Scholars testify that Trump’s conduct is grounds for impeachment

dublinbay z6 (KS)

Update on Impeachment Report:

---------------------------

"Experts make the case for ‘high crimes and misdemeanors’


Three of the four witnesses laid out the case for why the Judiciary Committee should charge Trump with high crimes and misdemeanors in a back-and-forth with the Democrats’ top committee counsel Norm Eisen.

“Ultimately the reason the Constitution provided for impeachment was to anticipate a situation like the one that is before you today,” Harvard Law School professor Noah Feldman testified. “If we cannot impeach a president who uses his power for personal advantage, we no longer live in a democracy, we live in a monarchy or a dictatorship.”

The questioning had the air of an introductory constitutional law class focused on impeachment – including a featured chart listing the A, the B, and the C of high crimes and misdemeanors: Abuse of Power, Betrayal of National Interest, and Corruption of Elections.

Eisen asked the law professors to explain whether it was necessary for Trump to have committed a statutory crime to be impeached. University of North Carolina law professor Michael Gerhardt said no. The scale of Trump’s obstruction was an abuse, he stressed, because it “torpedoes” the separation of powers in the Constitution.

“If what we’re talking about is not impeachable, then nothing is impeachable,” he said.

Stanford University professor Pamela S. Karlan shared that view and stressed that giving Trump a pass would encourage future presidents to undermine elections and U.S. national security for personal benefit.

“Because this is an abuse that cuts to the heart of democracy, you need to ask yourselves, if you don’t impeach a president who has done what this president has done . . . then what you’re saying is, it’s fine to go ahead and do this again,” Karlan said. “It’s your responsibility to make sure that all Americans get to vote in a free and fair election next November.”


https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/impeachment-hearings-live-updates/2019/12/04/b7cc7b4e-1682-11ea-a659-7d69641c6ff7_story.html?utm_campaign=post_most&utm_medium=Email&utm_source=Newsletter&wpisrc=nl_most&wpmm=1

---------------------------------

By the way, the 4th witness who did not support charging Trump with high crimes and misdemeanors was one called by the Repub. members of the committee. The first three witnesses (summarized above)were called by the Dem. members.


Kate

SaveComment35Like7
Comments (35)
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
carolb_w_fl_coastal_9b(zone 9/10)

I listened to Turley earlier, and was struck by how many long-winded anecdotes he managed to squeeze into his limited time.

And Collins' opening words were remarkably histrionic and convoluted, weren't they?

The only defense they seem to be bringing is that there isn't enough evidence (There is.)? And to keep citing the lack of testimony by material witnesses, as if the White House has been fully cooperating (It has not.)?

Following now on TV, and NPR.org is broadcasting the hearing.

5 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
rob333 (zone 7a)

I was watching it earlier. The chair was so eloquent and succinct. I loved it. Then Collins nauseated me beyond measure. Worse, the petulant interruptions for things they kept voting down. Shut up whoever you were! I don't see how anyone can ignore the larger implications in ignoring or justifying what he's done if it opens the door to others also doing it. What happens when it's a democrat president? A green president? Not to mention it flies in the face of everything this country stands for

3 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
dandyfopp

The point can only be that they never lose power.

1 Like Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
lurker111

These people are nuts. 100% crazy.

3 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
rob333 (zone 7a)

Do you mean the ones who keep trying to say that witness testimony is not in fact, testimony, or facts? Yes, that is crazy. If you mean those who would not impeach a person who sought out foreign influence and think it's A-ok, yes, that's crazy. 100% certifiable. Especially when the fact is, that they're using Trump's own words and even that can't be considered fact. Beyond crazy.

9 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
adoptedbyhounds

"Do you mean the ones who keep trying to say that witness testimony is not in fact, testimony, or facts?"

I can't speak for lurker, but you might want to look up the difference between a "fact witness" and an "expert witness."

What you saw yesterday were 4 expert witnesses, with Dems giving themselves a 3 to 1 advantage, and for the most part excluding Mr. Turley from the conversation.


4 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
dandyfopp

Probably for the best, he made a horsey's hiney of himself with the time he had.

7 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
soupgirl53

In my opinion, Turley made a fool of himself by repeating over and over again that the Democrats need to slow down and gather more documents and testimony. It was "as if" Turley had no idea that the Democrats have issued subpoenas for documents and testimony from members of the Trump administration and Trump has ordered members of his administration not to comply with those subpoenas. I think Turley aware of the fact Trump is obstructing the House impeachment proceedings but what else can he do? There is no way to defend Trump on the merits of the impeachment case so his defenders continue to engage in process arguments.

3 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Carro

. It was "as if" Turley had no idea that the Democrats have issued subpoenas for documents and testimony from members of the Trump administration and Trump has ordered members of his administration not to comply with those subpoenas

Of course he realizes that. The President is within his wheelhouse to tell people not not to comply. Turley's point stands.

There is plenty of room to defend not impeaching and removing Trump and I'm looking forward to the Senate hearing to illuminate just how power-driven and evil the Democrats are.

Meanwhile, the Democrats completely overshadow their own Democrat 2020 race, and leave Americans without legislation signed which would greatly help the country.

3 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Kathy

McConnell has more than enough on his desk passed by the House. He won’t bring anything to a vote Trump refuses to sign because it would show what a liar Trump is.

3 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
dublinbay z6 (KS)

Just what I was going to say, Kathy. It's the Repubs. that are leaving Americans without legislation signed which would greatly help the country--due to nay-saying Mitch McConnell and his Repub. controlled Senate.

Kate

5 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
rob333 (zone 7a)

If we're talking about what he said or what the testimony from the earlier trial, those are in fact, facts. Not alternate facts. That's how witness statements work. Those scholars commenting on the earlier testimony were talking about the established facts. Whether "republicans" want to agree with that or not.

3 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Carro

Americans care about a handful of legislation, which has bi-partisan support and is being held hostage by Pelosi. Whatever busywork bills the House have been passing are arbitrary and doa.


Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Carro

Those scholars commenting on the earlier testimony were talking about the established facts. Whether "republicans" want to agree with that or not.

  • So they are commenting on commentary of other witnesses who have zero direct knowledge of any crime or allegation. Got it.
2 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
adoptedbyhounds

"Those scholars commenting on the earlier testimony were talking about the established facts. Whether "republicans" want to agree with that or not."

Not quite. As expert witnesses, the scholars did testify about what they believe to be true. That does not make them fact witnesses. You owe it to yourself to learn how expert and fact witnesses differ.

Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
rob333 (zone 7a)

I'm only referring to them commenting on facts, not that what they said was anything more than their opinion about the facts. This isn't a difficult concept. When your beloved says something on tape for the world to hear, that someone comments on what he said, their observation/opinion didn't obliterate into no longer being a fact.

1 Like Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
chipotle

"Hypocritical, disingenuous, and morally corrupt Republicans will say and/or do anything to remain in power. ANYTHING...Including making themselves out to be the moral cripples and scofflaws that, at their core, they inextricably are. In point of fact, one can no longer be counted among the ranks of the Republicans and remain an advocate of truth, empirical facts, and the Rule of Law. For once they succumb to those heretofore treasured principles, remaining a Republican is all but impossible." --Mike U.

4 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Carro

Harry Reid says hello

Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Kathy

285 bi-partisan bills passed in the House sitting on McConnell's desk.

4 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Kathy

Look it up. One is the drug pricing bill Trump refuses to sign.

2 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Carro

^^thought so

Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Kathy

What’s worse is Reps keep saying Dems aren’t working when they are the lazy obstructionists.

6 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Carro

They say that, do they?

Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
adoptedbyhounds

"I'm only referring to them commenting on facts, not that what they said was anything more than their opinion about the facts."

No, what you said was "Those scholars commenting on the earlier testimony were talking about the established facts."

Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
rob333 (zone 7a)

Right. I said they were talking about the facts. What's not to understand. You just said what I already said twice now. Talking about it didn't mean what they said was a fact. Still not hard to get? I don't know how to clarify it more.

Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
adoptedbyhounds

So what's your objection to "the ones who keep trying to say that witness testimony is not in fact, testimony, or facts?"

As I acknowledged earlier, as expert witnesses, the scholars did testify about what they believe to be true.

Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
rob333 (zone 7a)

My objection are those who are wont to say they aren't facts. Just because someone opines about the facts, doesn't negate that they're facts. Which is what I keep hearing and seeing. Collins said it in his opening argument, and the ugly tempered man who was questioning the female professor and interrupted her a million times only to scream at her about interrupting?!!! what?! asked them all to raise their hands if they had first hand knowledge about the facts. Which was his way of saying, therefore, they're not really facts... and I see it on this board, Facebook... they are facts. Wish them away, but it aint happening. And if one can agree they're facts, they're facts which say he is in violation of the Constitution. Period. Regardless of party.

1 Like Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
adoptedbyhounds

"My objection are those who are wont to say they aren't facts."

What facts did the expert witnesses testify to? We can agree they all know what a statute says.

But a law can be interpreted in a variety of ways. That's what lawyers and judges do. They offer interpretations of the law. That's why we got so much testimony regarding the context surrounding different founders and their thinking in writing our founding documents. What did their words really mean?

Those are good discussions to listen to, but the experts could not testify to personal knowledge of President Trump's telephone call for which they're trying to impeach him. Is it even a fact that we have the entire transcript? In a real trial, the goal is to uncover facts relevant to a crime. A fact witness doesn't get to testify that Donald Trump meant the "Royal We" on the phone call, as the female prof did. She didn't stick to her area of expertise, and it's odd she felt the need to embellish her "expert testimony" with a dusting of mind reading. And what "expertise" did she deliver by telling us Donald Trump can name his child "Baron" but his son can't be a barron?

1 Like Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
bleusblue2

"Those are good discussions to listen to, but the experts could not testify to personal knowledge of President Trump's telephone call for which they're trying to impeach him."

~~~~

h..eeellll....p

Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Iris GW

ABH, would you support having the House vote to censure him instead of impeach him?

Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
ohiomom

........republicans spent the Obama years as obstructionist, they got that job down pat and nothing has changed the last few years. Just say no even when you agree with the legislation.


2 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
rob333 (zone 7a)

Don't you mean just say no even when the evidence is clear that impeachment is the course of action?


;)

1 Like Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
adoptedbyhounds

"ABH, would you support having the House vote to censure him instead of impeach him?"

Thanks for asking. No. I want the Senate to conduct a trial. I want the Republicans to have the opportunity to call their own witnesses. put them under oath, and cross examine them. I want Americans to have the opportunity to hear from Adam Schiff, his staff, Nadler, the fake WB, and other witnesses for whom the Senate has questions. Dems started this witch hunt. Let's see how eager they are to finish it.

Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
bleusblue2

adoptedbyhounds

"the fake WB,"

~~~~

no

Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Ziemia(6a)

Trump and team are obstructing justice. They holler for transparency except for when they need to show their doings.

(They used to say stuff about how Horowitz was going to bring things into the sunshine - things that proved Trump was a victim.)

3 Likes Save    
Browse Gardening and Landscaping Stories on Houzz See all Stories
For Pros How Pros Are Working to Support Women in Architecture
Industry groups and leaders are creating guides, talks and other initiatives aimed at making their world more inclusive
Full Story
Selling Your House A Moving Diary: Lessons From Selling My Home
After 79 days of home cleaning, staging and — at last — selling, a mom comes away with a top must-do for her next abode
Full Story
Materials Insulation Basics: What to Know About Spray Foam
Learn what exactly spray foam is, the pros and cons of using it and why you shouldn’t mess around with installation
Full Story