- It tells you much about Turley with his comparison of Trump's impeachment to performance art, namely a taped banana. He choses a widely-publicized, absurd occurrence to contrast with something as extremely serious as impeachment. He also went there in his testimony with his glib “Even my dog is angry!” Ha-ha, funny guy! But what's truly funny is I don’t recall him ever being so jocular regarding the Clinton impeachment. There the POTUS committed the heinous act of lying about getting consensual fellatio and Turley treated that “crime” as if Clinton literally urinated on the Constitution and set it aflame.
- Turley’s hang-up is speed, that the impeachment is proceeding too quickly. But he never mentions specifically how to slow it down. Presumably that would mean hear from more witnesses, beyond the already dozen (more?) who have already testified. Fine, bring them on, Giuliani, Pence, Pompeo, Bolton, Mulvaney – there’s five right there. Oh, but wait, Trump has forbidden them from testifying. Something Turley never specifically mentions (Trump's interference), in this op-ed or in his testimony. That alone makes what he has to say very disingenuous (despite his constant reminder that he votes Democrat (we’ll never know) and he has "no dog in this fight").
- I know statistics and when Turley compares this impeachment to prior ones, we’re talking a very small data set. Three to be exact. So to say this impeachment is quicker than one of the three others is ridiculous. Data significance (robustness) ain’t there. And frankly, Turley is no dope, he knows this, and yet he'll go there. Speaks volumes.
- They’ve already fact checked this speed claim. Trump's impeachment proceedings are now at 77 days, compared to the blazing fast Clinton impeachment which lasted just 72 days total.
- Go back and view the videos of Turley defending Judge Porteous. It’s laughable. Of course, Porteous had the right to legal counsel, like any American, yet most lawyers would’ve passed, knowing it was a hopeless case. And yet the esteemed Turley agreed to take it. Why? My guess is Turley loves the limelight, the attention, not caring a bit about the laughter, or the merits, apparently. If he loses, so be it, it was expected, but if he wins, he’s a genius! It’s all about beating high odds for notoriety and fame. We saw that again with his recent testimony, where he was universally mocked on social media for his unimpressive “performance.” But I suspect Turley – much like Dershowitz – relishes being the devil’s advocate, the contrarian, as it gains more eye-raising notice. After all, there’s no such thing as bad publicity!
- Has Turley responded to the obvious outright contradictions in his 2014 WaPo op-ed? This alone should make whatever Turley has to say about this matter highly dubious.
P.S. And there's this from the very not-liberal Cato.
No comments:
Post a Comment