OA339: Who is Jonathan Turley, Anyway?

<p><!-- wp:paragraph --></p> <p>Today's episode is a timely impeachment-themed deep dive into the testimony of George Washington University law professor -- and legitimate legal scholar -- Jonathan Turley before the House Judiciary Committee. How should you evaluate his arguments? We walk you through them, of course!</p> <p><!-- /wp:paragraph --></p> <p><!-- wp:paragraph --></p> <p>We begin, however, with a new segment: the Wingnut Lightning Round(TM), in which we evaluate -- or rather, make fun of -- two preposterous new lawsuits filed this week by two complete idiots.</p> <p><!-- /wp:paragraph --></p> <p><!-- wp:paragraph --></p> <p>After that, it's time for an #AndrewWasWrong about Ronald Burris, the interim Senator nominated by Rod Blagojevich to fill Barack Obama's unexpired Senate seat. Find out the twists and turns to this rather fascinating story as a side bonus to Andrew's well-deserved comeuppance.</p> <p><!-- /wp:paragraph --></p> <p><!-- wp:paragraph --></p> <p>Then, it's time for the main segment: the news that the House is going to draft articles of impeachment against President Trump despite the testimony of Jonathan Turley. How do the lone Republican-called witness's arguments stack up? (Hint: they're not good.) Surely the Republicans wouldn't have called someone who's on the record saying the exact opposite of what he's presently saying 20 years ago, right? (Guess.)</p> <p><!-- /wp:paragraph --></p> <p><!-- wp:paragraph --></p> <p>After all that, it's time for a fiendishly hard #T3BE about a trial, a videotape, and a jogging plaintiff. You won't want to miss it -- and you'll want to play along!</p> <p><!-- /wp:paragraph --></p> <p><!-- wp:paragraph --></p> <p><span style="text-decoration: underline">Appearances</span></p> <p><!-- /wp:paragraph --></p> <p><!-- wp:paragraph --></p> <p>Thomas was just the main guest <a href= "https://dissonancepod.com/episode-498-thomas-smith-and-vulgarity-for-charity/">on Episode 498 of the Cognitive Dissonance podcast</a>, and Thomas <em>and</em> Andrew make addit