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 id 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 mention 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 failed to comply with four legislative subpoenas. Here it is far more than four that this president has failed to comply with and hes ordered
the Executive Branch as well not to cooperate the congress. Those together with a lot of other evidence suggests Obstruction Of Congress. Professor karlan, do you agree .
that s a legitimate argument. it s worth focusing on a little bit of the irony of professor turley s arguments. one of the argument is that congress should be taking more evidence, should be taking more witnesses, shinzo a should be g more documents. many of the potential articles of impeachment will focus on the president s obstructive acts precisely because the administration has not produced witnesses and has not produced documents. it s a little bit of a circular argument in that it s hard to complain about the lack of a record when the administration has been obstructive in not helping to create that evidence. in fact, if anybody out there wants to go online and read the house intelligence committee s impeachment report, go to page 217 and you ll see page after