Podcast appearances and mentions of Michael J Gerhardt

Congress's impeachment power has been used dozens of times since the republic's founding, mostly for relatively low- and mid-level executive and judicial officers involving clear instances of bribery or other felonies. Its attempted use to remove Supreme Court justices, presidents, and now cabinet secretaries is more controversial, and since the 1990s, in arguably partisan or overtly political ways. The impeachment inquiry into President Biden and the House vote to impeach Homeland Security Department Secretary Mayorkas (which recently failed a snap Senate vote) may be seen as tit-for-tat for the two impeachment trials of President Trump. Is that a false equivalence? Regardless of who threw the first partisan stone, are recent uses of the Impeachment power a good development or arguable abuses? What does it portend for the future? Our distinguished panel of scholars will discuss the power itself, recent impeachment proceedings, and the potential implications for the future.Featuring:Prof. Michael J. Gerhardt, Burton Craige Distinguished Professor of Jurisprudence, UNC School of LawProf. Keith E. Whittington, William Nelson Cromwell Professor of Politics, Princeton University(Moderator) Prof. Ilya Somin, Professor of Law, Antonin Scalia Law School, George Mason University

Congress’s impeachment power has been used dozens of times since the republic’s founding, mostly for relatively low- and mid-level executive and judicial officers involving clear instances of bribery or other felonies. Its attempted use to remove Supreme Court justices, presidents, and now cabinet secretaries is more controversial, and since the 1990s, in arguably partisan or overtly political ways. The impeachment inquiry into President Biden and the House vote to impeach Homeland Security Department Secretary Mayorkas (which recently failed a snap Senate vote) may be seen as tit-for-tat for the two impeachment trials of President Trump. Is that a false equivalence? Regardless of who threw the first partisan stone, are recent uses of the Impeachment power a good development or arguable abuses? What does it portend for the future? Our distinguished panel of scholars will discuss the power itself, recent impeachment proceedings, and the potential implications for the future.Featuring:Prof. Michael J. Gerhardt, Burton Craige Distinguished Professor of Jurisprudence, UNC School of LawProf. Keith E. Whittington, William Nelson Cromwell Professor of Politics, Princeton University(Moderator) Prof. Ilya Somin, Professor of Law, Antonin Scalia Law School, George Mason University

Vice President to a narrow election winner, Chester Arthur was a very unlikely President. But on September 20th 1881 he took his seat as the 21st President of the United States at the dawn of the modern administrative state and presidency.So what kind of President did he become? Was he progressive? What was his role in the creation of the Civil Service? And how did the Presidency impact him as a person?Don is joined by Michael J. Gerhardt for this episode in our Presidential series. Michael is the Samuel Ashe Distinguished Professor of Constitutional Law at the University of North Carolina School of Law in Chapel Hill. He is the author of The Forgotten Presidents: Their Untold Constitutional Legacy and FDR's Mentors: Navigating the Path to Greatness.Produced by Sophie Gee and Freddy Chick. Edited by Aidan Lonergan. Senior Producer was Charlotte Long.Enjoy unlimited access to award-winning original documentaries that are released weekly and AD-FREE podcasts. Get a subscription for $1 per month for 3 months with code AMERICANHISTORY sign up at https://historyhit.com/subscription/ You can take part in our listener survey here.

Delve into the heart of the impeachment process in the U.S. Constitution with Professor Michael J. Gerhardt,  a distinguished professor of jurisprudence at the University of North Carolina Law School. Explore the historical origins, the framers' intentions, and the complexities of holding high-ranking officials accountable. With insights into recent events and the evolving role of political parties, this episode offers a thought-provoking examination of democracy's safeguard. 

Have you ever wondered how impeachment really works? As a witness and consultant in the impeachment trials of Bill Clinton and Donald Trump, legal scholar Michael J. Gerhardt has collected a lifetime of scholarly research and firsthand experience. But despite his proximity to such high-profile cases, Gerhardt doesn't advocate for or against the impeachment of specific presidents. Instead, he illuminates the legal and procedural aspects that govern the process, providing a comprehensive overview of impeachment from its origins to present-day practice. His new book, The Law Of Presidential Impeachment, is a nonpartisan exploration that aims to break down the process and offer readers a deeper understanding of how the Constitution holds presidents accountable. In The Law Of Presidential Impeachment, Gerhardt guides us through the historical roots of presidential impeachment, tracing it back to the nation's founding when American colonists, still reflecting on past grievances with their former king, embedded the process in the Constitution. Impeachment recently returned to the forefront of American political discourse during Donald Trump's presidency, but Gerhardt's expertise goes beyond contemporary events to provide a timeless perspective on the constitutional mechanism. If you've ever wanted the chance to peek into the process of presidential impeachments, join us as Gerhardt helps to deepen understanding of our executive branch and the overarching governmental system that shapes our democracy. Michael J. Gerhardt is the Burton Craige Distinguished Professor of Jurisprudence at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, the Scholar in Residence at the National Constitution Center in Philadelphia, and the foremost scholar on impeachment in the United States. He is one of only two legal scholars to testify in three different presidential impeachment hearings and served as Special Counsel to the Presiding Officer in Donald Trump's second impeachment trial. He is the only legal scholar to address the entire House of Representatives on the law of presidential impeachment was the Order of the Coif Distinguished Visitor in 2020-22 (an honor given only to one legal scholar each year in recognition of their scholarship) and received University of North Carolina's highest award given to a faculty member in recognition of their public service in 2023.   Buy the Companion Book The Law of Presidential Impeachment: A Guide for the Engaged Citizen Third Place Books

In this episode of 92NY Talks, join Kermit Roosevelt, law professor at the University of Pennsylvania Carey Law School and author of The Nation That Never Was: Reconstructing America's Story, and Michael J. Gerhardt, author of The Law of Presidential Impeachment, for a discussion on the historical roots and constitutional mechanisms of impeachment, gaining insights from Gerhardt's lifetime of research and experience in high profile trials. Gerhardt will guide us through a nonpartisan overview that goes beyond specific cases, offering nuanced perspectives on under-explored issues.   The conversation was streamed live as part of The 92nd Street Y, New York online talks series on January 31, 2024.

This week, Emily Bazelon, John Dickerson, and David Plotz discuss Special Counsel Robert Hur's description of President Joe Biden; House Republicans' impeachment of DHS Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas and refusal on Ukraine aid; and Democrat Tom Suozzi's win in the New York congressional special election. And in Slate Plus, Emily, John, and David talk local news with reporter Ellie Wolfe.    Here are some notes and references from this week's show: Matt Viser and Tyler Pager for The Washington Post: Biden responds angrily to special counsel report questioning his memory and Marianne LeVine: Trump says he'd disregard NATO treaty, urge Russian attacks on U.S. allies Politico Magazine: What Biden Needs to Do to Reassure the Public Elena Moore for NPR: Biden's campaign gives in and joins TikTok. Blame the youngs Mike Lillis and Mychael Schnell for The Hill: Lawmakers scramble for Plan B on Ukraine Jake Tapper for CNN: Marco Rubio reacts to Trump threatening NATO country to ‘pay up' Zack Beauchamp for Vox: The moral and strategic case for arming Ukraine Joshua Matz, Michael J. Gerhardt, Amit Jain, and Laurence H. Tribe for Just Security: Why and How the Senate Should Swiftly Dismiss the Impeachment Charges Against Mayorkas Nate Cohn for The New York Times: Not an Ordinary Special Election, and Yet a Typical Result and Carl Hulse: How Senate Democrats Flipped the Border Issue on Republicans Here are this week's chatters: Emily: American Fiction; Sam Sanders, Nadira Goffe, and Stephen Metcalf for the Slate Culture Gabfest podcast: American Fiction, Oscar Contender?; and Sam Sanders, Saeed Jones, and Zach Stafford for the Stitcher Vibe Check podcast: A Special Conversation with Cord Jefferson  John: Timeguessr and Matt Levine for Matt Levin's Money Stuff: Lyft Had an Earnings Typo David: The Greatest Night in Pop on Netflix and USA for Africa: We Are the World  Listener chatter from J.T. Horn in Strafford, Vermont: Peter Frick Wright for the Outside Podcast: A Wild Conversation with E. Jean Carroll   For this week's Slate Plus bonus segment, David, John, and Emily discuss with Ellie Wolfe her local-news reporting as Education Reporter for the Arizona Daily Star. See Proposed law would limit shared governance at Arizona's universities; U of A to ‘permanently eliminate' $27 million worth of jobs in academic units; U of A's Robbins talks about his pay, layoffs, athletics debt, more; and CFO: U of A must cut $200M in spending, rethink mission, accept layoffs. Thanks to listeners Alison, Anna, and David for the recommendation!    In the latest Gabfest Reads, John talks with Brad Stulberg about his book, Master of Change: How to Excel When Everything Is Changing – Including You.   Email your chatters, questions, and comments to gabfest@slate.com. (Messages may be referenced by name unless the writer stipulates otherwise.)   Podcast production by Cheyna Roth  Research by Julie Huygen Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

This week, Emily Bazelon, John Dickerson, and David Plotz discuss Special Counsel Robert Hur's description of President Joe Biden; House Republicans' impeachment of DHS Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas and refusal on Ukraine aid; and Democrat Tom Suozzi's win in the New York congressional special election. And in Slate Plus, Emily, John, and David talk local news with reporter Ellie Wolfe.    Here are some notes and references from this week's show: Matt Viser and Tyler Pager for The Washington Post: Biden responds angrily to special counsel report questioning his memory and Marianne LeVine: Trump says he'd disregard NATO treaty, urge Russian attacks on U.S. allies Politico Magazine: What Biden Needs to Do to Reassure the Public Elena Moore for NPR: Biden's campaign gives in and joins TikTok. Blame the youngs Mike Lillis and Mychael Schnell for The Hill: Lawmakers scramble for Plan B on Ukraine Jake Tapper for CNN: Marco Rubio reacts to Trump threatening NATO country to ‘pay up' Zack Beauchamp for Vox: The moral and strategic case for arming Ukraine Joshua Matz, Michael J. Gerhardt, Amit Jain, and Laurence H. Tribe for Just Security: Why and How the Senate Should Swiftly Dismiss the Impeachment Charges Against Mayorkas Nate Cohn for The New York Times: Not an Ordinary Special Election, and Yet a Typical Result and Carl Hulse: How Senate Democrats Flipped the Border Issue on Republicans Here are this week's chatters: Emily: American Fiction; Sam Sanders, Nadira Goffe, and Stephen Metcalf for the Slate Culture Gabfest podcast: American Fiction, Oscar Contender?; and Sam Sanders, Saeed Jones, and Zach Stafford for the Stitcher Vibe Check podcast: A Special Conversation with Cord Jefferson  John: Timeguessr and Matt Levine for Matt Levin's Money Stuff: Lyft Had an Earnings Typo David: The Greatest Night in Pop on Netflix and USA for Africa: We Are the World  Listener chatter from J.T. Horn in Strafford, Vermont: Peter Frick Wright for the Outside Podcast: A Wild Conversation with E. Jean Carroll   For this week's Slate Plus bonus segment, David, John, and Emily discuss with Ellie Wolfe her local-news reporting as Education Reporter for the Arizona Daily Star. See Proposed law would limit shared governance at Arizona's universities; U of A to ‘permanently eliminate' $27 million worth of jobs in academic units; U of A's Robbins talks about his pay, layoffs, athletics debt, more; and CFO: U of A must cut $200M in spending, rethink mission, accept layoffs. Thanks to listeners Alison, Anna, and David for the recommendation!    In the latest Gabfest Reads, John talks with Brad Stulberg about his book, Master of Change: How to Excel When Everything Is Changing – Including You.   Email your chatters, questions, and comments to gabfest@slate.com. (Messages may be referenced by name unless the writer stipulates otherwise.)   Podcast production by Cheyna Roth  Research by Julie Huygen Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

This week, Emily Bazelon, John Dickerson, and David Plotz discuss Special Counsel Robert Hur's description of President Joe Biden; House Republicans' impeachment of DHS Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas and refusal on Ukraine aid; and Democrat Tom Suozzi's win in the New York congressional special election. And in Slate Plus, Emily, John, and David talk local news with reporter Ellie Wolfe.    Here are some notes and references from this week's show: Matt Viser and Tyler Pager for The Washington Post: Biden responds angrily to special counsel report questioning his memory and Marianne LeVine: Trump says he'd disregard NATO treaty, urge Russian attacks on U.S. allies Politico Magazine: What Biden Needs to Do to Reassure the Public Elena Moore for NPR: Biden's campaign gives in and joins TikTok. Blame the youngs Mike Lillis and Mychael Schnell for The Hill: Lawmakers scramble for Plan B on Ukraine Jake Tapper for CNN: Marco Rubio reacts to Trump threatening NATO country to ‘pay up' Zack Beauchamp for Vox: The moral and strategic case for arming Ukraine Joshua Matz, Michael J. Gerhardt, Amit Jain, and Laurence H. Tribe for Just Security: Why and How the Senate Should Swiftly Dismiss the Impeachment Charges Against Mayorkas Nate Cohn for The New York Times: Not an Ordinary Special Election, and Yet a Typical Result and Carl Hulse: How Senate Democrats Flipped the Border Issue on Republicans Here are this week's chatters: Emily: American Fiction; Sam Sanders, Nadira Goffe, and Stephen Metcalf for the Slate Culture Gabfest podcast: American Fiction, Oscar Contender?; and Sam Sanders, Saeed Jones, and Zach Stafford for the Stitcher Vibe Check podcast: A Special Conversation with Cord Jefferson  John: Timeguessr and Matt Levine for Matt Levin's Money Stuff: Lyft Had an Earnings Typo David: The Greatest Night in Pop on Netflix and USA for Africa: We Are the World  Listener chatter from J.T. Horn in Strafford, Vermont: Peter Frick Wright for the Outside Podcast: A Wild Conversation with E. Jean Carroll   For this week's Slate Plus bonus segment, David, John, and Emily discuss with Ellie Wolfe her local-news reporting as Education Reporter for the Arizona Daily Star. See Proposed law would limit shared governance at Arizona's universities; U of A to ‘permanently eliminate' $27 million worth of jobs in academic units; U of A's Robbins talks about his pay, layoffs, athletics debt, more; and CFO: U of A must cut $200M in spending, rethink mission, accept layoffs. Thanks to listeners Alison, Anna, and David for the recommendation!    In the latest Gabfest Reads, John talks with Brad Stulberg about his book, Master of Change: How to Excel When Everything Is Changing – Including You.   Email your chatters, questions, and comments to gabfest@slate.com. (Messages may be referenced by name unless the writer stipulates otherwise.)   Podcast production by Cheyna Roth  Research by Julie Huygen Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

To learn more about presidential impeachment, Justin and John sit down with Professor Michael J. Gerhardt, the leading scholar of American impeachment law. Gerhardt appeared as an expert witness in the impeachments of both President Trump and President Clinton, and he recently appeared as a witness in the impeachment inquiry of President Biden.Gerhardt is the author of many books on impeachment. His latest book on the subject, The Law of Presidential Impeachment: A Guide for the Engaged Citizen was released on January 9th, 2024. Find the book at the link below.https://nyupress.org/9781479824694/the-law-of-presidential-impeachment/

A deep conversation about presidential impeachment -- one of the most important drivers in American politics today -- with Michael J. Gerhardt, a distinguished constitutional law scholar and has been part of several impeachment proceedings. He is the author of The Law of Presidential Impeachment: A Guide for the Engaged Citizen. 00:16 The History and Evolution of Presidential Impeachment 01:57 Understanding the Framers' Vision of Impeachment 04:20 Early Experiments with Presidential Impeachment 07:12 The Role of Impeachment in Holding Presidents Accountable 12:07 The Nature of Impeachment: Political vs Legal Proceedings 13:36 The Impact of Partisanship on Impeachment 18:22 The Nixon and Clinton Impeachment Processes 22:39 The Trump Impeachment Trials: An Insider's Perspective 28:30 The Biden Impeachment Inquiry: An Unprecedented Situation 31:02 The Future of Presidential Impeachment

Michael J. Gerhardt is the Burton Craige Distinguished Professor of Jurisprudence at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, the Scholar in Residence at the National Constitution Center in Philadelphia, and the foremost scholar on impeachment in the United States. He is one of only two legal scholars to testify in three different presidential impeachment hearings and served as Special Counsel to the Presiding Officer in Donald Trump's second impeachment trial. He is the author of six books, including his latest, THE LAW OF PRESIDENTIAL IMPEACHMENT: A Guide For the Engaged Citizen, is on sale January 9th. Join us for this compelling chat about Donald Trump, his two impeachments, and his ongoing threat to democracy; the Republican-led evidence-free Biden impeachment inquiry and the partisan weaponization of the impeachment process; the Constitution and the history of impeachments; and the motivation for his new book. Got somethin' to say?! Email us at BackroomAndy@gmail.com Leave us a message: 845-307-7446 Twitter: @AndyOstroy Produced by Andy Ostroy, Matty Rosenberg, and Jennifer Hammoud @ Radio Free Rhiniecliff Design by Cricket Lengyel

EPISODE 1912: In this KEEN ON show, Andrew talks to Michael J. Gerhardt, author of THE LAW OF PRESIDENTIAL IMPEACHMENT, about how the threat of impeachment remain indelible stains on the Presidencies of Nixon, Clinton and TrumpMichael J. Gerhardt is Burton Craige Distinguished Professor of Jurisprudence at the University of North Carolina Law School, resident scholar at the National Constitution Center, and the author of six books, including The Forgotten Presidents: Their Untold Constitutional Legacy, whichFinancial Times selected as one of the best non-fiction books of 2013. Named as one of the "100 most connected men" by GQ magazine, Andrew Keen is amongst the world's best known broadcasters and commentators. In addition to presenting KEEN ON, he is the host of the long-running How To Fix Democracy show. He is also the author of four prescient books about digital technology: CULT OF THE AMATEUR, DIGITAL VERTIGO, THE INTERNET IS NOT THE ANSWER and HOW TO FIX THE FUTURE. Andrew lives in San Francisco, is married to Cassandra Knight, Google's VP of Litigation & Discovery, and has two grown children.

The Law of Presidential Impeachment: A Guide for the Engaged Citizen by Michael J. Gerhardt https://amzn.to/3vsc1GJ A clear and comprehensive overview of presidential impeachment from a leading expert in the field As a result of Donald Trump's presidency, impeachment was once again thrust into the spotlight of American political discussion. However, its history goes back to the very founding of the nation, when American colonists, remembering their grievances against their former king, entrenched the process in their new Constitution. The Law of Presidential Impeachment breaks down both the law and politics of this process, providing a comprehensive, nonpartisan, and up-to-date explanation of the Constitution's various mechanisms for holding presidents accountable for their misdeeds. Based on a lifetime of scholarly research, as well as unique experience as a witness and consultant in the impeachment trials of Bill Clinton and Donald Trump, Michael J. Gerhardt's new book takes the reader back to the basics of presidential impeachments. Rather than provide reasons for or against impeaching particular presidents, he explains the law and procedures that govern impeachment, examining a number of significant, yet under-explored, issues and themes. Gerhardt offers new perspectives on the subject, arguing that it cannot be properly understood in a vacuum, but must instead be viewed in the context of its coordination with such other mechanisms as criminal prosecutions, censure, elections, congressional oversight, and the Fourteenth and Twenty-Fifth Amendments.

It's no coincidence that this week, as we honored the legacy of Martin Luther King, Jr., the Democrats had hoped to make progress on passing the Freedom to Vote Act and the John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act. However, the Democrats' efforts have been stymied by a Republican filibuster, resulting in a strategic shift from voting rights legislation to filibuster rule reform. Yet, with the rule change on the table, the Democrats failed to even secure sufficient party support, let alone the additional Republican support necessary to pass the change. So why is there so much controversy over the filibuster? How is it impacting legislation? And is reform the answer? On Lawyer 2 Lawyer, host Craig Williams is joined by professor Michael J. Gerhardt, from UNC School of Law, as we spotlight the past, present, and possible future of the filibuster, and its impact on voting rights legislation.  

It's no coincidence that this week, as we honored the legacy of Martin Luther King, Jr., the Democrats had hoped to make progress on passing the Freedom to Vote Act and the John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act. However, the Democrats' efforts have been stymied by a Republican filibuster, resulting in a strategic shift from voting rights legislation to filibuster rule reform. Yet, with the rule change on the table, the Democrats failed to even secure sufficient party support, let alone the additional Republican support necessary to pass the change. So why is there so much controversy over the filibuster? How is it impacting legislation? And is reform the answer? On Lawyer 2 Lawyer, host Craig Williams is joined by professor Michael J. Gerhardt, from UNC School of Law, as we spotlight the past, present, and possible future of the filibuster, and its impact on voting rights legislation.  

  Join THAT SAID podcast host Michael Zeldin for this timely conversation about the second impeachment of Donald J. Trump.  Michael's guests are Congressman Eric Swalwell, House Impeachment Manager, and Professor Michael J. Gerhardt, Burton Craige Distinguished Professor of Jurisprudence at the University of North Carolina School of Law.   Guests Congressman Eric Swalwell Growing up in what now is California's Fifteenth Congressional District taught Eric Swalwell a lot about hard work, strong principles, and planning for a brighter future. The oldest of four boys and son to Eric Sr., a retired police officer, and Vicky, who works as an administrative assistant, Swalwell was raised and attended public schools in the East Bay. A Division I soccer scholarship was his ticket to becoming the first person in his family to go to college. During college, he worked as an unpaid intern in the office of his representative, Congresswoman Ellen Tauscher, and so was on Capitol Hill on September 11, 2001. This inspired his first legislative achievement: using his Student Government Association position to create a public-private college scholarship program for students who lost parents in the attacks. After earning undergraduate and law degrees from the University of Maryland, he returned to the East Bay to serve as a prosecutor in the Alameda County District Attorney's Office for seven years.  He also served as chairman of the Dublin Heritage & Cultural Arts Commission, on the Dublin Planning Commission, and was elected to the Dublin City Council. Eric Swalwell in 2012 was elected to represent California's Fifteenth Congressional District, which includes a large part of the East Bay. Now in his fourth term, he's working hard to bring new energy, ideas, and a problem-solving spirit to Congress, with a focus on advancing policies that support equality, opportunity, and security. Congressman Swalwell serves on the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, and believes protecting Americans is Congress' most solemn duty. He chairs the Intelligence Modernization and Readiness Subcommittee, which oversees overall management of the Intelligence Community: the policies and programs focused on making sure that all 17 U.S. intelligence agencies have the workforce, infrastructure and services they need to succeed. This involves fostering greater collaboration and better use of resources across the entire Intelligence Community in personnel management, security clearance reform, information technology modernization, and other areas. He also serves on the House Judiciary Committee, where his experience as a prosecutor and as a son and brother of law enforcement officers informs his perspective on criminal justice reform while he also address issues including voting rights, LGBT equality, comprehensive immigration reform, and protecting a woman's right to make her own health care decisions.  A leader in the House, he is co-chair of the Democratic Steering and Policy Committee, which makes committee assignments and sets the caucus' policy agenda. He also founded and is chairman emeritus of Future Forum, a group of almost 50 young Democratic Members of Congress focused on issues and opportunities for millennial Americans including student loan debt and home ownership.  But in keeping with his promise to work across the aisle, in his first term, Congressman Swalwell co-founded the bipartisan United Solutions Caucus to bring new Members together; the group meets regularly to advance common-sense solutions and overcome the partisan divide. And in his second term, Swalwell cofounded the bipartisan Sharing Economy Caucus to explore how this burgeoning new economic sector can benefit more Americans. Congressman Swalwell's first-term legislative accomplishments include two of his bills signed into law – tied for the most bills signed from any freshman Member of h...

  Join THAT SAID podcast host Michael Zeldin for this timely conversation about the second impeachment of Donald J. Trump.  Michael's guests are Congressman Eric Swalwell, House Impeachment Manager, and Professor Michael J. Gerhardt, Burton Craige Distinguished Professor of Jurisprudence at the University of North Carolina School of Law.   Guests Congressman Eric Swalwell Growing up in what now is California's Fifteenth Congressional District taught Eric Swalwell a lot about hard work, strong principles, and planning for a brighter future. The oldest of four boys and son to Eric Sr., a retired police officer, and Vicky, who works as an administrative assistant, Swalwell was raised and attended public schools in the East Bay. A Division I soccer scholarship was his ticket to becoming the first person in his family to go to college. During college, he worked as an unpaid intern in the office of his representative, Congresswoman Ellen Tauscher, and so was on Capitol Hill on September 11, 2001. This inspired his first legislative achievement: using his Student Government Association position to create a public-private college scholarship program for students who lost parents in the attacks. After earning undergraduate and law degrees from the University of Maryland, he returned to the East Bay to serve as a prosecutor in the Alameda County District Attorney's Office for seven years.  He also served as chairman of the Dublin Heritage & Cultural Arts Commission, on the Dublin Planning Commission, and was elected to the Dublin City Council. Eric Swalwell in 2012 was elected to represent California's Fifteenth Congressional District, which includes a large part of the East Bay. Now in his fourth term, he's working hard to bring new energy, ideas, and a problem-solving spirit to Congress, with a focus on advancing policies that support equality, opportunity, and security. Congressman Swalwell serves on the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, and believes protecting Americans is Congress' most solemn duty. He chairs the Intelligence Modernization and Readiness Subcommittee, which oversees overall management of the Intelligence Community: the policies and programs focused on making sure that all 17 U.S. intelligence agencies have the workforce, infrastructure and services they need to succeed. This involves fostering greater collaboration and better use of resources across the entire Intelligence Community in personnel management, security clearance reform, information technology modernization, and other areas. He also serves on the House Judiciary Committee, where his experience as a prosecutor and as a son and brother of law enforcement officers informs his perspective on criminal justice reform while he also address issues including voting rights, LGBT equality, comprehensive immigration reform, and protecting a woman's right to make her own health care decisions.  A leader in the House, he is co-chair of the Democratic Steering and Policy Committee, which makes committee assignments and sets the caucus' policy agenda. He also founded and is chairman emeritus of Future Forum, a group of almost 50 young Democratic Members of Congress focused on issues and opportunities for millennial Americans including student loan debt and home ownership.  But in keeping with his promise to work across the aisle, in his first term, Congressman Swalwell co-founded the bipartisan United Solutions Caucus to bring new Members together; the group meets regularly to advance common-sense solutions and overcome the partisan divide. And in his second term, Swalwell cofounded the bipartisan Sharing Economy Caucus to explore how this burgeoning new economic sector can benefit more Americans. Congressman Swalwell's first-term legislative accomplishments include two of his bills signed into law – tied for the most bills signed from any freshman Member of his class – including one that incentivized charitable giving after Typhoon Hai...

Noah Feldman and University of North Carolina School of Law Professor Michael J. Gerhardt both testified in front of the House Judiciary Committee as part of the impeachment inquiry into President Donald Trump. They discuss everything from how they made their arguments to how they dealt with the hate mail.  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Deep Background is the latest podcast from Pushkin Industries, in which Harvard Law Professor Noah Feldman breaks the relentless 24-hour news cycle with real conversation. In this episode--We Testified for Impeachment and It Made No Difference-- Feldman and University of North Carolina School of Law Professor Michael J. Gerhardt, who both testified in front of the House Judiciary Committee, discuss everything from how they made their arguments to how they dealt with the hate mail. Subscribe wherever you listen to podcasts.

President Donald Trump has been impeached. In this episode, hear the key evidence against him presented by the witnesses called to testify in over 40 hours of hearings that took place in the "inquiry" phase of the impeachment. Using this episode, you will be able to judge for yourself how strong the case against President Trump really is as the country prepares for his Senate trial.  Please Support Congressional Dish – Quick Links Click here to contribute monthly or a lump sum via PayPal Click here to support Congressional Dish for each episode via Patreon Send Zelle payments to: Donation@congressionaldish.com Send Venmo payments to: @Jennifer-Briney Send Cash App payments to: $CongressionalDish or Donation@congressionaldish.com Use your bank's online bill pay function to mail contributions to: 5753 Hwy 85 North, Number 4576, Crestview, FL 32536 Please make checks payable to Congressional Dish Thank you for supporting truly independent media! Recommended Congressional Dish Episodes CD067: What Do We Want In Ukraine? CD068: Ukraine Aid Bill CD136: Building WWIII CD156: Sanctions – Russia, North Korea & Iran CD167: Combating Russia (NDAA 2018) LIVE CD202: Impeachment? Articles/Documents Article: Pelosi Says She Plans To Send Articles Of Impeachment To Senate By Claudio Grisales and Dirdre Walsh, npr, December 18, 2019 Article: Impeachment Timeline: From Early Calls To A Full House Vote by Brian Naylor, npr, December 17, 2019 Article: Ukraine and Russia agree to implement ceasefire BBC News, December 10, 2019 Article: How America’s System Of Legalized Corruption Brought Us To The Brink Of Impeachment By Brendan Fischer, Talking Points Memo, December 5, 2019 Article: Who Is Michael J. Gerhardt? Professor Made Impeachment His Specialty by Emily Cochrane, The New York Times, December 4, 2019 Article: The Betrayal of Volodymyr Zelensky by Franklin Foer, The Atlantic, December 3, 2019 Article: Eric Ciaramella: 5 Fast Facts You Need to Know By Tom Cleary, heavy November 24, 2019 Article: Why Did ASAP Rocky Keep Coming Up at the Impeachment Hearing? By Aaron Mak, Slate, November 20, 2019 Article: Impeaching Trump And Demonizing Russia: Birds Of A Feather By Robert W. Merry, The American Conservative, November 19, 2019 Article: Gordon Sondland Was A Low-Profile Hotel Owner. Until He Went To Work For Trump By Jim Zarroli, npr, November 19, 2019 Article: Yovanovitch's Moment: Will Her Testimony Help Dems or the GOP? By Susan Crabtree, RealClear Politics, November 14, 2019 Article: Who Is Bill Taylor? Key Witness in the Impeachment Inquiry By Lara Jakes, The New York Times, November 13, 2019 Article: Mulvaney will not pursue court fight over subpoena By Katelyn Polantz, CNN, November 12, 2019 Article: After boost from Perry, backers got huge gas deal in Ukraine By Desmond Butler, Michael Biesecker, Stephen Braun, and Richard Lardner, AP News, November 11, 2019 Article: CNN host was set to interview Ukrainian President until scandal took shape By Caroline Kelly, CNN, November 7, 2019 Article: Rudy Giuliani, President Donald Trump's personal lawyer, defies subpoena in impeachment inquiry By Bart Jansen, USA Today, October 15, 2019 Article: 'Disruptive Diplomat' Gordon Sondland, a key figure in Trump impeachment furor long coveted ambassadorship By Aaron C. Davis, Josh Dawsey, Michelle Ye Hee Lee, and Michael Birnbaum, The Washington Post, October 14, 201 Article: The Sleazy Career of Kurt Volker By Robert Kuttner, The American Prospect, October 8, 2019 Article: Here’s what you need to know about the US aid package to Ukraine that Trump delayed by Joe Gould and Howard Altman, Defense News, September 25, 2019 Article: After Years Of Stalling, Can Ukraine Finally Become Energy Self-Sufficient? By Todd Prince, RadioFreeEurope RadioLiberty, September 15, 2019 Transcript: Nancy Pelosi Impeachment Statement Transcript: House of Representatives Launching Impeachment Inquiry of Trump Rev, September 24, 2019 Article: Trump holds up Ukraine military aid meant to confront Russia By Caitlin Emma and Connor O'Brien, Politico, August 28, 2019 Article: Trump kills plan to cut billions in foreign aid by John Bresnahan, Jennifer Scholtes and Marianne Levine, Politico, August 22, 2019 Article: The Complete Timeline of A$AP Rocky’s Arrest in Sweden By Isabelle Hore-Thorburn, High Snobiety, August 14, 2019 Document: Letter to Richard Burr & Adam Schiff August 12, 2019 Article: NATO is the obstacle to improving Russian-Western relations By Ruslan Pukhov, Defense News, March 28, 2019 Article: In Ukraine, A Make Believe Politician Prepares For the Presidency By Kenneth Rapoza, Forbes, March 26, 2019 Article: US staged a coup in Ukraine – here’s why and how by Chris Kanthan, Nation of Change, August 15, 2018 Article: How and Why the US Government Perpetrated the 2014 Coup in Ukraine by Eric Zuesse, Strategic Culture Foundation, June 3, 2018 Article: What Did Ex-Trump Aide Paul Manafort Really Do in Ukraine? by Kenzi Abou-Sabe, Tom Winter and Max Tucker, NBC News, June 27, 2017 Article: What Exactly Did Paul Manafort Do Wrong? by Julia Ioffe, The Atlantic, March 24, 2017 Article: How William Hague Deceived the House of Commons on Ukraine By David Morrison, Huffington Post, October 3, 2014 Article: That time Ukraine tried to join NATO — and NATO said no By Adam Taylor, The Washington Post, September 14, 2014 Article: It's not Russia that's pushed Ukraine to the brink of war By Seumas Milne, Guardian, April 30, 2014 Article: Facing Russian Threat, Ukraine Halts Plans for Deals with E.U. By David M. Herszenhorn, The New York Times, November 21, 2013 Article: Former Soviet States Stand Up to Russia. Will the U.S.? By Carl Gershman, The Washington Post, September 26, 2013 Article: Ukraine Says ’No’ to NATO By Kathleen Holzwart Sprehe, Pew Research Center, March 29, 2010 Article: Ukraine Faces Battle of NATO, Pro and Con By Mara D. Bellaby, The Associated Press, Washington Post Archive, June 6, 2006 Article: 'Meddling' In Ukraine By Michael McFaul, The Washington Post, December 21, 2004 Article: AFTEREFFECTS: THE LAW; American Will Advise Iraqis On Writing New Constitution By Jennifer 8. Lee, The Washington Post, May 11, 2003 Additional Resources Bill Summary: H.Res.755 — 116th Congress (2019-2020) Biography.com, Updated December 16, 2019 Biography: Rudolph Giuliani Biography.com, Updated December 16, 2019 Biography: David Hale, U.S. Department of State Biography: George P. Kent, U.S. Department of State Biographies: Speakers’ Bios: US-Ukraine Working Group Yearly Summit IV, Center For US Ukrainian Relations Explanatory Statement: DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2020 Explanatory Statement: DEPARTMENT OF STATE, FOREIGN OPERATIONS, AND RELATED PROGRAMS APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2020 State Department Explanatory Statement: DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDING SEPTEMBER 30, 2019, CONFERENCE REPORT TO ACCOMPANY H.R. 6157 Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN, SEPTEMBER 13, 2018 Explanatory Statement: Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2019 State Department Hearing: The Impeachment Inquiry into President Donald J. Trump: Constitutional Grounds for Presidential Impeachment U.S. House Committee on The Judiciary Profile: Gordon Sondland LinkedIn Profile: Kurt Volker LinkedIn Profile: Timothy Morrison LinkedIn Public Library of US Diplomacy: UKRAINE: PM YANUKOVYCH TELLS A/S FRIED: UKRAINE'S EUROPEAN CHOICE HAS BEEN DECIDED Wikileaks, November 17, 2006 USIP: About United States Institute of Peace USIP: Stephen J. Hadley United States Institute of Peace The Origins of USIP: Institute’s Founders Were Visionaries, Grass-Roots Americans, World War II Veterans United States Institute of Peace Video: Ukraine Crisis - What You're Not Being Told, YouTube, March 12, 2014 Sound Clip Sources Hearing: Emerging U.S. Defense Challenges and Worldwide Threats, United States Senate Committee on Armed Services, December 6, 2019 Witnesses General John M. Keane Mr. Shawn Brimley Dr. Robert Kagan Transcript: 55:55 Robert Kagan: But as we look across the whole panoply of threats that we face in the world, I worry that it’s too easy to lose sight of what, to my mind, represent the greatest threats that we face over the medium- and long term and possibly even sooner than we may think, and that is the threat posed by the two great powers in the international system, the two great revisionist powers international system—Russia and China, because what they threaten is something that is in a way more profound, which is this world order that the United States created after the end of World War II—a global security order, a global economic order, and a global political order. This is not something the United States did as a favor to the rest of the world. It’s not something we did out of an act of generosity, although on historical terms it was a rather remarkable act of generosity. It was done based on what Americans learned in the first half of the twentieth century, which was that if there was not a power—whether it was Britain or, as it turned out, it had to be the United States—willing and able to maintain this kind of decent world order, you did not have some smooth ride into something else. What you had was catastrophe. What you had was the rise of aggressive powers, the rise of hostile powers that were hostile to liberal values. We saw it. We all know what happened with two world wars in the first half of the twentieth century and what those who were present at the creation, so to speak, after World War II wanted to create was an international system that would not permit those kinds of horrors to be repeated. CNN Town Hall: Pelosi says Bill Clinton impeached for "being stupid", CNN, December 5, 2019 Speakers: Nancy Pelosi Transcript: Questioner: So, Ms, Pelosi. You resisted calls for the impeachment of president Bush in 2006 and president Trump following the Muller report earlier this year, this time is different. Why did you oppose it? Why did you oppose impeachment in the past? And what is your obligation to protect our democracy from the actions of our president now? Pelosi: Thank you. I thank you for bringing up the question about, because when I became speaker the first time, there was overwhelming call for me to impeach president Bush on the strength of the war in Iraq, which I vehemently opposed. And I say it again, I said it other places. That was my wheelhouse. I was intelligence. I was a ranking member on the intelligence committee, even before I became part of the leadership of gang of four. So I knew there were no nuclear weapons in Iraq. It just wasn't there. They had to show us, they had to show the gang of four. All the intelligence they had, the intelligence did not show that that was the case. So I knew it was a misrepresentation to the public. But having said that, it was in my view, not a ground for impeachment. They won the election. They made a representation. And to this day, people think, people think that it was the right thing to do. People think Iraq had something to do with the 9/11. I mean, it's appalling what they did. But I did and I said, if somebody wants to make a case, you bring it forward. They had impeached bill Clinton for personal indiscretion and misrepresenting about it and some of these same people are saying, Oh, this doesn't rise to impeachment or that right there. And impeaching Bill Clinton for being stupid in terms of something like that. I mean, I love him. I think it was a great president, but being stupid in terms of that and what would somebody do not to embarrass their family, but in any event, they did Bill Clinton. Now they want me to do George this. I just didn't want it to be a way of life in our country. As far as the Muller report or there was a good deal of the academic setting and a thousand legal experts wrote a statement that said, the Muller Report impeach...is what's in there as an impeachable offense? So much of what's in the Muller report will be more clear once some of the court cases are resolved, but it wasn't so clear to the public. The Ukraine, this removed all doubt. It was self evident that the president undermined our national security, jeopardize the integrity of our elections as he violated his oath of office. There's just... That's something that cannot be ignored. Hearing: Hearing on Constitutional Framework for Impeachment, House Judiciary Committee, C-SPAN Coverage, December 4, 2019 Watch on Youtube: The Impeachment Inquiry into President Donald J. Trump Witnesses Professor Noah Feldman Professor Pamela Karlan Professor Michael Gerhardt Professor Jonathan Turley Transcript: 1:41:00 Michael Gerhardt: The gravity of the president's misconduct is apparent when we compare it to the misconduct of the one president resigned from office to avoid impeachment conviction and removal. The House Judiciary Committee in 1974 approved three articles of impeachment against Richard Nixon who resigned a few days later. The first article charged him with obstruction of justice. If you read the Muller report, it identifies a number of facts. I won't lay them out here right now that suggest the president himself has obstructed justice. If you look at the second article of impeachment approved against Richard Nixon, it charged him with abuse of power for ordering the heads of the FBI, IRS, and CIA to harass his political enemies. In the present circumstance, the president is engaged in a pattern of abusing the trust, placing him by the American people, by soliciting foreign countries, including China, Russia, and Ukraine, to investigate his political opponents and interfere on his behalf and elections in which he is a candidate. The third article approved against president Nixon charged that he had failed to comply with four legislative subpoenas. In the present circumstance, the president has refused to comply with and directed at least 10 others in his administration not to comply with lawful congressional subpoenas, including Secretary of State, Mike Pompeo, Energy Secretary Rick Perry, and acting chief of staff and head of the Office of Management and Budget, Mick Mulvaney. As Senator Lindsey Graham now chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee said when he was a member of the house on the verge of impeaching president Clinton, the day Richard Nixon failed to answer that subpoena is the day he was subject to impeachment because he took the power from Congress over the impeachment process away from Congress, and he became the judge and jury. That is a perfectly good articulation of why obstruction of Congress is impeachable. 2:02:30 Norm Eisen: Professor Feldman, what is abuse of power? Noah Feldman: Abuse of power is when the president uses his office, takes an action that is part of the presidency, not to serve the public interest, but to serve his private benefit. And in particular, it's an abuse of power if he does it to facilitate his reelection or to gain an advantage that is not available to anyone who is not the president. Noah Feldman: Sir, why is that impeachable conduct? Noah Feldman: If the president uses his office for personal gain, the only recourse available under the constitution is for him to be impeached because the president cannot be as a practical matter charged criminally while he is in office because the department of justice works for the president. So the only mechanism available for a president who tries to distort the electoral process for personal gain is to impeach him. That is why we have impeachment. 2:09:15 Norm Eisen: Professor Gerhardt, does a high crime and misdemeanor require an actual statutory crime? Michael Gerhardt: 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 at, again, at the context and gravity of the misconduct. 2:35:15 Michael Gerhardt: 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 coordinate branch of government. He robs the House of Representatives of its basic constitutional power of impeachment. When you add to that the fact 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 cooperate in an impeachment inquiry. I don't think it's possible to emphasize this strongly enough. A president who will not cooperate in an impeachment inquiry is putting himself above the law. Now, putting yourself above the law as president is the core of an impeachable offense because if the president could not be impeached for that, he would in fact not be responsible to anybody. 3:15:30 Jonathan Turley: 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 steam colleagues said was certainly true. If you accept all of their presumptions, it would be obstruction, but impeachments have to be based on proof, 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 that President Trump obstructed Congress by not turning over material requested by the committee and citations have been made to the third article of the Nixon impeachment. Now, first of all, I want to confess, I've been a critic of the third article, the Nixon impeachment my whole life. My hair catches on fire every time someone mentions the third article. Why? Because you would be replicating one of the worst articles written on impeachment. Here's the reason why - Peter Radino's position as Chairman of Judiciary was that Congress alone decides what information may be given to it - alone. His position was that the courts have no role in this. And so by that theory, any refusal by a president based on executive privilege or immunities would be the basis of impeachment. That is essentially the theory that's being replicated today. President Trump has gone to the courts. He's allowed to do that. We have three branches, not two. You're saying article one gives us complete authority that when we demand information from another 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. In Nixon, it 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 be made. It didn't say, "You had no right coming to us, don't darken our doorstep again." It said, "We've heard your arguments. We've heard Congress's arguments and you know what? You lose. Turn over the material to Congress." Do you know what that did for the Judiciary is it gave this body legitimacy. Now recently there's some rulings against president Trump including a ruling involving Don McGahn. Mr. Chairman, I testified in front of you a few months ago and 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's an important win for this 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 because a court issues in order and unless they stay that order by a higher court, you have obstruction. But I can't emphasize this enough. And I'll say just 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. 3:26:40 Jonathan Turley: There's a reason why every past impeachment has established crimes, and it's obvious it's not that you can't impeach on a non-crime. You can, in fact. Non-crimes had been part of past impeachments. It's just that they've never gone up alone or primarily as the basis of impeachment. That's the problem here. If you prove a quid pro quo that you might have an impeachable offense, but to go up only on a noncriminal case would be the first time in history. So why is that the case? The reason is that crimes have an established definition and 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 could not do. You can't say the president is above the law. If you then say the crimes you accuse him of really don't have to be established. 3:39:35 Jonathan Turley: This is one of the thinnest records ever to go forward on impeachment. I mean the Johnson record one can can debate because this was the fourth attempt at an impeachment, but this is certainly the thinnest of a modern record. If you take a look at the size of the record of Clinton and Nixon, they were massive in comparison to this, which was is almost wafer thin in comparison, and it has left doubts - not just in the minds of people supporting president Trump - now it's in the minds of people like myself about what actually occurred. There's a difference between requesting investigations and a quid pro quo. You need to stick the landing on the quid pro quo. You need to get the evidence to support it. It might be out there, I don't know, but it's not in this record. I agree with my colleagues. We've all read the record and I just come to a different conclusion. I don't see proof of a quid pro quo no matter what my presumptions, assumptions or bias might be. Hearing: Impeachment Hearing with Fiona Hill and David Holmes, House Select Intelligence Committee, C-SPAN Coverage, November 21, 2019 Watch on Youtube: Open Hearing with Dr. Fiona Hill and David Holmes Witnesses Dr. Fiona Hill David Holmes Transcript: 44:45 David Holmes: Our work in Ukraine focused on three policy priorities: peace and security, economic growth and reform and anti-corruption and rule of law. These policies match the three consistent priorities of the Ukrainian people since 2014 as measured in public opinion polling, namely an end to the conflict with Russia that restores national unity and territorial integrity, responsible economic policies that deliver European standards of growth and opportunity and effective and impartial rule of law, institutions that deliver justice in cases of high level official corruption. Our efforts on this third policy priority merit special mention because it was during Ambassador Yovanovitch's tenure that we achieved the hard-fought passage of a law establishing an independent court to try corruption cases. 51:00 David Holmes: It quickly became clear that the White House was not prepared to show the level of support for the Zelensky administration that we had originally anticipated. In early May, Mr Giuliani publicly alleged that Mr. Zelensky was "surrounded by enemies of the U S president" and canceled a visit to Ukraine. Shortly thereafter we learned that Vice President Pence no longer plan to lead the presidential delegation to the inauguration. The White House then whittled down an initial proposed list for the official presidential delegation to the inauguration from over a dozen individuals to just five. Secretary Perry as its head, Special Representative for Ukraine and negotiations Kurt Volker representing the State Department, National Security Council director Alex Vindman representing the White House, temporary acting Charge D'affairs Joseph Pennington representing the Embassy, and Ambassador to the European Union, Gordon Sondland. While Ambassador Sondland's mandate as ambassador as the accredited ambassador to the European Union did not cover individual member states, let alone non-member countries like Ukraine, he made clear that he had direct and frequent access to President Trump and Chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney and portrayed himself as the conduit to the President and Mr. Mulvaney for this group. Secretary Perry, Ambassador Sondland, and Ambassador Volker later styled themselves "the three Amigos" and made clear they would take the lead on coordinating our policy and engagement with the Zelensky administration. 53:30 David Holmes: The inauguration took place on May 20th and I took notes in the delegations meeting with President Zelensky. During the meeting, Secretary Perry passed President Zelensky a list that Perry described as "people he trusts." Secretary Perry told President Zelensky that he could seek advice from the people on this list on issues of energy sector reform, which was the topic of subsequent meetings between Secretary Perry and key Ukrainian energy sector contacts. Embassy personnel were excluded from some of these later meetings by Secretary Perry's staff. 56:50 David Holmes: Within a week or two, it became apparent that the energy sector reforms, the commercial deals, and the anti-corruption efforts on which we were making progress were not making a dent in terms of persuading the White House to schedule a meeting between the presidents. 58:10 David Holmes: We became concerned that even if a meeting between Presidents Trump and Zelensky could occur, it would not go well. And I discussed with embassy colleagues whether we should stop seeking a meeting all together. While the White House visit was critical to the Zelensky administration, a visit that failed to send a clear and strong signal of support likely would be worse for President Zelensky than no visit at all. 58:30 David Holmes: Congress has appropriated $1.5 billion in security assistance for Ukraine since 2014. This assistance has provided crucial material and moral support to Ukraine and its defensive war with Russia and has helped Ukraine build its armed forces virtually from scratch into arguably the most capable and battle-hardened land force in Europe. I've had the honor of visiting the main training facility in Western Ukraine with members of Congress and members of this very committee, Ms. Stefanik, where we witnessed firsthand us national guard troops along with allies conducting training for Ukrainian soldiers. Since 2014 national guard units from California, Oklahoma, New York, Tennessee, and Wisconsin have trained shoulder to shoulder with Ukrainian counterparts. 59:30 David Holmes: Given the history of U.S. security assistance to Ukraine and the bipartisan recognition of its importance, I was shocked when on July 18th and office of management and budget staff members surprisingly announced the hold on Ukraine security assistance. The announcement came toward the end of a nearly two hour national security council secure video conference call, which I participated in from the embassy conference room. The official said that the order had come from the president and had been conveyed to OMB by Mr. Mulvaney with no further explanation. 1:03:30 David Holmes: The four of us went to a nearby restaurant and sat on an outdoor terrace. I sat directly across from Ambassador Sondland and the two staffers sat off to our sides. At first, the lunch was largely social. Ambassador Sondland selected a bottle of wine that he shared among the four of us and we discuss topics such as marketing strategies for his hotel business. During the lunch, Ambassador Sondland said that he was going to call President Trump to give him an update. Ambassador Sondland placed a call on his mobile phone and I heard him announce himself several times along the lines of Gordon Sondland holding for the president. It appeared to be he was being transferred through several layers of switchboards and assistance. And I then noticed Ambassador Sondland's demeanor changed and understood that he had been connected to President Trump. While Ambassador Sondland's phone was not on speaker phone, I could hear the president's voice through the ear piece of the phone. The president's voice was loud and recognizable and Ambassador Sondland held the phone away from his ear for a period of time, presumably because of the loud volume. I heard Ambassador Sondland greet the president and explained he was calling from Kiev. I heard president Trump then clarify that Ambassador Sondland was in Ukraine. Ambassador Sondland replied, yes, he was in Ukraine and went on to state President Zelensky "loves your ass." I then heard President Trump ask, "So he's going to do the investigation?" and Sondland replied that "He's going to do it" adding that President Zelensky will do anything you ask him to do. Even though I did not take notes of these statements, I have a clear recollection that these statements were made. I believe that my colleagues who were sitting at the table also knew that Ambassador Sondland was speaking with the president. The conversation then shifted to Ambassador Sondland's efforts on behalf of the president to assist a rapper who was jailed in Sweden. I can only hear Ambassador Sondland's side of the conversation. Ambassador Sondland told the president that the rapper was "kind of effed there and should have pled guilty." He recommended that the president "Wait until after the sentencing or we'll only make it worse", and he added that the president should let him get sentenced, play the racism card, give him a ticker tape when he comes home. Ambassador Sondland further told the president that Sweden quote "should have released him on your word, but that you can tell the Kardashians you tried." 1:15:00 David Holmes: Today, this very day, marks exactly six years since throngs pro-Western Ukrainians spontaneously gathered on Kiev's independence square, to launch what became known as the Revolution of Dignity. While the protest began in opposition to a turn towards Russia and away from the West, they expanded over three months to reject the entire corrupt, repressive system that had been sustained by Russian influence in the country. Those events were followed by Russia's occupation of Ukraine's Crimean peninsula and invasion of Ukraine's Eastern Donbass region, and an ensuing war that to date has cost almost 14,000 lives. 1:17:00 David Holmes: Now is not the time to retreat from our relationship with Ukraine, but rather to double down on it. 2:00:15 David Holmes: In the meeting with the president, Secretary Perry as head of the delegation opened the meeting with the American side, and had a number of points he made. And, and during that period, he handed over a piece of paper. I did not see what was on the paper, but Secretary Perry described what was on the paper as a list of trusted individuals and recommended that President Zelensky could draw from that list for advice on energy sector reform issues. Daniel Goldman: Do you know who was on that list? Holmes: I didn't see the list. I don't know other colleagues. There are other people who've been in the mix for a while on that set of issues. Other people, Secretary Perry has mentioned as being people to consult on reform. Goldman: And are they Americans? Holmes: Yes. 4:18:15 Fiona Hill: As I understood there'd been a directive for a whole scale review of our foreign policy assistance and the ties between our foreign policy objectives and the assistance. This has been going on actually for many months. And in the period when I was wrapping up my time there, there had been more scrutiny than specific assistance to specific sets of countries as a result of that overall review. 4:21:10 Fiona Hill: I asked him quite bluntly in a meeting that we had in June of 2019. So this is after the presidential inauguration when I'd seen that he had started to step up in much more of a proactive role on a Ukraine. What was his role here? And he said that he was in charge of Ukraine. And I said, "Well, who put you in charge Ambassador Sondland?" And he said, "The president." Stephen Castor: Did surprise you when he told you that. Fiona Hill:It did surprise me. We'd had no directive. We hadn't been told this. Ambassador Bolton had never indicated in any way that he thought that Ambassador Sondland was playing a leading role in Ukraine. 4:36:30 Fiona Hill: And one of Ukraine's Achilles heel, in addition to, it's military disadvantage with Russia, is in fact, energy. Ukraine remains for now the main transit point for a Russian oil and gas and pipelines to Europe. And this has been manipulated repeatedly, especially since 2006, by the Russian government. And in fact, I mean many of you here will remember, in the Reagan era, there was a huge dispute between the United States and Europe about about whether it made sense for Europe to build pipelines from the then Soviet union to bring gas to European markets. 4:55:30 David Holmes: United States has provided combined civilian and military assistance to Ukraine since 2014 of about $3 billion plus to $1 billion - three $1 billion loan guarantees that's not...those get paid back largely. So just over $3 billion, the Europeans at the level of the European Union and plus the member States combined since 2014. My understanding and have provided a combined $12 billion to Ukraine. 5:02:05 Fiona Hill: And so when I came in Gordon Sondland was basically saying, "Well, look, we have a deal here that there will be a meeting. I have a deal here with the Chief of Staff, Mulvaney there will be a meeting if the Ukrainians open up or announce these investigations into 2016 and Burisma" and I cut it off immediately there because by this point, having heard Mr. Giuliani over and over again on the television and all of the issues, that he was asserting. By this point, it was clear that Burisma was code for the Bidens because Giuliani was laying it out there. I could see why Colonel Vindman was alarmed and he said this is inappropriate with the National Security Council. We can't be involved in this. 5:03:45 Fiona Hill: And that's when I pushed back on Ambassador Sondland and said, "Look, I know there's differences about whether one, we should have this meeting. We're trying to figure out whether we should have it after the Ukrainian, democratic, sorry, parliamentary elections, the Rada elections", which by that point I think had been set for July 21st. It must have been, cause this is July 10th at this point. And Ambassador Bolton would like to wait until after that to basically see whether President Zelensky gets the majority in the parliament, which would enable him to form a cabinet. And then we can move forward. 6:05:50 Rep. Elise Stefanik (NY): Dr. Hill, turning back to you, there's been discussion about the process of scheduling the meeting between President Zelensky and President Trump, and you testified that there was hesitancy to schedule this meeting until after the Ukrainian parliamentary elections. Is that correct? Fiona Hill: That is correct, yes. Rep. Elise Stefanik (NY): And that's because there was speculation in all analytical circles, both in Ukraine and outside the Ukraine, that Zelensky might not be able to get the majority that he needed to form a cabinet, correct? Fiona Hill: That is correct. Rep. Elise Stefanik (NY): And you also testified that another aspect of the NSC hesitancy to schedule this meeting was based on broader concerns related to Zelensky's ability to implement anti-corruption reforms. And this was in specific relation to Ukrainian oligarchs who basically were the owner of the TV company that Mr. Zelensky his program had been a part of. Is that correct? Fiona Hill: That is correct. 6:21:40 Rep. Joaquin Castro (TX): One of them is headlined "After boost from Perry, backers got huge gas deal in Ukraine." The other one is titled "Wall Street Journal, federal prosecutors probe Giuliani's links to Ukrainian energy projects." Mr. Holmes. Thank you, chairman. You indicated that Secretary Perry, when he was in the Ukraine, had private meetings with Ukrainians. Before he had those private meetings, in a meeting with others, including yourself, I believe, he had presented a list of American advisers for the Ukraine energy sector. Do you know who was on that list? David Holmes: Sir, I didn't see the names on the list myself. Rep. Joaquin Castro (TX): Do you know if Alex Cranberg and Michael Blazer were on that list? David Holmes: I have since heard that Michael Blazer is on the list. Hearing: Impeachment Inquiry Hearing with Laura Cooper and David Hale, House Select Intelligence Committee, C-SPAN Coverage, November 20, 2019 Watch on Youtube: Open Hearing with Laura Cooper and David Hale Witnesses Laura Cooper David Hale Transcript: 45:30 Laura Cooper: I have also supported a robust Ukrainian Ministry of Defense program of defense reform to ensure the longterm sustainability of US investments and the transformation of the Ukrainian military from a Soviet model to a NATO inter-operable force. 45:50 Laura Cooper: The National Defense Authorization Act requires the Department of Defense to certify defense reform progress to release half of the Ukraine Security Assistance Initiative or USAI funds, a provision we find very helpful. Based on recommendations from me and other key DOD advisers, the Department of Defense in coordination with the Department of State certified in May, 2019 that Ukraine had "taken substantial actions to make defense institutional reforms for the purposes of decreasing corruption, increasing accountability and sustaining improvements of combat capability."  47:15 Laura Cooper: Let me say at the outset that I have never discussed this or any other matter with the president and never heard directly from him about this matter. 48:05 Laura Cooper: I and others at the interagency meetings felt that the matter was particularly urgent, because it takes time to obligate that amount of money. And my understanding was that the money was legally required to be obligated by September 30th to the end of the fiscal year. 49:15 Laura Cooper: I received a series of updates and in a September 5th update, I and other senior defense department leaders were informed that over a $100,000,000 could not be obligated by September 30th. 49:45 Laura Cooper: After the decision to release the funds on September 11th of this year, my colleagues across the DOD security assistance enterprise worked tirelessly to be able to ultimately obligate about 86% of the funding by the end of the fiscal year, more than they had originally estimated they would be able to. Due to a provision in September's continuing resolution, appropriating an amount equal to the unobligated funds from fiscal year 2019, we ultimately will be able to obligate all of the USAI funds. 51:04 Laura Cooper: Since my deposition, I have again reviewed my calendar, and the only meeting where I recall a Ukrainian official raising the issue with me is on September 5th at the Ukrainian independence day celebration. 51:45 Laura Cooper: Specifically, on the issue of Ukraine's knowledge of the hold or of Ukraine, asking questions about possible issues with the flow of assistance. My staff showed me two unclassified emails that they received from the state department. One was received on July 25th at 2:31 PM. That email said that the Ukrainian Embassy and House Foreign Affairs Committee are asking about security assistance. The second email was received on July 25th at 4:25 PM that email said that the Hill knows about the FMF situation to an extent, and so does the Ukrainian embassy. I did not receive either of these emails. My staff does not recall informing me about them and I do not recall being made aware of their content at the time. 53:04 Laura Cooper: On July 3rd at 4:23 PM they received an email from the State Department stating that they had heard that the CN is currently being blocked by OMB. This apparently refers to the congressional notification State would send for Ukraine FMF. I have no further information on this. 53:20 Laura Cooper: On July 25th a member of my staff got a question from a Ukraine embassy contact asking what was going on with Ukraine security assistance. Because at that time, we did not know what the guidance was on USAI. The OMB notice of apportionment arrived that day, but the staff member did not find out about it until later. I was informed that the staff member told the Ukrainian official that we were moving forward on USAI, but recommended that the Ukraine embassy check in with State regarding the FMF. 1:02:40 David Hale: We've often heard at the state department that the President of the United States wants to make sure that a foreign assistance is reviewed scrupulously to make sure that it's truly in US national interests, and that we evaluated continuously to meet certain criteria that the president's established. Rep. John Ratcliffe (TX): And since his election, is it fair to say that the president Trump has looked to overhaul how foreign aid is distributed? David Hale: Yes. The NSC launched a foreign assistance review process, sometime, I think it was late August, early September, 2018. 1:04:30 Rep. John Ratcliffe (TX): In the past year, Ukraine was not the only country to have aid withheld from it, is that correct? David Hale: Correct. Rep. John Ratcliffe (TX): In the past year, was aid held withheld from Pakistan? David Hale:Yes sir. Rep. John Ratcliffe (TX): Why was aid withheld from Pakistan? David Hale: Because of unhappiness over the policies and behavior of the Pakistani government towards certain proxy groups that were involved in conflicts with United States. Rep. John Ratcliffe (TX): And in the past year was aid also withheld from Honduras. David Hale: Aid was withheld from three States in central Northern central America, yes. Rep. John Ratcliffe (TX): The past year was aide withheld from Lebanon? David Hale: Yes sir. Rep. John Ratcliffe (TX): And when aid was first held withheld from Lebanon, were you given a reason why it was withheld? David Hale: No. Rep. John Ratcliffe (TX): So having no explanation for why aid is being withheld is not uncommon. I would say it is not the normal way that we function... Rep. John Ratcliffe (TX): But it does happen. David Hale: It does happen. Rep. John Ratcliffe (TX): And is it true that when aid was being withheld from Lebanon that was at the same time aid was being withheld from Ukraine? David Hale: Correct, sir. Rep. John Ratcliffe (TX):And, you've testified that the aid to Lebanon still hasn't been released, is that right? David Hale: That is correct. Rep. John Ratcliffe (TX): Alright. 1:26:05 Laura Cooper: Russia violated the sovereignty of Ukraine's territory. Russia illegally annexed territory that belonged to Ukraine. They also denied Ukraine access to its Naval fleet at the time. And to this day, Russia is building a capability on Crimea designed to expand Russian military power projection far beyond the immediate region. 1:59:40 Laura Cooper: There are three separate pieces to our overall ability to provide equipment to the Ukrainian armed forces. The first is the foreign military finance system, which is a State Department authority and countries around the world have this authority. That authority is used for some of the training and equipment. There's also the Ukraine Security Assistance Initiative. That's a DOD authority. Unlike the State authority, the DOD authority is only a one year authority. And then third, there's an opportunity for defense sales. And that is something that we're working with Ukrainians on now so that they can actually purchase U.S. equipment. But the javelin specifically was provided under FMF initially and now the Ukrainians are interested in the purchase of javelin. 2:00:35 Rep. Will Hurd (TX): And there wasn't a hold put on purchasing of equipment, is that correct? Laura Cooper: Not to my understanding, no. 2:04:15 Laura Cooper: There were two ways that we would be able to implement presidential guidance to stop obligating the Ukraine Security Assistance Initiative. And the first option would be for the president to do a rescission. The second is a reprogramming action that the Department of Defense would do... Rep. Joaquin Castro (TX): In both of those would require congressional notice. There would be an extra step that the president would have to take to notify Congress. As far as, you know, was there ever any notice that was sent out to Congress? Laura Cooper: Sir, I did express that, that I believed it would require a notice to Congress and that then there was no such notice to my knowledge or preparation of such a notice to my knowledge. 2:07:41 Rep. John Ratcliffe (TX): But you can't say one way or another whether the inquiries in these emails were about the whole, is that fair? Laura Cooper: I cannot say for certain. Rep. John Ratcliffe (TX):Right, and you can't say one way or another, whether the Ukrainians knew about the whole before August 28th, 2019 when it was reported in Politico, correct? Laura Cooper: Sir, I can just tell you that it's the recollection of my staff that they likely knew, but no, I do not have a certain data point to offer you. Hearing: Impeachment Inquiry Hearing with E.U. Ambassador Gordon Sondland, House Select Intelligence Committee, C-SPAN Coverage, November 20, 2019 Watch on Youtube: Open Hearing with Ambassador Gordon Sondland Witness Gordon Sondland Transcript: 54:00 Gordon Sondland: As I testified previously, Mr. Giuliani's requests were a quid pro quo for arranging a white house visit for President Zelensky. Mr. Giuliani demanded that Ukraine make a public statement announcing the investigations of the 2016 Election DNC server, and Burisma. 54:30 Gordon Sondland: Mr. Giuliani was expressing the desires of the President of the United States, and we knew these investigations were important to the president. 55:00 Gordon Sondland: I was adamantly opposed to any suspension of aid, as the Ukrainians needed those funds to fight against Russian aggression. 55:10 Gordon Sondland: I tried diligently to ask why the aid was suspended, but I never received a clear answer. Still haven't to this day. In the absence of any credible explanation for the suspension of aid, I later came to believe that the resumption of security aid would not occur until there was a public statement from Ukraine committing to the investigations of the 2016 elections and Burisma as Mr. Giuliani had demanded. 59:40 Gordon Sondland: During the Zelensky inauguration, on May 20th the US delegation developed a very positive view of the Ukraine government. We were impressed by President Zelensky's desire to promote a stronger relationship with the United States. We admired his commitment to reform, and we were excited about the possibility of Ukraine making the changes necessary to support a greater Western economic investment. And we were excited that Ukraine might, after years and years of lip service, finally get serious about addressing its own well known corruption problems. 1:01:15 Gordon Sondland: Unfortunately, President Trump was skeptical. He expressed concerns that the Ukrainian government was not serious about reform, and he even mentioned that Ukraine tried to take him down in the last election. In response to our persistent efforts in that meeting to change his views, President Trump directed us to quote, "talk with Rudy." We understood that talk with Rudy meant talk with Mr. Rudy Giuliani, the president's personal lawyer. Let me say again, we weren't happy with the President's directive to talk with Rudy. We did not want to involve Mr. Giuliani. I believe then as I do now, that the men and women of the state department, not the president's personal lawyer, should take responsibility for Ukraine matters. Nonetheless, based on the president's direction we were faced with a choice, we could abandon the efforts to schedule the white house phone call and a white house visit between Presidents Trump and Zelensky, which was unquestionably in our foreign policy interest, or we could do as president Trump had directed and talk with Rudy. We chose the latter course, not because we liked it, but because it was the only constructive path open to us. 1:12:05 Gordon Sondland: After the Zelensky meeting, I also met with Zelensky's senior aide, Andre Yermak. I don't recall the specifics of our conversation, but I believe the issue of investigations was probably a part of that agenda or meeting. 1:12:15 Gordon Sondland: Also, on July 26 shortly after our Kiev meetings, I spoke by phone with President Trump. The White House, which has finally, finally shared certain call dates and times with my attorneys confirms this. The call lasted five minutes. I remember I was at a restaurant in Kiev, and I have no reason to doubt that this conversation included the subject of investigations. Again, given Mr. Giuliani's demand that President Zelensky make a public statement about investigations. I knew that investigations were important to President Trump. We did not discuss any classified information. Other witnesses have recently shared their recollection of overhearing this call. For the most part, I have no reason to doubt their accounts. It's true that the president speaks loudly at times and it's also true, I think, we primarily discussed ASAP Rocky. It's true that the president likes to use colorful language. Anyone who has met with him at any reasonable amount of time knows this well. I cannot remember the precise details. Again, the White House has not allowed me to see any readouts of that call and the July 26 call did not strike me as significant. At the time, actually, actually, I would have been more surprised if President Trump had not mentioned investigations, particularly given what we were hearing from Mr. Giuliani about the president's concerns. However, I have no recollection of discussing Vice President Biden or his son on that call or after the call ended. 1:14:10 Gordon Sondland: I know that members of this committee frequently frame these complicated issues in the form of a simple question. Was there a quid pro quo? As I testified previously with regard to the requested White House call and the White House meeting, the answer is yes. Mr. Giuliani conveyed to Secretary Perry, Ambassador Volker and others that President Trump wanted a public statement from President Zelensky committing to investigations of Burisma and the 2016 election. Mr Giuliani expressed those requests directly to the Ukrainians and Mr. Giuliani also expressed those requests directly to us. We all understood that these prerequisites for the White House call and the White House meeting reflected President Trump's desires and requirements. 1:23:10 Gordon Sondland: There was a September 1st meeting with President Zelensky in Warsaw. Unfortunately, President Trump's attendance at the Warsaw meeting was canceled due to Hurricane Dorian. Vice President Pence attended instead. I mentioned Vice President Pence before the meetings with the Ukrainians that I had concerns that the delay in aid had become tied to the issue of investigations. I recall mentioning that before the Zelensky meeting. During the actual meeting, President Zelensky raised the issue of security assistance directly with Vice President Pence and the vice president said that he would speak to President Trump about it. Based on my previous communication with Secretary Pompeo, I felt comfortable sharing my concerns with Mr. Yermak. It was a very, very brief pull aside conversation that happened. Within a few seconds, I told Mr. Yermak that I believe that the resumption of US aid would likely not occur until Ukraine took some kind of action on the public statement that we had been discussing for many weeks. 1:38:30 Gordon Sondland: I finally called the president, I believe it was on the 9th of September. I can't find the records and they won't provide them to me, but I believe I just asked him an open ended question, Mr. Chairman. "What do you want from Ukraine? I keep hearing all these different ideas and theories and this and that. What do you want?" And it was a very short, abrupt conversation. He was not in a good mood and he just said, I want nothing. I want nothing. I want no quid pro quo. Tell them Zelensky to do the right thing. Something to that effect. 1:43:00 Gordon Sondland: Again, through Mr. Giuliani, we were led to believe that that's what he wanted. 2:06:25 Gordon Sondland: President Trump never told me directly that the aid was conditioned on the meetings. The only thing we got directly from Giuliani was that the Burisma and 2016 elections were conditioned on the White House meeting. The aide was my own personal guess based again, on your analogy, two plus two equals four. 2:10:30 Gordon Sondland: Again, I don't recall President Trump ever talking to me about any security assistance ever. 2:44:00 Stephen Castor: Did the president ever tell you personally about any preconditions for anything? Gordon Sondland: No. Okay. Stephen Castor: So the president never told you about any preconditions for the aid to be released? Gordon Sondland: No. Stephen Castor: The president never told you about any preconditions for a White House meeting? Gordon Sondland: Personally, no. 3:01:10 Stephen Castor: And are you aware that he was also interested in better understanding the contributions of our European allies? Gordon Sondland: That I'm definitely aware of. Stephen Castor: And there was some back and forth between the state department officials trying to better understand that information for the president. Gordon Sondland: Yes, that's correct. Stephen Castor: And how do you know that wasn't the reason for the hold? Gordon Sondland: I don't... Stephen Castor: But yet you speculate that there was a link to the this announcement. Gordon Sondland: I presumed it, yes. Stephen Castor: Okay. 3:07:05 Stephen Castor: And when you first started discussing the concerns the president had with corruption, Burisma wasn't the only company that was mentioned, right. Gordon Sondland: It was generic, as I think I testified to Chairman Schiff, it was generic corruption, oligarchs, just bad stuff going on in Ukraine. Stephen Castor: But other companies came up, didn't they? Gordon Sondland: I don't know if they were mentioned specifically. It might've been Naftagas because we were working on another issue with Naftagas. So that might've been one of them. Stephen Castor: At one point in your deposition, I believe you, you said, "Yeah, Naftagas comes up at every conversation." Is that fair? Gordon Sondland: Probably. 3:14:55 Gordon Sondland: I think once that Politico article broke, it started making the rounds that, if you can't get a White House meeting without the statement, what makes you think you're going to get a $400 million check? Again, that was my presumption. Stephen Castor: Okay, but you had no evidence to prove that, correct? Gordon Sondland: That's correct. 3:44:10 Daniel Goldman: It wasn't really a presumption, you heard from Mr. Giuliani? Gordon Sondland: Well, I didn't hear from Mr. Giuliani about the aid. I heard about the Burisma and 2016. Daniel Goldman: And you understood at that point, as we discussed, two plus two equals four, that the aid was there as well. Gordon Sondland: That was the problem, Mr. Goldman. No one told me directly that the aid was tied to anything. I was presuming it was. 5:02:10 Rep. Jim Himes (CT): What did Mr. Giuliani say to you that caused you to say that he is expressing the desires of the President of the United States? Gordon Sondland: Mr. Himes, when that was originally communicated, that was before I was in touch with Mr. Giuliani directly. So this all came through Mr. Volcker and others. Rep. Jim Himes (CT): So Mr. Volcker told you that he was expressing the desires of the President of the United States. Gordon Sondland: Correct. 5:20:40 Rep. Michael Turner (OH): Well, you know, after you testified, Chairman Schiff ran out and gave a press conference and said he gets to impeach the president and said it's because of your testimony and if you pull up CNN today, right now, their banner says "Sondland ties Trump to withholding aid." Is that your testimony today, Mr. Ambassador Sondland, that you have evidence that Donald Trump tied the investigations the aid? Cause I don't think you're saying that. Gordon Sondland: I've said repeatedly, Congressman, I was presuming. I also said that President Trump... Rep. Michael Turner (OH): So no one told you, not just the president...Giuliani didn't tell you, Mulvaney didn't tell you. Nobody - Pompeo didn't tell you. Nobody else on this planet told you that Donald Trump was tying aid to these investigations. Is that correct? Gordon Sondland: I think I already testified. Rep. Michael Turner (OH): No, answer the question. Is it correct? No one on this planet told you that Donald Trump was tying this aid to the investigations. Cause if your answer is yes, then the chairman's wrong. And the headline on CNN is wrong. No one on this planet told you that president Trump was tying aid to investigations. Yes or no? Gordon Sondland: Yes. Hearing: Impeachment Hearing with Ambassador Kurt Volker and National Security Aide Tim Morrison, House Select Intelligence Committee, C-SPAN Coverage, November 19, 2019 Watch on Youtube: Open Hearing with Ambassador Kurt Volker and Timothy Morrison Witnesses Kurt Volker Timothy Morrison Transcript: 43:20 Timothy Morrison: I continue to believe Ukraine is on the front lines of a strategic competition between the West and Vladimir Putin's revanchist Russia. Russia is a failing power, but it is still a dangerous one. United States aids Ukraine and her people, so they can fight Russia over there and we don't have to fight Russia here. Support for Ukraine's territorial integrity and sovereignty has been a bipartisan objective since Russia's military invasion in 2014. It must continue to be. 48:00 Kurt Volker: At no time was I aware of or knowingly took part in an effort to urge Ukraine to investigate former Vice President Biden. As you know, from the extensive realtime documentation I have provided, Vice President Biden was not a topic of our discussions. 50:20 Kurt Volker: At the time I took the position in the summer of 2017 there were major complicated questions swirling in public debate about the direction of US policy towards Ukraine. Would the administration lifts sanctions against Russia? Would it make some kind of grand bargain with Russia in which it would trade recognition of Russia seizure of Ukrainian territory for some other deal in Syria or elsewhere? Would the administration recognize Russia's claimed annexation of Crimea? Will this just become another frozen conflict? There are also a vast number of vacancies in key diplomatic positions. So no one was really representing the United States in the negotiating process about ending the war in Eastern Ukraine. 51:20 Kurt Volker: We changed the language commonly used to describe Russia's aggression. I was the administration's most outspoken public figure highlighting Russia's invasion and occupation of parts of Ukraine, calling out Russia's responsibility to end the war. 54:45 Kurt Volker: The problem was that despite the unanimous positive assessment and recommendations of those of us who were part of the US presidential delegation that attended the inauguration of President Zelensky, President Trump was receiving a different negative narrative about Ukraine and President Zelensky. That narrative was fueled by accusations from Ukraine's then prosecutor general and conveyed to the president by former mayor Rudy Giuliani. As I previously told this committee, I became aware of the negative impact this was having on our policy efforts when four of us, who were a part of the presidential delegation to the inauguration, met as a group with President Trump on May 23rd. We stressed our finding that President Zelensky represented the best chance for getting Ukraine out of the mire of corruption and had been in for over 20 years. We urged him to invite President Zelensky to the White House. The president was very skeptical. Given Ukraine's history of corruption. That's understandable. He said that Ukraine was a corrupt country full of terrible people. He said they tried to take me down. In the course of that conversation, he referenced conversations with Mayor Giuliani. It was clear to me that despite the positive news and recommendations being conveyed by this official delegation about the new president, President Trump had a deeply rooted negative view on Ukraine rooted in the past. He was receiving other information from other sources, including Mayor Giuliani, that was more negative, causing him to retain this negative view. Within a few days, on May 29th, President Trump indeed signed the congratulatory letter to President Zelensky, which included an invitation to the president to visit him at the White House. However, more than four weeks passed and we could not nail down a date for the meeting. I came to believe that the president's long-held negative view towards Ukraine was causing hesitation in actually scheduling the meeting, much as we had seen in our oval office discussion. 57:35 Kurt Volker: President Zelensky's senior aide, Andriy Yermak approached me several days later to ask to be connected to Mayor Giuliani. I agreed to make that connection. I did so because I understood that the new Ukrainian leadership wanted to convince those like Mayor Giuliani, who believes such a negative narrative about Ukraine, that times have changed and that under President Zelensky, Ukraine is worthy of us support. Ukrainians believed that if they could get their own narrative across in a way that convinced Mayor Giuliani that they were serious about fighting corruption and advancing reform, Mayor Giuliani would convey that assessment to President Trump, thus correcting the previous negative narrative. That made sense to me and I tried to be helpful. I made clear to the Ukrainians that Mayor Giuliani was a private citizen, the president's personal lawyer, and not representing the US government. Likewise, in my conversations with Mayor Giuliani, I never considered him to be speaking on the president's behalf or giving instructions, rather, the information flow was the other way. From Ukraine to Mayor Giuliani in the hopes that this would clear up the information reaching President Trump. 1:00:15 Kurt Volker: I connected Mayor Giuliani and Andriy Yermak by text and later by phone they met in person on August 2nd, 2019. In conversations with me following that meeting, which I did not attend, Mr. Giuliani said that he had stressed the importance of Ukraine conducting investigations into what happened in the past, and Mr. Yermak stressed that he told Mr. Giuliani it is the government's program to root out corruption and implement reforms, and they would be conducting investigations as part of this process anyway. 1:00:45 Kurt Volker: Mr. Giuliani said he believed that the Ukrainian president needed to make a statement about fighting corruption and that he had discussed this with Mr. Yermak. I said, I did not think that this would be a problem since that is the government's position. Anyway, I followed up with Mr. Yermak and he said that they would indeed be prepared to make a statement. 1:02:10 Kurt Volker: On August 16th, Mr. Yermak shared a draft with me, which I thought looked perfectly reasonable. It did not mention Burisma or 2016 elections, but was generic. Ambassador Sondland I had a further conversation with Mr. Giuliani who said that in his view, in order to be convincing that this government represented real change in Ukraine, the statement should include specific reference to Burisma and 2016 and again, there was no mention of Vice President Biden in these conversations. 1:02:40 Kurt Volker: Ambassador Sondland and I discussed these points and I edited the statement drafted by Mr. Yermak to include these points to see how it looked. I then discussed it further with Mr. Yermak. He said that for a number of reasons, including the fact that since Mr. Lutsenko was still officially the prosecutor general, they did not want to mention Burisma or 2016 and I agreed. And the idea of putting out a statement was shelved. These were the last conversations I had about this statement, which were on or about August 17 to 18. 1:04:00 Kurt Volker: At the time I was connecting Mr. Yermak and Mr. Giuliani and discussing with Mr. Yermak and Ambassador Sondland a possible statement that could be made by the Ukrainian president, I did not know of any linkage between the hold on security assistance and Ukraine pursuing investigatio

During the first formal impeachment inquiry hearing before the House of Representatives Judiciary Committee on Wednesday, three constitutional scholars — Noah Feldman, a professor at Harvard, Michael J. Gerhardt; a professor at the University of North Carolina; and Pamela S. Karlan, a Stanford law professor — testified that US President Donald Trump's actions are an impeachable abuse of power. But an expert invited by Republicans — Jonathan Turley, a law professor at George Washington University — argued that the case against Trump is “slipshod” and premature. Will this move the needle in terms of public perception of this issue?Google's co-founders, Larry Page and Sergey Brin, are stepping down from their positions at the tech giant's parent company Alphabet amidst the DOJ and EU investigations, leaving Google CEO Sundar Pichai to manage both Alphabet and Google under one role. What are we to make of this? "The company has recently faced a growing number of complaints and allegations from politicians and its own workforce," the Guardian reported Wednesday. "Last year Page was called before the US Senate Intelligence Committee investigating foreign powers' influence in elections, but he didn't show up. Last week, Google dismissed several outspoken workers for allegedly violating its data security policies. Some employees accused the firm of trying to suppress its critics."Oral arguments were presented Tuesday before a panel of judges at the Fifth US Circuit Court of Appeals on the constitutionality of laws in Mississippi that restrict the voting rights of former convicted felons. A lawsuit, brought by the Southern Poverty Law Center and six former felons, argues that restrictions enacted in an 1890 law were designed to permanently disenfranchise black voters. Mississippi is one of only three states in the country that has laws permanently barring convicted felons from voting.The Trump administration is giving final approval to a policy that will take away food stamps from 755,000 Americans. The Department of Agriculture's new rule mandates that states enforce work requirements for able-bodied adults who do not have children. In the past, governors could waive those requirements, especially in places that struggle economically. This is the first of three proposed rule changes that could ultimately lead to 3 million Americans being cut from the food stamp rolls. GUESTS:Dave Lindorff — Investigative reporter and founder of the news collective This Can't Be Happening! Barbara Arnwine — President and founder of the Transformative Justice Coalition and internationally renowned for her contributions on critical justice issues, including the passage of the landmark Civil Rights Act of 1991 and the 2006 reauthorization of provisions of the Voting Rights Act.Chris Garaffa — Web developer and technologist. Rashid Nuri — Founder of the Truly Living Well Center for Natural Urban Agriculture (TLW). TLW is Atlanta's premier urban agricultural organization, growing tons of chemical-free, nutritious food, providing jobs and educating communities about food, nutrition and self-sufficiency. His new book is titled "Growing Out Loud: Journey of a Food Revolutionary."