Whether you think thats good or bad and matches the abuse of powers is an open question. And then he goes through and argues he doesnt see what he calls a statutory crime. And well see that debate as well. There are people youre going to hear from who are going to say its got to be an actual felony and then there are going to be other people pointing out the constitution doesnt require that. It has words like treason, bribery and high crimes. So were going to get into the weeds here, but the big picture is keep your eye on which witnesses and exchanges are talking about the serious question of whats impeachable. The other noise you can try and tune out as with any hearing. Mr. Wiesman, your last words of advice as we settle in to watch the legal experts. I think its very important to keep your eye on the facts and the law. And i think one of the things that the public is rightly upset about is the rule of law not being applied. And so i think the quote you read is fun, its sort of catc
To exclude from trial . Therefore, from the American Public evidence. I mean, were prosecutors, we are used to evidence. Thats how we measure our cases, measure our progress. And if Senator Mcconnell has decided in coordination with the white house that its going to be run in a particular way to exclude facts and evidence and witnesses an documents what does that make the senate . It is just an amazing point for you to be making. Americas history is being an advocate around the world for the i think it is fair to call that a banana court, a banana republic, a kangaroo court. We used to be a country that helped bring the rule of law to other countries. So impeachment wasnt designed to be a trial like in an article 3 court but it was designed to be a process and a high mined one in which facts mattered. Right . The framers had this fascinating
trial. You could have put an Impeachment Trial in the judiciary. They didnt want to. Theoretically, the house, the house had the other job of sort
Well, thats what it says, to faithfully execute the law. Is there anybody here i dont care what comes out of your mouth today. Is there anybody here who believes that this president has faithfully executed the law and faithfully executed the duties, the sacred trust that has been put in his hands and on his shoulder . He is supposed to faithfully execute the law, not ignore it, not abuse it and not forget it. The president is supposed to be motivated by public interest. Public interest. The interest of the people. But rather than remembering that or caring about that, im not really sure he ever really did. The president chose to try to coerce a foreign power, a newly elected, young president that we
all were excited about, an anticorruption president. The president tried to coerce him into interfering in the 2020 elections. The things that i have heard today about Vice President s child, things ive heard about the Vice President s son when we have billions of people in this country who
Whatwe that means, its to use e power of the office to obtain an improper personal benefit while ignoring orfi injuring the national interest, or acts in ways that are grossly inconsistent with and undermine the separation of powers that is the foundation of our democratic system. Now, this question of whether the president engaged in abuse of power came up before when this congress considered the impeachment of president nixon. And president nixon famously said, if the president does it, it is notde illegal. And this body rejected that because thats not so. That goes directly contrary to what the founders said. But President Trump has said the same thing in responding to the prior investigation by the Department Of Justice and defending his conduct. Heres what he said. I have an article 2 where i have the right to do whatever i want as president. That he has the right to do whatever he wants as president. That is as wrong as when president nixon said a similar thing. That is not what