Professor Turley is being disingenuous.

[no_hypocrisy]

The majority of both civil and criminal cases are won by CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE, not direct evidence.

Direct evidence is when you have an eyewitness to a murder with a good memory and who's articulate -- and of course, the actual murder weapon. Maybe a confession by the accused, but that's highly unlikely.

Circumstantial evidence is when the jurist (judge or jury) has to "connect the dots" in order to indict, convict, or to find a party liable for damages. No eye witnesses, perhaps sensory testimony, e.g., "I heard a gunshot." No body for the medical examiner. A bad relationship between the accused and the victim. Etc.

For The House to indict to allow an Impeachment, there is no mandate in the Constitution that only direct evidence can be admitted for consideration.

[onecaliberal]

1. He's a partisan liar. This is not a time to play politics.

He should NOT be teaching law students.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

2. No question... Turdley is one of the despicables.

Bernie/Elizabeth or Elizabeth/Bernie 2020!!
Either way, they're stronger together!!
Welcome to the revolution!!!

[MFGsunny]

3. Such small Turdley. Such huuuuuuge Turdiness. n/t

[subana]

4. true

often circumstantial evidence can be more powerful than eye witness testimony! In an eye witness account, sometimes a witness will think they witnessed something when they really didn't see what they thought they saw. They may have seen a man in a dark alley & then pick a guy out of a lineup but made a mistake & did not identify the right person.

There was an old episode of Alfred Hitchcock's show that dealt with a car crash. It happened in the middle of the day & several witnesses came forward to say they saw the whole thing. But after the witnesses testified in court they discovered that none of them saw what they thought they saw. Yes, they were there but they were all focused on something else at the time & didn't notice anything until they heard the car crash & then they all looked in that direction & believed they saw the crash but didn't actually notice the car before they heard the noise.

In today's forensic investigations that can link various parts of a crime to someone at a particular time or place, those things can be much more solid than eye witness testimony because it's the evidence that links the things together, not someone's faulty memory.

[Hoyt]

5. "Defense" always tries to downplay circumstantial evidence citing absence of direct evidence.

In this case, it’s about all they have, other than so many people that just don’t care as long as trump remains in office.

[MerryBlooms]

6. Just another scumbag involved in the Ukraine deal...

Fits right in with the republicans on the committee. I didn't listen to the full hearing, did anyone bring up Turley's involvement in spreading the Ukraine conspiracy theory? Should have been the first thing he was questioned on.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

7. The funny thing is that Turley seems to be arguing that Fat Nixon hasn't been investigated *enough.*