OK this will be controversial, but (apropos Turley)

[intrepidity]

Aren't lawyers trained to be able to argue both sides of an issue? I know they are. So being contrarian, in itself, is not wrong. I myself do this, in order to learn more about what i truly believe.

I'm trying to cut Turley some slack. So far, i dont especially find him disingenuous. And i agree about not rushing this.

[Ninga]

1. Hmmmmmm. This is not traffic court. It's deadly serious. The GOP hired him because they knew

exactly what he would testify to, a contrarian dog and pony show. In the face of what the other professors have testified to, to assert that cutting him some slack is needed, is preposterous.

[live love laugh]

5. 💯 percent agree nt

[Hortensis]

10. Same. And he went dirty and dishonest a long time ago now.

I wondered how his "colleagues" acted around him. He's not one of them any more. Even with professional courtesy maintained, given his contemptible behavior it must have manifested, if only once they left the cameras behind. Like Trump and the other heads of state in London.

[samnsara]

2. im with you 100%!! im watching him on mute..so im just watching body language and..

..reading the text. He just gave two points to the dems : he doesnt think theres obstruction of justice until prez disobeys supreme court, and he feels impeachment is warranted IF quid pro quo proven. I watched the WH counsel wiggle in his seat and quickly change the subject during one of the exchanges. Also he mentioned he thought the investigation was too quick and too narrow! Im not tossing turley away yet.

I for one want this impeachment trial to last FOREVER! Its eating at trump et al.. i dont ever want it to quit.

[lunatica]

3. Three years is rushing this?

I think being a fair contrarian is no excuse for this argument.

[samnsara]

16. i think he was referring to the interviews etc..and he wants the articles to include more..

..this will be GREAT fodder for discussion in his grad classrooms!

[Fragment]

4. It may be just me

But I think he has that “lost soul” look in his eyes, just like Lindsey Graham and many other Trump enablers who are “owned”.

[panader0]

11. I too noticed his eyes. Unsure of himself.

Welcome to DU.

[hlthe2b]

6. Fact Check: House voted to impeach Clinton 72 days after inquiry authorized. Now 71 days since began

Turley keeps saying this would be a record-fast impeachment but it really depends on how you count it. In the Clinton case, the House voted to impeach him 72 days after it authorized an inquiry. It has now been 71 days since Pelosi opened the inquiry into Trump.

Link to tweet

[Ninga]

7. Somebody needs to tell Nadler, post haste!!

[gratuitous]

8. Any argument a lawyer advances, though

Any argument a lawyer advances should be grounded in reality. Making specious claims and indulging in disingenuous barbering of the facts and testimony established by regular proceedings is a sure-fire way to tell that a lawyer has an unpersuasive argument. For example, the idea that the impeachment inquiry can't proceed without hearing from all the witnesses is nonsense on its face. The argument is made worse when Turley fails to mention that the witnesses unheard are because they blew off congressional subpoenas at the order of the president.

Certainly the Intelligence Committee would have loved to hear the testimony of White House personnel and included it in the record. That testimony wasn't in the record not because the committee didn't want to hear from those witnesses, but because those witnesses refused to appear. There's a difference, and Turley knows it (or should know it). But that fact doesn't comport with the argument he wants to make, so he's just pretending that it doesn't exist.

[StarfishSaver]

9. Arguing both sides of an issue is an important academic exercise, not suited for an impeachment

proceeding. Turley's not playing devil's advocate and has not indicated that he's just arguing the other side in order to be contrarian. He's testifying about this as an expert and saying that, in his expert opinion, impeachment isn't warranted. He knows that the Republicans will will use his position in order to thwart the Constitution.

If he really doesn't believe this, he is engaging in a very dangerous game.

Either way, it's despicable.

[Hoyt]

12. It's 3 to 1 against Turley's BS. But, you have to expect witnesses with such views when you

go into an Impeach proceeding. For casual viewers -- who haven't already settled on a position -- his testimony will be effective if viewers don't see the counter arguments from the other three. That's just to be expected.

[Stallion]

13. He's Not Testifying as an Attorney-He's Testifying as an Expert Witness

very different professional responsibilities

[ChubbyStar]

14. He isn't credible in either capacity

He really sucks.

[okieinpain]

15. I don't understand why the dema arent

Using turkey to make the case for impeachment.

[Wounded Bear]

17. He was hired to be the Repub witness...

I'm sure he'll be well compensated. Maybe even get a suite at Trump Tower.