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
has rejected your type of boundless interpretation say, well, it s just impeachment, we really don t have to prove the elements. that s a favorite mantra. that s sort of close enough for jazz. well, this isn t improvzational jazz. close enough isn t good enough. if you re going to accuse a president of bribery, you need to make it stick, because you re trying to remove a duly elected president of the united states. now, it s unfair to accuse someone of a crime and when others say, well, those interpretations used to define the crime aren t valid, to say they don t have to be valid because this is impeachment, that has not been the standard historically. if you my testimony lays out the criminal allegations in the previous impeachments. those were not just proven crimes.