Stay up to date with notifications from The Independent

Notifications can be managed in browser preferences.

As it happenedended

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'

Law professor Pamela Karlan blasts Trump's quid-pro-quo deal with Ukraine

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.

Pam Karlan said Donald Trump "doubled down" on violating his oath of office by requesting investigations from Ukraine.

Chris Riotta4 December 2019 16:01

Pam Karlan concludes: "Put simply, a candidate for president should resist foreign interference in our elections, not demand it. If we are to keep faith with the Constitution and our Republic, President Trump must be held to account."

Chris Riotta4 December 2019 16:03

A note from The Independent's Andrew Feinberg as he watches the hearings from inside the room:

Pam "Karlan just invoked a hypothetical scenario of a president withholding disaster aid to a state for political purposes, but it’s not hypothetical. Under Trump, so-called “red” states have had much more success getting disaster aid, while states with officials who’ve criticized him — notably Puerto Rico and California — have had problems getting the federal funds they need after hurricanes, wildfires, and other disasters."

Chris Riotta4 December 2019 16:05

Michael Gerhardt is delivering his opening statement: 

"No misconduct is more antithetical to our democracy, and nothing injures the American people more than a president who uses his power to weaken their authority under the Constitution as well as the authority of the Constitution itself. No member of this House should ever want his or her legacy to be having left unchecked a president’s assaults on our Constitution. If Congress fails to impeach here, then the impeachment process has lost all meaning, and, along with that, our Constitution’s carefully crafted safeguards against the establishment of a king on American soil. No one, not even the president, is beyond the reach of our Constitution and our laws."

Chris Riotta4 December 2019 16:09

Jonathan Turley is delivering his opening statements, saying he voted against Donald Trump and previously testified during the impeachment of former President Bill Clinton. 

He said he's "concerned about lowering impeachment standards" and that this impeachment inquiry will create a "dangerous" precedent for future presidents. 

Chris Riotta4 December 2019 16:14

Turley said the president's phone call with Ukraine was "anything but perfect" despite Donald Trump's insistence otherwise.

Chris Riotta4 December 2019 16:18

Here's what Jonathan Turley said when he testified during the impeachment into former President Bill Clinton, as per The Independent's Andrew Feinberg: “While the Senate can decide not to remove a president in the interests of the nation for a variety of reasons… the House should not falter in maintaining a bright line for presidential conduct.”

Chris Riotta4 December 2019 16:20

Following Jonathan Turley's opening statement, the Republicans have once again forced another roll call vote that will ultimately be struck down by the Democratic majority.

Chris Riotta4 December 2019 16:22

The motion was rejected and House Judiciary Chairman Jerrold Nadler has once again started the proceedings.

Chris Riotta4 December 2019 16:26

Here's more from The Independent's Andrew Feinberg as he watches the impeachment hearings unfold from within the proceedings: 

"As Turley delivered his opening statement, a bemused look appeared on the face of Rep. Jamie Raskin, a Maryland Democrat who used to be a professor of constitutional law at American University’s Washington College of Law. When I sent him a text message asking if he had any thoughts to share on Turley’s testimony, he replied: 'So far the Republican arguments have been pathetically chaotic and empty. They are simply not addressing the gravity of these events.'"

Chris Riotta4 December 2019 16:29

Join our commenting forum

Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies

Comments

Thank you for registering

Please refresh the page or navigate to another page on the site to be automatically logged inPlease refresh your browser to be logged in