michael gerhardt is not. and the fact that michael gerhardt says this is worse than nixon.n clinton. this is worse than andrew johnson back after the civil war. that is, i think, very -- >> jeffrey -- >> gerhardt has been saying that a long time. he's very, very smart. >> maybe it's true. >> and the other challenge is, we haven't had very many impeachments in u.s. history. so saying it's worse or better, it has limited applicability. >> we see members of the judiciary committee arriving after the. this is an historic day here in the capital. instead of a travel site and you'll experience a whole new range of emotions like... the relaxing feeling of knowing you're getting the best price. these'll work. the utter delight of free wi-fi... . oh man this is the best part. isn't that you? yeah. and the magic power of unlocking your room with your phone. i can read minds too. really? book at hilton.com. if you find a lower rate, we match it and give you 25% off that stay. expect better. expect hilton. seaonly abreva cany to help sget rid of it in... ...as little as 2 1/2 days when

. >> we're joined by michael gerhardt who testified on capitol hill yesterday. michael, long day for you i know. thanks for being here with us. and former deputy assistant attorney general elliott williams. we appreciate you both being here. michael, we heard what they will -- he didn't equivocate, steve cohen. he said that they will include those two things. what he didn't say is whether they will include anything from the mueller report. >> that's right. and i think this is a work in progress. watching as best we can what the house committee will do. they had an open hearing obviously talking about the laws that apply to the facts. at the same time they are working behind the scenes to draft articles which will eventually become public and

appreciate it professor michael gerhardt.him, the person that the republicans called, not now but '98. please stick around for that. it's worth it, food for thought. now we have to get back with rudy giuliani. it's not because i'm in love with my own idea here. he isn't denying reports he's in ukraine. i'm not even saying it's wrong he's in ukraine or illegal, but in what capacity. i believe this may be a big key to the case. why? well, that's where we're going to bring in better minds. misters mccabe and baker. we're going to their investigative know-how to this set of facts next. have you ever worked with dr. francis? oh yeah, he's ok. just ok? guess who just got reinstated! well, not officially. nervous? yeah. yeah me too. don't worry about it, we'll figure it out. i'll see ya in there! just ok is not ok. at&t has america's best network, now with our best plans, at our best prices, starting at $35 a line for 4 lines. new from at&t. male anchor: ...an update on the cat who captured our hearts. female anchor: how often shoul

appreciate it professor michael gerhardt.dy who actually aggressive with him, the person that the republicans called, not now but '98. please stick around for that. now we have to get back with rudy giuliani. it's not because i'm in love with my own idea here. he isn't denying reports he's in ukraine. i'm not even saying it's wrong he's in ukraine or illegal, but in what capacity. i believe this may be a big key to the case. why? well, that's where we're going to bring in better minds. mr.s mccabe and bake are. we're going to their investigative know-how to this set of facts next. still fresh... ♪ unstopables in-wash scent booster ♪ downy unstopables and my side super soft? with the sleep number 360 smart bed you can both adjust your comfort with your sleep number setting. so, can it help us fall asleep faster? yes, by gently warming your feet. but can it help keep me asleep? absolutely, it intelligently senses your movements and automatically adjusts to keep you both effortlessly comfortable. and will it keep me in the holid

yes, he committed -- one of the law professors, michael gerhardt of the university of north carolinaaw school said and probably the most dramatic moment of the morning session, if what we are talking about here is not impeachable then nothing is impeachable. he was a pretty strong performance by the three lawyers, if you will, for the prosecution. then you got the republicans. they brought in jonathan turley, a professor from george washington university law school. he was the only one the republicans questions so we had 45 minutes to himself. i have been trying to figure out whether he should be played by jimmy stewart to the movies or tom hanks. it was a very kind of quiet, all-american sense of fair mindedness. he said i didn't vote for donald trump. i don't think his phone call to the ukrainians was perfect, but he basically said there are two problems. one, you are in search of a crime and you found some things you don't like there isn't anything that could be defined as a crime by the legal standard. the second is speed. you're moving too fast. the countries and catching up wit

. >>> joining us to discuss, michael gerhardt, law professor at the university of north carolina, susan page for "usa today." michael, stalinesque, a little silly. whether you vote last night or today. so tell me about the vote today and then what happens after that vote next week. >> well, the vote is going to be historic. and that's what we've heard. this is -- but it's critical. we'll have the house judiciary committee vote to approve two articles of impeachment and then almost immediately they'll go to the floor. and then at that point it's up to speaker pelosi how the floor will be managed. and she'll coordinate all that timing and who speaks and how it gets done. >> michael, just one quick follow up on that. how normal or abnormal is it for the senate majority leader to work in, what he said, was lockstep essentially with the white house on a senate trial. is that normal? >> it is extremely unusual. we don't have a lot of experience with presidential impeachments, but this is the first time in history when the president was coordinating with a big block of people from his own part

michael gerhardt is the burden cray distinguished professor of jurisprudence at the university of north carolina law and director of uc law and government. professor gerhardt is the author of many books, including the federal impeachment process, the constitutional and historic am analysis as well as 50 law view publications on a diverse range of topics and constitutional law, federal jurisdiction and the legislative process. he received his jd from the law school and ms from the london school of economics and ba from yale university. jonathan turley is the jd and maurice c. spa shapiro chair of law school. where he teaches torts, criminal procedure and constitutional law. after a stint at tulane law school, professor turley joined the gw law faculty in 1990 and in 1998 became the youngest chaired professor in the school's history. he has written over three dozen academic articles for a variety of leading law schools, leading law journals, i'm sorry, his articles on legal and policy issues appear frequently if national publications. a chicago native, professor turley earned degrees from

but seeing professor turley and seeing michael gerhardt, seeing them both testifying at both of these impeachment hearings for clinton in '98 and for trump today, recognizing that the report of the watergate committee that came in february 1974 was on this same subject, the constitutional grounds for impeachment. it's kind of a good reminder i think that this is part and parcel how we as a country approach presidential impeachments at least in the modern era. there does have to be a reckoning what the constitution says impeachment is for. and considering the impeachment of any particular president rightfully involves a robust discussion and a robust argument that as to whether the president's behavior that is under scrutiny is the kind of thing that rises to the level of what impeachment is supposed to fix. that's why we do hearings like this. that's why they did this report in '74. that's why we did an impeachment hearing just like today's in 1998. this is one of the steps we have to go through. and it turns out in the modern era this is one of the steps we do go through. i will note

michael gerhardt is a law professor at the university of north carolina.job alone to deal with the matter of impeachment. let's listen. >> the constitution says the house has the sole power to impeach. constitution only uses the word sole twice. once with reference to the house in this area. once with reference to the senate with respect to impeachment trials. sole means sole. >> what -- what question does that answer? >> it answers the question of who gets to define bribery in particular. there was a really interesting and important exchange between professors gerhardt and turley. professor gerhardt said the house, in its sole power to define bribery, can identify the president's conduct even if it didn't rise to the level of illegal crime because he said the framers wanted to prohibit bribery even before it was a federal crime. professor turley's response. it's got to meet the legal definition for a crime in order to be impeachable. and it's ultimately up to the supreme court to decide. and professor gerhardt's response, which i think is compelling, is t

michael gerhardt, this stuck out that this is not impeachable, then nothing is impeachable, sitting next to turley, professor of george washington university who has the opposite view of the facts before them. let's bring in our roundtable. we are stacked up today. i want to get to andy mccarthy first and find out. these are not fact witnesses, andy, they are offering what you could argue, their legal opinion as to what they believe the case is. how effective was this morning session? >> i think it has been very effective so far for the democrats. and in an interesting way. i sense that there is a real shift in strategy, what we saw in the intelligence committee hearings was that the democratic majority seemed to settle on bribery as its main theory for impeachment. but it is very interesting the way that this tees up today, because historically before you call in the legal experts, usually have drafted up the articles of impeachment and asked the legal experts than to explain how they square with what the framers had in mind in the impeachment clauses. interestingly, here we don't have

noah feldman of harvard law school, pamela of stanford, michael gerhardt from the university of northrolina school of law and jonathan turley of the george washington university law school. follow the impeachment inquiry, watch live on c-span3 online@c-span .org or listen on the free c-span radio app. former vice president in 2020 candidate joe biden reacting to the news that another candidate, senator kamala harris, will drop out of the race. he was in mason city, iowa. >> [inaudible] >> would you consider her for vp still? spirit the senate is back at 2:15 eastern time and it 2:30 senator joni erickson will consider a farewell speech. mitch mcconnell earlier spoke about the life and career of senator isaacson. >> the senate has set aside today to honor our distinguished colleagues the distinguished senator from georgia, johnny isakson. it's been about three months that johnny anc

meets those requirements and i think they did a really great job of laying that out and we heard michael gerhardt say that if this is not impeachable basically nothing is what conduct could be if this is not and while professor turley has tried to make the argument that we're going to be in trouble if we go down impeachment for for these this particular conduct we heard the other 3 professor say it we would be in more trouble if we don't impeach the president for this because what would later presidents what would confine their behavior and i think that's a really good question that we'll have to grapple with but ultimately men and the this what we're hearing today and what we're going to be hearing in the coming days is not going to change much as it. no i don't think we're hearing anything different today than we've been hearing from the house intelligence committee we did learn a lot of interesting facts 3 house intelligence committee hearings when we had all of those people from the state department testifying and so we got the full picture of exactly what happened although i think that there

this is university of north carolina law professor michael gerhardt. >> 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. amy: the one constitutional scholar invited by the republicans disputed that trump's actions were sufficient grounds for impeachment. this is george washington university law professor jonathan turley. >> i am concerned about lowering impeachment standards to fit a positive evidence and an abundance of anger. i believe this impeachment not only fails to satisfy the standard of past impeachment, but wouldld create a dangerous precedent for future impeachments. amy: house speaker nancy pelosi is slated to give a public statement about the status of of the house impeachment inquiry today at 9:00 a.m. eastern time. telephone republican congress member devin nunes has sued cnn for over $400 million after cnn published a story detailing how nunes, the chairman of the house intelligence committee, traveled to vienna and met with a

professor michael gerhardt said this sort of thing was exactly what the founding fathers were worried about. >> if what we're talking about is not impeachable, then nothing is impeachable. >> stephen: (as trump) "thank god, 'cause i can't wait to tell you everything else that i've done. i'll give you a hint, all right. this will whet your appetite: it involves shark week, a weed-whacker, and all the left-handed people of denmark." before the intelligence committee released their report, the g.o.p. issued their own concluded that trump was acting on reasonable skepticism of ukraine. yes, because the two words everyone uses to describe trump is "genuine" and "reasonable." right after "athletic" and monogamous." i'm really surprised. i really like it. i don't know, i don't know what to do. here's the thing: their argument is based on the claim that ukraine, not russia, hacked the d.n.c. server, an idea that's been completely debunked as a russian-fueled conspiracy theory. so now republicans are also floating the rumor that it was ukraine who killed apollo creed, and did the fyre festival

i want to ask you, michael gerhardt, first, walk us through this because it sounds like the judge isaying because house democrats withdrew this subpoena, the case is moot. is that about right? tell us about this reasoning. >> that is exactly right. so john bolton's deputy had been subpoenaed to testify as part of the impeachment hearings. he then took that subpoena and challenged that in court. but the judge had not decided the case by the time the house impeached the president. meanwhile, the house withdrew the subpoena that had been issued against bolton's deputy and therefore there was nothing to litigate and there was nothing left to decide in the court therefore it is all withdrawn and irrelevant now and it won't become relevant again unless this deputy gets subpoenaed again. >> and what are the chances of that happening, jackie? >> well if you believe the house counsel, doug letter, he said that the subpoena will be no reissue, not today or tomorrow or ever. if you take him at his word, it won't be. however, you always wonder if there is new information that comes out, if there

michael gerhardt came from the university of north carolina school of law. professor gerhardt is the author of many books including "the federal impeachment process: a constitutional and historical analysis," as well as 50 publications on a diverse range in topics on federal law, federal jurisdiction and the legislative process. he received his j.d.m.s.,j.d.m., his b.a. from yale university. jonathan turley is the j.b. and shapiro public interest law at george washington university law school. he teaches constitutional law. after a stint at tulane, he joined the law pham faculty in 1990, and in 1998, became the youngest chaired professor in the school a's history. he has written over three dozen articles for a variety of leading law journals and his articles on policy issues interfere in publications. a chicago native, professor turley earned degrees from the universities of chicago, and the school of law. we welcome our distinguished witnesses and thank them for participating in today's hearing. if you please rise, i will begin by swearing you in. raise your

michael gerhardt, with us, you were among those that testified yesterday.er pelosi saying the president's actions have seriously violated the constitution. how historic is this moment? >> this is quite historic. doesn't happen everyday. it's happening 21 years from the other time. it is as serious as the conflict can ever get. ramifications are gigantic including possibility of removing the president. it will test the congress and president and american people. >> democrats are divided whether to bring in the mueller report accusations in addition to ukraine. what do you think? >> it is not to include everything from the mueller report but those few episodes that demonstrated related to obstruction of justice and the president committed those crimes and met the statutory definition. it's important to include those articles not just because it's wrong, one thing an impeachment does but a way to counter an emerging republican talking point with respect to ukraine. there wasn't a clear criminal offense or clear statutory offense required. that's not true with

harvard, pamela karlan, michael gerhardt, and jonathan turley.he headline, democrats push for a vote by christmas. house leaders insist they can juggle legislation and impeachment. house democrats accelerated the rush to impeach president trump with the leaders dropping the pretense of not anticipating the vote before the end of the year. nancy pelosi insisted there is no set schedule or expectation for articles of impeachment, but rank-and-file democrats told the washington times leadership has been hoping for an impeachment vote before christmas and appear to be teeing it up. i don't know if they can get done by christmas, i know there is a hope it might said jens himes of connecticut and the majority leader steny hoyer saying he saw an opening for an impeachment vote before new year's day when impeachment would get thrown into the mix with election politics. there is time to do it before the end of the year according to steny hoyer. let's get it over with and into the senate so we can do a real investigation. mark said the senate should drag i

. >> we're joined by michael gerhardt who testified on capitol hill yesterday. anks for being here with us. and former deputy assistant attorney general elliott williams. we appreciate you both being here. michael, we heard what they will -- he didn't equivocate, steve cohen. he said that they will include those two things. what he didn't say is whether they will include anything from the mueller report. >> that's right. and i think this is a work in progress. watching as best we can what the house committee will do. they had an open hearing obviously talking about the laws that apply to the facts. at the same time they are working behind the scenes to draft articles which will eventually become public and debated in the committee and in the house. and i think part of the point of yesterday's hearing was to test different ideas about what could be possible impeachable offenses here and now the members of congress are trying to filter out of that what they think are the strongest articles. >> michael, let me look forward to the senate trial which would follow this

i think in this case it is may k -- michael gerhardt who testified. it wasn't a factual question did he have an affair? he misled the country about it. but once he fessed up, it was clear he had an affair and it was claerly wrong. is this worthy of impeachment? i think overwhelmingly the country, 70% of the country said no. it was bad personal conduct. it has nothin to do with the oval office. today the president's defenders don't have that option. right? they can't say, gee, laninge i a foreign leader is just the president's personal life. and maybe that's why they are in this personality -- by the way, i worked on the hill before clinton. i worked for dick gephart. there were a lot who were troubled by it but viewed the impeachment as far too much. you don't have that today. o anything the dear leader does must be perfect, in his words. >> joe, you said back then the defense was he was a good man that did a bad thing. that's not where we are today. the defense of president trump is not he's a good man but did a bad thing. it's that the phone call wa

noah feldman, michael gerhardt. it was not they imagined. nixon, closer.ery close to what the founders anticipated impeachment being used for because it involves a foreign power and domestic politics and this was a major focus and fear of the founders from washington to hamilton on down. >> i like the split screen. they'll be talking about what the founders wanted and then the mud slippinging of our current-day congress with, in particular, these colorful characters as john just laid out, but aren't they set up for time constraints and rules? can this run off the rails? >> sure. there will be restrapgts on the questions. i think the big question is he up to managing that. look. jerry nadler has a poor record. i think when he was handed the ball last time he fumbled it. >> remind us. how did he fumble it? >> it was seven months ago he enabled it. in those seven months, what did he do? he subpoenaed one witness, don mcgahn. instead he got slow-played. here we are seven months out. there's been one firsthand fact witness in the whole followup. it was corey le

here to discuss, susan hennessey and michael gerhardt.to both of you. >> hi. >> thank you so much for joining us. susan, let's talk about this. i'm going to take you back to -- this is back, right? president andrew johnson's senate impeachment trial lasted 87 days. president bill clinton's lasted for 37 days. if mcconnell has his way, how long will president trump's last? probably not even a day, but how long do you think it will last if he had his druthers? >> look, mcconnell clearly wants to avoid this whole thing entirely. i don't know that it necessarily needs to be the exact same number of days as past precedent. the problem with the position of people like mitch mcconnell is just the level of whiplash. we've heard over the past several weeks republicans in the house arguing over and over again about how this was going too fast. there wasn't sufficient facts finding. we didn't have enough of the facts on the table. we needed more. and now just weeks later we're seeing republicans saying no, no, no. the house had its chance. we don't

michael gerhardt of thety univerf north carolina: >> if what we are talking abt is not impeachable, thenhinp ischable. >> schifrin: pam karlan of stanford university. >> if you don't impeach a president who has done what this esident has done, then wt you're saying is, it's fine to go ahead and do this again.ch >>rin: noah feldman of newar hauniversity: >> if we cannot impeach a president who abuses his office for personal advantage, we no longer live in a democracy. live in a monarchy, or live under a dictatorship. >> schif george washington university's jonathan turley, who accused democrats of rushing judgement without proving the president committed crimes. >> i'm concerned lowering impeachment standards to fit a paity of evidence and an abundance of anger. i believe this impeament not only fails to satisfy the but would create arouschments, precedent for future impeachments. >> schifrin: for two months, the house intelligence committee investigated prent trump's actions, and last night released a final report accusing the president of having "solicited the interference of a foreign

joining us is michael gerhardt.a constitutional expert in both the clinton and trump impeachment proceedings. he is one of the preeminent experts on impeachment. i want to focus on the law here. okay? what does the constitution say about impeachment? it says the house has -- >> it has the sole power of impeachment. >> and the senate has? >> the sole power to try impeachments. >> what does it say about the transfer of authority from the house to the senate? >> it says nothing explicit about it. it leaves the procedure in the house as it leaves the procedure in the senate to each of those chambers respectively. the house has complete control to decide how it wants to send over the impeachment articles. >> to be clear, the constitution itself says nothing about how this process works beyond that. the senate gets to set its own rules, though. in whand what do the current rus say about the begin og the senate trial? >> one of the first things the senate rules talked about is the reception of the articles. but it doesn't

. >> another witness, michael gerhardt said his family donated to president obama and another said hest trump. the question remains should democrats have found witnesses who didn't provide this fodder, right? didn't have thousand dollar, ult in imthousand-dollar donations to democratic candidates? >> i don't know. that was necessary, and i don't know if they even asked going in who did you contribute to and who did you vote for? this was information they could have found at the outset. what matt gates is doing is just really a sign of the times. he's a cheap shot artist and he loves to do this, and he did it, and it was expected, this sort of thing out of him and it cheapens the process and that's what they want to do. they want to make this look like a much more unfair, less than partisan undertaking and that's what he tried to accomplish with those questions. >> david, the top republican on the judiciary committee also went after professor karlan and the other witnesses by suggesting and it wasn't whatever their donations might have been, and it was also that they did not actually k

. >> most americans don't understand the constitution the way michael gerhardt does. the constitution doesn't require that a crime be committed for there to be an impeachable offense. that's an unsatisfied opinion. bill clinton committed obstruction of justice. >> perjury. he did perjury. nixon did the burglary. that's what it takes in the mind of common political persuasion. >> but as we were -- but again it's not just about common political persuasion. it's about what the law says and what's on the face of the constitution. throughout history, the dozens of individuals who have been impeached. you're talking about multiple federal judges. there was a secretary of war, i believe, who was impeached as well. often not for criminal offenses. remember the concept of criminal offenses was written into law and many of them are written into law long after the constitution. >> i hear you on that. go ahead, finish your point. >> i was just making the same point. not all crimes are impeachable and not all impeachable offenses are crimes. we should focus on what is the standard

. >> that was university of north carolina law professor michael gerhardt. he joins us now.ch for being with us. why did you feel that was an important point to make? and when you say this is precisely what the founders intended to be the bar for impeachment, what precisely were you talking about? >> i was talking about the extent to which a president abuses his power for personal gain. corruption is one of the most important things that the framers were creating a constitution to protect against. and so when we have a record, a transcript and a whole plan that the president put together apparently, to apply pressure to the ukrainian president to get something that was important to the president personally, that's exactly the kind of thing that the framers were worried about. they were worried about our leaders becoming corrupt either by foreign influence or becoming -- being corrupt and then trying to enlist foreign help to help themselves. >> one of the things that professor turley talked about was he doesn't see any direct evidence or direct testimony. you just talked abo

harvard law professor noah feldman, stanford professor pamela karlan, michael gerhardt and one was called by republicans, george washington university professor jonathan turley. they conducted the best version really of the debate about what the constitution requires, what it means to live in a democratic republic. the three democratic witnesses agreed that when the person entrusted with the most amount of power, the president of the united states, has forfeited that trust to such a degree by abusing his office, the extraordinary remedy of impeachment is not just available but necessary. you need to do it. >> president trump's conduct as described in the testimony and evidence clearly constitutes impeachable high crimes and misdemeanors under the constitution. the words "abuse of office" are not mystical or magical. they are very clear. the abuse of office occurs when the president uses a feature of his power, the awesome power of his office, not to serve the interests of the american public but to serve his personal individual, partisan electoral interests. that is what the evidence befo

of 42 legal scholars who signed a letter before trump took office attacking president trump, michael gerhardt on record advocating for impeachment. in only one witness, jonathan hurley. saying no to impeachment. >> sean: by the way, matt gaetz, i heard that you are an interloper, but apparently the government -- apparently, that's what they are saying in georgia. we will talk tomorrow. lindsey graham ways and next on our big breaking news, and the no malarkey tour, disaster for joe. have you started your free trial on fox nation, the time to join us right now, just go to foxnation.com, the perfect companion to the fox news channel featuring your favorite fox news personality like you have never seen them before. exclusive series, specials, documentaries that entertain and inform. go now, foxnation.com, and you get to watch these exclusive shows. take a look. >> sean: all right, breaking just moments ago from "the washington post," the attorney general of the united states bill barr has expressed disagreement with the ig's findings surrounding the origins of the russia probe. that was not his

. >> michael gerhardt, appreciate your insight. thank you for taking time to be with us this morning. >> thank you. >>> north korea claims it's conducted a second crucial test of its missile defense system. but did it really happen? what does it mean for nuclear negotiations with the u.s.? we'll get into that. >>> also a family claims hackers accessed their home security cameras and watched their daughter in her bedroom. we have that ahead. >>> also, it's america's most special sporting event and it is happening today. army/navy. coy? >> reporter: welcome to philadelphia, pennsylvania, home of independence hall where thomas jefferson first signed the declaration of independence in 1776. the city is also home to one of our nation's greatest sporting events, the army/navy game, america's game. do your asthma symptoms ever hold you back? about 50% of people with severe asthma have too many cells called eosinophils in their lungs. eosinophils are a key cause of severe asthma. fasenra is designed to target and remove these cells. fasenr

. >> that was professor michael gerhardt one of the witnesses testifying today in the house judiciaryee. chris matthews, before we went to break, i said on the other side, we'll be joined by our brill naiant panel and chris matthews. and you are the most brilliant of all. so i didn't mean -- you know what i'm saying. i love you. >> i heard you the first time. but thank you for that. you know, i was watching all this -- i watched it all. and little points and big points. the democrats are already imagining the days and months after they vote to impeach probably the week before christmas. maybe the 18th or 19th. so they are already worried about their record, all of them. so even on these procedural roll calls that the chairman has called because the republicans on the committee have asked for a roll call, in each case, they give a somber aye or yes. they are really very careful that nobody is snickering, nobody looks totally somber. almost like they have been directed by theatrical director. you must at all costs not look irreverent or snarky or anything but somber. so even on these ro

unc law professor michael gerhardt worked for the clintons in their administration, al gore's senate campaign. a month ago, he authored an impassioned piecee in "the atlantic." and the fellow witnesses, harvard law professor, noah feldman, he's been looking for ways to impeach trump since 2017. a few weeks after the president was sworn in, that guy felt president 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, presumptio, of innocence, and cannot be counted on to seek truth and justice. c days later, the president claimed the president could be impeached because of an ad for mar-a-lago. in march of 2017, and not to be outdone, feldman wrote he could be impeached over his tweets about wiretapping. feldman's deranged anti-trump bias pales in comparison of the third witness, ivory tower stanford professor pamela karlen. the devout liberal, donated thousands of dollars to hillary clinton, barack obama, and in june, wow, who is she supporting t tob for president? an

on noah feldman, a harvard law professor, pamela karlan, from the university of stanford and michael gerhardtrsity of north carolina. and republicans will call on jonathan churly, a law professor at george washington university were the four constitutional scholars will testify at the panel's first impeachment hearing. >> one of president's latest defenses against impeachment is misquoting ukraine president's remarks. >> the ukrainian president came out and said very strongly that president trump did absolutely nothing wrong. that should be case over. all you have to do is look at the words of the ukrainian president, that he just issued. and you know it is a hoax. >> and he reiterated this yet again in london, just about 30 minutes or so ago, but ukraine's president did not say that president trump quote did absolutely nothing wrong. that is not what he said. in the time magazine interview president trump is referring, to president zelensky was asked if there was a connection between trump's decision to block military aid to ukraine and the two investigations sought by president trump and hi

of 42 legal scholars who signed a letter before trump took office attacking president trump, michael gerhardt on record advocating for impeachment. and only one witness, jonathan hurley. saying no to impeachment. >> sean: by the way, matt gaetz, i heard that you are an interloper, but apparently the governor's -- apparently, that's what they are saying in georgia. we will talk tomorrow. lindsey graham weighs in next on our big breaking news, and the no malarkey tour, disaster for joe. ♪ these folks, they don't have time to go to the post office they have businesses to grow customers to care for lives to get home to they use stamps.com print discounted postage for any letter any package any time right from your computer all the amazing services of the post office only cheaper get our special tv offer a 4-week trial plus postage and a digital scale go to stamps.com/tv and never go to the post office again! ♪ >> sean: all right, breaking just moments ago from "the washington post," the attorney general of the united states bill barr has expressed disagreement with the ig's findings surrounding t

michael gerhardt is the distinguished professor of jury is prudence on the center of law and government. professor gerhardt is the author of many books, including constitutional and historical analysis, as well as more than 50 law review publications on a diverse range of topics of law, federal jurisdiction and the legislative process. he received his j.d. from the university of chicago law school, his m.s. from the london school of economics and his b.a. from jail university. jonathan turley is the jb and maur is sha peer oh chair of public interest law at george washington university law school where he teaches torts, criminal procedure and constitutional law. after a stint at tu lain, he joined the law faculty in 1990, in 1998 he became the youngest chaired professor in the school's history. he has written over three dozen economic law schools for a variety of leading law journals and his articles on legal and policy issues appear frequently in national publications. a chicago native, professor turley earned degrees from the university of chicago and northern western university schoo

michael gerhardt disagreed with turley's argument that congress needs to wait for the courts to weighse's refusal to comply with subpoenas. take a listen. >> there's never been anything like the president's refusal to comply with -- with subpoenas from this body. these are lawful subpoenas. these have the force of law to them. these are the things that every other president has complied with, and actually acted in alignment with, except for president nixon in a small but significant set of materials. >> and professor turley said we can't charge the president for refusing subpoenas as long as he has any fanciful claim until the courts reject those claims? >> respectfully disagree. no. it's an independent event apart from the courts, it is a direct assault on the legitimacy of this inquiry crucial to the excess of his power. >> jeffrey toobin, is gerhardt right or is jonathan turley right? do the white house rejecting congress' assertion of powers to subpoena witnesses and to get documents, is that enough for an obstruction of congress charge or article of impeachment? or do the courts

bill: i want to bring bret in here on a comment as we watch the other witnesses, pam karlan and michael gerhardthardt does commentary for cnn part-time. bret, interesting call on behalf of the president last hour. for 24 hours we thought he would have a press conference and we would look at a split screen and then he canceled it. you have to wonder why. air force one and take part in the prime time reaction back here stateside but you think about some of the republicans on this committee, jim jordan, louie gohmert, andy biggs, matt gaetz, doug collins. they throw fire. it almost appears as if the president is allowing them to take the stage and do his work while he flies back home. >> we don't know the decision making process. it could have had to do with the on camera gaggle by trudeau talking to other world leaders making fun of the president being late in how long he answers questions. maybe that had something to do with the decision making about canceling the press conference. the hearing here jerry nadler, a big moment for him. he tried to tell lawmakers in his own party he is the man to ta

noah feldman of harvard law school, pamela carlin of stanford law school and michael gerhardt from the university of north carolina school of law and jonathan turley of the george washington university law school follow the impeachment inquiry. c-span3, online on c-span.org or listen on the free c-span radio app. live tuesday on the c-span networks, the senate foreign relations committee looks at the future of u.s. policy toward russia. that is at 10:00 a.m. on c-span. at 2:00, the u.s. house return for work on several bills, including legislation involving u.s. citizenship for children of service members and civil servants born overseas. on c-span two the senate returns at 10:00 a.m. eastern to continue work on judicial and executive nominations. the senate armed services committee meets to review the privatized housing program. at 3:00, a senate judiciary subcommittee examines trademark system fraud. >> senator elizabeth warren held a town hall in iowa city on the campus of the university of iowa. by supportersuced and campaign organizers from the area, then spoken why she was runnin

it is why last week the constitutional scholar professor michael gerhardt said if what we impeachable, then nothing is impeachable. president trump's actions are impeachable offenses. they threaten our rulef law. they threaten our institutions. as james madison warned us, they threaten our republic. let me begin where we must with the facts in evidence. first, it is important to understand why ukraine was so important to our national security. ukraine was under attack by its aggressive and hostile neighbor, russia. they had already encroached on its territories. the ukraine was at great risk that russia would again take further ter tore tritory or try. europe had a stake in this as well. ambassador taylor one of the most highly recognized diplomats, for over 40 years he served our country honorably and was appointed by president trump himself to be over the embassy in ukraine. >> the russians are violating all of the rules, treaties, understandings that they committed to that actually kept the peace in europe for nearly 70 years. that rule of law, that order that kept the peace in eur

it is why last week the constitutional scholar, professor michael gerhardt said, if what we're talking about is not impeachable, then nothing is impeachable. president trump's actions are impeachable offenses. they threaten our rule of law. they threaten our institutions and as james madison warned us, they threaten our republic. let me begin where we must with the facts and evidence. first, it's important to understand why ukraine was so important to our national security. ukraine was under attack by its aggressive and hostile neighbor, russia. they had already encroached on its territories. the ukraine was at great risk that russia would again, take further territory or try. europe had a stake in this, and so did we. i'm going to turn to an expert on this. ambassador taylor who is one of the most highly decorated diplomats and recognized diplomats for over 40 years, he served our country honorably, and he was appointed by president trump himself to be in charge of the u.s. embassy in ukraine. >> the russians are violating all of the rules, treaties, understanding that they committed

michael gerhardt from the university of north carolina school of law.athan turley of the george washington university law school. follow the impeachment inquiry. watch live on c-span3, online at c-span.org, or listen on the free c-span radio app. c-span's student competition is in full swing. across the country, middle and high school students are hard at work creating short documentaries on the issues they would most likely -- most like the 2020 candidates to address. share your photos. still working on an idea? we have resources on our website. started page has information to guide you through the process of making a documentary. inpan will award $100,000 total cash prices -- prizes. all entries must be received by midnight on january 20, 2020. >> the best advice i could give young filmmakers is not to be afraid to take your issue seriously. you're never too young to have an opinion. announcer: for more information, go to our website. announcer: "washington journal" continues. host: the intelligence committee in the house will meet this evening to hea

it is why last week the constitutional scholar professor michael gerhardt said if what we're talking about is not impeachable, then nothing is impeachable. president trump's actions are impeachable offenses. they threaten our rule of law. they threaten our institutions, and as james madison warned us, they threaten our republic. let me begin where we must with the facts in evidence. first, it's important to understand why ukraine was so important to our national security. ukraine was under attack by its afwresive and hostile neighbor russia. they had already encroached on its territories. the ukraine was at great risk that russia would again take further territorial try. europe had a stake in this. and so did we. i'm going to turn to an expert on this, ambassador taylor, who was one of the most highly decorated diplomats for over 40 years he served our country honorably and he was appointed by president trump, himself, to be in charge of the u.s. embassy in ukraine. >> the russians are violating all of the rules, treaties, understandings, that they committed to that actually kept the

noah feldman from harvard law school, pamela karlan from stanford, michael gerhardt from the university of north carolina and jonathan turley from george washington university law school. all four had opening statements. and then for the past 40 minutes or so, the questioning of the majority counsel, norm eisen, principally with three of the legal scholars and his questioning focusing on a couple of areas. abuse of power -- alleged abuse of power by president trump, bribery, obstruction of congress and obstruction of justice. what happens next is 45 minutes of questioning from minority and then member questions. there are 41 members of the house judiciary committee, 24 democrats and 17 republicans. >> first two hours of one-sided information. we're ready to go back at it in a moment. we'll be presenting both sides. one thing that's important is so much has been said over the last little bit about the issues and all involved. now to come to this theoretical law school of what these things mean, i think the american people are getting lost. that's one thing we'll look at. but it brings me

it is why last week the constitutional scholar, professor michael gerhardt, said if what we are talking about is not impeachable then nothing is impeachable. president trump's actions are impeachable offenses and threaten all rule of law and they threaten our institutions and as james madison warned us they threaten our republic. let me begin where we must with the facts and evidence. first, it's important to understand why ukraine was so important to our national security. ukraine was under attack by an aggressive and hostile neighbor of russia and had already encroached on territories. though ukraine was at great risk that russiaac would again take further territory and try europe had a stake in this and so did we. i turned to an expert on this, ambassador taylor who is one of the most highly decorated recognized diplomats and he served for over 40 years honorably and was appointed by president trump himself to be in u.s. embassy in ukraine. >> the russians are violating all of the rules, treaties, understandings that they committed to that actually kept t e peace in europe for nearly

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 native, earning degrees from the university of chicago and northwestern university school of law. we welcom

michael gerhardt from north carolina and the only witness called by republicans on the

it is why last week the constitutional scholar professor michael gerhardt said if what we're taking about is not impeachable, then nothing is impeachable. president trump's actions are impeachable offenses. they threaten our rule of law. they threaten our institutions. and as james madison warned us, they threaten our republic. let me begin where we must with the facts in evidence. first, it's important to understand why ukraine was so important to our national security. ukraine was under attack by its neighbor russia. they had already encroached on its territories. the ukraine was at great risk that russia would again take further territory or try. i'll turn to ambassador taylor. one of the most highly decorated recognized diplomats for over 40 years he served our country and appointed by president trump himself to be in charge of the u.s. embassy in ukraine. the russians are violating all of the rules, treaties, understandings, that they committed to that actually kept the peace in europe for nearly 70 years. that rule, that order that kept the peace in europe and allowed for prosperity