Thread by @BBuchman_CNS

We are roughly 30 minutes away from the start of today's House Judiciary Cmte hearing on the constitutional framework for impeachment. Join me as I live-tweet the proceedings for @CourthouseNews. Thread starts here.
courthousenews.com/past-impeachme…

@CourthouseNews 4 legal/constitutional scholars testify before lawmakers today. Some reps have criticized this hearing as a useless "Schoolhouse Rock" session for lawmakers already well acquainted with the process of impeachment.
But, remember: this is as much for them as it is for the public.

@CourthouseNews Noah Feldman, acc. to his opening stmt, will describe why framers included a provision for impeachment; what it means, how it applies to Trump & whether he committed impeachable offenses.

In his estimation, based on the evidence already submitted before House re: Ukraine et al, Trump *has* abused his office and damaged the public trust in the executive branch.
Feldman's opening statement in full available here:
documentcloud.org/documents/6567…

Feldman will also talk about the origins of "high crimes and misdemeanors" and "bribery" etc.
He explains; Classically, high crimes and misdemeanors are an abuse of office defined by using the office of the pres. for "personal advantage or gain, not for the public interest."

Feldman notes, when the framers named bribery as a high crime and misdemeanor,' they were "naming one particular version of this abuse of office" familiar to them.

He explains: 2 of the most well known English impeachment trials of their time involved bribery: Warren Hastings, an English statesmen turned governor-general of India, was impeached for "corruption, peculation and extortion." (He rec'd bribes/gifts while serving in official cap)

Framers also had the impeachment of England's Lord Treasurer to consider: Lord Macclesfield. He also took bribes "to sell offices," Feldman notes.

Feldman: The words “high crimes and misdemeanors” had a well-understood meaning from centuries of English
impeachment trials. They were in common use in impeachments. Indeed, those words emerged in impeaching Warren Hastings.

Feldman: The phrase “high crimes and misdemeanors” was an expression with a concrete meaning. The word
“high” in the phrase modified both words that followed: “high crimes” and “high misdemeanors.” The
word “high” meant “connected to high political office.”

Alexander Hamilton explained the phrase “high crimes and misdemeanors” in the Federalist Papers, writing that:
those offenses which proceed from the misconduct of public men, or, in other words, from the
abuse or violation of some public trust.

Hamilton said: "They are of a nature which may with peculiar propriety be denominated POLITICAL, as they relate chiefly to injuries done immediately to the society
itself."

We should be getting underway momentarily. The room has quieted, the witnesses are in their seats.
@CourthouseNews

@CourthouseNews Back to Feldman - and this is important - he also notes how there are other ways the office can be abused, beyond abuse for personal gain.

Feldman: "The framers understand that abuse of office could take a variety of other forms. Other forms of abuse include: the use of the office of the presidency to corrupt the electoral process or to compromise the national interest or national security."
@CourthouseNews

@CourthouseNews And away we go. Chairman Nadler has gaveled us in.

@CourthouseNews Nadler is setting the rules. He will make an opening stmt, the ranking member will speak (Doug Collins) and then panelists will offer their opening statements.
We've had 2 attempts at objections/parliamentary order, shot down already. Off to the races.

@CourthouseNews "To obtain that private political advantage, Trump withheld both an official WH mtg from a newly elected president of a fragile democracy and withheld vital military aid from a vulnerable ally." - Chairman Nadler

@CourthouseNews Nadler: When witnesses told the truth and disobeyed his direction not to testify, he intimidated them. (Nadler notes the Yovanovitch comment about her "Going through some things")

@CourthouseNews POTUS welcomed interference from Russia in real time, Nadler notes. And when Trump's own DOJ tried to uncover the extent to which a foreign govt broke our laws, Trump took "extraordinary steps" to stop those investigations.

@CourthouseNews Nadler notes these stark differences between presidents of the past and Trump today:
- Nixon produced dozens of docs/recordings
- Clinton physically gave his blood when asked

Trump has refused to produce a single document and has directed all witnesses not to testify.

@CourthouseNews "As we exercise our responsibility to determine whether Trump's patterns of behavior constitute impeachable offenses, it's important to put his conduct in context," Nadler says.

Since the founding of the country, only 2 POTUS have been impeached. The 3rd was on his way, but resigned, Nadler says, adding: "Never before has a president engaged in a course of conduct that included *all* of the acts that most concerned our framers."

What kind of president would open the door to foreign influence? How will we know if POTUS has betrayed our country for petty personal gain? Hamilton had a response to that.

Hamilton: When a man unprincipled in private life desperate in his fortune, bold in his temper, possessed of considerable talents, having the advantage of military habits—despotic in his ordinary demeanor—known to have scoffed in private at the principles of liberty—

"...when such a man is seen to mount the hobby horse of popularity—to join in the cry of danger to liberty—to take every opportunity of embarrassing the General Government & bringing it under suspicion—

"to flatter and fall in with all the nonsense of the zealots of the day—It may justly be suspected that his object is to throw things into confusion that he may ‘ride the storm and direct the whirlwind." - Alexander Hamilton

The storm we find ourselves in today was started by President Trump, Nadler says.

If we don't act to hold him in check now, President Trump will try again to abuse his office for personal, political gain, Nadler says.

Rep Doug Collins, R-GA will now deliver his opening statement.

Collins says what Nadler has said is not new, what's not new is the facts, it's the "same sad story"
This is a "re-do" on Mueller, he says. Saying Hose Judiciary Cmte did not have ample review period for Mueller Report.

Collins says Trump is being thrust into this process because Dems "just don't like the guy"
This isn't about new evidence, he adds. It's about "clock and calendar." This is happening because Dems are scared they will lose again in 2020, he adds.

Rep Collins claims the whistleblower is not entitled to protection of their identity.

House Judic Cmte ranking member Doug Collins on failure of Trump participation today. He says, "no offense" to the legal scholars preparing to testify but "The president has nothing to ask you. You're not going to provide anything he can't read."
@CourthouseNews

@CourthouseNews Ranking member Collins calls the impeachment process a "simple railroad job."

@CourthouseNews Collins has just put forward a motion to require the attendance of Schiff and take his testimony. It was tabled. We're doing an official roll call of the vote.

@CourthouseNews Everyone has voted on the motion to table Schiff's testimony. Motion tabled. 24-17.

@CourthouseNews Should you wish to read it in full, here is a copy of Chairman Nadler's opening statement today:
documentcloud.org/documents/6567…

@CourthouseNews Noah Feldman has tried to begin his opening statements at least three times and he has been interrupted by GOP lawmakers who are seeking to put forward a privileged motion. Nadler shut that down, Feldman finally speaking

@CourthouseNews Should you wish to read the ranking member's opening statement, it is available in full here:
documentcloud.org/documents/6567…

@CourthouseNews Feldman discusses how framers actually moved to remove impeachment from Const. initially; they argued reelection was enough. But when the proposal was made, "significant disagreements ensued."

Gov of NC at the time said, if POTUS can't be impeached, he will spare no efforts or means whatever to get himself reelected.
The idea is: POTUS must be subordinate to the law, not above it.
Reelection was not a sufficient security against presidential misconduct or corruption

Trump abused his office by soliciting Zelensky in order to gain personal political advantage in the 2020 election. The words "abuse of office" are not magical or mystical, Feldman says. "They're very clear."

When POTUS uses "awesome powers of his office" not to serve public but to serve his own partisan interests - this is abuse of office, Feldman reemphasizes.

Pamela Karlan will now deliver her testimony but before she did, R lawmakers put forward a motion to delay today's hearing. The motion failed.

Pamela Karlan to Collins: "I would like to say to you sir, I read transcripts of every witness who appeared in live hearings, I would not speak about these things without reviewing the facts. I am insulted by the suggestion as a law professor that I don't care about those facts."

"The very idea that a President might seek the aid of a foreign government in his reelection campaign would have horrified [the framers]. But based on the evidentiary record, that is what President Trump has done." - Pamela Karlan, public interest law prof.

FTR: Karlan is a public interest law professor and serves as co-director of the Supreme Court Litigation Clinic at Stanford Law School.

You can read Karlan's opening statement in full here:
documentcloud.org/documents/6567…

Our elections become less free when they are distorted by foreign interference. What happened in 2016 was bad enough. That distortion is magnified if a sitting president abuses the powers of his office actually to invite foreign intervention, Karlan says.

Karlan recalls Trump's famous "Russia, if you're listening..." statement. She says, if POTUS cared about the position of his office, protecting elections, he would have said "Russia if you're listening, butt out of our elections!"

We are now hearing testimony from Michael Gerhardt, law professor for the University of North Carolina School of Law.

Gerhardt: "Our hearing today should serve as a reminder of one of the fundamental principles that drove the founders of our Constitution to break from England and to draft their own Constitution, the principle that in this country no one is king."
cc: @realDonaldTrump

@realDonaldTrump Gerhardt's full testimony is available here:
documentcloud.org/documents/6567…

@realDonaldTrump What matters in determining whether conduct is a high crime or misdemeanor is the context, Prof. Gerhardt says.

"I cannot help to think that this president has attacked every safeguard against establishing a monarchy in this country."

@CourthouseNews

@realDonaldTrump @CourthouseNews Gerhardt calls out @LindseyGrahamSC's time in the House during Clinton impeachment.

Graham, at the time, said: "The day Nixon failed to answer that subpoena is the day he was subject to impeachment because he took the power from Congress over the impeachment process away from Congress,
and he became the judge and jury.”

Gerhardt says: "That is a perfectly good articulation of why obstruction of Congress is impeachable. Senator Graham dismisses the relevance of that statement now, but
its relevance speaks for itself."

Jonathan Turley - who was called by the minority to testify - says he did not vote for Trump. He isn't here to support Trump. Rather, Turley says, he's testifying because he's concerned about "lowering impeachment standards" and setting dangerous precedents for future presidents.

You can read Jonathan Turley's opening statement in full here:
documentcloud.org/documents/6567…

Turley: The Ukr. matter is largely built around a handful of witnesses and a schedule that reportedly set the matter for a vote within weeks of the underlying presidential act. Such a wafer-thin record only magnifies the problems already present in a narrowly constructed impchmt

Turley asks: "Will a slipshod impeachment make us less mad or will it only give an invitation for the madness to follow in every future administration?"
He's mad, his wife is mad, even his Goldendoodle is mad, he jests.

He cont.: "That is why this is wrong. It is not wrong because President Trump is right. His call was anything but “perfect” and his reference to the Bidens was highly inappropriate. It is not wrong because the House has no legitimate reason to investigate the Ukr. controversy...

"The use of military aid for a quid pro quo to investigate one’s political opponent, if proven, can be an impeachable offense. It is not wrong because we are in an election year. There is no good time for an impeachment, but...

"This process concerns the constitutional right to hold office in this term, not the next. No, it is wrong because this is not how an American president should be impeached," Turley says.

Turley: For 2yrs, members of this cmte have declared that crim/impeachable acts were established for everything from treason to conspiracy to obstruction. However, no action taken to impeach. Suddenly, just a few weeks ago, House announced it would begin an inquiry, push for vote

Rep. Guy Reschenthaler, R-PA, put up a motion calling for whistleblower testimony. Motion is tabled, 24-17.

We are finally getting into questions. @NormEisen, former WH lawyer under Pres. Obama, is tapped to assist Dems w/questioning.

@NormEisen Nadler to Gerhardt: What happens to the system of checks and balances when POTUS erects a blockade and orders witnesses not to testify.
When POTUS does that, separation of powers means nothing. Subpoenas were lawful orders.

In this situation, Trump's "full scale obstruction, torpedoes separation of powers"

In law school, we teach our students, this is easy, straightforward, Gerhardt says of subpoenas - you get one, you need to respond to it by law.

Norm Eisen is now handling questions. He asks panel about three specifics: Abuse of Power and Bribery, Obstruction of Congress and Obstruction of Justice

Feldman: Abuse of power, anything done that would put his personal gain ahead of public interest.

If a president abuses power, the only recourse avail. is impeachment because as a practical matter POTUS cannot be charged criminally, Feldman says.

Did Trump commit high crimes and misdemeanor related to his engagement w/Ukraine (asking Zel for a favor for his personal political benefit)
"The president did commit an impeachable abuse of office," Feldman says. "Same answer," Karlan says.
Gerhardt: We're all in agreement.

Eisen to Turley: Did you write in WSJ 'there is much that is worthy of investigation in Ukr. scandal and it is true that impeachment does not require the act of a crime?"
After very brief hedging, Turley concedes, smiling, commends Eisen for his memory of the piece in the Journal

If this isn't course-corrected now, if Trump isn't impeached, if Congress doesn't ensure that all Americans can vote in free and fair elections - this will put U.S. in precarious position moving forward, Karlan suggests

Eisen to Karlan: She mentioned 2 add'l aspects of high crimes and misdemeanors, like betrayal of natl interest and corruption of the electoral process.

She begins with what Framers were concerned with before bringing it up to date.

The framers were worried that elections could be corrupted in a variety of ways and they spent a lot of time designing an electoral system that would not leave them subject to that corruption.

Karlan: "If you become an American citizen, almost everything in this country is open to you. You can become chief justice of SCOTUS, Secy of State. The one office not open to you is the presidency because of the natural-born citizen clause of the Constitution...

Karlan, referring to the framers, "They put that in because they were so worried about foreign influence over a president."

Karlan: "This is not just about our national interests to protect elections or make sure Ukraine stays strong and fights the Russians so we don't have to fight them here, but it's in our national interest to promote democracy worldwide."

She continues: "If we look hypocritical about this, if we look like we're asking foreign countries to investigate our political opponents, then we are not doing our job of being that shining city on a hill."

By withholding military assistance and diplomatic support from a strategic foreign partner government engaged in an ongoing military conflict, illegally instigated by Russia, POTUS compromised national security, Feldman agrees.

Dems making this as plain as possible, using a handy ABC graphic for the def. of high crimes and misdemeanors: Abuse of Power, Betrayal of the National Interest, Corruption of Elections.

Eisen to Karlan: Did Trump's demands on Ukr. constitute high crimes and misdemeanors and bribery?
"Yes, they did," Karlan responds.
It's important to distinguish this from the current federal criminal code for bribery.

"It took 60 years after ratification of Const. that any federal bribery law existed. So when framers say a president can be removed for bribery, they were not referring to a statute. They were thinking about bribery as it was understood in the 18th century based on common law...

"Generally even then, they were talking about a judge, not a president or king, because no president existed yet and the king could do no wrong - they were saying, when you took private benefits/asked for private benefits in return for official act or...

"someone gave them to you to influence an official act, that was bribery," Karlan said.
"If you can conclude that he asked for investigations in Biden and Biden's son for his own political benefit, yes, the request to Zelensky was bribery, she adds.

On Trump's conduct and his request to Zelensky to investigate his political opponent for personal benefit:

"If what we're talking about isn't impeachable, then nothing is impeachable," Gerhardt says.

@CourthouseNews

@CourthouseNews Eisen asks panel whether it matters that the military aid that was withheld was ultimately released? Does that undercut the necessity of impeachment?

Karlan, Feldman, Gerhardt agree, it does not.
Whether he succeeded to get what he wanted doesn't matter.

Gerhardt: "If the POTUS *attempts* to abuse his office, that is what matters. If he doesn't pull it off it, it doesn't undercut the impeachability of the act."

The public that has come today to witness proceedings burst into a bit of laughter when a clip was played of Trump claiming (wrongly) that Article II gives him unlimited power.

With the chairman's initial time expired, we are taking a 10 minute recess, and when we get back, we will start with questions from the ranking member, Doug Collins.

While we wait, some color from inside: the witnesses are talking and exchanging pleasantries. Jonathan Turley chatted and shared a laugh with Karlan, Gerhardt and Feldman. Their views on this are quite different but it should be noted: there is no show of animosity at all.

And we're back!

Collins began his time with a roughly three minute stretch of remarks, complaining about the process.
He also (mercifully) acknowledged that this room is absolutely freezing,
He complained about the discomfort of his chair.
I would sit on a bed of spikes for some warmth now.

Jonathan Turley on bribery. He says it was not an "overarching" standard at inception (As Karlan suggested) Framers had a narrow idea of bribery, so much so, they disagreed with the proposal of adding the word "maladministration" to the standard, he says.

Turley says he thinks an application of bribery in Trump's case "won't hunt" today.
In McDonald v. US, SCOTUS looked at a public corruption bribery case, where gifts were actually rec'd and benefits actually extended. There was completion, not a hypothetical, he says.

In that SCOTUS case, justices said it was a dangerous thing to apply "boundless interpretation" to bribery.

"It gives me no joy to disagree with my colleagues here. I don't have a dog in this fight. but you can't accuse a president of bribery and note that SCOTUS has rejected your interpretation, and say, 'Well, it's just impeachment.We don't have to prove the elements.'"

Turley calls the aforementioned argument as "favored mantra" before he continues: "Close enough is not good enough, if you're going to accuse the president of bribery, you need to make is stick because you're trying to remove a duly elected president."

Turley: The theory put forward is that Trump obstructed Congress by not turning over material requested by a committee. Citations are made to 3rd article of Nixon impeachment (refusal to give docs to Congress)
In jest, says repetition of that citation makes his "hair catch fire"

Turley to lawmakers: "You set an incredibly short period of time, demanded a huge amount of information and when the president goes to court, you're going to impeach him. Does that track with what you've heard about impeachment? With the rule of law?"

For your convenience, here's the in depth on the articles that were brought against Nixon:
watergate.info/impeachment/ar…

Collins hones in on the "timing issue" of the impeachment.
W/election pending, when facts are in dispute, he says, does the timing bother him?
Fast & narrow is not a good recipe for impeachment, that was the case w/Johnson. Narrow was the case with Clinton.

Turley says the fast approach to impeachment usually spells trouble down the road.
"They tend not to survive, they collapse in front of Senate."

Turley says you can impeach without a crime being committed. "If you can prove quid pro quo, you might have an impeachable offense," he adds.

But then notes how "a concrete body of law" exists to ensure that the public understands what constitutes a crime so that things are just based on a political issue
Turley: "You can't say POTUS is above the law if you say the crimes he's accused of don't have to be established."

R questions are sticking to process issues and concern over speed of inquiry. Turley argues that Trump's impeachment is "manufactured" and that lawmakers are calling for impeachment before having all of the necessary evidence/facts first.

"There's a diff. between maturation and saturation," Turley says. "If you rush this impeachment, you'll leave half this country behind. You have to give the time to build the record. This isn't an impulse buy item. You're trying to remove a duly elected POTUS."

"But if you look at Nixon, the public did catch up. They originally did not support impeachment, but they changed their minds," Turley says. Then referring to Congress, "You changed their mind."
"And so did the courts," he adds.

For Republicans, counsel today is Paul Taylor, a longtime GOP House counsel. (Formerly of Covington Burling, Kirkland Ellis. He's a Yale undergrad, grad of Harvard Law)

Turley arguing that this is the "thinnest" of evidentiary records to impeach Trump.
"You need to stick the landing that there was quid pro quo," he adds. "I don't see proof, no matter what my presumptions or bias may be"

Monica Lewinsky was not allowed to be called as a witness in Senate trial. GOP counsel says this is a "cautionary tale" about denying witnesses.
Turley: During the Clinton impeachment, there was a Q over how much House had to do because there was a lot of testimony, tapes, etc.

So House incorporated that evidence and the assumption was that witnesses ref'd in evidence would be called at the Senate. "But there was a failure there. When the rules were applied, only three witnesses called," Turley says.

After Turley ends, Nadler notes that at this time, this is the point where WH counsel could have participated.
Since they aren't here, we move on.

Feldman, at Nadler's request, responds to Turley's comments about bribery.
The framers were clear, Feldman stresses. When you receive something of personal value that influences the office, the Constitution specifies bribery as grounds for impeachment.

If House believes POTUS solicited something of value in form of investigations or announcement of investigations and did so for personal gain, then that would constitute bribery under Const. And it would not be lawless, it would be bribery under the law.

As to McDonald SCOTUS case Turley referred to earlier (see my thread) it wouldn't be relevant.

A federal statute does not trump the Constitution, Feldman says.

Karlan: "I have the 1792 definition of bribery: the crime of giving or taking rewards for bad practices. So, if you think its a bad practice to deny military appropriations to an ally and you do it in return for the reward of getting help w/an election, that's the def of bribery.

Framers would identify Trump's conduct as exactly the kind of abuse of office they were worried about. They would want House to take action, and to impeach. They w

Apologies for that errant "They w."
Sent tweet too early.

Disregard.

Collins says POTUS req. for investigations rooted in Trump's concerns about corruption, generally, in Ukr.
But again, as we already know - the Pentagon was happy with Ukr. corruption reform efforts, so much so, they certified the funds long before July call.

Gerhardt: We need to remember, impeachable offenses don't have to be criminal. We're talking about abuse of power that only POTUS can commit. There was a systematic, concerted effort to remove ppl who would somehow obstruct/block/put pressure on Ukr to get anncmnt of invstgns

We are on recess while votes are conducted on the House floor. We will return as soon as votes wrap.

Also folks, earlier in my thread, I misheard the public corruption SCOTUS case mentioned. I heard "McDonald v. US" when Turley spoke. It is not McDonald. It is McDonnell v. US.
Regret the error.

We are back.

Rep Jackson Lee holding up the massive binders from Mueller and Dem report that sort out all of the evidence and information gathered from both investigations into Trump. Would Karlan call it "wafer-thin" as Turley did?
No, she would not, Karlan says.
(Strong use of visuals)

Karlan, when asked about whether POTUS can rule like a king, quips - POTUS can name his son Barron, but he cannot make him a baron.
Laughter erupted in the chamber.

Rep Steve Chabot, R-Ohio is up and quoting Nadler from the Clinton era impeachment, when Nadler said if you can avoid it, you shouldn't have a "party-line impeachment." Chabot refers to this as the "very wise Nadler from 20 years ago"

"Those things you warned against, are what you and Dem colleagues are doing now, Chabot says. This is a total party line impeachment, not a broad consensus."

"You're overturning the result of a national election and there's no doubt it will be perceived by at least half of the American people as an unfair and partisan effort. I get it. Democrats don't like this POTUS, this person, hate his tweets," Chabot continues.

"You don't like that Mueller investigation was a flop. But I've got news for you - you can twist enough arms in the House, but that effort will die in the Senate. He'll serve out his term and in all likelihood, serve a second term, w/the help of this very impeachment." - Chabot

Nadler utterly stoic, barely blinked, just looked down at the dais as Chabot spoke. Chabot asked no questions of the panelists, but used his five minutes to deliver this warning.

What most illuminates Trump's putting self before country? For Karlan, the announcement about Bidens/Burisma sticks out to her most. "He didn't care whether Biden was guilty or exonerated, he just wanted an announcement" to harm Biden and help himself.
@CourthouseNews

For Feldman: POTUS held up aid to an ally that is fighting a war and that's in direct contravention of unanimous recommendations by the national security community.

Not sure if Gohmert is yelling?
I'm in the room - and yes, he absolutely is.
(My ears!)

Rep Hank Johnson asking q's on abuse of power and Trump misconduct. When he said can you do us a favor though - what's the problem here? Feldman, there's nothing wrong with asking for a favor. There is a problem when that request is for his own PERSONAL BENEFIT.

Vindman testified this was a demand, not a request, because of the power disparity between the U.S. and Ukraine. Feldman: POTUS has so much more power, the word favor, in reality here, is actually applying tremendous power that relates to the constitutional abuse of office."

Rep Jim Jordan is up.

Jordan asked the panelists no questions. Instead he railed about process.

Gehardt has referred to Trump's engagement with Ukraine - what he has deemed an abuse of power - as "horrifying" at least twice today.

Rep Ted Deutch, D-Florida, made the point that this abuse of power is not just about the violation of the oath of office, but it's about violating the people's trust.

Rep Karen Bass: Why was it significant that Trump acted for his personal political advantage?
Gerhardt: For acting on his own personal benefit, he crosses a line - a line that is very clear. (Clear because it was written into the Constitution rather unequivocally)

Bass plays back a clip of David Hale's testimony when he said Trump only cared about "big stuff that benefits him"
Framers were very worried about this, Feldman said.

Trump didn't even care if the investigations would happen, he only cared about the announcement of the investigations.
Karlan: This is an archetype of abuse of power.

Rep Ratcliffe is up, and he recalls how Turley said he didn't vote for Trump in 2016 and yet here is today, saying that Trump shouldn't be impeached.
Ratcliffe, totally unironically, commends Turley for the ability to hold opposing views about an idea.

Ratcliffe says no quid pro quo possible. Asks where in the July 25 transcript did Trump suggest that he intends to withhold military aid?
Turley: He doesn't. That's why we keep hearing circumstantial and inferential testimony

Turley: "Those would be appropriate terms if there were knowable facts," he says, before suggesting there are so many more witnesses Congress hasn't called yet.
If I could ask Turley - would that include Pompeo, Bolton, Mulvaney, Vought, Pence et al who have ignored subpoenas?

Turley, earlier said, "If you can establish intent to use public office for public gain, you have a viable impeachable offense."
Feldman: The evidence does meet that criteria.
Then Karlan reacts and speaks to GOP directly:

"Yes, if you were convinced POTUS held up the aid to influence his reelection, would you vote to impeach him, because that's the question, everyone should be asking. If they say yes, then you should vote to impeach."

I looked at faces of lawmakers as she said this, almost all GOP eyes were trained on her sharply as she made this recommendation.

Turley addresses this, says, "But you need to have proof. It's not enough to say, 'I infer this is what was intended...' instead lawmakers, Turley says, are rushing this through.

Rep Hakeem Jeffries cites a particularly notable piece of correspondence between John Adams to T. Jefferson, when Adams wrote: "You are apprehensive of foreign interference, intrigue, influence, so am I. But as often as elections happen, the danger of foreign influence recurs."

That letter in its entirety:
founders.archives.gov/documents/Jeff…

Rep Mark Meadows sitting all of five feet away from me today, so I have the ability to hear his reactions to testimony today. He's been vocal. Laughing at times, uttering "Oh, come on," when Dem panelists are speaking about their belief that Trump abused his office.

Karlan asked by Gaetz how much she's donated to Dem political campaigns. [How is it relevant or ultimately, any of Matt Gaetz's business how much a private citizen donates to a political campaign?] Then Gaetz says Karlan is in an "ivory tower" at Stanford.
Then...

Gatez, full volume, yelling, slams her for the Barron/Baron line saying her joke "makes her look mean" serves no other purpose.
You may recall Fiona Hill's testimony when she said that women are often viewed as unhinged when they merely express anger or strong emotions.

This moment w/Gaetz *HEAVILY* ironic in light of that.
Not only is Gaetz yelling at her, but he's telling her she's mean, for saying Trump may have a son named Barron, but that doesn't mean he can make his son a baron.

A woman telling *This* joke, to Gaetz, is "mean"

Karlan began to talk, but Gaetz spoke over her, telling her it was his time. She quieted herself right away. And now she apologized for "being heated"