A section of his opening statement (soundly) presented to congress today demonstrates that he does not personally support President Trump, and so he notes that his remarks should be viewed as conclusions based on the law and not bias.
The ongoing impeachment hoax has enterred a phase in which the Dems called legal experts in an attempt to "teach" the public the underlying constitutional purpose and basis of impeachment so that the public will then compare this "education" to the present farce and conclude President Trump should impeached.
Turley is the only legal expert called by the Republicans to counter the legal scholars called to testify by the Dems.
Pam Karlan is a “legal expert”?
The woman who refers to herself as “snarky, bisexual, Jewish” is an “expert”?
In whose law? The laws of Anglo-Saxon Protestants who founded the country and wrote the Constitution, or maybe of some fantasy world populated by a side show of the most off the wall freaks on Earth?
I don’t understand all of this paper. But what is understandable after my reading, is that the professors called in by Schiff are going to go down in flames.
One thing He is is a well spoken individual who apparently takes OBJECTIVE facts very seriously, and despises SUBJECTIVE feelings becoming the basis of this impeachment farce-
Like he said- there are “Too many happy warriors’ who let emotions and feelings cloud their judgement and objectivity
ARTICLES of INQUISITION
1) OrangeManBad.
2) Hide all Democrat crimes.
3) Trump makes D.C. Politicians look inept & weak by winning.
4) The Deep State hate appearing like fools.
5) Epstein did not kill himself.
P