House Republicans brought only one witness to the impeachment hearing against President Donald Trump on Wednesday, and it was so pathetic that law professor Jonathan Turley received wide shame, especially since he strongly supported impeaching former President Bill Clinton.
Republicans are desperate to derail the impeachment inquiry, and that usually means bringing witnesses to testify on their behalf who will only ultimately offer ridiculous remarks that reveal their hypocrisy and leave their reputation tattered at the end.
This was the case when Turley testified on Wednesday as he strenuously claimed to not be a Trump supporter while briefly highlighting his experience as a legal scholar.
But rather than defend the legitimate impeachment of a criminal president who tried to bribe Ukraine by withholding military aid in exchange for dirt on former Vice-President Joe Biden in order to help him win the 2020 Election, Turley attacked the impeachment process and claimed that impeaching Trump would somehow harm future presidents.
“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,” he said. “To put it simply, I hold no brief for President Trump. My personal and political views of President Trump, however, are irrelevant to my impeachment testimony, as they should be to your impeachment vote.”
“Today, my only concern is the integrity and coherence of the constitutional standard and process of impeachment,” Turley continued. “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. 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. That does not bode well for future presidents who are working in a country often sharply and, at times, bitterly divided.”
Here’s the video of Turley’s testimony via YouTube:
His remarks drew immediate condemnation and mockery.
Yes, we need to keep the bar higher than “sells out national security for personal gain” https://t.co/E4W4Ntv2S5
— Tom Nichols (@RadioFreeTom) December 4, 2019
Turley summarized: You’re just mad. What will happen if we impeach a president for soliciting foreign attacks on our elections? If that’s wrong, everything is wrong and nothing is right. Also, it’s unfair to impeach a president without obtaining information he withheld from you.
— Walter Shaub (@waltshaub) December 4, 2019
It is fundamentally impossible to reconcile Turley’s position today with his testimony in 1998. His protestations that he is no supporter of Trump and not a partisan are simply not credible: https://t.co/U254PS1iCw pic.twitter.com/Tu5BeMhU6z
— Susan Hennessey (@Susan_Hennessey) December 4, 2019
Turley’s effort to justify giving Trump a pass because we live in a time of “more rage than reason” is mystifying. If you read the founding father’s words, Trump is the President they wrote impeachment into the Constitution to protect against.
— Joyce Alene (@JoyceWhiteVance) December 4, 2019
GOP counsel & Turley are now wandering into a circumscription of impeachment that would have protected Nixon, let alone Clinton, whose impeachment Turley testified in favor of before this same Committee.
— Joyce Alene (@JoyceWhiteVance) December 4, 2019
The most damning criticism came from Harvard law professor Laurence Tribe:
.@JonathanTurley was an utter waste of time. His call for solid evidence was a truism. He gave no reason at all to regard the evidence gathered by @RepAdamSchiff as insufficient to establish impeachable offenses. And his carping about the speed of the process was pointless.
— Laurence Tribe (@tribelaw) December 4, 2019
.@JonathanTurley accuses Congress of abusing its Art I power by treating Trump’s going to court as obstruction. That’s a red herring. Nobody is even suggesting impeaching Trump for seeking judicial protection. Not even close. Directing defiance of all subpoenas is different.
— Laurence Tribe (@tribelaw) December 4, 2019
.@JonathanTurley warns against too loose and fluid a notion of bribery and other high crimes, but he has no reply to the question: If what the Intelligence Committee convincingly found Trump to have done isn’t impeachable, what would be?
— Laurence Tribe (@tribelaw) December 4, 2019
Turley literally just destroyed his career for Trump and Republicans by making such a ridiculous argument against impeachment. Evidence and witness testimony in this case through multiple hearings has proved Trump committed criminal acts to justify impeachment. Far worse, in fact, than anything Clinton did when Turley actually supported that impeachment. While testifying as a GOP expert witness during those hearings, Turley told Congress, “Crime is contagious. If the government becomes a lawbreaker; it breeds contempt for law; it invites every man to become a law unto itself.”
Keep in mind that Turley said this about a president who simply lied about a blow job. Trump has done far worse all while profiting from the office he holds and embarrassing our nation around the world. He has poisoned every branch of the government in an effort to corrupt law and order, and does Russian dictator Vladimir Putin’s bidding. If there is any president who deserves to be impeached, it’s Trump. Not impeaching him would send a message to future presidents that they can be as corrupt as they want without consequence. That is, unless a Democrat is president. In that case, Republicans will just drag Turley in to testify in support of impeachment.
Featured Image: Screenshot