VERY LIKELY ON HIS WAY TO BEING
ITCH PEECHED BYBEINGISM PEECHEDBEINGIMPEACHED BY THE HOUSE OF
REPRESENTATIVES.
WE TURN TO UW-MADISON POLITICAL
SCIENTIST DAVID CANON.
WHAT IS YOUR REACTION THAT HOUSE
DEMOCRATS WILL PROCEED IN
DRAWING UP ARTICLES OF
IMPEACHMENT?
>> WELL, I THINK THERE WAS NO
DOUBT SINCE THE DAY SHE
ANNOUNCED THE INQUIRY THIS IS
THE WAY WE WERE HEADED.
THE SURPRISE IS IN TERMS OF THE
TIMING BECAUSE ESPECIALLY AFTER
THE CONSTITUTIONAL EXPERT
TESTIFIED ON WEDNESDAY THAT YOU
NEED TO SLOW DOWN, GET TESTIMONY
FROM SOME OF THE OTHER KEY
WITNESSES, MAKE THIS AS STRONG A
CASE AS YOU CAN, THERE WAS SOME
DISCUSSION WITHIN THE DEMOCRATIC
PARTY ABOUT TRYING TO GET
TESTIMONY FROM THOSE WITNESSES
AND THAT WOULD MEAN SLOWING
THINGS DOWN A LOT BECAUSE YOU'D
HAVE TO GET THE COURT DECISION
THAT WOULD BASICALLY ORDER THOSE
PEOPLE TO FOLLOW THE SUBPOENAS.
AND SO YOU'RE LOOKING AT
PROBABLY LATE SPRING AT THE
EARLIEST IF THEY DID THAT.
SO I THINK THE SPEAKER PROBABLY
MADE THE CALCULATION THAT
THERE'S A DANGER THAT THE CLOCK
WOULD RUN OUT, YOU'D GET INTO
THE SUMMER.
THE DECISION WAS WE WANT TO DO
THIS RIGHT AWAY SO WE'RE
PROBABLY LOOKING AT A VOTE
BEFORE CHRISTMAS.
>> WHICH ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT
OR CHARGES ARE MOST LIKELY?
>> THIS IS THE ONE PLACE WHERE
THERE STILL IS INTERNAL DEBATE.
SPEAKER MET WITH THE CAUCUS ON
MONDAY.
THERE'S STILL A DIFFERENCE OF
OPINION OF DO WE JUST STICK WITH
UKRAINE AND ONE ARTICLE WOULD BE
ABUSE OF POWER, PROBABLY
NARROWLY DEFINED AS BRIBERY, THE
SECOND WOULD BE OBSTRUCTION OF
JUSTICE, THE REFUSAL OF THE
WHITE HOUSE TO GO ALONG WITH
COOPERATING AS MANY OF THE
WITNESSES.
SO THOSE WOULD BE THE TWO
ARTICLES.
AND THEN IF THEY DECIDE TO MAKE
IT BROADER, THEY COULD BRING IN
OBSTRUCTION FROM THE MUELLER
REPORT AS WELL.
THAT'S WHERE SOME PEOPLE ARE
ARGUING TO MAKE IT BROADER.
>> IN TERMS OF THAT EX TERRITORY
WHOTERRITORY-- EXPERT WHO TESTIFIED THIS WAS
BEING RUSHED, DO YOU AGREE WITH
THAT?
>> NOT REALLY.
THAT WAS JONATHAN TURLY, THE
EXPERT CALLED BY THE
REPUBLICANS.
HE SAID HE THEY NEED TO SLOW
DOWN TO GET THE STRONGEST
POSSIBLE CASE.
IN AN IDEAL WORLD, I AGREE WITH
THAT.
IT WOULD BE WONDERFUL TO HAVE
THE TESTIMONY FROM THOSE KEY
WITNESSES.
BUT WHEN YOU COMPARE IT TO OTHER
IMPEACHMENTS WE'VE HAD, ANDREW
JOHNSON'S, THE FIRST AFTER THE
CIVIL WAR, THAT WHOLE PROCESS
WAS ONE WEEK LONG FROM THE
BEGINNING TO THE END, ONE WEEK
TOTAL.
SO THAT ONE WAS LIKE A SPEED
RECORD COMPARED TO WHAT WE HAVE
RIGHT NOW, WHICH IS GOING TO BE
ABOUT THREE MONTHS FROM THE
BEGINNING OF SPEAKER PELOSI
ANNOUNCING THE INQUIRY TO THE
ANTICIPATED VOTE ON PROBABLY
DECEMBER 20.
SO IT'S AT LEAST SLOWER THAN
THAT ONE.
WATERGATE AND CLINTON
IMPEACHMENT LASTED LONGER.
>> IT WAS SAID THIS WAS AN
INCREDIBLY CLEAR CASE.
DO YOU AGREE WITH THAT?
>> YEAH.
ESPECIALLY IF YOU KEEP THE FOCUS
ON WHAT HAPPENED WITH UKRAINE, I
THINK THAT IT IS A CLEAR CASE OF
ABUSE OF POWER.
AND IF YOU LOOK AT THE
REPUBLICANS' MINORITY REPORT
THAT WAS ISSUED ON MONDAY FROM
THE HOUSE INTELLIGENCE
COMMITTEE, THEY TRIED TO ARGUE
THAT -- THEY DEFINITELY TRIED TO
ARGUE THIS WAS NOT A CLEAR CASE
AND THAT IT DOESN'T MERE RYT
IMPEACHMENT.
-- MERIT
IMPEACHMENT, THAT PRESIDENT
PRESIDENT TRUMP WAS JUSTIFIED IN
ASKING FOR THE INVESTIGATION OF
BIDEN AND UKRAINE'S INVOLVEMENT
IN THE 2016 ELECTION BECAUSE
THESE WERE LEGITIMATE CONCERNS
ABOUT CORRUPTION.
THAT WAS THE GENERAL FRAMEWORK.
THOSE ARGUMENTS DON'T STAND UP
TO A COUPLE OF KIND OF COMMON
SENSE REACTIONS TO WHAT WE KNOW
ARE THE FACTS ON THE GROUND.
LIKE, FOR EXAMPLE, THAT'S
TRUE AND IT WASES IT WAS JUST A GENERAL
CONCERN WITH CORRUPTION, THEN
WHY RELEASE THE MILITARY AID
AFTER THIS IS REVEALED.
WHY NOT STICK TO YOUR GUNS AND
SAY, NO, WE'RE TRYING TO PURSUE
CORRUPTION HERE.
SO WHY BACK DOWN?
WHY DENY THERE'S A QUID PRO QUO
WHERE IF THIS IS A LEGITIMATE
AIM, THEN QUID PRO QUOS ARE DONE
ALL THE TIME.
WHY NOT SAY YES, IT'S A QUID PRO
QUO.
>> REPUBLICANS ARE ALSO SAYING
THAT THIS REALLY IS JUST THE
EMBODIMENT OF DEMOCRATS' HATRED
FOR DONALD TRUMP.
WHAT ABOUT THAT?
>> THIS IS A LINE THEY PICKED UP
IN THEIR MINORITY REPORT AS
WELL.
THEY HAD QUOTES FROM PEOPLE THE
DAY AFTER THE ELECTION THAT WE
WANT TO IMPEACH PRESIDENT TRUMP.
THERE'S PLENTY OF HATRED FOR THE
PRESIDENT.
BUT NANCY PELOSI REACTED
STRONGLY AGAINST THAT YESTERDAY
AND SAID, NO, IT'S NOT ABOUT
HATRED AT ALL.
IT'S THEIR CONSTITUTIONAL DUTY
TO DO THIS.
AND THAT'S SOMETHING THAT SHE
WAS VERY CLEAR EARLY ON THAT SHE
HAD NO DESIRE TO IMPEACH THE
PRESIDENT.
IT WAS ONLY AFTER THE PHONE CALL
WITH DISATHAT THEY HAD TO GO AHEAD WITH
THIS.
>> YOU CAME IN WITH A QUOTE FROM
THE FEDERALIST PAPERS.
DESCRIBE WHY YOU BROUGHT IT IN
AND READ IT FOR US.
>> THIS IS FROM ALEXANDER
HAMILTON THAT DEFINES WHAT THE
FOUNDERS MEANT BY IMPEACHMENT.
THEY DEFINED IT AS A POLITICAL
ACT THAT WOULD BE DEFINED BY
CONGRESS, NOT A LEGAL ONE, AND
AS AN ABUSE OF PUBLIC POWER BY
AN OFFICE HOLDER.
BUT THE PART THAT IS NOT REALLY
TALKED ABOUT AS MUCH -- SO
EVERYONE HAS BEEN QUOTING THOSE
LINES FROM HAMILTON.
WHAT HASN'T BEEN QUOTED IN THE
LAST WEEK OR SO WAS WHERE HE
CONNECTS THIS TO POLITICS TODAY
AND HOW DIVISIVE POLITICS COULD
LEAD TO UNDERMINING THE DUTY OF
SENATORS WHO ARE SERVING AS THE
JURORS IN THE TRIAL.
IN MANY CASES, WILL CONNECT
ITSELF WITH THE PREEXISTING
FACTIONS AND WILL ENLIST ALL OF
THE ANIMOSITIES, PARTIALTIES,
INFLUENCE ON ONE SIDE THE
OTHER.
THERE WILL ALSO BE THE GREATEST
DANGER THAT THE DECISION WILL BE
REGULATED MORE BY THE
COMPARATIVE STRENGTH OF THE
PARTIES THAN BY THE REAL
DEMONSTRATIONS OF INNOCENCE OR
GUILT.
SO HAMELL SON IS HAMILTON IS WARNING US BE
CAREFUL ABOUT PARTIES AND DON'T
GET STICK IN YOUR PARTISAN SIDE
OF THIS DEBATE, BUT BE REALLY
COMPELLED BY THE EVIDENCE OF
INNOCENCE OR GUILT.
I THINK THAT'S A STRONG REMINDER
NOT JUST TO THE SENATORS WHO
WILL BE SERVING AS JURORS IN
THIS CASE, BUT TO THE AMERICAN
PUBLIC AS WELL.
IT SEEMS TO BE SO LOCKED INTO
THEIR PARTISAN VIEWS ON THIS AND
DON'T NECESSARILY SEEM TO BE
PAYING ATTENTION TO THE EVIDENCE
BEFORE THEM.