Day 6, Part 9: Committee members question constitutional law experts
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 3 дек 2019
- The sixth day of public hearings in the impeachment inquiry included five-minute rounds of questioning by House Judiciary Committee members, which they could yield to colleagues. Watch this portion of the constitutional law experts' testimony.
Subscribe to the CBS News Channel HERE: / cbsnews
Watch CBSN live HERE: cbsn.ws/1PlLpZ7
Follow CBS News on Instagram HERE: / cbsnews
Like CBS News on Facebook HERE: / cbsnews
Follow CBS News on Twitter HERE: / cbsnews
Get the latest news and best in original reporting from CBS News delivered to your inbox. Subscribe to newsletters HERE: cbsn.ws/1RqHw7T
Get your news on the go! Download CBS News mobile apps HERE: cbsn.ws/1Xb1WC8
Get new episodes of shows you love across devices the next day, stream CBSN and local news live, and watch full seasons of CBS fan favorites like Star Trek Discovery anytime, anywhere with CBS All Access. Try it free! bit.ly/1OQA29B
---
CBSN is the first digital streaming news network that will allow Internet-connected consumers to watch live, anchored news coverage on their connected TV and other devices. At launch, the network is available 24/7 and makes all of the resources of CBS News available directly on digital platforms with live, anchored coverage 15 hours each weekday. CBSN. Always On.
Let’s hear the facts and not opinions of the self righteous Democrats!
I wecognize what? The problems we have is more of term limits with these old people knowing nothing about what real working people with real jobs are about. Ditto with college “professors”.
REPUBLIC we are a republic damn it
Can someone send these so called people back to school.
Where are the facts? All I hear are opinions
The beggar asking for something value to him ( food or money ) to make his personal gain . This action of the beggar is a bribery . ( definition of prof. Noah Feldman)
From now on, beggar may not ask for anything for his personal gain ‘cause this is the bribery.
So, it’s not just to comply with the constitution, but to define what “bribe” and “bad practices” mean now and meant when the constitution and the dictionaries defining those words were written.
It seems to me that someone’s is trying to mud this trial.
I was just thinking this exact thing also who defines "bad practices" this is such an open ended definition
1:20 so Nadler is trying to say previous SCOTUS decisions are not "relevant"??? Does Nadler have no idea what the Supreme Court does? Supreme Court decisions have dictated how we interpret the Constitution.
It is also interesting to point out that these are the same people who say the Constitution is outdated in regard to the second amendment and we must look at it through a more modern lens but try to revert back to the original words of the Constitution here when it serves their purpose.
Just one big show. Notice how the reps read straight from the script.
How do all these public servants become millionaires?
We have the writing of our father of the constitution. That's how we know what they would think about a person like Trump. They ( father of constitution)wrote the law.
Every single thing I hear come out of Karlan's mouth makes the credibility of the Stanford Law School that much less believable. I don't know why they still have her on staff, and I'm reasonably sure her tenure isn't worth the damage she's doing to their reputation!
Yes, let's ignore an intelligent and educated person on the subject. Let's instead listen to a complete dolt, aka Jan Verhoeff, who has done nothing with her life.
I am a scholar, yes I have studied the recipe of the dough boys thinking of 1252 a.d. and I have seen alot of the same criteria of the jesper case of 1287 where the donkey actually did cross the field without permission and it was defined as a high crimes and misdemeanor in the vulcase islands., King Zuad was removed by the council led by Acktom Sniff who had help by Nakcee Piholi who found that Jidrof Nydlo came across an 8 ball and once the 8 ball was shook it stated you must proceed. Jidrof brought this information back to Acktom who then passed the information onto Nakcee who then shook the 8 ball after asking should King Zuad be removed and the 8 ball stated yes.
These professors are so biased my god.the democrats is take this country down
Send Nunes COWS to defend trump. Lol
16:03 Can anyone make out the whispered words to Nadler?
Turley is amazing ! reasoned intelligent and concise !
I'm DISGUSTED WITH REPUBLICANS ...IGNORANCE IN TODAY HEARINGS AS A WOMAN ....MORE DISGUSTED WITH MS . ROBY ...IM ASHAMED FOR HER ...
Maybe you should actually bring witnesses that actually witnessed wrong doing. And could you find a group of more pompous, self righteous people to look down there noses at the American people?
Feldman is so creepy what century is he from
Jonathan Turley's misuse of judicial Jurisdiction
Congress’s Power Over Courts: Jurisdiction Stripping and the Rule of Klein
In the United States, jurisdiction-stripping (also called court-stripping or curtailment-of-jurisdiction), is the limiting or reducing of a court's jurisdiction by Congress through its constitutional authority to determine the jurisdiction of federal and state courts.
The Framers granted Congress the power to regulate the federal courts in numerous ways. For instance, Article III authorizes Congress to determine what classes of 'cases' and 'controversies' inferior courts have jurisdiction to review.
Additionally, Article III's Exceptions Clause grants Congress the power to make 'exceptions' and 'regulations' to the Supreme Court's appellate jurisdiction. Congress sometimes exercises this power by 'stripping' federal courts of jurisdiction to hear a class of cases.
Congress has gone so far as to eliminate a court's jurisdiction to review a particular case in the midst of litigation. More generally, Congress may influence judicial resolutions by amending the substantive law underlying particular litigation of interest to the legislature."
What evidence is this women professor taking about?
Let's see we have four professors but we are going to only call on three. Well must be because the fourth one is not radical left like the three.
For them to be expert they sure don't remember " innocent until proven guilty "
Hot R .…………. Innocence or guilt not part of the equation in the investigative stage, where we're at . This is to determine CHARGES to be brought forth, or not .You're putting the cart before the horse . Get a clue .
The bad Orange man hurt their feelings
@@JoeyFiveandDimes and we have to have Harvard professor to determine that. And no body else??? Damn where was I at in law class when they said only people with a Harvard education can form opinions based on hearsay is determination for impeachment. Maybe that's in the constitution. Hmmmmm
It's very clear - Collins is just lost besides pandering to the audience. Turley is trying to make what is straightforward complicated. Collins is just all over the place - lost
So, what did he do, again.
Is that a question?
Not his job -- assuming that by "he" you're referring to pResident tRump.
"So, what did he do, again." He defeated Hillary and that is a crime they would like to punish with death.
@@roberthicks1612 what did he do? Attracted a bunch of braindead followers who enjoy lying almost as much as he does, evidently.
And your proof of that? Is it a lie that we have the best economy in the world under Trump? Is it a lie this is the best its been in decades if not a century? CNN will tell you that is bad. Why do they say its bad? Because it removes power from the liberal socialist party.
They say its bad because people with jobs are not likely to vote for communism.
What a joke all this is. Merry Christmas everyone.
These Democrats are insane
Y
Ms. Lofgren might want to consider a different line of work if she's been in on all three impeachment proceedings. It's time for her to find a cushy chair and a cup of tea!
You can argue anything if you want to and that's where dishonesty finds a home
It is also the base process for scholarly, intelligent, and responsible discourse. Argument (debate) is where truth finds a home.
Bias not fair just like the Russian conclusion
Democrats: what is this? 1792?
Also Democrats: back in 1792, this is what this meant.
Turley was arguing the very opposite during the Clinton impeachment.
He’s nothing more than a male rightwing version of Peggy Noonan both with their smarmy superiority attitude. Both just as pretentious
Professor Turley is a democrat, he even stated that he voted against Trump, where were you at?
What I don't get is how you going to say the founding fathers we wouldn't know what they would have agreed on. Then what is the purpose of having co-equal branches or having Congress or having a president it's looking like we don't need none of that then if the Republicans are going to ask incompetent like they don't want to follow laws all of a sudden. Just because of this one president that they so desperately love. It's all foolishness by the Republicans who don't want to stand up for the rule of law. And you all are going to reap what you sow in the history books will show it. May shame stay on you. Mr. Collins you're a joke you need to step down.
Too bad you don't see what's going on I vote Democrat but they're making a fool out of themselves, it's embarrassing, Trump facts on the middle-class tax cuts which there is no tax cut for the middle class. But the Republicans are right on this one Democrats did not do their homework
@@raphaelmoraczewski1106 You are 100% right!
Uniqueness Entertainment... What are you talking about saying that the Republicans don't want to follow the laws or stand up to the rule of law??? You're not making sense... please elaborate!!! And how is Collins a joke?? Do you even know what you're saying??
Rule of law I don't think you have a clue what you're talking about the impeachment articles that they're using don't have proof they should do other charges if they want to impeach him something that will stick. They're doing this because they don't want Bernie Sanders to win the primary
Founding fathers, just what are founding fathers, are they even relevant today? The place that is America today, has always been a place on earth, nestled between the peaceful pacific and the raging atlantic oceans. But, until such people from other places came together in this area of the globe, america, nobody had attempted to ''FOUND'' a country or nation in this area of the world. So, those like Washington, Adams, Jefferson, Madison and Monroe came together to actually found a nation or country, it had not been done before even though explorers, settlers and just plain travelers around the world traveled this area of the world, also, but, not for the purpose of founding a nation until these five would do so. But, is that relevant today to keep america, america, today? Many think such things are no longer relevant in the twenty-first century of change. Mr. Trump may have been chosen instead of the usual election process, chosen meaning meddling by Russia was alright, also. Maybe, for the man to overtake the woman the way mr. trump did mrs. clinton was new and not a part of other more antiquated america. The u.s. constitution is simply a document emerging from the holiness of the bible that considers man, his property and his territory, pretty much like the ten commandments consider man, his property and his territory and the rights stemming from such a covenant. Mr. Trump is being put at a disadvantage by submitting him to this unnescessary stuff of impeachment, in addition to his regular duties as president, which may be a part of a cult that denies people their own cultural identity. Mr. Trump has been out front with the game from the time he insisted on having the validity of the birth record of president obama examined. This proved to be very important, especially with president obama referring to the years of white presidency as if a seperate time in america than the years of his, mr. obama's, presidency and whoever would follow him after his two terms as the country's forty-fourth president. it is as if the country started with the forty-fourth president instead of george washington. The transfer of powers of the two presidents, trump and obama, seems to allude to this as a fact. Generally speaking, people who do not respect the spiritual guide of the ten commandments do not respect the secular guide of the constitutions of nations and states.
When do we get to question under oath Eric the whistleblower, Adam Schiff, and Joe Biden, and his son ?
...And pResident tRump, and Mick Mulvaney, and Bill Barr, and...
They don't matter. What matters is what Trump did. Did he solicit? He did. The solicitation is impeachable. No one else matters on the impeachment on the president.
NOW, after the issue of Trump getting impeached is dealt with we can address any other issues.
@Meadow Apple Yep - but for the time being, the sham is still pResident.
must be nice to be able to read mines past and present
I think Collins, Turley, and all the other Republiturds ought to do something more appropriate for their skills. The should become "SILLY PUTTY" salespersons. Since that's what they're all about.
Can't wait to see how many democrats lose their seats in the next election, and they'll have this hoax to thank for it.
@@howard7689 Really? You would have fit right in with Jim Jones and his people's temple. You should put the Koolaid down.
@@celticman1909 It would cost less to help other countries if democrats weren't stealing half of the money for themselves and their families, but don't look into it for yourself the media told you what to think.
@@howard7689 Since when do Trumpers want to help other countries?
Vvvc 8
efing turley ....clearly he has an agenda....facts are facts...when you don’t have fatcs/truth on your side you go on On and on and on and on and on and On..,trying to derailed the truth/facts.
How deep in the pit did they have to dig to find Turley
Collins go home...
Jonathan Turley is clearly unprepared. His must have not studied the issue at hand or he has no grasp of it for lack of ability.
Noah a donor to the dem and so was Pam, sounds sort of bias
Donating to a political party or cause cannot be the basis of calling someone biased. Almost everybody has made a political donation of some sort. Some donate to all political parties, just to "hedge their bets", so to speak.
Talk about bias....
Throughout his testimony I longed to wipe that smug look of Prof. Turkey’s oops Turley ‘s face. I think his words at the Clinton impeachment, so at odds with the present, were very illuminating.
What an interesting contrast between the normal and articulate speech of the Democrats and the load, angry and incoherent ramblings of the republicans...especially jim jordan.
The Left ATE it AGAIN
T2020
This is Turley auditioning for trump to appoint him to the SC.
It seems more like Feldmen, Karlan, and Gerhard writing fiction. For instance, there is no evidence that Trump every uses the "royal we" yet the lady insist that it was so that she could claim it was a person favor he was asking for.
robert hicks it is obvious to everyone outside the cult of trump that trump is asking a personal favor. Who else would benefit from the bogus investigation of Bidens legitimate activities in the Ukraine. And remember there didn’t need to be s real investigation, Zelensky just had to announce one.
Its obvious to anyone that doesn't listen to the communist news network that he was asking for a favor for the nation, not himself. Zelensky never did announce one. He never felt compelled to do so because one of his first acts long before anyone discussed it, was to initiate an investigation into Burisma Holdings. Why would the money be held up for an investigation that was launched quietly long before anyone from the US discussed it with him.
In other words, everything you said is backwards. There never was an announced investigation, but one did start before even the ambassadors were involved, let alone the phone call.
A Ukraine court ruled that Burisma Holdings had meddled in the US 2016 elections long before the Ukraine president was elected.
By the by, a cult is always a small group. More than half the US legal citizens do not make it a cult.
robert hicks you obviously haven't been paying close enough attention or like most republicans don't accept facts. "The GOP has become an insurgent outlier in American politics. It is ideologically extreme; scornful of compromise; unmoved by conventional understanding of facts, evidence and science; and dismissive of the legitimacy of its political opposition.
When one party moves this far from the mainstream, it makes it nearly impossible for the political system to deal constructively with the country’s challenges." www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/lets-just-say-it-the-republicans-are-the-problem/2012/04/27/gIQAxCVUlT_story.html?noredirect=on&.b8edde661e20
Go Collins!