Shorter Jonathan Turley: If Trump is impeached for bribing a foreign country to interfere in a US presidential election, what’s next, impeachment for lying about a blow job? Oh wait I was in favor of that

OK that’s not very short.

The Thirsty Mr. Turley not only argued Clinton’s actions didn’t need to break any laws to be impeachable (he argues the opposite now) but a GW student at the time did a hoax showing Turley would respond to a tv producer but not a student who needed help https://t.co/JLfuOh8vr3 pic.twitter.com/GswjekIyxY— Adam Serwer 🍝 (@AdamSerwer) December 4, 2019

“What I thought was interesting about Professor Turley’s testimony was his confidence that there was not enough evidence yet,” Toobin pointed out, “that the Democrats are rushing this process, that they should get more evidence if they want to do something as profound as impeaching a president.”

“What I thought was missing,” the CNN analyst continued, “from his testimony was any acknowledgment at all that the Democrats have tried to get a lot of this evidence, that they have subpoenaed witnesses, that they have sought documents, they have sought emails, and they have not been denied piecemeal… they have been told, you can have nothing.”

Toobin observed that the White House’s level of obstruction is “unprecedented” in American history.

“The idea that you can stonewall about every single piece of evidence and then have it held against you as Congress, that you haven’t gotten enough evidence, is really a pretty extraordinary position,” Toobin concluded.

Turley is a “law professor.”

And I said to myself: This is the business we’ve chosen.

Then I had several drinks.

Please take my advice, please take my advice: