welcome host:o jonathan turley back to the desk. professor, in your latest column on the inquiry, you called the current effort perhaps the narrowest impeachment in history. what is the difference between a narrow impeachment and a wide faced impeachment? iesco -- building this inquiry is comparable to building a building, and the tallest structure you can build in the constitution is the impeachment of a sitting president. this would be the narrowest in the history of the country. they are proceeding on an abuse of power there he based on one controversy involving ukraine, nothing from the russian investigations, none of those crimes will be part of this impeachment. likemeans it will be more the impeachment of andrew johnson than richard nixon. that was the gold standard ironically because he resigned, but it was such a strong case that he did resign. it was broad, had a lot of different types of criminal conduct and a very developed record. this is more like andrew johnson. articles in that impeachment, but they were based on the

laura: jonathan turley, thanks for being with us. jonathan: thank you.laura: now to hong kong, where hundreds of student protesters are under siege university cornered by police. they are being told to surrender or face tear gas and rubber bullets. protesters outside are trying to break thpolice lines, some using petrol bombs. these are some of most violent clashes since demonstratgans in june. gabriel gatehouse is in hong kong and as been with protesters for the past few days. gabriel: sunday morning. it's day five of the protest at hong kong polytechni university . and it is about turn into a siege. lithe po are at the junction just there and now advancing on the lines. tear gas is coming. under fire, the protesters retreat onto campus. if arrested, man fear physical or sexual assault and long sentences. >> the police attacking us. briel: for their part, authorities fear chaos and instability. e blue spray is laced with tear gas. in the face of government intransigence and aggressive policing, a protest movemend hs morpheto a total rejection ofsy china

laura: jonathan turley, thanks for being with us. jonathan: thank you. laura:he forecond day in ae to prevent climate chanth. today it ihuman -- u.n. environment agency, which says the current targets to cut carbon emissions fall far short. in places like zimbabwe, the real-life impact is being felt. serious drought is threatenil urban and rufe. the bbc's stephen sackur has gone to see the effects. stephen: whethe river is in full flow, you can see why the explorer david livingstone lled it a view for the angels. but look at the falls now. this is what southern africa's prolonged drought means, the thirds.wn by two here we are at this viewpoint. al is called the horseshoe viewpoint. >> yes, the change -- the low falls, they are becontng more freq who knows community in one yr there will be noall, no water. stephen: two hours north is the national park, a land dying of thirst. it has the largest conceration of elephants in all of africa. i don't know if you can see, but there is a group of elephants just over there. each elephant needs 300 kilograms of fo

laura: for more on today's testimony i spoke with law professor and bbc legal analyst jonathan turley. ambassador sonand said he was working with rudy giuliani on ukraine at the express direction of the president. how significant is that? jonathan: it was very significant. when he came it was clear he was adopting a type of mutually assured destruction strategy. he was saying ev the loop -- in other words, i go down, everyone goes down. immediately starteweetpeople denying they had meetings and even denying they really knew who he was type of tweets. but he did a lot of damage, because his point was that tre was no irregular small group called the three amigos.t everyone was p the amigos. laura: the president has said there was no quid pro quo. sondland said there was one. about the ukrainians calling for investigations to get a white house visit. how damaging is that? jonathan: well, i think the most damaging aspect is that sondland was quite clear that he came to understand that president trump these investigations in ukraine. but he also gave a lot of points to the republicans. opl

for analysis of today's hearings, i spokeh w constitutional law professor and bbc legal analyst jonathan turley. what struck you as the most significant piece of evidence that came out today? jonathan: funny engh, the most damaging piece of evidence came at the very end when chairman schiff was wrapping up, and he noted that the aid to ukraine was released 48 hours after itca known that the whistleblower complaint had gone to congress. that really plows into the main republican talking point, which is the aid wasn't withheld, and at least in watergate they got into the hotel. here, nothing actually happened in terms of holding this back permanently. but that really undermines the argument, because it suggests that the aid was being withheldt untiecame clear that this was going to explode in the public. laura: what seems to you the basis for the democrats' attempt to impeach the president based on these two key witnesses today? jonathan: you know, there is a lot in this testimony that was upsetting.m but the prob that i'm not so sure they gained as much ground towards impeachment as they had hed

later, discussion on the impeachment inquiry with george washington university law professor jonathan turley. be sure to watch washington journal, live at 7:00 eastern monday morning. join the discussion. ♪ >> for 40 years, c-span has been providing america unfiltered coverage of congress, the white ande, the supreme court, public policy events from washington dc and around the country, so you can make up your on mine. created by cable in 1979, c-span is brought to you by your local cable or satellite provider. c-span, your unfiltered view of government. during the turkish president's visit with president trump at the white house, some had the opportunity to ask the turkish leader questions on russia, weapons, and attacks on kurds in syria. here is a look at this meeting. >> we've been discussing trade and lots of other matters. i thought bringing over some of our republican senators that are very much well-versed in what's going on in turkey to meet president erdogan would be good. so we are having a very strong discussion on different things, including the safe zone and the border, the oil

later a discussion on the george ent inquiry with washington university law professor jonathan turley. c-span's o watch washington journal live at 7:00 morning.onday join in the discussion. washington jug mugs are at c-span.org. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp 2019] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] >> during the turkish's presidential visit, some an opportunity to ask the turkish leader questions on russia, weapons, and attacks syria.s in meeting. look at that president trump: we're discussing trade and lots of having aters and we're very good discussion. some of bringing over our republican senators that are well versed in what's going on turkey to meet president erdogan would be good so we're a strong discussion on things, including the safe zone, border, and oil. a very big is factor because we think we can get trade up to a hundred and it's much lower than that right now. we'll have a meeting for a while a then we're doing conference, making a statement, nd i t

jonathan turley, back to adam schiff.e sophia's call because what sophia said, adam schiff is, and then there was a pause. neither you nor i knew if the next word was going to be a monster or a savior. and that is the problem. we are so divided in this country and there is not a lot of listening going on with either side. you either view this as a hoax or you view the president as a criminal. life is more nuanced than that. the problem is these numbers are not. -- of these members are not. you've got people on either side in then a bunch of us in the middle. i think that the democrats scored a lot of points last week. they did a better job. one of the reasons for that is that they had a single narrative. they actually practiced for days in the basement of the capital. this is all a really carefully coordinated and well done production. and it should be, because this is an important part for our country. the republicans actually scored some points as well, but they don't have that single narrative. a trial is like any good

tom brokaw, bob woodward, alan .ershowitz, and jonathan turley i remind viewers jonathan turley was onhis program on monday, spent an hour talking about the impeachment hearing. you can go back and watch it at c-span.org. caller: did he update his position? host: what position do you want to hear about? isler: the last i heard there is not the level of impeachment that even comes close to richard nixon, which bob woodward spoke about. that is why nixon resigned, they had him cold. ofwas authorizing millions dollars in bribes to cover up the break-in at the watergate hotel. i don't believe president clinton should have been impeached. he lied under oath. was that a high crime? he did not put the country in jeopardy. host: go back and watch that jonathan turley segment, there it is on monday. caller: did he state he thinks there is enough here to bring articles of impeachment? give me the short story. host: he called it the narrowest impeachment effort in history and he does not think it is a wide enough, broad enough impeachment effort that he thinks it may topple over in the end. i wil

proceedings prince andrew might be asked to give evidence in, i spoke with bbcegal analyst jonathan turley how much legal jeopardy, if any, is prince andrew facing after the inteiew? jonathan: it could be serious if he finds himself back in the united states.er there are a nuf cas going on with a large number of lawyers that would love to get him with a subpoena.on you get a subpoena in the united states, you are expected to appear. the question is whether they would have access to him. but he is obously a witness that could be called into these depositions. the problem for prince andrew ih that once is ie h depositionis under oath. what began as a civil c become a criminal manner if there is an allegation that he lied. the fbi. also the added sue of if the fbi does interview prince andrew, that also is a potentially criminal matter. lying to the fbi its a crime. laura: if this was aeposition d prince andrew had been your client, how would you think it had gone? jonathan: [laughter] well, it's hard to -- i know he had his press advisor leave him shortly before the inte'ew. i can'imagine hi

a brief time ago i spoke to law professor and bbc legal analyst jonathan turley. so, presidents are not kings. what does this mean not only for don mcgahn, but other witnesses before the impeachment inquiry? jonathan: certainly a stinging rebuke of the white house. many of us believed this argument was unlikely to asucceed, and it failed i rather spectacular fashion with this judge.he but whatudge is saying is that you cannot refuse to appear at the committee. it does not mean he cannot appear and testify on the basis of executive privilege. that is a fight that will have to occur later. what the white hou was arguing was something quite extreme, that you cannot force him to appear. this cuts both ways in terms of impeachment. on one hand it certainly reinforces the narrative of democrats that t president is withholding witnesses without good ground because the judge really just set this thing aside not ickly but very strongly. but it also helps the republicans, who are saying whyh are you g a vote by december, and why haven't you call these critical witnesse they

jonathan turley, thank you for joining us.moving around the country. this is the first post. we are going to call it going be on the bubble in the —— beyond the bubble. it is nice to come and talk to the candidates and he voters that the politicians want to lower and get to the issues they wa nt to to lower and get to the issues they want to talk about. with that in mind, i have a panel with me. i've got peter biggins, retired shop owner and lifelong leave supporter, ella lucas, student at leeds university and labour party member, natalie higgins, who works in a school and is a remain supporter, and meghan killerby, a student union worker and conservative party member. peter, let me start with you. you're a lifelong leave supporter. you're good have a couple of options in the next couple of weeks. you're going to have the conservative party begging for info but also the brexit party. which we're going go?” begging for info but also the brexit party. which we're going go? i am going to vote for the conservatives. i think the bo

. >> brennan: it will only be wrapped up so quickly because per jonathan turley's point, they're heavingll firsthand witnesses off the table, which they could secure if they waited a little longer. >> brennan: john bolton you're talking about? >> and mulvaney and pompeo. >> brennan: you think they would be allowed to show up? >> i think it would be decided by the courts. i think there is a privilege, immunity claim in all these cases, but you would have to wait. they don't want to this that because it's a political timetable. so they will send an incomplete case to the senate. >> there's no guarantee by the election day you would get these witnesses. and democrats have made the calculation that they have got enough in their minds to impeach the president so they should move ahead. this helps the president with his base. i think this hurts the president with that small group of independent-minded swing voters in the middle. many of them suburban eat, white, college-educated people who voted for him last time abandon the republicans in 2018. i think it's a,ed bles f bre: what ds a ial loe?

you mentioned jonathan turley.his op-ed that he wrote over thanksgiving, some people may have missed it in the first term, but he was saying this was the thinnest record of wrongdoing. he didn't agree with everything that happened, but the idea, jon -- according to professor turley -- that this rises to an impeachable offense, he says, is ridiculous. >> abuse of power. it's really in the eyes of the beholder. it's sort of like when the question about anticame before the supreme court -- sanity came before the supreme court. it's the problem i have is what on earth is the rush, as i said earlier. in watergate we had over a year of hearings, and the trick there -- the reason it was legitimate, it was bipartisan. and, you know, some of the witnesses like dr. hill and ms. williams, they said the president's call was inappropriate, it was improper. those are not impeachable. ed: right. >> james madison said you do not impeach a president for what he called maladministration. they've already decided what they're doing. e

. >> shannon: here's what jonathan turley has to say about this but he says crimes may be revealed inbut they need to be grounded in the criminal code rather than in the imagination of members of congress. even if the house had brought license of impeachment it doesn't have license to redefine crime to fit impeachment. kevin? >> amen. >> here's what we know. it's a busy week. gordon sondland back in brussels, but he did confirm a quid pro quo, right? did he specifically say the president gave them the order to do so? he did not. did he say he's acting on the perception of the president asking rudy giuliani to put pressure on him? he did. we have a lot more questions than answers i think in this whole process. it's a lot to come clear. let's release all the transcripts. let's release the call log spirit let's have rudy giuliani come before the house intelligence committee, come clean, right? if the president think he's done nothing wrong can produce these people. we remember the benghazi hearings. obama didn't say, hillary clinton, don't testify before congress. go testify before the h

but here's the real question, a legal pro jonathan turley says the democrats are on really thin groundehere. where is impeachable offense? how do you distinguish what this president did with what presidents do with heads of state? >> i read that piece by mr. turley. i think he's right. you mentioned two things. i would like to comment on both of them. one of the way is the way it is proceeding. the fact we have done it is in secret is nonsense. the american people need to hear. they are doing it in open but the fact we can't call witnesses? show me a trial in the court in the country that would say to you we're going to allow the prosecution to call whoever they want and not allow the defense to call the witnesses they want. i think that's nonsense. the second thing that you bring up is this idea it is built on foundation that won't sustain itself. to have a successful impeachment, to convince the american people that you need to remove this president and you need to remove him right now, can't wait till next fall, can't let them decide. schiff and pelosi are going to decide. you bette

here's legal analyst jonathan turley.he were to set a foot on us soil, he'd likely be hit with a subpoena service, if they could get access to him. this was a truly catastrophic decision on his part. it's bad enough when people believe that you are a criminal. when they also believe you are comical, it's not a good combination. questions are now being asked as to why prince andrew's office decided to do the interview in the first place. here's our royal correspondent, daniela relph. well, i think the view is that it has done, really, the exact opposite of what it was intended to do. the idea, i think, from within prince andrew's private office was that this interview would draw a line under everything, it would put the duke in front of an interviewer, emily maitlis, without any restrictions, and he could answer all the questions and all the rumours about his relationship with jeffrey epstein. but this just hasn't closed it down. what it's done is opened up a whole series of questions about his judgment, about whether he s

jonathan turley is the bbc‘s legal analyst.would likely be hit with a subpoena service faq get access to him. there are a number of civil lawsuits pending, some arejust filed, many deal with defamation claims which are flying between lawyers. you have the alleged victim herself who is in court, there are a lot of these lawyers who would love to hand prince andrew a subpoena. and once he has possession of the subpoena, you are normally compelled to appear. prince andrew does not immediately get diplomatic immunity, u nless immediately get diplomatic immunity, unless he is on some kind of official trip and even if he did, the uk government often waves that immunity in cases of this kind. so this interview put him in a precarious position if he plans to visit the united states anytime soon. and the key being effie plans to visit the united states but if he stays away, he could potentially be out of reach? —— if he plans. stays away, he could potentially be out of reach? -- if he plans. that is right. he could certainly stay an arm

. >>> jonathan turley and kim wehle, our cbs legal analysts and constitutional scholars, and they joins start with you. did the democrats layout a case strong enough to reach the constitutional bar for impeachment? >> if the question is abuse of power, yes, they absolutely did in that the president it looks like asked for an investigation or announcement of investigations into a political rival in exchange for release of military aid. so using the power of the presidency, the ability to have a white house meeting, to release this critical aid that ukraine needed to stave off riern aggression and said, you know what? you have to help me personally. that's the standard that the framers cared about, having somebody in office that would use that power for themselves, not for the benefit of the american people. here we know it was contrary to national security. >> as far as you are concerned write out the articles of impeachment, let's vote tomorrow? >> we will see it. as far as let's vote tomorrow, no. this process is a senate trial and we'll have to see what is in the articles to then tes

jonathan turley had a great op-ed talking about who must not be named.todd and shut down republicans when they try to bring up biden, burisma or anything else outside of president trump. it is to the detriment of democrats because right now democrats have a primary where these candidates are supposed to be vetted. the whole point is to get their strongest candidate in that general election and look what happens when candidates are protected. elizabeth warren two debates ago when she -- she couldn't explain the policy for medicare for all. took incoming and has taken a huge dip in the polls. >> sandra: let's move to michael bloomberg entrance to the race and what was just announced from his company and the coverage of the boss, michael bloomberg in the race. they will not investigate michael bloomberg. here is the "wall street journal" play on the bloomberg news. no news. his reporters won't investigate democrats but tumble is fair game. >> i would think the journalists are upset about this. you hogg tied them. you won't talk about the misspoken words wit

later, discussion on the impeachment inquiry with law professor jonathan turley. washingtonwatch journal, live at 7:00 eastern monday morning. join the discussion. next week, the house intelligence committee and chair adam schiff continue public impeachment inquiry hearings, beginning tuesday morning at 9:00 eastern on c-span3. watch live testimony from jennifer williams, aid to mike lieutenant colonel alexander whitman. and white house a tim morrison, wednesday at 9:00 a.m. eastern, testimony continues with gordon sondland, and it 2:30, deputy assistant secretary of defense laura ,ooper and david hale undersecretary of state for political affairs. on thursday, at 9:00 a.m. eastern, the committee will hear testimony from fiona hill, former national security council senior director for europe and russia. watch the first two public hearings in their entirety on our website, c-span.org /impeachment. less a points of interest feature that identifies key points -- key points during the hearing. next week, watch live coverage of the house impeachment inquiry , or-span3,