MSNBC’s Chuck Rosenberg blew up the legal arguments put forth by Jonathan Turley to defend President Donald Trump from impeachment.

The former U.S. Attorney and head of the Drug Enforcement Agency told “Morning Joe” that Turley, also an MSNBC contributor, made no sense when he complained that the impeachment process was moving too fast.

“One of the complaints that professor Turley had yesterday, and I thought it was deeply illogical, is that this process is moving fast and too narrow,” Rosenberg said. “If something bad happens you move quickly. Law enforcement, if someone does something wrong, we arrest them and move quickly. This is ongoing so it’s a threat.”

“But the narrow part is what irked me,” he continued. “Here’s why: It’s narrow because the White House has blocked access to subpoenas and witnesses. It’s narrow by design, but not by the Democrats but by the White House.”

“So to criticize Democrats for being too narrow in their inquiry misses the entire point,” he added. “It’s narrow because they have been blocked from getting access to these people that … we would like to hear from.”

RELATED STORIES:

‘Like the Gestapo’: GOP Congressman Blasted for Asking Sworn Witnesses if They ‘Actually Voted for Donald Trump’

‘Literally Just Making Things Up Right Now’: Legal Analyst Wallops Turley’s Testimony Against Impeachment as ‘Nonsense’

GOP’s Legal Expert Insisted Clinton Had to Be Impeached to Protect the ‘Existence of Government’ and Prevent ‘Anarchy’

“A tap dancing exercise in intellectual dishonesty”

George Washington University Law School Law professor Jonathan Turley was the GOP’s only witness during Wednesday’s Judiciary Committee impeachment hearings, and based on the reactions of legal experts, it did not go well for him or the Republicans.

Professor Turley made many claims, with MSNBC hosts at one point declaring what he was really doing was offering new amendments to the U.S. Constitution, suggesting his arguments against impeaching President Trump did not hold up.

CNN National Security and Legal Analyst Susan Hennessey is calling Turley’s claims “nonsense,” and says Democrats should turn their attention to him to “demolish” his arguments.

The Democrats should use a few rounds of their time just allowing the other witnesses to respond to Turley. Each one can and will thoroughly demolish it as nonsense.

— Susan Hennessey (@Susan_Hennessey) December 4, 2019

Hennessey, who is also the Executive Editor at the highly-respected Lawfare blog, goes on to say, “Turley is literally just making things up right now.”

Turley had argued that House Democrats were guilty of abuse of power for attempting to impeach Trump for using the courts as a shield to refuse to hand over any subpoenaed materials and to block key witnesses from testifying.

Related: GOP’s Legal Expert Insisted Clinton Had to Be Impeached to Protect the ‘Existence of Government’ and Prevent ‘Anarchy’

Hennessey clearly disagreed:

I cannot emphasis enough that Turley is literally just making things up right now. Claiming that impeaching on obstruction without waiting for the courts to weigh in is abuse, that’s literally just a thing he’s saying with no precedent or constitutional grounding whatsoever.

— Susan Hennessey (@Susan_Hennessey) December 4, 2019

She was not yet finished, accusing Turley of engaging in “a tap dancing exercise in intellectual dishonesty.”

To the extent he wants to now turn to obstruction of justice Turley fails by his own terms, because Mueller demonstrates all statutory elements are met. This is a tap dancing exercise in intellectual dishonesty

— Susan Hennessey (@Susan_Hennessey) December 4, 2019

Stanford Law School professor Pamela Karlan, who offered a fiery rebuttal to Rep. Doug Collins (R-GA) during impeachment hearings in the House Judiciary Committee, delivered testimony on Wednesday that succinctly explained why President Donald Trump’s actions constitute bribery.

During her testimony, attorney Norm Eisen described bribery as one of the offenses specifically listed in the Constitution as an offense that would warrant impeachment of the president.

Karlan began by explaining that there was no federal law against bribery until decades after the Constitution was ratified, which meant that the inclusion of bribery in the country’s founding document referred to the term as understood by common law.

“So what they were thinking about was bribery as it was understood in the 18th century based on the common law up until that point,” she explained. “But what they were understanding then was the idea that when you took private benefits or when you asked for private benefits… in return for an official act, or someone gave them to you to influence an official act, that was bribery.”

Eisen then asked her to evaluate whether the president’s actions in pressuring the government of Ukraine to investigate his political rivals constituted bribery.

“If you conclude that he asked for the investigation of Vice President Biden and his son for political reasons — that is to aid his re-election, then, yes,” she said. “You have bribery here.”

Watch the video below.

RELATED:

GOP’s Legal Expert Insisted Clinton Had to Be Impeached to Protect the ‘Existence of Government’ and Prevent ‘Anarchy’

Experts: House Impeachment Report Spells ‘Deep, Deep Trouble’ – For Devin Nunes

Trump Warns a Future Democratic President Might Get Impeached ‘Because Somebody Picked an Orange Out of a Refrigerator’