factual defense. all they kept talking about was process, and they pointed out that i have propounded in the past and i talked in the past about a three-part test of impeachability and as you heard in my closing statement, this situation meets all three tests. the president committed impeachable offenses. they were important impeachable offenses and they go to the heart of the constitutional republic and they threaten the survival of the democracy and free elections and the majority of the people and of the house, i believe, understand that. those are the three tests. the committee will take the information we receive today and we will proceed pursuant to house resolution 660 and the
undercut in any way the impeachability of the acts. president nixon was subject to articles of impeachment preferred by this committee for attempting to cover up the watergate break-in. the fact that the president was not ultimately successful in covering up the break-in was not grounds for not impeaching him. the attempt itself is the impeachable act. professor karlan, does it matter to impeachment that the unfounded investigations the president sought were ultimately never announced? no, it doesn t. if i could give an example that i think shows why soliciting is enough, imagine that you were pulled over for speeding by a police officer. and the officer comes up to the window and says you were speeding, but if you give me 20 bucks, i ll drop the ticket. you look in your wallet and you say to the officer, i don t have the 20 bucks. the officer says, okay, well, just go ahead, have a nice day.
obvious, so overwhelming that the republicans did not really present or try to present a factual defense. all they kept talking about was process. they pointed out that i have talked in the past about a three part test of impeachability. and you heard in my closing statement this situation meet all three tests. the president committed impeachable offenses, they were important impeachable offenses. they go to the heart of our constitutional republic. they threaten the survival of democracy itself and integrity of free elections and a majority of the people and of the house i believe understand that. those are the three tests.
undercut in any way the impeachability of the act. if you ll pardon a comparison, president nixon was subject to articles of impeachment referred by this committee for attempting to cover up the watergate break-in. the fact that president nixon was not ultimately successful at covering up the break-in does not affect the impeachability of the act. professor karlan, does it matter to the impeachment that the unfounded investigations the president sought were ultimately never announced? no, it doesn t. and if i could give an example that i think shows why soliciting is not, imagine that you were pulled over for speeding by a police officer and the officer comes to the window and says, you were speeding but if you give me 20 bucks i ll drop the ticket. if you look in your wallet and
first is talk about the constitutionality or what constitutes an impeachability offense and have dollar zlars in to talk about. but the spt welcome to go invited himself if he wants to. but it s more likely he sends his legal testimony there. what do you expect them to say. i think what they ll say is that all of these facts, whatever they are, in the legal history here don t constitute an impeach. able offense. but clear i there was bribery, which is specifically mentioned in the constitution as an impeachable offense. the president offered to perform a legal responsibility, namely releasing that military aid, in exchange for sog of value and benefit to him. except the republicans say there was no explicit promise of the release of military aid and in exchange. there is no recording of the president saying out loud even though witness after witness say it s their understanding that was the case. well as a prosecutor, i used