I thought the threat to our nation was wellarticulated 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 dictatorship. My view is that a people cannot depend on the fairness of will be absolutely nothing compared to the shredding of our democracy. After the events of ukraine unfolded, the president claimed the reason he requested an investigation into his political opponent and withheld desperately needed military aid for ukraine was supposedly because he was worried about corruption. However, contrary to the president s statements, various witnesses including Vice President pence special advisor Jennifer Williams testified that the president s request was political. Take a listen. Speak of the july 20 for phone call was unusual because in contrast to other presenter because ive observed, it involved discussions would appear to be had with political matter. Professor karlan, is it common for someone who gets caught to deny that their behavior is impermissible . Almost always. One of the questions before us is the president s claim that he cared about the Supreme Courtdetermined thag credibility, we should look at a number of factors including impact historical background and whether there are departures from normal procedures, correct . Thats correct. What we want to do is figure out if someones Explanation Sticks with the facts, and if it doesnt the expo nation may not be true. Lets explore that. Lieutenant colonel vindman testified he prepared Talking Points on Anticorruption Reform OnPresident Trumps call with
president zelensky. However, based on the transcripts released on those calls in april and july, President Trump never mentioned these points of corruption. He never mentioned the word corruption. Does that go to any of these factors with that significance . Yes, it goes to the one about procedural irregularities and the things that led up to the decision that you figure this mode ambassador volker testified that the president never made comments to him about corrupti corruption. It goes to the factor about factor about substantive departures. Professor karlan come up it goes to the fact and my colleague mr. Mcclintock mentioned this earlier, a process out lied to the National Defense authorization act two countries receiving military aid
has done enough to fight corruption. My colleague did not say this but the Department Of Defense wrote a letter determining that ukraine passed this assessment. And yet, President Trump set aside that assessment and withheld the congressionally approved aid to ukraine anyway in direct contradiction to the established procedures he should have followed had he cared about corruption. Is that assessment is that relevant to your assessment . Yes, that would go to the factors the Supreme Court discussed. What about the fact, i think you mentioned this earlier, one of the key things you read in the testimony that President Trump wanted the investigations of burisma and biden player was announced, but he actually didnt care whether they were conducted . What did you say about that . That goes to whether the claim that this is about politics is a persuasive claim
because it goes to the fact that its announced publicly which is an odd thing measure generally you dont announce the investigation in a criminal case before you conducted because it puts the personal notice that they are under investigation. 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 claimed that he was worried about corruption . You want to make the credibility determination because you have the sole Power Of Impeachment. If i were a member of the House Of Representatives, i would infer that he was doing it for political reasons. If we dont stand up to a president who abuses his power, we send the risks to all future president s that they can put their own personal political interest ahead of the American People, our national security, and our elections. And that is the gravest of threats of democracy. I yield back. I doll recognized mr. Golding for the purposes of annulments request. I ask for you that this request for this article by digital hub. The article will be thank you, mr. Chairman. Starting off something that i dont normally do and im going to quote Speaker Of The House nancy pelosi. The speaker told the washington post, im going to quote this, impeachment is so divisive to the country that unless theres something so compelling and overwhelming and bipartisan, i dont think we should go down that path because it divides the country. In that, the speaker and i both agree. Do you know who else agrees . The Founding Fathers. The Founding Fathers recognized that crimes worth impeachment must be so severe regardless Political Parties that there is
an agreement that actions are impeachable. Lets go back to Speaker Pelosis words were more time. The speaker says the case where impeachment was also be compelling. 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 investigations. Aside the mere projections by ambassador sondland, theres no evidence that trump was conditioning aid on investigations. If you doubt them and go back to the actual transcript, never in the call was a 20 election mentioned, never in the College Military Aid mentioned. President trump told senator johnson that aid was not conditioned on investigation. President trump was released comfortable about the ukrainians, he merely wanted the europeans to investigate their
own backyard but i think we can agree its appropriate for the president to ensure that our money is wasted. I said i wasnt going to 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 its overwhelming. Its probably not cover the democrats that none of the witnesses who testified 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 theres no evidence of bribery either. The two people who did firsthand knowledge, the president and president zelensky both say theres no pressure on the ukrainians. The transcript july 26 backs this up. To go back to nancy pelosi one more time, she said the movement to four impeachment should be bipartisan, which is actually
the same sentiment echoed by our chairman jerry nadler who in 1998 said, and i quote, there should never be narrowly voted impeachment supported by one of the major clinical parties and opposed by another. It was just that. It was only a bipartisan vote imposing the inquiry. The partisan vote was the one to move forward with the inquiry. We are over three. Lets face it. This is a Sham Impeachment against President Trump. Its not compelling. Its not overwhelming. Its not bipartisan. Even by the speakers criteria, this is mailed. Nothing more that a partisan witch hunt which denies the fundamental fairness of american Justice System and denies due process for the president of the United States. The democrats case is based on nothing but soft feelings added
conjecture and the feelings of a few unelected Career Bureaucrats and the American People are set off. Instead of wasting our time on this, we should be doing things like passing usmca, lowering the cost of prescription drugs, and working on a failing infrastructure in this country. With that said, mr. Turley, ive watched as your words have been twisted. Is there anything youd like to clarify . Only this. One of the disagreements we have with my esteemed colleagues is what makes a legitimate impeachment, that what technically satisfies impeachment, the technical requirements of impeachment come up what is expected of you. And my objection is that there is a constant reference for inference over information, for presumptions over proof. Thats because this record has not been developed. If you are going to remove a president if you believe in
democracy, if you are going to remove a sitting president , then you have an obligation not to rely on inference when there is still information you can gather. Thats what im saying. Its not that you cant do this, you just cant do it this way. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Gentleman yields back. I now recognize miss jacksonly for the request of you that is consent a new statement on President Trumps abuse of offices from the republican and democratic Attorney Generals. With that objection, i now recognize miss deming as a former Law Enforcement official, i know firsthand that the rule of law is the strength of our democracy. And no one is above it. Not our neighbors and our
various communities, not our coworkers, and not the president of the United States. Yes, the president has said he cannot be prosecuted for criminal conduct, that he not need comply with congressional requests and subpoenas. As a matter of fact, the president is trying to absorb himself absolving himself of any credibility. Since the beginning of the investigation in early september, the house has sent multiple letters, document requests, and subpoenaeds 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 Justice is pervasive. Since the house began its investigation, the white house has produced zero subpoenaed
documents. In addition, at the president the phosphorus direction, more than a dozen members of his administration has defied Congressional Subpoenas. The following slides show those who have refused to comply at the president s direction. We are facing a categorical blockade by a president who is desperate to prevent any investigation into his wrongdoing. Professor gerhardt, has a president ever refused to cooperate in the Impeachment Investigation . Not until now. And any president , i know dixon delayed or tried to delay information. When that occurred, was that at the same level that we are
seeing today . President nixon ordered his heproduce documents and there we times certainly disagreements, but there was not a wholesale, broad scale, acrosstheboard refusal to even recognize the legitimacy of this house doing and truly. Is did it result in an is it fair to say that if a president stonewalls an investigation like we are clearly seeing today, into whether hes committed an Impeachable Offense, he risked rendering the impeachment power moved . Indeed , thats the inevitable effect of a president refusing to participate. Hes denying the power of congress to oversee him and exercise his capacity to impea impeach. Professor gerhardt, when a president prevents witnesses
from complying with Congressional Subpoenas, are we entitled to make any presumptions about what they would say if they testify . Yes, maam. I might point out that one of the difficulties were asking a more thorough investigation is thats exactly what the house is trying to conduct here and the president has refused to comply. Thats where the blockage occurs. Thats why there are documents not produced in people not testifying that people have here said today they want to hear from. Ambassador sondland testified, i quote that everyone was in the loop, there was no secret. Professor gerhardt, how is ambassador sondlands testimonys relevant here . When he says that, hes talking about the people at the highest levels of our government, all of whom are refusing to testify under oath or comply with subpoenas. Professors, i want to
thank you for your testimony. The president views the power of this office to pressure foreign Heads Of State to investigate an american citizen in order to benefit his domestic political situation after he was caught. I do know something about that. This president proceeded to cover it up and refused to comply with valid Congressional Subpoenas for 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. Chair. I yelled back. Gentle lady yields back. Mr. Klein is recognized. Thank you mr. Chairman. Its just past 5 00, a lot of families are getting a hold right now is, turning on the tv and wonder what theyre watching on tv. They are asking themselves, is a
rerun . I thought i saw this a couple weeks ago. No, this is not a rerun. This is asked two of the threepart tragedy of the impeachment of President Trump, and what we are seeing is very several accomplished because additional scholars attempting to divine the intent of the president or the various witnesses who appeared during this p24 hearings and its very frustrating to me as a member of the Judiciary Committee why we. I asked to be a member because of this storied history, because its the defender of the constitution, because it was one of the oldest committees in congress established by another virginian, john george jackson. Its because two of my immediate
successors, also served on this committee. But the committee that they served under, served on, is dead. That committee doesnt exist anymore. That committee is gone. Apparently now we dont even get to sit in the Judiciary Committee room. We are in the ways and Means Committee room. I dont know why. Maybe there is more room. May be the portraits the various chairman who would be staring down at us might just intimidate the other side as they attempt what is essentially a Sham Impeachment of this president. Looking at where we are, the lack of the use of the original rodinorules of this process is shameful. The fact weve got Witness Testimony for this hearing this morning is shameful. The fact we got the Intelligence Committee report yesterday, 300 pages of it is shameful. I watched the Intelligence Committee hearings from the back, but i couldnt watch them all because the Judiciary Committee actually scheduled business during the Intelligence Committee hearings, so the Judiciary Hearing Members werent able to watch all of the hearings. I get to read the transcripts of the hearings held in private, i wasnt able to be a part of the Intelligence Committee hearings that were in this. We havent seen the evidence from the Intelligence Committee yet weve asked for it. We havent received it. We havent heard from any fact witnesses yet before we get to hear from these constitutional scholars about whether or not the facts rose to the level of impeachment Impeachable Offense. Mr. Turley, its not just your
family and dog who are angry. Many of us on this committee are angry. Many of us watching at home across america are angry because this show has degenerated into a farce. As i said, the Judiciary Committee of my predecessors is dead. I look to a former chairman, daniel webster, who says we are all agents of the same supreme power, the people. And its the people who elected this president in 2016 and its the people who should have the choice as to whether or not to vote for this president in 2020, not the members of this committee, and not speaker nancy pelosi, and not the members of this House Of Representatives. It should be the people of the United States who get to decide who their president is 2020. I asked several questions about Obstruction Of Justice to mr. Mr. Mueller when he testified. Mr. Turley, i know you mentioned Obstruction Of Justice several times in your testimony. I want to yield to mr. Radcliffe to ask a concise question about that issue. Thank you, gentlemen could before yielding. Professor turley, weve been despite the questions to witnesses for the first phase of this, they may be dusting off each we all remember how painful it was to listen to Special Counsels analysis of the Obstruction Of Justice portion of that report. Id like you to address the fatal flaws of your perspective with regard to the extraction of justice portion of