Reference: Professor Turley.

[TomSlick]

I'm just a small town yeoman lawyer and it is clearly arrogant for me to question a GWU law professor but he lost me today.

I was able to listen to much of Prof. Turley's testimony on the road today - yeoman lawyers spend a lot of time on the road. As I understood Prof. Turley, his position had nothing to do with the essential facts but an argument that the House could not vote to impeach until all witnesses testify - especially those that Trump has prevented from testifying. Essentially, the argument was that the House ought not act until the courts act to force the testimony of recalcitrant witnesses.

I can see how a law professor would come to that conclusion. Law professors understand appellate court precedent. What a law professor might not get is that the courts move slowly - even when on a fast track. In my opinion what Prof. Turley doesn't get is that the judiciary is a co-equal --- and not superior --- branch of government. The "rule of law" does not mean the rule of the courts. It means that no one - no judge, no congress member, and no president - is above (or below) the law.

Prof. Turley also doesn't get that we have an emergency situation. The House - the country - does not have the time to wait on the courts. The election - in November - is in peril. There is no time to wait on the courts. Trump cannot be allowed to delay by the simple expedience of forbidding witnesses to testify until the district, circuit court of appeals, and SCOTUS rule in each case.

Then again, i'm just a small town yeoman lawyer and it is foolish for me to disagree with a GWU law professor.

[hlthe2b]

1. I follow Laurence Tribe and he is generally very collegial and diplomatic towars other attorneys

with whom he disagrees. Not so much with Turley. So, I'd bet there is both "history" and Tribe just can't countenance Turley's obvious pandering sans any real legal basis for his arguments. Turley likes being a contrarian, but it crosses the line IMO and I think in the vew of most of his fellow scholars.

He's on Lawrence O'Donnell now.

[TomSlick]

4. I noted Prof. Tribe's apparent disregard for Prof. Turley.

I thought it telling.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

2. I think he *gets* all of those things.

But he's been hired to try to defend the indefensible and was apparently ready to say a lot of stupid things because Trump's defense consists entirely of stupid things. Turley wants to drag the process out as long as possible so they won't have to deal with it at all.

[TomSlick]

3. I suspect you are correct but hope not.

The job of a lawyer in practice is to advocate for a client. When talking to a lawyer, you must filter everything the lawyer says through that understanding. A law professor - appearing as a law professor - is an educator and not an advocate. A law professor should give only honest opinions on the law without regard to the impact on an individual.

If Prof. Turley was paid for his testimony, he was obliged to make it clear that he appeared in the committee to advocate for a client and not to educate.

[Karadeniz]

5. I appreciate your insight...thanks for sharing your reactions.