Trump has met the standards for impeachment, legal scholars testify in historic hearing

One expert, called by the Republicans, says case against president is ‘one of the thinnest records ever to go forward on impeachment’

There were were no real sparks, few fireworks for the cameras, but a trio of constitutional scholars have provided damning testimony that Donald Trump’s actions over Ukraine met the legal standard for impeachment.

One after the other, the three experts called by Democrats made the case that by the standards set by the nation’s founding fathers, Mr Trump’s behaviour amounted to high crimes and misdemeanours as required by the constitution, and included abuse of power, bribery, the hampering of Congress, and the obstruction of justice. After the hearing, committee chairman Jerry Nadler told reporters all three of his tests for impeachment had been met.

“I just want to stress that if what we’re talking about is not impeachable, then nothing is impeachable,” declared Michael Gerhardt, a law professor at the University of North Carolina. “If Congress fails to impeach here, then the impeachment process has lost all meaning.”

One legal scholar, Jonathan Turley, a professor at George Washington University Law School and a witness called by Republicans, argued that while he did not support the president, the record against him presented by Democrats was “one of the thinnest records ever to go forward on impeachment”.

The testimony before the House Judiciary Committee marked the next phase in the impeachment investigation into Mr Trump, and accusations that he improperly sought a “quid pro quo” in a July 25 phone call to the leader of Ukraine.

After the House Intelligence Committee last month heard testimony from US diplomats and other officials about what they knew about the president’s alleged demand that Kiev launch an anti-corruption probe into Joe Biden and his son in exchange for the release of military aid and a meeting at the White House, the appearance of the scholars was intended to provide expert context and analysis to that evidence.

The testimony of Mr Gerhardt, Pamela Karlan and Noah Feldman, all of whom argued Mr Trump had committed impeachable offences, along with that of Mr Turley, who said he had not, was each in its own way professional and persuasive.

The testimony saw little of the drama witnessed when the likes of the US’s EU ambassador Gordon Sondland appeared to say there was a quid pro quo.

Yet, one of the scholars, Ms Karlan, a Stanford Law School professor who served in the administration of Barack Obama, firmly rebutted a suggestion from Republican congressman Doug Collins the hearing was invalid because the professors could not have had time to read all the impeachment proceedings.

She told him: “Mr Collins, I would like to say to you, sir, that I read transcripts of every one of the witnesses who appeared in the live hearing because I would not speak about these things without reviewing the facts, so I’m insulted by the suggestion that as a law professor I don’t care about those facts.”

She also declared: “While the president can name his son Barron, he can’t make him a baron.”

After the reference to the president’s youngest child, White House spokeswoman Stephanie Grisham tweeted that the comment was “classless”.

The day’s testimony came as House speaker Nancy Pelosi reportedly asked Democrats if they were ready to move forward with impeachment. In a closed-door meeting, she asked “Are you ready?”. The response was a resounding yes, reports said.

The Judiciary Committee would be responsible for drafting articles of impeachment against the president, as Democrats appear increasingly likely to do.

After the committee votes, the matter would be put before the full House, where only a simple majority is needed to censure the president. The White House is relying on Republicans, who control the Senate, voting against impeachment, thereby saving the president.

Mr Trump has repeatedly denied any wrongdoing and described the hearings as a “witch hunt”, something he repeated on Wednesday in London, where he was attending a Nato event.

Speaking to reporters, he appeared to question the patriotism of Democrats, and termed the hearings a “joke”. He added: “Do they in fact love our country?”

In Washington, Mr Nadler the committee chairman, said of Mr Trump: “Never before, in the history of the republic, have we been forced to consider the conduct of a president who appears to have solicited personal, political favours from a foreign government.”

At the conclusion of the session, Mr Nadler held a press conference to declare “all three parts” of his test for impeachment had been met.

Democratic congresswoman Karen Bass said: “I anticipated my chairman to be strong, and he was. It’s one thing to give people a little slack in other hearings, but we are now to the point where this is absolutely crucial and essential, and we cannot fool around.”

The senior Republican on the committee, Mr Collins, said the process was a “sham”. In a reference to Democrats’ desire to vote before Christmas, so that it interferes as little as possible with their party’s primaries, he said: “If you want to know what’s really driving this, there are two things – a clock and a calendar.”

Additional reporting by agencies