Trump news: Angry president cuts short Nato summit trip and rages at Trudeau, as Congress launches next stage of impeachment after damning report
Three Constitutional scholars argued that the president committed 'high crimes and misdemeanours'
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.A trio of scholars agreed that Donald Trump’s alleged abuses of power in his dealings with Ukraine amounted to "high crimes and misdemeanours" as grounds for impeachment, according to the rules outlined in the US Constitution.
Four constitutional scholars testified to the House Judiciary Committee on its first day of public impeachment hearings, which provided expert analysis to determine Constitutional grounds for removing the president from office, a process that will be determined formally by a majority vote of Congress.
Michael Gerhardt, Pamela Karlan and Noah Feldman vehemently agreed that the president had committed impeachable offences, including abuses of power, bribery, the hampering of Congress, and the obstruction of justice.
Ms Karlan invoked the image of America as a "shining city on a hill" that, if unable to investigate foreign influence into its own democracy, would cease to be that example.
Jonathan Turley — who was summoned by Republicans — said the inquiry is "one of the thinnest records ever to go forward on impeachment."
Ms Karlan also apologised — after right-wing outrage, including a tweet from First Lady Melania Trump — for a play on words in which she said that the president could name his son Barron but could not make himself a baron.
In a White House statement, press secretary Stephanie Grisham said that "the only thing the three liberal professors established at Chairman Nadler’s hearing was their political bias against the president."
The hearing followed the release of a damning 300-page report from the House Intelligence Committee, summarising its findings and detailing “overwhelming evidence of misconduct” by Mr Trump and his inner circle over Ukraine, with call records dragging Rudy Giuliani and implicating Congressman Devin Nunes further into the scandal.
Meanwhile, the president suffered fresh humiliation after world leaders Boris Johnson, Justin Trudeau and Emmanuel Macron were filmed apparently laughing behind his back at a Nato reception at Buckingham Palace in London.
The US president slammed the Canadian prime minister as "two-faced" to reporters shortly after, while announcing the abrupt cancellation of a press conference later that day, saying he would instead be returning home.
Follow our coverage as it happened.
This video of the Republicans' chosen witness testifying in the impeachment of former President Bill Clinton is drawing controversial comparisons to his defence of Donald Trump against impeachment in today's hearing:
Here's analysis from The Independent's Andrew Feinberg as he sits in the room where the impeachment hearings are being held:
Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner, R-Wisconsin, is noting that Republicans did not “tie the country up” in 2016 because then-VP Biden conveyed a demand to Ukraine’s then-president to fire the country’s top prosecutor, who was widely considered corrupt by the US government and most of its allies. The reason Republicans did not do anything of that sort is because Biden was carrying out the policy of the US government and conveying the wishes of the US, the IMF, World Bank, and most of America’s EU allies.
While noting how the president is not entitled to issue titles of nobility due to the US Constitution, Professor Karlan notes: "So, while the president can name his son 'Barron', he can't make him a Baron."
Professor Pamela Karlan on how interference in the US election impacts American society:
"Having foreign interference in our election means that we are less free. It is less we the people who are determining who's the next winner than it is a foreign government."
Republican Rep. Sensenbrenner spoke for over four minutes before he posed a question to the party's key witness for the day. It appears the Republicans are using their questioning time to instead deride the impeachment inquiry proceedings against the president.
Democrat Sheila Jackson held up two binders of apparent evidence in the impeachment inquiry against Donald Trump as she questioned the witnesses testifying before the House Judiciary Committee -
Republican Louie Gohmert denied House Judiciary Committee Chairmen Jerrold Nadler's assertion the facts surrounding the impeachment inquiry into Donald Trump are "undisputed".
"They are absolutely disputed, and the evidence is a bunch of hearsay on hearsay."
Here's some analysis from The Independent's Andrew Feinberg as he watches the impeachment hearings from the room where they're being held:
Gohmert is suggesting that three Intelligence Committee staffers who once worked at the National Security Council have evidence that would “stop the impeachment inquiry in its tracks.” There is no evidence for this, period.
The Republicans are absolutely contradicting themselves during this hearing:
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments