Alan Morrison: Turley Is Right, But Ultimately Wrong

Interesting.
But I'm not convinced. Specifically by this:

It is not, as Turley implies, that the House argues that the President does not have a right to litigate his claims of immunity and executive privilege. Rather, the argument is that he cannot also claim that the House is not basing its conclusions on the witnesses who are closest to the President and the documents that will prove or disprove his defenses, while stonewalling the efforts of the House to do just that.

Why not? I mean...I'm not sure how logic-gamey the law is. Sometimes it seems, like, a lot. But there's no contradiction in those claims. To simplify: suppose you can't convict me without the evidence of a certain videotape, but I have a legal right to control the tape. I don't see why those two things don't, together, mean that your case is screwed. The important difference here seems to be that there is weaker evidence that could be used. But, if that evidence is too weak, then it doesn't matter.
   I'm not defending Trump here--heaven forfend! I'm just wondering about the technicalities.
   Actually, if I were Trump (yeesh...there's a nightmare scenario...you wake up as Donald Trump...), I wouldn't give the Dems anything whatsoever that I didn't absolutely have to. They've proven that they can't be trusted, and that they're dead set on torpedoing him by hook or by crook. They're more nuts about torpedoing Trump than the Pubs were about torpedoing Obama. I absolutely don't blame him for saying, basically: every memo and every email and every grocery list you want you're going to have to ask SCOTUS to get for you. I will fight you on every fightable point.