Somebody caught in the middle of it, and that does not excuse the person from the consequences. Professors, we have talked about abuse of power and bribery when we started, we said we would also discuss obstruction of congress. So i would like to ask you some questions about obstruction of congress. Professor gerhardt, in your view, is there enough evidence here to charge President Trump with a high crime and misdemeanor of obstruction of congress . I think that there is more than enough. As i mentioned in my statement, i just really underscore this. The third article of impeachment, approved by the House Judiciary Committee against president nixon charged him with misconduct that he failed to comply with four legislative subpoenas. This is far more than four that this president has failed to comply with. And he has ordered the executive
branch, as well, not to cooperate with congress. Those together with a lot of other evidence suggests obstruction of congress. Professor karlan, do yo
i want to bring in the judge right now, listening to our debate a little bit earlier, judge, i will bring you into this. were for guards to nicotine, the point that turley was making. and he said that nick seen, the courts eventually ruled against him. in this case they have not even gotten to that point. go ahead. the case that professor turley was talking about, united states versus nixon is the subpoena issued by a grand jury under john judge s a wreck for the tapes, the infamous tapes. and nixon claimed m s more and morpheus privilege. at one point the supreme court ruled that he does have a limited executive privilege when documents are solely from the judiciary branch. not from congress. the executive privilege is limited to military national security measures. where i disagree with my dear
thank you, i will yield back the balance of my time, i recognized ranking member of the judiciary committee george, mr. collins for 5 minutes questioning witnesses. i think we just put in the jury pool the founding fathers, instead, what will they think, i don t think we have any idea what they would think, in all due respect with this, because of the different times and things that we talked about, but also in some way insinuates on live tv with a lot of people listening that the founding fathers would have found president trump guilty is simply malpractice with these facts. that is to simply pandering to a camera. that is simply just not right! i mean, this is amazing. we can disagree. what is amazing on this committee is we don t even disagree on the facts! we cannot even find a fact right now that is not going through the public testimony and also the transcripts, it is not. mr. turley, is it somebody
value in the form of investigations or an announcement of investigations and that he did so corruptly for personal gain, then that would constitute bribery under constitution. it would not be lawless. it would be bribery under the law. so the supreme court case of mcdonald with the federal bribery statute and other decisions would not be relevant? the constitution is the supreme law, and the constitution specifies what bribery means. federal statutes can t trump the constitution. they can t defeat what is in the constitution. professor gerhardt, would you respond to professor turley s comments about obstruction of justice please. obstruction of justice, one thing i want to emphasize is that obstruction of justice is not just about obstruction over the court. it is obstruction of any lawful proceeding. so that obstruction is not limited to whatever is happening
you are saying article one gives us complete authority when we demand information from another branch, it must be turned over or we will impeach you in record time. now, making that worse is that you have such a short investigation. it is a perfect storm. you set an incredibly short period, demand a huge amount of information, and when the president goes to court, you then impeach him. bill: turley with his testimony a a few minutes ago. the court is in recess, could begin in a few minutes, maybe 30. we will standby with more on that. whatever the case, we do know this. 41 members on this committee, only three have had their five minute session. which means 38 other members of this committee still have their opportunity now to question the four constitutional experts in front of them. this will be a very long hearing.