>> i think jonathan turley and kenneth starr can speak to this as well as anyone on the panel.l ask for those witnesses and i would be curious to know whether or not the chief justice of the supreme court, what role we play in determining if the witnesses, his or her testimony is steamed necessary were viewed as someone who cannot for evidence. but there is no doubt the premise of the question, democrats open themselves to having hunter biden and even others come forth but to the last point i do think there's no doubt this information in this matter reinforces what has come from the house, there's new evidence here, just more evidence, will that cost more questions or greater urgency for the white house to release more information, i doubt it but that is what democrats are thinking. >> we know when it comes to these questions of evidence and what is released and what is not you look forward to the questions of whether the chief justice, the constitution is vague on what role he would play in this is only happened a couple times before the chief justice had to step up, rehnquist

jonathan turley, there isa -- agreement. jonathan turley, there is a bigger issue here. there, president trump ordering the withholding of military aid to ukraine because he wanted to investigate corruption in the country. at the heart of that corruption was whether hunter biden, who was on the board of an energy, a ukrainian energy company, burisma, was using his proximity to the vice president in a way that was corrupt. has the white house in the course of the house impeachment process presented evidence to say there is an alternative story here? this is actually nothing to do with a political issue for the president, this is a legitimate concern about corruption in ukraine and military aid to ukraine around corruption? have they made that case sufficiently? they have certainly stated the case. it sounds like, kim andl stated the case. it sounds like, kim and i may disagree about hunter biden. i think hunter biden is clearly a relevant witness. i am a terminal defence —— criminal defence attorney and would feel in this case i could be allowed to call him. they are rele

s sole witness, constitutional scholar jonathan turley. democrat didn't vote for trump, voted for obama, also voted for the clintons. ran circles around the liberal professors sitting next to him, that's because his judgment wasn't clouded by as he discussed, rage, hate and hysteria. the democrats three witnesses on the other hand, they were clearly suffering from stage four case of massive trump derangement syndrome, disconnected from truth and reality, unc law professor at the sky michael gerhart worked for the clintons and their administration, al gore's campaign, a month ago he authored a piece in the atlantic praising the schiff show, and his witnesses, he has been looking for ways to impeach trump since 2017. just a few weeks after the president was sworn in, that guy argued that trump could be impeached for his use of the term fake news. i kid you not, there it is. the perfect ivory tower law professor, seemingly hating free speech, due process, presumption of innocence, and certainly cannot be counted on to seek truth and justice.

this is different because this is, according to jonathan turley, a constitutional lawyer, which is probably the one most respected in this country, who is a democrat, who did not vote for the president, he said it was the fastest, thinnest impeachment in the history of america. he said the only abuse of power would be actually moving forward, on the democrats to move forward with this impeachment. so i'm sorry if this is so weak. and when i listen to the speaker say she's really concerned about bipartisanship, yeah, she said that last year in march, why impeachment could not move forward. but when impeachment moved forward, the only bipartisan vote was no. so her own rules of how to move forward, she broke them. she broke the history of how we did it in the house when it came to fairness. and now she wants to impose something upon the senate that she would not use herself. i can't imagine how she does that with a straight face. i couldn't imagine you not questioning her on it as well. >> reporter: this past week an attorney for lev parnas tweeted out two pictures with you and his client, on

. >> even jonathan turley who argued against impeachment as agreed with the president's defense team of this argument, "while i believe articles of impeachment are based on well-defined criminal conduct, i do not believe that the criminal code is the effective limit or scope of possible impeachable offenses. president trump chose not to speak what he chose to leave the white house this afternoon for florida, but he's said plenty over the last 48 hours on twitter. on today, he picked up right where he left off, by calling his opponents the do-nothing democrats and the impeachment trial a witch hunt. >> the president has been very pleased with the way it's going but looking forward to the chance will be good to lay out our case. the attorneys are excited about that and they will attack on that front. >> tomorrow, president trump will become the first president in history to attend march for life, the largest antiabortion event in the world and on saturday, the president's legal will finally began mounting a full defense from the senate floor. bret? >> bret: kristin fisher live on the n

this is incomplete and inadequate record to impeach a president. >> jonathan turley is very calm he took sledgehammer to the left's phony narrative. in one of the most powerful moments of the hearing, he flipped the script on the house democrats. i'm sure they didn't like thiscr moment, take a look. >> president trump has gone to congress, to the courts, he is allowed to do that. we have three branches, not two. i can't emphasize this enough and i will say it just one more time, if you impeach a president, if you make a high crime a misdemeanor out of going to the courts, it is an abuse of power. it is your abuse of power. you are doing precisely what you are criticizing the resident for doing. we have a third branch that deals with conflicts of the other two -- and what comes out of there and what you do with it is a very definition of legitimate.in >> the first phase of the democrats' impeachment attempt the schiff show, a disaster. today, even a bigger disaster and it's clear that the circus will not be any better. >> when we come back, crazy uncle joe, his hair on his legs gets blond

. >> professor jonathan turley testified in these impeachment hearings.ngton post," he says "chuck schumer wants witnesses. hunter biden could be a disaster. witnesses are dangerous game. that is a problem asking for them, they can take you to places you might prefer you not go." we hear there could be some potato for attached. you want john bolton, we will get hunter biden. there is warning for that. what do you think? >> i think jonathan turley, ken can speak to this as well, he's a smart guy. there is no doubt republicans will ask for those witnesses. i will be curious to know, whether or not the chief justice of the supreme court, what role will he played a determining if a witness, his or her testimony is unnecessary? if they are viewed as someone who has evidence. there is no doubt the premise of the question, democrats open themselves with having hunter biden and others come from before. i think there is no doubt that this information and this new matter, it reinforces what already comes from the house. there is no new evidence. the question is, wi

jonathan turley who spoke on behalf of the president said that that's dead wrong. he just said the other day. >> mind you, it's clear, you can impeach a president for abuse of power. you can impeach a president for non-criminal conduct. it's just not easy. what's fascinating to me is the white house built its case so solidly around a theory that is so widely rejected. >> that there has to be a crime. >> that there has to be a crime. >> does it give you pause that alan dershowitz may be the one on an island here? >> i'm not a lawyer. i'm a physician. i came to congress to help lower the cost of health care for the american public. there are lots of things that we need to be doing so we can have all the dualing lawyers that you want. i think impeachment should never be partisan. it should not be political. and this has never happened until this impeachment. and that, to me, is one of the greatest concerns that i have with regard to ukraine where all this -- i've been to ukraine multiple times. president trump has done much more for the the people of ukraine and the f

there's a reason that jonathan turley is not sitting at the table.t's because he doesn't support their argument. so they'll cite him for one thing but ignore him for the other. they say oh, the president is very transparent. he may have refused every subpoena, every document request but he released two documents. the dockment on the july 25th call and the document on the april 21st call. let's face it. he was forced to release the record of the july 25th call when he got caught. when a whistle-blower filed a complaint, when we opened an investigation. he was forced because he got caught. you don't get credit for transparency when you get caught. and what is more, what is revealed in that of course is damning. now they point to the only other record he's released, april 21st call. that is just a con grad la torre call. what is interesting about it is the president was urged on that call to bring up the issue of corrupti corruption. in the read-out of the call, the white house misleadingly said he did. now that we've seen the record, we see he didn't.

on the legal wrangling's taking place here in washington and what comes next, i am joined by jonathan turleyprofessor at george washington testified before congress on some of these issues in december. thank so much for being with us. a lot of comparisons have beein made to the n impeachment which you took part in, but we saw today minated by procedure, whereas in 1998, 100 senators voted unanimon the rules. so what does the constitution actually lay out about the procedure? jonathan: the constitution does not actually state how you try an american president. ite simply states the vu need to remove him. the problem is there is not a bipartisan atmosphere that existed in the clinton trial,es where largely rules were worked out. in fairness to the republicans, the house process was equally isan and as much as a muscle play as this is ptotty -- provine. also the members are changing their positions. chuck schumer today, the democratic leadein the senate, really castigated his colleagues for not wantwig to hear from esses. but back in the clinton trial,he posed all witnesses and wanted a summary

called by both republicans and democrats and the republican invited constitutional law expert, jonathan turley testified unequivocally that is possible to establish a case for impeachment based on a noncriminal allegation of abuse of power. every president 58 impeachment has included conduct that violated the law but each presidential impeachment has included the charges directly under the constitution. it's important to note that a specific criminal law violation was not in the minds of the founder. it wouldn't make any sense today. you could have a criminal law violation, you could deface a post office box, that would be a violation of federal law. we would laugh at the idea that that would be a basis for impeachment. that is not abuse of presidential power. it might be a crime, and yet could you have activities that are so dangerous to our constitution that are not a crime that would be charged as an impeachable offense because they are an abuse of power. that's what the framers worried about, that's why they put the impeachment clause in the constitution and frankly, they opine that becaus

i think what jonathan turley said was right but i forget what he said, what the courts have said, these are fundamentally important rights, where separation of power works under our form of government, next question. >> if another president was involved? >> of another president was involved? >> how is the steel dossier -- >> how did the steel dossier, the question, there was all this discussion about why was the president so suspicious of some of his intelligence information and the leaders he was dealing with in his own government, the number 3 at the department of justice was working for a firm that was working on a dossier against the sitting president of the united states, don't put words in my mouth, let me be clear, we are concerned about it. that was the number 3 at the fbi who is still there in some capacity and also working on ukraine, next question. as far as how long we will go i can't make that determination. if the senate asks for an accommodation we are prepared to go as long as they want us to go tomorrow, 10-1 was the final decision, we will present one issue, we are rea

jonathan turley agrees with that. >> i have a feeling the debate about executive privilege is going to be one we'll hear a lot about perhaps over the next couple of weeks as everybody has this debate. senator david perdue, republican from georgia, thank you for coming on and sharing your views, i appreciate it. >> thanks, chuck. >>> when we come back, the impeachment trial. what are the chances the retirement income is complicated. as your broker, i've solved it. that's great, carl. but we need something better. that's easily adjustable has no penalties or advisory fee. and we can monitor to see that we're on track. like schwab intelligent income. schwab! introducing schwab intelligent income. a simple, modern way to pay yourself from your portfolio. oh, that's cool... i mean, we don't have that. schwab. a modern approach to wealth management. ♪ limu emu [ siren ] give me your hand! i can save you... ...lots of money with liberty mutual. we customize your car insurance so you only pay for what you need! [ grunting ] only pay for what you need. ♪ liberty. liberty. liberty. liberty. ♪ ♪

. >> even the one that went ahead for the republicans, jonathan turley said that, of course, a crimean be impeachable, so that was interesting. >> okay, larry, let's take a step back, and in a non-partisan way, because that's the perspective youan give us from everything we've been hearing. what are the things that you've seen on both sides that have made sense to you while you've been watching this impeachment process? >> well, the democrats operated basically with one hand behind their back, tied behind their back. you know, they couldn't get to the president. the president had this great wall. he's got a phenomenal job of keeping them at bay. he would not honor any subpoenas. he would not honor any requests for his people to go ahead. the ones who did go ahead, of course, did at their own risk, and the democrats had to work with that kind of problem. and for that, they did a pretty good job. on the other hand, you've got the republicans who over the last couple days basically sat back and kind of swatted the democrats away like they were flies, a nuisance. get out of our way. you

the legal community also criticizing jonathan turley writing chris's appointment will add fuel to the fire. in the city where you can throw a stick and hit ten lawyers, six went to the allegation that it was nonsense and should be rejected. chris ray issuing a new filing friday playing out steps the beer will take to guard against future fisa abuses after revelations about the surveillance of trump aid carter page in 2016. the filing includes 12 areas of reform plus an apology some sources are calling stunning. the fbi has the utmost respect for this court and deeply regrets the errors and omissions identified by the oig. he is a review's findings described conduct that is unacceptable and unrepresentative of the fbi as an institution. the justice department national security division is declining to comment about donald trump's push back. e whole sources tell fox news director ray may be some to testify imminently. >> this decision to take david chris is raising eyebrows tonight. can he win over critics and get the job done. matt whitaker joins us live. david chris may be having an i

jonathan turley testified earlier on the house impeachment side.f you want to see testimony from jonathan turley or anyone else who testified during the house impeachment side, go to c-span.org. setting aside a special section of the website for everything related to impeachment. if you want to see that for yourself. steve from florida, next. caller: thanks for taking my call. ghost: go ahead. caller: i've been watching since the beginning of the impeachment proceedings. everythingat after is said and done there is not a whole lot of anything there. the democrats know this, so they are going to try to do everything they can. they can't take over the -- they're going to see if they can't take over the proceedings in the senate with their moves back and forth. ght. comes to nau it is a horse and pony show. nancy pelosi, and all of the other democrats, that are so outraged at how the republicans cannot be, are so impartial -- host: when you talk about what is presented by the house side, what leads you to the conclusion there is nothing there? caller:

then stalling for weeks after that jonathan turley wrote, "pelosi" destroyed her own case for impeachment ." once in a while cnn gets something right. they claim pelosi gambled and she lost. now the trial will start next week. yes those people have their opportunity to present their weak, partisan, unfounded articles of impeachment and be helping the president. the american people see through this, the schiff-sham show. now the senate they're hell bent on helping the process when they should end it. they want to waste time and call witnesses. i do have good news to report. senator like ted cruz in texas noting a pretty interesting idea and deal. witness reciprocity. democrats can call wi witnesses, all who likely won't testify because it is the president that has the right to use executive privilege like every president before him. he said he would use it like obama and clinton, like everyone else. then republicans can call who they want. i say call qui quo pro joe, call experienced hunter, the real ukrainian scandal. you're not getting the billion taxpayer dollars unless you fire the pro

. >> there was one republican witness called last month, jonathan turley who has taken a very dim viewf this white house defense of the president that too, be impeached, ta it has to be on a criminal code. the developing defense is also a mistake. it will expand the space by increasing the definition to the criminal code. it's as plitdically unwise as it is constitutionally short sighted. so that leaves precisely zero lawyers who believe it's a good legal defense? >> no, because first all of high crimes and misdemeanors have a specific constitutional meaning. and the founders knew what it meant. it meant an abecause of power, especially one perpetrated in the interest or at the direction of a foreign power, which is suspected to be england and france and now russia, china, turkey, you name it. the idea is our elections need to not be tampered with and a president trying to extort a favor and dam agpolitical rival, tha thoot is the trifecta of what the framers had in mind. >> thank you for being with us. >> thank you so much. >> 17 minutes past 3:00 here on the east coast. time to take

chose to use the court they accuse him of obstructing congress to which constitutional scholar jonathan turley said this in december. >> i can't emphasize enough and i will say it one more time. if you impeach a president, if you make a high crime and misdemeanor out of going to the courts, it is an abuse of power. is your abuse of power. >> other legal skip scholars disagree but his point was reemphasized by j khameini who said was nonsense for democrats to contend the courts have no role and privileges don't apply. as for adam schiff calling donald trump's behavior the trifecta of constitutional misconduct, khameini to this. >> i will give you a trifecta. during the proceedings that took place before the judiciary committee the president was denied the right to cross-examine witnesses. the president was denied the right to access evidence of the present was denied the right to have counsel present. that is a trifecta. >> when it comes to documents republicans remind democrats the transcript of the president's call with ukrainian president was quickly made public which at the time didn't stop

constitutional scholar, jonathan turley.ccording to the president's legal brief, "they simply announced that constitutional accommodation. they must impeach the president immediately, urgently." tonight, the senate must not, your elected senators must not capitulate legitimacy to the demands of compromise in this specific case, congenital liar. schiff and the rest of his house managers. that's because this is a baseless impeachment. it has been politically motivated with the hunt from the very beginning. now, there was no fairness. there was no due process. there was no fair investigation. all the considerations newt gingrich, none of which were given to president trump. most importantly, no legitimate impeachable offense and no crime. now, it's time for the u.s. senate to fulfill your constitutional duty. your senators need to hear from you. now, here the democrats pathetic case. y the house has the sole power constitutionally to impeach. the senate has the sole power to hold the trial. okay, they impeach them. bring your c

. >> writing in the washington post jonathan turley who testified in these hearings on the house sideleak happened at the exact time it would inflict the most damage, suspicions over the timing of the leak are magnified by the fact that bolton could have been subpoenaed by the house and compelled to testify and they chose not to do that. >> because donald trump to the blanket noncooperation approach which is why we have obstruction of congress in article 2 which was used against richard nixon but he resigned before facing his articles of impeachment so i disagree with rush limbaugh, the idea of inchoate crimes is enshrined and part of common-law dating back to the founding of this country. you don't have to complete a crime to be guilty of the crime. you have so many issues, not an isolated incident with ukraine but incredible abuse of power, things like emoluments and so many other things. this is appropriate, we need to hear from the witnesses at the john bolton bombshell. shannon: you use the word crime and can be guilty of it but you can't be guilty of murder if you don't kill som

>> remember, jonathan turley said to do it. sorry. >> it's brian's turn to work. joy reid and jonathan alter, thank you. joy reid sort of gets the last word. "the 11th hour with brian williams" starts now. >>> tonight, even republicans are slamming what they heard today from trump's military team, back filling the reasoning behind why the u.s. chose to kill a bad guy out of the blue a decision by trump that will have ramifications for years. suddenly congress has a problem with him reining in his war powers. >>> the american people president appears a to step back from the edge. we know that because he suddenly is talking up nato. >>> speaking of the impeachment of this president, it's still pelosi versus mcconnell on what happens next. but now some big names are piping up about getting on with it. all of it as we get on when "the 11th hour" on a wednesday night. good evening once again from our nbc news headquarters here in new york, day 1,084 of the trump administration. and notably, 300 days now until the 2020 presidential election. today we saw trump take a ste

with not only other counsel for the president jonathan turley who testified in the house says that theate is constitutional effectively nonsense. but even 60-year-old alan dershowitz doesn't agree with 81-year-old alan dershowitz and for a reason, because where that conclusion leads us is at a president can abuse his power in any kind of way and there's nothing you can do about it. now, are we really ready to accept the position that this president for the next can withhold hundreds of millions of dollars in military aid to an ally at war unless they get help in theirreelection ? would we say that you could as president withhold disaster relief from a governor unless that governor got his attorney general to investigate the president's political rival? that to me is the most dangerous argument of all. it is a danger to have a president who would engage in misconduct and is a danger to have a trial with no witnesses and set that president of the biggest danger of all would be to accept the idea that a president can abuse his office in this way and the congress is powerless to do anythin

of the four put forward, all agreed on one thing, including jonathan turley, you don't need a crime to be impeepd. what he did yesterday is proceed the doors off any constraints or accountability on presidential power. you got to say any republican who believes in what they have been saying about small government, a republic not an empire. about constraints on power, you know, this is a chance to stand up and ar tech late what we believe in, when it counts. because this king trump argument being put forward will become the precedent. whether they like it or no they won't get a redo when a democrat becomes president. it's incredibly dangerous, hypocritical. >> for anyone who makes the argument alan dershowitz harvard law professor says it must be true. i point to the '90, simpson, in theory alan dershowitz can say things occasionally that might not be true. this is bigger than him. it's bicker than the impeachment vote. >> yes. >> the case he is making is about america. thank you very much. >>> so also we want to get to this. the very first public comments from vanessa bryant since the

even jonathan turley, the president's -- republican star witness in the house, didn't make this case. he just said they didn't have the evidence there yet. they weren't quite there yet. the question sdh challenge going forward we should be focusing on, as well as the media, is not just whether alan dershowitz, who's a celebrity criminal defense attorney is contradicting himself from 19 nal 98, it's whether any constitutional law experts in this country agree with him. >> i think heidi issued an appropriate caution for anyone covering this. we stair at the trees in our own peril. i mean, the trees are what heidi just articulate said. there are no conservative legal scholars. these are tv criminal defense guys. >> and this is the peril for the president. because if you look at the brief the democrats filed, they go through a constitutional argument rooted in the framing of the constitution. and the impeachment clause. they go through the legal basis for obstruction and abuse of power and abuse of the public trust. and the president's brief does none of that. you could read like you were

republican witness, jonathan turley, jerry nadler cited turley as abuse of power, abuse of power is arime, citing senator lindsey graham saying that abuse of power is a crime. the democrats showing video of president on camera, get china, ukraine to investigate the bidens. your reaction to all of that. >> that is not what the founders said. the founders said, they debated this at length. there was a voted nebulous term a modern administration, madison said that could mean anything. if that will be the standard of impeachment, then the president is simply a servant of the congress. that is what the congress decided to replace maladministration, or abuse of power, with specific terms, treason, bribery, other high crimes and misdemeanors. liz: move on to that. democrats are trying to set the media narrative. trying to undercut a senate acquittal of trump next week. americans are provided new pugh poll, 51% said should remove the president. gallup, 5 is% say don't do that. mark penn, former advisor to president clinton, from mark penn saying quote, end impeachment. what the president did

we have jonathan turley making that argument. if we split into separate articles, one abuse of power and one for bribery they would have argued you've taken one crime and made it into two. the important constitutional point here is not that the acts within the abuse of power constitute bribery, although they do. the important point is we charged a constitutional crime, the most serious crime, the founders gave the president enormous powers, and the most important consideration is the presidenpresident not abuse thef they provided a remedy and that remedy is impeachment. one final point. mr. sekulow said tha that isn'tt the constitution works. it doesn't allow the chief justice to make those decisions, but he didn't see the constitution prohibits it. the constitution permits it if they will agree, but they won't. and he said it's the same in the house, and it is the same in the house, and it's the same in this way. they were operating in good faith, if they really want a fair resolution, if they don't want a delay they would allow

if you look at some of the most notable constitutional scholars, whether it's alan dershowitz, jonathan turleyboth of whom are democrats, both of whom said they didn't vote for trump, they voted for hillary. but they are also true legal scholars and they look at the law as objectively as stupidly possible they and many other lawyers, the ones who are never trumpers and eight donald trump, they've all said the same thing. you can't do it for this nebulous thing called obstruction of congress. if you could come every time the president vetoes the bill, that's instruction of congress. that's nonsense. not just the senators, i'm convinced an increasing number of the general public realizes what a total circus this is. adam schiff is the ringmaster and it's just shameful come with the democrats are doing. >> lisa: double xp when that's why they require a super majority of a two-thirds vote to remove a president from office. you need to have bipartisan sick consensus about the president's behavior. you don't have that, despite what nancy pelosi says last spring, if they moved ahead with impeachment,

. >> shannon: running in "the washington post," the opinion piece by jonathan turley. happened at the exact time that it would inflict the most damage. these suspicions over the timing is magnified by the fact that bolton could have been subpoenaed by the house and held to testify." they chose not to do that. >> president trump did the cooperation approach which is why we have obstruction of congress which was used against richard nixon. he resigned before basing his articles of impeachment. i totally disagree with rush limbaugh. the idea of that is part of common law, dating back before the founding of this country. you don't have to complete a crime to be guilty of the crime. we have so many different issues that are happening here. we are talking about an incredible abuse of power. they haven't even been fully investigated. this has absolutely appropriate. we need to hear from the witnesses, and especially this john bolton bombshell. >> shannon: you use the word crime, and you said you can be guilty even if you don't complete it. you can't be convicted of murder if

the legal community also criticizing the move jonathan turley writing, this will add fuel to the fireat allegations of abuse were nonsense and should be rejected. fbi director chris ray issuing a new filing friday laying out steps the bureau will take to guard against future pfizer abuses, after revolutions about the surveillance of trump ada carter page in 2016. the file includes 12 areas for reform plus an apology court sources are now calling stunning. the fbi has the utmost respect in the court and deeply regrets the errors and omissions. he adds the reviews findings, describing "conduct that is unrepresented of the fbi in an institution." the national security division is declining to comment, and the capitol hill sources tell fox news director wray, it may be something to testify imminently. >> shannon: all right gillian turner, thank you. this decision to pick david chris's raising eyebrows tonight. let's talk to matt whitaker who joins us live. good to see you. >> i'm going to. i think david chris's having an interesting night, there's a lot of blowback. jim jordan's office ho

what we're talking about here are the details, but people no less than jonathan turley, who testified and said neither of these articles rise to the level of impeachment. they haven't proven each of these in. jeffrey toobin wrote an op-ed saying if president obama did the exact same thing, would you be defending him as you are president trump? >> fast and furious. he withheld evidence from the house of representatives and the republicans decided it was not obstruction of congress. the democrats agreed, and we did not pursue anything. nancy pelosi, naylor, all said that was not obstruction. but in this case when the president decides to use obstruction of privilege. it's a little bit hypocritical to see some of the comments coming out right now versus 2008. >> this has all been just hearing himself. >> next week america gets to hear president trump's defense. we did not have due process in the house. it's clear. and for the first time, it's ironic to me, chuck, with all the success we had last week with the china trade deal and usmca being passed in the united states senate that this o

. >> juan: democrats or even siding jonathan turley, one of the defending lawyers insane, you don't have a specific crime to be guilty of abuse of power. >> greg: when you make a list of offenses, it is impossible to vote on them because there are supposed to be a specific thing you did wrong but not everybody can agree to the laundry list that they are doing. they have this, this, this. and they're all opinions. 10 times 0 is still 0. all these are opinions, so how can you vote on that? you can't even vote on this cr crap. >> juan: they think it is fact, i understand your position. coming up, "the five" takes on some of the media coverage of impeachment. so much fun, right ahead on "the five." cologuard: colon cancer screening for people 45 plus at average risk. some things are harder than you thought. and others are easier. like screening for colon cancer with me, cologuard. i'm noninvasive and you use me at home. i'm also effective. i find 92% of colon cancers using dna in your stool. so why wait? cologuard is not for those at high risk for colon cancer. false positive and negative re

need more evidence and more testimony really shows that constitutional scholar and democrat, jonathan turleyabsolutely accurate. this was the thinnest, fastest, weakest impeachment in u.s. history and to proceed along the lines they did was abuse of congress. maria: it once again taken all the oxygen out of the room. we have sat here now three years, congressman, you and me many coming on this program, virtually every sunday talking about abuse at top of the fbi in 2016. we now know based on the i.g. report, we know now based on a criminal investigation undergoing in john durham's office there was wrongdoing, probably criminal wrongdoing and yet the democrats are not even acknowledging this. so where do we stand on that? and do you think there is going to be accountability, knowing that there was abuse at the fisa court, knowing there was leaking and lying under oath? >> i do. i think there is going to be accountability. i think that sometimes justice delayed is not justice denied. i told your viewers repeatedly that john durham couldn't act until the inspector general michael who are wit is

. >> so law professor jonathan turley offered an answer to that question. here's what he said. in a conventional trial biden would be a relevant defense witness. his testimony would have bearing on a key question in an abuse of power trial. trump insists that he raised the issue of hunter biden's relationship with the ukrainian energy firm to the ukrainian president with a concern he had about corruption in that skun try. if the son could be shown to have a scheme, it might be trump's best defense. >> that strikes me as quite a stretch. a leap of logic worthy of ev evilkenevel. they make so much strained arguments to try and bring into the scope of what they're advancing, things that are pretty much of a stretch. i will say this. i don't expect that there will be a successful vote when we start tuesday to gyp the impeachment trail on witnesses, on documents. i think that mitch mcconnell has the 51 votes he needs to insist on having the case in principle presented by the house managers first, the president's defenders second and only then to turn to the fight of witnesses. i fra

even jonathan turley the republican own expert that came and testified there if these allegations cane proved, they absolutely would be impeachable offenses. they just thought the record had not been developed and it makes perfect sense. imagine if that were the case. for one, we didn't have a criminal code at the time the constitution was passed. so, they weren't thinking of bribery statutes. but it could mean that things like imagine a president who appointed only family members to the federal judiciary or he sat home all day doing nothing except watching television. none of those things is a crime. but they would amount to an abductia abdication of his job and to say we couldn't remove him from office is absurd. >> the white house generated in response to this, a summons sent to the house and doesn't read like a legal document at all. more like an extended op-ed piece. i wonder if you get the sense that the white house is treating this defense as a serious legal matter or a political argument. is this the equivalent of like the prevent defense in football where they know they have

. >> remember, jonathan turley said to do it. sorry. >> it's brian's turn to work. ort of gets the last word. "the 11th hour with brian williams" starts now. >>> tonight, even republicans are slamming what they heard today from trump's military team, back filling the reasoning behind why the u.s. chose to kill a bad guy out of the blue a decision by trump that will have ramifications for years. suddenly congress has a problem with him reining in his war powers. >>> the american people president appears a to step back from the

with not only other counsel for the president jonathan turley who testified in the house says that theate is constitutional effectively nonsense. but even 60-year-old alan dershowitz doesn't agree with 81-year-old alan dershowitz and for a reason, because where that conclusion leads us is at a president can abuse his power in any kind of way and there's nothing you can do about it. now, are we really ready to accept the position that this president for the next can withhold hundreds of millions of dollars in military aid to an ally at war unless they get help in theirreelection ? would we say that you could as president withhold disaster relief from a governor unless that governor got his attorney general to investigate the president's political rival? that to me is the most dangerous argument of all. it is a danger to have a president who would engage in misconduct and is a danger to have a trial with no witnesses and set that president of the biggest danger of all would be to accept the idea that a president can abuse his office in this way and the congress is powerless to do anythin

. >> jonathan turley who defended the republicans say you do not need a crime to have an impeachable offense. rick santorum agrees with that also. and when you say alan dershowitz says it wasn't an abuse of power. he was on the defense team that said dershowitz wasn't guilty. >> that was not an issue of constitutional law, john. >> just because alan dershowitz says it doesn't necessarily mean it's true. >> i think he made a compelling case. >> that's different than saying just because alan dershowitz said it -- which is what some republican senators are saying. >> i agree with that. do we have the rudy giuliani sound? i want to address something happening to john bolton here right now. john bolton who has given his life for the republican cause and is a conservative that was a star of fox news for ten years is now very much in the crosshairs. listen to what rudy giuliani said about him overnight. >> here's the only conclusion i can come to and it's a harsh one, and i feel very bad about it. he's a back stabber. he never said to me, i've got a problem with what you're doing in ukraine

they should have done that, professor jonathan turley made that point, he said you didn't even invokeicial branch to ask about the questions of executive privilege. they rushed through and now they want the senate and the executive branch to fill in the blanks. american jurisprudence doesn't work that way, we don't say i think martha maccallum is guilty of something, if i could just poke around her private spaces in her house or listen to her friends converse about her i'm going to find something eventually. it doesn't work that way. i think the democrats prove they have no shame but they have not proved there is no case. >> i want to repeat a criticism i made it to your face and see how respond to this and it comes to the question of communication strategy. it clearly although they have been debating the three motions, subpoena documents, the democrats have taken full use of their time, the full hour they are allowed to make a lot of their opening argument and particularly at the end, adam schiff -- making a strong rhetorical argument as to what the president did wrong, why it's impo

constitutional scholar jonathan turley said this in december. >> i can't emphasize this enough, i wille more time. if you impeach a president, if you make a high crime and misdemeanor out of going to the courts it is an abuse of power. if you are abuse of power. other legal scholars on the panel disagreed with hurley, but his point was reemphasized by president trump's personal attorney jay sekulow who said it was nonsense for democrats to contend that the courts have no role and privileges don't apply. as were adam schiff calling president trump's behavior "the trifecta of constitutional misconduct," sekulow said this. >> i'll give you i trifecta, during the hearings that took place before the judiciary committee the president was denied the right to cross-examine witnesses. the president was denied the right to access evidence, and the president was denied a right to have council president hearings. that is a trifecta. >> when it comes to documents, republicans remind democrats the transcript of the president's call with the ukrainian president was quickly made public, which at the t

impeached for abusing the public trust couldn't go to bill barr for that opinion couldn't go to even jonathan turley their expert in the house for that opinion no they had to go outside of these experts outside of the constitutional off to a criminal defense lawyer and professor and why because they can't contest the facts the president was the key player in the scheme everyone was in the loop he directed the actions of his team he personally asked a foreign government to investigate his opponent these facts are not in dispute ultimately the question for you is whether the president's undisputed actions require the removal of the 44th president of the united states from office because he abused his office and the public trust by using his power for personal gain by seeking illicit foreign assistance in his reelection and covering it up other than voting on whether to send our men and women to war this is there is i think no greater responsibility before you than the one before you now the oath that you have taken to impartially weigh the facts and evidence requires serious and objective consideratio

couldn't go to bill barr for that opinion, couldn't go to jonathan turley, the expert in the house for that opinion. they had to go outside these experts outside of the congressional law to a -- they can't contest the facts. the president was the key player in this scheme. everyone was in the loop. he directed the actions of his team. he personally asked a foreign government to investigate his opponent. these facts are not in dispute. ultimately the question for you is whether the president's undisputed actions require the removal of the 45th president of the united states from office because he abused his office and the public trust by using his power for personal gain by seeking illicit foreign assistance in his reelection and covering it up. other than voting on whether to send our men and women to war, i think there is no greater responsibility for you than the one before you now. the oath you have taken to impartially weigh the facts and evidence requires serious and objective consideration, decisions that are about country, not party. about the constitution, not politics. about w