Chairman Nadler laid out a blistering, fact based condemnation of Trump. Republicans want to talk about anything and everything other than that fact based condemnation. Democrats have a narrative. Republicans have virtually no counternarrative.
Apparently, the only law professor the Republicans could find was unready or unwilling to make a substantive defense of Trump.
I don’t think most Trump supporters are smart enough to understand what the Republican’s guy, Professor Turley, is talking about.
Turley claims that the Democrats are trying to cut out the courts from ruling on Trump’s assertions of privileges or other defenses to documents and testimony. But Turley totally ignores the fact that Trump made a blanket demand that no document or testimony be provided, period.
Turly is irony challenged; see point four. But the Democrats have a slight irony problem in their embrace of the originalist approach to constitutional interpretation.
You can always tell a Harvard man, but you can’t tell him much.
But the real heroine was the woman from Stanford. (If you have been watching the hearings, you will recognize the relevance of the picture above, which depicts Samuel Johnson consulting his dictionary.)