Robbery thats burglary, ill get it right. And in this situation youve got somebody really caught in the middle of it, and that doesnt excuse the person from the consequences. Professors, weve 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 the high crime and misdemeanor of obstruction of congress . I think theres more than enough. As i mentioned in my statement, just to really underscore this, the third article of impeachment approved by the House Judiciary Committee against president nixon charged him with misconduct because he had failed to comply with four legislative subpoenas. Here it 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
Several Massachusetts inmates will eventually become eligible for parole as a result of Thursday’s state Supreme Judicial Court’s ruling regarding persons convicted for first-degree murder committed when they were 20 years old or younger, Suffolk County District Attorney Kevin Hayden announced.
and whatever was wrong with this, despite the fact it was endangering our elections, despite the fact that it was endangering peace in europe, despite the fact that every expert, even those that donald trump had himself appointed, were telling him what he was doing was not good for the country, he did it anyway. that is astounding. and that should give us pause. it s an argument i ll call contemporary standards, for lack of anything better. jason johnson, politics editor at the root and among our contributors has also been watching and listening with us. jason, your assessment thus far. this is where i stand up for fellow professors like myself. there is a difference in what you get when professors are speaking versus long term sort of bureaucrats and staffers. and that s what i ve noticed in particular about just this morning s testimony. these are all individuals whose job it is, in their daily work, to explain things to people, to
basically crickets. i am curious how you interpret it? easy, there was the unveiling of the statue of rosa parks, who led the movement, the most important civil rights victory of the movement. so i don t think they were going to unveil this statue and talk about how rosa parks was such a great inspiration and great woman, and then cross the street and say by the way, we think the voting right should be ruled unconstitutional. i think that is what is so remarkable about the case before the court. you have what is particularly by contemporary standards, a remarkable consensus on the piece of legislation. and the moment with scalia, which he refers to racial entitlement, the context in which he is making it. the context in which he shows that each subsequent reauthorization, that to his
of the statue of rosa parks, who led the movement, the most important civil rights victory of the movement. so i don t think they were going to unveil this statue and talk about how rosa parks was such a great inspiration and great woman, and then cross the street and say by the way, we think the voting right should be ruled unconstitutional. i think that is what is so remarkable about the case before the court. you have what is particularly by contemporary standards, a remarkable consensus on the piece of legislation. and the moment with scalia, which he refers to racial entitlement, the context in which he is making it. the context in which he shows that each subsequent reauthorization, that to his mind shows that it is something illegitimate, because there is a nefarious force of political correctness, that stops the