This article is from the source 'nytimes' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/04/us/politics/impeachment-hearings.html

The article has changed 21 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 6 Version 7
Hearing Live Updates: Trump Committed Impeachable Offenses, 3 Scholars to Testify Impeachment Hearing Live Updates: Trump’s Actions Are Impeachable, Scholars Testify
(about 1 hour later)
Three constitutional scholars invited by Democrats to testify at Wednesday’s impeachment hearings will say that President Trump’s efforts to pressure Ukraine for political gain clearly meet the historical definition of impeachable offenses, according to copies of their opening statements. Three constitutional scholars invited by Democrats to testify at Wednesday’s impeachment hearings said that President Trump’s efforts to pressure Ukraine for political gain clearly meet the historical definition of impeachable offenses, according to copies of their opening statements.
The three law professors are appearing in the first impeachment hearing before the House Judiciary Committee as it kicks off a debate about whether to draft articles of impeachment against the president. The three law professors appeared in the first impeachment hearing before the House Judiciary Committee as it kicked off a debate about whether to draft articles of impeachment against the president.
Noah Feldman, a professor at Harvard, planned to argue that attempts by Mr. Trump to withhold a White House meeting and military assistance from Ukraine as leverage for political favors constitute impeachable conduct, as does the act of soliciting foreign assistance on a phone call with Ukraine’s leader. Noah Feldman, a professor at Harvard, argued that attempts by Mr. Trump to withhold a White House meeting and military assistance from Ukraine as leverage for political favors constitute impeachable conduct, as does the act of soliciting foreign assistance on a phone call with Ukraine’s leader.
“President Trump has committed impeachable high crimes and misdemeanors by corruptly abusing the office of the presidency,” Mr. Feldman planned to say. “Specifically, President Trump abused his office by corruptly soliciting President Volodymyr Zelensky to announce investigations of his political rivals in order to gain personal advantage, including in the 2020 presidential election.” “President Trump has committed impeachable high crimes and misdemeanors by corruptly abusing the office of the presidency,” Mr. Feldman said. “Specifically, President Trump abused his office by corruptly soliciting President Volodymyr Zelensky to announce investigations of his political rivals in order to gain personal advantage, including in the 2020 presidential election.”
Michael J. Gerhardt, a professor at the University of North Carolina, planned to argue that Mr. Trump “has committed several impeachable offenses” by taking actions regarding Ukraine that were worse than Richard Nixon’s misconduct during Watergate.Michael J. Gerhardt, a professor at the University of North Carolina, planned to argue that Mr. Trump “has committed several impeachable offenses” by taking actions regarding Ukraine that were worse than Richard Nixon’s misconduct during Watergate.
“If left unchecked, the president will likely continue his pattern of soliciting foreign interference on his behalf in the next election,” Mr. Gerhardt plans to say, adding that Mr. Trump’s actions “are worse than the misconduct of any prior president.”“If left unchecked, the president will likely continue his pattern of soliciting foreign interference on his behalf in the next election,” Mr. Gerhardt plans to say, adding that Mr. Trump’s actions “are worse than the misconduct of any prior president.”
Pamela S. Karlan, a Stanford law professor, will tell lawmakers that the president’s attempt to “strong arm a foreign leader” would not be considered politics as usual by historical standards. Pamela S. Karlan, a Stanford law professor, told lawmakers that the president’s attempt to “strong arm a foreign leader” would not be considered politics as usual by historical standards.
“It is, instead, a cardinal reason why the Constitution contains an impeachment power,” she planned to say. “Put simply, a candidate for president should resist foreign interference in our elections, not demand it. If we are to keep faith with the Constitution and our Republic, President Trump must be held to account.” “It is, instead, a cardinal reason why the Constitution contains an impeachment power,” she said. “Put simply, a candidate for president should resist foreign interference in our elections, not demand it. If we are to keep faith with the Constitution and our Republic, President Trump must be held to account.”
Jonathan Turley, a law professor at George Washington University who was invited to testify at Wednesday’s impeachment hearing by the committee’s Republicans, will offer the lone dissent, arguing in his opening statement that Mr. Trump should not be impeached. Jonathan Turley, a law professor at George Washington University who was invited to testify at Wednesday’s impeachment hearing by the committee’s Republicans, offered the lone dissent, arguing in his opening statement that Mr. Trump should not be impeached.
In a 53-page written statement submitted to the committee, Mr. Turley makes it clear that he is not a supporter of the president and believes that the Ukraine matter warrants investigation. But he plans to say that the Democratic impeachment case is dangerously “slipshod” and premature. In a 53-page written statement submitted to the committee, Mr. Turley made it clear that he is not a supporter of the president and believes that the Ukraine matter warrants investigation. But he plans to say that the Democratic impeachment case is dangerously “slipshod” and premature.
“I am concerned about lowering impeachment standards to fit a paucity of evidence and an abundance of anger,” he planned to say. “If the House proceeds solely on the Ukrainian allegations, 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.” “I am concerned about lowering impeachment standards to fit a paucity of evidence and an abundance of anger,” he said. “If the House proceeds solely on the Ukrainian allegations, 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.”
Offering an exhaustive and colorful account of the history of impeachment, Mr. Turley will agree with the other panelists that “a quid pro quo to force the investigation of a political rival in exchange for military aid can be impeachable, if proven.” Offering an exhaustive and colorful account of the history of impeachment, Mr. Turley agreed with the other panelists that “a quid pro quo to force the investigation of a political rival in exchange for military aid can be impeachable, if proven.”
But for that to be the case, he will say, the evidence has to be stronger. Witnesses like Mick Mulvaney, the acting White House chief of staff, and John R. Bolton, the former national security adviser, must be heard from — not just spoken about by other witnesses. He will argue the current case is destined for “collapse in a Senate trial.” But for that to be the case, he said, the evidence has to be stronger. Witnesses like Mick Mulvaney, the acting White House chief of staff, and John R. Bolton, the former national security adviser, must be heard from — not just spoken about by other witnesses. He argued the current case is destined for “collapse in a Senate trial.”
Testimony from the legal scholars will place Mr. Trump’s actions in historical context for lawmakers who will eventually have to vote on whether the president committed “high crimes and misdemeanors” and should be impeached and removed from office. Speaker Nancy Pelosi convened a rare members-only Democratic Caucus meeting Wednesday morning to rally her rank-and-file members as the impeachment proceedings against President Trump got underway.
Three of the scholars Mr. Feldman, Ms. Karlan and Mr. Gerhardt were invited to deliver remarks by the Democratic majority on the committee. Mr. Turley was invited by Republicans. “Are you ready?” Ms. Pelosi asked.
The scholars may focus their testimonies on what the country’s founders were trying to achieve by providing a process for Congress to remove a president. They are expected to discuss the impeachment efforts for Presidents Andrew Johnson, Richard M. Nixon and Bill Clinton. They are, Democratic lawmakers responded in unison, according to multiple people in the room who described the private meeting on condition of anonymity.
But lawmakers are likely to press the witnesses to offer their own assessments about whether impeachment is appropriate for Mr. Trump, which could prompt sharp exchanges between committee members and the scholars. The Democrats gave a standing ovation to Representative Adam B. Schiff of California, the chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, who has spearheaded the impeachment investigation. Mr. Schiff presented his panel’s 300-page report made public on Tuesday detailing the Democrats’ case against the president and fielded questions.
The Judiciary Committee features some of the most outspoken partisans in Congress, which promises to generate fireworks as the two parties clash over the fate of Mr. Trump’s presidency. “Nancy said, ‘Keep your cool and read the report,’ said Representative Donna Shalala, Democrat of Florida.
Liberals on the 41-member committee include Representatives Zoe Lofgren of California, Sheila Jackson Lee of Texas, Eric Swalwell of California and Pramila Jayapal of Washington. Representatives Jim Jordan of Ohio, Louie Gohmert of Texas and Matt Gaetz of Florida are among the deeply conservative members on the panel. Representative Dean Phillips, Democrat of Minnesota said the tenor of the room was, “Unanimity.”
Unlike the House Intelligence Committee, which has about half the number of members, the Judiciary Committee is often a forum for intense debates, and Mr. Nadler does not have a reputation for instilling discipline among the membership. As Ms. Pelosi mobilized her members Vice President Mike Pence was delivering his own battle cry to Republicans at their weekly conference meeting. Mr. Pence praised the lawmakers and said he and Mr. Trump are proud of them for their strong impeachment defense, said an official familiar with the remarks.
One result could be a series of angry procedural disputes as Republicans on the panel seek to disrupt the hearing in the hopes of drawing attention to what they say is an unfair and illegitimate inquiry. Mr. Jordan said as much on Monday as he began viewing a draft of the Intelligence Committee’s report. But Mr. Pence also issued a marching order: “Turn up the heat” on House Democrats, he said.— Sheryl Gay Stolberg and Catie Edmondson
“We’re going to, I’m sure, raise all kinds of issues and all kinds of concerns,” he told reporters who asked about Wednesday’s hearing. “That’s kind of what we do in these things when it’s this ridiculous.” Within the first hour of the House Judiciary Committee, the panel lived up to its reputation for partisan rancor. Republicans interrupted the proceedings to present Representative Jerrold Nadler, Democrat of New York and the committee’s chairman, with a letter demanding a day of minority hearings.
House Democrats have signaled they intend to use the Judiciary Committee hearings as another opportunity to generate public support for the impeachment inquiry. Nearly two weeks of testimony by witnesses during Intelligence Committee hearings failed to significantly increase that support. They also forced votes on motions to call Mr. Schiff to testify before the panel and to suspend and postpone the hearing.
The Democratic strategy is focused on using the 300-page Intelligence Committee report as evidence that Mr. Trump’s actions were clearly an abuse of power and that the president must be held accountable. Democrats knocked each down along party lines, but the proceeding stood in stark contrast with those of the relatively staid and orderly proceedings of Intelligence Committee that carried the impeachment inquiry for the last two months. And it was a harbinger of things to come as the impeachment battle enters a more intensive phase as Democrats rush toward a vote before Christmas.
During Mr. Clinton’s impeachment inquiry, many of his defenders repeatedly condemned his affair with Monica Lewinsky even as they argued that his conduct however reprehensible and lying about it to the American people and a grand jury did not rise to the level of an impeachable act. In between the Republican parliamentary maneuvers, Mr. Nadler made no effort to cover up the unruly circumstances, but he put the blame on Mr. Trump.
Mr. Trump’s allies have embraced a different strategy that will most likely be on display on Wednesday. Following Mr. Trump’s lead, they have insisted that he did nothing wrong and is the victim of an unfair and illegitimate partisan process. “Ladies and gentlemen, the storm in which we find ourselves today was set in motion by President Trump,” Mr. Nadler said. “I do not wish this moment on the country. It is not a pleasant task that we undertake today. But we have each taken an oath to protect the Constitution, and the facts before us are clear.”
When his turn to speak arrived, Representative Doug Collins of Georgia, the panel’s top Republican, offered a hard-edged rebuke of the Democrats.
“This may be a new time, a new place and we may be all scrubbed up and looking pretty for impeachment,” Mr. Collins said. “This is not an impeachment. This is simply a railroad job and today’s is a waste of time.”
— Nicholas Fandos
As the minority party, Republicans have considerably less power in the Judiciary Committee than majority Democrats, but they can use parliamentary procedures to put up a fight and slow the proceedings. Republicans began availing themselves of those rights almost from the moment the hearing began, repeatedly interjecting and proposing motions, at times interrupting the witnesses mid-statement, and forcing Mr. Nadler to halt the process and hold a vote to lay aside the Republican objections.
They lost each time in party-line votes.
Mr. Trump repeatedly pressured President Volodymyr Zelensky of Ukraine to investigate people and issues of political concern to Mr. Trump, including the former vice president. Here’s a timeline of events since January.Mr. Trump repeatedly pressured President Volodymyr Zelensky of Ukraine to investigate people and issues of political concern to Mr. Trump, including the former vice president. Here’s a timeline of events since January.
A C.I.A. officer who was once detailed to the White House filed a whistle-blower complaint on Mr. Trump’s interactions with Mr. Zelensky. Read the complaint.A C.I.A. officer who was once detailed to the White House filed a whistle-blower complaint on Mr. Trump’s interactions with Mr. Zelensky. Read the complaint.
Speaker Nancy Pelosi announced in September that the House would open a formal impeachment proceeding in response to the whistle-blower’s complaint. Here’s how the impeachment process works, and here’s why political influence in foreign policy matters.Speaker Nancy Pelosi announced in September that the House would open a formal impeachment proceeding in response to the whistle-blower’s complaint. Here’s how the impeachment process works, and here’s why political influence in foreign policy matters.
House committees have issued subpoenas to the White House, the Defense Department, the budget office and other agencies for documents related to the impeachment investigation. Here’s the evidence that has been collected so far.House committees have issued subpoenas to the White House, the Defense Department, the budget office and other agencies for documents related to the impeachment investigation. Here’s the evidence that has been collected so far.
Read about the Democrats’ rules to govern impeachment proceedings.Read about the Democrats’ rules to govern impeachment proceedings.