Impeachment Witness Rebukes The House Democrats For Their Abuse

During the testimonies of the witnesses in the impeachment hearing, things got very interesting and frustrating.

You'll recall that there were four witnesses that testified during the impeachment hearing in front of the House Judiciary Committee. They were all professors and experts in law and especially the Constitution. So they claimed anyways. Some of what they said suggested otherwise. Some of them are willing to compromise on the law in order to nail Trump to a cross.

One witness, Jonathan Turley, who seemed to be the only clear-headed one in the bunch turned on the House Democrats telling them that if they go forward with impeaching the President, that THEY would be the ones committing high crimes and misdemeanors, not the President.

Here's what Turley said,

“If this Committee elects to seek impeachment on the failure to yield to congressional demands in an oversight or impeachment investigation, it will have to distinguish a long line of cases where prior presidents sought the very same review while withholding witnesses and documents. Basing impeachment on this obstruction theory would itself be an abuse of power … by Congress. It would be an extremely dangerous precedent to set for future presidents and Congresses in making an appeal to the Judiciary into ‘high crime and misdemeanor.'”

In the current case, the record is facially insufficient. The problem is not simply that the record does not contain direct evidence of the President stating a quid pro quo, as Chairman Schiff has suggested. The problem is that the House has not bothered to subpoena the key witnesses who would have such direct knowledge. This alone sets a dangerous precedent. A House in the future could avoid countervailing evidence by simply relying on tailored records with testimony from people who offer damning presumptions or speculation.”

“It is not enough to simply shrug and say this is ‘close enough for jazz’ in an impeachment,” Turley added. “The expectation, as shown by dozens of failed English impeachments, was that the lower house must offer a complete and compelling record. That is not to say that the final record must have a confession or incriminating statement from the accused. Rather, it was meant to be a complete record of the key witnesses that establishes the full range of material evidence. Only then could the body reach a conclusion on the true weight of the evidence—a conclusion that carries sufficient legitimacy with the public to justify the remedy of removal.”

Photo Credit: YouTube/C-Span