from us. you have to be able to think about the beginning of the impeachment process that the evidence is so clear of offenses so grave that once you have laid out all of the evidence, a good fraction of the opposition, the voters will reluctantly admit to themselves they had to do it. otherwise, you have a partisan impeachment which will tear the country apart. if you meet these three tests, then i think you do the impeachment. those were the words of chairman nadler. now, let s see if chairman nadler s three-prong test has been met. first, has the president committed an impeachment offense? no. the evidence and testimony has not revealed any impeachable offense. second, do those offenses rise to the gravity that is worth
an impeachment offense. he did pardon him. mr. feldman said defamation by tweet is an impeachable offense. by history of this country and if defamation or libel or slander is an impeachable offense, i can t help but reflect about john anderson that pillaged their opponents. the factions or parties actually bought newspapers to attack their political opponents. so this rather expansive an generous view you have on what constitutes impeachment is a real problem. this morning one of you mentioned the constitutional convention. several of you mentioned mr. davies and talked about the constitutional convention. i remember a discussion on the
offense. okay, maybe this happened, bad judgment, but we don t skirt at the level of impeachment. democrats would say it s over the line of an impeachment offense. we ll see the language shift as this goes on. i wouldn t count on the president testifying. he talked about testifying with mueller and never did. i don t think he will testify in front of the judiciary committee. jon: the campaign trail leads to iowa this weekend with several 2020 hopefuls making a visit to shore up support ahead of the state s democratic caucuses february 3. among them, joe biden who is on the second day of his statewide
to establish this? right, the high crimes one is sort of the catch-all phrase, and if you look back historically at what the framers were defining for that, a very important point is they specifically did not want to include as a high crime or misdemeanor the idea of what they called maladministration, malfeasance, basically doing a bad job, and the reason they didn t want that as an impeachment offense they felt that would be too easily used for political or partisan gain, we don t like the job you re doing so therefore we re going to impeach you. what the democrats have to do to avoid that, they have to make it clear that this wasn t just we disagree with the job president trump s doing, but that there s misconduct here, and that s what they need to focus on, things that are clearly wrong, that are like bribery, or an abuse of power, not giving aid that was already meant to be given aid for his own political gains, so they really need to concentrate on the misconduct aspect, rather
therefore having a strong support of impeachment. still some question of how many americans want removal. democrats certainly believe they have laid out their case. the president is hoping in those districts he performs well. there could be some push back that may give some democrats pause. he tauts the faect that republicans have largely been unified in not believing whatever occurs on matters of ukraine that it does not rise to an impeachment offense. that s a lot of what we have been hearing from the president who gets a mix of sunshine and gold of his concerns. you understand how the white house navigates political pressure. do you think as you watch this white house and this president resign to impeachment but they feel 100% confident on the senate so now they can focus on galvanizing those voters in 2020