The House Judiciary Committee will hold its first impeachment hearing Wednesday, at 10 AM ET. The witnesses will be four constitutional scholars. Given the makeup of the Committee, there are sure to be fireworks.
Vox explains who will testify:
The Judiciary Committee is expected to hear from four witnesses: Noah Feldman of Harvard University, Pamela Karlan of Stanford University, Michael Gerhardt of the University of North Carolina, and Jonathan Turley of George Washington University. All four are constitutional scholars; three were selected by Democrats, and one by Republicans, who have complained that more witnesses should be added and that the minority should be allowed to bring in more experts.
The Los Angeles Times notes that the Judiciary Committee “is far larger than the Intelligence Committee and includes some of the most partisan Republicans and Democrats in Congress.” That could produce “a level of bombast the public hasn’t seen so far.” Think Corey Lewandowski hearing.
Still, it will be history in the making so I will be watching and commenting below. Share your thoughts and observations, too.
You can also watch it live streaming below, via PBS NewsHour.
I also find it interesting that several of the Republicans were unable to maintain their composure – particularly Matt Gaetz, who humiliated himself with an extremely strange emotional outburst where he began to rant in a singsong voice and shout at the panel for some reason.
I noted that the Dems were trying to simply deal with the legality of the discussion, and to confirm that this course of action is in fact the correct one by the Constitution. The Republicans on the other hand were repeatedly trying to interject confusion and snarky comments, even to the point of interrupting Nadler’s closing statement with even more nonsense.
The question now is how quickly McConnell will move to dismiss the whole thing in the Senate. It’s more likely that he will avoid the big trial situation by simply calling a voice vote and ending the matter as fast as he can. If he lets it get to a trial on the floor, he potentially loses control of its momentum and Grassley won’t be able to gavel the witnesses into silence before they’ve made a mess of things for him.
Three of the four professors focused on substance. They presented the Constitution in everyday language, with an emphasis on why the Framers chose certain words and not others. Having done that, they gave their expert opinion on the substance of the impeachment issue. Their focus was on substance and their expert opinion (verdict) could not have been more damning.
By contrast, the fourth one complained about the speed at which the House is moving!
Uh, OK. Using that logic, a thief caught with a stolen wallet (redhanded) would expect to undergo the same indepth investigation that would have to be conducted had that thief been apprehended after having spent the money. Depressing to realise that this guy is actually teaching law to the legal profession of the future.
“MELANIA HITS BACK: First lady fights back against legal scholar who used Barron Trump’s name for laughs at hearing”
“GAETZ GRILLING: Republican rips impeachment witnesses over donations to prominent Dems”
“STATE OF ACADEMIA ON DISPLAY: 3 professors picked by Dems at hearing are ‘radical activists,’ Levin says”
TrumpTV™ has become an alternate reality universe to such the degree even I can’t believe it. I’m totally serious.
What has always fascinated me about that name was it it had been the surname of one of his make-believe spokesmen, John Barron. I think he used as some sort of compliment to his own rapier-sharp wit and ingenuity. Who knows what weird shit bubbles and churns around in that obese old head…
But I caught a glimpse of CNN at the gym and they had as part of their “breaking news” coverage, a banner stating that one of the witnesses (Karlan) had apologized for invoking Barron Trump. I tweeted to CNN that this is why I almost never watch that network.
I also said that I am not throwing shade on Adam Schiff or the rest of the Intel Committee because I thought they did a terrific job. But the facts and testimonies were complicated and even I had trouble following some of it.
By contrast, these legal experts are very clear, concise and damning of Trump’s behavior.