Somebody really caught in the middle of it, and that doesnt excuse the person from the consequences. Professors, weve talked about abuse of power and bribery. When we started, we said we would also discuss Obstruction Of Congress. So id like to ask you some questions about Obstruction Of Congress. Professor gerhardt, in your view, is there enough evidence here to charge President Trump with the high crime and misdemeanor of Obstruction Of Congress . I think theres more than enough. As i mention in my statement, just to really underscore this, the third article of impeachment approved by the House Judiciary Committee against president nixon charged him with misconduct because he failed to comply with four legislative subpoenas. Here it is far more than four that this president has failed to comply with and hes ordered
the Executive Branch as well not to cooperate the congress. Those together with a lot of other evidence suggests Obstruction Of Congress. Professor karlan, do you agree . Im a scholar of the law of democracy. So as a citizen, i agree with what Professor Gerhardt said. As an expert, my limitation is that im a scholar of the law of democracy. Im not a scholar of Obstruction Of Justice or Obstruction Of Congress. We will accept your opinion as a citizen. Professor feldman, the Obstruction Of Congress is a problem because it undermines the basic principle of the constitution. If youre going to have three branches of government, each of the branches has to be able to do its job. The job of the house is to investigate impeachment and to impeach. A president who says as this president did say i will not cooperate in any way, shape or form with your process robs a
coordinate branch of government. He robs the House Of Representatives 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 dont think its possible to emphasize this strongly enough. A president who will not cooperate in an Impeachment Inquiry is putting himself Above The Law. Now, putting yourself Above The Law as president is the core of an Impeachable Offense because if the president could not be impeached for that, he would in fact not be responsible to anybody. Sir, in forming your opinion, did you review these statements from President Trump . Were fighting all the subpoenas. Then i have an article two 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. Professor gerhardt, informing your opinion that President Trump has committed the Impeachable Offense of Obstruction Of Congress, did you consider the Intelligence Committee report and its findings including finding nine that President Trump ordered and implemented a campaign to conceal his conduct from the public and to frustrate and obstruct the House Of RepresentativesImpeachment Inquiry. I read that report last night after i submitted my statement, but i watched and read all of the transcripts that were available. The report that was issued reinforces Everything Else that came before it, so yes. So weve talked first about abuse of power and bribery and then about obstruction of
congress. Professor gerhardt, id like to now ask you some 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 On Instructibstructi justice . Yes, i have. What is your opinion, sir . Ive come here like every other witness assuming the facts that have been put together in official reports. The Mueller Report cites a number of facts that indicate the president of the United States obstructed justice. Thats an Impeachable Offense. In your testimony, sir, you pointed out that the Mueller Report found at least five instances of the president s obstruction of the justice departments criminal investigation into russian interference in the 2016 election, correct . Yes, sir. And the first of those instances was the president s
ordering his then White House Counsel Don Mcgahn to fire the Special Counsel in order to thwart the investigation of the president , correct . That is correct. And the second was the president ordering mr. Mcgahn to create a false written record denying that the president had ordered him to have mr. Mueller removed . Thats correct. And you also point to the meeting of the president with his former campaign manager, Corey Lewandowski in order to get him to take steps to have the investigation curtailed, right . Yes, sir, i did. You also point to pardon dangling and Witness Tampering as to Paul Manafort and michael cohen, former campaign official, former personal lawyer of the president. Both individually and collectively, these are evidence of Obstruction Of Justice. How serious is that evidence
of Obstruction Of Justice, sir . It is quite serious. Thats not all of it, of course. And we know, as youve 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 thats been put forward by mr. Mueller thats in the Public Record is very strong evidence of Obstruction Of Justice. Professor karlan, when you look at the Department Of JusticeRussia Investigation and how the president responded to that and when you look at Congress Ukraine investigation and how the president responded to that, do you see a pattern . Yes. I see a pattern in which the president s views about the propriety of foreign governments intervening in our election process are the antithesis of what our framers were committed to. Our framers were committed to the idea that we as americans,
we as americans decide our elections. We dont want foreign interference in those elections. The reason we dont want foreign interference in those elections is paubecause were a selfdetermining democracy. If i could just read one quotation to you that i think is helpful in understanding this, its somebody whos pointing to what he calls a straightforward principle. It is fundamental to the definition of our National Political community that foreign citizens do not have a constitutional right to participate in and thus may be excluded from activities of democratic selfgovernment. And the person who wrote those words is now Justice Brett kavanaugh. In upholding the constitutionality of a statute that denies foreign citizens the right to participate in our elections by spending money in electioneering or giving money to pacs. They have long been forbidden
from giving contributions to candidates. The reason is that denies us the right to selfgovernment. Justice Brett Kavanaugh was so correct in seeing this. They didnt even need to hear argument to know its constitutional to keep foreigners out of our election process. Professor feldman, you were somewhat of an Impeachment Skeptic at the time of the release of the Mueller Report, were you not . I was. Whats changed for you, sir . What changed for me was the Rev Haitielation of the july 25l and the evidence that emerged subsequently of the president of the United States in a format where he was heard by others and now known to the whole public openly abused his office by seeking a personal advantage in order to get himself reelected and act against the National Security of the United States. That is precisely the situation
that the framers anticipated. Its very unusual for the framers predictions to come through that precisely. And when they do, we have to ask ourselves some day we will no longer be alive and well go wherever it is we go, the good place or the other place. We may meet there madison and hamilton and they will ask us when the president of the United States acted to corrupt the structure of the republic, what did you do . And our answer to that question must be that we followed the guidance of the framers and it must be that if the evidence supports that conclusion, that the House Of Representatives moves to impeach him. Thank you. I yield my time back to the chairman. Before i recognize the Ranking Member for his first round of questions, the committee will stand in a 10minute humanitarian recess. [ laughter ] 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 that you may not be guaranteed your seat if you leave the hearing room at this time. Once the witnesses have left the hearing room, at this time the committee will stand in a short recess. Good afternoon and with that gavel coming down, im jake tapper in washington. Youre watching special coverage of this historic day in our nations capital. The House Judiciary Committee is holding its first impeachment hearing dealing with President Trump and the ukraine scandal. House Judiciary Committee jerry nadler, democrat of new york, just called a short break. The committee which will be responsible for drafting potential articles of impeachment against the president is hearing right now from four legal scholars, four constitutional experts. Three of those witnesses called by democrats. They testified that President Trumps actions do indeed rise to the level of an Impeachable Offense or offenses. The fourth called by republicans disagreed. We have a lot to talk about. Lets start with jeffrey toobin. What do you make of what we heard so far . If youll septemb pretty dry stuff compared to the Witness Testimony that we heard prior . Really . I love this. Im a law nerd. I hope this goes all day. No. It is a little abstract. But i think there are certain principles that have come through even with Jonathan Turley who is the republicans witness today. The first is that an Impeachable Offense does not have to be a crime. The words in the Constitution High Crimes And Misdemeanors do not refer to a federal criminal
code, because there was no federal Criminal Code when the constitution was promulgated at the end of the 18th century. This is a lot about what the framers intended and why they wrote what they wrote. Right. So i think thats a message that is undoubtedly true. I dont think theres any dispute about that. Since most people are not following who are not students of the constitution, it may be unfamiliar to them. The other point is the issue of abuse of power. Did the president through his interactions with ukraine abuse his power by Conditioning Aid on political advantage . Now, this is where you start to see differences between the democrats and republicans. The three witnesses called by the democrats all say yes. And Jonathan Turley for the republicans i think says no although he didnt really engage
on that much. He said there was insufficient evidence. But he didnt really talk about any of the evidence. The other point is the issue of Obstruction Of Congress. Did the president by refusing to allow witnesses to testify, produce any documents, emails, texts, did he commit an Impeachable Offense by doing that . There i think the three witnesses for the democrats were probably at their best there, because they were talking about how the system of separation of powers cant really exist unless one branch that has the Impeachment Power can do an actual investigation. So i think thats what we learned and i hope it goes so were going to keep talking to the legal team but i want to get some political analysis. Weve seen now some tweets and some reaction from People Associated with the trump campaign. The communications director
saying that the four legal experts are basically like a liberal msnbc legal panel. Youve seen congressman lee zeldon calling them elitist antitrump. Whats your take on the politics of this . Well, i think regardless of their political stance, just the notion of having four academics in the broader goal that democrats have to pull the public along on the idea of impeachment, i cant see it changing much. They had, as you mentioned, the Blockbuster Hearings already in another committee with the actual witnesses, the people who were talking about what happened. And this is fascinating, not just for legal nerds, maybe political nerds too. You can join our team any time. Thank you. Youre so gracious. The fact is that on that broad idea, which is important if there is any chance, as slim as it is, for the democrats to pull over even one republican in the
house, never mind when it gets to a trial in the senate, this is interesting, it is fascinating, not moving when it comes to Public Opinion. I think we also got the clear road map to what the articles of impeachment are going to be, which would be abuse of power, bribery, Obstruction Of Congress and Obstruction Of Justice. Those are the questions that norm eisen was asking of the legal scholars and he was getting clear and direct answers from the three who happened to agree with him on his side of this issue. But i do think we learned some really interesting things about the Framers Of The Constitution. I know history can also be dry to some people, but i thought first of all Professor Karlan was very effective, number one, when she chastised congressman collins, who the ranking republican. When he made the case, oh, you havent had the time to read
all of this. And she said, im insulted by that, of course i have. As if she, a scholar, would appear before congress lets play that sound bite right now. Okay. That everything i know about our constitution and its values and my review of the evidentiary record and here mr. Collins i would like to say to you, sir, that i read transcripts of every one of the witnesses who appeared in the live hearing, because i would not speak about these things would reviewing the facts. So im insulted by the suggestion that as a Law Professor i dont 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. You see there in her fire why
some people consider her to be the elite of the left. She spoke english. It was how dare you insult me and how dare you insult the rest of us. Were scholars. Were not members of congress. We actually read the things were supposed to read before we testify. She also