Temperature rises to $1.00 degrees Celsius scientific consensus is that to have a 2 thirds chance of holding to that figure we can only emit carbon at the current rate for another 80 years reports from Nice shares say suspected Islam is militants have attacked 2 Army bases over the past 72 hours in what analysts are calling an alarming escalation of insurgency it's not known how many people were killed in the assaults that happened on Monday and Tuesday in the south of the country no group has said it carried out the attacks but Boko Haram fighters are active in the area were news from the b.b.c. Kosovo and the Bosnian capital Sarajevo have separately barred this year's Nobel Laureate in literature pater hand from entering their territory for his denial of Serbian war crimes Kosovo and Sarajevo were both under siege from Bosnian Serb nationalist forces for around 3 and a half years they've declared Peter had kept persona non-grata for denying this reverend It's a massacre in 9095 and for his support for the late Serbian President Slobodan Milosevic. The International Criminal Court has confirmed war crimes charges against an ex minister and a former militia man from the Central African Republic Patrice Eduardo guy sauna and Alfred yet had Tomer into tension in the Hague they were accused of leading mainly Christian militias during years of communal violence the South African presidents are all ram oppose a says the power company Eskom is investigating acts of sabotage which have had to serious actress a tieback outside of the past week Mr m. a Poser who cut short a trip to Egypt to address the crisis said Trencher rains and flooding had contributed to the problem Norm summer circle reports from Johannesburg president also said that according to eskimoes explanation the power supply had been strained by floods would submerged whole neighborhoods and flooded coal mines unpoliced stations he also said eds of sabotage led to about 2000 megawatts being lost but no arrests have been made the country's struggling public utility has come under severe criticism after the biggest power outage in more than a decade caused fears that they call me could be pushed into a recession Ok ologists in northern Ethiopia I have unearthed the remains of an ancient city the earliest parts of which dates back to the 8th century b.c. a Large 4th century a.d. Basilica was found to scribe as the earliest physical evidence for a church in Ethiopia that's the latest b.b.c. News. This is one day I'm Joshua Johnson in Washington my name is Barbara I've been listening and watching the impeachment hearings and I have never been so disheartened in my life I'm just so saddened distraught frustrated with how our country is being governed never in my 73 years have I been so upset my name is Stephanie I'm calling from Oakland City Oklahoma it's 1st conversations here in Oklahoma most of the people who are willing to open up for Talk to me they're either attorneys or they work in law enforcement expander and they can see very clearly that he's broken the law and violated constipation This is Bob. The inquiry as well as the articles of impeachment I think it's awful to drag the country through this. Always been a registered b. And I don't really believe the evidence is there and I just think it's it's quite frankly a sham My name is a lie so I don't think that the impeachment is necessarily going to change anything at all the way it will be done by the very adequate people on the right that this is the miscarriage of justice and the way that it will be done by the very adequate people on the left that should not pursue this is a miscarriage. So can you relate maybe to how distraught Barbara is to the conversation Stephanie is hearing to Bob skepticism to allies this expectation of a lot of political spin Congress is preparing to formally vote on 2 articles of impeachment against President Trump soon we'll find out what they really think of these accusations right now let's talk through what you think and what you want to know Joining us from Kay R.V.'s in Lafayette Louisiana is Angie Holan the editor of Politico fact Angie welcome to the program thank you for having me joining us from Houston is Josh Blackman associate professor of law at the South Texas College of Law Professor Blackman welcome. Thanks for having me and here with us in studio is a list with Wydra president of the constitutional accountability center a progressive think tank based here in Washington Elizabeth glad to have you back great to be here we're glad to get in your questions and thoughts about impeachment the process the politics what you think will happen how you've been discussing this where you are basically the point of today is to give you a chance to feedback we know that the last month has felt kind of like a data dump with hearing after hearing after hearing after hearing nonstop coverage continuing coverage and analysis and soundbites and talking points and so on and we just haven't had a chance to hear from you that's what today is all about so please do chime in and sound off e-mail us one a x.w. A.m.u. Dot org comment on our Facebook page or tweet us at 1 am and you let me start with you would say some basic basic information so yesterday morning House Democrats announced the articles of impeachment against President Trump what were they and what did they actually mean. Well there were 2 articles the 1st one is labeled abuse of power and that one outlines president Trump's actions in regards to Ukraine asking for investigations into Joe Biden and investigations into what's called the Crowd Strike theory that Ukraine potentially meddled in the 2016 election I should add that that theory is pretty discredited the 1st article then says Trump asked for this and he withheld aid and the purpose the article says is that he wanted to affect the 2020 Alexion So that's the 1st article The 2nd article is about his what they say is his obstruction of Congress so this is President Trump's direction to. The executive agency not to cooperate with impeachment so the White House directed people not. To testify and they said documents should not be released and this 2nd article outlines this and says Congress has the power of impeachment it should not have been impeded in its impeachment inquiries and so that's the 2nd article no obstruction of Congress elaborate on that a little bit of structure of Justice is a phrase we've heard a lot during the Muller investigation for a variety of reasons is that kind of in the same ballpark as obstruction of Congress or is that something else it's somewhat in the same ballpark but this particular article goes to the fact that Congress conducted the inquiry into this Ukraine matter so it wasn't a Department of Justice lawyer it wasn't a special counsel it was Congress itself the House Intelligence Committee that investigated the matter so the obstruction was against Congress itself and that seems to be the primary reason it's obstruction of Congress that not obstruction of justice I'd be interested in hearing from your legal guests on this point as well but from my reading of materials that's the reason for it for sure and we're going to work our way into the conversation with Elizabeth impressive Blackman in just one second with regards to these 2 articles and do we know why House Democrats chose them I mean for a long time we heard the phrase quid pro quo which speaks to bribery which is specified by name in the Constitution as one of 2 specific crimes that can get someone impeached the other one being treason why not go after bribery specifically it's pretty interesting that they settled on only 2 articles because there was a lot of discussion among Democrats in the House and among the pundits commenting on this that they could come up with more articles of impeachment so bribery that you mentioned or there's the a mole human clause that's I won't get into too much detail there but it's about. Accepting benefits from foreign governments there is the Mueller ripoff. There were potential charges of obstruction of justice that Democrats discussed from that at the end of the day they decided on just these 2 and it seems to be they did it to. Keep things simple and to stay unified I want to get into some perspective on whether or not the pa case is strong enough for the president's impeachment refers to live with just by way of setting the groundwork for this and Professor feel free to disagree in just a minute but I think just to boil it all the way down Elizabeth the central question seems to be at least the way the Democrats have articulated it do the actions of President Trump in the Trump administration disqualify him from running for reelection that seems to be what this is about particularly the comments that Adam Schiff made yesterday about you know should we let him she one more time at least on the Democratic side Elizabeth I think that's the overarching question is one of disqualification well so I think I would slightly tweak that and bring it back to the founders who put impeachment as a remedy in the Constitution in the 1st place now one of the things that they talked about in putting impeachment as a remedy in and you know some people say oh you should let the people decide it cetera well the founders obviously knew that there were elections for a present in the United States and still put impeachment in the Constitution as a remedy and part of the reason they did that specifically can look back to comments from William Davy for example of the Constitutional Convention and they worried that a president who was corrupt in office might use the vast powers of his office as president in order to corruptly get himself reelected that was a specific concern of the founders and so I think that that over arches the entire impeachment inquiry in this particular case where you know as opposed to the impeachment context of Clinton or Nixon you have the specific situation of a president using the leverage of his office and the interest. The American people to get a benefit that could help him get reelected and so that is why I think this idea of the ballot box which is a routine measure of checking our elected leaders is not sufficient in this case it's also just a matter of standing up for the Constitution as one of the professors who testified said if this is not an impeachable offense if these are not impeachable offenses what are with regards to standing for the contribution constitution one of our listeners tweeted It's my opinion that the president forced the Dems hand the Democrats hand if we stand in the Constitution and stand for it they had no choice will anything come of it no but history will be on the side of democracy and the Democrats Professor Blackman another issue that's come up in terms of this whole process is the standard of impeachment and the difference between let's say a court of law versus this kind of constitutional congressional trial and they're not quite the same standard I think that's been one of the big arguments that's hovered over all of us that's right in courts of law people can be charged with specific statutory offenses that is crimes are defined by the legislature. But the Constitution doesn't limit impeachment to crimes that are spelled out this phrase uses high crimes or misdemeanors and that can include some offenses that have not been ever prosecuted before and what makes this entire process very different from a court proceeding is the offenses are drawn up by the Congress seeking to move the president it's you know the same person is based the judge jury and executioner they get to decide what the offenses and then they get to decide whether peace going to her perpetrator. I know that you and Elizabeth have differing views on whether the president can be impeached based on the evidence thus far press or black and what do you think. I think a few things can be said the 1st thing is that this these 2 articles of impeachment are unique I think it's the 1st time in American history of an article of impeachment that's not grounded in some specific violation of law I don't think that's disqualifying or being impeached an article may still be proper but I think at that point the House has a bigger burden to show that the crime a defined abuse of power is in fact a high crime or Mr meaner in this case I think by not picking up a structure of justice by not taking bribery there challenges little bit more difficult to prove that this this article judgment started this article of impeachment is proper. List with what you yeah I mean you know as Josh himself would acknowledge you don't have to have violated a specific statute in order to be impeached and you know I think if you look at the degree of the abuse of office that we're talking about it squarely fits within the reason for impeachment being a remedy in the 1st place the idea that an elected leader would abuse their office would do something that was so detrimental to the fundamentals of American democracy that this serious and sober remedy of removing a duly elected official was appropriate we'll continue in just a moment with Elizabeth winder of the constitutional accountability Center just Blackman associate professor of law at South Texas College of Law and she Holen editor of Politico Fact we want to hear from you to your questions thoughts about impeachment. I'm Joshua Johnson and you're listening to one from w.a.m. You and n.p.r. . On the next open air Noah Griffin is guest host for conversations with actors from the epic production of Harry Potter and the curse a child at the current theater and from the new musical Pride and Prejudice at Silicon Valley plus a celebration of 75 years of Tchaikovsky's Nutcracker at the San Francisco Ballet I'm David La to leave its open air Thursday afternoon at one join us. And you special from the Kitchen Sisters are. Stories of archivists rogue library curators collectors and historians keepers of the culture and the cultures and collections that. Frances McDormand. Thursday night special 7 o'clock Thursday evening here on. Support for n.p.r. Comes from this station and from c.f.a. Institute c.f.a. Charter holders are wealth managers committed to helping unlock opportunities for their clients ambitious wealth goals learn more at the right question dot org from the n.p.r. Wine club where every bottle tells a story and n.p.r. Shows become wines like Wait Wait Don't Tell me are available to adults 21 Years or Older learn more at n.p.r. Wine Club dot org And from the sustaining members of this n.p.r. Station. This is one essay I'm Joshua Johnson we are spending this hour listening to you and getting your thoughts on the articles of impeachment announced by House Democrats yesterday with Angie Holan editor of Politico fact Josh Blackman an associate professor of law at South Texas College of Law and Elizabeth Wydra president of the constitutional accountability center Pete tweeted the heart of the impeachment charges is clear Trump putting personal gain above our country's interests but so much media coverage including on n.p.r. Loses this with endless babble about events rather than clear insights that could help more Americans understand it's disheartening while peace hopefully this hour will not dishearten you further because that's kind of the whole point of this conversation so if you could use more clear insights on this impeachment thing or if you just want to be heard clearly haven't heard from the American people that much about this we haven't heard from you very much now's a good time to speak up please leave the battle out of course and certainly don't make an endless but do comments on our Facebook page tweet us at one essay which is impossible to battle endlessly I think you've only got 280 characters or e-mail us one a x. W. Am you dot org One of our listeners thought that the Democrats are just being too narrow with the 2 articles of impeachment that we mentioned earlier here's what they left in our inbox Hi My name is camera and I think that the Democrats of being 2 now in the a scope on these impeachment clauses I think a lot of Americans don't really care what happens in foreign countries like Ukraine and I also think that they should have bring in the Emoluments Clause where the president is making millions of dollars off of our tax dollars Tema Thanks for sharing your thoughts with us and we've already kind of talked about the Emoluments Clause I wonder what you think about that other part in terms of Americans not really caring what happens in foreign countries like Ukraine that's pretty much the basis of those of the genesis of these impeachment complaints how do you see that Angie. Well in our coverage of elections I think it's pretty obvious that Americans care more about domestic policy than foreign policy when you ask voters what are your most important issues for any given election they usually say the economy or health care sometimes they say education or the environment but those are. Primarily domestic concerns foreign policy I think is a heavier lift for a lot of Americans when they are thinking about their elected officials now of course you can't say it's not important it's it's really important it's always discussed a lot every election cycle but I think we'd be naive to say that most Americans are really super interested in what's going on in foreign countries and the u.s. Positions there and a lot of the discussion in this impeachment inquiry was about the United States its relationship with Russia Russia's aggression toward Ukraine and Ukraine's position as this kind of a pivotal country that had a history with Russia but is now trying to move more toward Western Europe and honestly I think some Americans are bored by those issues Elizabeth what about the assertion tell me that the Democrats might be too narrow in their scope on these impeachment clauses Yeah I mean 1st you know I think this isn't actually about foreign policy it's about American democracy and the point is that whether you're talking about the Emoluments Clause or the president leveraging his office on the global stage with respect to Ukraine the idea is that he should always be acting with unclouded loyalty to the American people who put him that office and with whether it's the Emoluments Clause or the Ukraine what we're seeing and what the evidence shows is that he has acted with respect to his personal his president trumps interest in his bottom line with respect to his finances or his. Political bottom line trying to get himself reelected by bullying and bribing a foreign official So I think that's the main thing you know are there. Will offenses to the Constitution that President Trump has committed since he's gotten into office I would say yes as a constitutional lawyer it's you know but it's a judgment that the Democrats have made in the House about what is going to be most salient and I think where you have here unequivocal evidence that the president did these actions with respect to Ukraine you might think they're impeachable or not but the facts are there and it's unquestionable that he refused to let his officials testified he obstructed the impeachment inquiry I think because those are so clear and so simple That's probably why they went with them although it's interesting Elizabeth a lot of the things that Democrats have complained about with regard to President Trump have had to do with his dealings around the world whether it's the way he's treated NATO right whether it's the crisis at the southern border the rewriting of NAFTA his dealings with Kim Jong un North Korea his dealings with China his dealings with Russia you know cozying up to strong men around the world like it seems like the Democrats complaints about President Trump are all these foreign policy things that Americans don't pay as much attention to right and you know I think that has helped him in a lot of ways get away with a lot of things you know but I think that's probably because it's frankly easier for him in some ways to deal with you know we've seen his he seems to really enjoy his interactions with more authoritarian regimes around the globe and that has been lucrative certainly for his own personal businesses and as we've seen he's seen that as an opportunity to try to impact his political chances here in the United States you know the idea is that you depend on the American people so if you want to get reelected don't try to bully Ukraine into doing something to help in the next election try to have policies that help all of the Americans. Who might come out and vote for you Professor I want to get your thoughts in terms of the narrowness of this part because yesterday President Trump had a rally in Hershey Pennsylvania not far from Harrisburg the state capitol where he responded to the House's announcement of the articles of impeachment Here is part of what the president said today the House Democrats announced these 2 flimsy pathetic ridiculous articles of impeachment back as Democrats are walking back from everything they claimed with today's announcement there was no obstruction of justice and there were no crimes whatsoever there are no crimes it says it there are no crowds there impeaching me and there are no crimes those President Trump speaking at a rally in Hershey Pennsylvania yesterday Professor Black I love to get your reaction to this for 2 reasons One I believe that ignoring congressional subpoenas is actually against the law so I don't think that's true and 2 I'm not sure if it matters how many crimes there are I mean I could be a Boy Scout for my entire life but if I beat war on a person to death with my bare hands old reserve no Lynas things I did disappear I don't know that the amount of counts actually matters as much as it matters what the counts are for but how do you see it. Well there are 2 articles as they come in order the 1st articles abuse of power and the allegation here is that the president requests this investigation with a motive that is to harm his political adversary Joe Biden is trumpet request an investigation of John Doe random person we wouldn't be here so it wasn't that the act was inappropriate right presence requests investigations the problem is that he did so with an intent to weaken his political opponent on the 2nd issue is a bit less clear Congress has issued many subpoenas to presidents going back decades and decades and decades and often presence of said no I will not respond to that subpoena and then they have to go to court to litigate what So as privilege what something unique about this case is that the president has issued a categorical policy I will not reply to any subpoenas I will sort of absolute privilege and that was a letter from the White House counsel so we really don't have much precedent in one federal court ruled that the present theory was wrong but only a single district court judge whether this is impeachable I think the Senate will have to make a call on but we don't have this sort of article that's been fully vet in the past we haven't had presidents who have taken this sort of categorical position. Let's get to some of your comments now we'll talk about the Senate in just a bit but glad to Hereford hear from those of you who got thoughts about the impeachment Sundra tweeted I'm an independent in just in a mosque his district in Michigan just to sum up Justin Amash is a member of Congress whose district includes Grand Rapids in the areas kind of just east of Kalamazoo I was a reluctant impeach her but I read the mother report and watched the impeachment hearings and I became convinced that President Trump needed to be held accountable for his actions bravo to the brave men and women who testified Mike tweeted I'm astonished the g.o.p. Can ignore Trump's bad behavior and offer no apology but I'm equally amazed how the Democrats burrow through the political quagmire without concern for house rules or the lack of physical evidence and she hold on could you respond to that let's take that into parts 1st the g.o.p. Ignoring trumps bad behavior and offering no apology that's one of the big arguments and the Democrats have made against Republicans which is that they're playing kind of logical games to get around the evidence complaining about the process because they have no counter argument to the facts. There has not been much if anything presented to rebut the facts the facts being the money was held up Trump had this call with Selenski certainly Trump's team such as ambassador Gordon Sandland thought there was a connection between having an announcement of an investigation and getting a getting a White House visit and nobody's really presented anything to say like oh no that didn't happen I mean from from all the witnesses and all the testimony and a lack of counter facts that did happen although I'm sorry to interrupt you there although there's the the record of the call of that July 25th call between President Trump and Ukraine's president Vladimir Selenski in which he talked about this favor and part of what's come out in these hearings including yesterday's hearing before the House Judiciary Committee or a. Committee in the hearings before the Intelligence Committee is what the president actually meant by what he said to Volodymyr Zelinsky whether he meant to do me a favor or whether he actually meant we want Ukraine to investigate real honest to goodness corruption Yeah the problem with this line of argument and I've thought about it a lot is like that Trump and his team also had the ambassador moved Maria you Vonage who by all accounts was very strong on anti corruption so if you're going to make the argument that Trump was generally concerned about corruption you have to square it with the removal of this anti-corruption ambassador and that's challenging so I think everybody one of the nice things about this case is that there's a lot of primary documentation that people can read for themselves so we can all read the transcript of this call and decide for ourselves what we think of the tenor of the conversation certainly I think it's a hard case to make that Trump was generally concerned about corruption because of the other the context in the other circumstances I'm Joshua Johnson You're listening to one essay. Elizabeth what about the other piece of Mike's comment he wrote I'm equally amazed at how the Democrats burrow through the political quagmire without concern for house rules or the lack of physical evidence I think Mike might have a point in that regard I watched this week's House Judiciary Committee hearing there were a number of times where Congressman Jerrold Nadler who's the chair of the committee was dealing with parliamentary requests and points of order from some of the Republican members and he just barreled right through them which is against Robert's Rules of Order you actually do have to take those up so there were some moments in the hearing where I looked at it I was like this distance isn't this doesn't look right well you know I think look when everything else is against you on the facts you argue process and I think that's where a lot of the Republicans are I think that you know the hearings. Congressman Nadler certainly has a different style from Congressman Schiff but he has been following the House resolution broadly covering the way that impeachment will continue so my House Resolution 661 we keep bringing that up as a resolution to kind of governs this process right and you know I don't I think people are watching a lot of congressional hearings for the 1st time you know it's frustrating to be in the minority when you're on a committee it's but that's how the process works and I don't think there have been process violations I think it's a talking point that Republicans turn to because they don't really have any substantive ones but the process is important here and the process is that we're talking about the big picture are the most important I think you know pulling back from the facts what we're talking about in these articles of impeachment are can we trust that our democracy is going to work as it's supposed to can we trust that the checks and balances in the Constitution are going to work if they're supposed to and if you have a president who is seeking foreign interference in the American election and you know that could be a campaign finance violation getting dirt on your political opponent is certainly very valuable and we have campaign rules against foreign governments contributing to America. Campaigns So can you trust that it's a free and fair election without foreign interference can you trust that Congress is going to be able to fulfill its constitutional oversight role the checks and balances role and when you have a president who's obstructing justice obstructing Congress's impeachment inquiry you can't trust that that's really what we're talking about these big picture American democratic processes questions press a black man I'd love you to respond to John who wrote on our Facebook page another talking point from the Republicans is that this impeachment will lower the bar if President Trump is impeached over this then future presidents will be impeached over anything but if we look back at the Clinton impeachment and the magnitude of the allegations in comparison from Clinton to trump the bar has definitely gone up Professor what do you think I think the comment is astute the risk always is not about this president but the presidency in general once you decouple impeachment from any sort of spelled out clearly identified offense people may think oh you're just making this up this abuse of power thing is garbage writes Not a real thing and once this crime turns almost entirely what was the president's motivation you have to basically get said the President's head and that's always a risky thing to do I worry in the future we'll see impeachment where the minority party simply thinks of the Pres was not acting in the public interest as they see it and is a very short distance between what you might see as an obviously corrupt intent and one where we just think the president had the wrong set of policies I worry that impeach will become this quadrennial event were almost every 4 years you'll have this sort of effort to investigate the president at the present stymies investigation you can impeach him for not coming along desiccation if your readers are interested on a piece in Atlantic on this issue today we're heading to some risky and charted territories and it may feel salutary to impeach and try to remove President Trump. But the consequences of this this administration it's so interesting the professor because even the founders were a little bit kind of vague in terms of what was impeachable I think was Jay It was a James Madison at the Constitutional Convention who said a president is impeachable if he attempts to subvert the Constitution subverting the Constitution could mean a lot of things so it's like there's a line where we've got to be open to things we can't foresee but if we make the field of those things too broad. Means nothing it becomes a political cudgel Well if you want to want to framers George Mason from Virginia and he proposed a standard in the Constitution maladministration you could be removed maladministration means bad administration means you know exercising power in other words power in a bad way that seems very close would have to use of power means the framers rejected maladministration. High crimes or misdemeanors. I think very careful when the assertion of what the offense is something that you think is basically a political fence that person exercise judgment. And not others where there is no clear offense and the question posed to my friend a moment ago why was bribery not included bribery is a fairly well established elements quid pro quo is just the start the public was a public. Democrats worry that they couldn't meet the requirements for bribery. Mishmash that. We don't have. To break I want to talk more about this place in the Senate when we come back. To the. Each week we get down to business local venue coverage in studio performances even some blues birthday the best reason to sing the blues in the Bay Area and. Join me Wednesday nights at 9 for the. 91.7. Hello I'm Jeff Hayden host of your legal right tonight in conjunction with the labor and employment law section of the California lawyers association your legal rights will look at the new employment laws taking effect after the 1st of the year and for the final time this year tonight we will feature our color night whether on the air or off we take your calls and answer your questions that's your legal rights tonight at 7 o'clock right here on $91.00 f.m. In San Francisco or online and. Support for n.p.r. Comes from this station and from Total Wine and more where in-store teams can recommend a bottle of wine spirit or beer for any occasion shoppers can explore more than 8000 wines 2500 beers and 3000 spirits more it Total Wine dot com from Capital One committed to reimagining banking offering savings and checking accounts that can be opened from anywhere Capital One what's in your wallet Capital One and a one from the listeners who support this n.p.r. Station. We'll continue in a moment after a quick heads up about tomorrow's program religion sometimes leaves no room for a non-binary gender identification some faiths reject the idea that gender can be anything except one's biological sex how much if at all does your faith community accept your gender expression leave us a voicemail 855-236-1818 now this could range from coming out as transgender or something more subtle like not wearing certain guard during services that sex specific How are gender identity and religion intersecting for you tell us your story 855-236-1818 or send us an audio file with our app one a Vox Pop We'll share some of your stories tomorrow on one essay. Back now to our conversation with Angie Holan professor associate professor Josh Blackman analysts with Wydra still time to get in a few more of your questions and thoughts one a x.w. Am you dot org Jamie tweeted My biggest fear is that this impeachment isn't going to work and all it's going to do is fire up trumps base and put him back in office for 4 more years and make the Democrats look weak because they couldn't get it done Elizabeth Wydra I totally see Jamie's point and I am beginning to think that if a Democrat does not win in 2020 that they're going to be some heads that are going to roll of the top of the Democratic leadership because if they couldn't get Hillary Clinton like did with the majority of the popular vote and if he couldn't beat Donald Trump after all of this then I think a lot of Democrats are going to be saying you know maybe we need a full scale rethinking of who's running this party so I certainly hear that a lot the idea that if the Senate isn't going to convict on the articles of impeachment What is the point and I think it's because gosh if this deep undermining of the office of public trust of the United States president the interference with our free and fair democratic elections and the very process that are written into our constitutional democracy are not worthy of impeachment then what is and as a constitutional lawyer as someone who loves the Constitution and has for weird leave reasons I'd get explained it's birth this document is dear to me and I am proud that there are people standing up for it the house even if the Senate puts party above country and doesn't go along with it so you know I I'm not a political consultant and I don't you know I I don't think that you know contrary to some people who think the Democrats are doing this for political reasons I'm not even sure this is a smart political move that's not my portfolio but from a constitutional perspective it's absolutely essential and not just for this president but for all the ones to come Angie Holan What's your sense of Jamie's comment. I think that on the flip side of what Cheney is saying for some people is the argument that the president's base and this is not my perspective this is what I've heard some other folks say but that the president's base is so bought in that even in light of all the facts about what the president has done has said that it will just cause them to double down they won't care they'll remain willfully ignorant they will take that as even more reason to rebel against the swamp and re-elect Donald Trump. I think we're at a moment of extreme uncertainty it's it's really to me as a fact checkers someone who deals with facts and evidence it's kind of wild how partisan and how polarized people are how some of the senators said that they weren't even going to look at some of the evidence now I'm sure that will change when it gets to a trial but the way that the political parties have have separated into teams and it really doesn't matter with the facts or the evidence are you just stick with your team and I think that's especially true with President Trump. It's it's hard to fathom and what this is going to mean in the 2020 Alexion you just nobody can know it may come down to a handful of states in the Midwest that decide who the next president will be I'm sure it will be a very close election that seems baked in right now. When people are winning elections on these extremely narrow margins Everything matters so I'm not sure even how much specific party leadership can sway something one way or the other mean it's it's just a very odd moment press appointment What do you think about the deep partisanship in this process thus far Rick tweeted Well I can clearly hear the evidence and believe that Trump is guilty I tune out when I see the partisan votes votes along party lines are laughable no x. Number of people all agree this in itself is a disgrace to the country on both sides for us a black and white about that. The framers didn't really anticipate the rise of political parties that was a creation that emerge at some point after the concert was ratified but by the election $800.00 we had the shop we divided parties have basically hated each other and want to destroy each other so there's nothing particularly new but I think the founders did insert one provision to reflect that risk to remove a president you to 2 thirds majority vote which means you need basically a super majority to get rid of the president that's a very high burden I think the requirement to have 2 thirds suggest that you need more than a simple majority they need and that now today is just more than one party and I fear that having a straight party line vote move President Trump will simply translate to another straight party line vote to try to move the next Democratic president this is this will be something we're we'll deal with every 4 years now I don't think this is going to be a one off right you don't try to remove a president and just go back to things like normal I think every time it happens it ratchets level one step up I think this is our new new world we live in I don't know if there are any musical theater nerds out there but as soon as you mention the election of 800 I immediately heard that song from Act 2 of Hamilton in the back of my head I might be the only one who had that Elizabeth can you know yes I'm not going to sing it Ok but I can make sure not the only one who is here and like every action has an equal opposite. You make me feel much better quite a few of you expressed your thoughts about what happens in the Senate and I totally hear you professor in terms of why the founders wanted it to be a 2 thirds majority we got a ton of comments about the Senate Here's a quick mash up of some of what you left in our inbox Oh this is not going from we go to it it's really by me to see it going to the Senate and being such a partisan issue in regards to voting on it and him actually being he being so partisan if he doesn't get impeached it is more of a fuel to the fire is real and. This is from Northern Virginia and one of our army I believe chose to make it a critique of your power but there is nobody when you're thinking 2 thirds majority in the Senate or the name of Joe I think the whole thing is a complete waste of time there there's no path forward if you don't have an endgame in sight walk pursue it and get noble cause but the political process and the political process your objectivity is to get something done or passed thank you for sharing your thoughts with us now I think that House Intelligence chairman Adam Schiff kind of anticipated some of that concern yesterday when the Articles of Impeachment were unveiled he responded to complaints about the house not wanting to move forward with impeachment to this possibly being futile in the Senate here is part of what Chairman Schiff said Now some would argue why don't you just wait why don't you just wait until you get these witnesses the White House refuses to produce Why don't you just wait until you get the documents the White House refuses to turn over the argument why don't you just wait amounts to this why don't you just let him cheat in one more election that was House Intelligence chairman Adam Schiff speaking yesterday presser Blackmon let me come back to you what about that argument in terms of saying well if we wait we're basically letting the president cheat again. I think I think the argument is if the House feels that they have grounds for impeachment then Baksh have a duty to to proceed the fact that we have an election coming up in what little bit less than a year doesn't eliminate the house's duty to impeach but you have to recognize how this we perceived in the public will grab an impeachment vote probably about 2 weeks after the articles are released and then we'll have a vote in the full house right before Christmas we may we need be having a piece from trial as the Iowa caucus goes on depending on how long the trial goes I can see this trial going maybe a couple months I mean it depends of the Republicans want to be in long or short keep in mind during the Senate trial all the senators including Bernie Sanders and those with Warrant have to sit there all day in absolute silence Yes you heard me right they cannot say a word basis it is a court as a jury so basing incapacitates 2 leading candidates might be reasons why they keep them in in town so this could be space be going up until the place will conventions later this summer so while the constitutional duty exists the political optics suggest that this is almost like. Its last minute effort by poor people go to vote . Re tweeted the Republicans notion that the Democrats should let the people decide in the next election is ridiculous the Constitution says nothing about a referendum for impeachment This is the job of Congress the House Democrats are just doing their job and for Republicans it's a political football Julia tweeted when the Senate votes against impeachment no Julia said when the Senate votes against impeachment I believe the House should continue with obtaining the tax returns and other witness testimony and begin impeachment hearings again for campaign finance violations and emollients violations the n.g. By the way do we have any numbers on where Americans fall when it comes to support for impeachment and or removal What do the polls tell us. Well the polls have been shown to a polarized electorate I know a big shock the some of the recent polls have shown just over 50 percent in favor of impeachment of rim or removal now when events play out sometimes those numbers drop down below 50 percent to 49 percent 48 percent so the polls have been hovering around. Those numbers now going back to the Senate just to bring politics back into it about a 3rd of the Senate is up for reelection in 2016 so I think these senators are going to be having that on their mind as they vote either for or against impeachment and some of these senators are Republicans who sit in swing states and I'm very interested to watch how they speak about impeachment what they say how they end up voting because I do think the Democrats are going to want to make an argument in the fall that Republicans are too beholden to Donald Trump and so that is one of the undercurrents of the Senate trial I'm Joshua Johnson You're listening to one anyway. Elizabeth I'd like you to respond to another mash up of some voters or some listeners who feel turned off by the actions of House Democrats by the impeachment process here's a mash up of what they left in our inbox My name is Dan Simon and of Billy 8 a voter from Florida I have previously voted for the best candidate I've always voted for the person that would do the job that included. I voted for Obama but what the Democrats actions have shown me is that they don't really hate Trump they hate me as a voter for voting for it from this is Tom from Atlanta I have been following these proceedings carefully I believe that the proceedings and especially the articles of impeachment are a gross miscarriage of the power and confidence that we have given our representatives in government it has encouraged me to vote party line Republican in the next election in order to keep this from happening again in our House of Representatives Hello this is Steve from Chicago I've been watching and reviewing these impeachment proceedings and to getting in from everything I can see it is a sham power grab by the Democrats which as a lifelong Democrat has really made me sad of what's happening to the country Dan Tom Steve thank you very much for sharing your thoughts with us so Elizabeth it sounds like these 3 voters at least are kind of doubling down on supporting the g.o.p. As a result of their perception of what the Democrats are doing you know I think that perception goes to just emphasize that I don't think that the Democrats in the House are doing this because they think there's some great political gain to be had I think they're doing it because they believe it's their constitutional duty and I would hope that voters would see that you know you can respect that that at least is done in good faith rather than some of these bad faith arguments we're seeing from a pub. Like Lindsey Graham in the Senate saying he's not even going to look at the evidence that's not their constitutional duty Well the Democrats clearly want dollars from Dawn there's no doubt about that right but I think that you know arguably from some of these political polls and from these responses that we just heard impeachment might not be you know the easiest way for Democrats to get rid of it might be just focusing on the election but I think that they're really feel constitutionally obligated Nancy Pelosi as we saw was not eager to get into impeachment she really had to be brought there by the president's actions himself I think dragged his affair was dragged I think is a fair word and I think frankly the articles of impeachment also show that they are taking this process seriously because I think they are putting forth articles that if you had a Senate acting in good faith and not just following party lines I think there would be a real question of whether you could get 2 thirds of the Senate to convict on those narrow articles if you wanted to appeal to the Democratic base you probably put something in there about how the president is caging children at the border and letting young children die of the flu on a cold hard floors you know their ways if you wanted to make this purely political you would do this differently before we wrap up Professor what is the one thing you think the founders would want us to keep in mind as we view this impeachment process if any of them was here right now what's the one thing they would most want us to remember. To act prudently and keep in mind whatever precedent we have here how that could translate to future impeachments James Madison worried that if we have too broad of a standard for removal then the president serves at the Senate's pleasure and that the that the thing to keep in mind that we should exercise power responsibly and as concretely as possible and Angie as someone who fact checked for a living there's a real concern that some people are going to make their decisions based on their gut rather than the evidence certainly some on the political left say that the evidence is overwhelming to those who are making this emotion more with their heart than their head regardless of the facts Woody you want them to keep in mind. I want them to keep in mind that there is a lot of documentation on this they can do their own reading and their own research and look carefully at some of the reports that have been written in the transcripts I know I'm asking people to do homework but it does only like right now as citizens we all need to do some homework because these are not easy issues there you can't digest them in just a few minutes watching t.v. If you really want to understand what's going on invest some time and she hold an editor for political back to good place to do some of that homework political act and she thanks for talking to us thank you Josh Blackman associate professor of law at the South Texas College of Law Thank you Professor thank you and Elizabeth Wydra president of the progressive think tank the constitutional accountability Center thanks Elizabeth thanks for having me this conversation was produced by Haley blasting game you can learn about our team at the one a dot org slash staff and hey if you want to start on that homework you can go to npr dot org slash impeachment a lot of the documents in the background you need is all right there until we meet again I'm Joshua Johnson thanks for listening this is one as. Support for n.p.r. Comes from this station and from the pajama gram company creators of matching holiday pajamas for the whole family including dogs and cats with Charlie Brown Star Wars and Grinch themes in its fleece and flannel available at pajama gram dot com and from c 3 dot a i c 3 dot AI's software enables organizations to use artificial intelligence at enterprise scale solving previously unsolvable business problems learn more it see 3. After his bar mitzvah. Started a family and became a rabbi but at a young age he prayed that God would let him wake up as a girl scrolly is no longer a rabbi or married or male we'll meet. On her journey from Brooklyn Orthodox acidic Jewish community to transgender activism next time and I will be on tomorrow's Wednesday at 11 am right here on 91.7 k. You make it very hard any time at. Stefan numbers 852361212 you can also email one. Org or tweet at one hi. I'm here to say thank you Community Radio is a celebration of both the Bay Area and the experiences we share as residents your donation makes. A vital part of our community your generosity allows us to cover of a righty of stories explore new perspectives and showcase local musicians and artists your gift creates the programming that keeps us all informed and entertained for all that you do for. Thank you. Michelle spent 6 years bursting into glorious song on the t.v. Show Glee. Way from Los Angeles where that show was made. Her very personal to her hometown of New York City that's coming up on cue from. Tonight at 6. Point 7. B.b.c. News on the program the European commission announces its green new deal its big plan for Europe to be 0 carbon by 2050 is it enough and is it feasible holding back the deserts in Ethiopia and international flavor from the b.b.c. News the news hour this afternoon at 2 o'clock here on local public radio. Bad weather is. Shrinking for. The government now will open the door for more sugar imports planned to bring in. Considered from n.p.r. News. Magazine all things today are here on 91.7. San Francisco This American Life is next. Some people they read the stories from 3000 years ago the Iliad and Odyssey they read them in school and it just gets to them. One of the producers here at our show Emanuel was like that. The like heroes Hector I thought I got Memnon with such a diva. I love the we had to translate it in my Latin class and in addition to like translating passages I decided to make like a 9 by 3 foot mural out of magazine paper depicting Aeneas is like Journey Into Hell but when you say magazine paper you mean you're cutting gutters out of a magazine I guess I mean I was you know I mean I was meticulously ripping teeny pieces of different colors of magazine paper and making like a mosaic. And I remember that Jalal was on the mirror over some reason she's wearing like a white dress the kind of look. So. Yeah so she got to be Dido in how. Great Teacher signed a 20 page research paper on any subject in the world like they could do anything at all it was obvious to a man you know what to do the story of Troy the place of the Trojan War happened city but they pulled the Trojan horse into and in doing research for this project I found out about this guy named 100 men. A man who also read those old stories and got obsessed he's born in Germany in 1906 like a businessman a merchant and Russia and then he moved to California during the gold rush and opened a bank it said that he would carry around like copies of Homer and he taught himself ancient Greek like in 2 years he taught himself ancient Greek which is insane to me . Just so he could like read the books and like the language of origin anyway of a basically he like a mass is a huge fortune and once he has this fortune he decides he's going to find Troy at the time people weren't sure if it was a real place or just like a story like a plant and another kind of a dumb question but in that period did archaeologists.