Drawing up articles of impeachment against President Trump. During this portion, law professor Pamela Carlin made comparisons between kings and President Trumps conduct. Recognize gentleman let me repeat. The committee will come to order. When we broke for recess, we were under the five minute rule and i recognize mr. Sensenbrenner for five minutes. Thank you very much, mr. Chairman. Im a veteran of impeachments. I have been named by the house as an impeachment manager in four impeachments. Clinton and three judges. Thats more than anybody else in history. And one of the things in every impeachment whether its the ones that i was involved in or others that have come before the committee where i was not a manager is that the debate on what is a high crime and misdemeanor and how serious does that have to be in order it for it to rise to a level of an Impeachable Offense. 50 years ago then republican leader gerald ford made a comment that saying a high crime and misdemeanor is anything a majority of the house of representatives deems it to be on any given day. I dont agree with that. You know, that sets either a very low bar or a nonexistent bar. And it certainly would make the president serve at the pleasure of the house which was not what the framers intended when they rejected the British Forum of parliamentary democracy where the Prime Minister and the government could be overthrone by a mere vote of no confidence in the house of commons. So im looking at what were facing here. This whole inquiry was started out by a comment that President Trump made to president zelensky in the july 25th call, quote, do me a favor, unquote. There are some who said its a quid pro quo, there are some who have implied that its a quid pro quo. But both trump and zelensky have said it wasnt and zelensky has said there was no pressure on me and the aid came through within six weeks after the phone call in question was made. Now, you can contrast that to where there was no impeachment inquiry to Vice President biden when he was given a speech and said, you know, i held up a billion dollars worth of aid unless the prosecutor was fired within six hours. And son of a bleep thats what happened. Now, you know, it seems to me that if youre looking for a quid pro quo and looking for something that was really over the top, it was not saying do me a favor. It was saying son of a bleep thats what happened in six hours. Now, you know, the republicans who are in charge of congress at the time biden made that comment, we did not tie the country up for three months and going on four now, wrapping everybody in this town around the axelrod. We continued attempting to do the publics business. Thats not whats happening here. And i think the American Public are getting a little bit sick and tired of impeachment, impeachment, impeachment when they know that less than a year from now they will be able to determine whether donald trump stays in office or somebody else will be elected. And i take this responsibility extremely seriously. You know, it is an awesome and very grave responsibility. And it is not one that should be done lightly. It is not one that should be done quickly and it is not without examining all of the evidence which is what was done in the nixon impeachment and what was done largely by Kenneth Starr in the clinton impeachment. Now, id like to ask you, professor turley, because your is one of the only one of the four up there that doesnt seem to have it made before you walked into the door. Isnt there a difference between saying quote do me a favor and quote, son of a bleep, thats what happened, in six hours time . Grammatically, yes. Constitutionally it really depends on the context. I think your point is a good one in the sense that we have to determine from the transcript and hopefully from other witnesses whether this statement was part of an actual quid pro quo. I guess the threshold question is if the president said if the president said, id like you to do these investigations. By the way, i dont group them together in my testimony. I distinguish between the request firefighter investigations into 2016 from the investigation of the bidens. But it is an issue of order, the magnitude of order constitutionally if you ask id like you to see you do this opposed to i have a a quid pro quo. You either do this or dont get military aid. Thank you. The time of the gentleman is expired. The gentle lady from texas. Thank you, mr. Chairman, r for yielding. If what were talking about today is not impeachable, then nothing is impeachable. Im reminded of my time on the House Judiciary Committee during the 1990s impeachment and a a number of federal judges. S. I was guided then not only by the facts, but by the constitution and the duty to serve this nation. I believe, as we greet you today, that we are charged with a sober and somber responsibility. So professor, id like you to look at the intelligence volume where hundreds of documents are behind that. And the mooueller report. You studied the record. To you think it is, quote, wafer thin and can you remark on the strength of the record before us. So obviously, its not wafer thin. And the strength of the record is not just in the september i mean, the july 25th call. I i think the wit you need to ask this is how does that fit into the pattern of behavior by the president. What youre really doing is youre drawing inferences here. This is about circumstanctial evidence and did the president ask for a political favor . And i think this record supports the inference that he did. What comparisons, professor, can we make between the framers were afraid of. And the president s conduct today. So kings could do no wrong because the kings word was law. And contrary to what President Trump has said, article 2 does not give him the power to do anything he wants. Ill just give you one example that shows you difference between him and a king. Which is the constitution says there can be no titles of nobilitity. So while the president can name his son barren, he cant make him a baron. Thank you. The founding father george mason any man be above justice and Alexander Hamilton wrote that high crimes and misdemeanors mean the abuse or violation of public trust. As we move forward, you have previously testified that the president has abused his power. Is that correct . Yes, maam. What do you think is the most compelling evidence in this impeachment inquiry that would lead you to that . The phone call itself of july 25th is extraordinarily clear to my mind in that we hear the president asking for a favor thats clearly of personal benefit rather than acting on behalf of the interest of the nation. And then further from that, further down the road, we have more evidence, which tends to give the context and to support the explanation of what happened. Professor, how does such abuse affect our democratic systems . Having foreign interference in our election means we are less free. That people are determining on a Foreign Government. Its fair to say the president s actions are unpress dependented. But what a also strikes me is is is how many republicans and democrats believe that his conduct was wrong. Is it improper for the president of the United States . Listen to the colonel. It is improper for the president of United States to demand a Foreign Government to investigate the u. S. Citizen and a political opponent. In light of the fact that the president asked for an investigation and then only when he was caught released the military aid, is is there still a need for impeachment . Yes, maam. Impeachment is complete when the president abuses his office and he abuses his office by attempting to abuse his office. Theres no distinction there between trying to do it and succeeding in doing it and thats especially true if you only stop because you got caught. Over 70 of the American People believe, as us said, that the president what the did was wrong. We have a solemn responsibility to address that. And as well our fidelity to our oath and our duty. Reminded of the men and women who serve in the United States military. And im reminded of my three uncles who served in world war ii. I cant imagine them being on the battlefield, needing arms and food, and the general says, do me a a favor. We know that general would not say do me a favor. So in this instance, the American People deserve unfeddered leadership and it is our duty to fairly assess the facts and the constitution. I yield back my time. The gentle lady yields back. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Its pretty clear to me that no matter what questions we see for the witnesses here today and no matter what their answers are, that most, if not all of democrats on this committee are going to vote to um peach President Trump. Thats what their hard core trumphating base wants and they have wanted that since the president was elected three years ago. In fact, when democrats took over the house, oneover the first things they did was introduce articles of impeachment against President Trump. That was way before President Trump and the ukrainian president zelensky ever had their famous phone call. Whether it was perfect or not. Now today were undertaking a largely academic exercise instead of hearing from fact witnesses like adam schiff or hunter biden, were not being permitted to call those witnesses. It would seem since schiff misled the American People on multiple occasions, common sense and basic fairness would call r for schiff to be questioned about those things, but we cant. Mr. Chairman, become in 1998, when another president , bill clinton, was being considered for impeachment, you said, and i quote, we must not overturn an election and impeach a the president without an overwhelming consensus of the mirn people and the representatives in congress. You also said, quote, there must never be a narrowly vote impeachment or impeachment substantially supported by one of the Major Political parties and largely opposed by the other. You said such an impeachment would lack legitimacy, would produce divisiveness in our politics for years to come. And theres no doubt that it will be perceived by half of the American People as unfair and partisan effort. You seem bound and determined to move forward with this impeachment and the American People deserve better. I get it. Democrats on this committee dont like this president. They dont like his policies. They dont like him as a a person. They hate his tweets. They dont like the fact that the Mueller Investigation was a flop. So now youre going to impeach him. I got news for you. You may be able to twist enough arms in the house to impeach the president , but that effort is going to die in the senate. The president is going to serve out his term in office and be reelected to a second term probably with the help of this very impeachment shh raid were going through now. While youre wasting so much of congresss time and the American Peoples money on this impeachment, theres so many other important things that are going undone. Within this committees own jurisdiction, we should be addressing the opioid epidemic. We could be working together to find a solution to the immigration challenges on the southern border. We could be protecting americans from intellectual property stolen by Chinese Companies and enhancing Election Security just to name a few things. And congress as a whole could be working on rebuilding the crumbling infrastructure, providing tax relief to the nations middleclass families and providing additional security to people here at home and abroad. Instead, here we are spinning our wheels, once again, on impeachment. What a waste. The American People deserve so much better. I yield back. The gentleman yields back. I take no pleasure in the fact that were here today. As a patriot that loves america, it pains me that the circumstances force us to undertake this grave and solemn obligation. Nonetheless, simply on the publicly available evidence, it appears the President Trump pressured a a foreign fwoft to interfere in our elections by investigating his perceived chief political point. Today were here to uphold our oath to defend the constitution of the United States furthering our understanding whether the president s conduct is impeachable. As it relates to president ial impeachment. The framers of the constitution feared for an interference in the sovereignty. They wanted to ensure there could would be a check and balance on the executive. We sit here with a duty to the founders to fulfill their wisdom and be a check on the executive. We the peoples house are that check. Under our constitution, the house can impeach a a president for treason, bribery or other high crimes and misdemeanors. You have discussed high crimes a misdemeanors. It refers to crimes. Can you just give us a little pith of a summary of what high crimes and misdemeanors are and how they are distinct from what professor said they were. Yes, sir, high crimes and misdemeanors are actions of the president in office where he uses his office to advance his personal interests, potentially for personal gain, potentially to corrupt the electoral process and potentially as well as against the National Security interests of the United States. I would add that the word high modify crimes and misdemeanor. The framers knew of both high crimes and high misdemeanors. And i believe that the definition that was posted earlier of misdemeanor was not the definition of high misdemeanor, which was a a specific term understood by the framers and discuss ed in the constitutional cob vengs. But only of the word misdemeanor. Thats an easy mistake to make, but the truth is the high misdemeanors were their own category of abuses of office. Those are the things that are impeachable. Thank you, professor. You have found it implicates three categories of high crimes and misdemeanors. Abuse of power, betrayal of the National Interest, and corruption of elections. Is that right . Yes, it is. And professor feldman . Yes, sir. You state d that the essence of an Impeachable Offense is the decision to sacrifice the National Interest for his own private ends. Do yall agree with that . Yes, sir. Has President Trump sacrificed the interests of his own . Yes, he has. Is there a particular piece oefd that illuminates that . I think what illuminates that most for me is the statement by ambassador sondland that he wanted simply the announcement of an investigation. And several other people said exactly the same thing. Theres testimony by ambassador volker as well. What he wanted was simply Public Information to damage joe biden. He didnt care whether he was found guilty or exonerated. Professor feldman, do you agree or do you have a different . My emphasis would be on the fact that the president held up aid to an ally thats fighting a war in direct contra vengs of the unanimous recommendation of the National Security community. That has placed his own interests in personal advantage ahead of the interests of the nation. And a a bill pass bid congress. Yes, sir. I agree with what my colleagues i have said. I would add im very concerned about the president s obstruction of congress. Obstruction of this inquiry, refusal to comply with a number of subpoenas, ordering many high level of officials not to comply with subpoena s level of officials not to comply with subpoena ubpoenas. And order iing the entire executive branch not to cooperate with congress. Its useful to remember the constitution constitution says the house has the sole power to impeach. The constitution only uses the word sole twice. Once with reference to the house in this area, once with reference to the senate with respect to impeachment trial. Sole means only. This is your decision. Let me get the professor into this. Youre a selfanointed defender of article 1 of congress. But you justify a position that says legally issued subpoenas by congress enforcing its powers dont have to be complied by. Youre an article 2 executive guy. And youre talking about the johnson impeachment is not very useful. That was mall administration. This is a criminal act. Thank you, professors, for eping us understand. We the people are custodians of this country. We have a high responsibility to control charges with the sole power to hold the constitution and defend our democracy. We shall do that. The gentlemans time is expired. Thank you. Im afraid this hearing is indicative of the indecency to which we come when instead of the committee of jurisdiction bringing in fact witnesses to get to the bottom of what happened. And not even having time to review the report, which as the professor indicated is wafer thin when compared to the 36 boxes of documents that were delivered to the last impeachment group. But then to start this hearing with the chairman of the committee saying that the facts are u. N. Disputed, the only thing that it is disputed more than the facts in this case is the statement that the facts are undies put ed. They are absolutely disputed and the evidence is a bunch of hearsay on hearsay that if anybody here had tried cases before of enough magnitude, you would know you cant rely on hearsay on hearsay, but we have experts who know better than the accumulated experience of the ages. So here we are. I would submit we need some factual witnesses. We do not need to receive a report that we dont have a chance to read before this hearing. We need a chance to bring in actual