Robbery thats burglary, ill get it right. And in this situation youve got somebody really caught in the middle of it, and that doesnt excuse the person from the consequences. Professors, weve talked about abuse of power and bribery. When we started we said we would also discuss obstruction of congress. So i would like to ask you some questions about obstruction of congress. Professor gerhardt, in your view, is there enough evidence here to charge President Trump with the high crime and misdemeanor of obstruction of congress . I think theres more than enough. As i mentioned in my statement, just to really underscore this, the third article of impeachment approved by the House Judiciary Committee against president nixon charged him with misconduct because he had failed to comply with four legislative subpoenas. Here it is far more than four
that this president has failed to comply with. And he has ordered the Executive Branch as well not to cooperate with congress. Those together with a lot of other evidence suggests obstruction of congress. Professor karlan, do you agree . Im a scholar of the law of democracy. So as a citizen i agree with what Professor Gerhardt said. As as an expert, my limitation is that im a scholar of the law of democracy, im not a scholar of Obstruction Of Justice or obstruction of congress. We will accept your opinion as a citizen. Professor feldman. The obstruction of congress is a problem because it undermines the basic principle of the constitution. If youre going to have three branches of government, each of the branches has to be able to do its job. The job of the house is to investigate impeachment and to impeach. A president who says, as this president did say, i will not cooperate in any way, shape, or form, with your process, robs a
coordinate branch of government, it robs the House Of Representatives, with its basic constitutional power of impeachment. When you add to that the fact that the same president says, my Department Of Justice cannot charge me with a crime, the president puts himself Above The Law when he says he will not cooperate in an Impeachment Inquiry. I dont think its possible to emphasize this strongly enough. A president who will not cooperate in an Impeachment Inquiry is putting himself Above The Law. Putting yourself Above The Law as president is the core of an Impeachable Offense because if the president could not be impeached for that, he would in fact not be responsible to anybody. And sir, in forming your opinion, did you review these statements from President Trump . Were fighting all the subpoenas. Then i have an article ii where i have the right to do whatever
i want as president. I did. And as someone who cares about the constitution, the second of those in particular struck a kind of horror in me. And Professor Gerhardt, in forming your opinion that President Trump has committed the Impeachable Offense of obstruction of congress, did you consider the Intelligence Committee report and its findings including finding 9, that President Trump ordered and implemented a campaign to conceal his conduct from the public and to frustrate and obstruct the House Of RepresentativesImpeachment Inquiry . I read that report last night after i had submitted my statement. But i watched and read all the other transcripts that were available. The report that was issued reinforces Everything Else that came before it. So, yes. So weve talked first about abuse of power and bribery. And then about obstruction of congress. Professor gerhardt, i would like to now ask you some questions about a third Impeachable Offense, and that is Obstruction Of Justice. Sir, have you formed an opinion as to whether President Trump committed the Impeachable Offense of Obstruction Of Justice . Yes, i have. And what is your opinion, sir . So ive come here like every other witness assuming the facts that have been put together in official reports. The Mueller Report cites a number of facts that indicate the president of the United States obstructed justice. Thats an Impeachable Offense. In your testimony, sir, you pointed out that the Mueller Report found at least five instances of the president s obstruction of the justice departments criminal investigation into russian interference in the 2016 election, correct . Yes, sir. And the first of those instances was the president s ordering his then dwhitehouse counsel don mcgahn to fire the Special Counsel, or rather to have the Special Counsel fired, in order to thwart the investigation of the president , correct . That is correct. And the second was the president ordering mr. Mcgahn to create a false written record denying that the president had ordered him to have mr. Mueller removed. Thats correct. And you also point to the meeting of the president with his former campaign manager, corey lewandowski, in order to get him to take steps to have the investigation curtailed, right . Yes, sir, i did. And you also point to pardondangling and witnesstampering as the Paul Manafort and michael cohen, former campaign official, former personal lawyer of the president. Both individually and
collectively, these are evidence of Obstruction Of Justice. How serious is that evidence of Obstruction Of Justice . It is quite serious. And thats not all of it, of course. And we know, as youve mentioned before and others have mentioned, Obstruction Of Justice, as we recognize an Impeachable Offense both against president clinton and president nixon, this evidence thats been put forward by mr. Mueller thats in the Public Record is very strong evidence of Obstruction Of Justice. Professor karlan, when you look at the Department Of Justices Russia Investigation and how the president responded to that, and when you look at Congress Ukraine investigation and how the president responded to that, do you see a pattern . Yes. I see a pattern in which the president s views about the propriety of Foreign Governments intervening in our election process are the antithesis of what our framers were committed
to. Our framers were committed to the idea that we as americans, we as americans decide our elections. We dont want foreign interference in those elections. And the reason we dont want foreign interference in those elections is because were a selfdetermining democracy. And if i could just read one quotation to you that i think is helpful in understanding this, its someone pointing to what he calls a straightforward principle. It is fundamental to the definition of our National Political community that foreign citizens did a not have a constitutional right to participate in and thus may be excluded from activities of democratic selfgovernment. And the person who wrote those words is now Justice Brett kavanaugh in upholding the constitutionality of a federal statute that denies foreign citizens the right to participate in our elections by spending money on electioneering or by giving money to pacs. They have long been forbidden from giving donations to candidates. Because that denies us our right to selfgovernment. ThenJustice Brett kavanaugh was correct in saying this because the Supreme Court has taken Campaign Finance case after Campaign Finance case to talk about the first amendment. Summarily affirmed here, they didnt even need to hear argument to know its constitutional to keep foreigners out of our election process. Professor feldman, you were somewhat of an Impeachment Skeptic at the time of the release of the Mueller Report, were you not . I was. Whats changed for you, sir . What changed for me was the revelation of the July 25th Call and then the evidence that emerged subsequently of the president of the United States in a format where he was heard by others and now known by the whole public, openly abused his open by seeking a personal advantage in order to get himself reelected and act against the National Security of
the United States. That is precisely the situation that the framers anticipated. Its very unusual for the framers predictions to come true that precisely. And when they do, we have to ask ourselves, some day, we will no longer be alive and well go wherever it is we go, the good place or the other place. And we may meet there madison and hamilton. And they will ask us, when the president of the United States acted to corrupt the structure of the republic, what did you do . And our answer to that question must be that we followed the guidance of the framers and it must be that if the evidence supports that conclusion, that the House Of Representatives moves to impeach him. Thank you. I yield my time back to the chairman. And my time has expired. I yield back. Before i recognize the Ranking Member for his first round of questions, the committee will
stand in a tenminute humanitarian recess. I ask everybody in the room to please remain seated and quiet while the witnesses exit the room. I also want to announce to those in the audience that you may not be guaranteed your seat if you leave the hearing room at this time. Once the witnesses have left the hearing room, at this time the committee will stand in a short recess. Okay. You heard the chairman. Were in a short recess. A lot to review from the Opening Statements of the four legal experts. And the back and forth with members of the committee. And norm eisen, acting as the lead counsel for the democrats. A lot of the attention, deservedly so, went to Professor Karlan, who in addition to her
exchange with mr. Collins, said the following. The essence of an Impeachable Offense is a president s decision to sacrifice the National Interest for his own private ends. And she said about donald trump, based on the evidentiary record, what has happened in this case before you is something i do not think we have ever seen before, a president who has doubled down on violating his oath to faithfully execute the laws and protect and defend the constitution. Andrew weissmann is here with us in the studio, maya wiley is here with us in the studio, and ari melber, as good a law firm as we could assemble anywhere. Your assessment of what we have just witnessed. Two things, to follow up on Professor Karlan, i think she basically said that for a president who is interested in putting America First by soliciting foreign interference, it is the antithesis of puttingAmerica First. And she went on and on about, this is undermining the american right to vote. And the importance of that is i think what Professor Feldman said, which is a key issue here for i think americans is, why impeachment, why do we need to do this when mr. There is an election coming up. And Professor Feldman was poignant in saying that exact debate was the debate had in deciding what to put into the constitution, that if you have a president who is actually going to undermine the upcoming election, you have nothing to do but impeach him and you need to have a way of preventing the person who is in office from corrupting the office. Those were the two most powerful points from the hearing today. Maya wily. I completely agree with andrew. I would add, to the point about obstructi obstruction, to the debate with professor turley who is saying
in a very emotional way, were so divided as a country and its critically important that impeachment doesnt become a tool in a divided society to undermine elections, and thats clearly true, and its one of the reasons weve only had two impeachment trials in the history of our nation, is because its so hard to actually get an impeachment, for all the right reasons. Here, though, he doesnt address the fundamental constitutional arguments that the other scholars laid out, particularly Professor Gerhardt, which is, if this is not impeachable, then there is no longer an impeachment power. That whole clause in the constitution is gone. And the reason for that goes to Andrews Point about obstruction. If the president , which is its own article of impeachment, can literally prevent the evidence that would allow him to be impeached, then say hes not impeachable because the evidence doesnt exist, then there is no more impeachment clause. But the other thing that
concerns me is not on the substance. Its the audience. The audience here really is the American Public who hasnt been following us the way we are, and who arent lawyers. And as a trial lawyer, what i wanted to hear, given the richness and the depth and the overwhelming evidence that was in the Intelligence Committee report, is, i wanted the public to hear, its impeachable because on august 9th, donald trump had a conversation with mr. Sondland who then says the president wants the announcement. In other words, the direct evidence that puts donald trump right in the middle of doing the very acts that the scholars have said is impeachable. Because thats what the public has to understand. Ari melber . I think that they were very effective in taking portions of all of those hearings that america has lived look through,
million people watched all or part of them. In a conversation that everyone can remember from their own textbooks, from their own civics, what is this constitution about and what does it mean today . I think that part, although at times dry, was wellhandled by these experts, who as maya mentioned, were impassioned on both sides. This is an election. So that is no longer an appropriate check if were dealing with alleged cheating in an election. Mr. Collins, the ranking republican, indicated that starting with Law Processors, there would be something lacking in todays testimony. Here, mr. Collins, i would like to say to you, sir, that i read transcripts of every one of the witnesses who appeared in the live hearing because i would not speak about these things without reviewing the facts. So im insulted by the suggestion that as a Law Processor i dont care about those facts. But everything i read on those occasions tells me that when President Trump invited, indeed demanded foreign involvement in our upcoming election, he struck at the very heart of what makes this a republic to which we pledge allegiance. That demand, as Professor Feldman just explained, constituted an abuse of power. Andrew weissmann, i think Professor Karlan will be remembered long after today for her performance today. She was terrific. I think one of the things she mentioned in keeping with that quote is, she said, look, at thanksgiving i had a mail order turkey because i do my homework. One issue you really do not want to take up with law professors, admittedly i am a law professor, is they do their homework, they read. So i dont think that was a fair
criticism of any of the four, to say they werent going to do their homework. And brian, a fact check on it. While the republicans certainly make a fair point that fact witnesses are useful, we saw a lot of them in the Intelligence Committee hearings, they are wrong on the precedent about what type of witnesses appear in these proceedings. I have with us, because we do our homework, a list of every single witness that the republicans called when they controlled this same committee for the Clinton Impeachment hearings. And on this list of 18 people there are no fact witnesses, zero. So yes, fact witnesses are useful, thats why they were heard from earlier. Its a hollow critic