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.
Donald Trump's defenders appear to be using a quip Professor Pamela Karlan made about the US Constitution not allowing presidents to issue royal titles as alleged evidence she was "attacking" the president's child. She was not.
Professor Pamela Karlan says Donald Trump "had to know" asking Ukraine for political investigations was not acceptable as president. whereas she suggested he may not have known the impact his words could have when he asked Russia to help him locate Hillary Clinton's emails during the 2016 presidential election.
More from The Independent's Andrew Feinberg: "Rep. Ken Buck’s method of defending the president appears to be arguing that all other presidents have abused their power, therefore it is illegitimate to impeach President Trump."
The Republicans are latching onto this idea that Professor Pamela Karlan "attacked" Donald Trump's son. She did not:
The Independent's Andrew Feinberg on Republican John Ratcliffe's questioning: Rep. John Ratcliffe, R-Texas, is questioning Turley about his definition of bribery. Turley is once again invoking a Supreme Court case involving former Virginia governor Bob McDonnell to support his argument, but the Supreme Court has also ruled that the Congress has the power to determine what constitutes impeachable offenses.
Here's the video of Professor Pamela Karlan making a quip about the name of the president's youngest son. Folks on the right have immediately used the moment to claim she was "attacking" Barron Trump:
Republican Martha Roby is asking how anyone expects "a panel of law professors" can weigh in on impeachment before the House knows what articles of impeachment are being drafted.
Kayleigh McEnany, Trump 2020 national press secretary, has released a statement from the president's re-election campaign slamming Professor Pamela Karlan:
“Only in the minds of crazed liberals is it funny to drag a 13-year-old child into the impeachment nonsense. Pamela Karlan thought she was being clever and going for laughs, but she instead reinforced for all Americans that Democrats have no boundaries when it comes to their hatred of everything related to President Trump. Hunter Biden is supposedly off-limits according to liberals, but a 13-year-old boy is fair game. Disgusting.
“Every Democrat in Congress should immediately repudiate Pamela Karlan and call on her to personally apologize to the President and the First Lady for mocking their son on national TV.”
Florida Republican Matt Gaetz is now about to question the witnesses. Buckle up.
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments