This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
Jonathan Turley, a popular legal commentator and a law professor who holds the Shapiro Chair of Public Interest Law at George Washington University, had testified before Congress many times.
He's even represented members of Congress in court, but key this week as the U.S. House opens hearings on whether Joe Biden should be impeached is the fact he's testified before Congress during the Clinton impeachment, and the two failed impeach-and-remove schemes assembled by ex-House Speaker Nancy Pelosi against President Donald Trump.
"I believe that the record has developed to the point that the House needs to answer troubling questions surrounding the president," he wrote in his prepared remarks.
"The record currently contains witness and written evidence that the president (1) has lied about key facts in these foreign dealings, (2) was the focus of a multimillion-dollar influence peddling scheme, and (3) may have benefited from this corruption through millions of dollars sent to his family…"
He then listed 10 "disclosures" about which American people need more answers:
He confirmed, "These are only some of the serious corruption allegations facing the president, but each could raise impeachable conduct if a nexus is established to the president."
And Turley called for Congress to do due diligence in its investigation and development of evidence, especially has Pelosi's second failed assault on Trump was done with "no hearing at all." He emphasized the need for documentation, proof.
He said the current allegations "concern an alleged effort to sell influence or access, as well as other wrongdoing. Corruption allegations involving a president are particularly damaging for our political system, effectively dissolving the public trust in the government."
He identified the areas on which Congress should focus: "Influence peddling is a form of corruption," he said. "Second, influence peddling is often accompanied by criminal or impeachable acts of concealment. Third, the alleged corrupt conduct of President Biden could amount to impeach offenses and the House has an obligation to establish if such conduct occurred."
He said, "If President Biden was engaged in selling access or influence, it is clearly a corrupt scheme that could qualify as impeachable conduct. An inquiry into such allegations of corruption would clearly have been viewed by the Framers as a matter of the highest priority for congressional investigation."
He said, "The object of the House should be to create a full record upon which a verdict can be fairly and efficiently adjudged by the Senate. Obviously, the Senate can expand that record with its own witnesses and discovery. Yet, the House should strive to achieve an open and deliberative process where the president has the opportunity to not just contest allegations but appear on his own behalf. It should be based on a presumption of innocence that demands more than pure speculation as to a President’s conduct or knowledge. As with a grand jury, it is not meant to conclusively establish guilt, but rather, to guarantee that a threshold of evidence is met to justify a trial."
He continued, "Potentially criminal conduct creates the strongest foundation for other articles on collateral impeachable conduct like obstruction, false statements, and witness tampering. The criminal code not only puts presidents on notice of the gravity of their actions, but also executive staff. The active involvement of White House staff in promulgating false or misleading accounts can become a matter for an impeachment inquiry. The front-loading of potential criminal conduct allows the House to then consider common non-criminal impeachable claims of abuse of power. That article is stronger when actions are taken to facilitate conduct that is arguably criminal, though it is not limited to such conduct in prior impeachments. This framing also serves to create a focus for investigatory staff."