A George Washington University Law professor on Wednesday confronted three Democratic witnesses during a tense hearing before the House Judiciary Committee in the ongoing impeachment inquiry against President Donald Trump—where he verbally annihilated the left’s defense tactics and ruled the inquiry as “dangerous.”
The law professor, Jonathan Turley, dismissed Democratic lawmaker’s legal case against the president and expressed concern for a procedure he called “woefully inadequate.”
“President Trump will not be our last president and what we leave in the wake of this scandal will shape our democracy for generations to come,” Turley, who also testified in the impeachment case against former President Bill Clinton, said in his opening testimony. “I’m concerned about lowering impeachment standards to fit a paucity of evidence and an abundance of anger.”
Turley, despite being reportedly not a fan of the president, made it clear that the Democrat-led impeachment inquiry is beyond inappropriate.
“One can oppose President Trump’s policies or actions but still conclude that the current legal case for impeachment is not just woefully inadequate, but in some respects, dangerous, as the basis for the impeachment of an American president,” Turley said.
Turley then explained why the July 25 call between President Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy—unlike what Democrats have prescribed—isn’t in fact “bribery.”
“The reference to the Hunter Biden deal with Burisma should never have occurred and is worthy of the criticism of President Trump that it has unleashed. However, it is not a case of bribery,” the George Washington law professor explained. “In my view, there is no case law that would support a claim of corrupt intent in such comments to support a bribery charge.”
President Trump “honestly believed that there was a corrupt arrangement with Hunter Biden that was not fully investigated by the Obama administration, the request for an investigation is not corrupt, notwithstanding its inappropriateness,” he added.
Turley stressed that the divisive process of removing a president through impeachment calls for a courteous discussion in which substantive evidence is provided.
“If we are to impeach a president for only the third time in our history, we will need to rise above this age of rage and genuinely engage in a civil and substantive discussion,” Turley said, adding his speculation that a black mark would be left on American history if an impeachment was to occur.
“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,” Turley said.
One witness in particular, U.S. Ambassador to the E.U Gordon Sondland, said there was no evidence of a connection between military aid to the Biden probe “other than my own presumption,” and when questioned if “no one on this planet told you that Donald Trump was tying this aid to the investigations,” he responded “yes.”
Democrats were unable to establish concrete evidence for their impeachment inquiry against President Trump to date.