众议院司法委员会在周三的首次听证会上听取了四名法律学者关于弹劾总统的宪法依据的意见。

接下来是调查的下一步决斗弹劾报告本周公布——一份是共和党人为唐纳德·特朗普总统对乌克兰的“合理”担忧辩护，另一份是民主党人指责总统“压倒一切”的不当行为，并将个人政治利益置于国家利益之上。

三名法律学者称特朗普犯下了可弹劾的罪行

四名证人中的前三名是由民主党传唤的。他们作证称，特朗普在向外国实体施压，要求其调查政治敌人的同时，隐瞒美国对乌克兰的军事援助，犯下了可弹劾的罪行。共和党人传唤的最后一名证人辩称，特朗普没有犯下可弹劾的罪行，试图让他下台将开创一个危险的先例。

1、诺亚·费尔德曼,哈佛法学院*“特朗普总统腐败滥用总统职位，犯下了可弹劾的重罪和轻罪。”

2、Pamela S. Karlan,斯坦福法学院*“如果我们要对宪法和我们的共和国保持信心，特朗普总统必须承担责任。”

3、迈克尔·葛哈德,北卡罗来纳大学法学院:“如果我们正在谈论的是不可弹劾的，那么没有什么是可弹劾的。”

4、乔纳森·特利,乔治·华盛顿法学院:“如果你不上法庭就犯了重罪和轻罪，那就是滥用权力。这是你的滥用权力。你做的正是你批评总统做的事。"

5、关于证人证词的更多信息如下。白宫拒绝让律师在场提问。

下午6:30更新:听证会结束

司法机构主席杰罗德·纳德勒(纽约)和道格·柯林斯(纽约)代表。)，排名成员，做了他们的终结辩论。纳德勒结束了听证会，之后没有回答记者关于弹劾调查的后续问题。

该委员会的两位民主党议员，代表特德·利欧(加州民主党)和特德·多伊奇(佛罗里达州民主党)表示，他们相信该委员会将于下周举行公开听证会，听取情报委员会多数派和少数派律师关于各自弹劾报告内容的意见。

下午4:45更新:共和党证人称调查“合法”，但再次批评民主党步伐太快

特里说，尽管他认为众议院对乌克兰丑闻的调查是“合法的”，但他重申他不同意民主党以极快的速度运作。

“对乌克兰丑闻的调查——我认为这是合法的调查。我不情愿的是它是如何进行的，”特利说。“我并不是说证据，如果经过充分调查，会以这样或那样的方式出现...我们已经在这个房子里烧了两个月了，你可以在法庭上，为这些证人申请传票。这并不意味着你必须永远等待。但你现在可能已经拿到订单了。”

下午4:00更新:吉姆·乔丹、马特·盖兹为总统发起坚定的辩护

政治煽动者吉姆·乔丹和马特·盖兹是委员会中特朗普的两个最激烈的捍卫者，他们分别指责民主党人和质疑证人的可信度。

“我认为这不是一个快速弹劾。这是预先确定的弹劾，”乔丹说。"预先确定的弹劾以我们所见过的最不公平的党派方式进行."

盖茨引用了卡兰以前给民主党总统候选人的捐赠记录，并引用了她过去对媒体的评论。

“对不起，这次你不能打断我，”立法者告诉教授。“当你引用总统儿子的名字时，当你试图拿巴伦·特朗普开玩笑时，这并不能让你的论点可信。这让你看起来很卑鄙。”

“对所有的证人来说，”盖兹继续说，“如果你对一个重要事实有个人了解，请举手。”

下午12点更新:民主党人发出弹劾条款的信号

民主党人已经表示，他们可能会推进至少三篇弹劾文章，每篇文章都在放在整个听证室的大电视屏幕上展示。

1、滥用权力和贿赂

2、阻挠国会

3、阻碍司法

12月4日，当众议院司法委员会在DC国会山的朗沃斯众议院办公楼听取宪法学者的证词时，可弹劾的罪行被列在监视器上。索尔·勒布-普尔/盖蒂的照片

葛哈德很快就声明，“如果我们正在谈论的是不可弹劾的，那么没有什么是可弹劾的。”

卡兰说，让乌克兰对他的一个对手进行调查的“企图本身”是可弹劾的行为...拉客本身就是可弹劾的罪行。”

上午11点45分更新:共和党人用议会质询推迟了诉讼

几位共和党议员提出了被称为议会质询的程序性动议，这些无效的努力很快被民主党人否决，但耗费了大量时间，并暂停了听证会的程序。

失败的调查包括共和党人试图传唤告密者，让情报主席亚当·希夫(加州民主党)作证，并举行“少数派听证会日”，让共和党议员召集自己的证人小组。

上午11点15分更新:纳德勒，柯林斯以激烈的言辞开场

司法委员会主席杰罗德·纳德勒(纽约州)和高级成员道格·柯林斯(佐治亚州)。)用他们的开场白来陈述他们各自支持或反对弹劾的理由。

纳德勒指责特朗普在乌克兰的交易中利用“他的办公室获取个人和政治利益”。

“我们都知道下一次选举即将到来——但我们不能等待选举来解决目前的危机。这次选举的公正性正处于危急关头，”他说。“总统向我们展示了他的行为模式。如果我们不采取行动阻止他——现在——特朗普总统几乎肯定会为了他个人的政治利益再次试图在选举中寻求干涉。”

主席对周三听证会后将会发生的事情提出了一些见解。纳德勒说，“几天后”，他的委员会成员将与带头进行弹劾调查的委员会重新开会。

“当我们将宪法适用于这些事实时，如果特朗普总统确实犯了可弹劾的罪行——或可弹劾的罪行，”他继续说，“那么我们必须迅速行动，履行我们的职责，并相应地对他提出指控。”

另一方面，柯林斯指责他的民主党同事进行“政治弹劾”，并传唤学者而不是事实证人。

“如果你想知道到底是什么驱动了这一切:它被称为时钟和日历。柯林斯引用2020年大选的话说道。“我们可以随心所欲地理论化，但美国人民会看到这一点并说，‘嗯？’"

卡兰很快回击了这一批评，她在开场白中说，她阅读了上个月弹劾听证会上每个证人的证词记录。“作为一名法学教授，我不关心那些事实，这让我感到侮辱，”她说。

创始人会“震惊”:民主党证人称特朗普的不当行为可能是历史上最糟糕的，值得弹劾。共和党证人则不然。

民主党召集的三名学者在开场白中描绘了一幅总统滥用权力、试图贿赂外国干涉国内选举的可恶肖像。

费尔德曼:“根据众议院的证词和证据，特朗普总统腐败滥用总统职位，犯下了可弹劾的重罪和轻罪。具体而言，特朗普总统滥用职权，腐败地邀请沃洛迪米尔·泽林斯基总统宣布对其政治对手的调查，以获取个人优势，包括在2020年总统选举中。”

卡兰:“根据证据记录，在你面前的案件中发生的事情是我认为我们以前从未见过的:一个违背誓言忠实执行法律、保护和捍卫宪法的总统。证据显示，一位总统利用职权要求外国政府参与削弱竞争总统职位的候选人。

她补充说，开国元勋们会对“总统在连任竞选中可能寻求外国政府帮助的想法”感到“震惊”

葛哈德:“总统的严重不当行为，包括贿赂、向外国领导人索取个人好感以换取权力、阻碍司法和国会，比任何前任总统的不当行为都要严重，包括面临弹劾的前任总统所做的或被指控做的事情。”

然而，唯一的共和党证人表示，根据迄今收集的证据，弹劾总统将开创一个危险的先例。

特利:“我担心降低弹劾标准，以适应证据不足和愤怒的局面。如果众议院仅仅依据乌克兰的指控进行，这一弹劾将在现代弹劾中脱颖而出，成为最短的程序，证据记录最薄，弹劾总统的依据也最狭窄。”

值得注意的是，当特利在国会作证1998年弹劾前总统比尔·克林顿期间，法律学者对弹劾的看法大相径庭。“如果你决定某些行为不构成可弹劾的罪行，你将扩大行政行为的空间，”他当时说。

 

听证会会有什么结果

听证会期间，预计民主党人会概述为什么他们认为特朗普与乌克兰的交易是一种交换，是可弹劾的罪行。他们认为，他试图干涉2020年的选举，向一个外国施压，要求其展开有利于他政治利益的调查，同时拒绝美国的军事援助。

“这对美国人意味着什么？他们为什么要关心总统对乌克兰做了什么？首先，这与乌克兰无关，”众议院情报委员会主席亚当·希夫(加州民主党)周二在弹劾报告发布后告诉记者。“这是关于我们的民主，这是关于我们的国家安全，这是关于美国人民是否有权期望美国总统以他们的安全为重，而不是出于某种非法的个人或政治原因，为他们的利益而行动。美国人应该深切关注美国总统是否背叛了他们对他的信任。”

与此同时，共和党人预计将部署一个坚定的防御策略这包括反对委员会的程序，这可能会使听证会失去平衡，让在家观看的人感到困惑。

该小组由几个共和党煽动者和特朗普的盟友组成，例如马特·盖兹(共和党议员)、吉姆·乔丹(共和党议员)、路易·戈默特(共和党议员)、道格·柯林斯(共和党议员)。)、约翰·拉特克利夫(得克萨斯州共和党人)、黛比·莱斯科(亚利桑那州共和党人)和安迪·比格斯(亚利桑那州共和党人)。约旦和拉特克利夫在情报委员会的公开听证会上发挥了突出的作用，比格斯是保守的众议院自由核心小组的领导人，盖兹帮助领导了一个共和党人突袭了一个安全的房间在那里弹劾证词正在进行，导致拖延。

“总统明天不会派律师来，他也不应该，因为他们没什么可问的。他们为什么要坐以待毙，上一堂宪法法律课，而大多数人不得不在法学院苦读。”司法领域的最高共和党人柯林斯星期二告诉记者。“[听证会]除了一个沉闷、昏昏欲睡的提议外，什么也没有给这个国家提供，因为弹劾程序缓慢地进行，没有方向，没有焦点，因为[民主党人]有一个大问题:总统没有做错什么，他们无法证明。”

TRUMP IMPEACHMENT HEARING LIVE UPDATES: HOUSE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE HOLDS FIRST HEARING AFTER DAMNING REPORT

The House Judiciary Committee is hearing from four legal scholars about the constitutional grounds of impeaching a president in its first hearing Wednesday.

It is the next step of the inquiry, coming after dueling impeachment reports were released this week—one by Republicans that defended President Donald Trump's "valid" concerns about Ukraine and another by Democrats who accused the president of "overwhelming" misconduct and of putting personal political interests over those of the nation.

This story is no longer being updated.

Three legal scholars say Trump committed impeachable offenses

The first three of the four witnesses were called by Democrats. They testified that Trump has committed impeachable offenses in withholding U.S. military aid from Ukraine while pressuring the foreign entity to investigate a political foe. The last witness, called by Republicans, argued that Trump has not committed impeachable offenses and trying to remove him from office would set a dangerous precedent.

• Noah Feldman, Harvard Law School: "President Trump has committed impeachable high crimes and misdemeanors by corruptly abusing the office of the presidency."

• Pamela S. Karlan, Stanford Law School: "If we are to keep faith with the constitution and our republic, President Trump must be held to account."

• Michael Gerhardt, University of North Carolina Law School: "If what we're talking about is not impeachable, then nothing is impeachable."

• Jonathan Turley, George Washington Law School: "If you make a high crime and misdemeanor out of going to the courts, it's an abuse of power. It's your abuse of power. You're doing precisely what you're criticizing the president of doing."

More information on the witnesses' testimonies is below. The White House declined to participate by having counsel present to ask questions.

Update 6:30 p.m.: Hearing comes to a close

Reps. Jerrold Nadler (D-NY), Judiciary chairman, and Doug Collins (R-Ga.), the ranking member, made their closing arguments. Nadler ended the hearing and did not answer reporters' questions afterward about what is to follow in the impeachment inquiry.

Two Democratic lawmakers on the committee, Reps. Ted Lieu (D-Calif.) and Ted Deutch (D-FL), said it was their belief the committee would hold a public hearing next week and hear from the majority and minority counsels from the Intelligence Committee about what respective impeachment reports contain.

Update 4:45 p.m.: GOP witness calls inquiry "legitimate" but again criticizes Dems for fast pace

Turley said that although he viewed the House's investigation into the Ukraine scandal as "legitimate," he reiterated his disagreement with the breakneck pace at which Democrats have operated.

"The investigation of the Ukraine scandal—I think it was a legitimate investigation. What I begrudge is how it was conducted," Turley said. "I'm not suggesting the evidence, if fully investigated, would come out one way or the other... We've burned two months in this House that you could have been in court, seeking a subpoena for these witnesses. It doesn't mean you have to wait forever. But you could have gotten an order by now."

Update 4:00 p.m.: Jim Jordan, Matt Gaetz launch staunch defense of president

Rep. Jim Jordan (R-OH) (R) confers with Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-FL) during a House Judiciary Committee markup, on September 12 in Washington, DC.PHOTO BY MARK WILSON/GETTY

Reps. Jim Jordan (R-OH) and Matt Gaetz (R-FL), political firebrands and two of the committee's most vehement defenders of Trump, railed against Democrats and questioned witnesses' credibility, respectively.

"I would argue this is not a fast impeachment. This is a predetermined impeachment," Jordan said. "Predetermined impeachment done in the most unfair, partisan fashion we've ever seen."

Gaetz cited Karlan's previous donor record to Democratic presidential candidates and quoted her past remarks to the media.

"Excuse me, you don't get to interrupt me on this time," the lawmaker told the professor. "When you invoke the president's son's name, when you try to make a little joke out of referencing Barron Trump, that does not lend you credibility to your argument. It makes you look mean."

"To all of the witnesses," Gaetz continued, "if you have personal knowledge of a single material fact, please raise your hand."

Update 12 p.m.: Democrats signal these articles of impeachment

Democrats have signaled they are likely to move forward with at least three articles of impeachment, each of which they've displayed on large TV screens placed throughout the hearing room.

• Abuse of power and bribery

• Obstruction of Congress

• Obstruction of justice

Impeachable offenses are listed on a monitor as the House Judiciary Committee listens to testimony by constitutional scholars in the Longworth House Office Building on Capitol Hill December 4 in Washington, DC.PHOTO BY SAUL LOEB-POOL/GETTY

Gerhardt soon thereafter stated that "if what we're talking about is not impeachable, then nothing is impeachable."

Karlan said "the attempt itself" to have Ukraine conduct investigations into one of his opponents "is the impeachable act... Soliciting itself is the impeachable offense."

Update 11:45 a.m.: Republicans delay proceedings with parliamentary inquiries

Several Republican lawmakers made procedural motions known as parliamentary inquiries, futile efforts that were quickly voted down by Democrats, but ate up chunks of time and paused the hearing's proceedings.

The failed inquiries included attempts by Republicans to have the whistleblower subpoenaed, have Intelligence Chairman Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) testify and conduct a "minority hearing day" that would allow GOP lawmakers to call their own panel of witnesses.

Update 11:15 a.m.: Nadler, Collins open with fiery remarks

Committee ranking member Rep. Doug Collins (R) (R-GA) delivers his opening statement as committee chairman Rep. Jerry Nadler (L) (D-NY) listens during an impeachment hearing where constitutional scholars Noah Feldman of Harvard University, Pamela Karlan of Stanford University, Michael Gerhardt of the University of North Carolina, and Jonathan Turley of George Washington University testified before the House Judiciary Committee in the Longworth House Office Building on Capitol Hill December 4 in Washington, DC.PHOTO BY WIN MCNAMEE/GETTY

Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerrold Nadler (D-NY) and ranking member Doug Collins (R-Ga.) used their opening remarks to make their respective cases either for or against impeachment.

Nadler accused Trump of using "his office for personal, political gain" in his Ukraine dealings.

"We are all aware that the next election is looming—but we cannot wait for the election to address the present crisis. The integrity of that election is the very thing at stake," he said. "The president has shown us his pattern of conduct. If we do not act to hold him in check—now—President Trump will almost certainly try again to solicit interference in the election for his personal, political benefit."

The chairman offered some insight into what will come after Wednesday's hearing. Nadler said that "in a few days," members of his committee will reconvene with the committees that spearheaded the impeachment inquiry.

"And when we apply the Constitution to those facts, if it is true that President Trump has committed an impeachable offense—or impeachable offenses," he continued, "then we must move swiftly to do our duty and charge him accordingly."

Collins, on the other hand, accused his Democratic colleagues of conducting a "political impeachment" and for calling academics rather than fact witnesses.

"If you want to know what is really driving this: it's called the clock and the calendar. They want to do it before the end of the year," Collins said, citing the 2020 election. "We can be theoretical all we want, but the American people are going to look at this and say, 'huh?'"

Karlan was quick to fire back at that criticism, saying in her opening remarks that she read each witness' testimony transcript from last month's impeachment hearings. "I'm insulted by the suggestion that as a law professor, I don't care about those facts," she said.

The Founders would be "horrified": Democratic witnesses say Trump's misconduct is perhaps the worst in history and deserves impeachment. GOP witness states otherwise.

Constitutional scholars Noah Feldman of Harvard University, Pamela Karlan of Stanford University, Michael Gerhardt of the University of North Carolina, and Jonathan Turley of George Washington University are sworn in to testify before the House Judiciary Committee in the Longworth House Office Building on Capitol Hill December 4 in Washington, DC. This is the first hearing held by the Judiciary Committee in the impeachment inquiry against U.S. President Donald Trump, whom House Democrats say held back military aid for Ukraine while demanding it investigates his political rivals. The Judiciary Committee will decide whether to draft official articles of impeachment against President Trump to be voted on by the full House of Representatives.PHOTO BY CHIP SOMODEVILLA/GETTY

In their opening remarks, the three scholars summoned by Democrats painted a damning portrait of a president who abused his powers and tried to bribe a foreign country to interfere in a domestic election.

Feldman: "On the basis of the testimony and evidence before the House, President Trump has committed impeachable high crimes and misdemeanors by corruptly abusing the office of the presidency. Specifically, President Trump abused his office by corruptly soliciting President Volodymyr Zelenskiy to announce investigations of his political rivals in order to gain personal advantage, including in the 2020 presidential election."

Karlan: "Based on the evidentiary record, what has happened in the case before you is something that I do not think we have ever seen before: a president who has doubled down on violating his oath to faithfully execute the laws and to protect and defend the constitution. The evidence reveals a president who used the powers of his office to demand that a foreign government participate in undermining a competing candidate for the presidency."

She added that the Founding Fathers would be "horrified" by "the very idea that a president might seek the aid of a foreign government in his reelection campaign."

Gerhardt: "The president's serious misconduct, including bribery, soliciting a personal favor from a foreign leader in exchange for his exercise of power, and obstructing justice and Congress are worse than the misconduct of any prior president, including what previous presidents who faced impeachment have done or been accused of doing."

The lone Republican witness, however, said it would set a dangerous precedent to impeach a president based on the evidence gathered thus far.

Turley: "I am concerned about lowering impeachment standards to fit a paucity of evidence and an abundance of anger. If the House proceeds solely on the Ukrainian allegations, this impeachment would stand out among modern impeachments as the shortest proceeding, with the thinnest evidentiary record, and the narrowest grounds ever used to impeach a president."

Notably, when Turley was testifying before Congress in 1998 during the impeachment of former President Bill Clinton, the legal scholar's view of impeachment was far different. "If you decide that certain acts do not rise to impeachable offenses, you will expand the space for executive conduct," he said at the time.

A congressional staffer puts up signs prior to testimony by constitutional scholars before the House Judiciary Committee in the Longworth House Office Building on Capitol Hill December 4 in Washington, D.C.PHOTO BY CHIP SOMODEVILLA/GETTY

What to expect from the hearing

During the hearing, expect Democrats to outline why they believe Trump's dealings with Ukraine amount to a quid pro quo and are impeachable offenses. They've argued he attempted to interfere in the 2020 election by pressuring a foreign country to mount investigations that would benefit him politically while withholding U.S. military aid.

"What does this mean for Americans? Why should they care about what the president did vis-a-vis Ukraine? First of all, this is not about Ukraine," House Intelligence Chairman Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) told reporters Tuesday after the release of their impeachment report. "This is about our democracy, this is about our national security, this is about whether the American people have a right to expect that the president of the United States is going to act in their interests with their security in mind and not for some illicit personal or political reason. Americans should care deeply whether the president of the United States is betraying their trust in him."

Republicans, meanwhile, are expected to deploy a staunch defense strategy that includes objections to the committee's procedures that could throw the hearing off-kilter and become confusing to follow for those watching from home.

The panel consists of several GOP firebrands and Trump allies, such as Reps. Matt Gaetz (R-FL), Jim Jordan (R-OH), Louie Gohmert (R-Texas), Doug Collins (R-Ga.), John Ratcliffe (R-Texas), Debbie Lesko (R-Ariz.) and Andy Biggs (R-Ariz.). Jordan and Ratcliffe played prominent roles during the Intelligence Committee's public hearings, Biggs is the leader of the conservative House Freedom Caucus and Gaetz helped lead a group of Republicans in storming a secure room where an impeachment deposition was underway, resulting in a delay.

"The president's not sending a counsel tomorrow, and he shouldn't because there's nothing for them to ask. Why would they want to sit back through a constitutional law class, which most of them had to sit suffer through in law school?" Collins, the top Republican on Judiciary, told reporters Tuesday. "[The hearing] provides nothing except a dreary-eyed, drowsy proposal for this country to watch as the impeachment process slowly drags on with no direction, no focus, because [Democrats] are having one big problem: the president did nothing wrong and they can't prove it."