Jonathan Turley: Court ruling 'vindicated' Trump on impeachment

Georgetown Law Professor Jonathan Turley testifies before the House Judiciary Committee Dec. 4, 2019 (screenshot)

The appeals court ruling Friday affirming former White House counsel Don McGahn's right to defy congressional subpoenas "vindicated" President Trump regarding the Democrats' second article of impeachment, according to George Washington University Law School Professor Jonathan Turley.

Turley, who was called by Republicans as a witness in the impeachment investigation, weighed in after the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit ruled in a split 2-1 decision that McGahn could defy subpoenas issued by the House Judiciary Committee, TheBlaze reported.

"The White House is vindicated in showing that it had valid constitutional arguments to make -- arguments ridiculed at the Senate trial," Turley wrote on Twitter.

"I do not agree with the court's analysis but I felt that Trump had a right to seek judicial review. Now that judicial review has shown that the court agrees with his constitutional position," he said.

TRENDING: Black leaders: BLM about overthrow of U.S., not race

"It reaffirms the historic blunder of the House in rushing this impeachment."

President Donald J. Trump stops to talk with reporters outside the South Portico of the White House Sunday morning, Feb. 23, 2020, prior to boarding Marine One to begin his trip to India. (Official White House photo by Tia Dufour)

In his testimony Dec. 5 to the House Judiciary Committee, Turley spoke against impeaching Trump, asserting House Democrats had "one of the thinnest records ever to go forward on impeachment."

The second article of impeachment charged Trump had obstructed Congress by instructing officials to ignore congressional subpoenas.

The court concluded it did not have the constitutional authority to resolve the subpoena stalemate, advising Congress to seek other remedies outside of the judicial system.

Politico reported Democrats are expected to appeal and could seek a fast-track Supreme Court review. But a decision before the November election is unlikely.

A short walk

Appellate Judge Thomas Griffith, an appointee of President George W. Bush, affirmed the arguments of Justice Department attorneys.

He warned that allowing the House to use the courts to enforce the subpoena against McGahn would open the door to difficult suits pitting the interests of Congress against the executive branch.

"The walk from the Capitol to our courthouse is a short one, and if we resolve this case today, we can expect Congress’s lawyers to make the trip often," he wrote.

"We cannot decide this case without declaring the actions of one [branch of government] or the other unconstitutional," the judge said.

"If federal courts were to swoop in to rescue Congress whenever its constitutional tools failed, it would not just supplement the political process; it would replace that process with one in which unelected judges become the perpetual "overseer[s]" of our elected officials. That is not the role of judges in our democracy, and that is why Article III compels us to dismiss this case," Griffith wrote.

Democrats want to question McGahn about what he told special counsel Robert Mueller's team in its probe of Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election. McGahn's name is cited more than 150 times in Mueller's report, which found no Trump-Russia conspiracy.