English language

How to pronounce impeachability in English?

Full Transcript

X

the question before the senate today was
is it constitutional to hold an
impeachment trial for a former president
uh donald trump's lawyers argued today
that it's not
constitutional to do that they say the
constitution says an impeachment trial
can only be held to remove a current
president from office and so if you're
not a current president
the proceedings can't even be convened
one of the house impeachment managers
though pointed out one specific and
awkward problem
with that argument from president
trump's defense team
in president trump's legal trial brief
75 page brief they struggled to find any
professors to support their position
they did cite one professor though
professor kalt is an expert in this
field
who they claimed agreed with them
that the only purpose of impeachment is
removal
professor cult's position which they had
to have known
because it's it's in the article that
they cite in the brief
is that removal is quote not
the sole end of impeachment actually in
that same article
he describes the view advocated by
president trump's lawyers
as having deep flaws
and again you do not have to take my
word for it
you can take professor calt's word for
it the professor they cited
in their brief filed yesterday because
he tweeted about it and on the screen
here
this is what he had to say i'm not going
to read through it in great detail i'll
just
simply give you the highlights president
trump's brief cites my 2001 article on
late impeachment a lot
but in several places they misrepresent
what i wrote
quite badly there are multiple examples
of such flat out misrepresentations
they didn't have to be disingenuous and
misleading like this
house impeachment managers today made
their case that it is
entirely constitutional to try a former
president in the senate
we knew they would do that we knew in
advance that was their task today
we didn't necessarily expect that they
would get agreement on that today
from the constitutional scholar that
donald trump's defense team
cited in its arguments on the opposite
the arguments from the house impeachment
managers uh apparently
one to well they won the day today the
vote was 5644 in favor of going ahead
with the trial
six republicans sided with all the
democrats to get those 56 votes in favor
that vote has immediate implications for
the case against president trump it
means the trial will go forward
did the senate also make a little bit of
history today in that vote that they
just took
when they affirmed by 56 votes that a
former president
can be tried in the senate on
impeachment charges
does that mean for the constitutional
scholars who study this stuff that this
is now
at all a more settled question now that
the senate
has looked at the issue and weighed in
on a binding vote
joining us now is professor brian cult
he's a michigan state university law
professor his work on the
constitutionality of
the impeachment of former federal
officials is cited by former president
trump's defense team
a professor cult has said that they
misrepresented what he wrote quote
quite badly professor cults a real
pleasure to have you with us tonight
thank you so much for making time
thank you for having me
so i've read some of your scholarship on
the matter and
it's clear that uh at least from my
non-lawyers
layman's uh take on it that you do
believe that
late impeachability is a is a is a
a thing that can be done but you have to
be engaged with both sides of the
argument
laid out what reasonable people might
argue on both sides of that case and it
seems like
that's maybe where the president's
defense team uh cherry-picked or got
things wrong in a way that
misrepresented your take
is that a fair way to understand it yeah
um
i mean the house managers cited my work
even more
than trump's lawyers said the article i
wrote it in 2001
before there was an actual case and i
wanted to lay out all the evidence
and it was 124 pages long so all the
evidence on both sides
there was plenty for both sides to look
at there the problem was trump's lawyers
took things where i said well you could
argue this here's why that's wrong
and and they just took that first part
you could argue this and then
cited me as though i agreed with that
when really what i was doing was
explaining why that was wrong
looking at a hole at the two sets of
arguments that were made today over
these
three plus hours of argument on both
sides of this issue
what did you think did you think that
the house impeachment managers
put forward superior constitutional
arguments to those of trump's team or
vice versa
vice versa how did how did you feel
about how they argued this given your
expertise in the subject
i thought their arguments were stronger
um i
i agree because that's what i said in my
2001 article but i also think that they
engaged in the evidence much more
effectively
instead of saying it's simple look at
the text
it it says acts and and just sort of
assuming the conclusion
they they dug into it there are two
sides to the argument
and they presented their side i thought
much more effectively
than trump's lawyers presented the other
side on the other hand
it was sort of a foregone conclusion how
the vote would go other than senator
cassidy so i'm not sure how much it
really mattered
hey thanks for watching our youtube
channel you should know that you can
follow today's top stories
and breaking news and catch up on your
favorite msnbc shows all in one place
download the nbc news app today
you

the question before the senate today was

Toggle Transcript

impeachability::noun | Spocien Dictionary

impeachability

noun

//

the state of being liable to impeachment

Type	Words
Synonyms	indictability
Type of	guilt, guiltiness

How to pronounce impeachability in English?

impeachability::noun | Spocien Dictionary

abandonment

Related words

Related

Subscribe to our Newslatter