possibly come together or not come together. i said in the last hour this is essentially constitutional scholar ping-pong going back and forth. the argument made by professors pamela karlan, noah feldman, michael gerhardt, they were impressive. pamela karlan on liberal twitter is already a star in her impassioned defense of the constitution they say. she is the fiona hill of the hearing they are saying, on the left. jonathan turley in his presentation went point by point on a lot of these different facts. every time we talk about this, dana, it comes down to one thing and that is math. since the beginning of the process, the inquiry, has any lawmaker either side change their mind on where they stand on impeachment? the inquiry started with two democrats voting against the
been saying. they may, like congressman collins, the ranking member, give more speeches than actually ask questions. if i could dovetail on one and he said, these four are very, very highly regarded. the two in the middle road the casebook that is used in constitutional law almost everywhere in the country. a fixture testifying before congress and professor feldman is the up-and-coming bright new superstar of constitutional law in the united states. obviously three of them are on the side of the democrats. democrats get to have as many as they want. in terms of their academic reputations of the four of them, they are impeccable. dana: martha, doesn t matter at all, if the goal of the hearing for chairman nadler was to lay a predicate, leah foundation for what impeachment is or is not, doesn t matter if
baron. george mason asked can any man be above justice and alexander hamilton wrote high crimes and misdemeanors the abuse in violation of some public trust. professor feldman, you had previously testified the president has abused his power. is that correct? yes, ma am. what is the most compelling evidence in this impeachment inquiry that would lead you to that? the phone call itself of julr to my mind that we hear the president asking for a favor that is clearly of personal benefit rather than acting on behalf of the interests of the nation. further from that, further down the road we have more evidence which tends to give the context and to support the explanation for what happened. professor karlan, how do such abuse affect democratic systems? having foreign interference in our election means that we are less free. it is less we the people who are determining who is the next winter than it is a foreign
again. andy mccarthy, can i talk to you about what noah feldman was saying. he says there is evidence that the president has committed impeachable high crimes and misdemeanors. if there was really an urgency, would it be taking this long? no. the more you have to try to explain why this is misconduct, and why it rises to the level of the of an impeachable offense, the more remote you are from an actual impeachable offense. the way i would look at it is this. if bob mueller, special counsel, lets imagine he actually found the gold line of evidence that said trump was an agent of russia. if he came up with that and we found about two weeks before election day, we would impeach the president. it wouldn t be some people would say there s no point now. we go to the polls.
with no income verification, no appraisal and no out of pocket expenses. and we ve extended our call center hours so that every veteran can take advantage of these near record low rates. on the basis of the testimony in the evidence before the house, president trump has committed impeachable high crimes and misdemeanors by corruptly abusing the office of the presidency. dana: that was professor noah feldman today. we are waiting for the committee to come back to order. they took a break. they had some business to take care of. we ll take it around the table