And i thought the threat to our nation was well articulated earlier today by Professor Feldman when you said, if we cannot impeach a president who abuses his office for personal advantage, we no longer live in a democracy, we live in a monarchy or we live under a districtatorship. My view is if people cannot depend on the fairness of our elections, then what people are calling divisive today will be absolutely nothing compared to the shredding of our democracy. After the events of ukraine unfolded, the president claimed that the reason he requested an investigation into his political opponents and withheld desperately needed military aid for ukraine was supposedly because he was worried about corruption. However, contrary to president s statements, various witnesses, including Vice President pences special adviser jennifer williams, testified that the president s request was political. Take a listen. I found the july 25th phone call unusual because in contrast to other president ial calls i had observed, it involved discussion of what appeared to be a domestic political matter. For someone who gets caught to deny that their behavior is impermissible, almost always. And one of the question before us is whether the president s claim that he cared about corruption is actually credible. Now youve argued before the Supreme Court and the Supreme Court determined that when assessing credibility, we should look at a number of factors. Including impact, historical background and whether there are departure from normal procedures, correct. That is correct. And were trying to figure out if someones explanation fits with the facts and if it doesnt then the explanation may not be true so lets explore that. Lieutenant colonel vindman prepared talking points on anticorruption reform for President Trumps call with ukraine president zelensky. However based on the transcripts released of those calls in april and july, President Trump never mentioned these points of corruption. He actually never mentioned the word corruption. Does is that go to any of those factors . Is that significant . Yes. It goes to the one about Procedure Irregularities and said that you look at the kind of things that led up to the decision that youre trying to figure out somebodys motive about. So lets try another one. Ambassador volker testified that the president never expressed any concerns to him about corruption in any country other than ukraine. Would that be relevant to your assessment . Yes, it would. It goes to the factor about substantive departures. And professor karlan there is, in fact, and my colleague mr. Mcclinton mentioned this, a process lined out to assess whether countries that are receiving military aid have done enough to fight corruption. In may of 2019 my republican
colleague did not say this, the Department Of Defense actually wrote a letter determining that ukraine passed the assessment and yet President Trump set aside that assessment and withheld the congressionally approved aid to ukraine anyway in Direction Contradiction to the established procedures he should have followed had he cared about corruption. Is that assess is that relevant to your assessment. Yes. That would go to the factors the Supreme Courts discussed. And what about the fact and i think you mentioned this earlier as one of the key things that you read in the testimony, that President Trump wanted the investigations of burisma and the bidens announced but that he actually didnt care whether they were conducted. That is in ambassador sondlands testimony, what would you say about that. That goes to whether the claim that this is about politics is a persuasive claim because that goes to the fact
that it is being announced publicly which is an odd thing. I mean maybe mr. Swalwell could answer this better than i because he was a prosecutor. But generally you dont announce the investigation in a criminal case before you conduct it because it puts the person on notice that theyre under investigation. And given all of these facts and there are more that we dont have time to get to, how would you assess the credibility of the president s claim that he was worried about corruption some. Well, i think you ought to make that credibility determination because you have the sole power of impeachment. If i were a member of the House Of Representatives, i would infer from this that he was doing it for political reasons. If we dont stand up now to a president who abuses his power, we risk sebdsing a message to all future president s that they could put their own personal political interest ahead of the American People, our National Security and our elections and that is is the gravest of threats to our democracy. I yield back. Gentle lady yields back. I noup recognize mr. Gom ert for the purpose of unanimous consent request. Yes. Mr. Chairman, i would ask consent to offer article by daniel huff without objection. The article will be entered into the record. And i recognize mr. Resh enthraller to question the witnesses. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Im starting off today doing something that i dont normally do and im going to quote speaker of the house nancy pelosi. In March The Speaker told the Washington Post im going to quote this, impeachment is so divisive to the country that unless there is something so compelling and overwhelming and bipartisan i dont think we should go down that path because it divides the country. Well on that the speaker and i both agree. And you know who else agrees . The Founding Fathers. The Founding Fathers recognize that crimes warranting impeachment must be so severe regardless of Political Party that there is an agreement the
actions are impeachable. But go back to Speaker Pelosis words One More Time and the case for impeachment must also be compelling. Well after last months schiff show this is what we learned. There is no evidence that the president directed anyone to tell the ukrainians that aid was conditioned on investigation. Aside from the Mere Presumptions by ambassador sondland there is no evidence that trump was convinced on and if you doubt go back to the transcript because never in the call was the 2020 election mentioned and never in the call was military aid mentioned. In fact, President Trump told senator johnson on 31 august that aid was not conditioned on investigation. Rather President Trump was rightfully skepts cal about the ukrainians, the country has a history of corruption and he merely wanted the europeans to
contribute more to a problem in their own backyard. But i think we can all agree it is appropriate for the president as a steward of taxpayer dollars to ensure our money isnt wasted. I said i Wouldnt Go Back to Speaker Pelosi but i do want to go back because i forgot she also said that impeachment should only be pursued when it is quote, unquote, overwhelming. So it is prblly not good for the democrats that none of the witnesses that testified before the Intel Committee were able to provide firsthand evidence of a quid pro quo. But i forgot we are calling it bribery now after the focus group last week. And there is no evidence of bribery either. Instead, the two people who did have first hands knowledge, the president and president zelensky, both say there was no pressure on the ukrainians. And again the transcript of july 25th backs this up. And to go back to nancy pelosi One More Time, she said that the movement for impeachment should be, quote unquote, bipartisan. Which is sully the same
sentiment echoed by jerry nadler who in 1998 said, and i quote, there must never be a narrowly voted impeachment supported by one of the Major Political parties and opposed by another. Well, when the house voted on the democrats Impeachment Inquiry it was just that. The only bipartisan vote was the one imposing the inquiry. The partisan vote was the one to move forward with the inquiry. So were 0 for 3. Lets face it. This is a Sham Impeachment against President Trump. Its not compelling, its not overwhelming and it is not bipartisan. So even by the speakers own criteria, this is failed. Rather what this is is nothing more than a bipartisan witch hunt which denies the fundamental fairness for american Justice System and denies due process to the president of the United States. The democrats case is based on nothing more than thoughts, feelings and conjectures and a
few and thoughts and feelings of few unelected bureaucrats and the American People are absolutely fed up. Instead of wasting our time on this we should be passing usmca and lowering the cost of Prescription Drugs with that said, mr. Turley, i watched as your words have been twisted and mangled all day long. Is there anything you would like to clarify . Only this. I think one of the disagreements that we have and i have with my esteemed colleagues is what makes a a legitimate impeachment, not what technically satisfies an impeachment, there are very few technical requirements of impeachment but the question is what is expected of you and my objection is that there is a constant preference for inference over information. For presumptions over proof. That is because this record hasnt been developed. And if youre going to remove a president , if you believe in
democracy, if you remove a sitting president then you have an obligation not to rely on inference when there is still information you can gather. And that is what im saying. It is not that you cant do this. You just cant do it this way. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Gentleman yields back. Ip recognize mostly sunny jackson lee for the purpose of unanimous consent request. Thank you, mr. Chairman. I would like unanimous consent to place in the record a statement a new statement from checks and balances on President Trumps abuse of Office Without objection republican and democratic Attorney General. Without objection. I now recognize miss demings, five minutes for questioning the witnesses. Thank you mr. Chairman. As a former Law Enforcement official, i know firsthand that the rule of law is the strength of our zks. And no one is above it. Not our neighbors, and in our
various communities, not our coworkers and not the president of the United States. Yet the president has said that he cannot be prosecuted for criminal conduct. That he need not comply with congressional requests and subpoenas. Matter of fact, the president is trying to absorb himself of any accountability. Since the beginning of the investigation in early september, the house sent multiple letters, Document Requests and subpoenas to the white house. Yet the president has refused to produce documents and has directed others not to produce documents. He has prevented key white house officials from testifying. The president s obstruction of congress is pervasive. Since the house began its investigation, the white house has produced zero subpoenaed
documents. In addition, at the president s direction, more than a dozen members of his administration have defied congressional subpoenas. The following slides shows those who have refused to comply at the president s direction. We are facing a categorically blockade by a president who is desperate to prevent any investigation into his wrongdoing. Professor gerhardt, has a president ever refused to cooperate in an Impeachment Investigation . Not until now. And any president who i know i know nixon delayed or tried to delay turning over information. When that occurred, was it at the same level that were seeing
today . President trump nixon also had orders his subordinates to cooperate and testify. He didnt shut down any of that. He produced documents and there were times of disagreements but there was not a wholesale broad scale refusal to recognize the legitimacy of this house doing an inquiry. The president nixons Obstruction Result in an Articles Of Impeachment. Yes, maam. Article three. Professor feldman is it fair to say if a president stonewalls an investigation like were clearing seeing today in whether he has committed an Impeachable Offense he fears rendering the impeachment power moot. And that is the effect of a president refusing to participate. Hes denying the power of congress under the constitution to oversee him and to exercise its capacity to impeach. Professor gerhardt when a
president stopped those from complying to subpoenas are we entitled to make any resumptions about what they would say if you testify. Yes, maam, you are. And i point out that one of the difficulties of asking for a more thorough investigation is what the houses that tried to conduct and the president has refused to comply, that is where the blockage occurs and that is why there are documents not produced and people not testifying that people today said they want to hear from. In relation to what you just said ambassador sondland testified and i quote, everyone was in the loop. It was to secret. Professor gerhardt how is ambassador sondlands testimony relevant here . His testimony is relevant and also rather chilling to hear him say that everybody is in the loop and when he says that hes talking about the people at the high elf levels of our government. All of whom are refusing to testify under oath or comply with subpoenas. Professors, thank you for your testimony. The president used the power of his office to pressure a foreign Head Of State to investigate an american citizen in order to benefit his domestic political situation after he was caught. And i do know something about that. This president proceeded to cover it up and refused to comply with valid congressional subpoenas. The framers included impeachment in the constitution to ensure that no one no one is Above The Law. Including and especially the president of the United States. Thank you mr. Clair. And i yield back. Gentle lady yields back. Mr. Klein is recognized. Thank you mr. Chairman. It is just past 5 00 and a lot of families are just getting home from work right now. Theyre turning on the tv and theyre wondering what theyre watching on tv. Theyre asking themselves, is this a rerun because i thought i
saw this a couple of weeks ago. But no, this is not a rerun, this is act two of the three part tragedy, the impeachment of President Trump and what were seeing here is several very accomplished constitutional scholars attempting to devine the intent, whether it is of the president or of the various witnesses who appeared during the schiff hearings and it is very frustrating to me as a member of the Judiciary Committee why we are where we are today. I asked to be a member of this committee because of its storied history because it was the defender of the constitution, because it was one of the oldest committees in the congress established by another Verge Virginan John Float and
congressman blat and congressman butler also served on this committee. But the committee that they served under on is dead. That committee doesnt exist any more. That committee is gone. Apparently now we dont even get to sit in the Judiciary Committee room. Were in the ways and Means Committee room. I dont know why. Maybe because there is more room. Maybe because the portraits of the various chairman whose would be staring down at us might just intimidate the other side as they attempt what is essentially a Sham Impeachment of this president. You know, looking at where we are, the lack of the use of the redino rules, in this process, is shameful. The fact that we got Witness Testimony for this hearing this morning is shameful. The fact that we got the Intelligence Committee report
yesterday, 300 pages of it, is shameful. I watched the Intelligence Committee hearings from the back. Although i couldnt watch them all because the Judiciary Committee actually scheduled business during the Intelligence Committee hearings so the Judiciary Committee members werent able to watch all of the hearings. But i didnt get to i get to read the transcripts of the hearings that were held in private. I was not able to be a part of the Intelligence Committee hearings that were in the scif. We havent seen the evidence from the Intelligence Committee yet. Weve asked for it. We havent received it. We havent heard from any fact witnes