House Judiciary announces impeachment witnesses

[Watermelon]

The House Judiciary Committee on Monday unveiled a witness panel of four constitutional scholars for its first impeachment hearing this week.

Titled "The Impeachment Inquiry into President Donald J. Trump: Constitutional Grounds for Presidential Impeachment," Wednesday's hearing will feature testimony from four law professors: Noah Feldman, a professor at Harvard Law School and director of the Julis-Rabinowitz Program on Jewish and Israeli Law; Pamela Karlan, a professor of public interest law at Stanford Law School; Michael Gerhardt, a professor at the University of North Carolina School of Law; and Jonathan Turley, a professor of public interest law at George Washington University Law School.

Turley is also an opinion contributor for The Hill.

Unlike the House Intelligence Committee hearings last month, the witnesses won't offer firsthand accounts of what they knew about Trump's actions with regard to Ukraine. Instead, the constitutional scholars are expected to offer legal analysis.

Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.) framed the hearing as an opportunity to "discuss the constitutional framework through which the House may analyze the evidence gathered in the present inquiry."

Source: https://thehill.com/homenews/house/4...ment-witnesses

Hopefully they will answer a lot of the questions being discussed here.

[rogue06]

It looks like that Nadler learned something from the Schiff circus and is at the very least trying for a veneer of respectability.

[Mountain Man]

I'm not sure what these so-called "witnesses" have to do with anything. Just more people to give their opinions when we should be focusing on the facts. Of course if Democrats focused on the facts, then they wouldn't have a case, hence the need for more smoke and mirrors.

[rogue06]

I'm not sure what these so-called "witnesses" have to do with anything. Just more people to give their opinions when we should be focusing on the facts. Of course if Democrats focused on the facts, then they wouldn't have a case, hence the need for more smoke and mirrors.

Likely they are there to declare that the impeachment is legitimate which when you think of it is an admission of just how bad things are going for the Democrats if they feel a need to make that case.

[Watermelon]

I'm not sure what these so-called "witnesses" have to do with anything. Just more people to give their opinions when we should be focusing on the facts. Of course if Democrats focused on the facts, then they wouldn't have a case, hence the need for more smoke and mirrors.

I would like to hear what they have to say. Both sides are currently saying totally different things about the impeachment process so it’ll be good to hear from the experts.

It’ll also be good to get some sort of framework to work with so the public could follow the progress. One side is saying ‘not enough evidence’ and the other is saying overwhelming evidence but no one has stated what the actual required elements that need to be proven are.

Also knowing what the burden of proof threshold is would be nice.

[Sparko]

I'm not sure what these so-called "witnesses" have to do with anything. Just more people to give their opinions when we should be focusing on the facts. Of course if Democrats focused on the facts, then they wouldn't have a case, hence the need for more smoke and mirrors.

Notice they are using professors from liberal colleges as "witnesses" instead of actual lawyers or judges. They just want someone to agree with them. "See? we have experts who say we should impeach!"

[Cow Poke]

Likely they are there to declare that the impeachment is legitimate which when you think of it is an admission of just how bad things are going for the Democrats if they feel a need to make that case.

OK, kinda like "Now that we've absolutely made a mess of this impeachment thing, maybe these boys can help us look like we're getting back on track"?

[Cow Poke]

I would like to hear what they have to say. Both sides are currently saying totally different things about the impeachment process so it’ll be good to hear from the experts.

It’ll also be good to get some sort of framework to work with so the public could follow the progress. One side is saying ‘not enough evidence’ and the other is saying overwhelming evidence but no one has stated what the actual required elements that need to be proven are.

Also knowing what the burden of proof threshold is would be nice.

Yeah, the problem is that the Constitution itself says so little about impeachment, and is rather vague...

Article 1, Section 2

The House of Representatives shall chuse their Speaker and other Officers; and shall have the sole Power of Impeachment.

Article 1, Section 3

The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two thirds of the Members present.

Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law.

Article 2, Section 2

The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any Subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.

Article 2, Section 4

The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.

Article 3, Section 2

The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any State, the Trial shall be at such Place or Places as the Congress may by Law have directed.

[Mountain Man]

I would like to hear what they have to say. Both sides are currently saying totally different things about the impeachment process so it’ll be good to hear from the experts.

It’ll also be good to get some sort of framework to work with so the public could follow the progress. One side is saying ‘not enough evidence’ and the other is saying overwhelming evidence but no one has stated what the actual required elements that need to be proven are.

Also knowing what the burden of proof threshold is would be nice.

I suppose there's some value in laying the groundwork, but that should have been done at the start of the process and not months later, and I have serious questions about the objectivity of the list of "witnesses". At the very least, it seems the case should be presented by two legal experts who agree with impeachment, and two who disagree. As it is, it's three against one, and the one is a bit of a wildcard rather than firmly opposed. This has all the appearances of simply continuing Shifty Schiff's circus, where they're not following the evidence where it leads but trying to back-fill the case to prop up the verdict that they want.

[firstfloor]

I'm not sure what these so-called "witnesses" have to do with anything. Just more people to give their opinions when we should be focusing on the facts. Of course if Democrats focused on the facts, then they wouldn't have a case, hence the need for more smoke and mirrors.

The facts are pretty well established and we know that Trump is obstructing further investigation because he would only unveil more damaging details. He is going to rely on his “witch hunt” defense because he has nothing else.