19 Burst results for "Professor Carlin"
"professor carlin" Discussed on On Point with Tom Ashbrook | Podcasts
"They're going to turn on their televisions. Televisions are open the newspaper and say what the heck is the military doing right now? Okay, so this is really important. Because you General Clark say earlier about how the United States military is one of the most respected, if not the most respective respected institutions in the United States by the American people and I do wonder given what you what you just said Professor Caroline I'm just again reminded of. General Mattis statement when he said he said that militarizing or even I'll add the the the president, even mentioning the possibility of militarising response to protests, and Madison quote erodes the moral moral ground that ensures a trusted bond between men and women in uniform and the society. They are sworn to protect. Do you do you? Are you concerned about that erosion? Absolutely I'm profoundly concerned. This support has been pretty easy to garner because it hasn't asked much of the American public to the extent, we see over the coming days or weeks, which I. Sure Hope we don't see to the extent we see. More, more national guard in the streets to the extent, we see active duty troops, potentially being called back out I think that support will will dissipate quickly and there have been moments in our history where the military has absolutely not had the support of the American public. Look at the Vietnam War. The Post Vietnam War, that wasn't a healthy time for our society or frankly. Frankly healthy time to be in the military well Professor Carlin General. Clark and Colonel Wilkerson standby for just a moment. We have to take a quick break. We are talking about the president, the military and the American people we've got a lot of members of the military who called in just now. We'll take a couple of calls.
"professor carlin" Discussed on KSFO-AM
"Tool not an obstacle I'm a teacher make more teach teach data brought to you by teachers and I'm probably okay to have one more drink before I drive home probably okay I opened the window to stay alert probably okay my mouth step out of the car please I probably made a mistake probably okay isn't okay when it comes to drinking and driving if you see a warning sign to stop and colic have a car friend bus driving is drunk driving a message brought to you by not sending your listing to sixty he is our crony non jury magnum or eight six six ninety right I will get your calls and comments more of them on impeachment now that to he intent or wink wink nudge nudge might do articles of impeachment and the vote this week on yeah I can't wait to see those articles because you know when you get into the the wording it's going to be that is that's going to be key you know when you saw Adam Schiff last week step up to the camera announced the the report he just I mean he just was filled with this you know the nothingness that this whole thing is spent I'm gonna just lie after lie after lie but when you get into the articles you're gonna have to be specific and you're going to have to point out and it can't be well not real bribery not bribery bribery no you're gonna have to be specific in that charge when we talk about the law professors except for Turley it was really embarrassing because I just expected that that someone would do their home with some type of homework even if it wasn't even right was made up home more yeah but again when you have when you had professor Carlin right start out didn't know which reason.
"professor carlin" Discussed on The Nicole Sandler Show
"Make him a barone. Thank you the founding. Nothing wrong with that but it was sometime later. During the hearing when one of the Republicans read a tweet from Milania trump to be entered into the record seeking consent to enter into record a tweet that the first lady of the United States just issued within the hour. It says quote a Minor Child L. deserves privacy and should be kept out of politics. Pamela Karlan you should be ashamed of your very angry obviously biased public pandering and using a child to do it unquote objection documentary. Entered into into the record. Well the next time Professor Carlin had the Mike. She apologized although I think. Melania went overboard in the ugliness of her response in that no apology was necessary. Sorry but coralline did get an important point aimed directly at the would-be monarch. I want to apologize for what I said earlier earlier. About the president's son. It was wrong of me to do that. I wish the president would apologize. Obviously for the things that he's done. That's wrong but I do regret having said that Nancy Nancy. Pelosi took to the microphones Thursday morning to deliver an update on the status of the House of Representatives impeachment inquiry and has now officially said that the house will l. move on to writing articles of impeachment. Our democracy is what is at stake. The president leads us no choice but to act because he is trying onto corrupt once again the election for his own benefit. The president has engaged in abusive power undermining our national security and jeopardizing. The integrity of our elections is actions are in defiance of the vision of our founders and the oath of office that he takes to preserve protect and defend the constitution of the United States sadly but with confidence and humility was allegiance is to our founders and her heart full of love for America today. I'm asking our chairman to proceed with articles of impeachment. I commend our committee. Chairs in our members were there sombor approach to actions which are wished the president had not made necessary the and signing the declaration of Independence Our founders invoked a firm reliance on divine providence. Democrats to our prayerful prayerful and we will proceed in a manner worthy of our oath of office to support and defend the constitution of the United States from all all enemies foreign and domestic. So help us God thank you house. Democrats have reportedly been told to stay in town this weekend for Prep Rep. Donald Trump's back at the White House after abruptly canceling a news conference at the end of the NATO summit in London on Wednesday the move came after video surfaced. Apparently showing Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau French President Emmanuel Macron and even British Prime Minister Boris Johnson and a few others laughing about trump's sometimes unexpected comments in news conferences and more in the video you can hear Trudeau say I just watched. His team's jaw dropped to the floor. Trump was asked about the video and called Trudeau. two-faced.
"professor carlin" Discussed on The Michael Knowles Show
"Let's jump right in to the experts super duper expert testimony beginning with Professor Pamela. Pamela Karlan one. One big mistake. The Democrats made at these impeachment hearings. Obviously they're gonNA call their people. They're going to call leftists they're GONNA call Democrats. They're going to call people who hate Donald Trump all right. We know that's going to happen. But it was a big mistake on their part to call experts who are so obviously biased. Who are so? Obviously partisan who come across such hacks the whole point of having experts. It's show up to your impeachment. Hearings is to give this Patina of credibility of nonpartisanship of you know. We're just looking at the facts here folks and that's why we have to removed the president. They just couldn't do that. They picked for their first witness As partisan as Hacky a a an expert as you could possibly imagine professor Pamela Karlan Stanford Law Professor Radical Leftist and Democrat. She wrote a whole book about how awful the two thousand election gene was when Al Gore lost. She's an Obama appointee. She was under Obama working for Obama and Eric holder a very corrupt attorney general. She was the deputy assistant attorney general. She's an outspoken. LGBT activist in Obama's DOJ. She was a key person to implement the redefinition Benicia of marriage. You look at our political donations donates to a lot of Democrats and she is the worst part for her credibility. She called for the impeachment impeachment of trump two years ago. So what the Democrats are saying now is we weren't gonNA impeach trump but now we have to because he made a long distance phone call to Ukraine or whatever. The issue is the Ukraine phone. Call that doesn't hold up when you realize that. This law professor in this democratic activist was trying to impeach the guy two years ago she she actually said on camera and microphone that when she walks by the trump hotel in Washington DC. She is so disgusted that she has to cross to to the other side of the street struck came in from the airport yesterday and I got off the bus from Dulles down at l'enfant plaza and I walked up to the hotel and as I was walking past what used to be the old post office building in his now that trump hotel which had to cross the street of course but God no never never passing. I knew there's no never. Oh it's so awful. Oh I can't even bear to be on the sidewalk in front of the hotel. Hi I'm going to be your nonpartisan expert witness okay not not allowed credibility. She actually as she's testifying. She said that she was so riled. Up for these impeachment hearings that she didn't even eat thanksgiving. She was doing was reading transcripts. She was so hungry not for Turkey but to oust the duly elected president of the United States. I spent all Thanksgiving vacation sitting sitting there reading these transcripts. I didn't you know I like Turkey that came to us in the mail that was already cooked because I was spending my time doing this. I was so excited gobble gobble. GimMe all those Ukraine transcript so in her blind hatred of the president. She made a crucial error. Not just the Democrats are in inviting her her error during her testimony. She let her zeal to impeach this guy her absolute disdain for the president come out and cause her to bring Donald Trump's thirteen year old son into the picture now the left the loves bringing children into politics. They do it all the time they did it with the Parkland kids after the shooting Parkland high school. They brought these. These traumatized is kids in and put them on a pedestal. Put them on a stage. Put them a lot of money. Gave them a big spotlight. Obviously they're doing that now with Greta. Thunberg the environmentalist child old from Sweden. And they're putting on stage and they're giving her a lot of attention and they they're right in front of the media. That's an awful thing that is absolutely indefensible. But that's kind of their mo they don't just do it though for kids who want the spotlight. Barron trump has very much shied away from the spotlight. He doesn't go on stage he doesn't want to to be in the media and this woman as she's describing why trump is so awful is so awful because he thinks he's a king. He's so awful because he thinks he's a royal oil. She decides to bring his thirteen year old son into big no-no. What comparisons Professor Carlin can we make between kings news that the framers were afraid of and the president's conduct today so kings could do no wrong because the kings word was law and contrary contrary to what president trump has said article too does not give him the power to do anything he wants? And I'll just give you one example that shows you the difference between him and king which is the constitution says there can be no titles of nobility so while the president can name his son Barron. He can't make him a baron Oh Yeah.
"professor carlin" Discussed on Erin Burnett OutFront
"Contrary to what president trump has said article does not have give him the power to do anything he wants. And I'll I'll just give you one example that shows you the difference between him and king which is the constitution says there can be no titles of nobility so while the president can name his son son Barron he can't make him a barren. I want to Polish for what I said earlier about the president's son. It was wrong of me to to do that. I wish the president would apologize. Obviously for the things that he's done. That's wrong but I do regret having said that. Okay that came after crawling and faced a series series of attacks for doing so from Republicans the trump campaign and Milania trump who went on twitter and said a minor child deserves privacy and should be kept out of Politics Pamela Carlin. You should be ashamed of your very angry and obviously biased public pandering and using a child to do it. Everyone is back with me Glory Look Professor Carlin's point of course that she was making was is made extremely clearly by the example. She used but she obviously did feel the need to apologize for that. At the end of the hearing it is extremely clear though With her performance in that hearing where she was completely -pletely unafraid. The team trump feels that she is a target. Now Oh yeah she is look and she admits she made a mistake. She's not used to testifying this this this environment. was not hospitable. To what was kind of not a great job and you know she apologized for it. Only after Milania I and of course the vice president himself also went after her so she is a target. She's a liberal professor and they tried to. Who did you contribute to? And they tried to figure out who these people voted for as well. So she's she's kind of an easy target for them. And when you you're not arguing the case itself you're arguing the process which they continue to argue all day and then you were arguing about the witnesses whom they felt. Were you know these egg heads. It's from liberal elite institutions. Right all right so so to the point that Gloria just made John Republican Congressman Matt Gates also called out Professor Carlin Harland for a series of donations. She made Democrats over the years. And let's just play that and then Carlin's defense. I recall and you gave two thousand bucks or you gave a thousand bucks to Elizabeth Warren Right. I believe so you gave twelve hundred bucks to Barack Obama. I have no no reason to question that and you gave two thousand bucks to Hillary Clinton. That's correct so much more for Hillary than the other two. Because I've been giving a lot of money to charity recently because of all of the poor people in the United States I have a constitutional right under the first amendment to give money to candidates at the same time. We have a constitutional duty to keep foreigners from spending money in our elections and those two things are two sides of the same coin. Another witness Michael Gerhardt. John also confirmed his family donated to President. There's an Obama and of course the Republican witnessed Said said he had voted against trump The question though remains should Democrats have found witnesses who who didn't provide this fodder right. Didn't have thousand dollar multiple thousand dollar donations to Democratic candidates. I don't know is that that was necessary. I don't know the even asked going in. Who did you contribute to? Who did you vote for? This is information. They could have found at the outset. What Matt Gaetz 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. with APLOMB. So it was expected this sort of thing out of him and it really cheapens the process. And that's what they WANNA do. They I wanna make this look Like much more Unfair bipartisan. Lesson partisan undertaking and. That's what he tried to accomplish with those questions. Now David the top Republican on the Judiciary Committee also went after Professor Caroline and the other witnesses by suggesting so it wasn't just you know whatever ever their donations might have been. It was also that they did not actually know what they were talking about. Let me play that no offense to our professors but please really. You couldn't have possibly actually digested the Adam Schiff report from yesterday or the Republican response in any real way. No one who fired back David Professor Carl and here she is Mr Collins. I would like to say to you sir that I read transcripts types of every one of the witnesses who appeared in the live hearing because I would not speak about these things without reviewing the fact so I'm insulted by the suggestion that is a law professor. I don't care about those facts. David look she was unafraid to be competitive. was that effective well. I thought that the answer was very effective. And I thought that it's she signalled from the start that she was not going to be cowed by those kind of tactics. The joke was unfortunate. Something that you know when you're a professor you can make serve tasteless or bad jokes in the classroom and the and the students have to laugh But it shouldn't have happened there and and she was right to apologize and frankly she deserves the criticism she got but on that point. She was absolutely you know they were there. There esteemed scholars. She clearly clearly had done her homework and she wasn't gonNA get pushed around. I thought that was very effective but John's point is very important. The Republican strategy from the beginning was is to depict at this as a partisan scrum As politics as usual and take it out of the realm of something extraordinary and just fit it into the rubric of Washington Politics. So would gates did was very much in keeping with that as many of the other questions that were asked the question is how effective war. Republicans at trying to cheapen deepened the whole process. Well I think They did cheapen the process to a degree. I think that we learned a lot. However in this hearing about the constitution about what the framers had in mind when they were talking about high crimes and misdemeanors And and about What what the articles of impeachment quite honestly are likely to be abusive power bribery obstruction of Congress obstruction of justice? So try as as they did to kind of make this just a discussion about process and other things what we learned from these constitutional scholars. I think was very important for the American public whether that breaks through probably not to a degree I think people are probably sat. Is it's going to change any votes. I don't think so But it was a hearing that the judiciary committee ought to have. Yeah we did. We did as a country. Where you whether you whether you cared or whether it moves your view is almost beside the point? You didn't need to hear from people who who truly Know about this and know about the constitution. Thank you all very much and next. Republicans Republicans using the judiciary chairman. Jerry Nadler's own words against him. A new details on those phone calls at Rudy. Giuliani was making to the White House. The budget office and that Mysterious Korea caller number going on guys Mike Chairman founder and create director of Chinatown listened to friends and family a podcast. VR kicks in Chinatown only show where athletes artists designers create exclusive works together on every episode. Also I'm smells. Join me and channing. Frye on our new show candles from social media to emerging storylines the hottest content the hottest place in the hottest takes. We got it all tune to handle every Wednesday night on NBA TV and in the NBA APP. Breaking News Chairman Jerry Nadler under are fire. Republicans are going. After the judiciary committee chairman by using his own words from the Clinton impeachment ranking member. Doug Collins was the first one.
"professor carlin" Discussed on KOMO
"President and to future presidents that it's no longer a problem if they abuse their power it's no longer a problem of the invite other countries to interfere in our elections professor Jonathan Turley with George Washington University law school urge the committee to slow down I'm concerned about lowering impeachment standards to fit a paucity of evidence an abundance of anger Turley added he believes Congress also is being too hasty when it comes to the issue of obstruction that's the problem when you move towards impeachment on this abbreviated schedule that has not been explained to me why you want to set the record for the fastest impeachment Republican Jim Jordan a staunch trump supporter took that statement even further fast impeachment it's a predetermined impeachment but professor Carlin said arguing against the process doesn't negate the severity of the president's actions a president should resist far an inter interference in our elections not demand it and not welcome it it is up to the house Judiciary Committee to decide whether to draft articles of impeachment and if it does so to send those articles to the full house for a vote well the committee mulls it over professor Turley reiterated caution is in order it's not that you can't do this just can't do it this way Linda canyon Washington I'm Bob Constantini president trump flew back from the need summit retweeting all the way some favorable videos from the impeachment hearing plus commenting that he got along great with NATO leaders who are spending more on defense a video for Monday night's Buckingham Palace reception appears to show Canadian prime minister Justin Trudeau mocking president trump's pension for having quote a forty minute press conference photo ops making him wait for scheduled meetings Trudeau admitted Wednesday indeed if that was what he was discussing and taking questions while serving alongside German chancellor Angela Merkel president trump short took the video on face value was too fast and honestly with the nice guy I.
"professor carlin" Discussed on Erin Burnett OutFront
"Saying it's it's time to impeach president. Donald Trump plus Republicans including the first lady taking on a star witness from today's hearing that witnesses. Firing back tonight and is Rudy. Giuliani really Lee. Back tonight in Ukraine. Let's go out front good evening. I'm Erin Burnett fron tonight the breaking news. The House Judiciary Committee has just ended. Its first impeachment. Hearing it was contentious and highly partisan aggressive questions and answers the committee expected to announce its next appearing at any moment and the chairman. Jerry Nadler is clear on where he stands three of his witnesses. All law professor said it was clear that President Donald J trump should be impeached Professor Feldman did president trump. Commit the impeachable high crime and misdemeanor of abuse of power based on that evidence and those findings based on that evidence in those findings the president did commit an impeachable abusive office. Professor Carlin same question. Same answer and Professor Gerhard did President Trump. Commit the impeachable high crime and misdemeanor of abuse of power. We three unanimous yes. It was a powerful moment and series of testimonies but there wasn't exception on the. Ah The day is today a fourth law professor the Republicans alone witness Jonathan Turley. I'm 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 standard of past. impeachments would create a dangerous precedent for future impeachments. Alex Marquardt is out front in Washington with the details. On today's days contentious hearing the blistering conclusion from all but one of the witnesses that the president should be impeached. I believe the framers numbers would identify president. Trump's conduct as exactly the kind of abuse of office high crime in this demeanor that they were worried about and they would want the House of Representatives to take appropriate action Russian and to impeach Professor Noah Feldman from Harvard laying out the reasons the president committed impeachable offenses alongside professors Pamela. Carlin and Michael. Gerhardt Taylor agreed. All three were invited by the Democrats. If what we're talking about is not impeachable the nothing impeachable. This is precisely uh-huh misconduct that the framers created a constitution including impeachment to protect against awesome responsibility. Carlin hitting back at ranking making member Doug Collins who dismissed the hearing and suggested the experts hadn't digested all of the facts of the investigation. Mr Collins I would like to say to you sir that I I read transcripts of every one of the witnesses who appeared in the live hearing because I would not speak about these things without reviewing the facts. So I'm insulted. Did by the suggestion that has a law professor. I don't care about those facts. The lone witness called by Republicans Professor Jonathan Turley said. He was not a supporter of the president's but argued. The record for impeachment is wafer. Thin close. Enough is not good enough. If you're going to accuse the president of bribery you need to make it stick because because you're trying to remove a duly elected president of the United States Turley who testified in the Clinton impeachment warned that a slip shod impeachment. Treatment process could pave the way for more in the future. That is why this is wrong. It's not wrong. Because president trump is right is call was anything but perfect it from the get-go Republicans blasted the hearing and the entire process. This is not an impeachment. This is just a simple railroad job and today's is a waste of time. John was chairman. Worm euro serving the right to object. GOP members interrupting delaying proceedings with procedural maneuvers. Mr Chairman Mamik parliamentary inquiry. Before you gentlemen Chairman Nadler previewed possible articles of impeachment which may include obstruction of justice. Going back to the Muller probe president trump took extraordinary Jordan Aaron unprecedented steps to obstruct the investigation including ignoring subpoenas ordering the creation of false records and publicly attacking and intimidating witnesses. Then as now this administration's level of obstruction is without precedent. The experts drew on history St repeatedly making the case that the country was founded on principles opposing absolute power so kings could do no wrong because the kings word was was law and contrary to what president trump has said article does not give him the power to do anything he wants. In comparing president trump to to a king professor caroline also said that the president could name his son Barron but not make him a baron them that got a lot of blowback including from the White House for invoking the president's teenage son just a short time ago Professor Carlin apologizing. She was wrong to do that and she regretted it but also said that she wishes the president apologized himself off for all that he's done all right. Alex thank you very much. I'm going to have much more on Presser Carlin later. This hour really became the center of the stage today out front now Democratic Congresswoman Val demings who sits on both the House judiciary an intelligence committee. So she's investigating and drafting articles of impeachment. When that time comes I? It was clear early early on today. Congressman Republicans. We're going to do everything possible. To stall the hearing right there were all those procedural inquiries and points some of them clearly. Pretty Arcane chairman seemed to expect them all it didn't happen nearly as much during the Intel Committee hearings that you were also a part of why do you think that is what what did Republicans Republicans do differently this time. Well it's good to be with you number one but I just think as we get closer to the end of this process and further along long I just think the re my republican colleagues field. The desperation the facts are stubborn. Things as has been said many times before and the facts x the evidence in this case against the president is pretty overwhelming and so all of the procedural motions that they raised today at the end of the day though the president still used his power to try to Earth a foreign power into interfering with our elections. And that's what we have to stay focused on what not think was accomplished today congresswoman. I think the witnesses did an exceptional job and really laying out for us and for the American people what the framers had in mind when they were so concerned about president trying to act like a king or trying Andrzej act like a dictator that they were so concerned about the president of the United States abusing his power working with the foreign governments. I and isn't it interesting as they laid that out that that is exactly where we are today. A president who abused his power betrayed his oath of office really jeopardize house or National Security and tried to obstruct Congress and justice. The the one witness we heard from today Who supported the Republican view was Jonathan Charlie a law professor at George Washington University? Here a few of the crucial things that he said I'm not a supporter of president trump. I voted against him. His call was anything but perfect is this is not how you impeach an American President in his written opening statement statement he also said that trump's reference to the Biden's on the call with Ukrainian president was highly inappropriate right so he voted against him. He doesn't support him. The call wasn't okay. The Biden part wasn't okay. Okay but he thinks that it is the wrong call to impeach the president based on what you have now when you put all that together was Turley a powerful and effective witness for the GOP. Okay well we certainly appreciate Professor Turley coming in and share his viewpoints. But I just think it's so interesting that when the Republicans and their witness and this talk about the wrongdoing of this president they'll say things like well. The call was not perfect are the president was just joking. He couldn't have been seriously. You know as a former law enforcement officer. I'm sure the criminals who arrested and were eventually prosecuted. Wish we would have looked at every time they broke the law. We said that well you know. It wasn't perfect but because it was perfect we should just let let it go. We appreciate early as I said testimony today but the facts are still severin things and we are still where where we are in terms of the president's wrongdoing trying to course a foreign power congresswoman demings. Thank you as always thank you and out front next. We we have more breaking news and other impeachment hearing To Be announced momentarily and possibly votes to follow in the next days plus melania trump going after one organises tonight and the Judiciary Chairman Jerry. Nadler's words coming back to find him. The tension homeowners with a strong housing market. If you bought a home more than a year ago chances are you of equity in your home then with the help of cashcall mortgage that equity can mean cash in your pocket. The cash you need for the upcoming holidays to remodel your home or just keeping your pocket. The timing to take advantage of your home's equity has never been better. The feds just lowered interest rates. So if you have an interest rate higher than two point nine nine percent give us a call to see if we can lower your monthly mortgage payment and get you the cash you need at cashcall mortgage where a direct lender and we can close your refi and as fast as twenty days with no up-front deposit if you qualify. We'll even pay your closing cost. The holidays are coming fast. So get the extra cash you need now for free free quote to see if you qualify visit cashcall mortgage dot Com backslash apply. That's CASHCALL MORTGAGE DOT COM backslash apply IMPAC MORTGAGE CORP DBA cashcall mortgage. MLS ID one two eight two three one. Equal housing lender licensed in all states including New York offer not available in Washington. Call eight five five six five seven nine zero for licensing terms and restrictions. It's cyber Monday. They all week long in Omaha. steaks has an exclusive deal for podcast listeners. Get the perfect gift for everyone. On your list. You'll save big and feel good. Sending ending a one hundred percent guaranteed gift in a recent survey. Seventy three percent of Americans say they'd rather get great food than more stuff as a gift so when you send Omaha steaks they'll get delicious tender steaks and so much more and you'll know you sent a gift. They'll share remember and love this week during the Omaha steaks cyber Monday day sale. podcast listeners can get the favored gift package for sixty nine ninety nine..
"professor carlin" Discussed on KDWN 720AM
"Abuses his power for personal benefit or to correct the democratic process did you write an article entitled it's hard to take impeachment seriously now yes I did write that no not all right right on time scenes instance like action house Democrats have made it painfully clear the discussing impeachment is primarily or even exclusively a tool to weaken president trump's chances in twenty twenty did you write those words until this call in July twenty fifth I was an impeachment skeptic they're all trying my mind Sir and for your testimony professor Carlin you gave two thousand Bucks you gave a thousand Bucks there was with warm right I believe so you gave twelve hundred Bucks to Barack Obama I have no reason to question that you gave two thousand books the Hillary Clinton that's correct I so much more for Hillary than the other two because I've been giving a lot of money to charity recently because of all of the poor people in the United States well those are the only those are the only folks you've been given professor Turley who testified Jonathan Turley testified at the impeachment of president Clinton argued Wednesday that right now there's not a clear case for impeachment and Democrats are rushing the process in all democratic congressman Eric Swalwell says Democrats won't put a time line on it but there is a sense of urgency as voting begins within two months in Iowa and New Hampshire a swallow well telling fox news Democrats are worried president trump could seek election interference here is Swalwell.
Legal scholar says Trump's actions are "abuse of his office"
"In Washington legal scholars made their case for impeachment of president trump Linda can Yanis covering the next phase of the house investigation the house Judiciary Committee has taken over armed with the house intelligence committees three hundred page report from its hearings and ready to determine if president trump's pattern of behavior warrants impeachment president trump welcomes foreign interference in the two thousand sixteen election he demanded and for the two thousand twenty election ranking Republican Doug Collins calls the impeachment process a sham it just don't like the guy the hearing called for constitutional scholars to the witness table one of them was professor Pamela Carlin was Stanford Law School who reflected on the founders of the constitution the very idea that a president might seek the aid of a foreign government in his reelection campaign would have horrified them professor Michael Gerhard with the university of North Carolina school of law told the committee that is exactly why impeachment was invented if what we're talking about is not impeachable than nothing is a peach Republican dog collar aides insisted the president broke no law in some way in saying you wait a lot lot with a lot of people listening did the founding fathers would have found president trump guilty is just simply malpractice Harvard Law School professor Noah Feldman strongly disagreed if we cannot impeach a president who abuses his office for personal advantage we no longer live in a democracy and he said the president's abuse of power cannot be allowed to go unchecked then you're sending a message to this president and to future presidents that it's no longer a problem if they abuse their power it's no longer a problem if they invite other countries to interfere in our elections professor Jonathan Turley with George Washington University law school urge the committee to slow down I'm concerned about lowering impeachment standards to fit a paucity of evidence an abundance of anger Turley added he believes Congress also is being too hasty when it comes to the issue of obstruction that's the problem when you move towards impeachment on this abbreviated schedule that has not been explained to me why you want to set the record for the fastest impeachment Republican Jim Jordan a staunch trump supporter took that statement even further such a fast impeachment it's a predetermined impeachment but professor Carlin said arguing against the process doesn't negate the severity of the president's actions a president should resist far an inter interference in our elections not demand it and not welcome it it is up to the house Judiciary Committee to decide whether to draft articles of impeachment and if it does so to send those articles to the full house for a vote well the committee malls that over professor Turley reiterated caution is in order it's not that you can't do this just can't do it this way Linda Kenya
Trump impeachment probe enters new phase
"Sure you are aware we are now in a new phase of the house impeachment process with the scene setting hearing held by the house Judiciary Committee when the Kenyan wraps it up for us Michael a tester hearing marks the start of the next phase in the impeachment process the house Judiciary Committee has taken over armed with the house intelligence committee three hundred page report from its hearings and ready to determine if president trump's pattern of behavior warrants impeachment president trump welcome foreign interference in the two thousand sixteen election he demanded in for the two thousand twenty action ranking Republican Doug Collins calls the impeachment process a sham just the hearing called for constitutional scholars to the witness table one of them was professor Pamela Carlin with Stanford Law School who reflected on the founders of the constitution idea that a president might seek the aid of a foreign government in his reelection campaign would have horrified them professor Michael Gerhard with the university of North Carolina school of law told the committee that is exactly why impeachment was invented if what we're talking about is not impeachable then nothing is professor Jonathan Turley was George Washington University law school urge the committee to slow down I'm concerned about lowering impeachment standards to fit a paucity of evidence an abundance of anger truly added he believes Congress also is being too hasty when it comes to the issue of obstruction that's the problem when you move towards impeachment on this abbreviated schedule that has not been explained to me why you want to set the record for the fastest impeachment Republican Jim Jordan a staunch trump supporter took that statement even further fast impeachment it's a predetermined impeachment but professor Carlin said arguing against the process doesn't negate the severity of the president's actions a president should resist far an inter interference in our elections not demand it and not welcome it it is up to the house Judiciary Committee to decide whether to draft articles of impeachment and if it does so to send those articles to the full house for a
"professor carlin" Discussed on The Beat with Ari Melber
"President trump commit the impeachable high high crime and misdemeanor of abuse of power based on that evidence and those findings based on that evidence in those findings the president did commit an impeachable teachable abuse of office. Professor Carlin same question. Same answer and Professor Gerhard did President Trump commit the impeachable high crime and misdemeanor of abuse of power. We three are unanimous. If what we're talking about is not impeachable the nothing is impeachable peachable. That was strong expert. Testimony what is chairman. Neither make of all of it well. He just stepped to the cameras. Let's go to him live and they were overwhelming thing in that they clearly show and all the witnesses testified that they make all the requirements for for impeachment that they meet all the requirements envisioned by the framers for impeachment impeachment in fact was put in the Constitution Asian to protect against the president. Who would act as this one has? The evidence is so comp- so obvious it's so overwhelming that the Republicans did not really present with tried to present a factual defense. All they can talking about process they pointed out that I have propounded in the past esta talked in the past about a three part test of impeach ability and as you heard in my closing statement. This situation meat meet all three tests. The President committed impeachable offenses. They were important impeachable offenses they go to the constitute the heart of our constitutional republic. Look they threaten the survival of democracy itself and the integrity of free elections and a majority of the people and if the and of the House I believe understand that those are the three tests. The committee will take the information we received today and we will proceed. Pursuant to house resolution six sixty and the impeachment procedures contained within it we will receive leave evidence more evidence and we will conduct the proper hearings and period. Thank you very much..
"professor carlin" Discussed on The Lead with Jake Tapper
"Oh by the way that act is also one reason. Michael Cone is sitting in prison. Right now are you back. Gentlemen US GOES BACK MR McClintock. Thank you MR chairman. Could it be just with a show of hands. How many on the panel actually voted for Donald Trump in two thousand sixteen? I don't feel alligator anything about how to Chopin's I will not I think you've made your positions professor Carlin very generally. That was suspended. We'll suspend the clock to. I guess I should how how many of you clock staff at the moment moment gentleman may ask the question. Witnesses don't have to respond. How many of you? Donald Trump in two thousand sixteen show of hands not not raising our hands. Not Answer Sir. I or Turley. This impeachment inquiries been predicated on some rather disturbing legal doctrines a one Democrat asserted that hearsay can be much better evidence than direct evidence speaker. Pelosi and others said that the president's responsibility is to the present evidence to prove his innocence chairmanships absurd and we heard a discussion from some of your colleagues today. That if you invoke legal rights indefens- criminal accusations ipso facto. That's an obstruction of justice. In evidence of guilt my question have you is what does it mean to our American justice justice system if these doctrines take root in our country. Well what concerns me. The most is that there are no limiting principles that I can see see in some of the definitions of my colleagues put forward and more importantly some of these impeachable offenses. I've only heard about today. I'm not too sure what attempting to abuse office means or how you recognize it but I'm pretty confident that nobody on this. This committee truly wants the new standard of impeachment to be be trail of the national interest at that is going to be the basis for impeachment the Republicans. Do you think which say that rock. Obama violated that standard. That's exactly what James Madison warns you against. Winston is that you would create effectively. A vote of no-confidence standard in our consulate in our are we in danger of abusing our own power of doing enormous violence to who are constitution by preceding man. My Democratic colleagues been searching for a pretext for impeachment since before the president was sworn in on this panel. Professor Karlyn called president trump's election illegitimate 2017. She implied impeachment was remedy. Professor Feldman advocated impeaching the president over a tweet wheat that he made in March twenty seventeenth. That's just seven weeks after his inauguration are we in danger of succumbing to the maximum of Lewis Carroll's Red Queen and sentence first verdict afterwards. Well this is part of the problem of how your view of the president can affect. Your assumptions is your inferences. Your view of circumstantial evidence. I'm not suggesting the evidence if it was fully investigated would come out one way or the other. What I'm saying is that we are not dealing with the realm of the unknowable? You have to ask. We've burned two months in this house. Two the months that you could have been in court seeking a subpoena for these witnesses. It doesn't mean you have to wait forever but you could have gotten an order by now. You could allowed the president to raise an executive privilege. I need to go on here. The constitution says the Executive Authority she'll be vested in a president of the United State that means some of the executive authority or all of it. Well obviously there's checks and balances on all of these executive authority primarily. I obviously rests with the president but these are all shared powers and I don't begrudge the investigation of the Ukraine controversy. I think it was a legitimate investigation. What is this is how it has been conducted? Well I tend to agree with that. I mean the constitution commands the president. Take care that the laws be faithfully enforced. That doesn't affect make him. The chief law enforcement officer in the federal government doesn't not that's commonly expressive so if probable cause exists to believe a crime has been committed it. Does the president have the authority to inquire into that matter. He has but I have to. This is where I think we would depart. I've been critical of the president in terms of crossing lines with the justice assist department. I think that has caused considerable problems. I also don't believe it's appropriate but we often confuse what is inappropriate with what's an impeachable. So many people feel that the president has done is obnoxious. Contemptible Limited Contemptible is not synonymous with the Patriots. You and final question. The National Defense Authorization Act that authorized aid to Ukraine requires Secretary of Defense and state certified that the governor of Ukraine's taking substantial actions to make defense institutional reforms for among other things for purposes of decreasing corruption. Is the president exercising. That responsibility When when when he inquires into a matter that could involve illegalities between American and Ukrainian officials? If that's referring to is unexplored defenses part word of the bias. When you look at these facts as you just ignore defenses you say well those are just invalid? But they're the defenses or the other side's account for actions and that's what it hasn't been explored gentleman's time's expired. Mr Asking. Thank you MR chairman. I want to thank the witnesses for their hard work on a long day. I WanNA thank thank them. Especially for invoking the American revolution which not only overthrew king but created the world's first anti monarchical constitution. Your area decision makes me proud of spent a quarter century of my career as a fellow constitutional law professor before running for Congress. Tom Payne said that. In the monarchy's he's the king is law but in the democracies the law will be king but today the president advances in essentially monarchical argument. He says that article go to allows them to do whatever he wants. You not only says that he believes it because he did something. No other American President has ever done before he used foreign military materia aid as a lever to coerce a foreign government to interfere in an American election to discredit an opponent into advance his reelection campaign professor caroline. What does the existence of the impeachment power? Tell us about the president's claim that the constitution allows house him to do whatever he wants it blows it out of the water if he's right and we accept this radical claim that he can do whatever he wants. All future presidents seeking reelection will be able to bring foreign governments into our campaigns to target their rivals and to spread ed propaganda. That's astounding if we let the President get away with this conduct. Every president can get away with it. Do you agree with that Professor Feldman I do Richard. Nixon sent burglars to break into the Democratic National Committee headquarters but President Trump just made a direct phone call to the president of a foreign country and sought his intervention in American election. So this is a big moment for America isn't Ed. If Elijah Cummings were here he would say listen up. Listen up how how we respond will determine the character of our democracy for generations now professors Feldman Carlin Garrett toes. There were three dominant minute reasons invoked at the founding for why we needed an impeachment power. Broadly speaking it was an instrument of popular self defense against a president. It behaving like a king and trampling the rule of law it but not just in the normal royal sense of showing cruelty and Vanity and treachery and greed didn't avarice and so on but when President's threatened to basic character of our government and the constitution. That's what impeachment was about the framers and vote three specific kinds of misconduct so serious and egregious that they thought they warranted impeachment. I the president might abuse his power by corruptly using his office for personal political financial gain will professor Feldman. What's so wrong with that if the president and belongs to my party and I generally like him? What's so wrong with him using his office to advance his own political ambitions because the president of the United States works for we're at the people and so if he seeks personal gain he's not serving the interests of the people he's rather serving the interests that are specific to him and that means he's abusing the office and he's doing things they can only get away with because he's the president and that is necessarily subject to impeachment will second and third the founders express feared they'd president could subvert our democracy by betraying his trust to foreign influence and interference and also by corrupting the election election process? Professor Carlin your one of America's leading election law scholars. What role does impeachment play in protecting the integrity of our elections especially in an international context in which Vladimir Putin and other tyrants and despots are interfering to stabilize elections around the world? Well well you know. Congress has enacted a series of laws to make sure that there isn't foreign influence in our elections and allowing the president to circumvent that principle apple is a problem and as I've already testified several times. America is not just the last best hope as Mr Jeffrey said. But it's also the shining city on a hill and we can't be the shining city on a hill and promote democracy around the world. If we're not promoting it here at home now any one of these actions alone would be sufficient to impeach the president according to the founders but is it fair to say that all three causes for impeachment explicitly contemplated by the founders abusive power betrayal of of our national security and corruption of of our elections are present in this president's conduct yes or no professor Feldman yes and presser gear yes in Professor Caroline. You all agree okay. And do are any of you aware of any other president who has essentially triggered all three concerns that animated the founders. No now knows well was chairman. It's hard to think of a more monarchical sentiment and then I can do whatever I was president and I yield back. Gentlemen Yields Back Ms. Let's go thank you Mr Chair Mr Chair. I ASK KANANASKIS CONSENT TO INSERT into the record a letter I wrote and sent to you asking calling on you to cancel any and all future sure impeachment hearings and outlining how the process objection. The lender will be entered into the record. Thank you during an interview you Mr Chairman on. MSNBC's morning Joe on November Twenty Six two thousand eighteen chairman Nadler outlined three reproaching test that he said would allow for a legitimate impeachment proceeding. Now I quote Chairman Nadler's remarks and this is what he said there.
"professor carlin" Discussed on News-Talk 1400 The Patriot
"Reserve judgment but I sure we we normally for the corruption of our sins residents but we also invited the next president also I am keenly aware of the significance of the whatever and I'm also very strongly guided by the fact that right so you haven't made up your mind yet Adam shift and this happened in kill two people Jim Jordan called out the professor professor Karlan four double standard for taking things well this is what he said I think the Jennifer yelling professor Carlin context is important isn't it yes Sir yeah because just a few minutes ago when when the our colleague from Florida presented a statement you may you said well you got to take that statement in context but it seems to me you don't want to extend the same apply the same standard to the president for the now famous quote I would like you to do us a favor you said about an hour and a half ago that that didn't meet ofsted amino acid meant the president himself but that's that the clear reading of this I would like you to do us a favor though because you know what the next two words are I don't know if the doctor I'll tell you because our country he didn't say I would like you to do me a favor though because I have been through a lot he said I want you to do us a favor though because our country has been through a lot you know what this this call with this call happened happened the day after mullah was in front of this committee of course our country put was put to two years of this and the idea that you're not going to say this is the royal we and he's talking about himself ignores the entire context of his statement that hope you know what he into the paragraph with talking about Bob molar and this is this is the basis for this impeachment this call it couldn't be further from the truth you want that you want the standard to apply when when represented gates makes one of your statements all you go look at the context but when the present United States is clear you try to change his word and when the context is clear he's talking about the two years that this country went through because smaller port somehow that doesn't live in the present Jesse do not leave town by the way every morning first thing I do show prep is return the call daybreak insider the source is now available to my listeners but my website click on daybreak insider banner sign up get the same source material I use every day very dot com to get.
"professor carlin" Discussed on Impeachment: A Daily Podcast
"This is impeachment a daily podcast from WNYC. I'm Brian Lehrer. It's Wednesday December. Four the House Judiciary Committee which would write actual articles of impeachment has begun series of impeachment hearings with a panel today four academics who are anything but academic in fact will begin with one early statement from Stanford Law Professor Officer. Pamela Karlan the ranking Republican on the Committee Collins of Georgia has suggested that as academics the witnesses were concerned with abstract things. Things not the facts of this case Professor Carlin included a response to that in her opening statement. I read transcripts of every one of the witnesses who appeared in the life hearing because I would not speak about these things without reviewing the facts. So I'm insulted by the suggestion. That has a law professor I. I don't care about those facts but everything I read on. Those occasions tells me that when President Trump invited indeed demanded foreign involvement in our upcoming coming election he struck at the very heart of what makes this a republic which we pledge allegiance that demand as Professor Feldman just explained and constituted an abusive power. Indeed as I want to explain in my testimony drawing a foreign government into our elections is an especially ebb serious abusive power. Because it undermines democracy itself undermines democracy itself Stanford Law Professor Pamela Carlin. And who is one of the four law professors on today's panel under the Usual House hearing rules the majority party gets to call three witnesses. The Minority Party party gets to call one. And that's what happened here. Three law professors called by the Democrat. She was one of them. One called by Republicans Harvard law professor Noah Feldman men was another call by the Democrats again. This is not just academic feldman argued that the president appears guilty of an impeachable act of abuse of power. The abusive 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 will partisan electoral interests. That is what the evidence since before. The House indicates Harvard Law. Professor Noah Feldman will hear from Feldman and Professor Carlin as we go the law professor the Republicans Looki- called is Jonathan Turley from George Washington University. He established himself as no fan of president. Trump did not vote for him voted for President Obama Emma and Clinton in the past but still he said this impeachment these wrong. It's not wrong. Because president trump is right is call was anything anything but perfect. It's not wrong because the house has no legitimate reason to investigate the Ukrainian controversy. It's not wrong because we're in an election action year. There is no good time for impeachment. No it's wrong because this is not how you impeach in American President. This case is not a case of the unknowable. It's a case of the peripheral. We have a record of conflicts defenses. Defenses that have not been fully considered on subpoenaed witness with material evidence to impeach a president on this record would expose every future president to the same type of inchoate impeachment. Principle often takes us to a place we would prefer not to be. That was George Washington University professor. Jonathan Turley. We'll hear more from him to before we bring in our guest and impeachment law professor himself. Here's just a very brief taste of the different paths. The Democratic and Republican Looking Committee members are on the very first sentence spoken this morning by Chairman Jerrold. Nadler Democrat from New York was just the six words the facts before us are undisputed the facts before US undisputed but the Republicans are disputing the facts. And they're also saying saying this. This impeachment is not really about facts Republican Doug Collins Georgia. You just don't like the guy you down the line team since November of two twenty sixteen. The chairman has talked about impeachment since last year when he was elected chairman. Two years ago November seventeenth before he's even sworn in Jeremiah. You're so don't tell me. This is about new evidence in new things and new stuff. We may have a new hearing room. We have new minds. We may have chairs. That aren't comfortable but this is nothing thing new folks. This is sad with me now. Philip Bobbitt director of the Center for National Security at Columbia University. He has served in all three branches. Inches of the federal government was legal counsel to the Senate Iran-contra Committee which investigated that scandal. That for a time had people talking about a possible impeachment of president. Ronald Reagan is the author of ten books and a new preface to the Classic Nineteen Seventy S book impeachment. A handbook by Charles Black Professor Bobbitt were grateful for your time. Thank you for coming in. Must've here did you enjoy seeing law professors in the spotlight for once rather than politicians. Well I thought the lowest prices is acquitted are professional very well. They were well prepared. They were powerful articulate. So I did enjoy that. Let's talk about some of the clips upset. We just heard. I I think if I had to state what I think is a lead angle today. It's not necessarily the law and the standards for impeachment human under the Constitution. Not yet anyway. It's that the Republicans are not conceding with the Democrats called the facts and we heard that for example in the answer. Answer there by Professor Turley. He called the Democrats case for impeachment. INCHOATE good vocabulary word for people. It means not fully formed so for example. He argued elsewhere that if they keep investigating maybe they can close the loop on questions like if the president actually directed a demand for investigations in exchange for military aid because the fact is not established. How much do you think that's where they are right now? In terms of the two sides arguing their cases yes. I wouldn't have put it quite like that. I'd say what you say is is only partly right Turley tried to redefine the meaning of an impeachable offense to be not the same as that for statutory or common crimes. So high crime in his view is to be construed the way we construe statutory crimes meaning beyond a reasonable doubt not so much the standard of proof as the elements of the crime and only having established that theoretical floor does does he. Then go on and say and we don't have the facts for that so the theory is really quite crucial here. If you differ on what constituted the high crime and misdemeanor or or bribery did you wouldn't have a lack of elements that Turley pointed to. So what did he argued was the difference between that and an an ordinary criminal case in the McDonald's case a recent Supreme Court case about bribery a prison. Spring Cork is about bribery alleged. A former governor. The court gave a very narrow definition of bribery. Let's not unreasonable. Bribes quite difficult to prove because we all have mixed motives and the court was willing to give the politicians some space for example. Helping constituents was calling meetings sort of pay for play phenomenon because you couldn't isolate the corrupt motive from the ordinary processes S.'s of politics. That's not what the frame was really concerned about when they talked about bribery. But you do still have some of the same problems with the elements are different. Not because Turley suddenly move the the elements to those of a common crime. We hit a much stricter much tighter and much. It's more formulaic role for proof. Why would it be broader for a presidential impeachment? It's such a consequential thing. Why should the standard of proof be lower? If that's the right way to characterize it maybe broader is Is Not the right way to put it what I have in mind. Is this the the crimes that serve as the basis for impeachment may be crimes of statutory nature. But that's rather rare crime such as cheating on your income income tax or Using narcotics So that probably wouldn't be the basis for an impeachment on the other hand a famous example given even by a Charles Black of president moves to Saudi Arabia so he can have four wives and conducts his office from there. There's not committed a crime but he's clearly doing something impeachable impeachable the crimes. The are contemplated by the constitution as a basis for impeachment are crimes against the integrity and the legitimacy legitimacy of the state itself. So have you brought. Her isn't quite isn't the right word but they're quite different their particular in that way. So attorneys argument demint about needing more proof some things that are established trump's ambassador. Gordon Sunland told president-elect skis aide. Andrei your Mac on September September. First that he onlin presumed the aid would not be released until Ukraine issued the public corruption statement that they had been discussing for many weeks on August eleventh. Your accent trump eight court Fokker a draft of a statement promising to fight corruption but in general terms and Volker asked your Mac in in a text message. So there's documentary evidence to add quote the two key items and guess what you're Max next draft included Burris Ma and the two thousand sixteen election so as a lawyer. Could you establish that a shakedown of Ukraine had happened even in conventional criminal terms. And could you tie the president closely enough to it. You'll be a hard sell concern and get a grand jury you could. You could probably say there's probable cause that a crime has been committed but you'd have to show to a jury satisfaction to there was no other reasonable explanation and the president himself has contradicted silence Arnold's testimony and said that that's not already had in mind and the Republicans on the committee have repeatedly said that the use of the word I presume this I concluded this show. That son on didn't have the sort of hard evidence that you'd have in a criminal trial but again that's a slightly different standard though. Wouldn't the Republicans have have to offer some kind of alternative theory of why trump's appointees were only demanding those specific statements from Ukraine at all the only argue. Oh you so far. The Republicans had any example of potential corruption or election. Interference is fair game to demand an investigation of but the record indicates they only cared about those two that were specifically re relevant to getting trump reelected or am I missing something I think you're missing the Republicans point that you could have both a fixation on election and animus toward your opponent and still be concerned about corruption and that the Biden's Haydn's a song of the role of the vice president in anti corruption efforts that seemed to have had if only inadvertently the effect of protecting his sons company that these things were mixed in their motives are the only two things they ever bring up. Even those that don't you think residents with the president's Representatives additives because the president is saying that that's not all mind. Let's listen to some more clips here's Stanford law professor Pam Carlin again citing President Ronald Ronald Reagan. On why she thinks it's vital to our democracy and to global democracy that the standard of not using personal gain as a factor in foreign policy be up held. We have become what John winthrop said in his sermon. In sixteen forty and what Ronald Reagan said in his final address to the country as he left office..
"professor carlin" Discussed on WLS-AM 890
"Professor Carlin is it common for someone who gets caught to deny that there be behavior is impermissible almost always and one of the questions before us is whether the president's claim that he cared about corruption is actually credible now you've argued before the Supreme Court and the Supreme Court determined that when assessing credibility we should look at a number of factors including impact historical background and whether there are departures from normal procedures correct that's correct so what what alternately trying to do is figure out if someone's explanation fits with the fax and if it doesn't then the explanation may not be true so let's explore that lieutenant colonel vin men testified that he prepared talking points on anti corruption reform for president trump's call with Ukrainian president's Lynskey however based on the transcripts released of those calls in April and July president trump never mentioned these points of corruption he actually never mention the word corruption does that go to any of those factors is that significant yes it goes to the one about procedural irregularities and it also goes to the one that says you look at the kind of things that led up to the decision that you're trying to figure out somebody's motive about so let's try another one ambassador Volker testified that the president never expressed any concerns to him about corruption in any country other than Ukraine would that be relevant to your assessment yes it would it goes to the factor about substantive departures and professor Carlin there is in fact and my colleague for Mister McClintock mentioned this earlier process outlined in the national defense authorization act to assess whether countries that are receiving military aid have done enough to fight corruption in may of twenty nineteen my Republican colleagues did not say this the department of defense actually wrote a letter determining that Ukraine past this assessment and yet president trump said as side that assessment and with held the congressionally approved aid to Ukraine anyway in direct contradiction to the established procedures he should have followed had he cared about corruption is that assessment it is that relevant to your assessment yes I would also go to the factors the supreme court's discussed and what about the fact that I think you mentioned this earlier as one of the key things that you read in the testimony that president trump wanted the investigations of a response and the bidens announced but that he actually didn't care whether they were conducted that was an investor somnolence testimony what would you say about that that goes to whether the claim that this is about politics is a persuasive claim because that goes to the fact that it's being announced publicly which is an odd thing I mean maybe Mr swallow could probably answer this better than I because he was a prosecutor the general you don't announce the investigation in a criminal case before you conducted because it puts the person on notice that they are under investigation and given all of these facts and they're more that we don't have time to get to how would you assess the credibility of the president's claim that he was worried about corruption well I think you ought to make that credibility determination because you have the sole power of impeachment if I were a member of the house of representatives I would infer from this that he was doing it for political reasons if we don't stand up now to a president who abuses his power we risk sending a message to all future presidents that they can put their own personal political interests ahead of the American people our national security and our elections and that is the gravest of threats to our democracy I yield back the the gentlelady yields back I now recognize mystic government for the purpose of a unanimous consent request yes I would ask unanimous consent to all four of article by Daniel.
"professor carlin" Discussed on WCBS Newsradio 880
"Report disputes along party lines of the house Judiciary impeachment hearings against president trump has constitutional scholars dissect his conduct involving Ukraine Texas Republican John reckless with a question for that party's witnessed Jonathan Turley if I were to summarize your to your testimony no bribery no extortion no obstruction of justice no abuse of power is that fair not on this record a Georgia Democrat Hank Johnson what answers from that parties witness Pamela Carlin professor Turley warns that this is an impulse buy moment and suggests that the house should pause professor Carlin do you agree with professor Turley no if you conclude that as I think the evidence to this point shows that the president is soliciting foreign involvement in our election you need to know that you need to act now to prevent foreign interference in the next election like the one we have in the past CBS news special report and Alison Keyes it's four twenty one a W. C. B. S. heart island is now a city park the island off the coast of the Bronx is the largest public burial ground in the country here's WCBS reporter rich lamb merit of law's he declared of the more than one million souls very there they were loved by people in their lives and they loved others and if they ended up in a situation where the final resting place was hard island that is that is not a comment on who they wore and the fiber of their being as a comment on the inequalities in our society Elaine Joseph's daughter was interred there in nineteen seventy eight she was lost in the system she was lost through a hospital she was lost to the Emmys office and she's now lost at heart island because we don't exactly know where she is buried but I go there frequently and as ms Jones who put it I want to tell my daughter and her million friends they know have dignity at city hall rich lamb.
"professor carlin" Discussed on KNSS
"Losing it next year come said if he thought Republicans might lose their first Senate race in Kansas since nineteen thirty two I would have to talk to Mike mostly cloudy is sixty four today right now we have mostly cloudy sky and fifty five degrees ninety eight seven and thirteen thirty KM ask ask news I'm Steve Boyer radio dot com out traffic and weather the phrase that gives all your photos to some guy named Igor the choice is simple download the radio dot com up to date and listen to carry an SS wherever you go this is Wichita's number one talk ninety seven and thirteen thirty AM as the wall on a car up politician at a time this is the Sean Hannity show what comparisons professor Carlin can we make between kings that the framers were afraid out and the president's conduct today so king's could do no wrong because the king's word was law and contrary to what a president trump has said article two does not have give him the power to do anything he wants I'll just give you one example that shows you the difference between him and the king which is the constitution says there can be no titles of nobility so while the president can name his son Barron he can't make him a barren wow search Ireland one of the three yeah by the way the you know besides Jonathan Turley who's a Democrat who didn't vote for trump either voted for Clinton Obama and Hillary I'm this is a woman now.
"professor carlin" Discussed on WBT Charlotte News Talk
"Can't criticize a womans this is just outrageous imaginatively she's trying to make an analogy the later one these other lawyers as guide Gearhart from North Carolina she know my analogies aren't nearly as good as professor Carlin's but let me try let's say that you're robbing a bank and as you're leaving with the money you know you're going to get caught so you drop the money on the floor did you rob the bank or not even though you don't leave with the money one thank to drop rob not folks are back to it have much people seventy notes this morning watching this thing telling him to turn it off because I couldn't deal with the hate they hate their watching made him uncomfortable right now we've got to get on to provide I promise we'll get to this non that would it's Justin Trudeau let me find the number Trudeau when the number sixteen okay finally find sixteen here I thought I had it right in front of me so there was an open Mike there was a reception at Buckingham Palace you know what else you hear this the official receiving line you get the queen the prince Philip's not there he's not well your crystals not there the queen's husband they have a queen you've got prince Charles who the guys in the cookie himself is the climate change guy that burns up more carbon dioxide new and I couldn our lifetimes and then come along his his high school sweetheart who we I ended up marrying the princess and did not join the receiving line and stayed in the doorway and the queen was not happy that princess and apparently looking according to weight appeared was guessing the president of the United States as a president Malani are going for the reception line the queen apparently loves trompe the queen apparently once in a come back a lot it came back NATO thing reception for in there and all the other night people and princes and was and she got I stared down from the queen and a look on the queen's face like where the hell are you get your over here at amp princess Sam this kind of shrugged and lifted her hand.
"professor carlin" Discussed on WLS-AM 890
"Into president trump's political adversaries he then sought to prevent Congress from investigating his conduct by ordering his administration and everyone in it to defy house subpoenas professor Carlin is you said the right to vote is the most precious legal right we have in this country there's the president's conduct in danger that right yes Mister chairman it does thank you and that is it do so she does the way that it does it is exactly what president Washington warned about by inviting a foreign government to influence our elections it takes the right away from the American people and it turns that into a right that foreign governments decide to interfere for their own benefit from governments don't interfere in our elections to benefit us they intervene to benefit themselves thank you professor Gerhard you have written extensively about our system of checks and balances what happens to that system when the president undertakes a blockade of congress' impeachment inquiry when you order is all witnesses not to testify and what is our records our president does that a separation of powers means nothing the subpoenas that have been issued of course unlawful orders in our law schools we we teach our students this is an easy straightforward situation you comply with the law lords all the time have to comply with subpoenas but in this situation the full scale obstruction full scale obstruction those subpoenas I think that torpedoes separation of powers and therefore you're only course is to assess protect your institutional prerogatives never include impeachment and the same is true of a of of the of of.