That we find ourselves in. And i thought the threat to our nation was wellarticulated earlier today by professor feldman. When you said if we cannot impeach a president who abuses his office for personal advantage, we no longer live in a democracy. We live in a monarchy or we live under a dictatorship. My view is that if people cannot depend on the fairness of our elections, then what people are calling divisive today will be absolutely nothing compared to the shredding of our democracy. After the events of ukraine unfolded, the president claimed that the reason he requested an investigation into his political opponents 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 pences special advisor Jennifer Williams,
testified that the president s request was political. Take a listen. I found the july 25th phone call unusual because in contrast to other president ial calls i had observed, it involved discussion of what appeared to be a domestic, political matter. Professor karlan, is it common for someone who gets caught to deny that their behave behavior is impermissible . Almost always. And one of the questions before us is whether the president s claim that he cared about corruption is actually credible. Now, youve argued before the Supreme Court and the Supreme Court determined that when assessing credibility, we should look at a number of factors. Including impact, Hiss Torector background, and whether there are departures from normal procedures, correct . Thats correct. So what we are trying to do is figure out if someones explanation fits with the facts. And if it doesnt, then the explanation may not be true. So lets explore that. Lieutenant colonel vindman testified that he prepared Talking Points on anticorruption reform for President Trumps call with
ukrainian president zelensky. However, based on the transcripts released of those calls in april and july, President Trump never mentioned these points of corruption. He actually never mentioned the word corruption. Does that go to any of those factors . Is that significant . Yes, it goes to the one about procedural irregularities. And it also goes to the one that says you look at the kind of things that led up to the decision that youre trying to figure out somebodys motive about. So lets try another one. Ambassador volker testified that the president never expressed any concerns to him about corruption in any country other than ukraine. Would that be relevant to your assessment . Yes, it would. It goes to the factor about substantive departures. And, professor karlan, there is, in fact, and my colleague mr. Mclintock outlined this earlier. To assess whether countries that are receiving military aid have
done enough to fight corruption. In may of 2019, my republican colleague did not say this. The Department Of Defense actually wrote a letter determining that ukraine passed this assessment. And yet, President Trump set aside that assessment and withheld the congressionallyapproved 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 also go to the factors the Supreme Courts discussed. And what about the fact and i think you mentioned this earlier as one of the key things that you read in the testimony that President Trump wanted the investigations of burisma and the bidens announced . But that he actually didnt care whether they were conducted. That was in ambassador sondlands testimony. What would you say about that . That goes to whether the claim that this is about
politics is a persuasive claim because that goes to the fact that its being announced publicly. Which is on oan odd thing. Maybe mr. Swalwell could probably answer this better than i because he was a prosecutor. But generally, you dont announce the investigation in a criminal case before you conduct it because it puts the person on notice. That theyre under investigation. And given all of these facts, and there are more that we dont have time to get to, how would you assess the credibility of the president s claim that he was worried about corruption . Well, i think you ought to make that credibility determination because you have the sole power of impeachment. If i were a member of the House Of Representatives, i would infer from this that he was doing it for political reasons. If we dont stand up now to a president who abuses his power, we risk sending a message to all future president s that they can put their own personal, political interests ahead of the American People. Our National Security and our elections. And that is the gravest of threats to our democracy. I yield back. Gentle lady yields back. I now recognize mr. Gohmert for the purpose of unanimous consent request. Yes. Mr. Chairman, i would ask th unanimous consent to offer article. Without objection. The article will be entered into the record. And i recognize to question the witnesses. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Im starting off today doing something that i dont normally do. And im going to quote Speaker Of The House nancy pelosi. In march, the speaker told the washington post, im going to quote this, impeachment is so divisive to the country that unless theres something so compelling and overwhelming and bipartisan, i dont think we should go down that path because it divides the country. Well, on that, the speaker and i both agree. And you know who else agrees . The Founding Fathers. The Founding Fathers recognize that crimes warranting impeachment must be so severe,
regardless of political party, that there is an agreement the actions are impeachable. But lets go back to Speaker Pelosi pelosis words just one more time. The speaker says the case for impeachment must be also compelling. Well, after last months schiff show, this is what we learned. There is no evidence that the president directed anyone to tell the ukrainians that aid was conditioned on investigation. Aside from the Mere Presumptions by ambassador sondland, there is no evidence that trump was conditioning aid on investigation. And if you doubt me, just go back to the actual transcript because never in that call was the 2020 election mentioned. And never in that call was military aid mentioned. In fact, President Trump told senator johnson on 31 august that aid was not conditioned on investigation. Rather, President Trump was rightfully skeptical about the ukrainians. Their country has a history of
corruption and he merely wanted the europeans to contribute more to a problem in their own backyard. But i think we can all agree that its appropriate for the president as a steward of taxpayer dollars to ensure that our money isnt wasted. I said i Wasnt Gonna Go Back to Speaker Pelosi but i do want to go back because i forgot she also said that impeachment should be only pursued when its quote unquote overwhelming. So its probably not good for the democrats that none of the witnesses who testified before the Intel Committee were able to provide firsthand evidence of a quid pro quo. But i forgot were calling it bribery now after the focus group last week. And theres no evidence of bribery either. Instead, the two people who did have firsthand knowledge, the president and president zelensky, both say there was no pressure on the ukrainians. And, again, the transcript of july 25th backs this up. And to go back to nancy pelosi one more time. She said that the movement for impeachment should be quote unquote bipartisan. Which is actually the same sentiment echoed by our chairman jerry nadler, who in 1998 said, and i quote, there must never be a narrowly voted impeachment supported by one of the Major Political parties and opposed by another. Well, when the house voted on the democrats Impeachment Inquiry, it was just that. It was the only bipartisan vote was the one imposing the inquiry. The partisan vote was the one to move forward with the inquiry. So were 03. Lets face it. This is a Sham Impeachment against President Trump. Its not compelling. Its not overwhelming. And its not bipartisan. So even by the speakers own criteria, this is failed. Rather, what this is is nothing more than a partisan witch hunt which denies the fundamental fairness of our american Justice System. And denies due process to the president of the United States. The democrats case is based on nothing more than thoughts,
feelings, and conjectures. And a few the thoughts and feelings of a few unelected career bureaucrats. And the American People are absolutely fed up. Instead of wasting our time on this, we should be doing things like passing usmca, lowering the cost of prescription drugs, and working on a failing infrastructure in this country. With that said, mr. Turley, ive watched as your words have been twisted and mangled all day long. Is there anything you would like to clarify . Only this. I think one of the disagreements that we have, and i have with my esteemed colleagues, is what makes a a legitimate impeachment. Not what technically satisfies an impeachment. Theres very few technical requirements of an impeachment. The question is what is expected of you . And my objection is that there is a constant preference for inference over information. For presumptions over proof. Thats because this record hasnt been developed. And if youre going to remove a president , if you believe in democracy, if youre going to remove a sitting president , then you have an obligation not to rely on inference when theres still information you can gather. And thats what im saying. Its not that you cant do this. You just cant do it this way. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Gentleman yields back. I now recognize ms. Jackson lee for the purpose of unanimous consent request. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Id like unanimous consent to place on the record a new statement from checks and balances on President Trumps abuse of office. Without objection. Republican and democratic attorney generals. I ask unanimous consent. Without objection, i now recognize ms. Demings. Five minutes for questioning the witnesses. Thank you, mr. Chairman. 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 in our various communities. Not our coworkers. And not the president of the United States. Yet, the president have said that he cannot be prosecuted for criminal conduct. That he need not comply with congressional requests and subpoenas. Matter of fact, the president is trying to absorb himself of any accountability. Since the beginning of the investigation in early september, the house sent multiple letters, document requests, and subpoenas 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 congress is pervasive. Since the house began its
investigation, the white house has produced zero subpoenaed documents. In addition, at the president s direction, more than a dozen members of his administration have defied Congressional Subpoenas. The following slide shows those who have refused to comply at the president s direction. We are facing a categorical blockade by a president whos desperate to prevent any investigation into his wrongdoing. Professor gerhardt, has a president ever refused to cooperate in an Impeachment Investigation . Not until now. And any president who i know nixon delayed or tried to delay turning over information. When that occurred, was it at
the same level that were seeing today . President nixon also had ordered his subordinates to cooperate and testify. He didnt shut down any of that. He produced documents. And there were times there were certainly disagreements. But there was not a wholesale, broad scale, acrosstheboard refusal to even recognize the legitimacy of this house doing an inquiry. Did president nixons Obstruction Result in an article of impeachment . Yes, maam, article three. Professor feldman, is it fair to say that if a President St E stonewalls an investigation like we are clearly seeing today, into whether he has committed an impeachable offense, he risks rendering the Impeachment Power moot . Yes, and indeed thats the inevitable effect of a president refusing to participate. Hes denying the power of congress under the constitution to oversee him and to exercise its capacity to 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 testified . Yes, maam, you are. And i might just point out that one of the difficulties with asking for a more thorough investigation is thats exactly what the house has tried to conduct here. And the president has refused to comply with subpoenas and other requests for information. Thats where the blockage occurs. Thats why there are documents not produced and people not testifying that people have said they want to hear from. In relation to what you just said, ambassador sondland testified, and i quote, everyone was in the loop. It was no secret. Professor gerhardt, how is ambassador sondlands testimony relevant here . His testimonys relevant. Its also rather chilling to hear him say that everybodys in the loop. And when he says that, hes talking about the people at the highest levels of our government. All of whom are refusing to testify under oath or comply with subpoenas. Professors, i want to thank you for your testimony. The president used the power of his office to pressure a foreign Head Of State to investigate an american citizen. In order to benefit his domestic, political situation. After he was caught, and i do know something about that, this president proceeded to cover it up and refuse to comply with valid Congressional Subpoenas. The framers included impeachment in their 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. And i yield back. Gentle lady yields back. Mr. Klein is recognized. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Its just past 5 00 and a lot of families are just getting home from work right now. Theyre turning on the tv and theyre wondering what theyre
watching on tv. Theyre asking themselves, is this a rerun . Because i thought i saw this a couple of weeks ago. But, no, this is not a rerun. Unfortunately, this is act two of the threepart tragedy of the impeachment of President Trump. And what were seeing here is several very accomplished, constitutional scholars attempting to divine the intent, whether its of the president or of the various witnesses who appeared during the schiff hearings. And its very frustrating to me, as a member of the Judiciary Committee, why we are where we are today. I asked to be a member of this committee because of its storied history. Because it was the defender of the constitution. Because it was one of the oldest committees in the congress established by another
virginian, john george jackson. Its because two of my immediate predecessors, congressman who chaired this committee, and congressman Caldwell Butler also served on this committee. But the committee they served under, served on, is dead. That committee doesnt exist anymore. That committee is gone. Apparently, now we dont even get to sit in the Judiciary Committee room. Were in the ways and Means Committee room. I dont know why. Maybe because theres more room. Maybe because the the portraits of the various chairmen whose would be staring down at us might just intimidate the other side as they attempt what is essentially a Sham Impeachment of this president. You know, looking at where we are, the lack of the use of the rules in this process is shameful. The fact that we got Witness Testimony for this hearing this
morning is shameful. The fact that we got the Intelligence Committee report yesterday, 300 pages of it, is shameful. I watched the Intelligence Committee hearings from the back. Although, i couldnt watch them all because the Judiciary Committee actually scheduled business during the Intelligence Committee hearings. So the Judiciary Committee members werent able to watch all of the hearings. But i didnt get to i get to read the transcripts of the hearings that were held in private. I was not able to be a part of the