Joe Scarborough likes to make himself out to be a simple country lawyer. But on today’s Morning Joe, he ran afoul of a cardinal lawyering rule: never ask a witness a question to which you don’t know the answer.

Scarborough laid out a lengthy timeline for the purpose of teeing up law professor Jonathan Turley to agree with Joe’s conclusion that there was a prosecutable, federal case of obstruction of justice against President Trump.

But Turley hit Joe between the eyes with his response:

“This isn’t going to be real popular, but I don’t think so . . . The fact is, I don’t think this makes out an obstruction case.”

Turley went on to lay out his reasons:

  • There was “ample reason” to fire Sally Yates when, as acting Attorney General, she instructed the Department of Justice not to enforce President Trump’s executive order on immigration.
  • “Obstruction of justice requires that you act to obstruct or interfere usually with a judicial or congressional proceeding, neither of which was pending at this time.”
  • “You also tend to show it was done for a corrupt, or corruptly, to use the statutory term. This doesn’t meet the usual definition of that.”

Note: Turley offered a more comprehensive version of his argument against impeachment or obstruction of justice in an opinion piece appearing in The Hill today entitled “The Comey memo offers zero evidence to impeach Trump.”