The first Republican-requested impeachment witness is unlikely to defend President Trump but can be counted on to scold Democrats whose “blind rush” he says undercuts a serious case to impeach and convict Trump.
Jonathan Turley, a George Washington University law professor, is likely the best-known member of a four-professor Wednesday panel of the House Judiciary Committee. He’s far from a partisan Trump defender but was the only witness Republicans were allowed to request.
Turley, 58, argued last week that Democrats might be able to show Trump committed an impeachable crime but that they need to slow the pace of proceedings to do so.
“The question is whether Democrats want a real or a recreational impeachment,” Turley wrote in an editorial. “A real impeachment case can be made, but to make it, they will have to reschedule, reframe, and repeat their House investigation.”
In the article, Turley recommended that Democrats subpoena Trump aides who declined invitations to testify and seek expedited court review. He said the necessary evidence could be in place for a spring impeachment vote. An “undeveloped record,” he warned, would cause a partisan Senate vote and Trump’s acquittal.
“The missing witnesses may be able to establish the elements of these crimes, but they are missing from the abridged record,” he wrote.
Turley is well-known for his sometimes contrarian legal analysis and previously testified in President Bill Clinton’s impeachment hearings. In the past decade, he represented bipartisan lawmakers suing President Barack Obama for bombing Libya and represented a family seeking to decriminalize polygamy in Utah.
A Republican source familiar with hearing preparations said that Republicans requested “multiple witnesses” but “were given one by the majority.” The source would not name the other experts requested. Republicans were unable to summon witnesses in House Intelligence Committee impeachment proceedings that began in September.
Turley’s criticism of both sides may enhance his perceived authority. He has blasted Trump lawyer Rudy Giuliani’s “record of rampage” and denounced Trump’s “highly inappropriate” effort to unmask the whistleblower who reported concerns about Trump’s July 25 call with Ukraine’s president as he withheld foreign aid. Turley wrote that White House counsel Pat Cipollone’s Oct. 8 letter declining to cooperate with the impeachment proceedings may have unintentionally weakened executive privilege claims, creating an “avoidable self-inflicted wound.”
The White House, Turley wrote in October, “seems intent on counter-punching itself into an impeachment.”
Turley’s criticism of Trump and his allies, however, is coupled by his rebuke of House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff’s claim that Trump committed bribery by withholding a White House meeting in a bid to force Ukraine to investigate Democrats. A 2016 Supreme Court ruling found setting up meetings does not qualify. Turley wrote that the White House’s refusal to cooperate, which Schiff calls impeachable obstruction, is couched by a lack of court rulings.
Hearings held by the House Intelligence Committee, Turley wrote, “seemed to studiously avoid every witness with firsthand knowledge of the issue, including Trump personal attorney Rudy Giuliani, former National Security Adviser John Bolton, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, White House Chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney, and others. It was like hearing the play ‘Hamlet’ entirely from the view of his friends Rosencrantz and Guildenstern. At some point, you really have to hear from the royal family.”
Turley wrote in a blog post he was given “only a few days to prepare” for the hearing. Democratic witnesses include Harvard Law professor Noah Feldman, Stanford University law professor Pamela Karlan, and University of North Carolina law professor Michael Gerhardt.
Representatives for the White House and Republicans on the House Judiciary Committee would not comment on Turley’s anticipated testimony.
Democrats are likely to reject Turley’s advice for building a better case against Trump.
At a Tuesday press conference, Schiff said, “There is, I think, grave risks to the country with waiting until we have every last fact when we already know enough about the president’s misconduct to make a reasonable judgment about whether we think that’s compatible with the office of the presidency.”
