gloss over things. in fact, what is interesting as i said earlier, three of four alleged crimes of the president yet in the impact hearings none identified a crime. if you re writing about this, that should alarm you. this impeachment narrative being spun by the majority is a fake one. it s majority spinning 3% of the facts and ignoring 97% of the other. in fact, professor turley said earlier, impeachment needs proof not presumption. we have one of the fact witnesses in the intel committee, i presumed that was what was going on, mr. sondland. what is happening today, i thought was interesting this is the judiciary committee, we also found out today, facts don t matter. in fact, facts don t matter unless we can fit those facts to fit the narrative we want to spin before this committee and the american people. if they don t matter, we also
yesterday, 300 pages of it, is shameful. i watched the intelligence committee hearings from the back. although i couldn t watch them all because the judiciary committee actually scheduled business during the intelligence committee hearings so the judiciary committee members weren t able to watch all of the hearings. but i didn t get to i get to read the transcripts of the hearings that were held in private. i was not able to be a part of the intelligence committee hearings that were in the scif. we haven t seen the evidence from the intelligence committee yet. we ve asked for it. we haven t received it. we haven t heard from any fact witnesses yet before we get to hear from the constitutional scholars about whether or not the facts rise to the level of an impeachment of impeachable offense. mr. turley, it is not just your
the fact we got the intelligence committee report yesterday, 300 pages of it is shameful. i watched the intelligence committee hearings from the back, but i couldn t watch them all because the judiciary committee actually scheduled business during the intelligence committee hearings, so the judiciary hearing members weren t able to watch all of the hearings. i get to read the transcripts of the hearings held in private, i wasn t able to be a part of the intelligence committee hearings that were in this. we haven t seen the evidence from the intelligence committee yet we ve asked for it. we haven t received it. we haven t heard from any fact witnesses yet before we get to hear from these constitutional scholars about whether or not the facts rose to the level of impeachment impeachable offense. mr. turley, it s not just your
yet on july 25th, 2019 the president course president zelensky to announce an investigation into his political rifle, which was corroborated by multiple witnesses throughout the intelligence committee hearings. professor karlan, can you explain to the american people, in your opinion with other framers considered solicitation of foreign interference and would have considered at high crime or misdemeanor? and does the president s conduct rise to that level? the framers of our constitution would have considered abhorrent, the essence of a high crime or misdemeanor for a president to invite in foreign influence either in deciding whether he will be reelected or deciding who his successor would be. thank you. professor feldman i would like to talk to you about bribery commit multiple witnesses gave sworn unrebutted testimony that the president was held nearly $400 million in congressionally approved aid on
sitting next to turley, professor of george washington university who has the opposite view of the facts before them. let s bring in our roundtable. we are stacked up today. i want to get to andy mccarthy first and find out. these are not fact witnesses, andy, they are offering what you could argue, their legal opinion as to what they believe the case is. how effective was this morning session? i think it has been very effective so far for the democrats. and in an interesting way. i sense that there is a real shift in strategy, what we saw in the intelligence committee hearings was that the democratic majority seemed to settle on bribery as its main theory for impeachment. but it is very interesting the way that this tees up today, because historically before you call in the legal experts, usually have drafted up the