to the house for power of impeachment but it has to work intended and not in conflict with article 2 section 4 and you actually have to have substance, you have to have evidence, you have to have some legal basis in order to throw out these articles. it can just be a presumption or hearsay or wild speculation. the two people on the call, donald trump and volodymyr zelinsky said there was nothing here. democrats say they have the substance. here s what well-respected law professor had to say. crimes may be revealed in upcoming testimony but they need to be grounded in the clinical code rather than the imagination of members of congress. even if the house has brought license to impeachment it does not have license to redefine crimes to fit impeachment. here s what we know. it was a busy week, he did confirm a quid pro quo. did he specifically say the
have to have evidence, have to have some legal basis in order to throw out these terms and throughout these articles. it can t just be a presumption, can t be hearsay, can t be wild speculation. when you have two people on the call, president trump and president strozk than saying there was nothing here, should be case closed. shannon: here s what jonathan turley has to say about this but he says crimes may be revealed in upcoming testimony but they need to be grounded in the criminal code rather than in the imagination of members of congress. even if the house had brought license of impeachment it doesn t have license to redefine crime to fit impeachment. kevin? amen. here s what we know. it s a busy week. gordon sondland back in brussels, but he did confirm a quid pro quo, right? did he specifically say the president gave them the order to do so? he did not. did he say he s acting on the perception of the president asking rudy giuliani to put pressure on him? he did. we have a