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
had studied through the thanksgiving vacation to the point where she ate mail order turkey. you found that very familiar because of adherence to the law and scholarship. you do your homework. there s no way anybody, whether it s professor turley or professor karlan, are going to show up and testify under oath without doing their homework. that s not the issue. so i just think that was foolhardy. these are not amateur of that threw something together in slapdash fashion. they never will, because they got to the positions they hold because they did their homework. that s something everybody should understand about being a university professor, you re held by a high standard by your institution. including your students. including your students.
framers created a standard that would not be fluid and flexible. that standard have kept us from impeachments and we have really decemb despise each other. there is so much more rage than reasons. you can t talk about these issues with people saying you must be in favor of ukrainians taken over the country or the russians moving into the white house. at some point as people, we have to have a serious discussion about the grounds to remove a dually elected president. professor turley, your testimony, you said when it comes to impeachment. we need circumspect animalysis. let s take a quebec look at this partisan is being waived.
professor turley. the subject alexander hamilton was concerned out when it comes to impeachment. advocating for the constitution federal statements laid out the reasons madison and hamilton thought impeachable clauses was necessary, he also flagged concerns. in many cases of impeachment, it will connect itself and enlist all their animosities, partialities and influence ans interests on one side. in such cases, there will always be the greater danger that the decision will be regulated more by the comparative strength of parties than by the real demonstrations of innocence or guilt. professor turley, do you think hamilton predicted a real danger of hyper party and
america first. and she went on and on about, this is undermining the american right to vote. and the importance of that is i think what professor feldman said, which is a key issue here for i think americans is, why impeachment, why do we need to do this when mr. there is an election coming up. and professor feldman was poignant in saying that exact debate was the debate had in deciding what to put into the constitution, that if you have a president who is actually going to undermine the upcoming election, you have nothing to do but impeach him and you need to have a way of preventing the person who is in office from corrupting the office. those were the two most powerful points from the hearing today. maya wily. i completely agree with andrew. i would add, to the point about obstructi obstruction, to the debate with professor turley who is saying