Eh, it’s more that I don’t think any single “lawyers” opinion is all that important, and the side he came down on was predictable.
Partisan politics on both sides. 
Acknowledges a rare moment of agreement and yet the world didn’t end…
1 Like
Once again, he isn’t just an ordinary lawyer. The House Judiciary Committee must have valued his opinion to invite him before their committee. They wouldn’t do that for just another lawyer.
In regards to a side, there is no side per say. They were likely looking to see how they might fare if they were to proceed. They were seeking the advice of a constitutional law expert.
I have never disputed that partisan politics is on full display from both sides. I hate it. I long for the days of compromise. We saw that under Reagan and under Bill Clinton.
He’s a professor of mine. Definitely not a Trump supporter.
Interesting!
Turley’s comments were specific to holding Barr in contempt for withholding the full report and not the other subpoenas that have been issued. Without an impeachment inquiry, he makes a strong case. All the more reason for the house to vote on an impeachment inquiry.
Many respected lawyers have said the opposite…
Ones with alot more credibility than turkey…
Neat. Just reading his commentary on the Mueller report makes me think otherwise, I mean when you start your opinion article with
“After millions of dollars and two years of investigation…”
You know someone is entirely focused on the facts, amirite?
Regardless, I am obviously wrong about him being a “loyalist”, I’ll admit that.
Feel free to provide evidence of your statement.
Its crazy how Republicans think nothing happened … If no one is guilty why all the cover up and lies?
Once again……….
There was no collusion.
I don’t recall any other one testifying before the House Judiciary committee??? Could you provide some supporting information?
Not sure why you think this is some big deal… All the house has to do is pass, by a majority vote, a resolution authorizing an impeachment inquiry and no court is going to deny the subpoena…
The subpoena in question is for the unredacted Mueller report containing redacted Grand Jury testimony. It is currently against the law for that material to be released. No court is going to demand Barr break the law. 
The “law” you speak of allows for the release of grand jury testimony to judicial proceedings… An impeachment inquiry meets that definition…
Turley, a George Washington University law professor,
So you and most Dem’s in congress know more than a law professor? Really? You want to go with that? Where did you get your degree?
I think he makes a very strong argument which would be easily overcome by the house voting for an impeachment inquiry… Unfortunately for Trump, his argument only applies to this one subpoenas and NONE of the others he is fighting…
I had surmised that based on a couple of your previous posts.
