Political parties and it was. Regarding the authorization of the Clinton Impeachment inquiry, it was supported by all republicans and 31 democrats. Fast forward to the current impeachment, the trumps impeachment drive approved only by democrats. How does this they did not have any delusions. It is certainly not something they achieved in their own lifetime. You will be surprised that some of these framers did at the ends of their lives including Jefferson Adams sort of reconciled and i think one of the most significant moments in constitutional history is the one that is rarely discussed
that adams and jefferson reached out to each other that they wanted to reconcile before they die. They meant and they did. And, maybe that is something that we can learn from but i think the greater thing i would point to is the seven republicans in the Johnson Impeachment. If i can read one thing to you. And everyone often talks about one of the senators but not this one. A fantastic senator, he became a great advocate for civil liberties. You understand most of these senators when it was said that they jumped into their political graves, it was true. Most of their political careers ended. Trombul said the following. The excitement of the hours
subsided will be regarded as insufficient clauses. No future president will be safe. I tremble for the future of my country. I cant be instrument to produce such a result and if the tides or friendship infection until commerce time shall do justice to my motives and no alternatives are left to me. He proceeded to give the vote that ended his career. You cant wait for calmer tides. The time for you is now. I would say what trombul says more then than today. This is much like the Johnson Impeachme impeachment, it is manufactured until you build a record. I am not saying you cant build a record but you cant do it like this. You cant impeach a president like this. Professor turley, they
discussed whats considered to be a legitimate impeachment process. The book is pretty antitrump. It is presumptively illegitim e illegitimate. There is a strong risk that Policy Disagreements or partisans over taken the proper measure of congressional impartiality. We can expect Opposition Leaders to the president will be pushed to impeach and suffer internal blow back if they dont. The key question is whether theyll cave to the pressure. The house will under take additional doom partisan impeachment developments thatll be a disaster for the dais as a whole. Mr. Turley, is that advice being
followed by democrats in this case . No. One thing that comes out is impeachment requires certain periods of maturation that the public would have to catch up. If you rush this impeachment, you are going to leave half the country behind. Thats not what the framers wanted. You have to give the time to build a record. This is not an impulse by item, you are trying to remove a dually elected president of the United States. That takes time and takes work. At the end, if you look at nixon which was the Gold Standard in this respect, the public did catch up. They did not support impeachment but they changed their mind. You changed their mind. So did the courts because you allow these issues to be heard in the courts. Professor turley, the Nixon Clinton impeachment were
debated as high crimes category. Yes. Your view of no evidence of any crimes committed by President Trump. Yes, they do not meet any reasonable interpretation of those crimes and i am relying on expressed statements from the federal courts. I understand the language and statue thats broad, thats not the controlling language. It is the language of the interpretation of federal cou s courts. I think all of those decisions stand in the way of these theories. If you cant make out those crimes then dont call it that crime. If it does not matter, whats the point . Call it tree on or endangered species violation if none of this matters. In James Madisons note of the Constitutional Convention debate, they clearly showed the term high in misdemeanor was
referred to a technical term, it was not just something that any majority partisan members may happen to think. It was at a given time. People turn into dictionary. It was First Published in 1755 and the founders and many libraries have this book on their desks and the Supreme Court still cites johnsons dictionary determining the words used in the constitution. Here is how the 1775 dictionary. The sub definition. Atrocious is defined as enormous and criminal. As you look at these words, a misdemeanor is something less than atrocious crime and atrocious is within a high degree. A high misdemeanor must be something likele less than a crime. Professor turley, does that come forward of your understanding of the phrase high misdemeanor with the purpose of narrowing that phrase to prevent this sorese sf abuses. It did. They did not want to establish a type of broad meaning. Those provisions would be identical and thats clearly not what they wanted. Professor turley, i would like to explore how this impeachment is based on no crime and no requests unlike theically
tth tth ththe nixon and clinton. This was an abc news investigation, of foreign deals and joe biden profits from his father as Vice President and there is a clip of it here with the burisma promotional video. Many seen the video of joe biden getting the ukrainian prosecutor whos investigating burisma. A New York Times article says from may 1st, 2019 referring to joseph r. Biden, one of his most memorable performances came from a trip to kiev when he threatened to withhold A Billion Dollars of United States loan policies. Among those who had a stake in the outcome was hunter biden. So hunter biden engaged in no crimes regarding of sitting in the board of burisma. Hunter bidens position on the board would have been eliminated along with his 50,000 a month payment. That was his stake and the potential prosecution involving the company. Ev even the former Acting General under president obama said the following. Is what hunter biden did wrong . Absolutely. Hunter biden had no real experience which made him unqualified to sit on the board of burisma. The only logical reason a company could have is pointing h i his tide. No politicians from either party should allow a foreign power to conduct this kind of Influence Peddling with their family members. Lieutenant vindman was asked
would it be u. S. Policy to ask a foreign leader to open a foreign policy. American media and others were asking questions of hunter bi n bidens involvement with ukraine. Is house impeachment and covering up his Administration Involvement in a crime of nixons criminal acts, including Tape Recording of the cover up after the affair. It is. The house impeach clinton for the crime of lying under oath to denying a woman suing him for Sexual Harassment to evidence she was leading to entitled to. There were requests of false information both the nixon and clinton scandals by the
president himself. Yes. There are no words of President Trumps call that shows request for false information, are there . No. Thats one of the reasons if you want to establish the opposing view, you have to investigate this further. Now let me walk you through the standing evidence of House Democrats insisted on. They say that one of the professors testified do you meaned in the nixon inquiry everyone agree the minority and majority that the standard of proof of the committee in the house was clear and convincing evidence. Professor turley, would you agree the evidence compiled during these proceedings failed to meet the standards of convincing evidence . I do by considerable measure. Let me turn to the book and the presidency and that book the
author states the following. Impeaching with a partial or plausibly understanding of key facts is a bad idea. Do you think that impeaching in this case would constitute in a partial or understanding the key facts . I think thats clear. This is one of the thinnest records to go forward on impeachme impeachment. The johnsons impeachment could be debate because it established in the fourth impeachment. If you take a look at the size of the record of clinton and nixon, they were massive in comparison to this which was way more thin. It left doubts in people of the minds not only for those supporting for trump but also myself. What did occur . You need to stick the landing on
the quid pro quo. You need to get the evidence to support it. I may be out there, i dont know. It is not in this record, we all read the record and i come to a different conclusion, i dont see proof of quid pro quo. No matter what my bias or assumption may be. I would like to turn to the current impeachment procedure. Would you agree a full and fair Adversary System that each side gets to present their evidence. The english impeachment model that was rejected by the framer, they took the language but rejected the model of the impeachment from england in terms of hastings. If you want to see adversariaad take a look at what burton did
to hastings. As you know the minority views of the clintons report, the House Democrats wrote the following. It is incumbent on the committee to write these protection. Impeachment not only mandates due process but due process quadruple. The same minority view also supports the right to crossexamination and a variety of context in the clintons. You described how Monica Lewinsky was not allowed to be call in the trial. She was told to lie about her relationship with president clinton. It is a cautionary tale about the dangers of denying key witnesses. Can you e will be ralaborate on . That was my testimony dealing with how you structure these
impeachment. What happens during the impeachment and it came up during the hear we had previously was a question of how much the house had to do in terms of Clinton Impeachment because you had the robust record created. They had a lot of testimonies and video tapes and etc. The House Incorporated that and the assumption was that witnesses would be called at the center. There was a failure at the center. The rules that were applied in my view were not fair and restricted witnesses to only three and thats why i brought up the lewinsky matter. Monica lewinsky revealed she had been told and if she signs that affidavit that we know it is untrue that she would not be call ed as a witness. I yield my time. The gentleman yields back. This is the moment in which the
white house would have the opportunity to question the witnesses but they declined the invitation. Well proceed to questioning under the fiveminute rule. I yield myself five minutes for the purpose of questioning witnesses. Bribery had a clear meaning to the framers. It was when the president using the power of his office solicits or receives something of personal value from someone affected by his official power. I want to be very clear. The constitution is law. The constitution is the supreme Law Of The Land. Of course, Professor Turley is right, you dont want to impeach someone that did not violate the law. Bribery whatted a clehad a clea. If the house believes the president solicited something of values and he did it for personal gains, that would constitute bribery and it would not be lawless. It would be bribery under the law. So decisions determining statutes would not be relevant. T thank you. Professor gerhartd. Obstruction of justice is not obstruction of the courts. It is any lawful proceedings. Obstruction is not limited to
whatever thats happening in the course and obviously here there are judiciary proceedings going on but Critical Congression Congressional obstruction of congress, i dont know, i can say and i know there is not anything like the president s refusal to comply with subpoenas from this body. These are lawful subpoenas. These ahave the force of laws t them. These are every president complied with. Professor turley implied that as long as the president serves ultimately nonexistence privilege like immunity, he cant be charged of obstruction of congress because after all, he had not gone through the courts yet. I missed part of the
question. Professor turley implied that we cant charge the president of obstruction or subpoenas as long as he had any claims until the Court Rejects those claims . I have to respectfully disagree. No. His refusal to decline those subpoenas is apart from the court. It has a direct assault on the legitimacy of this inquiry which is crucial. Professor turley, i will give you a chance to respond. I want to respond to the first question of bribery. Counsel for the minority read johns johnsons definition of High Crimes And Misdemeanors, he did not read the definition of bribery. I have the 1972 version. I dont have the initial one. He defines bribery as the crime of giving or taking rewards for Bad Practices. If you think it is a bad practice to deny military appropriations to an ally that have been given to him. If you think it is a bad practice not to hold al me meet. Thats Samuel Johnsons definition of bribery. If washington were here today, if he were joined by Madison Hamilton and other framers, what do you believe he would say presented about evidence of President Trumps conduct . As the exact kind of abuse of office of High Crimes And Misdemeanors they would worry about and they would want the house of representatives to take appropriate actions to impeach. They would find abuse of power . If the evidence supported those things in their minds and if congress determines thats what the evidence means then
they believe strongly thats what congress is to do. I yield back my time. I recognize Ranking Member, gentleman from georgia. Five minutes for questioning. This keeps getting more amazing. I think we just put in the jury pool of the Founding Fathers what would they think . I dont think we would have any idea of what they think because of the different times and Different Things we talked about. Also to insinuate of a lot of people, the Founding Fathers would have found President Trump guilty is just simply malpractice in these. Thats just simply pandering to a camera. Thats simply not right. I mean this is amazing. We candace agree. Whats amazing on this committee is that we dont disagree on the feedback facts. Whether going into the public testimony or the transcript. First of all, only i will speak for James Madison. No, we all will speak for James Madison about the same level of accuracy. Thats what we get paid for. I want to note a couple of things. I do find it rather surprising that you would have George Washington in this jury pool. I would strike him for cause. George washington was the first guy to raise extreme executive privilege claim ls. Claims. If you are going to make a case over George Washington with another head of state, i expect his hair and powder hair would catch on fire. I want to note one other thing. I am impressed of carrying an 18
century copy of johnson with you. It is just the online version. As an academic, i was darn impressed. I just want to know one thing that may explain part of our difference. Statues today on bravery are written broadly just like they were back then. That was my point. The meaning of those words are subjected to interpretation, theyre written broadly because they dont want it to be narrow. Thats the case in the 1800 century as they are today. The idea of Bad Practices could be the definition of bribery, really . Is that what you get from the Constitutional Convention that Bad Practices, is that why mason wanted to put him out the administration because Bad Practices is not broad enough. This is where i disagree. The other thing i want to note and i have so much respect for
noah and i am ready to disagree at this point. I feel it is a circular argument to say well the constitution is law. The constitution refers to a crime to say you cant trump the constitution because it defines the crime. It does not define it. It references the crime. The examples that were given during the Constitutional Convention and those who do not comport with Bad Practices but real bribery. To say that the Supreme Court decisions on what constitute bribery is irrelevant is rad th odd. We have to decide if that crime is committed. I think one of the tinhings that came out a second ago and we had this discussion earlier, and members of the president s cabinet to assert privileges and we talked and Fast And Furious
of obama. You cant pick and choose history of what you want to have. I think you made a statement and it was brought up of Bad Practices. It is also the Law Of The Land that we are supposed to ensure that countries given aid are not corrupt. This is also something thats missing from this discussion. If the president has had a long seeded distrust, yaiukraine and others with the history of corruption. 68 of those polls in the ukraine over the previous years have bribed public officials. It came back to the Obama Administration and our rule is they have to actually look at corruption before giving taxpayers dollars. The president have been doing that. We found in the hearing that
facts dont matter if we are trying to fit into the rule of law. The reason we are doing this is the train is on the track. This is a clock calendar impeachment, not a fact impeachment. I yield back. The gentleman yields back. I recognize miss loughlof lofgr. I was a staff during the nixon impeachment and the Clinton Impeachment and here we are today. At its core, the impeaching power is about preservation of our democratic system. The question we must answer is whether the activity of the president threatens our constitution and our democracy. It is about whether hes above
the law or whether hes honoring his oath of office. The House Judiciary Committee staff and it was not me, it was other staff, wrote an excellent report in 1964. Impeachment of the president is a grave step for the nation. The proper performance of constitutional duties of the president s office. Thank you mr. Chairman. Like president nixon, the allegations against President Trump involves seriousness election related misconduct. Nixon associates burglarized the dnc headquarters and nixon tried to cover up the crime by
obstructing federal investigations and he abused his power to target political rivals here. Here we are confronted with evidence suggesting that President Trump tried to leverage appropriated assistance to resist russia by ukraine to convince a foreign ally to announce an investigation of his political rival. Professor karlan, i would like you to tell me your view on how President Trump conduct meaning his request of the former allies, how is that compares to what president nixon did . Not favorably. As i suggested in my opening statement, it was a kind of doubling down. President nixon abused domestic Law Enforcement to go after his political opponents. What President Trump has done
based on the evidence that he asked a foreign country to do that. It is sort of like a daily double if you will. Right. Professor, gerhardt . What we are talking about is abusive of power. Only the president can commit. There was a systematic conserve effort by the president to remove people that would somehow obstruct or block his ability to put that pressure on ukraine to get the announcement. That seems to be what he cared about, the mere announcement, that pressure produced that was going to produce the outcome he
wanted until the whistleblower put a light on it. I want to go back to quickly to something Professor Turley said, as we saw in the myers case and i was a member in the case. Litigation to enforce congressional subpoenas, it is well belong beyond the terms of the presidency itself, happening in both of those cases. Professor feldman, an abuse of our power not to go to the courts before use our Soul Power Impeachment of judgment . Certainly not. Under the constitution, the house is entitled to impeach its power. It does not have to ask permission from anybody. It does not have to go through any judicial process or Judicial Branch of government. Thats your decision based on your judgment. Thank you, i would like to know this is not a proceeding
that i look forward to. It is not an occasion for joy. It is one of solemn obligation. I believe that every member of this committee is listening, keeping an open mind and hoping that we honor our obligations carefully and with that, i yield back. Gentle lady yields back. We are expecting votes in the house shortly. Well recess until after the conclusion of those votes chl. I ask everyone in the room to remain seated and quiet while the witnesses exit the room. The committee will stay in recess until immediately after the votes. We have been watching Ranking Member doug collins of georgia leading the questioning of the republicans, Professor Turley, we saw the gop Staff Councils jumped in about three quarters of the way through. Most of the questioning seemed to really at best. None of the facts are in question. It is amazing but even the republicans will not spend a second debating the fact pattern which seems in their view to be
proven beyond any doubt. This exercise, the Judiciary Committee taken us all to school for nonlawyers. It is more enjoyable than i thought would have been. It seems that the pendulum for the republicans is whether or not, what is alleged has been proven and if it is proven impeachable. Do i have it right . You have it right nicole. We saw it in the prebutal. What they said explicitly in that is their colleagues using the defense, once, there is no impeachable act and insufficient evidence which is sort of like saying that the only reason it is not impeachable because you cant prove it. It seems less than that. It is not that it did not
sneak out to take your car. You didnt run the video tape yet to show you, me getting into the car. Turley was not saying it was not is this getting jumbled, pursuiing the witnesses. I think what we are struggling with is this is a Republican Party trying to defend the president without any facts or evidence that supports the defense so what you are left with is Professor Turley making broad constitutional arguments without actually going into the facts of this case. What he just says is look, you cant have an impeachment unless there is an under lineback crim. I got hit in the head of deja vu. Is that the same statement of
william barrs ba . Your mind is not playing tricks on you. We are all trying to be fair. I said that this hearing could be better for republican intelligence. I think it is. No one is as silly as devin nunes on this committee. And they can get into valid arguments of things that are bad but not impeachable. I said it early on air for folks whos been through with us. I thought this was extraordinary weak for the republicans and Professor Turley largely because rather than interpreting the constitution which is what everyone claims they are supposed to be doing. We heard a lot of jonathan t turleys idea proposed amendment constitution. Until he gets those constitutions, alluded to one. The constitution we have all talked about this and constitution says you can be impeached for things that are not felonies because they are called High Crimes And Misdemeanors. Most people remember it from school or like middle school. High crimes and misdemeanors. Mr. Turley says thats cool. Thats interesting. Not what the constitution stays. Mr. Turley prefers a slow investigation than a fast one. Cool. Thats cool. Hes saying go to court. You are jump ahead of me. He would not like that. Third he said that the kourcour should be adjudicating this process. Tha thats not a constitutional. It is not a president and it is
not a constitution. There are times people could debate in good faith because you think it is fair . Sure. I can tell you. I can give you an example, okay, what is this all about . Take trump out of it and take your feelings about trump. Imagine on a hypothetical president abuse us lethal power that there is a rush to remove him or her that they start killing people and abuse power. So there are times fast is good and maybe slow is more fair. These were not and i thought it was so weak for the republicans and really weak, it is criticism of the witnesses. It was the witness they put so much stock in saying, i hear you on the constitution, i have other ideas. I dont think that moves the needle much. What is an impeachable offense
and how much evidence from the Intelligence Committee report suggests that the president was trying to abuse his office to cheat the election. I dont know the answer of each of these. This did seem like the republicans trying to showcase on television their best arguments but as ari and their best argument is really narrow and the guy giving it is really couching it and hedging, oh, i like trump even as my dog. If we change the constitution a little tiny bit, maybe hes on the clear. Maybe a Constitution Amendment to permit dogs to vote. Golden doodles. There are time you have to move very fast. People are dying because of the president s misconduct. We dont have that, i believe. There are also times where you have to be narrow. Turley is not playing that this is fast and narrow. One of the reasons it is narrow because the president and the white house have stood in the way. So you complain it is fast and narrow when the primary reason it is narrow is you. It seems again reminiscing republicans trying to blame the democrats or other side if you will for their own sense and trans congressi transgression. So extraordinary convenient argument. I think mr. Turley had one fair point. I think the professors at
harvard and stanford had the day. An article of impeachment should not be predicated only when a president are asked questions. If there are only bad faith to go to court and you are arguing for those positions, maybe then it is an article of impeachment. He was simply saying and i would love to follow up if i had the opportunity. If hes saying that an article should not be predicated on a good faith assertion of the legal rights to be decided boo i the court. I cut you off. I think chuck is right and it goes baa k ck to one of the arguments he was making in the Fast And Furious case. Remember what he leaves off the
table thats an important fact is in fast figuuriousfurious, T Administration turned documents into congress. For one other thing, we also said it was also wrong. Police said we have not had an impeachment with the app of an under line crime. There was not an under line crime in Andrew Johnson impeachment. I just have to say that. It ignores the facts. I agree but i also disagree. I am getting a little hot here. Bring it. There is a larger stupidity thats important. Americans are watching. You dont need an under line crimes remove of the president. You dont. And the reason is very simple. There are also thing that is are criminal but not abusive power. It is a felony to deface a
mailbox. Drink and drive. That one is even dangerous. Any president could go out on fifth avenue, dont shoot anyone. I dont think it is impeachable. And yet right that would be the crime with what turley said. On the flip side, you have a use of power, this is really important for everyone to understand. Why . Because most citizens dont have those powers to wheel. They always pass laws saying you cant steel, it is money for our foreign country. Most people are not in position to see and appropriate those funds. The rules have been in the doj
because the president enforces the law to one person thats not indicted in office. Who indicts the president . The congress. Thats what it is. Thats how the system works. For this professor who knows so much, back in impeachment of president clinton. He suggests that somehow you still got a double backs of the courts. I think it is important that medi people know that. He didnt lay out a constitutional valid one or at least part of his testimony. Jason johnson is here. Hes been spending time on the republican witness as he was questioned by Congressman Collins and lawndale bit of that time. I am struck by two things. One, we cant ignore the circus, the Split Screen Circus that we
are living in. The president lacked off of a continent and i think our friends did this morning. This lawyer that Johnny Turley doing his best to argue a narrow narrow, he and if you step back the day has been a day for the democrats. And the professors who were there as witnesses called. Yeah, nicole. First and for most for the president at the nato meeting. Do you know how little respect you must have for Boris Johnson to laugh at you. We had the collection of war leaders sitting, oh my god, this guy is so ridiculous. Thats indicative of how problematic for the president regardless of what he may want to say across the board. If you are being impeached at
home, it does affect your ability to do your job. And our last segment, i talked about yeah, this is a day for College Professor like me. This is a day where we are reminded of the problem with College Professors. Their ability to this is why i love you, jason. The last 45 i was like oh my god, i i would not lasted three weeks. The two h. s are already asleep and saying why didnt i go to business school, right . It does not make sense for the public at large whos trying to understand it. E plain that. I was trying to get that. So basically what hes saying and you look at the comparison for example, he was in favor of impeaching bill clinton. He was lying of something that
actually happened in the oval office. His argument today is because donald trump was not successful successfulaccessfully building the money. We all understand that you can get in trouble for the attempts to engage in bad behavior. If there is one thing that regular people understood about the process, impeachmentment is not the court of law. Impeachment is a political process. The president can do all sorts of things that regular people go to jail for. The whole process is do you break a law. It is has he broken a law that he becomes the dangerous functioning of the the democracy. This is not a good day for republicans at all. Democrats cant screw this up at
this point. I want to come back at the topic of getting laughed at the world stage. We are joined by bob acosta, washington post. Do we have this right that the finest articulation that we have seen so far in terms of what the republicans are arguing and will argue, is what the professor is doing. Hes simply arguing a technical case that it has not reach an impeachable level. Is that from your conversation with sources sort of the thinking republicans to the degree. Is that their best argument . Do they think thats being made today . I just got back from the capitol hill and talking to republican lawmakers. But, it is not the important Republican Action right now on
capitol hill. The action to Pay Attention to is Pat Cipollone is having lunch right now. And you have cipollone urging Senate Republicans to be Come Gres Si Aggressi aggressive. Hes been told by some of the people he trusted most and hell be impeachmented. How are they likely to feel about reports that Rudy Giuliani did again. Democrats intense by their scrutiny of Rudy Giulianis role in the Pressure Campaign against ukraine government, rudy
giuliani has been in Europe Continuinging his efforts to sh the focus of wrong doing by President Trumps political rival, is this helpful . It is not helpful at all. Now inside the capitol, they know they have to try to keep it together with moderate republicans in the house. Thesis are representing suburban district and say this is a bridge too far. You see Vice President pence, at the capitol and urging them to stick together and stick with President Trump and thats the Rallying Cry Coming from the Vice President as he tries to hold these people together. The face that they put on in terms of support for donald trump having a lot to do with their fears of tweets and boris
johnson and Justin Trudeau and macron. I know a little bit working for the president whose policies are scored on the worlds stage. Our president being a laughing stock on the worlds stage. There is an exception of the republican ranks, this president is going to be how he operated and hes not going to change his behavior. They would like to see more emphasises on nato. They do not believe they can break from this as 2020 approaches. They tell me to get through the primary fight and win elections. They have to get the support and get core voters turning out. Bob acosta, thank you for your thanks for spending some time with us. We will sneak in a very quick break. Dont go anywhere. I thought i was managing my moderate to severe Crohns Disease. Then i realized something was missing. Me. My symptoms were keeping me from being there. So, i talked to my doctor and learned humira is for people who still have symptoms of Crohns Disease after trying other medications. And the majority of people on humira saw significant symptom relief and many achieved remission in as little as 4 weeks. Humira can lower your ability to fight infections, including tuberculosis. Serious, sometimes fatal infections and cancers, including lymphoma, have happened; as have blood, liver, and nervous system problems, serious allergic reactions, and new or worsening heart failure. Before treatment, get tested for tb. Tell your doctor if youve been to areas where certain fungal infections are common, and if youve had tb, hepatitis b, are prone to infections, or have flulike symptoms or sores. Dont start humira if you have an infection. Be there for you, and them. Ask your gastroenterologist about humira. With humira, remission is possible. Wean air force veteran made of doing whats right,. Not whats easy. So when a hailstorm hit, usaa reached out before he could even inspect the damage. Thats how you do it right. Usaa insurance is made just the way martins family needs it with hasslefree claims, he got paid before his neighbor even got started. Because doing right by our members, thats whats right. Usaa. What youre made of, were made for. Usaa
wwithout it, i cannot write myl tremors wouldname. Xtreme. I was diagnosed with parkinsons. I had to retire from Law Enforcement. It was devastating. One of my medications is Three Thousand Dollars per month. Prescription drugs do not work if you cannot afford them. For sixty years, aarp has been fighting for people like larry. And we wont stop. Join us in fighting for whats right. Because is this is an abuse that cuts to the heart of
democracy r democracy, you need to ask yourself if you dont impeach a president who has done what this president has done, at least if you dont investigate and then impeach, if you conclude that the house intelligence findings are correct, then you are saying that it is fine to go ahead and do this again. And i think in the report that came out last night, the report talks about the Clear And Present Danger to the Election System and it is your responsibility to make sure that all americans get to vote in a free and Fair Election next november. Professor carlan stealing the show. And my common sense, patriotism,
and just black and white, this is right, this is wrong from her. And clarity. Shes not looking down on people. She is down on the ground with people looking people in the eye. And saying, yeah, i had to spend away for my turkey, but more importantly, using examples. The metaphor is saying this is like when she was describing what trump did and said imagine that you were in a state that had a serious disaster and your governor had to go ask the president for help for aid to help you and the president said, no, unless you do something for me. And i think we have that example in puerto rico. Absolutely. Americans have lived through that. Thats right. But this is what she did, she
made it real, she made it connectible. But grounded in the law and constitutional injujurisprudenc that we would say. And the other clip was the clap back. And she said dont disrespect me. We also saw that from Marie Yovanovitch who had to learn from adam schiff that the president was nastily tweeting about her in an intimidating way and she had to sit there for the rest of the day. Few of us would have the power to do that. And then of Course Fiona Hill who was very strong and even when she was essentially being indirectly attacked, about hate and people who hate and people who didnt get the job they wanted, and she said i wish he
was still hear to matter that i degree but, hate is the problem and we should youve past it. That is the moral grounding and common sense, but embodied in power that all these women demonstrated. I know you agree, you are nodding. But i also want to put you on the spot. There is power to what Chairman Nadler has laid out today. And it stands in contrast to what mueller was able to lay out. I mean, this case for impeachment, and i suppose good people can come to different feelings about what we know trump did is indeed impeachable, but Chairman Nadler has put together people who can tell a story, something that the Mueller Report in terms of sort of a lack of witnesses was never able to achieve. The Mueller Report was bulky. And ironically the Mueller Report addresses all of turleys concerns. That is true. The Mueller Report was anything but narrow and anything but fast. But yes, i agree with you, sometimes it is in the telling of the steeory. And most people didnt read the report and it was hard to read. Im not sure today i fully understand it. So i think that this has been very well presented. By the way, i had made a note earlier, i wrote down fiona hill, Marie Yovanovitch and pamela carlan because all three were so impressive. And extraordinary storytellers. And i have to give points to the chairman to be totally blunt here, there were low expectations for what this committee would do and privately i think there was some concern that they might not be able to
comparemela.com © 2020. All Rights Reserved.