We can dislike George Conway, but this is a great retort to Jonathan Turley

[hlthe2b]

In the spirit of compromise, which I think is missing from this age, may I suggest this: Let’s impeach him now but keep investigating, and if we find more evidence, impeach him again.

Link to tweet

[SunSeeker]

1. Republicans are going to put a stop payment on that check to Turley.

[matt819]

5. You raise a point

Are republican witnesses being paid? Isn’t this the question they ask at criminal trials about expert witnesses?

[BuffaloJackalope]

31. That assumes the check comes from the GOP and not the Kremlin.

Turley was pushing the Ukraine conspiracy since Feb.

[SunSeeker]

33. Yeah, well, at this point the GOP is Putin's money launderer.

So GOP money is Putin money.

[Iliyah]

2. Is that what Turley said? . . . .

Is this for real?

Hot damn - LOL

Democrats will have a field day with them.

[gratuitous]

7. In essence

Part of Turley's statement was that impeachment shouldn't be proceeding until all the witnesses have been heard. I don't believe he touched on the matter of the White House instructing many of those witnesses not to honor congressional subpoenas. His unspoken argument was basically, "You can't impeach without hearing all the witnesses, but you can't compel anyone to testify if Trump doesn't want them to testify, so you can't impeach." Turley is laying out a Catch-22 situation, which is an absurdity. But have a heart for the guy: The facts and the law are against him, but he's gotta say something, even if it's logically inconsistent and stupid. He'll still have his job as law professor to go back to.

[we can do it]

30. Yes in a nutshell, and more than once.

[LastLiberal in PalmSprings]

3. Turley was brought in by the GOP as a constitutional expert?

He didn't say anything except, "Delay, delay, delay," which is the current Russiablican tactic. The longer they can drag this out the more they can muddy the waters and the public will lose interest, especially as Christmas tasks take up more of their attention.

I hope the Dems tore him apart concerning his credentials as a constitutional scholar, what are the elements he thinks constitute a high crime, and whether he has even read the testimony. What additional facts does he think are necessary?

And, BTW, Schiff has said his committee will continue investigation while the Judiciary Committee does its work. Right now there is more than enough information to write at least one article of impeachment -- obstruction of justice.

[hlthe2b]

4. Norm Eisman just asked him one question and got him to answer yes or no to his

WSJ article wherein he all but gave the case to Dems.

He's now in the process of a "rehabilitation" attempt by the R minority member, Collins

[DeminPennswoods]

6. It was kind of sad that Turley's opening statement

started with "I'm not a Trump supporter, I don't like Trump, I didn't vote for Trump". If he had a case to make, he should've made it unapologetically.

His argument seemed to me to be: let's be nice to each other.

[lagomorph777]

14. Ignore everything preceeding the word "but".

[MyOwnPeace]

17. Had a "leadership" professor once say:

"Anything before the "but" is BULLSHIT!"

[turbinetree]

8. "We haven't investigated Trump long enough. We need to investigate trump longer.'.......

Hey Turly, do "we" need to bring out the box of crayons and draw a picture...........................

[CaptYossarian]

10. He wants Trump investigated until November 4th.

[sop]

9. I'm surprised Republicans didn't call Alan Dershowitz or Joe DiGenova as their witnesses.

[Pepsidog]

16. Dirty, pervy Dersh. Another disgraced Trump associate.

[tblue37]

11. He also made this great point:

Link to tweet

[smirkymonkey]

21. I have to admit, whether it's an act or not, George is kind of growing on me.

[lastlib]

26. A fly on the wall at his house could write a very interesting book........

I wouldn't read it, tho.

[louis-t]

12. Turley was completely useless this morning.

I kept waiting for him to make a point. Any point. His message was confusing. His analogy story certainly would not reach the rubes.

[Perseus]

19. That is because he doesn't have a good argument

The argument that investigation has been too fast is a bogus argument. The police doesn't say "OK, we have all the evidence to get the criminal, but we have only investigated for two years, its too fast, we must wait another year before we can apprehend him, lets continue investigating.", that is bull!

It really is a republican talking point that, although Turley says he didn't vote for trump (show proof please), he now is defending him with bogus arguments.

Yes, although I knew where he would end, I could not understand what the hell he was trying to say, he run around the issues because he had no foot to stand on. How do you tell people who have enough evidence, when three other lawyers and scholars have already given a guilty verdict that you don't agree with impeachment because its too fast.

Shameful to say the least, Georgetown University should review his appearance in front of Congress and the USA citizens today to determine his continued employment. Turley has shamed himself big time, he thought Clinton should be removed from office because of a blow job, but trump not although he has proven time and again that he is a traitor?

[calimary]

13. Seems to me Turley was also trying to make the point that Congress can impeach - IF

the judicial branch says it's okay.

That's NOT what the Constitution says!

[LiberalFighter]

15. Why is Turley saying "we"? He's not doing the investigating.

[Perseus]

18. I hope someone asked him

Prof. Turley, how long is long enough? I thought one investigated until enough proof is found, and we feel we have found plenty. What is the set time that you use to investigate cases that you work on, do you have minimums and time limits?

What a bogus argument, it is hard to believe that it comes from a lawyer, and a law professor at that.

[subana]

23. wtf happened to him?

I remember back during the Bush administration he was a frequent guest on Keith Olbermann's show & he always seemed to make a lot of sense! Now he sounds like just one more looney republican!!

[gibraltar72]

20. It seemed to me Turdley got smaller as the day wore on.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

25. Like " Turdley "

[subana]

22. I like him!!

he's the only one in his family (so far) that still seems to support legal arguments instead of conspiracy theories! I do not have a problem with giving credit to republicans when they speak the truth. It's just that it so rarely happens anymore!

[Laura PourMeADrink]

24. Ha. I suggested that last year... impeachment 1,

Impeachment 2, etc etc. The man is now a runaway train going too fast to stop

[Hulk]

27. I agree with Turley in most respects..

What is the rush? Are we simply to ignore mulvaney, pompeo, guiliani? Pence?? Why not send it to the judicial branch for a decision as was done with Nixon and the tapes?? I just don't get this black balling Turley by the left pundits and so many on this site. He makes valid points.

IF dRumpf can have a witness from his inner cirlce that has to testify UNDER OATHE..they can expose this rotten pig of a coward OR perjur themselves, as Clinton did. THAT'S what they got Clinton on...PERJURY! He lied to the grand jury under oath. They didn't impeach him because he was unfaithful to Hillary!

I'm not a fan of Turley particularly, and he agrees with much of the other scholars, but his point is it's "conjecture", "inference", "circumstantial evidence", and we ARE able to get that first hand proof from one or more of the other rats in his nest of vipers. Do that!..and THEN hang the disgusting mango jabba from the highest tree. I listened to as much of the hearing as I could until I drove out of range...but I heard enough to know Turley in no fan of this asshole...but why the rush?? Why not involve the Supreme Court?? If they rule in his favor, THEN move forward. I'm betting they wouldn't (although 3 of the nine stooges certainly would rule in his favor if he shot someone on 5th Avenue...WHO SAYS THAT KIND IF SHIT ABOUT THEMSELVES!!)

[hlthe2b]

28. Turley posited that there was no obstruction of justice because congressional subpoenas must

be adjudicated, ignoring the very fact that the ONLY two instances in the constitution laying out a single SOLE responsibility for impeachment is Art 1 (Congress) and trial of impeachment likewise Art 1 (Senate)

This was blatant BS. Then he tried to spin it as though the Dems wanted obstruction charges specifically because the admin went to courts. That is blatantly a lie.

Here's Laurence Tribe--someone you SHOULD admire in the legal community, on Turley. Turley is well educated and knows better, (and stopped short of totally denying the entire constitution), but is pandering. Ditto on the "too fast" arguments designed ONLY to buy the R's time to run out the clock. How do I know this? Well, listen to all three of the other legal experts impeccably layout how the case presented precisely meets with all criteria of constitutional requirements for impeachment. They could not have been more certain, more in agreement, and more precise laying it out, as well as demonstrating the very REAL risks of delaying.

Link to tweet

Link to tweet

Link to tweet

Link to tweet

Link to tweet

Link to tweet

Link to tweet

Link to tweet

Link to tweet

Link to tweet

Link to tweet

[LisaM]

29. Impeach your wife, bud.

Isn't there some scenario where Conway can drag his wife to some place where she would be under oath?