University who said that he believes trump has committed Impeachable Offenses and speaking now is a professor from stanford a new law pamela karlan things are witness was also called by the democrats now the president commenting before leaving london after the nato summit there said that the peace from an effort against him is a cold joke and a basically criticize the proceedings underway in washington d. C. Today lets go back to listening to whats happening there is no better forum to discuss the constitutional standard for impeachment and whether that standard has been met in the case of the current president of the United States as i explain in the remainder and balance of my Opening Statement the record compiled thus far shows the president has committed several Impeachable Offenses including bribery abuse of power and soliciting a personal favor reform leader to benefit himself personally obstructing justice and obstructing congress. Our hearing today should serve as a reminder one of the fundamental principles that drove the founders or its founders of our cause 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 the principle since before the founding of the constitution and it is recognized around the world as a fixed inspiring american ideal and his 3rd message to congress in 100003 president Theodore Roosevelt delivered one of the finest articulations of this principle he said no one is above the law and no man is below nor do we ask any mans permission we require him to obey it obedience to the law is demanded as a right not asked for as a favor 3 features of our constitution protect the fundamental principle that no one not even the president is above the law 1st in the british system the public had no choice over the monarch or rule them in our constitution the framers allowed elections to serve as a crucial means for ensuring president ial accountability 2nd in the british system the king could do no wrong. And no other parts of the government could check his misconduct and 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 tyrannical 3rd in the british system everyone but the king was impeachable our framers generation pledged their lives and fortunes to rebel against a monarch whom they saw as corrupt tyrannical and intitled to do no wrong and our declaration of independence the framers set forth a series of Impeachable Offenses at the king and committed against the american colonists and the framers later convene in philadelphia to draft our constitution they were united around a simple indisputable principle it was a major safeguard for the public we the people against tyranny of any kind of people who had overthrown a king are 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 d and could do no wrong the framers created a chief executive to bring energy to the administration federal laws but to be accountable to congress for treason bribery or other high crimes and misdemeanors the framers concerned about the need to protect against a corrupt president was evident throughout the convention and here i must thank my prior to friends who have spoken and referred to a north carolinian william davy i will refer to another north carolinian in the consul convention james iron will and president washington later appointed to the Supreme Court should his fellow delegates the president quote is of a very different nature from a monarch is to be personally responsible for any abuse of the great trust placed in him unquote this brings us of course of the crucial question were 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 or ms for personal game and as professor of feldman pointed out these terms derive from the british understood the class of cases that would be impeachable to refer to political crimes which included great offenses against the United States attempts to its a virtue the constitution when the president deviates from his duty or dares to abuse the power invested in him by the people reaches the public trust is serious injuries to the republic and is influential say in the federalist papers Alexander Hamilton declared that Impeachable Offenses are those offenses which proceed from the misconduct of public men or in other words the abuse or violation of some public trust and relate chiefly to injuries done immediately this is a society itself several themes emerge from the framers discussion of the scope of them peaceful offenses and impeachable and impeachment practice we know the not all Impeachable Offenses are criminal and we know that not all felonies are Impeachable Offenses we know further that what matters in determining whether particular misconduct concerts a 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 conclude that this president has attacked each of the constitutions safeguards against establishing a monarchy in this country both the context and gravity of the president s misconduct are clear the favor he requested from ukraines president was to receive in exchange for his use of president ial power ukraines announcement of a criminal investigation of a political rival investigation was not the important action for the president. The announcement was because of good then be used in this country 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 compared to the misconduct of the one president resign from office to avoid impeachment conviction and removal the House Judiciary Committee in 1904 approved 3 articles of impeachment again against Richard Nixon who resigned a few days later the 1st article charged him with obstruction of justice if you read the mahler report it identifies a number of facts i wont lay them out here right now that suggest the president himself has obstructed justice look at the 2nd article of impeachment to prove against Richard Nixon it charged him with abuse of power for ordering the heads of the f. B. I. I arrests and cia hereat to harass his political enemies in the present circumstance the president is engaged in a pattern of abusing the trust placing them American People by soliciting Foreign Countries including china russia and ukraine to investigate his political opponents and interfere in his behalf and elections in which he is a candidate the 3rd article a prove against president nixon charges of youve failed to comply with 4 legislative subpoenas in the present circumstance the president has refused to comply with and directed at least 10 others and it is a been straight not to comply with lawful congressional subpoenas including secretary of state might pay 0 Energy Secretary rick perry and acting chief of staff and head of the office of management and budget budget macmillan mulvaney a senator Lindsey 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 because he took the power from congress over the impeachment process away from congress and he became a judge and jury that is a perfectly good articulation of wide struction of congress is impeachable the president s defiance of congress is all the more troubling due to the record troubling due to the rationale he claims for his obstruction his arguments and those of his subordinates including his white House Counsel and his october 8th letter to the speaker and 3 Committee Chairs oiled sounds of the assertion that he is above the law i wont read that letter here but i do want to disagree that with the characterization in the letter of these proceedings sense the constitution expressly says and the spring and the Supreme Court has unanimously affirm but the house is the sole power of impeachment and night that like the senate the house has the power to determine the rules for its proceedings. The president and his absurd supporters have argued further that the president is entitled to absolute immunity from criminal procedure even investigation for any criminal wrongdoing including shooting someone on 5th avenue present his claim further isnt titled an absolute 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 branches 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 for 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 to the actions 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 noma misconduct its more and the federal to our democracy and nothing injures the American People more than a president uses his power to weaken their authority under the constitution as well as the authority of the constitution itself and read one more sentence or im sorry who it is man to the sentence or to the thank thank you. If Congress Fails to impeach here then the impeachment process has lost all meaning and along with that our constitution is carefully crafted safeguards against establishment of a king on american soil and therefore i stand with the constitution and i stand with the framers were committed to ensure that no one is above the law thank you professor professor turley. Thank you chairman now adler Ranking Member collins i mean this is the Judiciary Committee so now weve heard from the 3rd witness called by the democrats my holger had their professor of law at the university of North Carolina who went even further than his 2 colleagues and where called by the democrats saying that president thomas misconduct is worse than any prior prior president s misconduct speaking now is the 4th constitutional law professor one how about hauled by the republicans hes donovan tenured professor of law at George WashingtonUniversity President yet here we are the elements are strikingly similar the intense rancor and rage of the public debate is the same as the atmosphere that they framers it says a paid the stifling intolerance of opposing views is the same id like to start there for perhaps in congress lee by stating irrelevant facts im not a supporter of President Trump i voted against him my personal views of President Trump are is irrelevant to my impeachment testimony is they should be to your Impeachment Vote prison 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 im concerned about lowering impeachment standards to fit a paucity of evidence and an abundance of anger i believe this impeachment not only fails to satisfy the standard of past impeachments it 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 impeachment for rock political exercises using fluid definitions of criminal and non criminal 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 mellowed ministration because madison objected that so vague a term would be equivalent to a 10 year during the pleasure of the senate in the end various standards that had been used in the past were rejected corruption obtaining office by improper means betraying the trust of a foreign to a foreign power negligence perfidy lation and oppression perfidy or lying and peculation self dealing are particularly relevant to our current controversy my testimony explores the impeachment cases of Nixon Johnson and clinton the closeness of these 3 cases is to the 868 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 trapdoor crime in order to impeach the president they even find it is a high misdemeanor there was another shared aspect besides the atmosphere of that impeachment and also the unconventional style of the 2 president s and that shared element of speed. This impeachment would rival the johnson impeachment as the shortest in history depending on how one counts the relevant days now there are 3 distinctions when you look at these are 3 commonalities when you look at these past cases all involved established crimes this would be the 1st impeachment in history where there would be considerable debate in my view not compelling evidence of the commission of a crime 2nd is the abbreviated period of this investigation which is problematic and puzzling this is a facially incomplete in an adequate 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 are 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 loon as a goldendoodle and they dont get mad so were all mad wheres that taken us will and the slipshod impeachment make us less mad. Will it only invite an invitation for the madness to follow every future administration and is why this is wrong its not wrong because President Trump is right is 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 you know its wrong because this is not how you impeach an american prison this case is. Not a case of the unknowable its a case of the peripheral we have a record of conflicts defenses that have not been fully considered and subpoenaed witness with material evidence to impeach a president on this record would expose every future president to the same type of in coate impeachment principle often takes us to a place we would prefer not to be it was the place 7 republicans found themselves in the johnson trial when they saved a president from acquittal that they despised for generations even celebrated as profiles of courage senator edmund 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 and age of rage its appealing to listen to those saying forget the definitions of crimes just do it like this is some impulse buy a nike snick sneaker you could certainly do that you can declare the definitions of crimes alleged are immaterial and just an exercise of politics not the law however those legal definitions and standards which ive addressed in my testimony are the very thing that divides rage from reason this all brings up to me and i will conclude with this of a scene from a man for all seasons i with search time is more when his son in law William Roper put the law suggested that more was putting the law ahead of morality he said more would give the devil the benefit of the law when more asks roper would he instead cut a great road through the law to get after the devil roper probably declares yes i cut down every law of england to do that more responds and when the last laws cut down. And the devil turned around on you where would you hide roper all the laws being flat he said this country is planted thick with laws from coast to coast mans laws not gods and if you cut them down and youre just the man to do it do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then and he finished by saying yes id give the devil the benefit of 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 rope or 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 trees so carefully planted by the framers i hope you will consider what you will do when the wind blows again perhaps for a democratic president where will you stand then when all the laws being flat. Thank you again for the honor of testifying today and id be happy to answer any questions the witnesse