Sure enough, watching the post-debate spin, all the talk is about the candidates attacking each other.

I don't understand what is to be gained by this. Our candidates should talk about Trump, the issues, how much they love their mother - just don't attack each other. They ought not be providing clips for Trump's campaign ads in the general election.

The Republic is at stake! Stop shooting at each other. Stop it - just stop it.

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.