

English: 
PERHAPS FOR A DEMOCRATIC 
PRESIDENT.
WHERE WILL YOU STAND THEN?
WHEN ALL THE LAWS BEING FLAT.
THANK YOU AGAIN FOR THE HONOR OF
TESTIFYING TODAY AND I WOULD BE 
HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.
>> THANK THE WITNESSES.
MR. CHAIRMAN, I SEEK 
RECOGNITION. 
>> WHO SEEKS RECOGNITION?
>> ME MR. CHAIRMAN. 
>> FOR WHAT PURPOSES?
>> I HAVE A MOTION PURSUANT TO 
RULE 11, SPECIFICALLY 2-K-6.
I MOVE TO SUBPOENA THE 
INDIVIDUAL COMMONLY REFERRED TO 
AS THE WHISTLEBLOWER.
I ASK TO DO THIS IN -- 
>> THE GENTLEMAN STATED HIS 
MOTION -- DO I HEAR MOTION TO 
TABLE. 
>> I MOVE TO TABLE THE MOTION. 
>> MOTION IS TABLED.
ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE. 
>> OPPOSED NO. 
>> ROLL CALL. 
>> THE MOTION TO TABLE IS 
APPROVED.
THE ROLE CALL IS REQUESTED.
THE CLERK WILL CALL THE ROLE.
>> ALL RIGHT.
REPUBLICANS MAKING THEIR BID TO 
HEAR FROM THE WHISTLEBLOWER.
GIVEN THE BREAK DOWN OF THIS 
COMMITTEE THAT'S NOT GOING TO 
HAPPEN.

Spanish: 
QUE NOS UNE A TODOS  BAJO LA 
CONSTITUCIÓN. LA PREGUNTA ES QÉE
PASARÁ CUANDO VUELVAN A SOPLAR 
ESTOS VIENTOS, QUIZÁS CONTRA UN 
PRESIDENTE DEMÓCRATA. COMO SE 
MANTENDRÁN EN PIE CUANDO TODAS 
ESAS LEYES SE HAYAN.ELIMINADO
GRACIAS POR ESTA POSIBILIDAD
>>> GRACIAS A LOS TESTIGOS
>>> LE DOY LA PALABRA
>>> TENGO UNA MOCIÓN PARA CITAR 
AL DENUNCIANTE
>>> VAMOS A ESCUCHAR LA MOCIÓN. 
TODO LO QUE ESTÉN A FAVOR DIGAN 
SI Y LO QUE NO, NO. SE APRUEBA 
LA MOCIÓN VAMOS A CONFIRMAR.

English: 
WE'RE GOING TO GO THROUGH THE 
PROCEDURE AGAIN OF THESE ROLL 
CALL VOTES.
IS THIS GOING TO BE THE WAY IT'S
GOING TO GO.
?
>> IT LOOKS LIKE IT.
YOU GOT THAT MOTION BUT LOOK, 
ADAM SCHIFF ALREADY MADE CLEAR 
THAT ANY TESTIMONY FROM THE 
WHISTLEBLOWER HE SAYS IS 
UNNECESSARY BECAUSE YOU HAD A 
DOZEN WITNESSES FROM VARYING 
DEGREES CORROBORATE THE REPORT.
WE DO EXPECT THE DEMOCRATS WILL 
BE SUCCESSFUL IN TABLING OR 
KILLING THIS MOTION BUT THIS IS 
ONE WAY FOR REPUBLICANS TO DELAY
TODAY'S HEARING.
>> WHAT SHOULD BE HAPPENING 
SHORTLY IS AROUND A 45 MINUTE 
QUESTIONING FROM THE REPUBLICAN 
AND DEMOCRATIC SIDE.
THE DEMOCRATIC AND THEN 
REPUBLICAN SIDE FROM STAFF 
ATTORNEYS BUT LET ME GO TO 
ANDREA MITCHELL.
FOUR CONSTITUTIONAL SCHOLARS, 
THREE OF THEM LAYING OUT WHAT 
THEY THINK IS A CASE FOR 

Spanish: 
>>> NUEVAMENTE LOS REPUBLICANOS 
PIDEN ESCUCHAR AL DENUNCIANTE, 
COSA QUE CREEMOS NO SUCEDERÁ. 
VOLVEMOS PROCEDIMIENTO DEL VOTO 
Y VAMOS CON JEFF BENNETT PARA 
PREGUNTARLE SI ESTO VA A SEGUIR 
ASÍ
>>> ASÍ PARECE, SERÁ EL LA E
ESTRATEGIA
>>> ADAM SCHIFF  HA DICHO CON UN
NECESARIO  TRAER EL DENUNCIANTE 
PORQUE DECENAS DE TESTIGOS QUE 
HAN PARTICIPADO.
PROBABLEMENTE LOS DEMÓCRATAS 
VOTARÁN CONTRA ESTA MOCIÓN  PERO
ES LA HERRAMIENTA QUE USA LOS 
REPUBLICANOS PARA DEMORAR EL 
PROCESO
>>> QQUE PODEMOS ESPERAR AHORA 
LA RONDA DE PREGUNTAS. MIENTRAS 
ESPERAMOS, HABLEMOS CON ANDREA 
MITCHELL SOBRE LO QUE HAN DICHO 

Spanish: 
TUS CUATRO EXPERTOS 
CONSTITUCIONALES. TRES EX
EXPLICARON SU ARGUMENTOS A FAVOR
DEL JUICIO POLÍTICO  Y EL CUARTO
QUE DICE NO SER PARTIDARIO DE 
TRUMP ESTÁ EN CONTRA
>>> ASÍ ES. TODOS SON PROFESORES
SOBRE CONSTITUCIÓN Y HAY TRES DE
ACUERDO. LOS TRES TESTIGOS D
DEMÓCRATAS ESTÁN DE ACUERDO EN
Q
QUE EL PRESIDENTE CULPABLE DE 
ALTOS CRÍMENES Y DELITOS MENORES
SEGÚN LO DEFINE LA CONSTITUCIÓN.
NOS DIERON UNA CLASE DE HISTORIA
FASCINANTE DE PASADA. CREO QUE 
MUCHOS DESEARÍAMOS HABER 
ESTUDIADO DERECHO PARA SEGUIR LA
LÓGICA DE ESTOS TESTIGOS. PERO 
LOS HECHO QUE PRESENTAN TIENEN 
QUE VER CON LA INTERPRETACIÓN 
LEGAL DE LA EVIDENCIA  Y LOS 

English: 
IMPEACHMENT.
THE FOURTH IS CLEARLY NOT A FAN 
OF THE PRESIDENT OR HIS BEHAVIOR
BUT SAYS IT ISN'T THERE. 
>> EXACTLY.
YOU HAD ONE REPUBLICAN WITNESS 
HERE WHO IS -- THEY ARE ALL 
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW PROFESSORS.
AND THEY AGREED CATEGORICALLY 
THAT THE PRESIDENT WAS GUILTY OF
HIGH CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS.
THEY RAN THROUGH WHAT HAPPENED 
AT THE CONSTITUTIONAL 
CONVENTION.
IT WAS A FASCINATING HISTORY 
LESSON FOR THOSE OF US THAT LOVE
HISTORY BUT ARE NOT LAWYERS AND 
I GUESS SOME OF US WERE PROBABLY
WISHING WE HAD GONE TO LAW 
SCHOOL FOLLOWING THE LOGIC OF 
ALL FOUR OF THESE WITNESSES.
BUT THE FACTS ARE THE LEGAL 
INTERPRETATIONS.
WITH DIFFERING INTERPRETATIONS 
OF THE EVIDENCE AND TESTIMONY 
PRESENTED DURING THE TWO WEEKS 
OF OPEN HEARINGS BY THE INTEL 

English: 
COMMITTEE.
WHAT YOU'RE SEEING IS A VERY 
STRONG ARGUMENT BY HOUSE 
DEMOCRATS THAT THEY SHOULD 
PROCEED WITH ARTICLES OF 
IMPEACHMENT AND WITH CHAIRMAN 
NADLER PRESENTED INDICATED IN 
HIS OPENING STATEMENT THAT 
THEY'RE GOING TO GO THROUGHEL 
SEVERAL ARTICLES INCLUDING 
OBSTRUCTION OF CONGRESS AND 
OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE.
IT SEEMS LIKE THEY'RE GOING BACK
TO THE MUELLER REPORT AS WELL.
FOLLOWED BY 45 MINUTES TO THE 
RANKING MEMBER OR MINORITY 
COUNSEL.
ONLY THEY MAY QUESTION WITNESSES
DURING THIS PERIOD.
FOLLOWING THAT UNLESS I SPECIFY 
ADDITIONAL EQUAL TIME FOR 
EXTENDED QUESTIONING, HE WILL 
PROCEED UNDER THE 5 MINUTE RULE 
AND EVERY MEMBER WILL HAVE THE 
CHANCE TO ASK QUESTIONS.
I NOW RECOGNIZE MYSELF FOR THE 
FIRST ROUND OF QUESTIONS.
>> THANK YOU FOR BEING HERE 
TODAY.
THE COMMITTEE HAS BEEN CHARGED 
WITH THE GRAVE RESPONSIBILITY OF
CONSIDERING WHETHER TO RECOMMEND

Spanish: 
TESTIMONIOS  QUE SE HAN 
ESCUCHADO EN ESTAS AUDIENCIAS 
DEL COMITÉ DE INTELIGENCIA. LOS 
DEMÓCRATAS DE LA CÁMARA INSISTEN
EN QUE HAY QUE SEGUIR CON EL 
PROCEDIMIENTO, LO QUE DIJO EL 
PRESIDENTE SU DECLARACIÓN 
INICIAL ES QUE REDACTARÁN VARIOS
ARTÍCULOS EN ESTE PROCESO DE 
JUICIO POLÍTICO COMO OBSTRUCCIÓN
A LA JUSTICIA, Y TAMBIÉN 
MENCIONAN EL INFORME DE ROBERT 
MUELLER
>>> VOLVEMOS LUEGO DEL VOTO
>>> SOLO EL PRESIDENTE  Y EL 
ROZENTAL DE LA MINORÍA PUEDEN 
HACER PREGUNTAS, ADEMÁS DE SUS 
ASESORES,, AMBOS TENDRÁ LA MISMA
CANTIDAD DE TIEMPO. AHORA 
COMIENZO CON LA PRIMERA RONDA DE
PREGUNTAS.
MUCHAS GRACIAS POR SU PRESENCIA 

Spanish: 
HOY, ESTE COMITÉ TIENE LA 
RESPONSABILIDAD DE ANALIZAR SI 
DEBEN RECOMENDARSE ARTÍCULOS DE 
JUICIO POLÍTICO CONTRA EL P
PRESIDENTE. NO NOS TOMAMOS EL O 
LA LIGERA, QUEREMOS GARANTIZAR 
QUE ESTÁ AUDIENC  Y LA RESPO
RESPONSABILIDAD QUE TENEMOS SE 
BASEN EN LA CONSTITUCIÓN.
EL INFORME DE EL COMITÉ DE 
INTELIGENCIA  CONCLUYE QUE EL 
PRESIDENTE PIDIÓ UN LÍDER E
EXTRANJERO INTERVENIR NUESTRA 
ELECCIÓN INVESTIGANDO A SU RIVAL
POLÍTICO. LUEGO QUISO EVITAR QUE
EL CONGRESO INVESTIGARA SU 
CONDUCTA Y PIDIÓ A LOS MIEMBROS 
DE SU GOBIERNO QUE NO CUMPLIERAN
CON LA CITACIÓN.
COMO USTED DIJO, EL DERECHO AL 
VOTO EN UNO DE LOS MÁS 
IMPORTANTE, LA CONDUCTA EL P
PRESIDENTE PUSO EN RIESGO ESE 
DERECHO
>>> ASÍ ES SEÑOR PRESIDENTE

English: 
ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT AGAINST 
THE PRESIDENT.
I SPEAK TO 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.
THE REPORT CONCLUDED THAT THE 
PRESIDENT PRESSURED A FOREIGN 
LEADER TO INTERFERE IN OUR 
ELECTIONS BY INITIATING AND 
DENOUNCING INVESTIGATIONS INTO 
PRESIDENT TRUMP'S POLITICAL 
ADVERSARIES.
HE THEN SOUGHT TO PREVENT 
CONGRESS FROM INVESTIGATING HIS 
CONDUCT BY ORDERING HIS 
ADMINISTRATION AND EVERYONE IN 
IT TO DEFY HOUSE SUBPOENAS.
AS YOU SAID, THE RIGHT TO VOTE 
IS THE MOST PRECIOUS LEGAL RIGHT
WE HAVE IN THIS COUNTRY.
DOES THE PRESIDENT'S CONDUCT 
ENDANGER THAT RIGHT?
>> YES, MR. CHAIRMAN, IT DOES.
>> THANK YOU.
AND HOW DOES IT DO SO?
>> THE WAY THAT IT DOES IT IS 
EXACTLY WHAT PRESIDENT 
WASHINGTON WARNED ABOUT.

English: 
BY INVITING A FOREIGN GOVERNMENT
TO INFLUENCE OUR ELECTIONS, IT 
TAKES THE RIGHT AWAY FROM THE 
AMERICAN PEOPLE AND TURNS THAT 
INTO A RIGHT THAT FOREIGN 
GOVERNMENTS DECIDE TO INTERFERE 
FOR THEIR OWN BENEFIT.
THEY INTERFERE TO BENEFIT 
THEMSELVES. 
>> THANK YOU.
>> WHAT IS OUR RESOURCE?
>> WHEN THE PRESIDENT DOES THAT,
SEPARATION OF POWERS MEANS 
NOTHING.
THE SUBPOENAS ARE LAWFUL ORDERS.
YOU COMPLY WITH THE LAW.
rd LAWYERS ALL THE TIME HAVE TO 
COMPLY WITH SUBPOENAS BUT IN 
THIS SITUATION, FULL SCALE 
OBSTRUCTION, FULL SCALE 
OBSTRUCTION OF SUBPOENAS 

Spanish: 
>>> Y COMO?
>>> EN LA MISMA ADVERTENCIA QUE 
HIZO WASHINGTON, INVITA UN 
GOBIERNO EXTRANJERO A INFLUIR EN
LA ELECCIÓN CON LO QUE QUITA EL 
DERECHO AL PUEBLO ESTADOUNIDENSE
Y LO CONVIERTE EN UN DERECHO S
B
SOBRE EL QUE INTERFIEREN 
GOBIERNOS EXTRANJEROS POR SU 
PROPIO BENEFICIO, ESA LA RAZÓN
P
POR LA QUE  INTERVIENEN
>>> GRACIAS
>>> USTED ESCRITO SOBRE LOS 
SISTEMAS DE FISCALIZACIÓN ENTRE 
PODERES, LOS CONTROLES,  QUE 
PASA CON ESO CUANDO EL 
PRESIDENTE ORDENA A TODOS LOS 
TESTIGOS NO ASISTIR?
>>> ENTONCES DOS CONTROL NO 
SIRVEN DE NADA. ESTAS CITACIONES
CUMPLEN LA LEY, A NOSOTROS LES 
ENSEÑAMOS ESTO A LOS 
ESTUDIANTES, QUE LOS ABOGADOS 

English: 
TORPEDOS SEPARATION OF POWERS 
AND YOUR ONLY RESOURCE IS TO IN 
A SENSE PROTECT YOUR 
INSTITUTIONAL PREROGATIVES AND 
THAT WOULD INCLUDE IMPEACHMENT. 
>> THE SAME IS TRUE WITH RESPECT
TO OVERSIGHT AND NOT JUST 
IMPEACHMENT. 
>> YES, SIR. 
>> MR. FELDMAN, AS I UNDERSTAND 
IT, THE FRAMERS INTENDED 
IMPEACHMENT TO BE USED 
INFREQUENTLY.
NOT AS PUNISHMENT BUT TO SAVOR 
DEMOCRACY FROM THREATS SO 
SIGNIFICANT THAT WE CANNOT WAIT 
UNTIL THE NEXT ELECTION.
CAN YOU EXPLAIN WHY YOU THINK 
IMPEACHMENT IS THE APPROPRIATE 
RESOURCE THERE. 
>> 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 

Spanish: 
DEBEN CUMPLIR CON LAS C
CITACIONES. EN ESTE CASO ESTA 
OBSTRUCCIÓN DE LAS CITACIONES 
EQUIVALE UN PODER DE VETO Y POR 
ESO LA FORMA DE DEFENDERLO ES EL
JUICIO POLÍTICO
>>> ESTO INDEPENDIENTE DE  QUE 
SEA SUJETO EL VICIO POLÍTICO
>>> ASÍ ES
>>> SEÑOR FELDMAN,  ESTE JUICIO 
POLÍTICO NO SE USA COMO CASTIGO 
SINO PARA DEFENDER AL PAÍS DE 
AMENAZAS MUY IMPORTANTES QUE I
P
IMPIDAN ESPERAR A LA PRÓXIMA 
ELECCIÓN. USTED DIJO QUE 
ENFRENTAMOS ES AMENAZA, PODÍA 
E
DECIR NO PORQUE EL JUICIO 
POLÍTICO EN EL RECURSO ADECUADO 
Y NO PARA LA PRÓXIMA ELECCIÓN?
>>> EL JUICIO POLÍTICO SE 
RESERVA PARA SITUACIONES  EN QUE
EL PRESIDENTE ABUSA DEL CARGO EN

English: 
ABOUT A SITUATION WHERE THE 
PRESIDENT USED HIS OFFICE TO 
FACILITATE CORRUPTLY HIS OWN 
RE-ELECTION.
HE USED THE POWER OF HIS OFFICE 
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 TO MR. ISEN FOR 
QUESTIONS.
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.

Spanish: 
SU PROPIO BENEFICIO. LE 
PREOCUPABA PARTICULARMENTE QUE 
EL PRESIDENTE USARA SU CARGO 
PARA FACILITAR SU PROPIA 
REELECCIÓN. ES POR ESO QUE PE
A
PENSABAN QUE SE NECESITABA LA EL
JUICIO POLÍTICO Y NO ESPERAR A 
LA PRÓXIMA ELECCIÓN. EN LA S
SITUACIÓN ACTUAL, EL PRESIDENTE 
PIDIÓ AYUDA UN GOBIERNO 
EXTRANJERO PARA FACILITAR SU 
PROPIA REELECCIÓN. USÓ EL PODER 
QUE LE DA EL CARGO, QUE NADIE 
MÁS TIENE POR UN BENEFICIO P
PERSONAL DISTORSIONANDO LA 
ELECCIÓN, LO QUE NO QUERÍAN 
QUIEN ESCRIBIRÁ LA CONSTITUCIÓN
>>> GRACIAS LE DOY LA PALABRA AL
CONSEJERO
>>> MUCHAS GRACIAS POR SU 
PRESENCIA. QUIERO HACER UNAS 
PREGUNTAS SOBRE LOS SIGUIENTES 
ALTOS CRÍMENES  Y DELITOS 
MENORES MENCIONADO EN SUS 
DECLARACIONES: ABUSO DE PODER Y 

English: 
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 THAT'S NOT 
THE PRESIDENT.
>> IS IS THAT IMPEACHMENT 
CONDUCT?
>> IF THE PRESIDENT USES HIS 
OFFICE FOR PERSONAL GAIN THE 
ONLY RESOURCE AVAILABLE IS FOR 
HIM TO BE IMPEACHED BECAUSE THE 
PRESIDENT CANNOT BE AS A 
PRACTICAL MATTER CHARGED 
CRIMINALLY WHILE HE IS IN 

Spanish: 
SOBORNO, OBSTRUCCIÓN DEL 
CONGRESO Y OBSTRUCCIÓN A LA 
JUSTICIA. PROFESOR FELDMAN QUE 
CONSTITUYE UN ABUSO DE PODER?
>>> EL ABUSO DE PODER SE DA 
CUANDO EL PRESIDENTE USA SU 
CARGO NO PARA SERVIR AL INTERÉS 
PÚBLICO SINO SU BENEFICIO PE
PERSONAL PARTICULARMENTE SI LO 
HACE PARA FACILITAR SU PROPIA 
REELECCIÓN U OBTENER UNA VENTAJA
QUE NADIE QUE NO SEA EL 
PRESIDENTE PUEDE OBTENER
>>> PORQUE JUSTIFICA ES UN 
JUICIO POLÍTICO?
>>> SSI EL PRESIDENTE USA EL 
CARGO EN SU BENEFICIO,  EL ÚNICO
RECURSO QUE OTORGA LA CO
CONSTITUCIÓN EL QUE SE LE HAGA 
UN JUICIO POLÍTICO PORQUE NO SE 
PUEDEN PRESENTAR CARGOS CR
CRIMINALES CONTRA UN 
DEPARTAMENTO EN EJERCICIO YA QUE
EL DEPARTAMENTO DE JUSTICIA 
TRABAJA PARA EL PRESIDENTE. POR 

Spanish: 
ESO LA ÚNICA OPCIÓN ES EL JUICIO
POLÍTICO  Y POR ESO EXISTE
>>> PROFESORA CARLING,, HAY 
ACUERDO EN QUE EL ABUSO DE PODER
GARANTIZA UN JUICIO POLÍTICO
>>> ASÍ ES
>>> ESTA USTED DE ACUERDO EN QUE
EL ABUSO DE PODER JUSTIFICA UN 
JUICIO POLÍTICO
>>> AASÍ ES
>>> QUISIERA CENTRARNOS EN LA 
EVIDENCIA DE QUE EL PRESIDENTE 
PIDIÓ LA INTERVENCIÓN DE UN 
GOBIERNO EXTRANJERO EN LA 
ELECCIÓN DE 2020. PROFESOR 
FELDMAN, EL PRESIDENTE COMETIÓ
E
ESTE ALTO CRIMEN DE ABUSO DE 
PODER EN BASE A ESA EVIDENCIA
>>> EN BASIL EVIDENCIA ASÍ ES
>>> PROFESOR MISMA PREGUNTA
>>> MISMA RESPUESTA

English: 
OFFICE.
DO SCHOLARS OF IMPEACHMENT 
USUALLY AGREE ABUSE OF POWER IS 
AN IMPEACHABLE OFFENSE. 
>> DO YOU AGREE?
>> YES, SIR. 
>> 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 IN THE 2020 ELECTION.
>> DID PRESIDENT TRUMP COMMIT 
THE IMPEACHABLE HIGH CRIME AND 
MISDEMEANOR OF ABUSE OF POWER 
BASED ON THAT EVIDENCE AND THOSE
FINDINGS. 
>> BASED ON THAT EVIDENCE AND 
THOSE FINDINGS, THE PRESIDENT 
DID COMMIT AN IMPEACHABLE ABUSE 
OF OFFICE. 
>> SAME QUESTION. 
>> SAME ANSWER. 
>> AND PROFESSOR, DID PRESIDENT 
TRUMP COMMIT THE IMPEACHABLE 

Spanish: 
>>> PROFESOR GERHARD,  COMETIÓ 
EL PRESIDENTE ESTE CRIMEN
>>> NNUESTRA OPINIÓN EN UN ANIME
>>> PROFESOR FELDMAN, QUISE 
ANALIZAR LA EVIDENCIA EN EL 
INFORME. EL 25 DE JULIO EL 
PRESIDENTE TRUMP DIJO EL 
PRESIDENTE DE UCRANIA, QUIERO 
QUE NOS HARÁ UN FAVOR  Y LE PIDE
INVESTIGAR A LOS BIDEN, EL MEMO 
DE ESA REUNIÓN FUE RELEVANTE 
PARA QUE USTED SE FORMARÁ SU 
OPINIÓN
>>> ESE MEMO ES CLAVE EN MI 
DECISIÓN Y EVALUACIÓN DE QUE EL 
ABUSO DE SU PODER
>>> Y CREE QUE LAS CONCLUSIONES 
DEL COMITÉ DE INTELIGENCIA QUE 
DICEN QUE EL PRESIDENTE RETUVO  
ACCIONES CLAVE PARA UCRANIA  A 
CAMBIO DE ALGO QUE BENEFICIARÍA 
AL INTERÉS PERSONAL DEL PR
PRESIDENTE

English: 
HIGH CRIME AND MISDEMEANOR OF 
ABUSE OF POWER. 
>> WE THREE ARE UNANIMOUS.
ON JULY 25th HE TOLD THE 
PRESIDENT OF UKRAINE, AND I 
QUOTE, I WOULD LIKE FOR YOU TO 
DO US A FAVOR THOUGH AND ASKED 
ABOUT LOOKING INTO THE BIDENS.
WAS THE MEMORANDUM OF THAT CALL 
RELEVANT TO OUR OPINION THAT THE
PRESIDENT COMMITTED ABUSE OF 
POWER.
IT'S CRUCIAL TO MY DETERMINATION
THAT THE PRESIDENT COMMITTED IT.
>> AND THAT THE PRESIDENT 
WITHHELD OFFICIAL ACTS OF VALUE 
TO UKRAINE AND CONDITIONED THEIR
FULFILLMENT ON ACTIONS BY 
UKRAINE THAT WOULD BENEFIT HIS 
PERSONAL POLITICAL INTERESTS.

Spanish: 
>>> ASÍ ES PARA CONCLUIR QUE SE 
JUSTIFICA EL JUICIO POLÍTICO 
CONSEGUIRÉ LOS TESTIMONIOS Y EL 
INFORME
>>> USTED CONSIDERÓ EL 
TESTIMONIO DE NUESTRO EMBAJADOR 
EN UCRANIA, WILLIAM TAYLOR?
>>> RRETENER ESA ASISTENCIA POR 
NINGUNA OTRA RAZÓN MÁS QUE LA 
AYUDA SU CAMPAÑA POLÍTICA NO 
TENÍA SENTIDO. IBA CONTRA LO QUE
ESTÁBAMOS TRATANDO DE HACER. ERA
ILÓGICO, E INEXPLICABLE.
>>> ASÍ ES, ESA EVIDENCIA 
CONFIRMA LA ACCIÓN INADECUADA 
DEL PRESIDENTE
>>> SEÑOR FELDMAN PODRÍA DECIR 
NO PORQUE CONCLUYÓ  QUE EL 
PRESIDENTE COMETIÓ EL CRIMEN DE 
ABUSAR DE SU PODER Y PORQUE ES 
IMPORTANTE?

English: 
YES.
I RELIED ON THE EVIDENCE AND 
WHEN THIS REPORT WAS ISSUED I 
CONTINUED TO RELY ON THAT. 
>> DID YOU REVIEW THE FOLLOWING 
TESTIMONY FROM OUR AMBASSADOR TO
UKRAINE?
AMBASSADOR WILLIAM TAYLOR.
>> TO WITH HOLD THAT ASSISTANCE 
FOR NO GOOD REASON OTHER THAN 
HELP WITH A POLITICAL CAMPAIGN, 
MAKE NO SENSE.
IT WAS COUNTER PRODUCTIVE TO ALL
OF WHAT WE HAD BEEN TRYING TO 
DO.
IT WAS ILLOGICAL.
IT WAS CRAZY. 
>> THAT UNDERSCORED THE WAY THE 
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.

Spanish: 
>>> EL ABUSO DE PODER SE DA 
CUANDO EL PRESIDENTE USA SU 
PODER EN SU BENEFICIO PERSONAL. 
ESO ES CLAVE PARA EL PUEBLO 
ESTADOUNIDENSE  PORQUE SI NO 
PODEMOS HACERLO JUICIO POLÍTICO 
A UN PRESIDENTE QUE ABUSA DE SU 
CARGO YA NO VIVIMOS EN UNA 
DEMOCRACIA  SINO QUE EN UNA 
MONARQUÍA O DICTADURA ES POR ESO
QUE SE CREÓ EL JUICIO POLÍTICO
>>> PPROFESORA, ESTE ABUSO DE 
O
PODER,, ERA UN CONCEPTO POCO C
A
CLARO  EN OPINIÓN DE LOS 
FUNDADORES DE NUESTRO PAÍS Y EL 
MARCO DE NOTA CONSTITUCIÓN?
>>> NO, ES UN CONCEPTO MUY BIEN 
EXPLICADO. ESTO VIENE DE LA 
TRADICIÓN BRITÁNICA  EN LA QUE 
OBVIAMENTE SE DEJA FUERA AL 

English: 
THAT MATTER IS FUNDAMENTALLY TO 
THE AMERICAN PEOPLE BECAUSE IF 
WE CANNOT IMPEACH A PRESIDENT 
WHO ABUSES HIS OFFICE FOR 
PERSONAL ADVANTAGE, WE NO LONGER
LIVE IN A DEMOCRACY.
WE LIVE IN A MONARCH OR UNDER A 
DICTATORSHIP.
THAT'S WHY THEY CREATED THE 
POSSIBILITY OF IMPEACHMENT. 
>> NOW, PROFESSOR, THIS HIGH 
CRIME AND MISDEMEANOR OF ABUSE 
OF POWER WAS IT SOME KIND OF 
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 PARLIAMENTARY IMPEACHMENT
OF LOWER LEVEL OFFICERS.
THEY HAVE NOT TALKED ABOUT 
IMPEACHING THE KING OR THE LIKE.

Spanish: 
PRESIDENTE
>>> POR EXPLICAN UN POCO MÁS
>>> EEL PARLAMENTO EN REINO 
UNIDO  HACÍA JUICIO POLÍTICO 
CUANDO SE ABUSABA DEL PODER, 
QUISIERA DAR UN EJEMPLO QUE 
PUEDE AYUDAR. UN JUICIO POLÍTICO
EN INGLATERRA, SIEMPRE TIENE QUE
DECIRTE PORQUE SE HACE, CUÁL ES 
EL CARGO, SI ES TRAICIÓN O UN 
ALTO CRIMEN O DELITO MENOR. UN 
HOMBRE QUE ERA EL ALGUACIL DE 
WINDSOR QUE PREVÉ UNA ELECCIÓN 
PARLAMENTARIA, ARRESTÓ A WILLIAM
TAYLOR, QUIERO LEER ESTE EL 
ARTÍCULO DEL JUICIO POLÍTICO 

English: 
>> AND CAN YOU SHARE A LITTLE 
BIT ABOUT THAT PLEASE?
>> YEAH.
SO RIGHT AFTER THE RESTORATION 
OF THE KINGSHIP IN ENGLAND THERE
WAS AN IMPEACHMENT.
YOU HAVE TO SAY WHAT WERE THEY 
IMPEACHING THEM FOR.
SOMETIMES IT'S TREASON OR THE 
LIKE AND SOMETIMES IT'S THE 
PHRASE HIGH COUNT OR 
MISDEMEANOR.
AND THERE WAS AN IMPEACHMENT OF 
VICOUNT AND 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 

Spanish: 
ANTE LA CÁMARA DE LOS COMUNES  
PORQUE ES MUY DECIDOR. ESTE A
I
ARTÍCULO DICE ENTENDER QUE LO 
QUE WILLIAM TAYLOR HIZO PARA 
ATERRORIZAR A LOS QUE APOYABAN 
AL OTRO, LE QUITÓ LA LIBERTAD DE
EXPRESAR SUS VOCES DE LA 
ELECCIÓN. EL HOMBRE FUE DETENIDO
ILEGALMENTE, EN OTRAS PALABRAS, 
PERSIGUIÓ UN OPONENTE POLÍTICO  
Y ES ERA UN ALTO CRIMEN O DELITO
MENOR  QUE JUSTIFICABA EL JUICIO
POLÍTICO
>>> PPROFESOR GERHARD, SE EXIGE 
QUE HAYA UN CRIMEN EFECTIVO HAÁA

English: 
BECAUSE IT'S SO TELLING.
IT SAID UNDERSTANDING THAT 
WILLIAM TAYLOR DID INTEND TO 
STAND FOR THE ELECTION OF ONE OF
THEM TO SERVE IN THIS 
PARLIAMENT.
IN OTHER WORDS HE WAS RUNNING AS
A MEMBER OF PARLIAMENT.
THIS IS WHAT HE DID.
TO DISPARAGE AND PREVENT THE 
FREE ELECTION OF WILLIAM TAYLOR 
AND STRIKE A TERROR INTO THOSE 
OF THAT WOULD GIVE THEIR VOICES 
FOR HIM AND DEPRIVE THEM OF THE 
FREEDOM OF THEIR VOICES AT AT 
THE ELECTION.
HE DID COMMAND AND CAUSE HIM TO 
BE FORCIBLY ILLEGALLY AND 
ARBITRARILY SEIZED UPON BY 
SOLDIERS AND THEN DETAINED HIM.
IN OTHER WORDS HE WENT AFTER A 
POLITICAL OPPONENT AND THAT WAS 
A HIGH CRIME OR MISDEMEANOR TO 
USE YOUR OFFICE TO GO AFTER A 
POLITICAL OPPONENT. 
>> NOW, PROFESSOR, DOES A HIGH 
CRIME AND MISDEMEANOR REQUIRE AN
ACTUAL STATUTORY CRIME?
>> NO.
>> IT PLAINLY DOES NOT.

English: 
EVERYTHING THAT WE KNOW ABOUT 
THE HISTORY OF IMPEACHMENT 
REINFORCES THE CONCLUSION THAT 
IMPEACHABLE OFFENSES DO NOT HAVE
TO BE CRIME AND NOT ALL CRIMES 
ARE IMPEACHABLE OFFENSES.
WE LOOK AT THE CONTEXT AND 
GRAVITY OF THE MISCONDUCT. 
>> YOU RECENTLY WROTE IN THE 
WALL STREET JOURNAL AND I QUOTE,
THERE IS MUCH THAT IS WORTHY OF 
INVESTIGATION IN THE UKRAINE 
SCANDAL AND IT IS TRUE THAT 
IMPEACHMENT DOESN'T REQUIRE A 
CRIME.
THAT WAS TRUE BUT I ALSO ADDED A
CAVEAT. 
>> IT'S YES OR NO. 
>> DID YOU SAY THERE'S MUCH 
WORTHY OF INVESTIGATION IN THE 
UKRAINE SCANDAL AND IT'S TRUE 
THAT IMPEACHMENT DOES NOT 
REQUIRE A CRIME.
IS THAT AN ACCURATE QUOTE, SIR. 
>> YOU READ IT WELL. 
>> SO, PROFESSORS FELDMAN, 
CARLIN AND GEIRHARDT, YOU HAVE 

Spanish: 
QUE CALIFIQUE COMO ALTO CRIMEN O
DELITO MENOR?
>>> NO, LO QUE SABEMOS DEL 
JUICIO POLÍTICO REFUERZA EL 
CONCEPTO DE QUE NO HAYA DE UN 
CRIMEN ESPECÍFICO SINO QUE SE 
ANALIZA LA GRAVEDAD DE LA CO
CONDUCTA INADECUADA
>>> PROFESOR TOUR LEY, USTED 
ESCRIBIÓ EN UN PERIÓDICO QUE 
VALÍA LA PENA INVESTIGAR EL 
ESCÁNDALO DE UCRANIA  Y QUE ERA 
CIERTO QUE EL JUICIO POLÍTICO NO
EXIGE UN CRIMEN
>>> ES CIERTO  PERO YO TAMBIÉN 
DIJE
>>> PERDÓN, YO LE PREGUNTÉ HECHO
TE HABÍA ESCRITO QUE VALÍA LA 
PENA SEGUIR INVESTIGANDO  LO 
ANTECEDENTES DE ESTE PROCESO  
PUNTO ES ESO CORRECTO

Spanish: 
>>> ASÍ ES
>>> PROFESORES, USTEDES TRES, 
BASADO EN LA EVIDENCIA, 
CONSIDERAN  QUE ESE JUSTIFICA EL
JUICIO POLÍTICO POR ABUSO DE 
PODER
>>> ASÍ ES
>>> PROFESOR FELDMAN, QUÉ 
RESPONSABILIDAD LE DA LA CO
CONSTITUCIÓN A LA CÁMARA DE 
REPRESENTANTES CON RESPECTO A 
ESTE ABUSO DE PODER
>>> LA CONSTITUCIÓN E DA LA 
CÁMARA DE REPRESENTANTES EL 
PODER DE HACER UN JUICIO 
POLÍTICO, LO QUE SIGNIFICA QUE 
PUEDEN INVESTIGAR LA CONDUCTA 
INADECUADA Y PUEDEN APROBAR A
ARTÍCULOS PARA LA DESTITUCIÓN
>>> PROFESORA, QUE SIGNIFICA ESA
RESPONSABILIDAD PARA ESTE COMIÉE
EN LO QUE RESPECTA AL ABUSO DE 
PODER DE PRESIDENTE TRUMP?
>>> ESTE ABUSO DE PODER ATACA LA

English: 
IDENTIFIED THERE'S AN 
IMPEACHMENT ACT, A HIGH CRIME 
AND MISDEMEANOR OF ABUSE OF 
POWER, CORRECT?
AND WHAT IS THE RESPONSIBILITY 
OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 
IN DEALING WITH HIGH CRIMES AND 
MISDEMEANORS LIKE ABUSE OF 
POWER?
>> THE CONSTITUTION GIVES THE 
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES THE 
SOLE POWER OF IMPEACHMENT.
THEY HAVE THE RIGHT AND 
RESPONSIBILITY TO INVESTIGATE 
PRESIDENTIAL MISCONDUCT AND 
WHERE APPROPRIATE TO CREATE AND 
PASS ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT. 
>> AND PROFESSOR, WHAT DOES THAT
MEAN TO THIS COMMITMENT AS FAR 
AS THE ABUSE OF POWER. 
>> BECAUSE THIS CUTS TO THE 
HEART OF DEMOCRACY YOU NEED TO 
ASK YOURSELF IF YOU DON'T 
IMPEACH A PRESIDENT THAT'S DONE 

Spanish: 
DEMOCRACIA LA PREGUNTA ENTONCES 
ES Y NO SE HACE JUICIO POLÍTICO 
A UN PRESIDENTE  QUE HA HECHO LO
QUE ÉSTE HA HECHO, SI NO SE HACE
JUICIO POLÍTICO, EN CIERTA FORMA
SE DICE QUE NO HAY PROBLEMA Y 
QUE PUEDE VOLVER A HACERLO. EL 
INFORME HABLA DEL PRESS DEL 
PELIGRO CLARO Y PRESENTE CONTRA 
LA ELECCIÓN Y ES SU 
RESPONSABILIDAD ASEGURARSE DE 
QUE TODOS LOS ESTADOUNIDENSES 
PUEDAN VOTAR  EN UNA ELECCIÓN 
LIBRE
>>> QUIERO CITAR LA CONST
N
CONSTITUCIÓN, PARA LA DEFINICIÓN
DE ALTOS CRÍMENES  Y DELITOS 
MENORES. DEFINE LA CONSTITUCIÓN 
TODOS ESTOS DELITOS

English: 
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 SITS FINE TO GO 
AHEAD AND DO THIS AGAIN AND I 
THINK THAT AS T YOU KNOW, IN THE
REPORT THAT CAME OUT LAST NIGHT 
IT TALKED ABOUT THE CLEAR AND 
PRESENT DANGER FOR 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. 
>> I'D LIKE TO DIRECT YOU TO THE
WORDS IN THE CONSTITUTION.
WE'RE STILL GOING TO TALK ABOUT 
ABUSE OF POWER.
DID IT SPELL OUT EVERY OTHER 
HIGH CRIME AND MISDEMEANOR. 
>> NO IT DID NOT. 
>> WHY. 
>> IN PART BECAUSE THEY 
RECOGNIZED THAT THE 
INVENTIVENESS OF MAN AND THE 
LIKELIHOOD THAT THIS 

English: 
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 THAT WAS STEALING 
COMPUTER FILES BECAUSE THEY 
COULDN'T HAVE IMAGINED 
COMPUTERS.
THEY COULDN'T HAVE NECESSARILY 
IMAGINED WIRETAPPING BECAUSE WE 
HAD NO WIRES IN 1789.
SO THEY PUT IN A PHRASE THAT THE
ENGLISH USED AND ADAPTED OVER A 
PERIOD OF CENTURIES TO TAKE INTO
ACCOUNT THAT THE IDEA OF HIGH 
CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS IS TO 
GET THINGS THAT PEOPLE IN OFFICE
USED TO STRIKE AT THE VERY HEART
OF OUR DEMOCRACY.
>> AND IN YOUR WRITTEN TESTIMONY
YOU MENTION TWO ADDITIONAL 
ASPECTS OF HIGH CRIMES AND 
MISDEMEANORS BESIDES ABUSE OF 

Spanish: 
>>> NNO, NO ES ASÍ. PORQUE SE 
RECONOCE  EL INGENIO DE LAS 
PERSONAS  Y LA POSIBILIDAD DE 
QUE LA CONSTITUCIÓN DURE AÑOS Y 
POR ESO NO PODÍA HACERSE UNA 
LISTA DE TODOS LOS CRÍMENES QUE 
PODÍAN COMETERSE. NO HABÍAN 
PODIDO IMAGINAR UN ABUSO DE 
PODER QUE INVOLUCRARÁ ROBAR 
ARCHIVOS COMPUTACIONALES, PORQUE
NO IMAGINABAN A LOS COMPU
S
COMPUTADORES. TAMPOCO EL ROBO 
POR CABLE, YA QUE NO EXISTÍAN. 
POR ESO USAN LA FRASE DE LOS 
INGLESES QUE SE HA ADAPTADO PARA
INCLUIR EN ESTOS CONCEPTOS LA 
IDEA FUNDAMENTAL  QUE ES EL USO 
DEL CARGO PARA ATACAR LA DEM
A
DEMOCRACIA
>>> EN SU TESTIMONIO ESCRITO 
USTED HABLA DE OTROS ALTOS C

Spanish: 
CRÍMENES Y DELITOS MENORES, 
ADEMÁS DEL ABUSO DE PODER PUNTO 
HABLA DE LA TRAICIÓN DE AL 
INTERÉS NACIONAL  Y CORRUPCIÓN 
DEL PROCESO ELECTORAL. PODRÍA 
DECIRNOS UN POCO MÁS SOBRE LA 
PREOCUPACIÓN EN LO QUE RESPECTA 
A LA CORRUPCIÓN DE LA ELECCIÓN  
Y EL LA TRAICIÓN AL INTERÉS 
NACIONAL EN ESTE CASO QUE 
INVOLUCRA  A GOBIERNOS 
EXTRANJEROS
>>> EL TEMA Y QUE SE ASUME QUE 
LAS ELECCIONES PUEDEN SER 
CORROMPIDAS,, SE DISEÑÓ UN 
SISTEMA QUE NO ESTUVIESE SUJETO 
A VARIOS TIPOS DE CORRUPCIÓN. EN
LA CONSTITUCIÓN SE HABLA DE LA 
CORRUPCIÓN QUE LE PREOCUPABA, 

English: 
POWER.
YOU TALKED ABOUT BETRAYAL OF THE
NATIONAL INTERESTS AND 
CORRUPTION OF THE ELECTORAL 
PROCESS.
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 COME INTO PLAY 
HERE. 
>> LET ME BRING IT UP TO DATE.
THERE'S MODERN STUFF AS WELL 
THAT'S IMPORTANT.
THEY WERE WORRIED THEY COULD BE 
CORRUPTED IN A VARIETY OF 
DIFFERENT WAYS AND SPENT TIME 
TRYING TO DESIGN AN ELECTION 
SYSTEM THAT WOULDN'T BE SUBJECT 
TO THAT CORRUPTION AND THERE'S A
NUMBER OF DIFFERENT PROVISIONS 
IN THE CONSTITUTION THAT DEAL 
WITH THE CORRUPTION THEY WERE 
WORRIED ABOUT.
TWO I'D LIKE TO HIGHLIGHT HERE 

English: 
BECAUSE THEY GO TO ONE I THINK 
SEEMS TO BE A REMNANT OF A PAST 
TIME WHICH IS IF YOU BECOME AN 
AMERICAN CITIZEN, ALMOST 
EVERYTHING IN THIS COUNTRY IS 
OPEN TO YOU.
YOU CAN BECOME CHIEF JUSTICE OR 
SECRETARY BUT THE ONE OFFICE NOT
OPEN TO YOU IS PRESIDENCY 
BECAUSE OF THE NATURAL BORN 
CITIZEN CLAUSE OF THE 
CONSTITUTION AND THE REASON THEY
PUT THAT IN IS BECAUSE THEY WERE
SO WORRIED ABOUT FOREIGN 
INFLUENCE OVER A PRESIDENT.
THE OTHER CLAUSE THAT PROBABLY 
NO ONE HEARD OF FIVE YEARS AGO 
BUT NOW EVERYONE TALKS ABOUT IS 
THE AMOLUMENTS CLAUSE.
THEY THOUGHT HE WOULD USE IT TO 
GET EVERYTHING HE COULD AND HE 
WOULD TAKE GIFTS FROM FOREIGN 
COUNTRIES.
AND THEY WERE VERY CONCERNED 
ABOUT THOSE ELECTIONS.
BUT IT'S NOT JUST THEM AND I 
WANT TO SAY SOMETHING ABOUT WHAT
OUR NATIONAL INTEREST IS TODAY 

Spanish: 
DESTACO DOS QUE TIENEN QUE VER 
CON EL INTERÉS NACIONAL DE OTROS
GOBIERNOS  Y UNO QUE HOY EN DÍA 
NOS RECUERDA ALGO ANTIGUO. SE 
USTED SE CONVIERTE EN UN CI
CIUDADANO ESTADOUNIDENSE,  SE LE
ABRE TODO PUEDE SER JUEZ, PUEDE 
SER SECRETARIO DE ESTADO,  PERO 
LA ÚNICA PUERTA QUE NO SE LE 
ABRE AUNQUE SEA CIUDADANO EN LA 
PRESIDENCIA, PORQUE SE EXIGE 
NACER ESTE PAÍS. LA RAZÓN DE ESA
LIMITACIÓN ES QUE PREOCUPABA LA 
INJERENCIA DE EXTRANJEROS.OTRA 
CLÁUSULA PREOCUPABA YA QUE AL 
TENER EL PRESIDENTE UN TIEMPO 
LIMITADO EN EL CARGO PODÍA 
RECIBIR REGALOS DE OTROS PAÍSES.

Spanish: 
POR ESO LE PREOCUPABAN LAS 
ELECCIONES Y NO SOLO ELLOS. 
NUESTRO INTERÉS NACIONAL HOY ES 
DISTINTO A LO QUE ERA  EN 1789, 
HAY UN LE PREOCUPABA QUE NO 
EXPLOTARAN OTROS PAÍSES. HOY 
SOMOS UNA POTENCIA PERO AÚN 
PODEMOS SER EXPLOTADO POR OTROS 
PAÍSES. Y CREO QUE DEBEMOS 
SENTIRNOS ORGULLOSOS DE QUE NOS 
CONVERTIMOS EN LO QUE DIJO 
RONALD RELEGAN Y HAN DICHO OTROS
COMO SOMOS LA CIUDAD MÁS 
BRILLANTE, SOMOS EL PAÍS QUE 
LIDERA LA COMPRENSIÓN DEL 
CONCEPTO ACTUAL DE DEMOCRACIA, 
NO ES UNA DEMOCRACIA MADURA SI 
SE USA EL PODER PARA PERSEGUIR A

English: 
BECAUSE OUR NATIONAL INTEREST 
TODAY IS DIFFERENT IN IMPORTANT 
WAYS THAN IT WAS IN 1789.
WHAT THE FRAMERS WERE WORRIED 
ABOUT IS THAT WE WOULD BE A WEAK
COUNTRY AND WE COULD BE 
EXPLOITED BY FOREIGN COUNTRIES.
NOW WE'RE A STRONG POWER NOW.
THE STRONGEST POWER IN THE 
WORLD.
WE CAN STILL BE EXPLOITED BY 
FOREIGN COUNTRIES.
BUT THE OTHER THING THAT WE HAVE
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 1640 AND WHAT 
RONALD REAGAN SAID IN HIS FINAL 
ADDRESS TO THE COUNTRY AS WE 
LEFT OFFICE.
WE HAVE BECOME THE SHINING CITY 
ON A HILL.
WE HAVE BECOME THE NATION THAT 
LEADS THE WORLD IN UNDERSTANDING
WHAT DEMOCRACY IS AND ONE OF THE
THINGS THAT WE UNDERSTAND MOST 
PROFOUNDLY IS ITS NOT A REAL 
DEMOCRACY.
IT'S NOT A MATURE DEMOCRACY IF 
THE PARTY IN POWER USES THE 
CRIMINAL PROCESS TO GO AFTER 
IT'S ENEMIES.
THE INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE HEARD
TESTIMONY ABOUT IT ISN'T OUR 

Spanish: 
LOS ENEMIGOS. ESCUCHAMOS 
TESTIMONIOS QUE DICEN QUE 
NUESTRO EN  INTERÉS NACIONAL NO 
ES SOLO PROTEGER LAS ELECCIONES 
O QUE UCRANIA SEA FUERTE PARA 
COMBATIR A RUSIA,, TAMBIÉN ES DE
NUESTRO INTERÉS PROMOVER LA 
DEMOCRACIA EN EL MUNDO Y NO 
PODEMOS SER HIPÓCRITAS. SI PE
M
PEDIMOS A OTROS PAÍS QUE 
INTERFIERAN EN OTRAS ELECCIONES 
O ESO PARECE, SI PEDIMOS QUE 
INVESTIGUEN CRIMINALMENTE A 
NUESTROS OPONENTES POLÍTICOS,,  
ENTONCES NO ESTAMOS HACIENDO 
NUESTRO TRABAJO Y NO ESTAMOS 
SIENDO LA CIUDAD MÁS BRILLANTE 
QUE PROMUEVE LA DEMOCRACIA.
>>> PROFESOR FELDMAN, QUIERE 
AGREGAR ALGO?
>>> LA RAZÓN POR LA QUE LA 
CONSTITUCIÓN INCLUYE EL JUICIO 
POLÍTICO SON SITUACIONES COMO LA

English: 
NATIONAL INTEREST IN PROTECTING 
OUR OWN ELECTIONS AND MAKING 
SURE THAT THE UKRAINE REMAINS 
STRONG AND ON THE FRONT LINES SO
THEY FIGHT THE RUSSIANS THERE 
AND WE DON'T HAVE TO FIGHT THEM 
HERE BUT IT'S ALSO OUR NATIONAL 
INTEREST IN PROMOTING DEMOCRACY 
WORLDWIDE AND IF WE LOOK 
HYPOCRITICAL ABOUT THIS, IF WE 
LOOK LIKE WE'RE ASKING OTHER 
COUNTRIES TO INTERFERE IN OUR 
ELECTION, IF WE LOOK LIKE WE'RE 
ASKING OTHER COUNTRIES TO ENGAGE
IN CRIMINAL INVESTIGATIONS OF 
OUR PRESIDENT'S POLITICAL 
OPPONENTS, THEN WE ARE NOT DOING
OUR JOB OF PROMOTING OUR 
NATIONAL INTEREST OF BEING THE 
SHINING CITY ON THE HILL. 
>> PROFESSOR FELDMAN, ANYTHING 
TO ADD?
>> ULTIMATELY THE REASON THE 
CONSTITUTION PROVIDED FOR 
IMPEACHMENT IS TO ANTICIPATE A 
SITUATION LIKE THE ONE BEFORE 
YOU TODAY.
THE FRAMERS WERE NOT PROPHETS 
BUT THEY WERE SMART PEOPLE WITH 
A SOPHISTICATED UNDERSTANDING OF
HUMAN INCENTIVES AND THEY 

English: 
UNDERSTOOD THAT A PRESIDENT 
WOULD BE MOTIVATED NATURALLY TO 
TRY TO USE THE TREMENDOUS POWER 
OF OFFICE TO GAIN POWER AND THIS
IS WHAT PRESIDENT TRUMP HAS DONE
AND UNDER THOSE CIRCUMSTANCES 
THE FRAMERS WOULD EXPECT THE 
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TO TAKE
ACTION IN THE FORM OF 
IMPEACHMENT.
>> AND PROFESSOR FELDMAN, DID 
YOU REVIEW THE INTELLIGENCE 
COMMITTEE REPORT FINDING THAT 
PRESIDENT TRUMP COMPROMISED 
NATIONAL SECURITY TO ADVANCE HIS
PERSONAL POLITICAL INTERESTS?
>> I DID. 
>> WILL YOU EXPLAIN IN YOUR VIEW
HOW THAT HAPPENED?
>> THE PRESIDENT SOUGHT PERSONAL
GAIN AND ADVANTAGE BY SOLICITING
THE ANNOUNCEMENT OF 
INVESTIGATIONS FROM UKRAINE AND 

Spanish: 
QUE ENFRENTAMOS. LOS FUNDADORES 
NO ERAN PROFETAS PERO CONOCÍA LA
NATURALEZA HUMANA Y ENTENDÍAN 
QUE UN PRESIDENTE PODRÍA 
SENTIRSE MOTIVADO POR USAR SU 
PODER PARA LOGRAR UNA VENTAJA 
PERSONAL, PARA SEGUIR EN EL 
CARGO Y CORROMPER EL PROCESO 
ELECCIONARIO. LOS HECHOS SU
SUGIEREN  QUE ESO HIZO EL PR
PRESIDENTE TRUMP Y POR ESO LOS 
FUNDADORES ESPERARÍAN QUE LA 
CÁMARA ACTUARA Y SIGUIERON 
JUICIO POLÍTICO
>>> PROFESOR FELDMAN, REVISÓ 
USTED LAS CONCLUSIONES DEL CO
T
COMITÉ DE INTELIGENCIA QUE DICEN
QUE EL PRESIDENTE PUSO EN 
PELIGRO LA SEGURIDAD NACIONAL EN
PRO DE SU INTERÉS PERSONAL
>>> AASÍ ES
>>> PODRÍA EXPLICARNOS COMO SE 
DIO
>>> EL PRESIDENTE DIO UNA 

Spanish: 
VENTAJA AL PEDIR QUE SE A
ANUNCIARA  QUE SERÍA UNA 
INVESTIGACIÓN EN UCRANIA. A 
CAMBIO DE ESO RETUVO ASISTENCIA 
CLAVE PARA UCRANIA. AL HACERLO, 
AFECTÓ EL INTERÉS DE ESTADOS 
UNIDOS EN SU APOYO A UCRANIA
EL PRESIDENTE PUSO SU PROPIO 
BENEFICIO POR SOBRE LA SEGURIDAD
NACIONAL DE BIZANC
EN MI OPINIÓN, SI HUBIESEN 
ESTADO CONSCIENTES DE QUE EL 

English: 
TO DO SO, HE WITHHELD CRITICAL 
ASSISTANCE THAT THE GOVERNMENT 
OF UKRAINE NEEDED SO HE PUT IT 
AHEAD OF, AS EXPRESSED THE 
ENTIRETY OF THE NATIONAL 
SECURITY COMMUNITY. 
>> IS IT YOUR VIEW THAT THE 
FRAMERS WOULD CONCLUDE THAT 
THERE WAS A BETRAYAL OF THE 
NATIONAL INTEREST OR NATIONAL 
SECURITY BY PRESIDENT TRUMP ON 
THESE FACTS. 
>> IN MY VIEW IF THE FRAMERS 
WERE AWARE THAT THE PRESIDENT OF
THE UNITED STATES 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 

English: 
INVESTIGATIONS AIMED AT HIS OWN 
PERSONAL GAIN, THEY WOULD 
CERTAINLY CONCLUDE THAT THAT WAS
AN ABUSE OF THE OFFICE OF THE 
PRESIDENCY AND THEY WOULD 
CONCLUDE THAT THAT CONDUCT WAS 
IMPEACHABLE UNDER THE 
CONSTITUTION. 
>> PROFESSOR, WHAT ARE YOUR 
THOUGHTS ON THE ABUSE OF POWER, 
BETRAYAL OF NATIONAL SECURITY OR
NATIONAL INTERESTS.
AND THE CORRUPTION OF ELECTIONS.
>> WELL, I HAVE A LOT OF 
THOUGHTS.
ONE OF THEM IS WHAT WE HAVEN'T 
MENTIONED OR BROUGHT INTO THIS 
CONVERSATION IS THE FACT THAT IT
REQUIRES THIS COMMITTEE, THIS 
HOUSE TO BE ABLE TO INVESTIGATE 
CONDUCT.
IF A PRESIDENT CAN BLOCK AN 
INVESTIGATION AND UNDERMINE IT 
AND STOP IT THEN THE IMPEACHMENT
POWER ITSELF IS UNDERMINED 
COMPLETELY.

Spanish: 
PRESIDENTE PONDRÍA SU INTERÉS 
PERSONAL ANTES QUE EL DEL PAÍS 
AL CONDICIONAR TENSA CLAVE A UN 
ALIADO EN PLENA GUERRA POR SU 
BENEFICIO PERSONAL HABRÍAN 
CONCLUIDO SIN DUDA QUE ERA UN 
B
ABUSO DE LA PRESIDENCIA Y QUE SU
JUSTIFICABA UN JUICIO POLÍTICO 
QUE>>>
NO SE HA MENCIONADO QUE EL PODER
DE HACER JUICIO POLÍTICO EXIGE 
QUE SE PUEDA INVESTIGAR ESTA 
CONDUCTA DEL PRESIDENTE. SI EL 
PRESIDENTE PUEDE BLOQUEAR ESTO, 

Spanish: 
ENTONCES SE PONE EN JUEGO ESTA 
ATRIBUCIÓN
>>> PROFESOR,  PUEDE EXISTIR EL 
ABUSO DE PODER A PARTIR DE  LA 
TRAICIÓN DEL PRESIDENTE DE LA 
E
SEGURIDAD NACIONAL Y LA 
CORRUPCIÓN DE LA ELECCIONES?
>>> ASÍ ES
>>> Y ESO EXISTE AQUÍ
>>> EN BASE  A LAS DECLARACIONES

English: 
>> AND CAN YOU HAVE AN 
IMPEACHMENT OFFENSE OF ABUSE OF 
POWER THAT'S SUPPORTED BY 
CONSIDERATIONS OF A PRESIDENT'S 
BETRAYAL OF THE NATIONAL 
INTEREST OR NATIONAL SECURITY?
AND BY CORRUPTION OF ELECTIONS?
>> YES, YOU CAN. 
>> DO WE HAVE THAT HERE, MA'AM?
>> BASED ON THE EVIDENCE I HAVE 
SEEN, THE TRANSCRIPTS OF THE 12 
WITNESSES THAT TESTIFIED, 
LOOKING AT THE CALL READ OUT AND
LOOKING AT THE PRESIDENT'S OTHER
STATEMENTS AND LOOKING AT THE 
STATEMENT BY MR. MULVANEY AND 
THE LIKE, YES WE DO.
>> DO YOU AGREE?
>> YES.
>> YES I DO.
WE HAVE BEEN TALKING ABOUT THE 
CATEGORY OF OTHER HIGH CRIMES 
AND MISDEMEANORS LIKE ABUSE OF 
POWER BUT THERE'S SOME 

Spanish: 
DEL PRESIDENTE CREEMOS QUE SI
USTEDES ESTÁN DE ACUERDO
>>> TRADICIÓN ICIÓN Y SOBORNO
>>> LAS DEMANDAS DEL PRESIDENTE 
INCLUYEN SOBORNO
>>> POR EXPLICARNOS POR QUÉ
>>> CLARO ES IMPORTANTE 
DISTINGUIR EL SOBORNO DE LO QUE 
EL CÓDIGO DEFINE COMO TAL

English: 
ADDITIONAL HIGH CRIMES AND 
MISDEMEANORS THAT ARE 
SPECIFICALLY IDENTIFIED IN THE 
TEXT OF THE CONSTITUTION, 
CORRECT?
WHAT ARE THEY?
>> TREASON AND BRIBERY. 
>> DOES IT ALSO ESTABLISH THE 
HIGH CRIME OF BRIBERY. 
>> YES, THEY DO. 
>> CAN YOU EXPLAIN WHY, PLEASE?
SURE.
IT'S IMPORTANT TO DISTINGUISH 
THAT FROM WHATEVER THE U.S. CODE
CALLS BRIBERY TODAY.
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 ABOUT CUSTOMS 

Spanish: 
>>> EN 1789 CUANDO SE REDACTABA 
LA CONSTITUCIÓN NO EXISTÍA LA 
NORMA SOBRE SOBORNO
CUANDO DICEN EXPLÍCITAMENTE EN 
LA CONSTITUCIÓN QUE EL 
PRESIDENTE PUEDE SER SUJETO DE 
JUICIO POLÍTICO POR SOBORNO  NO 
HACÍAN UNA MENCIÓN A UNA NORMA 
ESPECÍFICA. YO NO SOY EXPERTA EN
LEY CRIMINAL PERO EL SOBORNO DE 
UNA NORMA MUY COMPLEJA, ELLOS 
PENSABAN EN EL SOBORNO  COMO SE 
ENTENDÍA EN EL SIGLO XVIII. ESA 
COMPRENSIÓN  TENÍA QUE VER CON 
UN JUEZ MÁS QUE CON UN 
PRESIDENTE  PORQUE ENTONCES NO 
EXISTÍA EL PRESIDENTE. TAMPOCO 

English: 
OFFICIALS AND THE SECOND ONE WAS
ONLY ABOUT JUDGES.
SO IT WASN'T UNTIL 60 YEARS OR 
SO AFTER IT WAS RATIFIED THAT WE
HAD IT AT ALL.
SO WHEN THEY SAY THAT THE CON 
PRESIDENT CAN BE IMPEACHED AND 
REMOVED FROM OFFICE FOR BRIBERY,
THEY WEREN'T REFERRING TO A 
STATUTE.
ALL I WILL SAY HERE IS ITS A 
VERY COMPLICATED STATUTE.
SO THEY WERE THINKING ABOUT 
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 THE KING COULD DO NO 
WRONG BUT ONE THING THAT WE'RE 
UNDERSTANDING THEN WAS THE IDEA 
THAT WHEN YOU TOOK PRIVATE 

Spanish: 
SE REFERÍAN AL REY
CUANDO SE HABLA DE BENEFICIOS  
PERSONALES,  A CAMBIO DE UN ACTO
OFICIAL O SE RECIBEN PARA 
INFLUIR UN ACTO OFICIAL,  ESO ES
SOBORNO
>>> ENTONCES AQUÍ HAY SOBORNO 
CONSTITUCIONAL EL MAYOR CRIMEN O
DELITO MENOR  QUE HABRÍA CON 
METIDO EL PRESIDENTE
>>> SÍ PIDIÓ LA INVESTIGACIÓN DE
SU RIVAL POR RAZONES POLÍTICAS, 
ENTONCES SI. ES SOBORNO
>>> USTED REVISÓ EL MEMO  DE LA 
LLAMADA ENTRE EL PRESIDENTE Y SU
PAR UCRANIANO DONDE EL 
PRESIDENTE TRUMP PIDE ESTO COMO 
UN FAVOR DONDE TAMBIÉN PIDE QUE 
SE INVESTIGA SU OPONENTES 

English: 
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.
SO WE HAVE CONSTITUTIONAL 
BRIBERY HERE AGAINST PRESIDENT 
TRUMP. 
>> IF YOU CONCLUDE THAT HE ASKED
FOR THE INVESTIGATION OF VICE 
PRESIDENT BIDEN AND HIS SON FOR 
POLITICAL REASONS, THAT IS TO 
AID HIS RE-ELECTION THEN YES.
YOU HAVE BRIBERY HERE. 
>> DID YOU REVIEW THE MEMORANDUM
OF THE PRESIDENT'S TELEPHONE 
CALL WITH THE UKRAINIAN 
PRESIDENT?
THE ONE WHERE PRESIDENT TRUMP 
ASKS 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.
>> AND DID YOU CONSIDER THE 
FOLLOWING TESTIMONY FROM OUR 

English: 
AMBASSADOR TO THE EUROPEAN 
UNION?
>> 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.
AND DID YOU ALSO CONSIDER THE 
FINDINGS OF FACT THAT THE 
INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE MADE 
INCLUDING THAT AND I QUOTE, FROM
FINDING THE FACT NUMBER FIVE 
THAT THE PRESIDENT WITHHELD 
OFFICIAL ACTS OF VALUE TO 
UKRAINE AND CONDITIONED THEIR 
FULFILLMENT ON ACTIONS BY 
UKRAINE THAT WOULD BENEFIT HIS 
PERSONAL POLITICAL INTERESTS.
>> I DID RELY ON THAT, IN 
ADDITION, BECAUSE AS I HAVE 
ALREADY TESTIFIED, I READ THE 
WITNESSES TRANSCRIPTS.

Spanish: 
POLÍTICOS
>>> AASÍ ES CAMBIO
>>> CONSIDERÓ DEL TESTIMONIO DEL
EMBAJADOR SONDLAND, CREE QUE 
HUBO UN INTERCAMBIO DE FAVORES
>>> COMO DIJE ANTES,, CON R
RESPECTO A LA LLAMADA Y LA 
REUNIÓN, LA RESPUESTA QUE SI. 
TODOS LO SABÍAN
>>> CONSIDERÓ USTED ESO?
>>> ASÍ ES
>>> Y CONSIDERÓ LA CONCLUSIÓN  
DEL COMITÉ DE INTELIGENCIA Y C
T
CITO, EL PRESIDENTE RETUVO ACTOS
OFICIALES VALIOSO PARA UCRANIA Y
LO CONDICIONÓ A ACCIONES DE 
UCRANIA QUE LO BENEFICIARÍAN 
PERSONALMENTE
>>> ME BASE EN ESO PORQUE COMO 
YA DIJE LEÍ LAS TRANSCRIPCIONES 

English: 
I RELIED ON TESTIMONY AND 
TESTIMONY FOR AMBASSADOR TAYLOR.
I RELIED ON THE FACTS THAT WHEN 
I THINK IT WAS AMBASSADOR TAYLOR
BUT I MAY BE GETTING THE PEOPLE 
WRONG, SENT THE CABLE AND SAYS 
IT'S CRAZY TO HOLD THIS UP BASED
ON DOMESTIC POLITICAL CONCERNS.
NO ONE WROTE BACK AND SAID 
THAT'S NOT WHY WE'RE DOING IT.
I RELIED ON WHAT MR. MULVANEY 
SAID IN HIS PRESS CONFERENCE.
THERE'S A LOT TO SUGGEST THIS IS
ABOUT POLITICAL BENEFIT AND I 
DON'T KNOW IF I CAN TALK ABOUT 
ANOTHER PIECE OF AMBASSADOR'S 
TESTIMONY NOW OR I SHOULD WAIT.
TELL ME. 
>> PLEASE TALK ABOUT IT. 
>> SO I WANT TO JUST POINT TO 
WHAT I CONSIDER TO BE THE MOST 
STRIKING EXAMPLE OF THIS AND -- 
YOU KNOW, I SPENT ALL OF 
THANKSGIVING VACATION SITTING 
THERE READING THESE TRANSCRIPTS.
I DIDN'T -- I ATE LIKE A TURKEY 
THAT CAME TO US IN THE MAIL THAT

Spanish: 
DE TODOS LOS TESTIGOS
ME BASE EN LOS TESTIMONIOS DE 
TODOS LOS TESTIGOS QUE SE 
PRESENTARON AQUÍ, DE EMBAJADORES
DE MILITARES, LOS HECHOS QUE 
FUERON PRESENTANDO TODOS ELLOS. 
EL QUE DIJO QUE ERA UNA LOCURA 
SOMETER ESTA UN BENEFICIO 
POLÍTICO.
ME BASE LO QUE DIJO RICK VUELVE 
Y NI
>>> MUCHO AQUÍ SUGIERE QUE AQUÍ 
SE BUSCABA UN BENEFICIO POLÍTICO
PUEDO HABLAR SOBRE SONDLAND
>>> PPOR FAVOR
>>> LO QUE MÁS ME SORPRENDIÓ, 

English: 
WAS ALREADY COOKED BECAUSE I WAS
SPENDING MY TIME DOING THIS AND 
THE MOST CHILLING LINE FOR ME OF
THE ENTIRE PROCESS WAS THE 
FOLLOWING, AMBASSADOR SONDLAND 
SAID HE HAD TO ANNOUNCE THE 
INVESTIGATIONS, HE'S TALKING 
ABOUT HIM, HE HAD TO ANNOUNCE 
THE INVESTIGATIONS.
HE DIDN'T ACTUALLY HAVE TO DO 
THEM AS I UNDERSTOOD IT.
I NEVER HEARD ANYONE SAY THAT 
THE INVESTIGATIONS HAD TO START 
OR HAD TO BE COMPLETED.
THE ONLY THING I HEARD FROM MR. 
GIULIANI OR OTHERWISE WAS THEY 
HAD TO BE ANNOUNCED IN SOME 
FORM.
WHAT I TOOK THAT TO MEAN WAS 
THIS WAS NOT ABOUT WHETHER VICE 
PRESIDENT BIDEN COMMITTED 
CORRUPTION OR NOT.
THIS WAS ABOUT INJURING SOMEBODY
WHO THE PRESIDENT THINKS OF AS A
PARTICULARLY HARD OPPONENT.
AND THAT IS FOR HIS PRIVATE 
BELIEVES, BECAUSE IF I CAN SAY 
ONE LAST THING ABOUT THE 
INTERESTS OF THE UNITED STATES, 
THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED 
STATES DOES NOT CARE WHETHER THE

Spanish: 
PASE LOS DÍAS DE ACCIÓN DE 
GRACIAS LEYENDO LAS 
TRANSCRIPCIONES
PARA MÍ LO MÁS PREOCUPANTE E
ERAQUE SONDLAND DIJO  QUE TUVO 
QUE ANUNCIAR LA INVESTIGACIÓN, 
QUE NO TENÍA QUE HACERLA. DIJO 
NUNCA ESCUCHÉ  A NADIE DECIR QUE
TENÍA QUE HACERSE LA INVES
I
INVESTIGACIÓN SINO QUE SOLO 
HABÍA QUE ANUNCIARLA. POR LO T
N
TANTO, EL TEMA NO ERA NADA 
AVERIGUAR SI JOE BIDEN HABÍA 
COMETIDO UN ACTO INADECUADO SINO
SOLO PERJUDICAR UN OPONENTE 
POLÍTICO

English: 
NEXT PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED 
STATES IS DONALD J. TRUMP OR ANY
ONE OF THE DEMOCRATS OR ANYBODY 
RUNNING FROM 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.
THE CONSTITUTION IS INDIFFERENT 
TO THAT.
>> THE CLEAR SENSE OF BRIBERY 
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 
EFFECTED BY HIS OFFICIAL OFFICE.

Spanish: 
YY SOBRE EL INTERÉS DE ESTADOS 
UNIDOS, DEBO DECIR QUE A LA 
CONSTITUCIÓN NO LE IMPORTA QUIÉN
SEA EL PRÓXIMO PRESIDENTE DE 
ESTADOS UNIDOS,, SEA REPUBLICANO
O DEMÓCRATA O INDEPENDIENTE. A 
LA CONSTITUCIÓN LE IMPORTA QUE 
TENGAMOS ELECCIONES LIBRES  Y 
POR ESO ES INTERÉS DE UN PR
PRESIDENTE ESPECÍFICO GANAR O 
PERDER, A LA CONSTITUCIÓN LE ES 
INDIFERENTE
>>> PROFESOR FELDMAN, ALGO QUE 
DECIR SOBRE EL SOBORNO Y LA 
EVIDENCIA QUE SE HA PRESENTADO
>>> LLA DEFINICIÓN DE SOBORNO 
CUANDO SE ADOPTÓ ESTE LENGUAJE 
LA CONSTITUCIÓN ERA QUE EL 
SOBORNO EXISTÍA BAJO LA CO
CONSTITUCIÓN CUANDO EL 

Spanish: 
PRESIDENTE PEDÍA O RECIBÍA ALGO 
VALIOSO PARA EL DE ALGUIEN QUE
P
PODRÍA SER AFECTADO POR SU CA
O
CARGO. LOS MIEMBROS DE LA CÁMARA
DEBERÁN DEFINIR SI ESTO ALGO 
VALIOSO PARA EL PRESIDENTE TRUMP
Y SI ESO ERA LO QUE BUSCABA. POR
ESO EL COMITÉ PODRÁ CONCLUIR QUE
HUBO SOBORNO
>>> PROFESOR GERE HART QUÉ OPINA
USTED
>>> ESTOY DE ACUERDO CON MIS 
COLEGAS Y QUIERO INSISTIR EN QUE
SI DE LO QUE ESTAMOS HABLANDO NO
ES SUJETO DE JUICIO POLÍTICO 
ENTONCES NADA LO ES. ES EL 
TÍTÍPO 
N DE CONDUCTA INADECUADA DE LA 
QUE QUERÍAN PROTEGERNOS  LOS 
REDACTORES DE LA CONSTITUCIÓN. 
SI LE PERMITÍ MUESTRA EL 

English: 
SO IF THE HOUSE OF 
REPRESENTATIVES AND THE MEMBERS 
OF THIS COMMITTEE WERE TO 
DETERMINE THAT GETTING THE 
INVESTIGATION EITHER ANNOUNCED 
OR UNDERTAKEN WAS A THING OF 
VALUE TO PRESIDENT TRUMP AND 
THAT THAT WAS WHAT HE THOUGHT, 
THEN THIS COMMITTEE AND THIS 
HOUSE COULD SAFELY CONCLUDE THAT
THE PRESIDENT HAD COMMITTED 
BRIBERY UNDER THE CONSTITUTION. 
>> PROFESSOR, WHAT IS YOUR VIEW.
THIS IS PRECISELY THE MISCONDUCT
THAT THE FRAMERS CREATED A 
CONSTITUTION INCLUDING 
IMPEACHMENT TO PROTECT AGAINST.
AND EVERY OTHER PRESIDENT WILL 

English: 
SAY OKAY.
THEN I CAN DO THE SAME THING AND
THE BOUNDARIES WILL JUST 
EVAPORATE.
AND THOSE BOUNDARIES ARE SET UP 
BY THE CONSTITUTION AND WE MAY 
BE WITNESSING, UNFORTUNATELY, 
THEIR EROSION AND THAT IS A 
DANGER TO ALL OF US.
>> AND WHAT CAN THIS COMMITTEE 
AND HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES DO 
TO PROTECT AGAINST THE 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 DOLLARS 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.

Spanish: 
PRESIDENTE,  COMO DECÍA MI 
COLEGA CUALQUIER PRÓXIMO PR
PRESIDENTE DIRÁ YO TAMBIÉN PUEDO
HACER LO MISMO Y ENTONCES SE VA 
POR HARÁN LOS LÍMITES QUE 
ESTABLECIÓ LA CONSTITUCIÓN. ANTE
ESO SEREMOS TESTIGOS DE UNA 
EROSIÓN QUE ES MUY PELIGROSA 
PARA TODOS
>>> QUE PODRÍA SER ESTE COMITÉ Y
LA CÁMARA DE REPRESENTANTES PARA
PROTEGER ESOS LÍMITES CONTRA ESA
EROSIÓN
>>> LO QUE ESTÁN HACIENDO AHORA
>>> IMPORTA,, LE PREGUNTO A LOS 
PANELISTAS PARA EL JUICIO 
POLÍTICO QUE LOS USD391,000,000 
EN ASISTENCIA MILITAR QUE EL 
PRESIDENTE RETUVO SE ENTREGARAN 
FINALMENTE. PROFESOR FELDMAN, 

Spanish: 
IMPORTA EN LO QUE RESPECTA AL 
JUICIO POLÍTICO
>>> NO. SI EL PRESIDENTE DE 
ESTADOS UNIDOS INTENTA ABUSAR DE
SU CARGO ES UNA OFENSA QUE 
JUSTIFICA UN JUICIO POLÍTICO,, 
SI SE DESCUBRE UN INTENTO  QUE 
FINALMENTE NO FUNCIONA NO HACE 
QUE EL ACTO YA NO PUEDA SER  
BASE PARA UN JUICIO POLÍTICO.
EL INTENTO DE ENCUBRIR WATERGATE
QUE NO FUE EXITOSO NO FUE EL 
MOTIVO PARA NO HACERLO JUICIO 
POLÍTICO AL PRESIDENTE NIXON
>>> PROFESORA CARLING, IMPORTA
Q
QUE LA INVESTIGACIÓN QUE EL 
PRESIDENTE ESPERABA NUNCA SE 
ANUNCIÓ

English: 
IF THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED 
STATES ATTEMPTS TO ABUSE HIS 
OFFICE, THAT IS A COMPLETE 
IMPEACHMENT 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 ANYWAY THE 
IMPEACHABILITY 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 ULTIMATELY SUCCESSFUL IN
COVERING UP THE BREAK IN WAS NOT
GROUNDS FOR NOT IMPEACHING HIM.
THE ATTEMPT ITSELF IS THE 
IMPEACHABLE ACT. 
>> PROFESSOR, DOES IT MATTER TO 
IMPEACHMENT THAT THE UNFOUNDED 
INVESTIGATIONS THE PRESIDENT 
SOUGHT WERE ULTIMATELY NEVER 
ANNOUNCED?
>> NO, IT DOESN'T AND IF I CAN 
GIVE AN EXAMPLE THAT I THINK 
SHOWS WHY SOLICITING IS ENOUGH, 
IMAGINE THAT YOU WERE PULLED 
OVER FOR SPEEDING BY A POLICE 

Spanish: 
>>> NO, NO IMPORTA. IMAGÍNESE 
QUE LO DETIENEN  POR EL ACCESO 
DE VELOCIDAD. SI EL OFICIAL LE 
DICE USTED ACCESO DE VELOCIDAD 
PERO SI ME DA USD20 LO OLVIDARÉ,
SI USTED DICE NO TENGO DINERO Y 
EL OFICIAL LE DICE VÁYASE,  EL 
OFICIAL SEGUIRÍA SIENDO CULPABLE
DE HABER PEDIDO UN SOBORNO A
AUNQUE LO HAYA DEJADO IRSE SIN 
PAGAR. EL INTENTO DE SOBORNO EN 
LO QUE ESTÁ SUJETO A JUICIO 
POLÍTICO INDEPENDIENTE DE LO QUE
PASE. EL PRESIDENTE PIDIÓ ESTE 
FAVOR,, SI EL PRESIDENTE DE U
UCRANIA LE HUBIESE DICHO QUE NO 
PORQUE YA LO ESTUDIAMOS Y 
CREEMOS QUE NO HAY SUSTENTO, LA 
ACCIÓN DEL PRESIDENTE HUBIESE 
SIDO SUJETO DE JUICIO POLÍTICO 
DE TODAS FORMAS. LA DECISIÓN 
FINAL NO TIENE NADA QUE VER CON 

English: 
OFFICER AND THE OFFICER SAYS YOU
WERE SPEEDING BUT, YOU KNOW, 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.
AND THE OFFICER SAYS OKAY, WELL,
JUST GO AHEAD, HAVE A NICE DAY.
THE OFFICER WOULD STILL BE 
GUILTY OF SOLICITING A BRIBE 
THERE EVEN THOUGH HE ULTIMATELY 
LET YOU OFF WITHOUT YOUR PAYING.
SOLICITING ITSELF IS THE 
IMPEACHABLE OFFENSE REGARDLESS 
OF WHETHER THE OTHER PERSON 
COMES UP WITH IT.
SO IMAGINE THAT THE PRESIDENT 
HAD SAID WILL YOU DO US A FAVOR,
WILL YOU INVESTIGATE JOE BIDE 
PERIOD AND THE PRESIDENT OF 
UKRAINE SAID, YOU KNOW WHAT, NO 
I WON'T.
WE HAVE ALREADY LOOKED INTO THIS
AND IT'S TOTALLY BASELESS.
THE PRESIDENT WOULD STILL HAVE 
COMMITTED AN IMPEACHABLE ACT 
EVEN IF HE HAD BEEN REFUSED 
RIGHT THERE ON THE PHONE.
SO I DON'T SEE WHY THE ULTIMATE 
DECISION HAS ANYTHING TO DO WITH
THE PRESIDENT'S IMPEACHABLE 
CONDUCT. 

English: 
>> WHAT IS THE DANGER IF 
CONGRESS DOES NOT RESPOND TO 
THAT ATTEMPT?
>> HE GETS OUT ON THE WHITE 
HOUSE LAWN AND SAYS CHINA, I 
THINK YOU SHOULD INVESTIGATE JOE
BIDEN. 
>> AND YOUR VIEW?
>> I WOULD AGREE WITH WHAT'S 
BEEN SAID.
ONE OF THE THINGS TO UNDERSTAND 
FROM THE HISTORY OF IMPEACHMENT 
IS EVERYBODY WHO IS IMPEACHED 
HAS FAILED.
THEY FAILED TO GET WHAT THEY 
WANTED AND WHAT THEY WANTED WAS 
NOT JUST TO DO WHAT THEY DID BUT
TO GET AWAY WITH IT AND THE 
POINT OF IMPEACHMENT IS ITS 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 
FOCUSSING ON SOMEBODY WHO DIDN'T
QUITE GET AS FAR AS THEY WANTED 
TO.
IT'S -- NOBODY IS BETTER THAN 
HER AT HYPOTHETICALS BUT I'LL 
RAISE ANOTHER ONE.
IMAGINE A BANK ROBBERY AND THE 
POLICE COME AND THE PERSON IS IN

Spanish: 
LA CONDUCTA SUJETA A JUICIO P
POLÍTICO
>>> CUÁL ES EL PELIGRO DE QUE EL
CONGRESO  NO CONTESTE
>>> LLO HEMOS VISTO,  HA IN
INVITADO A CHINA A INTERFERIR
>>> PPROFESOR GERE HART
>>> ESTOY DE ACUERDO CON LO QUE 
SE HA DICHO. SEGÚN ENTIENDO, 
QUIENES HAN SIDO SUJETOS DE J
JUICIO POLÍTICO NO HAN PODIDO 
OBTENER LO QUE BUSCABAN, ELLOS 
CREERÍAN TAMBIÉN SALIRSE CON LA 
SUYA. EL PUNTO DE JUICIO 
POLÍTICO ES DESCUBRIR A LA 
PERSONA,, GENERALMENTE SE TRATAN
DE ALGUIEN QUE NO LOGRÓ LO QUE 

English: 
THE MIDDLE OF BANK ROBBERY AND 
THE PERSON THEN DROPS THE MONEY 
AND SAYS I AM GOING TO LEAVE 
WITHOUT THE MONEY.
EVERYBODY UNDERSTANDS THAT'S 
ROBBERY.
THAT'S BURGLARY.
I'LL GET IT RIGHT.
AND IN THIS SITUATION, WE HAVE 
GOT SOMEBODY REALLY CAUGHT IN 
THE MIDDLE OF IT.
AND THAT DOESN'T EXCUSE THE 
PERSON FROM THE CONSTITUTION.
QUESTIONS ABOUT OBSTRUCTION OF 
CONGRESS.
PROFESSOR, 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, 

Spanish: 
QUERÍA. IMAGINAN OTRO CASO 
HIPOTÉTICO, UN LADRÓN DE BANCOS 
EN PLENO ROBO LLEGA LA POLICÍA, 
LA PERSONA SUELTA EL DINERO  Y 
DICE ME VOY A IR SIN EL DINERO ,
TODOS ENTIENDEN QUE ESO ES UN 
ROBO. EN ESTA SITUACIÓN, A ÉL LO
PILLARON Y ESO NO EXCUSA A LA 
PERSONA DE SANTA LAS CON
CONSECUENCIAS
>>> PPROFESORES, HABLAMOS DE 
ABUSO DE PODER Y SOBORNO AL 
INICIAR. DIJIMOS QUE TEMEN 
HABLARÍAMOS DE LA OBSTRUCCIÓN 
DEL CONGRESO ASÍ QUE QUIERO 
HACERLE UNAS PREGUNTAS SOBRE E
O
ESO. PROFESOR GERE HART, CREE 
QUE HAY SUFICIENTE EVIDENCIA 
PARA ACUSAR AL PRESIDENTE DE 
OBSTRUCCIÓN A LA LABOR DEL 

Spanish: 
CONGRESO
>>> CREO QUE HAY MÁS QUE 
SUFICIENTE, COMO YA DIJE
HAY MUCHA EVIDENCIA DE LO QUE HA
HECHO ESTE PRESIDENTE Y DE LA 
ORDEN QUE DIO DE NO COOPERAR. 
ESA EVIDENCIA, SUMADA OTRA  
CONSTITUYE OBSTRUCCIÓN DEL 
TRABAJO EL CONGRESO
>>> USTED ESTÁ DE ACUERDO?
>>> COMO CIUDADANA, ESTOY DE 
ACUERDO Y COMO EXPERTA MI 
PROBLEMA ES QUE YO NO SOY 
EXPERTA EN OBSTRUCCIÓN A LA 
JUSTICIA O OBSTRUCCIÓN A LA 
LABOR DEL CONGRESO
>>> ACEPTAMOS OPINIÓN PERSONAL
>>> PPROFESOR FELDMAN
>>> LA FUNCIONAL CONGRESO EN UN 
PROBLEMA PORQUE VAGO DE UN 

English: 
TO REALLY UNDERSCORE THIS, THE 
THIRD ARTICLE OF IMPEACHMENT 
APPROVED BY THE HOUSE JUDICIARY 
COMMITTEE AGAINST PRESIDENT 
NIXON CHARGED HIM WITH 
MISCONDUCT THAT HE FAILED TO 
COMPLY WITH FOUR LEGISLATIVE 
SUBPOENAS.
HERE IT IS FAR MORE THAN FOUR 
THAT THE 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 SUGGEST 
OBSTRUCTION OF CONGRESS. 
>> PROFESSOR CARLAN, DO YOU 
AGREE?
>> I'M A SCHOLAR OF THE LAWS OF 
DEMOCRACY.
I AGREE WITH WHAT PROFESSOR 
GERHARDT SAID.
AS AN EXPERT, MY LIMITATION IS 
THAT I'M A SCHOLAR OF THE LAW OF
DEMOCRACY, I'M NOT A SCHOLAR OF 
OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE OR 
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.
EACH OF THE BRANCHES OF 
GOVERNMENT HAS TO BE ABLE TO DO 

Spanish: 
PRINCIPIO BÁSICO DE LA CO
CONSTITUCIÓN. SI HAY TRES 
PODERES INDEPENDIENTES  CADA UNO
DEBE PODER HACER SU TRABAJO. EL 
DE LA CÁMARA EL PODER INVESTIGAR
ESTAS ACCIONES Y HACER UN JUICIO
POLÍTICO.
EL PRESIDENTE HA DICHO QUE NO VA
A COPOPERAR, CON LO QUE AFECTAD 
EL PODER DE HACER UN JUICIO 
POLÍTICO DE LA CÁMARA. EN LA 
DICHO QUE SU DEPARTAMENTO DE 
JUSTICIA NO PUEDE ACUSARLO DE UN
CRIMEN, PARECE SENTIRSE POR 
SOBRE LA LEY. CREO QUE HAY QUE 
INSISTIR EN ESTO, UN PRESIDENTE 
QUE NO COLABORA CON UN JUICIO 
POLÍTICO SE PONE POR SOBRE LA 
LEY Y ESO LO QUE ESTÁ EN EL 
CENTRO DE ESTA DISCUSIÓN  PORQUE

English: 
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 THE
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 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 WITH 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 A PRESIDENT COULD NOT BE 
IMPEACHED FOR THAT HE WOULD, IN 
FACT, NOT BE RESPONSIBLE TO 
ANYBODY. 
>> AND, SIR, IN FORMING YOUR 

English: 
OPINION, DID YOU REVIEW THESE 
STATEMENTS FROM PRESIDENT TRUMP?
>> WE'RE FIGHTING ALL THE 
SUBPOENAS.
THEN I HAVE IN ARTICLE II WHERE 
I HAVE THE RIGHT TO DO WHATEVER 
I WANT AS PRESIDENT. 
>> I DID.
AND AS SOMEONE WHO CARES ABOUT 
THE CONSTITUTION, THE SECOND OF 
THOSE IN PARTICULAR STRUCK A 
KIND OF HORROR IN ME. 
>> AND PROFESSOR GERHARDT, IN 
FORMING YOUR OPINION THAT 
PRESIDENT TRUMP HAD COMMITTED 
THE IMPEACHABLE OFFENSE OF 
OBSTRUCTION OF CONGRESS, DID YOU
CONSIDER THE INTELLIGENCE 
COMMITTEE REPORT AND ITS 
FINDINGS, INCLUDING FINDING 9, 
THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP ORDERED AND
IMPLEMENTED A CAMPAIGN TO 
CONCEAL HIS CONDUCT FROM THE 
PUBLIC TO FRUSTRATE AND OBSTRUCT
THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 
IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY?
>> YEAH.
I READ THAT REPORT LAST NIGHT 
AFTER I SUBMITTED MY STATEMENT, 
BUT I WATCHED AND READ ALL THE 
TRANSCRIPTS THAT WERE AVAILABLE.
THE REPORT THAT WAS ISSUED 

Spanish: 
SIGNIFICA QUE NO RESPONDE ANTE 
NADIE
>>> PARA FORMAR SU OPINIÓN, 
REVISÓ ESTAS DECLARACIONES DEL 
PRESIDENTE
>>> NO VOY A CUMPLIR CON ESAS 
CITACIONES, YO TENGO EL DERECHO 
A HACER LO QUE QUIERA
>>> ASÍ ES, Y DADO QUE ME 
PREOCUPA LA CONSTITUCIÓN ESAS 
DECLARACIONES  ME PREOCUPARON 
MUCHO
>>> PROFESOR GERE HART
UTE CONSIDERÓ ESTO TAMBIÉN, C
S
CONSIDERÓ EL INFORME DEL COMITÉ 
DE INTELIGENCIA POR EJEMPLO DE 
QUE EL PRESIDENTE ORDENÓ E 
IMPLEMENTÓ UNA CAMPAÑA PARA 

English: 
REINFORCES EVERYTHING ELSE THAT 
CAME BEFORE IT.
SO, YEAH. 
>> SO, WE'VE 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?
>> WELL, BASED ON -- SO I'VE 
COME HERE LIKE EVERY OTHER 
WITNESS, ASSUMING THE FACTS THAT
HAVE BEEN PUT TOGETHER, THE 
MUELLER REPORT CITES A NUMBER OF
FACTS THAT INDICATE THE 
PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES 
OBSTRUCTED JUSTICE, AND THAT'S 
AN IMPEACHABLE OFFENSE. 
>> YOU POINT OUT THAT THE 
MUELLER REPORT FOUND AT LEAST 

Spanish: 
ESCONDER ESTE COMPORTAMIENTO DEL
PÚBLICO Y PARA OBSTRUIR LA 
INVESTIGACIÓN DE LA CÁMARA
>>> QUIERO PREGUNTARLE AHORA 
SOBRE LA OBSTRUCCIÓN A LA 
JUSTICIA, TIENE USTED UNA O
OPINIÓN SOBRE ESO, SI EL P
PRESIDENTE TRUMP OBSTRUYÓ LA 
JUSTICIA
>>> SSÍ TENGO UNA OPINIÓN
>>> Y CUÁLES?
>>> VENGO AQUÍ COMO LOS DEMÁS 
TESTIGOS, HAY VARIOS HECHOS  QUE
DEMUESTRAN QUE EL PRESIDENTE 

Spanish: 
OBSTRUYÓ LA JUSTICIA
USTED DIJO QUE EL INFORME 
MUELLER  ENCONTRÓ CINCO SI
SITUACIONES EN QUE EL PRESIDENTE
OBSTRUYÓ LA INTERFERENCIA DE 
RUSA EN LA ELECCIÓN
EN LA PRIMERA DE SAN INSTANCIAS,
EL PRESIDENTE ORDENÓ A SU ASESOR
QUE DESPIDIERA AL CONSEJERO 
ESPECIAL.
>>> ES CORRECTO
>>> TAMBIÉN ORDENÓ CREAR UN 
REGISTRO FALSO NEGANDO  QUE EL 
PRESIDENTE LE HABÍA PEDIDO SACAR
A ROBERT MUELLER
>>> ASÍ ES
>>> TAMBIÉN HABLA DE LA REUNIÓN 
DEL PRESIDENTE CON SU ANTIGUO 
JEFE DE CAMPAÑA PARA QUE TOMARA 
ACCIONES  CONTRA ESTA I

English: 
FIVE INSTANCES OF THE 
PRESIDENT'S OBSTRUCTION OF THE 
JUSTICE DEPARTMENT'S CRIMINAL 
INVESTIGATION INTO RUSSIAN 
INTERFERENCE IN THE 2016 
ELECTION, CORRECT?
>> YES. 
>> AND THE FIRST OF THOSE 
INSTANCES WAS THE PRESIDENT'S 
ORDERING HIS THEN WHITE HOUSE 
COUNSEL, DON McGAHN, TO FIRE THE
SPECIAL COUNSEL, RATHER TO HAVE 
THE SPECIAL COUNSEL FIRED IN 
ORDER TO THWART THE 
INVESTIGATION OF THE PRESIDENT.
CORRECT?
>> THAT IS CORRECT. 
>> AND THE SECOND THE PRESIDENT 
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, IN ORDER TO 
HAVE HIM TAKE STEPS TO CURTAIL 

Spanish: 
INVESTIGACIÓN
>>> AASÍ ES
>>> TAMBIÉN HABLÓ DE LA 
MANIPULACIÓN DE TESTIGOS  COMO 
PAUL MANAFORT Y OTROS R
REPRESENTANTES DEL PRESIDENTE
>>> TODO ESTE EVIDENCIA  OBTUSO 
EN A LA JUSTICIA
>>> Y QUE TAN GRAVE ES?
>>> ES MUY GRAVE
>>> COMO USTED Y OTROS HAN DICHO
LA OFICINA LA JUSTICIA JUSTIFICA
UN JUICIO POLÍTICO. COMO DE 
MUCHA LOS REGISTROS PÚBLICOS 
ESTA EVIDENCIA CONTUNDENTE DE 
OTRO FIN A LA JUSTICIA.
>>> AL ANALIZAR  LA RESPUESTA 
DEL PRESIDENTE A LA IN
INVESTIGACIÓN SOBRE LA IN

English: 
THE INVESTIGATION. 
>> YES, I DID. 
>> WITNESS TAMPERING AS TO PAUL 
MANAFORT AND MICHAEL COHEN, 
FORMER CAMPAIGN OFFICIAL, FORMER
PERSONAL LAWYER OF THE 
PRESIDENT. 
>> INDIVIDUALLY AND 
COLLECTIVELY, THESE ARE EVIDENCE
OF OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE. 
>> HOW SERIOUS IS THAT EVIDENCE 
OF OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE, SIR?
>> IT IS QUITE SERIOUS.
AND THAT'S NOT ALL OF IT, OF 
COURSE.
AND WE KNOW, AS YOU MENTIONED 
BEFORE, AND OTHERS HAVE 
MENTIONED, OBSTRUCTION OF 
JUSTICE HAS BEEN RECOGNIZED AS 
AN IMPEACHABLE OFFENSE BOTH 
AGAINST PRESIDENT CLINTON AND 
PRESIDENT NIXON.
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?

English: 
>> YES.
I SEE A PATTERN IN WHICH THE 
PRESIDENT'S VIEWS ABOUT THE 
FOREIGN GOVERNMENT'S INTERVENING
IN OUR ELECTION PROCESS ARE THE 
ANTITHESIS OF WHAT OUR FRAMERS 
WERE COMMITTED TO.
THEY WERE COMMITTED TO THE IDEA 
THAT WE, AS AMERICANS, WE AS 
AMERICANS DECIDE OUR ELECTION.
WE DON'T WANT FOREIGN 
INTERFERENCE IN THE ELECTIONS.
AND THE REASON WE DON'T WANT 
FOREIGN INTERFERENCE IN THOSE 
ELECTIONS IS BECAUSE WE'RE A 
SELF DETERMINING DEMOCRACY.
AND IF I COULD JUST READ ONE 
CITATION THAT IS HELPFUL IN 
THIS, A STRAIGHTFORWARD 
PRINCIPLE THAT FOREIGN CITIZENS 
DO NOT HAVE A CONSTITUTIONAL 
RIGHT TO PARTICIPATE IN AND THUS
MAY BE EXCLUDED FROM ACTIVITIES 
OF DEMOCRATIC SELF GOVERNMENT.
AND THE PERSON WHO WROTE THOSE 
WORDS IS NOW JUSTICE BRETT 
KAVANAUGH IN UPHOLDING THE 
CONSTITUTIONALITY OF A FEDERAL 

Spanish: 
INTERFERENCIA RUSA Y LA 
UCRANIANA, VE USTED UN PATRÓN?
>>> VEO UN PATRÓN SOBRE LA 
OPINIÓN DEL PRESIDENTE  DE QUE 
ESTÁ BIEN QUE GOBIERNOS 
EXTRANJEROS INTERVIENEN 
INTERVENGAN EN NUESTRA POLÍTICA.
ESO VA CONTRA QUIENES REDACTARON
LA CONSTITUCIÓN, NOSOTROS 
QUEREMOS DEFINIR LAS ELECCIONES 
NO QUE INTERVENGAN EXTRANJEROS Y
LA RAZÓN ES QUE NOSOTROS  
AUTODETERMINADO NUESTRA D
DEMOCRACIA Y QUIERO LEER UNA 
CITA QUE PUEDE SER ÚTIL. ALGUIEN
QUE HABLA DE UN PRINCIPIO CLARO 
ES CLAVE QUE LOS EXTRANJEROS NO 
PUEDAN PARTICIPAR. BRETT CAVA NO

Spanish: 
ESCRIBIÓ ESTAS PALABRAS AL 
DEFENDER LA CONSTITUCIONALIDADDE
UNA SANCIÓN

English: 
STATUTE THAT DENIES FOREIGN 
CITIZENS THE RIGHT TO 
PARTICIPATE IN OUR ELECTIONS BY 
SPENDING MONEY ON ELECTIONEERING
OR GIVING MONEY TO PACs.
THEY'VE LONG BEEN FORBIDDEN TO 
GIVE CONTRIBUTIONS TO 
CANDIDATES.
THE REASON IS THAT THAT DENIES 
US OUR RIGHT TO SELF GOVERNMENT.
AND THEN JUDGE NOW JUSTICE BRETT
KAVANAUGH WAS SO RIGHT IN SEEING
THIS THAT THE SUPREME COURT, AS 
YOU KNOW, HAS TAKEN CAMPAIGN 
FINANCE CASE AFTER CAMPAIGN 
FINANCE CASE TO TALK ABOUT THE 
FIRST AMENDMENT, SUMMARILY 
AFFIRMED HERE, DIDN'T EVEN NEED 
TO HEAR ARGUMENT THAT IT'S 
CONSTITUTIONAL TO KEEP 
FOREIGNERS OUT OF OUR ELECTION 
PROCESS. 
>> PROFESSOR FELDMAN YOU WERE 
SOMEWHAT OF AN IMPEACHMENT 
SKEPTIC AT THE TIME OF THE 
MUELLER REPORT.
WERE YOU NOT?
>> I WAS. 
>> WHAT'S CHANGED FOR YOU, SIR?
>> WHAT'S CHANGED FOR ME IS THE 
REVELATION OF THE JULY 25th CALL
AND THE EVIDENCE THAT EMERGED 

English: 
SUBSEQUENTLY OF THE PRESIDENT OF
THE UNITED STATES IN A FORMAT HE
WAS HEARD BY OTHERS AND NOW BY 
THE 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.
AND THAT IS PRECISELY THE 
SITUATION THAT THE FRAMERS 
PARTICIPATED.
IT'S VERY UNUSUAL FOR THE 
FRAMERS' PREDICTIONS TO COME 
TRUE THAT PRECISELY.
WHEN THEY DO, WE HAVE TO ASK 
OURSELVES SOME DAY WE WILL NO 
LONGER BE ALIVE AND WE WILL 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 IF THE EVIDENCE SUPPORTS
THAT CONCLUSION THAT THE HOUSE 
OF REPRESENTATIVES MOVES TO 
IMPEACH HIM. 
>> THANK YOU.

English: 
I YIELD MY TIME BACK TO THE 
CHAIRMAN. 
>> MY TIME HAS EXPIRED.
I YIELD BACK.
BEFORE I RECOGNIZE THE RANKING 
MEMBER FOR HIS FIRST ROUND OF 
QUESTIONS, THE COMMITTEE WILL 
STAND IN A TEN-MINUTE 
HUMANITARIAN RECESS.
I ASK EVERYONE IN THE ROOM TO 
PLEASE REMAIN SEATED AND QUIET 
WHILE THE WITNESSES EXIT THE 
ROOM.
I ALSO WANT TO ANNOUNCE TO THOSE
IN THE AUDIENCE YOU MAY NOT BE 
GUARANTEED YOUR SEAT IF YOU 
LEAVE THE HEARING ROOM AT THIS 
TIME. 
>> GOOD LUCK. 
>> ONCE THE WITNESSES HAVE LEFT 
THE HEARING ROOM.
AT THIS TIME, THE COMMITTEE WILL
STAND IN A SHORT RECESS.
>> ALL RIGHT.
YOU HEARD CHAIRMAN NADLER SAYING
THEY'RE GOING TO TAKE A BIT OF A
BREAK HERE.
IT GIVES US THE CHANCE TO DIGEST
SOME OF WHAT WE HEARD THE LAST 
COUPLE OF HOURS NOW.
THIS JUDICIAL HEARING IS THE 
FIRST IMPEACHMENT HEARING FOR 
THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE WITH 

English: 
FOUR CONSTITUTIONAL SCHOLARS, 
THREE OF THEM THAT THIS IS A 
STRONG CASE OF IMPEACHMENT, THE 
FOURTH SUGGESTING THEY DO NOT 
HAVE THE EVIDENCE, THEY'VE NOT 
TAKEN ENOUGH WITNESSES, ENOUGH 
INFORMATION AND NOTABLY JONATHAN
TURLEY, A PROFESSOR WE DIDN'T 
HEAR MUCH FROM IN THIS 45-MINUTE
SESSION.
THE NEXT ONE WILL BE RANKING 
MEMBER FOR THE REPUBLICANS.
WE EXPECT TO HEAR MORE FROM HIM.
MODERATOR OF "MEET THE PRESS," 
CHUCK TODD, AND POLITICAL 
DIRECTOR.
CHUCK, GIVE ME YOUR ASSESSMENT 
OF WHAT WE HEARD AND HOW THIS 
BEGINS TO FILL IN SOME OF THE 
PARTS OF THIS MOSAIC IF YOU 
WILL. 
>> LOOK, WHAT THE DEMOCRATS 
WANTED THESE ACADEMICS TO DO WAS
TO PROVIDE SORT OF A 
DISPASSIONATE, LEGAL ARGUMENT 
FOR WHY, WHAT THE DEMOCRATS ARE 
CHARGING THE PRESIDENT WITH WAS 
AN IMPEACHABLE OFFENSE.
THEY ARE DEALING WITH A COUPLE 
OF UNCOMFORTABLE ASPECTS OF 

English: 
THIS, RIGHT, THAT THEY WANTED TO
CLEAR UP WITH THESE EXPERTS.
ONE IS THAT HE NEVER ACTUALLY 
GOT WHAT HE ASKED FOR.
YOU CAN MAKE A LEGAL 
JUSTIFICATION ON THAT.
THEN YOU HEARD AT THE END THE 
MUELLER REPORT WILL BE PART OF 
AN ARTICLE OF IMPEACHMENT.
THAT IS NOW PRETTY CLEAR.
WAS THE MUELLER REPORT WITH THE 
OBSTRUCTION CASE MUELLER LAID 
OUT, PART TWO OF THE MUELLER 
REPORT, WOULD THAT BE INCLUDED 
WITH THE ARTICLES OF 
IMPEACHMENT?
I THINK IT'S PRETTY CLEAR NOW.
THAT'S THE BIGGEST TAKEAWAY I 
HAVE SO FAR, OBSTRUCTION IS 
GOING TO BE AN ARTICLE.
MUELLER REPORT IS GOING TO BE 
PART OF THIS. 
>> REPUBLICANS THAT LIVED OFF 
THE NARRATIVE THAT THAT REPORT 
WAS A BIG NOTHING -- 
>> WELL, THEY'VE LIVED OFF 
THE -- BECAUSE THEY'VE BEEN 
TRYING TO FOCUS ON THAT THEY 
DIDN'T FIND EVIDENCE ENOUGH 

English: 
EVIDENCE.
WEIRD OR ODD BUT NOT ENOUGH IN 
ORDER TO CHARGE A CRIMINAL 
CONSPIRACY.
PART TWO OF THAT REPORT WAS A 
LENGTHY LIST OF OBSTRUCTION 
CHARGES.
QUITE A FEW OF THEM.
DOES THAT MAKE IT OUT OF THE 
HOUSE, IF THEY ADD MORE 
ARTICLES, DOES IT GIVE AWAY SOME
ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT BASED ON
UKRAINE BUT ONES NOT BASED ON 
MUELLER?
THAT'S SOMETHING TO WATCH FOR AS
YOU WATCH THIS HEARING. 
>> CHUCK, I WANT TO BRING IN 
ANDREA MITCHELL, DOWN IN 
WASHINGTON, WATCHING ALONG WITH 
THIS.
HANGING IN THE BACKGROUND WITH 
SOME NEW EVIDENCE, SPECIFICALLY 
THOSE PHONE CALL LOGS.
YOU'VE BEEN LOOKING THROUGH ALL 
OF THIS.
WHAT STOOD OUT TO YOU THERE THAT
COULD COME INTO PLAY AS WE MOVE 
FORWARD?

English: 
>> VERY DRAMATIC EVIDENCE, 
REALLY, OF RUDY GIULIANI, HIS 
PARTNER, PARNAS, AND DEVIN 
NUNES, ALL TALKING REPEATEDLY, 
AND PARTICULARLY ON ONE OR TWO 
DAYS IN APRIL.
THAT'S EXACTLY WHEN AMBASSADOR 
YOVANOVITCH WAS BEING RECALLED 
FROM UKRAINE.
THERE WERE LATE-NIGHT CALLS, 
CALLS FROM THE SITUATION ROOM, 
CALLS FROM OMB.
CALLS THAT INVOLVED -- WE DON'T 
KNOW WHAT THE ACTUAL FACTS OF 
THE CASE WERE, BUT VERY LIKELY, 
ACCORDING TO THE CIRCUMSTANTIAL 
EVIDENCE AT LEAST COULD HAVE 
INVOLVED QUESTIONS TO OMB ABOUT 
WITHHOLDING THE MONEY.
EXTRAORDINARY EFFORTS ALSO BY 
OMB TO, ACCORDING TO DEMOCRATIC 
COMPLAINT, VIOLATE THE LAW.
BY DOING ONE OR TWO EXTENSIONS 
ON THE HOLD OF THE MONEY TO GET 
AROUND WHAT CRITICS AND 
DEMOCRATS SAY WAS A LEGAL 
VIOLATION BY WITHHOLDING MONEY 
THAT HAD BEEN APPROPRIATED BY 
CONGRESS TO UKRAINE DURING A HOT

English: 
WAR.
AND GOING RIGHT UP AGAINST THE 
DEADLINE THAT WOULD EXPIRE IF 
NOT FOR THE WHISTLE-BLOWER 
REPORT.
AND ALSO EVIDENCE THAT THE 
PRESIDENT KNEW FULL WELL ABOUT 
THE WHISTLE-BLOWER COMPLAINT 
LONG BEFORE IT WAS MADE PUBLIC.
HE KNEW ABOUT IT WHEN THEY WERE 
MANEUVERING AND IT RAISES 
QUESTIONS ABOUT NOT ONLY DEVIN 
NUNES BUT COULD SUBMIT HIM TO 
ANETICS COMPLAINT FOR NOT HAVING
RECUSED HIMSELF OR SAYING THIS.
DID NUNES KNOW ABOUT THIS 
EVIDENCE, DID YOU SHARE IT WITH 
HIM OR WAS HE BLIND SIDED?
CHAIRMAN SCHIFF SAID IT WAS 
PRESENTED TO ALL THE MEMBERS, 
INCLUDING REPUBLICANS, IN THOSE 
PRIVATE SESSIONS AND WHEN THE 
REPORT WAS BEING DRAFTED.
WHETHER OR NOT NUNES AND HIS 
LAWYER AND COUNSEL WENT OVER IT 

English: 
AND HIS COLLEAGUES WENT OVER IT 
AND LOOKED AT THOSE CALL SHEETS,
THAT, SCHIFF COULDN'T ANSWER, 
BUT THEY WERE PRESENTED WITH ALL
THE SAME EVIDENCE.
MUCH MORE EVIDENCE PRESENTED IN 
THAT 300-PAGE REPORT THAN MANY 
OF US HAD EXPECTED. 
>> ANDREA, THIS HEARING IS BEING
CLOSELY FOLLOWED ACROSS THE POND
IN LONDON, WHERE PRESIDENT TRUMP
IS ATTENDING THE NATO 
CONFERENCE.
WE WERE EXPECTING TO HEAR FROM 
THE PRESIDENT A FEW HOURS AGO 
FOR A NEWS CONFERENCE, ONE THAT 
WAS ABRUPTLY CANCELED BY THE 
PRESIDENT AS WE LOOK AT THIS 
PICTURE.
ZBLLT AFTER THAT DRAMATIC 
DECISION TO CANCEL THAT 
ABRUPTLY.
IT CAME WITH EMBARRASSING VIDEO.
I WANT TO MAKE A POINT THAT THE 
PRESIDENT IS KEEPING A CLOSE EYE
BACK AT HOME AND SO IS HIS 

English: 
PERSONAL ATTORNEY, RUDY 
GIULIANI, WHO JUST TEXTED US 
MOMENTS AGO TO SLAM THIS ENTIRE 
PROCESS, SOMETHING THAT WE HAVE 
HEARD FROM THE PRESIDENT AND HIS
ALLIES IN THE PAST, TO 
ESSENTIALLY SAY THAT IT HAS 
DEPRIVED WITNESSES OF DUE 
PROCESS AND DEPRIVED THE 
PRESIDENT OF DUE PROCESS, 
LESTER.
IN A STATEMENT, HE SAYS THAT 
ALEXANDER HAMILTON IS TURNING 
OVER IN HIS GRAVE.
HE WORRIED ABOUT THIS BUT WAS 
ALWAYS HOPEFUL THAT AMERICANS 
WOULD BE BETTER THAN THIS.
GIULIANI ACCUSING DEMOCRATS OF 
PARTISAN OVERREACH.
FOR HIS PART, PRESIDENT TRUMP 
HAD HOPED THAT THIS TWO-DAY 
SUMMIT IN LONDON WOULD HELP HIM 
TURN THE PAGE, AT LEAST 
TEMPORARILY FROM THE IMPEACHMENT
PROCEEDINGS BACK AT HOME.
BUT IMPEACHMENT HAS FOLLOWED HIM
EVERY STEP OF THE WAY.
HE HAS BEEN ASKED ABOUT IT AT 
EVERY JOINT GATHERING HE HAS HAD
WITH OTHER WORLD LEADERS, 
INCLUDING TODAY WHEN HE WAS 
SITTING NEXT TO THE PRIME 
MINISTER OF ITALY.
TAKE A LISTEN TO PRESIDENT TRUMP
RESPONDING TO WHAT'S HAPPENING 
IN WASHINGTON. 
>> NO MATTER HOW YOU CUT IT, 

English: 
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 DAY, IT'S REALLY -- HONEST 
LY, IT'S A DISGRACE. 
>> SO, PRESIDENT TRUMP 
INFURIATED BY THE HEARING THAT 
IS UNFOLDING RIGHT NOW IN 
WASHINGTON, LESTER.
AND ALSO INFURIATED AFTER THE 
STUNNING VIDEO EMERGED OVERNIGHT
OF SOME OF HIS CLOSEST ALLIES 
APPEARING TO MOCK HIM, INCLUDING
CANADIAN PRIME MINISTER JUSTIN 
TRUDEAU, WHO MADE FUN OF THE 
FACT THAT THE PRESIDENT TOOK SO 
MANY QUESTIONS WHEN HE WAS 
MEETING WITH THESE WORLD 
LEADERS, THAT HE ESSENTIALLY 
DELAYED THE ENTIRE SCHEDULE 
YESTERDAY.
PRESIDENT TRUMP WAS ASKED ABOUT 
THAT, AND HE CALLED TRUDEAU TWO 
FACED.
THAT COMES AMID TENSIONS WITH 
OTHER WORLD LEADERS HERE, 

English: 
INCLUDING FRENCH PRESIDENT 
EMANUEL MACRON.
THEY WERE ONCE SO CLOSE THEIR 
RELATIONSHIP WAS DESCRIBED AS A 
BROMANCE.
AT THIS SUMMIT THEY FEUDED OVER 
WHAT TO DO WITH ISIS FIGHTERS.
THE BOTTOM LINE, LESTER, THE 
PRESIDENT'S DECISION TO CANCEL 
HIS NEWS CONFERENCE CAME ON THE 
HEELS OF ALL OF THIS.
AND COUNTERPROGRAM AGAINST THOSE
IMPEACHMENT HEARINGS IN 
WASHINGTON THAT WE'RE COVERING, 
LESTER. 
>> KRISTEN, WE'RE LOOKING AT A 
LIVE PICTURE OF PRESIDENT TRUMP,
WHO HAS JUST DISEMBARKED FROM 
MARINE ONE, ABOUT TO GET ON AIR 
FORCE ONE FOR THE FLIGHT BACK TO
WASHINGTON, ABOUT A SIX-HOUR 
FLIGHT.
NONETHELESS THE PRESIDENT ABOUT 
TO HEAD HOME AND WILL BE HEADING
BACK TO THE WHITE HOUSE.
THAT'S WHERE HALLIE JACKSON IS 
RIGHT NOW.
HALLIE, WHAT'S THE BUZZ AROUND 
THERE?
WHAT ARE SOME OF THE FIRST TAKES
ON WHAT WE HEARD THIS MORNING?
>> SO FAR, LESTER, WHAT I'VE 
BEEN HEARING FROM SOURCES OVER 
THE LAST COUPLE OF HOURS ARE A 

English: 
COUPLE OF THINGS.
FIRST, THERE HAVE BEEN OFFICIALS
WORKING ON THE WHITE HOUSE 
CASTING THEM AS ANTI-TRUMP, 
ESSENTIALLY, TRYING TO POINT TO 
WHAT THEY PERCEIVED AS COMMENTS 
IN THE PAST THAT HAVE BEEN MADE 
BY THESE SCHOLARS THAT HAVE BEEN
MADE BY PRESIDENT TRUMP IN AN 
ATTEMPT TO DISCREDIT THESE 
INDIVIDUALS.
I IMAGINE YOU'LL SEE A SIMILAR 
TACTIC.
AS WE COME BACK FROM THE BREAK 
YOU'LL SEE THE HEARING ROOM 
THERE.
I'VE ALSO HEARD ABOUT A CLOSED 
DOOR MEETING THIS MORNING 
BETWEEN VICE PRESIDENT PENCE, 
STILL HERE AT HOME IN 
WASHINGTON, OF COURSE, AND 
MEMBERS OF THE HOUSE REPUBLICAN 
CAUCUS.
I'M TOLD BY SEVERAL SOURCES THAT
THE VICE PRESIDENT ESSENTIALLY 
THANKED REPUBLICANS FOR THE 
STRONG SUPPORT OF PRESIDENT 
TRUMP, PARTICULARLY ON TV.
YOU KNOW, LESTER, SOME OF THESE 
GOP ALLIES FROM THE PRESIDENT 
HAVE BEEN OUT VIGOROUSLY 

English: 
DEFENDING HIM, TRYING TO REBUT 
WHAT WE HEARD TODAY.
THE PRESIDENT SHOULD FOCUS ON 
WHAT DEMOCRATS ARE NOT DOING AS 
THIS IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY 
CONTINUES TO PROGRESS AND MOVE 
FORWARD.
THERE'S NOT A SENSE I'VE HEARD 
FROM FOLKS I'VE TALKED TO THAT 
TODAY IS EXPECTED TO BE ANY KIND
OF GAME CHANGER.
YOU HEARD THAT REFLECTED IN THE 
COMMENTS FROM PRESIDENT TRUMP 
HIMSELF, WHO SAID HE HADN'T BEEN
WATCHING BECAUSE OF THESE 
MEETINGS THAT KRISTEN TALKED 
ABOUT OVERSEAS.
HE DID EXPECT IT TO BE A PRETTY 
BORING HEARING.
LESTER?
>> CHUCK ROSENBURG IN STUDIO, 
FORMER U.S. ATTORNEY AND FBI 
OFFICIAL.
WE BOTH REACTED TO IT, THAT 
DEMOCRATS ARE GOING TO GO DOWN 
THE LINE PERHAPS ARTICLES OF 
IMPEACHMENT ON THE ISSUE OF 
OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE.
THIS, GOING BACK TO THE MUELLER 
REPORT.
DOES THAT SURPRISE YOU?
IS IT ONE OF THE STRONGER 
ARTICLES THEY MIGHT BE ABLE TO 
PUT FORWARD?
>> I ALWAYS THOUGHT SO.
IT'S A TOUGH DOCUMENT TO READ.
BIG, LONG, COMPLICATED DOCUMENT.

English: 
VOLUME II LAYS OUT OBSTRUCTION 
BY THE PRESIDENT, CREATING FALSE
DOCUMENTS, COUNSELING WITNESSES 
TO LIE OR THREATENING WITNESSES,
OR DANGLING PARDONS.
AS A FORMER FEDERAL PROSECUTOR, 
I CAN TELL YOU IT'S AN 
EXTRAORDINARY, COMPELLING CASE 
FOR OBSTRUCTION.
I'VE BROUGHT CHARGES OF 
OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE. 
>> EVEN MUELLER IN HIS COMMENTS 
NOTED THAT THERE MAY BE 
SOMETHING THERE?
>> ABSOLUTELY.
SO ONE OF THE THINGS THAT'S BEEN
LONG MISCONSTRUED ABOUT VOLUME 
TWO IN MUELLER'S RECOMMENDATION 
WAS THAT MUELLER FOUND NOT 
ENOUGH EVIDENCE TO CHARGE THE 
PRESIDENT.
THAT'S NOT THE CASE.
WHAT MUELLER DETERMINED WAS THAT
BECAUSE HE COULDN'T CHARGE A 
SITTING PRESIDENT UNDER EXISTING
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE POLICY 
NEITHER COULD HE RECOMMEND 
CHARGING THE PRESIDENT.
THEY BOTH RUN AFOUL OF THE SAME 
PROBLEM, STIGMATIZING THE 
PRESIDENT AND BURDENING THE 
PRESIDENCY.
MUELLER SIMPLY SAID LOOK, HERE 
IS WHAT I FOUND.
READ IT FOR YOURSELF, BUT I 

English: 
CAN'T MAKE A RECOMMENDATION TO 
CHARGE THE PRESIDENT, NOR CAN I 
EXONERATE HIM.
IF I COULD, I WOULD. 
>> TO THE EXTENT THAT WILLIAM 
BARR, THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, PUT 
IT TO REST, IS IT PUT TO REST OR
DOES IT BECOME STILL POTENTIALLY
AN IMPEACHABLE OFFENSE?
>> RIGHT.
IT'S PUT TO REST AS FAR AS THE 
ATTORNEY GENERAL IS CONCERNED.
IT DOESN'T SEEM LIKE ANYONE IS 
GOING TO CHARGE THE PRESIDENT, 
CERTAINLY NOT WHILE HE'S IN 
OFFICE.
BUT THE HOUSE DOESN'T HAVE TO 
ABIDE BY THAT DETERMINATION.
IF THEY BELIEVE IT'S 
IMPEACHABLE, THEY BELIEVE IT 
RISES TO THAT LEVEL, THEY CAN 
ABSOLUTELY USE IT. 
>> BACK OVER TO LONDON RIGHT 
NOW.
RICHARD ENGEL, OUR CHIEF 
CORRESPONDENT, IS THERE.
WE HEARD FROM RUDY GIULIANI, WHO
HAS BEEN RATHER QUIET IN ALL OF 
THIS, RICHARD.
WHAT ARE SOME OF YOUR 
OBSERVATIONS IN WHAT WE'VE SEEN 
SO FAR?
>> WELL, I THINK THE TESTIMONY 
WE HEARD TODAY FROM THESE LEGAL 
SCHOLARS IS VERY COMPELLING.
IT LAYS OUT A CASE TO THE 
AMERICAN PEOPLE ABOUT WHAT'S AT 
STAKE HERE.
YOU HEARD THESE THREE SCHOLARS 

English: 
SAY PRESIDENT TRUMP IS 
EFFECTIVELY A DANGER TO 
DEMOCRACY, A DANGER TO THE 
REPUBLIC, A DANGER TO THE FUTURE
ABILITY OF AMERICAN CITIZENS TO 
CHOOSE THEIR LEADER.
AND YOU DON'T NEED TO BE A 
UKRAINE EXPERT FOR THAT.
IN THE PREVIOUS TESTIMONY, IT 
WAS COMPLICATED.
IT WASN'T AS COMPLICATED AS THE 
MUELLER REPORT BUT IT STILL WAS 
COMPLICATED.
YOU NEED TO UNDERSTAND HOW RUDY 
GIULIANI ASSEMBLED THIS MOTLEY 
CREW OF INDIVIDUALS, HOW THEY 
WERE GOING TO UKRAINE, THEY WERE
MEETING WITH FORMER PROSECUTORS.
THEY WERE TRYING TO DIG INTO THE
BIDEN FAMILY SPECIFICALLY, INTO 
HUNTER BIDEN OR FOR A UKRAINIAN 
OIL AND GAS COMPANY.
TODAY, YOU DIDN'T NEED ANY OF 
THE BACKGROUND ON UKRAINE.
YOU DIDN'T EVEN NEED TO KNOW 
WHERE UKRAINE SITS ON THE MAP.
ALL YOU NEED TO DO IS UNDERSTAND
THAT THE PRESIDENT, ACCORDING TO
THESE SCHOLARS AND ACCORDING TO 
NUMEROUS TESTIMONIES THAT WE'VE 
HEARD SO FAR ASKED FOR SOMETHING

English: 
OF VALUE, WAS DEMANDING OF 
SOMETHING OF VALUE FROM A 
FOREIGN LEADER AND THAT IS 
ACCORDING TO THE SCHOLARS AN 
ABUSE OF HIS POWER.
NOW, A NEW REPORT NBC IS STILL 
WORKING ON "THE NEW YORK TIMES" 
IS SAYING APPARENTLY RUDY 
GIULIANI IS STILL ON THIS 
MISSION AND IS STILL PURSUING, 
STILL LOOKING FOR EVIDENCE THAT 
WOULD BE HARMFUL TO THE BIDEN 
CAMPAIGN.
SO APPARENTLY, ACCORDING TO "THE
NEW YORK TIMES," THE GIULIANI 
CAMP IS STILL OPERATIONAL, 
UNDETERRED EVEN AS THESE 
HEARINGS HAVE TAKEN PLACE. 
>> WE'LL FOLLOW THOSE CRUMBS AND
SEE WHERE THEY LEAD.
RICHARD MAKES AN INTERESTING 
POINT BETWEEN WHAT WE SAW A 
COUPLE OF WEEKS AGO IN THOSE 
HEARINGS.
YOU HAD TO PAY VERY CLOSE 
ATTENTION AND HAVE A FLOW CHART.
WHAT WE HEARD TODAY WAS A LESSON
THAT CERTAINLY IS IN U.S. 
HISTORY, A LESSON OF THE U.S. 
CONSTITUTION.
DOES IT BRING TO LIFE THAT 
TESTIMONY WE HEARD A FEW WEEKS 
AGO?
>> I THINK IT DOES.

English: 
I AGREE WITH RICHARD.
I THOUGHT IT WAS VERY CRISP, 
VERY CLEAR.
IN FACT, ONE EXAMPLE, PAM 
KARLAN, STANFORD LAW PROFESSOR, 
USED AN ANALOGY THAT HELPS 
PEOPLE THINK ABOUT WHAT 
HAPPENED.
IMAGINE YOU LIVE IN A STATE OF 
THIS COUNTRY AND YOUR COMMUNITY 
IS DEVASTATED BY A TORNADO AND 
YOUR GOVERNOR APPEALS TO THE 
PRESIDENT FOR DISASTER RELIEF 
FOR MONEY TO HELP REBUILD THAT 
COMMUNITY AND THE PRESIDENT SAYS
TO THE GOVERNOR, TELLS HER, YOU 
KNOW, BEFORE I DO THAT, BEFORE I
RELEASE THE FUNDS, I WOULD LIKE 
YOU TO DO A FAVOR FOR ME.
I WOULD LIKE TO OPEN A STATE 
INVESTIGATION INTO ONE OF MY 
POLITICAL RIVALS.
PROFESSOR KARLAN SAID WE WOULD 
IMMEDIATELY HAVE REACTED TO 
THAT.
INTUITIVELY IN OUR GUT WE KNOW 
IT'S WRONG.
WHEN YOU THINK ABOUT IT THE WAY 
SHE DESCRIBED IT, IT DOES BECOME
MORE SIMPLE. 
>> THE TRUTH IS IT'S ALL COVERED
IN POLITICS, WHICH IS THE BIG 
DIFFERENCE RIGHT NOW FROM 
CERTAINLY MANY DIRECTIONS.

English: 
LET ME BRING IN, IF I CAN, GEOFF
BENNETT, AS WE AWAIT MEMBERS OF 
THE COMMITTEE TO RETURN FROM A 
BREAK.
WE SEE THE FOUR ATTORNEY 
WITNESSES THERE AND THE 
PROFESSORS.
GEOFF BENNETT, WHAT IS ABOUT TO 
HAPPEN NEXT?
>> Reporter: WELL, WE EXPECT 
THAT IN A FEW MINUTES, CHAIRMAN 
NADLER WILL GAVEL THIS SESSION 
BACK IN, AND THEN YOU'LL HAVE 
THE TOP REPUBLICAN ON THIS 
COMMITTEE, DOUG COLLINS AND THE 
REPUBLICAN COUNSEL HAVE 45 
MINUTES TO PUT THEIR QUESTIONS 
TO THE WITNESSES.
ALTHOUGH WE SUSPECT THEY'LL 
FOCUS THEIR QUESTIONS MORE TO 
THE REPUBLICAN WITNESS, MR. 
TURLEY.
BUT IN THE MEANTIME, THOUGH, WE 
HAD THIS PRESS CONFERENCE OVER 
HERE WHERE A COUPLE OF 
DEMOCRATIC MEMBERS OF THE 
COMMITTEE CAME OUT.
THEY SAID THEY BELIEVE SO FAR 
THAT THE THREE WITNESSES THEY'VE
CALLED HAVE SHARPENED THE CASE, 
PARTICULARLY THE TESTIMONY FROM 
PAMELA KARLAN, STANFORD LAW 
PROFESSOR.
I'M TOLD SHE WAS ONCE ON 
PRESIDENT OBAMA'S SHORT LIST TO 
BE A SUPREME COURT PICK.
SHE WAS ON THE LIST TO REPLACE 
THE LIBERAL JUSTICE DAVID 

English: 
SUITOR.
THAT SEAT ULTIMATELY WENT TO 
JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR.
IN HER VIEW IT WAS A CLEAR AND 
PRESENT DANGER BECAUSE UNLIKE 
THE MUELLER REPORT THAT FOCUSED 
ON WHAT HAPPENED IN THE PAST, 
THE UKRAINE QUESTION FOCUSES ON 
ALLEGED CHEATING IN THE NEXT 
ELECTION.
SO THEY THOUGHT THAT SHE 
SUCCINCTLY SUMMED UP THE THEORY.
AS THIS HAS BEEN HAPPENING OTHER
NEWS IN THE DAY BEFORE DEMOCRATS
FOUND THEIR WAY HERE, THEY MET 
ACROSS THE STREET IN THE 
BASEMENT OF THE HOUSE OF 
REPRESENTATIVES FOR A CAUCUS 
MEETING.
TWO MEMBERS LEFT THAT MEETING 
WITH THE UNDERSTANDING THAT THE 
HOUSE IS PREPARED TO VOTE ON 
ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT BEFORE 
THE HOUSE BREAKS FOR CHRISTMAS 
BREAK.
THEY'RE INTENDING TO LEAVE 
AROUND DECEMBER 20th.
WATCH FOR THAT.
AND THE POINT YOU WERE MAKING 
WITH CHUCK, CHUCK ROSENBURG AND 
CHUCK TODD EARLIER, ABOUT A 
POTENTIAL THIRD ARTICLE ON 
OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE, I SPOKE 

English: 
WITH MEMBERS LEAVING THAT 
MEETING BEFORE HEADING OVER 
HERE.
THEY SAID ONE REASON THEY WANT 
TO INCLUDE THAT, GO ALL THE WAY 
BACK TO THE MUELLER REPORT, TO 
FOCUS ON TEN INSTANCES OF 
OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE, THEY 
FEEL IT SPEAKS TO A PATTERN OF 
PRESIDENT TRUMP TO TRY TO 
OBSTRUCT JUSTICE AND OBSTRUCT 
CONGRESS, WHICH THEY THINK MAKES
THE OVERALL ARGUMENT AND OVERALL
PUSH TOWARD IMPEACHMENT EVEN 
STRONGER. 
>> CHAIRMAN NADLER TAKING HIS 
PLACE.
AS HE DOES THAT, LET ME ASK YOU 
QUICKLY, GEOFF, THE THREE 
WITNESSES PICKED BY DEMOCRATS 
AND THE FOURTH BY REPUBLICANS, 
JONATHAN TURLEY.
HE'S NOT WHAT MANY PEOPLE MIGHT 
EXPECT.
HE DIDN'T VOTE FOR PRESIDENT 
TRUMP.
HE'S VERY CRITICAL OF SOME OF 
THE PRESIDENT'S BEHAVIORS, AND 
YET REPUBLICANS STILL WANT HIM.
EXPLAIN WHAT HE BRINGS TO THE 
TABLE. 
>> Reporter: WELL, HE'S 
CERTAINLY NOT GIVING THE KIND OF
DEFENSE THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP 
HIMSELF WOULD WANT.
THE MOST THAT HE HAS OFFERED 
REPUBLICANS BY WAY OF HIS OWN 
TESTIMONY IS SAYING THAT 
DEMOCRATS ARE MOVING THROUGH 
THIS TOO QUICKLY.

English: 
HE SAID THAT THE PROCESS SO FAR 
HAS BEEN PREMATURE.
HE IS NOT DEFENDING PRESIDENT 
TRUMP, AT LEAST SO FAR ANYWAY.
HE'S NOT DEFENDING HIM ON THE 
MERITS, LESTER. 
>> AND THAT GETS BACK TO THIS 
CLOCK WHICH IS HOVERING OVER 
THIS, AND THAT'S THE ELECTION OF
2020, THE 2020 ELECTION.
CHUCK ROSENBERG, YOU WERE 
SPEAKING OF THAT EARLIER, 
PERHAPS THIS IS A STRONG 
ARGUMENT OF THE REPUBLICANS, 
THAT THIS THING IS BEING PUSHED 
THROUGH QUICKLY. 
>> PURSUANT TO HOUSE RESOLUTION 
660, THE RANKING MEMBER OR HIS 
COUNSEL HAVE 45 MINUTES TO 
QUESTION THE WITNESSES.
RANKING MEMBER?
>> THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN.
BEFORE I BEGIN ON THE QUESTION, 
I DO WANT TO RESIST A COMMENT 
THAT WAS MADE BY YOU, MR. 
CHAIRMAN.
YOU SAID YOU WOULD RULE ON IT 
LATER.
I WANT TO REMIND YOU, THE RULES 
OF HOUSE DID NOT PERMIT A RULING
ON THIS, DO NOT PERMIT A VOTE 

English: 
AND YOU CANNOT SHUT IT DOWN.
ACCORDING TO YOUR OWN WORDS, THE
RIGHT RARELY EXERCISED BUT 
GUARDS AGAINST MAJORITY OF 
ABUSING ITS POWER, CALLED THE 
FAIR AND BALANCE RULE.
IT'S NOT THE CHAIRMAN'S RIGHT TO
DECIDE WHETHER WE DESERVE A 
HEARING, WHETHER WHAT WE SAY OR 
THINK IS ACCEPTABLE.
IT IS CERTAINLY NOT THE 
CHAIRMAN'S RIGHT TO VIOLATE 
RULES IN ORDER TO CONDUCT OUR 
RIGHT TO HAVE A HEARING.
I LOOK FORWARD TO YOU GETTING 
THAT SCHEDULE EXPEDITIOUSLY.
MOVING ON, INTERESTING PART NOW 
WE HIT PHASE TWO.
YOU HAD ONE SIDE, AND I HAVE TO 
SAY IT WAS ELOQUENTLY ARGUED BY 
NOT ONLY THE COUNSEL AND 
WITNESSES INVOLVED BUT THERE IS 
ALWAYS A PHASE TWO.
PHASE TWO IS WHAT IS PROBLEMATIC
HERE, BECAUSE AS I SAID IN MY 
OPENING STATEMENT, THIS IS ONE 
THAT WOULD BE, FOR MANY, THE 
MOST DISPUTED IMPEACHMENTS ON 
JUST THE FACTS THEMSELVES.
WHAT'S INTERESTING IS WE 
ACTUALLY SHOWED VIDEOS OF 
WITNESSES -- IN FACT, ONE OF 
THEM WAS AN OPENING STATEMENT I 

English: 
BELIEVE.
THE CLOSEST THING TO PERFECT 
OUTSIDE YOUR RESUME THIS SIDE OF
HEAVEN IS AN OPENING STATEMENT 
BECAUSE IT'S UNCHALLENGED.
AND I AGREE WITH THAT.
AND IT SHOULD BE.
WE'VE HAD GREAT WITNESSES HERE 
TODAY TO TALK ABOUT THIS.
WE DIDN'T TALK ABOUT KURT 
VOLKER, WHO SAID NOTHING ABOUT 
IT.
WE SAID NOTHING ABOUT THE AID 
BEING HELD UP.
MORRISON, WHO CONTRADICTED 
VINDMAN AND OTHERS, WE'VE NOT 
TALKED ABOUT THAT.
I DON'T EXPECT THE MAJORITY TO.
THEY'RE NOT HERE TO GIVE 
EXCULPATORY EVIDENCE, JUST LIKE 
THE SCHIFF REPORT GIVES NOTHING 
OF EXCULPATORY EVIDENCE AND 
THERE'S EVIDENCE BEING WHEN 
WOULD BY SCHIFF AND HIS 
COMMITTEE AND WE HAVE NOTHING 
FROM THAT INVESTIGATION 
ACCORDING TO H 660 WE BELIEVE 
WE'RE SUPPOSED TO GET.
ONE BEING THE INSPECTOR GENERAL,
IC INSPECTOR GENERAL, HIS 
TESTIMONY IS STILL BEING WHEN 
WOULD.
AND THERE'S A QUOTE SECRET ON 
IT, HOLDING IT IN 
CLASSIFICATION.
LAST TIME I CHECKED PLENTY OF 
PLACES IN THIS BUILDING AND 
OTHER BUILDINGS TO HANDLE 
CLASSIFIED INFORMATION.
IT'S BEING WHEN WOULD FROM US.

English: 
I HAVE TO BELIEVE NOW THERE'S A 
REASON IT'S BEING WHEN WOULD.
UNDOUBTEDLY THERE'S A PROBLEM 
WITH WITH IT.
WE'LL HAVE TO SEE AS THAT GOES 
FORWARD.
ANYBODY IN THE MEDIA, ANYBODY 
WATCHING TODAY, THE FIRST 45 
MINUTES AS WE WENT THROUGH HAVE 
PAINTED A VERY INTERESTING 
PICTURE.
IT'S PAINTED AN INTERESTING 
PICTURE THAT GOES BACK, MANY, 
MANY YEARS.
PICKING AND CHOOSING WHICH PART 
OF THE LAST FEW WEEKS WE WANT TO
TALK ABOUT.
AND THAT'S FINE.
WE'LL HAVE THE REST OF THE DAY 
TO GO ABOUT THIS.
BUT PROFESSOR TURLEY, YOU'RE NOW
WELL RESTED.
AND AND YOU GOT ONE QUESTION YOU
WERE ASKED YES OR NO ON, NOT 
GIVEN TO ELABORATE.
I WANT TO START HERE.
LET'S JUST DO THIS.
ELABORATE, IF YOU WOULD, BECAUSE
YOU TRIED TO ON THE QUESTION 
THAT WAS ASKED TO YOU.
AND THEN IF THERE'S ANYTHING 
ELSE YOU'VE HEARD THIS MORNING 
THAT YOU WOULD DISAGREE WITH, OR
HAVE ANSWER IDENTITY WILL GO 
AHEAD AND ALLOW YOU SOME TIME TO
TALK.
BY THE WAY, JUST FOR THE 
INFORMATION, MR. CHAIRMAN, THIS 
IS THE COLDEST HEARING ROOM IN 
THE WORLD.
AND ALSO FOR THOSE OF YOU WHO 

English: 
ARE WORRIED ABOUT I'M 
UNCOMFORTABLE AND UPSET, I'M 
HAPPY AS A LARK, BUT THIS CHAIR 
IS TERRIBLE.
I MEAN, IT IS AMAZING.
BUT MR. TURLEY, GO AHEAD. 
>> WELL, IT'S A CHALLENGE TO 
THINK OF ANYTHING I WAS NOT ABLE
TO COVER IN MY ROBUST EXCHANGE 
WITH MAJORITY COUNSEL BUT I 
WOULD LIKE TO TRY. 
>> GO RIGHT AHEAD. 
>> THERE'S A COUPLE OF THINGS I 
WANTED TO HIGHLIGHT.
I'M NOT GOING TO TAKE A GREAT 
DEAL OF TIME.
I RESPECT MY COLLEAGUES.
I KNOW ALL OF THEM.
AND I CONSIDER THEM FRIENDS.
AND I CERTAINLY RESPECT WHAT 
THEY HAVE SAID TODAY.
WE HAVE FUNDAMENTAL 
DISAGREEMENTS.
AND I WOULD 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.
AND CHAIRMAN SCHIFF SAID IT 
MIGHT NOT FIT TODAY'S DEFINITION
OF BRIBERY, BUT IT WOULD FIT THE
DEFINITION BACK IN THE 18th 

English: 
CENTURY.
NOW, PUTTING ASIDE MR. SCHIFF'S 
TURN TOWARD 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'S NOT AN ORIGINALIST 
FUTURE IN THAT ARGUMENT.
THE BRIBERY THEORY BEING PUT 
FORWARD IS AS FLAWED IN THE 18th
CENTURY AS IT IS IN THIS 
CENTURY.
THE STATEMENT THAT WAS MADE BY 
ONE OF MY ESTEEMED COLLEAGUES IS
THAT BRIBERY WASN'T REALLY 
DEFINED UNTIL MUCH LATER.
THERE WAS NO BRIBERY STATUTE AND
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 THAT CHAIRMAN SCHIFF 
INDICATED.
QUITE TO THE CONTRARY.
THAT LED MASON TO OBJECT THAT IT
WAS TOO NARROW.
IF BRIBERY COULD INCLUDE ANY 
TIME YOU DID ANYTHING FOR 

English: 
PERSONAL INTERESTS INSTEAD OF 
PUBLIC INTERESTS, 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 WAS 
WHEN HE SUGGESTED 
MALADMINISTRATION TO ADD TO THE 
STANDARD, BECAUSE HE WANTED IT 
TO BE BROADER.
AND WHAT JAMES MADISON SAID IS 
THAT THAT'S TOO BROAD, THAT THAT
WOULD ESSENTIALLY CREATE WHAT 
YOU MIGHT CALL A VOTE OF NO 
CONFIDENCE IN ENGLAND.
IT WOULD HAVE BASICALLY ALLOWED 
CONGRESS TO TOSS OUT A PRESIDENT
THAT THEY DID NOT LIKE.
BUT ONCE AGAIN, WE'RE ALL 
CHANNELING THE INTENT OF THE 
FRAMERS AND THAT'S ALWAYS A 
DANGEROUS THING TO DO.
THE ONLY MORE DANGEROUS SPOT TO 
STAND IN IS BETWEEN CONGRESS AND
AN IMPEACHMENT AS AN ACADEMIC, 
BUT I WOULD OFFER INSTEAD THE 
WORDS OF THE FRAMERS THEMSELVES.
YOU SEE, IN THAT EXCHANGE, THEY 

English: 
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 -- SORRY, BY MADISON, 
ULTIMATELY THE FRAMERS AGREED.
AND THEN MORRIS, WHO WAS 
REFERRED TO EARLIER, DID SAY WE 
NEED TO ADOPT THIS STANDARD.
BUT WHAT WAS LEFT OUT WAS 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 
XIV AND CHARLES II.
THE EXAMPLE HE GAVE OF BRIBERY 
WAS ACCEPTING ACTUAL MONEY AS 
THE HEAD OF STATE.
SO WHAT HAD HAPPENED IN THAT 
EXAMPLE THAT MORRIS GAVE AS AN 
EXAMPLE OF BRIBERY WAS THAT 

English: 
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 HIS 
CONVERTING TO THE CATHOLICISM.
THAT WASN'T SOME BROAD NOTION OF
BRIBERY.
IT WAS ACTUALLY QUITE NARROW.
SO, I DON'T THINK THAT DOG WILL 
HUNT IN THE 18th CENTURY, AND I 
DON'T THINK IT WILL HUNT TODAY.
IF YOU TAKE A LOOK AT THE 21st 
CENTURY, BRIBERY IS WELL 
DEFINED.
AND YOU SHOULDN'T JUST TAKE OUR 
WORD FOR IT.
YOU SHOULD LOOK TO HOW IT'S 
DEFINED BY THE UNITED STATES 
SUPREME COURT.
IN THE CASE CALLED 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.

English: 
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 ALL THE 
JUSTICES SAID IT'S A DANGEROUS 
THING TO TAKE A CRIME LIKE 
BRIBERY AND HAVE 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 

English: 
OF A PUBLIC SERVICE CAREER.
THESE CRIMES HAVE MEANING.
I REALLY DON'T HAVE A DOG IN 
THIS FIGHT.
YOU CAN'T ACCUSE A PRESIDENT OF 
BRIBERY AND THEN THE SUPREME 
COURT HAS REJECTED BOUNDLESS 
INTERPRETATION AND SAY WELL, 
IT'S JUST IMPEACHMENT.
IT'S NOT IMPROVISATIONAL JAZZ.
IF YOU'RE GOING TO ACCUSE THE 
PRESIDENT OF THE BRIBERY, YOU 
NEED TO MAKE IT STICK.
WHEN OTHERS SAY THEY'RE NOT 
VALID AND TO SAY THEY DON'T HAVE
TO BE VALID BECAUSE THIS IS 
IMPEACHMENT.
THAT HAS NOT BEEN THE STANDARD 

English: 
HISTORICALLY.
MY TESTIMONY LAYS OUT THE 
CRIMINAL ALLEGATIONS OF THE 
PREVIOUS IMPEACHMENT.
THEY AGREED THAT BILL CLINTON 
COMMITTED PERJURY.
THAT'S ON THE RECORD.
A JUDGE LATER SAID IT WAS 
PERJURY.
IN NIXON, THE CRIMES WERE 
ESTABLISHED.
NO ONE SERIOUSLY DISAGREED WITH 
THOSE CRIMES.
JOHNSON IS THE OUTLIER, BECAUSE 
JOHNSON WAS A TRAP-DOOR CRIME.
HE BASICALLY CREATED A CRIME 
KNOWING THAT JOHNSON WANTED TO 
REPLACE SECRETARY OF WAR.

English: 
THERE'S NO QUESTION HE COMMITTED
THE CRIME, JUST THE UNDERLYING 
STATUTE WAS UNCONSTITUTIONAL.
I WOULD CAUTION YOU NOT ONLY 
ABOUT BRIBERY BUT ALSO 
OBSTRUCTION.
I'M SORRY, RANKING MEMBER, 
YOU -- 
>> YOU'RE DOING A GOOD JOB.
GO AHEAD. 
>> I WOULD ALSO CAUTION YOU 
ABOUT OBSTRUCTION.
WHAT MY ESTEEMED COLLEAGUE SAID 
WAS CERTAINLY TRUE.
IF YOU ACCEPT ALL OF THEIR 
PRESUMPTION, IT WOULD BE 
OBSTRUCTION.
BUT IMPEACHMENTS HAVE TO BE 
BASED ON PROOF NOT PRESUMPTION.
THAT'S THE PROBLEM.

English: 
NARROW, FAST IMPEACHMENTS HAVE 
FAILED.
JUST ASK JOHNSON.
THE OBSTRUCTION ISSUE IS AN 
EXAMPLE OF THIS PROBLEM.
AND HERE IS 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 BY THE 
THIRD ARTICLE OF THE NIXON 
IMPEACHMENT.
FIRST OF ALL I WANT TO CONFESS, 
I'VE BEEN A CRITIC OF THE THIRD 
ARTICLE IN 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 IS THE REASON WHY.
CHAIRMAN OF JUDICIARY WAS THAT 
CONGRESS ALONE DECIDES WHAT 
INFORMATION MAY BE GIVEN TO IT, 
ALONE.

English: 
HIS POSITION WAS THAT THE COURTS
HAVE NO ROLE IN THIS.
AND SO BY THAT THE THEORY, ANY 
REFUTAL WOULD BE THE BASIS OF 
IMPEACHMENT.
THAT'S BEING REPLICATED TODAY.
PRESIDENT TRUMP HAS GONE TO THE 
COURTS.
HE IS 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 SAYING THERE'S THIS 
ARTICLE II, AND HE GIVES AN 
OVERRIDING INTERPRETATION.
I SHARE THAT CRITICISM.
YOU'RE DOING THE SAME THING WITH
ARTICLE I.
YOU'RE SAYING, ARTICLE I GIVES 
US COMPLETE AUTHORITY THAT 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 

English: 
INVESTIGATION, IT'S A PERFECT 
STORM.
YOU SET AN INCREDIBLY SHORT 
PERIOD, DEMAND A HUGE AMOUNT OF 
INFORMATION.
WHEN THE PRESIDENT GOES TO 
COURT, YOU THEN IMPEACH HIM.
NOW DOES THAT TRACK WITH WHAT 
YOU'VE HEARD ABOUT IMPEACHMENT?
DOES THAT TRACK WITH THE RULE OF
LAW THAT WE'VE TALKED ABOUT?
SO ON OBSTRUCTION, I 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'T BE MADE.
IT DIDN'T SAY YOU HAD NO RIGHT 
COMING TO US.
DON'T DARKEN OUR DOORSTEP AGAIN.
IT SAID WE'VE HEARD YOUR 
ARGUMENT.
WE'VE HEARD CONGRESS' ARGUMENTS 
AND, YOU KNOW WHAT?
YOU LOSE.

English: 
TURN OVER THE MATERIAL TO 
CONGRESS.
WHAT THAT DID FOR THE JUDICIARY 
IS IT GAVE THIS BODY LEGITIMACY.
IT WASN'T THE RODINO EXTREME 
POSITION THAT ONLY YOU DECIDE 
WHAT INFORMATION CAN BE 
PRODUCED.
NOW RECENTLY THERE'S SOME 
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 ENCOURAGE 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.
BUT THAT'S AN EXAMPLE OF WHAT 
CAN HAPPEN IF YOU ACTUALLY 
SUBPOENA WITNESSES AND GO TO 
COURT.
THEN YOU HAVE AN OBSTRUCTION 
CASE.
BECAUSE A COURT ISSUES AN ORDER.
AND UNLESS THEY STAY THAT ORDER 
BY A HIGHER COURT, YOU HAVE 

English: 
OBSTRUCTION.
BUT 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 IN 
MISDEMEANOR OUT OF GOING TO THE 
COURTS, IT IS AN ABUSE OF POWER.
IT'S YOUR ABUSE OF POWER.
YOU'RE DOING PRECISELY WHAT 
YOU'RE CRITICIZING THE PRESIDENT
FOR DOING.
WE HAVE A THIRD BRANCH THAT 
DEALS WITH CONFLICTS OF THE 
OTHER TWO BRANCHES AND WHAT 
COMES OUT OF THERE AND WHAT YOU 
DO WITH IT IS THE VERY 
DEFINITION OF LEGITIMACY. 
>> LET'S CONTINUE ON.
LET'S UNPACK WHAT YOU'VE BEEN 
TALKING ABOUT.
FIRST OF ALL, THE McDONALD CASE,
HOW WAS THAT DECIDED?
WERE THEY REALLY TORN ABOUT 
THAT?
THAT CASE CAME OUT HOW?
>> YEAH, IT CAME OUT UNANIMOUS.
SO DID SOME OF THE OTHER CASES 
IN MY TESTIMONY WHICH REFUTE THE
CRIMINAL HEARINGS. 
>> ONE THING THAT YOU ATTENDED 
AND SAID ALSO, AND I USE IT 
SOMETIMES, THE LAYMAN'S LANGUAGE
HERE, IS FACTS DON'T MATTER.
THAT'S WHAT I HEARD, THE FACTS 

English: 
SAID THIS OR FACTS DISPUTED 
THIS.
BUT IF THIS, IF THAT, IT RISES 
TO IMPEACHMENT LEVEL.
THAT'S SORT OF WHAT YOU'RE 
SAYING, YOUR WORD WAS CRIMES 
HAVE MEANINGS AND THIS IS THE 
CONCERN THAT I HAVE.
IS THERE A CONCERN THAT IF WE 
JUST SAY FACTS DON'T MATTER THAT
WE'RE ALSO, AS YOU'VE SAID, 
ABUSING OUR POWER AS WE GO 
FORWARD HERE IN LOOKING AT WHAT 
PEOPLE WOULD ACTUALLY DEEM AS AN
IMPEACHABLE OFFENSE?
>> I THINK SO.
AND PART OF THE PROBLEM IS THAT 
TO BRING A COUPLE OF THESE 
ARTICLES, YOU HAVE TO CONTRADICT
THE POSITION OF PRESIDENT OBAMA.
PRESIDENT OBAMA WHEN WOULD 
EVIDENCE FROM CONGRESS IN FAST 
AND FURIOUS, AN INVESTIGATION, 
RATHER MORONIC PROGRAM, THAT LED
TO THE DEATH OF A FEDERAL AGENT.
PRESIDENT OBAMA GAVE A SWEEPING 
ARGUMENT THAT HE WAS NOT ONLY 
NOT GOING TO GIVE EVIDENCE TO 
THIS BODY, BUT THAT A COURT HAD 

English: 
ABSOLUTELY NO ROLE IN 
DETERMINING WHETHER HE COULD 
WITHHOLD THE EVIDENCE. 
>> SO YOU BROUGHT UP MR. OBAMA 
AND 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, TO 
ACTUALLY ASSERT AUTHORITIES THAT
HAVE BEEN GIVEN WHEN ACCUSED OF 
SOMETHING, A CRIME OR ANYTHING 
ELSE?
>> YEAH.
PRESIDENT OBAMA HAS INVOKED IT 
BROADLY.
ON THE OTHER HAND HE HAS 
RELEASED A LOT OF INFORMATION.
I'VE BEEN FRIENDS WITH BILL BARR
FOR A LONG TIME.
WE DISAGREE ON EXECUTIVE 
PRIVILEGE.
I'M A MANISONIAN SCHOLAR.
HIS NATURAL DEFAULT IS ARTICLE 
TWO.
MY NATURAL DEFAULT IS ARTICLE I.
HE HAS RELEASED MORE PRIVILEGED 
INFORMATION THAN ANY ATTORNEY 

English: 
GENERAL IN MY LIFETIME, 
INCLUDING THE MUELLER REPORT.
TRANSCRIPTS OF THESE CALLS WOULD
BE CORE EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE 
MATERIAL.
NO QUESTION ABOUT THAT. 
>> AGAIN NOT POINTED OUT WHEN 
YOU'RE DOING A BACK AND FORTH 
LIKE WE'RE DOING.
TRANSCRIPTS OF THE CALL WERE 
RELEASED.
MUELLER REPORT HAS BEEN 
RELEASED.
THE INTERESTING POINT I WANT TO 
TALK ABOUT ARE TWO THINGS.
CONGRESS' ABUSE OF ITS OWN 
POWER, EVEN INTERNALLY, WHERE 
WE'VE HAD COMMITTEES NOT WILLING
TO LET MEMBERS SEE TRANSCRIPTS, 
NOT BEING WILLING TO GIVE THOSE 
UP UNDER THE GUISE OF 
IMPEACHMENT, ALTHOUGH THE RULES 
OF THE HOUSE WERE NEVER INVOKED 
TO STOP THAT.
WHAT WE'RE SEEING HERE, BEFORE I
MOVE ON TO SOMETHING ELSE IS THE
TIMING ISSUE WE'RE TALKING ABOUT
HERE.
WE TALK ABOUT THIS WITH THE 
MUELLER REPORT AND EVERYTHING 
ELSE.
THIS IS ONE OF THE FASTEST -- 
YOU KNOW I SAID THIS EARLIER, 
THE CLOCK AND THE CALENDAR ARE 
SEEMINGLY DOMINATED IS 
IRREGARDLESS OF WHAT ANYBODY IN 
THIS COMMUNITY, ESPECIALLY 

English: 
MEMBERS NOT IN THIS COMMUNITY TO
THINK ABOUT WHAT WE'RE SEEING 
WHEN, IN FACT, THIS IS PEOPLE 
MOVING FORWARD.
WE DON'T HAVE THAT YET.
THE QUESTION BECOMES, IS AN 
ELECTION PENDING WHEN FACTS ARE 
IN DISPUTE AND YOU MADE A 
MENTION OF THIS, THIS IS ONE IN 
WHICH THE FACTS ARE NOT 
UNANIMOUS.
THERE'S NOT UNIVERSAL OR 
BIPARTISAN ON THE FACTS THAT 
THEY LEAD TO, ESPECIALLY WHEN 
THERE'S EXCULPATORY EVIDENCE 
THAT'S APPROXIMATE NOT BEEN 
PRESENTED.
DOES THAT TIMING BOTHER YOU FROM
A HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE NOT 
ONLY IN THE PAST BUT MOVING 
FORWARD AS WELL?
>> FAST AND NARROW IS NOT A GOOD
RECIPE FOR IMPEACHMENT.
THAT'S THE CASE WITH JOHNSON.
NARROW WAS THE CASE WITH 
CLINTON.
THEY TEND TO COLLAPSE IN FRONT 
OF THE SENATE.
THERE'S A RATIO BETWEEN YOUR 
FOUNDATION AND YOUR HEIGHT AND 
THIS IS THE HIGHEST STRUCTURE 
YOU CAN BUILD UNDER THE 
CONSTITUTION.
YOU WANT TO BUILD AN 
IMPEACHMENT, YOU NEED A 
FOUNDATION BROAD ENOUGH TO 
SUPPORT IT.

English: 
THIS IS THE NARROWEST 
IMPEACHMENT IN HISTORY, YOU CAN 
ARGUE, WITH JOHNSON.
JOHNSON MAY BE THE FASTEST 
IMPEACHMENT.
WHAT HAPPENED WITH JOHNSON WAS 
ACTUALLY THE FOURTH IMPEACHMENT 
ATTEMPT AGAINST JOHNSON.
THEY LAID THAT TRAP DOOR A YEAR 
BEFORE.
SO IT WAS NOT AS FAST AS IT 
MIGHT APPEAR. 
>> I WANT TO GO BACK TO 
SOMETHING ELSE.
ADDRESSED A GOOD BIT OF THAT BUT
IT REALLY BOTHERED -- THE 
PERCEPTION OUT THERE OF WHAT'S 
GOING ON HERE, THE DISPUTED 
TRANSCRIPT, THE CALL HAS BEEN 
LAID OUT THERE.
THE PRESIDENT SAID I WANTED 
NOTHING FOR THIS.
THERE'S ALL THIS EXCULPATORY 
EVIDENCE NOT PRESENTED IN 45 
MINUTES.
IT'S BEEN REPORTED IN THE 
MAINSTREAM MEDIA.
IT GOES BACK TO CRIMES MATTER OR
WHAT THIS DEFINITION IS.
MAJORITY INITIALLY ACCUSED THE 
PRESIDENT, THEY KEPT SAYING QUID
PRO QUO, AND WE HEAR IT AS WE GO
THROUGH.
THEY USED A POLITICAL FOCUS 
GROUP TO DETERMINE WHETHER THE 

English: 
PHRASE POLLED WELL.
IT DIDN'T APPARENTLY POLL WELL.
THEY CHANGED THE THEORY OF THEIR
CASE TO BRIBERY.
DOES THAT NOT JUST FEED MORE 
INTO CRIMES MATTER OR AT LEAST 
SHOULD MATTER?
>> IT DOES.
THERE'S A REASON WHY EVERY PAST 
IMPEACHMENT HAS ESTABLISHED 
CRIME.
IT'S OBVIOUS.
IT'S NOT THAT YOU CAN'T IMPEACH 
ON A NONCRIME.
YOU CAN.
IN FACT, NONCRIMES HAVE BEEN 
PART OF PAST IMPEACHMENTS.
IT'S JUST THAT THEY'VE NEVER 
GONE UP ALONE OR PRIMARILY AS 
THE BASIS OF IMPEACHMENT.
THAT'S THE PROBLEM HERE.
IF YOU PROVE A QUID PRO QUO, YOU
MIGHT HAVE AN IMPEACHABLE 
OFFENSE.
BUT YOU GO UP ONLY ON A 
NONCRIMINAL CASE, IT WOULD BE 
THE FIRST TIME IN HISTORY.
WHY IS THAT THE CASE?
THE REASON IS THAT CRIMES HAVE 
AN ESTABLISHED DEFINITION AND 
CASE LAW.
SO THERE'S A CONCRETE, 
INDEPENDENT BODY OF LAW THAT 
ASSURES THE PUBLIC THAT THIS IS 
NOT JUST POLITICAL, THAT THIS IS
A PRESIDENT WHO DID SOMETHING 

English: 
THEY COULD NOT DO.
YOU CAN'T SAY THE PRESIDENT IS 
ABOVE THE LAW IF YOU THEN SAY 
THE CRIMES YOU ACCUSE HIM OF 
REALLY DON'T HAVE TO BE 
ESTABLISHED. 
>> I THINK THAT'S THE PROBLEM 
RIGHT NOW THAT MANY MEMBERS OF 
THE HOUSE, ESPECIALLY THE 
AMERICAN PUBLIC ARE LOOKING AT 
THAT IF YOU SAY IT'S ABOVE THE 
LAW OR YOU DON'T DEFINE IT OR 
DEFINE THE FACTS TO WHAT YOU 
WANT TO HAVE, THAT'S THE 
ULTIMATE RAILROAD THAT EVERYBODY
IN THIS COUNTRY SHOULD NOT BE 
AFFORDED.
EVERYONE IS AFFORDED DUE 
PROCESS, TO MA ACTUALLY MAKE 
THEIR CASE HEARD.
THAT'S THE CONCERN I HAVE ON 
THIS COMMITTEE RIGHT NOW.
WE'VE SEEN IT VOTED DOWN THAT 
WE'RE NOT GOING TO LOOK AT 
CERTAIN FACT WITNESSES, WE'VE 
NOT BEEN PROMISED OTHER HEARINGS
IN WHICH THIS COMMITTEE -- THE 
WORDS AND CONCERNS THAT ECHOED 
ALMOST 20 YEARS AGO FROM THE 
CHAIRMAN WHERE HE DID NOT WANT 
TO TAKE THE ADVICE OF ANOTHER 
BODY GIVING THE JUDICIARY 
COMMITTEE A REPORT AND ACTING AS
A RUBBER STAMP IF WE DIDN'T DO 
THIS.
AS A REMINDER, IT WAS ALMOST 
2 1/2 WEEKS BEFORE THE 
DISCUSSION OF THIS KIND OF A 
HEARING BACK THEN BEFORE THE 
HEARING ACTUALLY TOOK PLACE.
THESE ARE THE KIND OF THINGS 

English: 
THAT AS TIMING GOES, I THINK THE
OBVIOUS ONE HERE IS THAT TIMING 
IS BECOMING MORE OF THE ISSUE 
BECAUSE THE CONCERN HAS BEEN 
STATED BEFORE ABOUT ELECTIONS.
THEY'RE MORE CONCERNED ABOUT 
TRYING TO FIT THE FACTS IN TO 
WHAT THE PRESIDENT SUPPOSEDLY 
DID, PRESUMABLY DID, AND MAKE 
THOSE HYPOTHETICALS STICK TO THE
AMERICAN PUBLIC.
THE PROBLEM IS THEY'RE TYING THE
DEFINITION OF CRIMES, DEFINITION
OF THE FACT THAT BRIBERY AS 
DEFINED BY THE SUPREME COURT IS 
NOT MAKING THEIR CASE, IS NOT 
FITTING WHAT THEY NEED TO DO.
THE ISSUE WE HAVE TO DEAL WITH 
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 BEING WHEN WOULD EVEN IN 
A CLASSIFIED SETTING?
THESE ARE THE PROBLEMS YOU HAVE 
NOW HIGHLIGHTED AND I THINK NEED
TO BE.
THAT'S WHY THE NEXT 45 MINUTES 
AND THE REST OF THE DAY WILL BE 
APPLICABLE.
BOTH SIDES MATTER.
AT THE END OF THE DAY, THIS IS A
FAST IMPEACHMENT, FASTEST WE'RE 
SEEING, BASED ON DISPUTED FACTS 

English: 
OF CRIMES OR SERVICES MADE UP.
WITH THAT I'LL TURN IT OVER TO 
MY COUNSEL, MR. FITZPATRICK. 
>> PROFESSOR TURLEY, I WOULD 
LIKE TO TURN TO THE SUBJECT OF 
PARTISANSHIP, THAT THE FOUNDERS 
FEARED AS IT EXISTS TODAY.
ALEXANDER HAMILTON WAS VERY 
CONCERNED ABOUT WHEN IT CAME TO 
IMPEACHMENT.
HE WROTE FEDERALIST PAPERS LAID 
OUT THE REASONS MADISON AND 
HAMILTON THOUGHT IMPEACHMENT 
FUNDS WAS NECESSARY BUT ALSO 
FLAGGED CONCERNS.
HE SAID IN MANY CASES OF 
IMPEACHMENT, IT WILL CONNECT 
ITSELF WITH THE PRE-EXISTING 
FACTIONS AND WILL ENLIST ALL 
THEIR ANIMOSITIES, PARTIALITIES,
INFLUENCE AND INTEREST ON ONE 
SIDE OR THE OTHER AND IN SUCH 
CASES THERE WILL ALWAYS BE THE 
GREATER DANGER THAT THE DECISION
WILL BE REGULATED MORE BY THE 

English: 
COMPARATIVE STRENGTH OF PARTIES 
THAN BY THE REAL DEMONSTRATIONS 
OF INNOCENCE OR GUILT.
PROFESSOR TURLEY, DO YOU THINK 
HAMILTON HAD A REAL DANGER HERE 
OF HYPERPARTISAN ENDANGERMENT?
>> IT'S IMPORTANT TO NOTE, BY 
THE WAY, WE OFTEN THINK OUR 
TIMES ARE UNIQUE.
YOU KNOW, THIS PROVISION WASN'T 
JUST WRITTEN FOR TIMES LIKE 
OURS.
IT WAS WRITTEN IN TIMES LIKE 
OURS.
THAT IS, THESE ARE PEOPLE THAT 
WERE EVEN MORE SEVERE THAN THE 
RHETORIC TODAY.
YOU HAVE TO KEEP IN MIND, 
JEFFERSON REFERRED TO THE 
ADMINISTRATION OF THE FEDERALIST
AS THE REIGN OF THE WITCHES.
THIS WAS NOT A PERIOD WHERE 
PEOPLE DIDN'T HAVE STRONG 
FEELINGS.
INDEED, WHEN PEOPLE TALK ABOUT 
MEMBERS OF THIS COMMITTEE ACTING
LIKE THEY WANT TO KILL EACH 
OTHER, BACK THEN THEY WERE 
ACTUALLY TRYING TO KILL EACH 
OTHER.
THAT'S WHAT THIS LAW WAS.
YOU WERE TRYING TO KILL PEOPLE 
WHO DISAGREED WITH YOU.

English: 
BUT WHAT'S NOTABLE IS THEY 
DIDN'T HAVE A WHOLE SLUE OF 
IMPEACHMENTS.
THEY KNEW NOT TO DO IT.
AND I THINK THAT THAT'S A LESSON
THAT CAN ACTUALLY BE TAKEN FROM 
THAT PERIOD, THAT THE FRAMERS 
CREATED A STANDARD THAT WOULD 
NOT BE ENDLESSLY FLUID AND 
FLEXIBLE.
AND IF THAT STANDARD HAS KEPT US
FROM IMPEACHMENTS, DESPITE 
PERIODS IN WHICH WE HAVE REALLY 
DESPISED EACH OTHER.
AND THAT, I THINK, IS THE MOST 
DISTRESSING THING FOR MOST OF US
TODAY.
THERE'S SO MUCH MORE RAGE THAN 
REASON.
YOU CAN'T EVEN TALK ABOUT THESE 
ISSUES WITHOUT PEOPLE SAYING YOU
MUST BE IN FAVOR OF THE 
UKRAINIANS TAKING OVER THE 
COUNTRY, OR THE RUSSIANS MOVING 
IN TO 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, IN YOUR 
TESTIMONY YOU SAID WHEN IT COMES

English: 
TO IMPEACHMENT, WE DON'T NEED 
HAPPY, IDEOLOGICAL WARRIORS, WE 
NEED CIRCUMSPECT. 
PARTICULAR PARTISAN IMPEACHMENT 
IS BEING WAGED.
DEMOCRATIC LEADERS REPRESENT THE
FAR-LEFT URBAN COASTAL AREAS OF 
THE COUNTRY.
BAR GRAPHS SHOW COUNTIES AND 
HEIGHT OF THE BARS INDICATE 
TOTAL VOTES CAST AND MARGIN OF 
THE VICTORY OF THE WINNER IN THE
2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION.
AS YOU CAN SEE THE PARTS OF THE 
COUNTRY REPRESENTED BY DEMOCRAT 
IMPEACHMENT LEADERS VOTED 
OVERWHELMINGLY FOR HILLARY 
CLINTON DURING THE LAST 
PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION.
ALSO DURING THE 2016 
PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION, LAWYER 
CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTIONS TILTED 
97% FOR CLINTON, 3% FOR TRUMP.
THE SITUATION IS ESSENTIALLY THE
SAME AT LAW SCHOOLS AROUND THE 
COUNTRY, INCLUDING THOSE 
REPRESENTED ON THE PANEL HERE 
TODAY.
NOW PROFESSOR TURLEY I WOULD 
LIKE TO TURN TO THE PARTISAN 
PROCESS THAT DEFINES THESE 
IMPEACHMENT PROCEEDINGS.
THIS IS HOW THE NIXON 

English: 
IMPEACHMENT EFFORT WAS DESCRIBED
IN THE BIPARTISAN 1970 STAFF 
REPORT, INITIATION OF THE 
IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY.
THIS ACTION WAS NOT PARTISAN.
IT WAS SUPPORTED BY THE 
OVERWHELMING MAJORITY OF BOTH 
POLITICAL PARTIES.
AND IT WAS.
REGARDING THE AUTHORIZATION OF 
THE CLINTON IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY,
IT WAS SUPPORTED BY ALL 
REPUBLICANS AND 31 DEMOCRATS.
NOW FAST FORWARD TO THE CURRENT 
IMPEACHMENT.
HOUSE DEMOCRATS TRUMP 
IMPEACHMENT DRIVE WAS 
SUBSEQUENTLY APPROVED ONLY BY 
DEMOCRATS AND INDEED IT WAS 
APPROVED OVER THE OPPOSITION OF 
TWO DEMOCRATS AND ALL 
REPUBLICANS.
PROFESSOR TURLEY, HOW DOES THIS 
TREND COMPORT WITH HOW THE 
FOUNDERS UNDERSTOOD HOW 
IMPEACHMENT SHOULD OPERATE?
>> THE FOUNDERS CERTAINLY HAD 
ASPIRATIONS THAT WE WOULD COME 
TOGETHER AS A PEOPLE BUT THEY 
DIDN'T HAVE ANY DELUSIONS.
IT CERTAINLY WAS NOT SOMETHING 
THAT THEY ACHIEVED IN THEIR OWN 
LIFETIME.
ALTHOUGH, YOU WOULD BE SURPRISED
THAT SOME OF THESE FRAMERS 
ACTUALLY DID, AT THE END OF 

English: 
THEIR LIFE, INCLUDING JEFFERSON 
AND ADAM, SORT OF RECONCILE.
INDEED, ONE OF THE MOST WEIGHTY 
AND SIGNIFICANT MOMENTS IN 
CONSTITUTIONAL HISTORY IS THE 
ONE THAT IS RARELY DISCUSSED, 
THAT ADAMS AND JEFFERSON REACHED
OUT TO EACH OTHER, THAT THEY 
WANTED TO RECONCILE BEFORE THEY 

English: 
DIED.
AND THEY MET, AND THEY DID.
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 
TRUMBLE SAID HAS EVEN MORE 
BEARING TODAY BECAUSE I BELIEVE 
THIS IS MUCH LIKE THE JOHNSON 
IMPEACHMENT.
IT'S MANUFACTURED UNTIL YOU 

English: 
BUILD A RECORD.
I'M NOT SAYING YOU CAN'T BUILD A
RECORD.
BUT YOU CAN'T DO IT LIKE THIS.
YOU CAN'T IMPEACH A PRESIDENT 
LIKE THIS.
>> THERE AS RECENT BOOK ON 
IMPEACHMENT BY A HARVARD 
PROFESSOR AND JOSHUA MATZ 
DISCUSSING WHAT THEY CONSIDER TO
BE A LEGITIMATE IMPEACHMENT 
PROCESS.
THE BOOK IS PRETTY ANTI-TRUMP, 
CALLED "TO END A PRESIDENCY" AND
IN THAT BOOK THE AUTHORS STATE 
THE FOLLOWING.
WHEN AN IMPEACHMENT IS PURELY 
PARTISAN OR APPEARS THAT WAY IT 
IS PRESUMPTIVELY ILLEGITIMATE.
WHEN ONLY REPUBLICANS OR 
DEMOCRATS VIEW THE PRESIDENT'S 
CONDUCT AS JUSTIFYING REMOVAL 
THERE IS A STRONG RISK POLICY 
DISAGREEMENTS OR PARTISAN ANIMUS
HAVE OVERTAKEN THE PROPER 
MEASURE OF CONGRESSIONAL 
IMPARTIALITY.
WE CAN ALSO EXPECT OPPOSITION 
LEADERS WILL BE PUSHED TO 
IMPEACH AND SUFFER BLOWBACK IF 
THEY DON'T.
THE KEY QUESTION IS WILL THEY 
CAVE TO THIS PRESSURE?
THE HOUSE WILL UNDERTAKE 
ADDITIONAL, DOOMED PARTISAN 
IMPEACHMENTS, A DEVELOPMENT THAT

English: 
WOULD BE DISASTROUS FOR THE 
NATION AS A WHOLE.
IS THAT ADVICE BEING FOLLOWED BY
HOUSE DEMOCRATS IN THIS CASE?
>> NOT ON THIS SCHEDULE.
THE ONE THING IF YOU LOOK AT I 
LAID OUT THE THREE IMPEACHMENTS.
ONE THING THAT COMES OUT IN 
TERMS OF WHAT BIPARTISAN SUPPORT
OCCURRED IS THAT IMPEACHMENTS 
REQUIRE A CERTAIN PERIOD OF SACH
YAGS AND MATURATION.
THE PUBLIC HAS TO CATCH UP.
I'M NOT PREJUDGING WHAT YOUR 
RECORD WOULD SHOW BUT IF YOU 
RUSH THIS IMPEACHMENT YOU'LL 
LEAVE HALF THE COUNTRY BEHIND 
AND CERTAINLY THAT IS NOT WHAT 
THE FRAMERS WANTED.
YOU HAVE TO GIVE THE TIME TO 
BUILD A RECORD.
THIS ISN'T AN IMPULSE BY ITEM.
YOU'RE TRYING TO REMOVE A DULY 
ELECTED PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED 
STATES.
THAT TAKES TIME AND WORK.
IF YOU LOOK AT NIXON WHICH WAS 
THE GOLD STANDARD IN THIS 
RESPECT THE PUBLIC DID CATCH UP.
THEY ORIGINALLY DID NOT SUPPORT 
IMPEACHMENT BUT THEY CHANGED 
THEIR MIND.
YOU CHANGED THEIR MIND.

English: 
SO DID, BY THE WAY, THE COURTS 
BECAUSE YOU ALLOWED THESE ISSUES
TO BE HEARD IN THE COURTS.
>> PROFESSOR, THE NIXON AND 
CLINTON IMPEACHMENTS WERE 
DEBATED SOLIDLY IN THE HIGH 
CRIMES CATEGORY, RIGHT?
KREFRJTS.
>> BUT ON EVIDENCE PRESENTED SO 
FAR IS IT YOUR VIEW THAT THERE 
IS NO CREDIBLE EVIDENCE ANY 
CRIME WAS PRESENTED BY PRESIDENT
TRUMP?
>> YES.
I'VE GONE THROUGH ALL OF THE 
CRIMES MENTIONED.
THEY DO NOT MEET ANY REASONABLE 
INTERPRETATION OF THOSE CRIMES.
I AM RELYING ON EXPRESS 
STATEMENTS FROM THE FEDERAL 
COURTS.
I UNDERSTAND THE LANGUAGE IN THE
STATUTES ARE OFTEN BROAD.
THAT IS NOT THE CONTROLLING 
LANGUAGE.
IT IS THE LANGUAGE OF THE 
INTERPRETATION OF FEDERAL 
COURTS.
I THINK THAT ALL OF THOSE 
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, WHAT IS 
THE POINT?
CALL IT TREASON.
CALL IT ENDANGERED SPECIES 
VIOLATIONS.
IF NONE OF THIS MATTERS.
>> SO THAT WOULD PUT THE 

English: 
DEMOCRATS' MOVE TO IMPEACH 
PRESIDENT TRUMP IN THE CATEGORY 
OF HIGH MISDEMEANORS.
IN JAMES MADISON'S NOTES OF THE 
CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION 
DEBATES THEY CLEARLY SHOW THAT 
THE TERM HIGH MISDEMEANOR WAS 
EXPLICITLY REFERRED TO AS A 
TECHNICAL TERM AND IT WASN'T 
JUST SOMETHING THAT ANY MAJORITY
OR PARTISAN MEMBERS MIGHT HAPPEN
TO THINK WAS AT ANY GIVEN TIME.
OFTEN WHEN THERE IS A DEBATE 
ABOUT A TECHNICAL TERM PEOPLE 
TURN TO DICTIONARIES.
THE FIRST TRULY COMPREHENSIVE 
ENGLISH DICTIONARY WAS SAMUEL 
JOHNSON'S A DICTIONARY OF THE 
ENGLISH LANGUAGE FIRST PUBLISHED
IN 1755.
THE FOUNDERS AND MANY OF THEIR 
LIBRARIES HAD THIS BOOK AND ON 
THEIR DESKS AND THE SUPREME 
COURT STILL CITE'S JOHNSON'S 
DICTIONARY TO DETERMINE THE 
ORIGINAL PUBLIC UNDERSTANDING OF
THE WORDS USED IN THE 
CONSTITUTION.
HERE IS HOW THAT DICTIONARY 
DEFINES THE RELEVANT TERMS AND 
HIGH MISDEMEANOR.
HIGH THE RELEVANT SUB DEFINITION
IS CAPITAL, GREAT.
OPPOSED TO LITTLE.
AS HIGH TREASON.
THE DEFINITION OF MISDEMEANOR IS

English: 
DEFINED AS SOMETHING LESS THAN 
AN ATROCIOUS CRIME.
ATROCIOUS IS DEFINED AS WICKED 
IN A HIGH DEGREE.
ENORMOUS, HORRIBLY CRIMINAL.
IF YOU LOOK AT HOW THESE WORDS 
WERE DEFINED DURING THE TIME THE
CONSTITUTION WAS DEBATED AND 
RATIFIED, A MISDEMEANOR IS 
SOMETHING LESS THAN AN ATROCIOUS
CRIME AND ATROCIOUS IS WICKED IN
A HIGH DEGREE.
AS A RESULT A HIGH MISDEMEANOR 
MUST BE SOMETHING LIKE JUST LESS
THAN A CRIME THAT IS WICKED IN A
HIGH DEGREE.
NOW, PROFESSOR TURLEY, DOES THAT
GENERALLY COMPORT WITH YOUR 
UNDERSTANDING OF THE PHRASE HIGH
MISDEMEANORS UNDERSTOOD BY THE 
FOUNDERS WITH THE PURPOSE OF 
NARROWING THAT PHRASE TO PREVENT
THE SORTS OF ABUSES YOU'VE 
DESCRIBED?
>> IT DID.
IF YOU LOOK AT THE EXTRADITION 
CLAUSE THE LANGUAGE USED WAS 
DIFFERENT FOR A REASON.
THEY DID NOT WANT TO ESTABLISH 
THAT TYPE OF BROAD MEETING.
ACCORDING TO THE VIEW OF SOME 
PEOPLE AS TO THE MEANING OF HIGH
CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS THOSE 
PROVISIONS WOULD BE ESSENTIALLY 
IDENTICAL.
THAT IS CLEARLY NOT WHAT THEY 
WANTED.
>> PROFESSOR TURLEY, NEXT I'D 
LIKE TO EXPLORE HOW THIS 

English: 
IMPEACHMENT IS BASED ON NO CRIME
AND NO REQUEST FOR FALSE 
INFORMATION UNLIKE THE NIXON AND
CLINTON IMPEACHMENTS.
THE AMERICAN MEDIA FOR YEARS HAS
BEEN ASKING QUESTIONS ABOUT 
FORMER VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN'S 
SON AND HIS INVOLVEMENT WITH A 
CORRUPT UKRAINIAN COMPANY 
BURISMA.
HERE IS AN EXAMPLE OF ONE OF 
THOSE REPORTS IN JUNE, 2019, AN 
ABC NEWS INVESTIGATION, DID JOE 
BIDEN'S SON PROFIT OFF FATHER'S 
POSITION AS VICE PRESIDENT?
THERE IS A CLIP HERE WITH A 
BURISMA PROMOTIONAL VIDEO.
MANY HAVE SEEN THE VIDEO OF JOE 
BIDEN TALKING ABOUT GETTING THE 
UKRAINIAN PROSECUTOR WHO WAS 
INVESTIGATING BURISMA FIRED.
AND A "NEW YORK TIMES" ARTICLE 
SAYS FROM MAY 1st, 2019, 
REFERRING TO JOSEPH R. BIDEN, 
ONE OF HIS MOST MEMORABLE 
PERFORMANCES CAME ON A TRIP TO 
KIEV IN MARCH, 2014, WHEN HE 
THREATENED TO WITHHOLD A BILLION
DOLLARS IN UNITED STATES LOAN 
GUARANTEES IF UKRAINE'S LEADERS 
DID NOT DISMISS THE COUNTRY'S 
TOP PROSECUTOR.

English: 
AMONG THOSE WHO HAD A STAKE IN 
THE OUTCOME WAS HUNTER BIDEN MR.
BIDEN'S YOUNGER SON AT THE TIME 
ON THE BOARD OF AN ENERGY 
COMPANY OWNED BY A UKRAINIAN 
OLIGARCH WHO HAD BEEN IN THE 
SITES OF THE FIRED PROSECUTOR 
GENERAL.
EVEN IF HUNTER BIDEN ENGAGED IN 
NO CRIMES REGARDING SITTING ON 
THE BOARD OF BURISMA IF AN 
INVESTIGATION LED TO THE 
BANKRUPTCY OF THE CORRUPT 
COMPANY HUNTER BIDEN'S LUCRATIVE
POSITION ON THE BURISMA BOARD 
WOULD HAVE BEEN ELIMINATED ALONG
WITH HIS $50,000 A MONTH 
PAYMENTS.
THAT WAS HIS STAKE IN A 
POTENTIAL PROSECUTION INVOLVING 
THE COMPANY.
IN FACT, EVEN THE FORMER ACTING 
SOLICITOR GENERAL UNDER 
PRESIDENT OBAMA IN HIS RECENT 
BOOK ENTITLED "IMPEACH" SAYS THE
FOLLOWING.
IS WHAT HUNTER BIDEN DID WRONG?
ABSOLUTELY.
HUNTER BIDEN HAD NO REAL 
EXPERIENCE IN THE ENERGY SECTOR,
WHICH MADE HIM WHOLLY 
UNQUALIFIED TO SIT ON THE BOARD 
OF BURISMA.
THE ONLY LOGICAL THE REASON 
COULD HAVE HAD FOR APPOINTING 
HIM WAS HIS TIE TO VICE 
PRESIDENT BIDEN.
THIS KIND OF NEPOTISM ISN'T ONLY
WRONG.
IT IS A POTENTIAL DANGER TO OUR 
COUNTRY SINCE IT MAKES IT EASIER
FOR FOREIGN POWERS TO BUY 
INFLUENCE.

English: 
NO POLITICIAN FROM EITHER PARTY 
SHOULD ALLOW A FOREIGN POWER TO 
CONDUCT THIS KIND OF INFLUENCE 
PEDDLING WITH THEIR FAMILY 
MEMBERS.
ALSO LIEUTENANT COLONEL VINDMAN 
WAS ASKED AT HIS HEARING WOULD 
IT EVER BE U.S. FOREIGN POLICY 
IN YOUR EXPERIENCE TO ASK A 
FOREIGN LEADER TO OPEN A 
POLITICAL INVESTIGATION, AND HE 
REPLIED, CERTAINLY THE PRESIDENT
IS WELL WITHIN HIS RIGHT TO DO 
THAT.
SO THE AMERICAN MEDIA AND OTHERS
WERE ASKING QUESTIONS ABOUT 
HUNTER BIDEN AND HIS INVOLVEMENT
IN THE UKRAINE.
AND PRESIDENT TRUMP IN HIS CALL 
WITH THE UKRAINIAN PRESIDENT 
SIMPLY ASKED THE SAME QUESTIONS 
THE MEDIA WAS ASKING.
PROFESSOR TURLEY, IS IT YOUR 
UNDERSTANDING THAT THE HOUSE 
IMPEACHED NIXON FOR HELPING 
COVER UP HIS ADMINISTRATION'S 
INVOLVEMENT IN A CRIME AND THE 
EVIDENTIARY RECORD SHOWED NIXON 
KNEW OF CRIMINAL ACTS AND SOUGHT
TO CONCEAL THEM INCLUDING TAPE 
RECORDINGS OF PRESIDENT NIXON 
WITH A COVER-UP OF THE WATERGATE
BREAK-IN SHORTLY AFTER IT 
OCCURRED?
>> IT IS.
>> IS IT ALSO YOUR UNDERSTANDING
THE HOUSE IMPEACHED CLINTON FOR 
THE CRIME OF LYING UNDER OATH TO
DENY A WOMAN SUING HIM FOR 
SEXUAL HARASSMENT EVIDENCE SHE 

English: 
WAS LEGALLY ENTITLED TO.
>> THAT IS CORRECT.
>> SO THERE WERE REQUESTS FOR 
FALSE INFORMATION IN BOTH THE 
NIXON AND CLINTON SCANDALS BY 
THE PRESIDENT'S AIDES OR 
ASSOCIATES OR THE PRESIDENT 
HIMSELF, CORRECT?
>> YES.
>> BUT THERE ARE NO WORDS IN THE
FOUR CORNERS OF THE TRANSCRIPT 
OF PRESIDENT TRUMP'S CALL THAT 
SHOW A REQUEST FOR FALSE 
INFORMATION.
ARE THERE?
>> NO.
AND THAT'S ONE OF THE REASONS 
WHY IF YOU WANT TO ESTABLISH THE
OPPOSING VIEW YOU HAVE TO 
INVESTIGATE THIS FURTHER.
>> LET ME WALK THROUGH THE 
STANDARD OF EVIDENCE HOUSE 
DEMOCRATS INSISTED ON DURING THE
CLINTON IMPEACHMENT.
THE MINORITY VIEWS IN THE 
CLINTON IMPEACHMENT REPORT WERE 
SIGNED BY AMONG OTHERS CURRENT 
SENATE MINORITY LEADER SCHUMER 
AND HOUSE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 
COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN NADLER AND 
THEY SAY ONE OF THE PROFESSORS 
WHO TESTIFIED, QUOTE, HAS 
METICULOUSLY DOCUMENTED HOW IN 
THE NIXON INQUIRY EVERYONE 
AGREED THE MAJORITY AND MINORITY
OF THE PRESIDENT'S COUNSEL THAT 
THE STANDARD OF PROOF FOR THE 
COMMITTEE AND THE HOUSE WAS 
CLEAR AND VINCING EVIDENCE.
PROFESSOR TURLEY, WOULD YOU 
AGREE THE EVIDENCE COMPILED TO 

English: 
DATE BY HOUSE DEMOCRATS DURING 
THESE CURRENT IMPEACHMENT 
PROCEEDINGS FAILS TO MEET THE 
STANDARD OF CLEAR AND CONVINCING
EVIDENCE?
>> I DO, BY CONSIDERABLE 
MEASURE.
>> LET ME TURN AGAIN TO THE 
BOOK "TO END A PRESIDENCY."
IN THAT BOOK THE AUTHOR STATES 
THE FOLLOWING, QUOTE, EXCEPT IN 
THE MOST EXTRAORDINARY 
CIRCUMSTANCES IMPEACHING WITH A 
PARTIAL OR PLAUS BALI CONTESTED 
UNDERSTANDING OF KEY FACTS IS A 
BAD IDEA.
PROFESSOR TURLEY, DO YOU THINK 
IMPEACHING IN THIS CASE WOULD 
CONSTITUTE IMPEACHING WITH A 
PARTIAL OR BYLAWSIBLY CONTESTED 
UNDERSTANDING OF KEY FACTS?
>> I THINK THAT IS CLEAR.
THIS IS ONE OF THE THINNEST 
RECORDS EVER TO GO FORWARD ON 
IMPEACHMENT.
THE JOHNSON RECORD ONCE AGAIN WE
CAN DEBATE BECAUSE IT WAS THE 
FOURTH ATTEMPT AT IMPEACHMENT.
BUT THIS IS CERTAINLY THE 
THINNEST OF A MODERN RECORD.
IF YOU TAKE A LOOK AT THE SIZE 
OF THE RECORD OF CLINTON AND 
NIXON, THEY WERE MASSIVE IN 
COMPARISON TO THIS, WHICH IS 
ALMOST WAFER THIN IN COMPARISON.
IT HAS LEFT DOUBT NOT JUST IN 
THE MINDS OF PEOPLE SUPPORTING 

English: 
PRESIDENT TRUMP, DOUBTS IN THE 
MINDS OF PEOPLE LIKE MYSELF, 
ABOUT WHAT ACTUALLY OCCURRED.
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 WE'VE
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 NOW TO THE CURRENT 
IMPEACHMENT PROCEDURES.
PROFESSOR TURLEY WOULD YOU AGREE
A FULL AND FAIR ADVERSARY SYSTEM
IN WHICH EACH SIDE GETS TO 
PRESENT ITS OWN EVIDENCE AND 
WITNESSES IS ESSENTIAL TO THE 
SEARCH FOR TRUTH?
>> IT IS AND THE INTERESTING 
THING IS ON THE ENGLISH 
IMPEACHMENT MODEL THAT WAS 
REJECTED BY THE FRAMERS, THEY 
TOOK THE LANGUAGE BUT THEY 
ACTUALLY REJECTED THE MODEL OF 
THE IMPEACHMENT FROM ENGLAND 
PARTICULARLY IN TERMS OF 
HASTINGS, BUT EVEN IN ENGLAND IT
WAS A ROBUST ADVERSARIAL 

English: 
PROCESS.
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 IN THE CLINTON IMPEACHMENT
REPORT THE HOUSE DEMOCRATS WROTE
THE FOLLOWING.
WE BELIEVE IT IS INCUMBENT UPON 
THE COMMITTEE TO PROVIDE THESE 
BASIC PROTECTIONS AS 
REPRESENTATIVE BARBARA JORDAN 
OBSERVED DURING THE WATERGATE 
INQUIRY.
IMPEACHMENT NOT ONLY MANDATES 
DUE PROCESS BUT DUE PROCESS 
QUADRUPLED.
THE SAME MINORITY VIEWS ALSO 
SUPPORT THE RIGHT TO CROSS 
EXAMINATION IN A VARIETY OF 
CONTEXTS IN THE CLINTON EXAMPLE.
NOW, PROFESSOR TURLEY, YOU 
DESCRIBE HOW MONICA LEWINSKY 
WASN'T ALLOWED TO BE CALLED AS A
WITNESS IN THE SENATE 
IMPEACHMENT TRIAL.
AND AFTER HER ORIGINAL TESTIMONY
SHE REVEALED HOW SHE HAD BEEN 
TOLD TO LIE ABOUT HER 
RELATIONSHIP WITH PRESIDENT 
CLINTON BY HIS CLOSE ASSOCIATES.
IT IS A CAUTIONARY TALE ABOUT 
THE DANGERS OF DENYING KEY 

English: 
WITNESSES.
CAN YOU ELABORATE ON THAT?
>> THE ONLY REASON I MENTIONED 
THAT WAS IT WAS IN THE PORTION 
OF MY TESTIMONY DEALING WITH HOW
YOU STRUCTURE THESE 
IMPEACHMENTS.
WHAT HAPPENED DURING THE CLINTON
IMPEACHMENT AND IT CAME UP 
DURING THE HEARING THAT WE HAD 
PREVIOUSLY, WAS THE QUESTION OF 
HOW MUCH THE HOUSE HAD TO DO IN 
TERMS OF CLINTON IMPEACHMENT 
BECAUSE YOU HAD THIS ROBUST 
RECORD CREATED BY THE 
INDEPENDENT COUNSEL AND THEY HAD
A LOT OF TESTIMONY, VIDEOTAPES, 
ETCETERA.
SO THE HOUSE BASICALLY 
INCORPORATED THAT AND THE 
ASSUMPTION WAS THOSE WITNESSES 
WOULD BE CALLED AT THE SENATE.
BUT THERE WAS A FAILURE AT THE 
SENATE.
THE RULES THAT WERE APPLIED IN 
MY VIEW WERE NOT FAIR.
THEY RESTRICTED WITNESSES TO 
ONLY THREE.
THAT'S WHY I BROUGHT UP THE 
LEWINSKY MATTER.
ABOUT A YEAR AGO MONICA LEWINSKY
REVEALED 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.

English: 
IF YOU ACTUALLY CALLED LIVE 
WITNESSES, THAT TYPE OF 
INFORMATION WOULD HAVE BEEN PART
OF THE RECORD.
>> I YIELD BACK.
>> THE GENTLEMAN YIELDS BACK.
I NOTE THIS IS THE MOMENT IN 
WHICH THE WHITE HOUSE WOULD HAVE
HAD AN OPPORTUNITY TO QUESTION 
THE WITNESSES BUT THEY DECLINED 
OUR INVITATION.
SO WE WILL NOW PROCEED TO 
QUESTIONS UNDER THE FIVE-MINUTE 
RULE.
I YIELD MYSELF FIVE MINUTES FOR 
THE PURPOSE OF QUESTIONING THE 
WITNESSES.
MR. FELDMAN, WOULD YOU RESPOND 
TO PROFESSOR TURLEY'S COMMENTS 
ABOUT BRIBERY ESPECIALLY ABOUT 
THE RELEVANCE OF THE ELEMENTS OF
CRIMINAL BRIBERY?
>> YES.
BRIBERY HAD A CLEAR MEANING TO 
THE FRAMERS.
IT WAS WHEN THE PRESIDENT, USING
THE POWER OF HIS OFFICE, 
SOLICITS OR RECEIVES SOMETHING 
OF PERSONAL VALUE FROM SOMEONE 
AFFECTED BY HIS OFFICIAL POWER.
>> HEARING NOW GOING INTO THE 
NEXT PHASE WHERE EACH OF THE 
MEMBERS GETS THEIR FIVE MINUTES 
TO QUESTION THE WITNESSES.
WHAT WE HEARD THE LAST 45 
MINUTES, THE RANKING MEMBER AND 

English: 
THE COUNSEL FOR THE REPUBLICANS 
LIMITING THEIR QUESTIONS ONLY TO
JONATHAN TURLEY, WHO MAKES THE 
CASE THAT THE ELEMENTS AREN'T 
THERE FOR AN IMPEACHMENT RIGHT 
NOW AND THAT THE PROCESS IS 
FLAWED.
WITH MY ESTEEMED PANEL I'VE GOT 
FORMER U.S. ATTORNEY AND SENIOR 
FBI OFFICIAL, CHUCK ROSENBERG 
WITH ME.
I WANT TO ASK YOU, SPECIFICALLY,
WHAT WE HEARD FROM JONATHAN 
TURLEY, SO DIFFERENT THAN WHAT 
WE HEARD FROM THE OTHERS, WHO 
SAID THAT IF THIS ISN'T THE CASE
RIPE FOR IMPEACHMENT, NONE IS, 
I'M PARAPHRASING THERE.
GIVE ME THE LEGAL DAYLIGHT 
BETWEEN THE TWO SIDES.
>> SURE.
PROFESSOR TURLEY IS ESSENTIALLY 
SAYING THAT THERE MIGHT BE AN 
IMPEACHMENT CASE.
IT'S JUST NOT THERE YET.
I DISAGREE WITH THAT.
BUT LET ME MAKE HIS ARGUMENT 
JUST SO YOUR VIEWERS WILL 
UNDERSTAND IT ALTHOUGH THEY 
PROBABLY UNDERSTAND IT FAR 
BETTER THAN I DO.
HE SAID THIS WHOLE PROCESS IS 
GOING TOO QUICKLY.
IT'S FAST AND NARROW IN HIS 
WORDS MEANING THERE ARE OBVIOUS 

English: 
WITNESSES WE HAVEN'T HEARD FROM 
YET INCLUDING JOHN BOLTON AND 
SOME OF THE OTHERS WHO WORKED IN
AND AROUND THE PRESIDENT.
>> MICK MULVANEY.
>> EVEN POTENTIALLY RUDY 
GUILIANI ALTHOUGH I IMAGINE HE 
HAS OTHER GOOD REASONS NOT TO 
WANT TO TESTIFY PUBLICLY.
THAT SAID, THE DEMOCRATS ARE UP 
AGAINST A CLOCK.
WE'VE TALKED ABOUT THAT BEFORE.
THE PRESIDENT CONTINUES TO FIGHT
REQUESTS FOR DOCUMENTS AND 
REQUESTS FOR WITNESSES IN 
FEDERAL COURT.
IF HE'S DOING THAT IN BAD FAITH 
AND THERE'S SOME SUGGESTION THAT
HE IS, IN ORDER TO RUN OUT THE 
CLOCK, I DON'T BLAME THE 
DEMOCRATS FOR WANTING TO MOVE 
MORE QUICKLY.
WHAT TURLEY IS SIMPLY SAYING IS 
IMPEACHMENT IS OF SUCH 
MAGNITUDE, IT IS OF SUCH MOMENT 
THAT WE NEED TO SLOW IT DOWN AND
COLLECT MORE INFORMATION.
I THINK THE DEMOCRATIC RESPONSE 
IS, WE'D BE GLAD TO IF THE 
PRESIDENT WOULD PROVIDE IT.
>> BECAUSE THEY'VE SUBPOENAED 
WITNESSES AND ASKED FOR 
WITNESSES WHO DECLINED TO 
APPEAR.
>> CORRECT.
>> LET ME BRING IN ANDREA 
MITCHELL RIGHT NOW.

English: 
I WANT YOUR THOUGHTS ON THESE 
DIAMETRICALLY OPPOSED VIEWPOINTS
ON WHERE WE ARE VISA VI 
IMPEACHMENT.
>> IT JUST EMPHASIZES, RATIFIES 
HOW PARTISAN THE DIVIDE IS.
THAT THERE CAN BE NO AGREEMENT, 
THAT THERE HAS BEEN NO HOUSE 
REPUBLICAN MEMBER, NOT EVEN WILL
HURD WHEN HE MADE HIS CLOSING 
STATEMENT AT THE END OF THE 
INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE MEETING, 
SOMEONE GOING AGAINST CONGRESS, 
LEAVING, A FORMER CIA OFFICER, 
DID NOT ACCEPT IT WAS AN 
IMPEACHABLE CASE AND THAT IT 
ROSE TO THE LEVEL OF 
IMPEACHMENT.
HE BASICALLY SAID LET THE VOTERS
DECIDE.
HE WAS THE ONLY REPUBLICAN THEY 
HAD BEEN HOPING FOR.
YOU HAVE NONE OF THESE HOUSE 
MEMBERS WILLING TO GO OVER.
NO REPUBLICAN SENATORS YET 
WILLING TO ABANDON THEIR 
ARGUMENTS THAT WE ARE TOO CLOSE 
TO THE ELECTION.
THAT THE MILITARY AID GOT TO 

English: 
UKRAINE.
THAT IS ONE OF THE ARGUMENTS 
PROFESSOR FELDMAN AND GERHARDT 
QUICKLY DISPATCHED, SAYING THE 
BRIBE ITSELF, THE SOLICITATION 
ITSELF IS ENOUGH TO BE 
IMPEACHABLE.
IT DOESN'T HAVE TO BE RECEIVED.
THAT YOU DON'T HAVE TO HAVE THE 
INVESTIGATION FROM ZELENSKY, 
JUST THE SOLICITATION IN ITSELF 
IS AN IMPEACHABLE OFFENSE.
HERE FROM TURLEY YOU HAVE A 
COMPLETELY CONTRADICTORY 
ARGUMENT.
I THINK PEOPLE ARE GOING TO 
CHOOSE WHAT THEY ARE PREDISPOSED
TO BELIEVE.
I DID THINK PAMELA CARLIN WAS SO
WONDERFUL WITH HER EXAMPLES IN 
TALKING ABOUT LOUISIANA AND 
THINGS LIKE THAT.
THE THANKSGIVING TURKEY WHERE 
SHE HAD A MAIL ORDER TURKEY 
BECAUSE SHE WAS SO ENGAGED IN 
STUDYING FOR TODAY.
IT WAS A GOOD EXPLANATION AND I 
DON'T THINK ANYONE WOULD BE 
PERSUADED.
>> IN THE MEANTIME, ANDREA, HAVE
DEMOCRATS TIPPED THEIR HAND IF 

English: 
ONE OF THE ARTICLES IN THE 
IMPEACHMENT, IF THEY WANT TO GO 
THAT FAR, WILL BE FROM THE 
RUSSIA REPORT, THE MUELLER 
REPORT, AND THE ISSUE OF 
OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE.
>> ABSOLUTELY.
I SAW THAT AND WE TALKED ABOUT 
IT EARLIER.
IN CHAIRMAN NADLER'S OPENING 
STATEMENT WHERE HE LAID OUT 
OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE AS WELL 
AS OBSTRUCTION OF CONGRESS.
OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE IS THE 
MUELLER REPORT, THE SECOND 
CHAPTER OF THE MUELLER REPORT.
TEN OBSTRUCTION CASES THAT THEY 
SUGGESTED COULD HAVE BEEN 
PURSUED IF NOT FOR THE OFFICE OF
LEGAL COUNSEL DECISION, THE 
DECISION BY THE JUSTICE 
DEPARTMENT THAT A PRESIDENT 
CANNOT BE PROSECUTED WHILE IN 
OFFICE.
THAT CASE STEMS FROM MUELLER.
OBSTRUCTION OF CONGRESS COMES 
FROM THE PRESIDENT'S RESISTANCE 
TO SUBPOENAS AND NOT LETTING KEY
WITNESSES TESTIFY WHETHER MICK 
MULVANEY, RICK PERRY, BOLTON 
POTENTIALLY.
THE PRESIDENT HIMSELF PUTTING 
OVER, SENDING OVER DOCUMENTS 

English: 
CERTAINLY, ALL THE STATE 
DEPARTMENT DOCUMENTS.
THAT IS OBSTRUCTION OF CONGRESS 
ACCORDING TO THREE OF THE FOUR 
PROFESSORS TODAY.
SO HE TIPPED HIS HAND I BELIEVE 
THAT THEY ARE GOING TO BE AS 
CHUCK AND YOU ARE ALSO 
DISCUSSING TODAY, CHUCK TODD, 
GOING TO THE LARGER CASE AND 
DIPPING INTO THE MUELLER REPORT 
AT THE INSISTENCE OF SOME OF THE
MEMBERS OF THE DEMOCRATIC 
CAUCUS.
>> THE PRESIDENT HIMSELF IS ON 
HIS WAY BACK TO WASHINGTON FROM 
LONDON WHERE HE ATTENDED THE 
NATO CONFERENCE.
I WANT TO BRING IN FROM THE 
WHITE HOUSE NOW CORRESPONDENT 
PETER ALEXANDER WHO CAN TELL US 
A LITTLE MORE ABOUT HOW THIS IS 
BEING READ AT THE WHITE HOUSE 
TODAY.
>> Reporter: WE'VE BEEN HEARING 
FROM THE PRESIDENT'S PRESS 
SECRETARY STEPHANIE GRISHAM WHO 
IS HIGHLY CRITICAL OF WHAT WE'VE
BEEN WITNESSING OVER THE DAY 
EFFECTIVELY SAYING THREE OF THE 
FOUR EXPERTS TESTIFYING TODAY 
HAVE ANTI-TRUMP BIASSES 
REFERRING TO THE THREE 

English: 
DEMOCRATIC CONSTITUTIONAL 
SCHOLARS WHO HAVE BEEN 
TESTIFYING AND IN FACT WHAT THE 
PRESIDENT HAS DONE IS GROUNDS 
FOR REMOVAL.
THE PRESIDENT IN SOME OF HIS 
PUBLIC COMMENTS EARLIER TODAY 
WHILE MEETING WITH WORLD LEADERS
OVERSEAS AT THE NATO SUMMIT SORT
OF PUT ON HIS FORMER TELEVISION 
PRODUCER OF THE APPRENTICE HAT 
CASTING THIS IN TV TERMS SAYING 
IT WOULD BE BORING AND NOBODY 
WOULD BE WATCHING.
THE WHITE HOUSE TAKEAWAY HERE, 
LESTER, IS EFFECTIVELY THAT 
NOTHING IS CHANGED BY THIS.
THEY CONTINUE TO SORT OF DERIVE 
THIS ENTIRE PROCESS AS A SHAM.
IT IS OBVIOUS THE WHITE HOUSE 
AND REPUBLICANS AND DEMOCRATS 
ARE WORKING FROM VERY DIFFERENT 
PLAYBOOKS HERE.
THE PRESIDENT POOH-POOHING ALL 
OF THIS.
OBVIOUSLY, HOWEVER, BEHIND THE 
SCENES THEY'VE BEEN PREPARING 
QUIETLY FOR THE POTENTIAL FOR A 
SENATE TRIAL WITH NEW 
INDICATIONS THE HOUSE WOULD 
LIKELY VOTE BEFORE CHRISTMAS TO 
APPROVE ANY POTENTIAL ARTICLES 
OF IMPEACHMENT.
>> LET'S GO TO JEFF BENNETT NOW 
ON CAPITOL HILL, WATCHING THESE 
HEARINGS FROM THERE.

English: 
WHAT HAS STOOD OUT TO YOU SO 
FAR?
>> YOU KNOW, IT IS INTERESTING.
THE CASE JONATHAN TURLEY WAS 
MAKING THAT DEMOCRATS ARE GOING 
TOO QUICKLY INTO THIS 
IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY IS THE SAME 
THING HOUSE SPEAKER NANCY PELOSI
MADE MONTHS AGO BEFORE SHE 
EMBRACED THE IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY
IN WHICH WE NOW FIND OURSELVES.
SHE SAID AT THE TIME, THIS IS 
OVER THE SUMMER, THAT IF THE 
DEMOCRATS WERE TO MOVE FORWARD 
THEY WOULD HAVE TO GO SLOWLY.
IT WOULD HAVE TO BE BIPARTISAN.
OTHERWISE IT WOULD BE TOO 
DIVISIVE A PROCESS FOR THE 
NATION TO ENDURE.
THAT ALL CHANGED, LESTER, WITH 
THE EMERGENCE OF THE 
WHISTLE-BLOWER COMPLAINT, WHICH 
SHE SAID THEN WAS THAT PRESIDENT
TRUMP'S BEHAVIOR PRESENTED A 
CLEAR AND PRESENT DANGER.
THAT HE VIOLATED HIS OATH OF 
OFFICE.
HE UNDERMINED NATIONAL SECURITY.
HE UNDERCUT THE SECURITY OF THE 
ELECTION SYSTEM.
THAT IS WHY HOUSE DEMOCRATS HAVE
CHARTED THIS PATH THAT THEY SAY 

English: 
IS FAST FEENG USED.
THAT IS WHY HE HAS BEEN SAYING 
FOR WEEKS NOW THEY HOPE TO WRAP 
UP THEIR PORTION OF THE 
IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY BY THE END 
OF THE YEAR.
AS WE MENTIONED BEFORE WE NOW 
HAVE TWO MEMBERS TELLING US THAT
IS THEIR UNDERSTANDING.
THAT THE HOUSE OF 
REPRESENTATIVES WILL VOTE ON 
WHATEVER ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT
THAT THIS COMMITTEE, THE 
JUDICIARY COMMITTEE, DRAFTS.
THAT WOULD THEN KICK THIS OVER 
TO THE SENATE TO BEGIN THE TRIAL
SOMETIME IN THE NEW YEAR.
INTERESTINGLY ENOUGH, THE 
REPORTERS GOT A CHANCE TO TALK 
TO THE SENATE MAJORITY LEADER 
MITCH McCONNELL YESTERDAY AND 
EVEN HE ISN'T FULLY CLEAR HOW 
THAT PROCESS WILL PLAY OUT.
THERE ARE A LOT OF UNANSWERED 
QUESTIONS HERE ABOUT WHAT 
EX-AKTLY COMES NEXT.
>> THANKS.
>> IN THE TIME WE HAVE LEFT, IS 
THERE A DANGER IN GOING TOO FAST
AT THIS POINT BEING DRIVEN BY 
THIS ELECTORAL CLOCK?
>> NOW I'M THINKING LIKE A 
FEDERAL PROSECUTOR, WHICH IS 
WHAT I USED TO, AND MY MANTRA 
ALWAYS WAS, THERE IS NO SUCH 
THING AS TOO MUCH EVIDENCE.
WE HAD STATUTES OF LIMITATIONS.
WE HAD CASES THAT HAD TO BE 
BROUGHT WITHIN A CERTAIN NUMBER 
OF YEARS.
WE ALWAYS TRIED TO GATHER 
EVERYTHING BECAUSE YOU WANT TO 

English: 
BE JUST.
YOU DON'T JUST WANT TO WIN.
YOU WANT TO BE JUST.
LOOK, I THINK THERE IS AN 
ADVANTAGE IN GATHERING AS MUCH 
AS YOU POSSIBLY CAN BUT I 
UNDERSTAND THE IMPERATIVE TO 
MOVE QUICKLY.
>> CHUCK ROSENBERG, ALWAYS GOOD 
TO HAVE YOU HERE.
THAT CONCLUDES OUR COVERAGE OF 
THE HOUSE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE'S 
IMPEACHMENT HEARINGS FOR NOW.
COVERAGE WILL CONTINUE ON MSNBC 
AND NBC NEWS.COM.
I'LL BE BACK WITH THE FULL 
WRAPPUP TONIGHT ON "NIGHTLY 
NEWS."

English: 
FOR ALL OF US AT NBC NEWS I'M 
LESTER HOLT IN NEW YORK.
HEARING HAS NOT BEGUN.
HOW IMPORTANT IS IT -- 
>> THE HOUSE COMMITTEE ON THE 
JUDICIARY WILL COME TO ORDER.
MR. CHAIRMAN, YOU ARE RESERVING 
THE RIGHT TO OBJECT. 
>> OBJECTION IS NOTED.
I RESERVE THE RIGHT TO OBJECT.

Spanish: 
ABIERTOS,, QUIZÁ FUE UN ERROR YA
QUE LA AUDIENCIA NO HA COME
O
COMENZADO. NO PREGUNTAMOS CUÁL 
ES LA IMPORTANCIA
>>> EL COMITÉ PIDE ORDEN. SE P
E

English: 
>>. 
>> PURSUANT TO CLAUSE RULE 11 
MINORITY DAY OF HEARINGS ON THIS
SUBJECT SIGNED BY ALL THE 
R
REPUBLICAN MEMBERS. 
>> I COULD NOT UNDERSTAND WHAT 
YOU WERE SAYING. 
>> PURSUANT TO CLAUSE 2-J-1 OF 
RULE 11 I'M FURNISHING YOU WITH 
DEMAND FOR MINORITY DAY OF 
HEARINGS ON THIS SUBJECT SIGNED 
BY ALL THE REPUBLICAN MEMBERS OF
THE COMMITTEE AND I WOULD 
REQUEST THAT YOU SET THIS DATE 
BEFORE THE COMMITTEE VOTES ON 
ANY ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT.
>> I WITH DRAW MY RESERVATION.
>> WE WILL RULE ON THIS LATER.
DECORUM IS PRESENT.
THIS IS THE FIRST HEARING 
PURSUANT TO HOUSE RESOLUTION 660

Spanish: 
PUEDE HACER UN RECESO EN 
CUALQUIER MOMENTO. HAY DERECHO 
OBJETAR.
SEÑOR PRESIDENTE, PIDO LA 
SUSPENSIÓN. A PARTIR DE LA NORMA
11 PIDO AUDIENCIAS DE MINORÍA, 
SOLICITÓ  FIRMADA POR TODOS LOS 
MIEMBROS REPUBLICANOS DEL CO
E
COMITÉ.
>>> RETIRÓ MI RESERVA. VAMOS A 
CONFIRMAR ESTO MÁS TARDE. ESTA
E
ES LA PRIMERA AUDIENCIA QUE 

Spanish: 
REALIZAMOS EN BASE A LA 
RESOLUCIÓN 66, EEN BASE A LOS 
PROCEDIMIENTOS DESCRITOS EN LA 
MISMA. ASÍ PROCEDER AL COMITÉ,  
HARÉ UNA DECLARACIÓN INICIAL 
LUEGO LO HARÁ EL MICRO DE MAYOR 
RANGO. CADA TESTIGO TENDRÁ 10 
MINUTOS Y LUEGO PASAREMOS A LAS 
PREGUNTAS. AGUA HORA MI DEC
C
DECLARACIÓN INICIAL
>>> SEÑOR PRESIDENTE
>>> TENGO TIEMPO PARA UNA 
DECLARACIÓN NO PARA UNA 
INTERVENCIÓN PARLAMENTARIA. NO 
HAY DUDA DE QUE EL 25 DE JULIO
E
EL PRESIDENTE TRUMP LLAMÓ A SU 
PAR DE UCRANIA Y LE PIDIÓ UN 
FAVOR.
EL PRESIDENTE Y SUS HOMBRES 
QUERÍAN VENTAJA EN LA PRÓXIMA 
ELECCIÓN, COMO UNA INVESTIGACIÓN

English: 
AND THE SPECIAL PROCEDURES THAT 
ARE DESCRIBED IN SECTION 4-A OF 
THAT RESOLUTION.
HERE'S HOW THE COMMITTEE WILL 
PROCEED FOR THIS HEARING.
I WILL MAKE AN OPENING STATEMENT
AND RECOGNIZE THE RANKING MEMBER
FOR AN OPENING STATEMENT.
EACH WITNESS WILL HAVE TEN 
MINUTES TO MAKE THEIR STATEMENTS
AND THEN WE WILL PROCEED TO 
QUESTIONS.
I WILL NOW RECOGNIZE MYSELF FOR 
AN OPENING STATEMENT. 
>> MR. CHAIRMAN, PARLIAMENTARY 
INQUIRY.
>> I HAVE THE TIME FOR AN 
OPENING STATEMENT.
THE FACTS BEFORE US ARE 
UNDISPUTED.
ON JULY 25th, PRESIDENT TRUMP 
CALLED PRESIDENT ZALENSKI OF 
UKRAINE AND IN PRESIDENT TRUMP'S
WORDS ASKED HIM FOR A FAVOR.
THAT 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 

Spanish: 
A SUS ADVERSARIOS POLÍTICOS. 
PARA OBTENER ESA VENTAJA 
POLÍTICA, EL PRESIDENTE RETUVO Y
DEMORÓ UNA REUNIÓN SOLICITADA LA
CASA BLANCA Y ASISTENCIA MILITAR
CLAVE PARA UN ALIADO VULNERABLE.
CUANDO EL CONGRESO SE ENTERÓ Y 
COMENZÓ A INVESTIGAR, EL 
PRESIDENTE TRUMP  HIZO LO 
IMPOSIBLE PARA CUBRIR LAS 
RASTROS DE LO QUE HABÍA HECHO. 
CUANDO LOS TESTIGOS LO DESOVE 10
DESOBEDECIERON Y CONTARON LA 
VERDAD, FUERON ATACADOS 
DURAMENTE,, LLAMADOS TRAIDORES Y
MENTIROSOS.
ESTA NO ES LA PRIMERA VEZ  EN 
QUE EL PRESIDENTE HA SEGUIDO 
ESTE PATRÓN DE CONDUCTA. EN 

English: 
ADVERSARIES BY A GOVERNMENT.
HE 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 
INVESTIGATE, PRESIDENT TRUMP 
TOOK EXTRAORDINARY AND 
UNPRECEDENTED STEPS TO COVER UP 
HIS EFFORTS AND TO WITH HOLD 
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 AND PROMISING THEY 
WOULD GO THROUGH SOME THINGS, 
CLOSED QUOTE.
OF COURSE THIS IS NOT THE FIRST 
TIME THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP HAS 
ENGAGED IN THIS PATTERN OF 
CONDUCT.
IN 2016, THE RUSSIAN GOVERNMENT 
ENGAGED IN A SWEEPING AND 
SYSTEMATIC CAMPAIGN OF 
INTERFERENCE IN OUR ELECTIONS.

Spanish: 
2016, EL GOBIERNO RUSO REALIZÓ 
UNA CAMPAÑA DE INTERFERENCIA  EN
NUESTRA REUNIÓN. EL INFORME  DE 
ROBERT MUELLER DICE "QUE EL 
GOBIERNO RUSO TRABAJÓ EN PRO DEL
RESULTADO FAVORABLE PARA TRUMP".
VIMOS ESTO EN VIVO CUANDO EL 
PRESIDENTE PIDIÓ A RUSIA JA QUE 
HARÁ SU OPONENTE, COSA QUE 
INTENTE TO HACER  AL DÍA 
SIGUIENTE. CUANDO EL 
DEPARTAMENTO DE JUSTICIA TRATÓ 
DE DAR A CONOCER LA AMPLITUD DE 
ESTA INTROMISIÓN, EL PRESIDENTE 
OBSTRUYÓ LA INVESTIGACIÓN, 
IGNORÓ CITACIONES, SOLICITUDES 
DE DOCUMENTOS Y ATACÓ E INTIMIÓO
A TESTIGOS. EL NIVEL DE 
OBSTRUCCIÓN DE ESTE GOBIERNO NO 

English: 
IN THE WORDS OF SPECIAL COUNSEL 
ROBERT MUELLER, QUOTE, THE 
RUSSIAN GOVERNMENT PERCEIVED IT 
WOULD BENEFIT FROM A TRUMP 
PRESIDENCY AND WORKED TO SECURE 
THAT OUTCOME.
THE PRESIDENT WELCOMED THAT 
INTERFERENCE.
WE SAW THIS IN REAL TIME WHEN 
PRESIDENT TRUMP ASKED RUSSIA TO 
HACK HIS POLITICAL OPPONENTS.
THE NEXT DAY A RUSSIAN MILITARY 
INTELLIGENCE UNIT ATTEMPTED TO 
HACK THAT POLITICAL OPPONENT.
WHEN HIS OWN JUSTICE DEPARTMENT 
TRIED TO UNCOVER THE EXTENT TO 
WHICH A FOREIGN GOVERNMENT 
UNCOVERED OUR LAWS, PRESIDENT 
TRUMP TOOK EXTRAORDINARY AND 
UNPRECEDENTED STEPS TO ORDER 
SUBPOENAS AND ORDER THE 
CREATIONS OF FALSE RECORDS AND 
PUBLICLY ATTACKING AND 
INTIMIDATING WITNESSES.
THEN NOW THIS ADMINISTRATION'S 
LEVEL OF OBSTRUCTION SOUTHERN 
LAND WITHOUT PRECEDENT.
NO OTHER PRESIDENT VOWED TO 
QUOTE FIGHT ALL THE SUBPOENAS, 

Spanish: 
TIENE PRECEDENTES. NINGÚN 
PRESIDENTE HA PROMETIDO LUCHAR 
CONTRA LA CITACIONES COMO LO HA 
HECHO EL. EN 1974, EL PRESIDENTE
NIXON ENTREGÓ LOS ANTECEDENTES 
SOLICITADOS, EL PRESIDENTE 
CLINTON SE HIZO UN EXAMEN DE 
SANGRE. EL PRESIDENTE TRUMP SOLO
ENTREGÓ UN DOCUMENTO  Y PIDIÓ A 
LOS TESTIGOS NO HABLAR. ESOS SON
LOS HECHOS.
LA INVESTIGACIÓN REGRESA A 
NUESTRO COMITÉ PARA REVISAR LOS 
HECHOS QUE DEJAN CLARO EL 
COMPORTAMIENTO DEL PRESIDENTE 
QUE AGRADECIÓ ESTA INTROMISIÓN 
EXTRANJERA EN LA ELECCIÓN DE 
2016 Y LA EXIGIÓ  PARA 2020. EN 
AMBAS OPORTUNIDADES FUE 
DESCUBIERTO Y EN AMBAS HIZO LO 
POSIBLE POR EVITAR QUE EL PUEBLO

English: 
UNQUOTE, AS PRESIDENT TRUMP 
PROMISED.
IN THE 1974 IMPEACHMENT 
PROCEEDINGS PRESIDENT NIXON 
PRODUCED DOZENS OF RECORDINGS.
IN 1998, PRESIDENT CLINTON 
PHYSICALLY GAVE HIS BLOOD.
PRESIDENT TRUMP BY CONTRAST HAS 
REFUSED TO PRODUCE A SINGLE 
DOCUMENT AND DIRECTED EVERY 
WITNESS NOT TO TESTIFY.
THOSE ARE THE FACTS BEFORE US.
THE IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY MOVED 
BACK TO THE HOUSE JUDICIARY 
COMMITTEE AND AS WE BEGIN A 
REVIEW OF THE FACTS, THE 
PRESIDENT'S PATTERN OF BEHAVIOR 
BECOMES CLEAR.
PRESIDENT TRUMP WELCOMED FOREIGN
INTERFERENCE IN THE 2016 
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.

Spanish: 
SE ENTERARA DE LO QUE HABÍA 
HECHO.
EL 24 DE JULIO UN TESTIGO HABLÓ 
ANTE NOSOTROS, NOS PIDIÓ SER 
CONSCIENTES DEL RIESGO PARA EL 
PAÍS. DIJO,  HE VISTO A NUESTRA 
DEMOCRACIA EN RIESGO,, LA 
INTROMISIÓN RUSA  ES DE LOS MÁS 
GRAVES Y TODOS LOS ES
ESTADOUNIDENSES DEBERÍAN 
PREOCUPARSE.
EL PRESIDENTE TRUMP LLAMÓ A SU 
PAR UCRANIANO AL DÍA SIGUIENTE Y
LE PIDIÓ INVESTIGAR A SU 
OPONENTE POLÍTICO, ANALIZAMOS SI
ESTE COMPORTAMIENTO  JUSTIFICA 
UN JUICIO POLÍTICO. BUSCA PONER 
EN CONTEXTO LA ACCIÓN DEL 
PRESIDENTE. DESDE SUS INICIOS,  
ESTE COMITÉ HA HECHO JUICIO 
POLÍTICO  SOLO A DOS PRESI
S

English: 
THE SPECIAL COUNSEL TESTIFIED 
BEFORE THIS COMMITTEE.
HE EMPLORED US TO SEE THE THREAT
TO THIS COUNTRY.
OVER THE COURSE OF MY CAREER I 
HAVE SEEN A NUMBER OF CHALLENGES
TO OUR DEMOCRACY.
THE EFFORTS TO INTERFERE IN OUR 
ELECTIONS IS AMONG THE MOST 
SERIOUS.
THIS DESERVES THE ATTENTION OF 
EVERY AMERICAN, CLOSE QUOTE.
IGNORING THAT WARNING PRESIDENT 
TRUMP CALLED THE UKRAINIAN 
PRESIDENT THE NEXT DAY TO ASK 
HIM TO INVESTIGATE THE 
PRESIDENT'S POLITICAL OPPONENTS.
AS WE EXERCISE OUR 
RESPONSIBILITY TO DETERMINE 
WHETHER THIS PATTERN OF BEHAVIOR
CONSTITUTES AN IMPEACHMENT 
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 RE-SIGNED.
THIS COMMITTEE VOTED TO IMPEACH 
TWO PRESIDENTS FOR OBSTRUCTING 

Spanish: 
PRESIDENTES, EL TERCERO RENUNCÓO
EN PLENA INVESTIGACIÓN. SE HA 
VOTADO A FAVOR DE UNA IN
INVESTIGACIÓN DE UN PRESIDENTE 
POR OBSTRUCCIÓN. EN ESTE CASO  
TAMBIÉN SE RECOMIENDA. NUNCA 
ANTES EN NUESTRA HISTORIA 
HABÍAMOS DEBIDO ANALIZAR EL 
COMPORTAMIENTO UN PRESIDENTE QUE
PARECE HABER PEDIDO FAVORES 
POLÍTICOS A UN GOBIERNO 
EXTRANJERO. NUNCA UN PRESIDENTE 
HABÍA REALIZADO UNA CONDUCTA 
COMO ESTA. LOS PATRIOTAS QUE 
FUNDARON NUESTRO PAÍS NO ERAN 
TEMEROSOS, FUERON A LA GUERRA, 
VIVIERON LA VIOLENCIA, 
DERRIBARON A UN REY, PERO AÚN 
TEMÍAN UNA GRAN AMENAZA, LA 

English: 
JUSTICE.
WE VOTED TO IMPEACH ONE 
PRESIDENT FROM OBSTRUCTING A 
CONGRESSIONAL INVESTIGATION.
TO THE EXTENT IT FITS THESE 
CATEGORIES THERE'S PRECEDENT FOR
RECOMMENDING IMPEACHMENT HERE.
BUT NEVER BEFORE HAVE WE BEEN 
FORCED TO CONSIDER THE CONDUCT 
OF A PRESIDENT THAT APPEARS TO 
HAVE SOLICITED PERSONAL 
POLITICAL FAVORS FROM A FOREIGN 
GOVERNMENT.
NEVER BEFORE HAS A PRESIDENT 
ENGAGED IN THE COURSE OF CONDUCT
THAT INCLUDED ALL OF THE ACTS 
THAT MOST CONCERNED THE FRAMERS.
THE PATRIOTS THAT FOUNDED OUR 
COUNTRY WERE NOT FEARFUL MEN.
BEFORE THE WAR THEY WITNESSED 
TERRIBLE VIOLENCE.
THEY OVERTHREW A KING.
AS THEY MET THE FRAME WORK OF 
THE CONSTITUTION, THOSE PATRIOTS
STILL FEARING ONE THREAT ABOVE 
ALL.
BARRING INTERFERENCE IN OUR 
ELECTIONS.
THEY JUST OPPOSED THE TYRANT.
THEY WERE DEEPLY WORRIED THAT WE

English: 
WOULD LOSE OUR NEWFOUND LIBERTY 
NOT THROUGH A FOREIGN WAR BUT 
THROUGH CORRUPTION FROM WITHIN 
AND IN THE EARLY YEARS OF THE 
REPUBLIC THEY ASKED EACH OF US 
TO BE VIGILANT TO THAT THREAT.
WASHINGTON WARNED US TO BE 
CONSTANTLY AWAKE SINCE HISTORY 
AND EXPERIENCE PROVE THAT 
FOREIGN INFLUENCE IS ONE OF THE 
MOST VAINFUL FOES OF REPUBLICAN 
GOVERNMENT.
HAMILTON'S WARNING WAS MORE 
SPECIFIC AND MORE DIER.
IN THE FEDERALIST PAPERS HE 
WROTE THAT THE MOST DEADLY 
ADVERSARIES OF REPUBLICAN 
GOVERNMENT WOULD ALMOST 
CERTAINLY ATTEMPT TO RAISE A 
CREATURE OF THEIR OWN TO THE 
CHIEF MAGISTRY OF THE UNION.
WE SHOULD EXPECT OUR FOREIGN 
ADVERSARIES TO TARGET OUR 
ELECTIONS AND FIND OURSELVES IN 
GREAT DANGER IF THE PRESIDENT 
WILLINGLY OPENS THE DOOR TO 

Spanish: 
INTERVENCIÓN EXTRANJERA EN 
NUESTRAS ELECCIONES. LES 
PREOCUPABA QUE NUESTRA LIBERTAD 
SE VEÍA AMENAZADA POR CORRUPCIÓN
INTERNA.
EN LOS PRIMEROS AÑOS DE NUESTRA 
REPÚBLICA NOS PIDIERON ESTAR 
ATENTOS. WASHINGTON PIDIÓ ESTAR 
CONSCIENTES Y ATENTOS A LA 
INFLUENCIA EXTRANJERA.
ADAMS ESCRIBIÓ, "MIENTRAS HAYA 
ELECCIONES, PERSISTE EL RIESGO  
DE INJERENCIA EXTRANJERA".
HAMILTON EESCRIBIÓ QUE EL PEOR 
ADVERSARIO PARA LA REPÚBLICA  
SERÍA CREAR UNA CRIATURA QUE 
AMENAZARA LA UNIÓN.

English: 
THEIR INFLUENCE.
WHAT KIND OF PRESIDENT WOULD DO 
THAT.
HOW WOULD WE KNOW IF THE 
PRESIDENT BETRAYED HIS COUNTRY 
IN THIS MANNER?
HOW WILL WE KNOW IF HE BETRAYED 
HIS COUNTRY IN THIS MANNER FOR 
PERSONAL GAIN.
HAMILTON HAD A RESPONSE TO THAT 
AS WELL.
HE WROTE WHEN A MAN ON 
PRINCIPLED AND PRIVATE LIFE 
DESPERATE IN HIS FORTUNE AND 
BOLD IN HIS TEMPER POSSESS THE 
CONSIDERABLE TALENTS, WHEN SUCH 
A MAN MOUNT THE HOBBY HORSE OF 
POPULARITY TO JOIN THE CRY TO 
TAKE EVERY OPPORTUNITY OF 
EMBARRASSING THE GENERAL 
GOVERNMENT AND BRINGING IT UNDER
SUSPICION, IT MAY JUSTLY BE 
EXPECTED THAT HIS OBJECT IS TO 
THROW THINGS INTO CONFUSION THAT
HE MAY RIDE THE STORM AND DIRECT
THE WHIRLWIND.
LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, THE STORM 
IN WHICH WE FIND OURSELVES IN 

Spanish: 
NOS PODRÍAMOS ENCONTRAR EN 
PELIGRO SI EL PRESIDENTE ABRE LA
PUERTA A ESTA INJERENCIA. QUE 
CLASE DE PRESIDENTE HARÍA ESO?
COMO SABER SI EL PRESIDENTE HA 
TRAICIONADO A SU PAÍS?
COMO SABER SI LO HA HECHO POR UN
BENEFICIO PERSONAL?
ESO QUEREMOS RESPONDER COMO LO 
HIZO HAMILTON "UN HOMBRE 
DESESPERADO, CONOCIDO POR EN 
CONTRA DE LOS PRINCIPIOS DE LA 
LIBERTAD, TAL HOMBRE PODRÍA SER 
POPULAR, APROVECHAR CUALQUIER 
OPORTUNIDAD PARA VEN CURSAR EL 
GOBIERNO Y HACERLO VÍCTIMA DE 
SOSPECHA. SU OBJETIVO SERÍA 
CAUSAR CONFUSIÓN  Y APROVECHAR 

English: 
TODAY WAS SET IN MOTION BY 
PRESIDENT TRUMP.
I DO NOT WISH THIS MOMENT ON THE
COUNTRY.
IT IS NOT A PLEASANT TASK THAT 
WEEN UNDERTAKE TODAY.
HE INVITED FOREIGN INTERFERENCE 
IN OUR ELECTIONS.
HE USED THE POWERS OF HIS OFFICE
TO TRY TO MAKE IT HAPPEN.
HE SENT HIM TO MAKE SURE THAT 
THIS IS WHAT HE WANTED AND 
DEFINDED.
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 IN THE FIRST 
PLACE.

Spanish: 
DE DIRIGIR.
SEÑORAS Y SEÑORES,  LA TORMENTA 
QUE ENFRENTAMOS  FUE INICIADA 
POR EL PRESIDENTE TRUMP, NO LE 
DESEO ESTO AL PAÍS,  NO ES UNA 
TAREA PLACENTERA, PERO JURAMOS 
PROTEGER LA CONSTITUCIÓN Y LOS 
HECHOS SON CLAROS. EL PRESIDENTE
NO SOLO BUSCÓ BENEFICIARSE DE LA
INTERVENCIÓN DE TERCEROS SINO 
QUE LA PIDIÓ EXPLÍCITAMENTE, UÓO
SU PODER PARA TRATAR DE HACERLO,
ACLARÓ A SUS AGENCIAS QUE ESTO 
QUERÍA, ESTUVO DISPUESTO A PONER
EN RIEGO NUESTRA SEGURIDAD  POR 
SU BENEFICIO.
NO IMPORTA QUE FINALMENTE HAYA 

Spanish: 
ENTREGADO LOS FONDOS, IMPORTA 
QUE HAYA PEDIDO OTRO GOBIERNO 
INTERFERIR. NO IMPORTA QUE EL 
CREA QUE ESTAS INVESTIGACIONES 
SON INJUSTAS, IMPORTA QUE USE SU
CARGO PARA DEFENDERSE Y PARA 
OBSTRUIR LAS INVESTIGACIONES.
ESTAMOS CONSCIENTES DE QUE SE 
ACERCA LA PRÓXIMA ELECCIÓN  PERO
NO PODEMOS ESPERAR PARA 
ENFRENTAR ESTA CRISIS. LA 
INTEGRIDAD DE ESA ELECCIÓN  ESÁA
EN JUEGO.
EL PRESIDENTE  NOS HA MOSTRADO 
UN PATRÓN DE CONDUCTA, SI NO 
ACTUAMOS AHORA, DE SEGURO HARÁ 
OTRO INTENTO PORQUE HAYA 
INTERFERENCIA EXTRANJERA QUE LO 
FAVOREZCA EN LA ELECCIÓN. HOY 
COMENZAMOS LA CONVERSACIÓN 
BASADOS EN LA CONSTITUCIÓN. 

English: 
IT DOES NOT MATTER THAT 
PRESIDENT TRUMP FELT THAT THESE 
INVESTIGATIONS WERE UNFAIR TO 
HIM.
IT MATTERS THAT HE USED HIS 
OFFICE NOT NEARLY TO DEFEND 
HIMSELF BUT TO INSTRUCT 
INVESTIGATORS AT EVERY TURN.
WE ARE ALL AWARE THAT THE NEXT 
ELECTION IS LOOMING BUT WE CAN'T
WAIT FOR THE ELECTION TO ADDRESS
THE PRESENT CRISIS.
THE INTEGRITY OF THE ELECTION IS
ONE OF THE VERY THINGS AT STAKE.
HE 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.

English: 
>> OUR WITNESS PANEL WILL HELP 
US TO GUIDE THAT CONVERSATION.
IN A FEW DAYS WE WILL RECONVENE 
AND HEAR FROM COMMITTEES THAT 
WORK TO UNCOVER THE FACTS BEFORE
US AND WHEN WE APPLY THE 
CONSTITUTION TO THE FACTS.
IF IT'S TRUE THAT PRESIDENT 
TRUMP COMMITTED AN IMPEACHMENT 
OFFENSE OR MULTIPLE IMPEACHMENT 
OFFENSES WE MUST MOVE SWIFTLY TO
DO OUR DUTY AND CHARGE HIM 
ACCORDINGLY.
I THANK THE WITNESSES FROM BEING
THERE TODAY.
THE GENTLEMAN FROM GEORGIA WITH 
HIS OPENING STATEMENT. 
>> MR. CHAIRMAN, MAY I MAKE A 
PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRY. 
>> I RECOGNIZE THE RANKING 
MEMBER FOR AN OPENING STATEMENT.
>> I BELIEVE SOME OF THE THINGS 
THAT I'M GOING TO DISCUSS TODAY 
BECAUSE WE'RE COMING HERE TODAY 
IN A DIFFERENT ARENA.
FOR EVERYBODY WHO HAS NOT BEEN 

Spanish: 
PROPONDREMOS EL JUICIO POLÍTICO 
SI SE CONCLUYE QUE COMETIÓ 
TRAICIÓN, SOBORNO U OTRO CRIMEN.
EN LOS PRÓXIMOS DÍAS, E
ESCUCHAREMOS A LOS COMITÉS QUE 
HAN ESTUDIADO ESTO. APLICAREMOS 
LA CONSTITUCIÓN A LOS HECHOS 
PARA DEFINIR SI ES VERDAD QUE EL
PRESIDENTE DEBERÍA ENFRENTAR EL 
JUICIO POLÍTICO. SI ES ASÍ,,  
DEBEREMOS CUMPLIR CON NUESTRO 
DEBER. AGRADEZCO SU PRESENCIA A 
LOS TESTIGOS Y LE DOY LA PALABRA
HORA AL REPRESENTANTE.
>>> PUEDO HACER UNA SOLICITUD 
PARLAMENTARIA PRIMERO
>>> NNO ES EL MOMENTO, VAMOS A 
LA DECLARACIÓN INICIAL

English: 
HERE BEFORE IT'S A NEW ROOM, 
IT'S NEW RULES.
IT'S A NEW MONTH.
WE EVEN HAVE CUTE STICKERS SO WE
CAN COME IN AND MAKE THIS 
IMPORTANT AND THIS IS 
IMPEACHMENT BECAUSE WE HAVE DONE
SUCH A TERRIBLE JOB OF IT IN 
THIS COMMITTEE BEFORE BUT WHAT 
IS NOT NEW IS BASICALLY WHAT HAS
BEEN REITERATED BY THE CHAIRMAN.
WHAT'S NOT NEW IS THE FACTS.
WHAT'S NOT NEW IS ITS THE SAME 
SAD STORY.
WE'RE ALSO SAYING THE ATTENTION 
TO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE SHOULD BE
ON FOREIGN INTERFERENCE.
I AGREE WITH HIM COMPLETELY 
EXCEPT 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 
INTO THIS ISSUE.
WE HAD ELECTION BUILDS BUT DID 
NOT GET INTO THE INDEPTH PART OF
WHAT MR. MUELLER TALKED ABOUT 

Spanish: 
>>> GGRACIAS PRESIDENTE, ESTAMOS
AQUÍ HOY EN UNA ARENA DISTINTA. 
PARA LOS QUE NO LE ESTADO AQUÍ, 
ES UNA NUEVA SALA, NUEVAS NO
S
NORMAS, QQUEREMOS DARLE LA 
IMPORTANCIA EL PROCESO PORQUE 
ESTE COMITÉ NO HIZO BIEN SU 
TRABAJO ANTES. NO ES NOVEDAD LO 
QUE DICHO EL PRESIDENTE, LOS 
HECHOS NO SON NUEVOS, EN LA 
MISMA TRISTE HISTORIA. VOY A P
R
PARTIR CON LO QUE DIJO EL 
PRESIDENTE, VOLVIMOS AL INFORME 
DE ROBERT MUELLER QUE HABLA DE 
LA INJERENCIA EXTRANJERA, ESTOY 
DE ACUERDO, PERO A QUIEN EL 
COMITÉ NO HICIMOS NINGUNA 
AUDIENCIA PARA ENFRENTAR ESE 

Spanish: 
PROBLEMA, HICIMOS PROYECTO DE 
LEY QUE NO APUNTAN AL CENTRO DE 
LO QUE DICE EL INFORME. ALGO 
INTERESANTE QUE ESCUCHAMOS, UNA 
DISCUSIÓN COMO ESCUCHAREMOS 
MUCHAS RESPECTO A LA 
CONSTITUCIÓN. PERO SI HABLAMOS 
DE LOS PADRES FUNDADORES A LOS 
QUE MENCIONÓ EL PRESIDENTE, A LO
QUE LE PREOCUPABA LA INJERENCIA 
EXTRANJERA. PERO REALIDAD LE 
PREOCUPABA EL JUICIO POLÍTICO, Y
ESO PORQUE ELLOS NO LE GUSTA QUE
ESTÁ EN EL CARGO. EL PRESIDENTE 
HABLÓ HACE UN AÑO  DE UN JUICIO 
POLÍTICO, MUCHO ANTES DE ESTO. 
ASÍ QUE NO ME DIGA  QUE ESTO SE 
TRATA DE NUEVA EVIDENCIA, PORQUE

English: 
TAKING HIS OWN REPORT AND HAVING
HEARINGS ABOUT THAT.
SO I GUESS THAT DOESN'T INCLUDE 
THE HOUSE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE.
INTERESTING WE ALSO JUST HEARD 
AN INTERESTING DISCUSSION, WE'RE
GOING TO HAVE A LOT OF 
INTERESTING DISCUSSION TODAY 
ABOUT THE CONSTITUTION AND OTHER
THINGS BUT WE ALSO TALK ABOUT 
THE FOUNDERS.
THE CHAIRMAN TALKED ABOUT THE 
HEARING AND WHAT HE ALSO DIDN'T 
QUOTE WAS THE FOUNDERS BEING 
REALLY, REALLY CONCERNED ABOUT 
POLITICAL IMPEACHMENT.
BECAUSE YOU JUST DON'T LIKE THE 
GUY.
YOU HAVEN'T LIKED HIM SINCE 
NOVEMBER OF 2016.
THE CHAIRMAN HAS TALKED ABOUT 
IMPEACHMENT SINCE LAST YEAR WHEN
HE WAS ELECTED CHAIRMAN.
TWO YEARS BEFORE HE WAS EVEN 
SWORN IN AS CHAIRMAN.
SO DON'T TELL ME THIS IS ABOUT 
NEW EVIDENCE AND YOU THINGS AND 
NEW STUFF.
WE MAY HAVE A NEW HEARING ROOM 
AND CHAIRS THAT AREN'T 
COMFORTABLE BUT THIS IS NOTHING 
NEW FOLKS.
THIS IS SAD.

English: 
SO WHAT DO WE HAVE HERE TODAY?
DO YOU KNOW WHAT?
I'M THINKING -- I LOOKED AT THIS
TWO THINGS HAVE BECOME CLEAR.
THIS IMPEACHMENT IS NOT REALLY 
ABOUT FACTS.
IF IT WAS THEY WOULD HAVE SENT 
OVER RECOMMENDATIONS ABOUT 
IMPEACHMENT.
IF IT GOES BADLY THEY WANT TO 
BLAME ADAM SCHIFF'S COMMITTEE 
BUT THEY'RE ALREADY DRAFTING 
ARTICLES.
DON'T BE FOOLED.
THEY'RE ALREADY GETTING READY 
FOR THIS.
WE ALREADY WENT AFTER THIS AFTER
NUMEROUS FAILINGS WITH MUELLER 
AND THE LIST GOES ON.
BUT THE AMERICAN PEOPLE, IF YOU 
WANT TO KNOW WHAT IS REALLY 
DRIVING THIS, THERE'S TWO 
THINGS.
IT'S CALLED THE CLOCK AND THE 
CALENDAR.
THE CLOCK AND THE CALENDAR.
MOST PEOPLE IN LIFE IF YOU WANT 
TO KNOW WHAT THEY TRULY VALUE, 
YOU LOOK AT THEIR CHECKBOOK AND 
THEIR CALENDAR.
THAT'S WHAT THEY VALUE.
THAT'S WHAT THIS COMMITTEE 
VALUES.

Spanish: 
PODEMOS TENER UNA NUEVA SALA, MS
CÓMODA,, PERO ESTO NO ES NOV
D
NOVEDAD. ESTO ES TRISTE. QUE LO 
QUE VEMOS HOY?
HAY DOS COSAS MUY CLARAS,  ESTE 
JUICIO POLÍTICO  NO SE TRATA DE 
HECHOS, LA RECOMENDACIÓN PASA  A
NUESTRO COMITÉ PORQUE SEGURO 
QUIEREN ECHARNOS LA CULPA 
NOSOTROS. PERO NO SE ENGAÑEN, 
TODO SE POR PARABAN PARA ESTO 
HACE MUCHO TIEMPO. PERO EL P
PUEBLO NO NOS VE LEGISLAR, 
DETRÁS DE ESTO HAY DOS COSAS: EL
RELOJ Y EL CALENDARIO. ELLOS 

English: 
TIME.
THEY WANT DO IT BEFORE THE END 
OF THE YEAR.
SO WE HAVE TO DO THIS NOW.
THE CLOCK AND THE CALENDAR IS 
WHAT'S DRIVING IMPEACHMENT AND 
NOT THE FACTS.
WHEN WE UNDERSTAND THIS, THAT'S 
WHAT THE WITNESSES SAY TODAY.
WHAT IS REALLY INTERESTING TODAY
AND FOR THE NEXT FEW WEEKS IS 
AMERICA WILL SEE WHY MOST PEOPLE
DON'T GO TO LAW SCHOOL.
NO OFFENSE TO OUR PROFESSORS, 
BUT PLEASE, REALLY, WE'RE 
BRINGING YOU IN HERE TODAY TO 
TESTIFY ON STUFF THAT MOST OF 
YOU HAVE ALREADY WRITTEN ABOUT 
FOR THE OPINIONS THAT WE ALREADY
KNOW OUT OF THE CLASSROOMS THAT 
YOU'RE GETTING READY FOR FINALS 
IN.
UNLESS YOU'RE REALLY GOOD ON 
WATCHING THE HEARS FOR THE LAST 
COUPLE OF WEEKS YOU COULDN'T 
HAVE 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 ARE
REALLY GOING TO LOOK AT THIS AND
SAY HUH?
WHAT ARE WE DOING?

Spanish: 
QUIEREN TIEMPO, QUIEREN HACERLO 
ESTE AÑO  PORQUE LES PREOCUPA LA
ELECCIÓN DEL PRÓXIMO AÑO. LES 
PREOCUPA VOLVER A PERDER. 
TENEMOS QUE HACER ESTO AHORA, 
PENSARON Y ESO LES PREOCUPA Y NO
LOS HECHOS. QUE TENEMOS AQUÍ 
HOY?
QUE SERÁ LO IMPORTANTE, MUCHOS 
NO ESTUDIAN DERECHO SIN ÁNIMO DE
OFENDER  A LOS EXPERTOS. PERO 
LOS TRAEMOS AQUÍ  PARA QUE LEAN 
SOBRE ALGO QUE YA LEYERON, CUYAS
OPINIONES YA SE COMENTARON, PARA
HABLAR DE TEMAS QUE 
PROBABLEMENTE  NO HAN PODIDO 
DIGERIR A UN JACK EL INFORME SE 

English: 
THERE'S NO FACT WITNESSES 
PLANNED FOR THIS COMMITTEE.
THAT'S AN INTERESTING THING.
I'M STILL NOT SURE WHAT THEY 
WANT US TO PRESENT ON AND 
NOTHING ELSE.
NO PLAN.
I ASKED THE CHAIRMAN TO STAY IN 
TOUCH, LET'S TALK ABOUT WHAT WE 
HAVE BECAUSE HISTORY WILL SHINE 
A BRIGHT LIGHT ON US STARTING 
THIS MORNING.
CRICKETS.
UNTIL I ASKED FOR A WITNESS THE 
OTHER DAY AND LET'S JUST SAY 
THAT DIDN'T GO WELL.
SHE'S NOT AFFORDED THE 
PROTECTION OF IDENTITY.
IT'S NOT IN THE STATUTE.
IT'S JUST SOMETHING BY ADAM 
SCHIFF.
HE SAID YESTERDAY IN A PRESS 
CONFERENCE.
I'M NOT GOING TO I'LL SEND STAFF
TO DO THAT.

Spanish: 
PUBLICÓ AYER. INDEPENDIENTE DE 
NUESTRA OPINIÓN, EL PUEBLO NO VA
ENTENDER QUE PASA AQUÍ.
FRANCAMENTE, NO HAY UN PLAN C
CLARO, EXCEPTO LA CESIÓN DE UN 
COMITÉ LA PRÓXIMA SEMANA EN LA 
QUE NO ENTIENDO QUE QUIEREN QUE 
PRESENTEMOS PARA SER HONESTO. NO
HAY MÁS PLANES, LE PEDÍ AL 
PRESIDENTE ANTES DEL FERIADO  
QUE MÁS TUVIÉRAMOS EL CONTACTO. 
NO HUBO RESPUESTA, HASTA QUE 
PEDÍ UN TESTIGO  QUE SE ME NEGÓ.
EL DENUNCIANTE NO ESTÁ AQUÍ,  SE
ALUDE  A LA PROTECCIÓN DE SU 
IDENTIDAD. TAMPOCO TENEMOS A 
ADAM SCHIFF,  QUE ENVIÓ SU 

English: 
HE'S NOT GOING TO BUT TO ME, IF 
HE'S GOING TO HE'D COME BEGGING 
TO US.
IF WE DON'T IMPEACH THE 
PRESIDENT HE'LL GET REELECTED.
IF YOU WANT TO KNOW WHAT'S 
HAPPENING, HERE WE GO.
WHY DID EVERYTHING I SAY UP TO 
THIS POINT ABOUT NO FACT 
WITNESSES, NOTHING FOR THIS 
JUDICIARY COMMITTEE WHICH SPENT 
2.5 WEEKS BEFORE THIS HEARING 
WAS EVEN HELD UNDER CLINTON.
2.5 WEEKS.
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 BUT WE CAN'T GET 
THAT STRAIGHT.
SO WHAT ARE WE DOING FOR THE 
NEXT TWO WEEKS?
I HAVE NO IDEA.
THE CHAIRMAN SET AN AMBIGUOUS 
HEARING ON THE REPORT.
IF WE'RE NOT GOING TO HAVE FACT 
WITNESSES WHEN WE ARE HIDING OUT
BACK, THE VERY RUBBER STAMP THE 
CHAIRMAN TALKED ABOUT 20 YEARS 

Spanish: 
INFORME.
PERO EL PROBLEMA ES ESTE,  ES 
ALGO SENCILLO. MINUTOS DESPUÉS 
DE QUE EL PRESIDENTE TRUMP 
ASUMIRÁ EL CARGO UN PERIÓDICO 
PUBLICÓ  QUE COMENZABA EL 
PROCESO DE JUICIO POLÍTICO. SE
P
PUBLICÓ QUE EMPEZABA EL GOLPE.
Y ESTO ES LO QUE PASA. INSISTO 
EN QUE NO HAY HECHOS  PARA QUE 
EL COMITÉ JUDICIAL ANALIZARA. NO
HABÍA LISTAS NI DETALLES COMO EN
OTRAS OPORTUNIDADES.
NO NOS HAN PODIDO ACLARAR NADA, 

English: 
AGO.
WHAT A DISGRACE TO THIS 
COMMITTEE.
TO HAVE THE COMMITTEE OF 
IMPEACHMENT SIMPLY TAKE FROM 
OTHER ENTITIES AND RUBBER STAMP 
IT.
WHY DOES THE THINGS I SAY MATTER
ABOUT FACT WITNESSES AND 
HEARINGS AND DUE PROCESS BECAUSE
BY THE WAY, A COUPLE OF MONTHS 
AGO THE DEMOCRATS GOT ALL SORT 
OF DRESSED UP IF YOU WOULD AND 
WE'RE GOING TO HAVE DUE PROCESS 
PROTECTION FOR THE PRESIDENT AND
GOOD FAIRNESS THROUGHOUT THIS.
THIS IS THE ONLY COMMITTEE THAT 
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 THAT CAN BE 
ACTUALLY CROSS EXAMINED.
THAT'S FAIRNESS AND EVERY 
ATTORNEY ON THIS PANEL KNOWS 
THAT.
THIS IS A SHAM.
BUT, YOU KNOW, WHAT I ALSO SEE 
HERE IS QUOTES LIKE THIS, THERE 
MUST NEVER BE A NARROWLY VOTED 
IMPEACHMENT OR IMPEACHMENT 
SUPPORTED BY ONE OF OUR MAJOR 
POLITICAL PARTIES OR IMPOSED BY 

Spanish: 
ENTONCES QUE VAMOS HACER NO 
TENGO IDEA.
QUE VERGÜENZA PARA ESTE COMITÉ 
QUE SIMPLEMENTE TOME LO QUE HAN 
DICHO OTROS Y LO CONFIRME ASÍ 
NADA MÁS.
SE HABLA DEL DEBIDO PROCESO, 
HACE MESES QUE LOS DEMÓCRATAS 
DIJERON QUE HABRÍA UN DEBIDO 
PROCESO, PERO EL PRESIDENTE NO 
TIENE NADA QUE PREGUNTARLES, CON
TODO RESPETO, NO DIRÁN NADA QUE 
NO PUEDA LEER.

Spanish: 
ESO LO SABE TODO ABOGADO.
PERO AQUÍ TAMBIÉN VEO OTRA COSA.
NUNCA DEBE IMPONERSE UN JUICIO 
POLÍTICO A UN PARTIDO. ESTO 
CUESTIONA LA LEGITIMIDAD DE 
NUESTRAS INSTITUCIONES. EL 
PUEBLO ESTÁ ATENTO Y NO OLV
A
OLVIDARÁ, NO TIENEN LA 
LEGITIMIDAD DE UN CONSENSO 
NACIONAL.ESTO PASARÁ A LA 
HISTORIA  COMO UNA INFAMIA.
Y QUE TAL ESTO?
EL PUNTO CLAVE ES QUE LOS 
DEMÓCRATAS DICEN QUE DEBEMOS 
DISCUTIR LAS NORMAS DEL JUICIO 
POLÍTICO, NOSOTROS DECIMOS QUE 

English: 
ANOTHER.
IT WILL PRODUCE DIVISIVELY AND 
BITTER PS AND POLITICS FOR YEARS
TO M COAND CALL INTO QUESTION 
THE VERY LEGITIMACY OF OUR 
POLITICAL INSTITUTIONS.
THE AMERICAN PEOPLE ARE 
WATCHING.
THEY WILL NOT FORGET.
YOU HAVE THE VOTE.
YOU MAY HAVE THE MUSCLE BUT YOU 
DO NOT HAVE A NATIONAL CONSENSUS
OR CONSTITUTIONAL IMPERATIVE.
IT WILL GO DOWN IN INFAMY IN THE
HISTORY OF THE NATION.
HOW ABOUT WHEN THE DEMOCRATS 
OFFED AMENDMENTEDS TO SAY WE 
SHOULD FIRST DISCUSS AND ADOPT 
STANDARDS FOR IMPEACHMENT VOTED 
DOWN OR RULED OUT OF ORDER.
WHEN WE SAY THE IMPORTANT THING 
IS TO START LOOKING AT THE 
QUESTION BEFORE WE SIMPLY HAVE A
VOTE WITH NO REAL INQUIRY FIRST 
THAT WAS VOTED DOWN AND RULED 
OUT OF ORDER AND THE WHOLE 
QUESTION OF WHAT MATERIALS 
SHOULD BE RELEASED AND SECONDARY
BUT THAT'S ALL WE DISCUSSED.
THE ESSENTIAL QUESTION WHICH IS 
TO SET UP A FAIR PROCESS IS TO 
WHETHER THE COUNTRY PUT THIS 
COUNTRY THROUGH AN IMPEACHMENT 

Spanish: 
HAY QUE ANALIZAR LOS TEMAS ANTES
DE VOTAR, LO QUE SE DESCARTÓ.
LA PREGUNTA CLAVE ES SI A VALÍA 
LA PENA SOMETER AL PAÍS A ESTE 
PROCESO, COSA QUE SE NOS NEGÓ. Y
LO QUE ELLOS MISMOS ARGUMENTABAN
HACE 20 AÑOS, SUPONGO QUE LAS 
COSAS HAN CAMBIADO.
HOY PRESENTAMOS LOS ARGUMENTOS 
DE AMBOS LADOS.
HAY UNA MAYORÍA DEMÓCRATA  QUE 
INSISTE EN LO QUE CREEN QUE HIZO
EL PRESIDENTE, ESO NO SIGNIFICA 
BASARSE EN HECHOS. AQUÍ VEMOS EL
ODIO A UN HOMBRE QUE LLEGÓ A LA 
CASA BLANCA A HACER LO QUE DIJO 
QUE IBA SER.

English: 
PROCEEDING THAT WAS RULED OUT OF
ORDER.
THE REPUBLICANS REFUSED TO LET 
US DISCUSS IT.
THOSE WERE 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 JUST HEARD A ONE SIDED 
PRESENTATION OF FACTS ABOUT THIS
PRESIDENT.
TODAY WE WILL PRESENT THE OTHER 
SIDE WHICH GETS SO CONVENIENTLY 
LEFT OUT.
REMEMBER FAIRNESS DOES DICTATE 
THAT BUT MAYBE NOT HERE.
I HAVE A DEMOCRATIC MAJORITY 
THAT'S POLL TESTED WHAT THEY 
THINK THE PRESIDENT DID.
WOW, THAT'S NOT FOLLOWING THE 
FACTS.
WE HAVE JUST A DEEP SEEDED 
HATRED OF A MAN THAT CAME TO THE
WHITE HOUSE AND DID WHAT HE SAID
HE WAS GOING TO DO.
THE MOST AMAZING QUESTION I GOT 
IN THE FIRST THREE MONTHS FROM 
REPORTERS WAS THIS, CAN YOU 
BELIEVE HE'S PUTTING FORWARD 
THOSE IDEAS?

Spanish: 
EL HA SEGUIDO ADELANTE CON SUS 
IDEAS, LAS QUE PROPUSO LA 
CAMPAÑA.
EL VERDADERO PROBLEMA O HOY,  
ESTE ES EL PRIMER JUICIO 
POLÍTICO EN QUE LOS HECHOS  NO 
SOLO SON DISPUTADOS SINO QUE SE 
CONTRADICEN. AQUÍ NO HAY HECHOS,
NINGUNO  MÁS ALLÁ DEL PRESIDENTE
HACIENDO SU TRABAJO COMO LO 
EXIGE LA CONSTITUCIÓN.
LO INTERESANTE ES QUE QUIZÁ ESTE
ES UN MOMENTO NUEVO?
PPERO ESTO NO ES UN JUICIO 
POLÍTICO Y LO DE HOY ES UNA 
PÉRDIDA DE TIEMPO YA QUE NOS 
ENCONTRAMOS Y CON ESTO CIERRO. 

English: 
I SAID YES, HE RAN ON THEM.
HE TOLD THE TRUTH AND HE DID 
WHAT HE SAID.
THE PROBLEM HERE TODAY IS THIS 
WILL ALSO BE ONE OF THE FIRST 
IMPEACHMENTS.
THE CHAIRMAN MENTIONED THERE 
WERE TWO OF THEM IN WHICH THE 
FACTS, EVEN BY DEMOCRATS AND 
REPUBLICANS WERE NOT REALLY 
DISPUTED AND THIS ONE, THEY'RE 
NOT ONLY DISPUTED, THEY'RE 
COUNTDICTIVE OF EACH OTHER.
THIS IS WHERE WE'RE AT TODAY.
SO THE INTERESTING THING THAT I 
HAVE COME TO WITH MOST EVERYBODY
HERE IS THIS MAY BE A NEW TIME 
AND NEW PLACE AND WE MAY BE 
LOOKING PRETTY FOR IMPEACHMENT.
THIS IS NOT IMPEACHMENT.
THIS IS A SIMPLE RAILROAD JOB 
AND TODAY IS A WASTE OF TIME.
THIS IS WHERE WE'RE AT.
IT STARTED IN BROOKLYN IN 
NOVEMBER 2017 WHEN AN ELECTION 

Spanish: 
ESTO NO EMPEZÓ CON LA LLAMADA  
NI EL INFORME DE ROBERT MUELLER 
SINO LOS HECHOS DE 2016.
AQUÍ NO HAY TESTIGOS, 
SIMPLEMENTE SE ESPERA QUE A
ACEPTEMOS LO QUE YA SE HA DICHO 
Y CON CUATRO EXPERTOS.
TENGO UNA MOCIÓN, SEÑOR 
PRESIDENTE
>>> SSE RECONOCE EL DERECHO DE 
LA DECLARACIÓN NO DE LA MOCIÓN
>>> PIDO LA MOCIÓN
>>> SE ESCUCHA
>>> PPIDO QUE SE TRAMITA ESTA 
CARTA AL COMITÉ.

English: 
WAS LOST.
WE'RE HERE, NO PLAN, NO FACT 
WITNESSES, SIMPLY BEING A RUBBER
STAMP FOR WHAT WE HAVE, BUT WE 
HAVE LAW PROFESSORS HERE, MR. 
CHAIRMAN, BEFORE I YIELD BACK, I
HAVE A MOTION.
UNDER RULE 11.
>> THE GENTLEMAN WAS RECOGNIZED 
FOR THE PURPOSE OF HIS OPENING 
STATEMENT AND NOT PURPOSE OF 
MAKING STATEMENT. 
>> A YIELD BACK AND RECOGNIZE. 
>> GENTLEMAN IS RECOGNIZED. 
>> I MOVE TO REQUIRE THE 
E
ATTENDANTS OF CHAIRMAN SCHIFF 
BEFORE THIS COMMITTEE AND 
TRANSMIT THIS LETTER 
ACCORDINGLY. 
>> SEEK RECOGNITION.
MOTION IS MADE AND DEBATABLE.
ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE. 
>> OPPOSED. 
>> NO. 
>> THE MOTION TO TABLE IS AGREED

Spanish: 
>>> SE DEBATE LA MOCIÓN QUIENES 
ESTÉN A FAVOR DIGAN SI LOS DEMÁS
NO,, SE  ACEPTA LA MOCIÓN.
>>> NO PUEDE HACER UNA SOLICITUD
PARLAMENTARIA EN ESTE MOMENTO.
>>> EL ENCARGADO CONTARALOS 
VOTOS.
>>> VOTA ASÍ
>>> VOTA ASÍ
>>> RICHMOND
SI
>>> SEÑOR
>>> SÍ
>>> SEÑOR
>>> SÍ
>>> SEÑORA
>>> SSÍ
>>> SEÑORA GARCÍA

English: 
TO. 
>> RECORDED VOTE IS REQUESTED.
>> PARLIAMENTARY INQUIREMENT. 
>> JUST A REMINDER ANY NO IS YOU
DON'T WANT HIM COMING. 
>> THE CLERK WILL CALL THE ROLE.
>> MR. NADLER. 
>> AYE.
AYE.
AYE.
MR. JOHNSON OF GEORGIA VOTES 
AYE.
MR. RICHMOND.
MR. RICHMOND VOTES YES.
MR. JEFFREYS VOTES AYE.
VOTES AYE.
YES.
MR. LOU.
VOTES AYE.

English: 
MR. SCANLIN VOTES AYE.
MISS GARCIA VOTES AYE.
AYE.
>> LET'S GO VERY QUICKLY TO 
EXPLAIN WHAT'S HAPPENING HERE.
>> AS EXPECTED, YOU HAVE A 
REPUBLICAN TRY TO OFFER UP A 
MOTION THAT WOULD BRING FORWARD 
ADAM SCHIFF THE HOUSE 
INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN 
TO COME TESTIFY BEFORE THIS 
COMMITTEE SO WHAT THEY'RE VOTING
ON RIGHT NOW IS A MOTION TO 
TABLE OR BASICALLY KILL THIS 
WHOLE EFFORT AND BECAUSE 
DEMOCRATS CONTROL THE COMMITTEE 
DEMOCRATS WE EXPECT FULLY WILL 
BE SUCCESSFUL IN KILLING THIS 
MOTION. 
>> AND REPUBLICANS WANTED THIS 
ON THE RECORD WITH THE ROLL CALL
WHICH WE'RE SEEING RIGHT NOW.
WE'LL TAKE YOU BACK INTO THE 
AREA.
>> HAS EVERYONE VOTED THAT 

Spanish: 
>>> SÍ
>>> SSEÑORA
>>> SÍ
>>> SEÑORA
>>> SÍ
>>> SEÑORA
>>> SÍ
>>> VAMOS RÁPIDAMENTE CON EL 
EXPERTO EXPLICAR LO QUE SUCEDE. 
LOS REPUBLICANOS EN EL PANEL 
HACE LO POSIBLE POR INTERRUMPIR 
EL PROCEDIMIENTO, SE PRESENTÓ 
UNA MOCIÓN REPUBLICANA PARA QUE 
ADAM SCHIFF  EDIFIQUE ANTE EL 
COMITÉ, AHORA ESTÁN VOTANDO UNA 
MOCIÓN PARA ACABAR CON ESTE 
ESFUERZO, PERO COMO HAY MAYORÍA 
DEMÓCRATA DEBERÍA RECHAZARSE LA 
MOCIÓN.
Y SE ESTÁ DEJANDO REGISTRO DE LA
VOTACIÓN AHORA VOLVEMOS A LA 
AUDIENCIA.

English: 
WISHES TO VOTE?
>>> THE CLERK WILL REPORT. 
>> MR. CHAIRMAN, THERE ARE 21 
I'S AND 17 NOES. 
>> THE MOTION TO TABLE IS AGREED
TO. 
>> I HAVE A PARLIAMENTARY 
INQUIRY. 
>> STATES THAT MEMBERS OF THE 
COMMITTEE CAN RAISE OBJECTIONS 
RELATING TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF
TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE BUT IT 
DOESN'T SAY WHAT RULES APPLY TO 
ADMISSIBILITY.
SO I'M HOPING THAT YOU CAN 
EXPLAIN TO US WHAT OBJECTIONS 
MAYBE 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.
I STATED A RULE MR. CHAIRMAN.
YOU CAN IGNORE IT AND NOT ANSWER
IT BUT YOU CAN'T SAY IT'S NOT A 
PROPER INQUIRY. 
>> I'M ASKING FOR THE 
APPLICATION OF THE RULE AND 
APPLICATION. 
>> WE WILL APPLY THE RULES, 
PERIOD. 

Spanish: 
>>> VOTARON TODOS?
>>> SEÑORA
>>> LA ASISTENTE INFORMARÁ
>>> HAY MAYORÍA DE SI
>>> SE RECHAZA LA MOCIÓN
>>> SEÑOR PRESIDENTE PUEDE HACER
UNA SOLICITUD
>>> ADELANTE
>>> SSEGÚN EL REGLAMENTO SE 
PUEDEN PRESENTAR OBJECIONES PERO
NO DICE NADA CON RESPECTO A 
ADMISIBILIDAD, ME GUSTARÍA SABER
QUÉ CRITERIO SE APLICARÁ EN ESE 
SENTIDO.
>>> ESA NO ES UNA CONSULTA 
PARLAMENTARIA APROPIADA
>>> PERO LE LEÍ LA NORMA, USTED 
LA ESTÁ IGNORANDO. PIDO UNA 
EXPLICACIÓN SOBRE LA APLICACIÓN 

Spanish: 
DE LA NORMA
>>> SE APLICARÁ LAS NORMAS
>>> POR EXPLICARNOS COMO?
>>> PORQUE CITA ESO?
>>> PORQUE SE CITÓ ESTE 
PROCEDIMIENTO EN EL COMITÉ
>>> LAS NORMAS DE LA CÁMARA SE 
APLICARÁN Y PUNTO
>>> PERO PREGUNTO COMO
>>> DE ACUERDO A LAS NORMAS
>>> NNO CONTESTA MI PREGUNTA
>>> PODRÍA LEERNOS LA AGENDA  
SOBRE ESTAS AUDIENCIAS
>>> ESA NO ES UNA CONSULTA P
PARLAMENTARIA PERTINENTE.
VOY A PRESENTAR AHORA LOS 
TESTIGOS
>>> SEÑOR PRESIDENTE
>>> NNO VOY A RECONOCER SU 
SOLICITUD PORQUE ESTOY 
PRESENTANDO A LOS TESTIGOS

English: 
>> YOU WON'T HELP US UNDERSTAND 
THAT?
>> THERE'S NO CLARITY THERE. 
>> HOW ARE YOU CITING THAT. 
>> AND THEY WOULD BE APPLIED 
ACCORDING TO THE RULES.
>> AND IF SO WHEN -- 
>> GENTLEMAN WILL SUSPEND.
THAT IS NOT A PROPER 
PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRY.
WITH THAT OBJECTION, ALL OTHER 
OPENING STATEMENTS WILL BE 
INCLUDED IN THE RECORD.
I WILL NOW INTRODUCE TODAY'S 
WITNESSES. 
>> MR. CHAIRMAN. 
>> MR. CHAIRMAN, I SEEK 
RECOGNITION. 
>> I AM NOT GOING TO RECOGNIZE 
YOU NOW.
I AM INTRODUCING THE WITNESSES. 
>> MR. CHAIRMAN I JUST HAVE -- 
>> NOAH FELDMAN IS PROFESSOR AT 

English: 
HARVARD LAW SCHOOL.
HE AUTHORED 7 BOOKS INCLUDING A 
BIOGRAPHY OF JAMES MADISON AND 
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW BOOK AS WELL 
AS MANY ON CONSTITUTIONAL 
SUBJECTS.
HE RECEIVED HIS UNDERGRADUATE 
DEGREE FROM HARVARD COLLEGE AND 
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY.
AND THE UNITED STATES SUPREME 
COURT.
PAMELA SERVES AS THE PROFESSOR 
OF PUBLIC INTEREST LAW AND THE 
CO-DIRECTOR OF THE SUPREME COURT
LITIGATION CLINIC AT STANFORD 
LAW SCHOOL.
SHE IS THE CO-AUTHOR OF SEVERAL 
LEADING CASE BOOKS INCLUDING A 
MONOGRAPH ENTITLED KEEPING FAITH
WITH THE CONSTITUTION AND DOZENS
OF ARTICLES.
SHE SERVED AS A LAW CLERK AND IS
A DEPUTY ASSISTANT ATTORNEY 

Spanish: 
TTENEMOS A UN PROFESOR DE 
HARVARD QUE HA ESCRITO SIETE 
LIBROS, ADEMÁS DE VARIOS ENSAYOS
SOBRE TEMAS CONSTITUCIONALES. EL
SE GRADUÓ EN HARVARD, SE DOCTOÓO
EN OXFORD Y TAMBIÉN TIENE OTROS 
ESTUDIOS DE DERECHO.TRABAJA PARA
LA CORTE SUPREMA
LA EXPERTA HA SIDO PROFESORA Y 
CODIRECTORA DE LA CLÍNICA LEGAL 
DE STANFORD, HA ESCRITO VARIOS 
LIBROS Y ARTÍCULOS SOBRE LA 
CONSTITUCIÓN. FUE ASISTENTE DE 
UN JUEZ DE LA SUPREMA Y TAMBIÉN 
TRABAJÓ EN EL DEPARTAMENTO DE 
JUSTICIA EN LA DIVISIÓN DE 

Spanish: 
DERECHOS CIVILES DONDE ESTUVO A 
CARGO DE SUPERVISAR LAS 
VOTACIONES. SE GRADUÓ EN YALE,  
LUEGO ESTUDIO TAMBIÉN HISTORIA.
TENEMOS TAMBIÉN A UN DESTACADO 
PROFESOR EN JURISPRUDENCIA DE 
CALIFORNIA, A CARGO DE UN CENTRO
SOBRE GOBIERNO Y QUE HA ESCRITO 
VARIOS LIBROS SOBRE EL PROCESO
D
DE JUICIO POLÍTICO Y LA 
CONSTITUCIÓN.TIENE MÁS DE 50 P
B
PUBLICACIONES SOBRE VARIADOS 
TEMAS CONSTITUCIONALES.
SE GRADUÓ EN LA ESCUELA DE 
DERECHO DE CHICAGO, LUEGO Y SU 
MASTER EN LA ESCUELA DE NEGOCIOS
DE LONDRES Y LUEGO ESTUDIO SU 
DOCTORADO.
EL CUARTO EXPERTO ES ENCARGADO 

English: 
GENERAL IN THE CIVIL RIGHTS 
DIVISION.
AND PROFESSOR CARLIN EARNED 
THREE DEGREES IN YALE 
UNIVERSITY.
MICHAEL IS THE DISTINGUISHED 
PROFESSOR OF JURIS PRUDENCE AND 
DIRECTOR OF UNC'S CENTER ON LAW 
AND GOVERNMENT.
HE'S THE AUTHOR OF MANY BOOKS 
INCLUDING THE FEDERAL 
IMPEACHMENT PROCESS, A 
CONSTITUTIONAL AND HISTORICAL 
ANALYSIS AS WELL AS MORE THAN 50
PUBLICATIONS ON A DIVERSE RANGE 
OF TOPICS IN CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 
AND THE LEGISLATIVE PROCESS.
HE RECEIVED IT FROM THE 
UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO LAW 
SCHOOL.
HIS MS FROM THE LONDON SCHOOL OF
ECONOMICS AND HIS B.A. FROM YALE
UNIVERSITY.
JONATHAN IS THE J, B AND 
MAURICEC.SHAPIRO AT THE LAW 
SCHOOL.

Spanish: 
DE EL TEMAS CONDICIONALES EN LA 
UNIVERSIDAD DE WASHINGTON. 
ESTUDIO DERECHO Y LUEGO ENTRÓ A 
LA FACULTAD. OCHO AÑOS DESPUÉS 
FUE PROFESOR MÁS JOVEN  EN LA 
HISTORIA DE LA ESCUELA. HA ES
I
ESCRITO MÁS DE 30 ARTÍCULOS EN 
IMPORTANTES REVISTA 
ESPECIALIZADA. NACIDO EN CHI
O
CHICAGO, TIENE TÍTULOS DE LA 
UNIVERSIDAD DE CHICAGO  Y DE 
NORTHWESTERN, AGRADEZCO A LOS 
TESTIGOS SU PRESENCIA. SI SE 
PONEN DE PIE, COMENZAREMOS CON 
EL JURAMENTO.
LEVANTE SU MANO DERECHA. JURAN 
BAJO O RIESGO DE  PERJURIO DECIR

English: 
AFTER A STINT AT TULANE LAW 
SCHOOL HE JOINED THE G.W. LAW 
FACULTY IN 1990 AND IN 1998 
BECAME THE YOUNGEST CHAIRED 
PROFESSOR IN THE SCHOOL'S 
HISTORY.
HE HAS WRITTEN OVER THREE DOZEN 
ACADEMIC ARTICLES FOR A VARIETY 
OF LEADING LAW SCHOOLS -- OF 
LEADING LAW JOURNALS AND HIS 
ARTICLES ON LEGAL AND POLICY 
ISSUES APPEAR FREQUENTLY IN 
NATIONAL PUBLICATIONS.
A CHICAGO NATIVE, HE EARNED 
DEGREES FROM THE UNIVERSITY OF 
CHICAGO AND NORTHWESTERN 
UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW.
WE WELCOME ALL OF OUR 
DISTINGUISHED WITNESSES.
WE THANK THEM FOR PARTICIPATED 
IN TODAY'S HEARING.
IF YOU WILL PLEASE RISE, I'LL 
BEGIN BY SWEARING YOU IN.
LET THE RECORD SHOW THE 
WITNESSES ANSWERED IN THE 
AFFIRMATIVE.
THANK YOU AND PLEASE BE SEATED.
PLEASE NOTE THAT EACH OF YOUR 
WRITTEN STATEMENTS WILL BE 

Spanish: 
LA VERDAD
>>> QQUE QUEDE CONSTANCIA DE QUE
LO HICIERON. POR FAVOR RECUERDEN
QUE SUS DECLARACIONES ESCRITAS 
SERÁN PARTE DEL REGISTRO. SE LE 
PIDIÓ RESUMIR SU TESTIMONIO 10 
MINUTOS,  HAY UNA LUZ EN SUS 
MESAS  QUE LES INDICA.CUANDO SE 
LE ESTÁ ACABANDO EL TIEMPO 
SI SE PONE AMARILLO LES QUEDA 
UNO SI SE PONE ROJO, SE ACABÓ.
PROFESOR
>>> SEÑOR PRESIDENTE Y MIEBROS 
DEL COMITE
>>> TENGO UNA MOCIÓN
>>> NO ES EL MOMENTO
>>> PIDO UNA MOCIÓN DE PRI
PRIVILEGIO. 
>>> SEÑOR PRESIDENTE NEGRO DEL
C

English: 
ENTERED INTO THE RECORD IN IT'S 
ENTIRETY.
ACCORDINGLY I ASKED THAT YOU 
SUMMARIZE YOUR TESTIMONY IN TEN 
MINUTES.
TO HELP YOU STAY WITHIN THAT 
TIME, THERE IS 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.
>> I DON'T THINK YOU'RE IN THE 
MIC.
>> MR. CHAIRMAN -- 
>> MR. CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS OF 
THE COMMITTEE. 
>> MR. CHAIRMAN, I HAVE A 
MOTION. 
>> MR. CHAIRMAN I SEEK 
RECOGNITION FOR PRIVILEGE 
MOTION.
MR. CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS OF THE 
COMMITTEE, THANK YOU FOR THE 
OPPORTUNITY TO APPEAR.
MY NAME IS NOAH FELDMAN -- 
>> WITNESS WILL PROCEED. 
>> I SERVE AS THE PROFESSOR OF 
LAW AT THE HARVARD LAW SCHOOL --
>> I SEEK RECOGNITION -- 
>> MY JOB -- 
>> THE GENTLEMAN WILL SUSPEND.

English: 
THE TIME IS THE WITNESSES. 
>> A PRIVILEGED MOTION NEEDS TO 
BE RECOGNIZED.
YOU CAN CALL IT NOT A PRIVILEGED
BUT IT NEEDS TO BE RECOGNIZED. 
>> IN BETWEEN THE WITNESSES IT 
MAY BE RECOGNIZED. 
>> THE WITNESS WILL PROCEED.
WE'LL ENTERTAIN THE MOTION AFTER
THE FIRST WITNESS. 
>> MY JOB IS TO STUDY AND TEACH 
THE CONSTITUTION FROM ITS 
ORIGINS UNTIL THE PRESENT.
I AM HERE TODAY TO DESCRIBE 
THREE THINGS.
WHY THE FRAMERS OF OUR 
CONSTITUTION INCLUDED THE 
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 COMMITTED 
IMPEACHMENT 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 

Spanish: 
COMITÉ SOY PROFESOR DE DERECHO 
EN HARVARD.
>>> ESTE ES EL MOMENTO DE LOS 
TESTIGOS, DIPUTADO POR FAVOR
>>> ES EL PRIVILEGIO
>>> PRIMERO CONTAREMOS A LOS 
TESTIGOS
>>> LO ESCUCHAREMOS DE PODER 
PRIMER TESTIGO
>>> YO ESTUDIO Y ENSEÑO LA 
CONSTITUCIÓN DESDE SU INICIO. 
ESTOY AQUÍ PARA DESCRIBIR POR 
QUÉ HAY UNA PROVISIÓN QUE 
PERMITE HACER JUICIO POLÍTICO AL
PRESIDENTE, QUE SIGNIFICA  ESA 
NORMA Y COMO SE APLICA A LA 
PREGUNTA QUE SE PLANTEA AHORA AL
PUEBLO ESTADOUNIDENSE,  SI EL 
PRESIENTE ACOMETIDO OFENSAS QUE 
JUSTIFIQUEN UN JUICIO POLÍTICO 
EN BASE A LA CONTUSIÓN.
COMIENZO POR MI CONCLUSIÓN, SE 

English: 
OF HIS OFFICE FROM PERSONAL 
BENEFITS TO CORRUPT THE 
ELECTORAL PROCESS AND 
RE-ELECTION OR TO SUBVERT THE 
NATIONAL OF THE UNITED STATES.
ON THE BASIS OF THE TESTIMONY 
AND THE EVIDENCE BEFORE THE 
HOUSE, PRESIDENT TRUMP HAS 
COMMITTED IMPEACHMENT HIGH 
CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS BY 
CORRUPTLY ABUSING THE OFFICE OF 
THE PRESIDENCY.
SPECIFICALLY, PRESIDENT TRUMP 
HAS ABUSED HIS OFFICE BY 
CORRUPTLY SOLICITING THE 
PRESIDENT OF UKRAINE TO ANNOUNCE
INVESTIGATIONS OF HIS POLITICAL 
RIVALS IN ORDER TO GAIN PERSONAL
ADVANTAGE INCLUDING IN THE 2020 
PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION.
LET ME BEGIN NOW WITH A QUESTION
OF WHY THE FRAMERS PROVIDED FOR 
IMPEACHMENT IN THE FIRST PLACE.
THE FRAMERS BORROWED THE CONCEPT
OF IMPEACHMENT FROM ENGLAND BUT 

Spanish: 
TEME QUE EL PRESIDENTE HAYA 
ABUSADO DE SU CARGO PARA B
BENEFICIO PERSONAL, PARA 
CORROMPER EL PROCESO ELECTORAL Y
GARANTIZAR SU REELECCIÓN. 
CRÍMENES Y COMPORTAMIENTOS 
MENORES SON UN ABUSO LA 
CONFIANZA PÚBLICA EN BASE AL 
CARGO. EN BASE A LOS TESTIMONIOS
PRESENTADOS A LA CÁMARA,, EL 
PRESIDENTE HA COMETIDO ESTOS 
CRÍMENES ABUSANDO CORRECTAMENTE 
SU CARGO. EN ESPECÍFICO,  HA 
ABUSADO AL PEDIR AL PRESIDENTE 
DE UCRANIA  QUE ANUNCIA 
INVESTIGACIONES SOBRE SU RIVAL 
POLÍTICO PARA LOGRAR UN B
BENEFICIO PERSONAL EN LA 
ELECCIÓN DE 2020.
COMENZARÉ CON LA PREGUNTA  DE 
POR QUÉ EXISTE LA POSIBILIDAD DE

English: 
WITH ONE ENORMOUS DIFFERENCE, 
THE HOUSE OF COMMONS AND THE 
HOUSE OF LORDS COULD USE 
IMPEACHMENT IN ORDER TO LIMIT 
THE MINISTERS BUT 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 MADE 
IT CRYSTAL CLEAR THAT THE 
PRESIDENT WOULD BE SUBJECT TO 
IMPEACHMENT IN ORDER TO 
DEMONSTRATE THAT THE PRESIDENT 
WAS SUBORDINATE TO THE LAW.
IF YOU WILL, I WOULD LIKE FOR 
YOU TO THINK NOW ABOUT A 
SPECIFIC DATE IN THE 
CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION.
JULY 20th, 1787.
IT WAS THE MIDDLE OF A LONG, HOT
SUMMER AND ON THAT DAY, TWO 
MEMBERS OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL 
CONVENTION ACTUALLY MOVED TO 
TAKE OUT THE IMPEACHMENT 
PROVISION FROM THE DRAFT 
CONSTITUTION.
AND THEY HAD A REASON FOR THAT 
AND THE REASON WAS THEY SAID, 
WELL, THE PRESIDENT WILL HAVE TO
STAND FOR RE-ELECTION AND IF THE
PRESIDENT HAS TO STAND FOR 

Spanish: 
HACER JUICIO POLÍTICO,  ESTE 
CONCEPTO LLEGA DE INGLATERRA  
O
CON UNA ENORME DIFERENCIA. LA 
CÁMARA DE LOS COMUNES Y DE LOS 
LORES  PUEDEN USARLO PARA 
LIMITAR LOS MINISTROS DEL REY, 
PERO EL REY ESTABA SOBRE LA LEY.
EN CONTRASTE, DESDE LA 
CONVENCIÓN CONSTITUCIONAL 
INICIAL QUEDÓ CLARO QUE EL 
PRESIDENTE ESTARÍA SUJETO AL 
JUICIO POLÍTICO PARA DEMOSTRAR 
QUE ESTABA SUBORDINADO A LA LEY.
SI SE QUIERE,  PODRÍAMOS PENSAR 
EN UNA FECHA ESPECÍFICA DE LA 
CONVENCIÓN CONSTITUCIONAL. EN UN

English: 
RE-ELECTION, THAT IS ENOUGH.
WE DON'T NEED A SEPARATE 
PROVISION FOR IMPEACHMENT.
WHEN THAT PROPOSAL WAS MADE, 
SIGNIFICANT DISAGREEMENTS 
ENSUED.
THE GOVERNOR OF NORTH CAROLINA, 
A MAN CALLED WILLIAM DAVY 
IMMEDIATELY SAID IF THE 
PRESIDENT CANNOT BE IMPEACHED HE
WILL SPARE NO EFFORTS OR MEANS 
WHATEVER TO GET HIMSELF 
REELECTED.
GEORGE MASON OF VIRGINIA SAID NO
POINT WAS MORE IMPORTANT WAS 
INCLUDED IN THE CONSTITUTION.
SHALL ANY MAN BE ABOVE JUSTICE 
HE ASKED.
JAMES MADISON, THE PRINCIPLE 
DRAFTSMAN OF THE U.S. 
CONSTITUTION THEN SPOKE UP.
HE SAID IT WAS QUOTE, 
INDISPENSABLE THAT SOME 
PROVISION BE MADE FOR 

Spanish: 
CALUROSO VERANO DE 18780 LOS 
TESTIGOS PIDIERON SACAR ESTA P
S
POSIBILIDAD DE LA CONSTITUCIÓN. 
DECÍAN QUE ERA SUFICIENTE QUE EL
PRESIDENTE FUERA LA REELECCIÓN, 
PERO ENTONCES HUBO UNA PROFUNDA 
DISCUSIÓN. EL REPRESENTANTE DE 
CAROLINA DEL NORTE DIJO QUE SI 
NO PODÍA ENFRENTAR EL JUICIO 
POLÍTICO EL PRESIDENTE HARÍA 
TODOS LOS ESFUERZOS PARA SER R
E
REELEGIDO.
OTRO REPRESENTANTE DIJO NADA ES 
MÁS IMPORTANTE QUE INCLUIR EL 
JUICIO POLÍTICO. SE PREGUNTÓ, 
DEBE ESTAR UN HOMBRE POR SOBRE 
LA LEY? LA RESPUESTA ES QUE EL 
PRESIDENTE DEBE SOMETERSE A LA 
LEY.
MADISON, UNO DE LOS PRINCIPALES 

English: 
IMPEACHMENT.
WHY?
BECAUSE HE EXPLAINED IT WAS 
QUOTE NOT A SUFFICIENT SECURITY 
AGAINST PRESIDENTIAL MISCONDUCT 
OR CORRUPTION.
A PRESIDENT HE SAID MIGHT BETRAY
HIS TRUST TO FOREIGN POWERS.
A PRESIDENT WHO 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.
HE GOT UP AND ACTUALLY SAID THE 
WORDS I WAS WRONG.
HE TOLD THE OTHER FRAMERS 
PRESENT THAT HE HAD CHANGED HIS 
MIND ON THE BASIS 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 

Spanish: 
REDACTORES DIJO QUE ERA 
INDISPENSABLE QUE HUBIESE JUICIO
POLÍTICO PORQUE SEGÚN EXPLICÓ, 
EL QUE UN PRESIDENTE FUERA 
ELEGIDO NO ERA SUFICIENTE 
GARANTÍA.DIJO QUE UN PRESIDENTE 
QUE ABUSARÁ DEL CARGO PODRÍA SER
FATAL PARA LA REPÚBLICA.
LUEGO, SUCEDIÓ ALGO 
IMPRESIONANTE.EL REPRESENTANTE 
DE PENSILVANIA, QUE HABÍA PEDIDO
RETIRAR EL JUICIO POLÍTICO, SE 
PUSO DE PIE  Y RECONOCIÓ SU E
O
ERROR. DIJO QUE HABÍA CAMBIADO 
DE OPINIÓN EN BASE AL DEBATE DEL
20 DE JULIO  Y QUE CREÍA QUE 
PARA EVITAR LA CORRUPCIÓN DEL 

Spanish: 
PROCESO ELECTORAL, EL PRESIDENTE
DEBÍA SOMETERSE AL JUICIO 
POLÍTICO INDEPENDIENTE DE LA 
POSIBLE HA DE SER REELECTO. EL 
RESUMEN DE ESTE DEBATE ES QUE SE
MANTUVO EL JUICIO POLÍTICO HARÁ 
PROTEGERSE DEL ABUSO DEL CARGO 
QUE PUDIESE CORROMPER EL PROCESO
ELECTORAL O POR UN BENEFICIO 
PERSONAL.
CON RESPECTO AL LENGUAJE DE LA 
CONSTITUCIÓN, SE USA ALTOS 
CRÍMENES Y COMPORTAMIENTO 
INADECUADOS, ESTOS NO ERAN 
TÉRMINOS ABSTRACTOS SON PALABRAS
MUY ESPECÍFICAS QUE ERA 
COMPRENDIDO POR TODOS. SE 
TOMARON PRESTADOS DE UN JUICIO 
QUE SUCEDÍA EN EL REINO UNIDO AL

English: 
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
A CAPACITY TO CORRUPT THE 
ELECTORAL PROCESS OR LEAD TO 
PERSONAL GAIN.
NOW, 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 IMPEACHMENT.
THESE WERE NOT VAGUE OR ABSTRACT
TERMS.
HIGH CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS 
REPRESENTS 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 REFERRED TO ABUSE 

English: 
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.
AND THAT MEANS CONNECTED TO THE 
OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENCY.
CONNECTED TO OFFICE.
THE CLASSIC FORUM THAT WAS FOR 
THE FRAMERS WAS THE ABUSE OF 
OFFICE FOR PERSONAL GAIN OR 
ADVANTAGE AND WHEN THE FRAMERS 
SPECIFICALLY NAMED BRIBERY AS A 
HIGH CRIME AND MISDEMEANOR THEY 
WERE NAMING ONE PARTICULAR 
VERSION OF THIS ABUSE OF OFFICE,
THE ABUSE OF OFFICE FOR PERSONAL
OR INDIVIDUAL GAIN.
THE OTHER FORMS OF ABUSE OF 
OFFICE, ABUSE OF OFFICE TO 
EFFECT ELECTIONS AND ABUSE OF 
OFFICE TO COMPROMISE NATIONAL 
SECURITY WERE FURTHER FORMS THAT
WERE FAMILIAR TO THE FRAMERS.
NOW, HOW DOES THIS LANGUAGE OF 
HIGH CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS 

Spanish: 
QUE SE HIZO REFERENCIA TAMBIÉN. 
ALTOS CRÍMENES Y DELITOS MENORES
TIENEN QUE VER CON UN ABUSO DEL 
CARGO  DE LA PRESIDENCIA PARA 
VENTAJA PERSONAL, PARA CORROMPER
EL PROCESO ELECTORAL O SUBSUMIR 
LA SEGURIDAD NACIONAL DEL PAÍS.
ALTO SIGNIFICA QUE ESTÁ 
CONECTADO AL CARGO DE PRES
E
PRESIDENTE. LA FORMA CLÁSICA A 
LA QUE SE REFERÍAN  ERA EL ABUSO
DE PODER PARA BENEFICIO PER
L
PERSONAL. SE NOMBRA POR EJEMPLO 
EL SOBORNO EN UNA VERSIÓN MUY 
PARTICULAR, EL ABUSO DEL CARGO 
PARA UN BENEFICIO PERSONAL. 
TAMBIÉN SE PODÍA ABUSAR DEL 
CARGO PARA PONER EN JUEGO LA 
SEGURIDAD NACIONAL.O EL PROCESO 

English: 
APPLY TO PRESIDENT TRUMP'S 
ALLEGED CONDUCT.
LET ME BE CLEAR, THE 
CONSTITUTION GIVES THE HOUSE OF 
REPRESENTATIVES THAT IS THE 
MEMBERS OF THIS COMMITTEE AND 
THE OTHER MEMBERS OF THE HOUSE, 
QUOTE, SOLE POWER OF 
IMPEACHMENT.
IT'S NOT MY RESPONSIBILITY OR 
JOB TO DETERMINE THE CREDIBILITY
OF THE WITNESSES THAT APPEARED 
BEFORE THE HOUSE THUS FAR.
THAT IS YOUR CONSTITUTIONAL 
RESPONSIBILITY.
MY COMMENTS WILL THEREFORE 
FOLLOW MY ROLE WHICH IS TO 
DESCRIBE AND APPLY THE MEANING 
OF IMPEACHMENT OFFENSES TO THE 
FACTS DESCRIBED BY THE TESTIMONY
AND EVIDENCE BEFORE THE HOUSE.
IN PARTICULAR, THE MEMORANDUM 
AND OTHER TESTIMONY RELATING TO 

Spanish: 
ELECTORAL.
AHORA, COMO SE APLICA ESTE 
LENGUAJE A LA PRESUNTA CONDUCTA 
DEL PRESIDENTE TRUMP. LA 
CONSTITUCIÓN  LE DA LA CÁMARA EL
PODER COMPLETO PARA INICIAR UN 
JUICIO POLÍTICO. NO ES MI 
RESPONSABILIDAD DETERMINAR LA 
CREDIBILIDAD DE LOS TESTIGOS QUE
LA CÁMARA ESCUCHÓ, ESA ES SU 
RESPONSABILIDAD CONSTITUCIONAL. 
POR LO TANTO, MIS COMENTARIOS SE
AJUSTAN A MI ROL  DE DESCRIBIR  
ESTOS ALTOS CRÍMENES Y LOS DE
T
DELITOS MENORES. LO QUE HIZO EL 
PRESIDENTE TRUMP CALIFICA SEGÚN 
LOS TÉRMINOS DE LA CONST
CONSTITUCIÓN,,  EN PARTICULAR EL

English: 
THE PHONE CALL BETWEEN THE TWO 
PRESIDENTS MORE THAN 
SUFFICIENTLY INDICATES THAT 
PRESIDENT TRUMP ABUSED HIS 
OFFICE BY SOLICITING THE 
PRESIDENT OF UKRAINE TO 
INVESTIGATE HIS POLITICAL RIVALS
IN ORDER TO GAIN PERSONAL 
POLITICAL ADVANTAGE INCLUDING IN
RELATION TO THE 2020 ELECTION.
AGAIN THE WORDS ABUSE OF OFFICE 
ARE NOT MYTHICAL 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 ELECTORAL 
INTERESTS.
THAT IS WHAT THE EVIDENCE BEFORE
THE HOUSE INDICATES.
FINALLY, LET ME BE CLEAR THAT ON
ITS OWN, SOLICITING THE LEADER 
OF A FOREIGN GOVERNMENT, IN 

Spanish: 
MEMO Y LOS TESTIMONIOS 
VINCULADOS A SU CONVERSACIÓN 
TELEFÓNICA CON EL PRESIDENTE 
ZELENSKI. ESTOS INDICAN QUE EL 
PRESIDENTE ABUSO DE SU CARGO AL 
PEDIRLE AL PRESIDENTE DE UCRANIA
QUE INVESTIGARA SUS RIVALES 
POLÍTICOS PARA OBTENER UNA V
VENTAJA POLÍTICA PERSONAL, EN LA
ELECCIÓN DE 2020.
ESTA PALABRAS  ABUSO DEL CARGO 
NO SON MÍSTICAS NI MÁGICAS, SON 
CLARAS, ÉSTAS SE DAN CUANDO EL 
PRESIDENTE USA EL PODER DEL 
CARGO NO PARA SERVIR AL INTERÉS 
DEL PUEBLO SI NO A SU PROPIO 
INTERÉS PERSONAL, PARTIDARIO, 
ELECTORAL. ESO ES LO QUE INDICAN
LOS ANTECEDENTES.

Spanish: 
PARA TERMINAR,  QUIERO DEJAR 
CLARO QUE PEDIRLE AL LÍDER DE 
OTRO PAÍS QUE ANUNCIA 
INVESTIGACIONES SOBRE RIVALES 
POLÍTICOS. ESTO SERÍA UN DELITO,
PERO ADEMÁS EL PRESIDENTE 
COMETIÓ TRANSACCIONES QUE 
CALIFICAN, EN PARTICULAR LA 
EVIDENCIA QUE APUNTA A QUE EL 
PRESIDENTE SUSPENDIÓ ASISTENCIA 
CLAVE PARA UCRANIA HASTA QUE NO 
SE ANUNCIARA LA INVESTIGACIÓN  
SOBRE LOS BIDEN. ADEMÁS,  SE 
ESCUCHÓ EVIDENCIA DE QUE EL 
PRESIDENTE CONDICIONÓ UNA VISITA
A LA CASA BLANCA AL ANUNCIO DE 
ESTA INVESTIGACIÓN. AMBAS 
ACCIONES ALTOS CRÍMENES Y 
DELITOS MENORES  SEGÚN LOS 
DESCRIBE LA CONSTITUCIÓN. ESTO 

English: 
ORDER TO ANNOUNCE THE 
INVESTIGATIONS OF POLITICAL 
RIVALS AND PERFORM THOSE 
INVESTIGATIONS, WOULD 
CONSTITUTION 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 IT'S RELEASE ON 
ANNOUNCEMENT OF THE 
INVESTIGATIONS OF THE BIDENS AND
OF THE DISCREDITED CROWD STRIKE 
CONSPIRACY THEORY.
THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED 
STATES WOULD TAKE ANY MEANS 
WHATEVER SO ENSURE HIS 
RE-ELECTION AND THAT IS THE 

Spanish: 
APUNTA  A QUE EL PRESIDENTE 
ESTABA DISPUESTO A HACER 
CUALQUIER COSA POR ASEGURAR SU
R
REELECCIÓN  Y POR ESO SE 
JUSTIFICA EL JUICIO POLÍTICO.
>>> SE ACABÓ EL TIEMPO
>>> PIDO LA PALABRA
>>> SSE LE DA
>>> VI UNA MOCIÓN PARA POSPONER
>>> SE PRESENTA LA MOCIÓN A LA 
MESA Y NO ES DEBATIBLE
>>> QUIENES ESTÉN A FAVOR
>>> PUEDO LEER LA MOCIÓN?
>>> SE LEERÁ LA MOCIÓN EL 11 DE 
DICIEMBRE
>>> SE VOTA LA MOCIÓN QUE NO 

English: 
REASON THAT THE FRAMERS PROVIDED
FOR IMPEACHMENT IN A CASE LIKE 
THIS ONE.
>> THE GENTLEMAN IS 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.
ALL IN FAVOR OF THE MOTION -- 
ALL IN FAVOR OF THE MOTION -- 
>> MAY WE HAVE THE MOTION READ 
PLEASE?
THE MOTION WAS STATED. 
>> MAY WE HAVE THE MOTION READ, 
PLEASE?
>> THE MOTION WILL BE READ AS TO
WHAT DATE. 
>> THE MOTION WILL BE READ TO A 
DATE CERTAIN WEDNESDAY DECEMBER 
11th, 2019 SO WE CAN ACTUALLY 
GET A RESPONSE TO THE 6 LETTERS.
>> THE GENTLEMAN STATED HIS 
MOTION, THE MOTION TO TABLE IS 
MADE. 
>> MOTION TO TABLE IS MADE AND 
NOT DEBATABLE ALL IN FAVOR?
MOTION TO TABLE SAY AYE. 
>> OPPOSED. 
>> NO. 
>> THE MOTION TO TABLE IS AGREED
TO. 

Spanish: 
ESTÁN A FAVOR DIGAN YO LOS OTROS
DIGAN O. SE APRUEBA, Y AHORA SE 
CONFIRMA
>>> NUEVAMENTE, COMO LES A
ANUNCIAMOS SE VE LA DIVISIÓN 
ENTRE AMBOS PARTIDOS, VUELVO CON
JESSE BENNETT PARA QUE NOS 
CUENTE LO QUE SUCEDE. ESTO VA A 
PASAR ÁREAS VECES MÁS EN LA A
AUDIENCIA. LOS REPUBLICANOS 
INTENTAN OBSTACULIZAR  LA 
AUDIENCIA YA QUE ESTÁN EN CO
A
CONTRA, ES UNA FORMA DE 
AFECTARLA.
QUIEREN QUITAR EL CONTROL A LOS 
DEMÓCRATAS, QUIEREN POSPONER LA 
AUDIENCIA  Y SE ESPERA QUE EL 
RESULTADO SEA EL MISMO, QUE VOTE
LOS PARTIDOS DIVIDIDOS Y QUE 
GANE LOS DEMÓCRATAS 24 17 POR LO

English: 
>> ROLL CALL. 
>> ROLL CALL IS REQUESTED.
>> WELL, ONCE AGAIN, THE 
PARTISANSHIP THAT WE TOLD YOU 
WOULD BE ON STRONG DISPLAY IN 
THIS COMMITTEE IS ON CASE AS WE 
TAKE UP ANOTHER ISSUE.
I'LL GO BACK TO JEFF ON THE HILL
THAT READS THIS STUFF.
EXPLAIN WHAT'S HAPPENING THIS 
TIME. 
>> I SUSPECT WE'LL SEE THIS 
HAPPEN AT LEAST A FEW MORE TIMES
AS THIS HEARING PROGRESSES.
WHAT THEY'RE DOING HERE IS 
THEY'RE TRYING TO ADD DELAYS AND
OBSTACLE TO THIS HEARING THAT 
THEY CLEARLY OBJECT TO AS A WAY 
TO UNDERMINE IT AND AS A RESULT 
OF THAT REALLY TESTING CHAIRMAN 
NADLER'S GRIP ON THIS OVERALL 
PROCEEDING.
SO THE LATEST MOTION WAS ONE TO 
BASICALLY PUT THIS ENTIRE THING 
OFF TO A LATER DATE.
SO NOW THEY'RE TAKING A ROLL 
CALL VOTE AND WE EXPECT THAT 
THIS VOTE IS GOING TO GO THE WAY
THE LAST ONE DID.
IT'S GOING TO BE A PARTY LINE 
VOTE 24-17, DEMOCRATS WILL 
PREVAIL AND THEY'LL TABLE THIS 
AND THE NEXT WITNESS WILL HAVE 
THE CHANCE TO SPEAK. 

Spanish: 
QUE NO ESCUCHAREMOS EL PRÓXIMO 
TESTIGO
>>> CHUCK TODD ESCUCHAMOS UNA 
OPINIÓN LEGAL BASTANTE CLARA ES 
ES EL OBJETIVO
>>> CREO QUE EL OBJETIVO ES QUE 
LA PRENSA ESCRIBA SOBRE EL 
PROCESO  Y LAS INTERRUPCIONES,  
ESO LO QUE PERA LOS REPUB
S
REPUBLICANOS. CREO QUE EL PRIMER
TESTIGO FUE MUY CLARO A MI ME 
GUSTA LA HISTORIA PERO CREO QUE 
LE EXPLICO MUY BIEN EL DEBATE 
SOBRE SI INCLUIR O NO EL JUICIO 
POLÍTICO LA CONSTITUCIÓN. CREO 
QUE ESO LO DISFRUTARÁN LOS 
TELEVIDENTES, Y ES CLARO TAMBIÉN
LO QUE ESTÁN HACIENDO LOS 
REPUBLICANOS, ESTÁN PROPONIENDO 
MOCIONES  ESO ES LO QUE PASA

English: 
>> WE HAD EXPECTED THEATRICS 
FROM BOTH SIDES BUT THIS IS 
GOING TO BLUNT THE TESTIMONY.
WE HEARD SOME VERY STRONG LEGAL 
OPINION THERE ON IMPEACHMENT.
IS THE GOAL OF SOME OF THIS TO 
BLUNT TESTIMONY THAT WE'RE GOING
TO HEAR. 
>> THE GOAL IS TO I THINK GET 
ALL OF US IN THE PRESS CORPS TO 
WRITE ABOUT THE PROCESS AND 
DISRUPTIONS AND SORT OF TO TRY 
TO DISMISS WHAT YOU'RE HEARING.
I FOUND THE FIRST WITNESS VERY 
COMPELLING.
I THINK HE DID A GOOD JOB 
TELLING AN ORAL HISTORY OF SORTS
OF EXPLAINING THE DEBATE ABOUT 
WHETHER TO PUT IMPEACHMENT IN 
THE CONSTITUTION OR NOT.
IT'S CALLED CALL A MOTION I 
GUESS.
SO HERE WE GO. 
>> THANK YOU FOR THE OPPORTUNITY
TO TESTIFY. 
>> TWICE I HAD THE PRIVILEGE OF 
REPRESENTING THIS COMMITTEE AND 

English: 
IT'S LEADERSHIP IN VOTING RIGHTS
CASES BEFORE THE SUPREME COURT.
ONCE WHEN IT WAS UNDER THE 
LEADERSHIP OF THE CHAIRMAN, IT'S
GOOD TO SEE YOU AGAIN SIR AND 
WITH ONE OF MY OTHER CLIENTS AND
ONCE UNDER THE LEADERSHIP OF 
CHAIRMAN CONYERS.
IT WAS A GREAT HONOR TO 
REPRESENT THIS COMMITTEE BECAUSE
OF THE KEY ROLE IN ENSURING THAT
AMERICAN CITIZENS HAVE THE RIGHT
TO VOTE IN FREE AND FAIR 
ELECTIONS.
TODAY YOU'RE BEING ASKED TO 
CONSIDER WHETHER PROTECTING 
THOSE ELECTIONS REQUIRES 
IMPEACHING A PRESIDENT.
THAT IS AN AWESOME 
RESPONSIBILITY.
THAT EVERYTHING I KNOW ABOUT OUR
CONSTITUTION AND IT'S VALUES AND
MY REVIEW OF THE RECORD AND HERE
MR. FOREMAN COLLINS I WOULD LIKE
TO SAY TO YOU, SIR, THAT I READ 
TRANSCRIPTS OF EVERY ONE OF THE 
WITNESSES WHO APPEARED IN THE 
LIVE HEARING BECAUSE I WOULD NOT
SPEAK ABOUT THESE THINGS WITHOUT
REVIEWING THE FACTS SO I'M 
INSULTING BY THE SUGGESTION THAT
AS A LAW PROFESSOR I DON'T CARE 
ABOUT THOSE FACTS, BUT 

Spanish: 
>>> VAMOS AL SIGUIENTE TE
TESTIMONIO
>>> SEÑOR PRESIDENTE,  AGRADEZCO
HABER PODIDO COLABORAR ANTES CON
ESTE COMITÉ. LO HICE BAJO 
DISTINTAS PRESIDENCIAS, EL PAPEL
DE ESTE COMITÉ HA SIDO CLAVE  
PARA DEFENDER EL DERECHO DE LOS 
ESTADOUNIDENSES A VOTAR EN 
ELECCIONES LIBRES Y JUSTAS. LA 
PREGUNTA ES SI ESA PROTECCIÓN 
INCLUYE  HACER UN JUICIO P
POLÍTICO CON PRESIDENTE. ESA ES 
UNA GRAN RESPONSABILIDAD Y EN 
BASE A LO QUE DICE LA CO
CONSTITUCIÓN Y LAS TRA
TRANSCRIPCIONES DE LO QUE 
DIJERON LOS TESTIGOS, PORQUE YO 

Spanish: 
NO HABLARÍA AQUÍ SIN REVISAR LOS
HECHOS POR LO QUE ME OFENDE LO 
QUE USTED INSINUÓ. TODO LO QUE 
LEÍ ME DICE QUE CUANDO EL 
PRESIDENTE TRUMP EXIGIÓ EL 
INVOLUCRAMIENTO DE UN GOBIERNO 
EXTRANJERO EN NUESTRA ELECCIÓN 
ATACÓ EL CORAZÓN DE LA REPÚBLICA
QUE DEFENDEMOS. COMO SE EXPLICÓ,
ESTO UN ABUSO DE PODER. COMO 
QUIERO DEJAR CLARO,  ATRAER A UN
GOBIERNO EXTRANJERO A NUESTRA 
ELECCIÓN  ES UN GRAVE ABUSO DE 
PODER PORQUE VA CONTRA LA 
DEMOCRACIA EN SÍ. NUESTRA 
CONSTITUCIÓN DICE NOSOTROS EL 
PUEBLO, EL UNA RAZÓN. LOS 
PODERES DE LAS AUTORIDADES 
PROVIENEN DEL PUEBLO Y ESO SE 
E
REFLEJA A TRAVÉS DE LAS 

English: 
EVERYTHING I READ ON THOSE 
OCCASIONS TELLS ME THAT WHEN 
PRESIDENT TRUMP INVITED, INDEED 
DEMANDED FOREIGN INVOLVEMENT IN 
OUR UPCOMING ELECTION HE STRUCK 
AT THE VERY HEART OF WHAT MAKES 
THIS A REPUBLIC TO WHICH WE 
PLEDGE ALLEGIANCE.
THAT DEMAND AS PROFESSOR FELDMAN
JUST EXPLAINED CONSTITUTED AN 
ABUSE OF POWER.
INDEED, AS 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.
AND THE LEGITIMACY OF OUR 
GOVERNMENT AND VOTING IS 

English: 
PRESERVATIVE OF ALL RIGHTS.
SO IT IS HARDLY SURPRISING THAT 
THE CONSTITUTION IS MARVELLED 
WITH PROVISIONS GOVERNING 
ELECTIONS AND GUARANTEEING 
GOVERNMENTAL ACCOUNTABILITY.
INDEED, A MAJORITY OF AMENDMENTS
TO OUR CONSTITUTIONS SINCE THE 
CIVIL WAR 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.
AMERICA KEPT THAT PROMISE FOR 
TWO CENTURIES AND HAS DONE SO 
EVEN DURING WARTIMES.
FOR EXAMPLE WE HAVE INVENTED THE
IDEA OF ABSENTEE VOTING SO THAT 
UNION TROOPS THAT SUPPORTED 
PRESIDENT LINCOLN COULD STAY IN 
THE FIELD DURING THE ELECTION OF
1864 AND SINCE THEN COUNTLESS 
OTHER AMERICANS HAVE FOUGHT AND 
DIED TO PROTECT OUR RIGHT TO 
VOTE. 
>> BUT THE FRAMERS OF OUR 
CONSTITUTION REALIZE THAT 

Spanish: 
ELECCIONES, HABLAN DE NUESTRA 
LEGITIMIDAD, LA DE NUESTROS G
I
GOBIERNOS Y NUESTRAS LIBERTADES.
ME PARECE MUY SORPRENDENTE  QUE 
LA CONSTITUCIÓN TENGA NORMAS  
SOBRE LAS ELECCIONES Y LA 
RESPONSABILIDAD DE LAS 
AUTORIDADES, DE HECHO, MUCHAS 
N
ENMIENDAS DESDE LA GUERRA CIVIL 
HABLAN DE ESTOS TEMAS,, QUE SON 
DE LO MÁS IMPORTANTE. HEMOS 
MANTENIDO ESTÁ PROCESADO  DU
DURANTE MÁS DE DOS SIGLOS. POR 
EJEMPLO, EL VOTO NAU CIENCIA 
PARA QUE LOS MILITARES PUDIESEN 
VOTAR EN EL FRENTE. DESDE 
ENTONCES MUCHOS ESTADOUNIDENSES 

English: 
ELECTIONS ALONE COULD NOT 
GUARANTEE THAT THE UNITED STATES
WOULD REMAIN A REPUBLIC.
NOW YOU ALREADY HEARD TWO PEOPLE
GIVE WILLIAM DAVEY HIS PROPS.
HAMILTON GOT A WHOLE MUSICAL AND
WILLIAM DAVEY IS ONLY GOING TO 
GET THE COMMITTEE HEARING.
HE WARNED THAT A PRESIDENT MIGHT
SPARE NO EFFORTS OR MEANS 
WHATSOEVER TO GET HIMSELF 
REELECTED AND GEORGE MASON 
INSISTED THAT A PRESIDENT THAT 
PROCURED HIS APPOINTMENT IN THE 
FIRST INSTANCE THROUGH IMPROPER 
AND CORRUPT ACTS SHOULD NOT 
ESCAPE PUNISHMENT BY REPEATING 
HIS GUILT AND MASON WAS THE 
PERSON RESPONSIBLE FOR ADDING 
HIGH CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS TO 
THE LIST OF IMPEACHABLE 
OFFENSES.
SO WE KNOW FROM THAT THAT THE 

Spanish: 
HAN MUERTO POR PROTEGER NUESTRO 
DERECHO.
NO ESTABA GARANTIZADO  QUE 
ESTADOS UNIDOS SIGUIESE SIENDO 
UNA REPÚBLICA  COMO EXISTÍA EL 
RIESGO DE QUE EL QUE SE DE 
INTERVENIR EN EL PROCESO 
ELECTORAL. DOS PERSONAS YA 
HABLARON DE ESTO, SE CITÓ A 
PERSONAJES PÚBLICOS QUE 
ADVIRTIERON QUE SIN LA P
POSIBILIDAD DEL JUICIO POLÍTICO 
LOS PRESIDENTES HARÍAN LO 
POSIBLE POR SER REELEGIDOS. SE 
DIJO QUE UN PRESIDENTE NO DEBÍA 
ESCAPAR DEL CASTIGO, MASON 
AGREGÓ LA LISTA DE OFENSAS QUE 
JUSTIFICAN UN JUICIO POLÍTICO. 
SE TRATA DE UN PRESIDENTE QUE 

Spanish: 
INTENTA INFLUIR UNA ELECCIÓN, LA
QUE LE PERMITE LLEGAR AL CARGO O
SE REELEGIDO.
ADEMÁS,  A NUESTROS FUNDADORES 
LE PREOCUPABA DEFENDER NUESTRA 
DEMOCRACIA Y NUESTRO PROCESO DE 
LA INTERFERENCIA EXTRANJERA. 
JOHN ADAMS  PLANTÓ SU 
PREOCUPACIÓN DE QUE SE ELIGIERON
PRESIDENTE. DIJO QUE LE 
PREOCUPABA LA INJERENCIA 
EXTRANJERA, QUE ESTABA SIEMPRE 
PRESENTE LAS ELECCIONES. EL 
PRESIDENTE WASHINGTON  ADVIRTIÓ 
QUE LA EXPERIENCIA DEMOSTRABA 
QUE LA INJERENCIA EXTRANJERA ERA
UN PELIGRO CLARO.
EN LA IDEA DE QUE UN PRESIDENTE 

English: 
LIST WAS DESIGNED TO REACH A 
PRESIDENT THAT ACTS TO SUBVERT 
AN ELECTION.
TO PROTECT OUR GOVERNMENT AND 
OUR DEMOCRATIC PROCESS FROM 
OUTSIDE INTERFERENCE.
FOR EXAMPLE, JOHN ADAMS DURING 
THE RATIFICATION EXPRESSED 
CONCERN WITH THE VERY IDEA OF 
HAVING AN ELECTED PRESIDENT 
WRITING TO THOMAS JEFFERSON THAT
YOU ARE APPREHENSIVE OF FOREIGN 
INTERFERENCE, INTRIGUE, 
INFLUENCE, SO AM I BUT AS OFTEN 
AS ELECTIONS HAPPEN THE DANGER 
OF FOREIGN INFLUENCE RECURS.
AND IN HIS FAIRWELL ADDRESS, 
PRESIDENT WASHINGTON WARNED THE 
HISTORY AND EXPERIENCE PROVED 
THAT FOREIGN INFLUENCE IS ONE OF
THE MOST VAINFUL FOES OF 
REPUBLICAN GOVERNMENT.
THEY WOULD TRY TO FOAM AT 
DISAGREEMENT AMONG THE AMERICAN 
PEOPLE AND INFLUENCE WHAT WE 
FOUGHT.
THE VERY IDEA THAT A PRESIDENT 
MIGHT SEEK THE AID OF A FOREIGN 
GOVERNMENT IN HIS RE-ELECTION 
CAMPAIGN SHOULD HAVE HORRIFIED 

Spanish: 
PIDA AYUDA OTRO GOBIERNO EN SU 
REELECCIÓN LOS HABRÍA 
HORRORIZADO.Y ESO LO QUE H HA 
HECHO EL PRESIDENTE TRUMP. LA 
LISTA DE OFENSAS QUE JUSTIFICAN 
UN JUICIO POLÍTICO ESTÁN EN EL 
CORAZÓN DE LA DEFINICIÓN DE E
ESTÁS OFENSAS EN QUE UN PRE
PRESIDENTE SACRIFICA EL INTERÉS 
NACIONAL POR EL SUYO PROPIO.
SUSPENDER LA ASISTENCIA A UN 
PAÍS AMIGO, EL SOBORNO SUCEDE  
CUANDO SE PIDE UN FAVOR PERSONAL
DEMOSTRANDO QUE PONE SU PROPIO 
INTERÉS POR SOBRE DEL PAÍS. SIN 

English: 
THEM.
BUT BASED ON THE RECORD, THAT IS
WHAT PRESIDENT TRUMP HAS DONE.
THE LIST OF IMPEACHMENT OFFENSES
THAT THE FRAMERS INCLUDED IN THE
CONSTITUTION SHOWS THAT THE 
ESSENCE OF AN IMPEACHMENT 
OFFENSE IS A PRESIDENT'S 
DECISION TO SACRIFICE THE 
NATIONAL INTEREST FOR HIS OWN 
PRIVATE ENDS.
TREASON, THE FIRST THING LISTED,
INDIVIDUALS GIVING AID TO A 
FOREIGN ENEMY.
THAT'S PUTTING A FOREIGN ENEMY'S
INTERESTS ABOVE THE INTEREST OF 
THE UNITED STATES.
BRIBERY, OCCURRED WHEN AN 
OFFICIAL SOLICITED, RECEIVED OR 
OFFERED A PERSONAL FAVOR OR 
BENEFIT TO INFLUENCE OFFICIAL 
ACTION RISKING THAT HE WOULD PUT
HIS PRIVATE WELFARE ABOVE THE 
NATIONAL INTEREST AND HIGH 
CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS CAPTURED
THE OTHER WAYS IN WHICH A HIGH 
OFFICIAL MIGHT AS THE STORY 
EXPLAINED DISREGARD PUBLIC 
INTEREST IN THE DISCHARGE OF THE
DUTIES OF POLITICAL OFFICE.
BASED ON THE RECORD BEFORE YOU, 

Spanish: 
PONER ATENCIÓN AL INTERÉS 
PÚBLICO.
LO QUE HA PASADO EN ESTE CASO ES
ALGO QUE CREO NUNCA HABÍAMOS 
VISTO, UN PRESIDENTE QUE HA 
INSISTIDO EN NO CUMPLIR SU 
PROMESA Y QUE NO HA DEFENDIDO LA
CONSTITUCIÓN. UN PRESIDENTE QUE 
USÓ SU CARGO  PARA EXIGIR QUE UN
GOBIERNO EXTRANJERO PERJUDICADA 
A UN COMPETIDOR. COMO DIJO JOHN 
KENNEDY, EL DERECHO VOTAR EN UNA
ELECCIÓN LIBRE ES EL DERECHO MÁS
VALIOSO. PERO NUESTRAS 
ELECCIONES SON MENOS LIBRES 
CUANDO HAY INTERFERENCIA EXT
J
EXTRANJERA. LO DE 2016 YA FUE 
MALO, QUEDÓ CLARO QUE RUSIA 
INTERVINO, ESA DISTORSIÓN SE 

English: 
WHAT HAS HAPPENED IN THE CASE 
TODAY IS SOMETHING THAT I DO NOT
THINK THAT 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 THE 
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
MOST POWERFUL AND PRECIOUS RIGHT
IN THE WORLD.
BUT OUR ELECTIONS BECOME LESS 
FREE WHEN THEY ARE DISTORTED BY 
FOREIGN INTERFERENCE.
THERE'S WIDESPREAD AGREEMENT 
THAT RUSSIAN OPERATIVES 
INTERVENE TO MANIPULATE OUR 
PROCESS.
BUT THAT IS MAGNIFIED.
IF A SITTING PRESIDENT ABUSES 
THE POWERS OF HIS OFFICE 
ACTUALLY TO INVITE FOREIGN 
INTERVENTION.

English: 
YOU CAN SEE WHY.
IMAGINE LIVING IN A PART OF 
LOUISIANA OR TEXAS THAT IS 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 SAYS I 
WOULD LIKE TO DO YOU -- I WOULD 
LIKE YOU TO DO US A FAVOR, I'LL 
MEET WITH YOU AND I'LL SEND A 
DISASTER RELIEF ONCE YOU BRAND 
MY OPPONENT A CRIMINAL.
WOULDN'T YOU KNOW IN YOUR GUT 
THAT SUCH A PRESIDENT HAD ABUSED
HIS OFFICE?
AFRTD ARE AND THAT HE WAS TRYING
TO CORRUPT THE ELECTORAL 
PROCESS?
I BELIEVE THAT RECORD SHOWS 
WRONGFUL ACTS ON THAT SCALE 
HERE.
IT SHOWS A PRESIDENT THAT 
DELAYED MEETING A FOREIGN LEADER
AND PROVIDED ASSISTANCE THAT 
CONGRESS AND HIS OWN ADVISERS 
BELIEVED SHOWED OUR NATIONAL 

Spanish: 
MAGNIFICA SI EL PRESIDENTE  
ABUSA DE SU CARGO PARA PEDIR 
INTERVENCIÓN EXTRANJERA. 
IMAGÍNENSE VIVIR EN 1 A DE 
LUISIANA  O TEXAS  QUE SUFRE LOS
EFECTOS DE INUNDACIONES, QUE LE 
PARECERÍA QUE EL GOBERNADOR 
PIDIERA UNA REUNIÓN CON EL 
PRESIDENTE PARA PEDIR ASISTENCIA
CONTRA DESASTRE, QUE PENSARÍAN 
SI EL PRESIDENTE DIJERA PRIMERO 
QUIERO QUE ME HAGA UN FAVOR, ME 
REUNIRÉ CON USTED Y LE DARÉ EL 
DINERO SI USTED INVESTIGA MI 
OPONENTE. DUDARÍAN ACASO DE QUE 
ESO FUE UN ABUSO DEL CARGO,  QUE
SE TRAICIONÓ EL INTERÉS DEL PAÍS
Y QUE SE INTENTÓ CORROMPER A UNA
AUTORIDAD?
CREO QUE ESO ESTÁ CLARO EN ESTE 
CASO, SE VE QUE UN PRESIDENTE 
SUSPENDIÓ UNA REUNIÓN  Y UNA 

English: 
INTEREST IN LIMITING RUSSIAN 
AGGRESSION.
SAYING RUSSIA, IF YOU'RE 
LISTENING?
YOU KNOW, A PRESIDENT THAT CARED
ABOUT THE CONSTITUTION WOULD SAY
RUSSIA, IF YOU'RE LISTENING, 
BUTT OUT OF OUR ELECTIONS AND IT
SHOWS A PRESIDENT THAT DID THIS 
TO STRONG ARM A FOREIGN LEADER 
INTO SMEARING ONE OF THE 
PRESIDENT'S OPPONENTS IN OUR ON 
GOING ELECTION SEASON.
THAT'S NOT POLITICS AS USUAL.
AT LEAST NOT IN THE UNITED 
STATES OR NOT IN ANY MATURE 
DEMOCRACY.
IT IS INSTEAD WHY THE 
CONSTITUTION OBTAINED AN 
IMPEACHMENT POWER.
A PRESIDENT SHOULD RESIST 
FOREIGN INTERFERENCE IN OUR 
ELECTIONS.
NOT DEMAND IT 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. 
>> THANK YOU.
IT'S AN HONOR AND A PRIVILEGE TO
JOIN THE OTHER WITNESSES TO 

Spanish: 
ASISTENCIA QUE SIRVE A NUESTRA 
INTERÉS NACIONAL AL PROMOVER LA 
DEMOCRACIA Y LIMITAR LA AGRESIÓN
RUSA. UN PRESIDENTE R KELLY 
IMPORTA LA CONSTITUCIÓN DI
DIRÍA,"RUSIA SI ME ESCUCHAS, 
ALÉJATE DE NUESTRA ELECCIÓN".NO 
ES ASÍ COMO FUNCIONA LA POL
A
POLÍTICA, AL MENOS NO EN NUESTRO
PAÍS. ESTA ES UNA RAZÓN 
FUNDAMENTAL POR LA QUE EXISTE EL
PODER DE INICIAR UN JUICIO 
POLÍTICO LA CONSTITUCIÓN. UN 
PRESIDENTE DEBE  EVITAR LA 
INTERVENCIÓN EXTRANJERA Y NO 
EXIGIRLA. POR ESO EL PRESIDENTE 
TRUMP  DEBE HACERSE RESPONSABLE 
PUNTO GRACIAS
>>> GRACIAS PROFESORA

Spanish: 
>>> SEÑOR PRESIDENTE MUCHAS 
GRACIAS. ES UN HONOR UNIRME A 
LOS TESTIGOS QUE HAN HABLADO DE 
UN TEMA MUY IMPORTANTE PARA 
NUESTRO PAÍS Y NO ESTÁ 
CONSTITUCIÓN. PORQUE TE LA 
CÁMARA QUE REPRESENTA EL PUEBLO 
Y ES LA ÚNICA QUE TIENE EL PODER
DE INICIAR UN JUICIO POLÍTICO Y 
PUEDE DEFINIR SI SE CUMPLIÓ CON 
EL ESTÁNDAR MÍNIMO PARA HAC
.
HACERLO.COMO EXPLICARÉ EN MI 
DECLARACIÓN, LA EVIDENCIA 
DEMUESTRA QUE EL PRESIDENTE HA 
COMETIDO VARIAS ACCIONES  QUE 
JUSTIFICAN EL JUICIO POLÍTICO, 
INCLUIDO EL SOBORNO, PEDIR UN 
FAVOR QUE LO BENEFICIA 
PERSONALMENTE, OBSTRUCCIÓN A LA 
JUSTICIA  Y A LA LABOR DEL 
CONGRESO. ESTA AUDIENCIA DEBE 
RECORDARNOS UNO DE LOS 
PRINCIPIOS CLAVE QUE GUIÓ  A 
QUIENES REDACTARON NUESTRA 
CONSTITUCIÓN, QUE LO LLEVÓ A
ALEJARSE DE INGLATERRA Y E

English: 
DISCUSS A MATTER OF GRAVE 
CONCERN TO OUR COUNTRY AND TO 
OUR CONSTITUTION BECAUSE THIS 
HOUSE HAS THE SOLE POWER OF 
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 THE OPENING 
STATEMENT, THE RECORD COMPILED 
SHOWS THE PRESIDENT HAS 
COMMITTED SEVERAL IMPEACHMENT 
OFFENSES INCLUDING BRIBERY, 
ABUSE OF POWER AND BENEFIT 
HIMSELF PERSONALLY OBJECTING 
JUSTICE AND OBJECTING 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 

Spanish: 
ESCRIBIR SUPO QUE CONSTITUCIÓN. 
EL PRINCIPIO DE QUE EN ESTE PAÍS
NADIE REY. ESTOS PRINCIPIOS  SE 
RECONOCEN EN TODO EL MUNDO Y HAN
INSPIRADO EL IDEAL E
ESTADOUNIDENSE.
EN 1903 EL PRESIDENTE ROOSEVELT 
EXPLICÓ ESTE PRINCIPIO DICIENDO:
"NADIE ESTÁ POR SOBRE LA LEY NI 
POR DEBAJO. LA OBEDIENCIA A LA 
LEY  SE EXIGE COMO UN DERECHO NO
COMO UN FAVOR".HAY TRES PR
PRINCIPIO LA CONSTITUCIÓN QUE 
DEFIENDEN ESTE PRINCIPIO DE QUE 
NO HAY NADIE POR SOBRE LA LEY, 
INCLUIDO EL PRESIDENTE. EN 
INGLATERRA, EL REY ESTABA POR 
ENCIMA,, PERO NO ESTÁ 
CONSTITUCIÓN  GARANTIZA QUE EL 

English: 
COUNTRY NO ONE IS KING.
WE HAVE FOLLOWED THAT PRINCIPLE 
SINCE BEFORE THE FOUNDING OF THE
CONSTITUTION.
IT'S RECOGNIZED AROUND THE WORLD
AS A FIXED INSPIRING AMERICAN 
IDEAL.
IN HIS THIRD MESSAGE TO CONGRESS
IN 1903, PRESIDENT ROOSEVELT 
DELIVERED ONE OF THE FINEST 
ARTICULATIONS OF THIS PRESIDENT.
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 AS A FAVOR.
NO ONE, NOT EVEN THE PRESIDENT 
IS ABOVE THE LAW.
FIRST IN THE BRITISH SYSTEM, 
THEY HAVE NO CHOICE AND IN OUR 
CONSTITUTION THE FRAMERS ALLOWED
ELECTIONS TO SERVE AS A CRUCIAL 
MEANS FOR INSURING PRESIDENTIAL 
ACCOUNTABILITY.
SECOND IN THE BRITISH SYSTEM THE

Spanish: 
PRESIDENTE SE HARÁ RESPONSABLE. 
HAYA SE DICE QUE EL REINO PUEDE 
COMETER ERRORES. NUESTRA 
CONSTITUCIÓN DICE Y CONSAGRA LA 
SEPARACIÓN DE PODERES, EN LA 
FISCALIZACIÓN QUE EVITA QUE UN 
PRESIDENTE SE CONVIERTE EN UN 
TIRANO.
EL SISTEMA BRITÁNICO DICE QUE SE
PUEDE HACER UN JUICIO POLÍTICO A
TODOS MENOS AL REY. EN NUESTRA 
DECLARACIÓN DE INDEPENDENCIA, SE
LISTAN VARIAS OFENSAS QUE EL REY
COMETIÓ CONTRA ESTADOS UNIDOS, Y
AL ESCRIBIR LA CONSTITUCIÓN SE 
UNIERON BAJO EL PRINCIPIO QUE ES
UNA SALVAGUARDA PARA EL PÚBLICO.
HABLAN DE NOSOTROS EL PUEBLO, UN
PUEBLO QUE HABÍA DERRIBADO AL 
REY QUE NO IBA A PERMITIR 

English: 
KING COULD DO NO WRONG.
AND NO OTHER PARTS OF THE 
GOVERNMENT COULD CHECK HIM.
IN THE BRITISH SYSTEM EVERYONE 
BUT THE KING WAS IMPEACHMENT.
THEY REBEL AGAINST THE MONARCH 
THEY SAW AS CORRUPT AND ENTITLED
TO DO NO LONG.
IN OUR DECLARATION OF 
INDEPENDENCE THEY SET FORTH 
THOSE AND WHEN THEY LATER 
CONVENED TO DRAFT OUR 
CONSTITUTION THEY WERE UNITED 
AROUND A SIMPLE INDISPUTABLE 
PRINCIPLE THAT WAS A MAJOR SAFE 
GUARD FOR THE PUBLIC.
WE THE PEOPLE AGAINST TYRANNY OF
ANY KIND.
A PEOPLE THAT HAD OVERTHROWN A 
KING WERE NOT GOING TO TURN 
AROUND AND CREATE AN OFFICE THAT
LIKE THE KING WAS ABOVE THE LAW 

English: 
AND COULD DO NO WRONG.
THE FRAMERS CREATED A CHIEF 
EXECUTIVE TO BRING IT TO THE 
ADMINISTRATION OF FEDERAL LAWS 
BUT TO BE ACCOUNTABLE TO 
CONGRESS FOR TREASON, BRIBERY OR
OTHER HIGH CRIMES AND 
MISDEMEANORS.
THE FRAMERS CONCERN WAS EVIDENCE
ABOUT THE CONVENTION.
HERE I MUST THANK MY FRIENDS 
THAT REFERRED TO WILLIAM DAVY.
I WILL TALK ABOUT JAMES THAT WAS
APPOINTED TO THE SUPREME COURT 
AND ASSURED 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.
END QUOTE.
THIS BRINGS US TO THE CRUCIAL 
QUESTION WE'RE HERE TO TALK 
ABOUT TODAY.

Spanish: 
NINGUNA TIRANÍA. NO SE 
PERMITIRÍA QUE NADIE ESTUVIESE 
POR SOBRE LA LEY. EL PRESIDENTE 
DEBE SER RESPONSABLE DEL 
CONGRESO POR TRAICIÓN,  SOBORNO 
Y OTROS ALTOS CRÍMENES Y DELITOS
MENORES. ESTO QUEDA CLARO EN LA 
CONVENCIÓN. VOY HABLAR TAMBIÉN 
DE OTRO REPRESENTANTE QUE 
PARTICIPÓ  DE LA CONVENCIÓN 
CONSTITUYENTE, TAMBIÉN DE KARINA
DEL NORTE Y QUE LUEGO FUE JUEZ 
DE LA SUPREMA. DICE QUE UN 
PRESIDENTE DISTINTO MONARCA, QUE
RESPONSABLE PERSONALMENTE POR 
CUALQUIER ABUSO.
ESTO NO LLEVA LA PREGUNTA CLAVE 

English: 
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.
AND ATTEMPTS TO SUBVERT THE 
CONSTITUTION WHEN THE PRESIDENT 
DARES TO USE THE POWER AND 
BREACHES PUBLIC TRUST AND 
SERIOUS INJURIES TO THE REPUBLIC
AND THE FEDERALIST PAPERS 
ALEXANDER HAMILTON DECLARED THEY
ARE THOSE DEFENSES THAT PROCEED 
THE VIOLATION OF SOME PUBLIC 
TRUST.
AND RELAYED TO INJURIES DONE 
IMMEDIATELY OF SOCIETY ITSELF.
SEVERAL THEMES EMERGE.
FROM THE FRAMERS DISCUSSION OF 
THE SCOPE OF IMPEACHMENT 

Spanish: 
QUE VINIMOS A DISCUTIR, CUÁL ES 
EL ESTÁNDAR PARA PODER INICIAR 
UN JUICIO POLÍTICO. LA CON
CONSTITUCIÓN DEFINE EL SOBORNO, 
COMO EL USO DEL CARGO PARA UN 
BENEFICIO PERSONAL. COMO YA DIJO
MI COLEGA, ESTOS TÉRMINOS 
DERIVAN DE LA DEFINICIÓN 
BRITÁNICA DE ESTÁS OFENSAS 
CONTRA LOS ESTADOS UNIDOS Y LA 
CONSTITUCIÓN, CUANDO UN 
PRESIDENTE NO SIGA LAS NORMAS Y 
ABUSE DE SU CARGO PARA SOMETE EL
LA E INCUMPLA LA CONFIANZA DEL 
PÚBLICO DAÑANDO SERIAMENTE LA 

Spanish: 
REPÚBLICA.
HAY VARIOS PUNTOS QUE SURGEN A
P
PARTIR DE ESTA DISCUSIÓN SOBRE
A
ACCIONES SOMETIDAS  A JUICIO 
POLÍTICO, SABEMOS QUE NO TODAS 
ESTAS ACCIONES SON CRIMINALES, 
TAMPOCO SIGNIFICA ESTO QUE TODO 
CRIMEN JUSTIFIQUE UN JUICIO 
POLÍTICO. LA DEFINICIÓN TIENE 
QUE VER CON EL CONTEXTO Y LA 
GRAVEDAD DEL DELITO MENOR, POR 
EJEMPLO.AL LEER LAS D
DECLARACIONES, CONCLUYO QUE EL 
PRESIDENTE FUE CONTRA TODO ESTO.
ES CLARA LA GRAVEDAD DE LO QUE 
HIZO, EL FAVOR QUE LE PIDIÓ AL 
PRESIDENTE UCRANIANO, SOMETIENDO

English: 
OFFENSES AND IMPEACHMENT 
PRACTICE.
WE KNOW THAT NOT ALL IMPEACHABLE
OFFENSES ARE CRIMINAL AND WE 
KNOW THAT NOT ALL FELONIES ARE 
IMPEACHMENT OFFENSES.
WE KNOW FURTHER THAT WHAT 
MATTERS IN DETERMINING WHETHER 
PARTICULAR MISCONDUCT 
CONSTITUTES AS A HIGH CRIME AND 
MISDEMEANOR IS THE CONTEXT AND 
THE GRAVITY OF THE MISCONDUCT IN
QUESTION.
I CANNOT HELP BUT CONCLUDE THIS 
PRESIDENT ATTACKED EACH SAFE 
GUARD AGAINST ESTABLISHING A 
MONARCHY IN THIS COUNTRY.
THE FAVOR HE REQUESTED FROM 
UKRAINE'S PRESIDENT WAS TO 
RECEIVE IN EXCHANGE FOR HIS USE 
OF PRESIDENTIAL POWER, HIS 
ANNOUNCEMENT OF A POLITICAL 
RIVAL.

English: 
IT WAS NOT THE IMPORTANT ACTION 
OF THE PRESIDENT.
THE GRAVITY OF THE PRESIDENT'S 
MISCONDUCT IS APPARENT WHEN 
COMPARED TO THE MISCONDUCT OF 
THE ONE PRESIDENT THAT RE-SIGNED
FROM OFFICE TO AVOID 
IMPEACHMENT, CONVICTION AND 
REMOVAL.
THEY IMPROVED THREE ARTICLES OF 
IMPEACHMENT.
THE FIRST ARTICLE CHARGED HIM 
WITH OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE.
IF YOU READ THE MUELLER REPORT 
IT IDENTIFIES A NUMBER OF FACTS.
I WON'T LAY THEM OUT HERE RIGHT 
NOW THAT SUGGEST THE PRESIDENT 
HIMSELF HAS OBSTRUCTED JUSTICE.
IF YOU READ THE SECOND ARTICLE, 
AND CHARGED HIM WITH ABUSE OF 
POWER FOR ORDERING THE HEADS OF 
THE FBI.
AND SOLICITING FOREIGN COUNTRIES
INCLUDING CHINA, RUSSIA AND 
UKRAINE TO INVESTIGATE HIS 

Spanish: 
LA AYUDA A QUE LO APOYARA 
ANUNCIANDO UNA INVESTIGACIÓN 
SOBRE SU RIVAL POLÍTICO. LA 
GRAVEDAD DE LA CONDUCTA DEL 
PRESIDENTE QUEDA CLARO AL 
COMPARARLO AL ÚNICO PRESIDENTE 
QUE RENUNCIÓ PARA EVITAR EL 
JUICIO POLÍTICO. EN 1974 ESTE 
COMITÉ APROBÓ TRES CARGOS DE 
JUICIO POLÍTICO CONTRA EL 
PRESIDENTE NIXON, UNO TENÍA QUE 
VER CON LA OBSTRUCCIÓN A LA 
JUSTICIA.
EN EL INFORME DE ROBERT MUELLER 
SE HACE REFERENCIA A ESTA 
PRESUNTA OBSTRUCCIÓN A LA 
JUSTICIA. DE PARTE DEL 
PRESIDENTE
EL SEGUNDO ARTÍCULO CONTRA NIXON
LO ACUSABA DE ABUSO DE PODER POR
PEDIR A LAS AGENCIAS POLICIALES 
QUE ACOSAR A SU ENEMIGO 
POLÍTICOS. EL PRESIDENTE  HA 

Spanish: 
ABUSADO DE LA CONFIANZA QUE LE 
DIO EL PUEBLO  AL PEDIR A PAÍSES
COMO RUSIA, CHINA Y RUSIA 
INVESTIGAR A SU OPONENTE 
POLÍTICOS E INTERFERIR EN LAS 
ELECCIONES DE LA QUE LE 
CANDIDATO. NIXON ADEMÁS NO 
CUMPLIÓ CON CUATRO CITACIONES.EL
PRESIDENTE TRUMP HA PEDIDO A 
MIEMBROS DE SU GOBIERNO QUE NO 
TESTIFICAN ANTE EL CONGRESO. EL 
SENADOR LINDSEY GRAHAM QUE 
ENCABEZA EL COMITÉ JUDICIAL DEL 
SENADO DIJO DURANTE EL JUICIO DE
CLINTON QUE SI NO CUMPLÍA, LE 
QUITABA EL PODER AL CONGRESO Y 
SE CONVERTÍA EN JUEZ Y PARTE. 
ESO DEJA MUY CLARO POR QUÉ LA 

English: 
POLITICAL OPPONENTS AND 
INTERFERE IN ELECTIONS IN WHICH 
HE WAS THE CANDIDATE.
AND THE PRESIDENT HAS REFUSED TO
COMPLY WITH AGAINST TEN OTHERS 
AND NOT TO COMPLY WITH LAWFUL 
CONGRESSIONAL SUBPOENAS 
INCLUDING THE SECRETARY OF 
STATE, ENERGY SECRETARY RICK 
PERRY AND ACTING CHIEF OF STAFF 
AND HEAD OF THE OFFICE OF 
MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET.
AND WHEN HE WAS A MEMBER OF THE 
HOUSE ON THE VERGE OF 
IMPEACHMENT PRESIDENT CLINTON, 
IT WAS THE DAY HE WAS SUBJECT TO
IMPEACHMENT.
AND WHY OBSTRUCTION OF CONGRESS 

English: 
IS IMPEACHABLE.
IT'S ALL THE MORE TROUBLING DUE 
TO THE RATIONAL HE CLAIMS FOR 
HIS OBSTRUCTION.
HIS ARGUMENTS AND THOSE OF HIS 
SUBORDINATES INCLUDING HIS WHITE
HOUSE COUNSEL IN HIS OCTOBER 8th
LETTER TO THE SPEAKER AND THREE 
COMMITTEE CHAIRS BOILS DOWN TO 
THE ASSERTION THAT HE IS ABOVE 
THE LAW.
SINCE THE CONSTITUTION EXPRESSLY
SAYS AND THE SUPREME COURT HAS 
UNANIMOUSLY AFFIRMED THAT THE 
HOUSE IS THE SOLE POWER OF 
IMPEACHMENT AND LIKE THE SENATE 
THE HOUSE HAS THE POWER TO 
DETERMINE RULES FOR ITS 
PROCEEDINGS.
THE PRESIDENT AND HIS 
SUBORDINATES HAVE ARGUED FURTHER
THAT THE PRESIDENT IS ENTITLED 
TO IMMUNITY FROM CRIMINAL 
PROCEDURE AND INVESTIGATION FROM
ANY CRIMINAL WRONG DOING.
INCLUDING SHOOTING SOMEONE ON 
FIFTH AVENUE.
THE PRESIDENT CLAIMED FURTHER HE
IS ENTITLED TO EXECUTIVE 
PRIVILEGE NOT TO SHARE ANY 
INFORMATION HE DOESN'T WANT TO 

Spanish: 
OBSTRUCCIÓN AL CONGRESO 
CONSTITUYE ARGUMENTO PARA UN J
I
JUICIO POLÍTICO.
LA ACCIONES DEL PRESIDENTE SON 
MÁS PREOCUPANTE CUANDO EL 
EXPLICA SUS ARGUMENTOS. EN LA 
CARTA DE SU JEFE DE GABINETE DEL
8 DE OCTUBRE, QUE NO VOY A L
LEER,, PERO SI DIRÉ QUE S
SECUESTRAN ESTOS PROCEDIMIENTOS 
AUNQUE LA CONSTITUCIÓN DICE 
CLARAMENTE QUE LA CÁMARA ES EL 
ÚNICO PODER QUE TIENE PODER PARA
INICIAR UN JUICIO POLÍTICO. Y ES
EL SENADO EL QUE FIJA LAS NORMAS
PARA ESTOS PROCEDIMIENTOS.
EL PRESIDENTE Y SUS SUBORDINADOS

Spanish: 
HAN DICHO QUE ÉL TIENE DERECHO A
INMUNIDAD Y QUE TIENE EL PR
PRIVILEGIO DE NO COMPARTIR 
INFORMACIÓN  CON OTROS PODERES 
DEL ESTADO.TAMBIÉN HA DICHO QUE 
PUEDE ORDENAR A SU FUNCIONARIOS 
A NO COLABORAR CON ESTE CUERPO 
QUE LO INVESTIGA.ES PROBABLE QUE
EL PRESIDENTE CONTINÚE CON ESTE 
PATRÓN DE PEDIR INTERFERENCIA AL
EXTRANJERO EN LA PRÓXIMA 
ELECCIÓN  Y DE OBSTRUIR EL 
CONGRESO. EL HECHO DE QUE LOS 
ARTÍCULOS QUE SE APLICARON AL 
PRESIDENTE NIXON APLIQUEN AQUÍ
H
HABLA POR SÍ MISMO. ESTA 
INTERFERENCIA EXTRANJERA LAS 
ELECCIONES ES LO MÁS CLARO.
NADA HACE MÁS DAÑO AL PUEBLO 
ESTADOUNIDENSE QUE EL ABUSO DEL 
PRESIDENTE DE SU CARGO  PARA 

English: 
SHARE WITH ANOTHER BRANCH.
HE'S ALSO CLAIMED THE 
ENTITLEMENT TO BE ABLE TO ORDER 
THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH, AS HE HAS 
DONE, NOT TO COOPERATE.
IF LEFT UNCHECKED HE WILL LIKELY
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 PRESIDENT 
NIXON ON TO THE ACTION OF THIS 
PRESIDENT SPEAKS VOLUMES AND 
THAT DOES NOT EVEN INCLUDE THE 
MOST SERIOUS NATIONAL SECURITY 
CONCERNS AND ELECTION 
INTERFERENCE CONCERNS AT THE 
HEART OF THIS PRESIDENT'S 
MISCONDUCT.
AND TO WEAKEN THEIR AUTHORITY 
UNDER THE CONSTITUTION AS WELL 
AS THE CONSTITUTION ITSELF.
MAY I READ ONE MORE SENTENCE.

English: 
I'M SORRY. 
>> THE WITNESS MAY HAVE ANOTHER 
SENTENCE OR TWO. 
>> IF CONGRESS FAILS TO IMPEACH 
HERE THEN THE IMPEACHMENT 
PROCESS HAS LOST ALL MEANING AND
ALONG WITH THAT OUR 
CONSTITUTIONS CAREFULLY CRAFTED 
SAFE GUARDS AND THEREFORE I 
STAND WITH THE CONSTITUTION AND 
I STAND WITH THE FRAMERS WHO ARE
COMMITTED TO ENSURE THAT NO ONE 
IS ABOVE THE LAW.
>> THANK YOU PROFESSOR.
>> THANK YOU CHAIRMAN NADLER, 
RANKING MEMBER COLLINS, MEMBERS 
OF THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE.
IT'S AN HONOR TO APPEAR BEFORE 
YOU TODAY TO DISCUSS ONE OF THE 
MOST CONSEQUENTIAL FUNCTIONS YOU
WERE GIVEN BY THE FRAMERS.
 21 YEARS AGO I SAT BEFORE YOU 
CHAIRMAN NADLER AND THIS 
COMMITTEE TO TESTIFY AT THE 
IMPEACHMENT OF WILLIAM JEFFERSON
CLINTON.
I NEVER THOUGHT I WOULD HAVE TO 

Spanish: 
DEBILITAR SU AUTORIDAD Y LA DE 
LA PROPIA CONSTITUCIÓN. PUEDO 
AGREGAR UNA ÚLTIMA FRASE
>>> UNA MÁS
>>> GRACIAS SI EL CONGRESO  NO 
INICIA EL JUICIO POLÍTICO, ESTE 
PROCEDIMIENTO HABRÁ PERDIDO EL 
SENTIDO.POR ESO YO DEFIENDO LA 
CONSTITUCIÓN Y EL EN ESTÁN 
COMPROMETIDOS PARA ASEGURAR QUE 
NADIE ESTÁ POR SOBRE LA LEY
>>> GRACIAS PROFESOR
>>> GRACIAS PRESIDENTE Y NEGRO 
DEL COMITÉ
>>> ES UN HONOR PRESENTARME AQÍI
HOY PARA HABLAR DE UNA DE LAS 
FUNCIONES MÁS IMPORTANTES QUE SE
LES HA DADO, ESTA ES EL JUICIO 
POLÍTICO AL PRESIDENTE. HACE 21 
AÑOS TESTIFICA QUE EN EL JUICIO 
POLÍTICO DEL PRESIDENTE CLINTON,

English: 
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 RAGE OF THE DEBATE 
IS THE SAME.
THE ATMOSPHERE THAT THE FRAMERS 
ANTICIPATED.
THE INTOLERANCE OF OPPOSING 
VIEWS ARE THE SAME.
I'D LIKE TO START WITH 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.

Spanish: 
NUNCA PENSÉ QUE TENDRÍA QUE 
VOLVER PARA RESPONDER LA MISMA 
PREGUNTA  EN RELACIÓN A OTRO 
PRESIDENTE EN EJERCICIO,, PERO 
AQUÍ ESTAMOS.LOS ELEMENTOS SON 
MUY SIMILARES.
EL NIVEL DEL DEBATE PÚBLICO ES 
SIMILAR.
LA INTOLERANCIA ENTRE POSTURAS 
OPUESTAS EN LA MISMA.
POR ESO QUIERO COMENZAR AL 
DECLARAR UN HECHO RELEVANTE. YO 
NO SOY UN PARTIDARIO  DEL 
PRESIDENTE TRUMP, NO VOTÉ POR 
L
EL, MI OPINIÓN PERSONAL DEL 

Spanish: 
PRESIDENTE NO TIENEN QUE VER CON
MI ANÁLISIS Y ESE DEBERÍA SER EL

English: 
PRESIDENT TRUMP WILL NOT BE OUR 
LAST PRESIDENT AND WHAT WE LEAV.
THERE ARE SOME WHO HAVE SAID 
IT'S A QUID PRO QUO.
THERE ARE SOME WHO HAVE IMPLIED 
THAT IT'S A QUID PRO QUO.
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 GIVING A SPEECH AND 
SAID, YOU KNOW, I HELD UP A 
BILLION DOLLARS IN AID UNLESS 
THE PROSECUTOR WAS FIRED WITHIN 
SIX HOURS.

English: 
AND SON OF A, BLEEP, THAT'S WHAT
HAPPENED.
NOW, YOU KNOW, IT SEEMS TO ME 
THAT IF YOU'RE LOOKING FOR 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 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 TO DO THE PUBLIC 
BUSINESS.
THAT'S NOT WHAT'S HAPPENING 
HERE.
AND I THINK THE AMERICAN PUBLIC 
ARE GETTING A LITTLE SICK AND 
TIRED OF IMPEACHMENT, 
IMPEACHMENT, IMPEACHMENT WHEN 
THEY KNOW THAT LESS THAN A YEAR 
FROM NOW, THEY WILL BE ABLE TO 

English: 
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 ONE 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 
MIND IS THE ONLY ONE OF THE FOUR
OF YOU UP THERE THAT DOESN'T 
SEEM TO HAVE IT MADE UP 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 HAPPENS IN SIX 
HOURS' TIME?
>> GRA MATTICKLY, YES.

English: 
CONSTITUTIONALLY, IT REALLY 
DEPENDS ON THE CONTEXT.
I THINK YOUR SPOINT 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 GETS THRESHOLD QUESTION IS IF 
THE PRESIDENT SAID, I'D LIKE YOU
TO DO THESE INVESTIGATIONS, AND,
BIT, I DON'T GROUP THEM TOGETHER
IN MY TESTIMONY.
I DISTINGUISH BETWEEN THE 
REQUEST FOR INVESTIGATIONS IN 
2016 AND THE INVESTIGATION OF 
BIDEN.
IT IS AN ISSUE OF ORDER, THE 
MAGNITUDE OF ORDER 
CONSTITUTIONALLY IF YOU ASK, I'D
LIKE TO SEE YOU DO THIS AS 
OPPOSED TO, I HAVE A QUID PRO 
QUO.
YOU EITHER DO THIS OR YOU DON'T 
GET NO MILITARY AID. 
>> GENTLEMAN'S TIME HAS EXPIRED.
>> THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN, FOR 
YIELDING.
PROFESSOR GERHARDT SAID IF WHAT 
WE'RE TALKING ABOUT TODAY IS NOT
IMPEACHABLE, THEN NOTHING IS 

English: 
IMPEACHABLE.
I'M REMINDED OF MY TIME ON THE 
HOUSE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE DURING
THE 1990s IMPEACHMENT AND AS 
WELL AS A NUMBER OF FEDERAL 
JUDGES.
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'RE CHARGED WITH A
SOBER AND SOMBER RESPONSIBILITY.
PROFESSOR KARLAN, I'D LIKE YOU 
TO LOOK AT THE INTELLIGENCE 
VOLUME WHERE HUNDREDS OF 
DOCUMENTS ARE BEHIND THAT IN THE
MUELLER REPORT.
PROFESSOR KARLAN, YOU STUDIED 
THE RECORDS.
DO YOU THINK IT IS, QUOTE, WAFER
THIN AND CAN YOU REMARK ON THE 
STRENGTH OF THE RECORDS BEFORE 
US?
>> OBVIOUSLY, IT'S NOT WAFER 

English: 
THIN.
AND THE STRENGTH OF THE RECORD 
IS NOT JUST IN THE SEPTEMBER -- 
I MEAN, THE JULY 25th CALL.
I THINK THE WAY YOU NEED TO ASK 
IS, HOW DOES IT FIT INTO THE 
PATTERN OF BEHAVIOR BY THE 
PRESIDENT?
BECAUSE WHAT YOU'RE REALLY DOING
IS DRAWING INFERENCES HERE.
THIS IS ABOUT CIRCUMSTANTIAL 
EVIDENCE AS WELL AS DIRECT 
EVIDENCE.
DID THE PRESIDENT ASK FOR A 
POLITICAL FAVOR?
AND I THINK THIS RECORD SUPPORTS
THE INFERENCE THAT HE DID. 
>> WHAT COMPARISONS CAN WE MAKE 
BETWEEN KINGS THAT THE FRAMERS 
WERE AFRAID OF AND THE 
PRESIDENT'S CONDUCT TODAY?
>> SO, KINGS COULD DO NO WRONG 
BECAUSE THE KING'S WORD WAS LAW.
CONTRARY TO WHAT PRESIDENT TRUMP
HAS SAID, ARTICLE 2 DOES NOT 
GIVE HIM THE POWER TO DO 
ANYTHING HE WANTS.
I'LL JUST GIVE YOU ONE EXAMPLE 
THAT SHOWS YOU THE DIFFERENCE 
BETWEEN HIM AND A KING.
WHICH IS THE CONSTITUTION SAYS 
THERE CAN BE NO TITLES OF 
NOBILITY.

English: 
SO, WHILE THE PRESIDENT CAN NAME
HIS SON BARON, HE CAN'T MAKE HIM
A BARON.
>> THANK YOU.
THE FOUNDING -- THE FOUNDING 
FATHER, GEORGE MASON ASKED, 
SHALL ANY MAN BE ABOVE JUSTICE?
AND ALEXANDER HAMILTON WROTE 
HIGH CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS 
MEANS THE ABUSE OF VIOLATION OF 
SOME PUBLIC TRUST.
AS WE MOVE QUICKLY, PROFESSOR 
FELDMAN, 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 IN
MY MIND IN THAT WE HEAR THE 
PRESIDENT ASKING FOR A FAVOR 
THAT'S PERSONALLY A 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 FOR WHAT
HAPPENED.
>> PROFESSOR KARLAN, HOW DOES 
SUCH ABUSE AFFECT OUR DEMOCRATIC

English: 
SYSTEM?
>> HAVING FOREIGN INTERFERENCE 
IN OUR ELECTION MEANS WE ARE 
LEFT FREE.
WE THE PEOPLE DETERMINING WHO'S 
THE NEXT WINNER, THEN IT IS A 
FOREIGN GOTH. 
>> I THINK IT'S FAIR TO SAY THAT
THE PRESIDENT'S ACTIONS ARE 
UNPRECEDENTED.
BUT WHAT ALSO STRIKES ME IS HOW 
MANY REPUBLICANS AND DEMOCRATS 
BELIEVE THAT HIS CONDUCT WAS 
WRONG.
LET'S LISTEN --
>> IT'S IMPROPER FOR THE 
PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED 
STATES --
>> LISTEN TO THE COLONEL.
>> IT IS IMPROPER FOR THE 
PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES 
TO DEMAND -- AND POLITICAL 
OPPONENT.
>> PROFESSOR FELDMAN, IN LIGHT 
OF THE FACT THAT THE PRESIDENT 
ASKED FOR AN INVESTIGATION AND 
THEN ONLY WHEN HE WAS CAUGHT 
RELEASED THE MILITARY AID, IS 
THERE STILL A NEED FOR 
IMPEACHMENT?
>> YES, MA'AM.
IMPEACHMENT IS COMPLETE WHEN THE
PRESIDENT ABUSES HIS OFFICE AND 
HE ABUSES HIS OFFICE BY 
ATTEMPTING TO ABUSE HIS OFFICE.

English: 
THERE'S NO DISTINCTION THERE 
BETWEEN TRYING TO DO IT AND 
SUCCEEDING IN DOING IT AND 
THAT'S ESPECIALLY TRUE IF YOU 
ONLY STOPPED BECAUSE YOU GOT 
CAUGHT. 
>> OVER 70% OF THE AMERICAN 
PEOPLE BELIEVE WHAT THE 
PRESIDENT DID IS WRONG.
WE HAVE A SOLEMN RESPONSIBILITY 
TO ADDRESS THAT AND, AS WELL AS,
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 FAVOR.
WE KNOW THAT GENERAL WOULD NOT 
SAY DO ME A FAVOR.
AND SO IN THIS INSTANCE, THE 
AMERICAN PEOPLE DESERVE 
UNFETTERED LEADERSHIP AND IT IS 
OUR DUTY TO FAIRLY ASSESS THE 
FACTS AND THE CONSTITUTION.
I YIELD BACK MY TIME.
>> GENTLE LADY YIELDS BACK.
MR. CHABOT IS RECOGNIZED. 
>> THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN.
IT'S PRETTY CLEAR TO ME THAT NO 

English: 
MATTER WHAT QUESTIONS WE ASK 
THESE FOUR WITNESSES HERE TODAY 
AND NO MATTER WHAT THEIR ANSWERS
ARE, THAT MOST, IF NOT ALL OF 
THE DEMOCRATS ON THIS COMMITTEE 
ARE GOING TO VOTE TO IMPEACH 
PRESIDENT TRUMP.
THAT'S WHAT THEIR HARD CORE 
TRUMP-HATING BASE WANTS AND 
THEY'VE WANTED THAT SINCE THE 
PRESIDENT WAS ELECTED THREE 
YEARS AGO.
IN FACT, WHEN DEMOCRATS TOOK 
OVER THE HOUSE, ONE OF THE FIRST
THINGS THEY DID WAS INTRODUCE 
ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT AGAINST 
PRESIDENT TRUMP AND 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, BUT WE'RE NOT 
PERMITTED TO CALL THOSE 
WITNESSES.
IT WOULD SEEM SCHIFF, FOR 
EXAMPLE, MISLED THE AMERICAN 
PEOPLE ON MULTIPLE OCCASIONS 
COMMON SENSE AND BASIC FAIRNESS 

English: 
WOULD CALL FOR SCHIFF TO BE 
QUESTIONED ABOUT THOSE THINGS, 
BUT WE CAN'T.
MR. CHAIRMAN, BACK IN 1998 WHEN 
ANOTHER PRESIDENT, BILL CLINTON 
WAS BEING CONSIDERED FOR 
IMPEACHMENT, YOU SAID, AND I 
QUOTE, WE MUST NOT OVERTURN AN 
ELECTION AND IMPEACH A PRESIDENT
WITHOUT AN OVERWHELMING 
CONSENSUS OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE
AND THE REPRESENT TIES IN 
CONGRESS.
YOU ALSO SAID, QUOTE, THERE MUST
NEVER BE A NARROWLY VOTED 
IMPEACHMENT OR IMPEACHMENT 
SUBSTANTIALLY SUPPORTED BY ONE 
OF THE MAJOR POLITICAL PARTIES 
LARGELY OPPOSED BY THE OTHER.
YOU SAID SUCH AN IMPEACHMENT 
WOULD LACK LEGITIMACY, WOULD 
PRODUCE DIVISIVENESS AND 
BITTERNESS IN OUR POLITICS FOR 
YEARS TO COME AND WILL CALL INTO
QUESTION THE LEGITIMACY OF OUR 
POLITICAL INSTITUTIONS.
THAT'S WHAT YOU SAID BACK THEN, 
MR. CHAIRMAN.
WELL, WHAT YOU SAID SHOULD NEVER
HAPPEN, THAT WE SHOULD NEVER DO 
IS EXACTLY WHAT YOU'RE DOING 
NOW, MOVING FORWARD WITHOUT A 
CONSENSUS AND IMPEACHMENT BY ONE
MAJOR PARTY THAT'S OPPOSED BY 

English: 
THE OTHER.
IT'S ALMOST CERTAIN IT'S GOING 
TO RESULT IN THE VERY 
DIVISIVENESS AND BITTERNESS THAT
YOU SO ACCURATELY WARNED US 
ABOUT BACK THEN.
MR. CHAIRMAN, A COUPLE MORE 
QUOTES FROM A VERY WISE JERRY 
NADLER FROM ABOUT TWO DECADES 
AGO.
QUOTE, THE LAST THING YOU WANT, 
IT'S ALMOST ILLEGITIMATE, IS TO 
HAVE A PARTY LINE IMPEACHMENT.
YOU SHOULDN'T IMPEACH THE 
PRESIDENT UNLESS IT'S A BROAD 
CONSENSUS OF THE AMERICAN 
PEOPLE.
THOSE WERE WISE WORDS, 
MR. CHAIRMAN, BUT YOU'RE NOT 
FOLLOWING THEM TODAY.
FINALLY AGAIN, YOUR WORDS BACK 
THEN, THE ISSUE IN A POTENTIAL 
IMPEACHMENT IS WHETHER TO 
OVERTURN A NATIONAL ELECTION.
A FREE EXPRESSION OF THE POPULAR
WILL OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE.
THAT IS AN ENORMOUS 
RESPONSIBILITY AND AN 
EXTRAORDINARY POWER.
IT IS NOT ONE WE SHOULD EXERCISE
LIGHTLY.
IT IS CERTAINLY NOT ONE THAT 
SHOULD BE EXERCISED IN A MANNER 
THAT IS OR WOULD BE PERCEIVED BY
THE AMERICAN PEOPLE TO BE UNFAIR
OR PARTISAN, UNQUOTE.

English: 
AGAIN, MR. CHAIRMAN, THOSE 
THINGS THAT YOU WARNED AGAINST 
THEN ARE EXACTLY WHAT YOU AND 
YOUR DEMOCRATIC COLLEAGUES ARE 
DOING NOW.
YOU'RE ABOUT TO MOVE FORWARD 
WITH A TOTALLY PARTY LINE 
IMPEACHMENT.
THAT IS CLOOERLY NOT A BROAD 
CONSENSUS OF THE AMERICAN 
PEOPLE.
YOU'RE OVERTURNING THE RESULT OF
A NATIONAL ELECTION.
THERE'S NO DOUBT IT WILL BE 
PERCEIVED BY AT LEAST HALF OF 
THE AMERICAN PEOPLE AS AN 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 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'S 
GOING TO DIE IN THE SENATE.
THE PRESIDENT'S GOING TO SERVE 
OUT HIS TERM IN OFFICE, AND IN 
ALL LIKELIHOOD, BE RE-ELECTED TO

English: 
A SECOND TERM PROBABLY WITH THE 
HELP OF THIS VERY IMPEACHMENT 
CHARADE WE'RE GOING THROUGH NOW.
AND WHILE YOU'RE WASTING SO MUCH
OF CONGRESS'S TIME AND THE 
AMERICAN PEOPLE'S MONEY ON THIS 
IMPEACHMENT, THERE ARE 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 OUR 
IMMIGRATION AND ASYLUM 
CHALLENGES ON OUR SOUTHERN 
BORDER.
WE COULD BE PROTECTING AMERICANS
FROM HAVING THEIR INTELLECTUAL 
JOBS STOLEN BY CHINESE COMPANIES
AND WE COULD BE ENHANCING 
ELECTION SECURITY JUST TO NAME A
FEW THINGS.
CONGRESS AS A WHOLE COULD BE 
WORKING ON OUR CRUMBING 
INFRASTRUCTURE, PROVIDING TAX 
RELIEF TO MIDDLE CLASS FAMILIES 
AND PROVIDING ADDITIONAL 
SECURITY TO OUR PEOPLE 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.

English: 
I YIELD BACK. 
>> GENTLEMAN YIELDS BACK.
MR. COHEN. 
>> THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR.
I TAKE NO PLEASURE IN THE FACT 
THAT WE'RE HERE TODAY.
AS A PATRIOT WHO LOVES AMERICA, 
IT PAINS ME THAT THE 
CIRCUMSTANCES FORCE US TO 
UNDERTAKE THIS GRAVE AND SOLEMN 
OBLIGATION.
NONETHELESS, BASED SIMPLY ON THE
PUBLICLY AVAILABLE EVIDENCE, IT 
APPEARS THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP 
PRESSURED A FOREIGN GOVERNMENT 
TO INTERFERE IN OUR ELECTIONS BY
INVESTIGATING HIS PERCEIVED 
CHIEF POLITICAL OPPONENT.
TODAY WE'RE HERE TO UPHOLD OUR 
OATH TO DEFEND THE CONSTITUTION 
OF THE UNITED STATES BY 
FURTHERING OUR UNDERSTANDING IF 
THE PRESIDENT'S CONDUCT IS 
IMPEACHABLE.
IT IS ENTIRELY APPROPRIATE WE'RE
EXAMINING OUR NATION'S HISTORY.
THE FRAMERS OF THE CONSTITUTION 
LEGITIMATELY FEARED FOR 
INTERFERENCE IN OUR NATION'S 
SOVEREIGNTY AND THEY WANTED TO 
MAKE SURE THERE WAS A CHECK AND 
BALANCE.
THEY SIT HERE WITH A DUTY TO THE
FOUNDERS.
WE THE PEOPLE'S HOUSE ARE THAT 
CHECK.
UNDER OUR CONSTITUTION, THE 
HOUSE CAN IMPEACH A PRESIDENT 

English: 
FOR TREASON, BRIBERY OR OTHER 
HIGH CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS.
PROFESSOR FELDMAN, YOU DISCUSSED
HIGH CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS.
THE FACT THAT THE HIGH REFERS TO
BOTH CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS, 
CAN YOU JUST GIVE US A LITTLE 
BIT OF A SUMMARY OF WHAT HIGH 
CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS ARE AND 
HOW THEY'RE DISTINCT FROM WHAT 
PROFESSOR TURLEY SAID?
>> YES, SIR.
HIGH CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS ARE
ACTIONS OF THE PRESIDENT WHERE 
HE USES HIS OFFICE TO ADVANCE 
HIS PERSONAL INTEREST, 
POTENTIALLY FOR PERSONAL GAIN, 
POTENTIALLY TO CORRUPT THE 
ELECTORAL PROCESS AND 
POTENTIALLY AS WELL AGAINST THE 
NATIONAL SECURITY INTEREST OF 
THE UNITED STATES.
I WOULD ADD, SIR, THE WORD HIGH 
MODIFIES BOTH CRIMES AND 
MISDEMEANORS.
THE FRAMERS KNEW OF HIGH CRIMES 
AND MISDEMEANORSES.
AND I BELIEVE THAT THE 
DEFINITION THAT WE POSTED 
EARLIER OF MISDEMEANOR WAS NOT 
THE DEFINITION OF HIGH 
MISDEMEANOR, WHICH IS A SPECIFIC
TERM UNDERSTOOD BY THE FRAMERS 
AND DISCUSSED IN THE 
CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION BUT 

English: 
ONLY MISDEMEANOR.
THAT'S AN EASY MISTAKE TO MAKE 
BUT HIGH MISDEMEANORS ARE 
IMPEACHABLE.
>> THANK YOU, PROFESSOR.
PROFESSOR FELDMAN, GERHARDT AND 
KARLAN, YOU TESTIFIED TO 
THREE -- ABUSE OF POWER AND 
CORRUPTION OF ELECTIONS.
IS THAT RIGHT, PROFESSOR KARLAN?
>> YES, IT IS.
>> PROFESSOR FELDMAN AND 
PROFESSOR GERHARDT, DO YOU 
AGREE?
>> YES.
YOU STATED THE ESSENCE OF AN 
IMPEACHABLE OFFENSE IS THE 
PRESIDENT'S DECISION TO 
SACRIFICE THE NATIONAL INTEREST 
FOR HIS OWN PRIVATE END.
PROFESSOR HE WOULD GOMAN AND 
GERHARDT, DO YOU ALSO AGREE WITH
THAT?
>> YES, SIR.
>> BASED ON WHAT YOU'VE SEEN, 
HAS PRESIDENT TRUMP SACRIFICED 
THE COUNTRY'S INTEREST IN FAVOR 
OF HIS OWN?
PROFESSOR KARLAN?
>> YES, HE HAS.
>> IS THERE A PARTICULAR PIECE 
OF EVIDENCE THAT MOST 
ILLUMINATES THAT?

English: 
>> 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 TO THIS EXTENT AS WELL.
WHAT HE WANTED WAS PUBLIC 
INFORMATION TO DAMAGE JOE BIDEN.
HE DIDN'T CARE AT THE END OF THE
DAY IF JOE BIDEN WAS FOUND 
GUILTY OR EXONERATED. 
>> PROEFSH FELDMAN, DO YOU 
AGREE?
DO YOU HAVE A DIFFERENT SET OF 
ILLUMINATING FACTS?
>> MY EMPHASIS WOULD BE ON THE 
FACT THAT THE PRESIDENT HELD UP 
AID TO AN ALLY THAT'S FIGHTING A
WAR IN DIRECT CONTRAVENTION OF 
THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE 
NATIONAL SECURITY COMMITTEE.
THAT SEEMS TO HAVE PLACED HIS 
OWN --
>> PASS BY CONGRESS, BIPARTISAN?
>> YES, SIR. 
>> MR. FELDMAN?
>> I'M VERY CONCERNED ABOUT THE 
PRESIDENT'S OBSTRUCTION OF 
CONGRESS, REFUSAL TO COMPLY WITH
SUBPOENAS ORDERING MANY 

English: 
HIGH-LEVEL OF GOVERNMENT 
OFFICIALS NOT TO COMPLY WITH THE
SUBPOENA AND ORDERING THE ENTIRE
EXECUTIVE BRANCH NOT TO 
COOPERATE WITH CONGRESS.
THE HOUSE HAS THE FULL POWER TO 
IMPEACH.
ONCE WITH REFERENCE TO THE HOUSE
IN THIS AREA, ONCE WITH 
REFERENCE TO THE SENATE WITH 
RESPECT TO IMPEACHMENT TRIALS.
SOLE MEANS SOLE, IT MEANS ONLY.
>> LET ME GET PROFESSOR TURLEY 
INTO THIS.
PROFESSOR TURLEY, YOU'RE A 
SELF-DESCRIBED, SELF-ANOINTED 
DEFENDER OF ARTICLE 1 CONGRESS 
GUY BUT YOU JUSTIFY A POSITION 
THAT SAYS LEGALLY ISSUED 
SUBPOENAS BY CONGRESS AND 
FORCING ITSES POWERS DON'T HAVE 
TO BE COMPLIED WITH.
IT SEEMS IN THIS CIRCUMSTANCE, 
YOU'RE AN ARTICLE 2 EXECUTIVE 
GUY.
AND YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT THE 
JOHNSON IMPEACHMENT IS NOT VERY 
USEFUL.
THAT WAS MALADMINISTRATION.
THIS IS A CRIMINAL ACT.
THANK YOU, PROFESSORS, FOR 
HELPING US UNDERSTAND HIGH 

English: 
CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS.
WE ARE HEIRS AND CUSTODIANS.
WE HAVE A LARGE RESPONSIBILITY 
TO DEFEND OUR DEMOCRACY AND WE 
SHALL DO THAT. 
>> THE GENTLEMAN'S TIME HAS 
EXPIRED.
MR. GOHMERT. 
>> THANK YOU.
I'M AFRAID THIS HEARING IS 
INDICATIVE OF THE INDECENCY TO 
WHICH WE'VE COME WHEN INSTEAD OF
THE COMMITTEE OF JURISDICTION 
BRINGING IN FACT WITNESSES TO 
GET TO THE BOTTOM OF WHAT 
HAPPENED, AND NOT EVEN HAVING 
TIME TO REVIEW THE REPORT, 
WHICH, AS PROFESSOR TURLEY 
INDICATED 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 
UNDISPUTED, THIS IS THE ONLY 

English: 
THING THAT'S DISPUTED MORE THAN 
THE FACTS IN THIS CASE IS THE 
STATEMENT THAT THE FACTS ARE 
UNDISPUTED.
THEY ARE ABSOLUTELY UNDISPUTED 
AND THE EVIDENCE IS A BUNCH OF 
HEARSAY ON HEAR SAY, THAT IF 
ANYBODY HAD TRIED CASES 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, AND 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 ARE A COUPLE I CAN NAME 
THAT ARE CRITICAL TO US GETTING 
TO THE BOTTOM.
THEY WORK FOR THE NATIONAL 
SECURITY COUNSEL, ABIGAIL GRAY, 
SHAWN MISGO.

English: 
THEY WERE INVOLVED IN THE 
U.S./UKRAINE AFFAIRS AND THEY 
WORKED WITH VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN
ON DIFFERENT MATTERS INVOLVING 
UKRAINE.
THEY WORKED WITH BRENNAN AND 
MASTERS.
THEY HAVE ABSOLUTELY CRITICAL 
INFORMATION ABOUT UKRAINIAN'S 
INVOLVEMENT IN OUR U.S. 
ELECTION.
THEIR RELATIONSHIP WITH THE 
WITNESSES WHO WENT BEFORE THE 
INTEL COMMITTEE AND OTHER 
ALLEGATIONS MAKE THEM THE MOST 
CRITICAL WITNESSES IN THE ENTIRE
INVESTIGATION.
AND THE RECORDS, INCLUDING THEIR
EMAILS, THEIR TEXT MESSAGES, 
FLASH DRIVES, THEIR COMPUTERS 
HAVE INFORMATION THAT WILL BRING
INFORMATION TO REMOVE THE 
PRESIDENT TO A SCREECHING HALT.
SO, WE HAVE AN ARTICLE FROM 
OCTOBER 11th POINTS OUT HOUSE 
CHAIRMAN ADAM SCHIFF RECRUITED 
TWO FORMER NATIONAL SECURITY 
COUNCIL AIDES THAT WORKED 
ALONGSIDE THE CIA WHISTLE-BLOWER
DURING THE OBAMA AND TRUMP 

English: 
ADMINISTRATION.
ABIGAIL GRAY WHO WORKED AT NSC 
WAS HIRED IN FEBRUARY WHILE 
SHAWN MISGO WAS IN NSC UNTIL 
2017 JOINED SCHIFF'S COMMITTEE 
IN AUGUST, THE SAME MONTH THE 
WHISTLE-BLOWER SUBMITTED HIS 
COMPLAINT.
AND IT GOES ON TO POINT OUT THAT
GRAY WAS HIRED TO HELP SCHIFF'S 
COMMITTEE INVESTIGATE THE TRUMP 
WHITE HOUSE.
THAT MONTH TRUMP ACCUSED SCHIFF 
OF STEALING PEOPLE WHO WERE 
WORKING AT THE WHITE HOUSE, AND 
CHAIRMAN SCHIFF SAID, IF THE 
PRESIDENT'S WORRIED ABOUT OUR 
HIRING ANY FORMER ADMINISTRATION
PEOPLE, MAYBE YOU 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 GONE ON HERE.
ANYWAY, WE NEED THOSE TWO 
WITNESSES.
THEY'RE CRITICAL.
AND THEN WE ALSO NEED SOMEONE 

English: 
WHO WAS A CIA DETAILEE, 
STATEMENT DEPARTMENT SHOWS HE 
WAS -- THERE'S ITALY 
RAMIFICATIONS IN THE LAST 
ELECTION HE SPEAKS ARABIC AND 
RUSSIAN, REPORTED DIRECTLY TO 
CHARLES, HE DID POLICY WORK FOR 
UKRAINE CORRUPTION.
CLOSE CONTINUOUS CONTACT WITH 
THE FBI, UKRAINIAN OFFICIALS, 
HAD A COLLATERAL DUTY TO SUPPORT
VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN AND BIDEN 
WAS OBAMA'S POINT MAN ON 
UKRAINE, ASSOCIATED WITH DNC 
OPERATIVE CHALUPA WHO WE ALSO 
NEED.
MET WITH THE UKRAINIAN 
DELEGATION.
AND THERE IS ALL KINDS OF 
REASONS WE NEED THESE THREE 
WITNESSES.
AND I WOULD ASK PURSUANT TO 

English: 
SECTION 4 HOUSE RESOLUTION 660, 
ASK OUR CHAIRMAN TO -- I MEAN, 
OUR RANKING MEMBER TO SUBMIT THE
REQUEST FOR THESE THREE 
WITNESSES BECAUSE WE'RE NOT 
HAVING A FACTUAL HEARING UNTIL 
WE HAVE THESE PEOPLE THAT ARE AT
THE BOTTOM OF EVERY FACT OF THIS
INVESTIGATION.
>> GENTLEMAN --
>> I YIELD BACK.
>> THANK YOU FOR BRINGING DOWN 
THE GAVEL HARD.
THAT'S NICE.
>> GENTLEMAN YIELDS BACK.
MR. JOHNSON. 
>> THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN.
THE PRESIDENT HAS REGULARLY AND 
RECENTLY SOLICITED FOREIGN 
INTERFERENCE IN OUR ELECTION.
PROFESSOR TURLEY SAYS THIS IS AN
IMPULSE AND SUGGESTS THE HOUSE 
SHOULD PAUSE.
PROFESSOR KARLAN, DO YOU AGREE 
WITH PROFESSOR TURLEY?
>> NO.
IF YOU CONCLUDE, AS I THINK THE 
EVIDENCE TO THIS POINT SHOWS, 
THAT THE PRESIDENT IS SOLICITING
FOREIGN INVOLVEMENT IN OUR 
ELECTION, YOU NEED TO ACT NOW TO
PREVENT FOREIGN INTERFERENCE IN 
THE NEXT ELECTION LIKE THE ONE 
WE HAD IN THE PAST. 
>> THANK YOU.

English: 
PROFESSOR KARLAN, 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. 
>> BECAUSE HE INVITED THE 
RUSSIANS, LONG-TIME ADVERSARIES 
INTO THE PROCESS.
THE LAST TIME AROUND BECAUSE HE 
HAS INVITED THE UKRAINIANS INTO 
THE PROCESS AND BECAUSE HE 
SUGGESTED HE WOULD LIKE THE 
CHINESE TO COME INTO THE PROCESS
AS WELL. 
>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
ONE OF THE FRAMERS OF OUR 
CONSTITUTION, RANDOLPH, WHO AT 
ONE TIME WAS MAYOR OF 
WILLIAMSBURG, VIRGINIA, WARNED 
US THAT, QUOTE, THE EXECUTIVE 
WILL HAVE GREAT OPPORTUNITIES OF
ABUSING HIS POWER, END QUOTE.
PROFESSOR FELDMAN, PEOPLE LIKE 
MAYOR RANDOLPH REBELLED BECAUSE 
OF THE TYRANNY OF THE KING.
WHY WERE THE FRAMERS SO CAREFUL 
TO AVOID THE POTENTIAL FOR A 

English: 
PRESIDENT TO BECOME SO 
TYRANNICAL AND WHAT DID THEY DO 
TO PROTECT AGAINST IT?
>> THE FRAMERS BELIEVED STRONGLY
THE PEOPLE WERE KING, THE PEOPLE
WERE SOVEREIGN, AND THAT MEANT 
THE PRESIDENT WORKED FOR 
SOMEBODY.
HE WORKED FOR THE PEOPLE.
THEY KNEW A PRESIDENT WHO 
COULDN'T BE CHECKED OR COULD NOT
BE SUPERVISED BY HIS OWN JUSTICE
DEPARTMENT AND COULD NOT BE 
SUPERVISED BY CONGRESS AND COULD
NOT BE IMPEACHED WOULD 
EFFECTIVELY BE ABOVE THE LAW AND
USE HIS POWER TO GET HIMSELF 
RE-ELECTED.
THAT'S WHY THEY CREATED THE 
IMPEACHMENT REMEDY. 
>> THANK YOU, PROFESSOR FELDMAN.
I NOW WANT TO DISCUSS HOW THE 
FRAMER'S CONCERNS ABOUT ABUSE OF
POWER RELATE TO PRESIDENT 
TRUMP'S MISCONDUCT.
ON JULY 25th PRESIDENT TRUMP 
SAID TO PRESIDENT ZELENSKY, 
QUOTE, I WOULD LIKE YOU TO DO US
A FAVOR, THOUGH.
PROFESSOR FELDMAN, WHEN 
PRESIDENT TRUMP MADE USE OF THE 
WORD FAVOR, THOUGH, DO YOU 
BELIEVE THAT THE PRESIDENT WAS 
BENIGNLY ASKING FOR A FAVOR?
AND HOW IS THE ANSWER TO THAT 
QUESTION RELEVANT TO WHETHER THE

English: 
PRESIDENT ABUSED HIS POWER?
>> IT'S RELEVANT, SIR, BECAUSE 
THERE'S NOTHING WRONG FOR 
SOMEONE ASKING FOR A FAVOR IN 
THE INTEREST OF THE UNITED 
STATES OF AMERICA.
THE PROBLEM IS THE PRESIDENT TO 
USE HIS OFFICE, TO SOLICIT OR 
DEMAND A FAVOR FOR HIS PERSONAL 
BENEFIT.
AND THE EVIDENCE STRONGLY 
SUGGESTS THAT GIVEN THE POWER OF
THE PRESIDENT AND GIVEN THE 
INCENTIVES THAT THE PRESIDENT 
CREATED FOR UKRAINE TO COMPLY 
WITH HIS REQUEST, THAT THE 
PRESIDENT WAS SEEKING TO SERVE 
HIS OWN PERSONAL BENEFIT AND HIS
OWN PERSONAL INTEREST.
THAT'S THE DEFINITION OF 
CORRUPTION UNDER THE 
CONSTITUTION. 
>> OTHER WITNESSES HAVE ALSO 
TESTIFIED THAT IT WAS THEIR 
IMPRESSION THAT WHEN PRESIDENT 
TRUMP SAID, I WOULD LIKE YOU TO 
DO US A FAVOR, THOUGH, THAT HE 
WAS ACTUALLY MAKING A DEMAND AND
NOT A REQUEST.
PROFESSOR FELDMAN, HOW DOES 
COLONEL VINDMAN'S TESTIMONY THAT
THE PRESIDENT'S STATEMENT WAS A 
DEMAND BECAUSE OF THE POW ARE 
DISPARITY BETWEEN THE TWO 
COUNTRIES RELATE BACK TO OUR 
FRAMER'S CONCERNS ABOUT THE 

English: 
PRESIDENT'S ABEAUTY OF POWER?
>> LIEUTENANT COLONEL VINDMAN'S 
OBSERVATIONS STATE CLEARLY THAT 
YOU HAVE TO UNDERSTAND THE 
PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES 
HAS SO MUCH MORE POWER THAN THE 
PRESIDENT OF UKRAINE, THAT WHEN 
THE PRESIDENT USES THE WORD 
FAVOR, THE REALITY IS HE'S 
APPLYING TREMENDOUS PRESSURE, 
THE PRESSURE OF THE POWER OF THE
UNITED STATES.
THAT RELATES TO THE 
CONSTITUTIONAL ABUSE OF OFFICE.
IF SOMEONE OTHER THAN THE 
PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES 
ASKED THE PRESIDENT OF UKRAINE 
TO DO A FAVOR, THE PRESIDENT OF 
UKRAINE COULD SAY NO.
WHEN THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED
STATES USES THE OFFICE OF THE 
PRESIDENCY TO ASK FOR A FAVOR, 
THERE'S SIMPLY NO WAY FOR THE 
PRESIDENT OF UKRAINE TO REFUSE. 
>> THANK YOU.
WE'VE ALSO HEARD TESTIMONY THAT 
THE PRESIDENT WITHHELD A WHITE 
HOUSE MEETING AND MILITARY AID 
IN ORDER TO FURTHER PRESSURE 
UKRAINE TO ANNOUNCE 
INVESTIGATIONS OF VICE PRESIDENT
BIDEN IN THE 2016 ELECTION.
PROFESSOR KARLAN, IS THAT WHY 
YOUR TESTIMONY CONCLUDED THAT 
PRESIDENT ABUSED HIS POWER?
>> I THOUGHT THE PRESIDENT 
ABUSED HIS POWER BY ASKING FOR A

English: 
CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION OF A U.S.
CITIZEN FOR POLITICAL ENDS.
REGARDLESS OF ANYTHING ELSE.
IT'S NOT ICING ON THE CAKE.
IT'S WHAT YOU WOULD CALL AN 
ACTIVATING CIRCUMSTANCE.
>> THANK YOU.
>> THE PRESIDENT HOLDING AN 
AMERICAN ALLY OVER A BARREL TO 
EXTRACT PERSONAL FAVORS IS 
DOPELY TROUBLING.
THIS IS NOT AN IMPULSE BUY 
MOMENT.
IT'S A BREAK THE GLASS MOMENT 
AND IMPEACHMENT IS THE ONLY 
APPROPRIATE REMEDY.
WITH THAT I WILL YIELD BACK. 
>> THE GENTLEMAN YIELD'S 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 
COMMITTEE HAD ALREADY VOTED TO 
MOVE FORWARD ON IMPEACHMENT, YET
TODAY WE'RE TALKING ABOUT 
WHETHER THE POSITIONS THEY'VE 

English: 
ALREADY TAKEN ARE 
CONSTITUTIONAL.
SEEMS A LITTLE BACKWARD TO ME.
WE CAN'T GET AGREEMENT.
WE HAVE FOUR DEMOCRATS -- FOUR 
PEOPLE WHO VOTED FOR CLINTON AND
THEY CAN'T AGREE.
YET TODAY WE'RE TALKING ABOUT 
THE CONSTITUTION.
PROFESSOR TURLEY, YOU'VE BEEN 
GREAT TODAY, BUT I THINK YOU 
WERE WRONG ON ONE THING.
YOU SAID THIS IS A FAST 
IMPEACHMENT.
I WOULD ARGUE IT'S NOT A FAST 
IMPEACHMENT.
IT'S A PREDETERMINED 
IMPEACHMENT.
PREDETERMINED IMPEACHMENT DONE 
IN THE MOST UNFAIR PARTISAN 
FASHION WE HAVE EVER SEEN.
NO SUBPOENA POWER FOR 
REPUBLICANS, DEPOSITIONS DONE IN
SECRET, IN THE BUNKER OF THE 
BASEMENT OF THE CAPITOL, 17 
PEOPLE COME IN FOR THOSE 
DEPOSITIONS.
NO ONE CAN BE IN THERE EXCEPT A 
HANDFUL OF FOLKS ADAM SCHIFF 
ALLOWED.
IN THOSE DEPOSITIONS CHAIRMAN 
SCHIFF PREVENTED WITNESSES FROM 
ANSWERING REPUBLICAN QUESTION.
EVERY DEMOCRATIC QUESTION GOT 
ANSWERED.
DEMOCRATS DENIED REPUBLICANS THE
WITNESSES WE WANTED IN THE OPEN 
HEARINGS THREE WEEKS.
AND DEMOCRATS PROMISED US THE 

English: 
WHISTLE-BLOWER WOULD TESTIFY AND
THEN CHANGED THEIR MIND.
AND THEY CHANGED THEIR MIND WHY?
BECAUSE THE WHOLE WORLD 
DISCOVERED ADAM SCHIFF'S STAFF 
HAD TALKED TO THE 
WHISTLE-BLOWER, COORDINATED WITH
THE WHISTLE-BLOWER.
THE WHISTLE-BLOWER WITH NO 
FIRSTHAND KNOWLEDGE, BIASED 
AGAINST THE PRESIDENT, WHO 
WORKED WITH JOE BIDEN, WHOSE 
LAWYER IN JANUARY OF '17 SAID 
THE IMPEACHMENT PROCESS STARTS 
THEN.
THAT'S THE UNFAIR PROCESS WE'VE 
BEEN THROUGH.
AND THE REASON IT'S UNFAIR, LET 
ME JUST CUT TO THE CHASE, THE 
REASON IT'S BEEN UNFAIR, BECAUSE
THE FACTS AREN'T ON THEIR SIDE.
THE FACTS ARE ON THE PRESIDENT'S
SIDE.
FOUR KEY FACTS WILL NOT CHANGE, 
HAVE NOT CHANGED, WILL NEVER 
CHANGE.
WE HAVE THE TRANSCRIPT.
THERE WAS NO QUID PRO QUO IN THE
TRANSCRIPT.
THE TWO GUYS ON THE CALL, 
PRESIDENT TRUMP AND PRESIDENT 
ZELENSKY BOTH SAID, NO PRESSURE,
NO PUSHING, NO QUID PRO QUO.
THE UKRAINIAN DIDN'T KNOW THE 
AID WAS HELD UP AT THE TIME OF 
THE PHONE CALL.

English: 
MOST IMPORTANT, THE UKRAINIANS 
NEVER STARTED, NEVER PROMISED TO
START AND NEVER ANNOUNCED AN 
INVESTIGATION IN THE TIME THE 
AID WAS PAUSED.
NEVER ONCE.
BUT YOU KNOW WHAT DID HAPPEN IN 
THOSE 55 DAYS THAT THE AID WAS 
PAUSED?
THERE WERE FIVE KEY MEETINGS 
BETWEEN PRESIDENT ZELENSKY AND 
SENIOR OFFICIALS IN OUR 
GOVERNMENT.
FIVE KEY MEETINGS.
GOT THE CALL ON JULY 25th.
VERY NEXT DAY, JULY 26th WE HAD 
AMBASSADOR VOLKER, TAYLOR AND 
SONDLAND MEET WITH PRESIDENT 
ZELENSKY IN KIEV.
WE THEN HAD THE VICE PRESIDENT 
MEET WITH PRESIDENT ZELENSKY ON 
SEPTEMBER 1st AND TWO SENATORS, 
REPUBLICAN AND MORE IMPORTANTLY 
DEMOCRATIC SENATOR MURPHY MEET 
WITH PRESIDENT ZELENSKY.
NONE OF THOSE FIVE MEETINGS WAS 
AID EVER DISCUSSED IN EXCHANGE 
FOR AN ANNOUNCEMENT OF AN 
INVESTIGATION INTO ANYBODY.
NOT ONE OF THEM.
YOU WOULD THINK THE LAST TWO, 
AFTER THE UKRAINIANS DID KNOW 
THE AID WAS BEING HELD, YOU 

English: 
THINK IT WOULD COME UP THEN.
PARTICULARLY THE ONE WHERE YOU 
GOT SENATOR MURPHY, THE 
DEMOCRAT, THERE TALKING ABOUT 
IT.
NEVER CAME UP.
THE FACTS ARE ON THE PRESIDENT'S
SIDE.
WE HAVE AN UNFAIR PROCESS.
THEY DON'T HAVE THE FACTS.
WE HAVE AN UNFAIR PROCESS MOST 
IMPORTANTLY.
THIS GETS TO SOMETHING ELSE YOU 
SAID, MR. TURLEY.
AND THIS IS SCARY, HOW MAD -- 
THAT WAS SO WELL SAID.
THIS IS SCARY.
THE DEMOCRATS HAVE NEVER 
ACCEPTED THE WILL OF THE 
AMERICAN PEOPLE.
TO MR. TURLEY'S POINT, 17 DAYS 
AGO, 17 DAYS AGO THE SPEAKER OF 
THE UNITED STATES HOUSE OF 
REPRESENTATIVES CALLED THE 
PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES 
AN IMPOSTER.
THE GUY'S 63 MILLION AMERICANS 
VOTED FOR, WHO WON AN ELECTORAL 
COLLEGE LANDSLIDE, THE SPEAKER 
OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 
CALLED HIM AN IMPOSTER.
THIS IS NOT HEALTHY FOR OUR 
COUNTRY.
THE FACTS ARE THE FACTS.
THEY'RE ON THE.
THE'S SIDE.

English: 
THAT'S WHAT WE NEED TO FOCUS ON.
NOT SOME CONSTITUTIONAL CHEERING
AT THE END OF THE PROCESS WHEN 
YOU GUYS HAVE ALREADY DETERMINED
WHERE YOU'RE GOING TO GO.
WITH THAT I YIELD BACK.
>> THE GENTLEMAN YIELDS BACK.
MR. BEUTCH. 
>> THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN.
WE COMMEMORATE THE 75th 
ANNIVERSARY OF THE BATTLE OF THE
BU WILL.
GE.
MY FATHER RECEIVED A PURPLE 
HEART FIGHTING IN THE FRIGID 
ARDENNES.
HE GAVE BLOOD.
THEY SERVED UNDER OFFICERS AND A
COMMANDER IN CHIEF WHO WERE NOT 
FIGHTING A WAR FOR THEIR OWN 
PERSONAL BENEFIT.
THEY PUT COUNTRY FIRST.
THEY MADE THE SAME SOLEMN 
PROMISE THAT MEMBERS OF CONGRESS
AND THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED 
STATES MAKE, TO ALWAYS PUT 
NATIONAL INTEREST ABOVE THEIR 
OWN PERSONAL INTEREST.
THE EVIDENCE SHOWS THAT THE 

English: 
PRESIDENT BROKE THAT PROMISE.
THE CONSTITUTION GIVES THE 
PRESIDENT ENORMOUS POWER BUT WE 
ALSO IMPOSE A REMEDY WHEN THOSE 
POWERS ARE ABUSED.
IN JULY PRESIDENT TRUMP SAYS, 
AND I QUOTE, I HAVE AN ARTICLE 2
WHERE I HAVE THE RIGHT TO DO 
WHATEVER I WANT AS PRESIDENT.
 CLOSE QUOTE.
PROFESSOR FELDMAN, THE PRESIDENT
HAS BROAD POWERS UNDER THE 
CONSTITUTION INCLUDING IN 
FOREIGN POLICY, ISN'T THAT 
RIGHT?
>> YES, SIR.
>> DO THOSE POWERS MEAN THE 
PRESIDENT CAN DO, AS HE SAID, 
WHATEVER HE WANTS AS PRESIDENT?
CAN ABUSE THE POWERS THE 
CONSTITUTION GIVES HIM?
>> HE MAY NOT.
IF THE PRESIDENT -- WERE AGAINST
THE NATIONAL SECURITY INTEREST 
OF THE UNITED STATES, HE MAY BE 
IMPEACHED FOR HIGH CRIME AND 
MISDEMEANOR. 
>> IF USING HIS POWER TO 
PRESSURE UKRAINE AN ABUSE OF 
THAT POWER?
>> YES, SIR. 
>> PROFESSOR GERHARDT, HOW WOULD
THE FRAMERS OF THE CONSTITUTION 
HAVE VIEWED A PRESIDENT ASKING 
FOR ELECTION INTEERNSZ OF A 

English: 
FOREIGN LEADER?
>> IT'S ALWAYS -- 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.
IT'S A RATHER HORRIFYING ABUSE 
OF POWER. 
>> PROFESSOR KARLAN, WE'VE HEARD
WITNESSES OVER THE PAST SEVERAL 
WEEKS TESTIFY ABOUT THEIR 
CONCERNS WHEN THE PRESIDENT USED
HIS FOREIGN POLICY POWER FOR 
POLITICAL GAIN.
LIEUTENANT COLONEL VINDMAN WAS 
SHOCKED.
AMBASSADOR TAYLOR THOUGHT IT WAS
CRAZY TO WITHHOLD SECURITY 
ASSISTANCE FOR HELP ON A 
POLITICAL CAMPAIGN.
THESE CONCERNS AREN'T MERE 
DIFFERENCES OF A POLICY, ARE 
THEY?
>> NO, THEY GO TO THE 
FOUNDATION -- THE VERY 
FOUNDATION OF OUR DEMOCRACY.
>> AND OFFERING TO EXCHANGE A 

English: 
WHITE HOUSE MEETING AND HUNDREDS
OF MILLIONS OF DOLLARS IN 
SECURITY ASSISTANCE, FOR HELP 
WITH HIS RE-ELECTION, THAT CAN'T
BE PART OF OUR NATION'S FOREIGN 
POLICY, IS IT?
>> NO.
IT'S THE ESSENCE OF DOING THINGS
FOR PERSONAL REASONS RATHER THAN
POLITICAL REASONS IF I COULD 
JUST SAY ONE THING ABOUT THIS 
VERY BRIEFLY WHICH IS MAYBE WHEN
HE WAS FIRST RUNNING FOR 
PRESIDENT HE HAD NEVER BEEN 
ANYTHING OTHER THAN A REALITY TV
SHOW -- YOU KNOW, THAT WAS HIS 
PUBLIC -- THAT WAS HIS PUBLIC 
LIFE.
MAYBE THEN HE COULD THINK 
RUSSIA, IF YOU'RE LISTENING, IS 
AN OKAY THING TO DO.
BUT BY THE TIME HE ASKED 
UKRAINE, UKRAINE, IF YOU'RE 
LISTENING, COULD YOU HELP ME OUT
WITH MY RE-ELECTION, HE HAS TO 
HAVE KNOWN THAT WAS NOT 
SOMETHING CONSISTENT WITH HIS 
OATH OF OFFICE.
>> THE FOUNDERS OF THE UNITED 
STATES GRANTED OUR FOUNDERS 
ENORMOUS POWERS BUT WHAT WE'VE 
BEEN REMINDED OF TODAY, THEY 
WORRIED THESE POWERS COULD BE 
ABUSED BY A CORRUPT PRESIDENT 
PERFORM THE EVIDENCE OF ABUSE OF
POWER IN THIS INQUIRY PROVED 
THAT OUR FOUNDERS WERE RIGHT TO 

English: 
BE WORRIED.
YES, YES, THE PRESIDENT HAS THE 
POWER TO DIRECT AMERICA'S 
FOREIGN POLICY, BUT, NO, HE 
CANNOT USE THAT POWER TO CHEAT 
IN OUR ELECTIONS.
REMEMBER, I ASK ALL OF MY 
COLLEAGUES TO REMEMBER, THE 
CONSTITUTION GRANTS THE 
PRESIDENT HIS POWER THROUGH THE 
AMERICAN PEOPLE.
THE PRESIDENT'S SOURCE OF POWER 
IS A DEMOCRATIC ELECTION.
IT IS THE AMERICAN PEOPLE, THE 
VOTERS, WHO TRUSTED HIM, TO LOOK
OUT FOR THEM.
WE TRUSTED HIM TO LOOK OUT FOR 
THE COUNTRY.
INSTEAD, PRESIDENT TRUMP LOOKED 
OUT FOR HIMSELF AND HELPING 
HIMSELF GET RE-ELECTED.
HE ABUSED THE POWER THAT WE 
TRUSTED HIM WITH FOR PERSONAL 
AND POLITICAL GAIN.
THE FOUNDERS WORRIED ABOUT JUST 

English: 
THIS TYPE OF ABUSE OF POWER.
AND PROCEED PROVIDED ONE WAY, 
ONE WAY FOR CONGRESS TO RESPOND.
AND THAT'S THE POWER OF 
IMPEACHMENT.
I YIELD BACK.
>> GENTLEMAN YIELDS BACK.
MR. BUCK. 
>> THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN.
PROFESSOR TURLEY, I WANT TO 
DIRECT A FEW QUESTIONS TO YOU.
THE OTHER THREE WITNESSES HAVE 
IDENTIFIED THERE'S A STANDARD 
FOR IMPEACHING A PRESIDENT.
THEY SAID THAT IF A PRESIDENT 
ABUSES HIS POWER FOR PERSONAL OR
POLITICAL GAIN, IT'S IMPEACHABLE
CONDUCT.
DO YOU AGREE WITH ME?
>> NOT THE WAY IT'S BEEN STATED.
IN FACT, THERE ARE SO MANY 
DIFFERENT STANDARDS --
>> I HAVE A LONG WAYS TO GO 
HERE.
>> WELL, THERE'S BEEN SO MANY 
DIFFERENT STANDARDS.
ONE WAS ATTEMPTING TO ABUSE 
OFFICE.
I'M NOT EVEN 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 

English: 
SPEECHES AND OTHER STRATEGIES.
DELIVERED THAT TO THE JOHNSON 
CAMPAIGN.
WOULD THAT BE IMPEACHABLE 
CONDUCT ACCORDING TO THE OTHER 
PANELISTS?
>> BROADLY SO. 
>> HOW ABOUT WHEN PRESIDENT 
JOHNSON PUT A WIRETAP ON GOLD 
WATER'S CAMPAIGN PLANE, WOULD 
THAT BE FOR POLITICAL BENEFIT?
>> I CAN'T EXCLUDE ANYTHING 
UNDER THAT DEFINITION. 
>> I'LL GO TO A FEW OTHER 
PRESIDENTS.
CONGRESSMAN DEUTCH INFORMED US 
THAT FDR PUT COUNTRY FIRST.
FRANKLIN DELANO ROOSEVELT 
DIRECTED THE IRS TO CONDUCT 
AUDITS OF HIS POLITICAL ENEMIES,
NAMELY HUEY LONG, WILLIAM 
RANDOLPH HIRST, FATHER COUGHLIN.
WOULD BE IMPEACHABLE CONDUCT?
>> I THINK IT ALL WOULD BE 
SUBASSUMED TO DO IT. 
>> HOW ABOUT WHEN PRESIDENT 
KENNEDY DIRECTED HIS BROTHER, 

English: 
ROBERT KENNEDY, 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 DIRECTED 
THE FBI TO USE WIRETAP ON 
CONGRESSIONAL STAFFERS WHO 
OPPOSED HIM POLITICALLY, WOULD 
THAT BE IMPEACHABLE CONDUCT?
>> IT WOULD SEEM TO BE, FALLING 
WITHIN IT.
>> AND LET'S GO TO BARACK OBAMA.
WHEN BARACK OBAMA DIRECTED -- OR
MADE A FINDING THAT THE SENATE 
WAS IN RECESS AND APPOINTED 
PEOPLE TO THE NATIONAL LABOR 
RELATIONS BOARD AND LOST 9-0, 
RUTH BADER GINSBURG VOTED 
AGAINST THE PRESIDENT ON THIS 
ISSUE, WOULD THAT BE AN ABUSE OF
POWER?
>> I'M AFRAID YOU HAVE TO DIRECT
IT TO OTHERS BUT I DON'T SEE ANY
EXCLUSIONS UNDERTHY DEFINITION. 
>> HOW ABOUT WHEN THE PRESIDENT 
DIRECTED HIS NATIONAL SECURE 
ADVISER AND THE SECRETARY OF 
STATE TO LIE TO THE AMERICAN 
PEOPLE ABOUT WHETHER THE 
AMBASSADOR TO LIBYA WAS MURDERED

English: 
AS A RESULT OF A VIDEO OR WAS 
MURDERED AS A RESULT OF A 
TERRORIST ACT, WOULD THAT BE AN 
ABUSE OF POWER WITH POLITICAL 
BENEFIT 17 DAYS BEFORE THE NEXT 
ELECTION?
>> NOT ACCORDING TO MY 
DEFINITION, BUT OTHERS WILL HAVE
TO RESPOND TO THEIR OWN.
>> WELL, YOU HEARD THEIR 
DEFINITION.
>> I HAVE A HARD TIME EXCLUDING 
ANYTHING OUT OF --
>> HOW ABOUT WHEN ABRAHAM 
LINCOLN ARRESTED LEGISLATORS IN 
MARYLAND SO THAT THEY WOULDN'T 
CONVENE TO SECEDE FROM THE 
UNION?
VIRGINIA HAD ALREADY SECEDED SO 
IT WOULD PLACE WASHINGTON, D.C.,
THE CAPITAL, IN THE MIDDLE OF 
THE REBELLION.
WOULD THAT HAVE BEEN ABUSE OF 
POWER FOR POLITICAL BENEFIT?
>> IT COULD BE UNDER THAT 
DEFINITION.
>> YOU MENTIONED GEORGE 
WASHINGTON A LITTLE WHILE AGO AS
PERHAPS HAVING MET THE STANDARD 
OF IMPEACHMENT TO YOUR OTHER 
PANELISTS.
LET ME ASK YOU SOMETHING, 
PROFESSOR TURLEY.
CAN YOU NAME A SINGLE PRESIDENT 
IN THE HISTORY OF UNITED STATES,

English: 
SAY PRESIDENT HARRISON WHO DIED 
32 DAYS AFTER HIS INAUGURATION, 
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.
ONCE AGAIN, I CAN'T EXCLUDE MANY
OF THESE ACTS. 
>> WHAT YOU AND I AND MANY 
OTHERS ARE AFRAID OF IS THE 
STANDARDS THAT YOUR FRIENDS TO 
THE RIGHT OF YOU, AND NOT 
POLITICALLY, BUT TO THE RIGHT OF
YOU SITTING THERE, YOUR FRIENDS 
HAVE DECIDED THAT THE BAR IS SO 
LOW THAT WHEN WE HAVE A DEMOCRAT
PRESIDENT IN OFFICE AND A 
REPUBLICAN HOUSE AND A 
REPUBLICAN SENATE, WE'RE GOING 
TO BE GOING THROUGH THIS WHOLE 
SCENARIO AGAIN IN A WAY THAT 
REALLY PUTS THE COUNTRY AT RISK.
>> WHEN YOUR GRAPHIC SAYS THAT 
YOUR BETRAYAL IS NATIONAL 
INTEREST, I WOULD SIMPLY ASK, DO
YOU REALLY WANT THAT TO BE YOUR 
STANDARD?

English: 
>> ISN'T THE DIFFERENCE, 
PROFESSOR TURLEY, THAT SOME 
PEOPLE LIVE IN AN IVORY TOWER 
AND SOME PEOPLE LIVE IN A SWAMP,
AND THOSE OF US THAT ARE 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 BECAUSE I'M AT 
G.W. AND IT'S WANT SO BAD. 
>> I YIELD BACK. 
>> GENTLEMAN YIELDS BACK.
MS. BASS. 
>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
AND I WANT TO THANK THE 
WITNESSES AND I DON'T BELIEVE 
THE PEOPLE'S HOUSE IS A SWAMP.
PRESIDENT NIXON WAS IMPEACHED 
BECAUSE HIS CONDUCT WAS, QUOTE, 
UNDERTAKEN FOR PERSONAL 
ADVANTAGE AND NOT IN FURTHERANCE
OF ANY VALID NATIONAL POLICY 
OBJECTIVES.
PROFESSOR GERHARDT, WHY WAS IT 
SIGNIFICANT THAT PRESIDENT NIXON
ACTED FOR HIS PERSONAL POLITICAL
ADVANTAGE AND NOT IN FURTHERANCE
OF ANY VALID NATIONAL POLICY 
OBJECTIVE?
>> IT'S PRIMARILY SIGNIFICANT 
BECAUSE IN ACTING ON -- FOR HIS 
OWN PERSONAL BENEFIT AND NOT FOR
THE BENEFIT OF THE COUNTRY, HE 

English: 
HAS CROSSED A LINE.
THE LINE HERE IS VERY CLEAR.
IT BECOMES ABUSE OF POWER WHEN 
SOMEBODY'S USING THE SPECIAL 
AUTHORITIES OF THEIR OFFICE FOR 
THEIR OWN PERSONAL BENEFITS AND 
NOT THE BENEFIT OF THE COUNTRY.
>> SO 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 NIXON 
DID WAS HE LAUNCHED TAX 
INVESTIGATIONS OF HIS POLITICAL 
OPPONENT.
HERE THE EVIDENCE SHOWS TRUMP 
TRIED TO LAUNCH A CRIMINAL 
INVESTIGATION OF HIS POLITICAL 
OPPONENT BY A FOREIGN 
GOVERNMENT.
WE HAVE HEARD EVIDENCE 
SUGGESTING PRESIDENT TRUMP DID 
THIS FOR HIS OWN PERSONAL GAIN 
AND NOT FOR ANY NATIONAL POLICY 
INTEREST.
ALTHOUGH PRESIDENT TRUMP CLAIMS 
HE WITHHELD THE AID BECAUSE OF 
CONCERNS ABOUT CORRUPTION.
I DO BELIEVE THAT WE HAVE 
EXAMPLES OF THE EVIDENCE OF THE 
TRUTH.
>> AMBASSADOR SONDLAND STATED 
THE PRESIDENT ONLY CARES ABOUT 
BIG STUFF.
I NOTED THERE WAS BIG STUFF 
GOING ON IN UKRAINE.

English: 
LIKE A WAR WITH RUSSIA.
AMBASSADOR SONDLAND RELIED HE 
MEANT BIG STUFF THAT REPRESENTS 
THE PRESIDENT, LIKE THE BIDEN 
INVESTIGATION THAT MR. GIULIANI 
WAS PUSHING.
>> PROFESSOR FELDMAN, WHAT WOULD
THE FRAMERS HAVE THOUGHT OF A 
PRESIDENT WHO ONLY CARES ABOUT 
THE, QUOTE, BIG STUFF THAT 
BENEFITS HIM?
>> THE FRAMERS WERE EXTREMELY 
WORRIED ABOUT A PRESIDENT WHO 
SERVED ONLY HIS OWN INTEREST OR 
THE INTEREST OF FOREIGN POWERS.
THAT WAS THEIR MOST SERIOUS 
CONCERN WHEN THEY DESIGNED THE 
REMEDY OF IMPEACHMENT.
>> SO, THE EVIDENCE ALSO 
SUGGESTS PRESIDENT TRUMP DIDN'T 
EVEN CARE IF THE INVESTIGATION 
ACTUALLY HAPPENED.
WHAT HE REALLY CARED ABOUT WAS 
THE PUBLIC'S ANNOUNCEMENT OF THE
INVESTIGATION SO, PROFESSOR 
KARLAN, HOW DO WE ANALYZE THESE 
FACTS IN THE CONTEXT OF ABUSE OF
POWER?
>> WELL, I THINK THAT TO HAVE A 
PRESIDENT ASK FOR THE 
INVESTIGATION INVESTIGATION OF 
HIS POLITICAL OPPONENT IS AN 
ARCHTYPE OF THE ABUSE OF POWER.
MR. BUCK MENTIONED PAST EXAMPLES

English: 
OF THIS.
AND TO SAY THAT THOSE WEREN'T 
IMPEACHABLE, I THINK, IS A BIG 
MISTAKE.
IF A PRESIDENT WIRETAPS HIS 
OPPONENTS, THAT'S A -- THAT'S A 
FEDERAL CRIME NOW.
I DON'T KNOW WHETHER BEFORE THE 
WIRETAP ACT OF 1968 IT WAS.
IF A PRESIDENT WIRETAPPED HIS 
OPPONENT TODAY, THAT WOULD BE 
IMPEACHABLE CONDUCT.
>> I ALSO SERVE ON THE FOREIGN 
AFFAIRS COMMITTEE.
I UNDERSTAND HOW SIGNIFICANT IT 
IS TO FOREIGN LEADERS TO MEET 
WITH OUR PRESIDENTS, TO ATTEND A
MEETING IN THE OVAL OFFICE IS 
VERY SIGNIFICANT.
PRESIDENT ZELENSKY IS A NEWLY 
ELECTED HEAD OF STATE IN A 
FLEDGLING DEMOCRACY.
HIS COUNTRY IS AT WAR WITH HIS 
NEIGHBOR.
RUSSIA INVADED AND IS OCCUPYING 
HIS COUNTRY'S TERRITORY.
HE NEEDED THE MILITARY RESOURCES
TO DEFEND HIS COUNTRY.
HE NEEDED THE DIPLOMATIC 
RECOGNITION OF THE AMERICAN 
PRESIDENT, AND HE WAS PREPARED 
TO DO WHATEVER THE PRESIDENT 
DEMANDED.
MANY YEARS AGO I WORKED IN THE 

English: 
NATION'S LARGEST TRAUMA UNIT AS 
A PA, PHYSICIAN ASSISTANT.
I SAW PEOPLE IN THEIR WORST 
AFTER ACTS OF VIOLENCE.
PATIENTS I TOOK CARE WERE 
DESPERATE AND AFRAID AND HAD TO 
WAIT FIVE TO SIX 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 
THEY WERE 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.
I HAD THE POWER TO RELIEVE MY 
PATIENTS FROM EXPERIENCING PAIN.
IT'S FUNDAMENTALLY WRONG AND IN 
MANY CASES ILLEGAL FOR US TO USE
POWER TO TAKE ADVANTAGE OF THOSE
IN CRISIS, ESPECIALLY A 
PRESIDENT, ESPECIALLY WHEN LIVES
ARE AT STAKE.
I YIELD BACK.
>> THE GENTLE LADY YIELDS BACK.
MR. RATCLIFFE. 
>> THANK YOU, CHAIRMAN.
PROFESSOR TURLEY, I'D LIKE TO 

English: 
START WHERE YOU STARTED BECAUSE 
YOU SAID SOMETHING I THINK BEARS
REPEATING.
YOU SAID, I'M NOT A SUPPORTER OF
PRESIDENT TRUMP.
I VOTED AGAINST HIM IN 2016 AND 
I HAVE PREVIOUSLY VOTED FOR 
PRESIDENTS CLINTON AND OBAMA.
BUT DESPITE YOUR POLITICAL 
PREFERENCES AND PERSUASION, YOU 
REACHED THIS CONCLUSION, THE 
CURRENT LEGAL CASE FOR 
IMPEACHMENT IS NOT JUST WOEFULLY
INADEQUATE, IN SOME RESPECTS 
DANGEROUS.
THE IMPEACHMENT OF AN AMERICAN 
PRESIDENT.
LET ME START BY COMMENDING YOU 
FOR BEING AN EXAMPLE OF WHAT 
HOPEFULLY EVERYONE ON THIS 
COMMITTEE WILL DO AS WE APPROACH
THE TASK THAT WE HAVE OF 
DETERMINING WHETHER OR NOT THERE
WERE ANY IMPEACHABLE OFFENSES 
HERE.
ONE OF THE PROBLEMS YOU AR LICK 
ARTICULATED OF LEADING YOU TO 
THE CONCLUSION OF CALLING THIS 
THE SHORTEST IMPEACHMENT 
PROCEEDINGS WITH THE THINNEST 

English: 
EVIDENTIARY RECORDS TO IMPEACH A
PRESIDENT IS THE FACT THAT THERE
HAS BEEN THIS EVER CHANGING, CON
CONSTANTLY EVOLVING, MOVING 
TARGET OF ACCUSATIONS, IF YOU 
WILL.
THE JULY 25th PHONE CALL STARTED
OUT AS AN ALLEGED QUID PRO QUO 
AND BRIEFLY BECAME AN EXTORTION 
SCHEME, A BRIBERY 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 EVEN STARTED TO USE THE 
TERM BRIBERY, YOU'VE CLEARLY 
ARTICULATED WHY YOU THINK THE 
DEFINITION THEY HAVE USED 
PUBLICLY ARE FLAWED, IF NOT 
UNCONSTITUTIONAL, BOTH IN THE 
18th CENTURY OR IN THE 21st 
CENTURY.
BUT WOULD YOU AGREE WITH ME THAT
BRIBERY UNDER ANY VALID 
DEFINITION REQUIRES THAT A 
SPECIFIC QUID PRO QUO BE PROVEN?

English: 
>> NOR IMPORTANTLY, THE SUPREME 
COURT HAS 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.
THAT'S THE REASON WE KEEP 
HEARING THE WORDS CIRCUMSTANTIAL
AND INFERNITIAL.
IT'S NOT THAT YOU CAN'T HAVE A 
CIRCUMSTANTIAL CASE.
THOSE WOULD BE APPROPRIATE TERMS
IF THESE WERE UNKNOWNABLE FACTS.
THE PROBLEM IS YOU HAVE SO MANY 
WITNESSES THAT HAVE NOT BEEN 
SUBPOENAED, SO MANY WITNESSES WE
HAVE NOT HEARD FROM.
>> SO IF IT'S NOT IN THE 
TRANSCRIPT, THEN IT HAS TO COME 
FROM WITNESS TESTIMONY.
I ASSUME YOU 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?

English: 
>> CORRECT.
>> SO, LET ME TURN TO THE ISSUE 
OF OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE 
QUICKLY.
I THINK YOU ASSUMED AS I DID 
THAT WHEN DEMOCRATS HAVE BEEN 
TALKING ABOUT OBSTRUCTION, IT 
WAS SPECIFICALLY RELATED TO THE 
UKRAINE ISSUE.
I KNOW YOU TALKED ABOUT THAT A 
LOT TODAY.
YOU CLEARLY STATED YOU THINK 
PRESIDENT TRUMP HAD NO CORRUPT 
INTENT.
ON PAGE 39 OF YOUR REPORT.
YOU SAID SOMETHING ELSE, I 
THINK, THAT BEARS REPEATING 
TODAY.
YOU WERE HIGHLIGHTING THE FACT 
THAT THE DEMOCRATS APPEAR TO BE 
TAKING THE POSITION THAT IF A 
PRESIDENT SEEKS JUDICIAL REVIEW 
OVER EXECUTIVE BRANCH TESTIMONY 
OR DOCUMENTS SUBPOENAED BY 
CONGRESS, RATHER THAN LETTING 
THE COURT BE THE ARBITRATOR, 
CONGRESS CAN SIMPLY IMPEACH THE 
PRESIDENT FOR OBSTRUCTIONS BASED
ON THAT.
DID I HEAR YOU SAY THAT IF WE 
WERE TO PROCEED ON THAT BATSZ, 
THAT THAT WOULD BE AN ABUSE OF 
POWER?
>> I DON'T DISAGREE WITH MY 
COLLEAGUES THAT NOTHING IN THE 
CONSTITUTION SAYS YOU HAVE TO GO

English: 
TO A COURT OR WAIT FOR A COURT.
THAT'S NOT WHAT I'M SAYING.
WHAT I'M SAYING IS IF YOU WANT A
WELL-BASED, A LEGITIMATE 
IMPEACHMENT CASE TO SET THIS 
ABBREVIATED SCHEDULE, DEMAND 
DOCUMENTS AND THEN IMPEACH 
BECAUSE THEY HAVEN'T BEEN TURNED
OVER WHEN THEY GO TO ACCORD, 
WHEN THE PRESIDENT GOES TO 
ACCORD, 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 
COULD BE MADE.
THE TYPE OF AID INVOLVED IN THIS
CASE, LIKE A NATIONAL SECURITY 
ADVISER.
LIKE A WHITE HOUSE COUNSEL.
THE CONCERN IS NOT THAT THERE 
IS -- THAT YOU CAN'T EVER 
IMPEACH A PRESIDENT UNLESS YOU 
GO TO COURT, WHEN YOU HAVE TIME 
TO DO IT.
>> 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. 

English: 
>> THE GENTLEMAN'S TIME EXPIRED.
MR. RICHMOND. 
>> THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN.
LET ME JUST PICK UP WHERE WE 
LEFT OFF.
I'M GOING TO START WITH YOUR 
WORDS AND IT'S FROM OCTOBER 
23rd, YOUR OPINION PIECE IN "THE
HILL."
YOU SAID AS I HAVE SAID BEFORE, 
THERE'S NO QUESTION THAT THE USE
OF PUBLIC OFFICE FOR PUBLIC GAIN
IS AN IMPEACHABLE OFFENSE, 
INCLUDING THE WITHHOLDING OF 
MILITARY AID FOR THE 
INVESTIGATION OF A POLITICAL 
OPPONENT.
YOU JUST HAVE TO PROVE IT 
HAPPENED.
IF YOU CAN ESTABLISH INTENT TO 
USE PUBLIC OFFICE FOR PERSONAL 
GAIN, YOU HAVE A VIABLE, 
IMPEACHABLE OFFENSE.
WE HEARD TODAY THE PRESIDENT 
ABUSES HIS POWER WHEN HE USES 
HIS OFFICIAL POWER FOR HIS OWN 
PERSONAL INTEREST RATHER THAN 
THE INTEREST OF OUR COUNTRY, I'D
LIKE TO SPEND MORE TIME ON THAT 
BECAUSE I'M STRUCK BY ONE OF THE
THINGS AT STAKE HERE.

English: 
$400 MILLION OF TAXPAYER 
DOLLARS, PRESIDENT NIXON 
LEVERAGED THE POWERS OF HIS 
OFFICE TO INVESTIGATE POLITICAL 
RIVALS, BUT HERE THE EVIDENCE 
SHOWS PRESIDENT TRUMP ALSO 
LEVERAGED TAXPAYER DOLLARS TO 
GET UKRAINE TO ANNOUNCE SHAM 
INVESTIGATIONS OF PRESIDENT 
TRUMP'S POLITICAL RIVALS.
THAT TAXPAYER MONEY WAS MEANT TO
HELP UKRAINE DEFEND ITSELF AND, 
IN TURN, DEFEND THE UNITED 
STATES INTERESTS FROM RUSSIAN 
AGGRESSION.
THE MONEY HAD BEEN APPROPRIATED 
BY CONGRESS AND CERTIFIED BY THE
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE.
MULTIPLE WITNESSES CONFIRMED 
THERE WAS UNANIMOUS SUPPORT FOR 
THE MILITARY AID TO UKRAINE.
CAN WE LISTEN TO THAT, PLEASE. 
>> FROM WHAT YOU WITNESSED DID 
ANYBODY IN THE NATIONAL SECURITY
COMMUNITY SUPPORT WITHHOLDING 
THE ASSISTANCE?
>> NO.
I NEVER HEARD ANYONE ADVOCATE 
FOR WITHHOLDING THE AID. 
>> AND THE ENTIRE AGENCY 
SUPPORTED THE CONTINUATION OF 

English: 
THE SECURITY ASDZ ANSWER, ISN'T 
THAT RIGHT?
>> THAT'S CORRECT. 
>> I AND OTHERS, IN 
ASTONISHMENT, UKRAINIANS WERE 
FIGHTING RUSSIANS AND COUNTED ON
NOT ONLY THE TRAINING AND 
WEAPONS BUT ALSO THE ASSURANCE 
OF U.S. SUPPORT.
>> PROFESSOR FELDMAN, YOU STATED
THAT THE PRESIDENT'S DEMAND TO 
THE PRESIDENT OF UKRAINE 
CONSTITUTED AN ABUSE OF POWER.
HOW DOES THE PRESIDENT'S 
DECISION TO WITHHOLD MILITARY 
AID AFFECT YOUR ANALYSIS?
>> IT MEANS IT WASN'T JUST AN 
ABUSE OF POWER BECAUSE THE 
PRESIDENT WAS SERVING HIS OWN 
PERSONAL INTERESTS BUT ALSO AN 
ABUSE OF POWER INSOFAR AS THE 
PRESIDENT WAS PUTTING AMERICAN 
NATIONAL SECURITY INTERESTS 
BEHIND HIS OWN PERSONAL 
INTEREST.
IT BROUGHT TOGETHER TWO 
IMPORTANT ASPECTS OF ABUSE OF 
POWER.
SELF-GAIN AND UNDERCUTTING OUR 
NATIONAL SECURITY INTERESTS.
>> THE EVIDENCE POINTS TO 
PRESIDENT TRUMP USING MILITARY 
AID FOR HIS PERSONAL BENEFIT NOT
FOR THE BENEFIT OF ANY OFFICIAL 
U.S. POLICY.

English: 
PROFESSOR KARLAN, HOW WOULD THE 
FRAMERS HAVE INTERPRETED THAT?
>> WELL, I CAN'T SPEAK FOR THE 
FRAMERS THEMSELVES, OBVIOUSLY.
MY VIEW IS THAT THEY WOULD SAY 
THAT THE PRESIDENT'S AUTHORITY 
TO USE FOREIGN AID, AND THEY 
PROBABLY COULDN'T HAVE IMAGINED 
WE EVEN WERE GIVING FOREIGN AID 
BECAUSE WE WERE A TINY, POOR 
COUNTRY THEN.
IT'S A LITTLE HARD TO TRANSLATE 
THAT.
BUT WHAT THEY WOULD HAVE SAID IS
A PRESIDENT WHO DOESN'T THINK 
FIRST ABOUT THE SECURITY OF THE 
UNITED STATES IS NOT DOING WHAT 
HIS OATH REQUIRES HIM TO DO, 
WHICH IS FAITHFULLY EXECUTE THE 
LAWS, APPROPRIATING MONEY AND 
DEFEND THE CONSTITUTION OF THE 
UNITED STATES.
>> THANK YOU.
LET'S GO BACK TO A SEGMENT OF 
MR. TURLEY'S QUOTE THAT IF YOU 
CAN ESTABLISH INTENT TO USE 
PUBLIC OFFICE FOR PERSONAL GAIN,
YOU HAVE A VIABLE, IMPEACHABLE 
OFFENSE.
MR. FELDMAN, DID WE MEET THAT 
CRITERIA HERE?
>> IN MY VIEW THE EVIDENCE DOES 
MEET THAT CRITERIA.

English: 
THAT'S THE JUDGMENT YOU SHOULD 
BE MAKING.
>> MS. KARLAN?
>> YES.
AND ONE QUESTION I WOULD JUST 
HAVE FOR THE MINORITY MEMBERS OF
THE COMMITTEE IS IF YOU WERE 
CONVINCED THAT THE PRESIDENT 
HELD UP THE AID BECAUSE HE 
THOUGHT IT WOULD HELP HIS 
RE-ELECTION, WOULD YOU VOTE TO 
IMPEACH HIM?
I THINK THAT'S REALLY THE 
QUESTION THAT EVERYONE ON THIS 
COMMITTEE SHOULD BE ASKING.
AND IF THEY CONCLUDE YES, THEN 
THEY SHOULD VOTE TO IMPEACH. 
>> MR. GERHARDT?
>> YES.
I AGREE.
ONE THING I WOULD ADD IS THAT 
MUCH TALK HAS BEEN MADE HERE 
ABOUT THE TERM BRIBERY AND 
DECISIONS WITH RESPECT TO 
BRIBERY.
IT'S YOUR JOB, THE HOUSE'S JOB 
TO FIND BRIBERY, NOT THE COURTS.
YOU FOLLOW YOUR JUDGMENT ON 
THAT. 
>> I WANT TO THANK THE 
WITNESSES, ALL OF THE WITNESSES 
FOR COMING AND TESTIFYING TODAY.
THIS IS NOT AN EASY DECISION, 
NOT A COMFORTABLE DECISION BUT 
IT'S ONE THAT'S NECESSARY.
WE ALL TAKE AN OATH TO PROTECT 
THE CONSTITUTION, OUR MILITARY 
MEN AND WOMEN GO AND PUT THEIR 

English: 
LIVES ON THE LINE FOR THE 
CONSTITUTION AND WE HAVE AN 
OBLIGATION TO FOLLOW THE 
CONSTITUTION WHETHER IT'S 
CONVENIENT OR EASY.
THANK YOU AND I YIELD BACK THE 
BALANCE. 
>> GENTLEMAN YIELDS BACK.
MS. ROBY?
>> VERY QUICKLY, PROFESSOR 
TURLEY, WOULD YOU LIKE TO 
RESPOND?
>> YES, I WOULD.
FIRST OF ALL, WHAT WAS SAID IN 
THAT COLUMN IS EXACTLY WHAT I 
SAID IN MY TESTIMONY.
THE PROBLEM IS THAT EVERY IS NOT
THAT ABHUS OF POWER CAN NEVER BE
AN IMPEACHABLE OFFENSE.
YOU JUST HAVE TO PROVE IT.
AND YOU HAVEN'T.
IT'S NOT ENOUGH TO SAY I INFER 
THIS WAS THE PURPOSE, I INFER 
THAT THIS IS WHAT WAS INTENDED 
WHEN YOU'RE NOT ACTUALLY 
SUBPOENAING PEOPLE WITH DIRECT 
KNOWLEDGE.
INSTEAD YOU'RE SAYING, WE MUST 
VOTE IN THIS ROCKET DOCKET OF AN
IMPEACHMENT. 
>> THAT LEADS TO MY STATEMENT 
THAT I'D LIKE TO MAKE.
OF COURSE, THE UNITED STATES 
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES HAS 
INITIATED IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY 
AGAINST THE PRESIDENT OF THE 

English: 
UNITED STATES ONLY THREE TIMES 
IN OUR NATION'S HISTORY PRIOR TO
THIS ONE.
THERE'S IMPEACHMENT INQUIRIES 
WERE DONE IN THIS COMMITTEE, THE
JUDICIARY COMMITTEE, WHICH HAS 
JURISDICTION OVER IMPEACHMENT 
MATTERS.
HERE IN 2019 UNDER THIS INQUIRY,
FACT WITNESSES HAVE BEEN 
CALLED -- FACT WITNESSES THAT 
HAVE BEEN CALLED WERE IN FRONT 
OF THE INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE.
WE HAVE BEEN GIVEN BE NO 
INDICATION THAT THIS COMMITTEE 
WILL CONDUCT SUBSEQUENT HEARINGS
WITH FACT WITNESSES.
AS A MEMBER OF SERVING ON THE 
JUDICIARY COMMITTEE, I CAN SAY 
THE PROCESS IN WHICH WE ARE 
PARTICIPATING IS INSUFFICIENT, 
UNPRECEDENTED AND GROSSLY 
INADEQUATE.
SITTING BEFORE US IS A PANEL OF 
WITNESSES CONTAINING FOUR 
DISTINGUISHED LAW PROFESSORS 
FROM SOME OF OUR COUNTRY'S 
FINEST EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS.
I DO NOT DOUBT EACH OF YOU ARE 
EXTREMELY WELL VERSED IN THE 
SUBJECT OF CONSTITUTIONAL LAW.
AND YES THERE IS PRECEDENT FOR 
SIMILAR PANELS IN AFOREMENTIONED

English: 
HISTORY BUT ONLY AFTER SPECIFIC 
CHARGES HAVE BEEN MADE KNOWN AND
THE UNDERLYING FACTS PRESENTED 
IN FULL DUE TO AN EXHAUSTIVE 
INVESTIGATION.
HOWEVER, I DON'T UNDERSTAND WHY 
WE ARE HOLDING THIS HEARING AT 
THIS TIME WITH THESE WITNESSES.
MY COLLEAGUES ON THE OTHER SIDE 
OF THE AISLE HAVE ADMITTED THEY 
DON'T KNOW WHAT ARTICLES OF 
IMPEACHMENT THEY WILL CONSIDER.
HOW DOES ANYONE EXPECT A PANEL 
OF LAW PROFESSORS TO WEIGH IN ON
THE LEGAL GROUNDS FOR 
IMPEACHMENT CHARGES PRIOR TO 
EVEN KNOWING WHAT THE CHARGES 
BROUGHT BY THIS COMMITTEE ARE 
GOING TO BE?
SOME OF MY DEMOCRAT COLLEAGUES 
HAVE STATED OVER AND OVER THAT 
IMPEACHMENT TO BE A NONPARTISAN 
PROCESS AND I AGREE.
ONE OF MY COLLEAGUES IN THE 
DEMOCRATIC PARTY STATED, AND I 
QUOTE, IMPEACHMENT IS SO 
DIVISIVE TO THE COUNTRY THAT 
UNLESS THERE IS SOMETHING SO 
COMPELLING AND OVERWHELMING AND 
BIPARTISAN, I DON'T THINK WE 
SHOULD GO DOWN THAT PATH BECAUSE
IT DIVIDES THE COUNTRY.
MY DEMOCRATIC COLLEAGUES HAVE 
STATED NUMEROUS TIMES THAT THEY 
ARE ON A THE TRUTH-SEEKING AND 

English: 
FACT-FINDING MISSION.
ANOTHER ONE OF MY DEMOCRATIC 
COLLEAGUES SAID, AND I QUOTE, WE
HAVE A RESPONSIBILITY TO 
CONSIDER THE FACTS THAT HAVE 
EMERGED SQUARELY AND WITH THE 
BEST INTEREST OF OUR COUNTRY, 
NOT OUR PARTY IN OUR HEARTS.
THESE TYPE OF PROCEEDINGS 
REGARDLESS OF POLITICAL BELIEFS 
OUGHT TO BE ABOUT FACT-FINDING 
AND TRUTH SEEKING, BUT THAT IS 
NOT WHAT THIS HAS TURNED OUT TO 
BE.
AGAIN, NO DISRESPECT TO THESE 
WITNESSES BUT FOR ALL I KNOW 
THIS IS THE ONLY HEARINGS WE 
WILL HAVE AND NONE OF THEM OF 
FACT WITNESSES.
MY COLLEAGUES ARE SAYING ONE 
THING AND DOING SOMETHING 
COMPLETELY DIFFERENT.
NO MEMBER OF CONGRESS CAN LOOK 
YOUR CONSTITUENTS IN THE EYE AND
SAY THIS IS A COMPREHENSIVE 
FACT-FINDING, TRUTH-SEEKING 
MISSION.
RANKING MEMBER COLLINS AND 
MEMBERS OF THE MINORITY ON THIS 
COMMISSION HAVE WRITTEN SIX 
LETTERS OVER THE PAST MONTH TO 
CHAIRMAN NADLER ASKING FOR 
PROCEDURAL FAIRNESS, FOR ALL THE

English: 
UNDERLYING EVIDENCE TO BE 
TRANSMITTED TO THE JUDICIARY 
COMMITTEE, TO EXPAND THE NUMBER 
OF WITNESSES AND HAVE AN EVEN 
MORE BIPARTISAN PANEL TODAY.
FOR CLARITY ON TODAY'S 
IMPEACHMENT PROCEEDINGS, SINCE 
WE HAVEN'T RECEIVED EVIDENCE TO 
REVIEW.
THE MINORITY HAS YET TO RECEIVE 
A RESPONSE TO THESE LETTERS.
RIGHT HERE TODAY IS ANOTHER VERY
CLEAR EXAMPLE OF WHAT ALL 
AMERICANS THAT TRULY UNDERSTAND 
THE ONGOING LACK OF TRANSPARENCY
AND OPENNESS WITH THESE 
PROCEEDINGS.
THE WITNESS LIST FOR THIS 
HEARING WAS NOT RELEASED UNTIL 
LATE MONDAY AFTER.
OPENING STATEMENT 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 THAT -- IT'S
A REPUBLICAN TALKING POINT WHEN 
IN REALITY IT'S AN AMERICAN 
TALKING POINT.
PROCESS IS ESSENTIAL TO THE 

English: 
INSTITUTION.
A THOUGHTFUL, MEANINGFUL PROCESS
OF THIS MAGNITUDE WITH SUCH 
GREAT IMPLICATIONS SHOULD BE 
DEMANDED BY THE AMERICAN PEOPLE.
WITH THAT I YIELD BACK.
>> THE GENTLE LADY YIELDS BACK.
MR. JEFFRIES.
>> I DID NOT SERVE IN THE 
MILITARY, BUT MY 81-YEAR-OLD 
FATHER DID.
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.

English: 
IN AMERICA WE BELIEVE IN FREE 
AND FAIR ELECTIONS, IS THAT 
CORRECT?
>> YES, IT IS. 
>> BUT AUTHORITARIAN REGIMES DO 
NOT, IS THAT CORRECT?
>> THAT'S CORRECT.
>> THOMAS JEFFERSON ONCE -- OR 
ADAMS ONCE WROTE TO JEFFERSON ON
DECEMBER 6, 1987 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.
PROFESSOR KARLAN, HOW IMPORTANT 
WAS THE CONCEPT OF FREE AND FAIR
ELECTIONS TO THE FRAMERS OF THE 
CONSTITUTION?
>> HONESTLY, IT WAS LESS 
IMPORTANT TO THEM THAN IT'S 
BECOME IN OUR CONSTITUTION SINCE
THEN.
IF YOU'LL REMEMBER, THE THING 
THAT -- ONE OF THE THINGS THAT 
TURNED ME SPEW A LAWYER WAS 
SEEING BARBARA JORDAN, THE FIRST
FEMALE LAWYER I HAD EVER SEEN IN
PRACTICE, SAY, WE THE PEOPLE 
DIDN'T INCLUDE PEOPLE LIKE HER 
IN 1789, BUT TO A PROCESS OF 
AMENDMENT, WE HAVE DONE THAT.

English: 
AND SO ELECTIONS ARE MORE 
IMPORTANT TO US TODAY AS A 
CONSTITUTIONAL MATTER THAN THEY 
WERE EVEN 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 THE FRAMERS OF THE 
CONSTITUTION WOULD GENERALLY AND
DEEPLY CONCERNED WITH THE 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 INTEREST AT HEART.
THEY HAVE THEIR INTEREST AT 
HEART. 
>> AND WOULD THE FRAMERS FIND IT
ACCEPTABLE FOR AN AMERICAN 
PRESIDENT 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
THEM, WHETHER THEY PUT PRESSURE 
ON HIM OR NOT. 
>> PRESSURE SHOW -- DIRECT 
EVIDENCE SHOWS THAT ON JULY 25th
PHONE CALL THE PRESIDENT UTTER 
THE FIVE WORDS, DO US A FAVOR, 

English: 
THOUGH.
PRESSURING THE UKRAINIAN 
GOVERNMENT TO TARGET AN AMERICAN
CITIZEN FOR POLITICAL GAIN, AND 
AT THE SAME TIME SIMULTANEOUSLY 
WITHHELD $391 MILLION IN 
MILITARY AID.
NOW, AMBASSADOR BILL TAYLOR, 
WEST POINT GRADUATE, VIETNAM WAR
HERO, REPUBLICAN-APPOINTED 
DIPLOMAT, DISCUSSED THIS ISSUE 
OF MILITARY AID.
HERE'S A CLIP OF HIS TESTIMONY. 
>> AGAIN, OUR HOLDING UP OF 
SECURITY ASSISTANCE THAT WOULD 
GO TO A COUNTRY THAT IS FIGHTING
AGGRESSION FROM RUSSIA FOR NO 
GOOD POLICY REASON, NO GOOD 
SUBSTANTIVE REASON, NO GOOD 
NATIONAL SECURITY REASON, IS 
WRONG.
>> TO THE EXTENT MILITARY AID 
WAS BE WILLING WITHHELD AS PART 
OF AN EFFORT TO SOLICIT FOREIGN 
INTERFERENCE IN THE 2020 
ELECTION, IS THAT BEHAVIOR 
IMPEACHABLE?
>>Y, IT IS.
IF I COULD GO BACK TO ONE OF THE
WORDS YOU READ.

English: 
WHEN THE PRESIDENT SAID, DO US A
FAVOR, HE WAS USING THE ROYAL WE
THERE.
IT WASN'T A FAVOR FOR THE UNITED
STATES.
HE SHOULD HAVE SAID, DO ME A 
FARE 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 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 A 
SEPARATE AND CO-EQUAL BRANCH OF 
GOVERNMENT.
HOUSE UNDERSTANDS WE HAVE A 

English: 
CONSTITUTIONAL RESPONSIBILITY TO
SERVE AS A CHECK AND BALANCE ON 
AN OUT OF CONTROL EXECUTIVE 
BRANCH.
NO ONE IS ABOVE THE LAW.
AMERICA MUST REMAIN THE LAST 
BEST HOPE ON EARTH.
I YIELD BACK.
>> GENTLEMAN YIELDS BACK.
MR. GAETZ.
>> 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.
NOW, WE UNDERSTAND THE FACT THAT
IN 2016 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, TRYING
TO DELEGITIMIZE YOUR ABILITY TO 
GOVERN.
FRANKLY, WE'D LOVE TO GOVERN 
WITH YOU.
WE'D LOVE TO PASS THE MSCA.
IT'S THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE YOU 
IGNORE WHEN YOU CONTINUE DOWN 
THIS TERRIBLE ROAD OF 
IMPEACHMENT.
PROFESSOR GERHARDT, YOU GAVE 
MONEY TO BARACK OBAMA, RIGHT?
>> MY FAMILY DID, YES. 
>> FOUR TIMES?
>> THAT SOUNDS ABOUT RIGHT.

English: 
MY -- YES. 
>> MR. CHAIRMAN, I HAVE ASK 
UNANIMOUS CONSENT RELATING TO 
PROFESSOR FELDMAN'S WORK.
THE NOAH FELDMAN WIRETAP TWEET 
RISK IMPEACHMENT. 
>> GENTLEMAN WILL SUSPEND. 
>> MY TIME.
>> WE'LL TAKE THAT TIME OFF. 
>> HAVE WE SEEN THE MATERIAL?
>> WE CAN PROVIDE IT TO YOU. 
>> AND WE'LL CONSIDER THE 
UNANIMOUS CONSENT LATER AFTER 
WE --.
>> VERY WELL.
VERY WELL. 
>> GENTLEMAN MAY CONTINUE. 
>> THANK YOU.
MR. FELDMAN WROTE ARTICLES 
ENTITLED, TRUMP WIRETAP TWEET 
RAISE RISK OF IMPEACHMENT.
THEN WROTE MAR-A-LAGO AD BELONGS
IN IMPEACHMENT FILE.
THEN MR. JAKE FLANAGAN WROTE IN 
COURT, A HARVARD LAW PROFESSOR 
THINKS TRUMP COULD BE IMPEACHED 
OVER FAKE NEWS ACCUSATIONS.
MY QUESTION, PROFESSOR FELDMAN, 
SINCE YOU SEEM TO BELIEVE THAT 
THE BASIS FOR IMPEACHMENT IS 
EVEN BROADER THAN THE BASIS THAT

English: 
MY DEMOCRATIC COLLEAGUES HAVE 
LAID FORWARD, DO YOU BELIEVE 
YOU'RE OUTSIDE OF THE POLITICAL 
MAINSTREAM ON THE QUESTION OF 
IMPEACHMENT?
>> I BELIEVE IMPEACHMENT IS 
WARRANTED WHENEVER THE PRESIDENT
ABUSES HIS POWER FOR PERSONAL 
BENEFIT OR TO CORRUPT THE 
DEMOCRATIC PROCESS. 
>> DID YOU WRITE AN ARTICLE 
ENTITLED "IT'S HARD TO TAKE 
IMPEACHMENT SERIOUSLY NOW". 
>> YES, AND I --
>> HOLD ON.
I'M LIMITED ON TIME.
>> AND I --
>> HOUSE DEMOCRATS HAVE MADE IT 
PAINFULLY CLEAR THAT DISCUSSING 
IMPEACHMENT IS PRIMARILY OR EVEN
EXCLUSIVELY A TOOL TO WEAKEN 
PRESIDENT TRUMP'S CHANCES IN 
2020.
DID YOU WRITE THOSE WORDS?
>> YES.
UNTIL THIS CALL ON JULY 25th, I 
WAS AN IMPEACHMENT SKEPTIC.
.
I CHANGED MY MIND, SIR. 
>> I APPRECIATE YOUR TESTIMONY.
PROFESSOR KARLAN YOU GAVE 1,000 
BUCKS TO ELIZABETH WARREN, 
RIGHT?
>> I BELIEVE SO. 
>> YOU GAVE $1200 TO BARACK 
OBAMA?
>> I HAVE NO REASON TO QUESTION 
THAT.
>> AND YOU GAVE 2,000 BUCKS TO 
HILLARY CLINTON?
>> THAT'S CORRECT.
>> WHY SO MUCH MORE FOR HILLARY 

English: 
THAN THE OTHER TWO?
>> BECAUSE I'VE BEEN GIVING A 
LOT OF MONEY TO CHARITY RECENTLY
BECAUSE OF ALL THE POOR PEOPLE 
IN THE UNITED STATES. 
>> WELL, THOSE AREN'T THE ONLY 
FOLKS YOU'VE BEEN GIVING TO.
HAVE YOU EVER BEEN ON A PODCAST 
CALLED "VERSUS TRUMP"?
>> I THINK I WAS ON A LIVE PANEL
THAT THE PEOPLE WHO RAN THE 
PODCAST CALLED VERSUS TRUMP. 
>> 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 TO -- 
THE NATURAL TENDENCY OF A 
COMPACTNESS REQUIREMENT TO FAVOR
A PARTY WHOSE VOTERS ARE MORE 
SPREAD OUT.
>> WELL, PROFESSOR, HOLD ON.

English: 
I'M VERY --
>> I'M CONSERVE --
>> I'M VERY LIMITED ON TIME, 
PROFESSOR.
I JUST HAVE TO SAY, WHEN YOU 
TALK ABOUT HOW LIBERALS WANT TO 
BE AROUND EACH OTHER AND CLUSTER
AND CONSERVATIVES DON'T WANT TO 
BE AROUND EACH OTHER AND SO THEY
HAVE TO SPREAD OUT, IT MAKES 
PEOPLE -- YOU MAY NOT SEE THIS 
FROM THE IVORY TOWERS OF YOUR 
LAW SCHOOL, BUT IT MAKES ACTUAL 
PEOPLE IN THIS COUNTRY --
>> WHEN THE PRESIDENT CALLS --
>> DON'T INTERRUPT ME.
LET ME ALSO SUGGEST 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.
IT MAKES YOU LOOK LIKE YOU'RE 
ATTACKING SOMEONE'S FAMILY.
THE MINOR CHILD OF THE PRESIDENT
OF THE UNITED STATES.
LET'S SEE IF WE CAN GET INTO THE
FAX, 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.
YOU KNOW WHAT, THAT CONTINUES ON
THE TRADITION WE SAW FROM ADAM 
SCHIFF.
WHEN AMBASSADOR TAYLOR COULD NOT

English: 
IDENTIFY AN IMPEACHABLE OFFENSE.
MR. KENT NEVER MET WITH THE 
PRESIDENT.
FIONA HILL NEVER HEARD THE 
PRESIDENT REFERENCE ANYTHING 
REGARDING MILITARY AID.
MR. HALE WAS UNAWARE OF ANY 
NEFARIOUS ACTIVITY.

English: 
>> IT IS NOT.
>> THEY HEAR THE PRESIDENT SAY 
HE ONLY CARES ABOUT THE 
INVESTIGATIONS OF HIS POLITICAL 
OPPONENTS. 
>> THAT'S NOT HEARSAY.
>> THERE'S OTHER DIRECT EVIDENCE
IN THIS 300 PAGE REPORT FROM THE
INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE.
LET'S DISPENSE WITH THAT CLAIM 
BY MY REPUBLICAN COLLEAGUE.
I QUOTE.
AN OFFENSE DOES NOT HAVE TO BE 
INDICTABLE.
SERIOUS MISCONDUCT OR VIOLATION 
OF PUBLIC TRUST IS ENOUGH.
END QUOTE.
WAS THE PROFESSOR RIGHT WHEN HE 
WROTE THAT IN. 
>> I AGREE WITH THAT?
>> MOVE TO PROFESSOR CARLIN.

English: 
>> JAMES MADISON SAID 
IMPEACHMENT WAS NEEDED BECAUSE 
OTHERWISE A PRESIDENT, AND I 
QUOTE, 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 THE CONCERNS AND 
HOW THAT RELATES TO FACTS BEFORE
THIS COMMITTEE?
>> THE REASON THE FRAMERS WERE 
CONCERNED ABOUT FOREIGN 
INTERFERENCE I THINK IS SLIGHTLY
DIFFERENCE THAN THE REASON WE 
ARE.
THEY WERE CONCERNED ABOUT IT 
BECAUSE WE WERE SUCH A WEAK 
COUNTRY IN 1789.
WE WERE SMALL.
WE WERE POOR.
WE DIDN'T HAVE AN ESTABLISHED 
NAVY.
WE DIDN'T HAVE AN ESTABLISHED 
ARMY.
TODAY THE CONCERN IS A LITTLE 
DIFFERENT, WHICH IS THAT IT WILL
INTERFERE WITH US MAKING THE 
DECISIONS THAT ARE BEST FOR US 
AS AMERICANS.
>> THANK YOU, PROFESSOR.
THERE ARE THREE KNOWN INSTANCES 
OF THE PRESIDENT ASKING A 
FOREIGN COUNTRY TO INTERFERE IN 
OUR ELECTION.
FIRST IN 2016, THE PRESIDENT 
HOPED THAT RUSSIA WOULD HACK 
INTO THE E-MAIL OF A POLITICAL 
OPPONENT WHICH THEY DID.
SECOND, BASED ON THE PRESIDENT'S

English: 
SUMMARY OF HIS CALL WITH 
PRESIDENT ZELENSKY, WE KNOW HE 
ASKED UKRAINE TO ANNOUNCE AN 
INVESTIGATION OF HIS CHIEF 
POLITICAL RIVAL.
THIRD, THE PRESIDENT PUBLICALLY 
URGED CHINA TO BEGIN ITS OWN 
INVESTIGATION.
PROFESSOR FELDMAN, HOW WOULD TIM
PACT OUR DEMOCRACY IF IT BECAME 
STANDARD PRACTICE FOR THE 
PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES 
TO ASK A FOREIGN GOVERNMENT TO 
INTERFERE IN OUR ELECTION?
>> IT WOULD BE A DISASTER FOR 
THE FUNCTIONING OF OUR DEMOCRACY
IF OUR PRESIDENT REGULARLY, AS 
THIS PRESIDENT HAS DONE, ASKED 
FOREIGN GOVERNMENTS TO INTERFERE
IN OUR ELECTORAL PROCESS.
>> I WOULD LIKE TO END WITH A 
POWERFUL WARNING FROM GEORGE 
WASHINGTON WHO TOLD AMERICANS IN
HIS FAREWELL ADDRESS, AND I 
QUOTE, TO BE CONSTANTLY AWAKE, 
HISTORY AND EXPERIENCE PROVE 
FOREIGN INFLUENCE IS A FOE OF 
AMERICAN GOVERNMENT.
THE CONDUCT IS EGREGIOUS AND 
R
WARRANTS A RESPONSE.

English: 
THE PRESIDENT HAS SOLICITED 
FOREIGN INTERFERENCE IN OUR 
ELECTION.
INVITING FOREIGN MEDDLING ROBS 
THE AMERICAN PEOPLE OF THEIR 
RIGHT TO ELECT THEIR OWN 
POLITICAL LEADER.
AMERICANS ACROSS THIS COUNTRY 
WAIT IN LONG LINES TO EXERCISE 
THEIR RIGHT TO VOTE AND TO 
CHOOSE THEIR OWN LEADERS.
THIS RIGHT DOES NOT BELONG TO 
FOREIGN GOVERNMENTS.
WE FOUGHT AND WON A REVOLUTION 
OVER THIS.
FREE AND FAIR ELECTIONS ARE WHAT
SEPARATE US FROM AUTHORITARIANS 
ALL OVER THE WORLD.
AS PUBLIC SERVANTS AND MEMBERS 
OF THE HOUSE WE WOULD BE 
NEGLIGENT IF WE LET THIS BLATANT
ABUSE OF POWER GO UNCHECKED.
WE HAVE HEARD ABOUT HATING THIS 
PRESIDENT.
IT'S NOT ABOUT HATING THIS 
PRESIDENT.
IT'S ABOUT OUR LOVE OF COUNTRY.
IT'S ABOUT HONORING THE OATH WE 
TOOK TO PROTECT AND DEFEND THE 
CONSTITUTION OF THIS GREAT 
COUNTRY.
MY FINAL QUESTION IS TO 
PROFESSOR FELDMAN AND PROFESSOR 
KARLAN, IN THE FACE OF THE 
EVIDENCE, WHAT ARE THE 
CONSEQUENCES IF THIS COMMITTEE 
AND THIS CONGRESS REFUSES TO 
MUSTER THE COURAGE TO RESPOND TO

English: 
THIS GROSS ABUSE OF POWER THAT 
UNDERMINE THE NATIONAL SECURITY 
OF THE UNITED STATES, THAT 
UNDERMINE THE INTEGRITY OF OUR 
ELECTION AND THAT UNDERMINE THE 
CONFIDENCE WE HAVE TO HAVE IN 
THE PRESIDENT TO NOT ABUSE THE 
POWER OF HIS OFFICE?
>> IF THIS COMMITTEE AND THIS 
HOUSE FAIL TO ACT, THEN YOU ARE 
SENDING A MESSAGE TO THIS 
PRESIDENT AND TO FUTURE 
PRESIDENTS THAT IT'S NO LONGER A
PROBLEM IF THEY ABUSE THEIR 
POWER.
IT'S NO LONGER A PROBLEM IF THEY
INVITE OTHER COUNTRIES TO 
INTERFERE IN OUR ELECTION.
IT'S NO LONGER A PROBLEM IF THEY
PUT THE INTERESTS OF OTHER 
COUNTRIES AHEAD OF OURS.
>> I AGREE WITH PROFESSOR 
FELDMAN.
I SHOULD SAY JUST ONE THING.
I APOLOIZE FOR GETTING OVERHEAT
OVERHEATED A MOMENT AGO.
I HAVE A RIGHT TO GIVE MONEY TO 
CANDIDATES.
WE HAVE A DUTY TO KEEP 
FOREIGNERS FROM SPENDING MONEY 
IN OUR ELECTION.
THOSE TWO THINGS ARE TWO SIDES 
OF THE SAME COIN.
>> THANK YOU.
I YIELD BACK.
>> MR. JOHNSON.
>> THANK YOU.
I WAS STRUCK BY THE SAME THING 
AS MY FRIENDS AND COLLEAGUES ON 

English: 
THIS SIDE OF THE ROOM.
CHAIRMAN NADLER BEGAN THIS 
MORNING WITH THE OUTRAGEOUS 
STATEMENT THAT THE FACTS BEFORE 
US ARE UNDISPUTED.
OF COURSE, EVERYONE HERE KNOWS 
THAT THAT'S SIMPLY NOT TRUE.
EVERY PERSON HERE, EVERY PERSON 
WATCHING AT HOME KNOWS FULL WELL
THAT VIRTUALLY EVERYTHING HERE 
IS DISPUTED.
FROM THE FRAUDULENT PROCESS AND 
THE BROKEN PROCEDURE TO THE 
DEMOCRATS' UNFOUNDED CLAIMS.
AND THE FULL FACTS ARE OBVIOUSLY
NOT BEFORE US TODAY.
WE HAVE BEEN ALLOWED NO FACT 
WITNESSES HERE AT ALL.
FOR THE FIRST TIME EVER, THIS 
COMMITTEE, WHICH IS THE ONE IN 
CONGRESS THAT HAS THE ACTUAL 
JURISDICTION OVER IMPEACHMENT, 
IS BEING GIVEN NO ACCESS TO THE 
UNDERLYING EVIDENCE THAT ADAM 
SCHIFF AND HIS POLITICAL 
ACCOMPLICES CLAIM SUPPORT THIS 
CHARADE.
THIS IS A SHOCKING DENIAL OF DUE
PROCESS.
I WANT TO SAY TO OUR WITNESSS, 
I'M A CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 
ATTORNEY.
I REALLY WOULD ENJOY AN ACADEMIC
DISCUSSION WITH YOU, A DEBATE.
THAT WOULD BE AN UTTER WASTE OF 

English: 
OUR TIME TODAY BECAUSE AS HAS 
BEEN HIGHLIGHTED SO MANY TIMES 
THIS MORNING, THIS PRODUCTION IS
A SHAM AND A RECKLESS PATH TO A 
PREDETERMINED POLITICAL OUTCOME.
I WANT YOU TO KNOW IT'S AN 
OUTCOME THAT WAS PREDETERMINED 
BY OUR DEMOCRATIC COLLEAGUES A 
LONG TIME AGO.
THEY HAVE BEEN WORKING TO 
IMPEACH DONALD J. TRUMP SINCE HE
TOOK HIS OATH OF OFFICE.
THEY INTRODUCED FOUR RESOLUTIONS
SEEKING TO IMPEACH THE 
PRESIDENT.
ALMOST TWO YEARS AGO, ONE OF THE
GRAPHICS SHOWS, DECEMBER 6, 
2017, 58 HOUSE DEMOCRATS VOTED 
TO BEGIN IMPEACHMENT 
PROCEEDINGS.
OF COURSE, THAT WAS ALMOST 20 
MONTHS BEFORE THE FAMOUS JULY 25
PHONE CALL WITH UKRAINE'S 
PRESIDENT ZELENSKY.
THIS OTHER GRAPHIC IS SMALLER, 
BUT IT'S INTERESTING, TOO.
I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT TO 
REITERATE FOR EVERYBODY AT HOME 
THAT OF OUR 24 DEMOCRATIC 
COLLEAGUES AND FRIENDS ON THE 
OTHER SIDE OF THE ROOM TODAY, 17
OUT OF 24 HAVE ALREADY VOTED FOR
IMPEACHMENT.

English: 
LET'S BE HONEST.
LET'S NOT PRETEND ANYBODY CARES 
ANYTHING ABOUT WHAT'S BEING SAID
HERE TODAY OR THE ACTUAL 
EVIDENCE OR THE FACTS THAT WE 
COME WITH OPEN MINDS.
THAT'S NOT HAPPENING HERE.
SO MUCH FOR AN IMPARTIAL JURY.
SEVERAL TIMES THIS YEAR, 
DEMOCRATS HAVE ADMITTED IN 
VARIOUS INTERVIEWS AND 
CORRESPONDENCE THAT THEY BELIEVE
THIS STRATEGY IS NECESSARY 
BECAUSE, WHY?
BECAUSE THEY WANT TO STOP THE 
PRESIDENT'S RE-ELECTION.
EVEN SPEAKER PELOSI SAID 
FAMOUSLY LAST MONTH THAT IT IS 
DANGEROUS TO ALLOW THE AMERICAN 
PEOPLE TO EVALUATE HIS 
PERFORMANCE AT THE BALLOT BOX.
SPEAKER PELOSI HAS IT BACKWARDS.
WHAT IS DANGEROUS IS THE 
PRECEDENT ALL THIS IS SETTING 
FOR THE FUTURE OF OUR REPUBLIC.
I LOVE WHAT THE PROFESSOR 
TESTIFIED TO THIS MORNING.
HE SAID THIS IS NOT HOW THE 
IMPEACHMENT OF A PRESIDENT IS 
DONE.
HIS RHETORICAL QUESTION TO OUR 
COLLEAGUES ON THE OTHER SIDE IS 
ECHOING THROUGHOUT THIS CHAMBER.
HE ASKED YOU TO ASK YOURSELVES, 
WHERE WILL THIS AND WHERE WILL 

English: 
YOU STAND NEXT TIME WHEN THIS 
SAME KIND OF SHAM IMPEACHMENT 
PROCESS IS INITIATED AGAINST A 
PRESIDENT FROM YOUR PARTY?
THE REAL SHAME IS THAT 
EVERYTHING IN WASHINGTON HAS 
BECOME BITTERLY PARTISAN AND 
THIS UGLY CHAPTER IS NOT GOING 
TO HELP THAT.
IT'S GOING TO MAKE THINGS REALLY
THAT MUCH WORSE.
HE SAID WE ARE LIVING IN THE ERA
FEARED BY OUR FOUNDERS.
WHAT HAMILTON REFERRED TOS A 
PERIOD OF AGITATED PASSION.
I THINK THAT SAYS IT SO WELL.
THIS HAS BECOME AN AGE OF RAGE.
PRESIDENT WASHINGTON WARNED IN 
HIS FAREWELL ADDRESS IN 1796 
THAT EXTREME PARTISANSHIP WOULD 
LEAD US TO THE RUINS OF PUBLIC 
LIBERTY.
THOSE WERE HIS WORDS.
THIS HYPERPARTISAN IMPEACHMENT 
IS PROBABLY ONE OF THE MOST 
DIVISIVE AND DESTRUCTIVE THINGS 
WE COULD DO TO OUR AMERICAN 
FAMILY.
LET ME TELL YOU WHAT I HEARD 
FROM MY CONSTITUENTS IN TOWN 
HALLS AND MEETINGS IN MY 
DISTRICT TWO DAYS AGO.
THE PEOPLE OF THIS COUNTRY ARE 
SICK OF THIS.

English: 
THEY ARE SICK OF THE POLITICS OF
PERSONAL DESTRUCTION.
NY ARE CONCERNED WHERE THIS WILL
LEAD US IN THE YEARS AHEAD.
YOU KNOW WHAT THE GREATEST 
THREAT IS?
THE THING THAT OUGHT TO KEEP 
EVERY SINGLE ONE OF US UP AT 
NIGHT?
THE RAPIDLY ERODING TRUST OF THE
AMERICAN PEOPLE IN THEIR 
INSTITUTION.
ONE OF THE CRITICAL PRESUB 
 -- 
PRESUPPOSITIONS IS THEY WILL 
MAINTAIN TRUST IN THEIR 
INSTITUTIONS, IN THE RULE OF 
LAW, IN THE SYSTEM OF JUSTICE, 
IN THE BODY OF ELECTED 
REPRESENTATIVES.
THE GREATEST DANGER IS WHAT IN 
WILL DO IN THE DAYS AHEAD TO OUR
243-YEAR EXPERIMENT IN 
SELF-GOVERNANCE.
WHAT AFFECT THIS WILL HAVE UPON 
OUR BELEAGUERED NATION SIX OR 
SEVEN YEARS FROM NOW, A DECADE 
FROM NOW IN THE RUINS OF PUBLIC 
LIBERTY THAT ARE BEING CREATED 
BY THIS SHORT-SIGHTED EXERCISE 
TODAY.

English: 
GOD HELP US.
I YIELD BACK.
>> THE GENTLEMAN YIELDS BACK.
>> AS A FORMER PROSECUTOR, I 
RECOGNIZE THE DEFENSE ATTORNEY 
TRYING TO REPRESENT THEIR 
CLIENT.
ESPECIALLY ONE WHO HAS VERY 
LITTLE TO WORK WITH IN THE WAY 
OF FACTS.
TODAY, YOU ARE REPRESENTING THE 
REPUBLICANS AND THEIR DEFENSE OF
THE PRESIDENT.
>> THAT'S NOT MY INTENTION.
>> YOU HAVE SAID THAT THIS CASE 
REPRESENTS A DRAMATIC TURNING 
POINT IN FEDERAL IMPEACHMENT 
PRECEDENT.
THE IMPACT OF WHICH WILL SHAPE 
AND DETERMINE FUTURE CASES.
THE HOUSE FOR THE FIRST TIME IN 
THE MODERN ERA ASKS THE SENATE 
TO REMOVE SOMEONE FOR CONDUCT HE
WAS NEVER CHARGED CRIMINALLY.
THAT'S ACTUALLY NOT A DIRECT 
QUOTE FROM WHAT YOU SAID TODAY.
IT SOUNDS LIKE WHAT YOU HAVE 
ARGUED TODAY, BUT THAT'S A QUOTE
FROM WHAT YOU ARGUED AS A 
DEFENSE LAWYER IN A 2010 SENATE 
IMPEACHMENT TRIAL.
PROFESSOR, DID YOU REPRESENT 
FEDERAL JUDGE THOMAS PORTIUS?

English: 
>> I DID.
HE WAS TRIED ON FOUR ARTICLES OF
IMPEACHMENT.
ENGAGING IN A CONDUCT OF CORRUPT
CONDUCT THAT DEMONSTRATES HIM 
UNFIT TO SERVE.
HE WAS CONVICTED BY AT LEAST 68 
AND UP TO 96 BIPARTISAN 
SENATORS.
THANKFULLY, THAT SENATE DID NOT 
BUY YOUR ARGUMENT THAT A FEDERAL
OFFICIAL SHOULD NOT BE REMOVED 
IF HE IS NOT CHARGED CRIMINALLY 
AND RESPECTFULLY, PROFESSOR, WE 
DON'T BUY IT EITHER.
THIS PHOTO, IT'S A PICTURE OF 
PRESIDENT ZELENSKY IN MAY OF 
THIS YEAR STANDING ON THE 
EASTERN FRONT OF UKRAINE AS THE 
HOT WAR WAS TAKING PLACE AND UP 
TO 15,000 UKRAINIANS HAVE DIED 
AT THE HANDS OF RUSSIANS.
I WOULD LIKE TO FOCUS ON THE 
IMPACT THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP'S 
CONDUCT, PARTICULARLY WITH OUR 
ALLIES AND OUR STANDING IN THE 
WORLD.

English: 
THIS ISN'T JUST A PRESIDENT, AS 
PROFESSOR KARLAN POINTED OUT, 
ASKING TO INVESTIGATE A 
POLITICAL OPPONENT.
HE IS LEVERAGING A WHITE HOUSE 
VISIT AS WELL AS FOREIGN AID.
UKRAINE NEEDS OUR SUPPORT TO 
DEFEND ITSELF AGAINST RUSSIA.
I HEARD DIRECTLY FROM WITNESSES 
HOW IMPORTANT THE VISIT AND AID 
WERE PARTICULARLY FROM 
AMBASSADOR TAYLOR.
>> THESE WEAPONS AND THIS 
ASSISTANCE IS -- ALLOWS THE 
UKRAINIAN MILITARY TO DETER 
FURTHER INCURSION BY THE 
RUSSIANS AGAINST UKRAINIAN 
TERRITORY.
IF THAT FURTHER INCURSION, 
FURTHER AGGRESSION WERE TO TAKE 
PLACE, MORE UKRAINIANS WOULD 
DIE. 
>> PROFESSOR KARLAN, DOES THE 
PRESIDENT'S DECISION TO WITHHOLD
OFFICIAL ACTS, A WHITE HOUSE 

English: 
VISIT AND MILITARY AID TO 
PRESSURE PRESIDENT ZELENSKY 
RELATE TO THE FRAMERS' CONCERNS 
ABOUT ABUSE OF POWER AND 
ENTANGLEMENT WITH FOREIGN 
NATIONS?
>> IT RELATES TO THE ABUSE OF 
POWER.
THE ENTANGLEMENT WITH FOREIGN 
POWERS IS A MORE COMPLICATED 
CONCEPT FOR THE FRAMERS THAN FOR
US.
>> PROFESSOR, I THINK YOU WOULD 
AGREE WE ARE A NATION OF 
IMMIGRANTS?
>> YES.
>> TODAY, 50 MILLION IMMIGRANTS 
LIVE IN THE UNITED STATES.
I MOVED BY ONE WHO TOLD ME AS I 
WAS CHECKING INTO A HOTEL ABOUT 
HIS ROMANIAN FAMILY WHO CAME 
HERE FROM ROMANIA AND SAID THAT 
EVERY TIME HE HAD GONE HOME FOR 
THE LAST 20 YEARS, HE WOULD TELL
HIS FAMILY MEMBERS HOW CORRUPT 
HIS COUNTRY WAS THAT HE HAD LEFT
AND WHY HE HAD COME TO THE 
UNITED STATES.
HE TOLD ME IN SUCH HUMILIATING 
FASHION THAT WHEN HE HAS GONE 
HOME RECENTLY, THEY NOW WAG 
THEIR FINGER AT HIM AND SAY, YOU
ARE GOING TO LECTURE US ABOUT 
CORRUPTION?
WHAT DO YOU THINK, PROFESSOR, 

English: 
THAT THE PRESIDENT'S CONDUCT 
SAYS TO THE MILLIONS OF 
AMERICANS WHO LEFT THEIR 
FAMILIES AND LIVELIHOODS TO COME
TO A COUNTRY THAT REPRESENTS THE
RULE OF LAW?
>> I THINK IT SUGGESTS THAT WE 
DON'T BELIEVE IN THE RULE OF 
LAW.
AND I THINK IT TELLS EMERGING 
DEMOCRACIES AROUND THE WORLD NOT
TO TAKE IT SERIOUSLY WHEN WE 
TELL THEM THAT THEIR ELECTIONS 
ARE NOT LEGITIMATE BECAUSE OF 
FOREIGN INTERFERENCE OR THEIR 
ELECTIONS ARE NOT LEGITIMATE 
BECAUSE OF PERSECUTION OF THE 
OPPOSING PARTY.
PRESIDENT BUSH ANNOUNCED THAT HE
DID NOT CONSIDER THE ELECTIONS 
IN BELARUS IN 2006 TO BE 
LEGITIMATE FOR EXACTLY THAT 
REASON, BECAUSE THEY WENT AFTER 
POLITICAL OPPONENTS.
>> FINALLY, PROFESSOR FELDMAN, 
PROFESSOR TURLEY POINTED OUT WE 
SHOULD GO TO THE COURT.
BUT YOU WOULDAGE ACKNOWLEDGE WE 
HAVE BEEN TO THE COURTS FOR 
MATTERS SETTLED IN THE SUPREME 
COURT WHERE THE PRESIDENT SEEMS 
TO BE RUNNING OUT THE CLOCK.

English: 
>> YES, SIR.
>> I YIELD BACK.
WE WILL RECESS FOR FIVE MINUTES.
REMAIN SEAT AND QUIET WHILE THE 
WITNESSES EXIT THE ROOM.
I ALSO WANT TO REMIND THOSE IN 
THE AUDIENCE THAT YOU MAY NOT BE
GUARANTEED YOUR SEAT IF YOU 
LEAVE THE HEARING ROOM AT THIS 
TIME.

English: 
♪♪
♪♪
THE ANSWER IS BECAUSE HE CAME IN
WITH A PRECONCEIVED NOTION.
YOU MADE THAT DETERMINATION AND 
DECISION.
I WILL GIVE YOU A FOR INSTANCE.

English: 
UNTIL A RECENT COLLOQUY, SEVERAL
OF YOU CONSISTENTLY SAID THE 
PRESIDENT SAID DURING THAT JULY 
25th CONVERSATION WITH PRESIDENT
ZELENSKY, YOU SAID, THE 
PRESIDENT SAID I WOULD LIKE YOU 
TO DO ME A FAVOR.
BUT THAT SIN ACCURATE.
IT WAS CLEAR IN THAT COLLOQUY.
I WOULD LIKE YOU TO DO US A 
FAVOR BECAUSE OUR COUNTRY HAS 
BEEN THROUGH A LOT.
ONE YOU HAVE SAID, THAT'S 
BECAUSE THE PRESIDENT WAS USING 
ROYAL WE.
IT'S AUDACIOUS TO SAY.
THAT'S ROYAL BUT IT AIN'T THE 
ROYAL WE.
I WILL TELL YOU, WHEN YOU COME 
IN WITH A PRECONCEIVED NOTION, 
IT BECOMES OBVIOUS.
ONE YOU HAVE SAID -- MR. FELDMAN
SAID, AND I WILL QUOTE, I THINK 
THIS IS WHAT YOU SAID, UNTIL THE
CALL OF JULY 25, I WAS AN 
IMPEACHMENT SKEPTIC, TOO.
I DON'T KNOW.
I'M LOOKING AT AN AUGUST 23 
PUBLICATION WHERE YOU SAID, IF 

English: 
PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP PARDONS 
JOE, IT WOULD BE AN IMPEACHABLE 
OFFENSE.
HE DID ULTIMATELY PARDON HIM.
IN 2017, THE NEW YORK BOOK 
REVIEW, REVIEW OF BOOKS, MR. 
FELDMAN, PROFESSOR FELDMAN SAID,
DEFAMATION BY TWEET IS AN 
IMPEACHABLE OFFENSE.
I THINK OF THE HISTORY OF THIS 
COUNTRY.
I THINK IF DEFAMATION OR  
LIABLE OR SLANDER IS 
IMPEACHABLE, I CAN'T HELP BUT 
THINK ABOUT THOMAS JEFFERSON.
THE PARTIES ACTUALLY BOUGHT 
NEWSPAPERS TO ATTACK THEIR 
POLITICAL OPPONENTS.OMAS JEFFER.
THE PARTIES ACTUALLY BOUGHT 
NEWSPAPERS TO ATTACK THEIR 
POLITICAL OPPONENTS.
THIS GENEROUS VIEW YOU HAVE ON 
WHAT CONSTITUTES IMPEACHMENT IS 
A REAL PROBLEM.
THIS MORNING, ONE OF YOU 

English: 
MENTIONED THE CONSTITUTIONAL 
CONVENTION AND SEVERAL MENTIONED
THE CONSTITUTIONAL COMMISSION.
IT'S BEEN A WHILE SINCE I READ 
THE MINUTES.
I BRIEFLY REVIEWED.
I REMEMBERED THE DISCUSSION ON 
THE IMPEACHMENT AS BEING MORE 
PERVASIVE.
A LITTLE MORE EXPANDED.
ON JULY 20, 1787 -- IT WASN'T 
1789.
IT WAS IN ARE 1878, FRANKLIN IS 
DISCUSSING IMPEACHABLE OF A 
DUTCH LEADER.
HE TALKS SPECIFICALLY ABOUT WHAT
HE WOULD ANTICIPATE AN 
IMPEACHMENT TO LOOK LIKE.
HE SAID IT WOULD BE A REGULAR 
IMPEACHABLE INQUIRY.
THERE WOULD BE A PUNISHMENT IF 
ACQUITTED, THEN THE INNOCENCE 
WOULD BE RESTORED TO THE 
REPUBLIC.
THAT NEEDS TO BE TAKEN INTO 
ACCOUNT AS WELL.
I LOOK ALSO AND ON MAY 17, 2017,

English: 
BBC ARTICLE WHICH IS A 
DISCUSSION ABOUT IMPEACHMENT, 
BECAUSE PRESIDENT TRUMP FIRED 
JAMES COMEY.
IT WAS HARD TO MAKE THE 
OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE CASE WITH
THIS ALONE.
THE PRESIDENT HAD CLEAR LEGAL 
AUTHORITY AND THERE WAS PROPER 
OR OTHER REASONS PUT FORWARD FOR
FIRING HIM.
WHAT WE HAVE HERE IS THIS 
INSISTENCE BY MS. GERHARD THAT 
THIS SHOULD BE -- THAT WAS 
IMPEACHABLE.
REFER YOU TO IT, MAY 17, 2017, 
BBC.
WHAT I'M SUGGESTING TO YOU TODAY
IS A RECKLESS BIAS COMING IN 
HERE.
YOU ARE NOT FACT WITNESSES.
YOU ARE SUPPOSED TO BE TALKING 
ABOUT WHAT THE LAW IS.
BUT YOU CAME IN WITH A 
PRECONCEIVED NOTION AND BIAS.

English: 
I WANT TO READ ONE LAST THING 
HERE IF I CAN FIND IT.
FROM ONE OF OUR WITNESSES HERE.
IT'S DEALING WITH SOMETHING THAT
WAS SAID IN A MARYLAND LAW 
REVIEW ARTICLE IN 1999.
BASICALLY -- IF I CAN GET TO 
IT -- YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT -- 
BEING CRITICAL OF LACK OF 
SELF-DOUBT AND AN OVERWHELMING 
ARROGANCE ON THE PART OF LAW 
PROFESSORS WHO COME IN AND OPINE
ON IMPEACHMENT.
YOU SAID SOMETHING LIKE THAT.
I CAN'T FIND MY QUOTE.
WHAT I'M TELLING YOU IS, THAT IS
WHAT HAS BEEN ON DISPLAY IN THIS
COMMITTEE TODAY.
WITH THAT, I YIELD BACK.
>> THE GENTLEMAN YIELDS BACK.
MR. GATES ASKED MATERIAL BE PUT 
IN THE RECORD.
I ASKED FOR AN OPPORTUNITY TO 
REVIEW IT.

English: 
THE MATERIAL WILL BE INSERTED.
>> THANK YOU, CHAIRMAN NADLER.
I HAVE SWORN AN OATH AS I WAS 
COMMISSIONED IN THE AIR FORCE.
AN OATH I TOOK WAS NOT TO A 
PRESIDENT OR A POLITICAL PARTY.
IT WAS AN OATH THAT MADE AMERICA
THE GREATEST NATION ON EARTH.
I NEVER IMAGINED WE WOULD BE IN 
A SITUATION WHERE THE PRESIDENT 
OR COMMANDER IN CHIEF IS ACCUSED
OF USING HIS OFFICE FOR PERSONAL
POLITICAL GAIN THAT BETRAYED 
U.S. SECURITY, HURT OUR ALLY 
UKRAINE AND HELPED OUR ADVERSARY
RUSSIA.
THE CONSTITUTION PROVIDES A 
SAFEGUARD WHEN THE PRESIDENT 
ABUSES POWER AND BETRAYAL OF 
NATURAL INTEREST IS SO EXTREME 
THAT IT WARRANTS IMPEACHMENT AND
REMOVAL.
IT SEEMS NOTABLE IF ALL THE 
OFFENSES THEY COULD HAVE 
INCLUDED IN THE CONSTITUTION, 
BRIBERY IS ONE OF ONLY TWO THAT 
ARE LISTED.

English: 
PROFESSOR FELDMAN, WHY WERE THE 
FRAMERS CHOOSING BRIBERY OF ALL 
THE POSSIBLE THINGS THEY COULD 
HAVE INCLUDED?
>> BRIBERY WAS THE CLASSIC 
EXAMPLE FOR THEM OF THE HIGH 
CRIME AND MISDEMEANOR OF ABUSE 
FOR PERSONAL GAIN.
IF YOU TAKE SOMETHING OF VALUE 
WHEN YOU ARE ABLE TO AFFECT AN 
OUTCOME FOR SOMEBODY ELSE, YOU 
ARE SERVING YOUR OWN INTEREST 
AND NOT THE INTEREST OF THE 
PEOPLE.
THAT WAS COMMONLY USED IN 
IMPEACHMENT OFFENSES IN ENGLAND.
THAT'S ONE OF THE REASONS THEY 
SPECIFIED IT.
>> THANK YOU.
EARLY IN THIS HEARING, PROFESSOR
KARLAN MADE A POINT THAT BRIBERY
ENVISIONED BY BROADER THAN THE 
NARROW FEDERAL CRIMINAL STATUTE 
OF BRIBERY.
THE REASON FOR THAT IS OBVIOUS.
WE ARE NOT IN A CRIMINAL 
PROCEEDING.
WE ARE NOT DECIDING WHETHER TO 
SEND PRESIDENT TRUMP TO PRISON.
THIS IS A CIVIL ACTION.
IT'S AN IMPEACHMENT PROCEEDING 
TO DECIDE WHETHER WE REMOVE 
DONALD TRUMP FROM HIS JOB.

English: 
PROFESSOR KARLAN, IT'S TRUE THAT
WE DON'T HAVE TO MEET THE 
STANDARDS OF A FEDERAL BRIBERY 
STATUTE IN ORDER TO MEET THE 
STANDARD FOR IMPEACHABLE 
OFFENSE?
>> THAT'S CORRECT.
>> THANK YOU.
YESTERDAY A LAW PROFESSOR, WHO 
IS A LIFE LONG REPUBLICAN, 
FORMER REPUBLICAN HILL STAFFER, 
WHO ADVISED THE TRUMP TRANSITION
TEAM, MADE THE FOLLOWING PUBLIC 
STATEMENT ABOUT DONALD TRUMP'S 
CONDUCT.
THE CALL WASN'T PERFECT.
HE COMMITTED IMPEACHABLE 
OFFENSES INCLUDING BRIBERY.
PROFESSOR KARLAN, I'M GOING TO 
SHOW YOU A VIDEO CLIP OF THE 
WITNESS TESTIMONY RELATING TO 
THE PRESIDENT'S WITHHOLDING OF 
THE WHITE HOUSE MEETING AND 
EXCHANGE FOR THE PUBLIC 
ANNOUNCEMENT OF AN INVESTIGATION
INTO HIS POLITICAL RIVAL.
>> AS I TESTIFIED PREVIOUSLY, 
MR. GIULIANI'S REQUESTS WERE A 
QUID PRO QUO FOR ARRANGING A 
WHITE HOUSE VISIT FOR PRESIDENT 

English: 
ZELENSKY.
>> BY MID JULY, IT WAS CLEAR THE
MEETING PRESIDENT ZELENSKY 
WANTED WAS CONDITIONED ON THE 
INVESTIGATIONS OF BURISMA. 
>> ONE MORE VIDEO CLIP OF THE 
PRESIDENT'S DECISION TO WITHHOLD
ASSISTANCE.
>> IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY 
CREDIBLE EXPLANATION FOR THE 
SUSPENSION OF AID, I LATER CAME 
TO BELIEVE THAT THE RESUMPTION 
OF SECURITY AID WOULD NOT OCCUR 
UNTIL THERE WAS A PUBLIC 
STATEMENT FROM UKRAINE 
COMMITTING TO THE INVESTIGATION 
OF THE 2016 ELECTION AND BURISMA
AS MR. GIULIANI HAD DEMANDED.
>> PROFESSOR KARLAN, DOES THAT 
EVIDENCE AS WELL AS THE EVIDENCE
OF RECORD TEND TO SHOW THAT THE 

English: 
PRESIDENT MET THE STANDARDS FOR 
BRIBERY AS ENVISIONED IN THE 
CONSTITUTION?
>> YES, IT DOES. 
>> I'M A FORMER PROSECUTOR.
I BELIEVE IT WOULD MEET CRIMINAL
BRIBERY.
THE SUPREME COURT'S DECISION WAS
ABOUT WHAT CONSTITUTES AN 
OFFICIAL ACT.
THE KEY FINDING WAS AN OFFICIAL 
ACT MUST INFORM A FORMAL ACT OF 
GOVERNMENTAL POWER ON SOMETHING 
SPECIFIC PENDING BEFORE A PUBLIC
OFFICIAL.
GOT THAT HERE.
WE HAVE HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS OF 
DOLLARS OF MILITARY AID THAT 
CONGRESS APPROPRIATED, THE 
FREEZING AND UNFREEZING OF THAT 
IS A FORMAL EXERCISE OF 
GOVERNMENTAL POWER.
WE DON'T EVEN HAVE TO TALK ABOUT
THE CRIME OF BRIBERY.
THERE'S ANOTHER CRIME HERE, 
WHICH IS THE SOLICITATION OF 
FEDERAL -- OF ASSISTANCE OF A 
FOREIGN GOVERNMENT IN A FEDERAL 
ELECTION CAMPAIGN.
THAT STRAIGHT UP VIOLATES THE 
FEDERAL VIOLATION ACT.
BY THE WAY, THAT IS ONE REASON 
MICHAEL COHEN IS SITTING IN 

English: 
PRISON RIGHT NOW.
I YIELD BACK.
>> THE GENTLEMAN YIELDS BACK.
>> CAN I BEGIN WAY SHOW OF 
HANDS.
HOW MANY ACTUALLY VOTED FOR 
DONALD TRUMP IN 2016?
>> I DON'T THINK WE'RE OBLIGATED
TO SAY ANYTHING ABOUT HOW WE 
CAST OUR BALLOT.
>> SHOW OF HANDS.
>> I WILL NOT -- 
>> I THINK YOU MADE YOUR 
POSITIONS, PROFESSOR KARLAN, 
CLEAR. 
>> WE WILL SUSPEND.
>> LET ME REPHRASE THE QUESTION.
HOW MANY OF YOU -- 
>> THE CLOCK IS STOPPED.
THE GENTLEMAN MAY ASK THE 
QUESTION.
THE WITNESSES DON'T HAVE TO 
RESPOND.
>> HOW MANY OF YOU SUPPORTED 
DONALD TRUMP IN 2016?
SHOW OF HANDS.
>> NOT RAISING OUR HAND IS NOT 
AN INDICATION OF AN ANSWER.
>> PROFESSOR TURLEY, DOES THIS 
INQUIRY PREDICATED ON SOME 
RATHER DISTURBING LEGAL 
DOCTRINE.
ONE DEMOCRAT ASSERTED THAT 
HEARSAY CAN BE MUCH BETTER 

English: 
EVIDENCE THAN DIRECT EVIDENCE.
SPEAKER PELOSI SAID THAT THE 
PRESIDENT'S RESPONSIBILITY IS TO
PRESENT EVIDENCE TO PROVE HIS 
INNOCENCE.
CHAIRMAN SCHIFF AND WE HEARD A 
DISCUSSION FROM SOME COLLEAGUES 
TODAY SAID IF YOU INVOKE LEGAL 
RIGHTS IN DEFENSE OF CRIMINAL 
ACCUSATIONS, THAT'S AN 
OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE AND 
EVIDENCE OF GUILT.
MY QUESTION IS, WHAT DOES IT 
MEAN TO OUR AMERICAN JUSTICE 
SYSTEM IF THESE DOCTRINES TAKE 
ROOT IN OUR COUNTRY?
>> WHAT CONCERNS ME THE MOST IS 
THAT THERE ARE NO LIMITING 
PRINCIPLES THAT I CAN SEE IN 
SOME OF THE DEFINITIONS THAT MY 
COLLEAGUES HAVE PUT FORWARD.
MORE IMPORTANTLY, SOME OF THE 
IMPEACHABLE OFFENSES I HAVE ONLY
HEARD ABOUT TODAY.
I'M NOT SURE WHAT ATTEMPTING TO 
ABUSE OFFICE MEANS OR HOW YOU 
RECOGNIZE IT.
I'M PRETTY CONFIDENT THAT NOBODY
ON THIS COMMITTEE TRULY WANTS A 

English: 
NEW STANDARD OF IMPEACHMENT TO 
BE BETRAYAL OF THE NATIONAL 
INTEREST, THAT THAT IS THE BASIS
FOR IMPEACHMENT.
HOW MANY REPUBLICANS DO YOU 
THINK WOULD SAY THAT OBAMA 
VIOLATED THAT STANDARD?
THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT JAMES 
MADISON WARNED YOU AGAINST, IS 
THAT YOU WOULD CREATE 
EFFECTIVELY A VOTE OF NO 
CONFIDENCE -- 
>> ARE WE IN DANGER OF ABUSING 
OUR OWN POWER?
MY DEMOCRATIC COLLEAGUES 
SEARCHING FOR A PRETEXT FOR 
IMPEACHMENT SINCE BEFORE THE 
PRESIDENT WAS SWORN IN.
PROFESSOR KARLAN CALLED 
PRESIDENT TRUMP'S ELECTION 
ILLEGITIMATE.
SHE IMPLIED IMPEACHMENT WAS A 
REMEDY.
PROFESSOR FELDMAN ADVOCATED 
IMPEACHING THE PRESIDENT OVER A 
TWEET THAT HE MADE IN MARCH OF 
2017.
THAT'S SEVEN WEEKS AFTER HIS 
INAUGURATION.
ARE WE IN DANGER OF SUCCUMBING 
TO THE MAXIM?

English: 
>> THIS IS PART OF THE PROBLEM 
OF YOUR VIEW OF THE PRESIDENT.
IT CAN AFFECT YOUR ASSUMPTION, 
YOUR INFERENCES, YOUR 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, TWO MONTHS
THAT YOU COULD HAVE BEEN IN 
COURT SEEKING A SUBPOENA FOR 
THESE WITNESSES.
IT DOESN'T MEAN YOU HAVE TO WAIT
FOREVER.
YOU COULD HAVE GOTTEN AN ORDER 
BY NOW.
COULD YOU HAVE ALLOWED THE 
PRESIDENT TO RAISE AN EXECUTIVE 
PRIVILEGE.
>> I NEED TO GO ON HERE.
THE CONSTITUTION SAYS THE 
EXECUTIVE AUTHORITY IS VESTED IN
A PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED 
STATES.
DOES THAT MEAN SOME OF THE 
EX
EXECUTIVE AUTHORITY OR ALL OF 
T
IT?
>> IT RESTS WITH THE PRESIDENT.
THESE ARE ALL SHARED POWERS.

English: 
I DON'T BEGRUDGE THE 
INVESTIGATION OF THE UKRAINE 
CONTROVERSY.
IT WAS LEGITIMATE.
WHAT I BEGRUDGE IS HOW IT HAS 
BEEN CONDUCTED.
>> I AGREE WITH THAT.
THE CONSTITUTION COMMANDS THE 
PRESIDENT TAKE CARE THE LAWSLY .
IF PROBABLE CAUSE EXISTS TO 
BELIEVE A CRIME HAS BEEN 
COMMITTED, DOES THE PRESIDENT 
HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO INQUIRE 
INTO THAT MATTER?
>> BUT I WOULD SAY THIS IS WHERE
WE WOULD DEPART.
I'VE BEEN CRITICAL OF THE 
PRESIDENT IN TERMS OF CROSSING 
LINES WITH THE JUSTICE 
DEPARTMENT.
I THINK THAT HAS CAUSED 
PROBLEMS.
I DON'T BELIEVE IT'S 
APPROPRIATE.
WE OFTEN CONFUSE WHAT IS 
INAPPROPRIATE WITH WHAT IS 
IMPEACHABLE.
MANY PEOPLE FEEL WHAT THE 

English: 
PRESIDENT HAS DONE IS OBNOXIOUS,
CONTEMP -- 
>> LET ME ASK YOU.
IS THE PRESIDENT EXERCISING A 
RESPONSIBILITY WHEN HE INQUIRES 
INTO A MATTER THAT COULD INVOLVE
ILLEGALITY?
>> THAT'S WHAT I'M REFERRING TO.
PART OF THE BIAS WHEN YOU LOOK 
AT THE FACTS IS YOU JUST IGNORE 
DEFENSES.
YOU SAY THOSE ARE INVALID.
BUT THERE'S DEFENSES.
THEY ARE THE OTHER SIDE TO 
ACTIONS.
THAT'S WHAT HASN'T BEEN 
EXPLORED. 
>> THE GENTLEMAN'S TIME EXPIRED.
>> THANK YOU.
I WANT TO THANK THE WITNESSES 
FOR THEIR HARD WORK ON A LONG 
DAY.
I WANT TO THANK THEM FOR 
INVOKING THE AMERICAN REVOLUTION
WHICH NOT ONLY OVERTHREW A KING 

English: 
BUT CREATED THE WORLD'S FIRST 
ANTI-MONARCHICAL RULE.
THE KING IS LOST.
BUT IN THE DEMOCRACY, THE LAW 
WILL BE KING.
TODAY THE PRESIDENT ADVANCES 
THIS ARGUMENT.
ARTICLE 2 ALLOWS HIM TO DO 
WHATEVER HE WANTS.
HE NOT ONLY SAID THAT BUT HE 
BELIEVES IT BECAUSE HE DID 
SOMETHING NO OTHER AMERICAN 
PRESIDENT HAS EVER DONE BEFORE.
HE USED FOREIGN MILITARY AID AS 
A LEVER TO COERCE A FOREIGN 
GOVERNMENT TO INTERFERE IN AN 
AMERICAN ELECTION TO DISCREDIT 
AN OPPONENT.
PROFESSOR KARLAN, WHAT DOES THE 
EXISTENCE OF THE IMPEACHMENT 
POWER TELL US ABOUT THE 
PRESIDENT'S CLAIM THAT THE 
CONSTITUTION ALLOWS HIM TO DO 
WHATEVER HE WANTS?
>> IT BLOWS IT OUT OF THE WATER.
>> IF HE IS RIGHT AND WE ACCEPT 
THIS RADICAL CLAIM THAT HE CAN 
DO WHATEVER HE WANTS, ALL FUTURE
PRESIDENTS SEEKING RE-ELECTION 

English: 
WILL BE ABLE TO BRING FOREIGN 
GOVERNMENTS INTO OUR CAMPAIGNS 
TO TARGET THEIR RIVALS AND TO 
SPREAD PROPAGANDA.
THAT'S ASTOUNDING.
IF WE LET THE PRESIDENT GET AWAY
WITH THIS CONDUCT, EVERY 
PRESIDENT CAN GET AWAY WITH IT.
DO YOU AGREE WITH THAT, 
PROFESSOR FELDMAN?
>> I DO.
RICHARD NIXON SENT BURGLARS TO 
BREAK INTO THE DEMOCRATIC 
NATIONAL COMMITTEE HEADQUARTERS.
PRESIDENT TRUMP MADE A DIRECT 
PHONE CALL TO THE PRESIDENT OF A
FOREIGN COUNTRY.
>> THIS IS A BIG MOMENT FOR 
AMERICA.
ELIJAH CUMMINGS WOULD SAY, 
LISTEN UP.
HOW WE RESPOND WILL DETERMINE 
THE CHARACTER OF OUR DEMOCRACY 
FOR GENERATIONS.
WE WERE TOLD THERE WERE THREE 
REASONS INVOKED AT THE FOUNDING 
FOR WHY WE NEEDED AN IMPEACHMENT
POWER.
BROADLY SPEAKING, IT WAS AN 
INSTRUMENT OF POPULAR 
SELF-DEFENSE AGAINST A PRESIDENT
BEHAVING LIKE A KING AND 
TRAMPLING THE RULE OF LAW.

English: 
NOT JUST IN THE NORMAL ROYAL 
SENSE OF SHOWING CRUELTY AND 
VANITY AND TREACHERY AND GREED.
BUT WHEN PRESIDENTS THREATEN THE
BASIC CHARACTER OF OUR 
GOVERNMENT AND THE CONSTITUTION,
THAT'S WHAT IMPEACHMENT WAS 
ABOUT.
THEY INVOKED THREE MISCONDUCT SO
SERIOUS THAT THEY THOUGHT THEY 
WARRANTED IMPEACHABLE.
FIRST, THE PRESIDENT MIGHT ABUSE
HIS 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'S SO WRONG WITH HIM USING 
HIS OFFICE TO ADVANCE HIS OWN 
POLITICAL AMBITION?
>> BECAUSE THE PRESIDENT OF THE 
UNITED STATES WORKS FOR THE 
PEOPLE.
IF HE SEEKS PERSONAL GAIN, HE IS
NOT SERVING THE INTERESTS OF THE
PEOPLE.
HE IS RATHER SERVING THE 
INTERESTS THAT ARE SPECIFIC TO 
HIM.
THAT MEANS HE IS ABUSING THE 
OFFICE AND DOING THINGS THAT HE 
CAN ONLY GET AWAY WITH BECAUSE 

English: 
HE IS THE PRESIDENT.
THAT'S NECESSARILY SUBJECT TO 
IMPEACHMENT.
>> SECOND AND THIRD, THE 
FOUNDERS EXPRESSED FEAR THEIR 
PRESIDENT COULD SUBVERT OUR 
DEMOCRACY BY BETRAYING HIS TRUST
TO FOREIGN INFLUENCE AND BY 
CORRUPTING THE ELECTION PROCESS.
PROFESSOR KARLAN, YOU ARENE OF
AMERICA'S LEADING ELECTION ROLE 
SCHOLARS.
WHAT ROLE DOES IMPEACHMENT PLAY 
IN PROTECTING THE OUR 
INTENTIONS, ESPECIALLY IN AN 
INTERNATIONAL CONTEXT IN WHICH 
VLADIMIR PUTIN AND OTHER TYRANTS
AND DESPOTS ARE INTERFERING TO 
DESTABILIZE ELECTIONS AROUND THE
WORLD?
>> YOU KNOW, CONGRESS HAS 
ENACTED A SERIES OF LAWS TO MAKE
SURE THAT THERE ISN'T FOREIGN 
INFLUENCE IN OUR ELECTIONS.
ALLOWING THE PRESIDENT TO SIR 
COUPLE FRIEND THAT IS A PROBLEM.
AS I TESTIFIED, AMERICA IS NOT 
JUST THE LAST BEST HOPE AS MR. 

English: 
JEFFREY SAID BUT IT'S THE 
SHINING CITY ON THE HILL.
>> IS IT FAIR TO SAY THAT ALL 
THREE CAUSES FOR IMPEACHMENT 
CONTEMPLATED BY THE FOUNDERS, 
ABUSE OF POWER, BETRAYAL OF OUR 
NATIONAL SECURITY AND CORRUPTION
OF OUR ELECTIONS ARE PRESENT IN 
THIS PRESIDENT'S CONDUCT?
YES OR NO, PROFESSOR FELDMAN?
>> YES. 
>> PROFESSOR GERHARD?
>> YES. 
>> AND PROFESSOR KARLAN?
>> YES. 
>> ARE ANY OF YOU AWARE OF ANY 
PRESIDENT WHO HAS ESSENTIALLY 
TRIGGERED ALL THREE CONCERNS 
THAT ANIMATED THE FOUNDERS?
>> NO.
>> NO.
>> NO AS WELL.
>> MR. CHAIRMAN, IT'S HARD TO 
THINK OF A MORE MONARCHICAL 
STATEMENT THAN I CAN DO WHATEVER
I WANT.

English: 
>> A LETTER I WROTE AND SENT TO 
YOU, CALLING ON YOU TO CANCEL 
ANY AND ALL FUTURE IMPEACHMENT 
HEARINGS AND OUTLINING HOW THE 
PROCESS -- 
>> THE LETTER WILL BE ENTERED 
INTO THE RECORD. 
>> THANK YOU.
DURING AND INTERVIEW, MR. 
CHAIRMAN ON MSNBC, ON NOVEMBER 
26, 2018, CHAIRMAN NADLER 
OUTLINED A THREE-PRONG TEST THAT
HE SAID WOULD ALLOW FOR A 
LEGITIMATE IMPEACHMENT 
PROCEEDING.
NOW I QUOTE, CHAIRMAN NADLER'S 
REMARKS.
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?

English: 
AND NUMBER THREE, BECAUSE YOU 
DON'T WANT TO TEAR THE COUNTRY 
APART, YOU DON'T WANT HALF THE 
COUNTRY TO SAY TO THE OTHER HALF
FOR 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 HAVE LAID OUT ALL OF 
THE EVIDENCE, A GOOD FRACTION OF
THE OPPOSITION, THE VOTERS WILL 
RELUCTANTLY ADMIT TO THEMSELVES 
THEY HAD TO DO IT.
OTHERWISE, YOU HAVE A PARTISAN 
IMPEACHMENT WHICH WILL TEAR THE 
COUNTRY APART.
IF YOU MEET THESE THREE TESTS, 
THEN I THINK YOU DO THE 
IMPEACHMENT.
THOSE WERE THE WORDS OF CHAIRMAN
NADLER.
NOW LET'S SEE IF CHAIRMAN 
R
NADLER'S THREE-PRONG TEST HAS 
BEEN MET.
FIRST, HAS THE PRESIDENT 
COMMITTED AN IMPEACHABLE 
OFFENSE?

English: 
NO.
THE EVIDENCE AND TESTIMONY HAS 
NOT REVEALED ANY IMPEACHABLE 
OFFENSE.
SECOND, DO THOSE OFFENSES RISE 
TO THE GRAVITY THAT IS 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.

English: 
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 REVEALS THE OPPOSITE IS 
TRUE.
IN FACT, WHAT YOU AND YOUR 
DEMOCRATIC COLLEAGUES HAVE DONE 
IS OPPOSITE OF WHAT YOU SAID HAD
TO BE DONE.
THIS IS A PARTISAN IMPEACHMENT.
AND IT IS TEARING THE COUNTRY 
APART.
I TAKE THIS TO MEAN THAT 
CHAIRMAN NADLER ALONG WITH THE 
REST OF THE DEMOCRATIC CAUCUS IS
PREPARED TO CONTINUE THESE 
ENTIRELY PARTISAN, UNFAIR 
PROCEEDINGS AND TRAUMATIZE THE 
AMERICAN PEOPLE ALL FOR 
POLITICAL PURPOSE.
I THINK THAT'S A SHAME.
THAT'S NOT LEADERSHIP.
THAT'S A SHAM.

English: 
SO I ASK MR. TURLEY, HAS 
CHAIRMAN NADLER SATISFIED HIS 
THREE-PRONGED TEST FOR 
IMPEACHMENT?
>> WITH ALL DUE RESPECT, I DO 
NOT BELIEVE THOSE FACTORS WERE 
SATISFIED.
>> THANK YOU.
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 -- THEY IMPLY IT 
WAS AGAINST PRESIDENT BIDEN TO 
INVESTIGATE PRESIDENT BIDEN.
IT WAS NOT.
IT WAS NOT.
IN FACT, LET ME READ WHAT THE 
TRANSCRIPT SAYS.
IT SAYS, I WOULD LIKE YOU TO DO 
US A FAVOR BECAUSE OUR COUNTRY 
HAS BEEN THROUGH A LOT AND 
UKRAINE KNOWS A LOT ABOUT IT.
I WOULD LIKE YOU TO FIND OUT 
WHAT HAPPENED WITH THIS WHOLE 
SITUATION WITH UKRAINE.
THEY SAY CROWDSTRIKE.
I GUESS YOU HAVE ONE OF YOUR OWN
WEALTHY PEOPLE.
IT SAYS NOTHING ABOUT THE 

English: 
BIDENS.
SO PLEASE STOP REFERENCING THOSE
TWO TOGETHER.
I YIELD BACK.
>> THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN.
THIS IS A DEEPLY GRAVE MOMENT 
THAT WE FIND OURSELVES IN.
I THOUGHT THE THREAT TO OUR 
NATION WAS WELL ARTICULATED 
EARLIER TODAY BY PROFESSOR 
FELDMAN WHEN YOU SAID, IF WE 
CANNOT IMPEACH A PRESIDENT WHO 
ABUSES HIS OFFICE FOR PERSON 
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 
ELECTION, 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 
THE REASON HE REQUESTED AN 
INVESTIGATION INTO HIS POLITICAL
OPPONENT AND WITHHELD 
DESPERATELY NEEDED MILITARY AID 
FOR UKRAINE WAS SUPPOSEDLY 
BECAUSE HE WAS WORRIED ABOUT 

English: 
CORRUPTION.
HOWEVER, CONTRARY TO THE 
PRESIDENT'S STATEMENTS, VARIOUS 
WITNESSES INCLUDING VICE 
PRESIDENT PENCE'S SPECIAL 
ADVISER JENNIFER WILLIAMS 
TESTIFIED THAT THE PRESIDENT'S 
QUESTION WAS POLITICAL.
TAKE A LISTEN.
>> I FOUND THE JULY 25th PHONE 
CALL UNUSUAL BECAUSE IN CONTRAST
TO OTHER PRESIDENTIAL CALLS I 
HAD OBSERVED, IT INVOLVED 
DISCUSSION OF WHAT APPEARED TO 
BE A DOMESTIC POLITICAL MATTER. 
>> PROFESSOR KARLAN IS IT FOR 
SOMEONE WHO GETS CAUGHT TO DENY 
THAT THEIR BEHAVIOR IS 
IMPERMISSIBLE?
>> ALMOST ALWAYS. 
>> ONE OF THE QUESTIONS BEFORE 
US IS WHETHER THE PRESIDENT'S 
CLAIM THAT HE CARED ABOUT 
CORRUPTION IS ACTUALLY CREDIBLE.
NOW, YOU'VE ARGUED BEFORE THE 
SUPREME COURT AND THE SUPREME 
COURT DETERMINED THAT WHEN 
ASSESSING CREDIBILITY, WE SHOULD
LOOK AT A NUMBER OF FACTORS 
INCLUDING IMPACT, HISTORICAL 
BACKGROUND, AND WHETHER THERE 
ARE DEPARTURES FROM NORMAL 
PROCEDURES, CORRECT?
>> THAT'S CORRECT.
WHAT WE'RE ULTIMATELY TRYING TO 
DO IS FIGURE OUT IF SOMEONE'S 
EXPLANATION FITS WITH THE FACT.
IF IT DOESN'T, THE EXPLANATION 

English: 
MAY NOT BE TRUE.
LET'S EXPLORE THAT.
LIEUTENANT COLONEL VINDMAN 
TESTIFIED THAT HE PREPARED 
TALKING POINTS ON ANTICORRUPTION
REFORM FOR PRESIDENT TRUMP'S 
CALL WITH UKRAINIAN PRESIDENT 
ZELENSKY.
HOWEVER, BASED ON THE 
TRANSCRIPT, THE LEAKS OF THOSE 
CALLS IN APRIL AND JULY, 
PRESIDENT TRUMP NEVER MENTIONED 
THESE POINTS OF CORRUPTION.
HE ACTUALLY NEVER MENTIONED THE 
WORD CORRUPTION.
DOES THAT GO TO ANY OF THOSE 
FACTORS?
IS THAT SIGNIFICANT?
>> YES, IT GOES TO THE ONE ABOUT
PROCEDURAL IRREGULARIIES AND 
ALSO TO THE ONE THAT HE LOOKS AT
THE KIND OF THINGS THAT LED UP 
TO THE DECISION THAT YOU'RE 
TRYING TO FIGURE OUT SOMEBODY'S 
MOTIVE ABOUT. 
>> 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 DEPARTURE. 
>> AND PROFESSOR KARLAN, THERE 
IS IN FACT, AND MY COLLEAGUE MR.

English: 
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 YES, 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 ALSO GO TO 
THE FACTORS THE SUPREME COURT TO
DISCUSS. 
>> 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

English: 
ACTUALLY DIDN'T CARE WHETHER 
THEY WERE CONDUCTED.
THAT WAS IN AMBASSADOR 
SONDLAND'S TESTIMONY.
WHAT WOULD YOU SAY ABOUT THAT?
>> THAT GOES TO WHETHER THE 
CLAIM THAT THIS IS ABOUT 
POLITICS IS A PERSUASIVE CLAIM 
BECAUSE THAT GOES TO THE FACT 
THAT IT'S BEING ANNOUNCED 
PUBLICLY, WHICH IS AN ODD THING.
MAYBE MR. SWALWELL COULD ANSWER 
THIS BETTER THAN I BECAUSE HE'S 
A PROSECUTOR, BUT GENERALLY YOU 
DON'T ANNOUNCE THE INVESTIGATION
IN A CRIMINAL CASE BEFORE YOU 
CONDUCT IT BECAUSE IT PUTS THE 
PERSON ON NOTICE THAT THEY'RE 
UNDER INVESTIGATION.
>> AND GIVEN ALL OF THESE FACTS 
AND THERE ARE MORE THAT WE DON'T
HAVE TIME TO GET TO, HOW WOULD 
YOU ASSESS THE CREDIBILITY OF 
THE PRESIDENT'S CLAIM THAT HE 
WAS WORRIED ABOUT CORRUPTION?
>> WELL, I THINK YOU OUGHT TO 
MAKE THAT CREDIBILITY 
DETERMINATION BECAUSE YOU HAVE 
THE SOLE POWER OF IMPEACHMENT.
IF I WERE A MEMBER OF THE HOUSE 
OF REPRESENTATIVES I WOULD INFER
ARE FROM THIS 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

English: 
FUTURE PRESIDENTS THAT THEY CAN 
PUT THEIR OWN PERSONAL POLITICAL
INTERESTS AHEAD OF THE AMERICAN 
PEOPLE, OUR NATIONAL SECURITY 
AND OUR ELECTIONS, AND THAT IS 
THE GRAVEST OF THREATS TO OUR 
DEMOCRACY.
I YIELD BACK.
>> GENTLE LADY YIELDS BACK.
I NOW RECOGNIZE MR. GOMEZ.
>> I WOULD ASK UNANIMOUS CONSENT
FOR AN ARTICLE BY DANIEL HUB. 
>> WITHOUT OBJECTION, THE 
ARTICLE WILL BE ENTERED INTO THE
RECORD.
I. 
>> THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN.
STARTING OFF TODAY DOING 
SOMETHING THAT I DON'T NORMALLY 
DO, AND I'M GOING TO QUOTE -- 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.

English: 
WELL, ON THAT THE SPEAKER AND I 
BOTH AGREE.
YOU KNOW WHO ELSE AGREES?
THE FOUNDING FATHERS.
THE FOUNDING FATHERS RECOGNIZED 
THAT CRIMES WARRANTING 
IMPEACHMENT MUST BE SO SEVERE 
REGARDLESS OF POLITICAL PARTY 
THAT THERE IS AN AGREEMENT THAT 
THE ACTIONS ARE IMPEACHABLE.
LET'S GO BACK TO SPEAKER 
PELOSI'S WORDS ONE MORE TIME.
SHE SAYS THE CASE FOR 
IMPEACHMENT MUST BE ALSO 
COMPELLING.
AFTER LAST MONTH'S SHOW, THIS IS
WHAT WE LEARNED, THERE IS NO 
EVIDENCE THAT THE PRESIDENT 
DIRECTED ANYONE TO TELL THE 
UKRAINIANS THAT AID WAS 
CONDITIONED ON INVESTIGATIONS.
ASIDE FROM THE MERE PRESUMPTIONS
BY AMBASSADOR SONDLAND THERE IS 
NO EVIDENCE THAT TRUMP WAS 
CONDITIONING AID ON 
INVESTIGATION, AND IF YOU DOUBT 
ME GO BACK TO THE ACTUAL 
TRANSCRIPT BECAUSE NEVER IN THAT
CALL WAS THE 2020 ELECTION 
MENTIONED, AND NEVER IN THAT 
CALL WAS MILITARY AID MENTIONED.
IN FACT, PRESIDENT TRUMP TOLD 

English: 
SENATOR JOHNSON ON 31 AUGUST 
THAT AID WAS NOT CONDITIONED ON 
INVESTIGATIONS.
RATHER PRESIDENT TRUMP WAS 
RIGHTFULLY SKEPTICAL ABOUT THE 
UKRAINIANS.
THE COUNTRY HAS A HISTORY OF 
CORRUPTION, AND HE MERELY WANTED
THE EUROPEANS TO CONTRIBUTE MORE
TO A PROBLEM IN THEIR OWN 
BACKYARDS.
I THINK WE CAN ALL AGREE THAT 
IT'S APPROPRIATE FOR THE 
PRESIDENT AS A STEWARD OF 
TAXPAYER DOLLARS TO ENSURE THAT 
OUR MONEY ISN'T WASTED.
I SAID I WASN'T GOING TO GO BACK
TO SPEAKER PELOSI, BUT I DO WANT
TO GO BACK.
SHE ALSO SAID IMPEACHMENT SHOULD
ONLY BE WHEN IT'S 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.
WE'RE CALLING IT BRIBERY NOW 
AFTER THE FOCUS GROUP LAST WEEK.
THERE'S NO EVIDENCE OF BRIBERY 
EITHER.
INSTEAD, THE TWO PEOPLE WHO DID 
HAVE FIRSTHAND KNOWLEDGE THAT 
THE PRESIDENT AND PRESIDENT 
ZELENSKY BOTH SAY THERE WAS NO 
PRESSURE ON THE UKRAINIANS, AND 

English: 
AGAIN, THE TRANSCRIPT OF JULY 
BACKS THIS UP.
GO BACK TO NANCY PELOSI ONE MORE
TIME.
SHE SAID THAT THE MOVEMENT FOR 
IMPEACHMENT SHOULD BE, QUOTE, 
UNQUOTE, BIPARTISAN, WHICH IS 
ACTUALLY THE SAME SENTIMENT 
ECHOED BY CHAIRMAN JERRY NADLER 
WHO IN 1998 SAID THERE MUST 
NEVER BE A NARROWLY VOTED 
IMPEACHMENT SUPPORTED BY ONE OF 
THE MAJOR POLITICAL PARTIES AND 
OPPOSED BY ANOTHER.
WHEN THE HOUSE VOTED ON THE 
DEMOCRATS IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY, 
IT WAS JUST THAT.
THE ONLY BIPARTISAN VOTE WAS THE
ONE IMPOSING THE INQUIRY.
THE PARTISAN VOTE WAS THE ONE TO
MOVE FORWARD WITH THE INQUIRY.
SO WE'RE 0 FOR 3.
LET'S FACE IT.
THIS IS A SHAM IMPEACHMENT 
AGAINST PRESIDENT TRUMP.
IT'S NOT COMPELLING.
IT'S NOT OVERWHELMING, AND IT'S 
NOT BIPARTISAN, SO EVEN BY THE 
OWN CRITERIA, THIS IS FAILED.
RATHER WHAT THIS IS IS NOTHING 
MORE THAN A PARTISAN WITCH HUNT 

English: 
WHICH DENIES THE FUNDAMENTAL 
FAIRNESS FOR 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 FEW
UNELECTED CAREER BUREAUCRATS, 
AND THE AMERICAN PEOPLE ARE 
ABSOLUTELY FED UP.
INSTEAD OF WASTING OUR TIME ON 
THIS, WE SHOULD BE DOING THINGS 
LIKE PASSING USMCA, LOWERING THE
COST OF PRESCRIPTION DRUGS AND 
WORKING ON A FAILING 
INFRASTRUCTURE IN THIS COUNTRY.
WITH THAT SAID, I'VE WATCHED AS 
YOUR WORDS HAVE BEEN TWISTED AND
MANGLED ALL DAY LONG.
IS THERE ANYTHING YOU WOULD LIKE
TO CLARIFY?
>> ONLY THIS, ONE OF THE 
DISAGREEMENTS THAT WE HAVE AND I
HAVE WITH MY ESTEEMED COLLEAGUES
IS WHAT MAKES LEGITIMATE 
IMPEACHMENT, NOT WHAT 
TECHNICALLY SATISFIES 
IMPEACHMENT, THERE'S VERY FEW 
TECHNICAL REQUIREMENTS OF AN 
IMPEACHMENT.
THE QUESTIS EXPECTED

English: 
OF YOU, AND MY OBJECTION IS THAT
THERE IS A CONSTANT PREFERENCE 
FOR INFERENCE OVER INFORMATION 
OR PRESUMPTION OVER PROOF.
THAT'S BECAUSE THIS RECORD 
HASN'T BEEN DEVELOPED, AND IF 
YOU'RE GOING TO REMOVE A 
PRESIDENT, IF YOU BELIEVE IN 
DEMOCRACY, IF YOU'RE GOING TO 
REMOVE A SITTING PRESIDENT, THEN
YOU HAVE AN OBLIGATION NOT TO 
RELY ON INFERENCE WHEN THERE'S 
STILL INFORMATION YOU CAN 
GATHER, AND THAT'S WHAT I'M 
SAYING.
IT'S NOT THAT YOU CAN'T DO THIS.
YOU JUST CAN'T DO IT THIS WAY.
>> THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN.
>> GENTLEMAN YIELDS BACK.
I NOW RECOGNIZE FOR THE PURPOSE 
OF THE UNANIMOUS CONSENT 
REQUEST.
>> THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN, I'D 
LIKE UNANIMOUS CONSENT TO PLACE 
IN THE RECORD A NEW STATEMENT 
FROM CHECKS AND BALANCES, 
REPUBLICAN AND DEMOCRATIC 
ATTORNEY GENERAL. 
>> WITHOUT OBJECTION?
I NOW RECOGNIZE MS. DEMINGS, 
FIVE MINUTES FOR QUESTIONING THE
WITNESSES. 
>> THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN.

English: 
AS A FORMER LAW ENFORCEMENT 
OFFICIAL, I KNOW FIRSTHAND THAT 
THE RULE OF LAW IS THE STRENGTH 
OF OUR DEMOCRACY, AND NO ONE IS 
ABOVE IT, NOT OUR NEIGHBORS IN 
OUR VARIOUS COMMUNITIES, NOT OUR
CO-WORKERS, AND NOT THE 
PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES.
YET, THE PRESIDENT HAS SAID THAT
HE CANNOT BE PROSECUTED FOR 
CRIMINAL CONDUCT, THAT HE NEED 
NOT COMPLY WITH CONGRESSIONAL 
REQUESTS AND SUBPOENAS.
AS A MATTER OF FACT, THE 
PRESIDENT IS TRYING TO ABSORB 
HIMSELF 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

English: 
OFFICIALS FROM TESTIFYING.
THE PRESIDENT'S OBSTRUCTION OF 
CONGRESS IS PERVASIVE.
SINCE THE HOUSE BEGAN ITS 
INVESTIGATION, THE WHITE HOUSE 
HAS PRODUCED ZERO DOCUMENTS.
IN ADDITION, AT THE PRESIDENT'S 
DIRECTION, MORE THAN A DOZEN 
MEMBERS OF HIS ADMINISTRATION 
HAVE DEFIED CONGRESSIONAL 
SUBPOENAS.
THE FOLLOWING SLIDE SHOWS THOSE 
WHO HAVE REFUSED TO COMPLY AT 
THE PRESIDENT'S DIRECTION.
WE ARE FACING A CATEGORICAL 
BLOCKADE BY A PRESIDENT WHO'S 
DESPERATE TO PREVENT ANY 
INVESTIGATION INTO HIS 
WRONGDOING.
PROFESSOR GERHARDT, HAS A 
PRESIDENT EVER REFUSED TO 
COOPERATE IN AN IMPEACHMENT 
INVESTIGATION?

English: 
>> NONE UNTIL NOW.
>> AND ANY PRESIDENT WHO -- I 
KNOW NIXON DELAYED OR TRIED TO 
DELAY TURNING OVER INFORMATION.
WHEN THAT OCCURRED, WAS THIS AT 
THE SAME LEVEL THAT WE'RE SEEING
TODAY?
>> PRESIDENT NIXON ALSO HAD 
ORDERED HIS SUBORDINATES TO 
COOPERATE AND TESTIFY.
HE DIDN'T SHUT DOWN ANY OF THAT.
HE PRODUCED DOCUMENTS, AND THERE
WERE TIMES -- THERE WERE 
CERTAINLY DISAGREEMENTS, BUT 
THERE WAS NOT A WHOLESALE BROAD 
SCALE ACROSS THE BOARD REFUSAL 
TO EVEN RECOGNIZE THE LEGITIMACY
OF THIS HOUSE DOING AN INQUIRY.
>> DID PRESIDENT NIXON'S 
OBSTRUCTION RESULT IN AN ARTICLE
OF IMPEACHMENT?
>> YES, MA'AM, ARTICLE III. 
>> PROFESSOR FELDMAN, 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 A PRESIDENT

English: 
REFUSING TO PARTICIPATE.
HE'S DENYING THE POWER OF 
CONGRESS UNDER THE CONSTITUTION 
TO OVERSEE HIM AND TO EXERCISE 
ITS CAPACITY TO IMPEACH. 
>> PROFESSOR GERHARDT WHEN A 
PRESIDENT PREVENTS WITNESSES 
FROM COMPLYING WITH 
CONGRESSIONAL SUBPOENAS, ARE WE 
ENTITLED TO MAKE ANY 
PRESUMPTIONS ABOUT WHAT THEY 
WOULD SAY IF THEY TESTIFIED?
>> YES, MA'AM, YOU ARE, AND I 
MIGHT JUST POINT OUT THAT ONE OF
THE DIFFICULTIES WITH ASKING FOR
A MORE THOROUGH INVESTIGATION IS
THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT THE HOUSE 
HAS TRIED TO CONDUCT HERE, AND 
THE PRESIDENT HAS REFUSED TO 
COMPLY WITH SUBPOENAS AND OTHER 
INFORMATION.
THAT'S WHY THERE ARE DOCUMENTS 
NOT PRODUCED AND PEOPLE NOT 
TESTIFYING THE PEOPLE HAVE SAID 
THEY WANT TO HEAR FROM. 
>> IN RELATION TO WHEN YOU JUST 
SAID, AMBASSADOR SONDLAND 
TESTIFIED, AND I QUOTE, EVERYONE
WAS IN THE LOOP.
IT WAS NO SECRET.
PROFESSOR GERHARDT, HOW IS 
AMBASSADOR SONDLAND'S TESTIMONY 
RELEVANT HERE?
>> HIS TESTIMONY IS RELEVANT.
IT'S ALSO RATHER CHILLING TO 
HEAR HIM SAY THAT EVERYBODY'S IN

English: 
THE LOOP AND WHEN HE SAYS THAT, 
HE'S TALKING ABOUT THE PEOPLE AT
THE HIGHEST LEVELS OF OUR 
GOVERNMENT ALL OF WHOM ARE 
REFUSING TO TESTIFY UNDER OATH 
OR COMPLY WITH SUBPOENAS. 
>> PROFESSORS, I WANT TO THANK 
YOU FOR YOUR TESTIMONY.
THE PRESIDENT USED THE POWER OF 
THIS 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 

English: 
YIELD BACK.
>> GENTLELADY YIELDS BACK.
MR. KLEIN IS RECOGNIZED. 
>> THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN.
IT'S JUST PAST 5:00, A LOT OF 
FAMILIES ARE GETTING HOME FROM 
WORK, AND THEY'RE TURNING ON THE
TVs AND WONDERING WHAT THEY'RE 
WATCHING ON TV.
THEY'RE ASKING THEMSELVES IS 
THIS A RERUN?
I THOUGHT I SAW THIS A COUPLE OF
WEEKS AGO.
NO, THIS IS NOT A RERUN, THIS IS
ACT 2 OF THE THREE-PART TRAGEDY,
THE IMPEACHMENT OF PRESIDENT 
TRUMP, AND WHAT WE'RE SEEING 
HERE IS SEVERAL VERY 
ACCOMPLISHED CONSTITUTIONAL 
SCHOLARS ATTEMPTING TO DIVINE 
THE INTENT, WHETHER IT'S OF THE 
PRESIDENT OR OF THE VARIOUS 
WITNESSES WHO APPEARED DURING 
THE SCHIFF HEARING AND IT'S VERY
FRUSTRATING TO ME AS A MEMBER OF
THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE WHY WE 
ARE WHERE WE ARE TODAY.
I ASKED TO BE A MEMBER OF THIS 
COMMITTEE BECAUSE OF ITS STORIED
HISTORY, BECAUSE IT WAS THE 
DEFENDER OF THE CONSTITUTION, 

English: 
BECAUSE IT WAS ONE OF THE OLDEST
COMMITTEES IN THE CONGRESS 
ESTABLISHED BY ANOTHER 
VIRGINIANS JOHN GEORGE JACKSON.
IT'S BECAUSE TWO OF MY IMMEDIATE
PREDECESSORS, CONGRESSMAN BOB 
GOODLAD WHO CHAIRED THIS 
COMMITTEE AND CONGRESSMAN 
CALDWELL BUTLER ALSO SERVED ON 
THIS COMMITTEE, BUT THE 
COMMITTEE THAT THEY SERVED 
UNDER -- SERVED ON IS DEAD.
THAT COMMITTEE DOESN'T EXIST 
ANYMORE.
THAT COMMITTEE IS GONE.
APPARENTLY NOW WE DON'T EVEN 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.

English: 
YOU KNOW, LOOKING AT WHERE WE 
ARE, THE LACK OF THE USE OF THE 
RADINO RULE 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 HEARING, SO THE 
JUDICIARY COMMITTEE MEMBERS 
WEREN'T ABLE TO WATCH ALL OF THE
HEARINGS, BUT I DIDN'T GET TO --
I GET TO READ THE TRANSCRIPT OF 
THE HEARINGS THAT WERE HELD IN 
PRIVATE.
I WAS NOT ABLE TO BE A PART OF 
THE INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE 
HEARINGS THAT WERE IN THE SCIF.
WE HAVEN'T SEEN THE EVIDENCE 
FROM THE INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE 
YET.
WE'VE ASKED FOR IT.
WE HAVEN'T RECEIVED IT.
WE HAVEN'T HEARD FROM ANY FACT 

English: 
WITNESSES YET.
BEFORE WE GET TO HEAR FROM THESE
CONSTITUTIONAL SCHOLARS ABOUT 
WHETHER OR NOT THESE 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, THE PEOPLE, AND IT'S THE 
PEOPLE WHO ELECTED THIS 
PRESIDENT IN 2016, AND IT'S THE 
PEOPLE WHO SHOULD HAVE THE 
CHOICE AS TO WHETHER OR NOT TO 
VOTE FOR THIS PRESIDENT IN 2020,
NOT THE MEMBERS OF THIS 

English: 
COMMITTEE, NOT SPEAKER NANCY 
PELOSI AND NOT THE MEMBERS OF 
THIS HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.
IT SHOULD BE THE PEOPLE OF THE 
UNITED STATES WHO GET TO DECIDE 
WHO THEIR PRESIDENT IS IN 2020.
I ASKED SEVERAL QUESTIONS ABOUT 
OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE TO MR. 
MUELLER WHEN HE TESTIFIED, MR. 
TURLEY, I KNOW THAT YOU 
MENTIONED OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE
SEVERAL TIMES IN YOUR TESTIMONY.
I WANT TO YIELD TO MR. RATCLIFFE
TO ASK A QUESTION ABOUT THAT 
ISSUE. 
>> THANK YOU, GENTLEMAN FOR 
YIELDING.
PROFESSOR TURLEY IN THE LAST FEW
DAYS WE'VE BEEN HEARING THAT 
DESPITE NO QUESTIONS ANY 
WITNESSES DURING THE FIRST TWO 
MONTHS OF THE FIRST PHASE OF 
THIS IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY THAT 
THE DEMOCRATS MAY BE DUSTING OFF
THE OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE 
PORTION OF THE MUELLER REPORT.
IT SEEMS TO ME THAT WE ALL 
REMEMBER HOW PAINFUL IT WAS TO 
LISTEN TO SPECIAL COUNSEL'S 
ANALYSIS OF THE OBSTRUCTION OF 
JUSTICE PORTION OF THAT REPORT.

English: 
I'D LIKE YOU TO ADDRESS THE 
FATAL FLAWS FROM YOUR 
PERSPECTIVE WITH REGARD TO THE 
OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE PORTION 
OF THAT.
>> GENTLEMAN'S TIME IS EXPIRED.
THE WITNESS MAY ANSWER THE 
QUESTION.
>> THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN.
I'VE BEEN A CRITIC OF THE 
OBSTRUCTION HEARING BEHIND THE 
RUSSIA INFORMATION BECAUSE ONCE 
AGAIN, IT DOESN'T MEET WHAT I 
THINK ARE THE CLEAR STANDARDS 
FOR OBSTRUCTION.
THERE WERE TEN ISSUES THAT 
MUELLER ADDRESSED.
THE ONLY ONE THAT I THINK THAT 
RAISED A SERIOUS ISSUE, QUITE 
FRANKLY, WAS THE MATTER WITH DON
McGAHN.
THERE WAS A DISAGREEMENT ANT 
THAT.
BUT ALSO THE DEPARTMENT OF 
JUSTICE REJECTED THE CLAIM.
IT WAS NOT JUST THE ATTORNEY 
GENERAL.
>> THE GENTLEMAN'S TIME IS WELL 
EXPIRED.
MR. CORREA.
>> THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN, AND 
I'D LIKE TO THANK THE WITNESSES 
FOR BEING HERE TODAY.
YOUR TESTIMONY IS IMPORTANT NOT 
ONLY TO THIS BODY, BUT TO 
AMERICA THAT IS LISTENING VERY 

English: 
INTENTLY ON WHAT THE ISSUES 
BEFORE US ARE.
AND WHY IS IT SO IMPORTANT THAT 
ALL OF US UNDERSTAND THE ISSUES 
BEFORE US.
PROFESSOR FELDMAN, AS WE'VE 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 OF JUDGE JACKSON, A 
FEDERAL JUDGE HERE IN D.C. THAT 
REJECTS PRESIDENT TRUMP'S 
ASSERTION.
PROFESSOR FELDMAN, DO YOU AGREE 
WITH JUDGE JACKSON'S RULING THAT
PRESIDENT TRUMP HAS INVOKED A 
NONEXISTENT LEGAL BASIS TO BLOCK
WITNESSES FROM TESTIFYING IN 

English: 
THIS IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY?
>> I AGREE WITH THE THRUST OF 
JUDGE JACKSON'S OPINION.
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 EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE 
WOULD APPLY IN ANY GIVEN 
SITUATION.
I THINK THAT WAS ALSO 
APPROPRIATE.
>> LET ME QUOTE JUDGE JACKSON, 
OPEN QUOTE, THE PRIMARY TAKE 
AWAY FROM THE PAST 250 YEARS OF 
RECORDED AMERICAN HISTORY IS 
THAT PRESIDENTS ARE NOT KINGS, 
CLOSE QUOTE.
PROFESSOR FELDMAN, IN THE 
FRAMER'S VIEW DOES A PRESIDENT 
ACT MORE LIKE A LEADER OF 
DEMOCRACY OR MORE LIKE A MONARCH
WHEN HE ORDERS OFFICIALS TO DEFY
CONGRESS AS IT TRIES TO 
INVESTIGATE ABUSE OF POWER AND 
CORRUPTION?
>> SIR, I DON'T EVEN THINK THE 
FRAMERS COULD IMAGINE THAT A 
PRESIDENT WOULD FLATLY REFUSE TO

English: 
PARTICIPATE IN AN IMPEACHMENT 
INQUIRY, GIVEN THAT THEY GAVE 
THE POWER OF IMPEACHMENT TO THE 
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES AND 
ASSUMED THAT THE STRUCTURE OF 
THE CONSTITUTION WOULD ALLOW THE
HOUSE TO OVERSEE THE PRESIDENT. 
>> THANK YOU.
PROFESSOR GERHARDT, WHERE CAN WE
LOOK IN THE CONSTITUTION TO 
UNDERSTAND WHETHER THE PRESIDENT
MUST COMPLY WITH THE IMPEACHMENT
INVESTIGATION?
>> I THINK YOU CAN LOOK 
THROUGHOUT THE ENTIRE 
CONSTITUTION.
A GOOD PLACE OF COURSE INCLUDES 
THE SUPREMACY CLAUSE, THE 
PRESIDENT ALSO TAKES AN OATH, 
TAKES AN OATH TO SUPPORT AND 
DEFEND THE CONSTITUTION OF THE 
UNITED STATES.
THAT MEANS THAT -- WITH CERTAIN 
CONSTRAINTS ON WHAT HE MAY DO 
AND THAT THERE ARE MEASURES FOR 
ACCOUNTABILITY FOR ANY FAILURE 
TO FOLLOW HIS DUTIES OR FOLLOW 
THE CONSTITUTION.
>> THANK YOU.
AND THE PRESIDENT HAS SAID THAT 
HE IS ABOVE THE LAW, THAT 
ARTICLE II OF THE CONSTITUTION 
ALLOWS HIM TO AND I QUOTE, DO 
WHATEVER I WANT.
THAT CAN'T BE TRUE.

English: 
JUDGE JACKSON HAS SAID THAT NO 
ONE IS ABOVE THE LAW.
PERSONALLY, I GREW UP IN 
CALIFORNIA IN THE 1960s.
IT WAS A TIME WHEN WE WERE GOING
TO BEAT THE RUSSIANS TO THE 
MOON.
WE WERE FULL OF OPTIMISM.
WE BELIEVED IN AMERICAN 
DEMOCRACY.
WE WERE THE BEST IN THE WORLD, 
AND BACK HOME ON MAIN STREET, MY
MOM AND DAD STRUGGLED TO SURVIVE
DAY-TO-DAY.
MY MOM WORKED AS A MAID CLEANING
HOTEL ROOMS FOR 1.50 AN HOUR, 
AND MY DAD WORKED AT THE LOCAL 
PAPER MILL TRYING TO SURVIVE 
DAY-TO-DAY.
AND WHAT GOT US UP IN THE 
MORNING WAS THE BELIEF, THE 
OPTIMISM THAT TOMORROW WAS GOING
TO BE BETTER THAN TODAY.
WE'RE A NATION OF FREEDOM, 
DEMOCRACY, ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY,
AND WE ALWAYS KNOW THAT 
TOMORROW'S GOING TO BE BETTER, 
AND TODAY I PERSONALLY SIT AS A 
TESTAMENT TO THE GREATNESS OF 

English: 
THIS NATION, IN CONGRESS.
AND I SIT HERE IN THIS COMMITTEE
ROOM ALSO WITH ONE VERY 
IMPORTANT MISSION, WHICH IS TO 
KEEP THE AMERICAN DREAM ALIVE TO
ENSURE THAT ALL OF US ARE EQUAL,
TO ENSURE THAT NOBODY, NOBODY IS
ABOVE THE LAW AND TO ENSURE THAT
OUR CONSTITUTION AND THAT OUR 
CONGRESSIONAL OVERSIGHT OF THE 
PRESIDENCY IS STILL SOMETHING 
WITH MEANING.
THANK YOU.
CHAIR, I YIELD BACK. 
>> GENTLEMAN YIELDS BACK.
MR. ARMSTRONG.
>> THANK YOU MR. CHAIRMAN.
ALL DAY LONG WE'VE BEEN SITTING 
HERE AND LISTENING TO MY FRIENDS
ACROSS THE AISLE AND THEIR 
WITNESSES CLAIM THAT THE 
PRESIDENT DEMANDED UKRAINE DO US
A FAVOR, BY ASSISTING IN 2020 
RE-ELECTION CAMPAIGN BEFORE HE 
WOULD RELEASE THE MILITARY AID.
THIS IS LIKE EVERYTHING ELSE IN 
THIS SHAM IMPEACHMENT PURPOSELY 
MISLEADING AND NOT BASED ON THE 
FACTS.
SO LET'S REVIEW THE ACTUAL 
TRANSCRIPT OF THE CALL.
THEY NEVER MENTIONED THE 2020 

English: 
ELECTION.
THEY NEVER MENTIONED MILITARY 
AID.
IT DOES, HOWEVER, CLEARLY SHOW 
THAT THE FAVOR THE PRESIDENT 
REQUESTED WAS ASSISTANCE WITH 
THE ONGOING INVESTIGATION INTO 
THE 2016 ELECTION.
THOSE INVESTIGATIONS 
PARTICULARLY THE ONE BEING RUN 
BY U.S. ATTORNEY SHOULD CONCERN 
DEMOCRATS.
IN THE TRANSCRIPT OF THIS CALL 
SHOWS THAT THE PRESIDENT WAS 
WORRIED ABOUT THE EFFORTS OF 
UKRAINE RELATING TO THE 2016 
ELECTION.
WE KNOW THIS AND NOTICE I'M 
USING THE WORD KNOW AND NOT THE 
WORD INFER, FROM READING THE 
TRANSCRIPT AND BECAUSE HE SPOKE 
ABOUT IT ENDING WITH MUELLER.
WE KNOW THIS BECAUSE HE WANTS 
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL TO GET IN 
TOUCH WITH THE UKRAINIANS ABOUT 
THE ISSUE.
WE HAVE A TREATY WITH UKRAINE 
GOVERNING THESE SORTS OF 
INVESTIGATIONS.
LIKE SO MANY OTHER THINGS THESE 
FACTS ARE INCONVENIENT WITH 
DEMOCRATS.
THEY DON'T FIT THE IMPEACHMENT 
NARRATIVE, SO THEY'RE 
MISREPRESENTED OR IGNORED.
AND I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT WHEN 

English: 
WE TALK ABOUT THIS, WHATEVER THE
BURDEN OF PROOF BEYOND A 
REASONABLE DOUD DOUBT, CLEAR AND
CONVINCING DOUBT, WHETHER IT'S
A
JUDICIAL HEARING, I THINK WE 
NEED TO START WITH HOW WE LOOK 
AT IT.
I'M NOT A CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 
PROFESSOR.
I'M JUST AN OLD CRIMINAL DEFENSE
ATTORNEY.
WHEN I WALK INTO A COURTROOM, I 
I THINK OF THREE THINGS.
WHAT'S THE CRIME CHARGED, WHAT'S
THE CONDUCT, AND WHO'S THE 
VICTIM?
WE'VE MANAGED TO MAKE IT UNTIL 
5:00 TODAY BEFORE WE TALK ABOUT 
THE ALLEGED VICTIM OF THE CRIME.
THAT'S PRESIDENT ZELENSKY.
THREE DIFFERENT TIMES PRESIDENT 
ZELENSKY, AT LEAST THREE 
DIFFERENT TIMES HAS DENIED BEING
PRESSURED BY THE PRESIDENT.
THE CALL SHOWS LAUGHTER, 
PLEASANTRIES, CORDIALTIES.
SEPTEMBER 25th, PRESIDENT 
ZELENSKY STATES, NO, YOU HEARD 
THAT WE HAD A GOOD PHONE CALL.
IT WAS NORMAL, WE SPOKE ABOUT 
MANY THINGS.
I THINK YOU READ IT AND NOBODY 
PUSHED ME.
OCTOBER 10th, PRESIDENT ZELENSKY
HAD A PRESS CONFERENCE, AND I 
ENCOURAGE EVERYBODY TO WATCH IT,
EVEN IF YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND IT.
90% OF COMMUNICATION IS 

English: 
NONVERBAL.
YOU TELL ME IF YOU THINK HE'S 
LYING.
THERE WAS NO BLACKMAIL.
DECEMBER 2nd, THIS MONDAY I 
NEVER TALKED TO THE PRESIDENT 
QUID PRO QUO.
WE HAVE THE ALLEGED VICTIM OF 
QUID PRO QUO, BRIBERY, 
EXTORTION, 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 
THROUGHOUT, DEMORALIZE HIMSELF 
FOR THE GOOD OF HIS COUNTRY.
EITHER OF THESE TWO ASSERTIONS 
WEAKENS THEIR COUNTRY AND HARMS 
OUR EFFORTS TO HELP THE UKRAINE 
AND ALSO BEGS THE QUESTION OF 
HOW ON EARTH IF PRESIDENT 
ZELENSKY WITHSTAND THIS ILLEGAL 
AND IMPEACHABLE PRESSURE TO 

English: 
BEGIN WITH BECAUSE THIS FACT 
STILL HAS NOT CHANGED.
THE AID WAS RELEASED TO UKRAINE 
AND DID NOT TAKE ANY ACTION FROM
THEM IN ORDER FOR IT TO FLOW.
WITH THAT I YIELD TO MY FRIEND 
MR. JORDAN. 
>> PROFESSOR KARLAN CONTEXT IS 
IMPORTANT ISN'T IT?
>> YES, SIR.
>> A FEW MINUTES AGO WHEN MY 
COLLEAGUE FROM FLORIDA PRESENTED
A STATEMENT YOU MADE, YOU SAID 
WELL, YOU'VE GOT TO TAKE THAT 
STATEMENT IN CONTEXT.
IT SEEMS TO ME YOU DON'T WANT TO
EXTEND THE SAME OR APPLY THE 
SAME STANDARD TO THE PRESIDENT.
THE NOW FAMOUS QUOTE, I WOULD 
LIKE YOU TO DO US A FAVOR YOU 
SAID ABOUT AN HOUR AND A HALF 
AGO THAT THAT DIDN'T MEAN -- US 
DIDN'T MEAN US, IT MEANT THE 
PRESIDENT ITSELF.
THAT'S THE CLEAR READING OF 
THIS.
I WOULD LIKE YOU TO DO US A 
FAVOR THOUGH, BECAUSE.
YOU KNOW WHAT THE NEXT TWO WORDS
ARE?
>> I DON'T HAVE THE DOCUMENT. 
>> I'LL TELL YOU.
BECAUSE OUR COUNTRY.
HE DIDN'T SAY I WOULD LIKE YOU 
TO DO ME A FAVOR, THOUGH, 
BECAUSE ISK I HAVE BEEN THROUGH 
A LOT.
I WANT YOU TO DO US A FAVOR 
BECAUSE OUR COUNTRY HAS BEEN 
THROUGH A LOT.
YOU KNOW WHEN THIS CALL 
HAPPENED?
IT HAPPENED THE DAY AFTER 
MUELLER WAS IN FRONT OF HIS 
COMMITTEE.

English: 
OF COURSE OUR COUNTRY WAS PUT 
THROUGH TWO YEARS OF THIS, AND 
THE IDEA THAT NOW GOING TO SAY 
THIS IS THE ROYAL WEED AND HE'S 
TALKING ABOUT HIMSELF IGNORES 
THE ENTIRE CONTEXT OF HIS 
STATEMENT.
YOU KNOW WHAT HE ENDED THAT 
PARAGRAPH WITH TALKING ABOUT BOB
MUELLER, AND THIS IS THE BASIS 
FOR THIS IMPEACHMENT.
IT COULDN'T BE FURTHER FROM THE 
TRUTH.
YOU WANT THE STANDARDS TO APPLY 
WHEN REPRESENTATIVE GATES TAKES 
ONE OF YOUR STATEMENTS, OH, 
YOU'VE GOT TO LOOK AT THE 
CONTEXT.
WHEN THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED
STATES IS CLEAR, YOU TRY TO 
CHANGE HIS WORDS.
WHEN THE CONTEXT IS CLEAR HE'S 
TALKING ABOUT THE TWO YEARS THIS
COUNTRY WENT THROUGH BECAUSE OF 
THE MUELLER REPORT -- SOMEHOW 
THAT STANDARD DOESN'T APPLY TO 
THE PRESIDENT.
THAT IS RIDICULOUS. 
>> THE GENTLEMAN'S TIME IS 
EXPIRED. 
>> I WANT TO THANK OUR 
CONSTITUTIONAL EXPERTS FOR 
WALKING US THROUGH THE FRAMERS 
THINKING ON IMPEACHMENT AND WHY 
THEY DECIDED IT WAS A NECESSARY 
PART OF OUR CONSTITUTION.
I'M GOING TO ASK YOU TO HELP US 
UNDERSTAND THE IMPLICATIONS OF 
THE PRESIDENT'S OBSTRUCTION OF 

English: 
CONGRESS'S INVESTIGATION INTO 
HIS USE OF THE OFFICE OF THE 
PRESIDENT TO SQUEEZE THE 
UKRAINIAN GOVERNMENT TO HELP THE
TRUMP'S RE-ELECTION CAMPAIGN, 
AND THERE'S CERTAINLY HUNDREDS 
OF PAGES ON HOW ONE REACHES THAT
CONCLUSION.
WE KNOW THE PRESIDENT'S 
OBSTRUCTION DID NOT BEGIN WITH 
THE UKRAINE INVESTIGATION.
INSTEAD, HIS CONDUCT IS PART OF 
A PATTERN AND I'LL DIRECT YOUR 
ATTENTION TO THE TIME LINE ON 
THE SCREEN.
IN THE LEFT-HAND COLUMN, WE SEE 
THE PRESIDENT'S STATEMENT FROM 
HIS JULY CALL IN WHICH HE 
PRESSURED UKRAINE, A FOREIGN 
GOVERNMENT TO MEDDLE IN OUR 
ELECTION.
THEN ONCE CONGRESS GOT WIND OF 
IT, THE PRESIDENT TRIED TO COVER
UP HIS INVOLVEMENT BY 
OBSTRUCTING THE CONGRESSIONAL 
INVESTIGATION AND REFUSING TO 
COOPERATE.
BUT THIS ISN'T THE FIRST TIME 
WE'VE SEEN THIS KIND OF 
OBSTRUCTION.
IN THE RIGHT-HAND COLUMN, WE CAN
FLASH BACK TO THE 2016 ELECTION 
WHEN THE PRESIDENT WELCOMED AND 
USED RUSSIAN INTERFERENCE IN OUR
ELECTION, AND AGAIN, WHEN THE 
SPECIAL COUNSEL AND THEN THIS 

English: 
COMMITTEE TRIED TO INVESTIGATE 
THE EXTENT OF HIS INVOLVEMENT, 
HE DID EVERYTHING HE COULD TO 
COVER IT UP.
SO IT APPEARS THE PRESIDENT'S 
OBSTRUCTION OF INVESTIGATIONS IS
PART OF A PATTERN.
FIRST HE INVITES FOREIGN POWERS 
TO INTERFERE IN OUR ELECTIONS.
THEN HE COVERS IT UP, AND 
FINALLY HE OBSTRUCTS LAWFUL 
INQUIRIES INTO HIS BEHAVIOR, 
WHETHER BY CONGRESS OR LAW 
ENFORCEMENT, AND THEN HE DOES IT
AGAIN.
SO PROFESSOR GERHARDT, HOW DOES 
THE EXISTENCE OF SUCH A PATTERN 
HELP DETERMINE WHETHER THE 
PRESIDENT'S CONDUCT IS 
IMPEACHABLE?
>> THE PATTERN, OF COURSE, GIVES
US TREMENDOUS INSIGHT INTO THE 
CONTEXT OF HIS BEHAVIOR.
WHEN HE'S ACTING AND HOW TO 
EXPLAIN THOSE ACTIONS BY LOOKING
AT THE PATTERN.
WE CAN INFER I THINK A VERY 
STRONG INFERENCE, IN FACT, IS 
THAT THIS IS DEVIATING FROM THE 
USUAL PRACTICE, AND HE'S BEEN 
SYSTEMATICALLY HEADING TOWARDS A
CULMINATION WHERE HE CAN ASK 
THIS QUESTION, BY THE WAY, AFTER
THE JULY 25th CALL, THE MONEY'S 

English: 
NOT YET RELEASED.
IN HIS ONGOING CONVERSATIONS WE 
LEARNED FROM OTHER TESTIMONY 
THAT EVENTUALLY THE MONEY'S 
BEING WITHHELD BECAUSE THE 
PRESIDENT WANTED TO MAKE SURE 
THE DELIVERABLE IS GOING TO 
HAPPEN, THE ANNOUNCEMENT OF AN 
INVESTIGATION. 
>> AND IN ADDITION TO THE MONEY 
NOT BEING RELEASED THERE ALSO 
WAS NOT THE WHITE HOUSE MEETING,
WHICH WAS SO IMPORTANT TO 
UKRAINIAN SECURITY, RIGHT?
>> YES, MA'AM, THAT'S RIGHT.
>> PROFESSOR FELDMAN WE NOTED 
PREVIOUSLY THAT A FEDERAL 
DISTRICT COURT RECENTLY REJECTED
THE PRESIDENT'S ATTEMPT TO BLOCK
WITNESSES FROM TESTIFYING TO 
CONGRESS SAYING THAT PRESIDENTS 
ARE NOT KINGS.
THE FOUNDERS INCLUDED TWO 
CRITICAL PROVISIONS IN OUR 
CONSTITUTION TO PREVENT OUR 
PRESIDENT FROM BECOMING A KING 
AND OUR DEMOCRACY FROM BECOME 
AGO MONARCHY.
AND THOSE PROTECTIONS WERE 
PRESIDENTIAL ELECTIONS AND 
IMPEACHMENT, CORRECT?
>> CORRECT.
>> BASED ON THE PATTERN OF 
CONDUCT THAT WE'RE DISCUSSING 
TODAY, THE PATTERN OF INVITING 
FOREIGN INTERFERENCE IN OUR 
ELECTIONS FOR POLITICAL GAIN AND
THEN OBSTRUCTING LAWFUL 
INVESTIGATIONS, AS HAS THE 

English: 
PRESIDENT UNDERMINED BOTH OF 
THOSE PROTECTIONS?
>> HE HAS, AND IT'S CRUCIAL TO 
NOTE THAT THE VICTIM OF A HIGH 
CRIME AND MISDEMEANOR SUCH AS A 
PRESIDENT HAS COMMITTED IS NOT 
PRESIDENT ZELENSKY, AND NOT THE 
UKRAINE PEOPLE.
THE VICTIM OF THE HIGH CRIMES 
AND MISDEMEANOR IS THE AMERICAN 
PEOPLE.
ALEXANDER HAMILTON SAID VERY 
CLEARLY THAT THE NIECH OF A HIGH
CRIME AND MISDEMEANOR IS IF THEY
ARE RELATED TO INJURIES DONE TO 
THE SOCIETY ITSELF.
WE THE AMERICAN PEOPLE ARE THE 
VICTIMS OF THE HIGH CRIME AND 
MISDEMEANOR. 
>> AND WHAT IS THE APPROPRIATE 
REMEDY IN SUCH A CIRCUMSTANCE?
>> THE FRAMERS CREATED ONE REM I
DO RESPOND TO HIGH CRIMES AND 
MISDEMEANORS AND THAT WAS 
IMPEACHMENT.
>> THANK YOU.
YOU KNOW, I'VE SPENT OVER 30 
YEARS WORKING TO HELP CLIENTS 
AND SCHOOL CHILDREN UNDERSTAND 
THE IMPORTANCE OF OUR 
CONSTITUTIONAL SYSTEM AND THE 
IMPORTANCE OF THE RULE OF LAW, 
SO THE PRESIDENT'S BEHAVIOR IS 
DEEPLY, DEEPLY TROUBLING.
THE PRESIDENT WELCOMED AND USED 
ELECTION INTERFERENCE BY RUSSIA 
PUBLICLY ADMITTED HE WOULD DO IT
AGAIN, AND DID, IN FACT, DO IT 

English: 
AGAIN BY SOLICITING ELECTION 
INTERFERENCE FROM UKRAINE, AND 
THROUGHOUT THE PRESIDENT HAS 
TRIED TO COVER UP HIS 
MISCONDUCT.
THIS ISN'T COMPLICATED.
THE FOUNDERS WERE CLEAR AND WE 
MUST BE TOO.
SUCH BEHAVIOR IN A PRESIDENT OF 
THE UNITED STATES IS NOT 
ACCEPTABLE.
I YIELD BACK.
>> THE GENTLE LADY YIELDS BACK.
MR. CICILLINE WILL BE RECOGNIZED
WITH UNANIMOUS CONSENT REQUEST. 
>> I HAVE UNANIMOUS CONSENT THAT
A DOCUMENT WHICH LISTS THE 400 
PIECES OF LEGISLATION PASSED BY 
THE HOUSE, 235 BIPARTISAN BILLS,
80% PART OF THE RECORD, IN 
RESPONSE TO MR. GATES CLAIM THAT
WE'RE NOT DOING THE WORK. 
>> THAT OBJECTION AND DOCUMENT 
WILL BE MADE PART OF THE RECORD.
RECOGNIZE UNANIMOUS CONSENT. 
>> A PACT OF 54 DOCUMENTS AND 
ITEMS WHICH HAS BEEN PREVIOUSLY 
SUBMITTED. 
>> WITHOUT OBJECTION THE 
DOCUMENTS WILL BE ENTERED INTO 
THE RECORD. 
>> MAY I HAVE ANOTHER -- 

English: 
>> WHAT PURPOSE. 
>> CONSENT OF THIS ARTICLE WAS 
JUST PUBLISHED ABOUT 15 MINUTES 
AGO ENTITLED LAW PROFESSOR 
JONATHAN TURLEY SAID DEMOCRATS 
ARE SETTING A RECORD FOR A FAST 
IMPEACHMENT, THAT'S DEMONSTRABLY
FALSE. 
>> WITHOUT OBJECTION WHAT 
PURPOSE DOES THE GENTLEMAN SEEK 
RECOGNITION. 
>> SEEK UNANIMOUS CONSENT TO 
ENTER INTO THE RECORD A TWEET 
THAT THE FIRST LADY OF THE 
UNITED STATES JUST ISSUED WITHIN
THE HOUR THAT SAYS, QUOTE, A 
MINOR CHILD DESERVES PRIVACY AND
SHOULD BE KEPT OUT OF POLITICS.
PAMELA KARLAN YOU SHOULD BE 
ASHAMED OF YOUR BIASED PANDERING
AND USING A CHILD TO DO IT.
>> WITHOUT OBJECTION THE 
DOCUMENT WILL BE ENTERED INTO 
THE RECORD.
MS. GARCIA IS RECOGNIZED. 
>> THANK YOU MR. CHAIRMAN, AND I
DO WANT TO THANK ALL THE 
WITNESSES FOR THEIR TIME AND 

English: 
PATIENT TODAY.
I KNOW IT'S BEEN A LONG DAY, BUT
THE END IS IN SIGHT.
AS MY COLLEAGUE OBSERVED, THE 
SIMILARITIES BETWEEN THE 
PRESIDENT'S CONDUCT IN THE 
UKRAINE INVESTIGATION AND HIS 
CONDUCT IN THE SPECIAL COUNSEL'S
INVESTIGATION ARE HARD TO 
IGNORE.
IN FACT, WE'RE SEEING IT AS A 
PATTERN OF A PRESIDENTIAL ABUSE 
OF POWER.
THE PRESIDENT CALLED THE 
UKRAINIAN INVESTIGATION A HOAX 
AND THE MUELLER INVESTIGATION A 
WITCH HUNT.
HE HAS THREATENED THE UKRAINE 
WHISTLE-BLOWER FOR NOT 
TESTIFYING LIKE HE THREATENED TO
FIRE HIS ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR 
NOT OBSTRUCTING THE RUSSIA 
INVESTIGATION.
THE PRESIDENT FIRED AMBASSADOR 
YOVANOVITCH AND PUBLICLY 
TARNISHED HER REPUTATION MUCH IN
THE SAME WAY HE FIRED HIS WHITE 
HOUSE COUNSEL AND PUBLICLY 
ATTACKED HIS INTEGRITY, AND 
FINALLY, THE PRESIDENT ATTACKED 
HIS CIVIL SERVANTS WHO HAD 
TESTIFIED ABOUT UKRAINE JUST 

English: 
LIKE HE ATTACKED CAREER 
OFFICIALS OF THE DEPARTMENT OF 
JUSTICE FOR INVESTIGATING HIS 
OBSTRUCTION OF THE RUSSIA 
INVESTIGATION.
UNDER ANY OTHER CIRCUMSTANCES, 
SUCH BEHAVIOR BY ANY AMERICAN 
PRESIDENT WOULD BE SHOCKING, BUT
HERE IT IS A REPEAT OF WHAT WE 
HAVE ALREADY SEEN IN THE SPECIAL
COUNSEL'S INVESTIGATION.
I'D LIKE TO TAKE A MOMENT TO 
DISCUSS THE PRESIDENT'S EFFORTS 
TO OBSTRUCT THE SPECIAL 
COUNSEL'S INVESTIGATION.
A SUBJECT THAT THIS COMMITTEE 
HAS BEEN INVESTIGATING SINCE 
MARCH.
THERE ARE TWO SLIDES, THE FIRST 
ONE WILL SHOW AS THE PRESIDENT 
HE DID WITH UKRAINE TRY TO 
COERCE A SUBORDINATE TO STOP AN 
INVESTIGATION INTO HIS 
MISCONDUCT BY FOREIGN SPECIAL 
COUNSEL MUELLER.
IN THE SECOND SLIDE, THIS SHOWS 
THAT WHEN THE NEWS BROKE OUT OF 
THE PRESIDENT'S ORDER, THE 
PRESIDENT DIRECTED HIS ADVISERS 

English: 
TO FALSELY DENY HE HAD MADE THE 
ORDER.
PROFESSOR GERHARDT, ARE YOU 
FAMILIAR WITH THE FACTS RELATING
TO THESE THREE EPISODES AS 
DESCRIBED IN THE MUELLER REPORT?
YES OR NO, PLEASE?
>> YES, MA'AM.
>> SO ACCEPTING THE SPECIAL 
COUNSEL'S EVIDENCE IS TRUE, IS 
THIS PATTERN OF CONDUCT 
OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE?
>> IT'S CLEARLY OBSTRUCTION OF 
JUSTICE. 
>> AND 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 IN HIS
OFFICE, BUT IN A WAY THAT'S 
GOING TO HELP HIM FRUSTRATE THE 
INVESTIGATION. 
>> DOES THIS CONDUCT FIT WITHIN 
THE FRAMER'S VIEW OF IMPEACHABLE
OFFENSES? 
>> I BELIEVE IT DOES.
THE ENTIRE CONSTITUTION 
INCLUDING SEPARATION OF POWER IS
DESIGNED TO PUT LIMITS ON HOW 
SOMEBODY MAY GO ABOUT 
FRUSTRATING THE ACTIVITIES OF 
ANOTHER BRANCH. 
>> SO YOU WOULD SAY THIS ALSO 

English: 
WOULD BE AN IMPEACHABLE OFFENSE?
>> YES, MA'AM.
>> THANK YOU.
I AGREE WITH YOU, THE 
PRESIDENT'S ACTIONS AND BEHAVIOR
DO MATTER.
THE PRESIDENT'S OBSTRUCTION OF 
JUSTICE DEFINITELY MATTERS.
AS A FORMER JUDGE AND AS A 
MEMBER OF CONGRESS I HAVE RAISED
MY RIGHT HAND AND PUT MY LEFT 
HAND ON A BIBLE MORE THAN ONCE, 
AND I'VE SWORN TO UPHOLD THE 
CONSTITUTION AND LAWS OF THIS 
COUNTRY.
THIS HEARING IS ABOUT THAT, BUT 
IT'S ALSO ABOUT THE CORE OF THE 
HEART OF OUR AMERICAN VALUES.
THE VALUES OF BEAUTY, HONOR, AND
LOYALTY.
IT'S ABOUT THE RULE OF LAW.
WHEN THE PRESIDENT ASKED UKRAINE
FOR A FAVOR, HE DID SO FOR HIS 
PERSONAL POLITICAL GAIN AND NOT 
ON BEHALF OF THE AMERICAN 
PEOPLE.
AND IF THIS IS TRUE, HE WOULD 
HAVE BETRAYED HIS OATH AND 
BETRAYED HIS LOYALTY TO THIS 
COUNTRY.
THE FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLE OF OUR
DEMOCRACY IS THAT NO ONE IS 
ABOVE THE LAW.

English: 
NOT ANY ONE OF YOU PROFESSORS, 
NOT ANY ONE OF US UP HERE, 
MEMBERS OF CONGRESS, NOT EVEN 
THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED 
STATES.
THAT'S WHY WE SHOULD HOLD HIM 
ACCOUNTABLE FOR HIS ACTIONS, AND
THAT'S WHY, AGAIN, THANK YOU FOR
TESTIFYING TODAY AND HELPING US 
WALK THROUGH ALL THIS TO PREPARE
FOR WHAT MAY COME.
THANK YOU, SIR.
I YIELD BACK. 
>> 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 CONGRESSWOMAN 
GARCIA NOTED, PRESIDENT TRUMP 
HAS TRIED TO INTERFERE IN BOTH 
THE UKRAINE INVESTIGATION AND 
SPECIAL COUNSEL MUELLER'S 
INVESTIGATION IN ORDER TO TRY TO
COVER UP HIS OWN MISCONDUCT.
AND IN BOTH THE UKRAINE 
INVESTIGATION AND SPECIAL 
COUNSEL MUELLER'S INVESTIGATION,
THE PRESIDENT ACTIVELY 
DISCOURAGED WITNESSES FROM 
COOPERATING, INTIMIDATED 
WITNESSES WHO CAME FORWARD, AND 
PRAISED THOSE WHO REFUSED TO 
COOPERATE.

English: 
FOR EXAMPLE, IN THE UKRAINE 
INVESTIGATION, THE PRESIDENT 
HARASSED AND INTIMIDATED THE 
BRAVE PUBLIC SERVANTS WHO CAME 
FORWARD.
HE PUBLICLY CALLED THE 
WHISTLE-BLOWER A, QUOTE, 
DISGRACE TO OUR COUNTRY AND SAID
THAT HIS IDENTITY SHOULD BE 
REVEALED.
HE SUGGEST THAT HAD THOSE 
INVOLVED IN THE WHISTLE-BLOWER 
COMPLAINT SHOULD BE DEALT WITH 
IN THE WAY THAT WE, QUOTE, USED 
TO DO, END QUOTE FOR SPIES AND 
TREASON.
HE CALLED AMBASSADOR TAYLOR A 
FORMER MILITARY OFFICER WITH 
MORE THAN 40 YEARS OF PUBLIC 
SERVICE A, QUOTE, NEVER TRUMPER,
END QUOTE ON THE SAME DAY THAT 
HE CALLED NEVER TRUMPERS, QUOTE,
SCUM.
THE PRESIDENT ALSO TWEETED 
ACCUSATIONS ABOUT MANY OF THE 
OTHER PUBLIC SERVANTS WHO 
TESTIFIED INCLUDING JENNIFER 
WILLIAMS AND AMBASSADOR 
YOVANOVITCH, AND AS WE KNOW THE 
PRESIDENT'S LATTER TWEETS 
HAPPENED LITERALLY DURING THE 
AMBASSADOR'S TESTIMONY IN THIS 

English: 
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 ON THE 
SCREEN.
THE PRESIDENT INITIALLY PRAISED 
AMBASSADOR SONDLAND FOR NOT 
COOPERATING, CALLING HIM QUOTE, 
A REALLY GOOD MAN AND A GREAT 
AMERICAN.
BUT AFTER AMBASSADOR SONDLAND 
TESTIFIED AND CONFIRMED THAT 
THERE WAS INDEED A QUID PRO QUO 
BETWEEN THE WHITE HOUSE VISIT 
AND THE REQUEST FOR 
INVESTIGATIONS, THE PRESIDENT 
CLAIMED THAT HE, QUOTE HARDLY 
KNEW THE AMBASSADOR.
PROFESSOR GERHARDT YOU'VE 
TOUCHED ON IT PREVIOUSLY, BUT 
I'D LIKE YOU TO JUST EXPLAIN, IS
THE PRESIDENT'S INTERFERENCE IN 
THESE INVESTIGATIONS BY 
INTIMIDATING WITNESSES ALSO THE 
KIND OF CONDUCT THAT THE FRAMERS
WERE WORRIED ABOUT?

English: 
AND IF SO, WHY?
>> IT'S CLEARLY CONDUCT I THINK 
THAT WORRIED THE FRAMERS AS 
REFLECTED IN THE CONSTITUTION 
THEY'VE GIVEN US, IN THE 
STRUCTURE OF THAT CONSTITUTION.
THE ACTIVITIES YOU'RE TALKING 
ABOUT HERE ARE CONSISTENT, BUT 
THE OTHER PATTERN OF ACTIVITY 
WE'VE SEEN WITH THE PRESIDENT 
EITHER TRYING TO STOP 
INVESTIGATIONS, EITHER BY MR. 
MUELLER OR BY CONGRESS AS WELL 
AS TO ASK WITNESSES THAT MAKE 
FALSE DOCUMENTS OF TESTIMONY, 
AND ALL THOSE DIFFERENT KINDS OF
ACTIVITIES ARE NOT THE KINDS OF 
ACTIVITIES THE FRAMERS EXPECTED 
THE PRESIDENT TO BE ABLE TO 
TAKE.
THEY EXPECTED THE PRESIDENT TO 
BE HELD ACCOUNTABLE FOR IT AND 
NOT JUST IN AN ELECTION. 
>> PROFESSOR TURLEY YOU'VE 
STUDIED IMPEACHMENT OF PRESIDENT
JOHNSON, NIXON AND CLINTON.
AM I RIGHT THAT NIXON ALLOWED 
THE WHITE HOUSE CHIEF OF STAFF 
TO TESTIFY IN THE HOUSE 
IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY?
>> YES.
>> AND YOU'RE AWARE THAT 
PRESIDENT TRUMP HAS REFUSED TO 
ALLOW HIS CHIEF OF STAFF OR 
WHITE HOUSE COUNSEL TO TESTIFY 

English: 
IN THIS INQUIRY, CORRECT?
>> YES, VARIOUS OFFICIALS DID 
TESTIFY. 
>> AND THAT DOES NOT INCLUDE THE
WHITE HOUSE COUNSEL NOR THE 
WHITE HOUSE CHIEF OF STAFF, 
CORRECT?
>> THAT'S CORRECT.
>> AM I RIGHT THAT PRESIDENT 
CLINTON PROVIDED WRITTEN 
RESPONSES TO 81 INTERROGATORIES 
TO THE HOUSE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE
DURING THAT IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY?
>> I BELIEVE THAT -- 
>> AND YOU'RE AWARE THAT 
PRESIDENT TRUMP HAS REFUSED ANY 
REQUEST FOR INFORMATION 
SUBMITTED BY THE INTELLIGENCE 
COMMITTEE IN THIS IMPEACHMENT 
INQUIRY. 
>> YES. 
>> ARE YOU FAMILIAR WITH THE 
LETTER ISSUED BY WHITE HOUSE 
COUNSEL PAT CIPOLLONE ON OCTOBER
8th WRITTEN ON BEHALF OF 
PRESIDENT TRUMP AND IN EFFECT 
INSTRUCTING EXECUTIVE BRANCH 
OFFICIALS NO NOT TO TESTIFY IN 
THIS IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY?
>> YES, I AM. 
>> AND AM I CORRECT THAT NO 
PRESIDENT IN THE HISTORY OF THE 
REPUBLIC BEFORE PRESIDENT TRUMP 
HAS EVER ISSUED A GENERAL ORDER 
INSTRUCTING EXECUTIVE BRANCH 
OFFICIALS NOT TO TESTIFY IN AN 
IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY?
>> THAT'S WHERE I'M NOT SURE I 
CAN ANSWER THAT AFFIRMATIVELY.

English: 
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 RECOUNTED BY
EACH OF THE DISTINGUISHED 
SCHOLARS HERE TODAY BECAUSE WE 
KNOW THAT PRESIDENT NIXON DID IN
FACT ALLOW HIS CHIEF OF STAFF 
AND HIS CHIEF COUNSELOR TO 
TESTIFY, AND THIS PRESIDENT HAS 
NOT.
WE KNOW THAT PRESIDENT CLINTON 
RESPONDED TO INTERROGATORIES PRO
POUNDED BY THAT IMPEACHMENT 
INQUIRY AND THAT 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 
TIME.
>> MS. McBASS.
>> 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.
NEGUSE'S QUESTIONS, I'D LIKE TO 
BRIEFLY GO THROUGH ONE 
PARTICULAR EXAMPLE OF PRESIDENT-

English: 
THE PRESIDENT'S WITNESS 
INTIMIDATION THAT I FIND TRULY 
DISTURBING AND VERY DEVASTAING 
BECAUSE I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT 
THAT WE ALL TRULY SEE WHAT'S 
GOING ON HERE.
ON HIS JULY 25th CALL, PRESIDENT
TRUMP SAID THAT FORMER 
AMBASSADOR YOVANOVITCH WOULD, 
AND I QUOTE, GO THROUGH SOME 
THINGS.
AMBASSADOR YOVANOVITCH TESTIFIED
ABOUT HOW LEARNING ABOUT THE 
PRESIDENT'S STATEMENT MADE HER 
FEEL.
WHAT DID YOU THINK WHEN 
PRESIDENT TRUMP TOLD PRESIDENT 
ZELENSKY AND YOU AHEAD THAT YOU 
WERE -- AND YOU READ THAT YOU 
WERE GOING TO GO THROUGH SOME 
THINGS?
>> I DIDN'T THINK 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.

English: 
>> DID YOU FEEL THREATENED?
>> I DID.
>> AND AS WE ALL WITNESSED IN 
REALTIME IN THE MIDDLE OF 
AMBASSADOR YOVANOVITCH'S LIVE 
TESTIMONY, THE PRESIDENT TWEETED
ABOUT THE AMBASSADOR 
DISCREDITING HER SERVICE IN 
SOMALIA AND THE UKRAINE.
AMBASSADOR YOVANOVITCH TESTIFIED
THAT THE PRESIDENT'S TWEET WAS, 
AND I QUOTE, VERY INTIMIDATING.
PROFESSOR GERHARDT, THESE 
ATTACKS ON A CAREER PUBLIC 
SERVANT ARE DEEPLY UPSETTING, 
BUT HOW DO THEY FIT INTO OUR 
UNDERSTANDING OF WHETHER THE 
PRESIDENT HAS COMMITTED HIGH 
CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS?
AND HOW DO THEY FIT INTO OUR 
BROADER PATTERN OF BEHAVIOR BY 
THIS PRESIDENT TO COVER UP AND 
OBSTRUCT HIS MISCONDUCT?
>> ONE WAY IN WHICH IT 
CONTRIBUTES TO THE OBSTRUCTION 

English: 
OF CONGRESS IS THAT IT DOESN'T 
JUST DEFAME AMBASSADOR 
YOVANOVITCH.
BY EVERY OTHER ACCOUNT, SHE'S AN
EXEMPLARY PUBLIC SERVANT, SO 
WHAT HE'S SUGGESTING THERE MAY 
NOT BE CONSISTENT WITH WHAT WE 
KNOW IS FACTS.
BUT ONE OF THE THINGS THAT ALSO 
HAPPENS WHEN YOU SEND OUT 
SOMETHING LIKE THIS, IT 
INTIMIDATES EVERYBODY ELSE WHO'S
THINKING ABOUT TESTIFYING, ANY 
OTHER PUBLIC SERVANTS THAT THINK
THEY SHOULD COME FORWARD.
THEY'RE GOING TO WORRY THAT 
THEY'RE GOING TO GET PUNISHED IN
SOME WAY, THEY'RE GOING TO FACE 
WHAT SHE'S FACED.
>> THAT IS THE WOMAN PRESIDENT 
TRUMP HAS THREATENED BEFORE YOU,
AND I CAN ASSURE YOU I 
PERSONALLY KNOW WHAT IT'S LIKE 
TO BE UNFAIRLY ATTACKED PUBLICLY
FOR YOUR SENSE OF DUTY TO 
AMERICA.
AMBASSADOR YOVANOVITCH DESERVES 
BETTER.

English: 
NO MATTER YOUR PARTY, WHETHER 
YOU'RE A DEMOCRAT OR REPUBLICAN,
I DON'T THINK ANY OF US THINKS 
THAT THIS IS OKAY.
IT IS PLAINLY WRONG FOR THE 
PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES 
TO ATTACK A CAREER PUBLIC 
SERVANT JUST FOR TELLING THE 
TRUTH AS SHE KNOWS IT.
AND I YIELD BACK THE BALANCE OF 
MY TIME.
>> GENTLELADY YIELDS BACK.
MR. STANTON. 
>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH, MR. 
CHAIRMAN AND THANK YOU TO OUR 
OUTSTANDING WITNESSES HERE 
TODAY.
PRESIDENT TRUMP HAS DECLARED 
THAT HE WILL NOT COMPLY WITH 
CONGRESSIONAL SUBPOENAS.
THIS BLANKET CATEGORICAL 
DISREGARD OF THE LEGISLATIVE 
BRANCH BEGAN WITH THE 
PRESIDENT'S REFUSAL TO COOPERATE
WITH REGULAR CONGRESSIONAL 
OVERSIGHT AND HAS NOW EXTENDED 
TO THE HOUSE'S CONSTITUTIONAL 
DUTY ON IMPEACHMENT, THE REASON 
WHY WE ARE HERE TODAY.
THIS DISREGARD HAS BEEN ON 

English: 
DISPLAY FOR THE AMERICAN PEOPLE.
WHEN ASKED IF HE WOULD COMPLY 
WITH THE DON McGAHN SUBPOENA, 
PRESIDENT TRUMP SAID, QUOTE, 
WELL, WE'RE FIGHTING ALL THE 
SUBPOENAS, UNQUOTE.
AND WE'VE DISCUSSED HERE TODAY 
THE OBSTRUCTION OF CONGRESS, 
ARTICLE IMPEACHMENT AGAINST 
PRESIDENT NIXON.
I THINK I'D LIKE TO GO A LITTLE 
BIT DEEPER INTO THAT DISCUSSION 
AND JUST DEPOSE IT WITH 
PRESIDENT TRUMP'S ACTIONS.
PROFESSOR GERHARDT, CAN YOU 
ELABORATE ON HOW PRESIDENT NIXON
OBSTRUCTED CONGRESS AND HOW IT 
COMPARES TO PRESIDENT TRUMP'S 
ACTIONS? 
>> AS I WAS DISCUSSING EARLIER 
AND INCLUDING MY WRITTEN 
STATEMENT, PRESIDENT NIXON 
ULTIMATELY REFUSED TO COMPLY 
WITH FOUR LEGISLATIVE SUBPOENAS.
THESE WERE ZEROING IN ON THE 
MOST INCRIMINATING EVIDENCE HE 
HAD IN HIS POSSESSION, SO HE 
REFUSED TO COMPLY WITH THOSE 
SUBPOENAS.
THE BASIS FOR THAT THIRD ARTICLE
AND HE RESIGNED A FEW DAYS 
LATER.
>> PROFESSOR FELDMAN, WHAT ARE 
THE CONSEQUENCES OF THIS 

English: 
UNPRECEDENTED OBSTRUCTION OF 
CONGRESS TO OUR DEMOCRACY?
>> FOR THE PRESIDENT TO REFUSE 
TO PARTICIPATE IN ANY WAY IN THE
HOUSE'S CONSTITUTIONAL 
OBLIGATION OF SUPERVISING TO 
IMPEACH HIM, BREAKS THE 
CONSTITUTION.
IT BASICALLY SAYS NOBODY CAN 
OVERSEE ME.
NOBODY CAN IMPEACH ME.
FIRST I'LL BLOCK WITNESSES FROM 
APPEARING, THEN I'LL REFUSE TO 
PARTICIPATE IN ANY WAY, AND THEN
I'LL SAY YOU DON'T HAVE ENOUGH 
EVIDENCE TO IMPEACH ME, AND 
ULTIMATELY THE EFFECT OF THAT IS
TO GUARANTEE THAT THE PRESIDENT 
IS ABOVE THE LAW AND CAN'T BE 
CHECKED, AND SINCE WE KNOW THE 
FRAMERS PUT IMPEACHMENT IN THE 
CONSTITUTION TO CHECK THE 
PRESIDENT, IF THE PRESIDENT 
CAN'T BE CHECKED, HE'S NO LONGER
SUBJECT TO THE LAW.
>> PROFESSOR GERHARDT, WOULD YOU
AGREE THAT THE PRESIDENT'S 
REFUSAL TO COMPLY WITH 
CONGRESSIONAL SUBPOENAS INVOKES 
THE FRAMERS WORST FEARS AND 
ENDANGERS OUR DEMOCRACY?
>> IT DOES, AND ONE WAY IN WHICH
I UNDERSTAND THAT IS TO PUT ALL 
OF HIS ARGUMENTS TOGETHER AND 
THEN SEE WHAT THE RAMIFICATIONS 

English: 
ARE.
HE SAYS HE'S ENTITLED NOT TO 
COMPLY WITH ALL SUBPOENAS.
HE SAYS HE'S NOT SUBJECT TO ANY 
KIND OF CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION 
WHILE HE'S PRESIDENT OF THE 
UNITED STATES, HE'S IMMUNE TO 
THAT.
HE'S ENTITLED TO KEEP ALL 
INFORMATION CONFIDENTIAL FROM 
CONGRESS.
DOESN'T EVEN HAVE TO GIVE A 
REASON.
WELL, WHEN YOU PUT ALL THOSE 
THINGS TOGETHER, HE'S BLOCKED 
OFF EVERY WAY IN WHICH TO HOLD 
HIMSELF ACCOUNTABLE EXCEPT FOR 
ELECTIONS, AND THE CRITICAL 
THING TO UNDERSTAND HERE IS THAT
IS PRECISELY WHAT HE WAS TRYING 
TO UNDERMINE WITH THE UKRAINE 
SITUATION. 
>> MS. KARLAN, DO YOU HAVE 
ANYTHING TO ADD TO THAT 
ANALYSIS?
>> I THINK THAT'S CORRECT, AND 
IF I CAN JUST SAY ONE THING. 
>> PLEASE. 
>> I WANT TO APOLOGIZE FOR WHAT 
I SAID EARLIER ABOUT THE 
PRESIDENT'S SON.
IT WAS WRONG OF ME TO DO THAT.
I WISH THE PRESIDENT WOULD 
APOLOGIZE OBVIOUSLY FOR THE 
THINGS THAT HE'S DONE THAT'S 
WRONG, BUT I DO REGRET HAVING 
SAID THAT. 
>> THANK YOU, PROFESSOR.
ONE OF THE MOST IMPORTANT 
QUESTIONS THAT EVER MEMBER OF 

English: 
THIS COMMITTEE MUST DECIDE IS 
WHETHER WE ARE A NATION OF LAWS 
AND NOT MET.
IT USED TO BE AN EASY ANSWER, 
ONE THAT WE COULD ALL AGREE ON.
WHEN PRESIDENT NIXON DEFIED THE 
LAW AND OBSTRUCTED JUSTICE, HE 
WAS HELD TO ACCOUNT BY PEOPLE ON
BOTH SIDES WHO KNEW THAT FOR OUR
REPUBLIC TO ENDURE WE MUST HAVE 
FIDELITY TO OUR COUNTRY RATHER 
THAN ONE PARTY OR ONE MAN, AND 
THE OBSTRUCTION WE'RE LOOKING AT
TODAY IS FAR WORSE THAN 
PRESIDENT NIXON'S BEHAVIOR.
FUTURE GENERATIONS WILL MEASURE 
US, EVERY SINGLE MEMBER OF THIS 
COMMITTEE BY HOW WE CHOOSE TO 
ANSWER THAT QUESTION.
I HOPE WE GET IT RIGHT.
I YIELD BACK.
>> JENT LMAN YIELDS BACK. 
>> THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN, I'VE
ONLY BEEN IN CONGRESS SINCE 
JANUARY OF THIS YEAR.
ON THE FIRST DAY OF MY SWEARING 
IN A DEMOCRAT IN MY CLASS CALLED

English: 
FOR THE IMPEACHMENT OF THE 
PRESIDENT ON DAY ONE, USING MUCH
MORE COLORFUL LANGUAGE THAN I 
WOULD EVER USE.
SINCE THEN THIS COMMITTEE 
FOCUSED ON THE MUELLER REPORT 
AND RUSSIAN COLLUSION.
WE LISTENED TO MR. MUELLER SAY 
UNEQUIVOCALLY THAT THERE WAS NO 
EVIDENCE THAT THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN
COLLUDED WITH RUSSIA.
THAT DIDN'T WORK FOR THE 
DEMOCRATS.
THEY THEN MOVED TO THE 
OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE THEORY.
THAT FIZZLED.
AFTER COORDINATING WITH CHAIRMAN
SCHIFF'S STAFF, A WHISTLE-BLOWER
FILED A COMPLAINT BASED 
COMPLETELY ON HEARSAY AND 
OVERHEARING OTHER PEOPLE THAT 
WEREN'T ON THE PHONE CALL TALK 
ABOUT A PHONE CALL BETWEEN TWO 
WORLD LEADERS WHICH LED TO THE 
INTEL COMMITTEE'S SO-CALLED 
IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY, WHICH 
VIOLATED ALL PAST HISTORICAL 
PRECEDENTS, DENIED THE PRESIDENT
BASIC DUE PROCESS RIGHTS AND 
FUNDAMENTAL FAIRNESS BY 
CONDUCTING THE SO-CALLED INQUIRY
IN SECRET WITHOUT THE MINORITY'S
ABILITY TO CALL WITNESSES AND 
DENIED THE PRESIDENT HIS ABILITY
TO HAVE LAWYERS CROSS EXAMINE 
WITNESSES, A RIGHT AFFORDED 

English: 
PRESIDENT CLINTON AND EVERY 
DEFENDANT IN OUR JUSTICE SYSTEM 
INCLUING RAPISTINGS AND 
MURDERERS.
AS WE SIT HERE TODAY, WE STILL 
DON'T HAVE THE UNDERLYING 
EVIDENCE THAT WE'VE BEEN 
REQUESTING.
AGAIN, A RIGHT AFFORDED EVERY 
CRIMINAL DEFENDANT IN THE UNITED
STATES.
SO INSTEAD, WE SIT HERE GETTING 
LECTURES FROM LAW PROFESSORS 
ABOUT THEIR OPINIONS, THEIR 
OPINIONS, NOT FACTS.
I GUESS THE DEMOCRATS NEEDED A 
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW REFRESHER 
COURSE.
THE REPUBLICANS DON'T.
MR. CHAIRMAN YOU HAVE AK NOT 
ONLIED AND I QUOTE, THE HOUSE'S 
POWER OF IMPEACHMENT DEMANDS A 
RIGOROUS LEVEL OF DUE PROCESS.
DUE PROCESS MEANS THE RIGHT TO 
CONFRONT WITNESSES.
TO CALL YOUR OWN WITNESSES AND 
TO HAVE THE ASSISTANCE OF 
COUNSEL SO.
THOSE ARE YOUR WORDS, MR. 
CHAIRMAN, NOT MINE.
WHAT ARE YOU AFRAID OF?
LET THE MINORITY CALL WITNESSES,
LET THE PRESIDENT CALL 
WITNESSES.
CLINTON ALONE CALLED 14 
WITNESSES TO TESTIFY.
LET THE PRESIDENT'S COUNSEL 
CROSS EXAMINE L WHISTLE-BLOWER, 

English: 
LET THE PRESIDENT'S COUNSEL 
CROSS EXAMINE L INTEL STAFF WHO 
COLLIDED WITH THE 
WHISTLE-BLOWER.
THOSE ARE THE RIGHTS THAT SHOULD
BE AFFORDED TO THE PRESIDENT.
LIKE EVERY CRIMINAL DEFENDANT IS
AFFORDED, EVEN TERRORISTS IN 
IRAQ ARE AFFORDED MORE DUE 
PROCESS THAN YOU AND THE 
DEMOCRATIC AUTHORITY HAVE 
AFFORDED THE PRESIDENT.
I KNOW BECAUSE I SERVED IN IRAQ,
AND I PROSECUTED TERRORISTS IN 
IRAQ, AND WE PROVIDED TERRORISTS
IN IRAQ MORE RIGHT AND DUE 
PROCESS 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 TREASON, NO EVIDENCE
OF HIGH CRIME OR MISDEMEANORS.
WE HAVE A BUNCH OF OPINIONS FROM
PARTISAN DEMOCRATS WHO HAVE 
STATED FROM DAY ONE THAT THEY 
WANT TO IMPEACH THE PRESIDENT 
AND NOT ON THIS THEORY BUT ON 
MULTIPLE OTHER DIFFERENT 
THEORIES.
THE AMERICAN PEOPLE ARE SMARTER 
THAN YOUR ABCs OF IMPEACHMENT 
YOU HAVE ON THE SCREEN THAT WERE
LAID OUT TODAY, AND IT'S 

English: 
EXTREMELY DEMONSTRATIVE OF YOUR 
LACK OF EVIDENCE YOU CALLED LAW 
PROFESSORS TO GIVE THEIR 
OPINIONS AND NOT FACT WITNESSES 
TO GIVE THEIR TESTIMONY TODAY TO
BE CROSS EXAMINED AND THE RIGHTS
AFFORDED TO THE PRESIDENT OF THE
UNITED STATES.
MR. CHAIRMAN, WHEN CAN WE 
ANTICIPATE THAT YOU WILL CHOOSE 
A DATE FOR THE MINORITY DAY OF 
HEARINGS?
>> MR. CHAIRMAN, I'M ASKING YOU 
A QUESTION.
WHEN CAN WE ANTICIPATE THAT YOU 
WILL CHOOSE A DATE FOR THE 
MINORITY DAY OF HEARINGS?
>> THE GENTLEMAN IS RECOGNIZED 
FOR THE PURPOSE OF QUESTIONING 
THE WITNESSES.
>> THEN I'LL DO THAT AFTER MY 
TIME.
I YIELD THE REMAINDER OF MY TIME
TO MR. RATCLIFFE. 
>> I THANK MY COLLEAGUE FROM 
FLORIDA FOR YIELDING.
PROFESSOR, TURLEY, SINCE WE LAST
TALKED BASED ON QUESTIONING FROM
MY COLLEAGUES ACROSS THE AISLE, 
IT DOES IN FACT APPEAR THAT THE 
DEMOCRATS DO INTEND TO PURSUE 
ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT FOR 
OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE BASED ON 
THE MUELLER REPORT.
I ASK YOU A QUESTION ABOUT THAT,
YOU DIDN'T REALLY GET A CHANCE 

English: 
TO GIVE A COMPLETE ANSWER.
IN YOUR STATEMENT TODAY YOU MAKE
THIS STATEMENT, I BELIEVE AN 
OBSTRUCTION CLAIM BASED ON THE 
MUELLER REPORT WOULD BE AT ODDS 
WITH THE RECORD AND THE 
CONTROLLING LAW.
USE OF AN OBSTRUCTION THEORY 
FROM THE MUELLER REPORT WOULD BE
UNSUPPORTED, UNSUPPORTABLE IN 
THE HOUSE AND UNSUSTAINABLE IN 
THE SENATE.
DO YOU REMEMBER WRITING THAT?
>> YES, I DO. 
>> WHY DID YOU WRITE THAT?
>> THE FACT IS THAT THIS WAS 
REVIEWED BY JUSTICE.
SPECIAL COUNSEL DID NOT REACH A 
CONCLUSION OF OBSTRUCTION, HE 
SHOULD HAVE.
I THINK THAT HIS JUSTIFICATION 
QUITE FRANKLY WAS A BIT ABSURD 
ON NOT REACHING A CONCLUSION, 
BUT THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, DEPUTY
ATTORNEY GENERALS DID, AND THEY 
CAME TO THE RIGHT CONCLUSION.
I THINK THIS IS A REAL CASE FOR 
OBSTRUCTION, BUT THEN THIS BODY 
WITH THE IMPEACHING OF THE 
PRESIDENT ON THE BASIS OF THE 
INVERSE CONCLUSION.
I DON'T BELIEVE IT WOULD BE 
APPROPRIATE. 
>> GENTLEMAN'S TIME HAS EXPIRED.

English: 
>> THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN.
WORDS MATTER.
IN MY EARLIER LIFE, PROFESSOR, I
WAS A PROFESSOR OF WRITING.
I TAUGHT MY STUDENTS TO BE 
CAREFUL AND CLEAR ABOUT WHAT 
THEY PUT TO PAPER.
THAT IS A LESSON THAT THE 
FRAMERS OF OUR CONSTITUTION 
UNDERSTOOD FAR BETTER THAN 
ANYONE.
THEY WERE LAYING THE FOUNDATION 
FOR A NEW FORM OF GOVERNMENT, 
ONE THAT ENSHRINES DEMOCRATIC 
PRINCIPLES AND PROTECTS AGAINST 
THOSE WHO WOULD SEEK TO 
UNDERMINE THEM.
THE CONSTITUTION EXPLICITLY LAYS
OUT A PRESIDENT MAY BE IMPEACHED
FOR TREASON, BRIBERY, HIGH 
DIAGRAMS, AND MISDEMEANORS.
WE HEARD A LOT OF WORDS TODAY, 
FOREIGN INTERFERENCE, BRIBERY, 
OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE, 
PROFESSORS I'D LIKE TO GO 
THROUGH THE PRESIDENT'S CONDUCT 
AND THE PUBLIC HARMS WE HAVE 
DISCUSSED TODAY AND ASK IF THEY 
WOULD FIT INTO WHAT THE 
FOREFATHERS CONTEMPLATED WHEN 
CRAFTING THOSE WORDS OF THE 
IMPEACHMENT CLAUSE.
PROFRGS KARLAN, I'D LIKE TO ASK 
YOU ABOUT THE FOREIGN 
INTERFERENCE IN ELECTIONS.
AS AMERICANS WE CAN AGREE 

English: 
FOREIGN INTERFERENCE, FOREIGN 
INFLUENCE ERODES THE INTEGRITY 
OF OUR ELECTIONS, AND AS YOU 
SAID SO PLAINLY, IT MAKES US 
LESS FREE.
YET, ON JULY 25th, 2019, THE 
PRESIDENT COERCED UKRAINIAN 

English: 
PRESIDENT ZELENSKY TO ANNOUNCE 
AN INVESTIGATION.
PROFESSOR, IN YOUR OPINION, 
GIVEN THOSE FACTS AND THE 
FRAMERS' SPECIFIC CONCERNS, 
WOULD YOU DESCRIBE THE 
PRESIDENT'S BEHAVIOR HERE AND 
THE USE OF HIS PUBLIC OFFICE FOR
A PRIVATE BENEFIT AS RISING TO 
THOSE LEVELS?
>> THE FRAMERS CONSIDERED, AS 
YOU SAID, BRIBERY TO CONSIST -- 
UNDER THE CONSTITUTION TO 
CONSIST OF THE PRESIDENT ABUSING
HIS OFFICE CORRUPTLY FOR 
PERSONAL GAIN.
IF THIS HOUSE DETERMINES AND IF 
THIS COMMITTEE DETERMINES THAT 
THE PRESIDENT WAS, IN FACT, 
SEEKING PERSONAL GAIN IN SEEKING
THE INVESTIGATIONS THAT HE ASKED
FOR, THEN THAT WOULD CONSTITUTE 
BRIBERY UNDER THE CONSTITUTION.
>> THANK YOU.
PROFESSOR GERHART, I WOULD LIKE 

English: 
TO ASK ABOUT YOU OBSTRUCTION OF 
JUSTICE.
THE PRESIDENT REFUSED TO PRODUCE
DOCUMENTS RESPONSIVE TO 
CONGRESSIONAL SUBPOENAS, ATTACKS
AND INTIMIDATED PERSPECTIVE AND 
ACTUAL WITNESSES, INCLUDING 
CAREER AND CIVIL MILITARY -- 
EXCUSE ME, MILITARY AND CIVIL 
SERVANTS AS DISCUSSED HERE LIKE 
AMBASSADOR YOVANOVITCH, 
AMBASSADOR TAYLOR, JENNIFER 
WILLIAMS AND OTHERS, AND HE 
DIRECTED ALL CURRENT AND FORMER 
ADMINISTRATION WITNESSES TO DEFY
CONGRESSIONAL SUBPOENAS.
PROFESSOR, BASED ON THAT SET OF 
FACTS, DOES THIS CONDUCT MEET 
THE THRESHOLD FOR OBSTRUCTION OF
JUSTICE AS ENVISIONED IN THE 
CONSTITUTION?
>> YES, MA'AM, I BELIEVE IT 
DOES.
WHEN I WAS HERE 21 YEARS AGO 
ALONG WITH PROFESSOR TURLEY 
TESTIFYING ON IMPEACHMENT, AND I
REMEMBER A NUMBER OF LAW 
PROFESSORS TALKING ABOUT 
PRESIDENT CLINTON'S MISCONDUCT 
AS AN ATTACK ON THE JUDICIAL 
SYSTEM.
THAT'S WHAT YOU JUST DESCRIBED 
TO ME.
>> THANK YOU.
THANK YOU, PROFESSORS, ALL FOUR 
OF YOU.

English: 
WHAT YOU DID TODAY IS YOU 
BROUGHT PART OF OUR CONSTITUTION
TO LIFE.
I THANK YOU FOR THAT.
YOU HAVE SHOWN WHAT THE FRAMERS 
WERE MINDFUL OF WHEN THEY WROTE 
THE IMPEACHMENT CLAUSE OF OUR 
CONSTITUTION.
THEY CHOSE THEIR WORDS AND THEIR
WORDS MATTER.
IT WAS MY FATHER, A TERRIFIC DAD
AND A TALENTED WRITER WHO 
INSTILLED IN ME AND MY BROTHERS 
AND SISTER A LOVE OF LANGUAGE.
HE TAUGHT US OUR WORDS MATTER, 
THE TRUTH MATTERS.
IT'S THROUGH THAT LENS WHICH I 
SEE ALL OF THE SERIOUS AND 
SOMBER THINGS WE ARE SPEAKING 
ABOUT TODAY.
FOREIGN INTERFERENCE, BRIBERY, 
OBSTRUCTION.
THE FRAMERS LIKELY COULD NOT 
HAVE IMAGINED ALL THREE CONCERNS
IN A SINGLE LEADER.
BUT THEY WERE CONCERNED ENOUGH 
TO CRAFT THE REMEDY.
IMPEACHMENT.
THE TIMES HAVE FOUND US.
I AM PRAYERFUL FOR OUR 
PRESIDENT, FOR OUR COUNTRY, FOR 
OURSELVES.
MAY WE HOLD HIGH THE DECENCY AND
PROMISE AND AMBITION OF OUR 
FOUNDING AND OF THE WORDS THAT 

English: 
MATTER AND OF THE TRUTH.
WITH THAT I YIELD BACK.
>> THANK YOU, PROFESSORS, FOR 
YOUR TIME TODAY.
IT'S BEEN A LONG DAY.
I WANT TO TELL YOU, I DID NOT 
HAVE THE PRIVILEGE OF BEING BORN
INTO THIS COUNTRY.
AS AN IMMIGRANT, WHEN I BECAME A
CITIZEN TO THIS GREAT NATION, I 
TOOK AN OATH TO PROTECT AND 
DEFEND THE CONSTITUTION FROM ALL
FOREIGN AND DOMESTIC ENEMIES.
I HAD THE FORTUNE OF TAKING THAT
OATH WHEN I BECAME A MEMBER OF 
CONGRESS.
THAT INCLUDES THE RESPONSIBILITY
TO PROTECT OUR NATION FROM 
CONTINUING THREATS FROM A 
PRESIDENT, ANY PRESIDENT.
YOU TESTIFIED THAT THE 
PRESIDENT'S ACTIONS ARE A 
CONTINUING RISK TO OUR NATION 
AND DEMOCRACY.
MEANING THAT THIS IS NOT A 
ONE-TIME PROBLEM.
THERE IS A PATTERN OF BEHAVIOR 
BY THE PRESIDENT THAT IS PUTTING
AT RISK FAIR AND FREE ELECTION.
I THINK THAT WE ARE HERE TODAY 
BECAUSE THE AMERICAN PEOPLE 
DESERVE TO KNOW WHETHER WE NEED 
TO REMOVE THE PRESIDENT BECAUSE 

English: 
OF IT.
DURING THE NIXON IMPEACHMENT, 
THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE SAID, 
QUOTE, THE PURPOSE OF 
IMPEACHMENT IS NOT PERSONAL 
PUNISHMENT.
ITS FUNCTION IS TO MAINTAIN 
CONSTITUTIONAL GOVERNMENT.
PROFESSOR KARLAN, TO ME THAT 
MEANS THAT IMPEACHMENT SHOULD BE
USED WHEN WE MUST PROTECT OUR 
AMERICAN DEMOCRACY.
IT IS RESERVED FOR OFFENSES THAT
PRESENT A CONTINUING RISK TO OUR
DEMOCRACY.
IS THAT CORRECT?
>> YES, IT IS.
>> THANK YOU.
I WANT TO SHOW YOU AN EXAMPLE OF
WHAT THE PRESIDENT SAID JUST ONE
WEEK AFTER THE TRANSCRIPT OF THE
JULY 25th CALL WAS RELEASED WHEN
A REPORTER ASKED THE PRESIDENT 
WHAT HE WANTED FROM PRESIDENT 
ZELENSKY.
HE RESPONDED WITH THIS.
>> WELL, I WOULD THINK THAT IF 
THEY WERE HONEST ABOUT IT, THEY 
WOULD START A MAJOR 
INVESTIGATION INTO THE BIDENS.
IT'S A SIMPLE ANSWER.
THEY SHOULD INVESTIGATE THE 

English: 
BIDENS, BECAUSE HOW DOES A 
COMPANY THAT IS FORMED AND -- IF
YOU LOOK -- BY THE WAY, LIKE 
LIKEWISE, CHINA SHOULD START AN 
INVESTIGATION INTO THE BIDENS.
WHAT HAPPENED IN CHINA IS JUST 
ABOUT AS BAD AS WHAT HAPPENED 
WITH UKRAINE.
>> SO WE HEARD TODAY CONFLICTING
DIALOGUE FROM BOTH SIDES.
I JUST WANT TO ASK, MR. FELDMAN,
IS THIS CLEAR EVIDENCE FROM A 
PRESIDENT ASKING FOR A FOREIGN 
GOVERNMENT TO INTERFERE IN OUR 
ELECTION?
>> CONGRESSWOMAN, I'M HERE FOR 
THE CONSTITUTION.
WE'RE HERE FOR THE CONSTITUTION.
AND WHEN THE PRESIDENT OF THE 
UNITED STATES ASKS FOR 
ASSISTANCE FROM A FOREIGN POWER,
IT DISTORTS OUR ELECTIONS FOR 
HIS PERSONAL ADVANTAGE THAT 
CONSTITUTES AN ABUSE OF OFFICE 
AND IT COUNTS AS A HIGH CRIME 
AND MISDEMEANOR.
AND THAT'S WHAT THE CONSTITUTION
IS HERE TO PROTECT US AGAINST.

English: 
>> THANK YOU.
PROFESSOR KARLAN, ARE THE 
PRESIDENT'S ACTIONS A CONTINUING
RISK THAT THE FRAMERS INTENDED 
IMPEACHMENT TO BE USED FOR?
>> YES.
THIS TAKES US BACK TO THE 
QUOTATION FROM WILLIAM DAVEY 
THAT WE HAVE USED SEVERAL TIMES 
IN OUR TESTIMONY, WHICH IS, A 
PRESIDENT WITHOUT IMPEACHMENT, A
PRESIDENT WILL DO ANYTHING TO 
GET RE-ELECTED.
>> THANK YOU.
I WANT TO SHOW YOU ONE MORE 
EXAMPLE FROM THE PRESIDENT 
PRESIDENT'S 
CHIEF OF STAFF.
>> WHAT YOU DESCRIBED IS A QUID 
PRO QUO.
>> WE DO THAT ALL THE TIME WITH 
FOREIGN POLICY.
McKINNEY SAID HE WAS 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'S GOING TO BE POLITICAL 
INFLUENCE IN FOREIGN POLICY.

English: 
>> PROFESSOR KARLAN.
>> I THINK THAT MR. MULVANEY IS 
CONFLATING OR CONFUSING TWO 
DIFFERENT NOTIONS OF POLITICS.
YES, THERE IS POLITICAL 
INFLUENCE IN OUR FOREIGN 
AFFAIRS, BECAUSE PRESIDENT TRUMP
WON THE ELECTION IN 2016, WE 
HAVE EXITED CLIMATE ACCORDS, WE 
HAVE TAKEN A DIFFERENT POSITION 
ON NATO THAN WE WOULD HAVE TAKEN
THAN HIS OPPONENT WON.
THAT'S DIFFERENT THAN SAYING 
THAT PARTISAN POLITICS IN A 
SENSE OF ELECTORAL MANIPULATION 
IS SOMETHING THAT WE NEED TO GET
OVER OR GET USED TO.
IF WE GET OVER THAT OR WE GET 
USED TO THAT, WE WILL CEASE TO 
BECOME THE DEMOCRACY THAT WE ARE
RIGHT NOW.
>> THANK YOU.
I THINK THAT'S OUR GREATEST FEAR
AND THREAT.
I DON'T THINK THAT ANYONE IS 
ABOVE THE LAW.
THE CONSTITUTION ESTABLISHES 
THAT.
THIS TYPE OF BEHAVIOR CANNOT BE 
TOLERATED FROM ANY PRESIDENT, 
NOT NOW, NOT IN THE FUTURE.

English: 
AND I YIELD BACK.
>> I'M SORRY.
MISS ESCOBAR IS NEXT.
>> THANK YOU,
PROFESSORS, THANK YOU FOR YOUR 
TESTIMONY AND TIME TODAY.
MANY WORDS HAVE BEEN LAID OUT 
BEFORE OUR EYES AND EARS FOR 
MONTHS.
DESPITE THE PRESIDENT'S REPEATED
EFFORTS AT A COVERUP.
IT APPEARS THAT SOME HAVE CHOSEN
TO IGNORE THOSE FACTS.
WHAT WE HAVE SEEN TODAY FROM 
THOSE WHO CHOOSE TO TURN A BLIND
EYE IS NOT A DEFENSE OF THE 
PRESIDENT'S ACTIONS BECAUSE, 
FRANKLY, THOSE OFFENSES ARE 
INDEFENSIBLE.
INSTEAD, WE HAVE SEEN THEM 
ATTACK THE PROCESS AND ATTEMPT 
TO IMPUGN YOUR INTEGRITY.
FOR THAT, I AM SORRY.
NOW TO MY QUESTIONS.
SOME HAVE OPINED THAT INSTEAD OF
CONSIDERING IMPEACHMENT WE 
SHOULD LET THIS PASS AND ALLOW 
THE PEOPLE TO DECIDE WHAT TO DO 
NEXT -- OR WHAT TO DO ABOUT THE 
PRESIDENT'S BEHAVIOR IN THE NEXT
ELECTION.

English: 
THE FRAMERS OF OUR CONSTITUTION 
SPECIFICALLY CONSIDERED WHETHER 
TO JUST USE ELECTIONS AND NOT 
HAVE IMPEACHMENT AND REJECTED 
THAT NOTION.
ONE STATEMENT FROM THE FRAMERS 
REALLY STUCK WITH ME.
IT'S UP ON THE SCREEN.
GEORGE MASON ASKED, SHALL THE 
MAN WHO HAS PRACTICED CORRUPTION
AND BY THAT MEANS PROCURED HIS 
APPOINTMENT IN THE FIRST 
INSTANCE BE SUFFERED TO ESCAPE 
PUNISHMENT BY REPEATING HIS 
GUILT?
I HAVE TWO QUESTIONS FOR YOU, 
PROFESSOR FELDMAN.
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 JUST LETTING 
THIS BE DECIDED IN THE NEXT 
ELECTION?
>> THE FRAMERS UNDERSTOOD HUMAN 
MOTIVATION EXTREMELY WELL.
THEY KNEW THAT A PRESIDENT WOULD
HAVE A GREAT MOTIVE TO CORRUPT 
THE ELECTORAL PROCESS TO GET 
RE-ELECTED.
THAT'S EXACTLY WHY THEY THOUGHT 

English: 
THAT IT WASN'T GOOD ENOUGH TO 
WAIT FOR THE NEXT ELECTION.
THE PRESIDENT COULD CHEAT AND 
COULD MAKE THE NEXT ELECTION ILL
LEGITIMATE.
THAT'S WHY THEY REQUIRED 
IMPEACHMENT.
IF THEY COULDN'T IMPEACH A 
CORRUPT PRESIDENT, JAMES MADISON
SAID, THAT COULD BE FATAL TO THE
REPUBLIC.
THE REASON IT'S NECESSARY TO 
TAKE ACTION NOW IS THAT WE HAVE 
A PRESIDENT WHO HAS, IN FACT, 
SOUGHT TO CORRUPT THE ELECTORAL 
PROCESS.
UNDER THOSE CIRCUMSTANCES, THE 
FRAMERS' REMEDY IS THE ONLY 
OPTION AVAILABLE.
>> THANK YOU.
I WANT TO PLAY TWO CLIPS.
THE FIRST OF PRESIDENT NIXON AND
THE SECOND OF PRESIDENT TRUMP.
>> WHEN THE PRESIDENT DOES IT, 
THAT MEANS THAT IT IS NOT 
ILLEGAL.
>> I HAVE AN ARTICLE 2 WHERE I 
HAVE THE RIGHT TO DO WHATEVER I 
WANT AS PRESIDENT.
>> TWO PRESIDENTS OPENLY STATING
THAT THEY ARE ABOVE THE LAW.
PROFESSOR KARLAN, WHAT HAPPENS 
TO OUR REPUBLIC, TO OUR COUNTRY,

English: 
IF WE DO NOTHING IN THE FACE OF 
A PRESIDENT WHO SEES HIMSELF 
ABOVE THE LAW, WHO WILL ABUSE 
HIS POWER, WHO WILL ASK FOREIGN 
GOVERNMENTS TO MEDDLE IN OUR 
ELECTIONS AND WHO WILL ATTACK 
ANY WITNESS WHO STANDS UP TO 
TELL THE TRUTH?
WHAT HAPPENS IF WE DON'T FOLLOW 
OUR CONSTITUTIONAL OBLIGATION OF
IMPEACHMENT TO REMOVE THAT 
PRESIDENT FROM OFFICE?
>> WE WILL CEASE TO BE A 
REPUBLIC.
>> THANK YOU.
I REPRESENT A COMMUNITY THAT A 
LITTLE OVER A DECADE AGO WAS 
MARRED BY CORRUPTION AT THE 
LOCAL GOVERNMENT LEVEL.
THERE WERE NO RETREAT INTO A 
PARTISAN CORNER OR AN EFFORT BY 
ANYONE TO EXPLAIN IT AWAY.
WE DIDN'T WAIT FOR AN ELECTION 
TO CURE THE CANCER OF CORRUPTION
THAT OCCURRED ON OUR WATCH.
WE WERE UNITED AS A COMMUNITY IN
OUR OUTRAGE OVER IT.
IT WAS INTOLERABLE TO US BECAUSE
WE KNEW IT WAS A THREAT TO OUR 

English: 
INSTITUTIONS, INSTU TIEINSTITUT 
BELONG TO US.
WHAT WE FACE TODAY IS THE SAME 
TEST, ONLY ONE 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.
THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN.
I YIELD BACK MY TIME.
>> THAT CONCLUDES THE TESTIMONY 
UNDER THE FIVE-MINUTE RULE.
I NOW RECOGNIZE THE RANKING 
MEMBER FOR ANY CONCLUDING 
REMARKS HE MAY HAVE.
>> THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN.
TODAY HAS BEEN INTERESTING, I 
GUESS, TO SAY 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.

English: 
AT TIMES IT SEEMED LIKE WE WERE 
TRYING TO MAKE UP CRIMES.
IF IT WASN'T THIS, THIS WAS THE 
INTENT TO DO IT.
IT WENT ALONG THAT AS 
INTERESTING -- I WILL COME BACK 
TO IT.
AS MUCH AS I RESPECT THESE WHO 
CAME BEFORE US TODAY, THIS IS 
TOO EARLY.
BECAUSE WE HAVE NOT AS A 
COMMITTEE DONE OUR JOB.
WE HAVE NOT AS A COMMITTEE COME 
TOGETHER, LOOKED AT EVIDENCE, 
TAKEN BACK WITNESSES, UNDER 
OATH, TO SAY WHAT HAPPENED AND 
HOW DID IT HAPPEN AND WHY DID IT
HAPPEN.
WE'RE TAKING THE WORK OF THE 
INTEL COMMITTEE AND THE OTHER 
COMMITTEE, WE'RE TAKING IT AT 
FACE VALUE.
I WILL REMIND THE CHAIRMAN IS 
THE BIGGEST PROPONENT OF THIS 
NOT HAPPENING IN HIS EARLIER 
STATEMENTS ALMOST 20 YEARS AGO 
WHEN HE SAID WE SHOULD NOT TAKE 
A REPORT FROM ANOTHER ENTITY AND
JUST ACCEPT IT.
OTHERWISE, WE ARE A RUBBER 
STAMP.
TO MY DEMOCRATIC MAJORITY, THEY 
MAY NOT CARE.

English: 
BECAUSE AS I SAID BEFORE, THIS 
IS ABOUT A CLOCK AND A CALENDAR.
A CLOCK AND A CALENDAR.
THEY ARE SO OBSESSED WITH THE 
ELECTION NEXT YEAR THAT THEY 
JUST GLOSS OVER THINGS.
IN FACT, WHAT IS INTERESTING IS 
AS I SAID EARLIER, THREE OF THE 
FOUR WITNESSES ALLEGE NUMEROUS 
CRIMES COMMITTED BY THE 
PRESIDENT.
DURING THE INTEL COMMITTEE 
HEARINGS, NONE OF THE FACT 
WITNESSES IDENTIFIED A CRIME.
IF YOU ARE WRITING ABOUT THIS, 
THAT SHOULD ALARM YOU.
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.
PROFESSOR TURLEY SAID 
IMPEACH MENT NEEDS PROOF, NOT 
PRESUMPTION.
WE HAVE ONE OF THE FACT 
WITNESSES, I PRESUME, THAT WAS 
GOING ON, MR. SONDLAND.
YOU KNOW WHAT IS HAPPENING HERE 
TODAY IS WE FOUND OUT TODAY -- I
THOUGHT IT WAS INTERESTING.
THIS IS THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE.
WE FOUND OUT THAT FACTS DON'T 
MATTER.
IN FACT, FACTS DON'T MATTER 

English: 
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 
AID WAS RELEASED OR NOT.
OF COURSE IT MATTERS.
UNFORTUNATELY, THE ONLY ONE OF 
THE MANY FACTS IGNORED BY THE 
MAJORITY.
THEY ARE IGNORING FACTS THAT 
MATTER.
IT DOESN'T MATTER TO THE 
DEMOCRATS THAT AMBASSADOR VOLKER
MADE CLEAR THERE WAS NO 
CONDITIONALITY ON THE WHITE 
HOUSE MEETING OR THE AID.
THE DEMOCRATS AND THEIR 
WITNESSES HAVEN'T MENTIONED THAT
BECAUSE IT'S UNHELPFUL TO THE 
NARRATIVE THEY ARE SPINNING.
IT DOESN'T MATTER THAT 
DEMOCRATS -- TO THE DEMOCRATS 
AND MAJORITY HERE THAT THE 
PRESIDENT DID NOT CONDITION HIS 
AID ON AN INVESTIGATION.
IN FACT, MR. SONDLAND'S 
STATEMENT WAS TO THE CONTRARY.
IT WAS HERE IN THIS ROOM HE 
CALLED IT A GUESS WHERE YOU ARE 
SITTING.
CALLED IT A GUESS.

English: 
A PRESUMPTION.
WHAT HE THOUGHT.
GOD FORBID WE WALK INTO OUR 
COURTROOMS AND FIND SOMETHING 
GUILTY OF SOMETHING WE'RE CALLIN
A CRIME AND WE WALK INTO COURT 
AND ALL OF A SUDDEN, I THOUGHT 
IT WAS.
THE WITNESS SAID, I PRESUMED IT 
WAS.
GOD FORBID THIS IS WHERE WE ARE 
AT.
YOU CAN MAKE INFERENCE.
IT'S OKAY IF YOU ARE INFERRING.
I NEVER HEARD A JUDGE SAY, JUST 
INFER WHAT YOU THINK THEY MEANT.
THAT WILL BE ENOUGH.
NOT INFERENCE.
PROBABLY DOESN'T MATTER THAT THE
PRESIDENT DIDN'T CONDITION A 
MEETING ON AN INVESTIGATION.
I MET WITH ZELENSKY WITH NO 
PRECONDITION.
ZELENSKY DIDN'T FIND OUT ABOUT 
THE HOLD ON AID UNTIL MONTHS 
AFTER THE CALL WHEN HE READ IT.
THE AID WAS RELEASED SHORTLY 
THEREAFTER.
UKRAINE DIDN'T HAVE TO DO 
ANYTHING TO GET THE AID 
RELEASED.
IF YOU THINK THAT DOESN'T 

English: 
MATTER, THERE WERE FIVE MEETINGS
BETWEEN THE AID -- IN NONE OF 
THE MEETINGS BETWEEN AMBASSADORS
AND THE OTHERS, NONE OF THAT WAS
EVER CONNECTED TO A PROMISE OF 
ANYTHING ON THE AID.
NOTHING WAS CONNECTED.
FIVE TIMES.
TWO OF THOSE WERE AFTER 
PRESIDENT ZELENSKY LEARNED THAT 
AID WAS BEING HELD.
TELL ME THERE'S NOT A PROBLEM 
HERE WITH THE STORY.
THAT'S WHY FACT WITNESSES AREN'T
HERE RIGHT NOW.
THE EVIDENCE AGAINST THE 
PRESIDENT IS REALLY ABOUT POLICY
DIFFERENCES.
THREE OF THE DEMOCRATIC STAR 
WITNESSES, HILL, TAYLOR AND KENT
WEREN'T ON THE CALL.
THEY READ TRANSCRIPTED.
ZELENSKY MET WITH SONDLAND AND 
MADE NO REFERENCE TO AID.
NONE OF THESE FACTS MATTER TO 
THE MAJORITY.
WE DON'T KNOW WHAT ADDITIONAL 
HEARINGS WE WILL HAVE TO ADDRESS
OTHER FACTS.
THIS BOTHERS ME GREATLY.
IT'S SOMETHING WE HAVE SEEN FROM
JANUARY OF THIS YEAR.

English: 
NO CONCERN ABOUT A PROCESS THAT 
WORKS BUT SIMPLY A GETTING TO AN
END THAT WE WANT.
I AGREE WITH PROFESSOR FELDMAN.
HE MAY FIND THAT STRANGE BUT I 
AGREE WITH YOU ON SOMETHING.
IT'S NOT HIS JOB TO ASSESS THE 
CREDIBILITY OF WITNESSES.
IT'S THIS COMMITTEE'S JOB.
I AGREE.
THIS COMMITTEE CAN'T DO OUR JOB 
IF NONE OF THE WITNESSES TESTIFY
BEFORE OUR COMMITTEE.
EVEN ONES THAT WE HAVE TALKED 
ABOUT CALLING TODAY.
THE MAJORITY SAID WE DON'T WANT.
WE STILL DON'T HAVE AN ANSWER ON
WHAT THIS COMMITTEE WILL DO ONCE
THIS HEARING ENDS.
THE COMMITTEE RECEIVED CHAIRMAN 
SCHIFF'S REPORT.
BUT WE DON'T HAVE THE UNDERLYING
EVIDENCE.
THE RULES SET UP BY THIS BODY 
ARE NOT BEING FOLLOWED TO THIS 
DAY.
YET, NOBODY TALKS ABOUT IT ON 
THE MAJORITY SIDE.
THE WITNESSES PRODUCED BY SCHIFF
AND THE AMERICAN PEOPLE TALK 
ABOUT THEIR FEELINGS, GUESSES, 
PRESUMPTIONS.
THE FACTS MAY NOT MATTER TO THE 
MAJORITY, 97% OF THE OTHER FACTS
DO MATTER TO THE AMERICAN 
PEOPLE.

English: 
MY PROBLEM IS THIS.
AS THE RANKING MEMBER OF THIS 
COMMITTEE, ONE OF THE OLDEST 
MOST, SHOULD BE FACT-BASED, 
LEGAL-BASED COMMITTEES WE HAVE 
HERE, WHERE IMPEACHMENT SHOULD 
HAVE BEEN ALL ALONG, I HAVE A 
GROUP OF MEMBERS WHO HAVE NO 
IDEA WHERE WE ARE HEADED NEXT.
I BET YOU IF I ASKED THE 
MAJORITY MEMBERS OUTSIDE THE 
CHAIRMAN, THEY DON'T HAVE A CLUE
EITHER.
IF THEY HAVE IT, THEY SHOULD 
SHARE IT.
BECAUSE THIS IS NOT A TIME TO 
PLAY HIDE THE BALL.
THIS IS NOT A TIME TO SAY, WE'RE
GOING TO FIGURE IT OUT ON THE 
FLY.
YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT 
OVERTURNING 63 MILLION VOTES OF 
A PRESIDENT ELECTED WHO IS DOING
HIS JOB EVERY DAY.
BY THE WAY, WAS OVERSEAS TODAY 
WHILE WE WERE DOING THIS.
WORKING WITH OUR NATO ALLIES.
THE QUESTION I HAVE IS WHERE DO 
WE HEAD NEXT?
WE HEARD THIS AMBIGUOUS 
PRESENTATION.
HERE IS MY CHALLENGE.
I'VE BEEN VOTED DOWN TODAY.
MR. SCHIFF SHOULD TESTIFY.
CHAIRMAN SCHIFF, NOT HIS STAFF, 

English: 
MUST APPEAR BEFORE THE COMMITTEE
TO ANSWER QUESTIONS ABOUT THE 
CONTENT OF HIS REPORT.
THAT'S WHAT KEN STARR DID AND 
HISTORY DEMANDS IT.
I TOLD THE CHAIRMAN A WHILE AGO 
WHEN WE WERE DOING THIS, I SAID 
HISTORY LIES ON US.
IT'S TIME WE TALK AND SHARE HOW 
WE ARE GOING FORWARD.
I'M WAITING FOR ANSWERS.
MR. CHAIRMAN, AS WE LOOK AHEAD, 
AS THE DEMOCRATIC MAJORITY 
PROMISED THAT THIS WOULD BE A 
FAIR PROCESS WHEN IT GOT TO 
JUDICIARY FOR THE PRESIDENT AND 
OTHERS, THE PRESIDENT -- YOU MAY
SAY HE COULD HAVE COME TODAY.
WHO WOULD HAVE THIS DONE?
NOTHING.
THERE'S NO FACT WITNESSES HERE.
NOTHING TO REBUT.
IT'S BEEN A GOOD TIME JUST TO 
SEE THAT REALLY NOTHING CAME OF 
IT AT THE END OF THE DAY.
WHY SHOULD HE BE HERE?
LET'S BRING FACT WITNESSES IN.
LET'S BRING PEOPLE IN BECAUSE AS
YOU SAID, MR. CHAIRMAN, YOU 
SAID, YOUR WORDS, WE SHOULD 
NEVER ON THIS COMMITTEE ACCEPT 
AN ENTITY GIVING US A REPORT AND
NOT INVESTIGATE IT OURSELVES.
UNDOUBTEDLY, WE ARE ON OUR WAY 

English: 
TO DOING THAT BECAUSE OF A 
CALENDAR AND A CLOCK.
I KNOW YOU ARE ABOUT TO GIVE A 
STATEMENT.
YOU WORKED ON IT VERY HARD I'M 
SURE.
BEFORE YOU GAVEL THIS HEARING, 
BEFORE YOU START YOUR STATEMENT,
BEFORE YOU GO ANY FURTHER, I 
WOULD LIKE TO KNOW TWO THINGS.
NUMBER ONE, WHEN DO YOU PLAN ON 
SCHEDULING OUR MINORITY HEARING 
DAY?
NUMBER TWO, WHEN ARE WE ACTUALLY
GOING TO HAVE REAL WITNESSES 
HERE THAT ARE FACT WITNESSES IN 
THIS CASE?
WHEN?
OR WHAT YOU SAID MANY YEARS AGO 
IS FADED LIKE THE LEAVES IN 
FALL.
I DON'T CARE ANYMORE THAT 
SOMEBODY ELSE GIVES US A REPORT.
CHAIRMAN STIFF IS CHAIRMAN OVER 
EVERYTHING WITH IMPEACHMENT.
HE DOESN'T GET TO TESTIFY.
HE WILL SEND A STAFF MEMBER.
I DON'T KNOW IF WE WILL HAVE A 
HEARING PAST THAT TO FIGURE OUT 
ANYTHING THAT'S BEEN GOING ON.
MY QUESTION THAT I STARTED OUT 
TODAY IS WHERE IS FAIRNESS?

English: 
IT WAS PROMISED.
IT'S NOT BEING DELIVERED.
THE FACTS TALKED ABOUT WERE NOT 
FACTS DELIVERED.
THIS PRESIDENT AS FACTS WERE 
GIVEN DID NOTHING WRONG, NOTHING
TO BE IMPEACHED AND NOTHING FOR 
WHY WE ARE HERE.
IN THE WORDS OF ONE OF OUR 
WITNESSES, MR. TURLEY, YOU DO IT
ON FLIMSY GROUND.
THE AMERICAN PEOPLE WILL NOT 
FORGET THE LIGHT OF HISTORY.
TODAY BEFORE HE GIVE YOUR 
OPENING STATEMENT -- CLOSING 
STATEMENT, BEFORE YOU GET TO 
THIS TIME, MY QUESTION IS, WILL 
YOU TALK TO THIS COMMITTEE?
YOU ARE CHAIRMAN.
YOU HOLD A PRESTIGIOUS ROLE.
WILL YOU LET US KNOW WHERE WE 
ARE GOING?
ARE WE GOING TO ADJOURN AFTER 
YOU SUM UP EVERYTHING SAYING 
THEY DID GOOD AND GO OUT FROM 
HERE, WE'RE STILL WONDERING?
THE LIGHTS ARE ON.
IT'S TIME TO ANSWER THE 
QUESTION.
I YIELD BACK.
>> THE GENTLEMAN YIELDS BACK.
I WANT TO -- BEFORE MY CLOSING 
STATEMENT -- ACKNOWLEDGE I 
RECEIVED A LETTER TODAY 
REQUESTING MINORITY DAY OF 

English: 
TESTIMONY UNDER RULE 11.
I HAVE NOT HAD A CHANCE TO READ 
THE LETTER.
I LOOK FORWARD TO CONFERRING 
WITH THE RANKING MEMBER ABOUT 
THIS REQUEST AFTER I HAVE HAD A 
CHANCE TO REVIEW IT.
>> I HAVE A QUESTION.
YOU CAN'T REVIEW A LETTER. 
>> THE GENTLEMAN IS NOT 
RECOGNIZED.
>> THERE'S NOTHING TO REVIEW.
>> I RECOGNIZE MYSELF FOR 
CLOSING STATEMENTS.
GEORGE WASHINGTON'S FAREWELL 
ADDRESS WARNS OF A MOMENT WHEN 
CUNNING AND UNPRIS MRE 
UNPRINCIPLED MEN WILL USURP.
THE CONSTITUTION HAS A SOLUTION 
FOR A PRESIDENT WHO PLACES HIS 
PERSONAL OR POLITICAL INTERESTS 

English: 
ABOVE THOSE OF THE NATION.
THE POWER OF IMPEACHMENT.
AS ONE OF MY COLLEAGUES POINTED 
OUT, I HAVE ARTICULATED A 
THREE-PART TEST FOR IMPEACHMENT.
LET ME BE CLEAR, ALL THREE PARTS
THAT WAS TEST HAVE BEEN MET.
FIRST, YES, THE PRESIDENT HAS 
COMMITTED AN IMPEACHABLE 
OFFENSE.
THE PRESIDENT ASKED A FOREIGN 
GOVERNMENT TO INTERVENE IN OUR 
ELECTION.
THEN GOT CAUGHT.
THEN OBSTRUCTED THE 
INVESTIGATORS TWICE.
WITNESSES TOLD US 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 KARLAN WARNED, DRAWING
A FOREIGN GOVERNMENT INTO OUR 
ELECTION PROCESS IS AN 
ESPECIALLY SERIOUS ABUSE OF 
POWER BECAUSE IT UNDERMINES 
DEMOCRACY ITSELF.

English: 
PROFESSOR FELDMAN ECHOED, IF WE 
CANNOT IMPEACH A PRESIDENT WHO 
ABUSES HIS POWER, WE NO LONGER 
LIVE IN A DEMOCRACY.
WE LIVE IN A MONARCHY OR UNDER A
DICTATORSHIP.
PROFESSOR GERHART REMINDED US 
THAT IF WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT
IS NOT IMPEACHABLE, THEN NOTHING
IS IMPEACHABLE.
PRESIDENT TRUMP'S ACTIONS 
REPRESENT THE THREAT TO OUR 
NATIONAL SECURITY AND THE URGENT
THREAT TO THE INTEGRITY OF THE 
NEXT ELECTION.
THIRD, YES, WE SHOULD NOT 
PROCEED UNLESS AT LEAST SOME OF 
THE CITIZENS WHO SUPPORTED THE 
PRESIDENT IN THE LAST ELECTION 
ARE WILLING TO COME WITH US.
A MAJORITY OF THIS COUNTRY IS 
PREPARED TO IMPEACH AND REMOVE 
PRESIDENT TRUMP.
RATHER THAN RESPOND TO THE 
DANGEROUS EVIDENCE, MY 
REPUBLICAN COLLEAGUES HAVE 
CALLED THIS PROCESS UNFAIR.
IT IS NOT.
NOR IS THIS ARGUMENT NEW.
MY COLLEAGUES ON THE OTHER SIDE 
OF THE AISLE, UNABLE TO DEFEND 

English: 
THE BEHAVIOR OF THE PRESIDENT, 
HAVE USED THIS ARGUMENT BEFORE.
FIRST, THEY SAID THAT THESE 
PROCEEDINGS WERE NOT 
CONSTITUTIONAL BECAUSE WE DID 
NOT HAVE A FLOOR VOTE.
WE HAD A FLOOR VOTE.
THEN THEY SAID THAT OUR 
PROCEEDINGS WERE NOT 
CONSTITUTIONAL BECAUSE THEY 
COULD NOT CALL WITNESSES.
REPUBLICANS CALLED THREE OF THE 
WITNESSES IN THE LIVE HEARINGS 
OF THE INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE 
AND 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.
WHEN THE COMMITTEE INVITED THE 
PRESIDENT TO PARTICIPATE IN THIS
HEARING, HE DECLINED.
THE SIMPLE FACT IS THAT ALL 
THESE PROCEEDINGS HAVE ALL THE 
PROTECTIONS AFFORDED PRIOR 
PRESIDENTS.
THIS PROCESS FOLLOWS THE 
CONSTITUTIONAL AND LEGAL 
PRECEDENT.
I AM LEFT TO CONCLUDE THAT THE 
ONLY REASON MY COLLEAGUES RUSH 
FROM ONE PROCESS COMPLAINT TO 
THE NEXT IS BECAUSE THERE IS NO 
FACTUAL DEFENSE FOR PRESIDENT 

English: 
TRUMP.
UNLIKE ANY OTHER PRESIDENT 
BEFORE HIM, PRESIDENT TRUMP HAS 
OPENLY REJECTED CONGRESS'S RIGHT
AS A CO-EQUAL BRANCH OF 
GOVERNMENT.
HE HAS DEFIED OUR SUBPOENAS.
HE HAS REFUSED TO PRODUCE ANY 
DOCUMENTS.
HE DIRECTED HIS AIDES NOT TO 
TESTIFY.
PRESIDENT TRUMP HAS ASKED A 
FOREIGN GOVERNMENT TO INTERVENE 
IN OUR ELECTION.
HE HAS MADE CLEAR THAT IF LEFT 
UNCHECKED, HE WILL DO IT AGAIN.
WHY?
BECAUSE HE BELIEVES THAT IN HIS 
OWN WORDS, QUOTE, I CAN DO 
WHATEVER I WANT, UNQUOTE.
THAT'S WHY WE MUST ACT NOW.
IN THIS COUNTRY, THE PRESIDENT 
CANNOT DO WHATEVER HE WANTS.
IN THIS COUNTRY, NO ONE, NOT 
EVEN THE PRESIDENT, IS ABOVE THE
LAW.
TODAY WE BEGAN OUR CONVERSATION 
WHERE WE SHOULD, WITH THE TEXT 
OF THE CONSTITUTION.
WE HAVE HEARD FROM OUR WITNESSES
THAT THE CONSTITUTION COMPELS 
ACTION.
INDEED, EVERY WITNESS, INCLUDING
THE WITNESS SELECTED BY THE 

English: 
REPUBLICAN SIDE, AGREED THAT IF 
PRESIDENT TRUMP DID WHAT THE 
INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE FOUND HIM
TO HAVE DONE AFTER EXTENSIVE AND
COMPELLING WITNESSES FROM THE 
TRUMP ADMINISTRATION OFFICIALS, 
HE COMMITTED IMPEACHABLE 
OFFENSES.
WHILE THE REPUBLICAN WITNESS MAY
NOT BE CONVINCED THERE'S 
SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE THAT THE 
PRESIDENT ENGAGED IN THESE ACTS,
THE AMERICAN PEOPLE AND THE 
MAJORITY OF THIS COMMITTEE 
DISAGREE.
I THINK THE REPUBLICAN WITNESS, 
PROFESSOR TURLEY, ISSUED A 
WARNING IN 1998 WHEN HE WAS THE 
LEADING ADVOCATE FOR THE 
IMPEACHMENT OF BILL CLINTON.
HE SAID, IF YOU DECIDE THAT 
CERTAIN ACTS DO NOT RISE TO 
IMPEACHABLE OFFENSES, YOU WILL 
EXPAND THE SPACE FOR EXECUTIVE 
CONDUCT, CLOSED QUOTE.
THAT WAS THE CAUTION OF 
PROFESSOR TURLEY IN 1998 IN THE 
IMPEACHMENT OF PRESIDENT 
CLINTON.
THAT CAUTION SHOULD GUIDE US ALL
TODAY.
BY ANY ACCOUNT, THAT WARNING IS 
MORE APPLICABLE TO THE ABUSES OF
POWER WE ARE CONTEMPLATING 
TODAY.
BECAUSE AS WE ALL KNOW, IF THESE

English: 
ABUSES GO UNCHECKED, THEY WILL 
ONLY CONTINUE AND ONLY GROW 
WORSE.
EACH OF US TOOK AN OATH TO 
DEFEND THE CONSTITUTION.
THE PRESIDENT IS A CONTINUING 
THREAT TO THAT CONSTITUTION AND 
TO OUR DEMOCRACY.
I WILL HONOR MY OATH.
AS I SIT HERE TODAY, HAVING 
CONSISTENT, CLEAR AND COMPELLING
EVIDENCE THAT THE PRESIDENT HAS 
ABUSED HIS POWER, I URGE MY 
COLLEAGUES TO STAND BEHIND THE 
OATH YOU HAVE TAKEN.
OUR DEMOCRACY DEPENDS ON IT.
THIS CONCLUDES TODAY'S HEARING.
>> MR. CHAIRMAN, ONE THING.
>> PURSUANT TO COMMITTEE RULE 
EIGHT, I'M GIVING NOTICE TO FILE
DISSENT.
>> NOTED.
THIS CONCLUDES TODAY'S HEARING.
WE THANK ALL OF OUR WITNESSES 
FOR PARTICIPATING.
>> I WOULD ASK -- 
>> ALL MEMBERS WILL HAVE FIVE 

English: 
LEGISLATIVE DAYS TO SUBMIT 
WRITTEN QUESTIONS.
>> WE HAVE A UNANIMOUS CONSENT 
REQUEST. 
>> TOO LATE.
>> IT'S TOO LATE.
>> WITHOUT OBJECTION, THE 
HEARING IS ADJOURNED.
>> GIVE ME A BREAK. 
>> IT'S TYPICAL.
JUST TYPICAL.
>> YOU ARE WATCHING "NBC NEWS 
NOW" SPECIAL COVERAGE OF THE 
IMPEACHMENT HEARING.
>> LET THE RECORD SHOW THE 
WITNESS ANSWERED IN THE 
AFFIRMATIVE.
THANK YOU.
BE SEATED.
TO THE EXTENT PRESIDENT TRUMP'S 
CONDUCT FITS THESE CATEGORIES, 
THERE'S PRECEDENT FOR 
RECOMMENDING IMPEACHMENT HERE.
>> DIDN'T START WITH MUELLER.
IT STARTED WITH FEARS IN 

English: 
BROOKLYN.
WE GOT LAW PROFESSORS HERE. 
>> I READ TRANSCRIPTS OF EVERY 
ONE OF THE WITNESSES WHO 
APPEARED IN THE LIVE HEARING 
BECAUSE I WOULD NOT SPEAK ABOUT 
THESE THINGS WITHOUT REVIEWING 
THE FACTS.
I'M INSULTED BY THE SUGGESTION 
THAT AS A LAW PROFESSOR I DON'T 
CARE ABOUT THOSE FACTS.
>> I BELIEVE THIS IMPEACHMENT 
NOT ONLY FAILS TO SATISFY THE 
STANDARD OF PAST IMPEACHMENTS, 
BUT WOULD CREATE A DANGEROUS 
PRECEDENT
IMPEACHMENT.
>> PRESIDENT TRUMP COMMITTED 
HIGH CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS, 
SPECIFICALLY, PRESIDENT TRUMP 
ABUSED HIS OFFICE BY CORRUPTLY 
SOLICITING PRESIDENT ZELENSKY TO
ANNOUNCE INVESTIGATIONS OF HIS 
POLITICAL RIVALS IN ORDER TO 
GAIN PERSONAL ADVANTAGE, 
INCLUDING IN THE 2020 
PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION.
>> WHAT WE LEAVE IN THE WAKE OF 
THIS SCANDAL WILL SHAPE OUR 
DEMOCRACY FOR GENERATIONS TO 
COME.
>> WHAT DID WE LEARN FROM 

English: 
TODAY'S HEARING?
LEE ANN CALDWELL IS ON CAPITOL 
HILL.
WHAT WAS YOUR IMPRESSION OF THE 
TESTIMONY?
>> IT WAS DEFINITELY A CIVIC 
LESSON IN SOME PART, HISTORY IN 
OTHERS.
THAT WAS VERY PURPOSEFUL.
DEMOCRATS WANTED THAT HISTORICAL
PERSPECTIVE TO OFFER A 
COMPELLING REASON TO MOVE 
FORWARD AND IMPEACH THIS 
PRESIDENT.
YOU HEARD FROM THE THREE 
DEMOCRATIC WITNESSES OVER AND 
OVER AGAIN INVOKING THE FRAMERS,
THE TALK ABOUT WHAT THEIR 
THOUGHTS WERE WHEN THEY WERE 
FORMING THE CONSTITUTION AND 
USING TERMS OF BRIBERY, HIGH 
CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS.
SO WHAT THESE THREE DEMOCRATIC 
CONSTITUTIONAL LAWYERS DID IS 
THEY SAID THAT IN EVERY RESPECT 
OF WHAT THE FRAMERS ENVISIONED 
AND WHAT THEY FEARED, THAT THIS 
PRESIDENT HAS DONE THAT AND GONE
BEYOND.
IF YOU ARE FROM THE DEMOCRATIC 
PERSPECTIVE, THIS WAS A REALLY 
GOOD DAY FOR THEM.
THEY POINT TO ONE WITNESS -- ONE

English: 
OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL SCHOLARS 
WHO SAID, IF THIS ISN'T 
IMPEACHABLE, THEN WHAT IS?
ON THE REPUBLICAN SIDE, YOU HAD 
ONE SCHOLAR WHO TOOK THE 
OPPOSITE STANCE.
HE SAID THAT IF DEMOCRATS MOVE 
FORWARD WITH IMPEACHMENT, THEY 
ARE LOWERING THE BAR 
DRAMATICALLY FOR FUTURE 
PRESIDENTS AND WHAT IS 
IMPEACHABLE.
DEMOCRATS WERE VERY WORRIED 
COMING INTO THIS HEARING AS WE 
KNOW.
THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE CAN BE A
WILD COMMITTEE, UNDISCIPLINED.
THEIR DIRECTIVE FROM ABOVE, FROM
LEADERSHIP, WAS DO NO HARM, 
BEHAVE AND MAKE POINTS AND GET 
THIS DONE.
DEMOCRATS THINK THAT THEY -- 
THEY PERFORMED BEYOND 
EXPECTATIONS.
THEY SAID IT WAS INTERESTING, IT
WASN'T BORING AND IT PROVED 
THEIR POINT THAT ARTICLES OF 
IMPEACHMENT ARE NECESSARY.
>> EARLY ON BOTH SIDES, 
REPUBLICANS AND DEMOCRATS, 
EMPLOYED A STRATEGY OF ONLY 
QUESTIONING REALLY LIKE-MINDED 
WITNESSES.
DEMOCRATS QUESTIONING THE 
DEMOCRATIC WITNESSES.

English: 
REPUBLICANS QUESTIONING THE LONE
REPUBLICAN WITNESS.
HOW DID THIS STRATEGY PLAY OUT 
OF AVOIDING CONFRONTATION WITH 
SOMEONE WHO MIGHT NOT AGREE WITH
YOUR OPINION?
>> YEAH.
AVOIDING CONFRONTATION WHEN IT'S
CONVENIENT IS WHAT THE PEOPLE DO
UP HERE.
THEY WANTED TO REINFORCE THEIR 
PARTY'S POSITION.
AS FAR AS THE REPUBLICANS ARE 
CONCERNED, THEY REALLY PLAYED 
INTO THE ARGUMENT THAT WHAT THE 
PRESIDENT DID WAS NOT 
IMPEACHABLE AND THEY HAD A LOT 
OF PROCESS ARGUMENTS SAYING THAT
THE DEMOCRATS ARE MOVING TOO 
FAST.
THAT THE PRESIDENT DOESN'T HAVE 
ENOUGH DUE PROCESS.
HE HAS NO RIGHTS IN THIS 
PROCESS.
REPUBLICANS FORMULATED THEIR 
QUESTIONS TO THEIR WITNESS WHO 
OBVIOUSLY AGREED.
DEMOCRATS ON THE OTHER HAND, 
THEY HAD THREE WITNESSES TO BACK
THEIR POSITION.
THEY USED IT TO THEIR ADVANTAGE.
THEY KNEW GOING IN THESE 
WITNESSES WERE GOING TO SUPPORT 

English: 
IMPEACHMENT FOR THE PRESIDENT.
THEY THINK THIS PRESIDENT HAS 
ACTED IN A WAY THAT IS WAY 
BEYOND ANYTHING OF PAST 
PRESIDENTS.
>> THINGS GOT AWKWARD WHEN A GOP
CONGRESSMAN ASKED THE WITNESSES 
IF THEY VOTED FOR TRUMP.
LET'S TAKE A LISTEN.

English: 
[ NO AUDIO ]
[ NO AUDIO ]
>> CAN YOU TELL US MORE ABOUT 
THIS MOMENT?
>> YEAH.
ONE OF THE WITNESSES TOOK 
OFFENSE TO THE QUESTION -- 
FIRST, I'M NOT GOING TO TELL YOU
WHO I VOTED FOR.
IT DOESN'T MATTER.
THEN OBVIOUSLY AS YOU PLAYED, 
THE NEXT QUESTION WAS, DO YOU 
SUPPORT THIS PRESIDENT?
THE POINT WAS, THIS IS A 
REPUBLICAN QUESTIONER DOING 
THAT, WAS TRYING TO UNDERCUT 
THESE WITNESSES AND PROVE -- 
MAKE THE POINT THEY HAVE A 
POLITICAL AGENDA.
IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH WHAT 
THE PRESIDENT DID WRONG.
IT'S THAT THEY HAVE A VENDETTA 
AGAINST THIS PRESIDENT.
THEY DON'T SUPPORT THIS 
PRESIDENT.
THAT CAME UP OVER AND OVER AGAIN
AMONG REPUBLICANS WHO SAID THAT 
THE DEMOCRATS WANTING TO IMPEACH
THE PRESIDENT STARTED FROM THE 
DAY HE WON ELECTION.
IT DOESN'T MATTER WHAT HE HAS 
DONE FROM HIS INAUGURATION 
MOVING FORWARD.
THE DEMOCRATS JUST WANT TO GET 
RID OF THIS PRESIDENT AT ANY 

English: 
COST.
>> THANKS SO MUCH.
WITNESSES TODAY WERE EXPLORING 
THE CONSTITUTIONAL GROUNDS FOR 
IMPEACHMENT, INCLUDING WHAT 
CONSTITUTES BRIBERY, HIGH CRIMES
AND MISDEMEANORS.
GLEN KERSCHNER JOINS ME TO GO 
THROUGH THIS.
GLEN, YOUR BIG THOUGHTS ABOUT 
WHAT WE HEARD TODAY?
>> IT WAS REALLY INTERESTING, 
BECAUSE THE EXPERTS LAID OUT 
REALLY TWO MAIN PRINCIPLES.
WHEN IT CO COMES TO WHAT THE 
FOUNDING FATHERS MEANT WHEN THEY
PUT IN THE CONSTITUTION THAT A 
PRESIDENT AND OTHER OFFICERS OF 
CAN BE IMPEACHED FOR TREASON, 
BRIBERY AND OTHER HIGH CRIMES 
AND MISDEMEANORS.
THE TWO MAIN THEMES THAT THEY 
KEPT COMING BACK TO IS, ONE, THE
FOUNDERS WERE TRYING TO PROTECT 
AGAINST FOREIGN INTERFERENCE IN 
U.S. ELECTION.
THAT WAS SOMETHING THAT DEEPLY 
CONCERNED THE FRAMERS OF THE 
CONSTITUTION.

English: 
THEN THE SECOND THING THAT 
CONCERNED THEM WAS THAT A 
PRESIDENT MIGHT MISUSE HIS POWER
AND HIS OFFICE FOR HIS OWN 
POLITICAL GAIN, HIS OWN PERSONAL
GAIN RATHER THAN TO DO THE GOOD 
OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE.
WHAT WE SEE FROM THE EVIDENCE 
THAT WAS PRESENTED THROUGH THE 
12 WITNESSES THAT TESTIFIED 
BEFORE THE HOUSE INTEL COMMITTEE
BEFORE IT SHIFTED OVER TO THE 
HOUSE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE WAS 
THAT THE PRESIDENT TOUCHED BOTH 
OF THOSE BASES.
BECAUSE WHAT HE DID WHEN HE 
BASICALLY EXTORTED FOREIGN 
INTERFERENCE IN OUR ELECTION 
FROM PRESIDENT ZELENSKY, AND HE 
DID IT IN FURTHERING HIS OWN 
PERSONAL POLITICAL AGENDA OF 
BASICALLY DIRTYING UP THE 
FRONTRUNNER IN THE CAMPAIGN 
AGAINST HIM.
HE REALLY DID TOUCH BOTH OF 
THOSE BASES THAT THE FRAMERS 
WERE SO CONCERNED ABOUT.

English: 
PROTECTING AGAINST FOREIGN 
INTERFERENCE IN OUR ELECTION AND
USING YOUR OFFICE FOR PERSONAL 
ADVANTAGE.
THIS VERY MUCH SHOWED THAT THE 
PRESIDENT COMMITTED AN 
IMPEACHABLE OFFENSE ON TOP OF AN
IMPEACHABLE OFFENSE AND THEN THE
ICING ON THE CAKE IS IT'S ALL 
WRAPPED UP IN A COVERUP BY THE 
PRESIDENT REFUSING TO LET THE 
ADMINISTRATION OFFICIALS WHO 
HAVE BEEN LAWFULLY SUBPOENAED BY
THE CONGRESS TO COME IN AND 
TESTIFY AND PRESENT NOT JUST 
RELEVANT INFORMATION BUT 
POTENTIALLY INCRIMINATING 
INFORMATION.
IT'S SORT OF THE TRIFECTA OF 
IMPEACHABLE OFFENSES.
>> EN, YOU MENTIONED 
EXTORTION.
IN THE CONTEXT OF MODERN 
CRIMINAL STATUTES LIKE EXTORTION
AND BRIBERY, DO YOU SEE THE 
CONDUCT DESCRIBED TODAY FITTING 
NEATLY OR MORE NEATLY INTO ONE 
THAN THE OTHER?
>> I THINK IT PLAINLY FITS THE 
DEFINITION OF BRIBERY.
BECAUSE BASICALLY, THE PRESIDENT

English: 
WAS SOLICITING SOME PERSONAL 
FAVOR IN EXCHANGE FOR AN 
OFFICIAL ACT, PROVIDING 
CONGRESSIONAL AID THAT WAS 
ALREADY APPROVED AND AUTHORIZED 
TO GO TO UKRAINE.
HE WRONGFULLY HELD IT BACK.
HE PUT A CONDITION ON IT THAT HE
HAD NO LAWFUL RIGHT TO PUT IN 
ORDER TO WIN PERSONAL ADVANTAGE.
AS WE LEARNED TODAY AND AS WE 
HAVE KNOWN BEFORE TODAY'S 
TESTIMONY, IT DOESN'T NEED TO 
VIOLATE A PRESENT DAY STATUTE.
THAT'S WHY I FOUND IT A LITTLE 
CURIOUS WHEN PROFESSOR TURLEY 
STARTED TALKING ABOUT THE 
PRESENT DAY SCOTUS OPINION IN 
THE McDONALD CASE AND PRESENT 
DAY BRIBERY STATUTES.
WE ALL KNOW THAT THOSE STATUTES 
WERE NOT ON THE BOOKS WHEN THE 
FRAMERS SETTLED ON THE 
DEFINITION OF AN IMPEACHABLE 
OFFENSE AS TREASON, BRIBERY AND 
HIGH CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS.
IT'S INCONGRUOUS TO HAVE A 
DEBATE ABOUT WHETHER THE 

English: 
PRESIDENT'S CONDUCT ACTUALLY 
VIOLATED TODAY'S BRIBERY 
STATUTES, BECAUSE THAT'S NOT THE
STANDARD BY WHICH WE MEASURE 
WHETHER PRESIDENTIAL CONDUCT IS 
IMPEACHABLE OR NOT.
WHEN THE PRESIDENT LEAVES 
OFFICE, WE MAY BE DEBATING 
WHETHER BRIBERY CHARGES COULD BE
BROUGHT BASED ON THE EVIDENCE I 
SUGGEST IT COULD BE BROUGHT.
BUT THAT'S A DEBATE FOR ANOTHER 
DAY.
>> GLEN, IT'S INTERESTING, YOU 
MENTIONED THAT HISTORICALLY, THE
U.S. CODE DIDN'T EXIST AT THE 
TIME OF THE FRAMING OF THE 
CONSTITUTION.
IS IT THE CASE THAT THE FACT 
THAT WE DIDN'T REALLY HAVE A 
BODY OF FEDERAL STATUTORY 
CRIMINAL LAW STRONGER EVIDENCE 
THAT YOU DON'T NEED A CRIME FOR 
AN IMPEACHABLE OFFENSE?
>> ABSOLUTELY.
A CRIME MAY BE SUFFICIENT.
BUT YOU DON'T NEED A CRIME IN 
ORDER TO MAKE OUT AN IMPEACHABLE
OFFENSE.
THAT IS SOMETHING THAT I THINK 
WE NEED TO REMAIN FOCUSED ON.
IT'S NOT CAN HE FULFILL -- DOES 
THE EVIDENCE FULFILL EVERY 
SINGLE ELEMENT OF A PARTICULAR 

English: 
CRIME ON THE BOOKS RIGHT NOW?
BECAUSE AS YOU SAY, THOSE 
STATUTES DIDN'T EXIST AT THE 
TIME OF THE FRAMING OF THE 
CONSTITUTION.
>> GLEN, PROFESSOR TURLEY SAYS 
WE SHOULD SLOW DOWN THIS 
PROCESS.
IF WE DO, DOES THAT MEAN WE 
SHOULD HEAR FROM FOLKS LIKE 
McGAHN, BOLTON AND OTHERS?
>> YOU BET WE SHOULD.
I FOUND IT INTERESTING THAT 
PROFESSOR TURLEY'S COMPLAINTS 
SEEMED TO BE LARGELY THAT WE ARE
LOOKING -- WE ARE FOCUSING TOO 
NARROWLY AND MOVING TOO QUICKLY.
I HAVE BEEN SAYING ALL ALONG 
THAT I THINK IT WOULD BE WORTH 
SLOWING THE PROCESS DOWN A 
LITTLE BIT TO HEAR FROM SOME OF 
THESE WITNESSES THAT THE 
PRESIDENT HAS PROHIBITED 
UNLAWFULLY, I MIGHT ADD, 
PROHIBITED FROM TESTIFYING.
THE BOLTON, THE POMPEO, 
MULVANEY, McGAHN.
ALL OF THEM HAVE, AS I SAY, NOT 
JUST RELEVANT EVIDENCE BUT 
POTENTIALLY INCRIMINATING 
INFORMATION ABOUT THE PRESIDENT 

English: 
AND ABOUT HOW THEY WENT ABOUT 
HOLDING BACK, PUTTING A HOLD ON 
THIS UKRAINIAN AID THAT, 
FRANKLY, WHEN YOU THINK ABOUT 
IT, THIS IS MONEY THAT CONGRESS 
APPROPRIATED AND THAT SHOULD 
HAVE BEEN GIBGIVEN DIRECTLY TO  
UKRAINE TO DEFEND AGAINST 
RUSSIAN AGGRESSION TO HELP SAVE 
UKRAINIAN LIVES.
CONGRESS DECIDED IT WAS IN OUR 
NATIONAL INTEREST TO DO THAT.
WE DON'T JUST DO IT OUT OF THE 
GOODNESS OF OUR HEART.
WE DO IT BECAUSE IT'S IN OUR 
NATIONAL INTEREST TO HELP 
UKRAINE DEFEND AGAINST RUSSIAN 
AGGRESSION.
FOR THE PRESIDENT TO HOLD THAT 
MONEY AND PUT HIS OWN PERSONAL 
CONDITIONS ON IT, YOU KNOW, WHAT
HE IS DOING IS HE IS USING OUR 
MONEY, TAXPAYER MONEY THAT IS 
DESIGNATED FOR A SPECIFIC 
PURPOSE AND HE IS APPROPRIATING 
IT FOR HIS OWN PURPOSE.
THAT REALLY CAN'T BE TOLERATED.
>> ALL RIGHT.
THANKS SO MUCH, GLEN.
>> THANK YOU.

English: 
>> THE IMPEACHMENT PROCESS 
PLAYING OUT IN WASHINGTON IS 
POLARIZING TO SAY THE LEAST.
ONE THING THAT BOTHARE 
GRAPPLING WITH IS THE LACK OF 
PRECEDENT.
>> THE LIST OF IMPEACHABLE 
OFFENSES THAT THE FRAMERS 
INCLUDED IN THE CONSTITUTION 
SHOWS THE ESSENCE OF AN 
IMPEACHABLE OFFENSE IS A 
PRESIDENT'S DECISION TO 
SACRIFICE THE NATIONAL INTEREST 
FOR HIS OWN PRIVATE END.
TREASON, THE FIRST THING LISTED,
AN INDIVIDUAL GIVING AID TO A 
FOREIGN ENEMY.
THAT IS PUTTING A FOREIGN 
ENEMY'S ADVERSARY INTEREST ABOVE
THE INTERESTS OF THE UNITED 
STATES.
BRIBERY, OCCURRED WHEN AN 
OFFICIAL SOLICITED, RECEIVED OR 
OFFERED A PERSONAL FAVORHE WOUL 
PRIVATE WELFARE ABOVE THE 

English: 
NATIONAL INTEREST.
HIGH CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS, AN
OFFICIAL MIGHT DISREGARD PUBLIC 
INTEREST IN THE DISCHARGE OF THE
DUTIES OF POLITICAL OFFICE.
THE EVIDENCE REVEALS A PRESIDENT
WHO USED THE POWERS OF HIS 
OFFICE TO DEMAND 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.
>> ALLAN LICKMAN IS WITH ME FROM
D.C.
WHO WON TODAY, THE PRESIDENT OR 
THE DEMOCRATS?
>> IT WAS A BIG WIN FOR THE 
DEMOCRATS.
THE GREAT SUCKING SOUND YOU HEAR
IS A BIG SIGH OF DISAPPOINTMENT 
FROM DONALD TRUMP AND THE WHITE 
HOUSE.
THEY WANTED THEIR GUY AT THE 
HEARINGS, JONATHAN TURLEY, TO 

English: 
PARROT THE PRESIDENT'S LINE.
I HAVE DONE ABSOLUTELY NOTHING 
WRONG.
MY CALL WAS ABSOLUTELY PERFECT.
TURLEY'S TESTIMONY WAS LIGHT 
YEARS AWAY FROM THAT.
HE SAID THE CALL WAS FAR FROM 
PERFECT.
HE NEVER SAID THE PRESIDENT 
DIDN'T DO ANYTHING WRONG.
HE SIMPLY RELIED ON PROCEDURAL 
ARGUMENT SAYING, WELL, WE SHOULD
EXTEND THE PROCESS.
WE SHOULDN'T RUSH IT.
EVEN SAID AT THE END OF THE 
PROCESS, WE MAY WELL FIND 
GROUNDS FOR IMPEACHING THE 
PRESIDENT.
THEN HIS OTHER ARGUMENT WAS 
THERE'S VERY NARROW DEFINITION 
OF WHAT CONSTITUTES AN 
IMPEACHABLE OFFENSE.
THAT'S THE SAME ARGUMENT HE MADE
WHEN DEFENDING A JUDGE A FEW 
YEARS AGO.
IT WAS REJECTED AFTER A SENATE 
TRIAL BY THE OVERWHELMING 
MAJORITY OF BOTH REPUBLICAN AND 
DEMOCRATIC SENATORS.
THIS IS NOTHING LIKE WHAT THE 
WHITE HOUSE WANTED TO HEAR.

English: 
>> IN YOUR BOOK, THE CASE FOR 
IMPEACHMENT, WHICH PREDATED THE 
UKRAINE AFFAIR BY A COUPLE 
YEARS, YOU PREDICTED PRESIDENT 
TRUMP WAS VULNERABLE TO 
IMPEACHMENT IN EIGHT CATEGORIES.
WHAT DID YOU HEAR TODAY?
>> I HEARD SEVERAL CATEGORIES.
ONE WAS FLOUTING THE LAW.
THE OTHER WAS LIES, LIES AND 
LIES.
THE OTHER ONE WAS A WHOLE 
HISTORY OF PROMOTING HIMSELF AT 
THE EXPENSE OF OTHERS.
LET'S CUT THROUGH THE RHETORIC.
HERE IS WHAT IS NOT DISPUTED.
IT'S NOT DISPUTED THAT THE 
PRESIDENT SOLICITED A FOREIGN 
POWER TO CONDUCT INVESTIGATIONS 
TO HELP HIM CHEAT IN THE 2020 
ELECTION.
WHETHER YOU THINK THE AID OR THE
WHITE HOUSE MEETING WAS 
CONDITIONED ON HIS REQUEST TO 
UKRAINE, HE CLEARLY MADE IT.
HE MADE IT AGAIN ON THE WHITE 
HOUSE LAWN.
HE EVEN INCLUDED CHINA.

English: 
NO DISPUTE OVER THAT.
THERE IS NO DISPUTE THAT THIS IS
THE FIRST PRESIDENT IN HISTORY 
TO CLAIM THIS BLANKET IMMUNITY 
THAT NO ONE UNDER HIS AUTHORITY,
EVEN WHO LEFT HIS AUTHORITY CAN 
TESTIFY, AND THERE CAN BE NO 
DOCUMENTS RELEASED.
TURLEY LAMELY TRIED TO SAY, 
NIXON DID THAT.
IT WAS IMMEDIATELY REBUKED.
NIXON AUTHORIZED LOTS OF KEY 
AIDES TO TESTIFY, FORMER 
ATTORNEY GENERAL JOHN MITCHELL, 
HIS TOP WHITE HOUSE AIDES, HIS 
FORMER WHITE HOUSE COUNSEL JOHN 
DEAN ALL TESTIFIED.
HE RELEASED LOTS OF DOCUMENTS.
HIS OBSTRUCTION WAS MORE 
SELECTIVE THAN THAT OF DONALD 
TRUMP.
THOSE FACTS ARE NOT IN DISPUTE.
THERE ARE OTHER THINGS THAT ARE 
IN DISPUTE BUT NOT THOSE. 
>> PROFESSOR TURLEY DID MAKE THE
ARGUMENT THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP 
ISN'T NECESSARILY OBSTRUCTING 
JUSTICE -- EXCUSE ME, 
OBSTRUCTING CONGRESS IF HE TAKES

English: 
THE DISPUTE TO THE COURT.
HE IS ASKING THE COURT TO WORK 
IT OUT.
WHAT DO YOU SAY TO THAT?
>> DONALD TRUMP IS NOT TAKING 
THE DISPUTE TO THE COURT.
HE IS INVOKING THIS BLANKET 
IMMUNITY THAT WOULD APPLY TO 
CONGRESS AND TO THE COURTS.
IT'S THE DEMOCRATS WHO HAVE 
TAKEN THIS TO THE COURTS REALLY 
TO TRY TO FORCE TESTIMONY.
AS WAS BROUGHT OUT IN THE 
HEARINGS, THIS IS NOTHING MORE 
THAN A CYNICAL DELAYING TACTIC.
THE CASE WITH RESPECT TO McGAHN,
THE FORMER WHITE HOUSE COUNSEL 
HAS BEEN PENDING SINCE LAST 
APRIL AND IS ONLY IN THE MIDDLE.
IT'S GOING TO GO ON FOR MANY 
MORE MONTHS.
ALL TRUMP IS DOING IS RUNNING 
OUT THE CLOCK.
THAT'S CLEAR OBSTRUCTION. 
>> THANKS SO MUCH.
>> ANY TIME.
>> LET'S GO BACK TO CAPITOL HILL
TO LEE ANN CALDWELL.
SHE'S JOINED BY A CONGRESSWOMAN.
>> THANKS.
THE COMMITTEE AS YOU KNOW JUST 
WRAPPED UP.

English: 
CONGRESSWOMAN, YOU WERE ON 
INTELLIGENCE AND JUDICIARY 
COMMITTEES.
DO YOU THINK THE DEMOCRATS HAVE 
DONE THEIR JOB IN FINDING THESE 
ALLEGATIONS AGAINST THE 
PRESIDENT TO BE IMPEACHABLE?
>> WE'RE NOT DONE YET.
I DO BELIEVE -- YOU HAVE SEEN 
THE WORK OF THE INTELLIGENCE 
COMMITTEE.
I DO BELIEVE WHEN YOU LOOK AT 
THE PRESIDENT'S STATEMENT FROM 
THE CALL ON JULY 25th, WHEN YOU 
LOOK AT THE CORROBORATING 
EVIDENCE, WITNESSES ON THE CALL,
AND THE HOST OF FOREIGN SERVICE 
OFFICERS INVOLVED IN THIS 
PROCESS, THERE'S NO DOUBT THAT 
THE PRESIDENT ABUSED HIS POWER 
BY TRYING TO COERCE A FOREIGN 
POWER INTO INTERFERING IN OUR 
ELECTION.
IN TODAY'S HEARINGS, I THINK THE
CONSTITUTIONAL EXPERTS DID AN 
EXCEPTIONAL JOB IN TERMS OF 
LAYING OUT WHAT THEY BELIEVE THE
FRAMERS HAD IN MIND, BECAUSE THE
FRAMERS WERE SO CONCERNED ABOUT 
A PRESIDENT ABUSING HIS 
AUTHORITY BY WORKING WITH A 
FOREIGN POWER.

English: 
AND I THINK THE WITNESSES TODAY 
DID AN EXCELLENT JOB IN TERMS OF
LAYING OUT WHY THE FRAMERS WERE 
SO CONCERNED ABOUT THAT.
THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT WE ARE 
SEEING TODAY.
>> DO YOU THINK THERE WILL BE AN
ARTICLE OF IMPEACHMENT ABOUT 
ABUSE OF POWER?
>> I THINK THE PRESIDENT ABUSED 
HIS POWER.
I THINK THE PRESIDENT 
JEOPARDIZED OUR NATIONAL 
SECURITY.
I THINK THE PRESIDENT OBSTRUCTED
JUSTICE.
THERE'S NO DOUBT ABOUT THOSE 
THINGS.
I WOULD CERTAINLY THINK THAT 
THERE WOULD BE ARTICLES OF 
IMPEACHMENT WRITTEN ADDRESSING 
THOSE ISSUES.
THE ONLY QUESTION I BELIEVE 
THAT'S LEFT OUT THERE IS, 
PRESIDENT ABUSED HIS POWER.
WHAT ARE WE AS A COUNTRY GOING 
DO ABOUT IT?
THE DECISION WE MAKE TODAY HAS 
THE POTENTIAL TO AFFECT US, AS 
YOU WELL KNOW, FOR GENERATIONS 
TO COME.
>> REPUBLICANS ARE SAYING THAT 
DEMOCRATS ARE MOVING TOO FAST.
ARE YOU?
>> YOU KNOW, THAT'S INTERESTING.
I THINK OUR WITNESSES AGAIN SO 
ELOQUENTLY EXPLAINED WHY WAITING

English: 
FOR THE NEXT ELECTION REALLY 
SHOULD NOT BE AN OPTION.
THE FRAMERS, THEY WERE CONCERNED
ABOUT A PRESIDENT WHO MAY NOT 
COULD BE CRIMINALLY CHARGED, 
STILL HAVING THE ABILITY TO 
ABUSE THEIR AUTHORITY OR POWER 
TO ACTUALLY CHEAT IN THE NEXT 
ELECTION.
WHAT SENSE WOULD IT MAKE TO 
LEAVE A PERSON IN PLACE FOR 
WEEKS, FOR MONTHS OR MAYBE IN 
SOME CASES YEARS TO ALLOW THEM 
TO CONTINUE TO CHEAT, TO 
MANIPULATE, TO COORDINATE WITH A
FOREIGN POWER TO ACTUALLY STEAL 
AN ELECTION?
THE FRAMERS WERE CONCERNED ABOUT
THAT.
WHEN WE TALK ABOUT MOVING TOO 
QUICKLY AS A FORMER LAW 
ENFORCEMENT OFFICER, IF I SAW 
WRONGDOING, I THINK THE PUBLIC 
WANTED ME TO MOVE AS 
EXPEDITIOUSLY BUT THOROUGHLY AS 
I COULD.
THAT'S WHAT WE ARE SEEING TODAY.

English: 
>> THANKS FOR YOUR TIME.
I APPRECIATE IT.
>> THANK YOU.
>> BACK TO YOU.
>> THANKS SO MUCH.
TODAY'S HEARING CENTERED ON AN 
EXPLORATION OF THE 
CONSTITUTIONAL GROUNDS FOR 
IMPEACHMENT AND IF TRUMP'S 
ACTIONS MEET THE DEFINITION OF 
BRIBERY AND HIGH CREA CRIMES AN 
MISDEMEANORS.
PROFESSOR, YOU WERE ONE OF THE 
SCHOLARS WHO TESTIFIED BEFORE 
THE HOUSE JUDICIARY DURING THE 
CLINTON IMPEACHMENT.
YOU HAVE SAID IN THAT CASE, THE 
HOUSE COMPLETELY FAILED TO 
EXPLORE THE NATURE OF AN 
IMPEACHABLE OFFENSE.
WHAT GRADE DO YOU GIVE THE HOUSE
TODAY IN DEBATING WHAT IS AN 
IMPEACHABLE OFFENSE?
>> I THOUGHT THAT THE FOUR LAW 
PROFESSORS DID A GREAT JOB.
I THINK THEY REALLY EXPLAINED, 
ESPECIALLY THE THREE, EXPLAINED 
WHAT IS AN IMPEACHABLE OFFENSE 
AND WHY IT'S SO IMPORTANT THAT 

English: 
IF THE PRESIDENT COMMITTED AN 
IMPEACHABLE OFFENSE THAT HE BE 
REMOVED.
>> BACK IN '98, DURING THE 
CLINTON IMPEACHMENT, A 
SUBCOMMITTEE OF HOUSE JUDICIARY 
TALKED TO PROFESSORS ABOUT 
WHETHER CLINTON'S CONDUCT WAS 
IMPEACHABLE.
YOU SAID IT WAS NOT.
TURLEY SAID IT WAS.
HOW DOES PROFESSOR TURLEY'S 
POSITION TODAY SQUARE WITH WHAT 
HE SAID THEN?
>> I SAID THE HOUSE HAS 
DISCRETION WHETHER TO CHARGE AND
TO IMPEACH A PRESIDENT.
I THINK THAT WHAT WE HAVE TODAY 
AND THE EVIDENCE THE HOUSE 
INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE HAS PUT 
TOGETHER DOES SHOW AN 
IMPEACHABLE OFFENSE.
I THINK THE HOUSE STILL HAS 
DISCRETION WHETHER TO CHARGE IT 
OR IN THE WORDS OF THE 
CONSTITUTION IMPEACH.
I BELIEVE IN THIS CASE THE 
EVIDENCE DOES WARRANT 
IMPEACHMENT.

English: 
THE PRESIDENT ABUSED HIS OFFICE 
TO HELP IN THE NEXT ELECTION.
THAT'S, I BELIEVE, IMPEACHABLE. 
>> YOU SAID THAT EVEN WHEN A 
PRESIDENT COMMITS HIGH CRIMES 
AND MISDEMEANORS, THE HOUSE CAN 
CHOOSE WHETHER TO IMPEACH.
DOES THAT MEAN IF THE PRESIDENT 
COMMITTED IMPEACHABLE OFFENSES, 
THE HOUSE SHOULD CONSIDER NOT 
IMPEACHING HIM?
>> I DO BELIEVE THAT.
THE HOUSE IS OPERATING MUCH LIKE
A GRAND JURY WOULD IN A CRIMINAL
TRIAL.
IN A CRIMINAL TRIAL, THE GRAND 
JURY WEIGHS THE EVIDENCE AND 
DECIDES WHETHER OR NOT THERE'S 
AN INDICTABLE OFFENSE THERE.
THERE'S SOME DISCRETION.
THE PROSECUTOR ACTUALLY 
INITIALLY DECIDES WHETHER TO 
BRING IT.
THERE'S AN ELEMENT OF 
DISCRETION.
I BELIEVE IN THIS CASE, 
DISCRETION SHOULD GO TOWARD 
IMPEACHMENT.
IN ANSWER TO YOUR QUESTION, 
THERE'S AN ELEMENT OF DISCRETION
HERE.
>> IT'S INTERESTING, YOU TALK 
ABOUT DISCRETION.
WHAT STANDARD SHOULD THE HOUSE 
JUDICIARY COMMITTEE APPLY TO 

English: 
WHETHER AN IMPEACHABLE OFFENSE 
WAS COMMITTED?
SHOULD IT BE THE CRIMINAL 
STANDARD OF PROBABLE CAUSE?
YOU MENTIONED AN INDICTMENT.
SHOULD IT BE PROBABLE CAUSE OR 
SHOULD IT BE SOMETHING ELSE AT 
THIS STAGE?
>> I'M NOT -- PROBABLE CAUSE 
MAKES SENSE.
WHAT YOU ARE SAYING IS HAS THE 
PRESIDENT EXHIBITED BEHAVIOR 
THAT JEOPARDIZES THE 
CONSTITUTION AND OUR DEMOCRACY?
I THINK WHEN THE PRESIDENT HAS 
ASKED A FOREIGN COUNTRY TO HELP 
IN HIS NEXT ELECTION AND WHEN HE
WITHHELD MONEY SO AS TO GET THAT
HELP FROM THE FOREIGN COUNTRY, 
THEN I WOULD SAY DISCRETION 
SUGGESTS IMPEACHING.
>> DO YOU SEE SIMILARITIES IN 
THE TESTIMONY TODAY TO WHAT YOU 
SAW A COUPLE DECADES AGO DURING 
THE CLINTON IMPEACHMENT?
>> WELL, YES IN THE SENSE THAT 

English: 
WE WERE ALL DISCUSSING WHAT A 
HIGH CRIME AND MISDEMEANOR IS.
I THINK THE FACTS -- THE 
ALLEGATIONS AGAINST PRESIDENT 
CLINTON VERSUS THE ALLEGATIONS 
AGAINST PRESIDENT TRUMP ARE VERY
DIFFERENT.
PRESIDENT CLINTON DID NOT USE 
HIS PRESIDENTIAL POWERS FOR HIS 
OWN
PRESIDENT CLINTON DID NOT USE 
HIS OWN PRESIDENTIAL POWERS FOR 
HIS OWN PERSONAL GAIN AT THE 
EXPENSE OF THE COUNTRY AND 
PRESIDENT TRUMP IS ALLEGED TO 
HAVE DONE THAT. 
>> THANK YOU SO MUCH, SUSAN.
>> THANK YOU.
>> TODAY WASN'T THE FIRST TIME 
CONSTITUTIONAL EXPERTS TESTIFIED
IN IMPEACHMENT HEARINGS.
SUSAN TESTIFIED AT THE LAST ONE.
WE WENT THROUGH THE ARCHIVES TO 
LOOK AT WHAT WAS SAID DURING 
PRESIDENT CLINTON'S IMPEACHMENT 
BACK IN 1988.
>> Reporter: BEFORE HEARINGS 
FROM WITNESSES NEXT WEEK, 
MEMBERS OF THE HOUSE JUDICIARY 

English: 
COMMITTEE WANT TO KNOW THIS, IF 
WHAT KEN STARR SAYS ABOUT BILL 
CLINTON IS TRUE, WOULD IT AMOUNT
TO HIGH CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS,
THE ONLY DEFINITION OF AN 
OFFENSE.
SOME SAY, YES.
>> IF IT'S TRUE, THEN THE 
PRESIDENT HAS ENGAGED FOR MANY 
MONTHS IN A CALCULATED SHAMEFUL 
EFFORTS TO FRUSTRATE OUR CIVIL 
AND CRIMINAL LAWS TO SERVE HIS 
PERSONAL END.
>> Reporter: OTHER SCHOLARS SAY,
NO, CONGRESS CANNOT DECIDE 
WHETHER TO IMPEACH A PRESIDENT 
FOR COMMITTING ANY CRIME.
>> IT WOULD FOLLOW YOU CAN 
IMPEACH THE PRESIDENT OF THE 
UNITED STATES MORE EASILY THAN 
ANY OTHER CIVIL OFFICER OF THE 
GOVERNMENT.
MAKING THE PRESIDENT UNIQUELY 
VULNERABLE.
>> Reporter: ONE HISTORIAN WHO 
WORKED IN THE KENNEDY WHITE 
HOUSE SAPPHIRES THE PRESIDENT'S 
LYING TO BE IMPEACHABLE IT HAS 
TO BE ABOUT SOMETHING SERIOUS.
>> IF THE PERSON IS ACCUSED OF 
SOMETHING FALSELY, THAT'S ONE 

English: 
THING.
IF A PERSON CONCEALS HIS LOVE 
LIFE THAT APPEARS TO BE ANOTHER 
THING.
>> Reporter: MOST AGREE ON ONE 
THING, EITHER IMPEACH THE 
PRESIDENT OR LET HIM OFF THE 
HOOK BUT CAN'T TRY SOMETHING 
LIKE CENSURE.
>> AN OFFICIAL WORKING ON WHITE 
HOUSE STRATEGY SLAMMED TWO OF 
THE WITNESSES FOR THEIR PAST 
COMMENTS ON IMPEACHMENT.
ONE SAYING THAT WAS CLOUDED WITH
ANTI-TRUMP BIAS.
KELLY O'DONNELL JOINS US NOW.
WHAT ELSE DID THIS OFFICIAL SAY 
ABOUT THE WITNESSES?
>> THIS HAS BEEN A REAL PUSH ALL
DAY FROM THE REPUBLICAN SIDE OF 
THINGS AND THE WHITE HOUSE 
SAYING THIS HAS BEEN AN UNFAIR 
PROCESS.
DEMOCRATS BY VIRTUE OF HAVING 
THE GAVEL AND POWER, HAVE THE 
MAJORITY IN THE HOUSE, HAD THREE
REPRESENTATIVES FROM THE 
ACADEMIC COMMUNITY AND JUST ONE 
FOR REPUBLICANS AND REPUBLICANS 
HAD ASKED FOR AN EXPANSION OF 
THAT WITNESS PANEL TO INCLUDE AN
EVEN NUMBER BETWEEN THE TWO 

English: 
PARTIES, INVITING EXPERTS FROM 
EITHER SIDE.
THAT WAS DECLINED.
WHAT WE SAW WAS DEFINITELY AN 
IMBALANCE IN TERMS OF THE NUMBER
OF WITNESSES AND UP TO THOSE 
VIEWING IT TO GO THROUGH AND 
HEAR THE DIFFERENT ARGUMENTS AND
SEE WHAT KIND OF MESSAGE 
RESONATES WITH THEM IN THE 
GENERAL PUBLIC AS WELL AS 
LAWMAKERS.
THERE AREN'T A LOT OF MINDS TO 
BE CHANGED ON THE PANEL, 
REPUBLICANS STANDING UP FOR THE 
PRESIDENT ARGUING THE PROCESS 
HAD BEEN FLAWED AND THIS WAS 
GOING TOO QUICKLY AND THERE IS A
RUSH TO JUDGMENT WITHOUT 
SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE.
YOU HAVE DEMOCRATS WHO THINK 
THERE IS ABUNDANT EVIDENCE AND 
USED THESE THREE WITNESSES TO 
SHOW, BASED IN HISTORY, HOW THE 
FRAMERS OF THE CONSTITUTION 
INTENDED THE POWER OF 
IMPEACHMENT TO BE USED.
THEY ARGUED THAT FOR MANY MANY 
HOURS TODAY, TRYING TO GET AT 
THE ESSENTIAL ARGUMENT OF THIS 
BEING A SET OF OFFENSES THAT 
DEMOCRATS BELIEVE THE PRESIDENT 

English: 
HAS COMMITTED THAT WOULD RISE TO
THE LEVEL OF IMPEACHMENT.
AT THE SAME TIME, THE REPUBLICAN
WITNESS WAS SAYING, NOT IN THIS 
CIRCUMSTANCE.
YOU COULD PERHAPS GET THERE BUT 
NOT BASED ON THE EVIDENCE AS IT 
STANDS TODAY.
THE IMBALANCE WAS EVIDENCE TO 
THOSE WATCHING, BUT THAT WAS 
BAKED IN AND EXPECTED, IN PART 
BECAUSE THE PRESIDENT, THROUGH 
HIS WHITE HOUSE COUNSEL ELECTED 
NOT TO PARTICIPATE AT ALL, NOT 
SEND ANY LEGAL COUNSEL THERE AND
CERTAINLY THEY DID NOT 
ANTICIPATE HAVING ANY WITNESSES 
ADDED BECAUSE THEY HAD NOT EVEN 
BEEN INFORMED WHICH ACADEMIC 
WITNESSES WOULD BE PART OF THIS.
IT WAS PLAYED OUT MUCH LIKE WE 
EXPECTED.
IT WAS A LENGTHY DAY, AS YOU 
KNOW, AND ARGUMENTS WENT ALONG 
PARTISAN LINE.
VERY FEW SURPRISES AND MOMENTS 
OF EMOTION BUT MOSTLY STRONG 
VIEWPOINTS HELD BY THE LAWMAKERS
AS WELL AS THE PANEL IN THAT 
SPLIT.
REALLY, THE PUBLIC WILL HAVE TO 

English: 
SEE IF ANY MINDS ARE CHANGED 
BASED ON WHAT THEY SAID TODAY.
THIS IS ABOUT GIVING THE 
HISTORICAL PRECEDENT FOR WHY 
IMPEACHMENT IS MOVING FORWARD 
UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES.
THAT'S SOMETHING THE COMMITTEE 
WANTED TO DO.
THEY CHECKED THAT BOX NOW.
>> THANKS SO MUCH, KELLY 
O'DONNELL.
BACK TO CAPITOL, TO LEEANN 
CALDWELL JOINED BY SOMEONE ON 
THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE.
>> Reporter: IN YOUR QUESTION, 
YOU TALKED ABOUT -- YOU ASKED IF
THE ATTORNEYS BELIEVED THE 
PRESIDENT COMMITTED HIGH CRIMES 
AND MISDEMEANORS, BRIBERY AND 
OBSTRUCTION.
IS THAT INSIGHT WHAT ARTICLES OF
IMPEACHMENT COULD LOOK LIKE?
>> I CAN'T REALLY FORESHADOW THE
ARTICLES.
WHAT I WAS LEVERAGING WAS THE 
EVIDENCE, THE DAMNING EVIDENCE 
PRESENTED TO THE INTELLIGENCE 
COMMITTEE AND TESTIMONY BY THE 

English: 
PRESIDENT HIMSELF AND SOME OF 
HIS ADMINISTRATION.
WHAT WE SAW EVIDENCE OF AND WHAT
WE HAD THE CHANCE TO CONNECT TO 
THESE ACADEMICS, INCREDIBLE 
PROFESSORS OF CONSTITUTIONAL LAW
WAS THE CHANCE TO MARRY THE 
FACTS, THE EVIDENCE, AS BEING 
PRESENTED TO THE LAW.
WHAT WE HAD THE OPPORTUNITY TO 
DO WAS HAVE HISTORY COME TO 
LIFE.
WHAT DID THE FRAMERS IN 
PHILADELPHIA IN 1787 ARGUE 
ABOUT.
WHY DID THEY PUT IN AN 
IMPEACHMENT CLAUSE?
IT WAS DEBATED THEY WOULDN'T PUT
ONE IN.
IT WAS DEBATED IF THEY DIDN'T 
THEY COULD PROTECT THEM WHILE IN
OFFICE BY BRIBERY AND 
RACKETEERING.
IT WAS THE BASE TO CONNECT THE 
LAW AND CONSTITUTION TO THE 
EVIDENCE.
>> YOU ALSO INVOKED THE WORDS OF
YOUR FATHER AT THE END OF YOUR 
QUESTIONING.
CAN YOU TALK A LITTLE BIT ABOUT 
THAT AND WHY YOU DID THAT?

English: 
>> THANK YOU FOR ASKING.
THIS FRIDAY WOULD MARK MY 
FATHER'S 100th BIRTHDAY.
DECEMBER 6th, HE WAS BORN IN 
1919.
I WANTED TO GIVE A NOD TO HIM.
HE INSTILLED IN ME, FIVE 
BROTHERS AND A SISTER, IN THE 
PHILADELPHIA AREA, HE INSTILLED 
IN US A LOVE OF LANGUAGE AND 
WRITING EVEN THOUGH WE MIGHT NOT
HAVE ENJOYED IT AT THE TIME WITH
SUMMER ESSAYS.
IT WAS TO BE CLEAR AND CONCISE 
AND LIVELY WITH OUR WORDS AND 
THE TRUTH.
I HAD THE OPPORTUNITY TO TEACH 
FOR 10 YEARS.
I TAUGHT THE WRITING.
I INVOKED MY FATHER TO SAY WHAT 
HE IN STILLED IN ME I THINK IS 
WHAT THE FRAMERS WERE TRYING TO 
IN STILL IN ALL OF US.
CARING ABOUT OUR WORDS AND OUR 
TRUTH AND PROTECTING THIS 
CONSTITUTION.
>> DO YOU THINK THAT THE PEOPLE 
WHO ARE WRITING THESE ARTICLES 
OF IMPEACHMENT, DEMOCRATS SHOULD
INCLUDE MUELLER IN THEIR 

English: 
ARTICLES?
>> I REALLY DON'T WANT TO 
PREJUDGE.
WHAT WE DO KNOW AND THERE WAS 
SOME REPORTING OF THAT TODAY, 
MR. MUELLER, SPECIAL COUNSEL 
MUELLER FOUND AT LEAST 10 
INSTANCES OF OBSTRUCTION OF 
JUSTICE BY THE PRESIDENT, 
EVIDENCE OF THAT AND ONGOING 
OBSTRUCTION BY THIS PRESIDENT.
THE OTHER THING RELEVANT ABOUT 
MUELLER IS PATTERN OF BEHAVIOR.
VOLUME 1 OF MUELLER REVEALS MORE
THAN 100 CONTACTS, THE WELCOMING
AND WALLOWING OF THE TRUMP 
CAMPAIGN, THE PRESIDENT HIMSELF 
AND FOREIGN INFERENCE IN OUR 
ELECTION.
THOSE THINGS ARE STILL RELEVANT 
AND IT IS A CONTINUATION OF THAT
PATTERN OF BEHAVIOR INVITING 
FOREIGN COUNTRIES TO INTERFERE 
WITH THE MOST PRECIOUS PART OF 
OUR DEMOCRACY, OUR RIGHT TO 
VOTE.
YOU HEARD THE PROFESSOR SAY 
TODAY WE WILL NO LONGER BE AS 
FREE IF ELECTIONS WERE 
INTERFERED WITH.
WE KNOW THEY WERE INTERFERED 
WITH IN '16 AND THE PRESIDENT 
OPENLY SUGGESTED AND ASKED FOR 

English: 
RUSSIA TO INTERFERE.
HE ASKED FOR CHINA TO INTERFERE 
AND WE KNOW FROM THE RECORD OF 
THE CALL HE HAS ASKED FOR 
UKRAINE TO INTERFERE.
>> Reporter: REPUBLICANS MADE 
THE POINT THIS HAS BECOME A 
PARTISAN ENDEAVOR.
THERE'S NO SIGNS REPUBLICANS 
WILL SUPPORT THIS IMPEACHMENT IN
THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.
IS THAT PROBLEMATIC?
>> ONE THING TO LOOK AT -- I'VE 
BEEN ASKED ABOUT AT THE POLLS, 
50% OF THE AMERICAN REPUBLIC, 
DEMOCRATS AND REPUBLICANS AND 
INDEPENDENTS BELIEVE THE 
PRESIDENT SHOULD NOT ONLY BE 
IMPEACHED BUT REMOVED FROM 
OFFICE.
THAT IS NOT A PARTISAN ENDEAVOR 
TO NOT ONLY BE IMPEACHED BUT BE 
REMOVED.
I HAVEN'T GIVEN UP HOPE FROM MY 
REPUBLICAN COLLEAGUES.
WHEN THE EVIDENCE IS REVEALED 
AND HOUSE RESOLUTION OF 660 
DELIVERED TO US IN THE 

English: 
JUDICIARY, MAYBE SOME WILL BE 
PERSUADED, WILL RECOGNIZE OUR 
VERY CONSTITUTION AND DEMOCRACY 
THIS REPUBLIC IS AT STAKE.
>> Reporter: WHAT HAPPENS NEXT?
WILL THIS BE DONE BEFORE 
CHRISTMAS OUT OF THE HOUSE OF 
REPRESENTATIVES BEFORE THIS NEW 
YEAR?
>> I CAN'T PREDICT.
>> Reporter: THANK YOU, FRESHMAN
CONGRESSWOMAN DEAN.
>> ALISON PICKS UP WITH MORE 
NEWS IN JUST A FEW MINUTES.
