sometimes some words, get them all right. if you send me to washington d.c., i ll always stand and do what is right. i want to go to washington and bring balance. stop the partisan bickering and deal with the problems that you guys have been telling me about for the last one plus years. neil: we re going down to the wire. everywhere you go, you hear the sound of drums. with the election closing in, the latest job numbers are out. let s say for the first time we re starting to see the jobs slowing down. with just four days to go can you believe that? both parties are wrapping things up. we are everywhere in arizona, in georgia, in nevada, in pennsylvania. you name it, we re on it and all over it. welcome, everybody. so glad to have you. i m neil cavuto. let s be beginning with aishah hasnie following things in georgia where we have a couple of battles going on and concerns about the same economic issues going on as well. aishah? hi, neil. good afternoon to you. yo
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
Somebody caught in the middle of it, and that does not excuse the person from the consequences. Professors, we have 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 a high crime and misdemeanor of obstruction of congress . I think that there is more than enough. As i mentioned in my statement, i just really underscore this. The third article of impeachment, approved by the House Judiciary Committee against president nixon charged him with misconduct that he failed to comply with four legislative subpoenas. This 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 lot of other evidence suggests obstruction of congress. Professor karlan, do yo
the dover of 1670. it was also an exchange of converting to catholicism. but that was not a broad notion of bribery, it was quite narrow. so i don t think that dog won t hunt in the 18th century. and i don t think it will hunt today. because if you take a look at the 21st century, bribery is well-defined. and you should not just take our word for it, you should look to how it is defined by the united states supreme court. in a case called mcdonald versus the united states, the supreme court looked at a public corruption bribery case. this is a case where gifts were received. things were extended. there was completion. this was not a hypothetical of a crime that was not fulfilled or an action that was not actually taken, the supreme court unanimously overturned that conviction.
the secret treaty of dover of 1670. it also was an exchange for his converting to catholicism. but that isn t some broad notion of bribery. it was actually quite narrow. so i don t think that dog will hunt in the 18th century and i don t think it will hunt today because if you take a look at the 21st century, bribery is well-defined. and you shouldn t just take our word for it. you should look to how it s defined by the united states supreme court. in a case called mcdonald versus the united states, the supreme court looked at a public corruption bribery case. this was a case where gifts were actually received, benefits were actually extended. there was completion. this was not some hypothetical of a crime that was not fulfilled or an action that s not actually taken. the supreme court unanimously