House Democrats in the Judiciary Committee selected three so-called legal experts as witnesses for their impeachment hearing to determine the legal ramifications of this inquiry and if President Trump's actions were actually impeachable offenses and high crimes and misdemeanors.
The three chosen by the Democrats obviously had an agenda and let their hatred for the President blind them to what the law really says. But the real expert was George Washington Law Professor Jonathan Turley, who said that the Democrats were going after Trump out of anger and lacked the evidence necessary to impeach the president.
According to Fox News,
“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,” Turley said in his opening statement.
“I am concerned about lowering impeachment standards to fit a paucity of evidence and an abundance of anger,” Turley continued. “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.”
He added: “If 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.”
“Impeachment needs to be based on proof, not assumptions,” Turley said.”
Turley even went as far as to say that impeaching the President would be an abuse of office on the part of Congress.
Professor Turley isn’t even a Trump fan and even admitted that he voted for Bill Clinton and Barack Obama, but he truly puts the law first and doesn't let his political affiliation affect his judgment like the others. It appears he was the only impartial legal expert.