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
And the controlling law. Use of an obstruction theory from the Mueller Report would be unsupported, 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 that this was reviewed by main justice. The special counsel did not reach a conclusion on obstruction. He should have. I think his justification quite frankly was a bit absurd on not reaching a conclusion. But the attorney general, 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 inverse conclusion. I dont believe it would be appropriate. The gentlemans time has expired. Ms. Dean. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Words matter. In my earlier life, professors, 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 that the framers
gloss over things. in fact, what is interesting as i said earlier, three of four alleged crimes of the president yet in the impact hearings none identified a crime. if you re writing about this, that should alarm you. this impeachment narrative being spun by the majority is a fake one. it s majority spinning 3% of the facts and ignoring 97% of the other. in fact, professor turley said earlier, impeachment needs proof not presumption. we have one of the fact witnesses in the intel committee, i presumed that was what was going on, mr. sondland. what is happening today, i thought was interesting this is the judiciary committee, we also found out today, facts don t matter. in fact, facts don t matter unless we can fit those facts to fit the narrative we want to spin before this committee and the american people. if they don t matter, we also
election next year that they just gloss over things. nchkt, what is interesting is as i said earlier three of the four witnesses allege numerous crimes committed by the president. however, during the intel committee hearings none of the fact witnesses identified a crime. if you re writing about this, that should alarm you. so this impeachment narrative being spun by the majority is a fake one. it s the majority spinning 3% of the facts and ignoring 90% 97% of the other. in fact, professor turley earlier said today impeachment needs proof not presumptions. we have one of the fact witnesses in the intel committee, i presumed that was what was going on. mr. sonderland. you know what is happening here today is also we found out today i thought it was really interesting. this is the judiciary committee but we also found out something today, that facts don t matter. in fact, facts don t matter unless we can fit those facts to fit the narrative we want to spin before this committee and the