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.
Republicans have requested their own day of hearings to invite more witnesses to the House Judiciary Committee's impeachment proceedings:
Some analysis from The Independent's Andrew Feinberg as he watches the hearings unfold within the room where it's happening:
Doug "Collins has already succeeded where Intelligence Community Ranking Member Devin Nunes failed by forcing Nadler to delay the hearing with a vote on a motion to table his own motion to call Intelligence Committee Chairman Rep. Adam Schiff as a witness."
The motion was successfully delayed.
House Judiciary Chairman Jerrold Nadler is introducing each of the experts testifying before the committee.
The first witness, Noah Feldman, is beginning with his opening remarks: “President Trump’s conduct described in the testimony and evidence clearly constitutes an impeachable high crime and misdemeanor under the Constitution."
Noah Feldman outlines what impeachable actions he believes the president committed in his dealings with Ukraine:
"President Trump’s conduct described in the testimony and evidence clearly constitutes an impeachable high crime and misdemeanor under the Constitution. According to the testimony and to the publicly released memorandum of the July 25, 2019, telephone call between the two presidents, President Trump abused his office by soliciting the president of Ukraine to investigate his political rivals in order to gain personal political advantage, including in the 2020 presidential election. This act on its own qualifies as an impeachable high crime and misdemeanor."
The Independent's Andrew Buncombe has more on House Judiciary Chairman Jerrold Nadler's opening statement:
Democrat Hakeem Jeffries has slammed Republicans for attempting to force House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff to testify -
Noah Feldman said the White House putting a hold on Ukraine aid and conditioning a White House visit on Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky's announcement of political investigations both "constitute high crimes and misdemeanors impeachable under the Constitution."
The House Judiciary Committee is now holding a vote on another procedural motion forced by Republicans.
Pamela Karlan, a constitutional expert and professor, is delivering a expert opening on the case for impeachment:
"Among the most important constitutional provisions is a guarantee of periodic elections for President—one every four years. America has kept that promise for more than two centuries. It has done so even during wartime. For example, we invented the idea of absentee ballots so that Union troops who supported President Lincoln could stay in the field during the election of 1864. And since then, countless other Americans have fought and died to protect our right to vote."
Pam Karlan responded to Doug Collins' attacks on the witnesses during his opening remarks:
"Here Mr. Collins, I would like to say to you, sir, that I read transcripts of every one of the witnesses ... I would not speak about these things without reviewing the facts. I'm insulted by the suggestion that as a law professor I don't care about those facts."
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments