And the controlling law. Use of an obstruction theory from the Mueller Report would be unsupported, unsupportable in the house and unsustainable in the senate. Do you remember writing that . Yes, i do. Why did you write that . Because i think its true. The fact is that this was reviewed by main justice. The special counsel did not reach a conclusion on obstruction. He should have. I think his justification quite frankly was a bit absurd on not reaching a conclusion. But the attorney general, Deputy Attorney general, did and they came to the right conclusion. I dont think this is a real case for obstruction. But then this body would be impeaching the president on the basis of the inverse conclusion. I dont believe it would be appropriate. The gentlemans time has expired. Ms. Dean. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Words matter. In my earlier life, professors, i was a professor of writing. I taught my students to be
careful and clear about what they put to paper. That is a lesson that the framers of our constitution understood far better than anyone. They were laying the foundation for a new form of government, one that enshrines democratic principles and protects against those who would seek to undermine them. The constitution explicitly lays out that a president may be impeached for treason, bribery, High Crimes And Misdemeanors. Weve heard a lot of words today. Foreign interference, bribery, Obstruction Of Justice. Professors, id like to go through the president s conduct and the public harms we have discussed today and ask if they would fit into what the forefathers contemplated when crafting those words of the Impeachment Clause. Professor karlan, id like to ask you about the foreign interference in elections. As americans we can agree foreign interference, foreign influence erodes the integrity of our elections. And as you said so plainly, it makes us less free. Yet on july 25th, 2019 the president coerced ukrainian president zelensky to announce an investigation into his political rival, trumps political rival, which was corroborated by multiple witnesses throughout the Intelligence Committee hearings. Professor karlan, can you explain for the American People in your opinion whether the framers considered solicitation of foreign interference and would they have considered it a high crime or misdemeanor and does the president s conduct rise to that level . The framers of our constitution would have considered it abhorrent, would have considered it the essence of a high crime or misdemeanor for a president to invite in foreign influence either in deciding whether he will be reelected or deciding who his successor would be. Thank you. Professor feldman, id like to talk to you about bribery. During the course of the Intelligence Committee hearings multiple witnesses gave sworn unrebutted testimony that the president withheld nearly 400
million in congressionally approved aid on the condition that russia excuse me, that ukraine announce investigations into his chief political adversa adversary. Professor, in your opinion, given those facts, and the framers specific concerns, would you describe the president s behavior here and the use of his Public Office for a private benefit as rising to those levels . The framers considered, as you said, bribery to consist bribery under the constitution to consist of the president abusing his Office Corruptly for personal gain. If this house determines and if this committee determines that the president was in fact seeking personal gain in seeking the investigations that he asked for, then that would constitute bribery under the constitution. Thank you. Professor gerhardt, id like to ask you about Obstruction Of Justice. The president has categorically refused to produce any documents responsive to congressional subpoenas, attacked and
intimidated prospective and actual witnesses including career and Civil Military excuse me, military and civil servants, as discussed here, like ambassador yovanovitch, Lieutenant Colonel vindman, ambassador taylor, jennifer williams, and others. And he directed all current and former administration witnesses to defy congressional subpoenas. Professor, based on that set of facts, does this conduct meet the threshold for Obstruction Of Justice as envisioned in the constitution . Yes, maam, i believe it does. I remember when i was here 21 years ago along with Professor Turley testifying before a differently constituted committee on a very serious question regarding impeachment, and i remember a number of Law Professors very eloquently talking about president s clinton president clintons misconduct as an attack on the judicial system. And thats what you just described to me. Thank you. And thank you, professors, all of you, all four of you. What you did today is you brought part of our constitution to life. And i thank you for that. Youve shown what the framers
were mindful of when they wrote the Impeachment Clause of our constitution. They chose their words, and their words matter. You know, it was my father, bob dean, a terrific dad and a talented writer, who instilled in Me And My Brothers and sister a love of language. He taught us our words matter, the truth matters. Its through that lens which i see all of the serious and somber things were speaking about today for an interference, bribery, obstruction. The framers likely could not have imagined all three concerns embodied in a single leader. But they were concerned enough to craft the remedy, impeachment. The times have found us. I am prayerful for our president , for our country, for ourselves. May we the people always hold high the decency and promise and ambition of our founding and of the words that matter and of the truth. With that i yield back, mr. Chairman. The gentlelady yields back. Ms. Mccarselpowell. I did not have the privilege of being morn into this country. As an immigrant when i became a citizen to this great nation i took an oath to protect and defend the constitution from all foreign and domestic enemies. And i had the fortunate of taking that oath once again when i became a member of congress. And that includes the responsibility to protect our nation from continuing threats from a president , any president. You testified that the president s actions are a continuing risk to our nation and democracy. Meaning that this is not a onetime problem. There is a pattern of behavior by the president that is putting at risk fair and free elections. And i think that we are here today because the American People deserve to know whether we need to remove the president because of it. During the nixon impeachment the Judiciary Committee said, the purpose of impeachment is not
personal punishment. Its function is primarily to maintain constitutional government. Professor karlan, to me that means that impeachment should be used when we must protect our american democracy. It is reserved for offenses that present a continuing risk to our democracy, is that correct . Yes, it is. Thank you. And i want to show you an example of what the president said just one week after the transcript of the July 25th Call was released when a reporter asked the president what he wanted from president zelensky. And he responded with this. Well, i would think that if they were honest about it theyd start a Major Investigation into the bidens. Its a very simple answer. They should investigate the bidens because how does a company thats newly formed and all these companies by the way, likewise, china should
start an investigation into the bidens because what happened to china just about as bad as what happened with with ukraine. So weve heard today conflicting dialogue from both sides. And i just want to ask, mr. Feldman, is this clear evidence from a president asking from for a Foreign Government to interfere in our elections . Congresswoman, im here for the constitution. Were here for the constitution. And when the president of the United States asks for assistance from a foreign power to distort our elections for his personal advantage, that constitutes an abuse of office and it counts as a high crime and misdemeanor. And thats what the constitution is here to protect us against. Thank you. And professor karlan, are the president s actions a continuing risk that the framers intended
impeachment to be used for . Yes. This takes us back to the quotation from William Davie weve all used several times in our testimony, which is a president without impeachment, a president will do anything to get reelected. Thank you. And i want to show you one more example from the president s Chief Of Staff when asked about the president s demands of the ukrainian president. Lets be clear. What you just described is a quid pro quo. It is funding will not flow unless the investigation into the democratic server happened as well. We do we do that all the time with Foreign Policy. When mckinney said yesterday he was really upset with the political influence in Foreign Policy, that was one of the reasons he was so upset about this. And i have news for everybody. Get over it. Theres going to be political influence in Foreign Policy. Professor karlan, i think that mr. Mulvaney is conflating or kufrzing two different
notions of politics. Yes, there is political influence in our foreign affairs. Because President Trump won the election in 2016 weve exited climate accords, weve taken a different position on nato than we would have taken had his opponent won. But thats different than saying that partisan politics in the sense of electoral manipulation is something that we need to get over or get used to. If we get over that or we get used to that, we will cease to become the democracy that we are right now. Thank you. And i think that that is our greatest fear and threat. And i dont think that anyone is above the law. The constitution establishes that. This type of behavior cannot be tolerated from any president , not now, not in the future. And i yield back. The gentlelady yields back. Im sorry. Miss escobar. I had it checked off miss
escobar is recognized. Thank you, chairman. Professors, thank you so much for your testimony and time today. Many facts including the president s own words in that famous phone call have been laid out before our very eyes and ears for months. Despite the president s repeated efforts at a coverup. But it appears that some have chosen to ignore those facts. What weve seen today from those who choose to turn a blind eye is not a defense of the president s actions because frankly those offenses are indefensible. Instead weve seen them attack the process and attempt to impugn your integrity. For that im sorry. Now to my questions. Some have opined that instead of considering impeachment we should just let this pass is allow the people to decide what to do next or what to do about the president s behavior in the next election. The framers of our constitution specifically considered whether to just use elections and not have impeachment and rejected
that notion. One statement from the framers really stuck with me, and its up on the screen. George mason asked, shall the man who has practiced corruption and by that means procured his appointment in the first instance be suffered to escape punishment by repeating his guilt . Professor feldman, i have two questions for you. Briefly, can you please explain why the framers decided that a corrupt executive could not be solved through elections, and can you tell us why impeachment is the appropriate option at this point considering all the evidence americans have seen and heard rather than just letting this be decided in the next election . The framers understood Human Motivation extremely well, and they knew that a president would have a great motive to corrupt the Electoral Process to get reelected. And thats exactly why they thought that it wasnt good enough to wait for the next election, because the president could cheat and could make the next election illegitimate. Thats why they required impeachment. And if they couldnt impeach a corrupt president , James Madison said, that could be fatal to the republic. The reason that its necessary to take action now is that we have a president who has in fact so the to corrupt the Electoral Process for personal advantage. Under those circumstances the framers remedy of impeachment is the only option available. Thank you. I want to play two clips. The first of president nixon and the second of President Trump. Well, when the president does it, that means that it is not illegal. What i have in article 2, where i have the right to do whatever i want as president. Two president s openly stating that they are above the law. Professor karlan, what happens to our republic, to our country if we do nothing in the face of a president who sees himself above the law, who will abuse his power, who will ask foreign
governments to meddle in our elections and who will attack any witness who stands up to tell the truth . What happens if we dont follow our constitutional obligation of impeachment to remove that president from office . We will cease to be a republic. Thank you. I represent a community that a little over a decade ago was marred by corruption at the local government level. There was no retreat into a partisan corner or an effort by anyone to explain it away. We also didnt wait for an election to cure the cancer of corruption that occurred on our watch. We were united as a community in our outrage over it. It was intolerable to us because we knew that it was a threat to our institutions. Institutions that belong to us. What we face today is the same kind of test, only one far more grave and historic. From the founding of our country to today one truth remains clear, the Impeachment Power is reserved for conduct that endangers democracy and imperils our constitution. Todays hearing has helped us to better understand how we preserve our republic and the test that lies ahead for us. Thank you, mr. Chairman. I yield back my time. The gentlelady yields back. That concludes the testimony under the fiveminute rule. I now recognize the Ranking Member for any concluding remarks he may have. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Well, today has been interesting, i guess, to say the least. It has been we have found many things. In fact, three of our four witnesses here today allege numerous crimes committed by the president. At times it seemed like we were even trying to make up crimes well, if it wasnt this it was the intent to do it. It went along that is
interesting today as i started this day and im going to come back to it now. As much as i respect these who came before us today, this is way too early. Because weve not as a committee done our job. Weve not as a committee come together, looked at evidence, taken Fact Witnesses, put people here in front of us under oath to say what happens, how did it happen and why did it happen. Were taking the work of the Intel Committee and the other committees, were taking it seemingly at face value. And i will remind all that the chairman even is the biggest proponent of this not happening in his earlier statements almost 20 years ago when he said we should not take a report from another entity and just accept it. Otherwise, we are a rubber stamp. To our democratic majority they may not care because as ive said before, this is about a clock and a calendar. A clock and a calendar. Theyre so obsessed with the
election next year that they just gloss over things. Nchkt, what is interesting is as i said earlier three of the four witnesses allege numerous crimes committed by the president. However, during the intel Committee Hearings none of the Fact Witnesses identified a crime. If youre writing about this, that should alarm you. So this impeachment narrative being spun by the majority is a fake one. Its the Majority Spinning 3 of the facts and ignoring 90 97 of the other. In fact, Professor Turley earlier said today impeachment needs proof not presumptions. We have one of the Fact Witnesses in the Intel Committee, i presumed that was what was going on. Mr. Sonderland. You know what is happening here today is also we found out today i thought it was really interesting. This is the Judiciary Committee but we also found out something today, that facts dont matter. In fact, facts dont matter unless we can fit those facts to fit the narrative we want to spin before this committee and the American People. If they dont matter, we also heard one of the witnesses state today, that it doesnt matter if aid was released or not. Of course it matters. But unfortunately, only one of the many facts ignored by the majority. Theyre ignoring a ton of facts that matter. Apparently doesnt matter to the democrats that ambassador volker the former Special Envoy to the ukraine made clear in his testimony there was no conditionality on the white house meeting or the aid. The democrats and their witnesses havent mentioned that because its unhelpful to the narrative theyre spinning. It apparently doesnt matter that democrats to the democrats in the majority here that the president did not condition hi