- Jonathan Turley, a law professor who appeared as a Republican witness in Wednesday’s impeachment hearings, made a number of claims that directly contradicted his previous statements and testimony.
- On Wednesday, Turley argued there was no proof that President Donald Trump broke a specific law related to the Ukraine scandal and therefore should not be impeached.
- But in 1998, Turley made the opposite case, telling Congress during former President Bill Clinton’s impeachment hearings that Clinton’s actions didn’t need to violate any laws in order to be impeachable conduct.
- “While there’s a high bar for what constitutes grounds for impeachment, an offence does not have to be indictable,” he wrote in a 2014 op-ed for The Washington Post.
- Visit Business Insider’s homepage for more stories.
Jonathan Turley, a professor at George Washington University Law School, testified on Wednesday that he didn’t see any proof that President Donald Trump committed a crime and that Trump therefore should not be impeached.
Turley was one of four legal experts – and the only one invited by the Republicans – who testified in the House Judiciary Committee’s first public impeachment hearing about Trump.
While the other witnesses laid out the case that Trump abused his power by trying to strong-arm Ukraine into caving to his personal demands while withholding vital military aid and a White House meeting, Turley argued there was no evidence that Trump broke a specific federal statute and that impeaching him would set a dangerous precedent.
But 20 years ago, Turley made the opposite case. At the time, he was one of several GOP legal analysts pushing for President Bill Clinton to be impeached and removed from office.
“If you decide that certain acts do not rise to impeachable offences, you will expand the space for executive conduct,” Turley testified in 1998 during Clinton’s impeachment hearings. He added that Clinton’s actions didn’t need to break any laws in order to be considered impeachable conduct.
“While there’s a high bar for what constitutes grounds for impeachment, an offence does not have to be indictable,” Turley wrote in a 2014 op-ed for the Washington Post. “Serious misconduct or a violation of public trust is enough. And the founders emphasised that impeachments were about what happened in the political arena: involving ‘political crimes and misdemeanours’ and resulting in ‘political punishments.'”
On Wednesday, Turley argued that the mountain of evidence against Trump in the Ukraine scandal didn’t matter because it doesn’t meet statutory elements for criminal bribery. But the other witnesses pushed back forcefully on his claim.
“Bribery had a clear meaning to the framers,” said Noah Feldman, a professor at Harvard Law School. “It was when the president, using the power of his office, solicits or receives something of personal value from someone affected by his official powers.”
“And I want to be very clear. The Constitution is law,” Feldman added. “The Constitution is the supreme law of the land. So, of course, Professor Turley is right that you wouldn’t want to impeach someone who didn’t violate the law. But the Constitution, the supreme law of the land, specifies bribery as a ground of impeachment, as it specifies other high crimes and misdemeanours. Bribery had a clear meaning.”
- Read more:
- Think Trump will get impeached? Gambling sites say the odds are in your favour
- Trump could be impeached and removed from office but still win reelection in 2020
- Over half of the House of Representatives support the impeachment inquiry against Trump – see all of them here
- Everything you need to know about Trump’s impeachment process: What’s happened, who the players are, and what comes next