COMMITTED TO ENSURE THAT NO ONE IS ABOVE THE LAW.
>> THANK YOU PROFESSOR.
>> 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.
21 YEARS AGO I SAT BEFORE YOU
CHAIRMAN NADLER AND THIS
COMMITTEE TO TESTIFY AT THE
IMPEACHMENT OF WILLIAM JEFFERSON
CLINTON.
CLINTON. I NEVER THOUGHT 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.
SIMILAR. THE INTENSE RAGE OF THE DEBATE
IS THE SAME.
THE ATMOSPHERE THAT THE FRAMERS
ANTICIPATED.
ANTICIPATED. THE INTOLERANCE OF OPPOSING
VIEWS ARE THE SAME.
I’D LIKE TO START WITH AN
IRRELEVANT FACT.
IRRELEVANT FACT. I’M NOT A SUPPORTER OF PRESIDENT
TRUMP.
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.
VOTE. PRESIDENT TRUMP WILL NOT BE OUR
LAST PRESIDENT AND WHAT WE LEAVE
IN THE WAKE OF THIS SCANDAL WILL
SHAPE OUR DEMOCRACY I’M
CONCERNED ABOUT LOWERING
IMPEACHMENT STANDARDS TO FIT
EVIDENCE AND AN ABUNDANCE OF
ANGER.
ANGER. IT NOT ONLY FAILS TO SATISFY
DANGER IMPEACHMENTS.
DANGER IMPEACHMENTS. MY TESTIMONY LAYS OUT THE
HISTORY OF IMPEACHMENT FROM
EARLY ENGLISH CASES TO COLONIAL
CASES TO THE PRESENT DAY.
THE EARLY IMPEACHMENTS WERE RAW
POLITICAL EXERCISES USING FLUID
DEFINITIONS OF CRIMINAL AND
NON-CRIMINAL ACTS.
NON-CRIMINAL ACTS. WHEN THE FRAMERS MET IN
PHILADELPHIA THEY WERE QUITE
FAMILIAR WITH IMPEACHMENT AND
IT’S ABUSES INCLUDING THE
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 WAS MORE
LIMITED.
LIMITED. NOT ONLY IN IT’S APPLICATION TO
JUDICIAL AND EXECUTIVE OFFICIALS
BUT IT’S GROUNDS.
THE FRAMERS REJECTED A PROPOSAL
TO ADD ADMINISTRATION BECAUSE
MADISON OBJECTED THAT SO VAGUE A
TERM WOULD BE EQUIVALENT TO A
TENURE DURING THE PLEASURE OF
THE SENATE.
THE SENATE. IN THE END, VARIOUS STANDARDS
THAT HAD BEEN USED IN THE PAST
WERE REJECTED.
WERE REJECTED. CORRUPTION, BY IMPROPER MEANS,
BETRAYING THE TRUST TO A FOREIGN
POWER.
POWER. AND SPECULATION AND OPPRESSION.
MY TESTIMONY EXPLORES NIXON AND
JOHNSON AND CLINTON.
THE CLOSEST WAS TO THE 1868
IMPEACHMENT OF ANDREW JOHNSON.
IT’S NOT A MODEL OR ASSOCIATION
THAT THIS COMMITTEE SHOULD
RELISH.
RELISH. IN THAT CASE, A GROUP OF
OPPONENTS OF THE PRESIDENTS
CALLED THE RADICAL REPUBLICANS
CREATED A TRAP DOOR CRIME IN
ORDER TO IMPEACH THE PRESIDENT.
HE EVEN DEFINED IT AS A HIGH
MISDEMEANOR.
MISDEMEANOR. THERE WAS ANOTHER SHARED ASPECT
BESIDES THE ATMOSPHERE OF THAT
IMPEACHMENT AND ALSO THE
UNCONVENTIONAL STYLE OF THE TWO
PRESIDENTS.
PRESIDENTS. AND SHAH SHARED ELEMENT IS
SPEED.
SPEED. NOW THERE ARE 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 ABBREVIATED 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 IN MY
CLOSING REMARKS BECAUSE WE HAVE
LIMITED TIME.
LIMITED TIME. WE ARE LIVING IN THE VERY PERIOD
DESCRIBE
DESCRIBE DESCRIBED BY ALEXANDER HAMILTON.
A PERIOD OF AGITATED PASSIONS.
I GET IT.
I GET IT. YOU’RE MAD.
YOU’RE MAD. THE PRESIDENT’S MAD.
MY REPUBLICAN FRIENDS ARE MAD.
MY DEMOCRATIC FRIENDS ARE MAD.
MY WIFE IS MAD.
MY KIDS ARE MAD.
EVEN MY DOG SEEMS MAD.
AND LUNA THE GOLDEN DOODLE, THEY
DON’T GET MAD.
SO WE’RE ALL MAD.
WHERE HAS THAT TAKEN US?
WILL AN IMPEACHMENT MAKE US LESS
MAD?
MAD? OR WILL IT ONLY INVITE AN
INVITATION FOR THE MADNESS TO
FOLLOW EVERY ADMINISTRATION.
THIS IS WHY IT’S WRONG.
IT’S NOT WRONG BECAUSE PRESIDENT
TRUMP WAS RIGHT.
HIS CALL WAS ANYTHING BUT
PERFECT.
PERFECT. IT’S NOT WRONG BECAUSE THE HOUSE
HAS NO LEGITIMATE REASON TO
INVESTIGATE THE UKRAINIAN
CONTROVERSY.
CONTROVERSY. IT’S NOT WRONG BECAUSE WE’RE IN
AN ELECTION YEAR.
THERE’S NO GOOD TIME FOR AN
IMPEACHMENT.
IMPEACHMENT. NO, IT’S WRONG BECAUSE THIS IS
NOT HOW YOU IMPEACH AN AMERICAN
PRESIDENT.
PRESIDENT. THIS CASE IS NOT A CASE OF THE
UNKNOWABLE, IT’S THE CASE OF THE
PERIPHERAL.
PERIPHERAL. WE HAVE A RECORD OF CONFLICTS,
OFFENSES THAT HAVE NOT BEEN
FULLY CONSIDERED.
FULLY CONSIDERED. UNSUBPOENAED WITNESS WITH
MATERIAL EVIDENCE.
MATERIAL EVIDENCE. TO IMPEACH A PRESIDENT ON THIS
RECORD WOULD EXPOSE EVERY FUTURE
PRESIDENT TO THE SAME TYPE OF
IMPEACHMENT.
IMPEACHMENT. PRINCIPLE TAKES US TO A PLACE WE
WOULD PREFER NOT TO BE.
THAT WAS A PLACE 7 REPUBLICANS
FOUND THEMSELVES IN THE JOHNSON
TRIAL.
TRIAL. WHEN THEY SAVED A PRESIDENT FROM
AINQUIRY
AINQUIRY A
A AQUITTAL AND THEY CELEBRATED HIS
PROFILES OF COURAGE.
SENATOR ROSS SAID IT WAS LIKE
LOOKING DOWN INTO HIS OPEN GRAVE
AND THEN HE JUMPED BECAUSE HE
DIDN’T HAVE ANY ALTERNATIVE.
IT’S EASY TO CELEBRATE THOSE
PEOPLE FROM THE DISTANCE OF TIME
AND CIRCUMSTANCE.
AND CIRCUMSTANCE. IT’S APPEALING TO THOSE SAYING
FORGET THE DEFINITION OF CRIMES.
JUST DO IT LIKE THIS IS SOME
IMPULSE BUY NIKE SNEAKER.
YOU CAN DO THAT.
YOU CAN DECLARE THE DEFINITIONS
OF CRIMES ALLEGED ARE IMMATERIAL
AND JUST AN EXERCISE OF POLITICS
AND NOT THE LAW.
HOWEVER THOSE LEGAL DEFINITIONS
AND STANDARDS WHICH I HAVE
ADDRESSED IN MY STANDARD ARE THE
VERY THING THAT DIVIDE RAGE FROM
REASON.
REASON. I WILL CONCLUDE FROM THIS OF A
SCENE WHEN HIS SON-IN-LAW
WILLIAM ROPER PUT THE LAW
SUGGESTING HE WOULD PUT THE LAW
AHEAD OF MORTALITY.
WHEN HE ASKED WOULD HE INSTEAD
CUT A GREAT ROAD THROUGH TO GET
AFTER THE DEVIL, HE PROUDLY
DECLARES YES.
DECLARES YES. I CUT 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.
THIS COUNTRY IS PLANTED THICK
WITH LAWS FROM COAST-TO-COAST.
MAN’S LAWS, NOT GOD’S.
AND IF YOU CUT THEM DOWN AND
YOU’RE JUST THE MAN TO DO IT, DO
YOU REALLY THINK YOU COULD STAND
UPRIGHT IN THE WIND THAT WOULD
BLOW THEN?
BLOW THEN? SO I WILL CONCLUDE WITH THIS.
BOTH SIDES OF THIS CONTROVERSY
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.
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.
PRESIDENT. WHERE WILL YOU STAND THEN?