And conservatives dont want to be around each other and so they have to spread out, you may not see this from like the ivory towers of your law school, but it makes the actual people in this country when the president calls you dont get to interrupt me on this time. Let me also suggest that when you invoke the president s sons name here. When you try to make a little joke out of referencing trump, that does not lend credibility to your argument. It makes you look mean. It makes you look like youre attacking someones family. The minor child of the president of the United States. So lets see if we can 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 that we saw from adam schiff where ambassador taylor could not identify an Impeachable Offense. Mr. Kent never met with the
president. Fiona hill never referenced anything regarding military aid. Mr. Hill was never aware of any nefarious activity. Colonel vindman rejected that bribery was involved here. 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 wire tapping the political opponents an Impeachable Offense gentlemans time is expired. Professor feldman, let me begin by stating 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 hearsay when the president then confesses on National Television to doing it, is it . It is not. Thaef they hear the president say he only cares about the investigations of his
political opponent, is it . No. That is not hearsay. And theres lots of other direct evidence in this 300page report by the intelligence committee. Professor, wrote on august 1st, 2014 in a piece called five myths about impeachment. One of the myths he was rejecting was that impeachment required a criminal offense. He wrote, and i quote, an offense does not have to be indictable. Serious misconduct or a violation of public trust is enough, end quote. Was Professor Turley right when he wrote that back in 2014 . Yes, i agree with that. Now, next id move to Professor Karlan. At the constitutional convention, l. Bridge jerry said foreign powers will meddle in our affairs and spare no expense to influence them. James madison said that impeachment was needed because a president might betray his trust
to a foreign power. Can you elaborate on why the framers were so concerned about foreign interference, how they accounted for these concerns and how that relates the facts before this committee . So the reason that the framers were concerned about foreign interference i think is slightly different than the reason they 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 election. 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 call with president zelensky, we know he asked ukraine to investigate
against his chief political rival. And third the president then publicly 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, asked Foreign Governments to interfere in our electoral process. Id like to end from a powerful warning from george washington, to be constantly awake since history and experience prove that foreign influence is one of the most baneful foes. The conduct at issue is egregious and warrants a commensurate response. The president has only and repeatedly solicited foreign interference in our election. Of that there is no doubt. This matters because inviting foreign meddling into our elections robs the american
people of their sacred right to elect their own political leaders. Americans wait in long lines to exercise their right to vote and to choose their own leaders. This right does not belong to Foreign Governments. We fought and won a revolution over this. Free and Fair Elections are what separate us from authoritarians all over the world as Public Servants and members of the house, we would be negligent in our duties if we let this blatant abuse of power go unchecked. Weve heard a lot about hating this president. Its not about hating this president. Its about our love of country. Its about honoring the oath that we took to protect the constitution of this great country. 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 undermine the National Security of the United States, that undermine the integrity of our elections, and that undermine
the confidence that 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 you are sending a message to this president and to future president s that its no longer a problem if they abuse their power. Its no longer a problem if they invite other countries to interfere in our elections. Its no longer a problem if they put the interest of other countries ahead of ours. I agree with professorfeld man. I should say just one thing and i apologize for getting a little overheated a moment ago. But i have a constitutional right under the First Amendment to give money to candidates. At the same time, we have a constitutional duty to keep foreigners from Spending Money in our elections. And those two things are two sides of the same coin. Thank you. And with that i yield back. Mr. Johnson. Thank you. I was struck this morning by the same thing as all 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, 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. We have been allowed no fact witnesses here at all. For the First Time Ever this committee, whistle 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 claims supports this whole charade. This is just a shocking denial of due process. I want to say to our witnesses i am also a constitutional law attorney, and under normal circumstances i really would greatly enjoy an academic discussion with you about the contours of article 2 section 4. But that would be an utter waste of our time today. This whole production is a sham and a reckless path to a
predetermined political outcome. And i want you to know its an outcome that was predetermined by our democrat colleagues a long time ago. The truth is House Democrats have been working to impeach president donald j. Trump since the day he took his oath of office. They have introduced four resolutions seeking to impeach the president. December 6th, 2017, 58 House Democrats voted to begin Impeachment Proceedings. Of course that was almost 20 months before the famous july 25th phone call with ukraines president zelensky. And this other graphic up here is smaller, but its interesting too. I think its important to reiterate for everybody watching at home that of our 24 democrat 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 anything about whats being said here today or the actual evidence or the facts as
congresswoman lofgren said we come with open minds. Thats not happening here. So much for an impartial jury. Several times this year leading democrats have frankly admitted in various interviews and correspondence that they really believe this entire strategy is necessary because, why . Because they want to stop the president s reelection. Even Speaker Pelosi said famously 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 here is the precedent all this is setting for the future of our republic. I love what Professor Turley testified to this morning. He said this is simply not how the impeachment of a president is done. His Rhetorical Question for all of our colleagues on the other side is still echoing throughout this chamber. He asked you to ask yourselves where will this and where will you stand next time when this same kind of Sham Impeachment Process is initiated against a president from your party . The real shame here today is
that everything in washington has become bitterly partisan, and this ugly chapter is not going to help that, its going to make things really that much worse. President turley said earlier that we are now living in theira that was feared by our founders, What Hamilton referred to as a period of agitated passions. I think that says it so well. This has indeed become 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 hyperpartisan impeachment is probably one of the most divisive and instructive things that we could possibly do to our american family. Let me tell you what i heard from my constituents in multiple townhalls just two days ago. The people of this country are sick of this. They are sick of the politics of personal destruction. They are sick of this toxic atmosphere that is being created here. And they are 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 will maintain a basic level of trust in their institutions in the rule of law, in the system of justice, in the body of elected representatives, their Citizen Legislators in the 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 of head to our 243year experiment in selfgovern, this pandoras box will have upon our nation six or seven years from now, a decadade from now and the ruins of public liberty that are being created by this terribly shortsighted exercise today. God help us. I field back. Mr. Swalwell. Professor turley is a former
prosecutor. I recognize the Defense Attorney trying to represent their client, especially one who has very little to work with in the way of facts. And today you are representing republicans and the president. Thats not my intention, sir. You have 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 asks 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 thats actually not a direct quote from what you said today. It sounds a lot like what youve argued today. But thats a quote from what you argued as a Defense Lawyer in a 2010 Senate Impeachment trial. Professor, did you represent federal judge Thomas Porteous . I did, indeed. And he was tried engaging in ranging in a pattern of conduct that is incompatible with the trust and confidence placed in
him as a federal judge to engaging in a longstanding pattern of corrupt conduct that demonstrates his unfitness to serve as the United StatesDistrict Court judge. On each count the judge 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 respectfully, professor, we dont buy it either. But we are here because of this photo. Its a picture 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 the hands of russians. Id 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 also 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 how 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 aggression were to take place, 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 youd agree we are a nation of immigrants . Yes. Today 50 Million Immigrants live in the United States. I am moved by one who recently told me as 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. He told me in such humiliating fashion that when he has gone home recently they now wag their finger at him and say you are 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 families and livelihoods 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 for exactly that reason because they went after political opponents. Thank you. And finally, professor feldman, Professor Turley has pointed out that we should go to the courts. But you would acknowledged that we have been in the courts for over six months, many times on matters that are already settled in the United States supreme court, particularly u. S. V nixon where the president seems to be running up the clock. That is right . Yes, sir. Thank you. And i yield back. The gentleman yields back. In a moment we will recess for a
brief five minutes. First i ask everyone in the room to please 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 stand in a short recess. We have been watching as the questioning has become a little more fiery, a little more intense. Each side using their sides witnesses to bolster their arguments. Obviously the republicans a lot less to work with. Congresswoman swalwell there just be