i ask everyone in the room to please remain seated and quiet while the witnesses exit the room. i also want to announce to those in the audience that you may not be guaranteed to your seat if you leave the hearing room at this time. and once the witnesses have left the hearing room, at this time the committee will stand in a short recess. for the past 45 minutes you have been hearing the case made on behalf of democrats in the house about the trifecta of offenses committed by the president. abuse of power, bribery, obstruction of justice. three of the four witnesses agreeing with all of those charges and laying out in detail sometimes in passionate detail as to why they believe in this case the president is guilty. with one exception, jonathan turley sitting on the end to field the fewest questions of the session. michael gerhardt, this stuck out that this is not impeachable, then nothing is impeachable,
read the article and the quote and said, did you say that? which was critical of president trump and one of the things that turley said was that it does not have to be completed for something to be an impeachable crime. and turley started to give an answer, no, no, i just want to know yes or no, did you say that? he said he read it accurately. why are you talking to the three and not the other, the democrats who have the majority called three democratic pro-trump impeachment law professors. and they wanted to focus on them. they did not want to hear anything from jonathan turley who is the one lawyer who has been called by the republicans. so this was not a search for justice or wisdom, this was a search for trying to make a case. and jerry nadler, the chairman and his chief counsel wanted to hear from the people who were going to make the case, more than they did not want to hear from jonathan turley. as far as turley is concerned,
any credence and said it was a hoax from the beginning. but during this time, real-time, the white house quick reaction force sending out statements about each one of these professors, the democrats witnesses saying that professor karlan once quipped that she had to cross the street to avoid walking by the trump hotel in washington, d.c. noah feldman did a podcast making the case for impeachment in april 2017. all cases that go tobias. but to jonathan turley s point, it does not matter how they voted, what they think personally. they are talking about their thoughts on the law, at least two turley s point in his opening statement. but the white house suggesting that the three democrat professors have an extreme bias against president trump, that is factoring into how they are looking at the same exact blue dress, gold dress debate. sandra: exactly, going back to jonathan turley s point in his opening statement when he said i am not a supporter of
critical of president trump, but he went on to say why he believes impeachment is wrong. here is jonathan turley. that is why this is wrong. it is not wrong because president trump is right. his call as anything but perfect. it is not wrong because the house hasn t no legitimate reason to investigate the ukrainian controversy. it is not wrong because we are in an election year. there is no good time for an impeachment. no, it is wrong because this is not how you impeach an american president. your take away so far? i think that jonathan turley laid out why he does not think that this fits. you also heard some of the attempts by all of the witnesses and some law professors, golden doodles being upset and the like. i think it all came down to laying out to this case. democrats obviously talking to the first three witnesses. and an impassioned moment between professor pamela karlan
you ve heard about impeachment? does that track with the rule of law that we talk about? so on obstruction i would encourage you to think about this. in nixon, it did go to the courts and nixon lost. and that was the reason nixon resigned. he resigned a few days after the supreme court ruled against him in that critical case. but in that case, the court recognized there are executive privilege arguments that can be made. it didn t say you had no right coming to us, don t darken our doorstep again. it said we ve heard your arguments, we ve heard congress arguments, and you know what, you lose, turn over the material to congress. what that did for the judiciary is it gave this body legitimacy. it wasn t the rodino extreme position that only you decide