- Click to share on Facebook (Opens in a new window)
- Click to share on Twitter (Opens in a new window)
- Click here to share on LinkedIn (Opens in a new window)
- Click to email a friend (Opens in a new window)
(CNN) - A trio of legal experts argued on Wednesday that Donald Trump's unprecedented conduct is evidence of crimes for dismissal. The statements are produced at the first political trial hearing of the Judicial Commission of the House of Representatives, which took place amid protests and repeated procedural obstacles by Republicans who criticized the proceedings.
The initial hearing, held by the panel that is expected to write the articles of political trial against the president, was contentious from the moment the president of the Judicial Commission, Jerry Nadler, began the session. Repeatedly, Republicans forced procedural votes and questioned Nadler about the commission's rules, while disqualifying the process of political trial and cataloging it as a farce.
- READ: A serious accusation and a crucial turn in the process of political trial against Trump
This session marked an important breakthrough for the Democrats in terms of political trial procedures, which now went from the investigation conducted by the Intelligence Commission at the hands of the judicial panel. Democrats are headed to vote on the political trial in the House by the end of this year. In addition, the president of the legislative body Nancy Pelosi held a closed meeting on Wednesday morning, only for representatives, in which she asked: "Are you ready?" In that meeting, the Democrats agreed to continue advancing with the investigation.
At the hearing, the Democrats managed to overcome the objections of the Republicans to obtain the testimony of three of the four legal experts who were invited with the aim of explaining why Trump's actions would constitute crimes for dismissal.
Those three law academics —Hahah Feldman of Harvard, Pamela Karlan of Stanford and Michael Gerhardt of the University of North Carolina— were asked, based on evidence from the House Intelligence Commission, whether President Trump committed the high crime for the removal of abuse of power. Everyone answered yes.
"If what we are talking about is not grounds for dismissal, then nothing is," Gerhardt said. "This is precisely the bad behavior by which the editors created a constitution, including dismissal, in order to protect themselves," he completed.
- LOOK: What you should know about the hearings in the Judicial Commission of the House of Representatives in Trump's political trial investigation
While the three law professors invited by the Democrats backed the impeachment, the academic called by the Republicans to testify, Jonathan Turley of George Washington University, argued that the Democrats are making a mistake that would have lasting consequences.
“I worry that the standards of political judgment are being reduced so that they adjust to a shortage of evidence and a great deal of anger. I believe that this political trial not only does not meet the standard of past trials but would create a dangerous precedent for future trials, ”said Turley.
Nadler promised to act quickly to accuse Trump if his commission concludes that the president incurred crimes of impeachment.
"Never before, in the history of the republic, have we been forced to consider the conduct of a president who seems to have requested personal and political favors from a foreign government," said Nadler, a New York Democrat. "When we apply the Constitution to these facts, if it is true that President Trump committed a crime - or crimes - for dismissal, we must act quickly in order to fulfill our duty and accuse him accordingly."
For their part, Republicans criticized the political trial investigation of Democrats. Rep. Doug Collins of Georgia, the main Republican on the commission, disqualified the inquiry as an "unfair job." "This is not a political trial, it is simply an unfair job," he said. And he concluded: "today was a waste of time."
In addition to accusations about Ukraine, Democrats have focused a portion of their interrogations on Trump's obstruction of justice allegations that were mentioned in the report of former special prosecutor Robert Mueller. Now, Democrats have not yet reported whether Mueller's accusations will be included in possible articles of political judgment, while some congressional Democrats have pressed for that.
While they were asking the academics questions, the Democrats showed a slide on the screen of the courtroom entitled "Chargeable crimes," which listed three elements: "Abuse of power and bribery, obstruction of Congress and obstruction of justice," one possible Clue about the intentions of the Democrats for the articles of the political trial.
- LOOK: Trump and his lawyers decline to participate in the political trial hearing this week
"How serious is this evidence of obstruction of justice?" Democratic lawyer Norm Eisen asked Gerhardt.
“The obstruction of justice has been recognized as a crime for dismissal, both against President Clinton and against President Nixon. This evidence presented by Mr. Mueller that is in the public registry is a very strong proof of obstruction of justice, ”Gerhardt said.
Republicans force procedural votes
Republicans executed their protests against the audience seconds after it began. A strategy that included forcing procedural votes in motions to request that the president of the House Intelligence Commission, Adam Schiff, and the complainant testify, as well as to postpone Wednesday's hearing.
The change to the Judicial Commission has increased the partisan temperature in the room, since the panel has some of the most vocal congressmen on both sides.
But law professors made it clear that they were not going to be simple decorations for a partisan fight.
Karlan criticized Collins, who said in his opening statement that the professors "could not have digested Adam Schiff's report yesterday or the Republican response in any real way."
“Mr. Collins, I would like to tell you, sir, that I read the transcripts of each of the witnesses who were at the public hearing because I would not talk about these things without reviewing the facts, so I am insulted by the insinuation that as a professor of law I do not I care about those facts, ”Karlan said.
The president's lawyers were invited to participate in the hearing, but rejected the offer, arguing that the process was unfair and no details were given about the hearing itself.
Nadler has given the president's lawyers until Friday to announce whether they will participate in future political trial proceedings in the commission, which is expected to include a presentation by the Intelligence Commission on their findings.
The Republicans focused their questions on Turley, giving him the opportunity to detail the problems he sees in the face of the investigation of the Democratic political trial. Turley argued that Democrats have not been able to provide evidence that meets "any reasonable interpretation" of the crimes they claim Trump committed.
"If you're going to accuse a bribery president, you need something to prove it, because you're trying to dismiss a duly elected US president," Turley said. “The statement has been made not only by these witnesses but also by President Schiff and others, that this is a clear case of bribery. It is not".
- READ: Democrats publish report detailing Trump's alleged scheme on Ukraine and discusses a precedent for the political trial
Turley also criticized the accusation of the Democrats about Trump's alleged obstruction of justice, saying they have not allowed the courts to rule on their subpoenas - unlike the political trial proceedings against Richard Nixon - by speeding up the process. .
"Quick and reduced is not a good recipe for political judgment," Turley added. “They establish an incredibly short period, they demand a lot of information and when the president goes to court, then they take him to political trial,” he completed.
Lauren Fox, Ellie Kaufman, Haley Byrd, David Wright, Nicky Robinson, Alison Main, Giulia McDonnell and Gregory Wallace, all from CNN, contributed to this report.
Democrats Political Judgment Political Judgment to Donald Trump
