From the Mueller Report would be unsupportable in the house and unsustainable in the senate. Do you remember writing that . Yes, i do. Why did you write that . Because i think its true. The fact is this was reviewed by main justice. The special counsel did not reach a conclusion and he should have. I think his justification quite frankly was a bit absurd not reaching a conclusion. The Deputy Attorney general did, and they came to the right conclusion. I dont think this is a real case for obstruction. But then this body would be impeaching the president on the basis of the in verse conclusion. I dont believe it would be appropriate. The gentlemans time is expired. Miss dean. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Words matter. In my earlier life i was a professor of writing. I taught my students to be careful and clear about what they put to paper. That is a lesson the framers of our constitution understood far better than anyone. They were laying the foundation for a new form of government, one that
that some of these or i guess he thinks all of the january s six defendantsho should be pardoned. if he became president , he would pardon them. what do you think the pardon authority for the president is broad? it s to lift the the president.f that s what the president wants to do when he runs. he can d ao thatn . the left wants to make this an issue. but i tell you what, i think there s lots of americanst in who are. ju think aboute days i n five s time, just a few last month,of t joe , joe biden raided the home of the former president , tookst coe phone, the sitting member of congress, and called halfun the country fascist. he did all that in five days, but that doesn t scare americans. i don t know what doesw. . congressman, both of you, thank you for joining us tonight. and if you thought chick fillet is great already, wait until you see the video that we re going to show you next. oh, it s tasty.
without objection, that harg is adjourned. give me a break. just typical, isn t it? just typical. a rather acrimonious ending 8 1/2 hours of testimony, started at 10:00 eastern earlier today, now just after 6:30 p.m. on the east coast. we want to welcome our viewers in the united states and around the world. i m wolf blitzer, in the situation room, a hearing, an historic event just concluded, house democrats laying the legal groundwork for impeaching the president of the united states as the committee moves towards drafting charges of articles of impeachment, three constitutional experts called by the democrats testifying the president did commit impeachable acts with ukraine, one saying the conduct is worse than the actions of any previous president. a legal scholar invited by
quotation from william davy we ve all used several times in our testimony, a president without impeachment, a president will do anything to get reelected. thank you. i want to know you one more example proposof the president f of staff. let s be clear it s not quid pro quo? it is funding will not flow unless the investigation into the democratic server happened as well. we do that all the time with foreign policy. mckinney said yesterday he was very upset with the political influence in foreign policy. that was one of the reasons he was so upset about that. i have news for everybody. get over it. there will be political influence in foreign policy. professor karlan. i think mr. mulvaney is inflating or confusing two different notions of politics.
congressman, would you vote to impeach the president? no decision has been made as to whether or not we will go forward for impeachment and it looks very bad for the president and the law looks even worse for the president. like most member, you focused your questions on the witnesses. did democrats miss the opportunity to the invited professor turley? some of the members did question professor turley, as well. there was so much information that we wanted to ask that it was simply a matter of making sure that we get the information out there to educate the american people in the first place. professor turley said impeaching a president of the united states is one of the most serious things the house of representatives can do. he says why are you guys rushing this? why not build a stronger case? let things, for example, play out in the courts as far as getting subpoenas answered and witnesses from the white house, from elsewhere in the executive