Court rules that they cannot compel McGahn to testify

Turley and others argue that this validates the President's position.
But in some ways it makes the opposite case?

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 am going to play a little bit of devil's advocate here. Sure, Trump won the case. But not necessarily on the "merits" that McGahn could avoid answering questions by citing privilege, but rather because the Court argued that it wasn't their place to settle such a dispute. To some degree, this is affirmation that the House subpoena was not as binding as they argued (or the courts would have rules as such as an obvious matter of law). On the other hand, the courts did sort of punt the issue, making an argument that it was up to the House to and the Administration to handle their own dispute. Such is an implicit argument that impeachment could be one manner to handle it.

However, much of the underlying ideas of the second article was that the House was correct, McGahn and the White House was wrong, and they were just delaying the inevitable (stalling) by going to court. The underlying implication was that the Courts would rule in their favor, thus affirm their legal rights to subpoena McGahn and McGahn's legal obligation to testify. The fact that the courts sided (at least in result) with the President and McGahn make that argument wrong. So one "could" argue (as Turley clearly is) that the basis for article two of impeachment was based on the flawed assumption that going to court was a waste of time and that the House would have prevailed.