The DC ruling further demonstrates that Article 2 on obstruction of congress was premature, as I testified. The White House is vindicated in showing that it had valid constitutional arguments to make -- arguments ridiculed at the Senate trial . . . https://t.co/QJewtgZxeE— Jonathan Turley (@JonathanTurley) February 28, 2020
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 https://t.co/VVW3cJhSc7 reaffirms the historic blunder of the House in rushing this impeachment— Jonathan Turley (@JonathanTurley) February 28, 2020
Rather than wait for courts to review immunity and privilege arguments, the House impeached Trump for seeking judicial review. Now the court says that he was right in raising his constitutional objections. Article 2 now looks like a case of prosecutorial excess, if not abuse.— Jonathan Turley (@JonathanTurley) February 28, 2020
It said that Trump cannot be compelled to produce such witnesses, not that he was right to do so. The Court does say that Congress can seek to hold such officials in contempt or even impeach them. However, the court called these "intramural disagreements."— Jonathan Turley (@JonathanTurley) February 28, 2020
Thanks.