During the House Judiciary Committee’s first hearing in the ongoing impeachment probe, constitutional scholars shared their views on whether President Donald Trump’s actions constitute an impeachable offense.
George Washington University law professor Jonathan Turley, who was selected to make a case against impeachment, blasted the speed of the process in his opening statement.
“For two years, members of this Committee have declared that criminal and impeachable acts were established for everything from treason to conspiracy to obstruction,” Turley said.
“However, no action was taken to impeach. Suddenly, just a few weeks ago, the House announced it would begin an impeachment inquiry and push for a final vote in just a matter of weeks.”
Turley said that by not waiting for evidence to come out and instead relying on second-hand evidence, Democrats have not proven their case. Rather, he said some of the testimony refutes their charges.
“To do so, the House Intelligence Committee declared that it would not subpoena a host of witnesses who have direct knowledge of any quid pro quo. Instead, it will proceed on a record composed of a relatively small number of witnesses with largely second-hand knowledge of the position. The only three direct conversations with President Trump do not contain a statement of a quid pro quo, and two expressly deny such a pre-condition.”
GOP Impeachment Witness: This is 'Not How an American President Should Be Impeached'
George Washington University law professor Jonathan Turley, who was selected to make a case against impeachment, blasted the speed of the process in his opening statement.
“For two years, members of this Committee have declared that criminal and impeachable acts were established for everything from treason to conspiracy to obstruction,” Turley said.
“However, no action was taken to impeach. Suddenly, just a few weeks ago, the House announced it would begin an impeachment inquiry and push for a final vote in just a matter of weeks.”
Turley said that by not waiting for evidence to come out and instead relying on second-hand evidence, Democrats have not proven their case. Rather, he said some of the testimony refutes their charges.
“To do so, the House Intelligence Committee declared that it would not subpoena a host of witnesses who have direct knowledge of any quid pro quo. Instead, it will proceed on a record composed of a relatively small number of witnesses with largely second-hand knowledge of the position. The only three direct conversations with President Trump do not contain a statement of a quid pro quo, and two expressly deny such a pre-condition.”
GOP Impeachment Witness: This is 'Not How an American President Should Be Impeached'
