InfoSearched
Published -
- December 4, 2019
- 2:37 pm
TRUMP IMPEACHMENT ENTERS NEW PHASE: The House Judiciary Committee holding its first public impeachment hearing.
Today, prominent constitutional scholars will lay out whether Trump’s actions constitute impeachable offenses.
In US news and current events today, A just-released, 300-page investigation by the House Intelligence Committee found that Pres. Trump perpetrated one of the most serious political crimes in U.S. history when he ‘solicited the interference of a foreign government, Ukraine, in the 2020 U.S. presidential election.’
What was the general consensus among the constitutional law scholars invited to testify at the hearing regarding the President’s actions and their relation to impeachable offenses?
On December 4, 2019, the House Judiciary Committee conducted its first public hearing on the impeachment of President Donald J. Trump. This historic event was the latest in what has been an intense and politically charged debate over whether the President’s actions with regards to Ukraine merited his removal from office.
The hearing was held in the Rayburn House Office Building and was presided over by Committee Chairman Jerrold Nadler (D-NY). It lasted for more than six hours and featured testimony from four constitutional law scholars. They were invited by the Committee to offer their opinions on whether the President had committed impeachable offenses.
On one hand, the Democrats on the Committee argued that the President had abused his power by soliciting Ukraine to interfere in the upcoming presidential election in his favor. They also alleged that he obstructed justice by refusing to cooperate with the impeachment inquiry and by encouraging others to do the same.
On the other hand, Republicans on the Committee argued that the President had done nothing wrong and that the impeachment process was simply a partisan effort to overturn the 2016 election results. They claimed that the President had legitimate concerns about corruption in Ukraine and that he was well within his rights to ask the Ukrainian President to investigate.
The constitutional law scholars were called upon to offer their expertise on whether the President’s actions constituted impeachable offenses. Three of the four scholars agreed that the President had committed impeachable offenses. The fourth, Jonathan Turley, a professor at the George Washington University Law School, argued that the Democrats had not met the necessary legal threshold to impeach the President.
Overall, the hearing was a heated and contentious affair, with both sides firmly entrenched in their positions. However, it was also a valuable opportunity for the American people to hear directly from constitutional law experts about the nature of impeachment and its role in our democracy.
Although it remains unclear what the ultimate outcome of these proceedings will be, one thing is certain: the impeachment of a sitting President is a rare and significant event in American history. As the process unfolds, it will be essential for both sides to proceed with the utmost seriousness and respect for the importance of the constitutional principles at stake.
