Jonathan Turley is a well respected constitutional scholar on both sides of the aisle. Today he was called as a key witness in the ongoing saga that is the Dems impeachment.
The Senate will not convict and Jonathan Turley in his prepared comments explains why in a very simple language that even Nadler can understand, as reported by Fox News.
“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 wrote.
“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.”
“If 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.”
And that is very correct. In the first round of the hearings we also learned that Ex-President Obama and his administration thought the Biden Burisma arrangement was troubling.
Troubling enough to coached people on how to deal with it before the Senate confirmations. Hard to believe they would not do that if there was no smoke there.
“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 will say.
“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.”
“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.”
