in this impeachment hearing today where we impeach presidents for treason or bribery or other high crimes where is the impeachable offense in that college are either of you here to assert there was an impeachable offense in that call? cricket started chirping. there is silence. eventually taylor says i m not here to make a determination, that is your job but that is the bottom line question. it is not even the hearsay stuff, whether they heard this or whatever. it is, is it impeachable and can you get the american public to put pressure on republicans especially in the senate if the house moves forward with impeachment. shannon: there are questions, if it is about policy differences, if that is the crux of this as some suggest then how can we stop any president from being impeached because there will always be people in the bureaucracy who don t agree with what they are doing. a new opinion peace talks about this, will impeachment be the new normal of american politics asking it
assert there was an impeachable offense and that call? shannon: and that s where the crickets are chirping. the cricket start tripping and their silence and eventually taylor comes through the microphone and says, i m not here to make a determination, that s your job. but that is the bottom line question. it s not that hearsay stuff or where they heard this or whatever, it s really, is it impeachable? and can you get the american public to put pressure on republicans especially in the senate if thou s moves forward with impeachment? shannon: because there are questions now about whether it will be about policy differences, if that s the crux of this as some suggests. there will always be people within the infrastructure and the bureaucracy who don t agree with what they are doing. the new york post opinion piece talks about this, impeachment will be the new normal of american politics asking, it would be a quantum leap in partisan antagonism. in the past americans it regarded i
that should play a role as we look to his confirmation. well, what should play a role is his complete record. his complete military history. his personnel file. starting from the time he entered the united states navy, certainly to his service in iraq, supporting the united states marine corps. and then his, obviously his duties in the white house. what s probably more relevant is his military career before the white house, in the united states navy. and so, i know there is a lot of hearsay stuff going on. but, let me tell you what is most significant is what he will do as the v.a. chairman. the last three had extraordinary background, but they all failed to change the culture of incompetence. bureaucratic incompetence at the department of veterans affairs. the question is can he be as a marine corps combat veteran can he be marine corps tough in cleaning house in the v.a.? we in 2014, we gave the authority to the department
have been critiquing the president, but certainly not to all of them. and i think we have to also caution the president here. i mean, i don t know how substantive these leaks are. skron john and mark are great journalists, but there is still hearsay in all of this. so i would love to hear if and when the president will respond to it. but i think the president has to understand, there may be some progressive blacks and some blacks that have voted for him that have that kind of feeling about him in the sense there has been so much symbolism around his presidency that in many ways people are looking for some of the substance and policies that address the specific needs of the black community. and so i think there s enough for everyone to learn out of this kind of gossipy hearsay stuff and i hope the president sort of can reflect on that in the same ways that any of his critics will. karen finney, what surprises me in some of those names, he parallels the cbc, congressional black caucus
geraldo: what about the hearsay stuff, are you worry because he was convicted largely on the hearsay evidence and on so-called drew s law, kathleen s law, the hearsay law passed by the state of illinois. do you worry that an appellate court will reverse the conviction? i do not and i say that because, one, drew s law basically is not in existences any more. at the time i ruled drew s law was a valid law and i ruled under that law. after that the illinois supreme court adopted the common law forfeiture by wrong doing and put it into the rules of the court. basically say if the rules of the court conflict with the statute the rules apply. we the trial was had the forfeiture by wrong doing was now a common law procedure that was there andrew s law had absolutely nothing to do with the trial. essentially the common law says you can t kill your parents and then throw yourself on the mercy of the court because you are an orphan. when says like in this case you cannot kill someone who