Densically record shows wrong acts on that scale here. It shows a president who delayed meeting a foreign leader and provided assistance that congressed a his own advisers agrees serves our National Interests in promoting democracy and in limiting russian aggression. Saying, russia, if youre listening, you know, a president who cant have the Constitution Say russia if you are listening, but out of our elections. It shows a president who did this to strong arm a foreign leader into smearing one of the president s opponents in our ongoing election season. Thats not politics as usual. At least not in the United States or not in any mature democracy. It is, instead, a cardinal reason why the constitution contains an Impeachment Power, put simply, a president should resist foreign interference in our elections, not demand 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 ger hard. Thank you, mr. Chairman, Ranking Member. Other dwirnd members of the committee. Its an honor and a privilege to join the other distinguished witnesses to discuss a matter of grave concern to our country and to our constitution. Because this house, the peoples house, has the sole power of impeachment. There is no better form to discuss the constitutional standard for impeachment and whether that standard has been met in the case of the current president of the United States. As i explained in the remainder and balance of my opening statement, the record compiled thus for shows the xrt has committed several Impeachable Offenses, including bribery, abuse of power and soliciting of personal favor from a foreign leader to benefit himself personally, obstructing justice, and obstructing congress. Our hearing today should serve as a reminder of one of the fundamental am principles that
drove the founders of our constitution to break from england and to draft their own constitution. The principle that in this country no one is king. We have followed that principle since before the founding of the constitution and it is recognized around the world as a fixed inspiring american ideal. In his third message to congress in 1903, president thee tore roosevelt delivered one of the finest articulations of this principles. He said, no one is Above The Law and no man is below. Nor do we ask any mans permission when we require him to obey it. Obedience to the law is demanded as a right, not asked for as a favor. Three features of our constitution protect the fundamental principle that no one, not even the president is Above The Law. First in the british system, the public had no choice over the monarch who ruled them and in our constitution, the framers
allowed elections to serve as a crucial means for ensuring president ial accountability. Second in the british system, the king could do no wrong. And no other parts of the government could check his misconduct. And in our constitution, the framers developed the concept of Separation Of Powers, which consists of checks and balances, designed to prevent any branch, including the presidency, from becoming too radical. Third in the british system, everyone but the king was impeachable. Our framers generation pledged their lives and fortunes to rebel against the monarch whom they saw as corrupt, tyrannical and entitled to do no wrong. In our declaration of independence, the framers set for atmosphere series of Impeachable Offenses that the king had committed against the american colonists. When the framers later convened in philadelphia to draft our constitution, they were united around a simple, indisputable principle that was a major safe guard for the public. With at the people, against
tyranny of any kind. A people who had overthrown a king were not going to turn around just after securing their independence from Corrupt Monarchial Tyranny 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 energy to the administration of federal laws but to be accountable, to congress, for treeson, bribery or other High Crimes And Misdemeanors. The framers concern about the need to protect against a corrupt president was ev department throughout the convention and here i must thank my prior two friends, who have spoken and referred to a North Carolinaian william davie, i will refer to another North Carolinaian in the constitutional convention, James Iredale who James Washington assured his fellow dell gaetz the president quote is of a very different nature from a monarch. He is to be personally responsible for any abuse of the
great trust placed in him. Unquote. This brings us, okay, to the crucial question we are here to talk about today. The standard for impeachment. The constitution defines treason and the term bribery basically means using a office for personal gain. Or i should say Misusing Office for personal gain. As Professor Feldman pointed out, these determines derived from the british who understood classes impeachable to refer to political crimes, which included great offenses against the United States, attempts to subvert the constitution, when the president devyates from his duty or dares to use the power invested to him by the people breaches public trust is serious injuries to the republic n. His influential letters in the federalist papers, Alexander Hamilton said those offenses
proceed from public men in other words the abuse of some public trust relate to chief injuries done immediately to society itself. Several themes emerge from this famous discussion of the scope of Impeachable Offenses and impeachment practice. We know that not all Impeachable Offenses are criminal and we know not all felonies are Impeachable Offenses. We know further that what matters in determine whether the particular misconduct constitutes high crime and misdemeanor is ultimately the context and the gravity of the misconduct in question. After reviewing the evidence thats been made public, i cannot help but bonn clued this president has attacked each of the constitutions, safe guards, against establishing a monarchy in this country. Both the context and gravity of the president s misconduct are clear. The favor he requested from ukraines president was to receive an exchange for his use of president ial power, ukraines
announcement of a criminal investigation of a political rival. The investigation was not the important action for the president. The announcement was. Because it could then be used in this country to manipulate the public into casting aside the president s political rival because of concerns about his corruption. The gravity of the president s misconduct is apparent when you compare it to the misconduct of the one president who resigned from office to avoid impeachment, conviction and removal. The House Judiciary Committee in 1974 approved three articles of impeachment against Richard Nixon who resigned a few days later. The first article charged him with obstruction of justice. If you read the mueller report, it identifies a number of facts, i wont lay them out here right now. That suggest the president , himself, has obstructed justice. If you look at the second arm of impeachment approved against Richard Nixon, it charged him with abuse of power for ordering the heads of the fbi, irs, cia, to harass his political enemies. In the present circumstance, the president has engaged in a pattern of abusing the trust placed in him by the American People by soliciting foreign countries, including china, russia and ukraine to investigate his political opponents and interfere on his behalf in elections in which he is a candidate. The third article approved against president Nixon Chargeed that he had failed to comply with four legislative suspense. And the present circumstance, the president has refused to comply with and directed at least ten others in his administration, not to comply with lawful congressional suspense, including Secretary Of State mike pompeo, Energy Secretary rick perry and acting Chief Of Staff and head of the Office Of Management And Budget is nick mulvaney. As senator Lindsay Graham now chair of the senate Judiciary Committee said when he was a member of the house On The Verge Of Impeaching president clinton. The day Richard Nixon failed to answer that subpoena is the day he was subject to impeachment, as we took the progress away
from congress and he became the judge and jury. That is a perfectly good articulation of why Obstruction Of Congress is impeachable. The president s defiance of congress is 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 boil down to the assertion that he is Above The Lawsuit. I wont read that letter here. But i do want to disagree with the characterization in the letter of these proceedings, since the constitution expressly says, and the Supreme Court has unanimously affirmed that the house is the sole power of impeachment and might that like the senate the house has the power to determine the rules for its proceedings. The president and his subordinates have argued further that the president is entitled
to absolute immunts from criminal procedure, even investigation for any criminal wrong doing, including shooting someone on fifth avenue. The president has claimed further hes entitled to Executive Privilege not to share any information he doesnt want to share with another branch. Hes also claimed the entitlement to be able to order the Executive Branch as hes done not to cooperate with this body when it conducts an investigation of the president. If left unchecked, the president will likely continue his pattern of soliciting foreign interference on behalf of the next election and, of course, his Obstruction Of Congress. The fact that we can easily transpose the articles of impeachment against president nixon onto the actions of this president speaks volumes. That does not include the most Serious National Security concerns and election interference concerns at the heart of this president s misconduct. No misconduct is more emma thet
cal to our democracy and nothing Inju Ininjuries the American People more than the president weakens his power under the authority of the constitution as well as the authority of the constitution, itself. May i read one more sentence . The witness may have another sentence or two. Thank you. If Congress Fails to impeach here, then the Impeachment Process has lost all meaning, along with that our constitutions carefully crafted safe guards against the establishment of a king on american soil, therefore, i stand with the constitution and i stand with the framers who were committed to ensure that no one is Above The Law. Thank you, professor. Professor turley. Thank you. Chairman nadler, Ranking Member collins, members of the Judiciary Committee, its an honor to appear before you today to discuss one of the most sequential functions you were given by the framers and that is the impeachment of the president of the United States. 21 years ago, i sat before you,
chairman nadler, and this committee to testify at the impeachment of president William Jefferson clinton. I never thought that i would have to appear a second time to address the same question with regard to another sitting president. Yet, here we are. The elements are strikingly similar. The intent, rancor and rage of the public debate is the same. The atmosphere that the framers anticipated, the stifling and tolerance of opposing views is the same. Id like to start, therefore, perhaps incongrusly stating a relevant fact. Im not a supporter of President Trump. I voted against him. My personal views of President Trump are as irrelevant to my Impeachment Testimony as they should be to your impeachment
vote. President trump will not be our last president and what we leave in the wake of this scandal will shape our democracy for generations to come. I am concerned about lowering Impeachment Standards to fit applausity of evidence and abundance of anger. I believe this not only fails to satisfy the past impeachments but would create a dangerous precedent for future 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 noncriminal acts. When the framers met in philadelphia, they were quite familiar with impeachment and its 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 its application to judicial and executive officials, but its grounds. The framers rejected a proposal to Add Maladministration 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, attaining office by improper means, betraying the trust of a foreign, to a foreign power, negligence, perfity, speculation and oppression. Perfity are lying and self dealing are particularly relevant to our current controversy. My testimony explores the Impeachment Cases of nixon, johnson and checkpoint. The closest of these three cases is to the 1868 impeachment of andrew johnson. It is not a model or an association that this committee should relish. In that case, a group of
opponents of the president s called the Radical Republicans created a trap door crime in order to impeach the president. They even defined it as a high misdemeanor. There was another shared aspect besides the atmosphere of that impeachment and also the unconventional style of the two president s. And that shared element is speed. This impeachment would rival the johnson impeachment as the shortest in history, depending on how one counts the relevant days. Now there are three distinctions when you look at these three commonalities when you look at these past cases. All involve established crimes. This would be the first impeachment in history where there would be considerable debate and in my view not compelling evidence of the commission of a crime. Second is the abbreviated period of this investigation, which is
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. Youre 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 luke is a Golden Doodle and they gone get mad. So were all mad. Where has that taken us . Well, in the slip shot of impeachment make us less mad . Will it only invite and invitation for the madness to
follow every future administration . That is why this is wrong. Its not wrong because President Trump is right. His call is anything but perfect. Its not wrong because the house has no legitimate reason to investigate the ukrainian controversy. Its not wrong because were in an election year. There is no good time for an impeachment. No its wrong because this is not how you impeach an american president. This case is not a case of the unnoticeable. Its a case of the peripheral. We have a record of conflicts, defenses that have not been fully considered, unsuspended witness with material evidence. To impeach a president on this record would expose every future president to the same time of incollate impeachment. Impeachment often takes us to a place we would not want to be. The place seven republicans found themselves in the johnson
trial when they saved a president from acquittal that they despised. For generations they even interstated his profiles of courage. Senator edmond ross said it was like looking down into his open grave. Then he jumped. Because he didnt have any alternative. Its easy to celebrate those people from the distance of time and circumstance in the age of rage, its appealing to listen to those saying, forget the definitions of crimes, just do it. Like this is some Impulse Buying nike sneaker. You can certainly do that, you can declare the definitions of crimes alleged are immaterial, just an exercise of politics, not the law. However, those legal definitions and standards, which ive addressed in my testimony are the very thing that divide rage from reason. This all brings up to me and i will conclude with this, of a
scene from a man for all seasons by sir thomas moore when his soninlaw William Ropeer put the law suggested that moore was putting the law ahead of morality. He said, moore would give the devil the benefit of the law. When moore asks ropeer, would he instead cut a great road through the law to get after the devil . Ropeer proudly declares, yes. Id 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, ropeer . All the laws being flat . He said, this country is planted thick with laws from coasttocoast, mans laws, not gods. And if you cut them down, and youre just the man to do it, do you really think you can stand upright in the winds that would
blow then . He finished by saying, yes, id give the devil the benefit of the law for my own sake. So i will conclude with this, both sides of this controversy have demonized the other to justify any measure in their defense, much like roper. Perhaps thats the saddest part of all of this. We have forgotten the common article of faith that binds each of us to each other in our constitution. However, before we cut down the tree so carefully planted by the framers, i hope you will consider what you will do when the wind blows again. Perhaps for a democratic president. Where will you stand then when all the laws being flat. Thank you, again, for the honor of testifying today. Id be happy to answer any
questions. I thank the witnesses. Mr. Chairman, i seek recognition. Who seeks recognition. Me, mr. Chairman. For what purpose . I have a motion pursuant to rule 211 specifically 2 k 6 i move to subpoena the individual commonly referred to as the bhisle blower. Gentleman stated his motion. I mof to table the motion. The motion is tainl tabled. All in favor say aye. Oppose no. Mr. Chairman, role call motion. Motion to table is approved. The role call is requested. The clerk will call the roll. Mr. Nadler. Aye. Mr. Nadler votes aye, mrs. Love green aye. Miss jackson leigh. Aye. Mr. Johnson of georgia. Aye. As there is another role call vote, the republicans continue to call for motions that will be rejected by the democraticled committee. Lets check in carrie cordero, we just heard from three legal
professors, Constitutional Professor Who Support Impeaching the president , one who opposes it. Did anything spike i strike you as surprising . I thought it was an interesting juxtaposition from Professor Turically and carlan from stanford. Republican turley is republican witness is arguing there is an insufficient factual record, that there hasnt been enough everyday gathered, that there are more witnesses that could be called, more records that could be obtained and that this schedule of impeachment shouldnt be rushed. And he also thinks that there is not enough historical justification for this current impeachment to go forward based on the facts that there are so far. Professor pamela carlan from stanford had a very different view in the historical piece. Because she looks back and said,
quote, i dont think weve ever seen before a president who has doubled down on violating his oath to faithfully execute the laws and to quote protect and defend the constitution, unquote. So hes looking back on history and staying, you know what, these facts are really new. All right, lets listen back in. Mr. Collins votes no. Is there anyone else who wishes to vote. Mr. Chairman, how am i record ed . Mr. Sensenbrenner, you are not recorded. No. Mr. Sensenbrenner votes no. Anyone else . The report. Conclude the report. The clerk will report. Mr. Chairman, there are 24 ayes, 17 nos. The witness the motion to table is adopted. We will now proceed to the first round of questions. Pursuant to h resolution, House Resolution 660 and its accompanied Judiciary Committee procedures, there will be 45 minutes of questions conducted by the chairman or majority counsel followed by 45 minutes for the Ranking Member or minority counsel. Only the chair and Ranking Member and their respective counsels may question witnesses during this period. Following that unless i specify additional equal time for extended questioning, we will proceed under the five minute rolle rule and every member will have chance for questions. I now recognize myself for if first round of questions. Professors, thank you for being here today. The committee has been charged with a grave responsibility of considering whether to recommend articles of impeachment against the president. I speak for my colleagues when i say that we do not take this lightly. We are committed to ensuring that todays hearing as well as the larger responsibility before us are grounded in the
constitution. The Intelligence Committees report concluded that the president pressured a foreign leader to interfere from our elections by initiateding and announcing investigations into President Trumps political adversaries. He then sought to prevent congress from investigating his conduct by ordering his administration and everyone in it to defy house subpoenas. Professor carlan 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. Around how does it do so . On, the way that it does it is exactly what president washington warned about, by inviting a Foreign Government to influence our elections, it takes the right away from the American People and it turns that into a right that Foreign Governments decide to interfere for their own benefit. Foreign governments dont interfere to benefit us. They intervene to benefit themselves. Thank you, professor gerhardt, you have quinn extensively about our system of checks and balances, what happens to that system when the president undertakes a blockade of congresss Impreechlt Inquiry impeachment query and orders all recourse . When the president does that, the Separation Of Powers means nothing. The subpoenas that have been issued, of course, are lawful orders. In our law schools, we would teach ourp students, this is an easy straight forward situation, you comply with the law. Lawyers all the time have to comply with subpoenas but in this situation the full scale obstruction, full scale obstruction of subpoenas i think torpedos Separation Of Powers and, therefore, your own recourse is to either in a sense protect your institutional prerogatives, that would include impeachment. The same is true of defying congressional subpoenas on a wholesale basis with respect to
oversight, not just impeachment . Absolutely, yes, sir. Thank you. Professor feldman, as i understand it, the framers intended impeachment to be used infrequently. Not as punishment, but to save our democracy from threats so significant that we kind of wait for the next election. In your testimony, you suggest that we face that kind of threat. Can you explain why you think impeachment is the appropriate recourse here, why we cannot wait for the next election . Those are two questions if you want them to be. The framers reserved impeachment for situations where the president abused his office, that is, used it for his personal advantage and, in particular, they were specifically worried about a situation where the president used his office to facilitate corruptly his own reelection. Thats, in fact, why they thought they needed impeachment and why waiting for the next election wasnt good enough. On the facts that we have before the house right now, the
president solicited assistance from a Foreign Government in order to assist his own reelection. That is, he used the power of his office, that no one else could possibly have used in order to gain personal advantage for himself, distorting the election. Thats precisely what the framers anticipated. Thank you very much. I now 82 else the remainder of my time to mr. Eisen for counsel questions. Pro guessers. Good morning professors, good morning, thank you for being here. I want to ask you some questions about the following High Crimes And Misdemeanors that were mentioned in the opening statements. Abuse of power and bribery, Obstruction Of Congress. And obstruction of justice. Professor feldman, what is abuse of power . Abuse of power is when the president uses his office, takes an action that is part of the presidency, not to serve the public interests but to serve
his private benefit and, in particular, its an abuse of power if he does it to facilitate his reelection or to gain an advantage that is not available to anyone who is not the president. Sir, why is that impeachable conduct . If the president uses his office for personal gain, the only recourse available under the constitution is for him to be impeached, because the president cannot be as a practical matter charged criminally while he is in office. Because the department of Justice Works for the president so the only mechanism available for a president who tries to distort the Electoral Process for personal gain is to impeachment. That is why we have impeachment. Professor carlan, do scholars generally agree abuse of power is an Impeachable Offense . Yes, they do. Professor gerhardt, do you agree abuse of power is impeachable . Yes, sir. Id like to focus the panel
on the evidence they considered and the findings in the Intelligence Committee report that the president solicited the interference of a Foreign Government ukraine in the 2020 u. S. President ial election. Professor feldman, did President Trump commit the impeachable high crime and misdemeanor of abuse of power based on that evidence and those findings . Based on that everyday and those findings, the president did commit an impeachable abuse of office. Professor carlan, same question. Same answer. And professor gerhardt, did President Trump commit the impeachable high crime and misdemeanor of abuse of power . We three are unanimous. Yes. Professor feldman, id like to quickly look at the evidence in the report. On july 25th, President Trump told the president of ukraine and i quote, i would like you to
do us a favor, though. And he asked about looking into the bidens. Was the memorandum of that call relevant to your opinion that the president committed abuse of power . The memorandum of that call between the two president s is absolutely crucial to the determination, to my determination that the president abused his office. And did you consider the findings of fact that the Intelligence Committee made, including that and again i quote, the president withheld official acts of value to ukraine and conditioned their fulfillment on actions by ukraine that would benefit his personal political interests . Yes, in making the determination that the president committed and Impeachable Offense i relied on the evidence before the house and the testimony and when this report was issued, i continued to rely on that. Sir, did you review the following testimony from our ambassador to ukraine, Ambassador William Taylor . To withhold that assistance for no good reason other than other than help with a Political Campaign made no sense. It was counterproductive to all of what we had been trying to do. It was ill logical. It could not be explained. It was crazy. Evidence underscored the way that the president s actions undercut National Security. Professor feldman, will you please explain why you concluded that the president committed the high crime of abuse of power and why it matters . The abuse of power occurs when the president uses his office for personal advantage or gain. That matters fundamentally to the American People. Because if we cannot impeach a president who abuses his office for personal advantage, we no longer live in a democracy. We live in a monarchy or we live under a dictatorship. Thats why the framers created the possibility of impeachment. Now, professor carlan, this high crime and misdemeanor of abuse of power, was it some kind of loose or undefined concept to the founders of our country and the framers of our constitution . No, i dont think it was an abuse it was a loose concept at all. It had a long lineage in the common law in england of parliamentary impeachments of lowerlevel officers. Obviously, they had not talked about impeaching as youve heard earlier the king or the like. And can you share a little bit about that lineage, please . Yes. So, the parliament in england impeached officers of the crown when those people abused their power. If i can give you one example that might be a little helpful here, right after the restoration of the kingship in
england, there was an Ich Impeachment and you know when they impooechl peach somebody, i have to say, what were they impeaching him for, sometimes treason and the like and sometimes the phrase high crime or misdemeanor. There was an impeachment of count moredan. 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 common sense because its so telling. Here is what article 1 of the impeachment said. It said, understanding that one William Taylor did intend to stand for the election of one of the burgesss of the burrow of windsor to serve in this present parliament, in other words, he was running as a member of
parliament. This is what Vai Camp Moredan did. To Disparage William Day Lor and strike a terror into the said borough which should give their voices for him and depriefb them of the freedom of their voices at the election. Vie count moredem did cause them to be forcefully and arbitrarily seized upon by soldiers and then he detained them. 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 gerhardt, does a high crime and misdemeanor require an actual statutory crime . No there, it plainly does not. Everything we know about the history of impeachment reenforces the conclusion that Impeachable Offenses do not have to be crimes and again not all crimes are Impeachable Offenses. We look at again at the context and gravity of the misconduct. And professor turley, you recently wrote in the Wall Street Journal and i quote, there is much that is worthy of investigation in the ukraine scandal and it is true that impeachment doesnt require a crime. Thats true, but i also added an important caveat, first of all. Sir, it was a yes or no question did you write in the Wall Street Journal there is much that is worthy of the investigation in the ukraine scan cool and it is true that impeachment does not require a crime. Is that an accurate quote, sir you read it well. So, professors, feldman, carlan, and gerhardt, you have identified that on the evidence here there is afternoon impeachable act, a high crime and misdemeanor of abuse of power. Correct . Correct. Yes. Yes. And Professor Feldman, what does the Constitution Say is the
responsibility of the House Of Representatives in dealing with president ial High Crimes And Misdemeanors like abuse of power . The constitution gives the House Of Representatives the sole power of impeachment. That means the house has the right and the responsibility to investigate president ial misconduct and where appropriate to create and pass articles of impeachment. And professor carlan, what does that responsibility mean for this committee with respect to president s, President Trumps abuse of power . Well, because this is an abuse that cuts to the heart of democracy, you need to ask yourselves, if you dont impeach a president who has done what this president has done, or at least you dont investigate and then impeach, if you conclude that the House Select Committee on intelligence findings are correct, then what you are saying is its fine to go ahead and do this again. And i think that as the, you know, in the report that came out last night, the report talks about the Clear And Present Danger to the Election System and its your responsibility to make sure that all americans get to vote in a free and Fair Election next november. Professor carlan, id like to direct to you the words in the constitution, other High Crimes And Misdemeanors. Were still going to talk about abuse of power. Can i ask, did the Constitution Spell out every other high crime and misdemeanor . No, it did not. Please. Because they recognized the inventiveness of man and the likelihood that this constitution would endure for generations meant they couldnt list all of the crimes that might be committed, they couldnt imagine an abuse of power, for example, that involved burg arizing and
stealing Computer Files from an adversary because they couldnt imagine computer. They couldnt necessarily have imagined wiretapping, because we had no wires in 1789. So what they did is they put in a phrase that the english had used and that have adapted over a period of centuries that take into account that the idea of High Crimes And Misdemeanors is to get at things that people in office used to strike at the very heart of our democracy. And professor, in your written testimony, you mentioned two additional aspects of High Crimes And Misdemeanors, besides abuse of power. You talked about the trail of the National Interests, betrayal of the National Interests and corruption of the Electoral Process and can you say a little bit more about what the framers
concerns were about corruption of elections and betrayal of the National Interests involving foreign powers and how they come into play here . Sure. So let me start with the framers and what they were concerned with and then bring it up to date. Because i think there is some modern stuff as well, thats important. So the framers were very worried that elections could be corrupted. They could be corrupted in a variety of different ways and they spent a lot of time trying to design an Election System that wouldnt be subject to that kind of corruption. And there are a number of different provisions in the constitution that deal with the kind of corruption they were worried about, two that id like to highlight here that i think go to this idea about the National Interest and Foreign Governments. Are one that seems today i think to most of us to be really a kind of remnant of a past time, which is if you become an american citizen, almost everything in this country is opened to you. You can become Chief Justice of the United States. You can become Secretary Of State. But the one office thats not opened to you, even though you are a citizen just like all of the rest of us is the presidency. Because of the natural born citizen clause of the constitution. And the reason they put that in is they were so worried about foreign influence over a president. The other clause which you know probably no one had heard of, you know, five years ago, but now everybody talks about is the emollients clause, they were really worried that the president because he was only going to be in office for a little while would use it to get everything he could and he would take gifts from foreign countries, not even necessarily bribes, but gifts and they were worried about that as well so they were very concerned about those elections. But its not just them and i want to Say Something about what our National Interest is today, because our National Interest today is different than some important ways than it was in 1789. What the framers were worried about is that we would be a weak country and we could be exploited by foreign countries. Now. Were a strong power now. The strongest power in the world. We can still be exploited by foreign countries. But the other thing that weve 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 Ronald Reagan said in his final address to the country as he left office. We have become the shining city on the hymn. We have become the nation that leads the world in understanding what democracy is. And one of the things we understand most profoundly is, its not a real democracy. Its not a mature democracy, if the party in power uses the criminal process to go after its enemies. And i think you heard testimony that the Intelligence Committee heard testimony about how it isnt just our National Interests in protecting our own elections, its not our National Interests in making sure the ukraine remains strong and on the front lines so they fight the russians there and we dont have to fight them here. But its also on National Interest in promoting democracy world wide and if we look
hypocritical about this. If we look like we are asking other countries to interfere in our election. If we look like we are 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 Interests in being that shining city on a hill. Professor feldman, anything to add . Ultimately, the reason that the constitution provided for impeachment was to anticipate a situation like the one that is before you today. The framers were not prophets, but they were very smart people with a very sophisticated understanding of Human Incentive itself and they understood that a president would be motivated naturally to try to use the tremendous power of office to gain personal advantage to keep himself in office, to corrupt the Electoral Process and potentially disimprove the
National Interests. The facts strongly suggest that this is what President Trump has done and under those circumstances, the framers would expect the house of representative to take action in the form of impeachment. And Professor Feldman, did you review the Intelligence Committee report finding that President Trump compromised National Security to advance his personal political interests . I did. And will you explain in your view how that happened . The president sought personal gain and advantage by soliciting the announcement of investigations and presumably investigations from ukraine and to do so, he withheld critical assistance that the government of ukraine needed and by doing so, he undermined the National Security interests of the United States in helping ukraine, our
ally, in a War Thats Fighting against russia. So in the simplest possible terms, the president put his personal gain ahead of the National Security interests as expressed, according to evidence before you, by the entirety of a unanimous National Security community. Sir, is it your view that the framers would conclude that there was a betrayal of the National Interest or National Security by President Trump on these facts . In my view, if the framers were aware that a president of the United States had put his personal gain and interests ahead of the National Security of the United States by Conditioning Aid to a crucial ally thats in the midst of a war on 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 gerhardt, what are
your thoughts on the abuse of power, betrayal of National Security or National Interests and the corruption of elections, sir . Well, i have a lot of thoughts. One of them is, that what we havent mentioned yet and brought into this conversation is the fact that the Impeachment Power requires this committee, this house, to be able to investigate president ial misconduct and that if a president can block an investigation, undermine it, stop it, then the Impeachment Power itself as a check against misconduct is under mined completely. And professor carlan, can you have an Impeachable Offense of abuse of power that is supported by considerations of a president s betrayal of the National Interests or National Security . And by corruption of elections . Yes, you can. And do we have that here, maam . Based on the evidence that ive seen, which is the reviewing the 12 witness the transcripts of the 12 witnesses who testified, looking at the call, readout, looking at some of the president s other statements, looking at the statement of mr. Mull van my and the like, yes, we do. Professor feldman, do you agree e . Yes. Professor gerhardt . Yes, i do. And Professor Karlan, we have been talking about the category of other High Crimes And Misdemeanors, like abuse of power. But there are some additional there are some additional High Crimes And Misdemeanors that are specifically identified in the texts of the constitution. Correct . Yes, that itself true. What are they . Treason and bribery. Do President Trumps demands on ukraine also establish the high crime of bribery . Yes, they do. Can you explain why, please . Sure. So, the high crime or misdemeanor bribery i think its important to distinguish that from whatever the u. S. Code calls bribery today. And the reason for this, in part, is because thank you. In fine 89 when the framers were writing the constitution, there was no federal criminal code. The first Bribery Statutes that the United StatesCongress Passed would not have reached a president at all because the first one was just about customs officials. And the second one was only about judges. So it wasnt until i dont know 60 years or so after the constitution was ratified that we had any federal crime of bribery at all so when they say explicitly in the constitution that the president can be impeached and removed from office for bribery, they werent
referring to a statute. And federal and i will say, im not an expert on federal substantive federal criminal law. All i will say here is the Bribery Statute is a very complicated statute. So what they were thinking about was bribery as it was understood in the 18th century based on the common law up until that point. And that understanding was an understanding that someone and generally even then, it was mostly talking about a judge. It wasnt talking about a president because there was no president before that and i wasnt talking about the king, because the king could do no wrong. But what they were understanding then, was the idea that when you took private benefits or when you asked for private benefits, in what term for an official act in return for an official act or someone gave them to you to influence an official act, that was bribery. And so we have constitutional bribery here, the high crime and misdemeanor of constitutional bribery against President Trump . If you conclude that he asked for the investigation of Vice President biden and his son for political reasons, that is to aid his reelection, then, yes. Have you have bribery here. And in forming that opinion, did you review a memorandum of the president s Telephone Call with the ukrainian president , the one where President Trump asked, i would like to you do us a favor, though, and also asked about yes, i did rely on that. Did you consider the following testimony from our ambassador to the european union, ambassador sondland. Was there a quid pro quo . As i testified with regard to the requested white house call and the white house meeting, the
answer is yes. Everyone was in the loop. Did you consider that, professor . I did consider that, yes. Did you also consider the findings of fact that the Intelligence Committee made including that, and i quote from Finding Of Fact number 5, the president withheld official acts of value to ukraine and conditioned their fulfillment on actions by ukraine that would benefit his personal political interests. I did rely on that. In addition, because as ive already testified, i read the witnesses the transcripts of all of the witnesses. I relied on testimony from ambassador sondland and mr. Morrison, Lieutenant Colonel vindman, ambassador taylor. I relied on the fact that when i think it was ambassador taylor but i may be getting which one of these people wrong sent
the cable that said, you know, its crazy to hold this up based on domestic political concern. No one wrote back and said thats not why were doing it. I relied on what mr. Mulvaney said in his press conference. Theres a lot to suggest here that this is about political benefit. I dont know if i can talk about another piece of ambassador sondlands 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. You know, i spent all of thanksgiving vacation sitting there reading these transcripts. I ate like a turkey that came to us in the mail that was already cooked because i was spending my time doing this. The most chilling line for me of the entire process was the following, ambassador sondland said he had to announce the investigations. Hes talking about president
zelensky. He had to announce the investigations. He didnt actually have to do them, as i understood it. He said i never heard anyone say the investigations had to start or 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 actually committed corruption or not. This was about injuring somebody who the president thinks of as a particularly hard opponent. And thats for his private beliefs. If i can say one last thing about the interests of the United States, the constitution of the United States does not care the whether the next president of the United States is donald j. Trump or any one of the democrats or anybody running on a third party. The 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. Its not the National Interest that a particular president be elected or be defeated at the next election. The constitution is indifferent to that. Professor feldman, any thoughts on the subject of the high crime and misdemeanor, of bribery and the evidence that Professor Karlan laid out . The clear sense of bribery at the time when the framers adopted this language in the constitution was that bribery existed under the constitution when the president corruptly asked for or received something of value to him from someone who could be affected by his official office. So if the House Of Representatives and the members of this committee were to determine that getting the investigations either announced or undertaken was a thing of value to President Trump and that that was what he sought,
then this committee and this house could safely conclude that the president had committed bribery under the contusion. Constitution. Professor gerhardt, what is your view . I of course agree with Professor Karlan and Professor Feldman. I just want to stress that if what were talking about is not impeachable, then nothing is impeachable. This is precisely the misconduct that the framers created a constitution including impeachment to protect against. And if theres no action, if congress concludes theyre going to give a pass to the president here, as Professor Karlan suggested earlier, every other president will say, okay, then i can do the same thing and the boundaries will just evaporate. Those boundaries are set up by the constitution and we may be witnessing, unfortunately, their erosion. And that is a danger to all of
us. And what can this committee and the House Of Representatives do, sir, to defend those boundaries and to protect against that erosion . Precisely what youre doing. And does it matter ill ask all the panelists. Does it matter to impeachment that the 391 million, u. S. Taxpayer dollars in Military Assistance that the president withheld was ultimately delivered. Professor feldman, does that matter to the question of impeachment . No, it does not. If the president of the United States attempts to abuse his office, that is a complete Impeachable Offense. The possibility that the president might get caught in the process of attempting to abuse his office and then not be able to pull it off does not
undercut in any way the impeachability of the acts. President nixon was subject to articles of impeachment preferred by this committee for attempting to cover up the watergate breakin. The fact that the president was not ultimately successful in covering up the breakin was not grounds for not impeaching him. The attempt itself is the impeachable act. Professor karlan, does it matter to impeachment that the unfounded investigations the president sought were ultimately never announced . No, it doesnt. If i could give an example that i think shows why soliciting is enough, imagine that you were pulled over for speeding by a police officer. And the officer comes up to the window and says you were speeding, but if you give me 20 bucks, ill drop the ticket. You look in your wallet and you say to the officer, i dont have the 20 bucks. The officer says, okay, well, just go ahead, have a nice day. The office 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 whether the other person comes up with it. Imagine that the president had said, will you do us a favor, will you investigate joe biden and the president of ukraine said, you know what, no, i wont, because weve already looked into this and its totally baseless. The president would still have committed an impeachable act even if he has been refused right there on the phone. So i dont see why the ultimate decision has anything to do with the president s impeachable conduct. Whats the danger if congress does not respond to that attempt . Well, weve already seen a little bit of it, which is he gets out on the white house lawn and says china, i think you should investigate joe biden. And professor gerhardt, your
view . I certainly would agree with whats been said. One of the things to understand from the history of impeachment is everybody whos impeached has failed. Theyve failed to get what they wanted. And what they wanted was not just to do what they did, but to get away with it. The point of impeachment is and its made possible through investigation is to catch that person, charge that person and ultimately remove that person from office. But impeachments are always focusing on somebody who didnt quite get as far as they wanted to. Nobodys better than Professor Karlan at hypotheticals but ill dare to raise yet another one. Imagine a bank robbery and the police come and the person is in the middle of the bank robbery and the person then drops the money and says im going to leave without the money. Everybody understands thats