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 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 presidents request was political. take a listen. speak of the july 20 for phone call was unusual because in contrast to other presenter because i've 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? >> that's correct. >> what we want to do is figure out if someone's explanation sticks with the facts, and if it doesn't the expo nation may not be true. let's explore that. lieutenant colonel vindman testified he prepared talking points on anticorruption reform on president trump's 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 didn't 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 it's announced publicly which is an odd thing -- measure generally you don't 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 don't 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 don't stand up to a president who abuses his power, we send the risks to all future presidents 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 don't normally do and i'm going to quote speaker of the house nancy pelosi. the speaker told "the washington post," i'm going to quote this, "impeachment is so divisive to the country that unless there's something so compelling and overwhelming and bipartisan, i don't 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. let's go back to speaker pelosi's words were more time. the speaker says the case where impeachment was also be compelling. after last month's 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, there's 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 it's appropriate for the president to ensure that our money is wasted. i said i wasn't 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 it's "overwhelming." it's probably not cover the democrats that none of the witnesses who testified were able to provide first-hand evidence of a quid pro quo. but i forgot, we are calling it bribery now after the focus group last week and there's no evidence of bribery either. the two people who did first-hand knowledge, the president and president zelensky both say there's 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. let's face it. this is a sham impeachment against president trump. it's not compelling. it's not overwhelming. it's not bipartisan. even by the speaker's 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, i've watched as your words have been twisted. is there anything you'd 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. that's 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. that's what i'm saying. it's not that you can't do this, you just can't 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 trump's 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, across-the-board 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 he's committed an impeachable offense, he risked rendering the impeachment power moved? >> indeed , that's the inevitable effect of a president refusing to participate. he's 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, ma'am. i might point out that one of the difficulties were asking a more thorough investigation is that's exactly what the house is trying to conduct here and the president has refused to comply. that's where the blockage occurs. that's 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 sondland's testimony's relevant here? >> when he says that, he's 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. it's just past 5:00, a lot of families are getting a hold right now is, turning on the tv and wonder what they're 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 three-part 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 it's 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 it's the defender of the constitution, because it was one of the oldest committees in congress established by another virginian, john george jackson. it's because two of my immediate successors, also served on this committee. but the committee that they served under, served on, is dead. that committee doesn't exist anymore. that committee is gone. apparently now we don't even get to sit in the judiciary committee room. we are in the ways and means committee room. i don't 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 we've 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 couldn't watch them all because the judiciary committee actually scheduled business during the intelligence committee hearings, so the judiciary hearing members weren't able to watch all of the hearings. i get to read the transcripts of the hearings held in private, i wasn't able to be a part of the intelligence committee hearings that were in this. we haven't seen the evidence from the intelligence committee yet we've asked for it. we haven't received it. we haven't 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, it's 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 it's the people who elected this president in 2016 and it's 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, we've 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 counsel's analysis of the obstruction of justice portion of that report. i'd like you to address the fatal flaws of your perspective with regard to the extraction of justice portion of that. >> the gentlemen's time expires. the witness may answer the question. >> thank you, chairman. i've been a credit of the obstruction theory behind the russian investigation because, t doesn't beat what i think are te clear standards. the other thing i think raise a serious issue quite frankly is the matter with don again. there is a disagreement about that, but the department of justice objected the claim, it's not just the attorney general. it was also the deputy attorney general rod rosenstein. >> gentlemen, time is well expired. mr. correa? >> i'd like to think our witnesses for being here today. i assure you your testimony is important not only to this body but to an america that's listening very intently to the issues in force are, and why it's important that all of us understand the issues before us. professor feldman, president trump has ordered the executive branch to completely blocking the efforts of this house to investigate whether he committed high crimes and misdemeanors in dealings with ukraine. is that correct? >> yes, it is. >> president trump has asserted many officials are somehow absolutely immune from testifying in this impeachment inquiry. on the screen behind you, is the opinion by judge jackson, a federal judge here in d.c., that rejects president trump's assertion. do you agree with judge jackson's ruling that president trump has invoked a nonexistent legal basis to block witnesses from testifying, in this impeachment interview? >> i agree with the judge's opinion. she correctly held there is no absolute immunity which would protect a presidential advisor from having to appear before the house of representatives and testify. she did not make a ruling as to whether executive privilege would apply in any decision >> let me quote judge jackson. "the primary take away from the past 250 years of recorded american history is that presidents are not kings." professor feldman, in the framers' view, does the president to act more like a leader of democracy or more like a monarch when he orders officials to defy congress as it tries to investigate abuse of power and corruption? >> i don't think the framers could've imagined that a president would flatly refuse to participate in his impeachment inquiry given they gave the power of impeachment to the house of representatives and the structure of the constitution would allow the house to oversee the president. >> thank you. professor gerhardt, where can we look in the constitution to understand whether the president must comply with the impeachment investigations? >> i think you can look in the entire constitution. a good place would be the supremacy clause. the president supports the constitution of the united states. that means he's set in office with certain constraints of what he may do and there are measures for accountability for any failure to follow his duty or follow the constitution. >> thank you. the president has said he is above the law, that article two of the constitution allows him to, and i quote, do whatever i want. that can't be true. judge jackson and said one is above the law. personally i grew up in california in the 1960s. there was a time we were going to beat the russians to the moon. we were full of optimism. we believed in american democracy. we were the best in the world. back home on main street, my mom and dad struggled to survive day-to-day. my mom worked as a maid cleaning hotel rooms for $1.50 per hour, and my dad worked at the local paper mill. what got us up in the morning was the belief, the optimism that tomorrow was going to be better than today. we are a nation of freedom, democracy, economic opportunity, and we always know that tomorrow is going to be better. and today, i personally sit as a testament to the greatness of this nation. and i sit here in this committee room also with one very important mission, which is to keep the american dream alive. to ensure that all of us are equal, to ensure that nobody, nobody, is above the law, and to ensure that our constitution and our congressional oversight of the presidency is still something with meaning. thank you, mr. chair. i yield back. >> gentlemen yields back. >> thank you, mr. chairman. all day long we've been sitting here listening to my friends across the aisle and the witnesses claimed the president demand ukraine did a favor. this is like everything else in the sham impeachment, purposely misleading and not based on the facts. but let's review the actual transcript of the call. they never mentioned the 2020 election, they never mentioned military aid. it does, however, clearly show that the favor of the president requested is assisted in the ongoing investigation in the 2016 election. those investigations comfortingly the one done run by u.s. attorney should concern democrats. the transcript of this call shows the president was worried about the efforts of ukraine related to the 2020 election. we know this and notice i use the word know and not the word infer, because of the transcript and he spoke with vindman he knows this because he wants the attorney general to get in touch with the with so many other things,these. they do not fit the impeachment narrative so the armies are presented or ignored. beyond all doubt, whether it's a quasi-hearing, judicial hearing, i think we did start with how we look at it. i'm not a constitutional law professor. i'm just an old criminal defense attorney, but when i walk in the courtroom, i think of three things. what's the crime charged, what's the conduct, who is the victim? we managed to make it to 5:00 today before we talk about the alleged victim of the crime and that's president zelensky. three different times, at least three different times, has denied that impression from the president. the call shows pleasantries, cordiality. president zelensky states that, no, you heard that we had a good phone call. it was normal. we spoke about many things. i think you read it and the but he me. october 10th, president zelensky had a press conference and i encourage everybody to watch it. even if you don't understand it, 90% of communication is nonverbal. tell me if you think he's lying. there was no blackmail. december 2nd, this monday, i never talked to the president from the position of quid pro quo. we have the alleged victim of quid pro quo, bribery, extortion, repeatedly and adamantly shouting from the rooftops that he never felt pressured, he was not the victim of anything. so in order for this whole thing to stick, we have to believe that president zelensky is a pathological liar, for the ukrainian president and the country are so weak that he has no choice but to parade himself out there, demoralize himself for the good of his country. either of these two assertions weakens their country and harms our efforts to help the ukraine. and also begs the question of how on earth did president president zelensky withstand this illegal and impeachable pressure to begin with. because this fact still has not changed. the aide was released to ukraine and did not take any action from them in order for it to flow. with that, i yield to my friend. >> professor karlan, context is important. isn't it? >> yes, sir. >> went are calling from florida presented a statement you made you said to the well, you've got to take the statement in context but it seems to be you don't want to extend or apply the same standard to the president. a now famous book about i'd like you to do us a favor, you said an hour and a half ago that it didn't mean us, admit the president himself. that's the clear reading of this. i'd like you to do us a favor because -- you know what the next words are? >> i don't have -- >> i'll read it. he said, i want you to do us a favor though because our country has been through a lot. do you know when this call happened? it happened the day after spending was in front of this committee. of course, our country was put through two years of this and the idea you will say, this is of the royal we, and ignored the entire context of a statement. the whole paragraph, do you know what he and the paragraph with? talking about bob mueller. this is the basis of this impeachment of the call? it couldn't be further from the truth. you want the standard to apply when representative gates, you've got to look at the context, but when the president of united states is clear that you try to change his wording. he's talking about the two years this country went through because of the mueller report and somehow the standard doesn't apply to the president. that's ridiculous. >> the gentlemen's time has expired. >> i want to thank our constitutional experts walking us through the framer's thinking that impeachment and why they decided it was a necessary part of our constitution. going to ask you to help us understand the implications of the president's obstruction, of congresses investigation, into the abuse of the office of the president to squeeze the ukrainian government to help this be the trump reelection the trump reelection campaign. we know the president's obstruction did not begin with the ukraine. instead, his conduct as part of a pattern and i will direct your attention to the timeline of the screen. in the left-hand column, we see the president's statements from the july calling which he pressured if our government by obstructing the congressional investigation and refusing to cooperate. this is the first time we've seen this kind of instruction. in the right-hand column, we can flash back to the 2016 election with the president welcome and used russians interference in our election and when the special counsel in this committee tried to investigate the extent of the involvement, did everything he could to cover it up. so it appears the president's obstruction investigations is part of a pattern. pristine vice foreign governments to interfere in our elections, strike then he does it again. professor gerhardt, how does the existence of such a pattern to help determine whether the president conduct is impeachabl? >> the pattern gives us a tremendous insight in the context of his behavior, when he's acting and we explain those actions will by looking at the pattern. we can infer a very wrong inference in fact that this is deviating from the usual practice and he's been systematically heading towards accommodation where he n ask this question -- by the way, after the july 25th call, the money is not yet released. in this ongoing conversation that we learn from testimony that the monies being withheld because the president wanted to make sure the deliverable was going to happen, the announcement of investigation. >> in addition to the money not being released, there was nothing white house meeting which was so important to ukrainian security. >> yes, ma'am. >> professor feldman, we noted previously in federal district court rejected the president's attempt for blocking witnesses testifying to congress, saying that presidents are not kings. the founders included two critical provision in our constitution to prevent our president from becoming a king and our democracy for becoming a monarchy and those productions were presidential elections and impeachment, correct? >> correct. >> the pattern of inviting ford has the president undermined both of those protections? >> he has and it's crucial to note that the victim of a high crime or misdemeanor such as the president alleged to have committed is not president zelensky and it's not the ukrainian people. the victim is the american people. alexander hamilton said clearly that the nature of high crimes and misdemeanors is they are related to injuries that the society itself. we, the american people, are victims of the high crimes and misdemeanors. >> what's the appropriate remedy of such a circumstance? >> the favors made what remedy, that was impeachment. >> thank you. i spent over 30 years working to help clients and schoolchildren understand the importance of our constitutional system and the importance of the rule of law, so the president's behavior is deeply deeply troubling. the president welcome and used election interference by russia, publicly admitted he do it again, it did in fact do it again by soliciting election interference from ukraine and throughout the president has tried to cover up his miscondu misconduct. this isn't complicated. the founders were clear and we must be too. such behavior in a president of united states is not acceptable. i yield back. >> the gentle lady yields back. mistress is a >> a document whichlists the 40f legislation, 245 bipartisan bills can 80% which remains language being made. >> mr. chairman, i think unanimous sense for a packet of 54 documents and items which were previously made. >> the documents will be entered into the record. >> mr. chairman, may i have another? unanimous consent for the article that was just published about 50 minutes ago entitled law professor that's demonstrably false, i'd like that to be to the record. >> of the document be made part of the record. >> i seek it in his consent to enter in the record a tweet the first lady of united states issued within the hour that says "a child deserves policy and deserves speaker that >> i'm sorry. what do i say? oh. not here momentarily. >> thank you, mr. chairman, i want to thank all the witnesses for their time and patience today. i know it's been a long day. as my colleague observed, the similarities between the president's conduct and the ukraine investigation, conduct in the special counsel's investigation are hard to igno ignore. in fact, we are seeing it as a pattern of a presidential abuse of power. the president called ukraine investigation a hoax and the speed that investigation a witch hunt. he has threatened the ukraine whistle-blower for not testifying like he threatened to a fire his attorney general for not obstructing the russia investigation. the presser fired at best a ambassador yovanovitch in the same way he fired his white house counsel. and finally the president attacked civil servants who have testified about ukraine, just like he attacked career officials of the department of justice for investigating into his obstruction of the russia investigation. under any other circumstances, such behavior by any american president would be shocking. but here, it's a repeat of what we have already seen, the special counsel's investigation. i'd like to take the moment to obstructing a subject that this committee has been investigating since march. here are two slides. the first one will show as he did, with the president, he did with ukraine trying to course his subordinates, this conduct by special counsel mueller. this slide shows when the news broke out of the president's order, the president directed his advisors to deny that he had made the orders. professor gerhardt, are you familiar with the facts relating to these three episodes described in the mueller report, yes or no please. >> yes, ma'am. >> expecting the special counsel's evidence is true, is as a pattern of obstruction of justice? >> is clearly obstruction of justice. >> why would you say so, sir? >> the obvious object of this activity is to shut down the investigation. in fact the acts of the president according to these facts, each time, is to use power that he has unique to his office in a way that's going to help him frustrate the investigation. >> does is conduct fit within the framers' view of impeachable offenses? >> i believe it does. putting separations of powers is designed to put limits on how somebody may go about frustrating the activity of another branch. >> you would say that this would be an impeachable offense? >> yes, ma'am. >> thank you, because i agree with you. the president's actions do matter. the president's objection of justice do matter. as a former judge and member of congress, i raised my right hand and put my left hand on the bible more than once, and i'm sworn to uphold the constitution and laws of this country. this hearing is about that, but it's also about the core of the heart of our american values, the values of duty, honor, and loyalty. it's about the rule of law. when the president asked ukraine for a favor, he did so with personal political gain, and the other half of the american people. if this is true, he would have betrayed his oath and betrayed his loyalty to the country. a fundamental principle over democracy is that no one is above the law, not anyone of you professors, not anyone of us up here, members of congress, not even the president of the united states. that's why we should hold him accountable for his actions and that's why i again thank you for testifying today in helping us walk through all of this to prepare for what may come. thank you, sir. i yield back. >> gentlelady yields back. >> thank you, mr. chair, and each of the four witnesses for your testimony today. i'd like to start talking about intimidation of witnesses. as my colleague, congresswoman garcia noted, president trump has tried to interfere in both the ukraine investigation and special counsel mueller's investigation in order to try to cover up his own misconduct. in both the ukraine investigation and special counsel mueller's investigation, the president actively discourage witnesses from cooperating, intimidated witnesses who came forward, and praise of those who refused to cooperate. for example in the ukraine investigation, the president harassed and intimidated the brain public servants who came forward. he publicly called the whistle-blower a "disgrace to our country." and said his identity should be revealed. he suggested those involved in the whistle-blower complaint should be dealt with in the way of what we used to do" for spiced treason for spies and treason. he caught a baxter taylor a military officer with more than 40 years of the same day he callednever tru" the president tweeted accusations of many other public servants who testified including williams ambassador yovanovitch. as we know, the president's letter tweet happened during the mass in her testimony in this room in front of the intelligence committee which she made clearly later intimidated. conversely, we know the president has praise witnesses who have refused to cooperate. for example, during the special counsel's investigation, the president praised paul manafort, his former campaign manager about for not cooperating. as another telling example, the president initially praised ambassador sondland for not cooperating, calling him "a really great man and good american." after he testified and confirmed there was indeed a quid pro quo between the white house visit and request for investigations, the president claimed he "hardly view the ambassador." professor gerhardt have you touched on it previously but i'd like to explain, is the president's interference in these investigations, by intimidating witnesses, also the kind of colic the framers were worried about? >> also why? >> is clearly conduct the framers reflected in the constitution they gave us. the activities you are talking about about the pattern we see, the president trying to stop investigations either by mr. mueller or by congress, as well as by to ask witnesses to make false documents about testimony. all those different kinds of activities are not the kinds of activities the president expected the framers to take, they expect the president to be held accountable. >> professor turley, you've studied impeachment of president johnson, president president nixon. my , am i right that they allowed the chief of staff to testify the house impeachment greed? >> yes. >> you're aware that president trump has refused to allow his chief of staff and white house counsel to testify in this inquiry? >> yes. but various officials did testify and the rma to get federal employment. >> that is not include the white house chief of death. and you are aware that president trump has refused any request of information submitted by the intelligence committee in this impeachment inquiry? >> i guess, yes. >> are you familiar with the letter written on behalf of president trump in effect obstructing executive branch am i correct that no president in the history of the republic, before president trump has ever issued a general order instructing executive branch officials not to testify in the impeachment inquiry? >> that's where i'm not sure i can answer that affirmatively. president nixon in fact went to court over access to information documents and the like and he lost. >> well, professor turley, i will refer you back to the history that has been recounted by dennis english scholars here today because we know, as we count these examples, president nixon did in fact allow his chief of staff and his chief counsel to testify and this president has not. we know president clinton answer to interrogatories and this president has not. at the end of the day, this congress and this committee has an obligation to ensure that the law is enforced. with that, i yield back the balance of my time. >> the senator yields back. >> thank you, mr. chairman. professors, i want to thank you so very much spending these long arduous hours with us. i think you so much for being here. following up on my colleagues questions, i'd like to briefly go through one particular example of the president's witness intimidation that i find truly disturbing and very devastating. because i think it's important that we all truly see what's going on here. as the slide shows, on july 25th call president trump said that former ambassador yovanovitch board, and i quote, go through some things. learning about the president's statements made her feel. >> what did you think when president trump told president zelensky and you read that you are going to go through some things russian mark? >> i didn't know two things, but i was very concerned. >> what we are concerned about? >> she is going to go through some things. it didn't sound good. it sounded like a threat. >> did you feel threatened? >> i did. >> and as we all witnessed in real time, in the middle of a mastery of of ambassador yovanovitch's life testimony, the president tweeted about the ambassador. discrediting or service in somalia and the ukraine. ambassador yovanovitch testified the president's tweet was, and i quote, very intimidating. professor gerhardt, these attacks on a career public servants are deeply upsetting. but how did they fit into our understanding at the president had committed high crimes and distributors misdemeanors and how do i fit into our broader and patterned this president to cover up and obstruct his misconduct? >> one way in which it contributes to the obstruction of congress is that this doesn't just defame ambassador yovanovitch. by every other account, she's been exemplary public servant. what he's suggesting there might not be consistent what we know as facts. but one of the things it also happens what he said that something like this, it intimidates everyone else who it's thinking about testifying, any other public servant who think they should come forward. they are worried they are going to get punished in some way, face things like she's face. >> that is the woman that president trump has threatened before you. i can assure you i personally know what it's like to be in fairly intact publicly for your sense of duty to america. ambassador yovanovitch deserves better no matter your party, whether you are a democrat or republican. i don't think any of us things that this is okay. it is plainly wrong for the president of the united states to attack a career public servant just for telling the truth as she knows it. i yield back the balance of my time. >> generally yields back >> thank you, is chairman, and they could to our outstanding witnesses president trump has declared he will not comply with congressional subpoenas. his blanket categorical disregard of the legislative branch began with the president's refusal to cooperate with regular judiciary oversight and has now the reason we are here today. this disregard has been on display for the american people. when asked if he would comply with the dog president trump said we are fighting all the subpoenas, unquote. we discussed here today the obstruction of congress, article impeachment against president president nixon. i think i would like to go a little bit deeper into that discussion and juxtapose it with president trump's actions. professor gerhardt, can you elaborate on how president nixon obstructed congress and how it compares to president trump's actions? >> as iowa's discussing earlier including my written statement, president nixon ultimately refused to reply. he refuses to reply to those subpoenas, resigned a few days later. >> professor feldman, what are the consequences of this obstruction of justice to democracy? >> for the president refused to produce paint in any way in the house's constitutional obligation of supervising into impeachment, it breaks the constitution. it basically says nobody can oversee me. first, i will block witnesses from appearing and i refused to principate in any way, and i'll say you don't have enough evidence to impeach me. ultimately the effect of that is to guarantee that the president is above the law and can't be checked. we know the framers put impeachment in the constitution to check the president, if a president can't be checked, he is no longer subject to the law. >> professor gerhardt, would you agree that the president's refusal to comply with congressional subpoenas invokes the framers' worst fears and endangers our democracy? >> it does. one which i understand that is to put all of the arguments together and see what the ramifications are. he says he's entitled not to comply with all subpoenas. he says he is not subject to any kind of criminal investigation while he's in president of the united states. he's entitled to keep all information confidential from congress, doesn't have to give a reason. would you put on those things together, he's blocked in every way to hold himself accountable except for elections and the critical thing to understand here is that is precisely what he was trying to undermine in the ukraine situation. >> professor carlin, do you have anything to add to that analys analysis? >> i think that's correct. if i can say one thing, i like to apologize for what i said earlier about the president's son. it was wrong of me to do that. i wish the president what apologize for the things he's done that's wrong, but i do regret having said that. >> thank you, professor. one of the most import questions every member of this committee must decide is whether we are a nation of laws and not man. used to be an easy answer, one we could all agree on. when president nixon defy the law and obstructed justice, he was held to account by people on both sides who would do that for our republic to endure, we must have fidelity to our country rather than one party or one man. the obstruction we are looking at today is far worse than president nixon's behavior. future generations will measure us. every single member of this committee by how we choose to answer that question. i yield back. >> legitimate yields back. >> thank you, mr. chairman. on the very first day of my swearing in. since then, this committee focused on the mueller report and the russia collusion theory. we sat and listened to mr. mueller state unequivocally that there was no evidence the trump campaign colluded with russia, so that didn't work for the democrats. they change the talking points to go to the obstruction of justice theory. that fizzled. after chording with chairman schiff's staff, it was a overhearing other people that went on the phone call talk about a phone call between two world leaders, which led to the intel committee, the so-called impeachment inquiry which violated all past historical precedent, denied the president basic due process rights, without the minorities' ability to call witnesses and without the ability to cross-examine witnesses, a right afforded to president clinton and every defendant in our justice system, including rapists and murderers. as we sit here today, we still don't have the underlying evidence that we've been requesting. a right afforded to every criminal defendant in the united states. we sit here getting lectures from law professors about their opinions, their opinions, not facts. i guess the democrats needed a constitutional law broke down the pressure the house's "power of impeachment" requires a rigorous level of due process. the right to confront witnesses against you, the call your own witnesses and to have the assistance of counsel. those are your words, mr. chairman. not mine. what are you afraid of? let the minority call witnesses but let the president call witnesses. clinton alone called 14 witnesses to testify. let them cross-examine the whistle-blower. let the president's counsel cross-examine the intel staff who colluded with the whistle-blower. in your own words, those of the rights that should be afforded to the president. every criminal defendant is afforded. even terrorists in iraq are afforded more due process than you have afforded the president. i know, because i served in iraq and we prosecuted terrorist interact, and we afforded them more rights and due process in the central criminal court of iraq they knew and chairman schiff have afforded the president of the united states. no obstruction, no quid pro quo, the evidence of bribery except for a opinion, no evidence of treason, you have a bunch of opinions from partisan democrats who have stated since day one that they want to impeach the president. not on this theory but multiple other different theories for the american people are smarter than your abcs of impeachment you had on the screen. that were laid out today. it's extremely demonstrative of your lack of evidence even you the call that you want professors to give their opinions and not fact witnesses to give their testimony today. mr. chairman, when can we anticipate you choose a date for the minority day of mr. chairmaa question. when can we anticipate a date for the minority date of hearing? speak with the gentleman is recognized for the purpose of questioning the witness coming up from colleague to colleague. >> when then i will do that after my time. i yield my time. i thank my colleague from florida for yielding. professor turley, since we last talked questioning my colleagues across the aisle committed impact appears the democrats dude intend to pursue obstructionist of justice based on the mueller report. i asked you a question about that. you didn't really give a chance to give a complete answer. in your statement today, he makes the statement, i believe a obstruction based on the mueller report would be at odds with the record in the controlling law.