Liberal Law Professor Noted Something Odd About Schumer's Trump Impeachment Speech

Matt Vespa  “ 'Schumer's statement today is curious since he not only opposed any witnesses in the Clinton trial but also supported a summary vote without a trial,” tweeted Turley.  “He is insisting on ‘following precedent’ that he opposed creating. He also ran on the pledge to vote to acquit before any trial.”
"From the beginning, Turley wasn’t supportive of this impeachment nonsense the Democratic Party was peddling, noting that it was all bereft of anything concrete that would even be remotely impeachable. 
“Passion over proof” is how he summed up this whole circus act. He testified before Congress before the House Intelligence Committee when chairman Adam Schiff (D-CA) got the ball rolling on this (via The Hill):

In my testimony …I stated repeatedly, as I did 21 years ago, that a president can be impeached for noncriminal acts, including abuse of power. I made that point no fewer that a dozen times in analyzing the case against Trump and, from the first day of the Ukraine scandal, I have made that argument both on air and in print. Yet various news publications still excitedly reported that, in an opinion piece I wrote for the Washington Post five years ago, I said, “While there is a high bar for what constitutes grounds for impeachment, an offense does not have to be indictable,” and it could include “serious misconduct or a violation of public trust.” . . .