This from like the ivory towers of your law school but it makes actual people in this country when the president calls you dont get to interrupt me on this time. And when you suggest that you invoke the president s son name here and try to make a joke at referencing baron trump that does not lend credibility to your argument, it makes you look mean and attacking someones family. The minor child of the president of the United States. So lets see if we could get into the facts. To all of the witnesses. If you have personal knowledge of a single Material Fact in the schiff report, please raise your hand. And let the record reflect no personal knowledge of a single fact. And you know what, that continues on the tradition we saw from adam schiff where ambassador taylor could not identify an Impeachment Offense and mr. Kent never met with the president and fiona hill never mentioned military aid and mr. Hill was not aware of any
nefarious aid and Colonel Vindman said that bribery was invoked here. And ambassador volker denied there was a quid pro quo and mr. Morrison said there was nothing wrong on the call. The only direct evidence came from Gordon Sondland who spoke to the president of the United States and the president said i want nothing. No quid pro quo. And you know what, if wiretapping the political points the gentlemans time is expired maybe it is a different president we should be impeaching. Gentlemans time is expired. Mr. Cicilini. Let me state the obvious. It is not hearsay when the president tells the president of ukraine to investigate his political adversary, is it. It is not. It is not here say when the president confesses on National Television to do thatting. It is not. It is not hearsay when administration testify they hear the president say he only cares about the investigations of his political opponent, is it. No, that is not here say. And there are other direct
evidence in the 300page report from the Intelligence Community so lets dispense by that clim by my republican colleagues. Professor turley wrote on august 1st, 2014 in a piece called five myths about impeachment, one of the myths he was rejected was that impeachment required a criminal offense and he wrote, and i quote, an offense does not have to be indictable. Serious misconduct or violation of public trust is enough. End quote. Was Professor Turley right when he wrote that back in december of 2014. Yes, i agree with that. To professor karlan. At the Constitutional ConventionEldridge Jerry said foreign powers will meddle in our affairs and spare to expense to spare them and a president might be tray his trust to a foreign power. Professor carlin can you explain
why the framers accounted for those concerns and how that related to the facts before this committee. So the reason that the framers were concerned about foreign interference i think is slightly different than the reason we are. They were concerned about it because we were such a weak country in 1789. We were small. We were poor. We didnt have an established navy. We didnt have an established army. Today the concern is a little different which is that it will interfere with us making the decisions that are best for us as americans. Thank you, professor. There are three known instances of the president publicly asking a foreign country to interfere in our elections. First in 2016, the president publicly hoped that russia would hack into the email of a political opponent which they subsequently did. Second based on the president s summary of the call with president zelensky we know he asked ukraine to announce an investigation into his chief political rival and used aid apropt appropriated by congress and urged china to begin its own
investigation. Professor feldman, how would it impact our democracy if it became Standard Practice for the president of the United States to ask a Foreign Government to interfere in our elections. It would be a disaster for the functioning of our democracy if our president s regularly as this president has done ask Foreign Governments to interfere in our electoral process. And i what like to end with George Washington who told americans in his Farewell Address that to be constantly awake because foreign influence is one of the baneful foes of the Foreign Government. The conduct at issue here is egregious and warrants a commensurate response and the of that there is no doubt because inviting foreign meddling robs American People of the sacred right to elect their own political leaders. Americans across this country
wait in long lines to exercise the right to vote and choose their own leaders. This right does not belong to Foreign Governments. We not and won a revolution over this. Free and Fair Elections are what separate us from authoritarians all over the world. As Public Servants and member of the house we would be negligent in our duties under the constitution if we let this blatant abuse of power go unchecked. Weve heard about hating this president. It is not about hating this president. It is about a love of country. It is about arming the oath that we took to protect and defend the constitution of this great country. And so my final question is to Professor Feldman and to professor karlan, in the face of this evidence, what are the consequences if this committee and this congress refuses to muster the courage to respond to this gross abuse of power that undermined the integrity of our elections and undermined the confidence we have to have in the president to not abuse the power of his office. If this committee and this house fail to act, then youre sending a message to this president and to future president s that it is no longer a problem if they abuse their power. It is no longer a problem if they invite other countries to interfere in our elections and no longer a probe if they put the interest of other countries ahead of ours. Professor karlan. I agree with Professor Feldman and i apologize for getting over heated over a moment ago but i have a constitutional right under the First Amendment to give money to candidates and we have a constitutional duty from foreigners spending money in our elections and these are two sides of the same coin. Thank you. And with that i yield back. The gentleman yields back. Mr. Johnson. Thank you. I was struck this morning by the same thing as all of my friends and colleagues on this side of the room. Chairman nadler actually began this morning with the outrageous statement that the facts before us are undisputed. Of course, everyone here knows that thats simply not true. Every person here and every person watching at home knows full well that virtually everything here is disputed. From the fraudulent process and the broken procedure to the democrats unfounded claims. And the full facts are obviously not before us today. Weve been allow nod fact witnesses here at all. For the First Time Ever this committee, which is the one in congress that has the actual jurisdiction over impeachment is being given no access to the underlying evidence that adam schiff and his political accomplices say support this charade. This is a shocking denial of constitutional process and im also a constitutional attorney and under normal circumstances i would enjoy a debate about the contours of article two section four but that is an utter waste of the time because as highlighted this morning this whole production is a sham and a reckless path to a predetermined political out come and it is an outcome that
was predetermined by our democrat colleagues a long time ago. The truth is House Democrats have been working to impeach President Trump since the day he took his oath of office. Over the past three years theyve introduced four resolutions seeking to impeach the president. Two years ago as one of the graphics show december 26th, 2018, 50 House Democrats voted to begin Impeachment Proceedings and that is 20 months before the famous july 25th phone call with ukraine president zelensky. And this other graphic up here is smaller but it is interesting too. I think it is important to reiterate for everybody watching at home that of our 24 democratic colleagues and Friends On The Other Side of the room today, 17 out of 24 have already voted for impeachment. So i mean lets be honest. Lets not pretend that anybody cares about what is being said here today or the actual evidence or the facts. As Congresswoman Lofgren said we come with open minds. That is not happening here. So much for an impartial jury. Several Times Leading democrats have admitted in various interviews and correspondence they believe this strategy is necessary, because why . Because they want to stop the president s reelection. Even Speaker Pelosi said last month that, quote, it is dangerous to allow the American People to evaluate his performance at the ballot box. Speaker pelosi has it exactly backwards. What is dangerous is the precedent all of this is setting for the future of our republic. I love what Professor Turley testified to, this is not how impeachment of a president is done and his Rhetorical Question is he asked you to ask yourselves, where will you stand next time when this same kind of Sham Impeachment Process Is Innish Ated against a president from your party. The real shame here today is everything in washington has become bitterly partisan and this ugly chapter is not going
to help that. It is going to make things really that much worse. President turley said we are living in the era fears from our founders and what hamilton referred to as a period of agitated passions. I think that said if t so well. This is an age of rage. President washington warned in his Farewell Address in 1796 that extreme partisanship would lead us to the ruins of public liberty. Those were his words. This hyper partisan impeachment is probably one of the most divisive and destructive things that we could possibly do to our american family. Let me tell you what i heard from my constituents in multiple town halls and meetings back in my district just two days ago. The people of the country are sick of this. Theyre sick of the politics of personal destruction, theyre sick of the toxic atmosphere that is being created here and theyre deeply concerned about where all this will lead us in the years ahead. Rightfully so. You know what the greatest threat is, the thing that ought to keep every single one of us up at night is the rapidly
eroding trust of the American People in their institutions. One of the critical presuppositions and foundations of a selfgoverning people in a Constitutional Republic is they retain a basis level of trust in institutions and rule of law and system of justice and the body of elected representatives and Citizen Legislators in congress. The greatest danger of this fraudulent impeachment production is not what happens this afternoon or by christmas or in the election next fall. The greatest danger is what this will do in the days ahead to our 243 year experiment in selfgovernance and what effect this new president or pandoras box will have upon our nation six or seven years from now, a decade now from the ruins of public liberty created by this shortsighted exercise today. God help us. I yield back. Gentleman yields back. Mr. Swalwell. Professor turley, as a former prosecutor, i recognize a Defense Attorney trying to represent their clients. Especially one who has very
little to work with in the way of facts and today you represent the republicans in their defense of the president. Professor that is not my intention, sir. Youve said that this case represents a dramatic Turning Point in federal impeachment precedent. The impact of which will shape and determine future cases. The house for the first time in the modern era asked the senate to remove someone for conduct for which he was never charged criminally and the impropriety of which has never been tested in a court of law but that is not a direct quote from what you said today. It sounds a lot like what youve argued today but that is a quote from what you argued as a Defense Lawyer in a 2010 Senate Impeachment trial. Professor, did you represent federal judge thomas portus. I did, indeed. And judge was tried on four articles of impeachment ranging from engaged in a pattern of conduct that is incompatible with the trust and confidence placed in him as a federal judge engaging in a long standing pattern of corrupt conduct that
demonstrates his unfitness to serve as a United StatesDistrict Court judge. On each count judge portus was convicted by at least 68 and up to 96 bipartisan senators. Thankfully that senate did not buy your argument that a federal official should not be removed if he is not charged criminally and respecialfully, professor, we dont buy it either. But were here because of this photo. It is a picture of of president zelensky in may of this year standing on the Eastern Front of ukraine as a hot war was taking place and up to 15,000 ukrainians have died at hands of russians. I would like to focus on the impact of President Trumps conduct particularly with our allies and our standing in the world. This isnt just a president , as professor karlan has pointed out, asking for another foreign leader to investigate a political opponent, it is a president leveraging a white house visit as well as foreign
aid. As the witnesses have testified, ukraine needs our support to defend itself against russia. I heard directly from witnesses who important the visit and aid were, particularly from ambassador taylor. These weapons and this assistance allows the Ukrainian Military to deter further incursions by the russians against ukrainian territory. If that further incursion, further aggression, were to take blase, more ukrainians would die. Professor karlan, does the president s decision to withhold from ukraine such important official acts, a white house visit and military aid in order to pressure president zelensky relate to the framers concerns about abuse of power and entanglements with foreign nations. It relates to the abuse of power. The entanglements with foreign
nations is a more complicated concept for the framers than for us. Professor karlan, i think you would agree we are a nation of immigrants. Yes. Today 50 Million Immigrants live in the United States. I moved by one who recently told me i was checking into a hotel about his romanian family. He came here from romania and said that every time he had gone home for the last 20 years he would always tell his Family Members how corrupt his country was, that he had left and why he had come to the United States. And he told me in such humiliated fashion that when he is gone home recently, they now wag their finger at him and say youre going to lecture us about corruption. What do you think professor karlan, does the president s conduct say to the millions of americans who left their family and livelihood to come to a country that represents the rule of law. I think it suggests that we dont believe in the rule of law. And i think it tells emerging democracies around the world not to take it seriously when we tell them that their elections are not legitimate because of foreign interference or their elections are not legitimate because of persecution of the opposing party. President bush announced that he did not consider the elections in belarus in 2006 to be legitimate because they went after political opponents. Professor turley pointed out that we should wait and go to the courts but you would acknowledge that weve gone to the courts. Weve been in the courts for over six months. Many times on matters that are already settled in the United StatesSupreme Court particularly u. S. V nixon where the president seems to be running out the clock. Is that right. Yes. Thank you and i yield back. Gentleman yields back. We will in a moment we will recess for a brief five minutes. First i ask everybody in the
room to remain seated and quiet while the witnesses exit the room. I also want to remind those in the audience that you may not be guaranteed your seat if you leave the hearing room at this time. At this time the committee will start in a short recess. You have been watching the first public hearing of the House Judiciary Committee. Welcome to the lead. Im jake tapper. This hearing which first started at 10 00 a. M. Eastern, getting a little contentious at times, Three Constitutional Law Experts called by democrats made their case to impeach