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.
Pennsylvania Democrat Madeleine Dean asks whether Trump's conduct in the impeachment process constitutes obstruction of justice.
Gerhardt: Yes, ma'am, it does.
Florida Democrat Debbie Mucarsel-Powell replays footage of Trump telling reporters that China should investigate the Bidens.
Then she plays footage of Mick Mulvaney saying the quid pro quo "happens all the time" and telling reporters to "get over it."
Karlan: "If we get over that or get used to that, we will cease to be the democracy we are right now."
Veronica Escobar asks why the founders decided that corrupt leadership could not be corrected in elections.
Feldman: The president could cheat. He could make the next election illegitimate. ... If they couldn't impeach, that would be fatal to the republic.
Escobar replays footage of both Nixon and Trump saying that they're essentially allowed to do whatever they want.
Karlan says if that would happen, "we fail to be a republic."
"Today has been interesting, I guess," says ranking member Doug Collins, who says that panelists also "made up crimes" to pin on the president. (That didn't happen.)
Jerry Nadler's closing statement.
"In this country, no one, not even the president is above the law."
Nadler urges his Republican colleagues to "stand behind the oath" they've taken. "Our democracy depends on it."
Hearing adjourned.
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments