karlan is the co-director of stanford's supreme court litigation clinic. she has also argued nine cases before the supreme court. fellow law professor has known her for three decades. >> i think that much of the country saw today what pam karlan's lawsuit and university colleagues have known for decades which is that she is utterly brilliant. >> reporter: during today's hearing democrats applauded her fiery style and humor. >> so while the president can name his son barron she can't make him a barron. >> reporter: first lady melania trump tweet add minor should be kept out of politics and karlan should be ashamed. >> reporter: and the president retweeted her. she has apologized for referencing him. and that she regrets it. she did add she wishes the president would apologize for things he says that are wrong. live in the newsroom liz kreutz, abc 7 news. >>> police swarmed a san francisco neighborhood this afternoon looking for two wanted men. officers blocked off the area of 24th and folsom street during the manhunt. the men are accused of at least two cri

>> yes, sir. >> and professor karlan? >> yes. >> you all agree. okay. and are any of you aware of any other president who has essentially triggered all three concerns that animated the founders? >> no. >> no. >> no, as well. >> mr. chairman, it's hard to think of a more monarchical sentiment than i can do whatever i want as president. and i yield back. >> gentleman yields back. ms. lesko. >> thank you, mr. chair. mr. chair, i ask unanimous consent to insert into the record a letter i wrote and sent to you asking, calling on you, to cancel any and all future impeachment hearings. and outlining how the process -- >> the letter will be entered into the record. >> thank you. during an interview, mr. chairman, on msnbc's "morning joe," on november 26th, 2018, chairman nadler outlined a three-prong test. that he said would allow for a legitimate impeachment proceeding. now, i quote chairman nadler's remarks. and this is what he said. there really are -- there really are three questions, i think. first, has the president committed impeachable offenses? second,

professor karlan? >> yes, he has. >> is there a particular piece of evidence that most illuminating that. >> what illuminates that most for me is the statement by ambassador sondland that he wanted simply the announcement of an investigation and several other people said exactly the same thing. there's testimony by ambassador volker to this extent as well. what he wanted, simply public information to damage joe biden. he didn't care whether end of the day joe biden was found guilty or exonerated. >> and professor feldman, do you agree or a difference? >> my emphasis is on the fact the president held up aid to an ally fighting a war in direct contravention of the unanimous recommendation of the national security community. that to me seems to have placed his own interests in personal advantage ahead of the interests of the nation. >> and a bill passed by congress, bipartisan? >> yes, sir. >> professor gerhardt? >> i agree with what my colleagues have said and add i'm very concerneden a the president's o

. >> now, next i move to professor karlan. at the constitutional convection, "foreign powers will meddle in our affairs." james madison said impeachment was needed. can you elaborate on why the framers were so concerned about foreign interference how they accounted for these concerns and how that relates to the facts before this committee? >> so the reason that the framers were concerned about foreign interference, i think is slightly different than the reason we are. they were concerned about it because we were such a weak country in 1789. we were small, we were poor, we didn't have an established navy. we didn't have an established army. today the concern is a little different. which is that it will interfere with us making the decisions that are best for us as americans. >> thank you, professor. there's three known instances that the president publicly asking a foreign country to interfere in our elections. first in 2016 the president hoped that russia would hack into an e-mail of a political opponent, which they did. secon

. >> to professor karlan. at the constitutional convention eldridge jerry said foreign powers will meddle in our affairs and spare to expense to spare them and a president might be tray his trust to a foreign power. professor carlin can you explain why the framers accounted for those concerns and how that related to the facts before this committee. >> so the reason that the framers were concerned about foreign interference i think is slightly different than the reason we are. they were concerned about it because we were such a weak country in 1789. we were small. we were poor. we didn't have an established navy. we didn't have an established army. today the concern is a little different which is that it will interfere with us making the decisions that are best for us as americans. >> thank you, professor. there are three known instances of the president publicly asking a foreign country to interfere in our elections. first in 2016, the president publicly hoped that russia would hack into the email of a politic

karlan? >> yes, it is. >> and -- and to professor feldman and professor garhart, do you agree? >> yes. >> yes, sir. >> you stated the essence of a impeachable offense is the president's decision to sacrifice the national interest for his own private ends. professors, do you also agree with that? >> yes, sir. >> yes. >> based on the evidence you've seen, professors feldman, karlan, and garhart, has president trump sacrificed the country's interest in favor of his own? professor karlan? >> yes, he has. >> and is there a particular piece of evidence that most illuminates that? >> i think what illuminates that most for me is the statement by ambassador sondland that he wanted simply the announcement of an investigation. and several other people said exactly the same thing. there's testimony by ambassador volker to this extent, as well. that what he wanted was simply public information to damage joe biden. he didn't care whether at the end of the day joe biden was found guilty or exonerated. >> an

>> i of course agree with professor karlan and professor feldman. and i just want to stress that if this -- 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. if there's no action, if congress concludes they're going to give a pass to the president here, as professor karlan suggested earlier, every other president will say, okay, then i can do the same thing. and the boundaries will just evaporate. and those boundaries are set up by the constitution. and we may be witnessing, unfortunately, their erosion. and that is a danger to all of us. >> and what can this committee and the house of representatives do, sir, to defend those boundaries and to protect against that erosion? >> precisely what you're doing. >> does it matter, i'll ask all the panelists, does it matter to impeachment that the $391 million, u.s. taxpayer dollars, in military assistance that the president withheld was ultimately delivered? profess

is that right, professor karlan? >> yes, it is. >> professor feldman and professor get hurt, do you agree? >> yes. >> you stated the president's decision to sacrifice the national interest for his own ends. do you agree with that? >> yes, sir. >> based on the evidence you have seen, professors, has president trump sacrificed the country's interests in favor of his own? >> yes, he has. >> is there a particular piece of evidence that most illuminates that? >> what illuminates it most for me is the statement by ambassador sondland that he wanted simply the announcement of an investigation. several other people's had the same thing. there is testimony by ambassador volker to this extent that what he wants was simply public information to damage joe biden. he didn't care whether joe biden was found guilty or exonerated. >> professor feldman, do you agree? >> my emphasis would be on the fact that the president held up aid to an ally that is fighting a war in direct contravention of the unanimous recommendation of the natio

under a dictatorship that's why the framers created the possibility of impeachment now professor karlan this high crime and misdemeanor of abuse of power was it some kind of loose or undefined concept to the founders of our country and the framers of our constitution no i don't think it was an abuse it was a loose concept at all it had a long lineage in the common law in england of parliamentary impeachments of lower level officers obviously they had not talked about impeaching as you've heard earlier the king or the like. and can you share a little bit about that lineage please yes so the you know they in the parliament in england impeached officers of the crown when those people abuse their power and if i could give you one example that might be a little helpful here right after the restoration of the king king ship in the in england. there was an impeachment and you know when they impeached somebody had to say what were they impeaching him for so sometimes i would be impeaching him for treason or the like and sometimes they would use the phrase high crime or misdemeanor and there was

there is going to be political influence in foreign policy. >> professor karlan. i think mr. mulvaney is confusing to notions of politics. yes there is political in foreign parents because president trump won the election 2016, we exited claimant accords and took a different position on nadel that we would have taken then his opponent. that is different than partisan politics and the sense of electoral manipulation is something that we need to get over or get used to. if we get over it that or we get used to that, we will cease to become the democracy that we are right now. >> thank you. i think that is our greatest fear and threats. i don't think that anyone is above the law. the constitution establishes that. this type of behavior cannot be tolerated from any president not now, not in the future and i yield back. >> i'm sorry, miss escobar. i had you checked out. miss escobar is recognize. thank you chairman, professors thank you for your testimony and time today. many facts including the president's own words in that famous phone call have been laid out before our very eye

i recognize professor karlan for her testimony. >> mr. chairman and members of the committee, thank you so much for the opportunity to testify. twice i have had the privilege of representing this committee and its leadership in voting rights cases before the supreme court. once when it was under the leadership of chairman senson brenner and it's good to see you again and with mr. shabbat as one of my other clients and once under the leadership of chairman conyers. it was a great honor for me to represent this committee because of this committee's key role over the past 50 years in ensuring that american sit zblends have the right to vote in free and fair elections. today you're being asked to consider whether protecting those requires impeaching a president. that is an always responsibility. everything i know about our constitution and its values and my review of the evidentiary record, and here mr. collins i would like to say to you sir, that i read trans scripts of every one in the witnesses that appeared in the live hearing because i w

it's as if -- nobody's better than professor karlan at hypotheticals. imagine a bankry robbery and the police come, the person's in middle of the bank robbery, the person drops the money, i'm going to leave without the money. everybody understands that's burglary. i'll get it right. in this situation, we got somebody really caught in the middle of it and that doesn't excuse the person >> professors, we have talked about abuse of power and bribery. when we started, we said we would also discuss obstruction of congress. so i would like to ask you some questions about obstruction of congress. professor gerhardt, in your view, is there enough evidence here to charge president trump with the high crime and misdemeanor of obstruction of congress? >> i think there's more than enough. as i mentioned in my statement, just to really underscore this, the third article of impeachment, approved by the house judiciary committee, against president nixon charged him with misconduct because he failed to comply with four legislative subpoenas. he has far more than four,

we'll talk about our stanford professor pam karlan there.on damage control here because shh did apologize in the hearing as well. >> it wasn't a very bright move. it was an truck comparison she was trying to make. it fell flat. >> you're never supposed to bring up the president's children. >> of course not. for any president. but if you look at these people today, it was so fascinating the way each of them had their own thing to talk about. karlan, for example, is talking about the deluded vote because how crane might interfere with the election, our vote might not be the same. noah feldman. feldman was talking about things like what do we do about separation of powers. the president walking all over the legislative branch. and then you had gearhart, and michael gearhart talking about national serity, how if we don't geat ukraine, ukraine united states is jeopardized. even jonathan turley. >> the republican professor. >> he is not a republican. he is a democrat, but onehothe , it's not that impeachment is bad, i don't think enough has been y

karlan was ahead the game.he was already bashing people on the basis of sex, skin color and sexual orientation. watch. this we have to seize back the high ground on patriotism and love of our country because we have more reason an they do to love america. the rich, pampered prodigal sanctimonious incurious white, straight sons of the powerful do pretty well everywhere in the world and they always have. >> tucker: this lady needs a shrink. the sons of the powerful? really? you are a law professor at stanford and you are lecturing other people how they are powerful? right. this is the legendary scholar coming down from on high to tell us who is good and who is evil. please, what a mediocrity what a moron. her fellow witnesses were almost as embarrassing. neil feldman professor at harvard law school told lawmakers that he was skeptical of impeachment until this past summer suggesting, of course, that his endorsement is more legitimate. not political. turns out that was a lie. it was a lie. how do we know? because

professor karlan received three degrees from yale si law school.j.d. michael gerhardt is the burton craige distinguished professor of juris prudence at university of north carolina school on law. professor gerhardt is the author of many books including the federal impeachment process, a constitutional and historical analysis. as well as more than 50 law-reviewed publications on diverse range of topics in constitutional law, federal jurisdiction and the legislative process. he received his j.d. from the university of chicago law school, his m.s. from london school of economics and b.a. from yale university. jonathan turley is the j.b. and maurice c. shapiro chair of public interest law at george washington university law school. where he teaches torts, criminal procedure and constitutional law. after a stint at tulane law school, professor turley joined the g.w. law faculty in 1990 and 1998 became the youngest chaired professor in the school's academicic leading lawleg law ja his articles on legal appear frequently in national publications. chicago nati

i recognize professor karlan for her testimony. >> mr. chairman and members of the committee, thank you so much for the opportunity to testify. twice i have had the privilege of representing this committee and its leadership in voting rights cases before the supreme court. once when it was under the leadership of chairman senson brenner and it's good to see you again and with mr. shabbat as one of my other clients and once under the leadership of chairman conyers. it was a great honor for me to represent this committee because of this committee's key role over the past 50 years in ensuring that american sit zblends have the right to vote in free and fair elections. today you're being asked to consider whether protecting those requires impeaching a president. that is an always responsibility. everything i know about our constitution and its values and my review of the evidentiary record, and here mr. collins i would like to say to you sir, that i read trans scripts of every one in the witnesses that appeared in the live hearing because i w

. >> who is professor pamela karlan? stay with us to find out. >> when it's a promotional gift, not free, ♪the beat goes onp for heart failure look like? it looks like emily cooking dinner for ten. ♪the beat goes on it looks like jonathan on a date with his wife. ♪la-di-la-di-di entresto is a heart failure medicine that helps your heart, so you can keep on doing what you love. entresto helped people stay alive and out of the hospital. heart failure can change the structure of your heart, so it may not work as well. entresto helps improve your heart's ability to pump blood to the body. don't take entresto if pregnant; it can cause harm or death to an unborn baby. don't take entresto with an ace inhibitor or aliskiren, or if you've had angioedema with an ace or arb. the most serious side effects are angioedema, low blood pressure, kidney problems, or high blood potassium. ♪the beat goes on ask your doctor about entresto for heart failure. ask your doctor about entresto for heart failure yeah! entrust your heart to entresto

has committed impeachable offenses and speaking now is a professor from stanford a new law pamela karlan things are witness was also called by the democrats now the president commenting before leaving london after the nato summit there said that the peace from an effort against him is a cold joke and a basically criticize the proceedings underway in washington d.c. today let's go back to listening to what's happening there is no better forum to discuss the constitutional standard for impeachment and whether that standard has been met in the case of the current president of the united states as i explain in the remainder and balance of my opening statement the record compiled thus far shows the president has committed several impeachable offenses including bribery abuse of power and soliciting a personal favor reform leader to benefit himself personally obstructing justice and obstructing congress. our hearing today should serve as a reminder one of the fundamental principles that drove the founders or its founders of our cause of our constitution to break from england and to draft their

but with witnesses like professor karlan, i think that they have done that. >> and i want to sort of pound home one thing that knownoah fen said. i'm a bit of a nerd, but he was describing in his opening statement the constitutional convention and the position of william davie, a delegate from north carolina, who was urging fellow delegates to adopt an impeachment clause and morris, from pennsylvania, was opposed to it. and having sat through all the debates and then having listened to ben franklin support the inclusion of an impeachment clause, morris said i was wrong. i was wrong. i've changed my mind. and you think -- first of all, thank goodness he changed his mind, thank goodness he had the huh milli humility to admit that he was wrong. and who is listening? will anyone change their mind on either side that can listen to a debate and say i was wrong and change their mind. i'm not seeing that type of political courage. >> garrett hague make igarrett us up on capitol hill. and we have been watching the judiciary committee taking the reins. what is the word on the hill garrett? >>

karlan later apologizing. >> i want to apologize for what i said earlier about the president's son. it was wrong of me to do that. >> reporter: all of it coming as ru lawyer already under scrutiny for his role in the pressure campaign on ukraine is back in eaststed ukrainian prosecutor as giuliani again tries to dig up dirt on the president's political rivals >> all right, peter, so what's next in this impeachment process? >> reporter: yeah, lester, afte today's marathon hearing, hous democrats are trying to keep to a short timeline to review the evidence, draft articles of impeachment, and vote, all in the next two and a half weeks lester >> peter alexander at the white house, thank you. and for his part, the president hoped his trip to the nato summit would focus attention on his foreign policy priorities as the impeachment drama played out at home instead, there was only more controversy in london. kristen welker is there tonight. >> reporter: tonight while other world leaders were holding closing press erens, president trump was leaving london in dramatic fashion, abruptly cance

professor karlan, i'd like to ask you about the foreign inference in elections. as americans we can't agree foreign influence arose in the integrity of our elections. as you said clearly, it makes us less free. on july 15th, 2003, the president coerced president zelensky into investigating into his political rival with multiple witnesses throughout the hearings. can you explain to the american people in your opinion whether the framers considered solicitation of foreign inference, if they would have considered it a high crime or misdemeanor and does the president's conduct rise to that level? >> the framers of our constitution would have considered it a high crimes or misdemeanor for a president to invite in foreign influence either deciding he will be reelected or who his successor will be. >> professor feldman, i'd like to talk to you about bribery. during the course of the intelligence hearing, numerous witnesses gave testimony the president withheld nearly $400 million of congressionally approved aid on the account russia -- excuse me, ukraine and his chief p

. >> professor karlan, do you agree? >> i'm a scholar of the law of democracy. so as a citizen i agree with what professor gerhardt said. as as an expert, my limitation is that i'm a scholar of the law of democracy, i'm not a scholar of obstruction of justice or obstruction of congress. >> we will accept your opinion as a citizen. professor feldman. >> the obstruction of congress is a problem because it undermines the basic principle of the constitution. if you're going to have three branches of government, each of the branches has to be able to do its job. the job of the house is to investigate impeachment and to impeach. a president who says, as this president did say, i will not cooperate in any way, shape, or form, with your process, robs a coordinate branch of government, it robs the house of representatives, with its basic constitutional power of impeachment. when you add to that the fact that the same president says, my department of justice cannot charge me with a crime, the president puts himself above the law when he says he will not cooperate in an im

she decided to respond to a stanford professor's comments today, pamela karlan.ere is what the professor said today during her left money about president trump and the first couples youngest son barron. >> article 2 does not give him the power to do anything he wants. i will give you one example that shows you the difference between him and a kid. the constitution said there can be no title of mobility. while the president can name his son baron. he can't make him a baron. lou: the first lady was not abused. she tweeted this. a minor child deserves privacy and should be kept out of politics. pamela karlan, you should be ashamed of your very angry and obviously biased public pandering, and using a child to do it. she is educated. no one said that she wasn't ignorant. nancy pelosi's message today to her caucus about the dems' sham impeachment process. [ electrical buzzing ] [ dramatic music ] ahhhh! -ahhhh! elliott. you came back! song by song i try and make it easier for anxiety.o get help. depression. panic attacks. people don't want to talk about it. so i share

karlan later apologized for the comment.day in the bay" will have full analysis with the live report from washington at the top of the hour. scott mcgrew checks and balances at 5:45 and 6:45. >>> this morning antioch police are looking for a woman they say ran down a barber with her car. police say 28 year year ruby delgadillo was angry over a haircut her son received on 8th street. then a fight between delgadillo and the barber went outside. that's when, according to police, she got inside her car with two children and drove toward the 63-year-old barber knocking him into the shop next door and seriously injuring him. >> the car went on top of him. >> now police saydriving a dark prius. she is wanted for assault with a deadly weapon. and if you have any information you are asked to give call. >>> in san francisco you might not be surprised if you find your car window broken, but how about thieves stealing all four wheels and leaving the car up on blocks? this happened this week. a car owner says her insurance company told h

they cite karlan donating money to warren's campaign. she indicated support, they say, for impeachment more than two years ago. with regard to noah feldman they believe he is fervently anti-trump. wrote a tweet in 2017 that president trump may have committed an impeachable offense. also wrote president trump's criticism of the media is grounds for impeachment. september of 2017 referred to impeachment. the point they're setting up now is they are all leaning left and anti-trump. let's see how it factors into today's hearing. chris wallace in washington, d.c. we're back together again. good morning to you. what is your expectation, chris? >> well, i think it will be very different from the intelligence committee, bill. the intelligence committee and lord there was plenty of fireworks there. the intelligence committee tends to be more sober, more behind the scenes. it has 21 members, 22 members, the judiciary committee has 41. the kind of member of congress. both right and left who goes on intelligence is somebody who really wants to study

vice president mike pence condemned karlan's comment. >> the impeachment hearings today reached a new low. i just heard that at the hearing today that one of the democrats witnesses actually used the president and first lady's 13-year-old son to justify their partisan impeachment. >> karlan has apologized. the house judiciary committee could hold another hearing next week. >>> next, a helicopter is hit by something over downtown l.a. the damage that has the pilot saying it's not a bird. >>> and commuting from the north bay to san francisco. hopefully about to get a little bit easier. smart is setting the date for a major service expansion. the recent storms blanketed yosemite in white and that's great news for california's oldest ski resorts. >> that's all ahead. first it's 4:37 and it's not raining. >> not raining. that's true. that makes the story, it's not raining. but it is foggy. too much moisture lingering in the air, that's an issue for the morning commute. we have low to mid 50s through the east bay neighborhoods. loefr livermore at 48. we have 47 in los gatos, everyone else i

professor karlan, i'd like to ask you about the foreign interference in elections. as americans we can agree foreign interference, foreign influence erodes the integrity of our elections. and as you said so plainly, it makes us less free. yet on july 25th, 2019 the president coerced ukrainian president zelensky to announce an investigation into his political rival, trump's political rival, which was corroborated by multiple witnesses throughout the intelligence committee hearings. professor karlan, can you explain for the american people in your opinion whether the framers considered solicitation of foreign interference and would they have considered it a high crime or misdemeanor and does the president's conduct rise to that level? >> the framers of our constitution would have considered it abhorrent, would have considered it the essence of a high crime or misdemeanor for a president to invite in foreign influence either in deciding whether he will be re-elected or deciding who his successor would be. >> thank you. professor feldman, i'd like to talk to you about b

. >> professor karlan, do you agree? >> i'm a scholar of the law of democracy. so as a citizen, i agree with what professor gerhardt said. as an expert, my limitation is that i'm a scholar of the law of democracy. i'm not a scholar of obstruction of justice or obstruction of congress. >> we will accept your opinion as a citizen. professor feldman, the obstruction of congress is a problem because it undermines the basic principle of the constitution. if you're going to have three branches of government, each of the branches has to be able to do its job. the job of the house is to investigate impeachment and to impeach. a president who says as this president did say i will not cooperate in any way, shape or form with your process robs a coordinate branch of government. he robs the house of representatives of its basic constitutional power of impeachment. when you add to that the fact that the same president says my department of justice cannot charge me with a crime, the president puts himself above the law when he says he will not cooperate in an impeachment inqu

professor karlan, same question. same answer. and professor gerhardt. we three are unanimous.s going to be another display of partisan theatre, some of the most direct punches came from the witnesses themselves. if what we're talking about is not impeachable, then nothing is impeachable. professor pamela karlan criticised the ranking republican on the committee, and his suggestion that the process had been unfair and devoid of damning evidence. i read transcripts of every one of the witnesses who appeared in the live hearing, because i would not speak about these things without reviewing the facts. so i'm insulted by the suggestion that, as a law professor, i don't care about those facts. professorjonathan turley, the sole witness called by republicans, disagreed. he said there was not a clear case against the president. i'm concerned about lowering impeachment standards to fit a paucity of evidence and an abundance of anger. i believe this impeachment not only fails to satisfy the standard of past impeachments, but would create a dangerous precedent for future impeachments. d

>> i of course agree with professor karlan and professor feldman. 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. and if there's no action, if congress concludes they're going to give a pass to the president here, as professor karlan suggested earlier, every other president will say, okay, then i can do the same thing and the boundaries will just evaporate. those boundaries are set up by the constitution and we may be witnessing, unfortunately, their erosion. and that is a danger to all of us. >> and what can this committee and the house of representatives do, sir, to defend those boundaries and to protect against that erosion? >> precisely what you're doing. >> and does it matter -- i'll ask all the panelists. does it matter to impeachment that the $391 million, u.s. taxpayer dollars in military assistance that the president withheld was ultimately delivered. professor feldman, do

pamela karlan is the lowest of the low. tonight that child's mother --'s just 13 years old -- that child's mother is rightly speaking out against this insensitive horrendous professor writing a minor child deserves privacy and should be kept out of politics. pamela karlan you should be ashamed of your very angry obviously biased a public pandering, and using a child to do it. why do people think it's okay to insult, harass or humiliate the child of a public politician is beyond me. that's disgusting, pathetic behavior. it tells you people looking to torch the president have no morals, no compass. they will stop at nothing. it's important to consider the context. from day one the goal has been impeachment of this president. >> it's time for us to impeach this president. >> bullies don't win, and i say baby they don't because we are going to go in there and [bleep] >> i will fight every day until he is impeached. impeach 45. trish: drnlts matter how or what. they were determined. so we lived through the mueller report, the ka

stanford law professor pamela karlan to went out of her way to cite what she thought was the single most damning line of testimony in the impeachment inquiry. >> i spent all of thanksgiving vacation sitting there reading these transcripts -- i ate like a turkey that came to us in the mail that was already cooked because i was spending my time doing this. and the most chilling line for me of the entire process was the following. ambassador sondland said he had to announce the investigations. he's talking about president zelensky. he had to announce the investigations. he didn't actually have to do them as i understood it. and then he said i never heard mr. goldman, anyone say that the investigations had to start or had to be completed. the only thing i heard from mr. giuliani or otherwise is that they had to be announced in some form. and what i took that to mean is this was not about whether vice president biden actually committed corruption or not. this was about injuring somebody who the president thinks of as a particularly -- a particularly hard opponent. >> no republican in the room

>> and the one who fired back was professor karlan, here she is. >> mr.would like to say to you, sir, that i read transcripts of every one of the witnesses who appeared in the live hearing because i would not speak about these things without reviewing the facts. so i'm insulted by the suggestion that as a law professor i don't care about those facts. >> david, you know, she was unafraid to be combative. was that effective? >> well, i thought that answer was very effective and i thought that she signaled from the start that she was not going to be cowed by those kind of tactics. the joke was unfortunate, something that when you're a professor you can make tasteless or bad jokes in the classroom and the students have to laugh, but it shouldn't have happened there and she was right to apologize and frankly, she deserved the criticism she got, but on that point, she was -- they were there, and they're esteemed scholars. she clearly had done her homework and she warrant going to get pushed around. i thought that was very effective, but john's point is very imp

pamela karlan, you should be ashamed of your very angry and obviously biased public pandering and usinghild to do it. it prompted this op-ed from miranda devine of "the new york post." melania trump rises above the heaters. and she joins me now. never have i seen a first lady, never has a country seen a first lady become the target of so much political press -- >> just hatred. and i think the first lady and her 13-year-old son baron are soft targets. they are used by the heaters to get at donald trump, because he is impervious. he has shown that it does not matter what they throw at him. he just keeps on keeping on. and if you go after the wife and the child, you hurt them. as we saw yesterday with melania trump's, you know, really heartfelt tweet, that was just melissa' malicious gratuitous nastiness from professor karlan, who was in the congressional hearings a postine the embodiment of objective reason. and you can see she is modified by an unhinged hatred of donald trump. >> julie: this was premeditated. it was very clear that she did not come up with us on the cuff. this was prewri

the argument made by professors pamela karlan, noah feldman, michael gerhardt, they were impressive.amela karlan on liberal twitter is already a star in her impassioned defense of the constitution they say. she is the fiona hill of the hearing they are saying, on the left. jonathan turley in his presentation went point by point on a lot of these different facts. every time we talk about this, dana, it comes down to one thing and that is math. since the beginning of the process, the inquiry, has any lawmaker either side change their mind on where they stand on impeachment? the inquiry started with two democrats voting against the inquiry. you have 31 house democrats from districts, congressional districts that donald trump won in 2016. the swing state polls on impeachment have shifted dramatically in recent days and it's against impeachment and impeachment and removal. how many of those democrats will, after jonathan turley's presentation perhaps today, change how they feel about how this is going. we are always focusing on the republicans that might shift. it seems like they are hold

. >> reporter: stanford law professor pamela karlan said the president's alleged actions, withholding nearly $400 million in u.s. aid approved by congress, simply for personal political gain, has never happened before. >> the evidence reveals a president who used the powers of his office to demand that a foreign government participate in undermining a competing candidate for the presidency. >> reporter: karlan said over the thanksgiving holiday, she read every witness transcript and she pointed out what she found most troubling. >> and the most chilling line for me of the entire process was the following. ambassador sondland said, he had to announce the investigations, he's talking about president zelensky, he had to announce the investigations, he didn't actually have to do them, as i understood it. and then he said, i never heard anyone say the investigation had to start or had to be completed. the only thing i heard from mr. giuliani or otherwise was they had to be announced in some form. and what i took that to mean was this was not about whether vice president biden actually comm

. >> professor karlan, do you agree? >> i am the discuss her of democracy, as a citizen i agree with what professor gerhardt. i am a scholar of the law of democracy, not a scholar of obstruction of justice or obstruction of congress. >> we will accept your opinion as a citizen. professor feldman. >> the obstruction of congress is a problem because it undermines the basic principle of the constitution. if you're going to have three branches of government, each of the branches have to do its job. the job of the houses to investigate impeachment, and to impeach. the president has had as the president did say, i will not cooperate in any shape, or form of your process. robbed a form of government. robbing the house of representatives of their constitutional power of impeachment. when you add to the fact that the same president says my department of justice cannot charge me with the crime, the president puts himself above the law when he says he will not cooperate in impeachment inqui inquiry. it is not positive enough. a pre

stanford law grads should demand refunds for any class taught by karlan. without cooperating evidence. an equally plausible motive could be that president trump has every right to know whether ukraine meddled in the last election, and it's for that theory that the president somehow was trying to personally benefit from his dealings with zelensky. joe biden wasn't and still is into trump's politicalng opponet in the next election. he is one of several. so how can they so definitively claimed that this is president trump's guiding, sole motivation? answer, they cannot. second, you know it's over when 3 out of 4 legal eagles were trump-hating partisans. basically elizabeth warren gave $1,000 to her last summer and trump's rapid response brought this up when she admitted she was triggered by the mere sight of the trump hotel building in washington. >> i got off the bus and i walked up to the hotel and as i was walking past what used to be the old bus office building and is now the trump hotel, which, i had to cross the street of course. [laughter] >> are you j

. >> before karlan it was fiona hill that turned heads.sting the conspiracy theory the president and his allies continue to promote that ukraine interfered in the election. >> this is being perpetrated by the russian security forces themselves. >> she testified on what she viewed as an irregular second channel of policy for ukraine lead by gordon sondland. >> he was being involved in a domestic political errand and we were being involved in national security foreign policy and those two things have just diverged and i did say to him, ambassador sondland, gordon, i think this is all going to blow up and here we are. >> but it was the former ambassador to ukraine and the first woman to testify in public hearings that marked one of the most memorable moments so far. a democrat suddenly recalled by the president after a month's long smear campaign lead by his personal attorney rudy giuliani. >> how could our system fail like this. how is it that foreign corrupt interests could manipulate our government. which country's interests are served whe