American peoples money on this impeachment, theres so many other important things that are going undone. Within this committees own jurisdiction, we should be addressing the opioid epidemic. We could be working together to find a solution to our immigration and asylum challenges on our southern border. We could be protecting americans from having their intellectual property and jobs stolen by chinese companies. And we could be enhancing Election Security just to name a few things. And congress as a whole could be working on rebuilding our crumbling infrastructure. Providing additional tax relief to the nations middleclass families and providing additional security to our people here at home and abroad. Instead, here we are spinning our wheels once again on impeachment. What a waste. The American People deserve so much better. I yield back. Gentleman yields back. Mr. Cohen. Thank you, mr. Chair. I take no pleasure in the fact that were here today. As a patriot who loves america, it pain
dailyrecord.us - get the latest breaking news, showbiz & celebrity photos, sport news & rumours, viral videos and top stories from dailyrecord.us Daily Mail and Mail on Sunday newspapers.
William H Bowen School of Law Names Faculty Excellence Winners - News
ualr.edu - get the latest breaking news, showbiz & celebrity photos, sport news & rumours, viral videos and top stories from ualr.edu Daily Mail and Mail on Sunday newspapers.
weakest, the thinnest impeachment in the history of america, that there is no bribery, no extortion, no obstruction of justice, and no abuse of power. he was referring there to one of the witnesses, professor jonathan turley. joining me now, one of the other three legal scholars who testified and went unmentioned by the minority leader, harvard law school professor, noah feldmann. professor feldman, you heard minority leader mccarthy there quoting turley saying this is the weakest in the history of impeachment in america. is it? no. and, you know, you have to begin with the fact that there s the memorandum of the call which provides you with a tremendous amount of evidence in just a couple of pages. so thickness is not the measure, it s content that s the measure. and what s in the record is substantial evidence to support the idea of a classic high crime and misdemeanor of the abuse of the power of presidency to serve the personal desires and preferences of the president to corrup
i m not sure what really ultimately will have been accomplished from that. then finally i disagree, the framers well-understood the common definition of bribery. that s been supplied in the bribery statute. i suppose reasonable people can disagree about this, i don t think a bribery defense has been shown. and short of that, as much as you want to talk about abuse of power, i think as professor turley correctly pointed out, abuse of power untethered from a high crime and misdemeanor which would be either treason, bribery, or some other high crime and misdemeanor is not sufficient to form a legitimate basis to remove a president from office. professor feldmann, i wonder what you made from the argument that this is a rush, that there s not enough evidence at this stage. it s seems very strange to me. first of all you have the call and that s a tremendous amount of evidence. furthermore, any lack of evidence that exists now is just a result of the fact that the