In the first article, law professor Jonathan Turley testified during the impeachment inquiry hearing and stated that there is a basis for the inquiry to go forward. When questioned about what is impeachable, Turley mentioned laws related to bribery but emphasized that further investigation is needed. He expressed that the allegations against the president still need to be linked and proven. Turley’s testimony provides support for the continuation of the inquiry, indicating that there is potential evidence of impeachable offenses.
The second article discusses the struggles faced by House Oversight Committee Chairman James Comer in managing the unruly hearing. Comer seemed unprepared for Democrats’ procedural tactics and was seen engaging in arguments with Democratic members during their testimonies, which is unusual for a committee chair. The hearing was marked by interruptions and contentious exchanges, with some Republican members shouting over Comer. The article draws parallels to the early Trump impeachment hearings, where similar issues regarding management and performance were raised. Comer’s difficulties in controlling the hearing highlight the intense nature and partisan divide surrounding the impeachment inquiry.
In the final article, Rep. Dan Goldman, a Democrat from New York, commented on the lack of witnesses with direct knowledge of the evidence in the hearing. He reiterated that the inquiry had not provided any new evidence or knowledge so far. Goldman questioned the absence of fact witnesses, suggesting that bringing them in could weaken the case against the president. This remark implies that the case may rely on circumstantial evidence rather than concrete proof. The article also mentions Republicans’ intent to subpoena Hunter Biden’s personal bank records and business-related documents as part of their due diligence, claiming that other agencies have failed to fulfill this task.