Chemical Free Body

HUGE: Impeachment Witness Admits Dems Don’t Have the Evidence to Impeach

House Democrats got a big dose of reality on Wednesday during the House Judiciary Committee’s impeachment hearing when Trump critic and George Washington University law professor Jonathan Turley said that Democrats simply do not have the evidence to go forward with the impeachment of President Trump.

Out of the four “witnesses” who were selected, three of them were chosen by Democrats and only one was selected by Republicans. All four “witnesses” are Democrats.

Turley began by stating that he was “highly critical of President Trump, his policies, and his rhetoric, in dozens of columns,” also mentioning that he voted for Bill Clinton and Barack Obama. He then went onto argue that Democrats’ push towards impeachment is “dangerous.”

House Democrats got a big dose of reality on Wednesday during the House Judiciary Committee’s impeachment hearing when Trump critic and George Washington University law professor Jonathan Turley said that Democrats simply do not have the evidence to go forward with the impeachment of President Trump.

Out of the four “witnesses” who were selected, three of them were chosen by Democrats and only one was selected by Republicans. All four “witnesses” are Democrats.

Turley began by stating that he was “highly critical of President Trump, his policies, and his rhetoric, in dozens of columns,” also mentioning that he voted for Bill Clinton and Barack Obama. He then went onto argue that Democrats’ push towards impeachment is “dangerous.”

Check out part of his opening statement below:

I would like to start, perhaps incongruously, with a statement of three irrelevant facts. First, I am not a supporter of President Trump. I voted against him in 2016 and I have previously voted for Presidents Clinton and Obama. Second, I have been highly critical of President Trump, his policies, and his rhetoric, in dozens of columns. Third, I have repeatedly criticized his raising of the investigation of the Hunter Biden matter with the Ukrainian president. These points are not meant to curry favor or approval. Rather they are meant to drive home a simple point: 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.

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. 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.

You can read more from our friends at TrendingPolitics.com

0 0 vote
Article Rating

You Might Like

Leave a Reply

0 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
×
0
Would love your thoughts, please comment.x
()
x
%d bloggers like this: