![\"\"](\"http:\/\/stateofthenation.co\/wp-content\/uploads\/2019\/12\/694940094001_6112982503001_6112984565001-vs.jpg\")
Legal expert says impeachment legal case is \u2018woefully inadequate\u2019
A law professor at George Washington University Law School, told lawmakers that the impeachment case against President Trump is \u2018woefully inadequate.\u2019<\/p><\/div>\n
By Brooke Singman | Fox News<\/p>\n
An expert legal witness testified\u00a0Wednesday\u00a0that the current legal case for impeaching\u00a0President Trump<\/a>\u00a0is \u201cwoefully inadequate\u201d and \u201cdangerous,\u201d as the House Judiciary Committee holds its first\u00a0impeachment inquiry hearing.<\/a><\/p>\n In his\u00a0opening statement<\/a>, Jonathan Turley, a\u00a0law\u00a0<\/a>professor at George Washington University Law School, told lawmakers that, while he is not a “supporter” of the president, he is concerned about the \u201cintegrity\u201d of the impeachment process based on the case being built against Trump.<\/p>\n \u201cOne can oppose President Trump\u2019s 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,\u201d Turley said.<\/p>\n At the center of the impeachment inquiry, which began in September, is Trump\u2019s July 25 phone call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky. During the call, Trump pressed Zelensky for investigations that could help him politically, including relating to former Vice President Joe Biden and his son, Hunter.<\/p>\n Turley, in his opening statement, said, “The reference to the Hunter Biden deal with Burisma should never have occurred and is worthy of the criticism of President Trump that it has unleashed. However, it is not a case of bribery.”<\/p>\n He argued the \u201cissue is not whether these comments are correct, but whether they are corrupt.\u201d Turley said if Trump “honestly believed that there was a corrupt arrangement with Hunter Biden that was not fully investigated by the Obama administration, the request for an investigation is not corrupt, notwithstanding its inappropriateness.\u201d<\/p>\n \u201cIn my view, there is no case law that would support a claim of corrupt intent in such comments to support a bribery charge,\u201d Turley said. Still, he said, \u201cThere is no question that an investigation of the Bidens would help President Trump politically.”<\/p>\n Turley, a Republican witness, will testify alongside three other legal scholars \u2014 Stanford Law professor Pamela Karlan, Harvard Law professor and Bloomberg columnist Noah Feldman, and University of North Carolina Law Professor Michael Gerhardt \u2014 all of whom are witnesses for the Democrats.<\/p>\n \u201cPresident 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,\u201d Turley said. \u201cI am concerned about lowering impeachment standards to fit a paucity of evidence and an abundance of anger.\u201d<\/p>\n He added: \u201cIf 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.\u201d<\/p>\n \u201cIf we are to impeach a president for only the third time in our history, we will need to rise above this age of rage and genuinely engage in a civil and substantive discussion,\u201d he said.<\/p>\n The hearing is slated to set the stage for the next phase of the House impeachment inquiry into the president. House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerrold Nadler, D-N.Y., last week\u00a0announced the hearing which he said would weigh whether the president\u2019s actions reach a level of \u201chigh crimes and misdemeanors\u201d and warrant articles of impeachment.<\/p>\n Nadler invited the president and counsel to participate in the hearing, but the White House declined.<\/p>\n \u201cThis baseless and highly partisan inquiry violates all past historical precedent, basic due process, rights, and fundamental fairness,\u201d White House counsel Pat Cipollone wrote in a letter to Nadler on Sunday, accusing the chairman of \u201cpurposely\u201d scheduling the proceedings to coincide with the president\u2019s attendance at the NATO Leaders\u2019 Meeting in London.<\/p>\n The hearing on Wednesday is expected to be of similar format to the House Intelligence Committee\u2019s public hearings last month. The hearing will begin with a 45-minute period for the Democrats, most likely led by Judiciary Committee counsel Norm Eisen. Republicans will then get 45 minutes. Then, the hearing will go to five-minute rounds for each of the 41 members.<\/p>\n Trump\u2019s July 25 phone call with Zelensky prompted a whistleblower complaint to the intelligence community inspector general\u00a0and, in turn, the impeachment inquiry in the House. Trump has challenged the accuracy of that complaint, though the transcript released by the White House did support the core allegations that he pressed for politically related investigations.<\/p>\n The president\u2019s request came after millions in U.S. military aid to Ukraine had been frozen, which Democrats and witnesses who testified before the House Intelligence Committee claimed shows a \u201cquid pro quo\u201d arrangement. Trump denies any wrongdoing, and Zelensky has said he\u00a0did not feel\u00a0<\/a>pressured.<\/p>\n This week, House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff, D-Calif., transmitted a report with the majority\u2019s findings from their inquiry, which concluded last week. The report concluded that Trump withheld nearly $391 million in military aid from Ukraine, conditioning its delivery as well as a White House visit for Zelensky on a public announcement that he was conducting investigations into former Vice President Joe Biden and his son, Hunter Biden\u2019s, business dealings in Ukraine, as well as issues related to the 2016 election. The Democrats\u2019 report also accuses Trump of committing obstruction by instructing witnesses not to comply with congressional subpoenas.<\/p>\n Meanwhile, Republicans on the Intelligence Committee drafted a report of their own, which rejected Democrats\u2019 claims, stating there is no evidence for impeachment.<\/p>\n \u201cThe evidence presented does not prove any of these Democrat allegations, and none of the Democrats\u2019 witnesses testified to having evidence of bribery, extortion, or any high crime or misdemeanor,\u201d the Republican report read.<\/p>\n