American peoples money on this impeachment, theres so many other important things that are going undone. Within this committees own jurisdiction, we should be addressing the opioid epidemic. We could be working together to find a solution to our immigration and asylum challenges on our southern border. We could be protecting americans from having their intellectual property and jobs stolen by chinese companies. And we could be enhancing Election Security just to name a few things. And congress as a whole could be working on rebuilding our crumbling infrastructure. Providing additional tax relief to the nations middleclass families and providing additional security to our people here at home and abroad. Instead, here we are spinning our wheels once again on impeachment. What a waste. The American People deserve so much better. I yield back. Gentleman yields back. Mr. Cohen. Thank you, mr. Chair. I take no pleasure in the fact that were here today. As a patriot who loves america, it pains me that the circumstances force us to undertake this grave and solemn obligation. Nonetheless, based simply on the publiclyavailable evidence, it appears that President Trump pressured a Foreign Government to interfere in our elections by investigating his perceived chief political opponent. Today, we are here to uphold our oaths to defend the constitution of the United States by furthering our understanding whether the president s conduct is impeachable. It is entirely appropriate that were examining our nations history as it relates to president ial impeachment. The frameworks of the constitution legitimately feared for our nations sovereignty and they wanted to ensure there would be a check and balance on the executive. We sit here with a duty to the founders to fulfill their wisdom and being a check on the executive. We the peoples house are that check. Under our constitution, the house can impeach a president for treason, bribery, or other High Crimes And Misdemeanors. Professor feldmann, youve discussed High Crimes And Misdemeanors and the fact that the high refers to both crimes
and misdemeanors. Can you just give us a little bit of a summary of what High Crimes And Misdemeanors are . And how theyre distinct from what Professor Turley said they were . Yes, sir. High crimes and misdemeanors are actions of the president in office where he uses his office. To advance his personal interests, potentially for personal gain. Potentially, to corrupt the electoral process. And potentially, as well, against the National Security interest of the United States. I would add, sir, that the word high modifies both crimes and misdemeanors. The framers world knew of both High Crimes And Misdemeanors. And i believe that the definition that was posted earlier of misdemeanor was not the definition of high misdemeanor, which was a specific term understood by the framers. But only of the word misdemeanor and thats an easy mistake to make. But the truth is high misdemeanors were their own category of abuses of office and those are the things that are
impeachable. Thank you, professor. Professors feldman and youve all testified. Abuse of power, betrayal of the National Interest, and corruption of elections. Is that right, Professor Karlan . Yes, it is. And and to Professor Feldman and professor garhart, do you agree . Yes. Yes, sir. You stated the essence of a Impeachable Offense is the president s decision to sacrifice the National Interest for his own private ends. Professors, do you also agree with that . Yes, sir. Yes. Based on the evidence youve seen, professors feldman, karlan, and garhart, has President Trump sacrificed the countrys interest in favor of his own . Professor karlan . Yes, he has. And is there a particular piece of evidence that most illuminates that . I think what illuminates that most for me is the statement by ambassador sondland that he wanted simply the announcement of an investigation. And several other people said
exactly the same thing. Theres testimony by ambassador volker to this extent, as well. That what he wanted was simply Public Information to damage joe biden. He didnt care whether at the end of the day joe biden was found guilty or exonerated. And Professor Feldman, do you agree . And do you have a different or the same ill luminating fact . My emphasis would be on the fact that the president held up aid to an ally thats fighting a war. In direct contravention. That to me seems to have placed his own interests in personal advantage ahead of the interests of the nation. And a bill passed by congress bipartisan. Yes, sir. Professor garhart . I agree with what my colleagues have said. I would add that im very concerned about the president s obstruction of congress. Obstruction of this inquiry. Refusal to comply with a number of subpoenas ordering many highlevel officials in the government not to comply with subpoenas. And asking and ordering the entire Executive Branch not to cooperate with congress. Its useful to remember the constitution says the house has the sole power to impeach. Constitution only uses the word sole twice. Once with reference to the house in this area. Once with reference to the senate with respect to impeachment trials. Sole means sole. Means only. And let me get Professor Turley into this. Professor turley, you are a selfdescribed, selfanointed defender of Article One Congress guy. But you justify a position that says legally issued subpoenas by congress enforcing its powers dont have to be complied with. It seems in this circumstance, youre an article two executive guy. You and youre talking about the johnson impeachment is not very useful. That was maladministration. This is a criminal act. Thank you, professors, for helping us understand High Crimes And Misdemeanors. We, the peoples representatives in the peoples house, are custodians. We have a high responsibility and charge with the sole power to uphold our constitution and
defend our de mock ra sqmocracy shall do that. Gentlemans time is expired. Mr. Gomer. Thank you. Im afraid this hearing is indicative of the indecency to which weve come. When instead of the committee of jurisdiction bringing in Fact Witnesses to get to the bottom of what happened. And not even having time to review the report, which as Professor Turley indicated, is wafer thin when compared to the 36 boxes of documents that were delivered to the last impeachment group. But then to start this hearing with the chairman of the committee saying the facts are undisputed. The only thing that is disputed more than the facts in this case is the statement that the facts are undisputed. They are absolutely disputed. And the evidence is a bunch of hearsay on hearsay that if anybody here had tried cases before of enough magnitude, you would know you cant rely on hearsay on hearsay. But we have experts who know better than the accumulated experience of the ages. So here we are. And i would submit we need some factual witnesses. We do not need to receive a report that we dont have a chance to read before this hearing. We need a chance to bring in actual Fact Witnesses. And there are a couple i can name that are critical to us getting to the bottom. They work for the National Security council. Abigail gray. They were involved in the u. S. ukraine affairs. And they worked with Vice President biden on different matters involving the ukraine. They worked with brennen and
masters. They have absolutely critical information about certain ukrainians involvement in our u. S. Election. Their relationships with the witnesses who went before the Intel Committee and others involved in these allegations make them the most critical witnesses in this entire investigation. And the records, including their emails, their text messages, their flash drives, their computers, have information that will bring this effort to remove the president to a screeching halt. So we have article here from october 11th. Carrie picket points out House Intelligence Committee chairman adam schiff recruited two National SecurityCouncil Aides who worked at the nsc during the obama and trump administrations. Abigail grace who worked at the nsc until 2018. Was hired in february. While sean misgow, nsc aide
until 2017 joined schiffs committee in august. The same month the whistleblower submitted his complaint. And goes on to point out that grace was hired to Help Schiffs Committee Investigate The Trump white house. That month, trump Accused Schiff of stealing people who were working at the white house. And chairman schiff said if the president s worried about our hiring any former administration, maybe he should work on being a better employer. No, he should have fired everybody just like bill clinton did. All the u. S. Attorneys on the same day. That would have saved us a lot of whats gone on here. So anyway, we need those two witnesses. Theyre critical. And then we also need someone who was a cia detailee to the ukraine nsc desk, state department. Shows that he was italy state luncheon. Theres italy ramifications in the last elections. He speaks arabic and russian. Reported directly to charles who is a friend of the clintons aide. He did policy work for ukraine corruption. Close, continuous contact with the fbi state ukrainian officials. Had a Collateral Duty to support Vice President biden. And biden was obamas point man on ukraine. Associated with dnc operative ali chalupa, who we also need. Met with her november 9th, 2015, with ukrainian delegation. And theres all kinds of reasons we need these three witnesses. And i would ask pursuant to section 4 House Resolution 660, ask our chairman to i mean, our ranking member, to submit the request for these three witnesses because were not
having a factual hearing until we have these people that are at the bottom of every fact of this investigation. Gentleman. I yield back. Thanks for bringing down the gavel hard. That was nice. Gentleman yields back. Mr. Johnson. Thank you, mr. Chairman. The president has regularly and recently solicited foreign interference in our upcoming elections. Professor turley warns that this is an impulse buy moment. And suggests that the house should pause. Professor karlan, do you agree with Professor Turley . No, if you conclude as i think the evidence to this point shows that the president is soliciting foreign involvement in our election, you need to act now to prevent foreign interference in the next election. Like the one we had in the past. Thank you, Professor Karlan. In 30 seconds or less, tell us why you believe the president s misconduct was an abuse of power so egregious that it merits the
drastic remedy of impeachment. Because he invited the russians, who are a longtime adversaries, into the process. The last time around. Because he has invited the ukrainians into the process and because he suggested he would like the chinese to come into the process, as well. Thank you very much. One of the framers of our constitution, edmont randolph, who one time was mayor of williamsburg, virginia warned us quote the executive will have great opportunities of abusing his power. End quote. Professor feldman, people like mayor Randolph Rebelled because of the tyranny of a king. Why would t why were the framers so careful for the potential for a president to become so tyrannical and abusive . And what did they do to protect against it . The framers believed very strongly that the people were the king. The people were sovereign. And that meant that the president worked for somebody. He worked for the people. They knew that a president who couldnt be checked, who could not be supervised by his own Justice Department and who could not be supervised by congress and could not be impeached would effectively be above the law. And would use his power to get himself reelected. And thats why they created the impeachment remedy. Thank you, Professor Feldman. I now want to discuss how the framers concerns about abuse of power relate to President Trumps misconduct. On july 25th, President Trump said to president zelensky quote, i would like you to do us a favor, though. Professor feldman, when President Trump made use of the words favor though, do you believe that the president was benignly asking for a favor . And how is the answer to that question relevant to whether the president abused his power . Its relevant, sir, because theres nothing wrong with asking for a favor in the interest of the United States of america. The problem is for the president
to use his office to solicit or demand a favor for his personal benefit. And the evidence strongly suggests that given the power of the president and given the incentives that the president created for ukraine to comply with his request. That the president was seeking to serve his own personal benefit and his own personal interest. Thats the definition of corruption under the constitution. Other witnesses have also testified is that it was their impression that when president s trump said i would like you to do us a favor, though, that he was actually making a demand and not a request. Professor feldman, how does Lieutenant Colonel vindmans testimony that the president s statement was a demand because of the power disparity between the two countries relate back to our framers concerns about the president s abuse of power . Lieutenant colonel vindmans observation states very clearly that you have to understand that the president of the United States has so much more power than the president of ukraine. That when the president uses the
word favor, the reality is that hes applying tremendous pressure. The pressure of the power of the United States. And that relates to the constitutional abuse of office. If someone other than the president of the United States asked the president of ukraine to did a favor, the president of ukraine could say no. When the president of the United States uses the office of the presidency to ask for a favor, its theres simply no way for the president of ukraine to refuse. Thank you. Weve also heard testimony that the president withheld a white house meeting and military aid in order to further pressure ukraine to announce investigations of Vice President biden and the 2016 election. Professor karlan, is that why your testimony concluded that the president abused his power . I thought the president abused his power by asking for an criminal investigation of United States citizen for political ends. Regardless of everything else. Thats just its not icing on the cake. Its what you would call an aggravating circumstance that
there was need here. All right. Thank you. President holding an american ally over a barrel to extract personal favors is deeply troubling. This is not a impulse buy moment. Its a breaktheglass moment and impeachment is the only appropriate remedy. And with that, i will yield back. The i cant yields back. Mr. Jordan. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Before Speaker Pelosi announced the impeachment inquiry ten weeks ago on september 24th. Before the call between President Trump and president zelensky on july 25th. Before the mueller hearing on july 24th. Before all that, 16 of them had already voted to move forward on impeachment. 16 democrats on the Judiciary Committee had already voted to move forward on impeachment. And yet today, were talking about whether the positions theyve already taken are constitutional. Seems a little backward to me. I mean, we cant we got four four democrats what,
four people who voted for clinton and they cant agree. Yet today, were talking about the constitution. Professor turley, youve been youve been great today. But i think you were wrong on one thing. You said this is this is a fast impeachment. I would argue its not a fast impeachment. Its a predetermined impeachment. Predetermined impeachment done in the most unfair partisan fashion we have ever seen. No Subpoena Power for republicans. Depositions done in secret. In the bunker, in the basement of the capitol. 17 people come in for those depositions. No one can be in there except a handful of folks adam schiff allowed. In those depositions, chairman schiff prevented witnesses from answering republican questions. Every democrat question got answered. Not every republican question. Democrats denied republicans the witnesses we wanted in the open hearings that took place three weeks ago. And of course, democrats promised us the whistleblower would testify and then changed their mind. And they changed their mind why . Because t