My friend (a life-long Republican who intends to vote Democrat in future) simply tuned out the circus performers. He openly admits to give preference to the other Republicans whose behaviour is less embarrassing. He admits to being at the “grasping at straws” stage.

I find it interesting that Turley advocated the other way when it came to the Bill Clinton impeachment. He testified in front of Congress a little more than 20 years ago, and reiterated his position in 2014, saying that a president could be impeached and removed for their behavior even if they didn’t break the law. Now he’s trying to play a game about making this about something completely different.

I also find it interesting that several of the Republicans were unable to maintain their composure – particularly Matt Gaetz, who humiliated himself with an extremely strange emotional outburst where he began to rant in a singsong voice and shout at the panel for some reason.

I noted that the Dems were trying to simply deal with the legality of the discussion, and to confirm that this course of action is in fact the correct one by the Constitution. The Republicans on the other hand were repeatedly trying to interject confusion and snarky comments, even to the point of interrupting Nadler’s closing statement with even more nonsense.

The question now is how quickly McConnell will move to dismiss the whole thing in the Senate. It’s more likely that he will avoid the big trial situation by simply calling a voice vote and ending the matter as fast as he can. If he lets it get to a trial on the floor, he potentially loses control of its momentum and Grassley won’t be able to gavel the witnesses into silence before they’ve made a mess of things for him.

Managed to watch the opening statements and testimonials but switched off the TV when I expected the circus to start. While I’m a bit disappointed not to have been able to see some Republicans behave like adults (reportedly), that’s definitely a positive. This is a video that all students in the country should see, both to understand the Constitution and to see how they should behave as adults.

Three of the four professors focused on substance. They presented the Constitution in everyday language, with an emphasis on why the Framers chose certain words and not others. Having done that, they gave their expert opinion on the substance of the impeachment issue. Their focus was on substance and their expert opinion (verdict) could not have been more damning.

By contrast, the fourth one complained about the speed at which the House is moving!

Uh, OK. Using that logic, a thief caught with a stolen wallet (redhanded) would expect to undergo the same indepth investigation that would have to be conducted had that thief been apprehended after having spent the money. Depressing to realise that this guy is actually teaching law to the legal profession of the future.

You’ll never get through to the MAGA crowd. I decided to check out Fox News’ web coverage on their homepage. There was no serious news article discussing overall the hearing. Then, forgetting a slew of impeachment smearing pundit links (there’s a couple of ‘news’ impeachment surgical attacks like “Doug Collins spars with Jerry Nadler after Louie Gohmert tries to speak”) on the sidebars, here’s the 3 featured stories I found:

“MELANIA HITS BACK: First lady fights back against legal scholar who used Barron Trump’s name for laughs at hearing”
“GAETZ GRILLING: Republican rips impeachment witnesses over donations to prominent Dems”
“STATE OF ACADEMIA ON DISPLAY: 3 professors picked by Dems at hearing are ‘radical activists,’ Levin says”

TrumpTV™ has become an alternate reality universe to such the degree even I can’t believe it. I’m totally serious.

I missed that bit too, Ellen, but all it involved was Prof Karlin making a bit of a joke, wondering whether Trump calling his son Barron indicated that he fancied himself as a baron. A little weak, but we can’t all be Steven Colbert.

What has always fascinated me about that name was it it had been the surname of one of his make-believe spokesmen, John Barron. I think he used as some sort of compliment to his own rapier-sharp wit and ingenuity. Who knows what weird shit bubbles and churns around in that obese old head…

I missed the closing as I had Zumba class at 6:30 and did not want to miss it again (the last Wednesday hearing went until after 8, as I recall).

But I caught a glimpse of CNN at the gym and they had as part of their “breaking news” coverage, a banner stating that one of the witnesses (Karlan) had apologized for invoking Barron Trump. I tweeted to CNN that this is why I almost never watch that network.

Will any no-extradition country in Europe or elsewhere give Rudy asylum? Will he ever set foot on American soil again?

How wonderful of Rudy to put an exclamation mark on the day by whipping off to Ukraine again. You are our greatest asset, Giuliani!

Yay, Mr Neguse. I wish everyone was taking a blowtorch to the complicit expert. He needs to be forced to say “Yes, this was OK. That was OK. Yes, that behaviour was acceptable” or back away.

Turley’s testimony is his audition to replace Judge Napolitano as the Fux News senior legal analyst.

The contrast between the sides is so striking – only someone determined to block their ears and their minds could fail to recognise that. The dissenting law professor has besmirched his reputation forever with this display. I can forgive him for whatever he said while representing that impeached judge, but not this. His job is to expound on the law and the constitution, NOT act as the defence attorney for Trump.

Also, it seems the GOP gave up on its disruptive theatrics. They must have realized how childish they looked next to the serious, sober Democrats.

I don’t know what happened to my last comment but I wrote that I think this hearing is more effective for Democrats than the Intel Committee hearings.

I also said that I am not throwing shade on Adam Schiff or the rest of the Intel Committee because I thought they did a terrific job. But the facts and testimonies were complicated and even I had trouble following some of it.

By contrast, these legal experts are very clear, concise and damning of Trump’s behavior.

On Fox, Andy McCarthy called the hearing so far “very effective” for Democrats.

Can’t put my finger on who, but Prof Feldman’s haircut makes him look like sone comic character. Oh well, at least he’s not sporting a bow tie :)

Come on Norm, concentrate on the apologist. Make him squirm. Patsy questions to the other three are not going to change minds.

Can you believe the arrogance of those Republicans who don’t even bother to speak into the microphone so the clerk can hear them? Complete contrast to the Democrat members.

I’m not a Republican (obviously) but I really wonder if all their interruptions and frivolous motions are not getting annoying to the base.

A Man for all Seasons?? Jesus H…

Haven’t made a dent yet, Jonathan…

All three have been very impressive. I’m really looking forward to finding out how on earth the Republicans’ professor can give any aid and comfort to Trump and cronies.

Professor Pamela Karlan has #Pzazz

Pretty impressive that the ranking member can bluster so blather for ten full minutes without saying a single bloody thing.