The GOP's only impeachment witness on Wednesday contradicted his own previous testimony I am going to take a different angle on this, because just demolishing Turley's testimony is already trending on Twitter..I am going to ask you Trumpers, what do you feel an elected official should be impeached for?? What Turley did in that hearing was embarrassing, it is what we call "concern trolling" -- he didn't say impeachment was wrong because Trump's actions were justified, he didn't say impeachment was wrong due to any argument made on "CONSTITUTIONAL GROUNDS" -- he is saying it is wrong because of feelings....feelings that it was moving too fast.... almost as fast as the Jackson impeachment but not as slow as the Clinton impeachment (the only 2 other presidential impeachment hearings in US history..so basically it is moving at a median speed) -- and feelings that people are just so mad and we all need to not be so mad....that is the best witness the republicans could call?? -- On top of that, the Republicans only expert witness actually said "The use of military aid for a quid pro quo to investigate one’s political opponent, if proven, can be an impeachable offense.” This is the second time Republicans called Turley in as their witness for an impeachment hearing...The first time he was there to make the case in favor of impeachment against Bill Clinton....back then he CORRECTLY said "the accusatory function of the House is essential to maintain a certain deterrence on presidential misconduct..narrowing the scope of impeachable "OFFENSES" <<--(remember that word) can expand the scope of presidential misconduct" -- Basically he was saying if we don't impeach Clinton for lying under oath about a blow job, then that may expand the misconduct of presidents in the future, and he was right....wasn't he?? However, the last impeachment hearing wasn't held in the 90's -- the last impeachment hearing was held in 2010....but I am sure most Trumpers have no idea about it because most Trumpers were too busy putting on funny little tea party hats and claiming they were independents to distance themselves from the embarrassment of George W. Bush. In 2010, a Clinton appointed federal judge (G. Thomas Porteous of Louisiana) was facing impeachment in the Senate for taking bribes...the person representing that corrupt judge was Mr. Turley, the guy who said impeachment is wrong if you don't do it slow enough and if it makes people mad.. The people representing the prosecution in the Senate was republican Bob Goodlatte and democrat Adam Schiff...Turley claimed that the judge was only human and you can't impeach him for being a "moocher" -- however, what Turley called mooching was what the rest of the world called, bribes...like taking payoffs from lawyers in cases where that judge was presiding over their clients, pays offs that influenced decisions he made....The senate voted to convict and remove that judge 96-0... Fact of the matter is....It is fundamentally and constitutionally impossible to reconcile what Turley's position was in 1998 to what he is claiming today...so when Turley asked "where will you stand" when the wind blows again for a Democratic president to be charged. The answer is simple -- any Democratic president who abuses his power to try to solicit a bribe from a foreign country in order to benefit his own re-election and hurt his political opponent, should be impeached. Simple.