Legal Scholars Testify in Trump’s Impeachment Inquiry
Doug Mills/The New York Times
We ran the numbers: There are 3510 news articles covering this topic. 40% (1389) are left leaning, 45% (1597) center, 15% (524) right leaning.
On Wednesday, House Democrats began a new phase of Trump’s impeachment process that featured testimonies from four legal scholars, who addressed the Constitutional basis for Trump’s impeachment.
A left-leaning article by The New York Times highlights that the three constitutional scholars invited by Democrats confirmed that the evidence of Trump’s efforts to pressure Ukraine for his own political gain is sufficient to be considered an impeachable abuse of power. While University of North Carolina professor Michael J. Gerdhart made the claim that if Trump’s actions aren’t impeachable, then nothing is impeachable, Stanford law professor Pamela S. Karlan argued that Trump’s actions towards Ukraine could constitute as bribery in addition to an abuse of power. However, Jonathan Turley, the only scholar invited to testify by Republicans, cautioned House Democrats against rushing into an impeachment based on insufficient evidence and overly broad standards.
A centrist article by NPR reports that the constitutional scholars detailed the historical context of the Constitutional Convention and visions of early U.S. luminaries as they pertained to discussions about including impeachment in the Constitution. The House rules give the Judiciary Committee the ability to assess what, if any, articles of impeachment can be used against Trump. The article also reports that the Judiciary Committee’s ranking member, Doug Collins, as well as Trump’s other Republican defenders, faulted the Democrats’ impeachment process thus far for being groundless.
A right-leaning article by The Daily Caller focuses on Turley’s attack on the Democrats’ “bribery” narrative, as he accused them of abusing their power. In his attacks, Turley argued that impeachment articles for obstruction should be based on facts instead of assumptions and that the Supreme Court unanimously rejected a “boundless interpretation” of the crime of bribery. In his concluding statements, Turley said, “If you impeach a president, if you make a high crime and misdemeanor out of going to the courts, it is an abuse of power. You’re doing exactly what you’re criticizing the president of doing.”