IMPEACHMENT HIGHLIGHTS FROM THE SCHOLARS: 4 Law Professors school Congress, the nation on what conduct is impeachable in first House Judiciary hearing

By Mona Austin

On Wednesday morning the House Judiciary Committee relied on the expertise of academics from Harvard, Stanford , the George Washington University of North Carolina in the first impeachment hearing against Pres. Donald J. Trump. They picked up where the Intel Committee left off to define articles of impeachment, seeking guidance from scholars. Displaying the highest regard for the Framers, all professors involved based their conclusions on the principles established in the nations political commandments, the U.S. Constitution.

Three out of the four testifiers said they unanimously agree that the conduct of the president rose to the level of impeachable offenses, based strictly on their professional opinions.

Unlike previous witnesses who have taken the stand in other impeachment hearings or the Mueller investigation, their knowledge goes to the foundation of American democracy and the rule of law. This quartet of legal thinkers offered technical and historic insight about the intent of the document that informs all of legal thinking that justice.

The sole professor representing the Republican side, Jonathan Turley of GWU disagreed on the grounds the impeachment process has been rushed and is the fastest impeachment in history.

No doubt, with the introduction of cell phone records and revealed in the 300- page House Intel Committee summary just a day before, there is more to the story that the public does not know.

Notably, Nancy Pelosi delayed pursuing impeachment in response to her caucus and public opinion. Chairman Adam Schiff established that they are moving forward quickly because the president tried to

Democrats have sought the evidence but have been denied at every turn.

In this phase of the impeachment process, Chairman Jerry Nadler said he allotted time for the White House to question witnesses and they refused.

Noah Feldman of the Harvard Law School

Feldman passionately made a case that the framers of the Constitution established impeachment for the specific purpose of offering protection of the abuse of power for personal gain, of which he clearly believes Trump is guilty.

The Constitution gives the House of Representative sole power of impeachment. IT is not my job to determine the credibility of the witnesses who appeared be fore the House thus far. y c

He said, :conduct clearly constitutes high crimes and misdemeanors under the Constitution more than sufficiently indicates that he The words "abuse of office" are not mythical or magical.

Let me be clear. on its own soliciting the leader of a foreign government in order constitutes high crimes and misdemeanors, by placing a conditional hold on the funds to the Ukraine; both acts constitute high crimes and misdemeanors.

Prof. Pamela S. Karlan of Stanford Law School

• Drawing a foreign government in to our elections is especially abusive because it undermines our democracy itself," said Karlan, adding this goes to the hear of our democracy.

• The Constitution protects the government from foreign interference from the very start. The very idea that a president . She spelled out that Trump is guilty of treason, bribery and high crimes and misdemeanors.

• Karlan she has never seen a president who has doubled down on his oath on violating all three areas, which "cuts to the heart of democracy." She also called out Doug Collins and said she was insulted by him suggesting that as scholars they did not read all of the transcripts. suggesting that they are not prepared. "I read transcripts of every one of the witnesses who appeared in the live hearing."

(Related: Prof. Karlan had remarked that the president could name his son Barron but could not make him one and was criticized by a GOP member as being mean. She later apologized in the hearing, but added Pres. Trump needs to apologize for offensive comments he has made, which critics are calling a non-apology. She has been condemned for attacking the youngest son to the president, who is 13.)

• The president committed several impeachable offenses. "The gravity of the president's conduct is apparent when compared to the one president who resigned over impeachment, "Nixon."

• He referred to articles of proof, which is a direct hit on the Republicans claim that there is no real proof.

• "If Congress fails to impeach here, then the impeachment process has lost all meaning, and, along with that, our Constitution’s carefully crafted safeguards against the establishment of a king on American soil,"  adding,  "No one, not even the president, is beyond the reach of our Constitution and our laws."

• 
  

• Gerhardt explained that like the Senate the House has power to determine rules for its proceedings, seeming to deflate the notion that only the Senate has that responsibility.

• "I stand with the framers and am committed to ensuring no one is above the law."

• George Washington University Law School Prof. Jonathan Turley, testified in the Clinton impeachment.

• Prof. Turley was the sole, yet strong Republican expert. He admonished, "Pres. Trump will not be our last president and what we leave in this wake of this scandal will affect generations to come." Turley said he is not a Trump supporter and did not vote for Trump, but his recalcitrance about the slow process was more a criticism of the process.

• His testimony laid out the history of impeachment with the intent to show the importance of objectivity in making the decision.

• 
  

• Said he does not support Trump and did not vote for him, but argued the impeachment period is being rushed. The record is "wafer thin," he remarked.

• This is "wrong" because this is not how you impeach an American president." Said their is not sufficient proof that reflect the historic impeachment process.This short time-frame would establish the same pattern of rushing in the future he opined.

x

"His [Pres. Trump's]refusal to comply with the subpoenas is an impeachable offense," Gerhardt of UNC said.

• 
  

Prof. Michael Gerhardt of the University of North Carolina School of Law

Prof. Jonathan Turley of the George Washington University

Turley"Both sides of this controversy have demonized the other. . .perhaps that's the saddest part of all of this." Turley was the lone ranger, postulating that the process has not been fair due to its length. He later said you can not accuse a president of bribery. one of the allegations, if there is no proof, citing Adam Schiff leaning on the definition of bribery from the 1800s instead of today.