And the controlling law. Use of an obstruction theory from the Mueller Report would be unsupported, unsupportable in the house and unsustainable in the senate. Do you remember writing that . Yes, i do. Why did you write that . Because i think its true. The fact is that this was reviewed by main justice. The special counsel did not reach a conclusion on obstruction. He should have. I think his justification quite frankly was a bit absurd on not reaching a conclusion. But the attorney general, Deputy Attorney general, did and they came to the right conclusion. I dont think this is a real case for obstruction. But then this body would be impeaching the president on the basis of the inverse conclusion. I dont believe it would be appropriate. The gentlemans time has expired. Ms. Dean. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Words matter. In my earlier life, professors, i was a professor of writing. I taught my students to be
careful and clear about what they put to paper. That is a lesson that the framers
yet on july 25th, 2019 the president coerced ukrainian president zelensky to announce an investigation into his political rival, trump s political rival, which was corroborated by multiple witnesses throughout the intelligence committee hearings. professor karlan, can you explain for the american people in your opinion whether the framers considered solicitation of foreign interference and would they have considered it a high crime or misdemeanor and does the president s conduct rise to that level? the framers of our constitution would have considered it abhorrent, would have considered it the essence of a high crime or misdemeanor for a president to invite in foreign influence either in deciding whether he will be re-elected or deciding who his successor would be. thank you. professor feldman, i d like to talk to you about bribery. during the course of the intelligence committee hearings multiple witnesses gave sworn unrebutted testimony that the president withheld nearly $400