colloquy and i ll read it to you. i would like you to do us a favor though because our country has been through a lot. one of you said because the president was using royal we and here is the president is talking about the country. that is what he s talking about. it is audacious to say it is using the royal we. that is royal all right. but it ain t the royal we. and i ll tell you. when you come in with a preconceived notion it is obviously. one said, mr. feldman, who said and i ll quote here, roughly, i think it is exactly what you said though, until the call of july 25th i was an impeachment skeptic too. i looked at an august 3rd 2017 publication where you said if president trump pardoned joe arpaio it would be an impeachable offense. he did ultimately pardon him. in 2017 the new york book review
by republicans whether they thought president trump s actions regarding the ukraine scandal have risen to the level of a high crime or misdemeanor as called for by the constitution. one thing came up a few times and i ll run sound from the hearing, the mueller report. obviously, democrats did not hold impeachment hearings over, and yet it casts a very long shadow. take a listen. the mueller report cites a number of facts that indicate the president of the united states obstructed justice, and that s an impeachable offense. i see a pattern in which the president s views about the propriety of foreign governments intervening in our election process are the antithesis of what our framers were committed to. our fraicmers were committed to the idea we as americans decide our elections. professor feldman, you were somewhat of an impeachment
benefit or to corrupt the democratic process. did you write an article entitled it is hard to take impeachment seriously now. i did back in may i wrote that article. would you like me to answer the question. house democrats have made it clear that discussing impeachment is primarily or exclusively a tool to weaken president trump s chancing in 2020. i was an impeachment skeptic but changed my mind and for good reason. thank you. i appreciate your testimony. professor karlan you gave $1,000 to elizabeth warren, right? i believe so. you gave $1,200 to barack obama? i have no reason to question that. and you gave $2,000 to hillary clinton? that is correct. why so much more for hillary than the other two? because i ve been giving a lot of money to charity recently because of all of the poor people in the united states. those aren t the only folks you ve been given to. now have you ever been on a
it was finally cleared in that i m going to read it to you. i d like you to do us a favor because our country has been through a lot. one of you said because the president was using royal we. here he s talking about the country. that s what he s talking about. it s audacious to say it s using the royal we. i ll till you, when you come in with a preconceived notion, it s obvious. one of you just said, mr. feldman, you, that said and i m going to quote here, i think this is what you said. until the call of july 25, i was an impeachment skeptic, today. i see here if the president pardoned joe arapoyo it would be
benefit or to corrupt the democratic process. ed yes, i did write that article did you hold on. did you write since 2018 mid-term election, house democrats have made it clear that discussing impeachment is primarily or even exclusively a tool to weaken president trump s chances in 2020? did you write those words? until this call in july 25th, i was an impeachment skeptic. i appreciate your testimony. professor karlan, you gave $1,000 to elizabeth warren. i believe so. you gave $1,200 to barack obama. i have no reason to question that. you gave $2,000 to clinton? yes. why so much more for hillary than the other two? i ve been giving a lot of money to charity because of the poor people in the united states. those are not the only folks. have you ever been on a podcast