Impeachment Witness Mentions Barron Trump, Sparks Ire - Page 2
Pamela Karlan also told a GOP rep he had insulted her
By Newser Editors and Wire Services
Posted Dec 4, 2019 9:45 AM CST
- The Constitution lays out somewhat vague standards for presidential impeachment. Look for much discussion about the passage at issue: "The President, Vice President, and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors." How Nadler's committee applies those words and ideas to the Intelligence Committee report will determine the fate of Trump's presidency.
- As for the sentiment going into the hearing, Kathryn Krawczyk puts it like so at the Week: "President Trump either did everything wrong or not much at all, depending on who you ask." Four constitutional lawyers will testify today: for the Democrats, Noah Feldman of Harvard Law School, Michael Gerhardt of the University of North Carolina School of Law, and Pamela Karlan of Stanford Law School; for the GOP, Jonathan Turley of George Washington University, reports Politico. You can read their opening statements here.
- Gerhardt said Trump's actions have been "worse than the misconduct of any prior president." He also offered what the Washington Post calls one of the day's most "memorable lines" thus far: "I just want to stress that if what we’re talking about is not impeachable, then nothing is impeachable. This is precisely the misconduct that the framers created a Constitution including impeachment to protect against." He also argued if Trump ends up getting a "pass," future presidents will have a green light to imitate his actions.
- The Hill reports Feldman referenced the afterlife: "Someday we will no longer be alive, and we will go wherever it is we go, the good place, or the other place, and we may meet there [James] Madison and [Alexander] Hamilton, and they will ask us, when the president of the United States acted to corrupt the structure of the Republic, what did you do? Our answer to that question must be that we followed the guidance of the framers, and it must be that if the evidence supports that conclusion that the House of Representatives move to impeach him."
- Turley hammered home what he sees as flawed timing in his opening statement. "This impeachment would stand out among modern impeachments as the shortest proceeding, with the thinnest evidentiary record, and the narrowest grounds ever used to impeach a president." The Guardian reports he later said, "Fast is not good for impeachment. Fast and narrow impeachments have failed," and later, "If you rush this impeachment, you're going to leave half the country behind. This is not an impulse buy item."
- At CNN, Chris Cillizza called Turley a "very good witness for the GOP," noting that his explanation at the beginning that he didn't vote for Trump and didn't agree with Trump's view that his July 25 call with Ukraine's president was "perfect" served to make "his insistence stronger that there wasn't enough evidence yet to impeach Trump and that the whole process would be better if everyone slowed down, took a deep breath and thought of the ramifications of their actions."
My Take on This Story
Show results |