Return to Transcripts main page
CNN Live Event/Special
Lawmakers Question Constitutional Law Experts on Impeachment; Three Legal Experts Testify Trump Committed Impeachable Offenses, One Expert Dissents. Aired 3-4p ET
Aired December 04, 2019 - 15:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
[15:00:00] CHABOT: Within this Committee's own jurisdiction we should be addressing the Opioid epidemic, we could be working together to find a solution to our immigration and asylum challenges on our southern border. We could be protecting Americans from having their intellectual property and jobs stolen by Chinese companies and we could be enhancing election security just to name a few things.
And Congress, as a whole, could be working on rebuilding our crumbling infrastructure, providing additional tax relief to the nation's middle class families and providing additional security to our people here at home and abroad. Instead, here we are, spinning our wheels once again on impeachment. What a waste. The American people deserve so much better. I yield back.
NADLER: The gentleman yields back. Mr. Cohen.
COHEN: Thank you Mr. Chair. I take no pleasure in the fact that we're here today. As a patriot who loves America, it pains me that the circumstances force us to undertake this grave and solemn obligation. Nonetheless, based simply on the publicly-available evidence, it appears that President Trump pressured a foreign government to interfere in our elections by investigating his perceived chief political opponent. Today we're here to uphold our oaths, to defend the Constitution of the United States by furthering our understanding whether the president's conduct is impeachable.
It is entirely appropriate that we are examining our nation's history as it relates to presidential impeachment. The framers of the Constitution legitimately feared for an interference in our nation's sovereignty and they wanted to ensure that there would be a check and balance on the executive (ph). We sit here with a duty to founders to fulfill their wisdom and being a check on the executive(ph). We, the people's house are that check.
Under our Constitution, the House can impeach a president for treason, bribery or other high crimes and misdemeanors. Professor Feldman, you've discussed high crimes and misdemeanors and the fact that the high refers to both crimes and misdemeanors. Can you just give us a little bit of a summary of what high crimes and misdemeanors are and how they're distinct from what Professor Turley said they were.
FELDMAN: Yes, sir. High crimes and misdemeanors are actions of the president in office where he uses his office to advance his personal interests, potentially for personal gain, potentially to corrupt the electoral process and potentially as well against the national security interest of the United States. I would add sir, that the word high modifies both crimes and misdemeanors. The framer's world knew of both high crimes and high misdemeanors and I believe that the definition that was posted earlier of misdemeanor was not the definition of high misdemeanor which is a specific term understood by the framers and discussed in the Constitutional Convention but only of the word misdemeanor and that's an easy mistake to make but the truth is that high misdemeanors were their own category of abuses of office and those are the things that are impeachable.
COHEN: Thank you professor. Professors Feldman, Karlan and Gerhardt, you've all testified the president's conduct here implicates three categories of high crimes and misdemeanors - abuse of power, betrayal of the national interest and corruption of elections. Is that right, Professor Karlan?
KARLAN: Yes it is.
COHEN: And to Professor Feldman and Professor Gerhardt do you agree?
GERHARDT: Yes.
FELDMAN: Yes, sir.
COHEN: Professor Karlan, you stated that the essence of an impeachable offense is the president's decision to sacrifice the national interest for his own private ends. Professor Feldman and Gerhardt, do you all also agree with that?
FELDMAN: Yes, sir.
GERHARDT: Yes.
COHEN: Based on the evidence you've seen, Professors Feldman, Karlan and Gerhardt, has President Trump sacrificed the country's interest in favor of his own? Professor Karlan?
KARLAN: Yes he has.
COHEN: And is there a particular piece of evidence that most illuminates that?
KARLAN: I think what illuminates that most for me is the statement by Ambassador Sondland that he wanted simply the announcement of an investigation and several other people said exactly the same thing. There's testimony by Ambassador Volker to this extent as well that what he wanted was simply public information to damage Joe Biden. He didn't care whether at the end of the day Joe Biden was found guilty or exonerated.
COHEN: And Professor Feldman, do you agree and do you have a differ to the same illuminating fact?
FELDMAN: My emphasis would be on the fact that the president held up aid to an ally that's fighting a war in direct contravention of the unanimous recommendation of the national security community. That to me seems to have placed his own interests in personal advantage ahead of the interest of the nation.
COHEN: And a bill passed by Congress, bipartisan.
FELDMAN: Yes, sir.
COHEN: Professor Gerhardt?
GERHARDT: I agree with what my colleagues have said. I would add that I'm very concerned about the president's obstruction of Congress. Obstruction of this inquiry, refusal to comply with a number of subpoenas ordering many high level officials in the government not to comply with subpoenas and asking and ordering 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.
[15:05:00]
The Constitution only uses the word sole twice. Once with reference to the House in this area, once with reference to the Senate with respect to impeachment trials. Sole means sole; it means only. And this is your decision.
COHEN: And let me get Professor Turley into this. Professor Turley, you're a self-described, self-anointed defender of Article 1 Congress guy. But you justify a position that says legally-issued subpoenas by Congress enforcing its powers don't have to be complied with. It seems in this circumstance, you're an Article 2 executive guy and you're talking about the Johnson impeachment is not very useful. That was maladministration. This is a criminal act. Thank you Professors for helping us understand high crimes and misdemeanors.
We, the people's representatives in the people's house are heirs and custodians of the founder's vision of this country where the people are sovereign. We have a high responsibility and charged with the sole power to uphold our Constitution and defend our democracy and we shall do that.
NADLER: The gentleman's time has expired. Mr. Gohmert.
GOHMERT: Thank you. I'm afraid this hearing is indicative of the indecency to which we've come when instead of the committee of jurisdiction brining in facts and witnesses to get to the bottom of what happened, and not even having time to review the report which as Professor Turley indicated is wafer thin when compared to the 36 boxes of documents that were deliver to the last impeachment group. But then to start this hearing with the Chairman of the committee saying that the facts are undisputed. The only thing that is disputed more than the facts in this case is the statement that the facts are undisputed. They are absolutely disputed and the evidence is a bunch of here say on here say that if anybody here had tried cases before of enough magnitude you would know you can't rely on here say on here say but we have experts who know better than the accumulated experience of the ages. So here we are and I would submit, we need some factual witnesses. We do not need to receive a report that we don't have a chance to read before this hearing. We need a chance to bring in actual fact witnesses and there are a couple I could name that are critical to us getting to the bottom. They work for the National Security Council, Abigail Gray, Sean Misko. They were involved in the U.S.-Ukraine affairs and they worked with Vice President Biden on different matters involving the Ukraine. They worked with Brennan and Masters. They have absolutely critical information about certain Ukrainian's involvement in our U.S. election. Their relationships with the witnesses who went before the Intel committee and others involved in these allegations ,make them the most critical witnesses in this entire investigation. And the records including their emails or text messages and flash drives or computers have information that will bring this effort to remove the president to a screeching halt. So we have the article here from October 11, (inaudible) points out that House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff recruited two former national Security Council aides who worked alongside the CIA whistleblower at the NSC during the Obama and Trump administrations; Abigail Grace who worked at the NSC until 2018, was hired in February, while Sean Misko an NSC aide until 2017, joins Schiff's committee in August, the same month the whistleblower submitted his complaint; and goes on to point out that Grace was hired to help Schiff's committee investigated the Trump White House, that month, Trump accused Schiff of stealing people working at the White House, and Chairman Schiff said if the president is worried about our hiring any former administration people, maybe he should work on being a better employer. No, he should have fired everybody just like Bill Clinton did, all the U.S. attorneys on the same day. That would have saved us a lot of what's going on here.
So anyway, we need those two witnesses, they're critical and then we also need someone who is a CIA detailee to the Ukraine NSC desk, State Department (inaudible) shows that he was at an Italy state luncheon, there is Italy ramifications in the last elections.
[15:10:00]
He speaks Arabic and Russian, reported directly to Charles Gupton (ph), whose a friend of the Clinton's aide said Blumenthal, he did policy work for the Ukraine corruption, close continuous contact with the FBI, state and Ukrainian officials, had a collateral duty to support Vice President Biden. It was -- and Biden was Obama's point man on Ukraine. He was associated with DNC operative Ali Chalupa who we also need, met with her November 9, 2015 with Ukrainian delegation. And there is all kinds of reasons we need these three witnesses and I would ask pursuant to section 4 House Resolution 660, ask our chairman to -- I mean, our ranking member, to submit the request for these three witnesses because we're not having a factual hearing until we have these people that are at the bottom of every fact of this investigation. I yield back. Thanks for bringing down the gavel hard, that was nice.
NADLER: The gentlemen yield back. Mr. Johnson.
H. JOHNSON: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The president has regularly and recently solicited foreign interference in our upcoming election. Professor Turley warns that this is an impulse buy moment and suggests that the House should pause. Professor Karlan, do you agree with Professor Turley?
KARLAN: No. If you conclude that, as I think the evidence to this point shows that the president is soliciting foreign involvement in our election, you need to -- you need to act now to prevent foreign interference in the next election like the one we had in the past.
H. JOHNSON: Thank you. Professor Karlan, in 30 seconds or less, tell us why you believe the president's misconduct was an abuse of power was so egregious that it merits the drastic remedy of impeachment.
KARLAN: Because he invited the Russians who are longtime adversaries into the process the last time around, because he has invited the Ukrainians into the process and because he suggested he would like the Chinese to come into the process as well.
H. JOHNSON: Thank you very much. One of the framers of our Constitution, Edmund Randolph, who at one time was mayor of Williamsburg, Virginia, warned us that quote, "the executive will have great opportunities of abusing his power," end quote. Professor Feldman people like Mayor Randolph rebelled because of the tyranny of the king. Why would the framers so careful to avoid the potential for a president to become so tyrannical and abusive, and what did they do to protect against it?
FELDMAN: The framers believed very strongly that the people were the king, the people were sovereign, and that meant that at the president worked for somebody, he worked for the people. They knew that a president who couldn't be checked, who could not be supervised by his own Justice Department and who could not be supervised by Congress and cannot be impeached would effectively be above the law and then would use his power to get himself reelected and that is why they created the impeachment remedy.
H. JOHNSON: Thank you Professor Feldman. I now want to discuss how the framers' concerns about abuse of power relate to President Trump's misconduct. On July 25, President Trump said to President Zelensky quote, "I would like you to do us a favor though," Professor Feldman when President Trump made use of the words, favor though, do you believe that the president was benignly asking for favor and how is the answer to that question relevant to whether the president abused his power?
FELDMAN: Its relevant sir, because there is nothing wrong with someone asking for favor in the interest of United States of America, the problem is for the president to use his office to solicit or demand a favor for his personal benefit, and the evidence strongly suggests that given the power of the president and given the incentives that the president created for Ukraine to comply with his request, that the president was seeking to serve his own personal benefit in his own personal interest. That's the definition of corruption under the Constitution.
H. JOHNSON: 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 command and not a request. Professor Feldman, how does Lieutenant Colonel Vindman's testimony that the president's statement was a demand because of the power disparity between the two countries, relate back to our framers' concerns about the president's abuse of power?
FELDMAN: Lieutenant Colonel Vindman's observation states very clearly that you have to understand the president of the United States has so much more power than the president of Ukraine, that when the president uses the word favor, the reality is, that he is applying tremendous pressure -- the pressure of the power of the United States, and that relates to the constitutional abuse of office.
If someone other than the president of the United States asked the president Ukraine to do a favor, the president Ukraine could say no.
[15:15:00]
When the president United States uses the office of the presidency to ask for a favor, it's -- there's simply no way for the president of Ukraine to refuse.
H. JOHNSON: Thank you. We have also heard testimony that the president withheld a White House meeting and military aide in order to further pressure Ukraine to announce investigations of Vice President Biden in 2016 election. Professor Karlan, is that why your testimony concluded that the president abused his power?
KARLAN: I thought the president abused his power by asking for an -- criminal investigation of United States citizen for political ends, regardless of everything else. That's just -- it's not icing on the cake, it's what you would call an aggravating circumstance that there was a need here.
H. JOHNSON: All right, thank you. A president holding an American ally over a barrel to expect -- to extract personal favors is deeply troubling. This is not an impulse-buy moment. It's a break the glass moment and impeachment is the only appropriate remedy. And with that, I will yield back.
NADLER: The gentleman yields back. Mr. Jordan.
JORDAN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Before Speaker Pelosi announced the impeachment inquiry 10 weeks on September 24, before the call between President Trump and President Zelensky on July 25, before the Mueller hearing in front of this Committee on July 24, before all that, 16 of them had already voted to move forward on impeachment. 16 Democrats on the Judiciary Committee had already voted to move forward on impeachment, yet today we're talking about whether the positions they've already taken are constitutional? Seems a little backward to me.
I mean, we can't - we can't agreement. I mean, we've got four Democrats or four people who voted for Clinton, and they can't agree. Yet today we're talking about the Constitution. Now Professor Turley, you've been - you've been great today, but I think you were wrong on one thing. You said this is a fast impeachment. I would argue it's not a fast impeachment. It's a predetermined impeachment - predetermined impeachment done in the most unfair, partisan fashion we have every seen. No subpoena power for Republicans, depositions done in secret, in the bunker, in the basement of the capital. 17 people come in for those depositions. No one could be in there except a handful of folks that Adam Schiff allowed.
In those depositions, Chairman Schiff prevented witnesses from answering Republican questions. Every Democrat question, not every Republican question. Democrats denied Republicans the witnesses we wanted in the open hearings that took place three weeks ago, and of course Democrats promised us the whistleblower would testify and then changed their mind, and they changed their mind why? Because the whole world discovered that Adam Schiff's staff had talked to the whistleblower, coordinated with the whistleblower. The whistleblower with no firsthand knowledge, biased against the president, who worked with Joe Biden, who's lawyer in January of '17 said the impeachment process starts then, that's the unfair process we've been through.
And the reason it's been unfair, let me just cut to the chase. The reason it's been unfair is because the facts aren't on their side. The facts are on the president's side. Four key facts will not change, have not changed, will never change. We have the transcript. There was no quid pro quo on the transcript.
The two guys on the call - President Trump and President Zelensky - both said no pressure, no pushing, no quid pro quo. The Ukrainians, third, didn't know that the aid was held up at the time of the phone, and fourth and most important, the Ukrainians never started, never promised to start, and never announced an investigation in the time that the aid was paused. Never once.
But 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. We had the call on July 25. The very next day, July 26, we had Ambassador Volker, Taylor, and Sondland meet with President Zelensky in Kiev.
We then had Ambassador Bolton end of August meet with President Zelensky. We then had the vice president meet with President Zelensky on September 1, and we had two senators, Republican and more importantly Democrat Senator Murphy with Republican Senator Johnson meet with President Zelensky on September 5.
None of those five meetings - none of those five meetings was aid ever discussed in exchange for an announcement of an investigation into anybody, not one of them, and you would think the last two after the Ukrainians did know the aid was being held, you would think it would com up then, particularly the one where get got Senator Murphy, the Democrat there, talking about it. Never came up. The facts are on the president's side.
[15:20:00]
Well, we've got an unfair process because they don't have the facts. We got an unfair process - most importantly, this gets to something else you said, Mr. Turley, and this is scary, how mad the country - and that was so well-said. This is scary. The Democrats have never accepted the will of the American people.
To Mr. Turley's point, 17 days ago - 17 days ago the Speaker of the United States House of Representatives called the President of the United States and impostor - the guy 63 million Americans voted for, who won an electoral college landslide, the Speaker of the United States House of Representatives called that individual an impostor. That is not healthy for our country. This is not healthy.
The facts are the facts. They're 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 guys have already determined where you're going to go. With that, I yield back.
NADLER: The gentleman yields. The gentleman yields back. Mr. Deutch.
DEUTCH: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, this month we commemorate the 75th anniversary of the Battle of the Bulge. My late father, Bernard Deutch, then Staff Sergeant Bernard Deutch, received a Purple Heart fighting in the frigid Ardennes. He gave blood among tens of thousands of Americans who suffered - who were casualties. They 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 interest above their own personal interest.
The evidence shows that the president broke that promise. The Constitution gives the president enormous power, but it also imposes a remedy - impeachment - when those powers are abused.
In July, President Trump said, and I quote, "I have an Article 2 where I have the right to do whatever I want as president," close quote. Professor Feldman, the president has broad powers under the Constitution including in foreign policy. Isn't that right?
FELDMAN: Yes, sir.
DEUTCH: 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?
FELDMAN: He may not. If the president uses the powers that's given for personal gain or to corrupt an election or against the national security interest of the United States, he may be impeached for a high crime and misdemeanor.
DEUTCH: Is using his power to pressure Ukraine to interfere in U.S. elections and abuse of that power?
FELDMAN: Yes, sir.
DEUTCH: Professor Gerhardt, how would the framers of the Constitution have viewed a president asking for election interference from a foreign leader?
GERHARDT: It's always - it's, you know, practically impossible to know what exactly what the framers would think, but it's not hard to imagine how the Constitution deals with it. That's their legacy to us, and under the Constitution, it's plainly an abuse of power. It's a rather horrifying abuse of power.
DEUTCH: Professor Karlan, we've heard witnesses over the past several weeks testify about their concerns when the president used his foreign policy powers for political gain. Lieutenant Colonel Vindman was shocked. He couldn't believe what he heard on the phone call. NSC Advisor Hill realized that a political errand (ph) was diverging from efforts to protect our national security policy. And Ambassador Taylor thought it was crazy to withhold security assistance for help on a political campaign. Professor Karlan, these concerns are mere differences over policy, are they?
KARLAN: No, they go to the foundation - the very foundation of our democracy.
DEUTCH: And offering to exchange a White House meeting and hundreds of millions of dollars in security assistance for help with his reelection, that can't be part of our nation's foreign policy, can it?
KARLAN: No. It's the essence of doing something for personal reasons rather than for political reasons. And if I could just say one thing about this very briefly which is maybe when he was first running for president, he had never been anything other than a reality TV show -- you know, that was his public -- that was his public life. Maybe then, he could think, Russia, if you're listening, is an OK thing to do.
But by the time he asked the Ukraine, Ukraine, if you're listening, could you help -- help me out with my re-election, he has to have known that that was not something consistent with his oath of office.
DEUTCH: Mr. Chairman, our founders granted the president of the United States enormous powers. But at the same time, what we've been reminded of today, they worry that these powers could be abused by a corrupt president.
The evidence of abuse of power in this inquiry proved that 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.
[15:25:00]
Remember, and 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.
We trusted him to look out for the country, but instead President Trump looked out for himself and helping himself 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 provided one way -- one way -- for Congress to respond, and that's the power of impeachment.
I yield back.
NADLER: The gentleman yields back.
Mr. Buck?
BUCK: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Professor Turley, I want to direct these first few questions to you. The other three witnesses have identified this amorphous standard for impeaching a president. They -- they've said that if a president abuses his power for personal or political gain, it's impeachable conduct. Do you agree with me?
TURLEY: Not the way it's been stated. In fact, there are so many different standards...
(CROSSTALK)
BUCK: I got -- I got a long ways to go here.
TURLEY: ... Well, there's been so many different standards. One of them was attempting to abuse office.
BUCK: OK.
TURLEY: I'm not even sure how to recognize that, let alone define it.
BUCK: So let me -- let me go with a few examples and see if you agree with me.
Lyndon Johnson directed the Central Intelligence Agency to place a spy in Barry Goldwater's campaign. That spy got advanced copies of speeches and other strategy, delivered that to the Johnson campaign. Would that be impeachable conduct according to the other panelists?
TURLEY: Well, it speaks (ph) pretty broadly, so I assume so.
BUCK: How about when President Johnson put a wiretap on Goldwater's campaign plane? Would that be for political benefit?
TURLEY: Well, I can't exclude anything under that definition.
BUCK: OK. Well, I'm going to go with a few other presidents. We'll see where we go.
Congressman Deutch just informed us that FDR put country first. Now Franklin Delano Roosevelt when he was president directed the IRS to conduct audits of his political enemies, namely Huey Long, William Randolph Hearst, Hamilton Fish, Father Coughlin. Would that be an abuse of power for political benefit according to the other panelists? Would that be impeachable conduct?
TURLEY: I think it all would be subsumed into it. BUCK: How about when President Kennedy directed his brother Robert Kennedy to deport one of his mistresses as an East German spy? Would that qualify as impeachable conduct?
TURLEY: Once again, I can't exclude it.
BUCK: And how about when he directed the FBI to use wiretaps on congressional staffers who opposed his -- him politically, would that be impeachable conduct?
TURLEY: It would seem to be falling within it.
BUCK: 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 Labor Relations Board and lost nine to zero. Ruth Bader Ginsburg voted against the president on this issue. Would that be an abuse of power?
TURLEY: I'm afraid you'd have to direct it to others, but I -- I don't see any exclusions under their definition.
BUCK: OK. And how about when the president directed his national security advisor and the secretary of State 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 an abuse of power for political benefit, 17 days before the next election?
TURLEY: Well, not according to my definition, but the others will have to respond of their own.
BUCK: Well, you've heard their definition. You can apply those...
(CROSSTALK)
TURLEY: Yes, I can't...
BUCK: ... facts to their definition.
TURLEY: ... I have a hard time excluding anything out of...
(CROSSTALK)
BUCK: How about when Abraham Lincoln arrested legislators in Maryland so that they wouldn't convene to secede from the Union? And Virginia already had seceded, so it would have placed Washington, D.C., the nation's capital, in the middle of the rebellion. Would that have been an abuse of power for political benefit?
TURLEY: Well, it could be, under that definition.
BUCK: And you mentioned George Washington a little while ago as perhaps having met the standard of impeachment for your other panelists. In fact, let me ask you something Professor Turley, can you name a single president in the history of the United States, save President Harrison who died 32 days after his inauguration, that would not have met the standard of impeachment for our friends here?
TURLEY: I would hope to God James Madison would escape; otherwise, a lifetime of academic work would be shredded. I -- but I -- once again, I can't exclude many of these acts.
[15:30:00]
BUCK: Isn't what you and I, and many others, are afraid of is that the standard that -- that your friends to the right of you, and not politically but to the right of you sitting on -- there. That your friends have decided that the -- 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?
TURLEY: Well, when you -- when your graphic says in your A, B, C's that your B is betrayal of national interest, I would simply ask. Do you really want that to be your standard? Do you not know (ph)...
BUCK: Now, isn't the difference, Professor Turley, that some people live in an ivory tower and some people live in a swamp? And those of us that are in the swamp are doing our very best for the American people...
TURLEY: Well, actually...
BUCK: ... but it's not pretty.
TURLEY: ... Actually, I live in an ivory tower in a swamp because I'm at G.W. But -- and it's not so bad.
BUCK: I -- I yield back.
NADLER: The gentleman yields back.
Ms. Bass?
BASS: Thank you very much.
And I want to thank the witnesses and I don't believe the People's House is a swamp.
President Nixon was impeached for abuse of power because his conduct was, quote, "Undertaken for his personal political advantage and not in furtherance of any valid national policy objective."
President Gerhardt, why was it significant that President Nixon acted for his personal political advantage and not in furtherance of any national policy objective?
GERHARDT: It's primarily significant because in acting on his -- for his own personal benefit and not for the benefit of the country, he has crossed a line. The line here is very clear. And it becomes abuse of power when somebody is using the special authorities of their office for their own personal benefit and not the benefit of the country. BASS: So can the same be said of President Trump?
GERHARDT: That -- it could be, yes. Yes.
BASS: Well thank you. You know, I'm struck by the parallels because 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 that President Trump did this for his own personal gain, and not for any national policy interest. Although President Trump claims that he withheld the aid because of concerns about corruption, I do believe that we have example of the evidence of the truth.
HOLMES: Ambassador Sondland stated that the president only cares about big stuff. I noted that there was big stuff going on in Ukraine, like a war with Russia. Ambassador Sondland replied that he meant big stuff that benefits the president, like the Biden investigation that Mr. Giuliani was pushing.
BASS: Professor Feldman, what would the framers have thought of a president who only cares about the "big stuff that... benefits him?"
FELDMAN: The framers were extremely worried about a president who served only his own interests, or the interests of foreign powers -- that was their most serious concern when they designed the remedy of impeachment.
BASS: So evidence also suggests that President Trump didn't even care if the investigation actually happened. What he really cared about was the public announcement of the investigation. So Professor Karlan, how do we analyze these facts in the context of abusive power?
KARLAN: Well, I think that -- to have a president ask for the investigation of his political opponents is an archetype of the abuse of power. And you know, Mr. Buck mentioned past examples of this. And to say that those weren't impeachable, I think is a big mistake.
If a president wiretaps his opponents, that's a federal crime now. I don't know whether before the whitetap act of 1968 it was. But if a president wiretapped his opponents today, that would be impeachable conduct.
BASS: I also serve on the Foreign Affairs Committee, and I understand how significant it is to foreign leaders to meet with our presidents. To attend a meeting in the Oval Office is very significant.
President Zelensky is a newly elected head of state in a fledgling democracy, his country is at war with his neighbor. Russia invaded and is occupying his country's territory. He needed the military resources to defend his country. He needed the 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 largest trauma unit as a PA, a physician assistant. I saw people at their worst -- in severe pain, after accidents, or acts of violence. Patients I took care of were desperate and afraid, and had to wait five to eight hours to be seen.
[15:35:00]
Can you imagine for one minute, if I had told my patients, look, I can move you up in line and take care of your pain, but I do need a favor from you though. My patients were in pain, and they were desperate and they would have agreed to do anything I asked. This would have been such an abuse of my position because of the power dynamic. I had the power to relieve my patients from experiencing pain.
It's fundamentally wrong, and in many cases illegal for us to use power to take advantage of those in crisis, especially a president, especially when lives are at stake. I yield back.
NADLER: The gentlelady yields back. Mr. Ratcliffe.
RATCLIFFE: Thank the Chairman. Professor Turley, I'd like to start where you started. Because you said something that I 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. But despite your political preferences and persuasions you reached this conclusion, the current legal case for impeachment is not just woefully inadequate, but in some respects dangerous as the basis for impeachment of an American president.
So 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 any impeachable offenses here.
One of the problems that you've articulated as leading you to the conclusion of calling this the, should it proceed the shortest impeachment proceeding with the thinnest evidentiary record and the narrowest grounds ever attempted to impeach a president, is the fact that there has been this ever-changing, constantly evolving, moving target of accusations, if you will.
The July 25 phone call started out as an alleged quid pro quo, and briefly became an extortion scheme, a bribery scheme -- I think it's back to quid pro quo. Now besides pointing out that both Speaker Pelosi and Chairman Schiff waited until almost every witness had been deposed before they even started to use the term "bribery."
I think you've clearly articulated by you think the definitions that they have used publicly are flawed, if not unconstitutional both in the 18th Century, or in the 21st Century. But would you agree with me that bribery under any valid definition requires that a specific quid pro quo be proven?
TURLEY: More importantly the Supreme Court is focused on that issue, as well as what is the definition of a quid pro quo? RATCLIFFE: So if military aid, or security assistance is part of that quid pro quo, where in the July 25 transcript does President Trump ever suggest that he intends to withhold military aid for any reason?
TURLEY: He doesn't, and that's the reason we keep on hearing the words circumstantial and inferential, and that's what is so concerning is that those would be appropriate terms -- it's not that you can't have a circumstantial case. Those would be appropriate terms of these were unknowable facts.
But the problem is that you have so many witnesses that have not been subpoenaed -- so many witnesses that we've not heard from.
RATCLIFFE: Right. So if it's not in the transcript then it's got to come from witness testimony, and I assume you've reviewed all the witness testimony, so you know that no witness has testified that they either heard President Trump or were told by President Trump to withhold military aid for any reason, correct?
TURLEY: Correct.
RATCLIFFE: 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 their Ukraine issue. And I know you've talked about that a lot today, you've clearly stated that you think that President Trump had no corrupt intent on page 39 of your report.
You said something else that I think bears repeating today. You were highlighting the fact that the Democrats appear to the taking the position that -- if a president seeks judicial review over executive branch testimony of documents subpoenaed by Congress, that rather than letting the courts be the arbiter, Congress can simply impeach the president for obstruction based on that.
Did I hear you say that if we were to proceed on that basis, that that would be an abuse of power?
TURLEY: I did, and let me be very 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 if you want a well-based (ph), a legitimate impeachment case to set this abbreviated schedule, demand documents and then impeach because they haven't been turned over when they go to accord, when the President goes to accord.
[15:40:00]
I think that is an abuse of power. That's not what happened in Nixon and in fact the ultimate decision in Nixon was that there are legitimate executive privilege claims that can be raised. And some them deal with the type of aids involved in this case. Like a National Security Advisor, like a White House Counsel so with the concern here is not that there is, that you can't ever Impeach a President unless you go to accord. Just that you shouldn't when you have time to do it.
RATCLIFFE: So if I was to summarize your testimony, no bribery, no extortion, no obstruction of justice, no abuse of power is that fair.
TURLEY: Not on this record.
NADLER: The gentleman's time is expired. Mr. Richmond.
RICHMOND: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And let me just pick up where we left off and I'm going to start Mr. Turley with your words. And it's from October 23rd, your opinion piece in "The Hill". You said that as I have said before there is no question that the use of public office for personal gain is an Impeachable offense, 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 public office for personal gain you have a viable Impeachable offense.
We heard today that a President abuses his power when he uses his official power for his own personal interest rather than the interest of our country. I'd like to spend more time on that because I'm really struck by one of the things that was at stake here, $400 million of tax payer dollars. President Nixon leveraged the powers of his office to investigate political rivals. But here the evidence shows that President Trump also leveraged taxpayer dollars to get Ukraine to announce sham investigations of President Trump's political rivals. That taxpayer money was meant to help Ukraine defend itself and in turn defend United States interests from Russian aggression. The money has been appropriated by Congress and certified by the Department of Defense. Multiple witnesses confirm that there was unanimous support for the military aid to Ukraine. Can we listen to that please?
(Audio Playing)
Professor Feldman, you have stated that the President's demand to the President of Ukraine constituted an abuse of power. How does the President's decision to withhold military aid affect you analysis?
FELDMAN: It means that it wasn't just an abuse of power because the President was serving his own personal interest but also an abuse of power in so far as the President was putting American National Security Interest behind his own person interest. So it brought together two important aspects of the abuse of power, self gain and undercutting our National Security Interest.
RICHMOND: The evidence points to President Trump using military aid for his personal benefit not for the benefit of any office US policy. Professor Karlan, how would the Framers have interpreted that?
KARLAN: Well, I can't speak for the Framers themselves obviously. My view is that they would say that the President's authority to use foreign aid and they probably couldn't have imagine we even were giving foreign aid because we were tiny poor country then. So it's a little, it's a little hard to translate that. But what they would have said is a President who doesn't think first about the security of the United States is not doing what his oath requires him to do, which was faithfully execute the laws here. A law appropriating money and defend the Constitution of the United States. RICHMOND: Thank you. And let's go back to a segment of Mr. Turley's quote that if you can establish intend to use public office for personal gain you have a viable, impeachable offense. Mr. Feldman, do we meet that criteria here?
FELDMAN: In my view, the evidence does meet that criteria and that's the judgment that you should be making.
RICHMOND: Ms. Karlan?
KARLAN: Yes, and I, one question I would just have for the Minority Members of the Committee is if you were convinced that the President held up the aid because he though it would help his reelection would you vote to Impeach him because I think that's really the question that everyone on this Committee should be asking. And if they conclude yes then they should vote to Impeach.
[15:45:00]
RICHMOND: Mr. Gerhardt?
GERHARDT: Yes, I agree. And one thing I would add. Is that as much talk has been made here about the term bribery in court decisions with respect to bribery it's your job, it's the House's job to define bribery, not the courts. You follow your judgment on that.
RICHMOND: I want to thank the witnesses, all of the witnesses for coming 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 men and woman go and put their lives on the line for the Constitution and we have an obligation to follow the Constitution whether it's convenient or easy. Thank you and I yield back the balance.
NADLER: The gentleman yields back. Ms Roby.
ROBY: Very quickly, Professor Turley, would you like to respond?
TURLEY: Yes, I would. First of all what was said in that columns (ph) exactly what I said in my testimony. The problem is not that 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 infer that this is what was intended when you're not actually subpoenaing people with direct knowledge. And instead your saying we must vote in this rocket docket of and Impeachment.
ROBY: So this leads to my statement that I'd 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 nations 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 called, fact witness that have been called were in front of the Intelligence Committee. We have been given no indication that this Committee will conduct substantive 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 countries 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 they 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 nonpartisan 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 overwhelming 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 interest of our country not our party and 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 fact 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 on this committee have written six letters 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 we have and even more bipartisan panel here today and for clarity on today's impeachment proceedings since we haven't received evidence to review.
[15:50:00]
The minority has yet to receive a response to these letters. Right here today is another very clear example for all Americans to truly understand the ongoing lack of transparency and openness with these proceedings. The witness list for his hearing was not released until late Monday afternoon. Opening statements from the witnesses today were not distributed 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 process is a Republican talking point when in reality 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.
NADLER: The gentlelady yields back. Mr. Jeffries.
JEFFRIES: I did not serve in the military but my 81-year-old father did. He was an Air Force veteran stationed in Germany during the height of the Cold War in the late 1950s.
He was a teenager 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. Professor Karlan, in America, we believe in free and fair elections. Is that correct?
KARLAN: Yes it is.
JEFFRIES: But authoritarian regimes do not. Is that right?
KARLAN: That's correct.
JEFFRIES: Thomas Jefferson once wrote or John Adams once wrote to Thomas Jefferson 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. Professor Karlan, how important was the concept of free and fair elections to the framers of the Constitution?
KARLAN: Honestly, it was less important to them then it's become in our Constitution since then and if you'll remember the thing that - one of the things that turned me into a lawyer was seeing Barbara Jordan who was the first female lawyer I'd ever seen in practice say on the committee(ph) that we the people didn't include people like here in 1789 but through a process of amendment, we have done that. And so elections are more important to us today as a Constitutional matter than they were even to the framers.
JEFFRIES: And is it fair to say that an election cannot be reasonably characterized as free and fair if it's manipulated by foreign interference?
KARLAN: That's correct.
JEFFRIES: And the framers of the Constitution were generally and deeply concerned with the threat of foreign interference in the domestic affairs of the United States, true?
KARLAN: Yes.
JEFFRIES: And why were they so deeply concerned?
KARLAN: Because foreign nations don't have our interests at -at heart. They have their interests at heart.
JEFFRIES: And would the framers find it acceptable for an American president to pressure a foreign government to help him win an election?
KARLAN: I think they'd find it unacceptable for a president - for a president to ask a foreign government to help them whether they put pressure on them or not.
JEFFRIES: Direct evidence shows - direct evidence shows that on July 25th phone call, the president uttered five words, do us a favor though. He pressured 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 hero, Republican-appointed diplomat discussed this issue of military aid. Here is a clip of his testimony.
(BEGIN VIDEO)
TAYLOR: Again, our holding up of security assistance that would go to a country that is fighting aggression from Russia for now good policy reason, no good substantive reason, no good national security reason is wrong.
(END VIDEO)
JEFFRIES: 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?
KARLAN: 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.
JEFFRIES: 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?
KARLAN: Yes it does.
[15:55:00]
JEFFRIES: 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.
NADLER: The gentleman yields back. Mr. Gates. GAETZ: The will of the American people also elected Donald Trump to be the president of the United States in the 2016 election and there's one party that can't seem to get over it. Now we understand the fact that in 2018 you took the House of Representative and we haven't spent our time during your tenure in power trying to remove the Speaker of the House.
Trying to delegitimize your ability to govern. Frankly, we'd love to govern with you. We'd love to pass USMCA. We'd love to put out a helping hand to our seniors and lower prescription drug prices. It's the will of the people you ignore when you continue down this terrible road of impeachment. Professor Gerhardt, you gave money to Barack Obama, right?
GERHARDT: My family did, yes.
GAETZ: Four times?
GERHARDT: I -- that sounds about right. My -- yes.
GAETZ: Mr. Chairman, I have a series of unanimous consent request relating to Professor Feldman's work. The first, Noah Feldman, Trump's wiretap tweets raise risk of impeachment ...
NADLER: The gentleman will suspend -- have ...
GAETZ: My time.
NADLER: We'll take that time off. Has the gentleman submitted -- have we seen those -- that -- that material?
GAETZ: We can provide it to you as is typical for ...
NADLER: And we'll consider the -- and we'll consider the unanimous consent request later after we've reviewed the material.
GAETZ: Very well. Very well. Thank you.
NADLER: The gentleman may continue.
GAETZ: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Feldman wrote articles entitled Trump's wiretap tweets raise risk of impeachment. He then wrote (inaudible) belongs in impeachment file.
And then Mr. Jake Flanagin wrote in -- in Quartz, a Harvard law professor thinks Trump could be impeached over fake news accusations. My question, Professor Feldman, is since you seem to believe that the basis for impeachment is even broader 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?
FELDMAN: I believe that impeachment is warranted whenever the president abuses his power for personal benefit or to corrupt the Democratic process.
GAETZ: Did you write an article entitled, "It's Hard to Take Impeachment Seriously Now?"
FELDMAN: Yes, I did write that article.
(CROSSTALK)
GAETZ: And in that article did you write -- did you write -- hold on. I'm limited on time. So did you write since -- since the 2018 midterm election, 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.
FELDMAN: Until this call in July 25th, I was an impeachment skeptic.
GAETZ: Very well.
FELDMAN: The call changed my mind, sir, and for good reason.
GAETZ: Thank you. I appreciate your testimony. Professor Karlan, you gave 2,000 bucks -- or you have 1,000 bucks to Elizabeth Warren, right?
KARLAN: I believe so.
GAETZ: You gave 1,200 bucks to Barack Obama?
KARLAN: I have no reason to question that.
GAETZ: And you gave 2,000 bucks to Hillary Clinton?
KARLAN: That's correct.
GAETZ: Why so much more for Hillary than the other two?
KARLAN: Because I've been giving a lot of money to charity recently because of all of the poor people in the United States.
GAETZ: No, those aren't the only -- those aren't the only folks you've been giving to. Now you -- have you ever been on a podcast called "Versus Trump?"
KARLAN: I think I was on a live panel that the people who ran the podcast called "Versus Trump."
GAETZ: 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?
KARLAN: Yes, I did.
GAETZ: Do you understand how that reflects contempt on people who are conservative?
KARLAN: No, what I was talking about there was the natural tendency -- if you put the quote in context, the natural tendency of a compactness requirement to favor a party who's voters are more spread out. And I do not have contempt for conservatives ...
(CROSSTALK)
GAETZ: Well, Professor, hold on I -- again, I'm very -- I'm very limited on time, Professor. And so I just have to say when you talk about how liberals want to be around each other and cluster and conservatives don't want to be around each and so they have to spread out, it makes people -- you may not see this from, you know, like the ivory towers of your law school but it makes actual people in this country feel like ...
(CROSSTALK)
KARLAN: When the president calls ...
GAETZ: Excuse me. You don't get to interrupt me on this time. Now, let me also suggest that when you -
[16:00:00]
