Trump Committed Acts Punishable By Impeachment

Three law professors ruled Wednesday that the impeachment investigation against Donald Trump was justified and even necessary to protect American democracy, drawing the wrath of Republican elected officials who accused them of bias during a congressional hearing.

These experts, invited by the Democratic majority in the House of Representatives, were contradicted by a confrere, invited by the Republicans, who found the evidence “insufficient” to impeach the president (“impeachment”).

Donald Trump is in turmoil because he has asked Ukraine to investigate Joe Biden, one of his potential rivals for the 2020 presidential election.

Democrats are convinced that he has abused his power to achieve his ends, including freezing military aid for this ally in the conflict with Russia. After two months of investigation and the hearing of 17 witnesses, they assured Tuesday to have gathered “overwhelming evidence” to feed their case.

The Republican president, who denies pressuring Kiev, denounced a “bad” Democratic joke on Wednesday for the country.

At the same time, parliamentarians began the legal debate to determine whether his conduct corresponded to one of the grounds for dismissal mentioned in the Constitution: “treason, corruption or other crimes and major crimes”.

Without hesitation, three prestigious university professors answered in the affirmative.

Barron not a baron

“If we can not indict a president who uses his power for personal purposes, we no longer live in a democracy, we live in a monarchy or a dictatorship,” said Noah Feldman, a law professor at Harvard, before the Judiciary Committee of the House.

“If Congress does not remove him, the impeachment process will have lost its meaning, just like the constitutional guarantees to prevent the installation of a king on American soil,” said Michael Gerhardt, of the University of North Carolina.

Pamela Karlan of Stanford University accused Donald Trump of “a particularly serious abuse of power” by asking a foreign country to help him win the election.

She pointed out that the US Constitution does not give the chief executive the absolute power of a king. “Donald Trump can call his son Barron, but can not make him a baron,” she joked in reference to the president’s last son.

Melania Trump angry

A child “must be kept out of politics”, responded on Twitter his mother Melania Trump. “Pamela Karlan, you should be ashamed of your political bent, obviously partisan,” she said.

Referring to the 13-year-old son of the president, “makes you look mean,” Republican MP Matt Gaetz told him about his donations to the campaigns of several Democratic candidates.

Ms. Karlan apologized for quoting the teenager, without going back to the substance of her statement.

“Threat continues”

A dissident voice in this panel of experts, Jonathan Turley of George Washington University lamented the lack of “direct evidence” against the president and the “rush” of Democrats. In this debate, “there is so much more rage than reason,” he pointed out.

In fact, each camp was virulent on Wednesday.

Donald Trump “represents a continuing threat to the Constitution and our democracy,” accused Democratic Democrat Jerry Nadler in concluding nearly eight hours of hearings, broadcast live on television.

Republican Doug Collins retorted that the case against the president was empty. “There is nothing wrong, nothing that deserves an indictment,” he said, denouncing an “unfair” process. “We do not even know what the next steps are,” he said.

Jerry Nadler, who chairs the Judiciary Committee, suggested that other witnesses could be heard soon, without saying more.

Its commission, which is responsible for drafting the indictment of the president, considers four heads: abuse of power, corruption, obstruction of the Congress and hindering justice. If she retains them, they will be submitted to a plenary vote in the lower house of Congress, perhaps before Christmas.

Given the Democratic majority in this chamber, Donald Trump will become the third president in US history indicted in Congress, after Andrew Johnson in 1868 and Bill Clinton in 1998, both acquitted afterwards.

The Senate, with a majority Republican, will then be responsible for trying the president and it would require a two-thirds majority to remove him, which seems very unlikely.