Turley Testifies at Biden Impeachment Hearing

This morning, I will testify in the first hearing of the impeachment inquiry of President Joseph Biden. The hearing of the Committee on Oversight and Accountability will start at 10am in Room 2154 of the Rayburn House Office Building. My written testimony is below.

As a law professor, there is no more solemn responsibility than advising the House in an impeachment. I come to this question as someone who has served both as lead counsel in the last judicial impeachment trial in the United States Senate and testified in two prior presidential impeachments.

Roughly, twenty-five years ago, I appeared before Congress as an expert witness in the impeachment of former president William Jefferson Clinton. Four years ago, I appeared as an expert witness in the only impeachment hearing held in the first impeachment of former president Donald J. Trump.

In the second impeachment just roughly three years ago, there was no hearing at all.

The shortening intervals between impeachments is alarming and calls for circumspection and caution on both sides.

My testimony addresses the historical baseline of past inquiries and what I consider to be “best practices” in the investigation of a sitting president. Some of those practices and presumptions work to the benefit of the President. That is as it should be. A presidential impeachment should not be a close question or a rush to judgment.

Finally, I encourage members to consider the common article of faith in this constitutional process and to rise above the petty and personal attacks that characterize these times:

“There are constitutional moments that demand the best from each of us in transcending the passions and politics of time. These are moments when people of good faith can bring a solemnity and clarity to a national debate.  We are living an age of rage where ad hominem attacks have replaced civil discourse. This toxic environment starts here with how members treat different views of our constitutional history and standards. As Justice Louis Brandeis stated “Our government is the potent, the omnipresent teacher. For good or for ill it teaches the whole people by example.”

While Brandeis was speaking of criminal conduct, it is equally true of our public discourse. The license that some feel to engage in hateful rhetoric and personal attacks are the result of how members treat this moment. We can discuss these issues as Americans who may disagree but remain bound by a common faith in our constitutional system. We can disagree, but we need not hate each other. If we want to combat the deterioration of political discourse in our society, it begins here and now as we discuss these issues. Members can choose to be either potent teachers for civil discourse or political rage. I hope that this testimony will assist the Committee in offering the public an array of different viewpoints on how an impeachment inquiry should ideally progress under Article I.”

Turley.Testimony.Biden Inquiry

220 thoughts on “Turley Testifies at Biden Impeachment Hearing”

  1. Coming out of the first impeachment hearing, Fox News’ Neil Cavuto says “I don’t know what was achieved over these last 6+ hours,” and adds, “this was built up where there’s smoke there would be fire… where there’s smoke today, we got more smoke.”

    1. It’s an Inquiry not a Lynching.
      At the closing-end statements of the hearing Rep. Jame Comer (Oversight and Accountability Committee Chair) and Rep. Jim Jordan (Judiciary Committee Chair) substantiated and stated the reasons for further ‘Inquiry’ into the Biden’s Business, Banking Records, Partnerships, and Business Relations.
      (To be Continued…)

      1. Cavuto: “The promise of explosive testimony and incontrovertible proof, that did not materialize today. … No such evidence was presented.”

        1. It is good to see that you are very confident that an impeachment inquiry is not a threat to your “Big Man”.

          Go ahead and take another hit on that Hunter Biden crack pipe, maybe rape a few women just like Hunter did. Video record it! It’s all good when your peeps deny evidence cuz sexual assault of women by a Democrat is just SOR

          regards to the Big Man

        1. Viktor Skokin sould be on the to of List,
          And while your at it, why not ask: John Bolton, General H. R. McMaster, Mike Pompeo, Rex Tillerson, James Mattis to testify? What do you fear?
          This war was started for Col. Alexander Vindman and John Bolton’s private gratification.
          And you can be damn sure that this Military/CIA Covert Ops is being run for Hunter & Joe Biden’s personal convenience ($) and Others.

  2. Jonathan: I read your written testimony and watched the entire hearing today of Comer’s House impeachment inquiry. Here are my take aways: None of the four witnesses today, including you, were FACT witnesses. You and they offered a lot of OPINIONS but no actual evidence that Joe Biden took brides or was involved in his son’s business activities.

    What is remarkable is that the Dems on the Committee asked Comer to subpoena two FACT witnesses–Rudy Giuliani and Lev Parnas–to have them testify. Burisma is at the center of the House Republican inquiry. RG and Parnas were key players, sent by DJT to dig up “dirt” on the Biden’s. Their testimony would seem probative on the Q of whether Joe Biden fired Ukrainian prosecutor Shokin to protect Hunter. In fact, Parnas wrote a long letter to Comer offering to testify. He said in his letter that there was no basis for the allegation against Biden and called the Comer investigation a “sham”.
    In a party line vote the Republicans tabled the motions to compel the testimony of either RG or Parnas. It doesn’t appear Comer wants to hear from actual FACT witnesses. He won’t even have Devon Archer testify? Why because Archer’s deposition clearly said Joe Biden was not involved in his son’s business dealings.

    The only part of your testimony I agree with is when you said there is no evidence to show Joe Biden received any bribes or was involved in Hunter’s overseas business activities. I also agree with you that “best practices” require that the House hold a formal vote to authorize an impeachment inquiry. McCarthy has refused to do that. Why? Because he knows he would lose the vote. Comer’s Committee has no evidence to justify a House impeachment inquiry.

    It’s pretty clear. The whole purpose of this little charade is to help the person who is the real “puppet master” of the Comer hearings–to impeach Joe Biden to pave the way for DJT to once again reach the pinnacles of power. This whole sham impeachment inquiry is a tour de force of how NOT to conduct an impeachment inquiry. It’s really impeachment malpractice!

    1. “Joe Biden took brides”

      You have been told numerous times now that it was Hunter who took brides (including his brother’s). Joe took BRIBES

  3. Professor responds to the personal attacks by Democrats, and raises his voice passionately before being interrupted by ….Democrats.

    It’s not going to make a difference. You know this has become a pattern of witnesses, whistleblowers, FBI agents, journalists being attacked in Congress. It won’t make any difference.  It won’t change the Constitutional standard. It won’t negate any evidence that you have, but at some point you’ve got to say ‘enough’.

    You know that we have to have something, …something in Congress to look to to have faith. And I have to tell you it’s not that I think that absurd attack meant any difference to my children or to the people that are watching. It makes a difference to our process. Witnesses should not have to….……..

    interrupted by Democrats

    Will Democrats now attempt to lynch Professor Turley like they did to Blacks?  Will Democrats now launch water cannons against Professor Turley?  Will Democrats now pummel him on the street, like Democrats did to Senator Paul Rand and as Rep Maxine Waters and Nancy Pelosi advocated against Trump and his cabinet members?

    Democrats are doing what they have historically done: resort to violence against their accusers.  

    1. interrupted by Democrats

      Jamie Raskin to be exact. Someone an anonymous commenter was praising earlier today and criticizing me for not wanting to listen to.

    2. Democrats are doing what they have historically done: resort to violence against their accusers.

      Excellent Estovir! This is always what happens when one dares to openly oppose the regime. Makes me wonder what the regime has (dossiers) on all of the old guard Democrats that remain silent. It wouldn’t surprise me in the least that to be an accepted, “electable” Democrat, especially one supported by the DNC, there must be skeletons in their closet that can be used as leverage.

      1. The error Turley made was to cede to the Democrat who interrupted him (Jamie Raskin, as oldmanfromkansas states?). Alas, Turley is also soft spoken. As a Cuban man, few people can talk over me. When in loud environments, like in a busy clinic, I drown others as needed so that patients care hear me, and also stopping pedestrian/clinic traffic. Turley should have finished his comments and talked over the Democrat who interrupted him. It’s unfortunate he was cut off but that is the MO of Democrats

        I really would like to hear from others far more educated and better versed than me on these legal issues (e.g. Mespo, Lin, Honestlawyermostly, etc. ). I participated today in an online webinar with 100+ geeky physicians and researchers, and I was chomping at the bit to learn about the impeachment inquiry. Two different worlds for most, but the state of our nation is a real concern for this immigrant who knows Communism all too well.

        1. The error Turley made was to cede to the Democrat who interrupted him (Jamie Raskin, as oldmanfromkansas states?). Alas, Turley is also soft spoken.

          I agree JT is soft spoken, but I believe he’s more inclined to respect the constitutional process, regardless of the disrespect displayed by the likes of Raskin.

            1. Not likely. There was no US Constitution at that time. He was an anti-federalist and he opposed the ratification of the constitution.

                1. He represents what your ilk take for granted: democracy and freedoms. Democrats destroy morale, morals and American institutions.

                  My ilk? I make one comment that is factual, to correct you, and now I have an ilk?

                  Henry was a pre-constitution patriot fighting to ensure our new form of government would secure the unalienable rights of the people. That being said, we are rapidly moving towards the “altering and abolishing” self-evident truth.

    3. I don’t think the just of what Turley said is unexpected. There isn’t enough impeachment evidence, especially with the weaponized state withholding information, but it is almost certain Biden is corrupt.

      The professor provided a factual list of what makes Biden appear guilty and discussed former impeachments. He did his usual good job. He could have chosen to act like Lawrence Tribe and make a fool of himself and the Democrats, but he is too much of a gentleman.

      He is soft-spoken when questioned and doesn’t change when treated rudely. I think that is fine. His supporters can let him finish his answers. The Democrats aren’t hassling him to be mean. They are trying to look good in front of the violent, and ignorant woke.

  4. Rep. Casar: Will members of the Oversight Committee raise their hands if you believe both Hunter and Trump should be held accountable for any of indictments if convicted?

    The Democrats raise their hands.
    The Republicans don’t.

    A shameful admission on the Republicans’ part.

    1. U idiot. He could have asked them to raise their hands if the sky is blue, they werent going to play his dumb game.

      It was an impeachment hearing for president biden. Any question not relating to that is political theater and should be treated as such.

  5. The Appeals Court has rejected Trump’s request to delay his civil fraud trial in the wake of this week’s partial summary judgment. The trial starts on Monday.

  6. Dear Prof Turley,

    You got to hand it to Team Biden. Thought I’d heard it all, but ‘polygamy’ is like a cherry on top of your MAGA hat. .. I’m sure your wife and children were as surprised as anyone.

    AOC has lost her mind. Her brain is broken and she has a bad case of Trump fever. .. like all her colleagues on the ‘left’. Unhinged.

    At the risk of shutting down the gov., Comer seems determined to walk and chew gum at the same time.

    I would start with Ukraine and abuse of gov. power. If the ‘allegations’ are credible, there will be a lot of ‘evidence.’ The ongoing destruction of Ukraine, and its far-reaching repercussions, can only continue to be denied at our own peril.

    *the detailed witness list of people to depose with ‘direct evidence’ must be extensive. .. including over 50 Top Intelligence officials and the past 5 CIA directors.

    1. “. . . but ‘polygamy’ is like . . .”

      That was the “Sister Wives” lawsuit, for which JT was lead counsel. Today. the D’s can’t even get the facts of that case straight. The irony is that they flogged him with a case that some 10 years ago, they cheered because he won, and about which he wrote an op-ed in *WaPo*.

  7. Hahahaha! Republicans can’t pass a bill, so they hold a BOGUS impeachment “investigation” hearing.
    Vote Blue Always!

    1. I ask the same question regarding wally that i did about fishwings. Has he ever posted a comment that couldnt have just as easily come from a 6th grader?

      1. “I’m not going to censor myself to comfort your ignorance” Anonymous I would write it in crayon if it would make you understand.

        1. So if i say a 6th grader could have posted it, that makes you think its too complex??? What are you, a 3rd grader?

          LMAO u dunderhead. It means its too simple and not worth anyones time. Beahahahahahaha
          (Pretend the above is written in crayon)

    2. You, sir, are a communist and a direct and mortal enemy of the American thesis of freedom and self-reliance, the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, actual Americans, and America.

      A “blue” vote is a vote for the unconstitutional “dictatorship of the proletariat,” the unconstitutional principles of the Communist Manifesto—central planning, control of the means of production (i.e. via unconstitutional regulation), redistribution of wealth, and social engineering—and Karl Marx’s motto:  “From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs.”

      A “blue” vote is an insurrectionist vote to nullify, void and abolish the Constitution and Bill of Rights, it is a vote for deficient dependents and parasites without merit to obtain “free stuff” and “free status;” a “blue” vote is a vote for the anti- and unconstitutional communistic American welfare state including, but not limited to, admissions affirmative action, grade-inflation affirmative action, employment affirmative action, quotas, welfare, food stamps, minimum wage, rent control, social services, forced busing, public housing, utility subsidies, WIC, SNAP, TANF, HAMP, HARP, TARP, HHS, HUD, EPA, Agriculture, Commerce, Education, Labor, Energy, Obamacare, Social Security, Social Security Disability, Social Security Supplemental Income, Medicare, Medicaid, “Fair Housing” laws, “Non-Discrimination” laws, etc.

      Article 1, Section 8, provides Congress the power to tax ONLY for debt, defense, and “…general (all, the whole) Welfare…,” omitting and, thereby, excluding any power to tax for individual Welfare, specific Welfare, particular Welfare, favor, or charity. The same article enumerates and provides Congress the power to regulate ONLY money, the “flow” of commerce, and land and naval Forces. Additionally, the 5th Amendment right to private property was initially qualified by the Framers and is, therefore, absolute, allowing no further qualification and allowing ONLY the owner the power to “claim and exercise” dominion over private property.

      Government exists, under the Constitution and Bill of Rights, to provide maximal freedom to individuals, while government is severely limited and restricted to merely facilitating that maximal freedom of individuals through the provision of security and infrastructure only.

  8. The dems appear to be doing their usual boosheet and it is clear they are no longer to be taken seriously by anyone with an IQ above the double digits or with even a shred of decency or conscience. They are absolutely disgusting, I have never seen anything like it in our chambers in my lifetime. Republicans, Independents, Libertarians – we are officially on our own, there will never be a coming together ever again with the modern democratic party (what a ridiculous misnomer THAT is). Vote differently in 2024 and demand accountability or our country is toast in a mere matter of months. Absolutely shameful, and I wish I could say I was surprised. Will this *finally* be enough for the likes of the Professor to jump ship? You no longer have a party, dem-folk, and if you think you are worth anything to them but your votes and your dollars, and if you are famous, your ‘influence’ – 😂.

    1. James,
      The difference between a traditional Democrats like Bill Maher, James Carville, Elon Musk, and of course the good professor, and our leftist friends have shown that there are still sane Democrats. But as you point out, will they vote differently to stop the woke left madness that has hijacked their party? Or keep voting for it?
      Between the disaster that is the Biden admin and the gross display of woke leftism here on the good professor’s blog, I will be voting Republican no matter who it is. Even if it is Trump from jail.
      Flip side, Biden wins in 2024 and the country is toast, I take a degree of comfort it will be our leftist friends who are on the burnt side of the toast.

  9. “My testimony also reflects the fact that I do believe that, after months of
    investigation, the House has passed the threshold for an inquiry into whether President
    Joe Biden was directly involved or benefited from the corrupt practices of his son,
    Hunter, and others. ”

    Enough said.

  10. They impugn Professor Turley just liked they impugned the IRS whistleblowers and the reporters that exposed the government censorship on Twitter. They are looking at the latest Presidential polls and they are trying to do anything no matter how desperate and immoral it is. They realize that there aren’t enough job openings at MSNBC that they can get if they lose their elections. The face of desperation is indeed an ugly face.

  11. Does anyone truly believe that The U S Treasury Money laundering Init doesn’t know when and where the first and last dollars that came to Hunter and Joe occurred?
    “The United States Department of the Treasury is fully dedicated to combating all aspects of money laundering at home and abroad, through the mission of the Office of Terrorism and Financial Intelligence (TFI). TFI utilizes the Department’s many assets – including a diverse range of legal authorities, core financial expertise, operational resources, and expansive relationships with the private sector, interagency and international communities – to identify and attack money laundering vulnerabilities and networks across the domestic and international financial systems.”

  12. Listen to the jacka$$ black female democrat cry about the fallout of the “republican” shutdown and Aaaaaallll the people that will suffer. You know, the shutdown she has REPEATEDLY voted for.

    1. And listen to the red head spend her entire time screeching about donald trump and then turn to her colleague after her time is up and belly laugh.

    1. He and the other witnesses all testified that they have no evidence of illegal acts on Joe Biden’s part.

    2. If you could read, you would find a lot of evidence mentioned in Turley’s written transcript. The evidence to date is not sufficient for an impeachment proceeding according to Turley. He is correct, while you are proving you know next to nothing.

      Follow the news, and you will see the committee is trying to get to the truth by subpoenaing people in the know and attempting to obtain documents being withheld. If they are successful in their quest and get the existing documents, I think it will be proof enough of how corrupt Joe Biden is. You may not recognize it, but you can’t read.

Leave a Reply