>> GOOD MORNING, I'M JUDY WOODRUFF, AND WELCOME TO OUR SPECIAL LIVE COVERAGE OF THE IMPEACHMENT HEARINGS.

TODAY MARKS A NEW PHASE.

THE FIRST HEARING FROM THE HOUSE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE, THE BODY THAT CAN BRING FORMAL ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT AGAINST THE PRESIDENT.

IT COMES ON THE HEELS OF THE FINAL REPORT FROM THE INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE.

AFTER MORE THAN 100 HOURS OF TESTIMONY FROM 17 WCHXS THEY CONCLUDE THAT MR. TRUMP ORCHESTRATED A SCHEME TO FOR POLICY TOWARD UKRAINE TO UNDERMINE NATIONAL SECURITY OF THE UNITED STATES AND TO AID HIS PERSONAL POLITICAL AMBITIONS.

THE COMMITTEE FOUND IT WAS UNDERTAKEN WITH THE KNOWLEDGE AND APPROVAL OF THE VICE PRESIDENT, THE SECRETARY OF STATE, THE ACTING CHIEF OF STAFF OF THE WHITE HOUSE AND THE SECRETARY OF ENERGY AMONG OTHERS.

AND THAT MR. TRUMP HAS ALSO OBSTRUCTED THE IMPEACHMENT PROCESS.

TODAY WE WILL HEAR FROM CONSTITUTIONAL LAW SCHOLARS ON WHAT CONSTITUTES A HIGH CRIME AND MISDEMEANOR IN ORDER THAT WOULD BE REQUIRED TO REMOVE A PRESIDENT FROM OFFICE.

THERE IS A LOT TO ABSORB, AND LISA DESIARDINS IS IN THE CAPITAL, AND JOINING ME HERE IN THE STUDIO TO SAL.

HE WAS DEPUTY WHITE HOUSE COUNSEL DURING PRESIDENT CLINTON'S TERM WHEN HE PERSONALLY WAS PART OF THE QUESTIONING.

AND FRANK SUBMITTED TESTIMONY ON THE DEFINITION OF HIGH CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS TO THE HOUSE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE DURING THE CLINTON IMPEACHMENT.

FRANK BOWMAN TEACHES LAW AT GOERGETOWN SCHOOL OF LAW.

HE IS THE AUTHOR OF HIGH CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS, THE HISTORY OF IMPEACHMENT FOR THE AGE OF TRUMP.

WE WELCOME ALL OF YOU TO THE NEWS HOUR AND SPECIAL COVERAGE.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

I'M GOING TO GO FIRST TO OUR CORRESPONDENT AT THE CAPITOL, LISA DESIARDINS.

LISA, IT'S A DIFFERENT COMMITTEE.

THAT WAS THE INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE TWO WEEKS AGO AND LAST WEEK, AND NOW THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE.

IT'S A DIFFERENT PROCESS.

TELL US WHAT THE COMMITTEE'S GOAL IS.

>> THAT'S RIGHT.

AND SHARP EYED VIEWERS WILL NOTICE A DIFFERENT LAYOUT IN THE COMMITTEE ROOM.

MORE MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE'S STAFF.

THERE ARE 41 MEMBERS OF THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE.

EACH ONE WILL HAVE FIVE MINUTES TO QUESTION THE WITNESSES.

AND IN ADDITION THERE WILL BE AN HOUR AND A HALF FOR QUESTIONS LED BY DIFFERENT COUNSEL.

AND THEY'LL TALK 45 MINUTES FOR EACH SIDE.

WE EXPECT THE HEARING TO LAST AT LEAST SIX HOURS AND BREAK FOR VOTES LATER ON.

ONE OF THE THINGS, JUDY, THERE'S SHORTER LINES FOR THIS HARING THAN WHEN WE HAD THE FACT WITNESSES FOR THE HOUSE INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE.

THIS IS AN ACADEMIC PANEL.

I THINK GOING BACK TO THE CLINTON IMPEACHMENT, I WILL SAY THIS KIND OF PANEL CAN BE VERY FASCINATING.

I'M EAGER TO WATCH IT.

>> AND TO YAMICHE AT THE WHITE HOUSE.

AS WE SAW DURING THE IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY, THE PRESIDENT WAS WATCHING VERY CLOSELY.

WE KNOW THAT RIGHT NOW HE'S OVERSEAS.

WHAT DO WE KNOW HOW HE'S PAYING ATTENTION?

>> THE PRESIDENT AND THE WHITE HOUSE WILL BE FOCUSED CLOSELY ON THIS PUBLIC HEARING IN THE HOUSE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE.

THE WHITE HOUSE HAS QUICK TO RESPOND TO THIS IN REAL TIME.

THE PRESIDENT WAS SUPPOSEED TO HAVE A PRESS CONFERENCE AT 10:30 A.M. EASTERN TIME, AND COMPETING, COUNTERPROGRAMMING WITH THE JUDICIARY HEARING.

BUT THE PRESIDENT CANCELED THAT.

AND SAID HE TOOK ENOUGH QUESTIONS IN LONDON, AND JUST WANTS TO GET HOME.

THE PRESIDENT MIGHT BE ABLE TO WATCH SOME OF THE HEARING ON HIS WAY BACK TO THE UNITED STATES.

THE WHITE HOUSE WAS INVITEED TO HAVE LAWYERS COME TO THE HEARING.

THIS IS A PHASE WHEN THE DEMOCRATS SAID TAY COULD CALL THEIR OWN WITNESSES, AND THE WHITE HOUSE DECIDED NOT TO SEND ANYONE.

THEY SAID IT'S BECAUSE IT'S A SHAM AND A HOAX, AND THE PRESIDENT THINKS IT'S ALL UNFAIR, BUT THE WHITE HOUSE SAID THERE IS GOING TO BE COUNSEL QUESTIONING WITNESSES.

THERE'S ALSO GOING TO BE A DEMOCRATIC COUNSEL.

WE'VE ALREADY SEEN SOME OF THE OPENING STATEMENTS.

DEMOCRATS WILL ESSENTIALLY MAKE THE CASE THAT THE HE DID COMMIT AN IMPEACHABLE OFFENSE.

AND THEY SAY IT'S THE WORST THEY'VE SEEN IN PRESIDENTIAL CONDUCT, AND THE WORST THAN ANY OTHER IMPEACHMENT PROCEEDINGS IN THE PAST, BUT THE REPUBLICANS ARE GOING TO SAY THIS IS AN IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY THAT'S TOO QUICK, AND THERE'S BEEN EVIDENCE AGAINST THE PRESIDENT.

SO WE'RE GOING TO LOOK FOR THE REPUBLICANS TO DEFEND THE PRESIDENT.

>> GOOD POINT.

WE'VE SEEN THE WHITE HOUSE PUSH BACK THROUGHOUT THE PROCESS, AND THAT CONTINUES THROUGH THE INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE HEARINGS, AND WE EXPECT IT TO CONTINUE TODAY.

WE'RE LOOKING AT LIVE PICTURES AS THE HOUSE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE PREPARES FOR THE HEARINGS.

THE DEMOCRATS ARE ALLOWED TO CALL THREE WITNESSES, CONSTITUTIONAL SCHOLARS, PROFESSORS OF THE LAW, AND THE REPUBLICANS ONE.

WE'RE SEEING A BIT OF WHAT THEY'LL SAY.

I WANT TO TURN TO FRANK BOWMAN, AND SAL WISEENBERG.

SAL, THIS IS A WAY FOR THE AMERICAN PEOPLE TO UNDERSTAND WHAT THE CONSTITUTION SAYS ABOUT IMPEACHMENT, ISN'T IT?

>> IT IS.

THERE ARE A LOT OF DIFFERENT VIEWS WHAT THE CONSTITUTION SAYS.

THE PROBLEM WITH IT IS THAT WE DON'T EVEN KNOW WHAT THE ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT ARE GOING TO BE, AND IT'S HARD TO TALK ABOUT IMPEACHMENT WITHOUT PUTTING IT INTO THE CONTEXT OF PARTICULAR ARTICLES.

SO THAT'S THE PROBLEM HERE.

>> WHAT ABOUT THAT.

THERE'S A LOT WE DON'T KNOW AT THIS POINT.

IN FACT, JUST THE IDEA OF HAVING FOUR LAW PROFESSORS, CONSTITUTIONAL SCHOLARS BEING INTERROGATED, QUESTIONED BY MEMBERS OF THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE IS UNUSUAL.

BUT HOW MUCH DO YOU THINK WE ARE GOING TO HEAR ABOUT THE DEFINITION OF WHAT CONSTITUTES IMPEACHABLE OFFENSES.

I THINK THAT'S LIKELY TO BE MUCH OF WHAT WE SEE TODAY.

NOW, IN TERMS OF WHETHER OR NOT THIS IS PARTICULAR OR UNPRECEDENTED IN THE PRESENT MATTER THERE ARE ACTUALLY 19 CONSTITUTIONAL HISTORIANS ON A SERIOUS OF PANELS IN WHICH THEY TALKED AT GREAT LENGTH ABOUT THESE MATTERS.

THE DIFFERENCE, I THINK BETWEEN THE CLINTON CASE AND THE PRESENT ONE IS THAT IN THE CLINTON CASE, THE FACTS ARE UNDISPUTED.

PRESIDENT CLINTON COMMITTED PERJURY, AND MAY HAVE OBSTRUCTED JUSTICE.

>> HOUSE COMMITTEE WILL COME TO ORDER.

>> WE WH INTERRUPT YOU.

JERRY NADLER IS CALLING THE PROCEEDINGS TO ORDER.

>> OBJECTIONS NOTED.

I HAVE RESERVED THE RIGHT TO OBJECT.

PURSUANT TO RULE 111, I'M FURNISHING YOU THE DEMAND FOR THE HEARINGS ON THE SUBJECT SIGNED BY ALL REPUBLICANS U.

>> GENTLEMAN WILL DISPENSE.

I COULDN'T UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU SAID.

>> PURSUANT TO CLAUSE 2 J 1, OF 111 I'M FURNISHING YOU THE DEMAND FOR THE SUBJECT SIGNED BY ALL COMMITTEE MEMBERS OF THE REPUBLICAN COMMITTEE, AND I REQUEST YOU SET THIS DATE BEFORE THE COMMITTEE VOTES ON ANY ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT.

>> I WITHDRAW MY RESERVATION.

>> WE WILL CONFER AND RULE ON THIS LATER.

>> THE QUORUM IS PROHIBIT.

THIS IS THE FIRST HEARING WE ARE CONDUCTING PURSUANT TO HOUSE RESOLUTION 660.

AND THE SPECIAL PROERPS THAT ARE SDIEBED IN SECTION 4-AN OF THAT RESOLUTION.

HERE'S HOW THE COMMITTEE WILL PROCEED FOR THIS HEARING.

I WILL MAKE AN OPENING STATEMENT, AND THEN I WILL RECOGNIZE RANKING MEMBER FOR AN OPENING STATEMENT.

EACH WITNESS WILL HAVE 10 MINUTES TO MAKE STATEMENTS AND THEN WE WILL PROCEED TO QUESTIONS.

I WILL NOW RECOGNIZE MYSELF.

>> MR. CHAIRMAN, INQUIRY.

>> I HAVE THE TIME FOR OPENING STATEMENT.

THE FACTS BEFORE US ARE UNDISPUTED ON JULY 25th, PRESIDENT TRUMP CALLED PRESIDENT ZELENSKY OF UKRAINE, AND IN PRESIDENT TRUMP'S WORDS ASKED HIM FOR A FAVOR.

THAT CALL WAS PART OF A CONCERTED EFFORT BY THE PRESIDENT AND HIS MEN TO SOLICIT A PERSONAL ADVANTAGE IN THE NEXT ELECTION.

THIS TIME IN THE FORM OF AN INVESTIGATION OF HIS POLITICAL ADVERSARIES BY A FOREIGN GOVERNMENT.

TO OBTAIN THAT PRIVATE POLITICAL ADVANTAGE, PRESIDENT TRUMP WITHHELD BOTH AN OFFICIAL WHITE HOUSE MEETING FROM THE NEWLY ELECTED PRESIDENT OF A FRAGILE DEMOCRACY, AND WITHHELD VITAL MILITARY AID FROM A VULNERABLE ALLY.

WHEN CONGRESS FOUND OUT ABOUT THIS SCHEME AND BEGAN TO INVESTIGATE, PRESIDENT TRUMP TOOK EXTRAORDINARY AND UNPRECEDENTED STEPS TO COVER UP HIS EFFORTS AND TO WITHHOLD EVIDENCE FROM THE INVESTIGATORS.

AND WHEN WITNESSES DISOBEYED HIM, WHEN CAREER PROFESSIONALS CAME FORWARD AND TOLD US THE TRUTH, HE ATTACKED THEM VICIOUSLY, CALLING THEM TRAITORS AND LIARS PROMISING THEY WILL GO THROUGH SOMETHING.

OF COURSE, THIS IS NOT THE FIRST TIME THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP HAS ENGAGED IN THIS PATTERN OF CONDUCT.

IN 2016, THE RUSSIAN GOVERNMENT ENGAGED IN A SWEEPING AND SYSTEMATIC CAMPAIGN OF INTERFERENCE IN OUR ELECTIONS.

IN THE WORDS OF SPECIAL COUNSEL, ROBERT MUELLER, THE RUEGZ GOVERNMENT PERCEIVED IT WOULD BENEFIT FROM A TRUMP PRESIDENCY AND WORKED TO SECURE THAT OUTCOME.

THE PRESIDENT WELCOMED THAT INTERFERENCE.

WE SAW THIS IN REAL TIME WHEN PRESIDENT TRUMP ASKED RUSSIA TO HACK HIS POLITICAL OPPONENTS.

THE VERY NEXT DAY, THE RUSSIA MILITARY INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY ATTEMPTED TO HACK THAT POLITICAL OPPONENT.

WHEN HIS OWN JUSTICE DEPARTMENT TRIED TO UNCOVER THE EXTENT TO WHICH A FOREIGN GOVERNMENT HAD BROKEN OUR LAWS, PRESIDENT TRUMP TOOK EXTRAORDINARY UNPRECEDENTED STEPS TO OBSTRUCT THE INVESTIGATION, INCLUDING IGNORING SUBPOENAS, ORDERING THE CREATION OF FALSE RECORDS, AND PUBLICLY ATTACKING AND INTIMIDATING WITNESSES.

THEN AS NOW, THIS ADMINISTRATION'S LEVEL OF OBSTRUCTION IS WITHOUT PRECEDENCE.

NO OTHER PRESIDENT HAS VOWED TO FIGHT ALL THE SUBPOENAS AS PRESIDENT TRUMP PROMISED.

IN THE 1974 PROCEEDINGS, PRESIDENT NIXON PRODUCED DOZENS OF RECORDINGS.

IN 1998, PRESIDENT CLINTON GAVE HIS BLOOD.

PRESIDENT TRUMP, BY CONTRAST HAS RECH FUSED TO PRODUCE A SINGLE DOCUMENT, AND DIRECTED EVERY WITNESS NOT TO TESTIFY.

THOSE ARE THE FACTS BEFORE US.

THE IMPEACHMENT INQUIRE SEMOVED BACK TO THE HOUSE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE, AND AS WE BEGIN A REVIEW OF THESE FACTS, THE PRESIDENT'S PATTERN OF BEHAVIOR BECOMES CLEAR.

PRESIDENT TRUMP WELCOMED FOREIGN INTERFERENCE IN THE 2016 ELECTION.

HE DEMANDED IT FOR THE 2020 ELECTION.

IN BOTH CASES HE GOT CAUGHT.

AND IN BOTH CASES HE DID EVERYTHING IN HIS POWER TO PREVENT THE AMERICAN PEOPLE FROM LEARNING THE TRUTH ABOUT HIS CONDUCT.

ON JULY 24, THE SPECIAL COUNSEL TESTIFIED BEFORE THIS COMMITTEE.

HE IMPLOREED US TO SEE THE NATURE OF THE THREAT TO OUR COUNTRY.

"OVER THE COURSE OF MY CAREER, I HAVE SEEN A NUMBER OF CHALLENGES TO OUR DEMOCRACY.

THE RUSSIAN GOVERNMENT'S EFFORTS TO INTERFERE IN EFFORTS IS AMONG THE MOST SERIOUS.

THIS DESERVING THE ATTENTION OF EVERY AMERICAN."

IGNORING THAT WARNING, PRESIDENT TRUMP CALLED THE UKRANIAN PRESIDENT THE VERY NEXT DAY TO ASK HIM TO INVESTIGATE THE PRESIDENT'S POLITICAL OPPONENT.

WE EMPHASIZE RESPONSIBILITY TO DETERMINE WHETHER THIS PATTERN OF BEHAVIOR CNSTITUTES AN IMPEACHABLE OFFENSE, IT IS IMPORTANT TO POLICE PRESIDENT TRUMP'S CONDUCT INTO HISTORICAL CONTEXT.

SINCE THE FOUNDING OF OUR COUNTRY, THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES HAS ONLY IMPEACHED TWO PRESIDENTS.

A THIRD WAS ON THE WAY TO IMPEACHMENT WHEN HE RESIGNED.

THE COMMITTEE HAS VOTEED TO IMPEACH TWO PRESIDENTS FOR OBSTRUCTING JUSTICE.

WE VOTEED TO IMPEACH ONE PRESIDENT FOR OBSTRUCTING A CONGRESSIONAL INVESTIGATION.

TO THE EXTENT PRESIDENT TRUMP'S CONDUCT FITS THESE CATEGORIES WE CAN RECOMMEND IMPEACHMENT HERE.

NEVER BEFORE IN THE HISTORY OF THE REPUBLIC HAVE WE BEEN FORCED TO LOOK AT THE CUTH OF A PRESIDENT WHO SOLICITED FAVORS FROM A FOREIGN GOVERNMENT.

NEVER BEFORE HAS A PRESIDENT ENGAGED IN A COURSE OF CONDUCT THAT INCLUDED ALL OF THE ACTS THAT MOST CONCERNED THE FRAMERS.

THE PATRIOTS WHO FOUNDED OUR COUNTRY WERE NOT FEARFUL MEN.

THEY FOUGHT A WAR.

THEY WITNESSED TERRIBLE VIOLENCE.

THEY OVERTHREW A KING.

AS THEY MEANT TO FRAME OUR CONSTITUTION, THOSE PATRIOTS STILL FEARED ONE THREAT ABOVE ALL.

FOREIGN INTERFERENCE IN OUR ELECTIONS.

THEY JUXTAPOSEED TYRANTS.

THEY WERE WORRIED WE WOULD LOSE LIBERTY, NOT TO A WAR, BUT THROUGH CORRUPTION FROM WITHIN.

AND IN THE EARLY YEARS OF THE REPUBLIC THEY ASKED US, EACH OF US TO BE VIGILANT TO THAT THREAT.

WASHINGTON WARNED US "TO BE CONSTANTLY AWAKE, EXPERIENCE PROVED THAT FOREIGN INFLUENCE IS ONE OF THE MOST PAINFUL FOES OF AMERICAN GOVERNMENT."

ADAMS WROTE, AS OFTEN AS ELECTIONS HAPPEN, THE DANGER OF FOREIGN INFLUENCE RECURS."

HAMILTON'S WARNING WAS MORE SPECIFIC AND DIRE.

IN THE FEDERALIST PAPERS HE WROTE "THE MOST DEADLY ADVERSARIES OF A GOVERNMENT WOULD ATTEMPT TO RAISE A CREATURE OF THEIR OWN TO THE CHIEF MAJESTRY OF THE UNION."

IN SHORT, THE FOUNDERS WONDERED WE SHOULD EXPECT OUR FOREIGN ADVERSARIES TO TARGET OUR ELECTION AND FIND OURSELVES IN GRAVE DANGER IF THE PRESIDENT WILLINGLY OPENS THE DOOR TO THEIR INFLUENCE.

WHAT KIND OF PRESIDENT WOULD DO THAT?

HOW WOULD WE KNOW IF THE PRESIDENT BETRAYED HIS COUNTRY IN THIS MANNER.

HOW WILL WE KNOW IF HE BETRAYED THE COUNTRY IN THIS MANNER FOR PETTY PERSONAL GAINS?

HAMILTON HAD A RESPONSE TO THAT AS WELL.

WE WROTE "WHEN THEY MAN IN LIFE, DESPERATE, AND BOLD IN TEMPER POSSESSED CONSIDERABLE TALENTS, THOSE WHO SCOFFED AT THE PRINCIPLES OF LIBERTY, WITH SUCH A MAN IT SEEMED TO MOUNT THE POPULARITY, TO JOIN THE CRY OF DANGER TO LIBERTY, TO TAKE EVERY OPPORTUNITY OF EMBARRASSING THE GENERAL GOVERNMENT, AND BRINGING IT UNDER SUSPICION.

IT MAY JUSTLY BE SUSPECTED THAT HIS OBJECT IS TO THROW THINGS TO CONFUSION THAT HE MAY RIDE THE STORM AND DIRECT THE WHIRLWIND."

LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, THE STORM IN WHICH WE FIND OURSELVES TODAY WAS SET IN MOTION BY PRESIDENT TRUMP.

I DO NOT WISH THIS MOMENT ON THE COUNTRY.

IT IS NOT A PLEASANT TASK THAT WE UNDERTAKE TODAY.

WE HAVE EACH TAKEN AN OATH TO PROTECT THE CONSTITUTION, AND THE FACTS BEFORE US ARE CLEAR.

PRESIDENT TRUMP DID NOT MERELY SEEK TO BENEFIT FROM FOREIGN INTERFERENCE IN THE ELECTIONS.

HE DIRECTLY INVITED FOREIGN INTERFERENCE IN THE ELECTION.

HE USED THE POWERS OF HIS OFFICE TO TRY TO MAKE IT HAPPEN.

HE SENT HIS AGENTS TO MAKE CLEAR THAT THIS IS WHAT HE WANTED AND DEMANDED.

HE WAS WILLING TO COMPROMISE OUR SECURITY AND HIS OFFICE FOR PERSONAL, POLITICAL GAIN.

IT DOES NOT MATTER THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP GOT CAUGHT AND ULTIMATELY RELEASED THE FUNDS THAT UKRAINE DESPERATELY NEEDED.

IT MATTERS THAT HE ENLISTED A FOREIGN GOVERNMENT TO INTERVENE IN OUR ELECTIONS IN THE FIRST PLACE.

IT DOES W NOT MATTER THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP FELT THESE INVESTIGATIONS WERE UNFAIR TO HIM.

IT MATTERS THAT HE USED HIS OFFICE, NOT MERELY TO DEFEND HIMSELF BUT TO OBSTRUCT INVESTIGATORS AT EVERY TURN.

WE ARE ALL AWARE THAT THE NEXT ELECTION IS LOOMING.

BUT WE CANNOT WAIT FOR THE ELECTION TO ADDRESS THE PRESENT CRISIS.

THE INTEGRITY OF THAT ELECTION IS ONE OF THE VERY THINGS AT STAKE.

THE PRESIDENT HAS SHOWN US HIS PATTERN OF CONDUCT.

IF WE DON'T ACT TO HOLD HIM IN CHECK NOW PRESIDENT TRUMP WILL CERTAINLY TRY AGAIN TO SOLICIT INTERFERENCE IN THE ELECTION FOR HIS PERSONAL POLITICAL GAIN.

TODAY WE WILL BEGIN THE CONVERSATION WITH THE TEXT OF THE CONSTITUTION.

WE ARE EMPOWERED TO RECOMMEND THE IMPEACHMENT OF PRESIDENT TRUMP TO THE HOUSE IF WE FIND HE COMMITTED TREASON, BRIBERY OR OTHER HIGH CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS.

OUR WITNESS PANEL WILL HELP US TO GUIDE THAT CONVERSATION.

IN A FEW DAYS, WE WILL RECONVENE AND HEAR FROM THE COMMITTEES THAT WORK TO UNCOVER THE FACTS BEFORE US.

WHEN WE APPLY THE CONSTITUTION TO THOSE FACTS, IF IT IS TRUE THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP HAS COMMITED AN IMPEACHABLE OFFENSE OR MULTIPLE IMPEACHABLE OFFENSES, THEN WE MUST MOVE SWIFTLY TO DO OUR DUTY AND CHARGE HIM ACCORDINGLY.

I THANK THE WITNESSES FOR BEING HERE TODAY.

I NOW RECOGNIZE THE RANKING MEMBER OF THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE, THE GENTLEMAN FROM GEORGIA, MR. COLLINS FOR HIS OPENING STATEMENT.

>> MR. CHAIRMAN, MAY I MAKE A PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRY?

>> I RECOGNIZE THE RANKING MEMBER'S OPENING STATEMENT.

>> THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN, AND AGAIN, I WANT TO DISCUSS TODAY, BECAUSE WE'RE SORT OF COMING HERE TODAY IN A DIFFERENT ARENA.

FOR EVERYBODY WHO HAS NOT BEEN HERE BEFORE, THIS IS A NEW ROOM, NEW RULES, IT'S A NEW MONTH.

WE'VE EVEN GOT CUTE STICKERS FOR OUR STAFF TO COME IN, BECAUSE THIS IS IMPEACHMENT, AND BECAUSE WE'VE DONE SUCH A TERRIBLE JOB OF IT IN THIS COMMITTEE BEFORE.

WHAT'S NOT NEW IN THE FACE OF WHAT'S REITERATED BY THE CHAIRMAN, IS THE FACT.

IT'S THE SAME SAD STORY.

BEFORE I GET INTO MY OPENING STATEMENT, WHAT WAS JUST SAID BY THE CHAIRMAN.

WE WENT BACK TO A REDO OF MR. MUELLER.

'RE ALSO QUOTING HIM SAYING THE ATTENTION OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE SHOULD BE ON FOREIGN INTERFERENCE.

I AGREE, BUT I GUESS THE AMERICAN PEOPLE DID NOT INCLUDE THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE, BECAUSE WE DIDN'T TAKE IT UP.

WE DIDN'T HAVE HEARINGS.

WE DIDN'T DEAL DEEPLY INTO THIS ISSUE.

WE PASSED ELECTION BILLS, BUT DID NOT GET INTO THE INDEPTH PART OF MR. MUELLER'S REPORT.

WE DIDN'T DO IT.

SO I GUESS THE AMERICAN PEOPLE DOESN'T INCLUDE THE HOUSE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE.

YOU KNOW, INTERESTING WE JUST HEARD AN INTERESTING DISCUSSION.

WE'RE GOING TO HAVE A LOT OF INTERESTING DISCUSSIONS ABOUT THE CONSTITUTION AND OTHER THINGS.

WE ALSO TALK ABOUT THE FOUNDERS.

WHAT'S INTERESTING IS THE CHAIRMAN TALKED ABOUT IT IS FOUNDERS AND THE QUOTES, AND THIS IS WHY WE HAVE THE HEARINGS ABOUT THE FOUNDERS INTERESTED IN FOREIGN INFLUENCE.

BUT THE FOUNDERS CONCERNED ABOUT POLITICAL IMPEACHMENT.

BECAUSE YOU JUST DON'T LIKE THE GUY.

YOU DIDN'T LIKE HIM SINCE NOVEMBER 2016.

THE CHAIRMAN HAS TALKED ABOUT IMPEACHMENT SINCE LAST YEAR WHEN HE WAS ELECTED CHAIRMAN BEFORE HE WAS EVEN SWORN IN AS CHAIRMAN.

DON'T TELL ME THIS IS ABOUT NEW EVIDENCE AND NEW STUFF.

WE MAY HAVE A NEW HEARING ROOM, AND CHAIRS THAT ARE COMFORTABLE.

BUT THIS IS SAD.

SO WHAT DO WE HAVE HERE TODAY?

YOU KNOW WHAT I'M THINKING?

I LOOKED AT THIS, AND WHAT IS INTERESTING IS THERE'S TWO THINGS THAT HAVE BECOME VERY CLEAR.

THIS IMPEACHMENT IS NOT REALLY ABOUT FACTS.

IF IT WAS THE OTHER COMMITTEES WOULD HAVE SENT OVER RECOMMENDATIONS FOR IMPEACHMENT.

NOW THEY SENT IT OVER HERE, SO THEY CAN BLAME ADAM SCHIFF'S COMMITTEE IF IT GOES BAD.

THEY'RE DRAFTING ARTICLES.

THEY'RE GETTING READY.

WE'VE WE HAD MUELLER, AND EMBOLIAMENTS.

BUT THE AMERICAN PEOPLE CAN SEE THIS.

YOU WANT TO KNOW WHAT'S DRIVING THIS.

THE CLOCK AND THE CALENDAR.

THE CLOCK AND THE CALENDAR.

MOST PEOPLE IN LIFE YOU KNOW WHAT THEY VALUE -- THEIR CHECK BOOK AND CALENDAR YOU KNOW WHAT THEY VALUE.

THE COMMITTEE VALUES TIME.

THEY WANT TO DO IT BEFORE THE END OF THE YEAR.

WHY?

BECAUSE WE'RE SCARED OF THE ELECTIONS NEXT YEAR.

WE'RE SCARED OF THE ELECTIONS THAT WE'LL LOSE AGAIN.

SO WE'VE GOT TO DO THIS NOW.

THE CLOCK AND THE CALENDAR ARE DRIVING THE IMPEACHMENT, NOT THE FACTS.

WHEN WE UNDERSTAND, THAT'S WHAT THE WITNESSES WILL SAY TODAY.

WHAT DO WE HAVE HERE TODAY.

WHAT'S INTERESTING FOR TODAY AND THE NEXT FEW WEEKS IS AMERICA WILL SEE WHY MOST PEOPLE DON'T GO TO LAW SCHOOL.

NO OFFENSE TO OUR PROFESSORS.

BUT PLEASE, REALLY?

WE'RE BRINGING YOU IN TO TESTIFY ABOUT STUFF YOU'VE ALREADY WRITTEN ABOUT, ALL FOUR, WITH OPINIONS WE ALREADY KNOW OUT OF THE CLASSROOMS THAT YOU'RE GETTING READY FOR FINALS IN, TO DISCUSS THINGS YOU HAVEN'T HAD A CHANCE -- UNLESS YOU'RE GOOD ON TV AND WATCHING THE HEARINGS, YOU COULDN'T HAVE POSSIBLY DIGESTED THE SCHIFF REPORT FROM YESTERDAY OR THE REPUBLICAN RESPONSE IN ANY WAY.

WE CAN BE THEOR RETETICAL, BUT AMERICAN PEOPLE ARE GOING TO SAY, WHAT ARE WE DOING.

THERE'S NO FACTS LAID BEFORE THE COMMITTEE.

THAT'S AN INTERESTING THING.

THERE'S NO PLAN EXCEPT AN AMBIGUOUS HEARING ON THE PRESENTATION FROM THE OTHER COMMITTEES TO SEND US THIS REPORT, AND THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE WHICH I'M NOT SURE WHAT THEY WANT US TO PRESENT ON, AND NOTHING ELSE.

NO PLAN.

I ASKED THE CHAIRMAN BEFORE WE LEFT FOR THANKSGIVING TO STAY IN TOUCH AND TALK ABOUT WHAT WE HAVE, BECAUSE HISTORY WILL SHINE A LIGHT ON US STARTING THIS MORNING.

CRICKETS.

I ASKED, AND LET'S SAY THAT DIDN'T GO WELL.

THERE'S NO WHISTLEBLOWER.

AND WE'LL PROVE HE OR SHE IS NOT AFFORDED THE PROTECTION OF IDENTITY.

THAT'S NOT IN THE STATUTE.

IT'S JUST SOMETHING FROM ADAM SCHIFF.

WE ALSO DON'T HAVE ADAM SCHIFF WHO WROTE THE REPORT.

HE SAID I'M NOT GOING.

HE SAID I'LL SEND FACTS TO DO THAT.

IF HE WANTED TO, HE'D COME BEGGING TO US.

BUT HERE'S THE PROBLEM.

SUMMED UP SIMPLY LIKE THIS.

JUST 19 MINUTES AFTER NOON FROM THE INAUGURATION THEY BEGAN THE IMPEACHMENT.

THE ATTORNEY TWEETED IN JANUARY 2017, THE QUEUE STARTED AND IMPEACHMENT WILL START IMMEDIATELY.

AND AL GREEN SAYS IF WE DON'T START THE IMPEACHMENT, HE WILL GET RE-ELECTED.

WHY DID EVERYTHING I SAY UP TO THIS POINT ABOUT NO FACT WITNESSES AND THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE COMMENT TWO AND A HALF WEEKS BEFORE THIS HEARING WAS HELD UNDER CLINTON.

TWO AND A HALF WEEKS WE DIDN'T FIND OUT YOUR NAMES UNTIL LESS THAN 48 HOURS AGO.

I DON'T KNOW WHY WE'RE PLAYING HIDE THE BALL ON THIS.

WE CAN'T EVEN GET THAT STRAIGHT.

WHAT ARE WE DOING FOR TWO WEEKS?

I HAVE NO IDEA, THE CHAIRMAN JUST STADE SOMETHING ABOUT AN AMBIGUOUS REPORT.

WE ARE THE RUBBER STAMP HIDING OUT BACK.

THE RUBBER STAMP THE CHAIRMAN TALKED ABOUT 20 YEARS AGO.

WHAT A DISGRACE TO THIS COMMITTEE, TO HAVE THE COMMITTEE OF IMPEACHMENT TAKE FROM OTHER ENTITIES AND RUBBER STAMP IT.

YOU SAY WHY DO THE THINGS I SAY MATTER ABOUT FACT WITNESSES AND DOING DUE PROCESS, BECAUSE BIECH THE WAY, A COUPLE MONTHS AGO THE DEMOCRATS GOT DRESSED UP, AND SAID WE'RE GOING TO HAVE FAIRNESS THROUGHOUT THIS.

THIS IS THE ONLY COMMITTEE THE PRESIDENT WOULD HAVE A POSSIBILITY, AND NO OFFENSE TO THE LAW PROFESSORS.

THE PRESIDENT HAS NOTHING TO ASK YOU.

YOU'RE NOT GOING TO PROVIDE ANYTHING HE CAN'T READ.

HIS ATTORNEYS HAVE NOTHING ELSE.

PUT WITNESSES IN HERE THAT CAN BE FACT WITNESSES AND ACTUALLY COxá*LS EXAMINED.

THAT'S FAIRNESS.

AND EVERY ATTORNEY ON THIS PANEL KNOWS THIS.

S THIS A SHAM.

AND ALSO WHAT I SEE HERE IS LIKE THIS.

THERE MUST NEVER BE AN IMPEACHMENT SUPPORTED BY ONE MAJOR POLITICAL PARTY, , AND SUCH AN IMPEACHMENT WILL PRODUCE DEVICEIVENESS, FOR YEARS TO COME, AND CALL INTO QUESTION THE LEGITIMACY OF THE INSTITUTION.

THE AMERICAN PEOPLE ARE ASKING.

AND YOU DON'T HAVE THE LEGITIMACY OF A CONSTITUTIONAL IMPERATIVE.

THE PARTISAN COUP WILL GO DOWN.

THE NO FAIR PROCEDURE, TODAY WHEN THE DEMOCRATS OFFERED AMENDMENTS THEY OFFERED MOTIONS TO SAY WE SHOULD FIRST ADOPT STANDARDS TO KNOW WHAT WE'RE DEALING WITH.

THE STANDARD OF IMPEACHMENT WAS RULED OUT OF ORDER.

WHEN WE SAY THE IMPORTANT THING IS TO LOOK AT THE QUESTION BEFORE A VOTE THAT WAS VOTED DOWN AND RULED OUT OF ORDER.

THE WHOLE QUESTION OF WHAT MATERIALS SHOULD BE RELEASED IS SECONDARY.

THAT'S ALL WE DISCUSSED.

THE QUESTION IS TO SET UP A FAIR PROCESS AS TO WHETHER TO PUT THE COUNTRY THROUGH AN IMPEACHMENT PROCEEDING.

THE REPUBLICANS REFUSEED TO LET US DISCUSS IT.

THAT WAS CHAIRMAN NADLER 20 YEARS AGO.

WE'RE HAVING A FACTLESS IMPEACHMENT.

TODAY WE WILL PRESENT THE OTHER SIDE, WHICH HE CONVENIENTLY LEFT OUT.

REMEMBER FAIRNESS DOES DICTATE THAT, BUT MAYBE NOT HERE, BECAUSE WE'RE NOT SCHEDULING ANYTHING ELSE.

I HAVE A DEMOCRATIC MAJORITY WHO HAS POLL TESTED WHAT THEY THINK THEY SHOULD CALL WHAT THE PRESIDENT DID.

THAT'S NOT FOLLOWING THE FACTS.

WE HAVE JUST A DEEP SEATED HATRED OF A MAN WHO CAME TO THE WHITE HOUSE AND DID WHAT HE SAID WE HE WOULD DO.

THE MOST AMAZING QUESTION I GOT IN THE FIRST THREE MONTHS OF THE PRESIDENCY FROM REPORTERS IS CAN YOU BELIEVE HE'S PUTTING FORWARD THOSE IDEAS.

I SAID YES, HE RAN ON THEM.

HE TOLD THE TRUTH AND DID WHAT HE SAID.

THE PROBLEM HERE TODAY IS THIS WILL ALSO BE ONE OF THE FIRST IMPEACHMENTS -- THE CHAIRMAN MECHXZED TWO OF AM THIS.

ONE BEFORE HE RESIGNED, AND ONE WITH CLINTON, AND THE FACTS THAT DEMOCRATS AND REPUBLICANS THE FACTS AREN'T DISPUTED.

IN THIS THEY'RE DISPUTED.

THERE ARE NO SET FACTS HERE.

IN FACT, THERE'S NOT ANYTHING THAT PRESENTS AN IMPEACHMENT HERE EXCEPT A PRESIDENT CARRYING OUT HIS JOB IN THE WAY THE CONSTITUTION SEES FIT HE SEES TO DO IT.

THIS IS WHERE WE ARE AT TODAY.

THE INTERESTING THING WITH MOST EVERYBODY HERE IS THIS MAY BE A NEW TIME AND PLACE AND WE MAY BE SCRUBBED UP AND LOOKING GOOD FOR IMPEACHMENT.

THIS IS OBJECT AN IMPEACHMENT.

THIS IS A RAILROAD JOB.

AND TODAY IT'S A WASTE OF TIME, BECAUSE THIS IS WHERE WE'RE AT.

SO I CLOSE WITH THIS.

IT DIDN'T START WITH A PHONE CALL.

YOU KNOW WHERE THIS STARTED.

IT STARTED IN NOVEMBER 2016, WITH THE ELECTION.

WE'RE HERE, NO PLANS, NO FACT WITNESSES.

SIMPLY RUBBER STAMPED FOR WHAT WE HAVE.

HEY, WE'VE GOT LAW PROFESSORS HERE.

WHAT A START OF A PARTY.

MR. CHAIRMAN, BEFORE I YIELD BACK.

I HAVE A MOTION UNDER CLAUSE 2 RULE 11.

>> THE GENTLEMAN WAS ROITZED FOR THE PURPOSE OF OPENING STATEMENT, NOT FOR THE PURPOSE OF MAKING A MOTION.

I YIELD BACK AND ASK FOR BE RECOGNIZED FOR A MOTION.

>> THE GENTLEMAN IS RECOGNIZED.

>> I MOVE TO REQUIRE THE ATTENDANCE AND TESTIMONY OF CHAIRMAN SCHIFF BEFORE THIS COMMITTEE AND TRANSMIT THIS LETTER ACCORDINGLY.

>> FOR WHAT PURPOSES DOES THE LADY SEEK RECOGNITION.

MOTION IS TABLED AND NOT DEBATEABLE.

ALL IN FAVOR OF THE MOTION SAY AYE.

>> THE MOTION'S TABLE IS AGREED TO.

THE CLERK WILL CALL.

>> PARLIAMENTARY REQUIREMENT.

>> YOU'RE NOT RECOGNIZED AT THIS TIME.

A VOTE IS IN PROCESS.

>> JUST TO REMIND -- CHAIRMAN SCHIFF IS COMING, CORRECT?

>> THE ROLL.

>> MR. NADLER.

AYE.

>> MISS JACKSON VOTES AYE.

>> MR. COHEN VOTES AYE.

MR. JOHNSON.

GEORGIA VOTES AYE.

>> MR. DEUTSCH SAITZ AYE.

MR. RICHMOND VOTES YES.

MR. JEFFERIES VOTES AYE.

MISS SIS LEANY VOTES AYE.

>> MR. LOU.

>> MR. LOU VOTES EYE.

>> MR. RASKIN VOTES AYE.

>> MISS CORREA VOTES AYE.

>> MISS GARCIA VOTES AYE.

>> MR. STANTON VOTES AYE.

>> VOTING AYE.

>> MR. ESCOBAR VOTES AYE.

>> MR. COLLINS.

>> NO.

>> MR. COLLINS NO.

MR. SENSENBRENNER VOTES NO.

>> MR. CHAVEZ VOTES NO.

>> MR. GOMER VOTES NO.

>> MR. BUCK VOTES NO.

>> MR. GATES VOTES NO.

MR. JOHNSON OF LOUISIANA VOTES NO.

>> MR. BIGGS VOTES NO.

>> MR. MACLINTON.

NO.

>> MR. RESTENTHALER VOTES NO.

>> MR. ARMSTRONG VOTES NO.

>> MR. STUBEY VOTES NO.

>> EVERYONE VOTE.

HAS EVERYONE VOTED WHO WISHED TO VOTE.

>> MISS BASS SAYS AYE.

>> CLERK WILL REPORT.

>> MR. CHAIRMAN, THERE ARE 24 AYES AND 17 NOS.

>> THE MOTION TO TABLE IS AGREED TO.

>> MR. CHAIRMAN I HAVE A PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRY.

>> GENTLEMAN WILL STATE HIS PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRY.

>> THANK YOU.

>> CLAUSE C 2 OF THE IMPEACHMENT PROCEEDINGS STATES MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE CAN RAISE OBJECTIONS RELATED TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF TESTIMONY IN EVIDENCE.

IT DOESN'T SAY WHAT RULES APPLY TO ADMISSIBILITY.

CAN YOU EXPLAIN THE OBJECTIONS WHICH CAN BE MADE UNDER THE CLAUSE, AND IF YOU INTEND TO USE THE FEDERAL RULES OF EVIDENCE.

>> THE GENTLEMAN -- THIS IS NOT A PROPER INQUIRY.

>> IT IS PROPER.

I STATED THE RULE, MR. CHAIRMAN.

YOU CAN IGNORE IT, BUT YOU CAN'T SAY IT'S WANT PROPER.

>> WE WILL APPLY THE RULES, PERIOD.

>> YOU WON'T HELP US UNDERSTAND THEM?

>> THERE'S NO CLARITY HERE.

NOW ARE YOU >> CLAUSE 2 OF THE IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY PROCEEDINGS.

>> I WOULD -- >> HOW IS THAT UNCLEAR.

>> IT'S THE RULES OF THE HOUSE, AND THEY WILL BE APPLIED, PERIOD.

>> I'M ASKING HOW WILL THEY BE APPLIED.

>> APPLIED ACCORDING TO THE RULES.

>> BUT NOT ANSWERING THE QUESTION.

>> MR. CHAIRMAN, CAN YOU PLEASE ALSO REITERATE THE SCHEDULE GOING FORWARD FOR ADDITIONAL HEARINGS.

>> THE GENTLEMAN WILL SUSPEND.

THAT IS NOT A PROPER PARLIAMENTLY INQUIRY.

>> ALL OPENINGS STATEMENTS WILL BE INCLUDED IN THE RECORD.

>> MR. CHAIRMAN, I SEEK RECOGNITION.

>> THE GENTLEMAN -- I AM NOT GOING TO RECOGNIZE YOU NOW.

I AM INTRODUCING THE WITNESSES.

NOAH FELDMAN IS A PROFESSOR AT HARVARD LAW SCHOOL.

MR. FELDMAN HAS AUTHORED SEVEN BOOKS INCLUDING A BIOGRAPHY OF JAMES MADISON AND A CONSTITUTIONAL LAW CASE BOOK, AS WELL AS MANY ARTICLES ON CONSTITUTIONAL SUBJECTS.

PROFESSOR FELDMAN HAS A DOCTORATE DEGREE FROM OXFORD, AND IS A RHODES SCHOLAR AND A JD FROM YALE LAW SCHOOL.

AND ALMS SERVED AS A CLERK TO JUSTICE SUTER.

> PAMELA CARLIN SERVED AS A MONTGOMERY PROFESSOR OF LAW, AND THE CODE DIRECTOR OF THE THE SUPREME AT STANFORD.

THE CO-AUTHOR OF SEVERAL BOOKS INCLUDING A BOOK ENTITLED KEEPING FAITH WITH THE CONSTITUTION, AND DOZENS OF SCHOLARLY ARTICLES.

SHE SERVED AS A LAW CLERK TO JUSTICE BLACKBURN OF THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT AND IS A DEPUTY ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL IN A CIVIL RIGHTS DIVISION OF THE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE WHERE SHE WAS RESPONSIBLE AMONG OTHER THINGS, FOR REVIEWING THE WORK OF THE DEPARTMENT VOTING SEBLGTOR.

THREE DEGREES FROM VEIL.

A B.A.

IS HISTORY, AND A JD FROM YALE LAW SCHOOL.

MICHAEL GERHARD IS A DISTINGUISHED PROFESSOR AT THE UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA LAW SCHOOL, AND LAW AND GOVERNMENT.

PROFESSOR GARHART IS THE AUTHOR OF SEVERAL BOOKS INCLUDING IMPEACHMENT PROCESS AND CONSTITUTIONAL HISTORICAL ANALYSIS, FEDERAL JURISDICTION, AND THE LEGISLATIVE PROCESS.

HE RECEIVED A J.D.

FROM THE LAW SCHOOL, AND M.S.

FROM THE LONDON SCHOOL OF ECONOMICS AND THE B.A.

FROM YAxá*IL UNIVERSITY.

JONATHAN TURLEY IS A CHAIRMAN OF LAW AT GOERGETOWN.

AND TEACHES PROCEDURES AND CONSTITUTIONAL LAW.

PROFESSOR TURLEY JOINED THE LAW FACULTY IN 1990, AND 1998 BECAME THE YOUNGEST PROFESSOR IN THE SCHOOL'S HISTORY.

HE HAS WRITTEN THREE DOZEN ACADEMIC ARTICLES FOR A VARIETY OF LAW SCHOOLS, LAW JOURNALS, AND LEGAL AND POLICY ISSUES APPEAR FREQUENTLY IN NATIONAL PUBLICATIONS.

PFS TURLEY EARNED DEGREES FROM THE UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO AND NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW.

WE WELCOME ALL THE DISTINGUISHED WITNESSES AND THANK THEM FOR PARTICIPATING IN TODAY'S HEARING.

NOW IF YOU WOULD PLEASE RISE, I WILL BEGIN BY SWEARING YOU IN.

>> DO YOU SWEAR OR AFFIRM UNDER PENALTY OF PERJURY THAT THE TESTIMONY YOU'RE ABOUT TO GIVE IS TRUE AND CORRECT TO THE BEST OF YOUR KNOWLEDGE, INFORMATION AND BELIEF SO HELP YOU GOD?

LET THE RECORD SHOW THE WITNESSES ANSWERED IN THE ATIRMATIVE.

PLEASE BEET ZOOED.

EACH OF YOUR WRITTEN STATEMENTS WILL BE ENTERED INTO THE RECORD IN ENTIRETY.

I ASK YOU SUMMARIZE YOUR TESTIMONY IN 10 MINUTES.

TO HELP YOU STAY WITHIN THAT TIME THERE'S A TIMING LIGHT ON THE TABLE.

WHEN IT SWITCHES FROM GREEN TO YELLOW YOU HAVE ONE MINUTE TO CONCLUDE.

WHEN IT'S RED, IT SIGNALS 10 MINUTES EXPIRED.

PROFESSOR FELDMAN, YOU MAY BEGIN.

>> MR. CHAIRMAN, BEFORE WE GET -- >> MR. CHAIRMAN, AND MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE, I HAVE A MOTION.

>> THE GENTLEMAN IS NOT IN ORDER TO OFFER A MOTION.

>> MR. CHAIRMAN I SEEK RECOGNITION FOR A PRIVILEGE MOTION.

MR. CHAIRMAN, AND MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE, THANK YOU FOR THE OPPORTUNITY TO APPEAR.

I'M NOAH FELDMAN.

>> THE WITNESS WILL PROCEED.

>> I SERVE AS A PROFESSOR OF LAW AT THE HARVARD LAW SCHOOL.

>> I SEEK RECOGNITION.

>> THE GENTLEMAN WILL SUSPEND.

THE TIME IS THE WITNESS'S.

>> PRIVILEGE MOTION NEEDS TO BE RECOGNIZED.

>> IN BETWEEN WITNESSES.

NOT ONCE A RECOGNIZE A WITNESS.

WE'LL ENTERTAIN THE MOTION AFTER THE FIRST WITNESS.

>> MY JOB IS TO STUDY AND TEACH CONSTITUTION FROM THE ORIGINS TO THE PRESENT.

I'M HERE TO DESCRIBE THREE THINGS.

WHY THE FRAMERS OF THE CONSTITUTION INCLUDED AN IMPEACHMENT OF THE PRESIDENT.

WHAT THAT PROVISION FOR HIGH CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS MEANS.

LAST, HOW IT APPLIES TO THE QUESTION BEFORE YOU AND BEFORE THE AMERICAN PEOPLE, WHETHER PRESIDENT TRUMP HAS COMMITTED IMPEACHABLE OFFENSES UNDER THE CONSTITUTION.

LET ME BEGIN BY STATING MY CONCLUSIONS.

THE FRAMERS PROVIDEED FOR THE IMPEACHMENT OF THE PRESIDENT BECAUSE THEY FEARED THAT THE PRESIDENT MIGHT ABUSE THE POWER OF HIS OFFICE FOR PERSONAL BENEFIT, TO CORRUPT THE ELECTORAL PROCESS AND ENSURE HIS RE-ELECTION OR SUBVERT THE NATIONAL SECURITY OF THE UNITED STATES.

HIGH CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS ARE ABUSES OF POWER AND OF PUBLIC TRUST CONNECTED TO THE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENCY.

ON THE BASIS OF THE TESTIMONY AND THE EVIDENCE BEFORE THE HOUSE, PRESIDENT TRUMP HAS COMMITTED IMPEACHABLE HIGH CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS BY CORRUPTLY ABUSING THE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENCY.

SPECIFICALLY, PRESIDENT TRUMP HAS ABUSED HIS OFFICE BY CORRUPTLY SOLICITING THE PRESIDENT OF UKRAINE TO ANNOUNCE INVESTIGATIONS OF HIS POLITICAL RIVALS TO ORDER IN TO GAIN PERSONAL ADVANTAGE, INCLUDING IN THE 2020 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION.

LET ME BEGIN NOW WITH THE QUESTION OF WHY THE FRAMERS PROVIDEED FOR IMPEACHMENT IN THE FIRST PLACE.

THE FRAMERS BORROWED THE CONCEPT OF IMPEACHMENT FROM ENGLAND, BUT WITH ONE ENORMOUS DIFFERENCE.

THE HOUSE OF COMMONS AND THE HOUSE OF LORDS COULD USE IMPEACHMENT IN ORDER TO LIMIT THE MINISTERS OF THE KING.

BUT THEY COULD NOT IMPEACH THE KING.

IN THAT SENSE THE KING WAS ABOVE THE LAW.

IN STARK CONTRAST, THE FRAMERS FROM THE OUTSET OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION IN 1787 MADE IT CRYSTAL CLEAR THAT THE PRESIDENT WOULD BE SUBJECT TO IMPEACHMENT IN ORDER TO DEMONSTRATE THAT THE PRESIDENT WAS SUBORDINATE TO THE LAW.

IF YOU WILL, I WOULD LIKE TO THINK NOW ABOUT A SPECIFIC DATE IN THE CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION.

JULY 20th, 1787.

IT WAS THE MIDDLE OF A LONG HOT SUMMER, AND ON THAT DAY, TWO MEMBERS OF OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION ACTUALLY MOVEED TO TAKE OUT THE IMPEACHMENT PROVISION FROM THE DRAFT CONSTITUTION.

THEY HAD A REASON.

THE REASON THEY SAID IS THE PRESIDENT WILL HAVE TO STAND FOR RE-ELECTION.

AND IF THE PRESIDENT HAS TO STAND FOR RE-ELECTION, THAT'S ENOUGH.

WE DON'T NEED A SEPARATE PROVISION FOR IMPEACHMENT.

WHEN THAT PROPOSAL WAS MADE, SIGNIFICANT DISAGREEMENTS ENSUED.

THE GOVERNOR OF NORTH CAROLINA, A MAN CALLED WILLIAM DAVEY IMMEDIATELY SAID, IF THE PRESIDENT CAN BE THE BE IMPEACHED, "HE WILL SPARE NO EFFORTS OR MEANS WHATEVER TO GET HIMSELF RE-ELECTED."

FOLLOWING DAVIES, GEORGE MASON OF VIRGINIA, A FIERCE REPUBLICAN CRITIC OF EXECUTIVE POWER SAID, "NO POINT IS MORE IMPORTANT THAN IMPEACHMENT BE INCLUDED IN THE CONSTITUTION.

SHALL ANY MAN BE XWOOF JUSTICE," HE ASKED.

THUS EXPRESSING PERSON THAT THE PRESIDENT MUSN'T BE ABOVE THE LAW.

JAMES MADISON, THE PRINCE APPROXIMATELY DRA DRAFTSMAN OF U.S. STUEG SAID IT WAS INDISPENSABLE A PROVISION BE MADE FOR IMPEACHMENT.

HE EXPLAINED STANDING FOR RE-ELECTION WAS NOT A SUFFICIENT SECURITY AGAINST PRESIDENTIAL MISCONDUCT OR CORRUPTION.

A PRESIDENT, HE SAID MIGHT BETRAY HIS TRUST TO FOREIGN POWERS.

A PRESIDENT WHO ABUSED THE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENCY MIGHT BE FATAL TO THE REPUBLIC, CLOSE QUOTES.

AND THEN A REMARKABLE THING HAPPENED IN THE CONVENTION.

GOVERNOR MORRIS OF PENNSYLVANIA ONE OF THE TWO PEOPLE WHO INTRODUCED THE MOTION TO ELIMINATE THE IMPEACHMENT FROM THE CONSTITUTION GOT UP AND SAID THE WORDS, I WAS WRONG.

HE TOLD THE OTHER FRAMERS HE CHANGED HIS MIND AND THAT HE WAS NOW HIS OPINION THAT IN ORDER TO AVOID CORRUPTION OF ELECTORAL PROCESS, A PRESIDENT WOULD HAVE TO BE SUBJECT TO IMPEACHMENT REGARDLESS OF THE AVAILABILITY OF A FURTHER ELECTION.

THE UPSHOT OF THE DEBATE IS THE FRAMERS KEPT IMPEACHMENT IN THE CONSTITUTION, SPECIFICALLY IN ORDER TO PROTECT AGAINST THE ABUSE OF OFFICE WITH THE CAPACITY TO CORRUPT THE ELECTORAL PROCESS OR LEAD TO PERSONAL GAIN.

TURNING TO THE LANGUAGE OF THE CONSTITUTION, THE FRAMERS USED THE WORDS.

HIGH CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS TO DESCRIBE THOSE FORMS OF ACTION THEY CONSIDERED IMPEACHABLE.

THESE WERE NOT VAGUE OR ABSTRACT TERMS.

HIGH CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS -- THE WORDS HIGH CRIMES AND MISDEMEANOR MISS REPRESENTED SPECIFIC LANGUAGE THAT WAS WELL UNDERSTOOD BY THE ENTIRE GENERATION OF THE FRAMERS.

INDEED, THEY WERE BORROWED FROM AN IMPEACHMENT TRIAL IN ENGLAND TAKING PLACE AS THE FRAMERS WERE SPEAKING WHICH WAS REFERRED TO BY GEORGE MACE AN.

THE WORDS HIGH CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS REFERRED TO ABUSE OF THE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENCY FOR PERSONAL ADVANTAGE OR TO CORRUPT THE ELECTORAL PROCESS OR TO SUBVERT A NATIONAL SECURITY OF THE UNITED STATES.

THERE'S NO MYSTERY ABOUT THE WORDS HIGH CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS.

HIGH MODIFIES CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS.

THEY'RE BOTH HIGH.

AND A HIGH MEANS CONNECTED TO THE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENCY, CONNECTED TO OFFICE.

THE CLASSIC FORM THAT WAS FAMILIAR TO THE FRAMERS WAS THE ABUSE OF OFFICE FOR PERSONAL GAIN OR ADVANTAGE.

WHEN THE FRAMERS SPECIFICALLY NAMED BRIBERY A A HIGH CRIME AND MISDEMEANOR, THEY WERE NAMING ONE PARTICULAR VERSION OF THIS ABUSE OF OFFICE, THE ABUSE OF OFFICE FOR PERSONAL OR INDIVIDUAL GAIN.

THE OTHER FORMS OF ABUSE OF OFFICE, ABUSE TO AFFECT ELECTIONS AND COMPROMISE NATIONAL SECURITY WERE FURTHER FORMS THAT WERE FAMILIAR TO THE FRAMERS.

NOW, HOW DOES THIS LANGUAGE OF HIGH CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS APPLY TO PRESIDENT TRUMP'S ALLEGED CONDUCT?

LET ME BE CLEAR.

THE CONSTITUTION GIVES THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES -- THAT IS THE MEMBERS OF THIS COMMITTEE AND OTHER MEMBERS OF THE HOUSE SOLE POWER OF IMPEACHMENT.

IT'S NOT MY RESPONSIBILITY OR MY JOB TO DETERMINE THE CREDIBILITY OF THE WITNESSES WHO APPEARED BEFORE THE HOUSE THUS FAR.

THAT IS YOUR CONSTITUTIONAL RESPONSIBILITY.

MY COMMENTS WILL THEREFORE FOLLOW MY ROLE WHICH IS TO DESCRIBE AND APPLY THE MEANING OF IMPEACHABLE OFFENSES TO THE FACTS DESCRIBED BY THE TESTIMONY IN EVIDENCE BEFORE THE HOUSE.

PRESIDENT TRUMP'S CONDUCT AS DESCRIBED BY THE TESTIMONY IN EVIDENCE CLEARLY CONSTITUTES IMPEACHABLE HIGH CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS UNDER THE CONSTITUTION.

IN PARTICULAR, THE MEMORANDUM AND OTHER TESTIMONY RELATED TO THE JULY 25th, 2019 PHONE CALL BETWEEN THE TWO PRESIDENTS, PRESIDENT TRUMP, AND PRESIDENT ZELENSKY MORE THAN SUFFICIENTLY INDICATES THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP ABUSED HIS OFFICE BY SOLICITING THE PRESIDENT OF UKRAINE TO INVESTIGATE HIS POLITICAL RIVALS IN ORDER TO GAIN PERSONAL POLITICAL ADVANTAGE INCLUDING IN RELATION TO THE 2020 ELECTION.

AGAIN, THE WORDS ABUSE OF OFFICE ARE NOT MYSTICAL OR MAGICAL.

THEY ARE VERY CLEAR.

THE ABUSE OF OFFICE OCCURS WHEN THE PRESIDENT USES A FEATURE OF HIS POWER, THE AWESOME POWER OF HIS OFFICE NOT TO SERVE THE INTERESTS OF THE AMERICAN PUBLIC, BUT TO SERVE HIS PERSONAL INDIVIDUAL PARTISAN ELECTORAL INTERESTS.

THAT IS WHAT THE EVIDENCE BEFORE THE HOUSE INDICATES.

FINALLY, LLET ME BE CLEAR, ON ITS OWN, SOLICITING THE LEADER OF A FOREIGN GOVERNMENT IN ORDER TO ANNOUNCE INVESTIGATIONS OF POLITICAL RIVALS AND PERFORM THOSE INVESTIGATIONS WOULD CONSTITUTE A HIGH CRIME AND MISDEMEANOR.

BUT THE HOUSE ALSO HAS EVIDENCE BEFORE IT THAT THE PRESIDENT COMMITTED TWO FURTHER ACTS THAT ALSO QUALIFY HAS EYE CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS.

IN PARTICULAR THE HOUSE HEARD EVIDENCE THAT THE PRESIDENT PLACED A HOLD ON CRITICAL U.S. AID TO UKRAINE AND CONDITIONED ITS RELEASE ON ANNOUNCEMENT OF THE INVESTIGATIONS OF THE BIDENS AND OF THE DISCREDITED CROWDSTRIKE CONSPIRACY THEORY.

FURTHERMORE, THE CONDITIONED A WHITE HOUSE VISIT ON THE ANNOUNCEMENT OF THE INVESTIGATION.

BOTH OF THESE ACTS CONSTITUTE IMPEACHABLE HIGH CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS UNDER THE CONSTITUTION.

THEY EACH ENCANSULATE THE FRAMERS WORRY THAT THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES WOULD TAKE ANY MEANS WHATEVER TO ENSURE HIS RE-ELECTION.

THAT'S THE REASON THAT THE FRAMERS PROVIDEED FOR IMPEACHMENT IN A CASE LIKE THIS ONE.

>> MR. CHAIRMAN -- >> THE GENTLEMAN'S TIME EXPIRED.

>> I SEEK RECOGNITION.

>> GENTLEMAN RECOGNIZED.

>> I OFFER A MOTION TO POSTPONE TO A DATE CERTAIN.

>> I MOVE TO TABLE THE MOTION.

>> MOTION TO TABLE IS HEARD AND IS NOT DEBATEABLE.

>> MR. CHAIRMAN -- >> ALL IN FAVOR?

>> MAY WE HAVE THE MOTION READ.

>> THE MOTION WAS STATED TO ADJOURN.

>> MAY WE READ THE MOTION.

>> MOTION WILL BE READ TO A DATE CERTAIN, WEDNESDAY, DCEMBER 19 TO ACTUALLY GET A RESPONSE TO THE SIX LETTERS.

>> MOTION TO TABLE IS MADE.

MOTION TO TABLE IS MADE AND NOT DEBATEABLE.

>> ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE.

THE MOTION TO TABLE IS RECALLED.

>> ROLE CALL REQUESTED.

>> MR. NADLER.

AYE.

>> MISS LOFTON.

MISS JACKSON LEE VOTES AYE.

MR. COHEN VOTES EYE.

MR. JOHNSON OF GEORGIA VOTES AYE.

>> MR. RICHMOND VOTES YES.

>> MR. JEFFERIES VOTES YES.

>> MR. SISILINY VOTES AYE.

>> MR. RASKIN VOTES EYE.

>> MISS JENNINGS VOTES AYE.

>> MISS SCANLIN VOTES AYE.

MISS GARS RA.

VOTES EYE.

>> MR. STANTON VOTES AYE.

>> MISS POWELL?

>> VOTES EYE.

>> MISS ESCOBAR VOTES EYE.

>> MR. COLLINS VOTES NO.

>> MR. SENSENBRENNER VOTES NO.

>> MR. CHAVEZ VOTES NO.

>> MR. GOMERT VOTES NO.

>> MR. JORDAN VOTES NO.

>> MR. BUCK VOTES NO.

>> MR. RADCLIFFE VOTES NO.

>> MR. GOATS VOTES NO.

MR. JOHNSON OF LOUISIANA VOTES NO.

MR. BIGGS VOTES NO.

MR. MACLINTON VOTES NO.

>> MR. RESTENTHALER VOTES NO.

>> MR. CLINE VOTES NO.

>> MR. ARMSTRONG VOTES NO.

>> MR. STEVIE VOTES NO.

>> HAS EVERYONE VOTED?

>> MR. CHAIRMAN, 24 AYES AND 17 NOS.

>> THE MOTION TO TABLE IS ADOPTED, AND I NOW RECOGNIZE PROFESSOR CARLIN FOR HER TESTIMONY.

>> MR. CHAIRMAN, AND MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE.

THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR THE OPPORTUNITY TO TESTIFY.

TWICE I HAVE HAD THE PRIVILEGE OF REPRESENTING THIS COMMITTEE AND LEADERSHIP IN VOTING RIGHTS CASES BEFORE THE SUPREME COURT.

ONCE UNDER THE LEADERSHIP OF CHAIRMAN SENSENBRENNER, AND IT'S GOOD TO SEE YOU AGAIN SIR.

AND ONE OF MY OTHER CLIENTS.

AND ONCE UNDER THE LEADERSHIP OF CHAIRMAN CONIERS.

IT WAS A GREAT HONOR BECAUSE OF THIS COMMITTEE'S KEY ROLE OVER THE PAST 50 YEARS IN ENSURING THAT EVERYONE CITIZENS HAVE IS THE RIGHT TO VOTE IN FREE AND FAIR ELECTIONS.

TODAY YOUR ASKED TO CONSIDER WHETHER PROTECTING THOSE IS IMPEACHING A PRESIDENT.

EVERYTHING I KNOW ABOUT THE CONSTITUTION AND VALUES AND MY REVIEW OF THE EVIDENTITARY RECORD, I READ TRANSCRIPTS OF EVERY ONE OF THE WITNESSES WHO APPEARED IN THE LIVE HEARINGS, BECAUSE I WOULD NOT SPEAK ABOUT THESE THINGS WITHOUT REVIEWING THE FACTS.

I'M INSULTED BY THE SUGGESTION THAT AS A LAW PROFESSOR I DON'T CARE ABOUT THE FACTS.

EVERYTHING I READ ON THOSE OCCASIONS TELLS ME WHEN PRESIDENT TRUMP DEMANDED FOREIGN INVOLVEMENT IN THE UPCOMING ELECTION, HE STRUCK AT THE VERY HEART OF WHAT MAKES THIS A REPUBLIC TO WHICH WE PLEDGE ALEECHBLGANCE.

THAT DEMANLD HAS PROFESSOR FELDMAN EXPLAINED CONSTITUTED AN ABUSE OF POWER.

INDEED AS I EXPLAIN IN MY TESTIMONY, DRAWING A FOREIGN GOVERNMENT INTO OUR ELECTION I ESPECIALLY SERIOUS ABUSE OF POWER BECAUSE IT UNDERMINES DEMOCRACY ITSELF.

THE CONSTITUTION BEGINS WITH WE THE PEOPLE FOR A REASON.

JAMES MADISON'S WORDS DERIVES POWER DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY FROM THE GREAT BODY OF THE PEOPLE, AND THE WAY IT DERIVES THESE POWERS IS THROUGH ELECTIONS.

ELECTIONS MATTER.

THE LEGITIMACY OF OUR GOVERNMENT AND ALL OF OUR INDIVIDUAL FREEDOMS BECAUSE OF THE SUPREME COURT DECLARED MORE THAN A CENTURY AGO VOTING IS PRESERVATIVE OF ALL RIGHTS.

IT'S NOT SURPRISING THAT THE CONSTITUTION IS MARVELED WITH PROVISIONS GOVERNING ELECTIONS AND GUARANTEEING GOVERNMENTAL ACCOUNTABILITY.

INDEED, A MAJORITY OF THE AMENDMENTS TO THE CONSTITUTION SINCE THE CIVIL WAR HAVE DEALT WITH VOTING OR WITH TERMS OF OFFICE.

AND AMONG THE MOST IMPORTANT PROVISIONS OF THE ORIGINAL CONSTITUTION IS THE GUARANTEE OF PERIODIC ELECTIONS TO THE PRESIDENCY.

ONE EVERY FOUR YEARS.

AMERICANS HAVE KEPT THAT PROMISE FOR TWO CENTURIES AND DONE SO EVEN IN WAR TIME.

WE INVENTED THE IDEA OF ABSENTEE VOTING SO UNION TROOPS WHO SUPPORTED PRESIDENT LINCOLN COULD STAY NTD FIELD DURING THE ELECTION OF 1864.

SINCE THEN, COUNTLESS OTHER AMERICANS HAVE FOUGHT AND DIED TO PROTECT OUR RIGHT TO VOTE.

THE FRAMERS OF OUR CONSTITUTION REALIZED THAT ELECTIONS ALONE COULD NOT GUARANTEE THAT THE UNITED STATES WOULD REMAIN A REPUBLIC.

ONE OF THE KEY REASONS FOR INCLUDING THE IMPEACHMENT POWER WAS THE RISK THAT UNSCRUPULOUS OFFICIALS RIGHT TRY TO RIG THE ELECTION PROCESS.

YOU'VE ALREADY HEARD TWO PEOPLE GIVE WILLIAM DAVEY PROPS.

HAMILTON GOT A MUSICAL, AND DAVEY GETS THIS HEARING.

HE WARNED UNLESS THE CONSTITUTION CONTAINED AN IMPEACHMENT PROVISION A PRESIDENT MIGHT SPARE NO MEANS TO GET REELECTED AND GEORGE MASON SAID A PRESIDENT WHO SECURED THROUGH AN CORRUPT ACT BY REPEATING HIS GUILT.

AND MASON WAS THE PERSON RESPONSIBLE FOR ADDING HIGH CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS TO THE LIST OF IMPEACHABLE OFFENSES.

SO WE KNOW FROM THAT, THAT THE LIST WAS DESIGNED TO REACH A PRESIDENT WHO ACTS TO SUBVERT AN ELECTION, WHETHER THAT ELECTION IS THE ONE THAT BROUGHT HIM INTO OFFICE OR IT'S AN UPCOMING ELECTION WHERE HE SEEKS AN ADDITIONAL TERM.

MOREOVER, THE FOUNDING GENERATION LIKE EVERY GENERATION SINCE WAS CONCERNED TO PROTECT OUR GOVERNMENT AND OUR DEMOCRATIC PROCESS FROM OUTSIDE INTERFERENCE.

FOR EXAMPLE, JOHN ADAMS DURING THE RATIFICATION EXPRESSED CONCERN WITH THE VERY IDEA OF HAVING AN ELECTED PRESIDENT WRITING TO THOMAS JEFFERSON THAT YOU ARE APPREHENSIVE OF FOREIGN INTERFERENCE, INFLUENCE.

SO AM I, BUT AS OFTEN AS ELECTIONS HAPPEN, THE DANGER OF FOREIGN INFLUENCE RECURS.

AND IN THE STAIRWELL ADDRESS, PRESIDENT WASHINGTON WARNED HISTORY AND EXPERIENCE PROVED FOREIGN INFLUENCE IS ONE OF THE MOST PAINFUL FOES OF REPUBLICAN GOVERNMENT, AND EXPLAINED IT WAS IMPERFECT AS FOREIGN GOVERNMENT WOULD HAVE TRY TO FOEMENT DISAGREEMENTS WITH AMERICAN PEOPLE.

THE VERY IDEA THAT A PRESIDENT MIGHT SEEK THE AID OF A FOREIGN GOVERNMENT IN RE-ELECTION CAMPAIGN WOULD HAVE HORRIFIED THEM.

BASED ON THE EVIDENTITARY RECORD THAT'S WHAT PRESIDENT TRUMP HAS DONE.

THE LIST OF IMPEACHABLE OFFENSES THAT THE FRAMERS INCLUDED IN THE CONSTITUTION SHOWS THAT THE ESSENCE OF AN IMPEACHABLE OFFENSE IS A PRESIDENT'S DECISION TO SACRIFICE THE NATIONAL INTERESTS FOR HIS OWN PRIVATE END.

TREASON, WEIGH AN INDIVIDUAL'S AID TO A FOREIGN ENEMY.

PUTTING A FOREIGN ENEMY'S'S ADVERSARY ABOVE THE E ABOVE THE UNITED STATES.

BRIBERY, SOLICED, RECEIVED OR OFFERED FAVOR OR BENEFIT TO INFLUENCE OFFICIAL ACTIONS RISKING HE WOULD PUT HIS PRIVATE WELFARE ABOVE THE NATIONAL INTEREST.

AND HIGH CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS CAPTURED THE OTHER WAY IN WHICH A HIGH OFFICIAL MIGHT DISREGARD PUBLIC INTEREST OF THE DUTIES OF PUBLIC OFFICE.

BASED ON THE EVIDENTITARY RECORD BEFORE YOU, WHAT HAPPENED IN THE CASE TODAY IS SOMETHING I DO NOT EVER SEEN BEFORE.

A PRESIDENT WHO DOUBLED DOWN ON VIOLATING HIS OATH TO FAITHFULLY EXECUTE THE LAWS AND PROTECT AND DEFEND THE CONSTITUTION.

THE EVIDENCE REVEALED THE PRESIDENT WHO USED POWERS OF OFFICE IS DEMAND THAT A FOREIGN GOVERNMENT PARTICIPATE IN UNDERMINING A COMPETING CANDIDATE FOR THE PRESIDENCY.

AS PRESIDENT JOHN KENNEDY DECLARED, THE RIGHT TO VOTE IN A FREE AMERICAN ELECTION IS THE MOST POWERFUL AND PRECIOUS RIGHT IN THE WORLD.

BUT OUR ELECTIONS BECOME LESS FREE WHEN THEY ARE DISTORTED BY FOREIGN INTERFERENCE.

WHAT HAPPENED IN 2016 WAS BAD ENOUGH.

THERE'S WIDESPREAD AGREEMENT THAT RUSSIAN OPERATIVE MANIPULATED OUR POLITICAL PROCESS.

BUT THAT DISTORTION IS MAGNIFIED, THAT THE SITTING PRESIDENT ABUSES POWER OF OFFICE ACTUALLY TO INVITE FOREIGN INTERVENTION.

SEE WHY.

IMAGINE LIVING IN A PART OF LOUISIANA OR TEXAS, THAT'S PRONE TO DEVASTATING HURRICANES AND FLOODING.

WHAT WOULD YOU THINK IF YOU LIVED THERE, AND YOUR GOVERNOR ASKED FOR A MEETING WITH THE PRESIDENT TO DISCUSS GETTING DISASTER AID THAT CONGRESS HAS PROVIDEED FOR?

WHAT WOULD YOU THINK IF THAT PRESIDENT SAID I WOULD LIKE YOU TO DO US A FAVOR?

I'LL MEET WITH YOU.

ONCE YOU BRAND MY OPPONENT A CRIMINAL.

WOULDN'T YOU KNOW IN YOUR GUT THAT THE PRESIDENT ABUSED OFFICE AND BETRAYED THE NATIONAL INTEREST, AND WAS TRYING TO CORRUPT AN ELECTORAL PROCESS?

I BELIEVE THAT THIS EVIDENCEITARY RECORD SHOWS THAT HERE.

IT SHOWS THE PRESIDENT DELAYED MEETING A FOREIGN LEADER AND PROVIDING ASSISTANCE THAT CONGRESS AND HIS ADVISERS AGREED SERVES OUR NATION INTEREST IN PROMOTING DEMOCRACY AND LIMITING RUSSIAN AGGRESSION.

SAYING RUSSIA, IF YOU'RE LISTENING -- YOU KNOW, A PRESIDENT WHO CARES ABOUT CONST RUSSIA, IF YOU'RE LISTENING, BUTT OUT OF OUR ELECTIONS.

SHOWS A PRESIDENT THAT DID THIS TO STRONG ARM A FOREIGN LEADER TO SMEARING ONE OF OUR OPPONENTS IN AN ELECTION SEASON.

THAT IS NOT POLITICS AS USUAL AT LEAST NOT IN THE UNITED STATES OR ANY MATURE DEMOCRACY.

IT IS INSTEAD A CARDINAL REASON WHY THE CONSTITUTION CONTAINS AN IMPEACHMENT POWER.

PUT SIMPLY, A PRESIDENT SHOULD RESIST FOREIGN INTERFERENCE.

NOT DEMAND IT OR WELCOME IT.

IF WE'RE TO KEEP SAFE WITH OUR REPUBLIC, PRESIDENT TRUMP MUST BE HELD ACCOUNT.

THANK YOU >> THANK YOU, PROFESSOR GERHARDT.

>> THANK YOU, CHAIRMAN, OTHER RANKING MEMBERS.

ITS AN HONOR AND A PRIVILEGE TO JOIN THE OTHER DISTINGUISHED WITNESSES TO DISCUSS A MATTER OF GRAVE CONCERN TO OUR COUNTRY AND TO OUR CONSTITUTION.

BECAUSE THIS HOUSE, THE PEOPLE'S HOUSE, HAS THE SOLE POWER OF IMPEACHMENT.

THERE'S NO BETTER FORUM TO DISCUSS THE CONSTITUTIONAL STANDARD FOR IMPEACHMENT AND WHETHER THAT STANDARD HAS BEEN MET IN THE CASE OF THE CURRENT PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES.

AS I EXPLAIN IN THE BALANCE OF MY OPENING STATEMENT, TH RECORD COMPILED THUS FAR SHOWS THE PRESIDENT HAS COMMITTED SEVERAL IMPEACHABLE OFFENSES.

INCLUDING BRIBERY, ABUSE OF POWER AND SOLICITING PERSONAL FAVOR FROM A FOREIGN LEADER, OBSTRUCTING JUSTICE AND OBSTRUCTING CONGRESS.

OUR HEARING SHOULD RESERVE AS A REMINDER OF ONE OF THE FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLES THAT DROVE THE FOUNDERS OF OUR CONSTITUTION TO BREAK FROM ENGLAND AND TO DRAFT THEIR OWN CONSTITUTION.

THE PRINCIPLE THAT IN THIS COUNTRY THAT NO ONE IS KING.

WE HAVE FOLLOWED THAT PRINCIPLE SINCE BEFORE THE FOUNDING OF THE CONSTITUTION AND RECOGNIZED AROUND THE WORLD AS A FIXED INSPIRING AMERICAN IDEAL.

IN HIS THIRD MESSAGE TO CONGRESS IN 1903.

ROOSEVELT DELIVERED ONE OF THE FINEST ARTICULATIONS OF THIS PRINCIPLE.

HE SAID, NO ONE IS ABOVE THE LAW AND NO MAN IS BELOW, NOR DO WE HAVE ANY MAN'S PERMISSION WHEN WE REQUIRE HIM TO OBEY IT.

OBEDIENCE TO THE LAW IS DEMANDED AS A RIGHT.

NOT ASKED FOR AS A FAVOR.

THREE FEATURES OF OUR CONSTITUTION PROTECT THE FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLE THAT NO ONE IS ABOVE THE LAW.

FIRST IN THE BRITISH SYSTEM, THERE WAS NO CONTROL OVER THE MONARCH.

AND THEN THE FRAMERS ALLOWED THE CONSTITUTION FOR ASSURING PRESIDENTIAL ACCOUNTABILITY.

SECOND, THE KING COULD DO NO WRONG AND NO PARTS OF THE GOVERNMENT COULD CHECK HIS MISCONDUCT.

IN OUR CONSTITUTION, THE FRAMERS DEVELOP A SEPARATION OF POWERS WHICH CONSIST OF CHECKS AND BALANCES DESIGNED TO PREVENT ANY BRANCH, INCLUDING PRESIDENCY FROM BEFORING TYRANNYCAL.

IN OUR DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE, THE FRAMERS SET FORTH A SERIES OF INPEACHABLE OFFENSES.

WHEN THE FRAMERS CONVENED IN PHILADELPHIA TO DRAFT OUR CONSTITUTION, THEY WERE UNITED AROUND A SIMPLY PRINCIPLE THAT WAS A MAJOR SAFEGUARD FOR THE PUBLIC.

WE THE PEOPLE AGAINST TYRANNY OF ANY KIND.

THE PEOPLE THAT OVERTHROWN A KING ARE NOT GOING TO TURN AROUND JUST AFTER SECURING THEIR INDEPENDENCE FROM CORRUPT TYRANNY AND CREATING AN OFFICE THAT LIKE THE KING WAS ABOVE THE LAW AND COULD DO NO WRONG.

THE FRAMERS CREATED A CHIEF EXECUTIVE TO BRING ENERGY TO THE ADMINISTRATION OF FEDERAL LAWS BUT TO BE ACCOUNTABLE TO CONGRESS FOR TREASON, BRIBERY, OTHER HIGH CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS.

THE FRAMER'S CONCERN ABOUT THE NEED TO PROTECT AGAINST A CORRUPT PRESIDENT WAS EVIDENT THROUGHOUT THE CORRUPTION.

I HAVE TO THANK MY PRIOR TWO FRIENDS THAT HAVE SPOKEN AND SPOKEN TO A NORTH CAROLINIAN, WILLIAM DAVEY.

I WILL REFER TO ANOTHER NORTH CAROLINIAN IN THE CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION.

JAMES IREDELL AND PRESIDENT WASHINGTON APPOINTED TO THE SUPREME COURT ASSURED THE DELEGATES THAT THE PRESIDENT IS OF A DIFFERENT NATURE FROM A MONARCH.

HE IS TO BE SPECIALLY RESPONSIBLE FOR THE GREAT TRUST PLACED IN HIM.

THIS BRINGS US OF COURSE TO THE CRUCIAL QUESTION WE'RE HERE TO TALK ABOUT TODAY.

THE STANDARD FOR IMPEACHMENT.

THE CONSTITUTION DEFINES TREASON AND THE TERM BRIBERY BASICALLY MEANS USING THE OFFICE FOR PERSONAL GAIN.

OR SHOULD SAY MISUSING THE OFFICE FOR PERSONAL GAIN.

AS PROFESSOR FELDMAN POINTED OUT, THESE TERM DERIVE FROM THE BRITISH THAT UNDERSTOOD THE CLASS OF CASES TO BE IMPEACHABLE TO BE REFERRED TO POLITICAL CRIMES WHICH REFERRED TO CASES AGAINST THE UNITED STATES, WHEN THE PRESIDENT DEVIATES FROM HIS DUTY OR DARES TO ABUSE THE POWER INVESTED TO HIM BY THE PEACH IN SERIOUS INJURIES TO THE REPUBLIC.

IN THE FEDERALIST PAPERS, ALEXANDER HAMILTON SAID IMPEACHABLE OFFENSES WHICH COME FROM THE ABUSE OR VIOLATION OF SOME PUBLIC TRUST AND RELAY CHIEFLY TO INJURIES DONE IMMEDIATELY IN A SOCIETY ITSELF.

SEVERAL THEMES EMERGE FROM THE FRAMER'S DISCUSSION OF THE SCOPE OF IMPEACHABLE OFFENSES.

WE KNOW NOT ABLE IMPEACHABLE ARE CRIMINAL AND NOT ALL FELONIES ARE IMPEACHABLE OFFENSES.

WE KNOW WHAT CONSTITUTES A HIGH CRIME AND MISDEMEANOR IS ULTIMATELY THE CONTEXT AND THE GRAVITY OF THE MISCONDUCT IN QUESTION.

AFTER REVIEWING THE EVIDENCE THAT'S BEEN MADE PUBLIC, I CANNOT HELP BUT CONCLUDE THIS PRESIDENT HAS ATTACKED EACH OF THE CONSTITUTIONS SAFEGUARDS AGAINST ESTABLISHING A MONARCHY IN THIS COUNTRY.

BOTH THE CONTEXT AND GRAVITY OF THE PRESIDENT'S CONDUCT ARE CLEAR.

THE FAVOR HE REQUESTED FROM UKRAINE'S PRESIDENT WAS TO RECEIVE FOR HIS USE OF PRESIDENTIAL POWER UKRAINE'S ANNOUNCEMENT OF A POLITICAL RIVAL.

THE INVESTIGATION WAS NOT THE IMPORTANT ACTION FOR THE PRESIDENT, THE ANNOUNCEMENT WAS BECAUSE IT COULD BE USED IN THIS COUNTRY TO MANIPULATE THE PUBLIC TO CASTING ASIDE THE PRESIDENT'S POLITICAL RIVAL BECAUSE OF CONCERNS ABOUT HIS CORRUPTION.

THE GRAVITY OF THE PRESIDENT'S MISCONDUCT IS APPARENT WHEN YOU COMPARE IT TO THE ONE PRESIDENT THAT WAS IMPEACHED IN 1974.

THREE ARTICLES WERE APPROVED AGAINST RICHARD NIXON.

THE FIRST ARTICLE CHARGED HIM WITH OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE.

IF YOU READ THE MUELLER REPORT, IT LAYS OUT A NUMBER OF FACTS THAT SUGGESTS THE PRESIDENT OBSTRUCTED JUSTICE.

THE SECOND ARTICLE OF IMPEACHMENT APPROVED AGAINST RICHARD NIXON, CHARGED HIM WITH ABUSE OF POWER FOR ORDERING THE HEADS OF THE IRS, CIA TO HARASS HIS POLITICAL ENEMIES.

THE PRESENT CIRCUMSTANCES THE PRESIDENT HAS ENGAGED IN THE PATTERN OF ABUSING THE TRUST BY SOLICITING FOREIGN COUNTRIES, INCLUDING CHINA, RUSSIA AND UKRAINE TO INVESTIGATE HIS POLITICAL OPPONENTS AND INTERFERE IN ELECTIONS IN WHICH HE'S A CANDIDATE.

THE THIRD ARTICLE AGAINST NIXON IS THAT HE FAILED TO COMPLY WITH FOUR LEGISLATIVE SUBPOENAS.

THE PRESIDENT'S CIRCUMSTANCE, THE PRESIDENT HAS REFUSED TO COMPLY WITH AT LEAST TEN OTHERS IN HIS ADMINISTRATION NOT TO COMPLY WITH LAWFUL CONGRESSIONAL SUBPOENAS INCLUDING SECRETARY STATE MIKE POMPEO, RICK PERRY AND ACTING CHIEF OF STAFF AND HEAD OF THE OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET, MICK MULVANEY.

AS SENATOR LINDSEY GRAHAM SAID WHEN HE WAS A MEMBER OF THE HOUSE ON THE VERGE OF IMPEACHING PRESIDENT CLINTON, THE DAY THAT NIXON FAILED TO ANSWER THAT SUBPOENA IS THE DAY HE WAS IMPEACHABLE BECAUSE HE TOOK THE POWER AWAY FROM CONGRESS AND HE BECAME THE JUDGE AND THE JURY.

THAT IS A PERFECTLY GOOD ARTICULATION WHY OBSTRUCTION OF CONGRESS IS IMPEACHABLE.

THE PRESIDENT'S DEFIANCE OF CONGRESS IS TROUBLING DUE TO THE RATIONALE THAT HE CLAIMS FOR HIS OBSTRUCTION.

HIS ARGUMENTS INCLUDING HIS WHITE HOUSE COUNSEL IN HIS OCTOBER LETTER TO THE SPEAKER BOILS DOWN TO THE ASSERTION THAT HE'S ABOVE THE LAW.

I WON'T REVIEW THAT LETTER HERE BUT I DO WANT TO DISAGREE WITH THE CHARACTERIZATION IN THE LETTER OF THESE PROCEEDINGS.

SINCE THE CONSTITUTION EXPRESSLY SAYS AND THE SUPREME COURT HAS UNANIMOUSLY A FIRMED THAT THE HOUSE HAS THE SOLE POWER OF IMPEACHMENT.

LIKE THE SENATE, THE HOUSE HAS THE POWER TO DETERMINE THE RULES FOR ITS PROCEEDINGS.

THE PRESIDENT AND HIS SUBORDINATES HAVE ARGUMENTS THAT THE PRESIDENT IS ENTITLED TO INVESTIGATION FOR ANY CRIMINAL WRONG DOING, INCLUDING SHOOTING SOMEONE ON FIFTH AVENUE.

THE PRESIDENT HAS CLAIMED THAT HE'S ENTITLED TO EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE, NOT TO SHARE ANY INFORMATION HE DOESN'T WANT TO SHARE.

HE'S ALSO CLAIMED THE ENTITLEMENT TO BE ABLE TO ORDER THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH AS HE'S DONE NOT TO COOPERATE WITH THIS BODY WHEN IT CONDUCTS AN INVESTIGATION OF THE PRESIDENT.

IF LEFT UNCHECKED, HE WILL OBSTRUCT CONGRESS.

THE FACT THAT WE CAN TRANSPOSE THE ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT AGAINST PRESIDENT NIXON ON TO THE ACTIONS OF THIS PRESIDENT SPEAKS VOLUMES.

THAT DOES NOT ININCLUDE THE MOST SERIOUS NATIONAL SECURITY CONCERNS AND ELECTION INTERFERENCE CONCERNS AT THE HEART OF THIS PRESIDENT'S MISCONDUCT.

NO MISCONDUCT IS MORE ANTITHETICAL TO OUR ECONOMY.

NOTHING UNJURIES THE PEOPLE MORE THAN THE PRESIDENT THAT USES HIS POWER TO WEAKEN THE AUTHORITY UNDER THE CONSTITUTION AS WELT AS THE AUTHORITIES OF THE CONSTITUTION ITSELF.

MAY I READ ONE MORE SENTENCE?

>> THE WITNESS MAY HAVE ANOTHER SENTENCE.

>> IF CONGRESS FAILS TO IMPEACH HERE, THE IMPEACHMENT PROCESS IS LOST ALL MEANING.

ALONG WITH THAT, I STAND WITH THE CONSTITUTION AND I STAND WITH THE FRAMERS THAT WERE COMMITTED TO ENSURE THAT NO ONE IS ABOVE THE LAW.

>> THANK YOU.

PROFESSOR TURLEY.

>> THANK YOU, CHAIRMAN NADLER.

RANKING MEMBER COLLINS, MEMBERS OF THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE.

IT'S AN HONOR TO APPEAR BEFORE YOU TODAY TO DISCUSS ONE OF THE MOST CONSEQUENTIAL FUNCTIONS YOU WERE GIVEN BY THE FRAMERS AND THAT IS THE IMPEACHMENT OF A PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES.

21 YEARS AGO, I SAT BEFORE YOU, CHAIRMAN NADLER AND THIS COMMITTEE TO TESTIFY AT THE IMPEACHMENT OF PRESIDENT WILLIAM JEFFERSON CLINTON.

I NEVER THOUGHT THAT I WOULD HAVE TO APPEAR A SECOND TIME TO ADDRESS THE SAME QUESTION WITH REGARD TO ANOTHER SITTING PRESIDENT.

YET HERE WE ARE.

THE ELEMENTS ARE STRIKINGLY SIMILAR.

THE INTENTS, RANKER AND RANGE ARE THE SAME.

THE ATMOSPHERE, THE TOLERANCE OF OPPOSING VIEWS IS THE SAME.

I'D LIKE TO START THEREFORE PERHAPS BY STATING AN IRRELEVANT FACT.

I'M NOT A SUPPORTER OF PRESIDENT TRUMP.

I VOTED AGAINST HIM.

MY PERSONAL VIEWS OF PRESIDENT TRUMP ARE AS IRRELEVANT TO MY IMPEACHMENT TESTIMONY AS THEY SHOULD BE TO YOUR IMPEACHMENT VOTE.

PRESIDENT TRUMP WILL NOT BE OUR LAST PRESIDENT.

WHAT WE LEAVE IN THE WAKE OF THIS SCANDAL WILL SHAPE HOUR DEMOCRACY FOR GENERATIONS TO COME.

I'M CONCERNED ABOUT LOWERING IMPEACHMENT STANDARDS TO FIT EVIDENCE AND AN ABUNDANCE OF ANGER.

I BELIEVE THIS IMPEACHMENT NOT ONLY FAILS TO SATISFY THE STANDARD OF PAST IMPEACHMENTS, BUT IT WOULD CREATE A DANGEROUS PRECEDENT FOR FUTURE IMPEACHMENTS.

MY TESTIMONY LAYS OUT THE IMPEACHMENT FROM EARLY CASES TO THE EARLY DAY.

THE EARLY IMPEACHMENTS USED FLUID EXERCISE OF CRIMINAL AND NONCRIMINAL ACTS.

WHEN THE FRAMERS MET IN PHILADELPHIA, THEY WERE FAMILIAR WITH IMPEACHMENT AND ITS ABUSES INCLUDING HASTINGS CASE, WHICH WAS DISCUSSED IN THE CONVENTION.

A CASE THAT WAS STILL PENDING FOR TRIAL IN ENGLAND.

UNLIKE THE ENGLISH IMPEACHMENTS, THE AMERICAN MODEL IS MORE LIMITED NOT ONLY IN ITS APPLICATION TO JUDICIAL AND EXECUTIVE OFFICIALS BUT ITS GROUNDS.

THE FRAMERS REJECTED A PROPOSAL TO ADD MALE ADMINISTRATION BECAUSE MADISON OBJECTED THAT SO VAGUE A TERM WOULD BE EQUIVALENT TO A TENURE DURING THE PLEASURE OF THE STATE.

IN THE END, VARIOUS THINGS WERE OBJECTED.

CORRUPTION, OBTAINING OFFICE BY IMPROPER MEANS, NEGLIGENCE, SPECULATION AND OPPRESSION.

PERFORTY AND LYING ARE RELEVANT HERE.

MY TESTIMONY EXPLORES NIXON, JOHNSON AND CLINTON'S IMPEACHMENTS.

THE CLOSEST OF THE THREE CASES IS TO 1868 IMPEACHMENT OF ANDREW JOHNSON.

IT'S NOT A MODEL OR AN ASSOCIATION THAT THIS COMMITTEE SHOULD RELISH.

IN THAT CASE, A GROUP OF OPPONENTS OF THE PRESIDENT CALLED THE RADICAL REPUBLICANS CREATED A TRAP DOOR CRIME IN ORDER TO IMPEACH THE PRESIDENT.

THEY DEFINED IT AS A HIGH MISDEMEANOR.

IT WAS ANOTHER SHARED ASPECT BESIDES THE ATMOSPHERE OF THAT IMPEACHMENT AND ALSO THE UNCONVENTIONAL STYLE OF THE TWO PRESIDENTS.

THAT SHARED ELEMENT IS SPEED.

THIS IMPEACHMENT WOULD RIVAL THE JOHNSON IMPEACHMENT AS THE SHORTEST IN HISTORY DEPENDING ON HOW ONE COUNTS THE RELEVANT DAYS.

NOW, THERE'S THREE DISTINCTIONS WHEN YOU LOOK AT THESE OR THREE COMMONALITIES WHEN YOU LOOK AT THESE PAST CASES.

ALL INVOLVED ESTABLISHED CRIMES.

THIS WOULD BE THE FIRST IMPEACHMENT IN HISTORY WHERE THERE WOULD BE CONSIDERABLE DEBATE AND IN MY VIEW NOT COMPELLING EVIDENCE OF THE COMMISSION OF A CRIME.

SECOND IS THE APPRECIATED PERIOD OF THIS INVESTIGATION, WHICH IS PROBLEMATIC AND PUZZLING.

THIS IS A FACIALLY INCOMPLETE AND INADEQUATE RECORD IN ORDER TO IMPEACH A PRESIDENT.

ALLOW ME TO BE CANDID MANY MY CLOSING REMARKS BECAUSE WE HAVE LIMITED TIME.

WE ARE LIVING IN THE VERY PERIOD DESCRIBED BY ALEXANDER HAMILTON.

A PERIOD OF AGITATED PASSIONS.

I GET IT.

YOU'RE MAD.

THE PRESIDENT IS MAD.

MY REPUBLICAN FRIENDS ARE MAN.

MY DEMOCRATIC FRIENDS ARE MAD.

MY WIFE IS MAD.

MY KIDS ARE MAD.

EVEN MY DOG SEEMS MAD.

WE'RE ALL MAD.

WHERE IS THAT TAKING US?

IN THE SLIP SHOP OF IMPEACHMENT MADE US LESS MAD?

WILL IT ONLY INVITE AN INVITATION FOR THE MADNESS TO FOLLOW EVERY FUTURE ADMINISTRATION?

THAT'S WHY THIS IS WRONG.

IT'S NOT WRONG BECAUSE PRESIDENT TRUMP IS RIGHT.

HIS CALL WAS ANYTHING BUT PERFECT.

IT'S NOT WRONG BECAUSE THE HOUSE HAS NO LEGITIMATE REASON TO INVESTIGATION THE UKRAINIAN CONTROVERSY.

IT'S NOT WRONG BECAUSE WE'RE IN AN ELECTION YEAR.

THERE'S NO GOOD TIME FOR AN IMPEACHMENT.

NO, IT'S WRONG BECAUSE THIS IS NOT HOW YOU IMPEACH AN AMERICAN PRESIDENT.

THIS CASE IS NOT A CASE OF THE UNKNOWABLE.

IT'S A CASE OF THE PERIPHERAL.

WE HAVE A REGARD OF CONFLICTS, DEFENSES A HAVE NOT BEEN CONSIDERED, UNSUBPOENAED WITNESSES WITH MATERIAL EVIDENCE.

TO IMPEACH A PRESIDENT ON THIS RECORD WOULD EXPOSE EVERY FUTURE PRESIDENT TO THE SAME IMPEACHMENT.

PRINCIPLE TAKES US TO A PLACE WE PREFER NOT TO BE.

THAT WAS A PLACE SEVEN REPUBLICANS FOUND THEMSELVES IN THE JOHNSON TRIAL WHEN THEY SAVED A PRESIDENT FROM ACQUITTAL THAT THEY DESPISED.

FOR GENERATIONS, THEY CELEBRATED AS PROFILES OF COURAGE.

SENATOR ROSS SAID IT WAS LIKE LOOKING DOWN IN HIS OPEN GRAVE.

HE JUMPED.

BECAUSE HE DIDN'T HAVE ANY ALTERNATIVE.

IT'S EASY TO CELEBRATE THOSE PEOPLE FROM THE DISTANCE OF TIME AND CIRCUMSTANCE IN AN AGE OF RAGE THAT IS APPEALING TO LISTEN TO THOSE SAYING FORGET THE DEFINITIONS OF CRIMES.

JUST DO IT.

LIKE THIS IS SOME IMPULSE BUY NIKE SNEAKER.

YOU CERTAINLY WOULD DO THAT.

YOU CAN DECLARE THE DEFINITIONS OF CRIMES ALLEGED OR IMMATERIAL AND AN EXERCISE OF POLITICS, NOT THE LAW.

HOWEVER, THOSE LEGAL DEFINITIONS AN STANDARDS, WHICH I'VE ADDRESSED IN MY TESTIMONY ARE THE VERY THING THAT DIVIDE RAGE FROM REASON.

THIS ALL BRINGS UP TO ME, AND I WILL CONCLUDE WITH THIS, A SCENE FROM "A MAN FOR ALL SEASONS" BY SIR THOMAS MOORE WHEN HIS SON-IN-LAW PUT THE LAW -- SUGGESTED THAT MOORE WAS PUTTING THE LAW AHEAD OF MORALITY.

HE SAID MOORE WOULD GIVE THE DEVIL THE BENEFIT OF THE LAW.

WHEN MOORE ASKS ROPER, WOULD HE INSTEAD CUT A GREAT ROAD THROUGH THE LAW TO GET AFTER THE DEVIL?

ROPER PROUDLY DECLARED YES.

I'D DOWN EVERY LAW OF ENGLAND TO DO THAT.

MOORE RESPONDS, AND WHEN THE LAST LAW IS CUT DOWN AND THE DEVIL TURNED AROUND ON YOU, WHERE WOULD YOU HIDE, ROPER, ALL THE LAWS BEING FLAT IN HE SAID THIS COUNTRY IS PLANTED WITH THICK LAWS COAST TO COAST.

MAN'S LAWS, NOT GODS.

IF YOU CULT THEM DOWN AND YOU'RE JUST THE MAN TO DO IT, DO YOU REALLY THINK YOU CAN STAND UPRIGHT IN THE WINDS THAT WOULD BLOW THEN?

HE FINISHED BY SAYING YES, I'D GIVE THE DEVIL THE BENEFIT OF THE LAW FOR MY OWN SAKE.

SO I WILL CONCLUDE WITH THIS.

BOTH SIDES OF THIS CONTROVERSY HAVE DEMONIZED THE OTHER TO JUSTIFY ANY MEASURE IN THEIR DEFENSE MUCH LIKE ROPER.

PERHAPS THAT'S THE SADDEST PART OF ALL OF THIS.

WE HAVE FORGOTTEN THE COMMON ARTICLE OF FAITH THAT BINDS EACH OF US TO EACH OTHER IN OUR CONSTITUTION.

HOWEVER, BEFORE WE CUT DOWN THE TREE SO CAREFULLY PLANTED BY THE FRAMERS, I HOPE YOU WILL CONSIDER WHAT YOU WILL DO WHEN THE WIND BLOWS AGAIN.

PERHAPS FOR A DEMOCRATIC PRESIDENT.

WHERE WILL YOU STAND THEN?

WHEN ALL THE LAWS BEING FLAT?

THANK YOU AGAIN FOR THE HONOR OF TESTIFYING TODAY.

I'D BE HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.

>> I THANK THE WITNESSES.

>> MR. CHAIRMAN, I SEEK RECOGNITION.

>> FOR WHAT PURPOSE?

>> MR. CHAIRMAN, I HAVE A MOTION PURSUANT TO RULE 11 SPECIFICALLY 2 K 6.

I MOVE TO SUBPOENA THE INDIVIDUAL COMMONLY REFERRED TO AS THE WHISTLE-BLOWER.

I ASK -- >> THE GENTLEMEN STATED HIS MOTION.

MOVE TO TABLE?

>> I MOVE TO >> MOVE TO TABLE.

ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE.

ALL OPPOSED SAY NEY.

MOTION TO TABLE IS APPROVED.

THE ROLL CALL IS REQUESTED.

THE CLERK WILL CALL THE ROLL.

[ROLL CALL].

[ROLL CALL].

[ROLL CALL].

[ROLL CALL].

>> HAS EVERYONE VOTED THAT WISHES TO VOTE?

>> MR. CHAIRMAN, I WAS NOT RECORDED.

>> NO.

>> ANYONE ELSE WISH TO VOTE?

>> HOW AM I RECORDED?

>> MR. SENSENBRENNER, YOU'RE NOT RECORDED.

>> NO.

>> MR. SENSENBRENNER VOTES NO.

>> MR. CHAIRMAN, THERE'S 24 AYES AND 17 NOS.

>> PURSUANT TO H RESOLUTION 660 AND THE JUDICIARY PROCEDURES, THERE'S 45 MINUTES OF QUESTIONS CONDUCTED BY THE CHAIRMAN OR MAJORITY COUNSEL FOLLOWED BY 45 MINUTES FOR THE RANKING MEMBER OR MINORITY COUNSEL.

ONLY THE CHAIR AND THE COUNSELS MAY QUESTION WITNESSES.

FOLLOWING THAT, UNLESS I SPECIFY MORE TIME, WE WILL PROCEED UNDER THE FIVE MINUTE RULES.

I RECOGNIZE MYSELF FOR THE FIRST ROUND OF QUESTIONS.

PROFESSORS, THANKS FOR BEING HERE TODAY.

THE COMMITTEE HAS BEEN CHARGED WITH THE GRAVE RESPONSIBILITY OF CONSIDERING WHETHER TO RECOMMEND ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT AGAINST THE PRESIDENT.

I SPOKE FOR MY COLLEAGUES WHEN I SAY THAT WE DO NOT TAKE THIS LIGHTLY.

WE'RE COMMITTED TO ENSURING THAT TODAY'S HEARING AS WELL AS THE LARGER RESPONSIBILITY BEFORE US ARE GROUNDED IN THE CONSTITUTION.

INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE'S REPORT CONCLUDED THAT THE PRESIDENT PRESSURED A FOREIGN LEADER TO INTERFERE IN OUR ELECTIONS.

HE THEN SOUGHT TO PREVENT CONGRESS FROM INVESTIGATING HIS CONDUCT BY ORDERING HIS ADMINISTRATION AND EVERYONE IN IT TO DEFY HOUSE SUBPOENAS.

PROFESSOR KARLAN, AS YOU SAID, THE RIGHT TO VOTE IS THE MOST PRECIOUS RIGHT IN THIS COUNTRY.

DOES THE PRESIDENT'S CONDUCT ENDANGER THAT RIGHT?

>> YES, MR. CHAIRMAN, IT DOES.

>> THANK YOU.

HOW DOES IT DO SO?

>> THE WAY IS EXACTLY WHAT PRESIDENT WASHINGTON WARNED ABOUT.

BY INVITING A FOREIGN GOVERNMENT TO INFLUENCE OUR ELECTIONS, IT TAKES THE RIGHT AWAY FROM THE AMERICAN PEOPLE AND IT TURNS IT TO A RIGHT THAT FOREIGN GOVERNMENTS DECIDE TO INTERFERE FOR THEIR OWN BENEFITS.

FOREIGN GOVERNMENTS DON'T BENEFIT US, THEY INTERVENE TO BENEFIT THEMSELVES.

>> THANK YOU.

PROFESSOR GERHARDT, YOU HAVE WRITTEN EXTENSIVELY ABOUT OUR SYSTEM OF CHECKS AND BALANCES.

WHAT HAPPENED TO THAT SYSTEM WHEN THE PRESIDENT UNDERTAKES A BLOCKADE OF CONGRESS'S IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY?

HE ORDERS ALL WITNESSES NOT TO TESTIFY?

WHAT IS OUR RECOURSE?

>> WHEN THE PRESIDENT DOES THAT, SEPARATION OF POWERS MEANS NOTHING.

THE SUBPOENAS THAT HAVE BEEN ISSUED ARE LAWFUL ORDERS.

IN OUR LAW SCHOOLS, WE TEACH OUR STUDENTS, THIS IS EASY STRAIGHTFORWARD SITUATION.

YOU COMPLY WITH THE LAW.

LAWYERS HAVE TO COMPLY WITH SUBPOENAS.

IN THIS SITUATION, THE FULL SCALE OBSTRUCTION AND SUBPOENAS TORPEDOS SEPARATION OF POWERS AND THEREFORE YOU'RE ONLY RECOURSE IS TO IN A SENSE PROTECT YOUR CONSTITUTIONAL PREROGATIVES.

>> THE SAME IS TRUE OF DEFYING CONGRESSIONAL SUBPOENAS ON A WHOLESALE BASIS WITH RESPECT TO OVERSIGHT, NOT JUST IMPEACHMENT?

>> ABSOLUTELY.

YES, SIR.

>> THANK YOU.

PROFESSOR FELDMAN.

AS I UNDERSTAND IT, THE FRAMERS INTENDED IMPEACHMENT TO BE USED INFREQUENTLY.

NOT AS PUNISHMENT.

TO SAFE OUR DEMOCRACY FROM THREATS SO SIGNIFICANT WE CANNOT WAIT TILL THE NEXT ELECTION.

DO WE FACE THAT THREAT?

IS IMPEACHMENT THE APPROPRIATE RECOURSE HERE?

THOSE ARE TWO QUESTIONS.

>> THE FRAMERS RESERVED IMPEACHMENT FOR SITUATIONS WHERE THE PRESIDENT ABUSED HIS OFFICE, THAT IS USED IT'S FOR HIS PERSONAL ADVANTAGE AND IN PARTICULAR THEY WERE SPECIFICALLY WORRIED ABOUT A SITUATION WHERE THE PRESIDENT USED HIS OFFICE TO FACILITATE CORRUPTLY HIS OWN RE-ELECTION.

THAT'S WHY THEY THOUGHT THEY NEEDED IMPEACHMENT AND WHY WAITING FOR THE NEXT ELECTION WASN'T GOOD ENOUGH.

ON THE FACTS THAT WE HAVE BEFORE THE HOUSE RIGHT NOW, THE PRESIDENT SOLICITED ASSISTANCE FROM A FOREIGN GOVERNMENT IN ORDER TO ASSIST HIS OWN RE-ELECTION.

THAT HE USED THE POWER OF HIS OFFICE THAT NO ONE ELSE COULD POSSIBLY HAVE USED IN ORDER TO GAIN PERSONAL ADVANTAGE FOR HIMSELF, DISTORTING THE ELECTION.

THAT'S WHAT THE FRAMERS ANTICIPATED.

>> THANK YOU.

I NOW YIELD THE REMAINDER OF MR. TIME FOR MR. EISEN FOR COUNSEL QUESTIONS.

>> GOOD MORNING, PROFESSORS.

THANKS FOR BEING HERE.

I WANT TO ASK YOU SOME QUESTIONS ABOUT THE FOLLOWING HIGH CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS THAT WERE MENTIONED IN THE OPENING STATEMENTS.

ABUSE OF POWER AND BRIBERY.

OBSTRUCTION OF CONGRESS.

OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE.

PROFESSOR FELDMAN, WHAT IS ABUSE OF POWER?

>> ABUSE OF POWER IS WHEN THE PRESIDENT USES HIS OFFICE, TAKES AN ACTION THAT IS PART OF THE PRESIDENCY, NOT TO SERVE THE PUBLIC INTERESTS BUT TO SERVE HIS PRIVATE BENEFIT AND IN PARTICULAR AN ABUSE OF POWER IF HE DOES TO IT FACILITATE HIS RE-ELECTION OR GAIN AN ADVANTAGE NOT AVAILABLE TO ANYONE THAT IS NOT THE PRESIDENT.

>> SIR, WHY IS THAT IMPEACHABLE CONDUCT?

>> IF THE PRESIDENT USES HIS OFFICE FOR PERSONAL GAIN, THE ONLY RECOURSE AVAILABLE UNDER THE CONSTITUTION IS FOR HIM TO BE IMPEACH.

THE PRESIDENT CANNOT BE AS A PRACTICAL MATTER CHARGED CRIMINALLY WHILE HE WAS IN OFFICE BECAUSE THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE WORKS FOR THE PRESIDENT.

SO THE ONLY MECHANISM AVAILABLE IS TO IMPEACH HIM.

THAT'S WHY WE HAVE IMPEACHMENT.

>> PROFESSOR KARLAN, DO SCHOLARS OF IMPEACHMENT GENERALLY AGREE THAT ABUSE OF POWER IS AN IMPEACHABLE OFFENSE?

>> YES.

>> PROFESSOR GERHARDT, DO YOU BELIEVE THAT IT IS IMPEACHABLE?

>> YES.

>> I'D LIKE TO FOCUS ON THE PANEL AND THE FINDINGS IN THE INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE REPORT THAT THE PRESIDENT SOLICITED THE INTERFERENCE OF A FOREIGN GOVERNMENT, UKRAINE, IN THE 2020 U.S. PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION.

PROFESSOR FELDMAN, DID PRESIDENT TRUMP COMMIT THE IMPEACHABLE HIGH CRIME AND MISDEMEANOR OF ABUSE OF POWER BASED ON THAT EVIDENCE AND THOSE FINDINGS?

>> BASED ON THAT EVIDENCE AND THOSE FINDINGS, THE PRESIDENT DID COMMIT AN IMPEACHABLE ABUSE OF OFFICE.

>> PROFESSOR KARLAN, SAME QUESTION.

>> SAME ANSWER.

>> AND PROFESSOR GERHARDT, DID PRESIDENT TRUMP COMMIT THE IMPEACHABLE HIGH CRIME AND MISDEMEANOR OF ABUSE OF POWER?

>> WE THREE ARE UNANIMOUS.

YES.

>> PROFESSOR FELDMAN, I'D LIKE TO QUICKLY LOOK AT THE EVIDENCE AND IN THE REPORT.

JULY 25th, PRESIDENT TRUMP TOLD THE PRESIDENT OF UKRAINE AND I QUOTE "I WOULD LIKE YOU TO DO US A FAVOR THOUGH."

AND HE ASKED ABOUT LOOKING INTO THE BIDENS.

WAS THE MEN RANDOM OF THAT CALL RELEVANT TO YOUR OPINIONS THAT THE PRESIDENT COMMITTED ABUSE OF POWER?

>> THE MEN RANDOM IS CRUCIAL TO THE DETERMINATION THAT THE PRESIDENT ABUSED HIS OFFICE.

>> DID YOU CONSIDER THE FINDINGS OF FACT THAT THE INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE MADE INCLUDING THAT AND AGAIN, I QUOTE, THE PRESIDENT WITHHELD OFFICIAL ACTS OF VALUE TO UKRAINE AND CONDITIONED THEIR FULFILLMENT ON ACTIONS BY UKRAINE THAT WOULD BENEFIT HIS PERSONAL, POLITICAL INTERESTS?

>> YES.

IN MAKING THE DETERMINATION THAT THE PRESIDENT COMMITTED AN IMPEACHABLE OFFENSE, I RELIED ON THE EVIDENCE BEFORE THE HOUSE AND THE TESTIMONY AND WHEN THIS REPORT WAS ISSUED, I CONTINUE TO RELY ON THAT.

>> SIR, DID YOU REVIEW THE FOLLOWING TESTIMONY FROM OUR AMBASSADOR TO UKRAINE, AMBASSADOR WILLIAM TAYLOR?

>> TO WITHHOLD THAT ASSISTANCE, FOR NO GOOD REASON OTHER THAN HELP WITH THE POLITICAL CAMPAIGN, MADE NO SENSE.

IT WAS COUNTER PRODUCTIVE TO ALL OF WHAT WE HAD BEEN TRYING TO DO.

IT WAS ILLOGICAL, COULD NOT BE EXPLAINED.

IT WAS CRAZY.

>> YES.

THAT EVIDENCE UNDERSCORED THE WAY THAT THE PRESIDENT'S ACTIONS UNDERCUT NATIONAL SECURITY.

>> PROFESSOR FELDMAN, WILL YOU PLEASE EXPLAIN WHY YOU CONCLUDED THAT THE PRESIDENT COMMITTED THE HIGH CRIME OF ABUSE OF POWER AND WHY IT MATTERS.

>> THE ABUSE OF POWER OCCURS WHEN THE PRESIDENT USES HIS OFFICE FOR PERSONAL ADVANTAGE OR GAIN.

THAT MATTER IS FUNDAMENTAL TO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE BECAUSE 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 LOVE UNDER A DICTATOR SHIP.

THAT'S WHY THE FRAMERS CREATED THE POSSIBILITY OF IMPEACHMENT.

>> PROFESSOR KARLAN, THIS HIGHS CRIME AND ABUSE OF POWER, WAS IT SOME KIND OF LOOSE OR UNDEFINED CONCEPT TO THE FOUNDERS OF OUR COUNTRY AND THE FRAMERS OF OUR CONSTITUTION?

>> NO, I DON'T THINK IT WAS AN A -- IT WAS A LOOSE CONCEPT AT ALL.

IT HAD A LONG LINEAGE IN THE COMMON LAW IN ENGLAND, OF PARLIAMENTARY IMPEACHMENTS OF LOWER LEVEL OFFICERS.

OBVIOUSLY THEY HAD NOT TALKED ABOUT IMPEACHING AS YOU HEARD EARLIER, THE KING OR THE LIKE.

>> CAN YOU SHARE A LITTLE BIT ABOUT THAT LINEAGE, PLEASE?

>> YES.

SO THE -- THE PARLIAMENT IN ENGLAND IMPEACHED POWER WHEN THEY ABUSED THEIR POWER.

RIGHT AFTER THE RESTORATION OF THE KINGSHIP IN ENGLAND, THERE WAS AN IMPEACHMENT.

YOU KNOW, WHEN THEY IMPEACH SOMEBODY, YOU HAVE TO SAY WHAT WERE THEY IMPEACHING THEM FOR.

SOMETIMES FOR TREASON OR THE LIKE AND SOMETIMES THEY WOULD USE THE PHRASE HIGH CRIME OR MISDEMEANOR.

THERE WAS AN IMPEACHMENT OF VICOUNT MORETENS.

HE WAS THE SHERIFF OF WINDSOR.

AS THE ELECTION WAS COMING UP, HE ARRESTED WILLIAM TAYLOR.

I WANT TO READ TO YOU FROM THE ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT IN FRONT OF THE HOUSE OF COMMONS.

BECAUSE IT IS SO TELLING.

HERE'S WHAT ARTICLE ONE SAID.

UNDERSTANDING THAT ONE WILLIAM TAYLOR DID INTEND TO STAND FOR THE ELECTION TO SERVE IN THE PRESENT PARLIAMENT.

THIS IS WHAT HE DID.

TO DISPARAGE AND PREVENT THE ELECTION OF WILLIAM TAYLOR AND STRIKE A TERROR INTO THOSE OF THE SAID BOROUGH WHICH SHOULD GIVE THEIR VOICES FOR HIM AND DEPRIVE THEM OF THE FREEDOM OF THEIR VOICES AT THE ELECTION.

HE DID COMMAND AND CARVE WILLIAM TAYLOR TO BE ILLEGALLY AND ARBITRARILY SEIZED UPON BY SOLDIERS AND HE DETAINED HIM.

IN OTHER WORDS, HE WENT AFTER A POLITICAL OPPONENT AND THAT WAS A HIGH CRIME OR MISDEMEANOR TO USE YOUR OFFICE TO GO AFTER A POLICE CALL OPPONENT.

>> NOW, PROFESSOR GERHARDT, DOES A HIGH CRIME AND MISDEMEANOR REQUIRE AN ACTUAL STATUTORY CRIME?

>> NO.

IT PLAINLY DOES NOT.

EVERYTHING WE KNOW ABOUT THE HISTORY OF IMPEACHMENT REINFORCES THE CONCLUSION THAT IMPEACHABLE OFFENSES DO NOT HAVE TO BE CRIMES AND AGAIN NOT ALL CRIMES ARE IMPEACHABLE OFFENSES.

WE LOOK AGAIN AT THE CONTEXT AND GRAVITY OF THE MISCONDUCT.

>> AND PROFESSOR TURLEY, YOU RECENTLY WROTE IN THE "WALL STREET JOURNAL" AND I QUOTE "THERE IS MUCH THAT IS WORTHY OF INVESTIGATION IN THE UKRAINE SCANDAL AND IT IS TRUE THAT IMPEACHMENT DOESN'T REQUIRE A CRIME."

>> THAT'S TRUE.

BUT I ALSO ADD AN IMPORTANT CAVEAT -- >> A YES OR NO QUESTION.

DID YOU WROTE IN THE "WALL STREET JOURNAL" THERE'S MUCH THAT IS WORTHY OF INVESTIGATION IN THE UKRAINE SCANDAL AND IT IS TRUE THAT IMPEACHMENT DOES NOT REQUIRE A CRIME.

IS THAT AN ACCURATE QUESTION?

>> YOU READ IT WELL.

>> SO PROFESSORS FELDMAN, KARLAN AND GERHARDT, YOU HAVE IDENTIFIED ON THE EVIDENCE HERE THERE'S AN IMPEACHABLE ACT.

A HIGH CRIME AND MISDEMEANOR OF ABUSE OF >> >> YES.

>> YES.

>> AND PROFESSOR FELDMAN, WHAT DOES THE CONSTITUTION SAY IS THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES IN DEALING WITH PRESIDENTIAL HIGH CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS LIKE ABUSE OF POWER?

>> THE CONSTITUTION GIVES THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES THE SOLE POWER OF IMPEACHMENT.

THE HOUSE HAS THE RIGHT AND THE RESPONSIBILITY TO INVESTIGATE PRESIDENTIAL MISCONDUCT AND WHERE APPROPRIATE TO CREATE AND PASS ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT.

>> PROFESSOR KARLAN, WHAT DOES THAT RESPONSIBILITY MEAN FOR THIS COMMITTEE WITH RESPECT TO PRESIDENT TRUMP'S ABUSE OF POWER?

>> WELL, BECAUSE THIS IS AN ABUSE THAT CUTS TO THE HEART OF DEMOCRACY, YOU HAVE TO ASK YOURSELF IF YOU DON'T IMPEACH THIS PRESIDENT AFTER WHAT HE'S DONE, OR AT LEAST DON'T INVESTIGATE AND IMPEACH THAT THE HOUSE SELECT COMMITTEE ON INTELLIGENCE FINDINGS ARE CORRECT, THEN WHAT YOU'RE SAYING IS IT'S FINE TO GO AHEAD AND DO THIS AGAIN.

AND I THINK THAT AS THE -- IN THE REPORT THAT CAME OUT LAST NIGHT, THE REPORT -- THE REPORT TALKS ABOUT THE CLEAR AND PRESENT DANGER TO THE ELECTION SYSTEM.

IT'S YOUR RESPONSIBILITY TO MAKE SURE THAT ALL AMERICANS GET TO VOTE IN A FREE AND FAIR ELECTION NEXT NOVEMBER.

>> PROFESSOR KARLAN, I'D LIKE TO DIRECT YOU TO THE WORDS IN THE CONSTITUTION, "OTHER HIGH CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS."

WE'RE STILL GOING TO TALK ABOUT ABUSE OF POWER.

DID THE CONSTITUTION SPELL OUT EVERY OTHER HIGH CRIME AND MISDEMEANOR?

>> NO, IT DID NOT.

>> PLEASE.

>> BECAUSE THEY RECOGNIZE THAT THE INVENTIVENESS OF MAN AND THE LIKELIHOOD THAT THIS CONSTITUTION WOULD ENDURE FOR GENERATIONS MEANT THEY COULDN'T LIST ALL OF THE CRIMES THAT MIGHT BE COMMITTED.

THEY COULDN'T IMAGINE AN ABUSE OF POWER, FOR EXAMPLE, THAT INVOLVED BURGLARIZING AND STEALING COMPUTER FILES FROM AN ADVERSARY BECAUSE THEY COULDN'T IMAGINE COMPUTERS.

THEY COULDN'T NECESSARILY HAVE IMAGINED WIRETAPPING BECAUSE WE HAD NO WIRES IN 1789.

SO WHAT THEY DID, THAT I PUT IN A PHRASE THAT THE ENGLISH HAD USED AND THAT HAD ADAPTED OVER A PERIOD OF CENTURIES TO TAKE INTO ACCOUNT THAT THIS IDEA OF HIGH CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS IS TO GET AT THINGS THAT PEOPLE IN OFFICE USE TO STRIKE AT THE VERY HEART OF OUR DEMOCRACY.

>> AND PROFESSOR, IN YOUR WRITTEN TESTIMONY, YOU MENTIONED TWO ADDITIONAL ASPECTS OF HIGH CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS BESIDES ABUSE OF POWER.

YOU TALKED ABOUT BETRAYAL OF THE NATIONAL INTERESTS, BETRAYAL OF THE NATIONAL INTERESTS AND CORRUPTION OF THE ELECTORAL PROCESS.

AND CAN YOU SAY A LITTLE BIT MORE ABOUT WHAT THE FRAMERS CONCERNS WERE ABOUT CORRUPTION OF ELECTIONS AND BETRAYAL OF THE NATIONAL INTERESTS INVOLVING FOREIGN POWERS AND HOW THEY COME IN TO PLAY HERE?

>> SURE.

LET ME START WITH THE FRAMERS AND WHAT THEY WERE CONCERNED WITH AND BRING IT UP TO DATE BECAUSE I THINK THEY'RE SOME MODERN STUFF AS WELL THAT IS IMPORTANT.

THE FRAMERS WERE VERY WORRIED THAT ELECTIONS COULD BE CORRUPTED.

CORRUPTED IN A VARIETY OF DIFFERENT WAYS.

THEY SPENT A LOT OF TIME TRYING TO DESIGN A SYSTEM THAT WOULDN'T BE SUBJECT TO THAT KIND OF CORRUPTION.

A NUMBER OF DIFFERENT PROVISIONS IN THE CONSTITUTION THAT DEAL WITH THE KINDS OF CORRUPTION THAT THEY WERE WORRIED ABOUT.

TWO THAT I LIKE TO HIGHLIGHT HERE BECAUSE THEY GO TO THIS IDEA OF THE NATIONAL INTERESTS AND FOREIGN GOVERNMENTS.

ONE THAT SEEMS TODAY TO MOST OF US TO BE REALLY A KIND OF REMNANT OF A PAST TIME.

IF YOU BECOME AN AMERICAN CITIZEN, ALMOST EVERYTHING IS OPEN TO YOU.

YOU CAN BE CHIEF JUSTICE OF THE UNITED STATES, SECRETARY STATE.

THE ONE OATH THAT IS NOT OPEN TO YOU EVEN THOUGH YOU'RE A CITIZEN IS THE PRESIDENCY.

THEY REASON THEY DID THAT IS BECAUSE OF FOREIGN INFLUENCE OVER A PRESIDENT.

THE OTHER CLAUSE THAT NOBODY HEARD OF FIVE YEARS AGO BUT NOW EVERYBODY TALKS ABOUT IS THE EMOLUMENTS CLAUSE.

THEY WERE WORRIED THAT THE PRESIDENT BECAUSE HE WAS ONLY GOING TO BE IN OFFICE A LITTLE WHILE WOULD USE IT TO GET EVERYTHING HE COULD AND TAKE GIFTS FROM FOREIGN COUNTRIES.

NOT BRIBES BUT GIFTS.

THEY WERE WORRIED ABOUT THAT AS WELL.

THEY WERE VERY CONCERNED ABOUT THOSE ELECTIONS.

IT'S NOT JUST THEM.

I WANT TO SAY SOMETHING ABOUT WHAT OUR NATIONAL INTEREST IS TODAY.

BECAUSE OUR NATIONAL INTEREST TODAY IS DIFFERENT IN SOME IMPORTANT WAYS THAN IT WAS IN 1789.

WHAT THE FRAMERS WERE WORRIED ABOUT IS THAT WE WOULD BE A WEAK COUNTRY AND WE COULD BE EXPLOITED BY FOREIGN COUNTRIES.

WE'RE A STRONG POWER NOW.

THE STRONGEST POWER IN THE WORLD.

WE CAN STILL BE EXPLOITED BY FOR WREN COUNTRIES.

THE OTHER THANK THAT WE'VE DONE AND THIS IS ONE OF THE THINGS THAT I THINK WE AS AMERICANS SHOULD BE PROUDEST OF IS WE HAVE BECOME WHAT JOHN WINTHROP SAID IN HIS SERMON IN 1640 AND WHAT RONALD REAGAN SAID IN HIS FINAL ADDRESS TO THE COUNTRY AS HE LEFT OFFICE.

WATER THE SHINING CITY ON A HILL.

WE'RE A NATION THAT LEADS THE WORLD IN UNDERSTANDING WHAT DEMOCRACY IS.

AND ONE OF THE THINGS WE UNDERSTAND MOST PROFOUNDLY IS, IT'S NOT A REAL DEMOCRACY.

IT'S NOT A MATURE DEMOCRACY IF THE PART IN POWER USES THE CRIMINAL PROCESS TO GO AFTER ITS ENEMIES.

AND I THINK YOU HEARD TESTIMONY THE INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE, HOW IT ISN'T JUST OUR NATIONAL INTEREST IN PROTECTING OUR OWN ELECTIONS.

IT'S NOT JUST OUR NATIONAL INTEREST IN MAKING SURE THE UKRAINE IS STRONG AND ON THE FRONT LINE SO THEY FIGHT THE RUSSIANS THERE AND WE DON'T FIGHT THEM HERE.

IT OUR NATIONAL INTEREST IN PROMOTING DEMOCRACY WORLDWIDE.

IF WE LOOK HYPOCRITICAL ABOUT THIS, IF WE LOOK LIKE WE'RE ASKING OTHER COUNTRIES TO INTERFERE, IF WE LOOK LIKE WE'RE ASKING OTHER COUNTRIES TO ENGAGE IN CRIMINAL INVESTIGATIONS OF OUR PRESIDENT'S POLITICAL OPPONENTS, THEN WE'RE NOT DOING OUR JOB OF PROMOTING OUR NATIONAL INTEREST IN BEING THAT SHINING CITY ON THE HILL.

>> PROFESSOR FELDMAN, ANYTHING TO ADD?

>> THE REASON THE CONSTITUTION PROVIDED FOR IMPEACHMENT IS TO ANTICIPATE A SITUATION LIKE THE ONE BEFORE YOU TODAY.

THE FRAMERS WERE NOT PROPHETS.

THEY WERE VERY SMART PEOPLE.

A VERY SOPHISTICATED UNDERSTANDING OF HUMAN INCENTIVES.

THEY UNDERSTOOD THAT A PRESIDENT WOULD BE MOTIVATED NATURALLY TO TRY TO USE THE TREMENDOUS POWER OF OFFICE TO GAIN PERSONAL ADVANTAGE, TO KEEP HIMSELF IN OFFICE, THE CORRUPT THE ELECTORAL PROCESS AND POTENTIALLY SUBVERT THE NATIONAL INTERESTS.

THE FACTS STRONGLY SUGGEST THIS IS WHAT PRESIDENT TRUMP HAS DONE AND UNDER THOSE CIRCUMSTANCES THE FRAMERS WOULD EXPECT THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TO TAKE ACTION IN THE FORM OF IMPEACHMENT.

>> AND PROFESSOR FELDMAN, DID YOU REVIEW THE INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE REPORT FINDING THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP COMPROMISED NATIONAL SECURITY TO ADVANCE HIS PERSONAL POLITICAL INTERESTS?

>> I DID.

>> WILL YOU EXPLAIN IN YOUR VIEW HOW THAT HAPPENED?

>> THE PRESIDENT SOUGHT PERSONAL GAIN AND ADVANTAGE BY SOLICITING THE ANNOUNCEMENT OF INVESTIGATIONS AND PRESUMABLY INVESTIGATIONS FROM UKRAINE AND TO DO SO HE WITHHELD CRITICAL ASSISTANCE THAT THE GOVERNMENT OF UKRAINE NEEDED AND BY DOING SO, HE UNDERMINES THE NATIONAL SECURITY INTERESTS OF THE UNITED STATES IN HELPING UKRAINE, OUR ALLY, IN A WAR THAT IT IS FIGHTING AGAINST RUSSIA.

SO IN THE SIMPLEST POSSIBLE TERMS, THE PRESIDENT PUT HIS PERSONAL GAIN AHEAD OF THE NATIONAL SECURITY INTERESTS AS EXPRESSED ACCORDING TO THE EVIDENCE BEFORE YOU BY THE ENTIRETY OF THE A UNANIMOUS NATIONAL SECURITY COMMUNITY.

>> SIR, IS IT YOUR VIEW THAT THE FRAMERS WOULD CONCLUDE THAT THERE WAS A BETRAYAL OF THE NATIONAL INTERESTS OR NATIONAL SECURITY BY PRESIDENT TRUMP ON THESE FACTS?

>> IN MY VIEW, IF THE FRAMERS WERE AWARE THAT A PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES HAD PUT HIS PERSONAL GAIN AND INTERESTS AHEAD OF THE NATIONAL SECURITY OF THE UNITED STATES BY CONDITIONING AID TO A CRUCIAL ALLY THAT IS IN THE MIDST OF A WAR ON INVESTIGATIONS AIMED AT HIS OWN PERSONAL GAIN, THEY WOULD CONCLUDE THAT IS AN ABUSE OF THE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENCY AND CONCLUDE THAT CONDUCT WAS IMPEACHABLE.

>> PROFESSOR GERHARDT, WHAT ARE YOUR THOUGHTS ON THE ABUSE OF POWER AND THE CORRUPTION OF ELECTIONS, SIR?

>> I HAVE A LOT OF THOUGHTS.

ONE OF THEM IS THAT WHAT WE HAVEN'T MENTIONED YET, BROUGHT INTO THIS CONVERSATION IS THE FACT THAT THE IMPEACHMENT POWER REQUIRES THIS COMMITTEE, THIS HOUSE TO INVESTIGATE PRESIDENTIAL CONDUCT.

IF THE PRESIDENT CAN BLOCK AN INVESTIGATION, UNDERMINE IT, THE IMPEACHMENT POWER AS A CHECK AGAINST MISCONDUCT IS UNDERMINED COMPLETELY.

>> PROFESSOR KARLAN, CAN YOU HAVE AN IMPEACHABLE OFFENSE OF ABUSE OF POWER THAT IS SUPPORTED BY CONSIDERATIONS OF A PRESIDENT'S BETRAYAL, OF THE NATIONAL INTERESTS OR NATIONAL SECURITY AND BY CORRUPTION OF ELECTIONS?

>> YES, YOU CAN.

>> DO WE HAVE THAT HERE, MA'AM?

>> BASED ON THE EVIDENCE THAT I'VE SEEN, WHICH IS REVIEWING THE TRANSCRIPTS OF THE 12 WITNESSES THAT TESTIFIED, LOOKING AT THE CALL READ-OUT, LOOKING AT SOME OF THE PRESIDENT'S OTHER STATEMENTS, LOOKING AT THE STATEMENT BY MR. MULVANEY AND THE LIKE, YES, WE DO.

>> AND PROFESSOR FELDMAN, DO YOU AGREE?

>> YES.

>> PROFESSOR GERHARDT?

>> YES, I DO.

>> PROFESSOR KARLAN, WE'VE BEEN TALKING ABOUT THE CATEGORY OF OTHER HIGH CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS LIKE ABUSE OF POWER.

BUT THERE ARE SOME ADDITIONAL HIGH CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS THAT ARE SPECIFICALLY IDENTIFIED IN THE TEXT OF THE CONTUSION.

CORRECT?

>> YES, THAT'S TRUE.

>> WHAT ARE THEY?

>> TREASON AND BRIBERY.

>> DO PRESIDENT TRUMP'S DEMANDS ON UKRAINE ALSO ESTABLISH THE HIGH CRIME OF BRIBERY?

>> YES, THEY DO.

>> CAN YOU EXPLAIN WHY, PLEASE?

>> SURE.

SO THE HIGH CRIME OR MISDEMEANOR BRIBERY, IT'S IMPORTANT TO DISTINGUISH THAT FROM WHATEVER THE U.S. CODE CALLS BRIBERY TODAY.

THE REASON FOR THIS IN PART IS BECAUSE IN 1789 WHEN THE FRAMERS WERE WRITING THE CONSTITUTION, THERE WAS NO FEDERAL CRIMINAL CODE.

THE FIRST BRIBERY STATUTES THAT THE UNITED STATES CONGRESS WOULD HAVE PASSED WOULDN'T HAVE REACHED A PRESIDENT AT ALL.

THE FIRST WAS ABOUT CUSTOMS OFFICIALS.

THE SECOND WAS ABOUT JUDGES.

SO 60 YEARS OR SO AFTER THE CONSTITUTION WAS RATIFIED THAT WE HAD ANY FEDERAL CRIME OF BRIBERY AT ALL.

SO WHEN THEY SAY EXPLICITLY IN THE CONSTITUTION THAT THIS PRESIDENT CAN BE IMPEACH AND REMOVED FROM OFFICE FOR BRIBERY, THEY WEREN'T REFERRING TO A STATUTE.

I WILL SAY, I'M NOT AN EXPERT ON FEDERAL SUBSTANTIVE CRIMINAL LAW.

ALL I WILL SAY HERE, THE BRIBERY STATUTE IS A COMPLICATED STATUE.

SO WHAT THEY WERE THINKING ABOUT IS BRIBERY AS IT WAS UNDERSTOOD IN THE 18th CENTURY BASED ON THE COMMON LAW UP UNTIL THAT POINT.

AND THAT UNDERSTANDING WAS AN UNDERSTANDING THAT SOMEONE AND GENERALLY EVEN THEN IT WAS MOSTLY TALKING ABOUT A JUDGE, NOT TALKING ABOUT A PRESIDENT BECAUSE THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE BEFORE THAT.

IT WASN'T TALKING ABOUT THE KING BECAUSE THE KING COULD DO NO WRONG.

WHAT THEY WERE UNDERSTANDING THEN, THE IDEA THAT WHEN YOU TOOK PRIVATE BENEFITS OR ASKED FOR PRIVATE BENEFITS, IN TURN FOR AN OFFICIAL ACT OR SOMEBODY GAVE THEM TO YOU TO INFLUENCE AN OFFICIAL ACT, THAT WAS BRIBERY.

>> SO WE HAVE CONSTITUTIONAL BRIBERY HERE.

THE HIGH CRIME AND MISDEMEANOR OF CONSTITUTIONAL BRIBERY AGAINST PRESIDENT TRUMP.

>> IF YOU CONCLUDE THAT HE ASKED FOR THE INVESTIGATION OF VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN AND HIS SON FOR POLITICAL REASONS, THAT IS TO AID HIS RE-ELECTION, THEN YES, YOU HAVE BRIBERY HERE.

>> IN FORMING THAT OPINION, DID YOU REVIEW THE MEN RANDOM OF THE PRESIDENT'S TELEPHONE CALL WITH THE UKRAINIAN PRESIDENT, THE ONE WHERE PRESIDENT TRUMP ASKED I WOULD LIKE YOU TO DO US A FAVOR AND LOOKING INTO HIS POLITICAL OPPONENT?

>> YES.

>> DID YOU CONSIDER IF FOLLOWING TESTIMONY FROM OUR AMBASSADOR TO THE EUROPEAN UNION, AMBASSADOR SONDLAND?

WAS THERE A QUID PRO QUO?

AS I TESTIFIED WITH REGARDS TO THE REQUESTED WHITE HOUSE MEETING, THE ANSWER IS YES.

EVERYONE WAS IN THE LOOP.

>> DID YOU CONSIDER THAT, PROFESSOR?

>> I DID CONSIDER THAT, YES.

>> DID YOU ALSO CONSIDER THE FINDINGS OF FACT THAT THE INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE MADE INCLUDING THAT AND I QUOTE FROM FINDING OF FACT NUMBER 5, THE PRESIDENT WITHHELD OFFICIAL ACTS OF VALUE TO UKRAINE AND CONDITIONED THEIR FULFILLMENT ON ACTIONS BY UKRAINE THAT WOULD BENEFIT HIS PERSONAL POLITICAL INTERESTS?

>> I DID RELY ON THAT.

IN ADDITION BECAUSE AS I HAVE TESTIFIED, I READ THE WITNESSES -- THE TRANSCRIPTS OF ALL OF THE WITNESSES.

I RELIED ON TESTIMONY FROM AMBASSADOR SONDLAND, MR. MORRISON, LIEUTENANT COLONEL VINDMAN, FROM AMBASSADOR TAYLOR.

I RELIED ON -- I THINK AMBASSADOR TAYLOR SENT THE CABLE THAT SAID IT'S CRAZY TO HOLD THIS UP BASED ON DOMESTIC POLITICAL CONCERN.

NOBODY SAID THAT'S NOT WHY WE'RE DOING IT.

RELIED ON WHAT MR. MULVANEY SAID IN HIS PRESS CONFERENCE.

SO THERE WAS -- THERE'S A LOT TO SUGGEST HERE THAT THIS IS ABOUT POLITICAL BENEFIT.

I DON'T KNOW IF I CAN TALK ABOUT ANOTHER PIECE OF AMBASSADOR SONDLAND'S TESTIMONY NOW OR I SHOULD WAIT.

TELL ME.

>> PLEASE TALK ABOUT IT.

>> SO I WANT TO JUST POINT TO WHAT I CONSIDER TO BE THE MOST STRIKING EXAMPLE OF THIS.

THE MOST -- I SPENT ALL OF THANKSGIVING VACATION SITTING THERE READING THESE TRANSCRIPTS.

YOU KNOW, I AID LIKE A TURKEY THAT CAME TO US IN THE MAIL THAT WAS ALREADY COOKED BECAUSE I WAS SPENDING MY TIME DOING THIS.

THE MOST CHILLING LINE FOR ME OF THE ENTIRE PROCESS IS THE FOLLOWING.

AMBASSADOR SONDLAND HAD TO ANNOUNCE THE INVESTIGATIONS.

HE DIDN'T HAVE TO DO THEM AS I UNDERSTOOD IT.

HE SAID I NEVER HEARD MR. GOLDMAN SAY THAT THE INVESTIGATIONS HAD TO START OR BE COMPLETED.

THE ONLY THING I HEARD FROM MANY GULIANI OR OTHERWISE IS THAT THEY HAD TO BE ANNOUNCED IN SOME FORM.

WHAT I TOOK THAT TO MEAN, THIS IS NOT ABOUT WHETHER VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN COMMITTED C CORRUPTION OR NOT.

THIS IS ABOUT IB JURYING SOMEBODY THATTED THE PRESIDENT THINKS IS A PARTICULARLY HARD OPPONENT.

THAT'S FROM HIS PRIVATE BELIEFS.

IF I CAN SAY ONE LAST THING ABOUT THE INTERESTS OF THE UNITED STATES.

THE CONTUSION OF THE UNITED STATES DOES NOT CARE WHETHER THE NEXT PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES THE DONALD TRUMP OR ANY ONE OF THE DEMOCRATS OR ANYBODY RUNNING ON A THIRD PARTY.

THE CONSTITUTION IS INDIFFERENT TO THAT.

WHAT THE CONSTITUTION CARES ABOUT IS THAT WE HAVE FREE ELECTIONS.

SO IT'S ONLY IN THE PRESIDENT'S INTEREST, NOT THE NATIONAL INTERESTS THAT A PARTICULAR PRESIDENT BE ELECTED OR BE DEFEATED AT THE NEXT ELECTION.

THE CONSTITUTION IS INDIFFERENT TO THAT.

>> PROFESSOR FELDMAN, ANY THOUGHTS ON THE SUBJECT OF THE HIGH CRIME AND MISDEMEANOR OF BRIBERY AND THE EVIDENCE THAT PROFESSOR KARLAN LAID OUT.

>> THE CLEAR SENSE OF BRIBERY AT THE TIME WHEN THE FRAMERS ADOPTED THIS LANGUAGE IN THE CONSTITUTION WAS THAT BRIBERY EXISTED UNDER THE CONSTITUTION WHEN THE PRESIDENT CORRUPTLY ASKED FOR OR RECEIVED SOMETHING OF VALUE TO HIM FROM SOMEONE WHO COULD BE AFFECTED BY HIS OFFICIAL OFFICE.

SO IF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES AND THE MEMBERS OF THIS COMMITTEE WERE TO DETERMINE THAT GETTING THE INVESTIGATIONS EITHER ANNOUNCED OR UNDERTAKEN WAS A THING OF VALUE TO PRESIDENT TRUMP AND THAT'S WHAT HE SOUGHT, THEN THIS COMMITTEE AND THIS HOUSE COULD SAFETY CONCLUDE THAT THE PRESIDENT HAD COMMITTED BRIBERY UNDER THE CONSTITUTION.

>> PROFESSOR GERHARDT, WHAT IS YOUR VIEW?

>> I OF COURSE AGREE WITH PROFESSOR KARLAN AND PROFESSOR FELDMAN.

AND I JUST WANT TO STRESS THAT IF THIS -- IF WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT IS NOT IMPEACHABLE, THEN NOTHING IS IMPEACHABLE.

THIS IS PRECISELY THE MISCONDUCT THAT THE FRAMES CREATED A CONSTITUTION TO PROTECT AGAINST.

IF THERE'S NO ACTION, IF CONGRESS CONCLUDES THEY'RE GOING TO GIVE A PASS TO THE PRESIDENT HERE, AS PROFESSOR KARLAN SUGGESTED, EVERY OTHER PRESIDENT WILL SAY, OKAY, THEN I CAN DO THE SAME THING AND THE BOUNDARIES WILL JUST EVAPORATE.

THOSE BOUNDARIES ARE SET UP BY THE CONSTITUTION AND WE MAY BE WITNESSING UNFORTUNATELY THEIR EROSION.

THAT IS A DANGER TO ALL OF US.

>> AND WHAT CAN THIS COMMITTEE AND THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES DO, SIR, TO DEFEND THOSE BOUNDARIES AND TO PROTECT AGAINST THAT EROSION?

>> PRECISELY WHAT YOU'RE DOING.

>> DOES IT MATTER -- I'LL ASK ALL THE PANELISTS.

DOES IT MATTER TO IMPEACHMENT THAT THE $391 MILLION U.S.

TAXPAYER DOLLARS IN MILITARY ASSISTANCE THAT THE PRESIDENT WITHHELD WAS ULTIMATELY DELIVERED?

PROFESSOR FELDMAN, DOES THAT MATTER?

>> NO, IT DOES NOT.

IF THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES ATTEMPTS TO ABUSE HIS OFFICE, THAT IS A COMPLETE IMPEACHABLE OFFENSE.

THE POSSIBILITY THAT THE PRESIDENT MIGHT GET CAUGHT IN THE PROCESS OF ATTEMPTING TO ABUSE HIS OFFICE AND THEN NOT BEING ABLE TO PULL IT OFF DOES NOT UNDERCUT IN ANY WAY THE IMPEACHABILITY OF THE ACT.

IF YOU'LL PARDON A COMPARISON, PRESIDENT NIXON WAS SUBJECT TO ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT PREFERRED BY IN COMMITTEE FOR ATTEMPTING TO COVER UP THE WATERGATE BREAK-IN.

THE FACT THAT PRESIDENT NIXON WAS NOT SUCCESSFUL IN COVERING UP THE BREAK IN WAS NOT GROUND FOR NOT IMPEACHING HIM.

THE ATTEMPT ITSELF IS THE IMPEACHABLE ACT.

>> PROFESSOR KARLAN, DOES IT MATTER TO IMPEACHMENT THAT THE UNFOUNDED INVESTIGATIONS THE PRESIDENT SOUGHT WERE ULTIMATELY NEVER ANNOUNCED?

>> NO, IT DOESN'T.

IF I CAN GIVE AN EXAMPLE THAT SHOWS WHY SOLICITING IS NOT -- IMAGINE THAT YOU WERE PULLED OVER FOR SPEEDING BY A POLICE OFFICER.

THE OFFICER SAYS YOU WERE SPEEDING.

IF YOU GIVE ME $20, I'LL DROP THE TICKET.

YOU LOOK IN YOUR WALLET AND SAY, I DON'T HAVE THE $20.

THE OFFICER SAYS OKAY.

JUST GO AHEAD.

HAVE A NICE DAY.

THE OFFICER WOULD STILL BE GUILTY OF SOLICIT AGO BRIBE THERE EVEN THOUGH HE LET YOU OFF WITHOUT YOUR PAYING.

SOLICITING ITSELF IS THE IMPEACHABLE OFFENSE REGARDLESS WHETHER THE OTHER PERSON COMES UP WITH IT.

IMAGINE THE PRESIDENT HAD SAID WILL YOU DO US A FAVOR, INVESTIGATE JOE BIDEN.

THE PRESIDENT OF UKRAINE SAID, YOU KNOW WHAT?

NO, I WON'T BECAUSE WE'VE ALREADY LOOKED INTO THIS AND IT'S TOTALLY BASELESS.

THE PRESIDENT WOULD STILL HAVE COMMITTED AN IMPEACHABLE ACT.

EVEN IF HE HAD BEEN REFUSED RIGHT THERE ON THE PHONE.

SO I DON'T SEE WHY THE ULTIMATE DECISION HAS ANYTHING TO DO WITH THE PRESIDENT'S IMPEACHABLE CONDUCT.

>> WHAT IS THE DANGER IF CONGRESS DOES NOT RESPOND TO THAT ATTEMPT?

>> WE'VE ALREADY SEEN A LITTLE BIT OF IT IS HE GETS OUT ON THE WHITE HOUSE LAWN AND SAYS CHINA, YOU SHOULD INVESTIGATE JOE BIDEN.

>> PROFESSOR GERHARDT, YOUR VIEW?

>> I CERTAINLY WOULD AGREE WITH WHAT HAS BEEN SIDE.

ONE OF THE THINGS TO UNDERSTAND FROM THE HISTORY OF IMPEACHMENT, EVERYBODY THAT IS IMPEACHED HAS FAILED.

THEY FAIL TO GET WHAT THEY WANTED.

WHAT THEY WANTED WAS NOT JUST TO DO WHAT THEY DID BUT TO GET AWAY WITH IT.

THE POINT OF IMPEACHMENT IS AND ITS MADE POSSIBLE THROUGH INVESTIGATION IS TO NOT -- IS TO CATCH THAT PERSON, CHARGE THAT PERSON AND ULTIMATELY REMOVE THEM FROM OFFICE.

IMPEACHMENTS ARE ALWAYS FOCUSING ON SOMEBODY THAT DIDN'T QUITE GET AS FAR AS THEY WANTED TO.

IT'S AS IF -- NOBODY IS BETTER THAN PROFESSOR KARLAN AT HYPOTHETICALS BUT I'LL RAISE ANOTHER ONE.

IMAGINE A BANK ROBBERY.

THE POLICE COME.

THE PERSON IS IN THE MIDDLE OF THE ROBBERY AND THE PERSON DROPS THE MONEY AND SAYS, I'M GOING TO LEAF WITHOUT THE MONEY.

EVERYBODY UNDERSTANDS THAT'S BURGLARY.

THEY'RE RIGHT.

IN THIS SITUATION WE'VE GOT SOMEBODY REALLY CAUGHT IN THE MIDDLE OF IT AND THAT DOESN'T EXCUSE THE PERSON THE CONSEQUENCE.

>> PROFESSORS, WE'VE TALKED ABOUT ABUSE OF POWER AND BRAIBRY.

WHEN WE STARTED WE SAID WE WOULD ALSO DISCUSS OBSTRUCTION OF CONGRESS.

SO I'D 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 THERE'S MORE THAN ENOUGH.

AS I MENTIONED IN MY STATEMENT, I JUST REALLY UNDERSCORE THIS -- THE THIRD ARTICLE OF IMPEACHMENT APPROVED BY THE HOUSE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE AGAINST PRESIDENT NIXON CHARGED HIM WITH MISCONDUCT BECAUSE HE FAILED TO COMPLY WITH FOUR LEGISLATIVE SUBPOENAS.

THIS IS FAR MORE THAN FOUR THE PRESIDENT HAS FAILED TO COMPLY WITH, AND HE ORDERED THE EXECUTEDIVE BRANCH AS WELL, NOT TO COOPERATE WITH CONGRESS.

THOSE TOGETHER WITH A LOT OF OTHER EVIDENCE SUGGEST OBSTRUCTION OF CONGRESS.

>> PROFESSOR KARLAN, DO YOU AGREE?

>> I'M A SCHOLAR OF THE LAW OF DEMOCRACY.

SO AS A CITIZEN, I AGREE WITH WHAT PROFESSOR GERHARDT SAID.

AS AN EXPERT, MY LIMITATION IS THAT I'M A SCHOLAR OF THE LAW OF DEMOCRACY, I'M NOT A SCHOLAR OF OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE OR 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 YOU'RE 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 BRANCH OF GOVERNMENT, IF YOU ROB THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES OF ITS CONSTITUTIONAL IMPEACHMENT.

WHEN YOU ADD TO 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 WITH AN IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY.

IT'S NOT POSSIBLE TO EMPHASIZE THIS STRONG ENOUGH.

A PRESIDENT WHO WILL NOT COOPERATE WITH IMPEACHMENT INQUIRIES IS PUTTING HIMSELF ABOVE THE LAW.

PUTTING YOURSELF ABOVE THE LAW AS PRESIDENT IS THE CORE OF IMPEACHABLE OFFENSE BECAUSE IF HE CAN'T BE IMPEACHED FOR THAT, HE WOULD NOT BE RESPONSIBLE TO ANYBODY.

>> AND SIR, IN FOIN FORMING YOU OPINION, DID YOU REVIEW THESE STATEMENTS FROM THE PRESIDENT.

>> WE'RE FIGHTING ALL OF THEM.

ARTICLE TWO, I HAVE THE RIGHT TO DO WHATEVER I WANT TO DO.

>> AND THEN AS SOMEONE WHO CARES ABOUT THE CONSTITUTION, THE SECOND OF THOSE IN PARTICULAR, STRUCK A KIND OF HORROR IN ME.

PROFESSOR GERHARDT, IN FOERNLING YOUR OPINION THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP COMMITTED IMPEACHABLE OFFENSE OF OBSTRUCTING CONGRESS, DID YOU CONSIDER THE INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE REPORT AND ITS FINDING INCLUDING FINDING THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP ORDERED AND IMPLEMENTED A CAMPAIGN TO CONCEAL HIS CONDUCT FROM THE PUBLIC AND TO FRUSTRATE AND OBSTRUCT THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY.

>> I READ THAT REPORT LAST NIGHT.

I WATCHED AND READ ALL THE TRANSCRIPTS THAT WERE AVAILABLE.

THE REPORT THAT WAS ISSUED REINFORCES EVERYTHING ELSE.

>> WE TALKED ABOUT, A BUSE OF POWER AND BRIBERY, AND THEN ABOUT OBSTRUCTION OF CONGRESS.

PROFESSOR GERHARDT, I'D LIKE TO ASK YOU QUESTIONS ABOUT A THIRD IMPEACHABLE OFFENSE, AND THAT IS OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE.

HAVE YOU FORMED AN OPINION WHETHER PRESIDENT TRUMP COMMITTED OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE?

>> YES, I V. >> AND WHAT IS YOUR OPINION, SIR?

>> BASED -- I'VE COME HERE LIKE EVERY WITNESS.

ASSUMING THE FACTS PUT TOGETHER, THE MU MUELLER REPORT STATES FACTS THAT THE PRESIDENT COMMITTED OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE AND THAT'S AN IMPEACHABLE OFFENSE.

>> AND IN YOUR TESTIMONY, YOU POINTED OUT THAT THE Mxá*UL ERR REPORT FOUND FIVE INSTANCES OF THE PRESIDENT'S OBSTRUCTION OF THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT'S CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION INTO RUSSIAN INTERFERENCE INTO THE 2016 ELECTION, CORRECT?

>> YES, SIR.

>> AND THE FIRST OF THOSE INSTANCES WAS THE PRESIDENT ORDERING WHITE HOUSE COUNSEL, DON MAGAN TO FIRE THE SPECIAL COUNSEL, RATHER TO HAVE THE SPECIAL COUNSEL FIRED IN ORDER TO THWART THE INVESTIGATION OF THE PRESIDENT, CORRECT?

>> THAT IS CORRECT.

>> AND THE SECOND THE PRESIDENT ORDERED MR. MAGAN TO CREATE A FALSE WRITTEN RECORD DENYING THAT THE PRESIDENT ORDERED HIM TO HAVE MR. MUELLER REMOVED?

>> THAT'S CORRECT.

>> AND YOU ALSO POINT TO THE MEETING OF THE PRESIDENT WITH HIS FORMER CAMPAIGN MANAGER, CORY LIEUEENDOWSE KEY.

>> YES, SIR.

>> AND WITNESS TAMPERING AS FAR AS MICHAEL COHEN AND FORMER PERSONAL LAWYER TO THE PRESIDENT?

>> INDIVIDUALLY AND COLLECTIVELY THESE ARE EVIDENCE OF OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE.

>> HOW SERIOUS IS THAT OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE?

>> IT'S QUITE SERIOUS.

AND THAT'S NOT ALL OF IT, OF COURSE, AND WE KNOW AS YOU'VE MENTIONED BEFORE, OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE IS RECOGNIZED AS AN IMPEACHABLE OFFENSE AGAINST PRESIDENT CLINTON AND PRESIDENT NIXON.

THIS EVIDENCE PUT FORWARD BY MR.búM MUELLER IS IN THE PUBLIC RECORD, AND IS VERY STRONG EVIDENCE OF OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE.

>> PROFESSOR KARLAN, WHEN YOU LOOK AT THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE RUSSIA INVESTIGATION, AND HOW THE PRESIDENT RESPONDED TO THAT, AND WHEN YOU LOOK AT CONGRESS UKRAINE INVESTIGATION, 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 THE ELECTION PROCESS ARE THE ANTITHESIS OF THE FRAMERS.

WE AS AMERICANS DECIDE OUR ELECTIONS.

WE DON'T WANT FOREIGN INTERFERENCE IN THOSE ELECTIONS.

THE REASON WE DON'T WANT FOREIGN INTERFERENCE IN THE ELECTIONS IS BECAUSE WE ARE SELF-DETERMINING DEMOCRACY, AND IF I COULD JUST READ ONE QUOTATION TO YOU WHICH I THINK IS HELPFUL IN UNDERSTANDING THIS, SOMEBODY WHO IS POINTING TO WHAT HE CALLS A STRAIGHT FORWARD PRINCIPLE.

IT'S FUNDAMENTAL TO THE COMMUNITY THAT FOREIGN CITIZENS DO NOT HAVE A CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO PARTICIPATE IN AND THUS EXCLUDED FROM ACTIVITIES OF DEMOCRATIC SELF-GOVERNMENT.

AND THE PERSON WHO WROTE THOSE WORD SIZE NOW JUSTICE BRET CAVENAUGH IN UPHOLDING THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF A STATUTE WHICH DENIES FOREIGN CITIZENS THE RIGHT TO PARTICIPATE IN ELECTIONS BY SPENDING MONEY ON ELECTIONEERING OR GIVING MONEY TO PACS.

THEY'RE FORBIDDEN TO GIVE MONEY TO CANDIDATES BECAUSE THEY DENIES US THE RIGHT TO SELF-GOVERNMENT, AND JFTD CAVE JUSTICE CAVENAUGH WAS CORRECT IN SAYING THIS.

TALKING ABOUT THE FIRST AMENDMENT.

SUMMARILY AFFIRMED.

THEY DBT NEED TO HEAR ARGUMENT TO KNOW IT'S NOT CONSTITUTIONAL TO KEEP FOREIGNERS OUT OF THE ELECTION PROCESS.

>> PROFESSOR FELDMAN YOU WERE AN IMPEACHMENT SKEPTIC AT THE TIME OF THE RELEASE OF THE MUELLER REPORT, WERE YOU NOT?

>> I WAS.

>> WHAT'S CHANGED FOR YOU, SIR?

>> WHAT CHANGED WAS THE REVELATION OF THE JULY 25th CALL, AND THEN THE EVIDENCE THAT EMERGED OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES IN A FORMAT WHERE HE WAS HURT BY OTHERS AND NOW KNOWING TO THE PUBLIC, OPENLY ABUSED HIS OFFICE BY SEEKING A PERSONAL ADVANTAGE IN ORDER TO GET HIMSELF RE-ELECTED AN ACT AGAINST THE SECURITY OF THE UNITED STATES.

THAT IS PRECISELY THE SITUATION THAT THE FRAMERS ANTICIPATED.

WHEN THEY DO COME TO THAT, WE HAVE TO ASK OURSELVES, SOME DAY WE WILL NO LONGER BE ALIVE AND 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?

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.

>> MY TIME HAS EXPIRED.

I YIELD BACK.

BEFORE I RECOGNIZE THE RANKING MEMBERS, THE FIRST ROUND OF QUESTIONS, THE COMMITTEE WILL STAND IN A 10 MINUTE HUMANITARIAN RECESS.

I ASK EVERYONE 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.

>> AND CHAIRMAN JERRY NADLER CALLED A RECESS.

THE LIVE IMPEACHMENT HEARING TAKING PLACE TODAY IN WASHINGTON.

FOUR WITNESSES, ALL FOUR CONSTITUTIONAL LAW COLORS.

LAW PROFESSORS.

THREE OF THEM CHOSEN BY THE DEMOCRATS, ONE BY THE REPUBLICANS.

I'M JUDY WOODRUFF AT PBS STUDIOS IN WASHINGTON JOINED BY OUR CORRESPONDENTS, WHO ARE WITH US ON THE HILL.

ALCINDOR.

SOL WEISENBERG WITH ME HERE AT THE TABLE.

FRANK BOWMAN, BOTH OF YOU ATTORNEYS.

BOTH OF YOU HAVE LOOKED AT THE ISSUE OF IMPEACHMENT.

FRANK BOWMAN, WE'VE BEEN LISTENING TO A SERIES OF QUESTIONS POSED BY NORM WISEMAN, ASKING THEM TO GO BACK AND EXPLAIN WHY THEY BELIEVE THREE OF THE FOUR BELIEVE THE PRESIDENT HAS DEFINITELY COMMITTED IMPEACHABLE OFFENSES WHAT HAVE WE HEARD THAT BOLSTERS THE CASE OF THE DEMOCRATS THIS HAPPENED?

>> I THINK WHAT WE'VE HEARD IS A COGENT EXPLANATION OF WHAT THE CONSTITUTION SAYS ABOUT IMPEACHMENT.

A COGENT EXPLANATION OF WHAT HIGH CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS, AND INDEED THE ENTIRE PHRASE, TREASON, BRIBERY OR HIGH CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS MAEBT TO THE FRAMERS.

WHERE THE PHRASE CAME FROM, AND PARTICULARLY, I THINK ALL THREE OF THEM CRITICAL TO THE WHOLE NOTION OF THE CONSTITUTION IS THE IDEA THAT ABUSE OF POWER IS ONE OF THE CORE IMPEACHABLE OFFENSES.

THAT IS CERTAINLY TRUE.

THAT'S AN IDEA THAT PRE-DATES OUR CONSTITUTION.

IT GOES ALL THE WAY BACK INTO BRITISH HISTORY AS SOME OF THE WITNESSES HAVE EMPHASIZED.

I THINK PERSONALLY THAT IT IS WISE OF THE COMMITTEE AND ALSO NOT SURPRISING, BUT ALSO WISE THAT THE WITNESSES FOCUS VERY MUCH ON THE ABUSE OF POWER AS OPPOSED TO PERHAPS GETTING INTO THE PARTICULARS OF BRIBERY.

>> WELL, THEY HAVE BEEN.

SOL WEISENBERG, BRIBERY HAS COME UP, AND WE HEAR OBSTRUCTION OF CONGRESS, OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE.

WHAT IS IT ABOUT ABUSE OF POWER, ABUSE OF THE OFFICE THAT MAY BE CENTRAL TO THIS.

HOW DUE SEE THAT?

>> IF YOU GET TOO MUCH INTO BRIBERY, FOR EXAMPLE, THEN YOU GET INTO VERY PARTICULAR QUESTIONS LIKE ONE OF THE PROFESSORS GOT INTO.

IS THIS THE CRIME OF BRIBERY.

DO WE LOOK AT THE CODE NOW, AND LOOK AT THE TIME OF THE FOUNDING?

IF YOU CAN GROUP IS UNDER ABUSE OF POWER, WHICH CLEARLY THE FRAMERS WERE CONCERNED ABOUT, IT MAKES IT A LOT CLEANER, AND YOU -- YOU GET TO IGNORE, FOR EXAMPLE, THAT IN THE THREE CASES THAT WE HAVE HISTORICALLY OF PRESIDENTS BEING IMPEACHED OR ABOUT TO BE IMPEACHED, JOHNSON, NIXON, AND CLINTON, EVEN THOUGH THEY WEREN'T NECESSARILY-AUTO ALLEGATIONS WEREN'T NECESSARILY FRAMED AS CRIMES, CONDUCT WAS ALLEGED AGAINST EACH ONE OF THEM WHICH WAS CLEARLY WITHOUT QUESTION CRIMINAL.

YOU DON'T NECESSARILY HAVE THAT HERE.

>> WHAT DO YOU MEAN YOU DON'T HAVE THAT HERE?

>> I DON'T THINK IT'S CLEAR THAT THERE WAS A CRIME COMMITTED ON THE RECORD THAT WE HAVE.

AND ONE OF THE THINGS THAT WAS NOT DEALT WITH, AND PARTLY BECAUSE THEY INTENTIONALLY DIDN'T WANT JONATHAN TURLEY TO TALK NOW -- >> THE LAW PROFESSOR INVITED BY THE REPUBLICANS?

>> I THOUGHT IT WAS SILLY NOT TO INCLUDE HIM IN A FEW QUESTIONS.

THREE WERE CHOSEN BY THE DEMOCRATS AND ONE BY THE REPUBLICANS.

I DIDN'T THINK NORMAN'S QUESTIONS WERE PRESENTED FAIRLY.

HERE'S THE QUESTION.

NOT WHETHER WHAT THE PRESIDENT DID IS IN THE CATEGORY OF THE KIND OF THINGS THE FRAMERS THOUGHT COULD BE IMPEACHABLE, BUT WHETHER ON THIS RECORD, WHAT THE PRESIDENT DID IN THIS ONE INSTANCE, EVEN IF YOU ASSUME THE RECORD IS CLEAR ON THIS IS THIS ALONE ENOUGH TO IMPEACH AND REMOVE HIM?

THAT'S WHAT I'D LIKE TO HEAR ABOUT.

>> AND BACK TO YOU, FRANK BOWMAN, QUICKLY, THE OTHER THREE LAW PROFESSORS WERE EMPHATIC THAT IT IS ENOUGH TO FIND THE PRESIDENT GUILTY >> THE REASON I AGREE IS THAT THE THING THAT THEY SAID MULTIPLE TIMES, THE THING THE FRAMERS AND THE PARLIAMENT WERE CONCERNED ABOUT WHEN IT INVENTED THE IDEA OF IMPEACHMENT IN 1776 WAS THE NOTION THAT PARTICULARLY HIGH OFFICIALS, NOW THE PRESIDENT WOULD MISUSE THEIR AUTHORITY IN WAYS THAT BENEFITTED THEM PRESIDENT TRUMP EXERTED POWERS TO BENEFIT HIM, BUT TREMENDOUSLY DAMAGING TO FOREIGN POLICY INTERESTS.

AND THE FRAMERS AND THE PARLIAMENT WERE CONCERNED ABOUT THAT WHEN THEY CREATED IMPEACHMENT POWER.

THEIR CONDUCT ESSENTIALLY UNDERCUT THE CRITICAL FOREIGN POLICY INTERESTS OF THE COUNTRY WITH WHICH THEY WERE SWORN TO SERVE.

>> AND THAT QUESTION, AS YOU SUGGEST HAS COME UP TIME AND AGAIN, AND I DO WANT TO COME BACK AT THAT.

RIGHT NOW I WANT TO GO TO LISA DESIARDINS WHO HAS BEEN IN THE HEARING ROOM AT THE CAPITAL.

>> AND YAMICHE ALCINDOR.

LISA, ARE REPUBLICANS CLEARLY IN THE MINORITY HERE.

17 OF THEM, AND 24 DEMOCRATS.

THEY'RE NOT ABLE TO CONTROL THESE PROCEEDINGS, BUT THEY'VE TRIED ON SEVERAL OCCASIONS.

>> THAT'S CORRECT.

WE HAVE THREE ROLL CALL VOTES, AND THERE WILL BE MORE.

ADAM SCHIFF BE CALLED TO TESTIFY.

AND THEY ASKED FOR AN ONE WEEK DELAY IN THIS HEARING, AND THEN THEY ASKED THAT THE WHISTLEBLOWER BE SUBPOENAED TO TESTIFY.

THE COMPLAINT THAT STARTED THIS INVESTIGATION INTO UKRAINE.

THE DEMOCRATS TABLED ALL OF THOSE MOTIONS.

THIS IS NOT JUST REPUBLICANS EXPRESSING OBJECTIONS, AND ALSO WHAT THEY WANT TO SEE HAPPEN.

IT'S A TACTIC TO ADD TIME, FRANKLY, AND TO GO OFF THE WORKS OF THIS HEARING THAT THEY OBJECT TO IN GENERAL.

JUDY, I HAVE TO SAY THIS HEARING FELT DIFFERENT INSIDE THE ROOM THAN THE HOUSE INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE HEARINGS.

WHEN YOU LOOK AT THE MEMBERS, THERE'S ALMOST TWICE AS MANY MEMBERS AS WE SAW WITH HOUSE INTELLIGENCE.

THEY WERE NOT ON THE ENL OF THEIR SEATS.

THERE WAS NOTHING FOR THEM UNEXPECTED IN THE TESTIMONY.

THIS IS ALL PRE-PLANNED.

IT FELT LIKE A FAIT ACCOMPLI.

MEMBERS WERE DOING WORK, LOOKING DOWN.

PAYING ATTENTION, BUT NOT THE GRIPPING SORT OF HEARING THAT WE'VE SEEN IN THE PAST WITH HOUSE INTELLIGENCE.

>> IS IT YOUR SENSE, LISA, KNOWING WHAT THE HEARING WAS GOING TO BE, THAT WOULD BE ASKING PROFESSORS OF LAW, WHO KNOW CONSTITUTIONAL HISTORY AND LOOK AT THE ISSUE OF IMPEACHMENT, DO YOU GET THE SENSE THAT DEMOCRATS FEEL, AND I REALIZE WE'VE ONLY HEARD FROM THE CHAIRMAN, JERRY NADLER BRIEFLY, AND THE COUNSEL THEY SELECTED, NORM EISEN, DO YOU GET THE SENSE THEY'RE GETTING WHAT THEY WANT FROM THE WITNESSS?

>> ABSOLUTELY.

I THAPTED TO MAKE A FEW CLEAR POINTS AND MOST OF ALL THE WITNESSES TESTIFY THAT THESE ARE IMPEACHABLE OFFENSES.

JUDY WHAT CAUGHT MY ATTENTION WAS THE LAST LINE OF QUESTIONING ABOUT THE IMPEACHABLE OFFENSES.

OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE RELATED TO THE MUELLER REPORT.

THE FIRST TWO KIND OF IMPEACHABLE OFFENSES WE TALKED TO WITH THE EXPERTS RELATED TO UKRAINE.

THAT TELLS ME AS REPORTING, THAT DEMOCRATS ARE STILL SERIOUSLY CONSIDERING ADDING ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT RELATED TO THE MUELLER REPORT.

THIS IS THE MOST EVIDENCE WE'VE SEEN OF THAT.

THEY GOT WHAT THEY WANTED IN TERMS OF MAKING THEIR CASE.

I WONDER HOW IT'S PLAYING WITH THE PUBLIC.

IT FELT LIKE A LEGAL HEARING.

I'M NOT SURE IF THEY'RE TRYING TO CHANGE PUBLIC OPINION.

IT DIDN'T FEEL LIKE IT HAD THE GRAPVITY AS THE INTELLIGENCE HEARINGS.

WE'LL WAIT AND SEE WHAT THE PUBLIC RESPONSE IS.

YOU'RE RIGHT ABOUT EXPANDING THE FOCUS FROM UKRAINE TO RUSSIAN INTERFERENCE WITH THE 2016 ELECTION.

WE HEARD CHAIRMAN NADLER SAY AT THE OUTSET, SAY THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP INVITED THAT INTERFERENCE, AND WENT ON TO SAY THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP HAD OBSTRUCTED CONGRESS, AND OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE IN NOT COOPERATING IN THAT INVESTIGATION, CITING FROM THE MUELLER REPORT.

YAMICHE ALCINDOR FOLLOWING ALL OF THIS AT THE WHITE HOUSE, ARE YOU GETTING ANY SORT OF RESPONSE, REACTION AT THIS POINT FROM FOLKS YOU'RE TALKING TO THERE?

>> WHITE HOUSE OFFICIALS ARE ESSENTIALLY SAYING THAT THIS IS A SHAM, AND A CONTINUATION OF DEMOCRAT KS ATTACKING THE PRESIDENT.

THE PRESIDENT IS JUST LEAVING NATO WHERE HE MET WITH WORLD LEADERS AND CANCELED A PRESS CONFERENCE.

WHAT WE HEAR FROM WHITE HOUSE OFFICIALS IS ANGER AND A SENSE OF FEELING LIKE THIS IS ALL PARTISAN POLITICS.

THE OTHER THING WE'RE SEEING IS REPUBLICANS ARE CARRYING THE FLAG FOR THE WHITE HOUSE HERE AND TRYING TO INTERRUPT AT TIMES WITH POINT OF ORDERS TALKING ABOUT CHAIRMAN SCHIFF NEEDING TO TESTIFY, AND THE WHISTLEBLOWER SHOULD BE HERE, AND POINTS THE WHITE HOUSE HAS BEEN MAKING FOR WEEKS.

EVEN THOUGH THERE'S NOT A WHITE HOUSE OFFICIAL IN THE ROOM, -- ALSO A COMMENT FROM THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION AND THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN.

THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN IS SAYING THIS IS ALL A SHAM AND THEY'RE READY TO RESPOND IN REAL-TIME AS PART OF A RESPECTED RESPONSE TEAM USUALLY USED FOR DEBATES.

WE SEE THE WHITE HOUSE AND THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN WORKING REAL-TIME TO PUT THIS DOWN.

EVEN THOUGH IT'S NOT CHANGING ANYTHING, THE PRESIDENT AND THM VERY FOCUSED ON MAKING SURE THAT REPUBLICANS ARE MAKING THEIR POINTS TO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE, AND DEMOCRATS ARE ARGUING WHAT THE PRESIDENT DID IS IMPEACHABLE AND ESSENTIALLY SAYING IF THE PRESIDENT IS ALLOWED TO DO THIS IS SETS A DANGEROUS PRECEDENT FOR FUTURE PRESIDENTS, AND IF IT'S NOT IMPEACHABLE, WHAT IS IMPEACHABLE?

THAT'S A CLEAR THING THE WHITE HOUSE PUSHES BACK ON.

>> AND THE WHITE HOUSE IS TAKING THIS SERIOUSLY, THEY'RE PAYING ATTENTION?

>> THE WHITE HOUSE IS TAKING THIS VERY SERIOUSLY.

AS PRESIDENT TRUMP'S CAMPAIGN IS ALSO TAKING IN SERIOUSLY.

AND THE POLITICAL ARM, AND ALL ABOUT SOME WAYS WHETHER PRESIDENT TRUMP IS TRYING TO GET PRESIDENT TRUMP TO HELP IN THE ELECTION.

THEY'RE WORKING TO RE-ELECT PRESIDENT TRUMP, AND AND I WANT TO COME BACK TO YAMICHE, AND WE'RE IN A BREAK, FOR WHAT CHAIRMAN JERRY NADLER WOULD SAY WOULD BE 10 MINUTES.

WE'LL SEE -- AND COME >> AND THE FOUR LAW PROFESSORS.

BACK TO THE GUESTS.

SOL WEISENBERG AND FRANK BOWMAN, SOL WEISENBERG, TRUTH OF POINT, YOU WERE SAYING A MINUTE AGO, IN YOUR VIEW THE EVIDENCE IS NOT THERE TO CONSTITUTE ABUSE OF POWER TO THE PRESIDENT'S OFFICE.

TO GET TO SPECIFICS, WHEN DEMOCRATS AND THE LAW PROFESSORS SAY THE PRESIDENT IN THAT SERIES OF PHONE CONVERSATIONS WITH THE PRESIDENT OF UKRAINE SAID IF YOU DO THESE INVESTIGATIONS SUGGESTED, WE WILL THINK ABOUT GIVING YOU THE AID YOU WANT, AND I'M COMPRESSING A LOT OF INFORMATION INTO THAT SENTENCE.

WHY IS THAT NOT ABUSING THE POWER OF THE OFFICE, ATTEMPTING TO GET SOMETHING PERSONAL FOR POLITICAL GAIN IN RETURN FOR AN OFFICIAL ACT.

IT VERY WELL MAY BE ABUSE OF THE POWER.

I THINK IT IS ABUSE OF THE POWER.

THE QUESTION AGAIN IS, IS THIS ONE INCIDENT IN ITSELF ENOUGH BASED ON THE RECORD WE HAVE ALONE ENOUGH TO WARRANT IMPEACHMENT AND REMOVAL.

I MUST SAY THE REPUBLICANS HAVE A HUGE PROBLEM.

THE PRESIDENT WHO THEY WANT TO DEFEND HAS BEEN SAYING PATENTLY RIDICULOUS THINGS.

HE'S BEEN SAYING IT WAS A PERFECT CALL.

IT WAS NOT A PERFECT CALL.

IT WAS A SLEAZY CALL.

HE HAS BEEN SAYING READ THE TRANSCRIPT.

THAT'S NOT GOOD FOR HIM.

READING THE TRANSCRIPT SENT GOOD FOR HIM AT ALL.

>> DO ME A FAVOR.

>> IT'S WORSE THAN THAT, AND THEY'VE BEEN HANDICAPPED BY THAT, AND THEY'VE BEEN HANDICAPPED BY THE KIND OF OBSTRUCTIONIST DEFENSE THEY'VE BEEN PUTTING ON.

NOT SAYING THE PROCESS HAS BEEN FAIR, BUT THAT'S A PROBLEM, AND IT DOESN'T HELP TO DO THESE DLAIG TACTICS.

>> WHY NOT?

>> IT'S A DLAIG FACTOR.

I THINK THEY SHOULD HAVE BEEN FOCUSING ON WHAT KIND OF DEFENSE DO WE HAVE TO WHAT THE PRESIDENT DID, AND NOT SAYING I WANT TO CALL HUNTER BIDEN.

>> AND FRANK BOWMAN, THEY'VE DELAYED BY ASKING FOR CHAIRMAN ADAM SCHIFF, CHAIRMAN OF THE HOUSE INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE TO BE A WITNESS, THAT WAS VOTED DOWN.

AND CALLING FOR THE WHISTLEBLOWER TO BE CALLED AS A WITNESS.

THAT WAS TABLED.

AND THEN ASKED FOR THE ENTIRE PROCEEDING TO BE DELAYED.

WHAT WOULD THE REPUBLICAN DEFENSE BE?

WHAT WOULD THEIR LINE OF QUESTIONING BE IF THEY WERE GOING FORWARD WITH THE NEXT SET OF QUESTIONS FROM THEIR COUNSEL.

WHAT WOULD THEIR ARGUMENT BE.

WHAT WOULD THE LINE OF QUESTIONS BE TO UNDERMINE WHAT WE'RE HEARING FROM THE PROFESSORS, THREE OF THE FOUR?

>> THAT'S A DARN GOOD QUESTION.

I'VE TRIED TO PUT MYSELF IN THE SHOES OF SOMEONE TASKED WITH DEFENDING PRESIDENT TRUMP.

I THINK WHAT I MIGHT TRY TO SUGGEST IS THAT REGARDLESS OF HOW BAD, UNFORTUNATE WHATEVER HE DID WITH RESPECT TO UKRAINE IS, IT'S AN ISOLATED EVENT, AND WE DEPLORE WHAT HE DID, BAD JUDGMENT, BUT NOT SUFFICIENT TO IMPEACH HIM ON THAT ALONE.

THE PROBLEM, OF COURSE, IS THAT IT'S NOT -- FOR EXAMPLE, YOU TALKED ABOUT THE CALL, AND TALKED ABOUT THE CALL.

BUT OF COURSE THE CALL WAS, AS WE ARE LEARNING JUST ONE INCIDENT IN A LONG SCHEME THAT WENT FOR MONTHS WHERE IT HAS BECOME ABSOLUTELY CLEAR THAT MR. TRUMP, AND A CLOSE CIRCLE OF THOSE AROUND HIM ESSENTIALLY HIJACKED THE FOREIGN POLICY OF THE UNITED SATES IN A CRITICAL AREA OF THE WORLD IN ORDER TO OBTAIN PERSONAL POLITICAL BENEFIT.

THAT THEREFORE MAKES IT REALLY HARD TO SAY THAT EVEN THAT ONE THING IS NOT ENOUGH.

THAT'S A PROBLEM.

WHAT I DO THINK YOU'RE GOING TO HEAR FROM REPUBLICANS S LARGELY A LOT OF QUESTIONS DESIGNED TO THROW DOUBT ON WHAT -- ON FACTS THAT ESSENTIALLY THE DEMOCRATS ARE ASSUMING TO HAVE BEEN PROVEN, AND OF COURSE, WE'RE CERTAINLY GOING TO HEAR THE CLAIM THAT ALL OF THIS RESTS ON HEARSAY WHICH I CAN TELL YOU AS A TRIAL LAWYER, AND PROFESSOR OF EVIDENCE IS UTTER NONSENSE.

MOST OF THE WITNESSES ARE WHAT WE CALL PRECIPIENT WITNESSES WHO PERCEIVE THINGS.

WHAT THEY'RE REALLY GOING TO TRY AND SHOW WITH THAT IS HEARSAY LINE, IS THAT SOMEHOW OR OTHER, ALL THE TRAILS AREN'T QUITE CONNECTED ALL THE WAY BACK TO TRUMP.

THAT WE DON'T ACTUALLY HAVE A RECORDING OF DONALD TRUMP SAYING I WANT YOU TO GO COMMIT BRIBERY WITH THE PRESIDENT OF UKRAINE.

THEN, OF COURSE, IN NO CASE OR VERY FEW CASES WHETHER IT'S AN IMPEACHMENT CASE OR A CRIMINAL CASE DO WE HAVE THAT EXTRAORDINARY CLEAR ADMISSION OF GUILT.

WHAT WE HAVE HERE AS WE HAVE IN MOST OTHER CASES, CIVIL OR CRIMINAL IS A WHOLE LOT OF EVIDENCE WHICH PROVES DIRECTLY AND CIRCUMSTANTIALLY THERE WAS A SCHEME HERE, AND PRESIDENT TRUMP WAS AT THE CENTER OF IT.

AND THE REPUBLICANS ARE GOING TO THROW DUST AND SAND IN THE AIR TO OBSCURE THAT POINT.

THE FINAL RESPONSE TO THE IT'S HEARSAY IS, OF COURSE, THAT TO THE EXTENT THAT THERE IS ANY LINK MISSING BETWEEN PEOPLE LIKE SONDLAND OR AMBASSADORS AND TRUMP IS THE LINK WITH MICK MULVANEY AND THE OTHER PEOPLE ADHERING TO TRUMP'S ORDERS NOT TO SHOW.

>> NOT TO TESTIFY.

WE KEEP COMING BACK TO THERE, SOL WEISENBERG.

THE PEOPLE WHO COULD FILL IN THE BLANKS, SO TO SPEAK, WHO COULD MAKE THAT DIRECT CONNECTION TO THE EXTENT THAT'S NEEDED BETWEEN WHAT HAPPENED, AND THE PRESIDENT HIMSELF, THOSE INDIVIDUALS WON'T BE PERMITTED TO TESTIFY, AT LEAST NOT YET.

NOT UNLESS THEY GET A COURT RULING.

EVEN SOME OF THEM MIGHT WANT TO TESTIFY, YOU'RE NOW FOCUSING ON SOMETHING THAT HASN'T BEEN COMMENTED ON ENOUGH.

WE'VE BEEN GIVEN INCREDIBLE POWER TO THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH OVER THE LAST 200 YEARS AND TO THE PRESIDENT, AND THE PRESIDENT THINKING HE HAS ALL KINDS OF PRIVILEGES, AND NORMALLY, IMPLICATION OF THOSE PRIVILEGES BOTTLES THINGS UP, IT SLOWS DOWN CRIMINAL INVESTIGATIONS, IT SLOWS DOWN CONGRESSIONAL INVESTIGATIONS.

HERE THE DEMOCRATS HAVE DONE SOMETHING INTELLIGENT.

THEY JUST SAID WE'RE DOING IMPEACHMENT NOW, AND GUESS WHAT.

YOU FOLKS DO WHAT YOU WANT.

CLAIM ANY PRIVILEGE YOU WANT, IF YOU DON'T COME TESTIFY WE'RE GOING TO HOLD IT AGAINST YOU.

WE'RE MOVING FORWARD.

THAT'S ONE THING THE PRESIDENT CAN'T DO ANYTHING ABOUT.

AS THE PROFESSORS SAID THE SOLE IMPEACHMENT POWER IS IN THE HOUSE, AND THEY'RE MOVING FORWARD AND IT'S THEIR RESPONSIBILITY AND RULES.

SO IT'S AN INTERESTING EPISODE IN THE CHECKS AND BALANCES.

>> AND WHAT ABOUT -- BACK TO YOU FRANK BOWMAN -- AT THE OUTSET OF THE HEARING AFTER WE HEARD FROM JERRY NADLER, AND I'M LOOKING TO SEE IF THE COMMITTEE IS ABOUT TO RECONVENE, AND IT LOOKS LIKE IT IS.

I'LL COME BACK TO YOU LATER ON, BUT I WAS GOING TO ASK ABOUT ONE OF THE APPROACHES USED BY THE REPUBLICANS.

I BELIEVE WE'RE NOW GOING TO HEAR CHAIRMAN JERRY NADLER ABOUT TO RECONVENE THE COMMITTEE.

WE'RE HEAR TO HEAR HIM TURN THE QUESTION ORDER NOW.

>> COUNCIL HAVE 45 MINUTES TO QUESTION THE WITNESSES.

RANKING MEMBER.

>> THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN.

BEFORE I BEGIN ON THE QUESTIONING.

I WANT TO REVISIT A COMMENT MADE EARLIER BY MR. YOU MR. CHAIRMAN.

OUR DEMANLDS FOR A HEARING DAY.

AND YOU STATED YOU WOULD RULE ON IT LATER.

THE RULES DO NOT PERMIT A VOTE, AND YOU CANNOT SHUT IT DOWN, AND ACCORDING TO YOUR WORDS THE MINORITY IS ENTITLED TO HEARINGS, AND IT'S POWER TO EXCLUDE OTHER VIEWS.

IT'S NOT THE CHAIRMAN'S VIEW TO DETERMINE IF WE DESERVE A HEARING OR WHETHER PRIOR HEARINGS WERE SUFFICIENT OR WHETHER WHAT WE SAY OR THINK IS ACCEPTABLE.

IT IS CERTAINLY NOT THE CHAIRMAN'S RIGHT TO INTERFERE WITH OUR RIGHT TO CONDUCT A HEARING, AND I JUST COMMEND MR. SENSENBRENNER FOR BRINGING THAT FORWARD, AND LOOK FORWARD TO YOU GETTING THAT SCHEDULED EXPEDITIOUSLY.

MOVING ON.

NOW WE HIT PHASE TWO.

YOU'VE HAD ONE SIDE, AND I'LL HAVE TO SAY IT WAS ELOQUENTLY ARGUED BY THE COUNSEL AND BY THE WITNESSES INVOLVED, BUT THERE'S ALWAYS A PHASE TWO.

A PHASE TWO IS WHAT'S PROBLEMATIC HERE.

AS I SAID IN OPENING STATEMENT, THIS IS ONE THAT WOULD BE FOR MANY, THE MOST DISPUTED IMPEACHMENTS ON JUST THE FACTS THEMSELVES.

WHAT WAS INTERESTING IS THAT WE ACTUALLY SHOWED VIDEOS OF WITNESSES.

IN FACT ONE OF THEM WAS AN OPENING STATEMENT, I BELIEVE WHICH IS THE CLOSELY THING IS AN OPENING STATEMENT, BECAUSE IT'S UNCHALLENGED, AND IT SHOULD BE.

AND WE'VE HAD GREAT WITNESSES HERE TO TALK ABOUT THIS, BUT IT DIDN'T TELL US ABOUT KURT VOLKER WHO SAID SOMETHING ABOUT IT OR NOTHING ABOUT THE AID HELD UP, AND MORRISON CONTRADICTED THEM AND OTHER, AND THE MAJORITY IS NOT HERE TO GIVE EXCULPATORY EVIDENCE.

AND THE SCHIFF REPORT DOESN'T GIVE THE EVIDENCE, AND EVIDENCE IS HELD BY ADAM SCHIFF THAT HASN'T COME TO THE COMMITTEE, AND WE STILL HAVEN'T GOTTEN THINGS WE'RE SUPPOSEED TO GET.

ONE IS THE IMPORTANT PART OF THE IG INSPECTOR GENERAL.

HIS TESTIMONY IS WITHHELD.

AND THERE'S A SECRET ON, IT OR HOLDING IT IN CLASSIFICATION.

LAST TIME I CHECKED WE HAVE PLACES IN THE BUILDING AND OTHER BUILDINGS TO HANDLE CLASSIFIED INFORMATION.

IT'S WITHHELD FROM US.

AND I BELIEVE THERE'S A REASON IT'S WITHHELD.

WE'LL SEE IF THAT GOES FORWARD.

SO ANYBODY IN THE MEDIA OR WATCHING THE FIRST 45 MINUTES WE WENT THROUGH HAVE PAINTED A VERY INTERESTING PICTURE.

IT PAINTED AN INTERESTING PICTURE THAT GOES BACK MANY, MANY YEARS.

IT PAINTS AN INTERESTING PICTURE OF PICKING AND CHOOSING WHICH PART OF THE LAST FEW WEEKS WE WANT TO TALK ABOUT, AND THAT'S FINE BECAUSE WE'LL HAVE THE REST OF THE DAY TO GO ABOUT THIS.

PROFESSOR TURLEY, YOU'RE NOW WELL RESTED.

YOU WERE ASKED ONE QUESTION.

I WANT TO START HERE.

LET'S DO THIS.

ELABORATE, IF YOU WOULD, BECAUSE YOU TRIED TO WHEN THE QUESTION WAS ASKED, AND IF THERE'S ANYTHING ELSE YOU HEARD THIS MORNING THAT YOU WOULD DISAGREE WITH, OR ANSWER.

I WILL ALLOW YOU SOME TIME TO TALK.

JUST FOR INFORMATION MR. CHAIRMAN, THIS IS THE COLDEST HEARING ROOM IN THE WORLD.

AND FOR THOSE OF YOU WORRIED, I'M HAPPY AS A LARK, BUT THIS CHAIR IS TERRIBLE IT'S AMAZING.

MR. TURLEY, GO AHEAD.

>> IT'S A CHALLENGE TO THINK OF ANYTHING I WAS NOT ABLE TO RECOVER IN MY ROBUST EXCHANGE WITH MAJORITY COUNSEL.

I'D LIKE TO TRY.

>> GO RIGHT AHEAD.

>> THERE'S A COUPLE OF THINGS I WANTED TO HIGHLIGHT, AND I'M NOT GOING TO TAKE A GREAT DEAL OF TIME.

I RESPECT MY COLLEAGUES.

I KNOW ALL OF THEM, AND I CONSIDER THEM FRIENDS.

I CERTAINLY RESPECT WHAT THEY HAVE SAID TODAY.

WE HAVE FUNDAMENTAL DISAGREEMENTS.

I'D LIKE TO START WITH THE ISSUE OF BRIBERY.

THE STATEMENT HAS BEEN MADE, NOT JUST BY THESE WITNESSES BUT BY CHAIRMAN SCHIFF AND OTHERS THAT THIS IS A CLEAR CASE OF BRIBERY.

IT IS NOT.

AND CHAIRMAN SCHIFF SAID THAT IT MIGHT NOT FIT TODAY'S DEFINITION OF BRIBERY, BUT IT WOULD FIT THE DEFINITION BACK IN THE 18th CENTURY.

NOW PUTTING ASIDE MR. SCHIFF'S TURN TOWARDS ORIGINALISM, I THINK THAT IT MIGHT COME AS A RELIEF TO HIM AND SUPPORTERS THAT HIS CAREER WILL BE A SHORT ONE, THAT THERE'S NOT AN ORIGINALIST FUTURE IN THAT ARGUMENT.

THE BRIBERY THEORY PUT FORWARD IS A FLAWED IN THE 18th CENTURY AS IT IS IN THIS CENTURY.

THE STATEMENT MADE BY ONE OF MY ESTEEMED COLLEAGUES IS THAL IF BRIBERY WASN'T DEFINED UNTIL MUCH LATER.

THERE WAS NO BRIBERY STATUTE.

>> THE ORIGINAL STANDARD WAS TREASON AND BRIBERY.

THAT LED MASON TO OBJECT THAT IT WAS TOO NARROW.

IF BRIBERY INCLUDED ANYTHING YOU DID FOR PERSONAL INTEREST INSTEAD OF PUBLIC INTEREST, AND YOU HAD AN OVERARCHING DEFINITION.

THAT DEFINITION WOULD HAVE BEEN USELESS.

THEY DIDN'T AGREE THAT IT WAS TOO NARROW.

WHAT THEY DISAGREED WITH WAS WHAT THEY SUGGESTED THE ADMINISTRATION TO ADD TO THE STANDARD BECAUSE HE WANTED IT TO BE BROADER, AND WHAT JAMES MADISON SAID IS THAT IS TOO BROAD AND WOULD ESSENTIALLY CREATE A VOTE OF NO EVIDENCE IN ENGLAND.

IT WOULD BASICALLY ALLOW CONGRESS TO TOSS[A A PRESIDENT THEY DID NOT LIKE.

WE'RE ALL CHANNELING THE INTENT OF THE FRAMERS.

THEY DIDN'T SAY BRIBERY WAS TOO NARROW.

IT WAS NOTHING LIKE DESCRIBED.

WHEN THE OBJECTION WAS MADE BY MASON -- BY MADISON, ULTIMATELY THE FRAMERS AGREED, AND THEN MORRIS WHO WAS REFERRED TO EARLIER DID SAY WE NEED TO ADOPT THIS STANDARD.

WHAT WAS LEFT OUT WAS WHAT CAME AFTERWARDS.

WHAT MORRIS SAID IS WE NEED TO PROTECT AGAINST BRIBERY BECAUSE WE DON'T WANT ANYTHING LIKE WHAT HAPPENED WITH LOUIE THE 14th AND CHARLES THE 2nd.

THE EXAMPLE THEY GAVE OF BRIBERY WAS ACCEPTING ACTUAL MONEY AS THE HEAD OF STATE.

WHAT HAPPENED IN THAT EXAMPLE THAT MORRIS GAVE AS THE EXAMPLE OF BRIBERY WAS THAT LOUIE THE 14th WHO WAS A RECIDIVIST WHEN IT CAME TO BRIBES GAVE CHARLES THE 2nd A HUGE AMOUNT OF MONEY AS WELL AS OTHER BENEFITS, INCLUDING APPARENTLY A FRENCH MISTRESS IN EXCHANGE FOR THE SECRET TREATY OF DOVER OF 1670.

I IT WAS ALSO AN EXCHANGE TO CONVERTING TO CATHOLICISM.

BUT THAT WASN'T THE BROAD NOTION OF BRIBERY.

IT WAS ACTUALLY NARROW.

I DON'T THINK THAT DOG WILL HUNT IN THE 18th CENTURY, AND I DON'T THINK IT WILL HUNT TODAY.

IF YOU TAKE A LOOK AT THE 21st CENTURY.

BRIBERY IS WELL DEFINED.

YOU SHOULDN'T JUST TAKE OUR WORD FOR IT.

YOU SHOULD LOOK TO HOW IT'S DEFINED BY THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT.

IN THE CASE CALLED MACDONALD VERSUS THE UNITED STATES, THE SUPREME COURT LOOKED AT A PUBLIC CORRUPTIONS BRIBERY CASE.

THIS WAS A CASE WHERE GIFTS WERE ACTUALLY RECEIVED, BENEFITS WERE ACTUALLY EXTENDED.

THERE WAS COMPLETION.

THIS WAS NOT SOME HYPOTHETICAL OF A CRIME THAT WAS NOT FULFILLED OR AN ACTION THAT WAS NOT ACTUALLY TAKEN.

THE SUPREME COURT UNANIMOUSLY OVERTURNED THAT CONVICTION UNANIMOUSLY.

AND WHAT THEY SAID WAS THAT YOU CANNOT TAKE THE BRIBERY CRIME AND USE WHAT THEY CALLED A BOUNDLESS INTERPRETATION.

ALL THE JUSTICES SAID THAT IT'S A DANGEROUS THING TO TAKE A CRIME LIKE BRIBERY, AND APPLY IT WITH BOUNDLESS INTERPRETATION.

THEY REJECTED THE NOTION, FOR EXAMPLE, THAT BRIBERY COULD BE USED IN TERMS OF SETTING UP MEETINGS AND OTHER TYPES OF THINGS THAT OCCUR IN THE COURSE OF A PUBLIC SERVICE CAREER.

SO WHAT I WOULD CAUTION THE COMMITTEE IS THAT THESE CRIMES HAVE MEANING.

IT GIVES ME NO JOY TO DISAGREE WITH MY COLLEAGUES HERE.

IREALLY DON'T HAVE A DOG IN THIS FIGHT.

BUT YOU CAN'T ACCUSE A PRESIDENT OF BRIBERY, AND THEN WHEN SOME OF YOU NOTE THAT THE SUPREME COURT HAS REJECTED YOUR TYPE OF BOUNDLESS INTERPRETATION -- SAY IT'S JUST IMPEACHMENT.

WE REALLY DON'T HAVE TO PROVE THE ELEMENTS.

THAT'S A FAVORITE MANTRA.

WELL, THIS ISN'T IMPROVIZATIONAL JAZZ.

CLOSE IS GOOD ENOUGH.

IF YOU ACCUSE A PRESIDENT OF BRIBERY, YOU NEED TO MAKE IT STICK, BECAUSE YOU'RE TRYING TO REMOVE A DULY ELECTED PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES.

NOW IT'S UNFAIR TO ACCUSE SOMEONE OF A CRIME, AND WHEN OTHERS SAY THOSE INTERPRETATIONS YOU'RE USING TO DEFINE THE CRIME ARE NOT VALID, AND TO SAY THEY DON'T HAVE TO BE VALID BECAUSE THIS IS IMPEACHMENT.

THAT HAS NOT BEEN THE STANDARD HISTORICALLY.

MY TESTIMONY LAYS OUT THE CRIMINAL ALLEGATIONS OF THE PREVIOUS IMPEACHMENT.

THOSE WERE NOT JUST PROVEN CRIMES, THEY WERE ACCEPTED CRIMES.

THAT IS EVEN THE DEMOCRATS ARE ON JUDICIARY COMMITTEE AGREES THAT BILL CLINTON COMMITTED PERJURY.

THAT'S ON THE RECORD, AND THE FEDERAL JUDGE SAID IT WAS PERJURY.

IN THE CASE OF NIXON, THE CRIMES WERE ESTABLISHED.

NO ONE SERIOUSLY DISAGREED WITH THOSE CRIMES.

JOHNSON IS THE OUTLIEER BECAUSE JOHNSON WAS A TRAP DOOR.

THEY CREATED A CRIME KNOWING THAT JOHNSON WANTED TO REPLACE SECRETARY OF WAR STANTON.

AND JOHNSON DID, BECAUSE THEY HAD SERIOUS TROUBLE IN THE CABINET.

SO THEY CREATED A TRAP DOOR CRIME, WAITED FOR HIM TO FIRE THE SECRETARY OF WAR, AND THEN THEY IMPEACHED HIM.

BUT THERE'S NO QUESTION HE COMMITTED THE CRIME, IT'S JUST THE UNDERLYING STATUTE WAS UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

SO I WOULD CAUTION YOU NOT ONLY ABOUT BRIBERY, BUT ALSO OBSTRUCTION.

I'M SORRY RANKING MEMBER -- >> NO, YOU'RE DOING A GOOD JOB.

>> I'D ALSO CAUTION YOU ABOUT OBSTRUCTION.

OBSTRUCTION IS A CRIME ALSO WITH MEANING.

IT HAS ELEMENTS -- IT HAS CONTROLLING CASE AUTHORITY.

THE RECORD DOES NOT ESTABLISH OBSTRUCTION IN THIS CASE.

THAT IS, WHAT MY ESTEEM KLEEPG SAID WAS TRUE, IF YOU ACCEPT ALL OF THEIR PRESUMPTIONS, IT WOULD BE OBSTRUCTION.

BUT IMPEACHMENTS HAVE TO BE BASEED ON TRUTH, NOT PRESUMPTIONS.

THAT'S THE PROBLEM WHEN YOU MOVE TOWARDS IMPEACHMENT ON THIS ABBREVIATED SCHEDULE THAT HAS NOT BEEN EXPLAINED TO ME WHY YOU WANT TO SET THE RECORD FOR THE FASTEST IMPEACHMENT.

FAST IS NOT GOOD FOR IMPEACHMENT.

NARROW FAST IMPEACHMENTS HAVE FAILED.

JUST ASK JOHNSON.

SO THE OBSTRUCTION ISSUE IS AN EXAMPLE OF THIS PROBLEM.

AND HERE'S MY CONCERN.

THE THEORY BEING PUT FORWARD IS THE THE PRESIDENT OBSTRUCTED CONGRESS BY NOT TURNING OVER MATERIAL REQUESTED BY THE COMMITTEE.

AND CITATIONS HAVE BEEN MADE TO THE THIRD ARTICLE OF THE NIXON IMPEACHMENT.

FIRST OF ALL, I WANT TO CONFESS, I'VE BEEN A CRITIC OF THE THIRD ARTICLE OF THE NIXON IMPEACHMENT MY WHOLE LIFE.

MY HAIR CATCHS ON FIRE EVERY TIME SOMEONE MENTIONED THE THIRD ARTICLE.

WHY?

BECAUSE YOU WOULD BE REPLICATEING ONCE OF THE WORST ARTICLES WRITTEN ON IMPEACHMENT.

HERE'S THE REASON WHY.

PETER RODINO'S POSITION AS CHAIRMAN OF JUDICIARY WAS THAT CONGRESS ALONE DECIDES WHAT INFORMATION MAY BE GIVEN ALONE.

HIS POSITION WAS THAT THE COURTS HAVE NO ROLE IN THIS.

AND SO, IF ANY -- IF I USE THAT THEORY, ANY REFUSAL BY A PRESIDENT BASED ON EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE OR IMMUENLT WOULD BE A BASIS FOR IMPEACHMENT.

THAT'S THE THEORY BEING IMPLICATED TODAY.

PRESIDENT TRUMP HAS GONE TO THE COURT.

HE'S ALLOWED TO DO THAT.

WE HAVE THREE BRANCHES, NOT TWO.

I HAPPEN TO AGREE WITH SOME OF YOUR CRITICISM OF PRESIDENT TRUMP INCLUDING THE EARLIER QUOTE WHERE THE COLLEAGUES TALKED ABOUT SAYING THERE'S AN ARTICLE 2, AND GIVES US OVERRIDING INTERPRETATION.

I SHARE THAT CRITICISM.

YOU'RE DOING THE SAME THING WITH ARTICLE 1.

YOU'RE SAYING ARTICLE 1 GIVES US COMPLETE AUTHORITY WHEN WE DEMAND INFORMATION FROM A BRANCH IT MUST BE TURNED OVER OR WE'LL IMPEACH YOU IN RECORD TIME.

NOW MAKING THAT WORSE IS THAT YOU HAVE SUCH A SHORT INVESTIGATION.

IT'S A PERFECT STORM.

YOU SET AN INCREDIBLY SHORT PERIOD, DEMAND A HUGE AMOUNT OF INFORMATION, AND WHEN THE PRESIDENT GOES TO COURT, YOU THEN IMPEACH HIM.

NOW DOES THAT TRACK WITH WHAT YOU'VE HEARD ABOUT IMPEACHMENT?

DOES THAT TRACK WITH THE RULE OF LAW THAT WE'VE TALKED ABOUT?

SO, ON OBSTRUCTION, I ENCOURAGE YOU TO THINK ABOUT THIS.

IF NIXON DID GO TO THE COURTS AND NIXON LOST, AND THAT WAS THE REASON NIXON RESIGNED -- HE RESIGNED A FEW DAYS AFTER THE SUPREME COURT RULED AGAINST HIM IN THAT CRITICAL CASE, BUT IN THAT CASE, THE COURT RECOGNIZED THERE ARE EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE ARGUMENTS THAT CAN'T BE MADE.

IT DIDN'T SAY YOU HAD NO RIGHT COMING TO US TO EMBARK ON OUR DOORSTEP AGAIN.

IT SAID WE'VE HEARD YOUR ARGUMENT, WE'VE HEARD CONGRESS ARGUMENTS, AND YOU KNOW WHAT?

YOU LOSE.

TURN OVER THE MATERIAL OF CONGRESS.

WHAT THAT DID WITH THE JUDICIARY IS GIVE THIS BODY LEGITIMACY.

IT WASN'T THE RODINO EXTREME POSITION.

THAT ONLY YOU DECIDE WHAT INFORMATION CAN BE PRODUCED.

MR. CHAIRMAN, I TESTIFIED IN FRONT OF YOU A FEW MONTHS AGO.

IF YOU RECALL, WE HAD AN EXCHANGE, AND I ENCOURAGED YOU TO BRING THOSE ACTIONS AND I SAID I THOUGHT YOU WOULD WIN, AND YOU DID.

AND I THINK IT WAS AN IMPORTANT WIN FOR THE COMMITTEE BECAUSE I DON'T AGREE WITH PRESIDENT TRUMP'S ARGUMENT IN THAT CASE, BUT THAT'S AN EXAMPLE OF WHAT CAN HAPPEN IF YOU ACTUALLY SUBPOENA WITNESSES, AND GO TO COURT.

THEN YOU HAVE AN OBSTRUCTION CASE.

THE CORE ISSUES AND ORDER.

UNLESS THEY STAY THAT ORDER BY A HIGHER COURT, YOU HAVE OBSTRUCTION.

I CAN'T EMPHASIZE THIS ENOUGH, AND I'LL SAY IT ONE MORE TIME.

IF YOU IMPEACH A PRESIDENT, IF YOU MAKE A HIGH CRIME AND MISDEMEANOR OUT OF GOING TO THE COURTS, IT IS AN ABUSE OF POWER.

IT'S YOUR ABUSE OF POWER.

YOU'RE DOING PRECISELY WHAT YOU'RE CRITICIZING THE PRESIDENT OF DOING.

WE HAVE A THIRD BRANCH THAT DEALS WITH THE CONFLICTS OF THE OTHER TWO BRANCHES.

AND WHAT COMES OUT OF THERE AND WHAT YOU DO WITH IT IS THE DEFINITION OF LEGITIMACY.

>> LET'S CONTINUE ON WHAT YOU'VE BEEN TALKING ABOUT.

THE MACDONALD CASE, HOW WAS THAT DECIDED?

WAS THAT A SPLIT COURT?

WERE THEY TORN ABOUT THAT WHEN THE CASE CAME OUT?

>> IT CAME OUT UNANIMOUS, SO DID A COUPLE OTHER KAILSS I CITE IN TESTIMONY.

>> ONE OF THE THINGS YOU SAID ALSO, AND I THINK IT COULD BE SUMMED UP, AND I USE IT IS THE LAYMAN'S LANGUAGE IS THAT FACTS DON'T MATTER.

THAT'S WHAT I HEARD A LOT OF.

THE FACTS DISPUTED THIS, BUT IF THIS, IF THAT, IT RISES TO IMPEACHMENT LEVEL.

AND THAT'S WHAT I THINK YOU SAID, CRIMES C MEANING, AND THIS IS THE CONCERN THAT I HAVE.

IS THERE A CONCERN THAT IF WE JUST SAY THE FACTS DON'T MATTER THAT WE'RE ALSO, AS YOU SAID, ABUSING OUR POWER AS WE GO FORWARD IN LOOKING AT WHAT PEOPLE WOULD SEE AS AN IMPEACHABLE OFFENSE?

>> I THINK SO, AND PART OF THE PROBLEM IS TO BRING A COUPLE OF THESE ARTICLES, YOU HAVE TO CONTRADICT THE POSITION OF PRESIDENT OBAMA.

PRESIDENT OBAMA WITHHELD EVIDENCE FROM CONGRESS IN FAST AND FURIOUS, AN INVESTIGATION ZOO-A RATHER MORONIC PROGRAM THAT LED TO THE DEATH OF A FEDERAL AGENT.

PRESIDENT OBAMA GAVE A SWEEPING ARGUMENT THAT HE WAS NOT ONLY NOT GOING TO GIVE EVIDENCE TO THIS BODY, BUT THAT THE COURTS HAD ABSOLUTELY NO ROLE IN DETERMINING WHETHER HE COULD WITHHOLD THE EVIDENCE.

>> I HAVE A QUESTION.

>> YOU BROUGHT UP MR. OBAMA AND OTHER PRESIDENTS IN THIS PROCESS.

IS THERE NOT AN OBLIGATION BY THE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT -- WE'LL USE THAT TERM -- NOT TO BE OBAMA, TRUMP, CLINTON, ANYBODY -- ISN'T THERE AN OBLIGATION BY THE PRESIDENT TO ASSERT CONSTITUTIONAL PRIVILEGES AND AUTHORITIES THAT HAVE BEEN GIVEN WHEN ACCUSED OF SOMETHING, A CRIME OR ANYTHING ELSE?

>> I THINK THAT PRESIDENT OBAMA HAS INVOKEED TOO BROADLY, BUT ON THE OTHER HAND, HE HAS RELEASED A LOT OF INFORMATION.

I'VE BEEN FRIENDS WITH BILL BARR FOR A LONG TIME.

WE DISAGREE ON EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE.

I'M A SCHOLAR, I TEND TO FAVOR CONGRESS IN DISPUTES.

AND HE IS THE INVERSE.

HIS NATURAL DEFAULT IS ARTICLE 2.

MINE IS MATERIAL 1.

BUT HE'S RELEASED MORE PRIVILEGED INFORMATION THAN ANY ATTORNEY GENERAL IN MY LIFETIME, INCLUDING THE MUELLER REPORT.

THESE TRANSCRIPTS OF THE CALLS ARE CORE EXECUTIVE MATERIAL.

NO QUESTION ABOUT IT.

>> AND IN ESSENCE, THAT'S NOT POINTED OUT WHEN YOU DO BACK AND FORTH WHAT WE'RE DOING.

THE TRANSCRIPT OF THE CALL RELEASED, AND THE THINGS RELEASED BY MUELLER.

IT'S A WORK IN PROGRESS BY THIS ADMINISTRATION.

THE INTERESTING POINT I WANT TO TALK ABOUT IS TWO THINGS.

CONGRESS ABUSES ITS OWN POWER EVEN INTERNALLY WHERE WE HAVE BEEN COMMITTEES NOT WILLING TO LET MEMBERS SEE TRANSCRIPTS, NOT BEING WILLING TO GIVE THOSE UP UNDER THE GUISE OF IMPEACHMENT OR YOU SHOULDN'T BE ABLE TO SEE THEM, EVEN THOUGH THE RULES OF THE HOUSE WERE NEVER INVOKEED TO STOP THAT.

>> AND BEFORE WE MOVE TO SOMETHING ELSE, THE TIMING ISSUE THAT YOU TALK ABOUT HERE.

AGAIN, I BELIEVE WE TALKED ABOUT THIS WITH THE Mxá*UL ERR RE MUELLER REPORT.

THIS IS THE FASTEST.

THE CLOCK AND THE CALENDAR ARE DOMINATING.

IT'S REGARDLESS OF WHAT ANYBODY IN THE COMMITTEE, AND ESPECIALLY MEMBERS NOT OF THIS COMMITTEE TO THINK OF WHAT WE'RE ACTUALLY SEEING MOVING FORWARD.

WE DON'T HAVE THAT YET.

SO THE QUESTION BECOMES IS AN ELECTION PENDING WHEN FACTS ARE IN DISPUTE.

THE FACTS ARE NOT UNANIMOUS.

THERE'S NOT BIPARTISAN AGREEMENT ON THE FACTS AND WHAT THEY LEAD TOO THAT'S BEEN PRESENTED, NOT IN THE SCHIFF REPORT, BUT IN OTHER REPORTS.

DOES THAT TIMING BOTHER YOU FROM A HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE, NOT IN THE PAST, BUT MOVING FORWARD >> FAST AND NARROW@ IS OBJECT A GOOD RECIPE FOR IMPEACHMENT.

THAT'S THE CASE WITH JOHNSON.

NARROW WAS THE CASE WITH CLINTON.

THEY TEND NOT TO SURVIVE.

THEY TEND TO COLLAPSE IN THE SENATE.

IMPEACHMENTS ARE LIKE BUILDINGS.

THERE'S A RATIO BETWEEN THE FOUNDATION AND HEIGHT.

S THIS THE HIGHEST STRUCT YOU CAN BUILD UNDER THE CONSTITUTION.

YOU WANT TO BUILD IMPEACHMENT.

YOU HAVE TO HAVE A FOUNDATION TO SUPPORT IT.

THIS IS THE NARROWEST IMPEACHMENT IN HISTORY.

YOU CAN ARGUE WITH JOHNSON.

JOHNSON MIGHT BE THE FASTEST IMPEACHMENT.

JOHNSON ACTUALLY -- WHAT HAPPENED TO JOHNSON WAS ACTUALLY THE FOURTH IMPEACHMENT ATTEMPT AGAINST JOHNSON.

AND ACTUALLY THE RECORD GO BACK A YEAR BEFORE.

THEY LAID THE TRAP DOOR A YEAR BEFORE.

IT'S NOT AS FAST AS IT MIGHT APPEAR.

>> AND AGAIN, I WANT TO GO BACK TO SOMETHING ELSE.

YOU TALKED ABOUT BRIEBLRY.

I WANT TO GO BACK TO SOMETHING YOU TALKED ABOUT.

IT BROTHERS ME, THE PERCEPTION OUT THERE OF WHAT'S GOING ON, AND THE DISPUTED TRANSCRIPT, AND THE CALL, AND THE PRESIDENT SAID I WANTED NOTHING FOR THIS.

THERE'S EXCULPATORY EVIDENCE NOT PRESENTED.

AND IT'S REPORTED IN THE MAINSTREAM MEDIA, AND BACK TO WHAT THE DEFINITION IS -- REGARDING THE HOUSE ACCUSED THE PRESIDENT OF QUID QUO PRO, AND WE HEAR IT AS WE GO THROUGH, AND THEN USED THE POLITICAL FOCUS GROUP TO DETERMINE WHETHER THE PHRASE POLLED L AND APPARENTLY DIDN'T POLL L SO THEY CHANGED THE THEORY OF THE CASE TO BRIBERY.

DOES THAT FEED INTO FACTS DO MATTER IN A CASE LIKE THIS OR SOME MATTER?

>> IT DOES.

THERE'S A REASON YLT FAST IMPEACHMENT HAS ESTABLISHED CRIME.

IT'S OBVIOUS.

IT'S NOT THAT YOU CAN'T IMPEACH ON A NON-CRIME.

YOU CAN.

IN FACT, NON-CRIMES HAVE BEEN PART OF PAST IMPEACHMENTS, BUT THEY'VE NEVER GONE UP ALONE PRIMARILY AS A BASIS OF IMPEACHMENT.

THAT'S THE PROBLEM HERE.

IF YOU PROVE A QUID QUO PRO, YOU MIGHT HAVE AN IMPEACHABLE OFFENSE, BUT TO GO UP ONLY ON A NON-CRIMINAL CASE WOULD BE THE FIRST TIME IN HISTORY.

WHY IS THAT THE CASE?

THE REASON IS THAT CRIMES HAVE AN ESTABLISHED DEFINITION IN CASE LAW.

SO THERE'S A CONCRETE INDEPENDENT BODY OF LAW THAT ASSURES THE PUBLIC THAT THIS IS NOT JUST POLITICAL.

THAT THIS IS A PRESIDENT WHO DID SOMETHING THEY CAN'T DO.

YOU CAN'T SAY THE PRESIDENT IS ABOVE THE LAW IF YOU THEN CASE THE CRIMES YOU ACCUSE HIM OF DON'T HAVE TO BE ESTABLISHED.

I THINK THAT'S THE PROBLEM RIGHT NOW.

THAT'S THE PROBLEM MEMBERS OF THE HOUSE AND THE PUBLIC ARE LOOKING AT, IF YOU SAY IT'S ABOVE THE LAW BUT YOU DON'T DEFINE THE FACTS TO WHAT YOU HAVE, THAT'S THE ULTIMATE RAILROAD THAT EVERYBODY IN THE COUNTRY SHOULD NOT BE AFFORDED.

EVERYONE IS AFFORD THE THE PROCESS TO MAKE THEIR CASE HEARD.

THAT'S THE CONCERN I HAVE IN THE COMMITTEE, AND WE'VE SEEN IT VOTED DOWN WE'RE NOT GOING TO LOOK AT FACT WITNESSES AND NOT PROMISED OTHER HEARINGS -- AND THE WORDS CONCERNED AND ECHOED BY THE CHAIRMAN WHERE HE DID NOT WANT TO TAKE THE ADVICE OF OTHER BODY OR ENTITY GIVING THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE A REPORT AND ACTING AS A RUBBER STAMP IF WE DIDN'T DO THIS.

IT WAS TWO AND A HALF WEEKS BEFORE THE DISCUSSION OF THIS KIND OF A HEARING BACK THEN, BEFORE THE HEARING ACTUALLY TOOK PLACE.

THESE ARE THE KIND OF THINGS AS TIMING GOES.

THE OBVIOUS POINT IS THAT TIMING IS BECOMING MANUFACTURE OF THE ISSUE, BECAUSE OF THE CONCERN AS STATED BEFORE ABOUT ELECTIONS.

THEY'RE MORE CONCERNED ABOUT FITTING THE FACTS IN TO WHAT THE PRESIDENT SUPPOSEDLY PRESUMABLY D AND MAKE THOSE HYPOTHETICALS STICK TO THE AMERICAN PUBLIC.

THE PROBLEM IS THE TIMING AND THE DEFINITION OF CRIMES.

>> WHY IS IT WITHHELD EVEN IN A NON-CLASSIFIED SETTING.

THESE ARE THE PROBLEMS YOU HIGHLIGHTED, AND I THINK THAT NEED TO BE -- AND WHY THE NEXT 45 MINUTES IS APPLICABLE, BECAUSE BOTH SIDES MATTER.

AND AT THE END OF THE DAY THIS IS A FAST IMPEACHMENT BASED ON DISPUTED FACTS ON CRIMES OR DISSERVICES THAT ARE MADE UP WITH THE FACTS.

I WANT TO TURN IT OVER TO MY COUNSEL.

>> PROFESSIONALS TURLEY, I'D LIKE TO TURN TO THE SUBJECT OF PARTISANSHIP AS THE FOUNDERS MADE IT, AND HAMILTON WAS CONCERNED WHEN IT CAME TO THE SUBJECT OF IMPEACHMENT.

HE WROTE WORDS IN A FEDERAL PAPER FOR RATICTION OF THE CONSTITUTION.

THE FEDERALIST PAPERS LAID OUT THE REASONS MADISON AND HAMILTON THOUGHT THE IMPEACHMENT CLAUSE WAS NECESSARY, AND ALSO FLAGGED CONCERNS.

HE SAID IN MANY CASES OF IMPEACHMENT, IT WILL CONNECT ITSELF WITH THE PRE-EXISTING FACTIONS AND WILL ENLIST ALL THE ANIMOSITYS, PARTIALITIES, INFLUENCE AND INTERESTS ON ONE SIDE, OR ON THE OTHER AND IN TOUCH CASES.

>> AND THE BY THE REAL DEMONSTRATIONS OF INNOCENCE OR GUILT.

>> IT'S ALSO IMPORTANT TO NOTE BY THE WAY, THAT WE OFTEN THINK OUR TIMES ARE UNIQUE.

THIS PROVISION WAS WRITTEN FOR TIMES NOT JUST LIKE OURS BUT FOR TIMES LIKE OURS.

THESE ARE THE PEOPLE THAT ARE EVEN MORE SEVERE THAN THE RHETORIC TODAY.

>> THEY WERE ACTUALLY TRYING TO KILL EACH OTHER.

THAT'S WHAT THE SEDITION LAW WAS.

YOU WERE TRYING TO KILL PEOPLE THAT DISAGREED WITH YOU.

WHAT'S NOTABLE IS THEY DIDN'T HAVE A SLEW OF IMPEACHMENTS.

THEY KNEW NOT TO DO IT.

AND I THINK THAT THAT'S A LESSON THAT CAN BE TAKEN FROM THAT PERIOD.

THE FRAMERS CREATED A STANDARD THAT WOULD NOT BE FLUID AND FLEXIBLE, AND THAT STANDARD HAS KEPT US FROM IMPEACHMENTS DESPITE THE PERIOD THAT WE REALLY DESPISED EACH OTHER.

THAT'S DISTRESSING FOR MOST OF US TODAY.

THERE'S SO MUCH MORE RAGE THAN REASON.

YOU CAN'T EVEN TALK ABOUT THESE ISSUES WITHOUT PEOPLE SAYING YOU MUST BE IN FAVOR OF THE UKRANIANS TAKING OVER THE COUNTRY OR THE RUSSIANS MOVING INTO THE WHITE HOUSE.

AT SOME POINT, AS PEOPLE, YOU HAVE TO HAVE A SERIOUS DISCUSSION ABOUT THE GROUNDS TO REMOVE A DULY ELECTED PRESIDENT.

PROFESSOR TURLEY, YOU SAID WHEN IT COMES TO IMPEACHMENT, YOU DON'T NEED HALF THE IDEOLOGICAL WARRIORS WE NEED CIRCUMSPECT ANALYSIS.

LOOK AT THE DEEPLY PARTISAN LANDSCAPE ON THIS IMPEACHMENT.

TE DEMOCRATIC LEADERS PUSHING IMPEACHMENT REPRESENT THE MOST FAR LEFT COASTAL AREAS OF THE COUNTRY.

THE BARS ARE THE TOTAL OF THE VOTES CASTS, AND THE MARGIN OF THE WINNER FOR THE 2016 ELECTION.

AS YOU SEE THE PARTS VOTED OVERWHELMINGLY FOR HILLARY CLINTON DURING THE LAST PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION.

DURING THE 2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION.

LAWYER CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTIONS TILTED 97% FOR CLINTON, AND 3% FOR TRUMP.

AND THAT INCLUDES THOSE ON THE PANEL HERE TODAY.

PROFESSOR TURLEY, I'D LIKE TO TURN TO THE PARTISAN PROCESS THAT DEFINES THESE IMPEACHMENT PROCEEDINGS.

THIS IS HOW THE NIXON IMPEACHMENT EFFORT WAS DESCRIBED IN THE BIPARTISAN STAFF REPORT.

YOU TALKED ABOUT THE INITIATION OF THE IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY.

IT WAS NOT PARTISAN, AND SUPPORTS IN BOTH POLITICAL PARTIES.

>> HOW SHOULD IMPEACHMENT OPERATE?

>> I BELIEVE THE FOUNDERS CERTAINLY HAD ASPIRATIONS THAT WE WOULD COME TOGETHER AS A PEOPLE, BUT THEY DIDN'T HAVE DELUSIONS, AND IT CERTAINLY WAS NOT SOMETHING THEY AREEVEED IN THEIR OWN LIFETIME.

ALTHOUGH, YOU'D BE SURPRISED THAT SOME OF THESE FRAMERS ACTUALLY DID AT THE ENDS OF THEIR LIFE, INCLUDING JEFFERSON AND ADAM RECONCILE.

INDEED, I THINK ONE OF THE MOST WEIGHTY AND SIGNIFICANT MOMENTS IN CONSTITUTIONAL HISTORY IS THE ONE THAT IS RARELY DISCUSSED, THAT ADAMS AND JEFFERSON REACHED OUT TO EACH OTHER.

THAT THEY WANTED TO RECONCILE BEFORE THEY DIED.

THEY MET AND THEY DID.

AND MAYBE THAT IS SOMETHING THAT WE CAN LEARN FROM.

THE GREATER THING I WOULD POINT TO IS THE 7 REPUBLICANS IN THE JOHNSON IMPEACHMENT.

I CAN READ ONE THING TO YOU.

EVERYONE TALKS AND TALKS ABOUT ONE OF THE SENATORS -- BUT NOT THIS ONE, AND THAT'S TRUMBLE.

HE WAS A FANTASTIC SENATOR AND BECAME AN ADVOCATE FOR CIVIL LIBERTIES.

YOU HAVE TO UNDERSTAND THAT MOST OF THESE SENATORS WHEN IT WAS SAID THAT THEY JUMPED INTO THEIR POLITICAL GRAVES IT WAS TRUE.

MOST OF THEIR POLITICAL CAREERS ENDED.

THEY KNEW IT WOULD END BECAUSE OF THE ANIMOSITY OF THE PERIOD.

TRUMBLE SAID THE FOLLOWING: HE SAID "ONCE YOU SET THE EXAMPLE OF IMPEACHING A PRESIDENT FOR WHAT, WHEN THE EXCITEMENT OF THE HOUR SHALL HAVE SUBSIDED AND BE REGARDED AS INSUFFICIENT CAUSES, NO FUTURE PRESIDENT WILL BE SAFE WHO HAPPENS TO DIFFER FROM THE MAJORITY OF THE HOUSE AND TWO THIRDSF THE SENATE."

HE SAID, "I TREMBLE FOR THE FUTURE OF THE COUNTRY."

I CAN'T BE AN TRUEMENT TO PRODUCE SUCH A RESULT, AND THE HAZARD OF THE FRIENDSHIPS AND AFFECTIONS, THERE WILL COME A TIME TO DO JUSTICE TO THE MOTIVES."

.

HE PRECEDEED TO GIVE THE VOTE THAT ENDED HIS CAREER.

YOU CAN'T WAIT.

THE TIME FOR YOU IS NOW.

AND I WOULD SAY THAT WHAT TRUMBLE SAID HAS MORE BEARING TODAY.

I BELIEVE THAT THIS IS MUCH LIKE THE JOHNSON IMPEACHMENT.

IT'S MANUFACTURED UNTIL YOU BUILD A RECORD.

I'M NOT SAYING YOU CAN'T BUILD A RECORD, BUT NOT LIKE THIS.

>> THE LEGITIMATE IMPEACHMENT PROCESS, THE BOOK IS PRETTY ANTI-TRUMP.

IT'S CALL KD END OF PRESIDENCY.

IN THAT BOOK THE AUTHOR STATES THE FOLLOWING.

WHEN AN IMPEACHMENT IS PURELY PARTISAN OR APPEARS THAT WAY.

WHEN ONLY REPUBLICANS OR DEMOCRATS VIEW THE PRESIDENT'S CONTACT AS JUSTIFYING REMOVAL, THERE'S A RISK THAT PARTISAN ANIMUS HAVE OVERTAKEN THE IMPARTIALITY.

ANOTHER QUOTE IS WE CAN EXPECT OPPOSITION LEADERS TO THE PRESIDENT WILL BE PUSHED TO IMPEACH, AND WILL SUFFER INTERNAL BLOWBACK IF THEY DON'T.

>> THE ONE THING THAT COMES OUT OF THESE IMPEACHMENTS IN TERMS OF WHAT BIPARTISAN SUPPORT OCCURRED IS IMPEACHMENTS REQUIREMENT PERIODS OF SATURATION AND MATURATION.

THE PUBLIC HAS TO KEEP UP.

I'M NOT PRE-JUDGING WHAT YOUR RECORD WOULD SHOW, BUT IF YOU RUSH THE IMPEACHMENT, YOU'RE GOING TO LEAVE HALF THE COUNTRY BEHIND.

IT'S CERTAINLY NOT WHAT THE FRAMERS WANTED.

YOU HAVE TO GIVE TIME TO BUILD A RECORD.

THIS ISN'T AN IMPULSE BY ITEM.

YOU'RE TRYING TO REMOVE A PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES.

THAT TAKES TIME AND WORK.

IN THE END, IF YOU LOOK AT NIXON WHICH WAS THE GOLD STANDARD IN THIS RESPECT, THE PUBLIC DID CATCH UP, AND ORIGINALLY DID NOT SUPPORT IMPEACHMENT, BECAUSE THEY CHANGED THEIR MIND.

YOU CHANGED THEIR MIND.

AND SO DID, BY THE WAY, THE COURTS, BECAUSE YOU ALLOWED THE ISSUES TO BE HEARD IN THE COURT.

>> PROFESSOR TURLEY, NIXON AND CLINTON WERE DEBATED ON THE HIGH CRIMES.

CRIMES WERE AT ISSUE?

BUT IN THE ISSUES PRESENTED IS IT YOUR VIEW ANY CRIME WAS COMMITTED BY PRESIDENT TRUMP?

>> YES.

I'VE BEEN THROUGH THE CRIMES MENTIONED AND DO NOT MEET REASONABLE INTERPRETATION OF THOSE CRIMES, AND I'M RELYING ON EXPRESS STATEMENTS FROM THE FEDERAL COURTS.

IT'S THE LANGUAGE OF THE INTERPRETATION OF FEDERAL COURTS.

I THINK ALL OF THOSE DECISIONS STAND MIGHTILY IN THE WAY OF THESE THEORIES.

IF YOU CAN'T MAKE OUT THE CRIME, WHAT'S THE POINT.

CALL IT TREASON OR ENDANGERED SPECIES VIOLATION IF NONE OF THIS MATTERS.

THAT WOULD PUT IT IN THE SUGGEST OF HIGH MISDEMEANORS.

IN MADISON'S NOTES OF THE IMPEACHMENT DEBATES IT SHOWS HIGH MISDEMEANOR WAS A TECHNICAL TERM, NOT JUST SOMETHING THAT ANY MAJORITY OF PARTISAN MEMBERS WOULD THINK IT WAS AT ANY GIVEN TIME, AND OFTEN WHEN THERE'S A DEBATED ABOUT A TECHNICAL TERM, PEOPLE TURN TO DICTIONARIES.

AND THE FIRST WAS SAMIUM JOHNSON, FIRST PUBLISHED IN 1755, AND THE FOUNDERS IN MANY LIBRARIES8j AT THIS.

THE PUBLIC USE OF THE BDING OF THE USE OF THE CONSTITUTION.

HERE'S HOW THE 1785 DICTIONARY DEFINES HIGH CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS.

THE SUBDEFINITION IS CAPITAL GREAT, OPPOSED LITTLE.

DEFINITION OF MISDEMEANOR DEFINED AS SOMETHING LESS THAN AN ATROCIOUS CRIME.

ATROCIOUS IS DEFINED AS WICKED IN A HIGH DEGREE.

ENORMOUS, HORRIBLY CRIMINAL.

IF YOU LOOK AT HOW THE WORDS WERE DEFINED AT THE TIME OF CONSTITUTION WAS RATIFIED, ATROCIOUS IS WICKED IN A HIGH DEGREE, AND AS A RESULT A HINEOUS MISDEMEANOR IS SOMETHING WICKED IN A HIGH DEGREE.

DOES THAT COMPORT WITH YOUR UNDERSTANDING BY THE FOUNDERS, AND THE PURPOSE OF NARROWING THAT PHRASE.

TO PREVENT THE ABUSES YOU DESCRIBED?

>> IT DID, IF YOU COMPARE IT TO THE EXTRADITION CLAUSE, THE LANGUAGE USED WAS DIFFERENT.

>> THAT'S CLEARLY NOT WHAT THEY WANT.

>> I WANTED TO EXPLORE HOW THE IMPEACHMENT IS, IS THE HIGH CRIME, AND NO REQUEST FOR FALSE INFORMATION UNLIKE THE NIXON IMPEACHMENT.

START TO BACKGROUND.

THE AMERICAN MEDIA HAS BEEN ASKING FOR QUESTIONS ABOUT BIDEN'S SON, AND THE CORRUPT COMPANY, BURISMA.

IS ONE OF THOSE EXAMPLES FROM JUNE 2019, ABC NEWS INVESTIGATION TITLED HUNTER BIDEN'S FOREIGN DEALS.

DID JOE BIDEN'S SON PROFIT OFF HIS FATHER'S VPTSZ.

A VICE PRESIDENT.

>> AND MANY HAVE SEEN JOE BIDEN TALKING ABOUT GETTING THE PROSECUTOR OF BURISMA FIRED.

AND A "NEW YORK TIMES" ARTICLE REFERRING TO JOSEPH BIDEN, ONE OF HIS MOST MEMORABLE PERFORMANCES CAME TO KIEV WHEN HE THREATENED TO WITHHOLD A BILLION DOLLARS IN LOAN GUARANTEES IF UKRAINE LEADERS DID NOT DISMISS THE TOP PROSECUTORS.

AMONG THOSE WHO HAD A STAKE IN THE OUTCOME WAS MR. BIDEN.

MR. BIDEN'S SON WAS ON THE BOARD OFAL OLIGARCH.

EVEN IF HE DIDN'T PARTICIPATE TO CRIMES IF INVESTIGATION LED TO THE BANKRUPTCY OF THE CORRUPT COMPANY, HUNTER BIDEN'S POSITION WOULD HAVE BEEN ELIMINATED ALONG WITH HIS $50,000 A MONTH PAYMENT.

THAT WAS HIS STAKE IN THE PROSECUTION OF THE COMPANY.

IN FACT, EVEN THE FORMER ACTING SLILS TORE GENERAL UNDER PRESIDENT OBAMA IN A RECENT BOOK SAYS THE FOLLOWING.

"IS WHAT HUNTER BIDEN WRONG?

ABSOLUTELY.

IT MADE HIM WHOLLY UNQUALIFYED TO SIT ON THE BOARD OF BURISMA.

THE ONLY REASONABLE LOGICAL REASON WAS HIS TIE TO VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN.

THIS IS WRONG AND A POTENTIAL DANGER TO OUR COUNTRY SINCE IT MAKES IT EASIER FOR FOREIGN POWERS TO BUY INFLUENCE.

YOU SHOULDN'T ALLOW A FOREIGN POWER TO CONDUCT THIS PEDDLING WITH FAMILY MEMBERS."

AND LT.

COLONEL VINDMAN WAS ASKED WOULD IT BE FOREIGN POLICY TO ASK A FOREIGN LEADER TO OPEN A POLITICAL INVESTIGATION.

HE REPLIED CERTAINLY THE PRESIDENT IS WELL WITHIN HIS RIGHT TO DO THAT.

>> TO THE AMERICAN MEDIA AND OTHERS ASKING QUESTIONS ABOUT HUNTER BIDEN AND HIS INVOLVEMENT IN UKRAINE.

PRESIDENT TRUMP WITH HIS CALL SIMPLY ASKED THE SAME QUESTIONS THE MEDIA WAS ASKING.

NOW PROFESSOR TURLEY, IS IT YOUR HUNDREDING THAT IMPEACHING NIXON AND COVERING UP A CRIME, AND THAT THE EVIDENTITARY CRIME SHOWS HE KNEW OF AN ACT ACCORDING TAPES OF NIXON ORDERING THE WATERGATE BREAK-IN?

>> IT IS.

>> AND IS IT YOUR UNDERSTAND THINK THAT THE HOUSES IMPEACHED NIXON FOR THE CRIME OF LYING UNDER OATH, AND SEXUAL HARASSMENT?

>> THAT'S RIGHT.

>> THE REQUEST FOR FALSE INFORMATION IN BOTH THE NIXON AND CLINTON SCANDAL CAME FROM THE PRESIDENT HIMSELF, AGREE THE IFDS COMPILED TODAY BY HOUSE DEMOCRATS FAILS TO MEET THE STANDARD OF CLEAR AND CONVINCEING OEFDS?

>> I DO BY A CONSIDERABLE MEASURE.

>> AND LET ME TURN TO THE BOOK IN THE PRESIDENCY.

THE AUTHOR STATES THE FACILITATING: " THE EXTRAORDINARY CIRCUMSTANCES, IMPEACHING WITH A PARTIAL OR PLAUSIBLEY CONTESTED UNDERSTANDING OF THE FACTS IS A BAD IDEA."

WILL DO YOU THINK IMPEACHING WITH A PARTIAL UNDERSTANDING OF THE FACTS?

>> I THINK THAT'S CLEAR, BECAUSE THIS IS KNOW WO OF THE THINNEST RECORDS EVER TO GO FORWARD ON IMPEACHMENT.

THE JOHNSON RECORD WE CAN DEBATE BECAUSE OF THE FOURTH ATTEMPT AT IMPEACHMENT.

BUT THIS IS THE THINNEST OF A MODERN RECORD.

IF YOU LOOK AT THE SIZE OF THE RECORD OF CLINTON AND NIXON THEY WERE MASSIVE COMPARED TO THIS WHICH IS WAFER THIN.

AND LEFT DOUBTS.

NOT JUST IN THE MINDS OF THOSE SUPPORTING TRUMP, BUT THOSE LIKE MYSELF ABOUT WHAT ACTUALLY OCCURRED.

THERE'S A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN REQUESTING AN INVESTIGATION AND A QUID QUO PRO.

YOU NEED TO STICK THE LANDING ON THE QUID QUO PRO.

YOU NEED TO GET THE EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT IT.

IT MIGHT BE OUT THERE, I DON'T KNOW.

BUT IT'S NOT IN THAT RECORD.

I AGREE WITH THE COLLEAGUES, WE'VE ALL READ THE RECORD, AND I JUST COME TO A DIFFERENT CONCLUSION.

I DON'T SEE PROOF OF A QUID QUO PRO.

NO MATTER WHAT MY ASSUMPTIONS OR BIAS MIGHT BE.

>> ON THAT POINT, I'D LIKE TO TURN TO THE CURRENT PROCEDURES.

PROFESSIONALS TURLEY, DUE AGREE THAT A FULL ADVERSARY SYSTEM IN WHICH EACH SIDE GETS A CHANCE TO PRESENT EVIDENCE FOR TRUTH?

>> YES.

WITH THE ENGLISH IMPEACHMENT MODEL REJECTED BY THE FRAMERS, THEY TOOK THE LANGUAGE BUT REJECTED THE MODEL OF IMPEACHMENT FROM ENGLAND PARTICULARLY HASTINGS.

BUT EVEN IN ENGLAND IT WAS A ROBUST PROCESS.

IF YOU WANT TO SEE ADVERSARIAL WORK LOOK AT WHAT BURKE DID TO WARREN HASTINGS.

HE WAS ON HIM LIKE UGLY ON MOOSE THE ENTIRE TRIAL.

>> AND AS YOU KNOW, IN THE MINORITY VIEWS IN THE CLINTON IMPEACHMENT REPORT, THE HOUSE DEMOCRATS WROTE THE FOLLOWING.

WE BELIEVE IT'S INCUMBENT TO PROVIDE BASIC PROTECTIONS AS OF BARBARA JORDAN DURING THE WATERGATE HRLING.

IT MANDATES DUE PROCESS QUADRUPLED.

>> AND THE SAME MINORITY VIEW SUPPORTS THE RIGHT TO CROSS-EXAMINATION IN A VARIETY OF CONTEXT IN THE CLINTON EXAMPLE.

NOW PROFESSOR TURLEY, YOU DESCRIBED HOW MONICA LEWINSKY WASN'T ALLOWED TO BE CALLED IN THE IMPEACHMENT HEARING, AND REVEALED HOW SHE HAD BEEN TOLD TO LIE ABOUT HER RELATIONSHIP WITH PRESIDENT CLINTON.

AS A CAUTIONARY TALE ABOUT THE DANGERS OF DENYING KEY WITNESSES.

CAN ELABORATE ON TA?

>> THAT WAS A PORTION OF MY TESTIMONY DEALING WITH HOW YOU STRUCTURE THESE IMPEACHMENTS.

WHAT HAPPENED DURING THE CLINTON IMPEACHMENT, AND IT CAME UP DURING THE HEARING THAT WE HAD PREVIOUSLY, WAS A QUESTION OF HOW MUCH THE HOUSE HAD TO DO IN TERMS OF THE ROBUST RECORD CREATED BY THE INDEPENDENT COUNCIL.

THEY HAD A LOT OF TESTIMONY, VIDEOTAPES, ET CETERA.

THE HOUSE BASICALLY INCORPORATED THAT, AND THE ASSUMPTION WAS THAT THOSE WITNESSES WOULD BE CALLED AT THE SENATE, BUT THERE WAS A FAILURE AT THE SENATE, AND THE RULES WERE APPLIED, AND IN MY VIEW WERE NOT FAIR.

THEY RESTRICTED WITNESSES TO ONLY THREE.

THAT'S WHAT I BROUGHT UP THE LEWINSKY MATTER.

MONICA WAS TOLD IF HE SIGNED THE AFFIDAVIT THAT WAS UNTRUE, THAT SHE WOULD NOT BE CALLED AS A WITNESS.

IF YOU ACTUALLY CALLED LIVE WITNESSES THAT INFORMATION WOULD HAVE BEEN PART OF THE RECORD.

>> GENTLEMAN YIELDS BACK.

I NOTE THIS IS A MOMENT IN WHICH THE WHITE HOUSE WOULD HAVE HAD AN OPPORTUNITY TO QUESTION THE WITNESSES.

THEY DECLINED THEIR INVITATION.

WE WILL NOT PROCEED TO QUESTIONS UNDER THE 5 MINUTE RULE.

I YIELD MYSELF FIVE MINUTES FOR THE PURPOSE OF QUESTIONING THE WITNESSES.

>> MR. FELDMAN, WOULD YOU SND TO PROFESSOR TURLEY'S COMMENTS ABOUT BRIBERY, ESPECIALLY THE RELEVANCE OF THE ELEMENTS OF CRIMINAL BRIBERY?

>> YES.

BRIBERY HAD A CLEAR MEANING TO THE FRAMERS.

IT WAS WHEN THE PRESIDENT, USING THE POWER OF HIS OFFICE SOLICITS OR RECEIVE THE SOMETHING OF PERSONAL VALUE FROM SOMEONE IN POWER.

I WANT TO BE CLEAR, THE CONSTITUTION IS LAW.

THE CONSTITUTION IS THE SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND.

OF COURSE, PROFESSOR TURLEY IS RIGHT, YOU WOULDN'T WANT TO IMPEACH SOMEBODY WHO DIDN'T VIOLATE THE LAW.

BUT IT SPECIFIES OTHER HIGH CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS.

BRIBERY HAD A CLEAR MEANING.

IF THE HOUSE BELIEVES THAT THE PRESIDENT SOLICITED SOMETHING OF VALUE IN THE FORM OF INVESTIGATIONS OR ANNOUNCEMENT OF INVESTIGATIONS, AND DID SO CORRUPTLY FOR PERSONAL GAIN, THAT WOULD CONSTITUTE BRIBERY UNDER THE MEANING OF THE CONSTITUTION, AND IT WOULDN'T BE LAWLESS.

IT WOULD BELIEVE BRIBERY UNDER THE LAW.

SO THE -- SO THE SUPREME COURT CASE IN MACDONALD INTERPRETING THE FEDERAL BRIBERY STATUTE AND OTHER DECISIONS INTERPRETING THE STATUTE WOULDN'T BE RELEVANT?

>> THE CONSTITUTION IS THE SUPREME LAW, AND THE CONSTITUTION SPECIFIES WHAT BRIBERY MEANS.

FEDERAL STATUTES CAN'T TRUMP THE CONSTITUTION.

THEY CAN'T BE IN THE CONSTITUTION.

>> PROFESSOR GERHARDT WOULD YOU RESPOND TO THE OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE OR OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE, PLEASE?

>> ON OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE, ONE THING I WANT TO EMPHASIZE IS OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE IS NOT JUST ABOUT OBSTRUCTION OF A COURT.

IT'S OBSTRUCTION OF ANY LAWFUL PROCEEDING.

SO THAT OBSTRUCTION ISN'T LIMITING TO WHATEVER IS HAPPENING ON THE COURTS, AND OBVIOUSLY HERE, THERE ARE JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS, AND ALSO A CRITICAL CONGRESSIONAL PROCEEDING BRINGING US TO OBSTRUCTION OF CONGRESS.

WITH OBSTRUCTION OF CONGRESS, I DON'T THINK -- IN FACT, I CAN SAY, THERE'S NEVER BEEN ANYTHING LIKE THE PRESIDENT'S REFUSAL TO COMPLY WITH SUBPOENAS FROM THIS BODY.

THESE ARE LAWFUL SUBPOENAS.

THESE ARE THE FORCE OF LAW TO THEM.

THESE ARE THE THINGS THAT EVERY OTHER PRESIDENT HAS COMPLIED WITH, AND ACTUALLY ACTED AND REACTED IN ALIGNMENT EXCEPT FOR PRESIDENT NIXON IN A SMALL SET OF MATERIALS.

>> PROFESSOR TURLEY IMPLIED IF THE PRESIDENT ASSERTS ULTMALTDLY NON-EXISTENT PROOF LIKE ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY, HE CAN'T BE CHARGED WITH OBSTRUCTION OF CONGRESS BECAUSE AFTERALL, IT HASN'T BEEN THROUGH THE COURTS YET.

WOULD YOU COMMENT ON THAT MR. GERHARDT?

>> I MISSED PART OF THE QUESTION.

>> PROFESSOR TURLEY IMPLIED WE CAN'T CHARGE THE PRESIDENT WITH OBSTRUCTION OF CONGRESS FOR REFUSING ALL SUBPOENAS AS LONG AS HE HAS ANY FANCYFUL CLAIM THIS WILL THE COURTS REJECT THE CLAIMS.

>> HIS REFUSAL TO COMPLY IS AN INDEPENDENT EVEN EVENT APART FR THE COURTS AND AN ASSAULT ON THE LEGITIMATE INQUIRY.

ISM THANK YOU.

>> PROFESSIONALS KARLAN, I'LL GIVE YOU A CHANCE TO RESPOND TO THE SAME QUESTION.

>> I WANTED TO RESPOND TO THE FIRST QUESTION OF BRIBERY.

ALTHOUGH COUNSEL FOR THE MINORITY READ SAMUEL JOHNSON'S DEFINITIONS HE DIDN'T READ THE DEFINITION OF BRIBERY.

I HAVE THE 1792 VERSION OF JOHNSON'S DICTIONARY.

I DON'T HAVE THE INITIAL ONE.

AND THERE HE DEFINES BRIBERY AS THE CRIME OF GIVING OR TAKING REWARDS FOR BAD PRACTICES.

>> DO YOU THINK IT'S A BAD PRACTICE TO DENY MILITARY APPROPRIATIONS TO AN ALLY THAT HAS BEEN GIVEN TO?

IF YOU CAN GET THE BAD PRACTICE NOT TO HOLD A MEETING TO BUCK UP THE LEGITIMACY OF THE GOVERNMENT ON THE FRONT LINE, AND YOU DO THAT IN RETURN FOR THE REWARD OF GETTING HELP WITH YOUR RE-ELECTION.

THAT'S SAMUEL JOHNSON'S DEFINITION OF BRIBERY.

>> THANK YOU.

IF WASHINGTON WERE HERE TODAY AND JOINED BY MADISON AND HAMILTON AND OTHER FRAMERS, WHAT DO YOU BELIEVE THEY WOULD SAY TO THE EVIDENCE PRESENTED BEFORE US ABOUT PRESIDENT TRUMP'S CONDUCT?

>> I BELIEVE THEY WOULD SAY PRESIDENT TRUMP'S CONDUCT IS A HIGH CRIME AND MISDEMEANOR THEY WERE WORRIED ABOUT, AND WANT THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TO TAKE ACTION AND TO IMPEACH.

>> AND THEY WOULD FIND OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE, OBSTRUCTION OF CONGRESSOR ONE OF THEM?

>> IF CONGRESS DETERMINES THAT'S WHAT THE EVIDENCE MEANS THEY WOULD BELIEVE THAT'S WHAT CONGRESS OUGHT TO DO.

>> THANK YOU.

I YIELD BACK THE BALANCE OF MY TIME AND EVIDENCE THE GENTLEMAN FROM GEORGIA, MR. COLLINS FOR FIVE MINUTES OF QUESTIONING.

>> THIS JUST KEEPS GETTING MORE AMAZING.

WE JUST PUT IN THE JURY POOL THE FOUNDING FATHERS.

INSTEAD WHAT WOULD THEY THINK.

WE DON'T HAVE ANY IDEA WHAT THEY WOULD THINKh#iM ALL DUE RESPECT WITH THIS -- BECAUSE OF THE DIFFERENT TIMES AND THINGS WE TALK ABOUT.

IN SOME WAY INSINUATE WITH A LOT OF PEOPLE LISTENING THAT THE FOUNDING FATHERS WOULD HAVE FOUND PRESIDENT TRUMP GUILTY IS SIMPLY MALPRACTICE WITH THE FACTS BEFORE US.

THAT IS SIMPLY PAPDERING TO A CAMERA AND NOT RIGHT.

THIS IS AMAZING.

WE CAN DISAGREE.

WHAT'S AMAZING ON THE COMMITTEE IS WE DON'T EVEN DISAGREE ON THE FACTS.

WE CAN'T FIND A FACT RIGHT NOW WHETHER GOING TO THE PUBLIC TESTIMONY, AND EVEN THE TRANSCRIPT.

IT IS NOT.

MR. TURLEY, ARE WE GOING TO DEPUTIZE SOMEONE IN THE JURY POOL HERE.

>> FIRST OF ALL, ONLY I WILL SPEAK FOR JAMES MADISON.

NO.

WE WILL ALL SPEAK FOR MADISON WITH THE SAME LEVEL OF ACCURACY.

IT'S SOMETHING ACADEMICS DO ALL THE TIME.

THAT'S WHAT WE GET PAID FOR.

FIRST OF ALL, I FIND IT SURPRISING YOU WOULD HAVE GEORGE WASHINGTON IN THE JURY POOL.

I WOULD STRIKE HIM FOR CAUSE.

GEORGE WASHINGTON WAS THE FIRST GUY TO RAISE EXTREME EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE CLAIMS.

HE HAD A ROBUST VIEW OF WHAT A PRESIDENT COULD SAY.

IF YOU WERE GOING TO MAKE A CASE TO GEORGE WASHINGTON THAT YOU COULD IMPEACH OVER A CONVERSATION HE HAD WITH ANOTHER HEAD OF STATE, I EXPECT HIS POWDERED HAIR WOULD CATCH ON FIRE.

ALSO I I NOTE ONE OTHER THING.

I AM IMPRESSED WITH AN 18th CENTURY COPY OF SAMUEL JOHNSON WITH YOU.

>> IT'S JUST THE ONLINE VERSION.

>> AND AS AN ACADEMIC, I WAS IMPRESSED.

I JUST WANT TO NOTE ONE THING WHICH MAY EXPLAIN PART OF OUR DIFFERENCE.

THE STATUTES TODAY ON BROADLY.

THAT'S THE POINT.

THE MEANING OF THOSE WORDS ARE SUBJECT TO INTERPRETATION.

THEY'RE WRITTEN BROADLY BECAUSE THEY DON'T WANT THEM TO BE TOO NARROW.

THAT WAS THE CASE IN THE 18TH ANC AS OF TODAY.

BUT THE IDEA THAT BAD PRACTICES COULD BE THE DEFINITION OF BRIBERY?

REALLY?

IS THAT WHAT YOU GET FROM THE CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION, THAT BAD PRACTICES -- IS THAT WHY MASON WANTED TO PUT IN MALADMINISTRATION, BECAUSE BAD PRACTICES IS NOT BROAD ENOUGH.

THIS IS WHERE I DISAGREE.

NOW THE OTHER THING I JUST WANTED TO NOTE, AND IT'S -- I HAVE SO MUCH RESPECT FOR NOAH, AND I DISAGREE WITH ON THIS POINT.

I FEEL IT'S A CIRCULAR ARGUMENT TO SAY WELL, THE CONSTITUTION IS LAW.

UPON THAT, WE ARE IN AGREEMENT.

BUT THE CONSTITUTION REFERS TO A CRIME.

TO SAY WELL, YOU CAN'T TRUMP THE CONSTITUTION BAUTZ IT DEFINES THE CRIME.

IT DOESN'T DEFINE THE CRIME, IT REFERENCES THE CRIME.

THE CRIME EXAMPLES WERE GIVEN DURING THE CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION AND THEY DON'T COMPORT WITH BAD PRACTICE.

THEY COMPORT WITH REAL BRIBERY.

BUT TO SAY THE SUPREME COURT'S DECISION ON WHAT CONSTITUTES BRIBERY IS SOMEHOW IRRELEVANT IS RATHER ODD.

WHAT THE CONSTITUTION CONTAINS IS A REFERENCE TO A CRIME AND WE HAVE TO DECIDE IF THE CRIME IS COMMITTED.

>> ONE OF THE THINGS THAT CAME OUT A SECOND AGO WAS THE DISCUSSION OF -- WE HAD THE DISCUSSION EARLIER ABOUT IS THE PRESIDENTIAL, AND MEMBERS OF THE PRESIDENT'S CABINET TO ASSERT PRIVILEGES AND RIGHTS.

WE TALKED ABOUT THE FAST AND FURIOUS OBAMA.

AND HELD IN CONTEMPT BY THIS BODY FOR NOT COMPLYING WITH SUBPOENAS.

YOU DON'T PICK AND CHOOSE HISTORY.

YOU ALSO MADE A STATEMENT, AND BAD PRACTICE.

IT'S ALSO THE LAW OF THE LAND THAT WE ARE SUPPOSEED TO ENSURE THAT COUNTRY'S GIVEN AID ARE NOT CORRUPT.

I THINK THIS IS ALSO SOMETHING MISSING FROM THIS DISCUSSION.

WELL, IF THE PRESIDENT HAS HAD A LONG SEATED DISTRUST OF FOREIGN COUNTRY, , UKRAINE AND OTHERS WITH A HISTORY OF CORRUPTION.

I MADE THE STATEMENT EARLIER AND IT'S IN THE REPORT, 68% OF THOSE POLLED IN THE UKRAINE OVER THE PREVIOUS YEAR HAD BRIBED A PUBLIC OFFICIAL.

UKRAINE HAD CORRUPTION ISSUES.

IT CAME OUT FROM THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION AND THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION AND OUR RULE IS THAT THEY HAVE TO ACTUALLY LOOK AT THE CORRUPTION BEFORE GIVING TAXPAYER DOLLARS.

THE PRESIDENT WAS DOING THAT, AD NOW IT'S BLOWN UP.

WE FOUND OUT IN THE HEARING FACTS REALLY DON'T MATTER IF WE'RE TRYING TO FIT IT INTO A BREAKING OF LAW OR A RULE TO IMPEACH ON.

THE REASON WE'RE DOING THIS IS THE TRAIN IS ON THE TRACK, THIS IS A CLOCK CALENDAR IMPEACHMENT, NOT A FACT IMPEACHMENT.

I YIELD BACK.

>> GENTLEMAN YIELDS BACK AND I RECOGNIZE MISS LOFGREN FOR FIVE MINUTES.

>> THANK YOU THIS IS ONLY THE THIRD TIME IN MODERN HISTORY THAT THE COMMITTEE HAS ASSUMED THE GRAVE RESPONSIBILITY OF CONSIDERING IMPEACHMENT, AND ODDLY ENOUGH, I'VE BEEN PRESENT AT ALL THREE.

I WAS THE STAFF OF CONGRESSMAN JOHN EDWARDS DURING THE NIXON IMPEACHMENT.

PRESENT ON THE COMMITTEE DURING THE CLINTON IMPEACHMENT, AND HERE WE ARE TODAY.

ALT ITS CORE, I SEE IMPEACHMENT POWER REALLY ABOUT THE PRESERVATION OF OUR DEMOCRATIC SYSTEM.

THE QUESTION WE MUST ANSWER IS WHETHER THE ACTIVITY OF THE PRESIDENT THREATENS OUR CONSTITUTION AND OUR DEMOCRACY, AND IT'S ABOUT WHETHER HE'S ABOVE THE LAW, AND WHETHER HE'S HONORING HIS OATH OF OFFICE.

NOW, THE HOUSE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE STAFF, WROTE AN EXCELLENT REPORT IN 1974.

THIS IS WHAT THEY SAID.

"IMPEACHMENT OF A PRESIDENT IS A GRAVE STEP FOR THE NATION.

IT'S PREDICATED ONLY UPON CONDUCT SERIOUSLY INCOMPATSIBLE WITH THE CONSTITUTIONAL FORM AND PRINCIPLE OF OUR GOVERNMENT WHERE THE PROPER PERFORMANCE OF CONSTITUTIONAL DUTIES OF THE PRESIDENT."

AND I'D ASK CONSENT TO ENTER THE REPORT ON GROUNDS TO THE REPORT.

>> WITH NIXON, THE ALLEGATIONS AGAINST PRESIDENT TRUMP INVOLVED ELECTION RELATED MISCONDUCT.

NIXON'S ASSOCIATES BURGLARIZED THE DNC HEADQUARTERS TO GIVE HIM A LEG UP IN THE ELECTION.

NIXON TRIED TO COVER UP THE CRIME BY OBSTRUCTING FEDERAL INVESTIGATIONS.

HE ALSO ABUSED POWERS TO TARGET HIS POLITICAL RIVALS, AND HERE WE'RE CONFRONTED WITH EVIDENCE SUGGESTING THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP TRIED TO LEVERAGE APPROPRIATED MILITARY ASSISTANCE TO RESIST RUSSIA BY UKRAINE, TO CONVINCE A FOREIGN ALLY TO ANNOUNCE AN INVESTIGATION OF HIS POLITICAL RIVAL.

>> PROFESSOR KARLAN, I'D LIKE YOU TO TELL ME YOUR VIEW ON HOW PRESIDENT TRUMP'S CONDUCTED WITH A REQUEST TO THE FOREIGN ALLY TO ANNOUNCE AN INVESTIGATION OF A POLITICAL ALLY, HOW DOES THAT COMPARE TO WHAT PRESIDENT NIXON DID?

>> NOT FAVORABLY.

AS I SUGGESTED IN MY OPENING TESTIMONY, IT WAS A KIND OF DOUBLING DOWN, BECAUSE PRESIDENT NIXON ABUSED DOMESTIC LAW ENFORCEMENT TO GO AFTER HIS POLITICAL OPPONENTS.

WHAT PRESIDENT TRUMP HAS DONE BASED ON THE EVIDENCE THAT WE'VE SEEN SO FAR IS ASKED A FOREIGN COUNTRY TO DO THAT, WHICH MEANS IT'S SORT OF LIKE A DAILY DOUBLE, IF YOU WILL THE.

>> PRESIDENT GERHARDT YOU AGREE ON THAT?

>> YES.

I THINK THE DIFFICULTY HERE IS THAT WE NEED TO REMEMBER THAT IMPEACHABLE OFFENSES DON'T HAVE TO BE CRIMINAL OFFENSES AS YOU WELL KNOW.

SO WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT ISN'T ABUSE OF POWER.

WE'RE TALKING ABOUT ABUSE OF POWER THAT ONLY THE PRESIDENT CAN COMMIT.

THERE WAS A SYSTEMATIC CONCERTED EFFORT BY THE PRESIDENT TO REMOVE PEOPLE THAT WOULD SOMEHOW OBSTRUCT OR BLOCK HIS ABILITY TO PUT THAT PRESSURE ON UKRAINE TO GET AN ANNOUNCEMENT OF AN INVESTIGATION.

THAT SEEMS TO BE WHAT HE CARED ABOUT.

JUST THE MERE ANNOUNCEMENT.

THAT PRESSURE HE WAS GOING TO PRODUCE THE OUTCOME HE WANTED UNTIL THE WHISTLEBLOWER PUT A LIGHT ON IT.

>> I WANT TO GO BACK QUICKLY TO SOMETHING PROFESSOR TURLEY SAID.

AS WE SAW IN THE MYERS CASE, AND I WAS A MEMBER OF THE COMMITTEE WHEN WE TRIED TO GET THAT TESTIMONY, AS WELL AS THE FAST AND FURIOUS CASE THAT WAS LONGFULLY WITHHELD FROM THE CONGRESS, LITIGATION TO ENFORCE CONGRESSIONAL SUBPOENAS CAN EXTEND BEYOND THE TERMS OF THE PRESIDENCY ITSELF.

THAT HAPPENED IN BOTH OF THOSE CASES.

PROFESSOR FELDMAN, IS IT AN ABUSE OF OUR POWER NOT TO GO TO THE COURTS BEFORE USING OUR SOLE POWER OF IMPEACHMENT IN YOUR JUDGMENT?

>> CERTAINLY NOT.

UNDER THE CONSTITUTION THE HOUSE IS ENTITLED TO IMPEACH.

THAT'S IT'S POWER.

THEY DON'T HAVE TO GO THROUGH THE JUDICIAL BRANCH OF GOVERNMENT.

THAT'S YOUR DECISION BASED ON YOUR JUDGMENT.

>> THANK YOU.

I'D LIKE TO NOTE THIS IS NOT A PROCEEDING THAT I LOOKED FORWARD TO.

IT'S NOT AN OCCASION FOR JOY.

IT'S ONE OF SOLEMN OBLIGATION.

I HOPE AND BELIEVE THAT EVERY MEMBER OF THIS COMMITTEE IS LISTENING, KEEPING AN OPEN MIND AND HOPING THAT WE HONOR OUR OBLIGATIONS CAREFULLY AND HONESTLY.

WITH THAT, I YIELD BACK, MR. CHAIRMAN.

>> GENTLE LADY YIELDS BACK.

THE GENTLE LADY YIELDS BACK.

WE'RE EXPECTING VOTES ON THE HOUSE FLOOR SHORTLY.

WE WILL RECESS UNTIL AFTER THE CONCLUSION OF THOSE VOTES.

I ASK EVERYBODY TO REMAIN SEATED AND QUIET WHILE THE WITNESSES EXIT THE ROOM.

REMIND AUDIENCES THAT YOU MAY NOT BE GUARANTEED YOUR SEAT IF YOU LEAVE THE HEARING RIM AT THIS TIME.

>> WITH THAT, THE HOUSE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE CHAIR, JERRY NADLER -- >> AT THIS TIME THE COMMITTEE WILL STAND IN RECESS UNTIL IMMEDIATELY AFTER THE VOTES.

>> JERRY NADLER CALLING THE HOUSE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE TO A BREAK, A RECESS.

WHILE AS YOU JUST HEARD, MEMBERS WILL GO TO THE FLOOR FOR VOTE.

WE DON'T KNOW HOW LONG IT WILL BE.

WE'VE WATCHED THIS COMMITTEE IN SESSION FOR THE BETTER PART OF FOUR HOURS.

3 1/2 HOURS, I SHOULD SAY.

THEY CAME IN TO SESSION THIS MORNING AT 10:00 A.M. EASTERN.

I'M 1:30 ON THE EAST COAST.

WE'RE JUST BEGINNING THE PROCESS OF HAVING JUDICIARY COMMITTEE MEMBERS POSE QUESTIONS.

MUCH OF THE TIME HAS BAN TAKEN UP WITH OPENING STATEMENTS AND QUESTIONS POSED BY LEGAL COUNSEL.

APPOINTED BY THE DEMOCRATS AND THEN APPOINTED BY THE REPUBLICANS.

I'M JUDY WOODRUFF HERE AT THE PBS NEWS HOUR STUDIO IN WASHINGTON.

FOLLOWING THE LIVE HEARINGS ON THE HILL, COVERING FOR US, LISA DESJARDINS, YAMICHE ALCINDOR AND HERE WE MANY IN THE STUDIO, FRANK BOWMAN, SOL WISENBERG, BOTH HAVE EXPERIENCE NOT ONLY IN THE LEGAL PROFESSION BUT WITH IMPEACHMENT.

I WANT TO COME TO YOU, FRANK.

SEEMS TO ME WHAT WE HAVE WITH THE DEMOCRATS ONLY CALLING ON THE THREE DEMOCRATIC WITNESSES OR AT LEAST THE SCHOLARS THAT SUPPORT THE DEMOCRATIC POINT OF VIEW AND THE REPUBLICANS ONLY CALLING ON THE SCHOLAR WHO SUPPORTS THE REPUBLICAN POINT OF VIEW, IT'S A LITTLE BIT LIKE WATCHING A PING-PONG MATCH HERE.

WE'RE NOT SEEING AS MUCH OF THE ENGAGEMENT THAT I THINK PEOPLE WOULD FIND MORE SATISFYING.

>> I THINK THAT'S REGRETTABLE.

I THINK THE CHOICE, FOR EXAMPLE, THE INITIAL CHOICE OF COUNSEL ESSENTIALLY TO ONLY ASK ONE VERY SHORT QUESTION -- >> THE DEMOCRATS.

>> YEAH, TO ASK ONE VERY SHORT QUESTION OF TURLEY AND CUT HIM OFF WITH A YES NO SEEMS SMALL.

ALSO, I THINK IT DOES PREVENT THE KIND OF INTERCHANGE THAT YOU AND I THINK THE AMERICAN PUBLIC WOULD LIKE TO SEE.

I THINK THAT'S REGRETTABLE.

>> SOL WISENBERG, I GUESS MAYBE WE SHOULD EXPECT IT GIVEN THE PARTISAN REALITY OF HOW THE CONGRESS OPERATES RIGHT NOW.

>> WE CAN EXPECT IT.

I WOULD HAVE HOPED FOR BETTER GIVEN THESE ARE LAW PROFESSORS THAT HAVE SOME KIND OF AN OBLIGATION TO BE OBJECTIVE, REASONABLE PEOPLE.

REASONABLE PEOPLE CAN HAVE REASONABLE DISAGREEMENTS.

I AGREE WITH PROFESSOR BOWMAN, I WOULD HAVE LIKED TO SEE MORE OF THAT HERE.

>> WE ARE HEARING TO THE BOTH OF YOU, FRANK BOWMAN, SOL WISENBERG, WE'RE HEARING DISCUSSIONS OF ARGUMENTS FOR IMPEACHMENT THAT THE DEMOCRATS HAVE MADE.

THE HEARINGS STARTED OUT WITH PROFESSOR MICHAEL GERHARDT SAYING THAT HE ALREADY SEES FOUR IMPEACHABLE OFFENSES BY THE PRESIDENT.

BRIBERY A BECAUSE OF OFFICE, OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE AND OBSTRUCTION OF THE CONGRESS.

I WANT TO COME QUICKLY TO BRIBERY, FRANK.

WE'VE BEEN DISCUSSING THAT HERE AT THE TABLE.

IT'S COME UP IN THE HEARING.

THE DISCUSSION OF WHETHER THE DEFINITION OF BRIBERY GOES BACK TO ENGLAND AND THE 1600s AND BEFORE THAT OR WHETHER IT'S A MORE MODERN DEFINITION IN AMERICAN LEGAL CODE IS RELEVANT TO WHAT THEY'RE TALKING ABOUT TODAY.

>> LET ME PREFACE MY REMARKS BY THAT BY SAYING I'M NOT A FAN OF THE IDEA OF TRYING TO FRAME THE CASE INVOLVING MR. TRUMP AS BRIBERY.

THE REASON THAT I HAVE NOT BEEN A FAN IS PLAYING OUT IN FRONT OF US RIGHT NOW.

THE REASON THE DEMOCRATS WANTED TO DESCRIBE THIS AS BRIBERY IS BECAUSE BRIBERY IS A SEPARATE GROUND OF IMPEACHMENT, TREASON BRIBERY, HIGH CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS.

HIGH CRIMES IS THIS CONCEPT IS THOUGHT OF TO HAVE A LOT OF EXPLANATION.

THE DEMOCRATS THOUGHT IF WE CAN CALL THIS BRIBELY, IT'S SIMPLER.

PEOPLE WILL UNDERSTAND IT BETTER AND THEREFORE WE CAN PERHAPS AVOID THE NECESSITY OF DELVING INTO HIGH CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS.

THE PROBLEM IS THAT AS WE'VE SEEN, THERE ARE TWO SETS OF INTERPRETIVE ISSUES WITH BRIBERY.

THE FIRST IS WHICH BRIBERY ARE WE TALKING ABOUT?

ARE WE TALKING ABOUT THE BRIBERY THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN FAMILIAR TO THE FRAMERS IN 1787?

WHICH IS AS WE HAVE SEEN IS A GOOD DEAL OF DISAGREEMENT ABOUT AND MUCH HARDER TO PIN DOWN.

OR ON THE OTHER HAND, IS IT APPROPRIATE TO TALK ABOUT MODERN BRIBERY.

MY OWN VIEW IS THAT SINCE WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THE INTERPRETATION OF THE CONSTITUTION WRITTEN IN 1787, ON THIS POINT I THINK WHAT BRIBERY WAS BACK THEN IS PROBABLY A BETTER INDICATOR OF WHAT THE CONSTITUTION MEANS.

BUT THE -- >> THERE'S A BROADER DEFINITION.

>> I'M NOT SURE THAT IT IS.

DEPENDS ON WHICH DEFINITION THAT YOU PICK OUT.

S SAMUEL JOHNSON'S DICTIONARY OR OTHER CONTEMPORARY SOURCES.

THERE'S IMMENSE DISAGREEMENT ABOUT WHAT COMMON LAW BRIBERY WOULD HAVE MEANT.

SOME OF THE WITNESSES SAY IT REFERRED TO JUDGES.

THERE'S SOME EVIDENCE THAT THERE WASN'T ANY INCLUSION OF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICIALS IN BRIBERY UNTIL PERHAPS AS LATE AS THE 1800s.

THERE'S ALSO THE VIEW THAT PERHAPS THE THING THAT PEOPLE AT THE TIME WOULD HAVE DESCRIBED THIS CONDUCT AS EXTORTION, NOT BRIBERY.

THE POINT IS, WHY GET INTO ALL OF THIS FALLEDERAL?

IT DISTRACT FROM THE MAIN POINT.

THE COMPLAINT POINT IS THAT HE ABUSED HIS POWER.

JUST TALK ABOUT THAT.

>> AND SOL WISENBERG, WE DON'T KNOW WHAT THE DEMOCRATIC ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT, ASSUMING THEY'RE WRITTEN -- WE ASSUME THEY WILL BE, BUT WE DON'T KNOW, WHAT THEY WILL FOCUS ON.

THESE ARE THE RECOMMENDATIONS, THE OPINIONS OF THESE LAW PROFESSORS LAYING OUT THE VARIOUS GROUNDS FOR IMPEACHMENT.

WHAT IS YOUR VIEW IN TERMS OF WHETHER IT'S BRIBERY, ABUSE OF POWER OR ONE OF THE OBSTRUCTIONS THAT THEY DESCRIBED THIS MORNING?

>> I AGREE WITH FRANK.

I THINK GIVEN THE STATE OF THE RECORD HERE, IT'S BETTER TO FOCUS ON GENERAL CONCEPTS LIKE ABUSE OF POWER OR PUBLIC CORRU CORRUPTION.

YOU GET INTO PROBLEMS WHEN YOU TALK ABOUT BRIBERY.

AS TURLEY POINTED OUT, MASON -- GEORGE MASON, ONE OF THE FOUNDERS THOUGHT THAT HE VOTED -- HE DIDN'T VOTE TO APPROVE THE CONSTITUTION.

HE VOTED OR ARGUED AGAINST RATIFICATION.

HE THOUGHT BRIBERY WAS TOO NARROW.

THAT'S WHY HE SUGGESTED MALADMINISTRATION.

JEFFERSON THOUGHT MALADMINISTRATION WAS TOO BROAD.

LIKE I SAID BEFORE, IF YOU WANT TO FOCUS ON WHAT THE INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE HAS FOCUSED ON, THE UKRAINE INCIDENT AND I AGREE WITH FRANK THAT IT'S NOT CONFINED TO THAT ONE TELEPHONE CALL, I BELIEVE THAT ON THIS RECORD, THIS INCIDENT ALONE IN AND OF ITSELF IS NOT SUFFICIENT BASED ON WHAT WE KNOW NOW TO SUPPORT IMPEACHMENT AND REMOVAL.

THAT'S NOT SAYING THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP WON'T TWEET HIMSELF INTO A BROADER IMPEACHMENT CASE.

I ABSOLUTELY AGREE IF YOU'RE GOING TO DO THAT AS A MATTER OF TACTICS AND STRATEGY, I THINK IT WILL BE WISE FOR THE DEMOCRATS TO INCLUDE THE ALLEGED OBSTRUCTIVE ACTS THAT WERE MENTIONED IN THE SECOND SECTION OF THE MUELLER REPORT.

BECAUSE WHETHER OR NOT YOU BELIEVE THAT IS CRIMINAL OBSTRUCTION, IT WAS CLEARLY REPREHENSIBLE CONDUCT ON THE PART OF THE PRESIDENT.

YOU HAD THE PRESIDENT SUGGESTING TO OUR ASKING DON McGANN TO CREATE A FALSE RECORD OF WHAT THE PRESIDENT HAD ASKED HIM TO DO.

VERY POWERFUL STUFF.

>> NO QUESTION ABOUT IT.

YAMICHE ALCINDOR, WE'RE STILL WANTING FOR LISA AT THE CAPITOL.

BUT YAMICHE, I WANT TO COME TO YOU.

WE JUST HEARD DON McGANN'S NAME RAISED.

HE'S A FORMER WHITE HOUSE COUNSEL WHO LEFT SOME MONTHS AGO.

HE IS NOW BEEN SUBPOENAED TO APPEAR.

SO FAR HE'S CHALLENGING THAT IN THE COURTS.

WE'LL WAIT AND SEE WHETHER OR NOT HE DOES.

SO MUCH OF THE DISCUSSION RIGHT NOW ABOUT WHETHER THE PRESIDENT DID OR DIDN'T DO SOMETHING THAT CONSTITUTES AN INPEACHABLE OFFENSE MAY HINGE, THE FACTS OF IT, MAY HINGE IN PART ON WHETHER CONGRESS IS ABLE TO HEAR FROM THE PEOPLE LIKE DON McGANN AND OTHERS WHO CURRENTLY SERVE IN THE ADMINISTRATION WHO THE PRESIDENT SAID HE DOESN'T WANT TO TESTIFY.

>> THAT'S RIGHT, JUDY.

A NEWS OF WHITE HOUSE OFFICIALS CURRENT AND FORMER THAT THE PRESIDENT HAS DECIDED NOT TO MAKE AVAILABLE TO CONGRESS.

THOSE INDIVIDUALS COULD STILL COME BEFORE CONGRESS IF THEY FELT LIKE THEY NEEDED TO DO THAT.

THERE'S PEOPLE WORKING AT THE WHITE HOUSE LIKE LIEUTENANT COLONEL VINDMAN WHO HAS SAID LOOK, IT WAS MY DUTY TO COME BEFORE CONGRESS.

PEOPLE LIKE JOHN BOLTON, PEOPLE LIKE DON McGANN, THE FORMER WHITE HOUSE COUNSEL, THE ACTING CHIEF OF STAFF, MICK MULVANEY, WHO IS STILL WORKING AT THE WHITE HOUSE, NONE OF THEM HAVE SHOWN UP TO THIS IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY.

DEMOCRATS ARE SAYING THAT'S PART OF PRESIDENT TRUMP'S OBSTRUCTING JUSTICE.

HIM NOT ALLOWING OFFICIALS TO COME BEFORE CONGRESS IS PART OF WHAT COULD BE IMPEACHABLE.

BUT THE REPUBLICANS WITNESSES HAVE SAID THAT REALLY HE THINKS THAT DEMOCRATS ARE THE ONES THAT MIGHT BE ABUSING POWER BECAUSE HE SAID SOMETHING CRITICAL.

HE SAID IF YOU THINK THAT NOT ALLOWING WITNESSES AND ALLOWING THE COURTS TO THINK THROUGH WHETHER OR NOT THESE WITNESSES CAN BE COMPELLED TO COME TO CONGRESS, IF THAT IS IMPEACHABLE, IT'S ON THE SIDE OF THE DEMOCRATS.

SO YOU HAD A POWERFUL STATEMENT FROM THE REPUBLICAN WITNESS SAYING DEMOCRATS, YOU'RE DOING WHAT YOU THINK PRESIDENT TRUMP IS DOING HERE.

I SHOULD ALSO NOTE THE WHITE HOUSE IS RESPONDING IN REAL TIME.

STEPHANIE GRISHAM SAID THREE OF THE FOUR WITNESSES TALKING ABOUT THE DEMOCRAT WITNESSES, THEY DIDN'T HAVE ANY WITNESSES.

THEY WERE AIRING THEIR FRUSTRATION AND STILL DIDN'T HAVE ANY DIRECT EVIDENCE TYING TO PRESIDENT TRUMP WHAT DEMOCRATS SAY IS A SCHEME TO PRESSURE UKRAINE TO INVESTIGATE JOE BIDEN AND HUNTER BIDEN.

>> AND YAMICHE, INTERESTING WHAT SHE SAID ABOUT PROFESSOR JONATHAN TURLEY, THE ONE WITNESS CALLED BY REPUBLICANS AND WHAT HE HAD TO SAY ABOUT IMPEACHMENT AND WHETHER THE PRESIDENT'S COOPERATION OR LACK OF COOPERATION, BECAUSE ANOTHER ONE OF THESE LEGAL SCHOLARS WAS SAYING THAT THERE'S ABUNDANT EVIDENCE.

WORDS TO THE EFFECT, NO PRESIDENT HAS EVER REFUSED AS MUCH AS THIS PRESIDENT HAS REFUSED TO TURN OVER EVIDENCE TO PROVIDE WITNESSES -- >> CAN I SPEAK TO THAT >> SURE.

SOL?

>> BOTH SIDES MADE GOOD POINTS.

BOTH POINTS.

AND TURLEY SAID THAT CUPPERMAN WENT TO A COURT AND HE SAID CONGRESS WANTS ME TO DO THIS.

THE PRESIDENT HAS INSTRUCTED ME TO DO THIS.

I NEED THE GUIDANCE OF THE COURT.

AGREE.

YOU CAN'T DO SOMETHING TO SOMEBODY LIKE THAT.

IT'S PROFESSOR GERHARDT THAT SAYS THERE'S BEEN NO PRESIDENT WHO HAS CLAIMED SUCH A BROAD OBSTRUCTION.

HE'S TELLING NOT JUST WHITE HOUSE OFFICIALS, ALL THE PRESIDENTS HAVE TAKEN THAT POSITION.

HE'S TELLING EVERYBODY IN THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH YOU CANNOT APPEAR AND YOU CANNOT GIVE ANY DOCUMENTS.

THAT I BELIEVE IS TRULY UNPRECEDENTED.

>> AND FORMER OFFICIALS AS WELL.

I MEAN, THEY FALL UNDER THIS UMBRELLA.

>> RIGHT.

AGAIN, IF THEY'RE FORMER WHITE HOUSE OFFICIALS, EVERYBODY PRESIDENT SINCE AT LEAST CLINTON HAS TAKEN THIS EXTREME POSITION THAT THEY'RE IMMUNE FROM EVEN SHOWING UP.

AS WE'VE SEEN IN THE COURTS, TWO COURTS HAVE CONSIDERED THIS NOW AND BOTH HAVE REJECTED THAT.

>> LISA DESJARDINS AT THE CAPITOL.

THERE YOU ARE.

ANY OPPORTUNITY TO TALK TO MEMBERS, TALK TO MEMBERS ON THE COMMITTEE ABOUT HOW THEY THINK THIS HEARING IS GOING SO FAR TODAY?

>> I DID HAVE SOME OPPORTUNITY TO TALK TO MEMBERS.

ONLY ABLE TO CATCH ONE.

THEY WERE ON THEIR WAY TO VOTE.

OUR PRODUCER IS DOWNSTAIRS HERE IN THE CAPITOL.

YOU KNOW, HONESTLY, IT WAS JUST TALKING POINTS.

HANK JOHNSON, DEMOCRAT, TALKING TO ME ABOUT SAYING HE FELT LIKE THE DEMOCRATIC WITNESSES COMPLETELY CONVICTED THEIR CASE.

THINK FELT LIKE THAT IT WAS CLEAR AND CONVINCING EVIDENCE.

YOU KNOW, I THINK SITTING IN THE ROOM, ONE THOUGHT THAT INSTRUCT ME, DEMOCRATS MADE AN EARLY DECISION AND HOW TO STRUCTURE THIS HEARING IN THAT THEY WOULD HAVE THREE WITNESSES, SOMETHING YOUR GUESTS HAVE TALKED ABOUT AND THERE WOULD BE ONE REPUBLICAN WITNESS.

I WONDER IF THEY DIDN'T CONSIDER THAT SINGLE REPUBLICAN WITNESS WOULD HAVE KIND OF AN ADVANTAGE IN HE COULD TAKE AS MUCH TIME AS HE WANTED AND PRESENT ONE LONG FLOWING ARGUMENT VERSUS THE THREE WITNESSES ON THE DEMOCRATIC SIDE THAT YOU WERE HEARING FROM THEM POPCORN LIKE ONE AFTER THE OTHER.

DEMOCRATS SAID THEY WANTED THE LONG STAFF QUESTIONING, 45 MINUTES BECAUSE THEY WANTED THE CHANCE TO LAY OUT ONE LOGICAL FLOW OF AN ARGUMENT.

I WONDER IF THEY ENDED UP GIVING REPUBLICANS AN EVEN BETTER OPPORTUNITY BY LIMITING THEM TO ONE WITNESS.

REPUBLICANS HAVE TOLD ME THEY DID ASK FOR MORE WITNESSES.

THEY GAVE SEVERAL NAMES FOR POSSIBLE CONSTITUTIONAL SCHOLARS FOR THIS HEARING.

DEMOCRATS SELECTED FROM THAT REPUBLICAN LIST MR. TURLEY.

I'M INTERESTED TO SEE WHAT THEIR THOUGHTS ARE LATER ABOUT THAT SELECTION.

>> IT WILL BE VERY INTERESTING TO SEE AS WE HAVE NOTED TIME AND AGAIN.

IT'S THE DEMOCRATS THAT ARE IN THE MAJORITY.

THEY MAKE THESE JUDGMENT CALLS AND WE'LL SEE WHETHER OR NOT -- HOW THIS PANS OUT.

IT IS STRIKING THOUGH AS YOU SAID THE DEMOCRATS -- DEMOCRATIC -- RATHER THE WITNESSES CALLED BY THE DEMOCRATS, THE CONSTITUTIONAL SCHOLARS, LAW PROFESSORS HAVE MADE SOME I THINK POINTS THAT ARE SALIENT, THAT COME ACROSS, SEEM TO BE STRONG POINTS.

BUT THEN AS YOU SAID, THEY MIX IT UP AMONG THEMSELVES AND MR. TURLEY CALLED BY THE REPUBLICANS HAS HIS OWN 45 MINUTES ALL PRETTY MUCH TO HIMSELF.

>> ONE OTHER THING ABOUT THAT, SOMETHING ABOUT I THINK MR. TURLEY'S DEMEANOR IN THE ROOM.

MEMBERS WERE PAYING CLOSER ATTENTION TO HIM.

HE HAS A WAY OF MAKING EYE CONTACT WITH THE MEMBERS.

HE'S RELATING PERSONAL STORIES.

HE SMOKE ABOUT HIS WIFE.

HE'S GOT A MORE LAID BACK DEMEANOR AND MAKING EYE CONTACT.

BOTH SIDES PAY MORE ATTENTION TO HIM THAN TO THE DEMOCRATIC WITNESSES.

I THINK IN PART, THEY WERE MORE PREDICTABLE.

HIS ANSWERS ARE LESS PREDICTABLE AND HE WOULD GET A LITTLE MORE ATTENTION FROM THE DAIS OVER THE RESULT.

>> WHEN HE SPOKE ABOUT HIS MAD, HE TALKED ABOUT HIS DOG.

LISA, WE'RE GOING TO LET YOU WATCH WHAT'S GOING ON AND MAYBE COME BACK.

LISA REPORTING FROM THE CAPITOL AS THE HOUSE JUDICIARY TAKES A BREAK FROM THE IMPEACHMENT HEARING IN ORDER TO TAKE SOME VOTES ON THE HOUSE FLOOR.

SOL, I WANT TO COME BACK TO YOU ON THIS DECISION BY THE DEMOCRATS TO NOT -- WE KNEW THEY WOULD HAVE MORE WITNESSES.

THAT IS THEIR RIGHT TO DO THAT.

BUT TO STRUCTURE THIS IN THE WAY THAT THEY HAVE IS -- IN ESSENCE THESE THREE PROFESSORS THAT THE DEMOCRATS CALLED ARE REPEATING EACH OTHER'S ARGUMENTS, AREN'T THEY?

>> IT'S AMAZING TO FIND OUT THAT THE DEMOCRATS ACTUALLY PICKED TURLEY FROM THE REPUBLICAN LIST BECAUSE HE'S VERY ELOQUENT.

HE'S DONE THIS -- HE'S ON TV CONSTANTLY AND HE'S TESTIFIED CONSTANTLY.

HE HAS PERSONAL EXPERIENCE AS COUNSEL IN IMPEACHMENT CASES.

SO I CERTAINLY THINK AGAIN FROM A TACTICAL PERSPECTIVE, THAT'S A BIG MISTAKE.

>> WE ARE -- WE RIGHT NOW ARE WAITING FOR THE COMMITTEE TO COME BACK FROM ITS BREAK.

WE WOULD LIKE TO REPLAY FOR YOU AND MAYBE WE'LL HAVE TIME TO DO THIS IN ITS ENTIRETY, THE OPENING STATEMENT BY THE DEMOCRATIC CHAIRMAN OF THE HOUSE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE JERRY NADLER AND FOLLOWED BY THE OPENING STATEMENT BY THE RANKING REPUBLICAN CONGRESSMAN DOUG COLLINS OF GEORGIA.

LET'S START BY AIRING CHAIRMAN NADLER'S STATEMENT.

>> THE FACTS BEFORE US ARE UNDISPUTED.

ON JULY 25, PRESIDENT TRUMP CALLED PRESIDENT ZELENSKY OF UKRAINE AND PRESIDENT TRUMP'S WORDS ASKED HIM FOR A FAVOR.

THAT CALL WAS PART OF A CONCERTED EFFORT BY THE PRESIDENT AND HIS MEN TO SOLICIT A PERSONAL ADVANTAGE IN THE NEXT ELECTION.

THIS TIME IN THE FORM OF AN INVESTIGATION OF HIS POLITICAL ADVERSARIES BY A FOREIGN GOVERNMENT.

TO OBTAIN THAT PRIVATE POLITICAL ADVANTAGE, PRESIDENT TRUMP WITHHELD BOTH AN OFFICIAL WHITE HOUSE MEETING FROM THE NEWLY-ELECTED PRESIDENT OF THE FRAGILE DEMOCRACY AND WITHHELD VITAL MILITARY AID FROM A VULNERABLE ALLY.

WHEN CONGRESS FOUND OUT ABOUT THIS SCHEME AND BEGAN TO INVESTIGATE, PRESIDENT TRUMP TOOK EXTRAORDINARY AND UNPRESHE DEBTED STEPS TO COVER UP HIS EFFORTS AND TO WITHHOLD EVIDENCE FROM THE INVESTIGATORS.

WHEN WITNESSES DISOBEYED HIM, WHEN CAREER PROFESSIONALS CAME FORWARD AND TOLD US THE TRUTH, HE ATTACKED THEM VICIOUSLY.

CALLING THEM TRAITORS AND LIE I DON'T REMEMBERS, PROMISES THAT THEY WILL GO THROUGH SOME THINGS.

OF COURSE THIS IS NOT THE FIRST TIME THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP HAS ENGAGED IN THIS PATTERN OF CONDUCT.

IN 2016, THE RUSSIAN GOVERNMENT ENGAGED IN A SWEEPING AND SYSTEMATIC CAMPAIGN OF INTERFERENCE IN THEIR ELECTIONS.

IN THE WORDS OF SPECIAL COUNSEL ROBERT MUELLER "THE RUSSIAN GOVERNMENT PERCEIVED IT WOULD BENEFIT FROM A TRUMP PRESIDENCY AND WORK TO SECURITY THAT OUTCOME."

THE PRESIDENT WELCOMED THAT INTERFERENCE.

WE SAW THIS IN REAL TIME WHEN PRESIDENT TRUMP ASKED RUSSIA TO HACK HIS POLITICAL OPPONENT.

THE VERY NEXT DAY, A RUSSIAN MILITARY INTELLIGENCE UNIT ATTEMPTED TO HACK THAT POLITICAL OPPONENT.

WHEN HIS OWN JUSTICE DEPARTMENT TRIED TO UNCOVER THE EXTENT TO WHICH A FOREIGN GOVERNMENT BROKE OUR LAWS, THE PRESIDENT TOOK UNPRECEDENTED STEPS TO OBSTRUCT THE INVESTIGATION, INCLUDING IGNORING SUBPOENAS AND PUBLICLY ATTACKING AND INTIMIDATING WITNESSES.

THIS IS THE ADMINISTRATION'S LEVEL OF OBSTRUCTION IS WITHOUT PRECEDENT.

NO OTHER PRESIDENT HAS VOWED TO "FIGHT ALL OF THE SUBPOENAS" AS PRESIDENT TRUMP PROMISED.

IN THE 1974 IMPEACHMENT PROCEEDINGS, PRESIDENT NIXON PRODUCED DOZENS OF RECORDINGS.

IN 1998, PRESIDENT CLINTON PHYSICALLY GAVE HIS BLOOD.

PRESIDENT TRUMP BY CONTRAST HAS REFUSED TO PRODUCE A SINGLE DOCUMENT AND DIRECTED EVERY WITNESS NOT TO TESTIFY.

THOSE ARE THE FACTS BEFORE US.

IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY HAS MOVED BACK TO THE HOUSE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE.

AS WE BEGIN A REVIEW, THE PRESIDENT'S PATTERN OF BEHAVIOR IS CLEAR.

PRESIDENT TRUMP WELCOMED FOREIGN INTERFERENCE IN THE 2016 ELECTION.

HE DEMANDED IT FOR THE 2020 ELECTION.

IN BOTH CASES, HE GOT CAUGHT.

IN BOTH CASES HE DID EVERYTHING IN HIS POWER TO PREVENT THE AMERICAN PEOPLE FROM LEARNING THE TRUTH ABOUT HIS CONDUCT.

JULY 24th, THE SPECIAL COUNSEL TESTIFIED BEFORE THIS COMMITTEE.

HE IMPLORED US TO SEE THE NATURE OF THE THREATS TO OUR COUNTRY.

"OVER THE COURSE OF MY CAREER, I HAVE SEEN A NUMBER OF CHALLENGES TO OUR DEMOCRACY.

THE RUSSIAN GOVERNMENT'S EFFORTS TO INTERFERE IN OUR ELECTIONS IS AMONG THE MOST SERIOUS.

THIS DESERVES THE ATTENTION OF EVERY AMERICAN."

IGNORING THAT WARNING, PRESIDENT TRUMP CALLED THE UKRAINIAN PRESIDENT THE VERY NEXT DAY TO ASK HIM TO INVESTIGATE THE PRESIDENT'S POLITICAL OPPONENT.

AS WE EXERCISED OUR RESPONSIBILITY TO DETERMINE WHETHER THIS PATTERN OF BEHAVIOR CONSTITUTES AN IMPEACHABLE OFFENSE, IT'S IMPORTANT TO PLACE PRESIDENT TRUMP'S CONDUCT INTO HISTORICAL CONTEXT.

SINCE THE FOUNDING OF OUR COUNTRY, THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES HAS IMPEACHED ONLY TWO PRESIDENTS.

A THIRD WAS ON HIS WAY TO IMPEACHMENT WHEN HE RESIGNED.

THIS COMMITTEE HAS VOTED TO IMPEACH TWO PRESIDENTS FOR OBSTRUCTING JUSTICE.

WE HAVE VOTED TO IMPEACH ONE PRESIDENT FOR OBSTRUCTING A CONGRESSIONAL INVESTIGATION.

TO THE EXTENT THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP'S CONDUCT FITS THESE CATEGORIES, THERE'S PRECEDENT FOR RECOMMENDING IMPEACHMENT HERE.

NEVER BEFORE IN THE HISTORY OF THE REPUBLIC HAVE WE BEEN FORCED TO CONSIDER THE CONDUCT OF A PRESIDENT WHO APPEARS TO HAVE SOLICITED PERSONAL POLITICAL FAVORS FROM A FOREIGN GOVERNMENT.

NEVER BEFORE HAS A PRESIDENT ENGAGED IN THE COURSE OF CONDUCT THAT INCLUDED ALL OF THE ACTS THAT MOST CONCERNED THE FRAMERS.

THE PATRIOTS THAT FOUNDED OUR COUNTRY WERE NOT FEARFUL MEN.

THEY FOUGHT A WAR.

THEY WITNESSED TERRIBLE VIOLENCE.

THEY OVERTHREW A KING.

AS THEY MET TO FRAME OUR CONSTITUTION, THOSE PATRIOTS STILL FEARED ONE THREAT ABOVE ALL.

FOREIGN INTERFERENCE IN OUR ELECTIONS.

THEY JUXTAPOSED A TYRANT.

IN THE EARLY YEARS OF THE REPUBLIC, THEY ASKED US TO BE VIGILANT TO THAT THREAT.

WASHINGTON WARNED US "TO BE CONSTANTLY AWAKE SINCE HISTORY AND EXPERIENCE PROVED THAT FOREIGN INFLUENCES IS ONE OF THE MOST BAINFUL FOES OF REPUBLICAN GOVERNMENTS."

ADAMS WROTE, THE DANGER OF FOREIGN INFLUENCE RECURS.

HAMILTON'S WARNING WAS MORE DIRE.

HE SAID ADVERSARIES WOULD ATTEMPT TO RAISE A CREATURE OF THEIR OWN TO THE UNION.

IN SHORT, THE FOUNDERS WARNED US THAT WE SHOULD EXPECT OUR FOREIGN ADVERSARIES TO TARGET OUR ELECTIONS AND WE WILL FIND OURSELVES IN GREATER DANGER IF THEOPENS THE DOOR TO THEIR WILLINGNESS.

HOW WILL WE KNOW IN THE PRESIDENT HAS BETRAYED HIS COUNTRY IN THIS MANNER?

HOW WILL WE KNOW IF HE BETRAYS IT FOR PETTY PERSONAL GAIN?

HAMILTON HAD A RESPONSE AS WELL.

HE WROTE "WHEN A MAN UNPRINCIPLED IN PRIVATE LIFE, BOLD IN HIS TEMPER, POSSESSES OF CONSIDERABLE TALENTS, KNOWN TO HAVE SCOFFED AT THE PRINCIPLES OF LIBERTY, WHEN A MAN MOUNTS THE HOBBY HORSE OF POPULARITY, TO TAKE EVERY OPPORTUNITY OF EMBARRASSING THE GENERAL GOVERNMENT AND BRINGING IT UNDER SUSPICION, IT MAY JUSTLY BE SUSPECTED HIS OBJECT IS TO THROW THINGS INTO CONFUSION THAT HE MAY RIDE THE STORM AND DIRECT THE WHIRLWIND."

LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, THE STORM IN WHICH WE FIND OURSELVES IN TODAY WAS SET IN MOTION BY PRESIDENT TRUMP.

I DO NOT WISH THIS MOMENT ON THE COUNTRY.

IT'S NOT A PLEASANT TASK THAT WE UNDERTAKE TODAY.

WE HAVE EACH TAKEN AN OATH TO PROTECT THE CONSTITUTION AND THE FACTS BEFORE US ARE CLEAR.

PRESIDENT TRUMP DID NOT MERELY SEEK TO BENEFIT FROM FOREIGN INTERFERENCE IN OUR ELECTIONS.

HE DIRECTLY AND INVITED FOREIGN INTERFERENCE IN OUR ELECTIONS.

HE USED THE POWERS OF HIS OFFICE TO TRY TO MAKE IT HAPPEN.

HE SENT HIS AGENTS TO MAY CLEAR THAT THIS IS WHAT HE WANTED AND DEMANDED.

HE WAS WILLING TO COMPROMISE OUR SECURITY AND HIS OFFICE FOR PERSONAL POLITICAL GAIN.

IT DOES NOT MATTER THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP GOT CAUGHT AND ULTIMATELY RELEASED THE FUNDS THAT THE UKRAINE SO DESPERATELY NEEDED.

IT MATTERS THAT HE ENLISTED A FOREIGN GOVERNMENT TO INTERVENE IN THE FIRST PLACE.

DOES NOT MATTER THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP FELT THAT THESE INVESTIGATIONS WERE UNFAIR TO HIM.

IT MATTERS THAT HE USED HIS OFFICE NOT MERELY TO DEFEND HIMSELF BUT TO OBSTRUCT INVESTIGATORS AT EVERY TURN.

WE'RE ALL AWARE THE NEXT ELECTION IS LOOMING.

WE CANNOT WAIT FOR THE ELECTION TO ADDRESS THE PRESENT CRISIS.

THE INTEGRITY OF THAT ELECTION IS ONE OF THE VERY THINGS AT STAKE.

THE PRESIDENT HAS SHOWN US HIS PATTERN OF CONDUCT.

IF WE DON'T ACT TO HOLD HIM IN CHECK NOW, PRESIDENT TRUMP WILL ALMOST CERTAINLY TRY AGAIN TO SOLICIT INTERFERENCE IN THE ELECTION FOR HIS PERSONAL POLITICAL GAIN.

TODAY WE WILL BEGIN OUR CONVERSATION WHERE WE SHOULD WITH THE TEXT OF THE CONTEXT.

WE ARE EMPOWERED TO RECOMMEND THE IMPEACHMENT OF PRESIDENT TRUMP TO THE HOUSE IF WE FIND THAT HE HAS COMMITTED TREASON, BRIBERY OR OTHER HIGH CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS.

OUR WITNESS PANEL WILL HELP US TO GUIDE THAT CONVERSATION.

IN A FEW DAYS, WE WILL RECONVENE AND HEAR FROM THE COMMITTEES AT WORK TO UNCOVER THE FACTS BEFORE US.

WHEN WE APPLY THE CONSTITUTION TO THOSE FACTS, IF IT IS TRUE THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP HAS COMMITTED AN IMPEACHABLE OFFENSE OR MULTIPLE IMPEACHABLE OFFENSES, THEN WE MUST MOVE SWIFTLY TO DO OUR DUTY AND CHARGE HIM ACCORDINGLY.

I THANK THE WITNESSES FOR BEING HERE TODAY.

>> FOR EVERYBODY WHO HAS NOT BEEN HERE BEFORE, THIS IS A NEW ROOM, NEW RULES.

IT'S A NEW MONTH.

WE HAVE EVEN GOT CUTE LITTLE STICKERS 4 OR STAFF SO WE CAN COME.

IN THIS IS IMPORTANT.

IT'S IMPEACHMENT.

WE'VE DONE A TERRIBLE JOB OF IT BEFORE.

WHAT IS NOT NEW IS BASICALLY WHAT HAS JUST BEEN REITERATED BY THE CHAIRMAN WHAT IS NOT NEW IS THE FACTS.

WHAT IS NOT NEW IS THIS IS THE SAME SAD STORY.

WHAT IS INTERESTING BEFORE I GET INTO MY -- PART OF MY OPENING STATEMENT, WHAT WAS JUST SAID BY THE CHAIRMAN.

WE WEREN'T -- WE BACK TO A REDO OF MR. MUELLER.

HE SAID THE ATTENTION OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE SHOULD BE ON FOREIGN INTERFERENCE.

I AGREE.

I GUESS THE AMERICAN PEOPLE DID NOT INCLUDE THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE.

WE DIDN'T TAKE IT UP.

WE DIDN'T HAVE HEARINGS.

WE DIDN'T DO ANYTHING TO DELVE DEEPLY INTO THIS ISSUE.

WE PASSED ELECTION BILLS BUT DID NOT GET INTO WHAT MR. MUELLER TALKED ABOUT.

TAKING HIS OWN REPORT AND HAVING HEARINGS ABOUT THAT.

WE DIDN'T DO IT.

SO I GUESS THE AMERICAN PEOPLE DOESN'T INCLUDE THE HOUSE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE.

THE INTERESTING THING WE JUST HEARD, WE'RE GOING TO HAVE A LOT OF DISCUSSIONS ABOUT THE CONSTITUTION AND THE FOUNDERS WHAT IS INTERESTING, THE CHAIRMAN TALKED ABOUT THE FOUNDERS FROM THE QUOTES AND BEING CONCERNED ABOUT FOREIGN INFLUENCE.

WHAT HE ALSO DIDN'T QUOTE IS THE FOUNDERS BEING REALLY CONCERNED ABOUT POLITICAL IMPEACHMENT.

YOU JUST DON'T LIKE THE GUY.

YOU NEVER LOOKED HIM SINCE NOVEMBER OF 2016.

THE CHAIRMAN HAS TALKED ABOUT IMPEACHMENT SINCE LAST YEAR WHEN HE WAS ELECTED CHAIRMAN.

TWO YEARS ON NOVEMBER 17, BEFORE HE WAS SWORN IN AS CHAIRMAN.

SO DON'T TELL ME THIS IS ABOUT NEW EVIDENCE AND NEW THINGS AND NEW STUFF.

WE MAY HAVE A NEW HEARING ROOM, MAY HAVE NEW MICS AND CHAIRS THAT AREN'T COMFORTABLE BUT THIS IS NOTHING NEW, FOLKS.

THIS IS SAD.

SO WHAT DO WE HAVE HERE TODAY?

YOU KNOW WHAT I'M THINKING?

I LOOKED AT THIS.

WHAT IS INTERESTING IS THERE'S TWO THINGS THAT HAVE COME VERY CLEAR.

THIS IMPEACHMENT IS NOT ABOUT FACTS.

IF IT WAS, THE OTHER COMMITTEES WOULD HAVE SENT OVER RECOMMENDATIONS FOR IMPEACHMENT.

IF IT GOES BADLY, THEY WANT TO BLAME ADAM SCHIFF'S COMMITTEE AND THEY WANT TO BLAME THIS ONE FOR IT GOING BAD.

BUT THEY'RE ALREADY DRAFTING ARTICLES.

WE WENT IN WITH THIS MUELLER COHEN, THE EMOLUMENTS, THE LIST GOES ON.

IF YOU WANT TO KNOW WHAT IS DRIVING THIS?

THE CLOCK AND THE CALENDAR.

THAT'S IT.

MOST PEOPLE IN LIFE, IF YOU WANT TO KNOW WHAT THEY VALUE, LOOK AT THEIR CHECKBOOK AND THEIR CALENDAR.

YOU KNOW WHAT THEY VALUE.

THAT'S WHAT THIS COMMITTEE VALUES.

TIME.

THEY WANT TO DO IT BEFORE THE END OF THE YEAR.

WHY?

THE CHAIRMAN SAID IT JUST A SECOND AGO.

WE'RE SCARED OF THE ELECTIONS NEXT YEAR.

WE'RE SCARED OF THE ELECTIONS, THAT WE'LL LOSE AGAIN.

SO WE HAVE TO DO THIS NOW.

THE CLOCK AND THE CALENDAR IS WHAT IS DRIVING IMPEACHMENT, NOT THE FACTS.

THAT'S WHAT THE WITNESSES WILL SAY TODAY.

WHAT DO WE HAVE HERE TODAY?

WHAT IS REALLY INTERESTING TODAY AND FOR THE NEXT FEW WEEKS, AMERICA WILL SEE WHY MOST PEOPLE DON'T GO TO LAW SCHOOL.

NO OFFENSE TO OUR PROFESSORS.

BUT PLEASE, REALLY?

WE'RE BRINGING YOU IN HERE TODAY TO TESTIFY SOMETHING ON MOST OF YOU HAVE ALREADY WRITTEN ABOUT, ALL FOUR, THE OPINIONS WE ALREADY KNOW OUT OF THE CLASSROOMS THAT MAYBE YOU'RE GETTING READY FOR FINALS IN TO DISCUSS THINGS THAT YOU PROBABLY HAVEN'T HAD A CHANCE -- UNLESS YOU'RE GOOD ON TV WATCHING THE HEARINGS THE LAST COUPLE WEEKS, YOU COULDN'T HAVE ACTUALLY DIGESTED THE ADAM SCHIFF REPORT FROM YESTERDAY OR THE REPUBLICAN RESPONSE IN ANY REAL WAY.

WE CAN BE THEORETICAL ALL WE WANT BUT THE AMERICAN PEOPLE ARE GOING TO SAY HUH?

WHAT ARE WE DOING?

THERE'S NO FACT WITNESSES PLANNED FOR THIS COMMITTEE.

THAT'S AN INTERESTING THING.

THERE'S NO PLAN AT ALL EXCEPT NEXT WEEK A HEARING ON THE PRECIPITATION FROM THE OTHER COMMITTEE TO SEND US A REPORT AND THE JUDICIALRY COMMITTEE WHICH I'M NOT SURE WHAT THEY WANT TOP SEND US A REPORT ON, NO PLAN.

NOTHING ELSE.

I ASKED THE CHAIRMAN BEFORE WE FT FOR THANKS GIVING TO STAY IN TOUCH, TALK ABOUT WHAT WE HAVE.

HISTORY WILL SHINE A BRIGHT LIGHT ON US STARTING THIS MORNING.

CRICKETS.

UNTIL I ASKED FOR A WITNESS THE OTHER DAY AND LET'S SAY THAT DIDN'T GO WELL.

THERE'S NO WHISTLE-BLOWER.

BY THE WAY, WE'LL PROVE TODAY THAT HE'S NOT OR SHE'S NOT AFFORDED THE PROTECTION OF IDENTITY.

IT'S NOT IN THE STATUTE.

IT'S SOMETHING THAT WAS MADE UP BY ADAM SCHIFF.

WE ALSO DON'T HAVE ADAM SCHIFF WHO WROTE THE REPORT.

HE SAID I'M NOT GOING TO.

I'LL SEND STAFF TO DO THAT.

HE'S NOT GOING TO.

YOU KNOW, TO ME, IF HE WAS WANTING TO, HE WOULD COME BEGGING TO US.

HERE'S THE PROBLEM.

HE SUMS IT UP SIMPLY LIKE THIS.

JUST 19 MINUTES AFTERNOON ON INAUGURATION DAY, THE CAMPAIGN TO IMPEACH THE PRESIDENT HAS BEGUN.

THAT'S "THE WASHINGTON POST."

ANOTHER TWEET, THE COUP IS STARTED.

THE IMPEACHMENT WILL FOLLOW.

AL GREEN SAYS IF WE DON'T IMPEACH THE PRESIDENT, HE WILL GET RE-ELECTED.

YOU WANT TO KNOW WHAT IS HAPPEN SOMETHING HERE WE GO.

WHY DID EVERYTHING I SAY UP TO THIS POINT ABOUT NO FACT WITNESSES, NOTHING FOR THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE WHICH SPEND 2 1/2 WEEKS BEFORE THIS HEARING WAS HELD, WE DIDN'T FIND YOUR NAMES OUT UNTIL LESS THAN 48 HOURS AGO.

I DON'T KNOW WHAT WE'RE PLAYING HIDE THE BAN ON.

IT'S EASY WHAT YOU'RE GOING TO SAY.

SO WHAT ARE WE DOING THE NEXT TWO WEEKS?

THE I HAVE NO HIDE.

THE CHAIR SAID A HEARING ON THE REPORT.

IF WE'RE NOT GOING TO HAVE FACT WITNESSES, WE'RE THE RUBBER STAMP HIDING OUT BACK, THE VERY RUBBER STAMP THE CHAIRMAN TALKS ABOUT 20 YEARS AGO.

WHAT A DISGRACE TO THIS COMMITTEE.

TO HAVE THIS COMMITTEE OF IMPEACHMENT SIMPLY TAKE FROM OTHER ENTITY AND RUBBER STAMP IT.

YOU SEE WHY DOES DO THE THINGS I SAY MATTER ABOUT FACT WITNESSES AND HEARINGS AND HAVING A DUE PROCESS?

BY THE WAY, JUST A COUPLE MONTHS AGO, THE DEMOCRATS GOT ALL SORT OF DRESSED UP, IF YOU WOULD AND SAID WE'RE GOING TO HAVE DUE PROCESS AND GOOD FAIRNESS.

THIS IS THE ONLY COMMITTEE IN THE PRESIDENT WOULD HAVE A POSSIBILITY, BUT NO OFFENSE TO YOU, THE LAW PROFESSORS, THE PRESIDENT HAS NOTHING TO ASK YOU.

YOU'RE NOT GOING TO PROVIDE ANYTHING HE CAN'T READ.

HIS ATTORNEYS HAVE NOTHING ELSE.

PUT WITNESSES IN THEY'RE THAT CAN BE FACT WITNESSES THAT CAN BE ACTUALLY CROSS EXAMINED.

THAT'S FAIRNESS.

EVERY ATTORNEY KNOWS THAT.

THIS IS A SHAM.

BUT YOU KNOW WHAT I ALSO SEE HERE, QUOTES LIKE THIS.

THERE MUST NEVER BE A NARROW LE VOTED IMPEACHMENT OR IMPEACHMENT SUPPORTED BY A POLITICAL PARTY.

SUCH AN IMPEACHMENT WILL PRODUCE DEVICIVE AND BITTERNESS FOR YEARS TO COME AND CALL INTO THE QUESTION THE LEGITIMATE SEE OF OUR POLITICAL INSTITUTIONS.

THE AMERICAN PEOPLE WILL WATCHING.

THEY WON'T FORGET.

YOU MAY HAVE THE VOTES, YOU MAY HAVE THE MUSCLE BUT YOU DON'T HAVE A NATIONAL CONSENSUS OR A CONSTITUTIONAL IMPAIR TENT.

THE COUP WILL GO DOWN IN INFAMY IN THE HISTORY OF THE NEIGHBORS.

HOW ABOUT THIS ONE?

I THINK THE KEY POINT IS THAT THE REPUBLICANS ARE STILL RUNNING A RAILROAD JOB WITH NO ATTEMPT AT FAIR PROCEDURE.

TODAY WHEN THE DEMOCRATS OFFERED AMENDMENTS, SAID WE SHOULD FIRST DISCUSS AND ADOPT STANDARDS FOR IMPEACHMENT VOTED DOWN OR RULED OUT OF ORDER.

WHEN THE PORT THING IS TO LOOK AT THE QUESTION BEFORE WE HAVE A VOTE WITH NO INQUIRY FIRST, THAT WAS VOTED DOWN AND RULED OUT OF ORD.

THE ESSENTIAL QUESTION IS HERE.

SET UP A FAIR PROCESS WHETHER TO PUT THIS COUNTRY THROUGH AN IMPEACHMENT PROCEEDING WAS RULED OUT OF ORDER.

THEY REFUSED TO LET US DISCUSS IT.

THOSE ARE ALL CHAIRMAN NADLER BEFORE HE WAS CHAIRMAN.

I GUESS 20 YEARS MAKES A DIFFERENCE.

IT'S AN INTERESTING TIME.

WE'RE HAVING A FACTLESS IMPEACHMENT.

YOU HEARD ONE SIDE OF FACTS ABOUT THIS PRESIDENT.

TODAY WE'LL PRESENT THE OTHER SIDE WILL GET SO CONVENIENTLY LEFT OUT.

FAIRNESS DOES DICTATE THAT.

MAYBE NOT HERE.

BECAUSE WE'RE NOT SCHEDULING ANYTHING ELSE.

I HAVE A DEMOCRATIC MAJORITY THINKS THEY OUGHT TO POLE TEST WHAT THEN'T DID.

THAT'S NOT FOLLOWING THE FACTS WITH HAVE A DEEP-SEEDED HATRED OF A MAN THAT CAME TO THE WHITE HOUSE AND DID WHAT HE SAID HE WAS GOING TO DO.

THE MOST AMAZING QUESTION THAT I GOT IN THE FIRST THREE MONTHS OF THIS FROM REPORTERS, CAN YOU BELIEVE HE'S PUTTING FORTH THOSE IDEAS?

YES, HE RAN ON THEM.

HE TOLD THE TRUTH AND DID WHAT HE SAID.

THE PROBLEM HERE TODAY IS THIS WILL ALSO BE ONE OF THE FIRST IMPEACHMENTS THE CHAIRMAN MENTIONED THERE WAS TWO OF THEM, ONE THAT BEFORE HE RESIGNED BEFORE AND ONE IN CLINTON IN WHICH THE FACTS EVEN BY DEMOCRATS AND REPUBLICANS WERE NOT REALLY DISPUTED.

IN THIS ONE THEY'RE NOT ONLY DISPUTED, THEY'RE COUNTER DICKIVE OF EACH OTHER.

THERE'S NOTHING TO PRESENT AN IMPEACHMENT HERE EXCEPT A PRESIDENT CARRYING OUT HIS JOB IN THE WAY HE SAW FIT TO DO IT.

THIS IS WHERE WE'RE ADD TODAY.

THE MOST SPRINGING THING HERE, THIS MAY BE A NEW TIME AND PLACE AND WE MAY BE SCRUBBED UP AND LOOKING PRETTY FOR IMPEACHMENT.

THIS IS NOT AN IMPEACHMENT.

THIS IS A SIMPLE RAILROAD JOB.

TONIGHT IS A WASTE OF TIME.

BECAUSE THIS IS WHERE WE'RE AT.

SO I CLOSE TODAY WITH THIS.

DIDN'T START WITH MUELLER, DIDN'T START WITH A PHONE CALL.

YOU KNOW WHERE THIS STARTED?

STARTED WITH TEARS IN BROOKLYN IN NOVEMBER 2016.

WHEN AN ELECTION WAS LOST.

SO WE'RE HERE, NO PLAN, NO FACT WITNESSES, SIMPLY BEING A RUBBER STAMP FOR WHAT WE HAVE.

BY HEY, WE GOT LAW PROFESSORS HERE.

WHAT A START OF A PARTY.

>> YOU JUST HEARD FROM THE RANKING REPUBLICAN ON THE HOUSE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE, CONGRESSMAN DOUG COLLINS OF GEORGIA.

ESSENTIALLY MAKING THE ARGUMENT THAT HIS PARTY HAS BEEN MAKING THROUGHOUT THIS IMPEACHMENT PROCESS, THIS IS ALL PART OF A -- A WASTE OF TIME, THAT IT'S AN EFFORT BY THE DEMOCRATS YET AGAIN TO TRY TO TAKE DOWN A PRESIDENT WHO THEY NEVER THOUGHT SHOULD HAVE BEEN ELECTED IN THE FIRST PLACE.

WHEN HE SAID TEARS IN BROOKLYN, HE'S REFERRING TO HILLARY CLINTON'S CAMPAIGN HEAD QUARTERS IN NEW YORK CITY.

I'M HERE JUDY WOODRUFF KEEPING AN EYE WITH MY COLLEAGUES ON THE HOUSE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE HEARING ROOM.

AS YOU CAN SEE, PRETTY MUCH EVERY MEMBER IS GONE AS THEY GO TO TAKE VOTES ON THE FLOOR OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.

WE EXPECT THEM BACK IN MINUTES.

WE'RE WATCHING THE ROOM AND WE'LL GO BACK TO THE HEARING ROOM AS SOON AS THEY RECONVENE.

MY COLLEAGUE, LISA DESJARDINS IS AT THE CAPITOL AND YAMICHE ALCINDOR AT THE CAPITOL.

YAMICHE, YOU'VE HAD A CHANCE TO TALK TO SOME COMMITTEE MEMBERS COMING AND GOING.

WHAT ARE THEY SAYING ABOUT WHAT THEY'RE HEARING SO FAR?

>> I'M ONE FLOOR ABOVE THE HOUSE CHAMBER FLOOR.

LOOKS LIKE WE HAVE TEN MINUTES LEFT OF VOTING.

SPEAKING TO HOUSE MEMBERS, I WANTED TO SEEK OUT DEMOCRATS AND GET THEIR RESPONSE TO PROFESSOR TURLEY'S ARGUMENTS.

I SPOKE TO VAL DEMING.

SHE'S ON THE HOUSE JUDICIARY AND ALSO IN THE HOUSE TELL COMMITTEE HEARINGS.

SHE'S A FORMER POLICE CHIEF, SHE HAS A LAW ENFORCEMENT BACKGROUND.

I ASKED HER WHAT DO YOU MAKE OF THE PROFESSOR'S ARGUMENT THAT THE DEFINITION OF BRIBERY REQUIRES THAT SOMEONE GET THE BRIBE, THAT THAT ACTUALLY BE GIVEN ACCORDING TO MR. TURLEY.

HE REPRESENTED SUPREME COURT LAW AND RULINGS.

HE SAID NO, IT'S THE ACT OF COERCING THE BRIBE THAT CREATES BRIBE.

SHE FELT STRONGLY ABOUT THAT.

I ALSO ASKED HER ABOUT PROFESSOR TURLEY'S ASSERTION THAT IF DEMOCRATS MOVE FORWARD WITH A RUSH, THAT THEY WILL LOST HALF OF THE COUNTRY IN THIS IMPEACHMENT PROCESS.

SHE RESPONDED IN A STEM WINDER OF A RESPONSE VERY STRONGLY, NO, I SEE AN ABUSE OF POWER HAPPENING.

IF YOU SEE THAT HAPPENING, YOU NEED TO ACT TO STOP IT, NEED TO ACT TO PREVENT IT AS SOON AS YOU'RE AWARE OF IT OR WE COULD HAVE A PRESIDENT THAT CONTINUES TO DO THIS.

WE NEED TO ACT AS SOON AS WE BELIEVE THERE'S AN ABUSE OF POWER.

>> SO LISA, AT LEAST BY -- A FEW DEMOCRATS THAT YOU'VE BEEN ABLE TO TALK TO, THEY'RE STICKING TOGETHER IN THEIR BELIEF THAT SHE IS -- THEY'RE PROCEEDING THE RIGHT WAY.

>> THAT'S RIGHT.

IN CHANGE IN TIMELINE.

SHE BASICALLY SAID YES, WE ARE MOVING TO ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT.

THERE'S NO SENSE THEY'RE DELAYING.

THEY SEEM TO BE ON TRACK FOR A COMMITTEE VOTE NEXT WEEK AND A HOUSE VOTED TWO WEEKS FROM NOW.

>> AND DOUG COLLINS SAID IT'S UNCLEAR WHAT IS NEXT.

THAT'S BECAUSE THEY HAVEN'T ANNOUNCED SPECIFIC DATES FOR A VOTE.

IS THAT RIGHT?

>> THAT'S CORRECT.

NOR TO THEY ANNOUNCE FUTURE HEARINGS.

WE'RE WAITING TO HEAR FROM THE PRESIDENT IF HE WILL PARTICIPATE, IF HE WANTS TO CALL HIS OWN WITNESSES OR NOT.

WE HAVE HEARD FROM ADAM SCHIFF, HE TOLD ME YESTERDAY THAT HE DOES PLAN FOR HIS STAFF COUNSEL, WHO WE SAW DOING THE QUESTIONING LAST WEEK TO GIVE A PRESENTATION THROUGH HOUSE JUDICIARY.

THAT MENS THERE WILL BE AT LEAST ONE MORE HEARING.

IT WILL BE CONTENTIOUS.

SO THIS IS ALL UP IN THE AIR.

>> WE'LL LET YOU CONTINUE TO REPORT.

I'M GOING TO COME BACK TO THE "NEWSHOUR" STUDIO WITH FRANK BOWMAN AND SOL WISENBERG TO TALK ABOUT THE PRESENTATION THAT WE HEARD FROM BOTH SIDES THIS MORNING.

THE THREE REPUBLICAN OR I'M SORRY, THE THREE CONSTITUTIONAL SCHOLARS, LAW PROFESSORS CALLED BY THE DEMOCRATS.

THE ONE WHO WAS CALLED BY REPUBLICANS.

FRANK BOWMAN, HOW IS IT THAT YOU CAN HAVE TWO COMPLETELY DIFFERENT MIRROR IMAGE INTERPRETATIONS OF WHETHER THE PRESIDENT HAS COMMITTED IMPEACHABLE OFFENSES OR NOT?

>> THERE'S ALL THE ROOM NOR ARGUMENT ON BOTH SIDES OF THE QUESTION.

ALTHOUGH WE LAW PROFESSORS LIKE TO INDULGE THE CON SEAT THAT WE ARE ALWAYS ABOVE THE FREEWAY AND RIGOROUSLY NEUTRAL, THAT'S NOT ALWAYS THE CASE.

I THINK THERE'S SOME PARTISAN OR PARTY GUIDANCE TO SOME EXTENT.

IT WOULD BE SILLY TO DENY THAT.

IT'S ALSO CONSIDERING TO CONSIDER THE FRAME WORK OF PROFESSOR TURLEY'S ARGUMENT.

HELPS EXPLAIN THIS.

ON THE ONE HAND, WHAT HE'S REALLY SAYING, NOT JUST HIS ORAL STATEMENT BUT WRITTEN STATEMENT IF YOU LOOK AT IT, HE SAYS I CONCEDE THAT YOU CAN BE IMPEACHED FOR SOMETHING THAT IS NOT A CRIME.

BUT ON THE OTHER HAND, IN THE THREE PREVIOUS IMPEACHMENTS WE'VE HAD, THERE'S BEEN SOME KIND OF CRIMINAL ACTIVITY.

THEREFORE HE INTIMATES THAT TO IMPEACH A PRESIDENT FOR ANYTHING OTHER THAN CRIMINAL ACTIVITY WOULD BE OVERTLY IN THE CONSTITUTION OUR I'LL LEGITIMATE OR UNPRECEDENTED.

THEN HE THROWS ALL OF IT'S WEIGHT ARGUING ABOUT THE DETAILS OF BRIBERY.

AT THE END, HE CONCEDES YES, ABUSE OF POWER IS IMPEACHABLE BUT YOU SHOULDN'T IMPEACH HIM NOW BECAUSE YOU NEED MORE PROCEEDINGS.

BUT THE TRAP THERE IS THAT IF YOU TAKE THAT SERIOUSLY AND IF YOU SAY YOU NEED MORE PROCEEDINGS AND B, THE PRECONDITION OF THE PROCEEDINGS IS THAT YOU HAVE TO TAKE ANY OBJECTION THE PRESIDENT MAY MAKE, PRECONDITIONED IS YOU MUST LITIGATE THOSE CONTENTIONS HOWEVER FRIVOLOUS THEY MAY BE, ALL THE WAY TO THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT, WHICH WOULD PLAINLY TAKE A YEAR AND MORE.

WHAT MR. TURLEY IS REALLY SAYING, WELL, DEMOCRATS, IF YOU WANT TO DO IT THE WAY I THINK YOU SHOULD DO IT, YOU CAN'T DO IT UNTIL THE NEXT ELECTION.

I DON'T KNOW THAT HE'S ARGUING STRENUOUSLY THAT THE FACTS DON'T SHOW ABUSE OF POWER.

HE'S SAYING WELL, WE NEED MORE TIME.

NEED TO LITIGATE.

>> MORE PROCESS ARGUMENT THAN THE FACTS.

SOL, YOU WERE JUST DISCUSSING THIS A MINUTE AGO.

IN WHAT WE HAVE BEFORE US, IT'S DIFFICULT, EVEN CONGRESSMAN COLLINS WAS SAYING, YOU DON'T DISPUTE THE FACTS, WHAT IS AT ISSUE IS IT CONSTITUTES SOMETHING THAT A PRESIDENT SHOULD BE REMOVED FROM OFFICE OVER.

>> PRIMARILY THE FACTS ARE NOT DISPUTED.

I'M A GLASS HALFFUL KIND OF GUY.

THESE GUYS ARE ALL ARGUING FROM A ORIGINALIST POSITION.

WHEN I WAS IN LAW SCHOOL, YOU WOULD BE LAUGHED OUT OF THE CLASSROOM.

I SEE THAT AS A REAL PROGRESS JUSTICE SCALIA WOULD BE HAPPY.

I ALSO THINK BOTH SIDES AGREE THAT YOU DON'T -- YOU DON'T HAVE TO HAVE A CRIME FOR THEIR TO BE AN IMPEACHABLE OFFENSE.

THERE'S A COMMON LAW OF IMPEACHMENT THROUGH CONGRESS THAT HAS DEVELOPED THROUGH A COUPLE OF CENTURIES AND VERY CLEAR THAT TURLEY HAS A MUCH NARROWER VIEW OF HIGH CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS THAN THE OTHER PROFESSORS TESTIFYING.

>> I WANT TO STOP YOU THERE.

WHEN THEY'RE ARGUING DOESN'T HAVE TO BE A CRIME, THE DEFINITION OF HIGH CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS, SO THERE'S CRIMES AND CRIMES.

YOU KNOW, WHAT IS BEING MORE SPECIFIC?

>> DOES NOT -- THERE'S NEARLY UNIVERSAL AGREEMENT AMONG SCHOLARS THAT IT DOESN'T HAVE TO BE A CRIME IN THE SENSE OF A CURRENT CRIMINAL LAW CRIME.

THOSE ARE TERMS OF ART.

HIGH CRIMES AND MISDEMEANOR IS A TERM OF ART THAT'S BEEN AROUND PROFESSOR BOWMAN CAN CORRECT ME SINCE AT LEAST THE 1300s.

SO NOT EVERYBODY AGREES ON EXACTLY WHAT IT MEANT.

BUT CLEARLY IF YOU LOOK AT THE HISTORY OF IMPEACHMENTS AND LOOK AT WHAT THE FRAMERS WROTE, IT'S NOT CONFINEDED TO AN ACTUAL CRIMINAL CODE OR EVEN A COMMON LAW DEFINITION OF CRIME.

>> SEEMS TO BE AGREEMENT ON THAT, DOESN'T THERE, FRANK?

>> THERE IS.

THERE HAS TO BE.

THE FIRST THING THAT VIEWERS SHOULD REMEMBER IS THAT IT'S EASY TO GET TRICKED BID HIGH CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS.

IT DOESN'T MEAN WHAT IT SOUNDS LIKE IT MEANS.

IT IS AS SEVERALITNESSES TESTIFIED, IT'S A TERM OF ART AND INCLUDES A VARIETY OF THINGS.

MANY HAVING TO DO WITH ABUSE OF POWER, ABUSE OF OFFICE.

LET ME GIVE YOU AN ILLUSTRATION OF THE KINDS OF THINGS THAT WOULD CERTAINLY BE AN IMPEACHABLE OFFENSE.

SUPPOSE TOMORROW THE PRESIDENT WERE TO WAKE UP AND SAY, I DON'T LIKE BEING PRESIDENT.

I WANT TO TAKE A SIX MONTH VACATION.

I'M GOING TO BARBADOS.

SEE YOU IN SIX MONTHS.

THAT'S NOT A CRIME.

IT'S BY NO MEANS A CRIME IN ANY WAY.

WOULD IT BE AN IMPEACHABLE HIGH CRIME AND MISDEMEANOR?

IT'S A DERILICTION OF DUTY.

WHEN JOHNSON LAWYERS WERE TRYING TO CLAIM THAT CRIMES REQUIRE, HE SAID IMAGINE IN 1861 WHEN THE SOUTH SECEDED.

HE HAD AS PRESIDENT NOT ABRAHAM LINCOLN BUT A MAN THAT THOUGHT FOR REASONS OF MISGUIDED IDEA ON OR COWARDESS, THAT HE COULDN'T GET THE SOUTH BACK.

THAT HE FELT FOR WHATEVER REASON THAT HE SHOULD LET THE COUNTRY DIVIDE.

BEN BUTLER ASKS, CAN IT BE TRUE THAT WE WOULDN'T BE ABLE TO IMPEACH THAT MAN, THAT WE WOULD HAVE TO ALLOW THE DESTRUCTION OF THE COUNTRY AND THAT KIND OF DERILICTION OF DUTY?

>> YAMICHE ALCINDOR IS STANDING BY NOT FAR FROM THE WHITE HOUSE.

YAMICHE, IT'S THE CASE THAT THE WHITE HOUSE HAS HAD, SHALL WE SAY, EVOLVING POSITION ON WHAT THE PRESIDENT HAS BEEN ACCUSED OF.

ORIGINALLY SAYING IT WASN'T TRUE, THAT THE ELEMENTS OF THE PHONE CALL INTERACTION WITH THE UKRAINIANS AND ACKNOWLEDGING PARTS WERE TRUE AND COMING AROUND TO SAY SURE, A LOT OF THIS HAPPENED, BUT WHAT OF IT?

IT'S NOT AS IF WE'RE DENYING THE FACTS OF THIS, IS IT?

>> THEY'RE NOT DENYING THE FACTS OF MOST OF THIS.

REPUBLICANS WILL HAVE BEEN, TO PUT IT LIGHTLY, NIMBLE IN THEIR DEFENSE OF THE PRESIDENT.

THE WHITE HOUSE HAS BEEN CONSTANTLY ADJUSTING THE MESS SINK AND DEFENDING THE PRESIDENT.

I'VE COUNTED 16 AND 17 DEFENSES AND INCLUDING LINDSEY GRAHAM SAYING THE PRESIDENT'S POLICIES WERE TOO INCOHERENT TO EVER PULL OFF A QUID PRO QUO.

THE WAY THE PRESIDENT GOVERNS, EVEN IF HE TRIED HE COULDN'T PULL OFF A QUID PRO QUO.

IT'S INTERESTING.

THE WHITE HOUSE IS MAKING A SIMILAR ARGUMENT WHEN IT COMES TO THE MUELLER INVESTIGATION SAYING THE PRESIDENT'S CAMPAIGN WAS TO FREE WHEELING TO EVER HAVE A CONSPIRACY WITH RUSSIA.

TO PUT IT PLAINLY, THE WHITE HOUSE HAS GONE BACK TO REPRESENTATIVE DOUG COLLINS' POINT WHICH IS THE TEARS IN BROOKLYN, THIS IDEA THAT DEMOCRATS ARE MAD THAT THE PRESIDENT WAS ELECTED IN THE FIRST PLACE AND AS A RESULT THEY'VE BEEN TRYING TO TAKE HIM DOWN.

DEMOCRATS HAVE SAID THIS IS NOT PART OF THE MUELLER INVESTIGATION, THIS IS SOMETHING NEW, A WHISTLE-BLOWER COMPLAINT THAT CAME TO US WITH THIS PERSON, THIS GOVERNMENT OFFICIAL SEEMS WHO WAS VERY ANXIOUS AND CONCERNED ABOUT THE FACT THAT THE PRESIDENT MIGHT BE USING HIS POWERS AND HIS SWAY OVER A FOREIGN COUNTRY TO IMPACT THE 2020 ELECTION IN HIS FAVOR.

WHAT WE HEAR IS THE WHITE HOUSE MAKING THE CLAIMS THAT THE PRESIDENT DID NOTHING WRONG AND THIS IS ALL PARTISAN.

REPUBLICANS HAVE HAD TO BACK THIS PRESIDENT AND HAVE HAD TO STICK WITH HIM ADD HE ADJUSTED HIS MESSAGE TIME AND TIME AGAIN.

>> YAMICHE, ESSENTIALLY WHAT YOU'RE SAYING, THE WHITE HOUSE BELIEVES THEIR STRONGEST DEFENSE IS TO MAKE THIS POLITICAL.

IS TO SAY HEY, THIS IS ALL ABOUT THE DEMOCRATS TRYING TO GET ME OUT OF OFFICE, PERIOD.

>> THAT'S RIGHT, JUDY.

THAT IS THE DEFENSE THAT THE WHITE HOUSE AND THE PRESIDENT THINK IS WORKING FOR THEM.

ESPECIALLY BECAUSE WE'RE ALMOST IN AN ELECTION YEAR.

IT'S 2020.

I WAS JUST TEXTING WITH A MEMBER OF THE PRESIDENT'S CAMPAIGN.

THAT SAID THIS IS GREAT FOR OUR PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGN.

WE'RE SEEING MORE DONORS, MORE VOLUNTEERS, VOTERS BEING ENERGIZED BPCAUSE NOW THEY SEE THE PRESIDENT ATTACKED ON NATIONAL TELEVISION IN THESE HEARINGS SO THE PRESIDENT'S CAMPAIGN ON THE SURFACE IS SAYING ALL OF THIS IS HELPING THE PRESIDENT IN HIS BID TO BE RE-ELECTED IN 2020.

DEMOCRATS WILL SAY THE PRESIDENT IS BOTHERED BY THIS.

THIS HAS BEEN SOMETHING THAT HAS STUCK ON HIM LIKE NOTHING ELSE.

THE PRESIDENT HAS HAD ALL SORTS OF CONTROVERSIES, THIS WHISTLE-BLOWER COMPLAINT AND THE ISLAND THAT DEMOCRATS CAN SAY THAT THIS PRESIDENT WAS TRYING TO USE HIS PRESIDENTIAL POWERS TO INFLUENCE A FOREIGN GOVERNMENT, THAT HE WAS REALLY TRYING TO USE HIS POLITICAL -- REALLY TRYING TO HAVE A POLITICAL GAIN HERE, A POLITICAL BENEFIT IN LOU OF NATIONAL SECURITY, THAT ARGUMENT HA STUCK TO PRESIDENT TRUMP.

THAT'S WHY WE SEE THE PRESIDENT ANGRY AND LASHING OUT.

I CAN'T SAY IT ENOUGH.

THIS WAS A PRESIDENT THAT WAS SUPPOSED TO HAVE A PRESS CONFERENCE.

EVERYBODY WAS WAITING ON HIM TO BASH THE DEMOCRATS AND TALK ABOUT IT'S AN IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY AND HE DIDN'T DO IT.

THIS TELLS YOU THAT THIS IS A PRESIDENT TAKING THIS SERIOUSLY AND SOMEONE WHO IS REALLY TRYING TO COME UP WITH A DEFENSE FOR HIMSELF WHEN IT COMES TO THIS IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY.

>> YAMICHE, AS WE SAID, REPORTING FROM THE WHITE HOUSEKEEPING TRACK OF WHAT THE PRESIDENT IS DOING EVEN THOUGH HE'S IN LONDON RIGHT NOW AS THE HEARINGS PROCEED.

LISA DESJARDINS, YOU'RE STILL THERE AT THE CAPITOL WHILE WE WAIT FOR THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE TO COME BACK AND RECONVENE.

THEY'RE TAKING VOTES ON THE FLOOR OF THE HOUSE.

COME BACK TO THIS POINT THAT WAS JUST DISCUSSING WITH YAMICHE.

SHE SAID THE WHITE HOUSE OR FOLKS WITH THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN ARE SAYING THIS IS GOOD FOR THEM.

THEY'RE RAISING MORE MONEY.

PEOPLE ARE MORE ENERGIZED.

HOW CONCERNS ARE DEMOCRATS ABOUT THAT OR DO THEY BELIEVE THAT THEY CAN ENERGIZE DEMOCRATS WITH THESE HEARINGS?

WHAT ARE THEY TELLING YOU?

>> I'M SURE THERE'S MORE THAN A DOZEN DEMOCRATS THAT ARE RUNNING FOR PRESIDENT THAT ARE CONCERNED ABOUT THAT.

I'LL TELL YOU AS FAR AS THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVE GOES, THE DEMOCRATS HERE, THEY DON'T SEEM THAT CONCERNED BY IT.

THESE TWO REASONS.

ONE, THE DEMOCRATS WHO ARE -- WHO NOW SEEM TO BE UNITED IN THIS IMPEACHMENT ARE TWO KINDS.

ONE, THEY FEEL MORALLY, ETHICALLY AND GIVEN THE CONSTITUTION, THEY HAVE TO PURSUE THIS.

SOME FEEL IN SUBSTANCE IS SOMETHING THAT THEY MUST DO REGARDLESS OF WHETHER THE IT?

CONVICTS THE PRESIDENT OR NOT.

THEN THERE'S ANOTHER GROUP THAT FRANKLY FEELS THAT THIS COULD DAMAGE THE PRESIDENT FOR NEXT YEAR'S ELECTION REGARDLESS OF HIS FUND-RAISING.

THEY FEEL THIS WILL EXPOSE WHAT THEY SEE AS A DANGEROUS PRESIDENT.

WHAT WILL THE PUBLIC DECIDE?

IT'S UNCLEAR.

DEMOCRATS WHO I'M SURE AS RECENTLY AS THREE MONTHS AGO ABOUT WHETHER THIS WAS A GOOD IDEA NOW SEEM TO BE CO LESING ON THE IDEA IT'S GOOD POLICY AND GOOD POLITICS.

I HAVEN'T SPOKEN TO DEMOCRATS THAT ARE IN A TOP TIER RUNNING FOR PRESIDENT.

WE HAVE JUST BEEN REPORTING, THEY'RE NOT TALKING ABOUT THIS ON THE TRAIL.

IT'S SOMETHING THOSE DEMOCRATS RUNNING FOR PRESIDENT DON'T SEEM TO THINK ADVANTAGES THEM AN'T THIS POINT, TO REALLY RAIL AGAINST THE PRESIDENT.

THEY MENTION IT.

IT'S THE PRESIDENTS AND REPUBLICANS THAT BRING IT MORE ON THIS TOPIC.

>> LISA, WHEN YOU SPEAK OF THAT CHANGE, SHIFT IN VIEW ON THE PART OF THE DEMOCRATS, THE THING THAT CHANGED IS UKRAINE.

THE INFORMATION ABOUT THE EXCHANGES BETWEEN THE PRESIDENT, THE WHITE HOUSE, UKRAINIAN LEADERS OVER MILITARY AID.

THE REQUEST THAT THEY INVESTIGATE JOE BIDEN.

THAT IS REALLY WHAT HAS SHIFTED THIS.

BEFORE NOW, AS WE KNOW, HOUSE SPEAKER, THE LEADERSHIP OF THE HOUSE, NANCY PELOSI IN PARTICULAR, WAS AGAINST GOING AHEAD WITH ANY IMPEACHMENT PROCEEDING BASED ON THE MUELLER REPORT BECAUSE THEY FELT IT WASN'T ENOUGH TO MOVE FORWARD WITH.

>> THAT'S RIGHT.

IT WAS AROUND SEPTEMBER 24 THAT PELOSI ANNOUNCED THAT SHE WAS MOVING FORWARD WITH AN IMPEACHMENT POLICY.

IT WAS A COMPLETE DEPARTURE.

THEY FELT THE EVIDENCE, WHAT THEY HAVE, THE READ-OUT OF THE PHONE CALL WAS ENOUGH TO SAY THAT THIS PRESIDENT HAD ABUSED POWER.

IT'S SO INTERESTING.

I HEAR THIS FROM YOUR GUESTS AS WELL.

LOOKING AT WHAT IS HAPPENING HERE VERSUS CLINTON, THEY'RE ALMOST EXACT OPPOSITES.

CLINTON, EVERYBODY AGREED THAT HE LIED.

HE DIDN'T AGREE ON WHETHER THAT WAS IMPEACHABLE.

HERE, IT SEEMS ALMOST EVERYONE AGREED THAT IF THERE WAS A QUID PRO QUO, IF THE PRESIDENT DID WITHHOLD AID IN ORDER TO FORCE INVESTIGATIONS, IF THERE WAS -- IF WE KNOW THAT FACT, THAT IS PROBABLY IMPEACHABLE.

EVEN REPUBLICANS WILL TELL ME THAT.

REPUBLICANS WILL SAY WE TONIGHT KNOW THAT.

THE PROOF DOESN'T GO FAR ENOUGH.

TURLEY SAID IT'S TOO THIN COMPARED TO THE CLINTON PROOF.

DEMOCRATS DISAGREE.

NEY SAY LISTEN TO THE CALL.

THAT'S THE QUESTION HERE.

YOU KNOW, WHAT EXACTLY DID THE PRESIDENT DO, WHAT DO WE KNOW.

YOU SPEAK TO ONE OFFICER AND SHELY SAY THIS IS A CLASSIC CASE OF SOMEONE TRYING TO COOERS SOMEBODY ELSE.

THAT'S WHERE THE DOUBT IS IN THIS HEARING.

>> LISA DESJARDINS FOLLOWING THE HEARINGS ON CAN TOLL HILL.

WITH ME, SOL WISENBERG, FRANK BOWMAN.

SOL, HOW MUCH DOES IT MATTER THAT THE PUBLIC SEE WHAT'S IS GOING ON AS A LEGITIMATE PROCESS?

THE FACT THAT THE HOUSE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE HAVING THE HEARINGS TODAY, HEARING FROM FOUR LEGAL SCHOLARS, LAW PROFESSORS, TO BOLSTER THE CASE AT LEAST THREE OUT OF THE FOUR AGREE WITH THE DEMOCRATS.

HOW IMPORTANT IS IT DO YOU THINK THAT THE AMERICAN PEOPLE SEE THIS AS A PROCESS THAT HAS SOME GROUNDING IN THE CONSTITUTION?

>> I THINK IT'S CRITICALLY IMPORTANT.

NOT ONLY THAT IT HAS A GROUNDING IN THE CONSTITUTION, WHICH OF COURSE IT DOES, BUT THAT THEY SEE IT AS FAIR.

THAT'S ONE REASON THE REPUBLICANS FOR QUITE A WHILE HAVE BEEN POUNDING ON FAIRNESS ISSUE.

WHETHER OR NOT THEY'RE RIGHT OR WRONG, THEY REALIZE THAT'S IMPORTANT.

YOU KNOW, AS I LISTEN TO THE TESTIMONY AND AS I THINK ABOUT WHAT HAS HAPPENED THE LAST FEW WEEKS, ONE OF THE THINGS THAT IS STRIKING TO ME, THE PRESIDENT IS A GIFT THAT KEEPS GIVING.

IF YOU INVESTIGATE HIM LONG ENOUGH, HE'S GOING TO TWEET AND HE'S GOING TO GIVE HIMSELF MORE PROBLEMS.

THE PERFECT EXAMPLE OF THAT IS WHEN FORMER AMBASSADOR WAS TESTIFYING.

IN THE MIDDLE OF HER TESTIMONY, HE STARTS TWEETING ABOUT HER.

GUESS WHAT?

THAT HURTS.

THAT WILL BE MENTIONED IN SOME WAY IN THE ULTIMATE ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT.

ANOTHER FASCINATING THING TO ME IS VOLUME 2 OF THE MUELLER REPORT ABOUT OBSTRUCTION.

THE STRIKING THING TO ME, THE PRESIDENT ASKED HIS STAFFERS TO DO SOME HIGHLY INAPPROPRIATE THINGS.

THEY REFUSED OR IGNORED HIM AND SAY THEY WON'T DO THAT.

McGANN -- >> INCLUDING FIRING THE FBI.

SO THEY BASICALLY SAVED HIM FROM HIMSELF.

IN THIS PARTICULAR EVENT, THE UKRAINE INCIDENT, THERE SEEMS TO HAVE BEEN NOBODY CLOSE TO HIM IN THE INNER CIRCLE THAT SAID YOU CAN'T DO THAT.

YOU SHOULDN'T BE DOING THAT.

>> INTERESTING.

FRANK BOWMAN ON THIS QUESTION OF WHETHER -- TO WHAT EXTENT THE PUBLIC SEES THIS AS A PROCESS THAT ISN'T JUST ABOUT POLITICS.

THAT IT HAS A GROUNDING IN THE VERY SOUNDING OF OUR COUNTRY AND HOW THE FOUNDERS SAW WHAT THE REPUBLIC SHOULD BE, WHAT SORT OF LAWS WE SHOULD HONOR ON WHAT GROUNDS WE SHOULD BASE THE REMOVAL OF THE HIGHEST OFFICER IN THE GOVERNMENT, THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES.

THAT MATTERS.

>> OF COURSE IT DOES.

BUT OF COURSE TO RESPOND TO YOUR QUESTION, YOU SAY IT'S IMPORTANT THAT THE PUBLIC PERCEIVED IT'S NOT PURELY ABOUT POLITICS.

OF COURSE, POLITICS MEANS LOTS OF THINGS.

IT HAS TWO MEANINGS, I SUPPOSE.

ONE WHEN WE USE THE WORD "POLITICS", WE THINK OF PARTISAN BICKERING BACK AND FORTH, VYING FOR ADVANTAGE.

POLITICS IN THE LARGE SENSE IS WHAT THIS IS ABOUT AND WHAT IT'S ALWAYS INTENDED TO BE ABOUT.

IMPEACHMENT IS A POLITICAL PROCESS IN THE LARGE SENSE.

IT WAS INSERTED IN THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION AS A MEANS OF PRESERVING OUR POLITICS, OUR CONSTITUTIONAL STRUCTURE.

IT WAS INSERTED TO MAKE SURE IN PARTICULAR THAT THE PRESIDENT NOT DESTROY THAT STRUCTURE THAT HE NOT THROUGH THE FORCE OF HIS PERSONALITY OR CORRUPTION OVERWHELM THE OTHER COMPONENTS OF THE AMERICAN GOVERNMENT, THE CONGRESS, THE COURTS AND ALL THE OTHER CONSTRAINTS THAT SHOULD KEEP A PRESIDENT IN CHECK.

PRESUMABLY -- WHAT THE PERSON PUBLIC WOULD NEED TO CONCLUDE FOR THIS TO ACTUALLY SUCCEED IN REMOVING HIM IS THAT INDEED HE BEHAVED IN A WAY THAT REPRESENTS A DANGER TO AMERICAN CONSTITUTIONALISM.

THAT'S THE CASE THE DEMOCRATS ARE MAKING.

I THINK IT'S FAIRLY CLEAR THAT TRUMP'S MOST LOYAL BASE, 30 OR 40% OF THE COUNTRY MAY NEVER BE CONVINCED OF THAT REGARDLESS OF WHAT IS SAID IN THESE HEARINGS.

>> WE DON'T KNOW.

YOU'RE RIGHT ABOUT THERE CLEARLY IS A POLITICAL ELEMENT AND YOU'RE RIGHT.

I MEAN THAT SEPARATELY FROM THE PURELY PARTISAN DEFINITION THAT WE HAVE COME TO THINK ABOUT POLITICS TODAY.

JUST THE RELENTLESS INCESSANT DISAGREEMENT.

>> YOU KNOW, NIXON.

PEOPLE WERE VERY PARTISAN BACK IN THAT PERIOD.

HERE'S A GUY THAT WON THE ELECTION IN 72 IN A LANDSLIDE.

60% OF THE POPULAR VOTE, I THINK.

THE PUBLIC WAS VERY MUCH AGAINST IMPEACHMENT IN THE BEGINNING.

BUT THE EVIDENCE KEPT COMING OUT AND THE PRESIDENT KEPT LYING.

SO WE DON'T HAVE THAT YET HERE.

WE DON'T HAVE THE KIND OF SHIFTS THAT YOU HAD IN THE CASE OF NIXON.

PARTLY THAT IS BECAUSE OF THE ELECTION.

>> THE OTHER ELEPHANT IN THIS ROOM IS THAT -- THE REASON WHY I'M SOMEWHAT PESSIMISTIC ABOUT THE FUTURE OF THIS PARTICULAR PROCESS AND SADLY A LITTLE PESSIMISTIC ABOUT THE NEAR TERM FUTURE OF OUR POLITICS IS THAT THE THING THAT MADE THE SHIFT OF OPINION POSSIBLE WITH NIXON WAS A DRAMATICALLY DIFFERENT SET OF POLITICAL ALIGNMENTS IN TERMS OF THE PARTIES AND A DRAMATICALLY DIFFERENT MEDIA ENVIRONMENT.

WHEN FACTS CAME OUT ABOUT NIXON, THEY WERE NOT ONLY BEING PRESENTED ON LIVE TV BUT THROUGH WERE NEUTRAL ARBITERS IN THE MEDIA.

THE MEDIA WAS RIGOROUS IN TESTING THE FACTUAL VALIDITY OF WHAT WAS SAID.

IN THE END, IN NIXON, THERE WAS A GENERAL NATIONAL CONSENSUS.

A ABOUT WHAT HAD HAPPENED AND THAT IT WAS BAD.

THE PROBLEM HERE AND I DON'T MEAN TO PICK ON THE REPUBLICANS BUT SEEMS TO ME THIS IS WHERE THE PROBLEM LIES, AT LEAST IN PAST HEARINGS, YOU HAD REPUBLICAN REPRESENTATIVES TAKING POSITIONS AND MAKING AER IS -- ASSERTIONS THAT WERE COUNTER FACTUAL AND THEY SUFFER NO PENALTY FOR THAT BECAUSE THERE'S A COMPONENT OF THE MEDIA IN TO WHICH THEY CAN RETREAT LIKE A NICE WARM BATH.

THAT COMPONENT OF THE MEDIA IS NOT GOING TO QUESTION THEIR COUNTER FACTUAL ASSERTIONS.

NOT TO SAY THAT LIBERALS ARE MORE LIBERAL LEANING MEDIA ARE ALWAYS INNOCENT IN THIS REGARD.

BUT I THINK IT'S THE LARGER ENVIRONMENT IN WHICH THIS IS OPERATING THAT IS SO DIFFERENT.

>> WE'RE CLEARLY IN A DIFFERENT MEDIA ENVIRONMENT TIED.

>> THAT'S WHAT I HEAR A LOT.

WHERE THE REPUBLICANS LIKE HOWARD BAKER AND HUGH SCOTT.

BUT I THINK SOME REPUBLICANS TODAY ARE CONSERVATIVES TODAY WOULD SAY THERE WAS THE APPEARANCE OF NEUTRALITY OR OBJECTIVITY BACK THEN.

BUT IT'S ALWAYS -- WHY IS IT ALWAYS THE REPUBLICANS THAT HAVE TO BE THE PEOPLE THAT COMPROMISE?

IF YOU LOOK AT MOST OF DEMOCRATIC SCANDALS IN THE LAST 20 YEARS, THE DEMOCRATS ARE IN THE HOUSE ARE IN ABSOLUTE LOCK STEP IN SUPPORTING THE PRESIDENT.

BOTH SIDES DO IT.

BOTH SIDES HAVE THEIR NETWORK -- >> THERE WERE DEMOCRATS THAT VOTED AGAINST BILL CLINTON IN THE IMPEACHMENT.

>> IN THE HOUSE THERE WERE.

THAT'S TRUE.

NONE IN THE SENATE.

SO IT IS WHAT IT IS.

BUT CERTAINLY I AGREE WITH FRANK.

THAT YOU DON'T -- THERE'S NO ROOM ANYMORE FOR THE -- THAT KIND OF REPUBLICAN.

THEY DON'T REALLY EXIST ANYMORE.

>> TO ME, ONE QUESTION IN MY MIND IS WE HAVE GONE BACK AND FORTH REFLECTING ON THE NIXON IMPEACHMENT AND ON THE CLINTON IMPEACHMENT.

THE OTHER TWO IN OUR MODERN ERA.

SEEMS TO ME IN SOME WAYS THIS IS MORE AKIN TO THE NIXON IMPEACHMENT IN THE WAY THAT THE FACTS HAVE BUILT UP.

IT'S NOT THAT -- YOU DON'T HAVE SOME SIMILARITIES.

WITH CLINTON, IT WAS ABOUT HIS NOT TELLING THE TRUTH ABOUT HAVING HAD AN EXTRAMARITAL AFFAIR.

>> RIGHT.

ONE INTERESTING COMPARISON BECAUSE WE'RE TALKING ABOUT PROCESS HERE.

>> AND I SHOULD SAY OBSTRUCTION -- >> ONE CRITICAL POINT HERE THAT PEOPLE HAVE TO UNDERSTAND WHEN THEY THINK ABOUT THE WAY IN WHICH THIS PROCEED IS PERCEIVED, ALSO, SOME REPUBLICAN COMPLAINTS ABOUT PROCESS AND SOME OF WHICH I THINK ARE LEGITIMATE, NOT ALL BUT SOME, IS THAT THIS IMPEACHMENT IS UNIQUE IN THIS RESPECT.

IN BOTH NIXON WHERE -- AND IN CLINTON, WHEN THE HOUSE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE CAME TO CONSIDER IMPEACHMENT, IT DID IT ON A LARGE BODY OF MATERIAL THAT WAS COLLECTED BY OTHER ENTITIES.

NIXON, THERE WAS A SPECIAL PROSECUTOR INVESTIGATION THAT PRODUCED GRAND JURY MATERIAL AND HAD A LONG INVESTIGATION BY THE WATERGATE SENATE COMMITTEE.

ALL THAT MATERIAL AND NEWSPAPERS.

THEY BASICALLY DELIVERED THAT TO THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE AND THEY DIDN'T HAVE TO DO MUCH FACTUAL INVESTIGATION.

LIKEWISE WITH RESPECT TO CLINTON, KEN STARR JUMPED THIS STUFF, DROVE THE VAN UP TO THE HOUSE STEPS AND DUMPED THIS ON THE HOUSE AND SAID DO SOMETHING WITH IT.

HERE UNIQUELY, THE ONLY TEAM IN AMERICAN HISTORY WE HAD THE HOUSE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE ON ITS OWN HAVING TO INVESTIGATE ON ITS OWN THE FACTS OF AN ENTIRELY NEW MATTER.

ENTIRELY NEW.

>> WHICH IS UKRAINE.

>> RIGHT.

>> YOU DON'T HAVE A PROSECUTOR.

YOU HAD A SPECIAL COUNSEL IN -- WITH REGARD TO THE RUSSIA INVESTIGATION AND ROBERT MUELLER.

YOU'RE RIGHT.

NOT WITH REGARD TO UKRAINE, WHICH IS THE PRINCIPLE FOCUS.

THAT DOES MAKE THIS DIFFERENT.

>> IT DOES.

THIS IS UNIQUE BECAUSE I GET UPSET WHEN I HEAR SOME OF THE DEMOCRATIC CONGRESS PEOPLE SAYING THAT THIS IS WORSE THAN WATERGATE.

IN NO WAY IS THIS WORSE THAN WATERGATE.

NOTHING IS LIKE WATERGATE.

THE FELONIOUS OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE, GROSS VIOLATION OF CIVIL LIBERTIES.

THE PROBLEM HERE, THEIR PROBLEM IS THAT THEY'RE GOING TO HAVE TO PUT MORE INTO IT THAN THIS ONE EVENT.

YOU ASKED EARLIER ABOUT HOW SHOULD THE REPUBLICANS HANDLE THIS.

I THINK THE WAY THEY SHOULD HAVE HANDLED IT FROM THE BEGINNING, THE PRESIDENT SHOULD HAVE SAID DID I SCREW UP.

I SHOULDN'T HAVE DONE THAT.

THAT WAS A TERRIBLE THING TO DO.

>> OR MAYBE THAT WOULD HAVE GONE AWAY.

WE'RE KEEPING AN EYE ON THE HOUSE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE HEARING ROM.

A NUMBER OF THE MEMBERS HAVE COME BACK, NOT ALL OF THEM.

WE'RE LIKING FOR CHAIRMAN JERRY NADLER BECAUSE THEY WILL BEGIN TO GO TO OTHER MEMBERS.

THEY STARTED THE MEMBERS QUESTIONING BUT THEY HAVE A LONG WAY TO GO.

THERE'S 24 DEMOCRATS, 17 REPUBLICANS.

IT'S ALREADY 2:40 P.M.

IN THE AFTERNOON IN THE EAST.

SO WE'RE LOOKING AT A LONG AFTERNOON EVEN THOUGH IT'S FIVE MINUTES A MEMBER, WE'RE LOOKING AT AT LEAST A COUPLE HOURS MORE OF TESTIMONY.

AGAIN, JUDY WOODRUFF HERE WITH SOL WISENBERG AND FRANK BOWMAN.

IT DOES IN SO MANY WAYS COME DOWN TO THE -- NOT JUST THE FACTS OF THE CASE BUT US A WE'RE HEARING FROM THE LEGAL EXPERTS WHAT THE CONSTITUTION SAYS AND WHETHER WHAT PRESIDENT TRUMP IS ACCUSED OF DOING FITS THE DEFINITION AS THE FOUNDING FATHERS DEFINED IT, DESCRIBED IT WHICH CONSTITUTES AN IMPEACHABLE OFFENSE.

>> I MIGHT RECHARACTERIZE IT A LITTLE BIT.

IT'S A MISTAKE TO THINK THAT THE FOUNDING FATHERS DEFINED THE SCOPE OF IMPEACHABLE CONDUCT.

THEY DIDN'T, NOT REALLY.

THEY PUT A PHRASE IN THE CONTUSION.

TREASON, BRIBERY OR OTHER HIGH CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS.

ALTHOUGH WHEN THEY PUT IN HIGH CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS, THEY KNEW THAT WAS IN A SENSE A TERM OF ART THAT INCLUDED ESSENTIALLY ALL THE THINGS FOR WHICH PARLIAMENT HAD IMPEACHED PEOPLE FOR IN THE PAST AND EARLY AMERICAN IMPEACHMENTS HAD USED THAT PHRASE.

WHAT THEY WERE REALLY DOING WHEN THEY PUT HIGH CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS IN THE CONSTITUTION IS THEY WERE SAYING AND I THINK PAM KARLAN MAY HAVE MENTIONED THIS, THEY WERE RECOGNIZING THAT THEY COULDN'T PREDICT IN THE VARIETIES OF EVIL INGENUITY OR THE VARIOUS WAYS IN WHICH FUTURE OFFICE HOLDERS MIGHT MISBEHAVE.

THEY UNINCLUDED THIS PHRASE BECAUSE THEY RECOGNIZED WHILE IT GAVE IT SOME SENSE OF WHAT HAD BEEN DONE IN THE PAST, IT ALSO GAVE CONGRESS THE PERMISSION TO MAKE WHAT ARE IN THE END ULTIMATELY POLITICAL JUDGMENTS ABOUT THE NATURE OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL ORDER.

SOME PEOPLE DON'T LIKE THAT.

THEY FEEL UNCOMFORTABLE WITH THE NOTION THAT THIS IS OPEN ENDED, GIVES CONGRESS THIS KIND OF AUTHORITIES.

THIS IS PLAIN A THROUGH OF MR. TURLEY.

HE WANTS TO MAKE THIS A LEGALISTIC PROCESS.

TO BE ABLE TO PROVE EACH AND EVERY ELEMENT BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT IF THIS WAS A CRIMINAL TRIAL.

THAT'S NOT WHAT IMPEACHMENT IS.

IT'S ABOUT THE CONSTITUTIONAL BALANCE.

>> THAT'S SOMETHING THAT WE'RE STILL DEBATING.

>> AND ALWAYS DEBATE.

IN SOME SENSE THE CHALLENGE AND THE BEAUTY OF IMPEACHMENT.

I TEACH THIS IMPEACHMENT CLASS AT GEORGETOWN.

I SAY TO MY STUDENTS, IN SOME WAYS IMPEACHMENT IS THIS NARROW LITTLE NEVER USED EVENT.

THE TRUTH IS, IF YOU LOOK BACK TO 1376, IF YOU UNDERSTAND IMPEACHMENT, YOU HAVE TO UNDERSTAND WHAT HAS HAPPENED BECAUSE IT TOUCHES EVERYTHING.

>> YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT THE UNITED STATES AND ENGLAND FROM WHICH THE UNITED STATES REBELLED AND SEPARATED.

I'M KEEPING AN EYE ON CONGRESSMAN JERRY NADLER.

HE JUST GAVELLED THE COMMITTEE BACK INTO SESSION.

LET'S LISTEN.

SOUNDS LIKE THEY'RE ABOUT TO GET UNDERWAY AGAIN.

MAYBE NOT.

THIS IS ONLY THE FOURTH TIME IN AMERICAN HISTORY THAT IMPEACHMENT PROCEEDINGS HAVE BEEN INSTITUTED IN THE CONGRESS.

SO WHAT YOU'RE JUST SAYING ABOUT HOW RARELY IT'S TAKEN PLACE IN THE 250 YEARS, 240-YEAR HISTORY OF THIS COUNTRY TELLS YOU SOMETHING ABOUT WHAT A SPECIAL AND UNUSUAL THING IT IS.

>> IF I COULD BRIEFLY RESPOND -- >> AS WE CONGRESSMAN NADLER.

>> HOWEVER BROAD IT IS, IT CAN'T BE THAT WHATEVER A MAJORITY OF THE HOUSE DECIDES TO IMPEACH, THAT THE PRESIDENT KIND OF SERVES AT THEIR PLEASURE.

THAT'S WHAT MADISON WAS TALKING ABOUT WHEN HE SAID THE ADMINISTRATION IS TOO BROAD BECAUSE THE PRESIDENT WOULD BE SUBJECT TO THE WINDS OF MAJORITY.

WE ALL AGREE THAT IS TOO BROAD.

THE QUESTION IS, WHERE DOES THE LINE FALL.

IT'S VERY CLEAR THAT TURLEY HAS A NARROWER VIEW THAN THE THREE OTHER PROFESSORS.

>> WHICH BRINGS US BACK TO WHO THE WITNESSES ARE TODAY.

IT'S PROFESSOR JONATHAN TURLEY THERE TESTIFYING ON THE RIGHT.

LOOKS LIKE HE'S TAKING HIS SEAT RIGHT NOW.

HE'S THE WITNESS CALLED GEORGE WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY, THE WITNESS CALLED BY THE REPUBLICANS.

THE OTHER THREE ON HIS RIGHT, YOUR LEFT AREMELA KARLAN, AND NOAH FELDMAN.

THEY WERE CALLED BY THE DEMOCRATS.

LET'S LISTEN NOW.

>> LET ME REPEAT.

THE COMMITTEE WILL COME TO ORDER.

WHEN WE BROKE FOR RECESS, WE WERE ON THE FIVE MINUTE RULE, AND I RECOGNIZE MR. SENSENBRENNER FOR FIVE MINUTES.

>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH, MR. CHAIRMAN.

I'M A VETERAN TO IMPEACHMENTS.

I'VE BEEN NAMED BY THE HOUSE AS AN IMPEACHMENT MANAGER IN FOUR IMPEACHMENTS.

CLINTON AND THREE JUDGES.

THAT'S MORE THAN ANYBODY ELSE IN HISTORY.

ONE OF THE THINGS IN EVERY IMPEACHMENT, WHETHER IT'S THE ONES THAT I WAS INVOLVED IN OR OTHERS THAT HAVE COME BEFORE THE COMMITTEE WHERE I WAS NOT A MANAGER THE DEBATE.

WHAT IS A HIGH CRIME AND MISDEMEANOR, AND HOW SERIOUS DOES THAT HAVE TO BE IN ORDER FOR IT TO RISE TO THE LEVEL OF AN IMPEACHABLE OFFENSE.

50 YEARS AGO, GERALD FORD MADE A COMMENT SAYING A HIGH CRIME AND MISDEMEANOR IS ANYTHING THE MAJORITY OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES DEEMS IT TO BE ON ANY GIVEN DAY.

I DON'T AGREE WITH THAT.

YOU KNOW, THAT SETS A LOW BAR OR A NON-EXISTENT BAR, AND IT CERTAINLY WOULD BE THE PRESIDENT SERVES AT THE PLEASURE OF THE HOUSE WHICH IS NOT WHAT THE FRAMERS INTENDED WHEN THEY REJECTED THE BRITISH FORM OF PARLIAMENTARY DEMOCRACY WHERE THE PRIME MINISTER IS THE GOVERNMENT COULD BE OVERTHROWN BY A MERE VOTE OF NO CONFIDENCE IN THE HOUSE OF COMMONS.

SO I'M LOOKING AT WHAT WE'RE FACING HERE.

THIS INQUIRY WAS STARTED OUT BY A COMMENT THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP MADE TO PRESIDENT ZELENSKY IN THE JULY 25th CALL OF QUOTE DO ME A FAVOR."

THERE ARE SOME WHO SAID IT'S A QUID QUO PRO.

OTHERS IMPLIED IT WAS A QUID QUO PRO.

BOTH TRUMP AND ZELENSKY SAID IT WASN'T, AND ZELENSKY SAID THERE WAS NO PRESSURE ON ME, AND THE AID WENT THROUGH WITHIN SIX WEEKS AFTER THE PHONE CALL WAS MADE.

CONTRAST THAT TO WHERE THERE WAS NO IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY TO VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN WHEN HE SAID I HELD UP A BILLION DOLLARS WORTH OF AID UNLESS THE PROSECUTOR WAS FIRED WITHIN SIX HOURS, AND SON OF A BLEEP, THAT'S WHAT HAPPENED.

SEEMS TO ME IF YOU'RE LOOKING FOR A QUID QUO PRO AND LOOKING FOR SOMETHING THAT WAS REALLY OVER THE TOP, IT WAS NOT SAYING DO ME A FAVOR.

IT WAS SAYING SON OF A BLEEP, THAT'S WHAT HAPPENED IN SIX HOURS.

YOU KNOW, THE REPUBLICANS WHO ARE IN CHARGE OF CONGRESS AT THE TIME BIDEN MADE THAT COMMENT, WE DID NOT TIE THE COUNTRY UP FOR THREE MONTHS, AND GOING ON FOUR NOW, WRAPPING EVERYBODY IN THIS TOWN AROUND THE AXELROD.

WE ATTEMPTED TO DO THE PUBLIC'S BUSINESS.

THAT'S NOT WHAT'S HAPPENING HERE.

I THINK THE AMERICAN PUBLIC ARE GETTING A LITTLE BIT SICK AND TIRED OF IMPEACHMENT, IMPEACHMENT, IMPEACHMENT, WHEN NAY KNOW THAT LESS THAN A YEAR FROM NOW, THEY WILL BE ABLE TO DETERMINE WHETHER DONALD TRUMP STAYS IN OFFICE OR SOMEBODY ELSE WILL BE ELECTED.

I TAKE THIS RESPONSIBILITY EXTREMELY SERIOUSLY.

YOU KNOW, IT IS AN AWESOME AND VERY GRAVE RESPONSIBILITY, AND IT IS NOT ONE THAT SHOULD BE DONE LIGHTLY.

IT IS NOT ONE THAT SHOULD BE DONE WHICH SHOULD BE DONE QUICKLY WITHOUT EXAMINING ALL THE EVIDENCE WHICH WAS DONE IN THE NIXON IMPEACHMENT, AND WHAT WAS DONE LARGELY BY KENNETH STAR IN THE CLINTON IMPEACHMENT.

I'D LIKE TO ASK YOU, PROFESSOR TURLEY BECAUSE YOU'RE THE ONLY ONE OF THE FOUR UP THERE THAT DOESN'T SEEM TO HAVE IT MADE UP BEFORE YOU WALK INTO THE DOOR.

ISN'T THERE A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN "DO ME A FAVOR" AND "SON OF A BLEEP, THAT'S WHAT HAPPENED."

IN SIX HOURS TIME.

>> GRAMMATICALLY, YES.

CONSTITUTIONALLY, IT REALLY DEPENLDS ON THE CONTEXT.

I THINK YOUR POINT IS A GOOD ONE IN THE SENSE THAT WE HAVE TO DETERMINE FROM THE TRANSCRIPT, AND HOPEFULLY FROM OTHER WITNESSES WHETHER THIS STATEMENT WAS PART OF AN ACTUAL QUID QUO PRO.

I GUESS THE THRESHOLD QUESTION IS, IF THE PRESIDENT SAID I'D LIKE YOU TO DO THESE INVESTIGATIONS.

I DON'T GROUP THEM TOGETHER.

I DISTINGUISH BETWEEN THE REQUEST FOR INVESTIGATION INTO 2016, FROM THE INVESTIGATION INTO BIDEN.

BUT IT IS AN ISSUE OF ORDER.

THE MAGNITUDE OF ORDER CONSTITUTIONALLY IF YOU ASK, I'D LIKE TO SEE YOU DO THIS, AS OPPOSED TO I HAVE A QUID QUO PRO.

YOU EITHER DO THIS OR YOU DON'T GET MILITARY AID.

>> THE TIME FOR THE GENTLEMAN EXPIRED.

LADY FROM TEXAS.

>> THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN, FOR YIELDING.

>> PROFESSOR GERHARDT SAID IF WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT TODAY IS NOT IMPEACHABLE, THEN NOTHING IS IMPEACHABLE.

I'M REMINDED OF MY TIME ON THE HOUSE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE DURING THE 1990s IMPEACHMENT, AND A NUMBER OF FEDERAL JUDGES.

I WAS GUIDED NOT ONLY BY THE FACTS, BUT BY THE CONSTITUTION AND THE DUTY TO SERVE THIS NATION.

I BELIEVE, AS WE GREET YOU TODAY THAT WE ARE CHARGED WITH A SOBER AND SOMBER RESPONSIBILITY.

SO PROFESSOR KARLAN, I'D LIKE YOU TO LOOK AT THE INTELLIGENCE VOLUME WHERE HUNDREDS OF DOCUMENTS ARE BEHIND THAT, AND THE MUELLER REPORT.

PROFESSOR KARLAN, YOU STUDIED THE RECORD.

DO YOU THINK IT IS "WAFER THEN" AND CAN YOU REMARK ON THE STRENGTH OF THE RECORD BEFORE US?

>> OBVIOUSLY, IT'S NOT WAFER THIN.

THE STRENGTH OF THE RECORD IS NOT JUST IN THE SEPTEMBER -- I MEAN THE JULY 25th CALL.

I THINK THE WAY YOU NEED TO ASK ABOUT THIS IS HOW DOES IT FIT INTO THE PATTERN OF BEHAVIOR BY THE PRESIDENT.

WHAT YOU'RE DOING IS DRAWING INFERENCES HERE.

THIS IS ABOUT CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE AS WELL AS DIRECT EVIDENCE.

YOU'RE TRYING TO INFER DID THE PRESIDENT ASK FOR A POLITICAL FAVOR, AND I THINK THIS RECORD SUPPORTS THE INFERENCE THAT HE DID.

>> WHAT COMPARISONS, PROFESSOR KARLAN, CAN WE MAKE BETWEEN KINGS THAT THE FRAMERS WERE AFRAID OF, AND THE PRESIDENT'S CONDUCT TODAY?

>> SO KINGS COULD DO NO WRONG, BECAUSE THE KING'S WORD WAS LAW.

CONTRARY TO WHAT PRESIDENT TRUMP HAS SAID, ARTICLE 2 DOES NOT GIVE HIM THE POWER TO TWO ANYTHING HE WANTS.

I'LL GIVE YOU ONE EXAMPLE THAT SHOWS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN HIM AND A KING.

THE CONSTITUTION SAYS THERE CAN BE NO TITLES OF NOBILITY.

WHILE THE PRESIDENT CAN NAME HIS SON BARON, HE CAN'T MAKE HIM AIL BARON.

>> THE FOUNDING FATHER STEWART MASON ASKED, SHALL ANY MAN BE ABOVE JUSTICE, AND ALEXANDER HAMILTON WROTE HIGH CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS MEAN THE ABUSE OF VIOLATION OF SOME PUBLIC TRUST.

AS WE MOVE QUICKLY, PROFESSOR FELDMAN, YOU PREVIOUSLY TESTIFIED THAT THE PRESIDENT HAS ABUSED HIS POWER, IS THAT CORRECT?

>> YES, MA'AM.

>> WHAT IS THE MOST COMPELLING EVIDENCE IN THIS IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY THAT WOULD LEAD YOU TO THAT?

>> THE PHONE CALL OF JULY 25th IS EXTRAORDNIARILY CLEAR TO MY MIND IN THAT WE HEAR THE PRESIDENT ASKING FOR A FAVOR THAT'S CLEARLY OF PERSONAL BENEFIT, RATHER THAN ACTING ON BEHALF OF THE INTERESTS OF THE NATION.

AND FURTHER FROM THAT -- FURTHER DOWN THE ROAD, MORE EVIDENCE THAT TENDS TO GIVE THE CONTEXT, AND SUPPORT FOR THE EXPLANATION OF WHAT HAPPENED.

>> PROFESSOR KARLAN HOW DOES THE ABUSE AFFECT THE DEMOCRATIC SYSTEM.

>> HAVING FOREIGN INTERFERENCE IN OUR ELECTION MEANS THAT WE ARE LESS FREE.

IT IS LESS OF WE THE PEOPLE DETERMINING THE ELECTION THAN A FOREIGN GOVERNMENT.

>> I THINK IT'S FAIR TO SAY THAT THE PRESIDENT'S ACTIONS ARE UNPRECEDENTED.

WHAT ALSO STRIKES ME IS HOW MANY REPUBLICANS AND DEMOCRATS BELIEVE THAT HIS CONDUCT WAS WRONG.

>> LISTEN TO THE COLONEL.

>> IT'S IMPROPER FOR THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES TO DEMAND A FOREIGN GOVERNMENT INVESTIGATE AN U.S. CITIZEN AND POLITICAL APPOINTMENT.

>> PROFESSOR FELDMAN IN LIGHT OF THE FACT THAT THE PRESIDENT ASKED FOR AN INVESTIGATION, AND THEN ONLY WHEN HE WAS CAUGHT RELEASED THE MILITARY AID, IS THERE STILL A NEED FOR IMPEACHMENT?

>> YES, MA'AM.

IMPEACHMENT IS COMPLETE WHEN THE PRESIDENT ABUSED HIS OFFICE, AND HE ABUSED OFFICE BY ATTEMPTING TO ABUSE.

THERE'S NO DISTINCTION BETWEEN TRYING TO DO IT AND SUCCEEDING IN DOING IT, AND ESPECIALLY TRUE IF YOU ONLY STOPPED WHEN YOU GET CAUGHT.

>> ONLY 70% OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE BELIEVE WHAT THE PRESIDENT DID WAS WRONG.

WE HAVE A SOLEMN RESPONSIBILITY TO ADDRESS THAT, AND AS WELL, OUR FIDELITY TO OUR OATH AND OUR DUTY, REMINDED OF THE MEN AND WOMEN WHO SERVED IN THE UNITED STATES MILITARY.

I'M REMINDED OF MY THREE UNCLES WHO SERVED IN WORLD WAR II.

I CAN'T IMAGINE THEM BEING ON THE BATTLEFIELD, NEEDING ARMS AND FOOD, AND THE GENERAL SAYS, DO ME A FAVOR.

WE KNOW THAT GENERAL WOULD NOT SAY DO ME A FAVOR.

AND SO IN THIS INSTANCE, THE AMERICAN PEOPLE DESERVE UNFETTERED LEADERSHIP, AND IT'S OUR DUTY TO FAIRLY ASSESS THE FACTS AND THE CONSTITUTION.

I YIELD BACK MY TIME.

>> GENTLELADY YIELDS BACK.

>> THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN.

IT'S CLEAR TO ME NO MATTER WHAT QUESTIONS WE ASK THE FOUR WITNESSES TODAY, AND NO MATTER WHAT THEIR ANSWERS ARE, THAT MOST IF NOT ALL OF THE DEMOCRATS ON THE COMMITTEE ARE GOING TO VOTE TO IMPEACH PRESIDENT TRUMP.

THAT'S WHAT THEIR HARDCORE TRUMP HATING BASE WANTS AND HAVE WANTED THAT SINCE THE PRESIDENT WAS ELECTED THREE YEARS AGO.

IN FACT, WHEN DEMOCRATS TOOK OVER THE HOUSE, ONE OF THE FIRST THINGS THAT THEY DID WAS INTRODUCE ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT AGAINST PRESIDENT TRUMP, AND THAT WAS WAY BEFORE PRESIDENT TRUMP AND PRESIDENT ZELENSKY EVER HAD THEIR FAMOUS PHONE CALL, WHETHER IT WAS PERFECT OR NOT.

NOW TODAY WE'RE UNDERTAKING A LARGELY ACADEMIC EXERCISE, INSTEAD OF HEARING FROM FACT WITNESSES LIKE ADAM SCHIFF OR HUNTER BIDEN.

WE'RE NOT PERMED TO CALL THEM.

IT SEEMS ADAM SCHIFF MISLED THE AMERICAN PEOPLE.

COMMON SENSE WOULD CALL FOR SCHIFF TO BE QUESTIONED ABOUT THOSE THINGS.

BUT WE CAN'T.

MR. CHAIRMAN, BACK IN 1998 WHEN ANOTHER PRESIDENT, BILL CLINTON WAS BEING CONSIDERED FOR IMPEACHMENT, YOU SAID, AND I QUOTE, "WE MUST NOT OVERTURN AN ELECTION AND IMPEACH A PRESIDENT WITHOUT AN OVERWHELMING CONSENSUS OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE, AND THE REPRESENTATIVES IN CONGRESS" YOU ALSO SAID, THERE SHOULDN'T BE AN IMPEACHMENT BY ONE SIDE, AND OPPOSED BY THE OTHER.

YOU SHOULD IT WOULD CALL INTO QUESTION THE VERY LEGITIMACY OF OUR POLITICAL INSTITUTIONS.

THAT'S WHAT YOU SAID BACK THEN, MR. CHAIRMAN.

WELL, WHAT YOU SAID SHOULD NEVER HAPPEN, WHAT WE SHOULD NEVER DO IS WHAT YOU'RE DOING NOW, MOVING FORWARD WITHOUT A CONSENSUS, AND IMPEACHMENT BY ONE MAJOR PARTY THAT'S OPPOSED BY THE OTHER.

AND IT'S ALMOST CERTAIN THAT IT'S GOING TO RESULT IN THE VERY DEVICEIVENESS AND BITTERNESS THAT YOU SO ACCURATELY WARNED US ABOUT BACK THEN.

A COUPLE MORE QUOTES FROM A WISE JERRY NADLER TWO DECADES AGO.

"THE LAST THING YOU WANT IS TO HAVE A PARTY LINE IMPEACHMENT.

YOU SHOULDN'T IMPEACH THE PRESIDENT UNLESS IT'S A BROAD CONSENSUS OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE."

THOSE WERE WISE WORDS, MR. CHAIRMAN, BUT YOU'RE NOT FOLLOWING THEM TODAY.

AND FINALLY AGAIN YOUR WORDS.

"THE ISSUE IN A POTERNAL IMPE POTENTIAL IMPEACHMENT IS WHETHER TO OVERTURN AN ELECTION, THE FREE EXPRESSION OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE.

THAT'S AN EXTRAORDINARY POWER, AND IT IS NOT ONE THAT WE SHOULD EXERCISE LIGHTLY.

IT IS CERTAINLY NOT ONE WHICH SHOULD BE EXERCISED IN A MANNER WHICH EITHER IS OR WOULD BE PERCEIVED BY THE AMERICAN PEOPLE TO BE UNFAIR AGAIN, MR. CHAIRMAN, THOSE THINGS THAT YOU WARNED AGAINST THEN ARE EXACTLY WHAT YOU AND YOUR DEMOCRATIC COLLEAGUES ARE DOING NOW.

YOU'RE ABOUT TO MOVE FORWARD WITH A TOTALLY PARTY LINE IMPEACHMENT.

THAT IS NOT A BROAD CONSENSUS.

YOU'RE OVERTURNING THE RESULT OF A NATIONAL ELECTION, AND THERE'S NO DOUBTS IT WILL BE PERCEIVED BY AT LEAST HALF OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE AS AN UNFAIR PARTISAN EFFORT.

YOU ARE BOUND AND DETERMINEED TO MOVE FORWARD WITH THE IMPEACHMENT, AND THE AMERICAN PEOPLE DESERVE BETTER.

I GET IT.

DEMOCRATS ON THIS COMMITTEE DON'T LIKE THIS PRESIDENT.

THEY DON'T LIKE HIS POLICIES AND AS A PERSON.

THEY HATE HIS TWEETS.

THEY DON'T LIKE THE MUELLER INVESTIGATION WAS A FLOP.

SO NOW YOU'RE GOING TO IMPEACH HIM.

I'VE GOT NEWS FOR YOU, YOU MAY TWIST ENOUGH ARMS IN THE HOUSE TO IMPEACH THE PRESIDENT, BUT THAT'S DIES.

AND THE PRESIDENT WILL LIKELY BE RE-ELECTED TO A SECOND TERM WITH THE HELP OF THIS IMPEACHMENT CHARADE WE'RE GOING THROUGH NOW, AND WHILE WASTING THE AMERICAN TIME, AND MONOTHIS IMPEACHMENT, THERE'S OTHER PERSONALITY THINGS GOING UNDONE.

WITHIN THE COMMITTEE'S JURISDICTION, WE SHOULD BE WORKING ON THE OPOIDS, AND ASYLUM AT THE BORDER.

AND PROTECTING AMERICANS FROM HAVING INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY BY CHINESE COMPANIESS AND ENHANCING ELECTION SECURITY, JUST TO NAME A FEW THINGS.

AND CONGRESS OOZE A WHOLE COULD BE WORKING ON REBUILDING OUR CRUMBLING INFRASTRUCTURE, AND PROVIDING TAX RELIEF TO THE MIDDLE CLASS AND 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.

YIELD BACK.

>> GENTLEMAN YIELDS BACK.

MR. COLLINS.

>> THANK YOU, MR.

CHAIR.

I TAKE NO PLEASURE IN THE FACT WE'RE HERE.

AS A PATRIOT WHO LOVES AMERICA, IT PAINS ME THAT THE CIRCUMSTANCES FORCED US TO UNDERTAKE THIS GRAVE AND SOLEMN OBLIGATION.

NONETHELESS IS APPEARS PRESIDENT TRUMP PRESSUREDu A FOREIGN GOVERNMENT WILL IN THE ELECTION BY PRESSURING A POLITICAL OPPONENT.

WE'RE HERE TO PROTECT THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES, AND UNDERSTANDING WHETHER THE PRESIDENT'S CONDUCT IS IMPEACHABLE.

IT'S ENTIRELY APPROPRIATE THAT WE'RE EXAMINING OUR NATION'S HISTORY AS IT RELATES TO IMPEACHMENT.

THE FRAMERS OF THE CONSTITUTION FEARED FOR INTERFERENCE IN THE NATION'S SOVEREIGNTY AND WANTED TO ENSURE A CHECK AND BALANCE ON THE EXECUTIVE.

WE SIT HERE WITH A DUTY TO THE FOUNDERS, TO FULFILL THEIR WISDOM AND BE A CHECK ON THE EXECUTIVE.

WE THE PEOPLES HOUSE ARE THAT CHECK.

UNDER THE CONSTITUTION THE HOW ELSE CAN IMPEACH A PRESIDENT FOR TREASON, BRIBERY AND OTHER HIGH CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS.

PROFESSOR FELDMAN YOU DISCUSSED HIGH CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS AND THE FACT THAT HIGH REFERS TO CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS.

CAN YOU GIVE US A SUMMARY OF WHAT HIGH CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS ARE, AND HOW THEY'RE SDIRNGT FROM WHAT PROFESSOR TURLEY SAID THEY WERE?

>> YES.

ACTIONS OF THE PRESIDENT IN OFFICE WHERE HE USESS HAD 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 THAT THE WORD HIGH IS FOR CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS.

HIGH CRIMES AND HIGH MISDEMEANORS, AND I BELIEVE THE DEFINITION THAT WAS POSTED EARLIER OF MISDEMEANOR WAS NOT THE DEFINITION OF HIGH MISDEMEANOR WHICH WAS A SPECIFIC TERM BY THE FRAMERS, AND DISCUSSED IN THE CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION, BUT ONLY THE WORD MISDEMEANOR.

THAT'S AN EASY MISTAKE TO MAKE, BUT HIGH MISDEMEANORS WERE THEIR OWN CATEGORY OF ABUSES OF OFFICE AND THOSE THINGS ARE IMPEACHABLE.

>> THANK YOU, PROFESSOR.

>> PROFESSIONALS FELDMAN AND GERHARDT YOU INDICATED THREE CATEGORY OF HIGH CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS.

ABUSE OF POWER, BETRAYAL OF NATIONAL INTEREST, AND CORRUPTION CORRUPTION.

IS THAT RIGHT?

>> YES, IT IS, AND PRESIDENT FELDMAN AND GERHARDT, DO YOU AGREE?

>> YES.

PROFESSOR GERHARDT, YOU SAID IMPEACHABLE OFFENSE IS SACRIFICING NATIONAL INTEREST FOR HIS OWN PRIVATE END.

DO YOU ALL AGREE WITH THAT?

>> YES, SIR.

>> YES.

>> BASED ON THE EVIDENCE THAT YOU'VE SEEN PROFESSOR FELDMAN, KARLAN AND GERHARDT, HAS PRESIDENT TRUMP SACRIFICED THE COUNTRY'S INTEREST FOR HIS OWN?

>> YES.

>> AND IS THERE A PARTICULAR PIECE OF EVIDENCE THAT ILLUMN NAIFTS THAT?

>> WHAT ILLUMINATES THAT MOST FOR ME IS THE STATEMENT BY AMBASSADOR SONDLAND THAT HE WANTED SIMPLY THE ANNOUNCEMENT OF AN INVESTIGATION, AND SEVERAL PEOPLE SAID THE SAME THING.

TESTIMONY BY AMBASSADOR VOLKER TO THIS AS WELL.

WHAT HE WANTED WAS JUST PUBLIC INFORMATION TO DAMAGE JOE BIDEN.

HE DIDN'T CARE WHETHER JOE BIDEN WAS FOUND GUILTY OR EXONERATED >> PROFESSIONALS FELDMAN, DO YOU AGREE?

>> MY EMPHASIS WOULD BE THE FACT THAT THE PRESIDENT HELD UP AID TO AN ALLY FIGHTING A WAR IN CONTRAVENTION OF THE NATIONAL SECURITY COMMITTEE.

THAT SEEMS TO HAVE PLACED HIS OWN INTERESTS IN PERSONAL ADVANTAGE AHEAD OF THE -- >> AND BIPARTISAN?

>> YES.

>> PROFESSOR GERHARDT?

>> I AGREE WITH MY COLLEAGUES.

I'M CONCERNED ABOUT THE PRESIDENT'S OBSTRUCTION OF CONGRESS, REFUSAL TO COMPLY WITH A NUMBER OF SUBPOENAS ORDERING MANY HIGH LEVEL OFFICIALS IN THE GOVERNMENT NOT TO COMPLY WITH SUBPOENAS AND ASKING AND RTDING THE ENTIRE EXECUTIVE BRANCH NOT TO COOPERATE WITH CONGRESS.

IT'S USEFUL TO REMEMBER THE CONSTITUTION SAYS THE HOUSE HAS THE SOLE POWER TO IMPEACH.

THEY USE THE WORD SOLE TWICE WITH REFERENCE TO THE HOUSE, AND ONE WITH REFERENCE TO THE SENATE WITH RESPECT TO IMPEACHMENT TRIALS.

SOLE MEANS SOLE ONLY.

>> AND PROFESSOR TURLEY, YOU'RE A SELF-DESCRIBED SELF-ANNOINTED DEFENDER OF ARTICLE 1 CONGRESS GUY.

BUT YOU JUSTIFY THE POSITION THAT SAYS LEGALLY ISSUED SUBPOENAS BY CONGRESS ENFORCING ITS POWERS DON'T HAVE TO BE COMPLIED WITH.

IT SEEMS YOU'RE AN ARTICLE 2 EXECUTIVE GUY.

YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT THE JOHNSON IMPEACHMENT IS NOT USESFUL.

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 HAVE A HIGH RESPONSIBILITY, AND SOLE POWER TO DEFEND THE CONSTITUTION AND DEFEND THE DEMOCRACY, AND WE SHOULD >> GENTLEMAN'S TIME EXPIRED.

>> THANK YOU.

>> I'M AFRAID THIS HEARING IS INDICATIVE OF THE INDECENCY TO WHICH WE'VE COME WHEN INSTEAD OF COMMITTEE OF JURISDICTION BRINGING IN FACTS WITH WITNESSS TO GET TO THE BOTTOM OF WHAT HAPPENED -- AND NOT EVEN HAVING TIME TO REVIEW THE REPORT, BUT TO START THE HEARING WITH THE CHAIRMAN OF THE COMMITTEE SAYING THAT THE FACTS ARE UNDISPUTED.

THE ONLY THING THAT IS DISPUTED MORE THAN THE FACTS IN THE 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 CAN'T RELY ON HEARSAY ON HEARSAY, BUT WE HAVE EXPERTS WHO KNOW BETTER THAN THE ACCUMULATED EXPERIENCE OF THE AGES.

SO HERE WE ARE.

I WOULD SUBMIT THAT WE NEED SOME FACTUAL WITNESSES.

WE DO NOT NEED TO RECEIVE A REPORT THAT WE DON'T HAVE A CHANCE TO READ BEFORE THIS HEARING.

WE NEED A CHANCE TO BRING IN ACTUAL FACT WITNESSES, AND A COUPLE NAMED ARE CRITICAL OF GETING TO THE BOTTOM.

THEY WORK FOR THE NATIONAL SECURITY COUNCIL.

ABIGAIL GRAY, THEY WERE INVOLVED IN THE U.S. UKRAINE AFFAIRS.

THEY WORKED WITH VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN ON DIFFERENT MATTERS INVOLVING UKRAINE.

THEY WORKED WITH BRENNAN AND MASTERS.

THEY HAVE CRITICAL INFORMATION ABOUT CERTAIN UKRANIANS INVOLVEMENT IN OUR U.S. ELECTION.

THEIR RELATIONSHIPS WITH THE WITNESSES WHO WENT BEFORE THE INTEL COMMITTEE AND OTHERS INVOLVED IN THE ALLEGATIONS, MAKE THEM THE MOST CRITICAL WITNESSES IN THIS ENTIRE INVESTIGATION.

AND THE RECORDS, INCLUDING THEIR E-MAILS AND TEXT MESSAGES AND FLASH DRIVES AND COMPUTERS HAVE INFORMATION THAT WILL BRING THIS EFFORT TO REMOVE THE PRESIDENT TO A SCREECHING HALT.

SO WE HAVE ARTICLES HERE FROM OCTOBER 11th, GARY PICKET -- POINTS OUT THAT HOUSE INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN, ADAM SCHIFF RECRUITED AIDES WHO WORKED ALONGSIDE THE CIA WHISTLEBLOWER DURING THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION.

ABIGAIL GRACE WAS HIREED IN FEBRUARY WHILE SHAWN MISCO, AND THE NSCA JOINED SCHIFF'S COMMITTEE IN AUGUST, THE SAME MONTH THE WHISTLEBLOWER SUBMITTED HIS COMPLAINT.

IT GOES ON TO POINT OUT THAT GRAILS WAS HIREED TO HELP SCHIFF'S COMMITTEE TO 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 IS WORRIED ABOUT US HIRING FORMER ADMINISTRATION PEOPLE HEESHLD WORK ON BEING A BETTER EMPLOYER.

NO, HE SHOULD HAVE FIRED EVERYBODY LIKE BILL CLINTON D ALL THE U.S.

ATTORNEYS ON THE SAME DAY.

THAT WOULD HAVE SAVED US A LOT OF WHAT'S GOING ON HERE.

ANYWAY, WE NEED THOSE TWO WITNESSES.

THEY'RE CRITICAL.

AND THEN WE ALSO NEED SOMEONE WHO WAS A CIA DETAILEE TO THE UKRAINE, AND THE STATE DEPARTMENT SHOWS THAT HE WAS WAS IN THE LAST ELECTIONS, AND HE SPEAKS ARABIC AND RUSSIAN, REPORTED DIRECTLY TO CHARLES, A FRIEND OF THE CLINTON'S AIDE, BLUMENTHAL, AND DID WORK FOR THE POLICY OF CORRUPTION, AND CLOSE TO CONTACT WITH THE FBI STATE UKRANIAN OFFICIALS.

HAD A COLLATERAL DUTY TO SUPPORT VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN.

IT WAS BIDEN WHO WAS OBAMA'S POINT MAN ON UKRAINE.

ASSOCIATED WITH DNC OPERATIVE, CHALUPA.

MET WITH HER, AND UKRANIAN DELEGATION.

AND THERE IS ALL KINDS OF REASONS WE NEED THESE THREE WITNESSES.

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 WE'RE 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.

>> GENTLEMAN YIELDS BACK.

MR. JOHNSON.

>> THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN, THE PRESIDENT HAS REGULARLY AND RECENTLY SOLICITED FOREIGN INTERFERENCE IN OUR UPCOMING ELECTION.

PROFESSOR TURLEY WARNS THIS IS AN IMPULSE MOMENT, AND SUGGESTS 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 CONDUCT WAS SO EGREGIOUS IT MERITS THE DRASTIC REMEDY OF IMPEACHMENT.

>> BECAUSE HE INVITED THE RUSSIANS INTO THE PROCESS THE LAST TIME, AND HE INVITED UKRANIANS INTO THE PROCESS, AND SUGGESTED HE WOULD LIKE THE CHINESE TO COME INTO THE PROCESS >> THANK YOU.

ONE OF THE FRAMERS OF OUR CONSTITUTION, EDMUND RANDALL WHO AT ONE TIME WAS MAYOR OF WILLIAMSBURG, VIRGINIA WARNED US THAT "THE EXECUTIVE WILL HAVE GREAT OPPORTUNITIES OF ABUSING HIS POWER."

PROFESSOR FELDMAN, PEOPLE LIKE MAYOR RANDOLPH REBELLED BECAUSE OF THE TYRANNY OF THE KING.

WHY WERE THE FRAMERS CAREFUL TO AVOID THE POTENTIAL FOR A PRESIDENT TO BECOME SO TYRANNICAL AND ABUSIVE?

WHAT DID THEY DO TO PROTECT AGAINST IT?

>> THE FRAMERS BELIEVED STRONGLY THAT THE PEOPLE WERE KING AND SOVEREIGN.

THAT MEANS THE PRESIDENT WORKED FOR THE PEOPLE.

THEY KNEW THAT A PRESIDENT WHO COULDN'T BE CHECKED, WHO COULD NOT BE SUPERVISESED 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 USE HIS POWER TO GET HIMSELF RE-ELECTED.

>> THANK YOU, PROFESSOR FELDMAN.

I WANT TO DISCUSS THE FRAMERS CONCERN ABOUT HOW ABUSE OF POWER RELATES TO PRESIDENT TRUMP'S CONDUCT.

ON JULY 25th PRESIDENT TRUMP SAID TO PRESIDENT ZELENSKY, "I WOULD LIKE YOU TO DO US A FAVOR, THOUGH."

PROFESSOR FELDMAN WHO TRUMP USED USE OF THE WORLD FAVOR THOUGH, DUENGT HE WAS BENIGNLY ASKING FOR A FAVOR, AND HOW IS THE ANSWER TO THAT QUESTION RELEVANT TO WHETHER THE PRESIDENT ABUSED POWER?

>> IT'S RELEVANT BECAUSE THERE'S NOTHING WRONG WITH SOMEONE ASKING FOR A FAVOR IN THE INTEREST OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.

THE PRESIDENT IS FOR THE PRESIDENT TO USE HIS OFFICE TO SOLICIT OR DEMAND A FAVOR FOR PERSONAL BENEFIT.

THE EVIDENCE STRONGLY SUGGESTS THAT GIVEN THE POWER OF THE PRESIDENT, AND GIVEN THE INCENTIVES THAT THE PRESIDENT CREATED FOR UKRAINE TO COMPLY WITH THE REQUEST, THAT THE PRESIDENT WAS SEEKING TO SERVE HIS OWN PERSONAL BENEFIT AND INTEREST.

THAT'S THE DEFINITION OF CORRUPTION UNDER THE CONSTITUTION.

>> OTHER WITNESSES HAVE ALSO TESTIFIED THAT IT WAS THEIR IMPRESSION THAT WHEN PRESIDENT TRUMP SAID I WOULD LIKE YOU TO DO US A FAVOR, THOUGH, THAT HE WAS ACTUALLY MAKING A DEMANLD AND NOT A Q.

PROFESSOR FELDMAN HOW DOES LT.

COLONEL'S VINLD MAN'S TESTIMONY THAT IT WAS A DEMAND BECAUSE OF THE POWER DESPAIRITY BETWEEN THE TWO COUNTRIES RELATE BACK TO OUR FRAMER'S CONCERNS ABOUT ABUSE OF POWER.

>> HE STATES CLEARLY 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 HE'S APPLYING TREMENDOUS PRESSURE.

THE PRESSURE OF THE POWER OF THE UNITED STATES.

THAT RELATES TO THE CONSTITUTIONAL ABUSE OF OFFICE.

IF SOMEONE OTHER THAN THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES ASKED THE PRESIDENT OF UKRAINE TO DO A FAVOR, THE PRESIDENT OF UKRAINE COULD SAY KNOW.

WHEN THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES USES THE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT TO ASK FOR A FAVOR THERE'S NO WAY FOR THE PRESIDENT OF UKRAINE TO REFUSE.

>> WE'VE 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.

PRESIDENT KARLAN IS THAT WHY YOUR TESTIMONY CONCLUDED THAT THE PRESIDENT ABUSED HIS POWER?

>> I THOUGHT THE PRESIDENT ABUSED HIS POWER, BY ASKING FOR A CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION OF AN UNITED STATES CITIZEN FOR POLITICAL ENDS REGARDLESS OF EVERYTHING ELSE.

THAT'S NOT ICING ON THE CAKE.

IT'S AN AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCE THAT WAS HERE.

>> THE PRESIDENT HOLDING AN AMERICAN ALLY OVER A BARREL TO EXTRACT PERSONAL FAVORS IS DEEPLY TROUBLING.

THIS IS NOT AN IMPULSE BY MOMENT.

IT'S A BREAK THE GLASS MOMENT, AND IMPEACHMENT IS IS THE ONLY APPROPRIATE REMEDY.

WITH THAT I YIELD BACK.

>> GENTLEMAN YIELDS BACK.

MR. JORDAN.

>> THANK YOU, MR. SPEAKER.

>> BEFORE SPEAKER PELOSI ANNOUNCED IMPEACHMENT, BEFORE THE CALL BETWEEN PRESIDENT TRUMP AND PRESIDENT ZELENSKY ON JULY 25th.

BEFORE THE MUELLER HEARING IN FRONT OF THIS COMMITTEE ON JULY 24th, BEFORE ALL THAT, THEY HAD ALREADY VOTEED TO MOVE FORWARD ON IMPEACHMENT.

16 DEMOCRATS ON THE JUDICIARY MMITTEE VOTEED TO MOVE FORWARD ON THE IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY TODAY.

WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THE POSITIONS THEY'VE TAKEN ARE CONSTITUTIONAL.

SEEMS A LITTLE BACKWARD TO ME.

WE CAN'T GET AGREEMENT.

WE HAVE FOUR DEMOCRATS, FOUR PEOPLE WHO VOTED FOR CLINTON, AND THEY CAN'T AGREE.

TODAY WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THE CONSTITUTION.

PROFESSOR TURLEY, YOU'VE BEEN GREAT TODAY, BUT I THINK YOU WERE WRONG ON ONE THING.

YOU SAID THAT THIS IS A FAST IMPEACHMENT.

I WOULD ARGUE IT'S NOT FAST.

IT'S A PREDETERMINED IMPEACHMENT.

PREDETERMINED IMPEACHMENT DONE IN THE MOST UNFAIR PART SAN FASHION WE HAVE EVER SEEN.

NO SUBPOENA POWER FOR REPUBLICANS.

DEPOSITIONS IN SECRET IN THE BUNKER OF THE CAPITOL.

17 PEOPLE COMING IN, AND NO ONE ALLOWED IN EXCEPT WHO ADAM SCHIFF ALLOWED.

CHAIRMAN SCHIFF PREVENTED REPUBLICANS FROM ANSWERING QUESTIONS.

EVERY DEMOCRAT QUESTION GOT ANSWERED.

>> THEY WOULDN'T ALLOW THE WITNESSES WE WANTED THREE WEEKS AGO.

DEMOCRATS PROMISED US THE WHISTLEBLOWER WOULD TESTIFY, AND THEN CHANGED THEIR MIND.

AND THEY CHANGED THEIR MIND WHY?

BECAUSE THE WHOLE WORLD DISCOVERED THAT ADAM SCHIFF'S STAFF HAD COORDINATED WITH THE WHISTLEBLOWER.

THE WHISTLEBLOWER WITH NO FIRSTHAND KNOWLEDGE, AND BIASED AGAINST THE PRESIDENT AND WORKED WITH JOE BIDEN, WHOSE LAWYER IN JANUARY OF '17 SAID THE IMPEACHMENT PROCESS STARTS THEN.

THAT'S THE UNFAIR PROCESS WE'VE BEEN THROUGH.

THE REASON IT'S UNFAIR, CUT TO THE CHASE.

THE REASON IT'S UNFAIR IS BECAUSE THE FACTS AREN'T ON THEIR SIDE.

THE FACTS ARE ON THE PRESIDENT'S SIDE.

FOUR KEY FACTS WILL NEVER CHANGE.

WE HAVE THE TRANSCRIPT.

THERE'S NO QUID QUO PRO IN THE TRANSCRIPT.

THE TWO GUYS ON THE CALLER, PRESIDENT TRUMP AND PRESIDENT ZELENSKY BOTH SAID NO PRESSURE OR PUSHING.

UKRANIANS DIDN'T KNOW THE AID WAS HELD UP AT THE TIME OF THE PHONE CALL, AND MOST IMPORTANT, UKRANIANS NEVER PROMISED TO START, AND NEVER ANNOUNCED AN INVESTIGATION IN THE TIME THAT THE AID WAS PAUSED.

NEVER ONCE.

YOU KNOW WHAT DID HAPPEN IN THOSE 55 DAYS THAT THE AID WAS PAUSED.

THERE WERE FIVE KEY MEETINGS BETWEEN PRESIDENT ZELENSKY AND SENIOR OFFICIALS IN OUR GOVERNMENT.

FIVE KEY MEETINGS.

JULY 26, AMBASSADOR VOLKER, TAYLOR, AND SONDLAND MEET WITH ZELENSKY.

WE THEN HAD AMBASSADOR VOLKER END OF AUGUST METEOROLOGIST WITH PRESIDENT ZELENSKY.

AND THE VICE PRESIDENT MET WITH ZELENSKY ON SEPTEMBER 1st, AND THEN MORE IMPORTANTLY, DEMOCRATIC SENATOR MURPHY, WITH REPUBLICAN SENATOR JOHNSON MET WITH PRESIDENT ZELENSKY ON SEPTEMBER 5th.

NONE OF THESE FIVE MEETINGS WAS AID SDULSED IN EXCHANGE FOR SAN ANNOUNCEMENT OF INVESTIGATION.

>> AND YOU WOULD THINK AFTER THE UKRANIANS KNEW THE AID WAS WITHHELD IT WOULD COME UP WITH THEN, ESPECIALLY WHEN DEMOCRAT MURPHY WAS TALK K ABOUT IT.

THE FACTS ARE ON THE PRESIDENT'S SIDE.

WE HAVE AN UNFAIR PROCESS, AND THEY DON'T HAVE THE FACTS.

WE HAVE AN UNFAIR PROCESS, AND THIS GETS TO SOMETHING ELSE YOU SAID, MR. TURLEY.

THIS IS SCARY.

HOW MAD THE KOUBTDRY IS.

THE DEMOCRATS HAVE NEVER ACCEPTED THE WILL OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE.

TO MR. TURLEY'S POINT, 17 DAYS AGO, THE SPEAKER OF THE UNITED STATES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES CALLED THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES AN IMPOSTOR.

THE GUY 63 MILLION AMERICANS VOTED FOR, AND WON AN ELECTORAL LANDSLIDE, THE SPEAKER CALLED THAT INDIVIDUAL AN IMPOSTOR.

>> THE FACTS ARE THE FACTS ON THE PRESIDENT'S SIDE.

THAT'S WHAT WE NEED TO FOCUS ON.

NOT SOME CONSTITUTIONAL HEARING.

AT THE END OF THE PROCESS WHEN YOU'VE ALREADY DETERMINED WHERE YOU'RE GOING TO GO.

I YIELD BACK.

>> THE GENTLEMAN YIELDS BACK.

>> THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN.

MR. CHAIRMAN, THIS MONTH, WE COMMEMORATE THE 75th ANNIVERSARY OF THE BATTLE OF THE BULGE.

MY LATE FURTHER, STAFF SERGEANT BERNARD DEUTSCH HE GAVE BLOOD AMONG TENS OF THOUSANDS OF AMERICANS WHO SERVED UNDER OFFICERS AND A COMMANDER IN CHIEF WHO WERE NOT FIGHTING A WAR FOR THEIR OWN PERSONAL BENEFIT.

THEY PUT COUNTRY FIRST.

THEY MADE THE SAME SOLEMN PROMISE THAT MEMBERS OF CONGRESS AND THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES MAKE, TO ALWAYS PUT NATIONAL INTERESTS ABOVE THEIR OWN PERSONAL INTERESTS.

IT IS EVIDENCE SHOWS THE PRESIDENT BROKE THAT PROMISE.

STUEG GIVES THE PRESIDENT ENORMOUS POWER.

IT ALSO IMPOSES A REMEDY, IMPEACHMENT, WHEN THOSE POWERS ARE ABUSED.

IN JULY, PRESIDENT TRUMP SAYS, AND I QUOTE, I HAVE AN ARTICLE 2, THE RIGHT TO DO WHATEVER I WANT AS PRESIDENT,".

>> PROFESSIONALS FELDMAN THE PRESIDENT HAS BROAD POWER, RIGHT?

>> YES, SIR.

>> DO THOSE POWERS MEAN THAT THE PRESIDENT CAN DO AS HE SAID, WHATEVER HE WANTS AS PRESIDENT?

CAN HE ABUSE THE POWERS THAT THE CONSTITUTION GIVES HIM?

>> HE MAY NOT.

IF THE PRESIDENT USES POWERS FOR PERSONAL GAIN OR CORRUPT AN ELECTION OR AGAINST THE NATIONAL SECURITY INTERESTS OF THE UNITED STATES, HE MAY BE IMPEACHED FOR HIGH CRIME AND MISDEMEANOR.

>> IF USING HIS POWER TO INTERFERE IN U.S.

ELECTIONS AN ABUSE OF THAT POWER?

>> YES, SIR.

>> PROFESSIONALS GERHARDT HOW WOULD THE FRAMERS OF THE CONSTITUTION VIEWED THE PRESIDENT ASKING FOR ELECTION INTERFERENCE OF A FOREIGN LEADER?

>> IT'S ALWAYS PRACTICALLY IMPOSSIBLE TO KNOW EXACTLY WHAT THE FRAMERS WOULD THINK, BUT NOT HOW THE CONSTITUTION DEALS WITH IT.

AND UNDER THE CONSTITUTION IT'S PLAINLY AN ABUELS OF POWER.

IT'S HORRIFYING ABUSE OF POWER.

>> WE'VE HEARD WITNESSES TESTIFY ABOUT CONCERNS WHEN THE PRESIDENT USED FOREIGN POLICY FSH POLITICAL GAIN.

LT.

COLONEL VINDMAN WAS SHOCKED AND COULDN'T BELIEVE WHAT HE HEARD ON THE PHONE CALL, DIVERGING FROM EFFORTS TO PROTECT THE NATIONAL SECURITY POLICY.

AND AMBASSADOR TAYLOR THOUGHT IT WAS CRAZY TO WITHHOLD SECURITY ASSISTANCE FOR HELP ON A POLITICAL CAMPAIGN.

PROFESSOR KARLAN, THESE CONCERNS AREN'T MERE DIFFERENCES OVER POLICY, ARE THEY?

>> NO.

THEY GO TO THE VERY FOUNDATION OF OUR DEMOCRACY.

>> AND OFFERING TO EXCHANGE A WHITE HOUSE MEETING AND HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS OF DOLLARS IN SECURITY ASSISTANCE FOR HELP WITH HIS RE-ELECTION, THAT CAN'T BE PART OF OUR NATION'S FOREIGN POLICY, CAN IT?

>> NO.

IT'S THE ESSENCE OF DOING SOMETHING FOR PERSONAL REASONS RATHER THAN FOR POLITICAL REASONS.

IF I COULD JUST SAY ONE THING ABOUT THIS BRIEFLY, MAYBE WHEN HE WAS FIRST RUNNING FOR PRESIDENT HE HAD NEVER BEEN ANYTHING OTHER THAN A REALITY TV SHOW -- THAT WAS HIS PUBLIC LIFE -- MAYBE HE COULD SAY RUSSIA IF YOU'RE LISTENING IT'S OKAY.

BUT BY THE TIME HE SAID UKRAINE HELP ME WITH THE RE-ELECTION, HE HAD TO KNOW THAT WAS NOT CONSISTENT WITH OATH OF OFFICE.

>> ARE FOUNDERS GRANTING THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES ENORMOUS POWERS.

BUT AT THE SAME TIME, WHAT WE'VE BEEN REMINDED OF TODAY, THEY WORRIED THE POWERS COULD BE ABUSED BY A CORRUPT PRESIDENT.

THE EVIDENCE OF ABUSE OF POWER IN THIS INQUIRY PROVED OUR FOUNDERS WERE RIGHT TO BE WORRIED.

YES, YES.

THE PRESIDENT HAS THE POWER TO DIRECT AMERICA'S FOREIGN POLICY.

BUT NO, HE CANNOT USE THAT POWER TO CHEAT IN OUR ELECTIONS.

REMEMBER, I ASK ALL OF MY COLLEAGUES TO REMEMBER, THE CONSTITUTION GRANTS THE PRESIDENT HIS POWER THROUGH THE AMERICAN PEOPLE.

THE PRESIDENT'S SOURCE OF POWER IS A DEMOCRATIC ELECTION.

IT IS THE AMERICAN PEOPLE, THE VOTERS WHO TRUSTED HIM TO LOOK OUT FOR THEM.

LOOKING OUT FOR THE COUNTRY.

BUT INSTEAD, PRESIDENT TRUMP LOOKED OUT FOR HIMSELF, AND HELPING HIMSELF TO GET RE-ELECTED.

HE ABUSED THE POWER THAT WE TRUSTED HIM WITH FOR PERSONAL AND POLITICAL GAIN.

THE FOUNDERS WORRIED ABOUT JUST THIS TYPE OF ABUSE OF POWER, AND THEY PROVIDEED ONE WAY.

ONE WAY FOR CONGRESS TO RESPOND, AND THAT'S THE POWER OF IMPEACHMENT.

I YIELD BACK.

>> GENTLEMAN YIELDS BALK.

MR. BUCK.

>> THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN.

PROFESSIONALS TURLEY, I WANT TO ASK A QUESTION TO YOU.

THE OTHER THREE WITNESSES HAVE IDENTIFIED STANDARD FOR IMPEACHING A PRESIDENT.

THEY HAVE SAID THAT IF A PRESIDENT ABUSES HAD POWER FOR PERSONAL OR POLITICAL GAIN, IT'S IMPEACHABLE CONDUCT.

DO YOU AGREE WITH ME?

>> NOT THE SAY IT'S STATED.

>> I'VE GOT A LONG WAYS TO GO HERE?

>> THERE'S NO MANY STANDARDS.

ONE WAS ATTEMPTING TO ABUSE OFFICE.

I'M NOT SURE HOW TO RECOGNIZE THAT OR DEFINE IT.

>> LET ME GO WITH A FEW EXAMPLES AND SEE IF YOU AGREE.

LYNDON JAUNSOG DIRECTED THE CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY TO PLACE A SPY IN BARRY GOLDWATER'S CAMPAIGN.

THAT SPY GOT ADVANCE COPIES OF SPEECHES AND DELIVERED THAT TO THE JOHNSON CAMPAIGN.

WOULD THAT BE IMPEACHABLE CONDUCT ACCORDING TO THE OTHER PANELISTS?

>> IT SPEAKS BROADLY, SO I THINK SO.

>> HOW ABOUT WHEN PRESIDENT JOHNSON PUT A WIRE TAP ON GOLDWATER'S CAMPAIGN PLANE?

WOULD THAT BE FOR POLITICAL BENEFIT?

>> I CAN'T EXCLUDE ANYTHING UNDER THAT ISSUE.

>> I'LL GO WITH A FEW OTHERS.

CONGRESSMAN DEUTSCH INFORMED US THAT F.D.R.

PUT COUNTRY FIRST.

FRANKLIN ROOSEVELT DIRECTED THE IRS TO CONDUCT AUDITS ON HIS POLITICAL ENEMIES.

NAMELY, HUEY LONG, WILLIAM HEARST.

HAMILTON PHISH.

FATHER COUGHLIN.

WOULD THAT BE ABUSE OF POLITICAL POWER ACCORDING TO THE OTHER PANELISTS.

>> I THINK >> HOW ABOUT WHEN PRESIDENT KENNEDY DIRECTEDS HAD BROTHER ROBERT KENNEDY TO DEPORT ONE OF HIS MISTRESSES AS AN EASTERN GERMAN SPY.

WOULD THAT QUALIFY AS IMPEACHABLE CONDUCT?

>> I CAN'T EXCLUDE IT.

>> AND WHEN HE DIRECTED THE FBI TO USE WIRE TAPS ON CONGRESSIONAL STAFFERS WHO EXPOSED HIM?

WOULD THAT BE IMPEACHABLE CONDUCT?

>> IT SEEMS TO BE FALLING WITHIN IT.

AND LET'S GO TO BARACK OBAMA.

WHEN BARACK OBAMA DIRECTED -- OR MADE A FINDING THAT THE SENATE WAS IN RECESS AND APPOINTED PEOPLE TO THE NATIONAL RELATIONS BOARD AND LOST 9-0, RUTH BADER GINSBERG VOTED AGAINST THE PRESIDENT ON THIS ISSUE -- WOULD THAT BE ABUSE OF POWER?

>> YOU'D HAVE TO DIRECT IT TO OTHERS.

I DON'T SEE EXCLUSIONS UNDER THEIR DEFINITION.

>> AND HOW ABOUT WHEN THE PRESIDENT DIRECTED HIS NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISER TO LIE TO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE ABOUT WHETHER THE AMBASSADOR TO LIBYA WAS MURDERED AS A RESULT OF A VIDEO OR WAS MURDERED AS A RESULT OF A TERRORIST ACT?

WOULD THAT BE ABUSE OF POWER 17 DAYS BEFORE THE NEXT ELECTION?

>> NOT ACCORDING TO MY DEFINITION, BUT THEY HAVE TO RESPOND ON THEIR OWN.

>> YOU'VE HEARD THEIR DEFINITION.

>> I HAVE A HARD TIME EXCLUDING ANYTHING.

>> HOW ABOUT WHEN ABRAHAM LINCOLN ARRESTED LEGISLATORS IN MARYLAND SO THAT THEY WOULDN'T CONVENE TO SECEDE FROM THE UNION.

VIRGINIA SECEDEED, AND IT WOULD HAVE PLACED WASHINGTON, D.C.

IN THE MIDDLE OF THE REBEBLION.

THAT WOULD BE ABUSE OF POWER?

>> IT COULD BE.

>> AND YOU MENTIONED GEORGE WASHINGTON A LITTLE WHILE AGO AS PERHAPS HAVING MET THE STANDARD OF IMPEACHMENT TO YOUR OTHER PANELISTS.

>> IN FACT, PROFESSOR TURLEY, CAN YOU NAME A SINGLE PRESIDENT IN THE HISTORY OF THES, SAVE PRESIDENT HARRISON WHO DIED 32 DAYS AFTER INAUGURATION THAT WOULDN'T HAVE MET THE IMPEACHMENT STANDARD BY THE FRIEND HERE.

>> I HOPE TO GOD JAMES MADISON WOULD HAVE ESCAPED, OTHERWISE A LIFETIME OF ACADEMIC WORK WOULD BE SHREDDED.

BUT ONCE AGAIN I CAN'T EXCLUDE MANY OF THESE ACTS.

>> IT'S OBJECT WHAT AND IRE AFRAID OF.

IT'S THE STANDARD THAT YOUR FRIENDS TO THE RIGHT OF YOU, AND NOT POLITICALLY, BUT TO THE RIGHT OF YOU -- THAT YOUR FRIENDS HAVE DECIDED THAT THE BAR IS SO LOW THAT WHEN WE HAVE A DEMOCRAT PRESIDENT IN OFFICE, AND A REPUBLICAN HOUSE, AND A REPUBLICAN SENATE, WE'RE GOING TO BE GOING THROUGH THIS WHOLE SCENARIO AGAIN IN A WAY THAT REALLY PUTS THE COUNTRY AT RISK.

>> WHEN YOUR GRAPHIC SAYS THAT IT'S A BETRAYAL OF NATIONAL INTERESTS, I WOULD SIMPLY ASK, DO YOU REALLY WANT THAT TO BE YOUR STANDARD.

>> ISN'T THE DIFFERENCE, PROFESSOR TURLEY THAT SOME PEOPLE LIVE IN AN IVORY TOWER, AND SOME PEOPLE LIVE IN A SWAMP.

THOSE IN THE SWAMP ARE DOING OUR BEST FOR THE AMERICAN PEEP PEOPLE.

>> I LIVE IN AN IVORY POWER IN A SWAMP, AND IT'S NOT SO BAD.

>> I FIELD BACK.

>> GENTLEMAN YIELDS BACK.

>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH, AND I WANT TO THANK THE WITNESSES.

I DON'T BELIEVE THE PEOPLE'S HOUSE IS A SWAMP.

>> PRESIDENT NIXON WAS IMPEACHED FOR ABUSE OF POWER BECAUSE HIS CONDUCT WAS UNDERTAKEN FOR HAD PERSONAL POLITICAL ADVANTAGE AND NOT IN FURTHERANCE OF NATIONAL POLICY OBJECTIVE.

PROFESSIONALS GERHARDT, WHY WAS IT SIGNIFICANT THAT PRESIDENT NIXON ACTED FOR PERSONAL POLITICAL ADVANTAGE AND NOT IN FURTHERANCE OF NATIONAL POLICY OBJECTIVE?

>> IT'S PRIMARILY SIGNIFICANT BECAUSE IN ACTING FOR HIS OWN PERSONAL BENEFIT, AND NOT FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE COUNTRY, HE CROSSED THE LINE.

THE LINE HERE IS VERY CLEAR.

IT BECOMES ABUSE OF POWER WHEN SOMEBODY IS USING SPECIAL AUTHORITIES OF THEIR OFFICE FOR THEIR OWN PERSONAL BENEFIT, NOT THE BENEFIT OF THE COUNTRY.

>> CAN THE SAME BE SAID OF PRESIDENT TRUMP?

>> IT COULD BE, YES.

>> THANK YOU.

I'M STRUCK BY THE PARALLELS.

ONE OF THE THINGS THAT NIXON DID WAS HE LAUNCHED TAX INVESTIGATIONS OF HIS POLITICAL OPPONENTS.

HERE THE EVIDENCE SHOWS TRUMP TRIED TO LAUNCH A CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION OF HIS POLITICAL OPPONENT BY A FOREIGN GOVERNMENT.

WE HAVE HEARD EVIDENCE SUGGESTING PRESIDENT TRUMP DID THIS FOR HIS OWN PERSONAL GAIN, AND OPERATING NATIONAL POLICY INTERESTS.

PRESIDENT TRUMP SAID HE WITHHELD THE AID BECAUSE OF CORRUPTION.

I DO BELIEVE WE HAVE EXAMPLES OF THE EVIDENCE OF THE TRUTH.

>> AMBASSADOR SONLD LAND STATED THAT THE PRESIDENT ONLY CARES ABOUT BIG STUFF.

I NOTICED BIG STUFF GOING ON IN UKRAINE LIKE A WAR WITH RUSSIA.

AMBASSADOR SONDLAND REPLIED HE MEANT BIG STUFF TO BENEFIT THE PRESIDENT LIKE THE BIDEN INVESTIGATION THAT GIULIANI WAS PUSHING.

>> PROFESSOR FELDMAN, WHAT WOULD THE FRAMERS HAVE THOUGHT OF A PRESIDENT WHO ONLY CARES ABOUT "BIG STUFF THAT BENEFITS HIM."

THE FRAMERS WERE EXTREMELY WORRIED BR A PRESIDENT WHO ONLY SERVED HIS OWN INTEREST OR THE INTEREST OF FOREIGN POWER.

THAT WAS A SERIOUS CONCERN WHEN THEY DESIGNED THE REMEDY OF IMPEACHMENT.

THE EVIDENCE ALSO SUGGEST THAD PRESIDENT TRUMP DIDN'T CARE IF THE INVESTIGATION HAPPENED.

WHEN WHAT HE CARED ABOUT WAS THE PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENT OF THE INVESTIGATION.

PROFESSOR KARLAN, HOW WOULD WE ANALYZE THESE FACTS IN THE CONTEXT OF ABUSE OF POWER?

>> I THINK TO HAVE A PRESIDENT ASK FOR THE INVESTIGATION OF HIS POLITICAL OPPONENTS IS AN ART TYPE OF THE ABUSE OF POWER.

MR. BUCK MENTIONED PAST EXAMPLES OF THIS.

AND TO SAY THAT THOSE WEREN'T IMPEACHABLE IS A BIG MISTAKE.

IF A PRESIDENT WIRE TAPS OPPONENTS, THAT'S A FEDERAL CRIME NOW.

I DON'T KNOW IF 1968 IT WAS.

IF THE PRESIDENT WIRE TAPPED OPPONENTS TODAY, THAT WOULD BE IMPEACHABLE CONDUCT.

>> I ALSO SERVE ON THE FOREIGN AFFAIRS COMMITTEE, AND SIUNDERSTAND HOW SIGNIFICANT IT IS TO FOREIGN LEADERS TO MEET WITH OUR PRESIDENT, TO ATTEND A MEETING IN THE OVAL OFFICE.

IT'S VERY SIGNIFICANT.

PRESIDENT ZELENSKY IS A NEWLY ELECTED HEAD OF STATE IN A FLEDGLING DEMOCRACY.

HIS COUNTRY IS AT WAR WITH ITS NEIGHBOR.

RUSSIA INVADED AND IT OCCUPYING HIS COUNTRY'S TERRITORY.

HE NEEDED THE MILITARY RESOURCES TO DEFEND HIS COUNTRY.

HE NEEDED DIPLOMATIC RECOGNITION OF THE AMERICAN PRESIDENT, AND HE WAS PREPARED TO DO WHATEVER THE PRESIDENT DEMANDED.

MANY YEARS AGO I WORKED IN THE NATION'S LARGE TRAUMA UNIT AS A PHYSICIANS ASSISTANT.

I SAW PEOPLE IN SEVERE PAIN AFTER ACTS OF VIOLENCE.

PATIENTS WERE AFRAID, AND HAD TO WAIT 5 TO 8 HOURS TO BE SEEN.

CAN YOU IMAGINE FOR ONE MINUTE IF I HAD TOLD MY PATIENTS, I CAN MOVE YOU UP IN LINE AND TAKE CARE OF YOUR PAIN, BUT I NEED A FAVOR FROM YOU.

MY PATIENTS WERE IN PAIN AND NEED WERE DESPERATE AND WOULD HAVE AGREED TO ANYTHING I ASKED.

THIS WOULD HAVE BEEN AN ABUSE OF MY POSITION BECAUSE OF THE POWER DYNAMIC.

I HAD THE POWER TO RELIEVE MY PATIENTS FROM EXPERIENCING PAIN.

IT'S WRONG, AND IN MANY CASES ILLEGAL FOR US TO USE POWER TO TAKE ADVANTAGE OF THOSE IN CRISIS, ESPECIALLY A PRESIDENT,SPECIALLY WHEN LIVES ARE AT STAKE.

I YIELD BACK.

>> THE GENTLELADY YIELDS BACK.

MR. RADCLIFFE?

>> THANK YOU, PROFESSOR TURLEY, YOU SAID SOMETHING THEY THINK BEARS REPEATING.

YOU SAID I'M NOT A SUPPORTER OF PRESIDENT TRUMP.

I VOTED AGAINST HIM IN 2016, AND I HAVE PREVIOUSLY VOTED FOR PRESIDENTS CLINTON AND OBAMA.

>> DESPITE POLITICAL PERSUASIONS YOU REACHED THIS CONCLUSION.

THE CURRENT LEGAL CASE FOR IMPEACHMENT IS NOT JUST WOEFULLY INADEQUATE, BUT IN SOME RESPECTS DANGEROUS.

THE BASIS ARE IF IMPEACHMENT OF AN AMERICAN PRESIDENT.

LET ME START BY COMMENDING YOU FOR BEING THE KIND OF EXAMPLE OF WHAT HOPEFULLY EVERYONE ON THIS COMMITTEE WILL DO AS WE APPROACH THE TASK THAT WE HAVE OF DETERMINING WHETHER OR NOT THERE WERE IMPEACHABLE OFFENSES HERE.

ONE OF THE PROBLEMS THAT YOU'VE ARTICULATED AS LEAVING YOU TO THE CONCLUSION OF CALLING THIS THE SHOULD BE THE THINNEST RECORD AND NARROWEST GROUNDS EVER ATTEMPTED TO IMPEACH A PRESIDENT IS THE IMPACT THERE'S AN EVER CHANGING CONSTANTLY EVOLVING MOVING TARTIONET OF ACCUSATIONS, IF YOU WILL.

THE JULY 25th PHONE CALL STARTED OUT AS AN ALLEGED QUID QUO PRO, AND BRIEFLY BECAME AN EXTORTION SCHEME, A BRIBERY SCHEME, I THINK BACK TO QUID QUO PRO.

NOW BESIDES POINTING OUT THAT BOTH SPEAKER PELOSI AND CHAIRMAN SCHIFF WAITED UNTIL ALMOST EVERY WITNESS HAD BEEN DEPOSED BEFORE THEY USED THE TERM BRIBERY.

YOU CLEARLY ARTICULATED WHY YOU THINK THE DEFINITIONS THEY USED PUBLICLY ARE FLAWED, IF NOT UNCONSTITUTIONAL IN THE 18th OR THE 21st CENTURY.

BUT WOULDUL AGREE WITH ME THAT BRIBERY UNDER ANY VALID DEFINITION REQUIRES A SPECIFIC QUID QUO PRO BE PROVEN?

>> MORE IMPORTANTLY, THE SUPREME COURT HAS FOCUSED ON THAT ISSUE, AS WELL AS THE DEFINITION OF A QUID QUO PRO.

IF MILITARY AID OR ASSISTANCE IS PART OF THAT QUID QUO PRO WHERE IN THE JULY 25th TRANSCRIPT DOES PRESIDENT TRUMP EVER SUGGEST THAT HE INTENDS TO WITHHOLD MILITARY AID FOR ANY REASON?

>> HE DOESN'T.

THAT'S THE REASON WE KEEP HEARING THE WORD CIRC STASHLT AND INFERENTIAL.

THAT'S CONCERNING.

THOSE ARE APPROPRIATE TERMS.

IT'S NOT THAT YOU CAN'T HAVE A CASE.

THEY'RE APPROPRIATE TERMS IF THEY WERE KNOWABLE FACTS.

BUT SO MANY WITNESSES HAVE NOT BEEN SUBPOENAED OR HEARD FROM.

>> RIGHT.

SO IF IT'S NOT IN THE TRANSCRIPT, IT HAS TO COME FROM WITNESS TESTIMONY, AND I ASSUME YOU REVIEWED THE WITNESS TESTIMONY.

SO YOU KNOW THAT NO WITNESS TESTIFIED THAT THEY EITHER HEARD PRESIDENT TRUMP OR WERE TOLD BY PRESIDENT TRUMP TO WITHHOLD MILITARY AID, CORRECT?

>> CORRECT.

SO LET ME TURN TO THE ISSUE OF OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE QUICKLY.

I THINK YOU ASSUMED, AS I DID, THAT WHEN DEMOCRATS HAVE BEEN TALKING ABOUT OBSTRUCTION, IT WAS SPECIFICALLY RELATED TO THE UKRAINE ISSUE.

I KNOW YOU TALKED ABOUT THAT A LOT TODAY.

YOU CLEARLY STATED YOU THINK THE PRESIDENT HAD NO CORRUPT INTENT.

ON PAGE 39 OF YOUR REPORT YOU SAID SOMETHING ELSE.

I THINK IT BEARS REPEATING TODAY.

YOU WERE HIGHLIGHTING THE FACT THAT THE DEMOCRATS APPEAR TO TAKE THE POSITION THAT IF A PRESIDENT SEEKS JUDICIAL REVIEW OVER EXECUTIVE BRANCH TESTIMONY OR DOCUMENTS SUBPOENAED BY CONGRESS, THAT RATHER THAN LET K THE COURTS BE THE ARBITER, CONGRESS CAN SIMPLY IMPEACH THE PRESIDENT FOR OBSTRUCTION BASEED ON THAT.

DID I HEAR YOU SAY THAT IF WE WERE TO PROCEED ON THAT BASIS THAT WOULD BE ABUSE OF POWER?

>> I DID.

LET ME BE CLEAR ABOUT THIS.

I DON'T DISAGREE WITH MY COLLEAGUES THAT NOTHING IN THE CONSTITUTION SAYS YOU HAVE TO GO TO A COURT OR WAIT FOR A COURT.

THAT'S NOT WHAT I'M SAYING.

WHAT I'M SAYING IS THAT WHEN YOU WANT A WELL BASED LEGITIMATE IMPEACHMENT CASE, TO SET THIS ABBREVIATED SCHEDULE, DEMAND DOCUMENTS AND THEN IMPEACH BECAUSE THEY HAVEN'T BEEN TURNED OVER WHEN THEY GO TO A COURT -- THE PRESIDENT GOES TO COURT -- I THINK THAT IS ABUSE OF POWER.

THAT'S NOT WHAT HAPPENED IN NIXON.

IN FACT, THE ULTIMATE DECISION IN NIXON IS THERE ARE LEGITIMATE EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE CLAIMS TO BE RAISED.

SOME OF THEM DEAL WITH THIS CASE.

LIKE A NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISER.

LIKE A WHITE HOUSE COUNSEL.

SO THE CONCERN HERE IS NOT THAT THERE IS -- THAT YOU CAN'T EVER IMPEACH A PRESIDENT UNLESS YOU GO TO COURT.

IT'S JUST THAT YOU SHOULDN'T WHEN HAVE TIME TO DO IT.

>> SO IF I WERE TO SUMMARIZE YOUR TESTIMONY, NO BRIBERY, EXTORTION, NO ABUSE OF POWER, IS THAT FAIR?

>> NOT ON THIS RECORD.

>> THE GENTLEMAN'S TIME EXPIRED.

>> MR. RICHMOND?

>> THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN.

LET ME PICK UP WHERE WE LEFT OFF.

I'M GOING TO START, MR. TURLEY WITH YOUR WORDS.

YOUR OPINION PIECE ON THE HILL.

YOU SAID "AS I HAVE SAID BEFORE, THERE'S NO QUESTION THAT THE USE OF PUBLIC OFFICE FOR PERSONAL GAIN IS AN IMPEACHABLE OCHBLS, INCLUDING THE WITHHOLDING OF MILITARY AID IN EXCHANGE FOR THE INVESTIGATION OF A POLITICAL OPPONENT."

YOU JUST HAVE TO PROVE IT HAPPENED.

IF YOU CAN ESTABLISH INTENT TO USE J OFFICE FOR PERSONAL GAIN, YOU HAVE A VIABLE IMPEACHABLE OFFENSE."

WE HEARD THE PRESIDENT ABUSES POWER WHEN HE USES IT FOR HIS OWN INTEREST RATHER THAN THE COUNTRY.

I'D LIKE TO SPEEND MORE TIME ON THAT.

I'M STRUCK BY ONE OF THE THINGS AT STAKE HERE.

$400 MILLION TAXPAYER DOLLARS.

PRESIDENT NIXON LEVERAGED THE POWER OF HIS OFFICE TO INVESTIGATE POLITICAL RIVALS, BUT HERE, EVIDENCE SHOWS PRESIDENT TRUMP LEVERAGED TAXPAYER DOLLARS TO GET UKRAINE TO ANNOUNCE AN INVESTIGATION OF PRESIDENT TRUMP'S POLITICAL RIVALS.

THAT TAXPAYER MONEY WAS MEANT FOR UKRAINE TO DEFEND ITSELF AND DEFEND UTZ INTERESTS FROM RUSSIAN AGGRESSION.

THE MONEY HAD BEEN APPROPRIATED BY CONGRESS AND CERTIFIED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE.

MULTIPLE WITNESSES CONFIRMED THERE WAS UNANIMOUS SUPPORT FOR THE MILITARY AID TO UKRAINE.

CAN WE LISTEN TO THAT, PLEASE.

>> FROM WHAT YOU WITNESSED, DID ANYBODY IN THE NATIONAL SECURITY COMMUNITY SUPPORT WITHHOLDING THE ASSISTANCE?

>> N >> I NEVER HEARD ANYONE ADVOCATE FOR WITHHOLDING THE AID.

>> AND THE THEY SUPPORTED THE CONTINUATION OF THE SECURITY ASSISTANCE, IS THAT RIGHT?

>> THAT IS CORRECT.

>> I AND OTHERS SAT IN ASTONISHMENT, UKRANIANS WERE FIGHTING RUSSIANS, AND COUNTED ON NOT ONLY THE TRAINING AND WEAPONS, BUT ALSO THE ASSURANCE OF U.S. SUPPORT.

>> PROFESSOR FELDMAN, YOU STATED THAT THE PRESIDENT'S DEMANDS TO THE PRESIDENT OF UKRAINE CONSTITUTED AN ABUSE OF POWER.

HOW DOES THE PRESIDENT'S DECISION TO WITHHOLD MILITARY AID AFFECT YOUR ANALYSIS?

>> >> IT MEANS IT WASN'T JUST AN ABUSE OF POWER BECAUSE THE PRESIDENT WAS SERVING HIS PERSONAL INTERESTS, BUT ALSO ABUSE OF POWER PUTTING THE AMERICAN NATIONAL SECURITY INTEREST BEHIND HIS OWN PERSONAL INTERESTS.

IT BROUGHT TOGETHER TWO IMPORTANT ASPECTS.

SELF-GAIN, AND UNDERCUTTING NATIONAL SECURITY INTERESTS.

>> DOES EVIDENCE POINT TO PRESIDENT TRUMP USING MILITARY AID FOR HIS PERSONAL BENEFIT NOT FOR THE BENEFIT OF OFFICIAL U.S. POLICY.

PROFESSOR KARLAN,]uoïju WOULD THE FRAMERS HAVE INTERPRETED THAT?

>> WELL, I CAN'T SPEAK FOR THE FRAMERS THEMSELVES, OBVIOUSLY.

MY VIEWIS THAT THEY WOULD SAY THAT THE PRESIDENT'S AUTHORITY TO USE FOREIGN AID -- AND THEY COULDN'T HAVE IMAGINED WE WERE EVEN GIVING FOREIGN AID BECAUSE WE WERE A TINY POOR COUNTRY THEN -- IT'S HARD TO TRANSLATE THAT.

BUT THEY WOULD HAVE SAID A PRESIDENT WHO DOESN'T THINK FIRST THAT THE SECURITY OF THE UNITED STATES IS NOT DOING WHAT HIS OATH REQUIRES HIM TO DO, AND FAITHFULLY EXECUTE THE LAWS APPROPRIATING MONY AND DEFEND THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES.

>> THANK YOU.

LET'S GO BACK TO A SEGMENT OF MR. TURLEY'S QUOTE, THAT IF YOU CAN ESTABLISH TO USE PUBLIC OFFICE FOR PERSONAL GAIN, YOU HAVE A VIABLE IMPEACHABLE OFFENSE.

MR. FELDMAN, DO WE MEET THAT CRITERIA HERE?

>> IN MY VIEW THE EVIDENCE DOES MEET THAT CRITERIA, AND THAT'S THE JUDGMENT YOU SHOULD BE MAKING.

>> MISS KARLAN?

>> YES.

ONE QUESTION I WOULD HAVE FOR THE MINORITY MEMBERS OF THE COMMITEE, IF YOU WERE CONVINCEID THAT THE PRESIDENT HELD UP THE AID BECAUSE HE THOUGHT IT WOULD HELP RE-ELECTION, WOULD YOU VOTE TO IMPEACH HIM?

THAT'S THE QUESTION THAT EVERYONE SHOULD BE ASKING.

IF THEY CONCLUDE YES, THEY SHOULD VOTE TO IMPEACH.

>> MR. GERHARDT?

>> I AGREE.

ONE THING I WOULD ADD, IS THAT MUCH TALK HAS BEEN MADE HERE ABOUT THE TERM BRIBERY.

IT'S YOUR JOB, IT'S THE HOUSE'S JOOB TO DEFINE BRIBERY, NOT THE COURTS.

YOU FOLLOW YOUR JUDGMENT ON IT.

>> I WANT TO THANK ALL THE WITNESSES TO COMING IN AND TESTIFYING TODAY.

THIS IS NOT AN EASY DECISION.

IT'S NOT A COMFORTABLE DECISION, BUT IT'S ONE THAT'S NECESSARY.

WE ALL TAKE AN OATH TO PROTECT THE CONSTITUTION, OUR MILITARY, OUR MEN AND WOMEN WHO PUT THEIR LIVES ON THE LINE FOR THE CONSTITUTION, AND WE HAVE WE HAVEAN OBLIGATION TOE CONSTITUTION WHETHER IT IS EASY OR NOT.

I YIELD BACK.

>> VERY QUICKLY PROFESSOR CHARLIE, WOULD YOU LIKE TO RESPOND?

>> YES, I WOULD.

FIRST OF ALL, WHAT WAS SAID IN THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT I SAID IN MY TESTIMONY.

THE PROBLEM IS NOT ABUSE OF POWER CAN NEVER BE AN IMPEACHABLE OFFENSE YOU JUST HAVE TO PROVE IT AND YOU HAVEN'T.

IT'S NOT ENOUGH TO SAY I INFER THIS WAS THE PURPOSE.

I N INFER THAT THIS IS WHAT WAS INTENDED WHEN YOU'RE NOT ACTUALLY SUBPOENAING PEOPLE WITH DIRECT KNOWLEDGE.

INSTEAD YOU'RE SAYING WE MUST VOTE IN THIS ROCKET DOCKET OF IMPEACHMENT.

>> THIS LEADS TO A MASS STATEMENT I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE.

OF COURSE THE UNITED STATES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES HAS INITIATED IMPEACHMENT INQUIRIES AGAINST THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES ONLY THREE TIMES IN OUR NATION'S HISTORY PRIOR TO THIS ONE.

THOSE IMPEACHMENT INQUIRIES WERE DONE IN THIS COMMITTEE, THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE WHICH HAS JURISDICTION OVER IMPEACHMENT MATTERS.

HERE IN 2019 UNDER THIS INQUIRY, FACT WITNESSES HAVE BEEN FALL, FACT WITNESSES THAT HAVE BEEN CALLED WERE IN FRONT OF THE INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE.

WE HAVE GIVEN NO CASE THIS COMMITTEE WILL HAVE SUBSEQUENT HEARINGS WITH FACT WITNESSES.

AS A MEMBER SERVING ON THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE I CAN SAY THAT THE PROCESS IN WHICH WE ARE PARTICIPATING IS INSUFFICIENT, UNPRECEDENTED AND GROSSLY INADEQUATE.

SITTING BEFORE US IS A PANEL OF WITNESSES CONTAINING FOUR DISTINGUISHED LAW PROFESSORS FROM SOME OF OUR COUNTRY'S FINEST EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS.

I DO NOT DOUBT THAT EACH OF YOU ARE EXTREMELY WELL VERSED IN THE SUBJECT OF CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, AND YES THERE IS PRECEDENT FOR SIMILAR PANELS IN THE AFOREMENTIONED HISTORY BUT ONLY AFTER SPECIFIC CHARGES HAVE BEEN MADE KNOWN AND THE UNDERLYING FACTS PRESENTED IN FULL DUE TO AN EXHAUSTIVE INVESTIGATION.

HOWEVER, I DON'T UNDERSTAND WHY WE ARE HOLDING THIS HEARING AT THIS TIME WITH THESE WITNESSES.

MY COLLEAGUES ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE AISLE HAVE ADMITTED HAD HE DON'T KNOW WHAT ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT THEY WILL CONSIDER.

HOW DOES ANYONE EXPECT A PANEL OF LAW PROFESSORS TO WEIGH IN ON THE LEGAL GROUNDS FOR IMPEACHMENT CHARGES PRIOR TO EVEN KNOWING WHAT THE CHARGES BROUGHT BY THIS COMMITTEE ARE GOING TO BE.

SOME OF MY DEMOCRAT COLLEAGUES HAVE STATED OVER AND OVER THAT IMPEACHMENT SHOULD BE A NON-PARTISAN PROCESS AND I AGREE.

ONE OF MY COLLEAGUES IN THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY STATED AND I QUOTE IMPEACHMENT IS SO DIVISIVE TO THE COUNTRY THAT UNLESS THERE IS SOMETHING SO COMPELLING AND OVER WHELMING AND BIPARTISAN, I DON'T THINK WE SHOULD GO DOWN THAT PATH BECAUSE IT DIVIDES THE COUNTRY.

MY DEMOCRATIC COLLEAGUES HAVE STATED NUMEROUS TIMES THAT THEY ARE ON A TRUTH-SEEKING AND FACT FINDING MISSION.

ANOTHER ONE OF MY DEMOCRATIC COLLEAGUES SAID AND I QUOTE, WE HAVE A RESPONSIBILITY TO CONSIDER THE FACTS THAT EMERGE SQUARELY AND WITH THE BEST INTERESTS OF OUR COUNTRY, NOT OUR PARTY IN OUR HEARTS.

THESE TYPE OF HISTORIC PROCEEDINGS REGARDLESS OF POLITICAL BELIEFS OUGHT TO BE ABOUT FACT FINDING AND TRUTH SEEKING BUT THAT IS NOT WHAT THIS HAS TURNED OUT TO BE.

AGAIN, NO DISRESPECT TO THESE WITNESSES BUT FOR ALL I KNOW, THIS IS THE ONLY HEARING THAT WE WILL HAVE AND NONE OF THEM ARE FACTS WITNESSES.

MY COLLEAGUES ARE SAYING ONE THING AND DOING SOMETHING COMPLETELY DIFFERENT.

NO MEMBER OF CONGRESS CAN LOOK THEIR CONSTITUENTS IN THE EYE AND SAY THIS IS A COMPREHENSIVE FACT FINDING TRUTH SEEKING MISSION.

RANKING MEMBER COLLINS AND MEMBERS OF THE MINORITY IN THIS COMMITTEE HAVE WRITTEN SIX LEADERS OVER THE PAST MONTH TO CHAIRMAN NADLER ASKING FOR PROCEDURAL FAIRNESS FOR ALL THE UNDERLYING EVIDENCE TO BE TRANSMITTED TO THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE TO EXPAND THE NUMBER OF WITNESSES AND HAVE AN EVEN MORE BIPARTISAN PANEL HERE TODAY AND FOR CLARITY ON TODAY'S IMPEACHMENT PROCEEDINGS SINCE WE HAVEN'T RECEIVED EVIDENCE TO REVIEW.

THE MINORITY HAS YET TO RECEIVE A RESPONSE TO THESE LETTERS.

RIGHT HERE TODAY IS ANOTHER VERY CLEAR EXAMPLE OF ALL AMERICANS TRULY UNDERSTAND THE ONGOING LACK OF TRANSPARENCY AND OPENNESS WITH THESE PROCEEDINGS.

THE WITNESS LIST FOR THIS HEARING WAS NOT RELEASED UNTIL LATE MONDAY AFTERNOON.

OWNING STATEMENTS FROM THE WITNESSES TODAY WERE NOT DISTRIBUTING UNTIL LATE LAST NIGHT AND THE INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE'S FINALIZED REPORT HAS YET TO BE PRESENTED TO THIS COMMITTEE.

YOU HEAR FROM THOSE IN THE MAJORITY THAT IS A REPUBLICAN TALKING POINT WHEN IN REALTY IT IS AN AMERICAN TALKING POINT.

PROCESS IS ESSENTIAL TO THE INSTITUTION.

A THOUGHTFUL MEANINGFUL PROCESS OF THIS MAGNITUDE WITH SUCH GREAT IMPLICATIONS SHOULD BE DEMANDED BY THE AMERICAN PEOPLE.

WITH THAT I YIELD BACK.

>> GENTLELADY YIELDS BACK.

MR. JEFFRIES.

>> I DID NOT SERVE IN THE MILITARY BUT MY 81 YEAR OLD FATHER DID.

WITH AN AIR FORCE VETERAN STATIONED IN GERMANY DURING T HEIGHT OF THE COLD WAR IN THE LATE 1950 'S.

HE WAS A DEAN AGER FROM INNER CITY NEWARK, A STRANGER IN A FOREIGN LAND, SERVING ON THE WESTERN SIDE OF THE BERLIN WALL.

MY DAD PROUDLY WORE THE UNIFORM BECAUSE HE SWORE AN OATH TO THE CONSTITUTION AND BELIEVED IN AMERICAN DEMOCRACY.

I BELIEVE IN AMERICAN DEMOCRACY.

WE REMAIN THE LAST BEST HOPE ON EARTH.

IT IS IN THAT SPIRIT THAT WE PROCEED TODAY.

MR. COLLINS IN AMERICA WE BELIEVE IN FREE AND FAIR ELECTIONS, IS THAT CORRECT.

>> YES, IT IS.

>> BUT AUTHORITARIAN REGIMES DO NOT, IS THAT RIGHT.

>> THAT'S CORRECT.

>> THOMAS JEFFERSON ONCE WROTE, WELL JOHN ADAMS ONCE WROTE TO THOMAS JEFER SAW ON DECEMBER 6, 1787 AND STATED YOU ARE APPREHENSIVE OF FOREIGN INTERFERENCE INTRIGUE, INFLUENCE, SO AM I.

BUT AS OFTEN AS ELECTIONS HAPPEN, THE DANGER OF FOREIGN INFLUENCE RECURS.

HOW IMPORTANT WAS THE CONCEPT OF FREE AND FAIR LOOKIONS TO THE FRAMERS OF THE CONSTITUTION?

>> HONESTLY IT WAS LESS IMPORTANT TO THEM THAN IT'S BECOME IN OUR CONSTITUTION SINCE THEN AND IF YOU REMEMBER ONE OF THE THING THAT TURNED ME INTO A LAWYER WAS SEEING BARBARA JORDAN WHO WAS THE FIRST FEMALE LAWYER I HAD EVER SEEN IN PRACTICE SAY THAT WE THE PEOPLE DIDN'T INCLUDE PEOPLE LIKE HER IN 1789 BUT THROUGH A PROGRESSION OF AMENDMENTS WE HAVE DONE THAT.

ELECTIONS ARE MORE IMPORTANT TO US THAN IT WAS TO THE FRAMERS.

>> TO NOT BE REASONABLY CHARACTERIZED AS FREE AND FAIR IF MANIPULATED BY FOREIGN INTERFERENCE.

>> THAT'S CORRECT.

>> THE FRAMERS OF THE CONSTITUTION WERE CONCERNED ABOUT THE THREAT OF FOREIGN INTERFERENCE INTO DOSTIC AFFAIRS OF THE UNITED STATES, TRUE.

>> YES.

>> WHY WERE THEY SO DEEPLY CONCERNED?

>> BECAUSE FOREIGN NATIONS DON'T HAVE OUR INTERESTS AT HEART.

THEY HAVE THEIR INTERESTS AT HEART.

>> WOULD THE FRAMERS FIND IT ACCEPTABLE WHEN AMERICAN PRESIDENT TO PRESSURE A FOREIGN GOVERNMENT TO HELP HIM WIN AN SELECTION.

>> I THINK THEY WOULD FIND IT UNACCEPTABLE FOR A PRESIDENT TO ASK A FOREIGN GOVERNMENT TO HELP THEM WHETHER THEY PUT PRESSURE ON THEM OR NOT.

>> DIRECT EVIDENCE SHOWS, DIRECT EVIDENCE SHOWS THAT ON JULY 25TH PHONE CALL, THE PRESIDENT UTTERED FIVE WORDS.

DO US A FAVOR, THOUGH.

THE PRESIDENT OF THE UKRAINIAN GOVERNMENT TO TARGET AN AMERICAN CITIZEN FOR POLITICAL GAIN AND AT THE SAME TIME SIMULTANEOUSLY WITHHELD $391 MILLION IN MILITARY AID.

NOW AMBASSADOR BILL TAYLOR WEST POINT GRADUATE VIETNAM WAR HEROUX, HOW CAN APPOINTED DIPLOMAT DISCUSSED THIS ISSUE OF MILITARY AID.

HERE IS A CLIP OF HIS TESTIMONY.

>> AGAIN, OUR HOLDING UP OF SECURITY SYSTEMS THAT WOULD GO TO A COUNTRY THAT IS FIGHTING AGGRESSION FROM RUSSIA FOR NO GOOD POLICY REASON, NO GOOD SUBSTANTIVE REASON, NO GOOD NATIONAL SECURITY REASON WAS WRONG.

>> TO THE EXTENT THE MILITARY AID WAS BEING WITHHELD AS PART OF AN EFFORT TO SOLICIT FOREIGN INTERFERENCE IN THE 2020 ELECTION, IS THAT BEHAVIOR IMPEACHABLE.

>> YES, IT IS.

AND IF I COULD GO BACK TO ONE OF THE WORDS YOU READ, WHEN THE PRESIDENT SAID DO US A FAVOR, HE WAS USING THE ROYAL WE THERE.

IT WASN'T A FAVOR FOR THE UNITED STATES, HE SHOULD HAVE SAID DO ME A FAVOR.

BECAUSE ONLY KINGS SAY US WHEN THEY MEAN ME.

>> IS IT CORRECT THAT AN ABUSE OF POWER THAT STRIKES AT THE HEART OF OUR DEMOCRACY FALLS SQUARELY WITHIN THE DEFINITION OF A HIGH CRIME AND MISDEMEANOR.

>> YES, IT DOES.

>> SOME OF MY COLLEAGUES HAVE SUGGESTED THAT IMPEACHMENT WOULD OVERTURN THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE.

THE AMERICAN PEOPLE EXPRESSED THEIR WILL IN NOVEMBER OF 2018.

THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE ELECTED A NEW MAJORITY.

THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE ELECTED A HOUSE THAT WOULD NOT FUNCTION AS A WHOLLY OWNED SUBSIDIARY OF THIS ADMINISTRATION.

THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE ELECTED A HOUSE THAT UNDERSTANDS WE ARE SEPARATE AND CO-EQUAL BRANCH OF GOVERNMENT.

THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE ELECTED A HOUSE THAT UNDERSTANDS WE HAVE A CONSTITUTIONAL RESPONSIBILITY TO SERVE AS A CHECK AND BALANCE ON AN OUT OF CONTROL EXECUTIVE BRANCH.

THE PRESIDENT ABUSED HIS POWER AND MUST BE HELD ACCOUNTABLE.

NO ONE IS ABOVE THE LAW.

AMERICA MUST REMAIN THE LAST BEST HOPE ON EARTH.

I YIELD BACK.

>> GENTLEMAN YIELDS BACK.

MR. GAETZ.

>> AMERICAN PEOPLE ELECTED DONALD TRUMP AND THEY CAN'T GET OVER THE FACT.

WE HAVEN'T SPENT OUR TIME DURING YOUR TENURE PROCEDURE TRYING TO REMOVE THE SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE TRYING TO DELEGITIMIZE ABILITY TO GOVERN.

WE WOULD LOVE TO GOVERN WITH YOU AND PASS UMSCA PUT OUT HELPING HANDS TO SENIORS FOR DRUG PRICES.

IT'S THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE YOU IGNORE WHEN YOU CONTINUE DOWN THIS TERRIBLE ROAD OF IMPEACHMENT.

PROFESSOR GEA GEAR HARD YOU GAVE MONEY TO PRESIDENT OBAMA.

>> YES.

>> I ASK THAT PROFESSOR FELDMAN'S WORK TRUMP WIRE TAP TWEETS REACHES IMPEACHMENT -- >> GENTLEMAN WILL SUSPEND.

>> TAKE THAT TIME OFF.

AS THE GENTLEMAN SUBMITTED, WE SEE THAT MATERIAL.

>> WE CAN PROVIDE IT TO YOU AS IS TYPICAL.

>> CONSIDER THE REQUEST LATER AFTER WE REVIEW IT.

>> VERY WELL.

>> THE GENTLEMAN MAY CONTINUE.

>> THANK YOU MR. CHAIRMAN.

MR. FELDMAN WROTE ARTICLES ENTITLED TRUMP'S WIRE TAP TWEETS RAISE RISK OF IMPEACHMENT.

HE THEN WROTE MAR-A-LAGO AD BELONGS ANYMORE PEACHABLE FILE.

JAY FLANNIGAN WROTE IN COURTS A HARVARD LAW PROFESSOR THINKS TRUMP COULD BE IMPEACH OVER FAKE NEWS ACCUSATIONS.

MY QUESTION PROFESSOR FELDMAN IS SINCE YOU SEEM TO BELIEVE THAT THE BASIS FOR IMPEACHMENT IS EVEN BROUGHT THAN THE BASIS THAT MY DEMOCRATIC COLLEAGUES HAVE LAID FORWARD, DO YOU BELIEVE YOU'RE OUTSIDE OF THE POLITICAL MAINSTREAM ON THE QUESTION OF IMPEACHMENT.

>> I BELIEVE THAT IMPEACHMENT IS WARRANTED WHENEVER THE PRESIDENT ABUSES HIS POWER FOR PERSONAL BENEFIT DURING THE DEMOCRATIC PROCESS.

>> DID YOU WRITE AN ARTICLE SAYING IT'S HARD TO TAKE -- >> YES -- >> DID YOU -- >> ONE AT A TIME.

>> -- HOUSE DEMOCRATS HAVE MADE IT PAINFULLY CLEAR THAT DISCUSSING IMPEACHMENT IS PRIMARILY OR EVEN EXCLUSIVELY A TOOL TO WEAKEN PRESIDENT TRUMP'S CHANCES IN 2020.

DID YOU WRITE THOSE WORDS.

>> UNTIL THIS CALL IN JULY 25TH I WAS AN IMPEACHMENT SKEPTIC.

THE CALL CHANGED MY MIND SIR.

>> THANK YOU I APPRECIATE YOUR TESTIMONY.

PROFESSOR C KARLAN, YOU GAVE A THOUSAND BUCKS TO ELIZABETH WARREN, RIGHT.

>> I BELIEVE SO.

>> YOU GAVE 1200 BUCKS TO BARACK OBAMA, I HAVE NO REASON TO QUESTION THAT.

>> AND YOU GAVE 2,000 BUCKS TO HILLARY CLINTON.

>> YES.

>> WHY SO MUCH MORE TO CLINTON THAN THE OTHER TWO.

>> BECAUSE I'VE BEEN GIVING MONEY TO CHARITY COY.

>> THOSE AREN'T THE ONLY FOLKS YOU'VE BEEN GIVEN TO.

HAVE YOU EVER BEEN ON A PODCAST CALLED VERSUS TRUMP.

>> I THINK I WAS ON A LIVE PANEL THAT THE PEOPLE WHO RAN THE PODCAST CALLED VERSUS TRUMP.

>> ON THAT DO YOU REMEMBER SAYING THE FOLLOWING?

LIBERALS TEND TO CLUSTER MORE.

CONSERVATIVES ESPECIALLY VERY CONSERVATIVE PEOPLE TEND TO SPREAD OUT MORE.

PERHAPS BECAUSE THEY DON'T EVEN WANT TO BE AROUND THEMSELVES.

DID YOU SAY THAT.

>> YES, I DID.

>> DO YOU UNDERSTAND HOW THAT REFLECTS CONTENT ON PEOPLE WHO ARE CONSERVATIVE.

>> NO.

WHAT I WAS TALKING ABOUT THERE WAS THE NATURAL TENDENCY TO PUT THE QUOTE IN CONTEXT, THE NATURAL TENDENCY OF A COMPACTNESS REQUIREMENT TO FAVOR A PARTY WHOSE VOTERS ARE MORE SPREAD OUT.

AND I DO NOT HAVE -- >> I'M VERY LIMITED ON TIME -- >> I HAVE -- >> WHEN YOU TALK ABOUT HOW LIBERALS WANT TO BE AROUND EACH OTHER AND CLUSTER AND CONSERVATIVES DON'T WANT TO BE AROUND EACH OTHER SO THEY HAVE TO SPREAD OUT.

YOU MAY SEE THIS FROM THE IVORY TOWERS OF YOUR HUH SCHOOL BUT IT MAKES ACTUAL PEOPLE IN THIS COUNTRY -- >> WHEN THE PRESIDENT YOUR.

>> YOU DON'T GET TO INTERRUPT ME ON THIS TIME.

LET ME ALSO SUGGEST WHEN YOU INVEHICLE THE PRESIDENT'S SON'S NAME HERE WHEN YOU TRY TO MAKE A LITTLE JOKE OUT OF REFERENCING BARON TRUMP THAT DOES NOT LEND CREDIBILITY TO YOUR ARGUMENT, IT MAKES YOU LOOK MEAN AND MAKES YOU LOOK LIKE YOU'RE ATTACKING SOMEONE'S FAMILY THE MINOR CHILD OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES.

SO LET'S 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.

LET THE RECORD REFLECT NO PERSONAL KNOWLEDGE OF A SINGLE FACT AND DO YOU KNOW WHAT, THAT CONTINUES ON THE TRADITION THAT WE SAW FROM ADAM SCHIFF WHERE AMBASSADOR TAYLOR COULD NOT IDENTIFY AN IMPEACHABLE OFFENSE, PMR.

KENT NEVER REFERENCED THE PRESIDENT, FIONA HILL DIDN'T MENTION -- COLONEL VINMAN EVEN REJECTED THE NEW DEMOCRAT TALKING POINT THAT BRIBERY WAS INVEHICLED HERE.

AMBASSADOR VOLKER DENIED THERE WAS A QUID PRO QUO AND MR. MORRISON SAID THERE WAS NOTHING WRONG ON THE CALL.

THE ONLY DIRECT EVIDENCE CAME FROM GORDON SONDLAND WHO CAME FROM THE UNITED STATES WHO SAID I WANT NOTHING, NO QUID PRO QUO.

AND DO YOU KNOW WHAT, IF WIRETAPPING AND POLITICAL APPOINT -- >> TIME IS EXPIRED -- >> MAYBE IT'S A DIFFERENT PRESIDENT WE SHOULD BE IMPEACHING.

>> YOUR TIME IS EXPIRED.

>> PROFESSOR FELDMAN LET ME STATE THE OBVIOUS.

IT IS NOT HEARSAY WHEN THE PRESIDENT TELLS THE PRESIDENT OF UKRAINE TO INVESTIGATE HIS POLITICAL ADVERSARY E IS IT.

>> IT IS NOT.

>> IT IS NOT HEARSAY WHEN THE PRESIDENT CONFESSES ON NATIONAL TELEVISION TO DOING IT.

>> IT IS NOT.

>> WHEN THEY HEAR THE PRESIDENT SAY HE ONLY CARES ABOUT THE INVESTIGATIONS OF HIS POLITICAL OPPONENTS, IS IT.

>> NO, THAT IS NOT HEARSAY.

>> THERE'S LOTS OF OTHER DIRECT EVIDENCE IN THIS 300 PAYMENT REPORT FROM THE INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE SO LET'S DISPENSE WITH THAT CLAIM BY MY REPUBLICAN COLLEAGUES.

PROFESSOR, NOTWITHSTANDING WHAT YOU SAID TODAY YOU WROTE A PIECE CALLED FIFTH MYTHS ABOUT IMPEACHMENT.

ONE OF THE MYTHS HE WAS REJECTING WAS THAT IMPEACHMENT REQUIRED A CRIMINAL OFFENSE AND HE WROTE AND I QUOTE AN OFFENSE DOES NOT HAVE TUNE DID ITABLE.

SERIOUS MISCONDUCT OR VIOLATION OF PUBLIC TRUST IS ENOUGH END QUOTE.

WAS PROFESSOR RIGHT WHEN HE WROTE THAT BACK IN 2014.

>> YES, I AGREE WITH THAT.

>> OKAY.

NOW NEXT I MOVE TO PROFESSOR KARLAN.

AT THE CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION, ELDRIDGE JERRY SAID AND I QUOTE FOREIGN POWERS IMPLEMENTAL IN OUR AFFAIRS AND SPARES NO INFLUENCING THEM.

IMPEACHMENT WAS NEEDED BECAUSE OTHERWISE A PRESIDENT AND I QUOTE MIGHT BETRAY HIS TRUST TO A FOREIGN POWER.

CAN YOU ELABORATE WHY THE FRAMERS WERE SO CONCERNED ABOUT FOREIGN INTERFERENCE HOW THEY ACCOUNTED FOR THESE CONCERNS AND HOW THAT RELATES TO THE FACTS BEFORE THIS COMMITTEE.

>> THE REASON THAT THE FRAMERS WERE CONCERNED ABOUT FOREIGN INTERFERENCE I THINK IS SLIGHTLY DIFFERENT THAN THE REASON WE ARE.

THEY WERE CONCERNED ABOUT IT BECAUSE WE WERE SUCH A WEAK COUNTRY IN 1789.

WE WERE SMALL, WE WERE POOR, WE DIDN'T HAVE AN ESTABLISHED NAVY, WE DIDN'T 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 ELECTIONS.

FIRST IN 2016, THE PRESIDENT PUBLICLY HOPED THAT RUSSIA WOULD HACK INTO THE E-MAIL OF A POLITICAL OPPONENT WHICH THEY SUBSEQUENTLY DID.

SECONDLY BASED ON THE PRESIDENT WITH PRESIDENT ZELENSKY HE ASKED THEM TO INVESTIGATION HIS CHIEF POLITICAL RIVAL AND THIRD THE PRESIDENT 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 ELECTION.

>> IT WOULD BE A DISASTER FOR THE FUNCTIONING OF OUR DEMOCRACY IF OUR PRESIDENT REGULARLY AS THIS PRESIDENT HAS DONE ASKED FOREIGN GOVERNMENTS TO INTERFERE IN OUR ELECTORAL PROCESS.

>> I WOULD LIKE TO END WITH A POWERFUL WARNING FROM GEORGE WASHINGTON WHO TOLD AMERICANS IN HIS FAIR WELL ADDRESS AND I QUOTE TO BE CONSTANTLY AWAKE IN HISTORY AND EXPERIENCE PROVE THAT FOREIGN INFLUENCE IS ONE OF THE MOST BAINFUL FOES OF REPUBLICAN GOVERNMENT END QUOTE.

THE CONDUCT AT ISSUE HERE IS EGREGIOUS AND WARMS THE COMMENSURATE RESPONSE.

THE PRESIDENT HAS OPENLY AND REPEATEDLY SOLICITED FOREIGN INTERFERENCE IN OUR ELECTION.

OF THAT THERE IS NO DOUBT.

THIS MATTER OF INVITING FOREIGN MEDDLING INTO OUR ELECTION ROBS THE AMERICAN PEOPLE OF THEIR SACRED RIGHT TO ELECT THEIR OWN POLITICAL LEADERS.

AMERICANS ALL ACROSS THIS COUNTRY 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 AND AUTHORITY SERINES ALL OVER THE -- AUTHORITARIANS ALL OVER THE WORLD.

WE WOULD BE NEGLIGENT IN OUR DUTIES UNDER THE CONSTITUTION IF WE LET THIS BLATANT ABUSE OF POWER GO UNCHECKED.

WE'VE HEARD A LOT ABOUT HATING THIS PRESIDENT.

IT'S NOT ABOUT HATING THIS PRESIDENT IT'S ABOUT OUR LOVE OF COUNTRY, IT IS ABOUT HONORING THE OATH WE TOOK TO PROTECT AND DEFEND THE CONSTITUTION OF THIS GREAT COUNTRY.

AND 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 UNDER MINES THE NATIONAL SECURITY OF THE UNITED STATES, THAT UNDERMIND THE INTEGRITY OF OUR ELECTION AND UNDERMIND THE COMPETENCE WE HAVE TO HAVE IN THE PRESIDENT TO NOT ABUSE THE POWER OF HIS OFFICE.

>> IF THIS COMMITTEE AND THIS HOUSE FAILED TO ACT THEN YOU'RE SENDING A MESSAGE TO THIS PRESIDENT AND TO FUTURE PRESIDENTS THAT IT'S NO LONGER A PROBLEM IF THEY ABUSE THEIR POWER, IT'S NO LONGER A PROBLEM IF THEY INVITE FOREIGN COUNTRIES TO INTERFERE IN OUR ELECTION OR PUT COUNTRIES AHEAD OF OURS.

>> I AGREE WITH PROFESSOR FELDMAN AND I SHOULD SAY ONE THING AND I APOLOGIZE FOR GETTING A LITTLE OVER HEATED A MOMENT AGO.

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.

>> GENTLEMAN YIELDS 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 OUTRAGES STATEMENT THAT THE FACTS BEFORE US ARE UNDISPUTED.

OF COURSE EVERYONE HERE KNOWS THAT THAT'S 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'VE BEEN ALLOWED NO FACT WITNESSES HERE AT ALL.

FOR THE FIRST TIME EVER THIS COMMITTEE WHICH IS 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 AND I WANT TO SAY TO OUR WITNESSES I'M ALSO A CONSTITUTIONAL LAW ATTORNEY AND UNDER NORMAL CIRCUMSTANCES I REALLY WOULD GREATLY ENJOYED AN ACADEMIC DISCUSSION WITH YOU, A DEBATE ABOUT THE CONTOURS OF ARTICLE 2, SECTION 4.

THAT WOULD BE AN UTTER WASTE OF OUR TIME TODAY BECAUSE AS HAS BEEN HIGHLIGHTED SO MANY TIMES THIS MORE THAN THIS WHOLE PRODUCTION IS A SHAM AND RECKLESS PATH TO A PREDETERMINED POLITICAL OUTCOME.

I WANT YOU TO KNOW IT'S AN OUTCOME THAT WAS PREDETERMINED BY OUR DEMOCRAT LEAGUES A LONG TIME AWE GOES.

THE TRUTH IS HOUSE DEMOCRATS HAVE BEEN WORKING TO IMPEACHMENT DONALD TRUMP SINCE THE DAY TOOK HIS OATH OF OFFICE.

OVER THE PAST THREE YEARS THEY'VE INTRODUCED FOUR RESOLUTIONS SEEKING TO IMPEACHMENT THE PRESIDENT.

ALMOST TWO YEARS AGO AS THE GRAPHICS UP HERE SHOWS DECEMBER 201658 DEMOCRATS VOTED TO START IMPEACHMENT PROCEEDINGS.

THAT WAS 20 MONTHS BEFORE THE JULY 25TH PHONE CALL WITH UKRAINE'S PRESIDENT ZELENSKY.

AND THIS OTHER GRAPHIC UP HERE IS SMALLER BUT IT'S INTERESTING TOO.

I THINK IT'S 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 TO IMPEACHMENT.

SO I MEAN, LET'S BE HONEST.

LET'S NOT PRE TEND ANYBODY CARES ABOUT WHAT'S BEING SAID HERE TODAY OR ACTUAL EVIDENCE OR CONGRESSMAN WOMAN SAID WE COME WITH OPEN MINDS.

THAT'S NOT HAPPENING HERE.

SO MUCH FOR AN IMPARTIAL JURY.

SEVERAL TIMES THIS YEAR LEADING DEMOCRATS TO ADMIT IN VARIES INTERVIEWS AND CORRESPOND ISENCE THEY REALLY BELIEVE THIS ENTIRE STRATEGY IS NECESSARY BECAUSE WHY?

BECAUSE THEY WANT TO STOP THE PRESIDENT'S RE-ELECTION.

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 LOVED WHAT PROFESSOR TURLEY TESTIFIED TO THIS MORE THAN.

THIS IS NOT HOW THE IMPEACHMENT OF A PRESIDENT IS DONE.

HIS HUH TORQUAL QUESTION TO OUR COLLEAGUES ON THE OTHER SIDE IS STILL ECHOING THROUGHOUT THIS CHAMBER.

HE ASKED YOU TO ASK YOURSELF WHERE WILL THIS AND WHERE WILL YOU STAND NEXT TIME WHEN THIS SAME KIND OF SHAM IMPEACH 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 IT'S GOING TO MAKE THINGS REALLY THAT MUCH WORSE.

PREDATORILY SAID EARLIER WE ARE NOW LIVING -- PREDATORILY SAID TURLEY SAYS -- THIS HAS INDEED BECOME AN AGE OF RAGE.

PRESIDENT WASHINGTON WARNED IN HIS FAREWELL ADDRESS IN 1796 THAT EXTREME PARTISANSHIP WILL LEAD US TO THE RUIN OF PUBLIC LIBERTY.

THOSE WERE HIS WORDS.

THIS IMPEACHMENT IS ONE OF THE MOST DEVICE RE AND DESTRUCTIVE THING WE COULD POSSIBLY DO TO OUR AMERICAN FAMILY.

LET ME TELL YOU WHAT I HEARD FROM MY CONSTITUENTS IN TOWNHALL MEETINGS IN MY DISTRICT TWO DAYS AGO.

THE PEOPLE IN OUR COUNTRY IS SICK OF THIS, SICK OF THE POLITICS OF PERSONAL DESTRUCTION THEY ARE SICK OF THIS TOXIC A 59 MUST FEAR BEING CREATED HERE AND THEY ARE DEEPLY CONCERNED WHERE ALL THIS JOY TOXIC ATMOSPHERE BEING CREATED HERE AND THEY ARE DEEPLY CONCERNED WHERE THIS ALL GOES.

WHAT KEEPS US UP AT NIGHT IS THE RAPIDLY ERODING TRUST OF THE MESH PEOPLE IN THEIR INSTITUTIONS.

ONE OF THE CRITICAL FOUNDATIONS OF SELF GOVERNING PEOPLE IS THEY WILL MAINTAIN A BASIC LEVEL OF TRUST IN THEIR INSTITUTION IN THE RULE OF LAW IN THE SYSTEM OF JUSTICE, IN THE BY OF ELECTED REPRESENTATIVES.

THEIR CITIZEN LEGISLATORS IN THE CONGRESS.

THE GREATER DANGER OF THIS FRAUDULENT IMPEACHMENT PRODUCTION IS NOT WHAT HAPPENS THIS AFTERNOON OR BY CHRISTMAS OR THE ELECTION NEXT FALL THE GREATEST DANGER IS WHAT THIS WILL DO AHEAD IF OUR SO MANY YEARS OF OUR FEDERAL GOVERNMENT WHAT WILL HAPPEN IN OUR BELEAGUERED NATIONS DECADES FROM NOW IN THE RUINS OF PUBLIC LIBERTY BEING CREATED BY THIS TERRIBLY SHORTSIGHTED EXERCISE TODAY.

GOD HEN US.

I YIELD BACK.

>> YIELDS 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'RE REPRESENTING THE PRODUCTS IN THEIR DEFENSE OF PRESIDENT.

PROFESSOR YOU -- >> THAT'S NOT MY INTENTION.

>> YOU'VE SAID THAT THIS CASE REPRESENTS A DRAMATIC TURNING POINT IN FEDERAL IMPEACHMENT PRECEDENT, THE IMPEACH 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 IMPROPRIETY OF WHICH HAS NEVER BEEN TESTED IN A COURT OF LAW.

BUT THAT'S ACTUALLY NOT A DIRECT QUOTE FROM WHAT YOU SAID TODAY.

IT SOUNDS A LOT LIKE WHAT YOU ARGUED TOE THAT'S A QUOTE 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 CHARGED IN ENGAGING IN A PATTERN OF CONDUCT INCOMPATIBLE WITH THE TRUST PLACED ON HIM TO ENGAGE IN A LONG STANDING PATTERN OF CORRUPT CONDUCT THAT DEMONSTRATES HIS UNFITNESS TO SERVE AS THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE.

ON EACH COUNT JUDGE PORTEOUS WAS CONVICTED BY AT LEAST 68 AND UP TO THE 6 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 DON'T BUY IT EITHER.

WE'RE HERE BECAUSE OF THIS PHOTO.

IT'S 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.

I WOULD LIKE TO FOCUS ON THE IMPACT OF PRESIDENT TRUMP'S CONDUCT, PARTICULARLY WITH OUR ALLIES AND OUR STANDING IN THE WORLD.

THIS ISN'T 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 WERE PARTICULARLY FROM AMBASSADOR TAYLOR.

>> THESE WEAPONS AND THIS ASSISTANCE IS, ALLOWS THE UKRAINIAN MILITARY TO DETER FURTHER INSURGENCENTS BY THE RUSSIANS AGAINST UKRAINIAN TERRITORY.

IF THAT FURTHER ENCOURAGES THEM, FURTHER AGGRESSION WERE TO TAKE PLACE MORE UKRAINIANS WOULD DO.

>> PROFESSOR KARLAN, DOES THE PRESIDENT'S DECISION TO WITHHOLD FROM UKRAINE SUCH IMPORTANT OFFICIAL ACTS THE WHITE HOUSE VISIT AND MILITARY AID IN ORDER TO PRESSURE PRESIDENT ZELENSKY RELATE TO THE FAMOUS 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, IS A MORE COMPLICATED CONCEPT FOR THE FRAMERS THAN FOR US.

>> PROFESSOR KARLAN, I THINK YOU'D AGREE WE ARE A NATION OF IMMIGRANTS.

>> YES.

>> TODAY 50 MILLION IMMIGRANTS LIVE IN THE UNITED STATES.

I 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 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 AND HE TOLD ME IN SUCH HUMILIATING FASHION THAT WHEN HE IS GONE HOME RECENTLY.

THEY NOW WAG THEIR FINGER AT HIM AND SAY YOU'RE 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 DON'T BELIEVE IN THE RULE OF LAW.

AND I THINK IT TELLS EMERGING TRACK SEES 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.

I MEAN PRESIDENT BUSH ANNOUNCED HE DID NOT CONSIDER THE ELECTIONS IN BELLSRUSE TO BE VALID FOR THAT REASON BECAUSE THEY WENT AFTER POLITICAL OPPONENTS.

>> PROFESSOR TURLEY POINTED OUT WE SHOULD WAIT AND GO TO THE COURTS BUT YOU WOULD ACKNOWLEDGE WE'VE GONE TO THE COURTS AND HAVE BEEN IN THE COURSE 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 OUT THE CLOCK, IS THAT RIGHT?

>> YES, SIR.

>> I YIELD BACK.

>> GENTLEMAN YIELDS BACK.

WE WILL, IN A MOMENT WE WILL REALS 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.

FLOWER.

>> AT THIS TIME THE COMMITTEE WILL STAND IN A SHORT RECESS.

>> AND AS WE JUST HEARD THE COMMITTEE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE GASTGAVELED TO WHAT WE'RE TOLD S GOING TO BE A SHORT RECESS OR SHORT BREAK FROM HEARINGS THAT STARTED AT 10:00 EASTERN THIS MORNING HERE AT THE U.S. CAPITOL THEY ARE CONTINUING.

THERE WAS ONE BREAK THAT LASTED ABOUT AN HOUR AND IT LOOKS LIKE WITH AT LEAST A DOZEN OR SO COMMITTEE MEMBERS TO GO, THIS COMMITTEE IS GOING TO BE MOVING WELL INTO THE AFTERNOON.

I'M JUDY WOODRUFF, PBS NEWSHOUR HERE IN OUR NEWSHOUR STUDIOS AS WE WATCH THIS HEARING, AS WE SAID, TAKE A BREAK FOLLOWING IT ALL FROM THE CAPITOL.

LISA DESJARDINS FROM THE WHITE HOUSE YAMICHE ALCINDRO HERE WITH ME IN THE STUDIO, SOL WISENBERG FRANK BOWMAN BOTH ARE ATTORNEYS WHO HAVE LOOKED AT THE ISSUE OF IMPEACHMENT FROM YOUR DIFFERENT PERSPECTIVES, WROTE BOOKS ABOUT IT IN THE CASE OF TERRY FRANCONA BOWMAN.

I'M GOING TO COME TO YOU FRANK FIRST.

WE ARE GOING DOWN THE LINE.

REPUBLICAN DEMOCRAT, REPUBLICAN DEMOCRAT, 24 DEMOCRATS, 17 REPUBLICANS ON THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE AT THIS POINT.

ARE WE LEARNING MORE ABOUT THE STRENGTH OF THE CASE AGAINST THE PRESIDENT?

HOW DO YOU SEE EACH SIDE, EACH PARTY USING THIS PART OF THE IMPEACHMENT PROCESS.

>> BY THIS POINT IN THE DAY, I THINK WE REACHED THE POINT THAT WE'RE NOT GAINING VERY MUCH WITH EACH ADDITIONAL ROUND.

OCCASIONALLY SOME INTERESTING POINTS AND GOT YOU MOMENTS WHERE ONE PARTY WILL COME UP WITH A POLITICAL CONTRIBUTION OR A FORMER QUOTE OF ONE OF THE WITNESSES TO ILLUSTRATE SOME INCONSISTENCY OR POTENTIAL BIAS.

I'M NOT SURE WE'RE MAKING MUCH MORE PROGRESS HERE BECAUSE AFTER ALL THE FUNDAMENTAL POINT IS PRETTY CLEAR.

AND I THINK THAT THE LAW PROFESSORS HAVE LAID OUT FAIRLY CLEARLY WHAT THE PARAMETERS OF IMPEACHABLE CONDUCT ARE IN THE CONSTITUTION.

OF COURSE THE PANEL MEMBERS WERE SELECTED BY THE DEMOCRATS ARE VERY MUCH IN UNISON ON THAT POINT BUT EVEN AS I SAID BEFORE TODAY EVEN PROFESSOR TURLEY DOESN'T BASICALLY DISAGREE WITH THEIR ANALYSIS, HE IS SIMPLY ARGUING NOW ABOUT THE PARTICULARS OF SMALL ITEMS LIKE WHETHER BRIBERY ACTUALLY FITS OR DOESN'T AND ULTIMATELY HE'S MAKING A PROCESS ARGUMENT THAT THIS PROCEEDING SHOULD BE LONGER AND MORE THOROUGH BEFORE THE DEMOCRATS PROCEED.

CERTAINLY THAT'S A POINT ON WHICH I THINK THE REPUBLICANS ARE PICKING UP.

THERE'S SOME JUSTICE IN THAT.

THEY WOULD HAVE A GREAT DEEM MORE JUSTICE OF COURSE -- DEAL MORE JUSTICE OF COURSE IF IT NOT WERE THE FACT THE WITNESSES REALLY MISSING HERE RIGHT AROUND THE PRESIDENT HAVE NOT COME DOWN BECAUSE THE PRESIDENT'S PROHIBITED THEM FROM DOING THAT.

AND IT IS AT LEAST A LITTLE DISAPPOINTING THAT THE REPUBLICANS KEEP POUNDING ON THE IDEA THAT THE EVIDENCE IS WANTING WITHOUT ACKNOWLEDGING THE REASON WHY IT'S WANTING AND WOULD GIVE IT SOME CREDIBILITY.

>> PERHAPS SO AND THE FACT GATHERING PHASE OF THIS WAS IN THE INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE.

WE TALKED ABOUT IT EARLIER THIS AFTERNOON THERE WAS A SPECIAL PROSECUTOR SPECIAL COUNSEL OUT THERE CONDUCTING THE INVESTIGATION.

THE INVESTIGATION FELL MAINLY TO THE STAFF TO THE HOUSE INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE.

THEY PRESENTED THEIR FACTS BY CALLING WITNESSES AND BY GOING OVER DOCUMENTS BY PRESENTING A RAPPORT WHICH WE JUST HAD DELIVERED TO US SEVERAL HUNDRED PAGES JUST LAST NIGHT.

BUT TODAY WHAT WE HAVE ARE FOUR LAW PROFESSORS WHO WERE BEING ASKED TO TALK ABOUT THE PROCESS OF IMPEACHMENT.

WHAT IMPEACHMENT LOOKS LIKE IN AMERICAN GOVERNMENT AND AMERICAN HISTORY AND WHETHER WHAT WE HAVE WITH PRESIDENT TRUMP CONSTITUTES SOMETHING THAT'S AN IMPEACHABLE OFFENSE.

>> YES.

AND AT SOME POINT YOU REACH THAT LAW OF DIMINISHING RETURNS, SCJUDYAND THAT'S WHAT PROFESSORS TALKING ABOUT THE EYES START TO GLAZE OVER IN A WHILE AND THE FOLKS IN EACH PARTY ARE GIVING SET SPEECHES AND THEY ARE ATTACKING IN SOME INSTANCES THE WITNESSES OR THEIR PAST POSITIONS BUT THEN SAYING SORRY YOU DON'T, I'M NOT GOING TO LIT YOU RESPOND.

-- LET YOU RESPOND SO IT BECOMES KIND OF RIDICULOUS.

ONE THING TO KEEP IN MIND ALSO IS THE REASON WHY I THINK THE REASON WHY THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE IS NOT THE MAIN FACT FINDING BODY IS THAT THERE WAS A DECISION MADE THAT CONGRESSMAN SCHIFF IS GOING TO BE MUCH MORE EFFECTIVE AS A TV PERSONALITY THAN CONGRESSMAN NADLER.

AND I WONDER IF THAT DECISION WAS MADE AFTER THE LEWENDOSKY THAT WASN'T HANDLED VERY WELL.

>> ADAM SCHIFF OF COURSE BEING CHAIRMAN OF THE HOUSE INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE WHICH HELD THIS HEARINGS A COUPLE WEEKS AGO OVER THE FORCE OF A NUMBER OF DAYS AND NOW IT'S MOVED TO JUDICIARY.

YAMICHE ALCINDRO HAS BEEN FOLLOWING ALL THIS FROM THE WHITE HOUSE.

YAMICHE, THE PRESIDENT IS OUT OF THE COUNTRY BUT THE PEOPLE WHO WORK FOR THE PRESIDENT, THE PEOPLE WHO ARE PURSUING HIS CAMPAIGN FOR RE-ELECTION FOLLOWING IT VERY CLOSELY.

>> WE'RE FOLLOWING IT VERY CLOSELY AND RESPONDING IN REAL TIME AND WHAT WE SEE NOW ARE REPUBLICANS SEIZING ON A KEY MOMENT, WHEN PAMELA KARLAN A PROFESSOR WHO IS TESTIFYING AND DEMOCRATIC WITNESS SHE SAID THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP COULD NAME HIS SON BARON BUT COULD NOT MAKE HIM A BARON.

SHE WAS REFERRING TO THE FACT SHE THINKS PRESIDENT TRUMP AT TIMES CAN ACT LIKE A KING BECAUSE HE'S ABUSING POWER BUT MAKING A JOKE ABOUT THE FACT THAT TRUMP'S 13 YEAR OLD SON IS NAMED BARON AND THAT IS A NOBLE TITLE AND SHE WAS SAYING HE CAN'T INHERIT THE PRESIDENCY.

REPUBLICANS ARE SEIZING ON THAT SAYING SHE WAS COMPLETELY OUT OF LINE AND MATT GAETZ AN ALLY OF THE PRESIDENT SAYING SHE WAS MEAN AND THIS HIT HER CREDIBILITY AND MADE HER NOT CREDIBLE.

WE SAW THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN QUICKLY COME OUT WITH A STATEMENT AND THAT STATEMENT SAID IN PART HUNTER BIDEN VICE PRESIDENT JOE BIDEN'S SON IS OFF LIMITS BUT A 13 YEAR OLD ISN'T.

THEY'RE CULLING ON DEMOCRATS TO CRITICIZE THIS PROFESSOR AND SAY WHAT SHE WAS DOING WAS WRONG.

THEY ARE ALSO NOW ASKING FOR AN APOLOGY.

WE'RE SEEING FIREWORKS FOR THE REPUBLICANS SEIZING ON THIS WITNESS SAYING SHE'S OUT OF BOUNDS AND THAT DEMOCRATS ARE ESSENTIALLY SHOWING NO BOUNDARIES BECAUSE THEY ARE STILL BATTLING HER AT THIS POINT.

>> CONGRESS ATT GAETZ WHO IS KNOWN FOR BEING ONE OF THE MORE OUTSPOKEN MEMBERS OF THE REPUBLICAN CAUCUS IN THE HOUSE.

YAMICHE IN FACT HE WENT FURTHER AND LOOKED INTO PAM KARLAN'S STATEMENTS I GUESS INTERVIEWS EARLIER THIS YEAR WHERE AT ONE POINT SHE TALKED ABOUT DEMOCRATS LIKE TO BE WITH OTHER PEOPLE.

REPUBLICANS PREFER TO BE BY THEMSELVES AND HE ASKED WHAT SHE MEANT AND SHE SAID GEOGRAPHY AND WHERE DEMOCRATS AND REPUBLICANS LIVE.

YOU CAN SEE THAT MAY WELL BECOME AND IS BECOMING A TALKING POINT FOR REPUBLICANS.

LISA DESJARDINS FOLLOWING THE HEARING AT THE CAPITOL.

REPUBLICAN DEMOCRAT REPUBLICAN DEMOCRAT TAKING COMPLETELY VIRTUALLY OPPOSITE TAKES OF VIEWS OF WHAT'S GOING ON AS THEY MAKE THEIR FIVE MINUTE STATEMENT AND FRANKLY DON'T ASK MANY QUESTIONS.

>> THAT'S RIGHT.

THERE ARE SOME 20 MEMBERS LEFT TO GO IN THIS HEARING BUT I THINK AS YAMICHE TALKED ABOUT AND YOU ALSO, THIS TOOK A VERY PERSONAL TURN IN THIS LAST BIT.

BOTH FOR SOME OF THE WITNESSES LIKE PROFESSOR KARLAN, ALSO FOR THE PRESIDENT WITH HIS SON BEING INVOKED.

YOU COULD FEEL IT IN THE ROOM, IT WAS MORE POLITICAL AND UNSEEMLY.

IN THE END WE HAVEN'T SEEN THE BALL MOVE.

THESE ARE WITNESSES CONTINUING TO MAKE THE SAME ARGUMENTS.

I WILL SAY WE HAVE A WHAT'S NEXT, SPEAKING TO MEMBERS OUTSIDE OF THE VOTE THAT HAPPENED EARLIER AND TED DEUTCH AND OTHERS TOLD HER THERE WILL BE HEARINGS NEXT WEEK AND WHETHER OR NOT TO INCLUDE MUELLER RELATED ITEMS LIKE OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE IN THE MUELLER REPORT IS PART OF IT.

HE'S NOT DECIDED BUT IT'S SOMETHING THEY ARE DISCUSSING.

REALLY THIS IS KIND OF AN OPENING HEARING BUT WE DON'T KNOW HOW MANY MORE HEARINGS AFTER THIS WILL BE BUT THERE'S REPORTING THAT THERE WILL BE MORE WE JUST DON'T KNOW EXACTLY WHAT THOSE WILL INCLUDE.

WE ALSO DON'T KNOW IF THEY WILL INCLUDE THE PRESIDENT JUDICIAL IT'S INTERESTING YOU SAY THAT.

I'M LOOKING BACK AT WHAT CHAIRMAN JERRY NADLER SAID IN HIS OPENING STATEMENT THIS MORNING WHICH KICKED OFF THE HEARING.

HE SAID OF COURSE THIS ISN'T THE FIRST TIME PRESIDENT TRUMP HAS ENGAGED IN THIS PATTERN OF CONDUCT.

HE WENT ON TO SAY IN 2016 THE RUSSIAN GOVERNMENT ENGAGED IN A SWEEPING AND SYSTEMATIC CAMPAIGN OF INTERFERENCE IN OUR ELECTIONS.

HE SAYS IN THE WORDS OF SPECIAL COUNSEL ROBERT MUELLER, THE RUSSIAN GOVERNMENT PERCEIVED IT WOULD BENEFIT FROM A TRUMP PRESIDENCY AND WORKED TO SECURE THAT OUTCOME.

THE PRESIDENT WELL COME THAT INTERFERENCE.

SO THERE IS A HINT OR A SUGGESTION, WHATEVER YOU WANT TO CALL IT THEN THAT THIS IS A COMMITTEE OR AT LEAST A COMMITTEE LEADERSHIP THAT IS LOOKING BACK AT WHAT ROBERT MUELLER FOUND.

>> THAT'S RIGHT.

AND THIS IS SOMEWHAT OF AN OPEN INTERNAL BATTLE FOR DEMOCRATS AND IT HAS TO DO NOT JUST WITH PHILOSOPHY AND HOW YOU LOOK AT THE MUELLER REPORT BUT ALSO SOME DEGREE TURF.

THE MUELLER REPORT WAS LED BY THIS COMMITTEE, THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE.

THEY WERE THE LEADING COMMITTEE ON IMPEACHMENT FOR SO LONG WHEN IT WAS ABOUT THE MUELLER REPORT.

ALL OF THESE MEMBERS KNOW THAT REPORT VERY WELL.

THEY QUESTIONED ROBERT MUELLER.

BUT THEN THE UKRAINE ITEM CAME UP AND ALL OF A SUDDEN THE ENTIRE QUESTION OF IMPEACHMENT MOVED AWAY FROM THIS COMMITTEE BECAME THE PURVIEW OF HOUSE INTELLIGENCE.

SO THIS IS A COMMITTEE THAT SORT OF KNOWS THIS TERRITORY OF THE MUELLER REPORT WELL AND THERE'S A LOT OF SENTIMENT THAT THEY NEED TO PURSUE IT.

OTHER DEMOCRATS THINK THAT'S A MISTAKE POLITICALLY.

THEY ARE CAREFULLY WOIPG THAT OUT.

>> IT SOUNDS LIKE THAT LISA THEY HAVEN'T MAID A FINAL DECISION ON WHETHER TO EXPAND.

>> THAT'S WHAT WE'VE BEEN TOLD.

BUT THEY'RE KEEPING THAT OPTION ON THE TABLE RIGHT NOW.

>> I WANT TO QUICKLY TURN TO SOL AND FRANK.

DOES IT STRENGTHEN THE CASE IF THEY TRY TO GO BACK AND PULL IN THE MUELLER INVESTIGATION OR THE MUELLER REPORT, WHETHER IT'S INVITING INTERFERENCE AS CHAIRMAN NADLER SAID OR OBSTRUCTING WHICH IS PART OF THE MUELLER REPORT.

>> WELL, I THINK YOU HAVE TO GISH DISTINGUISH BETWEEN THE FIT PART OF THE MUELLER REPORT AND THE SECOND PART.

BECAUSE THEY WOULD BE VERY FOOLISH TO INCLUDE ANYTHING FROM THE FIRST SECTION BECAUSE I CONSIDER IT TO BE AS A WHITE COLLAR CRIMINAL DEFENSE ATTORNEY WHEN THE PROSECUTOR CANNOT EVEN FIND PROBABLE CAUSE FOR A CRIME THAT IS ESSENTIALLY WHAT THE STANDARD WAS.

I CONSIDER IT A TOTAL EXONERATION IN TERMS OF CRIMINAL MISCONDUCT FOR PRESIDENT TRUMP.

I THINK IT WOULD BE A BIG MISTAKE.

WITH RESPECT TO OBSTRUCTION, IF YOU BELIEVE THAT THERE IS IMPEACHABLE BEHAVIOR IN THE SECOND PART OF THE MUELLER REPORT, THE OBSTRUCTION PART, THERE CERTAINLY IS AS I'VE SAID MANY TIMES BEFORE REPREHENSIBLE BEHAVIOR BY THE PRESIDENT.

I THINK IT WOULD BE FOOLISH NOT TO INCLUDE IT.

JUST AS A MATTER OF TACTICS BECAUSE IF YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT WHAT'S THE RIGHT THING TO DO, THAT WOULD BE THE RIGHT THING TO DO.

KKEEP IN MIND, THE PRESIDENT TOD DON MCGAHN ESSENTIALLY -- >> HIS LAWYER, HIS WHITE HOUSE LAWYER.

>> HIS WHITE HOUSE COUNSEL, NOT HIS PERSONAL LAWYER TO TAKE ACTIONS THAT WOULD RESULT IN THE FIRING OF MUELLER AND THEN LATER HE WANT, WHEN HE FOUND OUT, WHEN HE SAW A NEWSPAPER STORY ABOUT THAT STATING THAT FACT, HE ASKED MCGAHN TO ISSUE A WRITTEN STATEMENT FOR OUR FILES DENYING THAT IT HAPPENED.

THAT'S VERY SERIOUS CONDUCT.

>> AND KNOWING THAT, HOW DO YOU SEE IT, INF FRANK BE HANNAH.

IS EXPANDING THIS MOMENT AFTER THE HOUSE DECLINED TO PURSUE THAT AS GROUNDS FOR IMPEACHMENT, BELIEVES THERE ARE GROUNDS BASED ON WHAT HAPPENED WITH UKRAINE TO NOW GO BACK AND REACH BACK TO THE MUELLER REPORT.

DOES THAT STRENGTHEN THEIR CASE OR NOT?

>> WELL, I AGREE I THINK WITH SOL ON THE SUBSTANCE WHAT I WOULD SAY AND IT'S A CONCERN I'VE HAD ABOUT THIS PARTICULAR HEARING SINCE IT WAS FIRST ANNOUNCED.

I THINK THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE IS PROCEEDING BACKWARDS HERE.

IN THIS RESPECT I THINK SOME OF THE REPUBLICAN COMPLAINTS ARE ENTIRELY JUSTIFIED.

I DON'T THINK YOU HAVE THIS HEARING WITH THESE EXPERTS OR ANYONE LIKE THEM UNTIL YOU AS THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE HAVE DECIDED WHAT'S THE SCOPE OF YOUR LIKELY IMPEACHABLE OFFENSES.

WHAT ARE THE THEORIES ON WHICH YOU'RE GOING TO PROCEED.

YOU DECIDE THAT INTERNALLY, I THINK.

I THINK YOU DON'T JUST ROLL THE BALL OUT IN THE MIDDLE OF THE HEARING ROOM AND ASK A SET OF CONSTITUTIONAL LAW PROFESSORS WHAT THEY THINK ABOUTT.

THIS SHOULD I THINK THE REPUBLICANS ARE RIGHT THAT THIS IS A HEARING IF IT'S GOING TO HAPPEN, IT SHOULD HAVE HAPPENED LATER ONCE THE COMMITTEE HAD MADE UP ITS DARNED MIND.

AND THEN YOU WOULD HAVE ELIMINATED A LOT OF THIS DISTRACTING, IF IT'S NOT THIS, IT'S THAT.

AND SO FORTH AND SO ON.

TO ANSWER YOUR SORT OF TACTICAL QUESTION, THE THING ABOUT ANY IMPEACHMENT AND CERTAINLY ABOUT THIS ONE IS ULTIMATELY IT'S A PERSUASIVE EXERCISE.

BECAUSE AS WE TALKED ABOUT EARLIER, IT'S POLITICAL IN THE SENSE THAT IT RESTS IN THE POLITICAL BRANCHES AND THEY THEMSELVES ARE ALWAYS GOING TO BE LOOKING TO THEIR VOTERS.

AND THAT MEANS IF AN IMPEACHMENT IS TO HAPPEN, THIS PROCESS MUST CONVINCE THE VOTERS AND THE WAY TO DO THAT IS NOT I THINK TO HAVE AN ACADEMIC EXCHANGE BEFORE YOU MADE UP YOUR MIND ABOUT WHAT YOU'RE DOING.

>> YOU SEE CHAIRMAN JERRY NADLER COMING BACK TO HIS SEAT IN THE HOUSE JE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE.

HE ASKED FOR A SHORT BREAK AND IT LOOKS LIKE HE MEANT IT.

OUR TELEVISION COVERAGE OF THESE HEARINGS IS GOING TO CONTINUE FOR A FEW MORE MINUTES AND THEN WE'RE GOING TO SWITCH OVER TO DIGITAL COVERAGE BUT WE'RE NOT READY TO DO THAT YET.

WE'RE STAYING WITH TELEVISION FOR RIGHT NOW.

BUT I'M LISTENING TO THE GAVEL AND I THINK I HEARD IT JUST THEN.

DID I?

NOT YET.

SOL WISENBERG, IT IS QUITE SOMETHING TO SEE A COMMITTEE THAT'S STILL ACCORDING TO LISA DESJARDINS REPORTING, STILL UNDECIDED ABOUT HOW TO MOVE AHEAD ON THIS.

>> YES.

NOT A GOOD SIGN.

YOU KNOW, IN TERMS OF SHOWING THAT YOU'RE IN CONTROL AND YOU'VE GOT A PLAN.

JUST THE WHOLE WAY IT'S BEEN PLIGHT UP.

>> MEETING WILL COME TO ORDER.

>> WE ARE MOVING NOW BACK TO THE HEARING.

OUR LIVE TELEVISION COVERAGE WILL CONTINUE.

WE'RE GOING TO BE CARRYING THE HEARINGS LIVE.

WE'RE ALSO GOING TO BE CONTINUING TO CARRY THEM DIGITALLY.

IN THE MEANTIME WE'RE GOING TO TAKE A BREAK GET READY FOR TONIGHT'S NEWSHOUR BUT PLEASE DO KEEP WATCHING OUR SPECIAL LIVE COVERAGE RIGHT HERE.

TUNE IN TONIGHT AT YOUR REGULAR TIME FOR FULL ANALYSIS ON THE PBS NEWSHOUR.

I'M JUDY WOODRUFF.

THANK YOU FOR STAYING WITH US.

>> THE PRESIDENT SAID I WOULD LIKE YOU TO DO ME, THE PRESIDENT SAID I WOULD LIKE YOU TO DO ME A FAVOR.

THAT IS INACCURATE.

IT WAS FINALLY CLEAR IN THAT COLLOQUY AND I'M GOING TO READ IT TO YOU I'M GOING TO DO US A FAVOR THOUGH BECAUSE OUR COUNTRY HAS BEEN THROUGH A LOT.

ONE OF YOU SAID BECAUSE THE PRESIDENT WAS USING THE ROYAL WE.

HERE THE PRESIDENT'S TALKING ABOUT THE COUNTRY.

THAT'S WHAT HE'S TALKING ABOUT.

IT'S AUDACIOUS TO SAY HE'S USING THE ROYAL WE.

THAT'S ROYAL ALL RIGHT BUT IT AIN'T THE ROYAL WE.

AND I'LL JUST TELL YOU, WHEN YOU COME IN WITH A PRECONCEIVED NOTION, IT BECOMES OBVIOUS.

ONE OF YOU JUST SAID, MR. FELDMAN AND I'M GOING TO QUOTE HERE ROUGHLY I THINK THIS IS EXACTLY WHAT YOU SAID THOUGH.

UNTIL THE CALL ON JULY 25TH, I WAS AN IMPEACHMENT SCHEDULE PART --SKEPTIC TOO.

I WAS LOOKING AT A PUBLICATION WHERE YOU SAID IF PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP PARDONS JOE ARPAIO IS AN IM35E67ABLE OFFENSE.

HE DID PARDON HIM.

IN 2017 THE NEW YORK BOOK REVIEW, REVIEW OF BOOKS, MR. FELDMAN, PROFESSOR FELDMAN SAID DEFAMATION BY TWEET IS AN IMPEACHABLE OFFENSE.

AND I THINK OF THE HISTORY OF THIS COUNTRY AND I THINK IF DEFAMATION ORB LIABLE OR SLARNLD IS AN IMPEACHABLE OFFENSE I CAN'T HELP BUT REFLECT ABOUT JOHN ADAMS AND THOMAS JEFFERSON WHO RUE TANLY PILLOW REED THEIR POLITICAL OPPONENTS.

TED THEIR PARTIES ACTUALLY BOUGHT NEWALS TO ATTACK THEIR POLITICAL OPPONENTS.

THIS RATHER GENEROUS VIEW YOU HAVE ON WHAT CONSTITUTES IMPEACHMENT IS A REAL PROBLEM.

THIS MORNING ONE OF YOU MENTIONED THE CONSTITUTIONAL, ONE OF YOU MENTIONED MR. DAVIES AND MENTIONED THE CONSTITUTION AL COMMISSION.

IT'S BEEN A WHILE SINCE I READ THE MINUTES.

I JUST BRIEFLY REVIEWED BECAUSE I REMEMBER THE DISCUSSION ON THE IMPEACHMENT AS BEING MORE PERVASIVE.

A LITTLE BIT MORE EXPANDED.

AND ON JULY 20TH, 1787, IT WASN'T 1798, IT WAS 1787, JULY 20TH, ABOUT EX MINUTE IS DISCUSSING IMPEACHMENT OF A DUTCH LEADER.

ASK AND HE TALKS SPECIFICALLY ABOUT WHAT HE WOULD ANTICIPATES AN IMPEACHMENT TO LOOK LIKE.

HE SAID IT WOULD BE A REGULAR AND PEACEFUL INQUIRY.

THERE WOULD BE A PUNISHMENT IF ACQUITTED AND WOULD BE RESTORED TO THE CONFIDENCE OF THE PUBLIC.

THAT NEEDS TO BE TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT AS WELL.

ON MAY 20, 2017 ARTICLE A DISCUSSION ABOUT I PEACHMENT, BECAUSE PRESIDENT TRUMP HAD FIRED JAMES COMEY.

IT WAS HARD TO MAKE THE OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE CASE WITH THE SACKING AWK LOAN.

THE PRESIDENT HAD CLEAR LEGAL AUTHORITY AND WAS PROPER AND OTHER REASONS PUT FORTH FOR FIRING HIM.

YET WHAT WE HAVE HERE IS THIS INSISTENCE BY MI MS. GU GEAR HET THAT WAS IMPEACHMENT.

MAY 20, 2017,BBC.

WHAT I'M SUGGESTING TO YOU TODAY IS A RECKLESS BIAS COMING IN HERE.

YOU'RE NOT FACT WITNESSES.

YOU'RE SUPPOSED TO BE TALKING ABOUT WHAT THE LAW IS BUT YOU CAME IN WITH A PRECONCEIVED NOTION OF BIAS.

I WANT TO READ ONE LAST THING HERE IF I CAN FIND IT FROM ONE OF OUR WITNESSES HERE AND IT'S DEALING WITH SOMETHING THAT WAS SAID IN MARYLAND LAW REVIEW ARTICLE IN 1999.

HE'S TALKING ABOUT BEING CRITICAL OF LACK OF SELF DOUBT AND AN OVERWHELMING ARROGANCE ON THE PART OF LAW PROFESSORS WHO COME IN AND OPINE ON IMPEACHMENT.

THAT WOULD BE YOU MR. GEAR HELAWRT --GEAR HEARTED.

THAT'S BEEN ON DISPLAY WITH THIS COMMITTEE TODAY AND WITH THAT I YIELD BACK.

>> THE GENTLEMAN YIELDS BACK.

A LITTLE WHILE AGO MR. GAETZ ASKED THAT CERTAIN MATERIAL BE INCERTAIN INTO THE RECORD BY UNANIMOUS CONTENT.

I HAD AN OPPORTUNITY TO REVIEW IT, MATERIAL WILL BE INCERTAIN WITH THAT OBJECTION.

MR. LIEU.

>> THANK YOU MR. CHAIRMAN.

I WAS SWORN OATH TO THE CONSTITUTION WHEN I WAS COMMISSIONED AS AN OFFICER IN THE UNITED STATES AIR FORCE.

THE OATH I TOOK WAS NOT TO A POLITICAL PARTY OR TO A PRESIDENT OR TO A KING.

IT WAS A DOCUMENT THAT MADE AMERICA THE GREATEST NATION ON EARTH.

I NEVER IMAGINED WE WOULD NOW BE IN A SITUATION WHERE THE PRESIDENT OR COMMANDER IN CHIEF IS ACCUSED OF USING HIS OFFICE FOR PERSONAL PLIGHT CAN CULL GAIN THAT BETRAYED U.S. NATIONAL SECURITY HURT OUR ALLY UKRAINE AND HELPED OUR ADVERSARY, RUSSIA.

WITH THE PRESIDENT'S ABUSE OF POWER AND BETRAYAL OF OUR NATIONAL INTEREST IS SO EXTREME IT WARRANTS IMPEACHMENT AND REMOVAL.

IT SEEMS REASONABLE WITH ALL THOSE OFFENSES THEY DO HAVE ENUMERATED BRIBERY IS ONE OF TWO.

PROFESSOR FELDMAN WHY WOULD THE FRAMERS SHOULD BRIBERY OF ALL OF THE OFFENSES.

>> BRIBERY WAS THE CLASSIC EXAMPLE FOR THEM OF HIGH CRIME AND MISDEMEANOR FOR ABUSE OF OFFICE FOR PERSONAL GAIN BECAUSE IF YOU TAKE SOMETHING OF VALUE WHILE, WHEN YOU'RE ABLE TO EFFECT AN OUTCOME FOR SOMEBODY ELSE, YOU'RE SERVING YOUR OWN INTERESTS AND NOT THE INTERESTS OF THE PEOPLE.

THAT WAS COMMONLY USED IN IMPEACHMENT OFFENSES IN ENGLAND AND THAT'S ONE OF THE REASONS THAT THEY SPECIFIED IT.

>> THANK YOU.

NOW EARLIER IN THIS HEARING, PROFESSOR KARLAN MADE A POINT THAT BRIBERY IS ENFIGURED BY THE FRAMERS WITH A -- ENVISIONED BY THE FRAMERS IS MUCH BROADER THAN THE FEDERAL CRIMINAL STATUTE OF BRIBE REEF.

I THINK THE REASON FOR THAT IS OBVIOUS.

WE'RE NOT IN A CRIMINAL PROCEEDING.

WE'RE NOT DECIDING WHETHER TO SEND PRESIDENT TRUMP TO PRISON.

THIS IS A CIVIL ACTION AN IMPEACHMENT PROCEEDINGS WHETHER OR NOT WE REMOVE DONALD TRUMP FROM HIS JOB.

SO PROFESSOR KARLAN, IT'S TRUE, ISN'T IT, WE DON'T HAVE TO MEET THE STANDARDS OF A FEDERAL BRIBERY STATUTE IN ORDER TO MEET THE STANDARDS FOR IMPEACHABLE OFFENSE.

>> THAT'S CORRECT.

>> THANK YOU.

YESTERDAY, SCALIA LAW PROFESSOR J.W.

BARRETT WAS A LIFE LONG REPUBLICAN FORMER REPUBLICAN STAFF WHO ADD RISED THE TRUMP -- ADVISED THE TRUMP TRANSITION TEAM MADE THE FOLLOWING PUBLIC STATEMENT ABOUT DONALD TRUMP'S CONDUCT.

THE CALL WASN'T PERFECT.

HE COMMITTED IMPEACHABLE OFFENSES INCLUDING BRIBERY.

PROFESSOR KARLAN, I'M NOW GOING TO SHOW YOU TWO VIDEO CLIPS OF THE WITNESS TESTIMONY ABOUT THE PRESIDENT'S WITHHOLDING OF THE WHITE HOUSE MEETING IN EXCHANGE FOR THE PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENT OF INVESTIGATION INTO HIS POLITICAL RIVAL.

>> AS I TESTIFIED PREVIOUSLY, MR. GIULIANI REQUESTS FOR A QUID PRO QUO FOR ARRANGING A WHITE HOUSE VISIT FOR PRESIDENT ZELENSKY.

>> BY MID JULY IT WAS BECOMING CLEAR THAT THE MEETING PRESIDENT ZELENSKY WANT WAS CONYOU HAD OFFED ON BURISMA AND THE ALLEGED INTERFERENCE OF THE 2016 ELECTIONS.

>> I WANT TO SHOW YOU ONE MORE VIDEO CLIP REGARDING TO THE PRESIDENT'S DECISION TO WITHHOLD ASSISTANCE CONGRESS HAD APPROPRIATED AND GAIN FOR HIS POLITICAL RIVAL.

>> IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY CREDIBLE EXPLANATION FOR SUSPENSION OF AID I LATER CAME TO BELIEVE THAT THE RESUMPTION OF SECURITY AID WOULD NOT E CUR UNTIL THERE WAS A PUBLIC STATEMENT FROM UKRAINE COMMITTING TO THE INVESTIGATIONS OF THE 2016 ELECTIONS AND BURISMA AS MR. GIULIANI HAD DEMANDED.

>> PROFESSOR KARLAN, DOES THAT EVIDENCE AS WELL AS THE EVIDENCE IN THE RECORD TEND TO SHOW THAT THE PRESIDENT MET THE STANDARDS FOR BRIBERY AS ENVISIONED IN THE CONSTITUTION?

>> YES, IT DOES.

>> I'M ALSO A FORMER PROSECUTOR.

I BELIEVE THE RECORD WOULD ALSO MEET THE STANDARDS FOR CRIMINAL BRIBERY.

THE SUPREME COURT'S DECISION IN MCDONALD WAS PRIMELY ABOUT WHAT CONSTITUTES AN OFFICIAL ACT.

THE KEY FINDING WAS AN OFFICIAL MUST INVOLVE A FORMAL EXERCISE OF GOVERNMENTAL POWER ON SOMETHING SPECIFIC PENDING BEFORE A PUBLIC OFFICIAL.

PRETTY CLEAR WE GOT THAT HERE.

WE HAVE HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS OF DOLLARS OF MILITARY AID THAT CONGRESS SPECIFICALLY APPROPRIATED.

THE FREEZING AND UNFREEZING OF THAT AID IS A FORMAL EXERCISE OF GOVERNMENTAL POWER.

BUT WE DON'T EVEN HAVE TO TALK ABOUT THE CRIME OF BRIBERY.

THERE'S ANOTHER CRIME HERE WHICH IS THE SOLICITATION OF FEDERAL, ASSISTANCE OF A FOREIGN GOVERNMENT IN A FEDERAL ELECTION CAMPAIGN THAT'S STRAIGHT UP VIOLATES THE FEDERAL ELECTION CAMPAIGN AT 52USC3031 AND BY THE WAY THAT'S ONE REASON MICHAEL COHEN IS SITTING IN PRISON RIGHT NOW.

I YIELD BACK.

>> THE GENTLEMAN YIELDS BACK.

MR. MCCLINTOCK.

>> THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN.

COULD I WITH A SHOW OF HANDS HOW MANY ON THE PANEL ACTUALLY VOTED FOR DONALD TRUMP IN 2016?

>> I DON'T THINK WE'RE ABLE GATED TO SAY ANYTHING ABOUT HOW WE CAST OUR BLAST.

BALLOTS.

>> JUST SHOW OF HAND.

>> I THINK YOU MADE YOUR POSITION -- >> I WILL SUSPEND THE CLOCK TOO.

>> EXCUSE ME YOU MAY ASK -- >> STOP FOR THE MOMENT.

THE GENTLEMAN MAY ASK THE QUESTION.

THE WITNESSES DON'T HAVE TO RESPOND.

>> -- DONALD TRUMP IN 2016.

SHOW OF HANDS.

THANK YOU.

>> NOT RAISING OUR HANDS IS NOT AN INDICATION OF ANN SIR.

>> THIS HAS BEEN PRESIDENT INDICATED ON SOME RATHER DISTURBING LEGAL DRAWING TERRAIN.

ONE DEMOCRAT ASSERTED HEARSAY CAN BE BETTER EVIDENCE THAN DIRECT EVIDENCE.

SPEAKER PELOSI AND OTHERS HAVE SAID THAT THE PRESIDENT'S RESPONSIBILITY IS TO PRESENT EVIDENCE TO PROVE HIS INNOCENCE.

CHAIRMAN SCHIFF ASSERTED AND WE HEARD A DISCUSSION FROM SOME OF YOUR COLLEAGUES TODAY THAT IF YOU INVOKE LEGAL RIGHTS IN DEFENSE OF CRIMINAL ACCUSATIONS, IPSO FACTO THAT'S AN OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE AND EVIDENCE OF GUILT.

MY QUESTION TO YOU WHAT DOES IT MEAN TO OUR AMERICAN JUSTICE SYSTEM IF THESE DOCTRINES TAKE ROOT IN OUR COUNTRY.

>> WHAT CONCERNS ME THE MOST IS THAT THERE ARE NO LIMITING PRINCIPLES THAT I CAN SEE IN SOME OF THE DEFINITIONS MY COLLEAGUES HAVE PUT FORWARD.

MORE IMPORTANTLY SOME OF THESE IMPEACHABLE OFFENSES I ONLY HEARD ABOUT TODAY.

I'M NOT TOO SURE WHAT ATTEMPTING TO ABUSE OFFICE MEANS OR HOW YOU RECOGNIZE IT.

BUT I'M PRETTY CONFIDENT THAT NOBODY ON THIS COMMITTEE TRULY WANTS THE NEW STANDARD OF IMPEACHMENT TO BE BET BETRAYAL F THE NATIONAL INTEREST.

THAT IS GOING TO BE THE BASIS FOR IMPEACHMENT -- >> HOW MANY REPUBLICANS DO YOU THINK WOULD SAY THAT BARACK OBAMA VIOLATED THAT STANDARD.

THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT JAMES MADISON WARNED YOU AGAINST IS THAT YOU WOULD CREATE EFFECTIVELY A VOTE OF NO CONFIDENCE STANDARD IN OUR CONSTITUTION.

>> ARE WE IN DANGER OF ABUSING OUR OWN POWER OF DOING ENORMOUS VIOLENCE TO OUR CONSTITUTION?

MY COLLEAGUES ARE SEARCHING FOR A PRETEXT FOR IMPEACHMENT SINCE BEFORE THE PRESIDENT WAS SWORN IN ON THIS PANEL.

PROFESSOR KARLAN CALLED PRESIDENT TRUMP'S ELECTION ILLEGITIMATE IN 2017.

SHE IMPLIED EMME.

WAS A REMEDY.

PROFESSOR FELDMAN ADVOCATING IMPEACHING THE PRESIDENT OVER A TWEET IN MARCH OF 2017.

THAT'S 7 YEARS AFTER HIS INAUGURATION.

ARE WE IN DANGER OF COMING TO THE MAXIMUM OF LEWIS CARROLL'S RED QUEEN SENTENCE FIRST BURIED AFTERWARDS.

>> THIS IS PART OF THE PROBLEM HOW YOUR VIEW OF THE PRESIDENT CAN AFFECT YOUR ASSUMPTIONS, YOUR INFERENCES, YOUR VIEW OF CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE.

I'M NOT SUGGESTING THAT THE EVIDENCE IF IT WAS FULLY INVESTIGATED IF IT WOULD COME OUT ONE WAY OR THE OTHER.

WHAT I'M SAYING IS WE'RE NOT DEALING WITH THE REALM OF THE UNKNOWABLE.

WE HAVE TO ASK.

WE BURNED TWO MONTHS IN THIS HOUSE, TWO MONTHS YOU COULD HAVE BEEN IN COURT SEEKING A SUBPOENA FOR THESE WITNESSES.

IT DOESN'T MEAN YOU HAVE TO WAIT FOREVER BUT YOU COULD HAVE GOTTEN AN ORDER BY NOW.

YOU COULD HAVE ALLOWED THE PRESIDENT TO RAISE AN EXECUTIVE PREVIOUS.

>> THE CONSTITUTION SAYS THE EXECUTIVE AUTHORITY SHALL BE VESTED IN THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES.

DOES THAT MEAN SOME EXECUTIVE AUTHORITY OR ALL OF IT.

>> THERE ARE CHECKS AND BALANCES BUT THE AUTHORITY OBVIOUSLY RESTS WITH THE PRESIDENT BUT THESE ARE ALL SHARED POWERS.

AND I DON'T BEGRUDGE THE INVESTIGATION OF THE UKRAINE CONTROVERSY.

I THINK IT WAS A LEGITIMATE INVESTIGATION.

WHAT I BEGRUDGE IS HOW IT WAS CONDUCTED.

>> THE CONSTITUTION DEMANDS THE PRESIDENT TAKES CARE THAT THE LAWS BE ENFORCED.

THAT DOES IN EFFECT MAKE HIM THE CHIEF LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER IN THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT DOES IT NOT.

>> THAT'S COMMONLY EXPRESSED THAT WAY, YES.

>> IF PROBABLE CAUSE EXISTS THAT A CRIME WAS COMMITTED POWER TELL US ABOUT THE PRESIDENT'S CLAIM THAT THE CONSTITUTION ALLOWS HIM TO DO WHATEVER HE WANTS.

>> IT PLO BLOWS IT OUT OF THE W. >> IF HE'S RIGHT AND WE ACCEPT THIS RADICAL CLAIM THAT HE CAN DO WHATEVER HE WANTS, ALL FUTURE PRESIDENTS SEEKING RE-ELECTION WILL BE ABLE TO BRING FOREIGN GOVERNMENTS INTO OUR CAMPAIGNS TO TARGET THEIR RIVALS AND TO SPREAD PRAW PROPAGANDA.

THAT'S A ASTOUNDING.

IF WE LET THE PRESIDENT GET AWAY WITH THIS CONDUCT EVERY PRESIDENT CAN GET AWAY WITH THAT.

DO YOU AGREE WITH THAT PROFESSOR FELDMAN.

>> I DO.

RICHARD NIXON SENT BURGLARS TO SEND PEOPLE TO BREAK INTO THE HEADQUARTERS BUT PRESIDENT TRUMP JUST MADE A PHONE CALL AND SOUGHT INTERVENTION IN AMERICAN ELECTIONS.

>> THIS IS A BIG MOMENT FOR AMERICA ISN'T IT?

IF ELIJAH CUMMINGS WERE HERE HE WOULD SAY LISTEN UP PEOPLE LISTEN UP.

HOW WE RESPOND WILL DETERMINE THE CHARACTER OF OUR DEMOCRACY FOR GENERATIONS.

NOW, PROFESSORS FELDMAN, KARLAN AND GERHARDT TOLD US THREE REASONS FOR WHY WE NEEDED AN IMPEACHMENT POWER.

BROADLY SPEAKING, IT WAS AN INSTRUMENT OF POPULAR SELF-DEFENSE AGAINST THE PRESIDENT BEHAVING LIKE A KING AND TRAMPLING THE RULE OF LAW BUT NOT JUST IN THE NORMAL ROYAL SISENSE OF SHOWING CRUELTY AND VANITY AND TREACHERY AND GREED AND AVARICE AND SO ON BUT WHEN PRESIDENTS THREATENED THE BASIC CHARACTER OF OUR GOVERNMENT IN THE CONSTITUTION, THAT'S WHAT IMPEACHMENT WAS ABOUT.

THE FRAMERS INVOKED THREE SPECIFIC KINDS OF MISCONDUCT SO SERIOUS AND EGREGIOUS THAT THEY THOUGHT THEY WARRANTED IMPEACHMENT.

FIRST THE PRESIDENT MIGHT HAVE USED HIS POWER BY CORRUPTLY USING HIS OFFICE FOR PERSONAL POLITICAL OR FINANCIAL GAIN.

WELL PROFESSOR FELDMAN, WHAT'S SO WRONG WITH THAT?

IF THE PRESIDENT BELONGS TO MY PARTY AND I GENERALLY LIKE HIM WHAT'S SO WRONG WITH HIM USING HIS OFFICE TO ADVANCE HIS OWN POLITICAL AMBITIONS.

>> BECAUSE THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES WORKS FOR THE PEOPLE AND SO IF HE SEEKS PERSONAL GAIN, HE'S NOT SERVING THE INTERESTS OF THE PEOPLE, HE'S RATHER SERVING THE INTERESTS THAT ARE SPECIFIC TO HIM AND THAT MEANS HE'S ABUSING THE OFFICE AND HE'S DOING THINGS THEY CAN ONLY GET AWAY WITH BECAUSE HE'S THE PRESIDENT AND THAT IS NECESSARILY SUBJECT TO IMPEACHMENT.

>> SECOND AND THIRD THE FOUNDERS EXPRESSED FEAR THE PRESIDENT COULD SUBVERT OUR DEMOCRACY BY BETRAYING HIS TRUST TO OWNER INFLUENCE IN INTERFERENCE AND ALSOY CORRUPTING THE ELECTION PROCESS.

PROFESSOR KARLAN YOU'RE ONE OF AMERICA'S LADLING ELECTION LAW SCHOLARS.

WHAT ROLE DOES IMPEACHMENT PLAY IN PROTECTING THE INTEGRITY OF OUR ELECTIONS ESPECIALLY IN THE INTERNATIONAL CONTEXT IN WHICH VLADIMIR PUTIN AND OTHER TYRANTS AND DECEMBER PUDDLE ARE INTERFERE -- DECEMBER PUTTS DESHYPOTHESES INTERFERENCE IN -- >> SO THERE ISN'T INFLUENCE IN OUR ELECTION AND ALLOWING THE PRESIDENT TO CIRCUMVENT THAT PRINCIPLE IS A PROBLEM AND AS I'VE ALREADY TESTIFIED SEFLT TIMES, AMERICA IS NOT JUST THE LAST BEST HOPE AS MR. JEFFRIES SAYS IT'S THE SHINING CITY ON THE HILL AND WE CAN'T BE THE SHINING CITY ON THE HILL AND PROMOTE DEMOCRACY AROUND THE WORLD AND WE'RE NOT PROMOTING IT HERE AT HOME.

>> ANY ONE OF THESE ACTIONS ALONE WOULD BE SUFFICIENT TO IMPEACH THE PRESIDENT ACCORDING TO THE FOUNDERS BUT IS IT FAIR TO SAY ALL THREE CAUSES FOR IMPEACHMENT EXPLUS ULY CONTELL PLAIFTD BY THE FOUNDERS, ABUSIVE POWER BETRAYAL OF OUR NATIONAL SECURITY OF OUR ELECTION IS PRESENT IN THIS PRESIDENT'S CONDUCT.

YES OR NO, PROFESSOR FELDMAN.

>> YES.

>> PROFESSOR GERHARDT.

>> YES SIR.

>> PROFESSOR KARLAN.

>> YES.

>> YOU ALL AGREE.

ARE ANY OF YOU AWARE OF ANY OTHER PRESIDENT WHO HAS ESSENTIALLY TRIGGERED ALL THREE CONCERNS THAT ANIMATED THE FOUNDERS.

>> NO.

>> NO.

>> NO AS WELL.

>> MR. CHAIRMAN IT'S HARD TO THINK OF A MORE MAMAN CULL ISN'TMENT TO DO WHATEVER I WANT AS PRESIDENT AND I YIELD BACK.

>> GENTLEMAN YIELDS BACK.

MS. LESKO.

>> THANK YOU MR.

CHAIR.

MR.

CHAIR I ASK UNANIMOUS CONSENT TO INSERT INTO THE RECORD A LETTER I WROTE AND SENT TO YOU ASKING, CALLING ON YOU TO CANCEL ANY AND ALL FUTURE IMPEACHMENT HEARINGS AND OUTLINING HOW THE PROCESS -- >> WITHOUT OBJECTION THE LETTER WILL BE ENTERED INTO THE RECORD.

>> THANK YOU.

>> DURING AN INTERVIEW MR. CHAIRMAN ON MSNBC MORNING JOE.

ON NOVEMBER 26, 2018, CHAIRMAN NADLER OUTLINED A THREE-PRONGED TEST THAT HE SAID WOULD ALLOW FOR A LEGITIMATE IMPEACHMENT PROCEEDING.

NOW I QUOTE CHAIRMAN NADLER'S REMARKS.

THIS WAS WHAT HE SAID.

THERE REALLY ARE THREE QUESTIONS, I THINK.

FIRST HAS THE PRESIDENT COMMITTED IMPEACHABLE OFFENSES?

SECOND.

DO THOSE OFFENSES RISE TO THE GRAVITY THAT'S WORTH PUTTING THE COUNTRY THROUGH THE DRAMA OF IMPEACHMENT.

AND NUMBER THREE, BECAUSE YOU DON'T WANT TO TEAR THE COUNTRY APART, YOU DON'T WANT HALF OF THE COUNTRY TO SAY TO THE OTHER HALF FOR THE NEXT 30 YEARS.

WE WON THE ELECTION, YOU STOLE IT FROM US.

YOU HAVE TO BE ABLE TO THINK AT THE BEGINNING OF THE IMPEACHMENT PROCESS THAT THE EVIDENCE IS SO CLEAR OF OFFENSES SO GRAVE THAT ONCE YOU'VE LAID OUT ALL OF THE EVIDENCE, A GOOD FRACTION OF THE OPPOSITION, THE VOTERS WILL RELUCTANTLY ADMIT TO THEMSELVES THEY HAD TO DO IT.

OTHERWISE, YOU HAVE A PARTISAN IMPEACHMENT WHICH WILL TEAR THE COUNTRY APART.

IF YOU MEET THESE THREE TESTS, THEN I THINK YOU DO THE IMPEACHMENT AND THOSE WERE THE WORDS OF CHAIRMAN NADLER.

NOW, LET'S SEE IF CHAIRMAN NADLER'S THREE-PRONGED TEST HAS BEEN MET.

FIRST HAS THE PRESIDENT COMMITTED AN IMPEACHABLE OFFENSE?

NO.

THE EVIDENCE AND TESTIMONY HAS NOT REVEALED ANY IMPEACHABLE OFFENSE.

SECOND, DO THOSE OFFENSES RISE TO THE GRAVITY THAT'S WORTH PUTTING THE COUNTRY THROUGH THE DRAMA OF IMPEACHMENT?

AGAIN THE ANSWER IS NO.

THERE'S NOTHING HERE THAT RISES TO THE GRAVITY THAT'S WORTH PUTTING THE COUNTRY THROUGH THE DRAMA OF IMPEACHMENT AND THIRD HAVE THE DEMOCRATS LAID OUT A CASE SO CLEAR THAT EVEN THE OPPOSITION HAS TO AGREE.

ABSOLUTELY NOT.

YOU AND HOUSE DEMOCRAT LEADERSHIP ARE TEARING APART THE COUNTRY.

YOU SAID THE EVIDENCE NIETZSCHE TO BE CLEAR IT IS NOT.

YOU SAID OFFENSES NEED TO BE GRAVE.

THEY ARE NOT.

YOU SAID ONCE THE EVIDENCE IS LAID OUT THAT THE OPPOSITION WILL ADMIT THEY HAD TO DO IT.

THAT HAS NOT HAPPENED.

IN FACT POLLING AND THE FACT THAT NOT ONE SINGLE REPUBLICAN VOTED ON THE IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY RESOLUTION OR ON THE SCHIFF REPORT REVEAL THE OPPOSITE IS TRUE.

IN FACT WHAT YOU AND YOUR DEMOCRATIC COLLEAGUES HAVE DONE IS OPPOSITE OF WHAT YOU SAID HAD TO BE DONE.

THIS IS A PARTISAN IMPEACHMENT AND IT IS TEARING THE COUNTRY APART.

I TAKE THIS ALL TO MEAN THAT CHAIRMAN NADLER ALONG WITH THE REST OF THE DEMOCRATIC CAUCUS IS PREPARED TO CONTINUE THESE ENTIRELY PARTISAN UNFAIR PROCEEDINGS AND TRAUMATIZE THE AMERICAN PEOPLE ALL FOR POLITICAL PURPOSE.

I THINK THAT'S A SHAME.

THAT'S NOT LEADERSHIP THAT'S A SHAM.

SO I ASKED MR. TURLEY, HAS MR. CHAIRMAN SATISFIED HIS THREE-PRONGED TEST FOR IMPEACHMENT.

>> WH ALL DIE RESPECT TO THE CHAIRMAN I DO NOT BELIEVE THOSE FACTORS WERE SATISFIED.

>> THANK YOU.

AND I WANT TO CORRECT SOMETHING ARE TO THE RECORD AS WELL.

REPEATEDLY TODAY AND OTHER DAYS DEMOCRATS HAVE REPEATED WHAT WAS SAID IN THE TEXT OF THE CALL.

DO ME A FAVOR AND THEY IMPLIED IT WAS AGAINST PRESIDENT BIDEN TO INVESTIGATE PRESIDENT BIDEN.

IT WAS NOT, IN FACT LET ME READ WHAT THE TRANSCRIPT SAYS.

IT SAYS TO PRESIDENT TRUMP I WOULD LIKE YOU TO DO US A FAVOR THOUGH BECAUSE OUR COUNTRY HAS BEEN THROUGH A LOT AND UKRAINE KNOWS A LOT ABOUT IT.

I WOULD LIKE YOU TO FIND OUT WHAT HAPPENED WITH THIS WHOLE SITUATION WITH UKRAINE.

THEY SAY CROWDSTRIKE.

I GUESS YOU HAVE ONE OF YOUR OWN WEALTHY PEOPLE.

IT SAYS NOTHING ABOUT THE BIDENS SO PLEASE STOP RIRCHESSING THOSE TWO TOGETHER AND I YIELD BACK.

>> GENTLELADY YIELDS BACK.

>> THANK YOU MR. CHAIRMAN.

THIS IS A DEEPLY GRAVE MOMENT THAT WE FIND OURSELVES IN AND I THOUGHT THE THREAT TO OUR NARRATION WAS WELL ARTICULATED 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.

AFTERNOON THE EVENTS OF UKRAINE UNFOLDED THE PRESIDENT SAID THE REASON HE REQUESTED AN INVESTIGATION INTO HIS POLITICAL AWE TONIGHT AND WITHHELD DESPERATELY NEEDED MILITARY AID FOR UKRAINE WAS SUPPOSED BECAUSE HE WAS WORRIED ABOUT CUPPION.

HOWEVER, CONTRARY TO PRESIDENT'S STATEMENTS, VARIOUS WITNESSES INCLUDING VICE PRESIDENT PENCE'S 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 PRESIDENTIAL CALLS I HAD OBSERVED, IT INVOLVED DISCUSSIONS OF MATTER.

PROFESSOR KARLAN IS IT COMMON FOR SOMEONE WHO GETS CAUGHT TO DENY THEIR 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 YOU HAVE ARGUED BEFORE THE SUPREME COURT AND THE SUPREME COURT DETERMINED THAT WHEN ASSESSING CREDIBILITY WE SHOULD LOOK AT A NUMBER OF FACTORS INCLUDING IMPACT, HISTORICAL BACKGROUND AND WHETHER THERE ARE DEPARTURES FROM NORMAL PRAWRS.

CORRECT.

>> THAT IS CORRECT.

>> SO WHAT WE ARE ULTIMATELY TRYING TO DO IS FIGURE OUT IF SOMEONE'S EXPLANATION FITS WITH THE FACTS AND IF IT DOESN'T THEN THE EXPLANATION MAY NOT BE TRUE.

SO LET'S EXPLORE THAT.

LIEUTENANT COLONEL VINDMAN TESTIFIED THAT HE PREPARED TALKING POINTS ON ANTI-CORRUPTION REFORM FOR PRESIDENT TRUMP'S CALL WITH UKRAINIAN PRESIDENT ZELENSKY, HOWEVER BASED ON THE TRANSCRIPTS RELEASED OF THOSE CALLS THIS 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 ALSO GOES TO THE ONE THAT SAYS YOU LOOK AT THE KIND OF THINGS THAT LED UP TO THE DECISION THAT YOU ARE TRYING TO FIGURE OUT SOME OF THESE MOTIVES ABOUT.

>> LET'S TRY ANOTHER ONE, AMBASSADOR VOLKER TESTIFIED THE PRESIDENT NEVER EXPRESSED MY 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. MCCLINTOCK MENTIONED THIS EARLIER, PROCESS OUTLINED IN THE NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT 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 CONGRESSIONALLY APPROVED 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 COURT 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 BIDE DENSE, BIDENS ANNOUNCED BUT ACTUALLY DIDN'T CARE WHETHER THEY WERE CONNECTED.

THAT WAS AMBASSADOR SONDLAND'S 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 IT IS BEING ANNOUNCED PUBLICLY WHICH IS AN ODD THING.

I MEAN, MAYBE MR. SWALWELL CAN PROBABLY ANSWER THIS BETTER THAN I BECAUSE HE WAS A PROSECUTOR BUT GENERALLY YOU DON'T ANNOUNCE THE INVESTIGATION IN A CRIMINAL CASE BEFORE YOU CONDUCT IT BECAUSE IT PUTS THE PERSON ON NOTICE.

, THAT THEY ARE UNDER INVESTIGATION.

>> AND GIVEN ALL OF THESE FACTS AND THERE ARE MORE WE DON'T 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 WITH INFER FROM THIS THAT HE WAS DOING IT FOR POLITICAL REASONS.

IF WE DON'T STAND UP NOW TO A PRESIDENT WHO ABUSES HIS POWER, WE RISK SENDING A MENTAL TO ALL FUTURE PRESIDENTS 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.

>> GENTLELADY YIELDS BACK.

I NOW RECORD MR. GO METERS.

>> GOMER.

>> I WOULD ASK UNANIMOUS CONSENT TO DA OFFER AN ARTICLE BY DANIEL HUFF.

>> WITHOUT OBJECTION THE ARTICLE WILL BE ENTERED INTO THE RECORD.

>> THANK YOU.

THE CHAIR RECOGNIZES MR. GRESH THAT WILLER, TO QUESTION THE WITNESSES.

THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN.

STARTING OFF TODAY I AM DOING SOMETHING THAT WROTE NORMALLY DO AND I AM GOING TO QUOTE SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE NANCY PELOSI.

IN MARCH THE SPEAKER TOLD THE "WASHINGTON POST" I AM GOING TO QUOTE THIS.

IMPEACHMENT IS SO DIVISIVE TO THE COUNTRY THAT UNLESS THERE IS SOMETHING SO COMPELLING AND OVERWHELMING AND BIPARTISAN I DON'T THINK WE SHOULD GO DOWN THAT PATH BECAUSE IT DIVIDES THE COUNTRY.

WELL ON THAT THE SPEAKER AND I BOTH AGREE.

YOU KNOW WHO ELSE AGREES?

THE FOUNDING FATHERS.

THE FOUNDING FATHERS RECOGNIZES THAT CRIMES WORTHY OF IMPEACHMENT MUST BE SO SEVERE REGARDLESS OF POLITICAL PARTY THAT THERE IS AN AGREEMENT THE ACTIONS ARE IMPEACHABLE.

WELL LET'S GO BACK TO SPEAKER PELOSI'S WORDS, JUST ONE MORE TIME.

SPEAKER SAYS THE CASE FOR IMPEACHMENT MUST BE ALSO COMPELLING.

WELL AFTER LAST MONTH'S SHIVER 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 BALANCES DO 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.

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 MERELY WANTED THE EUROPEANS TO CONTRIBUTE MORE TO A PROBLEM IN THEIR OWN BACKYARD.

I THINK WE CAN ALL AGREE IT IS APPROPRIATE FOR THE PRESIDENT AS STEWARD OF TAXPAYER DOLLARS TO ENSURE THAT OUR MONEY ISN'T WASTED.

II SAY I WASN'T GOING TO GO BACK TO SPEAKER PELOSI BUT I DO WANT TO GO BACK BECAUSE I FORGOT SHE ALSO SAID IMPEACHMENT SHOULD ONLY BE PURSUED WHEN IT IS QUOTE UNQUOTE OVERWHELMING SO IT IS 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.

THEY ARE CALLING IT BRIBERY AFTER THE FOCUS GROUP LAST A WEEK AND THERE IS NO EVIDENCE OF BRIBERY EITHER.

INSTEAD, THE TWO PEOPLE DID HAVE FIRSTHAND KNOWLEDGE, THE PRESIDENT, AND PRESIDENT ZELENSKY BOTH SAY THERE WAS NO PRESSURE ON THE UKRAINIANS.

AND AGAIN, THE TRANSCRIPT, THE 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 THERE WAS JUST THAT, IT WAS ONLY BIPARTISAN VOTE WAS THE ONE IMPOSING THE INQUIRY.

THE PARTISAN VOTE WAS THE ONE TO MOVE FORWARD WITH THE INQUIRY.

SO WE ARE 0 FOR 3.

LET'S FACE IT, THIS IS A SHAM IMPEACHMENT AGAINST PRESIDENT TRUMP.

IT IS NOT COMPELLING.

IT IS NOT OVERWHELMING AND IT IS NOT BIPARTISAN.

SO EVEN BY THE SPEAKER'S OWN CRITERIA THIS HAS FAILED.

RATHER WHAT THIS IS IS NOTHING MORE THAN A PARTISAN WITCH-HUNT THAT DENIES 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 THOUGHTS AND FEELINGS OF A FEW UNELECTED CAREER BUREAUCRATS BUREAUCRATS.

AND THE AMERICAN PEOPLE ARE ABSOLUTELY FED UP.

INSTEAD OF WASTING OUR TIME ON THIS WE SHOULD BE DOING THINGS LIKE PASS THE USMCA, LOWERING THE COST OF PRESCRIPTION DRUGS AND WORKING ON A FAILING INFRASTRUCTURE IN THIS COUNTRY.

WITH WITH THAT MR. TURLEY I WATCH HOW YOUR WORDS HAVE BEEN TWISTED AND MANGLED ALL YEARLONG.

IS THERE, ALL DAY LONG IS THERE ANYTHING YOU WOULD LIKE TO CLARIFY?

>> ONLY THIS, I THINK ONE OF THE DISAGREEMENTS WE HAD OR I HAD WITH MY ESTEEMED COLLEAGUES IS WHAT MAKES A LEGITIMATE IMPEACHMENT, NOT WHAT TECHNICALLY SATISFIES IMPEACHMENT, THERE ARE 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 OR PRESUMPTIONS OVER PROOF.

THAT'S BECAUSE THIS RECORD HASN'T BEEN DEVELOPED AND IF YOU ARE GOING TO REMOVE A PRESIDENT, IF YOU BELIEVE IN DEMOCRACY, IF YOU ARE GOING TO REMOVE A SITTING PRESIDENT THEN YOU HAVE AN OBLIGATION NOT TO RELY ON INFERENCE WHEN THERE IS STILL INFORMATION YOU CAN GATHER.

AND THAT'S WHAT I AM SAYING, IT IS POT THAT YOU CAN'T DO THIS.

YOU JUST CAN'T DO IT THIS WAY.

THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN.

>> THE GENTLEMAN YIELDS BACK.

I NOW RECOGNIZE JACKSON LEE FOR THE PURPOSE OF A UNANIMOUS CONSENT REQUEST.

THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN I WOULD LIKE UNANIMOUS CONSENT TO PLACE IN A RECORD, A NEW STATEMENT FROM CHECKS AND BALANCES ON PRESIDENT TRUMP'S ABUSE OF OFFICE -- >> WITHOUT OBJECTION -- THE REPUBLICAN AND DEMOCRATIC ATTORNEY GENERAL -- >> ASK UNANIMOUS CONSENT.

>> WITHOUT OBJECTION, I NOW RECOGNIZE MS. DEMOCRAT MENTION FIVE QUESTIONS FOR, DEMINGS, THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMANS AS 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 HAS SAID HE CANNOT BE PROSECUTED FOR CRIMINAL CONDUCT THAT HE NEED NOT COMPLY WITH CONGRESSIONAL REQUESTS AND SUBPOENAS.

AS A MATTER OF FACT, THE PRESIDENT IS TRYING TO ABSORB HIMSELF, ABSOLVE 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, HE, WHITE HOUSE OFFICIALS KEY WHITE HOUSE OFFICIALS FROM TESTIFYING.

THE PRESIDENT'S 0 OBSTRUCTION OF CONGRESS IS PERVASIVE.

SINCE 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 SLIDES SHOWS THOSE WHO HAVE REFUSED TO COMPLY AT THE PRESIDENT'S DIRECTION.

WE ARE FACING A CATEGORICAL BLOCKADE BAY PRESIDENT WHO IS DESPERATE TO PREVENT ANY INVESTIGATION INTO HIS WRONGDOING.

PROFESSOR GERHARDT, HAS A PRESIDENT EVER REFUSED TO COOPERATE IN AN IMPEACHMENT INVESTIGATION?

>> NONE UNTIL NOW.

>> AND ANY PRESIDENT WHO -- I KNOW NIXON DELAYED OR TRIED TO DELAY A TURNING OVER INFORMATION.

WHEN THAT OCCURRED, WAS IT AT THE SAME LEVEL THAT WE ARE SEEING TODAY?

>> DASH COOPERATE AND TESTIFY, DIDN'T SHUT DOWN IN ANY EVENT.

HE PRODUCED DOCUMENTS AND THERE WERE TIMES, THERE WERE CERTAINLY DISAGREEMENTS BUT THERE WAS NOT A WHOLESALE, BROAD SCALE ACROSS THE BOARD REFUSAL TO EVEN RECOGNIZE THE LEGITIMACY OF THIS HOUSE DOING AN INQUIRY.

>> PRESIDENT NIXON'S OBSTRUCTION RESULT IN AN ARTICLE OF IMPEACHMENT?

>> YES, MA'AM.

ARTICLE 3.

>> PROFESSOR FELDMAN, IS IT FAIR TO SAY THAT IF A PRESIDENT STONEWALLS AN INVESTIGATION LIKE WE ARE CLEARLY SEEING TODAY AND TO WHETHER HE HAS COMMITTED AN IMPEACHABLE OFFENSE HE RISKS RENDERING THE IMPEACHMENT POWER MOOT?

>> YES.

AND INDEED THAT'S THE INEVITABLE EFFECT OF A PRESIDENT REFUSING TO PARTICIPATE.

HE IS DENYING THE POWER OF CONGRESS UNDER THE CONSTITUTION TO OVERSEE HIM AS 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, MA'AM.

YOU ARE.

AND I MIGHT JUST POINT OUT THAT ONE OF THE DIFFICULTIES WITH ASKING FOR MORE THOROUGH INVESTIGATION IS THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT THE HOUSE HAS TRIED TO CONDUCT HERE AND THE PRESIDENT HAS REFUSED TO COMPLY WITH SUBPOENAS AND OTHER REQUESTS FOR INFORMATION.

THAT IS WHERE THE BLOCKAGE OCCURS.

THAT'S WHY THERE ARE DOCUMENTS NOT PRODUCED AND WHILE THERE ARE PEOPLE NOT TESTIFYING AND PEOPLE HAVE SAID HERE TODAY THEY WANT TO HEAR FROM.

IN RELATION TO WHAT YOU JUST SAID, AMBASSADOR SO SONDLAND TESTIFIED EVERYONE WAS IN THE LOOP.

IT WAS NO SEEBT.

PROFESSOR GERHARDT, HOW IS AMBASSADOR SONDLAND'S TESTIMONY RELEVANT HERE?

>> HIS TESTIMONY IS RELEVANT, IT IS ALSO RATHER CHILLING TO HEAR HIM SAY THAT EVERYBO IS IN THE LOOP AND WHEN HE SAYS THAT HE IS TALKING ABOUT THE PEP 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 REFUSED TO COMPLY WITH VALID CONGRESSIONAL SUBPOENAS.

THE FRAMERS INCLUDED IMPEACHMENT 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.

>> GENTLELADY YIELDS BACK.

MR. KLEIN IS RECOGNIZED.

THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN, IT IS JUST PAST 5:00 O'CLOCK AND A LOT OF FAMILIES ARE JUST GETTING HOME FROM WORK RIGHNOW AND DURING ON THE TV AND THEY ARE WONDERING WHAT THEY ARE WATCHING ON TV.

THEY ARE ASKING THEMSELVES, IS THIS A RERUN?

BECAUSE I THOUGHT I SHAW A COUNSEL OF WEEKS AGO, BUT NO THIS IS NOT A RERUN, UNFORTUNATELY THIS IS ACT 2 OF THE THREE PART TRAGEDY OF THE IMPEACHMENT OF PRESIDENT TRUMP.

AND WHAT WE ARE SEEING HERE IS SEVERAL VERY ACCOMPLISHED CONSTITUTIONAL SCHOLARS ATTEMPTING TO DIVINE THE INTENT, WHETHER IT IS OF THE PRESIDENT OR OF THE VARIOUS WITNESSES WHO APPEARED DURING THE SCHIFF HEARINGS AND IT IS 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 CONGRESS IN THE CONGRESS ESTABLISHED BY ANOTHER VIRGINIAN JEAN-GEORGE JACKSON.

IT IS BECAUSE TWO OF MY IMMEDIATE PREDECESSORS, CONGRESSMAN BOB GOOD LAD, WHO CHAIRED THIS COMMITTEE, AND CONGRESSMAN CALDWELL BUTLER ALSO SERVED ON THIS COMMITTEE.

THE COMMITTEE THEY SERVED UNDER, SERVED ON IS DEAD.

THAT COMMITTEE DOESN'T EXIST ANYMORE.

THAT COMMITTEE IS GONE.

APPARENTLY NOW WE DON'T EVEN GET TO SIT IN THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE ROOM.

WE ARE IN THE WAYS AND MEANS COMMITTEE ROOM.

I DON'T KNOW WHY, MAYBE BECAUSE THERE IS MORE ROOM.

MAYBE BECAUSE THE PORTRAITS OF THE VARIOUS CHAIR -- CHAIRMEN WHO 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 RODINO 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 COULDN'T WATCH THEM ALL BECAUSE THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE ACTUALLY SCHEDULED BUSINESS DURING THE INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE HEARINGS, SO THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE MEMBERS WITH RESPECT ABLE TO WATCH ALL OF AT &F &C1 &D0 &Q6 S37=5 N0 &K0AD THIS PRESIDENT IN 2016 AND IT IS THE PEOPLE WHO SHOULD HAVE THE CHOICE AS TO WHETHER OR NOT TO VOTE FOR THIS PRESIDENT IN 2020, NOT THE MEMBERS OF THIS COMMITTEE, NOT SPEAKER NANCY PELOSI AND NOT THE MEMBERS OF THIS HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.

IT SHOULD BE THE PEOPLE OF THE UNITED STATES WHO GET TO DECIDE WHO THEIR PRESIDENT IS IN 2020.

I ASKED SEVERAL QUESTIONS ABOUT OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE TO MR. MUELLER WHEN HE TESTIFIED.

MR. TURLEY, I KNOW THAT YOU MENTIONED OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE SEVERAL TIMES IN YOUR TESTIMONY.

I WANT TO YIELD TO MR. RATCLIFFE TO ASK A CONCISE QUESTION ABOUT THAT ISSUE.

>> I TAKE, I THANK THE GENTLEMAN FOR YIELDING.

PROFESSOR TURLEY DESPITE NO QUESTIONS TO ANY WITNESSES DURING THE FIRST TWO MONTHS OF THE FIRST PHASE OF THIS IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY THAT THE DEMOCRATS MAY BE DUSTING OFF THE OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE PORTION OF THE MUELLER REPORT.

IT SEEMS TO ME WE ALL REMEMBER HOW PAINFUL IT WAS TO LISTEN TO SPECIAL COUNSEL'S ANALYSIS OF THE OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE PORTION OF THAT REPORT.

I WOULD LIKE YOU TO ADDRESS THE FATAL FLAWS FROM YOUR PERSPECTIVE WITH REGARD TO THE OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE PORTION OF THAT -- >> THE GENTLEMAN'S TIME HAS EXPIRED THE WITNESS MAY ANSWER THE QUESTION BRIEFLY.

>> THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN.

I HAVE BEEN A CRITIC OF THE OBSTRUCTION THEORY BEHIND THE RUSSIAN -- RUSSIA INVESTIGATION BECAUSE ONCE AGAIN IT DOESN'T MEET WHAT I THINK ARE THE CLEAR STANDARDS FOR OBSTRUCTION.

WORDS THE MUELLER ADDRESSED THE ONLY ONE THAT RAISED A SERIOUS ISSUE QUITE FRANKLY WAS THE MATTER WITH DON MCBEGAN.

THERE IS A DISAGREEMENT ABOUT THAT.

BUT ALSO THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE REJECTED THE OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE CLAIM AND IT WAS NOT JUST THE ATTORNEY GENERAL.

IT WAS ALSO THE DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL, ROB ROSE ROSENSTEIN.

>> THE GENTLEMAN IS WELL EXPIRED, THE GENTLEMAN'S TIME IS WELL EXPIRED.

MR. CORREA.

>> THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN AND I WOULD LIKE TO THANK OUR WITNESSES FOR BEING HERE TODAY.

I CAN ASSURE YOUR TESTIMONY IS IMPORTANT NOT ONLY TO THIS TO AMERICA THAT IS LISTENING VERY INTENTLY ON WHAT THE ISSUES BEFORE US ARE AND WHY IT IS SO IMPORTANT THAT ALL OF US UNDERSTAND THE ISSUES BEFORE US.

PROFESSOR FELDMAN, IT WAS JUST DISCUSSED THANK PRESIDENT TRUMPS ORDERED THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH TO COMPLETELY BLOCKADE THE EFFORTS OF THIS HOUSE TO INVESTIGATE WHETHER HE COMMITTED HIGH CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS.

IN HIS DEALINGS WITH THE UKRAINE; IS THAT CORRECT?

>> YES, IT IS.

>> PRESIDENT TRUMP HAS ALSO ASSERTED THAT MANY OFFICIALS ARE SOMEHOW ABSOLUTELY IMMUNE FROM TESTIFYING IN THIS IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY.

ON THE SCREEN BEHIND YOU, IS THE OPINION BY JUDGE JACKSON, A FEDERAL JUDGE HERE IN DC THAT REJECT'S PRESIDENT TRUMP'S ASSERTION.

PROFESSOR FELDMAN, DO YOU AGREE WITH JUDGE JACKSON'S RULING THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP HAS INVOKED A NONEXISTENCE LEGAL BASIS TO BLOCK WITNESSES FROM TESTIFYING IN THIS IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY?

>> I AGREE WITH THE THRUST OF JUDGE JACKSON'S OPINION, I THINK SHE CORRECTLY HELD THERE IS NO ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY WHICH WOULD PROTECT A PRESIDENTIAL ADVISOR FROM HAVING TO APPEAR BEFORE THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES AND TESTIFY.

SHE DID NOT MAKE A RULING AS TO WHETHER EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE WOULD APPLY TO ANY GIVEN SITUATION, AND I THINK THAT WAS ALSO APPROPRIATE BECAUSE THE ISSUE HAD NOT YET ARISEN.

LET ME QUOTE JUDGE JACKSON, THE PRIMARY TAKE AWAY FROM THE PAST 250 YEARS OF RECORDED AMERICAN HISTORY IS THAT PRESIDENTS ARE NOT KINGS."

PROFESSOR FELDMAN, IN THE FRAMERS' VIEW DOES THE PRESIDENT ACT MORE LIKE A LEADER OF DEMOCRACY OR MORE LIKE A MONARCH WHEN HE ORDERS OFFICIALS TO DENY CONGRESS AS IT TRIES INVESTIGATE ABUSE OF POWER AND CORRUPTION OF ELECTED?

>> SIR, I DON'T EVEN THINK THE REMAINERS COULD HAVE IMAGINED THAT A PRESIDENT WOULD FLATLY REFUSE TO PARTICIPATE IN AN IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY, GIVEN THAT THEY GAVE THE POWER OF IMPEACHMENT TO THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES AND ASSUMED THAT STRUCTURE OF THE CONSTITUTION WOULD ALLOW THE HOUSE TO OVERSEE THE PRESIDENT.

THANK YOU.

PROFESSOR GERHARDT -- >> YES.

>> -- WHERE CAN WE LOOK IN THE CONSTITUTION TO UNDERSTAND WHETHER THE PRESIDENT MUST COMPLY WITH THE IMPEACHMENT INVESTIGATIONS?

>> I THINK YOU CAN LOOK THROUGHOUT THE ENTIRE CONSTITUTION.

AA GOOD PLACE INCLUDES THE SUPREMACY 0 CLAUSE THE PRESIDENT TAKES AN OATH, TAKES AN OATH TO SUPPORT AND DEFEND THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES.

THAT MEANS THAT HE IS ASSUMING OFFICE WITH CERTAIN CONSTRAINTS ON WHAT HE MAY DO AND THAT THERE ARE MEASURES FOR ACCOUNTABILITY FOR ANY FAILURE TO OL' HIS DUTY OR FOLLOW THE CONSTITUTION.

>> THANK YOU.

AND THE PRESIDENT HAS SAID HE IS ABOVE THE LAW, THAT ARTICLE 2 OF THE CONSTITUTION ALLOWS HIM TO, AND I QUOTE, DO WHATEVER I WANT.

THAT CAN'T BE TRUE, JUDGE JACKSON HAS SAID THAT NO ONE IS ABOVE THE LAW.

PERSONALLY, I GREW UP IN CALIFORNIA IN THE 1960S, IT WAS A TIME WHEN WE WERE GOING TO BEAT THE RUSSIANS TO THE MOON.

WE WERE FULL OF OPTIMISM.

WE BELIEVED IN THE AMERICAN DEMOCRACY.

WE WERE THE BEST IN THE WORLD.

AND BACK HOME ON MAIN STREET, MY MOM AND DAD STRUGGLED TO SURVIVE DAY TO DAY.

MY MOM WORKED AS A MAID CLEANING HOTEL ROOMS FOR A BUCK-50 AN HOUR AND MY DAD WORKED AT A LOCAL PAPER MILL TRYING TO SURVIVE DAY TO DAY AND WHAT GOT US UP IN THE MORNING WAS THE BELIEF, THE OPTIMISM THAT TOMORROW WAS GOING TO BE BETTER THAN TODAY.

WE ARE A NATION OF PREMIUM, DEMOCRACY, ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY AND WE ALWAYS KNOW THAT TOMORROW IS GOING TO BE BETTER AND TODAY I PERSONALLY SENSE AS A TESTAMENT FOR GREATNESS OF THIS NATION.

AND I SIT HERE IN THIS COMMITTEE ROOM ALSO WITH ONE VERY IMPORTANT MISSION, WHICH IS TO KEEP THE AMERICAN DREAM ALIVE, TO ENSURE THAT ALL OF US ARE EQUAL, TO ENSURE THAT NOBODY, NOBODY IS ABOVE THE LAW AND TO ENSURE THAT OUR CONSTITUTION AND THAT OUR CONGRESSIONAL OVERSIGHT OF THE PRESIDENCY IS STILL SOMETHING WITH MEANING.

THANK YOU, MR.

CHAIR.

I YIELD BACK.

>> THE GENTLEMAN YIELDS BACK.

MR. ARMSTRONG.

>> THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN.

YOU KNOW, ALL DAY LONG WE HAVE BEEN SITTING HERE AND LISTENING TO MY FRIENDS INTRODUCES AISLE AND THEIR WITNESSES CLAIM THAT PRESIDENT DEMANDED UKRAINE DO US A FAVOR.

BY ASSISTING IN 2020 REELECTION CAMPAIGN BEFORE HE WOULD RELEASE THE MILITARY AID.

THIS IS LIKE EVERYTHING ELSE IN THIS SHAM IMPEACHMENT PURPOSEFULLY MISLEADING AND NOT BASED ON THE FACTS.

SO LET'S REVIEW THE ACTUAL TRANSCRIPT OF THE CALL.

NEVER MENTIONED THE 2020 ELECTION.

HE NEVER MENTIONED MILITARY AID.

IT DOES, HOWEVER, CLEARLY SHOW THAT THE FAVOR THE PRESIDENT REQUESTED WAS SISTER STANCE WITH THE ONGOING INVESTIGATION INTO THE 2016 ELECTION.

THOSE INVESTIGATIONS PARTICULARLY THE ONE DONE, BEING RUN BY U.S. ATTORNEY JEFF -- SHOULD CONCERN DEMOCRATS.

AND THE TRANSCRIPT OF THIS CALL SHOWS THAT THE PRESIDENT WAS WORRIED ABOUT THE EFFORTS OF THE UKRAINE RELATING TO THE 2016 ELECTION.

WE KNOW THIS AND NOTICE I AM USING THE WORD KNOW, AND NOT THE WORD INFER.

FROM READING THE READING THE TRD BECAUSE HE SPOKE ABOUT IT ENDING WITH MUELLER.

WE KNOW THIS BECAUSE HE WANT IT IS ATTORNEY GENERAL TO GET IN TOUCH WITH UKRAINIANS ABOUT THE ISSUE.

WE HAVE A TRADE DEAL WITH UKRAINE GOVERNING THESE SORT OF INTERNATIONAL INVESTIGATIONS BUT LIKE SO MANY OTHER THINGS THESE FACTS ARE INCONVENIENT FOR DEMOCRATS, THEY DON'T FIT THE IMPEACHMENT NARRATIVE SO THEY ARE MISREPRESENTED OR IGNORED.

AND I THINK IT IS IMPORTANT WHEN WE TALK ABOUT THIS, AND WHATEVER THE BURDEN OF PROOF, BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT, CLEAR AND CONVINCING EVIDENCE, WHETHER IT IS A JUDICIAL HEARING, A QUASI JUDICIAL HEARING OR CONGRESSIONAL HEARING, AND WE ARE TALKING ABOUT THESE ISSUES I THINK WE NEED TO START WITH HOW WE LOOK AT IT AND I AM NOT A CONSTITUTIONAL LAW PROFESSOR, I AM JUST AN OLD CRIMINAL DEFENSE ATTORNEY BUT WHEN I WALKED INTO A COURTROOM I THINK OF THREE THINGS WHAT IS THE CRIME CHARGED, WHAT THE CONDUCT AND WHO IS VICTIM?

AND WE HAVE MANAGED TO MAKE IT UNTIL 5:00 O'CLOCK TODAY BEFORE WE HAVE TALKED ABOUT THE ALLEGED VICTIM OF THE CRIME AND THAT ARE A IS PRESIDENT ZELENSKY, AT THREE DIFFERENT TIMES PRESIDENT ZELENSKY AT LEAST THREE DIFFERENT TIMES HAS DENIED BEING PRESSURED BY THE REAL ESTATE, PRESIDENT.

THE CALL SHOWS LAUGHTER, PLEASANTRIES, CORDIALITY, SEPTEMBER 25TH, PRESIDENT ZELENSKY STATES, NO, YOU HEARD THAT WE HAD A GOOD PHONE CALL.

IT WAS NORMAL, WE SPOKE ABOUT MANY THINGS, I THINK YOU READ IT AND NOBODY PUSHED ME.

OCTOBER -- OCTOBER 10TH PRESIDENT ZELENSKY HAD A YES, SIR CONFERENCE AND I ENCOURAGE EVERYBODY TO WATCH IT EVEN IF YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND IT, 90 PERCENT OF COMMUNICATION IS NONVERBAL YOU TELL ME IF YOU THINK SHE LYING.

THERE WAS NO BLACKMAIL.

DECEMBER 2ND, THIS MONDAY, I NEVER TALKED TO THE PRESIDENT FROM THE POSITION OF QUID PRO QUO.

SO WE HAVE THE ALLEGED VICTIM OF QUID PRO QUO, BRIBERY, EX-, TO, WHATEVER WE ARE DEALING WITH NOW REPEATEDLY AND ADAMANTLY SHOUTING FROM THE ROOFTOPS THAT HE NEVER FELT PRESSURE, THAT HE WAS NOT THE VICTIM OF ANYTHING.

SO IN ORDER FOR THIS WHOLE THING TO STICK WE HAVE TO BELIEVE THAT PRESIDENT ZELENSKY IS A PATHOLOGICAL LIAR OR THAT THE UKRAINIAN PRESIDENT AND THE COUNTRY ARE SO WEAK THAT HE HAS NO CHOICE BUT TO PARADE HIMSELF OUT THERE, DEMORAL LIES HIMSELF FOR THE GOOD OF HIS COUNTRY.

EITHER OF THESE TWO ASSERTIONS WEAKENS THEIR COUNTRIES AND HARMS OUR EFFORTS TO HELP UKRAINE.

AND ALSO BEGS THE QUESTION OF HOW ON EARTH DID PRESIDENT ZELENSKY WITHSTAND THIS ILLEGAL AND IMPEACHABLE PRESSURE TO BEGIN WITH BECAUSE THIS FACT STILL HAS NOT CHANGED.

THE AID WAS RELEASED TO UKRAINE AND DID NOT TAKE ANY ACTION FROM THEM IN ORDER FOR IT TO FLOW AND WITH THAT I YIELD TO MY FRIEND, MR. JORDAN.

>> I THANK THE GENTLEMAN FOR YIELDING.

PROFESSOR KARLAN CONTEXT IS IMPORTANT, ISN'T IT?

>> YES, SIR.

>> YES BECAUSE JUST A FEW MINUTES AGO WHEN OUR COLLEAGUE FROM FLORIDA PRESENTED A STATEMENT YOU MADE, YOU SAID WELL YOU HAVE GOT TO TAKE THAT STATEMENT IN CONTEXT BUT IT SEEMS TO ME YOU DON'T WANT TO EXTEND THE SAME OR APPLY THE SAME STANDARD TO THE PRESIDENT BECAUSE THE NOW FAMOUS QUOTE I WOULD LIKE YOU TO DO US A FAVOR YOU SAID ABOUT AN HOUR AND A HALF AGO THAT DIDN'T MEAN, IT DIDN'T MEAN US, IT MEANT THE PRESIDENT HIMSELF.

BUT THAT IS THE CLEAR READING OF THIS, I WOULD LIKE YOU TO DO US A FAVOR, THOUGH -- YOU KNOW WHAT THE NEXT TWO WORDS ARE?

>> I DON'T HAVE THE DOCUMENT.

>> I WILL TELL YOU BECAUSE OUR COUNTRY, HE DIDN'T SAY I WOULD LIKE YOU TO DO ME A FAVOR THOUGH BECAUSE I HAVE BEEN THROUGH A LOT, HE SAID I WANT YOU TO DO US A FAVOR THOUGH BECAUSE OUR COUNTRY HAS BEEN THROUGH A LOT.

YOU KNOW WHAT THIS HAPPENED?

IT HAPPENED THE DAY AFTER MUELLER WAS IN FRONT OF IN COMMITTEE, OF COURSE OUR COUNTRY WAS PUT THROUGH TWO YEARS OF THIS AND THE IDEA YOU ARE NOT GOING TO SAY OH THIS IS THE ROYAL WE AND HE IS TALKING ABOUT HIMSELF IGNORES THE ENTIRE CONTEXT OF HIS STATEMENT, THAT WHOLE PARAGRAPH YOU KNOW WHAT HE ENDS THAT PARAGRAPH WITH TALKING ABOUT BOB MUELLER AND THIS IS THE BASIS FOR THIS IMPEACHMENT?

THIS CALL?

IT COULDN'T BE FURTHER FROM THE TRUTH YOU WANT THE STANDARD TO APPLY WHEN REPRESENTATIVE GATES MAKES ONE OF YOUR STATEMENTS OH YOU HAVE TO LOOK AT THE CONTEXT BUT WHEN THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES IS CLEAR YOU TRY TO CHANGE HIS WORDING WHEN THE CON NEXT IS CLEAR HE IS TALKING ABOUT THE TWO YEARS THAT THIS COUNTRY WENT THROUGH BECAUSE OF THIS MUELLER REPORT SOMEHOW THAT STANDARD DOESN'T APPLY TO THE PRESIDENT.

THAT IS RIDICULOUS.

>> THE GENTLEMAN'S TIME IS EXPIRED.

MS. SCANLON.

I WANT TO THANK OUR CONSTITUTIONAL EXPERTS FOR WALKING US THROUGH THE FRAMER'S THINKING ON IMPEACHMENT AND WHY THEY DECIDED IT WAS A NECESSARY PART OF OUR CONSTITUTION.

I AM GOING TO ASK YOU TO HELP US UNDERSTAND THE IMPLICATIONS OF THE PRESIDENT'S OBSTRUCTION OF CONGRESS'S INVESTIGATION INTO THE USE OF THE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT TO SQUEEZE THE UKRAINIAN GOVERNMENT TO HELP THE TRUMP REELECTION CAMPAIGN AND THERE IS CERTAINLY HUNDREDS OF PAGES ON HOW ONE REACHES THAT CONCLUSION.

WITH, WE KNOW THE PRESIDENT'S OBSTRUCTION DID NOT BEGIN WITH THE UKRAINE INVESTIGATION.

INSTEAD HIS CONDUCT IS PART OF A PATTERN AND I WILL DIRECT YOUR ATTENTION TO THE TIMELINE ON THE SCREEN.

IN THE LEFT-HAND COLUMN WE SEE THE PRESIDENT'S STATEMENT FROM HIS JULY COLUMN WHICH HE PRESSURED UKRAINE, A FOREIGN GOVERNMENT, TO MEDDLE IN OUR ELECTIONS.

ANDAND THEN ONCE CONGRESS GOT WD OF IT THE PRESIDENT TRIED TO COVER UP HIS INVOLVEMENT BY OBSTRUCTING THE CONGRESSIONAL INVESTIGATION A IN RE, AND REFUSING TO COOPERATE BUT THIS ISN'T THE FIRST TIME WE HAVE SEEN THIS KIND OF OBSTRUCTION.

IN THE RIGHT HAND COLUMN WE CAN FLASHBACK TO THE 2016 ELECTION WHEN THE PRESIDENT WELCOMED AND USED RUSSIANS AND INTERFERENCE IN OUR ELECTION AND 15 WHEN THE SPECIAL COUNSEL AND THEN THIS COMMITTEE TRIED TO INVESTIGATE THE EXTENT OF HIS INVOLVEMENT HE DID EVERYTHING HE COULD TO COVER IT UP SO IT APPEARS THE PRESIDENT'S OBSTRUCTION OF INVESTIGATIONS IS PART OF A PATTERN.

FIRST HE INVITES, INVITES FOREIGN POWERS TO INTERFERE IN OUR ELECTIONS AND THEN HE COVERS IT UP AND FINALLY HE OBSTRUCTS LAWFUL INQUIRIES INTO HIS BEHAVIOR WHETHER BY CONGRESS OR LAW ENFORCEMENT.

AND THEN HE DOES IT AGAIN.

SO PROFESSOR GERHARDT, HOW DOES THE EXISTENCE OF SUCH A PATTERN HELP DETERMINE WHETHER THE PRESIDENT'S CONDUCT IS IMPEACHABLE?

>> THE PATTERN OF COURSE GIVES US A TREMENDOUS INSIGHT INTO THE CONTEXT OF HIS BEHAVIOR.

WHEN HE IS ACTING AND HOW DO WE EXPLAIN THOSE ACTIONS BY LOOKING AT THE PATTERN AND WE CAN INFER VERY -- I THINK A VERY STRONG INFERENCE OF FACT IS THAT THIS IS DEVIATING FROM THE USUAL PRACTICE AND HE HAS BEEN SYSTEMATICALLY HEADING TOWARDS A CULMINATION WHERE HE CAN ASK THIS QUESTION, BY THE WAY -- JULY 25TH CALL THE MONEY IS NOT YET RELEASED.

AND THERE IS ON GOING CONVERSATIONS WE LEARNED FROM OTHER TESTIMONY THAT ESSENTIALLY THE MONEY IS BEING WITHHELD BECAUSE THE PRESIDENT WANTED TO MAKE SURE THE DELIVERABLE WAS GOING TO HAPPEN, THAT IS, THE ANNOUNCEMENT OF THE INVESTIGATION.

>> AND IN ADDITION TO THE MONEY NOT BEING RELEASED THERE ALSO WAS NOT THE WHITE HOUSE MEETING WHICH WAS SO IMPORTANT TO UKRAINIAN SECURITY, RIGHT?

>> THAT'S RIGHT.

>> OKAY.

PROFESSOR FELDMAN, WE NOTED PREVIOUSLY THAT FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT RECENTLY REJECTED THE PRESIDENT'S ATTEMPT TO BLOCK WITNESSES FROM TESTIFYING TO CONGRESS SAYING THAT PRESIDENTS ARE NOT KINGS.

THE FOUNDERS INCLUDED TWO CRITICAL PROVISIONS IN OUR CONSTITUTION TO PREVENT OUR PRESIDENT FROM BECOMING A KING AND OUR DEMOCRACY FROM BECOMING A MONARCHY.

AND THOSE PROTECTIONS WERE PRESIDENTIAL ELECTIONS AND IMPEACHMENT, CORRECT?

>> CORRECT.

>> BASED ON THE PATTERN OF CONDUCT WE ARE DISCUSSING TODAY, THE PATTERN OF INVITING FOREIGN INTERFERENCE IN OUR ELECTIONS FOR POLITICAL GAIN AND THEN OBSTRUCTING LAWFUL INVESTIGATION, THAT PRESIDENT UNDERMINED BOTH OF THOSE PROTECTIONS?

>> HE HAS.

AND IT IS CRUCIAL TO NOTE THAT THE VICTIM OF A HIGH CRIME AND HIS FOR SUCH AS THE PRESIDENT IS ALLEGED TO HAVE COMMITTED IS NOT PRESIDENT ZELENSKY AND IS NOT THE UKRAINIAN PEOPLE.

THE VICTIM OF THE HIGH CRIME AND MISDEMEANOR IS THE AMERICAN PEOPLE.

AND ALEXANDER HAMILTON SAID VERY CLEARLY THE NATURE OF A HIGH CRIME AND MISDEMEANOR IS THAT THEY ARE RELATED TO INJURIES DONE TO THE SOCIETY ITSELF.

WE THE MEASURE PEOPLE ARE THE VICTIMS OF THE HIGH CRIME AND MISS FOR.

AND WHAT IS THE REMEDY IN SUCH A CIRCUMSTANCE?

>> THE FRAMERS CREATED ONE REN RECOMMEND DIFFICULT TO RESPOND TO HIGH CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS AND THAT WAS IMPEACHMENT.

>> THANK YOU.

YOU KNOW, I HAVE SPENT OVER 30 YEARS WORKING TO HELP CLIENTS AND .. SCHOOL CHILDREN UNDERSTAND THE IMPORTANCE OF OUR CONSTITUTIONAL SYSTEM, AND THE IMPORTANT OF THE RULE OF LAW, SO THE PRESIDENT'S BEHAVIOR IS DEEPLY, DEEPLY TROUBLING.

THE PRESIDENT WELCOMED AND USED ELECTION INTERFERENCE BY RUSSIA, PUBLICLY ADMITTED HE WOULD DO IT AGAIN AND DID, IN FACT, DO IT AGAIN BY SOLICITING ELECTION INTERFERING FROM UKRAINE AND THROUGHOUT THE PRESIDENT HAS TRIED TO COVER UP HIS MISCONDUCT.

THIS ISN'T COMPLICATED.

THE FOUNDERS WERE CLEAR AND WE MUST BE TOO, SUCH BEHAVIOR IN A PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES IS NOT ACCEPTABLE.

I YIELD BACK.

>> THE GENTLELADY YIELDS BACK.

MS. CITIES CICILLINE WE RECOGNIR UNANIMOUS CONSENT REQUEST.

>> I ASK UNANIMOUS CONSENT A DOCUMENT WHICH LISTS THE 400 PIECES OF LEGISLATION PASSED BY THE HOUSE, 275 BIPARTISAN BILLS, 80 PERCENT WHICH REMAIN LANGUISHING IN THE SAT BE MADE A PART OF THE RECORD IN RESPONSE TO MR. GATES CLAIM WE ARE NOT MAKING THE.

>> THE DOCUMENT WILL BE MADE A PART OF THE RECORD.

MS. BIGS IS RECOGNIZED.

>> MR. CHAIRMAN, I SEEK AN EMPTY.

THE DOCUMENTS AND ITEMS WHICH PREVIOUSLY HAVE BEEN SUBMITTED.

>> WITHOUT OBJECTION THE DOCUMENTS WILL BE ENTERED INTO THE RECORD.

MR. CHAIRMAN, MAY I HAVE -- >> WHAT PURPOSE DOES THE GENTLEMAN -- >> MR. CHAIRMAN I ASK UNANIMOUS CONSENT THIS ARTICLE THAT US WAS JUST PUBLISHED ABOUT 15 MINUTES AGO ENTITLED LAW PROFESSOR JONATHAN TURLEY SAYS DEMOCRATS ARE SETTING A RECORD FOR A FAST IMPEACHMENT, THAT IS DEMONSTRABLY FALSE.

BE MADE A PART OF THE RECORD.

>> WITHOUT OBJECTION, MR. CHAIRMAN.

>> WITHOUT OBJECTION THE DOCUMENT WILL BE MADE A PART OF THE RECORD.

>> MR. CHAIRMAN, FOR WHAT PURPOSE DOES THE GENTLEMAN SEEK RECOGNITION.

>> TO PUT INTO THE RECORD A TWEET THAT FIRST LADY OF THE USE JUST ISSUED WITHIN THE HOUR THAT SAYS, QUOTE, A MINOR CHILD DESERVES PRIVACY AND SHOULD BE KEPT OUT OF POLITICS, PAMELA KARLAN YOU SHOULD BE ASHAMED OF YOUR VERY ANGRY AND OBVIOUSLY BYPASSED PANDERING AND USING A CHILD TO DO IT, WITHOUT OBJECTION THE DOCUMENT WILL BE ENTERED INTO THE RECORD.

>> MR. STOOB BY IS RECOGNIZED FOR THE PURPOSE OF QUESTIONING THE WITNESSES.

>> I AM SORRY -- NOT HERE MOMENTARILY.

MS. GARCIA IS RECOGNIZED.

>> THANK YOU MR. CHAIRMAN AND I TOO WANT TO THANK A ALL OF THE WITNESSES FOR THEIR TIME AND YOUR PATIENCE TODAY.

I KNOW IT HAS BEEN A LONG DAY, BUT THE END IS IN SIGHT.

AS MY COLLEAGUE MS. KARLAN RECOGNIZED, HIS CONDUCT IN THE SPECIAL COUNSEL INVESTIGATION ARE HARD TO IGNORE.

IN FACT, WE ARE SEEING IT AS A PATTERN OF PRESIDENTIAL ABUSE OF POWER.

THE PRESIDENT CALLED THE UKRAINE JAB INVESTIGATION, UKRAINIAN INVESTIGATION A HOAX AND THE MUELLER INVESTIGATION A WITCH HUNT, HE HAS THREATENED THE UKRAINE WHISTLEBLOWER FOR NOT TESTIFYING, LIKE HE THREATENED TO FIRE HIS ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR NOT OBSTRUCTING THE RUSSIA INVESTIGATION.

THE PRESIDENT FIRED AMBASSADOR YOVANOVITCH MUCH IN THE SAME WAY HE FIRED HIS WHITE HOUSE COUNSEL AND PUBLICLY ATTACKED HIS INTEGRITY.

AND FINALLY THE PRESIDENT ATTACKED THE CIVIL SERVANTS WHO TESTIFIED ABOUT UKRAINE JUST LIKE HE ATTACKED CAREER OFFICIALS OF THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE FOR INVESTIGATING HIS OBSTRUCTION OF THE RUSSIA INVESTIGATION.

UNDER ANY OTHER CIRCUMSTANCES SUCH BEHAVIOR BY ANY AMERICAN PRESIDENT WOULD BE SHOCKING, BUT HERE IT IS A REPEAT OF WHAT WE E HAVE ALREADY SEEN IN THE SPECIAL COUNSEL'S INVESTIGATION.

I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A MOMENT TO DISCUSS THE PRESIDENT'S EFFORTS TO OBSTRUCT THE SPECIAL COUNSEL'S INVESTIGATION A SUBJECT THIS COMMITTEE HAS BEEN INVESTIGATING SINCE MARCH.

HERE ARE TWO SLIDES, THE FIRST ONE WILL SHOW AS HE DID WITH -- AS THE PRESIDENTS HE DID WITH UKRAINE, TRIED TO COVE HIS, COERCE HIS -- BY FOREIGN SPECIAL COUNSEL MUELLER.

THE SECOND SLIDE THIS SHOWS WHEN THE NEWS BROKE OUT OF THE PRESIDENT'S ORDER, THE PRESIDENT DIRECTED HIS ADVISORS TO FALSELY DENY HE HAD MADE THE ORDER PROFESSOR GERHARDT ARE YOU FAMILIAR WITH THE FACTS RELATING TO THESE THREE EPISODES AS DESCRIBED IN THE MUELLER REPORT, YES OR NO, PLEASE?

>> YES, MA'AM.

>> SO ACCEPTING THE SPECIAL COUNSEL'S EVIDENCE AS TRUE, IS THIS PATTERN OF CONDUCT OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE?

>> IT IS CLEARLY OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE.

>> AND WHY WOULD YOU SAY SO, SIR SIR?

>> THE OBVIOUS OBJECT OF THIS ACTIVITY IS TO SHUT DOWN AN INVESTIGATION, IN FACT, THE ACTS OF THE PRESIDENT, ACCORDING TO THESE FACTS, EACH TIME IS TO USE THE POWER THAT HE HAS UNIQUE TO HIS OFFICE, BUT IN A WAY THAT IS GOING TO HELP HIM FRUSTRATE THE INVESTIGATION.

>> SO DOES THIS CONDUCT FIT WITHIN THE FRAMERRERS' VIEW OF IMPEACHABLE OFFENSES?

>> I BELIEVE IT DOES.

I DON'T -- I MEAN THE ENTIRE CONSTITUTION, INCLUDING SEPARATION OF POWERS, IS DESIGNED TO PUT LIMITS ON HOW SOMEBODY MAY GO ABOUT FRUSTRATING THE ACTIVITY OF ANOTHER BRANCH.

>> SO YOU WOULD SAY THAT THIS ALSO WOULD BE AN IMPEACHABLE OFFENSE?

>> YES, MA'AM.

>> THANK YOU.

BECAUSE I AGREE WITH YOU.

THE PRESIDENT'S ACTIONS AND BEHAVIOR DO MATTER.

THE PRESIDENT'S OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE DEFINITELY MATTERS, AS A FORMER JUNE AND AS A MEMBER OF CONGRESS, I RAISE MY RIGHT HAND AND PUT MY LEFT HAND ON A BIBLE MORE THAN ONCE AND I HAVE SWORN TO UPHOLD THE CONSTITUTION AND LAWS OF THIS COUNTRY.

THIS HEARING IS ABOUT THAT, BUT IT IS ALSO ABOUT DECOR OF THE, THE CORE OF OUR AMERICAN VALUES, THE VALUES OF DUTY, HONOR, AND LOYALTY.

IT IS ABOUT THE RULE OF LAW.

WHEN THE PRESIDENT ASKS UKRAINE FOR A FAVOR, HE DID SO FOR HIS PERSONAL POLITICAL GAIN AND NOT ON BEHALF OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE, AND IF THIS IS TRUE, HE WOULD HAVE BETRAYED HIS OATH AND BETRAYED HIS LOYALTY TO THIS COUNTRY.

AND A FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLE OF OUR DEMOCRACY IS THAT MOBILE IS ABOVE THE LAW, AND NOT ANY ONE OF YOU PROFESSORS NOT ANY ONE OF US MEMBER APPEAR, MEMBERS OF CONGRESS, NOT EVEN THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, THAT IS HIGH WE SHOULD HOLD HIM ACCOUNTABLE FOR HIS ACTIONS AND THAT IS WHY I AGAIN THANK YOU FOR TESTIFYING TODAY IN HELPING US WALK THROUGH ALL OF THIS TO PREPARE FOR WHAT MAY COME.

THANK YOU, SIR.

>> I YIELD BACK.

>> GENTLELADY YIELDS BACK.

MR. NAGUS.

THANK YOU, MR.

CHAIR, AND THANK YOU TO EACH OF THE FOUR WITNESSES FOR YOUR TESTIMONY TODAY.

I WOULD LIKE TO START BY TALKING ABOUT INTIMIDATION OF WITNESSES.

AS MY COLLEAGUE CONGRESSWOMAN GARCIA NOTED, PRESIDENT TRUMP HAS TRIED TO INTERFERE IN BOTH THE UKRAINE INVESTIGATION AND SPECIAL COUNSEL MUELLER'S INVESTIGATION IN ORDER TO TRY TO COVER UP HIS OWN MISCONDUCT.

AND IN BOTH THE UKRAINE INVESTIGATION AND SPECIAL COUNSEL MUELLER'S INVESTIGATION THE PRESIDENT ACTIVELY DISCOURAGED WITNESSES FROM COOPERATING, INTIMIDATED WITNESS WHOSE CAME FORWARD AND PRAISED THOSE WHO REFUSED TO COOPERATE.

FOR AN EXAMPLE IN THE UKRAINE INVESTIGATION THE PRESIDENT HARASSED AND INTIMIDATED THE BRAVE PUBLIC SERVANTS WHO CAME FORWARD.

HE PUBLICLY CALLED THE WHISTLEBLOWER A QUOTE DISGRACE TO OUR COUNTRY.

AND SAID THAT HIS IDENTITY SHOULD BE REVEALED.

HE SUGGESTED THAT THOSE INVOLVED IN THE WHISTLEBLOWER COMPLAINT SHOULD BE DEALT WITH IN THE WAY THAT WE QUOTE USED TO DO END QUOTE FOR SPIES AND TREASON.

HE CALLED AMBASSADOR TAYLOR A FORMER MILITARY OFFICER WITH MORE THAN 40 YEARS OF PUBLIC SERVICE A QUOTE NEVER TRUMPER END, NEVER TRUMPER ON THE SAME DAY HE CALLED NEVER TRUMPERS QUOTE SCUM.

THE PRESIDENT ALSO TWEETED ACCUSATIONS ABOUT MANY OF THE OTHER PUBLIC SERVANTS WHO TESTIFIED, INCLUDING JENNIFER WILLIAMS AND AMBASSADOR YOVANOVITCH, AND AS WE KNOW, THE PRESIDENT'S LATTER TWEET HAPPENED LITERALLY DURING THE AMBASSADOR'S TESTIMONY IN THIS ROOM, IN FRONT OF THE INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE WHICH SHE MADE CLEAR WAS INTIMIDATING.

CONVERSECONVERSELY WE KNOW THATE PRESIDENT HAS PRAISED WITNESSES WHO HAVE REFUSED TO COOPERATE.

FOR EXAMPLE, DURING THE SPECIAL COUNSEL'S INVESTIGATION THE PRESIDENT PRAISED PAUL MANAFORT, HIS FORMER CAMPAIGN MANAGER, FOR NOT COOPERATING.

YOU CAN SEE THE TWEET UP ON THE SCREEN TO MY SIDE.

AS ANOTHER TELLING EXAMPLE THE PRESIDENT INITIALLY PRAISED AMBASSADOR SONDLAND FOR NOT COOPERATING, CALLING HIM QUOTE A REALLY GOOD MAN AND A GREAT AMERICAN BUT AFTER AMBASSADOR SONDLAND TESTIFIED AND CONFIRMED THAT THERE WAS INDEED A QUID PRO QUO BETWEEN THE WHITE HOUSE VISIT AND THE REQUEST FOR INVESTIGATIONS ..

THE PRESIDENT CLAIMED THAT HE QUOTE HARDLY KNEW THE AMBASSADOR.

PROFESSOR GERHARDT, YOU HAVE TOUCHED ON IT PREVIOUSLY BUT I WOULD LIKE YOU TO JUST EXPLAIN, IS THE PRESIDENT'S INTERFERENCE IN THESE INVESTIGATIONS BY INTIMIDATING WITNESSES ALSO THE KIND OF CONDUCT THAT THE FRAMERS WERE WORRIED ABOUT?

AND IF SO, WHY?

>> IT IS CLEARLY CONDUCT THAT I THINK THAT WORRIED THE FRAMERS AS REFLECTED IN THE CONSTITUTION THEY HAVE GIVEN US AND THE STRUCTURE OF THAT CONSTITUTION.

THE ACTIVITIES YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT HERE ARE CONSISTENT WITH THE, BUT THE OTHER ACTIVITY WE HAVE SEEN THE PRESIDENT TRYING TO STOP INVESTIGATIONS BY EITHER MR. MUELLER OR BY CONGRESS AS WELL AS TO ASK WITNESSES TO MAKE FALSE DOCUMENTS ABOUT TESTIMONY AND ALL OF THOSE DIFFERENT KINDS OF ACTIVITIES ARE NOT THE KINDS OF ACTIVITIES THE FRAMERS EXPECTED THE PRESIDENT TO BE ABLE TO TAKE.

THEY EXPECTED THE PRESIDENT TO BE HELD ACCOUNTABLE FOR IT AND NOT JUST IN ELECTIONS.

>> PROFESSOR TURLEY, YOU HAVE STUDIED THE IMPEACHMENTS OF PRESIDENT JOHNSON, PRESIDENT NIXON, PRESIDENT CLINTON, AM I RIGHT THAT PRESIDENT NIXON ALLOWED SENIOR WHITE HOUSE OFFICIALS INCLUDING THE WHITE HOUSE COUNSEL AND THE WHITE HOUSE CHIEF OF STAFF TO TESTIFY IN HOUSE IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY?

>> YES.

>> AND YOU ARE AWARE THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP HAS REFUSED TO ALLOW HIS CHIEF OF STAFF OR WHITE HOUSE COUNSEL TO TESTIFY IN THIS INQUIRY, CORRECT?

HE.

>> YES.

BUT VARIOUS OFFICIALS DID TESTIFY AND THEY ARE REMAINING IN FEDERAL EMPLOYMENT.

>> AND THAT DOES NOT INCLUDE THE WHITE HOUSE COUNSEL NOR THE WHITE COUNSEL CHIEF OF STAFF.

>> THAT'S RIGHT.

>> AND PRESIDENT CLINTON PROVIDED RESPONSES TO THE IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY.

>> I BELIEVE THAT IS CREDIBILITY.

>> SOUNDS ABOUT RIGHT AND YOU ARE AWARE PRESIDENT TRUMP REFUSED ANY REQUEST FOR INFORMATION SUBMIT BID THE INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE IN IN IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY?

>> I HAVE, YES.

>> ARE YOU FAMILIAR WITH THE LETTER ISSUED BY WHITE HOUSE COUNSEL SIX LOAN WRITTEN ON BEHALF OF PRESIDENT TRUMP AND IN EFFECT INSTRUCTING EXECUTIVE BRANCH OFFICIALS NOT TO TESTIFY IN THIS IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY.

>> -- A.

>> AM I CORRECT NO PRESIDENT IN THE HISTORY OF THE HISTORY OF THE REPUBLIC BEFORE PRESIDENT TRUMP INSTRUCTED THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH OFFICIALS NOT TO TESTIFY IN AN IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY?

>> THAT'S WHERE I AM NOT SURE I CAN ANSWER THAT AFFIRMATIVELY.

PRESIDENT MIXON IN FACT WENT TO COURT OVER ACCESS TO INFORMATION, DOCUMENTS AND THE LIKE AND HE LOST.

>> WELL, PROFESSOR TURLEY, I WOULD JUST AGAIN REFER YOU BACK TO THE HISTORY THAT HAS BEEN RECOUNTED BY EACH OF THE DISTINGUISHED SCHOLARS HERE TODAY BECAUSE WE KNOW AS WE HAVE THESE EXAMPLES THAT PRESIDENT NIXON DID IN FACT ALLOW HIS CHIEF OF STAFF AND HIS CHIEF COUNSEL TO TESTIFY AND THIS PRESIDENT HAS NOT.

WE KNOW THAT PRESIDENT CLINTON RESPONDED TO INTERROGATORIES PROPOUNDED BY THAT IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY AND THIS PRESIDENT HAS NOT.

AT THE END OF THE DAY, THIS CONGRESS AND THIS COMMITTEE HAS AN OBLIGATION TO ENSURE THAT LAW IS ENFORCED AND WITH THAT I WILL YIELD BACK THE BALANCE OF MY TIME.

>> THE GENTLEMAN YIELDS BACK.

MS. MACBETH.

>> THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN.

AND PROFESSORS I WANT TO THANK YOU SO VERY MUCH FOR SPENDING THIS ARDUOUS HOURS WITH US TODAY.

THANK YOU SO MUCH OR BEING HERE.

FOLLOWING UP ON MY COLLEAGUE, MR. NAGUS'S QUESTIONS I WOULD LIKE TO BRIEFLY GO THROUGH ONE PARTICULAR EXAMPLE OF PRESIDENT -- THE PRESIDENT'S WITNESS INTIMIDATION, THAT I FIND TRULY DISTURBING AND VERY DEVASTATING BECAUSE I THINK IT IS IMPORTANT THAT WE ALL TRULY SEE WHAT IS GOING ON HERE.

AS THE SLIDE SHOWS ON HIS JULY 25TH CALL, PRESIDENT TRUMP SAID THAT FORMER AMBASSADOR YOVANOVITCH WOULD AND I QUOTE, GO THROUGH SOME THINGS.

AMBASSADOR YOVANOVITCH TESTIFIED ABOUT HOW LEARNING ABOUT THE PRESIDENT'S STATEMENTS MADE HER FEEL.

WHAT DID YOU THINK WHEN PRESIDENT TRUMP TOLD PRESIDENT ZELENSKY AND YOU READ THAT YOU WERE GOING TO GO THROUGH SOME THINGS?

>> I DIDN'T KNOW WHAT TO THINK.

BUT I WAS VERY CONCERNED.

>> WHAT WERE YOU CONCERNED ABOUT ABOUT?

>> SHE IS GOING TO GO THROUGH SOME THINGS IT DIDN'T SOUND GOOD.

IT SOUNDED LIKE A THREAT.

>> DID YOU FEEL THREATENED?

>> I DID.

>> >> AND AS WE ALL WITNESSED IN REAL-TIME IN THE MIDDLE OF AMBASSADOR YOVANOVITCH'S LIVE TESTIMONY THE PRESIDENT TWEETED ABOUT THE BALANCE DOOR, AMBASSADORDISCREDITING HER SERVICE IN SOMALIA AND THE UKRAINE.

AMBASSADOR YOVANOVITCH TESTIFIED THAT PRESIDENT'S TWEET WAS, AND I QUOTE, VERY INTIMIDATING.

PROFESSOR GERHARDT, THESE ATTACKS ON A CAREER PUBLIC SERVANT ARE DEEPLY UPSETTING, BUT HOW DO THEY FIT INTO OUR UNDERSTANDING OF WHETHER THE PRESIDENT HAS COMMITTED HIGH CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS?

AND HOW DO THEY FIT INTO OUR BROADER PATTERN OF BEHAVIOR BY THIS PRESIDENT TO COVER UP AND OBSTRUCT HIS MISCONDUCT?

>> ONE WAY IN WHICH IT CONTRIBUTES TO THE OBSTRUCTION OF CONGRESS IS THAT IT DOESN'T JUST DEGAME AMBASSADOR YOVANOVITCH.

BY EVERY OTHER ACCOUNT SHE HAS BEEN AN EXEMPLARY PUBLIC SERVANT SO WHAT HE IS SUGGESTING THERE MAY NOT BE CONSISTENT WITH WHAT WE KNOW AS FACTS.

BUT ONE OF THE THINGS THAT ALSO HAPPENS WHEN HE SENDS OUT SOMETHING LIKE THIS, IT INTIMIDATES EVERYBODY ELSE WHO IS THINKING ABOUT TESTIFYING, ANY OTHER PUBLIC SERVANTS WHO THINK THEY SHOULD COME FORWARD.

THEY ARE GOING TO WORRY THAT THEY ARE GOING TO GET PUNISHED IN SOME WAY, THEY ARE GOING TO FACE THINGS THAT SHE HAS FACED.

THAT IS THE WOMAN PRESIDENT TRUMP HAS THREATENED BEFORE YOU.

AND I CAN ASSURE YOU I PERSONALLY KNOW WHAT IT IS LIKE TO BE UNFAIRLY ATTACKED.

PUBLICLY FOR YOUR SENSE OF DUTY TO AMERICA.

AMBASSADOR YOVANOVITCH DESERVES BETTER.

NO MATTER YOUR PARTY, WHETHER YOU ARE A DEMOCRAT OR REPUBLICAN, I DON'T THINK ANY OF US THINKS THAT THIS IS OKAY.

IT IS PLAINLY WRONG FOR THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES TO ATTACK A CAREER PUBLIC SERVANT JUST FOR TELLING THE TRUTH AS SHE KNOWS IT.

AND I YIELD BACK THE BALANCE OF MY TIME.

>> GENTLELADY YIELDS BACK.

MR. STANTON.

>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH, MR. CHAIRMAN AND THANK YOU TO OUR OUTSTANDING WITNESSES HERE TODAY.

PRESIDENT TRUMP HAS -- WITH CONGRESSIONAL SUBPOENAS.

THIS BLANKET CATEGORICAL DISREGARD OF THE LEGISLATIVE BRANCH BEGAN WITH THE PRESIDENT'S REFUSAL TO COOPERATE WITH REGULAR CONGRESSIONAL OVERSIGHT AND HAS NOW EXTENDED TO THE HOUSE'S CONSTITUTIONAL DUTY ON IMPEACHMENT, THE REASON WHY WE ARE HERE TODAY.

THIS DISREGARD HAS BEEN ON DISPLAY FOR THE AMERICAN PEOPLE.

WHEN ASKED IF HE WOULD COMPLY WITH THE DON MCGAHN SUBPOENA PRESIDENT TRUMP SAID, QUOTE, WELL, WE ARE FIGHTING ALL THE SUBPOENAS UNQUOTE.

NOW WE HAVE DISCUSSED HERE TODAY THE OBSTRUCTION OF CONGRESS, ARTICLE OF IMPEACHMENT AGAINST PRESIDENT NIXON.

I THINK I WOULD LIKE TO GO A LITTLE BIT DEEPER INTO THAT DISCUSSION AND JUXTAPOSE IT WITH WITH PRESIDENT TRUMP'S ACTIONS.

PROFESSOR GERHARDT, CAN YOU ELABORATE ON HOW PROFESSOR NIXON OBSTRUCTED CONGRESS AND HOW IT COMPARES TO PRESIDENT TRUMP'S ACTIONS?

>> AS WE WERE DISCUSSING EARLIER, AND I AM INCLUDING MY WRITTEN STATEMENT, PRESIDENT NIXON ULTIMATELY REFUSED TO COMPLY WITH FOUR LEGISLATIVE SUBPOENAS.

THESE WERE SEARCH ZG IN ON THE MOST INCRIMINATING EVIDENCE HE HAD IN HIS POSSESSION SO HE REFUSED TO COMPLY WITH THOSE SUBPOENAS AND BECAME THE BASIS FOR THE THIRD ARTICLE AND HE RESIGNED A FEW DAYS LATER.

PROFESSOR FELDMAN, WHAT ARE THE CONSEQUENCES OF THIS UNPRECEDENTED OBSTRUCTION OF CONGRESS TO OUR DEMOCRACY?

>> FOR THE PRESIDENT TO REFUSE TO PARTICIPATE IN ANYWAY IN THE HOUSE'S CONSTITUTIONAL OBLIGATION OF SUPERVISING HIM, TO IMPEACH HIM BREAKS THE CONSTITUTION, IT BASICALLY SAYS, NOBODY CAN OVERSEE ME, NOBODY CAN IMPEACH ME.

FIRST I WILL BLOCK WITNESSES FROM APPEARING, THEN I WILL REFUSE TO PARTICIPATE IN ANYWAY AND THEN I WILL SAY YOU DON'T HAVE ENOUGH EVIDENCE TO IMPEACH ME.

AND ULTIMATELY THE EFFECT OF THAT IS TO GUARANTEE THAT THE PRESIDENT IS ABOVE THE LAW AND CAN'T BE CHECKED AND SINCE WE KNOW THE TRAILERS PUT IMPEACHMENT IN THE CONSTITUTION TO CHECK THE PRESIDENT, IF THE PRESIDENT CAN'T BE CHECKED, HE IS NO LONGER SUBJECT TO THE LAW.

>> PROFESSOR GERHARDT WOULD YOU AGREE THAT THE PRESIDENT'S REFUSAL TO COMPLY WITH CONGRESSIONAL SUBPOENAS INVOKES THE FRAMERS' WORST FEARS AND ENDANGERS OUR DEMOCRACY?

>> DOES.

AND ONE WAY TO UNDERSTAND THAT IS TO PUT ALL OF HIS ARGUMENTS TOGETHER AND THEN SEE WHAT THE RAMIFICATIONS ARE.

HE SAYS HE IS ENTITLED NOT TO COMPLY WITH ALL SUBPOENAS.

HE SAYS SHE NOT SUBJECT TO ANY KIND OF CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION WHY HE IS PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES.

HE IS IMMUNE TO THAT AND ENTITLED TO KEEP ALL INFORMATION CONFIDENTIAL FROM CONGRESS.

DOESN'T EVEN HAVE TO GIVE A REASON.

WHEN YOU PUT ALL OF THOSE THINGS TOGETHER ..

HE BLOCKED OFF EVERY WAY TO HOLD HIMSELF ACCOUNTABLE EXCEPT FOR ELECTIONS AND THE CRITICAL THING TO UNDERSTAND HERE IS THAT IS PRECISELY WHAT HE WAS TRYING TO UNDERMINE IN THE UKRAINE SITUATION.

>> MR. KARLAN, DO YOU HAVE ANYTHING TO ADD TO THAT ANALYSIS ANALYSIS?

>> I THINK THAT IS CORRECT, AND IF I CAN JUST SAY ONE THING.

>> PLEASE.

>> I WANT TO APOLOGIZE FOR WHAT I SAID EARLIER ABOUT THE PRESIDENT'S SON, IT WAS WRONG OF ME TO DO THAT.

I WISH THE PRESIDENT WOULD APOLOGIZE OBVIOUSLY FOR THE THINGS HE THAT HE HAS DONE IS WRONG BUT I DO REGRET HAVING SAID THAT.

>> THANK YOU, PROFESSOR.

>> ONE OF THE MOST IMPORTANT QUESTIONS THAT EVERY MEMBER OF THIS COMMITTEE MUST DECIDE IS WHETHER WE ARE A NATION OF LAWS AND NOT MEN.

IT USED TO BE AN EASY ANSWER.

ONE, WE COULD ALL AGREE ON.

WHEN PRESIDENT NIXON DEFIES THE LAW AND OBSTRUCTED JUSTICE HE WAS HELD TO ACCOUNT BY PEOPLE ON BOTH SIDES WHO KNEW THAT FOR A REPUBLIC TO ENDURE WE MUST HAVE FIDEL THE TOY OUR COUNTRY, RATHER THAN ONE PARTY OR ONE MAN AND THE OBSTRUCTION WE ARE LOOKING AT TODAY IS FAR WORSE THAN PRESIDENT NIXON'S BEHAVIOR.

FUTURE GENERATIONS WILL MEASURE US EVERY SINGLE MEMBER OF THIS COMMITTEE BY HOW WE CHOOSE TO ANSWER THAT QUESTION.

I HOPE WE GET IT RIGHT.

I YIELD BACK.

>> THE GENTLEMAN YIELDS BACK.

MR. STOOB BY.

>> THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN, I ONLY HAVE BEEN IN CONGRESS SINCE JANUARY OF THIS YEAR AND ON THE VERY FIRST DAY OF MY SWEARING IN A EM IN MY CLASS CALLED FOR IMPEACHMENT OF THE REAL ESTATE ON DAY ONE.

USING MUCH MORE COLORFUL LANGUAGE THAN I WOULD EVER USE.

SINCE THEN THIS COMMITTEE FOCUSED ON THE MUELLER REPORT IN THE RUSSIA COLLUSION THEORY AND LISTENED TO MR. MUELLER UNIF, HE GIVECALLY STATE THERE WAS NO, PRESIDENT TRUMP DIDN'T COLLUDE AND CHANGED THEIR TALKING POINTS AND MOVED TO THE OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE THEORY, THE PRESIDENT OBSTRUCTED JUSTICE AND THAT FIZZLED AND AFTER COORDINATING WITH CHAIRMAN STIFF'S STAFF THE WHISTLEBLOWER FILED A REPORT BASED COMPLETELY ON HEARSAY AND HEARD THEM TALK ABOUT A PHONE CALL BETWEEN TWO WORLD LEADERS WHICH LED TO THE INTEL COMMITTEE SO-CALLED IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY THAT VIOLATED ALL PAST HISTORICAL PRECEDENT, DENIED PRESIDENT BASIC DUE PROCESS RIGHTS AND FUNDAMENTAL FAIRNESS BY CONDUCTING THIS SO-CALLED INQUIRY IN SECRET WITHOUT THE MINORITY'S ABILITY TO CALL WITNESSES AND DENIED THE PRESIDENT THE ABILITY TO HAVE HIS LAWYERS CROSS-EXAMINE WITNESSES, A RIGHT AFFORDED TO PRESIDENT CLINTON AND EVERY DEFENDANT IN OUR JUSTICE SYSTEM, INCLUDING RAPISTS AND MURDERERS.

THE REPUBLICANS ON THIS COMMITTEE HAVE REPEATEDLY REQUESTED ALL EVIDENCE COLLECTED BY THE INTEL COMMITTEE AS WE SIT HERE TODAY, WE STILL DON'T HAVE THE UNDERLYING EVIDENCE THAT WE HAVE BEEN REQUESTING.

AGAIN A RIGHT AFFORDED EVERY CRIMINAL DEFENDANT IN THE UNITED STATES.

SO INSTEAD, WE SIT HERE GETTING LECTURES FROM LAW PROFESSORS ABOUT THEIR OPINIONS, THEIR OPINIONS, NOT FACTS, I GUESS THE DEMOCRATS NEEDED A CONSTITUTIONAL LAW REFRESHER COURSE.

THE REPUBLICANS DON'T.

MR. CHAIRMAN YOU HAVE ACKNOWLEDGED AND I QUOTE, THE HOUSE QUOTE POWER OF IMPEACHMENT DEMANDS A RIGOROUS LEVEL OF DUE PROCESS.

DUE PROCESS MEANS THE RIGHT TO CONFRONT WITNESSES AGAINST YOU.

TO CALL YOUR OWN WITNESSES AND TO HAVE THE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL.

THOSE ARE YOUR WORDS, MR. CHAIRMAN, NOT MINE.

WHAT ARE YOU AFRAID OF?

LET THE MINORITY CALL WITNESSES.

LET THE PRESIDENT CALL WITNESSES.

CLINTON ALONE CALLED 14 WITNESSES TO TESTIFY.

LET THE PRESIDENT'S COUNSEL CROSS-EXAMINE THE WHISTLEBLOWER LET THE PRESIDENT'S COUNSEL CROSS-EXAMINE THE INTEL STAFF, INCLUDING THE WHISTLEBLOWER, IN YOUR OWN WORDS THOSE ARE THE RIGHT THAT SHOULD BE AFFORDED TO THE PRESIDENT.

RIGHTS EVERY CRIMINAL DEFENDANT IS AFFORDED, EVEN TERRORISTS IN IRAQ WERE AFFORDED MORE DUE PROCESS THAN YOU AND THE DEMOCRATIC MAJORITY HAVE AFFORDED THE PRESIDENT.

I KNOW BECAUSE I SERVED IN IRAQ AND I PROSECUTED TERRORISTS IN IRAQ AND WE PROVIDED TERRORISTS IN IRAQ MORE RIGHTS AND DUE PROCESS IN THE CENTRAL CRIMINAL COURT OF IRAQ THAN YOU AND CHAIRMAN SHIVER HAVE AFFORDED THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES.

NO COLLUSION, NO OBSTRUCTION, NO QUID PRO QUO, NO EVIDENCE OF BRIBERY, EXCEPT OPINION, NO EVIDENCE OF TREASON, NO EVIDENCE OF HIGH CRIME OR MISDEMEANORS, WE HAVE A BUNCH OF OPINIONS FROM PARTISAN DEMOCRATS WHO HAVE STATED FROM DAY ONE THAT THEY WANT TO IMPEACH THE REAL ESTATE.

AND NOT ONLY THIS THEORY BUT ON MULTIPLE OTHER THEORIES.

THE AMERICAN PEOPLE ARE SMARTER THAN YOUR ABC'S OF IMPEACHMENT YOU HAVE HAD ON THE SCREEN.

THAT WERE LAID OUT TODAY AND IT IS EXTREMELY DEMONSTRATIVE OF YOUR LACK OF EVIDENCE GIVING, YOU CALLED LAW PROFESSORS TO GIVE THEIR OPINIONS AND NOT FACT WITNESSES TO GIVE THEIR TESTIMONY TODAY TO BE CROSS-EXAMINED AND THE RIGHTS AFFORDED TO THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES.

MR. CHAIRMAN, WHEN CAN WE ANTICIPATE THAT YOU WILL CHOOSE A DATE FOR THE MINORITY DAY OF HEARINGS?

MR. CHAIRMAN I AM ASKING YOU A QUESTION.

>> WHEN CAN WE ANTICIPATE THAT YOU WILL CHOOSE A DATE FOR THE MINORITY DAY OF HEARINGS A?

>> THE GENTLEMAN IS RECOGNIZED FOR THE PURPOSE OF QUESTIONING THE WITNESSES NOT FOR COLLOQUY WITH COLLEAGUES.

WELL THEN I WILL DO HEREINAFTER MY TIME.

I YIELD THE REMAINDER OF MY TIME TO MR. RATCLIFFE.

>> I THANK MY COLLEAGUE FROM FLORIDA FOR YIELDING.

PROFESSOR TURLEY, SINCE WE LAST TALKED, BASED ON TEN QUESTIONING FROM MY COLLEAGUES ACROSS THE AISLE IT DOES IN FACT APPEAR THAT THE DEMOCRATS DO INTEND TO PURSUE ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT OR OBSTRUCTION OF JUST BASED ON THE MUELLER REPORT.

I ASKED YOU A QUESTION ABOUT THAT AND YOU DIDN'T REALLY GIVE A CHANCE TO GIVE A COMPLETE ANSWER AND IN YOUR STATEMENT TODAY YOU MAYBE THIS STATEMENT.

I BELIEVE AN OBSTRUCTION CLAIM BASED ON THE MUELLER REPORT WOULD BE AT ODDS WITH THE RECORD AND THE CONTROLLING LAW.

USE OF AN OBSTRUCTION THEORY FROM THE MUELLER REPORT WOULD BE 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 IT IS TRUE.

THE FACT IS THAT THIS WAS REVIEWED BY JUSTICE, THE SPECIAL COUNSEL DID NOT REACH A CONCLUSION OF OBSTRUCTION AND SHOULD HAVE THE -- THE ABSURD IN NOT REACHING AN CONCLUSION, BUT THE.

>> ATTORNEY:, ATTORNEY, ATTORNEY GENERAL DID AND THIS IS THE RIGHT CONCLUSION.

THIS IS NOT A RIPE CAPE FOR OBSTRUCTION BUT THIS BODY WOULD IMFEATURE PRESIDENT BASED ON THE INVERSE CONCLUSION.

I DON'T BELIEVE IT WOULD BE APPROPRIATE.

>> THE GENTLEMAN'S TIME IS EXPIRED.

MS. DEAN.

>> I, MR.

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 DEPENDENT 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.

WE HEARD A LOT OF WORDS TODAY, FOREIGN INTERFERENCE, BRIBERY, OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE, A PROFESSORS I WOULD 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, I WOULD 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, TRUMP'S 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, WOULD THEY HAVE CONSIDERED IT A HIGH CRIME OR MISDEMEANOR?

>> AND THE DOES THE PRESIDENT'S CONDUCT RISE TO THAT LEVEL?

>> THE FRAMERS OF OUR CONSTITUTION WOULD HAVE CONSIDERED IT ABHORRENT AND 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 I WOULD 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 ARE UKRAINE ANNOUNCE INVESTIGATIONS INTO HIS CHIEF POLITICAL 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 POSSESS 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 REAL ESTATE WAS IN FACT SEEKING PERSONAL THE PRESIDENT WAS IN FACT SEEKING PERSONAL GAME IN THE THINGS HE ASKED FOR THEN THAT WOULD CONSTITUTE BRIBERY UNDER THE CONSTITUTION.

>> THANK YOU.

PROFESSOR GERHARDT I WOULD LIKE TO ASK YOU QUNL ABOUT ..

ASK YOU ABOUT THE OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE.

THE PRESIDENT CATEGORICALLY REFUSED TO 0 PRODUCE ANY DOCUMENTS PURSUANT TO SUBPOENAS, ATTACKED ACTUALLY WITNESSES INCLUDING CAREER CIVIL AND MILITARY 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, MA'AM, 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 CLINTON'S MISCONDUCT AS AN ATTACK ON THE JUDICIAL SYSTEM.

AND THAT'S 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.

YOU HAVE 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.

IT IS THROUGH THAT LENS WHICH I SEE ALL OF THE SERIOUS AND SOMBER THINGS WE ARE SPEAKING ABOUT TODAY, FOREIGN 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.

THAT 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. POWELL.

>> THANK YOU, AND THANK YOU PROFESSORS FOR YOUR TIME TODAY IT HAS BEEN A LONG DAY.

I WANT TO TELL YOU, I DID NOT HAVE THE PRIVILEGE OF BEING BORN 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 FORTUNE 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 ONE-TIME PROBLEM.

THERE IS A PATTERN OF BEHAVIOR BY THE REAL ESTATE 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, QUOTE, THE PURPOSE OF IMPEACHMENT IS NOT PERSONAL PUNISHMENT.

ITITS 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 AND HE LEN SKI, AND HE RESPONDED WITH THIS.

>> FROM PRESIDENT ZELENSKY.

>> I WOULD THINK IF THEY WERE HONEST ABOUT IT THEY WOULD START A MAJOR INVESTIGATION INTO THE BIDENS IT IS A VERY SIMPLE ANSWER ..

THEY SHOULD INVESTIGATE THE BIDENS BECAUSE HOW DOES A COMPANY THAT IS NEWLY FORMED AND ALL OF THESE COMPANIES, AND BY THE WAY, LIKEWISE, CHINA SHOULD START AN INVESTIGATION INTO THE BIDENS, BECAUSE WHAT HAPPENED TO CHINA IS JUST ABOUT AS BAD AS WHAT HAPPENED WITH UKRAINE.

>> SO WE HAVE 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, I AM HERE FOR THE CONSTITUTION.

WE ARE 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 THAT CONSTITUTES AN ABUSE OF OFFICE AND COUNTS AS A HIGH CRIME AND MISDEMEANOR AND THAT'S 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 DAVY WE 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 -- THE EVENTS WITH THE UKRAINIAN PRESIDENT.

>> CLEARLY DESCRIBED AS A QUID PRO QUO.

IT IS FUNDING WILL NOT FLOW UNLESS THE INVESTIGATION INTO THE DEMOCRAT SERVER HAPPENED AS WELL.

>> WE DO -- WE DO THAT ALL THE TIME WITH FOREIGN POLICY.

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.

THERE IS GOING TO BE A POLITICAL INFLUENCE IN FOREIGN POLICY.

>> PROFESSOR KARLAN, I THINK THAT MR. MULVANEY IS CONFLATING OR CONFUSING TWO DIFFERENT NOTIONS OF POLITICS.

YES, THERE IS POLITICAL INFLUENCE ON OUR FOREIGN AFFAIRS BECAUSE PRESIDENT TRUMP WON THE ELECTION IN 2016 WE HAVE EXITED CLIMATE ACCORDS, WE HAVE TAKEN A DIFFERENT POSITION ON NATO THAN WE WOULD HAVE TAKEN HAD HIS OPPONENT WON BUT THAT IS 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 DON'T 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 -- I AM SORRY.

MS. ESCOBAR.

I HAD HER CHECKED OFF -- >> MS. 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 COVER UP BUT IT APPEARS SOME HAVE CHOSEN TO IGNORE THOSE FACTS.

WHAT WE HAVE SEEN TODAY FROM THOSE WHO CHOOSE TO TURN A BLIND EYE IS NOT A DEFENSE OF THE PRESIDENT'S ACTIONS úECAUSE FRANKLY THOSE OFFENSES ARE INDEFENSIBLE.

INSTEAD WE SEE THEM ATTACK THE PROCESS AND ATTEMPT TO IMPUGN YOUR INTEGRITY, FOR THAT I AM SORRY.

NOW TO MY QUESTIONS.

SOME HAVE OPINED INSTEAD OF CONSIDERING IMPEACHMENT WE SHOULD JUST LET THIS PASS AND 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 IT IS 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 OF 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 THAT'S EXACTLY WHY THEY THOUGHT THAT IT WASN'T GOOD ENOUGH TO WAIT FOR THE NEXT ELECTION BECAUSE THE PRESIDENT COULD CHEAT AND COULD MAKE THE NEXT ELECTION ILLEGITIMATE, THAT'S WHY THEY REQUIRED IMPEACHMENT AND IF THEY COULDN'T IMPEACH, IMPOO ETCH A CORRUPT PRESIDENT JAMES MADISON SAID THAT COULD BE FATAL TO THE REPUBLIC.

>> THE REASON THAT IT IS NECESSARY TO TAKE ACTION NOW ASK THAT WE HAVE A PRESIDENT WHO HAS IN FACT SOUGHT 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 TO PRESIDENT NIXON AND THE SECOND OF PRESIDENT TRUMP.

>> WHEN THE PRESIDENT DOES IT THAT MEAN IT IS NOT ILLEGAL.

>> THERE WE HAVE AN ARTICLE.

>> DO WHAT I WANT THIS PRESIDENT, TWO PRESIDENTS 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 THE 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 DON'T 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 LEGAL THERE WAS NO RETREAT INTO A PARTISAN CORNER OR AN EFFORT BY ANYONE TO EXPLAIN IT AWAY.

WE ALSO DIDN'T 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 ENDANG VS. DEMOCRACY AND IMPERIALS OUR CONSTITUTION.

TODAY'S HEARING HAS HELPED US TO BETTER UNDERSTAND HOW WE PRESERVE PUBLIC 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 FIVE MINUTE 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 ALLEGED NUMEROUS CRIMES COMMITTED BY THE REAL ESTATE AND AT TIMES IT SEEMS LIKE WE WERE EVEN TRYING TO MAKE UP CRIMES, WELL IF IT WASN'T THIS IT WAS THE INTENT TO DO IT.

IT WENT ALONG THAT IT IS INTERESTING TODAY AS I STARTED THIS DAY AND COME BACK TO IT NOW AS MUCH AS I RESPECT THESE WHO CAME BEFORE US TODAY THIS IS WAY TOO EARLY.

BECAUSE WE HAVE NOT AS A COMMITTEE DONE OUR JOB.

WE HAVE NOT AS A COMMITTEE COME TOGETHER LOOKED AT EVIDENCE, TAKEN FACT WITNESSES, PUT THEM IN FRONT OF US UNDER OATH TO SAY WHAT HAPPENED AND HOW DID IT HAPPEN AND WHY DID IT HAPPEN?

WE ARE TAKING THE WORK OF THE INTEL COMMIT FEE AND THE OTHER COMMITTEES, WE ARE TAKING IT AS SEEM MY 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.

NO TO MY DEMOCRATIC MAJORITY THEY MAY NOT CARE AS I SAID BEFORE THIS IS ABOUT A CLOCK AND A CALENDAR.

THE CLOCK AND A CALENDAR, THEY ARE SO OBSESSED WITH THE ELECTION NEXT YEAR THAT THEY JUST GLOSS OVER THINGS.

IN FACT, WHAT IS INTERESTING 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 YOU ARE WRITING ABOUT THIS, THAT SHOULD ALARM YOU.

SO THIS IMPEACHMENT NARRATIVE BEING SPUN BY THE MAJORITY IS A FAKE ONE.

IT IS MAJORITY THREE PERCENT, SPINNING THREE PERCENT OF THE FACTS WHILE IGNORING 90 PERCENT OF THE OTHER, IN FACT PROFESSOR TURLEY SAID PREEVMENT NEEDS PROOF NOT PRESUMPTION WE HAVE ONE OF THE FACT WITNESSES IN THE INTEL COMMITTEE, I PRESUME THAT WAS WHAT WAS GOING ON.

MR. SONDLAND.

YOU KNOW, WHAT IS HAPPENING HERE TODAY ALSO WE FOUND OUT TODAY THIS IS INTERESTING THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE AND FOUND OUT SOMETHING TODAY THAT FACTS DON'T MATTER IN FACT, FACTS DON'T MATTER ALSO THIS WE CAN FIT THOSE FACTS TO FIT THE NARRATIVE WE WANT TO SPIN BEFORE THIS COMMITTEE AND THE AMERICAN PEOPLE.

IF THEY DON'T MATTER, WE ALSO HEARD ONE OF THE WITNESSES STATE TODAY IT DOESN'T MATTER IF AID WAS RELEASED OR NOT.

OF COURSE IT MATTERS.

BUT UNFORTUNATELY THE ONLY ONE OF THE MANY FACTS IGNORED BY THE MAJORITY.

THEY ARE IGNORING A TON OF FACTS THAT MATTER, IT APPARENTLY DOESN'T MATTER TO THE DEMOCRATS THAT AMBASSADOR VOLKER MADE CLEAR IN HIS TESTIMONY THERE WAS NO CONDITIONALITY ON THE WHITE HOUSE MEETING OR THE AID.

THE DEMOCRATS AND THEIR WITNESSES HAVEN'T MENTIONED THAT BECAUSE IT IS UNHELPFUL TO THE NARRATIVE THEY ARE SPINNING.

IT APPARENTLY DOESN'T MATTER TO DEMOCRATS, TO THE DEMOCRATS AND THE MAJORITY HERE THAT THE PRESIDENT DID NOT CONDITION HIS AID ON AN INVESTIGATION IN FACT, MR. SONDLAND'S STATEMENT TO THE CONTRARY WAS PRESUMPTION, IT WAS RIGHT HERE IN THIS ROOM HE CALLED IT A GUESS, RIGHT WHERE YOU ARE SITTING.

HE CALLED IT A GUESS.

A PRESUMPTION, THAT'S WHAT HE THOUGHT.

GOD FORBID IF WE WALK INTO OUR COURTROOMS OR OUR PROCEEDINGS TO FIND SOMEBODY GUILTY OF SOMETHING WE ARE CALLING A CRIME AND WALK INTO COURT AND ALL OF A SUDDEN WELL I THOUGHT IT WAS, THE WITNESS SAID I PRESUMED IT WAS, GOD FORBID THIS IS WHERE WE ARE AT.

BUT YOU KNOW WE ALSO HEARD TODAY THAT YOU MAKE INFERENCE, THOUGH, IT IS OKAY IF YOU ARE JUST INFERRING.

I DON'T KNOW ABOUT THE PROFESSORS HERE FOR OF THOSE OFS ON COURT ON BOTH SIDES OF A AISLE, I SAID JUST INFER WHAT YOU THINK THEY MEANT AND THAT WILL BE ENOUGH.

IT IS NOT INFERENCE.

YOU KNOW, PROBABLY DOESN'T MATTER, THE PRESIDENT DIDN'T CONDITION A MEETING ON AN INVESTIGATION.

HE NET WITH ZELENSKY WITH NO PRECONDITIONS, ZELENSKY DIDN'T FIND OUT ABOUT THE HOLD OF AID UNTIL A MONTH AFTER THE CALL WHEN HE READ IT IN POLITICO, THE AID WAS RELEASED SHORTLY THEREAFTER AND UKRAINE DIDN'T DO ANYTHING TO GET THE AID RELEASED.

LETHAL AID WAS GIVEN AS WELL, IF YOU THINK THAT DIDN'T MATTER, THERE WAS FIVE MEETING BETWEEN THE AID WAS STOPPED AND RELEASED AND IN NONE OF THOSE MEETINGS BETWEEN BASS DORS AND OTHERS, INCLUDING THE VICE PRESIDENT AND SENATORS, NONE OF THAT WAS EVER CONNECTED TO A PROMISE OF ANYTHING ON THE AID, NOTHING WAS EVER CONNECTED, FIVE TIMES, AND TWO OF THOSE WERE AFTER PRESIDENT ZELENSKY LEARNED THAT AID WAS BEING HELD.

TELL ME THERE IS NOT A PROBLEM HERE WITH THE STORY.

THAT'S WHY FACT WITNESSES AREN'T HERE RIGHT NOW.

THE EVIDENCE AGAINST THE PRESIDENT IS REALLY ABOUT POLICY DIFFERENCES, IN FACT, THREE OF THE DEMOCRATIC STAR WITNESSES, HILL, TAYLOR AND KENT WERE, WEREN'T EVEN ON THE THE CALL THEY READ TRANSCRIPTS LIKE EVERYBODY ELSE.

ZELENSKY MET WITH VOLKER AND -- SON LAN MET SEVERAL MORE TIMES, NO REFERENCES BUT NONE OF THOSE -- NONE OF THESE INCONVENIENT FACTS OR SO MANY OTHER INCONVENIENT FACTS MATTER TO THE MAJORITY.

WE DON'T EVEN KNOW WHAT IF ADDITIONAL HEARINGS WE WILL HAVE TO ADDRESS OTHER FACTS.

THIS IS THE PART THAT BOTHERS ME GREATLY.

IT IS SOMETHING WE HAVE SEEN FROM JANUARY OF THIS REAR.

NO CONCERN ABOUT A PROCESS THAT WORKS BUT SIMPLY GETTING TO AN END WE WANT.

YOU KNOW, I AGREE WITH PROFESSOR FELDMAN, HE MAY FIND THAT STRANGE BUT I DO AGREE WITH YOU ON SOMETHING.

IT IS NOT HIS JOB TO ASSESS THE CREDIBILITY OF THE WITNESSES, IT IS THIS COMMITTEE'S JOB AND I AGREE.

BUT THIS COMMITTEE CAN'T DO OUR JOBS IF NONE OF THE WITNESSES TESTIFY BEFORE OUR COMMITTEE EVEN ONES WE HAVE TALKED ABOUT CALLING TODAY AND THE MAJORITY HAVE SAID WE DON'T WANT.

THROUGH THAT WE STILL DON'T HAVE AN ANSWER ON WHAT THE COMMITTEE WILL DO ONCE THIS END.

THE COMMITTEE RECEIVED CHAIRMAN SCHIFF'S REPORT YESTERDAY BUT WE STILL DON'T HAVE THE UNDERLYING EVIDENCE.

THE RULES EVEN SET UP BY THIS BODY ARE NOT BEING FOLLOWED TO O THIS DAY BUT YET NOBODY TALKS ABOUT IT ON THE MAJORITY SIDE.

THE WITNESSES PRODUCED BY CHAIRMAN SCHIFF AND THE AMERICAN PEOPLE TALK ABOUT THEIR A FEELINGS, THEIR GUESSES THEIR PRESUMPTIONS BUT EVEN THOUGH THE FACTS MAY NOT MATTER TO THE MAJORITY, 97 PERCENT OF THE OTHER FACTS DO MATTER TO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE.

SO MY PROBLEM IS THIS.

AS THE RANKING MEMBER OF THIS COMMITTEE, ONE OF THE OLDEST MOST SHOULD BE FACT BASED LEGAL BASED COMMITTEES WE HAVE HERE, WHERE IMPEACHMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN ALL ALONG, I HAVE A GROUP OF MEMBERS WHO HAVE NO IDEA WHERE WE ARE HEADED NEXT I BET YOU THOUGH IF I ASKED THE MAJORITY MEMBERS OUTSIDE OF THE CHAIRMAN THEY DON'T HAVE A CLUE EITHER.

VERY MUCH ONE.

SO IF THEY HAVE IT THEY SHOULD SHARE IT BECAUSE THERE IS NOT A TIME TO PLAY HIDE THE BALL.

THIS IS NOT A TIME TO SAY, WE ARE GOING FIGURE IT OUT ON THE FLY.

YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT OVERTURNING 63 MILLION VOTES OF A PRESIDENT DULY ELECTED WHO IS DOING HIS JOB EVERY DAY.

AND BY THE WAY WAS OVERSEAS TODAY WHILE WE ARE DOING THIS.

WORKING WITH OUR NATO ALLIES.

SO THE QUESTION I HAVE IS WHERE DO WE HEAD NEXT?

WE HEARD THIS AMBIGUOUS PRESENTATION BUT HERE IS MY CHALLENGE, I ALREADY HAVE BEEN VOTED DOWN IN TABLE TODAY.

MR. SCHIFF SHOULD TESTIFY.

CHAIRMAN SCHIFF NOT HIS STAFF MUST APPEAR BEFORE THIS COMMITTEE TO ANSWER QUESTIONS ABOUT THE CONTEXT OF HIS REPORT, THAT IS WHAT KEN STARR DID 20 YEARS AGO AN HISTORY DEMANDED IT.

I TOLD THE CHAIRMAN JUST A WHILE AGO AND A COUPLE OF WEEKS AGO WHEN DOING A MARKUP, MR. CHAIRMAN THE HISTORY LIGHTS ARE ON US, US, IT IS TIME WE TALK AND SHARE HOW WE ARE GOING FORWARD.

I AM STILL WAITING FOR THEIR ANSWERS.

SO MR. CHAIRMAN, AS WE LOOK AHEAD, AS THE DEMOCRATIC MAJORITY PROMISED THAT IN WAS GOING TO BE A FAIR PROCESS WHEN IT GOT TO JUDICIARY FOR THE PRESIDENT AND OTHERS, THE PRESIDENT AM YOU MAY SAY HE COULD HAVE COME TODAY, WHAT WOULD THIS HAVE DONE?

NOTHING.

THERE IS NO FACT WITNESSES HERE, NOTHING TO REBUT IN FACT IT HAS BEEN A GOOD TIME JUST TO SEE THAT REALLY NOTHING CAME OF IT AT THE END OF THE DAY.

SO WHY SHOULD HE BE HERE?

LET'S BRING FACT WITNESSES IN.

LET'S BRING PEOPLE IN BECAUSE AS YOU SAID, MR. CHAIRMAN, YOU SAID, YOUR WORDS, WE SHOULD NEVER ON THIS COMMITTEE ACCEPT AN ENTITY GIVING US A REPORT AND NOT INVESTIGATING IT OURSELVES, UNDOUBT THINK WE ARE WELL ON OUR WAY OF DOING THAT BECAUSE OF A CALENDAR AND A CLOCK.

SO MR. CHAIRMAN I KNOW YOU ARE ABOUT TO GIVE A STATEMENT AND THEY WORKED ON IT AND YOU WORKED ON IT VERY HARD I AM SURE BUT I WANT TO, BEFORE YOU BAFFLE THIS HEARING, BEFORE YOU START YOUR STATEMENT, BEFORE YOU GO ANY FURTHER, I WOULD LIKE TO KNOW TWO THINGS, NUMBER ONE, WHEN DO YOU PLAN ON SCHEDULING OUR MINORITY HEARING DAY AND NUMBER 2, WHY ARE WE -- WHEN ARE WE ACTUALLY GOING TO HAVE REAL WITNESSES HERE THAT ARE FACT WITNESSES IN THIS CASE?

WHEN?

OR WHAT YOU SAID MANY YEARS AGO HAS FADED JUST LIKE THE LEAVES IN FALL, I DON'T REALLY CARE ANYMORE THAT SOMEBODY ELSE GIVES US A REPORT, UNDOUBTEDLY CHAIRMAN SCHIFF IS CHAIRMAN OVER EVERYTHING WITH IMPEACHMENT, AND HE DOESN'T GET TO TESTIFY.

HE IS GOING TO SEND A STAFF MEMBER.

BUT I NEED THOUGH IF WE ARE GOING TO HAVE A HEARING PAST THAT TO FIGURE OUT ANYTHING THAT HAS BEEN GOING ON.

SO MY QUESTION THAT I STARTED OUT TODAY IS WHERE IS FAIRNESS?

IT WAS PROMISED, IT IS NOT BEING DELIVERED.

THE FACTS TAWT TALKED ABOUT ARE NOT FACTS DELIVERED.

THIS PRESIDENT, DID NOTHING WRONG, NOTHING TO BE IMMELMAN IMPEACH AND NOTHING FOR WHY WE ARE HERE AND IN THE WORDS OF ONE OF OUR WITNESS MRS. TURLEY, IF YOU RUSH THROUGH THIS, YOU DO IT ON FLIMSY GROUNDS, THE AMERICAN PEOPLE WILL NOT FORGET THE LIGHT OF HISTORY.

SO TODAY, BEFORE YOU GIVE YOUR OPENING STATEMENT, YOUR CLOSING STATEMENT, BEFORE YOU GIVE THIS TIME MY QUESTION IS, WILL YOU TALK TO THIS COMMITTEE A?

YOU ARE CHAIRMAN, YOU HOLD A VERY PRESTIGIOUS ROLE, WILL YOU LET US KNOW WHERE WE ARE GOING?

ARE WE GOING TO ADJOURN FROM HEREAFTER YOU SUM UP EVERYTHING SAYING THEY ALL DID GOOD AND GO OUT FROM HERE, WE ARE STILL WONDERING.

THE LIGHTS ARE ON.

IT IS TIME TO ANSWER THE QUESTION.

I YIELD BACK.

>> THE GENTLEMAN YIELDS BACK.

I WANT TO, BEFORE MY CLOSING STATEMENT, ACKNOWLEDGE I RECEIVED A LETTER TODAY REQUESTING A MINORITY DAY OF TESTIMONY UNDER RULE 11.

I HAVE NOT HAD A CHANCE TO READ THE LETTER, I LOOK FORWARD TO CONFERRING WITH THE RANKING MEMBER ABOUT THIS REQUEST AFTER I HAVE HAD A CHANCE TO REVIEW IT.

MR. CHAIRMAN I HAVE A QUESTION -- YOU CAN'T REVIEW A LETTER, IT IS A DEMAND THAT WE HAVE.

>> THE GENTLEMAN IS NOT RECOGNIZED.

THERE IS NOTHING FOR YOU TO REVIEW.

AND I NOW RECOGNIZE MYSELF FOR CLOSING STATEMENT.

GEORGE WASHINGTON'S FAREWELL ADDRESS WARNS OF A MOMENT WHEN CUNNING AMBITIOUS AND UNPRINCIPLED MEN WILL BE ENABLED TO SUBVERT THE POWER OF THE PEOPLE AND TO USURP FOR THEMSELVES THE REINS OF GOVERNMENT.

PRESIDENT TRUMP PLACED HIS OWN PERSONAL AND POLITICAL INTERESTS ABOVE OUR NATIONAL INTERESTS, ABOVE THE SECURITY OF OUR COUNTRY AND MOST IMPORTANTLY ABOVE OUR MOST PRECIOUS RIGHT, THE ABILITY OF EACH AND EVERY ONE OF US TO PARTICIPATE IN FAIR ELECTIONS, FREE OF CORRUPTION.

THE CONSTITUTION HAS A SOLUTION FOR A PRESIDENT WHO PLACES HIS PERSONAL OR POLITICAL INTERESTS OF THOSE ABOVE THE NATION, THE POWER OF IMPEACHMENT.

AS ONE OF MY COLLEAGUES POINTED OUT I HAVE IN THE PAST ARTICULATED A THREE PART TEST FOR IMPEACHMENT, LET ME BE CLEAR ARE ALL THREE PARTS OF THAT TEST HAVE BEEN MET.

FIRST, YES, THE PRESIDENT HAS COMMITTED AN IMPEACHABLE OFFENSE.

THE PRESIDENT ASKED THE FOREIGN GOVERNMENT TO INTERVENE IN OUR ELECTIONS, THEN GOT CAUGHT, THEN OBSTRUCTED THE INVESTIGATORS.

TWICE.

OUR WITNESSES TOLD US IN NO UNCERTAIN TERMS THIS CONDUCT CONSTITUTED, CONSTITUTES HIGH CRIMES AND MISS AUTHORIZE, INCLUDING ABUSE OF POWER.

SECOND.

YES, THE PRESIDENT'S ALLEGED OFFENSES PRESENT A DIRECT THREAT TO THE CONSTITUTIONAL ORDER.

PROFESSOR KARLAN WARNED, DRAWING A FOREIGN GOVERNMENT INTO OUR ELECTION PROCESS IS AN ESPECIALLY SERIOUS ABUSE OF POWER BECAUSE IT UNDERMINES DEMOCRACY ITSELF.

PROFESSOR FELDMAN ECHOED 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 UNDER A DICTATOR SHIP.

PROFESSOR GERHARDT REMINDS US US IF WHAT WE ARE TALKING ABOUT IS NOT IMPEACHABLE THEN NOTHING IS IMPEACHABLE.

PRESIDENT TRUMP'S ACTS REPRESENT A THREAT TO OUR NATIONAL SECURITY AND URGENT THREAT TO THE INTEGRITY OF THE NEXT ELECTION.

THIRD, YES, WE SHOULD NOT PROCEED UNLESS AT LEAST SOME OF THE CITIZENS WHO SUPPORTED THE PRESIDENT IN THE LAST ELECTION ARE WILLING TO COME WITH US.

A MAJORITY OF THIS COUNTRY IS CLEARLY PREPARED TO IMPEACH AND REMOVE PRESIDENT TRUMP.

RATHER THAN RESPOND TO THE UNSETTLING AND DANGEROUS EVIDENCE, MY REPUBLICAN COLLEAGUES HAVE CALLED THIS PROCESS UNFAIR.

IT IS NOT.

NOR IS IN ARGUMENT NEW.

MY COLLEAGUES ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE AISLE UNABLE TO DEFEND THE BEHAVIOR OF THE PRESIDENT HAVE USED THIS ARGUMENT BEFORE.

FIRST THEY SAID THAT THESE PROCEEDINGS WERE NOT CONSTITUTIONAL BECAUSE WE DID NOT HAVE A FLOOR VOTE, WE THEN HAD A FLOOR VOTE.

THEN THEY SAID THAT OUR PROCEEDINGS WERE NOT CONSTITUTIONAL BECAUSE THEY COULD NOT CALL WITNESSES.

REPUBLICANS CALLED THREE OF THE WITNESSES IN THE LIVE HEARINGS OF THE INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE, AND AND WILL HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO REQUEST WITNESSES IN THIS COMMITTEE AS WELL.

NEXT, THEY SAID THAT OUR REGION WERE NOT CONSTITUTIONAL BECAUSE THE PRESIDENT COULD NOT PARTICIPATE.

WHEN THE COMMITTEE INVITED THE PRESIDENT TO PARTICIPATE IN THIS HEARING HE DECLINED.

THE SIMPLE FACT IS THAT ALL OF THESE PROCEEDINGS HAVE ALL THE PROTECTIONS AFFORDED PRIOR PRESIDENTS.

THIS PROCESS FOLLOWS THE CONSTITUTIONAL AND LEGAL PRECEDENTS.

SO I AM LEFT TO CONCLUDE THAT THE ONLY REASON THAT MY COLLEAGUES RUSH FROM ONE PROCESS COMPLAINT TO THE NEXT IS BECAUSE THERE IS NO FACTUAL DEFENSE FOR PRESIDENT TRUMP.

UP LIKE ANY OTHER PRESIDENT BEFORE HIM, PRESIDENT TRUMP OPENLY HAS REJECTED COMING'S RIGHT AS A COEQUAL BRANCH OF GOVERNMENT.

HE HAS DEFIED OUR SUBPOENAS.

HE HAS REFUSED TO PRODUCE ANY DOCUMENTS AND HE DIRECTED HIS AIDS NOT TO TESTIFY.

PRESIDENTPRESIDENT TRUMP ALSO AE FOREIGN GOVERNMENTTESTIFY.

PRESIDENT TRUMP ALSO ASKED A FOREIGN GOVERNMENT TO INTERVENE IN OUR ELECTIONS AND HE HAS MADE CLEAR THAT IF LEFT UNCHECKED, HE WILL DO IT AGAIN.

WHY?

BECAUSE HE BELIEVES THAT IN HIS OWN WORDS, QUOTE, I CAN DO WHATEVER I WANT, UNQUOTE.

THAT IS WHY WE MUST ACT NOW.

IN THIS COUNTRY, THE PRESIDENT CANNOT DO WHATEVER HE WANTS.

IN THIS COUNTRY, NO ONE, NOT EVEN THE PRESIDENT IS ABOVE THE LAW.

TODAY WE BEGAN OUR CONVERSATION WHERE WE SHOULD, WITH THE TECT OF THE CONSTITUTION -- TEXT OF THE CONSTITUTION.

WE HAVE HEARD CLEARLY FROM OUR WITNESSES THAT THE CONSTITUTION COMPELS ACTION.

INDEED EVERY WITNESS INCLUDING THE WITNESS SELECTED BY REPUBLICAN SIDE AGREED IF THE PRESIDENT TRUMP DID WHAT THE INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE FOUND HIM TO HAVE DONE AFTER COMPELLING WITNESSES FROM THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION OFFICIALS, HE COMMITTED IMPEACHABLE OFFENSES.

WHILE THE REPUBLICAN WITNESS MAY NOT BE CONVINCED THERE IS SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE THAT THE PRESIDENT ENGAGED IN THESE ACTS, THE AMERICAN PEOPLE AND THE MAJORITY OF THIS COMMITTEE DISAGREE.

I ALSO THINK THAT THE REPUBLICAN WITNESS, PROFESSOR TURLEY, ISSUED A SAGE WARNING IN 1998 THAT HE WAS A LEADING ADVOCATE FOR THE IMPEACHMENT OF BILL CLINTON.

HE SAID, QUOTE, IF YOU DECIDE THAT CERTAIN ACTS DO NOT RISE TO IMPEACIMPEACHABLE OFFENSES YOU L EXPAND THE SPACE FOR EXECUTIVE CONDUCT, CLOSE QUOTE.

THAT WAS THE PROFESSION OF PROFESSOR TURLEY IN 198 IN THE IMPEACHMENT OF PRESIDENT CLINTON.

THAT QUESTION SHOULD GUIDE US ALL TODAY.

BUT ANY ACCOUNT THAT WARNING IS MORE APPLICABLE TO THE ABUSES OF POWER WE ARE CONTEMPLATING TODAY.

BECAUSE AS WE ALL KNOW, IF THESE ABUSES GO UNCHECKED, THEY WILL ONLY CONTINUE AND ONLY GROW WORSE.

EACH OF US TOOK AN OATH TO DEFEND THE CONSTITUTION.

THE PRESIDENT IS A CONTINUING THREAT TO THAT CONSTITUTION AND TO OUR DEMOCRACY.

I WILL HONOR MY OATH, AND AS I SIT HERE TODAY, HAVING HEARD CONSISTENT CLEAR AND COMPELLING EVIDENCE THAT THE PRESIDENT HAS ABUSED HIS POWER, ATTEMPTED TO UNDERMIND THE CONSTITUTIONAL ROLE OF CONGRESS AND CORRUPTED OUR ELECTIONS, I URGE MY COLLEAGUES STAND BEHIND THE OATH YOU HAVE TAKEN.

OUR DEMOCRACY DEPENDS ON IT.

THIS CONCLUDES TODAY'S HEARING.

>> MR. CHAIRMAN, I HAVE ONE THING.

>> FOR WHAT PURPOSES DOES THE GENTLEMAN SEEK RECOGNITION.

>> PURSUANT TO COMMITTEE RULE I'M GIVING NOTICE OF INTEND TO FILE THE SAME THING OF COMMITTEE'S REPORT FOR CONSTITUTIONAL GROUNDS OF PRESIDENTIAL IMPEACHMENT.

>> NOTED.

>> THIS CONCLUDES TODAY'S HEARING.

WE THANK ALL OF OUR WITNESSES FOR PARTICIPATING.

>> MR. CHAIRMAN -- >> WITHOUT OBJECTION ALL MEMBERS WILL HAVE FIVE LEGISLATIVE DAYS TO SUBMIT ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS FOR WITNESSES OR ADDITIONAL -- >> I HAVE A QUESTION.

>> THE WITNESSES ARE ADDITIONAL -- >> WITHOUT OBJECTION THE HEARING IS ADJOURNED.

>> JUST TYPICAL, ISN'T IT, JUST TYPICAL.