an impeachment procedure in case something happened in between elections that required the protection of the country and the removal of the president. and the fact that we do have an election coming up relatively soon introduces a dynamic into the equation where one question that will be is can we wait to let the voters decide, or is this such an urgent and serious issue that we need to act now? in a way, that undercuts professor turley s argument that we re all moving too fast here. i r i think an impeachment should be a very quick effort to get the facts, to get an understanding, because it s not something that you play out over a lot of time. professor feldman answered that question and said you can t wait because this would affect the president s own reelection.
majority counsel but i d like to try. go right ahead. there s a couple of things i just wanted to highlight. i m not going to take a great deal of time. i respect my colleagues. i know all of them and i consider them friends and i certainly respect what they have said today. we have fundamental disagreements and i d like to start with the issue of bribery. the statement has been made not just by these witnesses but chairman schiff and others that this is a clear case of bribery. it s not. chairman schiff said that it might not fit today s definition of bribery, but it would fit the definition back in the 18th century. i think that it might come as a relief to him and his supporters that his career will be a short one, that there is not an
there s a reason why every past impeachment has established crimes. it s not that you can t impeach on a noncrime. you can. noncrimes have been part of past impeachments. it s just they ve never gone up alone or primarily. if you prove a quid pro quo, you might have an impeachable offense. but to go up only on a noncriminal case would be the first time in history. so why is that the case? the reason is that crimes have an bhished definition and case law. so there s a concrete independent body of law that assures the public that this is not just political, that this is a president that did something they could not do. you can t say the president is above the law if you then say the crimes you accuse him up really don t have to be established. i think that s a problem that
courts, it is an abuse of power. it is your abuse of power. you are doing precisely what you re criticizing the president for doing. we have a third branch that deals with conflicts of the other two branches. and what comes out of there and what you do with it is the very definition of legitimacy. let s unpack what you have been talking about. first of all, the mcdonald case, how was i decided? was that split court, where we really torn about that? yes, it came out unanimous, so did other the next cases that i cited my testimony that refute these criminal theories. one of the things that you said also, and i think it can be summed up, i use it as a layma layman s language is facts don t matter, that s what i ve heard a lot of, the fact said this, the facts disputed this, but if this, if that, it rises to an impeachment level. and that was what you were saying that crimes have meanings. and i think that this is the concern that i have.
misdemeanor out of going to the courts, it is an abuse of power. it s your abuse of power. you are doing precisely what you re criticizing the president for doing. we have a third branch that deals with conflicts of the other two branches. and what comes out of there and what you do with it is the very definition of legitimacy. let s continue, the impact of what you re talking about. the mcdonald case, was that a split court? were they really torn about that? that case came out how? conveyeah, it came out unani so do cases i cite in my testimony that also refute these criminal theories. one of the things you said also and i think it could be summed up, i use it sometimes, the layman s language here, is facts don t matter. that s what i heard a lot of in the 45 minutes. well, the facts said this, but if this, if that, if this, it rises to an impeachment level, and that was sort of what you re saying, that crimes, i think your word was, crimes have