question there is enough evidence for impeachment. one saying take more time, get more evidence. what do you think? i think that the reason why the republican witness jonathan turley was brought in today was really to create the impression that there is a sort of reasonable minds can disagree as to whether or not what we have seen described and really the uncontested facts at this point whether or not that constitutes an impeachable offense. that s just not the case. this is clearly you know, the conduct of the president of the united states is accused of, trading an official act for a personal benefit is a classic impeachable offense. i don t really think that this is something on which reasonable minds can differ. now, whether or not the evidence actually establishes that as sort of the appropriate remedy, that might be something that s prom appropriate to debate. but sort of the suggestion today that it s not clear whether or not whether this statutory elements of bribery ar
but for the president to put together this scheme, so to speak, to pressure the ukraine leader again to make a public statement, to open an investigation into the bidens, to help his re-election, is a classic impeachable offense. he s used power that only he has to put together this effort and everything, again, that we re hearing so far is consistent with that. there s at least a strong case for the house to look into this. there s certainly a credible case for the house to formulate an impeachment article based upon all of this. legally, and some of this is about the language here. you have some democrats saying, now, let s forget this whole quid pro quo, the latin phrase meaning this for that, let s call it bribery. and bribery, as you know, is cited specifically as an example of a high crime and/or misdemeanor that would justify impeachment. from a legal standpoint, holding back military aid in exchange for an investigation that would benefit you politically, does that fit the
person is quite consistent with everything else that we ve been hearing from every other witness whose testimony has been made public so far. there is a very consistent, even coherent story that s emerged about the president putting together a systemic effort to pressure the ukraine leader, to make a public statement about investigating the bidens. right. and that is the core, of course, that this is what the democrats will attempt to do, is match up all of this witness testimony to paint a consistent picture here. public hearings are a big step in this case. i ask you this when you appear. based on what you ve seen now, particularly the transcripts that have come out since we last spoke, do you see sufficient evidence here from a legal and political standpoint to move forward with an article of impeachment on abuse of power? there s certainly evidence to support that the president has committed an impeachable offense. this may not be the only impeachable offense that the house i
definition of bribery. it s important to keep in mind that impeachable offenses do not have to be actual crimes or felonies. every example that the framers gave in the constitutional convention was not something that was an actually felony or crime, it was an abuse of power or a breach of the public trust. in this circumstance, we can think of very common language to capture what the president is doing. we don t need to use criminal language or the language of a criminal statute to do that. so bribery, as understood as an illicit exchange that the president has arranged in order to use his power for something that will help him purposefully or illicitly to help his election, that fits the definition of an impeachable offense. it might be a phrase that folks at home are more likely to understand as well. mick mulvaney, seen as a loyalist to the president on this case and other issues, he s taken an unexpected step of joining a lawsuit by charles
him that use for ukraine was put on hold to develop an investigation into the bs. so we have another official directly tying president trump to the shakedown. the evidence is coming in. it s not completely consistent but it is demonstrating, i think, something that we ve studied impeachment is sort of a classic impeachable offense. asking a foreign government to intervene in an american election. it doesn t matter whether it is a crime or not. mr. morrison got confused over that point. the concern is whether it is an abuse of power. the framers were very concerned about abuse of power. they used examples like this when they were describing impeachable offenses. it is not a hard question whether or not it will be impeachable. thank you for answering that. i want to ask you about